The Protestant Relator of this Conference, setteth downe the occasion in these words.

How farre this parcel of the Relation is true or false, I wil not stand to discusse, 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 haue some cause to doubt, that it is not altogether true, especially in that he saith: ‘The Popish Priests and Iesuits not desisting to creepe in further where they had [...]ce made a breach, perseuering stil in questioning him: where his Church was before Luther?’ For I doe not thinke that many (if any at al) Priests or Iesuits, did first put this doubt into the old Gentleman his head, nor perseuered in questioning him about it. And for Master Fisher in particular, I know certainly that hee neuer saw this old Gentleman, much lesse did he speake to him, in any mat­ter of Religion, til that time, when Sir Humfrey Lynd [Page 7] first met Master Fisher. The which meeting is mentio­ned in the Protestant Relation, saying thus:

‘And after his 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 [Page 4] 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, [Page 5] 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 [Page 6] 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 a Paper, shewing briefely [Page 7] 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.

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.

This Paper being deliuered to M. Fisher, he writ a se­cond Paper, to explicate the meaning of his question, [Page 10] to shew an equal method of proceeding in the Dispu­tation.

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, [Page 12] 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.

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 [Page 14] 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:’

] 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.

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.

[Page 16]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 dis­p [...]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 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.’ 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.’

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, [Page 17] 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 Qu [...]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 [Page 18] Professors in al ages may be shewed out of good Au­thors. Proue this, or proue nothing.

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.

[Page 19]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.

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 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 [Page 21] 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 [Page 22] 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 [Page 23] 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 no [...]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 particul [...]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, [Page 24] 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 argu­ment, according to the Protestant Relator.

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?’

[Page 25]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,’ M. Fisher. 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.

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.

[Page 26]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 [Page 27] 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 D. Field in his Epistle Dedica­tone. 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 [Page 28] 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.

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.

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 [Page 30] 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 pr [...]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:

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 [Page 31] 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:

and then he named (as the Protestant Relator sayth) sixe particular Points.

[Page 32]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.

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 it was his aduersaries fault to spend so long time in impertinent Syllogismes, which should haue beene imployed in naming and pro­uing Protestants in al ages: which by the prescribed me­thod was first to be done, before M. Fisher needed to proue any thing pertaining to the Roman Church▪ Wor­thily therefore might M. Sweet cal for Names of Prote­stants, and wel might he say: That if Protestants had beene in al ages, their Names (at least some) in euery age might be produced.

Vnto which, as the Protestant Relator saith, D. Featly replyed, saying: ‘That is a Non sequitur, &c. What say you to a People of Africa, who (if we may beleeue Plinie) haue no Names at al?’

To this Obiection, M. Boulton answered: ‘That those Acephali held some particular Doctrine, which did [Page 33] 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 certaine, whether they had any particular Author: for some say, That they were a Companie, who in the Controuersie betwixt Iohn the Bishop of Antioch, and Ciril of Alex­andria, behaued themselues like Neutrals, submitting themselues to neyther, as to their Head. Others thinke, That they were certaine men, who being the fauorers of Petrus Mogus the Heretike, did afterwards renounce him from being their Head, because he would not accurse the Councel of Calcedon. Others say, That one Seuerus, Bi­shop of Antioch, was their Author.

But howsoeuer this particular were, it dōth not con­clude, That there could be in al ages visible Professors of the Protestants Faith, whereof no Storie 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 whatsoeuer o­ther eminent Professors of euerie true or false Religion.

We doe not require, that al visible mens names should be vpon record, nor al Records produced. For although to proue such a visible Church as that of our Sauiour Christs, described in Scripture to be spread ouer the World, a smal number of visible Professors be not suf­ficient, as S. Augustine prooueth against the Donatists; Aug. lib. de vni­tate Ecclesiae. yet to shew how confident we are of our cause, we for the present onely require, That three eminent Prote­stants Names in al ages be produced out of good Au­thors. But they are so farre from being able to produce three, as they cannot name one in euerie age (as is cleare­ly prooued in the Protestants Apologie) neyther indeed [Page 34] can they abide with any patience, when they be much pressed in this Point: as appeareth by diuers who haue beene vrged; and in particular, by D. Featly, in this Conference: who hauing beene called vpon seueral times to produce Names, as he had vndertaken; at one time he burst forth into these words, set downe by the Protestant Relator: What? wil nothing content you, but a Buttrie-Booke? You shal haue a Buttrie-Booke, if you wil stay a while.

Note (Reader) this Doctors want of grauitie and pa­tience, and what a fit Title he giueth 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 Antiquitie: as hauing had their beginning of late in one Martin Luther; who, after his Aro­stasie, more respected the Buttrie, then any Ecclesiastical Storie.

But how vnwilling D. Featly was to bring out this his Buttrie-Booke, appeareth; in that after the Auditorie had long stayed and often called for the Names of Pro­testants in al ages, which should haue been giuen at first; after not onely Catholikes, but also diuers of the Prote­stants (being wearie and not willing to heare any more of his dilatorie and impertinent Syllogismes) had en­treated him to giue ouer his arguments, and to produce Names.

First, he said: If I should giue ouer, M. Fisher would say of me, as he said of D. White, That I was at a Non▪plus: and therefore I wil goe forward in arguing.

To which, M. Fisher said: Then wil I goe forward in answering.

But the Companie earnestly calling for Names, D. Featly bad the Writer set downe in writing, That [Page 35] he was willing to proceed; but to satisfie the Companie, he would diuert vnto the Names.

Which M. Fisher seeing to be written, said: Vn­lesse this be blotted out, it shal be set downe for An­swer; That hitherto D. Featly hauing diuerted from the chiefe end of the Question, wil now speake 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 sayth) ‘That both the Disputants being willing to proceede, D. Featly was desired by the Companie, to produce the Names of such Protestants as were extant before Lu­ther, in al 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 endea­uoured to fore-stal his hearers with an il opinion against M. Fisher, saying:

There is no credit to be giuen to this man, who not onely slandered D. White in a former Conference, but also falsely writ what passed betwixt M. Musket and my selfe, in a certaine Disputation.

M. Fisher hearing this false slander, did rise vp, and for the honour of the Truth, and clearing of his Credit, did (before the Audience) solemnely pro­test, vpon his Conscience, That wittingly and wil­lingly he did neuer wrong eyther 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.)

[Page 36]To this, nothing was replyed: and therefore I suppose that the Audience was wel satisfied of M. Fishers since­ritie in his Relation, and writing of the former Disputa­tions.

After this, D. Featly named for the first age, our Lord and Sauior Christ, and the Twelue Apostles, and S. Paul, and S. Ignatius: after which he stayed a while, as if he studyed for more Names; but not remembring any more, whom he would set downe for the first age, he said: These, not denying others, may serue for the first age.

Then turning to M. Fisher, he said: Let vs dispute of these. No, said M. Fisher; name first of al ages. What? said D. Featly, wil you not dispute of Christ and his Apostles? Yes, said M. Fisher, in due place: but first name the rest in al ages, and then I wil answer you. What? said D. Featly, doe not Christ and his Apostles deserue the first place? M. Fisher: I wil not answer, be­fore you haue named the rest.

Then, said D. Featly, in a heat: Wel, you wil not dis­pute of Christ and his Apostles? Then you grant, Christ and his Apostles to be Protestants. And so instantly (without expecting M. Fishers answer) he turned him­selfe to the Audience, and said: He grants Christ and his Apostles to be Protestants. Whereupon diuers of the Au­dience made such a showt (as if they had gotten a Vic­torie) with such a noyse, as M. Fisher endeuouring to answer, for a time could not be heard. But he rising vp, and with his Hand and Voyce crauing silence, made such as would heare him, vnderstand how falsely D. Featly had slandered him to his Face; and eyther then, or vpon some like occasion, he said: What may I ex­pect behind my backe, when you thus mis-report me to my Face?

[Page 37]And in this sort when many of the company were willing to depart, D. Featly (being called vpon as it seemed) by some of his companions to goe away, did arise and offer to begone. yet in his rysing he turned to M. Fisher, saying: Will you dispute vpon Christ and his Apo­stles, or no? To which M. Fisher sayd, I will, if you will stay▪ And stretching out his hand, he tooke D. Featly by his arme, offering to stay him, yet he in that abrupt man­ner went away.

This is the true Relation of this last passage; by which the falshood of that Relation which is made by the Protestant Relator, may appeare: For to make the best of D. Featly his Tergiuersation, or rather plaine flight from proceeding in his Induction, and to cast some colour ouer the matter, by which he may make Protestants belieue, 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: neyther did he say those words at all, which the Relator reporteth. Se­condly he suppresseth in silēce M. Fishers expresse yeal­ding to dispute about Christ and his Apostles, which M. Fisher did expresse two seuerall tymes: once thus; I will dispute of them in due place: the second tyme when D. Featly would needs begon, and in going asked, will you dispute or no? thus, I will, if you will stay. Thirdly he relateth a Syllogisme to be made in this last passage, which is not remembred; but if it were, it was very impertinent to an Induction, and may easily be ans­wered out of that which was formerly sayd against a like Syllogisme called by D. Featly, A Demonstration à pri­ori, but is proued not to be so much worth as a proba­ble proofe à posteriori. Fourthly he relateth a coniuring [Page 38] charge to haue byn made by D. Featly to M. Fisher, in this last passage, which was not made.

But to returne to the breaking vp of the Conferēce. So soone as D. Featly had in the abrupt manner afore­sayd, gone away, and left M. Fisher and M. Sweete, and diuers others of good ranke sitting at, or neere about the Table, amongst whome was the Earle of Warwick▪ who not liking (as it seemed) that the matter should end in that ill fashion, made a speach to M. Fisher, and tould him, that the Doctour should come againe, and giue the rest of the Names of Protestant Professours af­ter some dayes, it being requisite that the Doctour should haue tyme to study for them. To which M. Fi­sher sayd, he was willing he should take tyme. Then the wryting of such things as had passed in the Confe­rence (being subscribed vnder D. Featly, and M. Fishers hands) was wrapped vp in a paper, and sealed vp with three seales, one with my Lord of Warwicks, and the o­ther with two other seales, & left in Syr Humfrey Lynds hands, or some other Protestant, with promise that it should be kept vnopened till the next meeting, and that M Fisher afterwards should haue it, or a true cop­py of it: which promise hath not yet been performed, partly by reason the next meeting was prohibited; but by whose meanes this prohibition came, although I will not Censure (as the Protestant Relator sayth, a Romanist hath confidently auerred) that the Prote­stant party laboured to haue all future meetings, touch­ing this occasion, forbidden, because they cannot make good that which they haue vndertaken about naming of Protestant Professors in all ages; yet I cānot hinder men to haue such like suspicion, because I know it is impossible for Protestants to performe that vndertakē Taske.

[Page 39]Now whereas my self haue heard that some suspe­cted, that the Catholike party had made meanes to get the second meeting hindered, this idle fancy hath no foundation of any probability. For all Catholikes are confident, that Protestants can neuer produce out of good Authours, Names of the Professors of this their new Reformation, no more then any other Sect of Heretikes can produce the Names of men of their pro­fession in all Ages since Christ: whereas Roman Ca­tholikes in their printed Bookes ordinarily set downe the Names of their Professors, and chiefe Pastors in all Ages: And soe the victory being so certaine on their side, they had no reason to hinder the meeting, wher­by this question should be determined, especially in such sort as is prescribed in M. Fishers second paper (a­boue rehearsed) written before the last meeting. And in particuler for M. Fisher and M. Sweet, it is most cer­taine, that they much desired the secōd meeting, as may appeare: First, in that the next day after the last mee­ting, they went to Syr Humfrey Lynds house, offering to giue vnto him a Catalogue of Names of such as they would defend to haue been Professors of the Roman Fayth in all Ages, that he might deliuer it to D. Featly and D. White to consider of agaynst the next meeting, vpon condition that they should also reciprocally de­liuer vp to M. Fisher, & M. Sweete, a Catalogue of such as they would defend to haue been Protestants in all Ages, to be considered off against the sayd next day of meeting. The which offer seemed to another Protestāt (who was then in Syr Humfrey Lynds company) very reasonable and equall. But Syr Humfrey sayd: No, I know the Doctors mynds, that they will not giue vp any Catalogue be­fore the very meeting: and he asked M. Fisher, why he did so much presse the Doctors for names of men of their

profession in all Ages? To whome M. Fisher answered that the reason (to deale plainly) was, because he was fully perswaded, that they could not giue vp any such Names. After this M. Fisher and M. Sweete reflecting v­pon Syr Humfreys words, began to suspect, that there would be no more meeting, vnles the Earle of War­wicke (who had engaged himselfe by his word to M. Fi­sher that it should be) did presse the Doctours vnto it: wherfore it seemed good that the Earle should be mo­ued heerunto by a letter writtē by M. Fisher vnto him, the copy wherof I haue thought good, to insert heere as followeth.

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 [Page 43] 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.

THe Protestant Relator sayth, that the issue of the Conference was, ‘that the aforesaid M. Bug­ges came to Syr Humfrey Lynd, & gaue him many thā ­kes 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 cō ­pany, 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 [Page 44] 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 Nàmes 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 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, [Page 45] 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 mē ­tioneth; 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 This great Lady did ex­presly say: that the conferēce did make a­gainst Prote­stants, euen as it was related by you Prote­stant relator., 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, And another Lady, who was present at the conferēce did protest (to one that asked her how it moued her) that she was by it confir­med in Ca­tholique reli­gion. 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 [Page 46] 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 Lib. 1. Inst. c. 1. Sect. 4. their sinnes, nor saluation of their soules.

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.

Amen.