tures, and it is your part to prove they are. We fay they are not in the ancient Fathers, and we Challenge you to fhew they are. And I appeal to your felf, if it is not impertinent in you, who have undertaken to answer this Challenge, and against the very Nature of Reafon and the Laws of Difpute, to require for Negatives positive Proofs. If I affirm against N. that in England there's no fuch Law as the Salique Law, would it be proper for N. who afferts there is fuch a Law in England, to tell me, who deny it, that I am not able to bring the leaft pofitive Proof for it. When I appeal to the Common and Statute-Laws of England, and challenge him to fhew me the Salique Law from either of them, from our confuetudinary, un written, or from our written Laws, would it not, Sir, be next to ridiculous in him in Anfwer to my Challenge, to bid me bring pofitive Proof for my Negative; which is his part, according to the Rules of Logick and Laws of Difputation, to difprove by positive Proof. Sir, you know as well as 1, that Negatives are not to be proved, but difproved; and you know how the Schools would smile at a Man who demanded proof for a Negative, efpecially in a Difpute about Doctrines : But the good Lady in whofe Hands you put your Paper of Fallacies, is not acquainted with the Rules of Controversy and the fcholaftick Laws of Difputation; and you had reason to think it would make a great impreffion upon one more than half perverted by Sophifms; to fay, He affirms the Trent-Doctrines have not Antiquity, Univerfality, and Succeffion: And he calls God and his Angels, to witness what he affirms, without being able to offer the leaft pofitive Proof.

As to the manifeft Proofs which you fay the Roman Catholicks have given out of the Primitive Fathers, of the Antiquity of the Trent-Doctrines, and of their Univerfality from the agreement of

General

General Councils, and of their Succeffion from uninterrupted Practice; I defire you to tell me who thofe Roman Catholicks are: Are they your Court or Anti-court-Writers? I fear you will find none of the latter that have fhewed either Antiquity, Univerfality, or Succeffion for the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy; or that Obedience is due unto him from all Churches and Christians, as Succeffor to St. Peter, and Vicar of Jefus Chrift. However, Sir, name the Roman Catholick Writers, or any of them, who have given the World this manifest Proof. Is it Harding, Coccius, or Gualter, or Cardinal Peron or Bellarmin, or the Marquis of Worcefter, or Nubes Teftium, which you gave to the Lady as an Answer to my Challenge, because I prefume you thought it a hard Task to answer it your self.

Sir, there is little more in your next Period than in the former, however I muft drudge on in a Reply, left the Lady fhould be told it was unanfwerable. Again he wishes himself the fame Mif chief if the Trent-Articles were commonly and continually taught, and received de Fide, as Articles of Faith before Luther. What Mischief, Sir, the Anathema's of the Council of Trent? Alas, there's no danger in them, no more than in the Pope's Excommunication of us Hereticks; they are all bruta fulmina, we fear them not. If their Anathema's be intended as Curses, they Curfe whom God will Blefs, and their Curfes will come like Water into their Bowels, and like Oyl into their Bones. 1 anfwer, that if by Trent-Articles, he means a particular Form and Drefs of Words, framed at Trent, to exprefs Catbolick Doctrines, that indeed that Form and Drefs is New: But the Doctrines are the fame which all Ages have brought down to us; as appears from the Sprinklings of Primitive Writers, and uninterrupted Practice, and are no more Trent-Do&trines than as they were always the Doctrines of all Catholick Nations. Pardon me, Sir, if I tell you

here

here are Words put together to no purpose but to amufe and deceive the Lady; for Sir H. Lynde, you cannot but know, means not the Form and Drefs of Words, but the Doctrines, the new, false, abfurd Doctrines contained in them: Which you here tell her Ladyship again in another phrase, appear to have been brought down to us from all Ages, from the Sprinklings of Primitive Writers. I pray, Sir, to fhew me where thofe Sprinklings are; they had need be full and thick sprinkled, that every one may fee them, and trace them, and gather them up into a Creed from the most Primitive Writers of the New Teftament through the next Primitive Writers to them, and fo downwards, as I challenged my Antagonist to do. In the next place, Sir, I must ask you what Concinnity or Agreement there is between the Primitive Writers and Catholick Nations; and why, inftead of all Catholick Nations, you did not say all Catholick Churches? By the Primitive Writers we commonly understand the Writers of the firft Three Centuries; and then there were no Catholick or Chriftian Nations, though there were many Catholick Churches: And if the Trent-Doctrines are Doctrines of Faith contained in the Primitive Writers, they were fuch, before there was any Chriftian or Catholick Nations in the World. For Catholick Churches were long before Catholick Nations, and after the Empire turn'd Chriftian, there were many Nations in it long before there were National Churches in them, as the Phrafe of Catholick Nations imports. Nations were converted and made National Churches, or Catholick Nations fome fooner, fome later; but whether Catholick Churches or Catholick Nations, I Challenge you to fhew any one of either for the firft Six Hundred Years, in which the Trent-Doctrines were taught, or profelfed, as Articles of Faith. Particularly I Challenge you to fhew they were taught, and received

as

as fuch in the ancient Brittish Church, which I car fhew you, was autonipa and independent of the Church of Rome: Nay, I Challenge you to fhew that they were brought into England as Do&trines of Faith by St. Auguftin, or ever professed by the English Saxon Church.

Sir, It is very tedious to follow you in your Tautologies, but what Remedy? Therefore tho' tired, I must go on. And now I pray obferve the Fallacy of fome Men, and the Mistake of others, who complain of Roman Catholick Doctrines, and TrentArticles, with one and the fame Breath, as if both were New. Sir, great is the Power of Truth, which I fhould be glad to think made you here diftinguish, as we Hereticks do, between the Roman Catholick Doctrines, or Catholick Doctrines of the Roman Church, and the Trent- Articles, which are not Catholick Doctrines of it. But alas your diftinguishing thus, proceeds not, I fay, from the power or love of Truth, but from a defign to deceive the Lady, and make her believe that we, by Fallacy or Mistake, equally deny both with the fame. Breath, and reject them both as New. But, Sir, to speak no harder to you, this is your contrived Fallacy to make her Ladyship mistake our meaning, and look upon us as Hereticks indeed, who denied the Old, as well as the New Doctrines of Pius IV's Creed.

And fome are fo easy as to let themselves be per fuaded, that the Council of Trent having invented the Doctrines, erected their own Inventions into Articles of Faith. Sir, I know none of thofe fome, who believe that the Council of Trent invented thofe Doctrines; for they were invented before, and banded about in the corrupt Schools of Popish Countries, Pro and Con, for fome time, tho' fome for a longer time than others, before that Council met. Nay, fome were determin'd before in modern Councils, as the Invocation of Saints

and Image-worship, in the second Council of Nice; which provoked God to bring thofe eminent Judgments upon the Greek, and Syrian, and Ægyptian Churches, which cannot be defcribed here. So the Doctrine of the Corporeal Prefence was first determined by a Council at Rome, in the abjuration of Berengarius, 1079. after it had been ftoutly oppofed against Pafchafius, the first Writer for it, by the best Divines of the Latin Church, and particularly by thofe of England; as hath been made appear from the Homilies of the EnglishSaxon-Church, in which it was never received or profeffed. The fame Doctrine was declared again in the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.

a

But then, Sir, though the Council of Trent did not first invent thofe Doctrines, nor firft erect fome few of them into Articles of Faith, yet they are all chargeable with Novelty, because the oldest of them are not from the Beginning, or near it, but want Antiquity, Univerfality, and Succeffion, and fo are no part of the Faith once deliver'd to the Saints.

Others as non-fenfically are perfuaded, that the DoEtrines in question were once peculiar to the Church of Rome; and that other National Churches, which with that of Rome compofe one Catholick Church, did not rank them among the Doctrines of Faith, once delivered to the Saints. What you mean by once peculiar to the Church of Rome, I do not know: But this I know,

• Such as Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Ments; Elfric Archbishop of Canterbury; Ratramous, otherwife called Bertram; Charles the Great; Theodulphus Aurelianenfis; Amalarius Fortunatus, and other great Men of the Ninth and Tenth Centuries; particularly by an anonymous Writer cited by Mabillon, ad finem, Sect. 4. p. 2. who faith, He never heard, or read of that DoElrine before, and much wondred that St. Ambrofe fhould be quoted for it, and more, that Pafchafius fhould affert it: as may be seen in the Sixth Chapter of Bertram, or Ratram, concerning the Body and Blood of the Lord. London, Printed 1688.