whose easiness if the Heretick have won any credit upon he must be the veriest Dunce in the world if he be not able to any crime whatsoever to frame some either to them plausible or at least confused Defence which they not understanding his craft will make use of his Authority to perswade them his innocence suffers not by desert but by want of capacity in them to see it ¶ 10. All that plausible discourse of the possibility of Scripture-corruption only teacheth me wariness and diligence to use all means withall confirming my Faith that it is the Word of God seeing so many contrary minds could never have combin'd to forge it nor those various Lections crept in had it not been universally in respect of time and place received ¶ 10. That something was commended to Writing by divine Authority you gather well but that the Books we have and as we have them are that somthing is if it be part of your Faith what you will not find any thing able to confirm Suppose an Atheist or wittie Infidel whose faithfulness to his nature requires severe demonstration reply to your discourse that although contrary mindes could not combine to a forgery yet they may be deceived by a forger who for any thing appears to the contrary may have adulterated the first Copie of the Original from which adulterated Copie all our Lections may have been derived What return could you make to this man Could all your wariness and diligence deny but that this case might happen which if it could what confidence could motion to him the receiving those Books as Infallible and Divine which he sees may have been corrupted and you are unable to shew but that they have been so Reflect therefore if you please what a pretty confirmation you have of your Faith which can neither satisfie another nor establish your self upon a foundation of any certainty and less then certainty and that absolute and rigorous cannot in these matters be a foundation I pass therefore to the next Section after I have observed that this neither proves there is so much as one corruption less in the Bible then your Adversary thinks may be and that although it had proved many less it would nothing have advanced your purpose since that Corruptions may be there that is for ought you know are there does as much destroy your pretence to certaintie as if you knew they actually were there SECT II. Incertainty of the Sence of Scripture from the bare letter ¶ 1 THe next material Question is how to understand these Scriptures which we may see sufficiently to agree because the Original Languages are not now commonly known equivocations incident to all writings and words c. ¶ 1 THat which you call the next material Question I do not comprehend how you come to state in the manner you do I presume you intend to oppose the 8th and following Sections of the 2d Dialogue where several incertainties necessarily springing out of the variety of Translations Copies c. being already handled is examined what must needs follow from this that the Scripture in the supposition there were but one authentical Copy extant is a Book written in words of men So that the Question there seems not to be of the method how to understand the Scripture but of this whether they may be understood with that certainty which in our businesse is requisite ¶ 2. Here I wonder at the excellent Mr. White not to have prevented this my difficulty that the same difficulty lies as heavy yea heavier upon Tradition for that came by the same way as you will confesse first delivered in those Original Tongues and must be Translated by word of Mouth and Expounded even into our Native Languages before we can be made sensible of them and is it not as hard for me to tell you that in English which another told me in Latin as for me or another better learnt than my self to Translate so much written to my hand in Latine into English surely this later is the exactest way ¶ 2. Here you must give me leave to wonder too but 't is that you raise such a difficulty and attribute so much heaviness to it upon so light ground Truly I am so far from confessing that Scripture and Tradition came by the same way that I conceive it impossible they should do so For Scripture contains a determinate number of words which are the same to whoever reads them Tradition is not at all confin'd but uses fewer and more obscure to ingenious persons more clearer to those who are duller and consequently is not subject to translation since certainly I cannot be said to have translated if what another hath told me in 500 words of French I tell you in 100 of English What you assume therefore that Christianity was first delivered in the Original tongues is in this sense true that it was first preached to those Nations whose Vulgar Languages were those which we call Original but that gives you no pretence to add 't was translated into ours it being delivered neither to them nor us in a set form of words which might be translated but so preached to both in our several Vulgar Languages that the people understood the meaning of what their Preachers delivered to them and were not left to guess at it by scanning the various and therefore doubtful signification of the words they express'd it in So that Tradition is not subject to any of the uncertainties which writing cannot be exempt from a truth which the next word expounded seems to confess For it being the business of Exposition to render the Text clear if the Gospel were by tradition expounded to the people there must have been a great fault in the Expositor if there remained any uncertainty or doubt in them ¶ 3. You will say perhaps not the words but the sense was delivered by Tradition at first in several expressions Answ Yet still by words liable to all those difficulties incident to Scripture yea greater when they again transmit it to others of another language Scripture too has the same truths essential to Christianity in divers expressions several places almost in every Book and whether this be not the surer way of transmitting truths let Papias his example witness who pretended to hear the Apostles themselves teach the Doctrine of Millenaries had he transmitted the very words in Writing others having judgement which he wanted as Eusebius would have seen his mistake by this appears in general Writing the surest way Litera scripta manet ¶ 3. 'T is true then that not a set form of words but a determinate sence came down to us by Tradition by the means of words indeed but not as you say liable to all those difficulties incident to Scripture For though words are necessary to both yet there is this difference that in Traditon where by the observation of the Master or notice of the Scholler any doubt is perceived 't is
conclude the Scripture may be a sufficient means to decide controversies by although refractory minds be not silenced by it Neither has God promised that obstinate opposers of truth shall have any means of truth made effectual to them ¶ 5. To the difficulty of the following Paragraph because you propose it by demands I shall answer by Replys and to the first Why the Arians were not convinced by that Book I answer because 't was a Book that is a multitude of words which having no Interpreter to protect them could not preserve themselves from being wrested into senses different from what was meant by the Author Was there not then say you Evidence enough of that truth Yes to humble Seekers but to convince it to the Arians no Evidence and Conviction taking them severely are things above the reach of meer words But this imputes weakness to S. John or rather the Holy Ghost why so put a Reed into a Giants hand and because with it he cannot cleave an Oak is he therefore weak a feeble instrument is no argument of the feebleness of him that uses it Now words I take to be very weak and they cease not to be words whoever he be that employs them not but that S. John or rather the Holy Ghost by him which I think you will not deny might have managed them much better and made a much nearer approach to evidence had he so pleased or that been his aym I see men write plainer every day and God forbid I should think they understand the use of words better than he that gave them the power to understand Neither dare I attribute the contrivance of the Book to chance or imagine the works of God to be directed by any thing but his own infinite wisdom and providence Whence then the obscurity of that book Truly I am not of Council with the Divinity but believe I may safely assert thus much that since the Holy Ghost knew what you would object and yet chose that manner of writing he meant you should see that book was not intended for a Judge of differences in Religion to which he refus'd to give all the qualities necessary for a Judge and which even a book is capable of To this I foresee you will object that at least S. John cannot be excused from the weaknesse of making choice of a means by which he knew his end was not to be arriv'd at and that to write against Corinthus when he was conscious his writing could not prove his intent was not only unnecessary but hurtful To which I reply he writ so as abundantly to prove his intent in that manner as he design'd to prove it but his intent was not that his writing should be a proof contentiously and frowardly scann'd but humbly and diligently studied In the former way he had left them a much better weapon both to defend themselves and overcome their Adversaries then words can be namely that which S. Paul commands us to desert upon no inducements no nor even of an Angel from Heaven but besides this for the superabundant comfort and strength of the faithful he added also a confirmation of their faith by writing intelligible enough at the time and to the persons he writ when every body knew what it was which Cerinthus objected and his followers insisted on and consequently knew how to apply the Phisick to the disease and plainly see his pretences overborn by the Apostles authority But now the case is quite different To say nothing of the alteration of words and the great change which so much time must needs make in the Phrases and manner of speech our Intelligence of that Heresie is faint and dim and to expect we should comprehend what was written against it equally with those ages which flourish'd with it is to make him that has hardly any knowledg of the disease as cunning in the cure as that Doctor whose charge the Patient is The Apostles Gospel therefore was in those circumstances plain enough by the letter to those to whom he writ but to us so dark that except we look upon it with the spectacles of Tradition or other helps we have no security of penetrating its sence though even to them it was not so clear but that it was wrestible and much more in the time of Arius to malicious subtlety and wit which Hereticks never want But then those Hereticks not the Scripture were in fault say you and no body doubts but that Heresie and fault are inseparable But whether they be in fault or no the Church ought to be furnisht with Arms to defend her self against all sorts of Enemies and not till they cease to be in fault when they will also cease to be her enemies be left ungarded she must be provided as well to confound the proud as confirm the humble And this first quality is that which we deny to Scripture and if you onely attribute to it the second you oppose not us neither do I know why we should oppose you But God has not promis'd that obstinate opposers of truth shall have any means of truth made effectual to them Very true but he has promis'd the gates of Hell in which I doubt these obstinate men cannot be denied to stand shall not prevail against his Church and I understand not how they can be denied to have prevailed if that which you would make her only guard uncertain words being by their craft seduced into a compliance with them they may as plausibly object obstinacy to the Church as she to them For that and constancy are distinguished only by their alliance or enmity with truth and if truth cannot be made appear as you say to obstinate men God has not promis'd it shall neither can it whether be the obstinate opposers they or the Church Besides to bate those inseparable companions of Heresie Pride Obstinacy consider what will in your principles become of sincere but sharp understandings people that are not yet faithful nor ever were obstinate but always wittie who look upon disputes in Religion without concern of any thing but truth but look that what themselves accept for truth be truly such and will not be put off with counterfeit ware and take in stead of truth the partial construction of either side Neither will they be denied neither can justice deny them but that they should first see the truth before they be prest to imbrace it Now that Truth be seen to be truth 't is plainly necessary that there be no possibility of falshood there being no contradiction in the world more manifest then that the same thing should at the same time be possible to be false and evidently true that is impossible to be false 'T is equally plain that where there is nothing to make out the truth but words if those words be made agree to two senses neither can be made out to be truth for you put but one cause that producible of both effects That
the place does not so much as offer any likelyhood of asserting nay I see not how the Apostle can without manifest violence to the Text be made to mean more than the one point he expresses and the fruit resulting from it for certainly 't is not to expound but wrest a Text when the same word is repeated in the same period wilfully to give it one sence in the former another in the later place which yet is the case here for in the first part of the period the word believe is so restrained by the Apostle that it cannot without unpardonable guilt be doubted what it was he meant should be believed when he plainly tells us 't is this that Jesus is Christ the Son of God and the word believing presently following in the same context and link'd to the former with a conjunction sincerity cannot imagine it should be meant of any other belief than that which so immediately before was plainly expressed that to repeat it had been Tautologie If words therefore can make any thing clear I see not what place of doubt there is left but that this is the Apostles meaning that the Book was written to the end we might believe the Divinity of the Son and by that belief have life as much as depends upon that one point which being the foundation of all our Faith may perhaps be therefore said to give us life because whatever contributes to our life has dependance on it for if Christ be no Son of God then no sufficient teacher of mankind and if no sufficient teacher then nothing sufficiently taught Though otherwise sure life is not promis'd more expresly to this faith then Salvation to eating his flesh which neverthelesse I believe you will not say is enough to Salvation and consequently should not that this is enough to life What you say in the last place that the words do not shew it St. Johns chief design to prove Christ the Consubstantial Son of God how do you prove The word Christ which is all the Text has more than what Mr. White cites alters not the case These two expressions That Jesus is the Son of God and that he is Christ the Son of God not having any considerable difference since nothing is more evident then that he that believes him to be Christ the Son of God believes him to be the Son of God But I apprehend all this business to be nothing but the confusion raised in our thoughts by the equivocation of the word end which may either signifie what S. John intended to do when he set himself to write that Book which I conceive was to shew the Consubstantiality of the Son or else what fruit he design'd from it after it was written and this seems to be the life of his Readers ¶ 3. They to whom he wrote own'd Christ as the Saviour yet he writes to them that they might have full knowledge and a standing monument to preserve that knowledg But besides that Mr White has no ground for that fancie S. Johns design was only to specifie such particulars as prove Christs Dietie I think it an unanswerable Argument to shew from one Chapter another of the Gospel how many particulars there are that are nothing at all to this only purpose of S. John yea more particulars that do no way prove it then that doe as any one may see that reads over the Gospel I wonder then how Mr White could shift off the place by this groundless false Assertion if it be as to me it is evident then S. John making here as it is manifest a recapitulation of all those Doctrines and Precepts in his Gospel concluding from all shews us that his Book is a sufficient rule to salvation in all things absolutely necessary the expression that beleeving that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God must needs be understood as ordinarily it is thorowout the Scripture He that beleeves shall be saved c. not of a naked assent of the understanding but of the consent of the will too as the same S. John himself c. 1.12 As many as received him to them he gave power to become the sons of God and now expounding that receiving of Christ for 〈◊〉 and Saviour adds to them that beleeve in his name For this capital truth or Act is big with or virtually contains all the rest S. John had delivered in his Gospel it were improper for S. John being to comprize all in few words in this Conclusion to particularize all that were to write over the Gospel again besides its known verba intellectus denotant affectus else neither this nor many other expressions of the like nature in Scripture could be true seeing bare assenting as Devils do saves not ¶ 3. Whether Mr White have any ground for what you call his fancy I am so confident of your sinceritie that I dare appeal to your second thoughts if you please to reflect the word onely which you insist upon seems not more severely used by Mr White then to signifie chiefly or principally which may well consist with many perhaps the greater number of other particularities as Sir Kenelm Digbies Book was intended only to prove the immortality of the Soul and yet far the greater part is spent in the consideration of bodies And yet truly I beleeve tha◠were S. Johns Book examined from Chapter to Chapter little would be found but what does either directly prove our Saviours Divinitie or is subordinate to that end some accidentals excepted which the nature of such discourses requires should be weaved in and which hinder not but that the other is the only design To proceed I must take leave to wonder in my turn you persist to call Mr Whites Answer a shift false and groundless and say no more then you do to make it appear so What you next affirm to be evident and manifest that S. John making here a recapitulation of all those Doctrines and and Precepts in his Gospel concluding from all shews us that his Book is a sufficient Rule to salvation in all things absolutely necessary if I understand what 't is to recapitulate and to conclude is evidently neither manifest nor true for what words are there that can bear the sense of recapitulating and concluding in these short periods Many other things here are which I have not written but those I have I writ to the end c. To recapitulate signifies to sum up the chief Heads of what was said before and to conclude is to gather somthing from others that went before and here are neither heads nor premises but a bare Historical Narration informing us what the Apostle did and why which differs as much from recapitulating and concluding as History does from Logick But what is of more importance how came you to be so clear sighted as where none else can perceive any Conclusion at all to discover this That his Book is a sufficient rule to salvation in all things necessary
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
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
Pictures and the Toad whether you look upon the end or means The end of our Pictures is the Adoration of God a duty which since you cannot deny to be often necessary and never unfit you should deny us no occasion that prompts us to perform it And for the means We conceave that as no notion can be attributed to God but with much impropriety so we cannot chuse a better than what the Scripture attributes to him in the vision of the Prophet Daniel viz. antiquus Dierum We use therefore to put us in mind of God a Picture which presents to our eyes the reverence of Age which if you have any quarrel to blame the Scripture in which we find it and which by an universal custom was without memory of its beginning and therefore if St. Austins rule hold like to descend from the Apostles presently conveys to our Soul an apprehension first and then an adoration of God For the Toad what has it either from nature or custom to do with the King that he that falls down to it should be thought to honour him and what can hinder it from being judged even by the King himself pretended to be honoured by it a most ridiculous and unworthy action What you say next of the conformity of the reasons brought in the Acts to those in Isay I shall not examine since the conclusion you make being no more then that nothing like to God can be made I hold it as great impiety to deny it as I conceive there is impossibility of deducing from that truth any thing to the prejudice of this other which I am maintaining The rest are Quotations so carelesly gathered to say no more that I know not whether I should more blame your Credulity for I am sure they owe not their birth to the Candor you professe in giving your self up to the conduct of others who are so able to guide your self or pitty your misfortune that those you honour with so much confidence should so little deserve it The words of Lactantius are these Quare non est dubium quin Religio nulla est ubicunque Simulacrum est where by Simulacrum is plainly meant an Idol as by the whole intent of the book which is contra Gentiles by his subsequent proof and by these words almost immediately preceding Non sub pedibus quarat Deum nec a vestigiis suis eruat quod adoret evidence past dispute And had you seen the place you could not have doubted but his Simulacrum is a figure believed to be God and so adored which till we maintain lawful Lactantius is very unjustly brought to oppose us The 36 Can. of the Councel of Elibera runs thus Placuit picturas in Ecclesia esse non debere ne quod colitur aut adoratur in parietibus depingatur A decree which may as well be made now as then did Circumstances require it from the wisdom of our Governours For we say not that 'T is unlawful not to have Pictures in Churches but that 't is not unlawful to have them Now because the prudence of those Fathers judged them inconvenient in those times of persecution and that place for this Councel of no more then 19 Bishops concerns only Spain Can any Candour infer they judged them absolutely unlawful and unpermittable to any Place Time or Circumstance Besides as far as probability may be allow'd to interpret this Prohibition it proceeded from the reverence had of Sacred Images which it therefore forbad lest they should run the hazard of being disgracefully or unhandsomly defaced in those unsetled times either by the moysture of the wall on which they were painted or the malice of their Persecutors impossible to be avoyded while they were fix'd to the Fabrick For what else can Ne in parietibus quod colitur depingatur signifie for so it is and not as you cite it That nothing be painted which is adored Which if true as 't is much the likelyest to be so of any thing hitherto suggested to my thoughts It will be very fine that their care to preserve Images should be turn'd into an Argument to overthrow them I cannot find any such words as you mention in Origen nor do believe any else will having read the place you cite with some diligence That piece of the Epistle of Epiphanius is looked upon as a foul and manifest forgery The reasons you may see in Bellarmin de Imag. lib 2. c. 9. And for the last passage attributed by you to the 7th Council of Constantinople it happened in the 7th general Council viz. the 2d of Nice and the words are imposed upon Epiphanius by Gregorius who disputed for the Hereticks but plainly deny'd to be his by Epiphanius Diaconus who argued for the Catholicks Pray take care what credit you give to persons who cloath a manifest forgery openly detected in a general Council with the authority of such a man as Epiphanius and so openly detected that 't is impossible your Author who ever he be should be ignorant of it SECT V. The Conclusion ¶ 1. FRom all I have said I cannot but conclude 1st that Scripture is a sufficient Rule to Salvation If you ask me how I know Scripture to be the word of God I answer I have no cause to doubt it no more than whether Tullyâ—◠〈◊〉 Aristotles works be theirs yea lesse I see 〈◊〉 evident by universal tradition in respect of place and time All Monuments of Antiquity sufficiently prove it by comparing passages and circumstances of all times since those books were first written If the only Argument to move me to this Assent were only your present Churches assertion I confesse what you use to urge I must receive all she says But then I think I must as well receive the Alcoran to be the word of God because the Mahumetan Church sayes so ¶ 1. FRom what has been said I cannot but conclude that Scripture is so far from being a sufficient Rule to Salvation meaning by Rule such a one as we have all this while been talking of that to rely upon it with no better an Interpreter of the Letter then the Letter it self is the way to destroy all means first and then all hopes of Salvation That principle being the true gate through which all the Sects which with their numerous swarms over-burden and afflict Christianity have entred For what the Protestant Prelacy alleages to justiâ—â—e their Schism from their Catholic â—uperiors the very same is a plea for Presbytery against Prelacy for Anabaptism against Presbytery for Independency against all and how far the Chain may be stretched which already reaches to the 5th Monarchy and Quakerism none knows But this I am sure of that every linck is as strong as the first For the reason you give why you beleeve Scripture to be Scripture viz. because you have no reason to doubt it 't is an invincible demonstration of the force of prejudice and more of reason I see nothing in it Had
it strange every thing should be game that rises I beseech you should I presse to know the number of Fathers you have read and of places whose agreement you have observed what account could your good argument yield There be millions of Sentences in the Holy Scriptures have you observed agreement in a single million nay in 100. in 50. in 40 I spare your modesty and go no lower but beg you to reflect what it is which you call a good argument viz. that because there is some kind of agreement of some few places in ours with more Antient Copies which for any thing we know may be corrupted too and these places I conceive not concerning our disputes Therefore the whole Book is evidenc'd to be so free from corruption in all places that the Salvation of mankind may securely rely upon it Next 't would afford much matter of discourse to consider how an agreement in Quotations should be excellent and not exact for certainly it is a pretty odd kind of excellence which wants exactness 3ly How does it appear but that the agreement such as it is proceeds from this that our Translators have conformed their Translations to the Fathers Quotations In which case here may very well be an agreement with the quoted places but no likelyhood of inferring any with the rest But I insist upon this that since you acknowledge som disagreement and some corruptions it is not possible you should rigorously and critically crime the Innocence of any one place in question much lesse of all that are necessary to the Salvation of mankind That before Printing there were fewer Bibles I conceive true but not that the◠were fewer faults in those which were it being certainly much easier to print then write correctly and yet no Bible comes new forth without Errata'◠As much care too is now us'd of the presse as could be then of the Copyer and yet Errata's there still be and will be while man is man and subject to the Laws of transitory things And for publick Libraries and Societies they belong to later times when the rust of incertainty had already eaten too far for any industry to scour it clean away ¶ 9. They had the Bible in no less reverence then we yea the very Jews who are thought willingly to corrupt the Hebrew seem more careful then the Christians as appears by their Majoreth Montanus frees them sufficiently from the Aspersion in those places we any of us accuse them to falsifie they have of their own accord shewn the diversities in their divers Copies and their counting the very number of the Letters in the Bible sufficiently pleads for them But in general I conceive it a hard matter for any Hereticks or others so to corrupt willingly as is pretended both because of the number dispersed in several parts of the world which they could not come at and likewise by reason of the possessors of other Copies being their enemies in opinion would never suffer them without making it known to the endeavourers disgrace and frustation of the end which should move them to endeavour which must have been to prove their errors by those apparent corruptions ¶ 9. Whether the Jews deserve the accusation of willful corruption or not which is yet a moot case betwixt Schollers I intend not to determine since I apprehend it will contribute little to the settlement of our differences concerning the new Law to settle in what manner they used the old one Onely this is certain that if of learned men some condemn some absolve them the matter is left probable and uncapable of being a sure foundation for any thing to be built upon it But I must wonder the nice diligence you attribute to them of counting the number of Letters in the Bible should seem a sufficient plea of their sincerity as if it were not most easie to retain the number of letters and yet change the words Sacred and Cursed are the same in number of letters though otherwise not only most different but most opposite And for what you say concerning Hereticks 't is likely they did not corrupt all Copies but if they corrupted any they quite spoiled your Argument for what shall distinguish in your grounds betwixt a corrupt and a true copie Yes but they could not corrupt because their Adversaries would have discovered the foul play Therefore they should not if you will but that they have done it is evident almost of all Hereticks upon record yet remaining in the Writings of several of the Fathers Among the rest Marcion kept such a nibling and gnawing the Scriptures that he got himself the name of Mus Ponticus a name which perhaps no antiquity will gnaw off But what do we dispute whether that may have hapned in former Ages which if any credit may be given to the best of their Authors 't is beyond dispute manifest has hapned in ours See Protest Apology Zuinglius Osiander and Keckerman reprehend Luther for corruptions in Scripture and whether he deserv'd it not who had the obstinate insolency to maintain his Additions of the Word onely to Faith in his Transl of 3 Rom. 28. with this Plea Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and says he is a Doctor above all the Doctors in the Papacie do you judge Luther is not behind hand with the Zuinglians whom he terms fools Antichrists deceivers c. And Conradus Sclusselburg professes of Zuinglius that his scelus of changeing hoc est into hoc significat is by no means to be excused The Translations of Basil and Castalio are in Beza's judgement wicked altogether differing from the Holy Ghost Sacrilegious and Ethnical his own contains Errors too many to be noted in a Book of an ordinary bulk if you will beleeve Castalio and plainly change the Text according to Carol Molinaus who also attests of Calvin that he strains the Gospel makes it totter up and down and plainly adds to the Text. And if the judgement of our Church add any thing to the credit of your own Authors consider that the horror she had of the manifold corruptions every day produced and the sence she had of the danger which they threatned to the souls she was obliged to take care of occasioned the prohibition you so much dislike of reading Scriptures in Vulgar Languages that is corrupted for to the Vulgar Latin the prohibition extends not Now it being as I conceive very evident that corruptions have been made and that willingly too I would fain know what shall hinder a corrupt Copie from out-living the Books written to discover the corruption and pleading in after ages its antiquity for a title to genuine with as much likelihood as the truest Copie in the world while there is nothing but the bare words of either to discern betwixt them But you think the discovery of the corruption would frustrate the end of him that makes them not considering that these baits are laid for simple onely not learned men
page but one to that you cite being employ'd in shewing the way of writing us'd by Aristotle has a great advantage towards being understood over that of the Bible But he denies not but both may be understood and that stuff you weave into this Conclusion That a Reader of Scripture may come to the truth and by it judge arising Errors Pray what 's this against Mr. White because he may arrive at truth shall he therefore be fixed there with that constancy that no subtlety can stagger him Shall his Humility and Charity which introduced him provide him too with Arms to maintain the place and defend it against the assaults of Wit and Malice leagued together I see no glimmering of such a consequence which neverthelesse should have been yours for till you are there your Journeys end is stil before you Besides your foundation that all things sufficient for Salvation are delivered in Scripture meaning the Salvation of mankind is not firm especially making as you do afterwards every one of the Gospels to contain a perfect sum of what is necessary to be believed and practised for some things and those necessary to Salvation are beleived meerly upon the account of Traditions as the Scripture it self c. Those strange opinions too which you say may spring up may perhaps concern things necessary to Salvation which if they can neither be proved nor disproved satisfactorily by Scripture plainly there is not by your method any satisfaction left us in things necessary to Salvation And for what you urge last that written truths may be as streight a Rule as unwritten ones 't is true provided they be agreed on to be truths But the question is not whether written truths will convince a rising error but whether written words will so convince the truths they contain to whoever rises up in error against them that no Artifice shall be able to pervert their fidelity and introduce another sence into the same sounds An instance may make the thing clearer Let the Church before Arius have had no better weapon to defend her faith of the Consubstantiality of the Father and Son then these and the like words Ego Pater unum sumus and you will make me much wiser then I am if you render it possible shee should preserve her self from being overcome by the craft of that Heretick who would have proved at least plausibly as Hereticks us'd to do by the Rule of conferring one place with another that those words ought not to be understood of an unity of Substance since our Sauiour elsewhere prays his Apostles may be one as his Father and he are one which evidently contradicting a substantial unity The former words ought to yield to these plain ones Pater major me est 'T was not then by those words but by the sence of them so firmly rooted in her practise that neither the wit nor power of Arius joyn'd with a perverse and lasting obstinacy could shake it that she decided the controversie and transmitted sound Doctrine to her posterity Shee saw his interpretation contradicted her sence delivered by Christ and his Apostles and continued by Tradition but no body could see it contradicted the words which his wit made as favourable to him as her By which very same Method to answer your Question in your own words I conceive the Church would at this day confute new errors viz by looking upon the truths first delivered by the Apostles and since preserved by her practise not the words in which they were delivered To sum up your Paraph therefore in short 't is true that Linea recta est judex sui obliqui 'T is true that truth is linea recta t◠'T is true also that the Reader duly qualified may by due reading Scripture come to truth but that this truth will be enough to serve all the exigencies of all mankind in all circumstances or that what satisfied his sincerity and diligence will be able to satisfie all manner of peevishness and obstinacy are two Positions which I see you have not and think you cannot prove There is no doubt but truth ought to judge which is the thing you do say But if there be a doubt which is truth I conceive bare words which were perhaps sufficient to discover hers to charity and humility will not be able to convince her against malicious craft and pride which is what you should but do not prove ¶ 4. If words would affright a man Mr. White doth it by search after evidence of Argument In the same page 137. he requires any one Book in the whole Bible whose Theam is now controverted he mentions S. Johns Gospel which was to shew the Godhead of Christ but that is not so directly saith he his Theam as the miraculous life of our Saviour from whence his Divinity was to be deduced And page 153. John intended only such particulars as prove that Christ was God in which later expression if he do not seem as to me he doth to contradict his former the former making S. Johns intent a History the latter a Discourse only as his word is of a controversal truth ¶ 4. The contradiction you glance at here will not even with your assistance so much as seem such to any diligence of mine and since I cannot overcome it I must beseech you to pardon that dulness which will let me see but one sence in these two expressions Viz. S. John wrote the miraculous life of our Saviour so as his Divinity might be deduced from it and S. John in his History specifies such particulars as prove the Divinity of our Saviour ¶ 5. Yet this he clearly says S. John made an Antidote against that error then beginning yet as he the design so unsuccessful that never any heresie was more powerful then that which opposed the truth intended by his Book whence he seems to infer Scripture no sufficient Rule to decide because the Arians were not silenced by it I demand why the Arians were not convinced by that Book written on purpose to oppose that error which they held by a very large discovering the contrary truth was it because there was not evidence enough of that truth which S. John onely intended in his whole Book surely you must say so and then I pray consider what you say whether it be not imputing weakness to S. John or to the Holy Ghost writing by him quod horrendum that he should set himself to write a whole Book in which as Mr Whites words are he intended only such particulars as prove that Christ was God and yet not prove it sufficiently If S. John did prove it sufficiently why were not the Arians convinced by it surely the fault was not in the want of evidence of those miraculous actions which our Saviour saith prove him to be the Son of God and one with the Father but in their wills I say it was their own fault so then notwithstanding all Mr White hath said I
sence of the Controversies between them Now if in this universal liberty of prophecying which this age affords us onely my interpretation do not yet passe for currant be pleas'd to reflect no necessity of answering your argument obliges me to rely upon it to which 't is enough to say that no such thing as you intend appears in the place you cite That the not being convinced will be an aggravation of punishment to the Jews in this sence that the pride and blindness caus'd by it which hinders them from coming by an humble reading to such a degree of truth as they might is a fault for which they shall be punished I readily grant but that their punishment shall be aggravated or they at all punished for not finding a rigorous evidence there where 't is not is a fancy in which I cannot perceive any colour of apparence ¶ 8. In the 16. Encounter pag. 151. Mr. White answers that 5th John brought to prove Scripture was sufficient to Salvation without Tradition why else did God command Moses to write those Laws he had given if that written word was not a perfect Rule which he commanded to be kept so carefully and to be read continually 31. Deut. 9 10 11. and to be copyed out for the King as Deut. 18.19 to read therein all the dayes of his life unto which God would have no addition because it was a perfect Rule and therefore when the Scribes and Pharisees would needs bring in their Traditions as you do to make void the Law of God you know what our Saviour denounced against them Now though we prove the sufficiency even of one Book of Scripture for to be a sufficient rule to salvation we are far from contradicting our selves as though by that reason all the rest every one of which is profitable might be burnt For thus I argue if one single Gospel be a sufficient rule to salvation much more are all the Books of the Bible sufficient without your Traditions ¶ 8. The places which here you cite out of Deuteronomy seem little to the purpose Your premises That God commanded his Laws to be written to be kept carefully and read continually to be copied out for the King c. being so vastly distant from the Conclusion Viz. That the written Word was a perfect Rule that my dulness cannot see any approach between them all this we see practis'd in our Laws in which notwithstanding we also see a manifest necessity of an Interpreter That God would therefore have no addition because it was a perfect Rule is a reason for which you are perfectly beholding to your own invention and which in things of this concern you would do well not to trust over-far at least you will pardon an Adversary if he do not As for the Scribes and Pharisees who you say brought in their Traditions to make void the Law of God when our cases are alike I shall think you do us no wrong to rank us with them But you will be pleased to stay till we do make void the Law of God for while we confess that the Word whether written or orally delivered is the Law only enquire after the meaning of the first which when understood we profess an intire submission to I conceive we go not about to make void but to fulfill the Law for certainly the wrong sense of the Law is not the Law and as certainly that cannot be the right sence which sets the two words whereof neither can vary from truth at variance one with another But to look into the thing their Traditions have nothing of common with ours but the Word which will inform you how dangerous a foundation words are when by the same sound are expressed things most different Tradition with us signifies a publike delivery to a multitude so as what was so delivered was setled in their understanding and rooted in their hearts by a constant visible practice Their Tradition was a close underhand conveyance from a few to a few neither so many nor so honest as to be secure from mistakes both accidental and wilful and yet the cheat if any hapned remaining by the secrecy undiscovered so that nothing more apt to make void the Law of God then such a Tradition as this Whereas since it cannot be denied but that what was orally delivered by Christ and his Apostles to their Disciples and by them practised was the Law of God you must either say we have violated their practise which since we affirm it to be our rule you cannot fairly do without evidencing what you say or you will have much ado your selves to avoid the imputation you lay upon us for evidently the Law is made void as much by contradicting the unwritten as the written word Now if we practise what the first Disciples and their Successors did and what they practised was the Law clearly he that contradicts our practice cannot refuse the company of the Scribes and Pharisees So that while by going no farther then the empty sound you fancie us neer the gulf they were swallowed up in your judgment fixed upon the thing and not diverted by the jugling noise will find your selves are deep in it I cannot leave this Subject without admonishing you of a piece of foul play in the Translation of the Bible I have heard objected to your side and which possibly may have had one effect upon your self 'T is that Traditions being sometimes commended sometimes reprehended in the Scripture though the Original word be the same in both cases yet the Translation varies it so as when it is taken in an ill sence to render it by the Word Tradition when in a good always to make use of some other An Artifice which if true argues much want of sincerity in the Translators and brings much hazard to the Reader The avoiding of which is the true reason the Church forbids the use of Scripture in Vulgar languages For the rest I cannot see but he that says This is sufficient to salvation says more then this is not necessary and by consequence Salvation would not be concerned if that more were not What you mean by Profitable I cannot tell if this that some persons find in some books what they would not in others then evidently those books are necessary to those persons if onely that their Faith is confirm'd or strengthned either this strength is necessary to Salvation at least for some and then again the books are necessary for them or unnecessary and then what prejudice to Salvation if they were burnt So that I doubt your fancy was too much possess'd with the sound to give your judgement leisure to examine the notions of the word Your consequence if one be sufficient all are more then sufficient is certainly good but you know we deny what you must next subsume conceiving that neither one nor all are sufficient ¶ 9. Our Saviour in that 5th of St. John does not Reprehend the Jews as Mr.
White seems to intimate for seeking Salvation out of Scripture where it is to be had but tacitely by that you think you have it there implies they were mistaken and did presume they had it who had it not by their own fault for want of conforming to it David often tearms the Law of God perfect 19. Psa 7. c. the Law of God is perfect converting the Soul the testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple therefore our Saviour sends the Jews to the Scripture which was sufficient to have taught them had they been duly qualified with Charity and Humility else he should have sent refractory Adversaries to an insufficient means in vain to learn and be convinced of that most material truth that he was the Messias I observe Mr. Whites note on the place Scripture Testimony is put in the last place not as he as the weakest argument it is not usual to set the weakest but rather the strongest argument in the last place therefore the third place does not disparage Scripture St. Peter seems to be of a contrary mind to Mr. White 2 Pet. 1.19 speaking before of the miraculous voice subjoynes we have also a more sure word of Prophesie c. Surely St Austin is cleerly of this mind as you may see hereafter that the written word is a surer Testimonie than Miracles ¶ 9. You except here against Mr. Whites answer to the 5th of St. John but wherein consists the force of the exception and weaknesse of his answer indeed I cannot comprehend Our Saviour say you does not reprehend the Jews as Mr. White seems to intimate but tacitely implies they were mistaken c. But why should not our Saviour reprehend them whom you acknowledge by their fault and mistake worthy of reprehension Again what does tacitely implying they were mistaken and this by their own fault differ from at least a tacite that is a seeming reprehension so that your exception seems to consist in saying the very same thing with him you except against But what is of more importance what 's all this to the purpose The place is brought to prove Scripture sufficient in the way mentioned to Salvation All that concerns the question of this place is that the Jews thought they had life in the Scriptures but so as you acknowledge that they were mistaken and had it not now let that be the Antecedent and they must be strange Magical Chains that will tye the Conclusion to it and make a good argument of this The Jews had not life in the Scriptures ergo Scriptures are sufficient to Salvation 'T was indeed their own fault they had it not and I doubt not but an humble and charitable diligence would have found in them the important truth our Saviour was insisting on But to make good the conclusion 't is not enough one point may appear to industry and piety but that all may so appear as to be victoriously maintain'd against obstinate and crafty peevishnesse The Attributes of perfection given by David none doubts to be justly due to the Law of God But what is justly due to it I conceive injustice to attribute to any thing which is not it Now Scripture contains but is not the Law and as we are far from the Blasphemy of suspecting any imperfection in the Law it self so the place is as far from any opposition to us for our question is not of the perfection of the Law none but Atheists or Infidels question it but of the perfection of the Letter in order to determine Controversies This we deny and deny also these places concern our difference For Mr. Whites note I conceive the place of an Argument too inconsiderable a dispute to take up many thoughts only this is cleer that our Saviour before he mentions Scripture appeals to the Testimony of John and his Father and seems to reprehend the Jews for not yielding to them which argues the consideration of Scripture was brought in more for superabundant condescendence than necessity And for St. Peter it would be easie by explicating the sence of the place to shew he is far from being of a contrary mind to Mr. White but it being not proper for an Answerer to go farther than his Opponent leads him till you expresse where his seeming contrariety lies give me leave to assure you there seems no such thing to me and in the mean time to desire your serious reflection on the words next following that Scripture is not of private interpretation lest while you pretend St. Peter contrary to Mr. White your self become contrary to St. Peter S. Austines mind when you make good your promise to shew it me I promise you shall see mine concerning it SECT IV. The two places 20. Jo. and 1. Luke No proof that the written word is a sufficient means for the Salvation of Mankind ¶ 1. THe first place of Scripture which Mr. White cannot hinder proving the Scripture a sufficient means for Salvation and Rule to decide all necessary Controversies is the 20th chap. and two last verses of the Gospel of St. John where be gives us an account of his Gospel I say of his Gospel and how could he intitle it the Gospel if it were but a part of the Gospel of Christ does he delude the world in the very first word and title to call that the Gospel which is but a little part of it if there be not all the essential parts of the Doctrine necessary to Salvation in each of the Evangelists as St. Mathew and St. Mark The Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ Mat. 1.1 It was not his whole businesse to set down the Genealogie that 's but the 8th part of the Book but the Life and Doctrine of our Lord and thus S. Mark begins The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and so he goeth on to lay down all the necessary actions and doctrines of salvation Can you imagin they should set themselves to write half a Gospel John 20. latter end S John confesseth there were many other things done by our Saviour which he had not written because they were too many to be written but he hath taken as many of them as are sufficient for us if we make the right use of them to bring us to salvation ¶ 1. You argue next from the word Gospel and pretend the world would be deluded if all the essential parts of the Doctrine necessary to salvation were not contained in every one of the Evangelists But I beseech you delude not your self into a belief that the word signifies more then it does I am not Critick enough to derive the English word which however would prove little more then impertinent labour but I have been taught the Latin or rather Greek word Evangelium signifying Originally no more then good or happy News or rather the reward given to whosoever brought such news is by Ecclesiastical use appropriated to the best and happiest Viz. that of the way to eternal
That belief or faith is to be understood of saving faith which is all I can perceive you drive at to the end of the Paraph is so far from it that I do not beleeve any violence will make a premise of it for be it as you desire that the Apostle writ that we might beleev in Christ the Son of God with a saving faith and I dare say no Arithmetick would comprehend the number of intermedial links necessary to fasten this Conclusion to it that what he writ is a sufficient rule to salvation ¶ 4. But what need I trouble my self or you with writing all I could I remember an ingenuous confession of yours when we were one night discoursing of this place that you thought the whole Book was not only sufficient for salvation but even some parts of it if a man had no more which is as much as I desire ¶ 4. The answer to this Paraph depends upon the memory of that person who made such a confession I conceive it true thus far that even some parts might be sufficient for the salvation of some single person extraordinarily dispoposed and circumstanced which in all likelihood was his meaning But this is nothing to our Question whether it be sufficient for the conduct of all dispositions found in mankind through all circumstances the Church will be in from the Resurrection to the day of Judgement ¶ 5. The second place I look upon as a sufficient proof of Scriptures sufficiency is the beginning of S. Lukes Gospel compared with the beginning of the Acts In Mr Whites Apology p. 165 166. where he affirms there is not a word that this Book should serve for a Catechism to teach him and all the world the entire body of Christianity I think there is that thou mayest know the certainty of those things thou hast been taught or as the Greek word is hast been Catechized in So then S. Lukes Gospel contains a perfect sum of all these Doctrines and duties which Theophilus a Christian already had learnt To me this proves S. Lukes Gospel to be a bodie of Divinitie or a Systeme of all necessary truths of Christianity so that S. Lukes Gospel is more then a naked Historie of Christs life containing his Doctrine too or else he had not given Theophilus a full account of all he had been instructed in To say as Mr White S. Luke speaketh but by the by of our Saviours Doctrine or as his words are some of his excellent sayings is quite contrary to those words of the first of the Acts out of which he gathers his saying for there he speaks thus of his Gospel The former Treatise have I made O Theophilus of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach which is more then as Mr White some of his excellent sayings I lay the stress upon these two words all and teach which Mr White passeth over as Commentators do hard places although it be the chief thing to be answered Another thing I observe in Mr Whites translation he omits the word perfectly or exactly in the third verse of the Gospel which is very pertinent By all things Jesus did and taught must be meant the substance of Christian Religion the chief Doctrines and duties which were necessary to salvation for if any material point were omitted by S. Luke he could not alledge his exact knowledge in all things which he promises nor say as he does in the Acts that he had delivered all Christ did or taught from whence I must conclude and you too unless you can shew sufficient cause to the contrary that S. Lukes Gospel much more the whole Bible hath sufficient truth in it and contains all points necessary to salvation and may be a sufficient means though we have no traditions The Covenant between God and man is cleerly enough laid down there and in other Books besides with all those things without which no salvation ¶ 5. The second place you insist upon is the beginning of Saint Lukes Gospel compar'd with the beginning of the Acts which with your favour I conceive you have not brought home to our question for admit all you say were true even the conclusion it self viz. that Saint Lukes Gospel hath sufficient truths in it and contains all points necessary to salvation and may be a sufficient means though we have no Traditions your cause is far from being evicted For our question is not so much whether sufficient truths be containd in scripture as whether they bee contained sufficiently that is with evidence enough to carry away a cleer victory from malicious and obstinate Criticism So that it consists very well that all necessary truths may be contained which is all you do say and yet not so contain'd as in necessary for that effect which is what you should have said Again since the same means may be sufficient for one person which are not for another or for all and sufficient at one time not so at another Your Conclusion that this Gospel may be a sufficient means without Tradition comes far short of what it should be that 't is sufficient to all persons in all circumstances Now I presume the Evangelist writing to Theophilus with design to instruct him particularly the sufficiency you speak of cannot fairly be stretched farther then his intent and be construed to belong to more then Theophilus himself And certainly since every body in the Church is not Theophilus to deserve a Gospel should be writ to him it cannot be expected what was sufficient for him should be sufficient for every body else You see then how strongly soever your Canon is charged I conceive the Conclusion safe as placed beyond its level But yet to try the force it has The first thing you say against Mr White is that you think the place shews the Book was intended for a Catechism to teach him and all the world the entire body of Christianity moved by these words that thou mayest know the certainty of these things thou hast been taught or catechized in I beseech you how does it appear that by those things must be understood a body of Christianity You see Mr White understands no more by them then reports he Theophilus had heard and tels you if you will urge another sense you must first justifie it against this Now evidently writing to let Theophilus know the certainty of those reports he had heard is far enough from writing a body of Christianity As for the word Catechized which you seem to rely upon its original signification if good Grecians have not mis-informed me being most properly rendred by insono or infundo imports no more then a delivery of somthing by word of mouth though since by Ecclesiastical custome it hath almost been appropriated to the delivery of Christian doctrine Now this being since S. Lukes time what it was that was so delivered to Theophilus cannot be gathered from the word But if that be true which you say of Theophilus that he
be that the Gospel or doctrine of Christ which was to be the foundation of our faith was by the Will of God delivered to us by writing as well as preaching In which what branch there is that does so much as concern us truly I see not for no body doubts but the doctrine of Christ is the foundation of our faith that it was written as well as preached and this not by chance but by particular Providence and instinct of the Holy Ghost any of which positions when I contradict I will acknowledge Irenaeus is against me In the mean time I appeal to the very Rules of Syntax whether he be not against you and whether Scripturis fundamentum will agree that Scripture be the foundation which the construction plainly attributes to Evangelium that is the doctrine or points of faith that is the sense of the Letter not the letter to be senc'd which is the Tenet you maintain we oppose There follow two long citations out of lib. 2. cap. 46. 47. which you say shew clearly that plain Scripture may be judged the only way to decide all controversies and this I deny not for supposing Scripture to be plain enough for that effect I see not why it should not produce it But do the places say it is plain enough What you think I know not but I will assure you I am so far from thinking that question determin'd here that no part of either of them prompts me to suspect the Father did so much as think of it His businesse in these chapters as far as I apprehend is in the first to shew the absurdity of opposing a fancie drawn from an obscure Parable to an acknowledged doctrine and even in Scripture plain to religious Lovers of truth and in the second to teach the impossibility of attaining to all knowledge in this life and the necessitie of being content to know as much as God is pleas'd we should and be ignorant of the rest Now if by deciding those questions he hath given sentence in ours from which 't is impossible any two should be farther removed and that by teaching Parables are not to be reli'd on nor our thirst after knowledg satisfied in this life he has taught Scripture is plain enough to decide all controversies in all times and cases He has done both what he never thought to do and what I think impossible he ever should doe ¶ 11. In his third book cap. 14. Si autem Lucas quidem qui semper cum Paulo praedicavit dilectus ab eo dictus est cum eo evangelizavit creditus est referre nobis evangelium nihil aliud ab eo didicit sicut ex verbis ejus ostensum est quem admodum hi qui nunquam Paulo adjuncti fuerunt gloriantur abscondita inerrabilia didicisse Sacramenta Quoniam autem Paulus simpliciter quae sciebat haec docebat non solum eos qui cum eo erant verum omnes audientes seipsum fecit manifestum In Mileto convocatis Episcopis Preâ—byteriis repeats those words Acts. 20.17 and so on non subtraxi uti non annuntiarem vobis omnem sententiam Dei. Sic Apostoli simpliciter nemini invidentes quae didicerant ipsi à Domino haec omnibus tradebunt Sic igitur Lucas nemini invidens ea quae ab eis didicerat tradidit nobis sicut ipse testificatur dicens quemadmodum tradiderunt nobis qui ab initio contemplatores ministri fuerunt verbi Observe I pray you and impartially weigh the truth Irenaeus is professedly disputing against the Valentinians throughout his whole book confutes them all along by Scripture answers their objection which is the very same with yours against us the Scriptures do not contein all divine truths and mysteries and there fore they would not be judged nor confuted by it as you at this day Irenaeus first proves out of Scripture that the Apostles delivered freely plainly the whole mystery or doctrine of salvation to all envying the knowledg of it or any part of that knowledge to none great or small therefore not to S. Luke who was a continual companion of the Apostle Paul and a beloved fellow-labourer So that he S. Luke must needs know all and out of S. Lukes words the very same I have before made my Argument the beginning of his Gospel and the Acts shews he did faithfully relate all he had received and learnt of the Apostles not envying us any one truth what is the meaning of that expression he himself had learnt Besides what force could there have been in Irenaeus his Argument or indeed to what purpose would his whole Book have been proving from Scripture all along his Adversaries to be out and their Tenet to be false because the Scripture doth not teach them if the Scripture be not such a perfect Rule which contains the whole Mystery of salvation and doctrine of the Gospel Thus I think if I am not mightily mistaken I have proved the Minor Proposition which only can be questioned of that Syllogism which destroys Mr. Rushworths second Dialogue That which hath been the rule in the Primitive Church must still be But the Written word which we enjoy was the rule as appears by what hath been said Ergo The Scripture still is c. ¶ 11. The last is out of the fourteenth Chapter of the third Book which to make strong against us you assume two things and I conceive neither true First That he confutes them all along by Scriptures which I do not see how it would advantage you were it admitted for because he saw it convenient to dispute out of Scripture will it therefore follow no other way of disputing is either lawfull or possible We dispute with you every day out of Scripture yet hold another a surer nay the onely rule but I wonder the diligence you profess should so far deceive the candour you are master of as to offer it for true which cannot but have observed the first Chapters of this very Book are employed in confuting them by Tradition and that Scripture is made use of not for necessity I cannot speak more of the abundant efficacy of Tradition then he does but out of abundance ut undique resistatur illis si quos ex his retusione confundentes ad conversionem veritatis adducere possimus as he says in the 2d Chapter of this Book which you see is an expression not of necessity but charity And if I am not mistaken for I have not the means to studie it exactly his whole second Book is so fill'd with Arguments from reason That Scripture is hardly so much as mentioned unless sometimes by the by Secondly you assume with as much injustice as mistake that their Objection is the same with ours and the Answer given by him to them the same you give to us Our Tenet for objection while we are upon the defensive we make none is that Scripture is not the rule of Faith That of
didim c. 12. Non dubitavit Dominus dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum signum corporis sui daret And Judam adhibuit convivium in quo corporis sanguinis sui figuram discipulis suis commendavit tradidit Si sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt non haberent omnino sacramenta non essent Ex hac autem similitudine plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est Ita sacramentum fidei fides est Sicut ergo caelestis panis qui caro Christi est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum revera sit sacramentum corporis Christi illius viz. quod visibile palpabile mortale in cruce positum est vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio Sic sacramentum fidei quo Baptismus intelligitur fides es Theodoret Dialog 1. Servator certè noster nomina commutavit corpori quidem idem quod erat symboli ac signi nomen imposuit symbolo autem quod erat corporis Causa mutationis manifesta est iis qui sunt divinis mysteriis initiati Volebat enim eos qui sunt divinorum mysteriorum participes non attendere naturam eorum quae videntur sed propter nominum mutationem mutationi quae fit ex gratia credere Qui enim quod natura est corpus triticum panem appellavit vitem seipsum rursus nominavit is symbola quae videntur appellatione corporis sanguinis honoravit non naturam quidem mutans sed naturae gratiam adjiciens So Marius Monachus sayes the Bread and Wine are offered in the Church as the Antitypes of his flesh and blood and they that partake of the Bread which appears do spiritually not bodily then as you grosly eat the flesh of the Lord. From all those and many more I might name I conclude that instead of Mr Whites malepertness page 31. the contrary is a madness seeing a man must shut his eyes first against the Sun then obstinately resolve come on it what will to embrace not only uncertainties for certainties but gross falshood for clear truth ¶ 2. You next make this Question if we have derived this Interpretation all along from the Apostles which supposes the foundation of all our Doctrines to be an Interpretation of Scripture a Position disownd as you know by us but if the Question be as I presume you meant it Whether we have derived this Doctrine all along from the Apostles I answer yes and appeal even to your self whether it were in the power of the Council of Lateran which you generally take to be the first which setled that doctrine or any other authority upon the face of the earth to impose upon whole nations tenets damnable to themselves and posterity and impossible not to be seen to be so what is there beyond the power of humane nature if this be not That mankind brought up in a beleef that the Blessed Sacrament is no more then plain bread made to signifie higher things indeed but only to signifie them should of a sudden unanimously run to Mass there adore the holy Sacrifice and by vast Alms acknowledg it propitiatory for both quick and dead Observe how slowly and warily the Council of Trent has been admitted into the several Provinces of Christendom into all which even the Catholick ones it has not yet nor perhaps ever will as to decrees of manners gain'd an entire entrance and confesse the nature of humane things endures not so extravagant a power even in Councils as to change the faith of the world which it professes with this perswasion that eternal happinesse depends upon it according to an arbitrary determination and that the making of a new word should make new truths nay make that true to day which was false yesterday There Sir are impossibilities in nature and may enter into a large fancy but never passe from thence into a sober Judgement nothing being more certain then that as great as the Power of a Council is it is so far from being able to introduce a new faith with a new word that it could never have introduced a new word which had not been found agreeable to the old faith Before I speak to your Fathers who you say are so clear against us give me leave to speak a little to your self and put you in mind that you and I are now disputing not of an obscure peece of Criticism or unconcerning point of Philosophy in which a mistake is of no greater concern than the credit of the mistaker but of Religion that is the way to Heaven in which if we misse we have the same hopes of comming thither that he has of getting to his journeys end by night who travels all day in a wrong road Our Souls therefore and their Salvation being concerned in this contest no plea ought to be produced but such a one of whose efficacy we are so far perswaded as to venture them upon it Now by the great candor you profess have the Fathers you cite so much authority with you are you content so to submit your judgement to theirs as when it appears what the path is they walked in to quit all others for it and constantly pursue it to eternity such and only such a disposition may make the pains requisite to so great an effect as clearing the sence of the Fathers in all points of controversy rationally charitable but if you have it not the whole businesse is turn'd into a wit-combat and the Question no more but this whether of us two are better vers'd in Antiquity and truly me thinks the concern of eternity deserves to be treated a little more seriously then if what is alleaged prove true nothing is advanced if false nothing lost which yet I take to be your case for if the Fathers say as you would have them you professe not to rely upon them if otherwise not to regard them But I am afraid your manner of treating the Fathers is more liable to exceptions then your treating them For to omit the want of rigorous exactnesse in some of your Testimonies which uses to accompany those citations which are perfectly your own you have brought a Quotation from S. Austin which you make look like an entire Text that proves when examined a collection of several sentences some not so much as his scattered through several books in several Tomes and cite for it a book never written at least by him This proceeding I dare say is not yours and I would intreat you since you refuse to rely upon the Fathers not to hazard your own or eternal happinesse or eternal misery upon the credit of you know best whom but in all likelyhood besides their being men that is in your