THE ROMISH FISHER CAUGHT AND HELD IN HIS OWN NET. OR, A True Relation of the Protestant Conference and Popish Difference. A justification of the one, and Refutation of the other. In matter of FACT. FAITH. By DANIEL FEATLY, Doctor in Divinity. Theodoret. Dial. 2. Cap. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orthodox. Thou art caught in thine own Net. LONDON, Printed by H. L. for Robert Milbourne, and are to be sold at the great South-dore of Paul's. 1624. TO THE MOST Reverend Father in God, the L rd Archbishop of Canterbury his Grace, Primate and Metropolitan of all England, etc. my very good Lord. May it please your Grace: I Have ever, as much as lay in me, declined, and earnestly contended against all contentions, and public Conferences in point of Religion, with Romish Priests, and Jesuits. For, Popery (as I have oft learned from your Grace) is a doctrine of lies; and as it maintaineth lies, so it can be maintained by no better support, then of lies. In all conflicts with men of that faction, though their redoubted wrestlers, in grappling with our Divines, are put to the worst, yet (like Pericles in the Theatre) be they indeed never so much foiled, they will go about, by their eloquence, to persuade the Spectators, that they received not, but gave the foil. And as Lysimachus, when he received a sore wound from Alexander in his forehead, had it presently bound up, and covered with a glorious Diadem: so when any of their side are wounded sorely in any skirmish with us, their fellows presently bind it up, and cover it with a Crown of a surmised victory. I well knew, and foretold the Pitcher of the field, that whatsoever the issue of the combat were, Master Deane of Carlisle and myself, should be notwithstanding conquered in effigy, and led in triumph in many a Pageant at Douai, Brussels, Rheims, and Rome, as since we have seen in Letters, and gazettaes from beyond the Seas. Omnia praecepi, atque animo mecum antè peregi. Yet knowing that truth is strong in her weakest, and falsehood is weak in her strongest Champions; and being urgently desired by the friends, and personally challenged by the enemies of our most holy Faith, to appear as a Second in her sacred & just quarrel, malui in illo praesertim legum et iustitiae publicae iustitio jesuitas fractos, quam despectos dimittere: I chose in that high float of the Jesuits pride and hopes, rather by an encounter to repress their insolency, then by a refusal increase their arrogancy. Neither was the divine Assistance and benediction wanting at the Conference, nor since: for by it the old Gentleman (whose intended satisfaction drew on this meeting) was settled (as himself under his hand twice professed) and resolved in that point, which before left a scruple in his conscience. And by occasion of this Dispute, the Chronicles of the Reformed Churches have been better searched into, and some most useful Relations and Treatises touching the Visibility of the Church, brought to light, and more public view then before. And, albeit his Majesty, upon the first noise and misreport of this disputation, seemed to distaste it, yet when the whole truth of that which passed that day, together with the occasion and issue thereof, appeared to his Majesty in its native hue; the former cloud, which threatened a bitter shower, was by your Grace's favourable breath, suddenly blown over: and then the true Relation of that Conference, finding the sky clear, stole wings to, and from the press, and flew freely abroad, every where checking and controlling the jesuits false Relations, and plucking from their heads those Laurel garlands, wherewith they had crowned their temples, for their own noble exploits that day. It could not be expected, that this printed Relation should have been otherwise entertained by Master Fisher and Master Sweet (the Popish Combatants), than it was; who, after a month or two, set upon it in print, and dealt with it, as the wife of Anthony did with Tully's * Because it truly wounded her husband. tongue, after his death: they thrust it thorough and thorough with needles, and stabbed it again and again with their poisoned pens; the one writing an answer to it; the other, a censure of it. To both these Pamphlets, this Reply is addressed. In the former part, Master Fishers Answer to the Fisher catched in his own Net, is censured: in the latter, Master Sweet's Censure is answered. And because opposita iuxta se posita, magis elucescunt, I have printed Master Fisher's Text with my Reply thereunto, ut dum haeretici hominis venena lector cognoscit, libentiùs orthodoxi bibat antidotum. If any thing be omitted, the occasion and reason of the omission is not omitted. Had I set down all the Jesuits battologies, Idem delicti fierem reprehensor et author. Whatsoever I have done herein, I submit to your Grace's censure and favourable construction thereof. I acknowledge, it is not a worthy present for your Grace: yet because it is * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. my first fruits in this kind, it of right belongeth to the high Priest; the rather, because the growth of it was upon your sacred glebe. The Stork, which always leaves one of her young ones in the house where she breeds, for the Owner thereof, teacheth me this point of gratitude, to offer that to your Grace, which was bred under your Grace's roof; Sive legas, quo dabo sive tegas. Did not these, and many other private respects, challenge this dedication to your Grace: yet the sweet influence which your Grace's government continually distilleth upon God's Inheritance, among us, would cause from any heart and pen not barren, the return of some sweet spiration of praises to God, and thanksgiving to your Grace for your incessant travels in God's cause. The costly ointment, which on Palme-Sunday last flowed abundantly from your lips, so cheered up and revived that numberless Auditory, that your Grace's Name is as a most fragrant ointment, sending forth a most sweet savour through the whole Kingdom. What should I speak of the most happy and joyful news of our thrice-noble Prince's return out of Spain: whereof your Grace was the first silver Trumpet to the City? And (God be blessed for it) the Trumpet gave not an uncertain sound. Those glorious night-Tapours which were set so thick together in the streets, that they made a kind of Galaxia in the City, were all kindled early in the morning at your Grace's sacred Lamp. Sicut Marcelli praelio ad Nolam, saith the Orator, populus Romanus primò se erexit, posteà multaeres prosperae consecutae sunt. As the Roman State, after many disasters, first began to cheer up again at Marcellus his victory at Nola, and afterwards much good fortune followed: so, after much sorrow and more fear, the happy Return of our Prince first cheered up our drooping spirits; and, after that, many happy things have followed: whereof, under his Majesty, your Grace have been, and are, together with your noble Associates in this high Court of Parliament, the principal Instruments. Ride on, in the Lords march prosperously, with your honour, because of truth and righteousness, and your right hands shall teach your terrible things; terrible things to the Whore of Babylon, but comfortable to Christ's afflicted Spouse. The good will of him who dwelled in the bush, make your Aaron's Rod to flourish more and more, to the glory of his Name, advancement of the Truth, honour of the Priesthood, and your own endless joy and comfort. This we all of the Tribe of Levi are bound to pray for in general, and I myself more specially, as being Your Grace's most humbly-devoted Chaplain in house, and servant, DANIEL FEATLY. The Preface to the Protestants Relation of the Conference, JUNE 27. 1623. BEing commanded by my Lord his Grace of Canterbury, from his Majesty, to certify the truth of that which passed in a late conference, in point of Religion, at Sir Humfrey Linde's house in Sheer-Lane, in London: we, who were present at the Conference, partly, out of the fresh memory of such passages as we then observed; but especially, by help of such Notes as were taken in the Conference itself, subscribed by both the Disputants, drew up, within a week after, as perfect a Relation of the substance thereof, as we could: wherein as we added nothing to the advantage or prejudice of either party; so we omitted nothing of moment, in the Current of the Arguments and Answers. As for some interlocutory speeches of the right honourable the Earl of Warwick, who diverse times seasonably interposed, and, when the Disputants or standers-by grew into any heat or distemper, discreetly tempered both sides, Ille regit dictis animos, & pectora mulcet.— those passages we inserted not into our narration, because, the Earl being not then in London, we held it incongruous, without his Honour's knowledge, to use his name to the King. For other omissions, the Jesuits are beholding unto us: for, they were in favour of them; we being loath to be ungues in ulcere, to be thought to rub too hard upon a gall, but rather desirous to carry the whole Relation as fairly and passably as might be. 2. Cor. 12. 13. We had thought, the Jesuits would have pardoned us this wrong. After this original Draught was by us tendered to his Grace of Canterbury, and by his Grace delivered to the King's Majesty, some Copy (as we understand) was taken, for the satisfaction of a Person of quality: which, passing from one to another, in the end fell into the hands of some Stationers; who, without licence or knowledge of those whom it most concerned, committed it to the Press, de questu magis, quam quaestione soliciti. And the better to vent this new wine, they set a fair Garland before the door, intituling it, The FISHER caught in his own Net. Which Title was not devised nor prefixed by any of us: we willingly leave the vanity of such affected inscriptions to our Adversaries, who make themselves ridiculous in this kind. One entitleth his Answer to D. White, WHITE died black. Another calls his wooden Pamphlet, The Gag of the new Religion, or of the reformed Gospel. Another, his Reply to M. BELL, Cecidit BELL, The doleful knell of THOMAS BELL. This is not the sound of AARON'S golden Bell; but rather of the tinkling Cymbal mentioned by Saint PAUL, 1. Cor. 13. Fancies and jigs make no good Church-music. Nobis non licet esse tam disertis, Qui Musas colimus sacratiores. For the Title therefore, we approve it not: but for the Conference itself, it containeth nothing but the truth, whatsoever the Adversaries give out to the contrary, who (as it seemeth) hold it a work of supererogation, to forge and coin signal and transcendent Leasings for the Catholic Cause; for, although the Jesuits, at this Conference, were often uncertain, and always very slow and tardy in their Answers, and (in fine) answered nothing, but that they would not answer Doctor FEATLY his instance in CHRIST and his Apostles; yet have they or their Scholars proclaimed in Gath, and published in Ascalon, such a victory as never was heard; much like the wonderful conjunction of the superior Planets, which was ne●er seen. About a week after the Conference, the noble Earl of Warwick, who had been present at it, having occasion to pass over the Seas, and coming to Saint Omers, had the Company of Doctor Weston at his Inn; to whom this Doctor (taking the Earl for a Roman Catholic) told for fresh and most happy news out of England, that at a Conference between Father FISHER and SWEET, Jesuits, and two Protestant Ministers, in London, the Jesuits had quitted themselves so well, and the Catholic faith prevailed so far, that two Earls, and an hundred other of the Auditory were gained to the Church of Rome by this Encounter: of these two Earls, the party to whom he spoke, was one, who could not but smile at this Relation. Risit Atlantiades; et me mihi, perfide, prodis, Me mihi prodis, ait? A pretty Comic Scene, where the Spectator is made an Actor, and a false person put upon him to his face: a renowned and constant Protestant, borne down to be a Romish Proselyte. As for the revolt of the other Earl, and pretended Centurie of Protestant Roman Converts, we believe it as firmly, as that a Vitae Sanct. Brigittae. Vitae S. Aldelmi. S. BRIDGET laid her Wimple, and Saint ALDELME his Chesible upon a beam of the Sun, which supported them. That Saint NICOLAS, b Festivale de Sancto Nicolao. while he lay in his cradle, fasted Wednesday and Friday; these days he would not suck, but once in the day. That c Legend. de Sancto Patricio. Saint PATRICK caused a stolen sheep to bleat in the belly of him that had eaten it. That the corpse of d Legend. de Sancto Stephan. S. LAURENCE, at the coming of Saint STEPHEN'S body, smiled for joy, and turned itself to the other side of the Sepulchre, to make room for him; e Ep. Clem. ad jac. in Ep. Pontif. that CLEMENS wrote a Letter to Saint JAMES the brother of our Lord, seven years after he was dead; that f Vide Breu. & picturas Dionys. vel interrog. Paris●enses. Saint DENNIS carried his head in his hand three miles, and rested at each place of the posts, that are set between Paris and Saint Dennis; that g Legend. de Dunst. & picturae pass●●. Saint DUNSTONE held the devil fast by the nose with a pair of tongues; that the h Hist●ire de N●stre Dame de L●retto. chamber of our Lady was carried by Angels through the Air, from Palestine to Loretto, in Italy; i Annot. in Clemanges ex Caesario. that our Lady helped Saint THOMAS BECKET to mend or stitch his haircloth; k Legend. de 〈◊〉. Cant. that a Parrot crying out, Saint THOMAS help me, was delivered from an Hawk; l Legend. de L●p●. that Saint LUPUS shut up the devil in a tankard all night; that m Legend. de 〈◊〉. vid. M●l●h. 〈◊〉. Theol. Saint DOMINICK made the Devil hold the candle to him till he burned his fingers; that n Vitae Francisci. Saint FRANCIS swallowed a Spider in a Chalice which Spider came whole out of his thigh; that the o Cheney Martyr Carthus. Image of the Crucifix turned tail to GREGORY the Monk, when he went from the Vespers, to walk in the Chapter- house; that p Sedul. Francisc. Friar ANDREW, to correct his appetite of eating birds at the Table, by the sign of the Cross, commanded them to fly away after they were roasted; q Author of the Relation of the Western Religion. that the Thunder of the Pope's excommunications so blasted the Hugonotes, that their faces were grown as black and ugly as the devil; r Vitae Iu●●j. that FRANCIS JUNIUS had a round cloven foot like an Ox; s Beza rediviws. that BEZA recanted his religion before his death; t My Lord of London's Legacy. that the reverend Doctor KING, late Bishop of London, died a Papist; or, u Interroga vicin●● de re iam recenti. that the Protestants at Blackfriars, by knocking certain pins out of the timber, caused that late & lamentable fall of the floar: wherein about 200 Papists were assembled, and near a 100 slain. They who teach pious frauds, and write of holy hypocrisy, and doctrinally deliver the lawfulness of equivocation, may securely report, whatsoever maketh for the Catholic Cause. The more incredible and palpable the Lie is, the more merit in him that maketh it, and in them that believe it. Popery is a doctrine composed of Lies: and Philosophy teacheth, that all things are fed and maintained by such things of which they are bred and made. The aliments of Popery must be correspondent to the elements of which it consisteth: and verily as he said in the Poet, Si ius violandum est, Regni causa violandum, if a man must transgress the Law of honesty and justice, he must doeit for a Kingdom: so it is like they are resolved, if a man must lie, certainly he must lie for the good of the Catholic Religion; and if lie in so good a cause, lie to some purpose. The first report concerning the issue of this Conference, was of a silly woman, said to be present, and converted thereby to the Romish faith, who forsooth stamped upon her English Bible, and solemnly renounced the Protestant Religion upon it; protesting, she would never trust heretical Translation any more. But, alas! this was but a silly lie, made by some p●isne novice of the petty form, to see how a lie in this kind would take. The higher Scholars in the Jesuits School, thought it behoved them to make a Catholic or universal lie for the Catholic cause, by giving out, that the whole company of Protestants present at that Conference, was gained to the Romish faith, yea, and many more Protestants then were there also for 100, some say, 400▪ is the sum of the supposed Converts; whereas there were not near a hundred persons in both parties in all at the Conference; and (as we conceive) near 20. were professed Papists, and known Recusants: and for the rest, which were Noblemen, Gentlemen, and Gentlewomen of quality, with some few Divines, there was not one of them any way staggered in Religion by this meeting; but on the contrary, they have openly professed, that they were much established and confirmed in the truth of the Protestant Religion by it: and Master BUGGES himself, (whose satisfaction by this Conference was principally intended) who before had doubted of our Church, after this Disputation, professeth himself fully resolved through the mercy of God: to whose grace we commend all that love the Truth in sincerity. As for those, who contrary to the evidence of truth, and so many testimonies beyond all exception, are yet resolved to believe what the Jesuits report for their own advantage in their own cause; the Jesuits, we say, who maintain, that a man may utter an untruth in words without the guilt of Venial sin, so he be sure to make it up by a mental reservation: upon such as stand thus affected, we bestow the blessing of q August. Thuan. ad An. 1556. Caramalis Caraffa Lutetiam Regni Metropol●m ingreditur, solitâ pompâ, tanquam Pontificis Legatus; ubi cum signum Crucis, ut fit, ederet, verborum, quae proferri mos est, loco, ferunt eum ut erat securus de numb animo, & summus Religionum derisor occursante passim populo, in genua procumbente, saepiùs secretâ murmuratione haec verba ingeminâsse: Quandoquidem, etc. Cardinal CARAFFA: who, when the people flocked to him in great multitudes to be blest by him, (being arrived at Paris, coming as Legate from the Pope), lifting up his eyes devoutly to heaven, and making▪ according to the manner, crosses in stead of the accustomed form of Episcopal benediction, blessed the honest vulgar Frenchmen in these words: Quandoquidem iste populus vult decipi, decipiatur: If so be this people will be gulled or deceived (with such shows and fopperies), let them be gulled or deceived. THE PARTICULAR CONTENTS OF THIS BOOK. THe occasion, and issue, of the late Conference had▪ june 27. 1623. between Doctor White, Deane of Carlisle, and Doctor Featly, with Master Fisher, and Master Sweet Jesuits. Page 1. A Relation of what passed in the said Conference, touching the Visibility of the Church, page 6. Additions to the former Relation of the Conference, page 29. An Attestation, concerning some particulars, set down in the said Relation, entitled, The Fisher catched in his own Net, page 38. A Remonstrance sent in a Letter by Doctor Featly, to his worthy friend, Sir Humphrey Lind, touching the former Conference held at his house: wherein is maintained, that, 1 Conferences in point of Religion are lawful, and useful, and therefore to be justified. 2 The Method also used in the former Conference, maintained and justified. 3 The proofs alleged in the Conference, were direct, not diversive. H* A succinct or brief discussion of the two Questions, which were propounded by the jesuit; by Distinctions. Assertions. 1 viz. Whether the Protestant Church was in all Ages visible? L1. 2 Whether visible Protestants are to be named in all Ages? O2. A Defence of Doctor Featlie's proceedings in the Conference, (R3.) wherein Rules are prescribed for Disputations: and it is proved and confirmed, that, 1 No conclusion of Faith may be proved out of mere humane testimonies. S1. 2 The Protestants Church might be visible in all Ages, yet their Names not now extant. S3. 3 The Romish Church was invisible in the first and best Ages. T1. A Prooeme to Master Fisher's Answer to the Conference: wherein is showed, that absurd Paradoxes are miserably defended by Master Fisher. T3. An Answer to the Title of Master Fisher's book, masked under the Name of A. C. V3. An Answer to the Preface thereof. V 4. A Table of the principal matters contained in the same, which are reduced unto five heads, viz. 1 Untruths. 2 Contradictions. 3 Idle observations, and exceptions. 4 Impertinences, or mal' à proposes. 5 Vain repetitions. Y 3. A Reply to Master Fisher's Counter Relation, touching the occasion of the Conference, page 37. The Answer of Sir Humphrey Lind, touching diverse passages in the Protestant Relation, about the occasion and issue of the Conference, excepted against by the jesuit, p. 39 A Reply to Master Fisher's Answer, or, the defence of the Protestant Relation, divided into Paragraphs. Paragraph 1. touching the entry into the Conference, page 45. 2 Of the state of the Question, page 49. 3 The conditions to be observed by the Disputants, page 52. 4 Of the Inuisibility of the Roman Church, for more than 500 years' next after Christ, page 54. 5 Concerning the parts of the Question, page 59 6 Of the pretended necessity of naming Protestants in all Ages, page 63. 7 Of the comparison between a proof à Priori and à Posteriori, page 74. 8 Of the Demonstration of the Visibility of the Church, by the eternity and immutability of faith, page 88 9 Touching a testimony alleged by M. Fisher out of D. Field page 113. 10 Of the Induction, & breaking up of the Conference, p. 119. 11 Of the issue of the Conference, page 129. A Copy of M. Fisher's Letter to the Earl of Warwick. p. 139. An Answer unto the same by D. Featly, page 142. A Copy of a Letter from the Earl of Warwick, to Sir Humphrey Lind, page 146. Master Fisher's Reflection upon the Conference, with the Answer of Doctor Featly, page 147. Wherein 1 A testimony out of Luther, alleged to prove the invisibility of the Protestants Church, is answered, page 150. 2 Luther's testimony of Wesselus', page 152. 3 Of the Waldenses, page 154. 4 Of Hus, 157. 5 A testimony out of Conrade. Schlusenburg, is answered, p. 160. 6 A testimony out of Benedictus Morgenst, answered, p. 164. 7 A testimony out of Calvin, is answered, page 167. 8 Caluins testimony of the Waldenses, is produced, p. 168. 9 A testimony out of Bucer, is answered, page 169. 10 In what sense Luther may be termed the first Apostle of the Reformed Churches, is declared, page 170. 11 An allegation out of Beza, answered, page 171. 12 An Allegation out of Perkins, answered, page 173. 13 An Allegation out of Bishop jewel, answered, page 174. 14 The Conclusion, page 178. To the courteous Reader. I Entreat thee, courteous Reader, to understand, that the greater part of this book was printed in the time of the great Frost; when, by reason that the Thames was shut up, I could not conveniently procure the proofs to be brought unto me, before they were wrought off: whereupon it fell out, that very many gross escapes passed the Press, and (which was the worst fault of all) the third part of the book is left unpaged. This defect I find no other means to remedy for the present, than to refer thee to the letters of the Printers Alphabet, set under the Page. Thus therefore, I pray thee, correct the Errata following. Faults escaped. In the Conference, page 6. line 9 for demanded, r. and demanded. p. 7. l. 7. four, r. your. In the Additions, p. 27. l. 29. f. I should, r should I. p. 30. l. 29. f. author, r. adversary. In the Attestation, p. 36. l. 8. f. prepetua, r. perpetua. In the Remonstrance, H 2 * for approbation, r. a good answer. H 4 * l. 4. f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. b. l 23. f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. K k l. 9 f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. line 14. f. of Church, r. of the Church. l. 15. f. thing, r. Chius. K 2 * In mar. f. quibus, r. quidam. f. falsa, r. falsum. l. penult. deal the. K 3 * b l. 7. f. Vovius, r. Voions. l. 9 Wolfius, r. Walfius. l. 10. f. Moustre a Vortley, r. Munster a Vortlegue. K k b l. penult. in marg. f. de praescrip. r. Tert. de praescrip. K 4 b l. 14. f. Partus, r. Paetus. Quest. 1. touching the visibility of the Church, L 3 * l. 5. f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. L 3 l. 10. f. Becherites, r. Bezerites. l 12. f. Luiddamites, r. Quiddamites M * b l. 21. deal into. M 2 l. 28. f. eternally, r. externally. M 4 in marg. f. obsconditur & obsoluens, r. absconditur & absoluens. M 2 b l. 19 f sweet fish & rotten, r good & bad. N * a l. 17. f. Margaerites, r. pearls. N * b l 28. f. a firmer, r. the former. O * l. 17. f. Lyranensis, r. Lirmensis. O 2 b l. 5. f Barradus, r. Barradius. Quest. 2. touching the names of visible Protestants, P 3 a in marg. f. lenone, r. lenones. Q 1 b in marg. f. Caluini, r. calicis. Q 2 a l. 9 f sect. r. tract. Q 3 l. 18. f. leave, r. levy. l. 23. f. Epistolae, r. Epistolis. Q 3 b add in marg ad Occam & Platin ex Wolf. pröoem. Q 4 b add in marg. The fixed assertien. R 1 l. 26. f. this, r. then. R 1 b l. 18 f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. R 1 in marg. f. excusseront, r. exusserunt. S 1 l. 28. f. forceth, r. fort. S 2 b l. 23. deal of. T 1 b l. 22. f. voculae, r. voculas. T 2 b l. 9 f. quum. r. qum. T 3 in marg. f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. T 3 b l. 3. f. Athanaeus, r. Athenaeus. T 4 l. 8. f. distinguish, r. to distinguish. V 1 l. 13. Corrige accentos ita, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. V 1 l. 20. f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Pone in mar. Odys●. 3 In the reply, page 1. line 1. add M. Fisher. p. 1. l 10. superpone D. Featly. p. 5. l. 25. f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l 26. f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 27. f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 7. l. 9 for conifictiou, r. confiction. p. 11. l. 2. f. you r. yours. p. 12. l. 2. f. m, r. on. p. 22. l. 13. f signal, r. signal. p. 32 l. 14 f. predicants, r. predicaments. p. 44. l. 6. f. be, r. but. p. 48. l. 21. f. of, r. Of. p. 51. l. 11. f. particula entirer, r. particular entire. p. 63. l. 8. f. Elohim, read barah Elohim. p. 79. l. 10. f. metriculated, r matriculated. p. 83. l. 15. f. who keep, r. they who keep. p. 92. l. 8. f. namely fir, r. in Si●. In marg. add Viues de causis corrupt. art. l. 3. l. 16. f. Ceres, r. Seres. l. 17. f. Riphean, r Rhiphean. l. 24. f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. add in marg. Arist. analit post. l. 1. c. 4. p. 101. l. 32. deal and. p. 103. l. 1. f. in error, r. obstinate in error. p. 104. l. 11. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 108 l. 23. deal he can. p. 110 l. 11. f. Eleaetes, r. the Eleaetes. page 149. l. 4 f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 150 l 1. f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 2. f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 29. f. adeo, r. à Deo. et add in mar. extat et al●● ad Argen ep. in tract. Histo de coen. dom. Casp. Peut. Ambergae. an. 1596. ubineque habentur haec ve ba. p. 152. l. 10. add in marg. quia & lux mundi vulgò dictus, in script opuse. p. 154. l. 9 f. habent, r. habeant. p. l. 162. l. 12. f. exet. r. expetend. p. 163. l. 21. f. Bishop, r. Bishops. p. 172. l. 11. f. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. THE OCCASION and issue of the late Conference had between Dr. White, Deane of Carlisle, and Dr. Featly, with Mr. Fisher and Mr. Sweet, Jesuits, was this as followeth. EDward Bugs 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; and to believe the Catholic Church, was the Article of his Creed; and by it there could no other Church be meant, but the Church of Rome, because it could not be proved by all the Protestants in the Kingdom, that they had any Church before Luther. This Gentleman being much troubled in his mind with these and the like suggestions, who all his life time had been and professed himself a religious Protestant, became now more sick in mind then body: and if by God's merciful goodness he had not recovered of this sickness, it is to be feared he had fallen both from his Mother Church, and his former faith, as some of the nearest of his own blood (to his great grief) have lately been seduced by like enticements. After his recovery, being still much troubled in mind with these former suggestions of the Popish Priests, he repaired to Sir Humphrey Lind, Knight: who, by reason of his alliance and long acquaintance with him, gave the best satisfaction he could to his said Cousin Master Bugs; who seemed to take content in such his conferences, and to be well satisfied by him in all points. But the Popish Priests and jesuits' not desisting to creepe-in further where they had once made a breach, persevered still in questioning him, Where his Church was before Luther? Whereupon he repaired again to Sir Humphrey Lind, and required some further satisfaction of him concerning that demand. And thereupon Sir Humphrey Lind told him, It was first in Christ and the Apostles; consequently also conspicuous in the Primitive Church for 600 years after Christ: after which time some errors crept into the Church, as diseases into a man's body: so that the Church, which Luther and we acknowledge, was in general the same Christian Church, as his body was the same substantial body, being now well, and lately sick, though different in the qualities. And for the better strengthening of his mind, the said Sir Humphrey Lind invited him to his house in the Country, thereby the better to prevent the daily solicitation of those dangerous seducers. And after his return to London, the said Sir Humphrey Lind going to Master Bugs his house in Drury-lane to visit him, found Master Fisher the jesuit there: where, after some debates about Religion, and the visibility of the Church, M. Fisher called for pen & ink, and set down this question in terminis, thereto adding under his hand, that he would answer upon it negatively, as challenging and expecting opposers, delivering also the paper into the hands of the said Sir Humphrey Lind: who upon view of it, answered that it was an historical question, and not so proper for disputation. But Master Fisher urging it, Sir Humphrey told him, if he would go to Doctor Whites, (where formerly he had been) the said Doctor would easily resolve those doubts. Which being refused by the jesuit, the said Sir Humphrey did then return him his paper again, and so left him. About two days after, Master Bugs repaired to Sir Humphrey Lind, and entreated him (for his satisfaction) to give Master Fisher a meeting; saying, that Master Fisher had again told him, that he would maintain what he had set down, and that our Divines could not prove our Church visible before Luther's time. Whereupon Sir Humphrey told him, that D. White and Doctor Featly were to dine with him upon Friday following: and if after dinner Master Fisher would come thither with four or six at the most, they should be admitted for his sake and his wife's, who (by reason of such solicitation) were troubled in their minds, and satisfaction should be given as occasion required. And these were the true causes of the meeting, as is before declared. Upon which Friday, being the twenty seventh of june, 1623. Master Fisher, Master Sweet, Jesuits, and some others with them, came to Sir Humphrey Lyndes house, into a little dining-room; where they found the aforesaid Master Bugs, his wife and children, and others of Sir Humfreys friends, that had then dined with him, together with some others also: whose coming in, as the said Sir Humphrey did not expect, so he could not with civility put them forth his house, but did instantly cause his doors to be locked up, that no more might enter in: notwithstanding which his command, some others also came in scatteringly, after the conference began. At the same time and place, Doctor White and Doctor Featly being invited to dinner by Sir Humphrey Lind, and staying a while after, had notice given them, that Master Fisher and Master Sweet, Jesuits, were in the next room ready to confer with them, touching a question set down by Master Fisher, under his own hand, in these words, viz. Whether the Protestant Church was in all ages visible, and especially in the ages going before Luther. And whether the names of such visible Protestants in all ages can be showed and proved out of good Authors. This question being delivered to the party's abovenamed, 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; the said Doctors 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 dareth encounter them in this point. 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 margin, 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. D. Featly. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To this universal demand, requiring rather an historical large volume, than a Syllogistical brief dispute, we answer, that 1. Although divine infallible faith is not built upon deduction out of humane history, but upon divine revelation, as is confessed by your own Schoolmen, and expressly by Cardinal Bellarmine: Historiae humanae faciunt tantùm fidem humanam, cui subesse potest falsum: Humane histories and records beget only an humane faith, or rather credulity subject to error, not a divine and infallible belief, which must be built upon surer ground. 2. Although this question be grounded upon uncertain and false supposals: for, a Church may have been visible, yet not the names of all visible professors thereof now to be showed and proved out of good Authors: there might be millions of professors, yet no particular and authentical record of them by name: Records there might be many in ancient time, yet not now extant, at least for us to come by; Yet we will not refuse to deal with you in our own question, if you in like manner will undertake the like task in your own defence, and maintain the affirmative in the like question, which we now propound unto you here in writing. Whether the Romish Church (that is a Church holding the particular entire doctrine of the now Romanists, as it is comprised in the Council of Trent) was in all ages visible, especially in the first 600 years. And whether the names of such visible or legible Romanists in all ages can be showed and proved out of good Authors. here D. Featly reading this question, through a mistake, in stead 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 * M. Alesbury. , By no means can M. Fisher endure to demonstrate his Church out of God's Word. D. Featly. God is a good Author, M. Fisher: but it is true, I did mistake. What say you to the condition? Will you undertake to name visible Papists in all ages, out of good Authors? M. Fisher. I will, so you prove the Visibility of your Church. 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. M. Sweet. Before you proceed to dispute, I desire, these conditions may be assented unto on both sides: 1. That all bitter speeches be forborn. 2. That none speak but disputants. Which conditions were well approved by the whole company. D. Featly. I desire a third to be added thereunto, viz. that both the Opponent and Respondent be tied to Logic Form. M. Fisher. I hold not that condition fit, because the company understands not Logic Form. D. Featly. There are of the company that understand Logic as well as you or I, and the rest are men of understanding and reason: therefore I am resolved to keep Logic Form, and expect from you direct answers. M. Fisher. You yourself confess, that this question is not to be handled syllogistically. D. Featly. I said indeed, that it required rather a large historical volume, than a brief syllogistical Dispute: the more you too blame, to propound such a question; and my task the harder: yet, being propounded as a question, I will keep myself to Logic Form. But before I propound my argument, I crave leave, in few words to lay open the vanity of the usual discourse, wherewith you draw and delude many of the ignorant and unlearned. You bear them in hand, that there was no such thing in the world as a Protestant, before Luther; and that all the world before his time, believed as you do: That your Church hath not been only visible in all Ages, and all times, but eminently conspicuous and illustrious: which is such a notorious untruth, that I here offer before all this company, to yield you the better, and acknowledge myself overcome, if you can produce out of good Authors, I will not say, any Empire or Kingdom, but any City, Parish or Hamlet, within 500 years' next after Christ, in which there was any visible assembly of Christians to be named, maintaining and defending either your Trent Creed in general, or these points of Popery in special; to wit, 1. That there is a treasury of Saints merits, and superaboundant satisfactions at the Pope's disposing. 2. That the Laity are not commanded by Christ's institutions, to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in both kinds. 3. That the public service of God in the Church, aught, or may be celebrated in an unknown Tongue. 4. That private Masses, wherein the Priest saith, Edite et bibite ex hoc omnes, Eat and drink ye all of this, and yet eateth and drinketh himself only, are according to Christ's institution. 5. That the Pope's pardons are requisite or useful, to release souls out of Purgatory. 6. That the effect of the Sacrament dependeth upon the intention of the Minister. M. Sweet. These are scholastical points, not fundamental. D. White. Those things which are defined in your Council of Trent, are to you matters fundamental. Whatsoever article denied makes a man an heretic, is fundamental. But the denial of any of these, makes a man an heretic: Therefore to you, every one of these articles is fundamental. To which argument nothing being answered, D. Featly proceeded. 7. That extreme unction is a Sacrament, properly so called. 8. That we may worship God by an Image. 9 That the sacred Host ought to be elevated, or carried in solemn procession. 10. That Infidels and impious persons, yea Rats and Mice, may eat the body of Christ. 11. That all ecclesiastical power dependeth of the Pope. 12. That he cannot err in matter of faith. 13. That he hath power to canonize Saints. 14. To institute religious orders. 15. To depose Kings, etc. which latter points and the like I leave to D. White, to maintain against you, when (according to your promise) you do undertake to name visible and legible Romanists in all ages. M. Fisher. After you have proved your Church visible in all ages, and named the professors thereof, I will satisfy you in your particulars. D. Featly. In the meanwhile, name but one Father, but one Writer of note who held the particulars abovenamed, for 500 years after Christ. To which instant demand of D. Featly, nothing was answered. Sr. Humphrey Lind. M. Sweet, prove me but this one point out of Saint Augustine, namely, Transubstantiation, or satisfy such arguments as I shall bring you out of Saint Augustine to the contrary, and I will promise you to go to Mass. To which M. Sweet made no other answer then this: That is not now to the question. M. Fisher. I expect your argument, Doctor Featly. D. Featly. There are two means only, to prove any thing by necessary inference; to wit, a Syllogism and an Induction: other forms of argument have no force, but as they are reducible to these. I prove the visibility of our Church by both; and first, by a Syllogism. That Church, whose faith is eternal and perpetual, was ever visible in the professors thereof. But, the faith of the Protestant Church is eternal and perpetual: Therefore the faith of the Protestant Church was ever visible in the Professors thereof. M. Fisher. You conclude not the question. D. Featly. There are two Quaeres in your question: first, Whether the Protestant Church was in all ages visible; and secondly, Whether the names of such visible Protestants in all ages, can be showed. I have concluded in my Syllogism, the first Quaere. M. Fisher. There are not two Quaeres, or parts in the question: it is but one question. D. White. Where there are two propositions with two distinct Utrums, there are two questions: But here are two propositions with two distinct utrums; to wit, whether the Protestant Church, etc. and whether the names, etc. Therefore there are two Quaeres, or parts in the question. M. Fisher. Conclude any thing Syllogistically, D. Featly. D. Featly. You yourself make the first part a question by itself: for, at the margin over against the first part, Whether the Protestant Church was ever visible? you write, I will answer, It was not: which words can have no Construction, if you refer them to both parts, or at all to the latter part; to wit, Whether the names can be a showed? M. Fisher. Let us hear a Syllogism. D. Featly. In this copulative proposition which you offer for a question, and require me to prove, either you deny both parts, or one only; if both, I am to prove both, one after the other; if one only, than you grant the other. A copulative is not true, unless both parts be true. Do you deny both, or one only? M. Fisher. I say, they are but one; for, the later part is to expound the former: for, I mean by visible, so visible, that the names of such visible Protestants may be showed. D. Featly. This is to confound two distinct questions in one: For, a Church may have been visible, and yet the names of such visible Professors not now to be showed. M. Fisher. They are my words, and I am best able to expound my own meaning. D. Featly. An exposition, which the construction of the words will not bear, is not to be received. But the construction of the words will not bear this your exposition: Therefore it is not to be received. And is a conjunction copulative, & must add somewhat to that which goes before. It is all one, as if you should expound the words of the Apostle, Provide honest things before God and men; before God, that is, before men. M. Sweet. What need you stand so much upon this: if there were visible men, certainly they may be named. Name your visible Protestants, and it sufficeth. b A Romanist standing by named M. Bolton. Name visible Protestants in all ages: D. Featly. It seems you are * Two sects of Schoolmen and Logicians so called. Nominals, rather than * Two sects of Schoolmen and Logicians so called. Reals, you stand so much upon naming. Will you undertake to name visible Papists in all ages? The same Romanist standing by. If neither you nor we can name visible professors of our Religions in all ages, for aught I know, the best way for us is to be all natural men. D. Featly. This is the right reason of a Natural. M. Sweet. If there were visible Protestants in all ages, certainly they may be named. D. Featly. That is a Non sequitur, for the reasons beforenamed by me. What say you to a people of Africa, who (if we may believe Pliny) have no names at all? M. Bolton. Yet they have descriptions, and may be known by some Periphrasis. D. Featly. What say you then to the Heretics called Acephali, who are so called, because their Head and Author cannot be named, nor particularly described? Yet the Author was a visible man. Are all visible men's names upon Record? Are all the Records that were in former times, now to be produced? Here diverse of Master Fisher's company, called, Names, names, names. D. Featly. What? Will nothing content you but a Buttery-booke? You shall have a Buttery-booke of names, if you will stay a while. 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 Question; 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. D. Featly. That Church, whose faith is eternal and perpetual, is so visible, that the Names of some Professors thereof may be showed in all Ages. But, the faith of the Protestant Church is eternal and perpetual: Therefore the Protestants Church is so visible, that the Professors thereof may be showed in all Ages. M. Fisher. Faith eternal? Who ever heard of faith eternal? Saint Paul saith, that faith ceaseth. D. Featly. You have a purpose, M. Fisher, to cavil: you know my meaning well enough by the term perpetual; to wit, that Christian faith which hath continued from Christ's first publishing it, till this present, and shall continue until his second Coming. The Church which holdeth this faith, you believe, shall be so visible, that the Names of the Professors thereof may be showed in all ages. But, the Protestant Church holdeth this perpetual faith: Therefore it hath been so visible, that the Names of the Professers thereof may be showed in all Ages. M. Fisher. Your Argument is a fallacy, called Petitio principij. D. Featly. A demonstration à causâ or à priori, is not petitio principii. But, such is my Argument: Therefore my Argument is not petitio principii. Is it not a sounder Argument, to prove the Visibility of the Professers from the truth of their faith, than (as you do) the truth of your faith from the Visibility of Professers? Visible Professers argue not a right faith. Heretics, Mahumetans, and Gentiles, have visible professers of their impieties; yet will it not hence follow, that they have a right belief. On the contrary, we know by the promises of God in the Scripture, that the Church which maintains the true faith, shall have always Professers more or less visible. M. Sweet. You ought to prove the truth of your Church à posteriori; for, that is to the question; and not à priori. D. Featly. Shall you prescribe me my weapons? Is not an Argument à priori, better than an Argument à posteriori? This is, as if in battle you should enjoin your enemy to stab you with a knife, and not with a sword or dagger. I will use what weapons I list: take you what buckler you can. M. Fisher. A Proof à posteriori is more demonstrative than à priori. M. Alesbury. Heer M. Fisher showeth his Academical learning, in preferring a demonstration à posteriori, before that which proceeds à priori. Is not a demonstration of the effect from the cause, more excellent, than of the cause by the effect? From this place, and so forward, it was agreed by the Disputants, that the Arguments and Answers should be taken by one common Writer; and that the Opponent, Dr. Featly, should set his hand to each several Syllogism; and the Respondent, Mr. Fisher, to his several Answers. Dr. Featly. That Church, which is so visible as the Catholic Church ought to be, and as the Popish Church is pretended by M. Fisher to be, is so visible, that the Names of the Professors thereof may be produced and showed. But, the Protestant Church is so visible, as the Catholic Church ought to be, and as the Popish Church is pretended by M. Fisher to be: Therefore the Protestant Church is so visible, that their Names may be produced. M. Fisher. I deny the Minor. D. Featly. That Church, Minor probatur whose faith is eternal and perpetual, and unchanged, is so visible, as the Catholic Church ought to be, and the Popish Church is pretended by M. Fisher to be. But, the faith of the Protestant Church is eternal, perpetual, and unchanged: Therefore the Protestant Church is so visible, as the Catholic Church ought to be, and the Popish Church is pretended by M. Fisher to be. M. Fisher. I distinguish the Mayor. That Church whose faith is perpetual and unchanged, so as the Names can be showed, is so visible as the Catholic Church ought to be, and as M. Fisher pretends the Roman Church to be, I grant it. That Church whose faith is perpetual and unchanged, yet so, as the Names cannot be showed in all Ages, is so visible as the Catholic Church ought to be, and as M. Fisher pretends the Roman Church to be, I deny it. To the Minor I apply the like distinction, and consequently to the Conclusion in the same manner. D. Featly. What? Answer you to the Conclusion also? This is a Strain of new Logic. M. Fisher. Tolle distinctionem. D. Featly. A strange distinction of the etemity of faith by Professers to be named, All this was spoken, but not committed to writing. and not to be named. What are Professers nominable or innominable, to the eternity of faith? M. Fisher. Conclude that which I deny, that the Protestant Church is so eternal, as the Names of visible Protestants in all Ages may be showed. D. Featly. That Church whose faith is the Catholic and Primitive faith, once given to the Saints, without which no man can be saved, is so perpetual & visible, as the Names of some of that Church may be showed in all Ages. But, Tollitur distinctio. the faith of the Protestant Church is the Primitive and Catholic faith, once given to the Saints, without which none can be saved: Therefore the faith of the Protestant Church is so perpetual and visible, as the Names of some of that Church may be showed in all Ages. M. Fisher. I answer the Minor. If this Proposition be taken simply in itself, I absolutely deny it: but if this Proposition be considered (as it must be) as related to the first question, and the end thereof, I further add, that it is not pertinent to that end for which the whole Dispute was intended, to weet, to show to those, who are not able by their own ability to find out, the infallible faith necessary to salvation, without learning it of the true visible Church of Christ: and consequently, the Visibility of the Church is first to be showed, before the truth of doctrine in particular shall be showed. D. Featly. First, These words were also spoken but not set down by the Writer. what speak you of those who are not able by their own abilities to find out faith? Is any man able by his own ability, without the help of divine grace? Secondly, what helpeth the Visibility, to confirm the truth of the Church? Visibility indeed proves a Church, but not the true Church. 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. D. Featly. The Sum of your former Answer, was, that the Minor of my former Syllogism was both false and impertinent. It is neither false nor impertinent. Therefore your Answer is false and impertinent. And first, my Minor is not false. M. Fisher. I answer to the Antecedent, that it is both false and impertinent: but I add, that for the present it must first be proved to be pertinent, or else it diverteth us from the chief end of our Dispute, which was (as I said before), that infallible truth may be learned of the true visible Church; and not the true visible Church, by first finding every particular infallible truth; and by that to conclude which is the true visible Church. D. Featly. I prove, that the Minor is pertinent. That Minor Proposition, which, together with the Mayor, doth necessarily and directly infer the Conclusion of the Minor last denied, is pertinent to the probation of that Minor denied. But the Minor Proposition of the third Syllogism, doth necessarily and directly infer the conclusion of the Minor last denied: Therefore the Minor of that Syllogism is pertinent. Note, that M. Fisher's Answers to every one of these Syllogisms, were penned by him verbatim with the advice of M. Sweet, and one other, suggesting privately, and amending what they thought fit. Which breeding much delay, irkesom to the hearers, and the Opponent then saying, You are very long, Register of the Court of Wards. M. Fisher: M. Chamberlain, standing by, said, Let him alone: for, he and his learned Council are not yet agreed. M Fisher. I distinguish the Mayor. That Minor proposition, which together with the Mayor doth necessarily and directly infer the conclusion of the Minor, in such manner as it may serve for the purpose to which the whole Dispute is ordained, I grant it to be pertinent. But if it do infer the conclusion, yet not in such manner as it may serve for that purpose for which the whole Dispute was ordained▪ I deny the Mayor. here the Disputants jarred, and so the Writer ceased: yet that which followeth, was then delivered by them. D. Featly. That Minor which together with the Mayor infers the proposition last denied, the whole process having been per direct a media, is pertinent to that purpose to which the Dispute is ordained. But this Minor, together with the Mayor, directly and necessarily infers the proposition last denied, the whole process having been per directa media. Therefore it is pertinent to that purpose to which the Dispute is ordained. M. Fisher. Your Media in your Syllogisms were directa, but they tended not ad directum finem. D. Featly. This is a Bull. M. Fisher. Media directa? yet not addirectum finem? that is, direct, and not direct? for Media are said to be directa, only ratione finis, in regard of the end. M. Sweet. Is there not a fault in arguing, called transitio à genere in genus, When a man by arguing quite leaves the main question and subject? D. Featly. I acknowledge, that transitio à genere in genus, is a fault in disputing: but I never heard, that the inference of the effect by the cause, was transitio a genere in genus: such was my argument. For, faith in a right believer produceth profession and confession thereof, which makes a visible member; and the like profession of many members, a visible Church. Where the cause is perpetual, the effect must needs be perpetual. Therefore where the faith is perpetual, the profession thereof must needs be; and consequently the Visibility of the professors thereof. Is this transitio à genere in genus? D. Good. M. Sweet, you once learned better Logic in Cambridge, than you show now. here again those of M. Fisher's side calling for names, Where are your names? D. White said, D. White. This is nothing but an apparent tergiversation: you will not answer any argument directly, nor suffer us to proceed in our argument, and therefore I require you M. Fisher, according to the order mentioned in the beginning, for each party to have an hour and a half, that you now oppose, and suffer me to answer. Prove by Christ and his Apostles, or by any of the Fathers, for the first 600 years, these present Tenets of the Roman Church, viz. 1. That all power of order and jurisdiction in respect of the Churches, is to be derived from the Church of Rome. 2. That no Scripture, sense or translation thereof is authentical, unless the same were received from the Church of Rome. 3. That the Roman Church only was and is the authentical Custos of unwritten traditions. 4. That all general Counsels were called by the sole authority of the Pope, and that he might ratify and disannuall whatsoever pleased him in them. 5. That the Pope only had power to canonize Saints. 6. That the Pope had or hath power to depose Princes. Prove all or any of these, and we will neither carp nor cavil about names, but answer directly, without all delays, evasions or tergiversations. M. Fisher. When you, Doctor White, or Doctor Featly, have proved your Church to be visible in all Ages, and named visible Protestants, than I promise you to prove the Visibility of the Catholic Roman Church: but that is not done by you yet. D. Featly. It had been done, but for your delays and tergiversations. Answer briefly and directly to my former argument, and I will descend to my Induction, and produce the names of such eminent persons as in all Ages have maintained the substantial points of faith, in which we differ from your Roman Church. That Church whose faith is the Catholic and Primitive faith, once given to the Saints, without which none can be saved, is so visible, that the names of the professors thereof in all Ages may be showed and proved out of good Authors. But the Protestant Church is that Church, whose faith is the Catholic and Primitive faith, once given to the Saints, without which none can be saved: Therefore the Protestants Church is so visible, that the names of the professors thereof may be showed in all Ages, etc. The Mayor is, ex concessis. What say you to the Minor? M. Fisher. I distinguish the Minor. D. Featly. Upon what term do you distinguish? M. Fisher. I distinguish of the proposition, not of any term. D. Featly. here is again another strain of new Logic, to distinguish of a proposition, and apply the distinction to no term: howsoever, I am glad to hear you distinguish, and not simply to deny, that the Protestant faith is the Catholic Primitive faith. Mark, I beseech you, you that are present, that M. Fisher demurs upon the proposition; his conscience will not suffer him simply to deny, that the Protestant faith is the Catholic Primitive faith: we simply and slatly, and in downright terms deny, that your present Tridentine faith is the Catholic Primitive faith. M. Fisher. I answered you before, that your Minor is false and impertinent. D. Featly. I have proved already, that it is pertinent: what say you to the truth of it? M. Fisher. This is to divert from the question, The question is not now, Whether our faith or yours be the Catholic Primitive faith: but the question now is of the effect, to wit, the Visibility of your Church, which you ought to prove out of good Authors. D. Featly. May not a man prove the effect by the cause? Is there no other means to prove the effect, but by naming men, and producing Authors for it? M. Sweet. An effect is posterius: the question is about an effect: therefore you ought to prove it à posteriori. D. Featly. What a reason is this? May not an effect be proved by his cause? Must an effect be needs proved by an effect? or à posteriori, because an effect is posterius? M. Sweet. Leave these Logic Disputes. Bring the names of your Protestants: that is it we expect. D. Featly. If I should relinquish my former argument, to which yet you have given no manner of answer, you, M. Fisher, would report that I was non-plussed, as you slandered D. White in a former conference, who (I tell you, M. Fisher) is able to teach us both. Whereto M. Fisher replied nothing. To prevent all such misreports 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. D. Featly. An induction is a form of argument; in which we proceed from enumeration of particulars, to conclude a general, after this manner: It is so in this and this; et sic de eaeteris, and so in the rest: Therefore it is so in all. According to this form of arguing, thus I dispute: The Protestant Church was so visible, that the names of those who taught and believed the doctrine thereof, may be produced in the first hundred years, and second, and third, and fourth; 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 Saviour jesus Christ, blessed for ever: at whose name all knees must bow both in heaven & earth, and under the earth (at which words all the company on both sides expressed an holy reverence). After Christ, I name the twelve Apostles, and Saint Paul: and because there were few Writers in the first Age (at least, whose undoubted works have comen to our hands) I name only Ignatius after the twelve Apostles, and Saint Paul; yet not denying, but that many others may be named. M. Fisher. These are enough for the first Age; Christ, the twelve Apostles, Saint Paul and Ignatitius. here, at the name of Ignatius, some of M. Fisher's side seemed very glad and confident, saying, We are sure enough, Saint Ignatius is on our side. D. Featly. I mean not the new Ignatius Loyola, but Ignatius the Martyr: between whom there is more difference in quality, than distance in time. M. Fisher. Name of all the Ages, or else you do nothing. D. Featly. I cannot name all at once: will you have me name men of so many Ages with one breath? Will you have me eat my whole dinner at a bit? Can I name twelve severally, but I must name first one, than two, then three, and so forward? I name (as I said before) in the first Age, for our Religion, our blessed Lord and Saviour, the Founder of all Religion, the twelve Apostles, and after them Saint Paul, and Ignatius the Martyr. For the second Age, I name justin Martyr, Saint Cyprian was here mentioned, but intended for the first of the third Age. Clemens Alexandrinus, and Saint Irenaeus, and I begin first with Christ and his Apostles. M. Fisher. You shall not begin with Christ and his Apostles. D. Featly. You are not to make my Induction: I will begin with Christ and his Apostles, where I should begin, but in the first Age, and with the first of it: shall I make a Catalogue of the Christian Church, according to the several Ages, and leave out Christ and his Apostles in the first Age? Answer first to them, and I will proceed to others. M. Fisher. Name the rest in all Ages, and then I will answer you. D. Featly. First, answer to the first Age, and then I will proceed to the second. If you grant me the first Age, than I will proceed presently to the second; otherwise I must stay in the first. M. Fisher. Unless you give me a Catalogue of names throughout all Ages, I will not answer. D. Featly. Will you not answer Christ and his Apostles in the first place? M. Fisher. I will not, before you have named the rest. D. Featly. Will you not be tried by Christ and his Apostles? That which Christ and his Apostles taught in the first Age, was taught by succeeding Christians in all Ages▪ this is confessed on both sides. But the doctrine of the Protestants was taught by Christ and his Apostles in the first Age▪ Therefore the doctrine of the Protestants was taught in all Ages. Answer this Syllogism, if you will not answer my former induction. M. Fisher. I will not answer you any thing, till you have made your Catalogue. D. Featly. M. Fisher, I charge you, as you will answer it before Christ himself at the dreadful day of judgement, answer now, upon your conscience, before all this Company, whether you believe, that Christ and his Apostles taught our faith or yours: this is the main point of all: answer directly to my Induction. Notwithstanding this deep charge, M. Fisher still refused to answer to the argument of instance in Christ and his Apostles: whereupon diverse, expressing their distaste at such refusal, desired D. Featly to surcease; telling him, that he ought not to talk any longer with such a one, who refused to answer Christ and his Apostles. And so the conference broke up, having lasted about four hours. Additions to the former Conference. IF any man marvel, that in so many hours spent in the Conference, so few arguments were discussed, or rather, not any one throughly untwisted to the end, as the Opponent desired, the cause hereof was, the jesuits' diffusive & discursive answers, but especially his dilatory cautions and tergiversations, 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 unnecessary 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 synonymy, which he added to eternal, to wit, perpetual: and beside, 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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. M. Sweet. What fault can you find with the often repeating the name jesus? Doth not the holy Ghost in the Scripture diverse times reiterate the Attribute Holy, saying, Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus? D. Featly. Is there no difference between the repeating the word Holy or Sanctus three times, and repeating the name jesus thirty times at the least? nay, saith a Protestant standing by, a hundred and thirty times? M. Fisher. In one of david's Psalms, these words, for his mercy endureth for ever, are repeated in every verse. D. Featly. It is true: these words, for his mercy endureth for ever, are elegantly and sweetly repeated, as the burden of that heavenly Song: but note withal, M. Fisher, that something cometh betwixt, and that this Epiphonema or clause is applied in every verse to a several blessing of God there remembered: what is this to the saying continuately, jesus, jesus, jesus, forty times in a breath. If this be not the vain repetition or babbling forbidden in prayer by our Saviour, Mat. 6. 7. I know not what it is. M. Sweet. It matters not. You are no lawful Interpreter of Scripture. To which words as D. Featly was making a reply, he was recalled by the company, to prosecute his main Argument. Here you may observe by the way, that M. Fisher saw well enough, that M. Sweets instance of the thrice repeating the name Sanctus, was very frivolous, and impertinently brought to maintain their vain repeating the name jesus, so many score of times together in their Psalter: and therefore he let M. Sweet shift for himself, and make good his instance, if he were able: for, M. Fisher could not be ignorant, that the Fathers generally observe, against the Arrians, the mystery of the Trinity of Persons to be implied in the thrice repeating the word Sanctus. Isa. 6. If the Papists repeat the name jesus to the like purpose (as they must do, Apoc. 4. if they take that for their pattern), will it not follow, that forty times repeating the name jesus, implies, that there are forty Persons in jesus? So well did M. Sweet keep his own pretended law, that none should speak any thing but to the purpose: but, because he challenged to have made such a law himself, peradventure he thought, he might dispense with it. 4. In the prosecution of the main Argument, when Master Fisher, being required to give a direct and punctual answer to some proposition in the Syllogism, digressed from the point, and discoursed, how an ignorant and unlearned man might first come to the knowledge of the true Church, and was checked by Doctor Featly, saying, This is not now to the purpose: M. Chamberlain sitting by, added, The less to the purpose, the better. Would you have Master Fisher speak to the purpose? 5. In making way to the Induction, when D. Featly was recalled, by a new Answer of Master Fishers, to some former Argument which Doctor Featly went about to refel, the Earl of Warwick advised him, notwithstanding this interruption, to proceed to his induction; saying, Master Fisher, like a woman, will have the last word, but it makes no matter; let him answer what he will; we presume, his answers will be but like his former. 6. In propounding an Argument by an induction, after this manner: For the first age, I allege for Teachers of the Protestants Doctrine, Christ, his twelve Apostles, Saint Paul, and Ignatius; for the secondage, justine Martyr, etc. M. Fisher, after he had repeated the instance in the first age in these words: In the first age you allege Christ, his twelve Apostles, Saint Paul, and Ignatius, he added Transeat: name in the succeeding ages. D. Featly. You grant then, Christ and his Apostles were Protestants. M. Fisher. Will you slander me to my face? What will you do● behind my back? D. Featly. I slander you not. The word transeat, implies, in my understanding, a concession; if not, then deny it, and I will presently prove it. But as for this word transeat, though that we made a transeat of it, and let it pass in our relation, yet his own side have taken special notice of it: and indeed Master Fisher Lupum auribus tenet. If by transeat, he meant a concession or grant of the proposition, we desire no more of him: if we have Christ and his Apostles on our side, what need we more? To avoid this inconvenience, if he interpret this transeat, Let it pass, as not worthy of his Answer or notice; thus to slighten an Argument drawn from His authority (whose words shall not pass, though heaven and earth pass) it cannot receive a good construction. But we spare Master Fisher, quia vapulat intus in poscenio, because he hath been schooled at home. Forsooth this Non bene crede mihi faciunt duo: Sufficit unus. Surely many, that hold Master Fisher to be a great Gamaliel in the Romish Synagogue, very much marvel, that being so often pressed and urged, yea, and adjured also, he should yet still decline to make any Answer at all to the Opponents instance in Christ and his Apostles. But, the truth is, he and his companions are of the b●ood of those, whom Tertullian fitly termeth Lucifugas Scripturarum, ●●unners of the light. Like Bats, they keep a fluttering in the twilight of supposed humane authorities, and plausible glosses of reason, but the broad daylight of Scripture they cannot endure. Though in his Question he laid claim to all ages, in which any Scholar, according to common sense and natural apprehension, would understand, that he meant Methodically to begin at the first age, and thence prepetua serie to descend to the later, as do the framers of their own late extant Catalogues of Roman professors, beginning with Christ jesus, Saint Peter, Saint Paul, Corinthians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, etc. ordine naturae et temporum, yet he preposterously would have the Opponents begin first with the last age, and so ascend upwards. Omnia naturae contraria legibus ibunt; that so he might the better lurk in the dark and muddy age next before Luther. Which the Opponent justly suspecting, resolved to hold to the high way and fair track of natural method, intending thereby to draw him into the clear stream of Antiquity, beginning at the fountain in the first age. But this, Master Fisher would by no means endure, hoping, that he might lie hid (tanquam Sepia in atramento suo, like the Scuttle-fish in her own ink) in those dark ages next or near before Luther: whereas being beaten up into the clearer stream of the first ages, he would easily be discerned, and soon caught. 7. At the breaking up of the Conference, when Master Fisher desired to have in his own custody the common Schedule (in which the principal Arguments and Answers of the Disputants were written by the common Notary, chosen by both parties, and subscribed by their own hands) Doctor Featly withstood this motion, saying, Master Fisher, you are not a fit man to be trusted with this Authentical writing: for, in a former conference between me and Master Musket (whose Assistant you then were) you took upon you, (without any commission from me, or consent) the office of a Notary, to take my Answers: and being upon occasion pressed by the company to read what you had written, after some tergiversations you read it, and thereupon were checked by the whole company, for setting that down for my Answers, which was never spoken by me, nor any thing like unto it: and that I charge you truly with this undue dealing, I appeal to some here present, viz. Doctor Goad and Master Wats▪ who were present at that conference. Here Doctor Goad and Master Wats affirmed to Master Fisher's face, that upon their knowledge, Master Fisher was convicted of untrue setting down Doctor Featlyes' Answers in that conference; and that upon such conviction, Master Fisher was forced to correct what he had formerly set down. Heerto Master Fisher, much moved at such imputation, answered: M. Fisher. I call God to witness, that if I did set down any thing otherwise then the truth wa●, I did it not wittingly nor willingly. 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 advantageous 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 favourably 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 aught 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, Pag. 15. 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, etc. 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 judgement, 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 judgement, 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, Pag. 15. 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, Pag. 16. 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 every one 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, Page 16. 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, Page 20. 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 spoke those words absolutely, and without limitation. For which words so absolutely delivered, M. Fisher being then taxed by M. Ailesbury, Page 32. 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 tergiversations, 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 tergiversations. 7. To M. Fisher's protestation, Page 36. 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. Fisher's 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 advantageous 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, Page 37. 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. Page 64. 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 denyeth the said denial; yet, contrary to the rule of his own Trade, Page 65. 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, etc. 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 * Namely, M. Chamberlain. 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 broke 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 Equivocation, 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, Earles. Hen. Hastings, Humph. Lind, Knights. Tho. Goad, Doctor in Divinity. Richard Knightly, Edward Bugs, Esquires. Richard Chamberlain, Esquire, Clerk of the Court of Wards. Tho. Draper, Tho. Gataker, Bachelors in Divinity. Tho. Ailesbury, Master in Arts; the Writer of the Conference, chosen by both parties: A REMONSTRANCE sent in a letter, by Doctor Featly, to his worthy Friend Sir Humphrey Lind, touching the former conference held at his house, june 27. 1623. PLiny writeth of one of the Roman Emperors, Natural. hist. l. 36. c. 5. that he used to behold the Fencers (playing their prizes before him) in the reflection of an Emerald: Gladiatorum pugnas spectabat Smaraegdo. which so refreshed his eye with the verdure thereof, that though the Object were not very acceptable always, and pleasing to him; yet the viewing it in that precious reflecting Gem was very delightful. Such a precious Emerald is the heart & affection on of a true friend, which represents, with delight and content, those things concerning ourselves and others, which otherwise of themselves may be irksome and grievous unto us. I must confess, your Letter touching our conference at your house, had many Pills wrapped up in it: yet were they so sugared with your love, and gilded with your eloquence, that I easily and pleasantly swallowed them down. It grieveth you much, that our pains in the conference (which took the good effect you desired) should be no better accepted and interpreted, than they are by some, as is reported. The Roman Senate gave public thanks to Terentius Varro, for encountering Hannibal at Cannae, though with the loss of their 〈◊〉 Army. But it falleth out contrary, say you; in this encounter. In which though the truth lost nothing, but gained him, whose satisfaction was by it intended, & strengthened also many others; yet you add, that you find some of our profession more ready to except against, then approve the proceedings in this combat. I marvel not at it. For, Saint Jerome, after he had vndergon an encounter in point of faith, was taxed by some friends to the truth, for not managing that fight so well as they wished. * jerom. Apol. ad Pamachium. To whom that accomplished Doctor of the Church, returneth this smart Answer: Delicata doctrina est pugnanti ictus dictare de muro; et cum ipse unguentis delibutus sis, cruentum militem accusare formidinis: It is an easy and sweet kind of teaching, for a man that is safe himself, and free from danger of blows, from a high wall to dictate strokes, & point out to a soldier in the Field, where he should smite his adversary. If those, who are so confident of their own strength and skill, had been on the place, and engaged in the fight, peradventure it may be doubted, what great trophies they would have erected of their victory over these Combatants. Howsoever, for my part, I never held that Lacedaemonian King * Eras. Apoph. overwise, who, having received good approbation from jupiter, was not content therewith, but sendeth to Apollo, to know whether he were of the same judgement. I rest upon the gracious interpretation of his Majesty, & their approbaton, who under him are the chief Leaders in the Lords Battles. For others, I put them to their choice, Aut * Hieron. Apol. ad P●mach. cap. 8. proferant meliores epulas, et me conviva utantur, aut qualicunque caerula nostra contenti sint: Either let them provide better cheer, and I will be their guest, or if they will needs be mine, let them take what they find; a short supper broke off, before the principal intended and provided dishes were served in. If this will not satisfy them, I pray them to think, that many times as some take a liberty to themselves, to censure other men's actions, and sleighten their endeavours: so it is not unlikely, but that they may meet with others, who will take the like liberty to censure their censures, and contemn their contempts. But so much am I obliged to your love, worthy Knight, that you have not only given me an inkling, that some except, but also acquainted me what they except against that afternoon's encounter. Their exceptions lie either against conferences in general in point of Religion, of which belike they say, They never saw any good come; or against the passages of this Conference in particular. For Conferences in general with the Adversaries of our faith, either to convert them to the Truth, or convince them with the Truth, we have not only frequent precepts & examples in Scripture, but also an express * Can. 66. Ministers to confer with Recusants. Canon of our Church, and an especial charge, even with increpation from his Majesty, in his Speech in the upper House, at the first Session in the last Parliament. And if these were not, shall we suffer Wolves to enter into our Folds, and worry our dearest Lambs, bought at the high price of our Redeemer's Blood, and that before our eyes, and not open our mouths for their rescue? Can we hear our noble Champions disgraced; our blessed Martyrs' blood of England trampled upon, as spilt in vain; nay, our dearest Mother, which hath brought us forth in Christ, to be proclaimed an harlot, and all her children bastards, nay, damned miscreants, as having no visibility of Church, no possibility of salvation; and none of us unsheathe the sword of the Spirit in so good a quarrel? O patientiam omni impatientiâ dignam! Such patience would put a man out of all patience. Such silence deserves a long and loud declamation against it. Is this to be ready to give an account to every man that demandeth a reason of * 1. Pet. 3. 15 the hope that is in us? Is this to stop * Tit. 1. 11 the mouth of those who subvert whole houses, by leading away captive simple women loaden with iniquity, and by our Eue-tempting adam's to eat the forbidden fruit? Is this to * Tit. 1. 9 convince the gainsayers? I fear and tremble when I read the words of our Saviour; * joh. 10. 12, 13 An hireling, seeing the Wolf, leaveth the sheep, and fleeth, and the Wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. I speak not of public disputations (within a State settled and resolved many years in point of Religion, as ours hath been, and is, God be thanked), but of private occasional conferences, for the satisfaction especially of persons of quality: which, as * Gaspar Laurent. de publicis disputationibus. Laurentius truly collects, without great offence to God, and scandal to his Truth, cannot sometimes be anoided; the Adversary's growing confident upon such seeming diffidence and refusal, and clamorous upon our silence. Aristotle was wont to say, Plut. apoph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: It is a shame for me to hold my peace, when Zenocrates takes upon him to teach. May not we of the Ministry, that are Christ's maeniall servants, reflect in like manner on ourselves, and say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: It is a shame for me to be silent, when Priests and Jesuits are so clamorous? It is a shame for the Ministers of Christ to be backward to defend, when the Agents of Antichrist are forward to oppugn our most holy faith? nay, when the Supporters of heresy and idolatry have taken so much brass from the Images which they worship, to arm their own foreheads with, that they dare challenge and brave Truth and Religion to her face? Yea, but say they in the words of Tertullian, * Tert. de prescript cont. haeret. c. 17. Quid promovebis, disputator, & c.? What shall we gain by confronting these men? They will not yield, nor cease to blaspheme the way of truth, though they be never so plainly confuted. Non persuadebis, nec si persuaseris. Yet the Truth is honoured, in that she hath Advocates to plead her cause: and these plead erunt testimonio contra eos, shall be an evidence against her Opposites at the Bar of Christ. The * Quintil. Institut. orat. Gubernator vult salua naue in portu peruen●re: si tamen tempestate abreptus fuerit, non ideo minus erit gubernator. Pilot doth not always bring the Ship safe to the Haven; nor the Chirurgeon cure the wound; nor the Physician recover his Patient; nor the Preacher gain his Auditory: yet, if he do his part, he loseth not his reward with God, nor approbation with men. To labour for fruit, is ours: the fruit of our labour is Gods; who will render to every man * Rom. 2. 6 Apoc. 20. 13 according to his work, not according to the success thereof. And therefore although the issue of Conferences should prove no better sometimes, than of Synods in the days of Gregory Nazianzen, yet would not this excuse our neglect of so necessary a duty: for, God can gain by our losses, and he attaineth his end, even in our failing; at least, * Rom. 1. 20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to make the enemies of the truth unexcusable. And what if we do not win them, yet we confirm both our selves and others, that love the Truth in the Truth. And in this respect, Conferences, if they be advisedly undertaken, and discreetly managed, according to their Latin Etymology, always confer and conduce to some good end; to speak nothing of the Conference at Hampton-Court, or D. Rainolds conference with Hart: the fruit whereof we gather even at this day. Whosoever readeth the life of Saint Austen, penned by Possidonius, and Caluins by Beza, shall find, that as the Pelagians and Manichees of old, so the Libertines and Anabaptists of late, received their smartest blow by disputation. Did not Cyril confound Nestorius; Athanasius, Arius; Saint Austen, Fortunatus, by disputation? By what did Luther gain more, than by disputations? Was not Felix, Possid. in vit. Saint Austin's purchase, if I may so speak? Synop. Cent. Was not Berillus, Saint Origens'? Fabius, Dionysius his Convert by disputation? What better issue of a Conference could be desired, than was that of Caecilius with Octavius, related by * Dial. Octa●. Minutius Felix? which endeth thus: We are both, saith he, winners in this Game: you have won me, and I have won the Truth Tu victor mei, & ego triumphator erroris: We are both Conquerors: you have conquered me, and I triumph over my own error. Of writing many Books, especially of Controversy, there is no end: in which, we have an Argument without an Answer, and an Answer without a Reply. But, in a Conference orderly carried, the force of every Argument, and sufficiency of every Answer, is brought to the Test; and Truth and Error, by grappling together, try their utmost strength. As, by smiting the Flint with the Steel, we strike out fire: so, by the conflict and collision of contrary Arguments, the clear light of Truth breaketh out. * Rain. Thes. Vt aurum è terrae venis effossumab admistis terrae faecibus contundendo segregant Metallici; ita veritatis aureus Thesaurus collisu rationum mundatur à faecibus, etc. As those that work upon Mines, sever the precious metal from earthly dregs, by beating the Ore in the stamping-mill: so the golden treasure of Truth is severed from dregs of error, and cleared, by being beaten out by Argumentations to or against. * de veritate religionis Christ. Ludovicus Viues long ago observed, that the true faith and Religion is like gold, which is bettered by the hammer: but false religion, Heresy and superstition, are like Alchumy-stuffe, or glass, which cannot endure the stroke, but are battered in pieces by it. The Christian Religion never refuseth touch of argument: but the Gentiles of old, and the mahometans at this day, refuse all trial by disputation; nay, they prohibit it under pain of death. The Hussites, as Cocleus relates in their story, were ready to bid their Adversary's battle by disputation, but their Adversaries were not so ready to undertake them. Nay, * Cocleus, hist. l. 1. l. 21. john Gerson, in his Epistle to the Archbishop of Prague, is so far from encouraging him to put the matter to a trial in disputation, that he adviseth him to take a far different course with them, whom he there falsely calls Pseudo-doctores, false teachers. Now, saith he, The only ready way to cut down Heresies, is by the temporal sword. Miracles are ceased; neither is it lawful now to tempt God, to confirm our faith, tanquam novellam, by Miracles. Neque rursus in disputando apud tales pertinaci animositate contendentes, et innitentes propriae prudentiae, ullus unquam erit finis; quin potius nimis altercando, iuxta verbum Senecae, deperdetur veritas, scandalizabitur populus, laedetur quoque summa charitas. Denique talis obstinatorum proteruitas incidit in illud poetae, Aegrescitque medendo. Neither will there be any end of disputing with such pertinacious contenders, who rely upon their own wisdom: nay rather, according to the words of Seneca, the truth will be lost with much wrangling: the people will be scandalised; charity wounded; in a word, the proteruitie of obstinate persons will make good that of the Poet, The wound is the worse for the cure. So little did the Papists gain (whatsoever fair gloss Gerson puts upon it) by disputation with those noble Forerunners of our Protestant Faith: and far less have there successors gained by their disputations in Germany, France and England. I need add no more to our disputers against disputations in general, because they fight but aloof off. I am now to buckle with those who take the matter & manner of this conference to task: against which, as I understand by you, they object, that it was but a Flourish, no Fight; a praeludium, and no true Encounter; no Argument in it prosecuted to the full. This objection might have been spared, because in the Conference itself it is confessed, that it grew not to that maturity, nor attained that progress or issue which was desired: and there also it is expressed, whose fault it was. If a heavy and dull Beast, in rich trappings and furniture, making great show of metal by rising and curuetting, yet, being spurred and lashed by the Rider, and beaten by all the standers by, will not mend his pace, what disparagement is this to the Rider? Howsoever, say they, the grapes being not ripe, were not fit for the press; yet as unripe as they were, they quenched then his thirst for whom they were gathered: and they, who, without knowledge of the principal Owners, put them in a few weeks so often in the press, affirm, that the wine * Qui me vendit Bibliopola negat. Martial. Epigr. lies not upon their hand. Notwithstanding this and some other testimonies, of some kind of approbation of this rather assay, than performance, I had buried this Embryo as soon as it was borne: and as it came into the world without a Midwife; so it should have gone out of the world without a Belman, had not the slanderous tongues of enemies saved the life of it: who, both in England and beyond the seas, reported confidently, that it was such a misshapen and deformed monster, that the parents were ashamed it should see the Sun. To check these most false and injurious reports, and prevent future scandal, it was in a manner necessary, that this pamphlet should be suffered to fly abroad. And now that it is abroad, what do they libel against this little Imp, unable to defend itself against such strife of tongues? They say, In it the proofs are diversive, and that I decline the method required by Master Fisher, plainly to prove the visibility of our Church, by producing Catalogues of names in all ages, beginning from Luther; and so, ascending upwards to Christ and his Apostles. When I read this objection in your letter, I could scarce forbear laughing, because it brought to my remembrance the simple Answer of a freshwater soldier; who, when his Antagonist remembered him with a smart blow or two upon his head and thighs, exclaimed, What, man? Canst thou not see my buckler? Is not my buckler broad enough? I saw M. Fisher's buckler, and withal I observed his blind sides, at which I laid. Am I therefore to be blamed? should I advise him, as Aiax doth Ulysses, * Ouid. Metamorph. Post clypeumque late, et mecum contende sub illo. Lie behind thy buckler, and contend with me under it? The truth is, that in the ages immediately before Luther, and since the * Apoc. 20. 2. 1000 year, in which Satan was let loose, the Papists have much to say for the visibility, yea and pomp too of their degenerating Church: but in the Primitive times, especially in the golden Age, in which Christ and his Apostles, and their immediate successors and Scholars lived and died, they have no more to say for the visibility of their now new Romish Church, than Master Fisher and Master Sweet said in the conference. Whosoever should have discoursed in those days, of Masses without Communicants, or Communion without the Cup, or the Lord's Supper without Bread or Wine in substance, or prayers without understanding, or adoring the Cross, or Dirges for the dead, or blessing Salt and Spittle, or censing Images, or baptising bells, or hallowing grains and medals, or wearing Agnus Dei's, or praying by tale upon Beads, or of the circumgestation of the Host, or Priest shaved crowns, or Monks Cowls, or Cardinal's Hats, or the Pope's ●triple Crown, or his pardons, and dispensations, and taxes for all manner of sins, or his canonising Saints, o● deposing Kings, or the like; would have been thought besides himself. This is the true cause why, the question being propounded, Of all ages before Luther, I chose rather to descend from Christ to Luther, then ascend from Luther to Christ and his Apostles. Demosthenes' * Orat. de Corona. will by no means endure, that his adversary Aeschines should prescribe him his method: he saith, It is against the golden rule, to be kept in all judgements, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yea, but they say, this is not all: for, you turned quite out of the way: You should have proved one thing, and you proved another. The question was of the visibility of Church: but your arguments were of the eternity of faith. Is not this thiug ad * Eras. Adag. Choun; Ego respondeo de allijs: tu disputas de cepis: M. Fisher answered of Garlic, & you spoke of Onions. For this unsavoury exception, M. Sweet was sauced in the conference: where it was proved against him, that to prove an effect by the cause, is a direct & natural, and not a diversive proof. My argument standeth thus: The true Primitive faith, once given to the Saints, hath had, must, and shall have always visible Professors thereof. But the faith of the Protestant Church is the true Primitive faith, once given to the Saints: Therefore the Protestant faith hath had, and shall have always visible Professors thereof. The Mayor is evident in Scripture, and confessed on all hands. The Minor I offered to prove: but the Jesuits durst not stand to their denial. The Mayor and Minor passing without control, none but Master Fisher would have denied or distinguished upon the conclusion. This argument I affirm not only direct, to prove the conclusion denied; but also most pertinent to the main scope of the question, which is, to find out the true Church: whereof there can be no sound and infallible proof, but out of Scripture. And for the visibility of the true Church, either it is a matter of faith, or not. If not, what need we so much trouble ourselves with it? If it be matter of faith, * De praescr. contr. Haeret. c. 16. Aliunde scilicet possunt suadere de rebus fidei, nisi ex literis fidei? can they otherwise persuade in matter of faith, then out of the Writ of faith, that is, the holy Scripture? For humane Stories and Records in all ages, they are not easily found: and when we have found them, we find them so defective, so corrupted and defaced, and oftentimes so contrary one to another, that they scarce beget humane faith subject to error. And were they never so perfect, as Bellar. confesseth, they could not beget * Bellar. l. 2. de effect. Sacram. c. 25. quod Histories quibus meminerint eorum Conciliorum, non potest parere fidem nisi humanam, cui potest subesse falsa. divine and infallible faith. If no man can be saved, without knowledge that he is in the true Church: and no man can know, that he is in the true Church, unless he can prove out of good Authors, the perpetual succession and visibility of the Church to which he adhereth, as Jesuits make their breakeneck climax or gradation; what shall become of many millions of Christians in their own Church, who neither have time, nor means, nor learning, to search all Records of Antiquity? Could all Lay Papists produce Writers in all Ages, who maintained the present Tridentine faith (which none yet of the their learned Clerks ever did, or could,) yet they are little nearer: For jews and Paynims, and it may be, diverse sorts of Heretics can prove too many visible professors of their Heresies and impieties in all ages, since Christ and his Apostles times, and some before. From visibility of Professors no man can certainly conclude truth of saving Doctrine conformable to Scriptures: but from conformity of Doctrine to the scriptures, a man may by infallible consequence, grounded upon God's promises to his Church, conclude perpetual visibility of professors, more or less. And therefore the course I took, is not only the straight, but the easiest and only certain way to bring us to the true Church, which is the * 1 Tim. 3. 15 house of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth. Thus much for proof of my proof by syllogism. I will now give you an account of my Catalogue, and show my inducements to my induction. Against which, I hear by you, it is excepted, that in undertaking it, I leave the beaten way, and take a way by myself, where I shall surely lose myself, & never come to an end. To this objection, the civil Law furnisheth me with an Answer: Nemo tenetur divinare; No man is bound to prophesy beforehand, especially of the success of another's labours. If leave be procured for a second Meeting, the golden thread of succession, which I took hold of from Christ's blessed hand, and his Apostles, shall be drawn down (God willing) to later Ages, even to Luther's time. But what they mean by holding the beaten way, I cannot easily divine. If they mean, that I ought to prove the visibility of the Protestant Church, by having recourse merely to the corrupt Popish Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; I say, that way, perhaps beaten by some, yet seems to me a slippery & dirty way: and I hope I shall be able to show, that we need not * Eras. Adag. aurum in stercore quaerere, to seek the golden purity of faith, amids the dung and dross of Romish superstitions, and depravations in later ages. Many of our Worthies have shown me a more excellent way; quos sequor à long, et vestigia pronus adoro. These are, Doctor Abbot, now my Lord of Canterbury, in his Answer to Hill; Humphrey to Campion his third reason; Doctor Usher, now Lord of Meth, de successione Ecclesiae; The History of the Waldenses; Fox, Acts and Monuments; Crispin, of the state of the church; Morneys mystery of iniquity, with Rivets defence thereof; Simon Voious Catalogue of doctors; Illiricus witness of the truth; Wolsius his select readings; Lydius his Waldensia, and Monster à Vortleys' noble discourse. As those that travel by night through the * Be. Orat. Hercynian Forest, when they are at a stand, observe certain birds fleeing before them; and, by the brightness of their white feathers shining in the dark, guide their steps, and find out a way: so, in ushering the Witnesses of Truth throughout all Ages, when in the darker times mine own observations shall fail me, I doubt not, but, by the bright wings of those auspicate birds that have flown before me, I mean the light▪ of their silver quills who have wrote of this Subject, to find out my way. I have omitted nothing that hath been materially excepted against the Conference, except an omission of the s●ate of the question; which they say is not so perspicuously and dilucidly delivered, as they could wish. That which is set down to this purpose in the entry into the Conference, they say is so brief, that, * Sen. de Ben. instar fulguris terret magis quam illustrat, it is like lightning, which rather scares, than lights the Passenger in his way. If this were a just exception, yet it lieth not against me, who had the Opponents part put upon me, but against M. Fisher, who be-spoke himself to be Respondent. For, by the orders of all Schools, it is the Answerers, and not the Opponents task, to state the Question. He that keeps a Fort in battle, is to make his ramparts, and guard the walls with redouts and outworks: the assailants part is to lay well his batteries, and make breaches where he can. At the next desired meeting, when D. White or myself should have supplied the Respondents place, the Question should have been explicated to the full (by the distinctions & conclusions heerin enclosed). But, as that Meeting, by injurious suggestions, was then, so I fear, all future Meetings in this kind will be stopped by the same Engine. The Informers, whether they were Popishly or indifferently affected in points of Religion, I know not: sure I am, they do the devil a great deal of wrong, by encroaching upon his office, which is, To be * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: the Accuser of the brethren. Accusator fratrum. As for mine own part, it grieves not m● to receive a wound from them, who, in due respect to Religion and Calling, should have rather applied a salve. But I may truly say, in the words of Aria to her dearest Partus, — * Mart. Epigr. Vulnus quod cepi non dolet, in quam: Sed quòd tu caperes, hoc mihi, Lined, dolet. It grieves me, that you should suffer any thing for your religious and pious intention, to regain your kinsman to our Church, and establish your friends in the Truth. Yet let not this discourage you in your holy purposes for the good of God's Church. Macte virtute. As you have raised Bertram: so raise other witnesses of the Truth from the dust, and heal those Authors who have lost pieces of their tongues (which the Indices Expurgatorij have cut off, for being too long-tongued against the Church of Rome). And though peradventure you receive no better reward, at least by some, than affronts for acknowledgements; and rebukes for thanks; yet doubt not▪ one day, for a full recompense of your pains and charges. Trust him for your Aur●ola, whom you trust for your Crown: take his word for the Interest, upon whom we all rely for the Principal; who as he fearfully threateneth, that he will be ashamed of them who deny * Mat. 10. 33 him before men, so he graciously promiseth to all those who * Luke 12. 8 confess him before men, that he will confess them before his Father in Heaven. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 DANIEL FEATLY. Touching the Visibility of the CHURCH. The Questions propounded by the jesuit, were, 1 WHether the Protestant Church was in all Ages visible? 2 Whether visible Protestants are to be named in all Ages, & c? 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. Of the term, Church. The first distinction. The Church may be considered Either in respect of election & inward sanctification; Or in respect of outward vocation, and profession of the truth. In this question, we consider the Church in the latter respect, in which alone it is visible: for although the elect, as they are men, and profess the true faith, are visible; yet men professing the true faith, as they are elect, and inwardly sanctified and regenerated in their minds, are not visible. The second distinction. A Church professing the Christian faith, may be taken, either More largely for a company of Professors of the true faith, whether they be united under one government in one Country, Kingdom or Empire, or scattered through the whole world. Or more strictly, for a company of professors of the true faith, having actual communion one with the other, united under one government, within certain limits, secluded and severed from other societies and congregations. As for example: The Reformed Church in France, at this day is united within itself, and severed from the Popish Church, and the members thereof: among whom yet they live, and civilly converse. In this question, we tie not ourselves to prove a Protestant Church in all Ages, in the latter sense. It sufficeth, that we show it in the former, and prove, that there were always those who▪ maintained the doctrine which we now teach, whether they were united, or severed, had actual communion one with another, or not; kept public assemblies by themselves apart, from the Roman, and other Churches, or not: For as Saint Austen showeth * Aug. Contra Donatist. lib. 6. cap. 4. Idem Spiritus sanctus ea dimittit, qui datus est omnibus sanctis sibi charitate cohaerentibus, sive se noverint corporaliter, sive non. against the Donatists, The same Spirit of God is given to all Saints, who are knit one to another in charity, whether they know one another corporally or not. Of the denomination Protestant. Distinction the first. Protestants may be considered, Either according to their name, taken from at legal act of protesting either against the Council of Trent, or against the * D. Andrew, now Bishop of Winton, Resp. ad Apolog. Bellar. pag. 20. Protestantium nostris nomen ab eventu fuit: errores enim tum quosdam & abusus non diutius tolerare velle se, sed ●am tollere protestati sunt; caetera vero quae sa●a vobiscum retinere. errors and abuses of Popery, when they grew to their full measure, & were most unsufferable, about the time that Luther began to oppose the Church of Rome, or a little after; or from the Protestation of the Bohemians, in the year of our Lord 1421. set down by * Cocl. lib. 5. Coclaeus, in his L. 5. histor. of the Hussits: Or according to their faith and doctrine, positively comprised in, & confined to scripture; and oppositely, as it is repugnant to all errors in faith, and manners, against the holy Scriptures, especially against the present errors of the Church of Rome. In this question, we consider Protestants in the later sense, not in the former. The name, we confess, of Protestants is not very ancient, as neither is the name of Papists, much less of Jesuits: but the Doctrine of the Protestants we maintain to be as ancient as Christ and his Apostles: Ignat. Epist. ad Philad. and we may truly say with Ignatius the Martyr, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: jesus Christ is my antiquity. As the same piece of gold successively passeth thorough diverse stamps and inscriptions: so the selfsame faith of Protestants, in substance, hath passed thorough all Ages, yet with diverse names; as of Becherits, Berengarians, Petrobrusians, Henricians, Albingenses, Waldenses, Dulcinists, Lolards, Luiddamites, Wicklevists, Hussites, Thaborits, Lutherans, Hugonots, Gospelers and Reformers. The faithful, as we read in the Acts, * Acts 11. 26. were first called Christians at Antioch: yet were they indeed Christians, even from Adam, after the promise was given, that the * Gen. 3. It shall break thy head. seed of the woman should break the Serpent's head. So, that although we should grant to * Apolog. ad Reg. Ang. Bellarmine, that the name of Protestants was not heard of, for 1500. years after Christ, yet would it not hence follow, but that the Protestants faith might be as ancient as Christ and his Apostles, yea, in a true sense, as Adam himself; sith the Protestant faith is no other than the pure Primitive Christian faith. Distinction the second. Protestants in faith and doctrine are of two sorts; either Implicitly, and virtually: and such are all those, who holding the Scripture for the sole and entire rule of faith, condemn consequently all doctrines of faith, against or beside the holy Scriptures, especially if they deliver such positions and doctrines, from whence by necessary and infallible consequence, some particular error or other of the Romish Church (although not perhaps sprung up in their time) may be refelled. Or explicitly, and actually: and such are they, who directly & professedly opposed Romish errors as they crept in, or not long after; especially those who opposed the whole mass of Popish errors and superstitions, after they grew to a ripe sore, fit to be lanced, about the time of Luther. In this question, we restrain not the name Protestants, to those who renounce all the particular errors of the present Romish church at this day: for such Protestants could not be much before Luther. The particular diseases must in nature be presupposed, before a particular remedy can be applied unto them. Reformation necessarily presupposeth a disorder, and deformation. Neither do we restrain the name Protestants, to such only as in particular set themselves directly and professedly against some special error of Popery, as of Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Indulgences, etc. for such professed opposing, could not be imagined, before such errors were in being. But as the Fathers, before the Council of Nice, did not in words define 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or that the Son was of the same substance with the Father, and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only, that is, of a like substance; nor professedly wrote against the Heresy of Arius by name: Homoousiani. yet are they rightly esteemed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed, or maintainers of the right belief, touching the consubstantiality of the Son to the Father; because out of their Sentences and Writings this truth may be deduced, howsoever it be not formally expressed in the term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: So all those are to be esteemed Protestants, who, holding nothing against the protestant faith, deliver some doctrines, and positions, from which some error of Popery or other may be clearly refuted, whether such error were then maintained by any in the Church of God, or no. Of the term Visible. A Church may be said to be visible, two manner of ways: either Visible to the whole world, and that eminently, and in some sort pompously, as the Roman Empire, & kingdom of Naples, or respublica Venetorum: Bellar. l. 3. de Eccles. militante. c. 12. in which sense, the Papists affirm, that the true Church ought always to be visible: but we deny it. Or visible to all the members of that Church, either such as God hath already called, or such as he will call in time, who by searching and due inquiry, may and shall find out the true Church their mother. In this question, we undertake not to prove a Protestant Church visible in all Ages, in the first acception, but in the later only, we maintain a visible; but not a conspicuous, eminent, and glorious face of a Church in all Ages, consisting of an apparent Hierarchy, as the Papists teach. I shall not need to add more distinctions for the explication of this first question. I come therefore briefly to the particular assertions, serving for the confirmation and illustration of the general and main conclusion, touching the Visibility of the Protestant Church. The first assertion. The Church, in the most strict and proper acception thereof, is the whole company of Gods elect. Thus S. Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews, describeth her: The * Heb. 12. 23. general assembly and Church of the first borne, which are written in heaven. And Saint Gregory upon Ezechiel: There is one Church of the elect, both going before, and following after. And again upon the Canticles: Christ, according to the grace of his foreknowledge, hath built a holy Church of Saints, which shall eternally persever in grace. And Saint Bernard: * Greg. in Ezek. This is the Church of the Elect. Hom. 15. l. 2. una Ecclesia est electorum praecedentium atque sequentium. Of this Church, Greg. in Cant. Sanctam Ecclesiam, de sanctis in aeternum permansuris exstruxit. Saint Austen * Ber. ser. 68 in Cant. Haec est Ecclesia electorum. speaketh most expressly: He shall never be withdrawn from that Church, Aug. l. 20. de civet. Dei. c. 8. which is predestinated and chosen before the foundations of the world: Nunquam ab illa Ecclesia seduceturpraedestinatae, et electa ante constitutionem mundi. yet poor john Hus, as * In his Catholic moderator. H. C. a zealous Papist, rightly observeth, was burnt, by the decree of the Council of Constance, for saying no more in this point, than Saint Paul and Saint Gregory said before him, viz. * Cocleus Hist. Bohem. l. 3. Catholica Ecclesia est omnium praedestinatorum duntaxat: The Catholic Church consists of all those that are predestinate, and of them only. But the best is, as our * Resp. ad Camp. Humphrey speaketh pertinently: Combustus est, non confutatus Hussius: john Hus was indeed burned, but he was never confuted. His doctrine is written with a point of a Diamond, never to be razed out: for, it is God's truth: The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And so I fall into my second assertion. The second assertion. The Church in this acception, as it consisteth of the elect only, is known to God only, and consequently is invisible. This the Apostle * 2. Tim. 2. 29. teacheth: The Lord knoweth them that are his: And the Spirit intimateth as much in these words, * Reu. 2. 17. I will give him a white stone, and in it a new name written, which no man knoweth, saving he that receiveth it. For, what man * 1. Cor. 2. 11. knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? The * jer. 17. 9, 10. heart of man is deceitful above all things, who can know it? I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins. This sovereign privilege of Almighty God, to sound the bottom of man's heart, the faithful acknowledge in their devoutest prayers; as Solomon: * 1. King. 8. 39 Thou even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men. And jeremy, * jer. 20. 12. Thou that triest the Righteous, and seest the reins, and the heart. And the eleven Apostles: * Acts 1. 24. Thou Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men Now, if God only know the heart, he only knows who believe in him, and love him in sincerity of heart. Therefore let none, saith Saint * Cyp. l. 3. Ep. 3. Cyprian, Nec quisquam sibi, quod soli filio tribuit Pater, vindicare se puter, ut ad aream ventilandam et purgandam paleam iam ferre se posse, etc. arrogate that which the Father hath given to the Son only (to weet) in the floor of the Church, to take the fan, and sever the chaff from the wheat. The elect are the first borne, whose names are written in heaven, Heb. 12. 23. Now, what earthly man will take upon him to read that which is written in heaven? Saint * Prosp. l. de Grat. & libero arbitrio, ad Ruffin: Certum apud Devin, definitumque esse numerum electorum ad vitam aeternam Prosper forbears it; defining, that God is he who defineth the certain number of those, who are predestinated to eternal life. Whence we may rightly conclude, that the Pope, in canonising Saints, and entering them into the heavenly Jerusalem, incurs into a pra●unire, by encroaching on the prerogative of Almighty God, who reserveth to himself alone the discerning of vessels of honour, from vessels of dishonour, that is, the elect from the reprobate. But our adversary's object, If we restrain the Church to the elect, and pronounce them invisible, we make a * Camp. rat. 3. Platonical Idea, or an aer●all body, or mathematical abstract of the Church. Hereunto we answer, first▪ out of Saint * Prosp. loc. sup●● citat. Prosper: Certum apud Deum esse numerum electorum, tam impium est negare, quàam ipsi gratiae contraire: It is as impious to deny, that the number of the elect is certain with God, as to deny grace itself. And will any dare to call that a fancy or an imaginary Idea, which is most certain in the knowledge of God? Secondly, we teach not, that the Church in this notion is an Idea, extra rem, or singularia, or a body hover in the air, or floating in the fancy: we teach, that it truly subsisteth, partly in heaven in the triumphant; and partly on earth, in the militant part thereof. This militant part, though in respect of the whole number & inward calling, it be invisible, yet in respect of the outward calling to, and profession of saving faith, it is always more or less visible. The elect are visible men, and exist in the visible congregations of Christians, as the apple in the eye, or a Diamond in a Ring, or the soul in the body. As Athens is called the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greece of Greece: so may we term them the Church of the Church: for, in respect of them principally, are those glorious titles given, and gracious promises made to the Church, which are registered in holy Scripture. The third assertion (which trencheth near upon our question). The Church, in a larger notion, comprehendeth all those who eternally profess the true worship of God in Christ. Thus Lactantius * Lactan. l. 4. Instit. dium. c. ult. defineth the Church: Catholica Ecclesia est, quae verum Dei cultum retinet: hic est fons veritatis, hoc est domicilium fidei, hoc Templum Dei: quo si quis non intrarit, vel a quo si quit exiverit, àspe vitae ac salutis aeternae alienus est etc. That is the Catholic Church, which retains the true worship of God. This is the Fountain of truth: this the House of faith: this is the Temple of God: he that shall not enter herein, or shall depart hence, is far from the hope of life and eternal salvation. Of the Church in this acception, our * Mat. 18. 17. Saviour's words are to be understood, If he refuse to hear the Church, let him be to thee as an Heathen or Publican. And Saint Luke's, * Acts 15. 22. Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church, etc. And * 1. Cor. 11. 22. Saint Paul 's, Despiseyee the Church of God, & c? And in his Epistle to the * Ephes. 3. 2. Ephesians: Unto him be glory in the Church, etc. And to * 1. Tim. 3. 5. Timothy: How shall he take care of the Church of God? The Church in this notion is in Scripture compared to a field, wherein are tares with the wheat; a floor, wherein is chaff with grain; a net, wherein are sweet fish, and rotten; an house, in which are precious vessels and vile; to the Ark, in which were clean and unclean beasts. To the Church taken in this sense, a Mat. 16. 18. Christ directeth us: Tell the Church. And Saint Paul, That b 1. Tim. 3. 15. thou mayst know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the living God. And Saint * Cypr. de simplic. praelat. Non pertinet ad Christi praemia, qui relinquit Ecclesiam Christi. alienus est: profanus est: habere ●am non potest Deum patrem, qui Ecclesiam non habet matrem. Cyprian: He hath no right to the rewards of Christ, who leaveth the Church of Christ: he is a stranger: he is a profane person: for he cannot have God to his Father, who hath not the Church for his Mother. And Saint * Aug. confess. l. 8. Augustine, Non deputabo te inter Chr●stianos, nisi in Ecclesia Christi ●e videro. I will not account thee a Christian, unless, I see thee in the Church. The fourth assertion. The Church in this notion, as it extends to all that profess the true Religion, and participate in the pledges of salvation, was ever, is, and shall be in some degree visible to the end of the world. That it hath ever been hitherto visible, all Histories accord: and that it shall so continue to the world's end, our Saviour's words are our warrant, * Mat. 28. 20. Go ye, and teach all nations, etc. andle, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. For the continuance of God's Word, the Prophet Esay is most peremptory: This * Esay 59 21. is my covenant with thee, saith the Lord, etc. My words which I have put into thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, from henceforth for ever. And Christ's words are as direct for the Sacraments, that they shall be administered, till his second coming: * 1. Cor. 11. 26. As oft as ye eat of this Bread, and drink of this Cup, ye show forth the Lords death till he come. And lastly, S. Paul 's words are as express for the Ministry: * Ephes. 4. 11. 12. 13. He gave some Apostles, some Prophets, etc. till we all come in the unity of the faith, etc. It is true, Antichrist shall make great havoc of the Church, and there shall be such a falling away, that Christ at his second coming shall scarce find faith on the earth: false prophets, and false Christ's shall arise, and seduce, if it were possible, the elect; but that is not possible: hell-gates shall never so far prevail against the Church. Whatsoever becometh of hypocrites and temporizers, it is certain that the elect shall remain in it, and retain the 〈◊〉 faith; and if they retain it, they will also professed it 〈◊〉 * Rom. 10. 10. for with the heart, man believeth unto righteousness 〈◊〉 with the tongue, confession is made unto salvation. Sain● * Aug. in Ps. 110. conc. 2. Quid est quod dicis, jam perijsse Ecclesiam de omnibus gentibus? Quando ad hoc praedicatur evangelium, ut possit esse in omnibus gentibus, ergo ad finem seculi Ecclesia erit in omnibus gentibus. Austen thus stoppeth the mouths of the donatists: What is that that thou sayest, The Church 〈◊〉 already perished, and gone out of all Nations? 〈◊〉 therefore the Gospel is preached, that it may be in all Nations, therefore even unto the end of the world, 〈◊〉 Church shall be in all Nations. I may save the labour of heaping more testimonies to confirm this point, because * Page 52. & 53. M. Fisher, in his reflection on the Conference, spendeth many lines and much labour in fortifying it, as a strong bulwark (as he imagineth) against us. I conclude therefore with Saint Ambrose, * Hexam. l. 4. c. 2. Ecclesia 〈◊〉 potest, effluere non potest: The Church may be evershadowed, it cannot quite fail or be 〈◊〉 The fifth assertion. The militant visible Church is not always equally visible, but sometimes it is more visible, sometimes it is less. It was more visible in the Prophet David 's days, * Psal. 79. 1. 2. when he sung, In jury is God known, his name is great in Israel, than it was in the time that * Host 3. 4. Hosea prophecies of, Israel shall remain many days without a King, and without a sacrifice. It was more visible in the days * Mal. 1. 11. Malachi foreshews of, From the rising of the Sun, even to the going down there of, my name shall be great among the Gentiles, then in the days * 1. King. 19 18. Eliah complaineth of: I, even I, am left alone. The Church was more visible in the days of Solomon, when she is compared to a * Psal. 45. 10. Queen honourably attended, then in the day's Saint john foretelleth of, when she is compared to a * Reu. 12. 7. Woman flying into the wilderness. She was more visible in the days * Esay 49. 23. Esay fortelleth of, Kings shall be thy nursing Fathers, and Queens thy nursing mothers, then in the days of Antichrists tyranny, when Kings * Apoc. 17. 17. shall give their Kingdom to the beast. In regard of this mutable estate of the militant Church, * Mica. 7. 8. Micah giveth her this Motto: Rejoice not over me, O my enemy: though I fall, I shall rise again. And Solomon likeneth her to the Moon: * Cant. 6. 10. My Love is fair as the Moon. To which ground Saint Austen alluding, interpreteth, * Aug. in Psal. 10. Obscuram Lunam Ecclesiam, the Moon in the Eclipse or darkened, the Church in trouble and persecution. And Saint * Ambrose. Hexam. l. 4. c. 8. Ambrose, Ecclesia, ut Luna, defectus habet et or●us frequentes: The Church, as the Moon, hath her often waxings and wanings. And in his * Ambrose l. 5. ep. 31. Luna ipsa (qua propheticis oraculis species Ecclesiae figuratur) cum primum resurgens in menstruas reparatur aetates, tenebris noctis obsconditur, paulatimque cornua sua complens, vel e● regione Solis obsoluens, clari splendore sulgoris rutilat. Epistle: The Moon itself (whereby, in the Oracles of the Prophets, the countenance of the Church is figured) when at the first rising again, she is renewed into the ages of the month, she is hidden by the darkness of the night; and by little and little filling her horns, or right over against the Sun, rounding them, doth shine with the light of clear brightness. The sixth assertion The false and malignant Church is oft time 〈◊〉 visible, conspicuous and ample, than the true Church: and consequently, eminent Visibility, amplitude, and splendour is no certain note of the true Church. The glorious face and outside of a Church, which dazleth our adversary's eyes, was rather against * 1. Kings 22. 22. Michea, then for him: all the Prophets prophesied, etc. It was rather against * 1. Kings 19 10. Eliah, then for him: for there were 450 Priests of Baal, besides C●●marims; and he took no notice in a manner of any servant of God but himself. It was rather against * jer. 18. 18. jeremy, then for him, when all the Priests took counsel against him, saying, The law shall not depart from the Priest, etc. Nay, the glorious outside and face of a Church, was rather against * Mat. 27. 1. Christ himself, then for him. All the chief Priests and Elders took counsel against jesus. Since Christ's death, to instance only in one sort of Heretics, the Arrians (undoubtedly) would have carried the truth away by voices and outward pomp, for some hundreds of years, if that were a safe trial: for Saint * Ier●m ad Lucif. c. 7. Jerome complaineth, Tunc * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. usiae nomen abolitum est: tunc 〈◊〉 fidei damnatio conclamata est 〈…〉 Arrianum se esse miratus est: Then the name of substance was abolished: then the condemnation of the ●●cene Creed was proclaimed, the whole world sighed and marvelled, that it became Arrian, Vincentius * Vincent. advers. haeres. p. 6●. put● the● case what was to be done, Quando, saith he, Arrianorum venenum non iàm portiunculam quandam, sed pene orbem totum contaminaverat, adeo ut prope cunctis Latini Sermonis Episcopis, partim vi, partim fraude deceptis, caligo quaedam mentibus offunderetur: When as the poison of the Arrians did not infect a little portion, but in a manner the whole world, insomuch that almost all the Latin Bishops, partly by force, and partly by cunning, were entrapped, and had a kind of mist cast before their eyes. These things being so, may we not justly upbraid the Papists, as Gregory Nazianzen doth the Arrians, * Nazian. ad Arrian. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & c? Where are they now, who upbraid poverty unto us, and boast of their wealth; who define the Church by multitude, and despise the little flock of Christ; who honour the sand, and reproach the greater lights of heaven; who treasure up Check-stones, and pass by Margarites? The seaventh Assertion. When there is a difference between the visible professors of Christianity, and each party pretendeth itself to be the true Church, in opposition to the other, the only sure and infallible means to know which of the dissident parties are of the true Church, is, by trying their doctrine by Scripture. To this touchstone of truth, the Prophet * Esay 8. 20. Esay directeth us, To the Law, and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them. And our blessed Saviour; * john 5. 3. 9 Search the Scriptures: for in them you think ye have eternal life. And S. Peter, * 2. Pet. 1. 19 We have also a more sure word of Prophecy; unto which, you do well, if ye give heed as to a light that shineth in a dark place. By this rule, the * Acts ●7. 11. Bereans examined the doctrine of the Apostle, searching the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Saint Austen * Aug. de unit. Ecclesiae. c. 3. best approveth of this course, to come to the knowledge of the true Church, In Scriptures Canonicis requiramus Ecclesiam: in the Canonical Scriptures let us search the Church: And, Non audiamus, Haec dico, Haec dicis: sed audiamus, 〈◊〉 dicit Dominus. Sunt certi libri Dominici, quorum authoritati utrique consentimus; ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam: Let us not hear, I say this, or Thou sayest this: but let us hear, This saith the Lord. There are certain books of God, to whose authority we both consent; there let us seek the Church. And, after much debating the matter, he concludeth the Chapter with these words, Ergo in Scripture is Canonic is eam requiramus: therefore let us seek her (the Church) in the Canonical Scriptures. And, Quisque nostrum non in iustitia sua, sed in Scriptures quaerat Ecclesiam. Aug. ep. 48. Saint * Basil. ep. 82. Basil directeth us to the same course, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: With whomsoever, doctrine agreeable to Scripture shall be found, the truth is always to be adjudged to be on their side. To forbear more allegations, the learned Author of the imperfect work on Matthew, hearing the name of S. * In Mat. 24. Chrysostome, delivereth a firmer conclusion, in formal and express terms, and that several times; showing, that his judgement was settled and resolved upon it. 〈…〉 modis ●stendebatur quae esset Ecclesia Christi, et quae Gentilitas: nunc autem nullo modo cognoscitur, quae vera Ecclesia Christi, nisi tantummodò per Scripturas: quare quia omnia haec, quae sunt proprie Christi in veritate, habent et haereses illae in schemate, similiter Ecclesiam, similiter, scripturas, similiter baptismum, similiter eucharistiam, et caetera omnia, dem●m ipsum Christum: Volens ergo quis cognoscere quae sit vera Christi Ecclesia, unde cognoscat in tanta confusione multitudinis, nisi tantummodo per Scripturas? Et pòst, Qui ergò vult cognoscere quae sit vera Christi Ecclesia, unde cognoscat nisi tantummodò per Scriptural? Formerly it was showed many ways, what was the true Church of Christ, and what was Gentilism: but now it is known no other way, which is the true Church of Christ, but only by the Scriptures. Wherefore, because all these things which properly belong unto Christ in truth, even those heresies have in shadow; in like manner the Church, in like manner the Scriptures, in like manner Baptism, in like manner the Lords Supper, and all other things; finally, Christ himself: He therefore, who is desirous to know which is the true Church of Christ, whence should he know it, in such a great confusion of multitude, but only by the Scriptures? And a little after, He that will therefore know which is the true Church of Christ, whence should he know it, but only by the Scriptures? It is observed by those who follow the Law, that when a Defendant excepts against the judgement & jurisdiction of the Court, he certainly despairs of his cause in that Court. And what can we interpret it in our adversaries, but distrust and despair of their cause, to detract as they do from the perfection, and except against the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, for deciding all controversies? And here I will be bold to turn the jesuit Campions roaring Canon against him and his fellows: * Edmund. Camp. rat. 1. cum multa sint quae adversariorum in ca●sa diffidentiam loquuntur, tum nihil aqué atque sauctorum mayest as bibliorun foedissimè violata, 〈…〉 quid causa a fuit, ut Euangelium Mathaei & Acta resigerent Apostolica? Desperatio, etc. Quid 〈◊〉 ut omnes Pauli repudiarent Epistolas? Desperati●, I may add, following his tune, Quid Piggi●, Hosio, Lyndano; quid Stapletono, Bellarmino, & c? Whereas there are many things which proclaim our Adversary's distrust of their cause, so nothing so much as their profane violating of the Majesty of holy Scripture. What was the cause, that the Manichees repeal the Gospel of Saint Matthew, and the Acts of the Apostles? Desperation. What was the cause that the Ebionites rejected all the Epistles of Saint Paul? Desperation. I may go on, following the same note and tune, and say, What is the cause that Ludovicus calls the Scriptures, Dead ink? Desperation. What is the cause that the Bishop of Poitiers styles it in like manner, rem inanimem et ●●tam, a thing without life, and dumb? Desperation. What is the cause, that Piggius, Ecehius, 〈◊〉, Pereonius, Norris, & diverse others so much detract from the authority and sufficiency, and obscure the excellency of Scripture, by terming it, Nasum cereum, Euangelium nigrum, Theologiam atramentariam, Lesbiam regulam? a Nose of wax, a black Gospel, inky Divinity, a Lesbian rule? Desperation. They appeal from Scripture, under pretence, that it is an imperfect rule, and dumb judge, and therefore refuse to be tried by it in the points of difference between us: why? because that if they should refer the ending of all Controversies to Scripture, and put themselves on Christ and his Apostles, they soon know what would become of them and their cause. The eightth Assertion. The paucity of right Believers, and obscurity and latency of the true Church, protesting against the corruption and idolatry in the later ages thereof, is most clearly foretold in Scripture. First, by our * Luke 18. 8. Saviour: When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? & In hunc locum. Maldonat the jesuit answereth, Vix fideminueniet: He shall scarce find faith. False * Mat. 24. 11, et 24. Christ's and false prophets shall arise, and shall seduce many, yea, they shall do signs and wonders, and seduce, if it were possible, the Elect. Secondly, by Saint * 1. Tim. 4. 1. Paul, the Spirit speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, exertè, expressly, that in the latter days some shall fall from the faith. And in the second, to the * 2. Thes. 1. Thes. 1. There shall be a falling away first. Thirdly, by Saint * Reu. 10. 3, 12. john, After a thousand years, Satan must be loosed a little season. And, * Reu. 12. 4. The tail of the Dragon drew the third part of the Stars of Heaven. And, * Reu. 13. 3, 4. All the world wondered after the Beast, and they worshipped the Beast, et. v. 8. saying, Who is like unto the Beast, & c.? All that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the Book of Life, etc. * Reu. 18. 3. All nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornications, etc. And no marvel, that the true servants of God were reduced to such a paucity, when the devil and Antichrist set all their forces against them. * Apoc. 12. 15. The Serpent casts out of his mouth water, as a flood, after the woman, that he might cause h●r to be carried away of the flood. I might allege many pregnant testimonies, both out of the ancient Fathers, & the learned Papists also of later time, for the black and gloomy, dark and dismal days of the Church under the last and greatest persecution by Antichrist. But Saint * Aug ep. 80. Austin's testimony is so clear for the obscurity and latency of the Church, that I need add no more. Ecclesia est Sol, Luna, et Stellae: quando Sol obscurabitur, et Luna non dabit lucem suam, et Stellae cadent de coelo, Ecclesia non apparebit, impijs ultra modum saevientibus: The Church is Sun, Moon, and Stars: when the Sun shall be darkened, and the Moon shall not give her light, and the Stars shall fall from heaven, the Church shall not appear, the wicked raging against her without all measure. Me thinks I hear our adversaries say, What makes this observation for the Protestant Church or faith? I answer, Much every way. It furnisheth us both with a strong defensive weapon, and offensive also. The defensive may be thus framed: That Church which hath been persecuted, massacred, wasted, and driven to great extremity, and reduced to a small number, resembleth the true Church, as the state thereof is described in her later Ages. But the Protestant Church, especially since the 1000 year after Christ, hath been persecuted, massacred, wasted, and driven to great extremity, and reduced to a small number: Therefore the Protestant Church in this respect resembleth the true Church; and consequently her obscurity maketh rather for her, then against her. We may also on this Anuil shape an offensive weapon in this manner: The true Church, in the later Ages thereof, must be in great distress, and driven to a narrow compass. The Popish Church hath not been so: Therefore the Popish Church is not the true Church. For they make eminent Visibility and splendour, a note of their Church. If they answer, that their Church, under heathen and Arrian Emperors, hath been grievously persecuted, I reply: First, that those who suffered Martyrdom in those days, were rather our Martyrs then, theirs, because they sealed with their blood, the truth of Scripture-Doctrine, and not of Popish traditions, or additions. Secondly, those blessed Martyrs suffered in the first Ages of the Church, long before the 1000 year, in which Satan was let loose: but we speak of the persecutions of the true Church in her latter Ages. Therefore when the Papists insultingly demand of us, Where appeared your Church in the Ages before Luther? the best way to repress their insolency, is, to put a cross interrogatory to them, Where did your Church lie hid? When did it fly into the Wilderness, for the space of 1260 days? When did the Beast with sewen heads, and ten horns, push at it? In the reign of what Popes did the red Dragon cast a flood of waters to drown her? As for the predecessors of our faith, and Standard-bearers of our Religion, it appeareth upon their own records, how the Whore of Babylon embrued her hands, and died her garments scarlet-red in the blood of them, persecuting and executing them under the names of Berengarians, Lyonists, Henricians, Petrobrusians, Albingenses, Waldenses, Wicklevists, Thaborites, Hussites, Lutherans, Caluinists, and Hugonots, and the like. here see the craft of Satan, and malice of Antichrist and his Ministers: they was●e the flock of Christ with bloody slaughters, and require of us, Where are those of our brethren whom they have slain? They traduce us for paucity, whom they by their massacres have brought to so small a number. They upbraid us with those maims, and scars which themselves have given us, and put us to produce those evidences which themselves have burned and made away, as shall appear more at large hereafter. The ninth Assertion. Errors in doctrine, and abuses in practice, for the most part steal in secretly, and by degrees, sensim sine sensu, and are therefore seldom discerned, and openly opposed, before they get head and strength. This * Vincent. Lyran. de 〈◊〉. c. 15. observation I owe to Vincentius Lyranensis. L●tenter superinducunt errores, quos nec cito deprehendere valeas, nec facilè damnare: they bring in errors secretly, which a man cannot soon find out, nor easily condemn. And Vincentius seemeth to have borrowed it of * Tertul. adversus Vale●tin. c. 1. Tertullian, Nihil magis curant, qu●m ut occultent quod praedicant, sitamen praedicant quod occultant: they seek nothing more, then to hide that which they preach, if yet they may be said to preach that they hide. And again, * c. 3. Obscondit se Serpens quantum potest totamque prudentiam in laqueorum ambagibus torquet: alte habitat, in 〈◊〉 detruditur, per a●fractus seriem suam 〈…〉 procedit, nec semel totus 〈◊〉 bestia. The Serpent hides himself as much as he can, and showeth his chief skill in wreathing himself into folds, he thrusts himself into dark and blind holes, etc. This * 2. Pet. 2. 1. note Tertullian took from Saint Peter: There shall be false teachers among you▪ who shall privily bring in damnable heresies. And Saint Peter himself might gather it from our Saviour's words, * Mat. 13. 25. Whilst men slept, the enemy came, and so●ed tares. And therefore Bellarmine, and Ca●pi●n, and M. Fisher, do but dream, when they conceive that the enemy hath not sown the tares of heresies, and superstitions, in the Church of Rome, because (as they suppose) that we cannot show the precise time when all these tares were sown. For, our Saviour makes answer to this question (Vnde zizania? Whence were these 〈◊〉?) for us, They were sown whilst men slept. Changes and alterations are of two sorts: some are violent, and sudden, and with a great noise; others are made by degrees, and come in piecemeal, and without any sound at all. In the former kind it is no matter of difficulty, out of stories to show the precise time, when such great and sudden alterations befell in Church or Commonwealth: but in the latter kind it is very difficult, and for the most part impossible. When a great tree being torn by a tempest, ingentem traxit 〈◊〉 ruinam, every man observeth it: but who can tell when a great and thick timber-tree beginneth first to rot? The Historians precisely set down the year and day, wherein the Temple of Diana was burned by Herasastratus, and Saint Paul's Steeple in London by lightning: but who can out of any Story, or otherwise, design the day, or year, when Paul's Church began to decay? yet no man that now seeth it, maketh question, but that it is very much ruined: the beam out of the timber, and stone out of the wall, cry for speedy reparations. By the jesuits' argument, an aged decrepit man, all gray-headed, might forswear and outface his Age, because no man, nor perhaps himself observed when he began to grow old first, or had his first grey hair on his head or beard. Our Saviour very fitly compares heresies to tares, which we see when they are grown, though we see them not in their first growth, or as they grow. No man can perceive the index in a Watch, or finger in a Dial to wag or stir: yet he that going abroad, when it points to one a clock, and returning home, findeth it points to six, or twelve a clock, knoweth infallibly, that it hath moved, and that no small space. In like manner, though we cannot, in all particular points of difference between us and the Church of Rome, design the moment of time, when corruptions and innovations stole in: yet finding the doctrine and manners of the Church at one point (as it were) in the Primitive times, and in latter Ages at a far distant point, nay quite opposite; we know, that the finger hath moved, that is, that great changes, and alterations, and innovations have been. Shall we deny, that there is idolatry in the world, because we know not who was the first Idolater; nor precisely, when men first fell from true Religion? Bellarmine and some others fetch it from some of Noah's posterity after the flood: but * Haerm●n Luangel. Barradus endeavoureth to prove, that the tares of idolatry were sown in the world before the flood, yet it appears on no record, who was the first Idolater in the world. Some of Noah's posterity degenerated from the true worship & service of God, to Gentilism and superstition; yet who can demonstrate the time when, or the place where they first began to adulterate the true service of God, with infinite abuses and abominations? How did the Scribes and pharisees, at the coming of Christ, corrupt the doctrine of the Law with false glosses, and abrogate it with their own traditions? Yet no man can show the original or first deviser of all their false glosses and vain traditions. To come nearer to our adversaries: The Fathers in the * Sess. vigess. 2. caenone 9 decretum de obseru●ndis et evitandis in celebratione Missa. Council of Trent acknowledge, that many corruptions & abuses have crept into the Mass itself, either by the fault of times, or negligence and wickedness of men. cum multaiam, sive temporum vitio, sive hominum incuria et improbitat●, irrepsisse videantur, quae à tanti Sacrificij dignitate abhorreant, etc. Sith many things, through the fault of times, or the negligence and wickedness of men, have seemed to have crept in (to the Mass) which are repugnant to the dignity of so great a Sacrifice, we appoint, etc. Yet when these abuses crept in, and by whose fault, neither do they there, neither can any Papist punctually demonstrate. The Physicians judge of their patients two manner of ways; either à decubitu, that is, from the time of their lying down, and yielding themselves to their bed; or ab actionibus lasis, that is, from the time that their appetites, and digestion, and other faculties, sensibly fail in doing their functions. In like manner are we to judge of the diseases of the Church: some we may àdecubitu, from her apparent declining in judgement to error: but other, which we cannot so judge certainly of, yet we may most infallibly by the other means, ab actionibus lasis, from her sensible failings in her vital faculties and functions, viz. Preaching of the Word, Administration of the Sacraments, and exercise of Ecclesiastical discipline. To close up this note; Though many learned Protestant Divines have wrote to good purpose touching the first leak in Peter's ship, yet none seemeth to me to hit the point more fully, than our excellently learned Rainolds. * Rainol. praelect. 1. de libris Apo●ryp●●is. Primò ait, Gentilitios', deinde judaicos ritus, opiniones, concupiscentias ingruisse, ea quasi semina● exemplorum et placitorum fuisse, haec primùm per exig●a non internosci, inter dum conspici, et coerceri, p●st sensim augescere magis magisque, tum confirmari et grassari latiùs; donec ad extremum, Religionis facies tota, quasi cancro exaesae, immutata & Ecclesia Romana ex sancta et fideli profana et perfid● facta est. Ita quae Apostolis Ecclesiam docentibus erant inandita, ea pòst à patribus caepere queri, ambigi. Quae priscis 〈◊〉 scrupulum m●heba●●, ea probabilia visa sunt 〈◊〉 à rece●ioribus Scholasticis et Canonistis habebantur●●ra. Quae illi opinati sunt et tennerunt, ●odie 〈◊〉 defendunt pertinaciter, et dissentientes 〈◊〉 First, Heathenish, and than jewish rites and opinions stole in: these were the seeds of ill examples and orders, or customs: these, at the first being small, were not observed; sometimes they were spied, and checked. Afterwards, by degrees, they more and more increased, then were they confirmed and spread further; till in the end the whole face of Religion was eaten out, as it were with a Canker; and the Church of Rome, 〈◊〉 and faithful spouse, became a profane and disloyal strumpet. So those things, which in the Apostles time were unheard of, after began to be questioned and doubted by the Father's▪ Those things which the ancient Doctors made scruple of, seemed probable to some, and were held true by the later Schoolmen & Canonists. Those things which they held but as opinions, the Papists at this day defend obstinately, and condemn all that descent from them. Just as Velleius * Velleius Pater. histor. Rom. l. 2. Paterculus reports of the Roman State; that, degenerating from the ancient virtue and glory, it fell maturè à rectis in vitia, à vitijs in prana, pr●uis in praecipitia; from good to bad, from bad to worse, from worse to worst of all: so the Roman Church, in tract of time, fell from certain truths, to doubtful Tenets; from doubtful Tenets, 〈◊〉 manifest errors; from manifest errors, at last to heresies: where we now find them, and there leave them, because they are resolved there to stick. The general Conclusion. The Protestant Church, according to the distinctions and Assertions premised, hath been in all Ages in some degree visible. Thus much of the first Question propounded by the jesuit, touching the Visibility of the Protestant Church in all Ages. The second Question touching the Catalogue of names, follows. 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. The first Distinction. Visible Protestants are either, Such as subscribe to the harmony of Protestant Confessions, in each point of faith and Theological Conclusion; Or such as have delivered, either implicitly, or explicitly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, positively, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by way of opposition, some point or points of Protestant Doctrine; especially, if it cannot be proved, that they held any doctrine de fide, repugnant to the Protestants faith, or different from them in any point of moment, or very material, much less fundamental. In this Question, neither is it reasonable, neither indeed doth the jesuit demand, that we should prove visible Protestants in all Ages in the first sense, but in the later only. His words are, * c. 1. p. 11. For avoiding of all mistaking, and consequently, needless and fruitless Disputes, M. Fisher in his Question requireth, first, that names of men in all Ages be set down: whom Sir Humphrey Lined and his friends conceive to have been Protestants. Secondly, that those men, whose names they set down, be showed out of good Authors, to agree in holding some points of faith, in which Protestants differ from Roman Catholics. Thirdly, that Sir Humphrey Lined or his friends will defend against M. Fisher, that the same men held no other points of faith different one from another, and from the present Protestant Doctrine. The second Distinction. The Names of Protestants are of two sorts; Proper; as, Bertram, Lollard, Dulcinus, Calvin, Beza, jewel, etc. Appellative; as, Protestants, Gospelers, Reformers, Albingenses, Waldenses, Lionists, Piccards, Turlepins; and generally, all such names as have either been assumed by any society of Protestants, to distinguish themselves from others; or cast upon them by way of reproach, by their Adversaries whose reproaches they (and we) accounted their glory. In this Question, although the jesuit seemeth to take Names in the first sense, yet he cannot be so grossly ignorant, as not to know, that it is abundantly sufficient for the proof of a visible Church (even à posteriori) to prove out of good Authors the appellative Names of Protestants in all Ages. No man doubteth, that it is a sufficient Argument to prove the Visibility of the true Church in Israel in Elias time, to produce that sacred Record of seven thousand that never bowed their knees to Baal; albeit neither doth the Spirit of God there set down, neither can any man living now tell what was the proper name of any one of them. No Geographer will ever make question, but that there are now many visible Churches of Christians in Africa, and divers parts of Asia, under the Turk and Tartar, known by the names of Abyssens, Maronits, Cophtis, Armenians, Georgians, or the like: and yet neither can the Geographers themselves peradventure, nor you nor I presently give the proper name of any one of them. For my part, I know but one Greek Christian, sometime Student in Oxford; Metrophanes Critopulus. The third Distinction. These words, Protestants are to be named, may admit of a double construction; Either that names ought to be produced, and that we are bound to produce them, to prove the Visibility of our Church; as if, without such producing, the protestant cause should any way suffer or receive any prejudice Or that such names may be produced, and that there are such Records yet extant, out of which we are able to makes a Catalogue of Protestant professors. In this question, the jesuit holdeth, that the names of Protestants in the first sense are to be produced, that is, aught to be produced, and must of necessity, to prove the visibility of our Church: but he denieth it in the second sense, that is, that such names can be produced. On the contrary, my Tenets are, that Visible Protestants are to be named in the second sense, that is, are ●minable; but not in the first sense. Though we need not make any such Catalogue, yet ex superabundanti, I refuse not to do it: our cause is so richly furnished, that we can do it though we are not bound to do it, for the reasons partly alleged in the conference, partly confirmed and enlarged in the defence thereof. The fourth Distnction. Good Authors are of two sorts; Of the first rank: and such are Classicke, Theological or Historical Authors; against which neither Papists nor Protestants much except, but both account them of great worth and credit. Of the second rank: and such are those Authors, who though they are not of any singular or eminent note, yet they may be termed good, according to the ages in which they lived, which afforded no better. In this question, I restrain not good Authors to those of the first rank only, but admit also of those of the second. For, as when the people at * Bodin. de rep. ex Livio. Capua were so incensed against the Senators, that they had a purpose presently to doff them out of their places and lives too; a wise man among them advised them, before they put the old Senators to the sword, to think of fitter men to put in their places: which when they could not agree upon, in the end it was resolved, that the old should continue: In like manner, if the Jesuits except against any of the Authors which I shall allege in the later blind ages, as being not of sufficient credit for us to rely upon in so weighty a controversy, as the Jesuits make this to be; I require of the Jesuits, to produce fitter men, & better Authors, who lived in those times; & in case they cannot, then to let those stand for good whom we allege for ourselves: for we are to take Authors and Records such as we can find, not to make such as we wish. And therefore Scaliger, as truly as tartly, reproveth Baronius, quod Annales faceret, non scriberet, that he wrote not annal, but made them out of his own brain. A true Record, though never so foule-written and torn, is better than a forged Deed, though never so fair and legible. Some later Papists, excepting against diverse Authors alleged by us, shall not disable those Authors, unless they can make good their exceptions against them. For example: though Genebrard, or Coccius, or 〈…〉 disgracefully of Abbas V●spergensis, or 〈…〉 C●rdinalis, or Platina, or Auentinus, yet unless they can or could justly tax or charge them, they must and shall stand for good witnesses against Papists. These cautions and distinctions premised, I will now set down the state of this second question, in the Assertions following. The first Assertion. AMong the Professors of the Truth, there may be differences of judgement; not only touching rites, and ceremonies, and matters of discipline, but also touching points of doctrine, so the points be not main and fundamental, or such as are clearly ●nd expressly defined by the Church out of manifest Te●ts of Scripture. This conclusion I ground on those words of Saint Paul: c 1. Cor. 3. 12. 15, etc. If any man build on this Foundation, gold, etc. or hay and stubble, etc. if any man's work shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved, etc. To this distinction of Foundations-doctrine, without which a man cannot be saved; and doctrines built upon the Foundation, which may be held, or not held, without danger of salvation, Saint Ambrose alludes: d Comment. in Luc. lib. 5. c. 9 Si quae est Ecclesiae, quae fidem respuat, nec Apostolicae praedicationis fundamenta retine at, ne quam labem possit aspergere, deserenda est. If there be any Church which refuseth faith, and ●eepeth not the foundation of Apostolical doctrine, lest it should cast any spot on us, it must be forsaken. And Saint e Prosp. de great. et lib. arbitri. ad Ruffinum. Pelagiana haeresis quibus impietatum veneris viscera Ecclesiae atque ipsa vitalia Corpris Christi voluerit occupare, etc. Prosper; where he insinuates a distinction of heresies. Some like the Pelagian, poisoning the bowels, and surprising the very vitals of Christ's (mystical) Body; others affecting and infecting other parts further from the heart, and therefore not so dangerous. * Adverse. haer. Vincentius Lyrinensis glanceth at the former distinction of doctrines fundamental, and not fundamental. The former he calleth, Fidei regula●●, the rule of faith; the later, Divinae Legis quaestiunculas, subtle questions concerning the Law of God: in which, he saith, we need not much seek the Father's consent. Saint * Lib. 1. contra jul. Pelag. c. 6. Austen also, when he was pressed by julian the Pelagian with a testimony out of Saint Chrysostome, layeth hold on the buckler of a like distinction: Sanctus, inquit, Iohannes Constantinopolitanus negat, esse in paruulis originale peccatum: Holy, saith he, john of Constantinople denieth, that original sin is in little children. Absit, ut Constantinopolitanus johannes de baptismate parvulorum, eorumque à chirographo liberatione per Christum, tot ac tantis co-Episcopis suis, maximeque Romano Innocentio, Carthaginensi Cypriano, Cappadoci Basilio, Gregorio Nazianzeno, Gallo Hilario, Mediolanensi resistat Ambrosio. Alia sunt in quibus inter se aliquando etiam doctissimi atque optimi regulae catholicae defensores (salua fidei compage) non consonant: & alius aliò, una de re, meliùs aliquid dicit & veriùs. Hoc autem, de quo nunc agimus, ad ipsa fidei pertinet fundamenta: GOD forbid, that john of Constantinople concerning the baptism of little or young children, and their freedom by Christ from the hand-writing, should gain-stand so many and so worthy of his fellow-Bishops; especially, Innocent, Bishop of Rome, Cyprian of Carthage, Basil of Cappadocia, Gregory of Nazianzen Hilary of France, and Ambrose of Milan. Some things there are, in which the most learned, and best defenders of the catholic rule (the bond of faith preserved) do sometimes not agree among themselves: and one, in some one thing, saith somewhat better and righter than another. But this, wherein now we deal, belongeth to the very grounds of faith. Unless we admit of such a distinction, neither we, nor the Roman Church, nor the Greek, nor any Church now in Christendom, is able to produce a Catalogue of visible Professors of their faith in any ancient Age, much less in all Ages. And therefore, if M. Fisher and his fellow-Iesuites require of a true Church, a Catalogue of such Professors as in all Ages held, not only the same fundamental and principal points of faith, but also all the same doctrinal conclusions and particular deductions, I must advise him, in the words of Constantine the Great, spoken to Novatus, to make a ladder, and go up to heaven alone. As the Fathers differ from us in some things, so also they differ among themselves: yet, as they esteemed themselves (notwithstanding these differences) to be members of the same Catholic Church; so do we esteem the said Fathers, professors of our Protestant Doctrine. Our Adversaries lay claim to them also; and yet they cannot deny, but that the Father's dissent from them in some points of no small moment. Papias, the scholar of Saint john the Evangelist, did eat the sour grape of the millenary Error: and justin Martyr, Iraeneus, Lactantius, and the Fathers generally (before Saint Ierome's time), had their teeth set on edge therewith. * joseph. Scal. Notae in nowm Testamentum. Scaliger, well seen in Antiquity, observes, Omnes veteres Christianos, etiam infra aetatem Augustini, putâsse, animas tam piorum quam impiorum in centro terrae, tanquam quodam conceptaculo, expectare diem iudicij: quod Tertullianus eleganer dixit, In candidâ expectare diem iudicij. Praerogativam tamen dant Martyribus, quos uno saltu recta in Paradisum deferri volunt: All the ancient Christians, yea, even * or within. before the time of Saint Augustine, thought, the souls aswell of the godly as ungodly, in the centre of the earth, as it were in some receptacle, to expect the day of judgement: which Tertullian elegantly calls, * Allud. ad Ro. Magistr. qui candidati, etc. In candidâ to look for the day of judgement. Yet they yield a prerogative to the Martyrs, whom they will have to be carried directly into Paradise at one leap or jump. Doth your Church approve of this opinion? Saint * Lib. 2. Ep. 3. Siquis de Antecessoribus nostris vel ignor anter, vel simpliciter, non hoc obseruavit & tenuit, quod nos dominus docuit, etc. potest simpliciter eius per indulgentiam domini venia concedi, etc. Cyprian findeth great fault with those, who before his time administered the Sacrament without wine, using water in stead of it: If any of our Ancestors, either ignorantly, or simply, hath not observed and kept that which our Lord hath taught us, etc. through our Lord's indulgency, pardon may be granted to his simplicity. This he proveth to be a gross error, and a foul abuse; yet he excludeth not them who are tainted with this spot, from hope of salvation. And Saint Cyprian himself had reason to censure charitably an error in others, because himself needed at least a pardon of course for his opinion touching rebaptising: for, his zeal against Heretics transported him so far, that he rejected and disannulled Baptism administered by them: whereby he may seem to touch dangerously upon the rock of the Donatists heresy: yet Saint * Lib. 1. contra Donatistas'. c. 18 Quid ergo? ille vir sanctus de Baptismo aliter sentiens quam se res habebas, quae posteae pertractata & diligentissima consideratione firmatae est, in catholicae unitate permansit, & charitatis ubertate compensatum est, & pas●ionis fasce purgatum. Austen doubteth not to affirm, that he made a recompense for this his error, by the abundance of his charity in his life, and plentiful effusion of his blood for the testimony of Christ at his death. As it was said of Augustus; b Tacit. annal. Pompeij statuas erigendo, suas confirmavit; that by erecting Pompey's statues, he made his own stand the longer: so we may truly say, that Saint Austen, by framing the former Apology for Cyprian, made the easier way in the minds of all indifferently-affected, for his own defence. I would, that this most judicious Doctor of the Church (for whom all the Christian Churches strive; as the Greek Cities, for Homer) nihil quicquam humani pateretur. But I have learned from * Lyrinen. adversus h●res. Vincentius, Nuditatem reverendi patris nèque meis temerare oculis, neque alienis patere velle, sed aversum tegere; quod est erratum sancti viri, nec approbâsse, nec prodidisse. All that I have already intimated, rather than expressed in this kind, is to show, that every prick is not a wound; every spot, not a s●ain in an ancient Writer; that every difference in judgement, makes not a rent in the Church; and consequently, that although Waldo, or Wicklef, or hus, or any other forerunner of Luther's reformation in our days, might have some private differences between themselves, and from us, as the ancient Doctors had, yet that these discords hinder not, but that they and we may bear a part in some consent and harmony of belief on earth, and sing the same Halleluiah in heaven. As for those foul aspersions of Sorcery, Manichisme, maintenance of impurity, and subiecting God to the devil, and the like, laid upon the Waldenses and Albingenses, Wicklef and the Hussi●es, or any of them, we shall easily blow them away, even by the breath of our Adversaries, in the declaration of the next conclusion. The second Assertion. The Professors of the truth have had always false scandals laid upon their faith and life. Our blessed Redeemers most holy Doctrine and sanctified life, escaped not the slanders of malicious tongues set on fire of hell. Saint Stephen was traduced for a Acts 6. 11 blasphemy against God and Moses; Saint Paul, for b Acts 24. 14 Heresy. I tremble to rehearse what malice hath broached against the Saints and Martyrs in the Primitive Church; as that c Minutius Felix in Octavio. Audi● eos turpiss●i pecudis caput asini consecratum, ineptae nescio qua persuasione venerari, etc. they worshipped an Ass head, et antistitum svorum genitalia, that they murdered d Tert. apolog. c. 7. Dicimur sceleratissimi de sacramento infanticidij, & pabulo inde, & post convivium incesto, quod eversores luminum canes, lenone se tenebrarum, & l bidinum impiarum inverecundia procuren●. Infants, and said upon their flesh, and licked their blood; that, putting out the lights, they committed incest, and all manner of filthiness, one with another. Let Rubius, and Parsons, and Sander●●, and Coccius, and Cocleus, and B●lsack, rid the bottom of their rancorous stomach against Walde, & Wiclef, and Hus, and Luther, and Calvin: they cannot void worse matter of fiction, than such as the Heathen vented against the Primitive Christians. But as God, in former times, used the tongue of Pliny, and diverse other Gentiles, to lick out those blots which were cast on the Christians by Gentiles: so, in these later times also, hath God made the tongues of Papists themselves to serve as sponges, to wipe away Popish aspersions upon the abovenamed Professors of truth, For the 9 Articles objected in particular to the Waldenses by Antoninus, Prateolus, Lutzenburgius, & Parson; Doctor * Lib. de success. et statu eccles. c. 6. à paragraph vicess. ad sinem. Usher, now Lord Bishop of Methe, hath so cleared them, even by the testimonies of Papists, from those erroneous assertions and scandalous aspersions, that the Papists themselves seem to be ashamed of their shameless slanders. It shall suffice, for the strengthening of my former conclusion, to call in three or four Papists of note, for their purgation: they are Du Hallyan, Rainerius, Thuanus, and Cocleus. Hallyan speaks but lispingly, because he durst not speak plain, yet he saith enough to convince the enemies of the truth, of shameful calumniation. * Hist. Gal. l. 10. The principal point, saith he, which brought the Waldenses into universal hatred, and which charged them with more evil opinions than they had, was the liberty they took to blame the diss●lutenes of Princes and of the Clergy, yea to tax the Popes themselves: this was the Helena that wrought all their troubles, as * Contra Wald. c: 4. Magnam habet spec●m pietatis, eo quod coram homi ibus iuste ut 〈◊〉, & b●ne omnia de Deo credunt, & omnes articulos qui in Symbolo con●ine●tur. Rainerius the Inquisitor ingenuously confesseth: This sect hath a great show of godliness, because they live justly before men, and believe all things well concerning God, and all the articles contained in the Creed: solummodò Romanam Ecclesiam blasphemant et Clerum; only they speak evil of the Church of Rome and of the clergy. a Lib. 6. Thuanus, after he had set down truly the opinions of the Waldenses, wherein they concur with the Reformed Churches at this day, addeth, His praecipuis et certis eorum doctrinae capitibus, alia afflict a sunt de coniugio, resurectione, animarum statu post mortem, etc. To these especial and certain heads of their doctrine, there are other added concerning wedlock, the resurrection, the state of souls after death, etc. Never did any man's stomach more boil with rancour and malice against any, than Cocleus his against Wiclef; whom b Hist. Hussit. l. 2. Multo grau●orae esse credider●m Wiclefi tormenta, quam sunt apud inferos judae proditoris, vel Neronis, etc. he condemneth to greater torments in hell, then judas or Nero: yet the truth extorted from Cocleus himself so much, as (in the judgement of any indifferent man) may clear him and his scholar Hus from those erroneous Articles that were laid to Hus his charge. c Cocl. ibid. En isti Episcopi hortantur me ad revocandum & abiurandum quod ego facere horresco, m●tuens ne in conspectu Dei ●●am mendax, & laedam conse●en●iam meam. Et post, page 111. Protestabatur, se ad mortem du●i propter errores ●●bi falso imputatos a falfis testibus. When he was required by the Bishops, to abjure the doctrine he had taught, he refused so to do, lest he should wound his conscience and the truth of God; but withal protesteth, and that solemnly, and that three several times, and that at the instant of his death, that he never held any of those Articles which the false witnesses deposed against him, but held, and taught, and wr●te always the contrary. In a word, he breathed out his last gasp, with a complaint against his false accusers, for laying to his charge doctrines he never held; taking it upon his death, that he taught nothing but the truth of the Gospel, which he would now seal with his blood. He had no sooner thus cleared his innocence, but his enemies set fire on the ●agot, and burned the Saint of God to ashes. And shall we imagine, that Wiclef, with whom john Hus prayed, that his soul might be after death, whose picture Jerome of Prague had in his study, painted with a garland about it; and the University of Oxford crowned his person and doctrine with a more fragrant Garland of praises; whose doctrine was not only favoured by diverse Nobles, but also the * Vid. M. S. Wiclef. in Biblio them, Bodl●i, &c third part of the Clergy of England: I say, shall we so much wrong our judgements, to imagine, that a man of so rare learning both divine and humane, so excellently read in Scriptures, should be the Father of such monstrous bastardly opinions, as are fathered upon him by some of the Fathers in the Council of Constance, viz. * God is bound to obey the devil. Deus tenetur obedire diab●lo, and the like? No, no. That devil was a lying spirit in the mouth of his accusers, which afterwards possessed the Romish Priests and jesuits, and by them vented these prodigious slanders upon our doctrine; affirming, that we teach, b Cam. rat. 8 Deus est author & causa peccati, omnia peccatae paria, Christus desperationis vocem emisit. that God is the author of sin; and that all sins are equal in God's sight; that a man may lie for God's honour; * Bristol mot. that Protestants are bound to avoid all good works, and many the like Assertions, much more condemned, and substantially refuted by Protestants, than any Papists whatsoever. The * Lact. diuin. institut. l. 1. c. 21 Apud Lindum Herculis s●cra sunt, quorum a ca●ter is long diversus est ritus, siquidem non euphemia s●d maledictione & execration. ●us celebrantur. Lyndians, as Lactantius reporteth, worshipped God by execrations and maledictions. Lyndanus and other of our Papists, as it seemeth, are akin to them: they think, they do God good service, in blaspheming and scandalising the truth of God, and the professors thereof. The best is, illi linguarum, nos ●urium Domini sumus: their tongues are their own; so our ears are our own: they are masters of their speech; we, of our belief: they may speak what they list; but we are not bound to believe, but what we see proof and reason for. The third Assertion. God hath, and always had, many true servants and worshippers of him in secret; whose names cannot be produced nor rehearsed by an exact Catalogue. I suppose, no Papist will deny this conclusion, because it is grounded on the Oracle of God. When * 1 Kings 19 14. & 18 Eliah complained, The children of Israel have forsaken thy Covenant, thrown down thine Altars, and slain thy Prophets with the sword; and I, even lonely, am left, etc. the Oracle answereth, Yet I have reserved to myself seven thousand in Israel, etc. Such were they that sighed for all the abominations that were in jerusalem: upon whose forehead, God commanded a * Ezek. 9 4 mark to be set. Such were those, who though they remained most of them in the outward communion with the Church of Rome, yet groaned under that Babylonish yoke, and in heart abhorred the idolatry and superstition reigning in that Church; and they desired, with sighs and tears, a reformation before Luther. Of whom, * De refor. eccl. Petrus de Aliaco the Cardinal thus writeth: As there were seven thousand that had not bowed to Baal: so it is to be hoped, that there are some that desire the Church's reformation. Though * Rain. contrae Wald. c. 3. Inquisitioni haereticorum frequenter interful, & computatae sunt scholae in diocaesi Paetaviensi 41. Rainerius speak but of one and forty schools, and somewhat a lesser number of Churches of the Waldenses, yet no man will make question, but that there might be in all the world very many more; especially, ●ith all those Churches and Schools he speaketh of, were in one Diocese. When * L. 4. Petierunt castellum cui Bechnigne nom●e est, ut a●t Arneus, ●ctauo f●re milliario ab oppido quo● nunc Tabor, etc. C●rciter trigmta ●illia hom●num conue●e●unt, atque ibi trecentas mensas in pat●ntibus camp●s erexerunt, ex quibus Sacramentum Caluini administrarunt. Cocleus mentioneth thirty thousand who, at the Castle of Bechnigne, eight miles from Tabor, received the Communion under both kinds, maugre the decree of the Council of Constance: will any man doubt, but there were many thousands more, who received the Sacrament in like manner at other places? When * ●. 10. D● Hallyan reports, that the army of the Albingenses consisted of about the number of 100 thousand fight men; every man's discretion will add, that there must needs be among them a greater number of all sorts, old men, women, and children, which were not able to bear Arms. And therefore d Rerum Angl. l. 2. c. 13. In latissim●s Gaelliae, Hispaniae, Italiae, Germaniae provincijs tam multi infecti hac pes●e esse dicuntur, ut multiplicati esse supra numerum maeris videantur. Gulielmus Neubrigensis speaking of them, saith, that their number in France, Sapin, Italy, and Germany, was multiplied above the sand of the sea: Rainerius the Popish Inquisitors own words amount to near as much, e Contra Wald. c. 4. Haec secta generalior est omnibus aliis quae adhuc sunt vel fuerunt: This sect is the most general or farthest spread of all sects that ever were: fere enim nulla est terra in qua haec secta non sit: for there is almost no sect in all the world, in which this sect hath not a part. I conclude therefore this Assertion with the words of f Epist. 78. Synesius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: What need we Catalogues? we are to fight with hands, not with names. The fourth Assertion. Some Ages of the Church afford very few Authors of note, whose Writings have come to posterity. Whosoever peruseth the Church story, digested into Centuries or Annals, or cast but a glance of his eye upon the Catalogues of Writers made by Saint jerom, Suidas, Photius, Gennadius, Abbas, Tritemius, Illyricus, and Bale, shall find the Ages of the Church, to resemble the Stars of the sky. In some parts we see many glorious and eminent Stars; in others, few of any remarkable greatness; and in some, none but blinkards and obscure ones: In like manner, in some Ages of the Church, we may behold many worthy and glorious Lights, like Stars of the first or second magnitude; in others, few of any note or bright lustre; and in some, none but obscure and unknown Authors; resembling the least and obscurest Stars in the sky. After we have passed the eightth Age of the Church, we fall into Cimaerian darkness. * Lib. 4. de Rom. pontiff. c. 12. Bellarmine cannot speak of the ninth Age with patience, Saeculo hoc nullum extitit indoctius aut infelicius, quo qui Mathematica aut Philosophiae operam dabat, vulgò Magus putabatur. Then this Age, there was none more unlearned or unhappy; in which, whosoever studied the Mathematics or Philosophy, he was commonly accounted a Magician. * ●unead 9 Mirum est, quanta omnium bonarum artium oblivio per id tempus mortaelium aenimos obrepserit, ut ne in pontificibus quidem v●●isue principibus quicquid illu●eret quod vitam i●uare possit. Sabellieus is at a stand in admiring at the palpable Egyptian darkness of this Age. It is wonderful to consider how great forgetfulness of all good Arts, during this time, did steal upon men's minds. So that there was no light of knowledge found, either in the Popes or Bishops, or any other Princes, which might further life. * Genebrard. Chronol. lib. 4. Genebrard, after a sort, blesseth himself from this Age▪ Infelix dicitur hoc saeculum exhaustumb●minibus doctrina & ingenio claris, sine etiam claris principibus & pontificibus. This is called an unhappy Age, empty of men, famous in learning and wit, yea, without famous Princes or Popes. Nay, what the Physicians speak of slegme, It is an humour, ne ad ma●la quidem bonus, not good for any thing, no; not to nourish and provoke to vice; so it may be said of this Age, that it yielded no eminent men, Catholics or Heretics. And therefore you shall find in Prae●●olus his Catalogue of Sectaries, a great balk in this Age. And * S. N. Appendix to the Antidote. Norice a jesuitical Quack saluer professeth, That in this Age no new heresy began, and consequently, that he wanteth drugs for his Antidote. But both Prateolus, and his bold borrower Norice, are much beholding to the Magdeburgenses, who handsomely and trimly excuse the matter, saying, F●gisse Haereticos, atque in praelatos ac monachos se abdidisse; that the Heretics which seemed to be flown away (in this Age), were not indeed vanished out of the world, but lay close, and hid themselves under Bishop's Rochets, and Monks Cowls; where neither Prateolus nor Norice durst to search for them. As this ninth Age, so the tenth, and some others after were very barren of learned Writers. And therefore no marvel, if the harvest we gather in these Ages, of the professors of the truth, and defenders thereof by writing, be very thin: for, to leave an Army of bastard apocryphal Authors (as the Papists do, to maintain the Pope's title), or in so weighty a cause to rely on the ragged regiment of Authors mustered up, in Orthodoxographia & bibliotheca veterum, et Epistolae obscurorum virorum, etc. I hold it rather a dishonour, and disadvantage, than any credit or advantage to the truth. The fifth Assertion. Since Boniface the Third's time, in the seaventh Age, and much more since Hildebrand in the tenth, such was the greatness of the Pope, and transcendent power of the See of Rome, that few durst or might write freely against the errors and usurpations thereof. And therefore it is not to be marvelled, that we have not many; but it is rather to be marvelled, that we have any who have displayed the abominations of the Whore of Babylon. The Answer of a Poet in Augustus' time, is very famous; who being demanded why he replied not upon Augustus, who had writ against him a bitter satire, cleanly wiped his lips, and said, Periculosum est 〈◊〉 ●um scribere, qui potest proscribere: It is a dangerous thing to give him a dash with a pen, who is like to requite it with a slash of a sword; to object against him in ink, who can return an answer in blood. * Iwenal satire. Tacit. Eorum corporae in usum noctur●i luminis comburebantur. Pone Tigelinum, teda lucebis in illa: Qua stantes ardent, & fixo gutture fumant. Set the Pope or Church of Rome out in her colours, and she will make you a light of the Church, by burning you at a stake. Platina and Occam long ago, upon just cause and lamentable experience, cast this bloody aspersion on the Pope and his Adherents. Occam frameth his indictment in these words: Vt intentum 〈◊〉 horrendum ad finem possint perducere, defendentes v●ritatem prosequuntur, interimunt, innoxium sang●●nem fundunt: That they may bring their horrible purpose to pass, they prosecute such as maintain the truth, murder them, and shed their innocent blood. Platina● in these words: 〈◊〉 mandata● Christi, quise Vicarium eius dicit, & cred●●● in verba Dei exurit: He condemneth the commands of Christ, who professeth and calleth himself his Vicar, and burneth such as believe in the words of God. Laurentius Valla, for writing freely against the forged donation of Constantine, lost his liberty and Country too. Occam was so bold to strike at the Pope's triple Crown, and to oppose some doctrines of the Church of Rome, that he was therefore excommunicated by the Pope, and so grievously persecuted, that he was constrained to fly to the Emperor for succour: to whom he made this reasonable motion; Tutor defend me gladio ego defendam te calamo: Defend thou me by thy sword or power, I will defend thee by my word or pen. Were the Waldenses and Albingenses murdered by thousands, for Heresy? No: * Contra walden's. c. 4. Rainerius cleareth them of that; Omnia rectè de Deo credunt: They believe all things rightly concerning God. Why then? Solummodo Romanam Ecclesians' blasphemant & Clerum. They speak evil of the Church of Rome and the Clergy. The opinions of the Albingenses, * Histor. lib. 10. saith Hallian, did not so much stir up the hate of the Pope and great Princes against them, as the liberty of speech did, wherewith they used to blame the vices and disolutenes of the said Princes and Clergy, yea to tax the vices and actions of the Popes themselves. This was the principal point that brought them into universal hatred. What was it so inflamed the Pope against the Hussites, that he proclaimed two Croisadoes, and employed great armies against them? Their administering the Sacrament in both kinds, maugre the sacrilegious decree of the Council of Constance? No. That * Cocle. l. 7. Hist. Hussit. he could and did dispense with all. It was that article of the Hussites, gathered out of their writings by Alanus. Papaest ●estia de qua habetur in Apocalypsi, 12. Datum est ei, bellum facere cum sanctis. The Pope is the beast, whereof it is said in the 12. of the Revelation; It is granted to him (the beast) to war with the Saints. Hincillae lachrymae. Nay rather, Hinc ille cr●or. This kindled such a fire against the dear servants of Christ, that nothing could or did quench it, but their blood shed in great abundance. For some hundreds of years, Assert. the chief Records and Monuments of the Western Church have been in the hands of our Romish adversaries, who have partly burned them, partly corrupted them, and partly kept them from us. And herein they deal with us, as Theramenes * Bodin. de repub. his Colleagues dealt with him: who having a purpose to question him for his life, first struck his name out of the Catalogue of the governors of the City, and then articled against him. And when he pleaded the privilege of all those whose names were written in the Catalogue, they barred him from this defence, saying, That he could not plead that privilege, because his name was not in the Catalogue. In like manner our adversaries take away from us, or make away from us our records; and then they non-sute us, for want of evidence. Gregory the great wrote many things prejudicial to the Pope's pretensions and usurpations, and therefore Sabinianus his successor burned diverse of his books, as a Platina in Sabin. Platina intimates: and Sixtus Senens●s b Lib. 4. Maiorem partem operum Gregori● statim post mortem eius amul● flagitiosissimi excusserunt. expressly affirmeth, That his most wicked emulators did burn the greater part of Gregory's works, presently after his death. c Auentin. annal. Boior, lib. 5. Hildebrand. in Templo Dei, sedet supra omne quod colitur, extollitur. Non solum, ad ambitionem suam occulendaem, fabulas comminiscittur, annals corrumpit, res gestas invertit, sed etiam coelestia Oracula adulterate. Aventine brandeth Pope Hildebrand with the mark of a corrupter of Chronicles, and a razor out of them the things that were done. Cocleus d Coc. hist. Hussit. l. 2. writeth of Hus, Dum duceretur ad locum poenae, videns in coemiterio libros suos comburi, subrisit proper eam stultitiam: While he was led to the place of execution, seeing in the Churchyard his books to be burned, he smiled at that folly. And his smiling may seem prophetical: for, notwithstanding all the means that they could possibly use, to root him and his writings out of the memory of men; yet both (through God's mercy) are preserved; and some few works also of Wicklef. But the great bulk of them, not much e Cocleus lib. 1. Scripsit quidam Episcopus ex Anglia esse ●ibi adhuc bodie duo maximae Volumma, quae inde Sancti undeantur aquare opera Augustini. inferior to the quantity of Saint Austin's works, could not escape the fire, being so narrowly searched after by the command of diverse Popes, yea and f Hen. 4. and Edw. 4. Kings too. If we might have access to the Pope's Library, we doubt not, but that we should find many more books written, both in Latin and Greek, against the Pope. This, Cope acknowledgeth in his Dialogues. As for corrupting ancient Authors, and circumcising later, I refer all that desire to be satisfied in this point, to T. I. his Treatise of the corruptions, etc. as also to the Indices expurgatorij, Quiroga and Sanctovall. The flourishing Fencer, Campian, in his first reason, termeth Protestants, difficiles Aristarch●s, 〈◊〉 arrepta virgula censoria, si quae ad stomachum 〈◊〉 faciunt obliterant. But do not Papists more truly deserve to be censured censorious Aristarchi? For as Aristarchus used to raze out the verses of Homer, which he liked not: so he that hath but half an eye, may see, that the Romanists, in their Indices expurgatorij, blot out of all sorts of Authors, whatsoever liketh them no●, or any way makes against them. But we hope, we shall shortly have a Vindex for their Index. And therefore, leaving the further prosecution of this point, I will now set down my last Assertion and general conclusion. Notwithstanding all the difficulties abovementioned, The general Conclusion. yet God hath not left his truth, though too much opposed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be without witness in all Ages, as may appear by the learned labours of diverse Protestants above * Remonstrance, about the end. mentioned: out of whose large fields, as also mine own particular observations, I have gleaned a brief Catalogue, which may suffice to point out a Protestant successive Church, from Age to Age. The beginning of the Catalogue. For witnesses to the truth of the Doctrine we now profess, and maintain in the Church of England, I allege, IN the first Age from Christ's birth, to 100 yeeeres, CHRIST JESUS. The twelve Apostles. Saint john Baptist. Saint Mark. Saint Luke. Saint Paul, with his scholars, Titus, Timothy, and the Churches planted or watered by them. Romans, Corinthians, etc. Clemens, about the year 90. Ignatius, about the year 100 with the Churches to whom he wrote. The Tralians, Magnesians, Tarsians, Philadelphians, etc. In the second Age, from 100 to 200. Polycarpus, 140. justin Martyr, 150. Methodius, 155. Dionysius Corinthiacus, 158. Hegesippus, 160. Melito Sardensis, 170. Polycrates, cum Synodo Asia●●ca, 180 Saint Irenaeus, 190. Clemens Alexandrinus, 200. These Professors of the truth (〈◊〉 denying others) I allege for the two 〈◊〉 centuries: further we proceeded not in 〈◊〉 Conference: and therefore, here I 〈◊〉 a stop for a time, and withal a challenge to M. Fisher, to set down the names 〈◊〉 his supposed Papists for these two 〈◊〉 Ages, together with such points of 〈◊〉 Romish Religion, as he will prove 〈◊〉 they maintained: which after he ha●● done, I will make good my witnesses, an● disprove his, and then proceed to 〈◊〉 succeeding Ages, even unto Luther, if 〈◊〉 permit. Hic rhodus, hic saltus. Hic modus, haec nostro signabitur area curr●▪ A defence of Doctor FEATLY his proceedings in the Conference, together with a refutation of Master FISHERS Answer (under the name of A. C.) to a Treatise entitled, The Fisher caught in his own Net. AS Velleius Paterculus observes, that In the battle at Philippi, in which Brutus should have taken Anthony to task; and Cassius Augustus; it fell out clean contrary, so that Brutus met with Augustus, and Anthony marched against Cassius: So it came to pass in this present combat. D. White prepared and provided to encounter M. Fisher, his former Antagonist; and D. Featly was entreated as in Assistant, to deal in a second place with M. Sweet, if occasion were offered. Yet upon a cunning trick of the jesuit, discovered immediately before the Conference, it was then on the place of the meeting, resolved otherwise by some that were principally interessed in the business, that D. Featly should begin with M. Fisher, and oppose him in the Jesuits question touching the visibility of the Protestants Church; and D. White (as there should be cause) should take off M. Sweet, if he interposed, as also answer in the contrary question propounded to the Jesuits, touching the Visibility of the Romish Church in all Ages. Thus D. Featly, who intended to be but an Assistant, contrary to his expectation, was made the principal Opponent in this Disputation. Wherein, that he might the better manage the truth's quarrel, and satisfy his Auditory, he set before his eyes certain rules, partly taken out of Scripture, partly out of the ancient Fathers, to direct his proceedings by them. The first rule is * Phil. 2. 3. Saint Paul's: Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory. God is not in the fire of contention, nor in the whirlwind of passion, but in the still voice of them, who in meekness of spirit seek the truth out of love of truth itself, not of desire of victory. Nolunt Scripture ae docere nisi eos qui doceri quaerunt: The Scriptures will not instruct those, who seek not to be instructed by them in this manner. Democritus fitly compared truth to a jewel in the bottom of a Well: Veritas in profundo dimersa. if the water be clear, we may easily discern it; but if troubled, it is impossible to see the bottom of the Well, much less discern the most precious jewel of truth lying in it. For this cause, D. Featly, in the beginning of the disputation, as is confessed by A. C. * Page 15. earnestly besought M. Fisher to deal sincerely, as in the sight of God, setting aside all passion, and by-respects: and when M. Sweet propounded that condition, that all bitter speeches should be avoided, D. Featly with the rest, most willingly accepted of it, and commended M. Sweet for proposing of it. The second rule is * Naz. Apolog. 1. Nazianzens: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: It is the best order in all speech and actions, to begin and end with God. According to which prescription, D. Featly began with a short Prayer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and ended partly with a * Thanksgiving. doxology, adding to his instance in Christ our Lord and Saviour, blessed for ever, at whose Name all knees must bow, both in heaven, and earth, and under the earth; partly, by an holy adjuration: M. Fisher, I charge you, as you will answer before Christ at the day of judgement. The third rule is * Ha●res. 76. Epiphanius his; who observeth in a Disputation against the Photinians, quòd adhibiti sunt, qui utrinque exciperent ea quae dicebantur, quae postea ab utraque parte obsignabantur: there were appointed Notaries, who did take that which was said on both sides, and their notes afterward were signed by both parties. According to which observation, M. Ailsbury was chosen and accepted of as Notary on both sides, and D. Featly did set his hand to each Syllogism, as likewise did M. Fisher to his Answers: and this schedule, containing the substance of the arguments and Answers in the end of the Conference, was sealed with three seals; the Earl of Warwick's, Master Boultons', and Master Bugs. The fourth rule is * Tertul. adversus judaeos. T●rt●llians, first, to 〈◊〉 the ground, and set up as it were the goals, by determining the state of the question. Summam quaestionis, saith he, certis line is determinemus, & adversus Marcionem, L. 17. His lineis materiam clausimus, inter quas congredimur. According to which prescription, D. Featly, as soon as he received the Question from M. Fisher, returned it in another paper, in which he briefly stated it. The fifth rule is * Aug. contra Cresc. l. 1. Saint Austin's, to observe Logic Form in Disputation. Quid tu disputas, si disputare non noveris? Quid est aliud dialectica, quam peritia disputandi? Nun etiam dialectice Christ us come Iudaeis egit? Why dost thou offer to dispute, if thou knowest not how to dispute? What is Logic, but the Art of disputing? Did not Christ dispute Logically with the jews? And a little after, Dialecticam nunquam doctrina Christiana for●●dat: The Christian doctrine never feareth Logic. According to which prescription, D. Featly desired, that both the opponent & respondent should be tied to Logic Form: for, nimble wits, like Proteus, will turn themselves into all Forms; and, unless they be held fast, and in a sort forced and wrung with the * Nex● Syllogistico. knots of Logical Arguments, they will never be brought to agnize the Truth. Aristotle speaks of certain * Woverus de Polymathia. Organa mechanica, artificial Frames used in Greece, quae teneros infantium artus coercerent, ne in prava deflecterentur, sed concinna illorum forma nihil foedum aspectu aut distortum praeferret: which frames served to keep strait the limbs and joints of the infants, that they should not go away, but keep due proportion, and a comely shape. Such artificial instruments are Logic Forms: they serve to make us to walk strait, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, neither treading inward nor outward in our discourses. To dispute without Logic, is to rule without a Ruler, or draw a Circle without a Compass, or steer without a Card. In which respect, although M. Fisher were very unwilling to be bound to his Logical behaviour, yet D. Featly had great reason to require it of him, because he bound himself to it, proposing all his Arguments in Logic Form, and disposing them in Logic Method; premising Arguments à priori, before his Argument à posteriori; and Syllogisms, before his Induction; beginning at the top in the first Age, and descending to the later, according to the order of time, nature & dignity. The most cunning Workman that ever▪ wrought with the tools of natural wit, forceth all Arguments into two kinds; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or reprehensorie. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or demonstrative. elenctical or reprehensive drive at an Adversary. Dicticall or demonstrative aim at a Thesis or Position of our own. The former sort serve to beat down an enemy's weapons on his own head; the later, to make good our own ground. The former may not unfitly be called, 〈◊〉 Arguments; the later, Simply and directly proving. D. Featly, in this Disputation, made use of both: first, of elenctical Arguments, to discover the weakness of his Adversaries; and then of Dicticall, to show the strength of the Protestants cause, and the Visibility of their Church in all Ages. The first Argument of the former sort was couched in these words: Although divine and infallible faith is not built upon deduction out of humane History. Which may be thus propounded at large: Whosoever propoundeth such a Question, in which he requireth a conclusion of faith to be proved out of mere humane Testimonies and Records, betrayeth his gross ignorance in Divinity. But M. Fisher propoundeth a Question, in which he requireth a conclusion of faith to be proved out of mere humane Histories and Records: Therefore M. Fisher betrayeth his gross ignorance in Divinity. The Mayor, or first Proposition, was proved by * Bel. l. 2. de Sacr. effec. c. 25 Bellarmine's confession; Historiae humanae faciunt tantùm fidem humanam, cui subesse potest falsum: Humane Stories and Records beget only an humane faith, or rather credulity subject to error. And it may be more strongly confirmed by the testimony of Tertullian: * De prescript. c. 16. Aliunde suadere possunt de rebus fidei, nisi ex Literis fidei? Can they otherwise persuade in matters of faith, than out of the Writ of faith? And Saint Augustine: * De nat. et great. c. 61. And Epist. 112. Si quid divinarum Scripturarum perspicua firmatur authoritate, sine ulla dubitatione credendum est: aliis vero testibus & credere vel non credere licet, &c Solis Canonicis debeo absolutum, sine ulla recusatione, consensum: I owe absolute consent, without any refusal, only to the Canonical Scriptures. The effect cannot exceed the cause; nor the conclusion, both the premises: and therefore we cannot build a divine and infallible conclusion (such are all conclusions de fide) upon mere humane testimonies, which are not of infallible truth. All other humane Histories come short of the Apocryphal Books of Scripture: for, you rank them with the Canonical Scriptures; and we give them the * Zanch. de Relig. christ. & alij. next place to them: yet the testimonies out of the Apocryphal of Scripture, may not be alleged to ground any conclusion of faith upon them, as * Ruf. in Symb. Ruffinus affirms in express words: Quae omniae legi quidem in Ecclesiis volucrunt, non tamen proferri ad authoritatem ex his fidei confirmandam: All which Books they would have read in the Churches, but not be produced to establish faith out of them. The Minor or Assumption is thus proved: The perpetual Visibility of the Church is a conclusion of faith, evidently grounded (as is confessed) on Christ's promise in Scripture. But M. Fisher requireth in his Question, the perpetual Visibility of the Church to be proved out of mere humane Authors and Stories, expressly excluding Scripture: Therefore M. Fisher propoundeth a Question, in which he requireth a conclusion of faith to be proved out of mere humane Histories and Records. The second elenctical or reprehensive Argument was couched in these words: Although this Question be grounded on uncertain and false s●pposals, etc. Which may be thus propounded at large. That Question which is grounded upon an evident false supposal, needeth not to be discussed, but ought rather to be exploded. But M. Fisher's Question is grounded upon an evident false supposal: Therefore M. Fishers Question needeth not to be discussed, but ought rather to be exploded. The Mayor, or first Proposition, is evident in itself: for, to such a Question there needeth no other Answer to be given, but simply to deny the supposal. The Minor, or second Proposition, was thus proved: First, if the names of all Professors are not, nor ever were, upon Record, than M. Fishers supposal is false, viz. that A Protestant Church could not have been visible in former ages, unless the names of all visible professors can now be showed. But all visible professors names are not, nor ever were on record, as it is certain, and confessed by A. C. p. 33. Therefore Master Fishers supposal is false; viz. that A Protestant Church could not have been visible in former ages unless the names of those visible Professors could be showed. Secondly, if all ancient Records are not now extant, than it is no good Argument, to say, The names of visible Protestants in all ages cannot now be showed upon Record; therefore they were never upon Record. But all ancient Records are not now extant: Therefore it is no good Argument, to say, that because the names of visible Protestants in all Ages cannot now be showed upon Record; therefore they were never upon Record. These Arguments Master Fisher passed by with a dry foot, and by his silence granteth it. Thirdly, the people of Africa mentioned by Pliny, were visible men, yet cannot their proper names be showed & proved out of good Authors: for, good Author's report, they had no proper names at all. With this rather tentative then serious instance, M. Fisher and Master Sweet were blanked: but Master Boulton, though he confessed in effect, that they were gone at the common Law: yet he sought to relieve them by the Chan●●●●, by saying, that Though those people had no proper names, yet they had some descriptions, and might be known by some periphrasis. But it may be replied, 1. A description or periphrasis is no proper name. 2. They cannot produce out of any good Authors, any particular description of these men, whereby they may be personally and individually distinguished one from another; but only a general description, that They are a people in Africa, near the hill Atlas, which have no proper names; and thus it will be easy to produce Protestants in all ages, in a general description of certain men, who opposed certain errors against, and besides the Doctrine of Scripture, and especially the errors of the Church of Rome. Fourthly, the Author and Head of the Heretics called Acephali, was a visible man, but his name cannot be showed and proved out of good Authors: for those Heretics were therefore called Acephali, or headless, because the certain Author and Head of that Heresy could never be known. And here, if it be lawful to pay Master Fisher with his own coin, a man might truly say, that both himself, and his assistant Master Sweet, and their good friend at a dead 〈◊〉, Master Boulton, were all nonplussed with this argument, for they replied nothing to it. Fiftly, the falsehood of Master Fisher's supposal (the defence whereof Master Sweet rashly undertook in the conference) may be farther manifested by diverse other instances; as First, there were 7000. in Elias time, who never bowed their knee to Baal: yet their names cannot be showed nor proved out of good Authors. Secondly, there were who opposed corrupt glosses of the Scribes and pharisees, and their false doctrine, or at least assented not unto it, in the age immediately before Christ's Incarnation: yet their names cannot be showed and proved out of good Authors. Thirdly, the first broacher of the errors touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost, and Authors of the schism and rent between the Greek and Latin Churches, were visible men, yet their names cannot be showed and proved out of good Authors. Fourthly, they who first brought into the Church the administration of the Sacrament under one kind only, were visible men: yet the names of * Greg de Valent. de legit. us. Eucharist. them cannot be showed nor proved out of good Authors. Fiftly, there were Bishops in almost every Diocese of England & Ireland, and other Countries, as also Parsons of Parishes, succeeding one the other for above 1000 years: yet the names of such Bishops and Parsons cannot be showed and proved out of good Authors. Sixtly, Master Fishers and Master Sweets Ancestors from Noah, according to the flesh, were visible men: yet all their names cannot be showed and proved out of good Authors. And here the Protestants might justly call for names, as the Papists did in the conference when their Champions were at a fault. First, there were a people of Africa, never christened by any proper names. Names, Names, where are their Names? Secondly, there was an Author of the Heresy of the Acephali. Names, Names, where is his Name? Thirdly, there were 7000. in Elias time, who never bowed their knees to Baal. Names, Names, where are their Names? Fourthly, there were those who opposed the corrupt glosses of the Scribes and pharisees in the age before Christ's Incarnation. Names, Names, where are their Names? Fiftly, there were those that first broached the error touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost. Names, Names, where are their Names? Sixtly, there were those that brought into the Church the administration of the Sacrament under one kind only. Names, Names, where are their Names? Seventhly, there were Bishops almost in each particular Diocese of England, and Ireland, and other Countries, as also Parsons of Parishes for above 1000 years. Names, Names, where are their Names? Eightthly, M. Fishers and Master Sweets Ancestors, descended from Noah, were visible men. Names, Names: where are their Names? The third elenctical or reprehensive Argument was implied in D. Featly's challenge to M. Fisher, to name any City, Town, Village or Hamlet, where the present Romish faith was taught for five hundred years & more next after Christ. And indeed here the Title of the Conference was verified, M. Fisher was caught in his own Net: for, in propounding the Question of the Visibility of the Church in all Ages, he spread a strong Net (as he thought) to catch D. White and D. Featly, in supposing it to be impossible for them to prove the Visibility of the Protestant Church in all Ages, especially in the Ages immediately going before Luther; but he was caught in his own Net, by being put to prove the Visibility of the Romish Church for five hundred years immediately after Christ. And therefore we turn his own Ordnance upon him, wherewith he intended to batter down the walls of our Zion. The true Church must have been visible in all Ages before Luther; yea, so visible, as M. Fisher pretendeth, that The Names of the Professors of the faith thereof may be showed and proved out of good Authors. The Romish Church hath not been so visible: Therefore the Romish Church is not the true Church. The Mayor or first Proposition is the Jesuits own. The Assumption is thus proved: No Church, holding the entire doctrine of the Council of Tre●t in general, or the fifteen Tenets set down in the Conference in particular, can be showed for five hundred years and more after Christ. But the Romish Church holdeth the doctrine of the Council of Trent in general, and those fifteen Articles in special: Therefore the Romish Church cannot be showed to have been visible for five hundred years after Christ. And first, that no Church within the space abovenamed, can be proved to have held the foresaid Tenets of the present Romish Church, was proved in the Conference by M. Fisher's silence, and much more by A. C. his silence in his Answer to the former Conference. Heer M. Fisher was as mute as a Fish. Campi●● in his tenth reason boldly affirmeth, that 〈…〉 prove the Romish faith: but we could not hear so much as any v●ces or 〈◊〉 from M. Fisher, to testify, much less to justify the Romish faith in the first and best Ages. Pour contrel. Pli●●● writes of the * Plin. l. 9 nat. hist. Poly●um in tantum Locusta pavet, ut si iuxta viderit, omni●● moriatur. ●●custa or Lobster, that he is so afraid of the 〈◊〉, that it is death for him to see him: so we may truly say, that M. Fisher was so afraid of the fifteen Articles mentioned in the Conference, to be justified by Antiquity, that it was death to him to name them. And therefore when he comes to that part of the Conference, he passeth away in an Homerical Cloud, saying, Heer D. Featly made an insolent Challenge. But A. C. durst not set down so much as the words of the Challenge in particular, lest his Catholic Disciples should be scandalised at it. Secondly, the Inuisibility of the Romish Church, for many hundreds of years after Christ, may be inferred from the confessions of our learned Adversaries. Alfonsus' confesseth for Indulgences; Roffensis, for Purgatory; and Gregory de Valentia, for Communion under one kind, that they were no part of the belief or practice of the ancient Church. Verily I believe, Alfonsus à Castro and Roffensis needed a pardon for so expressly professing the novelty of Pardons and Indulgences. * L. 8. contr● haeres. verbo. indulg. Alfonsus' his words are, Multa sunt Posterioribus nota, quae Vetustissimi Scriptores prorsus ignorârunt. De Transubst antiatione, rara in Antiquis mentio; de Purgatorio ferè nulla. Quid ergo mi●um, si ad h●nc modum contigerit de Indulgentijs, ut apud Priscos nulla sit menti●? There are many things known to later Writers, which the Ancients were altogether ignorant of. There is seldom any mention of Transubstantiation among the Ancients; almost none of Purgatory. What marvel then, if it so fall out with Indulgences, that there should be no mention of them by the Ancients? * Contrae Lutherum, c. 18. Roffensis strikes in unisons with him: cum Purgatorium tam serò cognitum 〈◊〉 receptum universae Ecclesiae fury, quis iam de I●●●lgentijs mirari possit? Sith Purgatory hath been so lately known and received of the whole Church, who can now wonder concerning Indulgences? As for communion under one kind, and depriving the Laity of the Cup (which Gelasius calleth, Grande sacrilegium, a great sacrilege) that it was an abuse lately crept into the church, we need no more pregnant testimony, than Gregory de * Lib. de legit. usu Eucha●. c▪ 8. Valentia voluntarily affordeth us: 〈◊〉 negamus, qu●m utraque species olim administr●●● sit, ut apparet ex Paulo, 1. Cor. 10. Cypriano, Athanasio, H●eronymo, etc. We deny not, that the Communion in ancient times was administered under both kinds, as appears out of Saint Paul, Cyprian, Athanasius, Hierom, etc. and in his tenth Chapter. Et quidem quando primùm vigere c●pis consuetudo communicandi sub alterâ tantùm specie in aliquibus Ecclesiis, minimè constat: coepit autem 〈◊〉 c●nsuetudo in Ecclesiâ Latinâ esse generalis non 〈◊〉 ante tempor● Concilij Constantiensis: And truly it appears not when this custom of communicating under one kind only, began in some Churches: but it began not to be a general custom in the Latin Church, much before the Council of Constance. I will here instance in one Particular more: and That is the public Service in an unknown tongue, which was brought into the Church by Pope Vitalian; who, as * 〈◊〉▪ Lect. Wolphius showeth, brought-in the Latin Service, and obtruded it to the whole Church precisely, in the year 666, which is the number of the Name of the Beast in the Apocalypse. I entreat the Reader to take special notice of it, that * Iren. l▪ 5. adverse. haeres. c. 3● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nomen habit 666. et valde verisi●ile est, & 〈◊〉 regnum hoc habet voc●●ulum: Latin elim sunt qui nunc regnant. Irenaeus findeth the numeral Letters, 666, in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and Wolphius proveth out of Popish Writers, that this very year, 666, the Latin Bishop Vitalianus commanded Latin Service in the whole Christian world. And this may serve for the confirmation and illustration of the former sort of Arguments used by D. Featly in the Conference. For the later, which were Dicticall or demonstrative, partly drawn à priori, from the cause, and propounded in Syllogistical Form; partly à posteriori, from the effect; and propounded in an Induction; they march on in their own strength, and need no convoy. Some weak resistance hath been made by some stray Troops, who are met withal in the precedent Remonstrance. But now, after five Months, M. Fisher, levying all his forces, biddeth them battle, and proclaimeth it by his Herald, A. C. A Prooem to the Answer to the Conference. WE read a pleasant Story in 〈◊〉, of a fellow, that, being somewhat heavy, took a brass pot which he had in his hand, and put it under his head for a pillow, and so laid him down to sleep: but finding That his pillow somewhat uneasy, with all the wit he had, he rose up, and filled it full of feathers and straw within, and thereby thought he had made it much softer, and took a nap upon it. If I should not apply this Story, the intelligent Reader soon would: You, M. Fisher, are the man, who finding your former Answers, upon which you relied in the Conference, to be very hard, uncouth, and not to be endured; now, in this your defence of them, you as it were fill the brass pot within, with feathers and straw, that is, stuff out and bombast your former Answers with verbal distinctions, impertinencies, tautologies, cavils, and untruths: for all the feathers and straw, the pot is brass still, as hard as ever it was; and, for all your new qualifications and falsifications, your former Answers are as harsh and unsufferable, as ever before: so that he needeth a brow of brass, that will rest or rely upon them. For example: 1. About the beginning of the Conference, you were driven to these Solecisms in Grammar, to affirm, that Two utrums imply not two quaeres; that whether the Church, etc. and whether the names, etc. make but one whether; that the Copulative (and) coupleth nothing; that these words (It is not) in the singular, are to be referred to that part of the question, Whether names, etc. in the plural. To these absurd paradoxes in Grammar, Page. 17. against all common sense, you answer, To cut off all needless wrangling about the Adverb utrum, whether, and the Copulative et, and, as if Grammar-scholars had been disputing, rather than grave Divines, who were not to stand on rigour of Grammar, etc. Belike, grave Divines are privileged to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unlettered, unchristcrost, to utter nonsense, to speak false English at their pleasure, as the Pope did false Latin, when he said, Fiatur, for fiat, in contemptum omnium Grammaticorum. But, as the Roman Grammarian told the Emperor, who used an uncouth word, * Bentius orat. Civitatem ab Imperatore hominibus d●ri posse, verbis non posse, that it was in the power of the Emperor, to make men free of the City of Rome, but not words: so let me tell you, that the Pope may dispense with you for breaking the rules of your order, in so much intermeddling (as you do) in civil affairs; but he cannot dispense with you, for breaking of Grammar Rules▪ Priscian may lay his action against you in all 〈◊〉, & there lies no prohibition in a case of this nature. 2. You were driven to these Solecisms in Logic. First, In a true Syllogism to answer to the conclusion: For which you would have been ●issed out of the Schools in our Universities. Secondly, distinguish upon a proposition, and apply the distinction to no term. To the former you answer, Th● idle exception, Page 24. M. Fisher, attending to the 〈◊〉, did not regard; but might have told him, that it is not unusual, after a distinction made both to Mayor and Minor, to apply the like to the conclusion. It is true, he might have said so (as you do now): but is that sufficient without farther proof? Name the place where it is usual. I am sure it is always improper and needless: for the conclusion in disputation, is always a proposition given by the answerer, to the opponent, to infer & conclude it in his argument: and therefore it is always supposed to be agreed upon for the meaning of it, before it comes to be concluded in a Syllogism. The Answerer may always distinguish of premises, because they are new propositions not before debated upon: but the conclusion is either the original Thesis itself, propounded by the answerer, (which if it be ambiguous, he ought to have explicated it, in setting down the sta●e of the Question) or it is one of the premises in the Opponents Syllogism: in which, if there lay any ambiguity, the Respondent ought to have distinguished upon it before, when it was the Mayor or Minor proposition; and not, when being distinguished or denied before by the Respondent, it is now by the Opponent in a true Syllogism made the Conclusion. To the second you answer: Page. 26. That which D. Featly thinketh to be a strain of new Logic, to distinguish upon a proposition, without applying the distinction to any particular term, is not so strange as he maketh it. As for example: When one saith, An Aethiopian is white, neither the term Aethiopian alone, nor the term white alone, in itself, needeth distinction, because it is not equivocal. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: What a strange speech is this? Is not the term albus, white, equivocal? Do not almost all later Logicians give it, as a most known instance of an equivocal term? Which may be taken two ways, either absolutely, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in whole, as when we say, Nireus is albus, Nireus is a white man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, secundum quid, in some respect or part, as when we say, Ethiopes est albus, a black Moor is white, to weet, in his teeth. It is true, that as Poison infecteth the whole blood, yet the substance of it lies but in one principal part: so an equivocation in any part of a proposition, in some sort, affecteth the whole: yet this equivocation lieth always in one term, to weet, in the subiectum, or praedicatum, if the proposition be properly equivocal; and in the copula and construction, if it be properly amphibologicall: as, A●o te, Aeacida, Romanos vincere posse: te Roman●s, or Romanos te. But note M. Fisher (if you knew it not), that one of the three termini in a Syllogism, may contain, many words: neither can you name any ambiguous Proposition, in which it may not be showed, in which Logic term the ambiguity lieth. 3. You were driven in the Conference to this Solecism in Philosophy, to affirm, That Media may be said directa, yet not to tend ad directum finem. Hereto he answers, * Page 30. If M. Fisher did say these words, his meaning may be gathered out of his former explication; in which he showed, how the direct end of the Disputation was not, to treat of particular controversies, but to find out, first by other means, the true visible Church, whose professors names may be showed in all Ages out of good Authors: those Media therefore Directa, as D. Featly termed them, might in some sort be so termed, as being directed by D. Featly, to his own end, of transferring the question to particular Conferences, but not ad directum finem, that is, not ordained to the direct end of the Disputation, viz. to she● a visible Church of Protestants in all Ages, whose names may be showed out of good Authors. Of the end of the Dispute, & how my arguments tended directly to that end, enough hath been said before in the Remonstrance. But admitting that they tended not to the direct end, M Fisher should have said, Your Media were not Directa, because they tended not ad directum finem: but he saith, Your Media were Directa, but not tending ad direct ●●finem; thereby flatly contradicting himself in the same proposition: for, Media, or means, are said in relation to an end; therefore, if they are direct, they must needs tend to the direct end. To say, Media are Directa, and not tending ad directum finem, to the direct end, is all one, as if he should say, This shoe indeed is fit, but not for the foot: This is the straight way, but not to the place you would go to: The aim is right, but not to the mark: The saddle serveth fit, but not to the beasts back: The knife is keen, and sharp, but not to cut. For, as a shoe is said to be fit only in respect of the foot: and the way strait, in respect of a man's intended journey: and the ●ime right, in respect of the mark: and the saddle to serve fit, in respect of the beasts back, for which it is made; & the knife keen, in respect of cutting: so are Media said to be Directa, only 〈…〉. And therefore I had just cause then to use the English Proverb, This is a Bull; and now the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 4. You were driven to the worst solecism of all in Divinity, to refuse to answer to Christ and his Apostles, yea though you were solemnly adjured thereunto. To this (to 〈◊〉 impudent denials & apparent contradiction observed by the witnesses in the Attestation) you answer, Pag. 64. & 65. that You would not permit me to divert either to dispute about Christ, or his Apostles, or any other point, till Names were given in all ages: Pag. 65. for, this had been, say you, to follow two Hares at once, and so to catch neither. A light Answer, Master Fisher, to so weighty a Charge. Christ and his Apostles should not have been so slightned. But you say, To instance in Christ and his Apostles in the first Age, was, To follow two Hares. Do you remember which was the Hare we were to hunt? Was it not the Visibility of the Church in all Ages before Luther? And could a man possibly take a more direct and orderly way, then to begin with the first Age, and the first of the first Age? If this were not the way to catch the Hare, your own Huntsmen, that prating 〈◊〉, and his honest transcriber S. N. were at a great fault: for, they begin their Catalogue where I do. Will you not be angry, Master Fisher, if I tell you the truth? I hunted not two Hares at once: but when you were devising and printing your Answer in the * By Islington. Cellar or Cell●eer the Windmill, your head swom, and your brains ran round, and you knew not well yourself what you did, as will appear to any, who will compare my Reply with your Answer, which I here transcribe verbatim (●hongh not always following you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because you often double, and more often start aside); requiring of you the like. And I begin with your Title. An Answer to a Pamphlet, entitled, The Fisher catched in his own net. In which, by the way, is showed, that The Protestant Church was not so visible in all Ages, as the true Church ought to be; and consequently, is not the true Church, of which men may learn infallible faith necessary to salvation, by A. C. Dignum patellâ operculum; such a cup, such a Cover; such ware, such inscription on the outside of the box: such as the Inn is, such is the sign: such as the Clock is, such is the Index or Finger of the Dial. A cracked Cup, and a false Cover; naughty ware, and as bad an inscription; a cheating Inn, and a lewd Sign; an uncertain Clock, & a lying Index; a book full of falsehood & fraud, & never a true word in the title: for, neither is it an answer to the Phamphlet so entitled, but a Cavil at some passages therein; neither in this Answer (as he termeth it) is showed, that The Protestant Church is not the true visible Church, but rather the contrary, as shall appear by discussing it; neither was it penned by A. C. but by Master Fisher, who before was caught in his own net, and now danceth in a net, under the name of A. C. thinking, that no man seeth him: yet your Net is not so close, but that I plainly see you thorough it; and I guess at the reason why you shroud yourself under the Characters of A. C. There are many passages in this Answer; in which, Master Fisher's ingenuity, and sincerity, and modesty, are set upon the Last. These commendations of Master Fisher would have lost all their grace in his own mouth, as a Turkeys doth the lustre on the finger of a dead man: but it becomes A. C. well enough, to blazon the Arms of Master Fisher. Moreover, by thus borrowing the letters of your friend's name, you play fast and loose. If any man like your Answer, than it is yours; but if he dislike it, than it is A. C▪ as * Orat. pro Cu● Plantio. Tully being girded at by Laterensis for a common jester, answereth, Quod quisque dicit, id ●e dixisse dicunt: ego autem si quid est quod mihi 〈◊〉 esse videatur, et homine ingenu● dignum atqu● doct, non aspernor▪ stomachor verò, cum a●●rum non me digna in me conseruntur: Other men's jests are fathered upon me: and if they be witty jests, and have salt in them, I am content to father them; but if dry and unsavoury, I will not own them. In like manner in your book: — Si quid tamen aptius exit: Quanquam haec rara avis est: siquid t●men aptius exit, If there be any thing sharply spoken, & to good purpose, M. Fisher will challenge that to himself: but if any thing be spoken impertinently and flatly (as indeed the greater part of your Music goes upon flats) then A. C. must bear it out. Howsoever, in my judgement, M. Fisher, you had better have taken off your mask, and dealt openly: for, by this concealing your true name, you give yourself a blow, and your cause a wound. Were not you a Nominal in the Conference? Did not you stand wholly, in a manner, upon Names? and will not you now set your own name to your own Work? A man would think, that you, who are stored with so many * Per●y; alias Stebden; alias, Fisher. Names, might have bestowed, at least, one of your old cast Names at full length on your Title-page, and not put your Reader to spell A. C. who, I can assure you, spells them unhappily. One spelleth thus: An Answer written by A. C. that is, A Counterfeit; another, A. C. A Caviller; a third, An Answer written by A. C. that is, by A Cox-&c. quod dicere nolo: but I spare you, and leave your Title, and come to your Preface. 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 any thing. Doctor FEATLY'S Answer. AS our Blessed Saviour spoke to the High-priests servant, john 18. 23 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 any thing untruely, 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 itself, or the relation thereof, malo in aliorum opinione relinquere, quam 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 any thing by it? By your miserable evasions, and manifest flight and tergiversation, you, who were ante pugnam avidus & tumidus, were in pugnâ pavidus & timidus: like Captain john, mentioned by Sinesius, Epist. 104. who in the main fight, fled amain, digging his horse-sides, letting loose the Reanes, laying on amain with a switch, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. It will be said, If you fled in such manner, why did not I follow after you? Because in your flight you broke 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 de Incar. Christ. Simo▪ discipuli est is Scripturarun, per eas nobiscum incedite; si diversa a Scriptures vultis fabulari, cur nobiscum decortaetis, qui neque loqui neque audire sustinemus, quod extraneum sit ab istis, dicente Domino, Si manseritis in sermone meo, eritis mei Discipuli? Athanasius: If you are the Disciples of the Scriptures, and Christ's scholars, walk with us by them: if you will talk extravagantly and diversely from the Scriptures, why do you contend with us, who dare not to speak or hear any thing 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 divers 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 Hierom justly taxed Sabinian a Deacon, for deflowering a Nun, Sabinian reflects upon Saint Hierom, and lays foul aspersions of lewdness upon him: but the difference was that which S. Hierom charged Sabinian with, which was per veram convictionem, by true conviction: but that which Sabinian charged Saint Hierom 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 convictionem, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, here cannot carry it; first, because the particulars you deny, nearly touch your credit and reputation: therefore it stands you upon, Cic. in Ver. 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 Friar, and therefore (according to the ancient English Proverb) a L. with a rhyme to it. Thirdly, you are a jesuit: and therefore (unless you will swerve from the rule of the prime men & Ringleaders 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 divers falsehoods of the Protestant Relator, you reserve not in your mind, Feigned 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 honour 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, in stead 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 crutches. Certainly, neither jacobus de Voragine, nor Surius, nor Copgrave, 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, etc. 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 who ever 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 Sigismond, burnt john Hus and Hierom 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-Catholique faith, and the destruction of the opposers thereof. The first that broke the Oath of Allegiance in heaven, was the Devil; and by it, became a Devil: and the first that broke 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 humane society together, may be either cut asunder by Papal Dispensation, or cunningly untied by jesuitical Equivocation. Pray tell me in good earnest: Sprang the doctrine of Equivocation (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? Here you have Names, names of your own trade, and some of them Wardens of your own equivocating Company. I cannot find either Nanarrus, or Gregory de Valentia, or Southwell, or Tolet, or Parsons, among the Catalogue of Protestant Writers. These upholders of Equivocation, 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 Protestant's are so ambitious, as to steal from your Garlands the fairest Flowers wherewith you adorn your heads and pens. If any such Flowers 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 falsehood, 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 Story's abovementioned, and that agreeable to their names and titles, fide Graeca. A pretty Pageant: A jesuit cities a jesuit against Geneva; and a Romish Priest, a new no-Bishop of Chalcedon, against an English Minister. Aruspex Aruspicem: one * Fortune-tellor. Gipsy quotes another for the truth of his Art. Simia gives his word for Pseudolus. Belial cities Belzebub the god of Flies, for a Flyblown scoffing jergon at Geneva: There was a decree made, defining it to be lawful to lie for the credit and honour of the Gospel. Where was this Decree or Canon made? In the Senate, or in the Consistory? By the Syndicks, or by the Presbytery? 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 itself to the Pope. And at that time, the Pope's Holiness, to assure the Genevians of his unfeigned love and friendship to their city, sent them a Copy of the great Charter of Constantine's donation, and in the backside 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. Titus 1. 12 Hereunto I answer, first, out of Saint Paul, that the Cretians 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 uncontrollable Evidence, and the public justice of a whole Kingdom, is none of the honestest among the Cretians. 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 Atomies 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 equivocated whilst he was alive, so his face equivocated and doubled after his death. As in Plautus his Amphitryo, 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, Boves arabant, & asini pascebant iuxta; the oxen ploughed, 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 honour and credit of the Gospel, he meriteth to have the first syllable of his name to be cut off. As jeconias is called by the Prophet, Conias: so Eudaemon should be called from henceforth, * Devil john. 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 bystanders, 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 every one may believe it, so far as it relateth any thing 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 advantageously 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, than was said in the conference itself: 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 itself. 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 favour, 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 misreports 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 urere, to blur with my pencil a true Picture drawn by myself. Itaque hîc non modò crimen non haeret, sed nec Iesuitae 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 judgement 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 eodem 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 yourself 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Untruths. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Contradictions. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Idle observations and exceptions. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Impertinences, or maled proposes. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Vain repetitions. Of the first Head, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Untruths, read Title-page; An Answer written by A. C. UNTRUTH: 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, than was said in the Conference itself. Untruth: 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 judgement. A double Untruth. First, the words, I warn, I command, were never spoken by me. Secondly, those words, As you will answer it at the day of judgement, 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 forborn. Secondly, that ●●thing should be spoken or heard, but to the purpose. Untruth. 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 Untruth. 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 writer of note, who held the particulars abovenamed, 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. Untruth: for, the witnesses to the Conference, perfectly remember, & directly affirm, that it was said. Besides, this I spoke out of my paper, which I have yet to show: and no one thing more moved M. Bugs, and some other in the Conference, than 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 in general, 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. Fishér did not speak. Untruth: 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. Fisher's 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. Untruth: for, immediately upon those words of mine, that the Inference of the effect by the cause, was not transitio à genere in genus, etc. D. Goad interposed, saying; M. Sweet, You ones learned better Logic in Cambridge, than 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, etc. Page 32. But D. White did not speak thus; neither did he, in all the conference, make any such long discourse. Untruth: 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 showed Sir Humphrey Lined 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. Untruth: 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. Untruth. So many words, almost so many untruths; and, God be thanked, there are witnesses enough 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 * Ep. 148. Conceditur iis qui Thylem transierunt, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Synesius, may lie by authority, and without control. Of the second Head, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 showed, etc. 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 showed in all Ages. But the Protestant Church holdeth this faith: * See the Protestant Relation of the Conference, page 21. line 23. 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 showed in all Ages. To this Mayor Proposition I added, page 21. The Mayor 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 enterprise they undertaken, 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. CONTRADICTION. Doctor Featly professeth & acknowledgeth, Contradiction the first. that The true Church ought to be so visible, as that it is able to name professors in all ages. Doctor Featly holdeth not, that The true Church ought to be so visible, etc. but disputed ad hominem, and ex concessis adversarij, not according to his own judgement. Page 32. M. Fisher had no reason to divert to particular matters, in regard it was his Adversary's fault, to spend so long time in impertinent Syllogisms. And page 48. Your Lordship may remember the substance of all the proof to have consisted in this, that The true Church ought always to be 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 transferred the Question. And in many other places, he calls my Argument, from the truth of faith to the Visibility of the Church, A diversive Proof. And page 34. Dilatory and impertinent Syllogisms. Yet Page 23. he saith, In ask which is the true visible Church, we ask, at least virtually, which is the true faith, in regard the true visible Church cannot be without the true faith: yes therefore do we ask which is the true Church, that of it we may learn what is the true faith. And page 69. line 14. That the right order of things requireth, th●● first it only be disputed, to whom the faith belongeth: which is all one (say you) as if he should say, Which is the true visible Church? CONTRADICTION. In the Question touching the Visibility of the true Church, it is impertinent, and a diversion, to dispute of the true faith. In the Question of the visibility of the true Church, Contradiction the sec● it is not impertinent nor a diversion, to dispute of the true faith; because the Question of the true faith is, virtually at least, included in the Question of the true Church. Page 37. Doctor Featly in his rising, turned to Master Fisher, saying, Will you dispute upon Christ and his Apostles, or no? To which Master Fisher said, I will, if you will stay; And in the same page, Master Fisher did not prohibit him (Doctor Featly) to begin with the names of Christ and his Apostles. And again: M. Fisher expressed his yielding to dispute about Christ and his Apostles two several times; once thus: I will dispute of them in due place. Another time thus: I will, if you will stay. Yet Pag. 64. he writeth thus, M. Fisher and M. Sweet still kept the Adversary to the point, and would not permit him to divert, either to dispute about Christ and his Apostles, or any other point, until names were given in all ages; The which course they took upon just and good reason. And Pag 65. he allegeth two reasons for it. See them there. And Page 71. M. Fisher had good reason and right to defer disputing with him (D. Featly) out of Scripture, of Christ and his Apostles, until he had made his full induction of names. CONTRADICTION. Master Fisher permitted Doctor Featly to dispute about Christ and his Apostles. 〈…〉 Master Fisher permitted not Doctor Featly to dispute about Christ and his Apostles. Master Fisher expressly yielded, that D. Featly should begin with Christ and his Apostles. Master Fisher yielded not that D. Featly should begin with Christ and his Apostles, Contradiction the fourth. nor dispute about them, nor any other point, until names were given in all ages. A curious eye might easily discern many more contradictions in this Answer of Master Fisher: but these may suffice to veri●ie the truth of that observation, or, to speak more properly, that observation of the truth, to wit, that she usually taketh this revenge of her adversaries, that they who contradict her in the beginning, contradict themselves before the end: for truths are always concord's, but falsehoods are very often discords, even among themselves. Of the third Head 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 hart, or memoriter? Pier 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 dozen 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 Pier 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 〈◊〉, etc. And what if he had protested, sitting 〈◊〉 Unless the Relator, Master Fisher, would intimate, that he is alius stans, 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 grey 〈◊〉 and gravity of a Doctor, and a Dean, to have laughed and fleered so much, as Doctor White did, etc. 〈◊〉 for Doctor Featly, both his looks, speeches, 〈◊〉 and gestures were such, as did not become him; 〈◊〉 might better have beseemed a Stage-player, than a Doctor, and an Archbishop's Chaplain. As if (forsooth) none were fit to be a Dean of a Church▪ or an Archbishops 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 afternoon at Flies with a neat and slender iron bodkin. Of the fourth Head, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 cavilled 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 * See the introduction to the defence. nonsense? to speak as ordinary men speak, and to speak as no man speaks? I called faith eternal in that sense, as the Apostle calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the eternall-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 spoke 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 Cavil; 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 extern; 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 perpetual, 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 Mayor 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 beside, a proof à priori and à posteriori, are diverse kinds of proofs. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: 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 defence 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 subalternal 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 defence of it, deserve to be sent to fustitudinas ferricrepinas Insulas, ubi vivos homines mortui incursant boves. 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? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Here 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 Orthodoxal Christians out of Scriptures: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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, than 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. Prove, 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 bore alleging of the Pope's 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 judgement of it, returned it back again in the words of the Poet; I'll refer aliter saepe solebatidem. 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ergo ne pereat bre●ibus mihi charta li●ellis▪ Dicatur potius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And therefore, passing them in 〈◊〉, from the contents of your Book, I hasten to 〈◊〉 Text. Touching the occasion and issue of the Conference. Protestant Relation. EDWARD BUGS, 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 aforesaid Gentleman came first to doubt of his Church, and consequently of his religion, etc. 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 from the beginning to the ending there is a string of poison; throughout) yet because the occasion 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 ourselves upon the place, for the papers sent to the old Gentleman (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 than the Orator 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 〈◊〉 avoweth them, as followeth. 〈…〉 The answer of S. Humphrey Lind, touching diverse passages in the Protestant Relation, about the occasion and issue of the Conference, excepted against by the jesuit. COncerning the occasion of the Conference, I a●ow, that (according to his Majesty's command) I did set down the truth of the occasion briefly and faithfully, to my best remembrance, as is already extant in print. And whereas (fol. 4.) Master Fisher saith, he set down two questions with my consent, and the old Gentlemans; the first whereof being allowed by both of us, Master Fisher wrote, It is granted; I affirm, that in process of discourse, I then allowed, that the Church is more or less visible at all times: but, that I did grant a necessity of such visibility as he intendeth, or that I observed what M. Fishers marginal note was, I utterly deny. And whereas (page 12.) Master Fisher complaineth of the inequality of the Auditory, compared with the few which Master Fisher brought: To this I say, that, upon my credit, I did not acquaint four persons with the meeting, more than those that I invited to dinner. Howsoever, I doubt not, but that he is rather glad he had no more Auditors of his own side; and by this time, is more ashamed of his cause, then of the paucity of his parties th●re present. And yet I will let him know (for the small acquaintance I have among the Papists) I was able to number full twenty of that side present. And verily, had I purposedly drawn thither so much company, the Jesuits ought me thanks for it, as therein deserving well of the Catholic cause, by bringing a troup of spectators, to view the foil of our own side, in a question reputed by the Jesuits so disaduantageous to us: wherein, forsooth, the Protestants (as is triumphed, page 33.) are so far from being able to produce three professors in every age, t●at they are not able to name one; to say nothing of Christ and his Apostles (for, they were not worthy to be answered) not one Author; no not one Actor that dares oppose two such learned Jesuits in such a trial. Again (page 16.) whereas it is said, there was an unseasonable motion made by Sir Humphrey Lined to Master Sweet; I answer, that I was induced for certain reasons, then to move Master Sweet to dispute upon Transubstantiation. First, the standers by did well perceive, that the old man Master Fisher was much woorried, and the Auditory much wearied with his saying nothing, and writing little to the purpose. Secondly, a Romified Lady being present, and being troubled with those dull and weak answers, did then entreat me to interpose, and dispute of Transubstantiation for her instruction. And lastly, I add, that I had proposed this question to Master Sweet at my house, 8. weeks before, where his leisure then would not give him leave to dispute of it: and now I conceived, he was well armed for a second encounter. Again, where it is related in the Conference, that I told M. Bugs, that the Church was in Christ and his Apostles, etc. The jesuit saith in the margin there, A weaker Refutation, as is showed in the ensuing Discourse. A very weak and insufficient answer, as is showed hereafter. Surely the jesuit had a weak memory, and forgot a farther Reply; or else other answer he could not make to disprove it. Neither, by Master Fishers leave, was it so weak and insufficient an answer as he gave me, when, upon his first meeting, falling into conference about the Real presence, which Master Fisher would prove out of these words, Hot est corpus meum; I answered, that Scotus, & Cameracensis, and Bellarmine, were of opinion, that that Text was not strong enough to enforce Transubstantiation. To which objection, he gave this Answer as a full satisfaction to the standers-by: What care I for Bellarmine, or Scotus, or Cameracensis? Again, by Master Sweets leave, it was not so weak and insufficient an answer, as when I propounded to him four questions, viz. The worship of Images, Prayer in an unknown tongue, Communion in one kind, and Transubstantiation; with this assurance, in the presence of Recusants, that if he could prove either all, or but any one of those, held by the ancient Fathers in the Primitive Church, according to that form of doctrine prescribed in the Council of Trent; I would then subscribe to Popery. All his answer was, that he brought a book that would prove them all. So for that time I was content, he should be saved by his book. But Doctor Featly (in whose hands he is now) will not let him escape so easily; but, calling him into the inner bar, will find, that non legit ut Clericus. At that time Master Sweet farther added, that he for his part had other business, and could not intend to argue with me about those questions. If his superior had heard him, certainly he would have enjoined him penance, for neglecting so fai●e an opportunity of converting such an Heretic as he takes me to be: he knows, there ought to be no business pretended, where there had been a possibility to make a proselyte. Lastly, concerning the issue of the Conference, I avow and protest, that old Master Bugs came then to me, and gave me thanks in the same room before his departure, and told me, that he well perceived, it was be the great brags of the adversaries for their Church; that he well perceived, they could say but little for it: and withal, he did acknowledge himself to be so well satisfied at that time, that he professed unto me, that if his son would not leave his religion, and the priests company, he would leave him, etc. HUMPHREY LIND. The Protestant Relation. Paragraph the first, touching the entry into the Conference. DOctor White, and D. Featly, being invited to dinner by Sir Humphrey Lind, 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 showed and proved out of good Authors. This Question being delivered to the party's abovenamed, 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 summoned 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 any more than 〈◊〉 only entire Question, as Sir Humphrey 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, offendere in limine, to stumble as a man is going out adoors, in lifting his leg over the threshold. You do so, M. Fisher: you stumble at the first setting your foot out adoor, and (which is far worse) you stumble at three straws. 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●ther: yet being over-entreated to be there as an Assistant 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 interrogative 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 errand. 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 tergiversation, etc. 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 uncivilly 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, etc. 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 Lind 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 overlashed, in charging you with the disspreading 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 Margin, viz. I will answer, that it was not; and demanded of M. Fisher, whether this were his own hand: which 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 truth's quarrel? Verily, if you prescribe no better laws in this kind than those that are set down in the Conference, and avowed in your defence, 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, etc. you are fitter to be a Lawgiver among the * Alogi, a sort of Heretics. Alogi, than 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 forborn; 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 colour on his and M. Sweet's miserable shifts and evasions: responsum nullum dant praeter unicum, 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 Austen, 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 unsavoury Answers of M. Sweet's, You feign a Proviso 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-al-leadged, were to the purpose, and touched the very▪ Apple of the eye of the Question, shall be showed in due place. In the mean time, let the Reader note, that M. Fisher taketh more liberty, than the feigned supposititious decree of Geneu●, giveth him: for, that alloweth a man, only to lie for God's honour; but here M. Fisher coineth 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 Unlearned. You bear them in hand, that there was no such thing in the world as a Protestant, before Luther; and that all the world 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 overcomne, 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 superaboundant 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, etc. 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 offence. 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 superaboundant satisfactions, nor your dry suppers without the Lords Cup, nor your solitary Communions without Communicants, nor your unintelligible prayers, nor your ignorant devotion, nor your irregular canonising of Traitors, nor your painted flames o● Purgatory, nor your coney-catching 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. D. Featly. There are two Quaeres in your Question: First, Whether the Protestant Church were in all Ages visible; and secondly, Whether the Names of visible Protestants in all Ages can be showed, etc. M. Fisher. There are not two Quaeres or parts in the Question: it is but one Question. D. White. Where there are two Propositions, with two distinct Utrums, there are two Questions, etc. M. Fisher. Conclude any thing syllogistically, D. Featly. D. Featly. And is a Conjunction copulative, and must add somewhat to That that goes before. It is all one, as if you should expound the words of the Apostle, Provide honest things before God and men; before God, that is, before men. 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 Adverb Vtrùm, whether, and the Copulative et, and; as if Grammar-scholars had been disputing, rather than grave Divines, who were not to stand on rigour 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 showed 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 showed 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, etc. And whether the Names, etc. 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 margin, 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 senslesly, 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 showed: what construction then will you make of the latter clause, & whether the Names may be showed? Is not this just like Battus his spell in the Latin Poet; — Subillis Montibus, inquit, erant, et erant sub montibus illis: Or the like of the French: Car com● ' vn' Aigle mountant an clair soleil. Car c'estoite vn' Aigle mountant an clair soleil. It is as if I should propound such a question: Whether Jesuits be so honest men, that they will not equivocate, and whether they will not equivocate? 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 nonsense? But you say, that it is for Grammar Scholars to argue about the Adverb Vtrum, and the copulative et and. Tell your great Clerk, Cardinal Bellarmine, so, who wier-drawes your Sacrifice of the Mass out of the Copulative (et) and: And he was a Priest of the most high God, etc. and your Transubstantiation, out of the pronoun, hoc: Hoc est Corpus, etc. & your Pope's supremacy, out of the pronoun, tibi: Dico tibi Petre, etc. Doth not Saint Austen press Grammatical Arguments against Cresconius the Grammarian? Nay, doth not Saint Paul himself press a Grammatical argument Against the jews? Gal. 3. 16. etc. 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 substantially proved the Trinity, by a Grammatical Argument drawn from the Plural Number, Faciamus, Let us make man; yea & the Trinity in unity, by an Argument founded upon the construction of a Verb Singular with a Noun Plural, Elohim, that is, Dij credit. It is no disparagement, Master Fisher, for the greatest Clerk 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 Schoolmasters 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. Master Sweet. What need you stand so much upon this? If there were visible men, certainly they may be named: name your visible Protestants, and it sufficeth. Name visible Protestants in all Ages. A Romanist standing by. D. Featly. It seems you are nominals, rather than reals, you stand so much upon naming: will you undertake to name visible Papists in all Ages? If neither you, The same Romanist standing by. nor we can name visible professors of our Religions in all Ages, for aught I know, the best way for us is, to be all natural men. D. Featly. This is the right reason of a Natural. M. Sweet. If there were visible Protestants in all Ages, certainly they may be named. D. Featly. That is a non sequitur, for the reasons before named by me. What say you to a people of Africa, who, if we may believe Pliny, have no names at all? M. Boulton. Yet they have descriptions, and may be known by some periphrasis. D. Featly. What say you then to the Heretics called Acephali, who are so called, because their Head & Author cannot be named, nor particularly described, yet the Author was a visible man? Are all visible men's names upon Record? are all the Records that were in former times, now to be produced? here diverse of M. Fisher's company called, Names, Names, Names. D. Featly. What? will nothing content you but a Buttery-book? You shall have a Buttery book of names, if you will stay a while. 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 Favourers of Petrus Mogus Moggus. the Heretic, did afterwards renounce him from being their Head, because he would not accurse the Council of Chalcedon. Others say, that one Seveius, 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 Saviour Christ, described in Scripture, to be spread over the world, a small number of visible Professors be not sufficient, Lib. de unitate Ecclesiae. as Saint Austen 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 Doctor's 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, than 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 Spirit of the buttery; in whose company, it seems, you take most delight. About the year 480. To begin with your Acephali. These Acephali were a shoal 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 privativo, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying a Head; as if you would say, Headless Heretics. So that, as Pliny writes of the herb Anonymos, nomen non inveniendo invenit, that it took its 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, Alfonsus' a Castro adversus Haereses. l. 4. 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 aught 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but certainly in that which followeth, you show yourself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, else you would not so ignorantly apply Saint Austin's proofs in his Book against Donatists, to disprove our Church. For it is well known, that we teach with Saint Austen, 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 Pope's adherents. Aug. Epist. 80. ad Hesychium. We teach with Saint Austen, 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 itself, even in the den of Antichrist. And therefore we are the true Catholics, who maintain verè 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 foreheads. What then speak you of three Protestants to be named in every Age? Although our Saviour's words are most true, Mat. 18. Where there are two or three gathered in my name, there am I And although Tertullians' inferences from those words, Exhort. ad virg. are most true, Vbi tres sunt, Ecclesia est, licèt Laici sint: Where there are three, de poe●it. there is the Church, yea though those three be Laymen: and, In 〈…〉 Ecclesia est, the Church is in one or two men: yea Alensis, and diverse among you, remembered by Tostatus, Prologue. in Euangel. 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 defence. We shall bring into the field, pares aquilas, nay, plures aquilas, more ensigns and banners than 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 spoonful of pure wine is better than a Hogshead 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 Mastiffs, and the rags that remain, as I am informed, will be shortly by another pulled away. Were M. Brierly a man of better judgement, and more integrity than 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-dore. And here I entreat the Reader to note, how the very name of the Buttery revives 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 Spirit 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, etc. 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, etc. 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 spirit of the Buttery had not obfuscated your brain, & surprised your judgement, 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 Butterie-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 Butterie-booke, than any good Record of Antiquity, as having had their beginning of late in one Martin Luther; who, after his apostasy, more respected the Buttery, than any ecclesiastical story. I marvel not, that you, Yeomen of the Pope's Buttery and Pantry, and the Blacke-gard of Rome, have a sharp tooth against Luther; who, by burning the Pope's harvest of Indulgences, hath made the Catalogue far less of those that brewed for the Friar's Buttery, and baked for the Popes Kitchin. 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 Friars, and so sharply inveighed against them, that Erasmus sometimes spoke 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 * Both being No●me ta●gere. Pope's Crown, and the Monks belly. Wherefore seeing Luther deserveth no better of your fraternities, strike him out of your Butterie-booke, 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-booke of Bailliol-Colledge in Oxford; and he expelled, for falsifying the Butterie-booke, and thereby cozening, and purloining the Students of that College. The Protestant Relation. Paragraph the seaventh, touching the comparison between a proof à priori, and à posteriori. Doctor Featly. That Church, whose faith is eternal, is so visible, that the Names of some professors thereof may be showed in all Ages. But the faith of the Protestant Church is eternal and perpetual: Ergo. Master Fisher. Faith eternal? Who ever heard of faith eternal? Saint Paul saith, that faith ceaseth. Doctor Featly. You have a purpose, Master Fisher, to cavil: you know my meaning well enough by the term perpetual, to wit, that Christian faith which hath continued from Christ's first publishing it, till this present, and shall continue till his second Coming. The Church which holdeth this faith, you believe, shall be so visible, that the Names of the professors thereof may be showed in all Ages. But the Protestant Church holdeth this perpetual faith: Ergo. Master Fisher. Your Argument is a fallacy, called, Petitio principii. Doctor Featly. A demonstration à causa, or à priori, is not Petitio principij. But such is my Argument: Ergo. Is it not a sounder Argument, to prove the visibility of the professors from the truth of their faith, then (as you do) the truth of your faith from the visibility of professors? Visible professors argue not a right faith. Heretics, mahumetans, and Gentiles, have visible professors of their impieties: yet will it not hence follow, that they have a right belief. On the contrary, we know by the promises of God in the Scripture, that the Church which maintaineth the true faith, shall have always professors, more or less visible. Master Sweet. You ought to prove the truth of your Church à posteriori, for that is to the question, and not à priori. Doctor Featly. Shall you prescribe me my weapons? Is not an Argument à priori, better than an Argument à posteriori? This is, as if in battle you should enjoin your enemy to stab you with a knife, and not with a sword or dagger. I will use what weapous I list: take you what buckler you can. Master Fisher. A proof à posteriori is more demonstrative, than à priori. here Master Fisher showeth his Academical learning, in preferring a demonstration à posteriori, A Protestant standing by. before that which proceedeth à priori. Is not a demonstration of the effect from the cause, better than of the cause by the effect? In this place, or upon the like occasion again offered, nearer the end of the disputation, Master Sweet replied. M. Sweet. This is to divert the question. The question is not now, Whether our faith or yours be the Catholic primitive faith, but the question now is of the effect, to wit, the visibility of your Church, which you ought to prove out of good Authors. Doctor Featly. May not a man prove the effect by the cause? Is there no other means to prove the effect, but by naming men, and producing authors for it? Master Sweet. An effect is posterius; the question is about an effect: therefore you ought to prove it à posteriori. Doctor Featly. What a reason is this? May not an effect be proved by his cause? Must an effect be needs proved by an effect? or à posteriori, because an effect is posterius? Master FISHER'S Answer. Thus far the Relator, who hath here added much more than 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 itself exacted, would better demonstrate or show to all sorts of men, which is the true Church, than 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 showed 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 visibile 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 showed 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 showed 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 Gods 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 ado, with all your strength and skill, 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 unlearn in yours. It seemeth, he hath met with some such Master as Timotheus the Musician was; who took double pay of his scholars, for unteaching them what they had learnt of others. He was taught in our Schools, that an effect cannot be scientifically proved or demonstrated, Arist. analy●. poster. l. 1. c. 2 but by the cause: for, Scire, est causam scire propter quam, etc. and Demonstratio is Syllogismus scientificus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a scientifical 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 Thirdly, the Roman or Western Church ought to be distinguished from the Papacy, 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 prophecies 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 Prophecy hath been fulfilled in the Papacy ever since Pope Hildebrand's time; Auent. annal. Boior. l. 5. edit Basil. ad Pern. p 448. 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 uxoribus separat, scorta, pudicis coniugibus: stuprà, incestus, adultery, 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 Prophecy 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 Prophecy in 2. Thes. 2. 9 Coming, after the power of Satan, in all power of signs and lying wonders, is daily fulfilled in the Papacy, and no where else. See their Legends, old and new. Thirdly, that Prophecy, 2. Pet. 2. 18. They allure by the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, etc. 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 Prophecy, 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. Fiftly, that Prophecy, 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 Merchandise of you, and the like in the Apoc. is fulfilled in the Papacy, which draweth an infinite treasure, by the Merchandise of pardons and indulgences for releasing souls out of Purgatory. Sixtly, that Prophecy, 2. Thes. 2. 4. He as God sitteth in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God, is verified in the Papacy, which giveth the Pope the style of Lord God, Head of the Church, Lion of the Tribe of juda, etc. and power to dispense with breach of oaths, and incestuous marriages, etc. Seventhly, that Prophecy, 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 Chrysostome, De Resurrectione. is fulfilled in the Papacy. Tertullian saith Romani imperij absessi●, in decem Reges divisa, Antichristum superinducit: The decay of the Roman Empire, divided into 〈◊〉 Kings, Homil. in 2. Thes. shall be the bringing in of Antichrist. Chrysostome giveth some more light, saying, When the Roman Empire shall be taken away, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. than he shall come. Now all the world seeth, that the Papacy is built upon the ruins of the Roman Empire, and at this day possesseth the seat thereof. Eightthly, that Prophecy, Reuel. 9 3. & 7▪ There came out of the smoke Locusts upon the earth, etc. and on their heads, were (as it were) Crowns, etc. agreeth to your swarms of Monks and Friars: and one of your own Expositors interpreteth their Crowns, the round circle upon your shavelings head, like unto a Crown. Ninthly, That Prophecy, Reuel. 13. 11. And I beheld another Beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a Lamb, and he spoke as a Dragon, and he exerciseth all the power of the first Beast, etc. agreeth to the Papacy 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 Prophecy, Reuel. 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 showed before out of Irenaeus. L. 5. aduersu● Haeres. c. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nomen habet 666. et valdè verisimile est, et novissimum 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 Latines who now rule. Arethas agreeth with Irenaeus in judgement, as Fever dentius himself noteth. Eleventh, that Prophecy, Reuel. 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 reigneth over the Kings of the earth, agreeth with the Papacy, as Saint jerom teacheth us. Twelfthly, Epist. 17. ad Eustochium, c. 7. et l. 2. aduer. jovinianum. that Prophecy, Reuel. 17. 4. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand, full of abominations and filthiness 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 Prophecy, Reuel. 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 spilt the blood of many thousand protestant Martyrs, since the 1000 year; in with, Satan was let loose, under the name of Waldensian and Albigensian heretics, & the like names of reproach. Fourteen, that Prophecy, Reuel. 17. 16. 17. And the ten horns shall hate the Whore, etc. 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 subiecting their Kingdoms to the Antichristian Yoke. But now (God be blessed) diverse Kings and States, whose eyes God hath anointed with the eye-salue 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 Prophecy, 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 feign some such like thing: let them devose, 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 spilt 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 Statesman, 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 Pursuivant would attach 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. Doctor Featly. That Church, whose faith is eternal, perpetual, and unchanged, is so visible as the catholic Church ought to be, and the Popish Church by M. Fisher is pretended to be. But the faith of the Protestant Church is eternal, perpetual, and unchanged: Ergo the Protestant Church is so visible, as the Catholic Church ought to be, and the Popish Church is pretended by M. Fisher to be. M. Fisher. I distinguish the Mayor. That Church, whose faith is perpetual and unchanged, so as the names can be showed, is so visible as the Catholic Church ought to be, and as M. Fisher pretends the Roman Church to be, I grant it. That Church, whose faith is perpetual, and unchanged, yet so, as the names cannot be showed in all Ages, is so visible as the Catholic Church ought to be, and as M. Fisher pretends the Roman Church ought to be, I deny it. To the Minor I apply the like distinction, and consequently to the conclusion in the same manner. Doctor Featly. What? Answer you to the conclusion also? This is a strain of new Logic. 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 than 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, etc. But if it be understood universally of every Church that is or may be, than both Mayor and Minor are false: and so it cannot be a demonstration, whose property is, To consist of most certainly true propositions. The Mayor 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 Mayor is true; but the Minor is most false: and so the argument is far from being a demonstration; especially, when it endeavoureth 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 ask 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 Tully's Orator, and Xenophons' Prince, & Castilians Courtier, namely, Sir Thomas Moores Utopia, extra anni solisque vias. To undertake to make a demonstration, consisting ex veris, primis, immediatis, prioribus, notioribus causis conclusionis, is all one, saith Ludovicus Viues, as if to cure a most dangerous disease, a Quacksalver 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 Hills; and the fourth, in the nest of a Phoenix. 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, de omni, per se, et quatenus ipsum) were any where 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 captivating 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, etc. For the Mayor 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 * Rom. 10. 10. Apostle, With the hart 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, Gasp. Lauren. De public, disputat. as Laurentius rightly argueth, Homines non constituunt Ecclesiam, quat●nus simpliciter sunt homines Europei, Romani etc. 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 Britan's, 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 than you have the confession of visible men to salvation, or the Visibility of professors of the saving faith: a proper attribute, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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, than 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, etc. Therefore the Protestant Church is a true Chur. The Mayor 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, jud. 3. Reu. 14. 6. 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, etc. The Mayor 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 Nicen Creed, and the Creed of Athanasius and the four first general Counsels, 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 Counsels abovenamed: Therefore the Protestant faith is the Primitive Catholic faith, once given to the Saints. In this last Syllogism, the Mayor cannot be denied by any who receive these Creeds and Counsels. 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 abovenamed. Thirdly, by the Confession of the Romish Church itself. 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 abovenamed: and for the four first general Counsels, 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, Irenaeus adverse. Haeres. l. 3 c. 2. cum ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi non rectè habeant, neque sint ex authoritate, & quia variè sunt dictae et quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciunt traditionem, non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem: When they are convinced by Scripture, they fall on accusing the Scriptures themselues, 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. Fiftly, 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. Sixtly, 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 relatively 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. Eleventh, 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 aught 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 Counsels: 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, quòd ab omnibus, quòd ubique, quòd 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 showed 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 Sunbeams. 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 abovenamed, 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 hereunto 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 Mayor, 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, than 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, etc. 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 Paralogism, as a Parallel to my demonstration. In my demonstration, the Mayor, 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 Mayor is apparently false. If honest men were always well spoken of, how can the Apostles words stand, Sine per famam, 2. Cor. 6. 8. sive per infamiam, either by good report, or by evil report, & c? Nay, how can the words of truth itself be verified, Mat. 5. 11. Blessed are ye when men speak all manner of evil against you for my sake? Again, perpetuity of faith is the adequate or selfe-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 Fisher's 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, quàmè contra. By this very argument, the Visibility of the Church is but secundarium quid, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a secundary 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 yourself 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 sith 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 Ancient Fathers, as I have showed before, Assertion 7. then the other Method prescribed by you. Touching the Visibility of the Church. Assertion 7. Object. 2. Secondly, you charge my demonstration with falsehood in both the premises. The Mayor 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, etc. 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 Relic, one of the feathers of the Angel Gabriels' 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 Apophthegm: 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 disavowed. 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 * Anno Dom. 1590. Sixtus Quintus, was authentical, and not to be rejected upon any pretence. Not long after, it was not authentical: For * Anno. Dom. 1592. Clemens the eighth corrected it in many hundred places. Now go and upbraid us with our late revised translation: but see withal, that you dispense with the Pope, that he may dispense 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 * Greg. Epist. l. 4. Epist. 78. & 82. & alibi. 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 Pope's Decree is. The Apostle than hath much deceived us, who saith, Let God be true, Rom. 3 4. and every man a liar. If every man a liar, every Pope too. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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, than 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, than 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 * Aug. de doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 9 In iis enim quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia, quae fide continent moresque vivendi. 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 Consistory, 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 Counsels, then national: yet in both it sometimes falleth out, that, as Austen observeth, Priora à posterioribus emendentur: the former are corrected by the later. Thirdly, you beg an Argument from yourself, 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 diversive proof, and yet here you will have it to be identical. Wherefore as Xenophanes▪ opposed a motion made by Eleates, Arist. Rhet. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 itself. 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 abovenamed, 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 diversive proof, it could not be identical: if it be identical, as you here affirm, it cannot be diversive: for, it implies an apparent contradiction, to say, * In proving the same thing by the same thing, digresseth from the same thing. 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 ask 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 scientifical 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 petitiones 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 than 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 Mayor; 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. Do 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 Clerk, Lib. 3. de Eccles. Milit. cap. 13. 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; cum ad Roman. 10. dicat Apostolus, Cord creditur ad iustitiam, ore autem fit confessio ad salutem: et Mat. 10. Omnis qui negaverit me coram hominibus, etc. 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. Doctor Featly. That Church whose faith, etc. But the faith of the Protestant Church is the Primitive Catholic faith, once given to the Saints: Ergo. M. Fisher. I answer the Minor. If this Proposition be taken simply in itself, I absolutely deny it: but if this proposition be considered (as it must be) as related to the first Question, and the end thereof, I further add, that it is not pertinent to that end, for which the whole Dispute was intended; to weet, to show to those who are not able by their own ability to find out the infallible faith, necessary to salvation, without learning it of the true visible Church of Christ: and, consequently, the Visibility of the Church is first to be showed, before the truth of Doctrine in particular shall be showed. D. Featly. First, what speak you of those who are not able by their own ability to find out faith? Is any man able by his own ability, without the help of divine grace? Secondly, what helpeth the Visibility, to confirm the truth of the Church? Visibility indeed proves a Church, but not the true Church. here M. Fisher alleged some words out of D. Field, of the Church; supposing thereby to justify his former Answer. Whereunto D. Featly promised, Answer should be made, when it came to their turn to answer; now he was by order to oppose M. Fisher. 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. Seeing the controversies of Religion at this day, are so many in number, and so intricate in nature, that few have time and leisure; fewer, strength of wit and understanding▪ to examine them: what remaineth for men, desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence, but diligently to seek out, which, among all the Societies of men in the world, is that Spouse of Christ, the Church of the living God, which is the pillar of the Truth; that so they may embrace her Communion, follow her direction, and rest in her judgement? 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, than 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 alleviation or mitigation of a speech of yours savouring of Pelagianisme. 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 Catechumeni are taught, as to honour God their Father, so also the Church their Mother. Now, because the Whore of Babylon beareth herself, 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, Plin. nat. histo. l. 1. cap. 20. so much ennobled by Pliny, qui rectos ●t transuersos celatim toto còrpore habuit neruos, who had double sinews running across over all his body: so able, so sinewy 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 judgement? 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 Entry. 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, Aethiopia, 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 pewfellows, should undertake in order, proutiacet, to make answer, or else never to have been so hardy, to cite that Author, whose lines upbraid them with inability or negligence, so long as they suffer so learned and laborious a treatisely bend point blank against the walls of Rome to remain unbattered. Now to your alleviation: 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 Pelagianisme. Yet you should have circumcised your lips and tongue, and kept better the Apostles rule, 1. Tim. 1. 13. 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 Gods good gifts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to be undervalved, 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 Austen 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, etc. 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 topic place in Aristotle, ab uno accidente 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 mahumetans, 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 years, 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 Saviour jesus Christ, blessed for ever, etc. M. Fisher. Name of all Ages, or else you do nothing. D. Featly. I cannot name all at once. Will you have me name men of so many Ages, at one breath, & c? M. Fisher. You shall not begin at Christ and his Apostles. D. Featly. You are not to make my Induction: I will begin with Christ and his Apostles, etc. M. Fisher. Name the rest in all Ages, and then I will answer. D. Featly. First, answer to the first Age: and then I will proceed to the second, etc. M. Fisher. I will not answer you any thing, till you have made your Catalogue. D. Featly. M. Fisher, I charge you, as you will answer it before Christ himself at the dreadful day of judgement, to answer directly, whether Christ and his Apostles taught our faith, or yours, etc. Notwithstanding this deep Charge, M. Fisher still refused to answer to the argument of instance in Christ and his Apostles, etc. Master FISHER'S Answer by a Counter-relation. After this, D. Featly named, for the first Age, our Lord and Saviour 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 any more 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 Apostl●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? Do 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: than 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, endeavouring 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 misreport 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 honourable, reverend, and worshipful Personages, who have set their hands to the Attestation, that, to add any more 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 in stead 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 creditor's 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 any more, 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 than 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 cloak, 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 money: 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, aught 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, Protasis. in stead 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 cloak, and runneth away: Even so Doctor Featly, Antapodosis. 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 adjuring 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 supererrogation: 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 base 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, in stead of twenty pieces: for if the Poet could say, Cic. Orator. Plato mihi instar millium: Plato is to me in stead of a thousand; how much more may a Christian, especially a Protestant Christian say, Christ and his Apostles are to me in stead of millions of witness? 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 downright 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 any more, and simply to refuse to lay down any more. 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 intent 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 in stead 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 Saviour's Charter, the Scriptures? They are ours by Christ; Christ ours by them. The Roman pouch is so stuffed with Traditions, so choked with counterfeit overgilt 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- Simile. 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-leafe 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 jesuitisses or Loyolasses. And if you will needs have a Simile from paying money, to illustrate this passage in the conference, thus you may frame it: Suppose a Catalogue for sixteene-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 acquittance, pull 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 defence 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 tergiversation, 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. Bugs came to Sir Humphrey Lind, 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 Priest's 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 Humphrey. 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 diverting 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 showed, that as yet he did not conceive it to be answered. Lastly, diverse dates after all the trouble and stir was passed (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 Doctor's Catalogue 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 humane fear of trouble, and not any firm and settled resolution grounded upon the Conference, sith both before and after, he showed 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 endeavour, as much as may be, to avoid your familiar figure of battology or repetition. For, that which concerneth M. Bugs, that he received satisfaction by the Conference, and gave many thanks to Sir Humphrey 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 Humphrey Lind his testimony, but also by M. Bugs 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. Bugs may well answer you in the words of Saint Austen, spoken to another purpose, Tu ratiocinare: ego credam, etc. Do you syllogise: 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: Whatsoever is moved locally, is either moved in the place wherein it is, or wherein it is not. It cannot be moved in the place wherein it is not, because that is not to move locally, or in place: where the body hath no existence, it can have no motion. Neither can a body be said to move in the place wherein it is, because while a body remains in its place, it cannot move from it: 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 refeled 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. Bugs could not be moved by any thing that was spoken in the Conference, because his Question was not answered; or the Catalogue of names not produced; or because D. Featlyes' proofs were diversive; 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. Bugs, 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. Bugs 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 Austin's, in a certain Homily. Alipius was drawn from heathenish sports and pastimes, by an example, in a discourse of Saint Austin's on the By. That noble Venetian marquis, who left both his Marquisate, and all that he had, for the love of the Gospel, and comfortably ended his days at Genevae, was at the first reform, 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 Arrian 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 Austen (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 adiwandam, Enchirid. ad Laurent. et adiwat 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. Bugs 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 vnsettled in our Religion; yea, M. Deane 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. Bugs 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. Bugs spoke so (which I have reason to doubt) he spoke 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 Mathews, 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 constrain me to recapitulate the chief points touched in the Conference. Before the Conference, M. Bugs was somewhat staggered in the point touching the Visibility of the Church, by your bravadoes, and Rhodomontadoes, that all the world were Papists before Luther; That there was neither vola nor vestigium of a Protestant Church before that time; A brief recapitulation of the Conference. 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 Humphrey 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 humane Stories and good Authors, as the jesuit required; but upon divine revelation in God's Word, as is confessed by * Bellarmine loc. sup. cit. Canus loc. l. 11. c. 4. praeter auctores sacros nullum historicum certum esse posse et ●doneum, ad faciendum certam in theologia fidem. 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 its faith to the Scriptures: of which faith, God promiseth in his Word, that it shall have visible Professors to the world's end. Fiftly, that a visible Church infers not necessarily a right faith. jews, mahumetans, 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. Sixtly, 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 tergiversations. 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. Bugs 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 honourable the Earl of WARWICK. The Copy of M. Fisher's Letter. RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD: I Esteem it a special providence of God, that your Lordship was present at a late Conference, wherein D. White and D. Featly undertaken 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 transferred 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 enterprise they undertaken, 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 honour, 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 another 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 important 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. Your Lordship's servant in Christ, JOHN FISHER. 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, etc. A man, no man, (that is, an Eunuch) seeing, not seeing (that is, seeing dimly, being purblind) 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 sealed up like a private Letter, and endorsed to an Honourable 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 Lordship's 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 than 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 aught to be so visible, that the names of the Professors thereof may be showed 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 yourself confess, That Church which holdeth this faith, you believe (I said not, we) to be so visible, Page 19 as that the names of the Professors may be showed, etc. 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 showed. Page 32. 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 Relator ●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 defence of the Appendix, belly your own consciences, in saying, that I professed (out of mine own judgement & 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; Erasm. Apophtheg. 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 atheological, 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 undertaken 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 undertaken to answer an Argument by Induction of particulars, consisting of 15 or rather 15 hundred particulars (and all in his judgement questionable) who did not answer them piecemeal 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 unclerkly Sophistry. You may be sure, such kind of foggy and misty answering, could no way satisfy a man of so clear a judgement 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 Humphrey Lind. To my loving friend Sir Humphrey Lind. 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 myself, 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. Fisher's 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, Your very loving friend, WARWICK. 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, than perhaps hitherto thou hast done about the occasion. The occasion of the Dispute, was, etc. 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 itself. 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 any thing 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 any thing 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; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 Myself: 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 Fisher's folly. Or real, to wit, certain allegations crudely taken out of Master Brerelyes Protestant's Apology, falsely so called, tractatu 2. c. 2. sect. 11. subdivis. 3. to prove, that by the confession of Protestants, there were no Protestants before Luther. Now, although I might justly passover 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 Outworks, much less the Castle of my defence: 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, Plin. nat. hist. l. 2. c. 105. Omnes aurei coloris ostendit pisces, nihil extra illam aquam caeteris differentes. whilst they swim in the river, are of a golden colour▪ 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 cities 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 in stead 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 forerunners: he giveth the hands of fellowship to the Piccards, and Waldenses, and (in a manner) canonizeth 1 H●s for a Saint. In his preface to Wesselus' Groningensis, thus he writeth: Helias This bites, Propheta olim, cum Sermo Domini esset pretiosus, nec abundaret visio, occisis universis pe●e Prophetis ab impissimâ jezabele, arbitrabatur sese relictum esse solùm: ●b id vitae pertaesus, optabat animam suam tolli, quod unus impar sibi videretur ferendo oneri intolerabili impijssimi populi, et pri●●cipū eius; nescius, adhuc 7000. Domino relicta et Abdian cum 100 Prophetis latitantibus seruatum. Quae parabola, si paruis liceat cōp●nere magna, huius mei saecul● esse videtur: ego enim nescio qua dei pro●identiâ in publicum raptus, cum monstris istis indulgentiarum et pontificiarum legum sic pugnaviut me solum esse putarem, etsi satis mihi semper f●it animi; ita ut passim 〈◊〉 et immodesti●r accuser, praenimia qua ardeb●●●iduci●: semper tamen id optani, quò tollerer et ego de medio ●eorum Baaluarum, et eiviliter 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 〈…〉 verè 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 utriusque 〈…〉 unum, etc. 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 jezabel) 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 theatre 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 overpoignant 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 Esay prophesieth. For, it cannot be thought, that he received his learning from men; as neither did 1 If I had read this Author before, my enemies might have thought, that I drew all out of Wesselus' Storehouse, 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. Quanqùam fratres high, per Bohemiam et 〈◊〉 agentes, 〈…〉 annis odioso nomine Pigardi sen haretici e●schism a●ici sint traducti, visum est meo quaque testimonia, 〈◊〉 possum illis seruire● (〈◊〉 quid volet 〈◊〉 ●estimonium) praesertim apud 〈◊〉. cum esse● papista, verè et 〈◊〉 animo istos Pigard●s fratres odiebam magno zelo Dei et religionis, nullo emnin● lucri aut gloriae study. Denique, cum aliquando in aliquot libros Io. Hus impru●●●s incidissem, et Scripturas tam potenter et purè tractatas vidissem, ut ●●●pere inciperem, cur talem ac tantum virum exususse●● Papa et Concilium; mo●● territ●●, clausi codicem, suspicatus venenum sub melle l●cre, quo 〈…〉 infici posset: tam violentum regnabat in 〈…〉 papalis nominis et Concilij. Sed post ●uam, etc. ibi caepit gaudium cordis mei: et circumspectis omnibus, quos Papa pro hareticis dam●anerat, et per●iderat, pro Sancti● et Marty●●b●● laudabam, praeser tim quorum pia scrip●●a vel confessiones potui reper●re. Inter hos autem occurr●bant et isti fratres (quos Pigardos vocabant) iam mihi non ita invisi, ut 〈◊〉 erant in papistate mea. Denique offendi in eyes 〈◊〉 illud et magnum miracul●●m, in ●eclesiâ Pap● penè in●uditum; scilicet quòd, omissis homickis d●ctri●is, quantùm poterant, meditarentur in lege Domini die ac nocte, esseque eos in Scriptures peritos et paratos, cum in papatis ipsimagistri nostri prorsus negligerent Scripturas. Et gratulari tum illis tum nobis, quòd qui inter nos ipsos quoque longe fuimus, destructo nunc interstitio suspitionis, quae nobis mut●ò haeretici videbamur, facti sumus propè, et reducti simul sumus in unum ou●le. Commendo igitur in Domino omnibus piis et hanc confessionem fratrum, in qua videbunt clarè, quantâ iniuriâ hactenus à Papistis fuerint damnati et vexati. Although these brethren dwelling in Bohemia and Moravia, have set forth the confession of their faith & doctrine in their own books, more dexterously and learnedly, then that they need my commendation or preface: yet in as much as for these many years they have been branded with the odious name of Pigards, Heretics and Schismatics, I thought fit to afford them my best testimony among our own, if yet it bear any weight at all. When I was a Papist, I truly & from my heart hated these brethren termed Pigards, out of a great zeal of God and Religion, and not out of any desire of glory or gain● and when 〈◊〉 unawares I lighted on some of the books of Iob● Hus, and therein observed the Scriptures so powerfully and so purely handled, that I began to marvel why the Pope and his Council should burn a man of such worth: presently I shut the book; suspecting, that under honey there might lie hid some poison, wherewith my simplicity might have been infected. So strongly was I bewitched with the name of a Pope and a Council. But after that, etc. there began the joy of my heart: and viewing all those whom the Pope had condemned, and put to death for Heretics, I esteemed them as Saints & Martyrs; especially those whose godly writings and confessions I could find, etc. Among these, I met with those brethren whom they call Pigards, who were not now so hateful to me, as they had been formerly in the time of my Popery. To be brief, I found in these men a miracle, and that a very great one, almost unheard of in the Popish Church, to wit, that these men, leaving the doctrines of men, to the utmost of their endeavour meditated in the Law of God day and night, and were very ready and skilful in Scriptures; whereas in the papacy, the greatest clerks utterly neglect the Scriptures. And I could not but congratulate both them & us, that we who before were far severed one from another (esteeming each other as Heretics) now by the breaking down of the partition wall of suspicion, became near one to the other, and were together brought into one Sheepfold. 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 Hierom of Prague, it appears by those his words in Asser. articul. 32. johannem Hus et Hieronymum, viros catholic●s, combusserunt haeretici ipsi, & Apostatae, & Antichristi discipuli: they burned john Hus and Hierom, 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, quòd in Constantiensi Concilio optimum et pijssimum virum johannem Hus damnavit: 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, johannis Hus, etc. These Epistles of the holy Martyr john Hus: And in his third Preface, A fide dignis hominibus percepi, Imperatorem Maximilianum, de johanne Hus dicere solitum, Hei! hei! secerunt bono illi viro iniuriam. Et Erasmus Roter. in primis libellis (quos typis excusos adhuc mecum habeo) manifestè scribit, johannem Hus exustum quidem sed non convictum esse. Tale omni tempore bonorum virorum iudicium fuit quòd illata ei sit vis et iniuria. Et paulò pòst porrò, In confesso est attestantibus et adversarijs (quorum ipse nonn●ll●s, eosque magnos theologos, audivi ante annos 30), fuisse 〈◊〉 excellenter doctum, et eruditione atque doctrinâ antecellüisse omnibus Doctoribus in toto Concili●. Ego olim Erphordiae studij Theologiae tyro, incidens in librum sermonum johannis Hus, prae euriositate quadam incendebar desiderio cognoscendi, quaenam dogmata haeresiarcha ille sparsisset, cum hic liber in publica Bibliothecâ ab incendio sernatu● esset: ●itert● inter l●gendum obstupefactu●, admiratione afficiebar propè incre dibili, quam ob causam tandem ex●●●●s esset vir tantus, in explicandâ et tractandâ scripturâ tam dexter et gravis, etc. 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 judgement 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 Adversary's 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, penned by john Hus, was inflamed with a desire of reading it thorough, that I might know what were the heresies which this Arch-heretick 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 Clerk, 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 forerunners: 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 prophecy 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 revolutis annis, etc. After a hundred years, you shall answer God and me: and some affirm, that he added, jam Hus, that is, in the Bohemian Language, Goose: but there shall follow me a Swan, etc. 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 eternised john Hus his innocence of life, and purity of Doctrine. Master FISHER. Wherefore the Lutheran Conradus, In theol. Calu. l. 2. fol. 130. versus finem. 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, Geo. Mylli. in Augu tanae Confessionis explic. art. 70. de Eccles. 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. page 137. Benedict. Morgenst. tract. de Eccl. page 145. 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 overwhelmed with more than 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 than 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 Proverb) 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 than they. Apologet. Regius, alleged by your own Brerely, testifieth most expressly the contrary: Dico fuisse ante Lutherum, verae Religionis 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. * Whitakerus de Eccles. cont. Bellar. controuers. secunda. Nostra Ecclesia tum fuit. At non fuit visibilis, inquit Bellarminus. Quid tum? an ideo non fuit? Nequaquam: latc●at enim tum in solitudine. Whitaker avows 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 Bucers' Letters to the Waldenses, are extant in their works. I might allege the testimonies of Constance and a In Apocalip. Bullinger, b In orat de Wald. Vesembekius, c De vera et falsa relig. l. 4. Viret, d In his memorial of the Waldenses. Vignea●s, e Epist. 250 et. 251 et 179. Calvin, f De viris illustrib. Beza, g In resp. ad Camp. ratio 3. Humphrey, h His acts and Monuments. Fox, i In cattle test. veritatis. Illyri●us, and many other Protestants of higher rank, than 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 than you, or M. Sweet, and such other new upstart Jesuits, who were Luther's forerunners; learn of your own k Contra walden's. Rainerius, and l Contra walden's. Claudius de Seissel, and m Hist. Hussit. l. 1. Cocleus, and n in tabulis & alit. Lyndanus, and o Hist. civet. judg. l. 3. Claudius Rubis, and p Hist. Bohem. Aeneas Silvius, and q Hist. Bohem. john Dubranius, and r Contra haeres. Alfonsus à Castro, and the Author of the Fasciculus rerum exet: and many other, that the Waldenses bore a Torch before Luther, and showed 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 audivisse, multos viros eruditos in Germaniâ, priusquam prodiret Lutherus, evangelij 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 aught I know, Vtenboius is as honest a man, as Schlusenburgius: and if Schlusenburgius deny it, Vtenboius affirmeth it, yea, and (for aught is proved to the contrary) Conradus Pellicanus also: yet that which Schlusenburg maintaineth for the honour 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, etc. who, before Luther, embraced the doctrine of the Gospel. Secondly, in Germany itself, there were not multi eruditi viri, many learned men; yet there might be some, for aught 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 Papacy, 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 honour of your Church, to be truly branded with Apostasy? to have no orthodoxal Bishops bearing rule in it? What though there were no right-beleeving Bishops under or in the Papacy; will it follow, that there were no right-beleeving 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 paralytical Paralogism is this? Myllius a Lutheran affirmeth, that There were 〈◊〉 orthodoxal or right-beleeving Bishops in the Roman Sea, therefore there were no visible Protestants in all the world before Luther. Now for Benedictus Morgenst, Non est inventus in Baliva nostra. He who found him for you, makes him run the same way with * Brerely Protest. Ap●l. Sect. 11. de Fraet. orthod. Eccles. joachimus Camerarius, but not whither you would have him. They both stand for the honour 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 joachimus, was instructed by the Waldenses, and Hus by Wicklef: but Luther received his doctrine neither from Hus nor Wicklef, but was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, taught of himself out of Scriptures. This preeminency all Protestants do not willingly grant to Luther. Zuinglius 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 Zuinglius, or Zuinglius Luther first awork, 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 Zuinglius, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 than Cimmerian 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, than D. Featly, D. White, and such other new Masters) I will add hereunto what is said, first, by (5) Calvin in l. Epist. ep. 141. Calvin, who doth acknowledge, that in this Lutheran reformation, there was made a discession or departure from all the world. Secondly, by (6) Bucer Ep. ad Epis. Hereford. Bucer, who calleth Luther the first Apostle of the reformed doctrine. Thirdly, by Beza (7) Beza in Theol. Ep. Epist. 5. a principal Caluinist, who teacheth, that at this time, ordinary vocation of the Churchmen was no where 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 (8) jewel, in his Apology of the Church, cap. 4. diuis. 2. and in his defence 40. Master jewel, who saith, The truth was unknown and unheard of, when Martin Luther and Viderick Zuinglius first came to the knowledge and preaching of the Gospel; and M. Perkins, (9) Perkins in his Expos. of the Creed, who saith, We say, that before the days of Luther, for the space of many hundred years, an universal Apostasy overspread 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 than Cimmerian darkness; and Perkins, that An universal Apostasy endeavoured the whole face of the earth; and jewel; that Luther & Zuinglius 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 Arrian. 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 Caluins works. Inter Epist. Calu. Ep. 250. Quomam, vir venerande, ante annos circiter triginta, inter humanit atem tuam, tum Argentina agentem, & fratres qui falso Pigardi vel Waldenses dicuntur, charis●imos in Domino Patres nostros sancta intercessit no●itna & familiaritas, etc. 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, aught to be most strictly and firmly knit together. To the former letter, Calvin returns this courteous answer, Gratias agimus non vulgares, quòd Fratres qui vestrierga nos amoris fraternaque coniuncti●nis testes essent, et qu ●si Sponsores mittere gravati non estis: eóque libentiùs offici●●m hoc vest rum somnus amplexi, qu●a ex sinceran pietatis studio manabat. Cupimus idem vicissem v●bis de propenso nostro ad fovendam sanctam unitatem affectu persu ●sum esse, etc. Epist. 251. We render you more than 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, etc. Again, the same Calvin in his Epistles, Epist. 179. to Stanist. Carninsk, thus writeth of the Waldenses: * De vestro cum Waldensibus consensu optima quaeque spero, non modò quia sanctam unitatem, in quam coalescunt Christi membra, Deus semper benedicere solitus est, sed quòd inter haec rudimenta, fratrum Waldensium peritiam, quam longo usu Dominus exercuit, non vulgari adiumento vobis fore spero. Quare vobis omnibus danda est opera, ut haec pia conspiratio magis ac magis sanciatur, etc. 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, etc. 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, etc. By the contents of this Letter, and many other passages in Bucers' Works, which for brevity's sake I omit, it appears that Bucer, in calling Luther the first Apostle of the reformed Doctrine, did not thereby intent, 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 Bucers' 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 core, Luther was the first who openly lanced it. Luther form no new Church, but reform 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 burnished and refined the gold of the Sanctuary, obscured with rust: he made not new gold. In your allegation out of Beza, by suppressing the Adverb (penè, almost), you show yourself, non penè, not almost, sed penitùs, altogether a falsificator. Beza's words, Epist. 5. are, Huic tum demum locum esse dicimus, cum vel nulla, vel penè 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 Papacy. 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 revised by him before his death, and translated into Latin, at this instant sweeting under the Press. Admit, there had been no ordinary calling of right-beleeving Churchmen, 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, In his book of worthy men. 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, sith 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conduct us to those pulchri portus, the fair Havens in Heaven; the people of God may keep the right way, and through God's grace escape the quicksands 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 Laiety, 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, Mat. 7. 9, 10. 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 * Baltasar Praefat. in walden's. Lydius truly observeth, Oft-times the ears of the Auditors are purer than the tongue of the Preacher. He delivers ungarbled spices, they garble it; unsifted meal, they sift and boult it; impure milk, they strain it. In the days of jeremy, and much more after the death of the Prophet Malachy, until the birth of Christ, there were few * (I would see a Catalogue of true Teachers of the infallible faith in those times.) 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 Arrian & 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 endeavoured 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, etc. 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 overtopped. Neither can you find any flaw or cloud in that orient Ge●●●● of our Church, Apolog. part. 4. cap. 4. Diuis. 2. 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 Zuinglius, 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, etc. 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 clears 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 〈…〉 Petrarch, Savanarolla, 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 Zuinglius Scholars: for they lived not only certain years, but also certain Ages, ●re ever Luther or Zuinglius 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●ly, 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 sponged 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 refel 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 Austen for my pattern of silent patience, and close up all further Answer in his words: Lib 3. cont. ●iteras Petil. cap. 11. Quid mirum, si cum grana de areâ Domini excussa, simul & paleam intror sum trabo, iniuriam resilientis pulueris suffero? What marvel, if in sweeping the Lords 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 judgement of the true visible Church. I hope, the Truth shall suffer nothing, because of me: and if I suffer any thing, 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.