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
presently explicated by other words till it be perfectly taken away and the thing understood Whereas Scripture is confin'd to those precise words it contains concerning which if either your self have any doubt or another raise it in you you have no means of satisfaction for how can you come to the knowledge of the thing signified while you are at a loss about the sign that sign which is all you have to trust to being to explicate another thing not it self Now if you reflect that the Gospel was preacht or dâ—livered by word of mouth with that care and time that it was not only well understood by the people but setled deeply in their souls by a constant practise and high esteem you will see that since they understood the doctrine delivered to them and could not forget it by reason of their constant practise nor lose it by reason of their multitude Tradition has not one of the difficulties made to Scripture This advantage too which orall delivery has above writing ought not be forgotten that the liveliness of the voice and aptness of the gesture and such companions of words fitly pronounced do infinitely contribute to make them be understood We see Ironical expressions differ no otherwise from serious ones then in the motion of a lip or eye and yet how vast is the difference Nay the actions of the speaker suited to and joyned with the circumstance in which he speaks is perhaps of all Interpreters the best and admits the least doubt of his meaning Writing therefore necessarily wanting these helps must of necessity want also a most effiacious means of making the words it presents to the eye intelligible which these enjoy that are convey'd to us by the ear That Scripture has couched in iâ— most if not all truths essential to Christianity in divers Expressions I conceive to be true but if you will compare it to Tradition you must add that these truths are indisputably acknowledged and practised both with constancy and high esteem by a multitude and I shal then not think it inferiour to Tradition with which perhaps 't will be the very same And for the example of Papias I am sure it is nothing against me it being evident there want the conditions necessary to Tradition Viz. Of being openly and constantly preached to such a multitude as can certainly witness of it that perfectly understand it and practise according to it And I think it makes for me since in all likelihood the error proceeded from this that the words used in discourse by the Apostle were mis-understood by some of the hearers and what hapned to them when they were spoken I know nothing can hinder them from being liable to after they are written So that even that example concludes that all error proceeds from the deceitfulness of set words which Tradition not being tied to is also freed from the inconveniences they are the occasion of ¶ 4. We may to our comfort remember this Age affords such as are as well skilled in the Originals yea letter then many Learned men that lived several hundreds of years before us I confess what they are forced to acknowledge some things we cannot yet know by reason of those difficulties No more could the Church for above 12 hundred years ago yet as then so now we have sufficient though not all light to salvation only out of Scripture Because we cannot understand all things some whereof of in Scripture S. Peter tells us are hard to be understood shall we say we can understand nothing certainly Why should we doubt our Saviour was born of the Virgin Mary more then that we understand any sentence we hear commonly from one another although there be no other way then Scripture to know it We make no doubt but we understand a place of Plato Aristotle Tully c. and cannot God write as intelligibly ¶ 4. What the learning is of men of this age I conceive very unnecessary to examine especially since all the use you make of it is to affirm confidently That we have sufficient light to salvation onely out of Scripture to which all I shall return is that so critical an Exceptor against Arguments should not himself use for one the Conclusion barely said over That we can understand nothing certainly is not Mr Whites Position but that we cannot understand enough for the salvation of mankind with certainty requisite to that effect and till you say something against him I have nothing to say against you Why we should doubt of our Saviours being born of the Virgin Mary I know not and were there no other Readers of Scripture but such as you and I perhaps none would but if any do as I think Helvidius did and you have no other means of convincing him but by words which a subtle Critick will shew are capable of other senses pray how will you hinder a multitude with whom an opinion of learning and holiness has gotten him credit from following him into damnation of the parity between Scripture and Aristotles writings you will give me occasion to speak more fully by and by ¶ 5. Surely God would be understood by all seeing he commands all not only to read his Law but to write it upon their posts and doors and Phylacteries and be continually talking of those things that are necessary for salvation Deut. 6.7 and by his Apostles tells us that he intends so to doe not always to speak in Parables John 16.25 26. and in 2 Cor. 4.2 3 4. not handling the Word of God deceitfully but by manifestation of the truth commending our selves to every mans conscience in the sight of God but if our Gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them that beleeve not lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ who is the image of God should shine unto them Prov. 8.9 They are all plain to him that understandeth and right to them that find knowledge but what more plain then that in Hab. 2.2 And the Lord answered me and said Write the vision and make it plain upon Tables that he may run that readeth ¶ 5. For the citations you fill the next Paraph with I profess I am at a loss to find any opposition in them to what I am maintaining The Dialogues say Equivocation the nature of the Original tongues their being ceased c. causes an uncertainty of the sense of Scripture and you reply that God commanded his Law to be written upon Posts Doors and Philacteries that he intended to speak to his Apostles without Parables that S. Paul did not handle the word of God deceitfully that the words of wisdom are plain to him that understandeth and that the Prophet was commanded to write a Vision plain Does any of this or all prove that equivocation c. brings in no incertainty or that it and the rest are not found in Scripture This is what I conceive
and if both Reason and Experience did not convince our understanding that by this Assertion contentions are encreased and not ended We acknowledge holy Scripture to be a most perfect Rule for as much as a writing can be a Rule c. Would you stand to that Scripture is a most perfect Rule as any Rule can be this Assertion would soon end contentions between us Why cannot Scripture be a perfect Rule without need of unwritten Traditions to end controversies by I see not the impossibility I would you would be pleased to teach me All that the Apostles taught and delivered to their Successors were all truths and were they not sufficient to be a Rule to Judge by whether written or by word of mouth I think all those truths they delivered were a sufficient Rule for their Successors could have nothing else to Judge by except they pretend to an infallible Spirit well then could not all of that truth be written which was delivered surely yea for I know not any thing one man may speak to another by word of mouth but he may write it therefore it is possible such a sufficient Rule may be made I prove now only the possibility and if it may his Assent is due to our Doctrine because he protests to have no other imaginable ground that could avert his will from giving it the function of supreme and sole Judge ¶ 7. The next Paraph opposes a pair of Assertions which since I know not whose they are I hope you will not take it amiss if I do not engage my self to defend 'T is well if I can preserve Mr. White himself from so strong an enemy as you are For the Positions themselves I conceive the second absolutely false and that a Writing may be contrived with much more perfection that is fitness to be a Rule then the Scripture is And for the first though I conceive it true as the case stands so many uncertainties from so many several causes unavoidably crowding into the writing we have yet abstractedly to examine whether a writing may not be framed without them is a Question so little to our purpose that I beseech you give me leave to say no more of it then that while we have no better words nor better skill in ordering them then yet are known t is to be doubted no one Book will be exempted from the face of all even those which by design are the plainest as Laws which no industry could yet contrive so but that the moot-cases bear a notable proportion to the resolv'd ones As for their discourse 't is agreed that Truths are a sufficient rule to judge by provided they be sufficiently that is certainly known to be Truths 'T is also agreed they may be written but we deny the sense of that Writing can always sufficiently be made out by its bare Characters without other assistance and this which yet is our onely question your discourse takes no notice of but supposing to be truth and to be known to be truth is the same thing roves handsomly indeed but yet roves ¶ 8. Again to prove Scripture may be a Supream rule to decide all necessary controversies I pray answer me Whether the determinations of your Councils can end controversies I suppose you affirm it Those determinations are printed by you to be read by all and be such a Rule can they be understood I have read of two of your Doctors both present at the Council of Trent oppose each other and alledge the decree against each other so that your determinations are not always sufficient no nor ever can they be if what you affirm of Scripture be true Viz. insufficient to determine For suppose your decrees most plain how shall I be certain this is the meaning of those determinations If I cannot till a further determination come out to explain the first I ask again How I shall be certain that I understand and have the right meaning of this second What by another determination again Why so I shall be querying in infinitum and never be sure unless I rest in some one determination which may be sufficiently intelligible to me to satisfie and assertain me of the truth and if Mans writings can be a determination and sufficient Rule to beget certain truth in me why not Gods ¶ 8. The Parity you next urge betwixt Scripture and Councels I should think of great force if there were nothing but the bare letter in both But in the former the word is the only interpreter of the sence in the later the word is interpreted by the sence in the first the sence is to be accomodated to the word in the 2d the word to the sence To explicate my self be pleas'd to reflect That Bishops going into Councel go not to find out a faith which before they knew not but to certifie that which they already know Then before they agree upon words to expresse it by they have in their heads that which they would expresse and when the words are agreed on they perfectly know what they mean by them and in which of the sences if they be capable of more than one they are to be taken in This they testifie by their practise when they are out of Councel and so leave to their posterity not only a Rule but a Method to preserve it from being wrested by the craft and perversenesse of their Adversaries Now in Scripture the case is quite different There are none to tell you the sence of the word in question neither can the word it self help you for 't is of it you doubt In our case too 't is interpreted quite against the common practise and therefore which give me leave to hint by the way the interpreter ought not to be contented the word may bear his sence but must evidently see it can bear no other For he that leaves the common practise to which the word may be accomodated when his Salvation depends upon the choice for this that the word may also be accomodated to another sence I doubt apprehends but slightly the value of his Soul and what it is to be eternally or happy or miserable But this by the bye The printed determinations therefore of Councils barely are not our Rule but the printed determinations understood and practised And were the Scripture so qualifi'd I know not what condition it would want necessary to a Rule In the mean time the instance of the Tridentine Doctors seems to be as much against you as a Thing can be for what possibility of certainty from words when the very same are cited in behalf of contradictories and if a verbal foundation be found weak in Councils how can you think 't will sustain a building of Scripture Though in this particular case the accident has nothing of wonder since the Council abstaining as far as I remember purposely from determining either side and speaking abstractedly must of necessity leave a colour for both and a latitude for wit
was already a Christian I do not see the words can be brought to bear your sense since manifestly he could not have been so without already being certain of the body of Christianity So that your Exposition makes the Evangelist very wisely take a great deal of pains in writing a book to inform Theophilus certainly of what he certainly knew before Mr. Whites interpretation therefore seems much the more genuine and yet even admitting yours I cannot as I said before imagine any approach to our difference For St. Luke expresly confining his design to the instruction of Theophilus hee that extends it to more acts manifestly without any Warrant from him You urge afterwards the first of the Acts which you say Mr. White passeth over as Commentators do hard places Truly your severity is beyond what I have ever met with and you are the first example of expecting a man should answer more then is objected Mr. White is speaking to the Gospel and these words are in the Acts and yet you except against him for taking no notice of them As for the difficultie it self since those words cannot be taken in their proper natural signification St. John plainly telling us the world would not be able to contain the books which might be written I do not see any ground you have to understand by them the substance of Christian doctrine With submission to better judgments I apprehend that by All is meant all he thought fit to communicate to Theophilus that sense seeming to flow naturally from the places compared together But whether that interpretation be true or no I am sure nothing appears why a man should accept of yours For whereas you would prove it out of St. Lukes exact knowledge that is manifestly nothing to the purpose every bodie seeing it follows not because S. Luke knew all therefore he delivered all And for the quarrel against Mr. White for leaving out the word exactly besides that as I come from saying it is far from being very pertinent exact knowing being much a different thing from exact teaching all he knew Mr. White puts in stead of it that he was present almost at all things c. which in matters of fact is the most exact knowledg that can be And for the second proof that otherwise he could not say he had delivered All Christ did or taught I have already told you though that word cannot be taken properly to signifie truly All yo◠do it wrong to take it so improperly as you do the substance of Christian doctrine being a strange English of the Latin word Omne But be all this given to the respect of the person which suffers me not to pass by any thing you say without taking notice of it though otherwise your Conclusion which I am now come to does not any way prejudice the Tenet I am maintaining To contain sufficient truths and to be a sufficient means to salvation which may possibly be true in respect of some persons and circumstances being quite another thing then to decide all quarrels carried on by factiously litigious persons and this in all times and cases For a conclusion I beseech you to accept of this observation that a serious reflection on what you do your self would satisfie you whether partie Truth takes in this question for whatever force custom and a prepossest fancie has on your words to make them maintain St. Lukes Gospel alone sufficient nature contradicts them so powerfully that your actions speak the clean contrary and plainly prove 't is not sufficient for since you cannot hold that a sufficient means to you which you do not sufficiently know to be a means and this sufficiency of the Gospel you do not know without the Acts which nature forces you to rely upon even while you are maintaining you need them not you see plainly your words and actions agree not and that while you would by the former perswade the sufficiency of the Gospel alone the later unresistably convince somthing else viz. the Acts is necessary to its sufficiency that is that it alone is not sufficient SECT V. Answer to those Fathers who are brought for the sufficiencie of Scripture MY next Argument for Scriptures sufficiency shall be out of the Fathers which Mr White p. 175. thinks improper for us who will not relie on their Authority for any one point what though we receive not from them any authoritative testimonie yet we embrace a rational one from any not because they say it therefore it is true but because we see no reason to dis-beleeve or have sufficient reason to beleeve they testifie truths as a Judge collects a truth from Witnesses every one of which is a fallible man yet by beholding circumstances sees their concurrent Testimonies cannot be false here we have ground enough to beleeve that Scripture was a sufficient rule to them because they say and confess it was I am ready to beleeve any Tradition as well as the Bible provided we have as good ground to beleeve it came from the Apostles as I have of the Bible Suppose it be not a sufficient argument for us who besides have Scripture on our side yet it is a sufficient Argument against you who pretend to derive your Religion from them who went before you whom you include in your Church as Mr White If the Bible had once that authority we plead for in your Church it should have it still the contrary being a Novelty therefore I must count your Doctrine false till you have solved this Argument That which was the Rule must be but Scripture was the Rule Ergo c. ¶ 2. First I must take out of the way your Objections out of those Fathers I make use of that they were of your opinion which you gather out of several expressions of theirs as that of Austin whose and others their words I have of late read in your Authors pleading thus your cause I would not beleeve the Gospel unless the Authority c. In which and all other of their expressions we must understand unless we will say through heat of dispute they sometimes contradict their own sence plainly delivered at other times according to their intent and so I see not any thing that makes against us as that mentioned Either S. Austin means the Church of all ages or that present in which he lived If that precisely abstractly without consideration of the antiquity of it and its doctrinal succession from the Apostles his doctrine had been nothing available against the Manichees against whom he disputes for they might have alledg'd the authority of their Church with as good ground against him therefore when he alledgeth the authority of the Church or Tradition to be a sufficient proof of that which is not contained in Scripture he means the universal Tradition of all ages which was as evident as that of Scripture tradition or as cleerly derived from the Apostles by universal Tradition as the Scripture it self and such a
you accommodate the outward Word in which the true Word of God is contained and because you can do so break communion with us because we prefer another sense which the words also agree withall suitable to our constant and universal practise and which to leave upon no better inducement I must confess I know not how to excuse from downright madness Moreover some of our Controvertists laying down in condescendence to you their own assured Arms Tradition have engaged with you at your own weapon critical handling of Scripture of whose endeavours I am content almost even partiality it self should be Judge being very confident no Byas can be great enough to draw a reasonable nature so far wide of Truth as to pronounce us in that kind of war overcome When you say Tradition has not ended controversies you express where the fault lies Viz. in that not acknowledging them it being unpossible that Judge should end a difference whose sentence is refused by either of the parties But then this is not for want of necessary qualities in him but submission in them We refuse not to make Scripture sole Judge out of fear it should give sentence against us we know its sence much better then you and know 't is for us and if you think you can convince us by it do it we both must and will submit but out of fear by it s not giving sentence at all our dissentions should never come to an end We earnestly long to see all the sheep of Christ quietly seeding again in one fold and that unhappy wall of division which so long has separated them battered down and because we do so cannot but testifie Scripture is no fit Engine to do it 'T was to us she was given not to you and we know her efficacy is more in times of peace then War that she is more proper to increase charity then beget faith and that being principally intended to sanctifie the faithful she does ordinarily require they should first be faithful that they may afterwards be sanctified Had you the same disposition to peace you would either effectually shew the Scripture a sit Judge to decide controversies critically and frowardly handled or appeal to some other for he that pretends a desire of an end in order to which he will obstinately beleeve those to be means which both from reason and experience he may learn to be none and will not be brought to use other is convinced to do no more then barely pretend it ¶ 2. Reason in things that depend upon it is often a sufficient rule yet many cannot be brought to an agreement by it even in things which are evident by others demonstrated shall we then think it sufficient to disprove it a rule because some yea many are not made to accord with it Mr. White p. 153. grants the Jews might have been though they were not led to Christ and salvation by Scripture if they had interpreted it with charity and humility And p. 110. However the marks of the Church are apparant enough in Scripture if there want not will in the seeker to acknowledg them If this be not to contradict himself I know not what is To ill-disposed or undisposed refractory minds nothing is sufficient I see a monstrous difficultie for you to understand Scripture aright who are resolved to make no other sence then what agrees with your supposed Traditions ¶ 2. That which I conceive to be the drift of this Paragraph Viz. That 't is perhaps more often the fault of the parties then of the Judge that differences are kept alive is certainly true But you apply it not neither as we think can you do it with any appearance to conclude we are in fault that bind our selves even in this kind of tryall to much stricter conditions then you will be brought to do For besides the reverence we bear the Scripture even to an absolute submission to whatever it says then which you neither do nor can do more we also bring you a Book which we so acknowledg to be Scripture that in disputation we refuse it not would you do so much perhaps more good might be done then is mean time this is certain that more cannot be required of us Next you pretend a contradiction from two places which you cite and I cannot tell whether you mean those places contradict one another which nevertheless seem to say the same thing or that both those places contradict the former Doctrine Now that asserts two things 1. That Scripture does not speak plain enough to convince a wrangling Critick 2. That it does speak plain enough to satisfie an humble and charitable Reader in which if you see any contradiction you see not onely what I cannot but what I conceive is not there to be seen ¶ 3. Page 137. Mr. White seems to grant what I cannot tell how he can deny that the Scripture is as well able to make us understand its meaning as Plato or Aristotle theirs but the supposition where all the venom lies is concealed as he is pleased to phrase it so the Scripture was written of those controversies which since are risen I see no danger in this poison rightly understood God delivering those things in Scripture which are sufficient for salvation speaks so that he may be as well understood as Plato Aristotle c. in their Writings then the Reader of holy Writ that comes to it as page 153. the Iewes should have done with charitie and humilitie which would actually have brought them to the truth may have the true meaning of Gods Word as to the points of faith and practice Now having the truth cannot he see that error which shall aftâ—rwards arise to be falshood because it is contrary to the truth which he has out of Scripture linea recta est Judex sui obliqui But strange opinions may spring up which can neither be proved nor disproved satisfactorily by Scripture nor is it necessary all possible controversies should be determinable I do not think you pretend to this kind of Omniscience by your Traditions I pray tell me how does your Church confute new errors which were not started in the Apostles time by thinking only that they are false or by looking upon those truths which it pretends the Apostles at first delivered before those errors came up which it sees are contrary to those received truths unless you pretend to new Revelations to discover new errors by and what poyson is there in making written truths the streight Rule to measure future inormities by more then to make unwritten truth serve for that end ¶ 3. The next Paragraph insists upon the Parity betwixt Scripture and the writings of Plato or Aristotle touching which what you say Mr. White seems to grant that the one is as well able to make us understand its meaning as the other I must tell you does but seem so and 't is a wonder to me you observed it not the very next
page but one to that you cite being employ'd in shewing the way of writing us'd by Aristotle has a great advantage towards being understood over that of the Bible But he denies not but both may be understood and that stuff you weave into this Conclusion That a Reader of Scripture may come to the truth and by it judge arising Errors Pray what 's this against Mr. White because he may arrive at truth shall he therefore be fixed there with that constancy that no subtlety can stagger him Shall his Humility and Charity which introduced him provide him too with Arms to maintain the place and defend it against the assaults of Wit and Malice leagued together I see no glimmering of such a consequence which neverthelesse should have been yours for till you are there your Journeys end is stil before you Besides your foundation that all things sufficient for Salvation are delivered in Scripture meaning the Salvation of mankind is not firm especially making as you do afterwards every one of the Gospels to contain a perfect sum of what is necessary to be believed and practised for some things and those necessary to Salvation are beleived meerly upon the account of Traditions as the Scripture it self c. Those strange opinions too which you say may spring up may perhaps concern things necessary to Salvation which if they can neither be proved nor disproved satisfactorily by Scripture plainly there is not by your method any satisfaction left us in things necessary to Salvation And for what you urge last that written truths may be as streight a Rule as unwritten ones 't is true provided they be agreed on to be truths But the question is not whether written truths will convince a rising error but whether written words will so convince the truths they contain to whoever rises up in error against them that no Artifice shall be able to pervert their fidelity and introduce another sence into the same sounds An instance may make the thing clearer Let the Church before Arius have had no better weapon to defend her faith of the Consubstantiality of the Father and Son then these and the like words Ego Pater unum sumus and you will make me much wiser then I am if you render it possible shee should preserve her self from being overcome by the craft of that Heretick who would have proved at least plausibly as Hereticks us'd to do by the Rule of conferring one place with another that those words ought not to be understood of an unity of Substance since our Sauiour elsewhere prays his Apostles may be one as his Father and he are one which evidently contradicting a substantial unity The former words ought to yield to these plain ones Pater major me est 'T was not then by those words but by the sence of them so firmly rooted in her practise that neither the wit nor power of Arius joyn'd with a perverse and lasting obstinacy could shake it that she decided the controversie and transmitted sound Doctrine to her posterity Shee saw his interpretation contradicted her sence delivered by Christ and his Apostles and continued by Tradition but no body could see it contradicted the words which his wit made as favourable to him as her By which very same Method to answer your Question in your own words I conceive the Church would at this day confute new errors viz by looking upon the truths first delivered by the Apostles and since preserved by her practise not the words in which they were delivered To sum up your Paraph therefore in short 't is true that Linea recta est judex sui obliqui 'T is true that truth is linea recta t◠'T is true also that the Reader duly qualified may by due reading Scripture come to truth but that this truth will be enough to serve all the exigencies of all mankind in all circumstances or that what satisfied his sincerity and diligence will be able to satisfie all manner of peevishness and obstinacy are two Positions which I see you have not and think you cannot prove There is no doubt but truth ought to judge which is the thing you do say But if there be a doubt which is truth I conceive bare words which were perhaps sufficient to discover hers to charity and humility will not be able to convince her against malicious craft and pride which is what you should but do not prove ¶ 4. If words would affright a man Mr. White doth it by search after evidence of Argument In the same page 137. he requires any one Book in the whole Bible whose Theam is now controverted he mentions S. Johns Gospel which was to shew the Godhead of Christ but that is not so directly saith he his Theam as the miraculous life of our Saviour from whence his Divinity was to be deduced And page 153. John intended only such particulars as prove that Christ was God in which later expression if he do not seem as to me he doth to contradict his former the former making S. Johns intent a History the latter a Discourse only as his word is of a controversal truth ¶ 4. The contradiction you glance at here will not even with your assistance so much as seem such to any diligence of mine and since I cannot overcome it I must beseech you to pardon that dulness which will let me see but one sence in these two expressions Viz. S. John wrote the miraculous life of our Saviour so as his Divinity might be deduced from it and S. John in his History specifies such particulars as prove the Divinity of our Saviour ¶ 5. Yet this he clearly says S. John made an Antidote against that error then beginning yet as he the design so unsuccessful that never any heresie was more powerful then that which opposed the truth intended by his Book whence he seems to infer Scripture no sufficient Rule to decide because the Arians were not silenced by it I demand why the Arians were not convinced by that Book written on purpose to oppose that error which they held by a very large discovering the contrary truth was it because there was not evidence enough of that truth which S. John onely intended in his whole Book surely you must say so and then I pray consider what you say whether it be not imputing weakness to S. John or to the Holy Ghost writing by him quod horrendum that he should set himself to write a whole Book in which as Mr Whites words are he intended only such particulars as prove that Christ was God and yet not prove it sufficiently If S. John did prove it sufficiently why were not the Arians convinced by it surely the fault was not in the want of evidence of those miraculous actions which our Saviour saith prove him to be the Son of God and one with the Father but in their wills I say it was their own fault so then notwithstanding all Mr White hath said I
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
ejus verbis obtemperavit I cannot gather one sillable hence nor from any other place for Mr White Vnless there be a proof it is but Sophistry and a sign of a desperate cause It is likely is it not that grave wise Assembly that came to confute an obstinate adversarie would make use of a Lesbian rule if they did not count it sufficient and the chief which their Adversary would make nothing of as long as one place can explicate a hundred opposed so Mr. White speaks ¶ 7. Yet it is plain they did make use of this Rule and did conclude by it that same truth which they had before that learnt out of it as Eusebius in his Epistle to his own people confesses Socr. l. 1. c. 5. yea stick and keep to Scripture-expressions in the forme of their determinations as much as they could which Mr. White himself calls a good way to govern their expressions by and therefore I cannot imagine the possibility of the truth of his words p. 98. that the Council at last was forced to conclude out of Tradition he brings Theodoret to prove it but names not the place where I have read all I can imagine should shew it but finde not one word a necessity sayes he which the Rules of Saint Irenaeus c. justifies I have not the other be mentions without citing the place as for Irenaeus I am sure it is false he has no such Rule in his whole book the only place in him that glanceth at it is not a proof I speak of it elsewhere if it were it would prove Irenaeus an egregious fool to spend above 600 pages to no purpose in Scripture-Argument and then in one page do all the work by your imaginarie only Argument I expect a better Solution or a deserved consent to the contrary truth ¶ 8. Mr. White p. 95. seems to make the Bishops to set upon this Resolution of their own accord if that be true also then both Bishops and People were of the same minde his words are But the same Bishops consented to excommunicate the Contradicters to hinder men from unwritten words and was not that a proper and prudent remedy to prevent the inconveniences that easily arise from confusion and incertaintie of language when every one phrases the mysterie according to his private fancie and are not all your Traditions which you say depend not upon words subject to these inconveniences pray tell me ingenuously and governs not his terms by some constant and steadie Rule and the Writings of the Apostles or ancient Fathers What now does Mr. White turn his tale and call Scripture a constant steadie rule which before he made a nose of wax ¶ 5 6 7 8. There follows a Citation from a Council out of Socrates which to a Person disposed to make use of it affords a fair advantage But as my aim is your service not victory I shall only desire you to reflect they were Hereticks who by the Artifice of that pretence sought to draw the Council of Ariminum to subscribe a new form of Faith in prejudice of what had formerly been establisht at Nice A sleight which the Catholicks rejected with this Answer We came not hither as though we wanted Faith and beleef for we retain that Faith which we have learned from the beginning but we are come to withstand Novelties if those things which you have now read neither savour nor tend to the establishing of Novelty accurse and renounce the Heresie of Arius in such wise as the old and ancient Canon of the Church hath banished all Heretical and Blasphemous Doctrine Now consider if you please who they were that pretended Scripture who they that rejected it and adhered constantly to what they had learned from the beginning and observe which party your Position takes and which mine Next is an expression of Constantines in his Oration to the Council of Nice insisted upon to my no small wonder through 4. Paragraphs For how comes it that a man bred up wholly to the Arts of War and Government and so lately become a Christian that he wanted even time had his other employments been no Obstacle to advance beyond the degree of a Learner should yet be look'd upon by you as so great a Doctor that an expression of his which according to the custom of such persons too has more of oratory then severe discourse in it should wholly sway you in a point of Religion whose judgment I dare say in a point of Politicks in which he was much better vers'd would not be of half that credit with you what if he did not so much as understand the thing and if he did what if he spoke rather according to his occasions then his judgment For Princes you know do and ought to govern their actions by other rules then private men and speak sometimes more what 't is fit they should be heard speak then what they truly think In either of these cases both which I take to be not only possible but so far probable that I think them true how weak a support is this Testimony you so much rely upon And yet I think these advantages so unnecessary that the place it self faithfully consulted needs no assistance to conclude plainly against you For since you make Constantine satified of the truth of the Question before the calling of the Council it cannot with any colour be imagined he meant to put that to tryal which before the tryall appointed was already known and resolv'd on The Question therefore in Issue could not be which was Faith which Heresie neither does that use to be or indeed can be a Question among those that know their own Faith but how the oppositions made against the known Faith might be answered And this besides that after a man is satisfied of the truth of one part of the Question there can be no more dispute concerning the same Question but how to answer the Objections of the opposite is clear from the very words For dissolvere does not signifie to give sentence in a Question he that should English it so would wrest it strangely but to solve an Argument its natural signification to loose or untie being applied by Schollers to the knots of Sophistry That Phrase therefore imports the answering an Objection not the determining a controversie and the sence of the place is this Let us by Scripture shew the Arguments of Arius brought out of Scripture fallacious and unconcluding I beseech you then to accept of this short Answer to your long Discourse First that whatever were Constantines opinion 't is of no extraordinary importance either way he being a man wholly bred up to other Arts then Divinity and by the course of his life disabled from attaining a mastery in such abstruse points Secondly that yours is so far from appearing to be his Opinion that you cannot force it upon the words you cite without manifest violence and which their own genuine signification and the
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
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
didim c. 12. Non dubitavit Dominus dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum signum corporis sui daret And Judam adhibuit convivium in quo corporis sanguinis sui figuram discipulis suis commendavit tradidit Si sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt non haberent omnino sacramenta non essent Ex hac autem similitudine plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est Ita sacramentum fidei fides est Sicut ergo caelestis panis qui caro Christi est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum revera sit sacramentum corporis Christi illius viz. quod visibile palpabile mortale in cruce positum est vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio mors crucifixio non rei veritate sed significante mysterio Sic sacramentum fidei quo Baptismus intelligitur fides es Theodoret Dialog 1. Servator certè noster nomina commutavit corpori quidem idem quod erat symboli ac signi nomen imposuit symbolo autem quod erat corporis Causa mutationis manifesta est iis qui sunt divinis mysteriis initiati Volebat enim eos qui sunt divinorum mysteriorum participes non attendere naturam eorum quae videntur sed propter nominum mutationem mutationi quae fit ex gratia credere Qui enim quod natura est corpus triticum panem appellavit vitem seipsum rursus nominavit is symbola quae videntur appellatione corporis sanguinis honoravit non naturam quidem mutans sed naturae gratiam adjiciens So Marius Monachus sayes the Bread and Wine are offered in the Church as the Antitypes of his flesh and blood and they that partake of the Bread which appears do spiritually not bodily then as you grosly eat the flesh of the Lord. From all those and many more I might name I conclude that instead of Mr Whites malepertness page 31. the contrary is a madness seeing a man must shut his eyes first against the Sun then obstinately resolve come on it what will to embrace not only uncertainties for certainties but gross falshood for clear truth ¶ 2. You next make this Question if we have derived this Interpretation all along from the Apostles which supposes the foundation of all our Doctrines to be an Interpretation of Scripture a Position disownd as you know by us but if the Question be as I presume you meant it Whether we have derived this Doctrine all along from the Apostles I answer yes and appeal even to your self whether it were in the power of the Council of Lateran which you generally take to be the first which setled that doctrine or any other authority upon the face of the earth to impose upon whole nations tenets damnable to themselves and posterity and impossible not to be seen to be so what is there beyond the power of humane nature if this be not That mankind brought up in a beleef that the Blessed Sacrament is no more then plain bread made to signifie higher things indeed but only to signifie them should of a sudden unanimously run to Mass there adore the holy Sacrifice and by vast Alms acknowledg it propitiatory for both quick and dead Observe how slowly and warily the Council of Trent has been admitted into the several Provinces of Christendom into all which even the Catholick ones it has not yet nor perhaps ever will as to decrees of manners gain'd an entire entrance and confesse the nature of humane things endures not so extravagant a power even in Councils as to change the faith of the world which it professes with this perswasion that eternal happinesse depends upon it according to an arbitrary determination and that the making of a new word should make new truths nay make that true to day which was false yesterday There Sir are impossibilities in nature and may enter into a large fancy but never passe from thence into a sober Judgement nothing being more certain then that as great as the Power of a Council is it is so far from being able to introduce a new faith with a new word that it could never have introduced a new word which had not been found agreeable to the old faith Before I speak to your Fathers who you say are so clear against us give me leave to speak a little to your self and put you in mind that you and I are now disputing not of an obscure peece of Criticism or unconcerning point of Philosophy in which a mistake is of no greater concern than the credit of the mistaker but of Religion that is the way to Heaven in which if we misse we have the same hopes of comming thither that he has of getting to his journeys end by night who travels all day in a wrong road Our Souls therefore and their Salvation being concerned in this contest no plea ought to be produced but such a one of whose efficacy we are so far perswaded as to venture them upon it Now by the great candor you profess have the Fathers you cite so much authority with you are you content so to submit your judgement to theirs as when it appears what the path is they walked in to quit all others for it and constantly pursue it to eternity such and only such a disposition may make the pains requisite to so great an effect as clearing the sence of the Fathers in all points of controversy rationally charitable but if you have it not the whole businesse is turn'd into a wit-combat and the Question no more but this whether of us two are better vers'd in Antiquity and truly me thinks the concern of eternity deserves to be treated a little more seriously then if what is alleaged prove true nothing is advanced if false nothing lost which yet I take to be your case for if the Fathers say as you would have them you professe not to rely upon them if otherwise not to regard them But I am afraid your manner of treating the Fathers is more liable to exceptions then your treating them For to omit the want of rigorous exactnesse in some of your Testimonies which uses to accompany those citations which are perfectly your own you have brought a Quotation from S. Austin which you make look like an entire Text that proves when examined a collection of several sentences some not so much as his scattered through several books in several Tomes and cite for it a book never written at least by him This proceeding I dare say is not yours and I would intreat you since you refuse to rely upon the Fathers not to hazard your own or eternal happinesse or eternal misery upon the credit of you know best whom but in all likelyhood besides their being men that is in your