AN ANSWER TO A PAMPHLET, ENTITLED: THE FISHER CATCHED IN HIS OWN NET. IN WHICH, BY THE WAY, IS SHOWN, 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.  MATTH. 28. vers. 19, 20. Going, teach all Nations, baptising them, etc. Behold, I am with you ALL DAYS, even to the consummation of the World. EPHES. 4. vers. 11, 14. Christ gave some Apostles, and some Prophets; othersome Evangelists, and othersome PASTORS and DOCTORS, etc. that we be not Children, WAVERING and CARRIED ABOUT with every wind of Doctrine, etc. 
M. D. C. XXIII.   

THE PREFACE.  
GEntle Reader, although I doubt not, but all that be wise and judicious especially if they duly consider the occasion and state of the question, lately treated( in a Conference betwixt D. White and D. Featly Ministers; and M. Fisher and M. Sweet 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: Nevertheless, because those who be partially affected, or of mean capacitte, may( as it is to be doubted divers do) conceive and 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 it needful to set out a true Relation of the occasion, progress, and issue of that Conference, and this in such sort, as diverse falsehoods of the Protestant Relator, may be easily perceived, and the weakness of the Protestants 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 sight and consideration whereof, maketh me more easily believe that to be true which I have read, viz. That a decree was made by Divines 
Eudaimon johannes in defence. p. H. Garn.  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 Powfellowes had made lies in stead of proofs of his Protestant Religion, did answer, saying: He cannot lie too much in 
D. Bishop against Rob. Abbots.  this cause. It must needs be a weak and bad cause, that needeth to be supported by such weak and bad shifts. I for my part will not promise, to have perfectly remembered and set down every word that passed in this Conference, especially spoken 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 occasion; so I do not intend to approve: but simply relating what it saith, I will leave it 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 disadvantage 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 for 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; in regard I am told, that D. 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.   

CHAP. I. About the first occasion of the Conference, in which is showed, that Master Fisher did not seek it, or provoke his Adversaries by any challenge unto it, nor did intend to have it so public, as by his Adversary's fault it proved  
The Protestant Relator of this Conference, setteth down the occasion in these words.  
EDWARD BUGGS Esquire, about the age of 70. years, being lately sick, was solicited by some Papists then about him, to forsake the Protestant Faith, telling him: There was no hope of salvation, without the Church; there was no Catholic Church but theirs; and to believe the Catholic Church, was the Article of his Creed; and by it, could no other Church be meant but the Church of Rome, because it could not be proved by all the Protestants in the Kingdom, that they had any Church before Luther.  
This Gentleman being much troubled in his mind with these and the like suggestions, who all his life time had been, and processed himself a Religious Protestant, became now more sick in mind then body.  
After his recovery, being much troubled in mind with these former suggestions of the Popish Priests, he repaired to Sir Humphrey Lynd Knight; who, by reason of his alliance, and long acquaintance with him, gave the best satisfaction that he could to his said Cousin Master Bugs? who seemed to take content in such his Conference, and to be well satisfied by him, in all points.  
But the Popish Priests and jesuits not desisting to creep in further, where they had once made a breach, persevering still in questioning him, where his Church was before Luther.  
Whereupon he repaired again to Sir Humphrey Lynd, and required some further satisfaction of him, concerning that demand. And thereupon Sir Humphrey Lynd told him, it was first in Christ and the Apostles, 
A very weak and Insufficient satisfaction, as is showed hereafter.  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 & 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, etc.  
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; yet I have some cause to doubt, that it is not altogether true, especially in that he saith: The Popish Priests and jesuits not desisting to creep in further where they had ●●ce made a breach, persevering still in questioning him: where his Church was before Luther? For I do not think that many( if any at all) Priests or jesuits, did first put this doubt into the old Gentleman his head, nor persevered in questioning him about it. And for Master Fisher in particular, I know certainly that he never saw this old Gentleman, much less did he speak to him, in any matter of Religion, till that time, when Sir Humphrey Lynd first met Master Fisher. The which meeting is mentioned in the Protestant Relation, saying thus:  
And after his return to London, the said Sir Humphrey Lynd going to Master Bugs his house in Drury lane, to usit him, found Master Fisher the jesuit there, where after some debates about Religion, and the visibilite of the Church, Master Fisher called for Pen and Ink, and set down this question in terminis, thereby adding under his hand, that he would answer upon it negatively, as challenging and expecting Opposers; delivering also the Paper into the hands of the said Sir Humphrey Lynd; 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 D. Whites, where formerly he had been, the said D. 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.  
In this parcel some thing is omitted, some thing misreported, as will appear by this which followeth:  
A certain Catholic Gentleman, coming to Master Fisher, told him: That the aforesaid old Gentleman was desirous to hear D. White and him dispute; and therefore desired to know, whether he would think it convenient to undertake a meeting with D. White. M. Fisher told him expressly, that he neither might, nor would make any challenge to D. White; but, saith he: If D. White do challenge me, I will not refuse.  
And some reason M. Fisher gave to the Gentleman, to let him see, that it was not fit that he should be a Challenger in such a business: whereupon the Gentleman, for fear of mis-delivering M. Fisher's mind, did entreat M. Fisher to deliver his own answer to a Protestant Knight, Sir Humphrey Lynd, who was employed by the said old Gentleman, to move D. White to come to such a meeting. M. Fisher having some acquaintance in the house where the old Gentleman was, said: He would that night be there, and if the Knight would come, he should hear the same answer. So M. Fisher came, and Sir Humphrey( being advised by the said Catholic Gentleman, of M. Fisher's intention to be there) also came. And after some speeches, the question was moved, Whether M. Fisher would speak with D. White about the visibility of the Church? He answered as before: That he would not challenge D. White; but if D. White would challenge him to treat of that matter, he would not refuse. It was answered: That it was not meant in the nature of a challenge, but to have a quiet meeting, to satisfy the old Gentleman: and so Sir Humphrey wished M. Fisher to set down the questions. Then M. Fisher having heard wherein the Gentleman did chiefly doubt, set down these two questions:  
Whether there must not be in all ages a visible Church, of which, all sorts must learn that one infallible faith which is necessary to salvation?  
Whether the Protestants Church was in all ages visible, especially in the ages before Luther: and whether the names of such visible Protestants in all ages, may be showed out of good Authors?  
The first question being read before Sir Humphrey and the old Gentleman, and some others, they said: That it was out of question, that such a visible Church as the question mentioned, must needs be granted; whereupon M. Fisher took his Pen, and subscribed to the first question, these words: It is granted. Which being supposed; M. Fisher read the second question, and was contented it should be the only Question, for so Sir Humphrey desired; who also bad M. Fisher choose, whether he would be the Disputer or Answerer. M. Fisher said, It would be requisite both to dispute and answer. Yet Sir Humphrey urging him to choose the one or other part, M. Fisher said, I will answer; and so he took his Pen, and writ in the Margin briefly, what answer he meant to make to the whole Question, and said: I will answer, that it was not; to wit, so visible as the Question required.  
This Paper, in which these Questions were, Sir Humphrey took, but with intent, that only one, that is, the second, should be disputed on. Then question being made about the Place, Sir Humphrey named D. Whites house. M. Fisher said, he had no reason to go to the Doctor's house; in regard, the last time he was there, it was given out, and made a general report, That M. Fisher would have killed D. White in his house. And therefore, saith M. Fisher, I will not go, unless himself invite me: but if he invite, I will go. Sir Humphrey doubted, that D. White would not invite M. Fisher: and so, for want of agreeing about the Place, M. Fisher verily thought, that no meeting would be at all: yet he did not take again the Paper, in which the Questions were; but either left them with Sir Humphrey, or the old Gentleman: yet without any mind at all, to make any challenge, as he had more than once expressed.  
About two days after( saith the Protestant Relator) M. Bugs repaired to Sir Humphrey Lynd, and entreated him( for his satisfaction) to give M. Fisher a meeting, saying: That M. 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 D. Featly were to dine with him on Friday following; and if, after Dinner, M. Fisher would come thither, with four, or six at the most, they should be admitted for his sake and his Wives, 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.  
What to say to this Parcel, I know not, because it was private, betwixt Sir Humphrey and the old Gentleman. But there were other more remarkable passages, omitted by the Protestant Relator, which I think fit to set down. As first, That M. Fisher coming to the old Gentleman, the next day, or next but one, after the Question was set down; found him still desirous, to have the meeting go forward: and then it may very well be, that M. Fisher might say; He would maintain what he had set down, and that Protestant Divines could not prove the Protestant Church visible, before Luther's time. But what in particular he said, he doth not remember. Only he is sure he made no challenge; and so the old Gentleman did well understand: who told M. Fisher, That it was intended only to be a friendly and a private meeting at Sir Humphrey his own house: and that D. White would bring with him one to assist him, as M. Fisher should bring with him one to assist him; and beside, some four more, whom they thought good, to be Witnesses; and two Writers, to set down on each part what was said: and that Friday next should be the day.  
M. Fisher hearing this equal offer, did not refuse: but( to prepare the mind of the old Gentleman, to be better able to make benefit of what should be said about it) writ, and delivered unto him a Paper, showing briefly and plainly, how the true visible Church of Christ must be so visible in all Ages, as that the names of some principal Members thereof, in every Age, may be showed out of good Authors.  
A true Copy of which Paper, I think fit here to set down; in regard it may serve others, as well as this old Gentleman, to understand, Why Catholics do ordinarily so much press Protestants, to name( if they can) Protestant Professors, in all Ages, as Catholics do in printed Books ordinarily set down, a Catalogue of the Names of the chief Pastors, and other principal Members of the Catholic Roman Church, in all Ages.  

A Copy of the first Paper, which M. Fisher writ, and delivered to the old Gentleman, before the meeting.  
1. It is certain, There is one, and but one true infallible 
Eph. 4. Heb. 11.  Faith; without which, none can please God, nor consequently, attain eternal Salnation.  
2. This one infallible Faith cannot be had( according to the ordinary course of God's providence) but 
Rom. 10. v. 14, 15. Eph. 4. 11.  by hearing Preachers and Pastors of the true visible Church, who only are lawfully sent and authorized to teach the true Word of God.  
3. As therefore this one infallible Faith hath been, and must be, in all Ages: so there must needs be, in all Ages, Preachers and Pastors of the true visible 
Ose. 2. v. 19, 20. Isa. 59 20. Matth. 18. 20. Eph. 4. v. 11.  Church; of whom, all sorts of people have in time past( as appeareth by Histories) learned, and must in all future times, learn the said infallible Truth.  
4. Hence followeth, That if Protestants be the true visible Church of Christ; all sorts of men, who in every Age have had the aforesaid infallible Faith, have learned it, by hearing Protestant Preachers, whose names may yet be found in Histories; as the names of those are found, who in every former Age did teach and convert People of several Nations unto the Faith of Christ.  
5. Hence further followeth, That if there cannot( as there cannot) be found in Histories, Names of Protestant Preachers, who in all Ages did teach all sorts of faithful People, and who converted several Nations unto the Christian Faith: Hence followeth, I say, That Protestants are not the true visible Church of Christ; neither are their Preachers lawfully sent, or sufficiently authorized to teach; nor People securely warranted, to learn of them that one infallible Faith, without which none can possibly please God, nor( if they so live and dye) be saved.  
If any Protestant will answer; let him set down Names of Protestant Preachers in all Ages, who taught People Protestant Doctrine in every several Age; or confess, there were no such before Luther; or, at least, not in all Ages to be found in Histories.   
After this, M. Fisher let the old Gentleman see a little printed Book, in which was a Catalogue of visible Roman Professors in all Ages: wishing him to urge his Ministers, to show( if they can) a like Catalogue of their Protestant Professors. And it is very likely, that this Book( as also the foresaid Paper) was by this old Gentleman carried to Sir Humphrey: from whom, about two or three days before the meeting, a Paper was sent to M. Fisher, containing the former Question; and another like Question proposed to him, to dispute upon: the contents whereof were as followeth.  
The question proposed by M. Fisher, in which he undertaketh to maintain the negative, is set down by him in haec verba:  
Whether the Protestant Church was in all ages visible, 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?  
To this universal demand( requiring rather an Historical large volume then Syllogical brief disputes, we answer, That although:  
1. Divine infallible Faith is not built upon deduction out of humane History, but divine Revelation, as is confessed by the Schoolmen, and expressly by Bellarmine, Historiae humanae non faciunt fidem nisi humanam.  
2. And this question is grounded upon uncertain and false supposals: yet we requite this Proponent, putting him to his own task in his own defence, by propounding to him the like question: viz.  
Whether the Romish Church,( that is, a Church holding the particular entire doctrine of the now Romanists, as it is comprised in the 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?  
We will answer negatively, That no such Church or Professors can be showed.  
This Paper being delivered to M. Fisher, he writ a second Paper, to explicate the meaning of his question, to show an equal method of proceeding in the Disputation.  

A Copy of a second Paper, written by M. Fisher before the meeting.  
M. Fisher being requested thereunto, for satisfaction of a Gentleman, propounded two questions:  
1. The first, Whether there must not be in all ages a visible Church, of which all sorts are to learn the infallible Faith, necessary to salvation?  
2. The second, Whether the Protestant Church was in all ages visible, 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?  
To the first question, Sir H. and others that were present, assented; so as it was subscribed with these words, It is granted: and so M. Fisher was content, that his second question should be the only question. Then Sir H▪ having left it to the choice of M. F. whether he would answer, or dispute: M. F. did choose to answer, and defend the negative part. So as it lieth upon Sir H. and those whom he shall choose, to make his party good, to prove out of good Authors the affirmative; to wit: The Protestants Church was in all ages visible, especially in the ages before Luther. And likewise, they must set down the names of such visible Protestants in all ages, as was demanded. When Sir H. or his friends shall have performed this their task, M. Fisher will perform what is required in the Paper sent unto him by Sir H. in the same sort and sense, as he requireth Sir H. and his friends to perform their task.  
For avoiding therefore of all mistaking, and consequently, needless and fruitless Disputes, M. F. in his question requireth:  
1. That names of men in all ages be set down, whom Sir H. and his friends conceive to have been Protestants.  
2. 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 the Roman Catholics.  
3. That Sir H. or his friends will defend against M. F. that the same men held no other points of Faith, one differently from another, and from the present Protestant Doctrine( contained in the 39 Articles, unto which all English Ministers are sworn) for otherwise they cannot make one and the same Protestant Church.  
In this sort and sense, when Sir H. or his friends shall have showed a visible Protestant Church in all ages, than M. F. or his friends will in a like proportionable sort and sense, show, prove and defend a visible Roman Church in all ages.   
This Paper was delivered to the old Gentleman, and was confessed to have been received by the Doctors before the disputation, and before the meeting. The time and manner of which meeting is set down by the Protestant Relator, in manner following:  
The 27. of june, 1623. M. Fisher, M. Sweet, jesuits, and some others with them, came to Sir H. Lynds house, in a little dining room, where they found the aforesaid M. Bugs, his wife and children, and others of Sir H. friends, that had then dined with him, together with some others also: whose coming in, as the said Sir H. 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: notwithstanding which his command, some others also came in scattering, after the conference began.  
In this parcel it is to be considered, how great care M. Fisher had to have the meeting secret, and how well he observed the fore-appointed conditions: in which he was so punctual, that after he had his number, of one Assistant, and four Witnesses, and a Writer, he would not so much as tell a Gentleman of his acquaintance( who had by other means understood of the meeting, and the place of meeting) at what hour the meeting should be; whereas on the contrary part, so much speech was made of it, by some of the Protestant side, that( beside the number appointed to be Auditors) many Protestant Gentlemen and Gentlewomen, and some Noblemen, and many Ministers, did repair to Sir Humphrey his house, which M. Fisher found to be so filled, as he complained to Sir Humphrey of the inequality of that Audience, compared with the few he brought; which Sir H. could not deny, but excused himself in such manner as he could, saying: He could not help it, etc.   

CHAP. II. About that which passed in the Conference itself.  
DOctor White and Doctor Featly, being invited to dinner( saith the Protestant Relator) by Sir Humphrey Lynd, and staying a while 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.  
Whether the Protestants Church was in all ages visible, and especially in the ages going before Luther. 2. And whether the names of such visible Protestants, in all ages, can be showed and proved out of good Authors?  
This Question being delivered to the parties above named, and it being notified unto them, that there were certain persons who had been solicited, and remaining doubtful in Religion, desired satisfaction especially in this point; they were persuaded to have some speech with the Jesuits touching this point: the rather, because the Priests and Jesuits do daily cast out Papers, and disperse them in secret; in which they vaunt, That no Protestant Minister dare encounter with them in this point.  
Any man reading this parcel, would be induced to think, that D. White and 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.  
2. 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 one only entire Question, as Sir Humphrey himself had desired.  
3. He seemeth willing to persuade, that Priests and Jesuits do daily cast out Papers, which is not true.  
At the beginning of this meeting, when the Disputants were set( saith the Protestant Relator) D. Featly drew out the Paper, in which the Question above rehearsed was written, with these words in the Margin, viz. I will answer, that it was not; and 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:  
] And then he read out of a Paper( which this Relator would make men believe to have been said memoriter) the same in effect, which was written before the meeting, to M. Fisher.  
1. That 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 tantum fidem humanam, cui subesse potest falsum: Humane Stories 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 your 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 new 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 the Relator omitteth to tell how M. Fisher caused the two Papers, written and given the old Gentleman, as is above said, to be publicly read: by the first whereof, it appeared why he had propounded such a Question▪ by the second, the true sense and meaning of the Question was explicated, and a convenient Method of proceeding was prescribed, with due proportion to be observed on both sides.  
Then D. Featly beginning to argue( in this place, and not in the end of the Disputation, where the Protestant Relator placeth it) did say: M. Fisher, I wish, I warn, I command, I conjure you, to answer truly and sincerely, in the sight of God, and as you will answer it at the Day of judgement. To this M. Fisher said: I willingly accept your warning, and I wish you to observe the like.  
About this time M. Sweet propounded these Conditions to be observed.  

1. That all bitter speeches should be forborn.  
2. That nothing should be spoken, or heard, but to the purpose.   
Which second he did propound, to prevent impertinent digressions.  
Nevertheless, after this, D. Featly made a long digression, altogether impertinent to the Question which he was to dispute of▪ for in stead of proving a Protestant visible Church, and naming visible Protestant, in all ages, he made a vain and unseasonable bragging offer, to disprove the Roman Church in diverse particular points( as are rehearsed by the Protestant Relator) which he read out of a Paper. Whereunto as he was speaking M. Sweet according to the second Condition, before propounded, answered, That th●se things were then impertinent, and nothing to the purpose. But M. Sweet did not say, as the Relator reporteth, They are Scholastical points, not Fundamental. Neither was there any such Syllogism then made, as the Relator annexeth.  
D. Featly having ended his long digression, M. Fisher said( as the Protestant Relator telleth:) 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 mean while, name but one Father, but one Writer of note, who held the particulars above named for five hundred 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. First, for that M. Fisher formerly answered, That he would satisfy all particulars, after the visibility of the Protestant Church, in all ages, was showed, as the present Question required. Secondly, because to dispute of these particulars, was unseasonable, and not to the present purpose: as likewise was that other motion, made by Sir Humphrey Lynd to M. Sweet, to dispute of Transubstantiation out of S. Augustine. To which motion, being( as I said) unseasonable, M. Sweet answered well, according to his second Proviso, saying: That is not now to the Question.  
Then D. Featly said( saith the Protestant Relator) 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.  
No, saith M. Fisher, you must not only prove it to be visible, but so visible, as the names of Protestant Professors in all ages may be showed out of good Authors.  
To this, D. Featly said: There are two Qu●res in your Question: First, Whether the Protestants Church were in all ages visible? And secondly, Whether the names of such visible Protestants can be showed?  
No, said M. Fisher, 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 Vtrum, Whether, and the Copulative Et, And, as if Grammar Scholars had been disputing, rather than grave Divines, who were not to stand upon rigour of Grammar, especially in this case, where the sense of the Speaker is plain, and may well stand with Grammar) M. Fisher said: The Question being mine, it pertaineth to me to tell the meaning; and my meaning was, only to make it one Question: viz.  
Whether the Protestants 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. Prove this, or prove nothing.  D. 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, in all ages, out of good Authors.  
But the Protestant Church is so visible, as the Catholic Church ought to be, and as the Popish Church is pretended to be. Ergo  M. Fisher. 
I deny the Minor. Minorem probate.  D. Featly. 
That Church, 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. Ergo  
To this, M. Fisher answered: first excepting against the Word, Eternal; saying: Faith is not eternal, or ab aeterno.  
It is true, said a Minister who sat by; Faith is not eternal, but eviternal.  
Neither so, said M. Fisher; for it is not to be for ever in Heaven.  
It is eternal( said D. White) in Predestination.  
So( said M. Sweet) D. White himself may be said to be eternal: and he might have added, this present Disputation may be said to be Eternal.  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, etc.  
If this were said by D. Featly( which is doubted) 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 D. Featly did explicate his meaning. But to return to the argument.  D. Featly. 
That 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  M. Fisher. 
Your argument is a fallacy, called Petitio principij.  D. Featly. 
A demonstration, a causa, or a priori, is not Petitio principij.  
But such is my argument. Ergo  
Is it not a sounder argument, to prove the visibility of the Professors from the truth of their Faith; then as you, the truth of your Faith from the visibility of Professors? Visible Pastors argue not a right Faith. Heretics, Mahumetans, and Gentiles, have visible Professors of their Impieties: yet will it not hence sollow, 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.  M. Sweet. 
You ought to prove the truth of your Church a posteriori, for that is to the Question, and not a priori.  D. Fealty. 
Shall you prescribe me my Weapons? Is not an argument a priori▪ better than an argument a posteriori? etc.  
To this, M. Fisher said: A proof a posteriori is more demonstrative than a priori.  
Thus far the Relator; who hath here added much more than was said: and in particular, those formal words which he reporteth M. Fisher to have said: viz. A proof a posteriori is more demonstrative than a priori, M. Fisher did not speak: perhaps he might say, That a proof a posteriori doth better demonstrate to us then a priori: not meaning in general to prefer a Logical demonstration a posteriori before that which is a priori; but that such a proof a 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 D. Featly or D. White can make a priori, to prove the Protestant Church to be the true Church, as shall be showed when need is, hereafter: at this present it may suffice to say to that which D. Featly now objecteth against the proof taken from visibility, That although all kind of visible Professors do not argue right Faith, yet want of visible Professors argueth want of Christ's true Church. For supposing it to be true, which even D. Featly himself here saith( according to the Protestants Relator) viz. We know by the Promises of God in the Scripture, that the Church which maintains the true Faith, shall have always Professors, more or less, visible: and( as M. 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 D. Whitaker, contra Dur. l. 7. p. 472. That whatsoever is foretell by the ancient Prophets, of the propagation, amplitude, and glory of the Church, is most clearly witnessed by Histories: and supposing last out of D. 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, beside 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.  
But as for the argument, which D. Featly will needs persuade us not to be Petitio principy, but Demonstratio a priori: viz.  
That Church, whose Faith is eternal, and perpetual, and unchanged, is so visible, as the Catholic Church ought to be, and as the Popish Church by M. Fisher is pretended to be.  
But the Faith of Protestants Church is eternal, perpetual, and unchanged.  
Ergo, The Protestants Church is so visible as the Catholic Church ought to be, and the Popish Church is pretended by M. Fisher to be.  
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 D. Featlyes' 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; then 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 D. 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 no●um 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 particulat 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 therefore look back upon his argument, and tell us what Academical Learning taught him to call it a Demonstration a priori.  
But let us hear how M. Fisher did answer this argument, according to the Protestant Relator.  M. Fisher. 
I distinguish the Mayor.  
That Church, whose Faith is perpetual, and unchanged, so as the names of the Professors may be showed; is so visible, as the Catholic Church ought to be, and as M. Fisher pretendeth 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 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.  
This idle exception, M. Fisher( attending to the matter) did not regard: but might have told him, That it is not unuseal, after a distinction made both to Mayor and Minor, to apply the like to the Conclusion. For, although it be true, That in a Syllogism, when Maior and Minor are absolutely granted, the Conclusion must not be denied, nor distinguished, but must be absolutely granted; yet when Maior and Minor also be distinguished, the Conclusion may be distinguished. And I marvel what Rule of Logic D. Featly can bring against this?  
In like manner, if D. Featly did say any such words as the Relator telleth: viz. A strange distinction of the eternity of Faith, by Professors to be named, and not to be named: What are Professors nominable, or innominable, to the eternity of Faith?  
If( I say) D. Featly did say these words; it is like, M. Fisher did not regard them, as being impertinent: but might have said, That this distinction had not relation to eternal Faith, but to a Church which hath eternal Faith: about which, it imports much to know, whether it hath Professors nominable, or innominable. For if it hath not, it is invisible; or, at least, not so visible as the true Catholic Church( of which, all sorts in times past have learned, and in time to come must learn the infallible Divine Faith, necessary to Salvation) ought to be.  
Therefore M. Fisher might well( though I think he did not) say as the Relator telleth, Tolle distinctionem, 
M. Fisher.  and conclude that which I deny: That the Faith of the Protestant Church is so eternal, as the names of visible Protestants in all ages may be showed.  
To prove this, D. Featly made this argument, according to the Protestant Relator.  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, as the names may be showed in all ages.  
But the Faith of the Protestant Church is the Primitive and Catholic Faith, once given to the Saints, without which none can be saved.  
Ergo, The Faith of the Protestant Church is so perpetual, as the names may be showed in all ages.  
Note here, That the Relator putteth in the Margin, overagainst the Minor, Tollitur distinctio. But how false this Marginal Note is, appeareth to any who will reflect upon what the Distinction was, and what I have now said of it; For this Minor speaking only of Faith, doth not take away the distinction applied to the Church.  
That which D. Featly thinketh to be a strain of new Logic, to wit, 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: but the whole proposition, being Amphibological, needeth; it being true, if it be meant, The Aethiopian is white in the Teeth: and false, if it be meant, He is white in his whole Body.  
To the argument. M. Fisher said: I deny the Minor. But marking, that hereupon D. Featly would have transferred the Question to endless disputes, about particular Controversies, from the present general Question, about the perpetual visible Church; whose Professors names( as himself saith) may be showed in all ages. M. Fisher( I say) marking this, would not let D. Featly make his proof: but having said, I deny the Minor; he presently added, by way of explication, these ensuing words:  
My first Question was, Whether there must not be a true visible Church of Christ in all ages, of which all sorts must learn that infallible Faith, which is necessary to Salvation? and therefore, we must first find such a Church, before men can know it to be such, as they may securely learn of it, what is the infallible Faith, necessary to Salvation.  
While M. Fisher was beginning to make this explication, D. Featly insulted, as if M. Fisher durst not, for Conscience, deny the Minor absolutely. To whom, M. Fisher said: I do absolutely deny it. And then he went forward with the aforesaid explication. Which ended, M. Fisher said: And hereupon I answer again to the said 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: viz. To show to those who were not able by their own abilities to find out the infallible Faith, necessary to Salvation, without learning of the true visible Church of Christ: and consequently, visibility of the Church is first to be showed, before the truth of Doctrine in particular shall be showed.  
To this( as the Relator saith) D. Featly replied: viz. First, What speak you of those, who are not able by their own abilities to find out Faith? Is any man able, by his own ability, without the help of Divine Grace? Secondly, What helpeth the visibility, to confirm the Truth of the Church? visibility indeed proves a Church, but not the true Church.  
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 
D. Field in his Epistle Dedicatone.  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 who 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.  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: Ergo, your answer is false, and impertinent. And first, it is not false.  M. Fisher. 
I answer to the Antecedent, That it is both false, and impertinent: but I add, That for the present it must 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 Minor doth necessarily and directly infer the conclusion of the Minor last denied, is pertinent to the probation of that Minor denied.  
But the Minor proposition of the third Syllogism, doth necessarily and directly infer the conclusion of the Minor last denied.  
Ergo, the Minor of that Syllogism is pertinent.  
M. Fisher did distinguish the Mayor. That Minor proposition, which together with the Mayor doth necessarily infer the Conclusion, so as it may serve for that purpose to which the whole Dispute is ordained; I grant it to be pertinent.  
But if it do infer the Conclusion; yet not so, as may serve for that purpose for which the whole Dispute was ordained: I deny the Mayor.  
Here( saith the Protestant Relator) the Disputants jarred, and so the Writer ceased.  
What this jar was, is not set down, nor by me remembered, unless it were about this subsequent Syllogism.  D. Featly. 
That Minor, which together with the Mayor, infers the Proposition last denied, the whole process having been per directa media, is pertinent to that purpose to which the Dispute is ordained.  
But the Minor, together with the Mayor, directly and necessarily infers the Proposition last denied; the whole Processus having been made per directa media.  
Ergo, It is pertinent to that purpose, to which the Dispute is ordained.  M. Fisher. 
Your Media in your Syllogisms were directa, but they tended not ad directum finem.  
If M. Fisher did say these words, his meaning may be gathered out of his former explication: in which he 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. Which being once found, men desirous of satisfaction, might( as D. Field said) rest in her judgement; who otherwise( as Lawyers without a judge) might wrangle in every Controversy, without end.  
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 Controversies, but not ad directum finem; that is, not ordained to the direct end of the whole Disputation: viz. To show a visible Church of Protestants in all ages, whose names may be showed out of good Authors. Which( supposing D. Featly would have proceeded sincerely) ought to have been his only end: as M. Fisher signified, by saying these words; Responsum nullum dabunt pr●ter unum quod nunquam dabunt▪ ecce nomina.  
D. Featly therefore had no just cause to say, as the Protestant Relator maketh him say: It is a Bull, M. Fisher, media, directa, yet not add directum finem; that is, direct, and not direct: for media are said to be directa only ratione finis.  
D. Featly( I say) had no just cause to say this: and M. Sweet might well tell him of his fault, in seeking to transfer the Question from the Church, to particular points of Faith, as the Protestant Relator saith he did; saying:  Is not, Transitio a genere in genus, a fault in arguing? etc. 
But M. Sweet did not speak these formal words which the Protestant Relator hath set down: only he asked the Doctors, Whether it seemed strange to them, that a Question should be transferred by a good Syllogism: which he said, in regard D. Featly endeavoured to prove his argument to be pertinent, because his Syllogisms were good.  
Here D. Featly( as the Protestant Relator telleth) said: I acknowledge, that Transitio a genere in genus, is a fault in disputing; but I 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 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 a genere in genus?  
But D. Featly did not say all this; yet if he did, it doth not make any thing against M. Sweet: and for him to speak of the cause, being obscure, when the Question is only about the effect, being more apparent and clear( as in our case) is a fault in honest and sincere dealing. Neither is M. Sweets Logic less to be esteemed, if he had termed that fault Transitio a genere in genus: For a cause as a cause, and an effect as an effect do not only differ specie, but also genere: and beside, a proof a priori and a posteriori are diverse kinds of proofs.  
Here( saith the Protestant Relator) those of M. Fisher's side calling for Names, D. White said:  
Where are your Names?  
This is nothing but apparent tergiversation. You will not answer any argument directly, nor suffer us to proceed in our arguments: 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 for that you now oppose, and suffer me to answer.  
Prove by Christ and his Apostles, or by any of the Fathers for the first six hundred years, these present Tenets of the Roman Church:  
and then he named( as the Protestant Relator saith) six particular Points.  
But D. White did not speak thus, neither did he in all the Conference make any such long discourse. Yet if he had so said. M. Fisher might well have answered, as the Protestant Relator saith he did.  M. Fisher. 
When you D. White, or D. Featly, have proved your Church to be visible in all ages, and named visible Protestants; then will I satisfy your demands.  
But before this was done, M. Fisher had no reason to divert to those particular matters, nor to produce Names of Catholics in all ages; in regard it was his adversary's fault to spend so long time in impertinent Syllogisms, which should have been employed in naming and proving Protestants in all ages: which by the prescribed method was first to be done, before M. Fisher needed to prove any thing pertaining to the Roman Church▪ Worthily therefore might M. Sweet call for Names of Protestants, and well might he say: That if Protestants had been in all ages, their Names( at least some) in every age might be produced.  
Unto which, as the Protestant Relator saith, D. Featly replied, saying: That is a Non sequitur, etc. 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 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?  
To this Objection, 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, and Ciril 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 the Heretic, did afterwards renounce him from being their Head, because he would not accurse the Council of Chalcedon. Others say, That one Severus, Bishop of Antioch, was their Author.  
But howsoever this particular were, it donth 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's, described in Scripture to be spread over the World, a small number of visible Professors be not sufficient, as S. Augustine proveth against the Donatists; 
Aug. lib. de unitate Ecclesiae.  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 Buttrie-Booke? You shall have a Buttrie-Booke, if you will stay a while.  
Note( Reader) this Doctor's want of gravity and patience, and what a fit Title he giveth to a Catalogue of Names of Protestants, who( indeed) are more like to be found in a Buttrie-Booke, then in any good Record of Antiquity: as having had their beginning of late in one Martin Luther; who, after his Arostasie, more respected the Buttery, than any Ecclesiastical Story.  
But how unwilling D. Featly was to bring out this his Buttrie-Booke, appeareth; in that after the Auditory had long stayed and often called for the Names of Protestants in all ages, which should have been given at first; after not only Catholics, but also diverse of the Protestants( being weary and not willing to hear any more of his dilatory and impertinent Syllogisms) had entreated him to give over his arguments, and to produce Names.  
First, he said: If I should give over, M. Fisher would say of me, as he said of D. White, That I was at a Non▪ plum: and therefore I will go forward in arguing.  
To which, M. Fisher said: Then will I go forward in answering.  
But the Company earnestly calling for Names, D. Featly bade the Writer set down in writing, That he was willing to proceed; but to satisfy the Company, he would divert unto the Names.  
Which M. Fisher seeing to be written, said: Unless this be blotted out, it shall be set down for Answer; That hitherto D. Featly having diverted from the chief end of the Question, will now speak to the purpose.  
M. Sweet also said: That it was a manifest wrong. Whereupon the former words were blotted out.  
And it was written( as the Protestant Relator saith) That both the Disputants being willing to proceed, D. Featly was desired by the Company, to produce the Names of such Protestants as were extant before Luther, in all ages.  
This being written, and subscribed both by D. Featly and M. Fisher, D. Featly proceeded to his Induction. But before he would begin to name any, he first endeavoured to forestall his hearers with an i'll opinion against M. Fisher, saying:  
There is no credit to be given to this man, who not only slandered D. White in a former Conference, but also falsely writ what passed betwixt M. Musket and myself, in a certain Disputation.  
M. Fisher hearing this false slander, did rise up, and for the honour of the Truth, and clearing of his Credit, did( before the Audience) solemnly protest, upon his Conscience, That wittingly and willingly he did never wrong either D. White, or D. Featly, in report of any former Conference. And if any thing were false written, it was not willingly: but, as the Protestant Writer of this present Conference hath sometimes mistaken the words of the Disputants; which, as he( being warned) did correct: so did I( said M. Fisher.)  
To this, nothing was replied: and therefore I suppose that the Audience was well satisfied of M. Fisher's sincerity in his Relation, and writing of the former Disputations.  
After this, D. Featly named for the first age, our Lord and Saviour Christ, and the Twelve Apostles, and S. Paul, and S. Ignatius: after which he stayed a while, as if he 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 Apostles? 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? Then you grant, Christ and his Apostles to be Protestants. And so instantly( without expecting M. Fisher's answer) he turned himself to the Audience, and said: He grants Christ and his Apostles to be Protestants. Whereupon diverse of the Audience made such a shout( as if they had gotten a Victory) with such a noise, as M. Fisher 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 begun. 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.  
This is the true Relation of this last passage; by which the falsehood of that Relation which is made by the Protestant Relator, may appear: For to make the best of D. Featly his Tergiversation, or rather plain flight from proceeding in his Induction, and to cast some colour over the matter, by which he may make Protestants believe, that D. Featly had reason, and M. Fisher was to blame; First he maketh M. Fisher say, You shall not begin with Christ and his Apostles: as if M. Fisher had prohibited him to begin with the names of Christ and his Apostles, which he did not: neither did he say those words at all, which the Relator reporteth. Secondly he suppresseth in silence M. Fishers express yielding to dispute about Christ and his Apostles, which M. Fisher did express two several times: once thus; I will dispute of them in due place: the second time when D. Featly would needs begun, and in going asked, will you dispute or no? thus, I will, if you will stay. Thirdly he relateth a Syllogism to be made in this last passage, which is not remembered; but if it were, it was very impertinent to an Induction, and may easily be answered out of that which was formerly said against a like Syllogism called by D. Featly, A Demonstration à priori, but is proved not to be so much worth as a probable proof à posteriori. Fourthly he relateth a conjuring charge to have been made by D. Featly to M. Fisher, in this last passage, which was not made.  
But to return to the breaking up of the Conference. So soon as D. Featly had in the abrupt manner aforesaid, gone away, and left M. Fisher and M. Sweet, and diverse others of good rank sitting at, or near about the Table, amongst whom was the Earl of Warwick▪ who not liking( as it seemed) that the matter should end in that ill fashion, made a speech to M. Fisher, and told him, that the Doctor should come again, and give the rest of the Names of Protestant Professors after some days, it being requisite that the Doctor should have time to study for them. To which M. Fisher said, he was willing he should take tyme. Then the writing of such things as had passed in the Conference( being subscribed under D. Featly, and M. Fisher's hands) was wrapped up in a paper, and sealed up with three seals, one with my Lord of Warwick's, and the other with two other seals, & left in Sir Humphrey Lynds hands, or some other Protestant, with promise that it should be kept unopened till the next meeting, and that M Fisher afterwards should have it, or a true copy of it: which promise hath not yet been performed, partly by reason the next meeting was prohibited; but by whose means this prohibition came, although I will not Censure( as the Protestant Relator saith, a Romanist hath confidently averred) that the Protestant party laboured to have all future meetings, touching this occasion, forbidden, because they cannot make good that which they have undertaken about naming of Protestant Professors in all ages; yet I cannot hinder men to have such like suspicion, because I know it is impossible for Protestants to perform that undertaken Task.  
Now whereas myself have heard that some suspected, that the Catholic party had made means to get the second meeting hindered, this idle fancy hath no foundation of any probability. For all Catholics are confident, that Protestants can never produce out of good Authors, Names of the Professors of this their new Reformation, no more than any other Sect of Heretics can produce the Names of men of their profession in all Ages since Christ: whereas Roman Catholics in their printed Books ordinarily set down the Names of their Professors, and chief Pastors in all Ages: And so the victory being so certain on their side, they had no reason to hinder the meeting, whereby this question should be determined, especially in such sort as is prescribed in M. Fishers second paper( above rehearsed) written before the last meeting. And in particular for M. Fisher and M. Sweet, it is most certain, that they much desired the second meeting, as may appear: First, in that the next day after the last meeting, they went to Sir Humphrey Lynds house, offering to give unto him a Catalogue of Names of such as they would defend to have been Professors of the Roman Faith in all Ages, that he might deliver it to D. Featly and D. White to consider of against the next meeting, upon condition that they should also reciprocally deliver up to M. Fisher, & M. Sweet, a Catalogue of such as they would defend to have been Protestants in all Ages, to be considered off against the said next day of meeting. The which offer seemed to another Protestant( who was then in Sir Humphrey Lynds company) very reasonable and equal. But Sir Humphrey said: No, I know the Doctor's minds, that they will not give up any Catalogue before the very meeting: and he asked M. Fisher, why he did so much press the Doctors for names of men of their  
profession in all Ages? To whom M. Fisher answered that the reason( to deal plainly) was, because he was fully persuaded, that they could not give up any such Names. After this M. Fisher and M. Sweet reflecting upon Sir Humfrey's words, began to suspect, that there would be no more meeting, unless the Earl of Warwick( who had engaged himself by his word to M. Fisher that it should be) did press the Doctors unto it: wherefore it seemed good that the Earl should be moved hereunto by a letter written by M. Fisher unto him, the copy whereof I have thought good, to insert here as followeth.  
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 undertook to show against me, & my companion, that the Protestant Church had been visible in all Ages, and that their Professors might be named, especially in all Ages, before Luther. Your Lordship may remember the substance of all the 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 suspected.  
Certainly hereby they are so far from having discharged themselves, of the great enterprise they undertook, as they stand more engaged then before to the performance of it: for having now professed and acknowledged that the true Church, or( to use their own words) the Church which is so visible as the true Catholic Church ought to be,( and the Church whose faith is eternal and unehanged, 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, & prudently your Lordship in the end desired another meeting, not doubting that your own party within 3. or 4. 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, this first of july 1623.  
Your Lordship's servant in Christ, john Fisher.  
By this Letter it may appear how willing M. Fisher and M. Sweet were, and yet are, of their part, to have the matter sound prosecuted, either by meeting or writing. And I have heard that the Earl to whom this letter was written, did send to D. Featly, so, as although there be a prohibition of meeting, yet it is expected that by way of writing D. Featly go forward to perform his undertaken Task, and setting down first the Names of such as he judgeth to have been Protestant Professors in every Age since Christ: And then proving out of good Authors, those whom he nameth, to have been members of the Protestant Church, not condemning any one point wherein Protestants at this day do differ from the ancient and Roman Church, and especially in any one of the 39 Articles which English Protestant Ministers are sworn unto; and therefore so long as D. Featly, and D. White shall be silent, and not so much as by writing give a Catalogue of Names of the Professors of their Church, all sorts of people may justly take this their failing for a flight, and for a silent granting, that they have not had visible Protestants in all Ages, whose Names may be showed out of good Authors, as the question required. Whereupon followeth, that the Protestant Church is not the true Church of Christ, nor the Preachers theroflawfully sent to teach, nor people securely warranted to hear and learn of them, what is, and what is not to be believed, by Faith necessary to salvation.   

CHAP. III. Of the issue of the Conference.  
THe Protestant Relator saith, that the issue of the Conference was, that the aforesaid M. Bugs came to Sir Humphrey Lynd, & gave him many thankes for the said meeting, and assured him he was well resolved now of his Religion; that he saw plainly that 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.  
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 toto 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, & to produce Nàmes' of Protestant's in all Ages: the which producing of Names being so often and earnestly required to be done in all Ages, and yet being only pretended( and that most falsely) to be done for one Age, and the Conference being so abruptly left of by D. Featly before he would go forward to name men in other Ages, especially in Ages before Luther, as the Question required; any 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 Names 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 days after all the trouble and stir was passed( which was made about the Conference) the old Gentleman was not so resolute a Protestant as the Relator pretendeth: for meeting M. Fisher and M. Sweet, he desired them to give him a Catalogue of Names of Professors of the Roman Church, saying, 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 may bring to them the Doctors Catalogue with one hand, and receive theirs with the other 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 frailty 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.  
As for other idle and false reports of a great Lady 
a This great Lady did expressly say: that the conference did make against Protestants, even as it was related by you Protestant relator. , or any other Catholics said to have been turned Protestants upon this Conference, I neglect them as being notoriously false. It may be that some Weaklings who not being present at the Conference, nor having commodity to hear what passed, but from the lying lips of some Protestants( Who reported that Fisher was overcome, and had yielded Christ and his Apostles to be Protestants) some Weaklings I say, might perhaps be staggered, until they heard the true report, that this was only an impudent slander, uttered by D. Featly, 
And another Lady, who was present at the conference did protest( to one that asked her how it moved her) that she was by it confirmed in Catholic religion.  but in words and deeds contradicted by M. Fisher. But I make no question so soon as these shall see or hear what is here related, they will be well satisfied and confirmed in the Catholic truth; and that even Protestants themselves, will be moved to hearken more after the matter. And in case their Doctors do not give them a better Catalogue of Names of Protestants in all Ages, than they did in this Conference, they will doubt, as they have cause, that the Protestant Church hath not been so visible in all Ages, as( even by D. Featly his argument is proved) the true Catholic Church ought to be; and consequently that it is not the true Catholic Church, which in their Creed they profess to believe, and out of which( as even Calvin confesseth) they cannot hope for remission of 
Lib. 1. Inst. c. 1. Sect. 4.  their sins, nor salvation of their souls.   

CHAP. FOUR Containing a Review, and Reflection upon the Premises.  
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. 1. The occasion, and consequently the end of the disputation. 2. The Question and true meaning of it. 3. What Method was most fit to have been observed in treating of this question. 4. What course was taken by the Protestant Disputant, & 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.  

§. 1. About the Occasion, and end of the Conference.  
1. The occasion of this Dispute was, as thou hast heard in the Relation, that a certain old Protestant Gentleman was told( as the truth is) that there is no salvation out of the true Catholic Church, and that to believe the Catholic Church, is one of the Articles of the Creed, which every Christian is bound to believe and know: and that this Church was no other besides the most ancient and universally spread over the world, the known Catholic Roman Church, which hath had, and can yet show visible Pastors & other Professors in all Ages: and that the Protestant Church( whereof for the present, he was a member) sprung up of late, and could not be the true Church of Christ, as not having had( as Christ's true Church ought to have) Pastors and Doctors, and lawfully sent Preachers so visible, as the Names of them may be showed in all Ages out of good Authors. And this was the occasion of the dispute; for heerupon the old Gentleman was so much moved in conscience to doubt of the Protestants Religion, that he could not be quiet till he had made means to get this matter discussed in a Conference betwixt Catholic and Protestant Divines, in such sort as in the Relation hath been told. And therefore, the end of this Conference was to give this old Gentleman and others that should hear it, satisfaction in this most important & necessary point. I call this point, most important and necessary, in regard the certainty of every other point believed by infallible divine Faith, necessary to salvation, dependeth upon it. For although every point believed by divine Faith be in itself most true, and by reason of the Divine revelation( made known to the world by Christ & his Apostles) most certain and infallible; yet this truth & infallible certainty thereof is not made known to us( according to the ordinary course of God's providence) but only by the means which God hath appointed, 
Eph. 4. v. 11. etc.  to wit, by Pastors, Doctors, and Preachers 
Rom. 10. v. 14. etc.  of the true visible Church of Christ.   

§. 2. About the Question and meaning of it.  
The Question propounded to be treated in the Conference upon the occasion, and for the end aforesaid, was▪  Whether the Protestant Church was visible in all Ages, especially in the Ages before Luther: and whether the Names of such visible Protestants may be showed in all Ages, out of good Authors? 
The reason why this question was proposed rather than any other, was▪ for that the old Gentleman was already persuaded that there must be in all Ages a visible Church of Christ, having in it visible Pastors & Doctors, and lawfully sent Preachers who are by Almighty God appointed and authorized to teach, and of whom all sorts of people are commanded & warranted to learn infallible Faith necessary to salvation. And further, that this Church, and these her Pastors & Preachers, have been in all Ages past, not only visible, but so visible as the Names at least of some Pastors teaching, and some people learning the true Faith in all Ages, might be produced out of good Authors. And therefore, as he had heard, the Roman catholics made no difficulty to produce out of good Authors the Names of their Pastors & people in all Ages: so he much desired to hear, whether the Names of Protestant Pastors and Preachers in all Ages could not also be produced out of good Authors: for if they could, he meant to remain a Protestant as he had been all his life time▪ but if they could not, he thought it necessary to leave the Protestants, and to adhere to the Roman Church, to learn of it Faith necessary to salvation.  
By this appeareth that the sense and meaning of the Question could be no other than that which M Fisher explicated in the Conference: viz. Whether the Protestant Church was in all Ages so visible, especially in the Ages before Luther, as the Names of Protestant Pastors and Preachers in all Ages may be showed out of good Authors. And further that in case the Protestant Disputant should undertake( as he did tooto boldly undertake) the affirmative part, saying, and offering to prove in general, that the Names of such Pastors and Preachers of Protestant Religion may be showed in all Ages out of good Authors; it should further be required( as M. Fisher required of him) that he should actually name in particular in every several Age such Pastors and Preachers as he thought he could prove and defend to be Protestants. For if the Question had not been thus understood, it should not have been answerable to the occasion and end above said. Neither could the Protestant Disputant sufficiently satisfy the doubt of the old Gentleman, being chiefly caused in that he had heard, that no Protestant could name Pastors and Preachers of his profession in all Ages out of good Authors; So as( to satisfy this doubt) it was not sufficient only to say, nor only in general to prove by such Syllogisms as D. Featly made,( which were such as the old Gentleman( I dare say) did not understand) that the Names of Protestants in all Ages may be showed, but as M. Fisher had showed him a printed book, in which Roman Catholic Pastors and people were in particular named in all Ages: so he expected Protestant Pastors, and people of all Ages to be named in particular, and after proved and defended to be Protestants, as M. Fisher was ready to prove and defend whom he would in particular name, to be Roman Catholics.  
Furthermore although it may seem to some not much material, whether the Protestant Disputant hath begun to name first those of the first Age, & next of the second, and so downward until Luther, or contrary wise to begin with Luther and so upward till the Apostles and Christ; yet both the words of the Question, & the doubt of the old Gentleman had been far better satisfied, and the Tergiversation which D. Featly used in the first age avoided, if M. Fisher had urged him, as he might▪ first to begin with the Age immediately before Luther( a confessed Protestant) and so go upward until Christ, the confessed Fountain of infallible perpetual unchanged Truth: for than it would have been clearly seen, even by the Confession of learned Protestants, particularly Luther himself and others; that those who either are named, or can yet be named by D. Featly, after he hath sought( as I am told he went to seek) Records in the great Library in Oxford, were not visible Protestants, but of a different Profession, Faith, and Religion, and so different, as that they cannot be justly deemed members of one and the same Protestant Church with Luther, after his Apostasy from his Religious Order, and revolt from the Roman Catholic Faith. For proof whereof, I for brevities sake do refer every one who desireth full satisfaction in this point, to what is largely related and proved in the Protestants Apology, in diverse places, but particularly tract. 2. cap. 2. sect. 11. subdivision 3. And will only content myself to city these few testimonies for their sakes, who have not commodity to see that book.  
First therefore 
1 Luth. ep. ad Argentin. anno 1525.  Luther himself saith: We dare boast that Christ was first published by us. Wherefore the Latheran 
2 Conradus Schushelb. in Theol. Calu. lib. 2. fol. 130. B. versus finé.  Conradus Schushelburg saith: It is impudence 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 
3 Geo. Mylli. in Augustanae Confessionis explie. art. 7. de Eccl. pag. 137.  of them not only saith in effect thus much, but proveth it by this argument: If there had been right believers that went before Luther in his office, there had been no need of a Lutheran reformation. Another saith: It 
4 Benedict Morgést. trac. de Eccl, pag. 145.  is ridiculous to think that in the time before Luther any had the purity of doctrine, and that Luther should receive it from them, & not 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 Cimmerian darkness, and that Luther was divinely raised up to discover the same, & to restore the light of true doctrine. And lest this may be thought to have been only the conceit of Luther and Lutherans( who yet could better tell then D. Featly, D. White, and such other new Masters) I will add hereunto what is said, first by 
5 Calu. in I. 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. epi. 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 M. 
8 jewel in his Apolog. of the Church. 4 c. diuis. 2. & in his defence 42.  jewel, who saith, The truth was unknown and unheard of when Martin Luther and Vldericke Zuinglius first came to the knowledge and preaching of the Gospel. And M. Perkins 
9 Perkins in exposit. 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.  
I might add many more 
† See the book entitled: The Author and substance of Protestant religion  testimonies of others, who either in express terms, or in effect affirm the Protestant Church to have been in many Ages before Luther latent, and altogether invisible: which indeed was the common opinion of Protestant's at their first uprising; who on the one side thought they could with shifts, better answer places of scripture, which made often and honourable mention of the Church, than they could answer the evidence of Histories, and of their own experience showing that no visible Protestants were extant before themselves: But now of late, diverse plain places of Scripture and Fathers having been produced, and such evident reasons deduced out of them, proving inevitably that the true Church of Christ, of which all sorts must learn infallible saith necessary to salvation, must needs be visible in all Ages, as, to omit others, are these: My spirit which is in thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of 
Isa. 59 v. 21.  thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed from henceforth for ever. Again: Their seed shall be known in Nations, 
Isa. 61, 9,  and their branches among people: all that see them, shall know them, that these are the seed which our Lord hath blessed. Again: Thy gates shallbe opened continually day and night, 
Isa. 60, 11,  they shall not be shut, that the strength of the Nations and their kings may enter into thee: for the nation and kingdom which 
Matth. 5, 14,  shall not serve thee, shall perish. You are the light of the world: a City built upon a hill cannot be hid. Tell the Church etc. He that will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an 
Matth. 18, 17, Matth. 28, 19, 20  heathen and Publican Going, teach all Nations, baptising them &c. Behold I am with you( to wit, yourselves, and successors teaching and baptising) all days until the end of the world. Conformable to which Scriptures, are also innumerable plain places of ancient Fathers, which may be seen in Coccius: and among others S. Augustine 
Coccius in thesauro Controversiarum, tomo 1. lib. 8. art. 1.  who saith: that the Church being built upon a mountain cannot be hid.  
Out of these, and other plain places of of Scriptures & Fathers, evident Reasons also may be 
Aug. in psal. 47. lib. de unit, Eccles. cap. 16. & 25.  deduced, showing that the Church must needs be visible in all ages. As for example, that otherwise it cannot be such a Church as Christ did institute: nor could it perform those offices which Christ appointed it to perform: nor could those which were in it be instructed by it: nor those which were out of it be converted to it: nor Heretics( pretending to be the Church) convinced not to be it. Wherefore out later Pro testants being not able to sail any longer against this inevitable Scylla, without apparent danger to split their boat, would needs( rather than turn back to the safe haven of the visible Catholic Roman Church) adventure upon the Charybdis of contemning all Monuments of ancient histories, and the plain experience of their primitive Protestant patriarchs, hoping to escape by landing upon the imaginary Island of invisible records, supposed to have been written, and after suppressed in the pretended Pope's persecution of the visible Members of their invisible Church, in the Ages before Luther,( a shift very unsafe and such, as if it were good, might serve any other Sect of ancient, or present Heretics,( as well as our modern Protestants) if they would pretend to have had a continual visible Church of their profession.) But alas, who seeth not that these be mere imaginary Chimeras, or dreams? For if any such people had been( practising especially rites of their religion, though never so secretly) they could not even with a Gyges' ring have passed unseen, but either with their positive profession of their own doctrine, which in some cases obligeth all true believers, or at least with negative profession of faith, by which all faithful men, and at all times are obliged never to make show and profession of a contrary religion; they, or some of them could not choose but to have been noted. And if for that cause any persecution were in that age, as is supposed, infallibly they would have been taken( as others of other Religions, in like cases ordinarily are taken) and imprisoned, or otherwise so punished, as the world could not have been ignorant of their persons, nor Histories set out by friends or enemies silent, in setting down( as usually is done) their names, conditions, opinions, punishments, and persecutions, in such time, such place etc. And if such records of such conspicuous things had been set down in histories, it is not possible that the memory of such notorious matters could be razed both out of books, and out of the minds of men, who without book do continually deliver in words to their successors what they saw with their eyes, or heard with their ears of their predecessors, or read in books to have been done to such persons as professed such a Religion, or to have been done to such books, in which mention was made of such persecution, made against professors of that Religion.  
To say therefore that such persons were, and yet no record in any book or other memory of them, or that once such Records were, but after were by the Pope razed, or burned, and yet no mention made in any book, or other monument that such razing or burning of books was by such a Pope, at such a time &c.( as we can yet out of good Records tell the books burned by Dioclesian the Grandee Persecutor of Christians:) To say( I say) this, is senseless, and plainly showeth, that these men who sought to avoid the Scylla of an invisible Church, by this shift fall into the Charybdis of speaking against sense and experience, and indeed run back upon the Scylla of the same invisible Church; for avoiding whereof they devised this sandy shift of invisible Persecutors, invisible Persecutions, invisible Records of nameless( supposed to be visibly persecuted) members of the Protestant Church in all Ages before Luther. O misery! O madness of our poor deceived Protestants! What? Is it possible, that Luther and Lutherans, Calvin and Caluinists, yea our own Countrymen prime Protestants, convinced with the clear evidency of things in their own days, and with plain Records of all ancient Monuments for former ages, do confess( as you hear even now) that Luther was the first that announced, or published Christ; that he was the first Apostle of the Reformed doctrine; and this so certainly, that they do account it impudence and ridiculous to say, That there were other visible Protestants in Germany before Luther; that they prove by argument this to be impossible; that they acknowledge themselves in this Lutheran Reformation to have departed from all the world; that at Luther's and Caluins coming no ordinary vocation of Churchmen( without which the visible Church cannot be) was extant in any place; that the Church both then, and for many hundred years before was wholly latent and invisible? Is it possible, I say, that all this should be confessed by the primitive Parents, and prime Doctors of Protestancy, and that now their professed children & scholars, and in respect of them, Punies in Protestant divinity, dare be so bold( as D. Featly was in the late conference) to control and contradict those his grand Masters, in not only affirming, but offering to prove by a Syllogism, and by a Demonstration à priori, that the Protestant Church hath been in all Ages visible; and( O wonder!) so visible, as the names of the particular men may be showed in all ages out of good Authors: and further offering to second this Syllogism, by a full Induction, in which he undertook actually to set down their particular names in every several age? Surely the aforesaid Protestants, if they had been present, would have wondered to see such boldness, and would have censured this attempt to be ridiculous impudence.  
By this may appear how notoriously the old Gentleman, and the rest of the Protestant Audience were abused by D. Featly, undertaking so boldly to prove both by syllogism and Induction, the affirmative part of the aforesaid question, which was proposed to be treated in the conference, the Negative whereof is so plainly confessed by so many Prime Protestants, as now we have heard.   

heard 3. About the Method.  
Concerning the Method, which had been fittest to have been observed in treating the aforesaid Question; it is to be noted, that there be two several methodes of finding out infallible divine truth in all points necessary to salvation, the finding whereof was the chief end, for which the aforesaid Question about the perpetual visibility of the Church, was proposed to be treated of.  
The first method or way is, that every man either by his own wit, or by hearing another discourse do examine throughly each particular point of divine Faith, about which Controversy, or Question is, or may be made, what is, and what is not to be believed under pain of damnation; the which requireth, 1. Ability and strength of natural wit, and skill in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and other languages, and some art by which he may understand the terms and state of the Question, and all that is written of it. 2. That he read, or hear, and understand all that is written of that Question in holy Scriptures, Counsels, Fathers, and modern Writers, and in the original Languages and Copies; and what else may be said of it, pro and contra, by learned Disputants. 3. That he do maturely weigh and ponder all that is said, both for the affirmative and negative part of the Question. 4. That by prayer and good life he obtain the assistance of God's spirit to illuminate his understanding, in matters which exceed the capacity of his natural wit. 5. That all this premised, he of himself( without relying upon the judgement of any Church) frame a firm and infallible judgement, what is, and what is not to be held, for truth necessary to salvation; and this being known, by it, as by a rule, to judge which company of men are, or are not the true visible Church of Christ in all Ages. Now who seeth not that this method, or way of attaining sound resolution in all particular points of Faith, & by that to judge what company of men are, or are not the true visible Church in all ages, cannot be fit and convenient to be prescribed to all, or indeed to any sort of men, and especially to such, as neither have extraordinary ability of natural wit, or skill in languages, nor art requisite to understand the terms, and state of all Questions, nor leisure to read, or hear, nor strength of judgement to weigh and ponder all that is, or may be said of them, nor such extraordinary gifts of prayer and other virtues, as they may presume to have gotten particular assistance of God's spirit, more than other men, whereby they may assure themselves, that they in particular( without relying upon any Church's judgement) can firmly and infallibly judge in every Question about points of Faith, what is, and what is not to believed, as a truth necessary to salvation.  
The 2. method, or way, which indeed is both most easy, and may give full satisfaction to all sorts, consisteth in these 3. points. 1. To believe and acknowledge, 
Isa. 59 v. 21. 60. v. 11. 61. v. 9  as every Christian is bound by the articles of his Creed, that there is, and hath been in all Ages a visible Catholic Church of Christ, which is 
1. Tim. 3. v. 15. Ephes. 4. v. 4. 11. 12. 13. 14. Tertul. lib. de prescript.  the Pillar of truth, and in it a visible company of Pastors and Doctors, and lawfully sent Preachers, assisted by the spirit of God( who have learned of their predecessors, and they of theirs, still upwardly until Christ his Apostles, who learned of Christ, and Christ of God his Father, the infallible Truth in all points of faith) of whom by God's appointment all sorts have in all Ages past( as appeareth by Histories) learned, and must in times present, and to come, learn the infallible truth in all matters of Christian faith necessary to salvation. The 2. is, to discern which company of Christians are this visible Church of Christ, and who be these Pastors, Doctors, and lawfully sent Preachers, of whom all sorts of men may securely learn what is, and what is not to be held for infallible truth in all matters of faith necessary to salvation. The 3. is, to hear and believe, and obey whatsoever this Company of Christians have in all Ages taught, and what the present ordinary Pastors, Doctors, and Preachers thereof do teach to be divine and infallible truth, necessary to salvation: which to do, will not be hard to those, who do truly fear and love God, and be meek, and humble in hart, and who can, and will for the love and service of Christ captivate their understanding, and submit it to the obedience of faith, which must be done by mortifying and denying their own private opinion, that they may follow the sense and judgement of Christ, speaking in, and by his Catholic 
Luc. 10. v. 16. Matth. 18. v. 17  Church, Which whosoever heareth, believeth, & obeyeth, doth hear, believe, and obey Christ. And, Whosoever contemneth, or will not hear, believe, and obey the Church, he contemneth Christ, and by Christ's own censure is to be accounted, as an Heathen or Publican.  
Now, concerning the first and third of these points, as no doubt or difficulty was moved either by the old Gentleman, or Sir Humphrey Lind, or the Doctors, or any other of the Company present at the Conference, so there is no reason why any difficulty should be made thereof at all. And as for the 2. point it seemeth to me there should be no great difficulty, in regard it is already agreed of all sides, that there must be one or other such Company of Christians, and among them Pastors & preachers so visible, as is said; and none besides the Catholic Roman hitherto hath showed a sufficient Catalogue of names of men in all Ages, who can with any colour be proved or defended, to have been professors of the true, divine, infallible, Catholic, primitive, unchanged faith, first delivered by Christ, and his Apostles, & after continued in an orderly succession of visible Pastors & Doctors apppointed by God to be always in the Church of purpose, to preserve people of all ages from wavering in doubt of any point of faith, or being carried about with the wind of any upstart Error. Neither indeed can any such Catalogue be given, but it may be manifestly showed to be insufficient, as either wanting names of men in some ages, or containing names of such as may certainly be proved to be no Protestants, but to differ in doctrine of faith one from another, and to condemn one or other of the 39 Articles, unto which English Protestant Ministers are sworn. Nevertheless if any one be not yet satisfied in this point, but will have the Question made, whether the Protestant. Church hath been so visible in all Ages, as the names of their Pastors and Doctors may be showed out of good Authors, I do not see what better method can be prescribed for an easy, speedy, & certain resolution of the question, & sound satisfaction of all sorts of men, that shall desire to be resolved in this most necessary and important question, then that which M. Fisher prescribed in his second paper written before the Conference, in which he required his Adversaries, 1. To set down names in all ages of men which they thought to be Protestant's. 2. To prove out of good Authors by some doctrine of theirs different from the Roman, that they were Protestants. 3. To defend them to be Protestants, showing that they did not differ in faith one from another, nor condemned any of the 39 Articles, unto with all English Protestant Ministers are sworn, in regard otherwise they cannot be all of one Protestant Church: I do not( I say) see, what fitter method can be prescribed for clearing the afore said Question of such visibility as is required, and presuposed to be in the true Catholic Church, then by actual naming, proving and defending, as is above said. For only to say there were, or to ofter by arguments, exceeding the capacity of the common sort of auditors, to prove, that there were men in all ages professing Protestancy, so visible, as that their names may be showed out of good Authors, is no sufficient satisfaction; when especially one being urged actually to show these names, he will not show actually any names, but of one or two ages, and such names as the Roman catholics, his adversaries, by better right may & will name: and being still pressed to name more, he will not name more, but desireth first to dispute of these; which not being permitted till all be named, he most falsely then affirmeth that his Adversary doth grant these to be Protestants, and so runneth away: To do thus( I say)( as D. Featly did) is no fit way to give satisfaction to all sorts, expecting resolution of the aforesaid most important Question. As it were a very insufficient way to give satisfaction in a debt of twenty pieces of gold to another his creditor, if instead of actual payment required, he should say, and offer to prove by a Syllogism, yea by a Demonstratïon à priori, that he can pay him the said twenty pieces: and being urged to lay down the particular pieces of gold, he faith, that by an Induction he will lay down those pieces of gold one after another; and being further pressed to do so, he not having one piece of gold of his own taketh out of his Creditors purse one, or two, or more pieces, and laying down one or two of them, saith, lo here is one or two towards the twenty; and being never so much urged, he will not lay down 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 bemyne, 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 denyeth 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 far more importance and value, and specially in satisfying this( by D. Featly undertaken) debt of showing names of visible Protestants in all ages, out of good Authors.   

§. 4. About the manner of proceeding of the Disputant.  
By this which hath been now said, and that which was heard and seen by those who were present at the Conference, may appear how unfittly D. Featly proceeded in his Syllogism, and his Induction: for in the one, to wit, his Syllogism, he endeavoured to avoid that plain method prescribed by M. Fisher before the meeting, of naming men in all Ages, and proving and defending those he named to be Protestants, and sought to draw the disputation into particular Controversies, which the capacity of those( for whose satisfaction the disputation was ordained) and of diverse others who were present, could not sufficiently comprehend. Now concerning the other, to wit his Induction; first, it was long before he could be drawn to it: secondly having undertaken to make it full( and as the Question required) in all Ages, he( having only made it( and that most falsely) for the first Age) would not proceed further, unless his Adversary would first dispute with him( in particular Controversyes) about those whom he named in the first age: which particular disputation( being of mere Tergiversation and delay) because his Adversary would not presently permit, but told him, that he must first make his full Induction, and then he would answer him as much as need should be in all particulars; he either having no patience to expect, or rather intending to take any such like occasion to break off the Conference, before he should be further pressed to give this full Induction( which with credit he can never give) made such an abrupt end, as in this my Relation is declared.  
Now, for the manner which both D. White, & he observed in the process of the conference, it was noted, that it had not that decorum, which the circumstance of their persons and places should promise. For it no way suited with the grey hairs and gravity of a Doctor, and a Dean, to have laughed and fleered so much as D. White did, upon no cause. And for D. Featly, both his looks, speeches, jests, and gestures were such, as did not become him, but might better have beseemed a Stage-player then a Doctor and an Archbishops Chapline, and discovered a mind not so tempered, as had been requisite in one who pretended to be a Teacher of true Divinity. Finally his whole carriage in this business showed, that he rather sought to please his Audience, and to gain applause to himself, then sound to satisfy that most important Question, of the visibility of the Protestant Church.  
On the other side, M. Fisher, and M. Sweet behaved themselves moderately, not only in the eye and judgement of Catholics, but also of others: so as even their greatest Adversaries could not take exception against them. And one of the principal Protestants present hath since( in respect of temper & modesty) given special commendations of them, & far preferred them before his own Churchmen. And as the method which M. Fisher prescribed before the meeting, is already showed to be the fittest that could be, for giving good satisfaction to the old Gentleman and all others, so in my opinion both he and M. Sweet did very well to stand( as they did) constantly to it, prudently overseeing, when the Adversary would have diverted them from it, and warily so answering his his arguments, as that for all he could say, they would not suffer themselves to be transported from the proposed Question, and the prescribed Method; but still kept the Adversary to the point, & 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, which was the point demanded and undertaken. The which course they took upon just and good reason, and not for any distrust or diffidence( as some Protestants did inconsiderately imagine) that they could not defend Christ and his Apostles not to have been Protestants, or any particular point of those which D. Featly, or D. White unseasonably proposed, or any other held( in such sense, as it is held as a point of faith) by the Catholic Roman Church; which they could, and would have defended, & proved if need had been, or if the meeting had been intended and appointed for that purpose. 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, and to leave that which was most pertinent to the present Question, and which most imported to be decided in the first place, as being the only thing in which the old Gentleman, and many other of the Audience did particularly expect, and desire to be satisfied, and being a most easy and assured means to help them to be satisfied in all other matters in Controversy; & without which, it is most hard, or rather impossible ever to attain certain and infallible Resolution in all particular, even most necessary, points of faith, as M. Fisher expresely showed, and proved by a sentence above cited out of D. Field.  
A second reason might be; for that all disputation about particulars( before the true Church were by her perpetual visibility, or some such evident marks found out, and acknowledged, as a sufficient means appointed by God to instruct all sorts, in matters of faith, and to preserve unity and determine Controversyes of faith) would have been fruitless & 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: 1. What grounds the Minister would stand upon? The Minister answered, Scripture: which M. Fisher accepting wrote down, and then asked. 2. Whether he would believe nothing but express words of Scripture? The Minister answered Yes, he would also believe a good Consequence out of Scripture. This also M. Fisher accepted, and wrote down, and further asked. 3. If it should happen, that the consequence which the Minister should bring, should not be thought good by him: and è contra, the Consequence brought by him should not be thought good by the Minister, who should judge and end that fruitless, and otherwise endless contention and Controversy? The Minister said: The Church▪ M. Fisher very willingly accepted and wrote it down; & 4. asked: Whether after the Church shall have judged and decided such a Controversy, it should be lawful for any private man to oppose his judgement against that, which the Church had so determined? As for example, when Cutholikes and Arrians having alleged Scriptures, and pro and contra brought consequences out of them, about the Divinity of Christ our Lord; The Church in a general Council judged the consequences of Arrians to be naught, and those of the Catholics good. The Minister said: No, it was not lawful for any private man to oppose his judgement against such a judgement of the Church.  
These Questions being asked, M. Fisher joined issue upon a question, bidding the Minister choose what he thought most material against Roman Catholics, and let it be tried, whether the Church did judge for Catholics, or Protestants. The Minister did choose the Question about Merits, and took for his tenet, That there was not any Merit of man before God. And when the day of trial came, the case was so clear against the Minister, in the ancient Fathers( whom the Minister granted to be the Church) even by confession of the Magdeburgians, that the Minister had no shift, but to divert the disputation from the substance of the proposed Question, to a circumstance of Commutative justice, and that equality betwixt the Work and the Reward, which is written of by Bellarmine. About which circumstance M. Fisher was content to dispute after he had plainly showed the substance of Merit out of the ancient Fathers. Coming therefore to dispute about the aforesaid circumstance of Merit, M. Fisher found, that there would be no end, nor fruit of the argument, in regard the ancient Fathers had not spoken of it in express terms, as they had done of the substance of Merit, & no other visible Church of this present age was agreed on, to whose judgement this matter should be finally referred. By which experience, M. Fisher hath learned, how endless and fruitless it is, to waste words about particulars, until both parties be agreed which is the true Church, not only in ancient times, but also of this age. So as after each party hath said what he can, the final resolution of the Question may be referred to that present Church, which( having without interruption of Pastors and Doctors, and without change of doctrine successively descended from the true visible Church of ancient times) is by this, and other Marks proved to be the pre-present true Church, whose judgement no private man must oppose. This Question therefore of the continual successive visible Church, being so necessary to end all Controversies, and being now proposed to be treated of betwixt M. Fisher and D. Featly, M. Fisher had great reason not to permit speech of any other particular Question, until by his prescribed Method, he had gotten it clearly seen, that the Protestant Church was not, and the Catholic Roman Church was the only true Church, to whom it pertaineth to give judgement of, and determine Controversies, and to instruct all sorts of men in the true Faith, and not to permit men by their private interpretations of Scripture to wander in errors, or waver in in certain ties, or spend their time in fruitless, and endless disputations about controverfies of faith: It being most certain, that these can never be with fruit, and fully ended, but by the censure of the true visible( not only ancient but also present) Church, which must when doubt is( as most often is) made, tell us, what particular books be true books of Scripture and Fathers, which be true translations, and which be right interpretations: for both about Scriptures & Fathers such Questions may arise, and cannot be well decided whout the judgement of the true present visible Church, in regard Scriptures and Fathers do not always sufficiently express what is to be held in the aforesaid Questions; neither will one private man, in such cases, follow another's opinion, when each man will be easily inclined to think that he hath as good Scriptures, or Fathers, or Reasons, or all these together, to plead for the truth of his opinion, as another hath for his.  
This reason may be confirmed out of Tertullian who in his golden book of Prescriptions, giveth diverse reasons why Heretics( who reject the authority of the Church) should not be admitted to dispute out of Scriptures. First, for that( by their disputations) they weary those that be fame, they overcome those which be 
Tertull. de praescrip. c. 15.  weak, and those which be in a middle disposition, they dismiss with scruple or doubt. Another reason Tertullian giveth, because, this Heresy doth not receive some Scriptures, or if a receive, it perverteth them to their own purpose, with additions and detractions; and if it receive some, yet not whole, or if whole in some sort, yet by false expositions it turneth them( from the right) to a perverse sense. And a perverse, or corrupt sense( saith he) is as contrary to 
Cap. 19  truth, as is a perverted or corrupted Text.  
Tertullian therefore for these reasons judged best not to make the combat in Scriptures, but that this gap should be stopped, and that Heretics should not be admitted to any disputation of Scriptures; and he telleth how this may be done, saying: It must be examined 
Cap. 20. 21. 22 & sequent.  to whom the possession of Scripture doth belong, to the intent that he who hath no right unto them, may not be admitted unto them. And further he showeth, That the right order of things requireth, that first it only be disputed, to whom the Faith belongeth?( As if he should say, which is the true visible Church?) Whose are the Scriptures? From whom, by whom, when, and to whom was delivered that discipliae, by which they are made Christians? for where there shall appear the truth of Christian saith and discipline to be( as doubtless it is in the true visible Church of Christ) there shallbe truth of Scriptures, and expositions, and all Christian Traditions. And having showed how Christ did promulgate his doctrine by the Apostles, he further prescribeth: That, what Christ, and his Apostles did preach, must be learned no otherwise then by the Churches which they founded: so as every doctrine agreeing with those Apostolical & Mother-Churches, that is to be deemed true; and what doth not agree, to be judged false. And therefore to make it apparent, that the Heretics opinions( although pretended by themselves to be ccformable to Scriptures, and such as may be proved out of Scriptures) are not Apostolical, nor true, he urgeth them( as M. Fisher urged D. Featly) to show the beginning of their Churches, and to unfold the order of their 
Cap. 32.  Bishops, so from the beginning running down by succession, as that their first Bishop had some of the Apostles, or some Apostolical man, who persevered with the Apostles, for his Author and Predecessor; and having given examples of the Catholic Churches, who can thus unfold the order of their Pastors, and namely Rome for one, he saith afterwards: Confingant tale quid Haeretici: Let Heretics even feign some such like thing.  
Thus we see what Tertullian did say to Heretics of his time, by which we may learn what we may say to the Novellists of our time, whom( offering to dispute with us about Scriptures) we may altogether debar from Scripture, and may examine them, as Tertullian did those of his time, saying: Who are you? When, and whence came you? What have you to do in my ground, you that are not mine? By what right dost thou, O Martion( we may say, O Martin Luther) cut down my woods? By what licence dost thou, O Valentine( O Calvin) divert, or turn aside my fountains? By what power dost thou, O Apelles.( O Anabaptist) remove my limits? Why do you, O the rest of Heretics, sow and feed according to your own will upon my Land and pasture? It is my possession, I am the ancient possessor, I have the firm Originals from the Authors themselves, to whom the propriety did first belong: I am the heir of the Apostles; as they did ordain in their Testament and last will, as they did commit it to my faithful Trust, as they did adjure me, so I hold it. But you they have disinherited and cast out, as strangers and enemies etc. So as by this prescription of Tertullian, until D. Featly, or some other can by other marks then by alleging words of Scripture( as by perpetual visibility, and interrupted succession of Bishops etc.) prove Protestant's not to be Heretics, but the true Church of Christ, and the right heir of the Apostles, to whom consequently belongeth the most ancient & first possession of Scriptures, M. Fisher had good reason and right to defer disputing with him( out of Scripture) of Christ and his Apostles, until he had made his full Induction of Names of Protestant Churchmen, and unfolded the orders of their Prostant Bishops, so running down from the beginning by succession, as that their first Protestant Bishop had some of the Apostles, or some Apostolical man, who persevered with the Apostles, for his Author & Predecessor. The which I account to be so impossible for him to do, as I dare, and do challenge him, saying with Tertullian: Confingant tale quid Haeretici: Let D. Featly( or any of his fellow Protestants) at least feign( because I am sure they cannot find) Names of Protestant Bishops, and Pastors, whom they do imagine( for prove they cannot out of good Authors) to have been in all ages. Which whiles they do not, all sorts of people have just cause to think, that neither D. Featly, nor D. White can perform that task, which they did tooto boldly undertake of naming, proving, and defending visible protestants in all ages: & thereupon all men may, as I do, conclude, That the Protestant Church hath not been so visible in all ages, as the Cathelike Church ought to be: and consequently, the Protestant Church is not the true Catholic Church which we profess to believe in our Creed; Neither consequently, are their I'astours, and Doctors and Preachers lawfully sent, or sufficiently authorized, to teach and expound God's word; nor consequently, are people securely warranted to learn of them, what is, and what is not to be believed by infallible divine fa●th necessary to salvation; nor indeed ought they to believe or hear them at all, but aught to unite themselves to that One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, perpetually visible Roman Church, hearing, believing & obeying the Pastors thereof; whereby they may have infallible iustruction in all matters of faith, secure direction for all matters concerning good life, in such sort as they may attain remission of their sins, and salvation of their souls; the grace of God in this life, and endless heavenly happiness in the next. Unto which I beseech sweet jesus to bring us all.   
Amen.  
FINIS.