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
was already a Christian I do not see the words can be brought to bear your sense since manifestly he could not have been so without already being certain of the body of Christianity So that your Exposition makes the Evangelist very wisely take a great deal of pains in writing a book to inform Theophilus certainly of what he certainly knew before Mr. Whites interpretation therefore seems much the more genuine and yet even admitting yours I cannot as I said before imagine any approach to our difference For St. Luke expresly confining his design to the instruction of Theophilus hee that extends it to more acts manifestly without any Warrant from him You urge afterwards the first of the Acts which you say Mr. White passeth over as Commentators do hard places Truly your severity is beyond what I have ever met with and you are the first example of expecting a man should answer more then is objected Mr. White is speaking to the Gospel and these words are in the Acts and yet you except against him for taking no notice of them As for the difficultie it self since those words cannot be taken in their proper natural signification St. John plainly telling us the world would not be able to contain the books which might be written I do not see any ground you have to understand by them the substance of Christian doctrine With submission to better judgments I apprehend that by All is meant all he thought fit to communicate to Theophilus that sense seeming to flow naturally from the places compared together But whether that interpretation be true or no I am sure nothing appears why a man should accept of yours For whereas you would prove it out of St. Lukes exact knowledge that is manifestly nothing to the purpose every bodie seeing it follows not because S. Luke knew all therefore he delivered all And for the quarrel against Mr. White for leaving out the word exactly besides that as I come from saying it is far from being very pertinent exact knowing being much a different thing from exact teaching all he knew Mr. White puts in stead of it that he was present almost at all things c. which in matters of fact is the most exact knowledg that can be And for the second proof that otherwise he could not say he had delivered All Christ did or taught I have already told you though that word cannot be taken properly to signifie truly All yo◠do it wrong to take it so improperly as you do the substance of Christian doctrine being a strange English of the Latin word Omne But be all this given to the respect of the person which suffers me not to pass by any thing you say without taking notice of it though otherwise your Conclusion which I am now come to does not any way prejudice the Tenet I am maintaining To contain sufficient truths and to be a sufficient means to salvation which may possibly be true in respect of some persons and circumstances being quite another thing then to decide all quarrels carried on by factiously litigious persons and this in all times and cases For a conclusion I beseech you to accept of this observation that a serious reflection on what you do your self would satisfie you whether partie Truth takes in this question for whatever force custom and a prepossest fancie has on your words to make them maintain St. Lukes Gospel alone sufficient nature contradicts them so powerfully that your actions speak the clean contrary and plainly prove 't is not sufficient for since you cannot hold that a sufficient means to you which you do not sufficiently know to be a means and this sufficiency of the Gospel you do not know without the Acts which nature forces you to rely upon even while you are maintaining you need them not you see plainly your words and actions agree not and that while you would by the former perswade the sufficiency of the Gospel alone the later unresistably convince somthing else viz. the Acts is necessary to its sufficiency that is that it alone is not sufficient SECT V. Answer to those Fathers who are brought for the sufficiencie of Scripture MY next Argument for Scriptures sufficiency shall be out of the Fathers which Mr White p. 175. thinks improper for us who will not relie on their Authority for any one point what though we receive not from them any authoritative testimonie yet we embrace a rational one from any not because they say it therefore it is true but because we see no reason to dis-beleeve or have sufficient reason to beleeve they testifie truths as a Judge collects a truth from Witnesses every one of which is a fallible man yet by beholding circumstances sees their concurrent Testimonies cannot be false here we have ground enough to beleeve that Scripture was a sufficient rule to them because they say and confess it was I am ready to beleeve any Tradition as well as the Bible provided we have as good ground to beleeve it came from the Apostles as I have of the Bible Suppose it be not a sufficient argument for us who besides have Scripture on our side yet it is a sufficient Argument against you who pretend to derive your Religion from them who went before you whom you include in your Church as Mr White If the Bible had once that authority we plead for in your Church it should have it still the contrary being a Novelty therefore I must count your Doctrine false till you have solved this Argument That which was the Rule must be but Scripture was the Rule Ergo c. ¶ 2. First I must take out of the way your Objections out of those Fathers I make use of that they were of your opinion which you gather out of several expressions of theirs as that of Austin whose and others their words I have of late read in your Authors pleading thus your cause I would not beleeve the Gospel unless the Authority c. In which and all other of their expressions we must understand unless we will say through heat of dispute they sometimes contradict their own sence plainly delivered at other times according to their intent and so I see not any thing that makes against us as that mentioned Either S. Austin means the Church of all ages or that present in which he lived If that precisely abstractly without consideration of the antiquity of it and its doctrinal succession from the Apostles his doctrine had been nothing available against the Manichees against whom he disputes for they might have alledg'd the authority of their Church with as good ground against him therefore when he alledgeth the authority of the Church or Tradition to be a sufficient proof of that which is not contained in Scripture he means the universal Tradition of all ages which was as evident as that of Scripture tradition or as cleerly derived from the Apostles by universal Tradition as the Scripture it self and such a
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
and any finite thing to worship or represent God in a shape infinitely below him then there would be for a subject to go and fall down to a Toad under him for to worship and honour his King in it That reason of the Apostle in Acts 17. is the very same with that Isai 40.18 where God speaks against his being worshipped under shapes First in many expressions describes his own greatness and Majestie the Nations of the Earth all are but as the drop of a Bucket to him c. concludes from all To whom then will you liken God or what likeness will you compare to him The workman melteth c. What Mr. White says p. 110. of the marks of the Church as apparent enough out of Scripture I say of this point If there want not will in the seeker to acknowledge them Lactantius saith Just l. 2. c. 19. where Images are for Religions sake there is no Religion The Council of Elibera Can. 36. decreed that nothing should be painted on the walls of Churches which is adored of the people Origen cont Cels l. 7. We suffer not any to worship Jesus at Altars Images and Temples because it is written Thou shalt have none other Gods c. Epiphanius epist ad Joh. Hierus saith It is against the Authority of the Scriptures to see the Images of Christ or of any Saints hanging in the Church In the seventh Council of Constantinople those words of Epiphanius are cited against the Encraticae be mindful beloved children not to bring Images into the Church nor set them in the places where the Saints are buried but always carry God in your hearts neither let them be suffered in any common house for it is not meet that a Christian should be occupied by the eyes but by the meditation of the mind ¶ 1. You reply to Mr. Whites answer to the usual Objection from the Decalogue that you cannot see that prohibition is a Ceremony but what 's this to the purpose There is no distinction in Mr. White of Ceremonial or not Ceremonial but a plain Consequence authorized by the Apostle that who receives as of obligation any part of the Law in vertue of the Law be it Ceremony or what else it can be is bound in pursuance of that action to receive the whole Law If you derive your Tenet from the Law of Nature as your mentioning Ceremonies seems to suppose what do you cite the Decalogue for prove the Prohibition contrary to the Law of Nature and you have done your business But cease to object the Jews Law in vertue of which you either receive it not and then cannot press it or else are obliged to receive the whole Law with it This Consequence too that if it be not repeated in the new Law it binds not you do not see I cannot tell what dimness has of a sudden overcast as clear a sight as I have met with but me thinks nothing can be plainer then that if the whole Law be abolished no part of it can be binding but in vertue of some other Law in which it is inserted For the examples you alledge of Precepts unrepeated and yet binding The first is cleerly against the Law of nature and in vertue of that not the old precept to be avoided The second how do you prove obliging farther then the municipal Laws we live under exact it But what makes you demand a repetition of the tenth Commandment in so many words Cannot the same thing be commanded in several words or would you determine the command to the words not what is meant by them But you have found this command repeated in the New Testament in these words of S. Paul We ought not to think the Godhead is like to gold or silver graven by art and mens device and if you can make these two Proposition God is not like an Image and Thou shalt not make an Image to adore it to be the same I shall think that though Images are not your power in reasoning is in somthing very like the Godhead for 't will be omnipotent Then you discourse in this manner God is not like unto any similitude the art of man can devise therefore ought not to be worshipt by similitudes If nothing can be like him and consequently nothing be a similitude sure you need not fear that worship which can never be since it supposes a thing which can never be But I suppose you mean by similitudes Images whether like or unlike and then pray how does it follow no Image can be like him therefore no honor can redound to him that is no benefit to us by Images To worship these Images so as to beleeve them either him or like him which are the things I conceive the Apostle speaks against we do abhor with the height of detestation but if they induce us to worship him oftner and more ardently then we should without them how can it be but that to oppose them is to oppose his worship Therefore no Pictures or Representations of him are to be made Beseech you Sir what Law is there against making Pictures which are not like Sure you would be very severe to ill Painters But the truth is the Pictures which are made of God are indeed no more then signs which present him to our memory and called pictures of him with no more justice then a Bush would be called the Picture of Wine For the nature of a Picture consisting in representing to the eye the same proportion colour and figure of parts up-a piece of cloth or wood which we see in the Original I refer my self to your own candor to judge whether we be guilty of the impiety of believing parts or colour or any thing which the art of painting is able to reach to be in God for painting is only of bodies and those grosse ones too to expresse wind or those smaller parts which affect the Smell Tast c. is beyond her Sphere So that none who is in his sences can imagin us so damnably sencelesse as to believe 't is in its power to frame any representation of God which with any propriety can be called a Picture of him These which we have by custom warranted and perhaps begun by authority of Scripture bring by the shapes they represent the Divinity into our memories and adoration of it not of the pictures into our hearts and except it be unlawful to remember and adore the Deity I cannot imagine it should be unlawful to use means which conduce to that end By this I presume you already see the disparity of the Comparison of pictures to a Toad but first what mean you by worshipping God in a shape if you mean that we hold either that shape to be his or he to be in it more then his ubiquity makes him present to all things you either mistake or wrong us and what else that expression should signifie I see not Next what is there of common betwixt these
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