their Questions not by but of Scriptures alone in which though by the odness of the Phrase the sence be a little dark yet this is clear that the expression is common to proving and defending and therefore to restrain it to defendin◠is in the mildest language manifest injustice For my part I conceive the sence no more but this That Hereticks cannot prove their cause by Scripture But I must wonder at the proceedings of your men and by what charm they get the credit of misleading people when 't is manifest they chuse to grope in the dark when they might walk in the open light To hook in the authority of Tertullian to their party they take advantage here of a place whose obscurity renders the sence hard to be determined and easie to be wrested but not enough to their purpose neither without plainly changing the words when they cannot be ignorant he has delivered his judgement directly against them in as express terms as words can frame in his prescription against Heresies I shall only transcribe two short places and recommend the whole excellent Work to your serious perusal He tells us we are not to dispute with Hereticks out of Scripture which they have nothing to do withal it being forbid by the Apostle amongst other Reasons Quoniam nihil proficiat congressio scripturarum nisi plane ut aut stomachi quis ineat eversionem aut cerebri because bandying of Scriptures is good for nothing at all but to turn either the stomack or the brain And a little further Ergo non ad Scripturas provocandum est in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est aut parum certa Wherefore we are not to appeal to Scriptures in which the victorie is either none at all or uncertain at least not certain Now I beseech you where is the sincerity of those men who would make us beleeve Tertullian held Scripture the only rule of Faith Or because there is a wrestible place to be found in one of his Books 't is his judgement of the point in question either doubtful or possible to be unknown to whoever desires to know it and much lesse to any that lays claim to the title of learned S. Thomas of Aquine says indeed that nothing is to be affirmed of God which is not expressed in Scripture but how either according to the words or according to the sence which is to say that some things as in particular the question in hand of the Holy Ghost are so in Scripture as not to be efficaciously discovered by the words and so he brings a place to prove the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son very far from unavoidable But I forbear to urge his authority against you imagining by your nice wariness in mentioning him you are sufficiently satisfied he is far from your opinion in this point and proceed to the rest of the proofs you give a promise of ¶ 5. It appears Christian people lookt upon the Bible as the rule of Faith by these words of the Council in Socrates his Ecclesiastical History 2. l. c. 29. Nomen substantiae quoniam a patribus simpliciter positum a populo autem ignoratum offensionem propterea multis concitat mark quod Scripturis minimè sit comprehensum they would not have been offended if the Scripture had not been their Rule visum est ipsum tollere omnino nullam mentionem hujus verbi substantia eum de Deo loquimur de reliquo fieri quia literae sacrae omnino substantiae vel Filii Spiritus Sancti neutiquam meminerint filium tamen Patri per omnia similem dicimus quippe cum sacrae Scripturae illud asserant doceant And that expression of Constantine to which all the Bishops except those friends of Arius did consent when he came first into the Council of Nice after the Bishops had taken their places exhorting them to concord A quo Eustachia cum esset peroratum Imperator omni genere laudis illustrissimus verba facere de concordia consensu animorum in memoriam eos redigere tum crudelitatis tyrannorum tum praeclarissimae pacis suis temporibus divinitus Ecclesiae decretae Ostendere etiam quam grave esset imo vero quam acerbum hostibus jam profligatis nemine ex adverso se opponere audente ut ipsi se oppugnarent mutuo laetitiam inimicis atque adeo risum praebereat praesertim cum de rebus divinis disputarent haberentque doctrinam sacratissimi spiritus literarum monumentis proditam Nam libri inquit Evangelistarum Apostolorum quin etian veterum prophetarum oracula nos evidenter docent quid de divino numin◠sentiendum sit◠Omni igitur seditio◠contentione depulsa literarum divinitus inspiratarum testimoniis res in questionem adductas dissolvamus Theodoret Eccles History l. 1. cap. 7. Many more expressions I might bring but I do not see what can be clearer then these words or what sence possibly you can put upon them the Emperor seems to exaggerate it as a most unreasonable and strange thing that they should dissent in matters of Faith while they have them evidently laid down in Scripture which he bids them take for their rule to decide the controversie by and accordingly the Author tells us they did and in their leters and forms of Faith I find all along Scripture Arguments I think this deserves your serious consideratition ¶ 6. I think your own Reason if you will impartially give it leave to act and declare it self will tell you this clear Argument deserves a clear answer not a conjecture without ground as Mr. Whites p. 93. c. will appear to any unbiassed man We have ground says he and yet does not give any ground which therefore is as easily denied as asserted to beleeve that some learned men in the Court were prevented by Arius and sollicited into a secret favour of this error from whom 't is likely it is not likely proceeded that motion of Constantine to the Council for determining the point out of Scripture Did not Constantine know the truth before Mr White proves he did by his own Argument 97. unless a man be so perverse as to affirm Christians did not use the form of Baptism prescribed by Christ there can be no doubt of the blessed Trinity the very words of Baptism carrying the truth I say in themselves and is that likely the Emperor would betray the truth or favour an Heretick to whom he writes sharply and of whom he speaks bitterly in his letter to the Church of Alexandria against whom chiefly he had even called the Council Mr White confesseth the Council followed the Emperors words and there was magna conquisitio turning of Scriptures c. though not to that end to which the Emperor propos'd it so then he grants the Emperor propos'd it as I make use of his words But the Council did not follow his words for that end the historian says Maxima pars
ejus verbis obtemperavit I cannot gather one sillable hence nor from any other place for Mr White Vnless there be a proof it is but Sophistry and a sign of a desperate cause It is likely is it not that grave wise Assembly that came to confute an obstinate adversarie would make use of a Lesbian rule if they did not count it sufficient and the chief which their Adversary would make nothing of as long as one place can explicate a hundred opposed so Mr. White speaks ¶ 7. Yet it is plain they did make use of this Rule and did conclude by it that same truth which they had before that learnt out of it as Eusebius in his Epistle to his own people confesses Socr. l. 1. c. 5. yea stick and keep to Scripture-expressions in the forme of their determinations as much as they could which Mr. White himself calls a good way to govern their expressions by and therefore I cannot imagine the possibility of the truth of his words p. 98. that the Council at last was forced to conclude out of Tradition he brings Theodoret to prove it but names not the place where I have read all I can imagine should shew it but finde not one word a necessity sayes he which the Rules of Saint Irenaeus c. justifies I have not the other be mentions without citing the place as for Irenaeus I am sure it is false he has no such Rule in his whole book the only place in him that glanceth at it is not a proof I speak of it elsewhere if it were it would prove Irenaeus an egregious fool to spend above 600 pages to no purpose in Scripture-Argument and then in one page do all the work by your imaginarie only Argument I expect a better Solution or a deserved consent to the contrary truth ¶ 8. Mr. White p. 95. seems to make the Bishops to set upon this Resolution of their own accord if that be true also then both Bishops and People were of the same minde his words are But the same Bishops consented to excommunicate the Contradicters to hinder men from unwritten words and was not that a proper and prudent remedy to prevent the inconveniences that easily arise from confusion and incertaintie of language when every one phrases the mysterie according to his private fancie and are not all your Traditions which you say depend not upon words subject to these inconveniences pray tell me ingenuously and governs not his terms by some constant and steadie Rule and the Writings of the Apostles or ancient Fathers What now does Mr. White turn his tale and call Scripture a constant steadie rule which before he made a nose of wax ¶ 5 6 7 8. There follows a Citation from a Council out of Socrates which to a Person disposed to make use of it affords a fair advantage But as my aim is your service not victory I shall only desire you to reflect they were Hereticks who by the Artifice of that pretence sought to draw the Council of Ariminum to subscribe a new form of Faith in prejudice of what had formerly been establisht at Nice A sleight which the Catholicks rejected with this Answer We came not hither as though we wanted Faith and beleef for we retain that Faith which we have learned from the beginning but we are come to withstand Novelties if those things which you have now read neither savour nor tend to the establishing of Novelty accurse and renounce the Heresie of Arius in such wise as the old and ancient Canon of the Church hath banished all Heretical and Blasphemous Doctrine Now consider if you please who they were that pretended Scripture who they that rejected it and adhered constantly to what they had learned from the beginning and observe which party your Position takes and which mine Next is an expression of Constantines in his Oration to the Council of Nice insisted upon to my no small wonder through 4. Paragraphs For how comes it that a man bred up wholly to the Arts of War and Government and so lately become a Christian that he wanted even time had his other employments been no Obstacle to advance beyond the degree of a Learner should yet be look'd upon by you as so great a Doctor that an expression of his which according to the custom of such persons too has more of oratory then severe discourse in it should wholly sway you in a point of Religion whose judgment I dare say in a point of Politicks in which he was much better vers'd would not be of half that credit with you what if he did not so much as understand the thing and if he did what if he spoke rather according to his occasions then his judgment For Princes you know do and ought to govern their actions by other rules then private men and speak sometimes more what 't is fit they should be heard speak then what they truly think In either of these cases both which I take to be not only possible but so far probable that I think them true how weak a support is this Testimony you so much rely upon And yet I think these advantages so unnecessary that the place it self faithfully consulted needs no assistance to conclude plainly against you For since you make Constantine satified of the truth of the Question before the calling of the Council it cannot with any colour be imagined he meant to put that to tryal which before the tryall appointed was already known and resolv'd on The Question therefore in Issue could not be which was Faith which Heresie neither does that use to be or indeed can be a Question among those that know their own Faith but how the oppositions made against the known Faith might be answered And this besides that after a man is satisfied of the truth of one part of the Question there can be no more dispute concerning the same Question but how to answer the Objections of the opposite is clear from the very words For dissolvere does not signifie to give sentence in a Question he that should English it so would wrest it strangely but to solve an Argument its natural signification to loose or untie being applied by Schollers to the knots of Sophistry That Phrase therefore imports the answering an Objection not the determining a controversie and the sence of the place is this Let us by Scripture shew the Arguments of Arius brought out of Scripture fallacious and unconcluding I beseech you then to accept of this short Answer to your long Discourse First that whatever were Constantines opinion 't is of no extraordinary importance either way he being a man wholly bred up to other Arts then Divinity and by the course of his life disabled from attaining a mastery in such abstruse points Secondly that yours is so far from appearing to be his Opinion that you cannot force it upon the words you cite without manifest violence and which their own genuine signification and the
be that the Gospel or doctrine of Christ which was to be the foundation of our faith was by the Will of God delivered to us by writing as well as preaching In which what branch there is that does so much as concern us truly I see not for no body doubts but the doctrine of Christ is the foundation of our faith that it was written as well as preached and this not by chance but by particular Providence and instinct of the Holy Ghost any of which positions when I contradict I will acknowledge Irenaeus is against me In the mean time I appeal to the very Rules of Syntax whether he be not against you and whether Scripturis fundamentum will agree that Scripture be the foundation which the construction plainly attributes to Evangelium that is the doctrine or points of faith that is the sense of the Letter not the letter to be senc'd which is the Tenet you maintain we oppose There follow two long citations out of lib. 2. cap. 46. 47. which you say shew clearly that plain Scripture may be judged the only way to decide all controversies and this I deny not for supposing Scripture to be plain enough for that effect I see not why it should not produce it But do the places say it is plain enough What you think I know not but I will assure you I am so far from thinking that question determin'd here that no part of either of them prompts me to suspect the Father did so much as think of it His businesse in these chapters as far as I apprehend is in the first to shew the absurdity of opposing a fancie drawn from an obscure Parable to an acknowledged doctrine and even in Scripture plain to religious Lovers of truth and in the second to teach the impossibility of attaining to all knowledge in this life and the necessitie of being content to know as much as God is pleas'd we should and be ignorant of the rest Now if by deciding those questions he hath given sentence in ours from which 't is impossible any two should be farther removed and that by teaching Parables are not to be reli'd on nor our thirst after knowledg satisfied in this life he has taught Scripture is plain enough to decide all controversies in all times and cases He has done both what he never thought to do and what I think impossible he ever should doe ¶ 11. In his third book cap. 14. Si autem Lucas quidem qui semper cum Paulo praedicavit dilectus ab eo dictus est cum eo evangelizavit creditus est referre nobis evangelium nihil aliud ab eo didicit sicut ex verbis ejus ostensum est quem admodum hi qui nunquam Paulo adjuncti fuerunt gloriantur abscondita inerrabilia didicisse Sacramenta Quoniam autem Paulus simpliciter quae sciebat haec docebat non solum eos qui cum eo erant verum omnes audientes seipsum fecit manifestum In Mileto convocatis Episcopis Preâ—byteriis repeats those words Acts. 20.17 and so on non subtraxi uti non annuntiarem vobis omnem sententiam Dei. Sic Apostoli simpliciter nemini invidentes quae didicerant ipsi à Domino haec omnibus tradebunt Sic igitur Lucas nemini invidens ea quae ab eis didicerat tradidit nobis sicut ipse testificatur dicens quemadmodum tradiderunt nobis qui ab initio contemplatores ministri fuerunt verbi Observe I pray you and impartially weigh the truth Irenaeus is professedly disputing against the Valentinians throughout his whole book confutes them all along by Scripture answers their objection which is the very same with yours against us the Scriptures do not contein all divine truths and mysteries and there fore they would not be judged nor confuted by it as you at this day Irenaeus first proves out of Scripture that the Apostles delivered freely plainly the whole mystery or doctrine of salvation to all envying the knowledg of it or any part of that knowledge to none great or small therefore not to S. Luke who was a continual companion of the Apostle Paul and a beloved fellow-labourer So that he S. Luke must needs know all and out of S. Lukes words the very same I have before made my Argument the beginning of his Gospel and the Acts shews he did faithfully relate all he had received and learnt of the Apostles not envying us any one truth what is the meaning of that expression he himself had learnt Besides what force could there have been in Irenaeus his Argument or indeed to what purpose would his whole Book have been proving from Scripture all along his Adversaries to be out and their Tenet to be false because the Scripture doth not teach them if the Scripture be not such a perfect Rule which contains the whole Mystery of salvation and doctrine of the Gospel Thus I think if I am not mightily mistaken I have proved the Minor Proposition which only can be questioned of that Syllogism which destroys Mr. Rushworths second Dialogue That which hath been the rule in the Primitive Church must still be But the Written word which we enjoy was the rule as appears by what hath been said Ergo The Scripture still is c. ¶ 11. The last is out of the fourteenth Chapter of the third Book which to make strong against us you assume two things and I conceive neither true First That he confutes them all along by Scriptures which I do not see how it would advantage you were it admitted for because he saw it convenient to dispute out of Scripture will it therefore follow no other way of disputing is either lawfull or possible We dispute with you every day out of Scripture yet hold another a surer nay the onely rule but I wonder the diligence you profess should so far deceive the candour you are master of as to offer it for true which cannot but have observed the first Chapters of this very Book are employed in confuting them by Tradition and that Scripture is made use of not for necessity I cannot speak more of the abundant efficacy of Tradition then he does but out of abundance ut undique resistatur illis si quos ex his retusione confundentes ad conversionem veritatis adducere possimus as he says in the 2d Chapter of this Book which you see is an expression not of necessity but charity And if I am not mistaken for I have not the means to studie it exactly his whole second Book is so fill'd with Arguments from reason That Scripture is hardly so much as mentioned unless sometimes by the by Secondly you assume with as much injustice as mistake that their Objection is the same with ours and the Answer given by him to them the same you give to us Our Tenet for objection while we are upon the defensive we make none is that Scripture is not the rule of Faith That of
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
Tradidi Vobis OR THE Traditionary Conveyance OF FAITH Cleer'd In the RATIONAL WAY Against The Exceptions of a Learned Opponent By J. B. Esquire 1 COR. 11.2 Laudo autem vos fratres quòd sicut Tradidi vobis praecepta mea tenetis LONDON Printed in the Year 1662. The PUBLISHER to the Reader IF I trespass against Civility in publishing this Controversie without the Authors consents I presume them as much righted in my good opinion of them which chiefly emboldened me to this attempt for I looked upon them both as hearty lovers of truth and aymers both at the same fair mark though their shafts were shot from opposite Camps and hence concluded a disposition in them to submit any private consideration to that most prevalent concern and to expose their candid thoughts to the open day however the Genius of modesty blushes to be made its own discoverer and rather permits it self to be guessed at by others affecting to leave not without some unnaturalness its hopeful productions to be fostered up and cherished by the care of providence or the charitable pitie of some accidental Passenger This Character I have of the worthy and learned Author of these Objections from acquaintance and his own sober Pen and the same I dare avow of my Friend the Replyer And that as the former intended only his own private satisfaction so the later had no further end in his eye than to satisfie so candid an Enquirers particular scruples or perhaps a grateful respect to that incomparable and much envied Master of his the great Explainer of Tradition to the defence of whose Doctrine he owes the imployment of that strength the same Doctrine had given him Yet why may I not add too as a likely motive of his pains at any fair hint of occasion his high zeal for the subject it self Tradition so onelily important so radically influential towards steddiness in faith That Rushworths Dialogues and the Apology for them can never be over importunely abeted and pressd Now though I am bound by my Reason to hold the victory on my friends side and to expect the Readers should judge the same yet I profess ingenuously I printed not this out of a conceit that the weak carriage of the Objector gave any advantage or incouragement but rather impute much to his excellent wit that using a cleer and unblundering expression a thing rare in such Adversaries could manage so well so infirm a cause and that having weighed Doctor Hammonds Discourse against Tradition with his I judged this far the more nervous manly and worthy my Friends thoughts then the former not only because that affects too much wordishness and confusedness but becaus the death of its Author might make it with som shew of reason objected that it was ignoble to seek to triumph over the ashes of one adversary and decline others yet alive of equal or greater force entring the lists upon the same quarrel S. W. ERRATA PAge 11. line 15. read inviolate p. 15. l. ult r. there may p. 26. l. 6. r. critically evince and l. 15. r. comes now p. 19. l. 4. r. of your p. 21. l. 6. r. they not understanding his craft will and l. 14. r. which all p. 28. l. 13. for made r. incident p. 41. l. 21. for their r. your p. 52. l. 20. for that r. your p. 61. l. 18. r. her p. 73. l. 7. r. in it p. 74. l. 12. r. as in p. 80. l. 7 8. r. gingling and l. 14. for one r. an p. 81. l. 19. r. notion p. 88. l. 6. r. news p. 96. l. 20. r. to another p. 99. l. 8. r. there are p. 114. l. 15. r. confirmandos p. 119. l. 7. r. deference p. 122. l. 22. r. de et p. 123 l. 20. r. derive their p. 125. l. 20. r. Books is p. 142. l. 5. r. could not not p. 164. l. 14. dele yet p. 176. l. 18. r. evince them p. 181. l. 7 8. r. has provided even against the defects of nature p. 182. l. 27. r by design p. 188. l. 12. r. I see p. 192. dele and. l. 26. r. another and spread among the vulgar upon the authority of private men as Doctors are p. 197. l 6. r. descent p. 218. l. 27. r. wonder at what you say first p. 126. l. 21. before it be consecrated pr 227. l. 22. r into it p. 232. l. 6. r. furem p. 241. l. 4. r they not yet being admitted p. 246. l. 21. r. non-admission 't is false p. 252. l. ult r. do not p. 265. l. 18. r. reverenc'd and l. 25. for prays r. prayers p. 270. l. 27. r. places p. 271. l. 15. r. hold true p. 283. l. 7. r. is evidenc'd p. 293. l. 19. r. if any p. 279 l. 26. r. upon p. 287. l 14. r 't would have CONTENTS PART I. Scripture not the Rule of Faith Incertaintie of the Letter of Scripture in order to that effect Sect. 1. pag. 1. Incertainty of the sense of Scripture from the bare Letter Sect. 2. p. 23. Scripture critically managed not sufficient to decide Controversies Sect. 3. p. 45. The two Places Iohn 20. and Luke 1. no proof that the written Word is a sufficient means for the salvation of mankind Sect. 4. p 86. Answer to those Fathers who are brought for the sufficiency of Scripture Sect. 5 p. 109. PART II. Tradition the Rule of Faith Certainty of Tradition Sect. 1. p. 160. Authority of Fathers Transubstantiation Sect. 2. p. 205. Prayer to Saints Sect. 3. p. 238. Images Sect. 4. p. 274. The Conclusion Sect. 5. p. 285. PART I. SCRIPTURE not the Rule of FAITH SECT I. Incertainty of the Letter of Scripture in Order to that Effect SIR I Have often bemoaned my loss of your ingenuous society and think my self unhappy that my hopes are gon of having those verbal conferences in which I much delighted and for which I am exceedingly obliged unto you for many civilities that which I have learnt from you hath put me upon further enquiries then ever I should as I believ had you not been the occasion of them my resolution still remains to proceed by all possible means to make up my present deficiency If I know any thing of my self I am an impartial lover of truth therefore ready to embrace any I am capable of that concerns me to know I have perused those two Pieces of Mr. Whites with diligence to find that Demonstration promised but stil remain in my first wonder that so many excellent able men should imbrace that for clear truth which to me is falshood I think I have not willingly shut my eyes against light but opened them both to see what I cannot discern and lest I should be thought to stifle truth and smother conviction in my breast I have here endeavoured to give you a brief account of my apprehensions of the Discourse in hope of that candid answer and satisfaction your ingenuity hath been pleased to promise me I remember a
one may somtimes seem the more proper is nothing to the purpose For besides that to offer plausibility to those who look after truth and can discern it is to go about to allay hunger with steam in stead of meat 't is agreed by all parties that many times the improper acception is the true one So by first-begotten in Mat. 1. we both understand only begotten which nevertheless are in rigour very different and 't is the same of many other and universally of all mystical places To apply all to our case can you deny but that he who sees the thing may be false does not see it is true and consequently that to accept it for truth is to wrong his nature Conformably to your Maxime in the 2d Part That no man must give assent without sufficient evidence Can you deny that amongst all the differing Sects of Christians there is any one which does not in whatever place of Scripture you urge against them find a sence favourable to themselves which they make the words tolerably bear Can the charity you claim suffer you to say there is no sincerity no wit but in your own party and deny there are amongst the Presbyterians Anabaptists Independents c. persons as sincere as your selves as desirous of truth who search and pray and yet differ if none of all this can be denied consider what a desperately wretched principle it is according to which there is no effectual means of truth provided not only for obstinate opposers but neither for earnest pursuers of it And since without the truths we speak of there is no salvation and they are not to be had without being seen to be truths and your principle will not let them be seen being applicable also to falshood 't is a plain case that according to it these men that is the most considerable part of mankind if not in number at least in value must be either Infidel or irrational either eternally miserable men or not men in their most important actions for certainly who acts against reason is so far not man but beast ¶ 6. I thinke Mr White p. 139. does but beat the air in requiring Gods written Word if it be to decide to proceed artificially or scientifically Let the Almighty have liberty to deliver himself as he please I think the learnedst and acutest have cause to blesse his Majestie that he will stoop to meanest capacities intending his Law for all that so the greatest if the mean may might more easily understand his oracles and pleasure that very thing Mr. White thinks wanting in Scripture to the making of it a sufficient Rule to decide St. Paul glories in as most suitable to the highness of divine mysteries which scorn rather then they will be beholden to the props of humane wit and invention 1 Cor. 2.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 c. I came not saith the Apostle to you with excellencie of speech or of wisdome declaring unto you the testimony of God my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of mans wisdome but in demonstration of the spirit and power that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God c. The demonstration of divine truths was given in plain language without humane arts though St. Paul had them yet all the Apostles were not so some being illiterate plain Fishermen as was their writing such was their preaching for we have some part of their discourses penn'd which were accomodated to vulgar capacities to whom they preached I ask whether they did not sufficiently demonstrate divine truths to their people in plain language if not then they did not leave the Gospel evident enough if they did then we have a sufficient demonstration of divine truths although the Bible be not written logically and its plainnesse hinders it not from being a sufficient Rule to decide or know truths ¶ 6. I do not find that Mr. White in the place you cite ties Almighty God to such strict conditions in saying no more then that writings penn'd according to the severity of science are more easily understood then such as are written loosely without connexion and this I think you deny not The second â—â—â—â—â—gue indeed out of this that the Scripture is not written in a method necessary to deliver a judging Law gathers it was not meant by God for such But this consequence you do not and I think the candid ingenuity you are Master of will not suffer you to oppose What you cite from the Apostle I cannot imagin which way you will draw to your assistance The whole place is expresly of preaching and speech writing not so much as once glanc'd at and how Scripture should be proved to be sole Judge of controversies from thence where 't is not either named or thought of I professe my sight is too short to discover your self seem to make use of it against your self when you say that if they did sufficiently demonstrate divine truths to their people in plain language then we have sufficient evidence of them True but not by the Bible for 't was not by writing but by preaching they taught the people and 't is by adhering to what they so taught that we also whom personally they did not teach come to have sufficient evidence of divine truth 〈◊〉 ¶ 7. I 〈…〉 that as Acts 2. c. and Acts 18.28 Apollos mightily convinced the Jews and that publiquely shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ so that Scripture affords sufficient Arguments to prove even most material points sufficiently although obstinate opposers as the Jews are not silenced It will be an aggravation to their punishment that will not be convinced by Scripture evidence and I see not how it can deserve punishment if there be not evidence enough to convince ¶ 7. What you may urge out of the Acts know not what I can find of my self I am sure makes nothing against me For the example of Apollos no body doubts but arguments may be drawn out of Scripture with marvellous efficacy You know the Dialogues hold Catholicism may be victoriously evidenc'd to be more conformable to Scripture than Protestancy by arguments purely drawn from the Text without extrinsical helps and what they hold may be done against you I conceive was the very thing Apollos did against the Jews not that he pretended Scripture was the onely foundation of Faith The place will not be drawn to any such meaning and we know our Saviour tells the Jews his works give testimony of him and that they should beleive the works and not believe him without them Now I imagine that to this evidence of miracles when the Jews oppos'd the Authority of Scripture pretending those could not be the works of God which justified a Doctrine contradictory to the word of God Apollos took away this pretence by shewing his doctrine not onely not contradictory but much more conformable then theirs and this I apprehend was the
happiness now I beseech you cannot a man tell news except he teâ—l all he know Or is not that to be called new which leaves untold any thing belonging to the same subject To argue therefore that because S. Johns Book contains news concerning the way to Heaven therefore it contains all that concerns our way to Heaven seems very unreasonable but what is more 't is also nothing to the purpose For were it granted that all things necessary to salvation were contained in every of the Gospels it would not follow they were so contained as is necessary that is accompanied with evidence enough to guide mankind securely through all vicissitudes to happiness and yet no less is requisite to make Scripture the onely rule of faith To the Question you make in the last place whether the Evangelists can be imagined to have written half a Gospel I conceive your very next words are an answer for I beseech you had S. John written those many things which their multitude made him omit had they not all been Gospel So that whatever proportion they bear of ½ or â…“ or â…› to the things written this is certain he did not write all the Gospel he knew Yes but he writ say you all necessary to salvation you say so but will not take it amiss if your bare Assertion have not the force to oblige every one to think so against the plain signification of the word you ground it upon For necessary to salvation is not as I said before that which the word Gospel imports ¶ 2. Mr White answers to the place first S. Johns writing was not to make a compleat History of our Saviours acts and doctrine but only to specifie such particulars as prove that Christ was the true consubstantial Son of God to assert is not to prove S. John intended only c. It may be as easily denied as affirmed that 's like an obstinate Sophister that intends not truth but to say somwhat only to stop his adversaries mouth a sign of a bad cause It is a sufficient confutation of any new Assertion to prove it has no ground I see none imaginable Mr White builds his Assertion on unless he has some he does not express which would be strange in this weighty matter but possibly that Assertion of S. Johns sole intent to prove Christs Diety without which back door he cannot evade the force of the Argument is built upon the 31 verse of that 20 Chapter but these things are written by me for this intent that ye might beleeve that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God but if you will give me leave I will prove the contrary with as much probability and I think certainty out of the same Text not dis-jointed as Mr White makes use of it to force a false confession but taken wholly those things are written by me for this end to bring you to salvation by your beleeving or entertainining the Gospel that Christ is the Messias for which end I have given you here those things that are requisite to beget such a saving faith in you although I might have written more I have not contenting my self with those which are sufficient for what end â— To shew you only in a speculative way that Christ is God No that would not save but that you may beleeve Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that beleeving you might have life through his name their having life seems rather to be his chief end because it is in the last place quod est ultimum in executione est primum in intentione or if you will begin at the other end the words do not shew it St. Johns chief design to prove Christ the Consubstantial Son of God for thus they run that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ or Messias the Son of God that is the Saviour of the World who was to come that you may be saved by him ¶ 2. You next except against the answer Mr. White gives to the 20th of John and first that he asserts but proves not which you say is a sign of a bad cause a trick of an obstinate Sophister c. But pray recollect your self and remember an Answerer that goes about to prove goes beyond his bounds To affirm deny or distinguish is the whole Sphere of his activity And when you say 't is a sufficient confutation of a new assertion to shew it has no ground you say very true but pray take along with you that your assertion of Scriptures sufficiency to the effect we speak of is the new assertion unheard of in the world before Luther and an interpretation of this place in favour of it every jot as new no such sence having ever been thought of till the necessity of justifying an unreasonable Tenet forced as unreasonable an explication If you please prove your ground and do not take it for granted till it be disproved When you have done so shew this which you call a new assertion of Mr. Whites has no ground for before sure you ought not to think it sufficiently confuted Till then I cannot see why it should be a sign of a bad cause to believe the Apostle and take his word when he tels us the design of his writing was that we might believe the Divinity of the Son But you can prove the contrary with as much probabilities out of the same Text if you do no more Mr. White has done as much as he should do for if both explications be probable his Adversary has concluded nothing against him But you think you can prove it with certainty let us see whether it be rational for me to think so and first after you have quarrelled with Mr. White for dis-jointing the Text as I conceive very ungroundedly when except this word Christ which is not any way material he cites the verse truly your self instead of setting it together again deliver not the Text out of which you undertake to conclude but a large Paraphrase upon it and this without telling us whether it be your own or recommended by any authority or in fine any ground why we should accept it and of which nothing is certain but that it is not the Text and This you call certainty Pray Sir Remember to assert is not to prove Remember it may be as easily deny'd as affirm'd Remember obstinate Sophistry and signs of a bad cause Next all the use you make of your Paraphrase is to establish this conclusion whose certainty too is by this time relented into seeming that their having life seems to be his chief end Be it so as I conceive the end of all the Apostles not only in their writings but both their and their Masters end in all his actions was the life of Christians Sure it will not follow their life needed no other either sustenance or Phisick then this Gospel Be it granted it is a principal means to this end that it is the only or whole means
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
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
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
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
it had been proper to have spoken to every thing else being not the Question But to speak minutely to each I must tell you the Comments I have seen upon what you urge out of Deuteronomie apprehend the command mentioned not to intend so much a literal obedience for certainly all could not read every one had not Philacteries c. as it indeavoured to make it the business of the Jews to sink the Law into their hearts by a perpetual practise and high esteem But the Question is not Whether the Scripture be not plain enough for the intent for which it was made you know the Dialogues affirm the Motives of the love of God and our neighbour c. are easily found in the Bible by a discreet reading and not only that but a man may by such a reading become a perfect beleeving Catholick but whether it were intended for the effect which you attribute to it Viz. to be the rule of Faith that is alone to secure the passage for all mankind to heaven when strength of wit strength of malice and stronger then both the weakness of mortality and repugnance of humane frailty all joyn to stop it up This we deny and not but that Scripture may have been well enough understood when 't was first written For certainly while the Circumstances last in which and for which 't is made it is much easier to comprehend the meaning of a writing then afterwards when they being past we are left to guesse at the sense without other help then the bare letter which we are apt to interpret every one his own way 'T is true therfore that Scripture was intended to be intelligible to those to whom it was written but not to after Ages without other means To exemplifie in the Jews of whom your Objection runs did not the Pharisees and Saduces not to mention the rest of their Sects both admit the Scripture and yet so far disagree in understanding it that many times they were both wrong Neither would I have you reply They were out in things only of less concern in not fundamentals for besides that this would you but determine what a Fundamental were might be shew'd to be false it gives no satisfaction to the Argument although admired for true since unquestionably God did not write any thing at all with design to instruct the Reader fundamental or not fundamental which he would not have understood 't were blasphemy to impute such folly to him if then they failed in any thing they understood not something which God intended should be understood 'T is therefore in my opinion very clear that his intention lasted no longer then the circumstances which accompanied the action and which being past the bare letter was no longer sufficient without other helps their constant practice for example the best Interpreter of a Law which while they adhered to it kept them right in all things commended by it and by it the sense of the letter was cleared to after Ages which to the first was sufficiently determined by other circumstances although not so but that even then it was to a wrangling Caviller very possible to be wrested as the example of St. Pauls writings undeniably evince of the New Testament The following one from John 16. seems farther from the purpose For how can you deduce any thing relating to it out of this That our Saviour told his Apostles the time was coming when he would speak to them without Parables I conceive he means the fortie days conversation with them after his Passion in which because he made them fully understand what he said will it ever follow that every one fully and certainly understands what is written Farther off if a greater distance may be is what you cite from 2 Cor. where the Apostle having in his absence been defamed by some pseudo-pseudo-Apostle to the Corinthians justifies himself and his fellow labourers affirming they performed their Obligation of preaching the Gospel sincerely and uprightly which what it has to do with our Question indeed I cannot imagin That from the Proverbs if it may be meant of the Scripture which I doubt it cannot the Text seeming very plain against that sense is against you for it requires an aptitude and promptness in the Reader which is to confess where these qualities are not the plainness you urge must also vanish Now since these dispositions consist not with pride and obstinacy and in controversies of Faith heresie must of necessity take one of the parts and heresie cannot be without pride and obstinacy nothing can be plainer then that these dispositions cannot be in the Readers on both sides and that Scripture by consequence is no effectual weapon against one of them As for the last it is I think farthest of all the command signifying no more then this that whereas Prophecies use to be couched in mysterious language the Prophet was directed here to do otherwise and write the vision plainly that is not mysteriously Your plain argument therefore stands thus that because one vision was commanded to be written not misteriously therefore the bare letter of Scripture is a sufficient means to as much certainty as is necessary to the Salvation of mankind which is plainly no argument at all ¶ 6. Truths necessary are plain enough though others only profitable be not all so nor is it requisite seeing God hath not thought good they should be all so else he would have made them plain too indeed to them that are not duely qualified what will be plain A man shut his eyes against any thing but let a man come with a good minde ready to fetch not bring any meaning observe the drift of the place what went before what followes compare obscure with plain places heartily pray unto God such a man will certainly see what shall be sufficient for his Salvation if he live accordingly ¶ 6. This paragraph conjectures a man may be saved by Scripture alone and since it does no more I might if I would make a drawn match of it by opposing my No to your l. But sincerity and diligence being virtues which God may very much favour and since a weak vessel will bring a man to his Haven who sails in a perpetual calm I cannot see what it prejudices me to admit what you say to be true For we enquire not what upright honesty will be satisfied with but how to convince wrangling obstinacie and how to be able to allay or at least live in those storms of doubts which either our own too curious natures or the malice of others is sure to raise in a multitude especially such a one as Providence has made us parts of ¶ 7. I see not what Objections can destroy this and wonder to read in some of your disputing against us such expressions as these No cause imaginable could avert our will from giving the function of Supream and sole Iudge to holy writ if both the thing were not impossible in it self
and if both Reason and Experience did not convince our understanding that by this Assertion contentions are encreased and not ended We acknowledge holy Scripture to be a most perfect Rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule c. Would you stand to that Scripture is a most perfect Rule as any Rule can be this Assertion would soon end contentions between us Why cannot Scripture be a perfect Rule without need of unwritten Traditions to end controversies by I see not the impossibility I would you would be pleased to teach me All that the Apostles taught and delivered to their Successors were all truths and were they not sufficient to be a Rule to Judge by whether written or by word of mouth I think all those truths they delivered were a sufficient Rule for their Successors could have nothing else to Judge by except they pretend to an infallible Spirit well then could not all of that truth be written which was delivered surely yea for I know not any thing one man may speak to another by word of mouth but he may write it therefore it is possible such a sufficient Rule may be made I prove now only the possibility and if it may his Assent is due to our Doctrine because he protests to have no other imaginable ground that could avert his will from giving it the function of supreme and sole Judge ¶ 7. The next Paraph opposes a pair of Assertions which since I know not whose they are I hope you will not take it amiss if I do not engage my self to defend 'T is well if I can preserve Mr. White himself from so strong an enemy as you are For the Positions themselves I conceive the second absolutely false and that a Writing may be contrived with much more perfection that is fitness to be a Rule then the Scripture is And for the first though I conceive it true as the case stands so many uncertainties from so many several causes unavoidably crowding into the writing we have yet abstractedly to examine whether a writing may not be framed without them is a Question so little to our purpose that I beseech you give me leave to say no more of it then that while we have no better words nor better skill in ordering them then yet are known t is to be doubted no one Book will be exempted from the face of all even those which by design are the plainest as Laws which no industry could yet contrive so but that the moot-cases bear a notable proportion to the resolv'd ones As for their discourse 't is agreed that Truths are a sufficient rule to judge by provided they be sufficiently that is certainly known to be Truths 'T is also agreed they may be written but we deny the sense of that Writing can always sufficiently be made out by its bare Characters without other assistance and this which yet is our onely question your discourse takes no notice of but supposing to be truth and to be known to be truth is the same thing roves handsomly indeed but yet roves ¶ 8. Again to prove Scripture may be a Supream rule to decide all necessary controversies I pray answer me Whether the determinations of your Councils can end controversies I suppose you affirm it Those determinations are printed by you to be read by all and be such a Rule can they be understood I have read of two of your Doctors both present at the Council of Trent oppose each other and alledge the decree against each other so that your determinations are not always sufficient no nor ever can they be if what you affirm of Scripture be true Viz. insufficient to determine For suppose your decrees most plain how shall I be certain this is the meaning of those determinations If I cannot till a further determination come out to explain the first I ask again How I shall be certain that I understand and have the right meaning of this second What by another determination again Why so I shall be querying in infinitum and never be sure unless I rest in some one determination which may be sufficiently intelligible to me to satisfie and assertain me of the truth and if Mans writings can be a determination and sufficient Rule to beget certain truth in me why not Gods ¶ 8. The Parity you next urge betwixt Scripture and Councels I should think of great force if there were nothing but the bare letter in both But in the former the word is the only interpreter of the sence in the later the word is interpreted by the sence in the first the sence is to be accomodated to the word in the 2d the word to the sence To explicate my self be pleas'd to reflect That Bishops going into Councel go not to find out a faith which before they knew not but to certifie that which they already know Then before they agree upon words to expresse it by they have in their heads that which they would expresse and when the words are agreed on they perfectly know what they mean by them and in which of the sences if they be capable of more than one they are to be taken in This they testifie by their practise when they are out of Councel and so leave to their posterity not only a Rule but a Method to preserve it from being wrested by the craft and perversenesse of their Adversaries Now in Scripture the case is quite different There are none to tell you the sence of the word in question neither can the word it self help you for 't is of it you doubt In our case too 't is interpreted quite against the common practise and therefore which give me leave to hint by the way the interpreter ought not to be contented the word may bear his sence but must evidently see it can bear no other For he that leaves the common practise to which the word may be accomodated when his Salvation depends upon the choice for this that the word may also be accomodated to another sence I doubt apprehends but slightly the value of his Soul and what it is to be eternally or happy or miserable But this by the bye The printed determinations therefore of Councils barely are not our Rule but the printed determinations understood and practised And were the Scripture so qualifi'd I know not what condition it would want necessary to a Rule In the mean time the instance of the Tridentine Doctors seems to be as much against you as a Thing can be for what possibility of certainty from words when the very same are cited in behalf of contradictories and if a verbal foundation be found weak in Councils how can you think 't will sustain a building of Scripture Though in this particular case the accident has nothing of wonder since the Council abstaining as far as I remember purposely from determining either side and speaking abstractedly must of necessity leave a colour for both and a latitude for wit
and fancie to work on and determine which side they please SECT III. Scripture critically managed not sufficient to decide Controversies ¶ 1. THe 3d. Question whether Scripture can determine Controversies 1. We affirm not all possible Controversies of Religion can satisfactorily be determined by Scripture neither do I think you dare say they can by your Traditions but 2ly all necessary to Salvation may In the 15th Encounter of the Apol. pag 136. Mr. White makes use of an old Objection to disprove Scriptures sufficiency in general which truly I should not have thought worth the taking notice of did it not come from Mr. White whom I much honour and find more Rational than many others of your Controversie writers I have since Read it is this Scripture hath not these 1600 years ended Controversies therefore it is not a sufficient Rule 1. He speaks more then he proves of 1600 years As to the experience since Luthers time it 's plainly false that not one point has been resolved by it that Christ is the Messias promised that through Faith in his name Salvation is to be had and many others have been and are resolved and agreed unto by Protestants who own not your Traditions but what Wonder Scripture does not end the feud between you and us seeing you will not be ruled by Scripture as the Supreme Rule to decide by he might as well have concluded against traditions because they have not yet ended the Controversies since Luthers time between you and us who doth not acknowledge your Traditions as a supream Rule to judge by ¶ 1. The next Reason begins with a Question which as you state it has no opposition to the Dialogues for after they have shewn how points of Religion may be decided and controversies determined by Scripture me thinks it should not be questioned whether that may be done which they shew how 't is done The difference betwixt you though you say nothing of it is of the certainty of determining Controversies their Position being That a discreet and diligent perusal of Scripture will make a man a perfect Catholick but not with that steady firmness as to be able to evince his Religion before a Critical Judge against a wrangling and craftie Adversary and this is your task to oppose if you will oppose the Dialogues To the experience Master White glances at in his fifteenth Encounter you answer he proves not what he says of sixteen hundred years which is true but sure to your second thoughts that place which professes not to treat the Question and onely mentions it by the by will not seem proper for a large proof Yet if you desire to see one his Tabulae Suffragiales will serve you where he handles that question largely And for what you say since Luthers time that many points have been resolv'd by Scripture though he speak of Points controverted betwixt Catholicks and Protestants and so your Position does not directly thwart him yet I conceive you are in the wrong and doubt whether any one point ever have been resolv'd amongst the adversaries of the Roman Church meerly by Scripture 'T is true there are several in which they all agree and Catholikes with them as those you instance in but not because Scripture has reconciled their differences concerning them but because they never owned any differences to reconcile Consult Historie faithfully and impartially and if you find one side ever plainly convinced another or generally any other agreement then this that the Point controverted belonged not to salvation and so either part permitted to keep their own opinion I shall learn somthing of you which yet I am yet ignorant of Mean while the points yon say are agreed I conceive are so onely because they have not been questioned whereof I take the reason to be the nature of man which being accustomed to any one thing cannot be brought to the opposite but by degrees and time a quality which grounds that Maxime Nemo repente fit pessionus So I conceive that Luther being brought up long inured to Religion though Passion obliged him to renounce some points of it yet was withheld by the course of nature from following his Principles whether they would at last have brought him into infidelity His successors still went farther and I do not see that where they exceeded him either himself in his life-time or Schollers after him were able to correct and bound them by Scripture but that every one had as fair a plea for deserting him as he for deserting the Church Whether the Clew would have brought him had he pursued it far enough the fifth Monarchy and Quakerism will inform you which though perhaps you may look on but as Bastards and think it strange they should be laid to his charge yet I cannot tell any thing should hinder you from acknowledging them his issue but their deformity for they profess Scripture as much as he and have by his principles and example as great a liberty to interpret it You will say they err in their Interpretation True but so did he and as long as they follow what seems the truth to them they do all that he did and if that seeming be a Plea for him against possession and authoty I see not how you can deny it them Against some of these and perhaps this Labyrinth has many more windings we are yet unacquainted with 't is possible you may have occasion to dispute some of the points you conceive agreed of and till experience satisfie you of the success you would do well not to be too confident of the favour of Scripture In the mean time pray do not take that for resolved which was never disputed As to what you say that we refuse to be ruled by Scripture you do us wrong for by acknowledging it the Word of God we bind our selves to accept whatsoever can be proved it teaches so that if it be true as you say that your Religion may be convinced out of Scripture your victory over us is certain Nay we have one Copie too which to us is authentical and which in Disputation we refuse not whereas when you are pressed you â—lie from one to another And how you that pretend to rely on Scripture can have fairer play shewn you then a Book brought which your Adversary acknowledges to be Scripture and professes an absolute obedience and submission to whatever it says indeed I cannot imagin Since then nothing more can be required on our sides pray charge us not with such injurious scandals and take it not amiss if I tell you with that plainness which in concerns of the soul being a duty of Charitie should never be look'd upon as a breach of civility that what you so loudly call the Word of God and with the Majestie of so great a Name endeavour to dazle your adversaries eyes while in truth you blind your own proves when faithfully and severely scan'd no other thing but your own meer fancy to which
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
sence of the Controversies between them Now if in this universal liberty of prophecying which this age affords us onely my interpretation do not yet passe for currant be pleas'd to reflect no necessity of answering your argument obliges me to rely upon it to which 't is enough to say that no such thing as you intend appears in the place you cite That the not being convinced will be an aggravation of punishment to the Jews in this sence that the pride and blindness caus'd by it which hinders them from coming by an humble reading to such a degree of truth as they might is a fault for which they shall be punished I readily grant but that their punishment shall be aggravated or they at all punished for not finding a rigorous evidence there where 't is not is a fancy in which I cannot perceive any colour of apparence ¶ 8. In the 16. Encounter pag. 151. Mr. White answers that 5th John brought to prove Scripture was sufficient to Salvation without Tradition why else did God command Moses to write those Laws he had given if that written word was not a perfect Rule which he commanded to be kept so carefully and to be read continually 31. Deut. 9 10 11. and to be copyed out for the King as Deut. 18.19 to read therein all the dayes of his life unto which God would have no addition because it was a perfect Rule and therefore when the Scribes and Pharisees would needs bring in their Traditions as you do to make void the Law of God you know what our Saviour denounced against them Now though we prove the sufficiency even of one Book of Scripture for to be a sufficient rule to salvation we are far from contradicting our selves as though by that reason all the rest every one of which is profitable might be burnt For thus I argue if one single Gospel be a sufficient rule to salvation much more are all the Books of the Bible sufficient without your Traditions ¶ 8. The places which here you cite out of Deuteronomy seem little to the purpose Your premises That God commanded his Laws to be written to be kept carefully and read continually to be copied out for the King c. being so vastly distant from the Conclusion Viz. That the written Word was a perfect Rule that my dulness cannot see any approach between them all this we see practis'd in our Laws in which notwithstanding we also see a manifest necessity of an Interpreter That God would therefore have no addition because it was a perfect Rule is a reason for which you are perfectly beholding to your own invention and which in things of this concern you would do well not to trust over-far at least you will pardon an Adversary if he do not As for the Scribes and Pharisees who you say brought in their Traditions to make void the Law of God when our cases are alike I shall think you do us no wrong to rank us with them But you will be pleased to stay till we do make void the Law of God for while we confess that the Word whether written or orally delivered is the Law only enquire after the meaning of the first which when understood we profess an intire submission to I conceive we go not about to make void but to fulfill the Law for certainly the wrong sense of the Law is not the Law and as certainly that cannot be the right sence which sets the two words whereof neither can vary from truth at variance one with another But to look into the thing their Traditions have nothing of common with ours but the Word which will inform you how dangerous a foundation words are when by the same sound are expressed things most different Tradition with us signifies a publike delivery to a multitude so as what was so delivered was setled in their understanding and rooted in their hearts by a constant visible practice Their Tradition was a close underhand conveyance from a few to a few neither so many nor so honest as to be secure from mistakes both accidental and wilful and yet the cheat if any hapned remaining by the secrecy undiscovered so that nothing more apt to make void the Law of God then such a Tradition as this Whereas since it cannot be denied but that what was orally delivered by Christ and his Apostles to their Disciples and by them practised was the Law of God you must either say we have violated their practise which since we affirm it to be our rule you cannot fairly do without evidencing what you say or you will have much ado your selves to avoid the imputation you lay upon us for evidently the Law is made void as much by contradicting the unwritten as the written word Now if we practise what the first Disciples and their Successors did and what they practised was the Law clearly he that contradicts our practice cannot refuse the company of the Scribes and Pharisees So that while by going no farther then the empty sound you fancie us neer the gulf they were swallowed up in your judgment fixed upon the thing and not diverted by the jugling noise will find your selves are deep in it I cannot leave this Subject without admonishing you of a piece of foul play in the Translation of the Bible I have heard objected to your side and which possibly may have had one effect upon your self 'T is that Traditions being sometimes commended sometimes reprehended in the Scripture though the Original word be the same in both cases yet the Translation varies it so as when it is taken in an ill sence to render it by the Word Tradition when in a good always to make use of some other An Artifice which if true argues much want of sincerity in the Translators and brings much hazard to the Reader The avoiding of which is the true reason the Church forbids the use of Scripture in Vulgar languages For the rest I cannot see but he that says This is sufficient to salvation says more then this is not necessary and by consequence Salvation would not be concerned if that more were not What you mean by Profitable I cannot tell if this that some persons find in some books what they would not in others then evidently those books are necessary to those persons if onely that their Faith is confirm'd or strengthned either this strength is necessary to Salvation at least for some and then again the books are necessary for them or unnecessary and then what prejudice to Salvation if they were burnt So that I doubt your fancy was too much possess'd with the sound to give your judgement leisure to examine the notions of the word Your consequence if one be sufficient all are more then sufficient is certainly good but you know we deny what you must next subsume conceiving that neither one nor all are sufficient ¶ 9. Our Saviour in that 5th of St. John does not Reprehend the Jews as Mr.
White seems to intimate for seeking Salvation out of Scripture where it is to be had but tacitely by that you think you have it there implies they were mistaken and did presume they had it who had it not by their own fault for want of conforming to it David often tearms the Law of God perfect 19. Psa 7. c. the Law of God is perfect converting the Soul the testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple therefore our Saviour sends the Jews to the Scripture which was sufficient to have taught them had they been duly qualified with Charity and Humility else he should have sent refractory Adversaries to an insufficient means in vain to learn and be convinced of that most material truth that he was the Messias I observe Mr. Whites note on the place Scripture Testimony is put in the last place not as he as the weakest argument it is not usual to set the weakest but rather the strongest argument in the last place therefore the third place does not disparage Scripture St. Peter seems to be of a contrary mind to Mr. White 2 Pet. 1.19 speaking before of the miraculous voice subjoynes we have also a more sure word of Prophesie c. Surely St Austin is cleerly of this mind as you may see hereafter that the written word is a surer Testimonie than Miracles ¶ 9. You except here against Mr. Whites answer to the 5th of St. John but wherein consists the force of the exception and weaknesse of his answer indeed I cannot comprehend Our Saviour say you does not reprehend the Jews as Mr. White seems to intimate but tacitely implies they were mistaken c. But why should not our Saviour reprehend them whom you acknowledge by their fault and mistake worthy of reprehension Again what does tacitely implying they were mistaken and this by their own fault differ from at least a tacite that is a seeming reprehension so that your exception seems to consist in saying the very same thing with him you except against But what is of more importance what 's all this to the purpose The place is brought to prove Scripture sufficient in the way mentioned to Salvation All that concerns the question of this place is that the Jews thought they had life in the Scriptures but so as you acknowledge that they were mistaken and had it not now let that be the Antecedent and they must be strange Magical Chains that will tye the Conclusion to it and make a good argument of this The Jews had not life in the Scriptures ergo Scriptures are sufficient to Salvation 'T was indeed their own fault they had it not and I doubt not but an humble and charitable diligence would have found in them the important truth our Saviour was insisting on But to make good the conclusion 't is not enough one point may appear to industry and piety but that all may so appear as to be victoriously maintain'd against obstinate and crafty peevishnesse The Attributes of perfection given by David none doubts to be justly due to the Law of God But what is justly due to it I conceive injustice to attribute to any thing which is not it Now Scripture contains but is not the Law and as we are far from the Blasphemy of suspecting any imperfection in the Law it self so the place is as far from any opposition to us for our question is not of the perfection of the Law none but Atheists or Infidels question it but of the perfection of the Letter in order to determine Controversies This we deny and deny also these places concern our difference For Mr. Whites note I conceive the place of an Argument too inconsiderable a dispute to take up many thoughts only this is cleer that our Saviour before he mentions Scripture appeals to the Testimony of John and his Father and seems to reprehend the Jews for not yielding to them which argues the consideration of Scripture was brought in more for superabundant condescendence than necessity And for St. Peter it would be easie by explicating the sence of the place to shew he is far from being of a contrary mind to Mr. White but it being not proper for an Answerer to go farther than his Opponent leads him till you expresse where his seeming contrariety lies give me leave to assure you there seems no such thing to me and in the mean time to desire your serious reflection on the words next following that Scripture is not of private interpretation lest while you pretend St. Peter contrary to Mr. White your self become contrary to St. Peter S. Austines mind when you make good your promise to shew it me I promise you shall see mine concerning it SECT IV. The two places 20. Jo. and 1. Luke No proof that the written word is a sufficient means for the Salvation of Mankind ¶ 1. THe first place of Scripture which Mr. White cannot hinder proving the Scripture a sufficient means for Salvation and Rule to decide all necessary Controversies is the 20th chap. and two last verses of the Gospel of St. John where be gives us an account of his Gospel I say of his Gospel and how could he intitle it the Gospel if it were but a part of the Gospel of Christ does he delude the world in the very first word and title to call that the Gospel which is but a little part of it if there be not all the essential parts of the Doctrine necessary to Salvation in each of the Evangelists as St. Mathew and St. Mark The Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ Mat. 1.1 It was not his whole businesse to set down the Genealogie that 's but the 8th part of the Book but the Life and Doctrine of our Lord and thus S. Mark begins The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and so he goeth on to lay down all the necessary actions and doctrines of salvation Can you imagin they should set themselves to write half a Gospel John 20. latter end S John confesseth there were many other things done by our Saviour which he had not written because they were too many to be written but he hath taken as many of them as are sufficient for us if we make the right use of them to bring us to salvation ¶ 1. You argue next from the word Gospel and pretend the world would be deluded if all the essential parts of the Doctrine necessary to salvation were not contained in every one of the Evangelists But I beseech you delude not your self into a belief that the word signifies more then it does I am not Critick enough to derive the English word which however would prove little more then impertinent labour but I have been taught the Latin or rather Greek word Evangelium signifying Originally no more then good or happy News or rather the reward given to whosoever brought such news is by Ecclesiastical use appropriated to the best and happiest Viz. that of the way to eternal
didim c. 12. Non dubitavit Dominus dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum signum corporis sui daret And Judam adhibuit convivium in quo corporis sanguinis sui figuram discipulis suis commendavit tradidit Si sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt non haberent omnino sacramenta non essent Ex hac autem similitudine plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est Ita sacramentum fidei fides est Sicut ergo caelestis panis qui caro Christi est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum revera sit sacramentum corporis Christi illius viz. quod visibile palpabile mortale in cruce positum est vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio Sic sacramentum fidei quo Baptismus intelligitur fides es Theodoret Dialog 1. Servator certè noster nomina commutavit corpori quidem idem quod erat symboli ac signi nomen imposuit symbolo autem quod erat corporis Causa mutationis manifesta est iis qui sunt divinis mysteriis initiati Volebat enim eos qui sunt divinorum mysteriorum participes non attendere naturam eorum quae videntur sed propter nominum mutationem mutationi quae fit ex gratia credere Qui enim quod natura est corpus triticum panem appellavit vitem seipsum rursus nominavit is symbola quae videntur appellatione corporis sanguinis honoravit non naturam quidem mutans sed naturae gratiam adjiciens So Marius Monachus sayes the Bread and Wine are offered in the Church as the Antitypes of his flesh and blood and they that partake of the Bread which appears do spiritually not bodily then as you grosly eat the flesh of the Lord. From all those and many more I might name I conclude that instead of Mr Whites malepertness page 31. the contrary is a madness seeing a man must shut his eyes first against the Sun then obstinately resolve come on it what will to embrace not only uncertainties for certainties but gross falshood for clear truth ¶ 2. You next make this Question if we have derived this Interpretation all along from the Apostles which supposes the foundation of all our Doctrines to be an Interpretation of Scripture a Position disownd as you know by us but if the Question be as I presume you meant it Whether we have derived this Doctrine all along from the Apostles I answer yes and appeal even to your self whether it were in the power of the Council of Lateran which you generally take to be the first which setled that doctrine or any other authority upon the face of the earth to impose upon whole nations tenets damnable to themselves and posterity and impossible not to be seen to be so what is there beyond the power of humane nature if this be not That mankind brought up in a beleef that the Blessed Sacrament is no more then plain bread made to signifie higher things indeed but only to signifie them should of a sudden unanimously run to Mass there adore the holy Sacrifice and by vast Alms acknowledg it propitiatory for both quick and dead Observe how slowly and warily the Council of Trent has been admitted into the several Provinces of Christendom into all which even the Catholick ones it has not yet nor perhaps ever will as to decrees of manners gain'd an entire entrance and confesse the nature of humane things endures not so extravagant a power even in Councils as to change the faith of the world which it professes with this perswasion that eternal happinesse depends upon it according to an arbitrary determination and that the making of a new word should make new truths nay make that true to day which was false yesterday There Sir are impossibilities in nature and may enter into a large fancy but never passe from thence into a sober Judgement nothing being more certain then that as great as the Power of a Council is it is so far from being able to introduce a new faith with a new word that it could never have introduced a new word which had not been found agreeable to the old faith Before I speak to your Fathers who you say are so clear against us give me leave to speak a little to your self and put you in mind that you and I are now disputing not of an obscure peece of Criticism or unconcerning point of Philosophy in which a mistake is of no greater concern than the credit of the mistaker but of Religion that is the way to Heaven in which if we misse we have the same hopes of comming thither that he has of getting to his journeys end by night who travels all day in a wrong road Our Souls therefore and their Salvation being concerned in this contest no plea ought to be produced but such a one of whose efficacy we are so far perswaded as to venture them upon it Now by the great candor you profess have the Fathers you cite so much authority with you are you content so to submit your judgement to theirs as when it appears what the path is they walked in to quit all others for it and constantly pursue it to eternity such and only such a disposition may make the pains requisite to so great an effect as clearing the sence of the Fathers in all points of controversy rationally charitable but if you have it not the whole businesse is turn'd into a wit-combat and the Question no more but this whether of us two are better vers'd in Antiquity and truly me thinks the concern of eternity deserves to be treated a little more seriously then if what is alleaged prove true nothing is advanced if false nothing lost which yet I take to be your case for if the Fathers say as you would have them you professe not to rely upon them if otherwise not to regard them But I am afraid your manner of treating the Fathers is more liable to exceptions then your treating them For to omit the want of rigorous exactnesse in some of your Testimonies which uses to accompany those citations which are perfectly your own you have brought a Quotation from S. Austin which you make look like an entire Text that proves when examined a collection of several sentences some not so much as his scattered through several books in several Tomes and cite for it a book never written at least by him This proceeding I dare say is not yours and I would intreat you since you refuse to rely upon the Fathers not to hazard your own or eternal happinesse or eternal misery upon the credit of you know best whom but in all likelyhood besides their being men that is in your
Pictures and the Toad whether you look upon the end or means The end of our Pictures is the Adoration of God a duty which since you cannot deny to be often necessary and never unfit you should deny us no occasion that prompts us to perform it And for the means We conceave that as no notion can be attributed to God but with much impropriety so we cannot chuse a better than what the Scripture attributes to him in the vision of the Prophet Daniel viz. antiquus Dierum We use therefore to put us in mind of God a Picture which presents to our eyes the reverence of Age which if you have any quarrel to blame the Scripture in which we find it and which by an universal custom was without memory of its beginning and therefore if St. Austins rule hold like to descend from the Apostles presently conveys to our Soul an apprehension first and then an adoration of God For the Toad what has it either from nature or custom to do with the King that he that falls down to it should be thought to honour him and what can hinder it from being judged even by the King himself pretended to be honoured by it a most ridiculous and unworthy action What you say next of the conformity of the reasons brought in the Acts to those in Isay I shall not examine since the conclusion you make being no more then that nothing like to God can be made I hold it as great impiety to deny it as I conceive there is impossibility of deducing from that truth any thing to the prejudice of this other which I am maintaining The rest are Quotations so carelesly gathered to say no more that I know not whether I should more blame your Credulity for I am sure they owe not their birth to the Candor you professe in giving your self up to the conduct of others who are so able to guide your self or pitty your misfortune that those you honour with so much confidence should so little deserve it The words of Lactantius are these Quare non est dubium quin Religio nulla est ubicunque Simulacrum est where by Simulacrum is plainly meant an Idol as by the whole intent of the book which is contra Gentiles by his subsequent proof and by these words almost immediately preceding Non sub pedibus quarat Deum nec a vestigiis suis eruat quod adoret evidence past dispute And had you seen the place you could not have doubted but his Simulacrum is a figure believed to be God and so adored which till we maintain lawful Lactantius is very unjustly brought to oppose us The 36 Can. of the Councel of Elibera runs thus Placuit picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere ne quod colitur aut adoratur in parietibus depingatur A decree which may as well be made now as then did Circumstances require it from the wisdom of our Governours For we say not that 'T is unlawful not to have Pictures in Churches but that 't is not unlawful to have them Now because the prudence of those Fathers judged them inconvenient in those times of persecution and that place for this Councel of no more then 19 Bishops concerns only Spain Can any Candour infer they judged them absolutely unlawful and unpermittable to any Place Time or Circumstance Besides as far as probability may be allow'd to interpret this Prohibition it proceeded from the reverence had of Sacred Images which it therefore forbad lest they should run the hazard of being disgracefully or unhandsomly defaced in those unsetled times either by the moysture of the wall on which they were painted or the malice of their Persecutors impossible to be avoyded while they were fix'd to the Fabrick For what else can Ne in parietibus quod colitur depingatur signifie for so it is and not as you cite it That nothing be painted which is adored Which if true as 't is much the likelyest to be so of any thing hitherto suggested to my thoughts It will be very fine that their care to preserve Images should be turn'd into an Argument to overthrow them I cannot find any such words as you mention in Origen nor do believe any else will having read the place you cite with some diligence That piece of the Epistle of Epiphanius is looked upon as a foul and manifest forgery The reasons you may see in Bellarmin de Imag. lib 2. c. 9. And for the last passage attributed by you to the 7th Council of Constantinople it happened in the 7th general Council viz. the 2d of Nice and the words are imposed upon Epiphanius by Gregorius who disputed for the Hereticks but plainly deny'd to be his by Epiphanius Diaconus who argued for the Catholicks Pray take care what credit you give to persons who cloath a manifest forgery openly detected in a general Council with the authority of such a man as Epiphanius and so openly detected that 't is impossible your Author who ever he be should be ignorant of it SECT V. The Conclusion ¶ 1. FRom all I have said I cannot but conclude 1st that Scripture is a sufficient Rule to Salvation If you ask me how I know Scripture to be the word of God I answer I have no cause to doubt it no more than whether Tullyâ—◠〈◊〉 Aristotles works be theirs yea lesse I see 〈◊〉 evident by universal tradition in respect of place and time All Monuments of Antiquity sufficiently prove it by comparing passages and circumstances of all times since those books were first written If the only Argument to move me to this Assent were only your present Churches assertion I confesse what you use to urge I must receive all she says But then I think I must as well receive the Alcoran to be the word of God because the Mahumetan Church sayes so ¶ 1. FRom what has been said I cannot but conclude that Scripture is so far from being a sufficient Rule to Salvation meaning by Rule such a one as we have all this while been talking of that to rely upon it with no better an Interpreter of the Letter then the Letter it self is the way to destroy all means first and then all hopes of Salvation That principle being the true gate through which all the Sects which with their numerous swarms over-burden and afflict Christianity have entred For what the Protestant Prelacy alleages to justiâ—â—e their Schism from their Catholic â—uperiors the very same is a plea for Presbytery against Prelacy for Anabaptism against Presbytery for Independency against all and how far the Chain may be stretched which already reaches to the 5th Monarchy and Quakerism none knows But this I am sure of that every linck is as strong as the first For the reason you give why you beleeve Scripture to be Scripture viz. because you have no reason to doubt it 't is an invincible demonstration of the force of prejudice and more of reason I see nothing in it Had