he was aware it was an Angel to whom he offered it I cannot see but to deny Angel-worship is to say that great Apostle either knew not what was lawful or acted what he knew unlawful two Assertions which to embrace I think nothing but the necessity of defending an ill cause can ingage a man For my part I must desire none will take it amiss if I regulate my actions by those of the beloved Disciple and think allowable whatever he thought so But to look neerer on the place the worship there mentioned being of necessity to be supposed either due or not due I know several things are said to render a reason why the Angel might refuse it in the first Supposition and the Saint be mistaken to offer it in the second but either I understand nothing or neither Supposition affords ground enough to raise a battery against us for if it be put due whatever the reason might be of the Angels refusal we shall be very unjustly quarrelled at for giving every one what 's their due Paying of of debts sure will not become opposite to Scripture if not due what wonder if the Angel refused it And whatever might be the reason of the Apostles mistake this is certain that out of this that an undue honour was refused it will never follow that a due one may not be given That which we give must be first proved undue and unlawful before it can be concluded against by the refusal of one which was so For that some worship is due sure none but a Quaker will deny since certainly an Angel is as good a person as a Justice of Peace to whom nevertheless I hope by the grace of God we may say without Idolatry if it please your Worship And for Religious Worship which seems to stick with you I doubt there is a mistake but know not how to rectifie it if you bar the use of distinctions whose service if you had pleased to make use of so far as to have look'd into the several notions of the Word my service would have been needless to you Religion then signifies the worship of God and Religious by consequence appertaining or relating to the worship of God and this in several and unequal respects as when we say a religious man house book demeanour c. we mean those persons or things have relation though differently to the service of God Now the best and most proper sent of Religiousness is in a soul and since no quality can be more or so much esteemable we conceive the soul which has it to be valuable or to have worth the acknowledgment of which we call worship that is testimony of worth Farther this worship being founded not on the worth rising from natural or acquired parts from eminence of dignity or any civil consideration but purely on supernatural or religious endowments we call religious worship and mean by it an acknowledgment of worth springing from this that the persons to whom we give it are highly in the favor of God meerly as such without mixture of any other consideration This kind of worship then is therefore called religious because it aims at God being given to persons highly dear to him and purely upon the score that they are so and nothing is more plain from common sence then that he who honours a person purely as loving another does by that act heartily honor that other From the action of Cornelius what you would infer I am left to guess all the use you make being to ask whether he took S. Peter for God to which after I have replyed that I conceive he did not I know not what more to say but me thinks Catholike Religion has a strange Fate that no act of Christian modestie and humilitie can pass without being straind into an opposition to it The last place is Matth. 4. whence you would prove the Divel did not desire to be worshipped as God because he confessed God Good Sir does the Divel act according to his knowledg and can you be ignorant his misery consists in obstinate adhesion to things against reason and which he sees to be so Has he changed his mind think you since the fatal Ero similis altissimo This was strangely argued but to wrest the place against our Tenet is I think stranger it being to say men may not honour venerari Angels because God refused to adore the Divel How little consultation did you use with your own thoughts in this Paragraph but you reply in behalf of the Devil our Saviour might have worshipped him and his Father both Which seems to me to evince past dispute that the worship desired by the Devil was such a one as was due to God for had he meant onely a testimony of that excellence which was in him do you think him ignorant of it who created it or backward to express his knowledg of it in necessary circumstances who is justice it self Evidently therefore the Devil desired what belonged not to him and ought not to hinder those happy spirits from receiving Veneration to whom it does belong and yet we are so unfortunate as to evacuate the Law of God by true Traditions while you have the happiness to preserve it by untrue Interpretations ¶ 7. Page 104. Mr. White has a most ingenious evasion of the second Argument confessing the Objection would have force if they did really doubt I think it is clear they did Origen l. 2. in ep ad Rom. sayes Whether the Saints that are with God do any thing for us and labour let this also be reckoned amongst the secret and hidden things of God which may not be committed to writing So Austin de cur mor. c. 39. leaves it undetermin'd whether the dead Martyrs do help us or no and addeth that these things pass our understandings and in Chap. 13. of the same Book affirms That the souls of the departed never know what we do here upon earth and doth bring for proof thereof Isai 63.16 and that of the Kings 2.22.20 I will gather thee to thy Fathers c. That place which Mr. White mentions I suppose by what I find in some for Mr. White mentions not the Authors he answers is Nazianzen Invec 1. in Julianum Hear O thou soul of great Constantine Jacobi Billi annot 2. in hanc orat if thou have any sence c. What is this O thou most divine Emperour for I am forced to expostulate with him as if he were here present and heard me though indeed he he with God and in his second Invective he calleth unto Julian being dead and damned in Hell So that for 200 yeers after Christ there was no Invocation of Saints as they affirm who have perused all the Monuments of these times Origen and others after him speaks so as it appears they could not teach it for a truth seeing they profess themselves ignorant of the Saints conditions others flatly deny they know what we do yet I perceive
though Mr. White could not you saw was good if the Fathers held non-admission they held no prayer because say you they knew not before admission every mans condition This you see I have denied but put case I had not I am afraid you would come short of your account S. Austin and other Fathers are alledged by Veron an excellent French Controvertist to maintain prayer to Saints even while they doubted whether these Saints heard the prayers made to them And you may reflect that prayer to Saints is a part of Tradition rivetted into our hearts by an universal and undeniable practise but whether souls freed from the commerce of bodies receive intelligence of what passes among bodies and this again either from the nature of their state or divine revelation Whether the return of our prayers to Saints be from their mediation or only from the goodness of God making use of our affection to creatures like our selves to give us those benefits which otherwise we had never demanded and so never received and the like are School questions in which speculative wits according to the difference of their learning and studie have met with either truth or error but acting all the while as Schollers and never doubting the lawfulness of the practice which occasioned all these disputes and which they saw firmly setled upon a more solid foundation then all their School-learning for had they done so they had disputed it as well as the rest To take then all parts of your Argument t is false the Fathers held non-admission is false that non-admission imports ignorance of our condition lastly 't is false that non admission and ignorance both of them exclude prayers to Saints that is in the Fathers judgement for the Question is not what is true or false but what they held to be so since they prayed to them even then when they doubted whether they were heard or no. Now I beseech you reflect if to reject such arguments be a sign of a rotten cause what it is to be perswaded by them and perswaded in matters of no less concern then eternity ¶ 2. Suppose that be Mr. Whites meaning the Saints know what we pray to them before they are admitted into heaven is that your Tenet To what purpose else does he bring Jeremies praying in the Macchabees to say that he prays in general as we do for the whole Church though we know not its particular state is nothing to the purpose the Question is Whether we may pray to the Saints and in order to our praying to them whether they can know every particular mans prayer if you say they do you and your Apocriphal Book contradict the undoubted Word of God by his Prophet Isai 63.16 Abraham knows us not and Isaac is ignorant of us which your S. Thomas can no otherwise solve then by imagining the Saints before Christ were not yet admitted to Heaven ¶ 3. Here comes your convincing as you think Argument against the knowledg of Saints from the Prophet Isaiah Araham knows us not and Israel is ignorant of us but I would beg of you not to put so much confidence in words without a full mastery of their sense for 't is the sense of Scripture is truly Scripture You have found indeed the word ignorant and knows us not but what is meant by that word and what that is is the whole difficulty you settle not You know that word Luke 13.25 27. is applied to the Master of the House Mat. 25.12 to the Bridegroom and I hope you will not from it argue any ignorance in that Master and that Bridegroom Mark 13.32 The knowledge of the day of judgment is denied to that Son who being so man that he is also God cannot sure at any time be imagined to want his omniscience Since therefore 't is manifest those words have in Scripture many senses what possibility is there by the bare sound without further inquirie to conclude any one The Context and your own later Translations which for ignorant put acknowledg not perswade me they have here the same sense as when God is said not to know impious persons But 't is not for me to prove but to shew you have not done so and in the mean time to wonder so excellent a wit should make such a bravado with a Bulrush which nevertheless I impute to the weakness of your cause whose armory affords no better weapons ¶ 3. That which Mr. White proves out of the parable of Dives praying to Abraham is as ridiculous for if it be a proof it is either nothing to the Question or contrary to that Scripture named But the principal answer for the former are but trifles signs of a rotten cause Saints are admitted to Heaven before the day of Judgment therefore seeing God and so all things know our prayers and so sit to be prayed unto But seeing this naked groundless not proved Assertion is the principal answer how chance not a word to the Argument that prevented and utterly destroyed it the Fathers did hold the contrary Is this a satisfaction to the Argument only to say I do not beleeve it Be Judge your self and give a better ¶ 3. You call Mr. Whites touch upon the Parable of Dives ridiculous and say 't is either nothing to the Question or contrary to the Scripture named but since you do no more then say so you will pardon me if I have not that captivation of my understanding to your words which you refuse the Church and give me leave to put you in mind you cannot affirm it contrary to that Scripture till you be assured what that Scripture is and farther since Scripture cannot be contrary to it self 't is lawful for me to beleeve you may as soon miss the sence of it as Mr. White whose principal Answer you in the next place call a naked groundless not proved Assertion and for naked I think you mean want of either proof or ground for sure you will not except against the want of Rhetorick and then 't is the same with one of the other expressions To the first of which I reply he has exprest the ground of it Viz. Tradition and to the second that being the Defendant it was not his part to prove But how chance no word to the Argument According to the small insight I have in Logick no argument either requires or can have a fuller answer then a plain denial of its premises which I take to be done here The Argument is this Divers Fathers you say the Fathers held non-admission before the day of judgment wherefore they must also hold no prayer to Saints Now if I aver the admission of Saints before the day of Judgment is taught by Tradition I think I say also that it was taught by the Fathers and consequently deny they taught the contrary and must beleeve till I am better instructed in the Laws of Disputations when thus much is said to an Argument more ought not
happiness now I beseech you cannot a man tell news except he teâ—l all he know Or is not that to be called new which leaves untold any thing belonging to the same subject To argue therefore that because S. Johns Book contains news concerning the way to Heaven therefore it contains all that concerns our way to Heaven seems very unreasonable but what is more 't is also nothing to the purpose For were it granted that all things necessary to salvation were contained in every of the Gospels it would not follow they were so contained as is necessary that is accompanied with evidence enough to guide mankind securely through all vicissitudes to happiness and yet no less is requisite to make Scripture the onely rule of faith To the Question you make in the last place whether the Evangelists can be imagined to have written half a Gospel I conceive your very next words are an answer for I beseech you had S. John written those many things which their multitude made him omit had they not all been Gospel So that whatever proportion they bear of ½ or â…“ or â…› to the things written this is certain he did not write all the Gospel he knew Yes but he writ say you all necessary to salvation you say so but will not take it amiss if your bare Assertion have not the force to oblige every one to think so against the plain signification of the word you ground it upon For necessary to salvation is not as I said before that which the word Gospel imports ¶ 2. Mr White answers to the place first S. Johns writing was not to make a compleat History of our Saviours acts and doctrine but only to specifie such particulars as prove that Christ was the true consubstantial Son of God to assert is not to prove S. John intended only c. It may be as easily denied as affirmed that 's like an obstinate Sophister that intends not truth but to say somwhat only to stop his adversaries mouth a sign of a bad cause It is a sufficient confutation of any new Assertion to prove it has no ground I see none imaginable Mr White builds his Assertion on unless he has some he does not express which would be strange in this weighty matter but possibly that Assertion of S. Johns sole intent to prove Christs Diety without which back door he cannot evade the force of the Argument is built upon the 31 verse of that 20 Chapter but these things are written by me for this intent that ye might beleeve that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God but if you will give me leave I will prove the contrary with as much probability and I think certainty out of the same Text not dis-jointed as Mr White makes use of it to force a false confession but taken wholly those things are written by me for this end to bring you to salvation by your beleeving or entertainining the Gospel that Christ is the Messias for which end I have given you here those things that are requisite to beget such a saving faith in you although I might have written more I have not contenting my self with those which are sufficient for what end â— To shew you only in a speculative way that Christ is God No that would not save but that you may beleeve Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that beleeving you might have life through his name their having life seems rather to be his chief end because it is in the last place quod est ultimum in executione est primum in intentione or if you will begin at the other end the words do not shew it St. Johns chief design to prove Christ the Consubstantial Son of God for thus they run that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ or Messias the Son of God that is the Saviour of the World who was to come that you may be saved by him ¶ 2. You next except against the answer Mr. White gives to the 20th of John and first that he asserts but proves not which you say is a sign of a bad cause a trick of an obstinate Sophister c. But pray recollect your self and remember an Answerer that goes about to prove goes beyond his bounds To affirm deny or distinguish is the whole Sphere of his activity And when you say 't is a sufficient confutation of a new assertion to shew it has no ground you say very true but pray take along with you that your assertion of Scriptures sufficiency to the effect we speak of is the new assertion unheard of in the world before Luther and an interpretation of this place in favour of it every jot as new no such sence having ever been thought of till the necessity of justifying an unreasonable Tenet forced as unreasonable an explication If you please prove your ground and do not take it for granted till it be disproved When you have done so shew this which you call a new assertion of Mr. Whites has no ground for before sure you ought not to think it sufficiently confuted Till then I cannot see why it should be a sign of a bad cause to believe the Apostle and take his word when he tels us the design of his writing was that we might believe the Divinity of the Son But you can prove the contrary with as much probabilities out of the same Text if you do no more Mr. White has done as much as he should do for if both explications be probable his Adversary has concluded nothing against him But you think you can prove it with certainty let us see whether it be rational for me to think so and first after you have quarrelled with Mr. White for dis-jointing the Text as I conceive very ungroundedly when except this word Christ which is not any way material he cites the verse truly your self instead of setting it together again deliver not the Text out of which you undertake to conclude but a large Paraphrase upon it and this without telling us whether it be your own or recommended by any authority or in fine any ground why we should accept it and of which nothing is certain but that it is not the Text and This you call certainty Pray Sir Remember to assert is not to prove Remember it may be as easily deny'd as affirm'd Remember obstinate Sophistry and signs of a bad cause Next all the use you make of your Paraphrase is to establish this conclusion whose certainty too is by this time relented into seeming that their having life seems to be his chief end Be it so as I conceive the end of all the Apostles not only in their writings but both their and their Masters end in all his actions was the life of Christians Sure it will not follow their life needed no other either sustenance or Phisick then this Gospel Be it granted it is a principal means to this end that it is the only or whole means
was already a Christian I do not see the words can be brought to bear your sense since manifestly he could not have been so without already being certain of the body of Christianity So that your Exposition makes the Evangelist very wisely take a great deal of pains in writing a book to inform Theophilus certainly of what he certainly knew before Mr. Whites interpretation therefore seems much the more genuine and yet even admitting yours I cannot as I said before imagine any approach to our difference For St. Luke expresly confining his design to the instruction of Theophilus hee that extends it to more acts manifestly without any Warrant from him You urge afterwards the first of the Acts which you say Mr. White passeth over as Commentators do hard places Truly your severity is beyond what I have ever met with and you are the first example of expecting a man should answer more then is objected Mr. White is speaking to the Gospel and these words are in the Acts and yet you except against him for taking no notice of them As for the difficultie it self since those words cannot be taken in their proper natural signification St. John plainly telling us the world would not be able to contain the books which might be written I do not see any ground you have to understand by them the substance of Christian doctrine With submission to better judgments I apprehend that by All is meant all he thought fit to communicate to Theophilus that sense seeming to flow naturally from the places compared together But whether that interpretation be true or no I am sure nothing appears why a man should accept of yours For whereas you would prove it out of St. Lukes exact knowledge that is manifestly nothing to the purpose every bodie seeing it follows not because S. Luke knew all therefore he delivered all And for the quarrel against Mr. White for leaving out the word exactly besides that as I come from saying it is far from being very pertinent exact knowing being much a different thing from exact teaching all he knew Mr. White puts in stead of it that he was present almost at all things c. which in matters of fact is the most exact knowledg that can be And for the second proof that otherwise he could not say he had delivered All Christ did or taught I have already told you though that word cannot be taken properly to signifie truly All yo◠do it wrong to take it so improperly as you do the substance of Christian doctrine being a strange English of the Latin word Omne But be all this given to the respect of the person which suffers me not to pass by any thing you say without taking notice of it though otherwise your Conclusion which I am now come to does not any way prejudice the Tenet I am maintaining To contain sufficient truths and to be a sufficient means to salvation which may possibly be true in respect of some persons and circumstances being quite another thing then to decide all quarrels carried on by factiously litigious persons and this in all times and cases For a conclusion I beseech you to accept of this observation that a serious reflection on what you do your self would satisfie you whether partie Truth takes in this question for whatever force custom and a prepossest fancie has on your words to make them maintain St. Lukes Gospel alone sufficient nature contradicts them so powerfully that your actions speak the clean contrary and plainly prove 't is not sufficient for since you cannot hold that a sufficient means to you which you do not sufficiently know to be a means and this sufficiency of the Gospel you do not know without the Acts which nature forces you to rely upon even while you are maintaining you need them not you see plainly your words and actions agree not and that while you would by the former perswade the sufficiency of the Gospel alone the later unresistably convince somthing else viz. the Acts is necessary to its sufficiency that is that it alone is not sufficient SECT V. Answer to those Fathers who are brought for the sufficiencie of Scripture MY next Argument for Scriptures sufficiency shall be out of the Fathers which Mr White p. 175. thinks improper for us who will not relie on their Authority for any one point what though we receive not from them any authoritative testimonie yet we embrace a rational one from any not because they say it therefore it is true but because we see no reason to dis-beleeve or have sufficient reason to beleeve they testifie truths as a Judge collects a truth from Witnesses every one of which is a fallible man yet by beholding circumstances sees their concurrent Testimonies cannot be false here we have ground enough to beleeve that Scripture was a sufficient rule to them because they say and confess it was I am ready to beleeve any Tradition as well as the Bible provided we have as good ground to beleeve it came from the Apostles as I have of the Bible Suppose it be not a sufficient argument for us who besides have Scripture on our side yet it is a sufficient Argument against you who pretend to derive your Religion from them who went before you whom you include in your Church as Mr White If the Bible had once that authority we plead for in your Church it should have it still the contrary being a Novelty therefore I must count your Doctrine false till you have solved this Argument That which was the Rule must be but Scripture was the Rule Ergo c. ¶ 2. First I must take out of the way your Objections out of those Fathers I make use of that they were of your opinion which you gather out of several expressions of theirs as that of Austin whose and others their words I have of late read in your Authors pleading thus your cause I would not beleeve the Gospel unless the Authority c. In which and all other of their expressions we must understand unless we will say through heat of dispute they sometimes contradict their own sence plainly delivered at other times according to their intent and so I see not any thing that makes against us as that mentioned Either S. Austin means the Church of all ages or that present in which he lived If that precisely abstractly without consideration of the antiquity of it and its doctrinal succession from the Apostles his doctrine had been nothing available against the Manichees against whom he disputes for they might have alledg'd the authority of their Church with as good ground against him therefore when he alledgeth the authority of the Church or Tradition to be a sufficient proof of that which is not contained in Scripture he means the universal Tradition of all ages which was as evident as that of Scripture tradition or as cleerly derived from the Apostles by universal Tradition as the Scripture it self and such a
the Valentinians that I mean which Irenaeus speaks to in this place was as you may see in the beginning of the thirteenth Chapter that none but S. Paul was acquainted with the truth as having only received it by revelation whereby all his Arguments in the precedent Chapter from the authorities of S. Peter S. Stephen S. Philip c. had been overthrown to strengthen them he proves in the thirteenth chapter that not only S. Paul but the rest of the Disciples also understood the Mystery of Salvation and in the 14 particularly S. Luke and these two Viz. Scripture is not the sole rule of Faith S. Paul alone was acquainted with the Mysteries of Salvation an exact studier of Irenaeus and impartial lover of truth would have to be the same As to the place it self this I conceive to be your Argument S. Paul delivered all he knew to S. Luke S. Luke writ all was delivered him therefore S. Paul knew all that was necessary to salvation S. Luke writ all was necessary to salvation To which I have already answered that though I should admit the Conclusion little would be advanced in order to our Question since we deny not but all may be containd in Scripture some way or other particularly or under general heads but that all is so contain'd as is necessary for the salvation of mankind to which effect we conceive certainty and to that evidence requisite neither of which are within the compass of naked words left without any guard to the violent and contrary storms of Criticism But I conceive you do the Saint wrong and understand the word all in a sence far different from what he did for having learnt from S. John so little a Book as S. Lukes could not hold truly all till you can prove he meant his Book for a rule of Faith and intended to deliver in it all things necessary to salvation I must beleeve 't is no ordinary violence that can force such a sence upon it as has neither a likely nor any ground but since your own profession and large citations shew both a confidence and esteem of Irenaeus give me leave with that serious earnestness which the concern of eternity for no less is in Question requires to presse your own words upon you and desire you to observe and impartially weigh the Truth while I represent the proceedings of Irenaeus to you and make you judge whether of us take part with the Father whether with his Adversaries The Error of the Valentinians was built upon certain obscure places of Scripture or rather indeed upon certain deceitful reasonings in Philosophy as your denial of Transubstantiation for example is and a denial even of the B. Trinity if you pleas'd might be but perceiving the Rules of Christianity did not allow that for a foundation of Faith they endeavoured to support the edifice by Scripture bragging no doubt among their followers it was clearly on their side but being press'd to a Tryal giving in evidence the obscure places mentioned Against this Irenaeus contends that Parables because capable of many Solutions are not to be relyed upon and consequently since only the true sense of Scripture is Scripture that Scripture is vainly pretended where the many sences leave us uncertain which is the true one Then examining the places for his side and shewing them both in clearness and number to over-ballance the other he overthrows their pretence and preserves the majesty of Scripture to his party The same do we to you who building most of your mistakes in Faith upon mistakes in Philosophy pretend plain Scripture and when it comes to tryal bring places capable of as many sences as the Valentinian parables were of solutions We answer as he did that there is no relying upon such places And examining those we conceive to be of our side and comparing them with yours both in clearness and number conclude your sences not true and Scripture not only not for you but against you Yet all this while neither he nor we think Scripture for this disputing out of it the only rule of Faith whether it be or no being not in these cases our question But since as the Valentinians did then you will now undertake to prove Scripture is against us and as Irenaeus then so we now acknowledge nothing is to be held against Scripture we do as he did shew you cannot make good your undertaking Next The Valentinians by the priviledg of their neerness to the Primitive times better acquainted with the grounds of faith then you would have justified their Interpretations by Tradition an evident proof what it was which those first Ages held the Interpreter of Scripture and that so undeniably that even Hereticks pretended to it What says Irenaeus to this Does he answer as you do that Tradition is not to be regarded but the cause to be decided by Scripture and that the only Rule by no means but carefully and diligently proves Tradition to be against them Which he also declares to be not what they pretended by abuse of those words Sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos whispering corner conveyances of one to another such as the Cabala you object to us but the open plain profession of those Churches to whom the Apostles left their doctrine and its practice and among which he conceives that of the Roman Church alone sufficient This publike Testimony as he so we lay claim to and profess with him would be sufficient even though there were no Scriptures at all which nevertheless since Gods infinite goodness has provided for us we do not understand the force of the former impaired by the addition of a new force But that belonging to another question give me leave to end the present one with this confidence that you cannot but see we follow the Fathers steps and you those who follow the Valentinians and that it appears by what hath been said your Minor neither is nor since you have failed in likelihood ever will be proved PART II. Tradition the Rule of Faith SECT I. ¶ 1 Certainty of Tradition ¶ 1. IN the third Dialogue the certainty of your Traditions having endeavoured to take away the certainty of Scripture I think in vain is endeavoured I was glad of the promise to do the work only by reason and common sence without any quotations of Authors because I want that vast knowledge in Antiquity which is requisite for the deciding of this Question by it but I see my hopes are frustrated for your cause neither is here nor can be proved by reason alone without that reading which yet I want The Reasons here or any other that may be managed without quotations of Authors I am ready to see and examine and as ready to subscribe unto if they convince me but I thinke it unreasonable for you to pretend to prove your Religion infallible and yet bring no positive Arguments that are of themselues sufficient to convince but only to stand upon your guard
Mr. White only says he does not beleeve it their opinion but he should have proved they did not I wish the Arguments brought were set down by Mr. White but supposing they held Saints were not admitted he sees no consequence which I exceedingly wonder at what Eagle-eyed Mr. White not see it No wonder indeed when he changes the very question which with what ingenuitie it is done I leave to you his friend to judge the Question was in the first line of the page Prayer to Saints he says suppose they were not may they not nevertheless pray for us I pray Mr. White Is there not a great vast difference between these two the Saints pray for us and we may pray to the Saints suppose the Saints not yet in heaven pray for us the Church of God in general not knowing every ones particular condition may they not do it without Superstition or Idolatry For a particular man here may and should pray for the welfare of the Church beyond Sea but can the Church beyond Sea all the members of it in whatsoever place or time by night or day pray unto the particular man here in England to pray to God for them without Idolatry seeing the man here they all pray to must know the prayers they make whether by night or by day whether he be asleep or awake whether many of them pray together in several places or onely one at once and is it not Idolatry Suppose every man of you in England upon every occasion you had should pray to the Pope to get help for you from God one in this Town is a praying for health another at the same hour in Wales for deliverance from Robbers another at midnight when the Pope is asleep prays for pardon of sin I think you will say this is Idolatry making a God of a man whom you suppose by praying to hear and know your particular conditions but it is a quite other matter if the Pope should pray for all of you in general as we do for the whole Church though he knew not your particular wants The Consequence then which admirable Mr. White cannot see is strong and good for if you grant the Fathers held Saints were not admitted into heaven they held they were not to be prayed unto because before admission they could not know every mans condition that laid it open to them in prayer what say you could they not yet be admitted know every mans condition or not If not why doe you pray to them that cannot hear you If they know which Mr. White seems to hold in bringing Jeremiah praying for the people then indeed the Consequence is not forcing and indeed unlesse Mr. White think so be does but fumble as bad as your Seraphim of Divines so yours call Aquinas about this very question which by reason of the badness of his Tenet contradicts himself in the compass of two leaves ¶ 1. This Section treats of Prayer to Saints and the first Paraph is imployed in making good a consequence which you acknowledge little importing whether true or no since Mr. Whites second Answer is as you confess that which he relies upon nay which you acknowledg to be not forcing that is not good and none in that opinion which Mr. White maintains for true Viz That Saints even before admission into Heaven know every mans condition I cannot tell therefore whether reason will justifie my pains in examining what before I begin is confessed to be nothing to the purpose and yet the bitter confidence of your close which calls Mr. Whites Discourse trifles and signs of a rotten cause c. prevails with me to let you see those terms do not become an Argument whose Premises besides being untrue are also many ways nothing to the purpose First then I observe that in the very place you charge Mr. White with want of ingenuity you would have much ado to defend your self from a severe Adversary pray if I should urge it what reason could you assign of changing his Objection That divers Fathers held non-admission before the day of judgement into this expression that the Fathers held it which signifies all or the universality of them his importing but a few But though you give me occasion I will not be rigorous and proceed to tell you 't is both unjust and irrational to exact the proof you do Let those prove the Fathers held the opinion who say they did else a bare denial is a sufficient Confutation of a bare Assertion the proof as you know very well belonging to the Plaintiff not Defendant But besides Mr. White disclaims medling with the point and 't is a strange severity in you to quarrel at the want of a proof where there is not so much as an Argument and to be angry for not finding what you are told beforehand is not there to find yet if your curiositie persevere you may if you please see the ground of Mr. Whites opinion in his Middle state of Souls Acc. 4. In the mean time we must see what is to be said to the alteration you accuse him to have made of the Question which first I will hope you look not upon as design for no man plays foul play but for advantage and 't is the same thing to him whether Saints hear us or hear us not before admission You see he maintains the opinion of non-admission to be false and therefore cannot be concerned what happens in case it be for argument sake supposed true Next though it seem but odly spent time which is imployed in guessing and besides himself no body can do more at the reason of the accident yet I beleeve from the experience I have of him I may confidently affirm this passage to be one of those obscurities which his great intentiveness upon sence and small care of expression makes every body complain of in him Neither is this the first time that his overmuch minding the thing he would discourse of has made him forget som link necessary to the chain of his discourse which had it been made in this manner the Saints whether admitted or not admitted may pray for us and do know whether we pray to them therefore the Objection is of no force your self would have and have allowed Now that second Proposition is to him so cleer a truth holding that our blindness here is from the cloud of matter which darkens every thing and which the soul being freed from finds no obscurity impenetrable to her natural activity that he never reflected other people would find a difficulty where himself saw none I beg leave therefore to add it for him and undertake to defend it against the assaults your next Paraph makes upon it though I apprehend my self not otherwise oblig'd to so much then by the desire I have to proceed according to the rules not of strict disputation but civility For would I insist upon it how could you justifie your cleer-sightedness and this consequence which
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
since any body does I am sure no body is bound to maintain I am glad they impose upon me no necessity of contest with you in this Paragraph But least you should think it would follow thence that Tradition were uncertain I must affirm that not only a particular Church but scarcely a particular family that is well instructed can possibly err if they stick to Tradition and that the universality of the Church though ten thousand times more dispersed then it is cannot secure it from error if they desert it ¶ 5. Lastly I see no proof of your infallibility sure I am it is a safer way to preserve truths in writing then to be transmitted by the various apprehensions and mmories of multitudes and truly I beleeve you would not have retained so much truth as you have had it not been for the Bible and other writings and so I see not how you prove any thing has been intirely transmitted onely by Tradition Much lesse how it is proved there could creep no error into your Faith ¶ 5. Lastly I would fain flatter my self with hopes of success in the design I have had to serve you but however that proves must needs take the liberty to think if you do not yet see the proof you mention the fault is not in the object Only I presume there is no mistake in the word Infallibility which placed singly may speak an Attribute too much approaching to Divinity to belong to any thing of mortal but by extraordinary priviledge since it extends it self to all subjects whatsoever whereas with us 't is confined to matters of Faith and signifies but this that we can neither be deceived in what we hear nor deceive our posterity in what we relate concerning these matters Now it being the nature of man to speak truth and the number of men being in this case beyond all temptations whether of hopes fears or whatever else may be imagined should prevail with them to contradict their nature I cannot see but a little reflexion must needs make you acknowledge 't is beyond the power of imagination it self to put any deceit in their testimony since it will be to put an effect whose cause the putter sees neither is nor can be That Truths may be preserv'd in writing I doubt not nay even better then by the various apprehensions and memories of multitudes But if there be no variety in their apprehensions nor dependance on their memories continual practice overweighing the defects of nature I cannot see but 't is much easier to beat a man from a sence whereof he has no other hold then a word appliable to another sence then to beat a multitude from the judgements which they are in possession of and confirm'd by the daily actions of their whole lives Besides while the writings preserve the truth who shall preserve the writings from false copying and all the errors which both negligence and knavery threaten them withall and if the Vessel be tainted what shall keep the Wine pure For the rest I conceive that whatever you think of us your selves would not have the truths you have had not nature maintained that Tradition in your practice you deny in your words Your faith of the Blessed Trinity is right because no interest has yet moved you to follow your principles against it But give an Arian the same liberty against it you take against us and if you convince him you will as much deceive me as I think you do your selves to beleeve you can do it The same I say of Baptism of Prelacy and the rest of those truths you profess all which while you pretend Scripture it is Tradition which has truly conveyed to you and you have kept since because no body has opposed them but when they do have no more hold then of those you have deserted Neither is it possible for your principles to convince an Adversary that makes advantage of them neither just to condemn him for it will be to condemn your selves and that plea which if it justifie you must absolve him That faith has been so transmitted by Tradition that it has not been written is not Mr. Whites tenet but that writing at least the writings we have is not able so to transmit it as is necessary for the Salvation of mankind without Tradition This being the security of whatever writing faith is contained in if it be Scripture we know the sense by Tradition if a Father he is of authority in as much as what he writes is consonant to Tradition if any thing be found to disagree that not having any weight ¶ 6. First I ask whether an Error cannot overspread the face of the greatest Church visible It hath done so in the Arians time In our Saviours time Secondly whether an Error once spread cannot continue Arianism continued most universal for many years Mahomets Errors and Blasphemies for many Ages Jewish Suppositious Traditions longer yet then they What security then can a man have that Errors could not creep into the the Church while it is your Principle to embrace any thing your Councils shall determine ¶ 6. To your first Question I answer if that may be called a Church which wants the only principle which can make a Church I conceive an error may very easily overspread the face of the greatest visible There being no more to do then to desert this Rule and then truth will not only easily but almost certainly desert her without adhering to Tradition I know no security any number of men be it never so great can have of truths above the reach of natural reason such as are the Maxims of Religion But let the Church you speak of adhere to Tradition and be largely diffused and I conceive it as impossible that Error should overspread it as that it should be ignorant of what it does every day To the second since the supposal of an Erâ—â—â—s being spread supposes a destruction of that fence which only could keep it out viz. cleaving to Tradition I conceive an Error once spread not only may but will continue without extraordinary Providence of Almighty God Arianism which you exemplifie in was plainly brought in by preferring the interpretations which Arius made of Scripture as you do those of Luther c. before the Doctrine delivered by their Forefathers neither was there any cure for the disease till they purged themselves of novelty and rested in the ancient Doctrine Mahomet also took the same course and all those whom his impieties will bring to Hell will owe their damnation to the deserting of this principle which had his followers not first been cozened from it had not been possible for him to have undon so great a part of the world Jewish Traditions I have already spoken of and hope I need not again put you in mind they have nothing common with Tradition but the name This principle then and only this of adhering to Tradition gives a man all imaginable security
destroys all possibility either of advance in your self or success in the pains which are taken for you for what more can be done then to deliver a truth with that plainness that no reason can be found out to encounter it But quotations are necessary to make up Mr. Whites proof if it were so eternal happiness might well deserve a little labour but must Authors be quoted to shew that if the corruption be taken notice of it could not come in unawares and if not unawares then openly and this either by reason which is to change the natures of truth and falshood or force which to overcome the extent of the Church and continue so many ages as is necessary to the plantation of Errors of this importance nature without looking into Books tells us the impossibility of The Argument you make in the last place I beseech you make against your self and since 't is in a matter of no lesse concern then eternal either happiness or misery make it faithfully Consider that if not to act no reason is requisite to act there must be reason you have acted and though not actually begun a separation yet actually follow and adhere to those who did begin it and do continue it This action in a case of such importance as Sâ—â—ism requires such reason as is fit for salvation to depend on Examine therefore your reasons but severely and so as your Conscience be willing and secure to own them at that Judgment where the sentence is eternity and if you find them to have neer the force of those of ours which you say have no force I shall think either your judgment strangely byassed or mine strangely blind This to you but to a Pagan I acknowledg he is not to be put upon the proof you may if you please for your experience reflect what yourself would say to one and see whether you can say any thing stronger to him then we do to you if your thoughts be faithful to you I doubt what you deny reason against your self must either be reason against him or you will have much ado to keep your Arguments from being unreasonable I have had some proof of this in a Divine of yours famous and I think deservedly as any of your side whose discourse upon this Theam makes experience joyn with my reason to strengthen the confidence I have of the truth of what I say ¶ 8. I cannot see how you that take away the distinction of Fundamental and a non-Fundamental in points of faith can evade that of the Quartadecimans proving the chief part of Christians to have been mistaken in this Traditional way holding by it contradictions while each part pretends this title and so shews it not an infallible way to say it was a small point received in some Churches In answer to the gradual receiving of the Cannon you confess one Province may have sufficient evidence of that one truth which from it must be spread over the rest of the Church I think those things which I have written prove not only your way not only fallible but false in many points Several other things I have observed in Mr. White which do not satisfie me but because I want those Authors necessary to make my Objections cleer I chuse rather to be silent in them then not to speak to purpose Had I time to write these over again I might make what I say cleerer but I doubt not but your ingenuity will discerne my meaning and according to promise grant me a candid answer which I shall gratefully embrace and if convincing as readily acknowledge In the mean while I rest Yours to serve you in what I may ¶ 8. As for your distinction of fundamental and not fundamental in points of faith the words possibly may be taken in such a sence that it may be tolerable but if by fundamental you mean necessary this being plainly a relative word it ought to be expressed to whom they are necessary if you say to mankind 't is evident no point is not-fundamental since so God would have taught us what is unnecessary that is done a needless action if to a single man then they can never be assigned since they vary according to the several exigencies of several persons The instance of the Quartadecimans being I conceive fully answered by Mr. White p. 44. I have no more to do after I have referred you thither where you will find the point it self was no subject of Tradition but a practise which according to the different circumstances of different places was by the wisdom of the Apostles who saw what was convenient for the time and place they lived in practised differently and afterwards by the wisdom of the Church those circumstances ceasing reduced to an Uniformity For the rest I hope what I have written will satisfie you that neither falsity nor fallibility of Mr. Whites way appears in your Exceptions It had been easie and perhaps necessary had the piece been intended for more then your self to have woven it something closer but a sight that pierces so far into the bracks of an Argument can be no less sharp in discovering its fastness and I think your eye too strong to need spectacles or glasses or whatever helps are invented for weaker Organs I am onely to make Apologie for the delay of this Reply occasioned by a little business and a great deal of sickness and to profess that if this Answer be not such a one as you desire 't is the mis-fortune of many a good cause to suffer by the badness of its Advocates Your very Humble Servant J. B. FINIS
to cheat their posterity into everlasting damnation And is this to say the Conclusion over in the Antecedent and then infer it in the Consequent Beseech you Sir restrain those sallies of wit to things lesse dangerous to be plaid upon then salvation Lastly you object Mr Whites saying that several condemn'd Tenets are maintain'd in other terms by some Divines and assume that these Divines holding nothing as of Faith but what was delivered by the former age would have no Error And that is true meaning Errors in Faith but Divines proceed upon other Rules when they err and their Errors concern no Faith but Divinity It may indeed so happen that these Errors in Divinity do also contradict some point of Faith but that the equivocation of terms hinders them from seeing in which case the Position is erroneous and against Faith the beleef of the maintainer who sees not so much very good and unblameable Now if I understand the Position right 't is no more then this that some Divines understand not the force of terms used by themselves which rigorously scanned may happen to contain an error unperceived by him who uses them but dives not so far into them Remember then if you please the case is of Divines that is of persons working according to the rules of science not of faithful proceeding upon grounds of Faith after which I hope you will not infer an Error in the rule of Faith because there be errors in things concluded by other Principles ¶ 5. And truly if I have eyes Mr Rushworth does not more then shew a kinde of possibilitie that all points of faith could have been handed down the first delivered them to the second Age the third heard them of the second the fourth of the third c. But is this a proving of it that it was so or that no material corruptions could have crept in why else does he object against himself what is most obvious to be seen A posse ad esse non valet consequentia That cuts the throat of his Arguments so that yet there 's no certainty proved that which he answers is indeed reasonable you should think they were because they might be so handed but go no further yet till you prove more and seeing you conceive a possibilitie of such descent Remember the contrary possibilitie much more probable that there may be errors crept in but till you see you will not beleeve they are I shall not entreat you out of your Religion only I beg and wish you hold no more then your Arguments prove only a possibilitie but it is easier to deviate from the streight rule of truth then alwayes to keep to it ¶ 5. When you writ this Paragraph your thoughts certainly were so fixed upon the place in which your objection is brought in that the next leaves almost the next lines escape their observance The least advance would have suggested to them that not only a possibility of preserving truth but a plain actual indefectibility is aim'd at Not but that a possibility is enough such a possibility I mean or power as we speak of that is such as has the nature of a proper cause to its effect that is which should have done the effect Since if our Rule be proper to convey the truth to us no body can rationally affirm it has not done what 't is granted 't was of its own nature apt to do without evidencing what he says Let those therefore who upon pretence of errors refuse communion with us take it to heart and either plainly evince him or tremble at the horrour of living in a continued and obstinate schisme As for the edge of that maxime A posse ad esse non valet consequentia The Dialogues shew 't is taken off by this other frustra est potentia quae nunquam reducitur in actum the power in this case being but to one effect and to repeat what they say which is all I have to do seems unnecessary To guess at what the following discourse aims which puts a possibility of truth and a possibility of error this indeed the more probable but no more then probable I am quite at a losse Would you have no certaintie in Religion that is no Religion at all in the world For with what steadiness can I act in order towards Heaven if my thoughts be perpetually checkt with this doubt for example that perhaps there is no Heaven at all and if I be uncertain of it is it possible to shake off the doubt Till I comprehend your design therfore I shall only desire you to reflect that if the possibility of error be only the more probable then 't is but probable then the contrary though less is yet probable too then it may be there are no errors in the Church you refuse communion with Therefore since to divide is as much as lies in the divider to destroy the Church and to destroy the Church is to take away all hopes of salvation for since we cannot know the way to Heaven of our selves if we lose our mistress that should teach it us there can remain no ground of hope and this from all mankind consider if you please what 't is to continue a separation and at the same time acknowledge that perhaps there are no errors that is no ground why you should do so But we will beleeve no errors till we see them no indeed we will not contradict nature so much which supposes every man innocent till he be proved guilty In return to your civility of not intreating me out of my Religion I will intreat you not to be out of it neither and to remember that your soul being equally concern'd with mine 't is your obligation as well as mine not to beleeve any errors where you see there may be none till you see they are there and that not probably but with undeniable evidence when as you will be able to shew them I promise you I will be ready to desert them ¶ 6. But Mr. White would fain prove more from the natural inclination of truth and happiness this I think if it prove any thing proves man will needs be a groping after some Religion or other but that it should be after the true or make him preserve the true Religion I shall give Account why I will not assent unto without corruption I see not or why it should not prove as well that every particular man in whom there is such an inclination should preserve the truth My Reason why that inclination spoken of doth no way prove the Point is from the fall of Adam if there were no such thing as the corruption of mans nature Mr Whites Reason would have more likelihood in it and hereby appears the weakness of your cause in that you are fain the acutest of you to have recourse to such Bulrushes to make weapons of as the corrupt nature of man ready to uphold what the pure Oracles of God No the
contrary rather The natural man or man by nature is blinded and sees not the things of God they are contrary to him rather inclines to Superstition then the true Worship of God is naturally more steady in Idolatry then the pure service of God will you not take my word for this Read Jer. 2.9 10 11 12 13. seee if there be such a thing Hath a Nation changed their Gods which yet are no Gods but my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit ¶ 6. I think you mistake Mr Whites Argument here And first whereas you put a natural inclination to truth and happiness His words are that hopes and fears in the will ignorance and the conceit of another mans knowledge in the understanding are the Parents of Religion And I presume you mean the same thing but speak contractedly Now I conceive 't is not from this barely he proves the preservation of true Religion as you seem to suppose but from hence that man being not to be wrought upon but by reason authority or power none of the three can be imagined to have place where the Religion is supposed once true and largely dispersed So that you seem to take a part of the Argument for the whole As for the difficulty from the corrupti of nature in man 't is that corruption which makes him deceivable by the ways mentioned for were his nature entirely sound neither power nor authority could be imagined forcible enough to prevail with him against his own good and reason cannot be supposed opposite to truth So that were there no corruptions there would be neither necessity of nor place for the Argument which contends That since there are but three ways even in this state of misery to work upon a man and that none of them can be effectual in our case the divine goodness ha-provided even against the defects of nasture and placed the security of our faith beyond the reach of its corruptions for however vice may by as a man in opinion by hindring the faithful working of his Reasons it withal its malice cannot hinder him from using his eyes and ears in plain matters of fact which is all our Rule of Faith requires the fall of Adam then makes not the Argument weak but necessary But perhaps it may contribute to your satisfaction to observe that nature is spoken of man in different significations for sometimes by that word is meant Reason sometimes that frame of corporeal Instruments which concur to its being an Animal Now when you hear of the bad Inclinations of Nature and natural men 't is to be understood of the disorder occasioned principally in the body by the sin of Adam and by the union of it with the soul drawing her into evils which are therefore such because they are against nature it being unpossible that should be ill which to nature is conformable Man is therefore truly drawn against his nature even when he follows those which you call his natural inclinations to sin for since he is animal rationale if Reason be not his nature he is no more a man Now the Argument proves that natural disorders taking nature in the second sence have not the power to prevail upon his nature taken in the first sence either to lose all Religion or change the true one in the Circumstances accompanying our case For it being natural to man that his words should flow from his thoughts and conformably to them when a lie is told that is words are brought forth dis-formable to the thoughts of the speaker 't is plain that nature is crossed and design works that is artifice that is not nature And so we see that those who are not in a condition to use design as fools and drunken men always tell truth Further those who lie design or aim at some end attainable by lying thus force their nature unlesse the design be only mirth rising from the odness of the lie must either hope to cloath it with an appearance of truth and conceal it from being known to be what it is or despair of compassing their design nothing being more evident then that no man wil be perswaded by a known untruth Put then the Tenets of Religion to be universally dispersed and visible in practice and the people strongly possessed of the truth of them is it not undeniable that who would go about to perswade them either that the former Tenets were not held and practised or that some new invention was formerly held and practised must be known by every body to tell an open manifest lie that is can have no hopes of concealing it nor consequently of prevailing with it or compassing any design by it that is if he have wit enough to see the impossibility such a lier must act without a motive for none acts for a thing held clearly impossible and so the action be directly carried out of the sphere of whole rational nature which is obliged to act for some end or motive good or bad You see then that in both cases rational nature taking original sin and the corruptions flowing from it into the bargain is destroyed and overthrown by such an action even of one single man to which if we add the multitudes the millions that must conspire to this unnatural lie since otherwise their authority can never over-bear the counterpoize of those who will adhere to manifest and known truth the impossibility swels to a proportion so monstrous that it seems beyond the power even of Arithmetick it self to comprehend it And so much though but little in respect of the latitude of the subject and strange advantages our rule of Faith bears with it for mans inclination to truth that is as he has an understanding power in him Let us see what follows from his inclination to happiness which is so the object of his will that it cannot act without an aim at some good either reall or apparent Put men strongly to conceit their beatitude or eternal well-being and that it depends wholly upon the Tenets which make up their Religion is it not evident this conceit still remaining which is our case that there cannot be imaginable any greater hopes or fears that is greater motives to the will then certainly beleeved enjoyment of heaven or punishment in Hell and this for all eternity which being so 't is as certainly demonstrated that a multitude of men thus affected shall not be byassed to prevaricate from so concerning truths and propagate so prejudicial falshoods as they look upon those to be which contradict their Religion as it is that a straw cannot weigh down a thousand pounds Now put the Religion to be true to be universally dispersed and this the Test of it to admit nothing into it but upon the account of inheritance from immediate Fathers as from the first deliverer and this so as that it be all one to be not inherited and to be not Religion which three things though the present