Verse Semper quotidiè sic jam nunc atque profectò To which another added Aedepol ecce quidem scilicet indè procul My Adversarie at the first made a short weake Answer to what I had written such as gave no satisfaction to his owne side for so Master Waterhouse who brought mee that Answer told mee Being afterwards called upon to make a more full and more satisfactorie Answer either by himselfe or some other of his fellowes made up this not so full as he should for hee passeth by more then halfe my grounds and Arguments with silence And that which hee hath answered is botched up with impertinencies and fallacies a great manie of those botches I have shewed before as Who doth not see I doe not see Master Rogers may grant If Master Rogers doe grant I see no reason why he should not grant c. And here to my grounds by which it seemeth hee would not To my first ground by which it seemeth to follow To my second ground as if there were not some points c. To my third ground and to the fourth As if an Anabaptist may judge it will be held so to be And to my fifth Hee may be yet further allowed to reject c. Here is neither granting nor denying nor distinguishing nor arguing but all is Seeming and As if it were all concurring to make his learning Sophistrie and himselfe a Sophister Arist in Elench 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sophistrie is seeming wisdome and a Sophister is hee that seeketh for gaine by seeming wisdome whereas there is no such matter and where hee seemeth to argue it is but the contentious discourse of a Sophister 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consisting of nothing but seeming probabilities as I have shewed in all instances which I have met with yet and so will in this My third ground was That what was no point of Faith in the Primitive Ages could be none afterwards ut suprà Vincentius Lirinensis Aquinas What saith hee to this doth hee grant it doth he distinguish doth he denie it No grant no distinction no direct deniall for that hee dares not least hee should denie that ancient Father and his great Schoolman yet hee saith something against it or rather maketh as if hee would Hee saith that some points were defined by Councels and so made necessary to be believed which before were not held necessary even by orthodox Fathers Ergo The Church may make new points or Articles of Faith His Argument and his Antecedent be both false his Antecedent is ambiguous for to believe may signifie an act either of humane Faith or religious divine Faith If hee understand believe in the first sense I grant his Antecedent viz. That wee are to give great credit unto the Decrees and Definitions of Generall Councels but yet inferior to that credit wee give unto the Word of God because he is Truth it selfe who cannot erre and they are man who may erre And therefore to take this viz That the Definitions of Councels are Articles of Faith thence to prove that wee have new Articles of Faith besides those of the Primitive Church is Petitio principii a begging of that for granted which he knowes wee denie Artic. 21. it is the Doctrine of our Church that Generall Councels may erre and that the Church ought not to inforce any thing to be believed for necessitie of salvation Whereas you say Artic. 20. the Decrees of Councels are held necessarie there is a two-fold necessitie of different degrees 1. Necessitas medii 2. Necessitas praecepti This later may belong to the Decrees of Councels not the former Here you might have remembred my distinction of 1. Doctrines of Faith 2. Doctrines of the Church 3. Doctrines of the Schoole Definitions of Councels are Church Doctrines not Doctrines of Faith and therefore have an inferiour necessitie without the knowledge whereof a man may be saved and thousands were saved before those Councels were heard of but no man can be saved without the Doctrines of Faith knowne and professed by himselfe if hee be in yeares of discretion or by his Parents and Sureties if hee be a child Whereas you say that those that refuse the Decrees of Councels are accounted Haereticks and take this for granted that so you might inferre an addition to Articles of Faith is the like begging of a Medium as the former you know wee doe not so define an Haereticke Iuel in his view of a seditious Bull. for with us hee is an Haereticke who denieth the Articles of the Christian Faith and so hee is defined by the most learned of your side holding that Haeresie doth directly and principally dissent from the Articles of Faith So Aquinas That Haeresie is opposite to Faith So Widrington a Priest of your owne Praefat. ante respond Apol. pro jure Princ. But with you and your Pope all things are Haeresies which you like not as Paul the second did pronounce them Haereticks Platina in vita Pauli ◠who should from that time forward in earnest or in jest mention the name of Academic did I thinke this Decree of your Pope were of force being an Oxford man I should be very sory for my selfe and others who in our oracles doe stile our Auditors by no name more frequently then Academici If you had ever thought your Answer should have beene read you would never have written upon the top of your Leaves Master Rogers his most weake grounds where there is no mention made of his grounds and Most weake Arguments where you make no answer at all to my Arguments and give no instance to those Arguments which cannot be answered without instances nor passed by many Arguments and grounds without any mention of them and those you mention to passe them over with It seemeth to the first Seemeth to the second As if to the third As if to the fourth Hee may be yet further allowed to the fift whereof I am next to speake Fisher And fourthly that the Anabaptist Faith is that which is contained in Scripture and the ancient Creeds and the Anabaptists Church is a societie of men which professeth the Faith contained in Scripture and the ancient Creeds as if an Anabaptist may be judge it will be held so to be Rogers I will grant that the Anabaptist is a member of the visible Church Ecclesia verae quamvis non sanae and that Church to have beene alwaies in Ages whereof hee is a member yea Membrum verum quamvis non sanum a true member though a diseased as a goutie foot of a man that is otherwise in health and sixtie or seventie yeares old is a true member though not a sound member of that body which in all other parts is sound and this foot thus gouty though it became gouty but within a few daies before may truly say that that body whereof it is a member hath beene 10 20 30 40 70 yeares the very same body which now
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
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
hee were a man or not and whether hee could shew mee the names of his Ancestors in all ages untill Adam would you give me one answer unto both if affirmative then you had a great taske and such as I think you neither can performe nor would undertake if negative were your answer to both then you are no man You would think it unreasonable that I should tye you thus to prove your selfe a man Thinke it as unreasonable that you should tye me thus to shew my selfe a Christian especially considering this kind of proofe is but weake uncertaine full of exceptions and at the most but humane Cui potest subesse falsum the testimonies of men qui falli possunt fallere who may deceive and be deceived You would thinke it reasonable that if you were to prove your selfe a man a humane creature or that you are descended from Adam I should leave the maner of proofe to your self you would go to work a shorter way more effectually thus Every living creature consisting of a reasonable soule and humane bodie is a man I am a living creature consisting of such a soule and such a bodie Ergo I am a man This would give me satisfaction I would not reject it and bid you shew the names of your Ancestors out of Histories in all ages or you are no man You would have me prove my selfe a Christian give me leave to chuse and frame mine owne Argument thus Whosoever doth professe that faith which is and ever hath bin required of those who by Baptisme are made Christians is therein baptized doth therin continue is a Christian But I was baptized in that faith and doe therein continue and professe the same Ergo I am a Christian. Will you now M. Fisher say unto mee Not so but you must shew me a Catalogue of those who held your faith in all ages or you are no Christian you have no Church Is this your charitie M. Fisher will you not grant me as a Christian what I grant you as a man Bellarmine Baronius Valenza Aquinas and ascending higher Ruffinus Cyrillus Tertullian Irenaeus tell mee you can require no more for an explicit faith such as profession requires at my hands then this which all children in our Churches are taught to beleeve to know and to professe adding this implicit faith that they besides the Articles of the Apostles Creed are prepared to entertaine will believe all things revealed in the word of God I will begin with Valenza who saith Tom. 3. disp 1. c. 1. p. 5. Nota inter omnes orthodoxos convenire articulos fidei Catholicis credendos esse illos qui Apostolorum Symbolo continentur Note that it is agreed amongst all those who are right beleevers that the Articles of faith which Catholiques ought to beleeve are those which are contained in the Apostles Creed If there were any other Articles he should not have said these were the Articles but some of the Articles Againe the same Valenza saith Now in the time of grace there is a command said upon all that of necessitie they must explicitè credere i. actually know and immediatly beleeve those Articles of faith which are contained in the Apostles Creed Et sic decent communitèr Theologi D. Thomas This is the common doctrine of Divines and so saith Aquinas But other truths of faith which besides those Articles of the Creed are contained either in the holy Scriptures or in the definitions of the Church Non necessarium est necessitate medij an t praecepti explicitè credi à vulgaribus fidelibus They are not necessarily to be beleeved by common Christians either as a meanes without which men cannot be saved or by a necessitie imposed or commanded Wherein observe how the Iesuit addeth and paralelleth Definitions of the Church to the Scripture whereas Aquinas cited by him saith thus Dicendum est ergò quod fidei objectum per se Q 2. Art 5. est id per quod homo beatus efficitur ut supra dictum est Per accidens autem aut secundariò se habent ad objectum virtutis omnia quae in sacra Scriptura divinitùs tradita continentur sicut quod Abraham habuit duos filios quod David fuit filius Isai alia hujusmodi Quantum ergo ad prima credibilia quae sunt articuli fidei tenetur homo explicitè credere sicut tenetur habere fidem Quantum autem ad alia credibilia non tenetur homo explicitè credere sed solum implicitè vel in preparatione animi in quantum paratus est credere quicquid divina Scriptura continet sed tunc solum hujusmoditenetur explicitè credere Q. 1. Art 8 quando hoc ei constiterit in doctrina Fidei contineri Wee must therefore conclude that the proper object of Faith is that by which a man is made happy as we have said before But accidentally and secondarily all those things belong unto the object of that vertue which are delivered from God and contained in Scripture as for example that Abraham had two Sonnes and that David was the Sonne of Ishai and such like Therefore as farre as concernes those prime objects of mans beliefe which are the Articles of Faith a man must beleeve the same expresly as hee must have Faith But as for other objects of Faith a man is not bound to believe them expresly but onely implicitely or in a preparation of minde to belieue whatsoever is contained in the holy Scripture but then he is bound to belieue those things expressely when it shall plainely appeare unto him that they are contained in the doctrine of Faith Thus farre that Schooleman To the same effect Carbo the best Epitomizer that I haue seen who in his smaller Booke hath all the marrow of Aquinas his Summes The next shall be Baronius Hoc ipsum Symbolum Catholica Ecclesia semper adeo est venerata ut in sanctis Conciliis Oecumenicis Baron 44. n. 18. quasi basis quaedam fundamentum structurae Ecclesiasticae consueverit imprimis recitari The Catholique Church did alwaies so farre reverence this Creede that it was a Custome to repeate the same in holy Generall Councels as a ground-worke and foundation of all Ecclesiasticall buildings saying moreover concerning the Romane Church that it had preserved the same Apostles Creed sincerè illibatè without any addition or diminution as Ruffinus hath testified in these words In divers Churches some things haue beene added but in the Church of Rome Adjectionem unius saltem sermonis non admittit auditus Their eares abhorre to heare the addition of one sentence Bellarm. Tom. 4. lib. 1. de Iustificatione cap. 9. I am verò quod vetus Ecclesia senserit ac tradiderit de fide ad justificationem salutem necessaria quid ea videlicet sit quod objectum habeat non potest clarius intelligi quam Symbolo fidei quod Catechumenis initio traditur ut
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
vel per se vel er accidens Are neither essentially nor accidentally the object of faith That which you alleadge out of Athanasius I willingly embrace I receive his Creed I have often professed it in publicke but what is that to your new Creed I finde in Athanasius his Creed neither Purgatory nor Indulgence nor Transubstantiation nor Invocation of Saints nor seven Sacraments nor worshipping of Images Wheras you say I must hold it in the uncorrupted sense of the Catholike Church I doe imbrace it but I will not understand the Church of Rome or the Pope for the Catholike Church as you doe The Catholike Church never received your Purgatory your halfe Communion your worshipping of Images as I have shewed already I will obstinately maintaine nothing contrary to the known judgement of a lawfull Generall Councell but your Councels of Trent and Lateran are no such they are but fopperies and the jugling tricks of the Popish faction to cozen the world Whatsoever we deny when you prove it out of Scripture we will beleeve it here is no obstinacie Whatsoever is determined by Councels we will receive fide humana but not divina as the saying of Reverend men but not as the Oracles of God So also we approve the unanimous consent of the Fathers in receiving all revealed truth we are farre from Heresie in submitting to the Catholike Church and Decrees of Councels we clear our selves from being Schismatikes in following the unanimous consent of the Fathers we shew our selves to be no Innovators but you by worshipping of Images shew what respect you have to Scripture by your new Creed you shew what reverence you have to Generall Councels seeing the Councell of Calcedon decreed having repeated that which is commonly called the Nicene Creed Isidor fol. 83 and urged by the Grecians in the Councell of Florence Surius Tom. 4. Ses 5. Ferrariae habita Lib. 7. c. 1. de loc The. pag. 422 423. De rebus Muscovitarum pag. 38. In apara Sacr. in Diamperi Conc. that no man should write or say other Creed and whosoever did if Bishops and Clergie-men let them bee deposed if Monkes and Lay men let them be accursed What regard you have to the unanimous consent of the Fathers appeareth by your Doctrine that the Virgin Mary was conceived without originall sinne contrary to Chrysostome Ambrose Augustine Bernard and all the holy men that made mention of that point as your owne Canus confesseth and so you are Innovators Schismaticks and Heretikes despised and excommunicated by all other Christian Churches in the World By the Graecians as appeareth by Posevine your owne Jesuite by the Indians as is acknowledged by the same Author by the Coftie of Aegypt and consequently by all the rest of the Iacobites the Aethiopians and others acknowledging all subjection unto the Patriarch of Alexandria so that upon you alone that curse is fallen Nec amet quenquam nec ametur ab vllo You hate you condemne all Churches of the World and they condemne you you account them for Schismaticks and Hereticks and they you for Schismaticks Hereticks and Idolaters your worshipping of Images hinder the conversion of the Iewes and Turkes who for this cause esteeme you for subtill Atheists and heathenish Idolaters falling downe to a blocke and worshipping the worke of mens hands We worship God Fisher Whereas therefore it is certaine that Protestants hold divers Negative Doctrines not onely not found in but contrary to Scriptures Councels and Fathers and other Orthodox Authors in all Ages It evidently followeth that Master Rogers hath not yet named nor can name nor hath proved nor can prove or defend any of those he named or undertaketh to name to have beene visible Protestants in all Ages before Luther and consequently he cannot be said to have made any good answer either to Master Fishers Question or to his five Propositions or to his other Paper written to explicate the sense of the said Question Rogers What you say certainely is most false that Protestants hold divers Negative Doctrines contrary to Scriptures Councels and Fathers if you understand Generall Councels and unanimous consent of Fathers We hold many Doctrines not expresly set downe in Scriptures but none contrary to Scriptures neither doe we count any thing matter of faith but what is expresly contained in Scriptures Whereas you say that I have not yet named nor proved Authors of the Protestants faith in all Ages the present discourse will shew to be false which I referre to the Reader Deo gloria in aeternum FINIS