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
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
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
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
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