The answere vnto the nine points of controuersy, proposed by our late soueraygne (of famous memory) vnto M. Fisher of the Society of Iesus And the reioynder vnto the reply of D. Francis VVhite minister. With the picture of the sayd minister, or censure of his writings prefixed.

The first Example. §. 1.

THE (a) 1.1 Iesuit to prooue against protestants, ar∣gumento ad hominem, that the Roman is the true Church, argueth in this sort: That Church from which Protestants receaued the Scripture, is the one, holy, Catholik Apostolike Church. The Church from which Protestants receaued, is no other then the Roman: Ergo, The Roman is the one, holy, Catholike & Apostolike Church.

To this argument you reply pag. 116. This syllo∣gisme is peccant in forme, and both the propositions are af∣firmatiue in the second figure: which I note the rather, be∣cause the Aduersary at the end of this Argument, cryeth victoria, saying; An argument conuincing and vnanswe∣rable: I must therefore reduce the same to a lawfull forme and then answere. Thus you. Now vouchsafe to take a view of your manifold ignorance.

I pretermit your falshood in charging the Iesuit of saying, that this Argument is conuictiue, & vn∣answerable. For the Iesuite doth not so affirme of this argument, but of another, to wit of this: If it be possible, that the Church can deliuer, by full and vnanimous consent, a false sense; then it is possible that in like manner she may deliuer a false text. But protestants cannot say that the Church, by full and vnanimous consent of Tradition, can deliuer a false

text: Ergo, they may not say, it is possible that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Church should deliuer by ful & vnanimous cōsen•• a false sense. This argument the Iesuit tearmeth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 answerable, not the other which you challenge •• peccant in forme. But this your falshood I pretermi•• and only prosecute your faultes in Logicke The•••• are foure, and so grosse as they shew cleerly that yo•• neuer learned, or else haue vtterly forgot the Sur••••mula's or Rudiments of this Arte, which childre•• customarily are taught.

The first fault is, not to distinguish betwixt 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Second & Third Figure, which is as childish in L••••gike, as in Grammer not to know the third Decle••••sion from the second. You say, the Iesuits argume•••• is in the second figure, and therefore peccant in form•••• both propositions being affirmatiue: Whereas i•• truth the same is in the third figure, in which it lawful to argue both propositions being affirmati•••• The third figure is, wherein the Medium, or mean•• of proofe is subiected in both propositions, that is▪ the thing wherof another terme is predicated, th•••• is, is affirmed or denyed. In the Iesuites Argumēt 〈◊〉〈◊〉 medium to prooue the Roman to be the holy, Catho••like Church, is the Church from which Protesta•••• receaued Scriptures: This Church from which Pr••••testants receaue the Scripture is predicated in ne••••ther of his propositions, but in both is subiected, th•••• is, is the terme wherof another thing is affirmed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sayd In the maior proposition of the Church 〈◊〉〈◊〉 gaue protestants the scripture, One, Holy, Catholi•••• Apostolike is affirmed: The Church from whic•• Protestants receaued the scripture, is the one, holy Apostolike Church. In the minor likwise of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉

Church from which Protestants receaue Scripture, the Roman is predicated. The Church from which Protestāts receaue the Scripture is the Romā. Hence in lawfull forme in the third figure, followes this conclusion, Ergo, the Roman is the one, holy, Catho∣like, & Apostolike Church.

Your second fault is grosser then the first. For you know not the quality of Propositions, nor can discerne a negatiue from an affirmatiue, which is as great simplicity in Logicke, yea greater then in Grā∣mer not to know the termination of the second De∣clension from the first. You say, in the Iesuits Argu∣ment both propositions are pure affirmatiue, wher∣as his Minor is in part negatiue, to wit, Protestants receaued the Scripture from no other but the Ro∣man. Who feeles not this proposition to be part∣ly negatiue, wherein is denyed, that any Church besides the Roman, is that Church from which Pro∣testants can pretend the Scriptures, to wit, authen∣tically, or by assured perpetuall Tradition, hand to hand from the Apostles? For Exceptiue and Exclu∣siue Enuntiations, be compound Enuntiations, partly Affirmatiue, partly Negatiue, and as Logitians teach, the (b) 1.2 Exposition of them is to be made into two single propositions, whereof the one is negatiue, the other affirmatiue. So the Iesuites proposition Prote∣stants receaued Scripture by no other Church but the Ro∣man, being exceptiue, is to be expounded by a Nega∣tiue, No Church not Roman, is the Church from which Protestants receaued Scripture; and also by an affirma∣tiue, The Church from which Protestants receaued Scrip∣ture, is the Roman. Hence the Iesuit, as he did conclu∣de in a forme of the third figure called Disamis, his

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

minor being partly affirmatiue, so might he haue concluded in a forme of the second termed Came∣stres, the same minor being also negatiue in this manner: The Holy Catholike Church is that from which Protestants receaued the Scripture: No Church but the Roman, is that Church from which Protestāts receaued the Scripture: Ergo, No Church but the Roman is the holy, Catholike, Apostolike Church.

Your third fault is, not to know the forme of Expository Syllogismes from the common An Ex∣pository syllogisme is that, wherein the meanes of proofe is a singular and indiuiduall thing, in which kind it is good forme to argue affirmatiuely in any fi∣gure euen in the second. For example this sillogisme: The Minister grossely ignorant in Logicke, replyed agaynst M. Fisher. The Deane of Carlile is he who replyed against M. Fisher. Ergo, the Deane of Car∣liele is the Minister grossely ignorant of Logicke This sillogisme is in the second figure, and both pro∣positions are affirmatiue; yet if you deny the forme of arguing to be good, you will but confirme the truth of the conclusion. Hence the Iesuit might in good forme haue argued affirmatiuely in the second figure, in this manner. The One, Holy, Catholike, & Apostolicall Church, is that Church from which Protestants pretend to haue the Scriptures authenti∣cally: The Roman is that Church from which Pro∣testants pretend to haue the Scriptures authentical∣ly: Ergo, the Roman is the One, Holy, Catholike, A∣postolicall Church.

Your fourth fault is, that yow play the Refor∣mer of Arguments, as Luther did of Churches, that

is, you reiect lawfull and good formes, and in lieu of them bring in vicious and damnable. The Iesuits argument as by yow (c) 1.3 reformed is this: The Church from which Protestants receaued the scriptures, is the One, Holy, Catholike, and Apostolicall Church: Protestants re∣ceaued the scripture from the Roman: Ergo, the Roman is the One, Holy, Catholike, Apostolicall Church. In this re∣formed argument both propositions are particuler, and consequently the forme of arguing vicious in any figure, as euery Logitian knowes. The Iesuit to preuent this fault made his minor an vniuersall Pro∣position: For this proposition, Protestants receaued the Scriptures from no other Church but the Roman, is equiualent, or equipollent vnto this, Euery Church deliuering scriptures vnto Protestants is Roman. Where∣fore to reduce the Iesuits argument in true forme vnto the first Figure, you should haue made the maior (d) 1.4 Vniuersall in this sort: Euery Chuch that de∣liuered vnto Protestants the scriptures is the Catholike: The Roman deliuered the Scriptures vnto Protestants: Ergo, the Roman Church is the Catholike Church. If you say the Meanes of proofe in the Iesuits argumēt is Indiuiduall, and so the Syllogisme Expository, & not according to the ordinary forme; why then do you reprehend his argument, as being affirmatiue in the second figure, seing Expository Syllogismes may be affirmatiue in any figure? Are yow a Do∣ctour, a Deane, a Maister in Israell, and know not these things? Being so ignorant of Logicke, were yow so destitute likewise of discretiō, as yow could not keepe your selfe from carping at the Iesuit, as peccant in Logicke? Could you not at least haue been silent about figures and formes of arguing, concer∣ning

which, yow speake no more assuredly, then a blind man of colours?

Some may say, that though yow be ignorant of Logicke, yow do not greatly care, because this your Ignorance howsoeuer euident vnto the lear∣ned, cannot be made palpable vnto the Ladyes who esteeme yow, and are lead away by yow. I answere: Although your Ignorance in Logicke cannot by this discourse be made palpable vnto Ladyes; yet the falshood of your Religion, euen about your ground and rule of fayth, may be made palpable vn∣to them. Yow make the rule of Fayth to be not ex∣presse scripture, affirming a thing in so many words (for then the Ladyes that can read, might straight discouer the falshood of your Religion, wherof not one article against vs is expressely deliuered in scrip∣ture:) You therefore (I say) make the rule of Fayth to be not only Scripture, but also (e) 1.5 what doctrine soeuer is by Principles of reason, and Rules of Lo∣gicke deduced from the Scripture. Now whē a thing is deduced from scripture, by good consequence, by true art, and not by Sophistry, Ladyes, except they haue diligently studyed Logicke, cannot possibly know. This is euident. For nothing is deduced by good consequence from scripture, which is not de∣duced by discourse in lawfull figure & forme, & not by Sophistry, or a fallacious shew: But the Ladyes cannot possibly know, when an argument is in true moode and figure, nor consequently discerne Syllo∣gismes from Sophismes, which their insufficiency they must needes feele in themselues, if they be in their senses: Therfore they cannot possibly be assu∣red, by the ground and rule of Fayth you prescribe

them, nor consequētly can they groundedly belieue Christian Religion, nor be saued. They must trust ignorant Ministers, who crye Sophistry, Sophistry agaynst argumēts in lawfull forme, as now you haue done, not so much out of malice, but as I am persua∣ded, out of meere Ignorance of such Rudiments of discourse, as men are taught in their childhood.

Notes

• (a) 1.1

  Reply. pag. 116.
• (b) 1.2

  Enuntia∣tiones expo∣nibiles.
• (c) 1.3

  Reply pag. 117.
• (d) 1.4

  For as Logicke tea∣ches, In pri∣ma Figura maior semper est vniuersa∣lis.
• (e) 1.5

  The do∣ctrine of fayth is ey∣ther expres∣sely or deri∣uatiuely cō∣tayned in Scripture. Fran. white pag. 300. What is de∣duced by ne∣cessary con∣sequence ac∣cording to the rules of Logicke. VVott••n. Tria••l. pag. 88.