a Paper shewing briefely and plainely how the true visible Church of Christ must be so visible in al Ages as that the names of some principal Members thereof in euerie Age may be shewed out of good Authors A true Copie of which Paper I thinke fit here to set downe in regard it may serue others as wel as this old Gentleman to vnderstand Why Catholiques doe ordinarily so much presse Protestants to name if they can Protestant Professors in al Ages as Catholiques doe in printed Bookes ordinarily set downe a Catalogue of the Names of the chiefe Pastors and other principal Members of the Catholique Roman Church in al Ages A Copie of the first Paper which M. Fisher writ and deliuered to the old Gentleman before the meeting 1. It is certaine There is one and but one true infallible Faith without which none can please God nor consequently attaine eternal Salnation 2. This one infallible Faith cannot be had according to the ordinarie course of Gods prouidence but by hearing Preachers and Pastors of the true visible Church who onely are lawfully sent and authorized to teach the true Word of God 3. As therefore this one infallible Faith hath beene and must be in al Ages so there must needes be in al Ages Preachers and Pastors of the true visible Church of whom al sorts of people haue in time past as appeareth by Histories learned and must in al future times learne the said infallible Truth 4. Hence followeth That if Protestants be the true visible Church of Christ al sorts of men who in euerie Age haue had the aforesaid infallible Faith haue learned it by hearing Protestant Preachers whose names may yet be found in Histories as the names of those are found who in euerie former Age did teach and conuert People of seueral Nations vnto the Faith of Christ. 5. Hence further followeth That if there cannot as there cannot be found in Histories Names of Protestant Preachers who in al Ages did teach al sorts of faithful People and who conuerted seueral Nations vnto the Christian Faith Hence followeth I say That Protestants are not the true visible Church of Christ neyther are their Preachers lawfully sent or sufficiently authorized to teach nor People securely warranted to learne of them that one infallible Faith without which none can possibly please God nor if they so liue and dye be saued If any Protestant wil answer let him set downe Names of Protestant Preachers in al Ages who taught People Protestant Doctrine in euerie seueral Age or confesse there were no such before Luther or at least not in al Ages to be found in Histories After this M. Fisher let the old Gentleman see a little printed Booke in which was a Catalogue of visible Roman Professors in al Ages wishing him to vrge his Ministers to shew if they can a like Catalogue of their Protestant Professors And it is very likely that this Booke as also the foresaid Paper was by this old Gentleman carryed to Sir Humfrey from whom about two or three dayes before the meeting a Paper was sent to M. Fisher contayning the former Question and another like Question proposed to him to dispute vpon the contents whereof were as followeth The question proposed by M. Fisher in which he vndertaketh to maintaine the negatiue is set downe by him in haec verba Whether the Protestant Church was in al ages visible especially in the ages going before Luther and whether the names of such visible Protestants in al ages can be shewed and proued out of good Authors To this vniuersal demand requiring rather an Historical large volume then Syllogical briefe disputes we answer That although 1. Diuine infallible Faith is not built vpon deduction out of humane Historie but diuine Reuelation as is confessed by the Schoolemen and expressely by Bellarmine Historiae humanae non faciunt fidem nisi humanam 2. And this question is grounded vpon vncertaine and false supposals yet wee requite this Proponent putting him to his owne taske in his owne defence by propounding to him the like question viz. Whether the Romish Church that is a Church holding the particular entire doctrine of the now Romanists as it is comprised in the Councel of Trent was in al ages visible especially in the first 600. yeeres and whether the names of such visible or legible Romanists in al ages can be shewed and proued out of good Authors We wil answer negatiuely That no such Church or Professors can be shewed This Paper being deliuered to M. Fisher he writ a second Paper to explicate the meaning of his question to shew an equal method of proceeding in the Disputation A Copie of a second Paper written by M. Fisher before the meeting M. Fisher being requested thereunto for satisfaction of a Gentleman propounded two questions 1. The first Whether there must not be in al ages a visible Church of which al sorts are to learne the infallible Faith necessary to saluation 2. The second Whether the Protestant Church was in al ages visible especially in the ages going before Luther and whether the names of such visible Protestants in al ages can be shewed and proued out of good Authors To the first question Sir H. and others that were present assented so as it was subscribed with these words It is granted and so M. Fisher was content that his second question should be the only question Then Sir H hauing left it to the choice of M. F. whether he would answer or dispute M. F. did choose to answer and defend the negatiue part So as it lyeth vpon Sir H. and those whom he shal choose to make his party good to proue out of good Authors the affirmatiue to wit The Protestants Church was in al ages visible especially in the ages before Luther And likewise they must set downe the names of such visible Protestants in al ages as was demanded When Sir H. or his friends shal haue performed this their taske M. Fisher wil performe what is required in the Paper sent vnto him by Sir H. in the same sort and sense as he requireth Sir H. and his friends to performe their taske For auoyding therefore of al mistaking and consequently needlesse and fruitlesse Disputes M. F. in his question requireth 1. That names of men in al ages be set downe whom Sir H. and his friends conceiue to haue bin Protestants 2. That those men whose names they set downe be shewed out of good Authors to agree in holding some points of Faith in which Protestants differ from the Romane Catholikes 3. That Sir H. or his friends wil defend against M. F. that the same men held no other points of Faith one differently from another and from the present Protestant Doctrine contayned in the 39. Articles vnto which al English Ministers are sworne for otherwise they cannot make one and the same Protestant Church In this sort and sense when Sir H. or his friends shal haue shewed a visible Protestant
posteriori is more demonstratiue then a priori M. Fisher did not speake perhaps he might say That a proofe a posteriori doth better demonstrate to vs then a priori not meaning in general to preferre a Logical demonstration a posteriori before that which is a priori but that such a proofe a posteriori as he in this present Question required and as the Question it selfe exacted would better demonstrate or shew to al sorts of men which is the true Church then any proofe which D. Featly or D. White can make a priori to proue the Protestant Church to be the true Church as shal be shewed when need is hereafter at this present it may suffice to say to that which D. Featly now obiecteth against the proofe taken from visibilitie That although al kind of visible Professors doe not argue right Faith yet want of visible Professors argueth want of Christs true Church For supposing it to be true which euen D. Featly himselfe here saith according to the Protestants Relator viz. We know by the Promises of God in the Scripture that the Church which maintaines the true Faith shal haue alwayes Professors more or lesse visible and as M. Fisher further proued in one of the foresaid Papers giuen to the old Gentleman before this meeting so visible as their names in al ages may be shewed out of good Authors Supposing also out of D. Whitaker contra Dur. l. 7. p. 472. That whatsoeuer is fore-told by the ancient Prophets of the propagation amplitude and glory of the Church is most clearely witnessed by Histories and supposing lastly out of D. Iohn White in his Way p. 338. That things past cannot be shewed to vs but by Histories Supposing al this I say it is most apparant That if there cannot be produced as there cannot names of Protestants or of any other Professors of Christian Faith in al ages out of Histories to whom Gods Promises agree beside those which are knowne Roman Catholikes not Protestants nor any other but onely the Roman Catholikes are the true Church of Christ which teacheth the true Faith and of which al sorts are to learne infallible Faith necessarie to Saluation But as for the argument which D. Featly wil needes perswade vs not to be Petitio principy but Demonstratio a priori viz. That Church whose Faith is eternal and perpetual and vnchanged is so visible as the Catholike Church ought to be and as the Popish Church by M. Fisher is pretended to be But the Faith of Protestants Church is eternal perpetual and vnchanged Ergo The Protestants Church is so visible as the Catholike Church ought to be and the Popish Church is pretended by M. Fisher to be This argument as it is set downe is so farre from being a Demonstration whose propertie is to conuince the Vnderstanding as it is not a probable or Moral perswasion For I am verily perswaded that no wise man not alreadie possessed with Protestant opinions wil or can be so much as morally conuinced or in any sort probably perswaded by it That Protestants be the true visible Church more then a man in case of doubt can be by the like argument which a man may make to proue himselfe and his Brethren to be as wel spoken of as any in al the Parish Thus Those who are in heart true honest men are as wel spoken of as any in al the Parish But I and my Brethren are in heart true honest men Ergo As this proofe is not able to make any man not partially affected to beleeue these men to be wel spoken of or to be honest men so neyther can D. Featlyes proofe make any wise man beleeue Protestants to be the true visible Church or to haue the true Faith Secondly If the terme That Church be vnderstood onely of a particular Church as for example the Church of England it is so farre from a Logical Demonstration as it hath not in it any Logical forme according to any of the vsual Moods Barbara Caelarent c. But if it be vnderstood vniuersally of euery Church that is or may be then both Maior and Minor are false and so it cannot be a Demonstration whose propertie is to consist of most certainely true propositions The Maior in this latter sense is false for that there may be a Church or Companie who may haue inward Faith eternal and vnchanged as for example a Church of Angels who for want of visible Profession are not so visible as the Catholike Church ought to be The Minor is false also for the Protestant Church hath not the true Primitiue Faith neyther is that Faith they haue vnchanged but so often changed and so much subiect to change as one may say as a great Person in Germanie once said of some Protestants What they hold this yeare I doe in some sort know but what they wil hold next yeere I doe not know Which is true in regard they haue no certaine and infallible Rule sufficient to preserue them from change But if D. Featly shal say That he neyther meant the tearme That Church in eyther of the aforesaid senses but meant to signifie by it that one holy Catholike and Apostolike Church which the holy Scriptures doe shew both to haue perpetual vnchanged Faith and also to be perpetually visible Then indeed the Maior is true But the Minor is most false and so the argument is farre from being a Demonstration especially when it endeuoreth to proue Magis noâ—um per ignotius viz. the Visibilitie which is easily knowne by the truth of Doctrine which is more hard to be knowne especially by onely Scripture of the sense Whereof according to Protestants who say The whole Church may erre no particulat man can be infallibly sure For if the whole Church or Companie to whom Christ promised the Spirit of Truth to teach them al truth may erre Then much more may euery particulâ—r man erre and consequently no particular man can be infallibly sure of the sense of Scripture Thirdly This argument beggeth or supposeth that which is in question For in asking which is the true visible Church or Congregation of the true faithful we aske at least virtually which is the true Faith in regard the true Church cannot be without this true Faith Yea therefore doe we aske which is the true Church that of it being first knowne by other Markes we may learne what is the true Faith in al points in which we yet know not what is to be held for true Druine Faith Fourthly Although Faith be pre-required to be in some or other members of the true Church yet inward Faith alone without some outward profession by which it is made visible or sensible doth not sufficiently make a man to be a member of the visible Church Let D. Featly therefore looke backe vpon his argument and tel vs what Academical Learning taught him to cal it a Demonstration a priori But let vs heare how M. Fisher did answer this
returne to London the said Sir Humfrey Lynd going to Master Buggs his house in Drury lane to vsit him found Master Fisher the Iesuit there where after some debates about Religion and the visibilite of the Church Master Fisher called for Pen and Inke and set downe this question in terminis thereby adding vnder his hand that he would answer vpon it negatiuely as challenging and expecting Opposers deliuering also the Paper into the hands of the said Sir Humfrey Lynd who vpon view of it answered That it was an Historical question and not so proper for disputation But Master Fisher vrging it Sir Humfrey told him If he would goe to D. Whites where formerly he had beene the said D. would easily resolue those doubts which being refused by the Iesuite the said Sir Humfrey did then returne him his Paper againe and so left him In this parcel some thing is omitted some thing misreported as wil appeare by this which followeth A certaine Catholike Gentleman comming to Master Fisher told him That the aforesaid old Gentleman was desirous to heare D. White and him dispute and therefore desired to know whether he would think it conuenient to vndertake a meeting with D. White M. Fisher told him expresly that hee neither might nor would make any challenge to D. White but saith hee If D. White doe challenge me I wil not refuse And some reason M. Fisher gaue to the Gentleman to let him see that it was not fit that he should be a Challenger in such a businesse whereupon the Gentleman for feare of mis-deliuering M. Fishers mind did intreat M. Fisher to deliuer his owne answer to a Protestant Knight Sir Humfrey Lynd who was imployed by the said old Gentleman to moue D. White to come to such a meeting M. Fisher hauing some acquaintance in the house where the old Gentleman was said He would that night be there and if the Knight would come he should heare the same answer So M. Fisher came and Sir Humfrey being aduised by the said Catholike Gentleman of M. Fishers intention to be there also came And after some speeches the question was moued Whether M. Fisher would speake with D. White about the visibilitie of the Church He answered as before That he would not challenge D. White but if D. White would challenge him to treate of that matter he would not refuse It was answered That it was not meant in the nature of a challenge but to haue a quiet meeting to satisfie the old Gentleman and so Sir Humfrey wished M. Fisher to set downe the questions Then M. Fisher hauing heard wherein the Gentleman did chiefely doubt set downe these two questions Whether there must not bee in al ages a visible Church of which al sorts must learne that one infallible faith which is necessary to saluation Whether the Protestants Church was in al ages visible especially in the ages before Luther and whether the names of such visible Protestants in al ages may be shewed out of good Authors The first question being read before Sir Humfrey and the old Gentleman and some others they said That it was out of question that such a visible Church as the question mentioned must needes bee granted whereupon M. Fisher tooke his Pen and subscribed to the first question these words It is granted Which being supposed M. Fisher read the second question and was contented it should be the onely Question for so Sir Humfrey desired who also bad M. Fisher choose whether he would be the Disputer or Answerer M. Fisher said It would be requisite both to dispute and answer Yet Sir Humfrey vrging him to choose the one or other part M. Fisher said I wil answer and so he tooke his Pen and writ in the Margent briefely what answer he meant to make to the whole Question and said I wil answer that it was not to wit so visible as the Question required This Paper in which these Questions were Sir Humfrey tooke but with intent that onely one that is the second should be disputed on Then question being made about the Place Sir Humfrey named D. Whites house M. Fisher said he had no reason to goe to the Doctors house in regard the last time he was there it was giuen out and made a general report That M. Fisher would haue killed D. White in his house And therefore saith M. Fisher I wil not goe vnlesse himselfe inuite me but if he inuite I wil goe Sir Humfrey doubted that D. White would not inuite M. Fisher and so for want of agreeing about the Place M. Fisher verily thought that no meeting would be at al yet he did not take againe the Paper in which the Questions were but eyther left them with Sir Humfrey or the old Gentleman yet without any minde at al to make any challenge as he had more then once expressed About two dayes after saith the Protestant Relator M. Buggs repayred to Sir Humfrey Lynd and entreated him for his satisfaction to giue M. Fisher a meeting saying That M. Fisher had againe told him That he would maintaine what he had set downe and that our Diuines could not proue our Church visible before Luthers time Whereupon Sir Humfrey told him That D. White and D. Featly were to dyne with him on Fryday following and if after Dinner M. Fisher would come thither with foure or six at the most they should be admitted for his sake and his Wifes who by reason of such sollicitation were troubled in their mindes and satisfaction should be giuen as occasion required And these were the true causes of the meeting What to say to this Parcel I know not because it was priuate betwixt Sir Humfrey and the old Gentleman But there were other more remarkable passages omitted by the Protestant Relator which I thinke fit to set downe As first That M. Fisher comming to the old Gentleman the next day or next but one after the Question was set downe found him stil desirous to haue the meeting goe forward and then it may very wel be that M. Fisher might say He would maintaine what he had set downe and that Protestant Diuines could not proue the Protestant Church visible before Luthers time But what in particular he said he doth not remember Onely he is sure he made no challenge and so the old Gentleman did wel vnderstand who told M. Fisher That it was intended onely to be a friendly and a priuate meeting at Sir Humfrey his owne house and that D. White would bring with him one to assist him as M. Fisher should bring with him one to assist him and beside some foure more whom they thought good to be Witnesses and two Writers to set downe on each part what was said and that Fryday next should be the day M. Fisher hearing this equal offer did not refuse but to prepare the mind of the old Gentleman to be better able to make benefit of what should be said about it writ and deliuered vnto him
Church in al ages then M. F. or his friends wil in a like proportionable sort and sense shew proue and defend a visible Romane Church in al ages This Paper was deliuered to the old Gentleman and was confessed to haue beene receiued by the Doctors before the disputation and before the meeting The time and manner of which meeting is set downe by the Protestant Relator in manner following The 27. of Iune 1623. M. Fisher M. Sweet Iesuits and some others with them came to Sir H. Lynds house in a little dyning roome where they found the aforesaid M. Buggs his wife and children and others of Sir H. friends that had then dined with him together with some others also whose comming in as the said Sir H. did not expect so he could not with ciuilitie put them forth his house but did instantly cause his doores to bee locked vp that no more might enter notwithstanding which his command some others also came in scattering after the conference began In this parcel it is to bee considered how great care M. Fisher had to haue the meeting secret and how wel he obserued the fore-appointed conditions in which he was so punctual that after he had his number of one Assistant and foure Witnesses and a Writer he would not so much as tel a Gentleman of his acquaintance who had by other meanes vnderstood of the meeting and the place of meeting at what houre the meeting should be whereas on the contrary part so much speech was made of it by some of the Protestant side that beside the number appointed to bee Auditors many Protestant Gentlemen and Gentlewomen and some Noblemen and many Ministers did repaire to Sir Humfrey his house which M. Fisher found to be so filled as he complained to Sir Humfrey of the inequalitie of that Audience compared with the few he brought which Sir H. could not denie but excused himselfe in such manner as he could saying He could not helpe it c. CHAP. II. About that which passed in the Conference it selfe DOctor White and Doctor Featly being inuited to dinner saith the Protestant Relator by Sir Humfrey Lynd and staying a while after had notice giuen them that M. Fisher and M. Sweet Iesuits were in the next roome ready to conferre with them touching a Question set downe by M. Fisher vnder his owne hand in these words viz. Whether the Protestants Church was in al ages visible and especially in the ages going before Luther 2. And whether the names of such visible Protestants in al ages can be shewed and proued out of good Authors This Question being deliuered to the parties aboue named and it being notified vnto them that there were certaine persons who had beene sollicited and remaining doubtful in Religion desired satisfaction especially in this point they were perswaded to haue some speech with the Iesuites touching this point the rather because the Priests and Iesuites doe dayly cast out Papers and disperse them in secret in which they vaunt That no Protestant Minister dare encounter with them in this point Any man reading this parcel would be induced to thinke that D. White and D. Featly had neuer had notice before for what end they were inuited to Dinner or for what end they were to meet with the Iesuites but that they were on the suddaine summoned to this Conference without any preparation or knowledge of the Question Which not to be so is euidently conuinced partly by that which is alreadie said partly by that which I am after to say 2. This Relator would make his Reader beleeue that M. Fisher vnder his owne hand had set downe the words of the Question distinguished with the expresse figure of 2. Which is not so for M. Fisher did not write any such figure of 2. in the middle of the Question nor did not meane to make any more then one only entire Question as Sir Humfrey himselfe had desired 3. He seemeth willing to perswade that Priests and Iesuites doe dayly cast out Papers which is not true At the beginning of this meeting when the Disputants were set saith the Protestant Relator D. Featly drew out the Paper in which the Question aboue rehearsed was written with these words in the Margent viz. I wil answer that it was not and demanded of M. Fisher Whether this were his owne hand which after he had acknowledged D. Featly began as followeth D. Featly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this vniuersal demand requiring rather an Historical large Volume then a Syllogistical briefe dispute we answer And then he read out of a Paper which this Relator would make men beleeue to haue beene said memoriter the same in effect which was written before the meeting to M. Fisher. 1. That although diuine infallible Faith is not built vpon deduction out of humane Historie but vpon diuine reuelation as is confessed by your owne Schoole-men and expressely by Cardinal Bellarmine Historiae humanae faciunt tantum fidem humanam cui subesse potest falsum Humane Stories and Records beget onely an humane Faith or rather Credulitie subiect to error not a diuine and infallible Beleefe which must be built vpon surer ground 2. Although this Question be grounded vpon vncertaine and false supposals for a Church may haue beene visible yet not the names of al visible Professors thereof now to be shewed and proued out of good Authors there might be millions of Professors yet no particular and authentical Record of them by name Records there might be many in ancient time yet not now extant at least for vs to come by Yet we wil not refuse to deale with you in your owne Question if you in like manner wil vndertake the like Taske in your owne defence and maintaine the Affirmatiue in the like Question which we now propound vnto you here in writing Whether the Romish Church that is a Church holding the particular entire doctrine of the new Romanists as it is comprised in the Councel of Trent was in al ages visible especially in the first 600. yeeres and whether the names of such visible or legible Romanists in al ages can be shewed and proued out of good Authors Here the Relator omitteth to tel how M. Fisher caused the two Papers written and giuen the old Gentleman as is aboue said to be publiquely read by the first whereof it appeared why he had propounded such a Question by the second the true sence and meaning of the Question was explicated and a conuenient Method of proceeding was prescribed with due proportion to be obserued on both sides Then D. Featly beginning to argue in this place and not in the end of the Disputation where the Protestant Relator placeth it did say M. Fisher I wish I warne I command I coniure you to answere truely and sincerely in the sight of God and as you wil answere it at the Day of Iudgement To this M. Fisher said I willingly accept your warning and I wish you to obserue the like
About this time M. Sweet propounded these Conditions to be obserued 1. That al bitter speeches should be forborne 2. That nothing should be spoken or heard but to the purpose Which second he did propound to preuent impertinent digressions Neuerthelesse after this D. Featly made a long digression altogether impertinent to the Question which he was to dispute of for in stead of prouing a Protestant visible Church and naming visible Protestant in al ages he made a vaine and vnseasonable bragging offer to dispâ—oue the Roman Church in diuers particular points as are rehearsed by the Protestant Relator which he read out of a Paper Whereunto as he was speaking M. Sweet according to the second Condition before propounded answered That thâ—se things were then impertinent and nothing to the purpose But M. Sweet did not say as the Relator reporteth They are Scholastical points not Fundamental Neyther was there any such Syllogisme then made as the Relator annexeth D. Featly hauing ended his long digression M. Fisher said as the Protestant Relator telleth After you haue proued your Church visible in al ages and named the Professors thereof I wil satisfie you in your particulars D. Featly In the meane while name but one Father but one Writer of note who held the particulars aboue named for fiue hundred yeeres after Christ. To which instant demand of D. Featly saith the Relator nothing was answered But neyther was this said neyther was it needful to answer First for that M. Fisher formerly answered That he would satisfie al particulars after the visibilitie of the Protestant Church in al ages was shewed as the present Question required Secondly because to dispute of these particulars was vnseasonable and not to the present purpose as likewise was that other motion made by Sir Humfrey Lynd to M. Sweet to dispute of Transubstantiation out of S. Augustine To which motion being as I said vnseasonable M. Sweet answered wel according to his second Prouiso saying That is not now to the Question Then D. Featly said saith the Protestant Relator there are two meanes onely to proue any thing by necessarie inference to wit a Syllogisme and an Induction other formes of Argument haue no force but as they are reducible to these I proue the visibilitie of our Church by both and first by a Syllogisme No saith M. Fisher you must not onely proue it to be visible but so visible as the names of Protestant Professors in al ages may be shewed out of good Authors To this D. Featly said There are two Quâ—res in your Question First Whether the Protestants Church were in al ages visible And secondly Whether the names of such visible Protestants can be shewed No said M. Fisher my Question is meant to be but one entire Question and so to cut off al needlesse wrangling made by D. White and D. Featly about the Aduerbe Vtrum Whether and the Copulatiue Et And as if Grammar Schollers had beene disputing rather then graue Diuines who were not to stand vpon rigor of Grammar especially in this case where the sence of the Speaker is plaine and may wel stand with Grammar M. Fisher said The Question being mine it pertaineth to me to tel the meaning and my meaning was onely to make it one Question viz. Whether the Protestants Church were so visible as the names of visible Protestants in al ages may be shewed out of good Authors Wherefore if you wil dispute you must dispute in my sense and must conclude the Affirmatiue viz. The Protestant Church was so visible as the names of the Professors in al ages may be shewed out of good Authors Proue this or proue nothing D. Featly That Church which is so visible as the Catholique Church ought to be and as the Popish Church is pretended by M. Fisher to be is so visible that the names of the Professors thereof may be produced and shewed in al ages out of good Authors But the Protestant Church is so visible as the Catholique Church ought to be and as the Popish Church is pretended to be Ergo M. Fisher. I denie the Minor Minorem probate D. Featly That Church whose Faith is eternal and perpetual and vnchanged is so visible as the Catholique Church ought to be and the Popish Church is pretended by M. Fisher to be But the Faith of the Protestant Church is eternal perpetual and vnchanged Ergo To this M. Fisher answered first excepting against the Word Eternal saying Faith is not eternal or ab aeterno It is true said a Minister who sate by Faith is not eternal but euiternal Neyther so said M. Fisher for it is not to be for euer in Heauen It is eternal said D. White in Predestination So said M. Sweet D. White himselfe may be said to be eternal and he might haue added this present Disputation may be said to be Eternal D. Featly You haue a purpose M. Fisher to cauil you know my meaning wel enough by the terme Perpetual to wit that Christian Faith which hath continued from Christs first publishing it til this present and shal continue vntil his second comming c. If this were said by D. Featly which is doubted he should haue considered how he and D. White cauilled vpon the word Whether and And when they knew M. Fishers meaning wel enough yea after they had heard him plainely explicate his meaning Whereas M. Fisher onely put them in minde to speake properly like Scholers and did not cauil or reply after D. Featly did explicate his meaning But to returne to the argument D. Featly That Church which holdeth this Faith you beleeue shal be so visible that the names of the Professors thereof may be shewed in al ages But the Protestant Church holdeth this perpetual Faith Ergo M. Fisher. Your argument is a fallacie called Petitio principij D. Featly A demonstration a causa or a priori is not Petitio principij But such is my argument Ergo Is it not a sounder argument to proue the visibilitie of the Professors from the truth of their Faith then as you the truth of your Faith from the visibilitie of Professors Visible Pastors argue not a right Faith Heretikes Mahumetans and Gentiles haue visible Professors of their Impieties yet will it not hence sollow that they haue a right beleese On the contrarie we know by the Promises of God in the Scripture That the Church which maintayneth the true Faith shal haue alwayes Professors more or lesse visible M. Sweet You ought to prooue the truth of your Church a posteriori for that is to the Question and not a priori D. Fealty Shal you prescribe me my Weapons Is not an argument a priori better then an argument a posteriori c. To this M. Fisher said A proofe a posteriori is more demonstratiue then a priori Thus farre the Relator who hath here added much more then was said and in particular those formal words which he reporteth M. Fisher to haue said viz. A proofe a
argument according to the Protestant Relator M. Fisher. I distinguish the Maior That Church whose Faith is perpetual and vnchanged so as the names of the Professors may be shewed is so visible as the Catholike Church ought to be and as M. Fisher pretendeth the Roman Church to be I grant it That Church whose Faith is perpetual and vnchanged yet so as the names cannot be shewed in al ages is visible as the Catholike Church ought to be and as M. Fisher pretends the Roman Church to be I denie it To the Minor I apply the like distinction and consequently to the Conclusion in the same manner D. Featly What answer you to the Conclusion also This is a straine of new Logick This idle exception M. Fisher attending to the matter did not regard but might haue told him That it is not vnuseal after a distinction made both to Maior and Minor to apply the like to the Conclusion For although it be true That in a Syllogisme when Maior and Minor are absolutely granted the Conclusion must not be denyed nor distinguished but must be absolutely granted yet when Maior and Minor also be distinguished the Conclusion may be distinguished And I maruaile what Rule of Logick D. Featly can bring against this In like manner if D. Featly did say any such words as the Relator telleth viz. A strange distinction of the eternitie of Faith by Professors to be named and not to be named What are Professors nominable or innominable to the eternitie of Faith If I say D. Featly did say these words it is like M. Fisher did not regard them as being impertinent but might haue said That this distinction had not relation to eternal Faith but to a Church which hath eternal Faith about which it imports much to know whether it hath Professors nominable or innominable For if it hath not it is inuisible or at least not so visible as the true Catholike Church of which al sorts in times past haue learned and in time to come must learne the infallible Diuine Faith necessarie to Saluation ought to be Therefore M. Fisher might wel though I thinke he did not say as the Relator telleth Tolle distinctionem and conclude that which I denie That the Faith of the Protestant Church is so eternal as the names of visible Protestants in al ages may be shewed To proue this D. Featly made this argument according to the Protestant Relator D. Featly That Church whose Faith is the Catholike and Primitiue Faith once giuen to the Saints without which no man can be saued is so perpetual as the names may be shewed in al ages But the Faith of the Protestant Church is the Primitiue and Catholike Faith once giuen to the Saints without which none can be saued Ergo The Faith of the Protestant Church is so perpetual as the names may be shewed in al ages Note here That the Relator putteth in the Margent ouer-against the Minor Tollitur distinctio But how false this Marginal Note is appeareth to any who wil reflect vpon what the Distinction was and what I haue now said of it For this Minor speaking onely of Faith doth not take away the distinction applyed to the Church That which D. Featly thinketh to be a straine of new Logicke to wit to distinguish vpon a proposition without applying the distinction to any particular tearme is not so strange as he maketh it As for example When one saith An Aethiopian is white neyther the tearme Aethiopian alone nor the tearme White alone in it selfe needeth distinction because it is not Aequiuocal but the whole proposition being Amphibological needeth it being true if it be meant The Aethiopian is white in the Teeth and false if it be meant He is white in his whole Bodie To the argument M. Fisher said I denie the Minor But marking that hereupon D. Featly would haue transferred the Question to endlesse disputes about particular Controuersies from the present general Question about the perpetual visible Church whose Professors names as himselfe saith may be shewed in al ages M. Fisher I say marking this would not let D. Featly make his proofe but hauing said I denie the Minor he presently added by way of explication these ensuing words My first Question was Whether there must not be a true visible Church of Christ in al ages of which al sorts must learne that infallible Faith which is necessarie to Saluation and therefore we must first finde such a Church before men can know it to be such as they may securely learne of it what is the infallible Faith necessary to Saluation While M. Fisher was beginning to make this explication D. Featly insulted as if M. Fisher durst not for Conscience denie the Minor absolutely To whom M. Fisher said I doe absolutely denie it And then he went forward with the aforesaid explication Which ended M. Fisher said And hereupon I answer againe to the said Minor If this proposition be taken simply in it selfe I absolutely denie it but if this proposition be considered as it must be as related to the first Question and the end thereof I further adde That it is not pertinent to that end for which the whole Dispute was intended viz. To shew to those who were not able by their owne abilities to finde out the infallible Faith necessarie to Saluation without learning of the true visible Church of Christ and consequently Visibilitie of the Church is first to be shewed before the truth of Doctrine in particular shal be shewed To this as the Relator saith D. Featly replyed viz. First What speake you of those who are not able by their owne abilities to finde out Faith Is any man able by his owne abilitie without the helpe of Diuine Grace Secondly What helpeth the Visibilitie to confirme the Truth of the Church Visibilitie indeed proues a Church but not the true Church These words eyther were not spoken or M. Fisher did not regard them being in the middest of his answer in which he went on shewing the necessitie of a visible Church by a saying of D. Fields viz. Seeing the Controuersies of Religion at this day are so many in number and so intricate in nature that few haue time and leysure fewer strength of wit and vnderstanding to examine them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to seeke out which among al the Societies of men in the World is that Spouse of Christ the Church of the liuing God which is the Pillar of the Truth that so they may embrace her Communion follow her Direction and rest in her Iudgement M. Fisher therefore I say being busily speaking this did not regard what D. Featly did then say but might easily haue answered First That he neuer meant that any were able of themselues without helpe of Gods grace to attaine the true Faith which hindreth not but that some may haue that abilitie of Wit and Learning by which they can
better examine Controuersies of Faith then those who want these abilities Secondly Although Visibilitie alone doe not prooue the true Church yet it supposing Gods Promises That the true Church shal be alwayes visible much helpeth and want of Visibilitie in any one age proueth a Companie not to be the true Church D. Featly The summe of your former answer was That the Minor of my former Syllogisme was both false and impertinent It is neyther false nor impertinent Ergo your answer is false and impertinent And first it is not false M. Fisher. I answer to the Antecedent That it is both false and impertinent but I adde That for the present it must be proued to be pertinent or else it diuerteth vs from the chiefe end of our dispute which was as I said before That infallible Truth may be learned of the true visible Church and not the true visible Church by first finding euery particular infallible Truth and by that to conclude which is the true visible Church D. Featly I prooue that the Minor is pertinent That Minor proposition which together with the Minor doth necessarily and directly inferre the conclusion of the Minor last denyed is pertinent to the probation of that Minor denyed But the Minor proposition of the third Syllogisme doth necessarily and directly inferre the conclusion of the Minor last denyed Ergo the Minor of that Syllogisme is pertinent M. Fisher did distinguish the Maior That Minor proposition which together with the Maior doth necessarily inferre the Conclusion so as it may serue for that purpose to which the whole Dispute is ordained I grant it to be pertinent But if it doe inferre the Conclusion yet not so as may serue for that purpose for which the whole Dispute was ordained I denie the Maior Here saith the Protestant Relator the Disputants iarred and so the Writer ceased What this Iarre was is not set downe nor by me remembred vnlesse it were about this subsequent Syllogisme D. Featly That Minor which together with the Maior inferres the Proposition last denyed the whole processe hauing beene per directa media is pertinent to that purpose to which the Dispute is ordained But the Minor together with the Maior directly and necessarily inferres the Proposition last denyed the whole Processus hauing beene made per directa media Ergo It is pertinent to that purpose to which the Dispute is ordained M. Fisher. Your Media in your Syllogismes were directa but they tended not ad directum finem If M. Fisher did say these words his meaning may be gathered out of his former explication in which he shewed how the direct end of the Disputation was not to treat of particular Controuersies but to finde out first by other meanes the true visible Church whose Professors names may be shewed in al ages out of good Authors Which being once found men desirous of satisfaction might as D. Field said rest in her Iudgement who otherwise as Lawyers without a Iudge might wrangle in euerie Controuersie without end Those Media therefore directa as D. Featly tearmed them might in some sort be so tearmed as being directed by D. Featly to his owne end of transferring the Question to particular Controuersies but not ad directum finem that is not ordayned to the direct end of the whole Disputation viz. To shew a visible Church of Protestants in al ages whose names may be shewed out of good Authors Which supposing D. Featly would haue proceeded sincerely ought to haue beene his onely end as M. Fisher signified by saying these words Responsum nullum dabunt prâ—ter vnum quod nunquam dabunt ecce nomina D. Featly therefore had no iust cause to say as the Protestant Relator maketh him say It is a Bul M. Fisher media directa yet not ad directum finem that is direct and not direct for media are said to be directa onely ratione finis D. Featly I say had no iust cause to say this and M. Sweet might wel tel him of his fault in seeking to transferre the Question from the Church to particular points of Faith as the Protestant Relator saith he did saying Is not Transitio a genere in genus a fault in arguing c. But M. Sweet did not speake these formal words which the Protestant Relator hath set downe onely he asked the Doctors Whether it seemed strange to them that a Question should be transferred by a good Syllogisme which he said in regard D. Featly endeuored to proue his argument to be pertinent because his Syllogismes were good Here D. Featly as the Protestant Relator telleth said I acknowledge that Transitio a genere in genus is a fault in disputing but I neuer heard that the inference of the effect by the cause was Transitio a genere in genus such was my argument For Faith in a Beleeuer produceth profession and confession thereof which makes a visible member and the like profession of many members a visible Church Where the cause is perpetual the effect must needes be perpetual Therefore where the Faith is perpetual the profession thereof must needes be and consequently the visibilitie of the Professors thereof is this Transitio a genere in genus But D. Featly did not say al this yet if he did it doth not make any thing against M. Sweet and for him to speake of the cause being obscure when the Question is onely about the effect being more apparant and cleare as in our case is a fault in honest and sincere dealing Neyther is M. Sweets Logicke lesse to be esteemed if he had tearmed that fault Transitio a genere in genus For a cause as a cause and an effect as an effect doe not onely differ specie but also genere and beside a proofe a priori and a posteriori are diuers kinds of proofes Here sayth the Protestant Relator those of M. Fishers side calling for Names D. White said Where are your Names This is nothing but apparant tergiuersation You wil not answer any argument directly nor suffer vs to proceed in our arguments and therefore I require you M. Fisher according to the order mentioned in the beginning for each partie to haue an houre and a halfe for that you now oppose and suffer me to answer Proue by Christ and his Apostles or by any of the Fathers for the first six hundred yeeres these present Tenets of the Roman Church and then he named as the Protestant Relator sayth sixe particular Points But D. White did not speake thus neyther did he in al the Conference make any such long discourse Yet if he had so said M. Fisher might wel haue answered as the Protestant Relator saith he did M. Fisher. When you D. White or D. Featly haue proued your Church to be visible in al ages and named visible Protestants then wil I satisfie your demands But before this was done M. Fisher had no reason to diuert to those particular matters nor to produce Names of Catholikes in al ages in regard
answered nor consequently he satisfied Moreouer the same Gentleman being present whē the Earle of Warwick told M. Fisher that D. Featly should at another tyme come againe to giue Names of Protestants in other Ages he might easily and doubtles did vnderstand that as yet Names in all Ages were not giuen nor consequently the Question satisfied in which he expected answere Furthermore presently after he went away from the Conference he told M. Fisher himselfe that he was glad that at the next meeting his Question should be answered which shewed that as yet he did not conceiue it to be answered Lastly diuers dayes after all the trouble and styrre was past which was made about the Conference the old Gentleman was not so resolute a Protestant as the Relator pretendeth for meeting M. Fisher and M. Sweete he desired them to giue him a Catalogue of Names of Professors of the Romā Church saying that if after this the Doctors should not giue him a Catalogue of Protestants he should dislike their cause Which Catalogue M. Fisher and M. Sweete haue ready for him but will not deliuer till he get the Doctours to make theirs ready that he may bring to them the Doctours Catalogue with one hand and receiue theirs with the other to deliuer to the Doctours All that can be suspected is that in the very tyme of the sayd styrre when the old Gentleman eyther was or feared to be called in question it may perhaps be that he might say those words which the Relator mētioneth but this if it were was only vpon frailty or humane feare of trouble and not any firme and settled resolution grounded vpon the Conference sith both before and after he shewed a contrary mynd as hath byn sayd As for other idle and false reports of a great Lady or any other Catholiks sayd to haue ben turned Protestants vpon this Conference I neglect them as being notoriously false It may be that some Weaklings who not being present at the Conference nor hauing commodity to heare what passed but from the lying lyps of some Protestants Who reported that Fisher was ouercome and had yielded Christ and his Apostles to be Protestants some Weaklings I say might perhaps be staggered vntill they heard the true report that this was only an impudent slaunder vttered by D. Featly but in words and deeds contradicted by M. Fisher. But I make no question so soone as these shall see or heare what is heere related they will be well satisfied and confirmed in the Catholike truth and that euen Protestants themselues will be moued to harken more after the matter And in case their Doctours doe not giue them a better Catalogue of Names of Protestants in all Ages then they did in this Conference they will doubt as they haue cause that the Protestant Church hath not byn so visible in all Ages as euen by D. Featly his argument is proued the true Catholike Church ought to be and consequently that it is not the true Catholike Church which in their Creede they professe to belieue and out of which as euen Caluin confesseth they cannot hope for remission of their sinnes nor saluation of their soules CHAP. IIII. Contayning a Reuiew and Reflection vpon the Premisses NOw hauing made an end of this Relation I am to intreate the Gentle Reader to reuiew it or reflect vpon it and to call to mind and marke 1. The occasion and consequently the end of the disputation 2. The Question and true meaning of it 3. What Methode was most fit to haue been obserued in treating of this question 4. What course was taken by the Protestant Disputant what by the Catholike Respondent All which being duely considered thou wilt better see what is to be iudged of the whole Conference and wilt make to thy selfe more benefit of the matter treated in it then perhaps hitherto thou hast done §. 1. About the Occasion and end of the Conference 1. The occasion of this Dispute was as thou hast heard in the Relation that a certaine old Protestant Gentleman was told as the truth is that there is no saluation out of the true Catholike Church and that to belieue the Catholike Church is one of the Articles of the Creed which euery Christian is bound to belieue and know and that this Church was no other besides the most auncient and vniuersally spread ouer the world the knowne Catholike Roman Church which hath had and can yet shew visible Pastours other Professors in all Ages and that the Protestant Church wherof for the present he was a member sprung vp of late and could not be the true Church of Christ as not hauing had as Christs true Church ought to haue Pastours and Doctours and lawfully sent Preachers so visible as the Names of them may be shewed in all Ages out of good Authors And this was the occasion of the dispute for heerupon the old Gentleman was so much moued in conscience to doubt of the Protestants Religion that he could not be quiet till he had made meanes to get this matter discussed in a Conference betwixt Catholike and Protestant Deuines in such sort as in the Relation hath byn told And therfore the end of this Conference was to giue this old Gentleman and others that should heare it satisfaction in this most important necessary point I call this point most important and necessary in regard the certainty of euery other point belieued by infallible diuine Fayth necessary to saluation dependeth vpon it For although euery point belieued by diuine Faith be in it selfe most true and by reason of the Diuine reuelation made knowne to the world by Christ his Apostles most certaine and infallible yet this truth infallible certainty therof is not made knowne to vs according to the ordinary course of Gods prouidence but only by the meanes which God hath appointed to wit by Pastors Doctors and Preachers of the true visible Church of Christ. §. 2. About the Question and meaning of it The Question propounded to be treated in the Conference vpon the occasion and for the end aforesayd was Whether the Protestant Church was visible in all Ages especially in the Ages before Luther and whether the Names of such visible Protestants may be shewed in all Ages out of good Authors The reason why this question was proposed rather then any other was for that the old Gentleman was already perswaded that there must be in all Ages a visible Church of Christ hauing in it visible Pastors Doctors and lawfully sent Preachers who are by Almighty God appointed and authorized to teach and of whom all sorts of people are commaunded warranted to learne infallible Fayth necessary to saluatiō And further that this Church and these her Pastors Preachers haue byn in all Ages past not only visible but so visible as the Names at least of some Pastours teaching and some people learning the true Fayth in all Ages might be produced
out of good Authors And therfore as he had heard the Roman Catholiks made no difficulty to produce out of good Authors the Names of their Pastors people in all Ages so he much desired to heare whether the Names of Protestant Pastors and Preachers in all Ages could not also be produced out of good Authors for if they could he meant to remaine a Protestant as he had been all his life time but if they could not he thought it necessary to leaue the Protestants and to adhere to the Roman Church to learne of it Faith necessary to saluation By this appeareth that the sense and meaning of the Question could be no other then that which M Fisher explicated in the Conference viz. Whether the Protestant Church was in all Ages so visible especially in the Ages before Luther as the Names of Protestant Pastors and Preachers in all Ages may be shewed out of good Authors And further that in case the Protestant Disputant should vndertake as he did tooto boldly vndertake the affirmatiue part saying and offering to proue in generall that the Names of such Pastors and Preachers of Protestāt Religion may be shewed in all Ages out of good Authors it should further be required as M. Fisher required of him that he should actually name in particular in euery seuerall Age such Pastors and Preachers as he thought he could proue and defend to be Protestants For if the Question had not been thus vnderstood it should not haue been answerable to the occasion and end aboue sayd Neyther could the Protestant Disputant sufficiently satisfie the doubt of the old Gentlemā being chiefly caused in that he had heard that no Protestant could name Pastors and Preachers of his profession in all Ages out of good Authors So as to satisfy this doubt it was not sufficient only to say nor only in generall to proue by such Syllogismes as D. Featly made which were such as the old Gentleman I dare say did not vnderstand that the Names of Protestants in all Ages may be shewed but as M. Fisher had shewed him a printed booke in which Roman Catholike Pastours and people were in particuler named in all Ages so he expected Protestant Pastours and people of all Ages to be named in particuler and after proued and defended to be Protestants as M. Fisher was ready to proue and defend whom he would in particuler name to be Roman Catholikes Furthermore although it may seeme to some not much materiall whether the Protestant Disputant hath begun to name first those of the first Age next of the second and so downward vntill Luther or cōtrary wise to beginne with Luther and so vpward till the Apostles and Christ yet both the words of the Question the doubt of the old Gentleman had byn far better satisfied and the Tergiuersation which D. Featly vsed in the first age auoyded if M. Fisher had vrged him as he might first to beginne with the Age immediatly before Luther a confessed Protestant and so go vpward vntill Christ the confessed Fountayne of infallible perpetuall vnchanged Truth for then it would haue been cleerly seene euen by the Confessiō of learned Protestants particularly Luther himselfe and others that those who eyther are named or can yet be named by D. Featly after he hath sought as I am told he went to seeke Records in the great Library in Oxford were not visible Protestants but of a different Profession Fayth and Religion and so different as that they cannot be iustly deemed members of one and the same Protestant Church with Luther after his Apostacy from his Religious Order and reuolt from the Roman Catholike Fayth For proofe wherof I for breuityes sake do refer euery one who desireth full satisfaction in this point to what is largely related and proued in the Protestants Apology in diuers places but particularly tract 2. cap. 2. sect 11. subdiuision 3. And will only content my selfe to cyte these few testimonyes for their sakes who haue not commodity to see that booke First therefore Luther himselfe sayth We dare boast that Christ was first published by vs. Wherefore the Latheran Conradus Schushelburg sayth It is impudency to say that many learned men in Germany and the like is of other Countreys before Luther did hould the doctrine of the Lutheran Ghospell And another of them not only sayth in effect thus much but proueth it by this argument If there had beene right beleeuers that went before Luther in his office there had beene no need of a Lutheran reformation Another sayth It is ridiculous to thinke that in the tyme before Luther any had the purity of doctrine and that Luther should receaue it from them not they from Luther considering sayth he it is manifest to the whole world that before Luthers tyme all Churches were ouerwhelmed with more then Cymerian darkenes and that Luther was diuinely raysed vp to discouer the same to restore the light of true doctrine And least this may be thought to haue beene only the conceipt of Luther and Lutherans who yet could better tell then D. Featly D. White and such other new Maisters I will add heereunto what is sayd first by Caluin who doth acknowledge That in this Lutheran reformation there was made a discession or departure from all the world Secondly by Bucer who calleth Luther the first Apostle of the reformed doctrine Thirdly by Beza a principall Caluinist who teacheth that at this tyme ordinary vocation of the Church-men was no where extant and consequently teacheth that ther was at that tyme no visible Church and so if any Church at all it was only inuisible as is affirmed euē by our owne English Protestant Deuines namely M. Iewel who sayth The truth was vnknown and vnheard of when Martin Luther and Vldericke Zuinglius first came to the knowledge and preaching of the Ghospel And M. Perkins who sayth We say that before the dayes of Luther for the space of many hundred yeares an vniuersall Apostacy ouerspread the whole face of the earth and that our Protestant Church was not visible to the World I might adde many more testimonyes of others who eyther in expresse tearmes or in effect affirme the Protestant Church to haue beene in many Ages before Luther latent and altogeather inuisible which indeed was the common opinion of Protestāts at their first vprysing who on the one side thought they could with shiftes bettter answere places of scripture which made often and honourable mention of the Church then they could answere the euidence of Histories and of their owne experience shewing that no visible Protestants were extant before themselues But now of late diuers plaine places of Scripture and Fathers hauing beene produced and such euident reasons deduced out of them prouing ineuitably that the true Church of Christ of which all sorts must learne infallible sayth necessary to saluation must needes be visible in all Ages as to omitt others
be ridiculous impudency By this may appeare how notoriously the old Gentleman and the rest of the Protestant Audience were abused by D. Featly vndertaking so boldly to proue both by syllogisme and Induction the affirmatiue part of the aforesayd question which was proposed to be treated in the conference the Negatiue whereof is so plainely confessed by so many Prime Protestants as now we haue heard §. 3. About the Method Concerning the Method which had beene fittest to haue beene obserued in treating the aforesayd Question it is to be noted that there be two severall methodes of finding out infallible diuine truth in all points necessary to saluation the finding wherof was the chiefe end for which the aforesayd Question about the perpetual visibility of the Church was proposed to be treated of The first methode or way is that euery man eyther by his owne wit or by hearing another discourse do examine throughly ech particuler point of diuine Fayth about which Controuersy or Question is or may be made what is and what is not to be beleeued vnder payne of damnation the which requireth 1. Ability and strength of naturall wit and skill in Latin Greeke Hebrew and other languages and some art by which he may vnderstand the tearmes and state of the Question and all that is writen of it 2. That he reade or heare and vnderstand all that is written of that Question in holy Scriptures Councells Fathers and moderne Writers and in the originall Languages and Copyes and what els may be sayd of it pro and contra by learned Disputants 3. That he doe maturely weigh and ponder al that is sayd both for the affirmatiue and negatiue part of the Question 4. That by prayer and good life he obtaine the assistance of Gods spirit to illuminate his vnderstanding in matters which exceed the capacity of his naturall wit 5. That all this premised he of himselfe without relying vpon the Iudgement of any Church frame a firme and infallible Iudgement what is and what is not to be held for truth necessary to saluation and this being knowne by it as by a rule to iudge which company of men are or are not the true visible Church of Christ in al Ages Now who seeth not that this methode or way of attayning sound resolution in all particuler points of Fayth by that to iudge what company of men are or are not the true visible Church in all ages cannot be fit and conuenient to be prescribed to all or indeed to any sort of men and especially to such as neither haue extraordinary ability of naturall wit or skill in languages nor art requisite to vnderstand the tearmes and state of all Questions nor leasure to read or heare nor strength of iudgment to weigh and ponder all that is or may be sayd of them nor such extraordinary guiftes of prayer and other vertues as they may presume to haue gotten particuler assistance of Gods spirit more then other men whereby they may assure themselues that they in particuler without relying vpon any Churches iudgement can firmely and infallibly iudge in euery Question about points of Fayth what is and what is not to beleeued as a truth necessary to saluation The 2. methode or way which indeed is both most easy and may giue full satisfaction to all sortes consisteth in these 3. points 1. To beleeue and acknowledge as euery Christian is bound by the articles of his Creed that there is and hath beene in all Ages a visible Catholique Church of Christ which is the Pillar of truth and in it a visible company of Pastours and Doctours and lawfully sent Preachers assisted by the spirit of God who haue learned of their predecessours and they of theyrs still vpwardes vntill Christ his Apostles who learned of Christ and Christ of God his Father the infallible Truth in all pointes of fayth of whome by Gods appointment all sorts haue in all Ages past as appeareth by Historyes learned and must in tymes present and to come learne the infallible truth in all matters of Christian fayth necessary to saluation The 2. is to discerne which company of Christians are this visible Church of Christ and who be these Pastours Doctours and lawfully sent Preachers of whome all sorts of men may securely learne what is and what is not to be held for infallible truth in all matters of fayth necessary to saluation The 3. is to heare and belieue and obey whatsoeuer this Company of Christians haue in all Ages taught and what the present ordinary Pastours Doctours and Preachers thereof do teach to be diuine and infallible truth necessary to saluation which to do will not be hard to those who do truely feare and loue God and be meeke and humble in hart and who can and will for the loue and seruice of Christ captiuate their vnderstanding and submit it to the obedience of faith which must be done by mortifying and denying their owne priuate opinion that they may follow the sense and iudgment of Christ speaking in and by his Catholike Church VVhich whosoeuer heareth beleeueth obeyeth doth heare beleeue and obey Christ. And VVhosoeuer contemneth or will not heare beleeue and obey the Church he contemneth Christ and by Christs owne censure is to be accounted as an Heathen or Publican Now concerning the first and third of these points as no doubt or difficulty was moued either by the old Gentleman or Syr Humfrey Lynde or the Doctours or any other of the Company presēt at the Conference so there is no reason why any difficulty should be made therof at all And as for the 2. point it seemeth to me there should be no great difficulty in regard it is already agreed of all sides that there must be one or other such Company of Christians and among them Pastors preachers so visible as is said and none besides the Catholique Romaine hitherto hath shewed a sufficient Catalogue of names of men in al Ages who can with any colour be proued or defended to haue beene professors of the true diuine infallible Catholike primitiue vnchanged faith first deliuered by Christ and his Apostles after continued in an orderly succession of visible Pastors Doctours appoynted by God to be allwayes in the Church of purpose to preserue people of all ages from wauering in doubt of any point of faith or being carried about with the wind of any vpstart Errour Neither indeed can any such Catalogue be giuen but it may be manifestly shewed to be insufficiēt as either wanting names of men in some ages or containing names of such as may certainly be proued to be no Protestants but to differ in doctrine of fayth one from another and to condemne one or other of the 39. Articles vnto which English Protestant Ministers are sworne Neuertheles if any one be not yet satisfyed in this point but will haue the Question made whether the Protestant Church hath beene so visible in all Ages as
giuen speciall commendations of them far preferred them before his owne Church-men And as the methode which M. Fisher prescribed before the meeting is already shewed to be the fittest that could be for giuing good satisfaction to the old Gentleman and all others so in my opinion both he and M. Sweet did very well to stand as they did constantly to it prudently forseeing when the Aduersary would haue diuerted them from it and warily so answering his his arguments as that for all he could say they would not suffer themselues to be transported from the proposed Question and the prescribed Methode but stil kept the Aduersary to the point would not permit him to diuert either to dispute about Christ or his Apostles or any other point vntill names were giuen in all Ages which was the point demanded and vndertaken The which course they tooke vpon iust and good reason and not for any distrust or diffidence as some Protestants did inconsideratly imagine that they could not defend Christ and his Apostles not to haue beene Protestants or any particular point of those which D. Featly or D. VVhite vnseasonably proposed or any other held in such sense as it is held as a point of fayth by the Catholike Roman Church which they could and would haue defended proued if need had beene or if the meeting had beene intended and appointed for that purpose The reason therefore why M. Fisher might well refuse to enter into such particuler disputes before full Induction of Names were ended was for that this had beene to follow two Hares at once and so to catch neither and to leaue that which was most pertinent to the present Question and which most imported to be decided in the first place as being the ōly thing in which the old Gentleman and many other of the Audience did particulerly expect and desire to be satisfyed and being a most easy and assured meanes to help them to be satisfyed in all other matters in Controuersy without which it is most hard or rather impossible euer to attaine certaine and infallible Resolution in all particular euen most necessary points of fayth as M. Fisher expresely shewed and proued by a sentence aboue cyted out of D. Field A second reason might be for that all disputatiō about particulers before the true Church were by her perpetuall visibility or some such euident marks found out and acknowledged as a sufficient meanes appointed by God to instruct all sorts in matters of fayth and to preserue vnity and determine Controuersyes of fayth would haue beene fruitlesse endlesse Which was the reason why M. Fisher in another former conference had with a certaine Minister would not enter into any particulers vntill he had asked these generall Questions 1. VVhat grounds the Minister would stand vpon The Minister answered Scripture which M. Fisher accepting wrote downe and then asked 2. VVhether he would belieue nothing but expresse wordes of Scripture The Minister answered Yes he would also beleeue a good Consequence out of Scripture This also M. Fisher accepted and wrote downe and further asked 3. If it should happen that the consequence which the Minister should bring should not be thoght good by him and è contra the Consequence brought by him should not be thought good by the Minister who should iudge and end that fruitlesse and otherwise endlesse contention and Controuersy The Minister sayd The Church M. Fisher very willingly accepted and wrote it down 4. asked VVhether after the Church shall haue iudged and decyded such a Controuersy it should be lawfull for any priuate man to oppose his iudgement against that which the Church had so determined As for example when Cutholikes and Arrians hauing alleadged Scriptures and pro and contra brought consequences out of thē about the Diuinity of Christ our Lord The Church in a generall Councell iudged the consequences of Arrians to be naught and those of the Catholikes good The Minister sayd No it was not lawfull for any priuate man to oppose his iudgement against such a Iudgement of the Church These Questions being asked M. Fisher ioyned issue vpon a question bidding the Minister choose what he thought most materiall against Roman Catholikes and let it be tryed whether the Church did iudge for Catholikes or Protestants The Minister did choose the Question about Merits and tooke for his tenet That there was not any Merit of man before God And when the day of tryall came the case was so cleere against the Minister in the ancient Fathers whome the Minister granted to be the Church euen by confession of the Magdeburgians that the Minister had no shift but to diuert the disputation from the substance of the proposed Question to a circumstance of Commutatiue Iustice and that equality betwixt the VVorke and the Reward which is written of by Bellarmine About which circumstance M. Fisher was content to dispute after he had plainely shewed the substance of Merit out of the ancient Fathers Comming therefore to dispute about the aforesayd circumstance of Merit M. Fisher found that there would be no end nor fruit of the argument in regard the ancient Fathers had not spoken of it in expresse tearmes as they had done of the substance of Merit no other visible Church of this present age was agreed on to whose iudgement this matter should be finally referred By which experience M. Fisher hath learned how endlesse and fruitlesse it is to waste wordes about particulers vntill both partyes be agreed which is the true Church not only in ancient tymes but also of this age So as after ech party hath sayd what he can the finall resolution of the Question may be referred to that present Church which hauing without interruption of Pastours and Doctors and without change of doctrine successiuely descended from the true visible Church of anciēt tymes is by this and other Markes proued to be the pre-present true Church whose Iudgment no priuate man must oppose This Question therefore of the continual successiue visible Church being so necessary to end al Controuersies and being now proposed to be treated of betwixt M. Fisher and D. Featly M. Fisher had great reason not to permit speach of any other particular Question vntill by his prescribed Methode he had gotten it clearly seen that the Protestant Church was not and the Catholique Roman Church was the only true Church to whome it pertayneth to giue Iudgment of and determine Controuersies and to instruct all sorts of men in the true Faith and not to permit men by their priuate interpretations of Scripture to wander in errors or wauer in in certain ties or spend their tyme in fruitles and endles disputations about controuerfies of faith It being most certaine that these can neuer be with fruite and fully ended but by the censure of the true visible not only ancient but also present Church which must when doubt is as most often is made tell vs what particuler books be
true bookes of Scripture and Fathers which be true translations and which be right interpretations for both about Scriptures Fathers such Questions may arise and cannot be well decided whout the Iudgement of the true present visible Church in regard Scriptures and Fathers do not alwaies sufficiently expresse what is to be held in the aforesaid Questions neither will one priuate man in such cases follow anothers opinion when ech man will be easily inclined to thinke that he hath as good Scriptures or Fathers or Reasons or all these togeather to plead for the truth of his opinion as another hath for his This reason may be confirmed out of Tertullian who in his golden booke of Prescriptions giueth diuers reasons why Heretikes who reiect the authority of the Church should not be admitted to dispute out of Scriptures First for that by their disputations they weary those that be fame they ouercome those which be weake and those which be in a middle disposition they dismâ—sse with scruple or doubt Another reason Tertullian giueth because this Heresy doth not receaue some Scriptures or if a receaue it peruerteth them to their owne purpose with additions and detractions and if it receaue some yet not whole or if whole in some sort yet by false expositions it turneth them from the right to a peruerse sense And a peruerse or corrupt sense sayth he is as contrary to truth as is a peruerted or corrupted Text. Tertullian therefore for these reasons iudged best not to make the combat in Scriptures but that this gappe should be stopt and that Heretikes should not be admitted to any disputation of Scriptures and he telleth how this may be done saying It must be examined to whome the possession of Scripture doth belong to the intent that he who hath no right vnto them may not be admitted vnto them And further he sheweth That the right order of thinges requireth that first it only be disputed to whom the Fayth belongeth As if he should say which is the true visible Church VVhose are the Scriptures From whome by whome when and to whome was deliuered that discipliae by which they are made Christians for where there shall appeare the truth of Christian sayth and discipline to be as doubtles it is in the true visible Church of Christ there shal be truth of Scriptures and expositions and al Christian Traditions And hauing shewed how Christ did promulgate his doctrine by the Apostles he further prescribeth That what Christ and his Apostles did preach must be learned no otherwise then by the Churches which they founded so as euery doctrine agreeing with those Apostolicall Mother-Churches that is to be deemed true and what doth not agree to be iudged false And therefore to make it apparent that the Heretikes opinions although pretended by themselues to be ccÌ„formable to Scriptures and such as may be proued out of Scriptures are not Apostolicall nor true he vrgeth them as M. Fisher vrged D. Featly to shew the beginning of their Churches and to vnfould the order of their Bishops so from the beginning running downe by succession as that their first Bishop had some of the Apostles or some Apostolicall man who perseuered with the Apostles for his Author and Predecessour and hauing giuen examples of the Catholike Churches who can thus vnfould the order of their Pastours and namely Rome for one he sayth afterwardes Confingant tale quid Haeretici Let Heretiques euen feigne some such like thing Thus we see what Tertullian did say to Heretikes of his tyme by which we may learne what we may say to the Nouellists of our tyme whome offering to dispute with vs about Scriptures we may altogeather debarre from Scripture and may examine them as Tertullian did those of his tyme saying VVho are you VVhen and whence came you VVhat haue you to do in my ground you that are not myne By what right dost thou O Marcion we may say O Martin Luther cut down my woods By what licence dost thou O Valentine O Caluin diuert or turne aside my fountaynes By what power dost thou O Apelles O Anabaptist remoue my limits VVhy do you O the rest of Heretikes sow and feed according to your owne will vpon my Land and pasture It is my possession I am the ancient possessour I haue the firme Originalls from the Authors themselues to whome the propriety did first belong I am the heyre of the Apostles as they did ordaine in their Testament and last will as they did commit it to my faythfull Trust as they did adiure me so I hold it But you they haue disinherited and cast out as strangers and enemyes c. So as by this prescription of Tertullian vntill D. Featly or some other can by other markes then by alleadging wordes of Scripture as by perpetuall visibility and interrupted succession of Bishops c. proue Protestants not to be Heretikes but the true Church of Christ and the right heyre of the Apostles to whome coÌ„sequently belongeth the most ancient first possession of Scriptures M. Fisher had good reason and right to deferre disputing with him out of Scripture of Christ and his Apostles vntill he had made his full Induction of Names of Protestant Church-men and vnfoulded the orders of their Prostant Bishops so running downe from the beginning by succession as that their first Protestant Bishop had some of the Apostles or some Apostolicall man who perseuered with the Apostles for his Author Predecessour The which I accompt to be so impossible for him to doe as I dare and do challenge him saying with Tertullian Confingant tale quid Haeretici Let D. Featly or any of his fellow Protestants at least feigne because I am sure they cannot find Names of Protestant Bishops and Pastors whome they do imagine for proue they cannot out of good Authors to haue beene in all ages Which whiles they do not al sorts of people haue iust cause to thinke that neither D. Featly nor D. VVhite can performe that taske which they did tooto boldly vndertake of naming prouing and defending visible Ptotestants in al ages therupon al men may as I do conclude That the Protestant Church hath not beene so visible in all ages as the Cathelike Church ought to be and consequently the Protestant Church is not the true Catholique Church which we prosesse to beleeue in our Creed Neither consequently are their I'astours and Doctours and Preachers lawfully sent or sufficiently authorized to teach and expound Gods word nor consequently are people securely warranted to learne of them what is and what is not to be belieued by infallible diuine faâ—th necessary to saluation nor indeed ought they to beleeue or heare them at all but ought to vnite themselues to that One Holy Catholike Apostolike perpetually visible Roman Church hearing beleeuing obeying the Pastors thereof whereby they may haue infallible iustruction in all matters of fayth secure direction for all matters concerning good life in such sort as they may attaine remission of their sinnes and saluation of their soules the grace of God in this life and endles heauenly happines in the next Vnto which I beseech sweet Iesus to bring vs all Amen FINIS Eudaimon Iohannes in defens p. H. Garn. D. Bishop against Rob. Abbots A very weake and Insufficient satisfaction as is showed hereafter Eph. 4. Heb. 11. Rom. 10. v. 14 15. Eph. 4. 11. Ose. 2. v. 19 20. Isa. 59. 20. Matth. 18. 20. Eph. 4. v. 11. 〈…〉 M. Fisher. D. Field in his Epistle Dedicatone Aug. lib. de vnitate Ecclesiae a This great Lady did expresly say that the confereÌ„ce did make against Protestants euen as it was related by you Protestant relator And another Lady who was present at the confereÌ„ce did protest to one that asked her how it moued her that she was by it confirmed in Catholique religion Lib. 1. Inst. c. 1. Sect. 4. Eph. 4. v. 11. c. Rom. 10. v. 14. c. 1 Luth. ep ad Argentin anno 1525. 2 Conradus Schushelb in Theol. Calu. lib. 2. fol. 130. B. versus finé 3 Geo. Mylli in Augustanae Confessionis explie art 7. de Eccl. pag. 137. 4 Benedict Morgést trac de Eccl pag. 145. 5 Calu. in I. epist. ep 141. 6 Bucer ep ad Epis. Hereford 7 Beza in Theol. ep epi. 5. 8 Iewell in his Apolog. of the Church 4 c. diuis 2. in his defence 42. 9 Perkins in exposit of the Creed †See the booke intituled The Author and substance of Protestant religioÌ„ Isa. 59. v. 21. Isa. 61 9 Isa. 60 11 Matth. 5 14 Matth. 18 17 Matth. 28 19 20 Coccius in thesauro CoÌ„trouersiarum tomo 1. lib. 8. art 1. Aug. in psal 47. lib. de vnit Eccles. cap. 16. 25. Isa. 59. v. 21. 60. v. 11. 61. v. 9. 1. Tim. 3. v. 15. Ephes. 4. v. 4. 11. 12. 13. 14. Tertul. lib. de praescript Luc. 10. v. 16. Matth. 18. v. 17 Tertull. de praescrip c. 15. Cap. 19. Cap. 20. 21. 22 sequent Cap. 32.
to insert heere as followeth Right Honourable Lord. I esteeme it a speciall prouidēce of God that your Lordship was present at a late Conference wherin D. White and D. Featly vndertooke to shew against me my companion that the Protestant Church had been visible in all Ages and that their Professors might be named especially in all Ages before Luther Your Lordship may remember the substāce of all the proofe to haue consisted in this That the true Church was alwayes so visible as the Professors therof in all Ages might be named But the Protestants was the true Church we refused to dispute of the Minor because it transferred the question and auoyded that plaine proofe of the visible Church which was then propounded and expected If as they conclude they are able to name their Professors in all Ages why did they refuse to giue vs a Catalogue of theirs as we were ready to haue giuen them another of ours Why went they about to proue they were able to name them when with lesse adoe they might haue named them Where deeds are iustly expected words without deeds are worthily suspected Certainly heerby they are so farr from hauing discharged themselues of the great enterprise they vndertooke as they stand more engaged then before to the performance of it for hauing now professed and acknowledged that the true Church or to vse their owne words the Church which is so visible as the true Catholike Church ought to be and the Church whose fayth is eternall and vnehanged must be is able to name her Professors in all Ages eyther for their owne honour and for the satisfaction of the world they must set downe the Names of their Professors in all Ages or els they shamefully discouer themselues not to be that true and visible vnchanged Church which is able to name them Againe at the length yealding as they did to shew the continuall visibility of their Church by a full induction of their visible Protestants in all Ages which they seemed to vndertake with great confidence why did they sticke in the first Age alone refusing to name their Professors in the Ages following vntill the first were tryed May not the Answerer choose to deny which parte of the Argument he pleaseth And was it euer heard that he should be inforced to reply to one proposition alone before the whole Argument whether it were Syllogisme or Induction were fully propounded Very Nobly therfore prudently your Lordship in the end desired another meeting not doubting that your owne party within 3. or 4. dayes would be content to giue vs the Names of their Professors in all Ages as we were ready to giue them the Names of ours that therby both sides might be the better prepared for a second Tryall which whē they haue performed we shall not fayle to encounter with them eyther by way of speach or wryting as your Lordship all things considered shall thinke fairest or safest or most conuenient for the discouery of Truth But if your Lordship shall not be able to obtaine at their hands this your most iust and important Request the defect of proof on their part must needs be accounted a plaine flight and no man hereafter can prudently relye his saluation vpon that Church which for want of perpetuall visibility proued they themselues shall haue concluded to be false and faygned Thus expecting the yssue heerof and your Lordships further pleasure from the mouth of this bearer I remaine this first of Iuly 1623. Your Lordships seruant in Christ Iohn Fisher. By this Letter it may appeare how willing M. Fisher and M. Sweete were and yet are of their part to haue the matter soundly prosecuted eyther by meeting or wryting And I haue heard that the Earle to whome this letter was written did send to D. Featly so as although there be a prohibition of meeting yet it is expected that by way of writing D. Featly goe forward to performe his vndertaken Taske and setting downe first the Names of such as he iudgeth to haue been Protestant Professors in euery Age since Christ And then prouing out of good Authors those whome he nameth to haue byn members of the Protestant Church not condemning any one point wherin Protestants at this day do differ from the auncient and Roman Church and especially in any one of the 39. Articles which English Protestant Ministers are sworne vnto and therfore so long as D. Featly and D. White shall be silent and not so much as by writing giue a Catalogue of Names of the Professors of their Church all sorts of people may iustly take this their fayling for a flight and for a silent graunting that they haue not had visible Protestants in all Ages whose Names may be shewed out of good Authors as the question required Wherupon followeth that the Protestant Church is not the true Church of Christ nor the Preachers theroflawfully sent to teach nor people securely warranted to heare and learne of them what is and what is not to be belieued by Fayth necessary to saluation CHAP. III. Of the yssue of the Conference THe Protestant Relator sayth that the issue of the Conference was that the aforesaid M. Bugges came to Syr Humfrey Lynd gaue him many thākes for the sayd meeting and assured him he was well resolued now of his Religion that he saw plainly that it was but the Iesuits bragging without proofes and wheras formerly by their Sophisticall perswasions he was in some doubt of the Church he is now so fully satisfied of the truth of our Religion that he doth vtterly disclaime the Popish Priests cōpany and their doctrine also I haue cause to doubt that this which the Relator sayth is not true for therby he maketh the old Gentleman to be but of a weake capacity or of a very mutable nature For first I am sure there was no cause giuen in the Conference of any such effectuall resolution to be made by the old Gentleman Secondly I cannot see when this speach should be made by the Gentlemā to Syr Humfrey If immediatly after the Conference it would argue toto much want of capacity for if he did but rightly conceiue the true state of the question in which himselfe had especially desired to be satisfied as I verily hope he did he might easily haue marked the insufficiency of D. Featly his diuerting proofes which also were so answered as the Audience for want of satisfaction in them vrged him to leaue off to produce Nà mes of Protestāts 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 Cōference being so abruptly left of by D. Featly before he would go forward to name men in other Ages especially in Ages before Luther as the Question required any meane capacity might see that the Question in which the old Gentleman desired to be satisfied was not fully