was already a Christian I do not see the words can be brought to bear your sense since manifestly he could not have been so without already being certain of the body of Christianity So that your Exposition makes the Evangelist very wisely take a great deal of pains in writing a book to inform Theophilus certainly of what he certainly knew before Mr. Whites interpretation therefore seems much the more genuine and yet even admitting yours I cannot as I said before imagine any approach to our difference For St. Luke expresly confining his design to the instruction of Theophilus hee that extends it to more acts manifestly without any Warrant from him You urge afterwards the first of the Acts which you say Mr. White passeth over as Commentators do hard places Truly your severity is beyond what I have ever met with and you are the first example of expecting a man should answer more then is objected Mr. White is speaking to the Gospel and these words are in the Acts and yet you except against him for taking no notice of them As for the difficultie it self since those words cannot be taken in their proper natural signification St. John plainly telling us the world would not be able to contain the books which might be written I do not see any ground you have to understand by them the substance of Christian doctrine With submission to better judgments I apprehend that by All is meant all he thought fit to communicate to Theophilus that sense seeming to flow naturally from the places compared together But whether that interpretation be true or no I am sure nothing appears why a man should accept of yours For whereas you would prove it out of St. Lukes exact knowledge that is manifestly nothing to the purpose every bodie seeing it follows not because S. Luke knew all therefore he delivered all And for the quarrel against Mr. White for leaving out the word exactly besides that as I come from saying it is far from being very pertinent exact knowing being much a different thing from exact teaching all he knew Mr. White puts in stead of it that he was present almost at all things c. which in matters of fact is the most exact knowledg that can be And for the second proof that otherwise he could not say he had delivered All Christ did or taught I have already told you though that word cannot be taken properly to signifie truly All yo◠do it wrong to take it so improperly as you do the substance of Christian doctrine being a strange English of the Latin word Omne But be all this given to the respect of the person which suffers me not to pass by any thing you say without taking notice of it though otherwise your Conclusion which I am now come to does not any way prejudice the Tenet I am maintaining To contain sufficient truths and to be a sufficient means to salvation which may possibly be true in respect of some persons and circumstances being quite another thing then to decide all quarrels carried on by factiously litigious persons and this in all times and cases For a conclusion I beseech you to accept of this observation that a serious reflection on what you do your self would satisfie you whether partie Truth takes in this question for whatever force custom and a prepossest fancie has on your words to make them maintain St. Lukes Gospel alone sufficient nature contradicts them so powerfully that your actions speak the clean contrary and plainly prove 't is not sufficient for since you cannot hold that a sufficient means to you which you do not sufficiently know to be a means and this sufficiency of the Gospel you do not know without the Acts which nature forces you to rely upon even while you are maintaining you need them not you see plainly your words and actions agree not and that while you would by the former perswade the sufficiency of the Gospel alone the later unresistably convince somthing else viz. the Acts is necessary to its sufficiency that is that it alone is not sufficient SECT V. Answer to those Fathers who are brought for the sufficiencie of Scripture MY next Argument for Scriptures sufficiency shall be out of the Fathers which Mr White p. 175. thinks improper for us who will not relie on their Authority for any one point what though we receive not from them any authoritative testimonie yet we embrace a rational one from any not because they say it therefore it is true but because we see no reason to dis-beleeve or have sufficient reason to beleeve they testifie truths as a Judge collects a truth from Witnesses every one of which is a fallible man yet by beholding circumstances sees their concurrent Testimonies cannot be false here we have ground enough to beleeve that Scripture was a sufficient rule to them because they say and confess it was I am ready to beleeve any Tradition as well as the Bible provided we have as good ground to beleeve it came from the Apostles as I have of the Bible Suppose it be not a sufficient argument for us who besides have Scripture on our side yet it is a sufficient Argument against you who pretend to derive your Religion from them who went before you whom you include in your Church as Mr White If the Bible had once that authority we plead for in your Church it should have it still the contrary being a Novelty therefore I must count your Doctrine false till you have solved this Argument That which was the Rule must be but Scripture was the Rule Ergo c. ¶ 2. First I must take out of the way your Objections out of those Fathers I make use of that they were of your opinion which you gather out of several expressions of theirs as that of Austin whose and others their words I have of late read in your Authors pleading thus your cause I would not beleeve the Gospel unless the Authority c. In which and all other of their expressions we must understand unless we will say through heat of dispute they sometimes contradict their own sence plainly delivered at other times according to their intent and so I see not any thing that makes against us as that mentioned Either S. Austin means the Church of all ages or that present in which he lived If that precisely abstractly without consideration of the antiquity of it and its doctrinal succession from the Apostles his doctrine had been nothing available against the Manichees against whom he disputes for they might have alledg'd the authority of their Church with as good ground against him therefore when he alledgeth the authority of the Church or Tradition to be a sufficient proof of that which is not contained in Scripture he means the universal Tradition of all ages which was as evident as that of Scripture tradition or as cleerly derived from the Apostles by universal Tradition as the Scripture it self and such a
thrown their rule overboard and they would not only have preserved their doctrine pure to succeeding Ages by the same means they had preserv'd it till then but they could not preserve it pure while they retain'd the same means which had preserv'd it till then To the following question I answer the Church of which by Gods mercie I am a member has preserved the doctrines of salvation entire not without writings indeed but without making them her Rule to preserve them by neither had she or could she have preserved them had there been no other means left her then words For what you say next I refer you to the third Dialogue to see since 't is the same thing in point of certaintie to receive a truth immediately through two hands or through twentie provided we be sure there be no deceit in the intermediate Conveyers all possibilitie of deceit removed from them and consequently our certaintie equal with that of those who lived nearer the Apostles times As for the unity of the Churches in the time of Irenaeus 't is true there was an unity and stil is amongst all those that stuck to Tradition but then as now some were divided and by the same means as now viz. by preferring their private Interpretations of Scripture before the doctrine they had been taught This divided the Valentinians in the time of Irenaeus the Arians in the time of St. Athanasius the Donatists in Saint Austins in all Ages some and divides you now And the way to know whom a man must beleeve when each say they have the way to Heaven was then as now to keep fast to what had been taught to follow those Churches that do so and those that build upon private Interpretations to reject so that the case is not at all altered the method of arriving to the knowledge of saving truths being the same anciently and now ¶ 10. That Irenaeus apprehended all those truths necessary for salvation were contained in Scripture which some places for a while have had without writing is clear by what follows and that the Scripture is a sufficient rule to salvation and was to him and the Church in his dayes which enjoyed it he tells us the Apostles left the same in writing in lib. 3. cap. 1. edit Basil His words are Non enim per alios depositionem salutis nostrae cognovimus quam per eos per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos Quod quidem tunc praeconiaverunt postea verò per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum Is not this clear against you The Scripture then was not written by chance but by the Will of God for this end that it might be a standing rule and pillar or foundation of our faith And lib. 2. cap. 46. shews this is a clear certain way for every one Cum itaque universae Scripturae propheticae Evangelicae in aperto sine ambiguitate similiter ab omnibus audiri possunt He was blaming Hereticks drawing errors from obscure Places and Parables when they might have seen the light in clear places by which the darker are to be understood God says he has given power to honest religious mindes that are desirous of truth to see it Haec promptè meditabitur in ipsis proficiat diuturno studio facilem sententiam efficiens Sunt autem haec quae ante oculos nostros occurrunt quaecunque apertè sine ambiguo ipsis dictionibus posita sunt in Scripturis ideo Parabolae debent ambiguis adaptari sic enim qui absolvit sine periculo absolvit parabolae ab omnibus similiter absolutionem accipient a veritate corpus integrum simili adaptatione membrorum sine concussione perseverat Sed quae non apertè dicta sunt neque ante oculos posita copulare absolutionibus parabolarum quas unusquisque prout vult adinvenit sic enim apud nullum erit regula veritatis And so says he there If we do not with sober unbiast minds take the plain Scripture for our guide a man shall be always seeking but never come to the truth yet the Scripture doth clear it though all do not beleeve one God c. sicut demonstravimus ex ipsis Scripturarum dictionibus Quia enim de cogitatione eorum qui contraria opinantur de patre nihil apertè neque ipsa dictione neque sine controversiâ in nullâ omnino dictum sit Scripturâ ipsi testantur dicentes in absconso haec eadem Salvatorem docuisse non omnes sed aliquos discipulorum qui possunt capere c. Quia autem Parabolae possunt recipere multas absolutiones ex ipsis de inquisitione Dei affirmare derelinquentes quod certum indubitatum verum est valde praecipitantium se in periculum irrationabilium esse quis non amantium veritatem confitebitur And in the next Chapter Habentes itaque regulam ipsam veritatem in apertum positum de Deo testimonium non debemus quaestionum declinantes in alias atque alias absolutiones ejicere firmam veram de Deo scientiam c. Si autem omnium quae in scripturis requiruntur absolutiones non possumus invenire alterum tamen Deum praeter eum qui est non requiramus impietas enim haec maxima est Credere autem haec talia debemus Deo qui nos fecit rectissime scientes quia scripturae quidem perfectae sunt quippe à verbo Dei Spiritu ejus dictae Si autem in rebus creaturae quaedam quidem eorum adjacent Deo quaedam autem in nostram venerunt scientiam quod mali est si eorum quae in scripturis requiruntur universis scripturis spiritualibus existentibus quaedam quidem absolvamus secundum gratiam Dei quaedam autem commendemus Deo non solum in hoc seculo sed in futuro ut semper quidem Deus doceat homo autem semper discat Si ergo secundum hunc mundum quem diximus quaedam quidem quaestionem Deo comiserimus fidem nostram servabimus omnis Scriptura à Deo nobis data consonans nobis invenietur parabolae his quae manifestè dicta sunt consonabunt manifestè dicta absolvent Parabolas per dictionum multas voces unam consonantem melodiam sentiet By which you see clearly what may be judged the way and held the only way to decide all controversies plain Scripture and thinks it no absurditie for us to be ignorant of what God is not pleased to teach us in Scripture and that you may see yet more clearly he held Scripture as his word was perfect containing the whole doctrine of the Gospel which is our question ¶ 10. After these exceptions taken to what he says in our favour you examine Irenaeus for your self and first produce these words Non enim per alios c. the sense of which I take to
wise saying of yours If this one thing upon which all depends the nature of Tradition were well lookt into many Volumes might be saved surely truth may be cleared with few Arguments which is often invisible in a croud of words Mr. White excellently well resolves only to meddle with Arguments and not to confute Authors in all Punctilioes because of loss of time to no purpose I wish you were but as willing to urge any one of your strongest Arguments which might be don in a little Paper as I am desirous to follow you in the pursuit I should then hope of benefit which your ingenuity will not altogether suffer me to despair of you having yet as I remember your words never refused to dispute with any man ¶ 2. Though there be many things in the First Dialogue which I do not consent to yet I think it in vain to mention them till we be agreed on the second and third in which the main point lies on which they depend ¶ 3. In the Second Dialogue he proves Scripture alone cannot decide Controversies in Religion because of uncertainty of Copies Translations c. 1. I grant we cannot fully determine all things we might desire to know by what we have in Scripture neither do I think it was intended to make us omniscient 2. We might possibly have known more then we doe were it not for those several causes of uncertainty mentioned Part I. Sect. I. ¶ 1 2 3. SIR WHere I find so much civility I expect to feel far stronger Arguments than if Passion were the manager of your cause and even your courtesie alone had hazarded to conquer me had the concern of my cause and the evident truth on my side left me to my good nature But these engage me to use the best weapons my reason and knowledg affords with rigor too against the point you maintain and to exchange those personal complements into the solider respects of heartily endeavouring your satisfaction assuring you unfainedly that I more willingly attempt it because your best advantage the â—ight of Truth which not only your sincere expressions but your temper genius manifest to be your aim is included in my victory who your Friend is with whom you had those verbal Conferences I am not so happy as to learn nor yet which is a great misfortune your self But since 't is your soul that I speak to and that I have great acquaintance with it by those expressions it hath given of it self in your ingenuous Papers I can securely own so much knowledg of you as to take a right measure how to behave my self towards you that is with candor and civility What circumstances may have hinder'd your friends giving satisfaction by his own pen I know not But I am sure though the importunity of powerful Friends in the absence of that excellent Master of mine have even forc't me to this task yet I may with truth say 't was your temperate way of writing your clearness and apprehended sincerity which were my chief encouragers Entring the lists then with this protestation that you have an hearty servant for your Adversarie and one who combats you only to make you more my friend and your own I address to my Defence And ¶ 2. 3. Because I know not whether the state of the Question be not mistaken I conceive this place very fit to observe how it stands in the second Dialogue viz. We beleeve that by Scripture alone left without the guard of the Church nothing or at least not sufficient for the salvation of mankind can be sufficiently proved Where the words mankind and sufficiently being of special Energie ought particularly to be observed What is meant by sufficient proof the 15th Encounter of the Apologie p. 142. declares to be inavoidable and convincing Demonstration beyond any shadow of Reply ¶ 4. Yet thirdly notwithstanding all that hath been said I thinke we have sufficient certainty out of Scripture alone concerning those things which are absolutely necessary for Salvation and many things besides only profitable my Reasons are these ¶ 4. You put the contradictory to your Adversary which you assume to prove fairly meaning by Salvation the the salvation of mankinde as I presume you do But your reasons seem to come short of your intent For suppose all true which you urge to the tenth Paraph namely that the alterations mentioned to be possible whereof you deny not but that many have hapned yet have not all of them actually befallen Scripture Suppose I say this to be true what a Chaos is there betwixt that Premise and your Conclusion That Faith may with sufficient certainty be proved out of Scripture alone For though all have not hapned yet since some have and you are uncertain precisely where 't is manifest you can never be certain but that they have hapned in whatsoever Text you shall pitch upon to prove any thing by and consequently you can never be absolutely certain of any again since Demostration implyes a must be of the Conclusion and must be evidently excludes may be of the opposite 't is plain that to destroy Demonstration that is in this case sufficient certainty it suffices to prove the opposite may be so that though it be granted these alterations have not all hapned yet while there appears a possibility they may have done so there appears an impossibility of ever coming to a rigorous certainty by Scripture But to take particular notice of every Paragraph ¶ 5. 1. It seems to me more improbable that nothing of Scripture as you say should be contrary to your Faith supposing it the true notwithstanding those innumerable alterations of Scripture then that all those alterations of Scripture proved Metaphysically only possible should actually have befell the Scripture ¶ 5. 'T is very strange it should appear improbable to you but that Scripture and our Faith must needs contradict one another supposing the one to be Scripture and the other true as you do Must truths needs be opposed to themselves which have hitherto been esteem'd opposite only to falshood If you mean by Scripture the alterations of Scripture as the sequel makes me imagin how much wrong do you do the Word for if Scripture be altered or changed from what it was then 't is not what it was that is 't is not Scripture But of these Alterations 't is not our Tenet that none of them have been contrary to our Faith the alterations made by the Translations of the first Founders of Protestancy having been judged so contrary to it that it occasioned the prohibition to read the Scriptures in Vulgar Tongues But only that there is nothing in the Vulgar Edition according to that sence in which the Church understands it which is contrary to her faith And if you will allow the Church but to know the Faith she is appointed to teach and know what she means by what she reads and what a contradiction is three Requests which cannot
well be refused her you must make her very ignorant if you deny her power to discern whether there be between what she reads and what she teaches any contradiction or not ¶ 6. Suppose all these alterations supposed possible had actually crept in might we not seek for Scripture in Scripture seeing they are innumerable even to every line and word as Mr. White and how is it possible that all those deviations from true Scripture should in nothing contradict truths for you say there is nothing in Scripture contrary to your faith therefore surely you cannot think there are so many corruptions for besides what he himself hath lest he should prove more then he was willing many Copies had the same faults I adde that the Christians in the Primitive times were very careful of the Bible especially when Copies were made for publike use to be in the Church there was the greatest diligence possible taken to have the oldest and best which they might have better ground to disscern then we can who lived nigher the first Age besides the ancientest Copies the best being kept by publike care were more secure and could yea did remain many hundred years as some there are to this very day by which the Copies that are afterward copied out may escape many corruptions of others before them ¶ 6. You see then how the first part of this Paraph is answered for we do not say that our Faith has never been contradicted by these deviations the number of which though we cannot determine we cannot chuse but think very great and whatever we think of theirs know that to our purpose 't is enough they may have hapned whether actually they have or have not And for the second part of it concerning the care of the Primitive Christians as I will not deny what you say to have some probability so neither can you deny that probability will not serve the turn and that their care how great soever exempted them not from being men and subject to the casualties of humane actions I shall therefore fairly allow them to have been as careful as they could be and conceive the condition◠they lived in left them not a capacity of doing what is necessary for their intent For it being known the Church was under persecution 300 years the experience I have how hard it is in this depression we our selves live in to preserve monuments in a condition fit to undergo a severe juridical examination much less such a one as the salvation of mankind ought depend on such a one as wil not only endure the Test of wise honest judgments but must be proof against all cavils of all sorts of critical wranglers makes me suspect your conjectures were not throughly and rigorously lookt into First I doubt the publike care you suppose and persecution agree not well together What sanctuaries what places free from search were there for the publike care to secure these sacred Monuments in What safety could there be for their writings whose persons were in perpetual hazard necessarily they must have been intrusted to the fidelity of private men which let us for once suppose did always remain unviolate and never betray their trust to any hope or fear 't is hard to imagine it could so preserv them from the innumerable hazards necessary to be met with from so many enemies in so long a time as that no alterations should creep into the Text. For to bar malice and all wilful faults both the devotion of private Christians would require and publike prudence the better to preserve it would endeavour as great a multiplicity of Copies as might be These Copies must of necessity be made in hast and fear and what enemies they are to exactness 't is needless to insist on Now in after times what shall hinder these Copies from contesting with their Originals in Authority and if which the influence of chance must sometimes needs bring to pass the Originals come to be lost and the Copies remain what reason shall prefer one before another As for the true Originals the very Writings I mean sent from the Apostles they cannot be imagined able to wrastle with so great an Age especially if we reflect the reverence universally born the Apostles and desire to see what proceeded from them exposed them to the view and handling of so many that they could not fail in a short time to be much worn What publike use they were of in the Church especially when there was no publike face of a Church and the pieces sent to one citie were unknown in another perhaps for a good while unwritten is something troublesome to guess and at best but pure guess And for what you say last that many of the best Copies survived many Ages and some even to this day I should have been glad if you had acquainted me with the Reasons why you so confidently affirm what I doubt you do but gratis suppose For what signs what proofs to satisfie you do these Copies bring that they truly deserve the Authority they pretend to that they were of the number of those best preserved by publike care In fine that they are not even fuller of faults then those which they would have corrected by them ¶ 7. Again there 's a very good way to discern the best by those several Translations that have been made in or nigh the Apostles times of the Bible in Arabick Syriack and other Languages ¶ 7. Now for Translations I should conceive the greater the variety of Translations is the greater must the confusion be Since certainly where they differ as Translations of necessity must do no one language bearing all the Proprieties of another there lyes a suspition the Translation has bin made out of different copies whereof that which you have not may for ought you know be better then that you have Then again why should one Translation yeeld to another and who shall determine whether the fault belong to the Arabick for example or the Syriack So that what you have said hitherto is resolv'd not onely into conjecture whereas your cause requires demonstration but unlikely conjecture too ¶ 8. 2. To me this is a good Argument that there is no such great corruption in our Original Copies All those Fathers which I have read which are chiefly of the first second and third Centuries agree excellent well though not exactly in their manifold quotations out of Scripture with our present Copies Some corruptions there are but nothing nigh what is imagined the Bible was not before Printing every mans Money as Mr. White therefore not so many as now and so not liable to many corruptions besides being exceeding dear they must needs look to have them well done for their great price but especially those Copies which were procured by a whole Societie for their publike use or those preserved in publike Libraries ¶ 8. How numerous the Quotations are which you have observed I cannot tell but must needs think
page but one to that you cite being employ'd in shewing the way of writing us'd by Aristotle has a great advantage towards being understood over that of the Bible But he denies not but both may be understood and that stuff you weave into this Conclusion That a Reader of Scripture may come to the truth and by it judge arising Errors Pray what 's this against Mr. White because he may arrive at truth shall he therefore be fixed there with that constancy that no subtlety can stagger him Shall his Humility and Charity which introduced him provide him too with Arms to maintain the place and defend it against the assaults of Wit and Malice leagued together I see no glimmering of such a consequence which neverthelesse should have been yours for till you are there your Journeys end is stil before you Besides your foundation that all things sufficient for Salvation are delivered in Scripture meaning the Salvation of mankind is not firm especially making as you do afterwards every one of the Gospels to contain a perfect sum of what is necessary to be believed and practised for some things and those necessary to Salvation are beleived meerly upon the account of Traditions as the Scripture it self c. Those strange opinions too which you say may spring up may perhaps concern things necessary to Salvation which if they can neither be proved nor disproved satisfactorily by Scripture plainly there is not by your method any satisfaction left us in things necessary to Salvation And for what you urge last that written truths may be as streight a Rule as unwritten ones 't is true provided they be agreed on to be truths But the question is not whether written truths will convince a rising error but whether written words will so convince the truths they contain to whoever rises up in error against them that no Artifice shall be able to pervert their fidelity and introduce another sence into the same sounds An instance may make the thing clearer Let the Church before Arius have had no better weapon to defend her faith of the Consubstantiality of the Father and Son then these and the like words Ego Pater unum sumus and you will make me much wiser then I am if you render it possible shee should preserve her self from being overcome by the craft of that Heretick who would have proved at least plausibly as Hereticks us'd to do by the Rule of conferring one place with another that those words ought not to be understood of an unity of Substance since our Sauiour elsewhere prays his Apostles may be one as his Father and he are one which evidently contradicting a substantial unity The former words ought to yield to these plain ones Pater major me est 'T was not then by those words but by the sence of them so firmly rooted in her practise that neither the wit nor power of Arius joyn'd with a perverse and lasting obstinacy could shake it that she decided the controversie and transmitted sound Doctrine to her posterity Shee saw his interpretation contradicted her sence delivered by Christ and his Apostles and continued by Tradition but no body could see it contradicted the words which his wit made as favourable to him as her By which very same Method to answer your Question in your own words I conceive the Church would at this day confute new errors viz by looking upon the truths first delivered by the Apostles and since preserved by her practise not the words in which they were delivered To sum up your Paraph therefore in short 't is true that Linea recta est judex sui obliqui 'T is true that truth is linea recta t◠'T is true also that the Reader duly qualified may by due reading Scripture come to truth but that this truth will be enough to serve all the exigencies of all mankind in all circumstances or that what satisfied his sincerity and diligence will be able to satisfie all manner of peevishness and obstinacy are two Positions which I see you have not and think you cannot prove There is no doubt but truth ought to judge which is the thing you do say But if there be a doubt which is truth I conceive bare words which were perhaps sufficient to discover hers to charity and humility will not be able to convince her against malicious craft and pride which is what you should but do not prove ¶ 4. If words would affright a man Mr. White doth it by search after evidence of Argument In the same page 137. he requires any one Book in the whole Bible whose Theam is now controverted he mentions S. Johns Gospel which was to shew the Godhead of Christ but that is not so directly saith he his Theam as the miraculous life of our Saviour from whence his Divinity was to be deduced And page 153. John intended only such particulars as prove that Christ was God in which later expression if he do not seem as to me he doth to contradict his former the former making S. Johns intent a History the latter a Discourse only as his word is of a controversal truth ¶ 4. The contradiction you glance at here will not even with your assistance so much as seem such to any diligence of mine and since I cannot overcome it I must beseech you to pardon that dulness which will let me see but one sence in these two expressions Viz. S. John wrote the miraculous life of our Saviour so as his Divinity might be deduced from it and S. John in his History specifies such particulars as prove the Divinity of our Saviour ¶ 5. Yet this he clearly says S. John made an Antidote against that error then beginning yet as he the design so unsuccessful that never any heresie was more powerful then that which opposed the truth intended by his Book whence he seems to infer Scripture no sufficient Rule to decide because the Arians were not silenced by it I demand why the Arians were not convinced by that Book written on purpose to oppose that error which they held by a very large discovering the contrary truth was it because there was not evidence enough of that truth which S. John onely intended in his whole Book surely you must say so and then I pray consider what you say whether it be not imputing weakness to S. John or to the Holy Ghost writing by him quod horrendum that he should set himself to write a whole Book in which as Mr Whites words are he intended only such particulars as prove that Christ was God and yet not prove it sufficiently If S. John did prove it sufficiently why were not the Arians convinced by it surely the fault was not in the want of evidence of those miraculous actions which our Saviour saith prove him to be the Son of God and one with the Father but in their wills I say it was their own fault so then notwithstanding all Mr White hath said I
washing boul will ferry me over the Thames which Oars perhaps will hardly do to morrow Now since he that meets with no rubs seldom stumbles if the way be smooth and even every thing overcoms it if rugged or deep 't is not passed without much labour and difficulty And so the faithful who live in a deep peace need not that strength of certainty which is necessary for those who are assaulted by the outward wars of Heresie or intestine broils of Schism Observe then if you please what your witnesses to gain your cause should depose for you That Scripture taken for the words teaches the Church that is mankind the way to salvation so as not to need the assistance of Tradition or any other Interpreter to secure them against all possible assaults of all possible adversaries or taken for the sence that the sence of Scripture is so known by the bare words without the help of Tradition or other Interpreter that no subtlety or malice can weaken the certainty it gives of as much as is necessary for the salvation of mankind This is what they should say What they do let us now examine But first you tell us you receive not their Testimony as authoritative but embrace both their and any other as rational which is a peece of learning I should have been not sorry to have met in an Adversary I had desired to treat like one To you I can onely say your difference to those who mint such adulterate coin is much greater then the blind obedience with which we use to be reproached Of the two ways of moving assent Authority Reason the one is distinguished from the other in this that the first relies upon the credit of the Proposer whom if we be satisfied he is so wise as to know what he says and so good as not to say against what he knows 't is rational to beleeve and lay hold upon the truth he presents us which we see with his eyes not our own The second carries us by the evidence of truth it proposes barefaced and without any consideration of the Proposer in which way we rely upon our own eyes not another mans credit Wherefore if you will proceed the first way by Testimonies they are onely and so far valuable as their Author has authority and must be either authoritative or of no force at all If the second 't is impertinent to cite an Author for what is considerable onely in respect of what it is not in respect of him that said it for reasons have weight from their inward vertue and are neither greater in the mouth of Aristotle nor lesse in the mouth a Cobler Neither therefore can authoritative be separated from testimony nor rational joyned to it a rational Testimony in true English saying a Testimony which is not a Testimony but a reason Your 3 Paraph too has a very pretty distinction in these terms that the Church is is no infallible decider but a credible witness whereas these two are at least in our subject matter inseparable For since not infallible says fallible and fallible says that which may deceive and credible says what 't is rational to beleeve and nothing is more irrational then to beleeve what may deceive the beleever plainly if the Church be not infallible neither is she credible Besides her power of deciding in things of this nature is founded upon her power of witnessing she being therefore able to decide because she is able to witness what it was which Christ and his Apostles taught her and she has till now preserved in which if she can credibly that is infallibly witness she can also infallibly decide if her testimony be fallible she cannot be credible The rest of what you say till you come to the Testimonies themselvs although I do not allow yet I think not necessary to meddle with apprehending the concern of our dispute to be very independent of it But now St. Austin tells us non Catholicis Episcopis consentiendum est sicubi forte fallantur ut contra Canonicas Scripturas aliquid sentiant Very true and sure no body at least no Catholick Bishop ever pretended to be believed against Scripture that is its sence concerning which our contest is how t is known and to that the witness says nothing Again Ecclesiam suam demonstrent non in sermonibus c. sed in Canonicis librorum authoritatibus And utrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant non nisi divinarum Scripturarum Canonicis libris ostendant Lastly non Audiamus haec dico sed haec dixit Dominus c. ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam c. In which three places he challenges his Adversaries to prove their cause by Scripture a course not onely commendable in him but practis'd dayly by us Several of our Books will witness for us we are so far from thinking our cause lost by Scripture that we know it infinitely superior even in that kind of tryal but what 's this to the purpose Because St. Austin then and we now know the advantage Scripture gives us above all our Adversaries does therefore either he or we think the bare words of it are our Rule of faith or that its sence needs no other means to be found out but the bare words These Sir are our onely Questions but not so much as thought on by the Judges you bring to decide them The place you bring from his Doct. Christ seems more to the purpose but yet comes not home it being violence to extend it farther then private Readers and these qualifi'd as he expresses with piety humility and fear of God pietate mansuetis as his words are de timentibus Deum piously meek and fearing God And of these t is also Mr. Whites opinion that the Scripture is plain enough to make them perfect beleeving Catholicks But that 't is able to contest with captious frowardness and those crooked dispositions which accompany Heresie or satisfie the nice sharpness of sincere but piercing wits or that the plainness he speaks of ought to bee understood with respect to the exigencies of the Church that is mankind which may be true in respect of such excellently dispos'd persons as he mentions are things however necessary yet not at all touched St. Hieroms authority is wider all it says being thus much that where there is but one authentick History extant of the Subject to be spoken of what is not found there has no sufficient ground to keep it from being unblamably rejected Which is his case for there is no authentick History of the actions of St. John Baptist but the Bible wherefore since they are no subject of Traditions they must either deny their ground from thence or have no ground at all Tertullians words are plainly changed for whereas you make him tye and as it were challenge Hereticks to defend their cause by Scripture his words are ut de Scripturis solis questiones suas sâ—stant That they may not defend but present or handle
consideration of circumstances plainly refuse As for that part of your seventh Paraph where you deny the Council was forced to conclude out of Tradition the desire of serving you makes me wish my self a better Historian then I am But I think the Epistle of S. Athanasius to the Africans which you will find in Theoderet lib. 1. c. 8. will sufficiently clear that Truth to you since 't will inform you that whatever words the Fathers of the Council could chuse out of Scripture to express the Catholick Faith in the Arians knew how to elude by shewing the same words to have other sences in other places which at last forced the Fathers to invent a new word and gave occasion to the Arians of murmuring that they were condemned by unwritten words that is not by Scripture but by Tradition Since what has formerly been said will I hope be an ingenuous Answer to the question of your eighth Paraph and satisfie you that Tradition is not subject to the same inconveniences with words there remains no more but to vindicate Mr White from the inconstancy you charge him with to which there will I think no more be needful then barely to represent the case to your second thoughts Our faith you know must be both beleeved and expressed the expressions he conceives it sit should be uniform and that the best way in order to it is to make use as much as may be of those which the Holy Ghost in Scripture has before made use of But since expression supposes the knowledg of what it is we would express he holds there is some other way to come to this knowledg besides looking upon the expressions which are consequent to the knowledg whereas the way to it is before it and that the expressions naked of themselves and left unguarded of other helps are not sufficient to preserve and secure the truths they contain the Positions then are both true That the Scripture is the best Rule to govern our expressions by and yet not sufficient to regulate our Beleef and the contradictions you fancy between them proceeds not from his inconstancy but your inadvertence ¶ 9. Of late I have read over Iraeneus diligently endeavouring to see the Rule he takes for to confute the Errors he writes against and cannot see but you are out One or two places indeed I have found seeming to favour you which since I find your Writers make use of yet if I understand any thing he is your enemie He says indeed in his fifth Book cap. 4. What if the Apostles had not left us Scriptures ought we not to have followed the order of Tradition which they delivered c. But does not this imply we need not use crutches seeing we have legs some Nations he says had no written Word yet had the same Doctrine which was written What then As long as they have and retain the Doctrine purely whether in writing or in their hearts it is well but though the Apostles did leave some Nations the Gospel without Writing it does not follow that they would have always retained and kept it in succeeding ages purely where is there any particular Church under heaven that hath to this day kept the doctrines of salvation from the Apostles entirely without any writing He might challenge his Adversaries to shew their doctrine came from the Apostles by Tradition living presently after those times wherein some that conversed with the Apostles lived and when all Churches agreed as in Iraeneus his time in matters of Faith and that unity was then a good assurance they all came from one fountain but the case is altred those ancient Churches afterwards were divided and then whom must a man beleeve when each say they have the way to heaven ¶ 9. I am sorry your opinion and mine disagree so much about Irenaeus whom though I cannot profess to have read so exactly as you do yet I dare say I am not mistaken as I think you are in the sence of those places I have read And first the edge of those two you bring in our behalf seems not at all taken off by the Answers you give them For since in case no Scriptures had been left he refers us to the order of Tradition plainly supposing Tradition would have done our business and that we had not even in that case been left without a rule it had been non-sence to refer us to a rule which would not have been a rule when tryed and had he thought so he would certainly have told us there had been in that case no rule at all and if so then pray why is not Tradition as much a rule with Scriptures as without them They may add to its force by their testimony but take away nothing of its efficacy For that the truths which the Apostles taught were written sure makes them no whit the lesse truths and if it may be known what 't was they taught as you see Irenaeus is of the opinion it may by Tradition I hope the security is equal whether it were or were not commended to writing This place then which by the way is not in the fifth but third Book makes it very evident Irenaeus held another rule besides Scripture that is Scripture not the onely Rule which is your Tenet Again since some Nations had the Doctrine but had no Scriptures does it not follow undeniably that there was another means besides Scripture to preserve the Doctrine amongst them and further that the Apostles trusted not to writing the preservation of the Doctrine they taught them which had they intended for a means much more the only means of doing it they cannot be imagined to have omitted I learn therfore from this place both the efficacy of Tradition which actually did preserve the Apostles doctrine without writing and the judgment of the Apostles who left their doctrine in these Nations not to Scripture but Tradition to be preserved But it follows not say you they would have retained their doctrine pure in succeeding ages although they did so till Irenaeus's time And pray why does it not follow provided they would still make use of the means by which they retain'd pure doctrine till that time and what time shall be assigned in which the same cause shall leave off producing the same effect since confessedly tradition did preserve the Doctrine till then you should prove not barely affirm it could do so no longer But the truth is and your own clear thoughts will certainly shew it you that rule was so far from a likelihood of betraying the truths committed to her that it cannot be contrived into a possibility that it should betray them for since the Apostles left them the truth as long as they retained what they received from the Apostles and admitted nothing else which is the method of Tradition pray what door could Error find to creep in at 'T was not therefore possible for them to make shipwrack of their faith till they had first
the Valentinians that I mean which Irenaeus speaks to in this place was as you may see in the beginning of the thirteenth Chapter that none but S. Paul was acquainted with the truth as having only received it by revelation whereby all his Arguments in the precedent Chapter from the authorities of S. Peter S. Stephen S. Philip c. had been overthrown to strengthen them he proves in the thirteenth chapter that not only S. Paul but the rest of the Disciples also understood the Mystery of Salvation and in the 14 particularly S. Luke and these two Viz. Scripture is not the sole rule of Faith S. Paul alone was acquainted with the Mysteries of Salvation an exact studier of Irenaeus and impartial lover of truth would have to be the same As to the place it self this I conceive to be your Argument S. Paul delivered all he knew to S. Luke S. Luke writ all was delivered him therefore S. Paul knew all that was necessary to salvation S. Luke writ all was necessary to salvation To which I have already answered that though I should admit the Conclusion little would be advanced in order to our Question since we deny not but all may be containd in Scripture some way or other particularly or under general heads but that all is so contain'd as is necessary for the salvation of mankind to which effect we conceive certainty and to that evidence requisite neither of which are within the compass of naked words left without any guard to the violent and contrary storms of Criticism But I conceive you do the Saint wrong and understand the word all in a sence far different from what he did for having learnt from S. John so little a Book as S. Lukes could not hold truly all till you can prove he meant his Book for a rule of Faith and intended to deliver in it all things necessary to salvation I must beleeve 't is no ordinary violence that can force such a sence upon it as has neither a likely nor any ground but since your own profession and large citations shew both a confidence and esteem of Irenaeus give me leave with that serious earnestness which the concern of eternity for no less is in Question requires to presse your own words upon you and desire you to observe and impartially weigh the Truth while I represent the proceedings of Irenaeus to you and make you judge whether of us take part with the Father whether with his Adversaries The Error of the Valentinians was built upon certain obscure places of Scripture or rather indeed upon certain deceitful reasonings in Philosophy as your denial of Transubstantiation for example is and a denial even of the B. Trinity if you pleas'd might be but perceiving the Rules of Christianity did not allow that for a foundation of Faith they endeavoured to support the edifice by Scripture bragging no doubt among their followers it was clearly on their side but being press'd to a Tryal giving in evidence the obscure places mentioned Against this Irenaeus contends that Parables because capable of many Solutions are not to be relyed upon and consequently since only the true sense of Scripture is Scripture that Scripture is vainly pretended where the many sences leave us uncertain which is the true one Then examining the places for his side and shewing them both in clearness and number to over-ballance the other he overthrows their pretence and preserves the majesty of Scripture to his party The same do we to you who building most of your mistakes in Faith upon mistakes in Philosophy pretend plain Scripture and when it comes to tryal bring places capable of as many sences as the Valentinian parables were of solutions We answer as he did that there is no relying upon such places And examining those we conceive to be of our side and comparing them with yours both in clearness and number conclude your sences not true and Scripture not only not for you but against you Yet all this while neither he nor we think Scripture for this disputing out of it the only rule of Faith whether it be or no being not in these cases our question But since as the Valentinians did then you will now undertake to prove Scripture is against us and as Irenaeus then so we now acknowledge nothing is to be held against Scripture we do as he did shew you cannot make good your undertaking Next The Valentinians by the priviledg of their neerness to the Primitive times better acquainted with the grounds of faith then you would have justified their Interpretations by Tradition an evident proof what it was which those first Ages held the Interpreter of Scripture and that so undeniably that even Hereticks pretended to it What says Irenaeus to this Does he answer as you do that Tradition is not to be regarded but the cause to be decided by Scripture and that the only Rule by no means but carefully and diligently proves Tradition to be against them Which he also declares to be not what they pretended by abuse of those words Sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos whispering corner conveyances of one to another such as the Cabala you object to us but the open plain profession of those Churches to whom the Apostles left their doctrine and its practice and among which he conceives that of the Roman Church alone sufficient This publike Testimony as he so we lay claim to and profess with him would be sufficient even though there were no Scriptures at all which nevertheless since Gods infinite goodness has provided for us we do not understand the force of the former impaired by the addition of a new force But that belonging to another question give me leave to end the present one with this confidence that you cannot but see we follow the Fathers steps and you those who follow the Valentinians and that it appears by what hath been said your Minor neither is nor since you have failed in likelihood ever will be proved PART II. Tradition the Rule of Faith SECT I. ¶ 1 Certainty of Tradition ¶ 1. IN the third Dialogue the certainty of your Traditions having endeavoured to take away the certainty of Scripture I think in vain is endeavoured I was glad of the promise to do the work only by reason and common sence without any quotations of Authors because I want that vast knowledge in Antiquity which is requisite for the deciding of this Question by it but I see my hopes are frustrated for your cause neither is here nor can be proved by reason alone without that reading which yet I want The Reasons here or any other that may be managed without quotations of Authors I am ready to see and examine and as ready to subscribe unto if they convince me but I thinke it unreasonable for you to pretend to prove your Religion infallible and yet bring no positive Arguments that are of themselues sufficient to convince but only to stand upon your guard
that 's all Mr White doth a subtile Turk might the same way prove as well his false religion true PART II. SECT 1. ¶ 1. BEing now arrived at the second Part of your Discourse I find nothing in the first Paraph necessary to be taken notice of but the last words Viz. That 't is unreasonable to pretend to prove our Religion infallible and yet bring no positive Arguments c. In the first Branch of which saying you are not much amiss nothing being more unreasonable then that a Church which confessedly was once the true one should be put to prove she is now no false one when all the Maximes of common sence and proceedings of nature suppose her innocence till the contrary be not by surmises and probabilities but plainly and undeniably proved Whoever therefore says she has fail'd ought to prove it and not expect she should prove the impossibility of the contrary 'T is true the condescendence of charity has prevailed to undertake so unreasonable a Task here but not without protesting against the necessity of doing it as you see in the second Paraph of this Dialogue But the second is so injurious that had all men been of your temper perhaps it would have been well done to have stood wholly upon that sure guard you reproach Mr White withal and which the advantage of his cause gives him and never medled with positive Arguments which though unanswered and for ought I can imagin unanswerable since I do not beleeve any man can say more then you have done you would yet deny to be so much as Arguments That perswasion of yours too which thinks so much reading necessary to your Information I cannot allow of but because you produce no reason for it can oppose it no otherwise then by professing my dislike of it ¶ 2. In his first Encounter he gives a Compendium of the Argument page 8. Her doctrine is received from Christ and still handed along to the present time Suppose I say for example in the eighth Age an Error crept in Hee 'l reply it entred not in because that Age held nothing was to be admitted as of Faith except that was delivered to it by the former therefore seeing that was then first beleeved it was not delivered by the former therefore not received I answer no new opinion when first it creeps up is entertaind by any as a new thing which was not before but as forgotten or not discern'd or lost before do you think the Arians lookt upon their Doctrine as new which was never beleeved before or that was contrary to what the Apostles taught If they did they would hav◠cast off all Christianity and held nothing with the Orthodox Mr White brings in our Objection The Church did not stand upon that same traditional ground formerly as Rome now He replys If this principle did not always govern the Church it was introduced in some Age the eighth for example either says he against this the Church had assurance in that eighth Age all she held was descended lineally as we speak from the Apostles or not if she had then questionless she held her Doctrine upon that Maxime If not then she wilfully belied and damned c. voluntarily taking up this new c. Is this the Demonstration ¶ 2. Your stating and opposing Mr Whites Argument making me suspect you did not yet perfectly comprehend it I beg leave to put you in mind there are two things he endeavours to prove 1. That if the Church always rely'd upon the Maxime of immediate delivery she could admit no error into her Faith 2. That she did always rely upon that Maxime The first he proves thus if an Error came in it came in at some time let that time be the eighth Age and if the Church then admitted nothing but what she had received and this she had not received for you put it then first to come in she did not admit it then nor by the same evidence could admit any error in any age To the second we shall speak in the fourth Paraph to this you answer no new opinion is entertain'd as a new thing which was not before but as forgotten or not discern'd or lost before An Answer which I dare not profess a perfect comprehension of not seeing to which of the premises 't is directly oppos'd by a plain grant denial or distinction one of which ought always to keep company with every answer but conceive the force of the Argument is not any thing empair'd by it for let it be entertain'd as lost as forgotten or how you will so it were not immediatly delivered either the Rule must be broken or it could not be entertain'd And this I think evident even by your very termes for if it were entertain'd as forgotten then 't was entertain'd as a thing which some former Age forgot to deliver then some former Age did not deliver it then if nothing were entertain'd but what was delivered pray how could this find entertainment To your question of the Arians I answer 't is very likely the Ringleaders among them perswaded their followers such fine things as you say That their doctrine was not new c. but nothing could blinde them so far as not to see 't was not taught them by their immediate forefathers And though conceit of Arius's vertue and learning prevail'd with the more ignorant as ambition and interest with the more subtle not to value and to desert this Rule yet 't was impossible they should be ignorant that they did desert it They would then have cast off all Christianity say you and truly the experience of my own Countrey makes me believe they would had they continued unopposed long enough to have pursued their principle whether it would have led them But nature endures not an immediate passage from one extreme to another a consideration which being touched before I now say no more to and passe to your next difficultie which by your acknowledging is brought in by Mr. Whites objection I perceive is levelled against the second not the first Conclusion our businesse now therefore is to examine whether the Church has always adhered to this maxime there being no dispute but that if she hath she could not admit of any Error in her Faith ¶ 3. This I am sure of that either I do understand nothing of it or there 's no force in it By assurance I suppose he means not absolute certainty if he do the second horn of the Dilemma upon which we fall does us no hurt I conceive he means thought if the eighth Age thought all she held was descended lineally from the Apostles then she held her Doctrine upon that Maxim But she thought all she held was descended lineally from the Apostles is not that the Minor to be supplied if we turn the first part into a Catagorical Syllogism therefore she held her Doctrine upon that Maxim This I think is the Conclusion for I do not clearly discern
to cheat their posterity into everlasting damnation And is this to say the Conclusion over in the Antecedent and then infer it in the Consequent Beseech you Sir restrain those sallies of wit to things lesse dangerous to be plaid upon then salvation Lastly you object Mr Whites saying that several condemn'd Tenets are maintain'd in other terms by some Divines and assume that these Divines holding nothing as of Faith but what was delivered by the former age would have no Error And that is true meaning Errors in Faith but Divines proceed upon other Rules when they err and their Errors concern no Faith but Divinity It may indeed so happen that these Errors in Divinity do also contradict some point of Faith but that the equivocation of terms hinders them from seeing in which case the Position is erroneous and against Faith the beleef of the maintainer who sees not so much very good and unblameable Now if I understand the Position right 't is no more then this that some Divines understand not the force of terms used by themselves which rigorously scanned may happen to contain an error unperceived by him who uses them but dives not so far into them Remember then if you please the case is of Divines that is of persons working according to the rules of science not of faithful proceeding upon grounds of Faith after which I hope you will not infer an Error in the rule of Faith because there be errors in things concluded by other Principles ¶ 5. And truly if I have eyes Mr Rushworth does not more then shew a kinde of possibilitie that all points of faith could have been handed down the first delivered them to the second Age the third heard them of the second the fourth of the third c. But is this a proving of it that it was so or that no material corruptions could have crept in why else does he object against himself what is most obvious to be seen A posse ad esse non valet consequentia That cuts the throat of his Arguments so that yet there 's no certainty proved that which he answers is indeed reasonable you should think they were because they might be so handed but go no further yet till you prove more and seeing you conceive a possibilitie of such descent Remember the contrary possibilitie much more probable that there may be errors crept in but till you see you will not beleeve they are I shall not entreat you out of your Religion only I beg and wish you hold no more then your Arguments prove only a possibilitie but it is easier to deviate from the streight rule of truth then alwayes to keep to it ¶ 5. When you writ this Paragraph your thoughts certainly were so fixed upon the place in which your objection is brought in that the next leaves almost the next lines escape their observance The least advance would have suggested to them that not only a possibility of preserving truth but a plain actual indefectibility is aim'd at Not but that a possibility is enough such a possibility I mean or power as we speak of that is such as has the nature of a proper cause to its effect that is which should have done the effect Since if our Rule be proper to convey the truth to us no body can rationally affirm it has not done what 't is granted 't was of its own nature apt to do without evidencing what he says Let those therefore who upon pretence of errors refuse communion with us take it to heart and either plainly evince him or tremble at the horrour of living in a continued and obstinate schisme As for the edge of that maxime A posse ad esse non valet consequentia The Dialogues shew 't is taken off by this other frustra est potentia quae nunquam reducitur in actum the power in this case being but to one effect and to repeat what they say which is all I have to do seems unnecessary To guess at what the following discourse aims which puts a possibility of truth and a possibility of error this indeed the more probable but no more then probable I am quite at a losse Would you have no certaintie in Religion that is no Religion at all in the world For with what steadiness can I act in order towards Heaven if my thoughts be perpetually checkt with this doubt for example that perhaps there is no Heaven at all and if I be uncertain of it is it possible to shake off the doubt Till I comprehend your design therfore I shall only desire you to reflect that if the possibility of error be only the more probable then 't is but probable then the contrary though less is yet probable too then it may be there are no errors in the Church you refuse communion with Therefore since to divide is as much as lies in the divider to destroy the Church and to destroy the Church is to take away all hopes of salvation for since we cannot know the way to Heaven of our selves if we lose our mistress that should teach it us there can remain no ground of hope and this from all mankind consider if you please what 't is to continue a separation and at the same time acknowledge that perhaps there are no errors that is no ground why you should do so But we will beleeve no errors till we see them no indeed we will not contradict nature so much which supposes every man innocent till he be proved guilty In return to your civility of not intreating me out of my Religion I will intreat you not to be out of it neither and to remember that your soul being equally concern'd with mine 't is your obligation as well as mine not to beleeve any errors where you see there may be none till you see they are there and that not probably but with undeniable evidence when as you will be able to shew them I promise you I will be ready to desert them ¶ 6. But Mr. White would fain prove more from the natural inclination of truth and happiness this I think if it prove any thing proves man will needs be a groping after some Religion or other but that it should be after the true or make him preserve the true Religion I shall give Account why I will not assent unto without corruption I see not or why it should not prove as well that every particular man in whom there is such an inclination should preserve the truth My Reason why that inclination spoken of doth no way prove the Point is from the fall of Adam if there were no such thing as the corruption of mans nature Mr Whites Reason would have more likelihood in it and hereby appears the weakness of your cause in that you are fain the acutest of you to have recourse to such Bulrushes to make weapons of as the corrupt nature of man ready to uphold what the pure Oracles of God No the
receive all decisions from you for certainties and these shall be derived to following Ages and so Traditions of later date go for Apostolike God forbids not the Doctors out of two truths delivered to gather a third nor those that are no Doctors to do the same if they can but who gives the Doctors of your Church power to command their people to beleeve all their decisions certainly true without any more adoe Whether they be true or no it matters not as long as they are uncertain to any one he is not bound to beleeve them certainly true p. 31. Mr White demands whether the refuser have a demonstration against those truths he refuseth to give absolute assent unto no what then must he therefore assent Is it not a sufficient ground not to assent because he has no sufficient to assent I think it is and I pray do you shew the contrary if I mistake ¶ 10. A hundred Mathematicians only tell me there is another world besides this just such another they are satisfied but give me no ground to know the same must I needs swear it is so and assent to that I know not as a certain truth thus you suffer your selves to be led by the noses into a thousand absurdities though the man by his probabilities is not to conclude rashly all the Doctors determinations to be false yet though he had no probability against their decision he must deny assent only upon this ground that he has not sufficient evidence to conclude their determinations certain I ask of you when a Council of yours meet and from two truths received arrive at the discovery of a third Tenet can the Council erre in this Deduction or no I see no reason to say they cannot there 's no promise for it they are all every one of them singly taken one by one fallible men as well as others Nay Mr White p. 227. says they may when he denies any Fathers saying a sufficient proof of a point no says he not the chiefest of them no not 300 of them together for so many Bishops in a Council have erred well then it is possible they should err though I will suppose it less probable then that one man should erre well but still it is possible they should err and with what candor can Mr White call it an obstinate and malepert pride not to subscribe to a fallible judgement as infallible or certain I call it blind folly to do it must I beleeve that true which I have no sufficient ground for I have it not because their bare Assertions or judgement who may be mistaken are fallible so then I should beleeve a lie morally if not logically to me though not in it self because it is uncertain ¶ 11. Now consider is this a trifle uno absurdo concesso mille sequuntur though the first uncertainty which they concluded a certain truth be but a smal falshood as it is possible afterwards more must needs follow being built upon the former and so what wonder that Church swarms with Errors where such a principle is admitted Yet this way must be taken the certain word of the eternal God shall be thrown aside and fallible men that are parties too in the cause shall ascend the throne and make their word a Law ther 's difference between keeping quiet and not contradicting and between being forced to subscribe to what a man knows not certainly this is wickedness in them that force it it is forcing often to sin what is not of faith is sin But besides though Mr White say one single man cannot have a demonstration against that which is determined true though we suppose it rare it is possible for one man to find out what all the world besides is ignorant of as many have Mr Whites own instance of Des Cartes is sufficient who found out more then many learned Clerks with twice the poring and will you force all to subscribe notwithstanding ¶ 9 10 11. The Discourse in your following Paragraphs is strong and worthy your self and though by mistake of our Tenets not concluding against us yet full of excellently deduced truth And first to defend Mr White who only maintains the addition of Truths why do you so confidently call that an evident way how Error might enter and spread it self in the Church Is Truth and Error all one or does it follow that because men are content to admit of what they see to be true they will not check at what they either see is false or do not see is true Will it ever follow out of Mr Whites Position that there is no harm in adding of truths that the mischeif of adding errors cannot be avoided Now because I conceive the mistake your whole Discourse runs upon is occasioned by a wrong apprehension of the infallibility of Councils I find it necessary to observe that though some of our Doctors speak of Councils so indistinctly that they beget such an opinion of their infallibility and authority as I perceive you fancie yet the best Divines with whom Mr White agrees do not allow any power in the Church of making new Articles of Faith that is of making that to be faith to day which was not faith yesterday and the day before and always which it could not be without being taught by Christ and his Apostles whence 't is evidently consequent that if they cannot make any new thing to be faith neither can they oblige any to receive and beleeve it as faith Their power therefore of imposing Faith upon us whatever fancies the confusion of some Discourses hath raised extends no farther then to such things as both were and were known to be faith before their Imposition And sure no danger can be suspected from an Authority of commanding that which the whole world sees whether they have authority to do or no. And so much for faith As for truths collected from Premises First it appears they have no power to introduce them into the Catalogue of faith I except such as appear plainly at first sight and need no skill at all to their deduction which though in rigour they be not properly faith are yet in a moral estimation accounted the same and so by the world which in such plain things cannot be deceived are indifferently beleeved Secondly A Council being an Assembly of the learnedst men in the Church cannot be denied to see into consequences far enough to know whether they be truly deduced or no so that if they ingage for the truth of any one as it cannot be exalted into faith so neither can it be imagined falls without some prejudice crossing the disposition of nature which moves us to beleeve every one in his trade Neither do I think whatever you say of your hundred Mathematicians in which science being your self a Master to trust is improper but that if half a hundred Carpenters should agree such a peice of timber would fit such a house or as many Surveyers that
such a peece of ground contained so many Acres your heart could not chuse but think it true what ever opposition the strength of your wit might make against it So that Mr White had reason to say he that refuses to beleeve the Church if his thoughts be thoroughly sifted will find in them a proud preference of his own private fancie before the wisdom of the Christian world Nevertheless to comply with the wayward humours of her children I beleeve she will exact no more in things of this nature then a quiet submission which your self cannot but see absolutely necessary for government and a not opposition without evidence leaving you the freedome of your inward thoughts to assent no farther then you see reason which yet if you be learned you may have by looking into the reason her self goes upon if you be unlearned you have no reason for any principle that governs the most important of your actions of comparable weight to her authority nay perhaps even to dissent if a case contrivable onely as I conceive by a wild roving fancie should be put actually to have been Viz. That evidence be producible against her so it be proposed with the moderation and submission necessary to the quiet and peace of all governments since I hope this Explication of these points will rectifie the mistakes interwoven through your solid Discourses in these Paragraphs I shall without a more particular examination pass on to the next Section SECT II. Authority of Fathers Transubstantiation ¶ 1. LEt us come to Particulars Transubstantiation there cannot be a more absurd Tenet imagined that could be fuller of Contradictions as plain as any contradiction in the world that the Sun should shine and not shine at the same time that Christ should begin to be and not to be at the same time broken and yet not broken at the same time in one place and yet in hundred thousands so many that you your selves are fain to look off and confess you are not able to solve yet for this what ground have you the Word of God No your own Authors confess you have no more cause to understand Hoc est corpus meum literally then those the Lamb is the Passeover Christ is a door a rock a way ¶ 1. Which opposes the point of Transubstantiation but so gently that the difficulties which you would have impossible to Omnipotency are almost as familiar and ordinary events as any we converse with But for the first That Christ should begin to be and not to be how do you verifie either part or infer from our doctrine there is a time when Christ is not Which is necessary to the truth of your Proposition T is true that this half hour he is not upon the Altar the next he is but sure it could not escape you that not to be upon the Altar and not to be are two very different things Now I am sure you do not wonder to see a Wart or Pimple to grow and perish which nevertheless while they live have no distinct being from the being of the man they grow upon that is are that man and yet cease to be without causing the man to do so And for those that follow that Christ is broken and not broken in one place and in ten thousand pray consider that the multiplicity of forms our Saviour vouchsafes to put his sacred Body under is to his body as quantity or extension to substance A man is but one thing and no more his hands his feet and whatever else go to the making up of man being not several things but entring all into the unity of this truly one man and this man by one of his feet is in one place by another not in that but another place Cut his hair or nail he is truly divided that is according to that part which is truly he and truly remains one Now raise your thoughts and consider how very little more faith this great mystery requires of you no more then that you will permit the Author of nature to do that by the multitude of forms with which he is pleased to cloth his body which nature does every day by means of quantity and see whether it be not very unjust to say no more to deny that to omnipotence which the ordinary course of causes does so perpetually bring forth that it never concerns your wonder and seldom your notice You will find some disparity in these similitudes and so you must for nullum simile est idem but if I mistake not you will find the very knot of the difficulty the same in both though the manner of tying be different and however it be a little reverence and submission to that power which extends to all things should easily prevail with us to beleeve he is able to do more then we to comprehend For the rest in what you say we confess viz. innumerable contradictions unsolvable and which we are fain to look off from certainly you must either mistake our Authors or they themselves none that understood what he said ever granting a true contradiction in this mystery neither do I beleeve they meant any more then that the depth of it is not to be fathom'd by the shortness of our understanding a conceit even to a moderate sense of that vast Abyss of power as well as wisdom and goodness so far from unreasonable that I know not how the contrary can be excused from impious And for what you make our Authors say that we have no more cause to understand the words of Consecration literally then other expressions acknowledged to be metaphorical those who truly say so if there be any such which truly I much doubt are then pitiful Authors none even among those that are far from the desert of being Authors being ignorant That Tradition is the best Interpreter of Scripture and that it teaches us to follow the letter in one place and not in another ¶ 2. Have you derived this Interpretation all along from the Apostles No your Scotus and Bellarmine confesse that Ante concilium Lateranse transubstantiatio non fui dogma fidei And as plain it is the first Ages of the Church though they highly reverenced the Eucharist and possibly by some hyperbolical expressions gave way to your Error yet were cleerly against you Irenaeus l. 4. c. 34. Panis terrenus accepta vocatione à verbo Dei non amplius est communis panis yet bread still sed efficitur eucharistica quae constat ex duabus terrena therefore it is bread still celesti Tertullian l. 4. contra Man Acceptum panem distribuentem discipulis suis corpus suum illum fecit how hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Basilius in Liturg. Greg. Nazianz in orat de pas both call the Bread and Wine antitypa corporis Christi Ambros de Sacram. l. 4. c. 5. haec oblatio est figura corporis sanguinis domini August contr
and perhaps cannot be said Let me add nevertheless in this place that were the antecedent true of divers Fathers if the Consequent be recommended by Tradition we must either reject the Apostle or refuse to admit of any Plea not only of Fathers but even Angels against it ¶ 4. But to consider this principal Assertion by it self what ground for it Can you prove the Fathers held so gross absurdity and shew clearly this Tradition came from the Apostles that Saints departed have an infinite participation or omniscience communicated to them from God as is necessary to make them fit objects to be prayed unto knowing all prayers of every one every where that are offered up to them I much desire to see this proved ¶ 4. You next demand the ground of this Assertion and whether the Omniscience of Saints be descended by Tradition from the Apostles No Sir I have told you already it belongs not to Faith but Divinity where if you please to take the pains necessary you may find it proved true but not of faith such things belong to the School not the Church who will not refuse Communion to any for refusing to beleeve it The practice of praying to Saints Tradition has by immemorial custome setled her in possession of how that practice is reconciled to Philosophy whether by the omniscience of Saints by divine revelation or other disposition of providence is disputed in the Schools while her aim of bringing her Subjects to the esteem and practice of vertue by the esteem of those whom the practise of it has made so glorious is perfectly attained without those subtleties which have no other influence upon our actions then as fences or out-works which it belongs to Divinity both to maintain and enlarge but so as that an Error in it does not weaken her hold which is built upon a much stronger foundation Mean time while you ask if the Fathers held so gross absurdities if you mean omniscience of Saints you see I maintain it to be no absurdity but a great and certain truth if you mean non omniscience I hope you will hereafter be less earnest in maintaining what your self call a gross absurdity in either case give me leave to tell you that for divers Fathers for that expression the Fathers which imports them all fair dealing will not receive into its place to hold an opinion in matters of learning which after ages discovered unmaintainable I take to be a conceit very far from absurdity ¶ 5. Have not the holy Angels the same sight of God as Saints whether Saints are admitted or no is not so certain as that the Angels are in heaven may they not as well be prayed unto you must confess there 's no reason against the one that holds not against the other and I think your Michael Masses shew you allow both and so run quite blanck against that Word which proves your Tradition here false 2 Col. 18. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humilitie and worshipping of Angels intruding in those things which he hath not seen vainly puft up by his fleshly mind ¶ 5. That Holy Angels may as well be prayed to as Saints I freely grant and to what you object out of Col. 2.18 I answer it is against those who so relyed upon the mediation of Angels that they denied the meditation of Christ as S. Chrysostom upon this place testifies Sunt quidam qui dicunt non oportere per Christum adduci sed per Angelos S. Chrys Col. 2. there are some who say we must not be reconciled and have access to God the Father by Christ but by Angels An Heresie which I think is attributed to Simon Magus and called in his followers the Religion of Angels But the Text seems to need no other Comment then a faithful scanning of it for it does not barely admonish the Colossians to beware of such as endeavoured to seduce them into the worship of Angels but so as not to hold the head that is such a worship as took away or denied the head and 〈◊〉 â—â—consistent with our duties to it Which words being immediate to those you cite had in my opinion been proper for your consideration before you had setled your judgment upon the place which is imperfect without them ¶ 6. I cannot see but your Tenet is point blank contrary to the Scripture howsoever you palliate it over and blind your eyes with new coin'd Distinctions S. John Apoc. 22.8 9. went to worship the Angel who in the 19th chap. vers 10. had told him he was one of his brethren the Prophets that kept the sayings of that Book himself surely he could not look upon him now as God yet was forbidden to worship him with that Religious Worship you offer to Saints Or did Cornelius Acts 10.25 26. look upon Peter as God when he fell down before him the Devil in Matth. 4. did not bid our Saviour fall down and worship him as God he had confessed God to be and in saying all these are given me implyed God greater then himself yet our Saviour allegeth Scripture to prove such an action unlawful It is written Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve These words are nothing to the purpose according to your doctrine for the Divel might have replyed I You may worship God and me too thus you make void the Law of God by your Traditions ¶ 6. Your next Paraph passes from the invocation of Saints to their veneration and in the first place reprehends some answers it seems you have met with under the name of new coin'd distinctions And how to justifie them or know whether they are justifiable except you had expressed them I cannot tell but in general to quarrel at the use of distinctions seems extremely unjust it being impossible without them to arrive at any certainty by the means of words for there being few perhaps not any which are not used in many sences what imagination can fancy a possibility of fixing upon any one sense by a sound which is common to many till they are distinguished one from another and the particular signification applied to the general word Now let us see how you come to be so strongly perswaded of the opposition of our Tenet to Scripture You say S. John in the Apocalips was forbidden to worship the Angel with that religious worship we offer to Saints but have no warrant from the place to say so where there is no word to inform us what kind of worship it was which the Saint offered and the Angel refused and you know how dangerous additions or diminutions are there appears no more then barely worship offered and refused whereof you are so intent upon the latter that you quite forget the former which nevertheless seems important enough to deserve a reflexion for if worship were offered and offered by S. John that illuminated and beloved Apostle and this when as you say
that Errors neither have nor could creep into our Church As for blindly embracing what ever is determined by Councils I doubt you are not Master of our Doctrine in that point For the Rule even of Councils themselves is Tradition and were it possible They should contradict it we are taught to adhere to Tradition against both them and Angels too Whether the case can ever happen I know not and conceive nothing but the roving of a wild fancy will make it possible but if it do I have told you our Doctrine ¶ 7. What though you have Tenets of a 1000 years standing they are never the truer seeing Errors have been so long and longer ago and some are known to have been propagated as far from Father to Son it is all one as if they yesterday begun seeing the succeeding age has nothing of Divine truth which was not in the precedent Now how can you assure us every one of yours were clearly throughout every one age The Reason page 8. which Mr. White makes his Demonstration to me is a meer Sophism the 8th age suppose could not entertain any new Opinion or Errorâ— because its principle was by which it was to judge of truth Nothing is to be admitted as of Faith except what was delivered to it by the former the Reason of the Consequence is because then they would contradict themselves What then Is it impossible for a man to take up a new Opinion and think it true though he be mistaken because of some principle he holds which proves it false if discern'd How is that argument cleer convincing of it self without the help of other considerations reason common sence and experience tell me the contrary If it be sufficient why does not Mr. White keep to it alone I find him scarce ever after making use of it without any other to salve all Objections by as he might if it were universally true and evident All he says is to evade the Arguments and only keep to this That no age did admâ—t any new point de facto which way I confesse sufficient for you to keep your hold if satisfactorily done but then you must not pretend to infallibility for you only prove seemingly posseâ—sion but I see nothing proves the impossibility of the contrary suppose one grant you the possession I see the largenesse of your Territories is that wherein your chief strength does lie Mr. White often denyes the possibility of any corruption because it would have bred such a combustion as would have been known this is the only appearance of Reason or Proof that to my best Apprehension I find in both him and Mr. Rushworth But without quotation of innumerable Authors which he promises to perform only by Reason he can never give any positive sufficient Proof that there was never in any age such commotions as did give way to any one innovation I use Mr. Whites own Argument p. 117. For a man not to Act not to turn from your Religion it is enough to have no Reason but to Act to prove that your Rellgion is infallible or to a Pagan that it is the true uncorrupted you ought to have a positive cause ¶ 7. I agree with you that the age of Errors gives them no approach to Truth and that one of 1000 years is no lesse an Error then one of but a day old But you must also agree with me that 't is a great prejudice against its being an Error if a Tenet have with constancy and generality been held so great a space of time For what subtlety can obscure it from the eyes of the world that in so long time it should not be discovered Prove therefore but do not suppose our Tenets to be Errors and as then Age will afford them no patronage so till then it makes the presumption of truth to be clearly on their side This being most evident in our case that Truth cannot be without Age nor Novelty with Truth For the assurance you desire that every part of our faith was clearly throughout every age you may receive it by reflecting that 't is clearly through the present age which because of the forementioned principle could not be without its having been so through the last Now what your eyes shew you in these two Ages your Judgement if ye suffer it to sway you and nothing to sway it will assure you must have happened in every age the case being perfectly the same in all You think Mr. Whites Argument a Sophisme because a man may take up a new opinion and think it true though he be mistaken But can he think his new opinion which he takes up was delivered him by his Forefathers that is not new and not taken up Till he do this which is palpable contradiction let him think his Opinions never so true his thoughts will bring no prejudice to the Argument For to be True and to be of Faith are two quite different things This supposes being delivered and your opinion is supposed newly taken up that is not delivered that is not of Faith and seen not to be so now if reason common sence and experience tell you that who thinks a thing true must therefore think it of Faith when by it also that is prove it but then we must not pretend to Infallibility I think no body does pretend that who has proved no Errors have come in has proved no Errors can come in we endeavour to prove this too when we pretend to prove infallibility For you onely prove seemingly the possession I do not know who does so much as seem to go about the proving of that which is apparent in it self beyond the evidence of proof That Luther was a Member of the Catholick Church till he set himself to oppose it and that till he changed his profession he professed what the Church then did and hath ever since maintained and what I instance onely in Luther I understand of all introducers of Novelty that ever deserted the Church are things beyond either the necessity or rather power of proof for I am yet to learn in what Mood and Figure that Syllogism must be which must prove the Sun shines at noon I see the largeness of your territories is that wherein your chief strength lies 'T is indeed universality which renders nature true and constant to her self whereas in a particular she may be defective one man may be born lame or blind but not all That corruption would have bred a combustion which must have been known you acknowledg has some appearance of reason though nothing else has Thanks be to God at least for so much which if you would please fairly to own and make a step to a further progress without diminishing it into appearance of reason when I must take the liberty to think nothing appears reason you can oppose against it you were in a hopeful way to your satisfaction but not to admit a truth seen to be so is a weakness which
destroys all possibility either of advance in your self or success in the pains which are taken for you for what more can be done then to deliver a truth with that plainness that no reason can be found out to encounter it But quotations are necessary to make up Mr. Whites proof if it were so eternal happiness might well deserve a little labour but must Authors be quoted to shew that if the corruption be taken notice of it could not come in unawares and if not unawares then openly and this either by reason which is to change the natures of truth and falshood or force which to overcome the extent of the Church and continue so many ages as is necessary to the plantation of Errors of this importance nature without looking into Books tells us the impossibility of The Argument you make in the last place I beseech you make against your self and since 't is in a matter of no lesse concern then eternal either happiness or misery make it faithfully Consider that if not to act no reason is requisite to act there must be reason you have acted and though not actually begun a separation yet actually follow and adhere to those who did begin it and do continue it This action in a case of such importance as Sâ—â—ism requires such reason as is fit for salvation to depend on Examine therefore your reasons but severely and so as your Conscience be willing and secure to own them at that Judgment where the sentence is eternity and if you find them to have neer the force of those of ours which you say have no force I shall think either your judgment strangely byassed or mine strangely blind This to you but to a Pagan I acknowledg he is not to be put upon the proof you may if you please for your experience reflect what yourself would say to one and see whether you can say any thing stronger to him then we do to you if your thoughts be faithful to you I doubt what you deny reason against your self must either be reason against him or you will have much ado to keep your Arguments from being unreasonable I have had some proof of this in a Divine of yours famous and I think deservedly as any of your side whose discourse upon this Theam makes experience joyn with my reason to strengthen the confidence I have of the truth of what I say ¶ 8. I cannot see how you that take away the distinction of Fundamental and a non-Fundamental in points of faith can evade that of the Quartadecimans proving the chief part of Christians to have been mistaken in this Traditional way holding by it contradictions while each part pretends this title and so shews it not an infallible way to say it was a small point received in some Churches In answer to the gradual receiving of the Cannon you confess one Province may have sufficient evidence of that one truth which from it must be spread over the rest of the Church I think those things which I have written prove not only your way not only fallible but false in many points Several other things I have observed in Mr. White which do not satisfie me but because I want those Authors necessary to make my Objections cleer I chuse rather to be silent in them then not to speak to purpose Had I time to write these over again I might make what I say cleerer but I doubt not but your ingenuity will discerne my meaning and according to promise grant me a candid answer which I shall gratefully embrace and if convincing as readily acknowledge In the mean while I rest Yours to serve you in what I may ¶ 8. As for your distinction of fundamental and not fundamental in points of faith the words possibly may be taken in such a sence that it may be tolerable but if by fundamental you mean necessary this being plainly a relative word it ought to be expressed to whom they are necessary if you say to mankind 't is evident no point is not-fundamental since so God would have taught us what is unnecessary that is done a needless action if to a single man then they can never be assigned since they vary according to the several exigencies of several persons The instance of the Quartadecimans being I conceive fully answered by Mr. White p. 44. I have no more to do after I have referred you thither where you will find the point it self was no subject of Tradition but a practise which according to the different circumstances of different places was by the wisdom of the Apostles who saw what was convenient for the time and place they lived in practised differently and afterwards by the wisdom of the Church those circumstances ceasing reduced to an Uniformity For the rest I hope what I have written will satisfie you that neither falsity nor fallibility of Mr. Whites way appears in your Exceptions It had been easie and perhaps necessary had the piece been intended for more then your self to have woven it something closer but a sight that pierces so far into the bracks of an Argument can be no less sharp in discovering its fastness and I think your eye too strong to need spectacles or glasses or whatever helps are invented for weaker Organs I am onely to make Apologie for the delay of this Reply occasioned by a little business and a great deal of sickness and to profess that if this Answer be not such a one as you desire 't is the mis-fortune of many a good cause to suffer by the badness of its Advocates Your very Humble Servant J. B. FINIS
Tradition I am ready to embrace It is cleer how high he valued the Churches authority in that lib. 2. de util cred c. 14. This therefore I beleeved by fame strengthned by celebrity consent antiquity so that he did no more than we who notwithstanding are of a contrary mind to you ¶ 3. First we beleeve the things of Religion because they are published and held in that Church or place where we live yet not sufficiently for that not a sufficient ground of belief because of fame till the universal celebrity consent and antiquity do strengthen it He sees not Christ hath recommended the Church for an infallible decider of emergent controversies but for a credible witness of ancient Tradition whosoever therefore refuseth to follow the practice of the Church understand of all places and ages in things clearly descended from Christ let him be lookt upon to refuse Christ But if he be understood any where asserting only the present Churches authority sufficient to determine it must be in things that are not matters of faith that which he proves by tradition he does not affirm it necessary to salvation or things contained in Scripture for his Austins words are evident ¶ 4. In iis quae apertè posita sunt in sacris scripturis omnia ea reperiuntur quae continent fidem moresque vivendi Aug. de doct Christiana lib. 2. c. 9. Nemo mihi dicat O quid dexit Donatus aut quid dexit Parm. aut Pontus aut quilibet eorum quia non Catholicis Episcopis consentiendum est sic ubi sorte fallantur ut contra Canonicas Scripturas aliquid sentiant Aug. de unitate Eccl. c. 10. Again Ecclesiam suam demonstrarent si possunt non in sermonibus rumoribus Afrorum non in conciliis Episcoporum suorum non in literis quorumlibet disputatorum non in signis prodigiis fallacibus quia etiam contra ista verbo Domini cauti redditi sumus sed in scripto legis in prophetaruÌ„ praedictis in cantibus Psalmorum in ipsius Pastoris vocibus in Evangelistarum praedicationibus laboribus hoc est in omnibus Canonicis Sanctorum librorum authoritatibus Eodem lib. c. 16. Utrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant non nisi divinarum Scripturarum Canonicis libris ostendant quia nec nos propterea dicimus credi debere quod in Ecclesia Christi sumus aut quia ipsam commendavit Optatus Ambrosius vel alii innumerabiles nostrae communionis Episcopi aut quia nostrorum colligarum conciliis predicata est aut quia per totum orbem tanta mirabilia Sanctorum fiunt c. Quaecunque talia in Catholicâ fiunt ideo approbantur quia in Catholica fiunt non ideo manifestatur Catholica quia haec in ea fiunt Ipse Dominus Jesus cum resurrexit a mortuis discipulorum oculis corpus suum offerret ne quid tamen fallaciae se pati arbitrarentur magis eos testimoniis legis Prophetarum Psalmorum conformandos esse judicavit Ibidem Non audiamus haec dico sed haec dixit Dominus Sunt certae libri Dominici quorum authoritati utrique consentimus ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam ibi discutiamus causam nostram Eod. lib. c. 23. Chrysost in Act. Hom. 33. Take from Hereticks the Opinions which thâ—â— maintain with the Heathen that they may defend their Questions by Scripture alone and they cannot stand Tertullian de Resurrectione carnis Hierom on Matth. 23. writing of an Opinion that John Baptist was killed because he foretold the coming of Christ saith thus this because it hath no authority from Scripture may as easily be condemned as approved I might here add Aquinas his words 1ª quest 36. art 2. ad 1m. confessing what he had proved out of Dionisius We are to affirm nothing of the Holy Ghost but what we find in Scripture Thus you will have Scripture alone some of you as Mr White confesses to be the Rule for some truths though not for others which indeed are humane inventions but I shall not urge you to maintain all your Doctors affirm which notwithstanding you who build upon authority have more cause to do then we Only observe the Fathers were against you I proceed to give you more proofs of it ¶ 1 2 3 4. I come now to your Testimonies from the Fathers and beg leave before I enter upon them to pause a while upon the State of the Question betwixt us that our eye being strongly fixt upon it may not be diverted by that variety of Objects which the many notions found in Testimonies will present it You assert We deny Scripture to be the rule of Faith Every of which words deserves its particular reflexion For first by Scripture is meant either the words or sense that is the words containing a sense so as that another may be found in the same words or else a sense expressed accidentally by such words which might have been expressed by other By a Rule since 't is our belief must be regulated and our belief is of things not sounds is understood either a determinate sense or certain means to arrive at it We say then that Scripture taken the first way cannot be a Rule nothing being more evident then that words meerly as such without due qualifications which are not found in all words are neither sense nor means to arrive at a determinate one since the same words may comprehend many senses Take Scripture the second way and the question is quite changed none denies the sence of it to be the word of God by which all our belief and actions are to be regulated our Dispute then in that case is not whether it be a Rule but how 't is known whether by the bare words in which 't is couched which we deny because other sences are couched in the very same words or by the Churches authority interpreting it by Tradition which you conceived unnecessary To Scripture interpreted by Tradition or the sence of Scripture acknowledged by Tradition we submit all our thoughts and actions but deny the title of a Rule can belong to Scripture taken for the meer words unsenc't that is Characters and conceive the sence of Scripture cannot be sufficiently discovered by the bare scanning of the words which after all being capable of many sences leave it undetermined which is the true one Faith is to be considered either in respect of one or some few men or in respect of a multitude for since the same cause produces not the same effect upon different subjects 't is not possible that to every of those many who are comprehended in a Church the same knowledge should be necessary That there is a rewarder of good and punisher of evil may for ought I can tell be enough for some extraordinarily disposed creature to know but mankind requires the knowledge of much more Again outward circumstances extremely vary the disposition of the subject We live both in calms and storms and to day a