Tradidi Vobis OR THE Traditionary Conveyance OF FAITH Cleer'd In the RATIONAL WAY Against The Exceptions of a Learned Opponent By J. B. Esquire 1 COR. 11.2 Laudo autem vos fratres quòd sicut Tradidi vobis praecepta mea tenetis LONDON Printed in the Year 1662. The PUBLISHER to the Reader IF I trespass against Civility in publishing this Controversie without the Authors consents I presume them as much righted in my good opinion of them which chiefly emboldened me to this attempt for I looked upon them both as hearty lovers of truth and aymers both at the same fair mark though their shafts were shot from opposite Camps and hence concluded a disposition in them to submit any private consideration to that most prevalent concern and to expose their candid thoughts to the open day however the Genius of modesty blushes to be made its own discoverer and rather permits it self to be guessed at by others affecting to leave not without some unnaturalness its hopeful productions to be fostered up and cherished by the care of providence or the charitable pitie of some accidental Passenger This Character I have of the worthy and learned Author of these Objections from acquaintance and his own sober Pen and the same I dare avow of my Friend the Replyer And that as the former intended only his own private satisfaction so the later had no further end in his eye than to satisfie so candid an Enquirers particular scruples or perhaps a grateful respect to that incomparable and much envied Master of his the great Explainer of Tradition to the defence of whose Doctrine he owes the imployment of that strength the same Doctrine had given him Yet why may I not add too as a likely motive of his pains at any fair hint of occasion his high zeal for the subject it self Tradition so onelily important so radically influential towards steddiness in faith That Rushworths Dialogues and the Apology for them can never be over importunely abeted and pressd Now though I am bound by my Reason to hold the victory on my friends side and to expect the Readers should judge the same yet I profess ingenuously I printed not this out of a conceit that the weak carriage of the Objector gave any advantage or incouragement but rather impute much to his excellent wit that using a cleer and unblundering expression a thing rare in such Adversaries could manage so well so infirm a cause and that having weighed Doctor Hammonds Discourse against Tradition with his I judged this far the more nervous manly and worthy my Friends thoughts then the former not only because that affects too much wordishness and confusedness but becaus the death of its Author might make it with som shew of reason objected that it was ignoble to seek to triumph over the ashes of one adversary and decline others yet alive of equal or greater force entring the lists upon the same quarrel S. W. ERRATA PAge 11. line 15. read inviolate p. 15. l. ult r. there may p. 26. l. 6. r. critically evince and l. 15. r. comes now p. 19. l. 4. r. of your p. 21. l. 6. r. they not understanding his craft will and l. 14. r. which all p. 28. l. 13. for made r. incident p. 41. l. 21. for their r. your p. 52. l. 20. for that r. your p. 61. l. 18. r. her p. 73. l. 7. r. in it p. 74. l. 12. r. as in p. 80. l. 7 8. r. gingling and l. 14. for one r. an p. 81. l. 19. r. notion p. 88. l. 6. r. news p. 96. l. 20. r. to another p. 99. l. 8. r. there are p. 114. l. 15. r. confirmandos p. 119. l. 7. r. deference p. 122. l. 22. r. de et p. 123 l. 20. r. derive their p. 125. l. 20. r. Books is p. 142. l. 5. r. could not not p. 164. l. 14. dele yet p. 176. l. 18. r. evince them p. 181. l. 7 8. r. has provided even against the defects of nature p. 182. l. 27. r by design p. 188. l. 12. r. I see p. 192. dele and. l. 26. r. another and spread among the vulgar upon the authority of private men as Doctors are p. 197. l 6. r. descent p. 218. l. 27. r. wonder at what you say first p. 126. l. 21. before it be consecrated pr 227. l. 22. r into it p. 232. l. 6. r. furem p. 241. l. 4. r they not yet being admitted p. 246. l. 21. r. non-admission 't is false p. 252. l. ult r. do not p. 265. l. 18. r. reverenc'd and l. 25. for prays r. prayers p. 270. l. 27. r. places p. 271. l. 15. r. hold true p. 283. l. 7. r. is evidenc'd p. 293. l. 19. r. if any p. 279 l. 26. r. upon p. 287. l 14. r 't would have CONTENTS PART I. Scripture not the Rule of Faith Incertaintie of the Letter of Scripture in order to that effect Sect. 1. pag. 1. Incertainty of the sense of Scripture from the bare Letter Sect. 2. p. 23. Scripture critically managed not sufficient to decide Controversies Sect. 3. p. 45. The two Places Iohn 20. and Luke 1. no proof that the written Word is a sufficient means for the salvation of mankind Sect. 4. p 86. Answer to those Fathers who are brought for the sufficiency of Scripture Sect. 5 p. 109. PART II. Tradition the Rule of Faith Certainty of Tradition Sect. 1. p. 160. Authority of Fathers Transubstantiation Sect. 2. p. 205. Prayer to Saints Sect. 3. p. 238. Images Sect. 4. p. 274. The Conclusion Sect. 5. p. 285. PART I. SCRIPTURE not the Rule of FAITH SECT I. Incertainty of the Letter of Scripture in Order to that Effect SIR I Have often bemoaned my loss of your ingenuous society and think my self unhappy that my hopes are gon of having those verbal conferences in which I much delighted and for which I am exceedingly obliged unto you for many civilities that which I have learnt from you hath put me upon further enquiries then ever I should as I believ had you not been the occasion of them my resolution still remains to proceed by all possible means to make up my present deficiency If I know any thing of my self I am an impartial lover of truth therefore ready to embrace any I am capable of that concerns me to know I have perused those two Pieces of Mr. Whites with diligence to find that Demonstration promised but stil remain in my first wonder that so many excellent able men should imbrace that for clear truth which to me is falshood I think I have not willingly shut my eyes against light but opened them both to see what I cannot discern and lest I should be thought to stifle truth and smother conviction in my breast I have here endeavoured to give you a brief account of my apprehensions of the Discourse in hope of that candid answer and satisfaction your ingenuity hath been pleased to promise me I remember a
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
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
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
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
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
their Questions not by but of Scriptures alone in which though by the odness of the Phrase the sence be a little dark yet this is clear that the expression is common to proving and defending and therefore to restrain it to defendin◠is in the mildest language manifest injustice For my part I conceive the sence no more but this That Hereticks cannot prove their cause by Scripture But I must wonder at the proceedings of your men and by what charm they get the credit of misleading people when 't is manifest they chuse to grope in the dark when they might walk in the open light To hook in the authority of Tertullian to their party they take advantage here of a place whose obscurity renders the sence hard to be determined and easie to be wrested but not enough to their purpose neither without plainly changing the words when they cannot be ignorant he has delivered his judgement directly against them in as express terms as words can frame in his prescription against Heresies I shall only transcribe two short places and recommend the whole excellent Work to your serious perusal He tells us we are not to dispute with Hereticks out of Scripture which they have nothing to do withal it being forbid by the Apostle amongst other Reasons Quoniam nihil proficiat congressio scripturarum nisi plane ut aut stomachi quis ineat eversionem aut cerebri because bandying of Scriptures is good for nothing at all but to turn either the stomack or the brain And a little further Ergo non ad Scripturas provocandum est in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est aut parum certa Wherefore we are not to appeal to Scriptures in which the victorie is either none at all or uncertain at least not certain Now I beseech you where is the sincerity of those men who would make us beleeve Tertullian held Scripture the only rule of Faith Or because there is a wrestible place to be found in one of his Books 't is his judgement of the point in question either doubtful or possible to be unknown to whoever desires to know it and much lesse to any that lays claim to the title of learned S. Thomas of Aquine says indeed that nothing is to be affirmed of God which is not expressed in Scripture but how either according to the words or according to the sence which is to say that some things as in particular the question in hand of the Holy Ghost are so in Scripture as not to be efficaciously discovered by the words and so he brings a place to prove the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son very far from unavoidable But I forbear to urge his authority against you imagining by your nice wariness in mentioning him you are sufficiently satisfied he is far from your opinion in this point and proceed to the rest of the proofs you give a promise of ¶ 5. It appears Christian people lookt upon the Bible as the rule of Faith by these words of the Council in Socrates his Ecclesiastical History 2. l. c. 29. Nomen substantiae quoniam a patribus simpliciter positum a populo autem ignoratum offensionem propterea multis concitat mark quod Scripturis minimè sit comprehensum they would not have been offended if the Scripture had not been their Rule visum est ipsum tollere omnino nullam mentionem hujus verbi substantia eum de Deo loquimur de reliquo fieri quia literae sacrae omnino substantiae vel Filii Spiritus Sancti neutiquam meminerint filium tamen Patri per omnia similem dicimus quippe cum sacrae Scripturae illud asserant doceant And that expression of Constantine to which all the Bishops except those friends of Arius did consent when he came first into the Council of Nice after the Bishops had taken their places exhorting them to concord A quo Eustachia cum esset peroratum Imperator omni genere laudis illustrissimus verba facere de concordia consensu animorum in memoriam eos redigere tum crudelitatis tyrannorum tum praeclarissimae pacis suis temporibus divinitus Ecclesiae decretae Ostendere etiam quam grave esset imo vero quam acerbum hostibus jam profligatis nemine ex adverso se opponere audente ut ipsi se oppugnarent mutuo laetitiam inimicis atque adeo risum praebereat praesertim cum de rebus divinis disputarent haberentque doctrinam sacratissimi spiritus literarum monumentis proditam Nam libri inquit Evangelistarum Apostolorum quin etian veterum prophetarum oracula nos evidenter docent quid de divino numin◠sentiendum sit◠Omni igitur seditio◠contentione depulsa literarum divinitus inspiratarum testimoniis res in questionem adductas dissolvamus Theodoret Eccles History l. 1. cap. 7. Many more expressions I might bring but I do not see what can be clearer then these words or what sence possibly you can put upon them the Emperor seems to exaggerate it as a most unreasonable and strange thing that they should dissent in matters of Faith while they have them evidently laid down in Scripture which he bids them take for their rule to decide the controversie by and accordingly the Author tells us they did and in their leters and forms of Faith I find all along Scripture Arguments I think this deserves your serious consideratition ¶ 6. I think your own Reason if you will impartially give it leave to act and declare it self will tell you this clear Argument deserves a clear answer not a conjecture without ground as Mr. Whites p. 93. c. will appear to any unbiassed man We have ground says he and yet does not give any ground which therefore is as easily denied as asserted to beleeve that some learned men in the Court were prevented by Arius and sollicited into a secret favour of this error from whom 't is likely it is not likely proceeded that motion of Constantine to the Council for determining the point out of Scripture Did not Constantine know the truth before Mr White proves he did by his own Argument 97. unless a man be so perverse as to affirm Christians did not use the form of Baptism prescribed by Christ there can be no doubt of the blessed Trinity the very words of Baptism carrying the truth I say in themselves and is that likely the Emperor would betray the truth or favour an Heretick to whom he writes sharply and of whom he speaks bitterly in his letter to the Church of Alexandria against whom chiefly he had even called the Council Mr White confesseth the Council followed the Emperors words and there was magna conquisitio turning of Scriptures c. though not to that end to which the Emperor propos'd it so then he grants the Emperor propos'd it as I make use of his words But the Council did not follow his words for that end the historian says Maxima pars
consideration of circumstances plainly refuse As for that part of your seventh Paraph where you deny the Council was forced to conclude out of Tradition the desire of serving you makes me wish my self a better Historian then I am But I think the Epistle of S. Athanasius to the Africans which you will find in Theoderet lib. 1. c. 8. will sufficiently clear that Truth to you since 't will inform you that whatever words the Fathers of the Council could chuse out of Scripture to express the Catholick Faith in the Arians knew how to elude by shewing the same words to have other sences in other places which at last forced the Fathers to invent a new word and gave occasion to the Arians of murmuring that they were condemned by unwritten words that is not by Scripture but by Tradition Since what has formerly been said will I hope be an ingenuous Answer to the question of your eighth Paraph and satisfie you that Tradition is not subject to the same inconveniences with words there remains no more but to vindicate Mr White from the inconstancy you charge him with to which there will I think no more be needful then barely to represent the case to your second thoughts Our faith you know must be both beleeved and expressed the expressions he conceives it sit should be uniform and that the best way in order to it is to make use as much as may be of those which the Holy Ghost in Scripture has before made use of But since expression supposes the knowledg of what it is we would express he holds there is some other way to come to this knowledg besides looking upon the expressions which are consequent to the knowledg whereas the way to it is before it and that the expressions naked of themselves and left unguarded of other helps are not sufficient to preserve and secure the truths they contain the Positions then are both true That the Scripture is the best Rule to govern our expressions by and yet not sufficient to regulate our Beleef and the contradictions you fancy between them proceeds not from his inconstancy but your inadvertence ¶ 9. Of late I have read over Iraeneus diligently endeavouring to see the Rule he takes for to confute the Errors he writes against and cannot see but you are out One or two places indeed I have found seeming to favour you which since I find your Writers make use of yet if I understand any thing he is your enemie He says indeed in his fifth Book cap. 4. What if the Apostles had not left us Scriptures ought we not to have followed the order of Tradition which they delivered c. But does not this imply we need not use crutches seeing we have legs some Nations he says had no written Word yet had the same Doctrine which was written What then As long as they have and retain the Doctrine purely whether in writing or in their hearts it is well but though the Apostles did leave some Nations the Gospel without Writing it does not follow that they would have always retained and kept it in succeeding ages purely where is there any particular Church under heaven that hath to this day kept the doctrines of salvation from the Apostles entirely without any writing He might challenge his Adversaries to shew their doctrine came from the Apostles by Tradition living presently after those times wherein some that conversed with the Apostles lived and when all Churches agreed as in Iraeneus his time in matters of Faith and that unity was then a good assurance they all came from one fountain but the case is altred those ancient Churches afterwards were divided and then whom must a man beleeve when each say they have the way to heaven ¶ 9. I am sorry your opinion and mine disagree so much about Irenaeus whom though I cannot profess to have read so exactly as you do yet I dare say I am not mistaken as I think you are in the sence of those places I have read And first the edge of those two you bring in our behalf seems not at all taken off by the Answers you give them For since in case no Scriptures had been left he refers us to the order of Tradition plainly supposing Tradition would have done our business and that we had not even in that case been left without a rule it had been non-sence to refer us to a rule which would not have been a rule when tryed and had he thought so he would certainly have told us there had been in that case no rule at all and if so then pray why is not Tradition as much a rule with Scriptures as without them They may add to its force by their testimony but take away nothing of its efficacy For that the truths which the Apostles taught were written sure makes them no whit the lesse truths and if it may be known what 't was they taught as you see Irenaeus is of the opinion it may by Tradition I hope the security is equal whether it were or were not commended to writing This place then which by the way is not in the fifth but third Book makes it very evident Irenaeus held another rule besides Scripture that is Scripture not the onely Rule which is your Tenet Again since some Nations had the Doctrine but had no Scriptures does it not follow undeniably that there was another means besides Scripture to preserve the Doctrine amongst them and further that the Apostles trusted not to writing the preservation of the Doctrine they taught them which had they intended for a means much more the only means of doing it they cannot be imagined to have omitted I learn therfore from this place both the efficacy of Tradition which actually did preserve the Apostles doctrine without writing and the judgment of the Apostles who left their doctrine in these Nations not to Scripture but Tradition to be preserved But it follows not say you they would have retained their doctrine pure in succeeding ages although they did so till Irenaeus's time And pray why does it not follow provided they would still make use of the means by which they retain'd pure doctrine till that time and what time shall be assigned in which the same cause shall leave off producing the same effect since confessedly tradition did preserve the Doctrine till then you should prove not barely affirm it could do so no longer But the truth is and your own clear thoughts will certainly shew it you that rule was so far from a likelihood of betraying the truths committed to her that it cannot be contrived into a possibility that it should betray them for since the Apostles left them the truth as long as they retained what they received from the Apostles and admitted nothing else which is the method of Tradition pray what door could Error find to creep in at 'T was not therefore possible for them to make shipwrack of their faith till they had first
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
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
your mind been in the same temper it was in the first Sect. of this part would have been reason sufficient not only to doubt but to reject it that you had not evidence of its certainty For there a man must plainly deny assent to what even all Doctors determine though he have no-so much-as-probable Objection against them upon this onely ground That he has not evidence their determination is certain and here he must yeeld assent because he has not evidence the thing he assents to is not certain Which is want of evidence must at one time produce dissent at another assent as it suits with your inclinations to the case it is apply d to Besides if all parts of Scripture have been doubted of Vid. Hierom. de Scrip. Eccl. in Petro Jacobo Juda Paulo Spondan ad an 60. 98. Com. Laod. c. and denyed too nay some which you receive by several even of the Fathers Why should not you think you have reason to doubt as well as those who lived neerer the Primitive times and should know more who shall satisfie a Critical Soul that all their doubts were ever fairly answered and they not more oppress'd by strength then satisfi'd by reason and this also destroys your pretence to universal Tradition of time and place since that could not in your grounds be delivered with universality which by some has been denyed And for your Monuments of Antiquity I beseech you pretend not to prove it that way for I think I deal liberally if I allow you to have examined ten Authors of every age and what proof are ten of the sentiments of 1000000 Then what do you find in these Authors certain places of Scripture cited out of such books as we still have but whether those books contained then the same number of Chapters and Verses they do now you will find very few to speak to Nay I do not beleeve you will find ten in all Ages that give you a Catalogue of the Books themselves much less of the Chapters and Verses So that your conspiracy of all Monuments of Antiquity will not amount to ten men in fifteen Ages I must desire you not to mistake what I have said as if I also doubted of Scripture which I acknowledg to be the Word of God reverence it as such and know the denyers of it were for the most part Hereticks All I aim at is by an Argument ad hominem to shew the power of prejudice to which what is reason when of one side ceases to be reason when on the contrary If therefore you faithfully pursue your own Principles what ever you think the true ground why you receive Scripture is the present Churches Authority and you should as you rightly infer receive the sense as well as words from her And for your fear of the Alcoran you will need no other security then your own thoughts if you reflect that all which the testimony of the Mahumetan Church if that name be tolerable concludes is That what she says was delivered by Mahomet was truly delivered by Mahomet and to so much I think you will allow her testimony good beleeving you do not doubt but that Mahomet was truly Author of the Alcoran and so much if you allow her you cannot deny the Testimony of a Christian Church Viz. That what she affirms was delivered by Christ was truly delivered by Christ and farther Tradition reaches not Now the Minor necessary to a conclusion of Religion that what was delivered by Mahomet was inspired by God I am sure you hold as great impiety to grant as Blasphemy to deny that which we subsume viz. that what was delivered by Christ did truly proceed from God Tradition then of the Alcoâ—an and Tradition of Christian doctrine agree in this that they prove the one to have descended from Mahomet the other from Christ but Christianity endures not either that a delivery from Mahomet should or that a delivery from Christ shâ—uld not argue a necessity of obedience to what was so delivered as to sacred and heavenly truth ¶ 2. Secondly I say if you can prove or produce any Tradition for any revealed truth not contained in the Bible as cleerly universal for time and place as that Tradition which assures me the Bible is the Word of God I must imbrace it ¶ 2. Secondly I conceive there is no point of our faith but has not onely as clearly an universal Tradition but a much clearer both for time and place then the Scripture a truth which since you may find in the first Sections of Rushworths second Dialogue I shall only wonder here you see not that the very Arguments which you make against the universality of Tradition for some points as that they have been doubted of and rejected by some are every whit as forcible against Scripture whereof there is no paâ—â— which has not been both doubted of and rejected too by Hereticks indeed at least for the most part for some also of the Fathers have doubted even of some Books which your selves receive but so also were they who rejected the points in question whose opposition if it be not allowed against Scripture cannot be valid to any thing but prejudice against points of doctrine Be true therefore if you please to your own reason and embrace that principle and the Communion of those who own it which alone can with certainty convey to you these sacred Truths which are necessary for your happiness ¶ 3. Thirdly I cannot grant your Church was the onely one before Luthers time there 's the Greek Abyssen and others there may be in several parts of the world that I know not of ¶ 3. Thirdly What you mean here by our Church I cannot tell if onely that number of Orthodox Christians who live within the Precincts of the Roman either Diocess or Patriarchate I know no body maintains I 'm sure I do not beleeve the number of the faithful is confin'd to that Pale But to answer of every particular place where Christians live till it be agreed what they held and of what may be too as well as what is seems unreasonable eifor me to undertake or you to exact thus much is true in general that whatever company of men where-ever they live hold this only principle of unity both in faith and government so as to be a Church are not another but our Church and who hold it not are no Church at all ¶ 4. Fourthly I see no necessity that any one particular Church should continue uncorrupted or that it is necessary the greatest number of Professors of Christianity should have uncorrupted Religion In the days of Elijah the Prophet there were but 700 that had not bowed the knee to Baal which the Prophet that thought himself alone knew not of ¶ 4. That there is any necessity a particular Church should always remain uncorrupted or that the greatest number of professors of Christianity should have uncorrupted Religion are two Propositions which
since any body does I am sure no body is bound to maintain I am glad they impose upon me no necessity of contest with you in this Paragraph But least you should think it would follow thence that Tradition were uncertain I must affirm that not only a particular Church but scarcely a particular family that is well instructed can possibly err if they stick to Tradition and that the universality of the Church though ten thousand times more dispersed then it is cannot secure it from error if they desert it ¶ 5. Lastly I see no proof of your infallibility sure I am it is a safer way to preserve truths in writing then to be transmitted by the various apprehensions and mmories of multitudes and truly I beleeve you would not have retained so much truth as you have had it not been for the Bible and other writings and so I see not how you prove any thing has been intirely transmitted onely by Tradition Much lesse how it is proved there could creep no error into your Faith ¶ 5. Lastly I would fain flatter my self with hopes of success in the design I have had to serve you but however that proves must needs take the liberty to think if you do not yet see the proof you mention the fault is not in the object Only I presume there is no mistake in the word Infallibility which placed singly may speak an Attribute too much approaching to Divinity to belong to any thing of mortal but by extraordinary priviledge since it extends it self to all subjects whatsoever whereas with us 't is confined to matters of Faith and signifies but this that we can neither be deceived in what we hear nor deceive our posterity in what we relate concerning these matters Now it being the nature of man to speak truth and the number of men being in this case beyond all temptations whether of hopes fears or whatever else may be imagined should prevail with them to contradict their nature I cannot see but a little reflexion must needs make you acknowledge 't is beyond the power of imagination it self to put any deceit in their testimony since it will be to put an effect whose cause the putter sees neither is nor can be That Truths may be preserv'd in writing I doubt not nay even better then by the various apprehensions and memories of multitudes But if there be no variety in their apprehensions nor dependance on their memories continual practice overweighing the defects of nature I cannot see but 't is much easier to beat a man from a sence whereof he has no other hold then a word appliable to another sence then to beat a multitude from the judgements which they are in possession of and confirm'd by the daily actions of their whole lives Besides while the writings preserve the truth who shall preserve the writings from false copying and all the errors which both negligence and knavery threaten them withall and if the Vessel be tainted what shall keep the Wine pure For the rest I conceive that whatever you think of us your selves would not have the truths you have had not nature maintained that Tradition in your practice you deny in your words Your faith of the Blessed Trinity is right because no interest has yet moved you to follow your principles against it But give an Arian the same liberty against it you take against us and if you convince him you will as much deceive me as I think you do your selves to beleeve you can do it The same I say of Baptism of Prelacy and the rest of those truths you profess all which while you pretend Scripture it is Tradition which has truly conveyed to you and you have kept since because no body has opposed them but when they do have no more hold then of those you have deserted Neither is it possible for your principles to convince an Adversary that makes advantage of them neither just to condemn him for it will be to condemn your selves and that plea which if it justifie you must absolve him That faith has been so transmitted by Tradition that it has not been written is not Mr. Whites tenet but that writing at least the writings we have is not able so to transmit it as is necessary for the Salvation of mankind without Tradition This being the security of whatever writing faith is contained in if it be Scripture we know the sense by Tradition if a Father he is of authority in as much as what he writes is consonant to Tradition if any thing be found to disagree that not having any weight ¶ 6. First I ask whether an Error cannot overspread the face of the greatest Church visible It hath done so in the Arians time In our Saviours time Secondly whether an Error once spread cannot continue Arianism continued most universal for many years Mahomets Errors and Blasphemies for many Ages Jewish Suppositious Traditions longer yet then they What security then can a man have that Errors could not creep into the the Church while it is your Principle to embrace any thing your Councils shall determine ¶ 6. To your first Question I answer if that may be called a Church which wants the only principle which can make a Church I conceive an error may very easily overspread the face of the greatest visible There being no more to do then to desert this Rule and then truth will not only easily but almost certainly desert her without adhering to Tradition I know no security any number of men be it never so great can have of truths above the reach of natural reason such as are the Maxims of Religion But let the Church you speak of adhere to Tradition and be largely diffused and I conceive it as impossible that Error should overspread it as that it should be ignorant of what it does every day To the second since the supposal of an Erâ—â—â—s being spread supposes a destruction of that fence which only could keep it out viz. cleaving to Tradition I conceive an Error once spread not only may but will continue without extraordinary Providence of Almighty God Arianism which you exemplifie in was plainly brought in by preferring the interpretations which Arius made of Scripture as you do those of Luther c. before the Doctrine delivered by their Forefathers neither was there any cure for the disease till they purged themselves of novelty and rested in the ancient Doctrine Mahomet also took the same course and all those whom his impieties will bring to Hell will owe their damnation to the deserting of this principle which had his followers not first been cozened from it had not been possible for him to have undon so great a part of the world Jewish Traditions I have already spoken of and hope I need not again put you in mind they have nothing common with Tradition but the name This principle then and only this of adhering to Tradition gives a man all imaginable security
it had been proper to have spoken to every thing else being not the Question But to speak minutely to each I must tell you the Comments I have seen upon what you urge out of Deuteronomie apprehend the command mentioned not to intend so much a literal obedience for certainly all could not read every one had not Philacteries c. as it indeavoured to make it the business of the Jews to sink the Law into their hearts by a perpetual practise and high esteem But the Question is not Whether the Scripture be not plain enough for the intent for which it was made you know the Dialogues affirm the Motives of the love of God and our neighbour c. are easily found in the Bible by a discreet reading and not only that but a man may by such a reading become a perfect beleeving Catholick but whether it were intended for the effect which you attribute to it Viz. to be the rule of Faith that is alone to secure the passage for all mankind to heaven when strength of wit strength of malice and stronger then both the weakness of mortality and repugnance of humane frailty all joyn to stop it up This we deny and not but that Scripture may have been well enough understood when 't was first written For certainly while the Circumstances last in which and for which 't is made it is much easier to comprehend the meaning of a writing then afterwards when they being past we are left to guesse at the sense without other help then the bare letter which we are apt to interpret every one his own way 'T is true therfore that Scripture was intended to be intelligible to those to whom it was written but not to after Ages without other means To exemplifie in the Jews of whom your Objection runs did not the Pharisees and Saduces not to mention the rest of their Sects both admit the Scripture and yet so far disagree in understanding it that many times they were both wrong Neither would I have you reply They were out in things only of less concern in not fundamentals for besides that this would you but determine what a Fundamental were might be shew'd to be false it gives no satisfaction to the Argument although admired for true since unquestionably God did not write any thing at all with design to instruct the Reader fundamental or not fundamental which he would not have understood 't were blasphemy to impute such folly to him if then they failed in any thing they understood not something which God intended should be understood 'T is therefore in my opinion very clear that his intention lasted no longer then the circumstances which accompanied the action and which being past the bare letter was no longer sufficient without other helps their constant practice for example the best Interpreter of a Law which while they adhered to it kept them right in all things commended by it and by it the sense of the letter was cleared to after Ages which to the first was sufficiently determined by other circumstances although not so but that even then it was to a wrangling Caviller very possible to be wrested as the example of St. Pauls writings undeniably evince of the New Testament The following one from John 16. seems farther from the purpose For how can you deduce any thing relating to it out of this That our Saviour told his Apostles the time was coming when he would speak to them without Parables I conceive he means the fortie days conversation with them after his Passion in which because he made them fully understand what he said will it ever follow that every one fully and certainly understands what is written Farther off if a greater distance may be is what you cite from 2 Cor. where the Apostle having in his absence been defamed by some pseudo-Apostle to the Corinthians justifies himself and his fellow labourers affirming they performed their Obligation of preaching the Gospel sincerely and uprightly which what it has to do with our Question indeed I cannot imagin That from the Proverbs if it may be meant of the Scripture which I doubt it cannot the Text seeming very plain against that sense is against you for it requires an aptitude and promptness in the Reader which is to confess where these qualities are not the plainness you urge must also vanish Now since these dispositions consist not with pride and obstinacy and in controversies of Faith heresie must of necessity take one of the parts and heresie cannot be without pride and obstinacy nothing can be plainer then that these dispositions cannot be in the Readers on both sides and that Scripture by consequence is no effectual weapon against one of them As for the last it is I think farthest of all the command signifying no more then this that whereas Prophecies use to be couched in mysterious language the Prophet was directed here to do otherwise and write the vision plainly that is not mysteriously Your plain argument therefore stands thus that because one vision was commanded to be written not misteriously therefore the bare letter of Scripture is a sufficient means to as much certainty as is necessary to the Salvation of mankind which is plainly no argument at all ¶ 6. Truths necessary are plain enough though others only profitable be not all so nor is it requisite seeing God hath not thought good they should be all so else he would have made them plain too indeed to them that are not duely qualified what will be plain A man shut his eyes against any thing but let a man come with a good minde ready to fetch not bring any meaning observe the drift of the place what went before what followes compare obscure with plain places heartily pray unto God such a man will certainly see what shall be sufficient for his Salvation if he live accordingly ¶ 6. This paragraph conjectures a man may be saved by Scripture alone and since it does no more I might if I would make a drawn match of it by opposing my No to your l. But sincerity and diligence being virtues which God may very much favour and since a weak vessel will bring a man to his Haven who sails in a perpetual calm I cannot see what it prejudices me to admit what you say to be true For we enquire not what upright honesty will be satisfied with but how to convince wrangling obstinacie and how to be able to allay or at least live in those storms of doubts which either our own too curious natures or the malice of others is sure to raise in a multitude especially such a one as Providence has made us parts of ¶ 7. I see not what Objections can destroy this and wonder to read in some of your disputing against us such expressions as these No cause imaginable could avert our will from giving the function of Supream and sole Iudge to holy writ if both the thing were not impossible in it self
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
principles not to be rely'd on because fallible engaged by interest or affection into a partiality which should be more suspicious to you then the bare fallibility of such men as the Fathers and whoever they be I may safely say not comparable either in learning or virtue to those great ornaments of the Church of God If ever you think fit to look into them take my counsel and look with your own not other mens eyes 'T is your self are concerned and I conceive it injustice to yield a submission to any body else which you deny the Fathers Next do not only read them by starts I mean as an occasional citation invites you but study them and persevere with diligence from the beginning to the end of that piece you desire to be Master of and then if you be truly unprejudic'd and bring a willingnesse to embrace what you find I am as confident you will find the truth this way as I think it extreamly difficult not to say impossible you should come to it by any other It would perhaps not have been improper to consider a little in this place the nature of Arguments drawn from Fathers for neither do we hold this consequence necessary A father affirms this therefore this is true But having been already lonlonger then I intended give me leave to refer you for that point to Mr Whites Controversie Logick and only propose you this short reflexion that since a Father is a Father in as much as he propagates that kind in which he is a Father that is in our case the Church and the Church is a company of faithful and who are faithful is to be known by the rule of faith that point must first be setled before any claim can be made either to father or Church since without it you can neither affirm of any man that he is a Father nor of any company of men that 't is a Church Farther since a Father as such is not a Doctor or deducer of Consequences for so every Doctor of Divinity would be a Father nor a Homilist nor Commentator for the same reason you will find the word strictly look'd into imports a propagator of Christian faith by witnessing what the Church held in the time for which he witnesseth but so as that the witness by reason either of his eminency in learning dignity of place or both or by being an avowed Champion of the Churches Doctrine against her enemies cannot be conceived ignorant of the Churches sence in his days To go therefore properly to work your Testimonies from Fathers should be from men thus qualified speaking as witnesses the words though of the same men if under other capacities being not properly the words of Fathers but of Schollers Preachers or what other capacity they speak in And to these just bounds would you as you ought confine your quotations alas how small a shew would Antiquity afford you perhaps not four in her whole extent Your present appearance will I doubt by this reflexion be discovered to be made out of false Musters nevertheless in condescendence to you let us now examine what you say and let me wonder what you say first viz. That the first Ages were clearly against us Pray what have you or can you have to justifie an Assertion of that sound perhaps you will say the writings of these times But I should think that those who do not write are infinitely more considerable in number and no lesse in value then those who do and do not believe you can assign a reason why the Title and credit of so glorious a title as an Age should be taken from them who certainly best deserve it but of whose sense you have no account at all to be given to those few who have given an account of their sence but do not at al deserv the title Again even of those few who have written how many are lost and never descended down to us who for any thing we know to the contrary may not have been of the same opinion with those whose writings we have If I should write now and you write against me but so as my Book have the fortune to be preserved yours not Will you not think the Age wrong'd if a thousand years hence they conclude that to be the sence of it which they find in my Book Cast up your accounts therefore faithfully and you will find the sum total of your Age to be two or three Writers in every hundred years who are so far from making the sence of the first Ages to be against us for they are of our side too that they do not so much as make it appear what it was Yet since you seem to put a confidence in them let us see to whom they will be more favourable Your first from Irenaeus we look upon as so far from being clearly against us that we use to produce it on our behalf conceiving it expresses very clearly that what was common Bread before consecration does by vertue thereof accepta vocatione cease to be what it was and becomes Eucharist in which are both earthly qualities colour taste c. and heavenly substance the body of Christ A second view will I am confident shew you this to be the sence of the place and cause you to agree in this particular with Luther who in his Defens verb. Coen is of opinion that the vocare Dei did make the things to be vvhat they vvere called and that Irenaeus used the word in that sence The next from Tertullian is accompanied with as great though a more easie mistake his obscurity being very often not penetrable but to laborious and obstinate industry but if you please to look upon the place and throughly consider it you will find his meaning was not that this which he says our Saviour made his body was only a figure of his body but that what anciently was a figure of his body he then made his body for his whole design being to prove that our Saviour fulfilled the figures of the Old Testament the place objected provs particularly the fulfilling that of Bread which being by the Prophet conjiciamus lignum in panem ejus used for a Figure of his body he says is the reason why he took rather Bread then any other thing to change into his sacred body The following ones all but Theodorets have the same difficulty all witnessing the Blessed Eucharist to be an Antitype a figure a sign c. of the body and blood of Christ and that it is so and usually and well called so we agree but that the Fathers ever meant it so a Figure or sign as to exclude the thing signified we deny and conceive it impossible you should prove In what sense they called it so you may if you please learn from the last words of your Testimony attributed by you to S. Austin contra Didim who never wrote any such Book that I know of but found in the Canon Hoc
and perhaps cannot be said Let me add nevertheless in this place that were the antecedent true of divers Fathers if the Consequent be recommended by Tradition we must either reject the Apostle or refuse to admit of any Plea not only of Fathers but even Angels against it ¶ 4. But to consider this principal Assertion by it self what ground for it Can you prove the Fathers held so gross absurdity and shew clearly this Tradition came from the Apostles that Saints departed have an infinite participation or omniscience communicated to them from God as is necessary to make them fit objects to be prayed unto knowing all prayers of every one every where that are offered up to them I much desire to see this proved ¶ 4. You next demand the ground of this Assertion and whether the Omniscience of Saints be descended by Tradition from the Apostles No Sir I have told you already it belongs not to Faith but Divinity where if you please to take the pains necessary you may find it proved true but not of faith such things belong to the School not the Church who will not refuse Communion to any for refusing to beleeve it The practice of praying to Saints Tradition has by immemorial custome setled her in possession of how that practice is reconciled to Philosophy whether by the omniscience of Saints by divine revelation or other disposition of providence is disputed in the Schools while her aim of bringing her Subjects to the esteem and practice of vertue by the esteem of those whom the practise of it has made so glorious is perfectly attained without those subtleties which have no other influence upon our actions then as fences or out-works which it belongs to Divinity both to maintain and enlarge but so as that an Error in it does not weaken her hold which is built upon a much stronger foundation Mean time while you ask if the Fathers held so gross absurdities if you mean omniscience of Saints you see I maintain it to be no absurdity but a great and certain truth if you mean non omniscience I hope you will hereafter be less earnest in maintaining what your self call a gross absurdity in either case give me leave to tell you that for divers Fathers for that expression the Fathers which imports them all fair dealing will not receive into its place to hold an opinion in matters of learning which after ages discovered unmaintainable I take to be a conceit very far from absurdity ¶ 5. Have not the holy Angels the same sight of God as Saints whether Saints are admitted or no is not so certain as that the Angels are in heaven may they not as well be prayed unto you must confess there 's no reason against the one that holds not against the other and I think your Michael Masses shew you allow both and so run quite blanck against that Word which proves your Tradition here false 2 Col. 18. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humilitie and worshipping of Angels intruding in those things which he hath not seen vainly puft up by his fleshly mind ¶ 5. That Holy Angels may as well be prayed to as Saints I freely grant and to what you object out of Col. 2.18 I answer it is against those who so relyed upon the mediation of Angels that they denied the meditation of Christ as S. Chrysostom upon this place testifies Sunt quidam qui dicunt non oportere per Christum adduci sed per Angelos S. Chrys Col. 2. there are some who say we must not be reconciled and have access to God the Father by Christ but by Angels An Heresie which I think is attributed to Simon Magus and called in his followers the Religion of Angels But the Text seems to need no other Comment then a faithful scanning of it for it does not barely admonish the Colossians to beware of such as endeavoured to seduce them into the worship of Angels but so as not to hold the head that is such a worship as took away or denied the head and 〈◊〉 â—â—consistent with our duties to it Which words being immediate to those you cite had in my opinion been proper for your consideration before you had setled your judgment upon the place which is imperfect without them ¶ 6. I cannot see but your Tenet is point blank contrary to the Scripture howsoever you palliate it over and blind your eyes with new coin'd Distinctions S. John Apoc. 22.8 9. went to worship the Angel who in the 19th chap. vers 10. had told him he was one of his brethren the Prophets that kept the sayings of that Book himself surely he could not look upon him now as God yet was forbidden to worship him with that Religious Worship you offer to Saints Or did Cornelius Acts 10.25 26. look upon Peter as God when he fell down before him the Devil in Matth. 4. did not bid our Saviour fall down and worship him as God he had confessed God to be and in saying all these are given me implyed God greater then himself yet our Saviour allegeth Scripture to prove such an action unlawful It is written Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve These words are nothing to the purpose according to your doctrine for the Divel might have replyed I You may worship God and me too thus you make void the Law of God by your Traditions ¶ 6. Your next Paraph passes from the invocation of Saints to their veneration and in the first place reprehends some answers it seems you have met with under the name of new coin'd distinctions And how to justifie them or know whether they are justifiable except you had expressed them I cannot tell but in general to quarrel at the use of distinctions seems extremely unjust it being impossible without them to arrive at any certainty by the means of words for there being few perhaps not any which are not used in many sences what imagination can fancy a possibility of fixing upon any one sense by a sound which is common to many till they are distinguished one from another and the particular signification applied to the general word Now let us see how you come to be so strongly perswaded of the opposition of our Tenet to Scripture You say S. John in the Apocalips was forbidden to worship the Angel with that religious worship we offer to Saints but have no warrant from the place to say so where there is no word to inform us what kind of worship it was which the Saint offered and the Angel refused and you know how dangerous additions or diminutions are there appears no more then barely worship offered and refused whereof you are so intent upon the latter that you quite forget the former which nevertheless seems important enough to deserve a reflexion for if worship were offered and offered by S. John that illuminated and beloved Apostle and this when as you say
there was a custome taken up among some to commemorate the deceased Martyrs yet without that impiety which afterward crept in Austin de vera Relig. cap. 55. says Let not our Religion be to worship the dead we are to honour them for imitation sake but not to worship them for religion sake This exhortation of his implies a superstitious custome then taken up by some against which he speaks Et de civitate Dei l. 22. c. 10. He says we do not build Temples unto our Martyrs as unto Gods but we set up Memorials for them as for men departed whose souls do live in rest with God nor do we set up any Altars to sacrifice unto them but we offer up our Sacrifice unto one onely God both theirs and ours at which sacrifice they are named in their order as men of God who have conquered the world by confessing him but they are not invocated of the Priest that sacrificeth But afterward as Mr. White cannot deny p. 105. It was crowded into the Liturgie by Petrus Gnaphaeus an Heretick Thus the private devotion of superstitious men became first publike which some of the Fathers plainly speak against as Ambros in expos epist ad Rom. Solent quidem misera uti excusatione dicentes per justos posse ire ad Deum sicut per comites therefore he accuseth them not for worshipping Saints as God as supream being but just as you pretend yet to do pervenitur ad Regem Euge nunquid tam demens est aliquis salutis suae immemor ut honorificentiam Regis vindicet comiti cum hac de re si qua etiam tractare fuerint inventi jure ut res damnentur majestatis isti non putant reos qui honorem nominis Dei deferunt creaturae relicto domino adorant conservos quasi sit aliquid plus quod servetur Deo Nam ideo ad Regem per tribunos comites iâ—ur quia homo utique Rex nescit quibus debeat remp credere Ad Deum autem quem utique non latet omnium enim merita novit promerendum suffragatore non est opus sed mente devota Vbicunque enim talis locutus fuerit nihil respondebit ¶ 7. This Paragraph is made up of Quotations but so odly used to say no worse that I cannot but conclude you took them upon trust and take the liberty to represent again to you the extream injustice you do your own soul to take it upon pretence of the fallibility of men and insecurity of blind obedience and implicite faith out of the conduct of the Catholick Church in whose faithful bosome innumerable millions are secure to subject it to a truly blind and implicite obedience of some one or few cryed up not by desert but faction and if living perhaps little known beyond the bounds of a Parish I dare say not reverend enough to sway an entire one and who not only may but do deceive you I should beg of you this Point might find admittance to your most serious and quiet thoughts but that eternal happiness or misery is a concern of that importance that where it pleads prays and whatever else the desire of serving a worthy person can suggest may and perhaps ought to be silent But to begin with Mr. White I doubt you stretch his grant beyond his intentions for I cannot beleeve he meant the same force which he allows the Argument great enough either to overthrow as you seem to suppose or so much as stand in competition with Tradition so as that we should be uncertain which to follow the doubt of the one or certainty of the other but only that the case when proved would also prove some Father held an Opinion in matter of learning not faith which in its consequence was opposite to Tradition but because this was not yet penetrated into the opinion onely not the maintainer blameable To come now to your Citations The first is from Origen lib. 2. in Ep. ad Rom. where one half of the period is quite cut off and the sence of the remaining half fixt upon one part of the words the rest being suppressed Just as if out of this Period I will go to London on horsback one should leave the last words and prove out of the former I meant to go on foot The sentence in Origen lies thus Jam vero si extra corpus positi vel sancti qui cum Christo sunt agunt aliquid laborent pro nobis ad similitudinem Angelorum qui salutis nostrae ministeria procurant vel rursum peccatores etiam ipsi extra corpus positi agunt aliquid secundum propositum mentis suae Angelorum nihilominus ad similitudinem sinistrorum cum quibus in aeternum ignem mittendi dicuntur à Christo habeatur hoâ— quoque inter occulta Dei neque chartulae committenda mysteria Compare now the citation with the place cited and judge of the sincerity of the Quoter The words have long since been examined by Bellarmine who lodges Origens doubt not upon assistance or not assistance but upon this whether the assistance be ad similitudinem Angelorum or no that is by way of office and special deputation There follows S. Aust de cur mort who is so far from leaving it undetermin'd whether the dead Martyrs help us or no as you put it That I will yeeld my claim to him if your studie can furnish you with plainer and more express words to signifie in the very place you urge the Question was not whether but how those Martyrs do help those quos per eos certum est adjuvari says he whether by themselves by the Ministery of Angels or other disposition of the Divine providence Nay his sence in that point is so very cleer that I am at a loss how to contrive a way being very unwilling to impute it to wilfulness by which he should be mistaken For the Question disputed in that Book being whether it avail a dead man that his body be inter'd neer the shrine of a Martyr S. Austin maintains the Affirmative upon this ground That such a Position causes the man to be more often and more lively recommended to the assistance of that Martyr by the prayers of the living and how he who justifies the choice of place in burial by the advantage received in being recommended to the assistance of a Martyr should be imagined to doubt whether there be any assistance or no and think it unlawful to demand it the shortness of my sight cannot discover He is indeed in his 13 h chap. of opinion that Souls departed are not by the condition of their state any longer acquainted with the passages of this life but tells us presently that defect is supplied either by intelligence from such as newly die or from Angels or it may be from God himself however it be he most evidently and undeniably asserts the custome in his time of praying for the dead and praying for them
the place does not so much as offer any likelyhood of asserting nay I see not how the Apostle can without manifest violence to the Text be made to mean more than the one point he expresses and the fruit resulting from it for certainly 't is not to expound but wrest a Text when the same word is repeated in the same period wilfully to give it one sence in the former another in the later place which yet is the case here for in the first part of the period the word believe is so restrained by the Apostle that it cannot without unpardonable guilt be doubted what it was he meant should be believed when he plainly tells us 't is this that Jesus is Christ the Son of God and the word believing presently following in the same context and link'd to the former with a conjunction sincerity cannot imagine it should be meant of any other belief than that which so immediately before was plainly expressed that to repeat it had been Tautologie If words therefore can make any thing clear I see not what place of doubt there is left but that this is the Apostles meaning that the Book was written to the end we might believe the Divinity of the Son and by that belief have life as much as depends upon that one point which being the foundation of all our Faith may perhaps be therefore said to give us life because whatever contributes to our life has dependance on it for if Christ be no Son of God then no sufficient teacher of mankind and if no sufficient teacher then nothing sufficiently taught Though otherwise sure life is not promis'd more expresly to this faith then Salvation to eating his flesh which neverthelesse I believe you will not say is enough to Salvation and consequently should not that this is enough to life What you say in the last place that the words do not shew it St. Johns chief design to prove Christ the Consubstantial Son of God how do you prove The word Christ which is all the Text has more than what Mr. White cites alters not the case These two expressions That Jesus is the Son of God and that he is Christ the Son of God not having any considerable difference since nothing is more evident then that he that believes him to be Christ the Son of God believes him to be the Son of God But I apprehend all this business to be nothing but the confusion raised in our thoughts by the equivocation of the word end which may either signifie what S. John intended to do when he set himself to write that Book which I conceive was to shew the Consubstantiality of the Son or else what fruit he design'd from it after it was written and this seems to be the life of his Readers ¶ 3. They to whom he wrote own'd Christ as the Saviour yet he writes to them that they might have full knowledge and a standing monument to preserve that knowledg But besides that Mr White has no ground for that fancie S. Johns design was only to specifie such particulars as prove Christs Dietie I think it an unanswerable Argument to shew from one Chapter another of the Gospel how many particulars there are that are nothing at all to this only purpose of S. John yea more particulars that do no way prove it then that doe as any one may see that reads over the Gospel I wonder then how Mr White could shift off the place by this groundless false Assertion if it be as to me it is evident then S. John making here as it is manifest a recapitulation of all those Doctrines and Precepts in his Gospel concluding from all shews us that his Book is a sufficient rule to salvation in all things absolutely necessary the expression that beleeving that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God must needs be understood as ordinarily it is thorowout the Scripture He that beleeves shall be saved c. not of a naked assent of the understanding but of the consent of the will too as the same S. John himself c. 1.12 As many as received him to them he gave power to become the sons of God and now expounding that receiving of Christ for 〈◊〉 and Saviour adds to them that beleeve in his name For this capital truth or Act is big with or virtually contains all the rest S. John had delivered in his Gospel it were improper for S. John being to comprize all in few words in this Conclusion to particularize all that were to write over the Gospel again besides its known verba intellectus denotant affectus else neither this nor many other expressions of the like nature in Scripture could be true seeing bare assenting as Devils do saves not ¶ 3. Whether Mr White have any ground for what you call his fancy I am so confident of your sinceritie that I dare appeal to your second thoughts if you please to reflect the word onely which you insist upon seems not more severely used by Mr White then to signifie chiefly or principally which may well consist with many perhaps the greater number of other particularities as Sir Kenelm Digbies Book was intended only to prove the immortality of the Soul and yet far the greater part is spent in the consideration of bodies And yet truly I beleeve tha◠were S. Johns Book examined from Chapter to Chapter little would be found but what does either directly prove our Saviours Divinitie or is subordinate to that end some accidentals excepted which the nature of such discourses requires should be weaved in and which hinder not but that the other is the only design To proceed I must take leave to wonder in my turn you persist to call Mr Whites Answer a shift false and groundless and say no more then you do to make it appear so What you next affirm to be evident and manifest that S. John making here a recapitulation of all those Doctrines and and Precepts in his Gospel concluding from all shews us that his Book is a sufficient Rule to salvation in all things absolutely necessary if I understand what 't is to recapitulate and to conclude is evidently neither manifest nor true for what words are there that can bear the sense of recapitulating and concluding in these short periods Many other things here are which I have not written but those I have I writ to the end c. To recapitulate signifies to sum up the chief Heads of what was said before and to conclude is to gather somthing from others that went before and here are neither heads nor premises but a bare Historical Narration informing us what the Apostle did and why which differs as much from recapitulating and concluding as History does from Logick But what is of more importance how came you to be so clear sighted as where none else can perceive any Conclusion at all to discover this That his Book is a sufficient rule to salvation in all things necessary
That belief or faith is to be understood of saving faith which is all I can perceive you drive at to the end of the Paraph is so far from it that I do not beleeve any violence will make a premise of it for be it as you desire that the Apostle writ that we might beleev in Christ the Son of God with a saving faith and I dare say no Arithmetick would comprehend the number of intermedial links necessary to fasten this Conclusion to it that what he writ is a sufficient rule to salvation ¶ 4. But what need I trouble my self or you with writing all I could I remember an ingenuous confession of yours when we were one night discoursing of this place that you thought the whole Book was not only sufficient for salvation but even some parts of it if a man had no more which is as much as I desire ¶ 4. The answer to this Paraph depends upon the memory of that person who made such a confession I conceive it true thus far that even some parts might be sufficient for the salvation of some single person extraordinarily dispoposed and circumstanced which in all likelihood was his meaning But this is nothing to our Question whether it be sufficient for the conduct of all dispositions found in mankind through all circumstances the Church will be in from the Resurrection to the day of Judgement ¶ 5. The second place I look upon as a sufficient proof of Scriptures sufficiency is the beginning of S. Lukes Gospel compared with the beginning of the Acts In Mr Whites Apology p. 165 166. where he affirms there is not a word that this Book should serve for a Catechism to teach him and all the world the entire body of Christianity I think there is that thou mayest know the certainty of those things thou hast been taught or as the Greek word is hast been Catechized in So then S. Lukes Gospel contains a perfect sum of all these Doctrines and duties which Theophilus a Christian already had learnt To me this proves S. Lukes Gospel to be a bodie of Divinitie or a Systeme of all necessary truths of Christianity so that S. Lukes Gospel is more then a naked Historie of Christs life containing his Doctrine too or else he had not given Theophilus a full account of all he had been instructed in To say as Mr White S. Luke speaketh but by the by of our Saviours Doctrine or as his words are some of his excellent sayings is quite contrary to those words of the first of the Acts out of which he gathers his saying for there he speaks thus of his Gospel The former Treatise have I made O Theophilus of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach which is more then as Mr White some of his excellent sayings I lay the stress upon these two words all and teach which Mr White passeth over as Commentators do hard places although it be the chief thing to be answered Another thing I observe in Mr Whites translation he omits the word perfectly or exactly in the third verse of the Gospel which is very pertinent By all things Jesus did and taught must be meant the substance of Christian Religion the chief Doctrines and duties which were necessary to salvation for if any material point were omitted by S. Luke he could not alledge his exact knowledge in all things which he promises nor say as he does in the Acts that he had delivered all Christ did or taught from whence I must conclude and you too unless you can shew sufficient cause to the contrary that S. Lukes Gospel much more the whole Bible hath sufficient truth in it and contains all points necessary to salvation and may be a sufficient means though we have no traditions The Covenant between God and man is cleerly enough laid down there and in other Books besides with all those things without which no salvation ¶ 5. The second place you insist upon is the beginning of Saint Lukes Gospel compar'd with the beginning of the Acts which with your favour I conceive you have not brought home to our question for admit all you say were true even the conclusion it self viz. that Saint Lukes Gospel hath sufficient truths in it and contains all points necessary to salvation and may be a sufficient means though we have no Traditions your cause is far from being evicted For our question is not so much whether sufficient truths be containd in scripture as whether they bee contained sufficiently that is with evidence enough to carry away a cleer victory from malicious and obstinate Criticism So that it consists very well that all necessary truths may be contained which is all you do say and yet not so contain'd as in necessary for that effect which is what you should have said Again since the same means may be sufficient for one person which are not for another or for all and sufficient at one time not so at another Your Conclusion that this Gospel may be a sufficient means without Tradition comes far short of what it should be that 't is sufficient to all persons in all circumstances Now I presume the Evangelist writing to Theophilus with design to instruct him particularly the sufficiency you speak of cannot fairly be stretched farther then his intent and be construed to belong to more then Theophilus himself And certainly since every body in the Church is not Theophilus to deserve a Gospel should be writ to him it cannot be expected what was sufficient for him should be sufficient for every body else You see then how strongly soever your Canon is charged I conceive the Conclusion safe as placed beyond its level But yet to try the force it has The first thing you say against Mr White is that you think the place shews the Book was intended for a Catechism to teach him and all the world the entire body of Christianity moved by these words that thou mayest know the certainty of these things thou hast been taught or catechized in I beseech you how does it appear that by those things must be understood a body of Christianity You see Mr White understands no more by them then reports he Theophilus had heard and tels you if you will urge another sense you must first justifie it against this Now evidently writing to let Theophilus know the certainty of those reports he had heard is far enough from writing a body of Christianity As for the word Catechized which you seem to rely upon its original signification if good Grecians have not mis-informed me being most properly rendred by insono or infundo imports no more then a delivery of somthing by word of mouth though since by Ecclesiastical custome it hath almost been appropriated to the delivery of Christian doctrine Now this being since S. Lukes time what it was that was so delivered to Theophilus cannot be gathered from the word But if that be true which you say of Theophilus that he