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
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
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
his meaning suppose only I grant the Conclusion me thinks he does not conclude what he was to prove which should be this therefore that Age was not the first that held her Doctrine upon that Maxim But to the other part of the Dilemma more fully ¶ 3. You chuse to fall upon the second horn of the Dilemma whose sharpnesse we shall presently try after I have assur'd you that by assurance he means absolute certaintie which there is no denying but that she either had or had not In the first Case his Discourse runs thus she had assurance in the eighth Age before she took up the Maxime said to be new therefore she had the Maxime by which she had assurance before this Maxime could be no other then Tradition nothing else being able to give her assurance therefore she had the Maxime of Tradition before therefore that Age was not the first she took it up in which is what you desire should be the Conclusion ¶ 4. If not says he then she wilfully belied her self c. I wholly deny this wilfulness will follow thus the 8th Age entertained that principle first of all suppose she might think it true when it was not and so no wilfulness might not the Church think all she held descended to her through the interjacent Ages by the Bible which is handed still to her and yet not think all she received descended lineally in your sence I pray Sir make my dull capacitie see this absurdity which I profess I cannot I think if your Argument prove any thing it proves against all Errors in general any where that they could not have come into the world and then I wish exceedingly your Argument were true The Heretick held no Error because he held nothing was to be embraced but truth Is not this the very same Argument Mr White says some of yours maintain Tenets in other termes that are condemned might I not prove the contrary by his own Argument the Error could not enter into them because they held nothing was to be entertaind as of Faith except what was delivered to them by the former this is the very Argument To say the case is not the same in respect of universality is not to the purpose for there is no universality mentioned in the Argument the stress is not yet put in that If the argument be true in one I see not why it should not be in another ¶ 4. But you take the second Part in which case he presses you deny an unadmittable wilfulness Let us see The Supposition puts the Church not assured whether her Doctrine were lineally descended or no The Maxime makes her oblige her Posterity under pain of damnation too to beleeve it was so descended that is to beleeve what she knew not to be true that is what for ought she knew was false yet you discover no wilfulness Pray can reason justifie a command to accept that for true which the Commander knows may be false and for ought he knows is so and is there any other principle of action besides reason but will I but she might think her Principle true when it was not but what if no greater wilfulness can be imagined then to think so for you must mean it true either in respect it had conveied the true faith to her or would convey the true Faith to her posterity The first is Nonsence for that Age being supposed the first in which she took up the Principle the faith she had must of necessity have been conveid to her by some other The second is as bad or worse for if that principle be the Test of true Faith her own not being received by it must needs be thought not to be true that being the Faith she commended to the principle to be conveid could even wilfulness make her think that principle would convey a true Faith to her posterity which had received a false one to convey But she might say you think her Doctrine true as taught by the Bible which Bible was handed down to her though her Doctrine were not If she did but think so she did not know it to be true therefore it was not certain to her therefore but probable therefore to recommend it as true and certain which to her was not so was to do what she had no ground for that is to act wilfully Again if she thought her self to have received the true faith from the Bible she must needs think the Bible a means to convey the true faith to her that is a true rule then to desert that which she thought a true one and impose another as the onely true one besides which she thought even when she impos'd the second the first also to be true pray what name can it own but wilfulness Thus which way soever we turn nothing appears but impossibility which also a little reflected on would be discovered much greater and far deeper plunged into contradiction For were it possible a Council for example should be so maliciously wilfull as to consent to the damnation of all posterity mankind has rooted in it a greater desire of its own good then to be so cheated into everlasting misery especially so openly that it could not be ignorant of the juggle But neither is it proper for me to dilate that am an Answerer neither is it necessary to one that sees day so soon as you do To go on then you think the Argument proves against all Errors if any thing but why you think so you do not say and indeed I cannot guess One only supposition seems able to give the fancie any colour Viz. That our Saviour besides those necessary to Salvation taught also all manner of other truths whatsoever in all Arts and Sciences c. All which being equally recommended to Tradition flow down in the same great channel to us but this me thinks is too wild a fancie to suspect you of Next you parallel our Argument with one you frame in behalf of an Heretick in this manner He holds nothing is to be embraced but truth therefore what he imbraces is truth put your Heretick to have a right method of arriving at truth and faithfully to pursue it and there is no doubt but your Conclusion is strong and so strong that it quite overthrows the Supposition for he cannot in that case be an Heretick but that he has any such method or makes any use of it we must seek elsewhere then in your Argument which out of this that the thing should be done concludes it is done By the sincerity you profess and ow to the concern of eternity do we argue in that manner Do not we prove both that our method cannot fail us and that we never failed to make use of our method The first under penalty of this evident contradiction that the same thing must be beleeved before and not before the same time the second by the impossibility that mankind should conspire notoriously and unconcealably
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
though Mr. White could not you saw was good if the Fathers held non-admission they held no prayer because say you they knew not before admission every mans condition This you see I have denied but put case I had not I am afraid you would come short of your account S. Austin and other Fathers are alledged by Veron an excellent French Controvertist to maintain prayer to Saints even while they doubted whether these Saints heard the prayers made to them And you may reflect that prayer to Saints is a part of Tradition rivetted into our hearts by an universal and undeniable practise but whether souls freed from the commerce of bodies receive intelligence of what passes among bodies and this again either from the nature of their state or divine revelation Whether the return of our prayers to Saints be from their mediation or only from the goodness of God making use of our affection to creatures like our selves to give us those benefits which otherwise we had never demanded and so never received and the like are School questions in which speculative wits according to the difference of their learning and studie have met with either truth or error but acting all the while as Schollers and never doubting the lawfulness of the practice which occasioned all these disputes and which they saw firmly setled upon a more solid foundation then all their School-learning for had they done so they had disputed it as well as the rest To take then all parts of your Argument t is false the Fathers held non-admission is false that non-admission imports ignorance of our condition lastly 't is false that non admission and ignorance both of them exclude prayers to Saints that is in the Fathers judgement for the Question is not what is true or false but what they held to be so since they prayed to them even then when they doubted whether they were heard or no. Now I beseech you reflect if to reject such arguments be a sign of a rotten cause what it is to be perswaded by them and perswaded in matters of no less concern then eternity ¶ 2. Suppose that be Mr. Whites meaning the Saints know what we pray to them before they are admitted into heaven is that your Tenet To what purpose else does he bring Jeremies praying in the Macchabees to say that he prays in general as we do for the whole Church though we know not its particular state is nothing to the purpose the Question is Whether we may pray to the Saints and in order to our praying to them whether they can know every particular mans prayer if you say they do you and your Apocriphal Book contradict the undoubted Word of God by his Prophet Isai 63.16 Abraham knows us not and Isaac is ignorant of us which your S. Thomas can no otherwise solve then by imagining the Saints before Christ were not yet admitted to Heaven ¶ 3. Here comes your convincing as you think Argument against the knowledg of Saints from the Prophet Isaiah Araham knows us not and Israel is ignorant of us but I would beg of you not to put so much confidence in words without a full mastery of their sense for 't is the sense of Scripture is truly Scripture You have found indeed the word ignorant and knows us not but what is meant by that word and what that is is the whole difficulty you settle not You know that word Luke 13.25 27. is applied to the Master of the House Mat. 25.12 to the Bridegroom and I hope you will not from it argue any ignorance in that Master and that Bridegroom Mark 13.32 The knowledge of the day of judgment is denied to that Son who being so man that he is also God cannot sure at any time be imagined to want his omniscience Since therefore 't is manifest those words have in Scripture many senses what possibility is there by the bare sound without further inquirie to conclude any one The Context and your own later Translations which for ignorant put acknowledg not perswade me they have here the same sense as when God is said not to know impious persons But 't is not for me to prove but to shew you have not done so and in the mean time to wonder so excellent a wit should make such a bravado with a Bulrush which nevertheless I impute to the weakness of your cause whose armory affords no better weapons ¶ 3. That which Mr. White proves out of the parable of Dives praying to Abraham is as ridiculous for if it be a proof it is either nothing to the Question or contrary to that Scripture named But the principal answer for the former are but trifles signs of a rotten cause Saints are admitted to Heaven before the day of Judgment therefore seeing God and so all things know our prayers and so sit to be prayed unto But seeing this naked groundless not proved Assertion is the principal answer how chance not a word to the Argument that prevented and utterly destroyed it the Fathers did hold the contrary Is this a satisfaction to the Argument only to say I do not beleeve it Be Judge your self and give a better ¶ 3. You call Mr. Whites touch upon the Parable of Dives ridiculous and say 't is either nothing to the Question or contrary to the Scripture named but since you do no more then say so you will pardon me if I have not that captivation of my understanding to your words which you refuse the Church and give me leave to put you in mind you cannot affirm it contrary to that Scripture till you be assured what that Scripture is and farther since Scripture cannot be contrary to it self 't is lawful for me to beleeve you may as soon miss the sence of it as Mr. White whose principal Answer you in the next place call a naked groundless not proved Assertion and for naked I think you mean want of either proof or ground for sure you will not except against the want of Rhetorick and then 't is the same with one of the other expressions To the first of which I reply he has exprest the ground of it Viz. Tradition and to the second that being the Defendant it was not his part to prove But how chance no word to the Argument According to the small insight I have in Logick no argument either requires or can have a fuller answer then a plain denial of its premises which I take to be done here The Argument is this Divers Fathers you say the Fathers held non-admission before the day of judgment wherefore they must also hold no prayer to Saints Now if I aver the admission of Saints before the day of Judgment is taught by Tradition I think I say also that it was taught by the Fathers and consequently deny they taught the contrary and must beleeve till I am better instructed in the Laws of Disputations when thus much is said to an Argument more ought not
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
to Saints To make an end of this authority there being in this matter as in all others to be distinguished what is Faith from what is Learning the first being no more then barely that 't is good and profitable to have recourse to the assistance of Saints To the last belonging many Questions in some ages more doubtful in some as truth opens to time and industry more setled but still remaining points of learning not faith I onely desire of you that you will please to be of that Faith in this Point which S. Austin plainly and unquestionably delivers in this very Book which being insisted on by your self I do not see you can offer less and promise I will expect no more Marry because in a point of School-learning he maintains an opinion now generally disallowed to infer he was against the practise of the Church because his Position in which he was wrong may be conceived opposite to it when he both plainly attests and approves the practice and uses much diligence and studie to reconcile his Position to it is a proceeding I had rather you should correct then I censure There follow two passages out of two Invectives of S. Greg. Naz. which I see are examples of Prosopopoeia and no more in them but doubt whether the following Assertion be stranger or the Connexion of it with a so that as if because S. Gregory above 300 years after Christ made use of a Rhetorical figure therefore in the first 200 yeers there was no Invocation of Saints To the thing it self I shall say no more then humbly desire you to beware of blind obedience and implicite faith of condemning and practising the same thing and if you will believe fallible men to beleeve the Fathers themselves and not what more fallible men tell you of them I would gladly know also what those you give so much credit to do bring to justifie themselves and their saying that in that time there was no Invocation I do not beleeve they produce any plain place which deny such practises were or were lawful to be used and conceive they either argue from the silence of some of them that there was no such thing because they say nothing of it which besides that it wildly supposes whatsoever was writ in these Ages came safely down to us is as much as to expect that whatever subject a man chuses for his Book he must treat of all things in it or else make use of perhaps their Errors in School points as the ignorance of souls departed the impossibility of commerce betwixt the next world and this c. to overthrow what they might as S. Austin long after clearly did held true even while they held these errors and this to say nothing of the injustice it does the Fathers to extend a mistake of theirs in a point of learning without sufficient ground to their faith too is in stead of discovering error by its opposition to truth to take the error for truth and then conclude the truth to be the error This kind of proceeding has strange luck to gain credit with so nice and piercing a judgement as yours What S. Austin says in the two following Citations is the very thing the Church beleevs and practises at this day and what whoever professes she is ready to imbrace in her sacred Communion it being the custom even at this day that Saints are not invocated at the Holy Sacrifice all the prayers there being purely addressed to God And for Petrus Gnaphaeus since you produce no reason why I should not I cannot see but Mr. Whites Observation is satisfactory beyond Reply Viz. That since his authority how great soever it were could not preserve him from being condemned of Heresie this fact could not have failed to peep among the rest of his Heresies had the Church not found it consonant to her faith The last is from S. Ambrose then which I never saw any thing more wretchedly mangled The place is an explication of v. 22. cap. 1. ad Rom. saying themselves to be wise they became fools This he attributes to the vain power upon the course of the Heavens and stars who by challenging an opinion of wisdom from the knowledg of such glorious creatures were lost in the folly of staying there and not passing on to the Creator Selent tamen says the Book pudore passi neglecti Dei misera uti excusatione dicentes per istos c. where first the word tamen is changed into quidam which makes the sense absolute whereas the first evidently restrains it to what went before viz. Those vain Philosophers Then pudore passi neglecti Dei which are also relative are quite left out and to compleat the work the word istos is turned into justos which can no more fit the place then Giant or Castle for he being to explicate the Apostles meaning and the Apostle plainly speaking of the vanity of humane Philosophy would he not have hit his sence finely to make him talk of Saints worship Can those mens excuse be imagined so miserable as to alledge in justification of their not glorifying God that Saints are to God as Courtiers to Princes that never thought of Saints nor if they had were one jot neerer their excuse This is a kind of dealing which our obedience as blind as you conceive it would not endure But I forbear to press it farther then in behalf of your own happiness to beseech your own calm thoughts may work freely and impartially upon it SECT IV. Images PAge 176. Mr White answers the Objection of the second Commandment that if it binds now then the whole Ceremonial Law does but I cannot see that prohibition is a Ceremony It is not repeated in the new Testament therefore it does not bind I see no force in that Argument neither many precepts of the old are not repeated in the new which notwithstanding bind us now as not to lie with beasts not to remove antient land-marks c. Where is the tenth Commandment repeated in so many words But is there nothing of the second in the New Testament I shall remember you of one and that is in the 17th of the Acts where S. Paul is preaching the Gospel to the Athenians confutes their and your superstition of worshipping the unknown which was the true God by bodily representations in the 29th verse we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold or silver graven by art and mens device God is not like unto any similitude the art of man can devise therefore ought not to be worshipped by similitudes therefore no pictures or representations of him are to be made whether it be of man or birds or four-footed beasts or of creeping things as the words are Rom. 1.25 whereby some instead of glorifying God have dishonoured him and changed his glory as if there were not a greater evil because of the greater disproportion between the infinite Majesty of Heaven and Earth