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
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
Certain means to arrive at their Sence and till then I beseech you what are they else but meer WORDS or rather meer Characters and Sounds What high deference I give to Scripture see § 18 19. beginning p. 146. in Sure-Footing To Councils see Corol. 27. To Fathers taking them properly you may be inform'd by the whole Body of my Discourse concerning Tradition of which they are a part and the Eminentest Members of it in Proportion to their number Your 4th Injury is that the onely thing I place Infallibility in is Oral Tradition and the Testimonies of Fathers of Families whereas I place Infallibilities also in other things though I make this the greatest But your discourse makes me disesteem and exclude all others both Popes Prelates Fathers and Councils by establishing this Whereas by settling this I establish all others nor find you any such Expressions in my Book on the contrary 't is evident by those words I include them unless you think Popes and Prelates are not Fathers of Families but take lodgings or hire rooms in other mens houses by the week Truth is being to express the obligatory descent of Faith from Age to Age I cast about for a common word fit to express such Deliverers and conceiv'd this of Fathers of Families the aptest because the Church consisting of Families this was most General and every Master of a Family by being such has an Obligation to see all under him taught their Catechism or Faith This in common which was enough for my purpose then But were I to distinguish the strength of those Testimonies I should show that a Priest hath an Incomparable advantage above a Layman a Bishop above him and the Head of the Church above a Bishop Your 5th Injury is lighter because it speaks but your own Apprehensions and I am to expect no better from you My many chimerical suppositions and my Impertinencies in which I so please my self must needs begets wonder say you in case the man as probably be of any account and reputation in the world Now my Suppositions in the way I take are chiefly these that men in all Ages had Eyes and Ears the wit and if they were good Christians the Grace not to tell an open and damnable ly to no purpose and for these I should much wonder my self if you did not wonder at such odd Grounds and esteem them Chimerical because you have read them in no ancient book for you use not to look into Things By this extravagant kind of dealing you say you cannot but suspect me to be one of the Fraternity of the new-pretended Lights I believe you heartily For to begin with Self-evident principles and thence to deduce Immediate Consequences is such a new Light to you as I dare undertake scarce one beam of it ever enter'd into the Eye of your Understanding I conceive 't is the difference between your way ours which breeds all this mis-intelligence Ours ayms to bring all Citations to Grounds by way of Cause and Effect yours to admit them confusedly especially if writ by some old Authors provided they speak not for the Interest of Papists for then they are questionable Ours is to be backwards in assenting to any thing writ long ago till our Reason be satisfy'd no Passion or mistake could invalidate its Authority yours to believe them hand over head if the book be but said to be Authentick which is to a degree the same Weakness as that of the rude Country people who think all true they see in Print and that their having a ballad of it is sufficient to authenticate it Our Principle is that no Authority deserves any Assent farther than Reason gives it to deserve and hence we lay Principles to assure us of Knowledge and Veracity in the Authour ere we yeeld over our Assent to his sayings Yours is kinder-hearted than to hold them to such strict terms and is well appay'd if some Authour you have a conceit of praise the other for a good Writer or his work for a good Book Ours is to lay Self-evident Principles and deduce immediate consequences and by this means to cultivate our Reason that noblest Faculty in us which constitutes us Men yours to lay up multitudes of Notes gleand from several Authours and if you better any Spiritual Faculty you have 't is your Memory not your Reason Hence we carry for the main of our Doctrin and as far as 't is antecedent to written Authority our Library in our Heads and can as well study in a Garden as sitting in a Library stufit with books whereas your way of Learning ties you to turn over leaves of Authours as children do their Dictionaries for every step of your discourse and as an ingenious man said of those Poets who spun not their Poems out of their own Invention but made them up of scraps of wit transcrib'd from other Authours Lord how they 'd look If they should chance to lose their paper Book So we may say of you that if your Notes you have with much pains collected hap to miscarry you are utterly at a loss so that little of your Learning is Spiritual and plac't in your Soul as true Learning should be but in material and perishable paper and characters In a word your whole performance ends here that you are able to declare what other men say whereas ours aims at enabling us to manifest what our selves KNOW No wonder then if our wayes being so different we cannot hit it but that as you think ours Chimerical so I assure my self yours and consequently all you write in that way is as far as you go about to conclude or cause Assent by it exceedingly ridiculous This I doubt not will confirm you in what you said before that I am no Friend to Ancient Books or Learning To Note-book Learning indeed not much to true Learning or Knowledge very much and even to the other as far as it conduces to This. To Books I am so much a Friend that I desire not a few should be selected of each sort by a General Council of Schollers and the rest burn'd as did an ingenious person but I would onely have the riff-raff burn'd 't is no great matter if that tedious Legend of Dr. Dee's Sprights accompany them and the Generality preserv'd but so that their Contents should be gather'd in Heads or Common-place books for Schollers to look in occasionally not for rational Creatures to spend their whole lives in poring on them and noting them with a foolish expectation to find true Knowledge by stuffing their Heads with such a gallimawfry and after 40. years thus spent never the wiser for indeed this is little better than for one to hope to frame himself a good sute of Apparel by picking thrums ends out of a multitude of old and overworn Garments But to the point I distinguish Books And as for the Scriptures ascertaining their Letter and Sence which is done by Tradition 't is clear they
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
p. 8. The clear saying of one or two of those Fathers truely alledg'd by us to the Contrary will certainly prove that what many of them suppose it do affirm and which but two or three as good Catholicks do deny was not then a matter of Faith or a Doctrin of the Church I wish my Ld. had been so Ingenuous as to have made use of this Principle when he charg'd our Church it self with the mistakes of a few Writers contradicted not by one or two but sometimes by a whole Nation But this Principle shows 't was not Reason in him but Will and Interest which made him so hot As for his Principle it self it subsists not at all For is it not known that more than one or two that is S. Cyprian and the African Fathers deny'd the Baptism of Hereticks Valid yet the Contrary was notwithstanding found and defin'd to be Faith and the Sence of the Church Let him consider how perfectly he engages himself in the very Sphere of Contingency and recedes from Universality the Sphere of Certainty when he comes to rely on one or two unless he can show those one or two strangely supported and upheld by Universal Nature or concurring Circumstances 'T is possible even one or two Lawyers may hap to be ignorant of two or three Acts of Parliament But my Ld is still the best confuter of himself as appears lately by this present Principle apply'd to his former carriage against our Church To himself then let him answer I conceive that if one or two's not denying it to be of Faith or affirming expresly 't is not-of-Faith he engages not so far but bare denying a point argues what many do affirm to be not-of-Faith à fortiori one or two's affirming positively that to be of Faith and the Doctrin of the Catholick Church which many others barely deny argues 't is of Faith 'T was of Faith then what Gennadius cited by himself p. 59. affirms that After Christs Ascension the Souls of all Saints go from the body to Christ This being so let him reflect what himself asserts p. 49. that Justin Mariyr Tertullian Victorinus Martyr Prudentius S. Chrysostom Arethas Euthimius and S. Bernard affirm none go to Heaven till the last day Either then Gennadius his Testimony delivering the doctrin of the Catholick Church is Inefficacious and yet 't is incomparably the best nay the onely Efficacious one in my Lds. whole book or else according to him many Fathers and not one or two onely denying a point is no argument but that point may be of Faith Whether all those Fathers held so or no is another Question and requires a longer discussion 32. Fathers then are useless to the Dissuader as having according to him no virtue at all of setling the Understanding Yet he must make a show of them else all 's lost and so he tells his Readers p. 8. as if all were well two things both very remarkable The one that notwithstanding In the prime and purest Antiquity the Protestants are indubitably more than Conquerours in the Fathers A high Expression but compar'd with what he sayes p. 7. that in those times our present differences were unheard-of it signifies that they miraculously more then conquer where if his words be true no mortals else could either conquer or even attacque For how should one fight against such points in difference from those Fathers who never heard of those points The other is that even in the Fathers of the succeeding Ages the Protestants have the advantage both numero pondere mensurà in number weight and measure which joyn'd to his words at the bottome of p. 7. that each side may eternally and inconfutably bring sayings for themselves out of those Fathers which signifies that 't is to no end or purpose to alledge them amounts very fairly to this that he brags Protestants have a far greater number of Citations which are to no purpose than Catholicks have that those Citations which have no possible force of concluding or no weight at all do weigh more strongly for them than for us and lastly that they have a greater measure than we of proofs not worth a rush with which they can bubble up their books to a voluminous bigness And we willingly yield them the honour of having a very great advantage in all three in case they be such as his own words qualifie them to wit that each side may Eternally and Inconfutably alledge them 33. We come now to his main and most Fundamental and in comparison his onely Principle p. 9. laid out thus We do wholly rely upon Scriptures as the Foundation and final resort of all our Persuasions but we also admit the Fathers c. To finish our Discourse about the Fathers will make way to the Scripture What means admitting as contradistinguisht to relying on Not relying on that 's certain for 't is contradistinguisht to it And yet to alledge any thing for a Proof as they do Fathers and not to rely on it is to confess plainly for Truth will out that they alledge them meerly for a show He sayes they admit them as admirable Helps for the Understanding the Scriptures and good Testimony of the Doctrin deliver'd from their Forefathers Have a care my Ld. This supposes the Certainty of Tradition For if there be no Certainty of delivery there is no doctrin delivered nor consequently any thing for them to testify and so the words good Testimony unless our Ground of Continual Tradition stands mean directly that they are good for nothing as your former Discourses or Principles made them But I ask is their Interpretation of Scripture or Testimony Certain If not why should they even be admitted Or how can Vncertain Interpreters and Witnessers be admirable Helps to interpret right and good Testimony I fear my Ld. can onely mean they are Admirable Helps as Dictionaries and Books of Criticisms are to assist his Human Skill about the outward Letter which is a rare Office for a Father and not to give him the inward Sence of it or the deliver'd Doctrin of the Catholick Church for unless All conspire to speak to the same point if any one be silent concerning it it argues not according to my Ld. p. 8. a Catholick Consent and so is far beneath an admirable help And this is what we reprehend exceedingly in the Protestants that they love to talk gaily in common of any Sacred or Grave Authority for an affected form or show but not at all value the Virtue or Power of such an Authority not judge interiorly they have any worth valuing They would credit themselves by pretending Fathers yet at the same time lay wayes to elude them at pleasure or which is their very temper springing from their renouncing Living and determinate Sence and adhering to dead unsenc't words they study to speak Indeterminately and confusedly not particularly and closely 34. Do I wrong them Let my Ld. clear me His First Principle is by him