The Romish Fisher Caught and Held in his Own Net

A Relation of what passed in a Conference touching the visibility of the Church, June xxvii. 1623.

AT the beginning of this meeting, when the disputants were set, D. 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; demanded of M. Fisher, whether this were his own hand? Which after he had acknowledged, D. Featly began as followeth.

Here D. Featly reading this question, through a mistake, instead of out of good Authors, read, out of God's Word. Whereunto M. Fisher replied, No: I will prove it out of good Authors.

Then said one that sat at the Table , By no means can M. Fisher endure to demonstrate his Church out of God's Word.

Here an order was set down, that D. 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 other question, for the Visibility of the Roman Church.

Which conditions were well approved by the whole company.

To which argument nothing being answered, D. Featly proceeded.

To which M. Sweet made no other answer then this: That is not now to the question.

Heer diverse of Master Fishers company, called, Names, names, names.

Here, diverse of the Auditors wished D. Featly not to proceed any further in the disputation, unless Master Fisher would suffer him, according to the laws of all disputation, first, to conclude the first part of his copulative Que • stion; and then, the second. Yet Doctor 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.

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 Opponent, D ^r . Featly, should set his hand to each several Syllogism; and the Respondent, M ^r . Fisher, to his several Answers.

Heer 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.

Here the Disputants iarred, and so the Writer ceased: yet that which followeth, was then delivered by them.

To prevent all such mis-reports to the wrong of either, it was moved by the hearers, that it should be written down by the common Writer of the Conference, that both the Disputants being willing to proceed, D. Featly was desired 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.

Here, at the name of Ignatius, some of M. Fishers side seemed very glad and confident, saying, We are sure enough, Saint Ignatius is on our side.

Additions to the former Conference.

IF any man marvel, that in so many hours spent in the Conference, so few arguments were discust, or rather, not any one thoroughly untwisted to the end, as the Opponent desired, the cause hereof was, the Jesuits diffusiue & discursiue answers, but especially his dilatory cautions and tergiuersations, who would not suffer the Opponent to proceed in his argument, without dictating it first to the common Writer of the conference; and then, reading it, and setting his hand thereto: which after he had done, the principal Respondent, M. Fisher, meditates by himself an Answer; which he first writeth in a private paper, then showeth it to his Assistant, M. Sweet, and two other that stood by: according to whose advice he addeth, blotteth out, and altereth what they thought fit. After this, he dictateth it out of his private paper to the common Writer of the conference; then resumes this schedule from him, and, having compared it with his private paper, subscribes it as a Record, and then reads it openly. This long spinning, wreathing and winding, he used to every Syllogism: which was so tedious and irksome to the Auditory, that a Protestant Divine standing by, upbraided him in this manner: M. Fisher, what have we deserved of you, that you should thus torment us, to make us stay half an hour for an Answer to every Syllogism and Prosyllogisme?

The Lord of Warwick also more than once called upon M. Fisher to come to the point, to answer briefly and directly, without discourses or vn •• cessary distinctions. A short lesson may be long in playing; where there are more rests than notes, as it was here. Yet all that passed in the conference, is not particularly & punctually set down. Some things were omitted: which omissions because the Author complaineth of, we thought fit here to supply.

1. About the entry into the conference, M. Fisher offered a paper to be read: part whereof was read by D. Featly; the rest he refused to read, saying, M. Fisher, lis contestata est, we are already agreed upon the Question: we have received the Tenet under your own hand, and are prepared to oppose it: it is no time now to tie your Opponent to new conditions.

2. About the propounding the first Argument, when M. Fisher carped at the word eternal; D. White, to try & wind M. Fisher, did cast a Syllogism 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to prove the eternity of faith from the eternity of the cause, the divine predestination. Whereunto when M. Fisher, or some standing by, answered, that in that sense all other things might be said to be eternal; another Protestant standing by added, that faith might be said to be eternal, in that sense in which eternal is taken, for e • iternall: so the souls of men are said to be eternal, because though they had a beginning, yet they shall have no end. Neither so, said M. Fisher, may faith be said eternal, because the Apostle saith, Faith ceaseth. These Answers and Replies upon the By, we omitted, because D. Featly sufficiently expressed his mind by the Synonymie, which he added to eternal, to wit, perpetual: and besides, the disputation was not of the habit or infused grace of faith, which, Saint Paul saith, ceaseth, but of the object or doctrine of faith, which is eternal in that sense, in which S. John calleth the Gospel eternal, Reu. 14. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I saw an Angel fleeing in the midst of heaven, having the eternal Gospel.

3. About the middle of the conference, D. Featly took occasion, by the Jesuits often inculcating and ingeminating the same Answer, to tax their battology or vain repetitions in their Jesus Psalter, and other Books of Prayers; saying, M. Fisher, I think, you partly believe, that the often repeating the same Answer, addeth truth and strength to your Answer; as you are persuaded, that the saying-over the same Prayers, and repeating the name Jesus so many times by tale, addeth merit to the Prayers.

Heerto Master Fisher, much moved at such imputation, answered:

Whereunto Doctor Goad replied,

D. Goad. Whether you did it wittingly or willingly, be it between God and your conscience: sure we are, that what you wrote down untruly, was aduantageous to your own side; and therefore we had just cause to suspect, that you did it wittingly and willingly.

An Attestation concerning some particulars, set down in a Relation entitled, The Fisher catched in his own Net.

WHereas the Relation of that which passed in the Conference touching the Visibility of the Church, June 27. 1623. is in the whole course of it truly and indifferently delivered, and rather moderately and favorably carried, in regard of the Adversary respondent, Master Fisher, whose part, in respect of his delays and evasions, was not altogether so tolerably acted, as in the said brief Relation it is represented: we hold it needless to give thereunto any other general Attestation; especially considering, that the principal Heads thereof are extant under the hands of both parties; and the chief substance and current thereof, for ought we find, is not rejected by the Adversary. Yet because a Counter-relator, calling himself A. C. hath of late put forth in print an answer to the said Relation, and therein (not content to slighten and doubt of some passages) hath by express denial excepted against diverse other particulars, so charging the Protestant Relator with crimen falsi: we, who were present at the said Conference, and attentive unto it, could not in equity and conscience be wanting to the support of truth, by our joint Testimony here following.

1. The Counter-relator avoucheth, that There, (viz. in the beginning,) and not in the end of the Disputation, Doctor Featly did say, I wish, I warn, I command, I conjure you, &c. Herein we find a double falsification. The first, by denial of that which, to our perfect remembrance, was by D. Featly spoken to Master Fisher in the end of the disputation; when Master Fisher, having been often urged to answer the Instance in Christ and his Apostles in the first Age, yet peremptorily refused. Whereupon, Doctor Featly, with a loud and earnest voice, said unto him: I charge and adjure you, as you will answer it before Christ himself at the day of Judgment, answer now upon your conscience, Whether you believe that Christ & his Apostles taught our faith or yours? The second falsehood is, by adding and perverting that which was said in the beginning of the disputation by D. Featly, without any mention of the day of Judgment, or conjuring, much less commanding; which had been uncivil. All that he then said to such purpose, was this: I desire you, Master Fisher, to answer in this disputation to my Arguments directly and sincerely, as in the sight of God. Which condition Master Fisher did then accept, and required the like dealing from Doctor Featly.

2. In the same page is added a second Law, as enacted by Master Sweet, that Nothing should be spoken or heard, but to the purpose. Which rule (though requirable & seasonable in all Disputes or Tractates), yet was not mentioned by Master Sweet, nor prescribed by any other in this Conference. The second then-mentioned Rule was, as is set down in the first Printed Relation, that None should speak but the Disputants. Upon which, diverse of the Protestant side, both Divines and others, did forbear to interpose by way of Argument.

3. This Co • nter-relator is so bold, as flatly to deny that which upon our certain knowledge we testify; Namely, that to the points of Popery instanced by Doctor Featly as novelties, Master Sweet (interrupting him, before he had recited all of them) answered, These are scholastical points, not fundamental; And secondly, that hereupon Doctor White forthwith replied with this Argument: These points are defined in your Council of Trent; therefore they are to you fundamental; adding also expressly this Syllogism:

Whatsoever denied makes a man an Heretic, is fundamental.

But the denial of any of these, makes a man an Heretic with you:

Ergo everyone of these is to you fundamental.

To which Syllogism, being aloud and distinctly uttered by D. White, nothing at all was answered.

4. With the same boldness, in the same page it is denied, that D. Featly used these words, Name but one Father, one Writer of note, who held the Particulars there named (being points of Popery) for five hundred years after Christ. Which words were uttered by him distinctly and audibly, and (as it seemed to us) out of certain Notes in a paper which he then had before him.

5. Item, howsoever M. Fisher might (as it seemeth he now interpreteth himself) mean quoad nos, when he said, that A demonstration à posteriori is better than à priori, yet in the disputation he spake those words absolutely, and without limitation. For which words so absolutely delivered, M. Fisher being then taxed by M. Ailesbury, as defective in Academical learning; M. Boulton, a Romanist, with indignation replied upon M. Ailesbury in this manner: Think you yourself better learned, than M. Fisher? Whereto the other presently made Answer, I thought you wiser, than to ask me such a Question.

6. Item, though they in general terms deny D. White to have spoken in the manner set down, or to have used any such long discourse, yet we very well remember, that D. White did then upbraid the said Jesuits with those their apparent tergiuersations, and hindering the Opponent from proceeding in his Arguments; thereupon also requiring M. Fisher, according to the order set down and assented unto by themselves, at length to oppose; the prefixed time, for D. Featlie 's opposing, being passed. And then D. White naming his own propositions (mentioned in the Relation), offered forthwith to Answer upon the same directly, without any delays or tergiuersations.

7. To M. Fishers protestation, that he did not wittingly nor willingly write amiss (in a former Conference between M. Musket and D. Featly), the Popish Relator saith, that nothing was replied; and thereupon inferreth, that the Audience was well satisfied of M. Fishers sincerity, in his relation and writing of the former Disputation. But we perfectly remember, that thereunto D. Goad presently replied in this manner: M. Fisher, Whether you did it wittingly and willingly, be it between God and your conscience: I am sure you erred on that part which was aduantageous for your own side. Upon which Reply (no further Answer being given), we were and are so far from being satisfied of this Jesuits sincerity, that we rather suspect him the more.

In this sort when the Company was willing to depart, D. Featly being called upon (as it seemed) by some of his companions, to go away, did arise, and offer to be gone. Yet in his rising he turned to M. Fisher; saying, Will you dispute of Christ and his Apostles, or not? To which M. Fisher said, I will, if you will stay; and, stretching out his hand, took D. Featly by the arm, offering to stay him: yet he in this abrupt manner went away. Thus the Jesuits Relator.

This passage being of most moment, and (as we think) the principal intent of setting forth this Counter-relation, to abate the imputation, lying heavy upon the Jesuit, for his final refusing to answer to Christ and his Apostles, we hold it fit, the more punctually to declare the manner and cause of the breach of that Conference.

True it is, that upon the Jesuits often refusal to answer to Christ and his Apostles, the Protestant auditory took much distaste, and for a short time expressed the same, by a kind of obmurmuration, yet not by any shout of victory (as is exaggerated by the Popish Relator). But after this noise ceased, D. Featly still continued, urging the Jesuit to answer his said instance: which the Jesuit peremptorily refused, persisting to the end, in his former denial of answering Christ and his Apostles. And as for the Jesuits, by word & gesture offering to answer Christ and his Apostles, if D. Featly would stay; we (that were present, and diverse of us next to the Opponent) avow, that the Jesuit used no such word at all, nor gesture of that kind: as in truth he could not, being not so near in place to D. Featly, as that he could take him by the arm, they being placed distant one from the other, at the opposite ends and corners of the Table. Neither did M. Fisher arise out of his place, to take D. Featly by the arm: nor, if he had, could he then come to reach D. Featly, there being many that sat, or stood, close crowding about the Table, and betwixt those two.

The truth of his final and resolute denial is so evident, that the Popish Relator (whom we take to be M. Fisher himself, under the Mask of A. C). howsoever in this place he stoutly denieth the said denial; yet, contrary to the rule of his own Trade, Mendacem oportet esse memorem, pag. 64. he expressly acknowledgeth it: M. Fisher and M. Sweet did very well to stand as they did, constantly to it. They still kept the adversary to the point, and would not permit him to divert, either to dispute about Christ or his Apostles, or any other point, until names were given in all Ages. And pag. 65. he bindeth it with a reason, taken from the principles of Hunting: The reason therefore why M. Fisher might well refuse to enter into such particular Disputes, before full Induction of names were ended was, for that this had been to follow two Hares at once, and so to catch neither, &c.

Lastly, as for taking D. Featly by the arm (pretended to be done by M. Fisher, for the staying him to proceed in his proposed instance) true it is, that when he had again and again inculcated this challenge, and could receive no answer of acceptation, he was taken by the Arm, not to stay him, but to pull him away; not by the Jesuit, but by two of his own side; the one wishing him to depart, for that the time was far spent, and he could not come off upon better terms; the other adding also, that himself could not endure to be an hearer any longer of such a Dispute, where Christ and his Apostles are refused; and that he (D. Featly) ought not to talk any longer with such an one, who refused to answer Christ and his Apostles. And so, the Opponent being called off, or rather pulled off, the Conference brake up.

These above-testified particulars, being so undoubtedly known, and perfectly remembered by us, and many others; we cannot conceive how the Jesuit can possibly salve those his gross denials of them, but by the new subtle device of refining a lie by Equiuocation, and calcining any speech of their own, though never so base and drossy a fiction, in the forging furnace of mental reservation.

• T. Lincoln,
• Ro. Warwick,
  • Earls.

• Hen. Hastings,
• Humph. Lynde,
  • Knights.

Tho. Goad, Doctor in Divinity.

• Richard Knightly,
• Edward Bugs,
  • Esquires.

Richard Chamberlain, Esquire, Clerke of the Court of Wards.

• Tho. Draper,
• Tho. Gataker,
  • Batchelors in Divinity.

Tho. Ailesbury, Master in Arts; the Writer of the Conference, chosen by both parties:

To the first question, I answer: This question, as all other, will be best explicated

• by
  • Distinctions of the terms.
  • Conclusions or Assertions upon the distinctions.

The terms to be distinguished of, are three.

• The subject, A Church.
• The denomination, Protestant.
• The attribute, Visible.

Touching the Names of visible Protestants in all Ages.

The second Question.

WHether visible Protestants are to be named in all Ages out of good Authors?

• To this Question I answer, as to the former, by
  • Distinctions.
  • Assertions.

Master FISHER'S Preface.

GEntle Reader, although I doubt not, but all that be wise and judicious, especially if they duly consider the occasion & state of the question lately treated (in a Conference betwixt Doctor White, and Doctor Featly Ministers, and Master Fisher and Master Sweet Jesuits) will easily discern (even by that false relation which is set out in print by a Protestant) that the Protestants cause hath not gained anything.

Doctor FEATLY'S Answer.

AS our Blessed Savior spake to the Highpriests servant, saying, If I have done evil, bear witness of the evil; if well, why smitest thou me? In like manner, the Protestant Relator may check you: If he have done you any wrong in the relation, or set down anything untruly, convince him of it; if not, why do you smite him with your tongue and pen? It is your own Maxim, that No man will lie for the advantage of his Adversary; or for his own disadvantage: but you here say, that The Protestant cause hath gained nothing by the relation. Therefore it should seem, by your own argument, to be a sincere, and not malicious relation. Howsoever, if the Protestant cause hath gained nothing by it, your cause hath lost nothing by it; and if so, why do you so malign and persecute, even unto banishment, an innocent Relation? Why do you forbid your Romish Catholics to read it? Why apply you so many salves, both in writing and in print, if there be no sore? What the Protestant cause gained by the Conference it self, or the relation thereof, malo in aliorum opinione relinquere, quàm in oratione mea ponere: it is fitter for me to hear, then speak. I am sure, Doctor White and myself have gained much ease by it: for, before the Conference, we could never be quiet for your challenges; but since, we have never been troubled with you. It seems, you had enough of that short Encounter. But you will say, No blow was struck home: no arrow was drawn up to the head; no argument prosecuted to the full, at that Meeting. How then could the Protestant Cause gain anything by it? By your miserable evasions, and manifest flight and tergiuersation, you, who were ante pugnam auidus & tumidus, were in pugnâ pauidus & timidus: like Captain John, mentioned by Sinesius, who in the main fight, fled amaine, digging his horse-sides, letting loose the Reanes, laying on amaine with a switch, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . &c. It will be said, If you fled in such manner, why did not I follow after you? Because in your flight you brake the bridge, by refusing to answer Christ and his Apostles. Scriptures non loquentibus, quis loquetur? Where Christ and his Apostles cannot be heard, the holy Father was resolved never to speak. I account it no foil to my cause, to be non -futed in that Court, where Christ and his Apostles are excepted against. Where the Charters of our salvation are not pleadable, give me leave, M. Fisher, to speak to you Jesuits in the words of Athanasius: If you are the Disciples of the Scriptures, and Christ's scholars, walk with us by them: if you will talk extrauagantly and diversely from the Scriptures, why do you contend with us, who dare not to speak or hear anything without them, or different from them; our Lord saying▪ If you abide in my sayings, you shall be my Disciples?

Master FISHER'S Preface.

Nevertheless, because those who be partially affected, or of mean capacity, may (as it is to be doubted diverse do) conceive & speak amiss of this matter, to the disgrace of the Catholic cause, and the prejudice of their own and other men's souls; I have thought is meet to set out a true relation of the occasion, progress, and issue of this Conference; and this in such sort, as diverse falsehoods of the Protestant Relator may be easily perceived, and the weakness of the Protestant cause may be evidently discovered: which is also so bad, as it seemeth it cannot be supported, but by setting out such lying relations.

The Answer.

Nescio quo pacto vox tua facta mea est. You have said that which I should have said. When Saint Jerome justly taxed Sabinian a Deacon, for deflowering a Nun, Sabinian reflects upon Saint Jerome, and lays foul aspersions of lewdness upon him: but the difference was that which S. Jerome charged Sabinian with, which was per veram convictionem, by true conviction: but that which Sabinian charged Saint Jerome with, was per falsam confictionem, by false conifiction, or forged calumniation. Thus the case stands between the Protestant Relatour and you, Master Fisher. He lays crimen falsi to your charge, per veram conuictionem, by true conviction: he proves falsehood by you, by unanswerable arguments drawn from evident circumstances, and your own confession, and multitude of witnesses beyond all exception: see the Attestation. Whereas you object falsehood to him, it is per falsam confictionem: you falsely impose falsehood upon him: you say, that there is falsehood in his relation, but you prove no such thing. Your 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , here cannot carry it; first, because the particulars you deny, nearly touch your credit and reputation: therefore it stands you upon, to deny them. Negas haec facta: turpis enim et periculosa est confessio: you deny matters of fact alleged against you in the Conference, because you cannot with safety or credit confess them. Besides this legal exception against your witness in your own case, you are a Frier, and therefore (according to the ancient English Prouerb) a L. with a rime to it. Thirdly, you are a Jesuit: and therefore (unless you will swerve from the rule of the prime men & Ring-leaders of your society) you maintain the wholesome and profitable use of an equivocating Lie. What do I or any man know, whether, when you speak of diverse false-hoods of the Protestant Relator, you reserve not in your mind, Fained by me, or devised by me, to save my credit, and promote the Catholic Cause? But let us see how you turn the Lie upon us.

Master FISHER'S Preface.

The sight and consideration whereof maketh we more easily believe that to be true which I have read, viz. that A Decree was made by Divines in Geneva, defining it lawful to lie for the honor or credit of the Gospel; and that, conformably to this Decree, an English Minister being told, that one of his Pu • -fellows had made Lies, instead of Proofs of his Protestant Religion, did answer, saying, He cannot lie too much in this cause: it must needs be a weak and bad cause, that needeth to be supported by such weak and bad shifts.

Answer.

I assent to your conclusion: It must needs be a false religion, that is supported with such lies as you have now here given us a brace. True Religion neither is supported by lies, nor any way supports lies. Let us see then whether your faith or ours leans on these base and beggarly crooches. Certainly, neither Jacobus de Voragine, nor Surius, nor Copgraue, nor Turseline, nor any other Author of your golden Legends, serving to support your doctrines of Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints, Worship of Images and Relics, Purgatory, and Pilgrimages, &c. can be proved to be a Protestant. He that wrote Beza 's Recantation; and another, who since set forth the late Lord Bishop of London's Legacy, was far from a Protestant. Name me any Protestant whoever defended pias frauds, or ever propugned this Tenet, Fides non est seruanda Haereticis, Faith is not to be kept with Heretics. The Fathers of the Council of Constance, who, contrary to the faith and safe conduct given by the Emperor Sigismund, burnt John Hus and Jerome of Prague, never learned from the School of Geneva, or the English Pue you speak of, to break faith for the maintenance of the Romish-Catholic faith, and the destruction of the opposers thereof. The first that brake the Oath of Alleageance in heaven, was the Devil; and by it, becam a Devil: and the first that brake promise on the earth, was likewise the Devil, Gen. 3. whose scholars they show themselves, who teach, that Promises even confirmed by oaths, the strongest sinews which hold all human society together, may be either cut asunder by Papal Dispensation, or cunningly untied by Jesuitical Equiuocation. Pray tell me in good earnest: Sprang the doctrine of Equiuocation (whereby you defend, that a man may affirm, nay swear an untruth in words, and make it up by a mental reservation) from us, or from you? I cannot find either Nanarrus, or Gregory de Valentia, or Southwell, or Tolet, or Parsons, among the Catalogue of Protestant Writers. These upholders of Equiuocation, and many other, whose names deserve to be buried in everlasting oblivion with the ancient P • iscilianists (whose old, damnable doctrine touching the lawful use of lying, they refine with a new Burnish, to make it more saleable), never took a Copy of the supposed Decree of Geneva, nor gathered Notes from the English Reader you speak of. No Protestants are so ambitious, as to steal from your Garlands the fairest Flowres wherewith you adorn your heads and pens. If any such Flowres grow in our Gardens, either they die of themselves, or are carefully weeded out. I appeal to all the Confessions, Catechisms, Expositions on the Commandments, Systems of Divinity, Common-places, several Tractates, wherein, either directly and professedly, or occasionally, they fall on the Subject we are now about, whether they condemn not all lying and false-hood, open or covered, with mental reservation, or without, to the deep pit of hell from whence they came. From which pit, Jacobus de Voragine may very well be thought to take his name, for raking hell for so many lying miracles and fables, wherewith he hath stuffed the lives of Saints. And now having laid the Dog at your door, let us see how you beat him from you, to ours. Your wisdom and grave fatherhood here tells us of a Decree made at Geneva, you know not when; and a tale of a Minister, you know not who; and for proof, are alleged Johannes Cretensis, and Gulielmus Nullatenensis, or (if you will) Episcopus Chalcedonensis: both these, if I may take your word (for, I hold neither of them worth looking into) relate the Stories above-mentioned, and that agreeable to their names and titles, fide Graeca. A pretty Pageant: A Jesuit cites a Jesuit against Geneva; and a Romish Priest, a new no-Bishop of Chalcedon, against an English Minister. Aruspex Aruspicem: one Gypsie quotes another for the truth of his Art. Simia gives his word for Pseudolus. Belial cites Belzebub the god of Flies, for a Fly-blown scoffing Iergon at Geneva: There was a decree made, defining it to be lawful to lie for the credit and honor of the Gospel. Where was this Decree or Canon made? In the Senate, or in the Consistory? By the Syndicks, or by the Presbyterie? When was it made? What date bears it? Who drew it? Who engrossed it? Upon what occasion was it made? Who subscribed to it? I cry you mercy: now I remember when it was made: it was made the very year in which Beza recanted his Religion: and immediately thereupon, all Geneva reconciled it self to the Pope. And at that time, the Pope's Holiness, to assure the Geneuians of his unfeigned love and friendship to their city, sent them a Copy of the great Charter of Constantine's donation, and in the back-side of it, this decree was written, at the beginning of the Julian period, an. 764. ante orbem conditum. Yea, but some Papists will say, If this Decree were so ridiculous a forgery, Father Eudaemon Johannes would never have reported it, as he doth, in sober sadness. Heerunto I answer, first, out of Saint Paul, that the Cretans are not always the honestest men: and Father Eudaemon doth not deny nor belie his Country. Secondly, I answer out of the Acts of our Courts, and the Proceedings against Garnet, that this Eudaemon, who takes upon him to justify that Powder-traitor, against most vncontrouleable Evidence, and the public justice of a whole Kingdom, is none of the honestest among the Cretans. This is that monstrum hominis, monstrum nominis, Andraeas Johannes sid • nius Cretensis. This is the Canonizer of Garnet and his straw. Father Garnet, forsooth, at his execution (si credere fas est) let fall some drops of blood upon a straw, which miraculously fashioned themselves into the shape and Visage of that Powder-martyr: which is as true, and altogether as likely, as that the Atomi or motes, such as we now see in the Sun, by a casual concourse, made the whole world, according to the faith of the ancient Epicures. But the best jest was, that as Garnets tongue doubled and equiuocated whilst he was alive, so his face equiuocated and doubled after his death. As in Plautus his Amphitrio, Socis begat another Socia; and Blepharo, another Blepharo; and the Goblet, another Goblet; so like, that they could not be distinguished: in like manner, face begets face, and miracle begets miracle, and straw begets straw; representing Garnet 's feature; so like, that without miracle they could not be distinguished. Thoughts are free. My conceit is, that Father Eudaemon, reading Saint Gregory 's Exposition on those words of Job, Boues arabant, & asini pascebant iuxta; the oxen plowed, and the asses fed by them; and learning, that by oxen were allegorically meant the Clergy, and by asses, the Laity, thought he might well defend this strawn miracle, because straw is fit fodder for asses. For which his Apology of Garnet and his straw, as also his witty invention of a Decree published at Geneva, for the lawfulness of a Lie tending to the honor and credit of the Gospel, he meriteth to have the first syllable of his name to be cut off. As Ieconias is called by the Prophet, Conias: so Eudaemon should be called from henceforth, Daemon Johannes. And for the Bishop of Chalcedon, I wish him no other punishment, for his slander of the English Minister, but to be sent to reside on his Diocese. And so I leave them, and come to you, M. Fisher.

Master FISHER'S Preface.

I for my part will not promise to have perfectly remembered and set down every word that passed in this Conference, especially spoke by by-standers, nor to have strictly observed the precise order of every passage: but for the substance and truth of the matter that I do relate, I assure, that there shall not be found any falsehood, unless it be in some of those parcels which I do not relate of myself, but out of the Protestant Relator whose relation ordinarily as I do not contradict, unless it be upon necessary occasions, so I do not intend to approve. But, simply relating what it saith, I will leave is to others to judge what they think fit of it. Only this I will say, that everyone may believe it, so far as it relateth anything which may advantage the Catholic Defendants and their cause, or disaduanlage the Protestant Disputants and their cause: for it is certain, that no man will lie for the advantage of his adversary, or his cause, nor his own disadvantage. But in such things as it hath set down aduantageously for the Protestant Disputant, or his cause, there is just reason to suspect it, inregard that I am told, that Doctor Featly himself (who is said to be the Author) hath confessed, that more is said in the relation, then was said in the conference it self: and I am sure, something is left out which was said, and something mis-reported. This being premised by way of preface, I will begin to discourse of the matter it self.

Answer.

In this part of your Preface, you arrogate truth to your own relation, and derogate from the Protestants: to drive forward your own Bark fraught with untruths, you fill your sails with the breath of your own praises; assuring us, that, for the substance and truth of the matter that you relate, there shall not be found any falsehood. How will you assure this, when so many persons of quality, present at the conference, and attentive to it, in diverse particulars testify the contrary under their hands? You are one of the principal Gamesters, Master Fisher; and your credit, if not your Religion, lies at stake. Be not your own judge, but let the standers by determine, whether you or the Protestant Relator hath played fair, and above board. For omissions, in regard whereof, you tax the Protestant relation, they were in your favor, and not to your prejudice. But because you could not see when you were well, and complain without a cause, they are now supplied: make your best of them. For additions or mis-reports to the prejudice of any, the witnesses expressly clear the Protestant Relatour from any such imputation: and if I should fasten any such upon him, as you covertly would insinuate, essem similis vestri, id est, mendax. If I were the author of that relation, is it likely, that I would discredit it myself? This were, messes meas vrere, to blur with my pencil a true Picture drawn by myself. Ita{que} hîc non modo crimen non haeret, sed nec Jesuit ae cohaeret oratió: as you contradict the truth, so you contradict yourself.

To conclude therefore my Answer to your Preface, and give the Reader some light to clear his judgment in censuring both relations, the civil Law teacheth to suppose every man honest, unless the contrary be proved: and therefore the Protestant Relator may justly challenge thy good opinion, unless thou find some proof to the contrary. On the contrary, Qui semel probatur esse malus, semper supponitur esse malus in eodē genere mali: whosoever hath been once convinced of a crime, wheresoever afterward he comes in question, is presumed always to be faulty in the same kind. But you, Master Fisher, were convinced to your face by two witnesses, to be a false Relator and setter down of some of my answers in a former conference: neither did you, or could you deny it: only you blanched it over with protesting, that you did it not wittingly or willingly: from which starting hole you were driven by Doctor Goad, and you have here given me a staff to beat you out of it: for, you say, It is certain, that No man will lie, but for his own advantage: but you lied, as is confessed, in setting down and relating some of my answers, and therefore, by your own argument, you must needs do it for your own advantage; and consequently, both wittingly and willingly.

A Table of the principal matters contained in M. FISHER'S ANSWER.

MAster Fisher, before you embarked your self into the main business, to answer the three Chapters of the Protestant Relation, I expected, that, for the better direction of the Reader, you would have some way analyzed your prolix Answer, and set before him a Synopsis, or Table of the specialties comprised is this your Treatise: which thing, because you have omitted, I will do you the courtesy to perform it for you.

The principal matters contained in the Answer, may be reduced to five heads:

• 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Vntruths.
• 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Contradictions.
• 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Idle observations and exceptions.
• 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Impertinences, or mal'd proposes.
• 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Vain repetitions.

Of the first Head, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Vntruths, read Title-page; An Answer written by A. C. VNTRVTH: for, M. Fisher is known to be the Author of it.

Preface, Page 2. D. Featly, who is said to be the Author, hath confessed, that more is said in the Relation, then was said in the Conference itself. Vntruth: for, D. Featly was never questioned about that Relation, nor said he any such thing.

Page 15. 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, I wish 〈◊〉 I warn, I command, I conjure you to answer truly • d sincerely in the sight of God, and as you will answer it at the day of Judgment. A double Vntruth. First, the words, I warn, I command, were never spoken by me. Secondly, those words, As you will answer it at the day of Judgment, were spoken in the end of the Disputation, and not in the beginning, where you place it. See the Attestation to the Conference. In the same page, M. Sweet propounded these conditions to be observed; First, that all bitter speeches should be forborne. Secondly, that •• thing should be spoken or heard, but to the purpose. Vntruth. The second condition was never propounded by M. Sweet; which I thus prove. Both Relations agree, that M. Sweet propounded but two conditions in all; likewise both agree, that the first condition was, That all bitter speeches should be avoided. There remains then but one condition. But all the witnesses, who have subscribed to the Conference, do, upon their certain knowledge, remember, that M. Sweet propounded such a condition; that None but Disputants should speak. And therefore this second condition added by M. Fisher, that nothing should be spoken or heard, but to the purpose, is feigned and supposititious.

Page 16. M. Sweet did not say, as the Relator reporteth; They are Scholastical points, not fundamental: neither was there any such Syllogism then made, as the Relator annexeth. Double Vntruth. We have as many witnesses, both of that Answer of M. Sweet, and D. Whites Syllogism, made by way of Reply, as there are words in both. In the same page: In the mean while, name but one Father, one writter of note, who held the particulars above-named, for 500 years after Christ. To which instant demand of D. Featly (saith the Relator) nothing was answered: but neither was this said, neither was it needful to answer. Vntruth: for, the witnesses to the Conference, perfectly remember, & directly affirm, that it was said. Besides, this I spake out of my paper, which I have yet to show: and no one thing more moved M. Bugges, and some other in the Conference, then this, that for all the Jesuits laying claim to all Ages, & boasting, that all the world was of the Popish Religion before Luther, yet M. Fisher could not name so much as one man in the world, who for 500 years after Christ, held the Tridentine faith ingenerall, or those points of Popery, mentioned in the Conference, in special; neither doth he yet name one in his printed Answer. Nay, he dares not so much as name the points, for fear of giving scandal to his own side.

Page 20. These formal words which he reporteth M. Fisher to have said, viz. A proof à postetiori, is more demonstrative, then à priori, M. Fisher did not speak. Vntruth: For, first the witnesses to the Conference remember perfectly, that he said so. Secondly, M. Alesburie, the Writer of the Conference, set down these formal words, which are yet to be seen in the sealed Schedule. Thirdly, M. Alesburie immediately replied upon M. Fishers words, Here M. Fisher showeth his Academical learning, in preferring a demonstration à posteriori, before that which proceedeth à priori. These words of M. Alesburie are set down in the Protestants Relation of the Conference, and M. Fisher doth not deny them: and therefore he cannot deny those words which were the immediate occasion of that Reply.

Page 31. But D. Featly did not say all this. Vntruth: for, immediately upon those words of mine, that the Inference of the effect by the cause, was not transitio à genere in genus, &c. D. Goad interposed, saying; M. Sweet, You ones learned better Logic in Cambridge, then you show now. These words of D. Goad, set down in the Protestants Relation, M. Fisher here denieth not: and therefore he cannot reasonably deny the former words of mine which occasioned them. Remember, M. Fisher, better your lesson; Mandecem oportet, &c.

Page 32. But D. White did not speak thus; neither did he, in all the conference, make any such long discourse. Vntruth: for, first, D. White was appointed, in the beginning of the Conference, for the last hour and half to answer M. Fisher in the contrary Question, for the Visibility of the Roman Church. The first hour and half was already spent: and therefore D. White had just occasion and reason to call upon M. Fisher as he did, to prove the Visibility of the Roman Church: And as for the six points mentioned in the Conference, they were the same which D. White shown Sir Humfrey Linde and me before the Conference, and told us, that he would put M. Fisher upon the proof of them. Secondly, those of the Auditors which sat and stood next about D. White, testify upon their perfect remembrance, that he called upon M. Fisher to oppose, and propounded those six points unto him, set down in the Conference. In which, because M. Fisher found himself unable to deal with Doctor White, therefore he makes bold to borrow a point of Jesuitical honesty; Fairly to deny, that any such points were proposed.

Page 35. M. Fisher solemnly protested upon his conscience, that wittingly and willingly he did never wrong either D. White, or D. Featly, in report of any conference. To this, nothing was replied: and therefore I suppose, that the Audience was well satisfied of M. Fisher 's sincerity in his relation. Vntruth: for, D. Goad immediately replied, that what M. Fisher wrote, was for his own advantage: and therefore he could not but suspect, that he did it wittingly and willingly. See the Attestation to the Conference.

Page 37. D. Featly, turning to M. Fisher, said, Will you dispute upon Christ and his Apostles, or not? To which M. Fisher said, I will, if you will stay: and, stretching out his hand, he took D. Featly by his arm offering to stay him; yet he (D. Featly ) in that abrupt manner went away. Vntruth. So many words, almost so many untruths; and, God be thanked, there are witnesses enow to convince the Counter-relator of a fignall and transcendent leasing in this last passage. See the Attestation.

I might furnish this Head and common place of M. Fisher, with many more instances; but these may suffice, to prove, that M. Fisher deemeth himself one of those that have past Thyle; who, if we may believe Synesius, may lie by authority, and without control.

Of the second Head, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Contradiction, read

Page 14. He allegeth my words thus: 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, &c. And again, page 32. Are all visible Names upon Record? Are all Records in former times now to be produced? And again in the same page, M. Sweet, calling for Names of Protestants, well might say, If Protestants had been in all Ages, their Names in every Age might be produced: unto which, as the Protestant Relator saith (and the Counter-Relator denieth not), D. Featly replied, saying, This is a non sequitur. And page 19. he propoundeth my Argument thus: That Church which holdeth this faith you believe (not we), shall be so visible, that the Names thereof may be shown in all Ages. But the Protestant Church holdeth this faith: Ergo. And again in repeating the like argument, That Church whose faith is the Catholic and Primitive faith, once given to the Saints, is so visible, that the Names of the Professors thereof may be shown in all Ages. To this Major Proposition I added, page 21. The Major is ex concessis: neither doth the Counter-Relator deny, that these words were added. Yet page 49. M. Fisher, in his Letter to the Earl of Warwick, saith, They are so far from having discharged themselves of the great enterprize they undertook, as they stand more engaged than before; having now professed and acknowledged, that the true Church, or (to use their own words) the Church which is so visible as the Catholic Church ought to be, is able to name Professors in all Ages.

Of the third Head 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or idle observations, and frivolous exceptions.

Page 13. Any man reading this parcel of the Conference, would be induced to think, that Doctor White & Doctor Featly were summoned on the 〈◊〉 to this Conference. And what if he should think so? In the same Page: The Relator would make 〈◊〉 Reader believe, that Master Fisher had set the figure of 2. in the middle of the question. Grande 〈◊〉 A most horrible falsification, to set the figure 2. before the second part of the question. You you • self at that place set two points there, thus ( • ) and added a second whether: therefore it could be no irremissible sin in the Scribe, or rather the Printer, to distinguish the parts of the question really and verbally diverse, by prefixing the figure 2. to the latter part of it. Is not this to fish for Banstikles? If you catch no better stuff in your net, by my consent, you shall be called no more Master Fisher, but Master Minnow-catcher.

Page 14. The Relator would make men believe, that Doctor Featly had delivered the state of the question, memoriter. And Page 16. Divers particular points rehearsed by the Protestant Relator, which he (Doctor Featly) read out of a paper. A capital accusation. Is any proposition the truer, or Argument the stronger, because 'tis said by heart, or memoriter? Piere Daubignie, the French Jesuit of your Order, thanked God, that he had a singular gift of forgetfulness; that, what he heard in confession, it presently ran out of his memory. This gift of forgetfulness is not now so rare; therefore you might have spared this observation: howbeit, if my memory had been so short and sandy, that I was not able to commit a doozen lines, or thereabouts, to memory (if I had intended it), they were very much too blame, that made choice of me, first at Oxford, and afterwards at London, to preach the rehearsal Sermons. A very unfit task for a Piere Daubignie to have undertaken.

Page 35. Master Fisher, hearing this slander, did rise up, and solemnly protest. And Page 36. Master Fisher, rising up, with his hand and 〈◊〉 , &c. And what if he had protested, sitting 〈◊〉 Unless the Relator, Master Fisher, would intimate, that he is alius stance, alius sedens; or that the speech he uttered standing, were not so discreet as his other, because the Parasite in the Poet saith, Plus sapio sedens: I have more wit when I sit.

Page 63. It no way sorted with the gray 〈◊〉 and gravity of a Doctor, and a Dean, to have laughed and fleered so much, as Doctor White did, &c. 〈◊〉 for Doctor Featly, both his looks, speeches, 〈◊〉 and gestures were such, as did not become him; 〈◊〉 might better have beseemed a Stage-player, then a Doctor, and an Archbishops Chaplain. As if (f • rsooth) none were fit to be a Dean of a Church▪ or an Arch-bishops Chaplain, but such a one as Crassus, surnamed Agelastus, was, who never laughed but once in all his life; and that was, at sight of an Ass eating thistles: whereupon the proverb grew, Similes habent labra Lactucas: such Lettuce, such lips. Had you set down in you • Relation the true cause of Doctor Whites laughter, the Reader, though a Crassus, would as heartily have laughed, as he or I did: for, such oc • casions were diverse times offered in the confe • rence by you and your Companion, that 〈◊〉 of your Romish spleen-bound Catholics 〈◊〉 now and then a smile at your absurdities. If 〈◊〉 had meant to bar all manner of harmless 〈…〉 and innocent laughters upon a sudden occasion given, you did ill to choose Master Sweet; you should have chosen Master Sour to have been your Assistant. You yourself, Master Fisher, as grave a child as you are, Page 34. make the Reader and yourself very merry with my Buttery book; for which you deserve to be sconsed. Yet all the punishment I wish you for it, and the rest of your frivolous, (if not ridiculous) observations and exceptions in your book, is that wherein Domitian is said to have taken much pleasure, to weet, to dart a whole after-noon at Flies with a neat and slender iron bodkin.

Of the fourth Head, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Impertinences, read

Page 18. & 19. To that answer of mine, you have a purpose, M. Fisher, to cavil: you know my meaning well enough, by the term perpetual; to weet, That Christian faith which hath continued from Christ's first publishing it, and shall still continue until his second coming. You reply: If this were said by D. Featly, he should have considered, how he and D. White caviled upon the word, Whether and And, when they knew M. Fisher 's meaning well enough; yea, after they had heard him plainly explicate his meaning: whereas M. Fisher only put them in mind to speak properly like Scholars, and did not cavil or reply, after that D. Featly did explicate his meaning. Chius ad Choum. Is it all one to expound a term, & to confound two distinct Questions? to explicate in what sense a man taketh an ambiguous word, and to speak perfect non-sense? to speak as ordinary men speak, and to speak as no man speaks? I called faith eternal in that sense, as the Apostle calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the eternal-covenant, Heb. 13. and as Saint 〈◊〉 calleth the eternal Gospel, Apocal. 14. and as Tully proveth the souls to be eternal, in his Tusc. Quest. And will you say, that none of these spake properly or like Scholars? Yet lest you should happily mistake aeternum, for, ab aeterno, I added to the word eternal, perpetual; most plainly to explicate my meaning. And therefore your exception at the word eternal, thus expounded, could be nothing but a mere Cauill; which you yourself perceiving, in your later thoughts you help the matter, after your manner, with a mental reservation, otherwise called, a lie; saying, page 18: To this M. Fisher answered, first, excepting against the word eternal, saying; Faith is not eternal, or ab aeterno. Which words, ab aeterno, were indeed ab externe; strangers, new thrust into the Conference. Neither did I in my Argument▪ nor you in your Answer, use those words 〈◊〉 aeterno.

Page 22. To that Syllogism in the Conference, viz.

That Church, whose faith is eternal, and p •• petuall, and unchanged, is so visible as the Catholic Church ought to be, and as the Popi •• 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:

You answer, That the Major is not universally true, for that there may be a Church or company, who may have inward faith, eternal and unchanged: As for example, A Church of Angels, who, for want of visible professors, are not so visible as the Catholic Church ought to be. Quid ad Rombum? What is this instance to the purpose? I dispute of the Church on earth: you answer of the Church in heaven. I dispute of faith: you answer of vision. I dispute of a Church succeeding in all Ages: you answer of a Church, in which there is no succeeding, nor Ages. I dispute of a Church visible in all Ages: you answer of a Church visible in no Age. I dispute of noble Confessors & Martyrs, who have sealed the profession of the Christian faith with their blood: you answer of immortal Spirits. In a word, I dispute of men, named in good Authors, and Histories: you answer of Angels, whose names are written in heaven, and were never upon visible Record, except two or three named in the Scriptures.

Page 31. To those words of mine, 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 believer, produceth profession and confession thereof; You reply, That M. Sweet 's Logic is not less to be esteemed, if he had termed that 〈◊〉 (to weet, proving the effect by the cause) transitio à genere in genus: for, a cause as a cause, an effect as an effect, do not only differ specie, but also genere: and besides, a proof à priori and à posteriori, are diverse kinds of proofs.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : I dispute of a transition à genere in genus, in rebus: you answer of a transition in notionibus. I speak of a straying from the subject of the Question: you answer of passing through diverse heads of Logic in proving. I speak of genus in Scientijs: you answer of 〈◊〉 in the predicables, or predicants: so well, in defense of M. Sweet, you observe M Sweets pretended Law, of speaking nothing but to the purpose. But certainly you saw not the But, and somissed the mark, reading M. Sweets Law without it, thus: Item 2. That nothing should be spoken to the purpose. Every Puney in Logic can tell you, that the meaning of transitio à genere in genus, is the proving of a conclusion in one science, by the principles of another distinct from it; and no way subalternall to it: As for example, To demonstrate a conclusion in Physic, by principles in Geometry; or to demonstrate a conclusion in natural Philosophy, out of a principle or principles in Moral Philosophy. But if your interpretation of transitio à genere in genus, should stand, every demonstration of the effect by the cause, à priori, or of the cause by the effect, 〈◊〉 posteriori, in the same Science; should be a transitio à genere in genus, because, as you say, the cause as a cause, and the effect as an effect, differ genere: for which ignorant Arguing, as M. Sweet was pricked by D. Goad in the Conference, so you, M. Fisher, for your more ignorant and gross defense of it, deserve to be sent to fustitudinas ferricrepinas Insulas, vbi viuos homines mortui incursant boues.

Page 65. You allege this for a reason, why you refused to answer Christ & his Apostles, for that (say you) All disputation about particulars, before the true Church were, by her perpetual Visibility, or some such evident mark found out and known, would have been fruitless and endless which was the reason why M. Fisher in another former conference, had with a certain Minister, would not enter into any particulars, until he had asked these general Questions: First, what ground the Minister would stand upon, &c? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? Heer you bring-in, by the head and ears, a Conference of yours with a worthy Minister, and an acute Disputant, touching the merit of works. What is this to the Visibility of the Protestant Church, or a Catalogue of Names? If this be not transitio à genere in genus, I am sure it is transitio à Quaestione in Quaestionem, a vagring from one Question to another sufficiently distant; neither was there any cause at all given you of this digression: for, I drew you not to dispute about any particulars, but proceeded to prove the general Question proposed by yourself, to weet, that The Protestant Church was so visible in the first Age, that the Names of those that taught the Protestant faith, might be produced; viz. Christ, his twelve Apostles, Saint Paul and Ignatius: to whom after you had given your Answer, Whether they taught our faith or yours, I would have gone on, in like manner, in naming the Professors of the Protestant faith in all Ages. Now then, let the Reader judge, whether this your digression into a long tale of a conference of yours with a Minister touching merits, were any way necessary or pertinent.

Page 68. 69, 70. You allege many Sayings out of Tertullian 's golden Book of Prescriptions, to prove, that Heretics, who rejected the authority of the Apostolical and Mother Churches, and refused also some Scriptures, or perverted the Text by additions and detractions, should not be admitted to dispute with Orthodoxall Christians out of Scriptures: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The sentences indeed you cite, are golden, but you apply them most leadenly: for, what Protestant (whom, by a ridiculous 〈◊〉 principij, or begging the Question, you style Heretics), what Protestant (I say) ever rejected the authority of the Apostolical or Mother Churches, as they were in the Primitive Times; much less, either refused or perverted any part of parcel of the Canonical Scriptures, by addition or detraction? We attribute much more to the holy Scriptures, and the ancient Mother-church (of which, Tertullian speaks), who received the Original of Scriptures from the Authors themselves, then you do: we willingly put our whole cause in their hands: we renounce any Article of faith which cannot be proved to have been held by the Apostles and their heirs, Tertullian speaks of. Prooue, that the Apostles, or the Primitive Churches immediately founded by them, held your Trent -faith, or those twelve new Articles added by Pope Piu • in the end of that Council, and imposed upon all Professors to swear unto; and then I will acknowledge, that the Roman Church hath a good title to the Scriptures. And if we prove not; that we hold the ancient Primitive faith, we will acknowledge, that we have no right unto them, nor will we desire to be admitted to dispute out of them. Therefore until M. Fisher or some other, shall prove by some other marks, than bare alleging of the Popes names locally succeeding one another in the Sea of Rome, that they are the heirs of the Apostles, we have a most just cause to try the title of the true Church with them, and bring the last Will and Testament of our Lord and Master, for our prime Evidence and surest Deed, to make good our plea.

Of the fifth Head, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or vain repetitions.

For the exemplification of this rare point of eloquence, bequeathed to you as a Legacy in every line and sentence of Battus his Will and Testament, I need not allege, as I have done before, particular leaves and pages: for, you might far better have entitled your whole book, A Battology, than an Apology, or, An 〈◊〉 pamphlet entitled, The Fisher catched in his own Net.

A judicious friend of mine, to whom I sent your Book at the first coming out in Print, and demanded of him his judgment of it, returned it back again in the words of the Poet;

Another said, M. Fisher 's legible Tautologies in this printed Defense, were as irksome and tedious, as his audible, dilatory Answers and Te • giuersations in the Conference. A third said, He was sure, that M. Fisher advised with the Poet Martial; who professeth, that rather than his Book should perish, by reason of the final 〈◊〉 of it, he would fill up as many pages, as 〈◊〉 cobbles verses, with that Catholic Pateh, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

To repeat particularly your vain repetitions, would be to commit the fault I reprehend in you, even in the reprehension thereof: and I might fear to hear an allusion to that of Plat • against Diogenes; Fastum caleas, sed 〈…〉 : so I might be thought to cry down a Cuckoo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And therefore, passing them in 〈◊〉 , from the contents of your Book, I hasten to 〈◊〉 Text.

Protestant Relation.

EDWARD BVGS, 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 Catholic Church, but theirs.

Master FIHSER's Answer.

How far this parcel of the relation is true or false; I will not stand to discuss, as not yet knowing how, or by whom the afore-said Gentle-man came first to doubt of his Church, and consequently of his religion, &c.

Doctor FEATLYE's Reply.

Although I might take occasion by the counter-relation of the occasion of this conference, to reveal diverse mysteries of the reserved Art of Jesuitical frauds & falsehoods (for as they say in a Lamprey, so in this whole treatise frō the beginning to the ending there is a string of poison; throughout) yet because the occasiō of the conference but little concerns the cause, & less me, in sparing the Jesuits blame, and penance, I will spare mine own pains, and the Readers 〈◊〉 ; who (I persuade myself) will not much regard how we came into the field: but how we acquitted our selves upon the place, for the papers sent to the old Gentle-man (which impudently thrust themselves upon us at every turn) in the occasion, Page 7. and 〈…〉 Conference, and afterwards in the 〈◊〉 Page 48. and 49. and 60. Although they 〈◊〉 been met withal by Master Rogers, Master Walker and diverse other, and stabbed thorough and thorough again with their 〈…〉 shall have over and above, my 〈…〉 Asteriskes, when my tractate of the visibiliti ••• the Church (which hath lain by me in darkness for the space of a year) shall upon some good occasion become visible and see the light. As for the relation of matter of fact, so far as concerneth the occasion of this Conference where the Protestants Relation and the Jesuits walk fairly together, there needs no conte • ting Answer, where they clash or 〈◊〉 one another. I can answer no otherwise thē the O • ator doth in the like kind, Accusatar dicit, Marcus S ••• rus negat: Vtri • redemus? A Jesuit disparageth some passages in the Relation; a worthy Knight of known integrity, who procured the meeting for the satisfaction of his kinsman▪ Master 〈◊〉 auoweth them, as followeth. 〈…〉

The Protestant Relation.

Paragraph the first, touching the entry into the Conference.

DOctor White, and D. Featly, being invited to dinner by Sir Humfrey Lynde, and staying awhile after, had notice given them, that M. Fisher and M. Sweet, Jesuits, were in the next room, ready to confer with them touching a Question set down by M. Fisher, under his own hand, in these words, viz.

First, Whether the Protestant Church was in all Ages visible, and especially in the Ages going before Luther; and secondly, 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.

Master Fisher his Answer.

First, any man reading this parcel, would be induced to think, that D. White & D. Featly had never had notice before, for what end they were invited to dinner, or for what end they were to meet with the Jesuits; but that they were on the sudden sum • ned to this Conference, without any preparation, or knowledge of the Question: which not to be so, is evidently convinced, partly, by that which is already said, partly▪ by that which I am after to say.

Secondly, this Relator would make his Reader believe that M. Fisher, under his own hand, had set down the words of the Question, distinguished with the express 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 mean to make anymore then 〈◊〉 only entire Question, as Sir Humfrey himself had desired.

Thirdly, he seemeth willing to persuade, that Priests and Jesuits do daily cast out papers: which is not true.

Doctor Featly his Reply.

The Heathen accounted it an ominous thing, offender in limine, to stumble as a man is going out a-doors, in lifting his leg over the threshold. You do so, M. Fisher: you stumble at the first setting your foot out a-door, and (which is far worse) you stumble at three staws.

The first is, that (forsooth) any man reading this parcel, would believe, that D. White and myself were on the sudden summoned to this Conference. And what if he should believe so? What doth this advantage our cause, or prejudice yours? It matters not much, how we came to this encounter, but how we came off. Yet are there no words in the Relation, which imply any such thing, that we came sudden or unprovided; nay, whosoever reads the first Chapter, touching the occasion of the Conference, cannot but perceive that we had notice of it before, and came provided. The truth is, for mine own part, I knew of it two days, and no more, before the meeting; and I excepted against the day appointed, as being too near, and sudden, for a man to prepare, either to oppose or answer in so spacious and • ast a Question, 〈◊〉 from Christ to L • there: yet being over-entreated to be there as an Assistan • only, in the 〈◊〉 yielded.

The second straw you stumbled at, is, That the Relator would make the Reader believe, that M. Fisher put a figure of 2. at the second part of his Question. And what if the Reader did so believe? It is certain, that there is a second 〈◊〉 in your Question. And what 〈◊〉 then had it been, to set before the second Vtrum, the figure 2 ? Howsoever, there was no fault in the Protestant Rela • our, but in the Printer, who mistook the interrogatiue point in the copy (?) for the figure 2. In the original written Relation, there was no such figure infarced. The Printers tripping is not to be taken for a stumble of the Relators: nay, it is rather marvelled, that he tripped no more, being so hasty to 〈◊〉 without his err • nd. And to thrust out a Relation without direction & authority of the like stamp, is that error of the Printer, Page 20. line 6. where the original copy went thus, 〈◊〉 again, those of M. Fisher 's side calling for 〈◊〉 , Where are your names? D. White said, This is nothing but apparent tergiuersation, &c. The shallow Printer, not understanding this passage, inverted the sentence thus: D. White said, Where are your names? and thereby wholly perverted the sense, D. White called not for names, but 〈◊〉 the Popish Auditors for unseasonably and vnciuilly calling for names, when M. Fisher was at a stand.

The third straw you stumble at, is, That the Protestant Relator seemeth to say, that the Priests and Jesuits cast out papers, &c. You say this is not true, and yet you yourself here mention three such papers scattered by you; and I have received a fourth, written by your man; and Sir Hamfrey Lynde hath seen a fifth; and M. Walker & M. Rogers, a sixth and seventh. Whereunto also they have returned Answers; the one in print, the other in written hand. Let the Reader then judge, whether the Protestant Relator any way ouerlashed, in charging you with the dis-spreading of such papers.

The Protestant Relation.

Paragraph the second, touching the state of the Question to be disputed of.

At the beginning of this Meeting, when the Disputants were set; D. Featly drew out the paper, in which the Question above-rehearsed was written, with the words in the Margent, viz. I will answer, that it was not; and demanded of M. Fisher, whether this were his own hand: which 〈2 pages missing〉

Doctor Featlie's Reply.

You talk of prescribing methods and proportions to be observed on both sides, as if we fought under your banner, or were to receive the law from you. Who made you dictator; and M. Sweet your Magister equitum, that you take upon you to enact Martial Law, for sacred 〈◊〉 in the truths quarrel? Verily, if you prescribe no better laws in this kind then those that are set down in the Conference, and avowed in your defense, viz.

In a good Syllogism, to answer to the conclusion; To distinguish on a proposition, and apply it to no learn; To prove an effect always by an effect, because a • effect is posterius, &c. you are fitter to be a Law-giver among the Alogi, then the Logicians; inter Alogos, then Logicos.

The Protestant Relation.

Paragraph the third, touching the conditions to be observed by the Disputants.

M. Sweet. Before you proceed to dispute, desire, these conditions may be assented 〈◊〉 on both sides;

First, that All bitter speeches be forborne; Secondly, that None speak, but Disputants.

Master FISHER.

About this time, M. Sweet propounded these conditions to be observed.

First, That all bitter speeches should be for borne.

Secondly, That nothing should be spoken or heard, • ut to the purpose. Which second he did propound, to prevent impertinent digressions.

Doctor FEATLY.

This second condition was not propounded by M. Sweet at the Conference, as is proved in the Attestation, page 40. but is since devised by M. Fisher, to set a fair Gloss, and color on his and M. Sweet 's miserable shifts and evasions: responsum nullum dant praeter vnicum, quod semper dant nihil ad propositum: whatsoever they are not able to answer to, that is with them nothing to the purpose. To the instance in fifteen novelties of the Romish faith, M. Sweet answered, as you report, page 16. that Those things were then impertinent, and nothing to the purpose. To Sir Humfrey Lynde 's motion to M. Sweet, to dispute of Transubstantiation out of Saint Agustine, M. Sweet answered, That is not now to the Question. To my proof a priori, of the Visibility of the Protestant Church. M. Sweet answereth, page 19. That is not to the Question: you ought to prove the truth of your Church, à posteriori. That is to the Question. To give some relish and taste to these unsavory Answers of M. Sweet 's, You fain a Prouiso of his, which indeed is a Procudo of your own; That M. Sweet answered this according to law, for there was a Law (forsooth) made, That nothing should be spoken or heard, but to the purpose How those things above-all-leadged, were to the purpose, and touched the very▪ Apple of the eye of the Question, shall be shown in due place. In the mean time, let the Reader note, that M. Fisher taketh more liberty, then the feigned supposititious decree of Geneu • , giveth him: for, that alloweth a man, only to lie for God's honor; but here M. Fisher coyneth a lie, only for M. Sweet 's credit.

The Protestant Relation.

Paragraph the fourth, touching the Inuisibility of the Romish Church for more than 500 years after Christ.

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 Vnlearned. You bear them in hand, that there was no such thing in the world as a Protestant, before Luther; and that all the world 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 ouercomne, 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;

That there is a Treasury of Saints merits, and superabundant satisfactions at the Pope's disposing;

That the Laity are not commanded by Christ's Institution, to receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper in both kinds, &c. 〈1 page missing〉 〈1 page missing〉 then to answer them, yet certainly it is now most needful. If you mean not to answer them, at least repeat them. This you dare not do, for fear your disciples should take offense. You dare not pull away the curtain, lest your nakedness should be seen. You are wise in your own generation: you know how to keep those in the dungeon, whom you hold in captivity. They must not see a glimpse of light, lest they should look after more. You forbid your Captives to read our Relations; and in your own, you slubber-over whatsoever toucheth you near. You well knew, M. Fisher, that Antiquity never knew your drossy treasure of superabundant satisfactions, nor your dry suppers without the Lord's Cup, nor your solitary Communions without Communicants, nor your vnintelligible prayers, nor your ignorant de • otion, nor your irregular canonizing of Traitors, nor your painted flames o • Purgatory, nor your conycatching Indulgences, nor any of the like new trash. And therefore you do well and wisely here not to lay these blocks for your blind children to stumble at, which neither you, nor all the Jesuits in Christendom are able to remove.

The Protestant Relation.

Paragraph the fifth, concerning the parts of the Question.

Master FISHER'S Answer.

My Question is meant to be but one entire Question. And so, to cut off all needless wrangling (made by D. White and D. Featly about the Aduerb Vtrùm, whether, and the Copulatiue et, and; as if Grammar-scholars had been disputing, rather than grave Divines, who were not to stand on rigor of Grammar, especially in this case, where the sense of the speaker is plain, and may well stand with Grammar) Master Fisher said, The question being mine, it pertaineth to me to tell the meaning: and my meaning was only to make is one question, viz.

Whether the Protestant, Church were so visible, as the Names of visible Protestants in all Ages may be shown out of good Authors?

Wherefore if you will dispute, you must dispute in my sense, and must conclude the affirmative, viz. The Protestant Church was so visible, as the Names of the professors in all Ages may be shown out of good Authors.

Doctor FEATLY'S Reply.

First, the parts of your question are distinguished really: for a Protestant Church may have been visible in many Ages, and yet not the names of visible Protestants living in those Ages now to be produced, as yourself confesseth in effect, page 33. line 23. We do not require, that all visible men's names should be upon record, nor all records produced.

Secondly, they are distinguished formally in words, whether the protestant Church, &c. And whether the Names, &c.

Thirdly, they are distinguished by points: for in the middle of your question, before the second part of it, you yourself put a colon thus(:).

Fourthly, you distinguish them yourself in your answer, in the written copy which I have: for to the first part you answer in the margent, It was not: which answer was not, nor can be applied to the latter part.

Either the parts of your question are distinct in sense, or out of question you propound them senselessly, whether and whether, two whethers, meaning but one. Admit the construction you give of the first part, viz. Whether a Protestant Church were visible in all Ages, that is, so visible, as the Names of visible Protestants may be shown: what construction then will you make of the latter clause, & whether the Names may be shown?

Is not this just like Battus his spell in the Latin Poet;

Or the like of the French:

It is as if I should propound such a question: Whether Jesuits be so honest men, that they will not equiuocate, and whether they will not equiuocate?

Or whether the letters in a small print are so visible that they may be read, and whether they may be read?

Or whether the parts of this question are so distinguished that they are not altogether confounded, and whether they are not altogether confounded?

But you say, I am bound to dispute in your sense. What sense mean you? The sense that is to be made of your words, or the sense which you make by your mental reservation? It seemeth you are so used to your Jesuitical Cabala, that you cannot in your disputing but smack of it. I am bound to dispute with you, you say, in your sense. I grant you: am I therefore to dispute with you in your non-sense? But you say, that it is for Grammar Scholars to argue about the Aduerb Vtrum, and the copulative et and. Tell your great Clark, Cardinal Bellarmine, so, who wier-draws your Sacrifice of the Mass out of the Copulatiue (et) and: And he was a Priest of the most high God, &c. and your Transubstantiation, out of the Pronoun, hoc: Hoc est Corpus, &c. & your Popes supremacy, out of the Pronoun, tibi: Dico tibi Petre, &c. Doth not Saint Agustine press Grammatical Arguments against Cresconius the Grammarian? Nay, doth not Saint Paul himself press a Grammatical argument Against the Jews? Non ex seminibus, sed ex semine; Not of seeds, as of many, but of thy seed, as of one.

How many ancient and later Divines (whose books you are not worthy to carry after them) have substātially proved the Trinity, by a Grammatical Argument drawn frō the Plural Number, Faciamus, Let us make man; yea & the Trinity in unity, by an Argument founded upon the construction of a Verbe Singular with a Nowne Plural, Elohim, that is, Dij crea • it. It is no disparagement, Master Fisher, for the greatest Clarke to remember his Grammar: But he, who so far forgets his Grammar as you do, deserveth to be turned back to the Grammar School, and to have his Garmmar-Rules better imprinted into him with a School-Masters Ferula, or somewhat else. Yea, but Aquila non capit Muse a • : you are a high flyer, and therefore scorn to strike at a Fly: Yet take heed of such Flies, lest you be choked with one of them, as your Pope Adrian was. Such dead Flies as you here swallow, are able to corrupt and spill a whole box of the sweetest Ointment.

The Protestant Relation.

Paragraph the sixth, touching the pretended necessity of naming Protestants in all Ages.

Name visible Protestants in all Ages.

Here diverse of M. Fishers company called, Names, Names, Names.

Master FISHER'S Answer.

To this objection (touching the Acephali) 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 certain, whether they had any particular Author: for some say, that they were a company, who in the controversy betwixt John the Bishop of Antioch, & Cyril of Alexandria, behaved themselves like Neutrals, submitting themselves to neither as to their Head. Others think, that they were certain men, who, being the Fauourers of Petrus Mogus the Heretic, did afterwards renounce him from being their Head, because he would not accurse the Council of Chalcedon. Others say, that one Seueius, Bishop of Antioch, was their Author.

But howsoever this particular were, it doth not conclude, that there could be in all Ages visible professors of the Protestants faith; whereof no story, 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 whatsoever other eminent professors of every true or false Religion. We do not require, that all visible men's names should be upon Record, nor all Records produced. For, although to prove such a visible Church as that of our Savior Christ, described in Scripture, to be spread over the world, a small number of visible Professors be not sufficient, as Saint Agustine proveth against the Donatists; yet to show how confident we are of our cause, we for the present only require, that Three eminent Protestants names in all Ages, be produced out of good Authors. But they are so far from being able to produce three, as they cannot name one in every Age (as is clearly proved in the Protestants Apology) neither indeed can they abide with any patience, when they be much pressed in this point, as appeareth by diverse who have been urged, and in particular by D. Featly in this Conference; who having been called upon several times to produce Names, as he had undertaken at one time, he burst forth into these words, set down by the Protestant Relator: What? will nothing content you but a buttery-book? you shall have a buttery-book, if you will stay a while. Note (Reader) this Doctors want of gravity and patience, and what a fit title he gives to a Catalogue of names of Protestants, who indeed are more like to be • found in a Buttery-book, then in any good Record of antiquity, as having had their beginning of late in one Martin Luther, who, after his Apostasy, more respected the Buttery, then any Ecclesiastical Story.

Doctor FEATLY'S Reply.

In the Answer to this Paragraph, first, you shake hands with the Acephali: afterwards, you salute the Donatists: in the end, you take up your lodging with the Spright of the buttery; in whose company, it seems, you take most delight. To begin with your Acephali. These Acephali were a shole of Heretics, bred (as it should seem) of the spawn of Eutyches & Dioscorus: for they held, that there was but one nature in Christ, viz. the divine, which they affirmed to have been crucified. These differed from other Heretics, in this especially; That whereas other Heretics for the most part took their names from the Author and Head of their Sect, (as the Arians from Arius, the Nestorians from Nestorius, &c); these Heretics, because their first Author could not be certainly known, were termed Acephali from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 priuatiuo, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , signifying a Head; as if you would say, Head-less Heretics. So that, as Pliny writes of the herb Anonymos, nomen non inueniendo inuenit, that it took it's name Anonymos, from the want of a name; so it may be truly said of these Heretics, that they took their name from the want, or at least, ignorance of the name of their parent and first Author. Thus your Alfonso deduceth, and expoundeth their name: Haeretici Acephali dicti, sic nominati sunt, 〈◊〉 simul insurgentes, nullus repertus est, quiillarum esse • princeps atque magister. The Heretics termed Acephali, were so named, because multitudes of them rising together, there was found none, who might be their Head and Master. Neither do you in your Answer contradict, but rather confirm this Etymology, by rehearsing diverse and sundry opinions touching their Head and Author. Which variety of opinions, and difference of Authors about him, plainly argueth, that no certainty was, or can be had of him, who he was, and much less what was his proper name. Wherefore, distrusting your former Answer, you add a second, saying, Howsoever this particular were, it doth not conclude, that there could be in all Ages visible professors of the Protestant faith, whereof no Story nor other ancient Monument maketh 〈◊〉 of names, or opinions, or places of abode of any of them, 〈◊〉 of those who opposed them. I grant, it doth not conclude so much, neither was it brought to conclude so much: it proveth sufficiently what intended, viz. That your Question is grounded upon a false Supposal: it cutteth M. Sweet' s reason in the hams, If there were visible Protestants in 〈◊〉 Ages; then certainly they may be now named. The Head and Author of the Heresy of the Acephali was, I suppose, a visible man: yet can he not now, nor, for ought appears, could he then, when he broached his Heresy, be named. In like manner, the 7000. that never bowed their knees to Baal, and all your Ancestors descending from Noah, were certainly visible men: yet can they not now be all named; and therefore M. Sweet' s Argument, ab authoritate negative, and à negatione vocis ad negationem rei, is a poor fallacy, fit to be ranked with that which they wrongfully fasten on my Argument à priori, viz. petitio principij, or the begging the Question.

I will not say, that in disputing about the Acephali, you show yourself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : but certainly in that which followeth, you show yourself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , else you would not so ignorantly apply Saint Augustine's proofs in his Book against Donatists, to disprove our Church. For it is well known, that we teach with Saint Agustine, that Christ's visible Catholic Church is dispersed far and wide over the face of the whole earth. But you are the Donatists of our Age: for, as the Donatists confined the Catholic Church of Christ, to Africa, and therein, to the Sect of Donatus: so you also restrain the Church of Christ to Rome, and the Popes adherents. We teach with Saint Agustine, Non Romanos, sed omnes gentes Dominus semini Abrahae media quoque iuratione promisit: That God promised with an oath to Abraham, not the Romans, but all Nations for his seed. We believe, that wheresoever the Scriptures are received, and Christ's Sacraments administered, God calls some by ordinary means; and consequently there is a Christian Church (though never hearing of Rome, or Papal Jurisdiction) who are ordained to salvation. We account all that profess the name of Christ, & Doctrine of the Gospel, to be members of the visible Catholic Church; yet with this difference, some are sound members and parts, others unsound, and these more or less. We doubt not, but Christ hath his flock under the Turk and Tartarian, and Mogul, in Asia, Africa, Europe, yea Italy, and Rome it self, even in the den of Antichrist. And therefore we are the true Catholics, who maintain vere Catholicam Ecclesiam, a Church truly Catholic: and you are the Donatists and Masters of the separation of these times, who damn all sorts of Christians, save those who are content to receive the mark of the Romish Beast in their fore-heads. What then speak you of three Protestants to be named in every Age? Although our Saviors words are most true, Where there are two or three gathered in my name, there am I. And although Tertullian's inferences from those words, are most true, Vbi tres sunt, Ecclesia est, licet Laici sint: Where there are three, there is the Church, yea though those three be Lay-men: and, In 〈…〉 Ecclesia est, the Church is in one or two men: yea Alensis, and diverse among you, remembered by Tostatus, affirm, that from the time of Christ's suffering, until his resurrection, sides in sol • remansit beata Virgin, that only the blessed Virgin persevered in the faith; and consequently, that the Church subsisted for that time only in her. Yet God be blessed for it, we need not to fly to any such defense. We shall bring into the field, pares aquilas, nay, plures aquilas, more ensigns and banners then you, yea incomparably more, for the first and best Ages: and if you exceed us in the latter, I wish you to remember, that in time, in liquors, the lees and mother gathers towards the bottom: and a spoonefull of pure wine is better then a Hogs-head of dregs.

Yea, but we are so far from being able to produce three Protestants in all Ages, as we cannot name one in every age. How prove you this? Forsooth M. Brierly hath proved it to your hand. A beggarly Rapsodist, whose patched cloak is already all to-be-tome by one of our noble Mastiues, and the rags that remain, as I am informed, will be shortly by another pulled away. Were M. Brierly a man of better judgment, and more integrity then our worthy Morton, now Lord Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, hath proved him to be: yet being a known Papist, to allege merely his work and words, to me is but a dry kind of proof; and therefore you did well in this place, to knock at the Buttery-door.

And here I entreat the Reader to note, how the very name of the Buttery reuiues the Jesuit. In all the other passages of his Book, there is nothing that pretends to wit or mirth: but here he is very pleasant, now his dull wit is whetted: he was not able in all the Conference, nor since in his Answer, to send out such a flash. Will you know the reason? The Spright of the Buttery possesseth him, and thus he divines; The Protestants cannot abide with any patience, when they be much pressed in this point, as appeareth by diverse that have been urged, and in particular by Doctor Featly in this Conference, who having been called upon to produce Names, burst forth, &c.

It is true, I burst forth, not into a passion, as you would make the Reader believe, but into a laughter, as did the rest of the company: neither did I by any gesture or speech, discover my impatience, but your folly, who, when I alleged you reasons and testimonies, were not content with them, but called for empty names, &c. And what was this, but to call for a College Buttery-book; which is nothing but a Register of the names of such as are in that society? If the sprite of the Buttery had not obfuscated your brain, & surprised your judgment, you might have understood, & plainly perceived, that I compared not a Catalogue of noble Confessors and Martyrs of the Catholic Protestant faith, to a Buttery-book; but such a Catalogue as you then required, and you usually bring, to prove the visiblity of your church, viz. a company of names, and nothing else; testes sine testimonijs, witnesses deposing nothing for you. And, may not such empty Catalogues be fitly compared to Buttery-books? Note, Reader, say you, what a fit Title he giveth to a Catalogue of Names of Protestants; who, indeed, are more like to be found in a Buttery-book, then any good Record of Antiquity, as having had their beginning of late in one Martin Luther; who, after his apostasy, more respected the Buttery, then any ecclesiastical story.

I marvel not, that you, Yeomen of the Popes Buttery and Pantry, and the Black-gard of Rome, have a sharp tooth against Luther; who, by burning the Popes harvest of Indulgences, hath made the Catalogue far less of those that brued for the Friers Buttery, and baked for the Popes Kitchen. Certainly, if Martin Luther had so fat a belly as you paint him with, he did but hold that which he got among you: for, after he for sooke Sodom (which you Apostates call apostasy) he so hated and detested the gluttony and drunkenness of Monks and Friers, and so sharply inveighed against them, that Erasmus sometimes spake as truly as wittily of him; That though he otherwise highly esteemed of him, yet he could not but confess, that he was much too blame in two things; that he presumed to touch the Popes Crown, and the Monks belly. Wherefore seeing Luther deserveth no better of your fraternities, strike him out of your Buttery-book, and put Father Parsons in his place, the grand Master of your new equivocating Religion, or religious equivocation, because, good man, his name was struck out of the Buttery-book of Bailliol -College in Oxford; and he expeld, for falsifying the Buttery-book, and thereby cozening, and purloining the Students of that College.

The Protestant Relation.

Paragraph the seventh, touching the comparison between a proof à priori, and à posteriori.

In this place, or upon the like occasion again offered, nearer the end of the disputation, Master Sweet replied.

Master FISHER'S Answer.

Thus far the Relator, who hath here added much more then was said: and in particular, those formal words which he reporteth Master Fisher to have said, viz. A proof à posteriori is more demonstrative, then à priori, Master Fisher did not speak: perhaps he might say, That a proof à posteriori doth better demonstrate to us, then à priori; not meaning in general to prefer a Logical demonstration à posteriori, before that which is à priori; but that such a proof à posteriori, as he in this present question required, and as the question it self exacted, would better demonstrate or show to all sorts of men, which is the true Church, then any proof which Doctor Featly or D. White can make à priori, to prove the Protestant Church to be the true Church, as shall be shown when need is, hereafter. At this present, it may suffie ••• say, to that which Doctor Featly now objecteth against the proof taken from visibility, that Although all kind of visible professors do not argue right faith, yet want of visible professors argueth want of Christ's true Church. For, supposing it to be true which even D. Featly himself here saith (according to the Protestants Relator) viz. 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, and (as Master Fisher further proved in one of the foresaid papers, given to the old gentleman before this meeting) so visible, as their Names in all Ages may be shown out of good Authors; supposing also out of Doctor Whitaker, contr. Dur. l. 7. p. 472. that Whatsoever is foretold by the ancient Prophets, of the propagation, amplitude, and glory of the Church; is most clearly witnessed by Histories; and supposing lastly, out of Doctor John White, in his way, p. 338. That things past cannot be shown to us, but by Histories. Supposing all this (I say), it is most apparent, that if there cannot be produced (as there cannot) Names of Protestants, or of any other professors of Christian faith in all Ages, out of Histories, to whom God's promises agree, besides those which are known Roman Catholics: not Protestants, nor any other but only the Roman Catholics are the true church of Christ which teacheth the true faith; and of which, all sorts are to learn infallible faith necessary to salvation.

Doctor FEATLY'S Reply.

I marvel not, M. Fisher, that you leave M. Sweet in the suds: for, you have much adoo, with all your strength and skil, to get yourself out of the mire. M. Sweet, since he left our Universities, and was metriculated into your Society, seems (to speak in our Academical Phrase) to have resumed gradum Simeonis, and to have proceeded backward: for, whatsoever truth, in Logic or Philosophy, he had learned in our Schools, he hath learned to vnlearn in yours. It seemeth, he hath met with some such Master as Timothy the Musician was; who took double pay of his scholars, for vnteaching them what they had learned of others. He was taught in our Schools, that an effect cannot be scientifically proved or demonstrated, but by the cause: for, Scire, est causam scire propter quam, &c. and Demonstratio is Syllogismus scientificus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a scientificall Syllogism, proceeding of those things that are former in nature, and more known, and causes of the conclusion. All this he hath unlearned, and will needs go about to persuade us, that An effect, because it is posterius, must needs be proved by an effect; and by the same reason, that effect, by another effect; and 〈1 page missing〉 〈1 page missing〉 Thirdly, the Roman or Western Church ought to be distinguished from the Papacie, or mystery of iniquity in it; which is not the Church, but a prevalent and predominant faction in it. The Roman Church we acknowledge to be a member (though a sick and weak one) of the Catholic visible Church; and consequently, to have some part in the gracious promises made to the Church, in the Gospel: but the Papacy, or that predominant faction, is no member, but a botch or an aposteme in the Church; to which none of those promises belong, yet many prophesies are clearly fulfilled in it.

First, 1. Tim. 1. 4. Now, the Spirit speaketh expressly, that In the later times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath appointed to be received with thanksgiving. This Prophesy hath been fulfild in the Papacy ever since Pope Hildebrand' s time; in which, as Auentin •• reports, the people in some places trod under foot the Hosts that were consecrated by married Priests: Tales enim non esse sacerdotes, neque sacrificare, Hildebrandus docebat: for, Hildebrand taught, that such were no Priests. And again, Maritos ab vxoribus separate, scorta, pudicis coniugibus: stuprà, incestus, adulteri • , casto praefert matrimonio: He severed men from their wives: he preferred harlots before married wives; fornication, adultery, and incest, before chaste marriage. And likewise in the Papacy that part of the Prophesy is fulfilled, touching the forbidding of certain meats; as for example, flesh, and eggs, and white meats, and the like, and that for conscience sake, and under pain of deadly sin, and accounting such abstinence meritorious.

Secondly, that Prophesy in 2. Thes. 2. 9. Comming, after the power of Satan, in all power of signs and lying wonders, is daily fulfilled in the Papacy, and nowhere else. See their Legends, old and new.

Thirdly, that Prophesy, 2. Pet. 2. 18. They allure by the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, &c. is fulfilled in the Papacy, which permitteth public Stews, I might say, alloweth, because who keep those houses, do therefore pay a pension to the Pope.

Fourthly, that Prophesy, Jude 16. speaking great swelling words of vanity, is fulfilled in the Papacy; which teacheth, that the Church of Rome is the Mother and Queen of all Churches; that the Pope cannot err; that he is above the Law of God; that those who adhere to him, can more than merit heaven: they can supererrogate.

Fifthly, that Prophesy, 2 Pet. 2. 3. and Apoc. 18. 3. The Merchants of the earth are waxed rich, through the abundance of her delicacies. Through covetousness, shall they with feigned words make Merchandize of you, and the like in the Apoc. is fulfilled in the Papacie, which draweth an infinite treasure, by the Merchandize of pardons and indulgences for releasing souls out of Purgatory.

Sixthly, that Prophesy, 2. Thes. 2. 4. He as God sitteth in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God, is verified in the Papacie, which giveth the Pope the style of Lord God, Head of the Church, Lyon of the Tribe of Judah, &c. and power to dispence with breach of oaths, and incestuous marriages, &c.

Seventhly, that Prophesy, 2. Thes. 2. 7. The mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who 〈◊〉 letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way, and 〈◊〉 shall that wicked man be revealed. This I say, according to the interpretation of the Fathers, Ter •• l and Chrysostom, is fulfilled in the Papacie. Tertullian saith Romani imperij absessi • , in decem Reges diuisa, Antichristum superinducit: The decay of the Roman Empire, divided into 〈◊〉 Kings, shall be the bringing in of Antichrist. Chrysostom giveth some more light, saying, When the Roman Empire shall be taken away, then he shall come. Now all the world seeth, that the Papacie is built upon the ruins of the Roman Empire, and at this day possesseth the seat thereof.

Eightthly, that Prophesy, Revel. 9. 3. & 7▪ There came out of the smoke Locusts upon the earth, &c. and on their heads, were (as it were) Crowns, &c. agreeth to your swarms of Monks and Friers: and one of your own Expositors interpreteth their Crowns, the round circle upon your shavelings head, like unto a Crown.

Ninthly, That Prophesy, Revel. 13. 11. And I beheld another Beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a Lamb, and he spake as a Dragon, and he exerciseth all the power of the first Beast, &c. agreeth to the Papacie and Pope, who resembleth Christ, whose Vicar he calleth himself, and yet carrieth himself like a Dragon in the Church, and he exerciseth also the power of the first Beast, to weet, the Roman Empire, described in the first verse, by seven heads and ten horns, because, as the first Beast, the Roman Empire, by power and temporal authority, so the Pope, by policy and spiritual jurisdiction, ruleth over a great part of the world.

Tenthly, that Prophesy, Revel. 13. 18. Let him that hath understanding, count the number of the Beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666. agreeth to the Pope, as I shown before out of Irenaeus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nomen habet 666. et valde verisimile est, et nouissimum regnum hoc habet vocabulum: Latini enim sunt qui nunc regnant: that is, that name Latinus hath in it these numeral letters, which make up 666. and this is very like to be the name of the Beast: the last Kingdom hath this name, for they are Latins who now rule. Arethas agreeth with Irenaeus in judgment, as Fever dentius himself noteth.

Eleventhly, that Prophesy, Revel. 17. 3. I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-coloured Beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns, and verse 9, The seven heads are seven hills, on which the woman sitteth. and verse 18, The woman is the City which reig • eth over the Kings of the earth, agreeth with the Papacy, as Saint Jerome teacheth us.

Twelfthly, that Prophesy, Revel. 17. 4. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand, full of abominations and silthinesse of her fornication: & supra, verse 2. With whom the Kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabiters of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication, agreeth to the Papacy, which is set forth in most pompous manner, and enticeth the Kings and people of the earth to idolatry, which is spiritual fornication.

Thirteenthly, that Prophesy, Revel. 17. 6. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the Saints; and with the blood of the Martyrs of Jesus, agreeth to the Papacy or Romish Synagogue, which hath spilled the blood of many thousand protestant Martyrs, since the 1000 year; in w ^th , Satan was let loose, under the name of Waldensian and Albigēsian heretics, & the like names of reproach.

Fourteenthly, that Prophesy, Revel. 17. 16. 17. And the ten horns shall hate the Whore, &c. for, God put in their hearts, to give their Kingdom to the Beast, till the Word of God be fulfilled, agreeth to the Pope and Papacy; to which, the greater part of the Kings of the earth, after a sort, gave their Kingdoms, by submitting themselves, and subjecting their Kingdoms to the Antichristian Yoke. But now (God be blessed) diverse Kings and States, whose eyes God hath anointed with the eyesalue of the Spirit, have discovered the abomination and filthiness of the Whore of Babylon, and begin to hate her, and make her desolate: and we doubt not, but in time other Princes and States will join with them, and perfectly accomplish this Prophesy, by stripping her naked, and eating her flesh, and burning her with fire.

Now to sharpen my weapons a little upon M. Fisher' s Whetstone, Confingant tale quid Haeretici: confingant tale quid Papistae: Let the Papists feine some such like thing: let them devise, if they can, any Protestant Church, or any other society or person in the world, in which the marks of Antichrist above-described, are so conspicuously to be seen, as in the Romish Synagogue, and the Head thereof, and then I will confess, I have spilled all my pains in deciphering these characters: but, till they have brought some man, State, Society or Church in the world, in whom the former marks are more visible, than they are at this day in the Romish Church and her Head, I shall be ever of the opinion of that learned Judge and States-man, who said pleasantly, that, If the Pope of Rome were not Antichrist, he had very ill luck: for, if there should be a proclamation or warrant, to send for a man described by such marks as Antichrist is in the Apocalypse, without all question, the Pursuiuant would attache and bring the Pope of Rome.

The Protestant Relation.

Paragraph the eightth, touching the demonstration of the Visibility of the Church, by the eternity and immutability of faith.

Master FISHER'S Answer.

This Argument, as it is set down, is so far from being a demonstration (whose property is, To convince the understanding) as it is not a probable or moral persuasion: for, I am verily persuaded, that no wise man (not already possessed with Protestant opinions) will or can be so much as morally convinced, or in any sort probably persuaded 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 prove himself and his brethren to be as well spoken of, as any in all the parish, thus:

Those who are in heart true honest men, are as well spoken of, as any in all the parish.

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

As this proof is not able to make any man, not partially affected, to believe these men to be well spoken of, or to be honest-men: so neither can Doctor Featlies proof make any wise man believe Protestants to be the true visible Church, or to have the true faith.

Secondly, if the term, That Church, be understood only of a particular Church (as for example, the Church of England) it is so far from a Logical demonstration, as it hath not in it any Logical Form, according to any of the usual moods, Barbara Caelarent, &c. But if it be understood universally of every Church that is or may be, then both Major and Minor are false: and so it cannot be a demonstration, whose property is, To consist of most certainly true propositions. The Major in this latter sense is false, for that there may be a Church or company, who may have inward faith, eternal, and unchanged (as for example, a Church of Angels) who, for want of visible profession, are not so visible as the Catholic Church ought to be. The Minor is false also: for, the Protestant Church hath not the true primitive faith, neither is that faith they have, unchanged; but so often changed, and so much subject to change, as one may say (as a great person in Germany once said of some Protestants) What they hold this year, I do in some sort know: but what they will hold next year, I do not know. Which is true, in regard they have no certain and infallible rule, sufficient to preserve them from change. But if Doctor Featly shall say, that he neither meant the term, That Church, in either of the aforesaid senses, but meant to signify by it, That one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which the holy Scriptures do show both to have perpetual unchanged faith, and also to be perpetually visible, then indeed the Major is true; but the Minor is most false: and so the argument is far from being a demonstration; especially, when it endevoreth to prove magis notum per ignotius, viz. the visibility (which is easily known) by the truth of Doctrine (which is more hard to be known) especially by only Scripture. Of the sense whereof (according to Protestants, who say, The whole Church may err) no particular man can be infallibly sure: for if the whole Church or company (to whom Christ promised the Spirit of truth to teach them all truth, may err, then much more may every particular man err: 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 ask, at least virtually, which is the true faith: in regard the true Church cannot be without this true faith: yea therefore do we ask which is the true Church, that of it, being first known by other marks, we may learn what is the true faith in all points, in which we yet know not what is to be held for true divine faith.

Fourthly, although faith be prerequired 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 look back upon his Argument, and tell us what Academical learning taught him to call it, A demonstration à priori.

Doctor FEATLY's Reply.

I know, diverse learned men have been of the opinion, that Aristotle's Demonstrator doth dwell under the same roof, with Tullius Orator, and Xenophons Prince, & Castilians Courtier, namely, Sir Thomas Moors Vtopia, extra anni solisque vias. To undertake to make a demonstration, consisting ex veris, primis, immediatis, prioribus, notioribus causis conclusionis, is all one, saith Ludouicus Viues, as if to cure a most dangerous disease, a Quacksaluer should promise a strange receipt made of four simples; the first whereof is found in India; the second, amongst the Ceres; the third, in the Riphean Hilles; and the fourth, in the nest of a Phenix. If that demonstration which they call potissima, the sovereign demonstration, and non par • iell, containing the quintessence of all necessary proof (consisting of all terms reciprocal, and all propositions enabled, and qualified with those three degrees of necessity, so called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , de omni, per se, et quatenus ipsum) were anywhere in use, it should seem to be in the Mathematics, the most certain Science, and fullest of evident demonstrations: but Pererius the Jesuit, and others with him, undertake to prove, that the Mathematicians use no such demonstrations: and therefore many Logicians and Philosophers conclude, that such absolute demonstrations, exalted to the highest degree of necessity, presently convincing and captiuating the understanding, are mere imaginary speculations. Let the Philosophers and Logicians, among themselves, end this controversy. I will pronounce sentence peremptorily on neither side. But setting aside that Idea of demonstration, and speaking of such demonstrations à priori, or à causâ, as are usually found in Scholastic Divinity, I will maintain this Syllogism to be a good demonstration (as demonstrations go), current against all M. Fisher 's and M. Sweet 's Logic.

The Church holding the perpetual faith, grounded on the eternal Gospel, hath perpetual visible Professors of that faith.

The true Church of Christ holdeth the perpetual faith, grounded on the eternal Gospel:

Therefore the true Church hath perpetual visible Professors of that faith, &c.

For the Major or first proposition, it is partly grounded upon Christ's promises rehearsed before, in the setting down of the state of the Question, touching the Visibility of the Church, assertion the fourth; and partly upon that Text of the Apostle, With the heart man believeth unto righteousness: and with the tongue, confession is made unto salvation.

The Minor or assumption is most necessarily true, because this eternal faith is the formal cause, constituting and making the true Church; for, as Laurentius rightly argueth, Homines non constituunt Ecclesiam, quat • nus simpliciter sunt homines Europei, Romani &c. sedquatenus sunt fideles: ergo fides & doctrina fidei, est causa formalis & interna Ecclesiae, et per eam Ecclesia constituitur, et per eandem dignoscitur: Men make not the Church, simply as they are Europeans, or Romans, or Africans, or Britons, or the like, but as they are of the faithful, or holding the faith: therefore, faith and the Doctrine thereof, is the formal and internal cause of the Church, and by it the Church is made a Church, and distinguished from all other societies. Here then you have the confession of visible men to salvation, or the Visibility of professors of the saving faith: a proper attribute, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , demonstrated of the proper subject, the true Church, by the proper and nearest cause, the eternity of faith: and what more is to be required in a true demonstration, à priori? You will say, this demonstrateth, that the true Church shall be always visible, but not that the Protestant Church. I reply, either the Protestant Church is to be supposed to be the true church, or not: if it be supposed to be the true Church, then, having demonstrated the perpetual Visibility of the true Church, I have consequently demonstrated the perpetual Visibility of the Protestant Church; if this be not to be supposed nor granted, then you should have primarily denied this, and put us to the proof of it; which being proved, would infer the Visibility: but this you did not, and (I think) durst not in the Conference, for fear you should have been presently convinced; yet now, since the Conference, you are grown so hardy as to deny it, and therefore thus I prove it.

A Church, holding & professing entirely the perpetual faith, needful to salvation, is a true Church.

The Protestant Church holdeth and professeth entirely the perpetual faith, &c.

Therefore the Protestant Church is a true Chur.

The Major is confessed of all sides, and must be so, because there is no salvation without the Church: where therefore the saving faith is held and professed, there must needs be the Church.

The Minor or second proposition is thus confirmed:

The Primitive Catholic faith, once given to the Saints, is the perpetual faith grounded on the everlasting Gospel.

But the faith which the Protestant Church holdeth, is the Primitive Catholic faith, once given to the Saints:

Therefore, the faith which the Protestant Church holdeth, is the perpetual faith, &c.

The Major in this last Syllogism is of undoubted truth.

The Assumption is thus confirmed:

The faith derived from the holy Scriptures, contained in the three Creeds; The Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Creed of Athanasius and the four first general Councils, is the Primitive and Catholic faith once given to the Saints.

The Protestants faith is derived from the Scriptures, and contained in the three Creeds, and four Councils above-named:

Therefore the Protestant faith is the Primitive Catholic faith, once given to the Saints.

In this last Syllogism, the Major cannot be denied by any who receive these Creeds and Councils.

The Minor may be confirmed three manner of ways.

First, by the public profession, and practice of the Church of England, and other Protestant Churches.

Secondly, by deduction of each particular head of the Protestant faith, out of the principles above-named.

Thirdly, by the Confession of the Romish Church it self.

And first, it is well known to all who are conversant in the harmony of Protestant confessions, or have observed the practice of the Protestant Churches, that the Protestant Doctrine is, that No article of faith ought to be believed, under pain of eternal damnation, which is not either expressly contained in Scriptures, or may be necessarily and evidently deduced from them. All the Protestant Churches read or sing the Creeds above-named: and for the four first general Councils, there is no Protestant, who will not seal the true faith delivered in them with his blood, if he be called thereunto.

Secondly, there is no particular positive Article of the Protestant faith, which we will not undertake to prove by Scriptures. Let Master Sweet or Master Fisher instance, where and when they will; we will never refuse to meet them in this field. On the contrary, besides those fifteen points set down in the conference, there are many other Tenets of the Roman Church, which no Papist dare undertake to prove by Scripture: & therefore, according to the manner of the ancient Heretics, Cùm ex Scriptures arguuntur, in accusationem conuertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex authoritate, & quia vary sunt dictae et quia nō possit ex his inueniri veritas ab his qui nesciunt tradition̄, nō enim per literas traditā illam, sed per viuam voicē: When they are convinced by Scripture, they fall on accusing the Scriptures thenselves, as if they were not as they ought to be, or were not of authority, and that they are variously or ambiguously uttered, and that out of them the truth cannot be found, by those who are ignorant of tradition; for that it (viz. the truth) was not delivered by letters, but by word of mouth. Is not this in part your plea at this day, that the scriptures are full of ambiguities; that they receive countenance & whole authority quoad nos, from the Church; that the written Word, without unwritten traditions, is not sufficient.

Thirdly, there is no positive Article of our faith, which you yourselves, or the learnedst among you do not hold and believe as Catholic: therefore we are on a sure ground, even by your own confession.

To instance in most of the principal Articles.

First, we believe the Canonical Scripture to be the Word of God: you believe them also to be so, but add unto them the Apocrypha.

Secondly, we believe the Originals of the two Testaments, in Hebrew and Greek, to be authentical, and of undoubted authority: you (I hope) believe so too; but you add, that the vulgar Latin Translation is authentical also.

Thirdly, we believe the written Word of God to be the ground of faith: you believe so, but add thereunto the unwritten word.

Fourthly, we believe, that Christ is the Head of his Church: you believe so likewise, but add unto him a visible Head, the Pope.

Fifthly, we believe, that there are two places; Heaven for them that shall be saved, and Hell for them that shall be damned: you believe so too, but add thereunto other places more, Purgatory, Limbus patrum, and Limbus infantum.

Sixthly, we believe, that the true God is to be worshipped in Spirit and truth: you believe so too; but, you add, that he may be analogically and relatiuely worshipped by Images.

Seventhly, we believe▪ that we ought to call upon God: you believe so too; but add hereunto, that you may call upon Saints.

Eightthly, we believe, that Christ is our Mediator, both of redemption and intercession: you believe so too, but you add to him Angels and Saints, upon whose intercession and merits you in part rely.

Ninthly, we believe; that the Saints departed bear most ardent affection to the Saints living upon earth, and pray in general for the Church militant: you believe so too; but add, that they have knowledge of our particular necessities, and pray to God in special for us.

Tenthly, we believe, that Christ hath instituted two Sacraments in his Church; Baptism, and the Eucharist: you believe so too, but add to them five other; Matrimony, Penance, Ordination, Confirmation, and Extreme Unction.

Eleventhly, we believe, that grace is annexed to the Sacraments in such sort, that all those who worthily receive them, participate also of sanctifying grace: you believe so too; but add, that the Sacraments confer this grace ex opere operato (a worse Solecism in Divinity, than in Grammar), and that God is tied unto them; so that all children, dying without Baptism, are necessarily damned.

Twelfthly, we believe, that the intention of the Minister is requisite to the right administration of the Sacrament: you believe so too; but you add, that the effect of the Sacrament dependeth upon the intention of the Minister.

Thirteenthly, we believe, that in the Eucharist the worthy Communicant really partaketh of Christ's Body: you believe so too; but add, that Christ is received orally and carnally under certain Accidents, the elements being transubstantiated.

Foureteenthly, we believe, that we are justified and saved by the merits & Passion of Christ: you believe so too, but add thereunto your own merits and satisfaction.

Fifteenthly, we believe, that we ought to pray for all the members of Christ's militant Church upon earth: you believe so too; but add thereunto, that we may and ought to pray for the Dead also.

Sixteenthly, we believe and receive the three Creeds; the Apostles, the Nicene, and that of Athanasius, and the four general Councils: you believe them also, but add a fourth Creed, viz. the twelve new Articles coined by the Pope, and annexed to the Council of Trent.

Thus you see how the Articles of our belief are drawn out of your own confessions. That which we hold for matter of faith necessary to salvation, you (and, in a manner, all the Christians in the world) hold as we. And therefore our doctrine is Catholic, according to Vincentius Rule, quod ab omnibus, quod vbique, quod semper: whereas your additions to the Catholic faith, were never maintained, neither by all Christians in any Age, nor by any Christians in all Ages. Neither you, nor all the Papists in the world, are able to prove any one point of your Trent -faith, wherein you differ from us, to be Catholic.

And now let us hear your Paralogisms against my demonstration.

Object. 1. First, you say, it convinceth not the understanding, and therefore is no demonstration.

Answer. This objection of yours showeth, that you need to be informed in your understanding, how a demonstration convinceth the understanding. It is not the property of a demonstration, actually to convince the understanding, but potentially or virtually. The meaning of this Proposition, A demonstration convinceth the understanding, is this; that A demonstration hath in it power and strength to enforce the understanding of any intelligent man, to assent to the conclusion, the premises being before apprehended by him: and every demonstration is a Syllogism: and every Syllogism proceedeth ex quibusdam positis. To illustrate this by that usual example of the eclipse of the Moon; which the Astronomers demonstrate by the cause, to weet, the interposition of the earth between the Sun and the Moon. Before this demonstration will convince the understanding of any man, he must first have the terms expounded unto him: afterwards he must be taught, that the Moon hath not light of herself, but receiveth it from the Sun; thirdly, that the Sun casteth his light by right lines. Fourthly, it must be shown how, in such points, called by Astronomers, Caput & cauda Draconis, the Sun and Moon are diametrally opposed: whereby it comes to pass, that, by the interposition of the earth, the Moon is debarred from receiving light by the Sun-beams. And thus in the end, the understanding is convinced by this demonstration.

That which is hindered from receiving light from the Sun, by the interposition of the earth, is eclipsed.

But the Moon, in the points above-named, viz. the head and tail of the Dragon, is always hindered from receiving light from the Sun, by the interposition of the earth:

Ergo the Moon always in those points is eclipsed.

Aquinas showeth, that the understanding of a Ploughman is not convinced by this demonstration, but only the understanding of him who is sufficiently fore-instructed in the terms and suppositions heerunto belonging. Therefore as this demonstration convinceth not the understanding, by the bare proposal of the Syllogism; but, the assent having been before wrought to the premises, it enforceth and compelleth a rectified understanding to assent to the conclusion: In like manner, I grant, that the bare proposal of my former Syllogism will not presently convince a man either utterly ignorant, or in error, as I fear you are, to assent to the perpetual Visibility of the Protestant Church. But if, as I enforced you to assent to the Major, so you would have but stayed, and suffered me to enforce the Minor, will you, nill you, you should have been compelled to yield to the conclusion.

But say you, in your worthy witty instance, This Argument doth no more persuade a man, that the Protestants are the true visible Church, then a man, in case of doubt, can be persuaded by the like Argument which a man may make, to prove himself and his brethren to be as well spoken of as any in the parish thus:

Those who are in heart honest men, are as well spoken of as any in all the parish, &c.

Good Sir, let me advise you to obtain a writ of remove for the Windmill: for the whirling about of the sails, wrought very much upon your brain, as you were a-printing this Answer in the Cell. Had not you had a whimpsy in your head, you would never have set this your Paralogisme, as a Parallel to my demonstration. In my demonstration, the Major, rightly understood, is undoubtedly true, and de fide, as yourself confess, page 23. The Scripture doth show, the holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, both to have perpetual unchanged faith, and also to be perpe • tually visible. But in your Syllogism, the Major is apparently false. If honest men were always well spoken of, how can the Apostles words stand, Sine per famam, sieve per infamiam, either by good report, or by evil report, &c? Nay, how can the words of truth it self be verified, Blessed are ye when men speak all manner of evil against you for my sake? Again, perpetuity of faith is the adequate or self-sufficient cause of the perpetual profession thereof: but honesty in heart is not the cause of fame, but honest and virtuous actions. It is not the inward burning, but the outward shining of our light before men, which maketh men to see our good works, and thereby glorify God in us for them. Yet by this your very instance and Syllogism, we have the better: and therefore, this your Syllogism may be fitly termed as you will have it, A demonstration, but with this addition of Fishers folly. To be an honest man in heart, is both prius naturâ, and morally eligibilius, in nature before, and more desirable, then to be well spoken of. Mallem de me dicas, Vir bonus est, ergo bonae famae, quàme contra. By this very argument, the Visibility of the Church is but secundarium quid, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a secondary proof, and a common accident to the truth of faith. And as we therefore inquire of fame, that we may know a man's virtue: so we therefore inquire of the true Church, as your self confess, Page 23. that by it we may learn the true faith. We seek a guide, that we may find the way; and not the way, that we may find a guide. If I can otherwise infallibly know a man's virtue without fame, (put case he lived in a Desert) I will not then set it upon the trial of fame: but in case I should fail of other proof for a probable Argument, I would produce fame. In like manner, if we had no other infallible proof of the true faith, then by the perpetual Visibility of the professors thereof, I would hold it as you do, a point of principal moment, to inquire of the Visibility of professors: but since we have another more easy, direct, and infallible means to prove it, viz. by comparing the doctrine with the Canonical Scriptures; you shall give me leave, M. Fisher, rather to follow this Method generally prescribed, and used by the Antient Fathers, as I have shown before, Assertion 7. then the other Method prescribed by you.

Object. 2. Secondly, you charge my demonstration with falsehood in both the premises. The Major you say is false, for that there may be a Church or company, who may have inward faith, eternal and unchanged; as for example, a Church of Angels, &c. An instance as wide from the mark, as the heaven is distant from the earth. Our question is of a visible Church of which all sorts of men may learn infallible faith necessary to salvation. Are Angels visible? Are all • orts of men to learn infallible faith of a Church of Angels? Do you hold it for a good interpretation, If thy brother offend thee, tell the Church; that is, tell the Angels, or a Church of Angels? Although Christ be the Head of Angels, and they make a part of the triumphant Church in a large sense; yet I never read of a Church of Angels. Bellarmine saith in express terms, Lib. 3. de Eccles. Milit. cap. 12. Ecclesia est Societas quaeda • m, non Angelorum, sed hominum. The Church is a Society or company, not of Angels, but of men. If I should have brought such an Argument, to prove the militant Church upon earth (of which we disputed) to be invisible, because the Angels are invisible; I should have suspected myself, to have been as wise as he that adored, for a Relique, one of the feathers of the Angel Gabriel's wings.

Erubuit, salua res est, you seem yourself to be ashamed of this Answer: and therefore you insist not upon it, but pass to the Minor, burdening it with falsehood; saying, The Protestants faith is not unchanged, but so often changed, and so much subject to change, as one may say, as a great person in Germany once said of some Protestants, What they hold this year, I do in some sort know, but what they will hold next year▪ I do not know. I can requite you with a like Apophthegme:

The Popish faith is so subject to change, that we may say of it, as a learned person in France once said, That if a man would find the Popish Tenets, he must look into an Almanac for them. At one time, the murder of Kings is Catholic doctrine, viz. in the time of the League against the King of Navarre. At another time, they pull in that horn: and then for a season, such murder is disauowed. That the Council is above a Pope, was Catholic Doctrine with you in Martin the fifts time: it was not Catholic doctrine in Leo the tenths.

About the breaking up of the Council of Trent, the edition of the vulgar by Sixtus Quintus, was authentical, and not to be rejected upon any pretence. Not long after, it was not authentical: For Clemens the eighth corrected it in many hundred places. Now go and upbraid us with our late reuised translation: but see withal, that you dispence with the Pope, that he may dispence with you. One year the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin is maintained in books allowed by your Church; another year it is impugned. Lastly, in one year it is determined in books set out by authority, among you, that the oath of allegiance may lawfully be taken by Roman Catholics: in the next year we read, that he is no good Catholic that will take that oath. The title of universal Bishop was held insolent, arrogant, profane, Antichristian, Luciferian, in Saint Gregory's time: but now you hold it to be the holy title of Christ's Vicar. Yea, but say you, The Protestants have no certain and infallible rule, sufficient to preserve them from change. Belike then, the Scripture is no certain and infallible rule; but unwritten traditions are: the Word of God is no sure ground, the Popes Decree is. The Apostle then hath much deceived us, who saith, Let God be true, and every man a liar. If every man a liar, every Pope too. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , homo, not vir only, to exclude Pope Joan from privilege of inerrability. You add, to piece out your former argument, that in my demonstration I prove magis notum perignotius, viz. the visibility, which is easily known, by the truth of Doctrine, which is more hardly known, especially by only Scripture; of the sense whereof, according to the Protestants, who say, The whole Church may err, no particular man can be infallibly sure. The edge of this argument hath been turned already in the Remonstrance; whereunto I add: First, that visibility is more known to sense, then the truth of doctrine, but not to the understanding of a Christian. Secondly, the visibleness of a particular present Church is the object of sense; but not the perpetual, former, and future visibility of any one Church, much less of the universal. And therefore it is much easier, out of plain and evident Texts of Scripture, together with the three Creeds, known to the simplest among us (where the Liturgy is in a known Tongue) to deduce the truth of doctrine necessary to salvation, then he can produce a successive Catalogue of visible professors out of good Authors in all Ages. Yea but no man, say you, can he infallibly sure of the sense of Scripture, because Protestants hold, The whole Church may err. In thus arguing, you bewray either ignorance, or an ill conscience. Ignorance, if you know not, that we distinguish between the essential or formal Church, and the Church representative; of points necessary to salvation, and not necessary; of evident Texts of Scripture, & of obscure. But if you knew these distinctions, as indeed you cannot but know them (having read D. Field and other Protestant Writers) you dispute against your conscience. Because, in obscure and difficult Texts of Scripture, the Church may err; will it therefore follow, that no man can be sure of the sense of plain and evident Texts? In which, if we may believe Saint Austin, all those things are found, which concern faith and manners. Will it follow, because we hold, that your Church representative, that is, the Pope and his Consitory, or the Pope and his Council may err, that therefore the essential and formal Church of Christ, consisting of all the visible Christians in the world, in propounding doctrine necessary to salvation out of Scripture, may err? The Church following her guide, the Word of God, is sure not to err, whether universal or particular. For which preservation from error, we doubt not, but that there is a far higher degree of spiritual assistance to the general Councils, then national: yet in both it sometimes falleth out, that, as Agustine observeth, Priora à posterioribus emendentur: the former are corrected by the later.

Thirdly, you beg an Argument from your self, drawn from a beggarly fallacy, called Petitio principij, or begging your main question. You say, that my former Syllogism was a petitio principij, and therefore no demonstration: but I proved it then, and since confirmed it, that it was a Demonstration, and therefore no petitio principij. Let the Reader here observe, how your Answers and Objections interfere, and supplant one the other. Master Sweet will have my Argument to be a transitio à genere in genus; but you, a petitio principij. Again, elsewhere you call this Argument, A digression from the question, & a diuersiue proof, and yet here you will have it to be identicall. Wherefore as Xenophanes▪ opposed a motion made by Eleates, in behalf of Leucothea, to celebrate her funerals with tears and lamentations, and withal to sacrifice to her as a Goddess: this motion, saith he, overthroweth it self. If we sacrifice to Leucothea as an immortal Goddess, we must not bewail her death: and if we bewail her death, as being a mortal woman, we must not sacrifice to her, as to a Goddess privileged from death In like manner, whosoever readeth your said several Answers, may object against them; If the Argument above-named, was a petitio principij, it could not be a transitio à genere in genus: and if it were a transitio à genere in genus, it could not be a petitio principij. If it were a diuersiue proof, it could not be identicall: if it be identicall, as you here affirm, it cannot be diuersiue: for, it implies an apparent contradiction, to say, that a man, in proving idem per idem, doth digredi ab eodem. But you yield a reason why this Argument beggeth or supposeth that which is in question: For (say you) in asking which is the true visible Church, or Congregation of the true faithful, we ask, at least virtually, which is the true faith. By the like reason, you might prove every Demonstration à priori, to be a petitio principij: For, in propounding any question touching the effect, we inquire virtually and implicitly of the cause. And therefore Aristotle, in lib. 2. Poster. Analyt. acutely proveth, omnem quaestionem esse quaestionem medij; that every scientificall question is, in effect, a question of the medium or the cause. By the like Argument you might prove, that all Arguments drawn à definitione ad definitum, are petitions principij: because, in propounding any question touching the definitum, we, at least virtually, inquire of the definition. If the terms in my Syllogism were but formally distinct, the Syllogism could be no petitio principij: how much less then can it be termed petitio principij: when, as it is certain, they are distinct really, as yourself confess in your fourth Argument: to which now I address myself.

Fourthly, you impeach my Demonstration, by pushing again at the Major; saying, Although faith be prerequired 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.

It is a true rule in Philosophy: Vehemens sensibile corrumpit sensum; the bright light of a Demonstration so buzzardeth you, that you see not where you are, nor know what you are about. I am so far from affirming, that inward faith, without outward profession, maketh a visible member of Christ's Church; that from inward faith, I infer necessarily ex consequenti; outward profession, which (as I said in the Conference) makes a member of the visible Church. Doo you grant the consequence, or deny it? If you grant it, my Argument proceedeth: if you deny it, confirmabit pro me vester Aristoteles, your great Clerke, Cardinal Bellarmine, makes good the consequence in this manner: Qui non confitentur fidem, sed, eâ in cord retentâ, exteriùs profitentur perfidiam et idololatriam, non sunt boni, nec saluantur; cùm ad Roman. 10. dicat Apostolus, Corde creditor ad iustitiam, ore autem fit confessio ad salutem: et Mat. 10. Omnis qui negauerit me coram hominibus, &c. They are not good men, nor shall be saved, who do not confess the faith; but, keeping it in their hearts, outwardly profess perfidiousness and idolatry: For, the Apostle, Rom. 10. saith, With the heart man believeth to righteousness; but with the tongue man confesseth to salvation: And Matthew 10. Whosoever denieth me before men, him will I deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Let Master Fisher therefore look back upon my Argument, and demonstrate to me, though à posteriori, what Academical learning taught him to deny it to be a demonstration à priori.

The Protestant Relation.

Paragraph the ninth, touching a testimony alleged by Master Fisher, out of Doctor Field.

Master FISHER his Answer.

These words either were not spoken, or M. Fisher did not regard them, being in the midst of his Answer: in which he went on, showing the necessity of a visible Church, by a saying of D. Fields, viz.

M. Fisher therefore (I say) being busily speaking this, did not regard what D. Featly did then say, but might easily have answered first, that he never meant, that any were able of themselves, without help of God's grace, to attain the true faith; which hindereth not, but that some may have that ability of wit and learning, by which they can better examine controversies of faith, then those that want these abilities. Secondly, although Visibility alone do not prove the true Church, yet it (supposing God's promises, that the true Church shall be always visible) much helpeth: and want of Visibility in any one Age, proveth a company not to be the true Church.

Doctor FEATLY'S Reply.

This parcel of your Answer containeth in it an allegation out of D. Field, and an alleuiation or mitigation of a speech of yours savoring of Pelagianism. To your allegation out of D. Field, I answer, Mitte quod scio, Die quod rogo. D. Fields speech I acknowledge, which is very pertinent to his end, but nothing to yours; that it is requisite for all Christians, especially the weaker, to fly to the Church, and hide themselves under her wings, to preserve them from the danger of Romish Kites, as D. Field prudently observeth: so no Protestant, to my knowledge, denieth. Our Novices and Catechumen are taught, as to honor God their Father, so also the Church their Mother. Now, because the Whore of Babylon beareth her self, as if she were the Spouse of Christ, and true Mother of all Christians; it is most behooveful to all those that have care of the health of their souls, to distinguish their true Mother from a false harlot; the sincere milk, and wholesome breasts of the one, from the poisoned dugs of the other: to which end, D. Fields Treatise of the Church, is a singular help: which when I read, me thinks I see that strong wrestler Iritarius, so much innobled by Pliny, qui rectos • t transuersos celatim toto corpore habuit neruos, who had double sinews running acrosse over all his body: so able, so sinewie a Writer is D. Field; who having well traced true antiquity, doth in that whole Treatise take up your own weapons, and conquereth you with them: he takes away your strongest harness, in which you trust, I mean, the Catholic Church; proving it to be ours, not yours. To the authority of Scriptures (which I here begin at) he addeth the consent of the Church of the living God, the pillar of truth, in whose determination and Communion, both we and you are to rest. But do you, M. Fisher, in earnest or with mental reservation, appeal to D. Fields judgment? Me thinks you draw the latch, as if you meant to enter into the penetralia & Clozet of that work of the Church. If you be willing so to do, I will lead you into the Entrie. Turn me but the page over, you shall find, before the circuit of the sentence alleged by you, be ended, a Writ of Error sued against that Church, which will needs be the Mistress and Mother of the rest, nay, the whole Church. There hath she her pattern from the Donatists, of appropriating to herself the title & privileges of the Church, excluding all other from the hope of salvation. So the Romanists cast into hell all the Christians of Greece, Russia, Armenia, Syria, Ethiopia, because they refuse to be subject to the tyranny of the pope; as also the States & kingdoms of Europe, which have freed themselves from their Aegyptiacall bondage; That the Romanists abuse us with pretences of antiquity, unity, universality, making the simple believe, that all is ancient which they profess, and that the consent of all Ages is for them: whereas it is easy to prove, that all the things wherein they differ from us, are nothing but novelties and uncertainties; that the greatest part of the Christian world hath been divided from them for certain hundreds of years; and more to that purpose: which in that preface he promiseth, and in the tractate proveth. To which book, me thinks, M. Fisher, or some other of his pew-fellows, should undertake in order, proutiacet, to make answer, or else never to have been so hardie, to cite that Author, whose lines upbraid them with i • ability or negligence, so long as they suffer so learned and laborious a treatisely bent point blank against the walls of Rome to remain vnbattered.

Now to your alleuiation: you say in that speech of yours, concerning men not able, by their own abilities, to find out the infallible faith: you meant not to imply, that any were able of themselves, without help of God's grace, to attain the true faith: I hope, you meant not, because I trust that you are not sunk so deep into Pelagianism. Yet you should have circumcised your lips and tongue, and kept better the Apostles rule, to hold fast the for me of sound words: for, what Christian ear can endure to hear of men able, by their own ability of wit or learning, to find out faith? Wit and learning, I grant, are God's good gifts, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not to be under-valued, much less contemned; yet let me tell you, that wit and learning without grace (such is the corruption of our nature) rather hinder, then further our conversion, as Saint Agustine writes in his confessions, not with ink, but with tears: and on the contrary, grace without eminent wit or learning, outstrips naked wit & learning, in our race to heaven. Indocticoelum rapiunt, et nos cum doctrinis nostris, &c.

As for that which you add, that Visibility though alone it prove not the true Church, yet that it much helpeth to the proof thereof, I much desire you to help me here, in showing me how it much helpeth: for Visibility is but a common accident, and I find no topick place in Aristotle, ab vno accident communi ad subiectum. Suppose a mere natural man were to choose his religion, and his Church, what will Visibility help him? Besides, all sorts of Christian Churches, Jewish Synagogues, Mahumetane and Gentile Congregations are visible: will you say That is the truer Church which is more visible? If you carry it away from us by that mark, the Greek Church will carry it away from you; the Mahumetanes, from the Greek Christians; and the Idolatrous Gentiles, from all. But this point hath been handled before in my sixth & eight Assertion, touching the Visibility of the true Church: therefore omitting all farther prosecution of this point, and my proof by Syllogism, I come now to justify my induction.

The Protestant Relation.

Paragraph the tenth, touching the induction and breaking up of the Conference.

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 yerees, and second, and third, and fourth, et sic de caeteris, and so in the rest: therefore it was so in all Ages.

First, I name those of the first Age: and I begin with Him who is the beginning of all, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, blessed forever, &c.

Master FISHER'S Answer by a Counter-relation.

After this, D. Featly named, for the first Age, our Lord and Savior Christ, and his twelve Apostles, and Saint Paul, and Saint Ignatius. After which, he stayed awhile, as if he had studied for more Names: but, not remembering anymore whom he would set down for the first Age, he said, These (not denying others) may serve for the first Age.

Then turning to M. Fisher, he said, Let us dispute of these. No, said M. Fisher: name, first, of all Ages. What, said D. Featly? Will you not dispute of Christ and his Apostle • es? Yes, said M. Fisher, in due place; but first name the rest in all ages, and then I will answer you. What, said D. Featly? Doo not Christ and his Apostles deserve the first place? M. Fisher. I will not answer, before you have named the rest.

Then said D. Featly in a heat, Well: you will not dispute of Christ and his Apostles: then you grant Christ and his Apostles to be Protestants. And so instantly, without expecting M. Fisher 's Answer, he turned himself to the Audience, and said, He grants Christ and his Apostles to be Protestants. Whereupon, diverse of the Audience made such a shout, as if they had gotten a victory; with such a noise, as M. Fisher, endeavoring to answer, for a time could not be heard. But he rising up, and with his hand and voice craving silence, made such as would hear him, understand, how falsely D. Featly had slandered him to his face: and either then, or upon some like occasion, he said, What may I expect behind my back, 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 upon (as it seemed) by some of his companions, to go away, did arise, and offer to be gone: yet, in his rising, he turned to M. Fisher, saying, Will you dispute upon Christ and his Apostles, or no? To which M. Fisher said, I will, if you will stay; and stretching out his hand, he took D. Featly by his arm, offering to stay him: yet he, in that abrupt manner, went away.

Doctor FEATLY's Reply.

This last passage hath been so duly pondered by those honorable, reverend, and worshipful Personages, who have set their hands to the Attestation, that, to add anymore to that which is there most exactly discussed, were to offer post Protogenem lineam ducere, to draw a line after the most curious painter. The matter of fact then being cleared by witnesses beyond all exception, I owe nothing to M. Fisher for his Counter-relation, save only satisfaction to a similitude of debt, wherewith he thinks he pays me home, pag 61.

Master FISHER'S reflection, cap 3.

To do as Doctor Featly did, is no fit way to give satisfaction to all sorts, expecting resolution of the aforesaid most important question: As it were a very insufficient way, to give satisfaction in a debt of twenty pieces of gold to another his creditor, if instead of actual payment required, he should say and offer to prove by a syllogism, yea, by a demonstration à priori, that he can pay him the said twenty pieces, and being urged to lay down the particular pieces of gold, he saith, that by an induction he will lay down those pieces of gold one after another; and being farther pressed to do so, he, not having one piece of gold of his own, taketh out of his creditors purse, one or two, or more pieces; and laying down one or two of them, saith, Lo, here is one or two towards the twenty: and being never so much urged, he will not lay down anymore, until his creditor first dispute with him, whether these two or three pieces laid down be his own or no: and being hereupon seriously told by his creditor, that unless he laid down all the pieces of gold, he did not satisfy the debt, but lost his credit and forfeited his band; he then falleth into passion, and saith, What? will you have me eat my dinner at a bit? I cannot lay down all at once. Will you dispute with me about these, or no? Which his creditor refusing to do, until all the twenty pieces be actually laid down; he lastly saith, Well, you will not dispute about these: you grant these to be mine. And so, without expecting answer, he turneth to the company, saying, He granteth these to be mine, and taketh up his cloke, and runneth away, not regarding that his creditor, so soon as he can open his mouth, biddeth him stay, and denieth any such grant to have been made by him; yea, offereth to dispute with him of that point, if he will stay. I suppose, no man will think this kind of dealing, to be an honest and good satisfaction in a debt of monie: and therefore much less should it be accounted good in matters of for more importance and value, and specially in satisfying this (by Doctor Featly undertaken) debt, of showing names of visible Protestants in all ages out of good Authors.

Doctor FEATLY'S Reply.

We have had trial before of your Grammar, Logic, and Philosophy, and here now you give us a cast of your Rhetoric. The parts of a good similitude, called Protasis and Antapodosis, ought to be like two eyes looking one way, and not asquint: else they make not a similitude, but a dissimilitude. Let us then view the aspect and cast of these your eyes. As a man, who being to pay a debt of twenty pieces or pounds to another his creditor, instead of actual paying, offers to prove by a Syllogism, that he can pay him: and afterwards being pressed, not having one piece of gold of his own, taketh out one or two pieces out of his creditors purse, and layeth them down, and will lay no more down, until his creditor first dispute with him whether the pieces laid down be his own or no. And the creditor refusing so to do, till the whole sum were laid down, he the debtor taketh up his cloke, and runneth away: Even so Doctor Featly, being to prove the visibility of the Protestant Church, first proved it by a demonstration à priori, and afterwards, at the importunity of his adversary, undertook also to prove it à posteriori, by producing a catalogue of Names from Christ to Luther; and he began, recto et naturali ordine, with the first age, instancing in Christ and his Apostles, very earnestly pressing and urging, yea and adiuring also Master Fisher to answer this instance: And upon Master Fishers final and peremptory refusal thereof, he was pulled away by the company, and not suffered to argue any longer with such a one, that refused to answer Christ and his Apostles. Hold hook and line, and the Fisher shall catch a Gudgeon. I grant, a Similitude needeth not currere quatuor pedibus, run upon four feet; yet certainly it is a very bad Similitude that is lame of all four, as this is; and therefore cannot draw Dunne out of the mire. First, to produce a Catalogue of Names, was no debt, but rather a merit or work of supererogation: for the visibility of the Protestant Church may be, and hath been sufficiently defended, and demonstratively proved, without producing any catalogue of names: and therefore your simile limpeth on the first foot.

Secondly, to prove the visibility of the Church by a demonstration à priori, is not to pay a debt, by offering to prove, that a man can pay it; but actually to pay it in the purest gold, whereas it had been sufficient to pay it in ordinary silver or coorser gold. For, a demonstration à priori, as far exceeds a demonstration à posteriori, as gold doth silver, or the finest Angel gold baser coin of the same metal; and therefore your simile halteth on the second foot.

Thirdly, to instance in Christ and his Apostles, was not to lay down two pieces for twenty, but to lay down a Diamond worth many millions, instead of twenty pieces: for if the Poet could say, Plato mihi instar millium: Plato is to me instead of a thousand; how much more may a Christian, especially a Protestant Christian say, Christ and his Apostles are to me instead of millions of witness • s? Neither is it an idle ma • ter, as in your ridiculous simile you would imply, but a matter of the greatest importance of all, to inquire whether Christ and his Apostles be ours or yours: and therefore your similitude halts down-right on this third foot.

Fourthly, it is not all one, after a man hath laid down two pieces, to stay till they be weighed, before he lay down anymore, and simply to refuse to lay down anymore. It is one thing, voluntarily to go away; and another thing, to be pulled away by those of his friends whom he hath cause most to respect; and therefore your simile is lame also on the fourth foot: and how then can it stand upright, much less go for currant? Nay, the most beggarly cripplenesse of this long-robed comparison, is in the begging as granted that which is the moment and ground of the whole question. He putteth the case, that the debtor took the two pieces out of the creditors purse. Surely, a blind or very credulous creditor, that would stand still till the debtor picked his pocket. O patience! Good Sir Creditor, if you can, upon your credit, make good, that those whom you intend by the two tendered pieces of coin, namely, Christ and his Apostles, are the proper legacy and riches of the Roman treasury, take us your bondmen instead of payment of the rest. But if this field, wherein this precious pearl lieth, be by good title ours (as I then would, and at any time hereafter can prove) I think, upon such conviction, you will have small courage to clamour for the rest of your twenty. Do but look on this coin, though loath, and see whose image and superscription it carrieth: is it not the lively indelible Character of our Saviors Charter, the Scriptures? They are ours by Christ; Christ ours by them.

The Roman pouch is so stuffed with Traditions, so choked with counterfeit ouergilt Copper of new-minted Articles, that Christ, and his Apostles, and Evangelists, cannot be admitted; nay, will not be embased, to be mingled with such dross. But I wonder that you dwell so long upon a money- Similie. I thought you had vowed poverty, and might not touch silver. I have heard of some of your orders, that if they touch coin, it blisters their hands: as it is reported of a certain Lady, that if a Rose-leaf be put upon her hand as she is asleep, it will make it blister. But it seemeth to me, that you are Theocritus his Fisher; you fish for gold; and, if you are not wronged, have caught no small number of golden gudgeons in your net, and transported them beyond the seas, carrying, Rem ad non res, no small stock to English Nunneries, I had almost said Iesuitisses or Loyolasses. And if you will needs have a Similie from paying monie, to illustrate this passage in the conference, thus you may frame it: Suppose a Catalogue for sixteen-hundred years which have run since Christ, to be sixteen-hundred pound: suppose the hundred years to be a hundred pound: I, by producing a Catalogue of visible Protestants in the first age, lay down a hundred pound of the sum, and bid you tell it after me, and then demand of you, whether the sum be right? You answer, that you will tell me, after you have told the whole sum of 1600. pounds. I press you again & again, to answer concerning this first sum, whether it be right or no: if it be right, I promise to lay down all the rest in the like manner. You answer as before, Lay down the rest, or you shall not begin with the first & next heap, but with the last in conclusion. I charge you, as you will answer it at your peril to your Master, whose factor you pretend to be, to give-over all cavilling, & plainly & directly to answer me, whether this first sum be right or not: and when, notwithstanding this deep charge, you trifle & cavil, the witnesses, who were to set their hands to my acquittāce, pul me away, saying, You shall deal no more with such a cavilling factor. This is a true & perfect embled of the breaking up of the Conference: wherewith I will break up my defense thereof.

The Protestant Relation.

Paragraph the eleventh, touching the issue of the Conference.

This Conference, though it took not that progress which was desired, by reason of the Jesuits tergiuersation, not permitting D. Featly to come to the ripeness of any Argument; yet it hath not been fruitless: for since that time, the aforesaid M. Bugges 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.

Master FISHER'S Answer.

I have cause to doubt, that this which the Relator saith, is not true: for thereby he maketh the old Gentleman to be but of a weak capacity, or of a very mutable nature: for first, I am sure there was no cause given in the Conference, of any such effectual resolution, to be made by the old Gentleman. Secondly, I cannot see when this speech should be made by the Gentleman to Sir Humfrey. If immediately after the Conference, it would argue too much want of capacity: for if he did but rightly conceive the true state of the Question, in which himself had especially desired to be satisfied (as I verily hope he did) he might easily have marked the insufficiency of D. Featly his diuerting proofs; which also were so answered, as the audience, for want of satisfaction in them, urged him to leave off, and 〈◊〉 produce names of Protestants in all Ages; the which producing of names being so oft 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 off by D. Featly, before he would go forward to name men in other Ages, especially in Ages before Luther; at the question required; any mean capacity might see, that the Question in which the old Gentleman desired to be satisfied; was not fully answered, nor consequently he satisfied.

Moreover, the same Gentleman being present; when the Earl of Warwick told M. Fisher, that D. Featly should at another time come again to give names of Protestants in other Ages, he might easily, and doubtless did understand; that as yet 〈◊〉 in all Ages were not given, nor consequently, the Question satisfied, in which he expected Answer. Furthermore, presently after he went away from the Conference, he told M. Fisher himself, that he was glad, that at the next meeting his Question should be answered: which shown, that as yet he did not conceive it to be answered.

Lastly, diverse dates after all the trouble and stir was past (which was made about the Conference) the old Gentleman was not • ore solute a Protestant (as the Relator pretendeth) for meeting M. Fisher, and M, Sweet, he desired them to give him a Catalogue of names of Professors of the 〈…〉 that if after this the Doctors should not give him a Catalogue of Protestants he should dislike their cause: Which Catalogue, M. Fisher, and M. Sweet have ready for him, but will not deliver, till he get the Doctors to make theirs ready, that he bring to them the Doctors Cat • logue with one hand, and receive theirs with the others, to deliver to the Doctors.

All that can be suspected, is, that in the very time of the said stir, when the old Gentleman either 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 upon fra • ltie or human fear of trouble, and not any firm and settled resolution grounded upon the Conference, since both before and after, he shown a contrary mind, as hath been said.

Doctor FEATLIE'S Reply.

What you repeat in this passage, touching my proceedings in the Conference, hath been before upon diverse occasions answered; and I endeavor, as much as may be, to avoid your familiar figure of battology or repetition. For, that which concerneth M. Bugges, that he received satisfaction by the Conference, and gave many thanks to Sir Humfrey Lynd for procuring it, and not as you imagine, when the trouble was about the Conference, but the selfsame night, in the very room wherein we conferred, is not only proved by Sir Humfrey Lynde his testimony, but also by M. Bugges own subscription, both to the Protestant Relation in general, and to this passage in particular, and that of late, since all pretended trouble was blown over. Now M. Fisher, you are a very merry man, that will go about to face a man out of his belief, and dispute him out of that peace and comfort which he feeleth in his consciecne. M. Bugges may well answer you in the words of Saint Agustine, spoken to another purpose, Tu ratiocinare: ego credam, &c. Do you syllogize: I will believe. Demand you a reason, if you list: I will give thanks. Argue as long as you please, How I could be resolved by the Conference? I am sure, I was resolved, and so still continue. When the Philosopher in A. Gellius, sophistically disputed against motion in this manner:

One of his Auditors there present, whose arm a little before had been put out of joint; though he could not verbally answer that his sophism, yet he really refeld it thus, At ego sensi motum luxato brachio, I am sure I felt a motion when I hurt my arm, and put the bone out of joint. In like manner, when you argue, that M. Bugges could not be moved by any thing that was spoken in the Conference, because his Question was not answered; or the Catalog • e of names not produced; or because D. Featlyes proofs were diuersiue; or because the Popish. Audience still called for names; or because you and M. Sweet are not yet satisfied: or because I know not what: M. Bugges, in a word refutes all your reasoning, At ego sensi motum, I am sure I felt myself moved by it: and the doubt which sometimes shook my faith, removed: So that I wa • thereby, not (as the other) put out of joint, but in joint; and of lame, made whole. Neither will it hence follow, that M. Bugges must needs be a man of mean capacity, if he were satisfied by so short a Conference; but rather that God oftentimes useth weak means to overthrow Satan's strong holds. Firmus the Maniche was reclaimed from that heresy, by a digression of Saint Augustine's, in a certain Homily. Alipius was drawn from heathenish sports and pastimes, by an example, in a discourse of Saint Augustine's on the By. That noble Venetian Marquess, who left both his Marquisate, and all that he had, for the love of the Gospel, and comfortably ended his days at Geneuae, was at the first reformed, both in his faith and life, by an elegant Simile in a Sermon of Peter Martyrs. Sometimes an exquisite Sermon taketh not the Auditory; and sometimes a far meaner taketh: now and then a stronger Argument worketh not upon the understanding and will; and yet a weaker proof doth at the same time. You cannot be ignorant of the Story in Ruffinus, of an Arian Philosopher, of whom the learned Bishops in the Council could get no ground at all: yet a simple unlearned man, by two or three blunt Interrogatories, conquered and quite confounded him. Will you from this, and the like instances, infer, that the men so converted, were men of mean capacity? The contrary evidently appears in Story: you should rather from hence gather with religious Agustine (who may truly be said to 〈◊〉 written, rather ex gratia, then degratia, so graciously doth he write of grace) totum Deo dare, qui voluntatem hominis bonam et praeparat adiuuandam, et adiuuat praeparatam; in our first conversion, and every good work after, to ascribe all to God, who both prepares the will to be aided by grace, and aideth it being prepared.

Yea, but say you, M. Bugges much desired a second meeting: therefore it seems, he was not so resolute a Protestant as we make him. If this were a good Argument, you might prove all of our side to be unsettled in our Religion; yea, M. Dean of Carlisle, and myself also, who much desired, and yet do, a second meeting, to perfect the work then begun. Though a man be never so well resolved in point of Religion, yet he may desire to hear Divinity-Disputations, and make good use of them. Yea, but M. Bugges desired M. Fisher and M. Sweet to give him a Catalogue of names of professors in the Roman Church; saying, that if after this, the Doctors would not give him a Catalogue of Protestants, he would dislike their cause. If M. Bugges spake so (which I have reason to doubt) he spake it, as having certain knowledge, that we had a Catalogue, which he did or might have seen in the Conference. Nor indeed doth the desiring or requiring of a Catalogue, infer any doubt of the conclusion. Though a plain unlearned Christian believe most firmly, that Christ was borne of the seed of Abraham and David, yet may he desire more particular information, by hearing the beginning of Saint Matthews, or Saint Luke's Gospel read and expounded to him. Moreover, when I undertook to name those who taught Protestant Doctrine in all Ages, if I should fail therein, he should have had just cause to dislike my proceedings. Yea but, say you, there was no cause given in the Conference at all, of any effectual resolution to be made by the old Gentleman: therefore he could not be so resolved by it, as is pretended. For answer hereunto, though I am loath, yet you contstrain me to recapitulate the chief points touched in the Conference. Before the Conference, M. Bugges was somewhat staggered in the point touching the Visibility of the Church, by your brauadoes, and Rhodomontadoes, that all the world were Papists before Luther; That there was neither vola nor vestigium of a Protestant Church before that time; That no Protestant Minister durst encounter you in this point: if any should be so hardy, as to enter into these lists with you; you would presently blank, silence, and nouplus them. Thus possessed, and in some sort perplexed by your bold and confident assertions and false suggestions; he with much ado, by Sir Humfrey Lyndes means, procures a Conference: wherein he finds all things otherwise then he might expect. He and all the Auditory observed D. White, and myself, to be very ready and earnest to proceed in the Questions; both to prove the Visibility of our Church, and disprove theirs. On the contrary, he could not but see you to cast all manner of Remoraes and rubs, to hinder speedy and direct proceedings: and for the Questions touching the Visibility of the Church,

First, he heard, that the perpetual Visibility of the Church, being a point of faith, was not to be built upon deduction from human Stories and good Authors, as the Jesuit required; but upon divine revelation in God's Word, as is confessed by learned Papists.

Secondly, that a Protestant Church might have been visible in all Ages, and yet not the names of visible Protestants now to be produced, and proved out of good Authors, because neither all men's names ever were upon record, nor are all ancient Records preserved to this day, neither can we come by all those Records that are yet extant.

Thirdly, that notwithstanding the Popish brag, that All the Christian world were Papists before Luther; yet you were not able to name any Country, City, Village or Hamlet, nay not any man, who for 500. years and more after Christ, either professed your Trent-faith in general, or those fifteen points recited in the Conference in particular.

Fourthly, that the surest and strongest means to prove the perpetual Visibility of a Church, was á priori, by the conformity of it's faith to the Scriptures: of which faith, God promiseth in his Word, that it shall have visible Professors to the worlds end.

Fifthly, that a visible Church infers not necessarily a right faith. Jews, Mahumetanes, Gentiles, and diverse sorts of blasphemous Heretics, have visible professors of their impieties: yet are they all of a wrong belief; if of any on the contrary, the right faith inferreth necessarily a visible Church, because the true faith cannot be in a Church, which professeth it not openly, or privately: therefore the prime and main question of all is, of the right belief, of the primitive and Catholic faith, whether we or the Church of Rome have it; and not of a Catalogue of names.

Sixthly, that an offer was made, to name some eminent persons, which in all Ages taught Protestant Doctrine, and opposed the Romish errors, either when they came in, or not long after; and that this Catalogue had been a good way proceeded in, if you had not been the cause by your delays and tergiuersations.

Lastly, that when I instanced in Christ and his Apostles, and urged you again and again, yea and adjured you also to answer directly, whether they taught our faith or yours; yet you peremptorily and finally refused so to do: which he might well interpret, to proceed from your apparent distrust in your cause.

And now let the discreet Reader judge, whether M. Bugges had not reason to alter his opinion concerning you and your cause, at least in that particular, of which only he seemed to doubt of.

Shortly after the Conference, M. Fisher sent this Letter ensuing, to the right honorable the Earl of WARWICK.

The Copy of M. Fisher's Letter.

I Esteem it a special providence of God, that your Lordship was present at a late Conference, wherein D. White and D. Featly undertook to show against me and my companion, that the Protestant Church had been visible in all Ages, and that their Professors might be named, especially in the Ages before Luther. Your Lordship may remember the substance of all the proof to have consisted in this, that The true Church was always so visible, as the Professors thereof in all Ages might be named: but the Protestants was the true Church. We refused to dispute of the Minor, because it transferd the Question, and avoided that plain proof 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 give us a Catalogue of theirs, as we were ready to have given them another of ours? Why went they about to prove they were able to name them, when with less ado they might have named them? Where deeds are justly expected, words without deeds are worthily neglected.

Certainly, hereby they are so far from having discharged themselves of the great enterprize they undertook, as they stand more engaged then before, to the performance of it. For, having now professed and acknowledged, that the true Church, or (to use their own words) the Church that is so visible as the Catholic Church ought to be (and the Church, whose faith is eternal and unchanged, must be), is able to name her Professors in all Ages, either for their own honor, and for the satisfaction of the world, they must set down the names of their Professors in all Ages; or else they shamefully discover themselves, not to be that true and visible unchanged Church, which is able to name them. Again, at the length yielding (as they did) to show the continual Visibility of their Church, by a full induction of their visible Protestants in all Ages, (which they seemed to undertake with great confidence), why did they stick in the first Age alone, refusing to name their professors in the Ages following, until the first were tried? May not the Answerer choose to deny which part of the Argument he pleaseth? and was it ever heard, that he should be enforced to reply to one proposition alone, before the whole Argument, whether it were Syllogism or Induction, were fully propounded? Very nobly therefore, and prudently your Lordship in the end desired anothe • meeting; not doubting, that your own party, within three or four days would be content to give us the names of their Professors in all Ages, as we were ready to give them the names of ours, that thereby both sides might be the better prepared for a second trial: which when they have performed, we shall not fail to encounter with them, either by way of speech or writing, as your Lordship (all things considered) shall think fairest, or safest, or most convenient for the discovery of truth. But if your Lordship shall not be able to obtain at their hands this your most just and import • nt request, the defect of proof on their part must needs be accounted a plain flight, and no man hereafter can prudently rely his salvation upon that Church, which (for want of perpetual Visibility proved) they themselves shall have concluded to be false and feigned.

Thus expecting the issue hereof, and your Lordships further pleasure from the mouth of this bearer, I remain, the first of July 1623.

Doctor Featlie's Answer to M. Fisher's Letter.

IN perusing this Letter of yours, I could not but think of the old riddle, Hom • 〈…〉 , videns non videns, lapidem non lapidem, &c. A man, no man, (that is, an Eunuch) seeing, not seeing (that is, seeing dimly, being • urblind) a stone, no stone (that is, a pumice): for, here is a private Letter, no Letter, relating, not relating, the substance of my Argument, not my Argument.

First, it may be called a private Letter, because it was seald up like a private Letter, and indorsed to an Honorable Personage; yet it was no private Letter: for, diverse copies of it were dispersed and read, before the Earl received it, who heard of it, before he read it. His Lord-ships name was set upon it, only to make it more passable, and to give vent for such cheating wares, as Master Fisher thought, would pass more currant, by a Letter addressed to so Noble a Personage.

Secondly, it relateth, and not relateth, because it omitteth much more then it relateth: for the Introduction in the beginning, and the Induction in the end of the Conference, and all my Replies in the middle, they are all not circumcised only, as the Argument here relateth, but quite cut out.

Thirdly, it relateth my Argument, not my Argument; my Argument, because propounded in most of my words: yet not my Argument, because not according to my meaning, when I disputed thus in the Conference: The Church whose faith is perpetual and unchanged, is so visible, or ought to be so visible, that the names of the Professors thereof may be shown in all Ages. I argued not so, according to my own opinion, but as it is expressly set down in the Conference, ex concessis, upon your own ground: upon which to supplant you, I held it a great disparagement to your cause: and therefore, in repeating the Argument again, I expressly added, as you your self confess, That Church which holdeth this faith, you believe (I said not, we) to be so visible, as that the names of the Professors may be shown, &c. In the very entrance to the Conference, you acknowledge these to have been my words: although this Question be grounded on uncertain and false supposals: for, a Church may have been visible, yet not the names of all Professors thereof now to be shown. And again, Are all visible men's names upon record? are all Records in former times, now to be produced? And again, in the same page, M. Sweet calling for names of Protestants, well might say, If Protestants had been in all Ages, their names in every Age might be produced. Unto which, as the Protestant Rel • tor • aith, and the Counter-Relator denieth it not, D. Featly replied, saying, This is a non sequitur. Out of all which passages it evidently appears, that both you in this your Letter, and L. D. otherwise M. Sweet, in the defense of the Appendix, bely your own consciences, in saying, that I professed (out of mine own judgment & opinion) that the true Church must be able to name Professors in all Ages. It is true, as Brasidas the Lacedaemonian ran thorough his Adversary with his own Spear; so I took that proposition, tanquam hastam amentatam, from you, to wound you with your own weapon. And although I needed not at all to have descended to an Induction, or produced any Catalogue of such as maintained Protestant Doctrine by name: yet the more to convince you, and to satisfy some of the Auditory, I began a Catalogue, and had proceeded farther in it, if I had not been called away by those, whose Authority and Love might command me; who would not suffer me to deal any longer with an adversary so atheologicall, and alogicall, so irreligious and unreasonable; so irreligious to refuse, finally and peremptorily, to answer an instance in Christ and his Apostles; being vehemently pressed, and not without adjuration: Secondly, so unreasonable, to require an Opponent to prove at once, eminent professors for 1500 years, to have taught Protestant Doctrine. Was there ever any that undertook to make good a catalogue of Professors in all Ages, who did not first prove, that there were such in the first Age, and then in the second, et sic de caeteris, and so in the rest? Was there ever a Respondent, who undertook to answer an Argument by Induction of particulars, consisting of 15 or rather 15 hundred particulars (and all in his judgment questionable) who did not answer them piece-meal in order, first applying his Answer to the first particular, and secondly to the second, &c? I cannot pattern you better, then by that malefactor, who having stolen my Oxen, and being indicted for them severally, would not answer directly to the first indictment, Guilty or not guilty; but said; still that he had that Ox with his fellows; hereby hoping, upon trial of the whole in one lump, to escape by his book, or benefit of Clergy, as we call it. In like manner, when you were put to it, to answer directly, Whether the Protestant Professors were not visible in the first Age, and so in the second, and so in the third, &c? you answer, It was not visible in the first Age, with the rest, nor in the second with the rest, and further you will not go. The difference between you, is only this, He answered so shufflingly and confusedly, to save his neck; and you, to save the rack of an Argument; he, to slip out by his Clergy; you, by your vnclerkly Sophistry. You may be sure, such kind of foggy and misty answering, could no way satisfy a man of so clear a judgment and apprehension in controversies of this nature, as the Earl of Warwick is. Which that you may the better know from his own pen, I will acquaint you with a Letter wrote by occasion of this business, by his Lordship, and addressed to Sir Humfrey Lynde.

To my loving friend Sir Humfrey Lynde.

SIR, since my being at your house at the Disputation of M. Doctor Featly and Fisher, diverse have come unto me, to know whether it was a Disputation appointed by me, or no; and whether I was not satisfied with it. Whereby I perceive, those that learn the doctrine of equivocation, will not spare to tell a plain lie, to do any man wrong that is not of their opinion. And I am the more confirmed in this opinion: for, since last night, M. Plume came to me, and delivered this enclosed letter, which I much marvel at. I would not answer it, but thus: that I would speak with you, and that M. Fisher should not need fear, that D. Featly would flee from him, but meet him at any time, to make good his Tenet. I had thought to have spoken with you my self, but my earnest occasions pressed me to go this day into the country. Wherefore, if you meet, I pray let the company know, for the meeting, that I knew of it but half an hour before it was, and I came at the request of another Gentleman, and for no desire of mine to be satisfied: for I thank God, my conscience makes no doubt of the truth of our Religion. This I say, because I hear that some of that Religion give it out, It was my request to have a Disputation. I pray keep M. Fishers Letter till I see you, and restore it me again. You may perceive the scope of it: but it is as vain, as his Answers were. Thus with my love to you, I rest,

Master FISHER his Reflection upon the occasion and issue of the Conference.

NOW having made an end of this Relation, I am to entreat the gentle Reader to review it, or reflect upon it, and to call to mind, and mark, first, the occasion, and consequently, the end of the Disputation; secondly, the Question, and true meaning of it; thirdly, what method was most fit to be observed, entreating of this Question; fourthly, what course was taken by the Protestant Disputant, and what by the Catholic Respondent. All which being duly considered, thou wilt better see what is to be judged of the whole Conference and wilt make to thyself more benefit of the matter treated in it, then perhaps hitherto thou hast done about the occasion.

The occasion of the Dispute • , was, &c.

Doctor FEATLY his Answer.

THere is a threefold sight.

First, per radium rectum, by a right beam or line between the eye and object; as when I look directly upon a man's face, and behold the shape and proportion thereof as it is in it self.

Secondly, per radium reflexum, by a reflected line or beam; as, when I behold a man's face and shape in a glass.

Thirdly, per radium refractum, by a broken beam; as, when I behold the same man's face, or anything else through dispar medium, as water or glass. Whosoever views your Reflection, as you call it, with a single eye, will judge, that it ought rather to have been termed a Refraction; not for that it proceeds from a man of a broken brain: (for your intellectuals are good enough) but because you defend a broken cause; and your proofs are broken scraps taken out of Brerelies alsme-box: and you represent no truth entirely, but brokenly. If it represent anything entirely, as by reflection, it is the Fisher viewing himself unhappily caught in his own net, struggling and striving to break out of it, but all in vain; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

As I have before related your Relation: so I will now reflect a while upon your Reflection: wherein I find,

First, matter of repetition touching the question, and meaning of it, and the occasion of the Conference and method used in it; whereunto I have answered before, and it is very tedious to me, to seethe again your poor Cole-woort.

Secondly, matter of additions, which are of two sorts; either personal, and these concerning

My self: for answer whereunto, I refer you to the appendix;

Master Salisbury, a diligent Preacher & smart Disputant, who either hath already, or will shortly meet with you at Fishers folly.

Or real, to wit, certain allegations crudely taken out of Master Brerelyes Protestants Apology, falsely so called, tractatu 2. c. 2. sect. 11. subdiuis. 3. to prove, that by the confession of Protestants, there were no Protestants before Luther.

Now, although I might justly pass-over in silence those testimonies, partly, because I have no particular quarrel with Master Brerely, but with yourself; partly, because none of those allegations come near the Outworkes, much less the Castle of my defense: yet I hold it not altogether unfit to examine them particularly, that the indifferent Reader may see with what sincerity you cite testimonies out of Protestant Writers. Euripides long ago observed, that things appear otherwise to those who view them afar off, them to those that view them near at hand: 〈…〉

We read of 〈…〉 Spain, in which all the fish, whilst they swim in the river, are of a golden color▪ but when they are taken 〈◊〉 , they change their 〈◊〉 , nothing like themselves 〈◊〉 like manner, these testimonies, which you truly allege (some you false quote) out of learned & renowned Protestants, in the Authors themselves have a fa • re other appearance 〈◊〉 aspect, then in this your abstract.

To pro • e▪ there were no Protestants before Luther, you allege, in the first place, Luther himself.

Master FISHER'S reflection, sect. 2. p. 50.

First therefore▪ Luther himself saith, We dare boast, that Christ was first published by us. Luther. Epist. ad Argentin.

Doctor FEATLY'S Answer.

First, I answer, that Luther's words in his Epistle ad Argent. in all the editions which I could find, are not so as Master Fisher cites them: that which I find in that Epistle any way looking that way, is, Neque 〈◊〉 possum me indignum fuisse vas Dei, per quod 〈…〉 saccursum est: Neither can I deny▪ that I (though unworthy) have been an instrument of God, by which innumerable souls have been helped. A speech as modest as true, far different from that which you quote instead thereof.

Secondly, if you can, in any Epistle ad Argentin. or elsewhere in Luther's works, find those words, We dare boast, that Christ was first published by us; the meaning of them may be gathered from many other places of Luther, to be this, that in those parts of the Christian world, he was the first that publicly made head against the Roman errors, and sent a Flag of defiance to the Antichrist of Rome, and vindicated the truth of Christ's Gospel, so long withheld in unrighteousness.

Thirdly, Luther himself acknowledgeth, that he had many fore-runners: he giveth the hands of fellowship to the Piccards, and Waldenses, and (in a manner) canonizeth I. H • s for a Saint. In his preface to Wesselus Groningensis, thus he writeth: Helias This bites, Propheta olim, cùm Sermo Domini esset pretiosus, nec abundaret visio, occisis vniuersis pe • e Prophetis ab impissimâ Iezabele, arbitrabatur sese relictū esse solùm: • b id vitae pertaesus, optabat animam suam tolli, quod vnus impar sibi videretur ferendo oneri intolerabili impijssimi populi, et pri •• cipū eius; nescius, adhuc 7000. Domino relicta et Abdiā cum 100. Prophetis latitantibus seruatū. Quae parabola, si paruis liceat cōp • nere magna, huius mei saecul • esse videtur: ego enim nescio qua dei pro • identiâ in publicum raptus, cum mōstris istis indulgentiarū et pontificiarū legum sic pugnauivt me solum esse putarem, etsi satis mihi semper f • it animi; ita vt passim 〈◊〉 et immodesti • r accuser, praenimia qua ardeb •• • iduci • : semper tamen id optani, quo tollerer et ego de medio • eorum Baaluarum, et eiuiliter m • rt •• s in angulo mihi vinerem; prorsus desperans me posse quicq •• promo • ere apud aereas istas frontes, et cer • ices ferreas impietatis. Sed ecce, et mihi dicitur, esse 〈◊〉 reliquias suas saluas 〈◊〉 in hoc tempore, et Prophetas 〈◊〉 • bscondito seruatos. Nec hoc solùm dicitur, sed et 〈◊〉 gaudi • ostenditur: prodij • enim Wesselus, quem •• silium dicunt, Frisius Groningensis, • ir 〈…〉 enij, rari et ra • gni spiritus, qu • et 〈…〉 vere Theodidacton, quales prophet •• it f • re Christianos Esayas. Neque enim ex hominibus 〈◊〉 i • dicari potest, sicut nec ego: hic si mihi a •• ea fuisset lectus, poterat hostibus meis videri, Lutherus 〈◊〉 ex Wesselo hausisse, adeo spiritus vtrius{que} 〈…〉 vnum, &c. To the Christian Reader, Martin Luther wisheth salvation in the Lord.

The Prophet Elias the Thisbite, when the Word of the Lord was precious, and vision failed (all the Prophets (in a manner) being slain by the most wicked Jezebel) thought that himself had been left alone; and therefore being weary of his life, wished, that God would take it away from him, because being but one, he deemed himself unable to bear the intolerable burden of a most wicked people & their Princes; not knowing, that God had reserved to himself yet 7000. and that Abdias; with a hundred other Prophets lurking in secret, were preserved alive. Which Story, if I may compare small things to great, seemeth to me a perfect image or emblem of this age wherein I live: for, I by divine providence being drawn into the public theater of the world, so fought with these monsters of Popish Indulgences and Decretals, that I thought myself to be alone, although I never wanted courage in these combats; insomuch, that I am rather accused of the contrary, of an ouerpoignant style and fiery zeal: yet I always wished, that God would take me from among my Baalites, and that, being civilly dead, I might enjoy myself in some corner; utterly despairing of doing any good upon the brazen foreheads and iron necks of the wicked. But behold, it is told me also (as it was told Elias) that God hath reserved unto himself a remainder (of true believers) even in this time, & that there are Prophets kept in secret: neither is this said only unto me, but demonstrated unto me also, to my great comfort: for, Wesselus Frisius Groningensis (whom they call Basil) is lately set out in print, a man of a rare and great spirit, and admirable wit, who (it appears) was truly taught of God, as those Christians were to be, of which Isaiah prophesieth. For, it cannot be thought, that he received his learning from men; as neither did I. If I had read this Author before, my enemies might have thought, that I drew all out of Wesselus Store-house, his spirit & mine so perfectly agree.

And as Luther agnized Wesselus for his noble forerunner: so he embraced with truest affection the Waldenses (termed, fratres Pigardi) as appears in his preface before the 〈◊〉 confession.

Wherefore I commend to all the servants of God, this confession of the Brethren, whereby all men may clearly perceive how wrongfully they have been condemned and vexed by the Papists.

Now how worthily Martin Luther conceived of John Hus and Jerome of Prague, it appears by those his words in Asser. articul. 32. Iohannem Hus et Hieronymum, viros catholic • s, combusserunt haeretici ipsi, & Apostatae, & Antichristi discipuli: they burnd John Hus and Jerome, both Catholic men, they being themselves Heretics and Apostates, and the disciples of Antichrist. And in his first preface to some of the Epistles of Hus, prefixed to the works of Hus, In numero istorum operum sanctissimi Domini papae habetur et hoc, quod in Constantiensi Concilio optimum et pijssimum virum Iohannem Hus damnauit: In the number of those works of the holy Father the Pope, this is one, that in the Council of Constance, he condemned John Hus, a man of singular worth and extraordinary piety: And in the second preface, Has Epistolas sancti Martyris, Johannes Hus, &c. These Epistles of the holy Martyr John Hus: And in his third Preface,

I have heard from men of credit, that the Emperor Maximilian was wont to say of John Hus: Alas! alas! they did that good man wrong: and Erasmus Roterodam in the first books which he printed (lying yet by me) writeth, that indeed John Hus was burned, but not convicted. This was the judgment of learned men always, concerning John Hus, that great wrong and violence was offered unto him. For proof whereof, he allegeth Doctor Sta • pritius, and Andrew Praule; and in the end, addeth moreover, It is a thing confessed, even by our Adversaries themselves (some of whom, being great Divines, I heard 30 years ago), that John Hus was excellently learned, and far beyond all the Doctors in that Council. I myself, when I was a young Student in Divinity at Erford, meeting with a book of Sermons, pen'd by John Hus, was inflamed with a desire of reading it thorough, that I might know what were the heresies which this Arch-heretic broached. This book was happily kept from burning, lying hid among many other in the public Library: in the reading whereof, I was amazed, and could not sufficiently admire what the cause might be, that so great a Clarke, so expert and dexterous in expounding and handling Scripture, should be burned.

Thus you see, how far Luther was from detracting from any of his fore-runners: to whom he yielded as ample a testimony for the Truth, as they had yielded to the Truth. And I desire the indifferent Reader to observe, how John Hus his prophesy before his death, was fulfilled in Luther's vindicating his doctrine and person. John Hus his words were, which are yet to be seen, stamped in ancient coin, currant among the Hussites, Centum reuolutis annis, &c. After a hundred years, you shall answer God and me: and some affirm, that he added, I am Hus, that is, in the Bohemian Language, Goose: but there shall follow me a Swan, &c. And indeed, after a hundred years, that Swan appeared in the world, which most sweetly began to record the pure notes of the Songs of Zion, whose strong quill hath eternized John Hus his innocence of life, and purity of Doctrine.

Master FISHER.

Wherefore the Lutheran Conradus, Schlusenburg saith, It is impudency to say, that many learned men in Germany (and the like is of other countries) before Luther, did hold the doctrine of the Lutheran Gospel.

And another of them not only saith in effect thus much, but proveth it by this Argument, If there had been right believers that went before Luther in his office, there had been no need of a Lutheran reformation. Another saith, It is ridiculous to think, that in the time before Luther, any had the purity of doctrine, and that Luther should receive if from them, and 〈◊〉 they from Luther; considering, saith he, it is manifest to the whole world that before Luther's time, all Churches were over-whelmed with more then C • merian darkness, and that Luther was divinely raised up to discover the same, and to restore the light of true doctrine.

Doctor FEATLY'S Answer.

First, I would have you to know, M. Fisher, that I hold myself no way bound to give an account of every railing or over-lashing Lutherans speech, no more then you will undertake to make good every invective of the secular Priests against the Jesuits: such Writers of the pet • y form, of little antiquity, and less learning, were not wont to be alleged in controversies of moment in Divinity. But I perceive by you, M. Fisher, that (according to the Prouerb) all is fish that cometh to your net. If these three had jointly testified that for which you cite them, yet their testimonies might soon be blown away, by the conspiring breath of many Protestants of better rank then they. Regius, alleged by your own Brerely, testifieth most expressly the contrary: Dico fuisse ante Lutherum, verae Religions et qui cum Luthero per omnia consentires, coetum Ecclesiasticum etsi à pontificijs non fuerit agnitus, nec propter tyrannidem pontificium fortasse ostendi visibiliter potuerit. I say, that before Luther there was a company professing the true Religion of the same belief with Luther, although this company was not agnized by the Papists, nor peradventure could visibly be shown or pointed at, by reason of the Popish tyranny. Whitaker auowes Regius: Our Church was then (viz. in the Ages before Luther). But it was not visible, saith Bellarmine (to weet, in the Popish sense). What then? Will it follow, that therefore it was not at all in the world? By no means; for it lay hid in the Desert. O • colampadius and Martin Bucer's Letters to the Waldenses, are extant in their works. I might allege the testimonies of Constance and Bullinger, Vesembekius, Viret, Vignea • s, Calvin, Beza, Humfrey, Fox, Illyri • us, and many other Protestants of higher rank, then such sneakers as Schlusenburg, or Myllius, or Morgenst. All the former acknowledge, that the Hussites and Waldenses walked with a right foot in that way of Truth, which since Luther (blessed be God) hath been much more clearly discovered, and trodden, then in former times. If Protestant Writers sway little with you, who yet could better tell then you, or M. Sweet, and such other new upstart Jesuits, who were Luther's forerunners; learn of your own Rainerius, and Claudius de Seissel, and Cocleus, and Lyndanus, and Claudius Rubis, and Aeneas Sylvius, and John Dubranius, and Alfonsus à Castro, and the Author of the Fasciculus rerum exet: and many other, that the Waldenses bore a Torch before Luther, and shown him his way. Yea but Schlusenburg saith, It is impudency to say, that many learned men in Germany did hold the doctrine of the Lutheran Gospel. Schlusenburgs words are, Impudenter scribit Vtenboyus seex Conrado Pellicano audiuisse, multos viros eruditos in Germaniâ, priusquam prodiret Lutherus, euangelij doctrinam tenüisse; adeoque, ipsum Pellicanum, priusquam auditum esset nomen Lutheri, Purgatorium Papisticum reiecisse. Vtenboius writes impudently, that he heard Conradus Pellicanus affirm, that many learned men in Germany held the doctrine of the Gospel, before Luther appeared; and that Pellicanus himself impugned the Popish Purgatory, before the name of Luther was heard. For ought I know, Vtenboius is as honest a man, as Schlusenburgius: and if Schlusenburgius deny it, Vtenboius affirmeth it, yea, and (for ought is proved to the contrary) Conradus Pellicanus also: yet that which Schlusenburg maintaineth for the honor of his Master, no way helpeth your cause: for, admit there were not in Germany, yet there might be elsewhere many thousands, as in Bohemia, France, England, &c. who, before Luther, embraced the doctrine of the Gospel.

Secondly, in Germany it self, there were not multi eruditi viri, many learned men; yet there might be some, for ought Schlusenburg saith to the contrary: therefore Schlusenburges testimony falls very short, neither doth George Myllius his come much nearer to the mark. His words are, Si antecessores Lutherus in officio habuisset Orthodoxos; Si Apostasia commissa ab Episcopis Pontificijs non fuisset, Lutherana reformatione opus non fuisset. Non ergo possumus veros monstrare Episcopos, qui ante Lutherum sub Papatu fuerint praedecessores Lutheri. Si enim tales fuissent in Romana Ecclesia discedendi ab ista, causa non fuisset. If Luther had had orthodoxal Predecessors in his Office; If the Popish Bishop had not made an Apostasy, there should have been no need of a Lutheran Reformation. Therefore, we cannot show true Bishops under the Papacie, to whom Luther succeeded: for if there had been such in the Roman Church, there had been no cause to depart from it. What makes this testimony for you? Is it for the honor of your Church, to be truly branded with Apostasy? to have no orthodoxal Bishops bearing rule in it? What though there were no right-believing Bishops under or in the Papacy; will it follow, that there were no right-believing Christians elsewhere? It is true, Reformation presupposeth a Deformation, as a remedy presupposeth a disease; & a purgation precedent matter fit to be purged. Though the Roman Church, or rather the predominant faction in the Roman Church, was unsound in the faith, and very corrupt and rotten; yet were there other sound members of Christ's Church, in whose steps, it is well known, that Luther trod. What a paralyticall Paralogisme is this? Myllius a Lutheran affirmeth, that There were 〈◊〉 orthodoxal or right-believing Bishops in the Roman Sea, therefore there were no visible Protestants in all the world before Luther. Now for Benedictus Morgenst, Non est inuentus in Baliua nostra. He who found him for you, makes him run the same way with Ioachimus Camerarius, but not whither you would have him. They both stand for the honor of Luther, and maintain, that he alone laid the first stone in the Fabric of reformation, & that none ought to share with him in that dignity, in being the first Apostle of the reformed Churches. They will not endure, that Luther should be thought to draw water out of any other Cistern, but out of the Fountain of living water, the Scriptures. Wicklef indeed, saith Ioachimus, was instructed by the Waldenses, and Hus by Wicklef: but Luther received his doctrine neither from Hus nor Wicklef, but was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , taught of himself out of Scriptures. This preeminency all Protestants do not willingly grant to Luther. Zwingli and Pellicanus, and Vtenboius, and your own Alfonsus à Castro, seem to make others as ready & forward at that time, as Luther. And indeed, whether Luther set Zwingli, or Zwingli Luther first a-work, or whether the Spirit of God stirred up both their spirits at the same instant, to set to that noble work of repairing and reforming God's Temple, I hold it needless to define. Let Luther and Zwingli, and many other their contemporaries and fellow-workmen in that great work, shine as so many precious stones in the foundation of the reformed Churches: Ne sit primus, nec vel imus quispiam. Will it follow, that because Luther was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and did not tind his candle at another man's light, therefore there was no visible Protestant at that time, but he? It will follow, say you, because Morgenst addeth, that. It is manifest to the whole world, that before Luther's time, all Churches were overwhelmed with more then Cymerian darkness. And you add also to Morgenst, five other corroboratory testimonies, of Calvin, Bucer, Beza, Jewel and Perkins: whereunto after I have given a direct and particular answer, I will dismiss you.

Master FISHER.

And lest this may be thought to have been only the conceit of Luther and Lutherans (who yet could better tell, then D. Featly, D. White, and such other new Masters) I will add hereunto what is said, first, by Calvin, who doth acknowledge, that in this Lutheran reformation, there was made a discession or departure from all the world. Secondly, by Bucer, who calleth Luther the first Apostle of the reformed doctrine. Thirdly, by Beza a principal Caluinist, who teacheth, that at this time, ordinary vocation of the Church-men was nowhere extant; and consequently teacheth, that there was at that time no visible Church, and so if any Church at all, it was only invisible, as is affirmed even by our own English Protestant Divines, namely Master Jewel, who saith, The truth was unknown and unheard of, when Martin Luther and Viderick Zwingli first came to the knowledge and preaching of the Gospel; and M. Perkins, who saith, We say, that before the days of Luther, for the space of many hundred years, an universal Apostasy over-spread the whole face of the earth, and that our (Protestant) Church was not visible to the world.

Doctor FEATLY.

When Calvin saith, There was a departure made from all the world; and Morgenst, That all Churches were overwhelmed with more then Cymerian darkness; and Perkins, that An universal Apostasy overspread the whole face of the earth; and Jewel; that Luther & Zwingli were most excellent men sent from God, to give light to the whole world: their meaning is not, that there was no light in those times in Goshen, or that there were no Abdiases, with many other Prophets lying in secret; or that there were not many thousands that never bowed the knee to the Romish Baal: for they all affirm the contrary in sundry places of their writings. But they take the word World, as it is usually taken both in sacred & profane Writers, for the greater part of the world, or at least, that part that beareth the greatest sway, and is in a manner only in voage. Their words sound according to the Tenor of those in S. John; The whole world is set on wickedness; and the like in S. Jerome, Totus mundus ingemuit se factum Arrianum; the whole world sighed, that it became Arian. As Luther, so Calvin also acknowledgeth, that Christ hath always had his floor on earth, sometimes more, sometimes less purged: And further, they deny not, but that before the public and general purging of the floor of the visible Church, from the chaff of Romish superstitions in our days, there were many that in sundry corners of the earth, severed diverse heaps of wheat from the chaff, and cleansed it from darnel & tares. Among whom, were Fratres Pigardi, a remainder of the Waldenses; between whom, and Calvin, many kind offices passed, as their mutual Letters testify, extant in Calvin's works. Thus one of the Preachers of the Waldenses writes to Calvin:

Reverend in the Lord: because above 30 years ago, when you remained at Argentine, there was an holy league of love and entire friendship and familiarity between you and the brethren, who are falsely termed Pigards or Waldenses, our dearest Fathers in the Lord; We, who now hold the place of those our Fathers, (whom God hath called, almost all of them, out of this mortal life) thought fit to renew that knowledge, or rather band of Christian love, wherewith all the servants of God, especially the Ministers of the Gospel, ought to be most strictly and firmly knit together.

To the former letter, Calvin returns this courteous answer, Epist. 251. We render you more then ordinary thanks, for sending the brethren unto us, who may remain as witnesses and pledges of your love towards us, and brotherly conjunction; which kind office of yours, we the more willingly embrace, because it flowed from a sincere love of true Religion. We desire that you will be likewise persuaded of the like affection in us towards you, and the great desire we have to cherish this holy unity among us. For, being so far removed one from another, and compassed round about with enemies, who take up the greater part of the world, it is a great delight unto us to enjoy yet this comfort of our dispersion, &c.

Again, the same Calvin in his Epistles, Epist. 179. to Stanist. Carninsk, thus writeth of the Waldenses: I hope the best of your agreement with the Waldenses; not only, because God always useth to bless the holy unity, in which the members of Christ grow up together, but also, because in these your rudiments and beginnings, I conceive, that the skill and long experience of the Waldenses, will be an extraordinary help unto you: wherefore all of you must do the uttermost of your endeavours, that this holy agreement & consent between you, may more and more be established, &c.

Martin Bucer (whom you allege in the next place) held the like correspondence with the Waldenses, as may be gathered from that Letter of his which he wrote unto them.

Blessed be the Lord God our loving Father, who hath preserved you to this present time, in so great knowledge of his truth, and who hath now inspired you in the search thereof, having made you capable and fit to do it. Behold now, what the nature of true faith is, which is, that so soon as it knows in part any spark of the divine light, it preserveth carefully the things that are given unto it of God. Saint Paul is an example to us, who in all his epistles, shows the great care that he hath had to procure the glory of God. And doubtless, if we pray with a good heart, that the name of God be sanctified, and his Kingdom may come, we shall prosecute nothing with such diligence, as the establishment of the truth where it is not, and the advancement thereof where it is already planted. One only thing doth especially grieve me, that our employments at this time are such, about other affairs, that we have no leisure to answer you at large, as we desire, &c.

By the contents of this Letter, and many other passages in Bucer's Works, which for brevities sake I omit, it appears that Bucer, in calling Luther the first Apostle of the reformed Doctrine, did not thereby intend, that Luther was the first that ever preached the Doctrine of the reformed Churches; for, he could not be ignorant, that after Christ and his Apostles, and the Fathers for 6 or 700 years, Bertram, & Elfrick, & Berengarius, and Petrus Brus, and Henry of Tolous, and Dulcinus, and Arnoldus, and Lollardus, and Wicklef, and Hus, and Jerome of Prague, and many other Stars, fought in their courses against the Romish Sisera. But Bucer's meaning is, that Luther was the first, who in our Age and memory, publicly and success-fully set on foot a general Reformation of the Church in these Western parts: when the corrupt matter of Popish errors and superstitions long in gathering, grew now to a ripe coare, Luther was the first who openly lanced it. Luther formed no new Church, but reformed the Church he found; and therefore cannot be termed, The first Apostle of Protestant Doctrine; although, in a tolerable sense, he may be styled, The first Apostle of the happy Reformation in our days. Luther burnisht and refined the gold of the Sanctuary, obscured with rust: he made not new gold.

In your allegation out of Beza, by suppressing the Aduerb (pene, almost), you show yourself, non pene, not almost, sed penitùs, altogether a falsificator. Beza's words, Epist. 5. are, Huic tum demum locum esse dicimus, cùm vel nulla, vel pene nulla est ordinaria vocatio, sicut nostris temporibus accidit in Papatu. We say, that then extraordinary calling takes place, when there is either no, or almost no ordinary vocation ( of Pastors ), as in our time fell out in the Papacie. This ( almost ) you omit altogether. For Beza's opinion, touching extraordinary calling, as I do not here oppugn, so much less do I undertake to maintain. We can, and have proved lawful & ordinary calling in our Church of England, as you may see in M. Masons most accomplished Treatise of this Subject, lately reuised by him before his death, and translated into Latin, at this instant sweating under the Press. Admit, there had been no ordinary calling of right-believing Church-men, Bishops, or Priests, when Luther did first sound his silver Trumpet: what will you infer thereupon? that at that time there was no visible Church? There Beza leaves you, who professeth both a visible Church in general, consisting of members, sound and unsound, and these more or less; and in particular, he calleth the Waldenses, The seed of the most pure, ancient, Christian Church, which was miraculously preserved in the midst of the darkness and errors, which have been hatched by Satan in these latter times. And as Beza leaves you, in this your inference, so also doth the Truth: For, although the Ship of Christ is in great danger, when erroneous Pastors, like false lights, are set up in the Watch-Towers of Zion, yet, since our chief Pilot hath forewarned us hereof, and bid us take heed of false prophets and teachers, and hath left us a most certain direction in his Word, which is the true Light, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 conduct us to those pulchri portus, the fair Hauens in Heaven; the people of God may keep the right way, and through God's grace escape the quick-sands of heresy. As God bestoweth diverse gifts of the Spirit ordinarily upon the Clergy, so he bestoweth also where he pleaseth, Spiritum discretionis, in the Laity, a Spirit whereby they may discern spirits, whether they are of God or no; a Spirit, by which, trying all things, they may hold fast that is good. And if their ghostly Fathers offer them a stone for bread, or a Serpent for fish, they will cast it away: Or if more cunningly they shall mingle error and heresy with truth, and offer them, as your Teachers did and do, an apple with a worm in it, or a cup of wine with a dead Fly, they will take out the worm and Fly, and then eat of the one, and drink of the other. This is that which Lydius truly observeth, Oft-times the ears of the Auditors are purer then the tongue of the Preacher. He delivers vngarbled spices, they garble it; vnsifted meal, they sift and boult it; impure milk, they strain it. In the days of Jeremiah, and much more after the death of the Prophet Malachi, until the birth of Christ, there were few Doctors in Israel, that rightly expounded the Law, and taught God's people as they ought: yet no man doubts that God had then a visible Church; as also afterwards in the time of the Arian & Eutychian persecution, in which there were very few Bishops or Pastors untainted with those heresies: Therefore, although we should grant you your antecedent out of Beza, that there was no ordinary vocation at that time, of pure and sincere Teachers, yet we will bar you of your conclusion, that at that time there was no visible Church. Our English Divines, alleged by you, affirm no such thing. Perkins saith not, that our Church was simply invisible, but that it was not visible to the world; adding in the same place, that it lay hid under the chaff of Popery. And the truth of this, saith he, the Records of all Ages manifest. The same Perkins, in his Reformed Catholic, more fully explaineth his meaning, thus: Though Popery reigned and overspread the face of the earth, for many hundred years: yet in the midst thereof, God reserved a people to himself, that truly worshipped him; The woman fled into the wilderness, &c. And she still retains a remnant of her seed, which keep the commandment of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. See here how far he is from denying a Protestant Church extant • that he affirmeth it to have grown up and thrived, even in the Thicket of Popery, though much over-shadowed and over-topped. Neither can you find any flaw or cloud in that orient Ge •••• of our Church, Bishop Jewel, whose words are these: When in the midst of the darkness of that Age, first began to spring and shine some glimmering beam of truth, unknown at that time, and 〈◊〉 of; When also Martin Luther, and H • lderick Zwingli, being most excellent men, even seek from God, to give light to the whole world, first came to the knowledge and preaching of the Gospel, &c. A Diamond cannot be cut or polished but by a Diamond: Let therefore this Jewel brighten and clear himself. In the same part of the Apology, Chap. 5. Diuis. 1. he calleth Martin Luther, the publisher and setter forward of this doctrine (not the Author); And Chap. 14. Diuis. 1. he fully cleeres the point in difference between us, touching visible Protestants before Luther: Many 〈◊〉 many learned and godly men, have often and carefully complained, how all these things have cleared 〈◊〉 time: For, even in the midst of that 〈◊〉 darkness God would yet there should be some, who though they gave not a clear & bright light; yet should kindle, were it but some sparks, which men being in darkness, might espy. And he particularly 〈…〉 Hillary, Gregory, Bernard, Pauperes de Lugd ••• , 〈◊〉 Bishops of Greece and Asia as also 〈…〉 Petrach, Sauanarolla, and others. And Chapter 15. he preventeth a c • uill, that might have been made against these witnesses of the truth, by some ignorant persons. Neither (saith he) can any man allege, that these Authors were Luther's or Zwingli Scholars: for they lived not only certain years, but also certain Ages, • re ever Luther or Zwingli names were heard of.

Now, I pray see, M. Fisher, what a goodly dish of fish you have served in, to furnish your Table, and let the indifferent: Reader judge, whether you may safely trust M. Brer • lie, or we you, in allegations, especially out of Protestant Writers; whose words either you corrupt, or adulterate their meaning, or both, as evidently appears in all the places above-cited.

And thus have I now at length spung'd out all the spots, which your pen hath cast on the Conference. As for personal aspersions upon me, especially, of want of gravity and patience, I hold it fittest to refell these and the like slanders by silent and patient enduring them. As you herein take Petilian the Donatist, for your precedent of impudent railing, so I will take Saint Agustine for my pattern of silent patience, and cloze up all further Answer in his words: Quid mirum, si cùm grana de areâ Domini excussa, simul & paleam intror sum trabo, iniuriam resilientis pulueris suffero? What marvel, if in sweeping the Lord's floor, and seeking to gather-in grains that are flown out, I endure a little dust? Homo sum enim de areâ Christi; palea▪ si malus; granum, si bonus; non est h • ius area v • ni • labrum lingus Petiliani: I am a man, and I know I am of Christ's floor, that is, in his true visible Church; all the Papists in the world shall never disprove it: If I am evil; I am chaff; if good, I am wheat: and whether I be the one or the other, this is my comfort, I am sure, the Jesuits tongue is not the fan of this floor. What I have written touching the visibility of Christ's true Church, I (in all humility) submit to the judgment of the true visible Church. I hope, the Truth shall suffer nothing, because of me: and if I suffer anything, by loose tongues or pens, because of the Truth, I will account it my Joy & Crown in the Day of our Lord Jesus Christ: To whose saving grace, and boundless mercy, I commend all those who love Truth in sincerity.