some yeares after a reply was published whether by Master Fisher himselfe or some other in his behalfe I know not a sight whereof I could not get in a yeare or two after To that reply of his I answer in this ensuing Discourse with a Catalogue from the seventh Centurie to the fifteenth of such as professed our faith which Catalogue of perticular men being finished I have added a Catalogue of Councels in all Ages who professed our faith This booke of mine was finished seven or eight yeares past as a noble personage now imployed by our Soveraigne King in forraign parts can testifie who bestowed some books upon me which were very usefull unto mee in this Worke which he did read as did also many learned Doctors of our Church of Hereford D. Kernit D. Best D. Hoskinsed I was slow in publishing it having no desire to be in Print but the perswasions of some of our Church and the brags of some of our Adversaries saying that I neither had nor could answer Master Fisher caused me to present it to the licencer And so to send it into the view of the world requesting the Christian Reader first to peruse the former booke printed without my knowledge Secondly to observe how my Adversarie doth passe by many principall things in my first answer without any mention at all of the same Thirdly that of what he hath written against me I passe not by any one sentence unanswered My Booke hath two generall heads First what our Faith and Church is and how proved primarily and properly by Scriptures secondarily and improperly by reasons and humane testimony Secondly that by this way of a Catalogue of those who taught their faith or Trent Creed as distinct from ours they cannot prove their succession for many reasons alleadged by me in the thirteenth Chapter of this booke as first the uncertainty of humane testimony Secondly their purging out of Authors that which makes against them Thirdly their forging of Authors and Councels fourthly their slighting and abasing of the Ecclesiasticall Historians of the Primitive Church example whereof shall be shewed as occasion shall be offered I will conclude this my Preface with those words of Saint Augustine Ep. 48. Necesse est incerti sint qui pro societate sua testimonio utuntur non divino sed suo But let us with St. Augustine cleave to the Scriptures and say with him Ecce ubi didicimus Christum Ep. 166. ecce ubi didicimus Ecclesiam Loe where we have learned Christ loe where we have learned to find his Church Give the glory to God for what is well and impute the imperfections and defects to my weaknesse who will to my poore ability be Thine in the Lord. H. R A Table of the Contents CHAP. I. THe rules of answering 1. to lay downe his Adversaries words and 2. to answer to every particular Vel concedendo vel negando vel distinguendo either by granting denying or distinguishing by explicating of ambiguous termes observed by Mr R. but not by Mr. Fisher a comparison from the Dog drinking of Nilus and Anthony flying from Actium 1 CHAP. II. 1. The occasion of this Discourse 2. Mr. Fishers termes ambiguous 3. Distinctio vocis and definitio rei neglected by Master Fisher though requested by his Adversary 4. These are the grounds of all doctrinall Discourses 5. Master Rogers answer to Master Fishers first question That he will shew who professed the faith of the Reformed Churches in all Ages 6. Master Fisher cannot shew the names of Iesuites in all Ages 2 CHAP. III. 1. Master Fishers Rule That probatio est affirmantis non negantis They who affirme are to prove admitted by Master Rogers 2. A Church may be proved though the particular names not recorded as a Christian Church in this Iland before Austin the Monke came hither 3. M. Fisher doth confound two questions and commits a fallacie secundum plures interrogationes 4. Master Fisher by his rule of names in all Ages may be denyed to be a man to be descended of Adam if he admit no other proofe 5. Master Rogers Argument to prove himselfe a Christian confirmed out of Bellarmine Baronius Valenza c. 6. What is essentiall and necessary to an explicit faith set downe at large 7. The covenant of faith the same in all Christian Churches of the world Latine Roman and Reformed the Greeke Armenian c. 5 CHAP. IV. Of the totall object of faith as it includeth not onely the primary essentiall matters of faith but also the secondary and accidentall matters contained in the revealed truth And that from hence demonstrations may be drawne to prove the Protestants to be a Church 13 CHAP. V. Shewing out of Saint Augustine that there is no other way to demonstrate a Church to be a true Christian Church but by the word of God 120 CHAP. VI. The Roman polemicke Theologues likened to the Indian Apes that appeared to Alexander and to the Ligurians the difference betweene the ancient and present Church of Rome between the Ancient Monkes and the present the title of Roman Catholique a most impudent contradiction Two Impostors submitting themselves as two Patriaachs to the Church of Rome The whole faith of the Protestants confirmed by Popish Writers Yet the Romanists have another new faith of their owne 32 CHAP. VII Master Fisher pressed by his own rule to prove the new Creed wherein he is Affirmative we Negative 2. A member of the Church of Rome may beare witnesse against the Church of Rome 41 CHAP. VIII What it is to communicate with others how farre we yet communicate with the Roman Church and wherein we refuse to communicate 45 CHAP. IX 1. Some distinctions justified 2. Master Fisher puts false Titles over his booke as thus Master ROGERS his weake Grounds over his 26 and 27 pages and yet not one word spoken in both those pages of any of Master Rogers Grounds And page 28. Master Rogers most weake Arguments and yet not one Argument of Master Rogers mentioned in all that page Master Fisher changeth his termes for Faith puts Doctrines 52. CHAP. X. Master Rogers definition of a Protestant Church conformed The same definition agreeth with all true Churches in the world the rule of defining Bellarmines definion of the Church confuted together with the Romish Doctrine that none can be saved out of their Church 56 CHAP. XI M.F. puts false Titles upon the pages of his Booke As Master Rogers his most weak Grounds or Arguments where there is â—â—mention of his Grounds or Arguments The Protestants a true Church not the true Church Histories no good proofe of the Church All Doctrines not points of Faith M. Fishers reasons to prove that the Teachers of true and false Doctrine are to be found in Histories answered 71 CHAP. XII Negatives depend upon Affirmatives Master Fishers Tautologies He saith Master Rogers granteth what he never did grant 86 CHAP. XIII Foure Reasons to prove that Master Fishers
I deny If the delay of seven or eight yeares for Baptisme doe exclude them out of the Church because many thereby are deprived of Baptisme then a shorter delay of fourty daies or eighty daies should exclude men out of the Church because many children may die at twenty or thirty dayes old and yet we know many Churches in the world as the Coftie in Egypt doe not baptise their children before the fourtieth day though they should die without Baptisme Th. a Ies lib. 7. p. 1. c. 5. So Th. ibid. c. 6. Leo primus The Maronites whose Patriarch resideth in Syria Baptize not their male children till fourty dayes nor their female till eighty dayes after their birth He was a Pope of Rome which commanded that Baptisme should not be ministred at any other time then at Easter and Whitsontide and can we thinke but that many children in the meane space did die Socrates Scholasticus testifieth Hist Eccl. 5. c. 21. l Tom. 4. disp 4. puncto 4. that in Thessalie by reason of deferring of Baptisme untill Easter it happened that many yea the most dyed before Baptisme Your Gregory de Valenza doth confesse that in the Primitive Church many holy and godly men did deferre their Baptisme for a long season Disp de Sacramentis Tom. 1. Concil in decretis Leonis primi Can. 6. And your Suarez and Binius doe say that the former custome of the Church and Decree of Pope Leo were changed by the Church because of the danger which by so long delay did ensue If therefore the Anabaptist bee excluded from the visible Church because of the danger which by delay of Baptisme doth ensue to children Then Pope Leo the first for Decreeing a delay of Baptisme with the like danger and a great part of the Christian Church for observing the same were excluded out of the visible Church This was it you should first have proved that the Anabaptist is out of the Church afore you tooke it as a premise or undoubted Proposition thence to inferre a Conclusion let me propose the Argument againe in that forme which you most affect with Iffs and Ands. If Master Rogers Grounds be true the Anabaptist receiving the Scriptures Apostles Creed and agreeing with the Protestants in all things saving this that he will not Baptise children is of the Church But such an Anabaptist is not of the Church Ergo Master Rogers Grounds be not true Negatur minor you have not spoken one word to prove that such an Anabaptist is not of the Church which till you prove your conclusion cannot follow all that you say is in proofe of the major which I grant Whereas you say and would have it supposed that I cannot produce as many proofes against this Negative of the Anabaptist as the Romanists doe usually produce against Negatives is most false for instance if you will bring me one Author for your halfe Communion your Transubstantiation the Bookes of Machabees Irenaeus Origen Cyprian confessed by Bellarm. lib. 1. de bap cap. 8. to be Canonicall in all which you are Affirmative and I Negative I say if you bring one Author in the first 300 yeeres for these your affirmatives I will bring three to one for our Affirmative of Baptizing In the same time I will produce for this my affirmative Antiquity Vniversality and Consent doe you the like for your Affirmatives and I will be of your Church All the rest of your frivolous chat concerning the Annabaptist what he may say what exceptions he may take against Authors against Translations is nothing against any thing that I have written you name no Authors you name no particular exceptions So you cavill againe with my distinction of Doctrines fundamentall and doctrines accessory not being able to produce one Argument against them and ignorantly or impudently deny a destinction delivered by Saint Augustine received by your great Schoolman Aquinas by your great Iesuites Bellarmine and Valenza acknowledged by the Divines of our Church as I have formerly shewed out of these Authors and the thing doth manifest it selfe doe not some things that are contained in Scripture more neerely concerne our salvation then others Can any man be saved without knowing Christ to be the Saviour of the world And may not a man be saved without knowing that Iacob loved Rachel better then Leah Or that Pharaoh dreamed of fat and leane Kine To what tends your Schoole distinction Of 1. Fides explicita 2. Fides implicita of necessitas 1. Medii 2. Praecepti And their large disputes what are to be beleeved necessitate medii without which a man cannot be saved and what necessitate praecepti things that they ought to beleeve and offend if they doe not but not with so great danger as if they beleeve not the former What meane these two Distinctions and that which I cited out of Aquinas and by which I explicated my owne distinction of fundamentall and accessorie I meane res fidei Per se Per accidens If this be answering to except against the Grounds of Fathers Schoolemen Iesuites and reformed Divines without framing one Argument against them it is easie answering indeed Whereas you say that none of the Authors by me alleadged not Luther himselfe held the entire Protestant Faith is untrue and you bring no proofe but a false supposition that all Protestant Doctrines different from the faith of the Roman Church may be called Doctrines of Protestant faith this I formerly denyed and you bring no reason to the contrary yet still you urge it as your onely medium or principle I have shewed you reasons to the contrary which when you answer I will eat Pauls Steeple one thing which I delivered in my first Answer maketh it cleare the question betweene you and me is of Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints Purgatorie Indulgences worshipping of Images c. Which you affirme I deny and therefore they are no points of my faith for no man would deny his owne faith I will reduce it into forme No man will deny the points of his owne faith But we Protestants deny Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints Purgatorie and all your new Creed Ergo Neither Transubstantion nor Invocation of Saints nor Purgatory nor any part of your new Creed are points of Protestant faith And they being your faith you are bound by the rule of Saint Peter to give an account of your faith 1 Pet. 3 v. 15. CHAP. XXIII Fisher BUt if all Protestant Doctrines which be different from the Roman Church her faith be not Doctrines of Protestant faith I require Master Rogers to shew me which in particular be and which be not Doctrines of Protestant faith that it may be discerned who did and who did not hold the Protestant faith and that withall he give me a substantiall ground well proved out of Scripture why those particular points which he shall assigne are points of Protestant faith rather then others contained in the 39 Articles If he say as
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
undoubted as that the sacrilegious hereticks themselves will not rebaptize those whom I have baptized Saint Augustine doth answer thus He doth not commit sacriledge who dares not rebaptize after that baptisme which is not thine but the baptisme of Christ The baptisme is Christs the rebaptizing is thine I correct in thee that which is thine and acknowledge that which is Christs for this is just that when wee reproove the evils of men we should approve whatsoever good things we find in them because they are Gods I say this is just that even in a sacrilegious person I should not violate that true Sacrament which I find in him neither that I should so correct a sacrilegious person as thereby to commit a sacrilegious sinne For they are evill though the baptisme amongst them bee good as the Iewes were evill though the law was good And even as the Iewes shall bee judged by that law which they though defiled could not defile So the Donatists they shall be judged by that baptisme which they could not deprave though themâ—elves be depraved Wee therefore thus deale with a Iew when he commeth unto us to bee made Christian wee doe not destroy in him the good that he hath from God but the evill that he hath of himselfe for we amend and destroy in him his infidelity whereby hee doth not beleeve that Christ is come already was borne hath suffered is risen againe and we instruct him in the faith of these things Wee also disswade him from those errors whereby he still sticketh to the shadow of the old Sacraments and we shew unto him that the time is come already wherein the Prophets foretold that these things were to bee taken away and changed But in that hee beleeveth one God is to bee worshipped which made Heaven and Earth that he doth abhorre all the Idolls and sacriledges of the Gentiles that hee doth expect the day of Iudgement that hee doth hope for eternall life we commend him approve him acknowledge him wishing him to beleeve as he had beleeved to hold as he had held So also when a Schismatick or an heretick doth come unto us to bee made a Catholick we disswade destroy and take from him his schisme and his heresie but as for the Sacraments of Christ if wee finde them in him and whatsoever other truth he holdeth farre be it from us that we should violate or minister againe that baptisme which was once received least while wee cure the vices of men wee condemne the saving graces of God and seeking to heale that which is not wounded we should wound a man there where he was whole Thus farre Saint Augustine These words of this Father make so plaine for our reformed Churches as that they need no application let the Reader understand Papist where he readeth Donatist and he shall find the Argument to follow We so left you as that we retained whatsoever you had from God and reject that which was from man we retained that which made you a Christian Church we rejected that which made you Popish and Antichristian In the former we communicate with you in the latter we disclaime So those whom I have and shall cite did communicate with you in some things but not in all for if they had communicated with you in all things they would not have reproved Aug. l. 2. cor op Par. c. 21. and disliked so many things Qui communicat consentit qui consentit corrumpitur If hee communicate hee doth consent if hee consent hee is corrupted To consent to evill is nothing else but to approve and commend that which is evill neither is there any man joyned in evill but he that doth commit evill or favour it act it or approve it In those good men which are displeased with those evills the Church doth continue hath continued and will continue for ever And as the graine unwinnowed is hid in the chaffe So the godly doe not easily appeare amongst a multitude of the wicked The people may be good where the Bishops are bad as the people were bad though Moses a good man was their Prince where Moses and Aaron were there also were sacrilegious murtherers Where Caiphas was and many like unto him there were also Zacharias and Simeon and others like unto them Saul and David were in the same Synagogue c. So that I doubt not but some may be found in all ages who did not communicate with your new doctrines superstitious worship tyrannicall discipline although they did communicate with you in the Scriptures and Apostles Creed as wee and all the famous Christian Churches in the world doe Know then that whereas you say that the Fathers and others alleadged by some of your men did communicate with the Roman Church unlesse you can say in all things you conclude nothing Syllogizari non est ex particulari for otherwise I might argue thus Some living creature is an Anabaptist Master Fisher is a living creature Ergo Master Fisher is an Anabaptist Because they communicate with you in some things thence to inferre you are the same in all things is fallacia à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter CHAP. IX Fisher AND as ancient Fathers have done before them condemned some or other Protestants Doctrine even of those 39 Articles of the English Protestant Church although they be more craftily composed then the Articles of other Protestant Churches Rogers I told you in my first Answer that it is no prejudice to our Faith if the same Authors doe differ from us in other opinions not concerning Faith as long as they maintaine our Faith and that the Church of Rome cannot produce Fathers in all Ages who doe not contradict the Councell of Trent in some Doctrines established in the said Councell These were my words in my first Answer to which you reply not at all to this purpose I also used that distinction of Discipline and Doctrine and distinguished between Doctrine Accessary and Fundamentall Adding also that matter of Faith consisteth not in Discipline but Doctrine and that Doctrine not Accessary but Fundamentall By which distinction I meane as I then expressed the same which Aquinas doth by res fidei Per Se Per accidens To this purpose I then distinguished Dogmata 1 Schola 2 Ecclesiae 3 Fidei Between 1 Opinions of Schoole 2 Doctrines of the Church 3 Articles of Faith To all which grounds of mine and more which I thâ—n layed you make no reply at all saving that some other grounds of mine you cavill at viz my Definition of a Protestant and my Distinction of Affirmation and Negation which I will justifie in their places Why would you say nothing to these grounds Master Fisher If they were true why would you not grant them If false why not deny them If ambiguous why not distinguish them I know no other Answer but one of these three wayes Concedendo negando vel distinguendo You will doe none of these to
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
grounds you say truly that they are your grounds they manifest of themselves being your fourth and fifth Propositions Fisher I find first that he granteth the first three without any exception which I desire may be diligently noted and well pondered Rogers How I admitted them appeareth by my answer I delivered them more briefly and more perspicuously then you did thus and in this sense The three first Propositions I admit 1. That there is one faith 2. The ordinary propagation of this faith is by Pastors lawfully called 3. That there have beene and must be in all ages Pastors so lawfully called This I conceived to be the meaning of your three first Propositions without any diminution neither doe you except against it as for your parenthesis viz. as appeareth by Histories that is no part of the Proposition for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is one Proposition which declareth one thing or whose parts are joyned together and made one by conjunction this your parenthesis is no part of the Proposition nor made one with it by conjunction Fisher For out of these three grounds to wit first that there is one and but one faith necessary to salvation Secondly c. Evidently followeth that which is Masters Fishers fourth Proposition to wit If Protestant faith be 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 Rogers If it doth evidently follow frame your Argument make your syllogisme inferre your conclusion I see not the evidence make it cleare unto me one short syllogisme would make me confesse that which you endeavour to prove in three pages but prove not at all onely you make one fallacie called petitio principij and falsifie my words more then once I will begin with your falsifications Fisher Neither doth Master Rogers make any bones to grant Rogers This is your first falsification that I make no bones to grant your fourth Proposition what I granted in your fourth Proposition was this First after the Rules of Art the practise of all learned men in all professions and the onely way to wave contention about words and come to reality finding an ambiguous phrase in that Proposition I thus wrote I would gladly know what they meane by those words if the Protestants bee the true visible Church whether so as if we alone who are called Protestants were of the Church and no others wee leave such enclosing of Commons to the Romanists wee challenge it not wee are a true Church not the true Church wee are a part not the whole wee include our selves wee exclude not others whether Graecians Armenians Aethiopians Spaniards or Italians c. so they deny no fundamentall part of the Faith either directly or by consequence What Reply have you made to this have you unfolded your meaning have you expounded this dark phrase have you as much as proved or disproved my distinction or told the Reader in which sense you took it are you such a friend to amphibologies doubtfull phrases and aequivocating termes that being requested to open your selfe you will not explaine your words your Propositions and grounds or Principles to inferre other conclusions Such obscure phrases of double signification can make no Argument but a fallacie which seemeth to be an Argument but is none They cannot be Propositions which will not admit of one ambiguous terme one ambiguous simple word The onely way to avoid this is by distinction This distinction I brought which you cannot deny The thing it selfe is so cleare that there is difference betweene a part and the whole betweene a part of a Citie and a whole Citie betweene a part of a Kingdome and a whole Kingdome betweene a part of the Church and the whole Church Hee that saith I am a Citizen of London being made free wrongs no man but hee that sayes I am the onely Citizen and there is no other speakes falsly and wrongs all other Citizens of that society He that sayes Middlesex is a part of the kingdom of England speakes truly and wrongs no man but hee that sayes Middlesex is the Kingdom of England as if there were no other Shiere nor Province belonging unto England speakes falsly and is no lesse then a Traitor to the King And hee that sayes the Protestants are a Church speaks truly and wrongs no man because hee excludes no other Christian Church but hee that sayes the Protestants are the Church as you say of the Romane excluding all others speakes falsly and wrongs all other Christian Churches of the world as the Donatists did which S. Augustin esteemed a Quid hac stultitia imò verò dementia reperitur insanius lib. 1. cont ep Parm. Credunt ex partibus terrarum periisse Abrahae semen quod est Christus De vestro ista dicitis quia qui loquitur mendacium de suo loquitur creditur eis de orbe terrarū quem possidere jam coperat periisse Christus et quia hoc credunt cum impudenter dicant Christiani sumus audent dicere nos soli sumus ibid. folly and madnesse they believe that Christ is lost in all other parts of the world This you spake of your selves because he that telleth a lye speaketh of himselfe You dare say with the Donatists We alone are the Church yet Christ did not say Rome is the field but the World is the field that seed of the Gospel was sowne through the World wee dare not therefore say as you doe We are the Church we are the onely Christians for this were a lye folly and madnesse as Saint Augustine termeth it And yet as if there were no difference you can passe this over with saying The true Church or a true Church as Master Rogers had rather say I had rather say so indeed because this is true the other which you say is false this is humilitie that is pride this is charitable that 's uncharitable as the devill this is injurious unto none that to thousands of thousands millions of millions shutting them out of Heaven who believe in Christ are baptized into Christ and suffer for Christ Secondly I observed many needlesse words in your Propositions writing thus I must desire the Authors not to affect obscuritie nor to alter their words which may alter their meaning as in the fourth and fifth Propositions they have with the multitude of needlesse words obscured the matter the fourth being briefly and plainly this If the Protestants be a true Church their Faith hath beene taught in all Ages by lawfull Pastors This I granted and no more this is your first falsification as if I granted that which I expresly deny I deny that wee are the Christian Church which your Propositions layes downe
cap. 5. This Councell did professe our Faith and receive our Councels and Sacraments though they added five Sacraments more reade Surius Tom. 4. Sessione 3 4 5. Thus have I travelled through Histories Fathers Schoolmen and Councels to satisfie the demand of them who when all is done will denie all Histories Fathers and Councels which make against them I might have gone a neerer way thus You baptize Children daily in your Church and then you professe my Faith the Apostles Creed and minister our first Sacrament You have your Masse or Common Prayer with the Communion often in your Churches then also you professe my Faith reade parcels of our Scriptures and minister our other Sacrament intire to the Clergie though by halfes to the Laitie You have published many Missals under the names of Saint Iames Saint Marke Saint Chrysostom and others every one of these allow and use my Faith Scriptures and Sacraments You have your Ordo Romanus that approveth my Faith Scriptures and Sacraments You have published many writers upon the Masse in your auctionary of Bibliotheca Patrum as Walafridus Strabo Ino Corvotensis and others named by mee in my Catalogue all these professed our Faith and received our Sacraments and also our Scriptures But as for your Creed it was never professed in Baptisme it is found in none of those Missals nor in your Ordo Romanus nor in any of those Expositors of your Roman Masse for one thousand five hundred yeares Let mee conclude with the words of Vincentius Lirinensis The holy Church a diligent and wary keeper of those Doctrines which were committed unto her doth not change adde or diminish any thing therein it doth not cut off any thing that is necessary nor adde any thing that is superfluous it doth not lose that which is proper to Christianitie nor usurpe that which belongeth to other Sects of Religion in the world CHAP. XIX Fisher 1. THat faith is affirmation and not negation by which rule it seemeth he would not have any negative propositions although found in Scriptures to pertaine to faith 2. That they that are in the affirmative must prove and not those who are in the negative but which seemeth to follow that a man who had time out of minde quietly possessed his land or Religion were bound to prove his right before his upstart Adversary who denyeth him to have right have given a good reason of his denyall 3. That what was not a point of faith in the Primitive Ages cannot after be a point of faith as if there were not some points which were at first not held necessary to be beleeved even by Orthodox fathers which afterward by examination and definition of the Church in Generall Councels were made so necessary to be beleeved as that whosoever did not beleeve them were accounted not Orthodox but Hereticks And 4 that the Anabaptist faith is that which is contained in Scripture and ancient Creeds And the Anabaptist Church is a societie of men which professeth the faith contained in Scripture and the ancient Creeds as if an Anabaptist may be Iudge it will be held so to be Rogers Master Fisher hath in many pages written this Title Master Rogers his weake grounds where he spake not one word of my grounds and here he doth passe over the most with silence but he speaketh against some few of them In my former answer after my definition of a Protestant I laid some few distinctions or grounds thus I desire you to distinguish between matter 1. Of discipline and 2. Of Doctrine Secondly to distinguish between 1. Doctrine accessory and 2. Doctr. fundamentall Matter of faith consisteth not in discipline but Doctrine and that Doctrine not accessory but fundamentall By this distinction I meane the same which Aquinas doth by res fidei 1. Per se 2. Per accidens These 3 distinctions passe without exception saving that he maketh mention of the second viz 1. Doctrine accessorie 2. Doctrine fundamentall As if he would overthrow it but indeed saith nothing in the world against it nor can for it is the distinction of Saint Augustine of Bellarmine of all the Schoole Lib. 4. de verb. Dei c. 12. In Scripturis plurima sunt quae ex se non pertinent ad fidem being the same with that of Aquinas in matters of faith into res fidei 1. Per se in themselves 2. Per accidens or accidentally The words of Aquinas are these and thus cited by Valenza Tom. 3. d. 1. q. 1. p. 2. § 1. as an undoubted ground or principle Habitus fidei 1. Per se primariò respicit ea circa quae distinguuntur articuli fidei 2. Alias verò propositiones quae divinis Scripturis continenter respicit secundariò per accidens The habit of faith 1. In it self and principally looketh upon those things which are contained in the Articles of our Creed 2. Vpon other propositions which are contained in Scripture it looketh accidentally and secondarily This is the Doctrine of the Reformed Church Non enim unius sunt formae omnia verae doctrinae capita All heads of true Doctrine are not of one nature Some are necessary to be knowne which all men ought to receive as undoubted there are others Quae inter Ecclesias controversa fidei tamen unitaetem non dirimant Wherein particular Churches may dissent and yet not breake the unity of faith Thus Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 1. n. 22. I could cite Luther and others but I will onely cite Saint Augustine who in his first booke against Iulius Pelagius writeth thus Alia sunt in quibus inter se aliquando etiam doctissimi atque optimi Regulae Catholicae defensores salva fidei compage non consonant etalius alio de una re meliùs aliquid dicit verius Hoc autem vnde nunc agimus ad ipsa fidei pertinet fundamenta There are other things wherein the most learned and best defenders of the Catholicke Rule may dissent one from another and one man speaketh better and more truely then another upon the same subject But this whereof we now speake belongeth to the very foundation of faith Thus farre Saint Augustine This is the first of my grounds that he finds fault with but not in that order as I placed them but after two or three other grounds of mine which in mine answer were placed after this Thus he to puzzle the Reader that he may not so easily perceive what he doth answer what he doth not answer never observes order Yet I that he may in nothing escape my hands will follow him in his order so that I must answer what he objecteth against this ground in the next Chapter My next ground was this I distinguish between 1. Affirmation In those Articles of our English Church and 2. Negation In those Articles of our English Church Our Negation is partly a traversing partly a condemning of your novelties and additions and therefore no part of our faith for no man
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
all Ages of which all sorts must learne Faith necessary to salvation Rogers in his first Answere The perpetuall Visibilitie of the Church I acknowledge but I pray you set mee downe vvhat a visible Church is and vvhat you meane by these vvords all sorts vvhether Children dying before they come to yeares of discretion to learne this Faith be not after Baptisme parts of the Visible Church Secondly vvhat you meane by learne Whether 1. An actuall explicit knowledge Or 2. An habituall onely implicit knowledge Thirdly vvhat points of Faith you hold necessary to Salvation Rogers second Answer That some grounds must be layd for all Discourse I thinke my Adversary will not deny seeing all discourse is a drawing of Conclusions from some precedent received premisses whether of Principles naturally manifest and cleare of themselves or of some supposed received and agreed upon Some grounds I laid which Mr. Fisher or his Second here would have the Reader beleeve hee hath refuted for almost every Page hath this Title Master Rogers most weake grounds But how effectually he hath performed it shall appeare in his place The first thing I requested here of M. Fisher was to define a visible Church and to explaine an ambiguous phrase both as necessary grounds as may be for discourse for ambiguities are thickets wherein Sophisters doe hide themselves and the first grand fallacy which they use who would deceive others and doe often deceive themselves neither is the Respondent bound by Rules of Art to answer such an Opponent Aristot Elench 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is cleare that an aequivocator deserves no answer The other ground which I requested him to lay was a definition of the visible Church To this the Author of this Treatise giveth no answer although if he have any Schoole-learning hee must confesse that this is the first ground to be layd and best meanes to begin any Treatise to attaine exact knowledge of what we enquire after and to resolve all doubts that may arise Without this all Disputations are full of difficulties saith Arist This is the scope of all Logick saith Zabarel your learned Logick and Philosophie Reader of Padua You propose a question Whether the Protestants be a Church what more requisite here than to explicate your Termes and define a Church which I formerly requested you to doe and now againe make the same motion Fisher The Question propounded by M. Fisher at the entreatie of a Gentleman who desired satisfaction was Whether the Protestant Church was visible in all ages especially in the ages before Luther And whether the names of the Professors thereof may be shewed in all ages out of good Authors Rogers in his first Answer A Church professing the same faith which the Protestants now doe was visible in all ages and I do undertake to prove it out of good Authors Rogers in his second Answer To this M. Fisher or his Second have made no reply not as much as to say whether that will serve their turne or whether I must shew the names of Protestants in all ages If this later then may I require of M. Fisher or any other Iesuit to shew mee the names of Iesuits in all ages whose name began within these hundred yeares or not much more and for defect of such names argue against them thus They who are of the Church can shew their names to have been in all ages since Christ But no man can shew the name of Iesuits to have been in all ages since Christ Ergo No Iesuite is of the Church If I should call upon you for the names of Iesuits I should serve you as you serve us but I wil not use such poore miserable shifts as these which are no other then the cavils of men that have nothing to say that is worth the hearing as I will after shew in his due place Let this suffice for this place I professe that if Master Fisher or any other Iesuit can shew me that a Church professing the same faith which the Iesuits now doe was visible in all ages I will be of their faith though they can not shew me the names of Iesuits in those former times Fisher CHAP. III. M. Fisher undertooke to defend the negative part so as it did belong to his Adversary to prove the Affirmative MAster Fisher explicated the meaning of his Question to bee that first His Adversarie should set downe Names of men in all ages whom they thought to bee Protestants Secondly that they should shew out of good Authours proofe that they were Protestants Thirdly that they should defend them to hold nothing contrary to the doctrine of Protestants contained in the 39. Articles unto which all English Ministers are sworne Rogers in his first Answer To the First I wil shew the names of such as maintained our now Faith in all ages and bring good proofe To the second the Church of Rome cannot produce Fathers in all ages who doe not contradict the Councell of Trent in some doctrines established in the said Councell To the third It is no prejudice to our Faith if the same Authors doe differ from us in other opinions not concerning Faith as long as they maintaine our faith Fisher his Question Whether the Protestant Church was visible in all ages especially in the ages before Luther And whether the names of the Professors thereof may be shewed in all ages out of good Authors Rogers Mr. Fisher you here confound two Propositions or Questions delivering them both as one whereas they are very different and may subsist the one without the other For a Protestant Church may bee extant in all ages and yet no names of the Professors to be found for every age and this existence of such a Church may be proved by generall testimony of History as that the Christian Religion was here in Britaine before the comming of Augustine the Monke Hist. Angl. l. 2. c. 2. may be proved out of Beda who maketh mention of British Bishops but nameth none of them In vita Constantini lib. 3. c. 18. Here M. Fisher and his Second would say Shew me their names or I will not grant there were any Let us ascend a little higher wee may prove it out of Eusebius 300 yeeres before that this Country was Christian Here Mr. Fisher would say Shew the names of those Christians or I will not beleeve it So it is plaine that these are two Questions Arist. Elench 2. c. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not well to require one answer to two questions This is as if a man should aske whether Iohn a Nox and Iohn a Stiles be at home when the one is forth the other at home and enjoyne the Respondent to answer to both at once yea or no by which answer he must speake an untruth because the questions are two really distinct This is a trick of Sophistry M. Fisher let me give you one instance more If I should aske M. Fisher whether
my grounds and yet write in the top of your Booke for divers pages these words Master Rogers his most weake grounds viz. pag. 26 27. and in both these pages not one word spoken of my grounds Thus would you perswade your silly Proselytes who must reade no more then the Title of your Bookes That you have answered all when you have answered nothing Likewise pag. 22. you write over head Master Rogers his most weake Arguments whereas there is not in that page any one Argument of mine You can passe all those grounds of mine with a tricke of Rhetorick to take notice of that which you cannot answer unto and in stead of that must strike at a stander by namely our Booke of Articles saying That they be more craftily composed then the Articles of other Protestant Churches which I deny as most false neither need it any further Reply being an indefinite exception and as it seemeth spoken of purpose to draw mee from that matter proposed to goe a roving as your selfe have done with impertinent discourses Fisher I might therefore without more adoe conclude that Master Rogers hath not sufficiently answered Master Fishers Question Rogers With as little adoe as you can inferre abrogating a Law from that word which is the most proper for enacting the same Decret 1. part dist 4. c. 4. Lugduni Edit anno 1584. jussu Greg. 13. Statuimus id est abrogamus Wee doe enact it that is wee doe cancell it or as you say the Roman Church that is the Catholicke Church a part that is a whole a piece of man that is a whole man this is quidlibet ex quolibet from the staffe to the corner Fisher In regard hee hath neither named Protestants in all Ages neither hath hee sufficiently proved them hee named to be Protestants but by such false suppositions and bad definitions and such other shifts as any Arrian or Anabaptist or whatsoever other absurd Sectary may by the like defend the same persons to have beene of their Religion or Sect. Rogers The Question was whether the Protestant Church was visible in all ages This I prooved by divers Arguments to which you have made such answer as wee shall see anon To this I have not sufficiently answered say you in regard 1. I have not named Protestants in all ages As if there were no other means to decide the question but this no other proofe then induction or that my adversary proposing the question should limit me what kind of proofe I must use As if the King of France denouncing war against the King of England should send him word If you will warre against mee you must doe it by land not by sea and you must land in Picardie not in Normandie or Britaine or Poitou and you must chuse your place of battell in large Plaines and fight with horse not with foot and bring no Archers into the field or else confesse that you are no Warrier your Englishmen Scots and Britaines no Souldiers your proceedings not justifiable by the law of Nations Would Charles of France the Frentick have sent such a message such a challenge to our Henry the fift Yet Master Fisher saith If any Protestant will answer the Premises let him set downe names of Protestant Preachers in all Ages who taught the people Protestant Doctrine in everie severall Age or else confesse that there were no such before Luther or at least not in Ages to be found in History As if I should say If any Iesuit will answer mee let him shew mee the names of Iesuit Preachers in all Ages who taught the people Iesuiticall Doctrine in every severall Age or else confesse that there were no such before Ignatius Laiola We will deale with you as Edward the third with Phillip who presented himselfe before Paris saying Hee did call upon him to open fight in the view of France and before his great Theater of Paris He did not limit him to any one kind of fight or weapon hee left him to his choise so doe wee with you prove your selves to be the only Church and that all are excluded from salvation unlesse they hold Communion with and subjection to your Pope prove it by any testimonie of Scripture or demonstration from the Principles of Scripture or Reason frame your Argument as you thinke best for your owne advantage there are many places for Arguments viz. 24. wee exclude none but will admit them in their degrees some as necessary some as probable These are places of Art or Learning yet you will exclude us from all these and bring us ad loca inartificiata to testimonie And whereas those are Divina of God or Man vel Humana of God or Man You will have none but the later which can be but weak there being no Historian or Father but might be deceived and very few against whom you have not taken some exceptions Of all the formes of arguing a Syllogisme is that principall forme which alone hath constringencie and necessary illation and to which all other formes as being imperfect are reduced this we must not meddle with but bring exemplum or inductio or at the most an Enthymeme which is curtatus imperfectus Syllogismus all of them unsufficient parere scientiam to worke and produce true knowledge and yet we must use onely these This is as if the King of France should have sent to our King that when hee fought hee should not put on his best Armour nor use his best Sword Saint Augustine in this question excluded humane testimony yet you will have nothing else Non audiamus Haec dicit Ambrosius Augustinus c. Sed haec dicit Dominus Your Schoole also granteth that Scriptures are the principles in Theologie and all demonstrations must bee ex proprijs principijs out of proper principles Yet you will none of them onely names out of Histories you call for This was a kind of proofe which I did not approve at first but denyed the consequence of your 5th Proposition thus The summe of your fift Proposition is briefly this If the names of Protestant Pastors in all ages cannot be shewed then the Protestants are not the true Church This I deny to be of undoubted consequence for that argument negatively from authority is of no force In your demand you require the names of such as taught the Protestant doctrines whereas all your Propositions before were of faith as if all doctrines were points of faith I undertooke to shew a Church professing the same faith which the Protestants now doe in all ages and in all your Propositions you speake of faith here you speake of doctrines You know all doctrines are not articles of faith I have named Authors for 800. yeeres and in this my second Reply I will for the rest Was not my request more reasonable to call upon you to goe on so farre it being your owne way it being a course proposed by your selfe yet he that hath not gone one mile findeth fault
first Pope of that name was condemned for an Hereticke in three Councels accursed for an Heretick by two Popes that succeeded after him his owne hereticall Epistles are found in the Acts of the sixth Councell besides divers other Writers Latin Greek that relate it Yet Bellarmine hath the face to denie all this Pope Joane is recorded by Writers of their owne is denied by these late Romans that will blush at nothing When the Carthaginians in the end of the second Punick Warre sent to Rome to sue for peace a Roman Senator asked them by what Gods they would now sweare seeing they had broken the promise they had formerly made and swore by the Gods to observe So I may aske you what Historie you will alleadge for the first 400 yeares whose testimonie you will admit who have rejected and reviled all Historians of those times calling them erroneous partiall false deceitfull lying impudent Heretickes CHAP. XIIII Fisher AVthoritie as for example the Scripture saith nothing of this or that or the Fathers of the first three hundred yeares make no expresse mention of this or that Ergo No such thing is or is of no force Yet when the Negative Argument is grounded in an already granted Affirmative Proposition as it is in this our case the Negative Argument is of great and undeniable force As for example if wee did grant this Proposition if such or such a thing were holy Scripture would have spoken of it or the Fathers of the first three hundred yeares would have made expresse mention of it If I say wee granted this wee could not deny the aforesaid Negative Argument usually made by Protestants to be of force against us Now Master Rogers doth not nor in reason cannot deny Master Fishers fourth Proposition which is an Affirmative whereupon his fifth Negative Proposition is grounded And therefore Master Rogers ought not to deny but must needs grant Master Fishers fifth and so all his five Propositions Which being granted if hee will make a good answer as hee pretendeth hee must first set downe names of Protestant Pastors in all Ages and not content himselfe with naming some whom he thinketh to be Protestants and with saying hee hath gone halfe the way Secondly If hee will satisfie Master Fishers other Paper as he pretendeth to doe hee must prove and defend them to be Protestants as Master Fishers Paper requireth and must bring some or other good Authors who doe clearly shew them to hold all or some principall points of Protestants Faith differing from Catholicke Roman Faith and not to condemne any of the 39 Protestant Articles and must not content himselfe with making such Arguments as hee maketh which are most insufficient either to convince or probably to perswade either his Adversary or any indifferent judicious Reader for these be his Arguments First a Causis thus The faith contained in the Scriptures hath had visible professors in all ages But the Protestant faith is contained in the Scriptures ergo Secondly a Signis thus The faith is that which hath testimonies of Antiquities universality and consent of fathers and other writers in all ages But the faith of Protestants harh these testimonies ergo Thirdly ab Exemplis thus Names of such as professed the Protestants faith in all ages Christ and his Apostles St. Iohn Ignatius Polycarpus Iustinus Martyr Irenaeus Tertullian Clemens Alex Origen Cyprian Lactantius Athanasius Cyrill Hierosol Ambrozius Nyssenus Hieronimus Ruffinus Chrysostomus Augustinus Cyrillus Alex Theodoretus Socrates Sozomenus Fulgentius Evagrius Gregorius primus Beda Damascenus Alcuinus Thus having gone halfe way I conclude with this Argument The Protestant faith being that which is contained in Scriptures was received and taught by all the Orthodox Fathers But the Fathers above named be all Orthodox ergo Now who doth not see that these Arguments be most insufficient and that they may be most easily answered by denying the Protestant faith to be contained in Scriptures or to have testimony of antiquity universality and consent or to have beene professed by those Fathers which Master Rogers named Who doth not also see that the same Arguments may be more strongly retorted against Protestants by only altering the word Protestant into Catholick in regard our Catholick doctrine may be and is ordinarily proved by plaine Testimonies of Scriptures and Fathers even by confession of divers learned Protestants themselves I marvaile therefore that M. Rogers being accounted a worthy Oxford Divine would affirme and offer to prove and defend Protestants to have beene in all ages upon so sleight grounds which if they be admitted for good every sect of Hereticks may affirme and prove and defend men of their sect to have beene in all ages For tryall whereof I wish it may be imagined that there were an Anabaptist for example who held all the Protestant faith saving onely some few negatives and namely that it is not lawfull to baptize Infants and that this Anabaptist had framed to himselfe such false Rules as Master Rogers hath set downe to himselfe Rogers I desire Master Fisher and the Reader to looke backe to the former page of the precedent leafe to which I have already answered for in matter it was the same with that which went before contained in the 26th and 27th pages of Master Fishers Booke against me which were all spent in seeking to strengthen his owne Propositions his owne grounds yet the Title he gave unto both those Pages was Master Rogers his most weake grounds there being in both those Pages not one sentence nor line nor word concerning any grounds of mine so in the 28th Page of his Booke he hath put this Title Master Rogers his most weake Arguments Whereas there is not one Argument nor one Proposition of mine in all that Page as may easily appeare to him that will but reade the same onely he speaketh something in defence of his owne grounds to which I have already answered Yet because of the Title agreeing with the 29 and 30 pages which follow next after I have copied them out and placed them altogether that have this title viz. Master Rogers his most weake Arguments Which I thinke he did to gull his Proselytes who reading but the Title must thinke that Master Fisher hath shewed my grounds and Arguments to be weake when and where hee hath not made any mention of any Arguments of mine CHAP. XV. Fisher NOw who doth not see that these Arguments be most insufficient and they may be most easily answered by denying the Protestant faith to bee contained in Scriptures or to have testimony of Antiquity Vniversality and Consent or to have bin professed by these Fathers which M. Rogers named Rogers I doe not think that you did see any insufficiency in the Arguments or that they were easily to be answered for then you would have answered punctually to every argument apart and not thus confusedly and altogether as if you had been afraid to come to close fight but standing a farre off to
I wrote thus As I did admonish Master Fisher to distinguish betweene Affirmation and Negation so I doe these men and that faith is Affirmation not Negation for no man beleeveth what he denieth Secondly In points of faith I like Master Fishers Rule They that are in the Affirmative must prove Now all that we affirme they affirme as one God three persons all the Creed So that we need not prove what our Adversaries do confesse But in those points in variance between us they are to prove because they are Affirmative we Negative as unwritten Traditions Latine Service Invocation of Saints c. Thus farre in my former Answer This is saying plainly this is not seeming Whereas you inferre that seeing all which is affirmed by Protestants is affirmed by Roman Catholikes and this Affirmative Doctrine onely doth pertaine to faith it will follow that Protestants have no faith different from Roman Catholikes I grant the Consequence what is this to the question whether we are of the visible Church or no this which you would inferre doth rather prove us to be a part of the visible Church then any way gaine-say it Thus They which have no other faith then that of the Church of Rome are parts of the visible Church But the Protestants have no other faith then that of the Church of Rome Ergo The Protestants are a part of the visible Church The minor Master Fisher would inferre out of my Grounds as if I would deny it no I grant it and so I hope will he the major then the conclusion must follow We differ from you in Ecclesiasticall Doctrines and Discipline which you terme to be points of faith but we deny They are corruptions of faith Innovations Idolatrous Antichristian Doctrines You would force them upon us as points of faith we refuse them because the Scripture doth not expresse them the Primitve Church did not know them and the greatest part of the Christian Church to this day doth not approve them And your owne writers are distracted into many and divers opinions concerning them Paulus venet l. 1. 2 What Antiquity have you for your halfe Communion Worshipping of Images c. What Universality seeing the Church of Greece of Syria the Georgians Circassians Mengiellians Breitenbachius Purgr c. de Iacobitis Vitrivius Histor orientalis c. 76. the Moscovits and Russians the Christians of Babylon of Assyria Mesopotamia Parthia Media of Cassar Samarcham Charcham Chinchtalis Tanguth Suchir Ergimal Tenduck Caracam Mangi the Iacobits whose Sect is extended and spred abroad in some fourty Kingdomes which I assure my selfe is more large then all the Roman Church do communicate in both kindes worship not Images deny Purgatory and which with you is more then all the rest deny the Popes Supremacy So you have neither Antiquity nor Universality to which I might adde nor Consent among your selves in those additions of yours contained in your new Creed As for one Instance the Councell of Trent hath made the bookes of Machabees Canonicall Melitus Sav. Origenes Athanasius Hilarius Epiphanius Cyrillus Nazianzen Amphiloch Hieronymus Ruffinus which is left out of the Canon by ten Fathers that is I take it by all the Fathers that dyed within 400 yeares after the Incarnation and wrot of that subject Your Nicholaus Lyranus Dionysius Carthusianus Hugo and Thomas de Vio Cardinals whereof this last was one of the most learned that ever the Church of Rome had insomuch that in the Councel of Trent it was said I thinke no man heere doth thinke himselfe so great a Divine but that he might learne of Cajetan All these I say of your side exclude those Bookes from the Canon as we doe yet will you not say they were of another faith then the Church of Rome which you must say if your new Creed and Decrees of Councels be points of faith as you here say And lest you should escape with your wandring discourses and your flying from the question I will presse my argument in forme Whosoever denyeth the new Creed or any Articles thereof the Councell of Trent or any Doctrine thereof is an Hereticke and denyeth the faith But Carthusianus and Thomas de Vio Cajetan both Cardinals deny some Articles of the new Creed and some Doctrines of the Councell of Trent Ergo Lyra Carthusianus and Thomas de Vio are Hereticks and deny the faith I am sure you will hold this Conclusion to be false if so then one of the premisses must be false not the minor ergo the major which is your Tenet whereby you would proue us to be Hereticks and to deny the faith Fisher Out of which it will further follow that those English Protestants who shall hold some of the 39 Articles and deny the rest may be said to have no faith different from those which subscribe to all the 39 Articles Rogers I grant it doth follow so that those same Articles which they deny be not those Articles which concerne the Unity of the Godhead the Trinitie of persons and all those things which are contained in the Creed I say therefore they differ in Ecclesiasticall Doctrines or Discipline not in faith so they receive the Scriptures and Apostles Creed Fisher Which last consquence if Master Rogers grant I aske why the bookes of Canons doth excommunicate ipso facto such halfe Protestants Rogers They may be excomunicated for gaine saying Ecclesiasticall Doctrines or the established Discipline of the Church they may be excommunicated as erroneous Shismaticks Fisher Why doe their Bishops imprison them as Hereticks and not account them members of their Church Rogers Andrewes in his Defence of the Apologie for the other Bilson in his perpetuall government of the Church Carleton against the Appeal They must be imprisoned as Schismaticks Our Bishops doe all professe that there are no Puritane Doctrines that the difference is onely in matter of Discipline they count them neither Hereticks nor wholly excluded out of the Church here you have supposed two falshoods in two lines those learned Protestants from beyond the Seas whose Discipline doth somewhat vary from ours doe testifie that the purity of Doctrine doth flourish in England purely and sincerely So Beza from Geneva that by Queeene Elizabeths comming to the Crowne God againe had restored his Doctrine and true worship So Zanchius that the whole compasse of the world hath never seene any thing more to be wished then is her Government So Daneus Fisher And why not Roman Catholicks by as good or better right account Protestants who deny so many points defined in both ancient and recent Generall Councels to be Hereticks Excommunicated and no members of the Ancient and present Catholick Church Rogers If we did the one you may doe the other but I have shewed the falshood of your supposition that we count them Hereticks who discent from us in any of our Articles they may be erroneous in a lesser nature then Heresie turbulent in those errours they may be Schismaticks
as if it were our Tenet and this must be our ground to inferre that Proposition this is your Petitio principii you beg a Principle which I will not grant you and so the building fals for want of a foundation Your Argument is thus Major If Protestants be the true visible Church of God then all sorts of men who in every Age had the foresaid infallible Faith have learned it by hearing Protestant Preachers whose names may yet be found in Histories as the names of those are found who in every former Age did teach and convert the people of severall Nations unto the Faith of Christ Minor But the Protestants are the true Church Ergo All sorts of men c. Not to meddle with the sequel of your Major which is false as I will shew when I come to answer your reasons for the same your Minor is most false wee alwaies did and ever will deny it wee are A true Church not The true Church a part not the whole c. Whatsoever is in your Proposition more then what I expressed for the summe thereof I granted not and therefore you have committed so many falsifications as there are words in your Proposition more then this If the Protestants be a true Church their Faith hath beene taught in all Ages by lawfull Pastors I never granted that all sorts of men in every Age did learne their Faith by hearing Protestant Preachers I never granted that their names or the names of all other Preachers were to be found in Histories yet you say I granted all this Is there no truth no modestie no meane no measure of falsifying Are you not ashamed to write that a man granted that which hee denied so fully so frequently Fisher Onely it may be hee will make a bogge at the word Histories as not finding it in his Copie not thinking it perhaps necessary that the names of Protestant Pastors who have taught the Protestant Faith in all Ages past be found in Histories Rogers What you meane by Bogge I know not unlesse it be a hollow myrie ground whereon a man can set no sure no firme footing but hee that trusting to a greene surface shall walke thereon sinketh in and sticketh in the myre such indeed are humane Histories in matters of Faith But why should Master Rogers make the bogge who proveth his Faith and his Church by other Arguments and not by these who out of Saint Augustine hath already protested against humane proofe in so divine a Question Aug. de veritate Ecclesia Quia nolo humanis documentis sed divinis oraculis sanctam Ecclesiam demonstrari I would not have the Church demonstrated by humane learning but by the oracle of God And with your Schoole That nothing but divine authoritie Th. Aquin. 1. quaest 1. Art 8. neither humane reason nor authoritie of holy Fathers are proper unto Divinitie or doe properly demonstrate But you that shun the proving of your Church of your Faith by other course and flye onely to Histories you make the bogge and such a bogge whereon you dare not walke without you fill it up with the rubbish of some other kind of Records or Monuments If you meane by making a bogge at the word Histories that I should be afraid to admit the same now because it was not in my former Copy you are deceived I feare it not let it come in though with a Parenthesis and let Histories extend to Records or Monuments so they be without exception I well receive them in their degree as a humane probable uncertaine unnecessitating proofe and yet such and so uncertaine proofe as it is if you can shew mee your now Faith out of Histories for the first foure hundred years which you your selves doe not accuse of errour falshood wilfull deceit juggling partialitie heresie I will be of your Faith of your Church Fisher Things past cannot be shewed but by Histories Rogers I have admitted your extension of Histories to Records and Monuments Fisher I doe not see why Master Rogers may not absolutely grant the fourth Proposition even as it was set downe by Master Fisher himselfe Rogers Within twelve lines before you say Neither doth Master Rogers make any bones to grant and here now you say I doe not see why Master Rogers may not absolutely grant it there you say I did grant it here you suppose I did not grant it You see no reason why I should not grant If it be evident it hath reason why it is evident and being your Proposition you must shew that reason and what your reasons are and how proposed let us see Fisher 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 and written of as well as others are who have in Ages past taught all sorts of true and false Doctrines Rogers First you play the Sophister in changing your termes in your three first Propositions you speake of Faith here you leave out Faith and put in Doctrines as if they were the same whereas you know that the ancient Fathers and late Writers of your side and ours doe confesse that there are many Doctrines in the Church of different nature and necessitie but let us see your proofe Others who have in all Ages past taught all sorts of true and false Doctrines are named spoken of and written in Histories Ergo The Protestant Pastors in ages are named spoken of c. First tell mee whether your Antecedent be universall or particular if particular you conclude nothing you know the old rule Syllogizari non est ex particulari or if you will have it in the words of Aristotle the rule is this Arist lib. Prior 1. c. 19. If both Premises be indefinite or in part it can be no Syllogisme and such is yours namely an indefinite Proposition which must be resolved either into universall or particular If yours be universall thus All others who have in all Ages past taught all sorts of true and false Doctrines are named in Histories I denie it It is related by many Historians that there were Christian Churches in Britaine in the third fourth and fifth Age. But no man hath put downe all their names who were their Bishops or inferior Ministers if you can doe it shew it mee Againe the Arrians were so many in the fourth Age as that a Father saith Miratus est mundus se subitò factum esse Arrianum The world wondered how it came on a sudden to be of the Faith of Arrius And can you Master Fisher shew mee the names of these Arrian Teachers I could be copious in alleaging divers false Doctrines whose first Authors are not named are not knowne much lesse all that taught the same so that if your Proposition be universall it is false I denie your Antecedent If particular thus Some others who taught all sorts of true and false Doctrines are named in Histories
he hath already seemed to say that none of their negative Doctrines pertaine to their faith and that all which is affirmed by Protestants is affirmed by Roman Catholikes and that this affirmative Doctrine onely doth pertaine to faith it will follow that Protestants have no faith different from Roman Catholikes out of which it will follow that those English Protestants who shall hold some of the 39 Articles and deny the rest may be said to have no faith different from those which subscribe to all the 39 Articles which last Consequence if Master Rogers grant I aske why the booke of the Canons doth excommunicate ipso facto such halfe Protestants Why doe their Bishops imprison them as Hereticks and not account them members of their Church And why may not Roman Catholikes by as good or better right accouunt Protestants who deny so many points defined in both ancient and recent Generall Councels to be Hereticks excommunicaeed and no members of the ancient and present Catholike Church Rogers That which you require heere I performed in my first Answer in my definition of a Protestant or else it had been no good definition had it not contained all that is essentiall this you know well enough but because you have nothing to answer you will demaund the same question againe Looke into my definition there you shall finde it and I made the same request unto you for a definition of the visible Church and what points you hold to be fundamentall to which you make no answer at all I there also undertooke to prove all our Affirmations which you deny so you doe the like by your Affirmations which we deny my words were these in my former answer Rogers in his first answer In all these I defend the Negative and so it doth belong to you to prove the Affirmative which when you shall doe by testimonies of Writers in all ages I will yeeld unto you for you proving the Affirmative the Negative will fall of it selfe as for example The first instance of Negation in our Articles is part of the sixt Article concerning those bookes of Esdras Tobit Iudith c. which we receive not for Canonicall you doe the proofe is on your side What I require of you I will performe on our side whatsoever is affirmative in our Articles I will maintaine to be affirmed and taught in all Ages as the 1 2 3 4 5 Articles the Affirmative part of the 6 the 7 8 and so in the rest or I will yeeld unto you Give me instance what Affirmation of our Articles you deny and I will prove it in all Ages And I desire you to set downe withall which of your affirmative Articles you receive and whether we agree in the Articles of the Creed or not I will doe the like by you and give you an instance in our Affirmatives Shew me who in every Age did receive the bookes of Esdras Machabees Tobit Iudith c. for Canonicall in the 1 2 3 4 Centurie of yeares This is one of the first points of your Tridentine faith Master Fisher I desire you also for the avoiding of confusion to deliver your opinion whether all the Affirmative Doctrines of the Councell of Trent are matters of faith per se fundamentall and necessary to be held for salvation fide explicita I speake de adultis quibus facultas discendidatur Thus farre in my former Answer to which you have made reply you have neither shewed which of our Affirmative Articles you deny nor which you receive nor have you proved one Instance I gave of your Affirmatives nor as much as expressed what you hold for matters of faith but dissembling all this passe it over with silence unlesse you had thought as the Boy did by his bodged verses that what you wrote would never be read but that men would reade the Titles and number the Pages and there finde written over head Master Rogers weake Grounds Master Rogers weake Arguments would take the rest upon trust would you ever have put Pen to Paper and yet in matters of Controuersies never expresse what your selfe held nor tell us being requested what your owne faith is or to give a reason of your owne faith nor to define your owne Church And answer formally and punctually to no one Argument and frame no one Argument of your owne Hominis est vehementèr abutentis otio literis That a man should offer to write a Tract and that in so sacred a profession as Divinitie and that in a question of so high a nature as these are what is the Christian faith what is the visible Church and herein not answer one question not to bring one Distinction or Definition or frame one Argument in forme or like a Scholler is a mispending of time wasting of Paper and abusing the very name of Learning Divinity as all other Sciences consisteth of Principles and Conclusions the Principles received on both sides are the Scriptures to which you would adde unwritten Traditions you bring not one place of Scripture to maintaine those Affirmative Tenents of yours which we deny you account Articles of faith And as for Theologicall conclusions you inferre none you frame no Argument you make no Syllogisme you give no reason of your faith though Saint Peter require it whom I thought of all the Apostles you did most respect what shall we thinke then but that you have neither Scripture nor reason for your faith I meane in your new Creed in which you dissent from us Fisher I require withall that he give me a substantiall ground well proved out of Scripture why those perticular points which he shall assigne are points of Protestant faith rather then others contained in the 39. Articles if he say as he hath already seemed to say that none of their Negative Doctrines pertaine to their faith and that all that is affirmed by Protestants is affirmed by Roman Catholikes and that this Affirmative Doctrine onely doth pertaine to faith it will follow that Protestants have no faith different from Roman Catholikes Rogers He calleth unto me to distinguish between points of Protestant faith and other points contained in the 39 Articles and yet in the next word he is faine to confesse that I distinguished if he say as he hath already seemed to say that none of their Negative Doctrines pertaine unto their faith This I had delivered in my first Answer and yet he still calleth for it yet he must mince it a little and say I seemed to say so great a friend he is to seeming that he will never leave it knowing it to be essentiall to the definition of Sophistry and a Sophister You might have left out your seeming and written plainly that I said so seeing in my Answer to your first Paper I spent nere a page in explicating and exemplifying this Distinction and in my Answer to your second Paper which was delivered me as the worke of five Jesuites then conversant about Gondamors house