manner is compounded of putting tricks upon your Adversaries that is putting their sayings upon such accounts they never intended then impugning your own fictions 'T is not on the impossibility of any going out of us nor meerly because whenany one is out of our Church hee is not in it wee ground the Necessity of our Churches Unity but in this that her nature and Constitution is so fram'd that shee can admit no division in her Bowells but keeps her self distinguisht from Aliens If any one recede from Faith it must bee by not hearing the present Churches living voice teaching him points which the Knowledge Practice and Expressions of the Teachers determins and make Evident what they are whence his disbeleef if exprest is an Evident matter of Fact which is most apt to make a plain distinction between the disbeleever and the Beleevers and an Evidence beyond Cavill for the Church Governours to proceed upon This done as likewise in the case of high disobedience against Church-Laws or Governours shee Excommunicates that is solemnly separates the Schismaticall Offender from the Obedient Faithfull Hence those Faithfull look upon him as a Rebell or Outlaw or as our Saviour expresses as a Heathen or Publican no Church-officer admits him to Sacraments but upon his pennance and Satisfaction nor any Son of the Church will communicate with him in Sacred duties Pray you Sir is this the Temper of your Church of England Your Rule is the Letter of Scripture as conceiv'd significative of Gods word and this to private understandings Again you say all necessary points of Faith are plain in it nay that nothing is fundamentally necessary but what is plain there Hence all that hold the Letter to bee plainly Expressive of Gods Sence and intend to hold to what they conceive plain there whether Socinians Anabaptists Independents or whatever other faction all hold to your Rule of Faith and so are all Protestants For if you would ty any of these to any determinable points you force them from the Rule of Faith Scripture as seeming plain to them and would instead thereof bring them to a reliance on your Judgement And if you would punish them for not doing it you cannot evidence their Fault by way of matter of Fact that so you may proceed upon it for as long as they profess their intention to hold to what seems plain to them in Scripture and that your Text seems less plain to them there than their own you ought not to proceed against them Ecclesiastically without disannulling your avowed Rule of Faith And your carriage executes accordingly neither using Church-discipline against them for Tenets nor yet for denying or disobeying your Goverment Episcopacy though held by you divinely instituted When did you put any distinction by any solemn Ecclesiastical declaration between an Anabaptist Presbyterian Socinian c. and your selves When did you excommunicate them warn the purer Protestants by any Publick Ecclesiasticall Act not to joyn with them in Sacred Offices but to look upon them as Aliens Might not any of them come to receive the Communion if hee would or has any discipline past upon him to debar him from being admitted None that wee see Your Party then in indeed no Ecclesiasticall body cohering by Unity of Tenets or Government but a Medly rather consisting of men of any tenet almost and so bears division disunion and Schism that is the Formal cause of non-Entity of a Church in it's very Bowells These two flams of yours are Sir the Favours you have done my Friends and I can onely tell you in a country complement I thank you as much for them as if you had done them to my self Seeing your Reason begin to play it's part bravely in the following part of your Book I thought I had done my duty of Thanking but I percieve one main Engin your Reason made use of was to make mee perpetually contradict my self And this you perform'd by singling a few words out of my Book from their fellows introducing them in other circumstances and so almost in every Citation falsifying my Intentions and this purposely as will bee seen by this that you practis'd designe and Artifice in bringing it about This obliges mee in stead of making an End to return back and to show how sincerly you have us'd mee in almost all your Citations I omit your false pretence that I mean't to define contrary to my express words You tell your Reader p. 11. That if any presume to say this Book Scripture depends not on Tradition for it's Sence then the most scurrilous language is not bad enough then are those Sacred writings but Ink variously figur'd in a Book quoting for those words App. 4th p. 319. But if wee look there not a word is there found of it's depending or not depending on Tradition for it's Sence nor of making that the Cause why I us'd those words you object cite for it but onely that whereas my Lord of Downs sayes his Faith has for its object the Scriptures I tell him that since he means not by the word Scripture any determinate Sence which is the formall parts of words hee must mean the Characters or Ink thus figur'd in a Book as is evident there being nothing imaginable in them besides the matter and the form which every Schollar knows compound the thing This being then the plain tenour of my discourse there and not the least word of Tradition sencing Scripture Whatever the Truth of the Thing is 't is evident you have abus'd my words as found in the place you cite My Citation p. 12. which abstracts from what security wee can have of those parts of Scripture which concern not Faith you will needs restrain to signifie no security at all either of Letter or Sence which is neither found in my words nor meaning How you have abus'd my words to avoid Calumny with the Vulgar cited by you p. 13. as also the former of those cited p. 14. I have already shown § 9 and 10. P. 17. You quote my words 'T is certain the Apostles taught the same Doctrine they writ whence you infer they writ the same Doctrine they taught Which your introducing Discourse would make to signifie an Equality of Extent in Writing and Tradition by saying I grant this Doctrine which signifies there the First deliver'd Doctrine was afterwards by the Apostles committed to writing Whereas whoever reads my 29th Cor. will see I can onely mean by the word same Doctrine a not-different Doctrine Whatever the truth of the point is this shows you have an habituall imperfection not to let the words you cite signifie as the Authour evidently meant them but you must bee scruing them to serve your own turn You quote mee p. 36. to say that Primitive Antiquity learn'd their Faith by another method a long time before many of those Books were universally spread amongst the Vulgar The summe of your Answer is that when the Apostles who did miracles
were dead Writing then became needfull But that in those Circumstances Orall Tradition was a sufficient way of conveying a Doctrine What I note is that you ended your citation at the words before those Books were universally spread amongst the Vulgar but had you added what follow'd immediately to compleat that period much less the Catalogue collected and acknowledged you had been put to confess too that Tradition was a sufficient way for diverse Ages after the Apostles were dead which had been little favourable to your Tenet I complain then that by citing mee by halves as you do frequently you slip the answering better half of my Arguments and here particularly as appears by the words much less that part in which I put the most force P. 41. You put mee to say expresly that Tradition is the best way imaginable to convey down such Laws to us Now if by the word such you onely meant such as it concerns every man to bee skilfull in and had so exprest it you had done well for 't is my position but you had brought an ill-resembling Instance of Magna Charta and make mee seem to allow your Instance and to affirm Tradition is the best way to bring down Magna Charta as appears by your words Mr. S. saith expresly it is but how truly I appeal to the Experience and the wisedome of our Law-givers who seem to think otherwise making my word such mean such as Magna Charta which is far from my meaning in regard I judge not Magna Charta a thing in which 't is every man's particular concern to bee skilfull in but Lawyers onely whom others trust few in England but they being thoroughly acquainted with the Laws found there Take your own Liberty Sir in making Parallells 't is my Advantage you should you pick out such aukward ones but when you have made them do not disingenuously put them upon mee and quote mee to say them expresly Thus you use my words Why may not hee mistrust his own Eyes which p. 16 and 17. were apply'd by mee to the business of mistaking or not mistaking in transcribing perfectly a whole Book or correcting the Press in which we daily experience miscarriage but you apply these words to your own senceless Parallell of seeing the City of Rome p. 83 and then by such an application endeavour to make them seem ridiculous as they must needs for you had discourst ridiculously and by making them part of your Discourse and not taking them as any part of mine had made them so too I could instance in many others of this nature but I am too long already P. 61. being to state the point you alledge my words Sure-footing p. 13. That the Protestants cannot by Scriptures mean the Sence of them but the Book that is such or such Characters not yet senc't or interpreted And there you stop my immediately following words explaining my meaning are these that is such and such Characters in a Book with their Aptness to signifie to them assuredly God's mind or ascertain them of their Faith And this Explication you omit which had been nothing had you not made an ill use of that omission but your Cavills afterwards and the loud out-cries in your Book in many places of a senceless Book my Ignorance of your Tenet what not are all grounded upon your own fly omitting those words in which I exprest your Tenet to bee that those Characters were significative of your Faith I wonder what else you would have a Rule of Faith to bee but a Mean's to signifie to you God's Sence or the Faith Christ taught those inspir'd Writers It was one of my requests in my Letter that wee might agree to acknowledge what was Truth in one another's Books but you use all the Arts Insincerity can suggest to deprave wrest or diminish my words rather than I should appear to speak reason in any thing All must bee monstrous in your Adversary when your pregnant Fancy and dextrous pencil come to delineate it which shews indeed much crafty wit but I doubt the Reader will think it argues not too much Honesty I affirm'd Sure-footing p. 17. that the numerous Comments writ upon the Scripture and the infinite Disputes about the Sence of it even in most concerning points as in that of Christ's Divinity beat it out so plain to us that this to wit to find out a Certain Sence of Scripture by their Interpretation is not the task of the Vulgar that 't is perfect phrenzy to deny it which you quote p. 85. and diverse other places leaving out still my words and sence that this is not the task of the Vulgar upon which that whole § proceeds and impugning it accordingly See your own words p. 86. making mee say The Protestants cannot bee certain of the true Sence of it as if Protestants and Vulgar were the same notion Also p. 86. Hee tells us say you the numerous Comments upon Scripture are an Evidence that no man can bee Certain of the true Sence of it This improves it into a very ample Falsification for the word no man excludes all Catholikes too and indeed all the world however proceeding to interpret it whereas I onely engage in the place cited against the Vulgar And after you have ended you Confute all built on your own omission of those important words you single out after your old fashion two or three of my words 't is perfect phrenzy to deny it and call it a hot phrase whereas 't is very luke-warm taken in the occasion I spoke it namely that the Vulgar could not bee certain of the right Interpretation of Scripture since even Learned Commentators so strangely differ'd about it How you will clear your self of this kind Insincerity without casting a mist before men's eyes that they cannot read right I cannot in your behalf imagin P. 104 You quote mee twice as endeavouring to prove that men may safely rely on a generall and uncontroll'd Tradition Which though you pretend not my words yet I count it an injury to impose upon mee such a Sence Uncontroll'd joyn'd to Tradition is such another Epithet as Sufficient joyn'd by you to Certainty I who contend for the absolute Certainty of Faith would say Uncontrollable not Uncontroll'd for a thing may be Uncontroll'd meerly because it had the good Fortune that none had occasion to look into it and so controll it whereas nothing can bee Uncontrollable but by virtue of it's Grounds 't is built on preserving it from a Possibility of ever being controll'd Your intent in producing those two Citations from mee is as you declare it p. 105. is to show the Unhappiness of my Demonstrations that in order to demonstrate the uncertainty of Books and Writings must suppose all those Principles to bee uncertain which I take to bee self-evident and unquestionable when I am to demonstrate the Infallibility of Orall Tradition A hard case yet it will bee harder to come of for you
or driving them home to any point my very sorting them under these Heads sounds a greater particularity in my Exceptions and Answer than you show'd any in alledging them Next you had refus'd to do mee the reason I begg'd in my Letter to my Answerer § 8. in vouching you Testimonies to bee Conclusive or Satisfactory which unless you did I had already told you there it was my resolution to give them no other Answer And I shall candidly make known my Intention why I do so and shall ever do so till you come to some good point in that particular I had observ'd what multitudes of voluminous Books had and might bee writ in the way of Citation without any possibility of satisfying that is to the extream loss of time and prejudice to rational souls while any Citation however qualify'd was admitted and no Principles laid to sort them and show which were Conclusive wherefore I judg'd it the best way to drive you from that insignificant and endless way of writing to tell in short my exceptions against each Testimony and to force you to vouch them Conclusive And I pray why should I or any be put to show each of those Citations to our excessive pains inefficacious whereas your self who is the Alledger will not take pains to show any one of them to bee efficacious But your way here is the weakest in that kind I ever read or heard of You huddle together a clutter of Citations never apply them particularly as I constantly did mine Overleap all considerations of their qualifications nakedly set them down as you say p. 332 and then tell us they are enough to satisfie any unpassionate Reader that dare trust himself with the use of his own Eyes and Reason Which is plausible indeed to flatter fools that are passionately self-conceited otherwise I conceive an unpassionate Reader will require much more if he ever knew what Controversy meant Hee would know the variety of Circumstances Antecedents Consequents c. Besides speaking Equivocally or Rhetorically not distinctly and literally may alter every Testimony there Above all hee would consider whether they were expressive onely of some persons Opinions and not rather of the solid and constant sense of the faithful in that Age vvithout which they want the nature of Testimonies Is it clear to every man's Eyes and Reason none of these or other faults render all yours Inefficacious Is it clear that when they say Scripture is plain they mean plain to all even Heathens that never heard of Faith such must bee the Plainness of the Rule of Faith or onely to those who have learn't Christian Doctrin already by the Church that is who bring their Rule with them I am sure St. Austin de Doctrinâ Christianâ your best Testimony speaks of such Readers as are timentes Deum ac pietate mansueti those which fear God and are meek with piety that is those which are not onely Faithful or Christians already but pious and good Christians which makes it nothing to your purpose Again some one passage may bee so plain as a learned man may in the opinion of learned men plainly confound an Adversary but will it bee clear and plain in all necessary points to the vulgar who hear a great many hard words brought on both sides and have no skill to judge who has the better in such contests yet the Rule of Faith must bee plain even to the vulgar and able to give them Satisfaction Again when the Fathers provoke to the Scripture is it not against those who deny the Church but accept the Scripture and so the necessity of disputing out of some commonly-acknowledg'd Principle may bee the onely reason they take that method 'T is evidently so in that you quote from St. Austin against Maximinus p. 329. and against the Donatists who deny'd the Judgment of the Catholik Church quae ubique terrarum diffunditur and so hee was to prove his point ubi sit Ecclesia out of Scripture or no way Again is it clear out of the Citations nakedly set down what went before and after Is it clear for example that when they speak highly of Scripture they mean not Scripture unsenc't but onely taken as Significative of God's sence as it must to bee the Rule of Faith or if of Scripture senc't they mean not senc't by the Church but by the human skill of private persons which is the true point between us St. Austin without doubt makes the Church the Interpreter of Scripture as is clearly seen by his Discourse at the end of his 17. Chap. Of the Profit of Beleeving which spoils your pretence to his Authority Nay do not they often mean by Scripture the very Sence of it that is Christs Doctrine or the Gospel As oft as you hear them speak of the Things that are written or call them Principles or The Rule of Truth and Opinions or speak of conforming other Doctrines to them and such like so oft they speak of the Doctrin it self contain'd in Scripture or the Truths found there Such is that of Clemens cited by you p. 316. 317. which speaks meerly of the Sence of it or the Truths in it which hee makes deservedly the Rule to other Truths and hence now hee names Scripture then the Tradition of the Church then Scripture again it being indifferent to his purpose the same Sense which hee onely intends being included in both Such is also evidently your best Testimony to wit that of Irenaeus which speaks of the Gospell it self preach't and writ that is clearly of the Sence indifferent to either way of Expression But what is this or indeed all that is said there to the Letter of Scripture taken as Significative of God's Sense that is not for that Sense nor as including it but as the Means and Way to it as it must bee taken when 't is meant for a Rule of Faith and the plainness and Certainty of that Way to all that are yet to come to Faith taking that Letter as interpretable by private Skill and Maxims of Language-learning which is the true point between you and us Bring Testimonies for this and you will do wonders To use your own words p. 318. I need not shew what I have discours't here of every of his Testimonies in particular for whosoever shall read them with this Key will find they are of no force to conclude what hee drives or ought to drive at I am loath to suggest any Jealousie of your Insincerity in all these Citations though you have seldome fail'd in that point Present my service to your Friend Mr. Stillingfleet and assure him hee shall not bee neglected though there were no other reason but your high commendations of him Your humble Servant J. S. A Postscript to the Reader READER THough I write to Mr. T. yet I publish to thee and so have a Title to salute thee with a line or two Tell mee then dost not find thy Expectation deluded which Sure-footing
build on any thing so much as these but one of these laid for a Ground you run on with such a Carreer as if you would overthrow all the Sence and Reason that ever comes in your way You tell mee p. 158. by a parallell Discourse to mine against my Lord of Downs that my demonstrations are none unless I vouch some particularity in my Method above what 's in others which p. 160. you say you remember not I have done any where It seems you read my Transition not with any sober intent to understand it and speak solidly to it but onely to carp at it and break jests upon it Have you so soon forgot the pleasant mood it put you into p. 3 and 4. I contest then that the Method I there declare my self to pursue is particular above what I ever observ'd in any of your Controvertists not that they want better Parts to lay it but because they want a good Cause to bear it and give them leave to follow it I declare also that I hold that Method sufficient to demonstrate by though I pretend it not the exactest than can bee made As for those great men whom you alledge to differ in demonstrations Charles Thynn I leave to bear you company you are both such merry Blades I doubt not but were the business well examin'd their differences spring from not attending heedfully to the Method of concluding and that no miscarriage could ensue in any Discourse were the way of Discoursing perfectly laid agreed to and exactly follow'd nay that those few Differences amongst Geometricians arise from the same defect as were it seasonable I could show particularly with the help of a Friend you must think in that famous one about angulus contingentiae But to our present purpose meethinks Sir you may remember a thing call'd a Letter to my Answerer where I endeavour'd at least at some means to settle some particularity in our Method above what has been practic 't in other Controversies formerly begging you would agree to it that so wee might both follow it but you would have none you thank't mee Since then you would not accept it when offer'd you should not ask for it again when your Book is writ and the Circumstances of using it past But perhaps there lies the policy of it You end with a Glance or two at my Self-confidence But are you Propheticall in this too Sir that 't is some proud and vain humour in mee and not rather my Assuredness of the Truth of my Cause and of the Conclusiveness of my Method which makes mee deliver my self undauntedly See my Letter to my Answerer where I have these words p. 18. By this means it will bee quickly discover'd whether or no you have overthrown my Discourse by showing it ill-coherent and how far 't is faulty that if I cannot clear it to bee connected I may confess my fault and endeavour to amend it For however I see my Grounds evident yet I am far from judging my self Infallible in drawing my Consequences though I see withall the Method I take will not let me err much or if I do my Errour will bee easily discoverable because I go not about to cloud my self in Words but to speak out as plain as I can from the nature of the Thing Had you a desire to practice the due candour towards mee I should have done to you you would not have sought occasions to put in upon a personall priding my self in my performances which I so frequently disown and place all my advantage in my Cause and my Method But you are angry I deliver my self so boldly in what I take to bee Truth I beseech you Sir is it not naturall for any one who judges hee speaks what 's Evident to express himself fear lesly when hee disputes against an Adversary of the Truth whose Cause hee has espoused as 't is on the contrary for one who judges hee has onely Probability for what hee sayes to speak dis-confidently and condescendingly and when hee indeed sneaks not daring to speak out then to praise himself and his party for modest and moderate men You know by experience Sir ' t is Has there in our late age come out a Book more brisk than this of yours not in asserting but in scorn and proud petulancy and which is to bee pittied proud of an aiery jest or some gay conceit Shall I bee bold to tell you Sir what is Self confidence To undertake to write a Discourse about the Ground of Faith without so much as one Principle that deserves to bee call'd such to bless himself with to lay for Grounds all along Falsifications of his Adversaries meaning and words and then quibbling taunting and vapouring as if all the world were his own Lastly to tell his Auditours soberly and sadly out the Pulpit all is God's Word hee preaches and press they should beleeve him and yet when hee writes against us confess all hee preaches concerning Salvation and the Way to it may possibly bee false that is for any thing hee absolutely knows hee has not told them one true word all the while This Sir I must needs confess is such a Heroick strain of self-confidence that however it bee familiar and naturall to others yet I dispair for my part ever to attain it To bear ones self as holding a thing a demonstration which he judges hee has Evidence that 't is such is a puling and trifling kind of self-conceit but to carry it out with the greatest Formality in the world as if it were most Certain and yet hold at the same time and profess 't is possible to bee false that is may for any thing any man knows bee shown false to morrow is a noble and gallant Self confidence and such a one as fears not the face of any man living P. 161. You come to examin my demonstrations à priori and in order to it my four Grounds which you affirm you will set down in my own words Which intimates you did not do so formerly though it bee your duty to do it alwayes However 't is a Kindness which I am bound to thank you for and as far as I discern you have not faltred in it of which I here make my hearty Acknowledgment But Sir may I not fear this particular Resolution of yours here to bee Sincere springs hence because in this Sect. 2. where you put down my words you do not yet go about to apply them to your Discourse and attempt to confute which in your next Section p. 163. you endeavour I foresee you will bee shrew'dly tempted there for want of other Answer to break your resolution till wee come there then I leave you with my hearty wishes of strength constancy against that habituall Infirmity which so often overcoms all your resolutions of that nature And wee are now come to your third Sect p. 163. the place of the triall of your perseverance where you begin your confute and
words Authority of the Catholick Church mean the Book of Scriptures Or can I desire more then this Father offers mee in express terms or a greater Testimony that you are to seek for an Answer to it then the strange Evasion you substitute instead of a reply Especially if wee take the Testimony immediatly following which from the best establisht Seats of the Apostles even to this very day is strengthen'd by the Series of Bishops succeeding them and by the Assertion of so many nations Is here the word Tradition pretended Indifferent and apt to bee taken ambiguously and not rather Assertions of so many nations or Consent of nations and Authority of the Catholik Church of force to cause Faith and Assu rance which to demonstrate is the whole Endeavour of Sure-fooring The 5th is the same Fathers cited p. 137. The Faithfull do possess perseveringly a Rule of Faith common to little and great in the Church Is the word Church the same with the word Tradition or in danger of being ambiguous or as you say of the word Tradition p. 318. commonly us'd by the Fathers to signify to us the Scriptures The 6th is of St. Irenaeus All those who will hear Truth may at present perfectly discern in the Church the Tradition of the Apostles manifest in the whole world What means the world at present but that the Tradition of the Apostles is yet vigorous and fresh in the Church which remark had very unfitly suted with Scriptures The 7th and 8th are Tertullians Both say the same Sence that what is establisht as Sacred or profest at this present day in the Churches of the Apostles is manifestly deliver'd by the Apostles or a Tradition of the Apostles which is incompetent to Scripture it not being a Tradition or point delivered but the Delivery The last is of Chrysologus which has indeed the word Tradition but by the additionall words of the Fathers not left ambiguous but determin'd to unwritten Tradition For the Fathers according to you are not to give or diliver down the Sence of Scriptures it being plain of it self This Sir is the upshot of your skill in Notebook-learning the three first Testimonies from Scripture you answerd not mistaking quite what they were brought for the 4th you omitted You have given pittiful answers to eight from the Fathers and shufled off nine more without answer pleading you had given us a Key to open them which was never made for those locks By which I see you reserve your greatest Kindnesses like a right friendly man till the last You will not have the Councill of Trent make Tradition the onely Rule of Faith you had oblig'd mee had you answer'd my reason for it in my 4th note p. 145. 146. But this is not your way you still slip over my reasons all along as if none had been brought and then say some sleight thing or other to the Conclusion as if it had never been inferrd by mee but meerly gratis and rawly affirm'd I have explicated our Divines that seem to differ from mee herein Sure footing p. 187. 188. and the Council it self takes my part in it by defining and practising the taking the Sence of Scripture from that quod tenuit tenet Sanct a Mater Ecclesia which in this antecedency to Scriptures Sence can no where bee had but from Tradition You cavill at mee for not putting down the words in which that Councill declares it self to honour the Holy Scripture and Tradition with equall pious affection and reverence Why should I you see I was very short in all my allegations thence and rather touch't at them for Catholicks to read them more at large than transcrib'd them fully But how groundless your Cavill is may bee understood hence that I took notice of a far more dangerous point to wit it's putting the Holy Scriptures constantly before Tradition and show'd good reason why But you approve not even of any honour done to the Scriptures upon those Terms and your interest makes you wish that rather it's Letter and Sence both should remain uncertain than it should owe any thing to the Catholick Church You ask how an Apostle and Evangelist should bee more present by the Scripture ascertain'd as to words and Sence then by or all Tradition I answer because that Book is in that case Evident to bee peculiarly and adequately his whereas Orall Tradition was common to all and 't is doubtable what hand some of those Apostles or Evangelists might have had in the source of that which was lineally deriv'd to us Sir I wonder how you hit so right once as not to answer likewise the Testimony I brought p. 152. of the Catholick Clergy's adhering to Tradition in the â—ick of the breach you might as well have spoke to that as to the Council of Trent divers others But I perceive it had some peculiar difficulty as had divers of the neglected nine else your Genius leads you naturally to flie at any thing that has but the semblance or even name of a Testimony whereas unactive I stoop at no such game till I see certainly 't is worth my pains and I fear yours will scarce prove so THey come in play p. 320. And because they are huddled together here something confusedly it were not amiss to sort them under Dr. Pierce's Heads found Sure-footing p. 170. To the first Head which comprises those which are onely brought to vapour with belongs that of St. Hierom. p. 323. To the second Head which consists of those which are raw unapply'd and onely say something in common which never comes home to the point belong all those of Eusebius That of St. Chrysostome and St. Austin's p. 324. of Iustin and Theodoret p. 325. That of Hilary p. 327. of St. Basil. p. 328. of Chrysostom p. 328. and 329. and those of St. Austin in the same place Of Theoph. Alexandr p. 330. Theodoret p. 330. 331. The 2d and 3d. from Gerson p. 331. To the 4th that of St. Austin p. 325. To the 7th Head which comprises those which are false and signifie not the thing they are quoted for appertain that of Ireneus p. 326. of St. Austin St. Hierome and the 2d of Theoph. Alexandrinus p. 330. To the 8th consisting of those which labour of obscurity by an evidently ambiguous word that of Optatus p. 327. The first from Gerson p. 331. and that from Lyra p. 332. St. Cyprian's Testimony was writ by him to defend an Errour which both wee and the Protestants hold for such and therefore no wonder if as Bellarmin sayes more errantium ratiocinaretur hee discoursed after the rate of those that err that is assumes false Grounds to build his errour on Whence the inferring an acknowledg'd false Conclusion from it is an argument rather his Principle was not sound I know Sir you will fume at this usage of your Testimonies but with what reason For first you putting them down rawly without particularizing their force or import