The Fisher Catched in his Own Net
The source for this document is https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A00596.0001.001
Project Note
This is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND. This license allows reusers to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form only, for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator.
The source of this document is the Early English Books Online (EEBO-TCP) website. Those books were transcribed in a character for character manner and can be very cumbersome to read since there was no standard spelling during that time. Many spelling variations such as "unlesse", "vnlesse", and "vnles" regularly appear.
This project was conceived to clean up those books as much as possible and make them more accessible to the interested reader, leading to the creation of a massive list of variant spellings and their corrections. This was used to clean up the text, but is of course only as complete as the list itself. Because of the nature of the original transcription, some words have missing characters or places where the original language (e.g., Greek) was not transcribed. This effort does not change that. Be aware that the original transcription can also be faulty and in some cases entire sentences may be missing.
Although this is no substitute for a properly compared, proofed, and scholarly edition, I believe that the result is a document which is far more accessible, particularly for searching for terms using standard spelling. The document has been cleaned and presented in what I hope is a pleasing and useful format for the vast majority of Christian brothers and sisters who just want access to read these spiritually nourishing works.
However, a word of warning: The Puritans were a very diverse group of people and their age was characterized with godliness, but also much upheaval, disputation and strife. They disagreed on many doctrines and some of these works contain less orthodox or Scriptural views than others. The reader is strongly advised to read with discernment, particularly if it is unknown whether author is trustworthy.
This project took a huge amount of time and skill to bring to fruition. I would particularly like to thank David Jonescue for the initial list of Puritans he found on EEBO and the concept behind this project as well as the continuous, unceasing efforts toward seeing this complete. Without his labor, this would not be available. Alex Sarrouf was invaluable in providing the initial list of over 7,000 spelling variations he had identified and corrected, as well as continuing to review more than 16,000 additions to that list for any typos.
Logan West
(with David Jonescue and Alex Sarrouf)
www.puritansearch.org
THE FISHER CATCHED IN HIS OWNE NET.
M.DC.XXIII.
THE OCCASION AND ISSVE OF THE LATE CONFERENCE HAD BETWEEN Dr. White Dean of Carleil, and D r . Featly, with M r . Fisher and M r . Sweet, Jesuits, was this as followeth.
EDward Buggs Esquire, about the age of 70 years, being lately sick was solicited by some Papists then about him to forsake the Protestant faith, telling him there was no hope of salvation without the Church, there was no Catholik Church but theirs, and to believe the Catholic Church was the Article of his Creed, and by it could no other Church be meant but the Church of Rome, because it could not be proved by all the Protestants in the kingdom, that they had any Church before Luther.
This Gentleman being much troubled in his mind with these and the like suggestions, who all his life time had been and professed himself a religious Protestant, became now more sick in mind then body; and if by God's merciful goodness he had not recovered of this sickness, it is to be feared he had fallen both from his Mother Church and his former faith, as some of the nearest of his own blood (to his great grief) have lately been seduced by like enticements.
After his recovery, being much troubled in mind with these former suggestions of the popish Priests, he repaired to Sir Humfrey Lynde Knight, who by reason of his alliance and long acquaintance with him, gave the best satisfaction he could to his said cousin M r . Buggs, who seemed to take content in such his conference, and to be well satisfied by him in all points.
But the Popish Priests and Jesuits not desisting to creep in further where they had once made a breach, persevering still in questioning him, where his Church was before Luther. Whereupon he repaired again to Sir Humfrey Lynde, and required some further satisfaction of him concerning that demand. And thereupon Sir Humfrey Lynde told him, it was first in Christ and the Apostles, consequently also conspicuous in the primitive Church for 600 years after Christ, after which time some errors crept into the Church, as diseases into a man's body; so that the Church which Luther and we acknowledge, was in general the same Christian Church, as his body was the same substantial body, being now well, and lately sick, though different in the qualities.
And for the better strengthening of his mind, the said Sir Humfrey Lynde invited him to his house in the country, thereby the better to prevent the daily solicitation of those dangerous seducers. And after his return to London, the said Sir Humfrey Lynde going to M r . Buggs his house in Drury lane to visit him, found M r . Fisher the Jesuit there, where after some debates about Religion and the visibility of the Church, M r . Fisher called for pen and ink, and set down this question in terminis; thereby adding under his hand, that he would answer upon it negatively, as challenging and expecting opposers, delivering also the paper into the hands of the said Sir Humfrey Lynde, who upon view of it, answered, that it was an historical question, and not so proper for disputation. But M r . Fisher. urging it, Sir Humfrey told him, if he would go to Dr. Whites, where formerly he had been, the said Doctor would easily resolve those doubts. Which being refused by the Jesuit, the said Sir Humfrey did then return him his paper again, and so left him.
About two days after, M r . Buggs repaired to Sir Humfrey Lynd, and entreated him (for his satisfaction) to give M r . Fisher a meeting, saying, that M r . Fisher had again told him, that he would maintain what he had set down, and that our Divines could not prove our Church visible before Luther's time. Whereupon Sir Humfrey told him, that D r . White and D r . Featly were to dine with him on Friday following; and if after dinner M r . Fisher would come thither with four or six at the most, they should be admitted for his sake and his wifes, who (by reason of such solicitation) were troubled in their minds, and satisfaction should be given as occasion required. And these were the true causes of the meeting, as is before declared. Upon which Friday, being the 27 of June 1623. M r . Fisher, M r . Sweet, Jesuits, and some others with them, came to Sir Humfrey Lynds house, into a little dining room, where they found the aforesaid M r . Buggs, his wife and children, and others of Sir Humfreys friends that had then dined with him, together with some others also; whose coming in, as the said Sir Humfrey did not expect, so he could not with civility put them forth his house, but did instantly cause his doors to be locked up, that no more might enter in; notwithstanding which his command, some others also came in scatteringly after the Conference began.
A RELATION OF WHAT PASSED IN A CONFERENCE TOVCHING the visibility of the Church. Iun. 27. 1623.
DOctor White and Doctor Featly being invited to dinner by Sir Humfrey Lynde, and staying a while after, had notice given them that M r . Fisher and M r . Sweet, Jesuits, were in the next room ready to confer with them touching a question set down by M r . Fisher, under his own hand, in these words: viz.
Whether the Protestant Church was in all ages visible, and especially in the ages going before Luther: 2. And whether the names of such visible Protestants in all ages can be shown and proved out of good Authors.
This question being delivered to the parties above named, and it being notified unto them that there were certain persons who had been solicited (and remaining doubtful in religion) desired satisfaction especially in this point, they were persuaded to have some speech with the Jesuits touching this point, the rather because the Priests and Jesuits do daily cast out papers and disperse them in secret, in which they vaunt, that no Protestant Minister dare encounter them in this point.
At the beginning of his meeting, when the disputants were set, D r . Featly drew out the paper, in which the question above rehearsed was written, with these words in the margent, viz. I will answer that it was not; and demanded of M r . Fisher whether this were his own hand; which after he had acknowledged, D r . Featly began as followeth.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , To this universal demand, requiring rather an Historical large volume, then a Syllogisticall brief dispute, we answer:
1. That although divine infallible faith is not built upon deduction out of human history, but divine revelation, as is confessed by your own School-men, and expressly by Cardinal Bellarmine: Historiae humanae faciunt tantum fidem humanam, cui subesse potest falsum: Human stories and records beget only an human faith, or rather credulity subject to error, not a divine and infallible belief, which must be built upon surer ground.
2. Although this question be grounded upon uncertain and false supposals; for a Church may have been visible, yet not the names of all visible professors thereof now to be shown and proved 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 us to come by; yet we will not refuse to deal with you in your own question, if you in like manner will undertake the like task in your own defense, and maintain the affirmative in the like question, which we now propound unto you here in writing:
Whether the Romish Church (that is, a Church holding the particular entire doctrine of the now Romanists, as it is comprised in the Council of Trent) was in all ages visible, especially in the first 600 years: And whether the names of such visible or legible Romanists in all ages can be shown and proved out of good Authors.
Here D r . Featly reading this question, through a mistake, instead of out of good Authors, read out of God's word. Whereunto M r . Fisher replied, No, I will prove it out of good Auhors.
Then said one that sat at the table: By no means can M r . Fisher endure to demonstrate his Church out of God's word.
God is a good Author, M r . Fisher, but it is true I did mistake; what say you to the condition, will you undertake to name visible Papists in all ages out of good Authors?
I will so you prove the visibility of your Church.
Here an order was set down, that D r . Featly should for an hour and a half oppose M. Fisher in this question; and afterwards M. Fisher for the last hour and half should oppose D White in the contrary question for the visibility of the Roman Church.
Before you proceed to dispute, I desire these conditions may be assented unto on both sides:
1. That all bitter speeches be forborne.
2. That none speak but disputants. Which conditions were well approved of by the whole company.
I desire a third to be added thereunto: viz. that both the Opponent and Respondent be tied to Logic form.
I hold not that condition fit, because the company understands not Logic form.
There are of the company that understand Logic as well as you or I, and the rest are men of understanding and reason; therefore I am resolved to keep Logic form, and expect from you direct answers.
You yourself confess, that this question is not to be handled Syllogistically.
I said indeed, that it required rather a large Historical volume, then a brief Syllogisticall dispute; the more you too blame to propound such a question, and my task the harder; yet being propounded as a question, I will keep myself to Logic form. But before I propound my argument, I crave leave in few words to lay open the vanity of the usual discourse, wherewith you draw and delude many of the ignorant and unlearned. You bear them in hand, that there was no such thing in the world as a Protestant before Luther; and that all the world before his time believed as you do. That your Church hath not been only visible in all ages and all times, but eminently conspicuous and illustrious; which is such a notorious untruth, that I here offer before all this company to yield you the better, and acknowledge myself overcome, if you can produce out of good Authors, I will not say any Empire or kingdom, but any City, parish or hamlet, within five hundred years next after Christ, in which there was any visible assembly of Christians to be named, maintaining and defending either your Trent Creed in general, or these points of Popery in special, to wit,
1. That there is a Treasury of Saints merits, and superabundant satisfactions at the Popes disposing.
2. That the Laity are not commanded by Christ's institution to receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper in both kinds.
3. That the public Service of God in the Church ought or may be celebrated in an unknown tongue.
4. That private Masses, wherein the Priest saith, Edite & bihite ex hoc omnes, and yet eateth and drinketh himself only, are according to Christ's institution.
5. That the Popes pardons are requisite or useful to release souls out of Purgatory.
6. That the effect of the Sacrament dependeth upon the intention of the Minister.
These are Scholastical points, not fundamental.
Those things which are defined in your Council of Trent, are to you matters fundamental.
Whatsoever article denied makes a man in heretic, is fundamental.
But the denial of any of these, makes a man an heretic.
Ergo, everyone of these articles is fundamental.
To which argument nothing being answered, D. Featly proceeded.
7. That Extreme Unction is a Sacrament properly so called.
8. That we may worship God by an image.
9. That the sacred Hoast ought to be eleuated, or carried in solemn procession.
10. That Infidels and impious persons, yea Rats and mice may eat the body of Christ.
11. That all Ecclesiastical power dependeth of the Pope.
12. That he cannot err in matter of faith.
13. That he hath power to canonize Saints:
14. To institute Religious Orders: 15. to depose Kings, &c. which latter points and the like, I leave to D. White to maintain against you, when (according to your promise) you do undertake to name visible and legible Romanists in all ages.
After you have proved your Church visible in all ages, and named the professors thereof, I will satisfy you in your particulars.
In the mean while name but one Father, but one Writer of note, who held the particulars above named, for 500 years after Christ. To which instant demand of D. Featly, nothing was answered.
M. Sweet, prove me but this one point out of Saint Augustine, namely, Transubstantiation; or satisfy such arguments as I shall bring you out of Saint Augustine to the contrary, and I will promise you to go to Mass.
To which M. Sweet made no other then this answer, That is not now to the question.
I expect your argument D. Featly.
There are two means only to prove anything by necessary inference, to wit, a Syllogism and an Induction: other forms of argument have no force, but as they are reducible to these. I prove the visibility of our Church by both; and first by a Syllogism:
That Church whose faith is eternal and perpetual, was ever visible in the professors thereof.
But the faith of the Protestant Church is eternal and perpetual.
Ergo.
You conclude not the question.
There are two quaeres in your question; first, whether the Protestant Church were in all ages visible; and secondly, whether the names of such visible Protestants in all ages can be shown. I have concluded in my Syllogism the first Quaere.
There are not two quaeres or parts in the question; it is but one question.
Where there are two propositions with two distinct vtrums, there are two questions: But here are two propositions with two distinct vtrums, to wit, Whether the Protestant Church, &c. and Whether the names, &c.
Ergo.
Conclude anything syllogistically D. Featly.
You yourself make the first part a question by it self: for at the margent over against the first part, Whether the Protestant Church was ever visible, you write, I will answer, it was not. Which words can have no Grammatical construction, if you refer them to both parts, or at all to the latter part, to wit, Whether the names can be shown.
Let us hear a Syllogism.
In this copulative proposition which you offer for a question, and require me to prove; either you deny both parts, or one only: if both, I am to prove both, one after the other; if one only, then you grant the other. A copulative is not true unless both parts be true; do you deny both, or one only?
I say they are but one: for the latter part is to expound the former: for I mean by visible, so visible, that the names of such visible Protestants may be shown.
This is to confound two distinct questions in one. For a Church may have been visible, and yet the names of such visible professors not now to be shown.
They are my words, and I am best able to expound my own meaning.
An exposition which the construction of the words will not bear, is not to be received. But the construction of the words will not bear this your exposition. Therefore it is not to be received. And is a conjunction copulative, and must add somewhat to that which goes before. It is all one, as if you should expound the words of the Apostle, Prouide honest things before God and men, before God, that is, before men.
What need you stand so much upon this; if there were visible men, certainly they may be named. Name your visible Protestants, and it sufficeth.
Name visible Protestants in all ages.
It seems you are nominals rather then reals; you stand so much upon naming: will you undertake to name visible Papists in all ages?
If neither you nor we can name visible professors of our Religions in all ages, for ought I know, the best way for us is, to be all natural men.
This is the right reason of a natural.
If there were visible Protestants in all ages, certainly they may be named.
That is a non sequitur, for the reasons before named by me. What say you to a people of Africa, who (if we may believe Pliny ) have no names at all.
Yet they have descriptions, and may be known by some periphrasis.
What say you then to the heretics 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 all visible men's names upon record? Are all the records that were in former times, now to be produced?
Here diverse of M r . Fishers company, called, Names, names, names.
What, will nothing content you but a Buttery book? you shall have a Buttery book of names, if you will stay a while.
Here diverse of the auditors wished D r . Featly not to proceed any further in the disputation, unless M r . Fisher would suffer him according to the laws of all disputation, first to conclude the first part of his copulative question, and then the second: yet D. Featly desirous to bring the disputation to some better issue before he left it, was content to yield to M. Fishers unreasonable demand, and conclude both parts of the copulative question in one Syllogism.
That Church whose faith is eternal and perpetual, is so visible, that the names of some professors thereof may be shown in all ages.
But the faith of the Protestant Church is eternal and perpetual.
Ergo.
Faith eternal, whoever heard of faith eternal? Saint Paul saith, that faith ceaseth.
You have a purpose, M. Fisher, to cavil; you know my meaning well enough, by the term perpetual, to wit, that Christian faith which hath continued from Christ's first publishing it till this present, and shall continue until his second coming. The Church which holdeth this faith, you believe shall be so visible, that the names of the professors thereof may be shown in all ages.
But the Protestant Church holdeth this perpetual faith.
Ergo.
Your argument is a fallacy, called, petitio principii.
A demonstration à causa, or à priori, is not petitio principij.
But such is my argument.
Ergo.
Is it not a sounder argument to prove the visibility of the professors from the truth of their faith, then as you do the truth of your faith from the visibility of professors? Visible professors argue not a right faith. Heretics, Mohammedans and Gentiles have visible professors of their impieties; yet will it not hence follow, that they have a right belief. On the contrary, we know by the promises of God in the Scripture, that the Church which maintaineth the true faith, shall have always professors more or less visible.
You ought to prove the truth of your Church à posteriori, for that is to the question, and not à priori.
Shall you prescribe me my weapons? Is not an argument à priori, better then an argument à posteriori? This is, as if in battle you should enjoin your enemy to stab you with a knife, and not with a sword or dagger. I will use what weapons I list; take you what buckler you can.
A proof à posteriori is more demonstrative then à priori.
Here M r . Fisher showeth his Academical learning, in preferring a demonstration à posteriori, before that which proceedeth à priori. Is not a demonstration of the effect from the cause, more excellent then of the cause by the effect?
From this place and so forward, it was agreed by the disputants, that the Arguments and Answers should be taken by one common writer, and that the Opponet D. Featly should set his hand to each several Syllogism; and the Respondent M. Fisher to his several Answers.
That Church which is so visible as the Catholic Church ought to be, and as the Popish Church is pretended by M. Fisher to be, is so visible, that their names may be produced and shown.
But the Protestant Church is so visible, as the Catholik Church ought to be, and as the Popish Church is pretended by M. Fisher to be.
Ergo.
I deny the minor.
That Church whose faith is eternal and perpetual and unchanged, is so visible as the Catholic Church ought to be, and the Popish Church by M. Fisher is pretended to be.
But the faith of the Protestant Church is eternal, perpetual and unchanged.
Ergo the Protestant Church is so visible as the Catholic Church ought to be, and the Popish Church is pretended by M. Fisher to be.
I distinguish the major. That Church whose faith is perpetual and unchanged so as the names can be shown, is so visible as the Catholik Church ought to be, and as M. Fisher pretends the Roman Church to be, I grant it.
That Church whose faith is perpetual and unchanged, yet so as the names cannot be shown in all ages, is so visible as the Catholic Church ought to be, and as M r . Fisher pretends the Roman Church ought to be, I deny it. To the minor I apply the like distinction; and consequently to the conclusion in the same manner.
What? answer you to the conclusion also? This is a strain of new Logic.
Tolle distinctionem.
A strange distinction of the eternity of faith by professors to be named and not to be named. What are professors nominable or innominable to the eternity of faith?
Conclude that which I deny, That the Protestant Church is so eternal, as the names of all visible Protestants in all ages may be shown.
That Church whose faith is the catholic and primitive faith once givē to the Saints without which no man can be saved, is so perpetual as the names may be shown in all ages.
But the faith of the Protestant Church is the primitive and catholic faith once given to the Saints, without which none can be saved.
Ergo the faith of the Protestant church is so perpetual, as the names may be shown in all ages.
I answer to the minor. If this proposition be taken simply in it self, I absolutely deny it; but if this proposition be considered (as it must be) as related to the first question and the end thereof, I further add, that it is not pertinent to that end for which the whole dispute was intended, to wit, to show to those who are not able by their own ability to find out the infallible faith necessary to salvation, without learning it of the true visible Church of Christ; and consequently the visibility of the Church is first to be shown before the truth of doctrine in particular shall be shown.
First, what speak you of those who are not able by their own abilities to find out faith? is any man able by his own ability, without the help of divine grace? 2. What helpeth the visibility, to confirm the truth of the Church? Visibility indeed proves a Church, but not the true Church.
Here M. Fisher alleged some words out of D. Field of the Church, supposing thereby to justify his former answer; whereunto D. Featly promised answer should be made when it came to their turn to answer; now he was by order to oppose M. Fisher.
The sum of your former answer was, that the minor of my former Syllogism was both false and impertinent. It is neither false nor impertinent. Ergo, your answer is false and impertinent. And first, it is not false.
I answer to the antecedent, That it is both false and impertinent; but I add, that for the present it must first be proved to be pertinent, or else it diuerteth us from the chief 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 every particular infallible truth, and by that to conclude which is the true visible Church.
I prove that the minor is pertinent. That minor proposition which together with the major doth necessarily and directly infer the conclusion of the minor last denied, is pertinent to the probation of that minor denied.
But the minor proposition of the third Syllogism, doth necessarily and directly infer the conclusion of the minor last denied.
Ergo the minor of that Syllogism is pertinent.
Note that M. Fishers answers to everyone of these Syllogisms were penned by him verbatim, with the advice of M. Sweet and one other, advising privately and amending what they thought fit, which breeding much delay, irksome to the hearers; and the Opponent then saying, You are very long M. Fisher. A stander by said, Let him alone, for he and his learned council are not yet agreed.
I distinguish the major. That minor proposition which together with the major doth necessarily and directly infer the conclusion of the minor in such manner as it may serve for that purpose to which the whole dispute is ordained, I grant it to be pertinent. But if it do infer the conclusion, yet not in such manner as it may serve for that purpose for which the whole dispute was ordained, I deny the major.
Here the disputants iarred, and so the writer ceased; yet that which followeth was then delivered by them.
That minor which together with the major infers the proposition last denied, the whole process having been per directa media, is pertinent to that purpose to which the dispute is ordained.
But this minor together with the major directly and necessarily infers the Proposition last denied, the whole processus having been made per directa media.
Ergo it is pertinent to that purpose to which the dispute is ordained.
Your media in your Syllogisms were directa, but they tended not ad directum finem.
This is a B • ll, M r . Fisher. Media directa, yet not ad directum finem, that is, direct and not direct: for media are said to be directa only ration finis.
Is there not a fault in arguing, called transitio à genere in genus? when a man by arguing quite leaves the main question and subject.
I acknowledge that transitio à genere in genus, is a fault in disputing; but I never heard, that the inference of the effect by the cause was transitio à genere in genus: such was my argument. For faith in a right believer 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 needs be perpetual. Therefore where the faith is perpetual, the profession thereof must needs be, and consequently the visibility of the professors thereof. Is this transitio à genere in genus?
M. Sweet, you once learned better Logic in Cambridge then you show now.
Here again those of M. Fishers side calling for names, D. White said, Where are your names?
This is nothing but an apparent tergiuersation. You will not answer any argument directly, nor suffer us to proceed in our arguments; and therefore I require you M r . Fisher, according to the order mentioned in the beginning, for each party to have an hour and a half, that you now oppose, and suffer me to answer. Prove by Christ and his Apostles, or by any of the Fathers, for the first 600 years, these present tenets of the Roman Church: viz.
1. That all power of order and jurisdiction in respect of the Churches, is to be derived from the Church of Rome.
2. That no Scripture, sense or translation thereof is authentical, unless the same were received from the Roman Church.
3. That the Roman Church only was and is the authentical custos of unwritten traditions?
4. That all general Councils were called by the sole authority of the Pope; and that he might ratify and disannul whatsoever pleased him in them.
5. That the Pope only had power to canonize Saints.
6. That the Pope had or hath power to depose Princes. Prove all or any of these, and we will neither carp nor cavil about names, but answer directly, without all delays, cuasions or tergiuersations.
When you D. White or D. Featly have proved your Church to be visible in all ages, and named visible Protestants, then I promise you to prove the visibility of the Catholic Roman Church; but that is not done by you yet.
It had been done but for your delays and tergiuersations; answer briefly and directly to my former argument, and I will descend to my induction, and produce the names of such eminent persons as in all ages have maintained the substantial points of faith, in which we differ from your Roman Church.
That Church whose faith is the catholic and primitive faith once given to the Saints, without which none can be saved, is so visible, that the names of the professors in all ages may be shown & proved out of good authors.
But the Protestant Church is that Church, whose faith is the catholic and primitive faith once given to the Saints, without which none can be saved. Ergo.
The major is ex concessis. What say you to the minor?
I distinguish the minor.
Upon what term do you distinguish.
I distinguish of the proposition, not of any term.
Here is again another strain of new Logic, to distinguish of a proposition, and apply the distinction to no term: howsoever, I am glad to hear you distinguish, and not simply to deny that the Protestant faith is the Catholic primitive faith. Mark, I beseech you, you that are present, that M r . Fisher demurs upon the proposition; his conscience will not suffer him simply to deny, that the Protestant faith is the Catholic primitive faith; we simply and flatly, and in downright terms deny that your present Tridentine faith is the Catholic primitive faith.
I answered you before, that your minor is false and impertinent.
I have proved already, that it is pertinent: what say you to the truth of it?
This is to divert the question: the question is not now, whether our faith or yours be the catholic primitive faith, but the question now is of the effect, to wit, the visibility of your Church, which you ought to prove out of good authors.
May not a man prove the effect by the cause? Is there no other means to prove the effect, but by naming men and producing authors for it?
An effect is posterius; the question is about an effect; therefore you ought to prove it à posteriori.
What a reason is this? May not an effect be proved by his cause? Must an effect be needs proved by an effect? or à posteriori, because an effect is posterius?
Leave these Logic disputes; bring the names of your Protestants; that is it we expect.
If I should relinquish my former argument, to which yet you have given no manner of answer, you M r . Fisher would report that I was nonplussed, as you slandered D. White in a former conference, who (I tell you M. Fisher ) is able to teach us both. Whereto M r . Fisher replied nothing.
To prevent all such misreports to the wrong of either, it was moved by the hearers, that is should be written down by the common writer of the conference, that both the Disputants being willing to proceed, D. Featly was defired by the company (because it was late) to produce the names of such Protestants as were extant before Luther in all ages. This being written and subscribed by them both, D. Featly proceeded to his induction.
An Induction is a form of argument in which we proceed from enumeration of particulars, to conclude a general, after this manner:
It is so in this and this, & sic de caeteris.
Ergo it is so in all.
According to this form of arguing, thus I dispute:
The Protestant Church was so visible, that the names of those who taught and believed the doctrine thereof, may be produced in the first hundred years, and second, and third, and fourth, & sic de caeteris.
Ergo it was so in all ages.
First I name those of the first age; and I begin with him who is the beginner of all, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, blessed forever, at whose Name all knees must bow both in heaven and earth, and under the earth, (at which words all the company expressed an holy reverence;) after Christ I name the twelve Apostles, and Saint Paul: and because there were few writers in the first age, at least whose undoubted works have come to our hands, I name only I gnatius after the twelve Apostles and Saint Paul.
These are enough for the first age, Christ, the twelve Apostles, Saint Paul and Ignatius.
Here at the name of Ignatius some of M. Fishers side seemed very glad and confident, saying, We are sure enough that Ignatius is on our side.
I mean not the new Ignatius Loyola, but Ignatius the Martyr, between whom there is more difference in quality, then distance in time.
Name of all the ages, or else you do nothing.
I cannot name all at once: will you have me name men of so many ages with one breath? will you have me eat my whole dinner at a bit? can I name twelve severally, but I must name first one, then two, then three, and so forward. I name (as I said before) in the first age for our Religion, our blessed Lord and Savior the Founder of all Religion, the twelve Apostles, and after them S t . Paul and Ignatius the Martyr. For the second age, I name Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Saint Cyprian; and I begin first with Christ & his Apostles.
You shall not begin with Christ and his Apostles.
You are not to make my Induction; I will begin with Christ and his Apostles; where should I begin but in the first age, and with the first of it: shall I make a catalogue of the Christian Church, according to the several ages, and leave out Christ and his Apostles in the first age? Answer first to them, and I will proceed to others.
Name the rest in all ages, and then I will answer you.
First answer to the first age, and then I will proceed to the second. If you grant me the first age, then I will proceed presently to the second; otherwise I must stay in the first.
Unless you give me a catalogue of names throughout all ages, I will not answer.
Will you not answer Christ and his Apostles in the first place?
I will not before you have named the rest.
Will you not be tried by Christ and his Apostles?
That which Christ and his Apostles taught in the first age, was taught by succeeding Christians in all ages; this is confessed on both sides.
But the doctrine of the Protestants was taught by Christ and his Apostles in the first age. Ergo.
Answer this Syllogism, if you will not answer my former Induction.
I will not answer you anything till you have made your catalogue.
M r . Fisher, I charge you, as you will answer it before Christ himself at the dreadful day of judgment, answer now upon your conscience before all this company, whether you believe that Christ and his Apostles taught our faith or yours; this is the main point of all; answer directly to my Induction.
Notwithstanding this deep charge, M. Fisher still refused to answer to the argument of instance in Christ and his Apostles; whereupon diverse thereupon expressing their distaste at such refusal, desired D. Featly to surceasse, telling him that he ought not to talk any longer with such a one who refused to answer Christ and his Apostles. And so the Conference brake up.
This Conference though it took not that progress which was desired, by reason of the Jesuits tergiuersation, not permitting D r . Featly to come to the ripeness of any argument; yet it hath not been fruitless: for since that time, the aforesaid M r . Buggs came to Sir Humfrey Lynde, and gave him many thanks for the said meeting, and assured him that he was well resolved now of his Religion; that he saw plainly, it was but the Jesuits bragging, without proofs▪ and whereas formerly by their Sophistical persuasions he was in some doubt of the Church, he is now so fully satisfied of the truth of our Religion, that he doth utterly disclaim the Popish priests company, and their doctrine also.
Upon Monday following, M. Fisher and M. Sweet came unsent for to the house of Sir Humfrey Lynde, to know of him, whether the parties that had formerly conferred, would proceed or no; who answered, that if they might confer privately with leave in some other place, they would easily make good their cause; and so they parted without further resolution of place or meeting.
Since which time, notice being given by my Lord Bishop of Durham of his Majesty's pleasure, that the truth of the late Conference should be certified to his Majesty, and further meetings staid; a Romanist hath confidently auerred to M r . Buggs, that our side hath labored to have all future meetings touching this occasion forbidden, because we durst not, nor are not able to make good our assertions against them.
And this is the true relation of the Conference it self, together with the occasion thereof, and the effect which it produced.