An answer to a pamphlet, intituled: The Fisher catched in his owne net In vvhich, by the vvay, is shevved, that the Protestant Church was not so visible, in al ages, as the true Church ought to be: and consequently, is not the true Church. Of which, men may learne infallible faith, necessarie to saluation. By A.C.

AN ANSWER TO A PAMPHLET , INTITVLED : THE FISHER CATCHED IN HIS OWNE NET . IN WHICH , BY THE WAY , IS SHEWED , That the Protestant Church was not so visible , in al Ages , as the true Church ought to be : and consequently , is not the true Church . Of which , men may learne infallible Faith , necessarie to Saluation . By A. C.

MATTH. 28. vers. 19 , 20. Going , teach al Nations , baptizing them , &c. Behold , I am with you AL DAYES , euen to the consummation of the World . EPHES. 4. vers. 11 , 14. Christ gaue some Apostles , and some Prophets ; othersome Euangelists , and othersome PASTORS and DOCTORS , &c. that we be not Children , WAVERING and CARRIED ABOVT with euerie winde of Doctrine , &c.

M. D. C. XXIII .

THE PREFACE .

GEntle Reader , although I doubt not , but al that be wise and iudicious especially if they duly consider the occasion and state of the question , lately treated ( in a Conference betwixt D. White and D. Featly Ministers ; and M. Fisher and M. Sweet Iesuits ) wil easily discerne ( euen by that false Relation , which is set out in print by a Protestant ) that the Protestants Cause hath not gained any thing : Neuerthelesse , because those who be partially affected , or of meane capacitte , may ( as it is to be doubted diuers doe ) conceiue and speake amisse of this matter , to the disgrace of the Catholike Cause , and the preiudice of their owne and other mens soules : I haue thought it needful to set out a true Relation of the occasion , progresse , and issue of that Conference , and this in such sort , as diuers falsehoods of the Protestant Relator , may be easily perceiued , and the weakenesse of the Protestants Cause may be euidently discouered ; which is also so bad , as it seemeth it cannot be supported , but by setting out such lying Relations ; the sight and consideration whereof , maketh me more easily beleeue that to be true which I haue read , viz. That a decree was made by Diuines Eudaimon Iohannes in defens . p. H. Garn. in Geneua , defyning it lawful to lye for the honor or credit of the Gospel ; and that conformably to this decree , an English Minister being told that one of his Powfellowes had made lyes in stead of proofes of his Protestant Religion , did answer , saying : He cannot lye too much in D. Bishop against Rob. Abbots . this cause . It must needes be a weake and bad cause , that needeth to be supported by such weake and bad shifts . I for my part wil not promise , to haue perfectly remembred and set downe euery word that passed in this Conference , especially spoken by by-standers ; nor to haue strictly obserued the precise order of euerie passage : but for the substance , and truth of the matter that I doe relate , I assure , that there shal not be found any falsehood , vnlesse it be in some of those Parcels ; which I doe not relate of my selfe , but out of the Protestant Relator : whose Relation ordinarily as I doe not contradict , vnlesse it be vpon necessarie occasion ; so I doe not intend to approue : but simply relating what it saith , I wil leaue it to others to iudge , what they thinke fit of it . Onely this I wil say , That euerie one may beleeue it so farre , as it relateth any thing , which may aduantage the Catholique Defendants , and their Cause , or disaduantage the Protestant Disputants , and their Cause . For it is certaine , that no man wil lye for the aduantage of his Aduersarie , or his Cause ; nor for his owne disaduantage . But in such things as it hath set downe aduantagiously for the Protestant Disputant , or his Cause , there is iust reason to suspect it ; in regard I am told , that D. Featly himselfe ( who is said to be the Author ) hath confessed , That more is said in the Relation , then was said in the Conference it selfe ; and I am sure something is left out , which was said , and something mis-reported . This being premised , by way of Preface , I wil begin to discourse of the matter it selfe .

CHAP. I. About the first occasion of the Conference , in which is shewed , that Master Fisher did not seeke it , or prouoke his Aduersaries by any challenge vnto it , nor did intend to haue it so publike , as by his Aduersaries fault it proued

The Protestant Relator of this Conference , setteth downe the occasion in these words .

EDWARD BVGGS Esquire , about the age of 70. yeeres , being lately sicke , was solicited by some Papists then about him , to forsake the Protestant Faith , telling him : There was no hope of saluation , without the Church ; there was no Catholike Church but theirs ; and to beleeue the Catholike Church , was the Article of his Creede ; and by it , could no other Church be meant but the Church of Rome , because it could not be proued by al the Protestants in the Kingdome , that they had any Church before Luther .

This Gentleman being much troubled in his mind with these and the like suggestions , who al his life time had beene , and prosessed himselfe a Religious Protestant , became now more sicke in mind then body .

After his recouerie , being much troubled in mind with these former suggestions of the Popish Priests , he repayred to Sir Humfrey Lynd Knight ; who , by reason of his alliance , and long acquaintance with him , gaue the best satisfaction that he could to his said Cousin Master Buggs ? who seemed to take content in such his Conference , and to be wel satisfyed by him , in al points .

But the Popish Priests and Iesuits not desisting to creepe in further , where they had once made a breach , perseuering stil in questioning him , where his Church was before Luther .

Whereupon hee repayred againe to Sir Humfrey Lynd , and required some further satisfaction of him , concerning that demand . And thereupon Sir Humfrey Lynd told him , it was first in Christ and the Apostles , A very weake and Insufficient satisfaction , as is showed hereafter . consequently also conspicuous in the Primitiue Church , for 600. yeeres after Christ , after which time some errors crept into the Church , as diseases into a mans body , so that the Church which Luther & we acknowledge , was in general the same Christian Church , as his body was the same substantial body being now wel and lately sicke , though different in the qualities , &c.

How farre this parcel of the Relation is true or false , I wil not stand to discusse , as not yet knowing how , or by whom , the aforesaid Gentleman came first to doubt of his Church , and consequently of his Religion ; yet I haue some cause to doubt , that it is not altogether true , especially in that he saith : The Popish Priests and Iesuits not desisting to creepe in further where they had ●●ce made a breach , perseuering stil in questioning him : where his Church was before Luther ? For I doe not thinke that many ( if any at al ) Priests or Iesuits , did first put this doubt into the old Gentleman his head , nor perseuered in questioning him about it . And for Master Fisher in particular , I know certainly that hee neuer saw this old Gentleman , much lesse did he speake to him , in any matter of Religion , til that time , when Sir Humfrey Lynd first met Master Fisher . The which meeting is mentioned in the Protestant Relation , saying thus :

And after his returne to London , the said Sir Humfrey Lynd going to Master Buggs his house in Drury lane , to vsit him , found Master Fisher the Iesuit there , where after some debates about Religion , and the visibilite of the Church , Master Fisher called for Pen and Inke , and set downe this question in terminis , thereby adding vnder his hand , that he would answer vpon it negatiuely , as challenging and expecting Opposers ; deliuering also the Paper into the hands of the said Sir Humfrey Lynd ; who vpon view of it , answered : That it was an Historical question , and not so proper for disputation . But Master Fisher vrging it , Sir Humfrey told him : If he would goe to D. Whites , where formerly he had beene , the said D. would easily resolue those doubts , which being refused by the Iesuite , the said Sir Humfrey did then returne him his Paper againe , and so left him .

In this parcel some thing is omitted , some thing misreported , as wil appeare by this which followeth :

A certaine Catholike Gentleman , comming to Master Fisher , told him : That the aforesaid old Gentleman was desirous to heare D. White and him dispute ; and therefore desired to know , whether he would think it conuenient to vndertake a meeting with D. White . M. Fisher told him expresly , that hee neither might , nor would make any challenge to D. White ; but , saith hee : If D. White doe challenge me , I wil not refuse .

And some reason M. Fisher gaue to the Gentleman , to let him see , that it was not fit that he should be a Challenger in such a businesse : whereupon the Gentleman , for feare of mis-deliuering M. Fishers mind , did intreat M. Fisher to deliuer his owne answer to a Protestant Knight , Sir Humfrey Lynd , who was imployed by the said old Gentleman , to moue D. White to come to such a meeting . M. Fisher hauing some acquaintance in the house where the old Gentleman was , said : He would that night be there , and if the Knight would come , he should heare the same answer . So M. Fisher came , and Sir Humfrey ( being aduised by the said Catholike Gentleman , of M. Fishers intention to be there ) also came . And after some speeches , the question was moued , Whether M. Fisher would speake with D. White about the visibilitie of the Church ? He answered as before : That he would not challenge D. White ; but if D. White would challenge him to treate of that matter , he would not refuse . It was answered : That it was not meant in the nature of a challenge , but to haue a quiet meeting , to satisfie the old Gentleman : and so Sir Humfrey wished M. Fisher to set downe the questions . Then M. Fisher hauing heard wherein the Gentleman did chiefely doubt , set downe these two questions :

Whether there must not bee in al ages a visible Church , of which , al sorts must learne that one infallible faith which is necessary to saluation ?

Whether the Protestants Church was in al ages visible , especially in the ages before Luther : and whether the names of such visible Protestants in al ages , may be shewed out of good Authors ?

The first question being read before Sir Humfrey and the old Gentleman , and some others , they said : That it was out of question , that such a visible Church as the question mentioned , must needes bee granted ; whereupon M. Fisher tooke his Pen , and subscribed to the first question , these words : It is granted . Which being supposed ; M. Fisher read the second question , and was contented it should be the onely Question , for so Sir Humfrey desired ; who also bad M. Fisher choose , whether he would be the Disputer or Answerer . M. Fisher said , It would be requisite both to dispute and answer . Yet Sir Humfrey vrging him to choose the one or other part , M. Fisher said , I wil answer ; and so he tooke his Pen , and writ in the Margent briefely , what answer he meant to make to the whole Question , and said : I wil answer , that it was not ; to wit , so visible as the Question required .

This Paper , in which these Questions were , Sir Humfrey tooke , but with intent , that onely one , that is , the second , should be disputed on . Then question being made about the Place , Sir Humfrey named D. Whites house . M. Fisher said , he had no reason to goe to the Doctors house ; in regard , the last time he was there , it was giuen out , and made a general report , That M. Fisher would haue killed D. White in his house . And therefore , saith M. Fisher , I wil not goe , vnlesse himselfe inuite me : but if he inuite , I wil goe . Sir Humfrey doubted , that D. White would not inuite M. Fisher : and so , for want of agreeing about the Place , M. Fisher verily thought , that no meeting would be at al : yet he did not take againe the Paper , in which the Questions were ; but eyther left them with Sir Humfrey , or the old Gentleman : yet without any minde at al , to make any challenge , as he had more then once expressed .

About two dayes after ( saith the Protestant Relator ) M. Buggs repayred to Sir Humfrey Lynd , and entreated him ( for his satisfaction ) to giue M. Fisher a meeting , saying : That M. Fisher had againe told him , That he would maintaine what he had set downe ; and that our Diuines could not proue our Church visible , before Luthers time . Whereupon Sir Humfrey told him , That D. White and D. Featly were to dyne with him on Fryday following ; and if , after Dinner , M. Fisher would come thither , with foure , or six at the most , they should be admitted for his sake and his Wifes , who ( by reason of such sollicitation ) were troubled in their mindes ; and satisfaction should be giuen , as occasion required . And these were the true causes of the meeting .

What to say to this Parcel , I know not , because it was priuate , betwixt Sir Humfrey and the old Gentleman . But there were other more remarkable passages , omitted by the Protestant Relator , which I thinke fit to set downe . As first , That M. Fisher comming to the old Gentleman , the next day , or next but one , after the Question was set downe ; found him stil desirous , to haue the meeting goe forward : and then it may very wel be , that M. Fisher might say ; He would maintaine what he had set downe , and that Protestant Diuines could not proue the Protestant Church visible , before Luthers time . But what in particular he said , he doth not remember . Onely he is sure he made no challenge ; and so the old Gentleman did wel vnderstand : who told M. Fisher , That it was intended onely to be a friendly and a priuate meeting at Sir Humfrey his owne house : and that D. White would bring with him one to assist him , as M. Fisher should bring with him one to assist him ; and beside , some foure more , whom they thought good , to be Witnesses ; and two Writers , to set downe on each part what was said : and that Fryday next should be the day .

M. Fisher hearing this equal offer , did not refuse : but ( to prepare the mind of the old Gentleman , to be better able to make benefit of what should be said about it ) writ , and deliuered vnto him a Paper , shewing briefely and plainely , how the true visible Church of Christ must be so visible in al Ages , as that the names of some principal Members thereof , in euerie Age , may be shewed out of good Authors .

A true Copie of which Paper , I thinke fit here to set downe ; in regard it may serue others , as wel as this old Gentleman , to vnderstand , Why Catholiques doe ordinarily so much presse Protestants , to name ( if they can ) Protestant Professors , in al Ages , as Catholiques doe in printed Bookes ordinarily set downe , a Catalogue of the Names of the chiefe Pastors , and other principal Members of the Catholique Roman Church , in al Ages .

A Copie of the first Paper , which M. Fisher writ , and deliuered to the old Gentleman , before the meeting .

1. It is certaine , There is one , and but one true infallible Eph. 4. Heb. 11. Faith ; without which , none can please God , nor consequently , attaine eternal Salnation .

2. This one infallible Faith cannot be had ( according to the ordinarie course of Gods prouidence ) but Rom. 10. v. 14 , 15. Eph. 4. 11. by hearing Preachers and Pastors of the true visible Church , who onely are lawfully sent and authorized to teach the true Word of God .

3. As therefore this one infallible Faith hath beene , and must be , in al Ages : so there must needes be , in al Ages , Preachers and Pastors of the true visible Ose. 2. v. 19 , 20. Isa. 59. 20. Matth. 18. 20. Eph. 4. v. 11. Church ; of whom , al sorts of people haue in time past ( as appeareth by Histories ) learned , and must in al future times , learne the said infallible Truth .

4. Hence followeth , That if Protestants be the true visible Church of Christ ; al sorts of men , who in euerie Age haue had the aforesaid infallible Faith , haue learned it , by hearing Protestant Preachers , whose names may yet be found in Histories ; as the names of those are found , who in euerie former Age did teach and conuert People of seueral Nations vnto 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 al Ages did teach al sorts of faithful People , and who conuerted seueral Nations vnto the Christian Faith : Hence followeth , I say , That Protestants are not the true visible Church of Christ ; neyther are their Preachers lawfully sent , or sufficiently authorized to teach ; nor People securely warranted , to learne of them that one infallible Faith , without which none can possibly please God , nor ( if they so liue and dye ) be saued .

If any Protestant wil answer ; let him set downe Names of Protestant Preachers in al Ages , who taught People Protestant Doctrine in euerie seueral Age ; or confesse , there were no such before Luther ; or , at least , not in al Ages to be found in Histories .

After this , M. Fisher let the old Gentleman see a little printed Booke , in which was a Catalogue of visible Roman Professors in al Ages : wishing him to vrge his Ministers , to shew ( if they can ) a like Catalogue of their Protestant Professors . And it is very likely , that this Booke ( as also the foresaid Paper ) was by this old Gentleman carryed to Sir Humfrey : from whom , about two or three dayes before the meeting , a Paper was sent to M. Fisher , contayning the former Question ; and another like Question proposed to him , to dispute vpon : the contents whereof were as followeth .

The question proposed by M. Fisher , in which he vndertaketh to maintaine the negatiue , is set downe by him in haec verba :

Whether the Protestant Church was in al ages visible , especially in the ages going before Luther : and whether the names of such visible Protestants , in al ages , can be shewed and proued out of good Authors ?

To this vniuersal demand ( requiring rather an Historical large volume then Syllogical briefe disputes , we answer , That although :

1. Diuine infallible Faith is not built vpon deduction out of humane Historie , but diuine Reuelation , as is confessed by the Schoolemen , and expressely by Bellarmine , Historiae humanae non faciunt fidem nisi humanam .

2. And this question is grounded vpon vncertaine and false supposals : yet wee requite this Proponent , putting him to his owne taske in his owne defence , by propounding to him the like question : viz.

Whether the Romish Church , ( that is , a Church holding the particular entire doctrine of the now Romanists , as it is comprised in the Councel of Trent ) was in al ages visible , especially in the first 600. yeeres ; and whether the names of such visible or legible Romanists in al ages can be shewed and proued out of good Authors ?

We wil answer negatiuely , That no such Church or Professors can be shewed .

This Paper being deliuered to M. Fisher , he writ a second Paper , to explicate the meaning of his question , to shew an equal method of proceeding in the Disputation .

A Copie of a second Paper , written by M. Fisher before the meeting .

M. Fisher being requested thereunto , for satisfaction of a Gentleman , propounded two questions :

1. The first , Whether there must not be in al ages a visible Church , of which al sorts are to learne the infallible Faith , necessary to saluation ?

2. The second , Whether the Protestant Church was in al ages visible , especially in the ages going before Luther ; and whether the names of such visible Protestants in al ages can be shewed , and proued out of good Authors ?

To the first question , Sir H. and others that were present , assented ; so as it was subscribed with these words , It is granted : and so M. Fisher was content , that his second question should be the only question . Then Sir H ▪ hauing left it to the choice of M. F. whether he would answer , or dispute : M. F. did choose to answer , and defend the negatiue part . So as it lyeth vpon Sir H. and those whom he shal choose , to make his party good , to proue out of good Authors the affirmatiue ; to wit : The Protestants Church was in al ages visible , especially in the ages before Luther . And likewise , they must set downe the names of such visible Protestants in al ages , as was demanded . When Sir H. or his friends shal haue performed this their taske , M. Fisher wil performe what is required in the Paper sent vnto him by Sir H. in the same sort and sense , as he requireth Sir H. and his friends to performe their taske .

For auoyding therefore of al mistaking , and consequently , needlesse and fruitlesse Disputes , M. F. in his question requireth :

1. That names of men in al ages be set downe , whom Sir H. and his friends conceiue to haue bin Protestants .

2. That those men whose names they set downe , be shewed out of good Authors , to agree in holding some points of Faith , in which Protestants differ from the Romane Catholikes .

3. That Sir H. or his friends wil defend against M. F. that the same men held no other points of Faith , one differently from another , and from the present Protestant Doctrine ( contayned in the 39. Articles , vnto which al English Ministers are sworne ) for otherwise they cannot make one and the same Protestant Church .

In this sort and sense , when Sir H. or his friends shal haue shewed a visible Protestant Church in al ages , then M. F. or his friends wil in a like proportionable sort and sense , shew , proue and defend a visible Romane Church in al ages .

This Paper was deliuered to the old Gentleman , and was confessed to haue beene receiued by the Doctors before the disputation , and before the meeting . The time and manner of which meeting is set downe by the Protestant Relator , in manner following :

The 27. of Iune , 1623. M. Fisher , M. Sweet , Iesuits , and some others with them , came to Sir H. Lynds house , in a little dyning roome , where they found the aforesaid M. Buggs , his wife and children , and others of Sir H. friends , that had then dined with him , together with some others also : whose comming in , as the said Sir H. did not expect ; so he could not with ciuilitie put them forth his house , but did instantly cause his doores to bee locked vp , that no more might enter : notwithstanding which his command , some others also came in scattering , after the conference began .

In this parcel it is to bee considered , how great care M. Fisher had to haue the meeting secret , and how wel he obserued the fore-appointed conditions : in which he was so punctual , that after he had his number , of one Assistant , and foure Witnesses , and a Writer , he would not so much as tel a Gentleman of his acquaintance ( who had by other meanes vnderstood of the meeting , and the place of meeting ) at what houre the meeting should be ; whereas on the contrary part , so much speech was made of it , by some of the Protestant side , that ( beside the number appointed to bee Auditors ) many Protestant Gentlemen and Gentlewomen , and some Noblemen , and many Ministers , did repaire to Sir Humfrey his house , which M. Fisher found to be so filled , as he complained to Sir Humfrey of the inequalitie of that Audience , compared with the few he brought ; which Sir H. could not denie , but excused himselfe in such manner as he could , saying : He could not helpe it , &c.

CHAP. II. About that which passed in the Conference it selfe .

DOctor White and Doctor Featly , being inuited to dinner ( saith the Protestant Relator ) by Sir Humfrey Lynd , and staying a while after , had notice giuen them , that M. Fisher , and M. Sweet , Iesuits , were in the next roome , ready to conferre with them , touching a Question set downe by M. Fisher , vnder his owne hand , in these words : viz.

Whether the Protestants Church was in al ages visible , and especially in the ages going before Luther . 2. And whether the names of such visible Protestants , in al ages , can be shewed and proued out of good Authors ?

This Question being deliuered to the parties aboue named , and it being notified vnto them , that there were certaine persons who had beene sollicited , and remaining doubtful in Religion , desired satisfaction especially in this point ; they were perswaded to haue some speech with the Iesuites touching this point : the rather , because the Priests and Iesuites doe dayly cast out Papers , and disperse them in secret ; in which they vaunt , That no Protestant Minister dare encounter with them in this point .

Any man reading this parcel , would be induced to thinke , that D. White and D. Featly had neuer had notice before , for what end they were inuited to Dinner , or for what end they were to meet with the Iesuites : but that they were on the suddaine summoned to this Conference , without any preparation , or knowledge of the Question . Which not to be so , is euidently conuinced , partly , by that which is alreadie said , partly , by that which I am after to say .

2. This Relator would make his Reader beleeue , that M. Fisher vnder his owne hand had set downe the words of the Question , distinguished with the expresse figure of 2. Which is not so , for M. Fisher did not write any such figure of 2. in the middle of the Question , nor did not meane to make any more then one only entire Question , as Sir Humfrey himselfe had desired .

3. He seemeth willing to perswade , that Priests and Iesuites doe dayly cast out Papers , which is not true .

At the beginning of this meeting , when the Disputants were set ( saith the Protestant Relator ) D. Featly drew out the Paper , in which the Question aboue rehearsed was written , with these words in the Margent , viz. I wil answer , that it was not ; and demanded of M. Fisher , Whether this were his owne hand ? which after he had acknowledged , D. Featly began as followeth :

D. Featly .

〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . To this vniuersal demand , requiring rather an Historical large Volume , then a Syllogistical briefe dispute , we answer :

] And then he read out of a Paper ( which this Relator would make men beleeue to haue beene said memoriter ) the same in effect , which was written before the meeting , to M. Fisher .

1. That although diuine infallible Faith is not built vpon deduction out of humane Historie , but vpon diuine reuelation , as is confessed by your owne Schoole-men , and expressely by Cardinal Bellarmine , Historiae humanae faciunt tantum fidem humanam , cui subesse potest falsum : Humane Stories and Records beget onely an humane Faith , or rather Credulitie , subiect to error ; not a diuine and infallible Beleefe , which must be built vpon surer ground .

2. Although this Question be grounded vpon vncertaine and false supposals : for a Church may haue beene visible , yet not the names of al visible Professors thereof now to be shewed and proued out of good Authors : there might be millions of Professors , yet no particular and authentical Record of them by name : Records there might be many , in ancient time , yet not now extant , at least for vs to come by : Yet we wil not refuse to deale with you in your owne Question , if you , in like manner , wil vndertake the like Taske in your owne defence , and maintaine the Affirmatiue in the like Question , which we now propound vnto you here in writing .

Whether the Romish Church , ( that is , a Church holding the particular entire doctrine of the new Romanists , as it is comprised in the Councel of Trent ) was in al ages visible , especially in the first 600. yeeres ; and whether the names of such visible or legible Romanists in al ages can be shewed and proued out of good Authors ?

Here the Relator omitteth to tel how M. Fisher caused the two Papers , written and giuen the old Gentleman , as is aboue said , to be publiquely read : by the first whereof , it appeared why he had propounded such a Question ▪ by the second , the true sence and meaning of the Question was explicated , and a conuenient Method of proceeding was prescribed , with due proportion to be obserued on both sides .

Then D. Featly beginning to argue ( in this place , and not in the end of the Disputation , where the Protestant Relator placeth it ) did say : M. Fisher , I wish , I warne , I command , I coniure you , to answere truely and sincerely , in the sight of God , and as you wil answere it at the Day of Iudgement . To this M. Fisher said : I willingly accept your warning , and I wish you to obserue the like .

About this time M. Sweet propounded these Conditions to be obserued .

1. That al bitter speeches should be forborne . 2. That nothing should be spoken , or heard , but to the purpose .

Which second he did propound , to preuent impertinent digressions .

Neuerthelesse , after this , D. Featly made a long digression , altogether impertinent to the Question which he was to dispute of ▪ for in stead of prouing a Protestant visible Church , and naming visible Protestant , in al ages , he made a vaine and vnseasonable bragging offer , to disp●oue the Roman Church in diuers particular points ( as are rehearsed by the Protestant Relator ) which he read out of a Paper . Whereunto as he was speaking M. Sweet according to the second Condition , before propounded , answered , That th●se things were then impertinent , and nothing to the purpose . But M. Sweet did not say , as the Relator reporteth , They are Scholastical points , not Fundamental . Neyther was there any such Syllogisme then made , as the Relator annexeth .

D. Featly hauing ended his long digression , M. Fisher said ( as the Protestant Relator telleth : ) After you haue proued your Church visible in al ages , and named the Professors thereof , I wil satisfie you in your particulars .

D. Featly .

In the meane while , name but one Father , but one Writer of note , who held the particulars aboue named for fiue hundred yeeres after Christ .

To which instant demand of D. Featly ( saith the Relator ) nothing was answered .

But neyther was this said , neyther was it needful to answer . First , for that M. Fisher formerly answered , That he would satisfie al particulars , after the visibilitie of the Protestant Church , in al ages , was shewed , as the present Question required . Secondly , because to dispute of these particulars , was vnseasonable , and not to the present purpose : as likewise was that other motion , made by Sir Humfrey Lynd to M. Sweet , to dispute of Transubstantiation out of S. Augustine . To which motion , being ( as I said ) vnseasonable , M. Sweet answered wel , according to his second Prouiso , saying : That is not now to the Question .

Then D. Featly said ( saith the Protestant Relator ) there are two meanes onely to proue any thing by necessarie inference , to wit , a Syllogisme , and an Induction ; other formes of Argument haue no force , but as they are reducible to these . I proue the visibilitie of our Church by both , and first , by a Syllogisme .

No , saith M. Fisher , you must not onely proue it to be visible , but so visible , as the names of Protestant Professors in al ages may be shewed out of good Authors .

To this , D. Featly said : There are two Qu●res in your Question : First , Whether the Protestants Church were in al ages visible ? And secondly , Whether the names of such visible Protestants can be shewed ?

No , said M. Fisher , my Question is meant to be but one entire Question : and so , to cut off al needlesse wrangling ( made by D. White and D. Featly about the Aduerbe Vtrum , Whether , and the Copulatiue Et , And , as if Grammar Schollers had beene disputing , rather then graue Diuines , who were not to stand vpon rigor of Grammar , especially in this case , where the sence of the Speaker is plaine , and may wel stand with Grammar ) M. Fisher said : The Question being mine , it pertaineth to me to tel the meaning ; and my meaning was , onely to make it one Question : viz.

Whether the Protestants Church were so visible , as the names of visible Protestants , in al ages , may be shewed out of good Authors ?

Wherefore , if you wil dispute , you must dispute in my sense , and must conclude the Affirmatiue : viz. The Protestant Church was so visible , as the names of the Professors in al ages may be shewed out of good Authors . Proue this , or proue nothing .

D. Featly .

That Church , which is so visible , as the Catholique Church ought to be , and as the Popish Church is pretended by M. Fisher to be , is so visible , that the names of the Professors thereof may be produced and shewed , in al ages , out of good Authors .

But the Protestant Church is so visible , as the Catholique Church ought to be , and as the Popish Church is pretended to be . Ergo

M. Fisher .

I denie the Minor . Minorem probate .

D. Featly .

That Church , whose Faith is eternal , and perpetual , and vnchanged , is so visible , as the Catholique Church ought to be , and the Popish Church is pretended by M. Fisher to be .

But the Faith of the Protestant Church is eternal , perpetual , and vnchanged . Ergo

To this , M. Fisher answered : first excepting against the Word , Eternal ; saying : Faith is not eternal , or ab aeterno .

It is true , said a Minister who sate by ; Faith is not eternal , but euiternal .

Neyther so , said M. Fisher ; for it is not to be for euer in Heauen .

It is eternal ( said D. White ) in Predestination .

So ( said M. Sweet ) D. White himselfe may be said to be eternal : and he might haue added , this present Disputation may be said to be Eternal .

D. Featly .

You haue a purpose , M. Fisher , to cauil : you know my meaning wel enough , by the terme Perpetual ; to wit , that Christian Faith , which hath continued from Christs first publishing it , til this present , and shal continue vntil his second comming , &c.

If this were said by D. Featly ( which is doubted ) he should haue considered , how he and D. White cauilled vpon the word Whether , and And , when they knew M. Fishers meaning wel enough ; yea , after they had heard him plainely explicate his meaning : Whereas M. Fisher onely put them in minde to speake properly , like Scholers , and did not cauil or reply , after D. Featly did explicate his meaning . But to returne to the argument .

D. Featly .

That Church which holdeth this Faith , you beleeue shal be so visible , that the names of the Professors thereof may be shewed in al ages .

But the Protestant Church holdeth this perpetual Faith . Ergo

M. Fisher .

Your argument is a fallacie , called Petitio principij .

D. Featly .

A demonstration , a causa , or a priori , is not Petitio principij .

But such is my argument . Ergo

Is it not a sounder argument , to proue the visibilitie of the Professors from the truth of their Faith ; then as you , the truth of your Faith from the visibilitie of Professors ? Visible Pastors argue not a right Faith . Heretikes , Mahumetans , and Gentiles , haue visible Professors of their Impieties : yet will it not hence sollow , that they haue a right beleese . On the contrarie , we know by the Promises of God in the Scripture , That the Church which maintayneth the true Faith , shal haue alwayes Professors , more or lesse , visible .

M. Sweet .

You ought to prooue the truth of your Church a posteriori , for that is to the Question , and not a priori .

D. Fealty .

Shal you prescribe me my Weapons ? Is not an argument a priori ▪ better then an argument a posteriori ? &c.

To this , M. Fisher said : A proofe a posteriori is more demonstratiue then a priori .

Thus farre the Relator ; who hath here added much more then was said : and in particular , those formal words which he reporteth M. Fisher to haue said : viz. A proofe a posteriori is more demonstratiue then a priori , M. Fisher did not speake : perhaps he might say , That a proofe a posteriori doth better demonstrate to vs then a priori : not meaning in general to preferre a Logical demonstration a posteriori before that which is a priori ; but that such a proofe a posteriori , as he in this present Question required , and as the Question it selfe exacted , would better demonstrate or shew to al sorts of men , which is the true Church , then any proofe which D. Featly or D. White can make a priori , to proue the Protestant Church to be the true Church , as shal be shewed when need is , hereafter : at this present it may suffice to say to that which D. Featly now obiecteth against the proofe taken from visibilitie , That although al kind of visible Professors doe not argue right Faith , yet want of visible Professors argueth want of Christs true Church . For supposing it to be true , which euen D. Featly himselfe here saith ( according to the Protestants Relator ) viz. We know by the Promises of God in the Scripture , that the Church which maintaines the true Faith , shal haue alwayes Professors , more or lesse , visible : and ( as M. Fisher further proued in one of the foresaid Papers , giuen to the old Gentleman before this meeting ) so visible , as their names in al ages may be shewed out of good Authors . Supposing also out of D. Whitaker , contra Dur. l. 7. p. 472. That whatsoeuer is fore-told by the ancient Prophets , of the propagation , amplitude , and glory of the Church , is most clearely witnessed by Histories : and supposing lastly out of D. Iohn White , in his Way . p. 338. That things past cannot be shewed to vs , but by Histories . Supposing al this ( I say ) it is most apparant , That ( if there cannot be produced ( as there cannot ) names of Protestants , or of any other Professors of Christian Faith , in al ages , out of Histories , to whom Gods Promises agree , beside those which are knowne Roman Catholikes ) not Protestants , nor any other , but onely the Roman Catholikes are the true Church of Christ ; which teacheth the true Faith , and of which al sorts are to learne infallible Faith , necessarie to Saluation .

But as for the argument , which D. Featly wil needes perswade vs not to be Petitio principy , but Demonstratio a priori : viz.

That Church , whose Faith is eternal , and perpetual , and vnchanged , is so visible , as the Catholike Church ought to be , and as the Popish Church by M. Fisher is pretended to be .

But the Faith of Protestants Church is eternal , perpetual , and vnchanged .

Ergo , The Protestants Church is so visible as the Catholike Church ought to be , and the Popish Church is pretended by M. Fisher to be .

This argument , as it is set downe , is so farre from being a Demonstration ( whose propertie is to conuince the Vnderstanding ) as it is not a probable or Moral perswasion : For I am verily perswaded , that no wise man ( not alreadie possessed with Protestant opinions ) wil or can be so much as morally conuinced , or in any sort probably perswaded by it , That Protestants be the true visible Church ; more then a man ( in case of doubt ) can be by the like argument , which a man may make to proue himselfe and his Brethren to be as wel spoken of , as any in al the Parish . Thus :

Those who are in heart true honest men , are as wel spoken of , as any in al the Parish .

But I and my Brethren are in heart true honest men . Ergo

As this proofe is not able to make any man not partially affected to beleeue these men to be wel spoken of , or to be honest men ; so neyther can D. Featlyes proofe make any wise man beleeue Protestants to be the true visible Church , or to haue the true Faith .

Secondly , If the terme , That Church , be vnderstood onely of a particular Church ( as for example , the Church of England ) it is so farre from a Logical Demonstration , as it hath not in it any Logical forme , according to any of the vsual Moods , Barbara , Caelarent , &c. But if it be vnderstood vniuersally , of euery Church , that is , or may be ; then both Maior and Minor are false : and so it cannot be a Demonstration , whose propertie is to consist of most certainely true propositions . The Maior in this latter sense is false : for that there may be a Church , or Companie , who may haue inward Faith , eternal and vnchanged ( as for example , a Church of Angels ) who for want of visible Profession are not so visible , as the Catholike Church ought to be . The Minor is false also : for the Protestant Church hath not the true Primitiue Faith , neyther is that Faith they haue vnchanged , but so often changed , and so much subiect to change , as one may say ( as a great Person in Germanie once said of some Protestants ) What they hold this yeare , I doe in some sort know ; but what they wil hold next yeere , I doe not know . Which is true , in regard they haue no certaine and infallible Rule , sufficient to preserue them from change . But if D. Featly shal say , That he neyther meant the tearme , That Church , in eyther of the aforesaid senses , but meant to signifie by it , that one holy , Catholike , and Apostolike Church , which the holy Scriptures doe shew both to haue perpetual vnchanged Faith , and also to be perpetually visible : Then indeed the Maior is true . But the Minor is most false : and so the argument is farre from being a Demonstration , especially when it endeuoreth to proue Magis no●um per ignotius , viz. the Visibilitie ( which is easily knowne ) by the truth of Doctrine ( which is more hard to be knowne ) especially by onely Scripture of the sense : Whereof ( according to Protestants , who say , The whole Church may erre ) no particulat man can be infallibly sure . For if the whole Church or Companie ( to whom Christ promised the Spirit of 〈…〉 Truth , to teach them al truth ) may erre : Then much more may euery particul●r man erre ; and consequently , no particular man can be infallibly sure of the sense of Scripture .

Thirdly , This argument beggeth or supposeth that which is in question : For in asking , which is the true visible Church , or Congregation of the true faithful ; we aske , at least virtually ▪ which is the true Faith ; in regard , the true Church cannot be without this true Faith . Yea , therefore doe we aske which is the true Church ; that of it , being first knowne by other Markes , we may learne what is the true Faith in al points , in which we yet know not what is to be held for true Druine Faith .

Fourthly , Although Faith be pre-required to be in some or other members of the true Church ; yet inward Faith alone , without some outward profession , by which it is made visible , or sensible , doth not sufficiently make a man to be a member of the visible Church .

Let D. Featly therefore looke backe vpon his argument , and tel vs what Academical Learning taught him to cal it a Demonstration a priori .

But let vs heare how M. Fisher did answer this argument , according to the Protestant Relator .

M. Fisher .

I distinguish the Maior .

That Church , whose Faith is perpetual , and vnchanged , so as the names of the Professors may be shewed ; is so visible , as the Catholike Church ought to be , and as M. Fisher pretendeth the Roman Church to be : I grant it .

That Church , whose Faith is perpetual , and vnchanged , yet so , as the names cannot be shewed in al ages ; is visible , as the Catholike Church ought to be , and as M. Fisher pretends the Roman Church to be : I denie it . To the Minor I apply the like distinction ; and consequently , to the Conclusion in the same manner .

D. Featly .

What ? answer you to the Conclusion also ? This is a straine of new Logick .

This idle exception , M. Fisher ( attending to the matter ) did not regard : but might haue told him , That it is not vnuseal , after a distinction made both to Maior and Minor , to apply the like to the Conclusion . For , although it be true , That in a Syllogisme , when Maior and Minor are absolutely granted , the Conclusion must not be denyed , nor distinguished , but must be absolutely granted ; yet when Maior and Minor also be distinguished , the Conclusion may be distinguished . And I maruaile what Rule of Logick D. Featly can bring against this ?

In like manner , if D. Featly did say any such words as the Relator telleth : viz. A strange distinction of the eternitie of Faith , by Professors to be named , and not to be named : What are Professors nominable , or innominable , to the eternitie of Faith ?

If ( I say ) D. Featly did say these words ; it is like , M. Fisher did not regard them , as being impertinent : but might haue said , That this distinction had not relation to eternal Faith , but to a Church which hath eternal Faith : about which , it imports much to know , whether it hath Professors nominable , or innominable . For if it hath not , it is inuisible ; or , at least , not so visible as the true Catholike Church ( of which , al sorts in times past haue learned , and in time to come must learne the infallible Diuine Faith , necessarie to Saluation ) ought to be .

Therefore M. Fisher might wel ( though I thinke he did not ) say as the Relator telleth , Tolle distinctionem , M. Fisher . and conclude that which I denie : That the Faith of the Protestant Church is so eternal , as the names of visible Protestants in al ages may be shewed .

To proue this , D. Featly made this argument , according to the Protestant Relator .

D. Featly .

That Church , whose Faith is the Catholike and Primitiue Faith , once giuen to the Saints , without which no man can be saued , is so perpetual , as the names may be shewed in al ages .

But the Faith of the Protestant Church is the Primitiue and Catholike Faith , once giuen to the Saints , without which none can be saued .

Ergo , The Faith of the Protestant Church is so perpetual , as the names may be shewed in al ages .

Note here , That the Relator putteth in the Margent , ouer-against the Minor , Tollitur distinctio . But how false this Marginal Note is , appeareth to any who wil reflect vpon what the Distinction was , and what I haue now said of it ; For this Minor speaking onely of Faith , doth not take away the distinction applyed to the Church .

That which D. Featly thinketh to be a straine of new Logicke , to wit , to distinguish vpon a proposition , without applying the distinction to any particular tearme , is not so strange as he maketh it . As for example : When one saith , An Aethiopian is white ; neyther the tearme Aethiopian alone , nor the tearme White alone in it selfe needeth distinction , because it is not Aequiuocal : but the whole proposition , being Amphibological , needeth ; it being true , if it be meant , The Aethiopian is white in the Teeth : and false , if it be meant , He is white in his whole Bodie .

To the argument . M. Fisher said : I denie the Minor . But marking , that hereupon D. Featly would haue transferred the Question to endlesse disputes , about particular Controuersies , from the present general Question , about the perpetual visible Church ; whose Professors names ( as himselfe saith ) may be shewed in al ages . M. Fisher ( I say ) marking this , would not let D. Featly make his proofe : but hauing said , I denie the Minor ; he presently added , by way of explication , these ensuing words :

My first Question was , Whether there must not be a true visible Church of Christ in al ages , of which al sorts must learne that infallible Faith , which is necessarie to Saluation ? and therefore , we must first finde such a Church , before men can know it to be such , as they may securely learne of it , what is the infallible Faith , necessary to Saluation .

While M. Fisher was beginning to make this explication , D. Featly insulted , as if M. Fisher durst not , for Conscience , denie the Minor absolutely . To whom , M. Fisher said : I doe absolutely denie it . And then he went forward with the aforesaid explication . Which ended , M. Fisher said : And hereupon I answer againe to the said Minor ; If this proposition be taken simply in it selfe , I absolutely denie it : but if this proposition be considered ( as it must be ) as related to the first Question , and the end thereof ; I further adde , That it is not pertinent to that end , for which the whole Dispute was intended : viz. To shew to those who were not able by their owne abilities to finde out the infallible Faith , necessarie to Saluation , without learning of the true visible Church of Christ : and consequently , Visibilitie of the Church is first to be shewed , before the truth of Doctrine in particular shal be shewed .

To this ( as the Relator saith ) D. Featly replyed : viz. First , What speake you of those , who are not able by their owne abilities to finde out Faith ? Is any man able , by his owne abilitie , without the helpe of Diuine Grace ? Secondly , What helpeth the Visibilitie , to confirme the Truth of the Church ? Visibilitie indeed proues a Church , but not the true Church .

These words eyther were not spoken , or M. Fisher did not regard them , being in the middest of his answer : in which he went on , shewing the necessitie of a visible Church , by a saying of D. Fields : viz. Seeing the Controuersies D. Field in his Epistle Dedicatone . of Religion at this day are so many in number , and so intricate in nature , that few haue time and leysure , fewer strength of wit and vnderstanding , to examine them : what remaineth for men , desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence , but diligently to seeke out which , among al the Societies of men in the World , is that Spouse of Christ , the Church of the liuing God , which is the Pillar of the Truth ; that so they may embrace her Communion , follow her Direction , and rest in her Iudgement ?

M. Fisher therefore ( I say ) being busily speaking this , did not regard what D. Featly did then say , but might easily haue answered : First , That he neuer meant , that any were able of themselues , without helpe of Gods grace , to attaine the true Faith ; which hindreth not , but that some may haue that abilitie of Wit and Learning , by which they can better examine Controuersies of Faith , then those who want these abilities . Secondly , Although Visibilitie alone doe not prooue the true Church , yet it ( supposing Gods Promises , That the true Church shal be alwayes visible ) much helpeth : and want of Visibilitie , in any one age , proueth a Companie not to be the true Church .

D. Featly .

The summe of your former answer was , That the Minor of my former Syllogisme was both false , and impertinent . It is neyther false , nor impertinent : Ergo , your answer is false , and impertinent . And first , it is not false .

M. Fisher .

I answer to the Antecedent , That it is both false , and impertinent : but I adde , That for the present it must be proued to be pertinent ; or else it diuerteth vs from the chiefe end of our dispute : which was , as I said before , That infallible Truth may be learned of the true visible Church ; and not the true visible Church , by first finding euery particular infallible Truth : and by that , to conclude which is the true visible Church .

D. Featly .

I prooue that the Minor is pertinent ▪ That Minor proposition , which together with the Minor doth necessarily and directly inferre the conclusion of the Minor last denyed , is pertinent to the probation of that Minor denyed .

But the Minor proposition of the third Syllogisme , doth necessarily and directly inferre the conclusion of the Minor last denyed .

Ergo , the Minor of that Syllogisme is pertinent .

M. Fisher did distinguish the Maior . That Minor proposition , which together with the Maior doth necessarily inferre the Conclusion , so as it may serue for that purpose to which the whole Dispute is ordained ; I grant it to be pertinent .

But if it doe inferre the Conclusion ; yet not so , as may serue for that purpose for which the whole Dispute was ordained : I denie the Maior .

Here ( saith the Protestant Relator ) the Disputants iarred , and so the Writer ceased .

What this Iarre was , is not set downe , nor by me remembred , vnlesse it were about this subsequent Syllogisme .

D. Featly .

That Minor , which together with the Maior , inferres the Proposition last denyed , the whole processe hauing beene per directa media , is pertinent to that purpose to which the Dispute is ordained .

But the Minor , together with the Maior , directly and necessarily inferres the Proposition last denyed ; the whole Processus hauing beene made per directa media .

Ergo , It is pertinent to that purpose , to which the Dispute is ordained .

M. Fisher .

Your Media in your Syllogismes were directa , but they tended not ad directum finem .

If M. Fisher did say these words , his meaning may be gathered out of his former explication : in which he shewed , how the direct end of the Disputation was ( not to treat of particular Controuersies , but ) to finde out first by other meanes the true visible Church , whose Professors names may be shewed in al ages out of good Authors . Which being once found , men desirous of satisfaction , might ( as D. Field said ) rest in her Iudgement ; who otherwise ( as Lawyers without a Iudge ) might wrangle in euerie Controuersie , without end .

Those Media therefore directa ( as D. Featly tearmed them ) might in some sort be so tearmed , as being directed by D. Featly to his owne end , of transferring the Question to particular Controuersies , but not ad directum finem ; that is , not ordayned to the direct end of the whole Disputation : viz. To shew a visible Church of Protestants in al ages , whose names may be shewed out of good Authors . Which ( supposing D. Featly would haue proceeded sincerely ) ought to haue beene his onely end : as M. Fisher signified , by saying these words ; Responsum nullum dabunt pr●ter vnum quod nunquam dabunt ▪ ecce nomina .

D. Featly therefore had no iust cause to say , as the Protestant Relator maketh him say : It is a Bul , M. Fisher , media , directa , yet not ad directum finem ; that is , direct , and not direct : for media are said to be directa onely ratione finis .

D. Featly ( I say ) had no iust cause to say this : and M. Sweet might wel tel him of his fault , in seeking to transferre the Question from the Church , to particular points of Faith , as the Protestant Relator saith he did ; saying :

Is not , Transitio a genere in genus , a fault in arguing ? &c.

But M. Sweet did not speake these formal words which the Protestant Relator hath set downe : onely he asked the Doctors , Whether it seemed strange to them , that a Question should be transferred by a good Syllogisme : which he said , in regard D. Featly endeuored to proue his argument to be pertinent , because his Syllogismes were good .

Here D. Featly ( as the Protestant Relator telleth ) said : I acknowledge , that Transitio a genere in genus , is a fault in disputing ; but I neuer heard , that the inference of the effect by the cause , was Transitio a genere in genus : such was my argument . For Faith in a Beleeuer produceth profession and confession thereof , which makes a visible member ; and the like profession of many members , a visible Church . Where the cause is perpetual , the effect must needes be perpetual : Therefore , where the Faith is perpetual , the profession thereof must needes be ; and consequently , the visibilitie of the Professors thereof , is this Transitio a genere in genus ?

But D. Featly did not say al this ; yet if he did , it doth not make any thing against M. Sweet : and for him to speake of the cause , being obscure , when the Question is onely about the effect , being more apparant and cleare ( as in our case ) is a fault in honest and sincere dealing . Neyther is M. Sweets Logicke lesse to be esteemed , if he had tearmed that fault Transitio a genere in genus : For a cause as a cause , and an effect as an effect doe not onely differ specie , but also genere : and beside , a proofe a priori and a posteriori are diuers kinds of proofes .

Here ( sayth the Protestant Relator ) those of M. Fishers side calling for Names , D. White said :

Where are your Names ?

This is nothing but apparant tergiuersation . You wil not answer any argument directly , nor suffer vs to proceed in our arguments : and therefore I require you , M. Fisher , according to the order mentioned in the beginning , for each partie to haue an houre and a halfe for that you now oppose , and suffer me to answer .

Proue by Christ and his Apostles , or by any of the Fathers for the first six hundred yeeres , these present Tenets of the Roman Church :

and then he named ( as the Protestant Relator sayth ) sixe particular Points .

But D. White did not speake thus , neyther did he in al the Conference make any such long discourse . Yet if he had so said . M. Fisher might wel haue answered , as the Protestant Relator saith he did .

M. Fisher .

When you D. White , or D. Featly , haue proued your Church to be visible in al ages , and named visible Protestants ; then wil I satisfie your demands .

But before this was done , M. Fisher had no reason to diuert to those particular matters , nor to produce Names of Catholikes in al ages ; in regard it was his aduersaries fault to spend so long time in impertinent Syllogismes , which should haue beene imployed in naming and prouing Protestants in al ages : which by the prescribed method was first to be done , before M. Fisher needed to proue any thing pertaining to the Roman Church ▪ Worthily therefore might M. Sweet cal for Names of Protestants , and wel might he say : That if Protestants had beene in al ages , their Names ( at least some ) in euery age might be produced .

Vnto which , as the Protestant Relator saith , D. Featly replyed , saying : That is a Non sequitur , &c. What say you to a People of Africa , who ( if we may beleeue Plinie ) haue no Names at al ?

M. Boulton .

Yet they haue descriptions , and may be knowne by some Periphrasis .

D. Featly .

What say you then to the Heretikes , called Acephali , who are so called , because their Head and Author cannot be named , nor particularly described ; yet the Author was a visible man ? Are al visible mens Names vpon record ? Are al the Records that were in former times , now to be produced ?

To this Obiection , M. Boulton answered : That those Acephali held some particular Doctrine , which did amount to the nature of a Name , sufficient to distinguish them from others ; insinuating hereby , that these Acephali were not Anonymi .

Further , it may be answered , That it is not certaine , whether they had any particular Author : for some say , That they were a Companie , who in the Controuersie betwixt Iohn the Bishop of Antioch , and Ciril of Alexandria , behaued themselues like Neutrals , submitting themselues to neyther , as to their Head . Others thinke , That they were certaine men , who being the fauorers of Petrus Mogus the Heretike , did afterwards renounce him from being their Head , because he would not accurse the Councel of Calcedon . Others say , That one Seuerus , Bishop of Antioch , was their Author .

But howsoeuer this particular were , it donth not conclude , That there could be in al ages visible Professors of the Protestants Faith , whereof no Storie nor other ancient Monument maketh mention of Names , or Opinions , or Places of abode of any of them , or of those who opposed them : as Stories make mention of some of these circumstances , both of the Acephali , and whatsoeuer other eminent Professors of euerie true or false Religion .

We doe not require , that al visible mens names should be vpon record , nor al Records produced . For although to proue such a visible Church as that of our Sauiour Christs , described in Scripture to be spread ouer the World , a smal number of visible Professors be not sufficient , as S. Augustine prooueth against the Donatists ; Aug. lib. de vnitate Ecclesiae . yet to shew how confident we are of our cause , we for the present onely require , That three eminent Protestants Names in al ages be produced out of good Authors . But they are so farre from being able to produce three , as they cannot name one in euerie age ( as is clearely prooued in the Protestants Apologie ) neyther indeed can they abide with any patience , when they be much pressed in this Point : as appeareth by diuers who haue beene vrged ; and in particular , by D. Featly , in this Conference : who hauing beene called vpon seueral times to produce Names , as he had vndertaken ; at one time he burst forth into these words , set downe by the Protestant Relator : What ? wil nothing content you , but a Buttrie-Booke ? You shal haue a Buttrie-Booke , if you wil stay a while .

Note ( Reader ) this Doctors want of grauitie and patience , and what a fit Title he giueth to a Catalogue of Names of Protestants , who ( indeed ) are more like to be found in a Buttrie-Booke , then in any good Record of Antiquitie : as hauing had their beginning of late in one Martin Luther ; who , after his Arostasie , more respected the Buttrie , then any Ecclesiastical Storie .

But how vnwilling D. Featly was to bring out this his Buttrie-Booke , appeareth ; in that after the Auditorie had long stayed and often called for the Names of Protestants in al ages , which should haue been giuen at first ; after not onely Catholikes , but also diuers of the Protestants ( being wearie and not willing to heare any more of his dilatorie and impertinent Syllogismes ) had entreated him to giue ouer his arguments , and to produce Names .

First , he said : If I should giue ouer , M. Fisher would say of me , as he said of D. White , That I was at a Non ▪ plus : and therefore I wil goe forward in arguing .

To which , M. Fisher said : Then wil I goe forward in answering .

But the Companie earnestly calling for Names , D. Featly bad the Writer set downe in writing , That he was willing to proceed ; but to satisfie the Companie , he would diuert vnto the Names .

Which M. Fisher seeing to be written , said : Vnlesse this be blotted out , it shal be set downe for Answer ; That hitherto D. Featly hauing diuerted from the chiefe end of the Question , wil now speake to the purpose .

M. Sweet also said : That it was a manifest wrong . Whereupon the former words were blotted out .

And it was written ( as the Protestant Relator sayth ) That both the Disputants being willing to proceede , D. Featly was desired by the Companie , to produce the Names of such Protestants as were extant before Luther , in al ages .

This being written , and subscribed both by D. Featly and M. Fisher , D. Featly proceeded to his Induction . But before he would begin to name any , he first endeauoured to fore-stal his hearers with an il opinion against M. Fisher , saying :

There is no credit to be giuen to this man , who not onely slandered D. White in a former Conference , but also falsely writ what passed betwixt M. Musket and my selfe , in a certaine Disputation .

M. Fisher hearing this false slander , did rise vp , and for the honour of the Truth , and clearing of his Credit , did ( before the Audience ) solemnely protest , vpon his Conscience , That wittingly and willingly he did neuer wrong eyther D. White , or D. Featly , in report of any former Conference . And if any thing were false written , it was not willingly : but , as the Protestant Writer of this present Conference hath sometimes mistaken the words of the Disputants ; which , as he ( being warned ) did correct : so did I ( said M. Fisher . )

To this , nothing was replyed : and therefore I suppose that the Audience was wel satisfied of M. Fishers sinceritie in his Relation , and writing of the former Disputations .

After this , D. Featly named for the first age , our Lord and Sauior Christ , and the Twelue Apostles , and S. Paul , and S. Ignatius : after which he stayed a while , as if he studyed for more Names ; but not remembring any more , whom he would set downe for the first age , he said : These , not denying others , may serue for the first age .

Then turning to M. Fisher , he said : Let vs dispute of these . No , said M. Fisher ; name first of al ages . What ? said D. Featly , wil you not dispute of Christ and his Apostles ? Yes , said M. Fisher , in due place : but first name the rest in al ages , and then I wil answer you . What ? said D. Featly , doe not Christ and his Apostles deserue the first place ? M. Fisher : I wil not answer , before you haue named the rest .

Then , said D. Featly , in a heat : Wel , you wil not dispute of Christ and his Apostles ? Then you grant , Christ and his Apostles to be Protestants . And so instantly ( without expecting M. Fishers answer ) he turned himselfe to the Audience , and said : He grants Christ and his Apostles to be Protestants . Whereupon diuers of the Audience made such a showt ( as if they had gotten a Victorie ) with such a noyse , as M. Fisher endeuouring to answer , for a time could not be heard . But he rising vp , and with his Hand and Voyce crauing silence , made such as would heare him , vnderstand how falsely D. Featly had slandered him to his Face ; and eyther then , or vpon some like occasion , he said : What may I expect behind my backe , when you thus mis-report me to my Face ?

And in this sort when many of the company were willing to depart , D. Featly ( being called vpon as it seemed ) by some of his companions to goe away , did arise and offer to begone . yet in his rysing he turned to M. Fisher , saying : Will you dispute vpon Christ and his Apostles , or no ? To which M. Fisher sayd , I will , if you will stay ▪ And stretching out his hand , he tooke D. Featly by his arme , offering to stay him , yet he in that abrupt manner went away .

This is the true Relation of this last passage ; by which the falshood of that Relation which is made by the Protestant Relator , may appeare : For to make the best of D. Featly his Tergiuersation , or rather plaine flight from proceeding in his Induction , and to cast some colour ouer the matter , by which he may make Protestants belieue , that D. Featly had reason , and M. Fisher was to blame ; First he maketh M. Fisher say , You shall not begin with Christ and his Apostles : as if M. Fisher had prohibited him to begin with the names of Christ and his Apostles , which he did not : neyther did he say those words at all , which the Relator reporteth . Secondly he suppresseth in silence M. Fishers expresse yealding to dispute about Christ and his Apostles , which M. Fisher did expresse two seuerall tymes : once thus ; I will dispute of them in due place : the second tyme when D. Featly would needs begon , and in going asked , will you dispute or no ? thus , I will , if you will stay . Thirdly he relateth a Syllogisme to be made in this last passage , which is not remembred ; but if it were , it was very impertinent to an Induction , and may easily be answered out of that which was formerly sayd against a like Syllogisme called by D. Featly , A Demonstration à priori , but is proued not to be so much worth as a probable proofe à posteriori . Fourthly he relateth a coniuring charge to haue byn made by D. Featly to M. Fisher , in this last passage , which was not made .

But to returne to the breaking vp of the Conference . So soone as D. Featly had in the abrupt manner aforesayd , gone away , and left M. Fisher and M. Sweete , and diuers others of good ranke sitting at , or neere about the Table , amongst whome was the Earle of Warwick ▪ who not liking ( as it seemed ) that the matter should end in that ill fashion , made a speach to M. Fisher , and tould him , that the Doctour should come againe , and giue the rest of the Names of Protestant Professours after some dayes , it being requisite that the Doctour should haue tyme to study for them . To which M. Fisher sayd , he was willing he should take tyme . Then the wryting of such things as had passed in the Conference ( being subscribed vnder D. Featly , and M. Fishers hands ) was wrapped vp in a paper , and sealed vp with three seales , one with my Lord of Warwicks , and the other with two other seales , & left in Syr Humfrey Lynds hands , or some other Protestant , with promise that it should be kept vnopened till the next meeting , and that M Fisher afterwards should haue it , or a true coppy of it : which promise hath not yet been performed , partly by reason the next meeting was prohibited ; but by whose meanes this prohibition came , although I will not Censure ( as the Protestant Relator sayth , a Romanist hath confidently auerred ) that the Protestant party laboured to haue all future meetings , touching this occasion , forbidden , because they cannot make good that which they haue vndertaken about naming of Protestant Professors in all ages ; yet I cannot hinder men to haue such like suspicion , because I know it is impossible for Protestants to performe that vndertaken Taske .

Now whereas my self haue heard that some suspected , that the Catholike party had made meanes to get the second meeting hindered , this idle fancy hath no foundation of any probability . For all Catholikes are confident , that Protestants can neuer produce out of good Authours , Names of the Professors of this their new Reformation , no more then any other Sect of Heretikes can produce the Names of men of their profession in all Ages since Christ : whereas Roman Catholikes in their printed Bookes ordinarily set downe the Names of their Professors , and chiefe Pastors in all Ages : And soe the victory being so certaine on their side , they had no reason to hinder the meeting , wherby this question should be determined , especially in such sort as is prescribed in M. Fishers second paper ( aboue rehearsed ) written before the last meeting . And in particuler for M. Fisher and M. Sweet , it is most certaine , that they much desired the second meeting , as may appeare : First , in that the next day after the last meeting , they went to Syr Humfrey Lynds house , offering to giue vnto him a Catalogue of Names of such as they would defend to haue been Professors of the Roman Fayth in all Ages , that he might deliuer it to D. Featly and D. White to consider of agaynst the next meeting , vpon condition that they should also reciprocally deliuer vp to M. Fisher , & M. Sweete , a Catalogue of such as they would defend to haue been Protestants in all Ages , to be considered off against the sayd next day of meeting . The which offer seemed to another Protestant ( who was then in Syr Humfrey Lynds company ) very reasonable and equall . But Syr Humfrey sayd : No , I know the Doctors mynds , that they will not giue vp any Catalogue before the very meeting : and he asked M. Fisher , why he did so much presse the Doctors for names of men of their

profession in all Ages ? To whome M. Fisher answered that the reason ( to deale plainly ) was , because he was fully perswaded , that they could not giue vp any such Names . After this M. Fisher and M. Sweete reflecting vpon Syr Humfreys words , began to suspect , that there would be no more meeting , vnles the Earle of Warwicke ( who had engaged himselfe by his word to M. Fisher that it should be ) did presse the Doctours vnto it : wherfore it seemed good that the Earle should be moued heerunto by a letter written by M. Fisher vnto him , the copy wherof I haue thought good , to insert heere as followeth .

Right Honourable Lord .

I esteeme it a speciall prouidence of God , that your Lordship was present at a late Conference , wherin D. White and D. Featly vndertooke to shew against me , & my companion , that the Protestant Church had been visible in all Ages , and that their Professors might be named , especially in all Ages , before Luther . Your Lordship may remember the substance of all the proofe to haue consisted in this , That the true Church was alwayes so visible , as the Professors therof in all Ages might be named : But the Protestants was the true Church ; we refused to dispute of the Minor , because it transferred the question , and auoyded that plaine proofe of the visible Church , which was then propounded and expected . If , as they conclude , they are able to name their Professors in all Ages , why did they refuse to giue vs a Catalogue of theirs , as we were ready to haue giuen them another of ours ? Why went they about to proue they were able to name them , when with lesse adoe they might haue named them ? Where deeds are iustly expected , words without deeds are worthily suspected .

Certainly heerby they are so farr from hauing discharged themselues , of the great enterprise they vndertooke , as they stand more engaged then before to the performance of it : for hauing now professed and acknowledged that the true Church , or ( to vse their owne words ) the Church which is so visible as the true Catholike Church ought to be , ( and the Church whose fayth is eternall and vnehanged , must be ) is able to name her Professors in all Ages , eyther for their owne honour , and for the satisfaction of the world , they must set downe the Names of their Professors in all Ages , or els they shamefully discouer themselues not to be that true and visible vnchanged Church which is able to name them . Againe , at the length yealding as they did to shew the continuall visibility of their Church , by a full induction of their visible Protestants in all Ages ( which they seemed to vndertake with great confidence ) why did they sticke in the first Age alone , refusing to name their Professors in the Ages following , vntill the first were tryed ? May not the Answerer choose to deny which parte of the Argument he pleaseth ? And was it euer heard that he should be inforced to reply to one proposition alone , before the whole Argument , whether it were Syllogisme or Induction , were fully propounded ? Very Nobly therfore , & prudently your Lordship in the end desired another meeting , not doubting that your owne party within 3. or 4. dayes , would be content to giue vs the Names of their Professors in all Ages , as we were ready to giue them the Names of ours , that therby both sides might be the better prepared for a second Tryall , which when they haue performed , we shall not fayle to encounter with them , eyther by way of speach or wryting , as your Lordship ( all things considered ) shall thinke fairest , or safest , or most conuenient for the discouery of Truth .

But if your Lordship shall not be able to obtaine at their hands this your most iust and important Request , the defect of proof on their part must needs be accounted a plaine flight ; and no man hereafter can prudently relye his saluation vpon that Church , which ( for want of perpetuall visibility proued ) they themselues shall haue concluded to be false and faygned .

Thus expecting the yssue heerof , and your Lordships further pleasure from the mouth of this bearer , I remaine , this first of Iuly 1623.

Your Lordships seruant in Christ , Iohn Fisher .

By this Letter it may appeare how willing M. Fisher and M. Sweete were , and yet are , of their part , to haue the matter soundly prosecuted , eyther by meeting or wryting . And I haue heard that the Earle to whome this letter was written , did send to D. Featly , so , as although there be a prohibition of meeting , yet it is expected that by way of writing D. Featly goe forward to performe his vndertaken Taske , and setting downe first the Names of such as he iudgeth to haue been Protestant Professors in euery Age since Christ : And then prouing out of good Authors , those whome he nameth , to haue byn members of the Protestant Church , not condemning any one point wherin Protestants at this day do differ from the auncient and Roman Church , and especially in any one of the 39. Articles which English Protestant Ministers are sworne vnto ; and therfore so long as D. Featly , and D. White shall be silent , and not so much as by writing giue a Catalogue of Names of the Professors of their Church , all sorts of people may iustly take this their fayling for a flight , and for a silent graunting , that they haue not had visible Protestants in all Ages , whose Names may be shewed out of good Authors , as the question required . Wherupon followeth , that the Protestant Church is not the true Church of Christ , nor the Preachers theroflawfully sent to teach , nor people securely warranted to heare and learne of them , what is , and what is not to be belieued , by Fayth necessary to saluation .

CHAP. III. Of the yssue of the Conference .

THe Protestant Relator sayth , that the issue of the Conference was , that the aforesaid M. Bugges came to Syr Humfrey Lynd , & gaue him many thankes for the sayd meeting , and assured him he was well resolued now of his Religion ; that he saw plainly that it was but the Iesuits bragging without proofes : and wheras formerly by their Sophisticall perswasions he was in some doubt of the Church , he is now so fully satisfied of the truth of our Religion , that he doth vtterly disclaime the Popish Priests company , and their doctrine also .

I haue cause to doubt that this which the Relator sayth , is not true , for therby he maketh the old Gentleman to be but of a weake capacity , or of a very mutable nature . For first I am sure , there was no cause giuen in the Conference of any such effectuall resolution to be made by the old Gentleman . Secondly I cannot see when this speach should be made by the Gentleman to Syr Humfrey . If immediatly after the Conference , it would argue toto much want of capacity : for if he did but rightly conceiue the true state of the question , in which himselfe had especially desired to be satisfied ( as I verily hope he did ) he might easily haue marked the insufficiency of D. Featly his diuerting proofes , which also were so answered , as the Audience for want of satisfaction in them , vrged him to leaue off , & to produce Nàmes of Protestants in all Ages : the which producing of Names being so often and earnestly required to be done in all Ages , and yet being only pretended ( and that most falsely ) to be done for one Age , and the Conference being so abruptly left of by D. Featly before he would go forward to name men in other Ages , especially in Ages before Luther , as the Question required ; any meane capacity might see , that the Question in which the old Gentleman desired to be satisfied , was not fully answered , nor consequently he satisfied .

Moreouer the same Gentleman being present when the Earle of Warwick told M. Fisher , that D. Featly should at another tyme come againe to giue Names of Protestants in other Ages , he might easily , and doubtles did , vnderstand that as yet Names in all Ages were not giuen , nor consequently the Question satisfied , in which he expected answere . Furthermore presently after he went away from the Conference , he told M. Fisher himselfe , that he was glad , that at the next meeting his Question should be answered , which shewed that as yet he did not conceiue it to be answered .

Lastly , diuers dayes after all the trouble and styrre was past ( which was made about the Conference ) the old Gentleman was not so resolute a Protestant as the Relator pretendeth : for meeting M. Fisher and M. Sweete , he desired them to giue him a Catalogue of Names of Professors of the Roman Church , saying , that if after this the Doctors should not giue him a Catalogue of Protestants , he should dislike their cause . Which Catalogue M. Fisher and M. Sweete haue ready for him , but will not deliuer , till he get the Doctours to make theirs ready , that he may bring to them the Doctours Catalogue with one hand , and receiue theirs with the other to deliuer to the Doctours .

All that can be suspected is , that in the very tyme of the sayd styrre when the old Gentleman eyther was , or feared to be called in question , it may perhaps be , that he might say those words which the Relator mentioneth ; but this ( if it were ) was only vpon frailty or humane feare of trouble , and not any firme and settled resolution grounded vpon the Conference ; sith both before and after he shewed a contrary mynd , as hath byn sayd .

As for other idle and false reports of a great Lady a a This great Lady did expresly say : that the conference did make against Protestants , euen as it was related by you Protestant relator . , or any other Catholiks sayd to haue ben turned Protestants vpon this Conference , I neglect them as being notoriously false . It may be that some Weaklings who not being present at the Conference , nor hauing commodity to heare what passed , but from the lying lyps of some Protestants ( Who reported that Fisher was ouercome , and had yielded Christ and his Apostles to be Protestants ) some Weaklings I say , might perhaps be staggered , vntill they heard the true report , that this was only an impudent slaunder , vttered by D. Featly , And another Lady , who was present at the conference did protest ( to one that asked her how it moued her ) that she was by it confirmed in Catholique religion . but in words and deeds contradicted by M. Fisher . But I make no question so soone as these shall see or heare what is heere related , they will be well satisfied and confirmed in the Catholike truth ; and that euen Protestants themselues , will be moued to harken more after the matter . And in case their Doctours doe not giue them a better Catalogue of Names of Protestants in all Ages , then they did in this Conference , they will doubt , as they haue cause , that the Protestant Church hath not byn so visible in all Ages , as ( euen by D. Featly his argument is proued ) the true Catholike Church ought to be ; and consequently that it is not the true Catholike Church , which in their Creede they professe to belieue , and out of which ( as euen Caluin confesseth ) they cannot hope for remission of Lib. 1. Inst. c. 1. Sect. 4. their sinnes , nor saluation of their soules .

CHAP. IIII. Contayning a Reuiew , and Reflection vpon the Premisses .

NOw hauing made an end of this Relation , I am to intreate the Gentle Reader , to reuiew it , or reflect vpon it , and to call to mind and marke . 1. The occasion , and consequently the end of the disputation . 2. The Question and true meaning of it . 3. What Methode was most fit to haue been obserued in treating of this question . 4. What course was taken by the Protestant Disputant , & what by the Catholike Respondent . All which being duely considered , thou wilt better see what is to be iudged of the whole Conference , and wilt make to thy selfe more benefit of the matter treated in it , then perhaps hitherto thou hast done .

§. 1. About the Occasion , and end of the Conference .

1. The occasion of this Dispute was , as thou hast heard in the Relation , that a certaine old Protestant Gentleman was told ( as the truth is ) that there is no saluation out of the true Catholike Church , and that to belieue the Catholike Church , is one of the Articles of the Creed , which euery Christian is bound to belieue and know : and that this Church was no other besides the most auncient and vniuersally spread ouer the world , the knowne Catholike Roman Church , which hath had , and can yet shew visible Pastours & other Professors in all Ages : and that the Protestant Church ( wherof for the present , he was a member ) sprung vp of late , and could not be the true Church of Christ , as not hauing had ( as Christs true Church ought to haue ) Pastours and Doctours , and lawfully sent Preachers so visible , as the Names of them may be shewed in all Ages out of good Authors . And this was the occasion of the dispute ; for heerupon the old Gentleman was so much moued in conscience to doubt of the Protestants Religion , that he could not be quiet till he had made meanes to get this matter discussed in a Conference betwixt Catholike and Protestant Deuines , in such sort as in the Relation hath byn told . And therfore , the end of this Conference was to giue this old Gentleman and others that should heare it , satisfaction in this most important & necessary point . I call this point , most important and necessary , in regard the certainty of euery other point belieued by infallible diuine Fayth , necessary to saluation , dependeth vpon it . For although euery point belieued by diuine Faith be in it selfe most true , and by reason of the Diuine reuelation ( made knowne to the world by Christ & his Apostles ) most certaine and infallible ; yet this truth & infallible certainty therof is not made knowne to vs ( according to the ordinary course of Gods prouidence ) but only by the meanes which God hath appointed , Eph. 4. v. 11. &c. to wit , by Pastors , Doctors , and Preachers Rom. 10. v. 14. &c. of the true visible Church of Christ .

§. 2. About the Question and meaning of it .

The Question propounded to be treated in the Conference vpon the occasion , and for the end aforesayd , was ▪

Whether the Protestant Church was visible in all Ages , especially in the Ages before Luther : and whether the Names of such visible Protestants may be shewed in all Ages , out of good Authors ?

The reason why this question was proposed rather then any other , was ▪ for that the old Gentleman was already perswaded that there must be in all Ages a visible Church of Christ , hauing in it visible Pastors & Doctors , and lawfully sent Preachers who are by Almighty God appointed and authorized to teach , and of whom all sorts of people are commaunded & warranted to learne infallible Fayth necessary to saluation . And further , that this Church , and these her Pastors & Preachers , haue byn in all Ages past , not only visible , but so visible as the Names at least of some Pastours teaching , and some people learning the true Fayth in all Ages , might be produced out of good Authors . And therfore , as he had heard , the Roman Catholiks made no difficulty to produce out of good Authors the Names of their Pastors & people in all Ages : so he much desired to heare , whether the Names of Protestant Pastors and Preachers in all Ages could not also be produced out of good Authors : for if they could , he meant to remaine a Protestant as he had been all his life time ▪ but if they could not , he thought it necessary to leaue the Protestants , and to adhere to the Roman Church , to learne of it Faith necessary to saluation .

By this appeareth that the sense and meaning of the Question could be no other then that which M Fisher explicated in the Conference : viz. Whether the Protestant Church was in all Ages so visible , especially in the Ages before Luther , as the Names of Protestant Pastors and Preachers in all Ages may be shewed out of good Authors . And further that in case the Protestant Disputant should vndertake ( as he did tooto boldly vndertake ) the affirmatiue part , saying , and offering to proue in generall , that the Names of such Pastors and Preachers of Protestant Religion may be shewed in all Ages out of good Authors ; it should further be required ( as M. Fisher required of him ) that he should actually name in particular in euery seuerall Age such Pastors and Preachers as he thought he could proue and defend to be Protestants . For if the Question had not been thus vnderstood , it should not haue been answerable to the occasion and end aboue sayd . Neyther could the Protestant Disputant sufficiently satisfie the doubt of the old Gentleman , being chiefly caused in that he had heard , that no Protestant could name Pastors and Preachers of his profession in all Ages out of good Authors ; So as ( to satisfy this doubt ) it was not sufficient only to say , nor only in generall to proue by such Syllogismes as D. Featly made , ( which were such as the old Gentleman ( I dare say ) did not vnderstand ) that the Names of Protestants in all Ages may be shewed , but as M. Fisher had shewed him a printed booke , in which Roman Catholike Pastours and people were in particuler named in all Ages : so he expected Protestant Pastours , and people of all Ages to be named in particuler , and after proued and defended to be Protestants , as M. Fisher was ready to proue and defend whom he would in particuler name , to be Roman Catholikes .

Furthermore although it may seeme to some not much materiall , whether the Protestant Disputant hath begun to name first those of the first Age , & next of the second , and so downward vntill Luther , or contrary wise to beginne with Luther and so vpward till the Apostles and Christ ; yet both the words of the Question , & the doubt of the old Gentleman had byn far better satisfied , and the Tergiuersation which D. Featly vsed in the first age auoyded , if M. Fisher had vrged him , as he might ▪ first to beginne with the Age immediatly before Luther ( a confessed Protestant ) and so go vpward vntill Christ , the confessed Fountayne of infallible perpetuall vnchanged Truth : for then it would haue been cleerly seene , euen by the Confession of learned Protestants , particularly Luther himselfe and others ; that those who eyther are named , or can yet be named by D. Featly , after he hath sought ( as I am told he went to seeke ) Records in the great Library in Oxford , were not visible Protestants , but of a different Profession , Fayth , and Religion , and so different , as that they cannot be iustly deemed members of one and the same Protestant Church with Luther , after his Apostacy from his Religious Order , and reuolt from the Roman Catholike Fayth . For proofe wherof , I for breuityes sake do refer euery one who desireth full satisfaction in this point , to what is largely related and proued in the Protestants Apology , in diuers places , but particularly tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 11. subdiuision 3. And will only content my selfe to cyte these few testimonyes for their sakes , who haue not commodity to see that booke .

First therefore 1 1 Luth. ep. ad Argentin . anno 1525. Luther himselfe sayth : We dare boast that Christ was first published by vs . Wherefore the Latheran 2 2 Conradus Schushelb . in Theol. Calu. lib. 2. fol. 130. B. versus finé . Conradus Schushelburg sayth : It is impudency to say that many learned men in Germany ( and the like is of other Countreys ) before Luther did hould the doctrine of the Lutheran Ghospell . And another 3 3 Geo. Mylli . in Augustanae Confessionis explie . art. 7. de Eccl. pag. 137. of them not only sayth in effect thus much , but proueth it by this argument : If there had beene right beleeuers that went before Luther in his office , there had beene no need of a Lutheran reformation . Another sayth : It 4 4 Benedict Morgést . trac . de Eccl , pag. 145. is ridiculous to thinke that in the tyme before Luther any had the purity of doctrine , and that Luther should receaue it from them , & not they from Luther : considering ( sayth he ) it is manifest to the whole world , that before Luthers tyme , all Churches were ouerwhelmed with more then Cymerian darkenes , and that Luther was diuinely raysed vp to discouer the same , & to restore the light of true doctrine . And least this may be thought to haue beene only the conceipt of Luther and Lutherans ( who yet could better tell then D. Featly , D. White , and such other new Maisters ) I will add heereunto what is sayd , first by 5 5 Calu. in I. epist. ep. 141. Caluin , who doth acknowledge , That in this Lutheran reformation , there was made a discession or departure from all the world . Secondly by 6 6 Bucer . ep. ad Epis. Hereford . Bucer , who calleth Luther , the first Apostle of the reformed doctrine . Thirdly , by Beza 7 7 Beza in Theol. ep. epi. 5. a principall Caluinist , who teacheth that at this tyme , ordinary vocation of the Church-men was no where extant , and consequently teacheth , that ther was at that tyme no visible Church ; and so if any Church at all , it was only inuisible , as is affirmed euen by our owne English Protestant Deuines , namely M. 8 8 Iewell in his Apolog. of the Church . 4 c. diuis. 2. & in his defence 42. Iewel , who sayth , The truth was vnknown and vnheard of when Martin Luther and Vldericke Zuinglius first came to the knowledge and preaching of the Ghospel . And M. Perkins 9 9 Perkins in exposit. of the Creed . who sayth : We say , that before the dayes of Luther , for the space of many hundred yeares an vniuersall Apostacy ouerspread the whole face of the earth , and that our ( Protestant ) Church was not visible to the World .

I might adde many more † † See the booke intituled : The Author and substance of Protestant religion testimonyes of others , who eyther in expresse tearmes , or in effect affirme the Protestant Church to haue beene in many Ages before Luther latent , and altogeather inuisible : which indeed was the common opinion of Protestants at their first vprysing ; who on the one side thought they could with shiftes , bettter answere places of scripture , which made often and honourable mention of the Church , then they could answere the euidence of Histories , and of their owne experience shewing that no visible Protestants were extant before themselues : But now of late , diuers plaine places of Scripture and Fathers hauing beene produced , and such euident reasons deduced out of them , prouing ineuitably that the true Church of Christ , of which all sorts must learne infallible sayth necessary to saluation , must needes be visible in all Ages , as , to omitt others , are these : My spirit which is in thee , and my wordes which I haue put in thy mouth , shall not depart out of thy mouth , nor out of the mouth of Isa. 59. v. 21. thy seede , nor out of the mouth of thy seedes seede from henceforth for euer . Againe : Their seed shall be knowne in Nations , Isa. 61 , 9 , and their branches among people : all that see them , shall know them , that these are the seed which our Lord hath blessed . Againe : Thy gates shal be opened continually day and night , Isa. 60 , 11 , they shall not be shut , that the strength of the Nations and their kinges may enter into thee : for the nation and kingdome which Matth. 5 , 14 , shall not serue thee , shall perish . You are the light of the world : a Citty built vpon a hill cannot be hid . Tell the Church &c. He that will not heare the Church , let him be vnto thee as an Matth. 18 , 17 , Matth. 28 , 19 , 20 heathen and Publican Going , teach all Nations , baptizing them &c. Behould I am with you ( to wit , your selues , and successors teaching and baptizing ) all dayes vntill the end of the world . Conformable to which Scriptures , are also innumerable plaine places of ancient Fathers , which may bee seene in Coccius : and among others S. Augustine Coccius in thesauro Controuersiarum , tomo 1. lib. 8. art. 1. who saith : that the Church being built vppon a mountayne cannot be hid .

Out of these , and other plaine places of of Scriptures & Fathers , euident Reasons also may be Aug. in psal. 47. lib. de vnit , Eccles. cap. 16. & 25. deduced , shewing that the Church must needs bee visible in all ages . As for example , that otherwise it cannot bee such a Church as Christ did institute : nor could it performe those offices which Christ appointed it to performe : nor could those which were in it be instructed by it : nor those which were out of it be conuerted to it : nor Heretiques ( pretending to be the Church ) convinced not to be it . Wherfore out later Pro testants being not able to sayle any longer against this ineuitable Scylla , without apparent daunger to split their boate , would needes ( rather then turne back to the safe hauen of the visible Catholique Roman Church ) aduenture vpon the Charybdis of contemning all Monuments of ancient histories , and the plaine experience of their primitiue Protestant Patriarches , hoping to escape by landing vpon the imaginary Iland of inuisible recordes , supposed to haue byn written , and after suppressed in the pretended Popes persecution of the visible Members of their inuisible Church , in the Ages before Luther , ( a shift very vnsafe and such , as if it were good , might serue any other Sect of ancient , or present Heretiques , ( as well as our moderne Protestants ) if they would pretend to haue had a continuall visible Church of their profession . ) But alas , who seeth not that these be meere imaginary Chymaera's , or dreames ? For if any such people had beene ( practizing especially rites of their religion , though neuer so secretly ) they could not euen with a Giges ring haue passed vnseene , but eyther with their positiue profession of their owne doctrine , which in some cases obligeth all true beleeuers , or at least with negatiue profession of fayth , by which all faythfull men , and at all tymes are obliged neuer to make shew and profession of a contrary religion ; they , or some of them could not choose but to haue beene noted . And if for that cause any persecution were in that age , as is supposed , infallibly they would haue beene taken ( as others of other Religions , in like cases ordinarily are taken ) and imprisoned , or otherwise so punished , as the world could not haue beene ignorant of their persons , nor Historyes set out by friendes or enemies silent , in setting downe ( as vsually is done ) their names , conditions , opinions , punishments , and persecutions , in such tyme , such place &c. And if such recordes of such conspicuous things had been set down in historyes , it is not possible that the memory of such notorious matters could be razed both out of bookes , and out of the mindes of men , who without booke do continually deliuer in words to their successors what they saw with their eyes , or heard with their eares of their predecessors , or read in books to haue byn don to such persons as professed such a Religion , or to haue beene done to such bookes , in which mention was made of such persecution , made against professors of that Religion .

To say therefore that such persons were , and yet no record in any booke or other memory of them , or that once such Recordes were , but after were by the Pope razed , or burned , and yet no mention made in any booke , or other monument that such razing or burning of bookes was by such a Pope , at such a tyme &c. ( as we can yet out of good Recordes tell the bookes burned by Dioclesian the Grande Persecutor of Christians : ) To say ( I say ) this , is senselesse , and plainely sheweth , that these men who sought to auoyd the Scylla of an inuisible Church , by this shift fal into the Charybdis of speaking against sense and experience , and indeed runne backe vpon the Scylla of the same inuisible Church ; for auoyding whereof they deuised this sandy shift of inuisible Persecutours , inuisible Persecutions , inuisible Recordes of nameles ( supposed to be visibly persecuted ) members of the Protestant Church in all Ages before Luther . O misery ! O madnes of our poore deceaued Protestants ! What ? Is it possible , that Luther and Lutherans , Caluin and Caluinists , yea our owne Countrey-men prime Protestants , conuinced with the cleere euidency of things in their own dayes , and with plaine Recordes of all ancient Monuments for former ages , doe confesse ( as you heare euen now ) that Luther was the first that announced , or published Christ ; that he was the first Apostle of the Reformed doctrine ; and this so certainely , that they do account it impudency and ridiculous to say , That there were other visible Protestants in Germany before Luther ; that they proue by argument this to be impossible ; that they acknowledge themselues in this Lutheran Reformation to haue departed from all the world ; that at Luthers and Caluins comming no ordinary vocation of Church-men ( without which the visible Church cannot be ) was extant in any place ; that the Church both then , and for many hundred yeares before was wholly latent and inuisible ? Is it possible , I say , that all this should be confessed by the primitiue Parents , and prime Doctours of Protestancy , and that now their professed children & schollers , and in respect of them , Punyes in Protestant diuinity , dare be so bold ( as D. Featly was in the late conference ) to controlle and contradict those his grand Maisters , in not only affirming , but offering to proue by a Syllogisme , and by a Demonstration à priori , that the Protestant Church hath beene in all Ages visible ; and ( O wonder ! ) so visible , as the names of the particular men may be shewed in all ages out of good Authors : and further offering to second this Syllogisme , by a full Induction , in which he vndertooke actually to set downe their particuler names in euery seuerall age ? Surely the aforesayd Protestants , if they had beene present , would haue wondered to see such boldnes , and would haue censured this attempt to be ridiculous impudency .

By this may appeare how notoriously the old Gentleman , and the rest of the Protestant Audience were abused by D. Featly , vndertaking so boldly to proue both by syllogisme and Induction , the affirmatiue part of the aforesayd question , which was proposed to be treated in the conference , the Negatiue whereof is so plainely confessed by so many Prime Protestants , as now we haue heard .

§. 3. About the Method .

Concerning the Method , which had beene fittest to haue beene obserued in treating the aforesayd Question ; it is to be noted , that there be two severall methodes of finding out infallible diuine truth in all points necessary to saluation , the finding wherof was the chiefe end , for which the aforesayd Question about the perpetual visibility of the Church , was proposed to be treated of .

The first methode or way is , that euery man eyther by his owne wit , or by hearing another discourse do examine throughly ech particuler point of diuine Fayth , about which Controuersy , or Question is , or may be made , what is , and what is not to be beleeued vnder payne of damnation ; the which requireth , 1. Ability and strength of naturall wit , and skill in Latin , Greeke , Hebrew , and other languages , and some art by which he may vnderstand the tearmes and state of the Question , and all that is writen of it . 2. That he reade , or heare , and vnderstand all that is written of that Question in holy Scriptures , Councells , Fathers , and moderne Writers , and in the originall Languages and Copyes ; and what els may be sayd of it , pro and contra , by learned Disputants . 3. That he doe maturely weigh and ponder al that is sayd , both for the affirmatiue and negatiue part of the Question . 4. That by prayer and good life he obtaine the assistance of Gods spirit to illuminate his vnderstanding , in matters which exceed the capacity of his naturall wit . 5. That all this premised , he of himselfe ( without relying vpon the Iudgement of any Church ) frame a firme and infallible Iudgement , what is , and what is not to be held , for truth necessary to saluation ; and this being knowne , by it , as by a rule , to iudge which company of men are , or are not the true visible Church of Christ in al Ages . Now who seeth not that this methode , or way of attayning sound resolution in all particuler points of Fayth , & by that to iudge what company of men are , or are not the true visible Church in all ages , cannot be fit and conuenient to be prescribed to all , or indeed to any sort of men , and especially to such , as neither haue extraordinary ability of naturall wit , or skill in languages , nor art requisite to vnderstand the tearmes , and state of all Questions , nor leasure to read , or heare , nor strength of iudgment to weigh and ponder all that is , or may be sayd of them , nor such extraordinary guiftes of prayer and other vertues , as they may presume to haue gotten particuler assistance of Gods spirit , more then other men , whereby they may assure themselues , that they in particuler ( without relying vpon any Churches iudgement ) can firmely and infallibly iudge in euery Question about points of Fayth , what is , and what is not to beleeued , as a truth necessary to saluation .

The 2. methode , or way , which indeed is both most easy , and may giue full satisfaction to all sortes , consisteth in these 3. points . 1. To beleeue and acknowledge , Isa. 59. v. 21. 60. v. 11. 61. v. 9. as euery Christian is bound by the articles of his Creed , that there is , and hath beene in all Ages a visible Catholique Church of Christ , which is 1. Tim. 3. v. 15. Ephes. 4. v. 4. 11. 12. 13. 14. Tertul. lib. de praescript . the Pillar of truth , and in it a visible company of Pastours and Doctours , and lawfully sent Preachers , assisted by the spirit of God ( who haue learned of their predecessours , and they of theyrs , still vpwardes vntill Christ his Apostles , who learned of Christ , and Christ of God his Father , the infallible Truth in all pointes of fayth ) of whome by Gods appointment all sorts haue in all Ages past ( as appeareth by Historyes ) learned , and must in tymes present , and to come , learne the infallible truth in all matters of Christian fayth necessary to saluation . The 2. is , to discerne which company of Christians are this visible Church of Christ , and who be these Pastours , Doctours , and lawfully sent Preachers , of whome all sorts of men may securely learne what is , and what is not to be held for infallible truth in all matters of fayth necessary to saluation . The 3. is , to heare and belieue , and obey whatsoeuer this Company of Christians haue in all Ages taught , and what the present ordinary Pastours , Doctours , and Preachers thereof do teach to be diuine and infallible truth , necessary to saluation : which to do , will not be hard to those , who do truely feare and loue God , and be meeke , and humble in hart , and who can , and will for the loue and seruice of Christ captiuate their vnderstanding , and submit it to the obedience of faith , which must be done by mortifying and denying their owne priuate opinion , that they may follow the sense and iudgment of Christ , speaking in , and by his Catholike Luc. 10. v. 16. Matth. 18. v. 17 Church , Which whosoeuer heareth , beleeueth , & obeyeth , doth heare , beleeue , and obey Christ . And , Whosoeuer contemneth , or will not heare , beleeue , and obey the Church , he contemneth Christ , and by Christs owne censure is to be accounted , as an Heathen or Publican .

Now , concerning the first and third of these points , as no doubt or difficulty was moued either by the old Gentleman , or Syr Humfrey Lynde , or the Doctours , or any other of the Company present at the Conference , so there is no reason why any difficulty should be made therof at all . And as for the 2. point it seemeth to me there should be no great difficulty , in regard it is already agreed of all sides , that there must be one or other such Company of Christians , and among them Pastors & preachers so visible , as is said ; and none besides the Catholique Romaine hitherto hath shewed a sufficient Catalogue of names of men in al Ages , who can with any colour be proued or defended , to haue beene professors of the true , diuine , infallible , Catholike , primitiue , vnchanged faith , first deliuered by Christ , and his Apostles , & after continued in an orderly succession of visible Pastors & Doctours appoynted by God to be allwayes in the Church of purpose , to preserue people of all ages from wauering in doubt of any point of faith , or being carried about with the wind of any vpstart Errour . Neither indeed can any such Catalogue be giuen , but it may be manifestly shewed to be insufficient , as either wanting names of men in some ages , or containing names of such as may certainly be proued to be no Protestants , but to differ in doctrine of fayth one from another , and to condemne one or other of the 39. Articles , vnto which English Protestant Ministers are sworne . Neuertheles if any one be not yet satisfyed in this point , but will haue the Question made , whether the Protestant . Church hath beene so visible in all Ages , as the names of their Pastours and Doctours may be shewed out of good Authors , I doe not see what better methode can be prescribed for an easy , speedy , & certaine resolution of the question , & sound satisfaction of all sorts of men , that shall desire to be resolued in this most necessary and important question , then that which M. Fisher prescribed in his second paper written before the Conference , in which he required his Aduersaryes , 1. To set downe names in all ages of men which they thought to be Protestants . 2. To proue out of good Authors by some doctrine of theirs different from the Roman , that they were Protestants . 3. To defend them to be Protestants , shewing that they did not differ in faith one from another , nor condemned any of the 39. Articles , vnto with all English Protestant Ministers are sworne , in regard otherwise they cannot be al of one Protestant Church : I doe not ( I say ) see , what fitter methode can be prescribed for cleering the afore said Question of such visibility as is required , and presuposed to be in the true Catholique Church , then by actuall naming , prouing and defending , as is aboue said . For only to say there were , or to ofter by arguments , exceeding the capacity of the comon sort of auditors , to proue , that there were men in all ages professing Protestancy , so visible , as that their names may be shewed out of good Authors , is no sufficient satisfaction ; when especially one being vrged actually to shew these names , he will not shew actually any names , but of one or two ages , and such names as the Roman Catholiks , his aduersaries , by better right may & will name : and being still pressed to name more , he will not name more , but desireth first to dispute of these ; which not being permitted till all be named , he most falsely then affirmeth that his Aduersary doth grant these to be Protestants , and so runneth away : To doe thus ( I say ) ( as D. Featly did ) is no fit way to giue satisfaction to all sorts , expecting resolution of the aforesaid most important Question . As it were a very insufficient way to giue satisfaction in a debt of twenty peeces of gold to another his creditor , if insteed of actual payment required , he should say , and offer to proue by a Syllogisme , yea by a Demonstratïon à priori , that he can pay him the said twenty peeces : and being vrged to lay downe the particular peeces of gold , he faith , that by an Induction he will lay downe those peeces of gold one after another ; and being further pressed to do so , he not hauing one peece of gold of his owne taketh out of his Creditors purse one , or two , or more peeces , and laying downe one or two of them , sayth , loe heere is one or two towardes the twenty ; and being neuer so much vrged , he will not lay downe any more vntill his Creditour first dispute with him , whether these two or three peeces layd downe , be his owne or no : and being heereupon seriously told by his Creditor , that vnles he layd downe al the peeces of gold , he did not satisfy the debt , but lost his credit , and forfaited his band , he then falleth into passion , and sayth : What , will you haue me eate my dinner at a bit ? I cannot lay downe all at once : Will you dispute with me about these or no ? Which his Creditor refusing to do , vntill all the twenty peeces be actually layd downe , he lastly sayth : Well , you will not dispute about these ? You graunt these to be myne : and so without expecting answere , he turneth to the company , saying , he granteth these to bemyne , and taketh vp his cloake and runneth away , not regarding that his Creditor so soone as he can open his mouth , biddeth him stay , and denyeth any such grant to haue beene made by him : yea offereth to dispute with him of that point , if he will stay : I suppose no man will thinke this kind of dealing to be an honest and good satisfaction in a debt of money : and therefore much lesse should it be accounted good in matters of farre more importance and value , and specially in satisfying this ( by D. Featly vndertaken ) debt of shewing names of visible Protestants in all ages , out of good Authors .

§. 4. About the manner of proceeding of the Disputant .

By this which hath beene now sayd , and that which was heard and seene by those who were present at the Conference , may appeare how vnfittly D. Featly proceeded in his Syllogisme , and his Induction : for in the one , to wit , his Syllogisme , he endeauoured to auoid that plaine methode prescribed by M. Fisher before the meeting , of naming men in all Ages , and prouing and defending those he named to be Protestants , and sought to draw the disputation into particuler Controuersies , which the capacity of those ( for whose satisfaction the disputation was ordained ) and of diuers others who were present , could not sufficiently comprehend . Now concerning the other , to wit his Induction ; first , it was long before he could be drawne to it : secondly hauing vndertaken to make it full ( and as the Question required ) in all Ages , he ( hauing only made it ( and that most falsely ) for the first Age ) would not proceed further , vnles his Aduersary would first dispute with him ( in particular Controuersyes ) about those whome he named in the first age : which particular disputation ( being of meer Tergiuersation and delay ) because his Aduersary would not presently permit , but told him , that he must first make his full Induction , and then he would answere him as much as need should be in all particulers ; he either hauing no patience to expect , or rather intending to take any such lyke occasion to break off the Conference , before he should be further pressed to giue this full Induction ( which with credit he can neuer giue ) made such an abrupt end , as in this my Relation is declared .

Now , for the manner which both D. White , & he obserued in the processe of the conference , it was noted , that it had not that decorum , which the circumstance of their persons and places should promise . For it no way suited with the gray haires and grauity of a Doctor , and a Deane , to haue laughed and fleered so much as D. White did , vpon no cause . And for D. Featly , both his lookes , speaches , iests , and gestures were such , as did not become him , but might better haue beseemed a Stage-player then a Doctour and an Archbishops Chapline , and discouered a mind not so tempered , as had beene requisite in one who pretended to be a Teacher of true Diuinity . Finally his whole carriage in this busines shewed , that he rather sought to please his Audience , and to gaine applause to himselfe , then soundly to satisfy that most important Question , of the visibility of the Protestant Church .

On the other side , M. Fisher , and M. Sweet behaued themselues moderatly , not only in the eye and iudgement of Catholiques , but also of others : so as euen their greatest Aduersaryes could not take exception against them . And one of the principall Protestants present hath since ( in respect of temper & modesty ) giuen speciall commendations of them , & far preferred them before his owne Church-men . And as the methode which M. Fisher prescribed before the meeting , is already shewed to be the fittest that could be , for giuing good satisfaction to the old Gentleman and all others , so in my opinion both he and M. Sweet did very well to stand ( as they did ) constantly to it , prudently forseeing , when the Aduersary would haue diuerted them from it , and warily so answering his his arguments , as that for all he could say , they would not suffer themselues to be transported from the proposed Question , and the prescribed Methode ; but stil kept the Aduersary to the point , & would not permit him to diuert , either to dispute about Christ or his Apostles , or any other point , vntill names were giuen in all Ages , which was the point demanded and vndertaken . The which course they tooke vpon iust and good reason , and not for any distrust or diffidence ( as some Protestants did inconsideratly imagine ) that they could not defend Christ and his Apostles not to haue beene Protestants , or any particular point of those which D. Featly , or D. White vnseasonably proposed , or any other held ( in such sense , as it is held as a point of fayth ) by the Catholike Roman Church ; which they could , and would haue defended , & proued if need had beene , or if the meeting had beene intended and appointed for that purpose . The reason therefore why M. Fisher might well refuse to enter into such particuler disputes , before full Induction of Names were ended , was , for that this had beene to follow two Hares at once , and so to catch neither , and to leaue that which was most pertinent to the present Question , and which most imported to be decided in the first place , as being the only thing in which the old Gentleman , and many other of the Audience did particulerly expect , and desire to be satisfyed , and being a most easy and assured meanes to help them to be satisfyed in all other matters in Controuersy ; & without which , it is most hard , or rather impossible euer to attaine certaine and infallible Resolution in all particular , euen most necessary , points of fayth , as M. Fisher expresely shewed , and proued by a sentence aboue cyted out of D. Field .

A second reason might be ; for that all disputation about particulers ( before the true Church were by her perpetuall visibility , or some such euident marks found out , and acknowledged , as a sufficient meanes appointed by God to instruct all sorts , in matters of fayth , and to preserue vnity and determine Controuersyes of fayth ) would haue beene fruitlesse & endlesse . Which was the reason why M. Fisher , in another former conference had with a certaine Minister would not enter into any particulers , vntill he had asked these generall Questions : 1. What grounds the Minister would stand vpon ? The Minister answered , Scripture : which M. Fisher accepting wrote downe , and then asked . 2. Whether he would belieue nothing but expresse wordes of Scripture ? The Minister answered Yes , he would also beleeue a good Consequence out of Scripture . This also M. Fisher accepted , and wrote downe , and further asked . 3. If it should happen , that the consequence which the Minister should bring , should not be thoght good by him : and è contra , the Consequence brought by him should not be thought good by the Minister , who should iudge and end that fruitlesse , and otherwise endlesse contention and Controuersy ? The Minister sayd : The Church ▪ M. Fisher very willingly accepted and wrote it down ; & 4. asked : Whether after the Church shall haue iudged and decyded such a Controuersy , it should be lawfull for any priuate man to oppose his iudgement against that , which the Church had so determined ? As for example , when Cutholikes and Arrians hauing alleadged Scriptures , and pro and contra brought consequences out of them , about the Diuinity of Christ our Lord ; The Church in a generall Councell iudged the consequences of Arrians to be naught , and those of the Catholikes good . The Minister sayd : No , it was not lawfull for any priuate man to oppose his iudgement against such a Iudgement of the Church .

These Questions being asked , M. Fisher ioyned issue vpon a question , bidding the Minister choose what he thought most materiall against Roman Catholikes , and let it be tryed , whether the Church did iudge for Catholikes , or Protestants . The Minister did choose the Question about Merits , and tooke for his tenet , That there was not any Merit of man before God . And when the day of tryall came , the case was so cleere against the Minister , in the ancient Fathers ( whome the Minister granted to be the Church ) euen by confession of the Magdeburgians , that the Minister had no shift , but to diuert the disputation from the substance of the proposed Question , to a circumstance of Commutatiue Iustice , and that equality betwixt the Worke and the Reward , which is written of by Bellarmine . About which circumstance M. Fisher was content to dispute after he had plainely shewed the substance of Merit out of the ancient Fathers . Comming therefore to dispute about the aforesayd circumstance of Merit , M. Fisher found , that there would be no end , nor fruit of the argument , in regard the ancient Fathers had not spoken of it in expresse tearmes , as they had done of the substance of Merit , & no other visible Church of this present age was agreed on , to whose iudgement this matter should be finally referred . By which experience , M. Fisher hath learned , how endlesse and fruitlesse it is , to waste wordes about particulers , vntill both partyes be agreed which is the true Church , not only in ancient tymes , but also of this age . So as after ech party hath sayd what he can , the finall resolution of the Question may be referred to that present Church , which ( hauing without interruption of Pastours and Doctors , and without change of doctrine successiuely descended from the true visible Church of ancient tymes ) is by this , and other Markes proued to be the pre-present true Church , whose Iudgment no priuate man must oppose . This Question therefore of the continual successiue visible Church , being so necessary to end al Controuersies , and being now proposed to be treated of betwixt M. Fisher and D. Featly , M. Fisher had great reason not to permit speach of any other particular Question , vntill by his prescribed Methode , he had gotten it clearly seen , that the Protestant Church was not , and the Catholique Roman Church was the only true Church , to whome it pertayneth to giue Iudgment of , and determine Controuersies , and to instruct all sorts of men in the true Faith , and not to permit men by their priuate interpretations of Scripture to wander in errors , or wauer in in certain ties , or spend their tyme in fruitles , and endles disputations about controuerfies of faith : It being most certaine , that these can neuer be with fruite , and fully ended , but by the censure of the true visible ( not only ancient but also present ) Church , which must when doubt is ( as most often is ) made , tell vs , what particuler books be true bookes of Scripture and Fathers , which be true translations , and which be right interpretations : for both about Scriptures & Fathers such Questions may arise , and cannot be well decided whout the Iudgement of the true present visible Church , in regard Scriptures and Fathers do not alwaies sufficiently expresse what is to be held in the aforesaid Questions ; neither will one priuate man , in such cases , follow anothers opinion , when ech man will be easily inclined to thinke that he hath as good Scriptures , or Fathers , or Reasons , or all these togeather , to plead for the truth of his opinion , as another hath for his .

This reason may be confirmed out of Tertullian who in his golden booke of Prescriptions , giueth diuers reasons why Heretikes ( who reiect the authority of the Church ) should not be admitted to dispute out of Scriptures . First , for that ( by their disputations ) they weary those that be fame , they ouercome those which be Tertull. de praescrip. c. 15. weake , and those which be in a middle disposition , they dism●sse with scruple or doubt . Another reason Tertullian giueth , because , this Heresy doth not receaue some Scriptures , or if a receaue , it peruerteth them to their owne purpose , with additions and detractions ; and if it receaue some , yet not whole , or if whole in some sort , yet by false expositions it turneth them ( from the right ) to a peruerse sense . And a peruerse , or corrupt sense ( sayth he ) is as contrary to Cap. 19. truth , as is a peruerted or corrupted Text.

Tertullian therefore for these reasons iudged best not to make the combat in Scriptures , but that this gappe should be stopt , and that Heretikes should not be admitted to any disputation of Scriptures ; and he telleth how this may be done , saying : It must be examined Cap. 20. 21. 22 & sequent . to whome the possession of Scripture doth belong , to the intent that he who hath no right vnto them , may not be admitted vnto them . And further he sheweth , That the right order of thinges requireth , that first it only be disputed , to whom the Fayth belongeth ? ( As if he should say , which is the true visible Church ? ) Whose are the Scriptures ? From whome , by whome , when , and to whome was deliuered that discipliae , by which they are made Christians ? for where there shall appeare the truth of Christian sayth and discipline to be ( as doubtles it is in the true visible Church of Christ ) there shal be truth of Scriptures , and expositions , and al Christian Traditions . And hauing shewed how Christ did promulgate his doctrine by the Apostles , he further prescribeth : That , what Christ , and his Apostles did preach , must be learned no otherwise then by the Churches which they founded : so as euery doctrine agreeing with those Apostolicall & Mother-Churches , that is to be deemed true ; and what doth not agree , to be iudged false . And therefore to make it apparent , that the Heretikes opinions ( although pretended by themselues to be cc̄formable to Scriptures , and such as may be proued out of Scriptures ) are not Apostolicall , nor true , he vrgeth them ( as M. Fisher vrged D. Featly ) to shew the beginning of their Churches , and to vnfould the order of their Cap. 32. Bishops , so from the beginning running downe by succession , as that their first Bishop had some of the Apostles , or some Apostolicall man , who perseuered with the Apostles , for his Author and Predecessour ; and hauing giuen examples of the Catholike Churches , who can thus vnfould the order of their Pastours , and namely Rome for one , he sayth afterwardes : Confingant tale quid Haeretici : Let Heretiques euen feigne some such like thing .

Thus we see what Tertullian did say to Heretikes of his tyme , by which we may learne what we may say to the Nouellists of our tyme , whome ( offering to dispute with vs about Scriptures ) we may altogeather debarre from Scripture , and may examine them , as Tertullian did those of his tyme , saying : Who are you ? When , and whence came you ? What haue you to do in my ground , you that are not myne ? By what right dost thou , O Marcion ( we may say , O Martin Luther ) cut down my woods ? By what licence dost thou , O Valentine ( O Caluin ) diuert , or turne aside my fountaynes ? By what power dost thou , O Apelles . ( O Anabaptist ) remoue my limits ? Why do you , O the rest of Heretikes , sow and feed according to your owne will vpon my Land and pasture ? It is my possession , I am the ancient possessour , I haue the firme Originalls from the Authors themselues , to whome the propriety did first belong : I am the heyre of the Apostles ; as they did ordaine in their Testament and last will , as they did commit it to my faythfull Trust , as they did adiure me , so I hold it . But you they haue disinherited and cast out , as strangers and enemyes &c. So as by this prescription of Tertullian , vntill D. Featly , or some other can by other markes then by alleadging wordes of Scripture ( as by perpetuall visibility , and interrupted succession of Bishops &c. ) proue Protestants not to be Heretikes , but the true Church of Christ , and the right heyre of the Apostles , to whome consequently belongeth the most ancient & first possession of Scriptures , M. Fisher had good reason and right to deferre disputing with him ( out of Scripture ) of Christ and his Apostles , vntill he had made his full Induction of Names of Protestant Church-men , and vnfoulded the orders of their Prostant Bishops , so running downe from the beginning by succession , as that their first Protestant Bishop had some of the Apostles , or some Apostolicall man , who perseuered with the Apostles , for his Author & Predecessour . The which I accompt to be so impossible for him to doe , as I dare , and do challenge him , saying with Tertullian : Confingant tale quid Haeretici : Let D. Featly ( or any of his fellow Protestants ) at least feigne ( because I am sure they cannot find ) Names of Protestant Bishops , and Pastors , whome they do imagine ( for proue they cannot out of good Authors ) to haue beene in all ages . Which whiles they do not , al sorts of people haue iust cause to thinke , that neither D. Featly , nor D. White can performe that taske , which they did tooto boldly vndertake of naming , prouing , and defending visible Ptotestants in al ages : & therupon al men may , as I do , conclude , That the Protestant Church hath not beene so visible in all ages , as the Cathelike Church ought to be : and consequently , the Protestant Church is not the true Catholique Church which we prosesse to beleeue in our Creed ; Neither consequently , are their I'astours , and Doctours and Preachers lawfully sent , or sufficiently authorized , to teach and expound Gods word ; nor consequently , are people securely warranted to learne of them , what is , and what is not to be belieued by infallible diuine fa●th necessary to saluation ; nor indeed ought they to beleeue or heare them at all , but ought to vnite themselues to that One , Holy , Catholike , Apostolike , perpetually visible Roman Church , hearing , beleeuing & obeying the Pastors thereof ; whereby they may haue infallible iustruction in all matters of fayth , secure direction for all matters concerning good life , in such sort as they may attaine remission of their sinnes , and saluation of their soules ; the grace of God in this life , and endles heauenly happines in the next . Vnto which I beseech sweet Iesus to bring vs all .

Amen . FINIS .

Notes, typically marginal, from the original text

Notes for div A00791-e190

Notes for div A00791-e350

Notes for div A00791-e2380

Notes for div A00791-e8860

Notes for div A00791-e9190