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
washing boul will ferry me over the Thames which Oars perhaps will hardly do to morrow Now since he that meets with no rubs seldom stumbles if the way be smooth and even every thing overcoms it if rugged or deep 't is not passed without much labour and difficulty And so the faithful who live in a deep peace need not that strength of certainty which is necessary for those who are assaulted by the outward wars of Heresie or intestine broils of Schism Observe then if you please what your witnesses to gain your cause should depose for you That Scripture taken for the words teaches the Church that is mankind the way to salvation so as not to need the assistance of Tradition or any other Interpreter to secure them against all possible assaults of all possible adversaries or taken for the sence that the sence of Scripture is so known by the bare words without the help of Tradition or other Interpreter that no subtlety or malice can weaken the certainty it gives of as much as is necessary for the salvation of mankind This is what they should say What they do let us now examine But first you tell us you receive not their Testimony as authoritative but embrace both their and any other as rational which is a peece of learning I should have been not sorry to have met in an Adversary I had desired to treat like one To you I can onely say your difference to those who mint such adulterate coin is much greater then the blind obedience with which we use to be reproached Of the two ways of moving assent Authority Reason the one is distinguished from the other in this that the first relies upon the credit of the Proposer whom if we be satisfied he is so wise as to know what he says and so good as not to say against what he knows 't is rational to beleeve and lay hold upon the truth he presents us which we see with his eyes not our own The second carries us by the evidence of truth it proposes barefaced and without any consideration of the Proposer in which way we rely upon our own eyes not another mans credit Wherefore if you will proceed the first way by Testimonies they are onely and so far valuable as their Author has authority and must be either authoritative or of no force at all If the second 't is impertinent to cite an Author for what is considerable onely in respect of what it is not in respect of him that said it for reasons have weight from their inward vertue and are neither greater in the mouth of Aristotle nor lesse in the mouth a Cobler Neither therefore can authoritative be separated from testimony nor rational joyned to it a rational Testimony in true English saying a Testimony which is not a Testimony but a reason Your 3 Paraph too has a very pretty distinction in these terms that the Church is is no infallible decider but a credible witness whereas these two are at least in our subject matter inseparable For since not infallible says fallible and fallible says that which may deceive and credible says what 't is rational to beleeve and nothing is more irrational then to beleeve what may deceive the beleever plainly if the Church be not infallible neither is she credible Besides her power of deciding in things of this nature is founded upon her power of witnessing she being therefore able to decide because she is able to witness what it was which Christ and his Apostles taught her and she has till now preserved in which if she can credibly that is infallibly witness she can also infallibly decide if her testimony be fallible she cannot be credible The rest of what you say till you come to the Testimonies themselvs although I do not allow yet I think not necessary to meddle with apprehending the concern of our dispute to be very independent of it But now St. Austin tells us non Catholicis Episcopis consentiendum est sicubi forte fallantur ut contra Canonicas Scripturas aliquid sentiant Very true and sure no body at least no Catholick Bishop ever pretended to be believed against Scripture that is its sence concerning which our contest is how t is known and to that the witness says nothing Again Ecclesiam suam demonstrent non in sermonibus c. sed in Canonicis librorum authoritatibus And utrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant non nisi divinarum Scripturarum Canonicis libris ostendant Lastly non Audiamus haec dico sed haec dixit Dominus c. ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam c. In which three places he challenges his Adversaries to prove their cause by Scripture a course not onely commendable in him but practis'd dayly by us Several of our Books will witness for us we are so far from thinking our cause lost by Scripture that we know it infinitely superior even in that kind of tryal but what 's this to the purpose Because St. Austin then and we now know the advantage Scripture gives us above all our Adversaries does therefore either he or we think the bare words of it are our Rule of faith or that its sence needs no other means to be found out but the bare words These Sir are our onely Questions but not so much as thought on by the Judges you bring to decide them The place you bring from his Doct. Christ seems more to the purpose but yet comes not home it being violence to extend it farther then private Readers and these qualifi'd as he expresses with piety humility and fear of God pietate mansuetis as his words are de timentibus Deum piously meek and fearing God And of these t is also Mr. Whites opinion that the Scripture is plain enough to make them perfect beleeving Catholicks But that 't is able to contest with captious frowardness and those crooked dispositions which accompany Heresie or satisfie the nice sharpness of sincere but piercing wits or that the plainness he speaks of ought to bee understood with respect to the exigencies of the Church that is mankind which may be true in respect of such excellently dispos'd persons as he mentions are things however necessary yet not at all touched St. Hieroms authority is wider all it says being thus much that where there is but one authentick History extant of the Subject to be spoken of what is not found there has no sufficient ground to keep it from being unblamably rejected Which is his case for there is no authentick History of the actions of St. John Baptist but the Bible wherefore since they are no subject of Traditions they must either deny their ground from thence or have no ground at all Tertullians words are plainly changed for whereas you make him tye and as it were challenge Hereticks to defend their cause by Scripture his words are ut de Scripturis solis questiones suas sâ—stant That they may not defend but present or handle
though Mr. White could not you saw was good if the Fathers held non-admission they held no prayer because say you they knew not before admission every mans condition This you see I have denied but put case I had not I am afraid you would come short of your account S. Austin and other Fathers are alledged by Veron an excellent French Controvertist to maintain prayer to Saints even while they doubted whether these Saints heard the prayers made to them And you may reflect that prayer to Saints is a part of Tradition rivetted into our hearts by an universal and undeniable practise but whether souls freed from the commerce of bodies receive intelligence of what passes among bodies and this again either from the nature of their state or divine revelation Whether the return of our prayers to Saints be from their mediation or only from the goodness of God making use of our affection to creatures like our selves to give us those benefits which otherwise we had never demanded and so never received and the like are School questions in which speculative wits according to the difference of their learning and studie have met with either truth or error but acting all the while as Schollers and never doubting the lawfulness of the practice which occasioned all these disputes and which they saw firmly setled upon a more solid foundation then all their School-learning for had they done so they had disputed it as well as the rest To take then all parts of your Argument t is false the Fathers held non-admission is false that non-admission imports ignorance of our condition lastly 't is false that non admission and ignorance both of them exclude prayers to Saints that is in the Fathers judgement for the Question is not what is true or false but what they held to be so since they prayed to them even then when they doubted whether they were heard or no. Now I beseech you reflect if to reject such arguments be a sign of a rotten cause what it is to be perswaded by them and perswaded in matters of no less concern then eternity ¶ 2. Suppose that be Mr. Whites meaning the Saints know what we pray to them before they are admitted into heaven is that your Tenet To what purpose else does he bring Jeremies praying in the Macchabees to say that he prays in general as we do for the whole Church though we know not its particular state is nothing to the purpose the Question is Whether we may pray to the Saints and in order to our praying to them whether they can know every particular mans prayer if you say they do you and your Apocriphal Book contradict the undoubted Word of God by his Prophet Isai 63.16 Abraham knows us not and Isaac is ignorant of us which your S. Thomas can no otherwise solve then by imagining the Saints before Christ were not yet admitted to Heaven ¶ 3. Here comes your convincing as you think Argument against the knowledg of Saints from the Prophet Isaiah Araham knows us not and Israel is ignorant of us but I would beg of you not to put so much confidence in words without a full mastery of their sense for 't is the sense of Scripture is truly Scripture You have found indeed the word ignorant and knows us not but what is meant by that word and what that is is the whole difficulty you settle not You know that word Luke 13.25 27. is applied to the Master of the House Mat. 25.12 to the Bridegroom and I hope you will not from it argue any ignorance in that Master and that Bridegroom Mark 13.32 The knowledge of the day of judgment is denied to that Son who being so man that he is also God cannot sure at any time be imagined to want his omniscience Since therefore 't is manifest those words have in Scripture many senses what possibility is there by the bare sound without further inquirie to conclude any one The Context and your own later Translations which for ignorant put acknowledg not perswade me they have here the same sense as when God is said not to know impious persons But 't is not for me to prove but to shew you have not done so and in the mean time to wonder so excellent a wit should make such a bravado with a Bulrush which nevertheless I impute to the weakness of your cause whose armory affords no better weapons ¶ 3. That which Mr. White proves out of the parable of Dives praying to Abraham is as ridiculous for if it be a proof it is either nothing to the Question or contrary to that Scripture named But the principal answer for the former are but trifles signs of a rotten cause Saints are admitted to Heaven before the day of Judgment therefore seeing God and so all things know our prayers and so sit to be prayed unto But seeing this naked groundless not proved Assertion is the principal answer how chance not a word to the Argument that prevented and utterly destroyed it the Fathers did hold the contrary Is this a satisfaction to the Argument only to say I do not beleeve it Be Judge your self and give a better ¶ 3. You call Mr. Whites touch upon the Parable of Dives ridiculous and say 't is either nothing to the Question or contrary to the Scripture named but since you do no more then say so you will pardon me if I have not that captivation of my understanding to your words which you refuse the Church and give me leave to put you in mind you cannot affirm it contrary to that Scripture till you be assured what that Scripture is and farther since Scripture cannot be contrary to it self 't is lawful for me to beleeve you may as soon miss the sence of it as Mr. White whose principal Answer you in the next place call a naked groundless not proved Assertion and for naked I think you mean want of either proof or ground for sure you will not except against the want of Rhetorick and then 't is the same with one of the other expressions To the first of which I reply he has exprest the ground of it Viz. Tradition and to the second that being the Defendant it was not his part to prove But how chance no word to the Argument According to the small insight I have in Logick no argument either requires or can have a fuller answer then a plain denial of its premises which I take to be done here The Argument is this Divers Fathers you say the Fathers held non-admission before the day of judgment wherefore they must also hold no prayer to Saints Now if I aver the admission of Saints before the day of Judgment is taught by Tradition I think I say also that it was taught by the Fathers and consequently deny they taught the contrary and must beleeve till I am better instructed in the Laws of Disputations when thus much is said to an Argument more ought not
and any finite thing to worship or represent God in a shape infinitely below him then there would be for a subject to go and fall down to a Toad under him for to worship and honour his King in it That reason of the Apostle in Acts 17. is the very same with that Isai 40.18 where God speaks against his being worshipped under shapes First in many expressions describes his own greatness and Majestie the Nations of the Earth all are but as the drop of a Bucket to him c. concludes from all To whom then will you liken God or what likeness will you compare to him The workman melteth c. What Mr. White says p. 110. of the marks of the Church as apparent enough out of Scripture I say of this point If there want not will in the seeker to acknowledge them Lactantius saith Just l. 2. c. 19. where Images are for Religions sake there is no Religion The Council of Elibera Can. 36. decreed that nothing should be painted on the walls of Churches which is adored of the people Origen cont Cels l. 7. We suffer not any to worship Jesus at Altars Images and Temples because it is written Thou shalt have none other Gods c. Epiphanius epist ad Joh. Hierus saith It is against the Authority of the Scriptures to see the Images of Christ or of any Saints hanging in the Church In the seventh Council of Constantinople those words of Epiphanius are cited against the Encraticae be mindful beloved children not to bring Images into the Church nor set them in the places where the Saints are buried but always carry God in your hearts neither let them be suffered in any common house for it is not meet that a Christian should be occupied by the eyes but by the meditation of the mind ¶ 1. You reply to Mr. Whites answer to the usual Objection from the Decalogue that you cannot see that prohibition is a Ceremony but what 's this to the purpose There is no distinction in Mr. White of Ceremonial or not Ceremonial but a plain Consequence authorized by the Apostle that who receives as of obligation any part of the Law in vertue of the Law be it Ceremony or what else it can be is bound in pursuance of that action to receive the whole Law If you derive your Tenet from the Law of Nature as your mentioning Ceremonies seems to suppose what do you cite the Decalogue for prove the Prohibition contrary to the Law of Nature and you have done your business But cease to object the Jews Law in vertue of which you either receive it not and then cannot press it or else are obliged to receive the whole Law with it This Consequence too that if it be not repeated in the new Law it binds not you do not see I cannot tell what dimness has of a sudden overcast as clear a sight as I have met with but me thinks nothing can be plainer then that if the whole Law be abolished no part of it can be binding but in vertue of some other Law in which it is inserted For the examples you alledge of Precepts unrepeated and yet binding The first is cleerly against the Law of nature and in vertue of that not the old precept to be avoided The second how do you prove obliging farther then the municipal Laws we live under exact it But what makes you demand a repetition of the tenth Commandment in so many words Cannot the same thing be commanded in several words or would you determine the command to the words not what is meant by them But you have found this command repeated in the New Testament in these words of S. Paul We ought not to think the Godhead is like to gold or silver graven by art and mens device and if you can make these two Proposition God is not like an Image and Thou shalt not make an Image to adore it to be the same I shall think that though Images are not your power in reasoning is in somthing very like the Godhead for 't will be omnipotent Then you discourse in this manner God is not like unto any similitude the art of man can devise therefore ought not to be worshipt by similitudes If nothing can be like him and consequently nothing be a similitude sure you need not fear that worship which can never be since it supposes a thing which can never be But I suppose you mean by similitudes Images whether like or unlike and then pray how does it follow no Image can be like him therefore no honor can redound to him that is no benefit to us by Images To worship these Images so as to beleeve them either him or like him which are the things I conceive the Apostle speaks against we do abhor with the height of detestation but if they induce us to worship him oftner and more ardently then we should without them how can it be but that to oppose them is to oppose his worship Therefore no Pictures or Representations of him are to be made Beseech you Sir what Law is there against making Pictures which are not like Sure you would be very severe to ill Painters But the truth is the Pictures which are made of God are indeed no more then signs which present him to our memory and called pictures of him with no more justice then a Bush would be called the Picture of Wine For the nature of a Picture consisting in representing to the eye the same proportion colour and figure of parts up-a piece of cloth or wood which we see in the Original I refer my self to your own candor to judge whether we be guilty of the impiety of believing parts or colour or any thing which the art of painting is able to reach to be in God for painting is only of bodies and those grosse ones too to expresse wind or those smaller parts which affect the Smell Tast c. is beyond her Sphere So that none who is in his sences can imagin us so damnably sencelesse as to believe 't is in its power to frame any representation of God which with any propriety can be called a Picture of him These which we have by custom warranted and perhaps begun by authority of Scripture bring by the shapes they represent the Divinity into our memories and adoration of it not of the pictures into our hearts and except it be unlawful to remember and adore the Deity I cannot imagine it should be unlawful to use means which conduce to that end By this I presume you already see the disparity of the Comparison of pictures to a Toad but first what mean you by worshipping God in a shape if you mean that we hold either that shape to be his or he to be in it more then his ubiquity makes him present to all things you either mistake or wrong us and what else that expression should signifie I see not Next what is there of common betwixt these
your mind been in the same temper it was in the first Sect. of this part would have been reason sufficient not only to doubt but to reject it that you had not evidence of its certainty For there a man must plainly deny assent to what even all Doctors determine though he have no-so much-as-probable Objection against them upon this onely ground That he has not evidence their determination is certain and here he must yeeld assent because he has not evidence the thing he assents to is not certain Which is want of evidence must at one time produce dissent at another assent as it suits with your inclinations to the case it is apply d to Besides if all parts of Scripture have been doubted of Vid. Hierom. de Scrip. Eccl. in Petro Jacobo Juda Paulo Spondan ad an 60. 98. Com. Laod. c. and denyed too nay some which you receive by several even of the Fathers Why should not you think you have reason to doubt as well as those who lived neerer the Primitive times and should know more who shall satisfie a Critical Soul that all their doubts were ever fairly answered and they not more oppress'd by strength then satisfi'd by reason and this also destroys your pretence to universal Tradition of time and place since that could not in your grounds be delivered with universality which by some has been denyed And for your Monuments of Antiquity I beseech you pretend not to prove it that way for I think I deal liberally if I allow you to have examined ten Authors of every age and what proof are ten of the sentiments of 1000000 Then what do you find in these Authors certain places of Scripture cited out of such books as we still have but whether those books contained then the same number of Chapters and Verses they do now you will find very few to speak to Nay I do not beleeve you will find ten in all Ages that give you a Catalogue of the Books themselves much less of the Chapters and Verses So that your conspiracy of all Monuments of Antiquity will not amount to ten men in fifteen Ages I must desire you not to mistake what I have said as if I also doubted of Scripture which I acknowledg to be the Word of God reverence it as such and know the denyers of it were for the most part Hereticks All I aim at is by an Argument ad hominem to shew the power of prejudice to which what is reason when of one side ceases to be reason when on the contrary If therefore you faithfully pursue your own Principles what ever you think the true ground why you receive Scripture is the present Churches Authority and you should as you rightly infer receive the sense as well as words from her And for your fear of the Alcoran you will need no other security then your own thoughts if you reflect that all which the testimony of the Mahumetan Church if that name be tolerable concludes is That what she says was delivered by Mahomet was truly delivered by Mahomet and to so much I think you will allow her testimony good beleeving you do not doubt but that Mahomet was truly Author of the Alcoran and so much if you allow her you cannot deny the Testimony of a Christian Church Viz. That what she affirms was delivered by Christ was truly delivered by Christ and farther Tradition reaches not Now the Minor necessary to a conclusion of Religion that what was delivered by Mahomet was inspired by God I am sure you hold as great impiety to grant as Blasphemy to deny that which we subsume viz. that what was delivered by Christ did truly proceed from God Tradition then of the Alcoâ—an and Tradition of Christian doctrine agree in this that they prove the one to have descended from Mahomet the other from Christ but Christianity endures not either that a delivery from Mahomet should or that a delivery from Christ shâ—uld not argue a necessity of obedience to what was so delivered as to sacred and heavenly truth ¶ 2. Secondly I say if you can prove or produce any Tradition for any revealed truth not contained in the Bible as cleerly universal for time and place as that Tradition which assures me the Bible is the Word of God I must imbrace it ¶ 2. Secondly I conceive there is no point of our faith but has not onely as clearly an universal Tradition but a much clearer both for time and place then the Scripture a truth which since you may find in the first Sections of Rushworths second Dialogue I shall only wonder here you see not that the very Arguments which you make against the universality of Tradition for some points as that they have been doubted of and rejected by some are every whit as forcible against Scripture whereof there is no paâ—â— which has not been both doubted of and rejected too by Hereticks indeed at least for the most part for some also of the Fathers have doubted even of some Books which your selves receive but so also were they who rejected the points in question whose opposition if it be not allowed against Scripture cannot be valid to any thing but prejudice against points of doctrine Be true therefore if you please to your own reason and embrace that principle and the Communion of those who own it which alone can with certainty convey to you these sacred Truths which are necessary for your happiness ¶ 3. Thirdly I cannot grant your Church was the onely one before Luthers time there 's the Greek Abyssen and others there may be in several parts of the world that I know not of ¶ 3. Thirdly What you mean here by our Church I cannot tell if onely that number of Orthodox Christians who live within the Precincts of the Roman either Diocess or Patriarchate I know no body maintains I 'm sure I do not beleeve the number of the faithful is confin'd to that Pale But to answer of every particular place where Christians live till it be agreed what they held and of what may be too as well as what is seems unreasonable eifor me to undertake or you to exact thus much is true in general that whatever company of men where-ever they live hold this only principle of unity both in faith and government so as to be a Church are not another but our Church and who hold it not are no Church at all ¶ 4. Fourthly I see no necessity that any one particular Church should continue uncorrupted or that it is necessary the greatest number of Professors of Christianity should have uncorrupted Religion In the days of Elijah the Prophet there were but 700 that had not bowed the knee to Baal which the Prophet that thought himself alone knew not of ¶ 4. That there is any necessity a particular Church should always remain uncorrupted or that the greatest number of professors of Christianity should have uncorrupted Religion are two Propositions which
wise saying of yours If this one thing upon which all depends the nature of Tradition were well lookt into many Volumes might be saved surely truth may be cleared with few Arguments which is often invisible in a croud of words Mr. White excellently well resolves only to meddle with Arguments and not to confute Authors in all Punctilioes because of loss of time to no purpose I wish you were but as willing to urge any one of your strongest Arguments which might be don in a little Paper as I am desirous to follow you in the pursuit I should then hope of benefit which your ingenuity will not altogether suffer me to despair of you having yet as I remember your words never refused to dispute with any man ¶ 2. Though there be many things in the First Dialogue which I do not consent to yet I think it in vain to mention them till we be agreed on the second and third in which the main point lies on which they depend ¶ 3. In the Second Dialogue he proves Scripture alone cannot decide Controversies in Religion because of uncertainty of Copies Translations c. 1. I grant we cannot fully determine all things we might desire to know by what we have in Scripture neither do I think it was intended to make us omniscient 2. We might possibly have known more then we doe were it not for those several causes of uncertainty mentioned Part I. Sect. I. ¶ 1 2 3. SIR WHere I find so much civility I expect to feel far stronger Arguments than if Passion were the manager of your cause and even your courtesie alone had hazarded to conquer me had the concern of my cause and the evident truth on my side left me to my good nature But these engage me to use the best weapons my reason and knowledg affords with rigor too against the point you maintain and to exchange those personal complements into the solider respects of heartily endeavouring your satisfaction assuring you unfainedly that I more willingly attempt it because your best advantage the â—ight of Truth which not only your sincere expressions but your temper genius manifest to be your aim is included in my victory who your Friend is with whom you had those verbal Conferences I am not so happy as to learn nor yet which is a great misfortune your self But since 't is your soul that I speak to and that I have great acquaintance with it by those expressions it hath given of it self in your ingenuous Papers I can securely own so much knowledg of you as to take a right measure how to behave my self towards you that is with candor and civility What circumstances may have hinder'd your friends giving satisfaction by his own pen I know not But I am sure though the importunity of powerful Friends in the absence of that excellent Master of mine have even forc't me to this task yet I may with truth say 't was your temperate way of writing your clearness and apprehended sincerity which were my chief encouragers Entring the lists then with this protestation that you have an hearty servant for your Adversarie and one who combats you only to make you more my friend and your own I address to my Defence And ¶ 2. 3. Because I know not whether the state of the Question be not mistaken I conceive this place very fit to observe how it stands in the second Dialogue viz. We beleeve that by Scripture alone left without the guard of the Church nothing or at least not sufficient for the salvation of mankind can be sufficiently proved Where the words mankind and sufficiently being of special Energie ought particularly to be observed What is meant by sufficient proof the 15th Encounter of the Apologie p. 142. declares to be inavoidable and convincing Demonstration beyond any shadow of Reply ¶ 4. Yet thirdly notwithstanding all that hath been said I thinke we have sufficient certainty out of Scripture alone concerning those things which are absolutely necessary for Salvation and many things besides only profitable my Reasons are these ¶ 4. You put the contradictory to your Adversary which you assume to prove fairly meaning by Salvation the the salvation of mankinde as I presume you do But your reasons seem to come short of your intent For suppose all true which you urge to the tenth Paraph namely that the alterations mentioned to be possible whereof you deny not but that many have hapned yet have not all of them actually befallen Scripture Suppose I say this to be true what a Chaos is there betwixt that Premise and your Conclusion That Faith may with sufficient certainty be proved out of Scripture alone For though all have not hapned yet since some have and you are uncertain precisely where 't is manifest you can never be certain but that they have hapned in whatsoever Text you shall pitch upon to prove any thing by and consequently you can never be absolutely certain of any again since Demostration implyes a must be of the Conclusion and must be evidently excludes may be of the opposite 't is plain that to destroy Demonstration that is in this case sufficient certainty it suffices to prove the opposite may be so that though it be granted these alterations have not all hapned yet while there appears a possibility they may have done so there appears an impossibility of ever coming to a rigorous certainty by Scripture But to take particular notice of every Paragraph ¶ 5. 1. It seems to me more improbable that nothing of Scripture as you say should be contrary to your Faith supposing it the true notwithstanding those innumerable alterations of Scripture then that all those alterations of Scripture proved Metaphysically only possible should actually have befell the Scripture ¶ 5. 'T is very strange it should appear improbable to you but that Scripture and our Faith must needs contradict one another supposing the one to be Scripture and the other true as you do Must truths needs be opposed to themselves which have hitherto been esteem'd opposite only to falshood If you mean by Scripture the alterations of Scripture as the sequel makes me imagin how much wrong do you do the Word for if Scripture be altered or changed from what it was then 't is not what it was that is 't is not Scripture But of these Alterations 't is not our Tenet that none of them have been contrary to our Faith the alterations made by the Translations of the first Founders of Protestancy having been judged so contrary to it that it occasioned the prohibition to read the Scriptures in Vulgar Tongues But only that there is nothing in the Vulgar Edition according to that sence in which the Church understands it which is contrary to her faith And if you will allow the Church but to know the Faith she is appointed to teach and know what she means by what she reads and what a contradiction is three Requests which cannot
and fancie to work on and determine which side they please SECT III. Scripture critically managed not sufficient to decide Controversies ¶ 1. THe 3d. Question whether Scripture can determine Controversies 1. We affirm not all possible Controversies of Religion can satisfactorily be determined by Scripture neither do I think you dare say they can by your Traditions but 2ly all necessary to Salvation may In the 15th Encounter of the Apol. pag 136. Mr. White makes use of an old Objection to disprove Scriptures sufficiency in general which truly I should not have thought worth the taking notice of did it not come from Mr. White whom I much honour and find more Rational than many others of your Controversie writers I have since Read it is this Scripture hath not these 1600 years ended Controversies therefore it is not a sufficient Rule 1. He speaks more then he proves of 1600 years As to the experience since Luthers time it 's plainly false that not one point has been resolved by it that Christ is the Messias promised that through Faith in his name Salvation is to be had and many others have been and are resolved and agreed unto by Protestants who own not your Traditions but what Wonder Scripture does not end the feud between you and us seeing you will not be ruled by Scripture as the Supreme Rule to decide by he might as well have concluded against traditions because they have not yet ended the Controversies since Luthers time between you and us who doth not acknowledge your Traditions as a supream Rule to judge by ¶ 1. The next Reason begins with a Question which as you state it has no opposition to the Dialogues for after they have shewn how points of Religion may be decided and controversies determined by Scripture me thinks it should not be questioned whether that may be done which they shew how 't is done The difference betwixt you though you say nothing of it is of the certainty of determining Controversies their Position being That a discreet and diligent perusal of Scripture will make a man a perfect Catholick but not with that steady firmness as to be able to evince his Religion before a Critical Judge against a wrangling and craftie Adversary and this is your task to oppose if you will oppose the Dialogues To the experience Master White glances at in his fifteenth Encounter you answer he proves not what he says of sixteen hundred years which is true but sure to your second thoughts that place which professes not to treat the Question and onely mentions it by the by will not seem proper for a large proof Yet if you desire to see one his Tabulae Suffragiales will serve you where he handles that question largely And for what you say since Luthers time that many points have been resolv'd by Scripture though he speak of Points controverted betwixt Catholicks and Protestants and so your Position does not directly thwart him yet I conceive you are in the wrong and doubt whether any one point ever have been resolv'd amongst the adversaries of the Roman Church meerly by Scripture 'T is true there are several in which they all agree and Catholikes with them as those you instance in but not because Scripture has reconciled their differences concerning them but because they never owned any differences to reconcile Consult Historie faithfully and impartially and if you find one side ever plainly convinced another or generally any other agreement then this that the Point controverted belonged not to salvation and so either part permitted to keep their own opinion I shall learn somthing of you which yet I am yet ignorant of Mean while the points yon say are agreed I conceive are so onely because they have not been questioned whereof I take the reason to be the nature of man which being accustomed to any one thing cannot be brought to the opposite but by degrees and time a quality which grounds that Maxime Nemo repente fit pessionus So I conceive that Luther being brought up long inured to Religion though Passion obliged him to renounce some points of it yet was withheld by the course of nature from following his Principles whether they would at last have brought him into infidelity His successors still went farther and I do not see that where they exceeded him either himself in his life-time or Schollers after him were able to correct and bound them by Scripture but that every one had as fair a plea for deserting him as he for deserting the Church Whether the Clew would have brought him had he pursued it far enough the fifth Monarchy and Quakerism will inform you which though perhaps you may look on but as Bastards and think it strange they should be laid to his charge yet I cannot tell any thing should hinder you from acknowledging them his issue but their deformity for they profess Scripture as much as he and have by his principles and example as great a liberty to interpret it You will say they err in their Interpretation True but so did he and as long as they follow what seems the truth to them they do all that he did and if that seeming be a Plea for him against possession and authoty I see not how you can deny it them Against some of these and perhaps this Labyrinth has many more windings we are yet unacquainted with 't is possible you may have occasion to dispute some of the points you conceive agreed of and till experience satisfie you of the success you would do well not to be too confident of the favour of Scripture In the mean time pray do not take that for resolved which was never disputed As to what you say that we refuse to be ruled by Scripture you do us wrong for by acknowledging it the Word of God we bind our selves to accept whatsoever can be proved it teaches so that if it be true as you say that your Religion may be convinced out of Scripture your victory over us is certain Nay we have one Copie too which to us is authentical and which in Disputation we refuse not whereas when you are pressed you â—lie from one to another And how you that pretend to rely on Scripture can have fairer play shewn you then a Book brought which your Adversary acknowledges to be Scripture and professes an absolute obedience and submission to whatever it says indeed I cannot imagin Since then nothing more can be required on our sides pray charge us not with such injurious scandals and take it not amiss if I tell you with that plainness which in concerns of the soul being a duty of Charitie should never be look'd upon as a breach of civility that what you so loudly call the Word of God and with the Majestie of so great a Name endeavour to dazle your adversaries eyes while in truth you blind your own proves when faithfully and severely scan'd no other thing but your own meer fancy to which
you accommodate the outward Word in which the true Word of God is contained and because you can do so break communion with us because we prefer another sense which the words also agree withall suitable to our constant and universal practise and which to leave upon no better inducement I must confess I know not how to excuse from downright madness Moreover some of our Controvertists laying down in condescendence to you their own assured Arms Tradition have engaged with you at your own weapon critical handling of Scripture of whose endeavours I am content almost even partiality it self should be Judge being very confident no Byas can be great enough to draw a reasonable nature so far wide of Truth as to pronounce us in that kind of war overcome When you say Tradition has not ended controversies you express where the fault lies Viz. in that not acknowledging them it being unpossible that Judge should end a difference whose sentence is refused by either of the parties But then this is not for want of necessary qualities in him but submission in them We refuse not to make Scripture sole Judge out of fear it should give sentence against us we know its sence much better then you and know 't is for us and if you think you can convince us by it do it we both must and will submit but out of fear by it s not giving sentence at all our dissentions should never come to an end We earnestly long to see all the sheep of Christ quietly seeding again in one fold and that unhappy wall of division which so long has separated them battered down and because we do so cannot but testifie Scripture is no fit Engine to do it 'T was to us she was given not to you and we know her efficacy is more in times of peace then War that she is more proper to increase charity then beget faith and that being principally intended to sanctifie the faithful she does ordinarily require they should first be faithful that they may afterwards be sanctified Had you the same disposition to peace you would either effectually shew the Scripture a sit Judge to decide controversies critically and frowardly handled or appeal to some other for he that pretends a desire of an end in order to which he will obstinately beleeve those to be means which both from reason and experience he may learn to be none and will not be brought to use other is convinced to do no more then barely pretend it ¶ 2. Reason in things that depend upon it is often a sufficient rule yet many cannot be brought to an agreement by it even in things which are evident by others demonstrated shall we then think it sufficient to disprove it a rule because some yea many are not made to accord with it Mr. White p. 153. grants the Jews might have been though they were not led to Christ and salvation by Scripture if they had interpreted it with charity and humility And p. 110. However the marks of the Church are apparant enough in Scripture if there want not will in the seeker to acknowledg them If this be not to contradict himself I know not what is To ill-disposed or undisposed refractory minds nothing is sufficient I see a monstrous difficultie for you to understand Scripture aright who are resolved to make no other sence then what agrees with your supposed Traditions ¶ 2. That which I conceive to be the drift of this Paragraph Viz. That 't is perhaps more often the fault of the parties then of the Judge that differences are kept alive is certainly true But you apply it not neither as we think can you do it with any appearance to conclude we are in fault that bind our selves even in this kind of tryall to much stricter conditions then you will be brought to do For besides the reverence we bear the Scripture even to an absolute submission to whatever it says then which you neither do nor can do more we also bring you a Book which we so acknowledg to be Scripture that in disputation we refuse it not would you do so much perhaps more good might be done then is mean time this is certain that more cannot be required of us Next you pretend a contradiction from two places which you cite and I cannot tell whether you mean those places contradict one another which nevertheless seem to say the same thing or that both those places contradict the former Doctrine Now that asserts two things 1. That Scripture does not speak plain enough to convince a wrangling Critick 2. That it does speak plain enough to satisfie an humble and charitable Reader in which if you see any contradiction you see not onely what I cannot but what I conceive is not there to be seen ¶ 3. Page 137. Mr. White seems to grant what I cannot tell how he can deny that the Scripture is as well able to make us understand its meaning as Plato or Aristotle theirs but the supposition where all the venom lies is concealed as he is pleased to phrase it so the Scripture was written of those controversies which since are risen I see no danger in this poison rightly understood God delivering those things in Scripture which are sufficient for salvation speaks so that he may be as well understood as Plato Aristotle c. in their Writings then the Reader of holy Writ that comes to it as page 153. the Iewes should have done with charitie and humilitie which would actually have brought them to the truth may have the true meaning of Gods Word as to the points of faith and practice Now having the truth cannot he see that error which shall aftâ—rwards arise to be falshood because it is contrary to the truth which he has out of Scripture linea recta est Judex sui obliqui But strange opinions may spring up which can neither be proved nor disproved satisfactorily by Scripture nor is it necessary all possible controversies should be determinable I do not think you pretend to this kind of Omniscience by your Traditions I pray tell me how does your Church confute new errors which were not started in the Apostles time by thinking only that they are false or by looking upon those truths which it pretends the Apostles at first delivered before those errors came up which it sees are contrary to those received truths unless you pretend to new Revelations to discover new errors by and what poyson is there in making written truths the streight Rule to measure future inormities by more then to make unwritten truth serve for that end ¶ 3. The next Paragraph insists upon the Parity betwixt Scripture and the writings of Plato or Aristotle touching which what you say Mr. White seems to grant that the one is as well able to make us understand its meaning as the other I must tell you does but seem so and 't is a wonder to me you observed it not the very next
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
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
thrown their rule overboard and they would not only have preserved their doctrine pure to succeeding Ages by the same means they had preserv'd it till then but they could not preserve it pure while they retain'd the same means which had preserv'd it till then To the following question I answer the Church of which by Gods mercie I am a member has preserved the doctrines of salvation entire not without writings indeed but without making them her Rule to preserve them by neither had she or could she have preserved them had there been no other means left her then words For what you say next I refer you to the third Dialogue to see since 't is the same thing in point of certaintie to receive a truth immediately through two hands or through twentie provided we be sure there be no deceit in the intermediate Conveyers all possibilitie of deceit removed from them and consequently our certaintie equal with that of those who lived nearer the Apostles times As for the unity of the Churches in the time of Irenaeus 't is true there was an unity and stil is amongst all those that stuck to Tradition but then as now some were divided and by the same means as now viz. by preferring their private Interpretations of Scripture before the doctrine they had been taught This divided the Valentinians in the time of Irenaeus the Arians in the time of St. Athanasius the Donatists in Saint Austins in all Ages some and divides you now And the way to know whom a man must beleeve when each say they have the way to Heaven was then as now to keep fast to what had been taught to follow those Churches that do so and those that build upon private Interpretations to reject so that the case is not at all altered the method of arriving to the knowledge of saving truths being the same anciently and now ¶ 10. That Irenaeus apprehended all those truths necessary for salvation were contained in Scripture which some places for a while have had without writing is clear by what follows and that the Scripture is a sufficient rule to salvation and was to him and the Church in his dayes which enjoyed it he tells us the Apostles left the same in writing in lib. 3. cap. 1. edit Basil His words are Non enim per alios depositionem salutis nostrae cognovimus quam per eos per quos Evangelium pervenit ad nos Quod quidem tunc praeconiaverunt postea verò per Dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum Is not this clear against you The Scripture then was not written by chance but by the Will of God for this end that it might be a standing rule and pillar or foundation of our faith And lib. 2. cap. 46. shews this is a clear certain way for every one Cum itaque universae Scripturae propheticae Evangelicae in aperto sine ambiguitate similiter ab omnibus audiri possunt He was blaming Hereticks drawing errors from obscure Places and Parables when they might have seen the light in clear places by which the darker are to be understood God says he has given power to honest religious mindes that are desirous of truth to see it Haec promptè meditabitur in ipsis proficiat diuturno studio facilem sententiam efficiens Sunt autem haec quae ante oculos nostros occurrunt quaecunque apertè sine ambiguo ipsis dictionibus posita sunt in Scripturis ideo Parabolae debent ambiguis adaptari sic enim qui absolvit sine periculo absolvit parabolae ab omnibus similiter absolutionem accipient a veritate corpus integrum simili adaptatione membrorum sine concussione perseverat Sed quae non apertè dicta sunt neque ante oculos posita copulare absolutionibus parabolarum quas unusquisque prout vult adinvenit sic enim apud nullum erit regula veritatis And so says he there If we do not with sober unbiast minds take the plain Scripture for our guide a man shall be always seeking but never come to the truth yet the Scripture doth clear it though all do not beleeve one God c. sicut demonstravimus ex ipsis Scripturarum dictionibus Quia enim de cogitatione eorum qui contraria opinantur de patre nihil apertè neque ipsa dictione neque sine controversiâ in nullâ omnino dictum sit Scripturâ ipsi testantur dicentes in absconso haec eadem Salvatorem docuisse non omnes sed aliquos discipulorum qui possunt capere c. Quia autem Parabolae possunt recipere multas absolutiones ex ipsis de inquisitione Dei affirmare derelinquentes quod certum indubitatum verum est valde praecipitantium se in periculum irrationabilium esse quis non amantium veritatem confitebitur And in the next Chapter Habentes itaque regulam ipsam veritatem in apertum positum de Deo testimonium non debemus quaestionum declinantes in alias atque alias absolutiones ejicere firmam veram de Deo scientiam c. Si autem omnium quae in scripturis requiruntur absolutiones non possumus invenire alterum tamen Deum praeter eum qui est non requiramus impietas enim haec maxima est Credere autem haec talia debemus Deo qui nos fecit rectissime scientes quia scripturae quidem perfectae sunt quippe à verbo Dei Spiritu ejus dictae Si autem in rebus creaturae quaedam quidem eorum adjacent Deo quaedam autem in nostram venerunt scientiam quod mali est si eorum quae in scripturis requiruntur universis scripturis spiritualibus existentibus quaedam quidem absolvamus secundum gratiam Dei quaedam autem commendemus Deo non solum in hoc seculo sed in futuro ut semper quidem Deus doceat homo autem semper discat Si ergo secundum hunc mundum quem diximus quaedam quidem quaestionem Deo comiserimus fidem nostram servabimus omnis Scriptura à Deo nobis data consonans nobis invenietur parabolae his quae manifestè dicta sunt consonabunt manifestè dicta absolvent Parabolas per dictionum multas voces unam consonantem melodiam sentiet By which you see clearly what may be judged the way and held the only way to decide all controversies plain Scripture and thinks it no absurditie for us to be ignorant of what God is not pleased to teach us in Scripture and that you may see yet more clearly he held Scripture as his word was perfect containing the whole doctrine of the Gospel which is our question ¶ 10. After these exceptions taken to what he says in our favour you examine Irenaeus for your self and first produce these words Non enim per alios c. the sense of which I take to
Tradition I am ready to embrace It is cleer how high he valued the Churches authority in that lib. 2. de util cred c. 14. This therefore I beleeved by fame strengthned by celebrity consent antiquity so that he did no more than we who notwithstanding are of a contrary mind to you ¶ 3. First we beleeve the things of Religion because they are published and held in that Church or place where we live yet not sufficiently for that not a sufficient ground of belief because of fame till the universal celebrity consent and antiquity do strengthen it He sees not Christ hath recommended the Church for an infallible decider of emergent controversies but for a credible witness of ancient Tradition whosoever therefore refuseth to follow the practice of the Church understand of all places and ages in things clearly descended from Christ let him be lookt upon to refuse Christ But if he be understood any where asserting only the present Churches authority sufficient to determine it must be in things that are not matters of faith that which he proves by tradition he does not affirm it necessary to salvation or things contained in Scripture for his Austins words are evident ¶ 4. In iis quae apertè posita sunt in sacris scripturis omnia ea reperiuntur quae continent fidem moresque vivendi Aug. de doct Christiana lib. 2. c. 9. Nemo mihi dicat O quid dexit Donatus aut quid dexit Parm. aut Pontus aut quilibet eorum quia non Catholicis Episcopis consentiendum est sic ubi sorte fallantur ut contra Canonicas Scripturas aliquid sentiant Aug. de unitate Eccl. c. 10. Again Ecclesiam suam demonstrarent si possunt non in sermonibus rumoribus Afrorum non in conciliis Episcoporum suorum non in literis quorumlibet disputatorum non in signis prodigiis fallacibus quia etiam contra ista verbo Domini cauti redditi sumus sed in scripto legis in prophetaruÌ„ praedictis in cantibus Psalmorum in ipsius Pastoris vocibus in Evangelistarum praedicationibus laboribus hoc est in omnibus Canonicis Sanctorum librorum authoritatibus Eodem lib. c. 16. Utrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant non nisi divinarum Scripturarum Canonicis libris ostendant quia nec nos propterea dicimus credi debere quod in Ecclesia Christi sumus aut quia ipsam commendavit Optatus Ambrosius vel alii innumerabiles nostrae communionis Episcopi aut quia nostrorum colligarum conciliis predicata est aut quia per totum orbem tanta mirabilia Sanctorum fiunt c. Quaecunque talia in Catholicâ fiunt ideo approbantur quia in Catholica fiunt non ideo manifestatur Catholica quia haec in ea fiunt Ipse Dominus Jesus cum resurrexit a mortuis discipulorum oculis corpus suum offerret ne quid tamen fallaciae se pati arbitrarentur magis eos testimoniis legis Prophetarum Psalmorum conformandos esse judicavit Ibidem Non audiamus haec dico sed haec dixit Dominus Sunt certae libri Dominici quorum authoritati utrique consentimus ibi quaeramus Ecclesiam ibi discutiamus causam nostram Eod. lib. c. 23. Chrysost in Act. Hom. 33. Take from Hereticks the Opinions which thâ—â— maintain with the Heathen that they may defend their Questions by Scripture alone and they cannot stand Tertullian de Resurrectione carnis Hierom on Matth. 23. writing of an Opinion that John Baptist was killed because he foretold the coming of Christ saith thus this because it hath no authority from Scripture may as easily be condemned as approved I might here add Aquinas his words 1ª quest 36. art 2. ad 1m. confessing what he had proved out of Dionisius We are to affirm nothing of the Holy Ghost but what we find in Scripture Thus you will have Scripture alone some of you as Mr White confesses to be the Rule for some truths though not for others which indeed are humane inventions but I shall not urge you to maintain all your Doctors affirm which notwithstanding you who build upon authority have more cause to do then we Only observe the Fathers were against you I proceed to give you more proofs of it ¶ 1 2 3 4. I come now to your Testimonies from the Fathers and beg leave before I enter upon them to pause a while upon the State of the Question betwixt us that our eye being strongly fixt upon it may not be diverted by that variety of Objects which the many notions found in Testimonies will present it You assert We deny Scripture to be the rule of Faith Every of which words deserves its particular reflexion For first by Scripture is meant either the words or sense that is the words containing a sense so as that another may be found in the same words or else a sense expressed accidentally by such words which might have been expressed by other By a Rule since 't is our belief must be regulated and our belief is of things not sounds is understood either a determinate sense or certain means to arrive at it We say then that Scripture taken the first way cannot be a Rule nothing being more evident then that words meerly as such without due qualifications which are not found in all words are neither sense nor means to arrive at a determinate one since the same words may comprehend many senses Take Scripture the second way and the question is quite changed none denies the sence of it to be the word of God by which all our belief and actions are to be regulated our Dispute then in that case is not whether it be a Rule but how 't is known whether by the bare words in which 't is couched which we deny because other sences are couched in the very same words or by the Churches authority interpreting it by Tradition which you conceived unnecessary To Scripture interpreted by Tradition or the sence of Scripture acknowledged by Tradition we submit all our thoughts and actions but deny the title of a Rule can belong to Scripture taken for the meer words unsenc't that is Characters and conceive the sence of Scripture cannot be sufficiently discovered by the bare scanning of the words which after all being capable of many sences leave it undetermined which is the true one Faith is to be considered either in respect of one or some few men or in respect of a multitude for since the same cause produces not the same effect upon different subjects 't is not possible that to every of those many who are comprehended in a Church the same knowledge should be necessary That there is a rewarder of good and punisher of evil may for ought I can tell be enough for some extraordinarily disposed creature to know but mankind requires the knowledge of much more Again outward circumstances extremely vary the disposition of the subject We live both in calms and storms and to day a