I can justifie my self I complain then that your carriage in this one page discovers you at once an absolute stranger to Science and withal very uncivilly Injurious to me all along without any imaginable need Ground or the least occasion given You begin with a mistake of the reason why the Rational Way explained in Rushworth's Dialogues was follow'd by me in Schism Dispatcht or rather why that way was devised and conceive 't is because we despair of maintaining the Popes Personal Infallibility and think all your own if you disprove this So that you strongly apprehend this the basis of all our Faith By which I see Opinion and Faith is all one with you Deceive not your self nor your Readers Sir our D râ— came and do dispute against personal Infallibilities far more strongly than you are even likely and if you please to look into our Councils you find no news of building Faith on any such ground but onely on Tradition The Way I take is the old-and-ever-Way of the Church the farther Explication of it is indeed new not occasion'd by our relinquishing Personal Infallibility of the Pope you shall never show the Church ever built her Faith on a disputable Ground but by this occasion Had you look't into Things and consider'd the progress of the Rational part of the world as well as you pore on Books you would have discern'd that the Wits of this last half Century have been strangely curious and Inquisitive and straining towards a Satisfaction apt to bring all into doubt which they conceiv'd to hinder their way to it Had you reflected on those Heroes of such Attempts the Noble and Learned Sr. Kenelm Digby des Caries Gassendus Harvey and now the Royal Society those living Libraries of Learning in their several wayes you would have found that parallel to them in the matter of Controversy were the Ld. Faukland and Mr. Chillingworth whose acute wits sinding no Establishment nor Satisfaction in the Resolution of our Faith as made by some particular Divines nor yet in the Grounds of the Protestant Beleef endeavour'd to shake the whole Fabrick of our Faith and allow but a handsome Probability to their own Whence Doubt and Inquisitiveness being the Parents of Satisfaction and Evidence Catholick Controvertists began to apply themselves more closely and regardfully to look into the Groundâ— of their Faith Tradition or Universal delivery seâ—tled from the beginning of the Church proceeded upon by Councils and all the Faithful insisted on and stuck to by the Fathers especially those who were most Controversial as Athanasius S. Augustin Tertullian S. Hierome c. and at large by Vincentius Lirinensis and to consider how Proper Causes lay'd in Things by the Course of God's Providence had the virtue to produce the Effect of deriving down with Infallible Certainty Christ's doctrin to us Hence sprung our farther Explication of this way which so much bewonders you This is your mistake now to your Injuries I quoted Rushworth's Dialogues and call'd it The rich Store-house of motives fortifying Tradition Upon this your Reason works thus This I do not understand I never heard of such an Authour and it is possible the better to cry himself up he might borrow another name What means This I do not understand I 'le acquaint the Reader It means you are so wedded to talk by the book that you are utterly at a loss if an Authour be quoted you have not heard of The reason of which is because as I see by your Discourses which look like so many dreams your Genius inclines you not much to trade in Books which pretend to the way of Reason and if Schism Dispatch't so amaz'd you 't is to be fear'd that Sure-Footing and its Corollaries may put you out of your wirts But with what Civility should you hint I so extoll'd my self under another name it being as you say but possible Should I put upon you all things that were possible what a Monster might I make you But it abundantly manifests your short reach of reason that 't is highly Improbable For either I must have discover'd my self to the world to be Authour of both books and then I had sham'd my self with so high self-praises or not have manifested it and then where 's the credit I had got by the other book I had so extoll'd Your next Injury is that I make nothing of and disclaim the Testimonies of Popes and Prelates calling them the words of a few particular men and cite for it Schism Dispatch't p. 98. where there is not one word of either Pope or Prelate nor of disclaiming any Testimony nor of calling those the bare words of a few particular men Now if this be so every word you charge against me is an injurious Calumny and your whole charge a direct Falsisication My words are these By this is shown in what we place the Infallbility of the CHURCH not in the bare words of few particular men but in the manifest and ample Attestation of such a Multitude c. Where though you cannot or will not yet the Reader if he understands plain English will see I meddle not with who is or is not Infallible besides the Church nor sean the validity of Testimonies of Popes or Prelates but treat in what the Infallibility of the CHURCH consists Now the word CHURCH denothing in its First Signification an Universality I place her Infallibility in Universal Attestation from Age to Age. Notwithstanding which my Corollaries in Sure-Footing if your Wonderment at my new Way or your own habituation to words will let you understand them will let you see I also place Infallibility in lesser Councils even in particular Sees but most in the Popes or the Roman not by way of an Afflatus of which I for my part an able to give no account but by a course of Things Natural and Supernatural laid by Gods sweetly-and-strongly ordering Providence in second Causes But what aggravates your Falsification is that whereas I there counterpose bare words and Attestation rejecting the first and making use of the later you make me affirm Testimonies to be bare words To which how much I attribute every such passage of mine will tell you for on them the way I follow entirely builds So that this whole Charge is either quite opposit or else disparate to what I say in the place whence you cite my words Your third Injury and 't is a strange one is that I sleight Scriptures Fathers and Councils as much in this business and call them in scorn Wordish Testimonies for which you cite Schism Dispatch't p. 42. But not such a word is found there nor I will undertake any where else in my Writings 'T is likely indeed that speaking of such things as you use to call Testimonies for you name every sleight Citation such whether it have the nature of Witnessing in it that is be built on Sensations or no I may say they are wordish in regard you have no
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
no. For to confess he brings nothing but common objections without undertaking to manifest they were never satisfactorily answered is to carry it as if meerly to transcribe were sufficient to convince especially since the being often urged is a very probable Argument they have been also often answer'd Seventh Way 11. THe Seventh way to confute him is to run over his whole Book bringing it into Heads and then by disabling those Heads overthrow the Book it self noting first that I guid my Quotations by its Third Edition in Octavo First then we will distinguish it into the Matter of His Dissuasive that is those things on which he builds his pretence of Dissuading and the Manner of it or the Way he takes to manage that matter The matter is divided into his Authorities and his Reasons Wee 'l begin with his Authorities And because we have found and shew'd Dr. Pierce's so fam'd Sermon to be the very Idea of inefficacious quoting 't is but reason we should manifest how the Dissuasive participates of its Nature by ranking the Citations produc't in it under those ten faulty Heads which comprehended the other's Authorities To the First Head belong that of Senensis p. 21 and 49. Those two p. 34. Those p. 46 and 52. Maldonat's p. 55. Those p. 68. Those noted with b c d e and f. p. 88. AEneas Sylvius p. 89. Those three so maliciously and wilfully misrepresenting the Catholick Tenet p. 94. To which add that of S. John p. 104. That cluster of Citations p. 111. and that which follows Elutherius and S. Ambrose p. 113. His Scripture p. 121. His general muster of such as wish't reformation of manners in the Church 125 126. Now to vindicate these Testimonies his Lp. should show to what purpose as a Controvertist he alledg'd these more than for show I note that all these fall also under the 2d and 3d. Head and perhaps diverse of the others To the 2d Head appertain Those of Tent. Bas. Theop. Alexandrinus in the Preface Tert. p. 28. S. Cypr. and Dionysius p. 57. Ambrose Hilary and Macarius p. 58. Olympiodorus and Leo p. 59. His Scripture p. 60. and 61. Justin and Origen p. 69. Eusebius and Macarius p. 70. Ephren and Nazianz. p. 71. Those p. 83 and 84. Origen p. 85. Lyra and those noted g h i k l m. p. 88 89. The Council of Eliberis and S. Austin p. 100. Cyprian p. 110 and 114. Those p. 115 and 116. Against all these it is charg'd that they are raw and unapply'd onely saying something in common which comes not home to the point Wherefore to validate them His Lp. must show the contrary To the third belong those p. 28. Those p. 42. Innocent p. 47 and p. 92. Clemens and Origen p. 98. Epiph. p. 100. Those p. 104 105 106 107. The Extravagants p. 113. Those p. 117. and 123. Chrysost. p. 119. Of these he is to show that he has levell'd them directly at a question rightly stated I charge him with the contrary and add that most of his other Citations fall under this Faulty Head Under the 4th are rank't those p. 29 30. Those p. 49. 50 51 56. Lombard p. 64. A castro p 67. S. Austin p. 73. S. Gregory p. 118. Canus p. 119. These either impugn a Word for a Thing or some Circumstance or Manner for the Substance Under the 5th the whole pag. 48. and all those p. 62. which are evidently Negative and so Inconclusive Under the sixth are comprehended his First p. 20. and his Second p. 21. Bellarmin and Gerson p. 24. Albertus p. 43. Roffensis and Polydor Virgil p. 45. His first Citation p. 64. Which we affirm to be the Saying of private Authours or Schoolmen which others do or may contradict To this Head also belong all those in a manner in his two last chapters that is in the better half of his Book To the 7th Head are related that of S. Ambrose in his Preface S. Austin p. 5 and 6. Of the Emperours p. 12. Leo the 10th p. 16. Pius the 4th p. 17. the Ephesin Council p. 23. The Council of Trent p. 25. Those three p. 37. Nazianz. p. 58. Tertull. p. 69. The two first p. 73. Those three p. 87. and that p. 90. Those first p. 98. S. Greg. p. 100. His descant on the 7th Synod p. 101. 102 103. Symmachus p. 114. And lastly my Ld. of Downs his Testimony of himself the page before the Title page so strangely misrepresenting the Minde of that Frontispiece These I affirm to be false and not to signify the thing they are expresly quoted for Diverse of them also are direct Disingenuities with a craft in the managing of them which argues design and are inexcusable by mistake To the Eighth belong those of Athanasius Lactantius and Origen in the Preface S. Chrysostom p. 72. Theodoret and Gelasius p. 74. In which 't is easy to be made appear the words are ambiguous Those of the 9th or Sayings of Writers on his own side are not worth mentioning nor yet the 10th or pieces of Scripture interpreted by himself unless he will show us he proceeds on Evident Principles in sencing them which so force the meaning he gives them that they can possibly bear no other Till he does this all his glosses are presumable to have no other foundation but meer strength of Fancy and since he professes p. 9. that his Dissuasive wholly relies on Scripture that is on the sence he conceives it to have the common mode of interpreting Scripture by Fancy which reigns so in the world will make any sober man doubt unless he show us the evident Principles which necessitated his Interpretation that his whole Dissuasive is perfectly built on his own Imagination The Dissuasive hath two or three other faulty Heads of Citations besides those mention'd as Vnauthentick ones such is Origens p. 98. and that against the 7th Synod p. 103. Those also which cite an Authour but no place where they are to be found as S. Cyril p. 99. And lastly brought to impugn Faith but speaking onely of Alterable practices as those p. 123. which he is to show Authentick well-cited and Pertinent And as well of those as the former he is to make good if he will go to work like a solid man that they have in them the true nature of Testimonies and such Certainty as may safely be rely'd on for Principles of those serious Discourses he makes upon them See Sure-Footing p. 172 173 174. 12. But that I may do right to the Dissuader I am to confess ingenuously that he has in him one Citation which hath in it the true nature of a Testimony or depending on the Authour's Knowledge had by Sence of the present Doctrin of the Church at that time Now though it be the Testimony only of one single Father and so I am not in severity bound by Catholick Grounds which vouch onely Consensus Patrum which I understand to mean a Consent of so many and
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
over-bear me with the conceiv'd Authority of other Divines resolving Faith in their Speculative Thoughts after another manner than I do since this can onely tend to stir up Invidiousness against my person which yet their charity secures me from and not any wayes to invalidate mv discourse For every one knows t is no news Divines should differ in their way of explicating their Tenet which they both notwithstanding hold never the less firmly and every learned man understands that the word Divine importing a man of Skill or Knowledge in such a matter no Divine has any Authority but from the Goodness of the Proofs or Reasons he brings and on which he builds that Skill Please then to bring not the empty pretence of a Divines Authority or Name to oppose me with and I shall freely give you leave to make use of the Virtue of their Authorities that is their Reasons against me as much as you will I easily yeeld to those great discoursers whoever they be a precedency in other Speculations and Knowledges to which they have been more addicted and for which they have been better circumstanc't In this one of the Ground of Faith both my much Practice my particular Application my Discourses with our nations best Wits of all sorts my perusing our late acute Adversaries and the Answers to them with other Circumstances and lastly my serious and industrious studying the Point join'd with the clearing Method God's Providence has led me to have left me as far as I know in no disadvantage What would avail you against me and our Church too for my Interest as defending Tradition is indissolubly linkt with Hers is to show that our Church proceeds not on Tradition or that in Her Definitions She professes to resolve Faith another way rather than mine or which is equivalent to rely on somthing else more firmly and fundamentally than on Tradition But the most express and manifold Profession of the Council of Trent to rely constantly on Tradition has so put this beyond all possible Cavil on my side that I neither fear your Skill can show my Grounds in the least subcontrary to hers nor the Goodness of any Learned and considering Catholik however some may conceive the Infallibility of the Church plac't ad abundantiam in somthing else will or can ever dislike it I expect you may go about to disgrace my Way as new But I must ask whether you mean the substance of it is new or onely that 't is now deeper look't into and farther explicated than formerly If you say the former my Consent of Authorities p. 126 127 c. has clearly shown the contrary and common sense tells us no other way was or could be possibly taken for the Generality of the Church at least in Primitive times till Scripture was publisht universally and collected If the later please to reflect that every farther Explication or Declaration as far as 't is farther must needs be new and so instead of disgracing us you most highly commend our reasons for drawing consequences farther than others had done before us Again if it be onely a farther Explication it is for that very reason not-new since the Sence of the Explication is the same with the thing explicated As 't is onely an Explication then 't is not-new as farther 't is indeed new but withal innocent nay commendable But there are three things more to be said on occasion of this objecting Catholik Divines One is that taking Tradition for the living voice of the present Church as I constantly declare my self to do not one Catholick does or can deny it for he would eo ipso become no-Catholick but an Arch-heretick and this all acknowledge In the thing explicated then that is in the notion of Tradition all agree with me and consequently in the Substance of my Explication nor can any do otherwise except they be equivocated in the Word Tradition and mistake my meaning which I conceive none will do wilfully after they have read here my declaration of it so unmistakably laid down The second thing is that an Alledger of those Divines will onely quote their Words as Speculaters not those in which they deliver themselves naturally as Christians or Believers which Sayings were they collected we should finde them unanimously sounding to my advantage and not one of them oppositely And lastly speaking of our Explication as to its manner Divines contradict one another in other kinds of Explications but not one Author can be alledged that expresly contradicts this which I follow 10. My sixth request is that you would speak to the main of my Book and not catch at some odd words on the by as it were Otherwise understanding Readers will see this is not to answer but to cavil 11. And because we are I hope both of us endeavouring to clear Truth I am sure we ought to be so therefore to acquit your self to your Readers that you ingenuously aim at it I conceive you will do your self a great deal of right and me but reason nay which is yet weightier do the common Cause best service if you will joyn with me to retrench our Controversie as much as we can Let us then avoid all Rhetorical Digressions and Affectations of Witty and fine Language which I have declin'd in my whole Book and chosen a plain downright manner of Expression as most sutable and connatutural to express Truth Likewise all Repetitions of what particulars others have said or answer'd before us such as are the Objections made by that ingenious person the L. Faukland and the Answers given them in the Apology for Tradition unless it be conceiv'd those Solutions are insufficient and Reasons be offer'd why they are judg'd so For I conceive it an endless folly to transcribe and reprint any thing others have done before us except it be Grounds which ought to be oft inculcated and stuck to and those particulars which we show to be not yet invalidated but to preserve still their strength Much less do I suspect it can fall under the thought of one who aims to discourse rationally such my Answerer ought to be to rake together all the filth and froth of the unwarrantable Actions or Opinions of some in the Church or to run on endlesly with multitudes of invective invidious sayings on his own head without proof then apply them to the Church as does the Disswader It would also very much conduce to the bringing our differences to a narrower compass if you would candidly take my Book endwayes and declare what in it is evident and so to be allowed what not What Principles are well laid or Consequences right drawn and what are otherwise To requite which favours I promise the same Carriage in my Reply to you By this means it will be quickly 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 be connected I may confess
London and in your chamber there upon occasion of reading a book writ by a certain Protestant Bishop against the Real presence I observ'd and acquainted you with my observation that to my Judgment the Fathers spoke more favourably for the Papists tenet than the Protestants Hereupon you took me by the hand and told me they were mad who read the Ancient Fathers and saw not they meant Christ was as really in the Sacrament as in Heaven The other was yet more remarkable and this that either your Grandfather or Father I know not which but I think your Grandfather was intimate with Mr. Calvin and when he had put out his Explication of Christ's presencein the Sacrament which dodg'd and shuffled between really and notreally that is between is and is-not he challeng'd Mr. Calvin with it and laid open to him the non-Sence and indefensibleness of it asking him why he put out so strange an Opinion which he was never able to make good at which Mr. Calvin took hold of his own finger and said See you this I would willingly cut it off on condition I had never put it out so To which your Grandfather reply'd You should then explain it some other way Mr. Calvin answer'd My Institutions are so spread all over France that 't is now too late Thus you letting me see by a Testimony very immediate that the late Authour of this Tenet which now so reigns all over England wish't his finger cut off when he writ it How you will reconcile this with the late new piece of the Rubrick in the Common-Prayer-book absolutely renouncing all real presence in which point the Church of of England formerly exprest her self abstractedly do you consider Sir I beseech you let this be a fair warning to you how you deal disingenuously for the future and pardon some of my expressions to my high provocation and exceeding great hast I am sure the worst of them is a Civility compar'd to the harsh carriage you have us'd towards your self in openly falsifying both my words and sence and causlesly wresting to an ill construction every passage you touch't yet not doing me the right to go about to answer any one in the least that so I might see by your Reasons you had Grounds to think as you writ Had you argu'd against me I know too well the right of a Writer to take it ill if you laid open and nam'd my conceived Faults though the names of them had been harsh Words but not even to attempt to confute them yet to flie into such Expressions is the very definition of railing I was extreme sorry to lay open the Fault of a Friend though my own Concern made it Fitting and your demerit Just and do assure you that onely the Injury to my Cause which went along in that action oblig'd me to this Vindication Setting aside the duty I owe to That I am still as ever Your true Friend and humble Servant J. S. A LETTER from The Authour of Sure-footing to his Answerer SIR I Am certainly inform'd there is an Answer to my Book intended and a Person chosen out for that Employment whose Name I am unconcern'd to know it being only his Quality as a Writer I have to do with I receive the Alarum with great chearfulness knowing that if my Adversary behaves himself well it will exceedingly conduce to the clearing and settling the main point there controverted But because there is difference between being call'd an Answer and being an Answer and that 't is extremely opposit to my Genius to be task't in laying open mens Faults even as Writers though it has been my unhappiness formerly to meet with Adversaries whose way of winning made that carriage my only duty wherefore to prevent as much as I am able all occasion of such unsavory oppositions and to make way to the clearing the point that so our Discourse may redound to the profit and satisfaction of our Readers I make bold to offer you these few Reflexions which in effect contain no more but a Request you would speak to the point and in such a way as is apt to bring the matter nearer a clearing This if you please to do you will very much credit your self and your endeavours in the opinion of all ingenuous persons If you refuse and rather chuse to run into Rhetorical Excursions and such Discourses as are apt to breed new Controversies not pertinent to the present one under hand you will extreamly disparage both your self your party and your Cause and give me an exceeding advantage against them all I shall also have the Satisfaction to have manifested before-hand by means of this Letter that I have contributed as much as in me lies to make you avoid those Faults which I must then be forc't to lay open and severely press upon you little to your Credit nor your Causes neither You being as I am informd and Reason gives it signally chosen out as held most able to maintain it 2. That there may be no more distance between us than what our Cause enforces I heartily assure you that though I highly dislike your Tenets negatively opposit to what we hold Faith and the Way of Writing I foresee you must take unless you resolve to love Candour better than your Cause as being Inconclusive and so apt to continue not finish debates yet I have not the least pique against yours or any mans Person Nor have I any particular aversion against the Protestant party rather I look upon it with a better eye than on any other Company whatever which has broke Communion with the Catholick Church It preserves still unrenounc't the form of Episcopacy the Church-Government instituted by Christ and many grave Solemnities and Ceremonies which make our Union less difficult Many of their soberest Writers acknowledge divers of the renounc't Tenets to be Truths some of them also profess to hold Tradition especially for Scripture's Letter and even for those Points or Faith-Tenets in which they and we agree that is where their Interest is not touch't I wish they would as heartily hold to it in all other Points which descended by it and look into the Virtue it has of ascertaining and declare in what that Virtue consists I am confident a little candour of confessing truly what they finde joyn'd with an endeavour of looking into Things rather than Words would easily make way to a fair Correspondence I esteem and even honour the Protestants from my heart for their firm Allegiance to his Sacred Majesty and his Royal Father This uniting them already with all sober Catholiks under that excellent notion of good Subjects and in the same point of Faith the Indispensableness of the duty of Allegiance we owe our Prince by Divine Law Lastly I declare that for this as well as for Charitable Considerations I have a very particular zeal for their reconcilement to their mother-Mother-Church and that 't is out of this love of Union I endeavour so earnestly
to beat down the wordish and dissatisfactory way of Writing and go about to Evidence the Ground of all our Faith knowing that as wounds are never connaturally and solidly cur'd by uniting the distant sides at the surface and leaving them disunited and unheal'd at the bottom but the cure must begin there first so the onely Way to heal the Wounds of the Church is to begin first to win some to acknowledge the most radical and bottom-Principle of all Faith as controverted between us without which all agreement in particular points must needs be unsound and hollow-hearted This is my onely aym in Sure-Footing That therefore you may not obstruct so good a work and withall perform the duty of a solid and candid Writer I offer to your self and all ingenuous Readers these few Reflexions not sprung from my Will for what Authority have I to prescribe you your method but from true Reason working upon the Thing which makes it just duty in you and so ought oblige you to follow it 3. In the first place fince the scope of my whole Book is about the First Principle in Controversy or the Ground of all Faith as to our Knowledge that is about a Point antecedent to all particular Points I conceive it reasonable you should let your Discourse stand firm to the matter in hand and not permit it to slide into Controversies about Particulars For so 't is evident we shall be apt to multiply many words little to our present purpose On what conditions you may have right to alledge Particulars as pretended Instances of Traditions failing shall be seen hereafter 4. Next I desire you would please to speak out Categorically and declare whether you hold Faith absolutely Certain to us or else Possible to be false for any thing we know To explicate my self better that so I may void some common and frivolous Distinctions my intent is to demand of you in behalf of the Christian Reader and his due satisfaction whether you hold Gods Providence has laid in the whole Creation any Certain means by way of Proper Causes to such an Effect to bring down Faith truly to us and whether we can arrive at Certain Knowledge of those means that is come to see or know the Connexion between such Causes and their Effect spoken of I make bold to press you earnestly to this declaration and my reason is because nothing will more conduce to the Conclusion of our present Debate For in case such Causes be laid and can be seen by us then they are Evident or Demonstrative Reasons for the Ground of our Faith's Certainty But if no such Causes be laid or being laid cannot be seen by us then all the Wit of man can never avoid the consequence but that we can have onely Probability for all our Faith that is for any thing we absolutely know 't is all as false as an old wife's tale since there are no degrees in Truths and Falshoods If you advance this Civil piece of Atheistry you must pardon me if I be smart with you in opposition to so damnable and Fundamental an Errour I love Christianity and Mankinde 〈◊〉 well to suffer that Position which destroyes effectually the Root of all their Eternal Happiness and the Substance of all their Hope to pass unstigmatiz'd as it deserves Nor think to avail your self by some Discoursers in our Schools It will be shown when prest that they are still preserv'd good Christians through the virtue of Tradition which they all hold to notwithstanding their private speculations but you not because of your want of Certain Grounds to make you rationally hold Christs Faith They onely mistook a Word whereas you will be found to erre in the whole Thing or the ordinary Means to true Christianity Again if such Causes be fitting to be laid by God's Providence 't is impossible to avoid the Doctrin propos'd in Sure-Footing because 't is absolutely Impossible to invent any thing that looks like such Causes but those which are deliver'd there nor did any other Way ever attempt to show any such Whence I foresee your Cause will force you to fly for refuge to the actual Uncertainty or possible Falshood of all our Faith for any thing any man living knows by ordinary means A sad consequence of an erroneous tenet But 't is connatural and so to be expected such Effects should follow the renouncing the Rule of Faith 5. Thirdly I conceive it very reasonable that you would please to declare whether Controversy onght to have any First Principle or no If none then to speak candidly out and confess that Controvertists are Certain of nothing they say since their discourse has no Ground or First Principle to rely on If any whether Tradition be It or if it be not what else is and then vouch as plain reason tells us you ought that what you assigne has truly in it the nature of a First Principle which common Reason gives to be self-evidence Or lastly to profess if you judge it your best play that what you substitute in stead of Tradition though it be a First Principle yet it need not be at all self-evident Any thing shall content me so you will but please to speak out and to the point 6. Again since it is evidently your task to argue against Tradition's Certainty 't is as Evident that while you argue against it you must bear your self as holding It uncertain I conceive then plain Reason obliges you not to produce any thing against Tradition which depends upon Tradition for its Certainty for in doing so you would invalidate and even nullify all your own proofs Since if Tradition be held by you uncertain and they have no certainty but by means of It they must be confest Uncertain too and so they would be incompetent to be produc't as proofs and your self very dis-ingenuous to produce them I add self-contradicting too and Unskilful Nature and Aristotle teaching us that a Discourser ought not sustain contrary to himself Hence plainest Reason excludes you from alledging any kind of Testimony either from Scripture Councils Fathers or History till you answer my Corollaries 12 15 16. which pretend to demonstrate the Certainty of all these dependent on Tradition's and the onely way to show my discourses there to be weak is to manifest my mistake by declaring into what other thing your Certainty of those Testimonies is finally resolvable which is not coincident with Tradition When you produce such a Principle and prove it such you have right to alledge the foresaid Testimonies for then you can make good their Authority Till then you can have no right in true reason to do it Not onely because till then you are to be held a Renouncer of that Thing 's Certainty upon which there are pretended demonstrations against you Theirs is built and those presum'd true ones because you let such strongest Attempts pass unanswer'd but very particularly for this Consideration that our present matter