either wholly or for the far greatest part of them take upan humour against propagating Mankind And yet both History and the experience of the present Age assures us that a great part of Asia and of Africk where the most flourishing Churches in the World once were are fallen off from Christianity and become either Mahometans or Heathens In Africk almost all those vast Regions which Christianity had gained from Heathenism Mahometanism hath regained from Christianity All the North-part of Afrique lying along the Mediterranean where Christianity flourish't once as much as ever it did at Rome is at this time utterly void of Christians excepting a few Towns in the hands of the European Princes And not to mention all particular places the large Region of Nubia which had as is thought from the Apostles time professed the Christian Faith hath within these 150 years for want of Ministers as Alvarez tells us quitted Christianity and is partly revolted to Heathenism partly fallen off to Mahometanism So that it seems that notwithstanding the Arguments of hope and fear the very Teachers of Tradition may fail in a largely extended Church As for Asia in the Easterly parts of it there is not now one Christian to four of what there were 500 years ago and in the more Southerly parts of it where Christianity had taken deepest root the Christians are far inferiour in number to the Idolaters and Mahometans and do daily decrease What thinks Mr. S. of all this Have those Christian Nations which are turn'd Mahometans and Pagans failed in their Faith or not If they have I expect from him clear Instances of more that have failed in propagating their kind § 7. But besides those who have totally Apostatized from Christianity hath not the whole Greek Church with the Jacobites and Nestorians and all those other Sects which agree with and depend upon these and which taken together are manifoldly greater than the Roman Church I say have not all these renounced Tradition for several Ages And here in Europe hath not a great part of Poland Hungary both Germany's France and Switzerland Have not the Kingdoms of great Brittain Denmark Sweden and a considerable part of Ireland in Mr. S's opinion deserted Tradition If I should once see a whole Nation fail because no body would marry and contribute to the propagation of Mankind and should find this sullen humour to prevail in several Nations and to overspread vast Parts of the World I should then in good earnest think it possible for Mankind to fail unless I could shew it impossible for other Nations to do that which I see some to have done who were every whit as unlikely to have done it So that whatever cause he assigns of Heresie as Pride Ambition Lust or any other vice or interest if these can take place in whole Nations and make them renounce Tradition then where 's the efficacy of the causes to preserve Faith indeficiently entire in any For the Demonstration holds as strongly for all Christians as for any § 8. Secondly From these grounds it would follow that no Christian can live wickedly because the end of Faith being a good life the arguments of hope and fear must in all Reason be as powerful and efficacious causes of a good life as of a true belief And that his Demonstration proves the one as much as the other will be evident from his own reasoning for he argues in this manner Good is the proper object of the will good propos'd makes the will to desire that good and consequently the known means to obtain it Now infinite goods and harms sufficiently proposed are of their own nature incomparably more powerful causes to carry the will than temporal ones Since then when two causes are counterpoised the lesser when it comes to execution is no cause as to the substance of that effect it follows that there is no cause to move the wills of a World of Believers to be willing to do that which they judge would lose themselves and their Posterity infinite goods and bring them infinite harms c. in case a sufficient Proposal or Application be not wanting which he tells us is not wanting because Christianity urged to execution gives its followers a new life and a new nature than which a nearer Application cannot be imagined Doth not this Argument extend to the lives of Christians as well as their Belief So that he may as well infer from these grounds that it is impossible that those who profess Christianity should live contrary to it as that they should fail to deliver down the Doctrine of Christ because whatever can be an inducement and temptation to any man to contradict this Doctrine by his practice may equally prevail upon him to falsifie it For why should men make any more scruple of damning themselves and their Posterity by teaching them false Doctrines than by living wicked Lives which are equally pernicious with Heretical Doctrines not only upon account of the bad influence which such examples of Fathers and Teachers are like to have upon their Scholars but likewise as they are one of the strongest arguments in the World to perswade them that their Teachers do not themselves believe that Religion which they teach for if they did they would live according to it Why should any man think that those arguments of hope and fear which will not prevail upon the generality of Christians to make them live holy Lives should be so necessarily efficacious to make them so much concerned for the preserving of a right Belief Nay we have great reason to believe that such persons will endeavour as much as may be to bend and accommodate their Belief to their Lives And this is the true source of those Innovations in Faith for which we challenge the Church of Rome which any man may easily discern who will but consider how all their new Doctrines are fitted to a secular Interest and the gratifying of that inordinate appetite after riches and dominion which reigns in the Court of Rome and in the upper part of the Clergy of that Church SECT IV. § 1. SEcondly The main grounds of his Demonstration are apparently false For First This Demonstration supposeth that the generality of Christian Parents in all Ages perfectly understood the Doctrine of Christ and did not mistake any part of it that they remembred it perfectly and that they were faithful and diligent to instruct their Children in it which is as contrary to experience as that the generality of Christians are knowing and honest It supposeth likewise that this Doctrine and every substantial part of it was received and remembred by the generality of Children as it was taught and was understood perfectly by them without the least material mistake So he tells us That the substance of Faith comes clad in such plain matters of Fact that the most stupid man living cannot possibly be ignorant of it But whether this be
innovated have made the same pretence to uninterrupted Tradition Fourthly That it is not the present perswasion of the Church of Rome whom he calls the Traditionary Christians nor ever was that their Faith hath descended to them solely by Oral Tradition If I can now make good these four things I hope his Demonstration is at an end SECT VII § 1. THat these Principles wholly rely upon the truth of the Grounds of his Demonstration a Priori For if the Doctrine of Christ was either imperfectly taught in any Age or mistaken by the Learners or any part of it forgotten as it seems the whole Greek Church have forgot that fundamental Point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost as the Roman Church accounts it or if the Arguments of hope and fear be not necessary causes of actual will to adhere to Tradition then there may have been changes and innovations in any Age and yet men may pretend to have followed Tradition But I have shewn that Ignorance and Negligence and Mistake and Pride and Lust and Ambition and any other Vice or Interest may hinder those causes from being effectual to preserve Tradition entire and uncorrupted And when they do so it is not to be expected that those Persons who innovate and change the Doctrine should acknowledg that their new Doctrines are contrary to the Doctrine of Christ but that they should at first advance them as Pious and after they have prevailed and gained general entertainment then impudently affirm that they were the very Doctrines which Christ delivered which they may very securely do when they have it in their power to burn all that shall deny it § 2. I will give a clear Instance of the possibility of this in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation by shewing how this might easily come in in the Ninth or Tenth Age after Christ. We will suppose then that about this time when universal Ignorance and the genuine Daughter of it call her Devotion or Superstition had overspread the World and the generality of People were strongly enclined to believe strange things and even the greatest Contradictions were recommended to them under the notion of Mysteries being told by their Priests and Guides that the more contradictions any thing is to Reason the greater merit there is in believing it I say let us suppose that in this state of things one or more of the most eminent then in the Church either out of design or out of superstitious ignorance and mistake of the sense of our Saviour's words used in the Consecration of the Sacrament should advance this new Doctrine That the words of Consecration This is my Body are not to be understood by any kind of Trope as the like forms in Scripture are as I am the Vine I am the Door which are plain Tropes but being used about this great Mystery of the Sacrament ought in all reason to be supposed to contain in them some notable Mystery which they will do if they be understood of a real change of the substance of Bread and Wine made by vertue of these words into the real Body and Blood of our Saviour And in all this I suppose nothing but what is so far from being impossible that it is too usual for men either out of Ignorance or Interest to advance new Opinions in Religion And such a Doctrine as this was very likely to be advanced by the ambitious Clergy of that time as a probable means to draw in the People to a greater veneration of them which advantage Mr. Rushworth seems to be very sensible of when he tells us That the power of the Priest in this particular is such a priviledg as if all the learned Clerks that ever lived since the beginning of the World should have studied to raise advance and magnifie some one state of men to the highest pitch of Reverence and Eminency they could never without special light from Heaven have thought of any thing comparable to this I am of his mind that it was a very notable device but I am apt to think invented without any special light from Heaven Nor was such a Doctrine less likely to take and prevail among the People in an Age prodigiously ignorant and strongly enclined to Superstition and thereby well prepared to receive the grossest Absurdities under the notion of Mysteries especially if they were such as might seem to conciliate a greater honour and reverence to the Sacrament Now supposing such a Doctrine as this so fitted to the humor and temper of the Age to be once asserted either by chance or out of design it would take like wild-fire especially if by some one or more who bore sway in the Church it were but recommended with convenient gravity and solemnity And although Mr. Rushworth says It is impossible that the Authority of one man should sway so much in the World because sayes he surely the Devil himself would rather help the Church than permit so little pride among men yet I am not so thoroughly satisfied with this cunning reason For though he delivers it confidently and with a surely yet I make some doubt whether the Devil would be so forward to help the Church nay on the contrary I am enclined to think that he would rather choose to connive at this humble and obsequious temper in men in order to the overthrow of Religion than cross a design so dear to him by unseasonable temptations to pride So that notwithstanding Mr. Rushworth's reason it seems very likely that such a Doctrine in such an Age might easily be propagated by the influence and authority of one or a few great Persons in the Church For nothing can be more suitable to the easie and passive temper of superstitious Ignorance than to entertain such a Doctrine with all imaginable greediness and to maintain it with a proportionable zeal And if there be any wiser than the rest who make Objections against it as if this Doctrine were new and full of contradictions they may easily be born down by the stream and by the eminency and authority and pretended sanctity of those who are the heads of this Innovation And when this Doctrine is generally swallowed and all that oppose it are looked upon and punished as Hereticks then it is seasonable to maintain that this Doctrine was the doctrine of forefathers to which end it will be sufficient to those who are willing to have it true to bend two or three sayings of the Ancients to that purpose And as for the contradictions contained in this Doctrine it was but telling the People then as they do in effect now that contradictions ought to be no scruple in the way of Faith that the more impossible any thing is 't is the fitter to be believed that it is not praise-worthy to believe plain possibilities but that this is the gallantry and heroical power of Faith this is the way to oblige God Almighty for ever to us to believe flat and down-right
small Sum have hired the Governors of the Church to have renounced Tradition or to have ceased to propagate it though they had known that in so doing they should have damned all their Posterity He goes on and tells us That if there were perhaps any one who did not take these courses the rest would all snarle at him call him Fool and say he was unfit to be a Priest So that the study of the Scriptures together with the Professors of it was turned into laughter and scorn by all but which is prodigious especially by the Popes who prefer their own Traditions many degrees before the Commands of God I desire Mr. S. to take notice in what kind of Times Tradition was set up against Scripture Again speaking of the choice of persons to be Priests he tells us That there was no enquiry made into their Lives no question about their Manners As for their Learning says he what need I speak of that When we see the Priests almost universally have much ado to read though but in an haesitating and spelling fashion drawing out one syllable after another without understanding either the sense of what they read or the words I am now reconciled to oral Tradition and convinced that there was great need of it in those Ages in which scarce any of the Priests could either write or read I omit the particulars of what he says concerning the common Drunkenness and Incontinency of Priests who because they made Conscience of Marriage kept Whores in their Houses concerning the dissolute Lives of Monks and concerning Nunneries which instead of being the Sanctuaries of God were he abominable Stews of Venus and the Receptacles of lascivious young men insomuch says he that at this day it is the same thing to put a Virgin into a Nunnery and to make her a common Strumpet And to shew that he does not speak these things of a few but with relation to the general corruption of that Age he adds That wickedness did so abound in all Orders of men that scarce one among a thousand was to be found who did truly live up to his Profession And if there was any one that did not follow these lewd courses he became ridiculous to others and was branded either as an insolent singular Mad-man or an Hypocrite I wil conclude this long Testimony with the character which he gives of one of the Popes of his time Clement by name viz. That he did chiefly apply himself to gratifie and oblige all the Parasites and Buffoons that had any interest in the several Courts of Princes And to this end did confer upon these and upon handsom young Boys which he much delighted in almost all the vacant Bishopricks and most of the other Church-Dâ—â—â—nities It is well that oral Tradition hath the security of Infallibility otherwise it had in all probability been lost among this lewd sort of People which yet they gravely call the Holy Roman-Catholick Church § 6. To this effect I might have produced Testimonies concerning every Age from the Ninth to the Sixteenth but Mr. Cressy hath saved me that labour who acknowledges that these worst times of the Church when Ignorance Wordliness Pride Tyranny c. reigned with so much scope When the Popes so wicked so abominable in their Lives enjoyed so unlimited a power even over secular Princes themselves and much more over the Clergy I say he acknowledges that these worst times continued during the space of about six Ages before Luther A competent time one would think for Tradition to have miscarried in were it not as Mr. S. says indefectible Mr. Cressy indeed tells us That this was to him an irrefragable Testimony of a strange watchfulness of Divine Providence over the Church to preserve it from the Gates of Hell that is established and dangerous Errors during these worst times And very likely it is that this might appear so to such a Catholick whose judgment he tells us it is to renounce his own judgment but it will never appear irrefragable to any man that hath his judgment about him unless Mr. Cressy can prove that by that phrase viz. the Gates of Hell the Scripture does not mean gross wickedness of Life as well as dangerous errors in Opinion and likewise that a general viciousness and debauchery of Manners is not as pernicious to Christianity and as destructive to the end of it as establish'd Errors in Doctrine And if so that the Providence of God is not equally concerned to preserve the Church from things equally pernicious When he hath proved these three things then this Declamatory discourse of his may signify something but not before § 7. Now if this be a true representation of the state of the Roman Church in those Ages was not this a very fit time for the Devil to play his Pranks in Will any man that reads these Testimonies think it impossible that the Doctrine of Christ should have been depraved in this Age or that the most sensless and absurd Tenets might then be brought in under the notion of Christian Doctrines When scarce any one knew what the Doctrine of Christ was When a general ignorance of Letters and almost an universal stupidity and madness had seized upon the minds of men When there was a horrid depravation of manners and a general failure of Vertue and Piety both in the Head and Members of the Church When the lives of the Popes were Tragically wicked and no footsteps of Piety appeared in them When for about 150 years together in a continued succession of 50 Popes there was scarce one pious and vertuous Man or Woman sate in that Chair When the Whores governed Rome and put out and put in Bishops at their pleasure and made their own Gallants Popes who would be sure to make a Colledge of Cardinals of such Monsters as themselves When pretty Boys and Parasites and Buffoons led the Head of the Church by the Nose and were gratified with the best Bishopricks and Dignities in the Church When there was a general decay of knowledg and defection of the Christian Faith When in many Countreys neither Sacraments nor other Ecclesiastical Rites were observed When Violence and Fraud and all the Arts of Deceit and Couzenage and blacker Arts than these were the common study and practice When Intemperance and all kind of Lewdness and Debauchery reigned in all sorts and orders of men When the generality of Bishops and Priests who according to Mr. Rushworth can only teach the Traditionary Doctrine were ignorant in the Scriptures and in every thing else very few of them being able so much as to read tolerably and did neglect to teach the People and to breed up any in knowledg to succeed them in their Office and in the lewdness of their lives did surpass the vilest of the People Was not such an Age a fit season to plant the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in Or if any thing more monstrous than
of the true and pure Doctrine c. viz. My self and many others again my self and as many Christians as are thoroughly of the right perswasion Secondly Who deny the Millennium Many Christians saith Justin but what Christians Of a right perswasion That saith he I have signified before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For I have shewed thee of them who are called Christians but are indeed Atheists and impious Hereticks that they teach blasphemous and atheistical and absurd things And true it is he did shew before that those who deny'd the Millennium were many in number and were called Christians c. but were Teachers of blasphemous and atheistical things c. and known to be Atheists and Impious c. But he shewed it of none other besides these So that if this Doctrine were likewise denied by many Christians of the pure and pious perswasion than Justin Martyr had foulely forgot himself But if not then it is plain that the Transcribers have wronged Justin by leaving out a Negative which ought to have been inserted It is worth observing by the way how Mr. White pleases himself with false and frivolous Criticisms upon the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 False they are as Mr. White shall know if he desires to hear any more of them and frivolous they are rendered by my preceding Discourse for which reason I say no more of them But I think he may do well hereafter as Mr. S. warily suggests not to engage himself nor be hook't by others out of his own infallible way but leave it wholly to the Bird-witted Hereticks as Mr. S. calls them to perch upon the specifical natures of Words as he does of Things § 9. Besides these Instances I have given of Doctrines and Practises which Mr. S. cannot deny to have been innovated I might instance likewise in the chief Points of Popery and shew that for all their pretence to Tradition they are really Innovations But because this would engage me in tedious Disputes about particular Points I will only single out one of their most fundamental Doctrines viz. that of Transubstantiation concerning which I shall shew that notwithstanding it is the universal perswasion of the present Roman Church yet they have not nor can have any assurance that it was the Doctrine of Christ and that it is descended to them by an uninterrupted Tradition I shall not at all contend against the word Transubstantiation which is generally acknowledged to be new but only the thing signified by it a substantial change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. And this I might shew at large not to have been the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers But because Mr. White and Dr. Holden and Mr. Cressy do so frequently and confidently tell us that nothing is to be reputed a Traditionary Doctrine the contrary whereof hath been publickly held by any Catholick who continued afterwards uncensured and in the Communion of the Church Therefore I shall content my self at present with one clear Testimony and that of a very eminent Person in the Church St. Theodoret concerning whom Pope Leo in an Epistle to him at the end of Theodoret's Works gives this Testimony That in the judgment of the Apostolick See he was free from all stain of Heresie The passage I intend is in his Dialogues between a Catholick under the name of Orthodoxus and Eranistes who susteined the person of an Heretick Eranistes maintaining that the Body of Christ was changed into the substance of the Divinity he illustrates it by this similitude As says he the Symbols of the Lords Body and Blood are one thing before the invocation of the Priest but after the invocation are changed and do become another thing So the Body of our Lord after his Ascension is changed into the Divine substance To which Orthodoxus returns this answer Thou art caught in thine own Net Because the mystical Symbols after Consecration do not pass out of their own Nature for they remain in their former substance figure and appearance and may be seen and handled even as before He does not only in express words deny the substance of the Symbols to be changed but the occasion upon which these words are brought in and the scope of them if they be of any force against the Hereticks illustration renders them uncapable of any other sense When Mr. S. hath answered this Testimony I have more for him That which I mainly urge against this Doctrine is the monstrous Absurdities and Contradictions contained in it together with the necessary consequence of them Several of the Absurdities of it are well brought together by Scotus who tells us That to prove the possibility of Christs Body being contained under the species of Bread and Wine many things must be proved which seem to involve a Contradiction as 1. That one quantum or extended Body may be together in the very same place with another 2. That a less quantum may be together in the same place with a greater i. e. a Body of less extension may occupy not only the same but as much room as a Body of greater extension does which is to say no more but this that a Body less than another may be as great as that other even whil'st it is less than it 3. That a greater quantum may be together with every part of a less quantum i. e. a Body that is greater than another may be as little as the least part of that other Body which is less than it 4. That a subject may be without quantity i. e. there may be a Body which hath no kind of Magnitude 5. That a Body may be somewhere where it was not before without changing its place i· e. a Body may be removed to another place whil'st it remains still in the same place 6. That a quantum may be without any quantitative Mode i. e. a Body may be extended without any manner of extension The possibility of all which he saith and I am very much of his mind it would be too tedious a work to prove and therefore he only attempts to prove the two last which in all reason is work enough for one man All these seeming Contradictions as he modestly calls them are by his own acknowledgment involved in this Doctrine To these I might add many more as How a thing can be said to be changed into another thing which did exist before How a Body can be present in a place after the manner of a spirit and yet this they affirm concerning the presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament one might as well say that Snow is black but not after the manner of blackness but in the way of whiteness which is to talk non-sense after the manner of sense How the whole Body of Christ can be contained under the least sensible part of the species of Bread as is generally affirmed nay and Scotus
made capable of this their obligation But we are not now enquiring what the obligation to believe the main points of faith is nor whether tradition be a self-evident rule but how there should be a new obligation to believe something self-evidently connected with the former points is beyond my capacity to understand And they must be vulgar understandings indeed that can rationally and connaturally be made capable of such an obligation For if it be self-evidently connected with the main points no one can believe the one without believing the other for nothing is self-evident but what a man assents to at the first apprehension of it and if he doth so how comes there a new obligation to believe it Is it possible to believe that any thing consists of parts and not believe that that whole is greater than any of those parts for this is a thing self-evidently connected with the nature of the whole But these are self-evident riddles as the former were unintelligible demonstrations And yet though these be rare Theories the application of them to the case of the Roman Church exceeds all the rest Whence saith he the Government of our Church is still justified to be sweet and according to right nature and yet forcible and efficacious Although I admire many things in Mr. S's Book yet I cannot say I do any thing more than this passage that because men are obliged to believe no implied points but such as are self-evidently connected with the main ones therefore the Government of the Roman Church is sweet and according to right nature c. Alas then how much have we been mistaken all this while that have charged her with imposing hard and unsufferable conditions of communion with her No she is so gentle and sweet that she requires nothing but the main points on the account of a self-evident rule and implied points by reason of self-evident connexion with the former I see Mr. S. if he will make good his word is the only person who is ever like to reconcile me with the Church of Rome For I assure you I never desire any better terms of communion with a Church than to have no main points of faith required from me to assent to but what are built on a self-evident rule nor any implied points but such as are self-evidently connected with the former And no work can be more easie than to convince me upon these grounds for all endeavors of proof are taken away by the things being said to be self-evident For the very offer of proof that they are so self-evidently proves they are not so For what ever is proved by somthing beside it self can never be said without a contradiction to be self-evident But not to tye up Mr. S. from his excellent faculty of proving if Mr. S. will prove to me that any of the points in difference between us as Transubstantiation Purgatory Supremacy of the Roman Church c. have any self-evident connexion with any main point of faith in the Apostles Creed I solemnly promise him to retract all I have writ against that Church so far shall I be from needing a new obligation to believe them But if these be so remote from self-evidence that they are plainly repugnant to sense and reason witness that self-evident doctrine of Transubstantiation what then must we think of Mr. S. Surely the least is that since his being a Roman Catholick his mind is strangely inlightned so far that those things are self-evident to him which are contradictions to the rest of the world But withal M. S. acquaints us with another mysterie which is how these points descended by a kind of tradition and yet confesses they were never thought of or reflected on by the generality till the Church took occasion to explain them Such a silent tradition doth very sutably follow the former self-evident connexion For he that can believe Transubstantiation ro be self-evident no wonder if he believes that to have been delivered by a constant Tradition which was never heard of from the Apostles times to these Now Mr. S. is pleased to return to me and draws up a fresh charge against me which is that I act like a Politician and would conquer them by first dividing them and making odious comparisons between two parties of Divines But to shew us how little they differ he distinguishes them as faithful and as private discoursers in the former notion he saith they all hold the same divinely constituted Church-Government and the same self-evident rule of faith but as private discoursers he acknowledges they differ in the explication of their belief I meddle not here with the Government of their Church which I have elsewhere proved to be far enough from being divinely constituted but with the rule of faith and the question is whether the infallibility of oral tradition be that self-evident rule which that Church proceeds on Yes saith Mt. S. they are all as faithful agreed in it but as discourses they differ about it Which in short is that all in the Church of Rome who are not of his opinion know not what they say and that they oppose that which they do really believe Which in plain English is that they are egregious dissemblers and prevaricators in Religion that they do intolerably flatter the Pope and present Church with loud declamations for their infallibility but they do really believe no such thing but resolve all into oral tradition But is not this an excellent agreement among them when Mr. White and his party not only disown the common doctrine of the infallibility of Pope and Councils but dispute against it as pernicious and destructive to Christian faith on the other side the far greater part of Romanists say there can be no certainty of faith unless there be an infallible divine testimony in the present Church and this lodged in Pope and Councils that those who endeavour to overthrow this are dangerous seditious heretical persons Accordingly their Books are censured at Rome their opinions disputed against and their persons condemned And yet all this while we must believe that these stick together like two smooth Marbles as faithful though they are knocked one against another as discoursers and that they perfectly agree in the same self-evident rule of faith when all their quarrels and contentions are about it and those managed with so great heat that heresie is charged of one side and Arch-heresie and undermining Religion on the other Doth he think we never heard of Mr. White 's Sonus Succinae nor of that Chapter in it where he saith that the doctrine of Pope and Councils infallibility tends to overthrow the certainty of Christian faith and that the propagating such a doctrine is a greater crime than burning Temples ravishing the sacred Virgins on the Altars trampling on the body of Christ or the sending the Turk or Antichrist into Christian Countreys Or doth he think we can believe that the Pope and Cardinals the Jesuites
and all the Papists of forreign Countreys do as faithful agree with Mr. White in this It seems not so by the proceedings in the Court of Rome against him in which as appears by the censure of the Inquisition against him dated 17. November 1661. his doctrine is condemned not only as false seditious and scandalous but as heretical and erroneous in faith And if it were not for this very doctrine he was there censured why doth Mr. White set himself purposely to defend it in his Tabulae suffragiales If these then do agree as faithful who cannot but envy the excellent harmony of the Roman Church in which men condemn each other for hereticks and yet all believe the same things still Well Sir I am in hopes upon the same grounds Mr. S. will yield us the same charity too and tell us that we agree with him as faithful only we differ a little from him as discoursers for I assure you there is as great reason the only difference is we give them not such ill words as they do each other For let Mr. S. shew us wherein we differ more from him about the Rule of Faith than they do among themselves For Mr. White when he hath said that all kind of heresie doth arise from hence that men make the holy Scripture or a private spirit the rule of faith he presently adds it is all one if one make Councils or Pope any other way than as witnesses to be the authors of faith For saith he this is to subject the whole Church to that slavery to receive any errour for an article of faith which they shall define or propose modo illegitimo i. e. any other way then as witnesses of tradition Either then we differ from Mr. S. only as discoursers or he and his Brethren differ from each other more then as such And so any one would think who reads the oppositions and arguments against each other on this subject particularly Mr. Whites Tabulae suffragiales But let Mr. White say what he will Mr. S. tells me I am not aware how little they differ even as Divines The more shame for them to have such furious heats and oppositions where there is so little difference But as little as they differ Mr. White thinks it safer to talk of their unity in England than to try whether they be of his mind at Rome by going thither to clear himself for he justly fears he should find them differ from him some other way than as bare discoursers Yet let us hear Mr. S's reason for saith he though some speculators attribute to the Church a power of defining things not held before yet few will say she hath new revelations or new articles of faith But we know the temper of these men better than to rely on what they barely say For they say what they think is most for their purpose and one of Mr. White 's adversaries if himself may be credited plainly told him if the doctrine of the Popes infallibility were not true yet it ought to be defended because it was for the interest of the Church of Rome for which he is sufficiently rebuked by him It is one thing then what they say and another what necessarily follows from the Doctrine which they assert But for plain dealing commend me to the Canonists who say expresly the Church by which they mean the Pope may make new articles of faith and this is the sense of the rest though they are loth to speak out Else Mr. White was much too blame in spending so much time in proving the contrary But what man of common sense can imagine that these men can mean otherwise who assert such an infallibility in Pope and Councils as to oblige men under pain of eternal damnation to believe those things which they were not obliged to before such a definition And what can this be else but to make new articles of faith For an article of faith supposes a necessary obligation to believe it now if some doctrine may become thus obligatory by virtue of the Churches definition which was not so before that becomes thereby an article of faith which it was not before But these subtil men have not yet learnt to distinguish a new doctrine from a new article of faith they do not indeed pretend that their doctrine is new because they deny any such thing as new revelation in the Church but yet they must needs say if they understand themselves that old implicit doctrines may become new articles of faith by vertue of the Churches definition So little are they relieved by that silly distinction of explicit and implicit delivery of them which Mr. S. for a great novelty accquaints us with For what is only implicitly delivered is no article of faith at all for that can be no article of faith which men are not bound to believe now there are none will say that men are bound to believe under pain of damnation if they do not the things which are only implicitly delivered but this they say with great confidence of all things defined by the Church And let now any intelligent person judg whether those who assert such things do not differ wide enough from those who resolve all into oral tradition and make the obligation to faith wholly dependent upon the constant tradition of any doctrine from age to age ever since the Apostles times But Mr. S. is yet further displeased with me for saying that Pope and Councils challenge a power to make things de fide in one age which were not in another For 1. he sayes I speak it in common and prove it not 2. He adds That take them right this is both perfectly innocent and unavoidably necessary to a Church And is it not strange he should expect any particular proofs of so innocent and necessary a thing to the being of a Church But he will tell me it is in his own sense of de fide which I have already shewn to signifie nothing to his purpose Let him therefore speak out whether he doth believe any such thing as inherent infallibility in the definitions of Pope and Councils if not I am sure at Rome they will never believe that Mr. S. agrees with them as faithful if he doth whether doth not such an infallible definition bind men by vertue of it to the belief of what is then defined if it doth then things may become as much de fide by it as if they were delivered dy Christ or his Apostles For thereby is supposed an equal obligation to faith because there is a proposition equally infallible But will he say the Pope doth not challenge this Why then is the contrary doctrine censured and condemned at Rome Why is the other so eagerly contended for by the most zealous sons of that Church and that not as a school-opinion but as the only certain foundation of faith Mr. S. is yet pleased to inform me further that nothing will avail me
but this if a Pope and Council should define a new thing and declare they ground themselves on new lights as did their first reformers in England but I shall find he saith no such fopperies in faith-definitions made by the Catholick Church Is this the man who made choice of reason for his weapon could there be a greater calumny cast on our Church than to say her reformers grounded themselves on new lights when our great charge against the Church of Rome is for introducing Novelties and receding from pure and primitive antiquity Whether the charge be true or no yet sure it follows they did not declare they ground themselves on new lights but expresly the contrary Well but Pope and Councils neither define new things nor ground themselves on them but what means the man of reason that they make no new definitions surely not for then what did they meet for and what mean their decrees but he intends that they deliver no new doctrine but how must that be tried or hath Mr. S. gained the opinion of infallibility both from Pope and Councils that we must believe his bare word but we not only say but prove that even their last Council hath defined many things which never were delivered by Christ or his Apostles And it is to no purpose whether they say they ground themselves on new lights or pretend to an infallible assistance for it comes all to the same at last For if the assistance be infallible what matter is it whether the doctrine hath been revealed or no for on this supposition it is impossible that Pope and Council should miscarry Therefore if any Church be guilty of fopperies in faith-definitions it must be that which you miscall the Catholick but is more truly known by the name of the Roman Church There is yet one piece of Mr. S's sagacity to be taken notice of as to this particular which is that I am at an end of my argument because I say the opinion of the Pope and Councils infallibility is the common doctrin maintained in which I confound the Church with the schools or some private opinaters and then carp at those mens tenets And this is the force of all that Paragraph He tells me I want not wit to know that no sober Catholick holds humane deductions the rule of their faith schoolmen definers of it nor the schools the Tribunal whence to propose it authoritatively and obligingly to the generality of the faithful Neither doth Mr. S. want the wit to know that our present enquiry is concerning the sense of their present Church about the rule of faith Since then Mr. S. must confess it necessary to faith to know what the certain rule of it is let me enquire further whether any particular person can know certainly what it is unless he knows what the Church owns for her rule of faith and whether that may be owned as the Churches judgement which is stifly opposed by the most interessed persons in the Roman Church and the most zealous contenders for it Especially when the Pope who is said to be Head of the Church condemns the doctrine asserted and that only by a small number of such who are as much opposed by themselves as by any of us Is it then possible to know the Churches judgement or not if not 't is to no purpose to search for a rule of faith if it be which way can we come to know it either by most voices or the sense of the Governours of the Church either of the ways I dare put it to a fair tryal whether oral tradition or the infallibility of Pope and Councils be the Doctrine most owned in the Church of Rome But Mr. S. still tells us these are only private opinators and schoolmen who assert the contrary doctrine to his But wiill not they much more say on the other side that this way of oral trodition is a novel fancy of some few half-Catholicks in England and tends to subvert the Roman Church But is the present Pope with Mr. S. a private opinator or was the last a meer schoolman I am sure what ever Mr. S. thinks of him he thought not so of himself when he said he was no Divine in the controversie of Jansenius Doth the Court of Rome signifie no more with Mr. S. than a company of scholastick Pedants that know not what the sense of the Church is concerning the rule of faith I meddle not with the Schools but with the authority of the present Church and him whom Mr. S. owns for the head of it and is it consistent with his headship to condemn that doctrine which contains in it the only certain rule of faith Mr. S. may then see they were no such impertinent Topicks which I insisted on and as stout as Mr. S. seems to be I an apt to believe he would not look on the censure of the Inquisition as an impertinent Topick But at last Mr. S. offers at something whereby he would satisfie me of the sense of the Church as to this particular and therefore asks whether I never heard of such a thing as the Council of Trent I must ingenuously confess I have and seen more a great deal of it than I am satisfied with But what of that there he tells me I may find a clear solution of my doubt by the constant procedure of that most grave Synod in its definitions That is I hope to find that oral tradition was acknowledged there as the only self-evident rule of faith If I do this I confess my self satisfied in this enquiry But how much to the contrary is there very obvious in the proceedings of it For in the 4 th Session the Decree is That Scripture and tradition should be embraced with equal piety and reverence and the reason is because the doctrine of faith is contain'd partly in Scripture partly in tradition but what arts must Mr. S. use to infer from hence that oral tradition in contradistinction to Scripture was looked on as the only rule of faith I cannot but say that the ruling men of that Council were men wise enough in their generation and they were too wise wholly to exclude Scripture but because they knew that of it self could not serve their purposes they therefore help it out with tradition and make both together the compleat rule of faith Where I pray in all the proceedings of that Council doth Mr. S. find them define any thing on the account of oral tradition instead of which we find continual bandyings about the sense of Scripture and Fathers which might have been all spared if they had been so wise as to consider they could not but know the sense of the present Church nor that of the precedent and so up to the time of Christ. But they were either so ignorant as not to light on this happy invention or so wise and knowing as to despise it It is true they would not have their doctrines looked
to that proposition homo est animal rationale he may be capable of a new obligation to believe the former which is involved in this it may be justly questioned whether such an one as to himself can truly say homo est animal rationale or no. But after such rare subtilties he doth very well to tell me that I ought to consider what Logick tells us that the conclusion is in the premises which reflection in his his court-like expression he saith will much unblunder my thoughts But let the conclusion be as long as it will in the premises will any man in his wits say that he that believes the truth of the premises is not hereby bound to believe the conclusion and the more the one is involved in the other the less is it possible to make the obligation to believe them distinct And it is hard for me to believe that this is a way to unblunder my thoughts when I see what horrible confusion such expressions argue in his own Let the Church then clear her thoughts never so much yet all this cannot amount to a distinct obligation to believe those things which were involved before but to a more explicit declaring them for the Churches peace and satisfaction The only conclusion then involved in these premises is that if some things may be de fide in one age which were not in another then the present age may believe otherwise than the precedent did And if this doctrine be held in the Church of Rome nothing can be more evident than that Mr. S's first principle of controversie is far from being the doctrin of the Roman Church which was the thing to be proved My second chief argument against this way of oral tradition was that it had not been owned in all ages of the Christian Church to manifest which I enquired into the reason of the obligation in any age of the Church to believe and practise just as the precedent did Mr. S. rejoices in that confession of mine that the only thing to be proved in this case is that every age of the Church and all persons in it look'd on themselves as obliged not to vary in any thing from the doctrine and practise of the precedent age And I there offer the choice of three ways to prove it reason testimony or tradition he tells me he excepts the way of reason yet quarrels with me for pressing for a demonstrative medium to prove it when yet Mr. S. seldom speaks under the rate of demonstrations But he thereby notes the unconsonancy of my carriage Wherein I wonder That I should desire them to perform this promise viz. to give us demonstrations for the grounds of faith But saith withal he will yeild me the honour of professing I have no demonstration but probability for the ground of mine and he makes this serious protestation for himself that he should esteem himself very dishonest did he assert and press on others any argument for the ground of his faith which he judged not evident that is demonstrative What is it these men mean when they cry up their own way for demonstrative and say that we build our faith meerly on probabilities Do they say that Religion is capable of strict and rigorous demonstration If so let them demonstrate the being of God and immortality of the soul with as much evidence as that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles And it is strange if they think particular problems in religion are more capable of demonstration than those Theorems on which they are built But by all the enquiry I can make all the difference between us is that Mr. S. will have that called a demonstration which is scarce a probability and we call that sufficient reason which any wise man may safely rely on in matters of Religion In the mean time how much do we suffer by our modesty that because we speak not as big as Mr. S. does we must be censured presently to have nothing but probabilities fot our faith Are those bare probabilities which leave no suspition of doubt behind them And such we freely assert the grounds of our 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 than this let him tell us what it is For my part I know nothing higher in the mind of man than a certain assent and if I did not think there was the greatest ground in Religion for that I abhor dissimulation so much that I should leave off perswading men to embrace it And if any men have made us shy 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 up those things for infallible cures which an ordinary capacity may discern the insufficiency of But was it any thing but justice and reason in me to expect 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 as 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 look on themselves as obliged to believe just as their predecessors did For I had thought demonstrations had never place in contingent propositions but it seems Mr. S. who tells me Logick will unblunder my thoughts intends to make a new one for me And I assure you so he had need before I shall ever call his arguments demonstrations and although he thinks himself very honest in calling them so yet I 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 I shall take along with me the nature of the matter in hand the doctrines and practices spoken of the manner of delivering them the necessary circumstances which give weight to both yet for all these I cannot look on his way as demonstrative And that both our meanings may be better understood it is very necessary the Reader should have a true account of the state of the Question between us And if he will believe me I never intended to dispute with him
is to shew that this way is repugnant to common sense and experience and that the Church of Rome hath apparently altered from what was the belief of former ages To which purpose my words are It is to no purpose to prove impossibility of motion when I see men move no more is it to prove that no age of the Church could vary from the preceding when we can evidently prove that they have done it And therefore this argument is intended only to catch easie minds that care not for a search into the history of the several ages of the Church but had rather sit down with a superficial subtilty than spend time in further enquiries But two things M. S. tells me are required ere I can see that their faith varies from the former first to see what their Church holds now and then to see what the former Church held before and he kindly tells me if he sees any thing I see neither well It seems I want Mr. S's spectacles of oral tradition to see with but as yet I have no cause to complain of the want of them but I see much better without them than with them He tells me I cannot see what their present Church holds and therefore I cannot assure any what was held before because if I renounce tradition I take away all means of knowing The reason why I cannot candidly see as he phrases it what their Church holds now is because I cannot distinguish between faith and its explication some Schoolmen and the Church By which it seems it is impossible for me to know what their Church holds concerning Invocation of Saints Worship of Images Communion in one kind for those are the points I there mention wherein it is evident that the Church of Rome hath receded from the doctrine and practise of the primitive Church Or are these only the opinions and practises of some Schoolmen among them and not the doctrine and practise of their Church But that we might come to some fuller state of these controversies I wish M. S. would settle some sure way whereby we might know distinctly what are the doctrines and practices of their Church If the Council of Trent and Roman Catechism be said to be the rule of doctrine I desire no other so that those may be interpreted by practices universally allowed among them As when that Council only defined that due honour be given to Saints the general practice of that Church may tell us what they mean by that due honour and if that be not fair I know not what is But I see all the shift Mr. S. hath is when he is pinched to say these are the opinions of Schoolmen and private speculators and not the doctrine of their Church And if such shifts as these are must serve the turn I should wonder if ever he be to seek for an answer But the shortest answer of all would be that none but those of their Church can know what she holds and therefore it is to no purpose for Protestants to write against her or it may be that none but Mr S. and one or two more can tell for many among them say those are the doctrines of their Church which they deny to be So that except Mr. White and Mr. S. and some very few demonstrators more all the rest are School-men private Opinators and not to be relied on But I cannot see what their Church held formerly neither No wonder at all of that for if I cannot see an object so near me as the present Church how can it be expected I should see one so much further off as the doctrine of former ages And his reason is so strong as may well perswade me out of one at least of my five senses For saith he if I question tradition I question whether there be any doctrine delivered and so any Fathers And is not this argued 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 oral tradition I must needs question whether there were any Fathers I had thought I might have known there had been Fathers by their Children I mean the Books they left behind them But if all Mr. S. pleads for be only this that no Books can be certainly conveyed without tradition he dispute's without an adversary but as I never opposed this so I am sure it doth him little service It is then from the Books of the Fathers that I find what the sense of the Church of their age was and from thence I have shewed how vastly different the opinions and practices of the Roman Church are from those of the primitive Although then I may not think my self obliged to believe all that the present Church delivers for matter of faith yet I hope I may find what the opinions and practice of the former Church were by the records that are left of it And the reason why I cannot think any one obliged to believe what every age of the Church delivers is because I think no man obliged to believe contradictions and I see the opinions and practices 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 demonstations 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 this way to be and not the former But that I may not think him superficial 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 art 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 talking and nothing else But he takes it to be a noble science yes doubtless if Mr. S. manage it and he be the judg of it himself His meaning I suppose is by his following words that he goes upon certain principles and we do not We have already seen how certain his principles have
can write plainly and intelligibly and that this Book which he hath endited is so written and doth not depend upon Tradition for its sense and interpretation then the most scurrilous language is not bad enough for the Scriptures then what are those Sacred Writings but Ink variously figured in a Book unsensed Characters waxen natur'd words not yet sensed nor having any certain Interpreter but fit to be plaid upon diversly by quirks of wit that is apt to blunder and confound but to clear little or nothing These with many other disgraceful terms he very liberally bestows upon Divine Oracles the consideration whereof did it not minister too much horrour would afford some comfort for by this kind of rude usage so familiar with him towards his Adversaries one may reasonably conjecture that he doth not reckon the Scriptures among his Friends § 9. And whereas he saith That the Scriptures have preserv'd many particular passages which because their source or first attestation was not universal nor their nature much practical might possibly bave been lost in their conveyance down by Tradition this is impossible according to his Hypothesis For if neither the Scriptures letter nor the certain sense of it as to the main body of Christian Doctrine could have been secured without Oral Tradition that is if we could not have known that those passages which contain the main points of Christs Doctrine either had been written by men divinely inspired or what the sense of them was but from the consonancy and agreement of those passages with the Doctrine which was orally preached by the Apostles how can we be certain either of the letter or sense of other particular passages which must necessarily want this confirmation from Oral Tradition because their first attestation was not universal nor their nature much practical Nay his discourse plainly implies that we can have no security at all either of the letter or sense of any other parts of Scripture but only those which are coincident with the main body of Christian Doctrine as is evident from these words Tradition established the Church is provided of a certain and infallible Rule to preserve a copy of the Scriptures Letter truly significative of Christs sense as far as it is coincident with the main body of Christian Doctrine preached at first because sense writ in mens hearts by Tradition can easily guide them to correct the alteration of the outward letter This I perceive plainly is the thing they would be at they would correct the outward letter of Scripture by sense written in their hearts and then instead of leaving out the second Commandement they would change it into a precept of giving due worship to Images according to the Council of Trent and a thousand other alterations they must make in the Bible to make it truly significative of the sense of their Church But surely the outward letter of other passages of Scripture which were not intended to signifie points of Faith is equally liable to alterations and yet the Church is not by Tradition provided of any way to correct these alterations when they happen because Tradition doth as this Corollary implies only furnish the Church with a certain and infallible Rule of preserving a copy of the Scriptures letter so far as it is coincident with the main body of Christian Doctrine § 10. Again he tells us Tradition established the Church is provided of a certain infallible Rule to interpret Scripture letter by so as to arrive certainly at Christs sense as far as the letter concerns the body of Christian Doctrine preached at first or points requisite to Salvation So that whatever he may attribute to Scripture for fashions sake and to avoid Calumny with the Vulgar as he says very ingenuously in his explication of the 15 th Corollary nevertheless 't is plain that according to his own Hypothesis he cannot but look upon it as perfectly useless and pernicious That 't is altogether useless according to his Hypothesis is plain for the main body of Christian Doctrine is securely conveyed to us without it and it can give no kind of confirmation to it because it receives all at its confirmation from it only the Church is ever and anon put to a great deal of trouble to correct the alteration of the outward letter by tradition and sense written in their hearts And as for all other parts of Scriptue which are not coincident with the main body of Christian Doctrine we can have no certainty either that the outward Letter is true nor if we could can we possibly arrive at any certain sense of them And that it is intolerably pernicious according to his Hypothesis is plain because * every silly and upstart Heresie fathers it self upon it and when men leave Tradition as he supposeth all Hereticks do the Scripture is the most dangerous engine that could have been invented being to such Persons only * waxen natured words not sensed nor having any certain Interpreter but fit to be play'd upon diversly by quirks of wit that is apt to blunder and confound but to clear little or nothing And indeed if his Hypothesis were true the Scriptures might well deserve all the contemptuous language which he useth against them and Mr. White 's comparison of them with Lilly's Almanack would not only be pardonable but proper and unless he added it out of prudence and for the Peoples sake whom he may think too superstitiously conceited of those Books he might have spared that cold excuse which he makes for using this similitude that it was agreeable rather to the impertinency of the Objection than the dignity of the Subject Certain it is if these men are true to their own Principles that notwithstanding the high reverence and esteem pretended to be born by them and their Church to the Scriptures they must heartily despise them and wish them out of the way and even look upon it as a great oversight of the Divine Providence to trouble his Church with a Book which if their Discourse be of any consequence can stand Catholicks in no stead at all and is so dangerous and mischievous a weapon in the hands of Hereticks SECT III. § 1. HAving thus taken a view of his opinion and considered how much he attributes to Oral Tradition and how little to the Scriptures before I assail this Hypothesis I shall lay down the Protestant Rule of Faith not that so much is necessary for the answering of his Book but that he may have no colour of objection that I proceed altogether in the destructive way and overthrow his Principle as he calls it without substituting another in its room The opinion then of the Protestants concerning the Rule of faith is this in general That those Books which we call the Holy Scriptures are the means whereby the Christian Doctrine hath been brought down to us And that he may now clearly understand this together with the grounds of it which
in reason he ought to have done before he had forsaken us I shall declare it more particularly in these following Proposiâ—ions § 2. 1. That the Doctrine of Christian Religion was by Christ delivered to the Apostles and by them first preached to the World and afterwards by them committed to Writing which Writings or Books have been transmitted from one age to another down to us So far I take to be granted by our present Adversaries That the Christian Doctrine was by Christ delivered to the Apostles and by them publish'd to the World is part of their own Hypothesis That this Doctrine was afterwards by the Apostles committed to writing he also grants Corol. 29. 'T is certain the Apostles taught the same Doctrine they writ and if so it must be as certain that they writ the same Doctrine which they taught I know it is the general Tenet of the Papists that the Scriptures do not contain the entire body of Christian Doctrine but that besides the Doctrines contained in Scripture there are also others brought down to us by oral or unwritten Tradition But Mr. S. who supposeth the whole Doctrine of Christian Religion to be certainly conveyed down to us solely by oral Tradition doth not any where that I remember deny that all the same Doctrine is contained in the Scriptures only he denies the Scriptures to be a means sufficient to convey this Doctrine to us with certainty so that we can by them be infallibly assured what is Christ's Doctrine and what not Nay he seems in that passage I last cited to grant this in saying that the Apostles did both teach and write the same Doctrine I am sure Mr. White whom he follows very closely throughout his whole Book does not deny this in his Apology for Tradition where he saith that it is not the Catholick position that all its Doctrines are not contained in the Scriptures And that those Writings or Books which we call the Holy Scriptures have been transmitted down to us is unquestionable matter of fact and granted universally by the Papists as to all those Books which are owned by Protestants for Canonical § 3. Secondly That the way of Writing is a sufficient means to convey a Doctrine to the knowledg of those who live in times very remote from the age of its first delivery According to his Hypothesis there is no possible way of conveying a Doctrine with certainty and security besides that of oral Tradition the falshood of which will sufficiently appear when I shall have shewn that the true properties of a Rule of Faith do agree to the Scriptures and not to oral Tradition In the mean time I shall only offer this to his consideration that whatever can be orally delivered in plain and intelligible words may be written in the same words and that a Writing or Book which is publick and in every ones hand may be conveyed down with at least as much certainty and security and with as little danger of alteration as an oral Tradition And if so I understand not what can render it impossible for a Book to convey down a Doctrine to the knowledg of after-ages Besides if he had looked well about him he could not but have apprehended some little inconvenience in making that an essential part of his Hypothesis which is contradicted by plain and constant experience For that any kind of Doctrine may be sufficiently conveyed by Books to the knowledg of after-ages provided those Books be but written intelligibly and preserved from change and corruption in the conveyance both which I shall be so bold as to suppose possible is as little doubted by the generality of mankind as that there are Books And surely we Christians cannot think it impossible to convey a Doctrine to posterity by Books when we consider that God himself pitched upon this way for conveyance of the Doctrine of the Jewish Religion to after-ages because it is not likely that so wise an Agent should pitch upon a means whereby it was impossible he should attain his end § 4. Thirdly That the Books of Scripture are sufficiently plain as to all things necessary to be believed and practised He that denies this ought in reason to instance in some necessary point of Faith or matter of Practice which is not in some place of Scripture or other plainly delivered For it is not a sufficient objection to say that the greatest wits among the Protestants differ about the sense of those Texts wherein the generality of them suppose the Divinity of Christ to be plainly and clearly expressed Because if nothing were to be accounted sufficiently plain but what it is impossible a great wit should be able to wrest to any other sense not only the Scriptures but all other Books and which is worst of all to him that makes this objection all oral Tradition would fall into uncertainty Doth the Traditionary Church pretend that the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity is conveyed down to her by oral Tradition more plainly than it is expressed in Scripture I would fain know what plainer words she ever used to express this point of Faith by than what the Scripture useth which expresly calls him God the true God God over all blessed for evermore If it be said that those who deny the Divinity of Christ have been able to evade these and all other Texts of Scripture but they could never elude the definitions of the Church in that matter it is easily answered that the same Arts would equally have eluded both but there was no reason why they should trouble themselves so much about the latter for why should they be solicitous to wrest the definitions of Councils and conform them to their own opinion who had no regard to the Churches Authority If those great Wits as he calls them had believed the sayings of Scripture to be of no greater authority than the definitions of Councils they would have answered texts of Scripture as they have done the definitions of Councils not by endeavouring to interpret them to another sense but by downright denying their Authority So that it seems that oral Tradition is liable to the same inconvenience with the written as to this particular § 5. And of this I shall give him a plain instance in two great Wits of their Church the present Pope and Mr. White the one the Head of the Traditionary Church as Mr. S. calls it the other the great Master of the Traditionary Doctrine These two great Wits notwithstanding the plainness of oral Tradition and the impossibility of being ignorant of it or mistaking it have yet been so unhappy as to differ about several points of Faith insomuch that Mr. White is unkindly censured for it at Rome and perhaps here in England the Pope speeds no better however the difference continues still so wide that Mr. White hath thought fit to disobey the summons of his chief Pastor and like a prudent man rather to write against him here out
know that these are the Books of Scripture yet these Books are the next and immediate means whereby we come to know what is Christs Doctrine and consequently what we are to believe § 8. Nor doth this Concession make Oral Tradition to be the Rule of Faith by a parity of Reason as if because we acknowledge that Oral Tradition can with sufficient certainty transmit a Book to After ages we must therefore grant that it can with as much certainty convey a doctrine consisting of several Articles of Faith nay very many as Mr. White acknowledges and many Laws and Precepts of Life So because Oral Tradition sufficiently assures us that this is Magna Charta and that the Statute-Book in which are contain'd those Laws which it concerns every man to be skilful in therefore by like parity of Reason it must follow that Tradition it self is better than a Book even the best way imaginable to convey down such Laws to us Mr. S. saith expresly it is but how truly I appeal to experience and the wisdom of our Law-givers who seem to think otherwise Tradition is already defin'd to us a delivery down from hand to hand of the sense and faith of Fore-fathers i. e. of the Gospel or message of Christ. Now suppose any Oral message consisting of an hundred particularities were to be delivered to an hundred several persons of different degrees of understanding and memory by them to be conveyed to an hundred more who were to convey it to others and so onwards to a hundred descents Is it probable this Message with all the particularities of it would be as truly conveyed through so many mouths as if it were written down in so many Letters concerning which every Bearer should need to say no more than this That it was delivered to him as a Letter written by him whose name was subscribed to it I think it not probable though the mens lives were concerned every one for the faithful delivery of his Errand or Letter For the Letter is a message which no man can mistake in unless he will but the Errand so difficult and perplexed with its multitude of particulars that it is an equal wager against every one of the Messengers that he either forgets or mistakes something in it it is ten thousand to one that the first Hundred do not all agree in it it is a Million to one that the next Succession do not all deliver it truly for if any one of the first Hundred mistook or forgot any thing it is then impossible that he that received it from him should deliver it right and so the farther it goes the greater change it is liable to Yet after all this I do not say but it may be demonstrated in Mr. S's way to have more of certainty in it than the Original Letter § 9. Thirdly We allow That the Doctrine of Christian Religion hath in all Ages been preached to the People by the Pastors of the Church and taught by Christian Parents to their Children but with great difference by some more plainly and truly and perfectly by others with less care and exactness according to the different degrees of ability and integrity in Pastors or Parents and likewise with very different success according to the different capacities and dispositions of the Learners We allow likewise That there hath been a constant course of visible actions conformable in some measure to the Principles of Christianity but then we say that those outward acts and circumstances of Religion may have undergone great variations and received great change by addition to them and defalcation from them in several Ages That this not only is possible but hath actually happened I shall shew when I come to answer his Demonstrations Now that several of the the main Doctrines of Faith contained in the Scriptute and actions therein commanded have been taught and practised by Christians in all Ages as the Articles summed up in the Apostles Creed the use of the two Sacraments is a good evidence so far that the Scriptures contain the Doctrine of Christian Religion But then if we consider how we come to know that such points of Faith have been taught and such external Actions practised in all Ages it is not enough to say there is a present multitude of Christians that profess to have received such Doctrines as ever believed and practised and from hence to infer that they were so the inconsequence of which Argument I shall have a better occasion to shew afterwards But he that will prove this to any mans satisfaction must make it evident from the best Monuments and Records of several Ages that is from the most Authentick Books of those times that such Doctrines have in all those Ages been constantly and universally taught and practised But then if from those Records of former times it appear that other Doctrines not contained in the Scriptures were not taught and practised universally in all Ages but have crept in by degrees some in one Age and some in another according as Ignorance and Superstition in the People Ambition and Interest in the chief Pastors of the Church have ministred occasion and opportunity and that the Innovators of these Doctrines and Practises have all along pretended to confirm them out of Scripture as the acknowledged Rule of Faith and have likewise acknowledged the Books of Scripture to have descended without any material corruption or alteration all which will sufficiently appear in the process of my Discourse then cannot the Oral and practical Tradition of the present Church concerning any Doctrine as ever believed and practised which hath no real foundation in Scripture be any argument against these Books as if they did not fully and clearly contain the Christian Doctrine And to say the Scripture is to be interpreted by Oral and Practical Tradition is no more reasonable than it would be to interpret the antient Books of the Law by the present practise of it which every one that compares things fairly together must acknowledg to be full of deviations from the antient Law SECT V. § 1. 2 dly HOw much more he attributes to his Rule of Faith than we think fit to attribute to ours 1. We do not say that it is impossible in the nature of the thing that this Rule should fail that is either that these Books should cease to descend or should be corrupted This we do not attribute to them because there is no need we should We believe the providence of God will take care of them and secure them from being either lost or materially corrupted yet we think it very possible that all the Books in the World may be burnt or otherwise destroyed All that we affirm concerning our Rule of Faith is that it is abundantly sufficient if men be not wanting to themselves to convey the Christian Doctrine to all successive Ages and we think him very unreasonable that expects that God should do more than what is abundantly
as the capacity he is in will permit him to have And as Mr. White says well Satisfaction is to be given to every one according to his capacity it is sufficient for a Child to believe his Parents for a Clown to believe his Preacher And this is universally true in all cases where we have not better or equal evidence to the contrary But such is the unhappiness of the Popish Doctrines that if people were permitted the free use of the Scripture they would easily discern them to have no probable foundation in it and some of them to be plainly contrary to it so that it cannot be safe for their Preachers to tell the people that the Scripture is the only Rule of Faith lest they should find cause not to believe them when they teach Doctrines so plainly contrary to that Rule § 8. Lastly He says the Protestants cannot be certain of the true sense of Scripture Does he mean of plain Texts or obscure ones Of the true sense of plain Texts I hope every one may be certain and for obscure ones it is not necessary every one should But it may be there are no plain Texts in the Scriptures then the reason of it must be till Mr. S. can shew a better either because it is impossible for any one to write plainly or because God cannot write so plainly as men or because we have good reason to think that he would not write things necessary for every one to believe so as men might clearly understand him But he tells us The numerous Comments upon Scripture are an evidence that no man can be certain of the true sense of it I hope not for if those numerous Commentators do generally agree in the sense of plain Texts as 't is certain they do then this Argument signifies nothing as to such Texts And as for those which are obscure let Commentators differ about them as much as they please so long as all necessary Points of Faith and matters of Practice are delivered in plain Texts He adds There are infinite disputes about the sense of Scripture even in most concerning Points as in that of Christ's Divinity But are not Commentators both Protestant and Popish generally agreed about the sense of Scripture in that Point And what if some out of prejudice do mistake or out of perverseness do wrest the plainest Texts of Scripture for the Divinity of Christ to another sense Is this any argument that those Texts are not sufficiently plain Can any thing be spoken or written in words so clear from ambiguity which a perverse or prejudiced mind shall not be able to vex and force to another meaning God did not write the Scriptures for the froward and the captious but for those who will read them with a free and unprejudiced mind and are willing to come to the knowledg of the Truth If Mr. S. had been conversant in the writings of the Fathers he could not but have taken notice with what confidence they attempt to prove the Divinity of Christ out of Scripture as if that did afford convincing arguments for this purpose St. Chrysostom professes to demonstrate out of Scripture That the Son is of the same substance with the Father and relies upon Scripture alone for this without mentioning any other kind of Argument So that it seems St. Chrysostom was not acquainted with the insufficiency of Scripture for the conviction of Hereticks in this Point and that he was either ignorant of the infallible way of Demonstrating this point from Oral Tradition or had no great opinion of it The same Father elsewhere arguing against Hereticks about the Divinity of Christ says That they pervert the Scriptures to strengthen their Heresie from thence But then he does not with Mr. S. blame the Scripture and say that this Doctrine is not there deliver'd with sufficient clearness but contrarywise he says That the Scripture is clear enough but the corrupt minds of Hereticks will not see what is there contain'd Had St. Chrysostom been a true Son of the Traditionary Church he would have lain hold of this occasion to vilifie the Scriptures and to shew the necessity of regulating our faith not by such uncertain Records but by the infallible Reports of Oral Tradition § 9. But because Mr. S. lays great weight in several parts of his Book upon this Exception against Scripture viz. That Protestants cannot be certain of the true sense of it Therefore I shall not content my self only to have shewn that we may be sufficiently certain of the sense of Scripture so far as to understand all necessary matters of Faith and Practice and that more than this is not necessary but shall likewise return this Exception upon him by enquiring into these two things 1. How the Traditionary Church can be more certain of the true sense of Scripture than the Protestants 2. How they can be more certain of the true sense of Tradition than Protestants of the true sense of Scripture 1. How the Traditionary Church can be more certain of the true sense of Scripture than Protestants They pretend to have an Oral Tradition of the true sense of it delivered down from Father to Son But this only reacheth to those Texts which are coincident with the main body of Christian Doctrine as for all other parts of Scripture they are as useless to Papists as they suppose they are to us because wanting the help of Oral Tradition they cannot be certain of one tittle of them And as for those Texts the sense whereof is conveyed down by Oral Tradition this sense is I hope delivered in some words or other And have all Preachers and Fathers and Mothers and Nurses the faculty of delivering this sense in words so plain as cannot possibly be mistaken or wrested to another sense I am sorry that when every one hath this faculty of speaking their thoughts plainly the Holy Ghost should be represented as not able to convey his mind to men in intelligible words And does not his own Objection rebound upon himself If the Church have a certain sense of Scripture orally delivered whence are the numerous Comments of the Fathers upon it and of later Writers in their Church and the infinite Disputes about the sense of it in the most concerning Points viz. The efficacy of Gods grace the Supremacy of St. Peter the infallibility of a Pope and Council by immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost What a stir is made about the sense of Dabo tibi Claves Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram c. Pasce oves Do not they differ about the meaning of these Texts among themselves as much as they do from the Fathers and from the Protestants Some understanding them of St Peters Supremacy only others of his infallibility others of his infallibility only in and with a general Council which yet others do not allow to Pope or Council from any immediate assistance but only from the
rational force of Tradition supposing that the Pope and Council hold to it If oral Tradition have brought down a certain sense of these Texts why do they not produce it and agree in it If it have not to use a hot phrase of his own 't is perfect phrenzy to say they can be certain of the true sense of Scripture If he say they are by Tradition made certain of the true sense of Scripture so far as it concerns the main body of Christian Doctrine and do all agree in it and that is suffcient then I ask him What are those points of Faith which make up the body of Christian Doctrine He will tell me they are those which all Catholicks agree to have descended to them from the Apostles by a constant and uninterrupted Tradition I enquire farther how I shall know what is the certain sense of Scripture so far as it concerns these points He must answer as before that that is the true sense which all Catholicks agree to have descended to them by Tradition Which amounts to this that all Catholicks do agree in the sense of Scripture so far as they do all agree in it It is to be hoped that the Protestants how much soever at present they differ about the sense of Scripture may in time come to as good an agreement as this This brings to my remembrance a passage or two of Mr. Cressy the one in his Appendix where he tells us That as it is impossible that Hereticks should agree any other way than in Faction so it is impossible that Catholicks should differ in points of Faith Why so Were not those Catholicks first who afterwards became Hereticks and when they became so did they not differ in points of Belief Yes but here lies the conceit when they began to differ then they ceas'd to be Catholicks therefore Catholicks can never differ in points of Faith The other passage is where he says That he hath forsaken a Church where Vnity was impossible c. and betaken himself to a Church where Schism is impossible This last Clause That Schism is impossible in their Church cannot possibly be true but in the same absurd and ludicrous sense in which it is impossible for Catholicks to differ in points of Belief For he cannot deny but that it is possible for men to break off from the Communion of their Church which in his sense is Schism but here is the subtilty of it No Schismatick is of their Church because so soon as he is a Schismatick he is out of it therefore Schism is impossible in their Church And is it not as impossible in the Church of England Where Mr. Cr. might have done well to have continued till he could have given a better reason of forsaking Her § 10. But to return to our purpose Mr. Rushworth acknowledgeth that the Scripture is of it self sufficiently plain as to matters of practice for he asks Who is so blind as not to see that these things are to be found in Scripture by a sensible common and discreet reading of it though perhaps by a rigorous and exact balancing of every particular word and syllable any of these things would vanish away we know not how So that for the direction of our lives and actions he confesseth the Scripture to be sufficiently plain if men will but read it sensibly and discreetly and he sayes that he is blind that does not see this But who so blind as he that will not see that the sense of Scripture is as plain in all necessary points of Faith I am sure St. Austin makes no difference when he tells us That in those things which are plainly set down in Scripture we may find all those things in which Faith and Manners of life are comprehended And why cannot men in reference to matters of Faith as well as of Practice read the Scriptures sensibly and discreetly without such a rigorous balancing of every word and syllable as will make the sense vanish away we know not how If the Scripture be but sufficiently plain to such as will use it sensibly and discreetly I do not understand what greater plainness can be desir'd in a Rule Nor can I imagine what kind of Rule it must be that can be unexceptionably plain to captious Cavillers and such as are bent to play the fool with it Well suppose the Scripture be not sufficiently clear as to matters of Faith and hereupon I have recourse to the Church for the true sense of Scripture Must I believe the Churches sense to be the true sense of such a Text though I see it to be plainly contrary to the genuine sense of the words yes that I must or else I make my self and not the Church judg of the sense of Scripture which is the grand Heresie of the Protestants But then I must not suppose much less belive that the Churches sense of such a Text is contrary to the genuine meaning of it no although I plainly see it to be so This is hard again on the other hand especially if that be true which is acknowledged both by Dr. Holden and Mr. Cressy viz. That though general Councils cannot mistake in the Points of Faith which they decree yet they may mistake in the confirmation of them from Texts of Scripture that is they may be mistaken about the sense of those Texts And if Mr. S. think his Brethren have granted too much he may see this exemplified in the second Council of Nice to mention no other which to establish their Doctrine of Image-worship does so palpably abuse and wrest Texts of Scripture that I can hardly believe that any Papist in the World hath the forehead to own that for the true sense of those Texts which is there given by those Fathers § 11. Secondly How the Traditionary Church can be more certain of the true sense of their Traditional Doctrines than the Protestants can be of the true sense of Scripture And this is worthy our enquiry because if the business be search'd to the bottom it will appear besides all other inconveniences which oral Tradition is much more liable to than Scripture that the certain sense and meaning of Traditional Doctrine is as hard to come at as the sense of Scripture And this I will make appear by necessary consequence from their own Concessions Mr. White and Mr. S. say that the great security of Tradition is this that it is not tied to certain phrases and set-forms of expression but the same sense is conveyed and setled in mens hearts by various expressions But according to Mr. Rushworth this renders Tradition's sense uncertain for he says 'T is impossible to put fully and beyond all quarrel the same sense in divers words So that if men do not receive Tradition in a sensible common discreet way as Mr. Rushw. speaks concerning reading the Scriptures but will come to a rigorous and exact balancing of every particular phrase word and
syllable the sense of Tradition will be in the very same danger of uncertainty and be liable to vanish we know not how Dr. Holden lays down these two Principles First That no truth can be conveyed down from man to man but by speech and speech cannot be but by words and all words are either equivocal in themselves or liable to be differently understood by several persons Secondly That such is the frame of mans mind that the same truths may be differently apprehended and understood by different persons And if this be true then Traditional Doctrines if they be deliverd by speech and words will be liable to uncertainties and ambiguities as to their sense as well as Scripture Mr. Cressy tells us That Reason and Experience shews that differences will arise even about the Writings of the Fathers and any thing but the Testimony of the present Church If this be true Tradition wholly falls into uncertainty For if difference will arise about the Writings of the Fathers how they are to be interpreted I suppose the Writings of Councils will be liable to the same inconvenience And if the whole present Church cannot declare her sense of any Traditional Doctrine otherwise than by a Council unless with the Jesuites they will epitomize the Church into the Pope and the Decrees of a Council cannot be universally dispers'd or at least never use to be but by Writing And if Differences will arise about the interpretation of that Writing as well as any other then this present infallible Authority which Mr. Cressy magnifies so much for ending Differences leaves all Controversies arising about the sense of Tradition as indeterminable as ever and they must for ever remain so till general Councils have got the knack of penning their Decrees in words which will so infallibly express their meaning to the most captious Caviller that no difference can possibly arise about the interpretation of them or else which will be more suitable to this wise Hypothesis till general Councils being convinc'd by Mr. S's Demonstrations shall come to understand themselves so well as not to entrust their Decrees any more to the uncertain way of Writing but for the future to communicate them to the World by the infallible way of oral Tradition And to mention no more Mr Knott who agrees with the other thus far that the certain sense of Scripture is only to be had from the Church speaks to this purpose That before we can be certain that this is the sense of such a Text we must either be certain that this Text is capable of no other sense as Figurative Mystical or Moral or if it be we must have some certain and infallible means to know in which of them it is taken which can be known only by revelation If this be true then by a fair parity of reason before I can be certain that this is the sense of a Doctrinal Tradition delivered down to me I must either be certain that the words in which this Tradition was expressed when it was delivered to me are capable of no other sense as Figurative Mystical or Moral besides that in which I understood them or if they be as certainly they will be capable of any of these other senses then must I have some certain and infallible means whereby to know in which of these they are taken And this can no more be known without a revelation than which is the true sense of such a Text of Scripture If it be said that the sense of a Traditional Doctrine may by different expressions be still further and further explained to me till I come certainly to understand the sense of it this will not help the matter For if these kind of cavils be good that a man cannot be certain of the meaning of any words till he can by an infallible argument demonstrate either that they cannot be taken or that they are not taken in any other sense I say if this cavil will hold then every new expression whereby any one shall endeavor to explain any Traditional Doctrine is liable to the same inconvenience which those words in which it was first delivered to me were liable to From all which it is evident that the Traditionary Church can be no more certain of the sense of their Traditional Doctrines than Protestants may be of the sense of Scripture § 12. These are his Exceptions contained in his second Discourse and of what force they are hath been examined But because he foresaw that it might be replied that these defects might in part be provided against by History by the Providence of God by Testimonies of Councils and Fathers and by the sufficient clearness of Scripture as to Fundamentals He endeavors to shew that these signifie little to this purpose First Not History because few are skilled in History and they that are not cannot safely rely upon those that are skill'd unless they knew certainly that the Historians whom they rely on had secure grounds and not bare hear-say for what they writ and that they were not contradicted by others either extant or perished How much credit is to be given to uncontrolled History by the learned and how much by the vulgar to men of skill I have already shewn I shall only add now that if this reasoning be true it is impossible for any man to be certain by History of any ancient matter of Fact as namely that there were such persons as Julius Caesar and William the Conqueror and that they invaded and conquered England because according to him we cannot know certainly that the Historians who relate these things and upon whose authority we rely had secure grounds and not bare hear-say for what they writ And that they were not contradicted by others either extant or perished is I am sure impossible for any man to know For who can tell now what was contained in those Books which are perished So that if this be requisite to make every Historical Relation credible to know certainly that it was not contradicted by any of those Books which we do not know what they were nor what was in them we can have no certainty of any ancient Fact or History for who knows certainly that some Books that are perished did not contradict whatever is written in Books that are extant Nay if this reasoning hold we can have no certainty of any thing conveyed by oral Tradition For what though the Priest tell me this was the Doctrine of Christ delivered to him unless I know that all others agree with him in this Tradition I cannot rely upon his testimony Nor then neither in Mr. Knott's opinion because the testimony of Preachers or Pastors is human and fallible unless according to his Jargon a conclusion deduced from Premises one of which is only probable may be sufficient to bring our understanding to an infallible act of Faith viz. if such a conclusion be taken Specificative whereas if it be taken Reduplicative
capable of convincing Demonstrations Again Do but consider says he how unequal and unjust a condition it is that the claim of the present Church shall not be heard unless she can confute all the Peradventures that Wit may invent and solve all the Arguments which the infinite variety of time place and occasions may have given way unto and then you will see how unreasonable an Adversary he is who will not be content with any satisfaction but such as mans nature scarcely affords And is it not equally unjust in Mr. S. not to let Scripture's claim be heard unless we can confute every Peradventure and might it not be otherwise that Wit may invent See then how unreasonable an Adversary Mr. S. is who will not be content with any satisfaction but such as according to Mr. Rushworth mans nature scarcely affords Dr. Holden I confess states the matter somewhat cautiously when he tells us That it shall suffice for present to determine that the Wisdom of the Creator hath afforded us such an assurance especially of Truths necessary to Salvation as is sutable to our nature and best fitted for the safe conduct of our lives in Moral and Religious Affairs But if we interpret these general expressions by the passages I before cited out of Mr. Rushworth as in reason we may since the Doctor is beholding to him for the best part of his Book then nothing can make more against Mr. S's Principle § 5. Mr. Cressy in his Exomologesis says That such Teachers as approached nearest to the fountain of Truth Christ and his Apostles had means of informing themselves in Apostolical Tradition incomparably beyond us Mr. S. may do well to shew what those means were which are so incomparably beyond his Infallibility and Demonstration The same Author does very much applaud Stapleton's determination of the question concerning the Churches Infallibility which is as follows That the Church does not expect to be taught by God immediately by new Revelations but makes use of several means c. as being govern'd not by Apostles c. but by ordinary Pastors and Teachers That these Pastors in making use of these several means of Decision proceed not as the Apostles did with a peculiar infallible direction of the Holy Spirit but with a prudential collection not always necessary That to the Apostles who were the first Masters of Evangelical Faith and founders of the Church such an infallible certitude of means was necessary not so now to the Church c. If this be true That an infallible certitude of means is not now necessary to the Church and that her Pastors do now in deciding matters of Faith proceed only with a prudent collection not always necessary then it should seem that a searching Wit may maintain his ground of suspence even against their Church also with A Might it not be otherwise Again Mr. Cressy tells us That truth and our obligation to believe it is in an higher degree in Scripture than in the Decisions of the Church as Bellarmine acknowledges which is to say that we may have greater assurance of the truth of Doctrines contained in the Scriptures than we can have of any Doctrine from the determination of the Church But if we have the greatest assurance that can be of Truths deliver'd to us by the Church as Mr. S. affirms then I would fain learn of him what that greater degree of assurance is which Stapleton speaks of and whether it be greater than the greatest Not to insist upon that which yet I cannot but by the way take notice of that Mr. Cressy by his approbation of this determination of Bellarmine's doth advance the Scripture above the Church as to one of the most essential Properties of the Rule of Faith viz. the certainty of it But the most eminent Testimony to my purpose in Mr. Cressy is that famous passage which hath given so much offence to several of his own Church wherein he acknowledges the unfortunateness to him of the word Infallibility and tells us That he could find no such word in any Council That no necessity appear'd to him that either he or any other Protestant should ever have heard that word nam'd and much less press'd with so much earnestness as of late it has generally been in Disputations and Books of Controversie and that Mr. Chillingworth combats this word with too to great success insomuch that if this word were once forgotten or but laid by Mr. Chillingworth's Arguments would lose the greatest part of their strength and that if this word were confin'd to the Schools where it was bred there would be still no inconvenience And that since by manifest experience the English Protetestants think themselves so secure when they have leave to stand or fall by that word and in very deed have so much to say for themselves when they are pressed unnecessarily with it Since likewise it is a word capable of so high a sense that we cannot devise one more full and proper to attribute to God himself c. Since all this is so he thinks he cannot be blamed if such Reasons move him to wish that the Protestants may never be invited to combat the Authority of the Church under that Notion A very ingenuous acknowledgment and as cross to Mr. S's Principle as any thing can be But the word Infallibility was not so unfortunate to Mr. Cressy as is his untoward Explication of the fore-cited passage in his Appendix which he afterwards published chiefly by way of Vindication of himself against the Learned Author of the Preface to my Lord Falkland's Discourse of Infallibility There he tells us That there are several degrees of Infallibility And that we may know what degree of Infallibility he thinks necessary to be attributed to the Church this following passage will inform us Methinks says he if God have furnished his divine and supernatural Truth with evidence equal to this that the Sun will shine to morrow or that there will be a Spring and Harvest next year we are infinitely obliged to bless his Providence and justly condemned if we refuse to believe the least of such Truths as shewing less affection to save our souls than the dull Plow-men to sow their Corn who certainly have far less evidence for their Harvest than Catholiques for their Faith and yet they insist not peevishly upon every capricious Objection nor exact an infallible security of a plentiful reaping next Summer but notwithstanding all difficulties and contingencies proceed chearfully in their painful Husbandry So that according to this Discourse whatever degree of assurance the Church hath or can give to those who rely upon her it is plain that no further degree is necessary than what the Husbandman when he sows hath of a plentiful Harvest and that men are justly condemned if they refuse to believe the least truth upon such security which yet by his own acknowledgment is liable to Contingencies Nay further that men are
reasonable to be supposed or no may easily be determined not only from every man 's own experience of the World but from a more advantagious Instance of the experience of the first Age of Christianity Was there ever a more knowing and diligent Teacher of this Doctrine than our Saviour and yet his Disciples fell into many mistakes concerning it So that in order to the certain propagating of it the wisdom of God thought it requisite to endue even those who had learned this Doctrine from himself with an infallible spirit by which they might be led into all Truth and secured from error and mistake which had been unnecessary had it been impossible for them to mistake this Doctrine The Apostles who taught the World by an infallible Spirit and with infinitely more advantage than ordinary Parents can teach their Children yet in all the Churches which they planted they found Christians very apt to mistake and pervert their Doctrine as appears by their frequent complaints in most of their Epistles Nay the Apostle chargeth the Generality of the Hebrews with such a degree of dulness and stupidity that after fitting time and means of instruction they were still ignorant of the very Principles of Christianity So he tells them That when for the time they ought to be Teachers of others they had need that one should teach them again which be the first Principles of the Oracles of God And St. Hierom tells us That the Primitive Churches were tainted with many gross Errors whil'st the Apostles were alive and the blood of Christ yet warm in Judea But it may be there have been better Teachers since and Children are more apt to learn now than Men were then Who knows how the World may be changed § 2. Secondly This Demonstration supposeth the hopes and fears which Christian Religion applies to Mens minds to be certain and necessary causes of actual will in Men to adhere to the Doctrine of Christ and consequently that they must necessarily adhere to it That he supposeth them to be necessary I have his own word for it for he tells us That he hath endeavoured to demonstrate the indefectibleness of Tradition as the proper and necessary effect of those causes which preserve and continue Tradition on foot and what those causes are he told us before That they are Hopes and Fears strongly applied But I hope that the indefectibleness of Tradition cannot be a necessary effect of the strong application of those Hopes and Fears unless those Hopes and Fears be a necessary cause of that effect And indeed this is sufficiently implied in his saying that they are the causes of actual will in Christians to adhere to Tradition For if these causes of actual will be constant as he must suppose then they are certain and necessary and infallible causes of adhering to this Doctrine For whatever is in act is necessary while it is so and if it be constantly in act the effect is always necessary But what a wild Supposition is this That Moral Motives and Arguments working upon a free Principle the Will of Man do necessarily produce their Effect Is it necessary that the hopes of Heaven and the fears of Hell should keep Christians constant to the Doctrine of Christ and is it not as necessary that these arguments should prevail upon them to the practice of it It is in vain to go about to demonstrate that all men must be good who have sufficient arguments propounded to them when experience tells us the contrary Nay it is in reason impossible that Moral arguments should be of a necessary and infallible efficacy because they are always propounded to a free Agent who may choose whether he will yield to them or not Indeed it is always reasonable that men should yield to them and if they be reasonable they will but so long as they are free it can never be infallibly certain that they will And if men be not free it is no vertue at all in them to be wrought upon by these arguments For what vertue can it be in any man to entertain the Christian doctrine and adhere to it and live accordingly if he does all this necessarily that is whether he will or no and can no more choose whether he will do so or not than whether he will see the light when the Sun shines upon his open eyes or whether he will hear a sound when all the Bells in the Town are Ringing in his ears or to use Mr. S's own similitudes whether he will feel heat cold pain pleasure or any other material quality that affects his senses We see then how unreasonable his Suppositions are and yet without these Grounds his Demonstration falls For if it be possible that Christians may mistake or forget the Doctrine of Christ or any part of it or be defective in diligence to instruct others in it or if it be possible that the Will of man which is free may not be necessarily and infallibly swayed by the arguments of hope and fear then it is possible that Tradition may fail And is not this a good Demonstration which supports it self upon such Principles as do directly affront the constant experience and the clearest reason of Mankind § 3. And here I cannot but take notice how inconsistent he is to himself in laying the Grounds of Tradition's certainty In one Part of his Book he tells us That Tradition hath for its Basis the best Nature in the Vniverse that is Mans Not according to his Moral part defectible by reason of Original Corruption nor yet his Intellectuals darkly groping in the pursuit of Science c. But according to those Faculties in him perfectly and necessarily subject to the operations and strokes of Nature that is his Eyes Ears Handling and the direct impressions of knowledg as naturally and necessarily issuing from the affecting those senses as it is to feel heat cold pain pleasure or any other material quality So that according to this Discourse the Basis of Tradition is not Mans Nature considered as Moral and capable of Intellectual Reflection for in this consideration it is dark and defectible But Mans Nature considered only as capable of direct sensitive knowledg and as acting naturally and necessarily Which is to say That Tradition is foundded in the Nature of Man considered not as a Man but a Brute under which consideration I see no reason why he should call it the best Nature in the Vniverse But now how will he reconcile this Discourse with the Grounds of his Demonstration where he tells us That the stability of Tradition is founded in the Arguments of Hope and Fear the Objects of which being future and at a distance cannot work upon a man immediately by direct Impressions upon his senses but must work upon him by way of Intellectual Reflection and Consideration For I hope he will not deny but that the Arguments of Hope and Fear work upon man according to his
Moral and Intellectual part else how are they Arguments And if man according to his Moral part be as he says defectible how can the indefectibility of Tradition be founded in those Arguments which work upon man only according to his Moral part I have purposely all along both for the Readers ease and mine own neglected to take notice of several of his inconsistencies but these are such clear and transparent Contradictions that I could do no less than make an example of them SECT V. § 1. THirdly This Demonstration is confuted by clear and undeniable Instances to the contrary I will mention but two First The Tradition of the one true God which was the easiest to be preserved of any Doctrine in the World being short and plain planted in every mans Nature and perfectly suited to the reason of Mankind And yet this Tradition not having past through many hands by reason of the long Age of man was so defaced and corrupted that the World did lapse into Polytheism and Idolatry Now a man that were so hardy as to demonstrate against matter of Fact might by a stronger Demonstration than Mr. S's prove that though it be certain this Tradition hath failed yet it was impossible it should fail as Zeno demonstrated the impossibility of motion against Diogenes walking before his eyes For the Doctrine of the one true God was setled in the heart of Noah and firmly believed by him to be the way to happiness and the contradicting or deserting of this to be the way to misery And this Doctrine was by him so taught to his Children who were encouraged by these Motives to adhere to this Doctrine and to propagate it to their Children and were deterred by them from relinquishing it And this was in all Ages the perswasion of the faithful Now the Hopes of Happiness and the Fears of Misery strongly applied are the causes of actual will Besides the thing was feasible or within their power that is what they were bred to was knowable by them and that much more easily than any other Doctrine whatsoever being short and plain and natural This put it follows as certainly that a great number in each Age would continue to hold themselves and teach their Children as themselves had been taught that is would follow and stick to this Tradition of the one true God as it doth that a cause put actually causing produceth its effect Actually I say for since the cause is put and the Patient disposed it follows inevitably that the cause is put still actually causing This demonstration which concludes an apparent falshood hath the whole strength of Mr. S's and several advantages beyond it For the Doctrine conveyed by this Tradition is the most important being the first Principle of all Religion the danger of corrupting it as great the facility of preserving it much greater than of the Christian Doctrine for the causes before mentioned And yet after all it signifies nothing against certain experience and unquestionable matter of Fact only it sufficiently shews the vanity of Mr. S's pretended Demonstration built upon the same or weaker Grounds § 2. Secondly The other Instance shall be in the Greek Church who received the Christian Doctrine as entire from the Apostles and had as great an obligation to propagate it truly to Posterity and the same fears and hopes strongly applied to be the actual causes of will in a word all the same Arguments and Causes to preserve and continue Tradition on foot which the Roman Church had And yet to the utter confusion of Mr. S's Demonstration Tradition hath failed among them For as Speculators they deny the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son and as Testifiers they disown any such Doctrine to have been delivered to them by the precedent Age or to any other Age of their Church by the Apostles as the Doctrine of Christ. § 3. To this Instance of the Greek Church because Mr. White hath offered something by way of answer I shall here consider it He tells us That the plea of the Greek Church is Non-Tradition alledging only this That their Fathers do not deliver the Doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost not that they say the contrary which clearly demonstrates there are no opposite Traditions between them and us But this was not the thing Mr. White was concerned to do to demonstrate there were no opposite Traditions between the Greeks and the Latines but to secure his main Demonstration of the impossibility of Traditions failing against this Instance For that the Greeks have no such Tradition as this That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son is as good an evidence of the failure of Tradition as if they had a positive Tradition That he proceeds only from the Father especially if we consider that they charge the Latin Church with Innovation in this matter and say that the addition of that Clause of the Procession from the Son also is a corruption of the ancient Faith and a Devilish Invention Why then does Mr. White go about to baffle so material an Objection and I fear his own Conscience likewise by a pitiful Evasion instead of a solid Answer What though there be no opposite Traditions between the Greek and Latin Church yet if their Faith be opposite Will it not from hence follow that Tradition hath failed in one of them I wonder that Mr. White who hath so very well confuted the Infallibility of Popes and Councils and thereby undermined the very Foundations of that Religion should not by the same light of Reason discover the fondness of his own Opinion concerning the Infallibility of Oral Tradition which hath more and greater absurdities in it than that which he confutes And to shew Mr. White the absurdity of it I will apply his Demonstration of the Infallibility of Christian Tradition in general to the Greek Church in particular by which every one will see that it does as strongly prove the impossibility of Traditions failing in the Greek Church as in the Roman-Catholick as they are pleased to call it His Demonstration is this Christ commanded his Apostles to preach to all the World and lest any one should doubt of the effect he sent his Spirit into them to bring to their remembrance what he had taught them which Spirit did not only give them a power to do what he enclined them to but did cause them actually to do it I cannot but take notice by the way of the ill consequence of this which is that men may doubt whether those who are to teach the Doctrine of Christ will remember it and teach it to others unless they have that extraordinary and efficacious assistance of the Holy Ghost which the Apostles had if this be true his Demonstration is at an end for he cannot plead that this assistance hath been continued ever since the Apostles He proceeds The Apostles preached this Doctrine the Nations understood it lived according to it and valued
it as that which was necessary to them and their Posterity incomparably beyond any thing else All this I suppose done to and by the Greeks as well as any other Nation These things being put it cannot enter into any mans understanding but that the Christian Greeks of the first Age being the Scholars of the Apostles could and would earnestly commend the Christian Doctrine to their Posterity if so it is evident that they did So that the continuance of the purity of the Faith in the Greek Church is founded upon this That Fathers always delivered the same Doctrine to their Children which they had received from their Fathers and did believe it under this very Notion and Title as received nor could any one of that Church deliver another Doctrine under this Title but he would be convinced of a Lye by the rest and if the whole Greek Church should endeavour to deliver a new Doctrine under that Title and there 's the same reason if they should leave out any Article of the old Doctrine that whole Age would be in their Consciences condemned of perfidiousness and parricide Now this is as impossible as it is that all Mankind should conspire to kill themselves And he afterwards gives the reason why it is so impossible that Tradition should fail and it is a very bold and saucy one That if the Tradition of the Christian Faith be not more firm than the course of the Sun and Moon and the propagation of Mankind then God hath shewn himself an unskilful Artificer What is there in all this Demonstration which may not be accommodated to the Greek Church with as much force and advantage as to the Catholick Unless he can shew that it is very possible that all the Men in Greece may conspire to kill themselves but yet absolutely impossible that all the Men in the World should do so which I am sure he cannnot shew unless he can demonstrate that though it be possible for a Million of as wise Men as any are to be found in the World together to conspire to do a foolish action yet it is impossible that an Hundred millions not one jot wiser than the other should agree together to the doing of it § 4. From all this it appears That Mr. White 's Answer to this Objection doth not signifie any thing to his purpose For if the Procession of the Holy Ghost was part of Christs Doctrine then it was delivered by the Apostles to the Greek Church if so they could not fail to deliver it down to the next Age and that to the next and so on but it seems they have failed Where then is the force of hopes and fears strongly applied Where are the certain Causes of actual Will to adhere to this Doctrine Why is not the effect produced the Causes being put actually causing If the Apostles delivered this Doctrine Oral Tradition is so clear and unmistakable and brings down Faith clad in such plain matters of Fact that the most stupid man living much less the Greeks that were the flower of Mankind could not possibly be ignorant of it nay it exceeds all the power of Nature to blot Knowledges thus fixt out of the Soul of one single Believer much more out of so vast a Church And since no man can hold contrary to his knowledg or doubt of what he holds nor change and innovate without knowing he did so 't is a manifest impossibility a whole Church should in any Age fall into an absurdity so inconsistent with the nature of one single man And since 't is natural for every man to speak Truth and Grace is to perfect Nature in whatever is good in it it follows that one truly Christian heart is far more fixt to Veracity than others not imbu'd with these heavenly Tenets and consequently that a multitude of such must incomparably exceed in point of testifying the same number of others unfortified by Christs Doctrine And since such a thought cannot enter into the most depraved Nature as to harm another without any good to himself and yet this must be if we put Christian Fathers misteaching their Children unreceived Doctrines for received and I hope for the same reason received Doctrines for unreceived contrary to their knowledg For supposing Sanctity in the Greek Church and why may we not as well as in the Latin That is that multitudes in it make Heaven their first love and look on spiritual goods as their main concern c. it follows that had the Fathers of that Church in any Age consented to mislead their Posterity from what themselves not only conceited but knew to be true they should do the most extream harm imaginable to others without any the least good to themselves which is perhaps impossible in one single man more in few but infinitely in a multitude especially of good men § 5. Thus I might apply the rest of his Ranting Rhetorick but that I am weary of Transcribing it concerning the natural love of Parents to their Children unless we suppose the Greek Church destitute of it which must needs engage them to use the means proper to bring them to Heaven and save them from Hell As also concerning the natural care men have of not losing their Credit by telling pernicious Lyes And not to omit the best part of his Demonstration which was therefore prudently reserved to the last place I might likewise shew how the Principles of each Science Arithmetick Geometry Logick Nature Morality Historical Prudence Politicks Metaphysicks Divinity and last of all the new Science of Controversie as he calls it or the blessed Art of Eternal wrangling and disputing the first Principle whereof he tells us is That Tradition is certain do all contribute to shew the certainty of Tradition that is the impossibility that any part of Christs Doctrine should fail in the Greek Church any more than in the Latin And surely Arithmetick Geometry Logick Natural Philosophy Metaphysicks c. will all stand up for the Greek Church in this quarrel for considering that Greece was the place where the Arts and Sciences were born and bred it is not to be imagined that they should be so disingenuous and unnatural as not to contribute their best assistance to the service of their Countrey § 6. But it may be the Greeks cannot so justly pretend to Oral Tradition as the Latins What if St. Peter the Head of the Apostles thought fit to share Scripture and Tradition between these two Churches and laying his left hand on the Greek Church and his right on the Latin was pleased to confer the great blessing of Oral Tradition upon the Latin Church which being to be the seat of Infallibility it was but fitting that she should be furnish't with this infallible way of conveying the Christian Doctrine And therefore it may be that as the Scriptures of the New Testament were left in Greek so Oral Tradition was delivered down only in Latin
This I confess is not altogether without some shew of reason Mr. S. may do well to take the matter into his deeper consideration he hath in his time improved as weak probabilities as these into lusty Demonstrations And if he could but demonstrate this it would very much weaken the force of this Instance of the Greek Church otherwise for ought I see this Instance will hold good against him and whatever he can say for the impossibility of Tradition's failing in the Latin Church may all be said of the Greek Church if he will but grant that the Apostles preached the same Doctrine to them both that the arguments of hope and fear which this Doctrine contains in it were applied as strongly to the Greeks as the Latins And yet notwithstanding all this Tradition hath plainly failed in the Greek Church Let him now assign the Age wherein so vast a number of men conspired to leave out the Article of the Procession of the Holy Ghost and shew how it was possible a whole Age could conspire together to damn their Posterity or how the Faith of immediate Fore-fathers might be altered without any such Conspiracy and we are ready to satisfie him how the Doctrine of the Latin Church might be corrupted and altered and to tell him punctually in what Age it was done And until he do this I would entreat him to trouble us no more with those canting questions wherein yet the whole force of his Demonstration lies How is it possible a whole Age should conspire to change the Doctrine of their Fore-fathers And in what Age was this done For if it be reasonable to demand of us in order to the overthrowing of his Demonstration to assign the particular Age wherein the Latin Church conspired to change the ancient Doctrine with the same reason we require of him in order to the maintaining of his Demonstration to name the particular Age wherein the Greek Church conspired to alter the Doctrine of Christ which was undoubtedly in the first Age truly delivered to them by the Apostles and also to shew from the rational force and strength of Tradition how it is more impossible for the whole Church to have failed in transmitting the Doctrine of Christ down to us or to have conspired to the altering of it than for such a multitude of Christians as is the vast body of the Greek Church If Mr. S. or Mr. White shew this they do something otherwise I must tell them that unless they can manage these pretty things they call Demonstrations better they must shortly either quit their Reason or their Religion or else return to the honest old Mumpsimus of the Infallibility of the Church from an extraordinary and immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost or to make the business short and stop all gaps with one Bush come over to the Jesuites and acknowledg the Popes Infallibility both in matters of Faith and Fact by which means they may reconcile themselves to him and prevent that direful stroke which threatens them from Rome and is ready to cut them off from the Body of the Traditionary Church And thus I have done with his First Demonstration and I take it for a good sign that the Popish Cause is at a very low ebb when such stuff as this must be called Demonstration SECT VI. § 1. I Come now to his Demonstration a Posteriori which although it fall of it self if the Demonstration a Priori fail yet because it hath some peculiar absurdities of its own I shall consider it by it self as well as with relation to the other § 2. Before he comes to lay it down with the Grounds of it according to his usual fashion he premiseth something as yielded by Protestants which in his sense no Protestant ever granted Just so he dealt with us before concerning the Scriptures saying That by them the Protestants must mean unsensed Letters and Characters But let us see what it is That this Demonstration a Posteriori seems a needless endeavour against the Protestants who yield that those Points in which we agree as the Trinity Incarnation c. came down by this way of Tradition And this he saith no Protestant ever denied And then he asks Whether the same vertue of Tradition would not have been as powerful to bring down other Points in which we do not agree had any such been Now if he speak any thing to his own purpose he must suppose Protestants to yield that all those Points wherein we are agreed were conveyed down to us solely by Oral Tradition without Writing But this all Protestants deny So that that only which would avail his Cause against us is to shew that those Points wherein we differ have not only come down to us by Oral Teaching but that they are likewise contained in Scripture without which we say we can have no sufficient certainty and assurance at this distance that they were the Doctrine of Christ and that they were not either totally innovated or else corrupted in the conveyance from what they were at first And if he can shew this concerning any Point in difference I promise to yield it to him § 3. I come now to his Demonstration which I shall set down in his own words with the Principles upon which it relies The effect then we will pitch upon and avow to be the proper one of such a cause is the present perswasion of Traditionary Christians or Catholicks that their Faith hath descended from Christ and his Apostles uninterruptedly which we find most firmly rooted in their heart and the existence of this perswasion we affirm to be impossible without the existence of Traditions ever indeficiency to beget it To prove this I lay this first Principle That Age which holds her Faith thus delivered from the Apostles neither can it self have changed any thing in it nor know or doubt that any Age since the Apostles had changed or innovated therein The second Principle shall be this No Age could innovate any thing and withall deliver that very thing to Posterity as received from Christ by continual Succession The Sum of which is this That because a present multitude of Christians viz. the Roman Church are perswaded that Christ's Doctrine hath descended to them solely by an uninterrupted Oral Tradition therefore this perswasion is an effect which cannot be attributed to any other cause but the indeficiency of Oral Tradition For if neither the present Age nor any Age before could make any change or innovation then the perswasion of the present Age is a plain Demonstration that this Doctrine was always the same and consequently that Tradition cannot fail § 4. In answer to this I shall endeavour to make good these four things First That these Principles wholly rely upon the Truth of the Grounds of his Demonstration a Priori Secondly That these Principles are not sufficiently proved by him Thirdly That Doctrines and Practises which must be acknowledged to have been
contradictions For God requires at the Peoples hands as Mr. Rushworth tells us a Credulity of things above and beyond Nature nay beyond all the Fables be it spoken with respect that ever man invented After this Doctrine hath proceeded thus far and by the most inhumane severities and cruelties supprest Dissenters or in a good measure rooted them out then if they please even this new word Transubstantiation may pretend also to Antiquity and in time be confidently vouched for a word used by Christians in all Ages and transmitted down to them by those from whom they received the Doctrine of the Sacrament as a term of Art appendant to it And when a superstitious Church and designing Governors have once gained this Post and by means of this enormous Article of Transubstantiation have sufficiently debauched the minds of men and made a breach in their understandings wide enough for the entertaining of any Error though never so gross and sensless then Innovations come in amain and by sholes and the more absurd and unreasonable any thing is it is for that very reason the more proper matter for an Article of Faith And if any of these Innovations be objected against as contrary to former belief and practice it is but putting forth a lusty act of Faith and believing another contradiction that though they be contrary yet they are the same § 3. And there is nothing in all this but what is agreeable both to History and Experience For that the Ninth and Tenth Ages and those which followed them till the Reformation were thus prodigiously ignorant and superstitious is confirmed by the unanimous consent of all Historians and even by those Writers that have been the greatest Pillars of their own Religion And Experience tells us that in what Age soever there are a great company of superstitious People there will never be wanting a few crafty Fellows to make use of this easie and pliable humor to their own ends Now that this was the state of those Ages of the Church will be evident to any from these Testimonies Platina writes of Pope Romanus that he null'd the Acts of his Predecessor Stephanus For sayes he these Popes minded nothing else but how they might extinguish both the Name and Dignity of their Predecessors And if so who can doubt but that these Popes who made it their business to destroy the very memory of their Ancestors would be very little careful to preserve the Doctrine of Fore-fathers But what the care of those Times was in this particular may be conjectured from what Onuphrius says by way of confutation of that passage in Platina concerning Pope Joan's reading publickly at Rome at her first coming thither This says he is utterly false for there was nothing that they were less sollicitous about in those Times than to furnish the City with any publick Teachers And the time which Onuphrius speaks of was much about the beginning of the Tenth Century Phil. Bergomensis says It happened in that Age through the slothfulness of men that there was a general decay of Vertue both in the Head and Members Again These Times through the Ambition and cruel Tyranny of the Popes were extremely unhappy For the Popes setting aside the fear of God and his Worship fell into such enmities among themselves as cruel Tyrants exercise towards one another Sabellicus says It is wonderful to observe what a strange forgetfulness of all Arts did about this time seize upon men insomuch that neither the Popes nor other Princes seem'd to have any sense or apprehension of any thing that might be useful to humane life There were no wholsome Laws no Reparations of Churches no pursuit of liberal Arts but a kind of stupidity and madness and forgetfulness of manners had possessed the minds of men And a little after I cannot says he but much wonder from whence these Tragical Examples of Popes should spring and how their minds should come to be so devoid of all Piety as neither to regard the Person which they susteined nor the place they were in Sigonius speaking of these Times about the beginning of the Tenth Century calls them the foulest and blackest both in respect of the wickedness of Princes and the madness of the People that are to be found in all Antiquity Genebrard speaking of the same Time This says he is called the unhappy Age being destitute of men eminent for Wit and Learning as also of famous Princes and Popes In this Time there was scarce any thing done worthy to be remembred by Posterity And he adds afterwards But chiefly unhappy in this one thing that for almost 150 years together about 50 Popes did utterly degenerate from the vertue of their Ancestors He should have added further but even to a miracle happy in another respect that during this long and total degeneracy from the Piety and Vertue of their Ancestors they did not in the least swerve from them in matter of Faith and Doctrine A thing incredible were there not Demonstration for it Werner gives this Character of that Time About the year of our Lord One Thousand there began an effeminate Time in which the Christian Faith begun to degenerate exceedingly and to decline from its ancient vigour insomuch that in many Countries of Christendom neither Sacraments nor Ecclesiastical Rites were observed And people were given to Soothsaying and Witchcrafts and the Priest was like the People It seems by this Testimony that Tradition did faulter a little in that Age else the Christian Faith could not possibly have degenerated and declined so very much And which threatens Mr. S's Demonstration most of all that the Practical Tradition of Sacraments and other Ecclesiastical Observances did fail in many Christian Countries Gerbert who lived in that Time gives this short Character of the Roman Church in an Epistle of his to Stephen Deacon of that Church The World stands amazed at the Manners of Rome But most full is the complaint of a great Prelate of the Church concerning those Times In the West says he and almost all the World over especially among those who were called the Faithful Faith failed and there was no fear of God among them it seems the Argument of Fear had lost its force Justice was perished from among men and violence prevailing against equity governed the Nations Fraud Deceit and the Arts of Couzenage were grown universal All kind of Vertue gave way as an useless thing and wickedness supply'd its place The World seemed to be declining apace towards its Evening and the second coming of the Son of man to draw near For Love was grown cold and Faiâ—h was not found upon Earth All things were in Confusion and the World looked as if it would return to its old Chaos All sorts of Fornication were committed with the same freedom as if they had been lawful Actions for men neither blushed at them nor were punish't for them Nor did the Clergy
live better than the People For the Bishops were grown negligent of the Duty of their place c. In a word men ran themselves headlong into all Vice and all Flesh had corrupted its way And farther to shew the great neglect of Priests and Bishops in the work of Teaching and Instruction which is so necessary to the preserving of Tradition inviolable I will add the Testimony of one who lived in those Times who tells us That in those days the Priests and Bishops who ought to have been the Pillars of the Church were so negligent that they did not mind the Divine Scripture nor take any care to teach and instruct Scholars that might succeed them as we read holy Men had used to do who left many Scholars perfectly instructed to be their Successors If they had only neglected the Scriptures all might have been well enough but it seems they took no care to instruct people in the way of Oral Tradition nor to furnish the Church with a new Generation of able Teachers who might deliver down from hand to hand the sense and faith of Fore-fathers This last Testimony the late Learned Lord Primate of Ierland Bishop Vsher in his Book De Christian. Eccles. Success c. where several of the Testimonies I have produced with many more to the same purpose may be seen cites out of a M. S. in Bennet Colledg Library in Cambridg concerning the authority of which M. S. there need be no dispute between Mr. S. and me because the whole force and effect of this Testimony is sufficiently contained in those Citations which I have brought out of publick and unquestionable Books § 4. All these Testimonies which I have produced are in general and for the substance of them confirmed by Two of the greatest Props of the Romish Church Bellarmine and Baronius Bellarmine says of this Tenth Age That there was never any either more unlearned or more unhappy Baronius speaks more particularly What was then the face of the Roman Church How deformed When Whores no less powerful than vile bore the chief sway at Rome and at their pleasure changed Sees appointed Bishops and which it is horrible to mention did thrust into St. Peters See their own Gallants false-Popes who would not have been mentioned in the Catalogue of the Roman Popes but only for the more distinct Recording of so long a Succession of Times And a little after Christ was then it seems in a very deep sleep And which was worse when the Lord was thus asleep there were no Disciples to awaken him being themselves all fast asleep What kind of Cardinal Presbyters and Deacons can we think were chosen by these Monsters when nothing is so natural as for every one to propagate his own likeness It is very much that these lewd Women and their Favourite-Popes Cardinals and Bishops who then swayed the Church should when they were so careless of their own Souls be so tender of the salvation of Posterity and when they administred all other affairs of the Church so extravagantly should be so careful of the main chance as to transmit the Christian Doctrine entire and uncorrupted to succeeding Ages Yet Mr. S. hath demonstrated this a Posteriori which seems so very strange to a man that considers things a Priori § 5. But it may be this dismal state of the Roman Church lasted but a little while and she did in the same Age before Tradition could be interrupted recover her self out of this degenerate condition I will therefore enquire a little into the state of succeeding Times And I find in the Thirteenth Century St. Bernard complaining That the degeneracy of the Priests was in his days greater than ever We cannot says he now say as is the People so is the Priest for the People are not so bad as their Priests In the Fifteenth Century Nic. de Clemangiis who lived in that Time wrote a Book upon this argument Of the corrupt state of the Church by which we may make some judgment whether in that Age it was as Mr. S. says impossible but that the Christian Doctrine should be entirely preserved and faithfully and diligently taught He says there was an universal degeneracy in the Church from the very Head of it to its lowest Members In the same Chapter he complains Who is there that preaches the Gospel to the People Who shews them the way to Salvation either by Word or Action It seems there was a great failure both of Oral and Practical Tradition Again speaking of the Pope's taking to himself the Collation of all vacant Bishopricks and Dignities he says one might think the Pope did this that the Church might be provided of worthier Governors both in respect of their Learning and their lives did not the thing it self declare the contrary and that ignorant and useless Persons provided they had money were by Simony advanced to the highest degrees in the Church And speaking what a vast number of Candidates there was usually at Rome from all Parts waiting for Benefices and Dignities he tells us That many of these did not come from their Studies or from Schools of Learning to govern Parishes but from the Plow and from the meanest Professions and that they understood Latin and Arabick much at the same rate and many of them could not read at all But it may be says he their manners were such as might be some excuse for their Ignorance No though their Learning was but little their Vertue was less for being brought up in Idleness they followed nothing but Debauchery and Sports c. Hence it comes to pass that in all places there are so many wicked and wretched and ignorant Priests Hence it is that Priests are so contemned by the common People Formerly the Priesthood was highly honoured by the People and nothing was more venerable than that Order of men but now nothing is more vile and despicable I make no doubt but there are now more Thieves and Robbers than true Pastors in the Church Why should any man now flatter himself with hopes of Preferment because of his Vertue or Learning Men do not now as formerly rise in the Church by such Arts Which of those that are now adays advanced to the Pontifical Dignity hath so much as perfunctorily read or heard or learn't the Scriptures yea or ever touched any more than the cover of the Bible Again speaking of the prodigious Covetousness of the Governors of the Church and the gross neglect of their Flocks They would says he much more contentedly bear the loss of ten thousand Souls than of ten or twelve Shillings But why do I say more contentedly When without the least trouble or disturbance to themselves they can bear the loss of Souls a thing so far from their care that it never entred into their thoughts Had the Hereticks of those days but had Wit enough and a little Money they might it seems for a
that can be imagined it might then have taken place for what Weeds would not have grown in so rank a Soyl Doth Mr. S. think it impossible that those that were born in the Church then should be ignorant of the Doctrine of Christ when scarce any one would take the pains to teach it them or that it could then have been altered when so few understood and fewer practised it When ptodigious Impiety and Wickedness did overspread the Church from the Pope down to the meanest of the Laity can any one believe that men generally made Conscience to instruct their Children in the true Faith of Christ Was it impossible there should be any neglect of this Duty when all others failed That there should be any mistake about the Doctrine of Christ when there was so much Ignorance unless he be of Mr. Rushworth's mind who reckons Ignorance among the Parents of Religion Where were then the Arguments of Hope and Fear Were they strongly applied or were they not Were they causes of actual will in Christians to believe well when they lived so ill Or is Christianity only fitted to form mens minds to a right belief but of no efficacy to govern their lives Hath Christ taken care to keep his Church from Error but not from Vice As the great Cardinal Perron stooping below his own Wit and Reason to serve a bad Cause tells us That the Church sings and will sing to the end of the World I am black but I am fair that is to say I am black in Manners but fair in Doctrine As if the meaning of the Prophesies and Promises of Scripture made to the Church were this that by the extraordinary care of Gods Providence and peculiar assistance of his Holy Spirit she should be wicked but Orthodox to the end of the World Where were then the vigorous causes imprinting Christ's Doctrine and continuing it more particularly at Rome than any where else and of securing that See and its supreme Pastor in the faith and practice of the Christian Doctrine above any other See or Pastor whatsoever Who is so little versed in History as not to understand the dismal state of Religion in the Romish Church in those times Who does not know what advantages the Bishops of Rome and their servile Clergy made of the ignorance and superstition of those and the succeeding Ages and by what Arts and steps they raised themselves to that power which they held in the Church for a long while after When they could tread upon the necks of Princes and make a great King walk bare-foot and yield himself to be scourged by a company of petulant Monks When they could send any man upon an Errand to visit the holy Sepulchre or the Shrine of such a Saint and command five or six Kings with great Armies upon a needless expedition into the Holy Land that so during their absence they might play their own Game the better When they could mint Miracles and impose upon the belief of the People without the authority of any ancient Books absurd and counterfeit Tales of ancient Saints and Martyrs as delivered down to them by Tradition and could bring that foppish Book the Legend almost into equal Authority and Veneration with the Bible and perswade the easy people that St. Denys carried his own head in his hand after it was cut off two miles and kiss'd it when he laid it down Any one that shall but reflect upon the monstrous practises of the Roman Bishops and Clergy in these Ages the strange Feats they played and what absurdities they imposed upon the superstitious credulity of Princes and People may readily imagine not only the possibility but the easiness of innovating new Doctrines as they pleased under the specious pretences of Antitiquity and constant and uninterrupted Tradition § 8. And this kind of Discourse concerning the possibility of Errors coming into the Church is not as Mr. White ridiculously compares it as if an Orator should go about to perswade people that George by the help of a long staff and a nimble cast of his body and such like advantages might leap over Paul 's Steeple never considering all the while the disproportion of all these advantages to the height of the Steeple so saith he he that discourseth at large how Errors use to slide into mans life without comparing the power of the causes of Error to the strength of resisting which consists in this Principle Nothing is to be admitted but what descends by Tradition c. says no more towards proving an Error 's over-running the Church than the Orator for George 's leaping over the Steeple How vain is this When it appears from this Instance that I have given of the state of the Roman Church in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries and afterwards that the causes of Error were infinitely stronger than the power of resistance The great causes of Error are Ignorance and Vice where Ignorance reigns there 's no Power where Vice no Will to resist it And how great the Ignorance and Viciousness of all orders of men in the Roman Church was is too too apparent from the Testimonies I have brought Where was the strength of resisting Error when for 150 years together the Popes were the vilest of men Bishops and Priests overwhelmed with Ignorance abandoned to all manner of vice and most supinely negligent in instructing the People In such a degenerate state of a Church what strength is there in this Principle Nothing is to be admitted but what descends by Tradition When those who ought to teach men what that Doctrine is which was derived to them by Tradition are generally careless of their Duty and ignorant themselves what that Doctrine is When they addict themselves wholly to the satisfying of their Ambition and other Lusts and carry on designs of Gain and getting Dominion over the People What can hinder men so disposed from corrupting the Doctrine of Christ and suiting it to their own Lusts and Interests And what shall hinder the People from embracing those Corruptions when by the negligence of their Pastors to instruct them and not only so but also by their being deprived of the Scriptures in a known Tongue they are become utterly incapable of knowing what the true Doctrine of Christ is So that in an Age of such profound Ignorance and Vice and general neglect of Instruction 't is so far from being impossible for Errors to over-run a Church that the contrary is morally impossible and George's long staff and advantagious cast of his Body are more powerful causes to enable him to leap over Paul's Steeple than this Principle That nothing is to be admitted but what descends by Tradition is to keep Errors out of a Church in an ignorant and vicious Age when few or none are either able or willing to instruct men in the Truth For suppose this always to have been the Principle of Christians viz. That nothing is to be admitted as the
sense and explication thereof to have descended to them by Oral Tradition For just as the Traditionary Christians do now so Josephus tells us the Traditionary Jews of old the Pharisees did pretend by their Oral Tradition to interpret the Law more accurately and exactly than any other Sect. In like manner he tells us That all things that belonged to Prayer and Divine Worship were regulated and administred according to their interpretations of the Law And they both agree in this to make void the Word of God by their Tradition which the Pharisees did no otherwise than Mr. S. does by equalling Oral Tradition to Scripture nay preferring it above Scripture in making it the sole Rule of Faith and interpreting the Scripture according to it Hence are those common sayings in the Talmud and other Jewish Books Do not think that the written Law is the foundation but that the Law Orally delivered is the right foundation which is to say with Mr. S. that not the Scripture but Oral Tradition is the true Rule of Faith Again There is more in the words of the Scribes viz. the Testifiers of Tradition than in the words of the written Law Again The Oral Law excells the Written as much as the Soul doth the Body which accords very well with what Mr. S. frequently tells us That the Scripture without Tradition is but a dead Letter destitute of life and sense Hence also it is that they required the People as the Traditionary Church does now to yield up themselves to the dictates of Tradition even in the most absurd things as appears by that common saying among them If the Scribes say that the right hand is the left and the left the right that Bread is Flesh and Wine is Blood hearken to them that is make no scruple of whatsoever they deliver as Tradition though never so contrary to Reason or Sense And lastly The Doctrines of the Pharisees were many of them practical such were all those which concerned external rites and observances as washing of hands and cups c. So that these Pharisaical Traditions had also that unspeakable advantage which Mr. S. says renders their Traditions unmistakeable That they were daily practised and came down clad in such plain matters of Fact that the most stupid man living could not possibly be ignorant of them Therefore according to Mr. S's Principles it was impossible that any Age of the Jews should be perswaded that these things were commanded by Moses and ever since observed if they had not been so And yet our Saviour denies these Customs to have been of any such Authority as they pretended § 2. But I needed not to have taken all this pains to shew the agreement which is between the Traditionary Jews and Papists their own Writers so liberally acknowledging it Mr. White indeed says That the Faith of the Jews was not delivered to them Orally but by Writing than which nothing can be more inconsistent with his Hypothesis For if the Jewish Faith was conveyed to them not Orally but by Writing then either the Jewish Church had no sufficient Rule of Faith or else a Writing may be such a Rule But other of their Champions make great use of the Parallel between the Traditionary Jews and the Romish Church to confirm from thence their own Traditionary Doctrines Cardinal Perron hath a full passage to this purpose As this says he is to preserve a sound and entire respect to the Majesty of the ancient Mosaick Scripture to believe and observe not only all the things which are therein actually contained but also those things which are therein contained mediately and relatively as the Doctrines of Paradise c. which were not contained therein but mediately and by the authority which it gave to the deposition of the Patriarchal and Mosaick Tradition preserved by heart and in the Oral Doctrine of the Synagogue So this is to preserve a sound and entire respect to the Majesty of the Apostolical Scripture to believe and observe all the things which it contains not only immediately and by it self but mediately and by reference to the Apostolical Traditions to which in gross and generally it gives the Authority of Apostolical Doctrines and to the Church the Authority of Guardian and Depositary to preserve and attest them Voysin in his Observations upon Raymundus Martyn tells us That as in the Old Law the great Consistory at Jerusalem was the foundation of the true Tradition so says he the See of Rome is the foundation of our Traditions And as the continual succession of the High Priests and Fathers among the Jews was the great confirmation of the Truth of their Traditions so says he with us the Truth of our Catholick Doctrine is confirmed by a continual succession of Popes § 3. From all this it appears that the Pharisees among the Jews made the same pretence to Oral Tradition which the Papists do at this day according to Mr. S. And if so then Mr. S's Demonstration a Posteriori is every whit as strong for the Jews against our Saviour as it is for the Papists against the Protestants For we find that in our Saviour's time it was then the present perswasion of the Traditionary Jews that their Faith and their Rites and the true sense and interpretation of their written Law was descended from Moses and the Prophets to them uninterruptedly which we find was most firmly rooted in their hearts But the Jews had a constant Tradition among them that the Messiah was to be a great temporal Prince And though the Letters of the Prophesies concerning him might well enough have been accommodated to the low and suffering condition of our Saviour yet they did infallibly know that their Messiah was to be another kind of person from sense written in their hearts from the interpretation of those Prophesies Orally brought down to them from the Patriarchal and Mosaick Tradition preserved by heart and in the Oral Doctrine of the Synagogue and from the living voyce of their Church essential that is the universal consent of the then Traditionary Jews If it be said That the Jewish Tradition did indeed bring down several Doctrines not contained in Scripture of Paradise of Hell of the last Judgment of the Resurrection c. as Cardinal Perron affirms but it did not bring down this Point of the Messiah's being a Temporal Prince Then as Mr. S. asks us so the Jew does him By what vertue Tradition brought down those other Points and whether the same vertue were not powerful to bring down this as well as those Then he will ask him farther Is there not a necessary connexion and relation between a constant Cause and its formal Effect So that if its formal Effect be Points received as delivered ever the proper Cause must be an ever-delivery whence he will argue from such an Effect to its Cause for any particular Point and consequently for this Point that is in Controversie between Jews
and Christians concerning the Messiah's being a Temporal Prince in case it be a Point held ever delivered but most certain it is it was so held by the Jews in our Saviours time and hath been held so ever since to this day I shall not trouble the Reader with transcribing the rest of this Demonstration only desire him as he reads it over to imagine instead of Mr. S. a Pharisee demonstrating against one of Christs Disciples the Infallibility of the Oral Tradition of the Jews And I doubt not but he will find this Demonstration and every part of it changing only the Names as forcibly concluding Christ not to be the Messiah as it doth infer any point of Popery against the Protestants § 4. Before I leave this Instance of the Jewish Tradition I shall briefly consider what Mr. White hath offered by way of answer to it as First That the matter of these Traditions is nothing else but Explications of Scripture framed and invented by their own Rabbines So we say that the Popish Traditions are Innovations But then Mr. White and Mr. S. tell us That they can demonstrate them to be descended from Christ and his Apostles because it is the present perswasion of a multitude of Christians that they are so descended In like manner if this Demonstration be good the Jews can prove their Traditions to be descended from Moses and the Prophets Secondly He says that the form of these Traditions is more ridiculous than the Canting of Gypsies or the jugling of Hocus-pocus because it consists in inventing the sense of Scripture from the mysteries and numbers and changes of Letters This is a gross inexcusable mistake For though the Jews have such a Cabala called Gematry as this which Mr. White describes yet that Cabala which is urged in this Instance and which our Saviour reproves in the Pharisees by the name of Tradition is quite another thing and among the Jewish Writers known by the name of the Vnwritten or Oral Law which they say was delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai and by him conveyed to Aaron and Joshua and the Elders and successively delivered down from one Age to another and at last by Rabbi Jehuda compiled into one Volume which they call Mishna or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this does not consist in the Art of Numbring Combining or changing of Letters as Mr. White imagines But suppose it did so and were more ridiculous than he conceits it to be the Instance would be so much the more conclusive against them if what they affirm be true That Oral Tradition is infallible and that the perswasion of a Traditionary Church in any Age that such a Doctrine descended to them from Christ or Moses be a demonstration that it did so For if this be sufficient evidence 't is nothing to the purpose what the Doctrine be either for matter or form For if it be once demonstrated to have come from Christ or Moses it is without any farther dispute to be received as of Divine authority So that Mr. White quite alters the state of the question which was not whether the Jewish Cabala be absurd and ridiculous but whether the general perswasion of the Jews in any Age that it descended to them by uninterrupted Tradition from Moses be a demonstration that it did so If it be then the Jewish Cabala is as demonstratively of Divine Authority as the Oral Doctrine of the Papists Thirdly He says This Cabala was a Doctrine delivered to few and that with strict charge to keep it from Publicity and so communicate it again successively to a select Committee of a few wherein says he you may see as fair an opportunity for jugling and couzenage as in our case there is an impossibility This I think is true of the Cabala which it seems Mr. White had only in his view but is a horrible mistake if he speak of the Oral Law which was contained in the Mishnah and which this Instance only intends For of this Maimonides says expresly That in every Age from the time of Moses to Rabbi Jehudah who compiled the Mishna the Oral Law was publickly taught And that after Rabbi Jehudah had compiled it into one Volume the Israelites did generally write out Copies of it and it was every where carefully taught for fear lest the Oral Law should by forgetfulness be last among the Jews So that upon account of the publickness of the Doctrine there is as great an impossibility of Jugling and Couzenage in the case of the Jewish as of the Romish Tradition Besides was washing of Hands and Cups which they also pretended to have come down to them from Moses and to have been constantly practised in every Age a secret thing Was it not a practical Tradition and performed in a sensible matter If therefore no Age can conspire to impose upon the next in a plain custom and if an universal Tradition of such a thing cannot come in without such a conspiracy How could this be the perswasion of any Age that washing of Hands c. was prescribed by Moses and practised in all Ages if it had not truly been so § 5. Secondly As for Instances among Christians whereof many remain yet upon Record as namely the various and opposite Traditions about the time of Easter and concerning the Baptism of Hereticks and the Apostolical Tradition as St. Austin calls it concerning the admission of Infants to the Communion all which have been frequently urged in this Controversie and none of them yet sufficiently answered I shall to avoid tediousness passing by these insist only upon that of the Chiliasts which in Justin Martyr's time was the perswasion of all Orthodox Christians that is in Mr. S's Dialect of all the holders to Tradition For if notwithstanding the perswasion of that Age that this Doctrine was descended to them from the Apostles it was not really so descended then the perswasion of Christians in any Age that a Doctrine was brought down to them from the Apostles is no Demonstration that it was so § 6. To this Instance Mr. White answers by telling us that Eusebius says that this Tradition sprang from Papias a good but a credulous and simple man who it seems was mistaken in saying that it was the Apostles Doctrine But for all this Justin Martyr says it was received by all Orthodox Christians in his Time as a Doctrine descended to them from the Apostles And if Justin said true nothing can make more against their Demonstration of the Infallibility of Tradition than the natural consequence from these two sayings of Eusebius and Justin which is this That the mistake of one simple and credulous man may in an Age or two give occasion to the universal entertainment of a Doctrine as descended down to them from Christ and his Apostles when there was no such matter Hath not Mr. White now done his Rule of Faith great service by this Answer But it is according to his manner in
all his Writings to say any thing to remove a present Objection though never so much to the prejudice of his main Hypothesis then which I do not know any quality in a Writer which doth more certainly betray the want either of judgment or of sincerity or of a good Cause § 7. And whereas he says That Irenaeus his testimony proves it to be no Tradition for he sets down the supposed words of our Saviour which plainly shews it is a story not a Tradition a Tradition being a sense delivered not in set words but setled in the Auditors hearts by hundreds of different expressions explicating the same meaning When I consider this passage of Mr. White I confess I cannot complement him and say as he makes his Nephew do in the Dialogue between them I cannot but applaud your Discourse it hath so pleasing and attractive a countenance And again I am not able to oppose what you say by any weighty Objection your Arguments being not only strong and nervous but of so comely and winning a complexion c. I cannot I say speak all this of his present Argument But I may deservedly apply to it the last part of his Nephew's Complement That it is an Argument so framed as if without any evidence of its consequence it would perswade men to believe it But to return an Answer to this passage It seems according to Mr. White that Irenaeus was mistaken in the very nature of Tradition and if so learned a Father was ignorant in the common Rule of Faith what can we to use Mr. S's words undertakingly promise to weaker heads Mr. S. instanceth in the Creed and Ten Commandments as the principal Traditions which Parents teach their Children but now Mr. White can shew plainly that these are no Traditions but Stories because Tradition is a sense delivered not in set words c. As if Christ and his Apostles could deliver no Doctrine unless they expressed the same thing an hundred several ways But suppose they did so which no man hath any reason to imagine because a thing may be expressed as plainly by one way as by an hundred can no man deliver this Tradition who speaks it in any one of those expressions If one should employ his Servant to carry a Message and because Mr. White thinks this necessary should settle the meaning of it in his heart by telling him the same thing in an hundred several expressions and the Servant should go and deliver this Message in one of those very expressions that his Master used to him and should say these were his Masters very words would not this be well enough No if he had come to such a Philosopher as Mr. White he would soon have given him to understand that he was not fit to bring a Message or to be credited in it who had so little wit as not to know that a Message is a thing not to be delivered in set-words And now I would entreat Mr. White to reconcile himself in this matter to his Friends Mr. Rushworth says 'T is impossible to put fully and beyond all quarrel the same sense in divers words Which if it be true I would fain know what certain course Mr. White can prescribe to explicate the same meaning by hundreds of different expressions and consequently how Tradition can be infallibly conveyed by setling the sense of it in the Auditors hearts by such variety of expressions Mr. Cressy likewise a zealous Assertor of Tradition does affirm That the Primitive Churches were even to excess scrupulous in maintaining the very phrases of Traditionary Doctrines which according to Mr. White plainly shews these Doctrines to be stories not Traditions because Tradition is a sense delivered not in set-words The same Author complains That few among their learnedst Masters of Controversie propose the Points to be disputed between them and the Protestants in the Language of the Church By which I suppose he does not mean that these Controvertists were to blame in that they did not settle the sense of these Points by hundreds of different expressions explicating the same meaning but that they did not keep to the words wherein the Church had in Councils or otherwise if there be any other way declared her sense of those Points Again he says That St. Paul referring to the Doctrine setled by Oral Instruction to shew the uniformity of it everywhere calls it a form of wholsom words From whence we may conclude either that St. Paul did not well to call the Traditionary Doctrine as Mr. Cressy says he does a form of words or else which is more probable that Mr. White is mistaken in saying That a Tradition is a sense not delivered in set-words Furthermore the same Mr. Cressy tells us That St. Augustine was careful not only to deliver Traditional Truths themselves but the terms also in which those Truths were conveyed to his Times But now Mr. White could have informed St. Augustin that this officious care of his was not only superfluous but pernicious to Tradition § 8. But to return to Justin's Testimony to which the summe of Mr. Whites answer is That Justin esteem'd it not as a point necessary to salvation but rather a piece of Learning higher than the common Since he both acknowledges other Catholicks held the contrary and entitles those of his perswasion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 right in all opinions that is wholly of his own mind It is not material to my purpose whether or no Justin look'd upon this as a point necessary to Salvation so long as it is evident that he looked upon it as a Divine Revelation and part of the Christian Doctrine And yet it seems he thought it a point of more than ordinary importance because he joins it with the Doctrine of the Resurrection and says that it was not disowned by any but those who also denied the Resurrection But whereas Mr. White says that Justin acknowledges other Catohlicks to have held the contrary I hope to make it evident from the scope and series of his Discourse that he acknowledges no such thing but that the plain design of his Discourse is to shew that this Doctrine was owned by all true Christians For when Trypho asks him Whether the Christians did indeed believe that Jerusalem should be re-built c. He returns him this answer I am not such a Wretch as to speak otherwise than I think I have told thee before that my self and many others as ye all know are of the mind that this will come to pass But that many indeed of those Christians who are not of the pure and pious perswasion do not own this I have intimated to thee That the negative particle though omitted in the Copy ought to be thus inserted will be clear to any one that considers what follows For after he had spoken of those who disown this Doctrine he immediately adds by way of further description of them that
proof of this I appeal to that Decree of the Council of Trent in which they declare That because the Christian Faith and Discipline are contained in written Books and unwritten Traditions c. therefore they do receive and honour the Books of Scripture and also Traditions pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiâ with equal pious affection and reverence which I understand not how those do who set aside the Scripture and make Tradition the sole Rule of their Faith And consonantly to this Decree the general Doctrine of the Romish Church is that Scripture and Tradition make up the Rule of Faith So the Roman Catechism set forth by order of the Council of Trent says that the sum of the Doctrine delivered to the Faithful is contained in the Word of God which is distributed into Scripture and Tradition Bellarmine speaks to the same purpose That the Scripture is a Rule of Faith not an entire but partial one The entire Rule is the Word of God which is divided into two partial Rules Scripture and Tradition According to this the adequate Rule of Faith is the Word of God which is contained partly in Scripture and partly in the Tradition of the Church And that Scripture is look't upon by them as the principal Rule and primary foundation of their Faith and Tradition as only supplying the defects of Scripture as to some Doctrines and Rites not contained in Scripture must be evident to any one that hath been conversant in the chief of their controversial Divines Bellarmine where he gives the marks of a Divine Tradition speaks to this purpose That that which they call a Divine Tradition is such a Doctrine or Rite as is not found in Scripture but embraced by the whole Church and for that reason believed to have descended from the Apostles And he tells us further That the Apostles committed all to Writing which was commonly and publickly Preached and that all things are in Scripture which men are bound to know and believe explicitely But then he says that there were other things which the Apostles did not commonly and publickly teach and these they did not commit to Writing but delivered them only by word of mouth to the Prelates and Priests and perfect men of the Church And these are the Apostolical Traditions he speaks of Cardinal Perron says That the Scripture is the foundation of the Christian Doctrine either mediately or immediately And that the Authority of unwritten Tradition is founded in general on these sentences of the Apostle Hold the Traditions c. Again The things which thou hast heard of me among many Witnesses commit to faithful men c. And that the Authority of the Church to preserve and especially to declare these is founded in this Proposition viz. That the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth So that according to him the primary Rule of Faith is the Scripture in which the Authority of Tradition is founded Mr. Knott says expresly We acknowledg the H. Scripture to be a most perfect Rule for as much as a Writing can be a Rule we only deny that it excludes either Divine Tradition though it be unwritten or an external Judg to keep to propose to interpret it c. So that according to him Scripture is a perfect Rule only it does not exclude unwritten Tradition c. By which that he does not understand as Mr. S. does a concurrent Oral Tradition of all the same Doctrines which are contained in Scripture but other Doctrines not therein contained is plain from what he says elsewhere We do not distinguish Tradition from the written Word because Tradition is not written by any or in any Book or Writing but because it is not written in the Srripture or Bible Bellarmine also says the same And as for the interpreting of Scripture he tells us that this is not the office of a Rule but of a Judg. There is says he a great and plain distinction between a Judg and a Rule For as in a Kingdom the Judg hath his Rule to follow which are the received Laws and Customs which are not fit or able to declare and be Judges to themselves but that Office must belong to a living Judg So the Holy Scripture is and may be a Rule but cannot be a Judg. Here he makes the Scripture as much a Rule for matters of Faith as the Laws of the Land are for Civil matters And in his Reply to Mr. Chillingworth he hath a Chapter of above 150 Pages the Title whereof is Scripture is not the only Rule of Faith which had he with Mr. S. believed Oral Tradition to be the sole Rule of Faith had been as absurd as it would be to write a Book to prove that Turks are not the only Christians in the World Mr. Cressy likewise not very consistently to himself lays down this Conclusion The entire Rule of faith is contained not only in Scripture but likewise in unwritten Tradition § 2. Now all this is as contrary as can be to Mr. Rushworth's new Rule of Faith Therefore Mr. White says They speak ill who teach that some things are known in the Church from Scripture some by Tradition And Dr. Holden in opposition to those who make Scripture any part of the Rule of Faith advances one of the most wild and uncharitable Positions that ever I yet met withall viz. That if one should believe all the Articles of the Catholick Faith c. for this reason because he thought they were all expresly revealed in Scripture or implicitely contained so as they might be deduced from thence and would not have believed them had he not judged that they might be evinced from Scripture yet this man could be no true Catholick Because as he tells us afterwards we must receive the Christian Doctrine as coming to us by Tradition for only by this means excluding the Scriptures Christ hath appointed revealed Truths to be received and communicated In the mean time Cardinal Perron unless he altered his mind is in a sad case who believed the Authority of Tradition it self for this reason because it was founded in Scripture § 3. And this fundamental difference about the Rule of Faith between the generality of their Divines and Mr S's small party is fully acknowledged by the Traditionists themselves Dr. Holden says That their Divines who resolve Faith according to the common Opinion do inevitably fall into that shameful Circle of proving the Divine Authority of the Scripture by the Church and the Infallibility of the Church back again by the Scripture because they dare not build their Faith upon the natural evidence and certainty of Tradition So that Dr. Holden's way of resolving Faith is different from the common Opinion of their Divines which he says does not differ from the Opinion of those who resolve their Faith into the private Spirit and this according to Mr. White
is the very way of the Calvinists and of the absurdest Sects Nay Mr. White says farther That he will be content to suffer all the punishment that is due to Calumniators if the Roman Divines he there speaks of do not hold the same Rule of Faith with the Calvinists and all the absurdest Sects So that it seems that the Calvinists c. do not in their Rule of Faith differ from the Papists but only from Mr. White Mr. S. c. Now the Divines he there speaks of are the Censors of Doctrines at Rome according to whose advice his infallible Holiness and the Cardinals of the Inquisition do usuall proceed in censuring of Doctrines Concerning these Divines he goes on to expostulate in this manner Shall we endure these men to sit as Censors and Judges of Faith who agree with Hereticks in the very first Principle which distinguishes Catholicks from Hereticks Again These are thy gods O Rome upon these thou dependest whil'st prating Ignorance triumphs in the Roman Colledg And he says the same likewise of the generality of their School-Divines whom he calls Scepticks because they do not own his Demonstrative way Insomuch that he tells us That few sound parts are left uninfected with this Plague of Scepticism that this is an universal Gangrene that there are but few that go the way of Demonstration and these are either wearied out or else live retiredly or despair of any remedy of these things And indeed all along that Book he bemoans himself and his Traditionary Brethren as a desolate and forlorn Party who have Truth on their side but want company and encouragement So he tells us That the true scientifical Divines dare not profess their knowledg lest they should be exposed by the Sophisters of their Church to the derision and scorn either of their Judges or of the People § 4. So that upon examination of the whole matter it appears that Mr. S's Demonstration proceeds upon a false Supposition That it is the perswasion of their present Church that Tradition is the sole Rule of Faith For there is no such matter unless Mr. S. mean by their Church a few private persons who are look'd upon by those who have the chief power in their Church as Heretical as we may reasonably conjecture by the proceedings at Rome against Mr. White many of whose Books are there condemned as containing things manifestly Heretical erroneous in the Faith rash scandalous seditious and false respectively c. And all this done notwithstanding that the chief subject of those Books is the explication and defence of this most Catholick Principle That Oral Tradition is the only Rule of Faith To sum up then the whole business If nothing be to be owned for Christian Doctrine as the Traditionists say but what is the general perswasion of those who are acknowledged to be in the communion of the Roman Catholick Church then much less can this Principle That Oral Tradition is the sole Rule of Faith which is pretended to be the foundation of the whole Christian Doctrine be received as descended from Christ and his Apostles since it is so far from being the general perswasion of that Church at the present that it has been and still is generally disowned But Mr. White has a salvo for this For although he grant That very many of their School-men maintain that Tradition is necessary only for some Points not clearly expressed in Scripture whence he says it seems to follow that they build not the whole Body of their Faith upon Tradition yet he tells us there is a vast difference betwixt relying on Tradition and saying or thinking we d◠so Suppose there be yet I hope that mens saying that they do not rely on Tradition as their only Rule is a better evidence that they do not than any mans surmise to the contrary is that they do though they think and say they do not which is in effect to say that they do though we have as much assurance as we can have that they do not Besides how is this Rule self-evident to all even to the rude Vulgar as to its ruling power as Mr. S. affirms it is when the greatest part even of the Learned among them think and say that it is not the only Rule But Mr. White endeavours to illustrate this dark point by a similitude which is to this sense As the Scepticks who deny this Principle That Contradictions cannot be true at once yet in their lives and civil actions proceed as if they owned it So the Schoolmen though they deny Tradition to be the only Rule of their Faith yet by resolving their Faith into the Church which owns this Principle they do also in practice own it though they say they do not So that the generality of learned Papists are just such Catholicks as the Scepticks are Dogmatists that is a company of absurd people that confute their Principles by their practice According to this reasoning I perceive the Protestants will prove as good Catholicks as any for they do only think and say that Tradition is not the Rule of Faith but that they practically rely upon it Mr. S. hath past his word for them For he assures us and we may rely upon a man that writes nothing but Demonstration that if we look narrowly into the bottom of our hearts we shall discover the natural method of Tradition to have unawares setled our Judgments concerning Faith however when our other Concerns awake design in us we protest against it and seem perhaps to our unreflecting selves to embrace and hold to the meer guidance of the Letter of Scripture So that in reality we are as good Catholicks and as true holders to Tradition as any Papist of them all at the bottom of our thoughts and in our setled judgments however we have taken up an humour to protest against it and may seem perhaps to our unreflecting selves to be Protestants § 5. Thus much may suffice to have spoken to his two great Arguments or as he good man unfortunately calls them Demonstrations which yet to say truth are not properly his but the Authors of Rushworth's Dialogues the main foundation of which Book is the substance of these Demonstrations Only before I take leave of them I cannot but reflect upon a passage of Mr. S s wherein he tells his Readers that they are not obliged to bend their brains to study his Book with that severity as they would do an Euclid meaning perhaps one of Mr. White 's Euclids for it does not appear by his way of Demonstration that ever he dealt with any other As for the true Euclid I suppose any one that hath tasted his Writings will at the reading of Mr. S's unbend his brains without bidding and smile to see himself so demurely discharged from a study so absurd and ridiculous SECT XI § 1. I Should now take into consideration his Ninth
Church and skipt into the Opinions of human Sects not of human Election as Mr. S. blindly following Mr. Wh. does most absurdly translate it but he that hath returned from his Errors and hearkned to the SCRIPTVRES and conformed his life to the Truth is as it were advanced from a Man to a God At the same rate he goes on for several Pages together taking the Scriptures for an indemonstrable Principle from which all Divine Doctrines are to be demonstrated and for the Criterion whereby they are to be tried and charges the Hereticks in such words as we cannot find fitter for our Adversaries As says he naughty Boys shut out their School-master so these drive the Prophecies out of the Church suspecting that they will chide and admonish them and they patch together abundance of falshoods and fictions that they may seem RATIONALLY not to admit the Scriptures Again speaking of these Hereticks affronting the Scriptures he tells us they oppose the Divine Tradition with human Doctrines by other Traditions delivered from hand to hand that they may establish a Sect or Heresie Again he says they adulterate the Truth and steal the Rule of Faith c. but for ORAL Frauds they shall have WRITTEN Punishments But enough of this whosoever desires to see more of it let him read on where these men to their shame have directed us and see whether any Protestant can speak more fully and plainly in this Controversy The whole trust of the Papists is upon the equivocal sense of the word Tradition Which word is commonly used by the Fathers to signify to us the Scriptures or Divine Tradition as Clement here calls it but the Papists understand it of their unwritten Tradition and to this they apply all those passages in the Fathers where Tradition is honourably mentioned So Mr. S. deals with us in the Testimonies I have already examined And there is nothing of argument in those few which remain but from the ambiguity of this Word which I need not shew of every one of them in particular for whosoever shall read them with this Key will find that they are of no force to conclude what he drives at § 5. As for his Citations out of the Council of Trent by which he would prove it to be the perswasion of their present Church that Tradition is the sole Rule of Faith I have already shewn that that Council hath declared otherwise and is otherwise understood by the chief of their own Writers And therefore he did prudently to conceal in an c. those choaking words in which the Council declares itself to receive and honour with equal pious affection and reverence the Books of Scripture and unwritten Traditions And after a great deal of shuffling what a pitiful Account is it that he at last gives of that Council's putting Scripture constantly before Tradition because Scripture being interpreted by Tradition is of the same Authority as if an Apostle or Evangelist were present and therefore no wonder they honour Scripture-Testimony so as to put it before Tradition which is to say that because Scripture is subordinate to Tradition and to be regulated by it therefore it deserves to be put before it Besides if Scripture and Tradition be but several wayes of conveying the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine why should he imagine an Evangelist or Apostle to be more present by the Scripture than by oral Tradition Especially if it be considered that he supposes Scripture to be an uncertain and Tradition an infallible way of conveying this Doctrine SECT II. § 1. ALL that now remains is to confirm the precedent Discourse by Testimonies of the most eminent Persons of the Church in several Ages in which I shall not need to be large being so happily prevented by that full Account which is given of the sense of the Ancients in this matter in the Answer to Labyrinthus Cantuariensis which Mr. S. may if he pleases consult for his further Conviction § 2 I begin with the Historical Account which Eusebius gives of committing the Gospel to writing which is to this purpose viz That the Romans were not content with the Doctrine Preached unless it were also committed to writing and therefore did earnestly beg of Mark Peter's Companion that he would leave them a Monument in writing of that Doctrine which had been deliver'd to them by word of mouth And this was the occasion of the writing of St. Mark 's Gospel And when Peter did understand that this Work was publish'd being suggested by the Divine Revelation of the Holy Spirit it is said he was very much pleased with the ready and earnest desire of those Persons and that by his Authority he confirmed this Writing to the end that it might be every where read in the Church As for St. Matthew and St. John he tells us That of all the Disciples they two only have left monuments in Writing of whom it is also reported that they betook themselves to write being drawn thereto by necessity Matthew after he had preached the Word of God to the Jews and was resolved to go to other Nations wrote his Gospel in the Language of his Countrey and thus by the diligence and pains of Writing did abundantly supply the the want of his presence to those whom he left And when Mark and Luke had published their Gospel it is reported that John who had always used to preach the Word without writing it being at length wrought upon by the same reason did betake himself to write From this account it is clear that the Apostles thought it necessary for the preservation and secure conveyance of the Christian Doctrine that it should be put into Writing and that they judged this a better way to supply the want of their presence than oral Tradition Therefore the same Author tells us That the Disciples who immediately succeeded the Apostles as they travelled to preach the Gospel to those who had not yet heard the Word of Faith did with great care also deliver to them the Writings of the Holy Evangelists Again That Ignatius as he travelled towards Rome where he was to suffer exhorted the Churches of every City to hold fast the Tradition of the Apostles which as also by Writing he testified for greater security he held necessary to be copied in Writing § 4. That the Hereticks of Old made the same pretence which the Papists make now of oral Tradition in opposition to Scripture the same Eusebius tells us and withal that Books are a sufficient confutation of this pretence Those says he who were of the Heresie of Artemon said that all their Fore-fathers and the Apostles themselves had received and taught the same things which they also did and had preserved the true Teaching unto the time of Victor Bishop of Rome whose Successor Zephyrinus corrupted it And this saith he would have great probability were it not first of all contradicted by the Scripture and next if there
the truth of the thing I am content therefore wherever in what I have writ he meets that term so applied that he take it only in his own sense for that which is certainly true for I mean no more by it And in this sense Mr. S. answers affirmatively and gives this account of it not only because the present Church cannot be deceived in what the Church of the former age believed but because the Church in no age could conspire against her knowledg to deceive that age immediately following in matter of fact evident in a manner to the whole world The Question then is whether this be a sufficient account for me to believe that to be certainly true or to be the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles which the present Church delivers and consequently whether the resolution of faith be barely into oral tradition Thus we see the clear state of the Question between us I come therefore to the vindication of those things which I had objected against this way of resolving faith into oral tradition Three things I especially insisted on 1. That it is inconsistent with the pretensions of the present Roman Church 2. That it hath not been the way owned in all ages of the Christian Church 3. That it is repugnant to common sense and experience and that the Church of Rome hath apparently altered from what was the belief of former ages If these three be made good there will be no cause to glory in this last invention to support the sinking fabrick of that Church These three then I undertake to defend against what Mr. Serjeant hath objected against them 1. That it is contrary to the pretensions of the present Roman Church And if it be so there can be no reason for those who are of it to rely upon it For if so be that Church pretends that the obligation to faith arises from a quite different ground from this how can they who believe that Church infallible venture their faith upon any other principle than what is publickly owned by her And whosoever thinks himself bound to believe by virtue of an infallible assistance of the present Church doth thereby shew that his obligation doth not depend upon what was delivered by the former ages of the Church As those who believed the Apostles were infallible in their doctrine could not resolve their faith into the infallibility of oral tradition but into that immediate assistance by which the Apostles spake and where there is a belief of a like assistance the foundation of faith cannot ly in the indefectibility of tradition but in that infallible Spirit which they suppose the Church to be assisted by For supposing this oral tradition should fail and that men might believe that it had actually failed yet if the former supposition were true there was sufficient ground for faith remaining still And what assurance can any one have that the present Church delivers nothing for matter of faith but what hath been derived in every age from Christ and his Apostles if such an infallible Spirit be supposed in the present Church which was in the Apostles themselves For on the same reason that those who heard the Apostles were not bound to trouble themselves with the tradition of the former age no more ought they who believe the present Roman Church to have the same infallible assistance They need not then enquire whether this age knew the meaning of the former or whether one age could conspire to deceive another or whether notwithstanding both these errors might not come into the Church it is sufficient for them that the definitions of the present Church are infallible in all matters of faith Therefore my demand was built on very good reason How can you assure me the present Church obliges me to believe nothing but only what and so far as it received from the former Church And Mr. S's answer is far from being satisfactory That this appears by her manifest practice never refusing communion to any man that could approve himself to believe all the former age did For this may be resolved into a principle far different from this which is the belief of the infallibility of the present Church For supposing that they are not bound to enquire themselves into the reasons why the tradition could not fail in any age it is suffient for them to believe the Church infallible and if it be so in proposing matters of faith it must be so in declaring what the belief of the former age was But my demands go on What evidence can you bring to convince me both that the Church always observed this rule and could never be deceived in it Which question is built on these two Principles which the infallibility of oral tradition stands on 1. That the Church must always go upon this ground 2. That if it did so it is impossible she should be deceived Both which are so far from that self-evidence which M. Serjeant still pretends to in this way that the Jesuits principles seem much more rational and consistent than these do For granting them but that one Postulatum that there must be an inherent infallibility in the testimony of the present Church to afford sufficient foundation for divine faith all the rest of their doctrine follows naturally from it Whereas this new way of resolving faith is built on such suppositions which no man well in his wits will be ready to grant For unless it be self-evident that the Church did always proceed on this ground it cannot be self-evident that oral tradition is infallible because the self-evidence of this principle depends on this that in all ages of the Church the only rule and measure of faith was what was delivered by oral tradition from the age foregoing Now if it be possible that matters of faith might be conveyed in ways quite different from this what self-evidence can there be that the Church much always proceed upon this Mr. S. then must demonstrate it impossible for matters of faith to be conveyed to posterity in any other way than oral tradition and not only that the thing is impossible but that the Church in all ages judged it to be so or else he can never make it at all evident that the Church always made this her rule of faith But if either there may be a certain conveyance of the doctrine of faith another way viz. by writing or that the Church might judg that way more certain whether it were so or not either way it will appear far enough from self-evidence that she always judged of doctrines of faith meerly by the tradition of the preceding age If another way be granted possible there must be clear demonstration that the Church notwithstanding this did never make use of it for if it did make use of another way of resolving faith in any age of the Church then in that age of the Church oral tradition was not looked on as the ground of faith
and if so notwithstanding whatever Mr. S. can demonstrate to the contrary that age might have believed otherwise than the immediately preceding did For let us but suppose that all necessary doctrines of faith were betimes recorded in the Church in Books universally received by the Christians of the first ages is it not possible that age which first embraced these Books might deliver them to posterity as the rule of their faith and so down from one age to another and doth it not hence follow that the rule of faith is quite different from a meer oral tradition Let Mr. S. then either shew it impossible that the doctrines of faith should be written or that being written they should be universally received or that being universally received in one age they should not be delivered to the next or being delivered to the next those Books should not be looked on as containing the rule of faith in them or though they were so yet that still oral tradition was wholly relied on as the rule of faith and then I shall freely grant that Mr. S. hath attempted something towards the proof of this new hypothesis But as things now stand it is so far from being self-evident that the Church hath always gone upon this principle that we find it looked on as a great novelty among them in their own Church and it would be a rare thing for a new invention to have been the sense of the Church in all ages which if it hath been the strength of it is thereby taken away But let us suppose that the Church did proceed upon this principle that nothing was to be embraced but what was derived by tradition from the Apostles how doth it thence follow that nothing could be admitted into the Church but what was really so derived from them Do we not see in the world at this day that among those who own this principle contradictory propositions are believed and both sides tell us it is on this account because their doctrine was delivered by the Apostles doth not the Greek Church profess to believe on the account of tradition from the Apostles as well as the Latin If that tradition failed in the Greek Church which was preserved in the Latin either Mr. S. must instance on his own principles in that age which conspired to deceive the next or he must acknowledg that while men own tradition they may be deceived in what the foregoing age taught them and consequently those things may be admitted as doctrines coming from the Apostles which were not so and some which did may be lost and yet the pretence of tradition remain still What self-evidence then can there be in this principle when two parts of the Church may both own it and yet believe contradictions on the account of it It is then worth our enquiring what self-evidence this is which Mr. S. speaks so much of which is neither more nor less but that men in all ages had eyes ears and other senses also common reason and as much memory as to remember their own names and frequently inculcated actions Which is so very reasonable a postulatum that I suppose none who enjoy any of these will deny it Let us therefore see how he proceeds upon it If you disprove this I doubt we have lost mankind the subject we speak of and till you disprove it neither I nor any man in his wits can doubt that this rule depending on testifying that is sense or experience can possibly permit men to be deceivable Big words indeed but such as evidence that all men who are in their wits do not constantly use them For I pray Sir what doth Mr S. think of the Greek Church Had not those in it eyes ears and other senses as well as in the Latin Do not they pretend and appeal to what they received from their Fore-fathers as well as the Latins It seems then a deception is possible in the case of testifying and therefore this doth more than permit men to be deceivable for here hath been an actual deception on one side or other But we need not fear losing mankind in this for the possibility of error supposeth mankind to continue still and if we take away that we may sooner lose it than by the contrary But what repugnancy can we imagine to humane nature that men supposing doctrines of faith to come down from Christ or his Apostles should yet mistake in judging what those doctrines are Had not men eyes and ears and common sense in Christ and the Apostles times And yet we see even then the doctrine of Christ was mistaken and is it such a wonder it should be in succeeding ages Did not the Nazarenes mistake in point of circumcision the Corinthians as to the resurrection and yet the mean time agree in this that Christs doctrine was the rule of faith or that they ought to believe nothing but what came from him Did not the Disciples themselves err even while they were with Christ and certainly had eyes and ears and common sense as other men have concerning some great articles of Christian faith viz. Christs passion resurrection and the nature of his Kingdom If then such who had the greatest opportunities imaginable and the highest apprehensions of Christ might so easily mistake in points of such moment what ground have we to believe that succeeding ages should not be liable to such misapprehensions And it was not meerly the want of clear divine revelation which was the cause of their mistakes for these things were plain enough to persons not possessed with prejudices but those were so strong as to make them apprehend things quite another way than they ought to do So it was then and so it was in succeeding ages for let Parents teach what they pleased for matters of faith yet prejudice and liableness to mistake in Children might easily make them misapprehend either the nature or weight of the doctrines delivered to them So that setting aside a certain way of recording the matters of faith in the Books of Scripture and these preserved entire in every age it is an easie matter to conceive how in a short time Christian Religion would have been corrupted as much as ever any was in the world For when we consider how much notwithstanding Scripture the pride passion and interests of men have endeavoured to deface Christian Religion in the world what would not these have done if there had been no such certain rule to judg of it by Mr. S. imagins himself in repub Platonis but it appears he is still in faece Romuli he fancies there never were nor could be any differences among Christians and that all Christians made it their whole business to teach their posterity matters of faith and that they minded nothing in the world but the imprinting that on their minds that they might have it ready for their Children and that all Parents had equal skill and fidelity in delivering matters of
Religion to their posterity Whereas in truth we find in the early ages of the Christian Church several differences about matters of faith and these differences continued to posterity but all parties still pleading that their doctrine came from the Apostles it fell out unhappily for Mr. S. that those were commonly most grosly deceived who pretended the most to oral tradition from the Apostles still we find the grand debate was what came from the Apostles and what not whereas had tradition been so infallible a way of conveying how could this ever have come into debate among them What did not they know what their Parents taught them It seems they did not or their Parents were no more agreed than themselves for their differences could never be ended this way Afterwards came in for many ages such a succession of ignorance and barbarism that Christian Religion was little minded either by Parents or Children as it ought to have been instead of that some fopperies and superstitions were hugely in request and the men who fomented these things were cried up as great Saints and workers of miracles So that the miracles of S. Francis and S. Dominick were as much if not more carefully conveyed from Parents to Children in that age than those of Christ and his Apostles and on this account posterity must be equally bound to believe them and have their persons in equal veneration If men at last were grown wiser it was because they did not believe Mr. S's principles that they ought to receive what was delivered by their Parents but they began to search and enquire into the writings of former ages and to examine the opinions and practices of the present with those of the primitive Church and by this means there came a restauration of Learning and Religion together But though matters of fact be plain and evident in this case yet M. S. will prove it impossible there should any errors come into the Christian Church and his main argument is this because no age of the Church could conspire against her knowledg to deceive that age immediately following in matter of fact evident in a manner to the whole world But before I come more particularly to shew the weakness of this argument by manifesting how errors might come into the Church without such a conspiracy as this is I shall propound some Queries to him 1. What age of the Church he will instance in wherein all persons who were not cast out of the Church had the same apprehensions concerning all points of faith i. e. that none among them did believe more things delivered by Christ or the Apostles than others did I am sure he can neither instance in the age of the Apostles themselves nor in those immediately succeeding them unless Mr. S. the better to defend his hypothesis will question all written records because they consist of dead letters and unsenc't characters and wordish testimonies Never considering that while he utters this he writes himself unless he imagins there is more of life sense and certainty in his Books than in the Scriptures or any other writing whatsoever 2. Where there were different apprehensions in one age of the Church whether there must not be different traditions in the next For as he looks on all Parents as bound to teach their Children so on Children as bound to believe what their Parents teach them On which supposition different traditions in the succeeding age must needs follow different apprehensions in the precedent 3. Whether persons agreeing in the substance of doctrines may not differ in their apprehensions of the necessity of them As for instance all may agree in the article of Christs descent into Hell but yet may differ in the explication of it and in the apprehension of the necessity of it in order to salvation So that we must not only in tradition about matters of faith enquire what was delivered but under what notion it was delivered whether as an allowable opinion or a necessary point of faith But if several persons nay multitudes in the Church may have different notions as to the necessity of the same points by what means shall we discern what was delivered as an opinion in the Church and what as an article of faith But Mr. S. throughout his discourse takes it for granted that there is the same necessity of believing and delivering all things which concern the Christian doctrine and still supposes the same sacredness concern necessity in delivering all the points in controversie between the Romanists and Us as there was in those main articles of faith which they and we are agreed in Which is so extravagant a supposition that it is hard to conceive it should ever enter into the head of a person pretending to reason but as extravagant as it is it is that without which his whole fabrick falls to the ground For suppose we should grant him that the infinite concerns which depend on the belief of the Christian doctrine should be of so prevalent nature with the world that it is impossible to conceive any one age should neglect the knowing them or conspire to deceive the next age about them yet what is all this to the matters in difference between us Will Mr. S. prove the same sacredness necessity concern and miraculously attestedness as he phrases it in the Invocation of Saints Purgatory Transubstantiation Supremacy c. as in the believing the death and resurrection of the Son of God If he doth not prove this he doth nothing for his arguments may hold for doctrines judged universally necessary but for no other Therefore Mr. S. hath a new task which he thought not of which is to manifest that these could not be looked on as opinions but were embraced as necessary articles of faith For unless he proves them such he can neither prove any obligation in Parents to teach them their Children nor in Children to believe what their Parents taught but only to hold them in the same degree which they did themselves When Mr. S. will undertake to prove that the whole Church from the time of Christ did agree in the points in difference between us as necessary articles of faith I may more easily believe that no age could be ignorant of them or offer to deceive the next about them But when Mr. S. reflects on his frequent concession that there are private opinions in the Church distinct from matters of faith he must remember before he can bring home his grounds to the case between their Church and ours that he must prove none of the things in debate were ever entertained as private opinions and that it is impossible for that which was a private opinion in one age to become a matter of faith in the next But because this distinction of his ruins his whole demonstration I shall first propound it in his own terms and then shew how from thence it follows that errors may come into the Church and be
entertained as matters of faith His words are It being evident that we have but two ways of ordinary knowledg by acts of our soul or operations on our body that is by reason and experience the former of which belongs to Speculators or Doctors the second to Deliverers of what was received or Testifiers And this distinction he frequently admits not only in the present age of the Church but in any for the same reason will hold in all From hence I propose several Queries further to Mr. S. 1. If every one in the Church looked on himself as bound to believe just as the precedent age did whence came any to have particular opinions of their own For either the Church had delivered her sense in that case or not if not then tradition is no certain conveyer of the doctrine of Christ if she had then those who vented private speculations were Hereticks in so doing because they opposed that doctrine which the Church received from Christ and his Apostles If Mr. S. replies that private speculations are in such cases where there is no matter of faith at all he can never be able to help himself by that distinction in the case of his own Church for I demand whether is it a matter of faith that men ought to believe oral tradition infallible If not how can men ground their faith upon it If it be then either some are meer speculators in matters of faith or all who believe on the account of the Popes infallibility are Hereticks for so doing 2. If there were speculators in former ages as well as this whether did those men believe their own speculations or no If not then the Fathers were great Impostors who vented those speculations in the Church which they did not believe themselves And it is plain Mr. S. speaks of such opinions which the asserters of do firmly believe to be true And if they did then they look on themselves as bound to believe something which was not founded on the tradition of the Church and consequently did not own oral tradition as the rule of faith So that as many speculators as we find in the Churh so many testifiers we have against the infallibility of oral tradition 3. Whether those persons who did themselves believe those opinions to be true did not think themselves obliged to tell others they ought to believe them and consequently to deliver these as matters of faith to their children Let Mr. S. shew me any inconsequence in this but that it unavoidably follows upon his principles that they were bound to teach their Children what themselves received as the doctrine of Christ and that the obligation is in all respects equal as if they had believed these things on the account of oral tradition 4. If Children be obliged to believe what their Parents teach them for matters of faith then upon Mr. S's own concessions is not posterity bound to believe something which originally came not from Christ or his Apostles For it appears in this case that the first rise was from a private opinion of some Doctors of the Church but they believing these opinions themselves think themselves obliged to propagate them to others and by reason of their learning and authority these opinions may by degrees gain a general acceptance in the ruling part of the Church and all who believe them true think they ought to teach them their Children and Children they are to believe what their Parents teach them Thus from Mr. S's own principles things that never were delivered by Christ or his Apostles may come to be received as matters of faith in the present Church Thus the intelligent Reader needs no bodies help but Mr. S. to let him understand how Invocation of Saints Purgatory Transubstantiation c. though never delivered either by Christ or his Apostles may yet now be looked on as articles of faith and yet no age of the Church conspire to deceive another Either then Mr. S. must say there never were any private opinators or speculators in the Church as distinct from testifiers and then he unavoidably contradicts himself or he must deny that posterity is bound to believe what their fore-fathers delivered them as matters of faith which destroys the force of his whole demonstration Perhaps he will answer that Children are not bound to believe what barely their Parents or any other number of persons might deliver as matters of faith but what the whole Church of every age delivers This though the only thing to be said in the case yet is most unreasonable because it runs men upon inextricable difficulties in the way of their resolving faith For suppose any Children taught by their Parents what they are to believe Mr. S. must say they are not bound to believe them presently but to enquire whether they agree with the whole Church of that age first before they can be obliged to assent Which being an impossible task either for Children or men of age to find out in the way of oral tradition this way of resolving faith doth but offer a fairer pretence for infidelity For we see how impossible it is for Mr. S. to make it appear that their Church is agreed about the rule of faith for by his own confession the far greater number as speculators oppose the way asserted by him how much more difficult then must it needs be to find out what the sense of the whole essential Church is in all matters which Parents may teach their Children for doctrines of faith So that if Children are not bound to believe what their Parents teach them till they know they teach nothing but what the whole Church teaches it is the most compendious way to teach them they are not bound to believe at all But if this distinction be admitted as Mr. S. makes much use of it then it appears how errors may come into the Church at first under the notion of speculations and by degrees to be delivered as points of faith by which means those things may be received in the Church for such which were never delivered by Christ or his Apostles and yet no age conspire to deceive the next which was the thing to be shewed This is one way of shewing how errors may come into the Church without one ages conspiring to deceive the next but besides this there are several others I might insist upon but I shall mention only two more 1. Misinterpreting the sence of Scripture 2. Supposing it in the power of some part of the Church to oblige the whole in matters of faith For the first we are to consider that no imaginable account can be given either of the writing or universal reception of the Books of the New Testament if they were not designed for the preservation of the doctrine of Christ. And although it should be granted possible for the main and fundamental articles of Christian faith such as the Apostles Creed gives a summary account of to have been preserved by
the help of tradition yet unless we be extreamly ungratful we cannot but acknowledg that God hath infinitely better provided for us in not leaving the grounds of our Religion to the meer breath of the people or the care of Mothers instructing their Children but hath given us the certain records of all the doctrines and motives of faith preserved inviolably from the first ages of the Church And when the Church saw with what care God had provided for the means of faith oral tradition was little minded thence the memory of those other things not recorded in Scripture is wholly lost all the care was imployed in searching preserving and delivering these sacred Books to posterity To these the primitive Church still appeals these they plead for against all adversaries defending their authority explaining their sense vindicating them from all corruptions Tradition they rely not on any further than as a testimony of the truth of these records or to clear the sense of them from the perverse interpretation of those Hereticks who pretended another kind of tradition than what was in Scripture And when these were silenced all the disputes that arose in the Church concerning matters of faith was about the sense of these Books as is evident by the proceedings in the case of Arius and Pelagius Wherein tradition was only used as a means to clear the sense of the Scriptures but not at all as that which the faith of all was to be resolved into But when any thing was pleaded from tradition for which there was no ground in Scripture it was rejected with the same ease it was offered and such persons were plainly told this was not the Churches way if they had plain Scripture with the concurrent sense of Antiquity they might produce it and rely upon it So that the whole use of tradition in the primitive Church besides attesting the Books was to shew the unreasonableness of imposing senses on Scripture against the universal sense of the Church from the Apostles times But as long as men were men it was not avoidable but they must fall into different apprehensions of the meaning of the Scripture according to their different judgments prejudices learning and education And since they had all this apprehension that the Scripture contained all doctrines of faith thence as men judged of the sense of it they differed in their apprehension concerning matters of faith And thence errors and mistakes might easily come into the Church without one age conspiring to deceive the next Nay if it be possible for men to rely on tradition without Scripture this may easily be done for by that means they make a new rule of faith not known to the primitive Church and consequently that very assertion is an error in which the former age did not conspire to deceive the next And if these things be possible M. S's demonstration fails him for hereby a reasonable account is given how errors may come into a Church without one age conspiring to deceive another Again let me enquire of Mr. S. whether men may not believe it in the power of the ruling part of the Church to oblige the whole to an assent to the definitions of it To speak plainer is it not possible for men to believe the Pope and Council infallible in their decrees And I hope the Jesuits as little as Mr. S. loves them or they him may be a sufficient evidence of more than the bare possibility of this If they may believe this doth it not necessarily follow that they are bound to believe whatever they declare to be matter of faith Supposing then that Transubstantiation Supremacy Invocation of Saints were but pâ—ivate opinions before but are now defined by Pope and Council these men cannot but look on themselves as much obliged to believe them as if they had been delivered as matters of faith in every age since the Apostles times Is it now repugnant to common sense that this opinion should be believed or entertained in the Church if not why may not this opinion be generally received if it be so doth it not unavoidably follow that the faith of men must alter according to the Churches definitions And thus private opinions may be believed as articles of faith and corrupt practices be established as laudable pieces of devotion and yet no one age of the Church conspire to deceive another Thus I hope Mr. S. may see how far it is from being a self-evident principle that no error can come into the Church unless one age conspire to deceive the next in a matter of fact evident in a manner to the whole world Which is so wild an apprehension that I believe the Jesuits cannot entertain themselves without smiles to see their domestick adversaries expose themselves to contempt with so much confidence Thus I come to the reason I gave why there is no reason to believe that this is the present sense of the Roman Church My words are For I see the Roman Church asserts that things may be de fide in one age which were not in another at least Popes and Councils challenge this and this is the common doctrine maintained there and others are looked on as no members of their Church who assert the contrary but as persons at least meritoriously if not actually excommunicate Where then shall I satisfie my self what the sense of your Church is as to this particular Must I believe a very few persons whom the rest disown as heretical and seditious or ought I not rather to take the judgment of the greatest and most approved persons of that Church And these disown any such doctrine but assert that the Church may determine things de fide which were not before In answer to this Mr. S. begs leave to distinguish the words de fide which may either mean Christian faith or points of faith taught by Christ and then he grants 't is non-sense to say they can be in one age and not in another Or de fide may mean obligatory to be believed In this latter sense none I think saith he denies things may be de fide in one age and not in another in the former sense none holds it Upon which very triumphantly he concludes What 's now become of your difficulty I believe you are in some wonderment and think I elude it rather then answer it I shall endeavour to unperplex you I must confess it a fault of humane nature to admire things which men understand not on which account I cannot free my self from some temptation to that he calls wonderment but I am presently cured of it when I endeavour to reduce his distinction to reason For instead of explaining his terms he should have shewed how any thing can be obligatory to be believed in any age of the Church which was no point of faith taught by Christ which notwithstanding his endeavour to unperplex me is a thing as yet I apprehend not because I understand no obligation
to faith to arise from any thing but divine revelation and I do not yet believe any thing in Christian doctrine to be divinely revealed but what was delivered by Christ or his Apostles And my wonderment must needs be the greater because I suppose this inconsistent with Mr. S's principles For oral tradition doth necessarily imply that all points of faith were first taught by Christ and conveyed by tradition to us but if a thing may be de fide in this latter sense which was not before what becomes of resolving faith wholly into oral tradition For faith is resolved into that from whence the obligation to believe comes but here Mr. S. confesses that the obligation to believe doth arise from something quite different from oral tradition and therefore faith must be resolved into it Besides all the sense I can find in that distinction is that men are bound to believe something in one age which they were not in another and if so I shall desire Mr. S. to unperplex me in this how every age is bound to believe just as the precedent did and yet one age be bound to believe more than the precedent But however I am much obliged to him for his endeavour to unperplex me as he speaks for really I look on no civilities to be greater than those which are designed for clearing our understandings so great an adorer am I of true reason and an intelligible Religion And therefore I perfectly agree with him in his saying that Christianity aims not to make us beasts but more perfectly men and the perfection of our manhood consists in the use of our reasons From whence he infers that it is reasonable consequences should be drawn from principles of faith which he saith are of two sorts first such as need no more but common sense to deduce them the others are such as need the maxims of some science got by speculation to infer them and these are Theological conclusions The former sort he tell us the Church is necessitated to make use of upon occasion i. e. when any Heretick questions those and eadem opera the whole point of faith it self of which they were a part as in the case of the Monothelites about Christs having two wills But all this while I am far enough from being unperplexed nay by this discourse I see every one who offers to unperplex another is not very clear himself For since he makes no Theological conclusions to be de fide but only such consequences as common sence draws I would willingly understand how common sence receives a new obligation to faith For to my apprehension the deducing of consequences from principles by common sense is not an act of believing but of knowledg consequent upon a principle of faith And the meaning is no more than this that men when they say they believe things should not contradict themselves as certainly they would do if they deny those consequences which common sense draws from them As in the case of the Monothelites for men to assert that Christ had two natures and yet not two wills when the will is nothing else but the inclination of the nature to that good which belongs to it So that there can be no distinct obligation to believe such consequences as are drawn by common sense but every one that believes the principles from whence they are drawn is thereby bound to believe all the consequences which immediately follow from them Indeed the Church when people will be so unreasonable to deny such things may explain her sense of the article of faith in those terms which may best prevent dispute but this is only to discriminate the persons who truly believe this article from such as do not Not that any new obligation to faith results from this act of the Church but the better to prevent cavils she explains her sense of the article it self in more explicite terms Which as he saith is only to put the faith out of danger of being equivocated Which is quite another thing from causing a new obligation to believe As suppose the Church to prevent the growth of the Socinian doctrine should require from men the declaring their belief of the eternal existence of the Son of God Would this be to bind men to believe some thing which they were not bound to before No but only to express their assent to the Deity of Christ in the simplest terms because otherwise they might call him God by office and not by nature Now how can any one conceive that any should be first obliged to believe that Christ is God and yet receive a new obligation afterwards to believe his eternal existence Thus it is in all immediate consequences drawn by common sense in all which the primary obligation to believe the thing it self extends to the belief of it in the most clear and least controverted terms which are not intended to impose on mens faith but to promote the Churches peace For neither is there a new object of faith for how can that be which common sense draws from what is believed already neither is there any infallible proponent unless common sense hath usurped the Popes prerogative But Mr. S. offers at a reason for this which is that none can have an obligation to believe what they have not an obligation to think of and in some age the generality of the faithful have no occasion nor consequently obligation to mind reflect or think on those propositions involved in the main stock of faith From whence he saith it follows that a thing may be de fide or obligatory to be believed in one age and not in another But let Mr. S. shew how a man can be obliged to believe any thing as an article of faith who is not bound to think of all the immediate consequences of it Because faith is an act of a reasonable nature which ought to enquire into the reasons and consequences of things which it doth believe But Mr. S's mistake lies here in not distinguishing the obligation to believe from the obligation to an explicite declaration of that assent The former comes only from God and no new obligation can arise from any act of the Church but the latter being a thing tending to the Churches peace may be required by it on some occasions i. e. when the doctrine is assaulted by Hereticks as in the time of the four first General Councils but still a man is not at all the more obliged to assent but to express his assent in order to the Churches satisfaction But Mr. S. supposes me to enquire how the Church can have power to oblige the generality to belief of such a point To which his answer is she obliges them to believe the main point of faith by virtue of traditions being a self-evident rule and these implied points by virtue of their being self-evidently connected with those main and perpetually used points so that the vulgar can be rationally and connaturally
principle And he that can believe that I wonder he should scruple believing the Popes infallibility for certainly no principle of the Jesuits is more wild and absurd than this is Besides I admire how it came into Mr. S's head to think no error could come into history unless one 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 instead of being perswaded by Mr. S's demonstrations I am still of the mind that we have no sufficient 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 conquests 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 unblundring his thoughts his own civil expressions 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 af 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 than 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 ly 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 propagated 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 of demonstrations But Mr. S. very prudently foresees what it is I must be forced to recur 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 applies 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 miracle 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 judg of the miracles and motives for believing it therefore since in all these respects it was incomparably 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 Conqerours 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 judg 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 matters of fact therein recorded were capable of being throughly examined which he cannot deny upon his own principle for tradition being then infallible as to the doctrine of Christ the writers of these Books cannot be conceived to deliver it amiss unless they resolved 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 infalilbly 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 the 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 than this But the question is whether this testimony were not more safely deposited in the Church to be conveyed by word of mouth than it could be by being committed to writing by such who were eye and ear witnesses of the actions and doctrine of Christ Upon which I advance some further Queries 3. If oral Tradition were the more certain way why was any thing written at all It may be Mr. S. will tell us for moral instructions and to give precepts of good life but then why may not these be as infallibly conveyed 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 I cannot enter into Mr. S's apprehension how 24 letters by their various disposition can express matters of faith And yet to increase the wonder he writes about matters of faith while he is proving that matters of faith cannot be conveyed by writing So that Mr. S's own writing is the best demonstration against himself and he confutes his own Sophistry with his fingers as Diogenes did Zeno's by his motion For doth Mr. S. hope to perswade men that tradition is a rule of faith by his Book or not if not to what purpose doth he write if he doth then it is to be hoped some matters of faith may be intelligibly conveyed by writing especially if Mr. S. doth it But by no means we are to believe that ever the Spirit of God can do it For whatever is written by men assisted by that is according to him but a heap of dead letters and insignificant characters when Mr. S. the mean while is full of sense and demonstration Happy man that can thus out-do infinite wisdom and write far beyond either Prophets or Apostles But if he will condescend so far as to allow that to inspired persons which he confidently believes of himself viz. that he can write a Book full of sense and that any ordinary capacity may apprehend the design of it our controversie is at an end for then matters of faith may be intelligibly and certainly conveyed to posterity by the Books of Scripture and if so there will be no need of any recourse to oral tradition 5. If the Books of Scripture did not certainly intelligibly convey all matters of faith what made them be received with so much veneration in the first ages of the Christian Church which were best able to judg of the truth of the matters contained in them and the usefulness of the Books themselves And therein we still find that appeals were made to them that they thought themselves concerned to vindicate them against all objections of Heathens and others and the resolution of faith was made into them and not tradition as I have already manifested and must not repeat 6. Whether it be in the least credible since the Books of Scripture were supposed to contain the doctrines of faith that every age of the Church should look on it self as obliged absolutely to believe the doctrine of the precedent by virtue of an oral-tradition For since they resolved their faith into the written Books how is it possible they should believe on the account of an oral tradition Although then the Apostles did deliver the doctrine of Christ to all their Disciples yet since the records of it were embraced in the Church men judged of the truth or falsehood of doctrines by the conveniency or repugnancy of them to what was contained in those Books By which we understand that the obligation to believe what was taught by the precedent age did not arise from the oral tradition of it but by the satisfaction of the present age that the doctrine delivered by it was the same with that contained in Scripture It is time now to return to Mr. S. who proceeds still to manifest this obligation in posterity to believe what was delivered as matter of faith by the precedent age of the Church but the force of all is the same still viz. that otherwise one age must conspire to deceive the next But the inconsequence of that I have fully shewed already unless he demonstrates it impossible for errors to come in any other way For if we reduce the substance of
what he saith to a Syllogistical form it comes to this Where there is no possibility of error there is an absolute obligation to faith but there is no possibility of error in the tradition of any age of the Church ergo in every age there is an absolute obligation to believe the tradition of the present Church The minor he thus proves If no age of the Church can be ignorant of what the precedent taught or conspire to deceive the next then there is no possibility of error coming into the tradition of the Church in any age but the antecedent is true and therefore the consequent Now who sees not that the force of all this lies not in proving the minor proposition or that no age could conspire to deceive another but the consequence viz. that no error can come into a Church but by a general mistake in one whole age or the general imposture of it which we utterly deny and have shewed him already the falseness of it from his own concessions And I might more largely shew it from those Doctrines or opinions which they themselves acknowledg to have come into their Church without any such general mistake or imposture as the doctrines of Papal infallibility and the common belief of Purgatory The very same way that Mr. White and Mr. S. will shew us how these came in we will shew him how many others came in as erroneous and scandalous as those are For whether they account these matters of faith or no it is certain many among them do and that the far greatest number who assert and believe them to be the doctrine of their Church too If therefore these might come in without one age mistaking or deceiving the next why might not all those come in the same way which we charge upon them as the errors of their Church And in the same manner that corrupt doctrines come in may corrupt practises too since these as he saith spring from the other He might therefore have saved himself the trouble of finding out how an acute Wit or great Scholar would discover the weakness of this way For without pretending to be either of these I have found out another way of attaquing it than Mr. S. looked for viz. from his own principles and concessions shewing how errors might come into a Church without a total deception or conspiracy in any one age Which if it be true he cannot bind me to believe what ever he tells me the present Church delivers unless he can prove that this never came into the Church as a speculation or private opinion and from thence by degrees hath come to be accounted a point of faith Therefore his way of proof is now quite altered and he cannot say we are bound to believe whatever the present Church delivers for that which he calls the present Church may have admitted speculations and private opinions into doctrines of faith but he must first prove such doctrines delivered by Christ or his Apostles and that from his time down to our age they have been received by the whole Church for matters of faith and when he hath done this as to any of the points in controversie between us I will promise him to be his Proselyte But he ought still to remember that he is not to prove it impossible for one whole age to conspire to deceive the next but that supposing that it is impossible for any errors to come into the tradition of the Church Let us now see what Mr. S. objects against those words I then used against the demonstrating this way It is hard to conceive what reason should inforce it but such as proves the impossibility of the contrary and they have understandings of another mould from others who can conceive it impossible men should not think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their predecessors And whatever Mr. S. says to the contrary I cannot yet see but that therein I argued from the very nature and constitution of the thing For that which I looked for was a demonstration which I supposed could not be unless the impossibility of the contrary were demonstrated But if it be possible for Men Christians nay Romanists to believe on other accounts than tradition of the precedent age I pray what demonstration can there be that men must think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their predecessors did Surely if Mr. S's fancy had not been very extravagant he could never have thought here of mens being obliged to cut their Beards or wear such Garters and Hat-bands as their forefathers did For do I not mention believing first and then doing by which it were easie to apprehend that I meant matters of faith and such practices as flow from them Neither was there any such crafty and sophistical dealing as he charges me with for I am content his doctrine be taken in his own terms and I have now given a larger and fuller account why I am far from being convinced by the way he hath used for resolving faith Passing by therefore his challenge which I accept of as long as he holds to the weapon of reason and civility I come to consider his last enquiry why I should come to doubt of such an obligation in posterity to believe their ancestors in matters of faith and he judiciously resolves it into a strange distortion of human nature but such as it seems is the proper effect of the Protestants temper which is saith he to chuse every one his faith by his private judgement or wit working upon disputable words Which as far as we own it is not to believe what we see no ground for and if this be such a distortion of human nature I envy not Mr. S's uprightness and perfection If he means that we build our faith on our private judgments in opposition to Scripture or the universal tradition of the Church in all ages let him prove it evidently in one particular and I engage for my self and all true Protestants we will renounce the belief of it If he hath any thing further to object against the grounds of our Religion he knows where to attaque me let him undertake the whole or else acknowledg it a most unreasonable thing thus to charge falsities upon us and then say we have nothing else to say for our selves We pretend not to chuse our faith but heartily embrace whatever appears to have been delivered by Christ or his Apostles but we know the Church of Rome too well to believe all which she would impose upon us and are loth to have her chuse our Religion for us since we know she hath chosen so ill for her self But if Mr. S. will not believe me in saying thus what reason have I to believe him in saying otherwise Such general charges then signifie nothing but every one must judg according to the reason on both sides I now come to the last part of my task which
been and I should be somewhat ashamed of my Religion if I had no better But what our rule of faith is hath been amply discoursed already by you and that in Mr. S's clearing method that nothing is left for me to do but to touch at what remains and concludes this answer I had the better to illustrate the weakness of that argument from oral tradition brought an instance in that case parallel viz. that if one ages delivering to another would prove that the faith of Christ was in every age unalterable because no age did testifie any such alteration to be in it by the same argument the world might be proved eternal because no age did ever testifie to another that the world was ever otherwise than it is So that if oral tradition were only to be relied on there could be no evidence given of the worlds being ever otherwise than it is and consequently the world must be believed to have been always what we see it is This as far as I can apprehend is a clear and distinct ratiocination and purposely designed to prove that we must admit of other rules to judg of alterations in the Church by besides oral tradition But Mr. S. in his own expression strangely roving from the mark I aimed at professes there is not a tittle in it parallel to his medium nay that he never saw in his life more absurdities couched in fewer words But I must take all patiently from a man who still perches 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 not proceed upon the belief of the worlds eternity which in his answer he runs wholly upon as far as eighthly and lastly but upon the evidence of oral traditias to no discernable alteration in any age of it For the Question between us is whether in matters of alteration in the faith 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 alteration since Christ and the Apostles times now I say if this hold 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 judg 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 whether this be so full of absurdities or it be such a rambling Chimerical argument as he calls it no two pieces of which hang together with themselves or any thing else Which being expressions of as great modesty as science I am content Mr S. should bear away the hoour of them and his demonstrations together The last thing he quarrels with me for is that I say if we can evidently prove that there have been alterations in the Church then it is to no purpose to prove that impossible which we see actually done And this appears not only because the Scripture supposes a degeneracy in the Christian Church which could never be if every age of the Church did infallibly believe and practise as the precedent up to Christs time did but because we can produce clear evidence that some things are delivered by the present Church which must be brought in by some age since the time of Christ for which I refer the Reader to what I had said about communion in one kind invocation of Saints and worship of Images In all which I say I had proved evidently that they were not in use in some ages of the Christian Church and it is as evident that these are delivered by the present Church and therefore this principle must needs be false In answer to this Mr. S. wishes I would tell him first what evidence means whether a strong fancy or a demonstration I mean that which is enough to perswade a wise man who judges according to the clearest reason which I am sure is more than ever his demonstrations will do But it is a pleasant spectacle to see how Mr. S layes about him at my saying that the Scripture supposes a degeneracy in the Christian Church Incomparably argued saith he why see we not the place does it evidently speak of faith or manners the Vniversal Church or particular persons but be it in faith be it universal does it suppose this degeneracy already past which is only proper to your purpose or yet to come That is does it say there must be a total Apostacy in faith before the year 1664 Alas he had forgot this Most incomparably answered For if the degeneracy be in 1665. or any years after what becomes of M. S's demonstration then that no errors could come into the Church but it seems his demonstration holds but till 1664. and I easily believe another year will never believe the truth of it But if such a thing as a degeneracy be possible how then stands the infallibility of tradition when there can be no degeneracy without falling from the doctrine and practices of Christ and his Apostles But that such a degeneracy hath already been in that which calls it self the Catholick Church and that both in faith and manners I shall refer Mr. S to the learned Author of the late Idea of Antichristianism and Synopsis Prophetica where he may find enough to perswade him that his demonstration was far from holding so long as 1664. And now I leave the Reader to judg whether the foregoing evidences against the infallibility of oral tradition or Mr. S's demonstrations have the greater force of reason in them And if he will not stoop so far from the height of his perch as to
Doctrine of Christ but what is descended to them by Tradition How shall this Principle secure the Church from Heresy any more than this viz. That nothing but Truth is to be assented to doth secure men from Error Or more than this viz. That no man is to do any thing but what is wise and vertuous does secure the generality of mankind from folly and vice SECT VIII § 1. SEcondly The Principles upon which this Demonstration relies are not sufficiently proved by him His first Principle is this That Age which holds her Faith delivered thus from the Apostles neither can it self have changed any thing in it nor know or doubt that any Age since the Apostles had changed or innovated any thing therein This Proposition he tells us needs no proof to evidence it but only an Explication For since no man can hold contrary to his knowledg or doubt of what he holds nor change or innovate in the case proposed without knowing he did so 't is a manifest impossibility a whole Age should fall into an absurdity so inconsistent with the nature of one single man But by his favour that which he says is no proof but only an Explication is a proof if it be any thing and the force of it this That which is inconsistent with the nature if one single man is manifestly impossible to a whole Age but it is inconsistent with the nature of any single man to hold contrary to his knowledg c. therefore impossible to a whole Age and consequently that Age which holds her Faith delivered thus from the Apostles neither can it self have changed any thing nor c. So that in order to the making good of this first Principle Mr. S. hath left nothing unproved but only this Proposition namely That it is impossible that any one single man that holds his Faith to have been delivered uninterruptedly from the Apostles should either himself have changed any thing in it or know or doubt that any Age since the Apostles hath changed or innovated any thing therein And to make out the truth of this Proposition there only remains this to be proved viz. That it is impossible for any single man to be mistaken For if that be possible then contrary to Mr. S. a man may hold that to have been delivered as a Doctrine of Faith from the Apostles which was not so delivered § 2. His second Principle is this That no Age could innovate any thing and withall deliver that very thing to posterity as received from Christ by continual Succession He proves it thus Since man is a rational Creature he must have some Reason or Motive good or bad which he proposeth to himself as an end to be achieved by his action And whatever his remote end is his immediate end in telling posterity a late invented thing was held immdiately before is to make them belive it Wherefore since a seen impossibility cannot be a Motive to one not frantick and since 't is evidently impossiible they should make posterity believe a thing so universally known to be false as this must needs be c. it is as impossiible this Principle should faulter as that the fore-going Age should conspire to act without a motive or that the succeeding Age should believe what they know to be otherwise that is should hold both sides of a Contradiction in a clear matter of Fact The force of which is this That it is impossible that any man not frantick should attempt to innovate in matter of Christian Doctrine because the immediate end of such an attempt must be to have his new Doctrine believed but it is impossible he should attain this end and impossible he should not see that it is impossible to attain it Now a seen impossibility is an end that cannot move any one that is not frantick therefore no man that is not frantick can attempt to innovate in matter of Christian Doctrine Thus he hath demonstrated it impossible that there should be any Hereticks if a Heretick be one that attempts to innovate in matter of Christian Doctrine For if there be any such attmpters they must be frantick and if they be frantick they can be no Hereticks for Heresie implies a Crime but God will not impute the actions of mad men to them as faults Again suppose he that attempts to innovate be mistaken and I hope Mr. S. will grant that a Heretick is fallible and think that which he delivers as Christs Doctrine to be really so though indeed it be not why should such a person think it impossible to make men believe that to be received from Christ which he really thinks was received and thinks he can makes it appear that it was so And if this be granted then it is not impossible that Man though he be a rational Creature may attempt to innovate And if so then his second Principle is not proved If Mr. S. had any regard to the noble Science of Controversie whereof he pretends to be so great a Master he would not bring such trifling Sophisms instead of demonstrative Proofs And nothing less than a demonstrative Proof will serve to establish any Principle upon which a Demonstration is to be built SECT IX § 1. DOctrines and Practises which must be acknowledged to have been innovated have made the same pretence to uninterrupted Tradition And of this I shall give several Instances one among the Jews the rest among Christians 1. I shall instance among the Traditionary Jews whose perswasion in our Saviours time was and still is that their Oral Doctrine which they call their Câ—bala hath descended to them from Moses uninterruptedly Now here is the existence of such a perswasion as Mr. S. affirms to be impossible without Traditions ever-indeficiency to beget it And this perswasion of theirs is most exactly parallel with the pretensions of the Romish Church according to Mr. S. For here 's a multitude of Traditionary Jews manifoldly greater in proportion to the Dissenters in that Church than the Romish Church is in comparison to those Christians that dissent from Her Josephus tells us That the richer sort were of the perswasion of the Sadduces but the multitude were on the Pharisees side So that the Pharisees had this mark of the true Church as Bellarmine calls it common to them with the Church of Rome that they were the greatest number and so they continue to this very day insomuch that although they do not call themselves the Catholicks yet I am sure they call all Jews that do dissent from them Schismaticks Now that the Sadduces were for the written Law against Oral Tradition is I confess no credit to us but that our Saviour reproved the Traditionary Doctrines and Practises of the Pharisees because by them they made void the written Law is much more to the discredit of the Assertors of Oral Tradition Both Romanists and Pharisees they own alike a written Doctrine but then they both pretend the true