First Way.

3. THe First is to alledge that my L. of Downs has not one First or Self-evident Princi­ple to begin with, on which he builds his Dis­suasive from Catholick Faith. If I wrong him, let him do himself right by pointing it out and showing that 'tis opposit to our Churchees Do­ctrin; which if he does, I here yield my self absolutely confuted. In the mean time I have proved that Traditiones Certainty is the First Principle of CONTROVERSY, and am confident in the Invincible force of Truth that all the Wit in the World cannot confute that position. And if it stands, he is convincet not onely to want the First Principle of the Science we are to discourse in, but (his Cause forcing him to re­nounce [Page 251] Tradition's Certainty) to go point-blank against it, and so to invalidate to our hands all he shall write as a Controvertist; and how weakly he behaves himself where he goes about to lay other Principles, shall be shown when I come to answer his First Section. Now, seeing all Reason has force by relying on the Truth of the Premises, and they are known to be true either by being First Principles themselves, or by being finally resolvable into others which are such, it follows there can be no true Reason where there is no First Principle. Till he shows us then that he builds his Dissuasive on some First Principles, it will follow his whole Endeavour is to dissuade not by way of Reason but Fine Words, which are indeed the Substantiallest, strongest and most effi­cacious part of his whole Book.

Second Way.

4. THe Second Way is to exclude him all right to alledge either Scriptures, Fathers or Councils; I add, Reason, History or Instances, (See Corol. 12. 15, 16, 18, 19.) And, it is done thus. All discourse supposes that Certain on which it builds: But, if Tradition or the way of convey­ing down matters of Fact by the former Ages te­stifying can fail, none of these are Certain: there­fore a Protestant or Renouncer of Tradition cannot with Reason pretend to discourse out of any of these: that is, (Reason being Man's Na­ture) [Page 252] he has lost his natural right to alledge any of these in way of proof. Now, that none of these are Certain if Tradition be renounc't is shown thus. Scripture's Letter as to its Incor­ruptedness, nay its very Being, is Uncertain alone, or without Tradition, as is confest by Protestants, and proov'd Sure-Footing Disc. 3^d, and 4^th. So are Fathers and Councils too; For, Fathers be­ing Eminent Witnessers to Immediate Posterity or Children of the Churches Doctrin received, and Councils Representatives of the Church, their strength as Proofs, nay their very Existence is not known till the notion of Church be known, which is part of their very Definition and to which they relate. Nor is the Being or Nature of Church known, till it be Certainly known who are truly Faithful or have true Faith, who not; which must be manifested by their having or not having the true Rule of Faith: Wherefore, since the Properties of the Rule of Faith do all agree to Tradition our Rule, and none of them to theirs, as was evidently and at large shown there in my five first Discourses: it follows, the Protestant or Renouncer of Tradition knows not what is ei­ther right Scripture, Father or Council; and so ought not to meddle with them, nor alledge them. Again, since pretended Instances of Traditi­ons Failing depend on History, & Historical Cer­tainty cannot be built on dead Characters but on Living Sence in men's hearts deliver'd from age to age that those passages are true; that is, on [Page 253] Tradition; it follows, that, if the way of Tradi­tion can fail, all History is Uncertain; and conse­quently, all Instances as being matters of Fact de­pending on History. And, lastly, since Reasons are fetch't from the nature of things, and the best Na­ture in what it is, abstracting from disease or mad­ness, Unalterable, is the Ground of the human part of Christian Tradition, and most incompara­ble strength is superadded to it as it is Christian by the supernatural Assistances of the Holy Ghost (Disc. 9.) 'tis a wild conceit to think any piece of Nature or Discourse built on it can be held Certain, if Tradition (especially Christian Tra­dition) may be held Uncertain.

Third Way.

5. THe Third Way is to examin the Method he takes in dissuading. For, common sence telling us 'tis not to be expected any should be able to perform any thing unless he takes the right way to perform it, 'tis Evidert he cannot be held in reason to have power to dissuade, un­less the Method he takes be proper to that Ef­fect, that is, not common to that Effect and a con­trary one. Now, to dissuade is to unfix the Un­derstanding from what is held before; which in­cludes to make it hold or assent that what it held before Certain is False or at least Uncertain. The Way then he takes must be evidently able to ob­lige to some kind of Assent, nay, as he handles it (for, I suppose he aims to make them hold as [Page 254] Protestants) to Assent to the contrary; which therefore must needs require the Evidentest Me­thod imaginable, obliging their Reason to con­clude that a man who takes this way of Discourse cannot but make good what he sayes; at least, that it may be strongly hop't from his method he will do it. This reflected on, let us weigh the Method my Ld. takes in his Dissuasive; and, if it be Evident to every ordinary capacity, that, as to the Godly part of it, the Quakers out-do him; and, as to its quoting part the Smectym­nuans us'd the same against the Protestants to con­fute Episcopacy (for They too quoted and gloss'd Scriptures and Fathers both) and indeed every Sect that has not yet shaken of the shame to disrespect all Antiquity; then it is also Evident that this Method is Common to those Discourses which have in them power to satisfy the Under­standing, and those who have no such power. Now, that being most evidently no Method or Way to such an Effect, which many follow and take, yet arrive not at that Effect, 'tis plain to Common Sence that my Ld. of Downs miscalls his Book a Dissuasive and that it can have in it no power of moving the Understanding one way or other, unless he can first vouch some Particu­larity in the Method he takes above whats in others, in which we experience miscarriage, and himself professes we, though taking it, miscarry in it. Let us then search after this Particularity in his way of writing. Is it that he brings some [Page 255] stronger or more unavoidable sort of Testimo­nies then were ever yet produc't by others? No: Every Scholler sees they are so common that they have been hundreds of times produc't, and him­self (p. 1. & 2.) acknowledges their vulgar­ness. But perhaps he invalidates all the Answers our Controvertists have given to those Testimo­nies and presses them farther against us, beyond what any has done yet! Quite contrary. He barely and rawly puts them down as if this were the very first time they had seen light, nor takes the least notice of any Answer at all given to them formerly. But it may be he layes Grounds to distinguish and press home his Testimonies, and so gives them their full weight which others have not done. Alas, no; I fear he never thinks of that, but judges (if we may conclude from his carriage) the deed done, so he but quote; nor can I see one Principle laid in his whole Book strengthening any one Testimony by bringing it to its Ground, Experimental Knowledge in the Authour he cites, that the Churches constant Voice and Practice manifested this her Sence; but as they are put down carelesly, so they are past over slubberingly, without the least enfor­eing them by way of laying Principles: Is he at least Particular in his Sincerity and Ingenuity? I know not how they will be satisfied with it who read his late Adversary Impeaching him for the contrary Vices, and some passages in this present Appendix, Where, lies then this Parti­cularity [Page 256] in his Method, without which his Dis­suasive can never in reason be held Creditable? I speak ingenuously and from my heart; All the Particularity I can observe in it lies in these two things; First, that he huddles together multi­tudes of his own sayings, without any pretence of proof for the most part, and when he brings any they are such as we have spoken of. Next, that instead of enforcing his Proofs by way of Reason, he overflowes strangely with godly lan­guage and Scripture-phrases; with which plau­fible manner of Expression most unreasonably and unnaturally he strives to combat the Wills of his Readers, before he hath brought any thing able to satisfy their Understandings.

6. Yet, though his Method have no particu­larity in it as to its quoting part, who knows but it may be very particular as to its Rational part, that is, full of Proofs which conclude evidently or Demonstrations! But I am so far from feeling the force of any one such Proof in his whole Book that I cannot discern its very Existence, or even any Attempt of that kind; and I dare affirm my Ld. of Downs never meant it or dream't of it. If he have any such I request his Lp. would in his Reply single them out from all the Pious and Inconclusive Talk which swell his Book, and I promise them very heartily to lend them a due and respectful Confideration. But I am sure he will neither pretend he has any, nor attempt the having any if he but reflect that a Demonstration [Page 257] is a Proof which has in it a virtue of obliging the Understanding to Assent, and that it obtains this virtue by building on Intrinsecal Mediums; that is, on Proper Causes or Effects, of which 'tis im­possible the one should be without the other. This clearing Method onely the Champions of Truth dare take, and the Defenders of Errour must avoid under penalty of having their Cause quite ruin'd and crush't to pieces. And this se­vere Method of finding Truth, relying on the Goodness of my Cause, I fear not to take and stick to in Sure-Footing as appears there by my Transition: which sufficiently shows the Parti­cularity of my Method; I expect now my Ld. of Downs would show me the particularity of his, or renounce all right and Title to Dissuade.

7. I have been something longer about laying open the Necessity of a Proper Method to dis­suade ere one can in reason hope to perform that Effect, because I see plainly that, in the pursuit of Truth, Method is in a manner ALL; and, that 'tis impossible any Controversy should hover long in debate if a right Method of concluding evidently were carefully taken and faithfully held to. I have told my Ld. of Downs where he may see mine; and I desire him earnestly as he loves Truth either to admit it as Conclusive and follow it, or show it Inconclusive and propose us a better to begin and proceed with Evidently: And, that I may more efficaciously endeavour to bring him, nay provoke him as far as I may [Page 258] with Civility, to a Method particular and pro­per to dissuade, I declare here before all the world that I know his Cause to be so unable to bear it, and hope himself is so prudent, that he will never either venture to allow our Method competent to conclude evidently, nor yet go a­bout to establish a better of his own.

Fourth Way.

8. THe fourth Way of disanulling my Lp's whole Endeavours, is to speak ad hominem and challenge him thus. Your Grounds allow neither Fathers to be Infallible in any Testimo­ny you produce from them to dissuade with, nor yet your self in interpreting Scripture; nor (I conceive) will you say that you see with In­fallible Certainty any Proposition you go about to deduce by Reason (if there be any such in your Dissuasive) to be necessarily consequent from any First or Self-evident Principle, there­fore You are Certain of nothing you alledge in your whole Book. If then His Lordship would please to speak out candidly, he ought to say; I know not Certainly that any thing I say against your Religion is true, yet notwithstanding I would fain dissuade you from holding the Faith of your Forefathers, and to relinquish a Religion you judge unalterable and hope to be sav'd by holding it. Which were it profest and deliver'd ingenuously as it lies at the very bottome of his heart, [Page 259] his Lp's Dissuasive would be a pleasant piece, and lose all power to move any Child of com­mon Sence, nay the vulgar Reason of the wild Irish would be too hard for it. Now, that this ought in due candour to be profest, in case neither the Fathers nor Himself be Infallible in any saying or Proof of theirs, is thus Evidene't. For, since to be Infallible in None, hîc & nunc, (taking in the whole Complexion of assisting Circumstances) is the same as to be hîc & nunc Fallible in All, or Each, and if they be Fallible or may be deceived in Each, they can be Sure of None; it follows that who professes the Fathers & Himself (though using all the means he can to secure him from Errour) Fallible in Each, must, if he will speak out like an honest man, confess he is Sure of None. Let then my Ld. of Downs ei­ther vouch Infallible Certainty in himself reason­ing or Interpreting, or in the Authorities he cites, (I mean Infallible considering their endeavours in complexion with all the means on foot in the world to preserve them so) or else confess that, notwithstanding all means us'd by them they are in each Saying and Proof Fallible, and so him­self sure of never a Motive he brings to dissuade with. Now, to see so Eminent a Writer and chosen out on purpose (as he professes) by the whole Church of Ireland, go about to combat a settled Persuasion, held sacred, unalterable, de­scending from Christ by Attestation of Forefathers the Way to Bliss, &c. and bring no better Argu­ments [Page 260] to do it but such as are (were he put to declare it and would speak out) confessedly Un­certain, is so far from being a competent Dissua­sive from Catholick Faith, that 'tis when laid open (which is here perform'd) as good a Per­suasive for the Generality of Catholicks to hold stedfastly to it as man's Wit can invent; and far better to the weaker sort of Speculaters than to demonstrate the Infallibility of the Ground of Faith. Such advantage Catholick Faith gains by the Opposition from her Adversaries, if they be rightly handled, and their Discourses brought to Grounds.

Fifth Way.

9. THe Fifth Way is built on the fourth, or, indeed on the Protestants voluntary Con­cession. For they granting they have no Demon­stration for the Ground of their Faith, must say they have onely Probability, and consequently that Faith quoad nos is Uncertain, or (to use their own Expression) that Faith in us is an Assent cui non subest dubium, of which we have no doubt, yet cui potest subesse falsum, or. possible to be false, which amounts to this that Faith at large is but highly probable, much lesse their Faith as con­tradistinguisht from ours. Probabilities then be­ing of such a Nature that they do not absolutely weigh down the scale of our Judgment) I mean while they are seen to be but Probabilities as is [Page 261] my Ld's case) it follows that if there be Pro­babilities for the other side, the way to dissuade from It is to put all those probable reasons in the opposit ballance, and then, by comparing them, show they have no considerable weight, counterpos'd to those he brings for his Te­net. Now, that there is no Probability for our side is very hard to be said, since the whole world sees plainly we still maintain the Field against them, nay dare pretend without fearing an absolute baffle (which must needs fol­low had we not at least Probabilities to befriend us) that our Grounds are Evidently and De­monstrably Certain; nay more, dare venture to take the most clearing Method imaginable to stand or fall by, and withal are bold to challenge them that they have no Evident Grounds to be­gin with, nor dare venture to pursue that eviden­cing Method. But my Lds own words in his Li­berty of Prophecying, Sect. 20. §. 2. will be­yond all confute evince it, ad hominem at least, that we have Probabilities, and those strong ones too on our side. I pick out some, leaving out other weighty ones which hisExpressions had too much deform'd. His words are these. Such as are the Beauty and Splendor of their Church; their pompous Service; the Stateliness and Solem­nity of the Hierarchy; their name of CATHO­LICK, which they suppose their own due and to concern no other sort of Christians (he ought have said, which the establisht use of the word and de­riv'd [Page 262] riv'd down to the Successours of those who first had that Name, forces all, even their Adversaries, to give them when they speak naturally; and makes them despair of obtaining it for themselves) The Antiquity of many of their Doctrins; The Conti­nual Succession of their Bishops; their Immediate derivation from the Apostles; the Title to succeed S. Peter; the Multiteudand Variety of people which are of their Persuasion; Apparent Consent with Antiqui­ty in many Ceremonials which other Churches have rejected; a pretended and sometimes an apparent Consent with some elder ages in many matters Doctrinal; the great Consent of one part with an­other in that which most of them affirm to be de fide; the great Differences which are commenced amongst their Adversaries: Their happiness in be­ing Instruments in converting divers Nations: (he should rather have said, All) The Advanta­ges of Monarchical Government, the benefit of which as well as the Inconveniences they dayly en­joy; the Piety and Austerity of their Religious Orders of men and women; the Single Life of their Priests and Bishops; the severity of their Fasts, and their Exterior Observances; the known Ho­liness of some of those persons whose Institutes the Religious Persons pretend to imitate, &c. After which he subjoyns. These things and di­verse others may very easily persuade persons of much reason and more piety to retain that which they know to have been the Religion of their Fore­fathers, which had actual Possession and seizure of men's understandings before the opposit profes­sions [Page 263] had a name. Thus he. By which words 'tis Evident we have Probabilities and high ones too, on our side; else how could they be able very easily to persuade persons of much reason? especially, they having as he sayes more piety; or more then much, that is very much; which argues rather that those motives for Catholick Faith were sutable to Piety or Truths; ot at least exceedingly-seeming-Pious; so as the great Piety of those persons, neither checkt at the practice according to those Motives, nor their much Rea­son reach't to a discovery of their Fallaciousness. Whence, we may gather farther than those Mo­tives so standing for us, are to be rankt in the highest degree of Probability. For since those Persons are confest to be very Pious, that is, very Good, and, so, unapt to be byast by Pas­sion, and withal to have much Reason, 'tis plain the Cause of their Assent to Catholick Faith must be look't for in the Object, and have a wonderful appearance at least of Evidence or highest Probability which is able to conquer and satisfy so Rational and sincere Understandings. This being so, my Ld. cannot in reason own him­self a Dissuader, nor pretend his Discourse has power to dissuade any from our Faith, unless he put down the whole force of what we build our Faith on together with his motives why he judges it false, and then compare or weigh those reasons together, and so conclude his absolutely preponderating. I doubt those very motives [Page 264] deliverd faintly by himself though an Adversary, are such, as, had he laid them open at large as he does his own Objections, he would have been infinitely puzzled to find others to overballance them with any show of Reason. But I will not put him upon so large a task: Let him onely consider on what Grounds the Rule of our Faith is built, to wit on sensible and unmistakable mat­ter of Fact from age to age, and this unmistaka­bleness confirm'd supernaturally by the concern of the Thing, obliging the Beleevers best care to preserve it, and by the Goodness implanted in their hearts by Christ's Doctrin, which kept lively awake that care (as it is at large laid open in Sure-Footing) and then compare it with Descanting upon Scripture's Letter by Hu­man Skills, which is the Ground of the Prote­stants Faith as contra-distinguish't from ours, (or rather of their Dissent or negative Tenets) and show those Grounds preponderating ours, and then his Reader will have some encouragement to heed his Dissuasive, otherwise he can have none.

Sixth Way.

10. A Sixth way is to demand of his Lp. if he will undertake the pretended Evidences he produces whether Reasons or Citations have not also been (pretended at least to be) answer­ed by Learned men on our side, and that the [Page 265] Indifferent part of the world have judg'd the Catholicks were so evidently concluded against by the Protestants, that they were not able in reason to reply. However he ought to have al­ledg'd that in the Evidences he brings the Pro­testants have had the last Reply, that so at least there may be some sleight conjectural likelihood they were Unanswerable or Convictive. This, I say, seems in reason fit to have been voucht, and (as Natural Method requires it) plac't at the very Entrance of his Book, so to give the Reader some faint hopes his perusing it might be perhaps to some purpose. What does my L. of Downs? He professes at the very beginning of his Introduction the direct contrary; For he con­fesses there that the Evidences on both sides (in questions of difference between our Churches) have been so often produc't, &c. It will seem al­most impossible to produce any new matter, or if we could (observe how unlikely he makes it he should conclude any thing) it will not be probable that what can be newly alledg'd can pre­vail more than all which already hath been so often urg'd in these Questions; He should after the words [so often urg'd,] have added and never answer'd, otherwise the often urging signifies nothing as to Convictiveness. Yet, careless of this, he pro­ceeds; But we are not deterred from doing our du­ty by any such considerations, as knowing that the same medicaments, &c. Which, waving the pious Rhetorick, to any Understanding man [Page 266] signifies directly as much as if he should profess, I am resolv'd to write a Book against the Papists whatever comes onit, or whether it be to purpose or no. For, to confess he brings nothing but com­mon objections without undertaking to manifest they were never satisfactorily answered, is to carry it as if meerly to transcribe were sufficient to convince; especially, since the being often urged, is a very probable Argument they have been also often answer'd.

Seventh Way.

11. THe Seventh way to confute him is to run over his whole Book, bringing it into Heads; and then by disabling those Heads, overthrow the Book it self; noting first that I guid my Quotations by its Third Edition in Octavo.

First then we will distinguish it into the Mat­ter of His Dissuasive, that is; those things on which he builds his pretence of Dissuading; and the Manner of it, or the Way he takes to ma­nage that matter.

The matter is divided into his Authorities and his Reasons: Wee'l begin with his Authorities. And, because we have found and shew'd Dr. Pierce's so fam'd Sermon to be the very Idea of inefficacious quoting: 'tis but reason we should manifest how the Dissuasive participates of its Na­ture, by ranking the Citations produc't in it un­der [Page 267] those ten faulty Heads which comprehend­ed the other's Authorities.

To the First Head belong that of Senensis p. 21, and 49. Those two p. 34. Those p. 46, and 52. Maldonat's p. 55. Those p. 68. Those noted with b, c, d, e, and f. p. 88. AEneas Sylvius p. 89. Those three so maliciously and wilfully misrepre­senting the Catholick Tenet. p. 94. To which add that of S. John p. 104. That cluster of Ci­tations p. 111. and that which follows. Eluthe­rius and S. Ambrose p. 113. His Scripture p. 121. His general muster of such as wish't reformation of manners in the Church 125, 126. Now, to vindicate these Testimonies his Lp. should show to what purpose as a Controvertist he al­ledg'd these more than for show. I note that all these fall also under the 2d, and 3^d. Head, and perhaps diverse of the others.

To the 2d. Head appertain, Those of Tent. Bas. Theop. Alexandrinus in the Preface. Tert. p. 28. S. Cypr. and Dionysius p. 57. Ambrose, Hilary and Macarius p. 58. Olympiodorus and Leo p. 59. His Scripture p. 60. and 61. Justin and Origen p. 69. Eusebius and Macarius. p. 70. Ephren and Nazianz. p. 71. Those p. 83, and 84. Ori­gen p. 85. Lyra and those noted g, h, i, k, l, m. p. 88, & 89. The Council of Eliberis and S. Austin p. 100. Cyprian. p. 110, and 114. Those p. 115, and 116. Against all these it is charg'd that they are raw and unapply'd, onely saying something in common which comes not home to the point. [Page 268] Wherefore to validate them His Lp. must show the contrary.

To the third belong those p. 28. Those p. 42. Innocent. p. 47, and p. 92. Clemens and Origen. p. 98. Epiph. p. 100. Those p. 104, 105, 106, 107. The Extravagants p. 113. Those p. 117. and 123. Chrysost. p. 119. Of these he is to show that he has levell'd them directly at a question rightly stated. I charge him with the contrary, and add that most of his other Cita­tions fall under this Faulty Head.

Under the 4^th are rank't those p. 29, 30. Those p. 49. 50, 51, 56. Lombard p. 64. A castro p: 67. S. Austin p. 73. S. Gregory p. 118. Canus. p. 119. These either impugn a Word for a Thing, or some Circumstance or Manner for the Sub­stance.

Under the 5^th the whole pag. 48. and all those p. 62. which are evidently Negative; and, so, Inconclusive.

Under the sixth are comprehended his First p. 20. and his Second p. 21. Bellarmin and Ger­son p. 24. Albertus p. 43. Roffensis and Polydor Virgil p. 45. His first Citation p. 64. Which we affirm to be the Saying of private Authours, or Schoolmen which others do or may contradict. To this Head also belong all those in a manner in his two last chapters, that is, in the better half of his Book.

To the 7^th Head are related that of S. Am­brose in his Preface. S. Austin p. 5, and 6. Of the [Page 269] Emperours p. 12. Leo the 10^th. p. 16. Pius the 4^th, p. 17. the Ephesin Council p. 23. The Council of Trent p. 25. Those three p. 37. Nazianz. p. 58. Tertull. p. 69. The two first p. 73. Those three p. 87. and that p. 90. Those first p. 98. S. Greg. p. 100. His descant on the 7^th Synod p. 101. 102, 103. Symmachus p. 114. And, lastly, my Ld. of Downs his Testimony of himself the page before the Title page, so strangely misrepresent­ing the Minde of that Frontispiece. These I af­firm to be false and not to signify the thing they are expresly quoted for. Diverse of them also are direct Disingenuities, with a craft in the managing of them which argues design, and are inexcusable by mistake.

To the Eighth belong those of Athanasius, La­ctantius and Origen in the Preface. S. Chrysostom p. 72. Theodoret and Gelasius p. 74. In which 'tis easy to be made appear, the words are ambiguous.

Those of the 9^th, or Sayings of Writers on his own side are not worth mentioning: nor yet the 10^th. or pieces of Scripture interpreted by him­self; unless he will show us he proceeds on Evi­dent Principles in sencing them, which so force the meaning he gives them that they can possibly bear no other. Till he does this, all his glosses are presumable to have no other foundation but meer strength of Fancy; and since he professes (p. 9.) that his Dissuasive wholly relies on Scrip­ture, that is on the sence he conceives it to have, the common mode of interpreting Scripture by [Page 270] Fancy which reigns so in the world, will make any sober man doubt, unless he show us the evi­dent Principles which necessitated his Interpre­tation, that his whole Dissuasive is perfectly built on his own Imagination.

The Dissuasive hath two or three other faulty Heads of Citations besides those mention'd; as Vnauthentick ones: such is Origens p. 98. and that against the 7^th. Synod p. 103. Those also which cite an Authour but no place where they are to be found as S. Cyril p. 99. And lastly, brought to impugn Faith, but speaking onely of Alterable practices, as those p. 123. which he is to show Authentick, well-cited and Pertinent; And as well of those as the former he is to make good if he will go to work like a solid man that they have in them the true nature of Te­stimonies, and such Certainty as may safely be rely'd on for Principles of those serious Discourses he makes upon them. See Sure-Foot­ing p. 172, 173, 174.

12. But that I may do right to the Dissuader, I am to confess ingenuously that he has in him one Citation which hath in it the true nature of a Testimony, or depending on the Authour's Know­ledge had by Sence of the present Doctrin of the Church at that time. Now, though it be the Testimony only of one single Father, and so I am not in severity bound by Catholick Grounds which vouch onely Consensus Patrum, (which I understand to mean a Consent of so many and [Page 271] so qualify'd as is apt to convince) to answer it, and not at all by Protestant Grounds which yield them all Fallible; yet I have that regard for any thing that tends (though remotely) to Solidi­ty, that I will even remit something of my own advantage to give it a respectful Consideration. The Testimony is of Gennadius cited by my L. p. 58, & 59. thus. For, after Christ's Ascension into Heaven the Souls of all Saints are with Christ, and going from the body they go to Christ, expect­ing the resurrection of their body, with it to pass into the perfection of perpetual bliss. To which my Ld. subjoyns, and this he delivers as the Doctrin of the Catholick Church. I take this excellent Testimony as put down by himself, to do which the usage of St. Greg. Nazianzen's immediately foregoing, gives me small encou­ragement. In answer then, I affirm that this Te­stimony so insisted and rely'd on as against us, is as plain a declaration of the Faith of our Church at present as any now-adayes Catholick could pronounce. For, since no Catholick holds that any goes to Purgatory but they who die Sinners to some degree, and that all who are Saints are with Christ in Heaven, as is evident by the Churches common language affirming constantly the Saints are in Heaven, and never that the Saints are in Purgatory, but the Souls onely, it is manifest that the words are as expresly for us as we our selves could invent or wish.

I hope it will not wrogMethod, if on this occasion [Page 272] I show how Protestant Writers speed when they bring against us any Testimony of a Father speaking as a Father, that is, declaring that he delivers the sence of the Catholick Church; however in other Testimonies which speak not narratively, or matter of Fact, the very nature of words joyn'd with the variety of their Circum­stances must needs afford room for ambiguity and several Glosses. I affirm then that this Te­stimony not onely is not in the least opposit to us, but is directly opposit to the Protestants in ano­ther point of Faith in which we differ. To dis­cover this let us reflect on the words [After Christes Ascension into Heaven the Souls of all Saints are with Christ,] and ask what mean these words After Christs Ascension? And first 'tis Evident it puts a distinction between the Souls of Saints before Christs Ascension and After it in some Respect, and what is this Respect? most ex­presly this that the Souls of the Saints After Christes Ascension go from the body to Christ, that is, that before the Ascension none did. The a­vowed Doctrin of the Catholick Church, pro­sessing that those who die Saints in the Law of Grace go straight to Heaven, but that the best Saints before our Saviours dying for them and As­cending with them, did not. Whence also we hold that Christes descending into Hell, was to free them from that State of Suspence and Want of their strongly desired and hopet for Bliss. Ac­cording to that Hymn of S. Ambrose and S. Au­gustin, [Page 273] in the Common-prayer-book, so oft said over by rote but never reflected on, When thou hadst overcome the Sharpness of death thou didst open the Kingdome of Heaven to all Believers: Signifying plainly that no Believers sound Heaven open for them till after Christ's death. By the Success of this one Testimony is seen how utterly the Protestant Cause would be overthrown by way of Testimony as well as Reason, were Cita­tions distinguish't, brought to Grounds, and those onely admitted from the Fathers in which 'tis manifest they speak as Fathers or Witnessers of what is the present Churches doctrin.

To close up this Discourse about the Dissua­der's Citations. He is to show us first that they fall not under the Faulty Heads to which they are respectively assign'd, or under diverse others of those Heads. Next, that they have in them the nature of Testimonies: And, lastly, (which is yet harder) that though they have in them the nature of Testimonies, their Authority is Certain and their language unambiguous so that they may be safely rely'd on for Principles or Grounds of a solid Discourse; This if he shows of any one citation which strikes at our Faith, I promise him very heartily to subscribe to the validity of all the rest.

13. Thus much for his Authorities. Next should follow a Refutation of his Reasons produc't against our Faith; for, as for those against our School­Divines or Casuists they concern not me as a Con­trovertist: [Page 274] Let him and them fight it out. Now, Reasons that strike at our Faith must either be against the Ground of Faith, and those shall be consider'd in my Answer to his First Section; or against, points of Faith: And these, may pro­ceed two wayes; First by showing those points Incomprehensible to our Natural Reason, or un­sutable to our Faney; and this way he frequent­ly takes, making a great deal of game upon such subjects, as any Atheist may do by the same way in points common to him and us. But this hurts us not in the least; in regard we hold not Myste­ries of Faith Objects of Human Reason; nor Spiritual Things the Objects of Fancy; and, so, these Reasons need no farther Answer. The o­ther way Reasons against Points of Faith may pro­ceed, is to show those Points contradictory to some Evident Principles, at least to some other known or else acknowledg'd Truth? And these were worth answering; But such as these I find none in his whole Book, rather that he builds his sleight Descants or Discourses on some controvertible Text or Citation, relying on them as firmly as if they were First Principles.

Indeed p. 65. the Dissuader tells us of a De­monstration of his for the Novelty of Transub­stantion and that a plain one too: But, I shal manifest shortly from the very words of the Author Peter Lombard, on which his Plain De­monstration relies, that 'tis either a plain mistake or plain Abuse of him; nay argues the direct con­trary to what the Dissuader product it for.

Some Consequences also he deduces ad ho­minem against diverse points of our Faith, built on our own Concessions or Allow'd Truths taken from the Fathers; by which he attempts to over­throw it: But these Consequences are so strange­ly Inconsequent, and those tenets he would coun­terpose so far from Contradictory, that 'tis hard to imagin whence his Reason took its rise to leap into such remote conclusions. I'le instance in two, found p. 49, and 50. That the Conflagration of the last day, and the Opinion of some Fathers that the Souls were detain'd in secret receptacles till the day of Judgment, do both destroy in­termediate Purgatory. Which Consequences if he will make good, I will vield his whole Book to be Demonstrative and Unanswerable.

In a word, all the good Reasons he brings, are taken from some of our Divines writing against o­thers, and he hath done himself the right to chuse the best; which levelled against the opinion of a less able Divine in stead of a point of Faith, must needs bear a very plausible show.

14. Next follows the Manner how he manages this Matter; which in the civillest Expressions I use I must call so many sleights to delude his Reader; and those so craftily coucht that none but a Scholler can discern the snare.

The first and Fundamental one is his wilfully mis-stating the Question all over. As p. 16. when he confounds the making new Symbols or Creeds, which signifies the putting together into a Profes­sion [Page 276] of Faith Articles formerly-held (as did S. Athanasius and the Nicene Council) with ma­king new Articles. All his whole Section 3^d. of Indulgences, which he makes to signify meerly those which pardons sins or pains after this life; whereas yet himself confesses p. 40. that those were not defind by our Church. So also his next Section of Purgatory, by which we mean a Pe­nal State for those who die imperfectly contrite, and from which they are deliverable by the pray­ers of the Church Militant: Instead of which he impugns sometimes material Fire, sometimes the duration of it. It were tedious to reckon all his Faults in this kind, scarce one point escapes this voluntary misprision; that is, he scarce dis­courses steadily (though perhaps he may glance at it accidentally) against one point of our Faith rightly stated or as taken in the declarative words of our Church. Now, common Honesty tel­ling us that if one be to impugn any mans Te­net, the first thing natural method leads him to is to put down that man's very words profest by him to express his Tenet, and not what others deem, conceit or talk about the same mat­ter; my Ld. ought in due candour have first produc't the words of the Council of Trent, and then have leveld his opposition against them: and not have told us what School divines say about the point; or (having thus conceald the point it self) argu'd against some Circumstance or Manner of it instead of the Substance. Now [Page 277] this kind of carriage so evidently preternatural, and so constantly us'd, forces me to judge it sprung from voluntary Insincerity and not from Accident or Inadvertency.

15. His second Disingenuity at once Evidences and aggravates the former. 'Tis this, that, when by such a management he hath made the point odious, he uses to bring in our Churches Tenet in the rear; and, whereas Her speaking abstract­edly frees her absolutely from the invidious parti­cularities he would fasten on her Faith, he (as if he had resolv'd to abuse her, right or wrong) makes that very thing which should clear her tend to disgrace her more: As is seen p. 40. where he is forc't to confess our Church defin'd Indul­gences onely in general terms (that is, none of his former Discourses so particularizing toucht her or her Faith) and then cries out the Council durst not do this nor the other: That is, she durst not do, and consequently did not do, what all his former discourse would persuade the world our Church had done: Worse then this is his In­stance p. 60. where after he had pretended in the whole 4^th. Section to impugn Purgatory, which he had confounded with School-opinions to p. 45. with the time of delivery p. 48. 51. 56. with a state of merit or demerit p. 57. 58. with his own Parenthesisses p. 59. and told us some stories of Revelations and Apparitions which seem'd to him most ridiculous; Lastly confounded it with Simon Magus his Opinion, Plato's or Cicero's [Page 278] conceit, and Virgils Fiction; After all this he adds, this doctrin which in all the parts of it is un­certain, and in the late Additions to it in Rome is certainly false, is yet with all the Faults of it past into an Article of Faith by the Council of Trent. Now these big words All the parts of it, the late Additions, All the Faults of it, and all these said to be past into an Article of Faith by the Council of Trent, would make one think that Council had defin'd all that medley he had hud­dled together, for Christian Faith; but looking in the Council, not a Syllable of any of these is to be found, but barely these few words, that There is a Purgatory, and that the Souls there detain'd are help't by the prayers of the Faithful. Where we see but two parts at most, for there are but two Propositions in the whole definition: Again, the late Additions which he sayes are defin'd by the Council can be but one at most, that is, the second Proposition, that those Souls are helpt by the Faithfull's prayers; And lastly, when he sayes this Doctrin of Purgatory with all its Faults is past by the Council into an Article of Faith, the large word All its Faults can mean onely the same second Proposition; there being nothing defin'd, besides the very doctrin of Purga­tory it self, but this. Which kind of carriage of his, so sinisterly descanting on the point all along, not pretending to put down our Tenet at all till towards the End, then deforming it to be a bundle of God knows how many Faults defin'd [Page 279] for Faith, putting all these upon the Council of Trent, and yet avoiding to put down the words of the Council at all (though so few) lest they should discover he had lavish't out at randome, show evidently the Dissuader stands not much upon Conscience or Sincerity, so he can colour and hide his disingenuities, and he is the greatest master of that craft I ever yet met with. Now, to avoid this Calumny (it being frequent in his book) I discourse thus, Points of Faith are Su­preme Truth which stand in the abstract, and it is the work of Divines not of the Church-Repre­sentative to draw long trains of Consequences from them, and dive particularly into the Man­ners how they are to be explicated, or into their Extents if it be some Power: Nor is this particu­lar in the point of Indulgences or Purgatory, but is found in all the other points of Faith, as every learned Divine knows very well. Again, 'tis against the Principles of Universal & Supream Go­vernment for a Church Representative defining Faith to descend out of its highest Sphere and en­gage in particularities (especially if they belong not to them, as School-opinions do not) but one­ly to order in common, and leave the Applica­tion of their Common Orders to those who are to execute, or to Inferiour Officers; and, should they engage in particulars which are both below their highest office, and oft-times contingent and uncertain, they would commit the greatest im­prudence in the world. Since then my Ld acknow­ledges [Page 280] here p. 40. that the Council orders all hard and Subtil questions concerning Purgatory, all that is suspected to be false, and all that is un­certain, and whatever is curious and supersti­tious, and for filthy lucre be laid aside, he should have shown that it befitted a Council's Gravity to descend to particulars, or to define negative­ly to the School-opinion concerning the Church­es Treasure, and not rather order in Common and leave it to Inferior Officers to execute as cir­cumstances should work upon their Prudence: which is, that in Opinions which pretend a Sub­ordination to and Coherence with Faith, Di­vines should first clear their Incoherence with it ere They engage their Authority against them, and then to do it efficaciously being back't with the Majesty of the Council's Orders.

My Lds words that the Fathers of the Coun­cil set their Doctors as well as they can to defend all the new, curious and scandalous Questions, and to uphold the gainful trade, is indeed to the purpose, but withal (by his leave) an unhand­some and most false Calumny against so many Persons of Honour and Quality; and so Invidious a Charge, that could he have proov'd it, he had not slubber'd it over so carelesly without offer­ing any proof for it but his bare word; nor with a sleight proper to himself, immediately af­ter he had directly charged it, have half recant­ed it with However it be with them: that is, whe­ther they did any such thing or no, as he had so [Page 281] lately and so pressingly challeng'd them to have done. And this I note as a Third Head of his dis­ingenuity, frequent in his Book; that he brings very good proofs for diverse particulars which concern not our Church, but when it comes to the very point and which directly strikes at her, his own bare word, We know, or, it is Cer­tain, (p. 54. l. 22. p. 62. p. 63. p. 67. &c.) is the best Argument he produces.

16. A fourth disingenuity is his Perverting wilful­ly the Intention of Catholick Authours. How he hath dealt with the Council of Trent in the two late mention'd points of Indulgences and Purgatory is already shown. In like manner has he treated the Expurgatory Indies; For, where­as by the word Purgari & emaculari in a Citation of his own p. 21, it is manisest they meant but to amend Corruptions of the late by the Antient Copies, he makes as though out of gripes of Conscience (forsooth) that the Fathers were not right on our side, they had therefore purposely gone about to corrupt the Fathers themselves, (p. 18. and 19.) so to make them on our side be­cause we could not find them so. An Attempt impossible to fall into head of any man not stark mad; For this altering the Fathers could not have serv'd our turn unless we had made it known and publish't it; and, if made Publick could not be imagin'd to do the deed neither, for the Fraud must needs be made as Publick as the Book: So that an Action thus intended must [Page 282] be a Human Action without a Motive or Reason, which is a Contradiction. Worse is what fol­lows p. 21, & 22. but withal the malice of it is more easily discoverable: For 'tis evident by the particulars he mentions in those Indexes or Tables that the Printer or Correcter who made them was an Heretick, and put in those Tables what his perversness imagin'd was found in the Fathers: Whence it was but fit his whole In­dex should be expung'd: Not that we fear the Fathers, but that we disallow the wicked in­tentions of the Index-maker, who abuses the Fathers to injure us.

So p. 62. he would make Catholikes them­selves dissatisfy'd of the Ground of Transubstanti­ation, because they say 'tis not express'd in Scrip­ture: as if Catholiks held that nothing could be of Faith but whats expresly found there; where­as he well knows they universally teach and hold the contrary. But his abuse of Peter Lombard p. 64. & 65. is very remarkable, though perhaps it might spring out of his little Experience in School-divinity. To make Transubstantiation seem a Novelty he would persuade his Reader Lombard sayes, he could not tell whether there was any Substantial change or no: Whereas that Authour Dist. 10. brings Testimonies of the Fathers to prove it, and concludes thence that 'Tis evident that the Substance of Bread is convert­ed into Christ's Body, and the Substance of Wine into his Blood, which is what the Council of [Page 283] Trent calls Transubstantiation. And there ends that Distinction; After which immediately succeeds the 11^th. De modis Conversionis, of the Manners of this Conversion; and of these he sayes he can­not sufficiently define whether this Conversion be Formal, or Substantial, or of another kind. So that Substantial here supposes the Conversion of the Substance of Bread into Christes Body, and is put by him onely to signify one of the manners of this Conversion; which he explicates to be, Sic Substantiam converti in Substantiam ut haec essentialiter fiat illa, that one Substance is so con­verted into another Substance that the one is made essentially the other. Whereas others who also hold Transubstantiation do yet explicate that Conversion by putting the body of Christ to suc­ceed under the same Accidents in place of the Substance of Bread annihilated. Now this Manner of Conversion (calld by him a Substan­tial Manner, in opposition to Formal, which he makes to be a Conversion both of Substance and Accidents, and not in Opposition to the change of one Substance into another) he leaves Unde­fin'd; but the Conversion it self of the Substance of Bread into the body of Christ which is our point, he both defines, hold, proves out of Fa­thers (Disc. 10.) and calls them Hereticks that deny it: How unfortunate is my L. to quote an Authour as not holding Transubstantiation, then to call that Citation a plain Demonstration that it was not known in his dayes; whereas he both [Page 284] professes to hold it, and, by alledging Fathers for it, evidences he holds it was held anciently; and, lastly, gives my L. such hard language for not holding it himself. Whether it be like­ly my L. should light by some accident in read­ing Peter Lombard onely on the 11th. Dist. and never read or light on the end of the 10th. let Indifferent men judge. I onely desire the Rea­der to observe how ill my L. comes of with his plain Demonstration, and to remark that he ever succeeds worst when he most ayms at a good and solid proof; the reason of which is because Truth being Invincible, the neerer one closes to grapple with her the worse still he is foil'd. Those few Instances may suffice for the 4th. Kind of the Dissuaders disingenuities, which is to pervert the Intentions of his Authours; of which sort, were it worth the pains, I would undertake to show neer an hundred in my Lds. Dissuasive. This piece of Art being now so customary to him that 'tis even grown into a second Na­ture.

17. His fifth kind of disingenuity is a most wilful one and most frequent too, for it takes up far the better half his book. 'Tis this that he rakes up together all the less solid or ill Opinions and Ca­ses (and sometimes deforms the good ones) of some private Writers in the Church which he will needs lay upon the Church her self as Mi­stress of our Faith. Nay, so strangely unjust he is in this Particular, that whereas it evidently [Page 285] clears our Faith, disengages the Church, and shows it but Opinion when other Catholick Do­ctors uncontrolledly write against such an Opi­nion or Explication, himself often alledges that very thing which should clear the Church, and and makes use of it to her farther disgrace; First, making the School and Church, Private Opinions, or Explications and Faith all one; and, at next, that the difference amongst such Opiners and Explicaters argues our difference in Faith; How strange a malice is this! Was there ever any time since the Apostles in which there were not in the Church diverse persons and even some Governours bad in their lives, and also Er­roneous in their Opinions, when the Abstracted­ness of Christian Faith restrain'd not their Un­derstandings from descending to particulars nor secur'd them in such discourses depending much upon human Sciences? Do not the best Cham­pions of Protestants object to the Ancient Fa­thers themselves such Errors in Opinions? Yet no ancient Heretick was ever so weak as to make that an Argument against the Church of those times. Did not many Protestant Writers holdma­ny Roman-Catholick Tenets, as may be seen at large in the Protestants Apology? Yet no Catho­lick in his Wits thought therefore the Church of England her self was Roman-Catholick, I have heard that one of their Chief Ecclesiastical Offi­cers, namely Bishop Bilson, writ a book purposely to justify the Hollanders Rebellion against the King [Page 286] of Spain, maintaining that Subjects might in some Cases rise against their Soveraigns and turn them out of their Government? And yet Ca­tholicks are far from that peevishness to esteem the Protestants disloyal in their Principles but honour them highly for the contrary Virtue, even though they are pleased to permit us their Fel­low-sufferers for the same loyal Cause, to be abused and branded publickly for Traytors by every disloyal Scribbler. And, to come neerer home, did not my L. himself formerly write some strange Opinions, (I need not name them) yet no Catholick was ever so absurd as to charge his Church with those Tenets. But, which is yet far worse, he imputes to the Catholick Church such licentious Cases, which not onely Private Authours may and do freely contradict but even Mulritudes of Church-Officers, name­ly almost all the Bishops in France in Diocesan Synods, nay the Head of the Church himself has disapproov'd in condemning the Apology writ for them. Yet, for all this, all must be our Churches fault whether she will or no; and our Doctrin, though she condemns it. Was ever such a disingenuous Writer heard of! But what aggravates most the Case is, neither the Church of England nor the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, nor any Officer or Bishop of hers that we heard of did ever in any solemn Act blemish those Au­thours cited in the Protestants Apology by condemning their Books, nor yet those writ by [Page 287] the Dissuader, though they judg'd them amiss; but, on the contrary his person is advanc't and chosen for their Champion; and yet our Writers are soberer & more candid than to impute to their Church any of these not-yet-disavow'd Faults, whereas my Ld. (for want of better Proofs) will needs clap upon our Church any misreasonings of private men, though our chief Church Go­vernour and many Inferiour ones have discoun­tenanc't and blemish't them. Nor is it onely e­very defect human nature is liable to in reason­ing or acting which must be made our Churches Crimes, but every unfavorable Circumstance Man's Nature can light into, and their defective Effects are all made by the Dissuader's Logick to spring from meer Popery; nay the very National Rudeness of his wild Irish is (in his Preface) con­founded by his carriage with our Churches Do­ctrin; and the Inability of their Teachers with much Rhetorick complained of, and charactered to be Popery, when himself enjoyes the revenue which should educate them better and encou­rage them.

Against this kind of unreasonable procedure in the Dissuader, I levelled those Corollaries from Corol. 31. to. 40. which I intreat my Reader to review and him to consider particularly. In the mean time I would ask him on this occasion a few short Questions. May not any one remain a Catholick, and never hold or practice these Ca­ses and Opinions? Do not Catholicks impugn [Page 288] them as much as Protestants? Does he find any of those Opinions or Cases in our Catechisms, or any Command of our Church to hold or act them, nay even in that most common point of extending Indulgences to the next world; but they who will use them, may, who will not, need not? How then does he hope to dissuade from Catho­lick Religion, by impugning that which touches not that Religion nor concerns any ones being of it? And why does not he rather fear all sober men will see his aym by this declamatory kind of Opposition to endeavour to gain credit as a great Anti-papist, and not to convince solidly his Readers, whose experience (if they know any thing) enables them to give a ready and satisfactory answer in their own thoughts to all those Questions I have now ask't, and so, to confute neer three parts of His Book. He saw it himself, and though he carries it on all along as if he were willing all should be thought the Doctrin of our Church or Faith, yet, fearing the Calumny is too manifest to be cloak't, he provides excuses and Evasions before hand, in his Title (p. 127.) saying, The Church of Rome, AS IT IS AT THIS DAY DISORDER'D, teaches doctrines and uses practices which are in themselves or in their immediate CONSEQUEN­CES direct Impieties, &c. So that he speaks of our Church precisely as having some disorders in her, and that they lead to ill onely by Conse­quences drawn from such disorderly Tenets; and [Page 289] who's the drawer of these Consequences? Him­self. But, grant his position that there are Dis­orders in the Church (I mean not in Faith, held Universally and obligatorily, but in unobligato­ry Opinions and Practices) I ask does he think there was ever any time in which there were not some Disorders in the Church, or ever will be while Original corruption lasts? Does he [...] the very time of the Apostles was exempt from such frailty; or that S. Paul complain'd for no­thing of the Pastors in those primitive and purest times (Phil. 2. v. 21.) that Omnes quae sua sunt quaerunt non quae sunt Jesu Christi! Again, thinks he it any wonder that a disorder'd Tenet or a Falshood in a point belonging to manners is apt to lead by consequence to ill actions; none doubting but that as Virtue is the connatural Ef­fect of Truth, so is Vice of Falshood. What hath he got then by this kind of Proceeding, ta­king up better half his book? Onely this, he hath proov'd there is Original Sin in the world, and so it's Effects, Ignorance and Interest; Again, let him consider how disputative an Age this last Century has been, and what infinit multitudes of Writers concerning Opinionative Points of all sorts have been in our Church, how volumi­nous, how descending to particulars, or Cases, and this both in School-divinity, Morals and Canon­Law; and then let him speak seriously whether he can conceive it possible in human Nature, there should not be much Contingency in such [Page 290] an Universality depending on their private Rea­sons; whereas scarce two men debating the same point particularly, can light into the self-same Consequences, but differ in their deductions. Thinks he it possible many should not be Igno­rant and so miscarry casually, many Passionate and incline to some Tenets because sutable to their humour; many conceited of their new In­ventions, and thence, judging their Consequence to be connected with the point of Faith, cry it up to be de side in their opinion, and alledge that, denying this, you by consequence deny Faith? This being so, nay impossible to be other­wise, and every Reader that sees the Dissua­der's unreasonableness against us easily judging he would pick out the worst Instances he could find in that Infinity of Authours, and (the very complexion of his style being wholly Invidious) expose them to shame with all the most disgrace­ful Rhetorick so great a wit as his heighten'd by that bitterest of Passions could deliver; he will easily be able to make an Estimate what he may judge of my Ld's performance in this kinde.

18. But now whates all this to to our Church? For his Title p. 127. tells us 'tis the Church of Rome which teaches such Doctrins and uses such Practices, &c. The Notion of Church, as one would conceive, is terminated and bounded pre­cisely within the limits of its Definition, a Body of the Faithful; and Logick tells every one who [Page 291] understands it, that, since we work by abstracted notions, or conceive a thing now thus, now o­therwise, we must not confound those notions but hold strictly to the formal meaning of the word which expresses the thing we undertake for. We are then to expect in honesty, that, since the Dissuader charges all those Doctrins and Practices on our Church, all his Testimonies to fasten them on her should be of our Churches words, or Expressions of the Churches Faith; we need not doubt then but they will all be Defi­nitions of General Councils. Let the Margent inform us. The first Citation is of Navarr's En­chiridion, a private Casuist. The 2^d. of Regi­naldus, another Casuist. The 3^d, and 4^th, of Sotus and Medina, two other School-Divines. Then comes in Reginaldus again, & then Sotus a­gain; & in this tenour he proceeds for 133 pages; that is from p.127, to p. 260. not quoting the Council of Trent past 3, or 4. times (but once, as I remember, the words of that Council) and as oft abusing it by his strange misconstru­ctions.

19. For instance take his first Quotation of that Council p. 135; which I the more insist on, be­cause on that occasion I shall lay open his crafty and voluntary defiling every point he touches with most abominable misrepresentations, and [...]hose vizarded with an outward form of Holiness and such devout expressions as a Saint from Hea­ven would scarce [...], lest prudent men should [Page 292] think it too much; which I intended for a SIXTH Head of his disingenuities.

After then p. 133, and 134. he had made all the most odious Cases he could pick out the Ro­man Doctrin, because the books of three or four Authours perused and allow'd by two or three others as not opposit to Faith, (See Coroll. 33.) that is, the private Reasons of half a dozen Di­vines conceiv'd so, which he amplifies beyond all bounds of moderation, that one would judge a General Council or Provincial one, at least that many Church Governours or Bishops had recom­mended those Cases to be held and follow'd; at length he tells you sadly p. 134. that This, though INFINITLY INTOLERABLE, yet it is but the BEGINNING OF SORROWS; Then fol­low the SUPER-INFINIT Sorrows themselves; the first of which Sorrows is the Council of Trent's Doctrin; and, if it be Naught, 'tis certainly the Chief of them, and so (had I a word to express it so high which the Dissuader's Rhetorick would easily reach) it should be phrased something a­bove Super-infinit; in regard by the Sacredness of it's Authority it would be a Ground and an Abetment to all the wicked Cases issuing from it. Ere I come to examin it I premise this note that such Testimouies as This are onely to my Ld's purpose if he will argue against our Churche [...] Doctrin; In the success of these then lies the whole Trial of our Cause. We have seen how he has sped formerly in his plain Demonstra­tion, [Page 293] and his onely efficacious Testimony of a Fa­ther; let's see how he thrives in this, which we must acknowledge beyond all Evasion to ex­press the sence of our Church.

20. His last §. then p. 134. begins with describing a true and Perfect Contrition and its Sacred Re­commends as sufficient to blot out Sin; All this is well, nor is there, as far as I know, a Catho­like in the world that was ever taught other­wise; what follows? Yet, sayes he, the Church of Rome does not allow it to be of any value unless it be joyn'd with a desire to confess their sins to a Priest, saying, that a man by Contrition is not reconcil'd to God without their Sacramental or Ritual Pennance actual or votive. And this is decreed by the Council of Trent, &c. Then comes thundring in a Declamation fraught with such Invidious yet Holy Rhetorick that any honest unexamining Reader would almost lay his Salvation on't, he had all the Reason in the world. Which things (adds he) besides that is a­gainst Scripture, & the promises of the Gospell, and not onely teaches for Doctrins the Commandments of Men, but evacuates the Goodness of God by their Traditions, and weakens & discourages the best re­pentance & prefers repentance towards men before that which the Scripture calls Repentance towards God, & Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. And there ends his paragraph, in which his passion was in such hast that he forgot to add an Also to answer to the word Besides. Now Ld have mercy upon usl [Page 294] What strangely wicked Doctrin is this which can occasion such a clutter of Devotion and Inve­ctiveness jumbled together! Attend Reader, and from one Instance which I pick't not out purposely, but took the first that my discourse led me to accidentally, learn the nature of all the rest; for scarce one passage in his whole book is free from this Fault.

The Council Sess. 14. as it is commonly rec­kon'd, (not 4^th, as perhaps his Printer mistook it) c. 4. speaks of Contrition; which it distinguishes into Perfect Contrition, the same my Ld describes; and declares that It reconciles a man to God be­fore this Sacrament (to wit, of Pennance) be actu­ally received; and Imperfect or Attrition, spring­ing from Consideration of the vileness of Sin, or fear of Hell, not from Love of God as its motive; and to this it requires actually the Sacrament of Pennance, this being properly efficacious to ad­vance by Preparations to it beforehand, (which Attrition gives them will to make use of) and the whole course of Exercises in it or belonging to it, that Attrition into perfect or properly call d Con­trition: And (speaking of the first sort or pro­per Contrition,) It adds farther, that Reconcilia­tion to God is not to be ascrib'd (ipsi Contritio­ni sine Sacramenti voto QUOD IN ILLA INCLUDITUR) to Contrition without de­sire of the Sacrament WHICH IS INCLU­DED IN IT; that is, in Contrition. Thus the Council. I note

First, the Dissuaders craft in not putting down the words of the Council. A practice frequent with him (as I show'd before) and purposely omitted, as appear'd evidently then and will do more now, because not at all fa­vourable to his insincere humour of deforming all he meddles with.

Next, by this means, he, handling onely Per­fect Contrition, makes our Church require actual or votive Pennance to Its Sufficiency; Whereas the Council expresly voids any necessity of actual Pennance to this or proper Contrition, and onely requires it to Attrition.

3^ly. He omits the words which is included in it; which put down had disanull'd all his whole discourse and cleard our Church from all his Calumnies; For this shows the Councils sence to be that Contrition alone, if qualifyed as it ought to be, reconciles to God; but that to be quali­fy'd as it ought to be, it includes a purpose or desire of doing other duties incumbent on the sinner by reason of his Sin; and signalizes this particularly of his duty to the Church in resol­ving to come to the Sacrament of Pennance. Let us parallel it. Suppose the Council had said. True sorrow for sin will save you; but not, unless you have a will to restore what you have stoln, for o­therwise your sorrow is not true, in regard true sorrow for Sin includes a will to rectify what sin had disordered. Where's now the occasion of [Page 296] my Lds. ranting declamation of the Councils going against Scripture, and the promises of the Gospel, teaching for Doctrins the Commandments of men, of evacuating the goodness of God by Traditions, of weakening and discouraging the best Repentance, and of preferring Repentance towards men, before that which the Scripture calls Repentance towards God and Faith in our, Ld. Jesus Christ. Yet, supposing that sinners are commanded by Christs Law to give account of their Souls to the Church and receive their Ab­solution and Pennance from her, as well as they are to restore what's stoln, the case is undenia­bly parallell.

But, since many other duties are included in Contrition, as an obligation to restore credit or goods unjustly taken away, to repair temporal damages our Neighbours have incurr'd by us, and the spiritual ones of Scandal, asking pardon for affrontive Injuries, curing our former Un­charitableness and wordliness by giving Almes, and such like: a purpose of all which, if our Contrition be right, ought to be included in it; 'tis worth Enquiry why the Council particularises this of coming to the Sacrament of Pennance. And to Catholicks who understand the nature of that Sacrament, the Answer is so easy that 'tis needless. For, after the heart is contrite or substantially turn'd, there remains no more to be done but to wash of the tainture of bad In­clinations Mortal Sin uses to leave behind it, and [Page 297] to make Satisfaction to our Neighbour or the World: Wherefore, because the wholsome Sa­crament of Pennance, rightly us'd, is ordain'd and apt of its own Nature both to wash away those remaining staines by sorrowful and penal actions enjoyn'd by Church disciplin, and also to ty men to the Execution of all due Satisfa­ction to the injur'd World; hence, the heart be­ing truly converted interiorly, this Sacrament is the most Efficacious means to set all else right, & so to come to it is the onely remaining duty (as in­cluding all else) and for that reason 'tis particu­larly exprest by the Council that true Contrition must include a purpose to come to it; because, if true, it must needs include a desire to take the best means to rectify what's amiss. And, lest a Sinner should be apt to conciet and say within himself thus, I am truly sorry for my offending God, there is then no more to be thought on; the Council most prudently declares that, That will not do unless they desire likewise to set right what they had disorder'd, of which the Church is to be the Judge and careful Overseer, and so 'tis their duty to the Church to let her take Cog­nizance of it. The Dissuader did ill then to phrase it Ritual Pennante, as if onely a dry Ce­remony had been enjoyn'd by the Council ere the Soul could be reeoncild to God, whereas 'tis a Sacrament of its own nature executively satis­factory of all the kinds of duties, and efficaci­ously reparative of all the disorders which are [Page 298] the Arrears and Effects of a sinful Action: But he did worse to omit the Councils words, and so leave out totally Quod in illâ includitur, which candidly put in had made all his Process to no purpose: But worst of all, when he could not but see all this, to inveigh against so innocent, so rational, charitable and wise Proceedure of this Grave and Venerable Council with the harshest Expressions that ever were clad in Holy Lan­guage. And, it were good my Ld. who is so high against our Casuists, would let us know by what Cases he guides himself in his whole Book, where he sprinkles Scripture Holy-water all over as if every thing were a Devil he met with, and here particularly, in wilfully publickly and caus­lesly calumniating not a private person, but an whole Council consisting of so great a multi­tude of the most Grave, most Venerable, and most Sacred Personages in the whole Christian World.

21. A seventh kind of his Disingenuities is his Exaggerating and magnifying manner of Expres­sion; by virtue of which he can make any mote seem a Beam; and though the Fault would ly in a very small room, perhaps require none at all, yet, as men blow up Bladders with wind, he can so swell and puff it up by plying it with his aiery Rhetorick, that it looks as big as a moun­tain; whereas come neer it, examin and grasp it, that will not now fill your hand which before took up the whole prospect of your Eye. He [Page 299] can also by placing things in false lights make even the greatest Virtue seem a Vice, and then make that new-created vice a monstrous one; Both which were visibly discovered in our last Instance out of the Council of Trent.

22. I pass by many other of his petty Disingenui­ties; as his interposing Parenthesisses of his own; speaking most confidently where he has least Ground, so to make up the want of this with abundance of the other. His confounding good Cases with bad; Some private Bigotteries with acts of true Piety; Books approved by the Church with those of private Authours; under­standing spiritual things grosly and materially; as in his whole business of Exorcisms: In which, were I in as merry an humour as his Lp. is there, I could make his discourse there far more ridicu­lous than he makes any thing found in the Churches Ritual, which book we are onely to defend or he to object, if he would deal can­didly. Himself confesses the Inquisition of Spain corrected one of those Books, he names, and I know no obligation any man has either to use or abet the others; and then to what purpose were they brought against the Church?

23. The last greatest and most notorious disinge­nuity is his most unworthy and most Intolerable Calumny against all Catholicks that they are Traytors, and unfit for human Society. He names not these words but that he endeavours to have the thing beleeved by his Readers appears [Page 300] thus: The Title of his third Chapter, p. 260. is this: The Church of Rome. teaches Doctrins which in many things are destructive of Christian society in General, and of Monarchy in special. We see here what he charges on our Church: and, since 'tis known all Catholicks not onely are oblig'd to hold, but to hold as Sacred and of Faith what the Church of Rome teaches, nay, to be ready to dy for that Faith, 'tis plain his En­deavours are to make us pass in the Opinion of his Readers for persons who hold Treason and Villany Lawful, nay Sacred, and that we are ready to dy and hope to be sav'd by such dam­nable points of Faith. Nor will his false-hearted Pretence, p. 462. exempt any, while 'tis known that nothing is more deeply rooted in our hearts than our obligation to beleeve as the Church be­leeves and teaches. In particular he assures his Reader, p. 462. that, No Contracts, Leagues, Societies, Promises, Vows or Oaths, are suffici­ēnt security to him that deals with one of the Church of Rome: And p. 279. that the Do­ctrins of our Church are great Enemis to the Dig­nity and Security, to the Powers and Lives of Princes.

'Tis not fit we should use here the Language proper to express what's the due return and ge­nuin brand for so malicious a Calumny: But perhaps it were not unfit nor injuring the mode­sty of Subjects humbly to beg Protection for our Innocence against the virulent tongues and pens [Page 301] of our uncharitable accusers; whom neither Reason nor Experience will restrain from going on still to stigmatize us all with the Faults of a few rash (or sometimes misconstru'd) Writers. But when writes the Dissuader this? After such fresh Testimonies of the unanimous Loyalty of Catholicks to His sacred Majesty and his Royal Father, spending their lives and Fortunes in his service. And against whom? Against a Multi­tude in which are found very many Noble and Honourable Personages, and many thousands of others very considerable and remarkable for their Fidelity. How strange a Wickedness is it then to calumniate so highly and so publickly so many eminently deserving and Honourable Sub­jects of his Majesty! Now, the mischiefs natu­rally apt to flow from such a Calumny are these. It breeds ill Correspondence between our Fel­low-Subjects and us, and makes us ill look't up­on by them, which violates Civil Unity so neces­sary for the Peace and strength of a Kingdome; especially being between those two parties who have ever been so friendly and brotherly in their Affection and Allegiance to their Prince, and Fellow-Acters and Sufferers for his Cause; It dis­courages Loyalty to see that after such best Testi­monies of it we are not even able to obtain a bare acknowledgment that we are Loyal, but that it shall still be lawful for any one at plea­sure to brand us for Traytors, and this publick­ly in print in the face of all England? And last­ly [Page 302] (were not our known Fidelity too strong an An­tidote for his malice) it tends to breed a conceit in our Governours that we are not to be endur'd in any State, and onely fit to be ruin'd and extirpa­ted; not to mention the breach of Charity ensuing such unworthy Criminations, which must needs breed very many Feuds, and unneighbourliness between private persons all over England and Ire­land: Nor will there be ever any hearty Union in Church or State, till thatwicked Uncharita­bleness of affixing upon a whole party the faults of some few be totally laid aside.

24. Now on what does my Ld ground these hor­rid Charges against our Church, or how proceeds he to make them good? After the old fashion, of quoting the private Opinions of a few Au­thours, viz. Emonerius, Father Barnes, Em­manuel Sà, Tolet, Vasquez, Navar, &c. Now my Ld supposes his. Readers are to be credulous silly Asses, and to believe that these private Ca­suists or Discoursers are the mouth of our Church; that she by them declares what we are to believe; that such private Discourses are so many defini­tions of our Churches Doctrin or Faith: That these Discourses are held by our Church to be Constant and Certain (for such all Catholicks hold her Doctrin or Faith to be) whereas every Child knows these and such like Opinions are controllable & changeable as the Moon; that they were taught by Christ and his Apostles, whereas any one may and himself does quote who [Page 303] first invented them: that they who deny or im­pugn them are Hereticks, whereas yet others do and any one may write against them at pleasure. Lastly, that these Points are all Divine Revela­tions, whereas the very nature of the thing shows and himself confesses they are all Human dedu­ctions. These Madnesses which are my Ld's First Principles in this whole Chapter and the Chapter foregoing, that is, in better half his book, if his Rea­der will be such a Bedlam as to yield to, then all his discourse is as sure as Gospel; but if not, then 'tis Evident such Pretences are flat and most un­conscionable Calumnies against our Church.

Little better is his quoting two or three parti­cular Acts of some Popes: does he think the words Church and Pope are Equivalent, or that the word particular act signifies Doctrin or Faith that he should think three or four Acts all in several kinds, that is, one in each kind, argue the Churches Doctrin or Faith in those points. This in case he deals truly with those Popes; but I know he is apt to deform all he meets with, and I see he does that of Pope Clement p. 268. which makes me suspect the rest. That Pope extinguish't the Templars; and consest that de Jure he could not do it, but that he did it ex plenitudine po­testatis. Here my Ld so interprets de Jure that he makes the Pope disown any Justice in doing it, that is own an Injustice in doing it, for that's my Ld's Intention in wresting those words; which being impossible to conceive the Pope should [Page 304] prosess of himself, 'tis clear he meant by de Ju­re the same we mean by the words [by Law] that is, that there was no positive Law of the Church impowering him to dissolve them, yet, the Exi­gency requiring it, his Office might give him a natural right to do it; by which if Governours might not act in great Emergencies, but must be ty'd to let all go wrong because it happens no provision is made against it in any written Law; All Churches, Kingdomes, Cities, nay Fa­milies would be at the same loss the Spanish Master was at, who hiring a proud Servant and agreeing with him that he should do nothing but what was concluded between them and writ down, a while after falling in the dirt under his horse, and calling to his man to help him out, he told him he would first consult his writ­ten Paper whether that were put down there or no; where not finding it, he let his Master ly. But the case of Pope Clement is far from the Envy he would asperse it with: for why may not the Pope dissolve the Templars by his Power with­out Law, whereas Christian Princes and the Church universally complain'd of them, and mov'd him to it, and so their Consent went ac­company'd with this action of their Chief Go­vernour.

25. He hath onely two passages in that whole Chapter which even seem to concern our Church. One of the Council of Trent concerning a point of Practice put down by him thus, p. 266, 267. [Page 305] That if a man have promist to a woman to marry her, and is betroth'd to her and hath sworn it, yet if he will before the Consunimation enter into a Monastery, his Oath shall not bind him, his pro­mise is null, but his second promise that shall stand, and he that denies this is accurst by the Council of Trent. Thus my Ld.; where he tau­tologizes and layes it out at large to amplify it the more, adds the words hath sworn it, not found in the Council, but put in by himself because he was resolvd we should be Perjur'd, and avoids, (as was his frequent custome) to put down the Councils own words in a distinct Letter; so that his additions, may be safer and in more hope to escape too open shame. But to the point, I ask my Ld. as a Divine; Does not he hold Heaven our last End, consequently that all our Actions are to be steps towards it, consequently that there can be no ty to embrace any state of life in case it appear upon mature consideration of circumstances highly unapt and dangerous to the attainment of Bliss? I ask again; would not my Ld. himself renounce actually living with a wife if he in his conscience judg'd so, but keep his promise let his Salvation go whether it would? If he sees this plainly, then the diffi­culty consists not in breaking a promise made to a Temporal end, subordinate to our spiritual Last End for our Last Ends sake, but in this whether such a Case can be put. I propose him one; may not a man come to see by better [Page 306] knowledge of his Spouses humour, her newly-discover'd dishonesty, the Inconveniences he shall incur by her ill-condition'd Friends, and ma­ny such like, that such a Cohabitation tends to make his whole Life a hell upon Earth; which case is very possible and sometimes happens, to the eternal and temporal ruin of both parties, and the Infinit Scandal to the World? In this case does he not think in his conscience it had been better in all respects they had been parted ere Matrimony had been consummated? If then the man or woman to redeem their rashness in so lightly promising chose to debar themselves from all future hopes of marriage, and quite for­sake the world to serve God in a Religious Life, it at once clears the reality of the Inconvenience, and the persons Intentions, and satisfies Tempo­ral expectations, nay ennobles in the conceit of good Christians the Attempt by the knowledge, as far as any human Action can give of any In­tention, that the person had no base End in his Action, but that which is infinitly Best. Oh, but this will break all Contracts, Leagues, Vows, &c. Let not my Ld. fear, there is too much Ori­ginal sin in the world, for very many to run ra­ther to a severe Life in a Monastery, and there to make vows of Chastity than to go to bed with their Brides. By this may be judg'd how my Ld. jumbles some good Cases with other bad ones, and makes all equally naught, did my designe of an Appendix give me leave to trace him through them all.

26. His next passage seeming to touch our Church is alledg'd, p. 265. Thus it is affirm'd and was practic't by a whole Council of Bishops at Con­stance, that Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks, &c. This is something now, being the Affirmation (I suppose he means or would be thought to mean definition) and Practice of an approv'd General Council. Attend now, Reader, for here the Dissuader once or twice at least in a whole Chapter ayms to speak to the purpose.

But first, what a favour is this of my Lds. not to put down the words of the Council where it affirms this? For this had made the case plain and the fault unavoidable. Next, (which is yet a greater kindness) he not so much as cites the place in which this Affirmation is found; and to dis­abuse the Reader, I assure him faithfully there is no such place or words found in the Council. To say that Safe Conduct given by Lay men absolv'd from the Secular Court but not from the Eccle­siastical, is quite another thing from his Invidi­ous Proposition, and withal very Rational; For why should it, since both their Cauies and Laws are distinct? Whereas to violate Faith given, and upon this score because the party to whom I gave it is an Heretick, which my Ld. falsely charges, is most unmanly, nay Diabolical. Yet, though it lay in the Churches power to pro­ceed Juridically her way, yet it lay in the Em­perours to hinder or differ the Execution if any publick Concern made it prudent. But what I [Page 308] stand upon (with leave of others) is that no safe Conduct was promist them to return, but onely to appear and have a fair trial. My reason is, because in the Safe Conduct given by the Coun­cil to Hierom, (and we may with reason con­ceive it was equivalently given to both) we find it given with this conditional clause, Justice be­ing still preserv'd; Also, Appear according to the tenor of thy foresaid writing to answer to those things which one or more will object to thee in the cause of Faith, that thou mayst receive and per­form in all things the accomplishment of Justice. Which implies that he was to expect Justice from the Council if he clear'd not himself. A­gain, a disciple of Husse's who writ his tryal and death, and professes himself as much verst in the particulars as his senses could make him, com­plaines indeed of safe conduct given by Sigis­mund in Writing of coming and returning; yet, putting down the very form of Safe Conduct, no such thing as returning is found in it. Nor did Hus in all his defence complain of Safe Con­duct violated, except when he was first bound, which was upon occasion of his flying and being brought back. Nay, the Emperour alwayes threatned Hus that he had rather burn an obsti­nate Heretick than defend him. In a word, all this clamour is built on the Testimony of the Hussites, and an imperfect relation writ in Dutch by an unlearned Catholick, which was greedily catcht at by such as leapt for joy to find any licks [Page 309] thing to bespatter the Church with, and start­ling some unattentive and too credulous Catho­likes, drive them, zealous of defending the Coun­cil, to an unwarrantable position; which Tenet and its practice my Ld. himself knows well the Generality of Catholikes hate and detest as much as himself.

Eighth Way.

27. THe eighth and last Way is to pick out as well as I can those Propositions or Princi­ples my Ld relies on, and show their Weakness; which is sufficiently performed by singling them out, and then naming them PRINCIPLES, they are so quite unlike what they're call'd. Now his Principles he layes in his first Section: I mean, his main and Fundamental Propositions, which because he relies on, yet never proves, we are from his carriage to take for Principles and Self evident to him, though he himself calls them not so; for 'tis dangerous to them who have not Truth on their side even to mention the word Principle, Evidence or Demonstration.

His First concerning Scripture I shall speak to anon.

A second seems to be this p. 6. We all ac­knowledge that the whole Church of God kept the Faith entire and transmitted faithfully to the Af­ter-ages the whole Faith; that is, to the Ages next after the Apostles, as he expresses a little before, call'd by him p. 7. the first and best Antiquily, [Page 310] and signify'd to mean the First three Ages. Now the Positive part of this Principle is good and Assertive of Tradition, but withall unapt to stead him. The Negative part of it, or that the third Age transmitted it not to the fourth, and so forwards, imply'd in his Discourse, would onely stead him; but 'tis left unproov'd, and so is a Voluntary Assertion, and strangely ridiculous. For, if the first two Ages kept the Faith entire and transmitted it to the third, 'tis Evident the Third was able to transmit it to the fourth, and so forwards; wherefore, it being Evident from the Concern of the Thing it was also willing to do so, 'tis demonstrable it did so. This Principle then on which he so much builds is either not for him, or else highly against him.

28. Another main and Fundamental Proposition (or Principle) is found p. 7. and as the former concern'd the Tradition of the Church, so this and the three following ones concern the Autho­rities of Fathers. The present Roman Doctrins (saith he) which are in difference were Invisible and unbeard of in the first and best Antiquity. That is, no Heretick had arisen in those dayes (or in the first three hundred years) denying those points, and so the Fathers set not them­selves to write Expresly for them, but occasio­nally onely; and yet, by his leave, our Controv [...] are frequent in citing them for diverse points, especially for the Ground of our Faith, the Churches voice or Tradition, to the utter over­throw [Page 311] of the Protestant Cause. So far this im­proov'd and main position, disannulling all use of the Fathers of the first 300 years in our Con­troversies, is from not needing proof or being Self evident.

29. It may be his respect and value for the Fa­thers of the next Ages will make amends for this rashness. He tells us immediately after, that in the Succeeding Ages, secular Interest did more prevail, and the Writings of the Fathers were vast and voluminous, full of Controversy and am­biguous Sences fitted to their own times and questions, full of proper Opinions, and such variety of sayings, that both sides eternally and Inconfu­tably shall bring sayings for themselves respective­ly. Now, if they be so qualify'd that both sides may eternally dispute out of them, and neither be ever able to confute the other or conclude, then let him speak out and say all the Fathers af­ter the first 300 years are not worth a straw in order to decision or Controversy; nor yet the Fathers of the first 300 years because they spoke not of our points in difference; and so there is a fair end of all the Fathers and of his own Dissua­sive too for that part which relies on them, which looks like the most authoritative piece of it. The Reader will easily judge now whether we (as he charges us, p. 18.) have many gripes of Conscience concerning the Fathers that they are not right on our side, or the Dissuader. Our constant and a­vow'd Doctrin is (that the Testimony of Fa­thers [Page 312] speaking of them properly as such, is Iufal­lible; that in two Cases they speak as Fa­thers; that is, when they declare it the doctrin of the present Church of their time, or when they write against any man as an Heretick or his Tenet as Heresy. Some complexions of Cir­cumstances also may be found out by much reading and comparing several considerations which make it Evident they speak as Witnesses; though it be more laborious and tedious to com­pass a Satisfaction this way. Whereas (as ap­pears by our Dissuader) the Protestants neither acknowledge them Infallible, nor indeed Use­ful. And this is my Ld's FOURTH PRINCIPLE, which with the former destroyes the Efficacious­ness of all the Fathers, & invalidates all that part of his own Book which should seem weightiest.

30. Notwithstanding the two former Principles to invalidate the Fathers, it may still be said by the Catholicks in behalf of their validity (as was by me now) that the Sayings of Fathers as Wit­nesses are Convictive; and therefore it should seem sit my Ld did lay another Principle to pro­vide against that. He is not unmindful of it, but hath taken order about it. For, though p. 9. he tells us the Fathers are good Testimony of the Do­ctrin deliver'd from their Forefathers down to them of what the Church esteem'd the way of Salva­tion; yet that is to be understood according to the Rule premised p. 8. thus. Things being thus it will be Impossible for them (the Catholicks) [Page 313] to conclude from the sayings of a number of Fa­thers that the Doctrin they would prove thence was the Catholick doctrin of the Church, because any number that is less than all does not proove a Catholik Consent. So that unless each single Father affirm each single point to be of Faith or the Do­ctrin of the Catholick Church (which, morally speaking; is Impossible to happen) it follows by his words that 'tis Impossible to conclude thence the Catholick Doctrin of the Church; which amounts to this, that 'tis Impossible to conclude any thing in Controversy from the Fathers even taken as Wit­nesses. And this is his FIFTH PRINCIPLE. A strange conceit, that it should be Impossible to know the Consent of all England in a matter of Fact, (for example, the late war) without speak­ing with each single man in the whole Nation. Yet this is his Discourse when he sayes that no number less than all can prove a Catholick con­sent.

31. Yet some use certainly he allows of the Fa­thers for all this, else why does he quote them. Yes, and the Principle (which I reckon his SIXTH,) by virtue of which he enforces them is this, p. 8. The clear saying of one or two of those Fathers truely alledg'd by us to the Contrary will certainly prove that what many of them (suppose it) do affirm, and which but two or three as good Catholicks do deny, was not then a matter of Faith or a Doctrin of the Church. I wish my Ld. had been so Ingenuous as to have made use of [Page 314] this Principle when he charg'd our Church it self with the mistakes of a few Writers contradicted, not by one or two, but sometimes by a whole Na­tion. But this Principle shows 'twas not Reason in him but Will and Interest which made him so hot. As for his Principle it self, it subsists not at all. For is it not known that more than one or two, that is S. Cyprian and the African Fathers deny'd the Baptism of Hereticks Valid, yet the Contrary was notwithstanding found and de­fin'd to be Faith and the Sence of the Church. Let him consider how perfectly he engages himself in the very Sphere of Contingency and recedes from Universality, the Sphere of Cer­tainty, when he comes to rely on one or two; un­less he can show those one or two strangely sup­ported and upheld by Universal Nature or con­curring Circumstances. 'Tis possible even one or two Lawyers may hap to be ignorant of two or three Acts of Parliament. But, my Ld is still the best confuter of himself, as appears lately by this present Principle apply'd to his former car­riage against our Church; To himself then let him answer. I conceive that if one or two's (not denying it to be of Faith or affirming expresly 'tis not-of-Faith, he engages not so far; but) bare denying a point, argues what many do affirm, to be not-of-Faith; à fortiori, one or two's affirm­ing positively that to be of Faith and the Doctrin of the Catholick Church which many others bare­ly deny, argues 'tis of Faith: 'Twas of Faith [Page 315] then what Gennadius cited by himself, p. 59. affirms, that After Christs Ascension the Souls of all Saints go from the body to Christ; This being so, let him reflect what himself asserts, p. 49. that Justin Mariyr, Tertullian, Victorinus Martyr, Prudentius, S. Chrysostom, Arethas, Euthimi­us, and S. Bernard affirm none go to Heaven till the last day. Either then Gennadius his Testimony delivering the doctrin of the Catho­lick Church is Inefficacious, and yet 'tis incom­parably the best, nay the onely Efficacious one in my Lds. whole book, or else according to him many Fathers (and not one or two onely) denying a point is no argument but that point may be of Faith. Whether all those Fathers held so or no is another Question and requires a longer discussion.

32. Fathers then are useless to the Dissuader, as having according to him no virtue at all of set­ling the Understanding; Yet he must make a show of them, else all's lost; and so he tells his Readers, p. 8. as if all were well, two things, both very remarkable. The one, that, not­withstanding, In the prime and purest Antiquity the Protestants are indubitably more than Con­querours in the Fathers. A high Expression! but, compar'd with what he sayes; p. 7. that in those times our present differences were un­heard-of, it signifies that they miraculously more then conquer, where (if his words be true) no mortals else could either conquer or even at­tacque [Page 316] For how should one fight against such points in difference from those Fathers who never heard of those points! The other is, that even in the Fathers of the succeeding Ages the Prote­stants have the advantage both numero, pondere & mensurà, in number weight and measure; which, joyn'd to his words at the bottome of p. 7. that each side may eternally and inconfutably bring sayings for themselves out of those Fathers, which signifies that 'tis to no end or purpose to alledge them, amounts very fairly to this, that he brags Protestants have a far greater number of Citati­ons which are to no purpose than Catholicks have; that those Citations which have no possi­ble force of concluding or no weight at all, do weigh more strongly for them than for us; and, lastly, that they have a greater measure than we of proofs not worth a rush with which they can bubble up their books to a voluminous bigness. And we willingly yield them the honour of ha­ving a very great advantage in all three, in case they be such as his own words qualifie them, to wit that each side may Eternally and Inconfu­tably alledge them.

33. We come now to his main and most Funda­mental and (in comparison) his onely Princi­ple, p. 9. laid out thus. We do wholly rely up­on Scriptures as the Foundation and final resort of all our Persuasions, but we also admit the Fathers, &c. To finish our Discourse about the Fathers will make way to the Scripture. What means [Page 317] admitting as contradistinguisht to relying on? Not, relying on; that's certain, for 'tis contra­distinguisht to it; And yet to alledge any thing for a Proof as they do Fathers, and not to rely on it, is to confess plainly (for Truth will out) that they alledge them meerly for a show. He sayes they admit them as admirable Helps for the Understanding the Scriptures and good Testimony of the Doctrin deliver'd from their Forefathers. Have a care my Ld.: This supposes the Certain­ty of Tradition; For, if there be no Certainty of delivery, there is no doctrin delivered, nor consequently any thing for them to testify; and so the words good Testimony (unless our Ground of Continual Tradition stands) mean directly that they are good for nothing, as your former Discourses or Principles made them. But I ask, is their Interpretation of Scripture or Testimony Certain? If not, why should they even be ad­mitted? Or how can Vncertain Interpreters and Witnessers be admirable Helps to interpret right and good Testimony? I fear my Ld. can onely mean they are Admirable Helps as Dictionaries and Books of Criticisms are to assist his Human Skill about the outward Letter. (which is a rare Office for a Father) and not to give him the inward Sence of it or the deliver'd Do­ctrin of the Catholick Church; for, unless All conspire to speak to the same point, if any one be silent concerning it, it argues not (according to my Ld. p. 8.) a Catholick Consent, and so is [Page 318] far beneath an admirable help. And this is what we reprehend exceedingly in the Protestants, that they love to talk gaily in common of any Sacred or Grave Authority for an affected form or show; but not at all value the Virtue or Power of such an Authority, not judge interiorly they have any worth valuing. They would credit themselves by pretending Fathers, yet at the same time lay wayes to elude them at pleasure; or (which is their very temper, springing from their renoun­cing Living and determinate Sence, and adher­ing to dead unsenc't words) they study to speak Indeterminately and confusedly, not particularly and closely.

34. Do I wrong them? Let my Ld. clear me; His First Principle is by him exprest to be the Scripture: and, on this Expression he so strong­ly builds that p. 10, 11. he concludes thence, and Certainly too, thus. The Religion of our Church (sayes he) is therefore certainly Primitive and Apostolick, because it teaches us to believe the whole Scriptures of the old and New Testament, and nothing else as matter of Faith. What mean the word Scriptures? Any determinate sence of it, or the dead Characters? Alas, their Church is far from teaching them the first, or from having grounds to own such a pretence; but puts the Book in their hands and bids them find the sence of it or their Faith, for there is their Rule. 'Tis the bare Letter then unsenc't he means by the word Scriptures, and so he must say 'tis the out­ward [Page 319] Cuaracters his Church teaches us to believe, and nothing else as matter of Faith; that is, their whole Faith has for its object, Ink thus figur'd in a Book; A worthy Argument to proove their Church is certainly Primitive and Apostolick: whereas itis known, Faith was before those Cha­racters; and besides, if this be to be Apostolical, we owe nothing to the other Apostles for our faith, but onely to those six who writ. But we mistake him, he means neither sence of the word Scripture, and hates these distinctionswith all his heart which would oblige him to either. He meant to talk of Scripture indeterminately and confusedly, which might make a fine show, and yet expose him to no Inconvenience by giving any particular account of his meaning. His In­ference from this his First Principle, being an Im­mediate one, will utterly overthrow the Papists without doubt; Therefore (saith he p. 11.) unless there can be New Scriptures we can have no New matter of Belief, no new Articles of Faith. No my Ld: Yes, as long as by Scriptures you mean no de­terminate sence of Scriptures, but the bare Letter onely, whose sence is fetch't out by Interpretati­ons, and these (as we experience) depend on menes private Judgments and Fancies; if menes Fancies may vary every hour, you may have diverse In­terpretations every hour, and so new Articles of Faith every hour. Is not this a mad kind of arguing, to conclude as absolute an unerrable­ness in Faith, as if they had not onely a determi­nate [Page 320] Principle but even as self-evident and un­mistakable as the First Principle in Metaphysicks to guid themselves by, whereas our daily ey­sight and their own sad experience every day teaches us by the practice of this Principle, and yet their differing in the Sence of Scripture in most high and most concerning Points, that the Speenlation is naught, and the Principle it self a false and mis-guiding Light. Nay I doubt my Ld. himself has no hearty value for this his First Principle, though he sayes he wholly relies on it; For I never saw Protestant Book in my Life thinner and sleighter in Scripture-Citations than is his Dissuasive: so that if that be his First Principle he makes little use of it.

35. Many other Propositions or Supposals are imply'd in his book to give it force. As that It matters not how a Citation is qualify'd so it be but alledg'd. 'Tis no matter whether the question be rightly stated or no. The Tenets of our Church are not to be taken from the use of de­finitions found in approved Councils, speaking abstractedly, but from the particular Explicati­ons of some Divines. Every Foppery is a proper Effect of the Churches Doctrin. Points of Faith ought to be comprehensible to Reason, and Spiritual things sutable to Fancy. The Act of an Inquisition, Sayings of a few Divines or Ca­suists are all Catholik Faith and the Doctrin of the Church. That is rationally dissuasive which is confessedly Uncertain. No Answer was ever [Page 321] given to the Citations or Reasons produc't in the Dissuasive. Talking soberly and piously about a point is oftentimes as good as prooving it. That tis Self-evident Scripture's Letter can bear but one Interpretation as wrought upon by Human Skills. These and multitudes of such like, though not exprest yet run imply'd in his carriage all a­long this book, and suppos'd true to give it any force; yet so evidently false and weak, that to pull them out thence and make them show their heads, is enough to confute them.

I conclude, and charge the Dissuader that he not onely hath never a Principle for his Dissuasive to subsist by, but farther, that 'tis Impossible but himself should know in his own Conseience that he has none, nay more that the Protestant Cause (and the same I say of all out of the Church) can have none. The first part of my charge I have mani­foldly prooved in this present Appendix; The o­ther part of it which charges him with Conscious­ness of having no Grounds, hath two branches; and; for the former of those I alledge that the wayes he takes all along to manage his Dissuasive, are so evidently studious, so industrious, so designed and perfectly artificial, that, though one who is guided on in a natural way is oftentimes not aware of his thoughts or their method till he comes to reflect, yet 'tis Impossible he should not be aware of his. which he postures with such exquisit craft and such multitudes of preternatural sleights to render his Discourse plausible. For the later of those Branches [Page 322] namely, that he cannot but know the Protestant Cause can have no Principles, to make it Evident I discourse thus ad hominem, what I have prov'd in Sure-Footing out of the nature of the Thing. 'Tis their most constant and avow'd Profession, and his p. 9. that they do wholly rely upon Scrip­ture as the foundation and final resort of all their Persuasions. This being so, Fathers and Councils are not held at all by them, but as far as they are agreeable to Scriptures; that is, their Testimony has no basis of Certainty from themselves or of their own, but what they participate from Scripture. Wherefore either they are No Principles, or else Sub­ordinate ones to their First Principle, Scripture. Unless then It be Certain or deserve the name of a Principle, They can never be held by Protestants such, nor consequently can merit the name of Prin­ciples (even Subordinate ones) because then pretended First Principle from which onely they can derive Title to that dignity is, in that case, none it self: To Scripture then lets come. By which word if they agreed to mean any determi­nate Sence of it certainly known to be the true one, their Discourse were well-built: But, since their Church can own no determinate Sence of the Scripture deriv'd down from Christ and his Apo­stles in antecedency to the Scripture's Letter, but (having renounc't that Way or Tradition) must say she has it meerly from that Letter as yet unsenc't, She must mean that 'tis the Scripture Letter She relies on as the foundation and fi­nal [Page 323] resort of all her Persuasions, nay for her Persuasion that this is the Sence of it. Since then Principles are determinate Sences, not characters or Sounds, neither is Scripture (as they take the word) a Principle, nor consequently Fathers or Councils, whose Certainty is resolvable into It. They'l say, that Letter is a Certain Way to arrive at a determinate Sence, and consequently that they have determinate Sence by means of it. I ask, is the Letter alone such? Then, in case it alone be absolutely sufficient to such an Effect, it will per­form it in every one; as, if Fire be alone sufficient to burn all the world, and so overpower all the re­sistence of the matter, do but apply it, 'twill do that effect or burn it. Is there requisit some Schol­lership in the Subject Scripture's Letter is to work upon, or desire to see Truth in their Will? Then, if this be the onely requisit, it will work its Certifying or determining Effect upon all Schollers and well­meaners; and so no Schollers and well meaners can disagree in the Sence of it. The contrary to which all sober men acknowledge, & daily Experience teaches us as much as we can be sure of any Human Action. The like Discourse holds whatever requisits they de­sire; for still it will follow they must say, that in whomsoever they place that requisit they cannot dif­fer in the since of Scripture, which Common Experi­ence will confute. Nor will it avail them to run to Fundamentals, unless it be said the Trinity is no Fundamental, which the Dissuader makes the onely one p. 12. for the Socinians deny this, amongst whom [Page 324] 'tis a strange Immodesty in the Protestants to say there is nonc well-meaning, Learned or unap­ply'd to Scripture. Adding then to this most Evi­dent Proposition that a Cause proper to produce such an Effect if we put the Patient dispos'd and the Application, alwayes produces its Effect, on the Truth of which all Nature depends, adding this, I say, to the obvious and common Experience of Differers about Scriptures sence, in all whom 'tis Impossible to judge either Disposition of the Patient or Application is wanting, for all read it and strive with all the wit and skill they have to find the sence of it; it will follow most Evi­dently that the Fault is in the Agent or Cause, that is, that Scriptures Letter is unsit to Certify or bring us to a determinate sence of it: and therefore, since, till we know the Sence of that Let­ter 'tis to us but meer Words, I am forc't by my reason to judge they have no Principles (Those be­ing Sence) but that their whole way is wordish; and, not out of disrespect to them (for this touches not them more than it does all others who have lest off the way of conveying down determinate Sence by Living voice and Practise, or Tradition) but I am oblig'd by Conscience and my duty to my Cause to declare that their whole Ground of their Faith is thus hollow and empty. Whence I con­test out of the nature of the thing, that their Cause can bear no way of Sence or Principles, but must forcibly be upheld by Wordishness; as by quoting Texts without any Certain Interpreter, [Page 325] Citations of Fathers not brought to Grounds not held by themselves Certain, fine Scripture phras'd flourishes of piety, and such like, In which the Dis­suader is Excellent; Or else (if the Objecter be ve­ry witty and have taken a great deal of pains in the way of Scepticism to be too hard for himself) by bringing all into Uncertainty, which is the acutest way of Wordishness, and most proper to op­pose any Discourse that tends to Establish and Set­tle, because most opposit to it; and so I am to expect Necessity will force them to take this way when any replies to SURE-FOOTING.

I know some will expect I should have answer'd the Dissuasive particularly; but I know no reason why I should be sollicitous to stand cutting of each single Branch of Errour or be careful to hinder their growth, after I have once pluck't the Tree that bore them up by the Roots.