The Romish Fisher Caught and Held in his Own Net, Proem
A Prooem to the Answer to the Conference.
WEE read a pleasant Story in …, of a fellow, that, beeing somewhat heauie, took a brasse pot which hee had in his hand, and put it vnderunder his head for a pillow, and so laid him downe to sleepe: but finding That his pillow some-what vneasie, with all the wit he had, he rose vp, and filled it full of feathers and straw within, and thereby thought he had made it much softer, and took a nap vponupon it. If I should not apply this Story, the intelligent Reader soon would: You, M. Fisher, are the man, who finding your former Answers, vponupon which you relyed in the Conference, to bee very hard, vncouth, and not to be endured; now, in this your defense of them, you as it were fill the brasse pot within, with feathers and straw, that is, stuffe out and bumbaste your former Answers with verball distinctions, impertinencies, tautologies, cauils, and vntruthes: for all the feathers and straw, the pot is brasse still, as hard as euer it was; and, for all your new qualifications and falsifications, your former Answers are as harsh and vnsufferable, as euer before: so that hee needeth a brow of brasse, that will rest or rely vponupon them. For example:
1. About the beginning of the Conference, you were driuen to these Soloecismes in Grammar, to affirm, that Two vtrums imply not two quaeres; that whether the Church, &c. and whether the names, &c. make but one whether; that the Copulatiue (and) coupleth nothing; that these words (It is not) in the singular, are to bee referred to that part of the question, Whether names, &c. in the plurall. To these absurd paradoxes in Grammar, Page. 17.against all common sense, you answer, To cut off all needlesse wrangling about the Aduerb vtrum, whether, and the Copulati…e et, and, as if Grammarscholars had been disputing, rather then graue Diuines, who were not to stand on rigour of Grammar, &c. Belike, graue Diuines are priuiledged to bee foreign, vnlettered, vnchristcrost, to vtter non-sense, to speake false English at their pleasure, as the Pope did false Latine, when he said, Fiatur, for fiat, in contemptum omnium Grammaticorum. But, as the Romane Grammarian told the Emperour, who vsed an vncouth word, *Bentius orat.Ciuitatem ab Imperatore hominibus d…ri posse, verbis non posse, that it was in the power of the Emperour, to make men free of the City of Rome, but not words: so let mee tell you, that the Pope may dispense with you for breaking the rules of your order, in so much intermeddling (as you doe) in ciuil affaires; but hee cannot dispense with you, for breaking of Grammar Rules▪ Priscian may lay his action against you in all …, & there lies no prohibition in a case of this nature.
2. You were driuen to these Soloecis…es in Logick. First, In a true Syllogisme to answer to the conclusion: For which you would hauehave beene …issed out of the Schooles in our Vniuersities. Secondly, distinguish vponupon a proposition, and apply the distinction to no tearm. To the former you answer, Th… idle exception,Page 24. M. Fisher, attending to the …, did not regard; but might hauehave told him, that it is not vnusuall, after a distinction made both to Maior and Minor, to apply the like to the conclusion. It is true, he might hauehave said so (as you doe now): but is that sufficient without farther proofe? Name the place where it is vsuall. I am sure it is alwaies improper and needlesse: for the conclusion in disputation, is alwaies a proposition giuen by the answerer, to the opponent, to inferre & conclude it in his argument: and therefore it is alwaies supposed to bee agreed vponupon for the meaning of it, before it comes to be concluded in a Syllogisme. The Answerer may alwaies distinguish of premises, because they are new propositions not before debated vponupon: but the conclusion is either the originall Thesis it selfe, propounded by the answerer, (which if it be ambiguous, he ought to hauehave explicated it, in setting downe the sta…e of the Question) or it is one of the premises in the Opponents Syllogisme: in which, if there lay any ambiguity, the Respondent ought to hauehave distinguished vponupon it before, when it was the Maior or Minor proposition; and not, when being distinguished or denied before by the Respondent, it is now by the Opponent in a true Syllogisme made the Conclusion. To the second you answer:Page. 26. That which D. Featly thinketh to bee a straine of new Logick, to distinguish vponupon a proposition, without applying the distinction to any particular tearm, is not so strange as he maketh it. As for example: When one saith, An Aethiopian is white, neither the tearm Aethiopian alone, nor the tearme white alone, in it selfe, needeth distinction, because it is not equiuocall. foreign: What a strange speech is this? Is not the tearme albus, white, equiuocall? Doe not almost all later Logicians giuegive it, as a most knowne instance of an equiuocall tearme? Which may bee taken two waies, either absolutely, foreign, and in whole, as when wee say, Nireus is albus, Nireus is a white man, foreign; or foreign, secundum quid, in some respect or part, as when wee say, Ethiops est albus, a black Moore is white, to weet, in his teeth. It is true, that as Poyson infecteth the whole bloud, yet the substance of it lies but in one principall part: so an equiuocation in any part of a proposition, in some sort, affecteth the whole: yet this equiuocation lieth alwaies in one tearme, to weet, in the subiectum, or praedicatum, if the proposition bee properly equiuocall; and in the copula and construction, if it bee properly amphibologicall: as, A…o te, Aeacida, Romanos vincere posse:te Roman…s, or Romanos te. But note M. Fisher (if you knew it not), that one of the three termini in a Syllogisme, may containe, many words: neither can you name any ambiguous Proposition, in which it may not bee shewed, in which Logick tearme the ambiguity lyeth.
3. You were driuen in the Conference to this Soloecisme in Philosophy, to affirme, That Media may be said directa, yet not to tend ad directum finem. Hereto he answers,*Page 30. If M. Fisher did say these words, his meaning may bee 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 all Ages out of good Authors: those Media therefore Directa, as D. Featly termed them, might in some sort be so tearmed, as beeing directed by D. Featly, to his owne end, of transferring the question to particular Conferences, but not ad directum finem, that is, not ordained to the direct end of the Disputation, viz. to she… a visible Church of Protestants in all Ages, whose names may be shewed out of good Authors. Of the end of the Dispute, & how my arguments tended directly to that end, enough hath been said before in the Remonstrance. But admitting that they tended not to the direct end, M Fisher should hauehave said, Your Media were not Directa, because they tended not ad directum finem: but he saith, Your Media were Directa, but not tending ad direct … finem; thereby flatly contradicting himselfe in the same proposition: for, Media, or meanes, are said in relation to an end; therefore, if they are direct, they must needs tend to the direct end. To say, Media are Directa, and not tending ad directum finem, to the direct end, is all one, as if he should say, This shoo indeed is fit, but not for the foot: This is the streight way, but not to the place you would goe to: The aime is right, but not to the marke: The saddle serueth fit, but not to the beasts back: The knife is keen, and sharp, but not to cut. For, as a shoo is said to be fit onelyonly in respect of the foote: and the way straight, in respect of a mans intended iourney: and the …ime right, in respect of the marke: and the saddle to serue fit, in respect of the beasts back, for which it is made; & the knife keen, in respect of cutting: so are Media said to be Directa, onelyonly …. And therefore I had iust cause then to vse the English Prouerbe, This is a Bull; and now the Greeke, foreign.
4. You were driuen to the worst soloecisme of all in Diuinity, to refuse to answer to Christ and his Apostles, yea though you were solemnely adiured thereunto. To this (to … impudent denials & apparant contradiction obserued by the witnesses in the Attestation) you answer,Pag. 64. & 65. that You would not permit me to diuert either to dispute about Christ, or his Apostles, or any other point, till Names were giuen in all ages:Pag. 65. for, this had been, say you, to follow two Hares at once, and so to catch neither. A light Answer, Master Fisher, to so weightie a Charge. Christ and his Apostles should not hauehave been so slightned. But you say, To instance in Christ and his Apostles in the first Age, was, To follow two Hares. Do you remember which was the Hare we were to hunt? Was it not the Visibility of the Church in all Ages before Luther? And could a man possibly take a more direct and orderly way, then to begin with the first Age, and the first of the first Age? If this were not the way to catch the Hare, your owne Hunts-men, that prating …, and his honest transcriber S. N. were at a great fault: for, they begin their Catalogue where I do. Will you not bee angry, Master Fisher, if I tell you the truth? I hunted not two Hares at once: but when you were deuising and printing your Answer in the*By Islington. Cellar or Cell…eer the Wind-mill, your head swomm…, and your brains ran round, and you knew not well your selfe what you did, as will appeare to any, who will compare my Reply with your Answer, which I here transcribe verbati… (…hongh not alwaies following you foreign, because you often double, and more often start aside); requiring of you the like. And I begin with your Title.