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
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
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.
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
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
business do not require they should be urged are yet manifest in our case the two last being visible almost to blindness and the first undeniable to Christianity since it cannot be doubted but that the Religion which Christ delivered was true and you may if you please perceive that the fall of Adam is so far from necessarily occasioning a fall from true Religion that mankind once possest of the truth and this method to preserve it must plainly fall from its nature and degenerate into beast or somthing worse if it be not as steady in the pure service of God and preservation of the truth as of it self the props which uphold the former being full as strong if not more then those which sustain the later ¶ 7. The Inclination you speak of to underprop your tottering infallibility is very steady to uphold corruptions and superstition as we accuse you of not so the pure Worship of God Again I pray tell me since you have only proved or rather shewn a possibility of your Doctrines succession Is it not more possible to deviate from the right line then to keep close to it This probability is stronger against you then any I cannot see they are any more then probabilities you bring for your selves that there could be no error universally spread over your Church Shall I give you an instance to prove the possibility The Jews Church when their Forefathers were brought out of Egypt had not the whole Nation every man of them sufficient Instruction in and confirmation of the true worship of God so many wonders and signes as they had yet did they not corrupt the worship I hope 40 yeers is sufficient Mr White thought three yeers enough for the Apostles to be in one place to teach the ways of God and all those miracles they had to confirm them after they were setled in the land of Canaan how could they lose any points of Doctrine received or their Traditions be corrupted if your Arguments hold Was it not possible seeing it has been they should afterward again bring in their Traditions for Truths by which they made void the Law of God as our Saviour speaks and those Traditions as Mr. White p. 124. went among the Jews for currant sound Law and afterward continued ask them in one of those after Ages whether it came from Moses suppose one of those false Traditions he may answer says Mr White p. 126. he received it from their Predecessors but they can yeeld no account why any Age may not have chang'd that but why may not the Jew ask in what age as you do us or year their Doctrine was corrupted but says Mr. White If I assign an age or yeer can they acquit themselves in point of proof and so I say of you clearly they cannot for since there was no Register nor visible effects of this Doctrine and so unless you can shew a Register or effects for every age and yeer you cannot prove there have been no corruptions among you and so all your infallibility depends upon uncertainty what if there be not Histories and Records of all passages of the Church as likely there are not how can I be sure there have been no such changes as are possible and where now is your certain proof ¶ 7. The nature of man then being reason see not why you should so confidently affirm he is naturally more steady in idolatry then the pure service of God unless you will make the disorder of reason more his nature then reason it self What follows is an odd perseverance of yours when by taking so much pains to shew he has not demonstrated you cannot but acknowledge he pretends to have done so Your question whether it be not more possible to deviate from then to keep close to the right line will find an answer in this reflexion that if a thing be made to keep us in a right line and to guide mankinde so powerfully by it that the line cannot be deviated from without a deviation from nature and this I have shewn to be our case 't will be harder to deviate from then to keep in it as it is very difficult to force a falling Port-cullis into a crooked line which by the nature of its weight and directions of Art is determined to a streight one The rest of this Paragraph and the whole following one presses the failing of the Iews an example against which there lie innumerable exceptions for first they were a particular Nation subject to be wrought upon by hopes and feare when any of their Princes went about to make his own wickedness National from which spring most of their failings were derived Again there wanted in their breasts that great fire of Pentecost which together with Christian Religion planted in their hearts that received it an unspeakable esteem of it and a certain perswasion that all things even life it self were to be neglected for it the advantage of future goods infinitely overvaluing all possible evils in this world Whereas as far as I can perceive the conceit which the Jewes had of the next world was very weak and slothful being led even to the keeping of the Law by hopes of temporal goods promised to the observers the mystical Land of Promise being generally apprehended but feebly But what most imports you say nothing and I think can say nothing to prove Tradition was their rule Their Law was delivered immediatly to Moses and by him left in writing whose Interpretation was reserved to the High Priest what has this proceeding to do with Tradition Or would you have it preserve them from failing who neither made use of it nor had it to make use of if Tradition were not their rule which that it was I do not see how it can be asserted pray what does their failing concern us If not that but the written Word was their Rule which I do not see how it can be deny'd pray what hinders your Discourse to be conclusive against your self and their failing an evidence that the written Word is no preservative against Errors This you would do well to reflect upon Mean while your Argument against the security we pretend to by Tradition stands thus the Jews had errors who followed it not therefore we who do cannot be without them A discourse which as I should never have expected from you so I know not whether your second thoughts will think fit to own But to descend to particulars Had not the whole Nation of the Jews every man sufficient instruction in and confirmation of the true Worship of God yet did they not corrupt the Worship How far the instruction of the Jews was derived to particular men I am not able to answer and I doubt you do but guess This I see that those things which were commended to the practice of the multitude as their Feasts Circumcision c. remained entire among all their failings though they were but a particular Nation and wanted that
inward fire of charity infused by the Holy Ghost together with Christianity into the hearts of the first beleevers And you speak of the corruption of their Traditions that is private Interpretations of their Law so far from being understood practis'd by the multitude that being delivered with the seal of secrecie they were not so much as known to them To answer your Argument then what do you mean by sufficient instruction that particular men were instructed by the Law sufficiently to go to Heaven I conceive true but that the instruction of particular men was sufficient to preserve the Law from being corrupted I cannot grant since I think there is not in a particular Nation force enough to defend it self from the numerous and violent aâ—saults which the corruption of nature you just now insisted on will be sure to make upon it But how could they lose any point of doctrine if Mr. Whites Argument hold Pray does his Argument secure those who neither make use of Tradition for their Rule nor have it to make use of I but was it not possible they should bring in their Traditions to make void the Law of God See how weak a thing 't is to dispute out of words The Traditions you speak of are no more Traditions then Jews are Christians These private Cabalistical interpretations of Scripture made by unknown Authors and handed privately from one confident to another as Doctors among the Vulgar upon the authority of private men are what their word signifies and our Saviour reprehends And because these made void the Law of God shall therefore the thoughts and actions of an universality of people in which there can be no juggle nothing concealed and which have nothing at all common with the former undergo the same condemnation After this you retort Mr Whites answer to the Jew upon himself and urge that unless we can shew a register and visible effects for every age and year we cannot prove there has been no corruption among us If this will content you 't will not be very difficult to give you satisfaction for I beseech you are not the actions of mankind visible effects of the perswasion from whence they flow if you find people going to Mass adoring the holy Sacrifice assisting at Dirges reverencing Images c. will you doubt of their faith concerning these particulars Behold then the visible effects of Religion which if you assign any Age in which they were introduced we thus acquit our selves without the help of History or Records in point of proof It being much more impossible things of that notorious publikeness could be introduced without notice being taken that they were so then for a Tumbler to shew tricks from Pauls to Westminster and no body regard him the age you assign could not but know they were then brought in But the principle of that Age being to receive nothing but what was delivered by her Forefathers she could not admit of these things which 't is manifest she was conscious were then first begun and by the same evidence they could be begun in no Age but that of their author Christ by whom since they are now received 't is very clear they were delivered See now how this will fit the Jew whose Traditions there being no such principle to keep them out may for ought he can tell be brought in in any Age and whom in so suspicious and fallacious a secrecie as accompanied them 't is impossible ever to satisfie that the Masters he relies upon either have not deceived him or are not deceived themselves ¶ 8. Those Traditions which went among the Jewish people for sound Law as Mr White p. 124. which the Pharisees taught them have continued since with them in their several Countries where they have been scattered although they have no Sanhedrims seeing they agree among themselves in them May they not prove with your Argument such Traditions came from Moses they have been handed still to them from father to son and that in divers places so that they could not meet together to compose this forgerie so that it is no such impossible thing as to leap over Pauls steeple though Mr White c. as for your false Traditions to have first spread themselves very largely and by degrees and then being so spread to continue long and yet to be false there 's example of its possibility in the Jews and likewise in the Turks c. ¶ 8. Here you argue in this manner The Jews now in the time of their dispersion into several Countries agree in those false Traditions which had formerly been taught them by the Pharisees and which passed among them for sound Law therefore our discourse proves they came from Moses Of which argument I doubt your Antecedent has more of confidence then ground for where or how does this agreement of the scattered Jews to these Traditions appear By as much as I can learn from the small commerce I have had my self and intelligence I could get from others they are far enough from an uniformity in their opinions Neither do I know their agreement is general in any thing but what the natural force there is in Tradition preserves in them as the times and manners of celebrating their Feasts their circumcision the ornaments for their Synagogues and whatever else the obstinacy of perpetual practice suffers them not to disagree in Now this seems so far from weakning that it strongly confirms the force of Tradition which if it have even unawares such an effect upon them I do not see why it should be denied its efficacy upon us You may perhaps think these things are preserved by writing But I conceive it follows not that if a thing be written it does not owe its preservation to Tradition and that both these things and writing and all have been preserved by it Nay I beleeve that when you have examined the business well you will find little agreement in any thing whether written or not that does not proceed from this method Though were your Antecedent admitted I do not see how it justifies your consequence For though such an agreement may argue the dissent of what they agree in from the time of their dispersion it will not reach one jot farther nor afford any shew of reason why some one of the Rabbins in the intermedial Ages betwixt Moses and the dispersion may not have begun and dispersed the doctrine pretended to descend from Moses ¶ 9. One thing more I shall take notice of p. 29. where he defends your additions in Religion an evident way both how error came into your Church and spread it self over the whole face of it by your authoritative determinations of new points not formalie as you must confess received at first that which you determine once must stand as an infallible truth and what wonder such spread themselves over that great part of Christendom which you had set your selves ouer seeing all that were under you must
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
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