IT is now more than six Weeks since I observed your Apostatizing from our Church; during which time, I have not been remiss in praying for your Recovery; and now think it seasonable, by this short Paper, to endeavour it.

The pretended cause is, you cannot ob­tain satisfaction among us, about those two points, Transubstantiation and Purgatory, (but mostly the former.)

Your Soul being (in my opinion) in great danger by the course you take, I could not (with any quiet) see you so expose your self; and wished that you might rather bestow your thoughts, on what more immediately touched you, and was more suited to your Capacity: But seeing it verified in you (which is in most persons) that you are most busie about what least concerns you; and [Page 2]nothing pleaseth your Fancy, but what flies above your Understanding. I purposed to let you know my thoughts (even) in the remote question of Transubstantiation; of which, if you make good use, I shall proceed to the latter.

Yet I deferred the thing, till I could learn, that the Person on whose Ability you lean, (viz. Mr. G.) was returning from London, that he might be near at hand to furnish you with Answers; to the intent I should not be calumniated, as a Designer to surprize and lurch you.

Wherefore I now send these few Lines, to desire you to provide your self of a satisfacto­ry resolution about this Question, or let me receive intimation how that satisfaction doth arise. I abridge you not of liberty to con­sult with any other person that may add any thing to Mr. G. for I love Truth, and am loath you should be carried away with Fals­hood: and nothing will more content me, than to receive an Answer of weight to this Paper; which shall (at this time) onely touch a few doubts, many more being reserved to be proposed when these are cleared.

At present I must tell you, 1. What you are (or must be) taught to Believe.2. How [Page 3]hard it will be for you to Believe what you shall be so Taught.

In the former, I'll note the Doctrines Taught, and the Method of Teaching them. The latter, viz. the Method, I begin with.

That you may believe, your Mind must be abstracted (as much as possible it may) from the judgment of your own Senses. Now this method will be hard for you to submit to, when you consider that it is about their proper object, and your Senses duly disposed to give their judgment, and the common Senses of Mankind concurring with yours.

But yet this will be yet harder to digest,John 20.27. 1 John 1.1. seeing this new method is directly contrary to the method which Christ used to instruct Thomas; which was not to abstract his Mind from the judgment of his Senses, but to em­ploy his Mind about the judgment of his Sen­ses. The method also of St. John, is not to abstract from the judgment of the Senses, but he appeals to the judgment of the Senses, to beget and confirm Faith. Hence therefore the first Question will arise:

1. Quest. Why the method of your new Teachers, is so opposite to the method of Christ and his Apostles?

Now to the Doctrines taught.

Three things most admirable are effected in the Eucharist, by the words of Consecra­tion, which the Catholick Faith believes and confesseth without any doubting.

1. That the true Body of Christ, even the same which was born of the Virgin, and now sits in Heaven at the right hand of the Fa­ther, is contained in the Sacrament.

2. That no substance of the Elements re­mains in it.

3. That the Accidents which are percei­ved by the Senses, are, in a wonderful and inexplicable manner, without any subject matter: the substance of the Bread and Wine are so changed, that they wholly cease to be; but the Accidents (even all of them) of the Bread and Wine, you may see and per­ceive, which inhere in no substance, but con­sists by themselves. The proof of this follows.

Now the words of Christ are so plain (in this matter) that none in his sound mind can be ignorant, what he must understand when he hears, This is my Body.

Also the words of Paul are plain, 1 Cor. 11. Let a man examine,&c. He that eatech and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh dam­nation [Page 5]to himself, not discerning the Lords body. For what need is there of such weighty words, if there were nothing in the Sacrament, but a memory and sign of Christ's Passion, as Here­ticks teach? The same thing Paul more at large explained in these words: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communi­cation of the bloud of Christ?

You hear the Doctrine and the Proof of it from Christ and Paul; now for the expli­cation of these words, to make out the proof.

These places of Scripture, must be so ex­plained by the Pastors, and this must chiefly. be taught, that nothing of doubtfulness or uncertainty is left (of what was above-said) especially when the Authority of the Church of God hath interpreted these things: the knowledge of which we attain two ways. 1. When we consult with the Fathers who flourished from the beginning of the Church, and so downward. 2. When we see the contrary Opinion condemned.

This Doctrine thus proved by Scripture, and the Scripture they explained you must believe. Now to shew how hard it will be for you to believe this, these following Que­stions are proposed.

1. Quest. Whether the words of Christ be­ing Spiritual, it may not suffice to take them in a Spiritual Sense, but it be necessary to take them in the literal sense of his natural body, and that without a Figure?

2. Quest. Whether the first Article be not sufficiently believed, when the Body of Christ is believed to be really truly present, even the same Body, but not in the same manner?

3. Quest. Whether the second and third Ar­ticles be of equal Truth and Certainty with the first, and must so be believed?

4. Quest. Whether the words cited for proof, are intended to prove all Three Arti­cles equally, or the First only, and the Second and Third are left to shift for themselves?

5. Quest. Whether every one in his wits can see such inforcement in the words of Christ or Paul, without the especial helps of the Churches Authority and the Fathers?

6. Quest. If not, then whether Reason wil­leth that not the Church in the Apostles times, should be principally heard in this Authori­tative Interpretation?

7. Quest. Whether you are truly taught that we Hereticks say, That in the Sacrament there is nothing else but a Memory and a [Page 7]Sign of Christs Passion? And whether the Fa­thers that prove there is something more, and condemn such as say there is nothing more, do prove any thing against us, or do condemn us?

I should now think it reasonable, to request of you to return to us, until these difficulties be overcome. But if Mr.G. will not yield to this request, then I pray you, improve all your interest with him for some satisfaction for your self and me, what is his true and serious sense of this whole matter, and put him to it on his own behalf in this manner, viz.

Sir, seeing if I eat unworthily, I eat judg­ment to my self. If I discern not the Lords Bo­dy in eating, I eat unworthily. If I discern not the very same Body form'd in the Womb, &c. If I discern not accidents without a substance, &c. I discern not the Lords Body.

Therefore, that I may be confirmed, I be­seech you assure me concerning your self, who are strong in Faith, whereas I am but weak. Your self, who know your own intention in Consecrating, whereas I know it not. Your self, who have looked upon and examined the Elements that they are not corrupted, whereas I have not. Your self, who have uttered the words of Consecration, whereas I perhaps, [Page 8]heard not, perhaps understood not. I say, That you your self are so right in your wits, as to perceive no doubt, nor uncertainty in this matter, but that you do fully, absolute­ly, and without reservation, forever renounce all your part and hope in the Body and Blood of Christ, if this Sacrament now by you Con­secrated, be not the very same natural flesh and natural Blood, which was formed in the Virgins Womb, hung upon the Cross, was bu­ried, arose, and now sits at Gods right hand; but is so changed, that upon the speaking of the words, here's no more substance of Bread and Wine, but the Smell, Colour, Form, and all other Accidents of Bread and Wine are truly remaining, without any subject matter for them to remain in. That your Eyes, Nose, Hands, Palate, do deceive you in their judg­ment about the substance, but at the same time, do not deceive you about the Accidents of Bread and Wine.

I beg that you will press him for a clear re­solution of the former Questions, and this last especially, as touching himself, and transmit it to me; which shall ever be acknowledged your kindness to me, as well as justice to your self.

I Received a Paper of yours, to which you require a Satisfactory Answer, and desire earnestly of your Friend to press me for a Clear Resolution. I must in the first place acknowledge very heartily, that you are the most civil Adversary I ever yet met with: For, you are so far from attacking me rudely, or pressing me with any Argument, as other brisker Disputants use, that you do not so much as attempt to offer any, nor scarce advance one single Proposition; nay, not so much as put down your own Tenet expresly: Which certainly is the most civil way of Disputing that ever was heard of, if indeed it may be allow'd that Name, and [Page 10]ought not rather be call'd a saying just No­thing; all your performance in this Paper, being (as you here tell us) to touch a few Doubts; and I must confess, you touch them very gingerly; I suppose, lest being prest, they should discover their soft temper.

Your gentile way of setting upon me, is to ask me Questions: I will not object the Proverb, That a Fool may ask more Questi­ons, than a Wise man can answer; for it nei­ther suits with you nor me. Not with you; for, by proceeding in this method, you shew your self a deep Politician, and keep out of the reach, nay out of the possibility of a Con­futation: since no man living knows how to take hold of an Adversary, who affirms no­thing himself, but onely asks another. One­ly I must say, this way of handling Contro­versie, by Catechizing your Adversary, instead of Arguing against him, is an invention so pleasant and surprizing, so new and so un­heard of to the dull World hitherto, that you have all the right and reason in the World to get a Patent for it, that none may use it without your License. Nor will that Proverb sute with me; for I hope you are well satisfied, you shall never fail of an An­swer [Page 11]from me, when you produce any sub­stantial proofs, since you see I have that re­spect for you, as to undergo here, for your sake, the drudgery to sweep down your very Cobwebs.

Now, your Arguments being so perfectly unconquerable, (for they are altogether in­visible) it was but reason you should say, that no less than an Answer of weight to this Pa­per, would content you. Though I cannot comprehend the Mystery, why the Answer needs be so weighty, when there is nothing but a few feathers and straws in the counter­ballance; yet I must seriously grant, that 'tis in some cases requisite, that Questions should be askt when the Adversary's Tenet is not well understood; that so the Arguments may not be wrong levell'd against some po­sition, which perhaps he neither holds nor maintains: For this gives the Arguer a right aim, and makes clearer way for the future Dispute. But, alas! your modest way of arguing has no such high ambition; for, you tell us here very learnedly, This Paper shall onely touch a few Doubts, many more being re­serv'd to be propos'd, when these are clear'd. So that for any thing I see or am to expect, [Page 12]your intention is onely to go on asking Que­stions to the end of the Chapter, and so turn the Controversie into a meer Catechism, consisting onely of Questions and Answers; onely you provide wisely, that your self bear the easier and more honourable part in the Dialogue, and assuming to your self the magestical Office of the Catechist, make me the poor ignorant Catechumen, to be pos'd at your pleasure.

But I beseech you, Sir, (that we may be a little serious) what needs this fluttering about with Questions, and other frivolous pre­tences, as if you were ignorant what I held about Transubstantiation, or what the person concern'd, is to hold for Faith? You know well enough before-hand, 'tis already pub­lickly extant in the Council of Trent; so that you might have sav'd all this sleeveless labour, and have fallen to work with your Arguments, to combat its Definition in this particular point. If you overthrow that, you reduce J. W. and make a Proselyte of me too; if you do not, we both stand where we were, and all your feeble Talk is utterly in­significant. This Council is received, as to matters of Faith, by the whole diffusive Bo­dy [Page 13]of all those particular Churches in Com­munion with the Roman, and proceeds all along upon the Rule of Catholic Faith, Tradition. If you will go to work like a Controvertist, you ought to impugn her and us by Scripture, interpreted by as great Au­thority, proceeding upon that Rule, or some other more certain: for all Arguments of less weight, cannot with any shew of Reas­on, pretend to shock her or the Faith she re­commends; and all other Proofs (had you any) would be but running voluntary divisions upon your own Fancy. If then you have the least hope to gain credit to your explications of Scripture, which are contrary to hers, it were advisable you should first shew evidently to the World, what Na­tural Means you have above the whole Body of the Roman Catholic Church, enabling you to understand Scripture better than she does: Or, if you pretend to Supernatural Gifts a­bove her, shew us some Supernatural out­ward Testimony, certifying us of this invi­sible qualification you lay claim to. If you do either of these, you will do wonders; but I am sure, and your self is conscious, you are so utterly unable to manifest that your self, [Page 14]or the Protestant Church have either of these advantages above the Catholic, that, as it was never attempted, though it would most high­ly avail your Cause, could you compass it, so the very going about it, would shame the Attempter. And, unless you do this, what man in his wits will believe you understand Scripture better than that Great and most Learned Body of the Roman Catholic Church? This being as absurd, as to think a man may compass an End better without better means; that is, as to that degree which is better, without means. This is your Duty, Sir, if you hope to gain any cre­dit to your Cause, or would shew your self a Controvertist: But I perceive you have been so accustomed to Preaching, where you have your full swing in the Pulpit, to talk on any fashion against the abominable Rapists, without any to controul you; that you have conceiv'd some hope the same will pass in Controversie: Wherefore I must take the freedom to tell you, 'tis the duty of a Con­trovertist, to propose his or his Adversary's Tenet clearly, and state the Question between them; and then bring his Proofs, and vouch them to be Conclusive. This is what be­comes [Page 15]a Man, and a Scholar; and what falls short of this, though it may pass, (and per­haps with applause) in a Sermon, is perfectly ridiculous and insignificant in a Controversie. But tis high time now to remember the drudging Service I promised you.

Passing by then your old saying, that the Person seeking satisfaction about Transub­stantiation least concernd him; as if it were nothing to him, whether he Adord a piece of Bread with Christ, or Christ alone, I come to your Stuff; for I want another proper word to call it by, being forbid by common sence to call it Reasoning.

You give us a taste of your Philosophy, in speaking so soberly of the Judgment of Senses, our Senses giving their Judgments, and many other expressions of the like nature. By which you seem to make ac­count a mans Judgment lies in his Heels or Toes, or his Wits in his Elbows; for all these have Sense: And, according to this new Scheme of Philosophy you have enlightned the world with, the Sense judges. I wish, for your own sake, you had onely askt Que­stions here too; for you are as miserably out in your Philosophy, as in your Divinity. As [Page 16]to this whole business then, you may please to receive these few Instructions from a Friend. 1. That the Senses are onely Or­gans or Instruments to transmit Impressions to the Brain, and so to the Soul, onely which judges or knows: and if the way to the Brain be intercluded, no knowl edge is produc'd by any impression on Sense. 2. That if the Senses be duly dispos'd, 'tis granted they send right impressions thither. 3. That 'tis gran­ted à fortiori, that if the Senses be not vitia­ted by some Disease, or Miracle do not in­tervene, they never give our Judging Power wrong Advertisements concerning their pro­per Objects. 4. That, in our case they are employ'd about their Proper Objects, which are certain Accidents or Qualities, as all Phi­losophers agree: Nor are they in our case fallacious in representing them. Now you would make Substance their Proper Object, and would have them inerrable in judging of Substances: Of which Positions, the first is utterly false, since all Learned men in the World agree, that Substance or Being is the proper Object of the Ʋnderstanding. The second is confuted by experience; for we see that in debased Money (for example) [Page]and many other Instances, even all the Sen­ses may deceive us in our judging of the Sub­stance of it by their Impressions; so that we are forc'd to call to our assistance the Ma­xims of our Reason, and use our best Art to frame a right Judgment in such cases. 5. A­mongst those Knowledges, of which, in our case, the Faithful are to make use to judge rightly of the Substance; the Knowledge that God has revealed, 'tis his Body, and that this is attested by his Church, proceeding on an inerrable Rule of Faith, deriving down to us Christ's Doctrine, is to be taken in for one, nay ought to have the chiefest Place; and, so, in due reason ought to restrain the Faithful from judging of this high Mystery, according to the ordinary methods of Nature in other common Natural Effects. 6. That Faith comes by Hearing; which Sense, employ'd about Sounds articulated, and complext with an al­most infinite variety, I could (were the place proper) demonstrate to be more certain, than all the rest of the Senses put together; unless perhaps the Eyes employ'd about the various figuration of Letters. So that you ought not to have impos'd upon us, to deny the Cer­tainty of all the Senses, but to have excepted [Page]that of Hearing, conversant in the Objects now spoken of; especially (as the Scripture tells you) this being the proper Sense by which Faith comes, you ought in justice to have let the World know, that we allow indeed the absolute Certainty of that Sense which introduces Faith, and deny only the Certainty of some of the rest in some Cases, and in Objects which are not proper to them: this being indeed the true state of our Tenet. Now, if Hearing alone can teach us Christ's Doctrine with a perfect Certainty, 'tis nei­ther good Manners to his Infinite Veracity, nor Justice to such a vast Body of Attesters, nor in any regard common sence to trust the more fallacious Senses, especially, not em­ploy'd neither about their Proper Objects, before the more certain one, employ'd about it's, assuring us God has said it. Remember the Check St. Thomas had, for not believing upon the Testimony of others, to be credited as to their veracity (that is, not ad­mitting Faith propos'd and ascertain'd to him by Hearing, but he would needs use the o­ther Senses too) Beati qui non viderunt & cre­diderunt, and apply it to your self. 7. You distinguish not between the Sen­ses [Page 27]employ'd about the Motives antecedent to Faith, and about the Mysteries of Faith, as appears by your Citations out of Scripture. In the former, it becomes God's Providence to leave Nature to its free course, and us to judge according to its ordinary methods, in regard we have as yet no other Light to walk or judge by. But when once through Hearing we are enlightned by Faith, it becomes then God's Providence, that the Mysteries pro­pos'd to us (they having a nearer approach to an Infinite Agent, the Omnipotence of God, than Natural Productions have) should be so sublime, as to be above the reach even of unelevated Reason, much more above the common and coarse methods of Sensation, or the Judgments we frame from the Senses a­lone. Pause upon these particulars, and ap­ply them, and you will see you are quite out in what I conceive you would be at; for you are at nothing yet but at asking Questions. But you divide your Text, and tell J. W. first, What 'tis he must be taught; and (se­condly) How hard it will be to believe it. Then, as to the former, you seem to subdi­vide it into the Doctrines Taught, and the method of Teaching them. Now the Doctrines [Page 28]taught, was the Genus or Thing to be divi­ded, and here you seem to make it one of the Species or Members dividing; and so make it at once above and under it self: But this is onely a slip of your Logick, noting (as you call it) the Doctrines Taught, as one of the things to be considered in the Doctrines Taught. And, certainly, such a rare Note is well worth the marking.

By what's said above, the Reader will see, what a heedless Quoter of Scripture you are, though it be your best or rather onely Ta­lent. You alledge against us, 1 John 1. v. 1. where the first words are, Quod audivimus, That which we have heard; as if we forbid you to use your Hearing, by which Faith comes. For it is evident beyond all need of Proof, that as the Church heard Christ, so if every succeeding Age had follow'd what they heard from the former, Christian Faith must have continu'd till now the self-same the Apostles heard from Christ; and, as long as this Method (call'd by us Tradition) is follow'd, it must ever continue still the self­same to the Worlds End. Now we are so far from bidding you not follow the Adver­tisements of your Senses, that our onely [Page 29]Quarrel to you is, that you relinquisht the most certain Sense, the Hearing your Lawful Pastors in the Church you left, and fell to scan Mysteries of Faith by the less-certain ones, employed about Objects not within their cognizance, and (which is as absurd) Glossing Scripture-Texts, without any Rule to guide you, but your own aukward Fan­cies.

Next follow in your Papers, the Doctrines taught with Proofs, which properly and di­rectly belong onely to the first Article, viz. That the True Body of Christ is contained in the Sacrament. But such as your self will ne­ver he able todisprove, viz. the Scripture in­terpreted by the Church, the Testimonies of Fathers witnessing the Tradition of the Church in their time, and the Condemnation of the contrary Opinions denying the Real Pre­sence, and Transubstantiation, as Heretical.

What should move you thus to shew the weakness of your own Cause, which has no other Rule of your Faith, but Scripture in­terpreted by every man's Private Spirit or Reason, and can bear no proportion with that of the publick Interpretation of the Church, attested, by the Authority of the [Page 30]most Eminent Fathers of the Primitive Times, and strengthned by the Condemnation of the contrary Heresies, I cannot easily imagine; but finding them too strong to be combated by so weak a Champion, you fairly take leave of them, and betake your self to shew in the next place, after your fashion, that is, blindly, how hard it will be to believe this Doctrine by asking us Questions. And I must confess, 'tis most insuparably hard, if Senses must be admit­ted to Judge of the hidden and most abstruse Mysteries of Faith, which is your darling Me­thod; though any wise man would think, this would turn Faith into Experimental Knowledge, and so rather destroy all the Faith in the world. But my Task is set, and I must attend to your Questions.

To the first then I answer, That the words, This is my Body, are to be taken Literally, and yet the End of receiving, is meant Spiritu­ally: And, I farther say, That this Spiri­tual Nourishment consisting in raising in us devout Affections, is incomparably advanc'd by the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Bloud: So that these two are so far from be­ing inconsistant, as you would hint, that the taking the words Literally, does exceedingly [Page]conduce to the Spiritual feeding on Christ; even as far as the believing him really pre­sent, is more apt to stir up Devotion in us, than the not believing it; or the receiving his Real Body, is above the receiving a piece of Bread signifying it, which is beyond all pro­portion.

To the second Question, I answer affirma­tively, If we regard the point of the Real Presence precisely: For we grant, that 'tis sufficient to believe the Body of Christ is really truly present, even the same Body, but not in the same manner. 'Tis the very Doctrine of the Council of Trent it self, Sess. 13. cap. 1. That the Body of Christ is in Heaven, juxta mo­dum existendi naturalem (according to its na­tural manner of existing) and yet that 'tis in other places, Sacrament aliter praesens, present Sacramentally. But I much fear you are not in earnest here, when you seem to yield 'tis really truly present, but that this Kindness of yours, will grow cold, when it comes to the trial; and that these hearty expressions will dwindle away into Christ's Body, being here onely in a Sign; which is to say, the Sign is there, and his Body absent. Hollow words are but wind, and 'tis hard to grasp Air.

To the Third, asking whether the Second and Third Article you put, be of equal Truth and Certainty with the First, I answer, That I was never taught to believe a thing as a half-Truth, or a three-quarter Truth, but all to be True, (for Truth consists in an Indi­visible) which the Church has expresly decla­red to be of Faith, by a General Council; and accordingly, whatsoever the Church, thus believes, and proposes as an Article of Faith, I absolutely believe and embrace as Truths delivered by Christ and his Apostles.

To the Fourth I answer, as above, That the Proofs you set down, belong properly and directly only to the first Article. And as for the Second and Third, they may also shift well enough for themselves, for any Autho­rity or Reason you have brought against either the one or the other. But I would gladly know, how all your Faith will shift for it self, having nothing to keep it from sinking into an inferiour Assent (call'd Opini­on), nay into a mass of senceless Errours, as far as it opposes Tradition, but your self; and other Fallible Interpreters like your self to buoy it up.

As for your Fifth, I know no enforce­ment that is beyond Cavil in any one place of Scripture which is Dogmatical, while the words are left to be tost by Criticisms, Gram­mar-learning, Allusions of places to one ano­ther, and such like little tricks. No one word in those Sacred Books can escape being equivocal or double senc't, while the word [God] which of all others should seem in­communicable, is Wier-drawn by such shifts to signifie a Creature, as we experience in the Arians and Socinians glosses upon those Texts which concern Christ's Divinity. You know well enough already, that neither my self, nor any Catholic builds our Faith upon any Text of Scripture, interpreted by our own private Fancy, but onely by the publick Tradition of the Church.

Your Sixth asks, If the Church must be taken in to expound Scripture, whether Rea­son willeth not, that the Church in the Apostles time, should be principally heard in their Au­thoritative Interpretation? I answer, In case you mean the Apostles were of greater Authority than their Successors, 'tis granted: But if your Question relates to the Truth [Page 34]of what the Church delivers, 'tis the same as to ask, whether the Holy Ghost, that assists the Church, spake truer one time than another.

Your Seventh Question, whether you are truly represented, by putting you to say, There is nothing else in the Sacrament, but a Memory and Sign of Christ's Passion; and whether the Fathers that prove there is some­thing more, and condemn such as say there is nothing more, do prove any thing against you, or condemn you. I am heartily glad to see some glimmering hope of your Conver­sion: For in case there be in the Sacrament, something more than a Sign, as you seem here to acknowledge is your true Tenet, you must say the thing signify'd is there too, and so we are good Friends. But, because this unexpected Confession of yours, like the first New in a Gazette, needs a Confirmati­on, I beseech you to satisfie me clearly, what this Thing is in the Sacrament, which is more, or more than a Sign: This way of questioning, is the worst way of explaining in the world, though it be a special strata­gem to avoid Confute.

Your Proposals that follow, are very Ex­traordinary. I little thought that when you had done Catechizing me, you would put me to Swearing; nor that, when I ex­pected Arguments from another, I should be forced to take my Oath my self, that my Faith is true. But that you may have no cause to complain, I will gratifie you in that too, and do here frankly declare, without any Equivocation (which I abhor in an Oath) that I do renounce all my hopes of Heaven, (which is more than you put me to) pro­vided there be no fault in the matter, nor in the Priest, if there be not present in the Sacrament, after the words of Consecration, Christ's very true Body, which was born of the Virgin, suffer'd on the Cross, was bu­ried, arose, and now sits at God's right hand, and this by the Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into his Bo­dy, as also of the Wine into his Bloud, the Species onely of Bread and Wine remaining, as is declared in the Council of Trent, Sess. 13. Can. 2. But now, Sir, having done this, take notice, that I must in requital challenge from you the same deep Pro­testation, [Page 36]that your Negative Faith or Opi­nion is True. If you refuse, since your exacting it of me, has made it decent, e­quitable, and just, you are convinced to be a very ill man, and to doubt of the Faith you profess to hold your self, and propose to others as the way to Salvation. And, if you do it, yet acknowledge your own Interpretations of Scripture, and your Chur­ches too (which grounds all your Faith) to be Fallible, you are one of the boldest and rashest Swearers that ever called himself a Christian; and in either case, must lose your credit for ever with your Flock and Audi­tory.

But that we may draw to a Conclusion, I beseech you, Sir, if you have any more to say to me, let's have no more of this tri­fling. Consider what you are about: you are about Controversie, whose work it is to settle Christian Faith upon certain Grounds; and since you profess your Faith to have been taught by Christ, this is requir'd of your, if you have any such Faith to settle, or Grounds to settle it on. Go to work like a Scho­lar, and do not thus expose your self for [Page 37]Children to laugh at. Lay your Principles first, then draw your Consequences; war­rant them rightly deduc'd, and bring them to the Conclusion, or the Position that is contradictory to your Adversaries Tenet. 'Tis manly to affirm confidently what one holds heartily; 'tis becoming a Man to argue against your Adversary smartly, and not to spare him: but 'tis the height of ridiculousness, to task him only with Que­stions, and putting him to make sacred Pro­testations, instead of combating him with your Reasons: Whenas you knew well enough before-hand, what he holds, and what he would Answer. One thing I must needs re-mind you of at parting, because I fear you will be apt to for­get it; which is, that you bear in me­mory the Oath you owe me, that your Tenets are True; that is, That Christ's True Body is not in the Sacrament, That there is no Third or Middle State cal­led Purgatory, no Transubstantiation, &c. Then to uphold the Opinion of your Sincerity, let us know what Certain Grounds you confide in, to secure you [Page 38]from being Perjur'd. The taking this Test, may qualifie you in time for some great Office; for if your Fallible Prin­ciples, will justifie your Honesty in ta­king such an Oath, I do not know what you may not be fit for next.