per Prophetas sonuit verbum deindè per seipsum deindè per Apostolos In his igitur omnibus quaerenda est Ecclesia Hoc etiam praedico atque propono uti quae aperta manifesta deligamus quae si in sanctis Scripturis non invenirentur nullo modo esset vndè aperirentur clausa illustrarentur obscura Seponenda sunt quae obscurè sunt posita figurarum velaminibus involuta In talibus figuris nolo quaeramus Ecclesiam non quia falsae sunt sed quia interpretem quaerunt Cap. 6. O Donatistae Genesin legite Benedicentur in semine tuo omnes Gentes terrae Genes 22. Quid dicat Apostolus audiamus Gal. 3. In semine tuo quod est Christus Ecce Testamentum Dei quare vos irritum facitis Testamentum Dei dicendo nec in omnibus Gentibus esse completum periisse jam de Gentibus in quibus erat semen Abrahae Quare superordinatis dicendo in nullis terris haeredem permanere Christum nisi ubi poterit cohaeredem habere Donatum Non invidemus alicui Legite nobis hoc de lege de Prophetis de Psalmis de ipso Evangelio Apostolicis literis legite credimus sicut nos vobis legimus de Genes de Apostolo benedicentur in te omnes tribus terrae in semine tuo Date mihi hanc Ecclesiam si apud vos est ostendite vos communicare omnibus Gentibus quas jam videmus in hoc semine benedici Cap. 7. Quid in Prophetis quam multa quam manifesta sunt testamonia Ecclesiae per omnes Gentes toto orbe terrarum diffusae Isa 11. Repleta est vniversa terra ut cognoscat Dominum Isa 27. Germinabit florescet Israel replebitur Orbis terrarum fructu ejus Psal 27. Posui te in lucem Gentium ut sis salus usque ad fines terrae Laetare sterilis quia non paris erumpe exclama quoniam multi filii desertae magis quam ejus quae habet virum Comparent isti multitudinem suam in Aphrica constitutam cum multitudine Iudaeorum per omnes terras quacunque dispersi sunt et videant quam sint in illorum comparatione paucissimi Quomodo ergò de se dictum assignabunt multi filij desertae quam ejus quae habet virum Rursus comparent multitudinem Christianorum per omnes Gentes quibus non communicant videant quam pauci sint in comparatione omnes Iudei tandem aliquandò intelligant in Ecclesia Catholica toto orbe diffusa istam prophetiam esse completam Iam pauca de Psalmis audiamus Cap. 8. Dabo tibi Gentes haereditatem tuam possessionem tuam fines terrae Nonne Apostolus de Praedicatoribus Novi Testamenti dictum exposuit quod scriptum est in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum Psal 18. in fines orbis terrae verba eorum Psal 56. Et super omnem terram gloria tua undè gloria ejus super omnem terram nisi quia Ecclesia ejus per omnem terram replebitur gloria ejus omnis terra Psal 71. fiat fiat Ite nunc vos Donatist clamate non fiat non fiat Vicit vos Verbum Dei dicens fiat fiat Quid ad haec dicturi sint quae commemoravi ex Lege ex Trophetis ex Psalmis Audiamus ipsius verbi vocem ore propriae carnis expressam Sic scriptum ect sic oportebat Christum pati resurgere à mortuis tertio die Hic ipsum caput ostenditur quod ipsum se manibus discipulorum prebuit contrectandum Vide quemadmodum de corpore adjungat quod est Ecclesia ut nos nec in Sponso nec in Sponsa errare permittat Et predicari inquit in nomine ejus poenitentiam remissionem peccatorum per omnes Gentes incipientibus ab Hierusalem Quid hac voce veratiùs quid diviniùs quid manifestiùs Me piget commendare verbis meis haereticos non pudet oppugnare verbis suis Dicant ea testimonia quae posui de Lege Prophetis Psalmis obscura esse figuratè dicta etiam aliter posse intelligi quanquam in eis egerim quantum potui ut nec audeant dicere Sed ecce dicant nunquid obscure dictum aut aenigmatis velamento adumbratum est quod ipse Christus dixit quia sic scriptum est sic opportebat Christum pati resurgere tertio die predicari in nomine ejus poenitentiam remissionem peccatorum per omnes Gentes Epist 48. Audi dicit Dominus non dicit Donatus aut Rogatus aut Vincentius aut Hilarius aut Ambrosius aut Augustinus sed dicit Dominus Quomodo ex divinis literis confidimus accipisse nos Christū manifestum si non indè accepimus Ecclesiam manifestam Necesse est incerti sint qui pro sua societate testimonio utuntur non divino sed suo Nisi cognoveris teipsum non in verbis calumniosorū sed in testimoniis librorum meorum In Scripturis didicimus Christū Epist 116. in Scripturis didicimus ecclesiam Has Scripturas communiter habemus quare nō in eis et Christum Ecclesiam cōmuniter retinemus Ecce Scripturae communes ecce ubi novimus Christum ecce ubi novimus Ecclesiam Those words of St. Augustine I apply to our present purpose concluding in the same manner against the Romanists as this Father did against the Donatists changing onely Donatist for Romanist Cap 2. The Question betweene us and the Romanists is where is the Church What then shall we doe shall we seeke for the Church in our owne words or in the words of her Head and our Lord Christ Iesus I think we ought rather to seeke her in his words who is the Truth and best knoweth his owne body For the Lord knoweth who are his Cap. 3. But as I began to say let us not heare these words I say this thou saist that but let us heare this thus saith the Lord Our master hath left books unto us to the authority of which Bookes wee both consent wee both beleeve we both submit there let us seeke the Church there let us examine our cause Away with those words from amongst us which we cite not out of the Canonicall Books of God but elswhere Some man peradventure wil say unto me why wil you have those things taken away seeing your cause though those things were alleaged will stand invincible Because I would have the Church demōstrated not by human reason but by divine oracles For if the holy Scriptures haue designed the Church to be in Italy alone in those few which concur with Rome whatsoever may be brought out of other Bookes none but the Romanists do possesse the Church If the holy Scripture doe limit the Church to a few more of the Province of Caesarea we must passe unto the Rogatists If it be amongst those
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
Creed 2. Some other secondary accidentall and common to other habits or vertues besides faith to other persons besides the faithfull as morall precepts belong to Charitie properly and are common to Christians and Infidels revealed not onely by the supernaturall light of Gods word but also by the naturall light of reason in man both from God but the one written by God in the day of Creation the other manifested by his Sonne in the day of Redemption Of the former sort are the ten Commandements which were knowne even to the Heathen Dixitque semel nascentibus author He that readeth Plato Lucan Aristotle Tullie Diogenes Laertius the Poets Greeke and Latine the Latine Greeke Aegyptian Chaldean Indian Aethiopian Lawes may there find though not in the same excellent order nor without some mixture of drosse all the Decalogue And so deepe was the impression of this Law in the wisest of those Heathen that no Oracle could prevaile with them to crosse or cancell what the Law of Nature delivered as Principles which alone is properly the Law of Nature Excellent in this kind is that speech of Catoes in Lucan who being advised by Labienus to consult with the Oracle of Iupiter Ammon said unto him What wouldest thou have mee to demand of the Oracle An noceat vis ulla bono Fortunaque perdat Opposita virtute minas laudandaque velle Sit satis nunquam successu crescat honestum Scimus hoc nobis non altius inseret Ammon He that shall reade Phocilides a very ancient Greeke Poet shall there finde a Store-house of excellent morall Precepts as consonant to the writings of Moses and Salomon as if they had been thence drawne Aquinas Bellarm. Valenza alij All Divines of greatest note of your owne side hold that of the Apostle Hebr. 11. v. 1. Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seene to be a definition of faith and then the proper object of faith must bee non apparentia non visa things not evident to the naturall man to the eye of reason such as these morall Precepts are which I last mentioned Lib. 1. de Iustific c. 4. So that howsoever Bellarmine doe cavill with that distinction of Historicall Faith and justifying Faith yet reason will evince the distinction to be good and needfull for those Histories of Esaus selling his Birth-right of Abrahams two wives of Dathans rebellion of Davids adulterie although they are not essentiall to explicite saving faith yet those Stories and whatsoever is recorded in the Word of God to have been done or spoken wee beleeve to have been done and spoken although the act sometime bee wicked and the speeches false and blasphemous as the murther of Vriah the rayling of Shimei the words of the Serpent to Eve So the beliefe and credit we give is not to those actions or speeches of theirs as if the one were well done and the other truly spoken for this were to justifie the false Prophets rayling Rebels and the Devill himselfe but wee beleeve that Historicall Narration of the Holy Ghost that such vvicked sinnes vvere committed such false blasphemous vvords spoken and shall vvee not call this Faith being a credit wee give unto the Relation because it is by divine inspiration in the Pen-men not in the Actors or first speakers Historicall If it bee faith L b. 1. de Iustific c. 9. either a justifying faith or an historicall faith or some other but no other is named and it is no justifying faith Ergo an historicall faith That it is not a justifying faith I proove against Bellarmine out of his owne vvords The whole object if justifying Faith is contained summarily and briefly in the Apostles Creed But those Stories of sinfull actions lying Prophets blaspheming Devills are not at all in the Apostles Creed Ergo The relations of them are no object no article no part of saving Faith If neither of saving Faith nor any other then of Historicall Faith Againe no division of things contained in Scripture is more frequent amongst Fathers Schoolemen and latter Writers Roman Reformed then that of Faith and life Credenda facienda what we should beleeue how wee should liue and if they be members of one division they cannot bee affirmed one of another As therefore those Morall precepts are rules of actions so they belong to Charitie it s their proper place As it is related they came from God so they are the object of Historicall Faith So that the Articles of the Creed wheresoever found in Scripture are the proper object of iustifying Faith And all things that are registred and declared by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prophets and Evangelists inspired by the Holy Ghost are the object of our Faith Historicall I say the relation not every thing that is related which Historicall Faith I define to be a supernaturall infused assent or credit we give to the relation of things in the Word of God as revealed from him So that I thinke I may say that rightly understood both sides doe agree thus farre 1. That the primary materiall compounded object of Faith as the Schoolemen and Iesuits speake or more plainely that the principall propositions of Faith are in the Apostles Creede 2. The totall object of Faith are omnes revelationes divinae as Valenza or Verbum Dei as Bellarmine or rather the divine Scripture as the Fathers as Aquinas Carbo and the Reformed Churches doe say For Valenza doth aequivocate with his Revelationes Dei and Bellarmine with his Verbum Dei. Who would not be glad to reade in these two great Iesuits That such is the nature of Faith Tom. 3. di 1. q. 1. §. 4. p. 1. that it can assent to no Proposition but as it is revealed by God So Valenza and Faith ought to levell at nothing besides the Word of God for Faith cannot be certaine and infallible unlesse it relye upon his authority who can neither deceiue nor be deceived So Bellarm Who that desireth the peace of Sion would not be glad hereof Lib. 1. de Iustif c. 10. I did much rejoyce when at first I read it but when I saw that Valenza did extend his divine Revelations not onely to Canonical Writers but also to the Pope And Bellarmine to divide Verbum Dei the Word of God into Scriptū non scriptum written Word and unwritten Traditions my joy turned into griefe and searching better into the Questions I found these were poore shifts to hemme in their Pope for when they are prest with arguments or Authorities of Fathers concerning the fulnesse and sufficiency of the Word of God Bellarmine comes in with his distinction of Verbum Dei Scriptum non scriptum saying that the one alone is Regula partialis a piece of a Rule but both together are Regula totalis a whole Rule Tom. 3. d. 1. q. 1. p. 1. §. 4. So Valenza dealeth by revealed verities Vel per Canonicum
most uncertaine that as well you might conclude that Iudas did not betray Christ or Peter deny Christ Fisher And therefore if Protestants have had any Pastors teaching true doctrines in all ages doubtlesse their names would be extant in Histories yet extant Rogers I have already shewed your Antecedent to be false if universall not to prove if particular and so this conclusion if particular I grant if universall I deny and say that an universall conclusion cannot follow out of particular premises You know the unquestioned rule Conclusio sequitur deteriorem partem CHAP. XII Fisher WHich being presupposed and granted as Master Rogers seemeth to grant by granting Master Fishers fourth Proposition I do not see how Master Rogers can deny Master Fishers fifth Proposition Rogers I neither supposed nor granted it what I granted in the fourth Proposition was this and no more If the Protestants be a true Church their faith hath beene taught in all ages by lawfull Pastors What mention is there here of Names of Histories of Records of Monuments let the Reader looke backe to my former answer and he shall find that this is all the issue I joyned upon in the fourth Proposition This is audacity Master Fisher Fisher For it being supposed that Protestant Preachers were their names would be found in Histories as Master Fishers fourth proposition granted by Master Rogers supposeth it may be 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 Master Rogers can deny Master Fishers fifth proposition supposing he grant as he granteth his fourth proposition Rogers You say that I supposing and granting your fourth Proposition I must yeeld unto the fifth I have replyed more then once your fourth Proposition especially that which you most insist upon therein names and Histories I deny and this not being granted your fifth Proposition cannot follow Fisher For although absolutely speaking an Argument drawne from negative authority be as Master Rogers averreth of it selfe of no force and so Protestant Arguments which are usually made against us out of negative authority as for example the Scripture saith nothing of this or that or the Fathers of the first 300. yeeres make no expresse mention of this or that ergo no such thing is or is of no force Rogers The subject of our discourse was humane History and humane authority and what I speake you grant but you extend it beyond the boundes of our then subject and more then I will grant to Divine authority to the word of God to the Scriptures I say the authority of man is like himselfe uncertaine his workes weake and unperfect like himselfe but the word of God is like himselfe certaine strong and full of perfection and therefore the Argument drawne from divine authority is certaine though negatively in those things which the word of God proposeth and professeth fully to expresse but in man it is otherwise as in the next Chapter I will expresse more fully Fisher Yet when the negative Argument is grounded in an alreadie granted affirmative proposition as it is in this our case the negative argument is of great and undeniable force Rogers This I grant that negatives are so farre depending upon affirmatives as that they cannot be understood they cannot be defined they cannot be demonstrated without affirmatives and so they may Fisher As for example if we did grant this proposition If such or such a thing were holy Scripture would have spoken of it or the Fathers of the first 300 yeeres would have made expresse mention of it If I say we granted this we could not deny the aforesaid negative Argument usually made by Protestants to be of force against us Rogers I doe not see what I should mislike in this onely it maketh nothing against me Fisher But wee deny and Protestants cannot prove the said affirmative and so the negative Argument hath no force against us Rogers You deny but wee have proved the affirmative that all things necessary unto salvation are plainely set downe in Scripture and therefore the negative Argument is of force against your new Creed the Articles whereof are not manifested in Scripture as I have more fully set downe in the fourth Chapter Fisher Now Master Rogers doth not nor in reason cannot deny Master Fishers fourth proposition which is an affirmative whereupon his fifth negative proposition is grounded And therefore Master Rogers ought not to deny but must needs grant Masters Fishers fifth and so all his five propositions Rogers The Cuckoe a Bird that makes no good musick and hath but one note yet is more frequent in venting that then the Nightingale in tuning her excellent Musicke Master Fisher having nothing else to say in defence of his Church and against ours cries for Names and Histories and not being able to prove his proposition still sings the same song Master Rogers doth not nor in reason cannot deny ought not to deny but must needs grant which being presupposed and granted as Master Rogers seemeth to grant by granting I doe not see how Master Rogers can deny I doe not therefore see I say how Master Rogers can deny Master Fishers fifth Proposition supposing he granted as he granteth his fourth Proposition neither doth Master Rogers make any bones to grant I doe not see why Mr. Rogers may not absolutely grant his fourth Proposition all these grants are found in one leafe and halfe a page and yet I never granted it Fisher Which being granted if he will make a good answer as hee pretendeth he must first set downe names of Protestant Pastors in all ages and not content himselfe with naming some whom hee thinketh to be Protestants and with saying he hath gone halfe the way Rogers Yet more grants I must againe deny the grant this is right Petitio principij a begging of that which is in question I have oft enough denyed it yet you will never leave begging it belike you thinke to wrest it from me with importunacie it will never be I pray you looke backe see what I answered to your fifth Proposition there you shall reade thus In the fifth Proposition I desire to know whether wee should shew the names of Protestants or their faith This we will shew That we need not for the names of Protestants is but arbitrary and accidentall c. And within a few lines after you shall reade thus But if it be really meant thus let the Protestants shew that their now faith was taught by lawfull Pastors in all ages I doe with Gods helpe undertake it and require the same from the authors of these propositions and demands Have I here granted that the names of all Pastors and teachers true or false are to be found in Histories which is the onely ground whence you would inferre your fifth Proposition which being not granted
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
in explication so that they all receive the distinction which you would seeme to reject as if the admitting of that distinction did infer a libertie to reject all Church authority and not to be satisfied by what is taught by any Church How this doth follow I know not I thinke it is as farre from due consequence as to say I have my poake full of plumbes therefore that is the way to London It is my hard hap to meet with an Adversary which hath so little honesty as to falsifie my words so little learning as that he hath not and it seemes he cannot frame one Argument I am loath to take the paines to adde forme to such rude matter to draw the line of reason and measure with rules of Art such rotten stuffe such incohaerent disjoynted speeches as that himselfe was afeard to insert the note of illation a Ergo. therefore but I will doe it for him Master Rogers hath distinguished betweene Doctrines fundamentall and necessary and Doctrines not fundamentall but accessorie Ergo Master Rogers may be further allowed to reject all Church authority and not be satisfied with any Church Doctrine Negatur Argumentum Master Fisher for if it be a good Argument let me urge it thus Aquinas Occham Espenseus The Master of the Sentences Bonaventure Durandus c. a world of Schoolemen and other Writers doe make the same distinction Ergo Aquinas Occham Espenceus the Master of the Sentences with the Schooles in generall are allowed to reject Church authoritie and Church Doctrine if the Argument were true thus it must follow I was so farre from accounting that to be necessary which I list so to account as that I desired of you my Adversary to be informed and directed herein Whereas you object that an Anabaptist might prove his Church to have been alwayes visible by my Rules definitions and distinctions is most untrue one of the Rules or Medium by which I did prove my Church was Antiquitie Vniversality and Consent will you grant that this Medium doth agree to the Anabaptist in that point which especially gives him that name viz. in denying Baptisme to children It seemes you have little regard what you say that you will thus strengthen the Anabaptist in his errour as if he had Antiquity Vniversalitie and Consent for his excluding children from Baptisme Or if by his negative he put me to prove the affirmative that children are to be baptized I will prove it by the testimonies of Antiquity Vniversality and Consent But I am not now to deale with Anabaptists but with a Papist CHAP. XXII Fisher FOr proofe whereof let it be supposed that Master Râ—gers could as he cannot produce out of Scriptures and Fathers other Writers in all Ages as many and as plaine and repugnant affirmative sentences against the negative Doctrine of Anabaptists as Catholickes ordinarily doe agaiâ—st Protestants negatives And then I aske Master Rogers Whether this Anabaptist may not as usually Protestants do take one or other exception either of Argument or Booke out of which the sentence is cited as if it were not undoubtedly Canonicall or Authenticall or against the Translation or Transcript or Printed Copie as not certainely knowne to be conforme to the first Antographon or Originall or against the interpretation and sense of the words or the consequence gathered out of them as if some other sense were intended by the Authour Or if none of these exceptions can be made whether he may not at least say that it is not the faith or consent of all Antiquitie which doth hold such an affirmative contrary to his negative Doctrine but onely the opinion of some one or few whilst others hold the contrary or seeme doubtfull Or if it be shewed to be the generall Doctrine of all who had occasion to write of that matter without any one teaching contrary whether he may not deny the point to be fundamentall and say that they differ not from him in Doctrine necessary but onely in Doctrine accessory and that notwithstanding this difference they may and are possessors of his faith and members of his Anabaptist Church All this doubtlesse he may say and so defend ancient Fathers to be of his Faith and Church as well as Master Rogers can defend them to be of his faith and Church Neither can Master Rogers disprove what the Anabaptist averreth but with the same breath he disprooveth his owne Booke and maketh it appeare to every judicious Reader that he neither can truely name soundly prove nor in any good sort defend either the Ancient Fathers or any other Orthodox whom he nameth or any lawfull Pastors or others Catholicks or Hereticks before Luther or indeed Luther himself to have held the entire Protestant faith for if all Protestant Doctrines which be different from the faith of the Roman Church may be called Doctrines of Protestant faith it may be evidently shewed that none of the aforesaid did in all points of faith agree with the English Protestant Church whose Ministers are bound to subscribe to the 39 Articles above mentioned Rogers All this wilde discourse is to overthrow my Grounds by shewing that they may agree with an Anabaptist who as he supposeth is not of the visible Church taketh it as granted by me wherin he is deceived For I hold the Anabaptist though I condemne his errour in denying Baptisme unto children to be a member of the visible Church though diseased as the Papist is and lesse diseased then he his Argument which commeth from him as a Beares Whelpe or worse for ever it wanteth some principall limme being formed is this Those are no true Gounds Distinctions Definitions or Arguments an Anabaptist may prove himselfe to be of the Church But by Master Rogers Grounds Distinctions Definitions and Arguments by which an Anabaptist may prove himselfe to be of the Church Ergo Master Rogers Grounds Distinctions Definitions and Arguments are no true Grounds I deny his major which he taketh as granted committing his old fallacie of Petitio Principii begging and supposing that for a medium and principle which is denied or at least questioned and spends himselfe wholly in proving the minor which I grant not for any proofe that he brings but for divers other reasons which I can alleadge as namely these amongst others An erroneous opinion in matters of practise and morall praecepts doth not exclude out of the visible Church but errour in matters of faith The errour of the Anabaptist is in matters of practise not in matters of faith Ergo His errour doth not exclude him out of the visible Church They do not deny Baptisme nor any thing that is substantiall in Baptisme but onely erre in a circumstance of time denying that unto children not absolutely and for ever but untill they come to make profession of their faith Shall this exclude them and their Children out of the Church and why because by this delay many children dying without Baptisme as you suppose are damned but