proofe by Histories cannot be effectuall and satisfactorie 1. For the uncertainty of humane Stories 2. Because of their Index expurgatorius 3. Because they have forged many authorities of Councels and Fathers 4. Because they have excepted against all the Ecclesiasticall Historians of the Primitive Church as falsaries 91 CHAP. XIIII Master Fishers Answer to Master Rogers Arguments and Grounds 100 CHAP. XV. The Protestants Faith contained in Scripture The Articles of their faith in the Apostles Creed Master Rogers Arguments maintained against Master Fishers first Answer by denying the minor 103 CHAP. XVI Master Fishers second Answer by changing Protestant into Catholike refuted retorted a bold manifest falshood of Master Fishers Master Fisher but halfe a Papist 109 CHAP. XVII The Romanists can bring no Authors for 400 yeares for their halfe Communion Worshipping of Images c. nor for any else in some Ages for want of Wtiters in times of ignorance No Councell no good Writers no good Pope Saculo 9. In which 9 Age nothing was visible in the Roman Church but vile and lewd Popes or Intruders proved at large out of Baronius 114 CHAP. XVIII A threefold Catalogue 1. Of Latin 2. Of Greeke Authors 3. Of Councels who professed our faith maintain'd our sacraments but not the faith and sacraments of the Roman Church 119 CHAP. XIX The distinctions of Doctrines Accessory and Fundamentall of Affirmation and Negation 142 CHAP. XX. The same distinction maintained Iohn Ellis his comparison The Ape with his youngling The boy with his bodging Verses Decrees of Councels not Articles of faith What makes an Hereticke The Anabaptist as he is supposed by Master Fisher a member of the Church but membrum non sanum 148 CHAP. XXI Of Doctrine fundamentall The Roman Church the most corrupted part of the Church 155 CHAP. XXII Of Baptizing of children The errour of the Anabaptist in practise not in point of faith 159 CHAP. XXIII The Papists affirme all our faith but differ in Ecclesiasticall Doctrines which they terme points of faith in which they want Antiquity Vniversality and Consent 164 CHAP. XXIIII The same grounds of doctrines accessory and fundamentall of affirmation and negation maintained 2. Negatives in Scripture pertaine to faith per accidens not per se All things revealed in Scripture have equall truth but not equall profit equall necessitie of being beleeved being knowne but not equall necessity to be knowne Negatives not revealed in Scripture are res fidei neither per se nor per accidens The Church of Rome most hating and most hated by all Churches in the world as Innovators Schismaticks and Hereticks The Conclusion of the whole Booke 171 Recensui hunc librum cujus titulus est The Protestant Church existent c. in quo nihil reperio bonis moribus aut sanae Doctrinae contrarium quo minus imprimatur modo id fiat intra annum proximè sequentem Secus ista licentia effectu carebit Johannes Oliver Reverendiss in Christo Patr. Dom. Domino Arch. Cant. Capell Dom. Ex Aedi Lamb. Apr. 15. 1637. THE PROTESTANT CHVRCH EXISTENT CHAP. I. Master Fisher observeth neither Art nor Order in answering Master Rogers MAster Fisher or whosoever you are that undertake for him if you would have done by me as I did by Master Fisher namely have set downe all my grounds and answered to them in particular as I did to Master Fishers Propositions it might have given the Reader better satisfaction who thereby might see whether we doe agree in any thing that I have written or dissent in all whether you reject all those grounds which I laid or admit of some as I did by your Propositions approving some rejecting others In solutione argumentorum duae tātum solutiones distinguendo vel tollendo Ego autem hic de Propositionibus loquor and in those you reject if you would have answered to them in their place punctually and not go roving so to puzzle the Reader with disorder I tooke those Propositions that were offered to me as they lay I answered to every period vel concedendo aut distinguendo aut negando either granting distinguishing or denying and where I found any ambiguity in your termes or sentences I desired you to explicate and cleere the same which you have not done yet you know that no disputation may be undertaken no Argument framed no Treatise composed without this no not so much as one bare Proposition or Sentence may subsist with aequivocation and amphibologie words or sentences of double signification and doubtfull sense untill they be cleared by explications and distinctions This you know to be the advice and practise of the Philosophers and Divines which have written But such are your termes Propositions as that they seeme to be made of purpose in ambiguous words or contexture so to leave open some starting hole or evasion and answering your Adversary out of order to draw a curtaine before the understanding not onely of the Reader but also of your Adversary Aristot Elench 2. We are ignorant of what wee formerly knew when it is misplaced and disordered and your selfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus have I beene served by others besides you Is not this catching at a word here and passing by a whole side of a leafe elsewhere without saying one word to it afterward leape backe a leafe or two and snarle at an Argument or snap at a distinction and so away Is not this I say like the Dog drinking of Nilus lap a little and runne away lap againe and runne away This was applyed by one to Antony flying after Cleopatra from the Battell at Actium who being asked Quid agit Antonius Answered Quod canis ad Nilum lambit fugit so much was hee besotted with that Harlot Thus you the Champion of that Purple Harlot that sitteth upon the seven hils fight her quarrels a snatch and away a snap and be gone or if you make a short stand you will but shew your teeth grin snarle but hardly bite That I may draw you from this course of disorder I will put downe what Master Fisher proposed vvhat I answered and then vvhat this Author replied or vvhere hee did not reply CHAP. II. The occasion and time when this Author Master Rogers was first interessed in this matter ATt that time when our now Soveraigne was in Spaine a Gentleman delivered me those Propositions following in the presence of divers I being then in London 100. miles from my dwelling and my Bookes That night I delivered this answer following after Master Fishers Propositions The Gent was then almost become Romanist having beene not many dayes before at Masse in the Spanish Embassadors house and Master Fisher coming to this Gent Chamber left those Propositions with him The like verbatìm the Right Honourable Earle of O. did shew me saying that it vvas all written with Master Fishers owne hand The Propositions are these Fisher IT being granted that there must bee a Visible Church in
cap. 5. This Councell did professe our Faith and receive our Councels and Sacraments though they added five Sacraments more reade Surius Tom. 4. Sessione 3 4 5. Thus have I travelled through Histories Fathers Schoolmen and Councels to satisfie the demand of them who when all is done will denie all Histories Fathers and Councels which make against them I might have gone a neerer way thus You baptize Children daily in your Church and then you professe my Faith the Apostles Creed and minister our first Sacrament You have your Masse or Common Prayer with the Communion often in your Churches then also you professe my Faith reade parcels of our Scriptures and minister our other Sacrament intire to the Clergie though by halfes to the Laitie You have published many Missals under the names of Saint Iames Saint Marke Saint Chrysostom and others every one of these allow and use my Faith Scriptures and Sacraments You have your Ordo Romanus that approveth my Faith Scriptures and Sacraments You have published many writers upon the Masse in your auctionary of Bibliotheca Patrum as Walafridus Strabo Ino Corvotensis and others named by mee in my Catalogue all these professed our Faith and received our Sacraments and also our Scriptures But as for your Creed it was never professed in Baptisme it is found in none of those Missals nor in your Ordo Romanus nor in any of those Expositors of your Roman Masse for one thousand five hundred yeares Let mee conclude with the words of Vincentius Lirinensis The holy Church a diligent and wary keeper of those Doctrines which were committed unto her doth not change adde or diminish any thing therein it doth not cut off any thing that is necessary nor adde any thing that is superfluous it doth not lose that which is proper to Christianitie nor usurpe that which belongeth to other Sects of Religion in the world CHAP. XIX Fisher 1. THat faith is affirmation and not negation by which rule it seemeth he would not have any negative propositions although found in Scriptures to pertaine to faith 2. That they that are in the affirmative must prove and not those who are in the negative but which seemeth to follow that a man who had time out of minde quietly possessed his land or Religion were bound to prove his right before his upstart Adversary who denyeth him to have right have given a good reason of his denyall 3. That what was not a point of faith in the Primitive Ages cannot after be a point of faith as if there were not some points which were at first not held necessary to be beleeved even by Orthodox fathers which afterward by examination and definition of the Church in Generall Councels were made so necessary to be beleeved as that whosoever did not beleeve them were accounted not Orthodox but Hereticks And 4 that the Anabaptist faith is that which is contained in Scripture and ancient Creeds And the Anabaptist Church is a societie of men which professeth the faith contained in Scripture and the ancient Creeds as if an Anabaptist may be Iudge it will be held so to be Rogers Master Fisher hath in many pages written this Title Master Rogers his weake grounds where he spake not one word of my grounds and here he doth passe over the most with silence but he speaketh against some few of them In my former answer after my definition of a Protestant I laid some few distinctions or grounds thus I desire you to distinguish between matter 1. Of discipline and 2. Of Doctrine Secondly to distinguish between 1. Doctrine accessory and 2. Doctr. fundamentall Matter of faith consisteth not in discipline but Doctrine and that Doctrine not accessory but fundamentall By this distinction I meane the same which Aquinas doth by res fidei 1. Per se 2. Per accidens These 3 distinctions passe without exception saving that he maketh mention of the second viz 1. Doctrine accessorie 2. Doctrine fundamentall As if he would overthrow it but indeed saith nothing in the world against it nor can for it is the distinction of Saint Augustine of Bellarmine of all the Schoole Lib. 4. de verb. Dei c. 12. In Scripturis plurima sunt quae ex se non pertinent ad fidem being the same with that of Aquinas in matters of faith into res fidei 1. Per se in themselves 2. Per accidens or accidentally The words of Aquinas are these and thus cited by Valenza Tom. 3. d. 1. q. 1. p. 2. § 1. as an undoubted ground or principle Habitus fidei 1. Per se primariò respicit ea circa quae distinguuntur articuli fidei 2. Alias verò propositiones quae divinis Scripturis continenter respicit secundariò per accidens The habit of faith 1. In it self and principally looketh upon those things which are contained in the Articles of our Creed 2. Vpon other propositions which are contained in Scripture it looketh accidentally and secondarily This is the Doctrine of the Reformed Church Non enim unius sunt formae omnia verae doctrinae capita All heads of true Doctrine are not of one nature Some are necessary to be knowne which all men ought to receive as undoubted there are others Quae inter Ecclesias controversa fidei tamen unitaetem non dirimant Wherein particular Churches may dissent and yet not breake the unity of faith Thus Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 1. n. 22. I could cite Luther and others but I will onely cite Saint Augustine who in his first booke against Iulius Pelagius writeth thus Alia sunt in quibus inter se aliquando etiam doctissimi atque optimi Regulae Catholicae defensores salva fidei compage non consonant etalius alio de una re meliùs aliquid dicit verius Hoc autem vnde nunc agimus ad ipsa fidei pertinet fundamenta There are other things wherein the most learned and best defenders of the Catholicke Rule may dissent one from another and one man speaketh better and more truely then another upon the same subject But this whereof we now speake belongeth to the very foundation of faith Thus farre Saint Augustine This is the first of my grounds that he finds fault with but not in that order as I placed them but after two or three other grounds of mine which in mine answer were placed after this Thus he to puzzle the Reader that he may not so easily perceive what he doth answer what he doth not answer never observes order Yet I that he may in nothing escape my hands will follow him in his order so that I must answer what he objecteth against this ground in the next Chapter My next ground was this I distinguish between 1. Affirmation In those Articles of our English Church and 2. Negation In those Articles of our English Church Our Negation is partly a traversing partly a condemning of your novelties and additions and therefore no part of our faith for no man
I deny If the delay of seven or eight yeares for Baptisme doe exclude them out of the Church because many thereby are deprived of Baptisme then a shorter delay of fourty daies or eighty daies should exclude men out of the Church because many children may die at twenty or thirty dayes old and yet we know many Churches in the world as the Coftie in Egypt doe not baptise their children before the fourtieth day though they should die without Baptisme Th. a Ies lib. 7. p. 1. c. 5. So Th. ibid. c. 6. Leo primus The Maronites whose Patriarch resideth in Syria Baptize not their male children till fourty dayes nor their female till eighty dayes after their birth He was a Pope of Rome which commanded that Baptisme should not be ministred at any other time then at Easter and Whitsontide and can we thinke but that many children in the meane space did die Socrates Scholasticus testifieth Hist Eccl. 5. c. 21. l Tom. 4. disp 4. puncto 4. that in Thessalie by reason of deferring of Baptisme untill Easter it happened that many yea the most dyed before Baptisme Your Gregory de Valenza doth confesse that in the Primitive Church many holy and godly men did deferre their Baptisme for a long season Disp de Sacramentis Tom. 1. Concil in decretis Leonis primi Can. 6. And your Suarez and Binius doe say that the former custome of the Church and Decree of Pope Leo were changed by the Church because of the danger which by so long delay did ensue If therefore the Anabaptist bee excluded from the visible Church because of the danger which by delay of Baptisme doth ensue to children Then Pope Leo the first for Decreeing a delay of Baptisme with the like danger and a great part of the Christian Church for observing the same were excluded out of the visible Church This was it you should first have proved that the Anabaptist is out of the Church afore you tooke it as a premise or undoubted Proposition thence to inferre a Conclusion let me propose the Argument againe in that forme which you most affect with Iffs and Ands. If Master Rogers Grounds be true the Anabaptist receiving the Scriptures Apostles Creed and agreeing with the Protestants in all things saving this that he will not Baptise children is of the Church But such an Anabaptist is not of the Church Ergo Master Rogers Grounds be not true Negatur minor you have not spoken one word to prove that such an Anabaptist is not of the Church which till you prove your conclusion cannot follow all that you say is in proofe of the major which I grant Whereas you say and would have it supposed that I cannot produce as many proofes against this Negative of the Anabaptist as the Romanists doe usually produce against Negatives is most false for instance if you will bring me one Author for your halfe Communion your Transubstantiation the Bookes of Machabees Irenaeus Origen Cyprian confessed by Bellarm. lib. 1. de bap cap. 8. to be Canonicall in all which you are Affirmative and I Negative I say if you bring one Author in the first 300 yeeres for these your affirmatives I will bring three to one for our Affirmative of Baptizing In the same time I will produce for this my affirmative Antiquity Vniversality and Consent doe you the like for your Affirmatives and I will be of your Church All the rest of your frivolous chat concerning the Annabaptist what he may say what exceptions he may take against Authors against Translations is nothing against any thing that I have written you name no Authors you name no particular exceptions So you cavill againe with my distinction of Doctrines fundamentall and doctrines accessory not being able to produce one Argument against them and ignorantly or impudently deny a destinction delivered by Saint Augustine received by your great Schoolman Aquinas by your great Iesuites Bellarmine and Valenza acknowledged by the Divines of our Church as I have formerly shewed out of these Authors and the thing doth manifest it selfe doe not some things that are contained in Scripture more neerely concerne our salvation then others Can any man be saved without knowing Christ to be the Saviour of the world And may not a man be saved without knowing that Iacob loved Rachel better then Leah Or that Pharaoh dreamed of fat and leane Kine To what tends your Schoole distinction Of 1. Fides explicita 2. Fides implicita of necessitas 1. Medii 2. Praecepti And their large disputes what are to be beleeved necessitate medii without which a man cannot be saved and what necessitate praecepti things that they ought to beleeve and offend if they doe not but not with so great danger as if they beleeve not the former What meane these two Distinctions and that which I cited out of Aquinas and by which I explicated my owne distinction of fundamentall and accessorie I meane res fidei Per se Per accidens If this be answering to except against the Grounds of Fathers Schoolemen Iesuites and reformed Divines without framing one Argument against them it is easie answering indeed Whereas you say that none of the Authors by me alleadged not Luther himselfe held the entire Protestant Faith is untrue and you bring no proofe but a false supposition that all Protestant Doctrines different from the faith of the Roman Church may be called Doctrines of Protestant faith this I formerly denyed and you bring no reason to the contrary yet still you urge it as your onely medium or principle I have shewed you reasons to the contrary which when you answer I will eat Pauls Steeple one thing which I delivered in my first Answer maketh it cleare the question betweene you and me is of Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints Purgatorie Indulgences worshipping of Images c. Which you affirme I deny and therefore they are no points of my faith for no man would deny his owne faith I will reduce it into forme No man will deny the points of his owne faith But we Protestants deny Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints Purgatorie and all your new Creed Ergo Neither Transubstantion nor Invocation of Saints nor Purgatory nor any part of your new Creed are points of Protestant faith And they being your faith you are bound by the rule of Saint Peter to give an account of your faith 1 Pet. 3 v. 15. CHAP. XXIII Fisher BUt if all Protestant Doctrines which be different from the Roman Church her faith be not Doctrines of Protestant faith I require Master Rogers to shew me which in particular be and which be not Doctrines of Protestant faith that it may be discerned who did and who did not hold the Protestant faith and that withall he give me a substantiall ground well proved out of Scripture why those particular points which he shall assigne are points of Protestant faith rather then others contained in the 39 Articles If he say as
he hath already seemed to say that none of their negative Doctrines pertaine to their faith and that all which is affirmed by Protestants is affirmed by Roman Catholikes and that this affirmative Doctrine onely doth pertaine to faith it will follow that Protestants have no faith different from Roman Catholikes out of which it will follow that those English Protestants who shall hold some of the 39 Articles and deny the rest may be said to have no faith different from those which subscribe to all the 39 Articles which last Consequence if Master Rogers grant I aske why the booke of the Canons doth excommunicate ipso facto such halfe Protestants Why doe their Bishops imprison them as Hereticks and not account them members of their Church And why may not Roman Catholikes by as good or better right accouunt Protestants who deny so many points defined in both ancient and recent Generall Councels to be Hereticks excommunicaeed and no members of the ancient and present Catholike Church Rogers That which you require heere I performed in my first Answer in my definition of a Protestant or else it had been no good definition had it not contained all that is essentiall this you know well enough but because you have nothing to answer you will demaund the same question againe Looke into my definition there you shall finde it and I made the same request unto you for a definition of the visible Church and what points you hold to be fundamentall to which you make no answer at all I there also undertooke to prove all our Affirmations which you deny so you doe the like by your Affirmations which we deny my words were these in my former answer Rogers in his first answer In all these I defend the Negative and so it doth belong to you to prove the Affirmative which when you shall doe by testimonies of Writers in all ages I will yeeld unto you for you proving the Affirmative the Negative will fall of it selfe as for example The first instance of Negation in our Articles is part of the sixt Article concerning those bookes of Esdras Tobit Iudith c. which we receive not for Canonicall you doe the proofe is on your side What I require of you I will performe on our side whatsoever is affirmative in our Articles I will maintaine to be affirmed and taught in all Ages as the 1 2 3 4 5 Articles the Affirmative part of the 6 the 7 8 and so in the rest or I will yeeld unto you Give me instance what Affirmation of our Articles you deny and I will prove it in all Ages And I desire you to set downe withall which of your affirmative Articles you receive and whether we agree in the Articles of the Creed or not I will doe the like by you and give you an instance in our Affirmatives Shew me who in every Age did receive the bookes of Esdras Machabees Tobit Iudith c. for Canonicall in the 1 2 3 4 Centurie of yeares This is one of the first points of your Tridentine faith Master Fisher I desire you also for the avoiding of confusion to deliver your opinion whether all the Affirmative Doctrines of the Councell of Trent are matters of faith per se fundamentall and necessary to be held for salvation fide explicita I speake de adultis quibus facultas discendidatur Thus farre in my former Answer to which you have made reply you have neither shewed which of our Affirmative Articles you deny nor which you receive nor have you proved one Instance I gave of your Affirmatives nor as much as expressed what you hold for matters of faith but dissembling all this passe it over with silence unlesse you had thought as the Boy did by his bodged verses that what you wrote would never be read but that men would reade the Titles and number the Pages and there finde written over head Master Rogers weake Grounds Master Rogers weake Arguments would take the rest upon trust would you ever have put Pen to Paper and yet in matters of Controuersies never expresse what your selfe held nor tell us being requested what your owne faith is or to give a reason of your owne faith nor to define your owne Church And answer formally and punctually to no one Argument and frame no one Argument of your owne Hominis est vehementèr abutentis otio literis That a man should offer to write a Tract and that in so sacred a profession as Divinitie and that in a question of so high a nature as these are what is the Christian faith what is the visible Church and herein not answer one question not to bring one Distinction or Definition or frame one Argument in forme or like a Scholler is a mispending of time wasting of Paper and abusing the very name of Learning Divinity as all other Sciences consisteth of Principles and Conclusions the Principles received on both sides are the Scriptures to which you would adde unwritten Traditions you bring not one place of Scripture to maintaine those Affirmative Tenents of yours which we deny you account Articles of faith And as for Theologicall conclusions you inferre none you frame no Argument you make no Syllogisme you give no reason of your faith though Saint Peter require it whom I thought of all the Apostles you did most respect what shall we thinke then but that you have neither Scripture nor reason for your faith I meane in your new Creed in which you dissent from us Fisher I require withall that he give me a substantiall ground well proved out of Scripture why those perticular points which he shall assigne are points of Protestant faith rather then others contained in the 39. Articles if he say as he hath already seemed to say that none of their Negative Doctrines pertaine to their faith and that all that is affirmed by Protestants is affirmed by Roman Catholikes and that this Affirmative Doctrine onely doth pertaine to faith it will follow that Protestants have no faith different from Roman Catholikes Rogers He calleth unto me to distinguish between points of Protestant faith and other points contained in the 39 Articles and yet in the next word he is faine to confesse that I distinguished if he say as he hath already seemed to say that none of their Negative Doctrines pertaine unto their faith This I had delivered in my first Answer and yet he still calleth for it yet he must mince it a little and say I seemed to say so great a friend he is to seeming that he will never leave it knowing it to be essentiall to the definition of Sophistry and a Sophister You might have left out your seeming and written plainly that I said so seeing in my Answer to your first Paper I spent nere a page in explicating and exemplifying this Distinction and in my Answer to your second Paper which was delivered me as the worke of five Jesuites then conversant about Gondamors house
undoubted as that the sacrilegious hereticks themselves will not rebaptize those whom I have baptized Saint Augustine doth answer thus He doth not commit sacriledge who dares not rebaptize after that baptisme which is not thine but the baptisme of Christ The baptisme is Christs the rebaptizing is thine I correct in thee that which is thine and acknowledge that which is Christs for this is just that when wee reproove the evils of men we should approve whatsoever good things we find in them because they are Gods I say this is just that even in a sacrilegious person I should not violate that true Sacrament which I find in him neither that I should so correct a sacrilegious person as thereby to commit a sacrilegious sinne For they are evill though the baptisme amongst them bee good as the Iewes were evill though the law was good And even as the Iewes shall bee judged by that law which they though defiled could not defile So the Donatists they shall be judged by that baptisme which they could not deprave though themâ—elves be depraved Wee therefore thus deale with a Iew when he commeth unto us to bee made Christian wee doe not destroy in him the good that he hath from God but the evill that he hath of himselfe for we amend and destroy in him his infidelity whereby hee doth not beleeve that Christ is come already was borne hath suffered is risen againe and we instruct him in the faith of these things Wee also disswade him from those errors whereby he still sticketh to the shadow of the old Sacraments and we shew unto him that the time is come already wherein the Prophets foretold that these things were to bee taken away and changed But in that hee beleeveth one God is to bee worshipped which made Heaven and Earth that he doth abhorre all the Idolls and sacriledges of the Gentiles that hee doth expect the day of Iudgement that hee doth hope for eternall life we commend him approve him acknowledge him wishing him to beleeve as he had beleeved to hold as he had held So also when a Schismatick or an heretick doth come unto us to bee made a Catholick we disswade destroy and take from him his schisme and his heresie but as for the Sacraments of Christ if wee finde them in him and whatsoever other truth he holdeth farre be it from us that we should violate or minister againe that baptisme which was once received least while wee cure the vices of men wee condemne the saving graces of God and seeking to heale that which is not wounded we should wound a man there where he was whole Thus farre Saint Augustine These words of this Father make so plaine for our reformed Churches as that they need no application let the Reader understand Papist where he readeth Donatist and he shall find the Argument to follow We so left you as that we retained whatsoever you had from God and reject that which was from man we retained that which made you a Christian Church we rejected that which made you Popish and Antichristian In the former we communicate with you in the latter we disclaime So those whom I have and shall cite did communicate with you in some things but not in all for if they had communicated with you in all things they would not have reproved Aug. l. 2. cor op Par. c. 21. and disliked so many things Qui communicat consentit qui consentit corrumpitur If hee communicate hee doth consent if hee consent hee is corrupted To consent to evill is nothing else but to approve and commend that which is evill neither is there any man joyned in evill but he that doth commit evill or favour it act it or approve it In those good men which are displeased with those evills the Church doth continue hath continued and will continue for ever And as the graine unwinnowed is hid in the chaffe So the godly doe not easily appeare amongst a multitude of the wicked The people may be good where the Bishops are bad as the people were bad though Moses a good man was their Prince where Moses and Aaron were there also were sacrilegious murtherers Where Caiphas was and many like unto him there were also Zacharias and Simeon and others like unto them Saul and David were in the same Synagogue c. So that I doubt not but some may be found in all ages who did not communicate with your new doctrines superstitious worship tyrannicall discipline although they did communicate with you in the Scriptures and Apostles Creed as wee and all the famous Christian Churches in the world doe Know then that whereas you say that the Fathers and others alleadged by some of your men did communicate with the Roman Church unlesse you can say in all things you conclude nothing Syllogizari non est ex particulari for otherwise I might argue thus Some living creature is an Anabaptist Master Fisher is a living creature Ergo Master Fisher is an Anabaptist Because they communicate with you in some things thence to inferre you are the same in all things is fallacia à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter CHAP. IX Fisher AND as ancient Fathers have done before them condemned some or other Protestants Doctrine even of those 39 Articles of the English Protestant Church although they be more craftily composed then the Articles of other Protestant Churches Rogers I told you in my first Answer that it is no prejudice to our Faith if the same Authors doe differ from us in other opinions not concerning Faith as long as they maintaine our Faith and that the Church of Rome cannot produce Fathers in all Ages who doe not contradict the Councell of Trent in some Doctrines established in the said Councell These were my words in my first Answer to which you reply not at all to this purpose I also used that distinction of Discipline and Doctrine and distinguished between Doctrine Accessary and Fundamentall Adding also that matter of Faith consisteth not in Discipline but Doctrine and that Doctrine not Accessary but Fundamentall By which distinction I meane as I then expressed the same which Aquinas doth by res fidei Per Se Per accidens To this purpose I then distinguished Dogmata 1 Schola 2 Ecclesiae 3 Fidei Between 1 Opinions of Schoole 2 Doctrines of the Church 3 Articles of Faith To all which grounds of mine and more which I thâ—n layed you make no reply at all saving that some other grounds of mine you cavill at viz my Definition of a Protestant and my Distinction of Affirmation and Negation which I will justifie in their places Why would you say nothing to these grounds Master Fisher If they were true why would you not grant them If false why not deny them If ambiguous why not distinguish them I know no other Answer but one of these three wayes Concedendo negando vel distinguendo You will doe none of these to
first Pope of that name was condemned for an Hereticke in three Councels accursed for an Heretick by two Popes that succeeded after him his owne hereticall Epistles are found in the Acts of the sixth Councell besides divers other Writers Latin Greek that relate it Yet Bellarmine hath the face to denie all this Pope Joane is recorded by Writers of their owne is denied by these late Romans that will blush at nothing When the Carthaginians in the end of the second Punick Warre sent to Rome to sue for peace a Roman Senator asked them by what Gods they would now sweare seeing they had broken the promise they had formerly made and swore by the Gods to observe So I may aske you what Historie you will alleadge for the first 400 yeares whose testimonie you will admit who have rejected and reviled all Historians of those times calling them erroneous partiall false deceitfull lying impudent Heretickes CHAP. XIIII Fisher AVthoritie as for example the Scripture saith nothing of this or that or the Fathers of the first three hundred yeares make no expresse mention of this or that Ergo No such thing is or is of no force Yet when the Negative Argument is grounded in an already granted Affirmative Proposition as it is in this our case the Negative Argument is of great and undeniable force As for example if wee did grant this Proposition if such or such a thing were holy Scripture would have spoken of it or the Fathers of the first three hundred yeares would have made expresse mention of it If I say wee granted this wee could not deny the aforesaid Negative Argument usually made by Protestants to be of force against us Now Master Rogers doth not nor in reason cannot deny Master Fishers fourth Proposition which is an Affirmative whereupon his fifth Negative Proposition is grounded And therefore Master Rogers ought not to deny but must needs grant Master Fishers fifth and so all his five Propositions Which being granted if hee will make a good answer as hee pretendeth hee must first set downe names of Protestant Pastors in all Ages and not content himselfe with naming some whom he thinketh to be Protestants and with saying hee hath gone halfe the way Secondly If hee will satisfie Master Fishers other Paper as he pretendeth to doe hee must prove and defend them to be Protestants as Master Fishers Paper requireth and must bring some or other good Authors who doe clearly shew them to hold all or some principall points of Protestants Faith differing from Catholicke Roman Faith and not to condemne any of the 39 Protestant Articles and must not content himselfe with making such Arguments as hee maketh which are most insufficient either to convince or probably to perswade either his Adversary or any indifferent judicious Reader for these be his Arguments First a Causis thus The faith contained in the Scriptures hath had visible professors in all ages But the Protestant faith is contained in the Scriptures ergo Secondly a Signis thus The faith is that which hath testimonies of Antiquities universality and consent of fathers and other writers in all ages But the faith of Protestants harh these testimonies ergo Thirdly ab Exemplis thus Names of such as professed the Protestants faith in all ages Christ and his Apostles St. Iohn Ignatius Polycarpus Iustinus Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Clemens Alex Origen Cyprian Lactantius Athanasius Cyrill Hierosol Ambrozius Nyssenus Hieronimus Ruffinus Chrysostomus Augustinus Cyrillus Alex Theodoretus Socrates Sozomenus Fulgentius Evagrius Gregorius primus Beda Damascenus Alcuinus Thus having gone halfe way I conclude with this Argument The Protestant faith being that which is contained in Scriptures was received and taught by all the Orthodox Fathers But the Fathers above named be all Orthodox ergo Now who doth not see that these Arguments be most insufficient and that they may be most easily answered by denying the Protestant faith to be contained in Scriptures or to have testimony of antiquity universality and consent or to have beene professed by those Fathers which Master Rogers named Who doth not also see that the same Arguments may be more strongly retorted against Protestants by only altering the word Protestant into Catholick in regard our Catholick doctrine may be and is ordinarily proved by plaine Testimonies of Scriptures and Fathers even by confession of divers learned Protestants themselves I marvaile therefore that M. Rogers being accounted a worthy Oxford Divine would affirme and offer to prove and defend Protestants to have beene in all ages upon so sleight grounds which if they be admitted for good every sect of Hereticks may affirme and prove and defend men of their sect to have beene in all ages For tryall whereof I wish it may be imagined that there were an Anabaptist for example who held all the Protestant faith saving onely some few negatives and namely that it is not lawfull to baptize Infants and that this Anabaptist had framed to himselfe such false Rules as Master Rogers hath set downe to himselfe Rogers I desire Master Fisher and the Reader to looke backe to the former page of the precedent leafe to which I have already answered for in matter it was the same with that which went before contained in the 26th and 27th pages of Master Fishers Booke against me which were all spent in seeking to strengthen his owne Propositions his owne grounds yet the Title he gave unto both those Pages was Master Rogers his most weake grounds there being in both those Pages not one sentence nor line nor word concerning any grounds of mine so in the 28th Page of his Booke he hath put this Title Master Rogers his most weake Arguments Whereas there is not one Argument nor one Proposition of mine in all that Page as may easily appeare to him that will but reade the same onely he speaketh something in defence of his owne grounds to which I have already answered Yet because of the Title agreeing with the 29 and 30 pages which follow next after I have copied them out and placed them altogether that have this title viz. Master Rogers his most weake Arguments Which I thinke he did to gull his Proselytes who reading but the Title must thinke that Master Fisher hath shewed my grounds and Arguments to be weake when and where hee hath not made any mention of any Arguments of mine CHAP. XV. Fisher NOw who doth not see that these Arguments be most insufficient and they may be most easily answered by denying the Protestant faith to bee contained in Scriptures or to have testimony of Antiquity Vniversality and Consent or to have bin professed by these Fathers which M. Rogers named Rogers I doe not think that you did see any insufficiency in the Arguments or that they were easily to be answered for then you would have answered punctually to every argument apart and not thus confusedly and altogether as if you had been afraid to come to close fight but standing a farre off to
will deny his owne faith To this my Adversary doth thus reply Fisher That faith is affirmation and not negation by which Rule it seemeth he would not have any negative propositions although found in Scripture to pertaine to faith Rogers You inferre that in your conclusion which is not in my grounds I say that faith is affirmation I doe not say that all that doth pertaine to Faith is affirmation I say that negations are no part of my faith you say that negations doe pertaine to faith Non facis elenchum you inferre not my proposition in your conclusion with a contradiction what you say is not contrary to my grounds for that may pertaine to faith which is not faith and that may pertaine to faith which is no part of faith as that may pertaine to Master Fisher which is not Master Fisher nor any part of Master Fisher The button of Master Fishers doublet doth pertaine to Master Fisher yet I may not say Master Fisher is a button or that this button is any part of Master Fisher A joyned stoole may pertaine to Master Fisher but I will not say Master Fisher is a joyn'd stoole The distinction of matters of faith out of Aquinas and others of that which belongs unto faith properly from that which belongs unto faith accidentally doth exclude those things which onely pertaine unto faith from being faith or any part of faith You know Master Fisher Aristot Zabarella that Propositiones per se habent essentialem connexionem Man is that which he is of himselfe properly and essentially a creature consisting of a humane body and a reasonable soule not that which is accidentall unto man as to be blacke or white to be a Musician to be a Carpenter to be a Fryer or a Priest a Jesuite or a Dominican These things are not man nor any part of man It doth not therefore follow that because negations pertaine to faith therefore they are faith or part of faith Your Argument from Scripture if I should grant your medium cannot inferre against my ground altering part of faith into that which pertaineth to faith Your Argument in forme will discover it selfe to be a fallacie All propositions found in Scripture pertaine to faith Some negative propositions are found in Scripture Ergo If you inferre against me your conclusion must be thus Negative propositions are faith or parts of faith This is no Syllogisme here are foure termes there is that in the conclusion which is not in the premisses but if you would have all propositions that are in Scripture to be matters of faith or parts or points of faith then I deny your major you know there are many propositions in Scripture delivered by wicked men yea some by the Devill himselfe As that which was spoken unto Eve you shall not die Whereas God told them they should die if they did eate of the forbidden fruit And shall these be parts of your faith will you beleeve the Devill when he speaketh against God But of this I have spoken more fully before Cap. 4. proving the contrary to this out of your own men Yet I will here adde some few reasons to shew that Negations or negative Propositions cannot be Articles of faith or Principles of faith Lib. 1. Poster c. 23. Aristotle doth prove by two Arguments that an affirmative proposition is better then a negative First because the affirmative is better knowne then the negative for the negative cannot be knowne without the affirmative but the affirmative may without the negative as the habit may be defined without privation but not privation without the habit as seeing may be defined without any mention of blindnesse but blindnesse cannot be defined without mention of seeing Secondly Affirmation doth speake of being Negation of not being but being is better then not being To the same effect in his bookes Lib. 2. c. 3. De Coelo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Affirmation is before privation He is the same man in his Metaphisicks where he putteth Negations inter entia rationis which have no being in themselves if no being how can they be principles in any Scicence much lesse in Divinitie It is a true note of your Zuarez upon the Metaphisicks that Mensura debet nota esse certa ut sit nota oportet ut entitatem habeat ut fit certa oportet ut in indivisibili consistat That cannot be knowne which hath not entitie reall entitie saith your Suarez when any Negation is knowne of necessitie we must first know that whereof it is a Negation Prima primae q. 72. 63 secunda secundae q. 79. 3. Andreas Vega Francisc Hist. Trid. Con p. 1. 179 In Metaph. â—5 c. 7. q. 6. Idem Suarez This is the Doctrine of your great Schooleman Aquinas He was one of your greatest Divines who said at your Councell of Trent that no true Negative hath in it selfe the cause of his truth but is so by the trutth of an affirmative Negations as negations nullam omninò dicunt entitatem sed solam absentiam ejus quod negatur they tell of no being but onely an absence of that which is denyed saith your Fonseca Seeing then that Propositions of faith are principles and principles cannot be proved by any thing that is before them or better knowne then they and that nothing can be known without reall being and that negations are proved by affirmations how can they be Propositions or principles of faith And lest you should wander in your Replie I will presse two Arguments out of your owne men Entia rationis non sunt principia in ulla scientia Suarez in his Metaphys in fine Negationes sunt entia rationis Ergo Negationes non sunt principia in ulla scientia praesertim in Theologia Principia fidei habent causam finalem Negationes non habent causam finalem Ergo Negationes non sunt principia fidei Propositions of faith are foundations and a foundation must be positive or it will beare nothing upon it go round about a building and say a thousand times over here is no stone and here is no stone and so all along you will never lay a foundation Shall the Mason by saying I will not lay this nor that foundation come and claime his wages Shall the Tyler by laying on no Tyle say that he hath covered the house or the Carpenter by squaring and joyning no Timber build the Walls The Articles of our faith are in the Apostles Creed all affirmative and positive there is not one Negation among them The question betweene us is about unwritten Traditions Purgatory Invocation of Saints Transubstantiation worshipping of Images and the rest before alleadged out of Paulus Secundus his Creed all which I deny and therefore are no Articles of my faith for no man would deny his owne faith All those we deny we lay no such foundation let them which have laid it maintaine it We are contented that Purgatory Transubstantiation
in explication so that they all receive the distinction which you would seeme to reject as if the admitting of that distinction did infer a libertie to reject all Church authority and not to be satisfied by what is taught by any Church How this doth follow I know not I thinke it is as farre from due consequence as to say I have my poake full of plumbes therefore that is the way to London It is my hard hap to meet with an Adversary which hath so little honesty as to falsifie my words so little learning as that he hath not and it seemes he cannot frame one Argument I am loath to take the paines to adde forme to such rude matter to draw the line of reason and measure with rules of Art such rotten stuffe such incohaerent disjoynted speeches as that himselfe was afeard to insert the note of illation a Ergo. therefore but I will doe it for him Master Rogers hath distinguished betweene Doctrines fundamentall and necessary and Doctrines not fundamentall but accessorie Ergo Master Rogers may be further allowed to reject all Church authority and not be satisfied with any Church Doctrine Negatur Argumentum Master Fisher for if it be a good Argument let me urge it thus Aquinas Occham Espenseus The Master of the Sentences Bonaventure Durandus c. a world of Schoolemen and other Writers doe make the same distinction Ergo Aquinas Occham Espenceus the Master of the Sentences with the Schooles in generall are allowed to reject Church authoritie and Church Doctrine if the Argument were true thus it must follow I was so farre from accounting that to be necessary which I list so to account as that I desired of you my Adversary to be informed and directed herein Whereas you object that an Anabaptist might prove his Church to have been alwayes visible by my Rules definitions and distinctions is most untrue one of the Rules or Medium by which I did prove my Church was Antiquitie Vniversality and Consent will you grant that this Medium doth agree to the Anabaptist in that point which especially gives him that name viz. in denying Baptisme to children It seemes you have little regard what you say that you will thus strengthen the Anabaptist in his errour as if he had Antiquity Vniversalitie and Consent for his excluding children from Baptisme Or if by his negative he put me to prove the affirmative that children are to be baptized I will prove it by the testimonies of Antiquity Vniversality and Consent But I am not now to deale with Anabaptists but with a Papist CHAP. XXII Fisher FOr proofe whereof let it be supposed that Master Râ—gers could as he cannot produce out of Scriptures and Fathers other Writers in all Ages as many and as plaine and repugnant affirmative sentences against the negative Doctrine of Anabaptists as Catholickes ordinarily doe agaiâ—st Protestants negatives And then I aske Master Rogers Whether this Anabaptist may not as usually Protestants do take one or other exception either of Argument or Booke out of which the sentence is cited as if it were not undoubtedly Canonicall or Authenticall or against the Translation or Transcript or Printed Copie as not certainely knowne to be conforme to the first Antographon or Originall or against the interpretation and sense of the words or the consequence gathered out of them as if some other sense were intended by the Authour Or if none of these exceptions can be made whether he may not at least say that it is not the faith or consent of all Antiquitie which doth hold such an affirmative contrary to his negative Doctrine but onely the opinion of some one or few whilst others hold the contrary or seeme doubtfull Or if it be shewed to be the generall Doctrine of all who had occasion to write of that matter without any one teaching contrary whether he may not deny the point to be fundamentall and say that they differ not from him in Doctrine necessary but onely in Doctrine accessory and that notwithstanding this difference they may and are possessors of his faith and members of his Anabaptist Church All this doubtlesse he may say and so defend ancient Fathers to be of his Faith and Church as well as Master Rogers can defend them to be of his faith and Church Neither can Master Rogers disprove what the Anabaptist averreth but with the same breath he disprooveth his owne Booke and maketh it appeare to every judicious Reader that he neither can truely name soundly prove nor in any good sort defend either the Ancient Fathers or any other Orthodox whom he nameth or any lawfull Pastors or others Catholicks or Hereticks before Luther or indeed Luther himself to have held the entire Protestant faith for if all Protestant Doctrines which be different from the faith of the Roman Church may be called Doctrines of Protestant faith it may be evidently shewed that none of the aforesaid did in all points of faith agree with the English Protestant Church whose Ministers are bound to subscribe to the 39 Articles above mentioned Rogers All this wilde discourse is to overthrow my Grounds by shewing that they may agree with an Anabaptist who as he supposeth is not of the visible Church taketh it as granted by me wherin he is deceived For I hold the Anabaptist though I condemne his errour in denying Baptisme unto children to be a member of the visible Church though diseased as the Papist is and lesse diseased then he his Argument which commeth from him as a Beares Whelpe or worse for ever it wanteth some principall limme being formed is this Those are no true Gounds Distinctions Definitions or Arguments an Anabaptist may prove himselfe to be of the Church But by Master Rogers Grounds Distinctions Definitions and Arguments by which an Anabaptist may prove himselfe to be of the Church Ergo Master Rogers Grounds Distinctions Definitions and Arguments are no true Grounds I deny his major which he taketh as granted committing his old fallacie of Petitio Principii begging and supposing that for a medium and principle which is denied or at least questioned and spends himselfe wholly in proving the minor which I grant not for any proofe that he brings but for divers other reasons which I can alleadge as namely these amongst others An erroneous opinion in matters of practise and morall praecepts doth not exclude out of the visible Church but errour in matters of faith The errour of the Anabaptist is in matters of practise not in matters of faith Ergo His errour doth not exclude him out of the visible Church They do not deny Baptisme nor any thing that is substantiall in Baptisme but onely erre in a circumstance of time denying that unto children not absolutely and for ever but untill they come to make profession of their faith Shall this exclude them and their Children out of the Church and why because by this delay many children dying without Baptisme as you suppose are damned but