The Romish Fisher Caught and Held in his Own Net, Letter and replies
Shortly after the Conference, M. Fisher sent this Letter ensuing, to the right honorable the Earl of WARVVICK.
The Copie of M. Fisher's Letter.
RIGHT HONOVRABLE LORD:
I Esteeme it a speciall prouidence of God, that your Lordship was present at a late Conference, wherein D. White and D. Featly vndertook to shew against mee and my companion, that the Protestant Church had beene visible in all Ages, and that their Professors might be named, especially in the Ages before Luther. Your Lordship may remember the substance of all the proofe to hauehave consisted in this, that The true Church was alwaies so visible, as the Professors thereof in all Ages might be named: but the Protestants was the true Church. Wee refused to dispute of the Minor, because it transferd the Question, and auoyded that plaine proofe of the visible Church, which was then propounded and expected. If▪ as they conclude, they are able to name their Professors in all Ages, why did they refuse to giuegive vsus a Catalogue of theirs, as we were ready to hauehave giuen them another of ours? Why went they about to prooue they were able to name them, when with lesse adoe they might hauehave named them? Where deeds are iustly expected, words without deeds are worthily neglected.
Certainely, heereby they are so farre from hauing discharged themselues of the great enterprize they vndertook, as they stand more engaged then before, to the performance of it. For, hauing now professed and acknowledged, that the true Church, or (to vse their owne words) the Church that is so visible as the Catholick Church ought to bee (and the Church, whose faith is eternall and vnchanged, must bee), is able to name her Professors in all Ages, either for their owne honour, and for the satisfaction of the world, they must set down the names of their Professors in all Ages; or else they shamefully discouer themselues, not to be that true and visible vnchanged Church, which is able to name them. Againe, at the length yeelding (as they did) to shew the continual Visibility of their Church, by a full induction of their visible Protestants in all Ages, (which they seemed to vndertake with great confidence), why did they stick in the first Age alone, refusing to name their professors in the Ages following, vntill the first were tried? May not the Answerer choose to deny which part of the Argument hee pleaseth? and was it euer heard, that hee should bee inforced to reply to one proposition alone, before the whole Argument, whether it were Syllogism or Induction, were fully propounded? Very nobly therefore, and prudently your Lordship in the end desired anothe… meeting; not doubting, that your owne partie, within three or foure daies would be content to giuegive vsus the names of their Professors in all Ages, as wee were ready to giuegive them the names of ours, that thereby both sides might bee the better prepared for a second triall: which when they hauehave performed, wee shall not faile to encounter with them, either by way of speech or writing, as your Lordship (all things considered) shal think fairest, or safest, or most conuenient for the discouery of truth. But if your Lordship shall not bee able to obtaine at their hands this your most iust and import…nt request, the defect of proofe on their part must needs bee accounted a plaine flight, and no man heereafter can prudently rely his saluation vponupon that Church, which (for want of perpetuall Visibility prooued) they themselues shall hauehave concluded to be false and feigned.
Thus expecting the issue heereof, and your Lordships further pleasure from the mouth of this bearer, I remaine, the first of Iuly 1623.
Your Lordships seruant in Christ, IOHN FISHER.
Doctor Featlie's Answer to M. Fisher's Letter.
IN perusing this Letter of yours, I could not but think of the old riddle, Hom… …, videns non videns, lapidem non lapidem, &c. A man, no man, (that is, an Eunuch) seeing, not seeing (that is, seeing dimly, being …urblind) a stone, no stone (that is, a pumice): for, heere is a priuate Letter, no Letter, relating, not relating, the substance of my Argument, not my Argument.
First, it may bee call'd a priuate Letter, because it was seald vp like a priuate Letter, and indorsed to an Honorable Personage; yet it was no priuate Letter: for, diuers copies of it were dispersed and read, before the Earle receiued it, who heard of it, before hee read it. His Lord-ships name was set vponupon it, onelyonly to make it more passable, and to giuegive vent for such cheating wares, as Master Fisher thought, would passe more currant, by a Letter addressed to so Noble a Personage.
Secondly, it relateth, and not relateth, because it omitteth much more then it relateth: for the Introduction in the beginning, and the Induction in the end of the Conference, and all my Replies in the middle, they are all not circumcised only, as the Argument here relateth, but quite cut out.
Thirdly, it relateth my Argument, not my Argument; my Argument, because propounded in most of my words: yet not my Argument, because not according to my meaning, when I disputed thus in the Conference: The Church whose faith is perpetuall and vnchanged, is so visible, or ought to bee so visible, that the names of the Professors thereof may be shewed in all Ages. I argued not so, according to my owne opinion, but as it is expresly set downe in the Conference, ex concessis, vponupon your owne ground: vponupon which to supplant you, I held it a great disparagement to your cause: and therefore, in repeating the Argument againe, I expresly added, as you your selfe confesse, That Church which holdeth this faith, you beleeue (I said not, wee) to bee so visible,Page 19. as that the names of the Professors may be shewed, &c. In the very entrance to the Conference, you acknowledge these to hauehave beene my words: although this Question be grounded on vncertain and false supposals: for, a Church may hauehave beene visible, yet not the names of all Professors thereof now to bee shewed.Page 32. And againe, Are all visible mens names vponupon record? are all Records in former times, now to bee produced? And againe, in the same page, M. Sweet calling for names of Protestants, well might say, If Protestants had beene in all Ages, their names in eueryevery Age might bee produced. VntoUnto which, as the Protestant Rel…tor …aith, and the Counter-Relator denieth it not, D. Featly replyed, saying, This is a non sequitur. Out of all which passages it euidently appeares, that both you in this your Letter, and L. D. otherwise M. Sweet, in the defence of the Appendix, bely your owne consciences, in saying, that I professed (out of mine owne iudgement & opinion) that the true Church must be able to name Professors in all Ages. It is true, as Brasidas the Lacedemonian ran thorow his Aduersary with his owne Speare;Erasm. Apophtheg. so I took that proposition, tanquam hastam amentatam, from you, to wound you with your owne weapon. And although I needed not at all to hauehave descended to an Induction, or produced any Catalogue of such as maintained Protestant Doctrine by name: yet the more to conuince you, and to satisfie some of the Auditory, I beganne a Catalogue, and had proceeded farther in it, if I had not beene called away by those, whose Authority and LoueLove might command mee; who would not suffer mee to deale any longer with an aduersary so atheologicall, and alogicall, so irreligious and vnreasonable; so irreligious to refuse, finally and peremptorily, to answer an instance in Christ and his Apostles; beeing vehemently pressed, and not without adiuration: Secondly, so vnreasonable, to require an Opponent to prooue at once, eminent professors for 1500 yeeres, to hauehave taught Protestant Doctrine. Was there euer any that vndertook to make good a catalogue of Professors in all Ages, who did not first prooue, that there were such in the first Age, and then in the second, et sic de caeteris, and so in the rest? Was there euer a Respondent, who vndertook to answer an Argument by Induction of particulars, consisting of 15 or rather 15 hundred particulars (and al in his iudgement questionable) who did not answer them piece-meale in order, first applying his Answer to the first particular, and secondly to the second, &c? I cannot patterne you better, then by that malefactor, who hauing stolne my Oxen, and beeing indited for them seuerally, would not answer directly to the first enditement, Guilty or not guilty; but said; still that hee had that Oxe with his fellowes; heereby hoping, vponupon tryall of the whole in one lump, to escape by his book, or benefit of Clergie, as wee call it. In like manner, when you were put to it, to answer directly, Whether the Protestant Professors were not visible in the first Age, and so in the second, and so in the third, &c? you answer, It was not visible in the first Age, with the rest, nor in the second with the rest, and further you will not goe. The difference betweene you, is onelyonly this, He answered so shufflingly and confusedly, to saue his neck; and you, to saue the rack of an Argument; he, to slip out by his Clergy; you, by your vnclerkly Sophistry. You may bee sure, such kinde of foggie and misty answering, could no way satisfie a man of so cleere a iudgement and apprehension in controuersies of this nature, as the Earle of Warwick is. Which that you may the better know from his own pen, I will acquaint you with a Letter wrote by occasion of this businesse, by his Lordship, and addressed to Sir Humfrey Lynde.
To my louing friend Sir Humfrey Lynde.
SIR, since my beeing at your house at the Disputation of M. Doctor Featly and Fisher, diuers hauehave come vntounto mee, to know whether it was a Disputation appointed by me, or no; and whether I was not satisfied with it. Whereby I perceiue, those that learne the doctrine of equiuocation, will not spare to tell a plaine lye, to doe any man wrong that is not of their opinion. And I am the more confirmed in this opinion: for, since last night, M. Plume came to mee, and deliuered this enclosed letter, which I much maruell at. I would not answer it, but thus: that I would speake with you, and that M. Fisher should not need feare, that D. Featly would flee from him, but meet him at any time, to make good his Tenet. I had thought to hauehave spoken with you my selfe, but my earnest occasions pressed mee to go this day into the countrey. Wherefore, if you meet, I pray let the company know, for the meeting, that I knew of it but halfe an howre before it was, and I came at the request of another Gentleman, and for no desire of mine to be satisfied: for I thank God, my conscience makes no doubt of the truth of our Religion. This I say, because I heare that some of that Religion giuegive it out, It was my request to hauehave a Disputation. I pray keepe M. Fishers Letter till I see you, and restore it me againe. You may perceiue the scope of it: but it is as vaine, as his Answers were. Thus with my louelove to you, I rest,
Your very louing friend, WARVVICK.