THE PROTESTANT CHURCH EXISTENT, AND Their FAITH professed in all Ages, and by Whom: With a Catalogue of Counsels in all Ages, who professed the same.  
Written, By HENRY ROGERS D. D. Prebendary of HEREFORD.  
LONDON, Printed by RICHARD BADGER 1638.   

TO THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD GEORGE, LORD Bishop of Hereford, His Honourable DIOCESAN.  
RIght Reverend Father in God, and my Honourable Lord, my book I dedicate unto God, as I have myself, and all my labours long since. I present it to your Lordship, as the person to whom under God and the King, I am bound to give an account of my life, and labours in my vocation. A beneficed man, and a Preacher I have lived in your Diocese these thirty years; many conferences I have had with Papists; many small tracts have I written, upon the request of some of our Church, who desired satisfaction in some points; divers books have I briefly answered with marginal notes, or analytical resolution of their discourse, intending them for private satisfaction. Only one escaped that happiness of privacy, a short answer to Mr. Fisher, which I gave, being in London, far from my books, farther from repose or quietness to study, in a case, which made me fall on my knees, and pray unto God to keep to me the best things, whereby I might do him service. In maximis angustiis, I wrote that short answer to Mr. Fisher. I may call it my Benoni, to which Mr. Fisher, or one for him, made a reply: and this is my defence of it, and our Church. It is not any great conceit that I have of my labours, or my own strength, that causeth me to publish it; no, I say to myself, as was said to a weak Soldier, that girt on his armour to go and fight: 
Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis  
Tempus eget—  And, God be thanked, we have many better, and those of late, whose works for subject, and conformity of opinions, have that correspondency with this of mine, though for acuteness and learning beyond it, as that, amongst other motives, caused me to publish it seven or eight years, after that it was finished. The bragging of the Romanist, their false hopes of the change of Religion, and the vain fears of others, have made me rub up my old harness, and to gird me to the battle, not daunted with the insolency of some Papists, nor disquieted with the causeless fears of some of our side, who, while they would seem zealous against the Roman party, little consider, by their injurious traducing the Church they are members of, and the happy government of it, that they help their enemies more than their most professed Champions. For my part, as I delivered in a Sermon before your Lordship, at your first Visitation, I am assured, that while we have the Scriptures, public and private, in our mother tongue, and solid Catechising in the fundamental points, we need not fear Popery. This they well knew, that persecuted with Fire and Faggot, whosoever had the New Testament, or Old, or as much as the Creed, the Lords Prayer, and the ten Commandments in the English Tongue; they well knew, that to read the Scriptures, and there finding, there is one Mediator between God and man, the man CHRIST JESUS, would make them that read it, though simple, to suspect the popish mediation of Saints departed.  
2. The learning of the Lords Prayer, with this injunction pray thus, Our Father, would make the simplest to collect after this manner; if I may go to God himself, and am so commanded by Christ, and have the example of the Patriarches, Prophets, and Apostles praying unto God, and not unto men or Angels, with a promise from Christ, Ask and you shall have; and an invitation, Come unto me all ye that travail, and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you; why should I pray unto Saints without command, promise or pattern, nay, without faith, how shall they call on him, on whom they have not believed? In quem non crediderunt, Unless they will say, which is a degree beyond ordinary Popery, that we may credere in hominem, vel Angelum.  
3. The Creed being learned would make the simple consider, when he heareth of other Articles of Faith not therein contained, as traditions unwritten equalled to the words of God, the Pope's supremacy, to be the prime article of the faith, as Bellarmine to Blackwell doth call it, transubstantiation, invocation of Saints, veneration of Images, purgatory, seven Sacraments, Et quicquid novi semper apportat Roma, new articles, new monsters; to say thus, they are not in my Creed, it was no part of my promise in Baptism, no covenants of mine: I was made a Christian, without any such conditions, any such articles.  
4. In the Commandments, the simple do find the Papists forgery, if they blot out the 2d. Commandment, or any part thereof: or their Idolatry in worshipping Images, if they leave the text whole and uncorrupted.  
5. Having the whole Scriptures in their mother tongue, they find the Papists prohibiting of marriage, and of meats, a doctrine of devils; their exercise of Religion in an unknown tongue, to be but a tinkling Cymbal; Antichrist to be that man of sin, which exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, to be the Whore that sitteth on seven hills, that sitteth in the Temple of God, etc. These things being commanded by the King, and earnestly pressed by the Bishops in their several Visitations; make me confident (as every moderate person is) that they, whose zeal against Rome is good, do fear the alteration of Religion without cause; nay, have much to answer for both to God and man, for cherishing such uncharitable suspicions in themselves and others.  
Three things in your Lordship's Visitation, did cause me much to reverence your person, and place. 1. Your personal presence in most parts of Your Diocese. 2. Your admonition to the Ministers, to study and preach the Scriptures, and to Catechise carefully. 3. Your Lordship's laying of hands upon Children, after Your Lordship had examined some by Yourself, and the rest by Your Clergy; a thing of late neglected, and therefore lay heavy upon Your Lordship at this first coming, when there came so many, that Your Lordship's spirits were almost spent, and many were almost crushed with the throng; I said then to Your Lordship, it was a great comfort to see the Church thus to suffer violence. And from all other violence the Lord of heaven deliver us: to whose protection my prayers daily commend Your Lordship;  
Henry Rogers.   

The Preface to the Christian READER.  
SOme passages between Master Fisher and myself, about twelve years past were published and Printed without my knowledge. Master Fisher delivered to diverse Parsonages of good quality, certain propositions concerning the Protestant Faith, Church, and Succession; to which (though then fare from home, and from my Books) I gave a short Answer, with a Catalogue of Orthodox Writers, who professed our Faith in the first 700 years. To this Answer of mine, some years after, a reply was published (whether by Master Fisher himself, or some other in his behalf, I know not) a sight whereof I could not get in a year 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 particular men being finished, I have added a Catalogue of Counsels in all Ages, who professed our faith. This book of mine was finished seven or eight years past, as a noble personage now employed by our Sovereign King in foreign parts can testify; who bestowed some books upon me, which were very useful unto me in this Work, 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 persuasions 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 book printed without my knowledge. Secondly, to observe how my Adversary doth pass by many principal things, in my first answer, without any mention at all of the same. Thirdly, that of what he hath written against me, I pass not by any one sentence unanswered.  
My Book hath two general 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 alleged by me in the thirteenth Chapter of this book, as first the uncertainty of humane testimony. Secondly, their purging out of Authors, that which makes against them. Thirdly, their forging of Authors, and Counsels; fourthly, their slighting and abasing of the Ecclesiastical Historians of the Primitive Church, example whereof shall be showed 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, Lo where we have learned Christ, lo 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 weakness, who will to my poor ability be  
Thine in the Lord. H. R,   

A Table of the Contents.  

CHAP. I. THe rules of answering. 1. to lay down 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 terms 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. Fisher's terms ambiguous, 3. Distinctio vocis, and definitio rei, neglected by Master Fisher, though requested by his Adversary. 4. These are the grounds of all doctrinal Discourses. 5. Master Rogers answer to Master Fishers first question. That he will show who professed the faith of the Reformed Churches in all Ages. 6. Master Fisher cannot show the names of jesuites in all Ages. 2  
CHAP. III. 1. Master Fisher's Rule, That probatio est affirmantis non negantis. They who affirm 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 Island before Austin the Monk came hither. 3. M. Fisher doth confound two questions, and commits a fallacy, secundum plures interrogationes. 4. Master Fisher by his rule of names in all Ages, may be denied to be a man, to be descended of Adam, if he admit no other proof. 5. Master Roger's Argument to prove himself a Christian confirmed out of Bellarmine, Baronius, Valenza, etc. 6. What is essential and necessary to an explicit faith, set down at large. 7. The covenant of faith, the same in all Christian Churches of the world, Latin, Roman, and Reform, the Greek Armenian, etc. 5  
CHAP. IU Of the total object of faith, as it includeth not only the primary essential matters of faith, but also the secondary and accidental matters contained in the revealed truth. And that from hence demonstrations may be drawn to prove the Protestants to be a Church. 13  
CHAP. V. Showing 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 between the ancient and present Church of Rome, between the Ancient Monks, and the present, the title of Roman Catholic a most impudent contradiction. Two Impostors submitting themselves as two Patriaaches to the Church of Rome. The whole faith of the Protestants confirmed by Popish Writers. Yet the Romanists have another new faith of their own. 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 bear witness against the Church of Rome. 41  
CHAP. VIII. What it is to communicate with others, how fare 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 book, as thus. Master ROGERS his weak Grounds, over his 26 and 27 pages, and yet not one word spoken in both those pages of any of Master Roger's Grounds. And page 28. Master Rogers most weak Arguments, and yet not one Argument of Master Rogers mentioned in all that page▪ Master Fisher changeth his terms, for Faith puts Doctrines. 52.  
CHAP. X. Master Roger's definition of a Protestant Church conformed. The same definition agreeth with all true Churches in the world, the rule of defining. Bellarmine's 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 Book, [As Master Rogers his most weak Grounds, or Arguments] where there is ●●mention of his Grounds, or Arguments. The Protestants a true Church, not the true Church. Histories no good proof of the Church. All Doctrines not points of Faith. M. Fisher's 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 Fisher's Tautologies. He saith Master Rogers granteth what he never did grant. 86  
CHAP. XIII. Four Reasons to prove that Master Fisher's proof by Histories cannot be effectual and satisfactory. 1. For the uncertainty of humane Stories. 2. Because of their Index expurgatorius. 3. Because they have forged many authorities of Counsels and Fathers. 4. Because they have excepted against all the Ecclesiastical Historians of the Primitive Church as falsaries. 91  
CHAP. XIIII. Master Fishers Answer to Master Roger's Arguments and Grounds, 100  
CHAP. XV. The Protestants Faith contained in Scripture. The Articles of their faith in the Apostles Creed. Master Roger's Arguments maintained against Master Fishers first Answer by denying the minor. 103  
CHAP. XVI. Master Fishers second Answer by changing Protestant into Catholic, refuted, retorted; a bold manifest falsehood of Master Fishers. Master Fisher but half a Papist. 109  
CHAP. XVII. The Romanists can bring no Authors for 400 years for their half Communion. Worshipping of Images, etc. nor for any else in some Ages for want of Wtiters in times of ignorance. No Council, 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 Greek Authors. 3. Of Counsels, who professed our faith, maintained our sacraments but not the faith and sacraments of the Roman Church. 119  
CHAP. XIX. The distinctions of Doctrines Accessary and Fundamental, of Affirmation and Negation. 142  
CHAP. XX. The same distinction maintained. john Ellis his comparison. The Ape with his youngling. The boy with his bodging Verses. Decrees of Counsels not Articles of faith. What makes an Heretic. The Anabaptist (as he is supposed by Master Fisher) a member of the Church, but membrum non sanum. 148  
CHAP. XXI. Of Doctrine fundamental. The Roman Church the most corrupted part of the Church. 155  
CHAP. XXII. Of Baptising of children. The error of the Anabaptist, in practice, not in point of faith. 159  
CHAP. XXIII. The Papists affirm all our faith, but differ in Ecclesiastical Doctrines, which they term points of faith, in which they want Antiquity, Universality, and Consent. 164  
CHAP. XXIIII. The same grounds of doctrines, accessary and fundamental, of affirmation and negation, maintained. 2. Negatives in Scripture pertain to faith, per accidens, not per se. All things revealed in Scripture have equal truth, but not equal profit, equal necessity of being believed, being known, but not equal necessity to be known. 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, Schismatics, and Heretics. The Conclusion of the whole Book. 171    

Recensui hunc librum, cujus titulus est [The Protestant Church existent, etc.] 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 CHURCH 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 down 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 do agree in any thing that I have written, or descent 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 tantum 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 took 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 terms, or sentences, I desired you to explicate, and clear 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 amphibology, words or sentences of double signification, and doubtful sense, until 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 terms & Propositions as that they seem 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 curtain before the understanding, not only of the Reader, but also of your Adversary, 
Aristot. Elench. 2. We are ignorant of what we formerly knew when it is misplaced and disordered.  and yourself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thus have I been served by others besides you. Is not this catching at a word here, and passing by a whole side of a leaf elsewhere, without saying one word to it? afterward leap back a leaf, or two, and snarl 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 run away; lap again, and run away? This was applied by one to Antony, flying after Cleopatra from the Battle at Actium, who being asked, Quid agit Antonius? Answered, Quod canis ad Nilum, lambit, & fugit: so much was he besotted with that Harlot. Thus you the Champion of that Purple Harlot that sitteth upon the seven hills, fight her quarrels, a snatch and away, a snap and be gone; or if you make a short stand, you will but show your teeth, grin, snarl, but hardly bite. That I may draw you from this course of disorder, I will put down what Master Fisher proposed, what I answered, and then what this Author replied, or where he 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 Sovereign was in Spain, a Gentleman delivered me those Propositions following, in the presence of diverse, I being then in London 100 miles from my dwelling, and my Books. That night I delivered this answer following after Master Fishers Propositions. The Gent: was then almost become Romanist, having been (not many days before) at Mass in the Spanish Ambassadors house, and Master Fisher coming to this Gent: Chamber left those Propositions with him.  
The like verbatìm the Right Honourable Earl of O. did show me, saying, that it was all written with Master Fishers own hand.  

The Propositions are these.  
Fisher.  
IT being granted that there must be a Visible Church in all Ages, of which all sorts must learn Faith necessary to salvation.  
Roger's in his first Answer.  
The perpetual visibility of the Church I acknowledge: but I pray you set me down what a visible Church is? and what you mean by these words, all sorts, whether Children dying before they come to years of discretion to learn this Faith, be not after Baptism parts of the Visible Church?  
Secondly, what you mean by learn? Whether 1. An actual explicit knowledge: Or 2. An habitual only implicit knowledge.  
Thirdly, what points of Faith you hold necessary to Salvation.  
Roger's second Answer.  
That some grounds must be laid for all Discourse, I think my Adversary will not deny, seeing all discourse is a drawing of Conclusions from some precedent received premises, whether of Principles naturally manifest, and clear 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 believe he hath refuted; for almost every Page hath this Title, Master Rogers most weak grounds. But how effectually he hath performed it, shall appear in his place.  
The first thing I requested here of M. Fisher, was to define a visible Church, and to explain an ambiguous phrase, both as necessary grounds as may be for discourse: for ambiguities are thickets wherein Sophisters do hide themselves, and the first grand fallacy which they use, who would deceive others, and do often deceive themselves; neither is the Respondent bound by Rules of Art to answer such an Opponent.  
Aristot. Elench. 2.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is clear, 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 School-learning, he must confess, that this is the first ground to be laid, and best means to begin any Treatise, to attain exact knowledge of what we inquire 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 Logic, saith Zabarel your learned Logic and Philosophy Reader of Milan. You propose a question, Whether the Protestants be a Church: what more requisite here, than to explicate your Terms, and define a Church, which I formerly requested you to do, and now again make the same motion.  
Fisher.  
The Question propounded by M. Fisher at the entreaty 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 showed in all ages out of good Authors?   
Roger's in his first Answer.  
A Church professing the same faith which the Protestants now do, was visible in all ages: and I do undertake to prove it out of good Authors.  
Roger's 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 turn, or whether I must show the names of Protestants in all ages. If this later, then may I require of M. Fisher, or any other jesuit, to show me the names of jesuits in all ages, whose name began within these hundred years, or not much more, and for defect of such names argue against them thus: 
They who are of the Church can show their names to have been in all ages since Christ.  
But no man can show the name of jesuits to have been in all ages since Christ.  
Ergo: No jesuite is of the Church.   
If I should call upon you for the names of jesuits, I should serve you as you serve us: but I will not use such poor miserable shifts as these, which are no other than the cavils of men that have nothing to say that is worth the hearing, as I will after show in his due place. Let this suffice for this place; I profess, that if Master Fisher or any other jesuit can show me, that a Church professing the same faith which the jesuits now do, was visible in all ages, I will be of their faith, though they can not show me the names of jesuits in those former times.    

Fisher. CHAP. III. M. Fisher undertook 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 be, that first, His Adversary should set down  
Names of men in all ages whom they thought to be Protestant's.  
Secondly, that they should show out of good Authors proof 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 sworn.  
Roger's in his first Answer.  
To the First, I will show the names of such as maintained our now Faith in all ages, and bring good proof.  
To the second, the Church of Rome cannot produce Fathers in all ages, who do not contradict the Council of Trent in some doctrines established in the said Council.  
To the third. It is no prejudice to our Faith, if the same Authors do differ from us in other opinions not concerning Faith, as long as they maintain 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 showed 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 be 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 general testimony of History, as that the Christian Religion was here in Britain before the coming of Augustine the Monk, 
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, Show me their names, or I will not grant there were any. Let us ascend a little higher; we may prove it out of Eusebius 300 years before that this Country was Christian.  
Here Mr. Fisher would say, Show the names of those Christians, or I will not believe it. So it is plain 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 ask whether john a Nox, and john a Styles be at home, when the one is forth, the other at home; and enjoin the Respondent to answer to both at once yea, or no; by which answer he must speak 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 ask M. Fisher, whether he were a man, or not; and whether he could show me the names of his Ancestors in all ages until Adam? would you give me one answer unto both? if affirmative, than you had a great task, and such as I think you neither can perform, nor would undertake: if negative were your answer to both, than you are no man. You would think it unreasonable that I should tie you thus to prove yourself a man. Think it as unreasonable, that you should tie me thus to show myself a Christian, especially considering this kind of proof is but weak, uncertain, full of exceptions, and at the most but humane, Cui potest subesse falsum, the testimonies of men, qui & falli possunt, & fallere, who may deceive, and be deceived.  
You would think it reasonable, that if you were to prove yourself a man, a humane creature, or that you are descended from Adam, I should leave the manner of proof to yourself, & you would go to work a shorter way, & more effectually thus: 
Every living creature consisting of a reasonable soul and humane body, is a man.  
I am a living creature consisting of such a soul, and such a body:  
Ergo: I am a man.   
This would give me satisfaction, I would not reject it, and bid you show the names of your Ancestors out of Histories in all ages, or you are no man.  
You would have me prove myself a Christian: give me leave to choose, and frame mine own Argument thus: 
Whosoever doth profess that faith which is, and ever hath been required of those who by Baptism are made Christians, is therein baptised, & doth therein continue, is a Christian.  
But I was baptised in that faith, and do therein continue, and profess the same.  
Ergo: I am a Christian.   
Will you now, M. Fisher, say unto me, Not so; but you must show me a Catalogue of those who held your faith in all ages, or you are no Christian, you have no Church. Is this your charity, M. Fisher? will you not grant me as a Christian? what I grant you as a man?  
Bellarmine, Baronius, Valenza, Aquinas, and ascending higher, Ruffinus, Cyrillus, Tertullian, Irenaeus, tell me you can require no more for an explicit faith, such as profession requires, at my hands, than this, which all children in our Churches are taught to believe, to know, and to profess: adding this implicit faith, that they, besides the Articles of the Apostles Creed, are prepared to entertain, & will believe all things revealed in the word of God. I will begin with Valenza, who saith: 
Tom. 3. disp. 1. c. 1. p. 5.  Nota inter omnes orthodoxos convenire, articulos fidei Catholicis credendos esse illos qui Apostolorum Symbolo continentur. Note, that it is agreed amongst all those who are right believers, that the Articles of faith which Catholics ought to believe, are those which are contained in the Apostles Creed. If there were any other Articles, he should not have said, these were the Articles, but some of the Articles. Again, the same Valenza saith; Now in the time of grace there is a command said upon all, that of necessity they must explicitè credere, i. actually know, and immediately believe those Articles of faith which are contained in the Apostles Creed; Et sic decent communitèr Theologi, & D. Thomas; This is the common doctrine of Divines, and so saith Aquinas. But other truths of faith, which besides those Articles of the Creed, are contained either in the holy Scriptures, or in the definitions of the Church, Non necessarium est necessitate medij, an't praecepti explicitè credi à vulgaribus fidelibus: They are not necessarily to be believed by common Christians, either as a means without which men cannot be saved, or by a necessity imposed, or commanded. Wherein observe how the jesuit addeth, and paralelleth Definitions of the Church to the Scripture, whereas Aquinas cited by him saith thus: Dicendum est ergò quod fidei objectum per se, 
Q 2. Art. 5.  est id per quod homo beatus efficitur, ut supra dictum est. Per accidens autem aut secundariò se habent ad objectum virtutis omnia quae in sacra Scriptura divinitùs tradita continentur, sicut quod Abraham habuit duos filios; quod David fuit filius Isai, & alia hujusmodi. Quantum ergo ad prima credibilia quae sunt articuli fidei, tenetur homo explicitè credere, sicut & tenetur habere fidem. Quantum autem ad alia credibilia non tenetur homo explicitè credere, sed solum implicitè, vel in preparatione animi, in quantum paratus est credere quicquid divina Scriptura continet: sed tunc solum hujusmoditenetur explicitè credere, 
Q. 1. Art. 8  quando hoc ei constiterit in doctrina Fidei contineri. We must therefore conclude, that the proper object of Faith is that by which a man is made happy, as we have said before. But accidentally, and secondarily all those things belong unto the object of that virtue, which are delivered from God, and contained in Scripture; as for example, that Abraham had two Sons, and that David was the Son of Ishai, and such like. Therefore as fare as concerns those prime objects of man's belief which are the Articles of Faith, a man must believe the same expressly, as he must have Faith. But as for other objects of Faith a man is not bound to believe them expressly, but only implicitly, or in a preparation of mind to believe whatsoever is contained in the holy Scripture: but then he is bound to believe those things expressly, when it shall plainly appear unto him that they are contained in the doctrine of Faith. Thus fare that Schooleman.  
To the same effect Carbo the best Epitomiser that I have seen, who in his smaller Book hath all the marrow of Aquinas his Sums. The next shall be Baronius.  
Hoc ipsum Symbolum Catholica Ecclesia semper adeo est venerata, ut in sanctis Conciliis Oecumenicis, 
Baron. 44. n. 18.  quasi basis quaedam & fundamentum structurae Ecclesiasticae consueverit, imprimis recitari. The Catholic Church did always so fare reverence this Creed, that it was a Custom to repeat the same in holy General Counsels as a groundwork and foundation of all Ecclesiastical buildings, (saying moreover concerning the Roman Church) that it had preserved the same Apostles Creed, sincerè, & illibatè, without any addition or diminution, as Ruffinus hath testified in these words: In diverse Churches some things have been added, but in the Church of Rome, Adjectionem unius saltem sermonis non admittit auditus, Their ears abhor to hear the addition of one sentence.  
Bellarm. Tom. 4. lib. 1. de justificatione cap. 9 I am verò quod vetus Ecclesia senserit, ac tradiderit de fide ad justificationem, & salutem necessaria; quid ea videlicet sit, & quod objectum habeat non potest clarius intelligi quam Symbolo fidei, quod Catechumenis initio traditur, ut cum fide recta, & saluâ ad lavacrum Regenerationis accedant. Concerning that Faith which is necessary to justification and salvation, what was the opinion of the Primitive Church, and what it did deliver concerning the same; namely, what Faith is, and what object it hath, cannot more clearly be understood then by that Creed which was delivered to those that were Catechised before Baptism, that so they might come to the Laver of Regeneration with a right and sound Faith. Tom. 3 lib. 1. de Baptis. cap. 24. He saith that the repeating of this Creed is the fourth Ceremony of Baptism, of which Ceremony mention is made, as he there writeth, by Clemens, Dionysius, Origen, Cyprian, Cyrill, Hillary, Hierom, Augustine.  
And that the sum, and whole object of Faith is therein contained, though briefly, Saint Augustine doth teach, Serm. 115. de tempore, besides others that teach the same, where (saith Bellarm:) he doth define the Apostles Creed, in these words, Est inquit Symbolum comprahensio fidei nostrae simplex, brevis, plena: ut simplicitas consulat audientium rusticitati, brevitas memoriae, plenitudo doctrinae. The Creed is plain, brief and a full comprisall of our Faith, that the plainness may help the simplicity, brevity may help the memory, and the fullness may provide for the learning of the hearers.  

Lib. 1. c. 2. 3. 4. Lib. advers. Praxiam.  Saint Irenaus doth expound the rule of the Christian Faith, the same also is done by Tertullian: but both of them do teach, that nothing else is to be believed besides the Articles of the Apostles Creed, although they have not the name of the Creed. So saith Bellarm: lib. 1. de Iust. c. 9 Leo the first, ep. 13. doth charge Eutiches to have made a dissension contrary to the entireness of the Catholic Faith. Est siquidem ipsius Catholici Symboli brevis, & perfecta confessio, quae duodecem Apostolorum totidem est signata sententiis. For in the Apostles Creed is contained a perfect confession of Faith. Thus he is cited by Binius, Tom. 1. Conciliorum pag. 946.  
Baronius Anno 1016. num. 1. saith, That one Simeon a holy, man of Armenia coming to Rome, and there being accused of Heresy, and demanded what faith he was of? 
a He made a perfect confession of faith, by rehearsing the Apostles Creed, etc.  Respondens Catholicae, & Apostolicae fidei perfectionem ita confitendo perdocuit, qualitèr per universum orbem, Apostolorum Symbolum in Nicaena Synodo peroratum clara voce personuit. And by and by after Baronius addeth these words: Innotuit protinus Papae, & omnibus qui aderant virum Dei (scilicet Simeonem) verae fidei esse professorem. Lastly, the sufficiency of this Creed is acknowledged not only by those which I have above named, but also the Council of Ephesus concluding, doth repeat this Creed, adding these words: Huic sanctae fidei omnes affentiantur oportet, est enim piè sufficienterque ad totius orbis utilitatem exposita. Let all men assent to this holy Faith, for it is piously, and sufficiently expounded to the benefit of the whole world.  
Having thus out of the Fathers, Schoolmen, Counsels, and your own Writers shown the Antiquity, necessity, truth, perfection, sufficiency, and fullness of my Faith in which I was baptised, and which all we of the Protestant Churches do profess, how can you say that we are not of the Church, or require us to add other Articles unto these in which we all have been baptised, and in which alone, not only we, but all of your Church, and all Churches of the world since the Apostles times have been baptised, been made Christians, been admitted into the Church? This is the Covenant of faith as well in your Church as in ours: for there is no other profession of faith in Baptism amongst you, but the Apostles Creed; there is no mention there, no promise, no covenant that we do believe unwritten Traditions, Indulgences, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, seven Sacraments, worshipping of Images, Communion under one kind, Transubstantiation, and the Primacy of the Romish Church. When a farmer is told, that he hath forfeited his Lease, that he hath broken his Covenants; he will ask in what point? and when it is told him in particular wherein, he repairs unto his Lease, looks upon his Covenants; and if this which is laid to his charge be not there expressed, he will reply; It is not h●ere, I am not bound unto it, it is no Covenant of mine; and his Landlord were unjust to press him beyond his Covenant.  
We have made a Covenant with God in Baptism, we are admitted Tenants in his Church; you say we have forfeited our Grant, broken our Covenants, we are no longer Tenants, we are no more of the Church. I ask you, why? you say, because I will not believe your new Creed, and that the Pope is head of the Church (for that is your primarius fidei articulus. 
Bellarm. to Blackwell. ) I reply, there is no such thing in my Covenant; I was baptised in no such faith, I was made a member of Christ, I was not made a member of the Pope, I will leave that for you who make him your head. And thus fare of explicit faith, of justifying faith necessary to salvation, of the primary fundamental propositions which belong to faith per se, non per accidens, out of which I will collect some few Arguments: 
Whosoever was baptised into, and still doth profess a whole, full, perfect, true, sufficient faith, is of the Church.  
But the Protestants were baptised into, and still do profess a whole, full, perfect, true, sufficient faith.  
Therefore the Protestants are of the Church.   
Every word of the Major and Minor is proved in this Chapter, in that I have proved all these titles to belong to the Apostles Creed.  
A second Argument.  
Whosoever do profess that Faith by which men are made Christians, do still continue Christians.  
But the Protestants do profess that faith by which men are made Christians.  
Ergo: The Protestants are Christians, and consequently of the Church.  
A third Argument.  
To prove that those Doctrines of their new Creed can be no Articles of faith, because the Articles of the Apostles Creed being already perfect and complete, can admit of no essential addition; and all Articles must be essential, quia per se.  
There can be no essential addition to that which is perfect and complete, as the Apostles Creed is.  
But the Articles of Faith are essential unto Faith.  
Ergo: No new Articles may be added to the Apostles Creed, being perfect and complete.   

CHAP. IU. Of the total object of faith, as it includeth not only the primary essential matters of faith, but also the secondary and accidental matters contained in the revealed truth, and that from hence demonstrations may be drawn to prove the Protestants to be a Church.  
THose things we believe by an infused divine faith, are of two sorts: 1. Some prime, proper, essential, as those things contained in the Apostles Creed. 2. Some other secondary, accidental, and common to other habits or virtues besides faith, to other persons besides the faithful; as moral precepts belong to Charity properly, and are common to Christians and Infidels, revealed not only by the supernatural light of God's word, but also by the natural light of reason in man, both from God; but the one written by God in the day of Creation, the other manifested by his Son in the day of Redemption. Of the former sort are the ten Commandments, which were known even to the Heathen, Dixitque semel nascentibus author. He that readeth Plato, 
Lucan.  Aristotle, Tully, Diogenes Laertius, the Poets, Greek and Latin; the Latin, Greek, Egyptian, Chaldean, Indian, Aethiopian Laws, may there find, though not in the same excellent order, nor without some mixture of dross, all the Decalogue. And so deep was the impression of this Law in the wisest of those Heathen, that no Oracle could prevail with them to cross, or cancel what the Law of Nature delivered as Principles (which alone is properly the Law of Nature.) Excellent in this kind is that speech of Cato's in Lucan, who being advised by Labienus to consult with the Oracle of jupiter Ammon, said unto him, What wouldst thou have me to demand of the Oracle; 
An noceat vis ulla bono? Fortunaque perdat  
Opposita virtute minas laudandaque velle  
Sit satis, & nunquam successu crescat honestum?  
Scimus, & hoc nobis non altius inseret Ammon.   
He that shall read Phocilides, a very ancient Greek Poet, shall there find a Storehouse of excellent moral Precepts, as consonant to the writings of Moses and Solomon, as if they had been thence drawn.  

Aquinas, Bellarm. Valenza, & alij.  All Divines of greatest note of your own side hold that of the Apostle, Hebr. 11. v. 1. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, to be a definition of faith; and then the proper object of faith must be non apparentia, non visa, things not evident to the natural man, to the eye of reason, such as these moral Precepts are which I last mentioned: 
Lib. 1. de justific. c. 4.  So that howsoever Bellarmine do cavil with that distinction of Historical Faith, and justifying Faith, yet reason will evince the distinction to be good, and needful: for those Histories of Esau's selling his Birthright, of Abraham's two wives, of Dathans' rebellion, of David's adultery, although they are not essential to explicit saving faith, yet those Stories, and whatsoever is recorded in the Word of God to have been done, or spoken, we believe to have been done and spoken, although the act sometime be wicked, and the speeches false and blasphemous; as the murder of Vriah, the railing of Shimei, the words of the Serpent to Eve: So the belief and credit we give, is not to those actions or speeches of theirs, as if the one were well done, and the other truly spoken; for this were to justify the false Prophets, railing Rebels, and the Devil himself: but we believe that Historical Narration of the Holy Ghost, that such wicked sins were committed, such false blasphemous words spoken; and shall we not call this Faith, being a credit we give unto the Relation, because it is by divine inspiration, in the Penmen, not in the Actors, or first speakers, Historical. If it be faith, 
L b. 1. de justific. c. 9  either a justifying faith, or an historical faith, or some other: but no other is named, and it is no justifying faith; Ergo, an historical faith. That it is not a justifying faith, I prove against Bellarmine out of his own words: 
The whole object if justifying Faith is contained summarily, and briefly in the Apostles Creed.  
But those Stories of sinful actions, lying Prophets, blaspheming Devils, are not at all in the Apostles Creed.  
Ergo, The relations of them are no object, no article, no part of saving Faith.   
If neither of saving Faith, nor any other, then of Historical Faith.  
Again, no division of things contained in Scripture is more frequent amongst Fathers, Schoolmen, and latter Writers, Roman, & Reform then that of Faith and life, Credenda, & facienda; what we should believe, how we should live; and if they be members of one division they cannot be affirmed one of another.  
As therefore those Moral precepts are rules of actions, so they belong to Charity, it's their proper place.  
As it is related, they came from God, so they are the object of Historical Faith: So that the Articles of the Creed, wheresoever found in Scripture are the proper object of justifying Faith. And all things that are registered and declared by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Prophets and Evangelists, inspired by the Holy Ghost are the object of our Faith Historical, I say, the relation, not every thing that is related, which Historical Faith I define, to be a supernatural infused assent, or credit we give to the relation of things in the Word of God, as revealed from him. So that I think, I may say, that rightly understood, both sides do agree thus fare.  
1. That the primary, material compounded object of Faith, as the Schoolmen and jesuits speak, or more plainly, that the principal propositions of Faith are in the Apostles Creed.  
2. The total object of Faith, are omnes revelationes divinae, as Valenza; or Verbum Dei, as Bellarmine; or rather, the divine Scripture, as the Fathers, as Aquinas, Carbo, and the Reformed Churches do say. For Valenza doth aequivocate with his Revelationes Dei, and Bellarmine with his Verbum Dei. Who would not be glad to read in these two great jesuits, That such is the nature of Faith, 
Tom. 3. di. 1. q. 1. §. 4. p. 1.  that it can assent to no Proposition, but as it is revealed by God? So Valenza, and Faith ought to level at nothing besides the Word of God; for Faith cannot be certain and infallible, unless it rely upon his authority who can neither deceive, nor be deceived, So Bellarm: Who (that desireth the peace of Zion) would not be glad hereof? 
Lib. 1. de justif. c. 10.  I did much rejoice when at first I read it, but when I saw that Valenza did extend his divine Revelations not only to Canonical Writers but also to the Pope; And Bellarmine to divide Verbum Dei, the Word of God, into Scriptum, & non scriptum; written Word, and unwritten Traditions, my joy turned into grief, and searching better into the Questions, I found these were poor shifts to hem in their Pope; for when they are pressed with arguments, or Authorities of Fathers concerning the fullness, and sufficiency of the Word of God, Bellarmine comes in with his distinction of Verbum Dei Scriptum, & non scriptum; saying, that the one alone is Regula partialis, a piece of a Rule; but both together are Regula totalis, a whole Rule. 
Tom. 3. d. 1. q. 1. p. 1. §. 4.  So Valenza dealeth by revealed verities, Vel per Canonicum Scriptorem, vel per alium legitimum definitorem fidei, whom he afterwards concludes to be the Pope.  
I therefore choose to speak as the Fathers do; yea, and as the more Ancient Schoolmen did, Aquinas, Carbo, and others: That the Scripture is Regula credendorum, which excludeth Bellamines Verbum non scriptum, and Valenzaes' Papal decisions. And to this purpose I will cite such places of the Fathers which are acknowledged by the Adversaries to be true Fathers, and true quotations. The sacred Writers, Evangelium in Scriptures nobis tradiderunt fundamentum, 
Irenaeus l. 3. c. 1.  & columnam fidei nostrae futuram, have delivered the Gospel unto us in the written Word to be the foundation, and pillar of our Faith. Here Bellarmine's Verbum non scriptum, his unwritten Word hath no place. This Father, who lived in the first Age after the Apostles, saith, In Scriptures, in the written Word. Here Valenza's unwritten Revelations of Traditions, or Papal decisions being his definitor fidei, have no place; to reconcile these two, Scriptum, and non Scriptum, is to overthrow the first fundamental Propositions of all learning in the world, to reconcile contradictions. The most incompatible opposition that is; without which being laid as a groundwork, no man may treat of any thing. 
Arist. Meta. 4. ca 10.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is impossible that the same thing at the same time should be, and should not be; this no man can be ignorant of, this is the first principle in Metaphysicke, in Logic, though in other terms (viz.) two contradicting Propositions cannot be both true, nor both false. This is the first principle of all other Sciences, as the fornamed Author, 
Fonseca. Suarez.  as Aquinas your great Schooleman, Fonseca and Swarez, your fellow jesuits, and great writers upon Metaphysicke, your learned writer upon the Demonstrations, Zabarel, and others whom I could name, do undoubtedly teach. Reconcile me Irenaeus his Scriptum est, and your non scriptum, 
Bellarm. de Verbo Dei.  and as you have taken away the Rule of divine knowledge, by denying the sufficiency thereof, by denying it to be a total Rule, but a part, a piece of a Rule, which is as much as no Rule, as a part, or piece of a man is no man; so by denying this first principle of all humane knowledge, you take away all Natural, and Moral Philosophy, all Logic, all Metaphysicke, and then what remaineth but that we be no more creatures endued with reason, and your Pope shall rule us as please him: Sed habebit imperium in belluas, he must transform us into this beastly ignorance. Thus having taken away your distinction of Scriptum, & non Scriptum, (which I desire may be observed in the rest of the Fathers that follow, for I will cite none who use not this word Scriptures, which is the written word) I will press my Argument thus.  
First Argument.  
Whosoever doth hold the foundation and pillar of Faith, is of the Church.  
But the Protestants believing the Scriptures, do hold the foundation and pillar of Faith.  
Ergo: The Protestants are of the Church.  
What, will you Master Fisher answer to this Argument? will you distinguish Verbum Dei with Bellarmine? or Revelatio Divina, with Valenza? ad terminos, what word in my Syllogism do you distinguish, or what proposition do you deny.  

Lib. count. Gentes, seu contr. Idola.  The second testimony shall be Athanasius; his words are these, Sufficiunt sanctae ac divinitùs inspiratae Scripturae ad instructionem veritatis, out of which I thus argue.  
Second Argument.  
Whosoever do profess that which is sufficient to instruct them in the truth are of the Church,  
The Protestants professing the Scriptures, do profess that which is sufficient to instruct them in the truth.  
Ergo: The Protestants are of the Church.  
Neither is here any place for Bellarmine's unwritten word, or Valenzaes' unwritten revelations.  

Basil.  It is an Argument of infidelity, and a sure token of pride to reject any thing that is written, or to bring in any thing that is not written, saith Saint Basil, in his Sermon of the confession of Faith.  
Third Argument.  
But the Romànists do add unto the Faith, things that are not written.  
Ergo, The Romanists are proud Infidels.  
The Mayor is Saint Basils', the Minor is your own, not only delivered by private men, but also enacted by your Council of Trent. Sess. 4. Anno 1546.  
Fourth Argument.  

Chrysost.  Whatsoever is requisite unto Salvation, is wholly fulfilled in the Scriptures, saith Chrysostme, Com. in 22. Matth.  
But the Protestants do profess all that is fulfilled in the Scriptures.  
Ergo, The Protestants do profess all that is requisite unto salvation; And doing so, sure they are of the Church, because none are saved out of the Church.  

Idem Chrys.   we have a most exact Balance, Level, and Rule of all things, the sayings of the Law of God, I beseech you all, that forsaking what seemeth to this man, or what seemeth to that man, you would inquire after these out of Scripture. Thus the same Father, Hom. 13. in 2. Ep. ad Cor. I argue thus  
Fifth Argument.  
They who profess, and believe the most exact balance, level, and rule, (of Christians) do continue in the Christian Church,  
But the Protestants believing the Scripture, or written Word, do believe a perfect balance, level, and Rule of all things belonging to Christians.  
Ergo, The Protestants are in the Christian Church.  
I reverence the fullness of Scripture, 
Tertull contra Hermog.  Let Hermogenes show me that it is written, if it be not written, let him fear the woe that is denounced against them that add, or diminish.  
Sixth Argument.  
They who add to the fullness of the written Word, are thereby subject to a great Woe,  
But the Romanists denying the fullness of Scripture add thereto unwritten Traditions.  
Ergo, The Romanists are subject to great woe.  
Seventh Argument.  
Diabolici spiritus est aliquid extra Scripturarum Sacrarum authoritatem putare divinum. It is devilish to account any thing divine that is not in the written Word. Theoph.  
But the Romanists do account unwritten Traditions, and Papal determinations to be divine.  
Ergo, The Romanists are devilish, or have a devilish spirit in them.  
I will conclude with Saint Augustine.  
Eighth Argument. 
Aug. l. 3. cont. Petil. cap. 6.   
If any one either concerning Christ, or his Church, or concerning any other matter which belongeth unto Faith, or life; I will not say, if we, but as Saint Paul added; If an Angel from heaven do declare unto you any thing besides that which you have received in the writings of the Law, and the Gospel, let him be accursed.  
But the Romanists do tell us of unwritten Traditions concerning masters of Faith and life, besides the written word of the Law, and the Gospel.  
Ergo, The Romanists are accursed.  
I will add more testimonies out of the same Father, both because by consent of all Divines that I have read, both Roman and Reformed, he is the chiefest Divine since the Apostles, and because those things which I shall allege out of him, being versed in the same Question between him, and the Donatists concerning the Church, are most proper to this question between us and the Romanists, whether we be a Church or no, and will answer most doubts and objections that are made herein: but seeing that this Chapter is grown so long, I will reserve it for another.   

CHAP. V Showing out of Saint Augustine and others, that there is no other way to demonstrate a Church to be a true Christian Church, but by the Word of God.  
I Desire you Mr. Fisher, and whosoever will vouchsafe to read these my poor Labours, to take my meaning in citing these Fathers, Schoolmen, and jesuites which I have alleged in the precedent Chapters, not to be such, as if by their authority alone we endeavour to prove ourselves to be a Church; but to show that in matters of Faith, and in this Question of the Church no demonstrations, no strong, proper, and necessitating Arguments can be made but out of Scripture. All other Arguments are but probable, without any necessary illation, and foreign, not proper to Theology: As after I have done with S. Augustine, I will show out of your own Schoolmen.  
This Father is he out of whom our later Writers have had (next after the sacred Scriptures) most of the excellent, solid, deep Divinity which they have: This was he that was styled Malleus Haereticorum, the Hammer of Heretics: 
Sabellicus  Vir super omnes qui ante eum, & post eum huc usque fuerunt mortales, admirabili ingenii acumine praeditus. A man (as your Sixtus Senensis writeth of him) endued with a sharpness of wit above all mortals that have been before him, 
Bibl. 5. l. 4.  or after him to this time, full of humane learning; but in the divine Scriptures by fare the most learned of all others; and in the Exposition of Scriptures raised to so high a pitch of incomparable subtlety, or acuteness, ultra quam dici queat, more than the tongue of man can express. 
Dr. King.  This was he of whom a learned Preacher, and powerful speaker of ours spoke in the Pulpit, that he confuted the Heretics so fully, answered all their objections and demands so weightily, that of him next after the Son of God himself it may be said, they durst ask him no more questions. And if I in my poor judgement and reading may express what I have observed, and do conceive, that was the most fruitful age of Heresies that ever was, and some of those Heretics so learned, especially Pelagius, the grand enemy of the grace of God, that if Saint Augustine had not been borne in those times, Pelagius, and many more had not been confuted. This man amongst other Heretics wrote against the Donatists, who did appropriate the Church to themselves, as now the Romanists, or Papists do: so that it is the same question now between us and the Papists, which was then between Saint Augustine and the Donatists. The Donatists did tie the Church to Africa, the Papists to Rome; not that either the one or the other did, or do deny Christians to be in other parts of the world, but that all men in the world must be of their Church, and hold union with them, and dependence from them.  
The first place that I will cite out of Saint Augustine, shall be his words in his second Book of Christian Doctrine, ca 9 All those things which do contain faith and manners of living, are found amongst those things, quae apertè posita sunt in Scriptura, which are plainly put down in the written Word. This doth prove what we intent, namely, that this Quaestion of theirs, if it be necessary, is found in Scripture, and not only so, but in plain Scripture; which answereth the objection of obscurity in the Scripture, that though it be true, that in Scriptures some things be obscure, some be plain; yet all necessary things are plain in Scripture.  

Ex Augustino lib. de Vnitate Ecclesiae cont. Petilianum Tom. 7. p. 109.  

Cap. 2.  
Inter nos & Donatistas quaestio est, ubi sit Ecclesia? Quid ergo facturi sumus, in verbis nostris eam quaesituri, an in verbis capitis sui Domini nostri jesu Christi? Puto quod in illius potius verbis eam quarere debemus qui veritas est, & optimè novit corpus suum, novit enim Deus qui sunt ejus.   

Cap. 3.  
Sed ut dicere coeperam, non audiamus haec dico, haec dicis, sed audiamus haec dicit Dominus: sunt certè libri dominici, quorum authoritate utrique consentimus, utrique credimus, utrique servimus: ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam, ibi discutiamus causam nostram: Auferantur ergo illa de medio quae adversus nos invicem, non ex divinis Canonicis libris, sed aliundè recitamus— Quaerat fortassis aliquis, & dicat mihi, Cur ergo ista vis auferri de medio, quandò communio tua etiamsi proferantur, invicta est? Quia nolo humanis documentis sed divinis Oraculis sanctam Ecclesiam demonstrari; si enim sanctae Scripturae in Africa sola designaverunt Ecclesiam, & in paucis Romae Rupitaniss, & Montensibus, & in domo, vel patrimonio unius Hispana mulieris, quicquid de chartis aliis aliud proferatur, non tenent Ecclesiam nisi Donatista.  
Si in paucis Mauris Provinciae Caesariensis eam sancta Scriptura determinat ad Rogatistas transeundum est. Si in paucis Tripolitaniss, & Byzacenis, & provincialibus, Maximianistae ad eam pervenerunt. Si in solis Orientalibus, inter Arianos, & Macedonianos, & Eunomianos, & si qui illic alii sunt, requirenda est. Quis autem possit singulas quasi Haereses enumerare gentium singularum.  
Si autem Christi Ecclesia Canonicarum Scripturarum divinis, & certissimis testimoniis, in omnibus Gentibus designata est; quicquid attulerint, & undecunque recitaverint qui dicunt ecce hic Christus, ecce illic; audiamus potius, si oves ejus sumus vocem Pastoris nostri dicentis, Nolite credere.  
Istae quippè singulae in multis Gentibus ubi ista est non inveniuntur, haec autem quae ubique est, etiam ubi illae sunt invenitur: Ergo in Scripturis Sanctis Canonicis eam requiramus.   

Cap. 4.  
Totus Christus caput, & corpus est, quicunque de Christo rectè sentiunt, sed ab Ecclesia ita dissentiunt ut eorum communio non sit cum tota quacunque diffunditur, sed in aliqua parte seperata inveniatur, manifestum est eos non esse in Ecclesia Gatholica.  
Quapropter, quia cum Donatistis nobis Quaestio est non de capite sed de corpore, id est, non de ipso Salvatore jesu Christo, sed de ejus Ecclesia; ipsum Caput de quo consentimus ostendat nobis corpus suum de quo dissentimus, ut per ejus verbum jam dissentire definamus.— Prioribus temporibus per Prophetas sonuit verbum, deindè per seipsum, deindè per Apostolos.— In his igitur omnibus quaerenda est Ecclesia.  
Hoc etiam praedico, atque propono uti quae aperta, & manifesta deligamus: quae si in sanctis Scripturis non invenirentur, nullo modo esset undè aperirentur clausa, & illustrarentur obscura.— Seponenda sunt quae obscurè sunt posita, & figurarum velaminibus involuta.— In talibus figuris nolo quaeramus Ecclesiam, non quia falsae sunt, sed quia interpretem quaerunt.   

Cap. 6.  
O Donatistae Genesin legite, Benedicentur in semine tuo omnes Gentes terrae, Genes. 22. Quid dicat Apostolus audiamus, 
Gal. 3. — In semine tuo quod est Christus— Ecce Testamentum Dei: quare vos irritum facitis Testamentum Dei, dicendo nec in omnibus Gentibus esse completum, & periisse jam de Gentibus in quibus erat semen Abrahae? Quare superordinatis dicendo in nullis terris haeredem permanere Christum, nisi ubi poterit cohaeredem habere Donatum? Non invidemus alicui; Legite nobis hoc de lege, de Prophetis, de Psalmis, de ipso Evangelio, & Apostolicis literis legite & credimus, sicut nos vobis legimus & de Genes. & de Apostolo; & benedicentur in te omnes tribus terrae, & in semine tuo.  
Date mihi hanc Ecclesiam, si apud vos est, ostendite vos communicare omnibus Gentibus quas jam videmus in hoc semine benedici—   

Cap. 7.  
Quid in Prophetis, quam multa, & quam manifesta sunt testamonia Ecclesiae per omnes Gentes toto orbe terrarum diffusae. 
Isa. 11. — Repleta est universa terra ut cognoscat Dominum. 
Isa. 27. — Germinabit & florescet Israel, & replebitur Orbis terrarum fructu ejus.—  

Psal. 27.  Posui te in lucem Gentium ut sis salus usque ad fines terrae. Laetare sterilis quia non paris, erumpe, & exclama quoniam multi filii desertae, magis quam ejus quae habet virum.  
Comparent isti multitudinem suam in Aphrica constitutam cum multitudine Iudaeorum per omnes terras quacunque dispersi sunt, et videant, quam sint in illorum comparatione paucissimi. Quomodo ergò de se dictum assignabunt: multi filij desertae, quam ejus quae habet virum?  
Rursus comparent multitudinem Christianorum per omnes Gentes quibus non communicant, & videant quam pauci sint in comparatione omnes judei, & tandem aliquandò intelligant in Ecclesia Catholica toto orbe diffusa istam prophetiam esse completam. jam pauca de Psalmis audiamus: 
Cap. 8.  Dabo tibi Gentes haereditatem tuam, & possessionem tuam fines terrae.  
Nonne Apostolus de Praedicatoribus Novi Testamenti dictum exposuit quod scriptum est in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum, 
Psal. 18.  & in fines orbis terrae verba eorum. 
Psal. 56.  Et super omnem terram gloria tua: & undè gloria ejus super omnem terram, nisi quia Ecclesia ejus per omnem terram, & replebitur gloria ejus omnis terra, 
Psal. 71.  fiat, fiat. Ite nunc vos Donatist. & clamate, non fiat, non fiat. Vicit vos Verbum Dei dicens, fiat, fiat.  
Quid ad haec dicturi sint quae commemoravi ex Lege, ex Trophetis, ex Psalmis. Audiamus ipsius verbi vocem ore propriae carnis expressam: Sic scriptum ect, & sic oportebat Christum pati, & resurgere à mortuis tertio die.  
Hic ipsum caput ostenditur quod ipsum se manibus discipulorum prebuit contrectandum. Vide quemadmodum de corpore adjungat quod est Ecclesia, ut nos nec in Sponso nec in Sponsa errare permittat. Et predicari (inquit) in nomine ejus poenitentiam, & remissionem peccatorum per omnes Gentes incipientibus ab Jerusalem? Quid hac voce veratiùs, quid diviniùs, quid manifestiùs? Me piget commendare verbis meis, & haereticos non pudet oppugnare verbis suis. Dicant ea testimonia quae posui de Lege, & Prophetis, & Psalmis obscura esse, & figuratè dicta, etiam aliter posse intelligi, quanquam & in eis egerim quantum potui ut nec audeant dicere. Sed ecce dicant nunquid & obscure dictum, aut aenigmatis velamento adumbratum est quod ipse Christus dixit, quia sic scriptum est, & sic opportebat Christum pati, & resurgere tertio die, & predicari in nomine ejus poenitentiam, & remissionem peccatorum per omnes Gentes. 
Epist. 48.  Audi dicit Dominus, non dicit Donatus, aut Rogatus, aut Vincentius, aut Hilarius, aut Ambrose, aut Augustinus, sed dicit Dominus. Quomodo ex divinis literis confidimus accipisse nos Christum manifestum si non indè accepimus & Ecclesiam manifestam. Necesse est incerti sint qui pro sua societate testimonio utuntur non divino, sed suo. Nisi cognoveris teipsum non in verbis calumniosorū, sed in testimoniis librorum meorum. In Scripturis didicimus Christum, 
Epist. 116.  in Scripturis didicimus ecclesiam. Has Scripturas communiter habemus quare non in eis et Christum & Ecclesiam communiter retinemus.— Ecce Scripturae communes, ecce ubi novimus Christum, ecce ubi novimus Ecclesiam.    

Those words of St. Augustine I apply to our present purpose, concluding in the same manner against the Romanists, as this Father did against the Donatists, changing only Donatist for Romanist.  

Cap, 2.  
The Question between us, and the Romanists is, where is the Church? What then shall we do, shall we seek for the Church in our own words, or in the words of her Head, and our Lord Christ jesus? I think we ought rather to seek her in his words, who is the Truth, and best knoweth his own body, For the Lord knoweth who are his.   

Cap. 3.  
But as I began to say, let us not hear (these words) I say this, thou sayest that; but let us hear this, thus saith the Lord, Our master hath left books unto us, to the authority of which Books we both consent, we both believe, we both submit; there let us seek the Church, there let us examine our cause: Away with those words from amongst us which we cite not out of the Canonical Books of God, but elsewhere.— Some man peradventure will say unto me, why will you have those things taken away, seeing your cause, though those things were alleged will stand invincible? Because I would have the Church demonstrated, not by human reason, but by divine oracles. For if the holy Scriptures have designed the Church to be in Italy alone, & in those few which concur with Rome; whatsoever may be brought out of other Books, none but the Romanists do possess the Church.  
If the holy Scripture do limit the Church to a few more of the Province of Caesarea, we must pass unto the Rogatists. If it be amongst those few of the Provinces of Tripoli, and Byzacene, the Maximinianists are come unto it. If only amongst the Easterlings, we must seek for the Church amongst the Arrians, Macedonians, and Eunomians, and others, if there be any more there; for who is able to recount the several Heresies of every Nation?  
But if the Church be assigned to all Nations, by divine and most certain testimonies of Canonical Scripture, whatsoever they shall bring, or whatsoever they shall recite, who say, Lo here is Christ, lo there is Christ; let us rather hear, if we be his sheep, the voice of our Shepherd, saying, Believe them not.  
For those several (Sects) are not found in many Nations where the Church is. But this church, which is every where, is found also where those several (Sects) are: Therefore let us search for the Church in Holy Canonical Scriptures.   

Cap. 4.  
Christ is wholly a Head, and a Body, whosoever have a right opinion of Christ, but do so descent, that they communicate not with the whole Church, wheresoever dispersed; but with some part thereof, severed from the rest; it is clear, that they are not in the Catholic Church.  
Wherefore, seeing the question between us and the Romanists is not concerning the Head, but the Body; that is, not concerning our Saviour jesus Christ, but concerning his Church; let the Head, concerning whom we do agree, show unto us his Body, about which we do differ, that so by his words we may end the difference.— In former times this word was delivered by the Prophets, then by himself, then by his Apostles.— In all these the Church is to be sought for.  
This also I warn aforehand, that we choose such places of Scripture as are clear and manifest: for unless there were such to be found in the holy Scripture, there were no means how those things might be laid open which are shut, or those things made clear which are obscure.— We must lay aside those things which are there obscurely set down, or wrapped in the veil of figurative speeches, not because they are false, but because they require an Expositor.  
O you Donatists (O you Romanists) read Genesis, there you shall find written, In thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed. Let us hear what the Apostle saith of this seed, In thy seed, that is Christ. Behold, this is the will & Testament of God; why do you cancel the Testament of God, in saying that this is not fulfilled in all nations, and that the seed of Abraham is perished from amongst the Nations? why do you add unto his Testament, saying, that Christ hath no inheritance in the earth but where the Pope of Rome is his Copartner? We envy no man; Read us this out of the Law, out of the Prophets, out of the Psalms, out of the Gospel, out of the writings of the Apostles; read it there, and we will believe it; as we do read unto you out of Genesis, and out of the Apostle, In thee, and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Give me this Church if it be amongst you, and show me that you hold Communion with all those nations, which now we see blessed in this seed.  
Let us pass from the Law to the Prophets: how many, and how manifest testimonies are there found of the Church spread through all Nations of the world. The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord. Israel shall blossom, and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit.  
I have put thee for a light unto the Gentiles, a Saviour unto the ends of the world. Rejoice thou barren that didst not bear; break forth into singing, & cry aloud thou that didst not travel with child, for more are the children of the desolate, than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord.  
Let these (Romanists) compare their multitude in Italy and Spain, and their scattered Proselytes elsewhere, with the multitude of jews wheresoever dispersed through all lands, and they shall see how few they are in comparison of them. How then can they think the words of the Prophet were spoken of them, which saith, Many more are the children of her that was forsaken, then of her that hath an husband?  
Again, let them compare the multitude of Christians through all Nations with whom they hold no Communion, denying them to be of the Church, as the Greek Church more large than the Latin, the Southern Churches not inferior to the Latin, the Eastern Churches more by fare than the Greek and the Latin put together, and they shall see how few the jews are in comparison of them; and they may understand that this prophecy was fulfilled in that Catholic Church which is diffused through the world. Now let us hear something out of the Psalms, I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, & the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Their sound is gone out into all lands, and their words unto th'end of the world; which the Apostle expounded to be spoken of the Preachers of the new Testament. His glory is over all the earth, because his Church is in all the world; let the whole earth be filled with his glory. Amen, Amen. Let it be, let it be.  
Go now (ye Romanists) and cry, not so, not so, let it not be, let it not be. The word of God hath overcome you, saying, Let it be, let it be. What will they answer to these words of the Law, the Prophets, & the Psalms? Let us hear the words of Christ himself, saying, so it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day. Here the head itself is showed unto us, which gave himself to be handled by his disciples. See what he addeth concerning his body, which is the church, that so we may err neither in the Bridegroom, nor in his Bride. And (saith he) that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his Name through all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. What can be spoken more truly, more divinely, more clearly? I hold my words unworthy to commend it, and yet these Heretics are not ashamed to oppugn it. They may say that those words which I have cited out of the Law, and the Prophets, & the Psalms, are darkly & figuratively spoken, & may be otherwise understood; although I have laboured herein to stop their mouths. But say they should say so, I ask again, whether that be darkly spoken, or shadowed with a veil, as if it were a riddle which was spoken by Christ himself, that so it is written, and so Christ ought to suffer, and to rise again the third day, & that repentance, and remission of sins should be preached amongst all nations in his name. Hear what the Lord saith, not what Donatus, or Rogatus, or Vincentius, or Hillarius, or Ambrose, or Austin do say, How do we trust that we may clearly find Christ in the Scripture, if we cannot find there clearly his Church.— They must needs be doubtful, who use in defence of their society their own testimony, not the testimony of God.— Unless thou know thyself, not in the word of cavilling people, but in the testimonies of my Books. In the Scriptures have we learned to know Christ, in the Scriptures have we learned to know his Church. We have these Scriptures common to us both, and why out of these do not we hold Christ and his Church common to us both. And again, Behold the Scripture common to both; lo where we have known Christ; lo where we have known his Church.    
Reflecting now upon what we have cited out of this incomparable Father, we may observe how plainly, how frequently, how perseveringly he maintaineth, that this Question concerning the Church may be proved plainly, manifestly, clearly out of Scripture; That he would not have men use Humane testimony in this question; and they which do use Humane testimonies herein, and not Divine, stand upon uncertainties: 
Aquin. 1. q. 1. art. 8. Carbo.  to the same purpose the Schoolmen say, That Humane reasons, in hac doctrina non valent ad probandum, are not of force to prove: yet it useth Humane reason, not to prove Faith, and what it believeth, but to declare other things as a foreign Argument, and probable: but it useth Divine Authorities as a proper, and necessary Argument.  
Secondly, let us observe, that this Father writing upon this Question, so many Books as make more than half a great Tome, yet never used any other Argument in those Books but Scripture; he never called upon his Adversaries, to show names of their Professors in all Ages, nor did he attempt that for himself, but chose rather to cite the same Scriptures, twenty times at least in several Books of that subject, out of which places I will collect two Arguments; first, desiring the Reader to observe, That things expressly contained in Scriptures, and things thence deduced are of a different nature, these later inferior to those; those are Principles, these are but Conclusions; those depend upon supernatural light of Divine Revelation, these Conclusions are grounded upon those Divine Principles which men apprehend by Faith, and then do search, and find the illation, and consequence of these Conclusions by the light of natural reason, improved by Industry, and refined by Art: I do not say that I can show in Scripture, that the Protestants are the true Church, which were to make it a point of Faith, but out of Scriptures I can prove that the Protestants are a Church, and so make it a Theological conclusion, and the Arguments demonstrations; because drawn out of the proper Principles of Theologie or Divinity, thus:  
1. Argument.  
They who profess that Faith which was preached through the World, are a true Christian Church.  
But the Protestants holding the Apostles Creed, and the doctrine of the Apostles, do profess that Faith which was preached through the World.  
Ergo, The Protestants are a true Christian Church.  
2. Argument.  
They who hold Communion, and acknowledge themselves to be a part of that Church which is dispersed through the World, are a true Church.  
But the Protestants do hold Communion, and acknowledge themselves to be a part of that Church which is dispersed through the World.  
Ergo, The Protestants are a true Church.  
Secondly, out of the same Principles I will prove, that the Church of Rome is not the Church, as excluding all other Churches, thus:  
1. Argument.  
The Church doth profess that Faith which was preached, and received through the World.  
The Roman Church holding a new Creed of unwritten Traditions, Transubstantiation, worshipping of Images, etc. do therein not profess that Faith which was preached, and received through the World.  
Ergo, The Church of Rome is not the Church.  
2. Argument.  
The Christian Church hath many more Children than the Church of the jews.  
But the Roman Church hath not more Children than the Church of the jews.  
Ergo, The Roman Church is not the Christian Church.  
The Major Saint Austin doth bring out of Scripture in those words, The barren hath many more children than she that hath an husband. The Minor will appear, if we say unto these Romanist●, as Saint Austin did to the Donatists, Let them compare their multitude with the multitude of the jews dispersed over the world, and they shall see how few they are in comparison of them, the jews being by the calculation of the 
a Brirewood in his Inquiries.  most learned in History, and Geography, as many as will people all Europe. The Roman Church when it was entire, being not much more than half Europe, if so much, and now having lost half that it was, is fare less. This I shall enlarge morefully hereafter, when I shall come to maintain my former Arguments. Now I address myself to Master Fishers Reply.   

CHAP. VI  
Fisher. Concerning M. Rogers his Answer to M. Fishers five Propositions.  
BY this which hath been said against Master Bernard, his Look beyond Luther, it may be easily seen, that M. Rogers hath not sufficiently answered M. Fisher's question aforesaid; for with a bold audacity he nameth for Protestants, famously known Roman Catholics, to wit, these Writers of the first seven hundred years, and amongst others even Saint Bede, whose Writings, and profession of life (being a professed Roman Catholic Monk) show him to be no Protestant.  
Rogers.  
I can see no such thing in what you have said against Mr. Bernard, neither have you said any thing there which may touch me, but you have the same in this your Treatise against me: you have written, not half a sheet, in Reply to Mr. Bernard's Book of eight, or nine sheets, and yet you would have men see in your short Reply to him, a Confutation also of what I have written.  
I have read, that Alexander the Great, seeing a company of Indian Apes marching along a Hills side, took them to be an army of Enemies, but when he came near, he found them to be as they were, poor, silly, fearful Apes, that ran into the woods to hide themselves. He that thinks he seethe in your Reply to Mr. Bernard, a confutation of him, or me, is as much mistaken as Alexander was in the Apes; the reason is, he looketh a fare off, as Alexander did, when he took them for armed men; but he that cometh near unto your Writings, vieweth, and examineth them diligently shall find, that there is no army, there are no armed men, no sword, no weapon, no Scripture, no reason to wound us. You strut, and stalk a fare off, but when we draw near, you fly into the thickets of some dark speeches, ambiguous phrases, aequivocating terms, like those, Liguranes quos major aliquantò labor erat invenire quam vincere. It is more labour to find you out, then to conquer you. Mr. Bernard, I doubt not, is able to answer any thing that you have objected unto him, if he think such poor objections of yours to be worthy of any Reply. I will address myself unto what you object unto me, you say that I have not sufficiently answered Mr. Fishers Question aforesaid; For (say you) with a bold audacity he nameth for Protestants, famously known Roman Catholics, to wit, the chief Writers of the first 700 years. As for Audacity, I hope to clear myself, by performing all that I have undertaken herein. And the grounds I laid, do manifest to the learned indifferent Reader, that I did so entrench myself, so fortify my cause, as that I fear not any open force of a stronger enemy than you are. I named for Protestants, known Roman Catholics (say you) distinguish Roman Catholics, whether you mean the present Roman Church, or that which was in the first seven hundred years: these two are as different as Christian, and Antichristian, as Orthodox, 
Non Apostolici, sed Apostatici. Such as were fallen from all Christianity. Baron. an. 908. n. 4. speaking of the Popes of that age.  and Haereticall, as Apostolic, and Apostatical. I oppose the present Roman Church, not the Primitive; and therefore I oppose this, because she is so different from that, and no more like unto those former Roman Catholics, than those Indian Apes were unto the valiant Porus, and his Indian Soldiers. They of those first seven hundred years did not equal unwritten Traditions unto the Word of God, they did not worship Images, nor was your new Creed any part of their Faith; and this is the reason why we oppose the present Roman Church, because she hath so far declined from what she was.  
Return you to that Primitive Roman Church, and we will return to you; these Writers of the first seven hundred years are ours, and not yours: insomuch, that I do require you to show me any one Father of those seven hundred years that held your now Roman Creed, and I will be of your mind. And whereas you make choice of Saint Bede for your instance, I will pitch upon that very man, and deny him to be of your now Roman Faith, I mean, as fare as your now Roman Church doth differ from other Christian Churches: herein I am in the Negative, so that it doth belong to you to prove the Affirmative. Whereas you say Saint Bedes Writings, and profession of life (being a professed Roman Catholic Monk) shows him to be no Protestant; first, for his Writings, show me out of his Writings, what part of the Apostles Creed he did deny; I have no other Articles of Faith: if he held these (as I know he did, and his Writings do manifest it) he is of my Faith, he is of my Church; I of his, both of one Church, both of that one Faith, which the Protestants do profess.  
Secondly, I believe all the revealed written Word of God, as it was received in the Primitive Church, doth Saint Bede deny any of these? show me where. But (say you) his profession of life proves him to be no Protestant, for he was a Roman Catholic Monk. First, as for Roman, I have already answered, that your present Roman Church differs from that which then was, in all those Doctrines wherein we differ from you, although it then began in matters of Discipline to swerve from what it had been, I say in matters of Discipline, not of Doctrine; if in any Doctrine, not in Doctrines of Faith; they enacted, enjoined, necessitated no new Articles, as now you have done in your Council of Trent, whereas you add Catholic to Roman. Hoc est— Pugnantia secum frontibus adversis componere, like that of dividing all the world into Kent and Christendom, or rather to say that Kent is all Christendom. Roman is but a part of the Catholic Church, and to say as you do, that the Roman is the Catholic Church, is as if one should say that one particular man were all men, and that one limb of a man were the man, as the Poet said of Tongilianus: 
Tongilianus habet nasum, scio, nec nego nasum,  
Nil praeter nasum Tongilianus habet.   
The man had a great nose, and therefore the Poet said he was all nose, as if he had no other parts, neither, eyes, nor mouth, nor hand, nor arm, nor leg, nor foot. So you, because your Roman Church is somewhat large, you say that the Church is all Roman: whereas it is not much larger in proportion to the Catholic Church, than Tongilianus his nose in respect of the rest of the body, I know you will say that the Roman Church is extended to the East, and West Indies, and there acknowledged: Alas, that is but by a few of your own Emissaries cooped up in some small Lands, and Forts in the East Indies, and as for your West India Converts, 
Bartholo: Casas in his Spanish colonies p. 1●.  they are such as being forced by the Spanish tyranny do profess a poor faith being taught to say there is one God, one Pope, one Catholic King. This is all their Creed, these are the Christians you there make, this is the converting of Nations you brag of; your imposture, and cozenage in suborning a couple of unknown fellows to come, and submit themselves to the Roman Church, 
a Historia Concilij Trident. l. 5.  as if they had been the patriarchs of Alexandria, and Mozall is long since discovered; so that by these poor shifts to vaunt unto the world, or think with yourselves that the Roman is as large as the Catholic, is as if Tongilianus sniting his nose upon his garments, and there seeing it sprinkled here and there upon his legs, upon his feet, should therefore think that his nose did reach unto his feet: that which you deliver in this kind being but vaunting of falsehoods and gross lies I may well call the excrements of a devilish brain, seeing the devil is the father of lies; and yet this must make your silly, simple, hoodwinked followers think that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church, and as you afterwards say that none can be saved out of the Roman Church, 
Aug. ep. 86. Rabanus Maurus 400. years after divided the Church into East, Greek and Latin. l. 2. c. 34.  Saint Augustine in his time did distinguish between the East, and West Churches, and then did subdivide the West making the Roman but a part of the West, yea and distinguishing between some neighbour places, and the Church of Rome. In those times, and even to this day the Eastern Churches do differ from the Roman Church in that they fast not upon the Saturday, as also a great part of the Western Churches even in Italy itself than did. Whereupon one Vrbicus wrote against those that did not fast upon Saturday, which caused one Cassalanus a Presbyter to write unto Saint Austin requesting his resolution herein, who replying unto him saith; In those things concerning the which the word of God doth not lay down any certain rule, the custom of God's people, the ordinances of their Ancestors are to be held for a law, He did not say here the decrees, or custom of Rome must stand for a law to all other Churches. He bids him observe the words of Vrbicus, and you shall see him (saith he) with most injurious terms to abuse penè universam Ecclesiam Christi ab ortu Solis usque ad occasum, almost all the Church of Christ from the rising of the Sun to the setting of the same; meaning those who differed from Rome, so that here this Father did distinguish the universal Church from the Roman, And again the question is (saith he) Vtrum Sabbato jejunandum sit? whether Christians ought to fast upon the Saturday? which question I would he did so demand, or so affirm as not openly to blaspheme the Church dispersed over the circumference of the Earth except the Roman, and some few more of the West. And again in the same Epistle he saith: Non tibi persuade at urbem Christianam sic laudare Sabbato jejunantem, ut cogaris orbem Christianum daemnare praudentem. Let him not persuade thee so to commend a Christian City (viz. Rome) fasting on the Saturday, as to cause thee to condemn the Christian world denying that day. Here Rome was a Christian City, but the Church beside is termed the Christian world, Seeing then that the Roman Church is but a part, say not that it is the whole Church out of which no man can be saved. This was the claim of Donatus, and some of his distracted followers to style themselves the whole Church, as you do, they being as you are in proportion to the Catholic Church, that is the whole Church but frustum de frusto majore precisum, a part of that Western Church which was but a part of that Catholic Church, of the whole Church. Do not play with the Church as Martial did with Tongilianus. Anaxagoras shall sooner persuade me nivem esse nigram, that the snow is black than you shall make me to deny one of the most manifest principles that are in the world, which every child understandeth, and doth assent unto: if he be but seven years old, viz. That Omne totum est majus aliqua sua parte; the whole is greater than any part thereof; a child knows this sooner than he knows the right hand from the left: divide him an apple, and ask him whether he will have all or a piece? he will say all, ask why? he will say it is more. Divide him his bread, and butter in pieces, and ask him whether he will have a part or the whole? he will choose the whole because it is the bigger. The Roman Church is not the Aethiopian Church, nor the Greek Church, nor the Armenian, Nestorian, Indian Church, all these and many more are but parts of the Catholic Church, Will you say that any part of this whole Church is as big as the whole? A greater degree of stupidity than this did I never read, or here of. Would you make us less than children, more simple than infants? When you tell us of your Roman Catholic Church, in that sense you expound it, not as concurring with but including the whole Catholic Church: Thus much for making the Catholic Church to be the Roman Church. Rome was a sound, and eminent part, and member of the Church before the seventh age, but in that age it began to be troubled with the headache, when the Bishop of Rome claimed that proud swelling title of universal Bishop, which Gregory the first so much condemned; in succeeding times that Church became heartsick, and more diseased (I speak as I conceive) then any one eminent member of the Catholic Church; her diseases, her heresies, her usurpations, innovations, superstitions, Idolatries we have left, that is her Papacy, not that faith by which she was, and is a Church though diseased, sick, all over infected with a leprosy; as I would shun a man that is a leper, and yet not deny him to be a man. But Beda was a member of the Catholic Church, of the Roman Church such as then it was, not such as now it is; he was not sick of your greatest diseases.  
Neither is your Argument of force as it is drawn from the title of Monk, no more than if I should conclude him to be of my religion, only by saying that he was a Presbyter of the English Church as now I am. Let us see your Argument in form.  
All Roman Monks of all ages are of one faith, of one Church.  
But Beda was a Roman Monk 900 years past.  
Ergo: He is of the same faith, and Church with the now Roman Monks. Thus much for you.  
Now for myself let me make the like Argument from St. Beda as a Presbyter of the English Church, and you know that title of Presbyter is more frequently given to Beda, than Monk.  
All Presbyters of the English Church in all ages are of one faith, one Church.  
But Beda was a Presbyter of the English Church, and so am I  
Ergo, Beda was of the same faith and Church with me, and all other Presbyters of the now English Church.  
This is your kind of arguing, silly, and simple. The major is most false, a mere aequivocation, the Monks of the Primitive Church agreeing with your Monks only in name, but not in nature, in signification, in definition.  

Zozomen: l. Hist: Eccl: l. 1. c. 13.  The first Monachi were such as in time of persecution fled into the Wilderness, and there lived; yours contrarily take this order upon them, and live in cities, and Courts of Princes.  

Ibidem & Hieron: ep. ad Pauli: or rather single life.  2. They meddled not with civil affairs, yours, especially your jesuits are great States men.  
3. They had no vows, yours have vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience which Bellarmine maketh essential to Religious orders, so that they are not of one nature they differ essentially.  
4. They were Lay, and were forbidden by diverse Canons to meddle with the Priest's office. These have intruded so far into the Priest's office as that they must yield the place to them. And your Bishops in your Trent Council did complain much of them.  
Beda was no such Monk as now you have Quibus caruit Ecclesia eo tempore cum fuit optima. 
Agrippa de Van. Scien.  Such as the Church had not when it was best. They lived by their labour; yours by the sweat of other men's brows; they fared hard; 
Palingenius.  yours duntaxat ventri, veneri, somnoque vacantes. These only eat, and drink, and whore, and sleep, so that these later Monks are as opposite to the former as necessitated, and voluntary professions; as retired solitary men, from Statesmen; as Votaries, from not Votaries; Laymen from Priests; men of sparing diet, from Epicures. Beda was a Monk before this definition was read. Monachus est cadaver mortuum, è Sepulchris egressum, pannis funebribus involutum, à Diabolo inter homines agitatum. A Monk is a dead carcase coming out of the Grave, wrapped in his winding sheet, driven amongst men by the devil. Beda lived 700 years or thereabouts before your Pope Pius the 2. said that a wand'ring Monk was the devil's slave, If you prove St. Beda to be such a one I will grant him to be yours, but of those Monks, and these I may say, O quantum hic monachus monacho distabat ab illo, How much doth your Parsons, and other Monks differ from Beda, and those more ancient Friars, or Monks, or religious Orders, call them as you please.  
Fisher.  
The like may be said of diverse others, but at this time it may suffice to give this one example to show that Mr. Rogers naming all those he named spoke without Book, or without having at hand or looking into his books, and that he might as well have named the Pope, and Cardinals, and Bishops, Priests, Monks, and all other religious persons of the present Roman Church to be Protestants as he nameth the said ancient Fathers.  
Rogers.  
And so I will when I come to my Catalogue name Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, etc. for confirmation of my faith whether it be for my Creed which are more principal, and proper points or articles of faith, or for all those books of Scripture which I believe, or things therein revealed from God, Because the testimony of an adversary for an adversary is most strong, and will take away your personal exceptions, Thus Paul did cite a Heathen to persuade Heathens, yea the inscription of an Altar dedicated to the unknown God, found amongst Heathen Idols. Thus the Fathers Augustine, and others in the Primitive Church did cite the jews for confirmation of their doctrine, and that they did not misaleadge the Prophets, and writers of the old Testament.  
judaei inimici nostri sunt, de chartis inimici convincatur adsarius. The jews are our enemies, out of the books of our enemies we convince our adversaries, Augustine upon the 40th. Psalm, and often in other places. Master Fisher, or his Second would have exclaimed hereat saying, what meanest thou Augustine, wilt thou persuade me that the jews are Christians? if not why citest thou their books? nay, what meanest thou Paul to cite the Greek Poets? wouldst thou persuade me that they are Christians; as if it must follow that they whose testimony we cite in some things, must be our friends in all.  
All the faith of the Protestants is confirmed by the Papists, all their explicit, all their implicit faith, all that belongs to our faith vel per se, vel per accidens essentially, or accidentally, primary, or secundarily, as an Article of faith, or as an illustration of the same expressed in Scripture: and yet the Protestants are no Papists, the Papists are no Protestants: because the Papists have a new Creed, which Protestants deny, and I call God to witness that I desire to die a thousand deaths rather than to approve it, because I assure me it is false in all, and in some things blasphemous, The Papists have such exercise of Religion, worshipping of Images, praying to Saints which I abhor as being Idolatry. In discipline also they have such tenants of absolute supreme power over Bishops, Kings, Laws, oaths, as is full of pride, sedition, usurpation, and impiety.  
Now here we differ, here I am in the negative, and so it doth belong to you to prove the affirmative. It is a just law, and your own Master Fisher: for these I need not produce testimony seeing I do not avow, maintain, believe any such Creed, any such practice of Religion, any such discipline. But for my faith either explicit, or implicit all that is revealed by God in his word I may bring my Adversaries to depose for me; Paul said unto Agrippa a jew, no Christian, 
juvenalis.  yea a wicked incestuous King if Roman Authors wrong him not— incestae dedit hoc Agrippa sorori. Yet to this bad man, this unconverted jew, Paul saith, O King Agrippa believest thou the Prophets? I know thou believest them. And may not I say Master Fisher, believe you the Apostles Creed? I know you do believe it, I have no other Articles of faith, no other primary propositions of faith; again, for the total object, for the secondary propositions of faith contained in Scripture, may not I ask you and say, Master Fisher do you believe the Books of Moses, the Psalms, the Prophets, and all those Books of the jewish Canon, as also all the new Testament? I know you do Master Fisher, why then, herein is my faith limited, whatsoever doctrine is plainly hence inferred, or out of principles of nature I receive as doctrines, or truth's convincing my understanding, but they are no part of my faith.  
After these, all doctrines, and laws Ecclesiastical, or civil in the Church or State wherein I live, not contradicting the word of God, or my conscience I receive with humility. May I ask you Master Fisher again, whether the Apostles Creed and those books of old and new Testament received by our Church of England had not professors in all ages? nay were not professed, and believed of the Popes, and Cardinals of all ages; I know you will not deny but they were so professed; why then may not I vouch these Popes, and Cardinals for myself, as I intent to do when I come to my Catalogue.   

CHAP. VII.  
Fisher.  
ANd I marvel why having gone half the way (as he saith) he maketh a stop there, and doth not with the like audacity go on, in naming other famous Roman Catholics in every of the other ages.  
Rogers.  
Because Master Fisher offered in like proportion to name, and defend Professors of Roman religion, holding nothing contrary to the Doctrine defined in the Council of Trent; these were your words in the first Paper I received of yours. I have gone half my journey, you not a step; in proportion you should have gone as fare as I did, especially seeing you would have no other means of trial: whereas I have, and hold other, and better means to prove my Faith and my Church; yet to satisfy others, to stop your mouth, and to meet you at your own weapon, I undertook this as a probable, foreign, humane, uncertain Argument, yet such as maketh more for us then for you.  
Fisher.  
Namely, such as Gualterus in Latin, and the Author of the Appendix to the Antidote in English, have set down for members in the Roman Church.  
Rogers.  
If they have done it sufficiently and effectually, it had been the less labour for you, Mr. Fisher, to have transcribed them; but we may guess what makes you neither take a Catalogue out of them, nor make one of your own: after your example, I might transmit you to Illiricus his Catalogus testium veritatis, or The mystery of Babylon, written by Sir Philip Morney, the learned Lord of Plessis, who have performed this for the reformed Churches, fare better than yours have done for your Church.  
Yet when I come to the place where you have cited my Catalogue, I will make it out; but let me ask you why, instead of naming such as professed the Roman Religion, holding nothing contrary to the Doctrine defined in the Council of Trent, now you put members of the Roman Church, as if it were the same, a member of the Roman Church may give testimony against you, and for me; Caiphas, even then when he persecuted Christ, might prophesy truly of Christ: Pilate, who did crucify Christ, did write that of Christ which was true, viz. that he was King of the jews. Matthew Paris was a member of the Roman Church, who said that your Church did never reject any that came unto her, if they brought white or red with them. 
Silver, or Gold.  This member of the Roman Church, said that a principal member, viz. That Pope Gregory the seventh did confess on his deathbed, that by the instigation of the devil he had troubled the world; yet this was such a member, as that Innocentius the fourth, 
Matthew Paris.  the then Pope, written of him, that he was vir probatae vitae, & Religioris expertae, Such a Writer, as that Baronius giveth this testimony of him: Take away from his Book, his calumnies, 
Anno 996. n. 63, 64.  invectives, taunts, and blasphemies against the Apostolic See, often repeated, and you will say it is a golden Commentary, taken word by word out of the public Records, and very well compiled together. Thus fare Baronius. As if a man should except against a witness, and say, you must not believe him in this which he says against me; but in all things else you may believe him, he speaks nothing but what is upon public Record.  
Cajetane was a learned member of your Church, and yet he held the Canon of Scripture as we do, contrary to that which the Council of Trent hath defined.  
Sixtus Senensis was a member of the Roman Church, and yet he did deny some part of the Scripture to be Canonical, which the Council of Trent defined for Canonical, and that after the Council. Bellarm. de Verbo Dei. l. 1. c. 7. I will fit you with many such members in my Catalogue.  
Fisher.  
Neither can I see any reason why he did not (with like audacity) go on in naming other famous Roman Catholics in every Age, but that, as it seemeth, he was not resolved whether he were better to put in his Catalogue, the names of damned Haeretickes, which disagree in diverse points of Faith from all ancient, and present Pastors, and Doctors of the Church, even from the Protestants themselves.  
Rogers.  
Who you mean by these Haeretickes, I know not, and therefore I need not reply unto you herein; if you had laid that imputation upon us, I would have enlarged myself in the defence: but you say they differ in points of Faith from the Protestants.  
Fisher.  
Or else to put in names of Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Monks, and other religious men, whose Writings and profession of life palpably show, that they held the present Roman Doctrine, and communicated with the Roman Church.  
Rogers.  
I have answered you already, that I will name Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Monks, and others of your Church, and why; but such, as neither their Writings, nor profession of life do palpably show that they held the present Roman Faith. If their Writings express what you say, I will yield: but that their Roman profession of life should include the now present Roman Faith, I deny: and besides what I formerly spoke concerning your Writers, I will add some few instances now. 
Gratian. Can: Comp. de consecr. dist. 2.  Gelasius was a Pope, and yet he held your present half Communion to be Sacrilege, and decreed thus: Aut integra suscipiant, aut ab integris arceantur; Let them receive the Communion in both forms, or in neither.  
Nich: Lyranus was a Catholic, and yet he held the Canon of Scripture, contrary to that of the Council of Trent, as Bellarmine confesseth. So did Hugo, and Thomas de Ʋio, two Cardinals.  
Irenaeus, Basil, Chrysostome, Augustine, and others whom I cited before, cap. 4. were Bishops, and yet they held the fullness and perfection of Scripture, without the supply of unwritten Traditions, contrary to the Council of Trent.  
Jerome was a Priest, and a Monk, yet denied those Books to be Canonical, which we deny, contrary to that the Council of Trent hath taught, and decreed.  
As the hand of a man may smite himself, and yet continue a member of his body; so these might be members of the Roman Church, and yet give testimony in something against your Church. The Ambassador De Ferrias of France, was a member of the Roman Church, and a French man; 
Histor. Concil. Tried  when in the Council of Trent, speaking of the miseries of France, he said, If they should demand why France is not in peace, he could answer nothing but that which jehu said to joram, How can there be peace there remaining? and concealed the words following, but added, You know the Text.  
The Cardinal of Lorraine was a principal member of the Roman Church, and the second Clergy man in the Latin Church, yet he speaking of the miseries of France, said in the Council of Trent, If you would demand who hath caused this tempest, and fortune, I can say nothing but this, That this fortune is come by our means; cast us into the Sea. By Us, he must understand the Roman Clergy. judas that betrayed Christ, gave a true testimony against himself, when he said, I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. And the limbs of Antichrist may give a true testimony against Antichrist.  
Now, whereas you say that they communicated with the Roman Church, I grant they did in some things, or else they had not been members of that Church, but not in all; for, not in those things they did disavow, reprove, condemn: and that this may the better be understood, I will enlarge my discourse herein.   

CHAP. VIII. What it is to communicate with others. How fare we yet communicate with the Roman Church, and wherein we refuse to communicate.  
COmmunio est multorum unio, 
Communio quid.  Communion is the union of many. They that agree in one opinion, are so fare united, they are one. They that enjoy any thing in common, are so fare united. 
Rom. 12.  The Church is one body, 
1 Cor. 12.  Christians are several members of this one body; as therefore the members being many, are united in one body, and do communicate in diverse of the self same things from that one body; and communicate one unto another the service of those things that are proper unto them as they are several members: So in the Church, all Christians make but one body collective, which are united together by many things, some outward, some inward, some both outward and inward, because it is corpus vivum a living body, wherein there is (saith Saint Augustine) a soul, 
Augustin. Breviculo Collat. 3. Collat. 9  and a body: The soul are the inward gifts of the holy Ghost, faith, hope, and charity, etc. The body are the outward profession of faith, and receiving of Sacraments. Whence it comes to pass that some are of the soul and of the body of the Church, and therefore united to Christ their Head both inwardly, and outwardly; these are most perfectly of the Church, for they are as living members in the body. Again some are of the soul, but not of the body, as those which are instructed to believe the principles of Christian Religion, but are not yet baptised, or those who are excommunicated if they retain faith and love, which may be done. Lastly some are of the body but not of the soul, as those who have no inward virtue, but for some temporal ends do profess the faith, and partake of the Sacraments under the government of Pastors, and such are as the hair, or nails, or ill humours in man's body, Thus fare Saint Augustine.  
This last doth make a man to be a part of the visible Church. 
Bellar. de Eccl. l. 3 c 2.   
As then in man there is the inner, and the outward man; the soul and the body; the one is visible, the other is not visible: So in the Church there is a mystical Church which is not seen to bodily eyes, and an outward profession of Christ, and receiving of Sacraments which makes the visible Church; we can see the men, we can see them baptised, coming to the Temple, receiving the Sacraments; we can hear them make confession of the Christian faith, call upon God the Father by Christ; all these things are sensible and most of them visible as the men, their meeting, their receiving of the Sacraments, the lifting up of their hands in prayer, the opening of their lips in confession of their faith, in prayer, and thanksgiving. Where there is a society of men thus professing the faith of Christ, and partaking of his Sacraments under the government of Pastors, there is a visible Christian Church; These do communicate in the same Sacraments, in the same confession of faith, (and that maketh them to be of one Church, of the visible Church, though they be never so far remote one from another, and unknown one to another) in the same essence of faith, the principal, and necessary articles whereof are contained in the Apostles Creed, in the same essential form of baptism, whereby men are admitted into the visible Church; we communicate with the Roman Church, and so do all Christian Churches in the world, that is in all that which must necessarily be professed, and done to make a Church; Now whereas my adversary saith that those Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, others named by Gualterus, and the Author of the Appendix to the Antidote did communicate with the Church of Rome; that will not serve his turn, for so do we communicate with them in many things in the Apostles Creed, in the principal Sacraments, in the jewish Canon of the old Testament, and in all the new, This doth make them and us a Church; in these we have not left them, but in their new Creed, in their books added to the ancient Canon of the Bible, in their unwritten Traditions, in other their new false, heretical doctrines, in their superstitious practice of Religion, and Monarchical discipline, tyrannising over the families of Christ, These we hold to be the corruption, sickness, leprosy of their Church, there we have left viz their Papacy not their Church; we left them as an unsound Church, not as a Church; Thus the Primitive Church did deal with the Heathens, jews, and Heretics, as Saint Augustine writeth to the Donatists, they retained what was good amongst them. These Donatists held their own society alone to be the Church, and excluded all others: their own baptism to be true effectual, and no other, so that they rebaptised those which were baptised by others, in defence of their allegation objected thus.  

Vsqueadeo meum est quod à me unicum datum est, nec ab ipsis sacrilegis iteretur.  
Sacrilegus non est qui unicum baptismum; non quod tuum est sed quod Christi iterare non audet, Etenim Christi est unica in baptismate consecratio.  
Tua est unici baptismatis iteratio. Corrigo in te quod tuum est, agnosco quod Christi est, hoc enim justum est ut cum mala hominum reprobamus, quaecunque in illis bona Dei reperimus approbamus. Hoc inquam justum est ut etiam in sacrilego non violem quod verum invenio Sacramentum: nec sic emendem Sacrilegum, ut in eo perpetrem sacrilegium. Nam sic sunt isti mali in baptismo bono quemadmodum sunt Iudaei mali in lege bona. Itaque ut illi per ipsam legem judicabuntur quam malitia sua malam fecerunt, Ita & isti per ipsum baptismum judicabuntur quod bonum mali tenuerunt.  
Ergo quemadmodum judaeus cum ad nos venerit ut Christianus fiat non in eo destruimus bona Dei sed mala ipsius, Nam quod errat non credendo quod Christus jam venerit, natusque & passus sit, & resurrexerit hoc emendamus, eaque infidelitate destituta fidem qua haec creduntur instruimus, Item quod errant umbris veterum Sacramentorum inhaerendo, dissuademus jamque venisse tempus quo haec auferenda atque mutanda Propheta praedixerunt demonstramus.  
Quod verò unum Deum colendum credit qui fecit Caelum, & terram, quod omnia Idola, & Sacrilegia Gentium detestatur, quod futurum expectat judicium, quod vitam sperat aeternam, quod de carnis resurrectione non dubitat laudamus, approbamus, agnoscimus, sicut credebat credenda, sicut tenebat tenenda, firmamus.  
Ita etiam cum ad nos venerit Schismaticus, vel haereticus ut Catholicus fiat, schisma ejus, & haeresim dissuadendo & destruendo rescindimus, Sacramenta verò Christiana si eadem in illo invenimus, & quicquid aliud veri tenet, absit ut violemus, absit ut si simel danda norimus, iteremus, ne dum vitia humana curamus, divina medicamenta damnemus, aut quaerendo sanare vulneratum quod non est, hominem saucium, & ubi sanus est vulneremus. August: Tom: 7. l. de un. baptis. cont: Petil. cap. 2. 3.  
Possunt esse populi boni, ubi fuerint Episcopi mali; sicut potuit esse populus malus ubi fuit Moses Princeps, & Rector bonus. li. 2. c. E. Parmen. c. 4.  
In bonis quibus talia displicent semper manet, & mansit, & manebit Ecclesia. l. 3.  
Nihl aliud est consentire male facientibus; nisi mala facta eorum approbare atque laudare. l. 1.  
Nemo conjungitur cum infidelibus, nisi qui facit peccatum Paganorum, vel talia facientibus favet: nec quisquam fit particeps iniquitatis nisi qui iniqua vel agit, vel approbat. l. 2. c. 17.  
Vbi Moses, & Aaron, ibi murmuratores sacrilegi, ubi Caiphas, & caeteri tales, ibi Zacharias, & Simeon, & caeteri boni: ubi Saul, ibi David, ubi jeremias, ubi Isaias, ubi Daniel, ubi Ezechiel; ibi Sacerdotes mali, & populi mali. cap. 7. Et sicut grana inter paleas non videntur, ita pie viventes inter iniquorum turbas non facile apparent.   

My Baptism is such, and so undoubted as that the sacrilegious heretics themselves will not rebaptize those whom I have baptised, Saint Augustine doth answer thus, He doth not commit sacrilege who dares not rebaptize, after that baptism, which is not thine but the baptism of Christ.  
The baptism is Christ's, the rebaptising is thine, I correct in thee that which is thine, and acknowledge that which is Christ's; for this is just that when we 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 sin.  
For they are evil, though the baptism amongst them be good, as the jews were evil, though the law was good; And even as the jews shall be judged by that law, which they (though defiled) could not defile: So (the Donatists) they shall be judged by that baptism which they could not deprave though themselves be depraved.  
We therefore thus deal with a jew when he cometh unto us to be made Christian, we do not destroy in him the good that he hath from God; but the evil that he hath of himself, for we amend, and, destroy in him his infidelity whereby he doth not believe that Christ is come already, was borne, hath suffered, is risen again: and we instruct him in the faith of these things.  
We also dissuade him from those errors whereby he still sticketh to the shadow of the old Sacraments, and we show unto him that the time is come already, wherein the Prophets foretold that these things were to be taken away, and changed. But in that he believeth one God is to be worshipped, which made Heaven, and Earth; that he doth abhor all the Idols, and sacrileges of the Gentiles; that he doth expect the day of judgement; that he doth hope for eternal life, we commend him, approve him, acknowledge him, wishing him to believe as he had believed, to hold as he had held.  
So also when a Schismatic, or an heretic doth come unto us to be made a Catholic; we dissuade; destroy, and take from him his schism, and his heresy; but as for the Sacraments of Christ if we find them in him, and whatsoever other truth he holdeth; fare be it from us that we should violate or minister again that baptism which was once received; lest while we cure the vices of men, we condemn the saving graces of God, and seeking to heal that which is not wounded, we should wound a man there where he was whole. Thus fare Saint Augustine.   
These words of this Father make so plain 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 disclaim. 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 communicate, consentit, qui consentit corrumpitur. If he communicate, he doth consent, if he consent he is corrupted.  
To consent to evil is nothing else but to approve, and commend that which is evil; neither is there any man joined in evil but he that doth commit evil, or favour it; act it, or approve it. In those good men which are displeased with those evils, the Church doth continue, hath continued, and will continue for ever. And as the grain unwinnowed is hid in the chaff: So the godly do not easily appear 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 murderers: 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, etc. So that I doubt not but some may be found in all ages, who did not communicate with your new doctrines, superstitious worship, tyrannical discipline, although they did communicate with you in the Scriptures, and Apostles Creed, as we and all the famous Christian Churches in the world do. Know then that whereas you say that the Fathers and others alleged by some of your men did communicate with the Roman Church, unless 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 infer 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 do differ from us in other opinions, not concerning Faith, as long as they maintain our Faith, and that the Church of Rome cannot produce Fathers in all Ages, who do not contradict the Council of Trent in some Doctrines established in the said Council.  
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 Fundamental:   Adding also, that matter of Faith consisteth not in Discipline, but Doctrine; and that Doctrine not Accessary, but Fundamental. By which distinction I mean (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 School.  
2 Doctrines of the Church; &  
3 Articles of Faith.    
To all which grounds of mine, and more which I th●n laid, you make no reply at all, saving that some other grounds of mine you cavil at (viz) my Definition of a Protestant, and my Distinction of 

Affirmation,  
and Negation, which I will justify 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 ways, Concedendo, negando, vel distinguendo. You will do none of these to my grounds, and yet write in the top of your Book for diverse pages, these words, Master Rogers his most weak grounds; viz. pag. 26, 27. and in both these pages, not one word spoken of my grounds. Thus would you persuade your silly Proselytes, who must read no more than the Title of your Books; That you have answered all, when you have answered nothing, Likewise, pag. 22. you writ over head, Master Rogers his most weak Arguments; whereas, there is not in that page any one Argument of mine.  
You can pass all those grounds of mine with a trick of Rhetoric, to take notice of that which you cannot answer unto; and in stead of that, must strike at a slander by, namely, our Book 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 me from that matter proposed, to go a roving as yourself have done, with impertinent discourses.  
Fisher.  
I might therefore without more ado, conclude, that Master Rogers hath not sufficiently answered Master Fishers Question.  
Rogers.  
With as little ado as you can infer, 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, We do enact it, that is, we do cancel it; or as you say, the Roman Church, that is, the Catholic Church, a part, that is a whole, a piece of man, that is a whole man, this is quidlibet ex quolibet, from the staff to the corner.  
Fisher.  
In regard he hath neither named Protestant's in all Ages, neither hath he sufficiently proved them he 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 been of their Religion, or Sect.  
Rogers.  
The Question was, whether the Protestant Church was visible in all ages? This I proved by diverse Arguments to which you have made such answer as we 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 proof than induction, or that my adversary proposing the question, should limit me what kind of proof I must use: As if the King of France denouncing war against the King of England, should send him word: If you will war against me, you must do it by land, not by sea; and you must land in Picardy, not in Normandy, or Britain, or Poitou; and you must choose your place of battle in large Plains, and fight with horse, not with foot; and bring no Archers into the field, or else confess that you are no Warrior, your Englishmen, Scots, and Britain's no Soldiers, your proceed 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 down names of Protestant Preachers in all Ages, who taught the people Protestant Doctrine in every several Age; or else confess 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 jesuit will answer me, let him show me the names of jesuit Preachers in all Ages, who taught the people jesuitical Doctrine in every several Age, or else confess that there were no such before Ignatius Laiola. We will deal with you as Edward the third with Philip, who presented himself before Paris; saying, He did call upon him to open fight in the view of France, and before his great Theatre of Paris.  
He did not limit him to any one kind of fight, or weapon, he left him to his choice, so do we with you: prove yourselves to be the only Church, and that all are excluded from salvation unless they hold Communion with, and subjection to your Pope: prove it by any testimony of Scripture, or demonstration from the Principles of Scripture, or Reason; frame your Argument as you think best for your own advantage: there are many places for Arguments, viz. 24. we 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 testimony.  
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 forms of arguing, a Syllogism is that principal form which alone hath constringencie, and necessary illation, and to which, all other forms, 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 work and produce true knowledge, and yet we must use only these. This is, as if the King of France should have sent to our King, that when he fought, he 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 Ambrose, Augustinus, etc. Sed haec dicit Dominus. Your School also granteth that Scriptures are the principles in Theology, and all demonstrations must be ex proprijs principijs out of proper principles. Yet you will none of them; only names out of Histories you call for. This was a kind of proof which I did not approve at first, but denied the consequence of your 5th. Proposition thus.  
The sum of your fift Proposition is briefly this, If the names of Protestant Pastors in all ages cannot be showed, than 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 undertook to show a Church professing the same faith, which the Protestants now do, in all ages; and in all your Propositions you speak of faith, here you speak of doctrines. You know all doctrines are not articles of faith. I have named Authors for 800. years, and in this my second Reply I will for the rest. Was not my request more reasonable to call upon you to go on so fare, it being your own way, it being a course proposed by yourself: yet he that hath not gone one mile findeth fault with him that hath gone 800. because I have not gone further, whereas I had a nearer, and safer way to my journeys end, viz: by Scripture, by demonstration, by confession of my adversaries.   

CHAP. X.  
Fisher.  
NEither did he sufficiently prove them he named to be Protestants but by such false suppositions, and bad definitions, etc.  
Roger's in his 1. Reply.  
That my suppositions are false, you say it; I deny it, when you show any reason to convince them of falsehood, I will disclaim them; If my definition be bad, you should have mended it, and so much I requested you to do, and do request it again, and again. But why is my definition bad? why my suppositions false? and why shifts? because that Arrians, Anabaptists, or whatsoever other Sectary may by the like, defend the same persons to have been of their Religion and Sect. What suppositions you mean I know not, if you mean my distinctions, I shall answer you when I come to your particular exception against them: As for my definition it was this, and thus delivered.  
Master Fisher, I desire you therefore to express without ambiguity the terms of this question, whether the Protestant Church was visible in all ages? what you mean by Church? what by Protestants? what by visible?  
I will deliver my opinion in defining a Protestant Church. The Protestant Church is a society of men professing the faith expressed in the Canonical Scriptures, acknowledged to be such in the Primitive Church; comprised in the Apostles Creed, explained in the other two Creeds of Nice, and Athanasius, ministering the Sacraments of Baptism, and the Lords Supper by men of lawful calling, and ordination.  
Such a society as this, was in all ages.  
Ergo, The Protestant Church was in all ages.  
Thus fare in my former Reply, this was the definition I brought, and none other. You say an Arrian may by this definition defend, that those persons by me alleged were of his Religion, or Sect, so may the Anabaptists, or any other Sectary as you say; what other Sectaries you mean I know not; as for the Anabaptist, I will answer you where you have made more full mention of him. As for the Arrian, because here only you name him, here I will reply unto you concerning him. You say that my definition may agree with an Arrian, for so it must if thereby he may prove those to whom this definition doth belong to be of his Religion, than which nothing could be spoken more ignorantly if you thought as you wrote, or more impudently if you knew the contrary, being so manifest a truth, as nothing that ever happened in the Christian Church is more frequent in Ecclesiastical Histories, in Fathers, in Counsels, then that Arrius was condemned in the Nicene Council; and the more full explication of the Apostles Creed was made in that Council only to exclude and condemn Arrius, which explication is commonly called the Nicene Creed: to the same purpose did Athanasius compose his explication of the same Creed. I make mention of both these in my definition, saying that the Protestant Church professeth that faith comprised in the Apostles Creed, explained in the other two Creeds of Nice, and Athanasius; All these three do say, that Christ is God: Arrius doth deny it, these are contradictories, can you reconcile them? if you can, you will do more than all the Divines, all the Philosophers could do, nay more than God himself can do. The Apostles Creed saith that Christ is the only begotten Son of God, and therefore God, as the begotten Son of man is man: the only begotten Son of God, because he alone is the Son of God by generation, all others either by creation, or by regeneration.  
The Nicene Creed saith, Christ is begotten of the substance of the Father, God of God, true God of true God. Athanasius his Creed runs wholly on the same strain, that Christ is God, that he is uncreate, eternal, incomprehensible, Almighty; Arrius denied all this in denying him to be God.  
This definition I allege, not as proper to the Protestants distinguished from other Churches, but common to all true Christian Churches, for two reasons; first my drift is not to prove that only the Protestants make the Church as I have fully expressed in my first Answer. My words speaking to Mr. Fishers 4th. proposition, were these, I would gladly know what they mean 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 leave such enclosing of Commons to the Romanists; we challenge it not, we are a true Church, not the true Church: we are a part, not the whole: we include ourselves, we exclude not others, whether Grecians, Armenians, Aethiopians, Spaniards or Italians, etc. so they deny no fundamental parts of the faith either directly or by consequence.  
2. Because there can be but one definition of one Church, and such is the Catholic Church of Christ acknowledged to be, and this one definition must accord, and may be verified of every particular society, that professeth the faith of Christ, and ministereth those Sacraments which were ordained by Christ as necessary unto all men under the government of lawful Pastors; for these particular societies are of the same nature as the whole, Parts homogeneae quarum idem nomen cum toto, & eadem nominis definitio; parts of one kind with the whole, and one with another, which have the same definition, because they have the same nature, and essence, as every drop of blood is blood, and every little piece of flesh is flesh, and have all the same definition. As therefore when I would prove myself to be a man, I would use no other definition than animal rationale, a reasonable creature endued with a living sensible body, 
Haec Articulis lex definiendi.  for singularia non habent definitionem nisi speciei, particular, and individual things have no proper, peculiar definition of their own, but all of one kind, or species, have the same definition; so being to prove myself a Christian, I will use no other definition then that of Christians in general, viz. that I hold the faith of Christ, am admitted by baptism into his visible Church, wherein I do continue under the direction, and government of my Pastors.  
If you should reply, that is no good definition, because it belongeth to you of the Roman Church, to those of the Greek, Armenian, Aethiopian, Indian Churches, and to all other sects of Christians as well as to me; I answer, that unless it do belong to all Christians, it were no good definition, as animal rationale were no good definition of a man, unless it did belong to every particular man, excluding none; for this is the rule of defining, this is the direction that is given by the most learned, that we must pass through every singular, observing what is to be found in them all, and at all times, and put those things alone in our definition, excluding those other things which we find in some singulars, or particulars, but not in other, or at sometimes, but not at other. This is the rule of reason, but you of Rome contrary to this course in framing your definitions, have collected those things which are to be found in one particular Church, viz. your own, and wherein you conceive other particular Churches to be defective, things accidental to the Church, as without which the Christian Church hath been, and may be hereafter; whereas all those things that belong to the definition of any thing, must be essential, universal, inseparable; and being taken altogether must show, and explicate the whole nature of the thing, and exclude all things else of a different nature or kind: as for example, Bellarmine after a long dispute concerning the definition of the Church, rejecting all other, concludeth thus.  
Nostra autem sententia est Ecclesiam unam tantum esse, non duas, & illam unam, & veram esse caetum hominum ejusdem Christianae fidei professione, & eorundem Sacramentorum communione colligatam, sub regimine legitimorum Pastorum, ac praecipuè unius Christi in terris Vicarij Romani pontificis. Ex qua definitione facile colligi potest, qui homines ad Ecclesiam pertineant. Tres enim sunt partes hujus definitionis, professio verae fidei, Sacramentorum communio, & subjectio ad legitimum Pastorem Romanum Pontificem. Ratione primae partis, excluduntur omnes Infideles tam qui nunquam fuerunt in Ecclesia ut judaei, Turcae, Pagani; quam qui fuerunt, & recesserunt ut Haeretici, & Apostatae. Ratione secundae, excluduntur Catechumeni, & excommunicati, quoniam illi non sunt admissi ad Sacramentorum Communionem, isti sunt admissi. Ratione tertiae, excluduntur Schismatici qui habent fidem, & Sacramenta, sed non subduntur legitimo Pastori, & ideò foris profitentur fidem, & Sacramenta percipiunt. Includuntur autem omnes alij, etiamsi Reprobi, Scelesti, & Impij sunt.  
But this is our opinion, that the Church is only one, not two, and that one and true Church is an Assembly of men knit together in the profession of the same faith with Christ, and Communion of the same Sacraments under the government of lawful Pastors, and especially under one Vicar of Christ on Earth the Bishop of Rome. Out of which definition may easily be collected who are of the Church, and who are not; for in this definition are three parts, 1. profession of faith; 2. communion of Sacraments, 3. subjection to a lawful Pastor, the Bishop of Rome. The 1. of these doth exclude all Infidels aswell jews, Turks and Heathens, as Heretics, and Apostates which having been of the Church departed from it. The 2. part doth exclude those Catechumeni that are instructed in the principles of Christian Religion, but are not yet baptised, and those that are excommunicate, for the first of these were never admitted to the Communion of the Sacraments, these latter were admitted, but are by excommunication excluded. By the 3. part are excluded schismatics which have the faith, and the Sacraments, but are not subject unto the lawful Pastor, and therefore do profess the faith, and receive the Sacraments out of the Church. All others are of the Church although they be Reprobates, wicked, ungodly men. Thus fare Bellarmine.  
Valenza to the same effect writeth thus.  
Vera Ecclesia non est alia, 
Tom. 3. in Tho. pa. 144.  nisi ea fidelium congregatio quae paret Romano Pontifici pro tempore existenti. There is no true Church but that Congregation of faithful people which is obedient to the Bishop of Rome for the time being.  
Binnius the last, and largest compiler of the Counsels, hath this. Illam dicimus Ecclesiam quae decreta Sancti Consilij Tridentini universalis aecumenici tenet pariter, & honorat. 
To. 2. pa. 721 notis in Corc Tolet. 3.   
We call that the Church which doth hold, and honour the decrees of the Holy general Council of Trent.  
Thus we see, that obedience to the Bishop of Rome is put by your late great Goliahs' in the definition of the Church, and by consequence it is of the essence, and being of the Church, so that no man can be saved by their Doctrine, which is not obedient to the Bishop of Rome. Nay, the Christian Church cannot subsist without the Bishop of Rome, and obedience unto him, because nothing can subsist without his own being.  
If this be a true definition of the Christian Church, than millions of Souls were damned when the Church of Rome was divided for many years, and many descents (for there could be but one true Pope at the same time) some cleaving to one Pope, some to the other, this Schism during seventy years. The want of this obedience (if their Doctrine be true) hath excluded all the reformed Churches from hope of salvation, which contain many millions of Christian Souls which receive, and believe the Scriptures of old and new Testament, as they were received in the first, second, third, fourth Centurie of years; which receive, and profess the Apostles Creed, are therein baptised, and receive for Orthodox Doctrine, the Decrees of the four first General Counsels, and some of them receive six of the first Counsels, and yet must they be damned to the pit of hell, because they will not be obedient to the Pope? 
Histor. Concil. Trid. p. 450.  The Queen of France somewhat above sixty years since, wrote unto the Pope, that there being none of the Reformed, who deny the Articles of Faith, nor the six Counsels, many thought it fit to receive them into Communion. Let us pass from the Latin Church to the Greek, a Church larger in extent then the Latin Church. This, with all the number of Christian Souls therein contained, for denying the Pope's Supremacy, are out of the Church, have lost their hold of Christ, have no interest in his sufferings, although most of them suffer much for the profession of Christ under Turks, and Tartars. Let us go somewhat further, and observe the miserable condition of the Churches of Africa, which when they were at the best, were three times as large as the Roman Church, and yet, though the Mahometans have much prevailed against them, not inferior to the Latin Church; all these are without hope of Heaven, damned for ever to the pit of Hell, if this definition be true.  
Eusebius the compiler of the Ecclesiastical History for the first three hundred and odd years, assisted therein by Constantine the Great, and esteemed by him worthy to be Bishop of all the world, writeth, 
Lib. 3. c. 14.  that The Church was dispersed through the world by the Apostles. Then speaking of the next Age, viz. Anno 137. writeth, 
Lib 4. c 6. c. 28.  that The Churches did then shine like bright stars, through the world; and the faith in Jesus Christ did flourish in universo humano genere, amongst all mankind: As in Mesopotamia, in France, in Asia, in Phrygia. 
Lib. 6. c. 1.  In India, where Pantenus the Christian Philosopher found Christians, and the Gospel of Saint Matthew in Hebrew, 
Lib. 5. c. 9 Anno 180.  left unto them by Bartholomew, who preached the Word in those parts.  
Irenaeus the learned Bishop of Lions in France, died about these times, and had heard Polycarpus the Disciple of Saint john (as he himself confesseth) he writeth thus; The Church dispersed through the universal world into the ends of the earth, received from the Apostles, 
Lib. 1. c. 2.  and their Disciples, that Faith which is in one God, the Father Almighty, etc. as he there setteth it down more at large; cap. 3. he saith, This Faith the Church dispersed through the world, doth constantly keep, as if they dwelled in one house, as if they had but one soul, one heart, one mouth; neither do the Churches in Germany believe otherwise, nor the Iberians, nor the Celtes, nor the Churches of Egypt, nor those in the East, nor those of Lybia, nor those which are placed in the middle of the world.  
Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, about the year 234, 
Euseb. l. 7. c. 4.  writing to Stephen Bishop of Rome, saith, Scias nunc frater, etc. Know now Brother, that all the Eastern, and those Churches which are more remote, are at unity. Where he names the Bishops of Antioch, Caesarea, and jerusalem, of Tyre, of Laodicea, all Syria, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Pontus, Bythinia. 
Euseb. de vita Constantini, l. 3. c. 7.  The Ministers of God came together to the Council of Nice out of Syria, Cilicia, Phoenicia, Arabia, Pabestina, Egypt, Thebais, Africa, Mesopotamia, Persia, Scythia, Pontus, Galatia, Pamphilia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Phrygia; thither came the Thracians, Macedonians, Achaians, Epirots, and they whose dwellings were far more remote.  
Much could I cite to the same purpose out of Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomen, and other Ecclesiastical Historians, much out of the Fathers, much out of the late Travellers, but I will make choice of two, or three which show the multitude of Christians over the world.  
It is too true, that about seven hundred years after the coming of our Saviour in the flesh, Mahomet gained much from the Christians, the Turks more, about four hundred years after that; and the Tartars, I may say, almost as much as both; the last of these, about four hundred years past, 
Saving, one mentioned by Matthew Paris.  subduing the mighty Christian King of Teuduc, became Mahometans, and their Successors ever since: yet so, as Christians are found in all their dominions to this day: yea, and within these four hundred years and less, Burchardus hath recorded that in the hither half of Asia, from Tanais Westward, to Imaus Eastward, and from thence to the South of Asia, there were thirty Christians for one Mahometan. I will end this with an Historian, and Traveller of your own, Andrew Thevet, Cosmographer to the French King in his cosmography: I assure you (saith he) that I found at jerusalem, in the holy (Passion) week, more than four thousand Christians of several (remote) Nations, myself being sole with an Almain of the Roman Church. And anon after he saith, All those Nations do acknowledge neither Pope, nor Cardinal, King nor Emperor of ours. And again, None can show that the Abyssines, Armenians, Maronits, Georgians of Persia, Nestorians, jacobites, Syrians, javans, which be of the Lands next the Oriental India, Burians, Darians, Cephalians, the men of Quinsay, most remote of all the Oriental India (of all which Nations I saw in jerusalem, in the holy (Passion) week) ever learned from us (of the Latin Church) their Sacred Mysteries (or Liturgy) which they affirm themselves to have received from the Apostles. Thus far Thevet. Yet by your definition, all these, so many Christians of several remote nations, are damned to Hell; for they do not acknowledge the Pope, nor did for one thousand five hundred years. And must all the Christians for one thousand five hundred years, of so many several Nations, be damned for not acknowledging the Pope? The devils in Hell would triumph if this were true: The ten persecutions in the Primitive Church, and the great inundation of Mahometisme lenarged far and wide, by the conquest of Saracens, Turks, and Tartars, did never cut so many souls from Christ, drive so many out of the Christian Church, and consequently damn them to Hell, as this definition hath done, if it were true. I have read in one of your own Writers, Matthew Paris, That a Priest deceased, 
Anno 1072.  about thirty days after appearing to another Priest, his former acquaintance, bade him give over his function and repent, if he would be saved; and opening his hand, shown him a writing, wherein the Devil, and all the society of Hell did give thankes to the whole Order of the Clergy; because, that giving themselves wholly to pleasure, and neglecting to preach, they suffered more souls to come to Hell, than had been seen in any Age before.  
All the service that the Romish Clergy of those times did do to the Devil, in bringing infinite numbers of souls to Hell, was nothing to what this jesuitical definition, and Doctrine doth do.  
If this definition be true the judicial proceeding in the later day must be not as our Saviour hath laid down in the 25. of Saint Matthew, Come ye blessed of my Father, 
Ver. 34, 35, 36.  inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat, I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink, I was a stranger and ye took me in, naked and ye clothed me, I was sick and ye visited me, I was in prison and ye came unto me. But thus it must be, if this definition be true, Come ye blessed, who have submitted yourselves unto my Vicar general, who have been obedient unto my Bishop of Rome, acknowledging him to have authority over all Bishops, that he is above Counsels, above Kings, 
Valenza, Tom. 3.1. qu. §. 6. Bellarm. l. 4 de Pont. Rom. c. 4, 5.  above Emperors, Lord of all the world, that in him is invested all the authority of the universal Church; that all the Church, without him, may err; that he doing the office of a Pastor, or intending to teach, the Church cannot err.  
Our Saviour said, Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doth the will of my Father; but now the case is altered; Every one that saith Lord, Lord, to the Bishop of Rome, and none but he alone is in the Church, out of which there is no salvation.  
Our Saviour said, He that doth the will of my Father: but these say, He that doth the will of God and the Church, shall be saved; and by the Church, they understand the Pope.  
Must all those remote Nations, amongst whom many millions never heard of the Bishop of Rome, and those who are oppressed under the Moors, Turks and Tartars, for the Faith of Christ, must they, I say, be examined in the last day, in that great judgement, whether they did obey the Bishop of Rome, or no? and condemned for not obeying him? If they answer, We acknowledged our sins, and repent of them, we believed in thy name jesus, we were baptised in that Faith, we received thy body and blood, we endured many indignities, reproaches, impositions; nay, our children are taken from us, if there be any more hopeful than other, and all because we are Christians. Will Christ answer them, Away from me; for you did not acknowledge my Vicar general, my Bishop of Rome to have authority over all Churches, over all patriarchs, yea Kings and Emperors in ordine ad Spiritualia: I know you not, you are not of the Church.  

Irenaeus, l. 3. c. 12.  May not the Aethiopians reply, We have received the Faith, first by the relation of our 
a Act. 8.27.  own Countrymen, who were baptised by Philip, afterward by the Evangelist 
b Socrat. hist. l. 1. c. 15.  Saint Matthew. We received it by the preaching of Bartholemew, say the 
c Chrysost. Hom. 22. de Apostolis.  Armenians. We have received it by the preaching of Andrew, say the 
d Orig. l. 3. in Genesin, &  Scythians. We from thy beloved Disciple 
e Euseb. hist. l. 3. c. 1.  Saint john, say the Churches of the lesser 
f Euseb. hist. l. 3. c. 1.  Asia: with us he lived, with us he died, to us he vouchsafed to speak in his Revelations, we received it also from thy Apostle 
g Paul epist. ad Ephes. & ad Galat.  Paul, who preached amongst us, and wrote diverse Epistles unto us. From him we received thy Faith, say the Grecians, Macedonians, 
h Paul ep. ad Roman cap. 15 v. 19, 26.  Illyrians: To us he hath vouchsafed to write, say the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Philippians. 
i Pet. 1. ep. cap. 1. v. 1.  Peter preached in our Countries, and in our neighbour Countries of Anatolia, as in 
k Euseb. hist. l. 3. c. c. 1.  Pontus, Galatia, Bythinia, Cappadocia, Asia: it was to strangers scattered amongst us of his own Nation; to the 
l 
Chrys. Hom. de duodecem Apostolis.  
The Church of Ephesus instructed by Paul, and afterwards continued by S. john. Iren. lib 3. c. 3. The Gospel of the uncircumcission was committed unto me, as the Gospel of Circumcission was unto Peter. Gal. 2.7.   dispersed jews, and not to us of the Gentiles.  
We of the higher 
a Theodor. de veri. Evang. c. 9 Osorius de rebus Emanuelis. Socrat. l. 1. c. 15.  Asia received it from Philip; we from Simon Zelotes, say the inhabitants of Mesopotamia: we of Parthia, Persia, Media, Brachmania, India, and other neighbour Nations from Thomas. We Indians also received it from Bartholomew, who left with us the Gospel of thy blessed Apostle and Evangelist Saint Matthew: we saw not Peter, we heard not of the 
b 
I assure you that I found at jerusalem, in the holy (Passion) week, more than 4000 Christians of several (remote) nations hereafter mentioned; myself being sole (amongst them) with an Almain of the Roman Church: they do acknowledge neither Pope, nor Cardinal, King, or Emperor of ours. See more p. 42.  
The Christians of java, Taprobane, Caephala, Quinsay, and other remote Countries in the Oriental India; diverse of which, as the Aethiopians, Indians, Armenians, Grecians, etc. were converted in the Apostles times, and are from these parts so far distant, as that the Latin Church was for many precedent Ages unknown to sundry of them till the later times. Brearley, Tract. 3. §. 2. Sub. 1. in his book of the Mass. pag. 288.   Pope, we knew not Rome; neither, for aught we know, were we known unto thy Latin Church: and if it be necessary for all men that will be saved, to know and acknowledge the Pope of Rome, our Teachers have deceived us, the Gospel which we have received is unperfect, the Scriptures are defective, which make no mention of the Bishop of Rome; nay, thy Word hath misled us, saying, There is no other name under heaven given to men, in whom and through whom they attain health and salvation, save only in thy name, O Christ jesus. We received not our Religion from Rome, we were not converted by any sent from the Latin Church. We received it from thy Apostles, say the 
c Theodor. de curate. Grae ca affect. l 9  Tyberines, Hyrcanians, Caspinians, Scythians, Massagets, Sarmatians, the Serae, Cimicrians, Germans, Britain's, the Lagis, Samni, Anasgi, (utque semel dicatur) omne hominum genus, all mankind may say, we received thy Faith from the Apostles; sundry of which were unknown to the Latin Church. Yet my 
d In the Reply to Doctor White and Doctor Fratley, the Author in the second Chapter saith, That out of the Roman Church no salvation: this is the Title and drift of diverse leaves together.  Adversary here, if he sat in the judgement seat, would do as Bellarmine, Valenza, Binnius and others have done, condemn them all to Hell, with an Away with you, I know you not, if you know not the Roman Church, if you live not in unity with that: And no marvel he is so peremptory, seeing Pope Boniface hath decreed it thus; Declaramus, dicimus, definimus, pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis omni humanae creaturae subesse Romano Pontifici. De Major.  
We declare, say, determine, pronounce, that it is altogether necessary to salvation, that every man that will be saved be obedient to the Bishop of Rome. These are the Laws of Rome, this the doctrine of your Schools, this the charity of your Religion, to condemn ten times as many Christians to hell, as ever were of your Church, for not being obedient to him they never knew, they never heard of.  

Arist. Tep. l. 6. c. 1. n. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And because we are speaking of Definitions, let me request you to remember the laws of a Definition, as first, that it must contain all that is defined, it must belong to every thing which is comprised under that which is defined.  
2. It must belong to nothing else, but that which is truly and properly styled by the name of that which is defined; as the definition of man must belong to all men, & to nothing else but man; as every man is Animal rationale, and nothing but man: the reason thereof is this, that a definition must show, and express distinctly the proper essence of that which is defined: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Artic. 2. Poster. cap. 3.  If proper, than it can belong to nothing else; if essence, it must belong to all, for nothing can be without his own being and essence. And for the same reason it is inseparable, immutable, and must perpetually be verified of that to which it once doth belong, as a true definition, which showeth the essence or being of a thing: 
A definition doth make us to know what each thing it.  because nothing can be separated from his own being, unless it cease to be at all. If then Bellarmine's definition, & your tenet, That there is no salvation out of the Roman Church, which is the fame in effect with the doctrine of Bellarmine, Valenza and Binnius be true, it must include all Christian Churches, and it must agree to all the Christian Churches at all times; but this definition did not agree to all Christian Churches as I have showed by the testimony of your own writers, and Travellers, for many thousands of Christian Nations in the world did not acknowledge your Pope; and many never heard of your Latin Church, neither did the Latin Church know them.  
That it did not perpetually belong to the Church will appear in that I think my adversary is not able to produce any in 1150. years after Christ's coming in the flesh, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem Metaph. 2. c. 3.  that framed such a definition of the Catholic Church, so that the learned must either be ignorant of the true definition, or this must not be it. Is it likely that all the learned Fathers who wrote upon this subject, disputed upon this point, 
Licet definitio & definitum re idem sint tamen propositio in qua definitio de definito praedicatur non est identica, sed doctrinalis, quia in ea conceptus distinctus de confuso praedicatur. Zuarez.  were ignorant what the Church of Christ was? which is distinctly known only by 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arti. 2. Post. c. 2.  a definition. If this definition, or your tenants were true, all those Christians who died for Christ till Peter came to Rome were out of the Church, were damned.  
Stephen the first Martyr, who died for Christ the same year that Christ died for him, and all the world, was out of the Church, was damned, lost his life in vain, shed his blood to no purpose.  
If it were so necessary that there must be a Bishop of Rome to whom all Christians must submit, why did not the Primitive Christians entreat Peter to go to Rome that they might have a Church. The believing jews should have come to Peter, and said if we die before there be a Bishop of Rome, we die out of the Church, we are damned, 
Definitio est principium, & finis logieae. Zabarella.  therefore good Peter to Rome with all speed. They of Antioch should have done the like, and said to Peter, sweet Simon what dost thou here, to Rome that we may have a Church. So should they of Alexandria have told him, to Rome Peter, what dost thou here? 
Sedit Antiochiae annis 7. Baron. an. 39.25. annis ut Euseb. in Chro.  why wilt thou so long delay the laying of that corner stone in Rome whereon all must be built, wherein all must be saved? why wilt thou hazard the salvation of so many souls as may die before thou hast settled a Church at Rome which must be the Mother of all Churches? 
Pius 4. his Creed. art. 11.  wilt thou make thyself guilty of the blood of so many believers as may dye whilst thou dost linger and loiter here.  
The Churches of judaea, Galilee, and Samaria were excluded by your definitions, 
Acts 9.10, 11, 12.  and tenants; for Peter had not as yet been out of those coasts: nay, if this definition were true they were no Churches; but the Scripture saith they were Churches, ergo this is a false tenet, a false definition. The Christians of joppa were to blame to send for him, 
Acts 9  to hinder him from a more necessary journey to Rome, and Peter himself much to blame to tarry there many days. Cornelius the devout Centurion if he had heard, 
Acts 10.  and believed your tenants, and definitions, might have stumbled at what the Angel commanded him do, and he might have said with himself; if there be no salvation out of the Roman Church what good can Peter do me before there be a Church there.  
If none can be saved but who are in subjection to the Bishop of Rome, what good can Peter do me, there being as yet no Bishop of Rome. Then when Peter came unto him, and preached Christ jesus, and remission of sins in his name; if these men had been there they would have said: Peter you have forgot one principal Article of the faith, that which is essential to the Church, the being, entity, the definition of it. That he must be obedient to the Bishop of Rome, this might more nearly concern him being Captain of the Italian Band. But the Scripture saith that Peter did tell him that whereby he, and all his house should be saved, and yet no word of Rome, or Roman Bishop. The Christians of Antioch by this definition, and tenet, were no Church, though the Scripture say they were, james the brother of john which was killed by Herod was of no Church by this definition and tenet, and therefore was damned.  
We desire not to be of any other Church than Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, the Council of afric, the Council of Nice, the Church of joppa, Caesarea, jerusalem, Antioch were of. We like no such definitions as exclude the Fathers, Counsels, the Apostle Saint james, the Martyr Saint Stephen, and damns them to Hell. O let me live the life of these, die the death of these, and rest in peace with these.  
Thus much in justifying my definition, and against your tenet and jesuitical definition of Bellarmine, which I briefly urge thus.  
That definition which belongeth to all Christian Churches, and to none else is a good definition.  
But such is mine,  
Ergo: It is a good definition.  
That definition, and tenet which excludeth and condemneth all the Churches of afric, Asia, and a great part of Europe, yea Stephen the first Martyr, and james the brother of john, together with diverse Counsels, and fathers, is false, and uncharitable.  
But such is your definition, such your tenet.  
Ergo: Your tenet and definition, are both false, and uncharitable.   

CHAP. XI. A true Copy of Mr. Fishers five Propositions.  
IT is certain there is one, and but one true infallible faith without which none can please God.  
2. This one infallible faith cannot be had according to the ordinary course of God's providence, but by hearing Preachers, and Pastors of the true visible Church, who only are lawfully sent, and authorized to teach the true word of God.  
3. As therefore this one infallible faith hath been, and must be in all ages, so there must needs be in all age's Preachers, and Pastors of the true visible Church, of whom all sorts of people have in times past (as appeareth by Histories) learned, and must learn in all future times the said infallible faith.  
4. Hence it followeth, that if Protestants be the true visible Church of Christ, all sorts of men who in every age have had the aforesaid infallible faith, have learned it by Protestant Preachers, whose names may be found in Histories as the names of those are found, who in several ages did teach, and convert people of several Nations under the faith of Christ.  
5. Hence further followeth, that if there cannot (as there cannot) be found in Histories, names of Protestant Preachers who in all ages did teach all sorts of faithful people, and who converted several 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 learn 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, than was in those alleged by me, saving these few words (in Histories as the names of those are found) which make no sentence nor fill up one poor little line, and if they strengthen your cause any thing the more, let them come in, and do you urge them.  
Roger's 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 been, and must be in all ages such Pastors so called.  
4. I would gladly know what they mean 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 challenge it not, we are a true Church, not the true Church; we are a part, not the whole; we include ourselves, we exclude not others, whether Grecians, Armenians, Aethiopians, Spaniards, or Italians, etc. So they deny no fundamental parts of the faith, either directly, or by consequence.  
An examination of Master Roger's answer to the five Propositions aforesaid.  
I find first that he granted the first three without any exception, which I desire may be 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 God's providence) cannot be had otherwise then by hearing the preaching or teaching, of lawfully sent Pastors. And thirdly, that this faith hath been in all ages past (as appeareth by Histories) taught by Pastors of the true visible Church, who only are lawfully sent. Out of these 3. grounds, I say, evidently followeth that which is Master 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, than their Protestant faith differing from the Roman faith hath been 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 only that it may be he will make a bog at the word Histories, as not finding it in his Copy, 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 passed cannot be showed but by Histories; I do not see why Mr. Rogers may not absolutely grant the fourth Proposition, even as it was set down by Master Fisher himself; for if any visible Protestant Pastors were in all ages, teaching especially any such Protestant doctrines as now are taught, they would have been named and spoken of, 
Roger's all, or some.  and written of aswell as others are, who have in all ages passed taught all sorts of true and false doctrines, in regard there cannot be assigned any reason, either of the part of God's providence, or humane diligence, why the name of others, even false teachers in all ages, should be set down, and preserved in Histories yet extant, rather than the names of such as Protestants deem to be the only true Teachers of pure doctrine; for doubtless both God, who is zealous of his honour, and careful to honour and preserve the memory of them that would honour him, would for his honour's sake have procured honourable memory of such as did, by teaching truth, honour him; and men careful of their soul's health (which they cannot attain according to the ordinary course, but by hearing such Pastors only who have lawful succession from Christ's Apostles) have reason diligently to look 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. Certain 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, doubtless 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 do not see how Master Rogers can deny 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 be well inferred that if no such men's names be found in Histories, than no such men were in all ages, nor consequently are Protestant's the true Church of Christ, for it hath had such in all ages: I do 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 drawn from negative authority, be (as Master Rogers averreth) of itself 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 look back upon the title of the two last pages which is [Master Rogers his most weak grounds] then read diligently all that is there written, and see if there be any mention, any one sentence, any one word of any of my grounds. All that is here spoken is in defence of Master Fishers own grounds, viz. of his 4. and 5th. Proposition, which in that sense that you enforced them, are most weak, and more weakly maintained, and therefore the title should have been thus,  
Master Fisher his most weak grounds.  
That they are most weak 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 than 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 been, 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 do 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 joined 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, etc. Evidently followeth that which is Master's 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, than their Protestant faith differing from the Roman faith hath been 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 syllogism, infer your conclusion I see not the evidence; make it clear unto me, one short syllogism would make me confess that which you endeavour to prove in three pages, but prove not at all, only you make one fallacy called petitio principij, and falsify my words more than 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 practice of all learned men in all professions, and the only 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 mean 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 leave such enclosing of Commons to the Romanists, we challenge it not, we are a true Church, not the true Church; we are a part, not the whole; we include ourselves, we exclude not others, whether Grecians, Armenians, Aethiopians, Spaniards or Italians, etc. so they deny no fundamental 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, doubtful phrases, and aequivocating terms, that being requested to open yourself, you will not explain your words, your Propositions and grounds, or Principles to infer other conclusions? Such obscure phrases of double signification can make no Argument, but a fallacy which seemeth to be an Argument, but is none. They cannot be Propositions, which will not admit of one ambiguous term, one ambiguous simple word. The only way to avoid this, is by distinction. This distinction I brought, which you cannot deny; The thing itself is so clear, that there is difference between a part, and the whole, between a part of a City, and a whole City; between a part of a Kingdom, and a whole Kingdom; between a part of the Church, and the whole Church. He that saith, I am a Citizen of London, being made free, wrongs no man; but he that says, I am the only Citizen, and there is no other, speaks falsely, and wrongs all other Citizens of that society. He that says Middlesex is a part of the kingdom of England, speaks truly, and wrongs no man; but he that says Middlesex is the Kingdom of England, as if there were no other Shire nor Province belonging unto England, speaks falsely, and is no less than a Traitor to the King. And he that says the Protestants are a Church, speaks truly, and wrongs no man, because he excludes no other Christian Church; but he that says the Protestants are the Church, as you say of the Roman, excluding all others, speaks falsely, 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 terrarum quem possidere jam coperat periisse Christus, et quia hoc credunt cum impudenter dicant, Christiani sumus, audent dicere nos soli sumus. ibid.  folly and madness, they believe that Christ is lost in all other parts of the world. This you spoke of yourselves, because he that telleth a lie, speaketh of himself. 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 sown through the World, we dare not therefore say as you do, We are the Church, we are the only Christians; for this were a lie, folly and madness, as Saint Augustine termeth it. And yet, as if there were no difference, you can pass 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 humility, that is pride; this is charitable, that's uncharitable as the devil; this is injurious unto none, that to thousands of thousands, millions of millions, shutting them out of Heaven who believe in Christ, are baptised into Christ, and suffer for Christ.  
Secondly, I observed many needless words in your Propositions, writing thus: I must desire the Authors not to affect obscurity, nor to alter their words, which may alter their meaning, as in the fourth and fifth Propositions they have with the multitude of needless words obscured the matter, the fourth being briefly and plainly this: If the Protestants be a true Church, their Faith hath been taught in all Ages by lawful Pastors, This I granted, and no more; this is your first falsification, as if I granted that which I expressly deny. I deny that we are the Christian Church, which your Propositions lays down, as if it were our Tenet, and this must be our ground to infer that Proposition; this is your Petitio principii, you beg a Principle which I will not grant you, and so the building falls for want of a foundation. Your Argument is thus: 
Major. If Protestants be the true visible Church of God, than 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 several Nations unto the Faith of Christ.  
Minor. But the Protestants are the true Church.  
Ergo, All sorts of men, etc.   
Not to meddle with the sequel of your Major, which is false, as I will show when I come to answer your reasons for the same; your Minor is most false, we always did, and ever will deny it; we are A true Church, not The true Church; a part, not the whole, etc.  
Whatsoever is in your Proposition more than what I expressed for the sum thereof, I granted not; and therefore you have committed so many falsifications, as there are words in your Proposition more than this (If the Protestants be a true Church, their Faith hath been taught in all Ages by lawful Pastors:) I never granted that all sorts of men in every Age did learn 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 modesty, no mean, no measure of falsifying? Are you not ashamed to write, that a man granted that which he denied so fully, so frequently?  
Fisher.  
Only it may be he will make a bog at the word Histories, as not finding it in his Copy, 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 mean by Bog I know not, unless it be a hollow miry ground, whereon a man can set no sure, no firm footing; but he that trusting to a green surface shall walk thereon, sinketh in, and sticketh in the mire: such indeed are humane Histories in matters of Faith. But why should Master Rogers make the bog, who proveth his Faith and his Church by other Arguments, and not by these? who out of Saint Augustine hath already protested against humane proof 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 School; That nothing but divine authority, 
Th. Aquin. 1. quaest. 1. Art. 8.  neither humane reason, nor authority of holy Fathers are proper unto Divinity, or do properly demonstrate. But you that shun the proving of your Church, of your Faith by other course, and fly only to Histories, you make the bog, and such a bog whereon you dare not walk, without you fill it up with the rubbish of some other kind of Records, or Monuments.  
If you mean by making a bog 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 fear 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, uncertain, unnecessitating proof, and yet such, and so uncertain proof as it is, if you can show me your now Faith out of Histories for the first four hundred years, which you yourselves do not accuse of error, falsehood, wilful deceit, juggling, partiality, heresy, I will be of your Faith, of your Church.  
Fisher.  
Things past cannot be showed, but by Histories.  
Rogers.  
I have admitted your extension of Histories to Records and Monuments.  
Fisher.  
I do not see why Master Rogers may not absolutely grant the fourth Proposition, even as it was set down by Master Fisher himself.  
Rogers.  
Within twelve lines before, you say (Neither doth Master Rogers make any bones to grant) and here now you say (I do 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 show 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 been 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 terms: in your three first Propositions you speak 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 do confess, that there are many Doctrines in the Church of different nature and necessity; but let us see your proof.  
Others, who have in all Ages passed 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, etc.  
First, tell me whether your Antecedent be universal 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 Syllogism; and such is yours, namely, an indefinite Proposition, which must be resolved either into universal, or particular. If yours be universal, thus:  
All others, who have in all Ages passed taught all sorts of true and false Doctrines, are named in Histories, I deny it. It is related by many Historians, that there were Christian Churches in Britain in the third, fourth and fifth Age. But no man hath put down all their names, who were their Bishops, or inferior Ministers: if you can do it, show it me. Again, 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, show me the names of these Arrian Teachers? I could be copious in alleging diverse false Doctrines, whose first Authors are not named, are not known, much less all that taught the same; so that if your Proposition be universal, it is false: I deny your Antecedent. If particular, thus; Some others, who taught all sorts of true and false Doctrines, are named in Histories. Ergo, I d●●ie your Argument, and as well I might say, 
Some men have no Noses,  
Master Fisher is some man.  
Ergo, As you infer any conclusion out of your particular Antecedent.   
Fisher.  
In regard there cannot be assigned any reason either of the part of God's providence, or humane diligence, why the names of others, even false Teachers, in all Ages, should be set down and preserved in Histories yet extant, rather than the names of such, as Protestants deem to be the only true Teachers of pure Doctrine.  
Rogers.  
Yet you are in your indefinite saying (others, even false Teachers) you will neither add all nor some, to make it universal, thus; The providence of God, and diligence of man hath preserved the names of all false Teachers in Histories. For then the falsehood would be clear: neither have you made it particular, thus; The providence of God, and diligence of men have preserved the names of some false Teachers. Ergo, of Protestant Teachers: for than it would appear that this were a Non sequitur, that particulars can infer no conclusion.  
Fisher.  
For doubtless, both God, who is zealous of his honour, and careful to honour and preserve the memory of them that would honour him, would for his honour sake have procured honourable memory of such, as did by teaching truth honour him.  
Rogers.  
Ergo, Their names must be found in Histories, Negatur Argumentum. Is this the honour? Is this the glory that God hath provided for his children, to be recorded by man? It is written as you have cited in your Margin, 
1 Reg. 2.30.  Whosoever shall glorify me, I will glorify him; and whosoever shall contemn me, shall be ignoble. Who ever expounded this place of Scripture to be meant of humane testimonies, of being recorded in humane Histories, and not of that honour which is usually termed the state of glory?  
The other place cited in your Margin, is, The just shall be had in everlasting remembrance: Ergo, 
Psal. 111.7.  Their names shall be recorded in humane Histories. Who ever made such collections? God hath promised eternal glory unto his servants, and you will turn it to temporal: for what is humane testimony, and humane glory, but temporal? which shall end either before, or at least with time.  
O presumptuous blindness of man! to accuse the providence of God as defective, if it record not all their names in humane History, whose names are written in the Book of Life. I am loath to spend many words in answering such poor objections, but the impiety, profaneness, Atheism that is implied in this Argument, opens my mouth to speak somewhat more. Whereas you say, If God will glorify his servants, he must record them in humane Histories: this must imply, that God hath no other way to glorify his servants, as that there were no resurrection of the flesh, no immortality of the soul, no Book of Life, no Heaven, no happiness in another world.  
Fisher.  
And men careful of their soul's health, which they cannot attain (according to the ordinary course) but by hearing such Pastors only who have had lawful succession from Christ's Apostles, have more reason diligently to look 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.  
Rogers.  
Here are two tricks of a Sophister, the one to obscure a Proposition with a multitude of needless and impertinent words; for seeing he was to prove this plain and short Proposition, That the names of Pastors teaching divine Truth, are to be found in Histories: and that the Medium whereby he would prove this, he took from the diligence and duty of Godly men, what needs all those additions which come in by Parenthesis, viz. (which they cannot attain according to the ordinary course) but by hearing such Pastors only, who have had lawful succession from Christ's Apostles. The second trick of a Sophister, is to speak indefinitely, and so making it doubtful, whether your Proposition be universal or particular, not joining either all or some unto others, as I have observed before. Your Argument which I must frame for you (or I am like to have none) is this:  
Men careful of their soul's health, have reason to preserve the memory of their Pastors: Ergo, They did so. Or to make it more large, thus:  
Men careful of their soul's health, have more reason diligently to look that memory be preserved of such Pastors, and of pure divine Truth taught by them, then of others, who have taught any other false, and not pure Doctrine. But they continued the memory of the false Teachers. Ergo, They continued the memory of the true Teachers.  
First, you conclude not what you were to prove, viz. That the names of all true Teachers in all ages are to be found in Histories.  
Secondly, for your minor, if it be universal, it is false; if it be particular, it doth not infer, it doth prove nothing, as I have already shown more fully.  
Thirdly, your Argument hath four terms; in the major, your medium is the duty of men what they ought to do; In the minor you speak of what they did, and suppose a falsehood, viz. that men careful of their soul's health have recorded the names of all false Teachers, and so you would infer they did record the names of all true Teachers; and thus to prove the act from the duty in weak sinful man, is no proof, is like the rest, an egregious non sequitur. And as well I might argue thus, Master Fisher ought to have replied punctually in order, and alleging my words in my answer to him: ergo, he did it. Or thus.  
Eve should have abstained from the forbidden fruit: ergo, she did abstain from it. Or thus:  
Adam had more reason to hearken unto God, forbidding him to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, then to his wife persuading him to eat thereof: ergo, he did not hearken unto his wife. Or thus,  
judas had more reason to defend his Master, then to betray him: ergo, he did not betray him. Or thus.  
Peter had more reason to confess his Master, then to deny him: ergo, Peter did not deny his Master.  
If this kind of arguing were good, it were happy for us all in the day of judgement, when the Idolater should say, I had more reason to worship God, then to worship Idols: ergo, I did not worship Idols.  
The murderer would say, I had more reason to save, then to kill: ergo, I did not kill. The drunkard would say, I had more reason to be sober then to be drunk: ergo, I was not drunk. And so might all other sinners plead, if this argument were good.  
Fisher.  
Certain therefore it is, that the names (or some thing equivalent to names) and the doctrines of true Pastors, who did in all ages past teach true divine doctrine, may be found in Histories, as well as the names, and doctrines of others are found, who did teach any other doctrine.  
Rogers.  
I have showed it to be most uncertain, that as well you might conclude, that judas did not betray Christ, or Peter deny Christ.  
Fisher.  
And therefore if Protestants have had any Pastors teaching true doctrines in all ages, doubtless their names would be extant in Histories yet extant.  
Rogers.  
I have already shown your Antecedent to be false, if universal; not to prove, if particular; and so this conclusion, if particular I grant, if universal I deny; and say, that an universal conclusion cannot follow out of particular premises. You know the unquestioned rule, Conclusio sequitur deteriorem partem.   

CHAP. XII.  
Fisher.  
WHich being presupposed and granted, as Master Rogers seemeth to grant, by granting Master Fishers fourth Proposition, I do not see how Master Rogers can deny Master Fishers fifth Proposition.  
Rogers.  
I neither supposed nor granted it: what I granted in the fourth Proposition was this, and no more; If the Protestants be a true Church, their faith hath been taught in all ages by lawful Pastors. What mention is there here of Names, of Histories, of Records, of Monuments? let the Reader look back to my former answer, and he shall find that this is all the issue I joined upon in the fourth Proposition. This is audacity Master Fisher.  
Fisher.  
For it being supposed that Protestant Preachers were, their names would be found in Histories, (as Master Fishers fourth proposition granted by Master Rogers supposeth) it may be well inferred, that if no such men's names be found in Histories, than no such men were in all ages, nor consequently are Protestant's the true Church of Christ, for it hath had such in all ages: I do not therefore see, I say, how Master Rogers can deny Master Fishers fifth proposition, supposing he grant, as he granteth his fourth proposition.  
Rogers.  
You say that I supposing, and granting your fourth Proposition, I must yield unto the fifth; I have replied more than once, your fourth Proposition, especially that which you most insist upon therein, names and Histories I deny, and this not being granted, your fifth Proposition cannot follow.  
Fisher.  
For although, absolutely speaking, an Argument drawn from negative authority, be (as Master Rogers averreth) of itself of no force: and so Protestant Arguments which are usually made against us out of negative authority; as for example, the Scripture saith nothing of this or that; or the Fathers of the first 300. years make no express mention of this or that: ergo, no such thing is, or is of no force.  
Rogers.  
The subject of our discourse was humane History, and humane authority, and what I speak you grant; but you extend it beyond the bounds of our then subject, and more than I will grant, to Divine authority, to the word of God, to the Scriptures: I say the authority of man is like himself, uncertain; his works weak, and unperfect like himself; but the word of God is like himself, certain, strong and full of perfection, and therefore the Argument drawn from divine authority, is certain, though negatively, in those things which the word of God proposeth, and professeth fully to express; but in man it is otherwise, as in the next Chapter I will express more fully.  
Fisher.  
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.  
Rogers.  
This I grant, that negatives are so fare depending upon affirmatives, as that they cannot be understood, they cannot be defined, they cannot be demonstrated without affirmatives: and so, they may.  
Fisher.  
As for example, if we did grant this proposition; If such or such a thing were, holy Scripture would have spoken of it, or the Fathers of the first 300 years would have made express mention of it. If I say we granted this, we could not deny the aforesaid negative Argument, usually made by Protestants to be of force against us.  
Rogers.  
I do not see what I should mislike in this, only it maketh nothing against me.  
Fisher.  
But we deny, and Protestants cannot prove the said affirmative, and so the negative Argument hath no force against us.  
Rogers.  
You deny, but we have proved the affirmative, that all things necessary unto salvation are plainly set down in Scripture, and therefore the negative Argument is of force against your new Creed, the Articles whereof are not manifested in Scripture, as I have more fully set down in the fourth Chapter.  
Fisher.  
Now Master Rogers doth not, nor in reason cannot deny Master Fishers fourth proposition, which is an affirmative, whereupon his fifth negative proposition is grounded; And therefore Master Rogers ought not to deny, but must needs grant Master's Fishers fifth, and so all his five propositions.  
Rogers.  
The Cuckoo, a Bird that makes no good music, and hath but one note, yet is more frequent in venting that, than the Nightingale in tuning her excellent Music. Master Fisher having nothing else to say in defence of his Church, and against ours; cries for Names, and Histories; and not being able to prove his proposition, still sings the same song: Master Rogers doth not, nor in reason cannot deny, ought not to deny, but must needs grant: which being presupposed, and granted, as Master Rogers seemeth to grant, by granting I do not see how Master Rogers can deny; I do not therefore see, I say, how Master Rogers can deny Master Fishers fifth Proposition, supposing he granted, as he granteth his fourth Proposition, neither doth Master Rogers make any bones to grant; I do not see why Mr. Rogers may not absolutely grant his fourth Proposition; all these grants are found in one leaf, and half a page, and yet I never granted it.  
Fisher.  
Which being granted, if he will make a good answer as he pretendeth, he must first set down names of Protestant Pastors in all ages, and not content himself with naming some whom he thinketh to be Protestants, and with saying he hath gone half the way.  
Rogers.  
Yet more grants, I must again deny the grant, this is right Petitio principij, a begging of that which is in question; I have oft enough denied it, yet you will never leave begging it; belike you think to wrest it from me with importunacy: it will never be, I pray you look back, see what I answered to your fifth Proposition, there you shall read thus.  
In the fifth Proposition, I desire to know whether we should show the names of Protestants, or their faith. This we will show, That we need not, for the names of Protestants is but arbitrary, and accidental, etc. And within a few lines after, you shall read thus. But if it be really meant thus; let the Protestants show that their now faith was taught by lawful Pastors in all ages: I do (with God's help) undertake it, and require the same from the authors of these propositions, and demands.  
Have I here granted that the names of all Pastors, and teachers true or false are to be found in Histories, which is the only ground whence you would infer your fifth Proposition, which being not granted by me, I needed not to have set down names of Protestant Pastors in all ages, or in any age: My two first Arguments, the one, a causis, the other, a signis, might have served the turn, without the third, ab exemplis; and I might have contented myself with going less than half that way, which is your way, and not mine; I never took it for other than an uncertain, dark, slippery, cumbersome way; it was your only way, and yet you would not go one step.  
Did ever any judge citing a man by writ to appear before him at Westminster, limit him which way he should come? would you think it reason that a judge should command a Herefordshire man to come to London, not through Worcester or Gloucester, but through Shropshire, Darbyshire, York, etc. The two Evangelists, Saint Matthew and Saint Luke, deriving the pedigree of our Saviour from David, yet did it by different ways, 
De Doct. Christiana.  and diverse lines; Saint Augustine saith, That two men differing in the exposition of some place of Scripture, he that erreth, yet if his exposition lead to charity, he is like unto a man which missing his way, yet cometh to the end of his journey. My journey is to Christ, my scope to bring my faith, and my Church thither; you might leave me to choose my own way, which was the way of Saint Augustine, by Scriptures, who doth disclaim and dislike your way by humane testimonies. Yet even in this your own way I doubt not but I shall go as fare as you in a day, and shall come sooner to my journeys end then you shall, for the reasons which now I will allege in the succeeding Chapter.   

CHAP. XIII. Humane Histories no proof of any Church.  
YOu would bring this great trial concerning the visible Church to Histories only, which I might refuse, briefly for these reasons;  
First, Histories humane in Divinity are weak, improper, and uncertain proofs.  
Secondly, your Index expurgatorius, blotting out of Authors, that which maketh against you.  
Thirdly, You forge Authors, Records, and Counsels to further your cause.  
Fourthly, You slight, and deny the best Authors. Yet to give others satisfaction, I will enlarge these four reasons in this Chapter; not that your objections require any such full answer in this point; that I have performed already. First, of the uncertainty of humane Histories, Bodin in that learned discourse of his, entitled; The Method of Histories, a man of your own, who also dedicated that book unto the chief Precedent of your Court of Inquisition, doth make four kinds of Histories. First, Humane; Secondly, Natural; Thirdly, Mathematical; Fourthly, Divine. The first he says is uncertain and confused; the second for the most part certain; the third more certain; the fourth most certain, and unchangeable. Yet you Master Fisher in this divine question refuse the fourth which is divine, most certain, and immutable, and will have no other proof than the first, which is humane, uncertain and confused. When Ticonius in the same question did allege Divini Testamenti tonitrua, those thundering testimonies of the word of God against Parmenianus the Donatist, 
Aug. count. ep. Par l. 1. c. 1.  which we do produce against the Romanists, making the same claim to the Church which they did, and tying the Church to Rome as the Donatists did to afric. Parmenianus on the other side opposeth the relation of the Priests of his own side; say then (says Saint Augustine) that we ought rather to believe your Colleagues then the Testament of God: shall the smoke of earthly lies prevail against this light which came from Heaven? If Parmenianus were not in love with his Episcopal Chair, he would rather choose to believe the written word of God, than his fellow Bishops.  
Thus much, and much more to this purpose in that Book, and diverse other Books of the seventh Tome: but I will conclude this of the uncertainty of humane testimony, with the words of that Father in his second Tome, in his 48. Epistle, Necesse est incerti sint qui pro sua societate, testimonio utuntur non Divino sed suo. It is of necessity that they must be uncertain, who defend their society not by the testimony of God, but by their own.  
Thus much of the uncertainty in itself, but much more uncertain is all that you shall allege, since you have by your Index Expurgatorius altered Authors, to your purpose, at your pleasure.  
The Pope himself and the Ordinaries, in their several jurisdictions, as also the Officers of Inquisition against Haeretickes are careful to prevent the publishing of any Books, which may seem any way to derogate from the power of the Pope; 
Widring. in Apol. pro jure princ. pag. 343.  and if any such Books be published, they endeavour wholly to suppress the same, or at the least forbidden any man to read them without special licence until they be purged. Thus a Priest of your own hath written. These your purging Tables are of two sorts; some do forbid whole Authors, some do blot out sentences, or words; so that if any Author speak against you, you will either deny the whole Book, or produce some Edition, licenced by your Inquisitors, wherein those words are not to be found, as having passed under the Purgatory of your pen. Your several books called Indices expurgatorij, purging Tables printed in diverse places, as at 
b An. 1584.  Madrid in Spain, at 
c An. 1607.  Rome, at 
d An. 1586.  Lions, are witnesses that you have left no witness in the world without exception.  
If Saint Augustine say, 
Tom. 4 ed: Parisi: apud Catol. Guil. viduam▪ etc. Anno 1555.  Mortuorum animae non sentiunt res viventi●m, The souls of the dead know not the estate or affairs of the living: Your Belgian Index doth purge out this with a deleatur, let it be blotted out, fol. 115. litera. l. If Saint Gregory Nissene say, We have learned to worship and adore that nature alone which is uncreated, you can purge out this with a deleatur dictio solummodò, blot out this word (alone) saith your Spanish Index, pa. 20. If Saint Chrysostome, speak for the perspicuity of Scripture as he doth in many places, as namely in his third Sermon upon Lazarus, deleantur, let those words be blotted out, saith your Index of Spain, reprinted at Samiur. If the same Father speak for the sufficiency of Scripture as he doth in his Commentary on the 95. Psalm, the same Index hath a deleatur for it. If he say, the Church is founded upon the Rock of Faith, and not upon Saint Peter, the same Index hath a deleatur for it, let it be blotted out. Much could I cite to this purpose, but as the rule is, Qui semel pejerat, etc. He that is once convicted of bearing false witness, is never after to be admitted for a witness: so he that is once found to falsify, and blot out Records, looseth for ever his credit in any thing he shall produce out of his own Registerie. Thus much concerning your Index Expurgatorius, blotting out of Authors, that which maketh against you.  
Now followeth the third exception against your authorities, your forging of Authors, and Counsels. As Abdias Stories of the Apostles urged by Harding, and others, censured by your own Sixtus Senensis for feigned, and utterly rejected by Cardinal Baronius. Linus Bishop of Rome, of the passion of the B: Apostles, Peter and Paul, urged by Coccius, yet acknowledged by Bellarmine, Baronius, and Possevine to be feigned, fabulous, erroneous. Clemens his Apostolical Constitutions, and his Recognitions are urged many times by Coccius, Harding, and others; the first of these by Baronius, and Possevine, the second by Bellarmine, Baronius, and Sixtus Senensis are rejected with many more. Besides, the Fathering of diverse Treatises upon St. Cyprian, upon St. Origen, upon Saint Athanasius, Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, and others, of which I will not speak, but refer the Reader to your own greatest Writers, Bellarmine, Baronius, Sixtus Senensis, Possevine, who in diverse places do nail these Authors to the pillory, as false, feigned Witnesses, and palpable forgerers, wishing the learned Reader to have recourse unto these, when he readeth any ancient authority, cited and alleged by the Romanists, and he shall find it usual amongst men of your side to quote, cite, and triumph in such forgeries, as if they were true and undoubted testimonies: as one of your side, M. Fisher, did allege 27 Fathers for Invocation of Saints, to which I having made an answer within the compass of two days, for longer time he would not grant me, pretending that he must be gone out of the Country: I discovered so many forgeries and impertinencies, as that in his next Reply he fell off from 27 to 16, and of those 16, some also forged, and very few or none at all to his purpose. Amongst others, he doth triumph in a Quotation out of Athanasius in his Sermon de Sancta Deipera, the words in that Sermon as he cited them, besides others, are these: O Mistress, Lady, Queen, and Mother of God, make intercession for us: then thus he trumphs; How now Master Rogers, are you not yet contented to pray to Saints? 
De Scriptor. Ecclesiasticis. 8. an. 48. Platina, Cusanus, Marsil. Pata. Lauren. Val. Ant. Floren. Otho. Fri. Hiron▪ P. Cate. Volateranus, Nauclerus, Capnian. Mullineus, Aeneas Syl.  Shall Saint Athanasius teach you your Ave Maria? whereas this was but a forgery, for Bellarmine and Baronius do hold it not to be written by Saint Athanasius, and do bring many reasons to prove the same: and Bellarmine saith, That it was not a work of that Age, but written after the sixth Council, which was above 300 years after Athanasius. And to insist no further upon the forging of particular private men, the most notorious, injurious, encroaching, impudent forgery was that of Constantine's donation, urged as true and undoubted by Harding, and the forging of the Council of Nice by Pope Sozimus; the first of these two, the donation of Constantine, whereby he doth give and grant unto the Bishop of Rome, all Italy, France, Denmark, Sweden, Britain, etc. with authority and power over all the world, more than that of the Empire is, and that he be honoured and worshipped more than the Emperor. This is adjudged a forgery by more than a Jury of Roman Writers. The other forgery was discovered by a Council of Africa, consisting of 217 Bishops, whereof Saint Augustine was one, who wrote to the Pope thus; Touching that you wrote unto us concerning the Nicene Council, in the very true Council of Nice, which we have received from the happy Bishop of Alexandria, and the Bishop of Constantinople, we find no such matter. Boniface the second was so much moved hereat, above an hundred years after, as to say, 
Ep. ad Eulalium.  That all these Bishops (whereof Saint Augustine was one) were all inflamed and led by the Devil. Thus much concerning your forging Authorities.  
But say that we produce some Histories, or Fathers which have not come under your Index Expurgatorius, nor been refined in your forge; how will you slight, scorn, abase, deride, slander and revile them? I know not whom of the Ecclesiastical Historians, nor whom of the Fathers you will admit for a Witness without exception.  
For what Authors, what Records shall serve against them, who with a bold impudency will deny those Historians, who lived in the fittest time to write of those things which they have committed to memory, viz. in the Ages next following; when they neither fear to offend the present, nor with too much distance cannot discern what is more remote. Such as were the Histories of Eusebius, 
Artic. Historiae non minus vetustate, quam novitatae fabulosae, & injucundae sunt. Bellarm. de Cler. l. 1. cap. 20. Baron. Ann. 324. n. 19  especially of Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret; yet all these shall be rejected if they speak any thing that may disadvantage the Papacy, as Socrates, and Sozomen for relating the Story of Paphnutius speaking for the married Clergy in the Council of Nice, are thus handled by Bellarmine, Multa mentitur Sozomenus, Socrates tria mendacia dicit. Socrates & Sezomenus haeretici. Sozomen tells many lies, Socrates tells three manifest lies; Sozomen and Socrates were Heretics. Neither doth Baronius handle them any thing more respectively, saying, Sozomen was not advised; behold, into what errors ignorance hath cast him, n. 22. it doth plainly appear how far he was deceived, he did err concerning the Nicene Council, an. 325. n. 10. 
Anno 169.  concerning Paphnutius, concerning Arrius, an. 327. n. 7. he was deceived concerning the Council of Ariminum, and other things, an. 355. n. 27. he doth often relate untruly concerning Athanasius, an. 335. n. 6. an. 354. n. 21. an. 356. n. 85. These were the things of greatest moment in that Age, the Council of Nice, the most famous that ever was in the world.  
The Heresy of Arrius, the greatest that ever was in the Church; the labours, troubles and constancy of Athanasius against this Heresy of greatest note, and most glorious of any Confessor that ever the Christian Church had before or since.  
Sozomen lived in the fittest Age to be informed of these things, in the fittest Church, namely in the Greek Church, where these things were done; and yet is he so full of errors in matters of greatest moment, on which the eyes of all the Christians in the world stood at a gaze? Is he so full of errors in these things which were so clear as the Sun in the firmament, so many Records being preserved of those passages, so many Letters passing from one Bishop to another? must we think that Baronius, who lived 1200 years after, and no member, no Inhabitant of the Greek Church knew these things better than Sozomen did, and kick him off, with saying, He was an impudent fellow? an. 324. n. 19 That he was a Novatian Haereticke? n. 63.  
But you would think that Baronius should not thus reject, debase, disgrace Sozomen, unless he had some other grave Historian of those times to cross and contradict Sozomen. No such matter: the other famous Historians of that Age, were Eusebius and Socrates; though Eusebius somewhat more ancient, beginning his History of the Church from Christ, and continuing it until the death of Constantine. Socrates and Sozomen, to whom we may add Theodoret, all three began their History where Eusebius ended, continuing the same unto the reign of Theodosius junior, which was about the year 400. All these were Greek Writers, and of the Greek Church, to whom if we add the short History of Ruffinus, who was a Presbyter of the Latin Church, we have all the professed Historians of note that I have seen and read for those times; so that if the authority of these men be slighted, and excepted against as erroneous, false, impudent, lying Heretics, I know not what Histories Master Fisher will produce for the chiefest time of the Primitive Church, the first 400 years. Of Sozomen I have already spoken; the next shall be Eusebius, who was of that repute in the Age wherein he lived, and the next succeeding Age, that the other Historians, Ruffinus, Socrates and Sozomen do begin their Histories where he left, only speaking something more fully concerning Arrius and the Council of Nice, Sozomen styling him a man most expert in holy and humane learning. This man, besides his History, wrote a Chronologie, which Baronius truly styleth a Groundwork, 
Baron. an. 325. n. 213. n. 215.  and foundation whereon the whole fabric and frame of History must rely; yet herein he is so erroneous, as that Baronius must correct him.  
What, so erroneous in the foundation, the whole building must fall then? Thus Diodorus Siculus, of whom justine Martyr the Christian Philosopher writeth, saying, Diodorus Siculus, whom you account the most famous Historian, so divided his History, as to term his Relations before the Trojan wars, The Narration of Res & fabulas, matters mixed with fables, because he had no certain ground how to describe the times.  
Varro, a man admired for learning, dividing time into three portions; the first, before the Flood, which he calleth Obscure: the second, from the Flood unto the first Olympiad, which he termeth Fabulous: the third, after the Olympiads, because of a computation of time he calleth Historicum. So great a matter in History is Chronologie; and yet herein Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Ruffinus are charged to be erroneous very often by Baronius; and besides this, he layeth other imputations upon them. Eusebius was an advancer of the Arrian Heresy, a cunning Juggler; in his History he doth favour the Arrians, he doth omit many things, 
Anno 318. n 79 & 80. an. 324. n. 154. n. 45. n. 144. an. 340. n. 40. n. 38.  he doth deal deceitfully, he doth falsely relate the time and place of Constantine's baptism, he is false in the story of Estathius; like a Stage-player, being an Heretic, he acted the part of a Catholic, he was called the Ensign-bearer of the Arrians. Socrates dealbat Aethiopem, doth but wash a Blackamoor, in seeking to clear him from the Arrian Heresy; though he subscribed to the Nicene Council, yet he afterwards returned like the Sow to wallow again in the mire, and like the Dog unto his vomit. He and Eusebius of Nicomedia, like two Coach-horses drawing the chariot of Impiety, did run headlong with equal pace and violence to their own destruction, and the destruction of others, being driven by a wicked Spirit. Thus far Baronius; saying moreover, That Sixtus Senensis (a learned Writer of his own side) may be ashamed that he reputed him a Catholic Writer. Doth not Baronius rave like Hercules furens upon the Stage, to deprave a learned painful Bishop, a great Writer, and the chief Ecclesiastical Historian of the Primitive Church, who is his chiefest Author for those times, cited by him in his three first Tomes, 700 times at least, so well reputed, that Ruffinus translated his History into Latin? Sozomen styleth him, A man full of Learning, both divine and humane; to whom these two, together with Socrates and Theodoret, did succeed in compiling the Ecclesiastical story. The last of these, Theodoret, alleging a large Epistle of his in defence of the Nicene Creed against Arrius. All these, and besides them, Acasius, who succeeded him in his Bishopric of Caesarea, do clear him from such imputations, and did reverently esteem of him; and shall we think that these men, who lived in the same Age, and within few years after Eusebius, did not know Eusebius better than Baronius, who lived twelve hundred years after his time, and more than 1200 miles from the place where he was Bishop, where he lived and died, and where those occurrences of the Council of Nice, of Arrius, of Athanasius, were better known then in Rome, a Church more remote, and of another language, then that wherein that Council was celebrated, and those Fathers did write? I may not insist much upon the other Ecclesiastical Writers before named; but they are all reputed ignorant, false, erroneous; by Baronius.  
Theodoret, Socrates, Sozomen, 
Baron. an. 34. n. 29.  and they which followed them, erred in the time, and fell into other lies. Socrates is accused of him for falsehood near twenty times, and most of them in those matters which were of greatest note, and wherein he and Sozomen do agree concerning the Council of Nice. Athanasius, Paphnutius, Eusebius, and Arrius the Heretic; Ruffinus is accused of him for the like falsehood in the same matters, concerning Arrius, Athanasius, 
An. 338. n. 2.  as also concerning Saint Hilary, Gregory Nazianzen, and Basil. He saith, That Ruffinus was an inverter of times, that he was unlearned, that he did misinterpret the sixth Canon of the Council of Nice.  
I will add one example more. The renowned Athanasius saith, That he wrote his Creed in his banishment. No, saith Baronius, Non exul, sed reus tunc Romae fuit; 
An. 34. n. 13.  He was not then in his banishment, but called to answer before the Bishop of Rome, as his Judge. What authority, what reason doth Baronius produce? none at all. And you must believe Baronius, a Sycophant of the Roman Church, before Athanasius, that most glorious Confessor. Shall we think that he would lie, who was in trouble 40 years for the truth? or doth Baronius, 1200 years after, without any Author to lead him, know better what Athanasius did, than Athanasius himself? I should be thought very impudent, if I should say, That being here in England I did see of myself, and know what Baronius did in his study in Rome, better than himself. There are not more miles between England and Rome, then are years from Athanasius his time to Baronius.  
Lynceus, the Son of Amphiaraus, 
Valerius Maximus.  that could see through the walls; and that other Sicilian Lynceus, who could number the ships coming out of the Haven at Carthage, himself being at Litybed in Sicily, 130 miles off, could not see so well as those men. Honorius primus, the first Pope of that name, was condemned for an Heretic in three Counsels, accursed for an Heretic by two Popes that succeeded after him; his own heretical Epistles are found in the Acts of the sixth Council, besides diverse other Writers, Latin & Greek, that relate it. Yet Bellarmine hath the face to deny all this.  
Pope Joan is recorded by Writers of their own, is denied by these late Romans, that will blush at nothing. When the Carthaginians, in the end of the second Punic War, sent to Rome to sue for peace, a Roman Senator asked them by what Gods they would now swear, seeing they had broken the promise they had formerly made, and swore by the Gods to observe. So I may ask you what History you will allege for the first 400 years? whose testimony you will admit? who have rejected and reviled all Historians of those times, calling them erroneous, partial, false, deceitful, lying, impudent Heretics.   

CHAP. XIIII.  
Fisher.  
AVthoritie; as for example, the Scripture saith nothing of this or that, or the Fathers of the first three hundred years make no express 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 we did grant this Proposition; if such, or such a thing were, holy Scripture would have spoken of it, or the Fathers of the first three hundred years would have made express mention of it. If, I say, we granted this, we could not deny the aforesaid Negative Argument, usually made by Protestants, to be of force against us.  
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 he will make a good answer, as he pretendeth, he must first set down names of Protestant Pastors in all Ages, and not content himself with naming some whom he thinketh to be Protestants, and with saying he hath gone half the way.  
Secondly, If he will satisfy Master Fishers other Paper, as he pretendeth to do, he must prove, and defend them to be Protestants, as Master Fisher's Paper requireth; and must bring some or other good Authors, who do clearly show them to hold all, or some principal points of Protestants Faith, differing from Catholic Roman Faith; and not to condemn any of the 39 Protestant Articles; and must not content himself with making such Arguments as he maketh, which are most insufficient either to convince, or probably to persuade, 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. john, Ignatius, Polycarpus justinus 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 half 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 been 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 Catholic? in regard our Catholic doctrine may be, and is ordinarily proved by plain Testimonies of Scriptures, and Fathers, even by confession of diverse learned Protestants themselves. I marvel therefore, that M. Roger's being accounted a worthy Oxford Divine, would affirm and offer to prove, and defend Protestants too have been in all ages upon so slight grounds; which if they be admitted for good, every sect of Heretics may affirm, and prove, and defend men of their sect to have been in all ages. For trial whereof, I wish it may be imagined that there were an Anabaptist, (for example) who held all the Protestant faith saving only some few negatives; and namely, that it is not lawful to baptise Infants: and that this Anabaptist had framed to himself such false Rules, as Master Rogers hath set down to himself.  
Rogers.  
I desire Master Fisher, and the Reader to look back to the former page of the precedent leaf, 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 Fisher's Book, against me, which were all spent in seeking to strengthen his own Propositions, his own grounds, yet the Title he gave unto both those Pages was, Master Rogers his most weak 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 Book he hath put this Title.  
Master Rogers his most weak Arguments.  
Whereas there is not one Argument, nor one Proposition of mine in all that Page, as may easily appear to him that will but read the same; only he speaketh something in defence of his own 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 weak Arguments.  
Which I think he did to gull his Proselytes, who reading but the Title must think that Master Fisher hath showed my grounds and Arguments to be weak, when, and where, he 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 be contained in Scriptures, or to have testimony of Antiquity, Universality, and Consent, or to have been professed by these Fathers, which M. Rogers named.  
Rogers.  
I do not think that you did see any insufficiency in the Arguments, or that they were easily to be answered; for than 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 fare off, to cast a dart, or shoot an Arrow. This is,  
Pugna levis, bellumque fugax, turmaeque vagantes, 
Lucan de Parthis.   
Et melior cessisse loco quam pellere, miles.  
Illica tela dolis, nec Martem comminus unquam  
Ausa pati virtus, sed longe tendere nervos,  
Et quò ferre velint permittere vulnera ventis.  
Light armed men, who flying fight, and never firmly stand;  
Better in skipping up and down, then fight hand to hand.  
Their poisoned darts they send and shoot, but will not closely fight;  
Wounds which they dare not bring themselves, they send by winged flight.  
Had the Argument been so easily answered, you would not have answered it by a manifest untruth, as you have done, by saying, That the Protestants Faith is not contained in Scriptures, whereas it is one of the greatest Controversies between you and us, whether the Scriptures be the only rule of Faith? which we affirm, and you deny; it is the sixth Article in the Doctrine of our Church of England, the Title is thus: Of the sufficiency of holy Scripture for salvation.  
The Article itself is this:  
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary for salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith, or to be thought requisite and necessary to salvation, etc. To this Article of ours agreeth the Helvetian, Bohemian, French, Belgian, Saxonian, Suevian confessions. Read the Books of Luther, Brentius, Melancthon, Chemnitius, Calvin, Zanchie, Whittaker, and you shall find, that they all do profess this, and write at large in defence thereof. We proclaim it in our Pulpits, we maintain it in our Schools; we will shed our blood, rather than admit any Articles of Faith which are not contained in the Scriptures. Is it not strange, you should have the face to deny that we profess that which is printed in the Doctrine of our Church, preached in our Pulpits every day, maintained in our Schools, defended by all, proclaimed to the world? What doth Chemnitius maintain in the first part of his Examen Concilii Tridentini but this? This the first Controversy which he there handleth against you.  
What doth Calvin labour in his first Book of Institutions? cap. 6, 7, 8 9 in his third Book, and second Chapter, where he speaketh of the nature of Faith, but this? And it is not a little that he writeth to this purpose, in his fourth Book, and tenth Chapter? Hath not Zanchie written a whole Book to this purpose? Against whom doth Bellarmine write his third and fourth Book de verbo Dei, which tend only to this purpose, to deny the fullness of Scripture, and to extend matters of Faith to unwritten Traditions, but against the Protestants? There he putteth Luther, and Brentius in the forefront of his Adversaries. Doth not Valenza in his third Tome upon Thomas, disputatione 1a. quaest. 3a, 4ª, 5ª, 6ª, 7ª, & octava, maintain the same Tenet against the same men? This is the main Question between your Jesuited Schoolmen and us, when they writ de objecto fidei, what those things are, which are to be believed with a religious assent of divine Faith? Whether only those things which are contained in Scriptures, as the Protestants do profess, or also unwritten Traditions, as the Church of Rome doth profess? let us then view the Argument, and see how you answer it.  
1. Arg. 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, The Protestant Faith had visible Professors in all Ages.  
M. Fisher denieth the Minor, or second Proposition, which I have proved in the last Page before, out of the public Doctrine of our Church, and chiefest Writers of our side and theirs; neither can he be ignorant of the same: but the Argument troubles him, and something he must say. Neither is he ignorant, that in this Controversy of the visible Church, between them and us, It is not the inward habit, but the outward profession of Faith which maketh a visible Church. Ecclesia constat professione ejusden fidei, 
Bellarm. Tom 2. l. 3. c. 2, 3, 4. etc.  & communicatione eorundem Sacramentorum; The Church doth consist in professing the same Faith, and communicating the same Sacraments. 
Cap. 9  And again, the same Author, cap. 10. writeth thus; I answer, Formam Ecclesiae non esse fidem internam (nisi Ecclesiam invisibilem habere velimus) sed externam, id est, fidei confessionem, etc. The form or essence of the Church, is not the inward Faith, but the outward profession of Faith, 
L. 19 c. 11.  which Saint Augustine declareth most plainly against Faustus the Manichee; and experience doth testify the same; for they are admitted into the Church who profess the Faith. Thus fare Bellarmine. So then by Faith, in this Argument of the visible Church, is always understood the outward profession of Faith; whereas the Protestants do profess, that they believe nothing but what is contained in the Scriptures: this Respondent hath the face to say, we do not profess it. If but one man should come into the face of a congregation, and say, I do profess, and believe only those things which are contained in Scriptures: were not he very impudent, and had a face harder than brass, who would say to this man, Thou dost not profess that Faith which is contained in Scriptures. That Argument is not easily answered, which driveth the Respondent to such miserable shifts.  
We profess no Articles of Faith, but those which are contained in the Apostles Creed; which of these Articles are not contained in Scriptures? Ad Parts, Master Fisher, this is the law of answering to a Proposition that hath many members; we profess that with a religious divine Faith, we receive nothing but what is contained in the five books of Moses, or joshua, judges, Ruth, the two books of Samuel, the two books of Kings, the two books of Chronicles, the two books of Esdras, Esther, the book of job, or the Psalms, or Proverbs, or Ecclesiastes, or the Canticles, or the four greater, or twelve lesser Prophets; Or in the four Evangelists, or in the Acts of the Apostles, or the Revelation and Epistles of Saint john, or the Epistles of Saint Paul, Saint james, Saint Peter, Saint jude: which of these books is not Scripture? Thus we profess our Faith; do not we every where profess with Saint Augustine, 
De Doct. Christiana. l. 2. c. 9  and against you; That all things concerning Faith and life, necessarily to be known and believed, are plainly set down in Scripture? With Saint Basil, 
Serm. de fidei confess. Lib. count. Hermogen.  and against you; That it is pride and infidelity to add unto the Scriptures? With Tertullian, against you and Hermogenes, Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina: Si non Scriptum, timeat vae illud, etc. Show where it is written, or else fear that woe which is denounced against those who add unto the Word of God. And will you say that we profess any Faith, besides that which is contained in Scriptures? This is your easy answering, Master Fisher, to deny that we profess that which we do profess in all our Books, in all our Schools, in all our Pulpits, in all our Discourses of this subject, viz. What we ought to believe. You will as easily answer the other Argument; let us see the Argument, and your answer.  
2. Arg. A Signis thus:  
The Faith which hath testimonies of Antiquity, Universality, and consent of Fathers, and other Writers in all ages, had visible Professors in all ages.  
But the Faith of Protestants hath these testimonies.  
Ergo, The Faith of Protestants had visible Professors in all Ages.  
To this you answer, by denying the Minor, or second Proposition thus: The Protestant Faith hath not testimonies of Antiquity, Universality, and consent. Ad parts, Master Fisher, which Article of the Apostles Creed doth want the testimony of Antiquity, Universality, and consent? which of those Books, received for Canonical of the Church of England, and named of me a little before, want these testimonies of Antiquity, Universality, and consent? Is it Genesis, or Exodus, or any other Book of Moses? Is it the Psalms, or Proverbs, or Histories that want this testimony? Or is it Esay, or jeremy, or Ezekiel, or Daniel, or any other of the Prophets? Is it Matthew, or any other of the Evangelists, or Apostles? name the man, name the Church, name the time; if you cannot, then say, your easy answering is no answer.  
3. Arg. Ab Exemplis thus.  
Names of such as professed the Protestants faith in all ages: 
Christ, and his Apostles.  
St. john, Ignatius, Polycarpus, justinus 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 half 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 what answer do you, Master Fisher, give to this Argument of mine? not a word, unless to deny the conclusion, be to answer an Argument, I hope you will not acknowledge yourself to be so ignorant in Logic, you know the Rule: Ex veris possit nil nisi vera sequi  
If my Premises be true, my Argument in form; as you neither deny my Premises, nor except against the form of my Argument, the conclusion must follow, must be true; for out of true Premises can follow no conclusion, but what is true: 
Arist. De Sophist. Elench. c. 17, 18, etc.  this is not easy answering, but not answering. Look into Aristotle concerning the duty of a Respondent, and the diverse kinds of answering. You, not being able to answer this Argument, say, I must bring out some or other good Authors, who do clearly show these before named, to hold all, or some principal points of Protestant Faith, differing from the Catholic Roman Faith. I have proved what I undertook, and what is sufficient, by such Arguments as you cannot answer; you dare not examine, but fly from them, knowing their strength, and your weakness. But you will have me prove them by Authors; is any humane authority of a private man better than reason? And what Authors would you have? will not their own profession, and their own works, together with the esteem and reputation of Orthodox Writers, which they have had in all Ages, serve the turn to show what their Faith was? do any men know what they did believe, or what they did profess, better than themselves? As for your Roman Catholic Faith, I have already showed, how fond, how vain, how simple a conjunction you make of them; that no child ordinarily of seven years of age, understanding the terms, but will wonder with what face you can say, That a part of a Church is a whole Church, that a part of a Kingdom is a whole Kingdom, that a part of man's Body is the whole Body.  
You say also, that I must prove out of good Authors, that they do not condemn any of the 39 Protestant Articles: Here you, not being able to answer (as I think) do dissemble, conceal, and pass by what I did put down in answer to this demand of yours: viz. 1. It is no prejudice to our Faith, if the same Authors do differ from us in other opinions, not concerning Faith, as long as they maintain our Faith. 2. The Church of Rome cannot produce Fathers in all Ages, who do not contradict the Council of Trent, in some Doctrines established in the said Council. This you can conceal, and pass over, knowing that you are not able to perform it, for your Council of Trent. I undertook for matters of Faith, not for secondary Doctrines, to produce Authors in all Ages, professing our Faith, though they might descent from us in other Doctrines of an inferior nature, not revealed in Scripture, nor belonging to the foundation and Principles of Christian Religion. As for the sufficiency of my Arguments, I have already made it good, for any thing that you have yet spoken against them. Let us now see what you say further against them?   

CHAP. XVI.  
Fisher.  
WHo doth not also see, that the same Arguments may be more strongly retorted against Protestants, by only altering the word Protestant into Catholic? in regard our Catholic Doctrine may be, and is ordinarily proved by plain testimonies of Scriptures and Fathers, 
A most bold falsehood.  even by the confession of diverse learned Protestants themselves.  
Rogers.  
All the proof that this man will bring, is (for aught I can see: or thus (Who doth not see?) I do not see: If it be granted, etc.) as I have observed before: for if these Arguments might be retorted against the Protestants, by changing of one word, why did he not perform the same? I must do it for him.  
Major: The Faith contained in the Scriptures, had visible Professors in all Ages.  
Minor: But the Catholic Faith is contained in the Scriptures.  
Conclusion: Ergo, The Catholic Faith had visible Professors in all Ages.  
Here I have only changed the word Protestant into Catholic; and what one word is here against Protestants, who do hold, and profess no other Faith then what is contained in Scriptures? as I have already shown out of our sixth Article; we grant this whole Argument, Major, Minor, and Conclusion: which if you do grant, I will take the Minor, and infer a dangerous Conclusion against the Church of Rome thus:  
The Catholic Faith is contained in the Scriptures.  
The Roman Faith is not contained in the Scriptures.  
Ergo, The Roman Faith is not the Catholic Faith.  
If you deny this Minor, as it seems by those words of yours before alleged, you will deny, viz. Our Catholic Doctrine may be, and is ordinarily proved by plain testimonies of Scriptures, and Fathers, even by confession of learned Protestants themselves.  
I will prove it; yet first let me tell you, that here you deliver a most gross untruth; if by Catholic you mean Roman, to say that diverse learned Protestants do confess, that your Roman doctrine may be, and is ordinarily proved by plain testimonies of Scriptures, and Fathers. This, I say, is a most manifest and gross untruth, seeing no learned Writers of our side do say so much. Why doth Bellarmine make Scripture a part of the Rule, not the whole Rule, but to bring in unwritten Traditions? writing a whole Book de verbo Dei non scripto, of the unwritten Word of God.  
And Valenza in his fourth Tome upon Thomas Aquinas is very full in seeking to prove the same in his first disputation de objecto fidei, delivering these Propositions, viz.  
That the authority to judge in matters of Faith is not contained only in Scripture, Disputatione prima, puncto septimo, quaestione tertia, Sect. 4. And again, Sect. 5. The Scripture alone is not the Judge of Faith. As also, Sect. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. As also in the eight question, Sect. 44. in his Tract de Traditionibus Apostolicis. Neither do I remember that ever I read any of your late Writers, but hold as these men did: so that in the opinion of these men you must be but half a Papist, because you receive but half that Rule of Faith which the Church of Rome receiveth: for (not to trouble the Reader with the opinions of private men) it is the first Doctrine, the first Decree of your Council of Trent, the purity of the Gospel; Fontem omnis salutaris veritatis, 
Sess. 4.  & morum disciplinae contineri in libris scriptis, & sine scripto Traditionibus. The fountain of all saving Truth, and the guide of life is contained in the written Books, and unwritten Traditions. Have you any other Faith then the Council of Trent? This is, to be a Protestant in the main point, in that which is the Rule of all other points of Faith and life, necessary for all men to know.  
Is this your easy answering, Master Fisher, to grant your Adversary that which he most desireth; to descent from your Council of Trent? would you but add this to what you have written, which follows necessarily, I will not subscribe to Bellarmine, I will not be led by Valenza, herein I will leave the Council of Trent, I will hold no Doctrine which is not proved by plain testimony of Scripture, without flying unto unwritten Traditions; I would rejoice to see you a Protestant in the main groundwork, and Principle of all our Religion, hoping, that if you continue in this mind, you will shortly agree in the rest.  
Now let us see how the second Argument may be retorted against the Protestants, by only changing the word Protestant into Catholic.  
2. Arg. A Signis,  
The Faith which hath testimonies of Antiquity, Universality, and consent of Fathers, and other Writers in all Ages, had visible Professors in all Ages.  
But the Faith of Catholics had these testimonies.  
Ergo, The Faith of Catholics had visible Professors in all Ages.  
What one word is here against Protestants? we grant both the Premises and Conclusion, so do not you. For they be your own words within a few lines, viz. That some points were at first, not held necessary to be believed, even by Orthodox Fathers, which after by examination, and definition of the Church, in General Counsels, were made so necessary to be believed, as that whosoever did not believe them were accounted not Orthodox, but Heretics.  
These are your own words; from whence it doth follow, that many necessary points were denied in precedent Ages by Orthodox Fathers; and thence it must follow again, that they wanted the testimony of all Ages, being denied in some Ages by the Orthodox Fathers. Such testimonies the Articles of your Roman Faith may have, yet Orthodox Fathers deny them: and therefore, to frame the Arguments again, not according to your words, which I have done already, by changing Protestant into Catholic, but into Roman, for that I think you understand by Catholic. Let it be thus: 
The Faith contained in the Scriptures had visible Professors in all Ages.  
But the Roman Faith is contained in the Scriptures.  
Ergo, The Roman Faith had visible Professors in all Ages.   
Would to God your Minor were true, I would be glad to meet with you in the Conclusion. But I have already shown out of your own Writers, and Council of Trent, that you hold the contrary; and your new Creed being examined by Scripture, will find more contradiction there then proof; unwritten traditions equalled to the word of God; Seven Sacraments improperly so called; half Communion; Transubstantiation; Invocation of Saints; worshipping of Images have neither testimony of Scriptures nor Fathers; this you know well enough, and therefore you could pass over a great deal of my Reply without any mention of what I had replied: My words were these; Having gone thus fare at this time, I undertake for the rest, and do require the like from the Romanists, viz.  
That they would show me the names of such as taught the now faith of the Church of Rome in all ages, and let them set me down the names as I have done.  
And for instances in points of Roman faith in all ages, I require these men to show me the names of those who in the first, second, third Centurie of years, did preach, or profess unwritten Traditions to be the rule of faith.  
Secondly, that the vulgar Latin translation is authentical. Thirdly, that there are seven Sacraments, improperly so called, and no more. Fourthly, that the books of Maccabees are Canonical. Fiftly, Transubstantiation. Sixtly, Invocation of Saints. Seventhly, worshipping of Images, etc.  
This rule (of showing the names of such as professed the faith in all ages) is proposed by them, which though it be no necessary consequence of faith, yet it bindeth them that propose it to make it good in particular.  
Out of their own Position thus I argue.  
First Argument.  
That is a true Church whose faith hath had visible professors in all ages, whose names may be showed out of good Authors to be such.  
The Romish faith had not such visible professors in all ages.  
Ergo: The Roman is not a true Church.  
Second Argument.  
The true faith hath the testimonies of Universality, Antiquity, and Consent.  
But the Romish faith (as fare as they differ from the Protestants faith, which they do in all the points above alleged, hath not testimonies of Universality, Antiquity, and Consent.  
Ergo: The Romish faith in those points wherein they differ from the Protestants faith, is not a true faith.  
Let the Romanists answer these two Arguments in those particular points above written, and I will be of their Church.  
Thus much in my former answer, to which you have made no reply at all, you have neither given any instance which point of my faith is not contained in Scriptures, or wanteth the testimony of Universality, Antiquity, and Consent, or was not believed, and professed by those Fathers by me alleged.  
Secondly, you have not answered to those instances of Roman faith, though I required it but for three ages, nor to the Arguments which I made against you, though this were a rule of your own, to show names in all ages, and denied by me to be a necessary consequence of faith; only this you say, first, that my grounds are slight, and may fit all sorts of Heretics, and you instance in the Anabaptists. Secondly, you say my grounds are false, to both which I will reply when I have made out my Catalogue for the other succeeding ages before Luther.   

CHAP. XVII.  
THough my faith rely not upon this Catalogue of names, or humane authority as I have formerly often professed; yet to provoke and draw on the Romanists to make good what they have undertaken, viz to bring a Catalogue of such good Authors as they require from us, who did in all ages profess the now Roman faith contained in the Creed of Pius Quartus, dated at Rome in the year 1564. Which I assure myself they cannot do, and I do verily persuade myself never mean to attempt; only because they would say some thing, they will lay a false ground, and require their Adversaries to build upon those Sands, which when we have done, they will never proceed to do as much for their faith; but cavil at others, and never speak any thing in defence of their own faith; being assured in their consciences that it is impossible they should be able to perform it. First, for the novelty of those points of faith acknowledged by some of themselves. Secondly, for the want of learning and good Authors in many of the succeeding ages. For to speak a little of the first, what Authors can they find for their half Communion in the first ages, seeing it is confessed by most of them that ever I heard, or read, that the contrary was practised for a thousand years after Christ? This much was acknowledged by one, who (as I have been since informed) was a jesuite, in the presence and hearing of Sir Sa. A. of his Lady, Master Westph. and others. And your most industrious quoter Master Briereley can find no Author for it before the Council of Constance, which was 1400 years after the coming of Christ in the flesh; unless he rely upon the Heretics, the Manichees. What Authors will they find in the first ages for worshipping of Images, for Purgatory, for Invocation of Saints, for Indulgences, & c? as I have before mentioned. If they be able to descend but three ages from Christ, and produce good Authors which did believe these, and make them matters of faith, as the Church of Rome now doth, I will be of their Church, I will leave the Church of England; nay, I will leave (which I will not do for a thousand Empires) my hope of heaven. This offer of theirs I know to be so vain, false, impudent, and impossible.  
Secondly, It is very hard for him that hath no other means to prove his Church, and his faith, then by a Catalogue of names drawn out of Histories, or other good Authors, to have any certainty of his Church, or faith, because of the ignorance of many ages, and want of good Authors.  
Baronius who spent all his life in this search, 
Tom. 2. ●n. 1.  and in describing the state and condition of the Church in all ages, complaineth of this difficulty, saying, that it is most hard to be known, and like the way of a ship in the midst of the Sea, and the way of a Serpent upon a Rock. This is his complaint in the beginning of his second Tome, yet hath he more cause to complain of this difficulty in those succeeding ages, whereof I am now to give a Catalogue; 
Canus l. 11. c. 6.  which times the learned Causabon doth doubt whether he shall call them times of ignorance, or times of wonder: 
S. Tho. Moor in ep. ante Dial. Luciani. In Chrond.  the most Historians of those times, being but Legendaries of Fables, as is confessed by many of your own side. Bellarmine saith of the ninth age, Vide seculum infoelix in quo nulli scriptores illustres, nulla Concilia, Pontifices parum solliciti de Rep. Behold, an unfortunate age in which there were no famous Writers, no Counsels, and the Popes took little care of the common good. An age saith Baronius usually styled, an obscure, a leaden, and an iron age, as barren of good, as if it had been iron; so loaded with evil, as if it had been with a burden of lead; and obscure for want of Writers: saying also; The weak conscience is to be admonished that he be not troubled, if he see the abomination of desolation, sitting in the Temple. In this age there rose such a mighty flood of wickedness, as that the ship of Peter might have seemed to have been overwhelmed with the waves, and forsaken almost of any Governor, n. 2. Certainly the Church never seemed to be in greater hazard, or more manifest danger of utter ruin then in that age; for the persecutions of Heathens of Heretics, of Shismaticks, were but childish sports in comparison of what the Church suffered in this age, n. 3.  

An. 900. n. 1.  Stephen was an invader of the Apostolic See, was driven out, cast into prison, and there strangled.  

b An 908. n. 1.  Christopher was violently deposed, bound, cast into prison, and constrained to become a Monk. After him Sergius, mounteth into the Chair, being powerful in the forces of the marquis of Tuscanie. 
* Vitiorum omnium servus, facinorosissimus omnium, quem constat post malum ingressum deterioremque progressum, pessimum demum esse consecutum egressum.  This was a man that was the slave of all vices, the most wicked of all men; bad was his entrance, worse was his proceeding but worst of all was his end; all men cry him down for no lawful Pope, but for an Intruder. numb. 2.  
Divers of these usurping Popes were to be termed not Apostolical, but Apostatical, n. 4. 
c Theodora Scortum impudens, Romanae civitatis Monarchiam obtinebat, quae duas habuit natas Maroziam atque Theodoram sibi non solum aequales, verumetiam Veneris exortivo promptiores. Harum una Marozia ex Papa Sergio joannem, qui post Ioannis Ravennatis obitum, Sanctae Romanae ecclesiae obtinuit dignitatem, nesario genuit adulterio Lutprandus, lib. 2. cap. 13. An. 912. n. 7.  Theodora an impudent Whore did rule all the roast in Rome, she had two daughters, Marozia, & Theodora, two verier Whores than herself. The first of these had by Pope Sergius, a son called john, who was afterwards Pope of Rome. She and her daughters were so powerful by their bawdry, and whoredom, that they placed Popes, and displaced them at their pleasure. numb. 6.  
Who considering these things would not think that God had forgotten his Church. n. 7. So great were the evils of this whole age, ibidem.  
The Queen Theodora did raise one john a Minister of Ravennas, (whom she shamefully loved) to be Pope. Such was the unfortunate condition of the holy Church of Rome at that time, that all things were governed and altered at the pleasure of a powerful Whore. Lando was no true Pope, n. 12. 
d An. 915. n. 3.  john the 10, was an Intruder, a Thief, a Ruffian, 
e An. 925. n. 12.  Quo turpior nullus cujus ingressus insamissimus, exitus infandissimus, dignus quem infamis foemina, infami opere in Petri solium intrusisset: The filthiest of all men, who entered the Popedom shamefully, and ended wickedly, a fit man to be thrust by an infamous woman into the Chair of Saint Peter. 
Note the visibility of the Church of Rome.  O what was then the face of the holy Church of Rome, was it not most foul and filthy, when powerful and base Whores did rule all at Rome? at whose pleasure Sees were changed, Bishops were made, and which will make a man tremble to hear, and is more wicked than can be spoken, their lovers falsely termed Popes thrust into Peter's Chair, who had never been written in the Catalogue of Roman Bishops, had it not been thereby to reckon the years, and set down the times. For who can say that these men thrust in by Whores without Law were lawful Roman Bishops? There was no man at all of the Clergies Election or consent, all Canons were silenced, Decrees of Popes smothered, ancient Traditions, and old Customs in choosing the Pope were banished, the holy Ceremonies, and former use were wholly extinguished. Lust backed with worldly power, mad, 
Dormiebat, tunc planè (ut apparet) sopore Christus.  and frantic with a desire of rule, challenged all unto herself. It appeareth plainly that Christ was then in a dead sleep in the ship, when the strong winds thus blowing, the ship itself was covered with the waves. 
Ista non utdere dissimulans.  I say, he was asleep, who dissembling, as if he did not see those things, did suffer them so to be done, and did not rise to vengeance. And that which did seem worse, there were no Disciples, who with their cries would awake their Master, thus sleeping; for they were all asleep, that they snored again. And what kind of Presbyter, and Deacon Cardinals, shall we think were chosen by such Monsters, seeing nothing is more firmly graffed in nature, than this, that like should beget like? And who can doubt, but that these did in all things consent unto those by whom they were chosen? And who will not easily believe that they did imitate them, and tread in their steps? And who cannot understand, that all these did wish that Christ had slept for ever, 
Anno 912. n. 8.  and should never wake, nor rise in judgement to examine and punish their offences. Thus fare Baronius.  
But you will ask me, what needeth so much labour in showing that we had some bad times, and some bad Popes? for so you are used to extenuate all that we allege in this kind. You say, that Christ himself, having but twelve Apostles, had one devil amongst them. But what I have alleged here, doth show, that diverse of those who supplied the place of Christ himself, his Vicar's general upon earth, as you term them, men to whom the Church is essentially joined, and must be obedient, were devils, monsters, the darlings of Whores, some of them Bastard children of Popes, by these notorious Whores; and all their Priests, Deacons and Cardinals like themselves, so Atheistical in their courses and desires, as to wish that Christ might sleep everlastingly, and never rise to judgement: nay, the visible government of the Roman Church, which you will have to be the only Church, was not so much in them, as in these whores, who made and unmade Bishops and Popes, without any regard of Canons, or Customs Ecclesiastical; and this wickedness was praevalent, not for a few years, or a few Popes, but for this whole Age, Toto hoc saeculo, saith Baronius, which is for 100 years. Yet you Romanists will have all Christians in the world to behold, and to be led by the visible Roman Church, though the face, and whatsoever was visible therein, was most foul and filthy, not only in him who sat in the Chair of Peter, as you say; but also in all his Consistory, in all his Deacons, Priests and Cardinals. But you will say, These were no Popes; then will I say, that by your Doctrine, you had no Church: for the Pope is now a part of the definition of the Church with you, and therefore no Pope, no Church. You know the Rule, A part definitionis negative sequitur argumentum.  
Or will you say (for so Baronius doth) Shall any man, shall all men in the world pin their souls upon the sleeves of such Monsters? cleave unto them, and be obedient unto them, only because they sat in the Chair, though usurpingly? And will you undertake to prove your Church to have had visible Professors in all Ages, when in a whole Age there was nothing visible, but what yourselves are ashamed to look back upon? You will have much ado to find a Catalogue of names in this Age, because you must not go out of the Roman Church: but we acknowledge the Greek, Aethiopian, Indian, Armenian, Syrian Churches, have a larger scope, and shall more easily pass through this difficulty, seeing there was in this Age, in Armenia, one Nico magnus, 
Baron. An. 961. n. 4, 8, 10. Anno 976. n. 2. 980. n. 7, 8, 9  & sanctus Orientis Praeco; a great and holy Preacher of the East: and the Church of Greece had in this Age, two men famous for learning and holiness, Nilus and Nico, as the same Baronius confesseth.   

CHAP. XVIII. Showing a threefold Catalogue of Names from the Age wherein my former Catalogue did end, unto Luther's time, of such as professed and received the Faith, and Sacraments of the reformed Church, whom the Papists call Protestants.  
MY first Catalogue (Mr. Fisher) shall be of Bishops, Pastors, and Writers of the Latin Church, such as are acknowledged by your Church for Orthodox, men of a right Faith.  
Ab Anno 800, ad 900.  
Agobardus Episcopus Rem. Rabanus Maurus Moganti: Hincmarus Rem. Amalarius Fortunatus. Leo 3. Episcopus Rom. jonas Aurelianensis. Walafridus Strabo. Theodulphus Aurelianensis.  
Ab Anno 900, ad 1000  

Baron. An. 901. n. 10.  Theodulphus Episcopus legatus Regis Franc. in Concilio Ovetensi.  
Ermenegildus primus Archiepisc. Ovetensis in Gallaecia.  

Baron. An. 900. n. 10.  Fulco Remensis laudatissimus ille Archiepiscopus, columen Francorum.  

Baron. An. 904.  Grimbaldus Presbyter vir magnae sanctitatis in Anglia.  
johannes Papa 9 qui tribus Conciliis à se celebratis summam sibi laudem comparavit.— velut alter jeremias, in cujus Epitaphio inter alia haec habentur. Conciliis docuit ternis qui dogma salutis, & mox. Et firmata fides quem docuêre Patres.  

146. Baron. An. 905. n. 4.  Herveus Remensis, who first converted the Normans to the Faith, and held a Synod, in which they said, That the Rock whereon Christ promised to build his Church, was the confession of Peter. At this Council were present also,  
Rothomagensis Archiepiscopus.  
Rodolphus Landunensis Episcopus.  

Trodoardus Hist. Rem. l. 4. c. 13. Baron. An. 930.  Erlimus Bellovacensis Episcopus: aliique multi. Whose names are subscribed.  
This Herveus held many Synods.  
Vnus Hambargensis Archiepiscopus qui convertit Danos.  

Glaber temporis ejus auctor. Hist. l. 2. c. 11, 12. Baron. An. 100 n. 4. Tom. 10. Lib. de officiis Missae edito Parisiis, Anno 1610. Bellarm. de Script.  Ab Anno 1000, ad 1100.  
Lebuinus Episcopus in Gallis, qui populum suum ex parte deceptum Catholicae plenius restituit fidei.  
Anno 1000 Baronius, n. 3.  
Petrus Archiepiscopus Ravennas qui Vilgardum Haereticum docentem fidei sacrae contraria damnavit.  
Berno Augiensis Abbas qui testatur post Evangelium, in missa recitari Symbolum Constantinopolitanum, & à Concilio Toletano statutum, id omni die Dominico secundum morem Orientalium Ecclesiarum decantari. In hoc Authore miror Bellarmini oscitantiam, ne quid gravius dicam, qui ita scripsit. Ex quo libro, cap. 2. (viz. Baronius de officio Missae) discimus hoc primum tempore, coepisse in Rom. Ecclesia cani ad Missam Symbolum fidei. Cum contrarium doceat Walafridus Strabo, lib. de rebus Ecclesiasticis, cap. 22. Qui vixit aliquot seculis ante Bernonem, obiit enim ut placet Hiltorpio, Anno 849. Berno autem, Anno 1048. Et ipse ordo Romanus idem doceat apud Hiltorpium, col. 4. Miror inquam, quod non distinxerit ambiguitatem vocis Romanae, quae pro Latina Ecclesia saepe usurpatur, cum hic intra urbem, & suburbicanas Ecclesias vel saltem intra Italiae fines claudatur ut apparet ex Bernone.  
Micrologus, whose Books of Ecclesiastical Observations, Pamelius doth prefer before all others that wrote upon that subject; as Amalarius Walafridus doth witness, 
Cap. 46.  that Creed in Vnum, etc. viz. The Creed commonly reputed the Nicene Creed, 
juxta Canon's in omni Dominica debet cantari, & in omnibus, etc.  according to the Canons, is to be read upon every Lord's day. In his 19 chapter he is very full for communicating in both kinds, citing Ordo Romanus, and julius, Papa 36. & Gelasius, Papa 51. very peremptory in this kind. This Author lived about the year 1080, saith Pamelius in his Preface before the work.  
Ivo Carnotensis Episcopus, who speaketh of our Sacraments, and of the Apostles Creed professed in Baptism, Serm. de Sacramentis. And in his Sermon De Convenientia veteris, & novi sacrificii, he briefly proveth all the chief heads of Christian Faith; who in the later end of that Sermon speaketh of communicating in both kinds. And in his Sermon De coena Domini, he saith, Let none of the Faithful this day absent himself. Dwell you in Christ, that Christ may dwell in you, and you be worthy Receivers of his Body and Blood. He in his Sermon, In Cathedra Sancti Petri, saith, That that Feast was in memorial of that day wherein Peter at Antioch was made Bishop, and Pastor of God's people— And that he was called Peter, because of the confession of his Faith.  
Ab Anno 1100, ad 1200.  
Sanctus Bernardus. Rupertus, Tutiensis.  
Algerus, who denieth your half Communion, citing those words of Pascasius; under the name of Saint Augustine, Nec caro sine sanguine, 
Lib. 2. de corpor. & sang. Christ. cap. 8. Bellarm.  nec sanguis sine carne ritè communicatur.  
Rich. de Sancto Victore, who refuseth your Canon of the Bible.  
Hugo de Sancto Victore, who denieth Penance to be a Sacrament.  
Ab Anno 1200, ad 1300.  
Alexander of Hales, who denieth the Sacrament of Confirmation, as a Sacrament to be instituted by Christ, part 4. q. 5. membro 2.  

Hugo Cardinalis,  
Bonaventura,   
Both which deny your Canon of the Bible; Hugo, in his Prologue before Ecclesiasticus, Bonaventura pr. part. q. 89. Art. 8. ad 2. Gulielmus Episcopus Parisiensis.  
Ab Anno 1300, ad 1400.  

Lib. 4. Sent. dist. 26.  Durandus, he denies Matrimony to be a Sacrament.  
Nicholaus Lyranus, he holdeth the same Canon of the Bible that we do, and denieth yours.  
Franciscus Mayron. Qui inter alia scripsit de Articulis fidei.  
Simon de Cassia. Qui scripsit expositionem Symboli Apostolici.  
Ab Anno 1400, ad 1500.  
Dionysius Carthusianus, who denies your Canon of the Bible; Prologo in Ecclesiasticum.  
Gregorius Heymburgensis, who wrote against the Pope's Supremacy.  
Panormitanus. Picus Mirandula.  

Hist. Trid. Concilii. Sleidanus in Commentariis.  Thomas Cajetanus, who had conference with Luther.  
All these are Latin Authors, acknowledged by you of the Roman Church for Orthodox, at least two of them in every Age, which were sufficient; but I can make it good for all, out of Bellarmine, Baronius, Surius, Hiltorpius, or Synods, allowed by your Church. Thus therefore I argue: 
Major: All orthodox, or right believing Christians do receive and profess the Apostles Creed, the Books of old and new Testament, received for Canonical by the Fathers of the first 400 years, together with the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper, which the Protestants profess.  
Minor: But these Author's aforenamed in my Catalogue, from the year 800, to the year 1500, are all orthodox, or right believing. Ergo,  
Conclusio. All these Author's aforenamed in my Catalogue, from the year 800, to the year 1500, do receive, and profess the Apostles Creed, the said Books of the old and new Testament, the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper, which the Protestants receive and profess.   
Or thus: 
Major: Whosoever receive our whole Faith, and all our Sacraments, are of our Church, and we of theirs.  
Minor: But all these Authors receive our whole Faith, and all our Sacraments. Ergo,  
Conclusio: All these Authors are of our Church, and we of theirs.   
But you, having another Faith, a new Creed, new Articles cannot prove these, or any other to have held that your new Faith entirely; and I have showed most of these Authors expressly to deny, some one, some another Article of your new Creed: so that a man may be orthodox, and yet deny your Faith, your Creed.  
No man can be saved that denieth the true Faith.  
But many are saved who deny the Roman Faith.  
Ergo, The Roman Faith is not the true Faith.  
The Major I know you will not deny. The Minor you must grant, or your Saints, and greatest Writers were damned for want of your Faith.  
A second Catalogue, viz. of Greek Authors, who being of the Greek Church, did profess our Scriptures, Faith, Sacraments, and Counsels: but do reject diverse points of the Roman Faith, and all the Counsels of the Latins since the year 800; as appeareth by their profession in the Council at Ferrara, made by Marcus Bishop of Ephesus, 
Sess. 5.  in a grave and learned speech, recorded by your own Surius in the fourth Tome of Counsels imprinted at Colonia Agrippina, Anno 1567.  
Definitiones, & Decreta aliarum omnium Synodorum recitanda nobis videntur, ut haec nostra Synodus non solum ab illis non discrepare, verumetiam ipsas in omnibus imitari velle videatur, quoniam nos firmiter credimus majores nostros nil prorsus silentio praeterjiffe quod ad nostrum fidei Symbolum spectet. Marcus Ephesinus in Generali 8. Synodo Sess. 3. apud Surium Tom. 3. Pag. 375.  
Porro autem quoniam de Divinis primi ac alterius Concilii dogmatibus, nil aliud reperitur nisi duae tantem fidei nostrae expositiones, hoc est, duo Symbola quae tamen pro uno a caeteris Conciliis suscepta fuerant: idcirco à recitandis tertii Concilii gestis auspicandum nobis censemus, vobis probare promittimus Christianorum omnium unam esse, Catholicam fidem, ad quam accessionem aliquem fieri, aut quicquam ab ea non liceat auferri. In primis ergo Nicenum Symbolum à trecentis decem, & octo Patribus Niceae celebratum, recitetur. Legatur etiam ejusdem Concilii definitio, ut idem Nicenum Symbolum immutabile, ac immobile permaneret, neminique fas esset aliam fidem proffer, Sess. 5. Quartum Concilium, viz. Ephesinum definite, atque determinat, ut aliam fidem conscribere, aut componere, aut sentire, aut docere liceat nemini.  
Concilium 5. viz. Constantinopol. idem definite, & qui aliud Symbolum docuissent anathemati subjiciunt. Sic etiam 6. Concilium seu Trullanum priora Concilia & dictum Symbolum amplectitur, & obsignat. Sic etiam 7. ac ultimum generale Concilium, Hactenus Marcus Ephes. ibidem.  
Ab anno 800. ad 900.  

1. Theodotus Melissenus.  
2. johannes Sixtus.  
3. Photius.   
All these three were Patriarches of Constantinople, as is acknowledged by Baronius an. 835. n. 25. All zealous adversaries to your worshipping of Images; for which Baronius there calleth the first Haereticum Iconoclastam, an haereticall Image-breaker;  
The second, Haeresis promulgatorem acerrimum.  
The third, namely Photius, held a Council at Constantinople, planè numerosum admodum Concilium, it was a very full Council, in so much as Michael the Emperor gloried that it equalled the number of the Fathers of the great Nicen Council, teste Baron. an. 861. n. 1. This was accounted a General Council by Photius, and by Theodorus Balsamon Comenting upon it, Sic ait Baron: ibid. n. eodem. In this Council was condemned the worshipping of Images.  
Ab anno 900. ad 1000  
Nilus Calaber. Habuit hoc saeculo Graeca Ecclesia duos, doctrina, & sanctitate illustres, Nilum Calabrum, & Niconem Lacedaemon. Baron. an. 900. n. 8.  
Nico. Lacedaemon. Hic non à Graecis solum, sed etiam à Latinis inter Sanctos est relatus, Baron. an. 961.  
Ab anno 1000 ad 1100.  
Simeon Armenus. Vir Sanctus, & verae fidei Professor. Baro. an. 1016. n. 7. 8.  
Theophilactus Episcopus Bulgarorum. He in his writings imitateth Saint Chrysostome, but he is a Schismatic, saith Bellar. de scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis.  
Ab anno 1100. ad an. 1200.  
Euthimius Zigabenus, who wrote against all Heresies, and upon the 4. Evangel. Bellarm. de Scriptoribus Ecclesiae.  
Theodorus Balsamon, Who commented upon Photius his Nicene Canon, and diverse Counsels. He was an enemy to the Church of Rome, saith Bellarm.  
Ab Anno 1200. ad 1300.  
Arsenius Patriarcha Constantin: A man for virtue, and the service of God not fare short of the highest perfection, ut Nicephorus Gregor. lib. 3. p. 31. edit. Basiliensis, an. 1562. cum Caesarea Majest. privilegiis.  
Gregorius Patriarcha, Idem Gregor. l. 6 pag. 80.  
joannes Glices, Patriarch also of Constantin. a most learned, grave, wise man above all men, Nicephorus Gregoras, lib. 8. pag. 123. &. 132.  
Ab Anno 1300. ad 1400.  
Catechuzenus. Pachimaerus. Nicephorus Gregoras.  
These three were Fathers of the 14 age, saith Bzonius in the end of that age. Tom. 13. in his Supplement of Baron. his Ecclesiastical History, an. 1299. They did teach contrary to the doctrine of the Heretics (so Baronius calleth us) but I may truly say that the first, and last of the three teach contrary to their faith, and so the other professed, or he could not be of the Greek Church, who deny the Pope's primacy of power, deny Purgatory, Communicate in both kinds.  
For Catechuzenus, in the election of john Bishop of Constantinople, doth say, that all Bishops of greater, or lesser Cities receive equal grace. Baronius addeth his own Gloss, saying, True equal grace, of Order, not of jurisdiction.  
Nicephorus in his 10 book, disputeth at large against the Latin Church, à pag. 230 ad finem ejusdem libri.  

To. 6. Bibl. Sanct. pag. 99 Ep. ad lect.  To these I may add Cabasilas, whom together with Balsamon, Genebrard calleth two famous Greek Fathers, for which words he is blamed by M. De la Bigne, who calleth the same men Schismatics, and enemies to the Church of Rome, Tom. 6. Bibl. Sanct. pag. 101. 102.  
Gentianus Hervetus, another of your side, doth write in defence of Cabasilas, in his Preface to the Reader, before Cabasilas his book, entitled, A Compendious Interpretation upon the Divine Sacrifice, extant dicto 6 Tom. Bibl. Sanctae pag. 159. But he is thus blamed by your De la Bigne.  

Dealbat Aethiopem.  Gentianus labouring to excuse Cabasilas, doth but wash a Blackamoor; for it is manifest he was a Schismatic, that he burned with hatred against the Church of Rome, and wrote an Haereticall Book against Tho. Aquinas. Yet he is placed by Bellarmine amongst his Ecclesiastical Writers, in a distinct Column also of his Chronologie from Heretics.  
Ab Anno 1400, ad 1500.  
Marcus Ephesinus, Insignis Theologus, as he is styled in the Acts of the Council of Florence, Sessione 2. apud Surium, Tom. 4.  
Laonicus Chalcondilas, who being of the Greek Church, testifieth, that the agreement made at Florence, was not received in Greece. lib. 1. de rebus Turcicis non longè à principio.  
Thus have I finished my Catalogue of Greek Writers, having many more to insert, if any just exception can be given against these. I will conclude concerning them, with these two Arguments: the one, to prove that they were of our Faith and Church; the other, to prove that they were not of the Roman Faith, or Church, thus: 
All they that do profess the Apostles Creed, as it was explicated in the Nicene Council, that receive the Scriptures received by the Protestants, that receive the four first General Counsels, and the two Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist under lawful Pastors, are of the Protestants Faith, and Church.  
But those Authors, as all others of the Greek Church did profess, and receive the said Creed, Scriptures, Counsels and Sacraments under lawful Pastors.  
Ergo, They are of the Protestants Faith and Church.   
The Proposition is A definitione ad Definitum, the most demonstrative substantial proof that reason can find. The Assumption appeareth by the profession of the Grecians at Ferrara, whereof I have cited a part above in the beginning of this Catalogue; and it may be seen more fully in their own Surius, Tom. 4. Conciliorum loco supra citato.  
None of those who deny the Pope's Supremacy, Purgatory, Transubstantiation, and Communion in one kind, are of the Roman Faith and Church.  
But all these aforenamed, being of the Greek Church, deny the Pope's Supremacy, Purgatory, Transubstantiation, and Communion in one kind.  
Ergo, They are not of the Roman Faith, and Church.  

A Catalogue of Counsels General or Provincial in all Ages, which did profess our Faith.  
TO name particular men in all Ages, who did profess our Faith, receive our Scriptures and Sacraments, is not to prove our Church extant in all Ages; for one man is not a Church, no more than one member, as hand, or foot is the body, or one Citizen is a City, or one subject is a Kingdom. I have therefore thought it fit, out of my many years reading, observation, and collection, to prove, that not only some particular men, but also whole Churches, that is, a society of many men professing our Faith, Scripture, and Sacraments, have been in all Ages: to this end, I have put down a Catalogue of Counsels in all Ages (which Counsels are justly termed, The Church representative) who profess our Faith, Scriptures, and Sacraments, although the main proof is in that of Faith, which includeth the rest: for this Faith hath no other object then the Scriptures Canonical, and receiveth no Sacraments but what are contained in the Scriptures, and instituted by God. And because all Counsels did not record, nor publish all those things which were done of course, and observed at the opening, and in the beginning of every Council; I thought it would prove satisfactory to the Reader, that he should be acquainted, how they never began Counsels without solemn Prayers, or Mass, as the Romanists call it: and that in every Mass our Creed is repeated, as appeareth by their Missals, and those Authors in the Margin, which are Expositors of the Mass: so that seeing our Creed is professed in every Mass, and all Counsels begin with a solemn Mass, it followeth, that all Counsels did profess our Faith. Yea, over and beside this, I will add other proofs; as 1, an Injunction that it should be so. 2. Historical testimony that it was so. First, Ordo Romanus, published by Hiltorpius at Paris, anno 1610. col. 171. in the order for the first day, of holding a Council after some Prayers which are there set down, concludeth thus; Then all men keeping silence, 
Tunc tacentibus cunctis ex Niceno Concilio fides Catholica à Di●cono legatur.  let the Catholic Faith be read by the Deacon out of the Nicene Council: I believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible. Then the Deacon shall bring forth the Book of the Canons, and read the Chapters concerning the manner of holding Counsels, out of the fourth Council of Toledo. Thus you see it was commanded, that the Creed which we profess should be professed in the beginning, and opening of every Council, since the time of that Ordo Romanus, which, whether it were as ancient as Charles the Great, in which time it was brought to France, 
Hitorpius in praefatione.  or more ancient in Rome, as being for the substance made by Gregory the first, it will serve my turn for succeeding Ages. But in my Historical observation I will ascend higher, and to the Apostles times.  
This Creed, saith Baronius, 
An. 44. n. 18. Act. Conc. Calce. Eph. Constin. 2. et aliorum.  (speaking of the Apostles Creed) the Catholic Church hath always had in such esteem, as that in all sacred General Counsels, it was the custom to repeat it as a grround-worke, or foundation of the whole Ecclesiastical building.  
All men thought it fit, Prayers being solemnly performed and finished, to make confession of their Faith after the manner of General Counsels. Conc. Tol. 6. apud Surium, Tom. 2. pag. 741. col. 1, & 2.  
The ancient Decrees of the Fathers were reverently confirmed, in Consilio Romano more solito, after the usual manner. Vrspergensis, cited also by Baronius, anno 102. n. 1.  
It was required by the Grecians in the Council of Florence, begun at Ferrara, 
Sess. 3. apud Surium.  That the Council might begin with reciting the Definitions and Decrees of the seven precedent General Counsels; not only (say they) that it may appear we descent not from them, but also that we may imitate them: for we firmly believe, etc. And, Sess. 5 they cited the Decree of the fifth Council, saying thus; All men should preserve the foundation of Faith, and observe that Creed wherein they were baptised; which the Nicene Council commended to posterity, received by the Council of Constantinople, approved by the Council of Ephesus, and sealed up by the Council of Chalcedon: all which we also receive. Thus far the words of the fifth Council, then and there urged by the Grecians, together with the 6th and 7th Council to the same effect.  
Having laid this groundwork, that all lawful Counsels, and orthodox, received and published by the Romanists themselves, for such did profess our Faith, it were sufficient for me to name approved Counsels in every Age, without any further observation in particular; yet for the greater benefit of the Reader I will do more, beginning even with the Apostles themselves.   

A Catalogue of Counsels which did profess our Faith in every Age, beginning with the Apostles; the first Age from the Nativity of our blessed Saviour, 
Seculum 1.  to the 100th year.  

Act. 1. 1. Council of the Apostles. Act. 6. 2. Council of the Apostles. Act. 15. 3. Council of the Apostles. Act. 21. 4. Council of the Apostles.  IN the year 34, saith Baronius, n. 237. for to choose an Apostle into the place of judas. Surius, Tom. 1. Conc. p. 17.  
Wherein the seven Deacons were ordained the first year after the death of Christ, saith Surius, Tom. 1. Conc. pag. 18. Anno 34. saith Baron.  
Concerning Circumcision, and the Ceremonial Law of Moses. This was 14 years after the death of Christ, saith Surius in the place above cited. An. 51. saith Baronius.  
Wherein Paul was advised to purify four persons after the Law of Moses, for to pacify the Jews who were incensed against him, as an enemy to Moses.  
The ordinary Gloss, and Surius observe only these four; some add two more, one Acts 4. another Acts 11. I will add one more, not mentioned in the Scripture, but mentioned by many Fathers; as Ruffinus, Jerome, Augustine, Leo, Venantius, Albinus, Flaccus, & alii.  

5. Council of the Apostles.  Wherein they composed the Apostles Creed, being now ready to departed one from another, as a Rule of preaching, whereby it might be discerned who did preach Christ according to the Rules of the Apostles: so saith Ruffinus, who lived about the year 400.  
This assembly is recorded by Baronius, in the year 44. n. 7. which was before the two later Counsels mentioned; the one, Acts 15, and the other, Acts 21. I think Master Fisher will not deny, but these Counsels professed the Apostles Creed.  

From the year 100, to 200. 
Seculum 2. The 2 Age.   
Anno 190. Wherein were Precedents, 
1. A Council in Palestina.  Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea, and Narcissus Bishop of jerusalem, Eusebius, lib. 5. cap. 21. 
2. A Council in Rome.   
Under Victor. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 11. Anno 198. saith Baronius.  
Wherein was Precedent, 
3. A Council of the Bishops of Pontus. 4. A Council in Gaul.  Palma. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 21. Anno 198. Baronius.  
Wherein was Precedent, St Irenaeus, whose learned Book against Heretics is extant. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 21.  
Wherein Polycrates was Precedent, who dissented from the other Counsels in the day of celebrating Easter, 
5. A Council in the lesser Asia.  and of Fasting, and were therefore excommunicated by Victor Bishop of Rome.  
But this pleased not all the Bishops (who were of this opinion) who did advise him to relish those things which might further peace, unity, and love with his neighbours; especially the forenamed Saint Irenaeus, who wrote unto him to this effect, telling him that all these Eastern Churches, dissenting concerning Fasting, yet did agree in one Faith. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 23.   

From the year 200, to the year 300. 
The third Age.   
Eusebius, lib. 7. cap. 26, 27. Anno 265. 
1. 2. Concilium Antiochenum.  against Paulus Samosatenus, who taught that Christ was an ordinary man as we are. At which Council were present great lights of the Church, Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappad. Theo: Bishop of Caesarea in Palestina, the Bishop of Jerusalem, etc.  
Eusebius, lib. 7. cap. 28. anno 270. (or 272. ut Baronio placet) in which great Synod of very many Bishops, 
2. 3. Concilium Antiochenum.  the said Paulus Samosatenus was condemned and excommunicated, saith Eusebius.  

1 Concilium Africanum.  Under Saint Cyprian, an. 258. inquit Baronius, n. 6. against the restoring of Martialis and Basilides, after their fall to Gentilism, returning again to Christianity, and desiring to be restored to their several Sees of Leon & Asturia in Spain. See S. Cyprian, Ep. 68 & Ep. 70. & 72. And concerning rebaptising of those that had sacrificed to Idols, saith Balsamon in his Preface before this Council. Which in persecution denied (Christ) saith Nicephorus, 
An. 258. n. 31, 32, 33.  lib. 6. cap. 2. But therein he lies extremely, saith Baronius; for he would only baptise those who were formerly baptised by Heretics, an. 258. n. 18. but herein they used such Christian modesty, as that they did not herein prescribe Laws to others concerning this, not to be de Fide, a matter of Faith, for which they that did do otherwise should be termed Heretics. Thus far, and much more Baronius. And Saint Jerome against the Luciferians, to the same purpose speaking of Saint Cyprian: Let them know that he did not publish this with any Anathema against those who did not follow him, for he held communion with them who did gainsay his opinion.   


The fourth Age.  From the year 300, to the year 400.  

Concilium Ancyranum.  About the year 308, saith Caranza, or 314, saith Baronius. This was a Provincial Council, but confirmed by the sixth General Council, saith Balsamon and Caranza; at which were present, many Fathers who did good service in the Council of Nice, saith Baron. ibid.  

1. Vniversale Concil. Concilium Nicenum.  This was the first, and most famous General Council after the Apostles time, celebrated in the year 325, or 326, called by that famous Emperor Constantine the Great. Baron. Caranza, Surius, Bellarm. Binius. These professed the Apostles Creed.  

2. Vniversale Conc. Constantinop. 1.  This was the second General Council, called about the year 381. as Baronius; 383, as others: this did confirm the Nicene Faith, and a little in exposition enlarge it, to that which we commonly call the Nicene Creed, one word only excepted. Surius, Tom. 1. Balsamon, Caranza.   

From the year 400. to the year 500 
The fift Age.   
This was the third General Council about the year 430. 
3. Vnivers. Concil. Consil. Ephesinum. 4. Vnivers. Concil. Chalcedon.  saith Onuphrius, 431. saith Baronius n. 41. 434 sait Bellarmine Surius Tom. 1. Balsamon.  
This was the fourth General Council, about the year 451. saith Baronius, and Onuphrius, 454. saith Bellarm. See Isidore fol. 83. Balsamon, Binius, Surius.  
Carthaginense, for it hath the former Title in Surius, 
Concil. Africanum 2. Vel Carthag.  Tom. 1. and the latter in Balsamon, in whom it is the second, though Baronius make it the fifth Council of Carthage, ann. 419. n. 59  
All these three Counsels did approve the precedent General Counsels, as appeareth by the Acts of the Counsels in Isidore, Balsamon, Surius and others.  
And in this of Africa were forbidden Appeals to Rome, though the Pope's Legates were there, and did labour to the contrary, having a commonitory, or direction from Pope Zozimus, so to do, citing therein a Canon out of the Council of Nice to that purpose, Balsamon, pag. 592, 593, To this Alypius an African Bishop first answered, to which the whole Synod did assent, That they would reverently observe what what the Council of Nice had decreed, but in those Copies of the Nicene Council which they had there in Carthage, they found no such Decree; they decreed therefore to send Ambassadors to the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch for Copies under their hands, of the Nicene Council.  
Two Copies were obtained, and the Popes for ever since were detected of falsehood, and signified by the Council, Balsamon, pag. 567.   

From the year 500, to the 600. 
The sixth Age. 5. Vnivers. Concilium Concilium Constant.   
About the year 550. This also approved of the four precedent General Counsels. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It confirmed the Doctrines of the fourth General Council saith Balsamon, pag. 354. and Surius Tom. 4. in Concilio Florentino, Sess. 3. & 5. apud Baron. an. 553. n. 39  

Concilium Toletanum.  About the year 589. against the Heresy of Arrius, which Council made a most sincere profession of their faith, says Baronius, an. 589. n. 10. wherein also they approved the four first General Counsels. Idem Baronius, n. 30.  
And whereas it was also enacted that after the manner of the East, this profession of the faith, should be made always before the receiving of the Communion. Idem. n. 39 In the beginning of this Council of all Spain, the King Ricaredus made confession of his faith, confirmed the four General Counsels, repeated the Nicene Creed, and the Constantinoplitane Creed, and after subscribed to them, both he, and his Queen, Surius Tom. 2 pag. 670. for which the whole Council of the 72. Bishops did glorify God, ibid. which faith the Council doth profess, pag. 671. and promise to preach, and teach.  
This is (say they) the true faith by profession of which the Church through the whole world is reputed and proved to be Catholic, he that liketh not this faith, let him be accursed. He that shall despise the faith of the Council of Nice, of Constantinople, of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, let him be accursed, Then they repeat and record these Creeds, Surius pag. 672.   

From the year 600. to the year 700.  

The seventh Age. 6. Vnivers. Concilium Concilium Trullanum Surius Tom. 2. pag. 899.  About the year 680, saith Baronius, n. 41. their first Canon did decree that the Apostles Creed should be kept unchangeably without any innovation. Balsamon p. 360. They confirm the four precedent General Counsels, as also the fifth, and sixth, whereof this was a branch adding Canons to the fifth and sixth, and therefore called Quinisexta, styled an aecumenicall Council also by Baronius, & Balsamon.  

Concilium Romanum.  Of 125 Bishops under Pope Agatho, who sent their Legates with a profession of their faith to the sixth Council approving all the precedent General Counsels. This is recorded in the fourth Act of the sixth Council. See Surius Tom. 2. pag 922.  

Concilium Mantuanum.  Which in all things consenting to the fifth General Council were Catholics, says Baronius, anno 605. numb. 5.  
This sixth General Synod is called erroneous by Beda, saith Bellarmine, deservedly. The reason, I take it, was because this Council did condemn Honorius the Pope of Rome for Heresy, as appeareth by Surius, Actione 12, 13. and was found to be contained in his Epistles, the Council using all diligence in examining the Records of the Church of Constantinople, to see if the original Epistle sent from Pope Honorius to Sergius of Constantinople, did accord with the extracts which were produced, & constitit, it appeared to be so, ait. 12. apud Surium, pag. 990. Bellarm. lib 4. de Pontifice Romano, cap. 11. and Baron. an. 681. doth labour much to excuse this, but with as little success, as Baronius would clear Zosimus for forging the Council of Nice. The Council was deceived, saith Beda and Bellarmine. The Tract of the Council was forged, saith Baronius, n. 25. Peradventure those Epistles were forged, saith Bellarmine, loco citato.   

From the year 700, to the year 800. 
The eighth Age.   
Under Charles the Great, 
Concilium Francosurtense.  for the Historical and Civil use of Images, but against all religious worshipping of them. Baron. an. 794. Here began the Greek and Latin Church to be divided about Images. The Emperors and Counsels of the East being sometimes for them, sometimes against them. And in the West, the Churches of France, Spain, and Germany under Charles the Great, forbidding them to be worshipped; the Pope and his adherents of Rome commanding to worship them. Yet all these three Counsels did receive and profess the Faith of the six precedent General Counsels. Balsamon, pag. 494. cau. 1. Coucil. Niceni, & Baronius, an. 754. n. 30, & Surius, Tom. 3. pag. 182.  
Hence arose the division of the Empire, 
Baron. an. 726. n. 38.  Pope Gregory the second forbidding the Italians to pay the Emperor Leo Isaurus tribute for this only cause. For he doth commend in the Emperor an every way right religious, and irreprovable profession of the Orthodox Faith, in his Epistle to the Emperor, an. 726. Baron. n. 26.  
Wherein Cuthbert Archbishop of Canterbury, 
Concilium Saxonum in Anglia. an. 747.  with other Bishops of the Saxons, amongst other things, decreed, that the Presbyters should in the English tongue learn, and teach the Lords Prayer, and the Creed, and that Prayers should be made for Kings and Princes. Malmsburiensis de Gestis Pontificum Anglorum. cap. 1.   


The ninth Age. Concilium Aquisgranense.  From the year 800, to the year 900.  
Anno 809. n. 52. It received the six General Counsels, and did profess the Nicene Creed, Baron. loco citato.  

Concilium Foroniliense.  This did profess the Nicene Creed, and decreed thus; Let every Christian commit to memory the Creed, and the Lords Prayer, all age, all sex, etc. for without this none can, and with this, so they abstain from sin, all may be saved, Surius, Tom. 3. pag. 262, 263.  

Concilium Constantinopolitanun.  Anno 861. saith Baronius, styled a General Council by Michael the Greek Emperor, who summoned it, and was present at it, consisting of 318 Bishops, approving the Nicen Council, as appeareth Canon 8. and the 6th General Council, Canon 12. apud Balsamon.  

Concilium Parisiense.  Anno 825. which condemned the second Nicene, and an Epistle of Pope Adrian for worshipping of Images as superstitious, holding it lawful to set up Images, but not to worship them, Baron. an. 825. n. 4, 5. & an 794. n. 43, 51.  
So here are two Counsels approved by the Romans, the first and second: two by them rejected, but received, the one by the Greek Church, the other by the French Church, but all four professing our Faith; and two of them denying an Article of the Roman new Creed, videlicet, worshipping of Images.  

Tom. 3. pag. 530.  Histories (saith Surius) speak of a threefold eighth General Council held at Constantinople: the first, that wherein Photius was made Patriarch. The second, that which restored Ignatius. The third, that which after the death of Ignatius restored Photius again.  
It is worth the note, how Surius can deny, that this Council of Paris under Lewis, and that of Francford under Charles, did decree against the second Nicene Council for advancing Image-worship, and charge us with forgery, seeing all the Chronicles, and learned men of that Age recorded it. See Baronius, an. 794. n. 40.   

From the year 900, to the year 1000 
The tenth Age.   
This is that Age which was commonly styled a leaden, iron, obscure Age, because it was as barren of good, as iron; loaden with a burden of wickedness, as heavy as lead, and obscure for want of Writers, saith Baronius, an. 900. n. 1. An unhappy Age (saith Bellarmine in his Chronologie) in which were no Counsels, no Writers of note, and the Bishops were such as took little care for the Church.  
Surius in this Age recordeth no Council General, or Provincial; for after Triburense Concilium, which was celebrated under Arnulphus the Emperor (who died about the year 899. as Baronius accounteth; some years sooner, as Bellarmine:) Surius hath no Council till we come to Alexander the third Pope of that name, who began his Popedom Anno 1160. that is for two whole Ages and a half. But Baronius will furnish us with some.  
All three Counsels held under Pope john the ninth, 
Concil. Romanum. 1. Concil. Romanum. 2. Concil. Romanum. 3. Con ilium Suessionen. an. 909. n. 1. Baron. Concil. Constantinop.  who in those three years of his Papacy held three Counsels, Ex quibus summam sibi laudem comparavit; by which he got to himself great praise, saith Baron. an. 905. n. 1. no doubt these were orthodox Counsels in the estimation of Baronius, or else the Pope could not get such praise by them.  
Anno 944. reproved by the Romans for deposing of Triphon, not noted of any error in Doctrine. Baron. an. 944. numb. 1, 2.  
Anno 963. called by Otho the second, wherein john the twelfth was convicted of Murder, Perjury, Sacrilege, 
Concilium Romanum.  and Incest with two of his own Sisters; which Council Baronius, n. 31. doth confess to have been an assembly of orthodox men, but is much offended with them for deposing the Pope, calling it Indignum facinus, audax, & insolens. Bellarmine also saith, this Emperor was a godly man, and this Pope was one of the worst: but he blameth them for deposing the Pope, lib. 2. de Pontifice Romano; cap. 29.   


The eleventh Age. Concil. in Legione Hispaniae. Concil. Aurelianense.  From the year 1000, to the year 1100.  
Anno 1012. Baronius, n. 16. who doth there allege many Decrees of that Council.  
Anno 1017. Against the Manichees; in which Council there was an inquiry made of the Clergy, what opinions every one did hold? and whether those things which the Catholic Faith received from the Apostles, they do unchangeably keep, and preach? Baron. n. 2, 3.  

Concil. Basiliense.  Anno 1061. which Baronius reproves for condemning Pope Nicholas, and disannulling all his Decrees. n. 4.  

Concilium Woormatiense Concil. apud Buxiam.  Anno 1076 which Baronius also rejecteth for pronouncing sentence against Gregory the seventh. n. 12, 14.  
Anno 1080. which is also rejected by Baronius, n. 18, 19 for deposing Gregory the seventh, guilty of many crimes, and an enemy to all godliness. Quicquid quietè inter piè viventes stare videbatur concussit.  

Concil. Londinense.  Anno 1075. Malmsburiensis, fol. 117.   


The 12 Age. Concilium Romanum.  From the year 1100, to the year 1200.  
Anno 1102. Baronius, n. 1, 2. wherein, besides the confirming of the ancient Decrees of the Fathers, after the accustomed manner they also, etc.  

Concil. Lateranense 2.  Anno 1116. under Pascalis the second, Baronius, n. 1. calleth it a General Council, and numb. 5. an Universal Council.  

Concil. Lateranense 3.  Anno 1179. under Alexander the third, this is styled a General Synod by Baron. n. 1. and by Bellarmine in his Chronologie.  

Concil. Londinense.  Anno 1102. under Anselme, Archbishop of Canterbury, Malmsburiensis fol 129.  
In this Age, I desire the Reader to observe with me, how well the Popish Doctors, and Historians do agree in this so great a matter.  
Caranza can find never a General Council in this Age; Surius can find one, namely, Lateranense tertium, sub Innocentio 3. Bellarmine can find three General Counsels, Latera. 1, 2, 3. Baronius can find six, 1. Romanum, anno 1102. 2. Lateranense, anno 1116. 3. Rhemense, anno 1119. 4. Lateranense, an. 1122. 5. Romanum, an. 1139. 6. Romanum, an. 1179.   

From the year 1200, to the year 1300. 
The 13 Age.   
Anno 1215. This is received amongst the Romanists for a General Council, and no one Council is more alleged for Popery, saving that of Trent, than this: yet in their profession of Faith, cap. 2. I find nothing dissenting from ours, but only this, that they have added Transubstantiation. But no one of the other twelve Articles of our new Romish Creed. That there was such a Council, I grant, but that those decrees, or chapters recorded by Surius were there enacted, I deny: for these authorities following, Matthew Paris, a Monk of Saint Alban, who lived in those times, saith, that 60, (70 it should have been, saith Mr. Widrington, 
Discuss dissentionis Decreti. pag. 4.  a Priest of your own) Chapters were read in full Council, which some liked, others thought but— And the same Author in his lesser History, saith thus: This General Council, which after the Papal manner at the first made a great show, turned to laughter and scorn. The Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Deans, Archdeacon's, and all that came to the Council being deluded; for they seeing nothing done, craved leave to departed; and paying a great sum of money, obtained it. Many things were consulted of (saith Nauclerus) but nothing could be decreed openly. Nothing commendable, or worthy of memory was there done (saith Godfrey a Monk of those times) save that the East Church submitted to the West, which was never heard of afore. Nothing could be decreed, saith Platina▪ in the life of Innocentius.  
This Council was not published for 300 years after, not by Merlin, who published later Counsels (as that of Constance, and that of B●sil) at Collen, anno 1530. and now it comes not out of the Vatican, but from one john Cochleus a German. Thus Widrington. 
Council Generale Lugdun. 1. Concil. Generale Lugdun. 2.   
Anno 1244. under Innocent the third, Bellar. de Conciliis. & in Chron.  
Sub Gregorio 10. anno 1274. Bellarm. and Baronius. The profession of Faith sent from the Pope to Michael the Emperor, we receive, but not other Doctrines there added. vide Baronium. anno 1274, & 1275, & 1276.   


The 14 Age. Concil. Viene●se.  From the year 1300, to the year 1400.  
Anno 1311. This is reputed a General Council by Bellarmine, Baronius, Caranza, Platina, Onuphrius.  
The profession of Faith made by them, as is recorded by Baronius, n 12. we receive, although we receive not all their other Doctrines and Constitutions. As that they condemn them for Heretics, who shall deny the reasonable soul to be the form of man's body per se, & essentialiter, properly, and essentially. This may be an error in Philosophy, but no Heresy, because it is not in point of Faith.  

Concil. Bonon. Concil. Hispanicum. Concil. Provincialia.  This was a Provincial Council, an. 1309. Baron. n. 12.  
In ditione Walliselentum, styled a most noble Council by Baronius, anno 1321. n. 9  
Provincial Counsels, and Synods in several Dioceses were held almost every where by holy men, saith Baronius, anno 1309.   


The 15 Age. Concil. Constantiense, an. 1413.  From the year 1400, to the year 1500.  
This is reputed a General Council by the Romanists, Bellarmine, Baronius, Caranza, Surius, Tom. 3. p. 769.  
This Council did profess our Faith, viz the Apostles Creed in Mass before every Session; although in some other things we refuse them, as in their half Communion, never decreed before in any Council, and there acknowledged to differ from the institution of Christ, and practise of the Primitive Church. Let the Papists give us leave to repudiate this in part as they do, viz. in their first Decree, Sess 4. That the Council is above the Pope. So Bellarmine, lib. de Conciliis cap: 6. reckons this amongst the General Counsels, partly rejected, and partly approved.  

Concil. Besiliense.  Anno 1431. This also is partly confirmed, partly rejected by the Romanists; for this did depose Popes, and decreed that a General Council is above the Pope, as appeareth in Surius, Caranza, and Bellarmine.  

Concil. Florentinum.  Anno 1439. This is a General Council, approved by the Papists, Bellarmine, lib. de Conciliis. cap. 5. This Council did profess our Faith, and receive our Counsels and Sacraments, though they added five Sacraments more; read Surius, Tom. 4. Sessione 3, 4, 5.  
Thus have I traveled through Histories, Fathers, Schoolmen, and Counsels, to satisfy the demand of them, who when all is done, will deny all Histories, Fathers and Counsels which make against them. I might have gone a nearer way, thus:  
You baptise Children daily in your Church, and then you profess my Faith, the Apostles Creed, and minister our first Sacrament. You have your Mass or Common Prayer, with the Communion often in your Churches, than also you profess my Faith; read parcels of our Scriptures, and minister our other Sacrament entire to the Clergy, though by halves to the Laity. You have published many Missals under the names of Saint james, Saint Mark, 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 Mass in your auctionary of Bibliotheca Patrum; as Walafridus Strabo, Ino Corvotensis, and others named by me 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 Baptism; it is found in none of those Missals, nor in your Ordo Romanus, nor in any of those Expositors of your Roman Mass for one thousand five hundred years. Let me 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, add, or diminish any thing therein; it doth not cut off any thing that is necessary, nor add any thing that is superfluous; it doth not lose that which is proper to Christianity, nor usurp 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 pertain 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 mind 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 denial. 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 believed even by Orthodox fathers, which afterward by examination, and definition of the Church in General Counsels, were made so necessary to be believed, as that whosoever did not believe them were accounted not Orthodox, but Heretics. And 4, that the Anabaptist faith is that which is contained in Scripture and ancient Creeds: And the Anabaptist Church is a society of men which professeth the faith contained in Scripture, and the ancient Creeds, as (if an Anabaptist may be judge) it will be held so to be.  
Rogers.  
Master Fisher hath in many pages written this Title, Master Rogers his weak grounds, where he spoke not one word of my grounds, and here he doth pass 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 accessary.  
and 2. Doctr. fundamental.    
Matter of faith consisteth not in discipline, but Doctrine, and that Doctrine not accessary but fundamental.  
By this distinction I mean the same which Aquinas doth by res fidei 

1. Per se  
2. Per accidens.    
These 3 distinctions pass without exception saving that he maketh mention of the second, viz 

1. Doctrine accessory.  
2. Doctrine fundamental.    
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 School, 
Lib. 4. de verb. Dei. c. 12. In Scriptures 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 itself, and principally looketh upon those things which are contained in the Articles of our Creed.  
2. Upon 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 known, which all men ought to receive as undoubted: there are others, Quae inter Ecclesias controversa, fidei tamen unitaetem non dirimant. Wherein particular Churches may descent and yet not break the unity of faith. Thus Calvin Instit. l. 4. c. 1. n. 22. I could cite Luther, and others, but I will only cite Saint Augustine, who in his first book against julius 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 unde nunc agimus ad ipsa fidei pertinet fundamenta.  
There are other things wherein the most learned, and best defenders of the Catholic Rule may descent one from another, and one man speaketh better and more truly than another, upon the same subject. But this whereof we now speak belongeth to the very foundation of faith. Thus fare Saint Augustine.  
This is the first of my grounds that he finds fault with, but not in that order as I placed them, but after two, or three other grounds of mine, which in mine answer, were placed after this. Thus he to puzzle the Reader, that he may not so easily perceive what he doth answer, what he doth not answer, never observes order. Yet I, that he may in nothing escape my hands, will follow him in his order, so that I must answer what he objecteth against this ground in the next Chapter.  
My next ground was this.  
I distinguish between 

1. Affirmation In those Articles of our English Church.  
and 2. Negation. In those Articles of our English Church.    
Our Negation is partly a traversing, partly a condemning of your novelties, and additions, and therefore no part of our faith: for no man will deny his own faith. To this my Adversary doth thus reply.  
Fisher.  
That faith is affirmation, and not negation; by which Rule it seemeth he would not have any negative propositions, although found in Scripture, to pertain to faith.  
Rogers.  
You infer that in your conclusion, which is not in my grounds; I say that faith is affirmation, I do not say that all that doth pertain to Faith, is affirmation; I say that negations are no part of my faith: you say that negations do pertain to faith. Non facis elenchum, you infer not my proposition in your conclusion with a contradiction; what you say, is not contrary to my grounds, for that may pertain to faith, which is not faith; and that may pertain to faith, which is no part of faith; as that may pertain to Master Fisher, which is not Master Fisher, nor any part of Master Fisher. The button of Master Fisher's doublet, doth pertain to Master Fisher, yet I may not say Master Fisher is a button, or that this button is any part of Master Fisher. A joined stool may pertain to Master Fisher, but I will not say Master Fisher is a joined stool. The distinction of matters of faith out of Aquinas, and others of that which belongs unto faith properly, from that which belongs unto faith accidentally, doth exclude those things which only pertain unto faith, from being faith, or any part of faith; You know Master Fisher, 
Aristot. Zabarella.  that Propositiones per se habent essentialem connexionem: Man is that which he is of himself properly, and essentially, a creature, consisting of a humane body, and a reasonable soul; not that which is accidental unto man, as to be black or white, to be a Musician, to be a Carpenter, to be a Friar, or a Priest, a Jesuit, or a Dominican; These things are not man, nor any part of man. It doth not therefore follow, that because negations pertain to faith, therefore they are faith, or part of faith. Your Argument from Scripture, if I should grant your medium, cannot infer against my ground, altering part of faith, into that which pertaineth to faith. Your Argument in form will discover itself to be a fallacy.  
All propositions found in Scripture pertain to faith. Some negative propositions are found in Scripture.  
Ergo, (If you infer against me, your conclusion must be thus) Negative propositions are faith, or parts of faith.  
This is no Syllogism, here are four terms; there is that in the conclusion, which is not in the premises: but if you would have all propositions that are in Scripture to be matters of faith, or parts, or points of faith, than I deny your major; you know there are many propositions in Scripture delivered by wicked men, yea, some by the Devil himself, As that which was spoken unto Eve, you shall not die. Whereas God told them they should die, if they did eat of the forbidden fruit. And shall these be parts of your faith? will you believe the Devil when he speaketh against God? But of this I have spoken more fully before, 
Cap. 4.  proving the contrary to this out of your own men; Yet I will here add some few reasons, to show that Negations, or negative Propositions cannot be Articles of faith, or Principles of faith.  

Lib. 1. Poster. c. 23.  Aristotle doth prove by two Arguments, that an affirmative proposition is better than a negative.  
First, because the affirmative is better known then the negative, for the negative cannot be known without the affirmative, but the affirmative may without the negative; as the habit may be defined without privation, but not privation without the habit; as seeing may be defined without any mention of blindness, but blindness cannot be defined without mention of seeing.  
Secondly, Affirmation doth speak of being, Negation of not being; but being is better than not being. To the same effect in his books, 
Lib. 2. c. 3.  De Coelo: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Affirmation is before privation. He is the same man in his Metaphisicks, where he putteth Negations, inter entia rationis, which have no being in themselves: if no being, how can they be principles in any Scicence, much less in Divinity? It is a true note of your Zuarez upon the Metaphisicks, that Mensura debet & nota esse, & certa: ut sit nota oportet, ut entitatem habeat; ut fit certa oportet, ut in indivisibili consistat. That cannot be known which hath not entity, real entity, saith your Suarez, when any Negation is known, of necessity, we must first know that whereof it is a Negation. 
Prima primae q. 72. 63 & secunda secundae. q. 79. 3. Andrea's Vega. Francisc. Hist. Trid. Con p. 1. 179 In Metaph. ●5. c. 7. q. 6.  Idem Suarez  
This is the Doctrine of your great Schooleman Aquinas: He was one of your greatest Divines, who said at your Council of Trent, that no true Negative hath in itself, the cause of his truth, but is so by the trutth of an affirmative. Negations as negations, nullam omninò dicunt entitatem, sed solam absentiam ejus quod negatur; they tell of no being, but only an absence of that which is denied, saith your Fonseca.  
Seeing then that Propositions of faith, are principles, and principles cannot be proved, by any thing that is before them, or better known than they; and that nothing can be known without real being, and that negations are proved by affirmations; how can they be Propositions, or principles of faith? And lest you should wander in your Reply, I will press two Arguments out of your own men.  
Entia rationis non sunt principia in ulla scientia, 
Suarez in his Metaphys. in fine.  Negationes sunt entia rationis.  
Ergo, Negationes non sunt principia in ulla scientia, praesertim in Theologia.  
Principia fidei habent causam finalem.  
Negationes non habent causam finalem.  
Ergo, Negationes non sunt principia fidei.  
Propositions of faith are foundations, and a foundation must be positive, or it will bear nothing upon it: go round about a building, and say a thousand times over, here is no stone, and here is no stone, and so all along, you will never lay a foundation; Shall the Mason by saying, I will not lay this, nor that foundation, come and claim his wages? Shall the Tiler by laying on no Tile, say that he hath covered the house? or the Carpenter, by squaring and joining no Timber, build the Walls?  
The Articles of our faith are in the Apostles Creed, all affirmative and positive, there is not one Negation among them.  
The question between us is about unwritten Traditions, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, Transubstantiation, worshipping of Images, and the rest before alleged out of Paulus Secundus his Creed; all which I deny, and therefore are no Articles of my faith, for no man would deny his own faith. All those we deny, we lay no such foundation, let them which have laid it, maintain it. We are contented that Purgatory, Transubstantiation, worshipping of Images, Indulgences, etc. be buried in oblivion, and never mentioned amongst us, which we would not do, if they were Articles of our faith, for all men ought to be ready to confess, and profess their faith. It was truly written by one of your own, Doctor james Gordon Hanley of Scotland, a jesuite, 
In Lib. de Traditionibus cap. 6.  that the whole Controversy between you, and us, is of the unwritten points of faith, which you affirm, and we deny: as for example, you affirm and believe Purgatory, I do not believe it; will you say now that Purgatory is a part of my faith? can that be a part of a man's faith, which he doth not believe? If I do not believe it, it is not my faith, if it be my faith, I do believe it so. You believe Transubstantiation, I do not believe it, can this be a point of my faith? Your School saith truly, that to believe is the proper, internal, inseparable act of faith, they go together, they stand, or fall together: So that I wonder with what face, with what brain, you can say, or think, that those negations are points of my faith, and I say they are not? Yet lest you should not take my word, I will add one reason more. I say with the learned of both sides, that faith is habitus principiorum, is that assent we give unto revealed principles. And that Negations cannot be principles, I prove thus.  

Arist. annal. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. cap. 8. etc. 21.  Principles depend upon no precedent proof.  
Negations depend upon precedent proof.  
Ergo, Negations are not Principles.  
Both propositions are Aristotle's. Now let us see what he next misliketh in my grounds.   

CHAP. XX.  
Fisher.  
MAster Rogers framed to himself false Rules. First, that faith is Affirmation, not Negation. Secondly, That they which are in the Affirmative must prove, and not those who are in the Negative.  
Rogers.  
In my former answer, I said thus, In points of faith I like Master Fisher's Rule, That they that are in the Affirmative must prove. It was Master Fishers Rule proposed by him, admitted by me: for these were his words in his first Paper, Master Fisher undertook to defend the negative part, so it did belong to his Adversary to prove the affirmative. Why now do you say that Master Rogers doth frame false Rules to himself? This is Master Fisher's Rule, framed by him, approved by me. It was a Rule that your Doctor Cole, and others stood upon in the Disputation at Westminster, 
In Historia Concil. Tried. Per naturam, factum negantis probatio nulla. 6. q 5. cap. 2. Negationum non sunt causae. gl. ibidem.  as Bishop jewel often lays to his charge. Let us add one more of your men, the forenamed Andrea's Vega; No Proposition was ever false, but because another is true: neither can the falsity of the one be known, but by him who knoweth the truth of the other. Therefore the opinion of the Lutherans cannot be condemned of Heresy, until the opinion of the Church be set down; loco supra citato. Let us see what good reason Master Fisher bringeth to overthrow this Rule.  
Fisher.  
By this it seemeth to follow, that a man who time out of mind, quietly possessed his Land or Religion, were bound to prove his right before his upstart Adversary (who denieth him to have right) hath given a good reason of his denial.  
Rogers.  
Even as the Wheelbarrow goes to rumble, to rumble, so Doctor Eld. W. owes me two Shillings. His similitude and yours held much alike, Master Fisher. And yet, if your similitude were good, Symbola non sunt argumentativa: Similitudes are no proofs, they illustrate and clear obscurities, if they be good and apposite; otherwise, they do more hinder the understanding, then help it. Who doth strive with you about the possession of any thing that is controverted between us, to take it from you? Would we take from you to ourselves? Or do we challenge any right, title or portion in your unwritten Traditions? your invocation of Saints, Purgatory, Indulgences, and the rest of your new Creed? No such matter: we disclaim from them; we leave them to you: we say they are yours, yours in possession, yours in propriety of title, take them, hold them, hug them in your arms, and think as well of them as the old Ape did of her young one, when she presented him before the Lion, as the goodliest, prettiest, fairest youngling amongst all the beasts of the field. We in the mean time smile at your folly, and laugh at such babbles; take them unto you, father your own children, they look as like you as the young Ape did the old. Now let us see what is next?  
Fisher.  
The third false Rule framed by Master Rogers is, that what was not a point of Faith in the Primitive Ages, cannot after be a point of Faith.  
Rogers.  
This Rule was not framed by me, but it was the Rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, and so alleged by me in my Answer, confirmed also by their great Schoolman Aquinas, and something than cited out of both, thus:  
Religion, or points of Faith are without addition, as Lirinensis saith. Imitetur animarum Religio rationem corporum, quae & quot parvulorum membra tot virorum, etc. And as Aquinas saith;  
The Articles of Faith do grow, quoad 

1. Explicationem, non  
2. Substantiam.    
That which was no point of Faith for the first 1200 years, could be none afterwards; ut supra Vinc. Lirin. & Aquin.  
But Transubstantiation was no point of Faith before the year 1200. Scotus.  
Ergo, Transubstantiation is no point of Faith.  
To all this, contained in my former Answer, is no Reply made: the Authority and saying of Lirinensis, Aquinas, Scotus, together with my Argument, are passed over with silence, but supplied with two or three falsehoods; 1, by saying that I framed that Rule which was framed 1200 years at least before I was borne. 2, By calling that a false Rule, which was received without control, no learned man having the face to deny it, till the lame Laiola furnished the world with audacious Jesuits: for never was there a new Creed made before the Council of Trent. But let us see what reason he hath to deny this Rule? His words are these:  
Fisher.  
As if there were not some points which were at first, not held necessary to be believed by orthodox Fathers, which afterward by examination and definition of the Church in General Counsels, were made so necessary to be believed, as that whosoever did not believe, were accounted not Orthodox, but Heretics.  
Rogers.  
A Boy that wanted a couple of Verses to make up his full number, desired one of his fellows to help at a pinch, no matter whether it were to the Theme, no matter whether they were good or no, so they filled up the Paper, made up the number: I care not (saith he) though they be all botches, for I hope they will never be read. One of his fellows, to help him at his need, made this Verse: 
Semper, quotidiè, sic, jam, nunc, atque profectò.  
To which another added,  
Aedepol, ecce, quidem, scilicet, indè, procul.   
My Adversary at the first made a short weak Answer to what I had written, such as gave no satisfaction to his own side: (for so Master Waterhouse, who brought me that Answer, told me.) Being afterwards called upon to make a more full and more satisfactory Answer, either by himself, or some other of his fellows, made up this, not so full as he should, for he passeth by more than half my grounds and Arguments with silence. And that which he hath answered is botched up with impertinencies and fallacies, a great many of those botches I have showed before: as, Who doth not see? I do not see: Master Rogers may grant: If Master Rogers do grant: I see no reason why he should not grant, etc. And here to my grounds, by which it seemeth he would not: To my first ground, by which it seemeth to follow: To my second ground, as if there were not some points, etc. To my third ground, and to the fourth: As (if an Anabaptist may judge) it will be held so to be: And to my fifth: He may be yet further allowed to reject, etc. Here is neither granting, nor denying, nor distinguishing, nor arguing, but all is Seeming, and, As if it were; all concurring to make his learning Sophistry, and himself a Sophister, 
Arist. in Elench.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sophistry is seeming wisdom, and a Sophister is he that seeketh for gain by seeming wisdom, whereas there is no such matter: and where he seemeth to argue, it is but the contentious discourse of a Sophister, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; consisting of nothing but seeming probabilities, as I have showed in all instances which I have met with yet, and so will in this. My third ground was, That what was no point of Faith in the Primitive Ages, could be none afterwards; ut suprà Vincentius Lirinensis, & Aquinas. What saith he to this? doth he grant it? doth he distinguish? doth he deny it? No grant, no distinction, no direct denial, for that he dares not, lest he should deny that ancient Father, and his great Schoolman: yet he saith something against it, or rather maketh as if he would. He saith, that some points were defined by Counsels, and so made necessary to be believed, which before were not held necessary, even by orthodox Fathers: Ergo, The Church may make new points, or Articles of Faith.  
His Argument and his Antecedent be both false; his Antecedent is ambiguous: for to believe, may signify an act either of humane Faith, or religious divine Faith. If he understand believe in the first sense, I grant his Antecedent, viz. That we are to give great credit unto the Decrees and Definitions of General Counsels; but yet inferior to that credit we give unto the Word of God, because he is Truth itself, who cannot err, and they are man who may err. And therefore to take this, viz That the Definitions of Counsels are Articles of Faith, thence to prove that we have new Articles of Faith, besides those of the Primitive Church, is Petitio principii, a begging of that for granted, which he knows we deny: 
Artic. 21.  it is the Doctrine of our Church, that General Counsels may err, and that the Church ought not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation. Whereas you say, 
Artic. 20.  the Decrees of Counsels are held necessary, there is a twofold necessity of different degrees: 

1. Necessitas medii.  
2. Necessitas praecepti.   This later may belong to the Decrees of Counsels, not the former.  
Here you might have remembered my distinction of 

1. Doctrines of Faith.  
2. Doctrines of the Church; &  
3. Doctrines of the School.    
Definitions of Counsels are Church Doctrines, not Doctrines of Faith; and therefore have an inferior necessity, without the knowledge whereof a man may be saved: and thousands were saved before those Counsels were heard of; but no man can be saved without the Doctrines of Faith, known and professed by himself, if he be in years of discretion, or by his Parents and Sureties if he be a child.  
Whereas you say, that those that refuse the Decrees of Counsels, are accounted Heretics; and take this for granted, that so you might infer an addition to Articles of Faith, is the like begging of a Medium, as the former: you know we do not so define an Haereticke; 
jewel in his view of a seditious Bull.  for with us he is an Haereticke, who denieth the Articles of the Christian Faith: and so he is defined by the most learned of your side, holding that Heresy doth directly, and principally descent from the Articles of Faith. So Aquinas, That Heresy is opposite to Faith. So Widrington, a Priest of your own, Praefat. ante respond. Apol. pro jure Princ. But with you and your Pope, all things are Heresies which you like not; as Paul the second did pronounce them Heretics, 
Platina in vita Pauli ●.  who should from that time forward, in earnest or in jest, mention the name of Academic: did I think this Decree of your Pope were of force, being an Oxford man, I should be very sorry for myself and others, who in our oracles do style our Auditors by no name more frequently than Academici. If you had ever thought your Answer should have been read, you would never have written upon the top of your Leaves, Master Rogers his most weak grounds, where there is no mention made of his grounds; and, Most weak Arguments, where you make no answer at all to my Arguments, and give no instance to those Arguments which cannot be answered without instances, nor passed by many Arguments and grounds without any mention of them; and those you mention, to pass them over with, It seemeth, to the first; Seemeth, to the second; As if, to the third; As if, to the fourth; He may be yet further allowed, to the fift; whereof I am next to speak.  
Fisher.  
And fourthly, that the Anabaptist Faith is that which is contained in Scripture, and the ancient Creeds; and the Anabaptists Church is a society of men, which professeth the Faith contained in Scripture, and the ancient Creeds: as (if an Anabaptist may be judge) it will be held so to be.  
Rogers.  
I will grant, that the Anabaptist is a member of the visible Church, Ecclesia verae, quamvis non sanae: and that Church to have been always in Ages whereof he is a member; yea Membrum verum, quamvis non sanum; a true member, though a diseased, as a gouty foot of a man, that is otherwise in health, and sixty or seventy years old, is a true member, though not a sound member of that body which in all other parts is sound; and this foot thus gouty, though it became gouty but within a few days before, may truly say, that that body whereof it is a member, hath been 10, 20, 30, 40, 70 years the very same body which now it is, the very same essentially, though not accidentally; still a body, and still the same body, though sometimes more healthy than other, and in some parts more sound than other. Now Master Fisher, to what end is your great discourse of Anabaptists, seeing I grant him to be of the Church? If he be such a one as you suppose him, who agreeth with me in all things else, viz. in the Scripture, in the Creed, in the Sacraments, in the essence of the Sacraments, in their matter and form, in their force and efficacy; only differs from me in the circumstance of time, namely, when Baptism is to be conferred, and bestowed upon Children of Christians, whether before, or after they are come to years of discretion.   

CHAP. XXI.  
Fisher.  
AND fifthly, That having distinguished Faith (as Master Rogers doth) into Doctrines fundamental, and necessary, and Doctrines not fundamental, but accessary, or not necessary: he may be yet further allowed to reject all Church authority, and not to be satisfied with what is taught by any Church, ours or his own, (as Master Rogers confesseth he is unsatisfied) and consequently being left to his own liberty, may apply this distinction as he shall please, accounting only that to be necessary which he listeth so to account. I wish, I say, that such an Anabaptist were imagined, and that Master Rogers were to be his opponent: That it might be seen whether this Anabaptist could not as well by these aforesaid Rules, Definitions and Distinctions, affirm, prove and defend his Faith and Church to have been always visible, against Master Rogers; as Master Rogers doth, or can by his Rules, Definitions and Distinctions, affirm, prove, and defend the Protestant Church to have been always visible, against Catholics: or whether Master Rogers could better convince such an Anabaptist not to have the ancient Faith, or not to be a member of the continual visible Church, than a Catholic can convince Master Rogers.  
Rogers.  
Concerning this Distinction, I have spoken afore, that some Doctrines are more necessary than others: now let us see whether this man saith any thing against it, and what it is. I do not find he doth deny it, or grant it: so that I know not what he means by the words following, viz. He may be yet further allowed to reject all Church authority, and not be satisfied with what is taught by any Church, ours or his own (as Master Rogers confesseth he is unsatisfied.) First, you mightily falsify this Parenthesis upon me, my words were these; I do confess, that none of your side or ours have given me full satisfaction in this point: what are res fidei per se? And in the words next going before, I said thus; Master Fisher, I desire you also, for the avoiding of confusion, to deliver your opinion: Whether all the Affirmative Doctrines of the Council of Trent, are matters of Faith per se, fundamental, and necessary to be held for salvation fide explicita. I speak de adultis quibus facultas datur discendi, who being come to years of discretion, have capacity to learn.  
This much in my first Answer; to this my request he makes no reply; either he is ignorant, or dare not express whether all the affirmative doctrines of his Council of Trent, are matters of Faith, and necessary to be known and believed: though I then told him I proposed this question, as desirous to learn. This much concerning my question, and my request. Now to my Assertion, viz. That none of his side or ours, hath given me full satisfaction herein: he hence infers, that I am unsatisfied without any limitation; or if we will look back beyond the Parenthesis, as if I were unsatisfied in that which is taught in any Church, ours or his. This is the right fallacy, à dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter: I said I was satisfied by none of theirs or ours, in the instances of one distinction, what Doctrines were to be reduced to either member of the Distinction, namely, what Doctrines were necessary, what not necessary; what was fundamental, what accessary▪ what matter of Faith properly, what accidentally: and he would traduce me, as if I were unsatisfied in all other Doctrines; this is the Devil's Logic, Master Fisher, who is the father of lies, to say I confessed that I never did. As well I might prove that you have never a nose on your face, or that you are blind, thus: 
Mr. Fisher hath never a Nose on his breast.  
Ergo, Mr. Fisher hath no Nose.  
As you say, Master Rogers doth confess he is unsatisfied in some things belonging to one distinction.  
Ergo, Master Rogers is unsatisfied in any Doctrine.   
Or thus: 
Mr. Fisher doth confess that he doth not see why Master Rogers may not absolutely grant his fourth Proposition.  
Ergo, Master Fisher doth confess he doth not see.   
Master Fisher, I am satisfied in the doctrines of my faith, in the doctrines of my Church, in the truth of ours, and the falsehood of yours: as that I desire to die rather than receive your faith, or forsake any of mine; and I do hold your Roman Church the most corrupted, erroneous, usurping part, or member of the Christian Church, that is in the world.  
I distinguished between doctrines of 

Faith,  
the Church,  
and of the School.    
These latter being private opinions of men in distinguishing, defining, or arguing, being neither contained in Scriptures, nor delivered by the Church, I might be unsatisfied in, and the rather, because the greatest Writers of your side, and ours, do vary herein, or speak indefinitely, which is no resolution. Thomas secunda, secundae, quest. 2. saying one thing, Occam, another, and Valenza differing from both, Tom, 
Lib. 4. c. 11. de verbo Dei.  3 disp. 1. q. Bellarmine speaking indifinitely; some things in the Doctrine of Christianity, as well belonging to faith as manners, are simply necessary to all men that will be saved; such is the knowledge of the Apostolic Creed, of the ten Commandments, and of some Sacraments, non nullorum Sacramentorum, not defining which, and giving small satisfaction, with his individuum vagum, of some Sacraments, not telling which; so also amongst our Writers, Calvin, Hooker, Doctor Field, Doctor Usher, do all thus distinguish, but when they come to express what belongeth to either member, they do not all speak alike. Calvin. Institut. l. 4. cap. 1. n. 12. saith some things are necessary for all men to believe, as that there is one God, that Christ is God, and the Son of God, that our salvation consisteth in the mercy of God, & similia, and such like; This word similia leaves it undetermined.  
Hooker holdeth these three to be fundamental, necessary, and essential unto the Church, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, but under that of faith, he understandeth as necessary the Articles of the Apostles Creed; so that he, and Doctor Usher, differ very little, or nothing at all. Doctor Field is somewhat more full in his third book of the Church, the fourth Chapter; yet not in real addition but in explication, so that they all receive the distinction which you would seem to reject: as if the admitting of that distinction did infer a liberty 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 think it is as fare from due consequence, as to say. I have my poke full of plumbs, therefore that is the way to London. It is my hard hap to meet with an Adversary which hath so little honesty, as to falsify my words, so little learning, as that he hath not, and it seems he cannot frame one Argument. I am loath to take the pains to add form to such rude matter, to draw the line of reason, and measure with rules of Art, such rotten stuff, such incohaerent disjointed speeches, as that himself was afeard to insert the note of illation, 
a Ergo.  therefore, but I will do it for him.  
Master Rogers hath distinguished between Doctrines fundamental, and necessary, and Doctrines not fundamental, but accessory.  
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, Occam, Espenseus, The Master of the Sentences, Bonaventure, Durandus, etc. a world of Schoolmen, and other Writers do make the same distinction.  
Ergo, Aquinas, Occam, Espenceus, the Master of the Sentences, with the Schools in general, are allowed to reject Church authority, and Church Doctrine, if the Argument were true, thus it must follow.   
I was so fare 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 always visible by my Rules, definitions, and distinctions, is most untrue: one of the Rules or Medium, by which I did prove my Church, was Antiquity, Universality, 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 Baptism to children? It seems you have little regard what you say, that you will thus strengthen the Anabaptist in his error, as if he had Antiquity, Universality, and Consent, for his excluding children from Baptism. Or if by his negative, he put me to prove the affirmative, that children are to be baptised, I will prove it by the testimonies of Antiquity, Universality, and Consent. But I am not now to deal with Anabaptists, but with a Papist.   

CHAP. XXII.  
Fisher.  
FOr proof whereof, let it be supposed that Master R●gers could (as he cannot) produce out of Scriptures, and Fathers, other Writers in all Ages as many, and as plain, and repugnant affirmative sentences against the negative Doctrine of Anabaptists, as Catholics ordinarily do against Protestants negatives: And then I ask Master Rogers, Whether this Anabaptist may not (as usually Protestant's do) take one, or other exception either of Argument, or Book, out of which the sentence is cited, as if it were not undoubtedly Canonical, or Authentical, or against the Translation, or Transcript, or Printed Copy, as not certainly known to be conform to the first Antographon, or Original, 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 Author. 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 Antiquity, which doth hold such an affirmative, contrary to his negative Doctrine, but only the opinion of some one, or few, whilst others hold the contrary, or seem doubtful. Or if it be showed to be the general 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 fundamental, and say, that they differ not from him in Doctrine necessary, but only in Doctrine accessary, and that notwithstanding this difference, they may, and are possessors of his faith, and members of his Anabaptist Church.  
All this doubtless 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 own Book, and maketh it appear to every judicious Reader, that he neither can truly name, sound prove, nor in any good sort defend either the Ancient Fathers, or any other Orthodox whom he nameth, or any lawful Pastors, or others, Catholics, or Heretics 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 showed, 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 wild discourse is to overthrow my Grounds, by showing that they may agree with an Anabaptist, who, as he supposeth, is not of the visible Church, & taketh it as granted by me, wherein he is deceived. For I hold the Anabaptist, though I condemn his error in denying Baptism unto children, to be a member of the visible Church, though diseased as the Papist is, and less diseased than he: his Argument which cometh from him as a Bear's Whelp, or worse (for ever it wanteth some principal limb) being form, is this.  
Those are no true Gounds, Distinctions, Definitions, or Arguments, an Anabaptist may prove himself to be of the Church.  
But by Master Roger's Grounds, Distinctions, Definitions, and Arguments, by which an Anabaptist may prove himself 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 fallacy of Petitio Principii, begging, and supposing that for a medium, and principle which is denied, or at least questioned: and spends himself wholly in proving the minor, which I grant, not for any proof that he brings, but for diverse other reasons which I can allege, as namely these amongst others.  
An erroneous opinion in matters of practice and moral precepts, doth not exclude out of the visible Church, but error in matters of faith.  
The error of the Anabaptist is in matters of practice, not in matters of faith.  
Ergo, His error doth not exclude him out of the visible Church.  
They do not deny Baptism, nor any thing that is substantial in Baptism, but only err in a circumstance of time, denying that unto children not absolutely, and for ever, but until 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 Baptism, as you suppose are damned, but I deny. If the delay of seven or eight years for Baptism, do exclude them out of the Church, because many thereby are deprived of Baptism, than a shorter delay of forty days, or eighty days, should exclude men out of the Church, because many children may die at twenty or thirty days old, and yet we know many Churches in the world, as the Coftie in Egypt, do not baptise their children before the fortieth day, though they should die without Baptism. 
Th. a jes. lib. 7. p. 1. c. 5. So Th. ibid. c. 6. Leo primus.  The Maronites whose Patriarch resideth in Syria, Baptise not their male children till forty days, nor their female till eighty days after their birth.  
He was a Pope of Rome which commanded, that Baptism should not be ministered at any other time then at Easter, and Whitsuntide, and can we think but that many children in the mean space did die. Socrates Scholasticus, testifieth, 
Hist. Eccl. 5. c. 21. l Tom. 4. disp. 4. puncto. 4.  that in Thessaly, by reason of deferring of Baptism until Easter, it happened that many, yea, the most died before Baptism. Your Gregory de Valenza, doth confess, that in the Primitive Church many holy, and godly men did defer their Baptism for a long season.  

Disp. de Sacramentis Tom. 1. Concil. in decretis Leonis primi Can. 6.  And your Suarez, and Binius do say, that the former custom 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 be excluded from the visible Church, because of the danger which by delay of Baptism, doth ensue to children; Then Pope Leo the first for Decreeing a delay of Baptism, 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 took it as a premise, or undoubted Proposition, thence to infer a Conclusion; let me propose the Argument again in that form which you most affect with Iffs and Ands.  
If Master Roger's Grounds be true, the Anabaptist receiving the Scriptures, Apostles Creed, and agreeing with the Protestants in all things, saving this, that he will not Baptism children, is of the Church.  
But such an Anabaptist is not of the Church.  
Ergo, Master Roger's 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 proof of the major which I grant.  
Whereas you say, and would have it supposed, that I cannot produce as many proofs against this Negative of the Anabaptist, as the Romanists do usually produce against Negatives, is most false; for instance, if you will bring me one Author for your half Communion, your Transubstantiation, the Books of Maccabees, 
Irenaeus, Origen. Cyprian. confessed by Bellarm. lib. 1. de bap. cap. 8.  to be Canonical; in all which you are Affirmative, and I Negative; I say, if you bring one Author in the first 300 years for these your affirmatives, I will bring three to one for our Affirmative of Baptising In the same time.  
I will produce for this my affirmative, Antiquity, Universality, and Consent; do 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 cavil again with my distinction of Doctrines fundamental, and doctrines accessary, not being able to produce one Argument against them; and ignorantly, or impudently deny a distinction delivered by Saint Augustine, received by your great Schoolman Aquinas, by your great jesuites, Bellarmine and Valenza, acknowledged by the Divines of our Church, as I have formerly showed out of these Authors, and the thing doth manifest itself, do not some things that are contained in Scripture more nearly concern our salvation, than 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 jacob loved Rachel better than Leah? Or that Pharaoh dreamt of fat and lean Kine? To what tends your School distinction;  
Of 

1. Fides explicita.  
& 2. Fides implicita.   of necessitas. 

1. Medii.  
2. Praecepti.    
And their large disputes, what are to be believed, necessitate medii, without which a man cannot be saved; and what necessitate praecepti, things that they ought to believe, and offend if they do not, but not with so great danger, as if they believe not the former: What mean these two Distinctions? and that which I cited out of Aquinas, and by which I explicated my own distinction of fundamental, and accessory, I mean res fidei 

Per se.  
Per accidens.    
If this be answering to except against the Grounds of Fathers, Schoolmen, jesuites, and reformed Divines, without framing one Argument against them, it is easy answering indeed.  
Whereas you say that none of the Authors by me alleged, not Luther himself held the entire Protestant Faith, is untrue: and you bring no proof, 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 denied, and you bring no reason to the contrary, yet still you urge it as your only medium, or principle. I have showed you reasons to the contrary, which when you answer, I will eat Paul's Steeple, one thing which I delivered in my first Answer, maketh it clear: the question between you and me, is of Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, Indulgences, worshipping of Images, etc. Which you affirm I deny, and therefore they are no points of my faith, for no man would deny his own faith, I will reduce it into form.  
No man will deny the points of his own faith.  
But we Protestants deny Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, 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 show 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 withal he give me a substantial ground well proved out of Scripture, why those particular points which he shall assign, are points of Protestant faith, rather than others, contained in the 39 Articles; If he say (as he hath already seemed to say) that none of their negative Doctrines pertain to their faith, and that all which is affirmed by Protestants is affirmed by Roman Catholics, and that this affirmative Doctrine only doth pertain to faith; it will follow that Protestants have no faith different from Roman Catholics; 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 ask why the book of the Canons doth excommunicate ipso facto, such half Protestants? Why do their Bishops imprison them as Heretics, and not account them members of their Church? And why may not Roman Catholics, by as good, or better right accownt Protestant's (who deny so many points defined in both ancient and recent General Counsels) to be Heretics, excommunicaeed, and no members of the ancient, and present Catholic Church.  
Rogers.  
That which you require here, 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 essential, this you know well enough, but because you have nothing to answer, you will demand the same question again. Look into my definition, there you shall find it; and I made the same request unto you for a definition of the visible Church, and what points you hold to be fundamental; to which you make no answer at all.  
I there also undertook to prove all our Affirmations which you deny, so you do the like, by your Affirmations which we deny, my words were these in my former answer.  
Roger's 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 do by testimonies of Writers in all ages, I will yield unto you: for you proving the Affirmative, the Negative will fall of itself, as for example; The first instance of Negation in our Articles, is part of the sixth Article concerning those books of Esdras, Tobit, judith, etc. which we receive not for Canonical: you do, the proof is on your side.  
What I require of you I will perform on our side, whatsoever is affirmative in our Articles, I will maintain 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 yield 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 down withal, which of your affirmative Articles you receive, and whether we agree in the Articles of the Creed, or not.  
I will do the like by you, and give you an instance in our Affirmatives, Show me who in every Age did receive the books of Esdras, Maccabees, Tobit, judith, etc. for Canonical in the 1, 2, 3, 4, Centurie of years; 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 Council of Trent, are matters of faith per se fundamental, and necessary to be held for salvation, fide explicita? I speak, de adultis quibus facultas discendidatur, Thus fare in my former Answer, to which you have made reply; you have neither shown 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, pass it over with silence; unless you had thought as the Boy did by his bodged verses, that what you wrote would never be read, but that men would read the Titles, and number the Pages, and there find written over head, Master Rogers weak Grounds, Master Rogers weak Arguments, would take the rest upon trust; would you ever have put Pen to Paper, and yet in matters of Controversies, never express what yourself held; nor tell us, being requested, what your own faith is, or to give a reason of your own faith; nor to define your own Church: And answer formally, and punctually to no one Argument, and frame no one Argument of your own; Hominis est vehementèr abutentis & otio, & literis. That a man should offer to write a Tract, and that in so sacred a profession, as Divinity, 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 form, or like a Scholar, 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 add unwritten Traditions) you bring not one place of Scripture to maintain those Affirmative Tenants of yours, which we deny, you account Articles of faith. And as for Theological conclusions, you infer none; you frame no Argument, you make no Syllogism, 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 think then, but that you have neither Scripture, nor reason for your faith, I mean in your new Creed in which you descent from us.  
Fisher.  
I require withal that he give me a substantial ground well proved out of Scripture, why those particular points which he shall assign, are points of Protestant faith, rather than others contained in the 39 Articles; if he say (as he hath already seemed to say) that none of their Negative Doctrines, pertain to their faith, and that all that is affirmed by Protestants, is affirmed by Roman Catholics, and that this Affirmative Doctrine only doth pertain to faith, it will follow that Protestants have no faith different from Roman Catholics.  
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 fain to confess that I distinguished (if he say, as he hath already seemed to say) that none of their Negative Doctrines, pertain 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 essential 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 ne'er a page in explicating, and exemplifying this Distinction, and in my Answer to your second Paper, which was delivered me as the work of five Jesuits, then conversant about Gondamors house: I wrote thus; 
As I did admonish Master Fisher to distinguish between Affirmation, and Negation, so I do these men, and that faith is Affirmation, not Negation, for no man believeth what he denieth.  
Secondly, In points of faith I like Master Fisher's Rule.  
They that are in the Affirmative must prove.   
Now all that we affirm, they affirm; as one God, three persons, all the Creed. So that we need not prove what our Adversaries do confess.  
But in those points in variance between us, they are to prove; because they are Affirmative, we Negative: as unwritten Traditions, Latin Service, Invocation of Saints, etc. Thus fare in my former Answer. This is saying plainly, this is not seeming. Whereas you infer, that seeing all which is affirmed by Protestants, is affirmed by Roman Catholics, and this Affirmative Doctrine only doth pertain to faith, it will follow that Protestants have no faith different from Roman Catholics. I grant the Consequence; what is this to the question, whether we are of the visible Church or no? this which you would infer, doth rather prove us to be a part of the visible Church, than any way gainsay 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 infer out of my Grounds as if I would deny it; no, I grant it, and so I hope will he the major, than the conclusion must follow.  
We differ from you in Ecclesiastical Doctrines, and Discipline, which you term 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 express 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 own writers are distracted into many and diverse opinions concerning them. 
Paulus venet. l. 1. & 2  What Antiquity have you for your half Communion, Worshipping of Images, etc. What Universality, seeing the Church of Greece of Syria the Georgians, Circassians, Mengiellians, 
Breitenbachius Purgr. c. de jacobitis. Vitrivius Histor. orientalis c. 76.  the Moscovites, and Russians, the Christians of Babylon, of Assyria, Mesopotamia, Parthia, Media, of Cassar, Samarcham, Charcham, Chinchtalis, Tanguth, Suchir, Ergimal, Tenduck, Caracam, Mangi, the jacobits, whose Sect is extended, and spread abroad in some forty Kingdoms, (which I assure myself is more large than all the Roman Church) do communicate in both kinds, worship not Images, deny Purgatory, and (which with you is more than all the rest) deny the Pope's Supremacy. So you have neither Antiquity nor Universality, (to which I might add) nor Consent among yourselves in those additions of yours, contained in your new Creed. As for one Instance, the Council of Trent hath made the books of Maccabees Canonical, 
Melitus Sau. 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 died within 400 years after the Incarnation, and wrote of that subject. Your Nicholaus Lyranus, Dionysius Carthusianus, Hugo, and Thomas de Ʋio, Cardinals: whereof this last was one of the most learned that ever the Church of Rome had, insomuch that in the Council of Trent it was said; I think no man here doth think himself so great a Divine but that he might learn of Cajetan. All these, I say, of your side exclude those Books from the Canon as we do: 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 Counsels, be points of faith, as you here say. And lest you should escape with your wand'ring discourses, and your flying from the question, I will press my argument in form.  
Whosoever denyeth the new Creed, or any Articles thereof, the Council of Trent, or any Doctrine thereof, is an Heretic, and denyeth the faith.  
But Carthusianus, and Thomas de Ʋio Cajetan, both Cardinals, deny some Articles of the new Creed, and some Doctrines of the Council of Trent.  
Ergo: Lyra Carthusianus, and Thomas de Ʋio, are Heretics, and deny the faith.  
I am sure you will hold this Conclusion to be false, if so then, one of the premises must be false, not the minor, ergo, the major, which is your Tenet whereby you would prove us to be Heretics, 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 concern the Unity of the Godhead, the Trinity of persons, and all those things which are contained in the Creed; I say therefore they differ in Ecclesiastical Doctrines, or Discipline, not in faith, so they receive the Scriptures and Apostles Creed.  
Fisher.  
Which last consquence, if Master Rogers grant, I ask why the books of Canons doth excommunicate, ipso facto, such half Protestants.  
Rogers.  
They may be excommunicated for gain saying Ecclesiastical Doctrines, or the established Discipline of the Church, they may be excommunicated as erroneous Shismaticks.  
Fisher.  
Why do their Bishops imprison them as Heretics, and not account them members of their Church.  
Rogers.  

Andrew's in his Defence of the Apology for the other. Bilson in his perpetual government of the Church. Carleton against the Appeal.  They must be imprisoned as Schismatics: Our Bishops do all profess that there are no Puritan Doctrines, that the difference is only in matter of Discipline, they count them neither Heretics, nor wholly excluded out of the Church: here you have supposed two falsehoods in two lines; those learned Protestants from beyond the Seas, whose Discipline doth somewhat vary from ours, do testify that the purity of Doctrine doth flourish in England purely, and sincerely; So Beza from Geneva, that by queen Elizabeth's coming to the Crown, God again had restored his Doctrine, and true worship; So Zanchius, that the whole compass of the world hath never seen any thing more to be wished, then is her Government; So Daneus.  
Fisher.  
And why not Roman Catholics by as good, or better right account Protestant's (who deny so many points defined in both ancient, and recent General Counsels) to be Heretics Excommunicated, and no members of the Ancient, and present Catholic Church.  
Rogers.  
If we did the one, you may do the other: but I have showed the falsehood of your supposition, that we count them Heretics, who descent from us in any of our Articles, they may be erroneous in a lesser nature than Heresy, & turbulent in those errors; they may be Schismatics disobedient unto Government, and so excommunicated, and imprisoned for either of those, without Heresy.  
If all Decrees of Counsels be Doctrines of faith, as you affirm, your Cardinal Bellarmine is deceived who saith that in Counsels the greatest part of those things which are done do not belong to faith, neither the Disputations concerning faith, nor the reasons which are added, nor those things which are brought for explication, and illustration, but only the very naked Decrees, and not all those, but they alone who are proposed as matters of faith. To this subscribed Widrington, in the Preface above alleged, and he voucheth Canus for the same opinion.   

CHAP. XXIIII.  
Fisher.  
I Ask what Scripture, or reason assureth that no Negative Doctrine pertains to faith? for Scripture having in it so many Negative sentences which are to be believed, assureth the contrary; neither is there any reason which can assure a man that he is freed from believing: for example this Negative, Deus non mentitur, God doth not lie; rather then from believing this Affirmative, Est Deus Verax, God is a true speaker, for both being said by one, and the same God, our Lord, Truth itself, and both being propounded by one and the same Catholic Church his Spouse, assisted by his Spirit, the Spirit of truth, as spoken by God in holy Scripture, both are equally to be believed; neither can any without danger of eternal damnation deny, or doubt of either those or any other, even the least point of Catholic faith, as we may learn out of Saint Athanasius Creed, saying, that, Whosoever will be saved, it is needful that he hold the Catholic faith, which unless each one hold entire (that is in all points) and inviolate (that is, in the true uncorrupted sense of the Catholic Church) without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. So as whether the Doctrine be Negative or Affirmative, whether fundamental, or accessary, supposing it to be a Doctrine propounded by the Catholic Church, as revealed by God, it must be believed explicit, or implicit, and may not rashly, or (which is worse) advisedly be denied, or doubted of, and much less may the contrary be obstinately maintained against the known judgement of a lawful General Council, or the unanime consent of the Pastors of the Church, in regard our Saviour hath expressly averred, That he who despiseth them, despiseth himself, and him that sent him, to wit, God his Father. And again, he that will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as an heathen, and Publican. All which showeth that such as do obstinately deny, or doubtingly dispute against any the least point known by Church proposition to be a point of Catholic faith, is worthily accounted an Heretic, a despiser of God, an excommunicated person, and no member of the true Catholic Church, and one who if he so live, and die without repentance, cannot be saved. But (as Athansius without any want of charity pronounceth) he shall without doubt perish everlastingly.  
Rogers.  
I have answered you more than once, and given you reasons more than one, or two, why Negations are not matters of faith, per se. fundamental, and necessary, for I brought this distinction of Affirmation, and Negation after those distinctions of Doctrine.  

1. Accessory, of res fidei per se & res fidei per accidens.  
2. Doctrine fundamental of res fidei per se & res fidei per accidens.   
Then I added this distinction of Affirmation and Negation, so that my meaning appeared by the connexion it had with that which went before, that Negations are not points or Articles of faith, are not fundamental doctrines, are not res fidei per se, I did not say but they might be res fidei per accidens, as all propositions revealed in Scriptures, whether affirmative, or negative are, besides those Articles of faith. Here than you do not dispute, ad idem, non facis elenchum, you prove what I do not deny, you prove that Negatives contained in Scripture, pertain to faith, which I do not deny, but you do not prove that they are points of faith, fundamental Doctrines, res fidei per se, things proper and essential unto faith, as your great Schooleman Aquinas, your Bellarmine, and Valenza have written, cited by me afore; where I have also shown the difference between being a matter of faith, and pertaining to faith, neither do I say that any man is freed from believing this Negative; God doth not lie, or any other Negative revealed in Scripture, but that an implicit faith may serve in all Negatives, as well as those Affirmatives which are not Articles of the Creed, I say again that,  
Negatives in Scripture are res fidei 

per accidens  
non per se.    
They are accidental unto faith not essential.  
There is no general necessity to believe them, fide explicita, so to believe them as actually to know them, but it is sufficient to believe them, fide implicita, with a mind prepared actually to believe them, when they do appear unto us actually to be revealed in Scripture.  
All things revealed in Scripture have 

aequalem veritatem,  
non aequalem utilitatem.    
They are equally true, but not equally profitable.  
For these propositions, God is not a liar; God is not as man, the heathen hath no knowledge of his Law. Pharaoh was not obedient. And all that are Negatives in Scripture, being put together, cannot inform a man in that saving truth which is sufficient for his soul's health to believe; but a few Affirmatives, twelve Propositions contained in the Creed can do it.  
Again I say that,  
All things revealed in Scripture have 

aequalem necessitatem credendi,  
non aequalem necessitatem cognoscendi.    
It is not a like necessary for us to know all things revealed in Scripture: but it is a like necessary for us to believe them when we know them.  
As you have falsified the predicate of my Proposition, by changing points of faith unto that which pertaineth unto faith, fundamental into accessary; proper, and essential into that which is accidental; so have you falsified the subject of the same Proposition: for immediately after that distinction of Affirmation, and Negation, my words were these; In those Articles of our English Church, our Negation is partly a traversing, partly a condemning of your novelties, and additions, and therefore no part of our faith, for no man would deny his own faith. Thus fare in my former Answer, as also in a few lines after, my words were these, The first instance of Negation in our Articles, is part of the sixth Article concerning those Books of Esdras, Tobit, judith, etc. whereby it appeareth manifestly, that I spoke not of Negatives revealed in Scripture, but of Negatives in Doctrines Ecclesiastical. Now that you should argue from Negatives in Scripture to Negatives out of Scripture, is à baculo ad angulum from the staff to the corner, my Tenet therefore is that,  
Negatives revealed in Scripture are res fidei 

per accidens,  
non per se,    
Negatives not revealed in Scripture, are not res fidei 

vel per se,  
vel er accidens,    
Are neither essentially nor accidentally the object of faith.  
That which you allege out of Athanasius; I willingly embrace, I receive his Creed, I have often professed it in public, but what is that to your new Creed? I find in Athanasius his Creed, neither Purgatory, nor Indulgence, nor Transubstantiation, nor Invocation of Saints, nor seven Sacraments, nor worshipping of Images.  
Whereas you say I must hold it in the uncorrupted sense of the Catholic Church, I do embrace it, but I will not understand the Church of Rome, or the Pope for the Catholic Church as you do. The Catholic Church never received your Purgatory, your half Communion, your worshipping of Images, as I have showed already; I will obstinately maintain nothing contrary to the known judgement of a lawful General Council, but your Counsels of Trent, and Lateran are no such, they are but fopperies, and the juggling tricks of the Popish faction to cousin the world. Whatsoever we deny, when you prove it out of Scripture, we will believe it; here is no obstinacy. Whatsoever is determined by Counsels, we will receive, fide humana, but not divina, as the saying of Reverend men, but not as the Oracles of God. So also we approve the unanimous consent of the Fathers, in receiving all revealed truth, we are fare from Heresy: in submitting to the Catholic Church, and Decrees of Counsels, we clear ourselves from being Schismatics: in following the unanimous consent of the Fathers, we show ourselves to be no Innovators; but you by worshipping of Images, show what respect you have to Scripture; by your new Creed you show what reverence you have to General Counsels, seeing the Council of Chalcedon decreed, having repeated that which is commonly called the Nicene Creed, 
Isidor. fol. 83 and urged by the Grecians in the Council of Florence. Surius Tom. 4. Sesse. 5. Ferrariae habita. Lib. 7. c. 1. de loc. The. pag. 422, 423. De rebus Muscovitarum pag. 38. In apara. Sacr. in Diamperi. Conc.  that no man should write or say other Creed, and whosoever did, if Bishops and Clergymen, let them be deposed; if Monks, and Lay men, let them be accursed. What regard you have to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, appeareth by your Doctrine, that the Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin, contrary to Chrysostome, Ambrose, Augustine, Bernard, and all the holy men that made mention of that point, as your own Canus confesseth: and so you are Innovators, Schismatics, and Heretics, despised, and excommunicated by all other Christian Churches in the World. By the Grecians, as appeareth by Posevine your own Jesuit; by the Indians, as is acknowledged by the same Author; by the Coftie of Egypt, and consequently by all the rest of the jacobites the Aethiopians, and others acknowledging all subjection unto the Patriarch of Alexandria, so that upon you alone that curse is fallen.  Nec amet quenquam, nec ametur ab ullo. 
You hate, you condemn all Churches of the World; and they condemn you, you account them for Schismatics, and Heretics, and they you for Schismatics, Heretics and Idolaters; your worshipping of Images, hinder the conversion of the jews and Turks, who for this cause esteem you for subtle Atheists, and heathenish Idolaters, falling down to a block, and worshipping the work of men's hands. We worship God.  
Fisher.  
Whereas therefore it is certain that Protestants hold diverse Negative Doctrines, not only not found in, but contrary to Scriptures, Counsels, and Fathers, and other Orthodox Authors in all Ages; It evidently followeth, that Master Rogers hath not yet named, nor can name, nor hath proved, nor can prove, or defend any of those he named, or undertaketh to name, to have been visible Protestants in all Ages before Luther, and consequently he cannot be said to have made any good answer, either to Master Fishers Question, or to his five Propositions, or to his other Paper, written to explicate the sense of the said Question.  
Rogers.  
What you say, certainly is most false, that Protestants hold diverse Negative Doctrines contrary to Scriptures, Counsels, and Fathers, if you understand General Counsels, and unanimous consent of Fathers. We hold many Doctrines not expressly set down in Scriptures, but none contrary to Scriptures, neither do we count any thing matter of faith, but what is expressly contained in Scriptures. Whereas you say, that I have not yet named, nor proved Authors of the Protestants faith in all Ages, the present discourse will show to be false, which I refer to the Reader.   
Deo gloria in aeternum.  
FINIS.