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 self-same Consequences but differ in their deductions Thinks he it possible many should not be Ignorant and so miscarry casually many Passionate and incline to some Tenets because sutable to their humour many conceited of their new Inventions and thence judging their Consequence to be connected with the point of Faith cry it up to be de side in their opinion and alledge that denying this you by consequence deny Faith This being so nay impossible to be otherwise and every Reader that sees the Dissuader's unreasonableness against us easily judging he would pick out the worst Instances he could find in that Infinity of Authours and the very complexion of his style being wholly Invidious expose them to shame with all the most disgraceful Rhetorick so great a wit as his heighten'd by that bitterest of Passions could deliver he will easily be able to make an Estimate what he may judge of my Ld's performance in this kinde 18. But now whates all this to to our Church For his Title p. 127. tells us 't is the Church of Rome which teaches such Doctrins and uses such Practices c. The Notion of Church as one would conceive is terminated and bounded precisely within the limits of its Definition a Body of the Faithful and Logick tells every one who understands it that since we work by abstracted notions or conceive a thing now thus now otherwise we must not confound those notions but hold strictly to the formal meaning of the word which expresses the thing we undertake for We are then to expect in honesty that since the Dissuader charges all those Doctrins and Practices on our Church all his Testimonies to fasten them on her should be of our Churches words or Expressions of the Churches Faith we need not doubt then but they will all be Definitions of General Councils Let the Margent inform us The first Citation is of Navarr's Enchiridion a private Casuist The 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 tenour he proceeds for 133 pages that is from p. 127 to p. 260. not quoting the Council of Trent past 3 or 4. times but once as I remember the words of that Council and as oft abusing it by his strange misconstructions 19. For instance take his first Quotation of that Council p. 135 which I the more insist on because on that occasion I shall lay open his crafty and voluntary defiling every point he touches with most abominable misrepresentations and â—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 SIXTH Head of his disingenuities After then p. 133 and 134. he had made all the most odious Cases he could pick out the Roman Doctrin because the books of three or four Authours perused and allow'd by two or three others as not opposit to Faith See Coroll 33. that is the private Reasons of half a dozen Divines conceiv'd so which he amplifies beyond all bounds of moderation that one would judge a General Council or Provincial one at least that many Church Governours or Bishops had recommended those Cases to be held and follow'd at length he tells you sadly p. 134. that This though INFINITLY INTOLERABLE yet it is but the BEGINNING OF SORROWS Then follow the SUPER-INFINIT Sorrows themselves the first of which Sorrows is the Council of Trent's Doctrin and if it be Naught 't is certainly the Chief of them and so had I a word to express it so high which the Dissuader's Rhetorick would easily reach it should be phrased something above Super-infinit in regard by the Sacredness of it's Authority it would be a Ground and an Abetment to all the wicked Cases issuing from it Ere I come to examin it I premise this note that such Testimouies as This are onely to my Ld's purpose if he will argue against our Churcheâ— Doctrin In the success of these then lies the whole Trial of our Cause We have seen how he has sped formerly in his plain Demonstration and his onely efficacious Testimony of a Father let 's see how he thrives in this which we must acknowledge beyond all Evasion to express the sence of our Church 20. His last § then p. 134. begins with describing a true and Perfect Contrition and its Sacred Recommends as sufficient to blot out Sin All this is well nor is there as far as I know a Catholike in the world that was ever taught otherwise what follows Yet sayes he the Church of Rome does not allow it to be of any value unless it be joyn'd with a desire to confess their sins to a Priest saying that a man by Contrition is not reconcil'd to God without their Sacramental or Ritual Pennance actual or votive And this is decreed by the Council of Trent c. Then comes thundring in a Declamation fraught with such Invidious yet Holy Rhetorick that any honest unexamining Reader would almost lay his Salvation on 't he had all the Reason in the world Which things adds he besides that is against Scripture the promises of the Gospell and not onely teaches for Doctrins the Commandments of Men but evacuates the Goodness of God by their Traditions and weakens discourages the best repentance prefers repentance towards men before that which the Scripture calls Repentance towards God Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. And there ends his paragraph in which his passion was in such hast that he forgot to add an Also to answer to the word Besides Now Ld have mercy upon usl What strangely wicked Doctrin is this which can occasion such a clutter of Devotion and Invectiveness jumbled together Attend Reader and from one Instance which I pick't not out purposely but took the first that my discourse led me to accidentally learn the nature of all the rest for scarce one passage in his whole book is free from this Fault The Council Sess. 14. as it is commonly reckon'd not 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 Pennance be actually received and Imperfect or Attrition springing from Consideration of the vileness of Sin or fear of Hell not from Love of God as its motive and to this it requires actually the Sacrament of Pennance this being properly efficacious to advance by Preparations to it beforehand which Attrition gives them will to make use of and the whole course of Exercises in it or belonging to it that Attrition into perfect or properly call d Contrition And speaking of the first sort or
right to alledge either Scriptures Fathers or Councils I add Reason History or Instances See Corol. 12. 15 16 18 19. And it is done thus All discourse supposes that Certain on which it builds But if Tradition or the way of conveying down matters of Fact by the former Ages testifying can fail none of these are Certain therefore a Protestant or Renouncer of Tradition cannot with Reason pretend to discourse out of any of these that is Reason being Man's Nature he has lost his natural right to alledge any of these in way of proof Now that none of these are Certain if Tradition be renounc't is shown thus Scripture's Letter as to its Incorruptedness nay its very Being is Uncertain alone or without Tradition as is confest by Protestants and proov'd Sure-Footing Disc. 3d and 4th So are Fathers and Councils too For Fathers being Eminent Witnessers to Immediate Posterity or Children of the Churches Doctrin received and Councils Representatives of the Church their strength as Proofs nay their very Existence is not known till the notion of Church be known which is part of their very Definition and to which they relate Nor is the Being or Nature of Church known till it be Certainly known who are truly Faithful or have true Faith who not which must be manifested by their having or not having the true Rule of Faith Wherefore since the Properties of the Rule of Faith do all agree to Tradition our Rule and none of them to theirs as was evidently and at large shown there in my five first Discourses it follows the Protestant or Renouncer of Tradition knows not what is either right Scripture Father or Council and so ought not to meddle with them nor alledge them Again since pretended Instances of Traditions Failing depend on History Historical Certainty cannot be built on dead Characters but on Living Sence in men's hearts deliver'd from age to age that those passages are true that is on 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. 't is a wild conceit to think any piece of Nature or Discourse built on it can be held Certain if Tradition especially Christian Tradition may be held Uncertain Third Way 5. THe Third Way is to examin the Method he takes in dissuading For common sence telling us 't is not to be expected any should be able to perform any thing unless he takes the right way to perform it 't is Evidert he cannot be held in reason to have power to dissuade unless the Method he takes be proper to that Effect that is not common to that Effect and a contrary one Now to dissuade is to unfix the Understanding from what is held before which includes to make it hold or assent that what it held before Certain is False or at least Uncertain The Way then he takes must be evidently able to oblige to some kind of Assent nay as he handles it for I suppose he aims to make them hold as Protestants to Assent to the contrary which therefore must needs require the Evidentest Method imaginable obliging their Reason to conclude that a man who takes this way of Discourse cannot but make good what he sayes at least that it may be strongly hop't from his method he will do it This reflected on let us weigh the Method my Ld. takes in his Dissuasive and if it be Evident to every ordinary capacity that as to the Godly part of it the Quakers out-do him and as to its quoting part the Smectymnuans us'd the same against the Protestants to confute Episcopacy for They too quoted and gloss'd Scriptures and Fathers both and indeed every Sect that has not yet shaken of the shame to disrespect all Antiquity then it is also Evident that this Method is Common to those Discourses which have in them power to satisfy the Understanding and those who have no such power Now that being most evidently no Method or Way to such an Effect which many follow and take yet arrive not at that Effect 't is plain to Common Sence that my Ld. of Downs miscalls his Book a Dissuasive and that it can have in it no power of moving the Understanding one way or other unless he can first vouch some Particularity in the Method he takes above 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 then were ever yet produc't by others No Every Scholler sees they are so common that they have been hundreds of times produc't and himself p. 1. 2. acknowledges their vulgarness But perhaps he invalidates all the Answers our Controvertists have given to those Testimonies and presses them farther against us beyond what any has done yet Quite contrary He barely and rawly puts them down as if this were the very first time they had seen light nor takes the least notice of any Answer at all given to them formerly But it may be he layes Grounds to distinguish and press home his Testimonies and so gives them their full weight which others have not done Alas no I fear he never thinks of that but judges if we may conclude from his carriage the deed done so he but quote nor can I see one Principle laid in his whole Book strengthening any one Testimony by bringing it to its Ground Experimental Knowledge in the Authour he cites that the Churches constant Voice and Practice manifested this her Sence but as they are put down carelesly so they are past over slubberingly without the least enforeing them by way of laying Principles Is he at least Particular in his Sincerity and Ingenuity I know not how they will be satisfied with it who read his late Adversary Impeaching him for the contrary Vices and some passages in this present Appendix Where lies then this Particularity in his Method without which his Dissuasive can never in reason be held Creditable I speak ingenuously and from my heart All the Particularity I can observe in it lies in these two things First that he huddles together multitudes of his own sayings without any pretence of proof for the most part and when he brings any they are such as we have spoken of Next that instead of enforcing his Proofs by way of Reason he overflowes strangely with godly language and Scripture-phrases with which plaufible manner of Expression most unreasonably and unnaturally he strives to combat the Wills of his
very plausible show 14. Next follows the Manner how he manages this Matter which in the civillest Expressions I use I must call so many sleights to delude his Reader and those so craftily coucht that none but a Scholler can discern the snare The first and Fundamental one is his wilfully mis-stating the Question all over As p. 16. when he confounds the making new Symbols or Creeds which signifies the putting together into a Profession 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 meerly those which pardons sins or pains after this life whereas yet himself confesses p. 40. that those were not defind by our Church So also his next Section of Purgatory by which we mean a Penal State for those who die imperfectly contrite and from which they are deliverable by the prayers of the Church Militant Instead of which he impugns sometimes material Fire sometimes the duration of it It were tedious to reckon all his Faults in this kind scarce one point escapes this voluntary misprision that is he scarce discourses steadily though perhaps he may glance at it accidentally against one point of our Faith rightly stated or as taken in the declarative words of our Church Now common Honesty telling us that if one be to impugn any mans Tenet the first thing natural method leads him to is to put down that man's very words profest by him to express his Tenet and not what others deem conceit or talk about the same matter my Ld. ought in due candour have first produc't the words of the Council of Trent and then have leveld his opposition against them and not have told us what School divines say about the point or having thus conceald the point it self argu'd against some Circumstance or Manner of it instead of the Substance Now this kind of carriage so evidently preternatural and so constantly us'd forces me to judge it sprung from voluntary Insincerity and not from Accident or Inadvertency 15. His second Disingenuity at once Evidences and aggravates the former 'T is this that when by such a management he hath made the point odious he uses to bring in our Churches Tenet in the rear and whereas Her speaking abstractedly frees her absolutely from the invidious particularities he would fasten on her Faith he as if he had resolv'd to abuse her right or wrong makes that very thing which should clear her tend to disgrace her more As is seen p. 40. where he is forc't to confess our Church defin'd Indulgences onely in general terms that is none of his former Discourses so particularizing toucht her or her Faith and then cries out the Council durst not do this nor the other That is she durst not do and consequently did not do what all his former discourse would persuade the world our Church had done Worse then this is his Instance p. 60. where after he had pretended in the whole 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 seem'd to him most ridiculous Lastly confounded it with Simon Magus his Opinion Plato's or Cicero's conceit and Virgils Fiction After all this he adds this doctrin which in all the parts of it is uncertain and in the late Additions to it in Rome is certainly false is yet with all the Faults of it past into an Article of Faith by the Council of Trent Now these big words All the parts of it the late Additions All the Faults of it and all these said to be past into an Article of Faith by the Council of Trent would make one think that Council had defin'd all that medley he had huddled together for Christian Faith but looking in the Council not a Syllable of any of these is to be found but barely these few words that There is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detain'd are help't by the prayers of the Faithful Where we see but two parts at most for there are but two Propositions in the whole definition Again the late Additions which he sayes are defin'd by the Council can be but one at most that is the second Proposition that those Souls are helpt by the Faithfull's prayers And lastly when he sayes this Doctrin of Purgatory with all its Faults is past by the Council into an Article of Faith the large word All its Faults can mean onely the same second Proposition there being nothing defin'd besides the very doctrin of Purgatory it self but this Which kind of carriage of his so sinisterly descanting on the point all along not pretending to put down our Tenet at all till towards the End then deforming it to be a bundle of God knows how many Faults defin'd for Faith putting all these upon the Council of Trent and yet avoiding to put down the words of the Council at all though so few lest they should discover he had lavish't out at randome show evidently the Dissuader stands not much upon Conscience or Sincerity so he can colour and hide his disingenuities and he is the greatest master of that craft I ever yet met with Now to avoid this Calumny it being frequent in his book I discourse thus Points of Faith are Supreme Truth which stand in the abstract and it is the work of Divines not of the Church-Representative to draw long trains of Consequences from them and dive particularly into the Manners how they are to be explicated or into their Extents if it be some Power Nor is this particular in the point of Indulgences or Purgatory but is found in all the other points of Faith as every learned Divine knows very well Again 't is against the Principles of Universal Supream Government for a Church Representative defining Faith to descend out of its highest Sphere and engage in particularities especially if they belong not to them as School-opinions do not but onely to order in common and leave the Application of their Common Orders to those who are to execute or to Inferiour Officers and should they engage in particulars which are both below their highest office and oft-times contingent and uncertain they would commit the greatest imprudence in the world Since then my Ld acknowledges here p. 40. that the Council orders all hard and Subtil questions concerning Purgatory all that is suspected to be false and all that is uncertain and whatever is curious and superstitious and for filthy lucre be laid aside he should have shown that it befitted a Council's Gravity to descend to particulars or to define negatively to the School-opinion concerning the Churches Treasure and not rather order in Common and leave it to Inferior Officers to execute as circumstances should work upon their Prudence which is that in
exprest to be the Scripture and on this Expression he so strongly builds that p. 10 11. he concludes thence and Certainly too thus The Religion of our Church sayes he is therefore certainly Primitive and Apostolick because it teaches us to believe the whole Scriptures of the old and New Testament and nothing else as matter of Faith What mean the word Scriptures Any determinate sence of it or the dead Characters Alas their Church is far from teaching them the first or from having grounds to own such a pretence but puts the Book in their hands and bids them find the sence of it or their Faith for there is their Rule 'T is the bare Letter then unsenc't he means by the word Scriptures and so he must say 't is 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 figur'd in a Book A worthy Argument to proove their Church is certainly Primitive and Apostolick whereas itis known Faith was before those Characters and besides if this be to be Apostolical we owe nothing to the other Apostles for our faith but onely to those six who writ But we mistake him he means neither sence of the word Scripture and hates these distinctionswith all his heart which would oblige him to either He meant to talk of Scripture indeterminately and confusedly which might make a fine show and yet expose him to no Inconvenience by giving any particular account of his meaning His Inference from this his First Principle being an Immediate one will utterly overthrow the Papists without doubt Therefore saith he p. 11. unless there can be New Scriptures we can have no New matter of Belief no new Articles of Faith No my Ld Yes as long as by Scriptures you mean no determinate sence of Scriptures but the bare Letter onely whose sence is fetch 't out by Interpretations and these as we experience depend on menes private Judgments and Fancies if menes Fancies may vary every hour you may have diverse Interpretations every hour and so new Articles of Faith every hour Is not this a mad kind of arguing to conclude as absolute an unerrableness in Faith as if they had not onely a determinate Principle but even as self-evident and unmistakable as the First Principle in Metaphysicks to guid themselves by whereas our daily eysight and their own sad experience every day teaches us by the practice of this Principle and yet their differing in the Sence of Scripture in most high and most concerning Points that the Speenlation is naught and the Principle it self a false and mis-guiding Light Nay I doubt my Ld. himself has no hearty value for this his First Principle though he sayes he wholly relies on it For I never saw Protestant Book in my Life thinner and sleighter in Scripture-Citations than is his Dissuasive so that if that be his First Principle he makes little use of it 35. Many other Propositions or Supposals are imply'd in his book to give it force As that It matters not how a Citation is qualify'd so it be but alledg'd 'T is no matter whether the question be rightly stated or no. The Tenets of our Church are not to be taken from the use of definitions found in approved Councils speaking abstractedly but from the particular Explications of some Divines Every Foppery is a proper Effect of the Churches Doctrin Points of Faith ought to be comprehensible to Reason and Spiritual things sutable to Fancy The Act of an Inquisition Sayings of a few Divines or Casuists are all Catholik Faith and the Doctrin of the Church That is rationally dissuasive which is confessedly Uncertain No Answer was ever given to the Citations or Reasons produc't in the Dissuasive Talking soberly and piously about a point is oftentimes as good as prooving it That t is Self-evident Scripture's Letter can bear but one Interpretation as wrought upon by Human Skills These and multitudes of such like though not exprest yet run imply'd in his carriage all along this book and suppos'd true to give it any force yet so evidently false and weak that to pull them out thence and make them show their heads is enough to confute them I conclude and charge the Dissuader that he not onely hath never a Principle for his Dissuasive to subsist by but farther that 't is Impossible but himself should know in his own Conseience that he has none nay more that the Protestant Cause and the same I say of all out of the Church can have none The first part of my charge I have manifoldly prooved in this present Appendix The other part of it which charges him with Consciousness of having no Grounds hath two branches and for the former of those I alledge that the wayes he takes all along to manage his Dissuasive are so evidently studious so industrious so designed and perfectly artificial that though one who is guided on in a natural way is oftentimes not aware of his thoughts or their method till he comes to reflect yet 't is Impossible he should not be aware of his which he postures with such exquisit craft and such multitudes of preternatural sleights to render his Discourse plausible For the later of those Branches namely that he cannot but know the Protestant Cause can have no Principles to make it Evident I discourse thus ad hominem what I have prov'd in Sure-Footing out of the nature of the Thing 'T is their most constant and avow'd Profession and his p. 9. that they do wholly rely upon Scripture as the foundation and final resort of all their Persuasions This being so Fathers and Councils are not held at all by them but as far as they are agreeable to Scriptures that is their Testimony has no basis of Certainty from themselves or of their own but what they participate from Scripture Wherefore either they are No Principles or else Subordinate ones to their First Principle Scripture Unless then It be Certain or deserve the name of a Principle They can never be held by Protestants such nor consequently can merit the name of Principles even Subordinate ones because then pretended First Principle from which onely they can derive Title to that dignity is in that case none it self To Scripture then le ts come By which word if they agreed to mean any determinate Sence of it certainly known to be the true one their Discourse were well-built But since their Church can own no determinate Sence of the Scripture deriv'd down from Christ and his Apostles in antecedency to the Scripture's Letter but having renounc't that Way or Tradition must say she has it meerly from that Letter as yet unsenc't She must mean that 't is the Scripture Letter She relies on as the foundation and final resort of all her Persuasions nay for her Persuasion that this is the Sence of it Since then Principles are determinate Sences not characters or Sounds neither is
so qualify'd as is apt to convince to answer it and not at all by Protestant Grounds which yield them all Fallible yet I have that regard for any thing that tends though remotely to Solidity that I will even remit something of my own advantage to give it a respectful Consideration The Testimony is of Gennadius cited by my L. p. 58 59. thus For after Christ's Ascension into Heaven the Souls of all Saints are with Christ and going from the body they go to Christ expecting the resurrection of their body with it to pass into the perfection of perpetual bliss To which my Ld. subjoyns and this he delivers as the Doctrin of the Catholick Church I take this excellent Testimony as put down by himself to do which the usage of St. Greg. Nazianzen's immediately foregoing gives me small encouragement In answer then I affirm that this Testimony so insisted and rely'd on as against us is as plain a declaration of the Faith of our Church at present as any now-adayes Catholick could pronounce For since no Catholick holds that any goes to Purgatory but they who die Sinners to some degree and that all who are Saints are with Christ in Heaven as is evident by the Churches common language affirming constantly the Saints are in Heaven and never that the Saints are in Purgatory but the Souls onely it is manifest that the words are as expresly for us as we our selves could invent or wish I hope it will not wrogMethod if on this occasion I show how Protestant Writers speed when they bring against us any Testimony of a Father speaking as a Father that is declaring that he delivers the sence of the Catholick Church however in other Testimonies which speak not narratively or matter of Fact the very nature of words joyn'd with the variety of their Circumstances must needs afford room for ambiguity and several Glosses I affirm then that this Testimony not onely is not in the least opposit to us but is directly opposit to the Protestants in another point of Faith in which we differ To discover this let us reflect on the words After Christes Ascension into Heaven the Souls of all Saints are with Christ and ask what mean these words After Christs Ascension And first 't is Evident it puts a distinction between the Souls of Saints before Christs Ascension and After it in some Respect and what is this Respect most expresly this that the Souls of the Saints After Christes Ascension go from the body to Christ that is that before the Ascension none did The avowed Doctrin of the Catholick Church prosessing that those who die Saints in the Law of Grace go straight to Heaven but that the best Saints before our Saviours dying for them and Ascending with them did not Whence also we hold that Christes descending into Hell was to free them from that State of Suspence and Want of their strongly desired and hopet for Bliss According to that Hymn of S. Ambrose and S. Augustin in the Common-prayer-book so oft said over by rote but never reflected on When thou hadst overcome the Sharpness of death thou didst open the Kingdome of Heaven to all Believers Signifying plainly that no Believers sound Heaven open for them till after Christ's death By the Success of this one Testimony is seen how utterly the Protestant Cause would be overthrown by way of Testimony as well as Reason were Citations distinguish't brought to Grounds and those onely admitted from the Fathers in which 't is manifest they speak as Fathers or Witnessers of what is the present Churches doctrin To close up this Discourse about the Dissuader's Citations He is to show us first that they fall not under the Faulty Heads to which they are respectively assign'd or under diverse others of those Heads Next that they have in them the nature of Testimonies And lastly which is yet harder that though they have in them the nature of Testimonies their Authority is Certain and their language unambiguous so that they may be safely rely'd on for Principles or Grounds of a solid Discourse This if he shows of any one citation which strikes at our Faith I promise him very heartily to subscribe to the validity of all the rest 13. Thus much for his Authorities Next should follow a Refutation of his Reasons produc't against our Faith for as for those against our 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 consider'd in my Answer to his First Section or against points of Faith And these may proceed two wayes First by showing those points Incomprehensible to our Natural Reason or unsutable to our Faney and this way he frequently takes making a great deal of game upon such subjects as any Atheist may do by the same way in points common to him and us But this hurts us not in the least in regard we hold not Mysteries of Faith Objects of Human Reason nor Spiritual Things the Objects of Fancy and so these Reasons need no farther Answer The other way Reasons against Points of Faith may proceed is to show those Points contradictory to some Evident Principles at least to some other known or else acknowledg'd Truth And these were worth answering But such as these I find none in his whole Book rather that he builds his sleight Descants or Discourses on some controvertible Text or Citation relying on them as firmly as if they were First Principles Indeed p. 65. the Dissuader tells us of a Demonstration of his for the Novelty of Transubstantion and that a plain one too But I shal manifest shortly from the very words of the Author Peter Lombard on which his Plain Demonstration relies that 't is either a plain mistake or plain Abuse of him nay argues the direct contrary to what the Dissuader product it for Some Consequences also he deduces ad hominem against diverse points of our Faith built on our own Concessions or Allow'd Truths taken from the Fathers by which he attempts to overthrow it But these Consequences are so strangely Inconsequent and those tenets he would counterpose so far from Contradictory that 't is hard to imagin whence his Reason took its rise to leap into such remote conclusions I 'le instance in two found p. 49 and 50. That the Conflagration of the last day and the Opinion of some Fathers that the Souls were detain'd in secret receptacles till the day of Judgment do both destroy intermediate Purgatory Which Consequences if he will make good I will vield his whole Book to be Demonstrative and Unanswerable In a word all the good Reasons he brings are taken from some of our Divines writing against others and he hath done himself the right to chuse the best which levelled against the opinion of a less able Divine in stead of a point of Faith must needs bear a
himself often alledges that very thing which should clear the Church and and makes use of it to her farther disgrace First making the School and Church Private Opinions or Explications and Faith all one and at next that the difference amongst such Opiners and Explicaters argues our difference in Faith How strange a malice is this Was there ever any time since the Apostles in which there were not in the Church diverse persons and even some Governours bad in their lives and also Erroneous in their Opinions when the Abstractedness of Christian Faith restrain'd not their Understandings from descending to particulars nor secur'd them in such discourses depending much upon human Sciences Do not the best Champions of Protestants object to the Ancient Fathers themselves such Errors in Opinions Yet no ancient Heretick was ever so weak as to make that an Argument against the Church of those times Did not many Protestant Writers holdmany Roman-Catholick Tenets as may be seen at large in the Protestants Apology Yet no Catholick in his Wits thought therefore the Church of England her self was Roman-Catholick I have heard that one of their Chief Ecclesiastical Officers namely Bishop Bilson writ a book purposely to justify the Hollanders Rebellion against the King of Spain maintaining that Subjects might in some Cases rise against their Soveraigns and turn them out of their Government And yet Catholicks are far from that peevishness to esteem the Protestants disloyal in their Principles but honour them highly for the contrary Virtue even though they are pleased to permit us their Fellow-sufferers for the same loyal Cause to be abused and branded publickly for Traytors by every disloyal Scribbler And to come neerer home did not my L. himself formerly write some strange Opinions I need not name them yet no Catholick was ever so absurd as to charge his Church with those Tenets But which is yet far worse he imputes to the Catholick Church such licentious Cases which not onely Private Authours may and do freely contradict but even Mulritudes of Church-Officers namely almost all the Bishops in France in Diocesan Synods nay the Head of the Church himself has disapproov'd in condemning the Apology writ for them Yet for all this all must be our Churches fault whether she will or no and our Doctrin though she condemns it Was ever such a disingenuous Writer heard of But what aggravates most the Case is neither the Church of England nor the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury nor any Officer or Bishop of hers that we heard of did ever in any solemn Act blemish those Authours cited in the Protestants Apology by condemning their Books nor yet those writ by the Dissuader though they judg'd them amiss but on the contrary his person is advanc't and chosen for their Champion and yet our Writers are soberer more candid than to impute to their Church any of these not-yet-disavow'd Faults whereas my Ld. for want of better Proofs will needs clap upon our Church any misreasonings of private men though our chief Church Governour and many Inferiour ones have discountenanc't and blemish't them Nor is it onely every defect human nature is liable to in reasoning or acting which must be made our Churches Crimes but every unfavorable Circumstance Man's Nature can light into and their defective Effects are all made by the Dissuader's Logick to spring from meer Popery nay the very National Rudeness of his wild Irish is in his Preface confounded by his carriage with our Churches Doctrin and the Inability of their Teachers with much Rhetorick complained of and charactered to be Popery when himself enjoyes the revenue which should educate them better and encourage them Against this kind of unreasonable procedure in the Dissuader I levelled those Corollaries from Corol. 31. to 40. which I intreat my Reader to review and him to consider particularly In the mean time I would ask him on this occasion a few short Questions May not any one remain a Catholick and never hold or practice these Cases and Opinions Do not Catholicks impugn them as much as Protestants Does he find any of those Opinions or Cases in our Catechisms or any Command of our Church to hold or act them nay even in that most common point of extending Indulgences to the next world but they who will use them may who will not need not How then does he hope to dissuade from Catholick Religion by impugning that which touches not that Religion nor concerns any ones being of it And why does not he rather fear all sober men will see his aym by this declamatory kind of Opposition to endeavour to gain credit as a great Anti-papist and not to convince solidly his Readers whose experience if they know any thing enables them to give a ready and satisfactory answer in their own thoughts to all those Questions I have now ask't and so to confute neer three parts of His Book He saw it himself and though he carries it on all along as if he were willing all should be thought the Doctrin of our Church or Faith yet fearing the Calumny is too manifest to be cloak't he provides excuses and Evasions before hand in his Title p. 127. saying The Church of Rome AS IT IS AT THIS DAY DISORDER'D teaches doctrines and uses practices which are in themselves or in their immediate CONSEQUENCES direct Impieties c. So that he speaks of our Church precisely as having some disorders in her and that they lead to ill onely by Consequences drawn from such disorderly Tenets and who 's the drawer of these Consequences Himself But grant his position that there are Disorders in the Church I mean not in Faith held Universally and obligatorily but in unobligatory Opinions and Practices I ask does he think there was ever any time in which there were not some Disorders in the Church or ever will be while Original corruption lasts Does he 〈◊〉 the very time of the Apostles was exempt from such frailty or that S. Paul complain'd for nothing of the Pastors in those primitive and purest times Phil. 2. v. 21. that Omnes quae sua sunt quaerunt non quae sunt Jesu Christi Again thinks he it any wonder that a disorder'd Tenet or a Falshood in a point belonging to manners is apt to lead by consequence to ill actions none doubting but that as Virtue is the connatural Effect of Truth so is Vice of Falshood What hath he got then by this kind of Proceeding taking up better half his book Onely this he hath proov'd there is Original Sin in the world and so it's Effects Ignorance and Interest Again let him consider how disputative an Age this last Century has been and what infinit multitudes of Writers concerning Opinionative Points of all sorts have been in our Church how voluminous how descending to particulars or Cases and this both in School-divinity Morals and Canon-Law and then let him speak seriously whether he can conceive it possible in human Nature there should not
he would deal candidly Himself confesses the Inquisition of Spain corrected one of those Books he names and I know no obligation any man has either to use or abet the others and then to what purpose were they brought against the Church 23. The last greatest and most notorious disingenuity is his most unworthy and most Intolerable Calumny against all Catholicks that they are Traytors and unfit for human Society He names not these words but that he endeavours to have the thing beleeved by his Readers appears thus The Title of his third Chapter p. 260. is this The Church of Rome teaches Doctrins which in many things are destructive of Christian society in General and of Monarchy in special We see here what he charges on our Church and since 't is known all Catholicks not onely are oblig'd to hold but to hold as Sacred and of Faith what the Church of Rome teaches nay to be ready to dy for that Faith 't is plain his Endeavours are to make us pass in the Opinion of his Readers for persons who hold Treason and Villany Lawful nay Sacred and that we are ready to dy and hope to be sav'd by such damnable points of Faith Nor will his false-hearted Pretence p. 462. exempt any while 't is known that nothing is more deeply rooted in our hearts than our obligation to beleeve as the Church beleeves and teaches In particular he assures his Reader p. 462. that No Contracts Leagues Societies Promises Vows or Oaths are sufficiēnt security to him that deals with one of the Church of Rome And p. 279. that the Doctrins of our Church are great Enemis to the Dignity and Security to the Powers and Lives of Princes 'T is not fit we should use here the Language proper to express what 's the due return and genuin brand for so malicious a Calumny But perhaps it were not unfit nor injuring the modesty of Subjects humbly to beg Protection for our Innocence against the virulent tongues and pens of our uncharitable accusers whom neither Reason nor Experience will restrain from going on still to stigmatize us all with the Faults of a few rash or sometimes misconstru'd Writers But when writes the Dissuader this After such fresh Testimonies of the unanimous Loyalty of Catholicks to His sacred Majesty and his Royal Father spending their lives and Fortunes in his service And against whom Against a Multitude in which are found very many Noble and Honourable Personages and many thousands of others very considerable and remarkable for their Fidelity How strange a Wickedness is it then to calumniate so highly and so publickly so many eminently deserving and Honourable Subjects of his Majesty Now the mischiefs naturally apt to flow from such a Calumny are these It breeds ill Correspondence between our Fellow-Subjects and us and makes us ill look't upon by them which violates Civil Unity so necessary for the Peace and strength of a Kingdome especially being between those two parties who have ever been so friendly and brotherly in their Affection and Allegiance to their Prince and Fellow-Acters and Sufferers for his Cause It discourages Loyalty to see that after such best Testimonies of it we are not even able to obtain a bare acknowledgment that we are Loyal but that it shall still be lawful for any one at pleasure to brand us for Traytors and this publickly in print in the face of all England And lastly were not our known Fidelity too strong an Antidote for his malice it tends to breed a conceit in our Governours that we are not to be endur'd in any State and onely fit to be ruin'd and extirpated not to mention the breach of Charity ensuing such unworthy Criminations which must needs breed very many Feuds and unneighbourliness between private persons all over England and Ireland Nor will there be ever any hearty Union in Church or State till thatwicked Uncharitableness of affixing upon a whole party the faults of some few be totally laid aside 24. Now on what does my Ld ground these horrid Charges against our Church or how proceeds he to make them good After the old fashion of quoting the private Opinions of a few Authours viz. Emonerius Father Barnes Emmanuel Sà Tolet Vasquez Navar c. Now my Ld supposes his Readers are to be credulous silly Asses and to believe that these private Casuists or Discoursers are the mouth of our Church that she by them declares what we are to believe that such private Discourses are so many definitions of our Churches Doctrin or Faith That these Discourses are held by our Church to be Constant and Certain for such all Catholicks hold her Doctrin or Faith to be whereas every Child knows these and such like Opinions are controllable changeable as the Moon that they were taught by Christ and his Apostles whereas any one may and himself does quote who first invented them that they who deny or impugn them are Hereticks whereas yet others do and any one may write against them at pleasure Lastly that these Points are all Divine Revelations whereas the very nature of the thing shows and himself confesses they are all Human deductions These Madnesses which are my Ld's First Principles in this whole Chapter and the Chapter foregoing that is in better half his book if his Reader will be such a Bedlam as to yield to then all his discourse is as sure as Gospel but if not then 't is Evident such Pretences are flat and most unconscionable Calumnies against our Church Little better is his quoting two or three particular Acts of some Popes does he think the words Church and Pope are Equivalent or that the word particular act signifies Doctrin or Faith that he should think three or four Acts all in several kinds that is one in each kind argue the Churches Doctrin or Faith in those points This in case he deals truly with those Popes but I know he is apt to deform all he meets with and I see he does that of Pope Clement p. 268. which makes me suspect the rest That Pope extinguish't the Templars and consest that de Jure he could not do it but that he did it ex plenitudine potestatis Here my Ld so interprets de Jure that he makes the Pope disown any Justice in doing it that is own an Injustice in doing it for that 's my Ld's Intention in wresting those words which being impossible to conceive the Pope should prosess of himself 't is clear he meant by de Jure the same we mean by the words by Law that is that there was no positive Law of the Church impowering him to dissolve them yet the Exigency requiring it his Office might give him a natural right to do it by which if Governours might not act in great Emergencies but must be ty'd to let all go wrong because it happens no provision is made against it in any written Law All Churches Kingdomes Cities nay Families would be at the same loss
Catholick 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 Catholikes drive them zealous of defending the Council to an unwarrantable position which Tenet and its practice my Ld. himself knows well the Generality of Catholikes hate and detest as much as himself Eighth Way 27. THe eighth and last Way is to pick out as well as I can those Propositions or Principles my Ld relies on and show their Weakness which is sufficiently performed by singling them out and then naming them PRINCIPLES they are so quite unlike what they 're call'd Now his Principles he layes in his first Section I mean his main and Fundamental Propositions which because he relies on yet never proves we are from his carriage to take for Principles and Self evident to him though he himself calls them not so for 't is dangerous to them who have not Truth on their side even to mention the word Principle Evidence or Demonstration His First concerning Scripture I shall speak to anon A second seems to be this p. 6. We all acknowledge that the whole Church of God kept the Faith entire and transmitted faithfully to the After-ages the whole Faith that is to the Ages next after the Apostles as he expresses a little before call'd by him p. 7. the first and best Antiquily and signify'd to mean the First three Ages Now the Positive part of this Principle is good and Assertive of Tradition but withall unapt to stead him The Negative part of it or that the third Age transmitted it not to the fourth and so forwards imply'd in his Discourse would onely stead him but 't is left unproov'd and so is a Voluntary Assertion and strangely ridiculous For if the first two Ages kept the Faith entire and transmitted it to the third 't is 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 't is demonstrable it did so This Principle then on which he so much builds is either not for him or else highly against him 28. Another main and Fundamental Proposition or Principle is found p. 7. and as the former concern'd the Tradition of the Church so this and the three following ones concern the Authorities of Fathers The present Roman Doctrins saith he which are in difference were Invisible and unbeard of in the first and best Antiquity That is no Heretick had arisen in those dayes or in the first three hundred years denying those points and so the Fathers set not themselves to write Expresly for them but occasionally onely and yet by his leave our Controvâ—â—â—â—â—â— are frequent in citing them for diverse points especially for the Ground of our Faith the Churches voice or Tradition to the utter overthrow of the Protestant Cause So far this improov'd and main position disannulling all use of the Fathers of the first 300 years in our Controversies is from not needing proof or being Self evident 29. It may be his respect and value for the Fathers of the next Ages will make amends for this rashness He tells us immediately after that in the Succeeding Ages secular Interest did more prevail and the Writings of the Fathers were vast and voluminous full of Controversy and ambiguous Sences fitted to their own times and questions full of proper Opinions and such variety of sayings that both sides eternally and Inconfutably shall bring sayings for themselves respectively Now if they be so qualify'd that both sides may eternally dispute out of them and neither be ever able to confute the other or conclude then let him speak out and say all the Fathers after the first 300 years are not worth a straw in order to decision or Controversy nor yet the Fathers of the first 300 years because they spoke not of our points in difference and so there is a fair end of all the Fathers and of his own Dissuasive too for that part which relies on them which looks like the most authoritative piece of it The Reader will easily judge now whether we as he charges us p. 18. have many gripes of Conscience concerning the Fathers that they are not right on our side or the Dissuader Our constant and avow'd Doctrin is that the Testimony of Fathers speaking of them properly as such is Iufallible that in two Cases they speak as Fathers that is when they declare it the doctrin of the present Church of their time or when they write against any man as an Heretick or his Tenet as Heresy Some complexions of Circumstances also may be found out by much reading and comparing several considerations which make it Evident they speak as Witnesses though it be more laborious and tedious to compass a Satisfaction this way Whereas as appears by our Dissuader the Protestants neither acknowledge them Infallible nor indeed Useful And this is my Ld's FOURTH PRINCIPLE which with the former destroyes the Efficaciousness of all the Fathers invalidates all that part of his own Book which should seem weightiest 30. Notwithstanding the two former Principles to invalidate the Fathers it may still be said by the Catholicks in behalf of their validity as was by me now that the Sayings of Fathers as Witnesses are Convictive and therefore it should seem sit my Ld did lay another Principle to provide against that He is not unmindful of it but hath taken order about it For though p. 9. he tells us the Fathers are good Testimony of the Doctrin deliver'd from their Forefathers down to them of what the Church esteem'd the way of Salvation yet that is to be understood according to the Rule premised p. 8. thus Things being thus it will be Impossible for them the Catholicks to conclude from the sayings of a number of Fathers that the Doctrin they would prove thence was the Catholick doctrin of the Church because any number that is less than all does not proove a Catholik Consent So that unless each single Father affirm each single point to be of Faith or the Doctrin of the Catholick Church which morally speaking is Impossible to happen it follows by his words that 't is Impossible to conclude thence the Catholick Doctrin of the Church which amounts to this that 't is Impossible to conclude any thing in Controversy from the Fathers even taken as Witnesses And this is his FIFTH PRINCIPLE A strange conceit that it should be Impossible to know the Consent of all England in a matter of Fact for example the late war without speaking with each single man in the whole Nation Yet this is his Discourse when he sayes that no number less than all can prove a Catholick consent 31. Yet some use certainly he allows of the Fathers for all this else why does he quote them Yes and the Principle which I reckon his SIXTH by virtue of which he enforces them is this
Scripture as they take the word a Principle nor consequently Fathers or Councils whose Certainty is resolvable into It. They 'l say that Letter is a Certain Way to arrive at a determinate Sence and consequently that they have determinate Sence by means of it I ask is the Letter alone such Then in case it alone be absolutely sufficient to such an Effect it will perform it in every one as if Fire be alone sufficient to burn all the world and so overpower all the resistence of the matter do but apply it 't will do that effect or burn it Is there requisit some Schollership in the Subject Scripture's Letter is to work upon or desire to see Truth in their Will Then if this be the onely requisit it will work its Certifying or determining Effect upon all Schollers and well-meaners and so no Schollers and well meaners can disagree in the Sence of it The contrary to which all sober men acknowledge daily Experience teaches us as much as we can be sure of any Human Action The like Discourse holds whatever requisits they desire for still it will follow they must say that in whomsoever they place that requisit they cannot differ in the since of Scripture which Common Experience will confute Nor will it avail them to run to Fundamentals unless it be said the Trinity is no Fundamental which the Dissuader makes the onely one p. 12. for the Socinians deny this amongst whom 't is a strange Immodesty in the Protestants to say there is nonc well-meaning Learned or unapply'd to Scripture Adding then to this most Evident Proposition that a Cause proper to produce such an Effect if we put the Patient dispos'd and the Application alwayes produces its Effect on the Truth of which all Nature depends adding this I say to the obvious and common Experience of Differers about Scriptures sence in all whom 't is Impossible to judge either Disposition of the Patient or Application is wanting for all read it and strive with all the wit and skill they have to find the sence of it it will follow most Evidently that the Fault is in the Agent or Cause that is that Scriptures Letter is unsit to Certify or bring us to a determinate sence of it and therefore since till we know the Sence of that Letter 't is to us but meer Words I am forc't by my reason to judge they have no Principles Those being Sence but that their whole way is wordish and not out of disrespect to them for this touches not them more than it does all others who have lest off the way of conveying down determinate Sence by Living voice and Practise or Tradition but I am oblig'd by Conscience and my duty to my Cause to declare that their whole Ground of their Faith is thus hollow and empty Whence I contest out of the nature of the thing that their Cause can bear no way of Sence or Principles but must forcibly be upheld by Wordishness as by quoting Texts without any Certain Interpreter Citations of Fathers not brought to Grounds not held by themselves Certain fine Scripture phras'd flourishes of piety and such like In which the Dissuader is Excellent Or else if the Objecter be very witty and have taken a great deal of pains in the way of Scepticism to be too hard for himself by bringing all into Uncertainty which is the acutest way of Wordishness and most proper to oppose any Discourse that tends to Establish and Settle because most opposit to it and so I am to expect Necessity will force them to take this way when any replies to SURE-FOOTING I know some will expect I should have answer'd the Dissuasive particularly but I know no reason why I should be sollicitous to stand cutting of each single Branch of Errour or be careful to hinder their growth after I have once pluck't the Tree that bore them up by the Roots 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 intreated 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 Catholiks a Doctrin of our Church or point of Faith then put down the very words of the Council in case it be difin'd 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 plae't 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 Falshood Otherwise the Sermon so expands and ratifies the Proof and his Godly Rhetorick so evaporates his Reasons that it reflects no light at all and so no mortal eye though straining its optick 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 pleas'd to take notice of my Way and some signal Passages in Schisms Dispatcht I was glad to hear that so ancient a Friend of mine had offer'd 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 leasure and Opportunity to second my Intentions I took your Book perus'd diverse chief passages in it and particularly what concern'd my self 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 Schollar 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 imagin'd in you or to a very small degree But I began straight to reflect with my self that as when I was a child I fancy'd rooms very spacious and streets very long which coming to the state of a Man I found very strangely diminisht so my riper and more Judicious Thoughts saw now the measure of your virtues in their true demensions which my younger and unexperienc't years had so strangely magnify'd and enhanc't 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