disobedient unto Government and so excommunicated and imprisoned for either of those without Heresie If all Decrees of Councels be Doctrines of faith as you affirme your Cardinall Bellarmine is deceived who saith that in Councels the greatest part of those things which are done doe not belong to faith neither the Disputations concerning faith nor the reasons which are added nor those things which are brought for explication and illustration but onely the very naked Decrees and not all those but they alone who are proposed as matters of faith To this subscribed Widrington in the Preface above alleadged and he voucheth Canus for the same opinion CHAP. XXIIII Fisher I Aske what Scripture or reason assureth that no Negative Doctrine pertaines to faith for Scripture having in it so many Negative sentences which are to be beleeved assureth the contrary neither is there any reason which can assure a man that he is freed from beleeving for example this Negative Deus non mentitur God doth not lie rather then from beleeving this Affirmative Est Deus Verax God is a true speaker for both being said by one and the same God our Lord Trueth it selfe and both being propounded by one and the same Catholicke Church his Spouse assisted by his Spirit the Spirit of truth as spoken by God in holy Scripture both are equally to be beleeved neither can any without danger of eternall damnation deny or doubt of either those or any other even the least point of Catholike faith as we may learn out of Saint Athanasius Creed saying that Whosoever will be saved it is needfull that he hold the Catholike faith which unlesse each one hold entire that is in all points and inviolate that is in the true uncorrupted sense of the Catholike Church without doubt he shall perish everlastingly So as whether the Doctrine be Negative or Affirmative whether fundamentall or accessory supposing it to be a Doctrine propounded by the Catholike Church as revealed by God it must be beleeved explicite or implicite and may not rashly or which is worse advisedly be denyed or doubted of and much lesse may the contrary be obstinately maintained against the knowne judgement of a lawfull Generall Councell or the unanime consent of the Pastors of the Church in regard our Saviour hath expresly averred That he who despiseth them despiseth himselfe and him that sent him to wit God his Father And againe he that will not heare the Church let him be to thee as an heathen and Publicane All which sheweth that such as do obstinately deny or doubtingly dispute against any the least point knowne by Church proposition to be a point of Catholike faith is worthily accounted an Heretike a despiser of God an excommunicated person and no member of the true Catholike Church and one who if he so live and die without repentance cannot be saved But as Athansius without any want of charity pronounceth he shall without doubt perish everlastingly Rogers I have answered you more then once and given you reasons more then one or two why Negations are not matters of faith per se fundamentall and necessary for I brought this distinction of Affirmation and Negation after those distinctions of Doctrine 1. Accessorie of res fidei per se res fidei per accidens 2. Doctrine fundamentall of res fidei per se res fidei per accidens Then I added this distinction of Affirmation and Negation so that my meaning appeared by the connexion it had with that which went before that Negations are not points or Articles of faith are not fundamentall doctrines are not res fidei per se I did not say but they might be res fidei per accidens as all propositions revealed in Scriptures whether affirmative or negative are besides those Articles of faith Here then you doe not dispute ad idem non facis elenchum you prove what I doe not deny you prove that Negatives contained in Scripture pertaine to faith which I do not deny but you do not prove that they are points of faith fundamentall Doctrines res fidei per se things proper and essentiall unto faith as your great Schooleman Aquinas your Bellarmine and Valenza have written cited by me afore where I have also shewed the difference betweene being a matter of faith and pertaining to faith neither doe I say that any man is freed from beleeving this Negative God doth not lie or any other Negative revealed in Scripture but that an implicite faith may serve in all Negatives as well as those Affirmatives which are not Articles of the Creed I say againe that Negatives in Scripture are res fidei per accidens non per se They are accidentall unto faith not essentiall There is no generall necessity to beleeve them fide explicita so to beleeve them as actually to know them but it is sufficient to beleeve them fide implicita with a minde prepared actually to beleeve them when they doe appeare unto us actually to be revealed in Scripture All things revealed in Scripture have aequalem veritatem non aequalem utilitatem They are equally true but not equally profitable For these propositions God is not a lyer God is not as man the heathen hath no knowledge of his Law Pharaoh was not obedient And all that are Negatives in Scripture being put together cannot informe a man in that saving truth which is sufficient for his soules health to beleeve but a few Affirmatives twelve Propositions contained in the Creed can doe it Againe I say that All things revealed in Scripture have aequalem necessitatem credendi non aequalem necessitatem cognoscendi It is not a like necessary for us to know all things revealed in Scripture but it is a like necessary for us to beleeve them when we know them As you have falsified the predicate of my Proposition by changing points of faith unto that which pertaineth unto faith fundamentall into accessory proper and essentiall into that which is accidentall so have you falsified the subject of the same Proposition for immediately after that distinction of Affirmation and Negation my words were these In those Articles of our English Church our Negation is partly a traversing partly a condemning of your novelties and additions and therfore no part of our faith for no man would deny his owne faith Thus farre in my former Answer as also in a few lines after my words were these The first instance of Negation in our Articles is part of the sixth Article concerning those Bookes of Esdras Tobit Iudith c. whereby it appeareth manifestly that I spake not of Negatives revealed in Scripture but of Negatives in Doctrines Ecclesiasticall Now that you should argue from Negatives in Scripture to Negatives out of Scripture is à baculo ad angulum from the staffe to the corner my Tenet therefore is that Negatives revealed in Scripture are res fidei per accidens non per se Negatives not revealed in Scripture are not res fidei
THE PROTESTANT CHVRCH EXISTENT AND Their FAITH professed in all Ages and by Whom With a Catalogue of Councels in all Ages who professed the same Written By HENRY ROGERS D. D. Prebendary of HEREFORD LONDON Printed by RICHARD BADGER 1638. TO THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD GEORGE LORD Bishop of Hereford His Honourable DIOCESAN RIght Reverend Father in God and my Honourable Lord my booke I dedicate unto God as I have my selfe and all my labours long since I present it to your Lordship as the person to whom under God and the King I am bound to give an account of my life and labours in my vocation A beneficed man and a Preacher I have lived in your Diocesse these thirty yeares many conferences I have had with Papists many small tracts have I written upon the request of some of our Church who desired satisfaction in some points diverse bookes have I briefly answered with marginall notes or analyticall resolution of their discourse intending them for private satisfaction Only one escaped that happinesse of privacy a short answer to Mr. Fisher which I gave being in London far from my bookes farther from repose or quietnesse to study in a case which made me fall on my knees and pray unto God to keepe to me the best things whereby I might doe him service In maximis angustiis I wrote that short answer to Mr. Fisher I may call it my Benoni to which Mr. Fisher or one for him made a reply and this is my defence of it and our Church It is not any great conceit that I have of my labours or my owne strength that causeth mee to publish it no I say to my selfe as was said to a weake Souldier that girte on his armour to goe and fight Non tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis Tempus eget And God be thanked we have many better and those of late whose workes for subject and conformity of opinions have that correspondency with this of mine though for acutenesse and learning beyond it as that amongst other motives caused me to publish it seven or eight yeares after that it was finished The bragging of the Romanist their false hopes of the change of Religion and the vaine feares of others have made me rub up my old harnesse and to gird me to the battell not daunted with the insolency of some Papists nor disquieted with the causelesse feares of some of our side who while they would seeme zealous against the Roman party little consider by their injurious traducing the Church they are members of and the happy government of it that they help their enemies more then their most professed Champions For my part as I delivered in a Sermon before your Lordship at your first Visitation I am assured that while we have the Scriptures publike and private in our mother tongue and solid Catechizing in the fundamentall points wee need not feare Popery This they well knew that persecuted with Fier and Fagot whosoever had the New Testament or Old or as much as the Creed the Lords Prayer and the tenne Commandements in the English Tongue they well knew that to reade the Scriptures and there finding there is one Mediator betweene God and man the man CHRIST IESUS would make them that read it though simple to suspect the popish mediation of Saints departed 2. The learning of the Lords Prayer with this injunction pray thus Our Father would make the simplest to collect after this manner if I may goe to God himselfe and am so commanded by Christ and have the example of the Patriarkes Prophets and Apostles praying unto God and not unto men or Angels with a promise from Christ Aske and you shall have and an invitation Come unto me all ye that travaile and are heavy laden and I will refresh you why should I pray unto Saints without command promise or patterne nay without faith how shall they call on him on whom they have not beleeved In quem non crediderunt Vnlesse they will say which is a degree beyond ordinary Popery that we may credere in hominem vel Angelum 3. The Creed being learned would make the simple consider when hee heareth of other Articles of Faith not therein contained as traditions unwritten equalled to the words of God the Popes supremacy to be the prime article of the faith as Bellarmine to Blackwell doth call it transubstantiation invocation of Saints veneration of Images purgatory seven Sacraments Et quicquid novi semper apportat Roma new articles new monsters to say thus they are not in my Creed it was no part of my promise in Baptisme no covenants of mine I was made a Christian without any such conditions any such articles 4. In the Commandements the simple doe finde the Papists forgery if they blot out the 2d. Commandement or any part thereof or their Idolatry in worshipping Images if they leave the text whole and uncorrupted 5. Having the whole Scriptures in their mother tongue they finde the Papists prohibiting of marriage and of meates a doctrine of divels their exercise of Religion in an unknowne tongue to be but a tinckling Cymball Antichrist to bee that man of sinne which exalteth himselfe above all that is called God or that is worshipped to be the Whore that sitteth on seven hils that sitteth in the Temple of God c. These things being commanded by the King and earnestly pressed by the Bishops in their severall Visitations make mee confident as every moderate person is that they whose zeale against Rome is good doe feare the alteration of Religion without cause nay have much to answer for both to God and man for cherishing such uncharitable suspitions in themselves and others Three things in your Lordships Visitation did cause me much to reverence your person and place 1. Your personall presence in most parts of Your Diocesse 2. Your admonition to the Ministers to study and preach the Scriptures and to Catechize carefully 3. Your Lordships laying of hands upon Children after Your Lordship had examined some by Your selfe and the rest by Your Clergy a thing of late neglected and therefore lay heavie upon Your Lordship at this first comming when there came so many that Your Lordships spirits were almost spent and many were almost crushed with the thronge I said then to Your Lordship it was a great comfort to see the Church thus to suffer violence And from all other violence the Lord of heaven deliver us to whose protection my prayers daily commend Your Lordship Henry Rogers The Preface to the Christian READER SOme passages betweene Master Fisher and my selfe about twelve yeares past were published and Printed without my knowledge Master Fisher delivered to divers Parsonages of good qualitie certaine propositions concerning the Protestant Faith Church and Succession to which though then farre from home and from my Bookes I gave a short Answer with a Catalogue of Orthodox Writers who professed our Faith in the first 700 yeares To this Answer of mine
cum fide recta salvâ ad lavacrum Regenerationis accedant Concerning that Faith which is necessary to Iustification and salvation what was the opinion of the Primitive Church and what it did deliver concerning the same namely what Faith is and what object it hath cannot more cleerely bee understood then by that Creede which was delivered to those that were Catechized before Baptisme that so they might come to the Laver of Regeneration with a right and sound Faith Tom. 3 lib. 1. de Baptis cap. 24. He saith that the repeating of this Creed is the fourth Ceremony of Baptisme of which Ceremony mention is made as he there writeth by Clemens Dionysius Origen Cyprian Cyrill Hillary Hierom Augustine And that the summe and whole object of Faith is therein contained though briefely Saint Augustine doth teach Serm. 115. de tempore besides others that teach the same where saith Bellarm he doth define the Apostles Creede in these words Est inquit Symbolum comprahensio fidei nostrae simplex brevis plena ut simplicitas consulat audientium rusticitati brevitas memoriae plenitudo doctrinae The Creed is plaine briefe and a full comprisall of our Faith that the plainesse may helpe the simplicitie brevitie may helpe the memory and the fulnesse may provide for the learning of the hearers Lib. 1. c. 2. 3. 4. Lib. advers Praxiam Saint Irenaus doth expound the rule of the Christian Faith the same also is done by Tertullian but both of them doe teach that nothing else is to be believed besides the Articles of the Apostles Creed although they haue not the name of the Creede So saith Bellarm lib. 1. de Iust c. 9. Leo the first ep 13. doth charge Eutiches to haue made a dissention contrary to the entirenesse of the Catholique Faith Est siquidem ipsius Catholici Symboli brevis perfecta confessio quae duodecem Apostolorum totidem est signata sententiis For in the Apostles Creed is contained a perfect confession of Faith Thus he is cited by Binius Tom. 1. Conciliorum pag. 946. Baronius Anno 1016. num 1. saith That one Simeon a holy man of Armenia comming to Rome and there being accused of Heresie and demanded what faith hee was of a He made a perfect confession of faith by rehearsing the Apostles Creed c. Respondens Catholicae Apostolicae fidei perfectionem ita confitendo perdocuit qualitèr per universum orbem Apostolorum Symbolum in Nicaena Synodo peroratum clara voce personuit And by and by after Baronius addeth these words Innotuit protinus Papae omnibus qui aderant virum Dei scilicet Simeonem verae fidei esse professorem Lastly the sufficiency of this Creed is acknowledged not onely by those which I have above named but also the Councell of Ephesus concluding doth repeat this Creed adding these words Huic sanctae fidei omnes affentiantur oportet est enim piè sufficienterque ad totius orbis utilitatem exposita Let all men assent to this holy Faith for it is piously and sufficiently expounded to the benefit of the whole world Having thus out of the Fathers Schoolemen Councels and your owne Writers shewed the Antiquitie necessitie trueth perfection sufficiencie and fulnesse of my Faith in which I was baptized and which all wee of the Protestant Churches doe professe how can you say that we are not of the Church or require us to adde other Articles unto these in which wee all have been baptized and in which alone not onely wee but all of your Church and all Churches of the world since the Apostles times have been baptized been made Christians been admitted into the Church This is the Covenant of faith as well in your Church as in ours for there is no other profession of faith in Baptisme amongst you but the Apostles Creed there is no mention there no promise no covenant that wee doe beleeve unwritten Traditions Indulgences Purgatorie Invocation of Saints seven Sacraments worshipping of Images Communion under one kinde Transubstantiation and the Primacie of the Romish Church When a Farmour is told that he hath forfeited his Lease that he hath broken his Covenants he will aske in what point and when it is told him in particular wherein he repaires unto his Lease lookes upon his Covenants and if this which is layd to his charge be not there expressed hee will reply It is not hâ—ere I am not bound unto it it is no Covenant of mine and his Land-lord were unjust to presse him beyond his Covenant Wee have made a Covenant with God in Baptisme we are admitted Tenants in his Church you say wee have forfeyted our Grant broken our Covenants vve are no longer Tenants vve are no more of the Church I aske you why you say because I will not beleeve your new Creed and that the Pope is head of the Church for that is your primarius fidei articulus Bellarm. to Blackwell I reply there is no such thing in my Covenant I was baptized in no such faith I was made a member of Christ I was not made a member of the Pope I will leave that for you vvho make him your head And thus farre of explicite faith of justifying faith necessary to salvation of the primary fundamentall propositions which belong to faith per se non per accidens out of which I will collect some few Arguments Whosoever was baptized into and still doth professe a whole full perfect true sufficient faith is of the Church But the Protestants were baptized into and still doe professe a whole full perfect true sufficient faith Therefore the Protestants are of the Church Every word of the Major and Minor is prooved in this Chapter in that I have proved all these titles to belong to the Apostles Creed A second Argument Whosoever doe professe that Faith by which men are made Christians doe still continue Christians But the Protestants doe professe that faith by which men are made Christians Ergo The Protestants are Christians and consequently of the Church A third Argument To prove that those Doctrines of their new Creed can be no Articles of faith because the Articles of the Apostles Creed being already perfect and compleat can admit of no essentiall addition and all Articles must be essentiall quia per se There can be no essentiall addition to that which is perfect and compleat as the Apostles Creed is But the Articles of Faith are essentiall unto Faith Ergo No new Articles may be added to the Apostles Creed being perfect and compleat CHAP. IV. Of the totall object of faith as it includeth not onely the primary essentiall matters of faith but also the secondary and accidentall matters contained in the revealed truth and that from hence demonstrations may bee drawne to prove the Protestants to be a Church THose things we beleeve by an infused divine faith are of two sorts 1. Some prime proper essentiall as those things contained in the Apostles
Question aforesaid For say you with a bold audacitie hee nameth for Protestants famously knowne Roman Catholicks to wit the chiefe Writers of the first 700 yeares As for Audacitie I hope to cleare my selfe by performing all that I have undertaken herein And the grounds I layed doe manifest to the learned indifferent Reader that I did so intrench my selfe so fortifie my cause as that I feare not any open force of a stronger enemie then you are I named for Protestants knowne Romane Catholicks say you distinguish Romane Catholicks whether you meane the present Romane Church or that which was in the first seven hundred yeares these two are as different as Christian and Antichristian as Orthodox Non Apostolici sed Apostatici Such as were fallen from all Christianity Baron an 908. n. 4. speaking of the Popes of that age and Haereticall as Apostolike and Apostaticall I oppose the present Romane Church not the Primitive and therefore I oppose this because shee is so different from that and no more like unto those former Romane Catholicks then those Indian Apes were unto the valiant Porus and his Indian Souldiers They of those first seven hundred yeares did not equall unwritten Traditions unto the Word of God they did not worship Images nor was your new Creed any part of their Faith and this is the reason why we oppose the present Roman Church because she hath so far declined from what she was Returne you to that Primitive Romane Church and wee will returne to you these Writers of the first seven hundred yeares are ours and not yours insomuch that I doe require you to shew me any one Father of those seven hundred yeares that held your now Romane Creed and I will be of your mind And whereas you make choice of Saint Bede for your instance I will pitch upon that very man and deny him to be of your now Romane Faith I meane as farre as your now Romane Church doth differ from other Christian Churches herein I am in the Negative so that it doth belong to you to prove the Affirmative Whereas you say Saint Bedes Writings and profession of life being a professed Romane Catholicke Monke shewes him to be no Protestant first for his Writings shew mee out of his Writings what part of the Apostles Creed hee did denie I have no other Articles of Faith if hee held these as I know hee did and his Writings doe manifest it hee is of my Faith hee is of my Church I of his both of one Church both of that one Faith which the Protestants doe professe Secondly I beleeve all the revealed written Word of God as it was received in the Primitive Church doth Saint Bede deny any of these shew mee where But say you his profession of life proves him to be no Protestant for hee was a Roman Catholicke Monke First as for Roman I have already answered that your present Romane Church differs from that which then was in all those Doctrines wherein we differ from you although it then began in matters of Discipline to swerve from what it had beene I say in matters of Discipline not of Doctrine if in any Doctrine not in Doctrines of Faith they enacted enjoyned necessitated no new Articles as now you have done in your Councell of Trent whereas you adde Catholick to Roman Hoc est Pugnantia secum frontibus adversis componere like that of dividing all the world into Kent and Christendome or rather to say that Kent is all Christendome Roman is but a part of the Catholick Church and to say as you doe that the Roman is the Catholick Church is as if one should say that one particular man were all men and that one limbe of a man were the man as the Poet said of Tongilianus Tongilianus habet nasum scio nec nego nasum Nil praeter nasum Tongilianus habet The man had a great nose and therefore the Poet said hee was all nose as if he had no other parts neither eyes nor mouth nor hand nor arme nor legge nor foote So you because your Roman Church is somewhat large you say that the Church is all Roman whereas it is not much larger in proportion to the Catholike Church then Tongilianus his nose in respect of the rest of the body I know you will say that the Roman Church is extended to the East and West Indies and there acknowledged Alas that is but by a few of your owne Emissaries cooped up in some small Ilands and Forts in the East Indies and as for your West India Converts Bartholo Casas in his Spanish colonies p. 1â— they are such as being forced by the Spanish tyranny doe professe a poore faith being taught to say there is one God one Pope one Catholike King This is all their Creed these are the Christians you there make this is the converting of Nations you bragge of your imposture and cousenage in suborning a couple of unknowne fellowes to come and submit themselves to the Roman Church a Historia Concilij Trident. l. 5. as if they had beene the Patriarches of Alexandria and Mozall is long since discovered so that by these poore shifts to vaunt unto the world or thinke with your selves that the Roman is as large as the Catholick is as if Tongilianus sniting his nose upon his garments and there seeing it sprinkled here and there upon his leggs upon his feet should therefore thinke that his nose did reach unto his feet that which you deliver in this kind being but vaunting of falshoods and grosse lyes I may well call the excrements of a divellish braine seeing the divell is the father of lyes and yet this must make your silly simple hudwinckt followers thinke that the Roman Church is the Catholick Church and as you afterwards say that none can be saved out of the Roman Church Aug. ep 86. Rabanus Maurus 400. yeeres after divided the Church into East Greek and Latin l. 2. c. 34. Saint Augustine in his time did distinguish betweene the East and West Churches and then did subdivide the West making the Roman but a part of the West yea and distinguishing betweene some neighbour places and the Church of Rome In those times and even to this day the Easterne Churches doe differ from the Roman Church in that they fast not upon the Saturday as also a great part of the Westerne Churches even in Italy it selfe then did Whereupon one Vrbicus wrote against those that did not fast upon Saturday which caused one Cassalanus a Presbyter to write unto Saint Austin requesting his resolution herein who replying unto him saith In those things concerning the which the word of God doth not lay downe any certaine rule the custome of Gods people the ordinances of their Ancestors are to be held for a law He did not say heere the decrees or custome of Rome must stand for a law to all other Churches He bids him observe the words of Vrbicus and you shall see him saith
hee had some other grave Historian of those times to crosse and contradict Sozomen No such matter the other famous Historians of that Age were Eusebius and Socrates though Eusebius somewhat more ancient beginning his Historie of the Church from Christ and continuing it untill the death of Constantine Socrates and Sozomen to whom wee may adde Theodoret all three began their Historie where Eusebius ended continuing the same unto the raigne of Theodosius junior which was about the yeare 400. All these were Greeke Writers and of the Greeke Church to whom if wee adde the short Historie of Ruffinus who was a Presbyter of the Latine Church wee have all the professed Historians of note that I have seene and read for those times so that if the authoritie of these men be slighted and excepted against as erroneous false impudent lying Haereticks I know not what Histories Master Fisher will produce for the chiefest time of the Primitive Church the first 400 yeares Of Sozomen I have already spoken the next shall be Eusebius who was of that repute in the Age wherein he lived and the next succeeding Age that the other Historians Ruffinus Socrates and Sozomen doe begin their Histories where hee left onely speaking something more fully concerning Arrius and the Councell of Nice Sozomen stiling him a man most expert in holy and humane learning This man besides his Historie wrote a Chronologie which Baronius truly stileth a Ground-work Baron an 325. n. 213. n. 215. and foundation whereon the whole fabricke and frame of Historie must relie yet herein hee is so erroneous as that Baronius must correct him What so erronious in the foundation the whole building must fall then Thus Diodorus Siculus of whom Iustine Martyr the Christian Phylosopher writeth saying Diodorus Siculus whom you account the most famous Historian so divided his Historie as to terme his Relations before the Trojan wars The Narration of Res fabulas matters mixed with fables because hee had no certaine ground how to describe the times Varro a man admired for learning dividing time into three portions the first before the Flood which he calleth Obscure the second from the Flood unto the first Olympiad which hee termeth Fabulous the third after the Olympiads because of a computation of time hee calleth Historicum So great a matter in Historie is Chronologie and yet herein Eusebius Socrates Sozomen Ruffinus are charged to be erroneous very often by Baronius and besides this hee layeth other imputations upon them Eusebius was an advancer of the Arrian Heresie a cunning Juggler in his Historie he doth favour the Arrians he doth omit many things Anno 318. n 79 80. an 324. n. 154. n. 45. n. 144. an 340. n. 40. n. 38. hee doth deale deceitfully hee doth falsly relate the time and place of Constantines baptisme hee is false in the storie of Estathius like a Stage-player being an Hereticke hee acted the part of a Catholick he was called the Ensigne-bearer of the Arrians Socrates dealbat Aethiopem doth but wash a Blackamoore in seeking to cleare him from the Arrian Heresie though hee subscribed to the Nicene Councell yet hee afterwards returned like the Sow to wallow againe in the mire and like the Dogge unto his vomit Hee and Eusebius of Nicomedia like two Coach-horses drawing the chariot of Impietie did run headlong with equall pace and violence to their owne destruction and the destruction of others being driven by a wicked Spirit Thus far Baronius saying moreover That Sixtus Senensis a learned Writer of his owne side may be ashamed that hee reputed him a Catholick Writer Doth not Baronius rave like Hercules furens upon the Stage to deprave a learned painfull Bishop a great Writer and the chiefe Ecclesiasticall Historian of the Primitive Church who is his chiefest Author for those times cited by him in his three first Tomes 700 times at least so well reputed that Ruffinus translated his Historie into Latine Sozomen stileth him A man full of Learning both divine and humane to whom these two together with Socrates and Theoderet did succeed in compiling the Ecclesiasticall storie The last of these Theodoret alleaging a large Epistle of his in defence of the Nicene Creed against Arrius All these and besides them Acasius who succeeded him in his Bishoprick of Caesarea doe cleare him from such imputations and did reverently esteeme of him and shall we thinke that these men who lived in the same Age and within few yeares after Eusebius did not know Eusebius better then Baronius who lived twelve hundred yeares after his time and more then 1200 miles from the place where hee was Bishop where hee lived and died and where those occurrences of the Councell of Nice of Arrius of Athanasius were better knowne then in Rome a Church more remote and of another language then that wherein that Councell was celebrated and those Fathers did write I may not insist much upon the other Ecclesiasticall Writers before named but they are all reputed ignorant false erroneous by Baronius Theodoret Socrates Sozomen Baron an 34. n. 29. and they which followed them erred in the time and fell into other lyes Socrates is accused of him for falshood neere twentie times and most of them in those matters which were of greatest note and wherein hee and Sozomen doe agree concerning the Councell of Nice Athanasius Paphnutius Eusebius and Arrius the Heretick Ruffinus is accused of him for the like falshood in the same matters concerning Arrius Athanasius An. 338. n. 2. as also concerning Saint Hilarie Gregorie Nazianzen and Basil He saith That Ruffinus was an inverter of times that hee was unlearned that hee did mis-interpret the sixth Canon of the Councell of Nice I will adde one example more The renowned Athanasius saith That hee wrote his Creed in his banishment No saith Baronius Non exul sed reus tunc Romae fuit An. 34. n. 13. He was not then in his banishment but called to answer before the Bishop of Rome as his Judge What authoritie what reason doth Baronius produce none at all And you must believe Baronius a Sycophant of the Roman Church before Athanasius that most glorious Confessor Shall wee thinke that hee would lie who was in trouble 40 yeares for the truth or doth Baronius 1200 yeares after without any Author to leade him know better what Athanasius did then Athanasius himselfe I should be thought very impudent if I should say That being here in England I did see of my selfe and know what Baronius did in his studie in Rome better then himselfe There are not more miles betweene England and Rome then are yeares from Athanasius his time to Baronius Linceus the Son of Amphiaraus Valerius Maximus that could see through the walls and that other Sicilian Linceus who could number the ships comming out of the Haven at Carthage himselfe being at Litybed in Sicilie 130 miles off could not see so well as those men Honorius primus the
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
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
worshipping of Images Indulgences c. be buried in oblivion and never mentioned amongst us which we would not doe if they were Articles of our faith for all men ought to be ready to confesse and professe their faith It was truely written by one of your owne Doctor Iames Gordon Hanley of Scotland a Iesuite In Lib. de Traditionibus cap. 6. that the whole Controversie betweene you and us is of the unwritten points of faith which you affirme and we deny as for example you affirme and beleeve Purgatorie I doe not beleeve it will you say now that Purgatory is a part of my faith can that be a part of a mans faith which he doth not beleeve If I doe not beleeve it it is not my faith if it be my faith I doe beleeve it so You beleeve Transubstantiation I doe not beleeve it can this be a point of my faith Your Schoole saith truely that to beleeve is the proper internall inseparable act of faith they goe together they stand or fall together So that I wonder with what face with what braine you can say or thinke that those negations are points of my faith and I say they are not Yet lest you should not take my word I will adde one reason more I say with the learned of both sides that faith is habitus principiorum is that assent we give unto revealed principles And that Negations cannot be principles I prove thus Arist annal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 8. c. 21. Principles depend upon no precedent proofe Negations depend upon precedent proofe Ergo Negations are not Principles Both propositions are Aristotles Now let us see what he next misliketh in my grounds CHAP. XX. Fisher MAster Rogers framed to himselfe false Rules First that faith is Affirmation not Negation Secondly That they which are in the Affirmative must prove and not those who are in the Negative Rogers In my former answer I said thus In points of faith I like Master Fishers Rule That they that are in the Affirmative must prove It was Master Fishers Rule proposed by him admitted by me for these were his words in his first Paper Master Fisher undertooke to defend the negative part so it did belong to his Adversary to prove the affirmative Why now doe you say that Master Rogers doth frame false Rules to himselfe This is Master Fishers Rule framed by him approved by me It was a Rule that your Doctor Cole and others stood upon in the Disputation at Westminster In Historia Concil Tâ—id Per naturam factum negantis probatio nulla 6. q 5. cap. 2. Negationum non sunt causae gl ibidem as Bishop Iuel often layes to his charge Let us adde one more of your men the forenamed Andreas Vega No Proposition was ever false but because another is true neither can the falsitie of the one be knowne but by him who knoweth the truth of the other Therefore the opinion of the Lutherans cannot be condemned of Haeresie untill the opinion of the Church be set downe loco supra citato Let us see what good reason Master Fisher bringeth to overthrow this Rule Fisher By this it seemeth to follow that a man who time out of mind quietly possessed his Land or Religion were bound to prove his right before his upstart Adversarie who denieth him to have right hath given a good reason of his deniall Rogers Even as the Wheele-barrow goes to rumble to rumble so Doctor Eld. W. owes mee two Shillings His similitude and yours held much alike Master Fisher And yet if your similitude were good Symbola non sunt argumentativa Similitudes are no proofes they illustrate and cleare obscurities if they be good and apposite otherwise they doe more hinder the understanding then helpe it Who doth strive with you about the possession of any thing that is controverted betweene us to take it from you Would wee take from you to our selves Or doe we challenge any right title or portion in your unwritten Traditions your invocation of Saints Purgatorie Indulgences and the rest of your new Creed No such matter we disclaime from them we leave them to you wee say they are yours yours in possession yours in proprietie of title take them hold them hugge them in your armes and thinke as well of them as the old Ape did of her yong one when she presented him before the Lion as the goodliest prettiest fairest yongling amongst all the beasts of the field Wee in the meane time smile at your folly and laugh at such bables take them unto you father your owne children they looke as like you as the yong Ape did the old Now let us see what is next Fisher The third false Rule framed by Master Rogers is that what was not a point of Faith in the Primitive Ages cannot after be a point of Faith Rogers This Rule was not framed by mee but it was the Rule of Vincentius Lirinensis and so alleaged by mee in my Answer confirmed also by their great Schoolman Aquinas and something then cited out of both thus Religion or points of Faith are without addition as Lirinensis saith Imitetur animarum Religio rationem corporum quae quot parvulorum membra tot virorum c. And as Aquinas saith The Articles of Faith doe grow quoad 1. Explicationem non 2. Substantiam That which was no point of Faith for the first 1200 yeares could be none afterwards ut supra Vinc. Lirin Aquin. But Transubstantiation was no point of Faith before the yeare 1200. Scotus Ergo Transubstantiation is no point of Faith To all this contained in my former Answer is no Reply made the Authoritie and saying of Lirinensis Aquinas Scotus together with my Argument are past over with silence but supplied with two or three falshoods 1 by saying that I framed that Rule which was framed 1200 yeares at least before I was borne 2 By calling that a false Rule which was received without controll no learned man having the face to denie it till the lame Laiola furnished the world with audacious Jesuits for never was there a new Creed made before the Councell of Trent But let us see what reason hee hath to denie this Rule His words are these Fisher As if there were not some points which were at first not held necessarie to be believed by orthodox Fathers which afterward by examination and definition of the Church in Generall Councels were made so necessarie to be believed as that whosoever did not believe were accounted not Orthodox but Haereticks Rogers A Boy that wanted a couple of Verses to make up his full number desired one of his fellowes to helpe at a pinch no matter whether it were to the Theme no matter whether they were good or no so they fill'd up the Paper made up the number I care not saith he though they be all botches for I hope they will never be read One of his fellowes to helpe him at his need made this
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