EDward Buggs Esquire, about the age of 70 yeares, being lately sick was solicited 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 Catholik Church but theirs, and to beleeue the Catholike Church was the Article of his Creed, and by it could no other Church be meant but the Church of Rome, because it could not be proued by all the Protestants in the kingdome, that they had any Church before Luther.

This Gentleman being much troubled in his mind with these and the like suggestions, who all his life time had bin and professed himselfe a reli­gious Protestant, became now more sicke in minde then body; and if by Gods mercifull goodnesse he had not recouered of this sicknesse, it is to be fea­red hee had falne both from his Mother Church and his former faith, as some of the nearest of his owne blood (to his great griefe) haue lately been se­duced by like inticements.

After his recouery, being much troubled in mind [Page] with these former suggestions of the popish Priests, he repaired to Sir Humfrey Lynde Knight, who by reason of his alliance and long acquaintance vvith him, gaue the best satisfaction he could to his said cousin M^r. Buggs, who seemed to take content in such his conference, 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, perseuering still in questioning him, where his Church was before Luther. Whereupon he re­paired againe to Sir Humfrey Lynde, and required some further satisfaction of him concerning that demand. And thereupon Sir Humfrey Lynde tolde him, it was first in Christ and the Apostles, conse­quently also conspicuous in the primitiue Church for 600 yeares after Christ, 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, being now well, and lately sicke, 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 M^r. Buggs his house in Drury lane to visite him, found M^r. Fisher the Iesuite there, where after some debates about Religion and the visibilitie of the Church, M^r. Fisher called for pen [Page] and inke, and set downe this question in terminis; thereby adding vnder his hand, that he would an­swer vpon it negatiuely, as chalenging and expect­ing opposers, deliuering also the paper into the hands of the said Sir Humfrey Lynde, who vpon view of it, answered, that it was an historicall question, and not so proper for disputation. But M^r. Fisher. vrging it, Sir Humfrey told him, if he would go to Dr. Whites, where formerly he had been, the said Doctor 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.

About two dayes after, M^r. Buggs repaired to Sir Humfrey Lynd, and intreated him (for his satisfacti­on) to giue M^r. Fisher a meeting, saying, that M^r. Fi­sher had againe told him, that he would maintaine what he had set downe, and that our Diuines could not proue our Church visible before Luthers time. Whereupon Sir Humfrey told him, that D^r. White and D^r. Featly were to dine with him on Fri­day following; and if after dinner M^r. 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 minds, and satisfaction should be giuen as oc­casion required. And these were the true causes of the meeting, as is before declared. Vpon which Friday, being the 27 of Iune 1623. M^r. Fisher, M^r. Sweet, Iesuites, and some others with them, came to Sir Humfrey Lynds house, into a little dining roome, where they found the aforesaid M^r. Buggs, his wife [Page 4] 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 he could not with ciuilitie put them forth his house, but did instantly cause his doores to be locked vp, that no more might en­ter in; notwithstanding which his command, some others also came in scatteringly after the Confe­rence began.

DOctor White and Doctor Featly being inuited to dinner by Sir Humfrey Lynde, and staying a while after, had notice giuen them that M^r. Fisher and M^r. Sweet, Iesuites, were in the next roome rea­dy to conferre with them touching a question set downe by M^r. Fisher, vnder his owne hand, in these words: viz.

Whether the Protestant Church was in all ages vi­sible, and especially in the ages going before Lu­ther: 2. And whether the names of such visible Protestants in all ages can be shewed and proued out of good Authors.

This question being deliuered to the parties a­boue named, and it being notified vnto them that there were certaine persons who had been solicited (and remaining doubtfull in religion) desired satis­faction especially in this point, they were perswa­ded to haue some speech with the Iesuites touch­ing this point, the rather because the Priests and Ie­suites do daily cast out papers and disperse them [Page 6] in secret, in which they vaunt, that no Protestant Minister dare encounter them in this point.

At the beginning of his meeting, when the dispu­tants were set, D^r. 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; and demanded of M^r. Fisher whether this were his owne hand; which after he had ac­knowledged, D^r. Featly began as followeth.

[...],D. Featly. To this vniuersall demand, requiring rather an Historicall large volume, then a Syllogi­sticall briefe dispute, we answer:

1. That although diuine infallible faith is not built vpon deduction out of humane history, but diuine reuelation, as is confessed by your owne Schoole-men, and expresly by Cardinall Bellarmine: Historiae humanae faciunt tantum fidem humanam, cui subesse potest falsum: Humane stories and records beget onely an humane faith, or rather credulitie subiect to error, not a diuine and infallible beliefe, which must be built vpon surer ground.

2. Although this question be grounded vpon vncertaine and false supposals; for a Church may haue been visible, yet not the names of all visible professors thereof now to be shewed and proued out of good Authors; there might be millions of professors, yet no particular and authenticall record of them by name. Records there might be many in ancient time, yet not now extant, at least for vs to come by; yet we will not refuse to deale with you in your owne question, if you in like maner will vn­dertake the like taske in your owne defence, and [Page 7] maintaine the affirmatiue in the like question, which we now propound vnto you here in writing:

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

Here D^r. Featly reading this question, through a mistake, in stead of out of good Authors, read out of Gods word. Whereunto M^r. Fisher replied, No, I will proue it out of good Auhors.

Then said one that sat at the table: By no means can M^r. Fisher endure to demonstrate his Church out of Gods word.

God is a good Author, M^r. 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?

I will so you proue the visibilitie of your Church.

Here an order was set downe, that D^r. 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 con­trary question for the visibilitie of the Romane Church.

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

1. That all bitter speeches be forborne.

2. That none speake but disputants. Which condi­tions [Page 8] were well approued of by the whole com­panie.

I desire a third to be added thereunto: viz. that both the Opponent and Respondent be tied to Logicke forme.

I hold not that condition fit, because the companie vnderstands not Logicke forme.

There are of the companie that vnder­stand Logicke as well as you or I, and the rest are men of vnderstanding and reason; therefore I am resolued to keepe Logicke forme, and expect from you direct answers.

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

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 being propounded as a question, I will keepe my selfe to Logicke forme. But before I propound my argu­ment, I craue leaue in few words to lay open the va­nitie 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 been only vi­sible in all ages and all times, but eminently conspi­cuous and illustrious; which is such a notorious vn­truth, that I here offer before all this companie to yeeld you the better, and acknowledge my selfe o­uercome, if you can produce out of good Authors, [Page 9] I will not say any Empire or kingdome, but any Ci­tie, parish or hamlet, within fiue hundred yeares next after Christ, in which there was any visible as­sembly of Christians to be named, maintaining and defending either your Trent Creed in generall, or these points of Popery in speciall, to wit,

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

2. That the Laity are not commanded by Christs institution to receiue the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in both kinds.

3. That the publicke Seruice of God in the Church ought or may be celebrated in an vn­knowne tongue.

4. That priuate Masses, wherein the Priest saith, Edite & bihite ex hoc omnes, and yet eateth and drin­keth himselfe onely, are according to Christs insti­tution.

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

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

These are Scholasticall points, not funda­mentall.

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

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

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

Ergo, euery one of these articles is fundamentall.

[Page 10] To which argument nothing being answered, D. Featly proceeded.

7.D. Featly. That Extreme Vnction is a Sacrament pro­perly so called.

8. That we may worship God by an image.

9. That the sacred Hoast ought to be eleuated, or caried 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 he cannot erre in matter of faith.

13. That he hath power to canonize Saints:

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

After you haue proued your Church visi­ble in all ages, and named the professors thereof, I will satisfie you in your particulars.

In the meane while name but one Fa­ther, but one Writer of note, who held the particu­lars aboue named, for 500 yeares after Christ. To which instant demand of D. Featly, nothing was an­swered.

M. Sweet, proue me but this one point out of Saint Augustine, namely, Transubstan­tiation; or satisfie such arguments as I shall bring you out of Saint Augustine to the contrary, and I will promise you to go to Masse.

To which M. Sweet made no other then this an­swer, [Page 11] That is not now to the question.

I expect your argument D. Featly.

There are two meanes onely to proue any thing by necessary 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:

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

But the faith of the Protestant Church is eternall and perpetuall.

Ergo.

You conclude not the question.

There are two quaeres in your questi­on; first, whether the Protestant Church were in all ages visible; and secondly, whether the names of such visible Protestants in all ages can be shewed. I haue concluded in my Syllogisme the first Quaere.

There are not two quaeres or parts in the question; it is but one question.

Where there are two propositions with two distinct vtrums, there are two questions: But here are two propositions with two distinct v­trums, to wit, Whether the Protestant Church, &c. and Whether the names, &c.

Ergo.

Conclude any thing syllogistically D. Featly.

You your selfe 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 [Page 12] words can haue no Grammaticall construction, if you refer them to both parts, or at all to the latter part, to wit, Whether the names can be shewed.

Let vs heare a Syllogisme.

In this copulatiue proposition which you offer for a question, and require me to proue; ei­ther you denie both parts, or one onely: if both, I am to proue both, one after the other; if one only, then you grant the other. A copulatiue is not true vnlesse both parts be true; doe you denie both, or one onely?

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

This is to confound two distinct que­stions in one. For a Church may haue been visible, and yet the names of such visible professors not now to be shewed.

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

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 exposition. Therefore it is not to be re­ceiued. And is a coniunction copulatiue, and must adde somewhat 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.

What need you stand so much vpon this; if there were visible men, certainly they may be named. [Page 13] Name your visible Protestants,A Romanist standing by. and it sufficeth.

Name visible Protestants in all ages.

It seemes you are nominals rather then reals; you stand so much vpon naming: will you vn­dertake to name visible Papists in all ages?

If neither you nor we can name visible professors of our Religions in all ages,The same Ro­manist stan­ding by. for ought I know, the best way for vs is, to be all naturall men.

This is the right reason of a naturall.

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

That is a non sequitur, for the reasons before named by me. What say you to a people of Africa, who (if we may beleeue Plinie) haue no names at all.

Yet they haue descriptions, and may be knowne by some periphrasis.

What say you then to the heretickes called Acephali, who are so called, because their head and author cannot be named, nor particularly de­scribed, yet the Author was a visible man. Are all visible mens names vpon record? Are all the records that were in former times, now to be produced?

Here diuers of M^r. Fishers companie, called, Names, names, names.

What, will nothing content you but a Buttery booke? you shall haue a Buttery booke of names, if you will stay a while.

Here diuers of the auditors wished D^r. Featly not to proceed any further in the disputation, vnlesse M^r. Fisher would suffer him according to the lawes of all disputation, first to conclude the first part of [Page 14] his copulatiue question, and then the second: yet D. 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.

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.

Ergo.

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

You haue a purpose, M. Fisher, to ca­uill; you know my meaning well enough, by the terme 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 holdeth this faith, you beleeue shall be so visible, that the names of the professors thereof may be shewed in all ages.

But the Protestant Church holdeth this perpe­tuall faith.

Ergo.

Your argument is a fallacie, called, petitio principii.

A demonstration à causa, or à priori, is not petitio principij.

But such is my argument.

Ergo.

Is it not a sounder argument to proue the visibi­litie [Page 15] of the professors from the truth of their faith, then as you do the truth of your faith from the vi­sibilitie of professors? Visible professors argue not a right faith. Hereticks, Mahumetans and Gentiles haue visible professors of their impieties; yet will it not hence follow, that they haue a right beliefe. On the contrary, we know by the promises of God in the Scripture, that the Church which maintai­neth the true faith, shall haue alwayes professors more or lesse visible.

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

Shall you prescribe me my weapons? Is not an argument à priori, better then an argument à posteriori? This is, as if in battell you should en­ioyne your enemie 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.

A proofe à posteriori is more demonstra­tiue then à priori.

Here M^r. Fisher sheweth his Academicall learning,A Protestant sitting by. in preferring a demonstration à posteriori, before that which proceedeth à priori. Is not a demonstra­tion of the effect from the cause, more excellent then 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 Opponet D. Featly should set his hand to each seuerall Syllogisme; and the Respondent M. Fisher to his seuerall Answers.

That Church which is so visible as the Ca­tholicke Church ought to be, and as the Popish Church is pretended by M. Fisher to be, is so visible, that their [Page 16] names may be produced and shewed.

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

Ergo.

I denie the minor.

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

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

Ergo the Protestant Church is so visible as the Catho­licke Church ought to be, and the Popish Church is pre­tended by M. Fisher to be.

I distinguish the maior. That Church whose faith is perpetuall and vnchanged so as the names can be shewed, is so visible as the Catholik Church ought to be, and as M. Fisher pretends the Romane Church to be, I grant it.

That Church whose faith is perpetual and vnchanged, yet so as the names cannot be shewed in all ages, is so vi­sible as the Catholick Church ought to be, and as M^r. Fi­sher pretends the Romane Church ought to be, I denie it. To the minor I apply the like distinction; and conse­quently to the conclusion in the same maner.

What? answer you to the conclusion al­so? This is a straine of new Logicke.

Tolle distinctionem.

All this was spoken, but not committed to the writer. 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?

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

That Church whose faith is the catholicke and primitiue faith once giuē to the Saints without which no man can be saued, is so perpetuall as the names may be shewed in all ages.

But the faith of the Protestant Chruch is the primitiue and catholik faith once giuen to the Saints,Tollitur distin­ctio. without which none can be saued.

Ergo the faith of the Protestant church is so perpetuall, as the names may be shewed in all ages.

I answer to the minor. If this proposition be taken simply in it selfe, I absolutely deny 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, to wit, to shew to those who are not able by their owne abilitie to find out the infallible faith ne­cessary to saluation, without learning it of the true visi­ble Church of Christ; and consequently the visibilitie of the Church is first to be shewed before the truth of do­ctrine in particular shall be shewed.

First, what speake you of those who are not able by their own abilities to find out faith?These words were also spoken but not set down by the writer. is any man able by his owne abilitie, without the help of diuine grace? 2. What helpeth the visibili­tie, to confirme the truth of the Church? Visibilitie indeed proues a Church, but not the true Church.

Here M. Fisher alledged 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 turne to answer; now he was by or­der to oppose M. Fisher.

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. Ergo, your answer is false and imper­tinent. And first, it is not false.

I answer to the antecedent, That it is both false and impertinent; but I adde, that for the pre­sent it must first be proued to be pertinent, or else it di­uerteth vs from the chiefe end of our dispute, which was, as I said before, That infallible truth may be learned of the true visible Church, and not the true visible Church by first finding euery particular infallible truth, and by that to conclude which is the true visible Church.

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.

Ergo the minor of that Syllogisme is pertinent.

Note that M. Fishers answers to euery one of these Syllogismes were pen­ned by him verbatim, with the aduice of M. Sweet and one other, aduising priuatly and amending what they thought fit, which breeding much delay, irk­some to the hearers; and the Opponent then saying, You are very long M. Fisher. A stander by said, Let him alone, for he and his learned coun­cell are not yet agreed.

I distinguish the maior. That minor pro­position which together with the maior doth necessarily and directly inferre the conclusion of the minor in such manner as it may serue for that purpose to which the [Page 19] whole dispute is ordained, I grant it to be pertinent. But if it do inferre the conclusion, yet not in such maner as it may serue for that purpose for which the whole dispute was ordained, I denie the maior.

Here the disputants iarred, and so the writer ceased; yet that which follow­eth was then deliuered by them.

That minor which together with the ma­ior inferres the proposition last denied, the whole processe hauing been per directa 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 processus hauing been made per directa media.

Ergo it is pertinent to that purpose to which the dis­pute is ordained.

Your media in your Syllogismes were di­recta, but they tended not ad directum finem.

This is a B [...]ll, M^r. Fisher. Media directa, yet not ad directum finem, that is, direct and not di­rect: for media are said to be directa only ratione finis.

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.

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 transitio à 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 be perpetual. Therefore where the faith [Page 20] is perpetuall, the profession thereof must needs be, and consequently the visibilitie of the professors thereof. Is this transitio à genere in genus?

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

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

This is nothing but an apparent tergi­uersation. You will not answer any argument direct­ly, nor suffer vs to proceed in our arguments; and therefore I require you M^r. Fisher, according to the order mentioned in the beginning, for each partie to haue an houre and a halfe, that you now oppose, and suffer me to answer. Proue by Christ and his Apostles, or by any of the Fathers, for the first 600 yeares, these present tenets of the Roman 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 Romane Church.

3. That the Romane Church onely was and is the authenticall custos of vnwritten traditions?

4. That all generall Councels were called by the sole authoritie of the Pope; and that he might rati­fie and disanull whatsoeuer pleased him in them.

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

6. That the Pope had or hath power to depose Princes. Proue all or any of these, and we will nei­ther [Page 21] carp nor cauill about names, but answer di­rectly, without all delayes, cuasions or tergiuersa­tions.

When you D. White or D. Featly haue proued your Church to be visible in all ages, and named visible Protestants, then I promise you to proue the vi­sibilitie of the Catholike Romane Church; but that is not done by you yet.

It had been 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 haue maintained the substan­tiall points of faith, in which we differ from your Romane Church.

That Church whose faith is the catholike and primi­tiue faith once giuen to the Saints, without which none can be saued, is so visible, that the names of the professors in all ages may be shewed & proued out of good authors.

But the Protestant Church is that Church, whose faith is the catholicke and primitiue faith once giuen to the Saints, without which none can be saued. Ergo.

The maior is ex concessis. What say you to the minor?

I distinguish the minor.

Vpon what terme do you distinguish.

I distinguish of the proposition, not of any terme.

Here is againe another straine of new Logicke, to distinguish of a proposition, and apply the distinction to no terme: howsoeuer, I am glad to heare you distinguish, and not simply to denie [Page 22] that the Protestant faith is the Catholike primitiue faith. Mark, I beseech you, you that are present, that M^r. Fisher demurres vpon the proposition; his con­science will not suffer him simply to denie, that the Protestant faith is the Catholike primitiue faith; we simply and flatly, and in downright termes de­nie that your present Tridentine faith is the Catho­like primitiue faith.

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

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

This is to diuert the question: the question is not now, whether our faith or yours be the catholicke primitiue faith, but the question now is of the effect, to wit, the visibilitie of your Church, which you ought to proue out of good authors.

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

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

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

Leaue these Logicke disputes; bring the names of your Protestants; that is it we expect.

If I should relinquish my former ar­gument, to which yet you haue giuen no manner of answer, you M^r. Fisher would report that I was [Page 23] nonplussed, as you slandered D. White in a former conference, who (I tell you M. Fisher) is able to teach vs both. Whereto M^r. Fisher replied nothing.

To preuent all such misreports to the wrong of either, it was moued by the hearers, that is should be written downe by the common writer of the confe­rence, that both the Disputants being willing to proceed, D. Featly was de­fired by the companie (because it was late) to produce the names of such Pro­testants as were extant before Luther in all ages. This being written and subscribed by them both, D. Featly proceeded to his induction.

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

It is so in this and this, & sic de caeteris.

Ergo 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 be produced in the first hundred yeares, and second, and third, and fourth, & sic de caeteris.

Ergo it was so in all ages.

First I name those of the first age; and I begin with him who is the beginner of all, our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ, blessed for euer, at whose Name all knees must bow both in heauen and earth, and vnder the earth, (at which words all the companie 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 haue come to our hands, I name onely I gnatius after the twelue Apostles and Saint Paul.

These are enough for the first age, Christ, the twelue Apostles, Saint Paul and Ignatius.

[Page 24] Here at the name of Ignatius some of M. Fishers side seemed very glad and confident, saying, We are sure enough that Ignatius is on our side.

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

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

I cannot name all at once: wil you haue me name men of so many ages with one breath? will you haue me eate 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 S^t. Paul and Ignatius the Martyr. For the second age, I name Iustin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Saint Cyprian; and I begin first with Christ & his Apostles.

You shall not begin with Christ and his A­postles.

You are not to make my Induction; I will begin with Christ and his Apostles; where should I begin but in the first age, and with the first of it: shall I make a catalogue of the Christian Church, according to the seueral ages, and leaue out Christ and his Apostles in the first age? Answer first to them, and I will proceed to others.

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

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

Vnlesse you giue me a catalogue of names throughout all ages, I will not answer.

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

I will not before you haue named the rest.

Will you not be tried 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 confest on both sides.

But the doctrine of the Protestants was taught by Christ and his Apostles in the first age. Ergo.

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

I will not answer you any thing till you haue made your catalogue.

M^r. Fisher, I charge you, as you will an­swer it before Christ himselfe at the dreadfull day of iudgement, answer now vpon your conscience before all this companie, 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 deep charge, M. Fisher still refused to answer to the argument of instance in Christ and his Apostles; whereupon diuers thereupon expressing their distast at such refusall, desired D. Featly to surceasse, telling him that he ought not to talke any longer with such a one who refused to an­swer Christ and his Apostles. And so the Conference brake vp.

This Conference though it tooke not that pro­gresse which was desired, by reason of the Iesuites tergiuersation, not permitting D^r. Featly to come to the ripenesse of any argument; yet it hath not bin [Page 26] fruitlesse: for since that time, the aforesaid M^r. Buggs came to Sir Humfrey Lynde, and gaue him many thanks for the said meeting, and assured him that he was well resolued now of his Religion; that he saw plainly, it was but the Iesuits bragging, without proofes▪ and whereas formerly by their Sophistical 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 disclaim the Popish priests companie, and their doctrine also.

Vpon Monday following, M. Fisher and M. Sweet came vnsent for to the house of Sir Humfrey Lynde, to know of him, whether the parties that had for­merly conferred, would proceed or no; who answe­red, that if they might confer priuatly with leaue in some other place, they would easily make good their cause; and so they parted without further re­solution of place or meeting.

Since which time, notice being giuen by my Lord Bishop of Durham of his Maiesties pleasure, that the truth of the late Conference should be certified to his Maiestie, and further meetings staid; a Roma­nist hath confidently auerred to M^r. Buggs, that our side hath laboured to haue all future meetings tou­ching this occasion forbidden, because we durst not, nor are not able to make good our assertions against them.

And this is the true relation of the Conference it selfe, together with the occasion thereof, and the effect which it produced.