of demonstrations But Mr. S. very prudently foresees what it is I must be forced to recurre to viz. that being baffled with his former demonstration I have no other shift to betake my self to but to say the case is different between histories and points of faith And therefore to bring his business home he applyes it at large to the delivery of the Christian faith which that he might do in more ample sort he very finely descants on the old Verse Quis quid ubi c. containing the circumstances of human actions and from every one of them derives arguments for the infallibility of oral tradition which briefly and in plain English may be summed up thus Since the author of this doctrine was the son of God the doctrine it self so excellent and delivered in so publick a manner in the most convincing way by miracles and good living and for so good an end as to save mens souls and that by writing it in mens hearts and testified to others and all this at a time when men might judge of the miracles and motives for believing it therefore since in all these respects it was imcomparably beyond the story of Alexanders conquests it follows that in a manner infinitely greater must the obligation be to believe Christs doctrine than Alexanders or William the Conquerours victories or any history of the like nature whatsoever All which I freely grant but cannot yet see how from thence it follows that oral tradition is the only rule of faith or the means whereby we are to judge what is the doctrine of Christ and what not Those arguments I confess prove that the Christians of the first age were highly concerned to enquire into the truth of these things and that they had the greatest reason imaginable to believe them and that it is not possible to conceive that they should not endeavour to propagate so excellent a doctrine and of so high concernment to the world But the question is whether abstractly from the books written in the first age of the Christian Church there is so much infallibility in the oral tradition of every age that nothing could be embraced for Christs doctrine which was not and consequently whether every age were bound to believe absolutely what was delivered it by the precedent for the doctrine of Christ Mr. S. therefore puts himself to a needless task of proving that every age was bound to believe the doctrine of Christ which I never questioned but the dispute is whether every age be bound on the account of oral tradition to believe what is delivered by the precedent for Christs doctrine But it is to be observed all along how carefully Mr. S. avoids mentioning the written books of the New Testament because he knew all his game about oral tradition would be quite spoiled by a true stating the matter of fact in the first ages of the Christian Church I hope he will not be angry with me for asking him that question about the Scripture which he asks me about the Council of Trent did he never hear of such a thing as the Scripture or is it so hard to find it But if he hath heard of it I intreat him to resolve me these Questions 1. Whether he doth not believe that the books of the New Testament were written at such a time when the matâ—ers of fact therein recorded were caâ—able of being throughly examined which he cannot deny upon his own â—rinciple for tradition being then inâ—allible as to the doctrine of Christ the writers of these books cannot be conâ—eived to deliver it amiss unless they â—esolved to contradict the present tradition of the Church which if they had done those books could never have found any reception among Christians If tradition then convey the doctrine of Christ infallibly these books must convey it infallibly because they contain in them the infallible tradition of the first age of the Christian Church and were written at that time when many persons living had been able to disprove any thing contained therein repugnant to truth And that these books were written by those persons whose names they bear I appeal to Mr. S's own rule Tradition for if that be infallible in any thing it must be in this and if one age could conspire to deceive another in a matter of such concernment what security can be had that it may not do so in all other things 2. Whether he believes that those whose intention was to write an account of the life actions and doctrine of Christ did leave any thing out of their books which did relate to them as of concernment for us to believe For upon Mr. S's principles any one may easily know what the tradition of the Church is and especially such certainly who were either present themselves at the matters of fact or heard them from those who were and what satisfaction can any one desire greater then this But the question is whether this testimony were not more safely deposited in the Church to be conveyed by word of mouth then it could be by being committed to writing by such who were eye and ear-witnesses oâ— the actions and doctrine of Christ Upon which I advance some further Queries 3. If oral Tradition were the more certain way why was anything written at all it may be Mr. S. will tell us for moral instructions and to give precepts of good life buâ— then why may not these be as infallibâ— convâ—yed by tradition as doctrines of faith And why then were any matters of fact and points of faith inserted in the books of the New Testament by which it certainly appears that the intention of writing them was to preserve them to posterity Let Mr. S. tell me whether it was consistent with the wisdom of men much less with the wisdom of an Infinite Being to imploy men to do that which might be far better done another way and when it is done can give no satisfaction to the minds of men 4. Whether those things which are capable of being understood when they are spoken cease to be so when they are written For Mr. S. seems to understand those terms of a living voice and dead letters in a very strict and rigorous manner as though the sense were only quick when spoken and became buried in dead letters But Mr. S. seems with the sagacious Indian to admire how it is possible for dead letters and unsenc'd characters to express mens meanings as well as words It cannot enter into Mr. S's apprehension how 24. letters by their various disposition can express matters of faith And yet to increaâ— the wonder he writes about matteâ— of faith while he is proving that matters of faith cannot be conveyed bâ— writing So that Mr. S's own writing is the best demonstration against himself and he confutes his own Sophistrâ— with his fingers as Diogenes did Zenoâ— by his motion For doth Mr. S. hopâ— to perswade men that tradition is â— rule of faith by
that because â—e speak not as big as Mr. S. does we â—ust be censured presently to have noâ—hing but probabilities for our faith Are â—hose bare probabilities which leave no â—uspicion of doubt behind them and â—uch we freely assert the grounds of â—ur religion to do i. e. I assert that we have the highest actual certainty of the truth of our Religion which the mind of any reasonable man can desire and if Mr. S's demonstrations can do any more then this let him tell us what it is For my part I know nothing higher in the mind of man then a certain assent and if I did not think there was the greatest ground in Religion for that I abhorr dissimulation so much that I should leave off perswading men to embrace it And if any men have made us shye of the word demonstration and infallibility they are such men as Mr. S. have done it who talk of these things when their arguments fall beneath some of the remotest probabilities we insist on Nay if there be any force in his demonstration as to matters of fact it hath been used by us long before his book saw the light But we love to give the true names to things and not to lose our credit with all intelligent persons by playing Mountebanks in Religion crying 〈◊〉 those things for infallible cures which an ordinary capacity may discern the insufficiency of But was it any thinâ— but justice and reason in me to expeâ—â— and call for a demonstration from them who talk of nothing under it And therefore I said that it was impossible to demonstrate this way of oral tradition unless it were proved impossible for men not to think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their predecessors did For where the contrary is not only possible but easily supposable â—s that men may believe those things as new articles of faith which are defined by Pope and Council I wonder how Mr. S. will demonstrate that men must â—ook on themselves as obliged to beâ—â—eve just as their predecessors did For I had thought demonstrations had â—ever place in contingent propositions but it seems Mr. S. who tells me Logick will unblunder my thoughts inâ—ends to make a new one for me And â— assure you so he had need before I â—hall ever call his arguments demonâ—trations and although he thinks himâ—elf very honest in calling them so yet â— should think him much wiser if he did not But before I come to the particular debate of these things I freely tell him that I grant all he requests â— shall take along with me the nature of the matter in hand the doctrines anâ— practises spoken of the manner of delivering them the necessary circumstanceâ— which give weight to both yet for alâ— these I cannot look on his way as demonstrative And that both our meanings may be better understood it iâ— very necessary the Reader should havâ— a true account of the state of the Question between us And if he will believe me I never intended to disputâ— with him or any one else whether meâ— were bound to wear their clothes or builâ— houses or manage estates just as theiâ— predecessors did but whether eveâ— age is obliged to believe and practiâ— just as the precedent did by vertue oâ— meer oral tradition for about that iâ— all the controversie between us I dâ— not deny but that a succeeding agâ— may look on it self as bound to believe what the precedent did buâ— whether that obligation doth ariâ— purely from the delivery of that doctrine by the precedent in the way oâ— of tradition is the thing in dispute between us For in case the ground â— faith be wholly the written word conveyed from age to age I deny not but an obligation to believe descends with the doctrine to every succeeding age But that which Mr. S. is to prove is that abstractly from Scripture every age is absolutely bound to believe just as the precedent did without any enquiry whether that doctrine doth agree with Scriptures or no but that he is therefore bound to believe all which is proposed to him because it was the doctrine of the immediately preceding age And this is that which I deny and desire Mr. S. to prove For which he first gives us a large instance in historical matters and then comes to the matters of Christian saith His Instance is in Alexanders conquest of Asia as to which he saith that the memory of it is fresh and lively though some thousand years since And that the universal and strong perswasion of this matter of fact was not caused by Books as Curtius his History but by humane tradition that the continuance of this perswasion was the notoriety of the fact to the then livers which obliged them to relate it to their posterity and that this testifying by the fore-fathers was that which obliged posterity to believe things as true because there could be no imaginable motive why the whole world should conspire to deceive them or be deceivable in their sensations on which principle it passed to the next age and so came down by way of tradition to our dayes and the obligation to believe in every age depended upon this that the senses of the first could not be deceived and having this security in every age that no one would conspire to deceive the next it followes that no age could say a former age testified so unless it did so therefore saith he it follows demonstratively that it was testified and so the descendents in every age to the very end of the world have the same obligation to believe their immediate fore-fathers saying it was testified by theirs and so to the very first who were witnesses of his actions This is the substance of what he more largely discourses in several Paragraphs which when he hath done he tells me he expects what I will reply to this discourse Not to frustrate therefore his expectation and in order to the Readers satisfaction we are to consider that in the present case there are two distinct questions to be resolved 1. How a matter of fact evident to the world comes to be conveyed to posterity 2. By what means a compleat history of all passages relating to it may be conveyed As 〈◊〉 the first I grant that a fact so notoâ—us as Alexanders conquest of Asia might have been preserved by humane tradition and conveyed in a certain way from one age to another But if we enquire into that which is alone proper to our Question viz. by what means we may judge what is true and false as to the particulars of that conquest then I deny that bare tradition is to be relyed on in this case For the certainty of conveyance of all particulars doth depend not upon the bare veracity but the capacity and skill of communicating from one age to another For which one would think we need no clearer evidence then the considerations of the different
account of former times in the several Nations of the world For who can imagine but the barbarous Nations were as unwilling to deceive their posterity as any other yet we see a vast difference in the histories of former ages among them and more civilized people And I wish Mr. S. would rather have instanced in some history which had been preserved meerly by tradition and not in such a one which if any other hath been most carefully recorded and propagated to posterity If Mr. S. would have undertaken to have told us who they were that first peopled America and srom what place they came by the tradition of the present inhabitants and what famous actions had been done there in former ages we might have thought indeed that sole tradition had been a very safe way to convey matters of fact from one age to another But since all Mr. S's arguments will hold as well for the Sâ—ythians and Americans and the most barbarous Nations as the most civil and polite what reason can Mr. S. give why there is not among them as certain an account of former ages as among the Greeks and Romans Were not their senses who saw those matters of fact as uncapable of being dâ—ceived as others was not every aâ— among them as unâ—illing to deceive their posterity as elswhere yet notwithstanding the force of Mr. Ss. demonstration we see for want of letters how grosly ignorant they are of what was done before them And if this principle were true why have we not as true an account of the eldest ages of the world as of any other Nay why were letters invented and writing ever used if tradition had been found so infallible But it is one thing superficially to discourse what is impossible should be otherwise and another to consider what really hath been in the world Doth not the constant â—xperience of all times prove that where any history hath not been timely recorded it hath been soon corrupted by notorious â—alsities or obscured by fabulous reports As we see among our selves what difference there is in point of certainty between the several stories of K. Arthur and William the Conqueror what will Mr. S. say that these who lived in K. Arthurs time could not know what he did or that they conspired to deceive their posterity But if tradition be so infallible why have we not the ancient story of Britain as exact as the modern If Mr. S. will impute it to the peoples ignorance want of letters frequâ—nt conquests by other Nations and succeeding barbarism he may easiâ—y find how many wayes there are for matters of fact to be soon lost or corrupted when they have not been diligently preserved by authentick records and that without one age conspiring to deceive another But notwithstanding Mr. S's confidence I cannot think it possible for Mr. S. to believe that we should have had as true an account of Alexanderâ— conquest of Asia if Arrian Curtius oâ— Plutarch had never writ his story aâ— we have now Yet this he must asseâ— by vertue of his principles And he that can believe that I wonder he should scruple believing the Popes infallibility for certainly no principle oâ— the Jesuites is more wild and absurd then this is Besides I admire how it came into Mr. S's head to think no error could come into history unless oâ— age conspired to deceive another when we find no age agreed in the present matters of fact which are done in it as to the grounds and particulars of them To give Mr. S. an instance home to his purpose in the late Council of Trent we see already what different representations there are made of it in so little a time as hath already passed since the sitting of it One though he had all the advantages imaginable of knowing all proceedings in it living at the same time conversing with the persons present at it having the memoires and records of the Secretaries themselves yet his story is since endeavoured to be blasted by a great person of the Roman Church as fictitious and partial We see then it is at least supposed that interest and prejudice may have a great hand in abusing the world in matter of story though one-age never agree to deceive another And in stead of being perswaded by Mr. S's demonstrations I am still of the mind that we have no sufsicient security of the truth of any story which was not written while those persons were in being who were able to contradict the errors of it However I deny not but some notorious matters of fact such as Alexanders bare conquest of Asia might by the visible effects of it be preserved both in Asia and Greece for a long time But if we come to enquire particularly whether this or that was done by him in his conquest which is alone pertinent to our purpose we have no security at all from tradition but only from the most authentick records of that story And by this I hope Mr. S. will have cause to thank me for unblundering his thoughts his own civil expression and shewing him how errors may come into a story without one age conspiring to deceive the next and what a vast difference there is between preserving a bare matter of fact and all the particulars relating to it And hereby he may easily see how far the obligation extends in believing the report of former ages For there can be no obligation to believe any further then there is evidence of truth in the matter we are obliged to If then there be not only a possibility but a very great probability of mistakes and errors in matters of fact I pray what obligation doth there lye upon men absolutely to believe what is delivered by the preceding age But to put an issue to this controversie let Mr. S. examine himself and try if he can name one story that was never written which was ever certainly popagated from one age to another by meer oral tradition and if he cannot he may thereby see how little real force his argument hath in the world For all the force of tradition lies in an unquestionable conveyance of those books which contain in them the true reports of the actions of the times they were written in But can Mr. S. think that if the Roman history had never been written it had been possible for us to have known what was done under the Kings and Consuls as now we do yet if his principle holds this necessarily follows for those of that age could not but know them and no age since could conspire to deceive the next And from hence the most useful consequence of all is that Mr. S. might have writ a history from the beginning of the world to this day with a full relation of all particulars if there had never been any book written in the world before And doth not Mr. S. deserve immortal credit for so rare an invention as this is and all built on nothing short
like a Demonstrator First he supposes there never was any way used in the world but oral tradition and then strongly infers if I deny that I can know nothing But I can yet hardly perswade my self that the Fathers only sate in Chimney corners teaching their Children by word of mouth and charging them to be sure to do so to theirs but as they loved preserving the doctrine of faith they should have a great care never to write down a word of it But why I wonder should Mr. S. think that if I do not allow of â—ral tradition I must needs question whether there were any Fathers I had thought I might have known there had â—een Fathers by their Children I mean â—he Books they left behind them But if â—ll Mr. S. pleads for be only this that â—o books can be certainly conveyed â—ithout tradition he disputes withâ—ut an adversary but as I never opâ—ose this so I am sure it doth him lite service It is then from the books â—f the Fathers that I find what the sense â—f the Church of their age was and â—om thence I have shewed how vastly â—ifferent the opinions and practises of â—e Roman Church are from those of â—e Primitive Although then I may â—ot think my self obliged to believe â—ll that the present Church delivers for â—atter of faith yet I hope I may find â—hat the opinions and practise of the â—ormer Church were by the records â—hat are left of it And the reason â—hy I cannot think any one obliged â—o believe what every age of the â—hurch delivers is because I think no man obliged to believe contradictions and I see the opinions and practises of several ages apparently contrary to each other Well but I call this way a superficial subtilty and so I think it still so little have Mr. S's demonstrations wrought upon me But saith he is that which is wholly built on the nature of things superficial No but that which pretends to be so built may And of that nature I have shewed thiâ— way to be and not the former Buâ— that I may not think him Superficiaâ— as well as his way he puts a profound Question to me What do I think Controversie is and that he may the better let me know what it is he answers himself I deal plainly with you saith he you may take it to be an aâ— of talking and I think you do so though you will not profess it but I take it to be a noble science But to let him see that I will deal as plainly with him as he doth with me I will profess it that I not only think Controversie as usually managed but some mens way of demonstrating Mr. S. may easily know whom I mean to be a meer art of â—alking and nothing else But he takes â—t to be a noble science yes doubtless â—f Mr. S. manage it and he be the â—udge of it himself His meaning I â—uppose is by his following words â—hat be goes upon certain principles and â—e do not We have already seen how â—ertain his principles have been and I â—hould be somewhat ashamed of my â—eligion if I had no better But what â—ur rule of faith is hath been so amply â—iscoursed already by you and that in â—r S's clearing method that nothing â— left for me to do but to touch at â—hat remains and concludes this anâ—er I had the better to illustrate â—he weakness of that argument from â—ral tradition brought an instance in â—hat case parallel viz. that if one ages â—elivering to another would prove that â—e faith of Christ was in every age â—nalterable because no age did testifie â—ny such alteration to be in it by â—he same argument the world might be â—roved eternal because no age did â—ver testifie to another that the world â—as ever otherwise then it is So that â—f oral tradition were only to be relied on there could be no evidence given of the worlds being ever otherwise then it is and consequently the world must be believed to have been alwayes what we see it is This aâ— far as I can apprehend is a clear and distinct ratiocination and purposely designed to prove that we must admit oâ— other rules to judge of alterations iâ— the Church by besides oral tradition But Mr. S. in his own expression strangely roving from the mark I aimeâ— at professes there is not a tittle in iâ— parallel to his medium nay that he never saw in his life more absurdities coucheâ— in fewer words But I must take alâ— patiently from a man who still percheâ— on the specifical nature of things and never flags below the sphere of science Yet by his good leave he either apprehends not or wilfully mistakes my meaning for my argument doth noâ— proceed upon the belief of the worldâ— eternity which in his answer he runâ— wholly upon as far as eighthly and lastly but upon the evidence of oral tradition as to no discernable alteration in anâ— age of it For the Question between usâ— is whether in matters of alteration iâ— the faâ— or practice of the Church we are bound to rely only on the testimony of oral tradition so that if no age can be instanced in wherein any alteration was made and this delivered by that age then we are bound to believe there hath been no alteraration since Christ and the Apostles times now I say if this â—old good I will prove the world eternal by the same argument taking this for our principle that we are bound to rely only on oral tradition in the case originally derived from the matter of fact seen by those of the first age for that which never was otherwise then it is is eternal but we cannot know by oral tradition that the world ever was otherwise then it is for no age of the world can be instanced in wherein we have any testimony of any alteration that was in it Either then we must believe that the world ever was what it is i. e. Eternal or else we must say that we are not to rely barely on oral tradition in this case but we must judge whether the world were made or no by other mediums of Scripture and reason And this was all which I aimed at viz. to shew that where there is no evidence from oral tradition yet if there be Scripture and reason there is sufficient ground for our faith to stand upon And so I apply it to the present case though we could not prove barely from the tradition of any one age that there had been any alteration in the faith or practice of the Church yet if I can prove that there hath been such from Scripture and reason this is sufficient for me to believe it And now I dare appeal to the indifferent Reader â—ether thiâ— be so full of absurdities or it bâ— such a rambling Chimerical argumenâ— as he calls it no two pieces â— which hang together with themselves 〈◊〉 any thing else Which