proofe by Histories cannot be effectuall and satisfactorie 1. For the uncertainty of humane Stories 2. Because of their Index expurgatorius 3. Because they have forged many authorities of Councels and Fathers 4. Because they have excepted against all the Ecclesiasticall Historians of the Primitive Church as falsaries 91 CHAP. XIIII Master Fishers Answer to Master Rogers Arguments and Grounds 100 CHAP. XV. The Protestants Faith contained in Scripture The Articles of their faith in the Apostles Creed Master Rogers Arguments maintained against Master Fishers first Answer by denying the minor 103 CHAP. XVI Master Fishers second Answer by changing Protestant into Catholike refuted retorted a bold manifest falshood of Master Fishers Master Fisher but halfe a Papist 109 CHAP. XVII The Romanists can bring no Authors for 400 yeares for their halfe Communion Worshipping of Images c. nor for any else in some Ages for want of Wtiters in times of ignorance No Councell no good Writers no good Pope Saculo 9. In which 9 Age nothing was visible in the Roman Church but vile and lewd Popes or Intruders proved at large out of Baronius 114 CHAP. XVIII A threefold Catalogue 1. Of Latin 2. Of Greeke Authors 3. Of Councels who professed our faith maintain'd our sacraments but not the faith and sacraments of the Roman Church 119 CHAP. XIX The distinctions of Doctrines Accessory and Fundamentall of Affirmation and Negation 142 CHAP. XX. The same distinction maintained Iohn Ellis his comparison The Ape with his youngling The boy with his bodging Verses Decrees of Councels not Articles of faith What makes an Hereticke The Anabaptist as he is supposed by Master Fisher a member of the Church but membrum non sanum 148 CHAP. XXI Of Doctrine fundamentall The Roman Church the most corrupted part of the Church 155 CHAP. XXII Of Baptizing of children The errour of the Anabaptist in practise not in point of faith 159 CHAP. XXIII The Papists affirme all our faith but differ in Ecclesiasticall Doctrines which they terme points of faith in which they want Antiquity Vniversality and Consent 164 CHAP. XXIIII The same grounds of doctrines accessory and fundamentall of affirmation and negation maintained 2. Negatives in Scripture pertaine to faith per accidens not per se All things revealed in Scripture have equall truth but not equall profit equall necessitie of being beleeved being knowne but not equall necessity to be knowne Negatives not revealed in Scripture are res fidei neither per se nor per accidens The Church of Rome most hating and most hated by all Churches in the world as Innovators Schismaticks and Hereticks The Conclusion of the whole Booke 171 Recensui hunc librum cujus titulus est The Protestant Church existent c. in quo nihil reperio bonis moribus aut sanae Doctrinae contrarium quo minus imprimatur modo id fiat intra annum proximè sequentem Secus ista licentia effectu carebit Johannes Oliver Reverendiss in Christo Patr. Dom. Domino Arch. Cant. Capell Dom. Ex Aedi Lamb. Apr. 15. 1637. THE PROTESTANT CHVRCH EXISTENT CHAP. I. Master Fisher observeth neither Art nor Order in answering Master Rogers MAster Fisher or whosoever you are that undertake for him if you would have done by me as I did by Master Fisher namely have set downe all my grounds and answered to them in particular as I did to Master Fishers Propositions it might have given the Reader better satisfaction who thereby might see whether we doe agree in any thing that I have written or dissent in all whether you reject all those grounds which I laid or admit of some as I did by your Propositions approving some rejecting others In solutione argumentorum duae tātum solutiones distinguendo vel tollendo Ego autem hic de Propositionibus loquor and in those you reject if you would have answered to them in their place punctually and not go roving so to puzzle the Reader with disorder I tooke those Propositions that were offered to me as they lay I answered to every period vel concedendo aut distinguendo aut negando either granting distinguishing or denying and where I found any ambiguity in your termes or sentences I desired you to explicate and cleere the same which you have not done yet you know that no disputation may be undertaken no Argument framed no Treatise composed without this no not so much as one bare Proposition or Sentence may subsist with aequivocation and amphibologie words or sentences of double signification and doubtfull sense untill they be cleared by explications and distinctions This you know to be the advice and practise of the Philosophers and Divines which have written But such are your termes Propositions as that they seeme to be made of purpose in ambiguous words or contexture so to leave open some starting hole or evasion and answering your Adversary out of order to draw a curtaine before the understanding not onely of the Reader but also of your Adversary Aristot Elench 2. We are ignorant of what wee formerly knew when it is misplaced and disordered and your selfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus have I beene served by others besides you Is not this catching at a word here and passing by a whole side of a leafe elsewhere without saying one word to it afterward leape backe a leafe or two and snarle at an Argument or snap at a distinction and so away Is not this I say like the Dog drinking of Nilus lap a little and runne away lap againe and runne away This was applyed by one to Antony flying after Cleopatra from the Battell at Actium who being asked Quid agit Antonius Answered Quod canis ad Nilum lambit fugit so much was hee besotted with that Harlot Thus you the Champion of that Purple Harlot that sitteth upon the seven hils fight her quarrels a snatch and away a snap and be gone or if you make a short stand you will but shew your teeth grin snarle but hardly bite That I may draw you from this course of disorder I will put downe what Master Fisher proposed vvhat I answered and then vvhat this Author replied or vvhere hee did not reply CHAP. II. The occasion and time when this Author Master Rogers was first interessed in this matter ATt that time when our now Soveraigne was in Spaine a Gentleman delivered me those Propositions following in the presence of divers I being then in London 100. miles from my dwelling and my Bookes That night I delivered this answer following after Master Fishers Propositions The Gent was then almost become Romanist having beene not many dayes before at Masse in the Spanish Embassadors house and Master Fisher coming to this Gent Chamber left those Propositions with him The like verbatìm the Right Honourable Earle of O. did shew me saying that it vvas all written with Master Fishers owne hand The Propositions are these Fisher IT being granted that there must bee a Visible Church in
of Scriptures and Fathers even by confession of learned Protestants themselves I will prove it yet first let me tell you that here you deliver a most grosse untruth if by Catholick you meane Roman to say that divers learned Protestants doe confesse that your Roman doctrine may be and is ordinarily proved by plaine testimonies of Scriptures and Fathers This I say is a most manifest and grosse untruth seeing no learned Writers of our side doe say so much Why doth Bellarmine make Scripture a part of the Rule not the whole Rule but to bring in unwritten Traditions writing a whole Booke de verbo Dei non scripto of the unwritten Word of God And Valenza in his fourth Tome upon Thomas Aquinas is very full in seeking to prove the same in his first disputation de objecto fidei delivering these Propositions viz. That the authoritie to judge in matters of Faith is not contained onely in Scripture Disputatione prima puncto septimo quaestione tertia Sect. 4. And againe Sect. 5. The Scripture alone is not the Judge of Faith As also Sect. 6 7 8 9 10 11. As also in the eight question Sect. 44. in his Tract de Traditionibus Apostolicis Neither doe I remember that ever I read any of your late Writers but hold as these men did so that in the opinion of these men you must be but halfe a Papist because you receive but halfe that Rule of Faith which the Church of Rome receiveth for not to trouble the Reader with the opinions of private men it is the first Doctrine the first Decree of your Councell of Trent the puritie of the Gospell Fontem omnis salutaris veritatis Sess 4. morum disciplinae contineri in libris scriptis sine scripto Traditionibus The fountaine of all saving Truth and the guide of life is contained in the written Bookes and unwritten Traditions Have you any other Faith then the Councell of Trent This is to be a Protestant in the maine point in that which is the Rule of all other points of Faith and life necessary for all men to know Is this your easie answering Master Fisher to grant your Adversarie that which hee most desireth to dissent from your Councell of Trent would you but adde this to what you have written which followes necessarily I will not subscribe to Bellarmine I will not be led by Valenza herein I will leave the Councell of Trent I will hold no Doctrine which is not proved by plaine testimonie of Scripture without flying unto unwritten Traditions I would rejoyce to see you a Protestant in the maine ground-worke and Principle of all our Religion hoping that if you continue in this mind you will shortly agree in the rest Now let us see how the second Argument may be retorted against the Protestants by onely changing the word Protestant into Catholicke 2. Arg. A Signis The Faith which hath testimonies of Antiquitie Vniversalitie and consent of Fathers and other Writers in all Ages had visible Professors in all Ages But the Faith of Catholickes had these testimonies Ergo The Faith of Catholickes had visible Professors in all Ages What one word is here against Protestants wee grant both the Premises and Conclusion so doe not you For they be your owne words within a few lines viz. That some points were at first not held necessarie to be believed even by Orthodox Fathers which after by examination and definition of the Church in Generall Councels were made so necessarie to be believed as that whosoever did not believe them were accounted not Orthodox but Haereticks These are your owne words from whence it doth follow that many necessarie points were denied in precedent Ages by Orthodox Fathers and thence it must follow againe that they wanted the testimonie of all Ages being denied in some Ages by the Orthodox Fathers Such testimonies the Articles of your Roman Faith may have yet Orthodox Fathers denie them and therefore to frame the Arguments againe not according to your words which I have done already by changing Protestant into Catholicke but into Roman for that I thinke you understand by Catholicke Let it be thus The Faith contained in the Scriptures had visible Professors in all Ages But the Roman Faith is contained in the Scriptures Ergo The Roman Faith had visible Professors in all Ages Would to God your Minor were true I would be glad to meet with you in the Conclusion But I have already shewed out of your owne Writers and Councell of Trent that you hold the contrary and your new Creed being examined by Scripture will finde more contradiction there then proofe unwritten traditions equalled to the word of God Seven Sacraments improperly so called halfe Communion Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints worshipping of Images have neither testimony of Scriptures nor Fathers this you know well enough and therefore you could passe over a great deale of my Reply without any mention of what I had replied My words were these Having gone thus farre at this time I undertake for the rest and doe require the like from the Romanists viz. That they would shew me the names of such as taught the now faith of the Church of Rome in all ages and let them set me downe the names as I have done And for instances in points of Roman faith in all ages I require these men to shew me the names of those who in the first second third Centurie of yeares did preach or professe unwritten Traditions to be the rule of faith Secondly that the vulgar Latine translation is authenticall Thirdly that there are seven Sacraments improperly so called and no more Fourthly that the bookes of Machabees are Canonicall Fiftly Transubstantiation Sixtly Invocation of Saints Seventhly worshipping of Images c. This rule of shewing the names of such as professed the faith in all ages is proposed by them which though it be no necessary consequence of faith yet it bindeth them that propose it to make it good in particular Out of their owne Position thus I argue First Argument That is a true Church whose faith hath had visible professors in all ages whose names may be shewed out of good Authors to be such The Romish faith had not such visible professors in all ages Ergo The Roman is not a true Church Second Argument The true faith hath the testimonies of Vniversalitie Antiquitie and Consent But the Romish faith as farre as they differ from the Protestants faith which they doe in all the points above alledged hath not testimonies of Vniversalitie Antiquitie and Consent Ergo The Romish faith in those points wherein they differ from the Protestants faith is not a true faith Let the Romanists answer these two Arguments in those particular points above written and I will be of their Church Thus much in my former answer to which you have made no replie at all you have neither given any instance which point of my faith is not contained in Scriptures or wanteth
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
will grant him to be yours but of those Monkes and these I may say O quantum hic monachus monacho distabat ab illo How much doth your Parsons and other Monkes differ from Beda and those more ancient Friers or Monkes or religious Orders call them as you please Fisher The like may be said of divers others but at this time it may suffice to give this one example to shew that Mr. Rogers naming all those he named spake without Booke or without having at hand or looking into his bookes and that he might as well have named the Pope and Cardinalls and Bishops Priests Monkes and all other religious persons of the present Roman Church to be Protestants as he nameth the said ancient Fathers Rogers And so I will when I come to my Catalogue name Popes Cardinalls Bishops c. for confirmation of my faith whether it be for my Creed which are more principall and proper points or articles of faith or for all those bookes of Scripture which I beleeve or things therein revealed from God Because the testimony of an adversarie for an adversary is most strong and will take away your personall exceptions Thus Paul did cite a Heathen to perswade Heathens yea the inscription of an Altar dedicated to the unknowne God found amongst Heathen Idolls Thus the Fathers Augustine and others in the Primitive Church did cite the Iewes for confirmation of their doctrine and that they did not misaleadge the Prophets and writers of the old Testament Iudaei inimici nostri sunt de chartis inimici convincatur adsarius The Iewes are our enemies out of the bookes of our enemies wee convince our adversaries Augustine upon the 40th Psalme and often in other places Master Fisher or his Second would have exclaimed hereat saying what meanest thou Augustine wilt thou perswade mee that the Iewes are Christians if not why citest thou their bookes nay what meanest thou Paul to cite the Greeke Poets wouldst thou perswade me that they are Christians as if it must follow that they whose testimonie we cite in some things must be our friends in all All the faith of the Protestants is confirmed by the Papists all their explicite all their implicite faith all that belongs to our faith vel per se vel per accidens essentially or accidentally primarie or secundarily as an Article of faith or as an illustration of the same expressed in Scripture and yet the Protestants are no Papists the Papists are no Protestants because the Papists have a new Creed which Protestants deny and I call God to witnesse that I desire to die a thousand deaths rather then to approve it because I assure me it is false in all and in some things blasphemous The Papists have such exercise of Religion worshipping of Images praying to Saints which I abhorre as being Idolatry In discipline also they have such tenents of absolute supreme power over Bishops Kings Lawes oathes as is full of pride sedition usurpation and impiety Now here we differ here I am in the negative and so it doth belong to you to prove the affirmative It is a just law and your owne Master Fisher for these I need not produce testimony seeing I doe not avow maintaine beleeve any such Creed any such practise of Religion any such discipline But for my faith either explicite or implicite all that is revealed by God in his word I may bring my Adversaries to depose for me Paul said unto Agrippa a Iew no Christian Iuvenalis yea a wicked incestuous King if Roman Authors wrong him not incestae dedit hoc Agrippa sorori Yet to this bad man this unconverted Iew Paul saith O King Agrippa beleevest thou the Prophets I know thou beleevest them And may not I say Master Fisher beleeve you the Apostles Creed I know you doe beleeve it I have no other Articles of faith no other primarie propositions of faith againe for the totall object for the secondary propositions of faith contained in Scripture may not I aske you and say Master Fisher doe you beleeve the Bookes of Moses the Psalmes the Prophets and all those Bookes of the Iewish Canon as also all the new Testament I know you doe Master Fisher why then herein is my faith limitted whatsoever doctrine is plainely hence inferred or out of principles of nature I receive as doctrines or truths convincing my understanding but they are no part of my faith After these all doctrines and lawes Ecclesiasticall or civill in the Church or State wherein I live not contradicting the word of God or my conscience I receive with humility May I aske you Master Fisher againe whether the Apostles Creed and those bookes of old and new Testament received by our Church of England had not professors in all ages nay were not professed and beleeved of the Popes and Cardinalls of all ages I know you will not deny but they were so professed why then may not I vouch these Popes and Cardinalls for my selfe as I intend to doe when I come to my Catalogue CHAP. VII Fisher ANd I marvaile why having gone halfe the way as hee saith hee maketh a stop there and doth not with the like audacity goe on in naming other famous Roman Catholikes in every of the other ages Rogers Because Master Fisher offered in like proportion to name and defend Professors of Roman religion holding nothing contrary to the Doctrine defined in the Councell of Trent these were your words in the first Paper I received of yours I have gone halfe my journey you not a step in proportion you should have gone as farre as I did especially seeing you would have no other meanes of triall whereas I have and hold other and better meanes to prove my Faith and my Church yet to satisfie others to stop your mouth and to meet you at your owne weapon I undertooke this as a probable forreine humane uncertaine Argument yet such as maketh more for us then for you Fisher Namely such as Gualterus in Latine and the Author of the Appendix to the Antidote in English have set downe for members in the Roman Church Rogers If they have done it sufficiently and effectually it had beene the lesse labour for you Mr. Fisher to have transcribed them but wee may guesse what makes you neither take a Catalogue out of them nor make one of your owne after your example I might transmit you to Illiricus his Catalogus testium veritatis or The mysterie of Babylon vvritten by Sir Phillip Morney the learned Lord of Plessis who have performed this for the reformed Churches farre better then yours have done for your Church Yet when I come to the place where you have cited my Catalogue I will make it out but let mee aske you vvhy instead of naming such as professed the Romane Religion holding nothing contrary to the Doctrine defined in the Councell of Trent now you put members of the Romane Church as if it were the same a member of the
if there cannot as there cannot be found in Histories names of Protestant Preachers who in all ages did teach all sorts of faithfull people and who converted severall Nations unto the Christian faith Hence followeth I say that Protestants are not the true visible Church of Christ neither are their Preachers lawfully sent or sufficiently authorised to teach nor people securely warranted to learne of them that one infallible faith without which none can please God nor if they so live and die be saved Rogers Here say you is a true Copy of Master Fishers five Propositions as if my Copy were not true My Answer was printed without my knowledge yet the Propositions of Mr. Fisher printed are agreeing unto these Copies which I received and there is nothing more in this your second Edition then was in those alleadged by me saving these few words in Histories as the names of those are found which make no sentence nor fill up one poore little line and if they strengthen your cause any thing the more let them come in and doe you urge them Rogers in his 1. Answer The 3. first Propositions I admit 1. That there is one faith 2. That the ordinary propagation of this faith is by Pastors lawfully called 3. That there have beene and must be in all ages such Pastors so called 4. I would gladly know what they meane by those words if the Protestants be the true visible Church whether so as if we alone who are called Protestants were of the Church and no others we have such enclosing of Commons to the Romanists we chalenge it not wee are a true Church not the true Church we are a part not the whole wee include our selves we exclude not others whether Graecians Armenians Aethiopians Spaniards or Italians c. So they deny no fundamentall parts of the faith either directly or by consequence An examination of Master Rogers answer to the five Propositions aforesaid I find first that he granted the first three without any exception which I desire may bee diligently noted and well pondered for out of these three grounds to wit First that there is one and but one Faith necessary to salvation And secondly that this faith according to the ordinary course of Gods providence cannot be had otherwise then by hearing the preaching or teaching of lawfully sent Pastors And thirdly that this faith hath beene in all ages past as appeareth by Histories taught by Pastors of the true visible Church who onely are lawfully sent Out of these 3. grounds I say evidently followeth that which is Master Fishers fourth Proposition to wit If Protestant faith bee the true faith and their Church the true Church or as Master Rogers had rather say A true Church of Christ then their Protestant faith differing from the Roman faith hath beene taught in all ages by lawfully sent visible Protestant Pastors whose names may be found in Histories as names of others are found who did teach the true faith of Christ in all ages This to follow out of the aforesaid three grounds is as I said most evident Nego it is false neither doth Master Rogers make any bones to grant save onely that it may be hee will make a bogge at the word Histories as not finding it in his Copie nor thinking it perhaps necessary that the names of Protestant Pastors who taught the Protestant faith in all ages past be found in Histories but understanding the word Histories as Master Fisher understood it to wit for some or other kind of Record or Monument as Doct. White also understood it when he said Things past cannot be shewed but by Histories I doe not see why Mr. Rogers may not absolutely graunt the fourth Proposition even as it was set downe by Master Fisher himselfe for if any visible Protestant Pastors were in all ages teaching especially any such Protestant doctrines as now are taught they would have beene named and spoken of Rogers all or some and written of aswell as others are who have in all ages past taught all sorts of true and false doctrines in regard there cannot be assigned any reason either of the part of Gods providence or humane diligence why the name of others even false teachers in all ages should be set downe and preserved in Histories yet extant rather then the names of such as Protestants deeme to be the onely true Teachers of pure doctrine for doubtlesse both God who is zealous of his honour and carefull to honour and preserve the memory of them that would honour him would for his honours sake have procured honourable memory of such as did by teaching truth honour him and men carefull of their soules health which they cannot attaine according to the ordinary course but by hearing such Pastors onely who have lawfull succession from Christs Apostles have reason diligently to looke that memory be preserved of such Pastors and of pure divine truth taught by them then of others who taught any other false and not pure doctrine Certaine therefore it is that the names or some thing equivalent to names and the doctrines of true Pastors who did in all ages past teach true divine doctrine may be found in Histories as well as the names and doctrines of others are found who did teach any other doctrine And therefore if Protestants have had any Pastors teaching true doctrines in all ages doubtlesse their names would be extant in Histories yet extant which being presupposed and granted as Master Rogers seemeth to grant by granting Master Fishers 4th Proposition I doe not see how Master Rogers can denie Master Fishers first Proposition for it being supposed that the Protestant Preachers were their names would be found in Histories as Master Fishers fourth Proposition granteth by Master Rogers supposed it may bee well inferred that if no such mens names be found in Histories then no such men were in all ages nor consequently are Protestants the true Church of Christ for it hath had such in all ages I doe not therefore see I say how Mr. Rogers can deny Mr. Fisher his first Proposition supposing he grant as he granteth his fourth Proposition for although absolutely speaking an Argument drawne from negative authority be as Master Rogers averreth of it selfe of no force and so Protestants Arguments which are usually made against us out of negative authority Rogers Here Master Fisher I must request you and the Reader whosoever he be to looke backe upon the title of the two last pages which is Master Rogers his most weake grounds then reade diligently all that is there written and see if there bee any mention any one sentence any one word of any of my grounds All that is here spoken is in defence of Master Fishers owne grounds viz. of his 4. and 5th Proposition which in that sense that you enforc'd them are most weake and more weakly maintained and therefore the title should have beene thus Master Fisher his most weake grounds That they are most weake
Ergo I dâ—â—ie your Argument and as well I might say Some men have no Noses Master Fisher is some man Ergo As you inferre any conclusion out of your particular Antecedent Fisher In regard there cannot be assigned any reason either of the part of Gods providence or humane diligence why the names of others even false Teachers in all Ages should be set downe and preserved in Histories yet extant rather then the names of such as Protestants deeme to be the onely true Teachers of pure Doctrine Rogers Yet you are in your indefinite saying others even false Teachers you will neither adde all nor some to make it universall thus The providence of God and diligence of man hath preserved the names of all false Teachers in Histories For then the falshood would be cleare neither have you made it particular thus The providence of God and diligence of men have preserved the names of some false Teachers Ergo of Protestant Teachers for then it would appeare that this were a Non sequitur that particulars can inferre no conclusion Fisher For doubtlesse both God who is zealous of his honour and carefull to honour and preserve the memorie of them that would honour him would for his honour sake have procured honourable memorie of such as did by teaching truth honour him Rogers Ergo Their names must be found in Histories Negatur Argumentum Is this the honour Is this the glorie that God hath provided for his children to be recorded by man It is written as you have cited in your Margin 1 Reg. 2.30 Whosoever shall glorifie mee I will glorifie him and whosoever shall contemne mee shall be ignoble Who ever expounded this place of Scripture to be meant of humane testimonies of being recorded in humane Histories and not of that honour which is usually termed the state of glorie The other place cited in your Margin is The just shall be had in everlasting remembrance Ergo Psal 111.7 Their names shall be recorded in humane Histories Who ever made such collections God hath promised eternall glorie unto his servants and you will turne it to temporall for what is humane testimonie and humane glorie but temporall which shall end either before or at least with time O presumptuous blindnesse of man to accuse the providence of God as defective if it record not all their names in humane Historie whose names are written in the Booke of Life I am loath to spend many words in answering such poore objections but the impietie prophanenesse Atheisme that is implied in this Argument opens my mouth to speak somewhat more Whereas you say If God will glorifie his servants hee must record them in humane Histories this must imply that God hath no other way to glorifie his servants as that there were no resurrection of the flesh no immortalitie of the soule no Book of Life no Heaven no happinesse in another world Fisher And men carefull of their soules health which they cannot attaine according to the ordinary course but by hearing such Pastors onely who have had lawfull succession from Christs Apostles have more reason diligently to looke that memorie be preserved of such Pastors and of pure divine Truth taught by them then of others who taught any other false and not pure Doctrine Rogers Here are two trickes of a Sophister the one to obscure a Proposition with a multitude of needlesse and impertinent words for seeing hee was to prove this plaine and short Proposition That the names of Pastors teaching divine Truth are to be found in Histories and that the Medium whereby hee would prove this hee tooke from the diligence and dutie of Godly men what needs all those additions which come in by Parenthesis viz. which they cannot attaine according to the ordinarie course but by hearing such Pastors onely who have had lawfull succession from Christs Apostles The second tricke of a Sophister is to speake indefinitely and so making it doubtfull whether your Proposition be universall or particular not joyning either all or some unto others as I have observed before Your Argument which I must frame for you or I am like to have none is this Men carefull of their soules health have reason to preserve the memorie of their Pastors Ergo They did so Or to make it more large thus Men carefull of their soules health have more reason diligently to looke that memory be preserved of such Pastors and of pure divine Truth taught by them then of others who have taught any other false and not pure Doctrine But they continued the memorie of the false Teachers Ergo They continued the memorie of the true Teachers First you conclude not what you were to prove viz. That the names of all true Teachers in all ages are to bee found in Histories Secondly for your minor if it be universall it is false if it be particular it doth not inferre it doth prove nothing as I have already shewed more fully Thirdly your Argument hath foure termes in the major your medium is the duty of men what they ought to doe In the minor you speake of what they did and suppose a falsehood viz. that men carefull of their soules health have recorded the names of all false Teachers and so you would inferre they did record the names of all true Teachers and thus to prove the act from the duty in weake sinfull man is no proofe is like the rest an egregious non sequitur And as well I might argue thus Master Fisher ought to have replied punctually in order and alleadging my words in my answer to him ergo he did it Or thus Eve should have abstained from the forbidden fruit ergo she did abstaine from it Or thus Adam had more reason to hearken unto God forbidding him to eate of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evill then to his wife perswading him to eate thereof ergo he did not hearken unto his wife Or thus Iudas had more reason to defend his Master then to betray him ergo he did not betray him Or thus Peter had more reason to confesse his Master then to deny him ergo Peter did not deny his Master If this kind of arguing were good it were happy for us all in the day of Iudgement when the Idolater should say I had more reason to worship God then to worship Idols ergo I did not worship Idols The murtherer would say I had more reason to save then to kill ergo I did not kill The drunkard would say I had more reason to be sober then to be drunke ergo I was not drunke And so might all other sinners plead if this argument were good Fisher Certaine therefore it is that the names or some thing equivalent to names and the doctrines of true Pastors who did in all ages past teach true divine doctrine may be found in Histories as well as the names and doctrines of others are found who did teach any other doctrine Rogers I have shewed it to be
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
it is the very same essentially though not accidentally still a body and still the same body though sometimes more healthy then other and in some parts more sound then other Now Master Fisher to what end is your great discourse of Anabaptists seeing I grant him to be of the Church If hee be such a one as you suppose him who agreeth with mee in all things else viz. in the Scripture in the Creed in the Sacraments in the essence of the Sacraments in their matter and forme in their force and efficacie onely differs from mee in the circumstance of time namely when Baptisme is to be conferred and bestowed upon Children of Christians whether before or after they are come to yeares of discretion CHAP. XXI Fisher AND fifthly That having distinguished Faith as Master Rogers doth into Doctrines fundamentall and necessary and Doctrines not fundamentall but accessory or not necessary hee may be yet further allowed to reject all Church authoritie and not to be satisfied with what is taught by any Church ours or his owne as Master Rogers confesseth hee is unsatisfied and consequently being left to his owne libertie may apply this distinction as hee shall please accounting onely that to be necessary which hee listeth so to account I wish I say that such an Anabaptist were imagined and that Master Rogers were to be his opponent That it might be seene whether this Anabaptist could not as well by these aforesaid Rules Definitions and Distinctions affirme prove and defend his Faith and Church to have beene alwaies visible against Master Rogers as Master Rogers doth or can by his Rules Definitions and Distinctions affirme prove and defend the Protestant Church to have beene alwaies visible against Catholicks or whether Master Rogers could better convince such an Anabaptist not to have the ancient Faith or not to be a member of the continuall visible Church then a Catholicke can convince Master Rogers Rogers Concerning this Distinction I have spoken afore that some Doctrines are more necessary then others now let us see whether this man saith any thing against it and what it is I doe not find hee doth denie it or grant it so that I know not what hee meanes by the words following viz. He may be yet further allowed to reject all Church authoritie and not be satisfied with what is taught by any Church ours or his owne as Master Rogers confesseth he is unsatisfied First you mightily falsifie this Parenthesis upon mee my words were these I doe confesse that none of your side or ours have given me full satisfaction in this point what are res fidei per se And in the words next going before I said thus 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 necessarie to be held for salvation fide explicita I speake de adultis quibus facultas datur discendi who being come to yeares of discretion have capacitie to learne This much in my first Answer to this my request he makes no reply either hee is ignorant or dare not expresse whether all the affirmative doctrines of his Councel of Trent are matters of Faith and necessary to be knowne and believed though I then told him I proposed this question as desirous to learn This much concerning my question and my request Now to my Assertion viz. That none of his side or ours hath given me full satisfaction herein he hence infers that I am unsatisfied without any limitation or if wee will looke backe beyond the Parenthesis as if I were unsatisfied in that which is taught in any Church ours or his This is the right fallacie à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter I said I was satisfied by none of theirs or ours in the instances of one distinction what Doctrines were to be reduced to either member of the Distinction namely what Doctrines were necessary what not necessary what was fundamentall what accessory what matter of Faith properly what accidentally and hee would traduce mee as if I were unsatisfied in all other Doctrines this is the Devils Logicke Master Fisher who is the father of lies to say I confessed that I never did As well I might prove that you have never a nose on your face or that you are blind thus Mr. Fisher hath never a Nose on his brest Ergo Mr. Fisher hath no Nose As you say Master Rogers doth confesse hee is unsatisfied in some things belonging to one distinction Ergo Master Rogers is unsatisfied in any Doctrine Or thus Mr. Fisher doth confesse that hee doth not see why Master Rogers may not absolutely grant his fourth Proposition Ergo Master Fisher doth confesse he doth not see Master Fisher I am satisfied in the doctrines of my faith in the doctrines of my Church in the truth of ours and the falshood of yours as that I desire to die rather then receive your faith or forsake any of mine and I doe hold your Roman Church the most corrupted erroneous usurping part or member of the Christian Church that is in the world I distinguished between doctrines of Faith the Church and of the Schoole These latter being private opinions of men in distinguishing defining or arguing being neither contained in Scriptures nor delivered by the Church I might be unsatisfied in and the rather because the greatest Writers of your side and ours doe vary herein or speake indefinitely which is no resolution Thomas secunda secundae quest 2. saying one thing Occham another and Valenza differing from both Tom Lib. 4. c. 11. de verbo Dei 3 disp 1. q. Bellarmine speaking indifinitely some things in the Doctrine of Christianity as well belonging to faith as manners are simply necessary to all men that will be saved such is the knowledge of the Apostolicke Creed of the ten Commandements and of some Sacraments non nullorum Sacramentorum not defining which and giving small satisfaction with his individuum vagum of some Sacraments not telling which so also amongst our Writers Calvin Hooker Doctor Field Doctor Vsher doe all thus distinguish but when they come to expresse what belongeth to either member they doe not all speake alike Calvin Institut l. 4. cap. 1. n. 12. saith some things are necessary for all men to beleeve as that there is one God that Christ is God and the Sonne of God that our salvation consisteth in the mercy of God similia and such like This word similia leaves it undetermined Hooker holdeth these three to be fundamentall necessary and essentiall unto the Church one Lord one Faith one Baptisme but under that of faith he understandeth as necessary the Articles of the Apostles Creed so that he and Doctor Vsher differ very little or nothing at all Doctor Field is somewhat more full in his third booke of the Church the fourth Chapter yet not in reall addition but