A DISCOVERY Of The Groundlesness And Insincerity Of my Ld. of Down's DISSUASIVE. Being The Fourth Appendix to SURE-FOOTING. With A Letter to Dr. Casaubon, and Another to his Answerer.  
By J. S.  Habentes Speciem quidem Pietatis, Virtutem autem ejus abnegantes. Et hos devita, 2 Tim. 3. 5. 
LONDON, Printed in the Year MDCLXV.   

Corrections of the Press.  
PAg. 25●. l. 11. my Lds. p. 265. l. 25. have added. p. 267. l. 24. Ephrem. p. 270. l. 26. sense. p. 279. l. 11. Truths. p. 281. l. 14. the head. p. 293. l. 21. thing. p. 307. l. 2. thus, It. p. 301. l. 1. unprooved. p. 319. l. 1. Characters. p. 320. l. 21. from the words. p. 327. l. 4. Schism.   

FOURTH APPENDIX. Subverting Fundamentally and manifoldly my Ld. of Downs DISSUASIVE.  
1. I Had observed myself and was informed by others what harm my L. of Down's DISSUASIVE did to divers persons; yet I found also that it wrought different Effects in his Protestant Readers according to their respective abilities of understanding. Those who were thoroughly Intelligent universally disliked it as a very weak and ungrounded Discourse; but the middle or rather meaner sort of Scholars who have sufficient capacity to apprehend the Sense of an Objection, yet not enough to weigh by Principles and so comprehend the force of it, nor to distinguish between Church and Schools, much less the Sagacity to dive into the many Sophistries, Artifices, and Indirect dealings which misused Rhetoric can employ to delude men's eyesight, were many of them startled, and entertained a high conceit of it. To which helped, that their well-meaning and natural sincerity permitted them not to suspect, and so be aware of any deceit in a discourse managed all along with so much formal Gravity and shows of the greatest Piety that could be: For a grave carriage being, where Nature is not perverted wilfully, the proper Effect of a sincere Earnestness and perfect Seriousness in the heart, and, Piety being conceived to be that which ought to heighten supernaturally that interior disposition, they are consequently apt to breed in the observer of them a conceit of the greatest Seriousness in the world; Nay even, to those who are very weak and mean well, it gains the Affecter of this way so much Authority that it persuades those who esteem them for it they have perfect Assuredness of what they so soberly write or affirm. Whence follows that this kind of grave and seemingly pious demeanour, especially if carried on with a Constancy, is the most Effectual Engine in the world to inveigle rational souls which are not aware of the craft or by looking into Principles above it, whither the Discourser pleases: And I conceive our Country hath already so much felt its lamentable Effects out of Pulpits in the beginning of the late troubles, that all reflecters on it are sufficiently warned not to think all to be the solid gold of Truth which glitters with Saintly shows. Now, in this consists the most efficacious part of my L. of Downs Dissuasive; the rest, whether Reasons or Citations being very ordinary: And, 'twas this exceeding Plausibleness, and, by means of this, Harmfulness of that Treatise, which obliged me to alter my Resolution, and make the Answer to it a fourth Appendix to Sure-footing, which I had refused to the suggestion of my first Thoughts, hoping some other would lay it open more at large. But how shall I go about to answer it: For, as Sampson's strength lay in his hair, the weakest part that can be found in a man, so the chief Virtue of the Dissuasive lies in the Godliness of its style; which being mere voluntary words and most unapt to make up Propositions expressive of connected Sense or to compile a rational Discourse, 'tis by consequence the weakest piece of performance which can possibly spring from a reasonable Creature; Yet with this weapon I am soon beat; nothing being more averse to my Genius than to Saint it in Scripture-phrases (a performance in which, I confess, a Quaker would easily worst me, and would even put the Dissuader himself very hard to it) especially in a Controversy, which ought to be a severe proof of the Truth of the point under debate. The way then which suits my humour best, and, as I hope, is most efficacious to conclude and satisfy, is to examine by Principles whether there be force of Truth at the bottom, grounding the Disluader's long Invective. If there be, it ought to have all handsome advantages of Expressions allowed it; If not, 'tis no more, as to the Harmony of Truth, but the running a great deal of division upon no Ground.  
2. I shall suppose the Reader of this Appendix hath already perused & weighed the force of my Reasoningsin SURE FOOTING; which done, he will easily comprehend the strength of this Reply, and the manifold weakness of my L. of Downs DISSUASIVE. All Truths being connected, it follows that every Error is by consequence opposite to all Truths, and They to it. Hence each single Error lies open to be confuted many ways, if the method of Reason or Connexion be taken. I take therefore that method; because, by its privilege of bringing things to First-Principles, 'tis apt to undermine and blow up Error from its very Foundations. Eight several mines I lay to perform this Effect; each of which Ways is alone sufficient to do my work.  

First Way.  
3. THe First is to allege that my L. of Downs has not one First or Self-evident Principle to begin with, on which he builds his Dissuasive from Catholic Faith. If I wrong him, let him do himself right by pointing it out and showing that 'tis opposite to our Churchees Doctrine; which if he does, I here yield myself 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 only to want the First Principle of the Science we are to discourse in, but (his Cause forcing him to renounce 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 allege 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) he has lost his natural right to allege any of these in way of proof. Now, that none of these are Certain if Tradition be renounced is shown thus. Scripture's Letter as to its Incorruptedness, nay its very Being, is Uncertain alone, or without Tradition, as is confessed by Protestants, and proved Sure-Footing Disc. 3d, and 4th. So are Fathers and Councils too; For, Fathers being Eminent Witnessers to Immediate Posterity or Children of the Church's Doctrine 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 allege them. Again, since pretended Instances of Traditions Failing depend on History, & Historical Certainty cannot be built on dead Characters but on Living Sense in men's hearts delivered from age to age that those passages are true; that is, on 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 examine the Method he takes in dissuading. For, common sense 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 than 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 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 says; at least, that it may be strongly hoped 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 outdo him; and, as to its quoting part the Smectymnuans used the same against the Protestants to confute Episcopacy (for They too quoted and glossed Scriptures and Fathers both) and indeed every Sect that has not yet shaken of the shame to disrespect all Antiquity; than 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 Sense 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 what's 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 stronger or more unavoidable sort of Testimonies than were ever yet produced by others? No: Every Scholar sees they are so common that they have been hundreds of times produced, 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 lays 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 Author he citys, that the Churches constant Voice and Practice manifested this her Sense; but as they are put down carelessly, so they are passed 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 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 overflows 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 dreamt 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 Consideration. But I am sure he will neither pretend he has any, nor attempt the having any if he but reflect that a Demonstration 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 only the Champions of Truth dare take, and the Defenders of Error must avoid under penalty of having their Cause quite ruined and crushed 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 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 disannulling 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 yourself 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 allege 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 saved by holding it. Which were it professed and delivered ingenuously as it lies at the very bottom of his heart, his Lp's Dissuasive would be a pleasant piece, and lose all power to move any Child of common Sense, nay the vulgar Reason of the wild Irish would be too hard for it. Now, that this aught in due candour to be professed, in case neither the Fathers nor Himself be Infallible in any saying or Proof of theirs, is thus Evideneed. 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 Error) 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 citys, (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 used 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, etc. and bring no better Arguments 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 Catholic Faith, that 'tis when laid open (which is here performed) as good a Persuasive for the Generality of Catholics to hold steadfastly 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 Catholic 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 only 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 less their Faith as contradistinguisht from ours. Probabilities then being of such a Nature that they do not absolutely weigh down the scale of our Judgement) I mean while they are seen to be but Probabilities as is 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 opposite balance, and then, by comparing them, show they have no considerable weight, counterposed 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 Prophesying, 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 deformed. His words are these. Such as are the Beauty and Splendour of their Church; their pompous Service; the Stateliness and Solemnity of the Hierarchy; their name of CATHOLIC, which they suppose their own due and to concern no other sort of Christians (he ought have said, which the established use of the word and derived rived down to the Successors 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 Doctrines; 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 daily 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, etc. After which he subjoins. These things and divers 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 opposite professions 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 says more piety; or more then much, that is very much; which argues rather that those motives for Catholic Faith were suitable to Piety or Truths; ot at least exceedingly-seeming-Pious; so as the great Piety of those persons, neither checked at the practice according to those Motives, nor their much Reason reached to a discovery of their Fallaciousness. Whence, we may gather farther than those Motives so standing for us, are to be ranked in the highest degree of Probability. For since those Persons are confessed to be very Pious, that is, very Good, and, so, unapt to be biased by Passion, and withal to have much Reason, 'tis plain the Cause of their Assent to Catholic Faith must be looked 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 delivered 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 overbalance them with any show of Reason. But I will not put him upon so large a task: Let him only 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 confirmed supernaturally by the concern of the Thing, obliging the Believers best care to preserve it, and by the Goodness implanted in their hearts by Christ's Doctrine, 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 contradistinguished 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 Indifferent part of the world have judged the Catholics were so evidently concluded against by the Protestants, that they were not able in reason to reply. However he ought to have alleged 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 vouched, and (as Natural Method requires it) placed 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 produced, etc. 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 alleged can prevail more than all which already hath been so often urged in these Questions; He should after the words [so often urged,] have added and never answered, 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, etc. Which, waving the pious Rhetoric, to any Understanding man signifies directly as much as if he should profess, I am resolved 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 merely to transcribe were sufficient to convince; especially, since the being often urged, is a very probable Argument they have been also often answered.   

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, overthrew the Book itself; noting first that I guide 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: we'll begin with his Authorities. And, because we have found and showed Dr. Pierce's so famed 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 produced in it under 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 Silvius p. 89. Those three so maliciously and wilfully misrepresenting the Catholic 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 wished reformation of manners in the Church 125, 126. Now, to vindicate these Testimonies his Lp. should show to what purpose as a Controvertist he alleged these more than for show. I note that all these fall also under the 2d, and 3d. Head, and perhaps divers 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 charged that they are raw and unapplyed, only saying something in common which comes not home to the point. 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 levelled 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 4th are ranked 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 5th 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 Polydore Virgil p. 45. His first Citation p. 64. Which we affirm to be the Saying of private Authors, 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 7th Head are related that of S. Ambrose in his Preface. S. Austin p. 5, and 6. Of the Emperors p. 12. Leo the 10th. p. 16. Pius the 4th, 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 7th 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 Mind of that Frontispiece. These I affirm to be false and not to signify the thing they are expressly quoted for. Divers 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 9th, or Sayings of Writers on his own side are not worth mentioning: nor yet the 10th. 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 mere strength of Fancy; and since he professes (p. 9) that his Dissuasive wholly relies on Scripture, that is on the sense he conceives it to have, the common mode of interpreting Scripture by 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 mentioned; as Vnauthentick ones: such is origen's p. 98. and that against the 7th. Synod p. 103. Those also which cite an Author but no place where they are to be found as S. Cyril p. 99 And lastly, brought to impugn Faith, but speaking only of Alterable practices, as those p. 123. which he is to show Authentic, 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 relied 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 Author's Knowledge had by Sense of the present Doctrine 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 Catholic Grounds which vouch only Consensus Patrum, (which I understand to mean a Consent of so many and so qualified 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. subjoins, and this he delivers as the Doctrine of the Catholic 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 relied on as against us, is as plain a declaration of the Faith of our Church at present as any nowadays Catholic could pronounce. For, since no Catholic 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 only, it is manifest that the words are as expressly for us as we ourselves could invent or wish.  
I hope it will not wrogMethod, if on this occasion 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 sense of the Catholic Church; however in other Testimonies which speak not narratively, or matter of Fact, the very nature of words joined with the variety of their Circumstances must needs afford room for ambiguity and several Glosses. I affirm then that this Testimony not only is not in the least opposite to us, but is directly opposite to the Protestants in another point of Faith in which we differ. To discover this let us reflect on the words [After Christ's Ascension into Heaven the Souls of all Saints are with Christ,] and ask what mean these words After Christ's Ascension? And first 'tis Evident it puts a distinction between the Souls of Saints before Christ's Ascension and After it in some Respect, and what is this Respect? most expressly this that the Souls of the Saints After Christ's Ascension go from the body to Christ, that is, that before the Ascension none did. The avowed Doctrine of the Catholic Church, professing that those who die Saints in the Law of Grace go strait to Heaven, but that the best Saints before our Saviour's dying for them and Ascending with them, did not. Whence also we hold that Christ's descending into Hell, was to free them from that State of Suspense and Want of their strongly desired and hopped for Bliss. According to that Hymn of S. Ambrose and S. Augustin, 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 Kingdom 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 distinguished, brought to Grounds, and those only admitted from the Fathers in which 'tis manifest they speak as Fathers or Witnessers of what is the present Church's doctrine.  
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 assigned, or under divers 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 relied 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 produced against our Faith; for, as for those against our School-Divines or Casuists they concern not me as a Controvertist: 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 considered in my Answer to his First Section; or against, points of Faith: And these, may proceed two ways; First by showing those points Incomprehensible to our Natural Reason, or unsuitable 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 acknowledged 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 shall 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 divers points of our Faith, built on our own Concessions or Allowed 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 imagine whence his Reason took its rise to leap into such remote conclusions. I'll 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 detained in secret receptacles till the day of Judgement, 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 choose the best; which leveled 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 civilest Expressions I use I must call so many sleights to delude his Reader; and those so craftily couched that none but a Scholar 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 of Faith Articles formerly-held (as did S. Athanasius and the Nicene Council) with making new Articles. All his whole Section 3d. of Indulgences, which he makes to signify merely those which pardons sins or pains after this life; whereas yet himself confesses p. 40. that those were not defined 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 man's Tenet, the first thing natural method leads him to is to put down that man's very words professed 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 produced the words of the Council of Trent, and then have levelled his opposition against them: and not have told us what School divines say about the point; or (having thus concealed the point itself) argued against some Circumstance or Manner of it instead of the Substance. Now this kind of carriage so evidently preternatural, and so constantly used, 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 Church's 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 resolved 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 forced to confess our Church defined Indulgences only in general terms (that is, none of his former Discourses so particularising touched 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 than this is his Instance p. 60. where after he had pretended in the whole 4th. 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 seemed to him most ridiculous; Lastly confounded it with Simon Magus his Opinion, Plato's or Cicero's conceit, and Virgil's Fiction; After all this he adds, this doctrine 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 passed into an Article of Faith by the Council of Trent, would make one think that Council had defined 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 detained are helped 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 says are defined by the Council can be but one at most, that is, the second Proposition, that those Souls are helped by the Faithfull's prayers; And lastly, when he says this Doctrine of Purgatory with all its Faults is passed by the Council into an Article of Faith, the large word All its Faults can mean only the same second Proposition; there being nothing defined, besides the very doctrine of Purgatory itself, 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 defined 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 lavished out at random, 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 & Supreme 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 only to order in common, and leave the Application of their Common Orders to those who are to execute, or to Inferior Officers; and, should they engage in particulars which are both below their highest office, and ofttimes contingent and uncertain, they would commit the greatest imprudence in the world. Since than my Ld acknowledges here p. 40. that the Council order all hard and Subtle 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 Church's 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 backed 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 proved it, he had not slubbered it over so carelessly 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 lately and so pressingly challenged 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 divers 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. etc.) is the best Argument he produces.  
16. A fourth disingenuity is his Perverting wilfully the Intention of Catholic Authors. How he hath dealt with the Council of Trent in the two late mentioned 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 manifest they meant but to amend Corruptions of the late by the Ancient 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 served our turn unless we had made it known and published it; and, if made Public could not be imagined to do the deed neither, for the Fraud must needs be made as Public as the Book: So that an Action thus intended must 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 Indices or Tables that the Printer or Correcter who made them was an Heretic, and put in those Tables what his perverseness imagined was found in the Fathers: Whence it was but fit his whole Index should be expunged: 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 Catholics themselves dissatisfied of the Ground of Transubstantiation, because they say 'tis not expressed in Scripture: as if catholics held that nothing could be of Faith but what's expressly 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 says, he could not tell whether there was any Substantial change or no: Whereas that Author 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 Trent calls Transubstantiation. And there ends that Distinction; After which immediately succeeds the 11th. De modis Conversionis, of the Manners of this Conversion; and of these he says 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 Christ's Body, and is put by him only 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 (called 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 itself 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 Heretics that deny it: How unfortunate is my L. to quote an Author as not holding Transubstantiation, then to call that Citation a plain Demonstration that it was not known in his days; whereas he both professes to hold it, and, by alleging 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 only on the 11th. Dist. and never read or light on the end of the 10th. let Indifferent men judge. I only 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 aims at a good and solid proof; the reason of which is because Truth being Invincible, the nearer one closes to grapple with her the worse still he is foiled. Those few Instances may suffice for the 4th. Kind of the Dissuaders disingenuities, which is to pervert the Intentions of his Authors; of which sort, were it worth the pains, I would undertake to show near 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 herself as Mistress of our Faith. Nay, so strangely unjust he is in this Particular, that whereas it evidently clears our Faith, disengages the Church, and shows it but Opinion when other Catholic Doctors uncontrolledly write against such an Opinion or Explication, himself often alleges 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 divers persons and even some Governors bad in their lives, and also Erroneous in their Opinions, when the Abstractedness of Christian Faith restrained not their Understandings from descending to particulars nor secured 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 Heretic 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 Catholic in his Wits thought therefore the Church of England herself 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 of Spain, maintaining that Subjects might in some Cases rise against their Sovereigns and turn them out of their Government? And yet Catholics 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 publicly for Traitors by every disloyal Scribbler. And, to come nearer home, did not my L. himself formerly write some strange Opinions, (I need not name them) yet no Catholic was ever so absurd as to charge his Church with those Tenets. But, which is yet far worse, he imputes to the Catholic Church such licentious Cases, which not only Private Authors 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 disapprooved in condemning the Apology writ for them. Yet, for all this, all must be our Church's fault whether she will or no; and our Doctrine, 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 Archbishop of Canterbury, nor any Officer or Bishop of hers that we heard of did ever in any solemn Act blemish those Authors cited in the Protestants Apology by condemning their Books, nor yet those writ by the Dissuader, though they judged them amiss; but, on the contrary his person is advanced and chosen for their Champion; and yet our Writers are soberer & more candid than to impute to their Church any of these not-yet-disavowed Faults, whereas my Ld. (for want of better Proofs) will needs clap upon our Church any misreasoning of private men, though our chief Church Governor and many Inferior ones have discountenanced and blemished them. Nor is it only every defect human nature is liable to in reasoning or acting which must be made our Church's Crimes, but every unfavorable Circumstance Man's Nature can light into, and their defective Effects are all made by the Dissuader's Logic to spring from mere Popery; nay the very National Rudeness of his wild Irish is (in his Preface) confounded by his carriage with our Church's Doctrine; and the Inability of their Teachers with much Rhetoric complained of, and charactered to be Popery, when himself enjoys the revenue which should educate them better and encourage them.  
Against this kind of unreasonable procedure in the Dissuader, I leveled those Corollaries from Corol. 31. to. 40. which I entreat 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 Catholic, and never hold or practise these Cases and Opinions? Do not Catholics impugn 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 Catholic Religion, by impugning that which touches not that Religion nor concerns any one's being of it? And why does not he rather fear all sober men will see his aim 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 asked, and so, to confute near 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 Doctrine of our Church or Faith, yet, fearing the Calumny is too manifest to be cloaked, he provides excuses and Evasions before hand, in his Title (p. 127.) saying, The Church of Rome, AS IT IS AT THIS DAY DISORDERED, teaches doctrines and uses practices which are in themselves or in their immediate CONSEQUENCES direct Impieties, etc. So that he speaks of our Church precisely as having some disorders in her, and that they lead to ill only by Consequences drawn from such disorderly Tenets; and 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 complained for nothing of the Pastors in those primitive and purest times (Phil. 2. v. 21.) that Omnes quae sua sunt quaerunt non quae sunt Jesus Christi! Again, thinks he it any wonder that a disordered Tenet or a Falsehood 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? Only this, he hath proved there is Original Sin in the world, and so its Effects, Ignorance and Interest; Again, let him consider how disputative an Age this last Century has been, and what infinite 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 Canon-Law; and then let him speak seriously whether he can conceive it possible in human Nature, there should not be much Contingency in such an Universality depending on their private Reasons; whereas scarce two men debating the same point particularly, can light into the selfsame 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 suitable 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 the side in their opinion, and allege 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 Authors, and (the very complexion of his style being wholly Invidious) expose them to shame with all the most disgraceful Rhetoric so great a wit as his heightened 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 kind.  
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 Doctrines and uses such Practices, etc. 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 Logic tells every one who 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 Doctrines and Practices on our Church, all his Testimonies to fasten them on her should be of our Church's words, or Expressions of the Church's Faith; we need not doubt then but they will all be Definitions of General Councils. Let the Margin inform us. The first Citation is of Navarr's Enchiridion, a private Casuist. The 2d. of Reginaldus, another Casuist. The 3d, and 4th, of Sotus and Medina, two other School-Divines. Then comes in Reginaldus again, & then Sotus again; & in this tenor 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 think it too much; which I intended for a six Head of his disingenuities.  
After then p. 133, and 134. he had made all the most odious Cases he could pick out the Roman Doctrine, because the books of three or four Authors perused and allowed by two or three others as not opposite to Faith, (See Coroll. 33.) that is, the private Reasons of half a dozen Divines conceived so, which he amplifies beyond all bounds of moderation, that one would judge a General Council or Provincial one, at least that many Church Governors or Bishops had recommended those Cases to be held and followed; at length he tells you sadly p. 134. that This, though INFINITELY 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 Doctrine; 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 Rhetoric would easily reach) it should be phrased something above Super-infinit; in regard by the Sacredness of its Authority it would be a Ground and an Abetment to all the wicked Cases issuing from it. Ere I come to examine it I premise this note that such Testimovies as This are only to my Ld's purpose if he will argue against our Churche● Doctrine; 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, and his only efficacious Testimony of a Father; let's see how he thrives in this, which we must acknowledge beyond all Evasion to express the sense 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 Catholic in the world that was ever taught otherwise; what follows? Yet, says he, the Church of Rome does not allow it to be of any value unless it be joined with a desire to confess their sins to a Priest, saying, that a man by Contrition is not reconciled to God without their Sacramental or Ritual Penance actual or votive. And this is decreed by the Council of Trent, etc. Then comes thundering in a Declamation fraught with such Invidious yet Holy Rhetoric 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 Gospel, and not only teaches for Doctrines 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 haste that he forgot to add an Also to answer to the word Besides. Now Ld have mercy upon usl What strangely wicked Doctrine is this which can occasion such a clutter of Devotion and Invectiveness jumbled together! Attend Reader, and from one Instance which I picked 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 reckoned, (not 4th, 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 Penance) 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 Penance, 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 ascribed (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 showed before) and purposely omitted, as appeared 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 only Perfect Contrition, makes our Church require actual or votive Penance to Its Sufficiency; Whereas the Council expressly voids any necessity of actual Penance to this or proper Contrition, and only requires it to Attrition.  
3ly. He omits the words which is included in it; which put down had disannulled all his whole discourse and cleared our Church from all his Calumnies; For this shows the Councils sense to be that Contrition alone, if qualifyed as it ought to be, reconciles to God; but that to be qualified 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 signalises this particularly of his duty to the Church in resolving to come to the Sacrament of Penance. 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 stolen, 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 my Lds. ranting declamation of the Councils going against Scripture, and the promises of the Gospel, teaching for Doctrines 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 Christ's Law to give account of their Souls to the Church and receive their Absolution and Penance from her, as well as they are to restore what's stolen, the case is undeniably parallel.  
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 incurred by us, and the spiritual ones of Scandal, ask pardon for affrontive Injuries, curing our former Uncharitableness and wordliness by giving Alms, and such like: a purpose of all which, if our Contrition be right, aught to be included in it; 'tis worth Enquiry why the Council particularises this of coming to the Sacrament of Penance. And to Catholics who understand the nature of that Sacrament, the Answer is so easy that 'tis needless. For, after the heart is contrite or substantially turned, there remains no more to be done but to wash of the tainture of bad Inclinations Mortal Sin uses to leave behind it, and to make Satisfaction to our Neighbour or the World: Wherefore, because the wholesome Sacrament of Penance, rightly used, is ordained and apt of its own Nature both to wash away those remaining stains by sorrowful and penal actions enjoined by Church discipline, and also to tie men to the Execution of all due Satisfaction to the injured 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 only remaining duty (as including all else) and for that reason 'tis particularly expressed 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 conceit 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 disordered, 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 only a dry Ceremony had been enjoined 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 the Arrears and Effects of a sinful Action: But he did worse to omit the Councils words, and so leave out totally Quoth 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 Holywater all over as if every thing were a Devil he met with, and here particularly, in wilfully publicly and causelessly 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 moat seem a Beam; and though the Fault would lie 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 airy Rhetoric, that it looks as big as a mountain; whereas come near it, examine and grasp it, that will not now fill your hand which before took up the whole prospect of your Eye. He 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 Authors; understanding spiritual things grossly 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 only 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 Catholics that they are Traitors, and unfit for human Society. He names not these words but that he endeavours to have the thing believed by his Readers appears thus: The Title of his third Chapter, p. 260. is this: The Church of Rome. teaches Doctrines 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 Catholics not only are obliged to hold, but to hold as Sacred and of Faith what the Church of Rome teaches, nay, to be ready to die for that Faith, 'tis plain his Endeavours are to make us pass in the Opinion of his Readers for persons who hold Treason and Villainy Lawful, nay Sacred, and that we are ready to die and hope to be saved by such damnable points of Faith. Nor will his falsehearted Pretence, p. 462. exempt any, while 'tis known that nothing is more deeply rooted in our hearts than our obligation to believe as the Church believes and teaches. In particular he assures his Reader, p. 462. that, No Contracts, Leagues, Societies, Promises, Vows or Oaths, are sufficiennt security to him that deals with one of the Church of Rome: And p. 279. that the Doctrines 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 genuine 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 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 misconstrued) Writers. But when writes the Dissuader this? After such fresh Testimonies of the unanimous Loyalty of Catholics 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 publicly 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 looked upon by them, which violates Civil Unity so necessary for the Peace and strength of a Kingdom; 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 acknowledgement that we are Loyal, but that it shall still be lawful for any one at pleasure to brand us for Traitors, and this publicly in print in the face of all England? And lastly (were not our known Fidelity too strong an Antidote for his malice) it tends to breed a conceit in our Governors that we are not to be endured in any State, and only fit to be ruined 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 Authors, viz. Emonerius, Father Barnes, Emmanuel Sà, Tolet, Vasquez, Navarre, etc. 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 Church's Doctrine or Faith: That these Discourses are held by our Church to be Constant and Certain (for such all Catholics hold her Doctrine 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 first invented them: that they who deny or impugn them are Heretics, 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, than 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 Doctrine or Faith that he should think three or four Acts all in several kinds, that is, one in each kind, argue the Church's Doctrine 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 extinguished the Templars; and confessed 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 profess 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 Governors' might not act in great Emergencies, but must be tied to let all go wrong because it happens no provision is made against it in any written Law; All Churches, Kingdoms, 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 lie. 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 complained of them, and moved him to it, and so their Consent went accompanied with this action of their Chief Governor.  
25. He hath only 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. That if a man have promised to a woman to marry her, and is betrothed 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 accursed by the Council of Trent. Thus my Ld.; where he tautologizes and lays 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 resolved we should be Perjured, and avoids, (as was his frequent custom) 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 judged so, but keep his promise let his Salvation go whether it would? If he sees this plainly, than 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 knowledge of his Spouses humour, her newly-discovered dishonesty, the Inconveniences he shall incur by her ill-conditioned 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 Infinite 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 infinitely Best. Oh, but this will break all Contracts, Leagues, Vows, etc. 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 judged how my Ld. jumbles some good Cases with other bad ones, and makes all equally naught, did my design of an Appendix give me leave to trace him through them all.  
26. His next passage seeming to touch our Church is alleged, p. 265. Thus it is affirmed and was practise't by a whole Council of Bishops at Constance, that Faith is not to be kept with Heretics, etc. This is something now, being the Affirmation (I suppose he means or would be thought to mean definition) and Practise of an approved General Council. Attend now, Reader, for here the Dissuader once or twice at least in a whole Chapter aims 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 citys 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 absolved 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 Cavies and Laws are distinct? Whereas to violate Faith given, and upon this score because the party to whom I gave it is an Heretic, which my Ld. falsely charges, is most unmanly, nay Diabolical. Yet, though it lay in the Church's power to proceed Juridically her way, yet it lay in the Emperors to hinder or differ the Execution if any public Concern made it prudent. But what I stand upon (with leave of others) is that no safe Conduct was promised them to return, but only 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 preserved; 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 cleared not himself. Again, a disciple of Husse's who writ his trial and death, and professes himself as much versed in the particulars as his senses could make him, complains indeed of safe conduct given by Sigismond 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 Emperor always threatened Hus that he had rather burn an obstinate Heretic 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 Catholic, which was greedily catcht at by such as leapt for joy to find any licks thing to bespatter the Church with, and startling some unattentive and too credulous Catholics, drive them, zealous of defending the Council, to an unwarrantable position; which Tenet and its practice my Ld. himself knows well the Generality of Catholics 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 called. Now his Principles he lays 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 j 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, called by him p. 7. the first and best Antiquily, and signified to mean the First three Ages. Now the Positive part of this Principle is good and Assertive of Tradition, but withal unapt to stead him. The Negative part of it, or that the third Age transmitted it not to the fourth, and so forwards, employed in his Discourse, would only stead him; but 'tis left unprooved, 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 concerned the Tradition of the Church, so this and the three following ones concern the Authorities of Fathers. The present Roman Doctrines (saith he) which are in difference were Invisible and unbeard of in the first and best Antiquity. That is, no Heretic had arisen in those days (or in the first three hundred years) denying those points, and so the Fathers set not themselves to write Expressly for them, but occasionally only; and yet, by his leave, our Controv●●●●●● are frequent in citing them for divers points, especially for the Ground of our Faith, the Church's voice or Tradition, to the utter overthrow of the Protestant Cause. So far this improved 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 Senses 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 qualified 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 avowed Doctrine is (that the Testimony of Fathers speaking of them properly as such, is jufallible; that in two Cases they speak as Fathers; that is, when they declare it the doctrine of the present Church of their time, or when they write against any man as an Heretic 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 destroys 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 Catholics 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 Doctrine delivered from their Forefathers down to them of what the Church esteemed 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 Catholics) to conclude from the sayings of a number of Fathers that the Doctrine they would prove thence was the Catholic doctrine of the Church, because any number that is less than all does not prove a Catholic Consent. So that unless each single Father affirm each single point to be of Faith or the Doctrine of the Catholic Church (which, morally speaking; is Impossible to happen) it follows by his words that 'tis Impossible to conclude thence the Catholic Doctrine 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 says that no number less than all can prove a Catholic 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 six,) by virtue of which he enforces them is this, p. 8. The clear saying of one or two of those Fathers truly alleged 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 Catholics do deny, was not then a matter of Faith or a Doctrine of the Church. I wish my Ld. had been so Ingenuous as to have made use of this Principle when he charged our Church itself 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 itself, it subsists not at all. For is it not known that more than one or two, that is S. Cyprian and the African Fathers denied the Baptism of Heretics Valid, yet the Contrary was notwithstanding found and defined to be Faith and the Sense 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 applied 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 expressly 'tis not-of-Faith, he engages not so far; but) bore 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 Doctrine of the Catholic Church which many others barely deny, argues 'tis of Faith: 'Twas of Faith then what Gennadius cited by himself, p. 59 affirms, that After Christ's 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 doctrine of the Catholic Church is Inefficacious, and yet 'tis incomparably the best, nay the only Efficacious one in my Lds. whole book, or else according to him many Fathers (and not one or two only) 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. Father's then are useless to the Dissuader, as having according to him no virtue at all of settling 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 Conquerors in the Fathers. A high Expression! but, compared with what he says; p. 7. that in those times our present differences were unheard-of, it signifies that they miraculously more than conquer, where (if his words be true) no mortals else could either conquer or even attack 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, joined to his words at the bottom 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 allege them, amounts very fairly to this, that he brags Protestants have a far greater number of Citations which are to no purpose than Catholics 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 qualify them, to wit that each side may Eternally and Inconfutably allege them.  
33. We come now to his main and most Fundamental and (in comparison) his only 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, etc. To finish our Discourse about the Fathers will make way to the Scripture. What means admitting as contradistinguisht to relying on? Not, relying on; that's certain, for 'tis contradistinguisht to it; And yet to allege 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 allege them merely for a show. He says they admit them as admirable Helps for the Understanding the Scriptures and good Testimony of the Doctrine delivered 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 doctrine 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 Uncertain Interpreters and Witnessers be admirable Helps to interpret right and good Testimony? I fear my Ld. can only 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 Sense of it or the delivered Doctrine of the Catholic 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 Catholic Consent, and so is 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 ways to elude them at pleasure; or (which is their very temper, springing from their renouncing Living and determinate Sense, and adhering to dead unsenced 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 expressed 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 (says he) is therefore certainly Primitive and Apostolic, 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 sense 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 sense of it or their Faith, for there is their Rule. 'Tis the bare Letter then unsenced he means by the word Scriptures, and so he must say 'tis the outward 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 figured in a Book; A worthy Argument to prove their Church is certainly Primitive and Apostolic: 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 only to those six who writ. But we mistake him, he means neither sense 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 sense of Scriptures, but the bare Letter only, whose sense is fetch't out by Interpretations, and these (as we experience) depend on means private Judgements and Fancies; if means Fancies may vary every hour, you may have divers 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 only a determinate Principle but even as self-evident and unmistakable as the First Principle in Metaphysics to guide themselves by, whereas our daily eyesight and their own sad experience every day teaches us by the practice of this Principle, and yet their differing in the Sense of Scripture in most high and most concerning Points, that the Speenlation is naught, and the Principle itself a false and misguiding Light. Nay I doubt my Ld. himself has no hearty value for this his First Principle, though he says he wholly relies on it; For I never saw Protestant Book in my Life thinner and slighter 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 employed in his book to give it force. As that It matters not how a Citation is qualified so it be but alleged. '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 Church's Doctrine. Points of Faith ought to be comprehensible to Reason, and Spiritual things suitable to Fancy. The Act of an Inquisition, Sayings of a few Divines or Casuists are all Catholic Faith and the Doctrine of the Church. That is rationally dissuasive which is confessedly Uncertain. No Answer was ever given to the Citations or Reasons produced in the Dissuasive. Talking soberly and piously about a point is oftentimes as good as proving 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 expressed yet run employed in his carriage all along this book, and supposed 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 only hath never a Principle for his Dissuasive to subsist by, but farther, that 'tis Impossible but himself should know in his own Conscience 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 proved 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 allege that the ways 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 exquisite craft and such multitudes of preternatural sleights to render his Discourse plausible. For the later of those Branches 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 proved in Sure-Footing out of the nature of the Thing. 'Tis their most constant and avowed 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 only they can derive Title to that dignity is, in that case, none itself: To Scripture then le's come. By which word if they agreed to mean any determinate Sense of it certainly known to be the true one, their Discourse were well-built: But, since their Church can own no determinate Sense of the Scripture derived down from Christ and his Apostles in antecedency to the Scripture's Letter, but (having renounced that Way or Tradition) must say she has it merely from that Letter as yet unsenced, She must mean that 'tis the Scripture Letter She relies on as the foundation and final resort of all her Persuasions, nay for her Persuasion that this is the Sense of it. Since than Principles are determinate Senses, 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'll say, that Letter is a Certain Way to arrive at a determinate Sense, and consequently that they have determinate Sense 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 resistance of the matter, do but apply it, 'twill do that effect or burn it. Is there requisite some Scholarship in the Subject Scripture's Letter is to work upon, or desire to see Truth in their Will? Then, if this be the only requisite, it will work its Certifying or determining Effect upon all Scholars and well-meaners; and so no Scholars and well meaners can disagree in the Sense 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 requisite 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 only one p. 12. for the Socinians deny this, amongst whom 'tis a strange Immodesty in the Protestants to say there is nonc well-meaning, Learned or unapplyed to Scripture. Adding then to this most Evident Proposition that a Cause proper to produce such an Effect if we put the Patient disposed and the Application, always 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 sense, 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 sense of it; it will follow most Evidently that the Fault is in the Agent or Cause, that is, that Scriptures Letter is unfit to Certify or bring us to a determinate sense of it: and therefore, since, till we know the Sense of that Letter 'tis to us but mere Words, I am forced by my reason to judge they have no Principles (Those being Sense) 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 Sense by Living voice and Practise, or Tradition) but I am obliged 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 Sense or Principles, but must forcibly be upheld by Wordishness; as by quoting Texts without any Certain Interpreter, Citations of Fathers not brought to Grounds not held by themselves Certain, fine Scripture phrased 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 opposite 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 answered the Dissuasive particularly; but I know no reason why I should be solicitous to stand cutting of each single Branch of Error or be careful to hinder their growth, after I have once plucked the Tree that bore them up by the Roots.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
IF my Ld. please to reply, (which I fear will be too troublesome a task, because of the illnaturedness and Inflexibleness of Principles) or, if he resolve to write hereaster against our Church, his LP. is entreated he would please to go to work like a Man; that is, orderly, not confounding and jumbling all together. Let him first define then what makes a Thing obligatory to be held by Catholics, a Doctrine of our Church or point of Faith; then put down the very words of the Council in case it be difined; next, acquaint us with the nature of his objections, vouch them Conclusive, and let his Reader know in what their virtue or force of Concluding is plaeed, for this will strengthen them exceedingly; and then let him fall to work when he will. Above all I beg of him not to go about to forestall the sincere verdict of Reason by corrupting first the Will of weak people by pious Talk; but first speak smart and home to their understandings with solid Reasons, and then at the end of the Book preach as much as he pleases against the wickedness of a Point when he hath once demonstrated its Falsehood. Otherwise the Sermon so expands and ratifies the Proof, and his Godly Rhetoric so evaporates his Reasons, that it reflects no light at all; and so no mortal eye, though straining its optic nerves, is able to discern it.    

A Letter To Dr. Casaubon.  
Honoured Sir,  
AFter I had printed Sure-Footing, I heard accidentally that you had been pleased to take notice of my Way and some signal Passages in Schisms Dispatched. I was glad to hear that so ancient a Friend of mine had offered me a fair occasion to renew our acquaintance, resolving to take an account of his Exceptions, and requite them with a due Satisfaction assoon as I could find a season proper. Wherefore, when the last sheet of my Appendix against the Dissuader was under the press, finding both leisure and Opportunity to second my Intentions, I took your Book, perused divers chief passages in it, and particularly what concerned myself, p. 87.  
The first glance of it put me in some Wonderment at the difference I found between you in your Book and the character of you in my Thoughts long ago imprinted there: For in these I found you a solid sober man, a good Scholar, as also ingenuous and candid; but in your Book, particularly in those passages, I saw plainly (and was troubled to see it) you had either none of those Qualities I imagined in you, or to a very small degree. But, I began strait to reflect with myself that as, when I was a child, I fancied rooms very spacious and streets very long. which, coming to the state of a Man, I found very strangely diminished; so my riper and more Judicious Thoughts saw now the measure of your virtues in their true dimensions, which my younger and unexperienced years had so strangely magnified and enhanced. I doubt not but your outward appearance will make it thought by those that know you, I have said too much, let's see how I can justify myself.  
I complain then that your carriage in this one page discovers you at once an absolute stranger to Science, and withal very uncivilly Injurious to me all along without any imaginable need, Ground or the least occasion given.  
You begin with a mistake of the reason why the Rational Way explained in Rushworth's Dialogues was followed by me in Schism Dispatched, or rather why that way was devised; and conceive 'tis because we despair of maintaining the Pope's Personal Infallibility, and think all your own if you disprove this; So that you strongly apprehend this the basis of all our Faith. By which I see Opinion and Faith is all one with you. Deceive not yourself nor your Readers Sir; our D r●. came and do dispute against personal Infallibilities far more strongly than you are even likely; and if you please to look into our Councils you find no news of building Faith on any such ground, but only on Tradition. The Way I take is the old-and-ever-Way of the Church; the farther Explication of it is indeed new, not occasioned by our relinquishing Personal Infallibility of the Pope, (you shall never show the Church ever built her Faith on a disputable Ground) but by this occasion.  
Had you looked into Things and considered the progress of the Rational part of the world as well as you poor on Books, you would have discerned that the Wits of this last half Century have been strangely curious and Inquisitive, and straining towards a Satisfaction apt to bring all into doubt which they conceived to hinder their way to it. Had you reflected on those Heroes of such Attempts, the Noble and Learned Sr. Kenelm Digby, des Caries, Gassendus, Harvey, and now the Royal Society, those living Libraries of Learning in their several ways, you would have found that, parallel to them in the matter of Controversy were the Ld. Faukland and Mr. Chillingworth; whose acute wits finding no Establishment nor Satisfaction in the Resolution of our Faith as made by some particular Divines, nor yet in the Grounds of the Protestant Belief, endeavoured to shake the whole Fabric of our Faith, and allow but a handsome Probability to their own. Whence, Doubt and Inquisitiveness being the Parents of Satisfaction and Evidence, Catholic Controvertists began to apply themselves more closely and regardfully to look into the Ground● of their Faith, Tradition or Universal delivery; settled from the beginning of the Church, proceeded upon by Councils and all the Faithful, insisted on and stuck to by the Fathers, especially those) who were most Controversial as Athanasius, S. Augustin, Tertullian, S. Hierome, etc. and at large by Vincentius Lirinensis; and, to consider how Proper Causes laid in Things by the Course of God's Providence had the virtue to produce the Effect of deriving down with Infallible Certainty Christ's doctrine to us. Hence sprung our farther Explication of this way which so much bewonders you. This is your mistake; now to your Injuries.  
I quoted Rushworth's Dialogues and called it The rich Storehouse of motives fortifying Tradition. Upon this your Reason works thus. This I do not understand; I never heard of such an Author; and it is possible the better to cry himself up he might borrow another name. What means This I do not understand? I'll acquaint the Reader. It means you are so wedded to talk by the book that you are utterly at a loss if an Author be quoted you have not heard of: The reason of which is because as I see by your Discourses, which look like so many dreams, your Genius inclines you not much to trade in Books which pretend to the way of Reason; and, if Schism Dispatched so amazed you, 'tis to be feared that Sure-Footing and its Corollaries may put you out of your wirts. But with what Civility should you hint I so extolled myself under another name, it being (as you say) but possible. Should I put upon you all things that were possible, what a Monster might I make you? But it abundantly manifests your short reach of reason that 'tis highly Improbable. For either I must have discovered myself to the world to be Author of both books and then I had shamed myself with so high self-praises; or not have manifested it, and then where's the credit I had got by the other book I had so extolled.  
Your next Injury is that I make nothing of, and disclaim the Testimonies of Popes and Prelates, calling them the words of a few particular men, and cite for it Schism Dispatched p. 98. where there is not one word of either Pope or Prelate, nor of disclaiming any Testimony, nor of calling those the bare words of a few particular men; Now, if this be so, every word you charge against me is an injurious Calumny and your whole charge a direct Falsisication. My words are these. By this is shown in what we place the Infallbility of the CHURCH, not in the bare words of few particular men, but in the manifest and ample Attestation of such a Multitude, etc. Where, though you cannot or will not, yet the Reader, if he understands plain English, will see I meddle not with who is or is not Infallible besides the Church, nor scene the validity of Testimonies of Popes or Prelates but treat in what the Infallibility of the CHURCH consists: Now the word CHURCH denothing in its First Signification an Universality, I place her Infallibility in Universal Attestation from Age to Age. Notwithstanding which, my Corollaries in Sure-Footing, if your Wonderment at my new Way or your own habituation to words will let you understand them, will let you see I also place Infallibility in lesser Councils; & even in particular Sees, but most in the Popes or the Roman; not by way of an Afflatus (of which I for my part an able to give no account) but by a course of Things Natural and Supernatural, laid by Gods sweetly-and-strongly ordering Providence in second Causes. But what aggravates your Falsification is, that whereas I there counterpose bare words and Attestation, rejecting the first and making use of the later, you make me affirm Testimonies to be bare words; To which how much I attribute every such passage of mine will tell you; for on them the way I follow entirely builds. So that this whole Charge is either quite opposite or else disparate to what I say in the place whence you cite my words.  
Your third Injury (and 'tis a strange one) is that I slight Scriptures, Fathers and Councils as much, (in this business) and call them in scorn Wordish Testimonies; for which you cite Schism Dispatched p. 42. But not such a word is found there, nor I will undertake any where else in my Writings. 'Tis likely indeed, that speaking of such things as you use to call Testimonies, (for you name every sleight Citation such whether it have the nature of Witnessing in it, that is, be built on Sensations or no) I may say they are wordish, in regard you have no Certain means to arrive at their Sense; and till than I beseech you what are they else but mere WORDS? or rather mere Characters and Sounds?  
What high deference I give to Scripture see §. 18, & 19 beginning p. 146. in Sure-Footing: To Councils, see Corol. 27. To Fathers, taking them properly, you may be informed by the whole Body of my Discourse concerning Tradition, of which they are a part, and the Eminentest Members of it in Proportion to their number.  
Your 4th. Injury is that the only thing I place Infallibility in is Oral Tradition and the Testimonies of Fathers of Families; whereas I place Infallibilities also in other things, though I make this the greatest. But your discourse makes me disesteem and exclude all others, both Popes, Prelates, Fathers and Councils, by establishing this; Whereas by settling this, I establish all others, nor find you any such Expressions in my Book; on the contrary 'tis evident by those words I include them; unless you think Popes and Prelates are not Fathers of Families, but take lodgings or hire rooms in other men's houses by the week. Truth is, being to express the obligatory descent of Faith from Age to Age, I cast about for a common word fit to express such Deliverers, and conceived this of Fathers of Families the aptest; because the Church consisting of Families, this was most General; and every Master of a Family, by being such, has an Obligation to see all under him taught their Catechism or Faith. This in common, which was enough for my purpose then. But, were I to distinguish the strength of those Testimonies, I should show that a Priest hath an Incomparable advantage above a Layman, a Bishop above him, and the Head of the Church above a Bishop.  
Your 5th. Injury is lighter, because it speaks but your own Apprehensions and I am to expect no better from you. My many chimerical suppositions, and my Impertinencies in which I so please myself, must needs begets wonder (say you) in case the man (as probably) be of any account and reputation in the world. Now my Suppositions in the way I take are chiefly these, that men in all Ages had Eyes and Ears, the wit and (if they were good Christians) the Grace not to tell an open and damnable lie to no purpose; and, for these, I should much wonder myself if you did not wonder at such odd Grounds, and esteem them Chimerical, because you have read them in no ancient book; for you use not to look into Things. By this extravagant kind of dealing, you say you cannot but suspect me to be one of the Fraternity of the new-pretended Lights. I believe you heartily: For, to begin with Self-evident principles and thence to deduce Immediate Consequences is such a new Light to you, as I dare undertake scarce one beam of it ever entered into the Eye of your Understanding. I conceive 'tis the difference between your way & ours which breeds all this mis-intelligence. Ours aims to bring all Citations to Grounds by way of Cause and Effect; yours to admit them confusedly, especially if writ by some old Authors provided they speak not for the Interest of Papists, for than they are questionable. Ours is to be backwards in assenting to any thing writ long ago, till our Reason be satisfied no Passion or mistake could invalidate its Authority; yours to believe them hand over head, if the book be but said to be Authentic; which is to a degree the same Weakness as that of the rude Country people who think all true they see in Print, and that their having a ballad of it is sufficient to authenticate it. Our Principle is that no Authority deserves any Assent farther than Reason gives it to deserve, and hence we lay Principles to assure us of Knowledge and Veracity in the Author ere we yield over our Assent to his sayings. Yours is kinder-hearted than to hold them to such strict terms, and is well apayed if some Author you have a conceit of, praise the other for a good Writer, or his work for a good Book. Ours is to lay Self-evident Principles and deduce immediate consequences, and by this means to cultivate our Reason, that noblest Faculty in us which constitutes us Men; yours to lay up multitudes of Notes gleaned from several Authors; and, if you better any Spiritual Faculty you have, 'tis your Memory not your Reason. Hence we carry, for the main of our Doctrine, and as far as 'tis antecedent to written Authority, our Library in our Heads; and can as well study in a Garden, as sitting in a Library stufit with books; whereas your way of Learning ties you to turn over leaves of Authors, as children do their Dictionaries, for every step of your discourse: and as an ingenious man said of those Poets who spun not their Poems out of their own Invention, but made them up of scraps of wit transcribed from other Authors 

— Lord! how they'd look  
If they should chance to lose their paper Book?   So we may say of you; that, if your Notes you have with much pains collected, hap to miscarry, you are utterly at a loss; so that little of your Learning is Spiritual and placed in your Soul, as true Learning should be, but in material and perishable paper and characters. In a word, your whole performance ends here, that you are able to declare what other men say; whereas ours aims at enabling us to manifest what ourselves KNOW. No wonder then if our ways being so different, we cannot hit it; but that, as you think ours Chimerical, so I assure myself yours; and consequently all you write in that way, is (as far as you go about to conclude or cause Assent by it) exceedingly ridiculous.  
This, I doubt not, will confirm you in what you said before, that I am no Friend to Ancient Books or Learning. To Notebook Learning indeed not much; to true Learning or Knowledge, very much; and even to the other as far as it conduces to This. To Books I am so much a Friend, that I desire not a few should be selected of each sort by a General Council of Scholars, and the rest burned, as did an ingenious person; but I would only have the riff-raff burned ('tis no great matter if that tedious Legend of Dr. Dee's Sprights accompany them) and the Generality preserved; but so, that their Contents should be gathered in Heads or Common-place books for Scholars to look in occasionally, not for rational Creatures to spend their whole lives in poring on them and noting them with a foolish expectation to find true Knowledge by stuffing their Heads with such a gallimawfry, and after 40. years thus spent, never the wiser; for, indeed, this is little better than for one to hope to frame himself a good suit of Apparel by picking thrums ends out of a multitude of old and overworn Garments. But to the point, I distinguish Books. And, as for the Scriptures, ascertaining their Letter and Sense (which is done by Tradition) 'tis clear they are of Incomparable value; not only for the Divine Doctrine contained in them, but also for many particular passages, whose Source or first Attestation not being universal, nor their nature much Practical, might possibly have been lost in their conveyance down by Tradition. Next, follows those of Councils and Fathers, and (supposing Christ a perfect Lawgiver) 'tis clear all they have to do with Faith is to witness the Church's belief; and the former of them to declare or explain Faith or the Church's Sense against obstinate Heretics. As such than their Books are to be valued, that is exceedingly. Next, follow such as Euclid's or Archimedes his, which express Science; and those are of very great worth, in regard they acquaint us with and manifest to our hands the Knowledge of the former world; which being Speculative, little of it could have come down by Tradition, except when that Speculation became Practical, and expressed itself in Matter by many useful or rather needful Arts, Trades or Manufactures. After these succeed Opinionative Books, of which this last Age has produced multitudes; and these also are very useful, if the Reader go not too credulously to work, but have right Principles laid already in his head; for then the variety of men's Conceits and their Reasons for them will hint to a Considerer divers Consequences, which otherwise the slowness and distractedness of our Reason would not have light of; nay, even the miscairiages of such Reasoners avail a wise man, as Aristotle out of the contrary Opinions of Philosophers, whom he saw failing in their Grounds, gathered very happily the middle Truth. These Books therefore are worth preserving. Human Histories come next; and These second Tradition in her object, matter of Fact, after she hath authenticated them and the Circumstances of their Writers. There are others fit for Explications or Rational Declarations of a point by Similitudes, allusions, Examples & such like, as Pliny's Natural History, Emblems, Fictions, & others of an Ornamental Nature; which being useful for Sermons and Discourses suitable to the middle size of the world, 'tis plain they are preservable: With this caution that these and chiefly Opinionative books be either kept from the weak and credulous vulgar, or else in the Preface to them some learned Authority declare in common how far they are to be credited; lest by imposing on the reasons of the Generality, they hinder the world's improvement. Prayer-books and Recreation-books 'tis almost as Evident they are to be preserved, as 'tis that Prayers and Recreations are to be used. Only caution is to be had the former be examined well and approved by Ecclesiastical Authority, and that the later be chaste and unabusive. You have here my sentiment concerning Books; against which you shall find nothing in Schism Dispatched, or any of my Writings. In a word, I would have every thing distinguished, examined by Grounds, & allowed as far as 'tis reasonable: Nor wonder I much at your mistake of me in this point, for you are not the only man that thinks all Books, and even Authority to be absolutely denied, when they are sorted, and ranked in their just degree of merit; that is, indeed, settled and established; for we Metaphysicians think nothing to stand firm but by being, or being held-to-be, truly what it is.  
You denounce Woe to Colleges and Libraries if these men should prevail. Yet, you see now I leave you Libraries enough, and permit you your only darlings, Books; and only desire you would love them wisely. Neither will Colleges forfeit their Libraries to my Discourse. Only, whereas you would have Scholars educated there, only poor on books, Note and (when they come to write,) quote, I would have them take Principles along with them by which to judge and consider of what they read. Without which 'tis to be feared their much reading will do them more harm then good; and even pervert honest natural Reason in them by filling their heads with a multitude of unconnected and unconnectible Ends of Sayings, impossible to be ever postured in the frame of Reason, and themselves unfurnish't of means to know which rather to adhere to; which may sit them to talk indeed of many things, like Parrots; yet, all the while, for want of Principles, know nothing of what they say. If you would have Colleges consist of such, I conceive I am a far better Friend to Colleges than yourself are, and that no great cause of Woe will come to them by my means. But, as our way in your conceit brings Woe to Colleges and Libraries, so you affirm that Atheism and Mahometism will get by it. By which I understand what a Disputant you are. I believe you would quote Scriptures and Books to confute an Atheist or Mahometan; whereas I conceive, since all Discourse supposes an Agreement between the Discoursers in some Common Principle, and they deny or undervalue your written proofs, you must begin to confute them by Maxims of common Reason, antecedent to all Authority. For these, Human Nature obliges all men to hold to, unless they have quite irrationalized themselves into perfect Scepticism; whereas they reject or slight the other; which to render Efficacious you must go to work first with Principles of plain reason.  
Your last Injury which I account the worst of all the rest, is delivered thus. Others, of approved worth and abilities have met with this man, who, I think, have done him more credit than he deserved. This argues you are so set to abuse me, that no Testimony, though never so valid, and confessed to be such, can stave you of. And the Judgement or Veracity of my Friends, who speak by Experience shall be questioned, rather than you will be brought to entertain any conceit of me that's handsome. You leap voluntarily into Falsifications and ill-languaged misconceits without any motive, but are so restif and backward to think or speak in the lest civilly of me, that witnesses of approved worth and abilities, cannot win you to favourable apprehensions nor keep you from pursuing your resolute Censoriousness. Had you found half that Testimony for the Authenticness of an old Writer in some mouse-eaten rag of Antiquity it had gone down currently with your Genius, and been next to Gospel. I value not your Judgement of me; but highly and equally dislike your humour as void of all Ingenuity, whether it had been used to myself or another. When you review Schism Dispatched, and see your mistakes, I hope you will have a good conceit of my Friends at least; for whom in this passage I apologise.  
But that I may re-acquaint myself with you, I am to tell you that you also have met me formerly and knew me very well. Nay, that I am exceedingly bound to you for the best favour in the world; which is that, accidentally, you contributed to make me a Catholic. But, because 'tis long ago, I am forced to remind you of it by two Tokens. One is that in Durham-house where you at that time lodged when you came to London, and in your chamber there, upon occasion of reading a book writ by a certain Protestant Bishop against the Real presence, I observed, and acquainted you with my observation, that, to my Judgement, the Fathers spoke more favourably for the Papists tenet than the Protestants: Hereupon, you took me by the hand and told me they were mad who read the Ancient Fathers and saw not they meant Christ was as really in the Sacrament as in Heaven. The other was yet more remarkable, and this; that (either your Grandfather or Father, I know not which, but I think) your Grandfather was intimate with Mr. Calvin, and, when he had put out his Explication of Christ's presencein the Sacrament, which dodged and shuffled between really and notreally, that is, between is and isnot, he challenged Mr. Calvin with it, and laid open to him the nonsense and indefensibleness of it, ask him why he put out so strange an Opinion, which he was never able to make good? at which Mr. Calvin took hold of his own finger, and said, See you this? I would willingly cut it off on condition I had never put it out so. To which your Grandfather replied, You should then explain it some other way; Mr. Calvin answered, My Institutions are so spread all over France that 'tis now too late. Thus you, letting me see by a Testimony very immediate, that the late Author of this Tenet which now so reigns all over England, wished his finger cut off when he writ it. How you will reconcile this with the late new piece of the Rubric in the Common-Prayer-book, absolutely renouncing all real presence, in which point the Church of of England formerly expressed herself abstractedly, do you consider.  
Sir, I beseech you let this be a fair warning to you how you deal disingenuously for the future; and pardon some of my expressions to my high provocation and exceeding great haste: I am sure the worst of them is a Civility compared to the harsh carriage you have used towards yourself in openly falsifying both my words and sense, and causelessly wresting to an ill construction every passage you touched; yet not doing me the right to go about to answer any one in the least, that so I might see by your Reasons you had Grounds to think as you writ. Had you argued against me I know too well the right of a Writer, to take it ill if you laid open and named my conceived Faults, though the names of them had been harsh Words; but not even to attempt to confute them, yet to fly into such Expressions, is the very definition of railing. I was extreme sorry to lay open the Fault of a Friend, though my own Concern made it Fitting, and your demerit Just, and do assure you that only the Injury to my Cause, which went along in that action obliged me to this Vindication. Setting aside the duty I owe to That, I am still as ever.  
Your true Friend and humble Servant, J. S.   

A LETTER from The Author of Sure-footing, to his Answerer.  
SIR,  
I Am certainly informed there is an Answer to my Book intended, and a Person chosen out for that Employment; whose Name I am unconcerned to know, it being only his Quality as a Writer I have to do with. I receive the Alarm with great cheerfulness; knowing that, if my Adversary behaves himself well, it will exceedingly conduce to the clearing and settling the main point there controverted. But, because there is difference between being called an Answer and being an Answer, and that 'tis extremely opposite to my Genius, to be tasked in laying open men's Faults even as Writers, (though it has been my unhappiness formerly to meet with Adversaries, whose way of winning made that carriage my only duty) wherefore to prevent, as much as I am able, all occasion of such unsavoury oppositions, and to make way to the clearing the point, that so our Discourse may redound to the profit and satisfaction of our Readers, I make bold to offer you these few Reflections; which in effect contain no more but a Request you would speak to the point, and in such a way as is apt to bring the matter nearer a clearing. This if you please to do, you will very much credit yourself and your endeavours in the opinion of all ingenuous persons. If you refuse, and rather choose to run into Rhetorical Excursions, and such Discourses as are apt to breed new Controversies not pertinent to the present one under hand, you will extremely disparage both yourself, your party and your Cause, and give me an exceeding advantage against them all; I shall also have the Satisfaction to have manifested beforehand by means of this Letter, that I have contributed as much as in me lies to make you avoid those Faults, which I must then be forced to lay open and severely press upon you, little to your Credit nor your Causes neither; You being (as I am informed and Reason gives it) signally chosen out as held most able to maintain it.  
2. That there may be no more distance between us than what our Cause enforces, I heartily assure you that though I highly dislike your Tenets negatively opposite to what we hold Faith, and the Way of Writing I foresee you must take (unless you resolve to love Candour better than your Cause) as being Inconclusive and so apt to continue not finish debates, yet I have not the least pique against yours or any man's Person. Nor have I any particular aversion against the Protestant party; rather I look upon it with a better eye than on any other Company whatever which has broke Communion with the Catholic Church: It preserves still unrenounced the form of Episcopacy, the Church-Government instituted by Christ; and many grave Solemnities and Ceremonies, which make our Union less difficult: Many of their soberest Writers acknowledge divers of the renounced Tenets to be Truths: some of them also profess to hold Tradition, especially for Scripture's Letter; and even for those Points or Faith-Tenets in which they and we agree; that is, where their Interest is not touched. I wish they would as heartily hold to it in all other Points which descended by it, and look into the Virtue it has of ascertaining, and declare in what that Virtue consists; I am confident, a little candour of confessing truly what they find, joined with an endeavour of looking into Things rather than Words, would easily make way to a fair Correspondence. I esteem, and even honour the Protestants from my heart for their firm Allegiance to his Sacred Majesty and his Royal Father; This uniting them already with all sober Catholics under that excellent notion of good Subjects, and in the same point of Faith, the Indispensableness of the duty of Allegiance we owe our Prince by Divine Law. Lastly I declare, that for this as well as for Charitable Considerations, I have a very particular zeal for their reconcilement to their Mother-Church; and that 'tis out of this love of Union I endeavour so earnestly to beat down the wordish and dissatisfactory way of Writing, and go about to Evidence the Ground of all our Faith; knowing, that, as wounds are never connaturally and solidly cured, by uniting the distant sides at the surface, and leaving them disunited and unhealed at the bottom, but the cure must begin there first; so, the only Way to heal the Wounds of the Church, is to begin first to win some to acknowledge the most radical and bottom-Principle of all Faith, as controverted between us; without which all agreement in particular points must needs be unsound and hollow-hearted. This is my only aim in Sure-Footing. That therefore you may not obstruct so good a work, and withal perform the duty of a solid and candid Writer, I offer to yourself and all ingenuous Readers these few Reflections: not sprung from my Will (for what Authority have I to prescribe you your method) but from true Reason working upon the Thing; which makes it just duty in you, and so ought oblige you to follow it.  
3. In the first place, since the scope of my whole Book is about the First Principle in Controversy, or the Ground of all Faith, as to our Knowledge; that is, about a Point antecedent to all particular Points; I conceive it reasonable you should let your Discourse stand firm to the matter in hand, and not permit it to slide into Controversies about Particulars. For so, 'tis evident, we shall be apt to multiply many words little to our present purpose. On what conditions you may have right to allege Particulars as pretended Instances of Traditions failing, shall be seen hereafter.  
4. Next, I desire you would please to speak out Categorically, and declare whether you hold Faith absolutely Certain to us, or else Possible to be false for any thing we know. To explicate myself better, that so I may void some common and frivolous Distinctions, my intent is to demand of you in behalf of the Christian Reader and his due satisfaction, whether you hold God's Providence has laid in the whole Creation any Certain means, by way of Proper Causes to such an Effect, to bring down Faith truly to us, and whether we can arrive at Certain Knowledge of those means, that is, come to see or know the Connexion between such Causes and their Effect spoken of. I make bold to press you earnestly to this declaration; and my reason is, because nothing will more conduce to the Conclusion of our present Debate: For, in case such Causes be laid and can be seen by us, than they are Evident or Demonstrative Reasons for the Ground of our Faith's Certainty: But, if no such Causes be laid, or being laid, cannot be seen by us, than all the Wit of man can never avoid the consequence, but that we can have only Probability for all our Faith; that is, for any thing we absolutely know, 'tis all as false as an old wife's tale; since there are no degrees in Truths and Falsehoods. If you advance this Civil piece of Atheistry, you must pardon me if I be smart with you in opposition to so damnable and Fundamental an Error: I love Christianity and Mankind 〈◊〉 well to suffer that Position which destroys effectually the Root of all their Eternal Happiness, and the Substance of all their Hope, to pass unstigmatized, as it deserves. Nor think to avail yourself by some Discoursers in our Schools, It will be shown, when pressed, that they are still preserved good Christians through the virtue of Tradition which they all hold to, notwithstanding their private speculations: but you not, because of your want of Certain Grounds, to make you rationally hold Christ's Faith. They only mistook a Word, whereas you will be found to err in the whole Thing, or the ordinary Means to true Christianity.  
Again, if such Causes be fitting to be laid by God's Providence, 'tis impossible to avoid the Doctrine proposed in Sure-Footing, because 'tis absolutely Impossible to invent any thing that looks like such Causes, but those which are delivered there; nor did any other Way ever attempt to show any such. Whence I foresee your Cause will force you to fly for refuge to the actual Uncertainty, or possible Falsehood of all our Faith for any thing any man living knows by ordinary means. A sad consequence of an erroneous tenet! But 'tis connatural, and, so to be expected, such Effects should follow the renouncing the Rule of Faith.  
5. Thirdly, I conceive it very reasonable that you would please to declare whether Controversy ought to have any First Principle or no; If none, then to speak candidly out, and confess that Controvertists are Certain of nothing they say, since their discourse has no Ground or First Principle to rely on. If any, whether Tradition be It; or, if it be not, what else is; and then vouch (as plain reason tells us you ought) that what you assign has truly in it the nature of a First Principle, which common Reason gives to be self-evidence. Or, lastly, to profess (if you judge it your best play) that, what you substitute in stead of Tradition, though it be a First Principle, yet it need not be at all self-evident. Any thing shall content me, so you will but please to speak out, and to the point.  
6. Again, since it is evidently your task to argue against Tradition's Certainty, 'tis as Evident that while you argue against it, you must bear yourself as holding It uncertain; I conceive then plain Reason obliges you not to produce any thing against Tradition which depends upon Tradition for its Certainty; for, in doing so you would invalidate and even nullify all your own proofs: Since, if Tradition be held by you uncertain, and they have no certainty but by means of It, they must be confessed Uncertain too; and so they would be incompetent to be produced as proofs, and yourself very disingenuous to produce them: I add self-contradicting too, and Unskilful; Nature and Aristotle teaching us, that a Discourser ought not sustain contrary to himself. Hence plainest Reason excludes you from alleging any kind of Testimony, either from Scripture, Councils, Fathers, or History, till you answer my Corollaries 12, 15, 16. which pretend to demonstrate the Certainty of all these dependent on Tradition's; and the only way to show my discourses there to be weak, is to manifest my mistake by declaring into what other thing your Certainty of those Testimonies is finally resolvable, which is not coincident with Tradition. When you produce such a Principle, and prove it such, you have right to allege the foresaid Testimonies, for than you can make good their Authority: Till then, you can have no right in true reason to do it. Not only, because till then you are to be held a Renouncer of that Thing's Certainty upon which there are pretended demonstrations against you Theirs is built; and those presumed true ones, because you let such strongest Attempts pass unanswered; but very particularly for this Consideration that our present matter restrains you from it: For, our discourse is about the Ground of that Authority which ascertains to us Faith; which theresore is antecedent to the notions of Faith, Faithful, Church, Councils, Fathers, nay and creditable History-books too; since those rely on Tradition (taken at large) for their Certainty, as is evident by plain reason, Coroll. 16, 24. which devolves into this, that Tradition is FIRST AUTHORITY, and so not proovable or disproovable by any other secondary Authorities, but aught to be impugned by pure Reason. But, if you think fit to grant this Certainty to Tradition taken at large, yet deny it to Christian Tradition, which hath, besides its Human force most powerful Divine Motives also to strengthen it; please to speak it out, and the strange unreasonableness of the position will quickly be made appear. Or, if you grant Christian Tradition Certain in bringing down those common Points in which we agree, yet Fallible, nay actually erring, in bringing down to us those other points which we were found holding upon Tradition when you left us, and for which, as grievous Errors, you pretended to leave us; please to declare in what you hold the virtue of Tradition consists, ascertaining to us both those common points, and how we come to know Tradition is engaged for them; which done, it will quickly appear whether its ascertaining virtue has its Effect upon some, and not others; or on all. Unless you do this, your very admittance of Tradition's Certainty in some, overthrows you without more ado: for, to acknowledge it argumentative for the Certainty of some, grants it a virtue of Ascertaining, which therefore you are obliged to grant in all, unless you give the reason of your Exception: otherwise to admit it when your Interest is not touched, and reject it when it opposes you, is plainly to confess that Tradition is able to certify, yet that you admit it when you list, and reject it when you list.  
7. Being informed then by Evident Reason, that no kind of Authority but only the way of Reason is a competent Weapon to fight against Tradition with; I have three things to propose to your Thoughts on this occasion, which I hope will sound reasonable to any intelligent man by the very mentioning. First, that you would not allege such Arguments as strike as well at the Constancy of every Species in Nature, especially Rational Nature; that is, such natural Mediums as tend to destroy all Natural Certainty. Secondly, that your objections be not foreign, or fetch't from afar of; for these are multipliable without End, and apt to be suggested by Fancy upon every notseeing the coherence of some other remote (whether real or conceited) Truth, with the Tenet we aim to impugn; but that they be immediate and close, that is, taken out of the Intrinsecal Nature of the Thing; For so, they will be more forcible and by consequence be apt to do your Cause much service; and unless they be such, they will do it none: For, in regard my whole process is grounded on the nature of the Thing, as appears by my Transition, and every Logician knows that remote and common considerations are liable, for any thing we know, to be connected or not-connected with the point we would apply them to, because we see no Connexion but what's Immediate; it follows that 'tis a very incompetent and dissatisfactory way to impugn an Adversary who endeavours all along to frame his discourfe out of the Intrinsecal Nature of the Thing, by remote, or unimmediate, that is, indeed, Unconnected Mediums. The third thing I request is, that you either grant that no Argument or Reason is Conclusive, Obliging-to-Assent, or Satisfactory, but what is either Proper (at least Necessary) Cause or Effect; or else show us out of Logic that other Mediums have this virtue, and how they come to have it. This way of procedure will give me a great respect for you as taking honestly the Way which is apt to clear Truth; and you will have this Satisfaction to your Conscience that you have endeavoured it to your power by following the best method you could imagine to give your Cause its due advantage, in case it can bear that Test; that is, in case it be Truth. And, if it cannot bear it, that is, if it be no Truth, 'tis your own best Advantage by this strict procedure to have discovered it. Your Judicious Readers also that look seriously for satisfaction, will rest much edified and thankful for your pursuing that Method which is likely to save them a great deal of fruitless pains in reading multitudes of books writ in a loose way, whence no Conclusion or Satisfaction is likely to result.  
8. My fifth request, and I hope 'tis just and reasonable, is this; that, if you conceive your Discourse has made good the Certainty of Written Authorities or quoted Testimonies, without Tradition, (which I see isimpossible,) and hence you make account you have title to produce them against Tradition's Certainty, (That being the matter in hand) and therefore you resolve to pursue the way of Citing Authors; you would then be pleaseed to vouch your Citations to have truly in them the nature of Testimonies; that is, to be built on Sensible Knowledge, and not on Speculative, or Opinion in the Author alleged, and that they fall under none of Dr. Pierce's faulty or Inconclusive Heads; or else show they are Conclusive though thus Faulty, which is done by confuting my Grounds laid in my First Appendix. §. 6, 7, 8. Or, lastly, to declare, that though thus Faulty and Inconclusive they ought still to be alleged; and to give your reason for it; which, candidly spoken out, I am sure will be this, that you must either produce such, or none. I hope all our ingenuous Readers will think me very reasonable, who am well contented with any thing which is spoke out expressly and declaratively of what method or way of Satisfying you take; and only desire you would not quote and speak confusedly and in common, as if you meant to persuade your Readers that your discourse has in it some strange force taken in the bulk, though you will vouch no one particular piece of it to be Certain; or, as if you supposed their reasons were to be amazed and stupefied merely at the venerable Names of Authors and the solemnity of a diverse-lettered, or diverse-languaged quotation. without clearing to their Judgements the virtue by which such Citations can pretend to have force able to subdue their understandings to Assent, or (which is all one) satisfy them. If you refuse to do me reason in this point, and still resolve to pursue the huddling together Testimonies without warranting their Certainty by showing upon rational grounds they must be such, I shall declare beforehand to my Readers, that I must be forced to do right to myself; which is, to rank all your Testimonies under Dr. Pierce's Faulty Heads, and so let them go as they are.  
9 Particularly, I beg the Justice of you not to think to over-bear me with the conceived Authority of other Divines resolving Faith in their Speculative Thoughts after another manner than I do: since this can only tend to stir up Invidiousness against my person (which yet their charity secures me from) and not any ways to invalidate mv discourse. For, every one knows 'tis no news Divines should differ in their way of explicating their Tenet, which they both notwithstanding hold never the less firmly; and every learned man understands that the word Divine, importing a man of Skill or Knowledge in such a matter, no Divine has any Authority but from the Goodness of the Proofs or Reasons he brings and on which he builds that Skill. Please then to bring, not the empty pretence of a Divines Authority or Name to oppose me with, and I shall freely give you leave to make use of the Virtue of their Authorities, that is their Reasons against me as much as you will. I easily yield to those great discoursers, whoever they be, a precedency in other Speculations and Knowledges, to which they have been more addicted, and for which they have been better circumstanced; In this one of the Ground of Faith, both my much Practice, my particular Application, my Discourses with our nations best Wits of all sorts, my perusing our late acute Adversaries and the Answers to them, with other Circumstances; and lastly, my serious and industrious studying the Point, joined with the clearing Method God's Providence has led me to, have left me (as far as I know) in no disadvantage. What would avail you against me and our Church too (for my Interest as defending Tradition is indissolubly linked with Hers) is, to show that our Church proceeds not on Tradition, or that in Her Definitions She professes to resolve Faith another way rather than mine, or (which is equivalent) to rely on something else more firmly and fundamentally than on Tradition. But the most express and manifold Profession of the Council of Trent to rely constantly on Tradition, has so put this beyond all possible Cavil on my side, that I neither fear your Skill can show my Grounds in the least subcontrary to hers, nor the Goodness of any Learned and considering Catholik (however some may conceive the Infallibility of the Church placed ad abundantiam in something else) will or can ever dislike it. I expect you may go about to disgrace my Way as new: But I must ask, whether you mean the substance of it is new, or only that 'tis now deeper looked into and farther explicated than formerly: If you say the former, my Consent of Authorities (p. 126, 127, etc.) has clearly shown the contrary; and common sense tells us no other way was or could be possibly taken (for the Generality of the Church at least) in Primitive times till Scripture was published universally and collected: If the later, please to reflect, that every farther Explication or Declaration, as far as 'tis farther, must needs be new; and so, instead of disgracing us, you most highly commend our reasons for drawing consequences farther than others had done before us. Again, if it be only a farther Explication, it is for that very reason not-new; since the Sense of the Explication is the same with the thing explicated; As 'tis only an Explication, then 'tis not-new; as farther, 'tis indeed new, but withal innocent, nay commendable. But there are three things more to be said on occasion of this objecting Catholic Divines; One is, that, taking Tradition for the living voice of the present Church as I constantly declare myself to do, not one Catholic does or can deny it; for he would eo ipso become no-Catholick but an Arch-heretick; and this all acknowledge. In the thing explicated then, that is, in the notion of Tradition all agree with me (and consequently in the Substance of my Explication) nor can any do otherwise, except they be equivocated in the Word Tradition and mistake my meaning, which I conceive none will do wilfully after they have read here my declaration of it so unmistakably laid down. The second thing is, that an Alledger of those Divines will only quote their Words as Speculaters, not those in which they deliver themselves naturally as Christians or Believers; which Sayings were they collected, we should find them unanimously sounding to my advantage, and not one of them oppositely. And, lastly, speaking of our Explication as to its manner, Divines contradict one another in other kinds of Explications, but not one Author can be alleged that expressly contradicts this which I follow.  
10. My sixth request is, that you would speak to the main of my Book, and not catch at some odd words, on the by as it were: Otherwise, understanding Readers will see this is not to answer, but to cavil.  
11. And, because we are (I hope) both of us endeavouring to clear Truth (I am sure we ought to be so) therefore, to acquit yourself to your Readers that you ingenuously aim at it, I conceive you will do yourself a great deal of right, and me but reason, nay (which is yet weightier) do the common Cause best service, if you will join with me to retrench our Controversy as much as we can. Let us then avoid all Rhetorical Digressions and Affectations of Witty and fine Language; which I have declined in my whole Book, and chosen a plain downright manner of Expression, as most suitable and connatutural to express Truth. Likewise all Repetitions of what particulars others have said or answered before us, such as are the Objections made by that ingenious person, the L. Faukland, and the Answers given them in the Apology for Tradition; unless it be conceived those Solutions are insufficient, and Reasons be offered why they are judged so. For I conceive it an endless folly to transcribe and reprint any thing others have done before us, except it be Grounds which ought to be oft inculcated and stuck to; and those particulars which we show to be not yet invalidated, but to preserve still their strength. Much less do I suspect it can fall under the thought of one who aims to discourse rationally (such my Answerer ought to be) to rake together all the filth and froth of the unwarrantable Actions or Opinions of some in the Church, or to run on endlessly with multitudes of invective & invidious sayings on his own head without proof; & then apply them to the Church, as does the Dissuader. It would also very much conduce to the bringing our differences to a narrower compass if you would candidly take my Book endway, and declare what in it is evident, and so to be allowed; what not: What Principles are well laid or Consequences right drawn; and what are otherwise: To requite which favours, I promise the same Carriage in my Reply to you. By this means it will be quickly discovered whether or no you have overthrown my Discourse by showing it ill coherent, and how far 'tis faulty; that, if I cannot clear it to be connected, I may confess my fault and endeavour to amend it. For, however I see my Grounds Evident, yet I am far from judging myself Infallible in drawing my Consequences; though I see withal the method I take, will not let me err much; Or, if I do, my Error will be easily discoverable; because I go not about to cloud myself in words, but to speak out as plain as I can from the nature of the Thing.  
12. In the next place I earnestly request you, as you love Truth, not to shuffle of the giving me a full Answer, nor to desist from your Enterprise (as I hear a Certain person of great esteem for his learning and prudence has already done) though you find some difficulty where to fasten upon the Substantial part of my discourse. There are perhaps many difficult passages which my Shortness forced me to leave Obscure; These will naturally occasion mistake, and Mistake will breed Objections to impugn me with. Please, if others fail, to make use of those at least. 'Tis no discredit in you to mistake what's obscure; rather it argues a fault in me (did not my circumstance of writing Grounds, & only to Scholars, excuse me) that I left it so; To make amends for which I promise you to render it clear when I see where it pinches you or others. And on this score, I owe very particular thanks to Mr Stillingfleet, that by speaking clearly out his thoughts, he gave me a fair occasion to open that point he impugned, I think, upon mistake of our Tenet.  
13. If you think fit sometimes to argue ad hominem, be sure what you build on be either our Church's Tenet or mine; for I am bound to defend nothing else. If then you quote Fathers, first, see they speak as Fathers, that is as Believers and Witnessers; for so 'tis evident our Church means them by her Expressions in the Council of Trent; as also did Antiquity. For both of them constantly allege and stand upon Traditio Patrum, not Opinio Patrum: Next, see you bring Consensus Patrum, or an agreement at least of very many of them speaking as Witnesses, otherwise you will not touch me nor our Church; for she never abetted them further. In case you bring Councils, it would be very efficacious you would choose such Testimonies (if you can find them) as I brought from the Council of Trent; that is, such in which they declare themselves (or the Circumstances give it) they proceed upon their Rule of Faith: For, otherwise, every one knows that Bishops in a Council have in them, besides the Quality of Faith-Definers, those also of Governors, and of the most Eminent and solid Divines in God's Church. If Scripture, you must make Evident the Certainty of your way of arguing from it, ere I or our Church shall allow it argumenative. Thus much for Authority. If you oppose me by my own Principles or Discourses of my Reason, I must defend myself as well as I can. One thing on this occasion, I must mind you of; 'tis this, that though you should conquer in this way of arguing ad hominem, you only conquer me as a Discourser, by showing that I contradict myself; not my Tenet: for to prove that false, you must fix your foot and build your discourse on some Certain Ground; which barely my holding it (on which your discourse ad hominem relies) cannot make it. You must build then on some Grounded Truth if you will go about to overthrow a pretended one. Indeed, if you can show Tradition contradicts herself, you will do more than miracle, and so must conquer. But I fear not the Gates of Hell, much less Man's wit can prevail against that impregnable Rock. Only, I beseech you bring not as Parallels against our Tradition in hand, which is a vast and strong stream, other little petty rivulets sprung originally from the Sensations of two or three: For, then, as one side was liable, in a thing not known publicly, to belly their Senses; so the conveyance down of such sleight built Attestations may easily be self-contradictory. In a word, if you will argue, take first into your Thoughts the nature of the Thing you argue against, and then fall to work assoon as you will. Now, if you should chance to say you hold the Sayings of Fathers and Councils (some at least, to be Certain, my Reason tells me from Principles, that, having renounced Tradition which only could ascertain them, rational nature in you will not let you have any hearty conceit of their Convictiveness, whatever you pretend; but that you rawly allege them, and so let them go with a valeant quantum valere possunt. That therefore we may have some security more than your bare word (which Experience tells us is now affirmative now negative in this point, as it best suits your Interest, or, after a pretty Indifferent manner, half-one-half-tother) that your profession of holding to such Authorities is not hollow-hearted but rooted in your Reason, 'tis just your Readers should expect you would declare in what the virtue of Certifying consists, and that They have this virtue. This if you do, you acquit yourself to go to work solidly, and you offer us fair play in giving us some hold of your Reason, whereas a common Expression gives none. This Procedure also will show, when applied, whether you are Justisiable or no for admitting some Authorities of that nature and rejecting others.  
14. My last request is, that, if in the course of your Answer you think fit to complain of me for bringing History and other Proofs heretofore commonly without more ado admitted, into Incertainty: please to amend the fault you find, and settle their Certainty on some better Principles than I have endeavoured. In the mean time 'tis Evident my whole Book aims at settling the Certainty of all Authority, by evidencing the Certainty of First Authority; upon which the Assuredness of History, Fathers, Councils, Church, Faith, nay Virtue or Christian Life must all be built. This is my way; if you judge it incompetent to do the Effect spoken of, be pleased to manifest it Unfit and show us a Better.  
15. Perhaps I may have demanded more of you in some particulars than is due from the strict duty of merely answering: in the Schools, a bare denial, or distinction is enough for a Respondent. But I conceive we are not on these terms: in regard we are not met face to face, where the returns of the one to the other can be quick on every occasion. This obliges us, for the Readers satisfaction, to enlarge ourselves and bring reason for everything we affirm or deny, lest we should be thought to do it gratis. And, your case here, is particularly disadvantageous: For, if you go about to overthrow that on which I aim to show the Certainty of all Authority built, and yet declare not on what yourself hold them built, and, by your faithful promise to show it shortly, give them strong hopes you will perform it; you send them away very much dissatisfied either with you or with all the Authority in the world, though built on Sensitive Knowledge: Of which it being impossible Rational Nature should permit them to doubt, they must needs dislike your attempt, and have an ill conceit of your performance.  
SIR, I understand, to my exceeding Satisfaction, that multitudes of the most Eminent, Solid and Ingenuous Wits of our Nation have been diligent perusers of my Book. Consider, their eyes are upon you while you Answer; I am confident they will judge I have requested no more of you in this Letter, but what's reasonably due to their and my satisfaction; and so, will look your Answer should be correspondent. They are weary of endless Contests about Faith; and, seeing we are not now controverting the signification of some ambiguous Testimony, but penetrating deep into the very bowels of a point which is of the greatest concern in the whole world; and pursuing (in a method likely to decide) the clearing of it, their expectations are very much erected and attentively observing what will be the issue of this rational combat. Frustrate not their desires to see Truth manifested by bringing the Question back from the plain open field of Evidence-in-our-method, to a Logomachy or word-skirmish in a Wilderness of Talk, out of which the Thread of Grounds or Principles had disent angled it. To them therefore as well as yourself I address this: requesting those of them who are acquainted with my Answerer, to press him to do himself, me, the world (his Cause too, if it can bear it) the right due in Reason, and here demanded. This Sir, if you will perform, I shall lay aside the remembrance of the Justice I have to it, and look upon it purely as a Favour and most obliging Civility to him who is, next to Truth's,  
Feb. 6th 1665. Your Friend and wellwisher, J. S.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
IF you complain of this Forestalling as Unusual; as long as it is rational you can have no reason to do so: and it will appear such to him that considers it was an unusual Circumstance occasioned it. IT is this: I had endeavoured to bring Controversy from an Endless to a Conclusive Way: and both my Reason and Experience made me apprehend my Protestant Answerer would have such strong Inclinations to bring it back into the way of quoting and glozing Testimonies (that is, into a wordish scanning a great part of all the Libraries in the World) that a slender touch at it in my Book was not forcible and express enough to oblige him to take notice of it. Having communicated therefore my thoughts with intelligent and ingenuous persons, both Catholics and Protestants, and received their approbation, I resolved, and pursued it as you see; And I hope the manifold Usefulness of it (as shall be seen what way soever now you take upon you of answering) will sufficiently justify my Action.  
FINIS.