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
whose easiness if the Heretick have won any credit upon he must be the veriest Dunce in the world if he be not able to any crime whatsoever to frame some either to them plausible or at least confused Defence which they not understanding his craft will make use of his Authority to perswade them his innocence suffers not by desert but by want of capacity in them to see it ¶ 10. All that plausible discourse of the possibility of Scripture-corruption only teacheth me wariness and diligence to use all means withall confirming my Faith that it is the Word of God seeing so many contrary minds could never have combin'd to forge it nor those various Lections crept in had it not been universally in respect of time and place received ¶ 10. That something was commended to Writing by divine Authority you gather well but that the Books we have and as we have them are that somthing is if it be part of your Faith what you will not find any thing able to confirm Suppose an Atheist or wittie Infidel whose faithfulness to his nature requires severe demonstration reply to your discourse that although contrary mindes could not combine to a forgery yet they may be deceived by a forger who for any thing appears to the contrary may have adulterated the first Copie of the Original from which adulterated Copie all our Lections may have been derived What return could you make to this man Could all your wariness and diligence deny but that this case might happen which if it could what confidence could motion to him the receiving those Books as Infallible and Divine which he sees may have been corrupted and you are unable to shew but that they have been so Reflect therefore if you please what a pretty confirmation you have of your Faith which can neither satisfie another nor establish your self upon a foundation of any certainty and less then certainty and that absolute and rigorous cannot in these matters be a foundation I pass therefore to the next Section after I have observed that this neither proves there is so much as one corruption less in the Bible then your Adversary thinks may be and that although it had proved many less it would nothing have advanced your purpose since that Corruptions may be there that is for ought you know are there does as much destroy your pretence to certaintie as if you knew they actually were there SECT II. Incertainty of the Sence of Scripture from the bare letter ¶ 1 THe next material Question is how to understand these Scriptures which we may see sufficiently to agree because the Original Languages are not now commonly known equivocations incident to all writings and words c. ¶ 1 THat which you call the next material Question I do not comprehend how you come to state in the manner you do I presume you intend to oppose the 8th and following Sections of the 2d Dialogue where several incertainties necessarily springing out of the variety of Translations Copies c. being already handled is examined what must needs follow from this that the Scripture in the supposition there were but one authentical Copy extant is a Book written in words of men So that the Question there seems not to be of the method how to understand the Scripture but of this whether they may be understood with that certainty which in our businesse is requisite ¶ 2. Here I wonder at the excellent Mr. White not to have prevented this my difficulty that the same difficulty lies as heavy yea heavier upon Tradition for that came by the same way as you will confesse first delivered in those Original Tongues and must be Translated by word of Mouth and Expounded even into our Native Languages before we can be made sensible of them and is it not as hard for me to tell you that in English which another told me in Latin as for me or another better learnt than my self to Translate so much written to my hand in Latine into English surely this later is the exactest way ¶ 2. Here you must give me leave to wonder too but 't is that you raise such a difficulty and attribute so much heaviness to it upon so light ground Truly I am so far from confessing that Scripture and Tradition came by the same way that I conceive it impossible they should do so For Scripture contains a determinate number of words which are the same to whoever reads them Tradition is not at all confin'd but uses fewer and more obscure to ingenious persons more clearer to those who are duller and consequently is not subject to translation since certainly I cannot be said to have translated if what another hath told me in 500 words of French I tell you in 100 of English What you assume therefore that Christianity was first delivered in the Original tongues is in this sense true that it was first preached to those Nations whose Vulgar Languages were those which we call Original but that gives you no pretence to add 't was translated into ours it being delivered neither to them nor us in a set form of words which might be translated but so preached to both in our several Vulgar Languages that the people understood the meaning of what their Preachers delivered to them and were not left to guess at it by scanning the various and therefore doubtful signification of the words they express'd it in So that Tradition is not subject to any of the uncertainties which writing cannot be exempt from a truth which the next word expounded seems to confess For it being the business of Exposition to render the Text clear if the Gospel were by tradition expounded to the people there must have been a great fault in the Expositor if there remained any uncertainty or doubt in them ¶ 3. You will say perhaps not the words but the sense was delivered by Tradition at first in several expressions Answ Yet still by words liable to all those difficulties incident to Scripture yea greater when they again transmit it to others of another language Scripture too has the same truths essential to Christianity in divers expressions several places almost in every Book and whether this be not the surer way of transmitting truths let Papias his example witness who pretended to hear the Apostles themselves teach the Doctrine of Millenaries had he transmitted the very words in Writing others having judgement which he wanted as Eusebius would have seen his mistake by this appears in general Writing the surest way Litera scripta manet ¶ 3. 'T is true then that not a set form of words but a determinate sence came down to us by Tradition by the means of words indeed but not as you say liable to all those difficulties incident to Scripture For though words are necessary to both yet there is this difference that in Traditon where by the observation of the Master or notice of the Scholler any doubt is perceived 't is
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
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.
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
consideration of circumstances plainly refuse As for that part of your seventh Paraph where you deny the Council was forced to conclude out of Tradition the desire of serving you makes me wish my self a better Historian then I am But I think the Epistle of S. Athanasius to the Africans which you will find in Theoderet lib. 1. c. 8. will sufficiently clear that Truth to you since 't will inform you that whatever words the Fathers of the Council could chuse out of Scripture to express the Catholick Faith in the Arians knew how to elude by shewing the same words to have other sences in other places which at last forced the Fathers to invent a new word and gave occasion to the Arians of murmuring that they were condemned by unwritten words that is not by Scripture but by Tradition Since what has formerly been said will I hope be an ingenuous Answer to the question of your eighth Paraph and satisfie you that Tradition is not subject to the same inconveniences with words there remains no more but to vindicate Mr White from the inconstancy you charge him with to which there will I think no more be needful then barely to represent the case to your second thoughts Our faith you know must be both beleeved and expressed the expressions he conceives it sit should be uniform and that the best way in order to it is to make use as much as may be of those which the Holy Ghost in Scripture has before made use of But since expression supposes the knowledg of what it is we would express he holds there is some other way to come to this knowledg besides looking upon the expressions which are consequent to the knowledg whereas the way to it is before it and that the expressions naked of themselves and left unguarded of other helps are not sufficient to preserve and secure the truths they contain the Positions then are both true That the Scripture is the best Rule to govern our expressions by and yet not sufficient to regulate our Beleef and the contradictions you fancy between them proceeds not from his inconstancy but your inadvertence ¶ 9. Of late I have read over Iraeneus diligently endeavouring to see the Rule he takes for to confute the Errors he writes against and cannot see but you are out One or two places indeed I have found seeming to favour you which since I find your Writers make use of yet if I understand any thing he is your enemie He says indeed in his fifth Book cap. 4. What if the Apostles had not left us Scriptures ought we not to have followed the order of Tradition which they delivered c. But does not this imply we need not use crutches seeing we have legs some Nations he says had no written Word yet had the same Doctrine which was written What then As long as they have and retain the Doctrine purely whether in writing or in their hearts it is well but though the Apostles did leave some Nations the Gospel without Writing it does not follow that they would have always retained and kept it in succeeding ages purely where is there any particular Church under heaven that hath to this day kept the doctrines of salvation from the Apostles entirely without any writing He might challenge his Adversaries to shew their doctrine came from the Apostles by Tradition living presently after those times wherein some that conversed with the Apostles lived and when all Churches agreed as in Iraeneus his time in matters of Faith and that unity was then a good assurance they all came from one fountain but the case is altred those ancient Churches afterwards were divided and then whom must a man beleeve when each say they have the way to heaven ¶ 9. I am sorry your opinion and mine disagree so much about Irenaeus whom though I cannot profess to have read so exactly as you do yet I dare say I am not mistaken as I think you are in the sence of those places I have read And first the edge of those two you bring in our behalf seems not at all taken off by the Answers you give them For since in case no Scriptures had been left he refers us to the order of Tradition plainly supposing Tradition would have done our business and that we had not even in that case been left without a rule it had been non-sence to refer us to a rule which would not have been a rule when tryed and had he thought so he would certainly have told us there had been in that case no rule at all and if so then pray why is not Tradition as much a rule with Scriptures as without them They may add to its force by their testimony but take away nothing of its efficacy For that the truths which the Apostles taught were written sure makes them no whit the lesse truths and if it may be known what 't was they taught as you see Irenaeus is of the opinion it may by Tradition I hope the security is equal whether it were or were not commended to writing This place then which by the way is not in the fifth but third Book makes it very evident Irenaeus held another rule besides Scripture that is Scripture not the onely Rule which is your Tenet Again since some Nations had the Doctrine but had no Scriptures does it not follow undeniably that there was another means besides Scripture to preserve the Doctrine amongst them and further that the Apostles trusted not to writing the preservation of the Doctrine they taught them which had they intended for a means much more the only means of doing it they cannot be imagined to have omitted I learn therfore from this place both the efficacy of Tradition which actually did preserve the Apostles doctrine without writing and the judgment of the Apostles who left their doctrine in these Nations not to Scripture but Tradition to be preserved But it follows not say you they would have retained their doctrine pure in succeeding ages although they did so till Irenaeus's time And pray why does it not follow provided they would still make use of the means by which they retain'd pure doctrine till that time and what time shall be assigned in which the same cause shall leave off producing the same effect since confessedly tradition did preserve the Doctrine till then you should prove not barely affirm it could do so no longer But the truth is and your own clear thoughts will certainly shew it you that rule was so far from a likelihood of betraying the truths committed to her that it cannot be contrived into a possibility that it should betray them for since the Apostles left them the truth as long as they retained what they received from the Apostles and admitted nothing else which is the method of Tradition pray what door could Error find to creep in at 'T was not therefore possible for them to make shipwrack of their faith till they had first
the Valentinians that I mean which Irenaeus speaks to in this place was as you may see in the beginning of the thirteenth Chapter that none but S. Paul was acquainted with the truth as having only received it by revelation whereby all his Arguments in the precedent Chapter from the authorities of S. Peter S. Stephen S. Philip c. had been overthrown to strengthen them he proves in the thirteenth chapter that not only S. Paul but the rest of the Disciples also understood the Mystery of Salvation and in the 14 particularly S. Luke and these two Viz. Scripture is not the sole rule of Faith S. Paul alone was acquainted with the Mysteries of Salvation an exact studier of Irenaeus and impartial lover of truth would have to be the same As to the place it self this I conceive to be your Argument S. Paul delivered all he knew to S. Luke S. Luke writ all was delivered him therefore S. Paul knew all that was necessary to salvation S. Luke writ all was necessary to salvation To which I have already answered that though I should admit the Conclusion little would be advanced in order to our Question since we deny not but all may be containd in Scripture some way or other particularly or under general heads but that all is so contain'd as is necessary for the salvation of mankind to which effect we conceive certainty and to that evidence requisite neither of which are within the compass of naked words left without any guard to the violent and contrary storms of Criticism But I conceive you do the Saint wrong and understand the word all in a sence far different from what he did for having learnt from S. John so little a Book as S. Lukes could not hold truly all till you can prove he meant his Book for a rule of Faith and intended to deliver in it all things necessary to salvation I must beleeve 't is no ordinary violence that can force such a sence upon it as has neither a likely nor any ground but since your own profession and large citations shew both a confidence and esteem of Irenaeus give me leave with that serious earnestness which the concern of eternity for no less is in Question requires to presse your own words upon you and desire you to observe and impartially weigh the Truth while I represent the proceedings of Irenaeus to you and make you judge whether of us take part with the Father whether with his Adversaries The Error of the Valentinians was built upon certain obscure places of Scripture or rather indeed upon certain deceitful reasonings in Philosophy as your denial of Transubstantiation for example is and a denial even of the B. Trinity if you pleas'd might be but perceiving the Rules of Christianity did not allow that for a foundation of Faith they endeavoured to support the edifice by Scripture bragging no doubt among their followers it was clearly on their side but being press'd to a Tryal giving in evidence the obscure places mentioned Against this Irenaeus contends that Parables because capable of many Solutions are not to be relyed upon and consequently since only the true sense of Scripture is Scripture that Scripture is vainly pretended where the many sences leave us uncertain which is the true one Then examining the places for his side and shewing them both in clearness and number to over-ballance the other he overthrows their pretence and preserves the majesty of Scripture to his party The same do we to you who building most of your mistakes in Faith upon mistakes in Philosophy pretend plain Scripture and when it comes to tryal bring places capable of as many sences as the Valentinian parables were of solutions We answer as he did that there is no relying upon such places And examining those we conceive to be of our side and comparing them with yours both in clearness and number conclude your sences not true and Scripture not only not for you but against you Yet all this while neither he nor we think Scripture for this disputing out of it the only rule of Faith whether it be or no being not in these cases our question But since as the Valentinians did then you will now undertake to prove Scripture is against us and as Irenaeus then so we now acknowledge nothing is to be held against Scripture we do as he did shew you cannot make good your undertaking Next The Valentinians by the priviledg of their neerness to the Primitive times better acquainted with the grounds of faith then you would have justified their Interpretations by Tradition an evident proof what it was which those first Ages held the Interpreter of Scripture and that so undeniably that even Hereticks pretended to it What says Irenaeus to this Does he answer as you do that Tradition is not to be regarded but the cause to be decided by Scripture and that the only Rule by no means but carefully and diligently proves Tradition to be against them Which he also declares to be not what they pretended by abuse of those words Sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos whispering corner conveyances of one to another such as the Cabala you object to us but the open plain profession of those Churches to whom the Apostles left their doctrine and its practice and among which he conceives that of the Roman Church alone sufficient This publike Testimony as he so we lay claim to and profess with him would be sufficient even though there were no Scriptures at all which nevertheless since Gods infinite goodness has provided for us we do not understand the force of the former impaired by the addition of a new force But that belonging to another question give me leave to end the present one with this confidence that you cannot but see we follow the Fathers steps and you those who follow the Valentinians and that it appears by what hath been said your Minor neither is nor since you have failed in likelihood ever will be proved PART II. Tradition the Rule of Faith SECT I. ¶ 1 Certainty of Tradition ¶ 1. IN the third Dialogue the certainty of your Traditions having endeavoured to take away the certainty of Scripture I think in vain is endeavoured I was glad of the promise to do the work only by reason and common sence without any quotations of Authors because I want that vast knowledge in Antiquity which is requisite for the deciding of this Question by it but I see my hopes are frustrated for your cause neither is here nor can be proved by reason alone without that reading which yet I want The Reasons here or any other that may be managed without quotations of Authors I am ready to see and examine and as ready to subscribe unto if they convince me but I thinke it unreasonable for you to pretend to prove your Religion infallible and yet bring no positive Arguments that are of themselues sufficient to convince but only to stand upon your guard
presently explicated by other words till it be perfectly taken away and the thing understood Whereas Scripture is confin'd to those precise words it contains concerning which if either your self have any doubt or another raise it in you you have no means of satisfaction for how can you come to the knowledge of the thing signified while you are at a loss about the sign that sign which is all you have to trust to being to explicate another thing not it self Now if you reflect that the Gospel was preacht or dâ—livered by word of mouth with that care and time that it was not only well understood by the people but setled deeply in their souls by a constant practise and high esteem you will see that since they understood the doctrine delivered to them and could not forget it by reason of their constant practise nor lose it by reason of their multitude Tradition has not one of the difficulties made to Scripture This advantage too which orall delivery has above writing ought not be forgotten that the liveliness of the voice and aptness of the gesture and such companions of words fitly pronounced do infinitely contribute to make them be understood We see Ironical expressions differ no otherwise from serious ones then in the motion of a lip or eye and yet how vast is the difference Nay the actions of the speaker suited to and joyned with the circumstance in which he speaks is perhaps of all Interpreters the best and admits the least doubt of his meaning Writing therefore necessarily wanting these helps must of necessity want also a most effiacious means of making the words it presents to the eye intelligible which these enjoy that are convey'd to us by the ear That Scripture has couched in iâ— most if not all truths essential to Christianity in divers Expressions I conceive to be true but if you will compare it to Tradition you must add that these truths are indisputably acknowledged and practised both with constancy and high esteem by a multitude and I shal then not think it inferiour to Tradition with which perhaps 't will be the very same And for the example of Papias I am sure it is nothing against me it being evident there want the conditions necessary to Tradition Viz. Of being openly and constantly preached to such a multitude as can certainly witness of it that perfectly understand it and practise according to it And I think it makes for me since in all likelihood the error proceeded from this that the words used in discourse by the Apostle were mis-understood by some of the hearers and what hapned to them when they were spoken I know nothing can hinder them from being liable to after they are written So that even that example concludes that all error proceeds from the deceitfulness of set words which Tradition not being tied to is also freed from the inconveniences they are the occasion of ¶ 4. We may to our comfort remember this Age affords such as are as well skilled in the Originals yea letter then many Learned men that lived several hundreds of years before us I confess what they are forced to acknowledge some things we cannot yet know by reason of those difficulties No more could the Church for above 12 hundred years ago yet as then so now we have sufficient though not all light to salvation only out of Scripture Because we cannot understand all things some whereof of in Scripture S. Peter tells us are hard to be understood shall we say we can understand nothing certainly Why should we doubt our Saviour was born of the Virgin Mary more then that we understand any sentence we hear commonly from one another although there be no other way then Scripture to know it We make no doubt but we understand a place of Plato Aristotle Tully c. and cannot God write as intelligibly ¶ 4. What the learning is of men of this age I conceive very unnecessary to examine especially since all the use you make of it is to affirm confidently That we have sufficient light to salvation onely out of Scripture to which all I shall return is that so critical an Exceptor against Arguments should not himself use for one the Conclusion barely said over That we can understand nothing certainly is not Mr Whites Position but that we cannot understand enough for the salvation of mankind with certainty requisite to that effect and till you say something against him I have nothing to say against you Why we should doubt of our Saviours being born of the Virgin Mary I know not and were there no other Readers of Scripture but such as you and I perhaps none would but if any do as I think Helvidius did and you have no other means of convincing him but by words which a subtle Critick will shew are capable of other senses pray how will you hinder a multitude with whom an opinion of learning and holiness has gotten him credit from following him into damnation of the parity between Scripture and Aristotles writings you will give me occasion to speak more fully by and by ¶ 5. Surely God would be understood by all seeing he commands all not only to read his Law but to write it upon their posts and doors and Phylacteries and be continually talking of those things that are necessary for salvation Deut. 6.7 and by his Apostles tells us that he intends so to doe not always to speak in Parables John 16.25 26. and in 2 Cor. 4.2 3 4. not handling the Word of God deceitfully but by manifestation of the truth commending our selves to every mans conscience in the sight of God but if our Gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them that beleeve not lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ who is the image of God should shine unto them Prov. 8.9 They are all plain to him that understandeth and right to them that find knowledge but what more plain then that in Hab. 2.2 And the Lord answered me and said Write the vision and make it plain upon Tables that he may run that readeth ¶ 5. For the citations you fill the next Paraph with I profess I am at a loss to find any opposition in them to what I am maintaining The Dialogues say Equivocation the nature of the Original tongues their being ceased c. causes an uncertainty of the sense of Scripture and you reply that God commanded his Law to be written upon Posts Doors and Philacteries that he intended to speak to his Apostles without Parables that S. Paul did not handle the word of God deceitfully that the words of wisdom are plain to him that understandeth and that the Prophet was commanded to write a Vision plain Does any of this or all prove that equivocation c. brings in no incertainty or that it and the rest are not found in Scripture This is what I conceive
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
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
principles not to be rely'd on because fallible engaged by interest or affection into a partiality which should be more suspicious to you then the bare fallibility of such men as the Fathers and whoever they be I may safely say not comparable either in learning or virtue to those great ornaments of the Church of God If ever you think fit to look into them take my counsel and look with your own not other mens eyes 'T is your self are concerned and I conceive it injustice to yield a submission to any body else which you deny the Fathers Next do not only read them by starts I mean as an occasional citation invites you but study them and persevere with diligence from the beginning to the end of that piece you desire to be Master of and then if you be truly unprejudic'd and bring a willingnesse to embrace what you find I am as confident you will find the truth this way as I think it extreamly difficult not to say impossible you should come to it by any other It would perhaps not have been improper to consider a little in this place the nature of Arguments drawn from Fathers for neither do we hold this consequence necessary A father affirms this therefore this is true But having been already lonlonger then I intended give me leave to refer you for that point to Mr Whites Controversie Logick and only propose you this short reflexion that since a Father is a Father in as much as he propagates that kind in which he is a Father that is in our case the Church and the Church is a company of faithful and who are faithful is to be known by the rule of faith that point must first be setled before any claim can be made either to father or Church since without it you can neither affirm of any man that he is a Father nor of any company of men that 't is a Church Farther since a Father as such is not a Doctor or deducer of Consequences for so every Doctor of Divinity would be a Father nor a Homilist nor Commentator for the same reason you will find the word strictly look'd into imports a propagator of Christian faith by witnessing what the Church held in the time for which he witnesseth but so as that the witness by reason either of his eminency in learning dignity of place or both or by being an avowed Champion of the Churches Doctrine against her enemies cannot be conceived ignorant of the Churches sence in his days To go therefore properly to work your Testimonies from Fathers should be from men thus qualified speaking as witnesses the words though of the same men if under other capacities being not properly the words of Fathers but of Schollers Preachers or what other capacity they speak in And to these just bounds would you as you ought confine your quotations alas how small a shew would Antiquity afford you perhaps not four in her whole extent Your present appearance will I doubt by this reflexion be discovered to be made out of false Musters nevertheless in condescendence to you let us now examine what you say and let me wonder what you say first viz. That the first Ages were clearly against us Pray what have you or can you have to justifie an Assertion of that sound perhaps you will say the writings of these times But I should think that those who do not write are infinitely more considerable in number and no lesse in value then those who do and do not believe you can assign a reason why the Title and credit of so glorious a title as an Age should be taken from them who certainly best deserve it but of whose sense you have no account at all to be given to those few who have given an account of their sence but do not at al deserv the title Again even of those few who have written how many are lost and never descended down to us who for any thing we know to the contrary may not have been of the same opinion with those whose writings we have If I should write now and you write against me but so as my Book have the fortune to be preserved yours not Will you not think the Age wrong'd if a thousand years hence they conclude that to be the sence of it which they find in my Book Cast up your accounts therefore faithfully and you will find the sum total of your Age to be two or three Writers in every hundred years who are so far from making the sence of the first Ages to be against us for they are of our side too that they do not so much as make it appear what it was Yet since you seem to put a confidence in them let us see to whom they will be more favourable Your first from Irenaeus we look upon as so far from being clearly against us that we use to produce it on our behalf conceiving it expresses very clearly that what was common Bread before consecration does by vertue thereof accepta vocatione cease to be what it was and becomes Eucharist in which are both earthly qualities colour taste c. and heavenly substance the body of Christ A second view will I am confident shew you this to be the sence of the place and cause you to agree in this particular with Luther who in his Defens verb. Coen is of opinion that the vocare Dei did make the things to be vvhat they vvere called and that Irenaeus used the word in that sence The next from Tertullian is accompanied with as great though a more easie mistake his obscurity being very often not penetrable but to laborious and obstinate industry but if you please to look upon the place and throughly consider it you will find his meaning was not that this which he says our Saviour made his body was only a figure of his body but that what anciently was a figure of his body he then made his body for his whole design being to prove that our Saviour fulfilled the figures of the Old Testament the place objected provs particularly the fulfilling that of Bread which being by the Prophet conjiciamus lignum in panem ejus used for a Figure of his body he says is the reason why he took rather Bread then any other thing to change into his sacred body The following ones all but Theodorets have the same difficulty all witnessing the Blessed Eucharist to be an Antitype a figure a sign c. of the body and blood of Christ and that it is so and usually and well called so we agree but that the Fathers ever meant it so a Figure or sign as to exclude the thing signified we deny and conceive it impossible you should prove In what sense they called it so you may if you please learn from the last words of your Testimony attributed by you to S. Austin contra Didim who never wrote any such Book that I know of but found in the Canon Hoc
though Mr. White could not you saw was good if the Fathers held non-admission they held no prayer because say you they knew not before admission every mans condition This you see I have denied but put case I had not I am afraid you would come short of your account S. Austin and other Fathers are alledged by Veron an excellent French Controvertist to maintain prayer to Saints even while they doubted whether these Saints heard the prayers made to them And you may reflect that prayer to Saints is a part of Tradition rivetted into our hearts by an universal and undeniable practise but whether souls freed from the commerce of bodies receive intelligence of what passes among bodies and this again either from the nature of their state or divine revelation Whether the return of our prayers to Saints be from their mediation or only from the goodness of God making use of our affection to creatures like our selves to give us those benefits which otherwise we had never demanded and so never received and the like are School questions in which speculative wits according to the difference of their learning and studie have met with either truth or error but acting all the while as Schollers and never doubting the lawfulness of the practice which occasioned all these disputes and which they saw firmly setled upon a more solid foundation then all their School-learning for had they done so they had disputed it as well as the rest To take then all parts of your Argument t is false the Fathers held non-admission is false that non-admission imports ignorance of our condition lastly 't is false that non admission and ignorance both of them exclude prayers to Saints that is in the Fathers judgement for the Question is not what is true or false but what they held to be so since they prayed to them even then when they doubted whether they were heard or no. Now I beseech you reflect if to reject such arguments be a sign of a rotten cause what it is to be perswaded by them and perswaded in matters of no less concern then eternity ¶ 2. Suppose that be Mr. Whites meaning the Saints know what we pray to them before they are admitted into heaven is that your Tenet To what purpose else does he bring Jeremies praying in the Macchabees to say that he prays in general as we do for the whole Church though we know not its particular state is nothing to the purpose the Question is Whether we may pray to the Saints and in order to our praying to them whether they can know every particular mans prayer if you say they do you and your Apocriphal Book contradict the undoubted Word of God by his Prophet Isai 63.16 Abraham knows us not and Isaac is ignorant of us which your S. Thomas can no otherwise solve then by imagining the Saints before Christ were not yet admitted to Heaven ¶ 3. Here comes your convincing as you think Argument against the knowledg of Saints from the Prophet Isaiah Araham knows us not and Israel is ignorant of us but I would beg of you not to put so much confidence in words without a full mastery of their sense for 't is the sense of Scripture is truly Scripture You have found indeed the word ignorant and knows us not but what is meant by that word and what that is is the whole difficulty you settle not You know that word Luke 13.25 27. is applied to the Master of the House Mat. 25.12 to the Bridegroom and I hope you will not from it argue any ignorance in that Master and that Bridegroom Mark 13.32 The knowledge of the day of judgment is denied to that Son who being so man that he is also God cannot sure at any time be imagined to want his omniscience Since therefore 't is manifest those words have in Scripture many senses what possibility is there by the bare sound without further inquirie to conclude any one The Context and your own later Translations which for ignorant put acknowledg not perswade me they have here the same sense as when God is said not to know impious persons But 't is not for me to prove but to shew you have not done so and in the mean time to wonder so excellent a wit should make such a bravado with a Bulrush which nevertheless I impute to the weakness of your cause whose armory affords no better weapons ¶ 3. That which Mr. White proves out of the parable of Dives praying to Abraham is as ridiculous for if it be a proof it is either nothing to the Question or contrary to that Scripture named But the principal answer for the former are but trifles signs of a rotten cause Saints are admitted to Heaven before the day of Judgment therefore seeing God and so all things know our prayers and so sit to be prayed unto But seeing this naked groundless not proved Assertion is the principal answer how chance not a word to the Argument that prevented and utterly destroyed it the Fathers did hold the contrary Is this a satisfaction to the Argument only to say I do not beleeve it Be Judge your self and give a better ¶ 3. You call Mr. Whites touch upon the Parable of Dives ridiculous and say 't is either nothing to the Question or contrary to the Scripture named but since you do no more then say so you will pardon me if I have not that captivation of my understanding to your words which you refuse the Church and give me leave to put you in mind you cannot affirm it contrary to that Scripture till you be assured what that Scripture is and farther since Scripture cannot be contrary to it self 't is lawful for me to beleeve you may as soon miss the sence of it as Mr. White whose principal Answer you in the next place call a naked groundless not proved Assertion and for naked I think you mean want of either proof or ground for sure you will not except against the want of Rhetorick and then 't is the same with one of the other expressions To the first of which I reply he has exprest the ground of it Viz. Tradition and to the second that being the Defendant it was not his part to prove But how chance no word to the Argument According to the small insight I have in Logick no argument either requires or can have a fuller answer then a plain denial of its premises which I take to be done here The Argument is this Divers Fathers you say the Fathers held non-admission before the day of judgment wherefore they must also hold no prayer to Saints Now if I aver the admission of Saints before the day of Judgment is taught by Tradition I think I say also that it was taught by the Fathers and consequently deny they taught the contrary and must beleeve till I am better instructed in the Laws of Disputations when thus much is said to an Argument more ought not
and perhaps cannot be said Let me add nevertheless in this place that were the antecedent true of divers Fathers if the Consequent be recommended by Tradition we must either reject the Apostle or refuse to admit of any Plea not only of Fathers but even Angels against it ¶ 4. But to consider this principal Assertion by it self what ground for it Can you prove the Fathers held so gross absurdity and shew clearly this Tradition came from the Apostles that Saints departed have an infinite participation or omniscience communicated to them from God as is necessary to make them fit objects to be prayed unto knowing all prayers of every one every where that are offered up to them I much desire to see this proved ¶ 4. You next demand the ground of this Assertion and whether the Omniscience of Saints be descended by Tradition from the Apostles No Sir I have told you already it belongs not to Faith but Divinity where if you please to take the pains necessary you may find it proved true but not of faith such things belong to the School not the Church who will not refuse Communion to any for refusing to beleeve it The practice of praying to Saints Tradition has by immemorial custome setled her in possession of how that practice is reconciled to Philosophy whether by the omniscience of Saints by divine revelation or other disposition of providence is disputed in the Schools while her aim of bringing her Subjects to the esteem and practice of vertue by the esteem of those whom the practise of it has made so glorious is perfectly attained without those subtleties which have no other influence upon our actions then as fences or out-works which it belongs to Divinity both to maintain and enlarge but so as that an Error in it does not weaken her hold which is built upon a much stronger foundation Mean time while you ask if the Fathers held so gross absurdities if you mean omniscience of Saints you see I maintain it to be no absurdity but a great and certain truth if you mean non omniscience I hope you will hereafter be less earnest in maintaining what your self call a gross absurdity in either case give me leave to tell you that for divers Fathers for that expression the Fathers which imports them all fair dealing will not receive into its place to hold an opinion in matters of learning which after ages discovered unmaintainable I take to be a conceit very far from absurdity ¶ 5. Have not the holy Angels the same sight of God as Saints whether Saints are admitted or no is not so certain as that the Angels are in heaven may they not as well be prayed unto you must confess there 's no reason against the one that holds not against the other and I think your Michael Masses shew you allow both and so run quite blanck against that Word which proves your Tradition here false 2 Col. 18. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humilitie and worshipping of Angels intruding in those things which he hath not seen vainly puft up by his fleshly mind ¶ 5. That Holy Angels may as well be prayed to as Saints I freely grant and to what you object out of Col. 2.18 I answer it is against those who so relyed upon the mediation of Angels that they denied the meditation of Christ as S. Chrysostom upon this place testifies Sunt quidam qui dicunt non oportere per Christum adduci sed per Angelos S. Chrys Col. 2. there are some who say we must not be reconciled and have access to God the Father by Christ but by Angels An Heresie which I think is attributed to Simon Magus and called in his followers the Religion of Angels But the Text seems to need no other Comment then a faithful scanning of it for it does not barely admonish the Colossians to beware of such as endeavoured to seduce them into the worship of Angels but so as not to hold the head that is such a worship as took away or denied the head and 〈◊〉 â—â—consistent with our duties to it Which words being immediate to those you cite had in my opinion been proper for your consideration before you had setled your judgment upon the place which is imperfect without them ¶ 6. I cannot see but your Tenet is point blank contrary to the Scripture howsoever you palliate it over and blind your eyes with new coin'd Distinctions S. John Apoc. 22.8 9. went to worship the Angel who in the 19th chap. vers 10. had told him he was one of his brethren the Prophets that kept the sayings of that Book himself surely he could not look upon him now as God yet was forbidden to worship him with that Religious Worship you offer to Saints Or did Cornelius Acts 10.25 26. look upon Peter as God when he fell down before him the Devil in Matth. 4. did not bid our Saviour fall down and worship him as God he had confessed God to be and in saying all these are given me implyed God greater then himself yet our Saviour allegeth Scripture to prove such an action unlawful It is written Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve These words are nothing to the purpose according to your doctrine for the Divel might have replyed I You may worship God and me too thus you make void the Law of God by your Traditions ¶ 6. Your next Paraph passes from the invocation of Saints to their veneration and in the first place reprehends some answers it seems you have met with under the name of new coin'd distinctions And how to justifie them or know whether they are justifiable except you had expressed them I cannot tell but in general to quarrel at the use of distinctions seems extremely unjust it being impossible without them to arrive at any certainty by the means of words for there being few perhaps not any which are not used in many sences what imagination can fancy a possibility of fixing upon any one sense by a sound which is common to many till they are distinguished one from another and the particular signification applied to the general word Now let us see how you come to be so strongly perswaded of the opposition of our Tenet to Scripture You say S. John in the Apocalips was forbidden to worship the Angel with that religious worship we offer to Saints but have no warrant from the place to say so where there is no word to inform us what kind of worship it was which the Saint offered and the Angel refused and you know how dangerous additions or diminutions are there appears no more then barely worship offered and refused whereof you are so intent upon the latter that you quite forget the former which nevertheless seems important enough to deserve a reflexion for if worship were offered and offered by S. John that illuminated and beloved Apostle and this when as you say
there was a custome taken up among some to commemorate the deceased Martyrs yet without that impiety which afterward crept in Austin de vera Relig. cap. 55. says Let not our Religion be to worship the dead we are to honour them for imitation sake but not to worship them for religion sake This exhortation of his implies a superstitious custome then taken up by some against which he speaks Et de civitate Dei l. 22. c. 10. He says we do not build Temples unto our Martyrs as unto Gods but we set up Memorials for them as for men departed whose souls do live in rest with God nor do we set up any Altars to sacrifice unto them but we offer up our Sacrifice unto one onely God both theirs and ours at which sacrifice they are named in their order as men of God who have conquered the world by confessing him but they are not invocated of the Priest that sacrificeth But afterward as Mr. White cannot deny p. 105. It was crowded into the Liturgie by Petrus Gnaphaeus an Heretick Thus the private devotion of superstitious men became first publike which some of the Fathers plainly speak against as Ambros in expos epist ad Rom. Solent quidem misera uti excusatione dicentes per justos posse ire ad Deum sicut per comites therefore he accuseth them not for worshipping Saints as God as supream being but just as you pretend yet to do pervenitur ad Regem Euge nunquid tam demens est aliquis salutis suae immemor ut honorificentiam Regis vindicet comiti cum hac de re si qua etiam tractare fuerint inventi jure ut res damnentur majestatis isti non putant reos qui honorem nominis Dei deferunt creaturae relicto domino adorant conservos quasi sit aliquid plus quod servetur Deo Nam ideo ad Regem per tribunos comites iâ—ur quia homo utique Rex nescit quibus debeat remp credere Ad Deum autem quem utique non latet omnium enim merita novit promerendum suffragatore non est opus sed mente devota Vbicunque enim talis locutus fuerit nihil respondebit ¶ 7. This Paragraph is made up of Quotations but so odly used to say no worse that I cannot but conclude you took them upon trust and take the liberty to represent again to you the extream injustice you do your own soul to take it upon pretence of the fallibility of men and insecurity of blind obedience and implicite faith out of the conduct of the Catholick Church in whose faithful bosome innumerable millions are secure to subject it to a truly blind and implicite obedience of some one or few cryed up not by desert but faction and if living perhaps little known beyond the bounds of a Parish I dare say not reverend enough to sway an entire one and who not only may but do deceive you I should beg of you this Point might find admittance to your most serious and quiet thoughts but that eternal happiness or misery is a concern of that importance that where it pleads prays and whatever else the desire of serving a worthy person can suggest may and perhaps ought to be silent But to begin with Mr. White I doubt you stretch his grant beyond his intentions for I cannot beleeve he meant the same force which he allows the Argument great enough either to overthrow as you seem to suppose or so much as stand in competition with Tradition so as that we should be uncertain which to follow the doubt of the one or certainty of the other but only that the case when proved would also prove some Father held an Opinion in matter of learning not faith which in its consequence was opposite to Tradition but because this was not yet penetrated into the opinion onely not the maintainer blameable To come now to your Citations The first is from Origen lib. 2. in Ep. ad Rom. where one half of the period is quite cut off and the sence of the remaining half fixt upon one part of the words the rest being suppressed Just as if out of this Period I will go to London on horsback one should leave the last words and prove out of the former I meant to go on foot The sentence in Origen lies thus Jam vero si extra corpus positi vel sancti qui cum Christo sunt agunt aliquid laborent pro nobis ad similitudinem Angelorum qui salutis nostrae ministeria procurant vel rursum peccatores etiam ipsi extra corpus positi agunt aliquid secundum propositum mentis suae Angelorum nihilominus ad similitudinem sinistrorum cum quibus in aeternum ignem mittendi dicuntur à Christo habeatur hoâ— quoque inter occulta Dei neque chartulae committenda mysteria Compare now the citation with the place cited and judge of the sincerity of the Quoter The words have long since been examined by Bellarmine who lodges Origens doubt not upon assistance or not assistance but upon this whether the assistance be ad similitudinem Angelorum or no that is by way of office and special deputation There follows S. Aust de cur mort who is so far from leaving it undetermin'd whether the dead Martyrs help us or no as you put it That I will yeeld my claim to him if your studie can furnish you with plainer and more express words to signifie in the very place you urge the Question was not whether but how those Martyrs do help those quos per eos certum est adjuvari says he whether by themselves by the Ministery of Angels or other disposition of the Divine providence Nay his sence in that point is so very cleer that I am at a loss how to contrive a way being very unwilling to impute it to wilfulness by which he should be mistaken For the Question disputed in that Book being whether it avail a dead man that his body be inter'd neer the shrine of a Martyr S. Austin maintains the Affirmative upon this ground That such a Position causes the man to be more often and more lively recommended to the assistance of that Martyr by the prayers of the living and how he who justifies the choice of place in burial by the advantage received in being recommended to the assistance of a Martyr should be imagined to doubt whether there be any assistance or no and think it unlawful to demand it the shortness of my sight cannot discover He is indeed in his 13 h chap. of opinion that Souls departed are not by the condition of their state any longer acquainted with the passages of this life but tells us presently that defect is supplied either by intelligence from such as newly die or from Angels or it may be from God himself however it be he most evidently and undeniably asserts the custome in his time of praying for the dead and praying for them
to Saints To make an end of this authority there being in this matter as in all others to be distinguished what is Faith from what is Learning the first being no more then barely that 't is good and profitable to have recourse to the assistance of Saints To the last belonging many Questions in some ages more doubtful in some as truth opens to time and industry more setled but still remaining points of learning not faith I onely desire of you that you will please to be of that Faith in this Point which S. Austin plainly and unquestionably delivers in this very Book which being insisted on by your self I do not see you can offer less and promise I will expect no more Marry because in a point of School-learning he maintains an opinion now generally disallowed to infer he was against the practise of the Church because his Position in which he was wrong may be conceived opposite to it when he both plainly attests and approves the practice and uses much diligence and studie to reconcile his Position to it is a proceeding I had rather you should correct then I censure There follow two passages out of two Invectives of S. Greg. Naz. which I see are examples of Prosopopoeia and no more in them but doubt whether the following Assertion be stranger or the Connexion of it with a so that as if because S. Gregory above 300 years after Christ made use of a Rhetorical figure therefore in the first 200 yeers there was no Invocation of Saints To the thing it self I shall say no more then humbly desire you to beware of blind obedience and implicite faith of condemning and practising the same thing and if you will believe fallible men to beleeve the Fathers themselves and not what more fallible men tell you of them I would gladly know also what those you give so much credit to do bring to justifie themselves and their saying that in that time there was no Invocation I do not beleeve they produce any plain place which deny such practises were or were lawful to be used and conceive they either argue from the silence of some of them that there was no such thing because they say nothing of it which besides that it wildly supposes whatsoever was writ in these Ages came safely down to us is as much as to expect that whatever subject a man chuses for his Book he must treat of all things in it or else make use of perhaps their Errors in School points as the ignorance of souls departed the impossibility of commerce betwixt the next world and this c. to overthrow what they might as S. Austin long after clearly did held true even while they held these errors and this to say nothing of the injustice it does the Fathers to extend a mistake of theirs in a point of learning without sufficient ground to their faith too is in stead of discovering error by its opposition to truth to take the error for truth and then conclude the truth to be the error This kind of proceeding has strange luck to gain credit with so nice and piercing a judgement as yours What S. Austin says in the two following Citations is the very thing the Church beleevs and practises at this day and what whoever professes she is ready to imbrace in her sacred Communion it being the custom even at this day that Saints are not invocated at the Holy Sacrifice all the prayers there being purely addressed to God And for Petrus Gnaphaeus since you produce no reason why I should not I cannot see but Mr. Whites Observation is satisfactory beyond Reply Viz. That since his authority how great soever it were could not preserve him from being condemned of Heresie this fact could not have failed to peep among the rest of his Heresies had the Church not found it consonant to her faith The last is from S. Ambrose then which I never saw any thing more wretchedly mangled The place is an explication of v. 22. cap. 1. ad Rom. saying themselves to be wise they became fools This he attributes to the vain power upon the course of the Heavens and stars who by challenging an opinion of wisdom from the knowledg of such glorious creatures were lost in the folly of staying there and not passing on to the Creator Selent tamen says the Book pudore passi neglecti Dei misera uti excusatione dicentes per istos c. where first the word tamen is changed into quidam which makes the sense absolute whereas the first evidently restrains it to what went before viz. Those vain Philosophers Then pudore passi neglecti Dei which are also relative are quite left out and to compleat the work the word istos is turned into justos which can no more fit the place then Giant or Castle for he being to explicate the Apostles meaning and the Apostle plainly speaking of the vanity of humane Philosophy would he not have hit his sence finely to make him talk of Saints worship Can those mens excuse be imagined so miserable as to alledge in justification of their not glorifying God that Saints are to God as Courtiers to Princes that never thought of Saints nor if they had were one jot neerer their excuse This is a kind of dealing which our obedience as blind as you conceive it would not endure But I forbear to press it farther then in behalf of your own happiness to beseech your own calm thoughts may work freely and impartially upon it SECT IV. Images PAge 176. Mr White answers the Objection of the second Commandment that if it binds now then the whole Ceremonial Law does but I cannot see that prohibition is a Ceremony It is not repeated in the new Testament therefore it does not bind I see no force in that Argument neither many precepts of the old are not repeated in the new which notwithstanding bind us now as not to lie with beasts not to remove antient land-marks c. Where is the tenth Commandment repeated in so many words But is there nothing of the second in the New Testament I shall remember you of one and that is in the 17th of the Acts where S. Paul is preaching the Gospel to the Athenians confutes their and your superstition of worshipping the unknown which was the true God by bodily representations in the 29th verse we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold or silver graven by art and mens device God is not like unto any similitude the art of man can devise therefore ought not to be worshipped by similitudes therefore no pictures or representations of him are to be made whether it be of man or birds or four-footed beasts or of creeping things as the words are Rom. 1.25 whereby some instead of glorifying God have dishonoured him and changed his glory as if there were not a greater evil because of the greater disproportion between the infinite Majesty of Heaven and Earth
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
you accommodate the outward Word in which the true Word of God is contained and because you can do so break communion with us because we prefer another sense which the words also agree withall suitable to our constant and universal practise and which to leave upon no better inducement I must confess I know not how to excuse from downright madness Moreover some of our Controvertists laying down in condescendence to you their own assured Arms Tradition have engaged with you at your own weapon critical handling of Scripture of whose endeavours I am content almost even partiality it self should be Judge being very confident no Byas can be great enough to draw a reasonable nature so far wide of Truth as to pronounce us in that kind of war overcome When you say Tradition has not ended controversies you express where the fault lies Viz. in that not acknowledging them it being unpossible that Judge should end a difference whose sentence is refused by either of the parties But then this is not for want of necessary qualities in him but submission in them We refuse not to make Scripture sole Judge out of fear it should give sentence against us we know its sence much better then you and know 't is for us and if you think you can convince us by it do it we both must and will submit but out of fear by it s not giving sentence at all our dissentions should never come to an end We earnestly long to see all the sheep of Christ quietly seeding again in one fold and that unhappy wall of division which so long has separated them battered down and because we do so cannot but testifie Scripture is no fit Engine to do it 'T was to us she was given not to you and we know her efficacy is more in times of peace then War that she is more proper to increase charity then beget faith and that being principally intended to sanctifie the faithful she does ordinarily require they should first be faithful that they may afterwards be sanctified Had you the same disposition to peace you would either effectually shew the Scripture a sit Judge to decide controversies critically and frowardly handled or appeal to some other for he that pretends a desire of an end in order to which he will obstinately beleeve those to be means which both from reason and experience he may learn to be none and will not be brought to use other is convinced to do no more then barely pretend it ¶ 2. Reason in things that depend upon it is often a sufficient rule yet many cannot be brought to an agreement by it even in things which are evident by others demonstrated shall we then think it sufficient to disprove it a rule because some yea many are not made to accord with it Mr. White p. 153. grants the Jews might have been though they were not led to Christ and salvation by Scripture if they had interpreted it with charity and humility And p. 110. However the marks of the Church are apparant enough in Scripture if there want not will in the seeker to acknowledg them If this be not to contradict himself I know not what is To ill-disposed or undisposed refractory minds nothing is sufficient I see a monstrous difficultie for you to understand Scripture aright who are resolved to make no other sence then what agrees with your supposed Traditions ¶ 2. That which I conceive to be the drift of this Paragraph Viz. That 't is perhaps more often the fault of the parties then of the Judge that differences are kept alive is certainly true But you apply it not neither as we think can you do it with any appearance to conclude we are in fault that bind our selves even in this kind of tryall to much stricter conditions then you will be brought to do For besides the reverence we bear the Scripture even to an absolute submission to whatever it says then which you neither do nor can do more we also bring you a Book which we so acknowledg to be Scripture that in disputation we refuse it not would you do so much perhaps more good might be done then is mean time this is certain that more cannot be required of us Next you pretend a contradiction from two places which you cite and I cannot tell whether you mean those places contradict one another which nevertheless seem to say the same thing or that both those places contradict the former Doctrine Now that asserts two things 1. That Scripture does not speak plain enough to convince a wrangling Critick 2. That it does speak plain enough to satisfie an humble and charitable Reader in which if you see any contradiction you see not onely what I cannot but what I conceive is not there to be seen ¶ 3. Page 137. Mr. White seems to grant what I cannot tell how he can deny that the Scripture is as well able to make us understand its meaning as Plato or Aristotle theirs but the supposition where all the venom lies is concealed as he is pleased to phrase it so the Scripture was written of those controversies which since are risen I see no danger in this poison rightly understood God delivering those things in Scripture which are sufficient for salvation speaks so that he may be as well understood as Plato Aristotle c. in their Writings then the Reader of holy Writ that comes to it as page 153. the Iewes should have done with charitie and humilitie which would actually have brought them to the truth may have the true meaning of Gods Word as to the points of faith and practice Now having the truth cannot he see that error which shall aftâ—rwards arise to be falshood because it is contrary to the truth which he has out of Scripture linea recta est Judex sui obliqui But strange opinions may spring up which can neither be proved nor disproved satisfactorily by Scripture nor is it necessary all possible controversies should be determinable I do not think you pretend to this kind of Omniscience by your Traditions I pray tell me how does your Church confute new errors which were not started in the Apostles time by thinking only that they are false or by looking upon those truths which it pretends the Apostles at first delivered before those errors came up which it sees are contrary to those received truths unless you pretend to new Revelations to discover new errors by and what poyson is there in making written truths the streight Rule to measure future inormities by more then to make unwritten truth serve for that end ¶ 3. The next Paragraph insists upon the Parity betwixt Scripture and the writings of Plato or Aristotle touching which what you say Mr. White seems to grant that the one is as well able to make us understand its meaning as the other I must tell you does but seem so and 't is a wonder to me you observed it not the very next
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
conclude the Scripture may be a sufficient means to decide controversies by although refractory minds be not silenced by it Neither has God promised that obstinate opposers of truth shall have any means of truth made effectual to them ¶ 5. To the difficulty of the following Paragraph because you propose it by demands I shall answer by Replys and to the first Why the Arians were not convinced by that Book I answer because 't was a Book that is a multitude of words which having no Interpreter to protect them could not preserve themselves from being wrested into senses different from what was meant by the Author Was there not then say you Evidence enough of that truth Yes to humble Seekers but to convince it to the Arians no Evidence and Conviction taking them severely are things above the reach of meer words But this imputes weakness to S. John or rather the Holy Ghost why so put a Reed into a Giants hand and because with it he cannot cleave an Oak is he therefore weak a feeble instrument is no argument of the feebleness of him that uses it Now words I take to be very weak and they cease not to be words whoever he be that employs them not but that S. John or rather the Holy Ghost by him which I think you will not deny might have managed them much better and made a much nearer approach to evidence had he so pleased or that been his aym I see men write plainer every day and God forbid I should think they understand the use of words better than he that gave them the power to understand Neither dare I attribute the contrivance of the Book to chance or imagine the works of God to be directed by any thing but his own infinite wisdom and providence Whence then the obscurity of that book Truly I am not of Council with the Divinity but believe I may safely assert thus much that since the Holy Ghost knew what you would object and yet chose that manner of writing he meant you should see that book was not intended for a Judge of differences in Religion to which he refus'd to give all the qualities necessary for a Judge and which even a book is capable of To this I foresee you will object that at least S. John cannot be excused from the weaknesse of making choice of a means by which he knew his end was not to be arriv'd at and that to write against Corinthus when he was conscious his writing could not prove his intent was not only unnecessary but hurtful To which I reply he writ so as abundantly to prove his intent in that manner as he design'd to prove it but his intent was not that his writing should be a proof contentiously and frowardly scann'd but humbly and diligently studied In the former way he had left them a much better weapon both to defend themselves and overcome their Adversaries then words can be namely that which S. Paul commands us to desert upon no inducements no nor even of an Angel from Heaven but besides this for the superabundant comfort and strength of the faithful he added also a confirmation of their faith by writing intelligible enough at the time and to the persons he writ when every body knew what it was which Cerinthus objected and his followers insisted on and consequently knew how to apply the Phisick to the disease and plainly see his pretences overborn by the Apostles authority But now the case is quite different To say nothing of the alteration of words and the great change which so much time must needs make in the Phrases and manner of speech our Intelligence of that Heresie is faint and dim and to expect we should comprehend what was written against it equally with those ages which flourish'd with it is to make him that has hardly any knowledg of the disease as cunning in the cure as that Doctor whose charge the Patient is The Apostles Gospel therefore was in those circumstances plain enough by the letter to those to whom he writ but to us so dark that except we look upon it with the spectacles of Tradition or other helps we have no security of penetrating its sence though even to them it was not so clear but that it was wrestible and much more in the time of Arius to malicious subtlety and wit which Hereticks never want But then those Hereticks not the Scripture were in fault say you and no body doubts but that Heresie and fault are inseparable But whether they be in fault or no the Church ought to be furnisht with Arms to defend her self against all sorts of Enemies and not till they cease to be in fault when they will also cease to be her enemies be left ungarded she must be provided as well to confound the proud as confirm the humble And this first quality is that which we deny to Scripture and if you onely attribute to it the second you oppose not us neither do I know why we should oppose you But God has not promis'd that obstinate opposers of truth shall have any means of truth made effectual to them Very true but he has promis'd the gates of Hell in which I doubt these obstinate men cannot be denied to stand shall not prevail against his Church and I understand not how they can be denied to have prevailed if that which you would make her only guard uncertain words being by their craft seduced into a compliance with them they may as plausibly object obstinacy to the Church as she to them For that and constancy are distinguished only by their alliance or enmity with truth and if truth cannot be made appear as you say to obstinate men God has not promis'd it shall neither can it whether be the obstinate opposers they or the Church Besides to bate those inseparable companions of Heresie Pride Obstinacy consider what will in your principles become of sincere but sharp understandings people that are not yet faithful nor ever were obstinate but always wittie who look upon disputes in Religion without concern of any thing but truth but look that what themselves accept for truth be truly such and will not be put off with counterfeit ware and take in stead of truth the partial construction of either side Neither will they be denied neither can justice deny them but that they should first see the truth before they be prest to imbrace it Now that Truth be seen to be truth 't is plainly necessary that there be no possibility of falshood there being no contradiction in the world more manifest then that the same thing should at the same time be possible to be false and evidently true that is impossible to be false 'T is equally plain that where there is nothing to make out the truth but words if those words be made agree to two senses neither can be made out to be truth for you put but one cause that producible of both effects That
the place does not so much as offer any likelyhood of asserting nay I see not how the Apostle can without manifest violence to the Text be made to mean more than the one point he expresses and the fruit resulting from it for certainly 't is not to expound but wrest a Text when the same word is repeated in the same period wilfully to give it one sence in the former another in the later place which yet is the case here for in the first part of the period the word believe is so restrained by the Apostle that it cannot without unpardonable guilt be doubted what it was he meant should be believed when he plainly tells us 't is this that Jesus is Christ the Son of God and the word believing presently following in the same context and link'd to the former with a conjunction sincerity cannot imagine it should be meant of any other belief than that which so immediately before was plainly expressed that to repeat it had been Tautologie If words therefore can make any thing clear I see not what place of doubt there is left but that this is the Apostles meaning that the Book was written to the end we might believe the Divinity of the Son and by that belief have life as much as depends upon that one point which being the foundation of all our Faith may perhaps be therefore said to give us life because whatever contributes to our life has dependance on it for if Christ be no Son of God then no sufficient teacher of mankind and if no sufficient teacher then nothing sufficiently taught Though otherwise sure life is not promis'd more expresly to this faith then Salvation to eating his flesh which neverthelesse I believe you will not say is enough to Salvation and consequently should not that this is enough to life What you say in the last place that the words do not shew it St. Johns chief design to prove Christ the Consubstantial Son of God how do you prove The word Christ which is all the Text has more than what Mr. White cites alters not the case These two expressions That Jesus is the Son of God and that he is Christ the Son of God not having any considerable difference since nothing is more evident then that he that believes him to be Christ the Son of God believes him to be the Son of God But I apprehend all this business to be nothing but the confusion raised in our thoughts by the equivocation of the word end which may either signifie what S. John intended to do when he set himself to write that Book which I conceive was to shew the Consubstantiality of the Son or else what fruit he design'd from it after it was written and this seems to be the life of his Readers ¶ 3. They to whom he wrote own'd Christ as the Saviour yet he writes to them that they might have full knowledge and a standing monument to preserve that knowledg But besides that Mr White has no ground for that fancie S. Johns design was only to specifie such particulars as prove Christs Dietie I think it an unanswerable Argument to shew from one Chapter another of the Gospel how many particulars there are that are nothing at all to this only purpose of S. John yea more particulars that do no way prove it then that doe as any one may see that reads over the Gospel I wonder then how Mr White could shift off the place by this groundless false Assertion if it be as to me it is evident then S. John making here as it is manifest a recapitulation of all those Doctrines and Precepts in his Gospel concluding from all shews us that his Book is a sufficient rule to salvation in all things absolutely necessary the expression that beleeving that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God must needs be understood as ordinarily it is thorowout the Scripture He that beleeves shall be saved c. not of a naked assent of the understanding but of the consent of the will too as the same S. John himself c. 1.12 As many as received him to them he gave power to become the sons of God and now expounding that receiving of Christ for 〈◊〉 and Saviour adds to them that beleeve in his name For this capital truth or Act is big with or virtually contains all the rest S. John had delivered in his Gospel it were improper for S. John being to comprize all in few words in this Conclusion to particularize all that were to write over the Gospel again besides its known verba intellectus denotant affectus else neither this nor many other expressions of the like nature in Scripture could be true seeing bare assenting as Devils do saves not ¶ 3. Whether Mr White have any ground for what you call his fancy I am so confident of your sinceritie that I dare appeal to your second thoughts if you please to reflect the word onely which you insist upon seems not more severely used by Mr White then to signifie chiefly or principally which may well consist with many perhaps the greater number of other particularities as Sir Kenelm Digbies Book was intended only to prove the immortality of the Soul and yet far the greater part is spent in the consideration of bodies And yet truly I beleeve tha◠were S. Johns Book examined from Chapter to Chapter little would be found but what does either directly prove our Saviours Divinitie or is subordinate to that end some accidentals excepted which the nature of such discourses requires should be weaved in and which hinder not but that the other is the only design To proceed I must take leave to wonder in my turn you persist to call Mr Whites Answer a shift false and groundless and say no more then you do to make it appear so What you next affirm to be evident and manifest that S. John making here a recapitulation of all those Doctrines and and Precepts in his Gospel concluding from all shews us that his Book is a sufficient Rule to salvation in all things absolutely necessary if I understand what 't is to recapitulate and to conclude is evidently neither manifest nor true for what words are there that can bear the sense of recapitulating and concluding in these short periods Many other things here are which I have not written but those I have I writ to the end c. To recapitulate signifies to sum up the chief Heads of what was said before and to conclude is to gather somthing from others that went before and here are neither heads nor premises but a bare Historical Narration informing us what the Apostle did and why which differs as much from recapitulating and concluding as History does from Logick But what is of more importance how came you to be so clear sighted as where none else can perceive any Conclusion at all to discover this That his Book is a sufficient rule to salvation in all things necessary
That belief or faith is to be understood of saving faith which is all I can perceive you drive at to the end of the Paraph is so far from it that I do not beleeve any violence will make a premise of it for be it as you desire that the Apostle writ that we might beleev in Christ the Son of God with a saving faith and I dare say no Arithmetick would comprehend the number of intermedial links necessary to fasten this Conclusion to it that what he writ is a sufficient rule to salvation ¶ 4. But what need I trouble my self or you with writing all I could I remember an ingenuous confession of yours when we were one night discoursing of this place that you thought the whole Book was not only sufficient for salvation but even some parts of it if a man had no more which is as much as I desire ¶ 4. The answer to this Paraph depends upon the memory of that person who made such a confession I conceive it true thus far that even some parts might be sufficient for the salvation of some single person extraordinarily dispoposed and circumstanced which in all likelihood was his meaning But this is nothing to our Question whether it be sufficient for the conduct of all dispositions found in mankind through all circumstances the Church will be in from the Resurrection to the day of Judgement ¶ 5. The second place I look upon as a sufficient proof of Scriptures sufficiency is the beginning of S. Lukes Gospel compared with the beginning of the Acts In Mr Whites Apology p. 165 166. where he affirms there is not a word that this Book should serve for a Catechism to teach him and all the world the entire body of Christianity I think there is that thou mayest know the certainty of those things thou hast been taught or as the Greek word is hast been Catechized in So then S. Lukes Gospel contains a perfect sum of all these Doctrines and duties which Theophilus a Christian already had learnt To me this proves S. Lukes Gospel to be a bodie of Divinitie or a Systeme of all necessary truths of Christianity so that S. Lukes Gospel is more then a naked Historie of Christs life containing his Doctrine too or else he had not given Theophilus a full account of all he had been instructed in To say as Mr White S. Luke speaketh but by the by of our Saviours Doctrine or as his words are some of his excellent sayings is quite contrary to those words of the first of the Acts out of which he gathers his saying for there he speaks thus of his Gospel The former Treatise have I made O Theophilus of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach which is more then as Mr White some of his excellent sayings I lay the stress upon these two words all and teach which Mr White passeth over as Commentators do hard places although it be the chief thing to be answered Another thing I observe in Mr Whites translation he omits the word perfectly or exactly in the third verse of the Gospel which is very pertinent By all things Jesus did and taught must be meant the substance of Christian Religion the chief Doctrines and duties which were necessary to salvation for if any material point were omitted by S. Luke he could not alledge his exact knowledge in all things which he promises nor say as he does in the Acts that he had delivered all Christ did or taught from whence I must conclude and you too unless you can shew sufficient cause to the contrary that S. Lukes Gospel much more the whole Bible hath sufficient truth in it and contains all points necessary to salvation and may be a sufficient means though we have no traditions The Covenant between God and man is cleerly enough laid down there and in other Books besides with all those things without which no salvation ¶ 5. The second place you insist upon is the beginning of Saint Lukes Gospel compar'd with the beginning of the Acts which with your favour I conceive you have not brought home to our question for admit all you say were true even the conclusion it self viz. that Saint Lukes Gospel hath sufficient truths in it and contains all points necessary to salvation and may be a sufficient means though we have no Traditions your cause is far from being evicted For our question is not so much whether sufficient truths be containd in scripture as whether they bee contained sufficiently that is with evidence enough to carry away a cleer victory from malicious and obstinate Criticism So that it consists very well that all necessary truths may be contained which is all you do say and yet not so contain'd as in necessary for that effect which is what you should have said Again since the same means may be sufficient for one person which are not for another or for all and sufficient at one time not so at another Your Conclusion that this Gospel may be a sufficient means without Tradition comes far short of what it should be that 't is sufficient to all persons in all circumstances Now I presume the Evangelist writing to Theophilus with design to instruct him particularly the sufficiency you speak of cannot fairly be stretched farther then his intent and be construed to belong to more then Theophilus himself And certainly since every body in the Church is not Theophilus to deserve a Gospel should be writ to him it cannot be expected what was sufficient for him should be sufficient for every body else You see then how strongly soever your Canon is charged I conceive the Conclusion safe as placed beyond its level But yet to try the force it has The first thing you say against Mr White is that you think the place shews the Book was intended for a Catechism to teach him and all the world the entire body of Christianity moved by these words that thou mayest know the certainty of these things thou hast been taught or catechized in I beseech you how does it appear that by those things must be understood a body of Christianity You see Mr White understands no more by them then reports he Theophilus had heard and tels you if you will urge another sense you must first justifie it against this Now evidently writing to let Theophilus know the certainty of those reports he had heard is far enough from writing a body of Christianity As for the word Catechized which you seem to rely upon its original signification if good Grecians have not mis-informed me being most properly rendred by insono or infundo imports no more then a delivery of somthing by word of mouth though since by Ecclesiastical custome it hath almost been appropriated to the delivery of Christian doctrine Now this being since S. Lukes time what it was that was so delivered to Theophilus cannot be gathered from the word But if that be true which you say of Theophilus that he
contrary rather The natural man or man by nature is blinded and sees not the things of God they are contrary to him rather inclines to Superstition then the true Worship of God is naturally more steady in Idolatry then the pure service of God will you not take my word for this Read Jer. 2.9 10 11 12 13. seee if there be such a thing Hath a Nation changed their Gods which yet are no Gods but my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit ¶ 6. I think you mistake Mr Whites Argument here And first whereas you put a natural inclination to truth and happiness His words are that hopes and fears in the will ignorance and the conceit of another mans knowledge in the understanding are the Parents of Religion And I presume you mean the same thing but speak contractedly Now I conceive 't is not from this barely he proves the preservation of true Religion as you seem to suppose but from hence that man being not to be wrought upon but by reason authority or power none of the three can be imagined to have place where the Religion is supposed once true and largely dispersed So that you seem to take a part of the Argument for the whole As for the difficulty from the corrupti of nature in man 't is that corruption which makes him deceivable by the ways mentioned for were his nature entirely sound neither power nor authority could be imagined forcible enough to prevail with him against his own good and reason cannot be supposed opposite to truth So that were there no corruptions there would be neither necessity of nor place for the Argument which contends That since there are but three ways even in this state of misery to work upon a man and that none of them can be effectual in our case the divine goodness ha-provided even against the defects of nasture and placed the security of our faith beyond the reach of its corruptions for however vice may by as a man in opinion by hindring the faithful working of his Reasons it withal its malice cannot hinder him from using his eyes and ears in plain matters of fact which is all our Rule of Faith requires the fall of Adam then makes not the Argument weak but necessary But perhaps it may contribute to your satisfaction to observe that nature is spoken of man in different significations for sometimes by that word is meant Reason sometimes that frame of corporeal Instruments which concur to its being an Animal Now when you hear of the bad Inclinations of Nature and natural men 't is to be understood of the disorder occasioned principally in the body by the sin of Adam and by the union of it with the soul drawing her into evils which are therefore such because they are against nature it being unpossible that should be ill which to nature is conformable Man is therefore truly drawn against his nature even when he follows those which you call his natural inclinations to sin for since he is animal rationale if Reason be not his nature he is no more a man Now the Argument proves that natural disorders taking nature in the second sence have not the power to prevail upon his nature taken in the first sence either to lose all Religion or change the true one in the Circumstances accompanying our case For it being natural to man that his words should flow from his thoughts and conformably to them when a lie is told that is words are brought forth dis-formable to the thoughts of the speaker 't is plain that nature is crossed and design works that is artifice that is not nature And so we see that those who are not in a condition to use design as fools and drunken men always tell truth Further those who lie design or aim at some end attainable by lying thus force their nature unlesse the design be only mirth rising from the odness of the lie must either hope to cloath it with an appearance of truth and conceal it from being known to be what it is or despair of compassing their design nothing being more evident then that no man wil be perswaded by a known untruth Put then the Tenets of Religion to be universally dispersed and visible in practice and the people strongly possessed of the truth of them is it not undeniable that who would go about to perswade them either that the former Tenets were not held and practised or that some new invention was formerly held and practised must be known by every body to tell an open manifest lie that is can have no hopes of concealing it nor consequently of prevailing with it or compassing any design by it that is if he have wit enough to see the impossibility such a lier must act without a motive for none acts for a thing held clearly impossible and so the action be directly carried out of the sphere of whole rational nature which is obliged to act for some end or motive good or bad You see then that in both cases rational nature taking original sin and the corruptions flowing from it into the bargain is destroyed and overthrown by such an action even of one single man to which if we add the multitudes the millions that must conspire to this unnatural lie since otherwise their authority can never over-bear the counterpoize of those who will adhere to manifest and known truth the impossibility swels to a proportion so monstrous that it seems beyond the power even of Arithmetick it self to comprehend it And so much though but little in respect of the latitude of the subject and strange advantages our rule of Faith bears with it for mans inclination to truth that is as he has an understanding power in him Let us see what follows from his inclination to happiness which is so the object of his will that it cannot act without an aim at some good either reall or apparent Put men strongly to conceit their beatitude or eternal well-being and that it depends wholly upon the Tenets which make up their Religion is it not evident this conceit still remaining which is our case that there cannot be imaginable any greater hopes or fears that is greater motives to the will then certainly beleeved enjoyment of heaven or punishment in Hell and this for all eternity which being so 't is as certainly demonstrated that a multitude of men thus affected shall not be byassed to prevaricate from so concerning truths and propagate so prejudicial falshoods as they look upon those to be which contradict their Religion as it is that a straw cannot weigh down a thousand pounds Now put the Religion to be true to be universally dispersed and this the Test of it to admit nothing into it but upon the account of inheritance from immediate Fathers as from the first deliverer and this so as that it be all one to be not inherited and to be not Religion which three things though the present
such a peece of ground contained so many Acres your heart could not chuse but think it true what ever opposition the strength of your wit might make against it So that Mr White had reason to say he that refuses to beleeve the Church if his thoughts be thoroughly sifted will find in them a proud preference of his own private fancie before the wisdom of the Christian world Nevertheless to comply with the wayward humours of her children I beleeve she will exact no more in things of this nature then a quiet submission which your self cannot but see absolutely necessary for government and a not opposition without evidence leaving you the freedome of your inward thoughts to assent no farther then you see reason which yet if you be learned you may have by looking into the reason her self goes upon if you be unlearned you have no reason for any principle that governs the most important of your actions of comparable weight to her authority nay perhaps even to dissent if a case contrivable onely as I conceive by a wild roving fancie should be put actually to have been Viz. That evidence be producible against her so it be proposed with the moderation and submission necessary to the quiet and peace of all governments since I hope this Explication of these points will rectifie the mistakes interwoven through your solid Discourses in these Paragraphs I shall without a more particular examination pass on to the next Section SECT II. Authority of Fathers Transubstantiation ¶ 1. LEt us come to Particulars Transubstantiation there cannot be a more absurd Tenet imagined that could be fuller of Contradictions as plain as any contradiction in the world that the Sun should shine and not shine at the same time that Christ should begin to be and not to be at the same time broken and yet not broken at the same time in one place and yet in hundred thousands so many that you your selves are fain to look off and confess you are not able to solve yet for this what ground have you the Word of God No your own Authors confess you have no more cause to understand Hoc est corpus meum literally then those the Lamb is the Passeover Christ is a door a rock a way ¶ 1. Which opposes the point of Transubstantiation but so gently that the difficulties which you would have impossible to Omnipotency are almost as familiar and ordinary events as any we converse with But for the first That Christ should begin to be and not to be how do you verifie either part or infer from our doctrine there is a time when Christ is not Which is necessary to the truth of your Proposition T is true that this half hour he is not upon the Altar the next he is but sure it could not escape you that not to be upon the Altar and not to be are two very different things Now I am sure you do not wonder to see a Wart or Pimple to grow and perish which nevertheless while they live have no distinct being from the being of the man they grow upon that is are that man and yet cease to be without causing the man to do so And for those that follow that Christ is broken and not broken in one place and in ten thousand pray consider that the multiplicity of forms our Saviour vouchsafes to put his sacred Body under is to his body as quantity or extension to substance A man is but one thing and no more his hands his feet and whatever else go to the making up of man being not several things but entring all into the unity of this truly one man and this man by one of his feet is in one place by another not in that but another place Cut his hair or nail he is truly divided that is according to that part which is truly he and truly remains one Now raise your thoughts and consider how very little more faith this great mystery requires of you no more then that you will permit the Author of nature to do that by the multitude of forms with which he is pleased to cloth his body which nature does every day by means of quantity and see whether it be not very unjust to say no more to deny that to omnipotence which the ordinary course of causes does so perpetually bring forth that it never concerns your wonder and seldom your notice You will find some disparity in these similitudes and so you must for nullum simile est idem but if I mistake not you will find the very knot of the difficulty the same in both though the manner of tying be different and however it be a little reverence and submission to that power which extends to all things should easily prevail with us to beleeve he is able to do more then we to comprehend For the rest in what you say we confess viz. innumerable contradictions unsolvable and which we are fain to look off from certainly you must either mistake our Authors or they themselves none that understood what he said ever granting a true contradiction in this mystery neither do I beleeve they meant any more then that the depth of it is not to be fathom'd by the shortness of our understanding a conceit even to a moderate sense of that vast Abyss of power as well as wisdom and goodness so far from unreasonable that I know not how the contrary can be excused from impious And for what you make our Authors say that we have no more cause to understand the words of Consecration literally then other expressions acknowledged to be metaphorical those who truly say so if there be any such which truly I much doubt are then pitiful Authors none even among those that are far from the desert of being Authors being ignorant That Tradition is the best Interpreter of Scripture and that it teaches us to follow the letter in one place and not in another ¶ 2. Have you derived this Interpretation all along from the Apostles No your Scotus and Bellarmine confesse that Ante concilium Lateranse transubstantiatio non fui dogma fidei And as plain it is the first Ages of the Church though they highly reverenced the Eucharist and possibly by some hyperbolical expressions gave way to your Error yet were cleerly against you Irenaeus l. 4. c. 34. Panis terrenus accepta vocatione à verbo Dei non amplius est communis panis yet bread still sed efficitur eucharistica quae constat ex duabus terrena therefore it is bread still celesti Tertullian l. 4. contra Man Acceptum panem distribuentem discipulis suis corpus suum illum fecit how hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Basilius in Liturg. Greg. Nazianz in orat de pas both call the Bread and Wine antitypa corporis Christi Ambros de Sacram. l. 4. c. 5. haec oblatio est figura corporis sanguinis domini August contr
suo antevertit arcano sacrificii genere quod ab hominibus cerni non poterat seipsum pro nobis hostiam offert victimam immolat sacerdos simul existens agnus Dei ille qui mundi peccatum tollit Quando id praestitit cum corpus suum discipulis congregatis edendum sanguinem bibendum praebuit tunc aperte declaravit agni sacrificium jam esse perfectum For he who by his power disposes all things doth not expect the necessity now neerly approaching from his betraying expects not to be set upon by the Jews like Theeves expects not I say the sentence of Pilate that their malice may be the beginning and cause of the common safetie of mankind but by his providence prevents them and by a hidden kinde of sacrifice which could not be discerned by men offers himself an Host for us and immolates a Victim being himself both Priest and Lamb of God that Lamb which takes away the sin of the world When did he perform this when he gave his bodie to be eaten and blood to be drunk to his Disciples gathered together then he openly declared the Sacrifice of the Lamb to be now accomplished S. Hierom. ep ad Hedib q. 2. Nec Moyses dedit nobis panem verum sed Dominus Jesus ipse conviva convivium ipse comedens qui comeditur Neither did Moses give us the true bread but our Lord Jesus himself both guest and banquet himself both eating and eaten Cyril Al. l. 10. in Joan. c. 13. Non tamen negamus recta nos fide charitateque syncera Christo spiritualiter conjungi sed nullam nobis conjunctionis rationem secundum carnem ejus illo esse id profecto pernegamus idque à divinis scripturis omnino alienum dicimus An fortassis putat ignotam nobis mysticae benedictionis virtutem esse quae quum in nobis fiat nonne corporaliter quoque facit communicatione carnis Christi Christum in nobis hahitare Vnde considerandum est non babitudine solum quae per charitatem intelligitur Christum in nobis esse verum etiam participatione naturali Non credis mihi haec dicenti Christo te obsecro fidem praebe Nevertheless we do not deny that we are joyned spiritually to Christ by a righs faith and sincere charity but that we are not at all joyned to him according to the flesh that we utterly deny and affirm it to be altogether against the Divine Scriptures Does he think we are ignorant of the efficacie of the mystical blessing which when it is performed in us doth it not make Christ dwell in us even corporally too by communication of the flesh of Christ Whence is to be considered that Christ is in us not habitually onely that is by charity but also by a natural participation too You beleeve not me in these matters I beseech you beleeve Christ Cyril Hier cat myst 4. Cum igitur Christus ipse sic affirmet atque dicat de pane hoc est corpus meum Quis deinceps audeat dubitare ac eodem quoque confirmante dicente hic est sanguis meus Quis inquam dubitet dicat non esse illius sanguinem aquam aliquando mutavit in vinum quod est sanguini propinquum in Cana Galileae sola voluntaâ—e non erit dignus cui credamus quod vinum in sanguinem transmutasset Ne ergo consideres tanquam panem nudum vinum nudum Corpus enim est sanguis Christi secundum ipsius Domini verba quamvis enim sensus hoc tibi suggerit tamen fides te confirmet ne ex gustu rem judices quin potius habeas ex fide pro certissimo ita ut nulla subeat dubitatio esse tibi donata corpus sanguinem Hoc sciens pro certissimo habens panem hunc qui videtur non esse panem etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed esse corpus Christi vinum quod à nobis conspicitur tametsi senâ—ui gustus vinum esse videatur non tamen vinum sed sanguinem esse Christi Since therefore Christ himself affirms it says of Bread This is my body who dares from thenceforth doubt it himself also confirming and saying This is my bloud who I say is there can doubt and say it is not his bloud In Cana of Galilee he did heretofore by his onely will change water into wine which approaches to bloud and will he become not worthy to be beleeved that he has changed wine into bloud Do not therefore consider it as bare bread and bare wine for according to the words of our Lord himself it is the body and bloud of Christ for although sense do suggest this unto thee yet let faith confirm thee that thou do do not judge of the thing by thy taste but rather hold by faith for most certain so that there be no place for doubt that what is given thee is body and bloud Knowing this and holding for most certrin that this Bread which is seen is not Bread although the taste judge it to be so but the Body of Christ and the Wine which is seen by us although to the sense of taste it seem Wine yet is not Wine but the bloud of Christ S. Aug. Ep. 162. Tolerat ipse Dominus Judam Diabolum sunem venditorem suum sinit accipere inter innocentes discipulos quod fideles noverunt pretium nostrum And in Psal 33. con 1. Ferebatur in manibus suis Hoc vero fratres quomodo posset fieri in homine quis intelligat Quis enim portatur manibus suis manibus aliorum potest portari homo manibus suis nemo portatur Quomodo intelligatur in ipso David secundum literam non invenimus in Christo autem invenimus ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis quando commendamus ipsum corpus suum ait hoc est corpus meum Our Lord himself endures Judas a Devil a Thief who sold him he suffers him to receive amongst his innocent Disciples that which the faithful know to be our price Again upon these words of Psal 33. And he was carried in his own hands But this brethren how it may be verified in man who can understand for who is carried in his own hands in the hands of another a man may be carried no man is carried in his own How this may literally be understood of David we do not find of Christ we do for Christ was carried in his own handâ— when recommending his own very body he said This is my body S. Chrys in Matth. 26. Hom. 83. Credamus itaque ubique Deo nec repugnemus ei etiamsi sensui cogitationi nostrae absurdum esse videatur quod dicit superet sensum rationem nostram sermo ipsius quod in omnibus praecipue in mysteriis faciaâ—us non illa quae ante nos jacent solummodo aspicientes sed verba quoque ejus tenentes nam verbis ejus defraudari
non possumus sensus vero noster deceptui facillimus est illa falsa esse non possunt hic sepius atque saepius fallitur Quoniam ergo ille dixit hoc est corpus meum nulla teneamur ambiguitate sed credamus oculis intellectus id perspiciamus O quot modo dicunt vellem formam speciem ejus vellem vestimenta ipsa vellem calceamenta videre ipsum igitur vides ipsum tangis ipsum comedis Veniat tibi in mentem quo sis honore honoratus qua mensa fruaris ea namque re nos alimur quam Angeli videntes tremunt nec absque pavoâ—e propter fulgo em qui inde resilit aspicere â—essunt Let us therefore beleeve God and not withstand him although what he says seem absurd to our sence and understanding let his words surmount both our sense and our reason this let us do in all things and principally in the mysteries not looking only upon those things which lie before us but minding also his words for by them we cannot be deceived 't is very easie to impose upon our sence 'T is not possible they should be false this is deceived over over again since therefore he has said This is my body let us not doubt at all but beleeve and look upon it with the eies of our understanding O how many are there now who say I would fain see his shape and beauty nay but his cloths his shooes why thou seest his own self touchest himself eatest himself Consider what an honour it is which is done thee at what a Table thou art fed for we are nourished with that very thing which the Angels tremble in beholding and are not able to look upon without dread for the glory which issues from it And Hom. 24. on 1 Cor. Id quod est in calice est id quod fluxit è latere illius sumus participes Hoc â—â—â—â—us etiam jacenâ— in praesepi reveriti sunt magi And cum multo metu tremore adorarunt Tu autem non in praesipi vides sed in altari non foeminam eum tenentem sed sacerdotem astantem Nos ergo ipsos excitemus formidemus longe majorem quam illi Barbari ostendamus reverentiam That which is in the Chalice is that which did flow from the side and of that we are partakers The wise men did reverence to this body lying even in a Crib with much fear and trembling adored it But thou seest it not in the Crib but on the Altar thou seest not a woman holding him but a Priest assisting Let us therefore stir up our selves and fear and shew much more reverence then those barbarous men Again Hom. 17. ad Heb. Eundem enim semper offerimus non nunc quidem alium sed semper eundem Quoniam multis in locis offertur multine sunt Christi nequaquam sed unus ubique Christus qui hic est plenus illic plenus unum corpus Pontifex noster ille est qui illam obtulit hostiam quae nos mundat Illam nunc quoque offerimus quae tunc fuit oblata quae non potest consumi For we always offer up the same not another even at this time but the same because he is offered or sacrificed in many places are there therefore many Christs by no means but one Christ every where who is entire here entire there one bodie He is our Bishop who offered that Host which cleanseth us We also do now offer that Host which then was offered which cannot be consumed And lib. 3. de Sacerd. c. 4. O miraculum O Dei benignitatem qui cum patre sursum sedet in illo ipso temporis articulo omnium manibus pertractatur ac se ipse tradit volentibus ipsum excipere ac complecti O miracle O goodness of God! He who sits with his Father above is in the same instant of time hand led by us all and himself gives himself to those who are willing to receive and imbrace him I shall conclude with two but those so evidently express in the point of Adoration that they seem of themselves enough to conclude the Controversie The First is from S. Ambrose l. 3. de spir sanct c. 12. Itaque per scabellum terra intelligatur per terram autem caro Christi quam hodie quoque in mysteriis adoramus quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu ut supra diximus adorarunt By a footstool therefore let earth be understood by earth the flesh of Christ which even at this day we adore in the mysteries and which the Apostles as I said before adored in our Lord Jesus The next from S. Austin explicating the same words in Psal 98. Suscepit enim de terra terram quia caro de terra est de carne Mariae carnem accepit quia in ipsa carne hic ambulavit ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedit nemo autem illam carnem manducaverit nisi prius adoraverit Juventum est quomodo adoretur tale scabellum pedum Domini non solum non peccemus adorando sed peccemus non adorando For of earth he took earth because flesh is of earth and of the flesh of Mary he took flesh and because he walked here in that flesh and gave us that flesh to be eaten unto salvation and none eats that flesh without having first adored it We have found how such a footstool of the feet of our Lord may be adored and how we do not only not sin in adoring it but sin in not adoring it These few I have chosen out of many enough I hope to satisfie you that 't is very far from plain that the first Ages were cleerly against us And that those whose forward confidence has perswaded you to think so have very much wronged the confidence you put in them it being not possible for our selves at this day to express more plainly then those great lights of the Church have done before us That our senses are not in this matter to be trusted that they may but the Word of God cannot deceive us that what we see in the blessed Eucharist is not what nature framed not Bread and Wine though to our senses it seem so but the body and blood of Christ that blood which redeemed the people that very thing which did flow from his side which the Sages saw and adored in the manger that at which the Angels in beholding tremble nor are able to look upon without fear that which no man received without first adoring and which in fine 't is sin not to adore SECT III. Prayer to Saints BVt to proceed page 103. Mr. White strives to answer the Objection of Prayer to Saints alleged as an Innovation so a proof of the uncertainty of Traditions and their corruptions the first Argument from the opinion of the Fathers who held that the souls of Saints were not admitted into heaven before the day of Judgment
your mind been in the same temper it was in the first Sect. of this part would have been reason sufficient not only to doubt but to reject it that you had not evidence of its certainty For there a man must plainly deny assent to what even all Doctors determine though he have no-so much-as-probable Objection against them upon this onely ground That he has not evidence their determination is certain and here he must yeeld assent because he has not evidence the thing he assents to is not certain Which is want of evidence must at one time produce dissent at another assent as it suits with your inclinations to the case it is apply d to Besides if all parts of Scripture have been doubted of Vid. Hierom. de Scrip. Eccl. in Petro Jacobo Juda Paulo Spondan ad an 60. 98. Com. Laod. c. and denyed too nay some which you receive by several even of the Fathers Why should not you think you have reason to doubt as well as those who lived neerer the Primitive times and should know more who shall satisfie a Critical Soul that all their doubts were ever fairly answered and they not more oppress'd by strength then satisfi'd by reason and this also destroys your pretence to universal Tradition of time and place since that could not in your grounds be delivered with universality which by some has been denyed And for your Monuments of Antiquity I beseech you pretend not to prove it that way for I think I deal liberally if I allow you to have examined ten Authors of every age and what proof are ten of the sentiments of 1000000 Then what do you find in these Authors certain places of Scripture cited out of such books as we still have but whether those books contained then the same number of Chapters and Verses they do now you will find very few to speak to Nay I do not beleeve you will find ten in all Ages that give you a Catalogue of the Books themselves much less of the Chapters and Verses So that your conspiracy of all Monuments of Antiquity will not amount to ten men in fifteen Ages I must desire you not to mistake what I have said as if I also doubted of Scripture which I acknowledg to be the Word of God reverence it as such and know the denyers of it were for the most part Hereticks All I aim at is by an Argument ad hominem to shew the power of prejudice to which what is reason when of one side ceases to be reason when on the contrary If therefore you faithfully pursue your own Principles what ever you think the true ground why you receive Scripture is the present Churches Authority and you should as you rightly infer receive the sense as well as words from her And for your fear of the Alcoran you will need no other security then your own thoughts if you reflect that all which the testimony of the Mahumetan Church if that name be tolerable concludes is That what she says was delivered by Mahomet was truly delivered by Mahomet and to so much I think you will allow her testimony good beleeving you do not doubt but that Mahomet was truly Author of the Alcoran and so much if you allow her you cannot deny the Testimony of a Christian Church Viz. That what she affirms was delivered by Christ was truly delivered by Christ and farther Tradition reaches not Now the Minor necessary to a conclusion of Religion that what was delivered by Mahomet was inspired by God I am sure you hold as great impiety to grant as Blasphemy to deny that which we subsume viz. that what was delivered by Christ did truly proceed from God Tradition then of the Alcoâ—an and Tradition of Christian doctrine agree in this that they prove the one to have descended from Mahomet the other from Christ but Christianity endures not either that a delivery from Mahomet should or that a delivery from Christ shâ—uld not argue a necessity of obedience to what was so delivered as to sacred and heavenly truth ¶ 2. Secondly I say if you can prove or produce any Tradition for any revealed truth not contained in the Bible as cleerly universal for time and place as that Tradition which assures me the Bible is the Word of God I must imbrace it ¶ 2. Secondly I conceive there is no point of our faith but has not onely as clearly an universal Tradition but a much clearer both for time and place then the Scripture a truth which since you may find in the first Sections of Rushworths second Dialogue I shall only wonder here you see not that the very Arguments which you make against the universality of Tradition for some points as that they have been doubted of and rejected by some are every whit as forcible against Scripture whereof there is no paâ—â— which has not been both doubted of and rejected too by Hereticks indeed at least for the most part for some also of the Fathers have doubted even of some Books which your selves receive but so also were they who rejected the points in question whose opposition if it be not allowed against Scripture cannot be valid to any thing but prejudice against points of doctrine Be true therefore if you please to your own reason and embrace that principle and the Communion of those who own it which alone can with certainty convey to you these sacred Truths which are necessary for your happiness ¶ 3. Thirdly I cannot grant your Church was the onely one before Luthers time there 's the Greek Abyssen and others there may be in several parts of the world that I know not of ¶ 3. Thirdly What you mean here by our Church I cannot tell if onely that number of Orthodox Christians who live within the Precincts of the Roman either Diocess or Patriarchate I know no body maintains I 'm sure I do not beleeve the number of the faithful is confin'd to that Pale But to answer of every particular place where Christians live till it be agreed what they held and of what may be too as well as what is seems unreasonable eifor me to undertake or you to exact thus much is true in general that whatever company of men where-ever they live hold this only principle of unity both in faith and government so as to be a Church are not another but our Church and who hold it not are no Church at all ¶ 4. Fourthly I see no necessity that any one particular Church should continue uncorrupted or that it is necessary the greatest number of Professors of Christianity should have uncorrupted Religion In the days of Elijah the Prophet there were but 700 that had not bowed the knee to Baal which the Prophet that thought himself alone knew not of ¶ 4. That there is any necessity a particular Church should always remain uncorrupted or that the greatest number of professors of Christianity should have uncorrupted Religion are two Propositions which
since any body does I am sure no body is bound to maintain I am glad they impose upon me no necessity of contest with you in this Paragraph But least you should think it would follow thence that Tradition were uncertain I must affirm that not only a particular Church but scarcely a particular family that is well instructed can possibly err if they stick to Tradition and that the universality of the Church though ten thousand times more dispersed then it is cannot secure it from error if they desert it ¶ 5. Lastly I see no proof of your infallibility sure I am it is a safer way to preserve truths in writing then to be transmitted by the various apprehensions and mmories of multitudes and truly I beleeve you would not have retained so much truth as you have had it not been for the Bible and other writings and so I see not how you prove any thing has been intirely transmitted onely by Tradition Much lesse how it is proved there could creep no error into your Faith ¶ 5. Lastly I would fain flatter my self with hopes of success in the design I have had to serve you but however that proves must needs take the liberty to think if you do not yet see the proof you mention the fault is not in the object Only I presume there is no mistake in the word Infallibility which placed singly may speak an Attribute too much approaching to Divinity to belong to any thing of mortal but by extraordinary priviledge since it extends it self to all subjects whatsoever whereas with us 't is confined to matters of Faith and signifies but this that we can neither be deceived in what we hear nor deceive our posterity in what we relate concerning these matters Now it being the nature of man to speak truth and the number of men being in this case beyond all temptations whether of hopes fears or whatever else may be imagined should prevail with them to contradict their nature I cannot see but a little reflexion must needs make you acknowledge 't is beyond the power of imagination it self to put any deceit in their testimony since it will be to put an effect whose cause the putter sees neither is nor can be That Truths may be preserv'd in writing I doubt not nay even better then by the various apprehensions and memories of multitudes But if there be no variety in their apprehensions nor dependance on their memories continual practice overweighing the defects of nature I cannot see but 't is much easier to beat a man from a sence whereof he has no other hold then a word appliable to another sence then to beat a multitude from the judgements which they are in possession of and confirm'd by the daily actions of their whole lives Besides while the writings preserve the truth who shall preserve the writings from false copying and all the errors which both negligence and knavery threaten them withall and if the Vessel be tainted what shall keep the Wine pure For the rest I conceive that whatever you think of us your selves would not have the truths you have had not nature maintained that Tradition in your practice you deny in your words Your faith of the Blessed Trinity is right because no interest has yet moved you to follow your principles against it But give an Arian the same liberty against it you take against us and if you convince him you will as much deceive me as I think you do your selves to beleeve you can do it The same I say of Baptism of Prelacy and the rest of those truths you profess all which while you pretend Scripture it is Tradition which has truly conveyed to you and you have kept since because no body has opposed them but when they do have no more hold then of those you have deserted Neither is it possible for your principles to convince an Adversary that makes advantage of them neither just to condemn him for it will be to condemn your selves and that plea which if it justifie you must absolve him That faith has been so transmitted by Tradition that it has not been written is not Mr. Whites tenet but that writing at least the writings we have is not able so to transmit it as is necessary for the Salvation of mankind without Tradition This being the security of whatever writing faith is contained in if it be Scripture we know the sense by Tradition if a Father he is of authority in as much as what he writes is consonant to Tradition if any thing be found to disagree that not having any weight ¶ 6. First I ask whether an Error cannot overspread the face of the greatest Church visible It hath done so in the Arians time In our Saviours time Secondly whether an Error once spread cannot continue Arianism continued most universal for many years Mahomets Errors and Blasphemies for many Ages Jewish Suppositious Traditions longer yet then they What security then can a man have that Errors could not creep into the the Church while it is your Principle to embrace any thing your Councils shall determine ¶ 6. To your first Question I answer if that may be called a Church which wants the only principle which can make a Church I conceive an error may very easily overspread the face of the greatest visible There being no more to do then to desert this Rule and then truth will not only easily but almost certainly desert her without adhering to Tradition I know no security any number of men be it never so great can have of truths above the reach of natural reason such as are the Maxims of Religion But let the Church you speak of adhere to Tradition and be largely diffused and I conceive it as impossible that Error should overspread it as that it should be ignorant of what it does every day To the second since the supposal of an Erâ—â—â—s being spread supposes a destruction of that fence which only could keep it out viz. cleaving to Tradition I conceive an Error once spread not only may but will continue without extraordinary Providence of Almighty God Arianism which you exemplifie in was plainly brought in by preferring the interpretations which Arius made of Scripture as you do those of Luther c. before the Doctrine delivered by their Forefathers neither was there any cure for the disease till they purged themselves of novelty and rested in the ancient Doctrine Mahomet also took the same course and all those whom his impieties will bring to Hell will owe their damnation to the deserting of this principle which had his followers not first been cozened from it had not been possible for him to have undon so great a part of the world Jewish Traditions I have already spoken of and hope I need not again put you in mind they have nothing common with Tradition but the name This principle then and only this of adhering to Tradition gives a man all imaginable security
destroys all possibility either of advance in your self or success in the pains which are taken for you for what more can be done then to deliver a truth with that plainness that no reason can be found out to encounter it But quotations are necessary to make up Mr. Whites proof if it were so eternal happiness might well deserve a little labour but must Authors be quoted to shew that if the corruption be taken notice of it could not come in unawares and if not unawares then openly and this either by reason which is to change the natures of truth and falshood or force which to overcome the extent of the Church and continue so many ages as is necessary to the plantation of Errors of this importance nature without looking into Books tells us the impossibility of The Argument you make in the last place I beseech you make against your self and since 't is in a matter of no lesse concern then eternal either happiness or misery make it faithfully Consider that if not to act no reason is requisite to act there must be reason you have acted and though not actually begun a separation yet actually follow and adhere to those who did begin it and do continue it This action in a case of such importance as Sâ—â—ism requires such reason as is fit for salvation to depend on Examine therefore your reasons but severely and so as your Conscience be willing and secure to own them at that Judgment where the sentence is eternity and if you find them to have neer the force of those of ours which you say have no force I shall think either your judgment strangely byassed or mine strangely blind This to you but to a Pagan I acknowledg he is not to be put upon the proof you may if you please for your experience reflect what yourself would say to one and see whether you can say any thing stronger to him then we do to you if your thoughts be faithful to you I doubt what you deny reason against your self must either be reason against him or you will have much ado to keep your Arguments from being unreasonable I have had some proof of this in a Divine of yours famous and I think deservedly as any of your side whose discourse upon this Theam makes experience joyn with my reason to strengthen the confidence I have of the truth of what I say ¶ 8. I cannot see how you that take away the distinction of Fundamental and a non-Fundamental in points of faith can evade that of the Quartadecimans proving the chief part of Christians to have been mistaken in this Traditional way holding by it contradictions while each part pretends this title and so shews it not an infallible way to say it was a small point received in some Churches In answer to the gradual receiving of the Cannon you confess one Province may have sufficient evidence of that one truth which from it must be spread over the rest of the Church I think those things which I have written prove not only your way not only fallible but false in many points Several other things I have observed in Mr. White which do not satisfie me but because I want those Authors necessary to make my Objections cleer I chuse rather to be silent in them then not to speak to purpose Had I time to write these over again I might make what I say cleerer but I doubt not but your ingenuity will discerne my meaning and according to promise grant me a candid answer which I shall gratefully embrace and if convincing as readily acknowledge In the mean while I rest Yours to serve you in what I may ¶ 8. As for your distinction of fundamental and not fundamental in points of faith the words possibly may be taken in such a sence that it may be tolerable but if by fundamental you mean necessary this being plainly a relative word it ought to be expressed to whom they are necessary if you say to mankind 't is evident no point is not-fundamental since so God would have taught us what is unnecessary that is done a needless action if to a single man then they can never be assigned since they vary according to the several exigencies of several persons The instance of the Quartadecimans being I conceive fully answered by Mr. White p. 44. I have no more to do after I have referred you thither where you will find the point it self was no subject of Tradition but a practise which according to the different circumstances of different places was by the wisdom of the Apostles who saw what was convenient for the time and place they lived in practised differently and afterwards by the wisdom of the Church those circumstances ceasing reduced to an Uniformity For the rest I hope what I have written will satisfie you that neither falsity nor fallibility of Mr. Whites way appears in your Exceptions It had been easie and perhaps necessary had the piece been intended for more then your self to have woven it something closer but a sight that pierces so far into the bracks of an Argument can be no less sharp in discovering its fastness and I think your eye too strong to need spectacles or glasses or whatever helps are invented for weaker Organs I am onely to make Apologie for the delay of this Reply occasioned by a little business and a great deal of sickness and to profess that if this Answer be not such a one as you desire 't is the mis-fortune of many a good cause to suffer by the badness of its Advocates Your very Humble Servant J. B. FINIS