The Romish Fisher Caught and Held in his Own Net, Account of conference

The Romish Fisher Caught and Held in his Own Net · Account of conference

p. 1THE OCCASION and issue of the late Conference had betweene D^r. White, Deane of Carleil, and D^r. Featly, with M^r. Fisher and M^r. Sweet, Iesuites, was this as followeth.

EDward Bugges Esquire, (about the age of 70 yeeres) beeing lately sicke, was sollicited by some Papists then about him, to forsake the Protestant faith; telling him, there was no hope of saluation without the Church; there was no Catholique Church, but theirs; and to beleeue the Catholique Church, was the Article of his Creed; and by it there could no other Church bee meant, but the Church of Rome, because it could not bee prooued by all the Protestants in p. 2the Kingdome, that they had any Church before Luther.

This Gentleman beeing much troubled in his minde with these and the like suggestions, who all his life time had bin and professed himself a religious Protestant, becam now more sick in minde then body: and if by Gods mercifull goodnesse he had not recouered of this sicknesse, it is to be feared he had fallen both from his Mother Church, and his former faith, as some of the neerest of his owne bloud (to his great griefe) hauehave lately beene seduced by like inticements.

After his recouery, beeing still much troubled in minde with these former suggestions of the Popish Priests, he repaired to Sir Humfrey Lynde, Knight: who, by reason of his alliance and long acquaintance with him, gaue the best satisfaction he could to his said Cousin Master Bugges; who seemed to take content in such his conferences, and to be well satisfied by him in all points.

But the Popish Priests and Iesuites not desisting to creepe-in further where they had once made a breach, perseuered still in questioning him, Where his Church was before Luther? Whereupon hee repayred againe to Sir Humfrey Lynde, and required some further satisfaction of him concerning that demand. And thereupon Sir Humfrey Lynde told him, It was first in Christ and the Apostles; consequently also conspicuous in the Primitiue Church for 600 yeeres after p. 3Christ: after which time some errors crept into the Church, as diseases into a mans body: so that the Church, which Luther and we acknowledge, was in generall the same Christian Church, as his body was the same substantiall body, beeing now well, and lately sick, though different in the qualities.

And for the better strengthening of his mind, the said Sir Humfrey Lynde inuited him to his house in the Countrey, thereby the better to preuent the daily sollicitation of those dangerous seducers. And after his returne to London, the said Sir Humfrey Lynde going to Master Bugges his house in Drury-lane to visit him, found Master Fisher the Iesuite there: where, after some debates about Religion, and the visibility of the Church, M. Fisher called for pen & inke, and set down this question in terminis, thereto adding vnderunder his hand, that he would answer vponupon it negatiuely, as challenging and expecting opposers, deliuering also the paper into the hands of the said Sir Humfrey Lynde: who vponupon view of it, answered that it was an historicall question, and not so proper for disputation. But Master Fisher vrging it, Sir Humfrey told him, if he would goe to Doctor Whites, (where formerly he had beene) the said Doctor would easily resolue those doubts. Which beeing refused by the Iesuite, the said Sir Humfrey did then returne him his paper againe, and so left him.

About two daies after, Master Bugges repaired p. 4to Sir Humfrey Lynde, and intreated him (for his satisfaction) to giuegive Master Fisher a meeting; saying, that Master Fisher had againe told him, that he would maintaine what he had set down, and that our Diuines could not prooue our Church visible before Luthers time. Whereupon Sir Humfrey told him, that D. White and Doctor Featly were to dine with him vponupon Fryday following: and if after dinner Master Fisher would come thither with foure or six at the most, they should bee admitted for his sake and his wises, 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, as is before declared. VponUpon which Fryday, beeing the twenty seuenth of Iune, 1623. Master Fisher, Master Sweet, Iesuites, and some others with them, came to Sir Humfrey Lyndes house, into a little dining-roome; where they found the aforesaid Master Bugges, his wife and children, and others of Sir Humfreys friends, that had then dined with him, together with some others also: whose comming in, as the said Sir Humfrey did not expect, so hee could not with ciuility put them forth his house, but did instantly cause his doores to bee locked vp, that no more might enter in: notwithstanding which his command, some others also came in scatteringly, after the conference began.

At the same time and place, Doctor White and p. 5Doctor Featly beeing inuited to dinner by Sir Humfrey Lynde, and staying a while after, had notice giuen them, that Master Fisher and Master Sweet, Iesuites, were in the next roome ready to conferre with them, touching a question set downe by Master Fisher, vnderunder his owne hand, in these words, viz.

Whether the Protestant Church was in all ages visible, and especially in the ages going before Luther. And whether the names of such visible Protestants in all ages can be shewed and prooued out of good Authors.

This question beeing deliuered to the parties aboue-named, and it beeing notified vntounto them, that there were certaine persons, who had bin sollicited, and (remaining doubtfull in Religion) desired satisfaction especially in this point; the said Doctors were perswaded to hauehave some speech with the Iesuites, touching this point; the rather, because the Priests and Iesuites doe daily cast out papers, and disperse them in secret: in which they vaunt, that no Protestant Minister dareth encounter them in this point.

p. 6A Relation of vvhat passed in a Conference touching the visibility of the Church, Iune xxvii. 1623.

AT the beginning of this meeting, when the disputants were set, D. Featly drew out the paper, in which the question aboue rehearsed was written, with these words in the margent, viz. I will answer that it was not; demanded of M. Fisher, whether this were his own hand? Which after he had acknowledged, D. Featly began as followeth.

D. Featly.

foreign. To this vniuersall demand, requiring rather an historicall large volume, then a Syllogisticall briefe dispute, we answer, that

1. Although diuine infallible faith is not built vponupon deduction out of humane history, but vponupon diuine reuelation, as is confessed by your owne Schoolmen, and expresly by Cardinall Bellarmine: Historiae humanae faciunt tantùm fidem humanam, cui subesse potest falsum: Humane histories and records beget onelyonly an humane faith, or rather credulity subiect to error, not a diuine and infallible beliefe, which must bee built vponupon surer ground.

2. Although this question be grounded vponupon vncertaine and false supposals: for, a Church may hauehave bin visible, yet not the names of all visible professors thereof now to be shewed and p. 7prooued out of good Authors: there might bee millions of professors, yet no particular and authenticall record of them by name: Records there might bee many in antient time, yet not now extant, at least for vsus to come by;

Yet wee will not refuse to deale with you in our owne question, if you in like manner will vndertake the like task in your own defence, and maintaine the affirmatiue in the like question, which we now propound vntounto you heere in writing.

Whether the Romish Church (that is a Church holding the particular entire doctrine of the now Romanists, as it is comprised in the Councell of Trent) was in all ages visible, especially in the first 600 yeeres. And whether the names of such visible or legible Romanists in all ages can be shewed and prooued out of good Authors.

Heere D. Featly reading this question, through a mistake, in stead of out of good Authors, read, out of Gods Word. Whereunto M. Fisher replied, No: I will prooue it out of good Authors.

Then said one that sate at the Table**M. Alesbury., By no meanes can M. Fisher endure to demonstrate his Church out of Gods Word.

D. Featly.

God is a good Author, M. Fisher: but it is true, I did mistake. What say you to the condition? Will you vndertake to name visible Papists in all ages, out of good Authors?

M. Fisher.

I will, so you prooue the Visibility of your Church.

p. 8Heere an order was set downe, that D. Featly should for an houre and a halfe oppose M. Fisher in this question; and afterwards M. Fisher for the last houre and halfe should oppose D. White in the other question, for the Visibility of the Romane Church.

M. Sweet.

Before you proceed to dispute, I desire, these conditions may bee assented vntounto on both sides:

1. That all bitter speeches be forborne.

2. That none speake but disputants.

Which conditions were well approoued by the whole company.

D. Featly.

I desire a third to bee added thereunto, viz. that both the Opponent and Respondent be tyed to Logick Forme.

M. Fisher.

I hold not that condition fit, because the company vnderstands not Logick Forme.

D. Featly.

There are of the company that vnderstand Logick as well as you or I, and the rest are men of vnderstanding and reason: therefore I am resolued to keepe Logick Forme, and expect from you direct answers.

M. Fisher.

You your selfe confesse, that this question is not to be handled syllogistically.

D. Featly.

I said indeed, that it required rather a large historicall volume, then a briefe syllogisticall Dispute: the more you too blame, to propound such a question; and my taske the harder: yet, beeing propounded as a question, p. 9I will keep my self to Logicke Forme. But before I propound my argument, I craue leaue, in fewe words to lay open the vanity of the vsuall discourse, wherewith you draw and delude many of the ignorant and vnlearned. You beare them in hand, that there was no such thing in the world as a Protestant, before Luther; and that all the world before his time, beleeued as you doe: That your Church hath not bin onelyonly visible in all Ages, and all times, but eminently conspicuous and illustrious: which is such a notorious vntruth, that I heer offer before all this company, to yeeld you the better, and acknowledge my self ouercome, if you can produce out of good Authours, I will not say, any Empire or Kingdome, but any City, Parish or Hamlet, within 500. yeeres next after Christ, in which there was any visible assembly of Christians to bee named, maintaining and defending either your Trent Creed in generall, or these poynts of Popery in speciall; to wit,

1. That there is a treasury of Saints merits, and superaboundant satisfactions at the Popes disposing.

2. That the Laitie are not commanded by Christs institutions, to receiue the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in both kindes.

3. That the publicke seruice of God in the Church, ought, or may bee celebrated in an vnknowne Tongue.

4. That priuate Masses, wherein the Priest p. 10sayth, Edite et bibite ex hoc omnes, Eate and drinke yee all of this, and yet eateth and drinketh himselfe onelyonly, are according to Christs institution.

5. That the Popes pardons are requisite or vsefull, to release soules out of Purgatory.

6. That the effect of the Sacrament dependeth vponupon the intention of the Minister.

M. Sweet.

These are scholasticall points, not fundamentall.

D. White.

Those things which are defined in your Councell of Trent, are to you matters fundamentall.

Whatsoeuer article denied makes a man an hereticke, is fundamentall.

But the deniall of any of these, makes a man an hereticke:

Therefore to you, eueryevery one of these articles is fundamentall.

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

7. That extreme vnction is a Sacrament, properly so called.

8. That wee may worship God by an Image.

9. That the sacred Hoast ought to bee eleuated, or carried in solemne procession.

10. That Infidels and impious persons, yea Rats and Mice, may eate the body of Christ.

11. That all ecclesiasticall power dependeth of the Pope.

12. That hee cannot erre in matter of faith.

13. That hee hath power to canonize Saints.

p. 1114. To institute religious orders.

15. To depose Kings, &c. which latter points and the like I leaue to D. White, to mayntaine against you, when (according to your promise) you doe vndertake to name visible and legible Romanists in all ages.

M. Fisher.

After you hauehave proued your Church visible in all ages, and named the professours thereof, I will satisfy 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 500. yeeres after Christ. To which instant demand of D. Featly, nothing was answered.

S^r. Humfrey Lynde. M. Sweet,

proue mee but this one point out of Saint Augustine, namely, Transubstantiation, or satisfy such arguments as I shall bring you out of Saint Augustine to the contrary, and I will promise you to goe to Masse.

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

M. Fisher.

I expect your argument, Doctor Featly.

D. Featly.

There are two meanes only, to proue any thing by necessary inference; to wit, a Syllogisme and an Induction: other formes of argument hauehave no force, but as they are reducible to these. I proue the visibility of our Church by both; and first, by a Syllogisme.

That Church, whose faith is eternall and perpetuall, was euer visible in the professours thereof.

p. 12But, the faith of the Protestant Church is eternall and perpetuall:

Therefore the faith of the Protestant Church was euer visible in the Professours thereof.

M. Fisher.

You conclude not the question.

D. Featly.

There are two Quaeres in your question: first, Whether the Protestant Church was in all ages visible; and secondly, Whether the names of such visible Protestants in all ages, can bee shewed. I hauehave concluded in my Syllogisme, the first Quaere.

M. Fisher.

There are not two Quaeres, or parts in the question: it is but one question.

D. White.

Where there are two propositions with two distinct Vtrums, there are two questions: But heer are two propositions with two distinct vtrums; to wit, whether the Protestant Church, &c. and whether the names, &c.

Therefore there are two Quaeres, or parts in the question.

M. Fisher.

Conclude any thing Syllogistically, D. Featly.

D. Featly.

You your self make the first part a question by it selfe: for, at the margent ouer against the first part, Whether the Protestant Church was euer visible? you write, I will answer, It was not: which words can hauehave no Construction, if you referre them to both parts, or at all to the latter part; to wit, Whether the names can be a shewed?

M. Fisher.

Let vsus heare a Syllogisme.

D. Featly.

In this copulatiue proposition p. 13which you offer for a question, and require mee to proue, either you deny both parts, or one onelyonly; if both, I am to proue both, one after the other; if one onelyonly, then you grant the other. A copulatiue is not true, vnlesse both parts bee true. Doe you deny both, or one onelyonly?

M. Fisher.

I say, they are but one; for, the later part is to expound the former: for, I meane by visible, so visible, that the names of such visible Protestants may bee shewed.

D. Featly.

This is to confound two distinct questions in one: For, a Church may hauehave bin visible, and yet the names of such visible Professours not now to bee shewed.

M. Fisher.

They are my words, and I am best able to expound my owne meaning.

D. Featly.

An exposition, which the construction of the words will not beare, is not to be receiued. But the construction of the words will not beare this your expositiō: Therfore it is not to be receiued. And is a coniunction copulatiue, & must adde some-what to that which goes before. It is all one, as if you should expound the words of the Apostle, Prouide honest things before God and men; before God, that is, before men.

M. Sweet.

What need you stand so much vponupon this: if there were visible men, certainly they may bee named. Name your visible Protestants, and it sufficeth. bbA Romanist standing by named M. Bolton.Name visible Protestants in all ages:

D. Featly.

It seemes you are**Two sects of School-men and Logicians so called. Nominalls, rather then**Two sects of School-men and Logicians so called. Realls, you stand so much vponupon naming. p. 14Will you vndertake to name visible Papists in all ages?The same Romanist standing by.

If neither you nor wee can name visible professours of our Religions in all ages, for ought I knowe, the best way for vsus is to bee all naturall men.

D. Featly.

This is the right reason of a Naturall.

M. Sweet.

If there were visible Protestants in all ages, certainly they may bee named.

D. Featly.

That is a Non sequitur, for the reasons beforenamed by mee. What say you to a people of Africa, who (if we may beleeue Plinie) hauehave no names at all?

M. Bolton.

Yet they hauehave descriptions, and may bee knowne by some Periphrasis.

D. Featly.

What say you then to the Heretikes called Acephali, who are so called, because their Head and Authour cannot bee named, nor particularly described? Yet the Authour was a visible man. Are all visible mens names vponupon Record? Are all the Records that were in former times, now to bee produced?

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

D. Featly.

What? Will nothing content you but a Buttery-booke? You shall hauehave a Buttery-booke of names, if you will stay a while.

Heere, diuers of the Auditors wished D. Featly not to proceed any further in the disputation, vnlesse Master Fisher would suffer him, according to the lawes of all disputation, first, p. 15to conclude the first part of his copulatiue Que…stion; and then, the second. Yet Doctor Featly' desirous to bring the disputation to some better issue before he left it, was content to yeeld to M. Fishers vnreasonable demand, and conclude both parts of the copulatiue Question in one Syllogisme.

D. Featly.

That Church, whose faith is eternall and perpetuall, is so visible, that the Names of some Professors thereof may be shewed in all Ages.

But, the faith of the Protestant Church is eternall and perpetuall:

Therefore the Protestants Church is so visible, that the Professors thereof may bee shewed in all Ages.

M. Fisher.

Faith eternall? Who euer heard of faith eternall? Saint Paul saith, that faith ceaseth.

D. Featly.

You hauehave a purpose, M. Fisher, to cauill: you knowe my meaning well enough by the tearm perpetuall; to wit, that Christian faith which hath continued from Christs first publishing it, till this present, and shall continue vntill his second Coming.

The Church which houldeth this faith, you beleeue, shall bee so visible, that the Names of the Professors thereof may bee shewed in all ages.

But, the Protestant Church holdeth this perpetuall faith:

Therefore it hath been so visible, that the p. 16Names of the Professers thereof may be shewed in all Ages.

M. Fisher.

Your Argument is a fallacy, called Petitio principij.

D. Featly.

A demonstration à causâ or à priori, is not petitio principii.

But, such is my Argument:

Therefore my Argument is not petitio principii.

Is it not a sounder Argument, to prooue the Visibility of the Professers from the truth of their faith, than (as you doo) the truth of your faith from the Visibility of Professers? Visible Professers argue not a right faith. Hereticks, Mahumetans, and Gentiles, hauehave visible professers of their impieties; yet wil it not hence follow, that they hauehave a right beleef. On the contrary, wee knowe by the promises of God in the Scripture, that the Church which maintains the true faith, shall hauehave alwaies Professers more or less visible.

M. Sweet.

You ought to proue the truth of your Church à posteriori; for, that is to the question; and not à priori.

D. Featly.

Shall you prescribe mee my weapons? Is not an Argument à priori, better than an Argument à posteriori? This is, as if in battell you should enioyne your enemy to stab you with a knife, and not with a sword or dagger. I will vse what weapons I list: take you what buckler you can.

M. Fisher.

A Proof à posteriori is more demonstratiue than à priori.

p. 17M. Alesbury.

Heer M. Fisher sheweth his Academicall learning, in preferring a demonstration à posteriori, before that which proceeds à priori. Is not a demōstration of the effect frō the cause, more excellent, than of the cause by the effect?

From this place, and so forward, it was agreed by the Disputants, that the Arguments and Answers should be taken by one common Writer; and that the Opponent, D^r. Featly, should set his hand to each seuerall Syllogism; and the Respondent, M^r. Fisher, to his seuerall Answers.

D^r. 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 bee, is so visible, that the Names of the Professours thereof may be produced and shewed.

But, the Protestant Church is so visible, as the Catholique Church ought to be, and as the Popish Church is pretended by M. Fisher to bee:

Therefore the Protestant Church is so visible, that their Names may be produced.

M. Fisher.

I deny the Minor.

D. Featly.

That Church,Minor probatur whose faith is eternal and perpetuall, and vnchanged, is so visible, as the Catholick Church ought to be, and the Popish Church is pretended by M. Fisher to be.

But, the faith of the Protestant Church is eternall, perpetuall, and vnchanged:

Therefore the Protestant Church is so visible, as the Catholique Church ought to be, and the Popish Church is pretended by M. Fisher to bee.

p. 18M. Fisher.

I distinguish the Maior. That Church whose faith is perpetuall and vnchanged, so as the Names can bee shewed, is so visible as the Catholique Church ought to be, and as M. Fisher pretends the Roman Church to be, I grant it.

That Church whose faith is perpetuall and vnchanged, yet so, as the Names cannot be shewed in all Ages, is so visible as the Catholique Church ought to bee, and as M. Fisher pretends the Roman Church to be, I deny it. To the Minor I apply the like distinction, and consequently to the Conclusion in the same manner.

D. Featly.

What? Answer you to the Conclusion also? This is a Strain of new Logick.

M. Fisher.

Tolle distinctionem.

D. Featly.

A strange distinction of the etemity of faith by Professers to be named,All this was spoken, but not committed to writing. and not to bee named. What are Professers nominable or innominable, to the eternity of faith?

M. Fisher.

Conclude that which I deny, that the Protestant Church is so eternall, as the Names of visible Protestants in all Ages may be shewed.

D. Featly.

That Church whose faith is the Catholique and Primitiue faith, once giuen to the Saints, without which no man can be saued, is so perpetuall & visible, as the Names of some of that Church may be shewed in all Ages.

But,Tollitur distinctio. the faith of the Protestant Church is the Primitiue and Catholique faith, once giuen to the Saints, without which none can be saued:

Therefore the faith of the Protestant Church is so perpetuall and visible, as the Names of some p. 19of that Church may be shewed in all Ages.

M. Fisher.

I answer the Minor. If this Proposition bee taken simply in it selfe, I absolutely deny it: but if this Proposition bee considered (as it must bee) 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, to weet, to shew to those, who are not able by their owne ability to finde out, the infallible faith necessary to saluation, without learning it of the true visible Church of Christ: and consequently, the Visibility of the Church is first to be shewed, before the truth of doctrine in particular shall be shewed.

D. Featly.

First,These words were also spoken but not set down by the Writer. what speak you of those who are not able by their owne abilities to finde out faith? Is any man able by his owne ability, without the help of diuine grace?

Secondly, what helpeth the Visibility, to confirm the truth of the Church? Visibility indeed prooues a Church, but not the true Church.

Heer M. Fisher alleaged some words out of D. Field of the Church, supposing thereby to iustifie his former Answer. Whereunto D. Featly promised, Answer should be made when it came to their turn to answer: now hee was by order to oppose M. Fisher.

D. Featly.

The Summe of your former Answer, was, that the Minor of my former Syllogisme was both false and impertinent. It is neither false nor impertinent. Therefore your Answer is false and impertinent. And first, my Minor is not false.

p. 20M. Fisher.

I answer to the Antecedent, that it is both false and impertinent: but I adde, that for the present it must first be prooued to be pertinent, or else it diuerteth vsus from the chief end of our Dispute, which was (as I said before), that infallible truth may bee learned of the true visible Church; and not the true visible Church, by first finding eueryevery particular infallible truth; and by that to conclude which is the true visible Church.

D. Featly.

I proue, that the Minor is pertinent.

That Minor Proposition, which, together with the Maior, doth necessarily and directly inferre the Conclusion of the Minor last denied, is pertinent to the probation of that Minor denied.

But the Minor Proposition of the third Syllogisme, doth necessarily and directly inferre the conclusion of the Minor last denied:

Therefore the Minor of that Syllogism is pertinent.

Note, that M. Fishers Answers to eueryevery one of these Syllogismes, were penned by him verbatim with the aduice of M. Sweet, and one other, suggesting priuately, and amending what they thought fit. Which breeding much delay, irkesom to the hearers, and the Opponent then saying, You are very long,Register of the Court of Wards. M. Fisher: M. Chamberlane, standing by, said, Let him alone: for, he and his learned Councell are not yet agreed.

M Fisher.

I distinguish the Maior. That Minor proposition, which together with the Maior doth necessarily and directly inferre the conclusion of the Minor, in p. 21such manner as it may serue for the purpose to which the whole Dispute is ordained, I grant it to be pertinent. But if it doe inferre the conclusion, yet not in such manner as it may serue for that purpose for which the whole Dispute was ordained▪ I deny the Maior.

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

D. Featly.

That Minor which together with the Maior inferres the proposition last denied, the whole processe hauing beene per direct a media, is pertinent to that purpose to which the Dispute is ordained.

But this Minor, together with the Maior, directly and necessarily inferres the proposition last denied, the whole processe hauing beene per directa media.

Therefore 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.

D. Featly.

This is a Bull. M. Fisher. Media directa? yet not addirectum finem? that is, direct, and not direct? for Media are said to be directa, only ratione finis, in regard of the end.

M. Sweet.

Is there not a fault in arguing, called transitio à genere in genus, When a man by arguing quite leaues the maine question and subiect?

D. Featly.

I acknowledge, that transitio à genere in genus, is a fault in disputing: but I neuer heard, that the inference of the effect by the cause, was p. 22transitio a genere in genus: such was my argument. For, faith in a right 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 perpetuall, the effect must needs bee perpetuall. Therefore where the faith is perpetuall, the profession thereof must needs be; and consequently the Visibility of the professors thereof. Is this transitio à genere in genus?

D. Good.

M. Sweet, you once learned better Logick in Cambridge, then you shew now.

Heere againe those of M. Fishers side calling for names, Where are your names? D. White sayd,

D. White.

This is nothing but an apparant tergiuersation: you will not answer any argument directly, nor suffer vsus to proceed in our argument, and therefore I require you M. Fisher, according to the order mentioned in the beginning, for each party to hauehave an houre and a half, that you now oppose, and suffer me to answer. Prooue by Christ and his Apostles, or by any of the Fathers, for the first 600 yeeres, these present Tenets of the Romane Church, viz.

1. That all power of order and Iurisdiction in respect of the Churches, is to be deriued from the Church of Rome.

2. That no Scripture, sense or translation thereof is authenticall, vnlesse the same were receiued from the Church of Rome.

p. 233. That the Romane Church onelyonly was and is the authenticall Custos of vnwritten traditions.

4. That all generall Councels were called by the sole authority of the Pope, and that hee might ratify and disannuall whatsoeuer pleased him in them.

5. That the Pope onelyonly had power to canonize Saints.

6. That the Pope had or hath power to depose Princes.

Prooue all or any of these, and we will neither carp nor cauill about names, but answer directly, without all delayes, euasions or tergiuersations.

M. Fisher.

When you, Doctor White, or Doctor Featly, hauehave prooued your Church to bee visible in all Ages, and named visible Protestants, then I promise you to prooue the Visibility of the Catholique Romane Church: but that is not done by you yet.

D. Featly.

It had bin done, but for your delayes and tergiuersations. Answer briefly and directly to my former argument, and I will descend to my Induction, and produce the names of such eminent persons as in all Ages hauehave maintained the substantiall points of faith, in which wee differ from your Romane Church.

That Church whose faith is the Catholique and Primitiue faith, once giuen to the Saints, without which none can bee saued, is so visible, that the names of the professors thereof in all Ages may bee shewed and prooued out of good Authors.

p. 24But the Protestant Church is that Church, whose faith is the Catholique and Primitiue faith, once giuen to the Saints, without which none can be saued:

Therfore the Protestants Church is so visible, that the names of the professors thereof may be shewed in all Ages, &c.

The Maior is, ex concessis. What say you to the Minor?

M. Fisher.

I distinguish the Minor.

D. Featly.

VponUpon what tearme doe you distinguish?

M. Fisher.

I distinguish of the proposition, not of any tearme.

D. Featly.

Heere is againe another straine of new Logick, to distinguish of a proposition, and apply the distinction to no tearme: howsoeuer, I am glad to heare you distinguish, and not simply to deny, that the Protestant faith is the Catholique Primitiue faith. Mark, I beseech you, you that are present, that M. Fisher demurres vponupon the proposition; his conscience will not suffer him simply to deny, that the Protestant faith is the Catholique Primitiue faith: we simply and slatly, and in down-right tearmes deny, that your present Tridentine faith is the Catholique Primitiue faith.

M. Fisher.

I answered you before, that your Minor is false and impertinent.

D. Featly.

I have prooued already, that it is pertinent: what say you to the truth of it?

p. 25M. Fisher.

This is to diuert from the question, The question is not now, Whether our faith or yours bee the Catholique Primitiue faith: but the question now is of the effect, to wit, the Visibility of your Church, which you ought to prooue out of good Authors.

D. Featly.

May not a man prooue the effect by the cause? Is there no other meanes to proue the effect, but by naming men, and producing Authors for it?

M. Sweet.

An effect is posterius: the question is about an effect: therefore you ought to proue it à posteriori.

D. Featly.

What a reason is this? May not an effect be proued by his cause? Must an effect bee needs proued by an effect? or à posteriori, because an effect is posterius?

M. Sweet.

Leaue these Logick Disputes. Bring the names of your Protestants: that is it we expect.

D. Featly.

If I should relinquish my former argument, to which yet you hauehave giuen no manner of answer, you, M. Fisher, would report that I was non-plussed, as you slandered D. White in a former conference, who (I tell you, M. Fisher) is able to teach vsus both. Whereto M. Fisher replied nothing.

To preuent all such mis-reports to the wrong of either, it was mooued by the hearers, that it should be written downe by the common Writer of the Conference, that both the Disputants beeing willing to proceed, D. Featly was desired by the company (because it was late) to produce p. 26the names of such Protestants as were extant before Luther in all Ages. This beeing written and subscribed by them both, D. Featly proceeded to his Induction.

D. Featly.

An induction is a forme of argument; in which wee proceed from enumeration of particulars, to conclude a generall, after this manner:

It is so in this and this; et sic de eaeteris, and so in the rest:

Therefore it is so in all.

According to this forme of arguing, thus I dispute:

The Protestant Church was so visible, that the names of those who taught and beleeued the doctrine thereof, may bee produced in the first hundred yeeres, and second, and third, and fourth; et sic de caeteris, and so in the rest:

Therefore it was so in all Ages.

First, I name those of the first Age, and I begin with Him, who is the beginning of all, our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ, blessed for euer: at whose name all knees must bow both in heauen & earth, and vnderunder the earth (at which words all the company on both sides expressed an holy reuerence). After Christ, I name the twelue Apostles, and Saint Paul: and because there were few Writers in the first Age (at least, whose vndoubted works hauehave comne to our hands) I name onelyonly Ignatius after the twelue Apostles, and Saint Paul; yet not denying, but that many others may be named.

p. 27M. Fisher.

These are enow for the first Age; Christ, the twelue Apostles, Saint Paul and Ignatitius.

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

D. Featly.

I meane not the new Ignatius Loyola, but Ignatius the Martyr: betweene whom there is more difference in quality, then distance in time.

M. Fisher.

Name of all the Ages, or else you do nothing.

D. Featly.

I cannot name all at once: will you hauehave mee name men of so many Ages with one breath? Will you hauehave mee eat my whole dinner at a bit? Can I name twelue seuerally, but I must name first one, then two, then three, and so forward? I name (as I said before) in the first Age, for our Religion, our blessed Lord and Sauiour, the Founder of all Religion, the twelue Apostles, and after them Saint Paul, and Ignatius the Martyr. For the second Age, I name Iustin Martyr,Saint Cyprian was heere mentioned, but intended for the first of the third Age. Clemens Alexandrinus, and Saint Irenaeus, and I beginne first with Christ and his Apostles.

M. Fisher.

You shall not beginne with Christ and his Apostles.

D. Featly.

You are not to make my Induction: I will begin with Christ and his Apostles, where I should begin, but in the first Age, and with the first of it: shall I make a Catalogue of the Christian Church, according to the seuerall Ages, p. 28and leaue out Christ and his Apostles in the first Age? Answer first to them, and I will proceed to others.

M. Fisher.

Name the rest in all Ages, and then I will answer you.

D. Featly.

First, answer to the first Age, and then I will proceed to the second. If you grant mee the first Age, then I will proceed presently to the second; otherwise I must stay in the first.

M. Fisher.

Vnlesse you giuegive mee a Catalogue of names throughout all Ages, I will not answer.

D. Featly.

Will you not answer Christ and his Apostles in the first place?

M. Fisher.

I will not, before you hauehave named the rest.

D. Featly.

Will you not bee tryed by Christ and his Apostles?

That which Christ and his Apostles taught in the first Age, was taught by succeeding Christians in all Ages▪ this is confessed on both sides.

But the doctrine of the Protestants was taught by Christ and his Apostles in the first Age▪

Therefore the doctrine of the Protestants was taught in all Ages.

Answer this Syllogisme, if you will not answer my former induction.

M. Fisher.

I will not answer you any thing, till you hauehave made your Catalogue.

D. Featly.

M. Fisher, I charge you, as you will answer it before Christ himselfe at the dreadfull day of Iudgement, answer now, vponupon your conscience, p. 29before all this Company, whether you beleeue, that Christ and his Apostles taught our faith or yours: this is the maine point of all: answer directly to my Induction.

Notwithstanding this deepe charge, M. Fisher still refused to answer to the argument of instance in Christ and his Apostles: whereupon diuers, expressing their distaste at such refusall, desired D. Featly to surcease; telling him, that hee ought not to talk any longer with such a one, who refused to answer Christ and his Apostles. And so the conference brake vp, hauing lasted about foure houres.

Additions to the former Conference.

IF any man maruell, that in so many houres spent in the Conference, so few arguments were discust, or rather, not any one throughly vntwisted to the end, as the Opponent desired, the cause hereof was, the Iesuites diffusiue & discursiue answers, but especially his dilatory cautions and tergiuersations, who would not suffer the Opponent to proceed in his argument, without dictating it first to the common Writer of p. 30the conference; and then, reading it, and setting his hand thereto: which after hee had done, the principall Respondent, M. Fisher, meditates by himself an Answer; which hee first writeth in a priuate paper, then sheweth it to his Assistant, M. Sweet, and two other that stood by: according to whose aduice he addeth, blotteth out, and altereth what they thought fit. After this, he dictateth it out of his priuate paper to the common Writer of the conference; then resumes this schedule from him, and, hauing compar'd it with his priuate paper, subscribes it as a Record, and then reads it openly. This long spinning, wreathing and winding, he vsed to eueryevery Syllogisme: which was so tedious and irksome to the Auditory, that a Protestant Diuine standing by, vpbraided him in this manner: M. Fisher, what hauehave wee deserued of you, that you should thus torment vsus, to make vsus stay half an houre for an Answer to eueryevery Syllogisme and Prosyllogisme?

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

1. About the entry into the conference, M. p. 31Fisher offred a paper to bee read: part whereof was read by D. Featly; the rest he refused to read, saying, M. Fisher, lis contestata est, wee are already agreed vponupon the Question: we hauehave receiued the Tenet vnderunder your owne hand, and are prepared to oppose it: it is no time now to tie your Opponent to new conditions.

2. About the propounding the first Argument, when M. Fisher carped at the word eternall; D. White, to try & winde M. Fisher, did cast a Syllogisme foreign, to prooue the eternity of faith from the eternity of the cause, the diuine predestination. Whereunto when M. Fisher, or some standing by, answered, that in that sense all other things might be said to be eternall; another Protestant standing by added, that faith might bee said to be eternall, in that sense in which eternall is taken, for e…iternall: so the soules of men are said to be eternal, because though they had a beginning, yet they shall hauehave no end. Neither so, said M. Fisher, may faith be said eternall, because the Apostle saith, Faith ceaseth. These Answers and Replies vponupon the By, wee omitted, because D. Featly sufficiently expressed his minde by the Synonymie, which he added to eternall, to wit, perpetuall: and besides, the disputation was not of the habit or infused grace of faith, which, Saint Paul saith, ceaseth, but of the obiect or doctrine of faith, which is eternall in that sense, in which S. Iohn calleth the Gospell eternall, Reu. 14. 6. foreign. I saw an Angell fleeing in the midst of heauen, p. 32hauing the eternall Gospell.

3. About the middle of the conference, D. Featly took occasion, by the Iesuites often inculcating and ingeminating the same Answer, to tax their battologie or vain repetitions in their Iesus Psalter, and other Books of Praiers; saying, M. Fisher, I think, you partly beleeue, that the often repeating the same Answer, addeth truth and strength to your Answer; as you are perswaded, that the saying-ouer the same Praiers, and repeating the name Iesu so many times by tale, addeth merit to the Praiers.

M. Sweet.

What fault can you finde with the often repeating the name Iesu? Doth not the holy Ghost in the Scripture diuers times reiterate the Attribute Holy, saying, Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus?

D. Featly.

Is there no difference between the repeating the word Holy or Sanctus three times, and repeating the name Iesus thirty times at the least? nay, saith a Protestant standing by, a hundred and thirty times?

M. Fisher.

In one of Dauid's Psalms, these words, for his mercy endureth for euer, are repeated in eueryevery verse.

D. Featly.

It is true: these words, for his merciemercy endureth for euer, are elegantly and sweetly repeated, as the burden of that heauenly Song: but note withall, M. Fisher, that something commeth betwixt, and that this Epiphonema or clause is applied in eueryevery verse to a seuerall blessing of God there remembred: what is this to the saying continuately, p. 33Iesu, Iesu, Iesu, forty times in a breath. If this be not the vain repetition or babbling forbidden in praier by our Sauiour, Mat. 6. 7. I know not what it is.

M. Sweet.

It matters not. You are no lawfull Interpreter of Scripture.

To which words as D. Featly was making a reply, hee was recalled by the company, to prosecute his main Argument.

Heer you may obserue by the way, that M. Fisher saw well enough, that M. Sweets instance of the thrice repeating the name Sanctus, was very friuolous, and impertinently brought to maintain their vain repeating the name Iesu, so many score of times together in their Psalter: and therfore hee let M. Sweet shift for himself, and make good his instance, if he were able: for, M. Fisher could not be ignorant, that the Fathers generally obserue, against the Arrians, the mystery of the Trinity of Persons to be implied in the thrice repeating the word Sanctus. Isa. 6.Isa 6If the Papists repeat the name Iesu to the like purpose (as they must doo,Apoc. 4.Rev 4 if they take that for their pattern), will it not follow, that forty times repeating the name Iesus, implies, that there are forty Persons in Iesu? So well did M. Sweet keep his owne pretended law, that none should speak any thing but to the purpose: but, because hee challenged to hauehave made such a law himself, peraduēture he thought, he might dispense with it.

4. In the prosecution of the mayne Argument, p. 34when Master Fisher, being required to giuegive a direct and punctuall answer to some proposition in the Syllogisme, digressed from the point, and discoursed, how an ignorant and vnlearned man might first come to the knowledge of the true Church, and was checked by Doctor Featly, saying, This is not now to the purpose: M. Chamberlane sitting by, added, The lesse to the purpose, the better. Would you hauehave Master Fisher speake to the purpose?

5. In making way to the Induction, when D. Featly was recalled, by a new Answer of Master Fishers, to some former Argument which Doctor Featly went about to refell, the Earle of Warwick aduised him, notwithstanding this interruption, to proceed to his induction; saying, Master Fisher, like a woman, will hauehave the last word, but it makes no matter; let him answer what hee will; wee presume, his answers will bee but like his former.

6. In propounding an Argument by an induction, after this manner: For the first age, I alledge for Teachers of the Protestants Doctrine, Christ, his twelue Apostles, Saint Paul, and Ignatius; for the secondage, Iustine Martyr, &c.

M. Fisher,

after hee had repeated the instance in the first age in these words: In the first age you alledge Christ, his twelue Apostles, Saint Paul, and Ignatius, hee added Transeat: name in the succeeding ages.

D. Featly.

You grant then, Christ and his Apostles were Protestants.

p. 35M. Fisher.

Will you slander me to my face? What will you do… behinde my back?

D. Featly.

I slander you not. The word transeat, implies, in my vnderstanding, a concession; if not, then deny it, and I will presently proue it.

But as for this word transeat, though that wee made a transeat of it, and let it passe in our relation, yet his owne side hauehave taken speciall notice of it: and indeed Master Fisher Lupum auribus tenet. If by transeat, he meant a concession or grant of the proposition, wee desire no more of him: if wee hauehave Christ and his Apostles on our side, what neede wee more? To auoyde this inconue…ience, if hee interpret this transeat, Let it passe, as not worthy of his Answere or notice; thus to slighten an Argument drawne from His authority (whose words shall not passe, though heauen and earth passe) it cannot receiue a good construction. But wee spare Master Fisher, quia vapulat intus in poscenio, because hee hath bin schooled at home. Forsooth this Non bene crede mihi faciunt duo: Sufficit vnus.

Surely many, that hold Master Fisher to bee a great Gamaliel in the Romish Synagogue, very much maruell, that being so often prest and vrged, yea, and adiured also, hee should yet still decline to make any Answer at all to the Opponents instance in Christ and his Apostles. But, the truth is, he and his companions are of the b…ood of those, whom Tertullian fitly tearmeth Lucifugas Scripturarum, …unners of the light. Like Bats, p. 36they keep a fluttering in the twi-light of supposed humane authorities, and plausible glosses of reason, but the broad day-light of Scripture they cannot endure. Though in his Question he laid claime to all ages, in which any Scholler, according to common sense and naturall apprehension, would vnderstand, that hee meant Methodically to begin at the first age, and thence prepetua serie to descend to the later, as do the framers of their owne late extant Catalogues of Romane professors, beginning with Christ Iesus, Saint Peter, Saint Paul, Corinthians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, &c. ordine naturae et temporum, yet hee preposterously would hauehave the Opponents begin first with the last age, and so ascend vpwards. Omnia naturae contraria legibus ibunt; that so hee might the better lurke in the darke and muddy age next before Luther. Which the Opponent iustly suspecting, resolued to hold to the high way and fayre tracke of naturall method, intending thereby to draw him into the cleare streame of Antiquity, beginning at the fountaine in the first age. But this, Master Fisher would by no meanes indure, hoping, that hee might lye hid (tanquam Sepia in atramento suo, like the Scuttle-fish in her owne inke) in those darke ages next or neere before Luther: whereas being beaten vp into the cleerer streame of the first ages, hee would easily bee discerned, and soone caught.

7. At the breaking vp of the Conference, when Master Fisher desired to hauehave in his owne p. 37custody the common Schedule (in which the principall Arguments and Answers of the Disputants were written by the common Notarie, chosen by both parties, and subscribed by their owne hands) Doctor Featly withstood this motion, saying, Master Fisher, you are not a fit man to bee trusted with this Authenticall writing: for, in a former conference betweene me and Master Musket (whose Assistant you then were) you tooke vponupon you, (without any commission frō me, or consent) the office of a Notarie, to take my Answeres: and being vponupon occasion pressed by the company to read what you had written, after some tergiuersations you read it, and thereupon were checked by the whole company, for setting that downe for my Answeres, which was neuer spoken by mee, nor any thing like vntounto it: and that I charge you truly with this vndue dealing, I appeale to some heer present, viz. Doctor Goad and Master Wats▪ who were present at that conference. Heer Doctor Goad and Master Wats affirmed to Master Fishers face, that vponupon their knowledge, Master Fisher was conuicted of vntrue setting downe Doctor Featlyes Answers in that conference; and that vponupon such conuiction, Master Fisher was forced to correct what hee had formerly set downe.

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

M. Fisher.

I call God to witnesse, that if I did set downe any thing otherwise then the truth wa…, p. 38I did it not wittingly nor willingly.

Whereunto Doctor Goad replied,

D. Goad. Whether you did it wittingly or willingly, bee it betweene God and your conscience: sure wee are, that what you wrote down vntruly, was aduantageous to your owne side; and therefore wee had iust cause to suspect, that you did it wittingly and willingly.

An Attestation concerning some particulars, set downe in a Relation entituled, The Fisher catched in his owne Net.

VVHereas the Relation of that which passed in the Conference touching the Visibility of the Church, Iune 27. 1623. is in the whole course of it truely and indifferently deliuered, and rather moderately and fauourably carried, in regard of the Aduersary respondent, Master Fisher, whose part, in respect of his delayes and euasions, was not altogether so tolerably acted, as in the sayd briefe Relation it is represented: wee hold it needlesse to giuegive thereunto any other generall Attestation; especially considering, that the principall Heads thereof are extant vnderunder the hands p. 39of both parties; and the chief substance and current thereof, for ought wee finde, is not reiected by the Aduersarie. Yet because a Counter-relator, calling himselfe A. C. hath of late put forth in print an answer to the sayd Relation, and therin (not content to slighten and doubt of some passages) hath by expresse deniall excepted against diuers other particulars, so charging the Protestant Relator with crimen falsi: wee, who were present at the said Conference, and attentiue vntounto it, could not in equity and conscience bee wanting to the support of truth, by our ioynt Testimony heere following.

1. The Counter-relator auoucheth,Pag. 15. that There, (viz. in the beginning,) and not in the end of the Disputation, Doctor Featly did say, I wish, I warne, I command, I coniure you, &c. Heerein wee finde a double falsification. The first, by deniall of that which, to our perfect remembrance, was by D. Featly spoken to Master Fisher in the end of the disputation; when Master Fisher, hauing bin often vrged to answer the Instance in Christ and his Apostles in the first Age, yet peremptorily refused. Whereupon, Doctor Featly, with a lowd and earnest voice, said vntounto him: I charge and adiure you, as you will answer it before Christ himselfe at the day of Iudgement, answer now vponupon your conscience, Whether you beleeue that Christ & his Apostles taught our faith or yours? The second falshood is, by adding and peruerting that which was said in the beginning of the disputation by D. p. 40Featly, without any mention of the day of Iudgement, or coniuring, much lesse commanding; which had bin vnciuill. All that hee then said to such purpose, was this: I desire you, Master Fisher, to answer in this disputation to my Arguments directly and sincerely, as in the sight of God. Which condition Master Fisher did then accept, and required the like dealing from Doctor Featly.

2. In the same page is added a second Lawe,Pag. 15. as enacted by Master Sweet, that Nothing should bee spoken or heard, but to the purpose. Which rule (though requirable & seasonable in all Disputes or Tractates), yet was not mentioned by Master Sweet, nor prescribed by any other in this Conference. The second then-mentioned Rule was, as is set downe in the first Printed Relation, that None should speake but the Disputants. VponUpon which, diuers of the Protestant side, both Diuines and others, did forbeare to interpose by way of Argument.

3. This Co…nter-relator is so bold,Pag. 16. as flatly to deny that which vponupon our certaine knowledge wee testify; Namely, that to the points of Popery instanced by Doctor Featly as nouelties, Master Sweet (interrupting him, before hee had recited all of them) answered, These are scholasticall points, not fundamentall; And secondly, that heereupon Doctor White forthwith replyed with this Argument: These points are defined in your Councell of Trent; therefore they are to you fundamentall; adding also expresly this Syllogisme:

p. 41Whatsoeuer denied makes a man an Heretick, is fundamentall.

But the deniall of any of these, makes a man an Heretick with you:

Ergo eueryevery one of these is to you fundamental.

To which Syllogisme, beeing aloud and distinctly vttered by D. White, nothing at all was answered.

4. With the same boldnes,Page 16. in the same page it is denied, that D. Featly vsed these words, Name but one Father, one Writer of note, who held the Particulars there named (being points of Popery) for fiue hundred yeers after Christ. Which words were vttered by him distinctly and audibly, and (as it seemed to vsus) out of certaine Notes in a paper which he then had before him.

5. Item, Page 20.howsoeuer M. Fisher might (as it seemeth he now interpreteth himselfe) mean quoad nos, when he said, that A demonstration à posteriori is better than à priori, yet in the disputation he spake those words absolutely, and without limitation. For which words so absolutely deliuered, M. Fisher being then taxed by M. Ailesbury, Page 32.as defectiue in Academicall learning; M. Boulton, a Romanist, with indignation replied vponupon M. Ailesbury in this manner: Think you your self better learned, than M. Fisher? Whereto the other presently made Answer, I thought you wiser, than to ask me such a Question.

6. Item, though they in generall tearms deny D. White to hauehave spoken in the manner set down, p. 42or to hauehave vsed any such long discourse, yet wee very well remember, that D. White did then vpbraid the said Iesuites with those their apparent tergiuersations, and hindring the Opponent from proceeding in his Arguments; thereupon also requiring M. Fisher, according to the order set down and assented vntounto by themselues, at length to oppose; the prefixed time, for D. Featlie's opposing, beeing passed. And then D. White naming his owne propositions (mentioned in the Relation), offered forthwith to Answer vponupon the same directly, without any delayes or tergiuersations.

7. To M. Fishers protestation,Page 36. that he did not wittingly nor willingly write amisse (in a former Conference betweene M. Musket and D. Featly), the Popish Relator saith, that nothing was replyed; and thereupon inferreth, that the Audience was well satisfied of M. Fishers sincerity, in his relation and writing of the former Disputation. But wee perfectly remember, that thereunto D. Goad presently replied in this manner: M. Fisher, Whether you did it wittingly and willingly, be it betweene God and your conscience: I am sure you erred on that part which was aduantageous for your owne side. VponUpon which Reply (no further Answer beeing giuen), we were and are so farre from beeing satisfied of this Iesuites sincerity, that wee rather suspect him the more.

In this sort when the Company was willing to depart,Page 37. D. Featly beeing called vponupon (as it seemed) by some of p. 43his companions, to goe away, did arise, and offer to bee gone. Yet in his rising hee turned to M. Fisher; saying, Will you dispute of Christ and his Apostles, or not? To which M. Fisher sayd, I will, if you will stay; and, stretching out his hand, took D. Featly by the arme, offering to stay him: yet he in this abrupt manner went away. Thus the Iesuites Relator.

This passage being of most moment, and (as wee think) the principall intent of setting foorth this Counter-relation, to abate the imputation, lying heauie vponupon the Iesuite, for his finall refusing to answer to Christ and his Apostles, wee hold it fit, the more punctually to declare the manner and cause of the breach of that Conference.

True it is, that vponupon the Iesuites often refusall to answer to Christ and his Apostles, the Protestant auditory took much distaste, and for a short time expressed the same, by a kind of obmurmuration, yet not by any shout of victory (as is exaggerated by the Popish Relator). But after this noise ceased, D. Featly stil continued, vrging the Iesuite to answer his said instance: which the Iesuite peremptorily refused, persisting to the end, in his former denyall of answering Christ and his Apostles. And as for the Iesuites, by word & gesture offring to answer Christ and his Apostles, if D. Featly would stay; we (that were present, and diuers of vsus next to the Opponent) auow, that the Iesuite vsed no such word at all, nor gesture of that kinde: as in truth he could not, beeing p. 44not so neere in place to D. Featly, as that he could take him by the arme, they beeing placed distant one from the other, at the opposite ends and corners of the Table. Neither did M. Fisher arise out of his place, to take D. Featly by the arme: nor, if he had, could hee then come to reach D. Featly, there beeing many that sate, or stood, close crowding about the Table, and betwixt those two.Page 64.

The truth of his finall and resolute denyall is so euident, that the Popish Relator (whom wee take to be M. Fisher himselfe, vnderunder the Mask of A. C). howsoeuer in this place he stoutly denyeth the said denyall; yet, contrary to the rule of his owne Trade, Page 65.Mendacem oportet esse memorem, pag. 64. hee expresly acknowledgeth it: M. Fisher and M. Sweet did very well to stand as they did, constantly to it. They still kept the aduersary to the point, and would not permit him to diuert, eyther to dispute about Christ or his Apostles, or any other point, vntill names were giuen in all Ages. And pag. 65. hee bindeth it with a reason, taken from the principles of Hunting: The reason therefore why M. Fisher might well refuse to enter into such particular Disputes, before full Induction of names were ended was, for that this had bin to follow two Hares at once, and so to catch neither, &c.

Lastly, as for taking D. Featly by the arme (pretended to be done by M. Fisher, for the staying him to proceed in his proposed instance) true it is, that when he had againe and againe inculcated p. 45this challenge, and could receiue no answer of acceptation, hee was taken by the Arme, not to stay him, but to pull him away; not by the Iesuite, but by two of his owne side; the one wishing him to depart, for that the time was farre spent, and he could not come off vponupon better tearmes; the**Namely, M. Chamberlain. other adding also, that himselfe could not endure to bee an hearer any longer of such a Dispute, where Christ and his Apostles are refused; and that he (D. Featly) ought not to talk any longer with such an one, who refused to answer Christ and his Apostles. And so, the Opponent beeing called off, or rather pulled off, the Conference brake vp.

These aboue-testified particulars, beeing so vndoubtedly knowne, and perfectly remembred by vsus, and many others; wee cannot conceiue how the Iesuite can possibly salue those his grosse denyals of them, but by the new subtile deuice of refining a lye by Equiuocation, and calcining any speech of their own, though neuer so base and drossy a fiction, in the forging furnace of mentall reseruation.

p. 46T. Lincoln,

Ro. Warwicke,

Earles.

Hen. Hastings,

Humph. Lynde,

Knights.

Tho. Goad, Doctor in Diuinity.

Richard Knightly,

Edward Bugs,

Esquires.

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

Tho. Draper,

Tho. Gataker,

Batchelors in Diuinity.

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