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
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
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 it is a conclusion it can only beget a probable assent which is to say that considered barely as a conclusion and so far as in reason it can deserve assent it is only probable but considered as it serves an Hypothesis and is convenient to be believed with reason or without so it is infallible But to carry the supposition further put the case that the whole present Age assembled in a general Council should declare that such a Point was delivered to them yet according to Mr. S. we cannot safely rely upon this unless we knew certainly that those whom they relied on had secure grounds and not bare hear-say for what they delivered and that they were not contradicted within the space of 1500 years by any of those that are dead which it is impossible for any one now to know But to shew how inconsistent he is with himself in these matters I will present the Reader with a passage or two in another part of his Book where he endeavors to prove that men may safely rely on a general and uncontrolled Tradition He tells us That the common course of human Conversation makes it a madness not to believe great multitudes of knowers if no possible considerations can awaken in our reason a doubt that they conspire to deceive us And a little after Nor can any unless their brains rove wildly or be unsetled even to the degree of madness suspect deceit where such multitudes agree unanimously in a matter of Fact Now if men be but supposed to write as well as to speak what they know and to agree in their Writings about matter of Fact then it will be the same madness not to believe multitudes of Historians where no possible consideration can awaken in our reason a doubt that they have conspired to deceive us and mens brains must rove wildly and be unsetled even to the degree of phrenzy who suspect deceit where such multitudes unanimously agree in a matter of Fact And this seems to me to be the great unhappiness of Mr. S's Demonstrations that they proceed upon conrtadictory Principles so that in order to the demonstrating of thc uncertainty of Books and Writings he must supopse all those Principles to be uncertain which he takes to be self-evident and unquestionable when he is to demonstrate thc Infallibility of Oral Tradition § 13. Secondly He tells us the Providence of God is no security against those contingencies the Scriptures are subject to because we cannot be certain of the Divine Providence or assistance to his Church but by the Letter of Scripture therefore that must first be proved certain before we mention the Church or Gods assistance to her As if we pretended there were any promise in Scripture that God would preserve the Letter of it entire and uncorrupted or as if we could not otherwise be assured of it as if the light of natural Reason could not assure us of Gods Providence in general and of his more especial care of those things which are of greatest concernment to us such as this is That a Book containing the method and the terms of Salvation should be preserved from any material corruption He might as well have said That without the Letter of Scripture we cannot know that there is a God § 14 Thirdly Nor says he can Testimonies of Councils and Fathers be sufficient Interpreters of Scripture We do not say they are Our Principle is That the Scripture doth sufficiently interpret it self that is is plain to all capacities in things necessary to be believed and practised And the general consent of Fathers in this doctrine of the sufficient plainness of Scripture which I shall afterwards shew is a good evidence against them As for obscure and more doubtful Texts we acknowledge the Comments of the Fathers to be a good help but no certain Rule of interpretation And that the Papists think so as well as we is plain inasmuch as they acknowledge the Fathers to differ among themselves in the interpretation of several Texts And nothing is more familiar in all Popish Commentators than to differ from the ancient Fathers about the sense of Scripture And as for Councils Dr. Holden and Mr. Cressy as I said before do not think it necessary to believe that alwayes to be the true sense of Texts which Councils give of them when they bring them to confirm Points of Faith Nay if any Controversie arise about the sense of any Text of Scripture it is impossible according to Mr. Rushworth's Principles for a Council to decide either that or any other Controversie for he makes it his business to prove That Controversies cannot be decided by words and if this be so then they cannot be decided at all unless he can prove that they may be decided without words and consequently that Councils may do their work best in the Quakers way by silent Meetings § 15. Fourthly Nor can says he the clearness of Scripture as to Fundamentals be any help against these defects Why not First Because a certain Catalogue of Fundamentals was never given and agreed to by sufficient Authority and yet without this all goes to wrack I hope not so long as we are sure that God would make nothing necessary to be believed but what he hath made plain and so long as men do believe all things that are plainly revealed which is every ones fault if he do not men may do well enough without a precise Catalogue But suppose we say That the Articles of the Apostles Creed contain all necessary matters of simple belief what hath Mr. S. to say against this I am sure the Roman Catechism set forth by the Decree of the Council of Trent says as much as this comes to viz. That the Apostles having received a command to preach the Gospel to every creature thought fit to compose a form of Christian Faith namely to this end that they might all think and speak the same things and that there might be no Schisms among those whom they had called to the unity of Faith but that they might all be perfect in the same sense and the same opinion And this Profession of the Christian Faith and Hope so fram'd by them the Apostles called the Symbole or Creed Now how this end of bringing men to unity of Faith and making them perfectly of the same sense and opinion could probably be attained by means of the Creed if it did not contain all necessary Points of simple belief I can by no means understand Besides a certain catalogue of Fundamentals is as necessary for them as for us and when Mr. S gives in his ours is ready Mr. Chillingworth had a great desire to have seen Mr. Knott's catalogue of Fundamentals and challenged him to produce it and offered him very fairly that when ever he might with one hand receive his he would with the other deliver his own But Mr. Knott though he still persisted in the same demand
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
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
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
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
is the Measure according to which we judg whether a thing be true or false and this is either general or more particular Common notions and the acknowledged Principles of Reason are that general Rule according to which we judg whether a thing be true or false The particular Principles of every Science are the more particular Rules according to which we judg whether things in that Science be true or false So that the general notion of a Rule is that it is a measure by the agreement or disagreement to which we judg of all things of that kind to which it belongs § 4. Faith though both among sacred and prophane Writers it be used many times more generally for a perswasion or assent of the mind to any thing wrought in us by any kind of argument yet as it is a Term of Art used by Divines it signifies that particular kind of assent which is wrought in us by Testimony or Authority So that Divine Faith which we are now speaking of is an assent to a thing upon the testimony or authority of God or which is all one an assent to a truth upon Divine revelation § 5. A Rule of Faith is the Measure according to which we judg what matters we are to assent to as revealed to us by God and what not And more particularly the Rule of Christian faith is the Measure according to which we are to judg what we ought to assent to as the Doctrine revealed by Christ to the world and what not § 6. So that this Question What is the Rule of Christian faith supposeth a Doctrine revealed by Christ to the world and that that Doctrine was intelligibly and entirely delivered by Christ to his Apostles and sufficient confirmation given to it that this Doctrine was in the same manner published to the world by the Apostles who likewise gave sufficient evidence of the truth of it All this is necessarily supposed in the Question For it would be in vain to enquire whether this or that be the Rule of Christian Faith if such a thing as the Christian Faith were not first supposed When therefore we enquire what is the Rule of Christian Faith the meaning of that enquiry is by what way and means the knowledg of Christ's Doctrine is conveyed certainly down to us who live at the distance of so many Ages from the time of it's first delivery For this being known we have the Rule of Faith that is a measure by which we may judg what we are to assent to as the Doctrine of Christ and what not So that when any Question ariseth about any particular Proposition whether this be part of Christ's Doctrine we may be able by this Rule to resolve it SECT II. § 1. THe next thing to be considered is his resolution of this Question by which we shall know what his opinion is concerning the Rule of Faith for that being known the Controversie between us will easily be stated His opinion in general is that oral or practical Tradition in opposition to writing or any other way that can be assigned is the Rule of Faith By oral or practical Tradition he means a delivery down from hand to hand by words and a constant course of frequent and visible actions conformable to those words of the sense and faith of Forefathers § 2. Now that I may bring the Controversie between us to a clear state I am first to take a more particular view of his Opinion concerning the Rule of Faith that so I may the better understand how much he attributes to Oral Tradition and what to the Scriptures or written Tradition And then I am to lay down the Protestant Rule of Faith that so it may appear how far we agree and how far we differ The sum of what he attributes to Oral Tradition so far as can be collected out of so obscure and confused a Discourse may be reduced to these five Heads § 3. First That the Doctrine of Christian Religion was delivered by Christ to the Apostles and by them published to the World and that the Age which first received it from the Apostles delivered it as they received it without any change or corruption to their Children and they to theirs and so it went on solely by this way of Oral Tradition This is the sum of his Explication of Tradition Disc. 5 th § 4. Secondly That this way alone is not only sufficient to convey this Doctrine down to all Ages certainly and without any alteration but it is the only possible way that can be imagined of conveying down a Doctrine securely from one Age to another And this is the natural result of his Discourse about the Properties of a Rule of Faith For if the true Properties of a Rule of Faith do belong to Oral Tradition then it is a sufficient means and if those Properties do solely and essentially appertain to it and are incompatible to any thing else as he endeavours to prove then it is impossible there should be any other way § 5. Thirdly That it is impossible this means should fail or miss of its end that is the Doctrine of Christ being once put into this way of conveyance it can neither cease to descend nor be at any time corrupted or changed in its descent This is that which his Demonstrations pretend to prove § 6. Fourthly That the infallibility of Oral Tradition or the impossibility of its failing is a first and self evident principle This he frequently asserts throughout his Book § 7. Fifthly That this way of Oral Tradition hath de facto in all Ages been acknowledged by Christians as the only way and means whereby the Doctrine of Christianity hath been conveyed down to them And this is that which he attempts to prove from the Consent of Authority § 8. As for the Scriptures he grants them indeed to have been written by men divinely inspired and to contain a Divine Doctrine even the same which is delivered by Oral Tradition so he tells us 'T is certain the Apostles taught the same Doctrine they writ But then he denies it to be of any use without Oral Tradition because neither the letter nor sense of it can without that be ascertain'd so he saith in his Letter to Dr. Casaubon As for the Scriptures ascertaining their letter and sense which is done by Tradition 't is clear they are of incomparable value not only for the Divine Doctrine contained in them but also for many particular passages whose source or first attestation not being universal nor their nature much practical might possibly have been lost in their conveyance down by Tradition Where though he give the Scriptures very good words it is to be understood provided they will be subordinate and acknowledg that they owe their sense and their being intelligible and useful to Oral Tradition For if any man shall presume to say That this Book hath any certain sense without Oral Tradition or that God
with it and make them wiser in the mean time I shall inform him what I have found that the Fathers never except against that method but appeal frequently from the slanderous reports and misrepresentations which were made of their Doctrine to the Books of Scripture as the true standard of it § 8. Another evidence that Christians in all Ages since the Apostles times have owned the Scriptures for the Rule of their Faith is That the Fathers in their Homilies did use constantly to declare to the People what they were to believe and what they were to practise out of the Scriptures which had been most absurd and sensless had they believed not the Scriptures but something else to have been the Rule of Faith and Manners For what could tend more to the seducing of the People from Mr. S's supposed Rule of Faith Oral Tradition than to make a daily practise of declaring and confirming the Doctrins of the Christian Faith from the Scriptures Had the antient Fathers been right for Mr. S's way they would not have built their Doctrine upon Scripture perhaps not have mentioned it for fear of giving the people an occasion to grow familiar with so dangerous a Book but rather as their more prudent Posterity have done would have lock'd it up from the people in an unknown Tongue and have set open the stores of good wholsome Traditions and instead of telling them as they do most frequently thus saith the Scripture would only have told them this is the voice of the essential Church thus it hath been delivered down by hand to us from our Forefathers § 9. I might add for a Third evidence the great malice of the Enemies and Persecutors of Christianity against this Book and their cruel endeavours to extort it out of the hands of Christians and destroy it out of the World that by this means they might extirpate Christianity For it seems they thought that the abolishing of this Book would have been the ruine of that Religion But according to Mr. S's opinion their malice wanted wit for had all the Bibles in the World been burnt Christian Religion would nevertheless have been entirely preserv'd and safely transmitted down to us by sense written in mens hearts with the good help of of Mr. S's Demonstration Nay their Church would have been a great gainer by it For this Occasion and Parent of all Heresie the Scripture being once out of the way she might have had all in her own hands and by leading the people in the safe paths of Tradition and consequently of Science might have made them wise enough to obey Well but suppose the Persecutors of Christianity mistook themselves in their design how came the Christians in those days to be so tenacious of this Book that rather than deliver it they would yield up themselves to torments and death And why did they look upon those who out of fear delivered up their Books as Apostates and Renouncers of Christianity if they had not thought this Book to be the great Instrument of their Faith and Salvation and if it had really been of no greater consideration than Mr. Wh. and Mr. S. would make it Why should they be so loth to part with a few unsens'd Characters waxen natur'd words fit to be play'd upon diversly by quirks of wit that is apt to blunder and confound but to clear little or nothing Why should they value their lives at so cheap a rate as to throw them away for a few insignificant scrawls and to shed their blood for a little Ink variously figured in a Book Did they not know that the safety of Christianity did not depend upon this Book Did no Christian then understand that which according to Mr. S. no Christian can be ignorant of viz. that not the Scripture but unmistakeable indefectible Oral Tradition was the Rule of Faith Why did they not consider that though this Letter Rule of Hereticks had been consum'd to ashes yet their Faith would have lain safe and been preserved entire in its * Spiritual Causes Men's minds the noblest pieces in Nature Some of them indeed did deliver up their Books and were call'd Traditores and I have some ground to believe that these were the only Traditionary Christians of that time and that the rest were Confessors and Martyrs for the Letter Rule And if this be not evidence enough that the Scriptures have always been acknowledged by Christians for the Rule of Faith I shall when I come to examine his Testimonies for Tradition with the good leave of his distinction between Speculators and Testifiers prove by most express Testimony that it was the general opinion of the Fathers That the Scriptures are the Rule of Christian Faith and then if his demonstration of the infalliblity of Tradition will enforce that as Testifiers they must nesds have spoken otherwise who can help it SECT IV. § 1. HAving thus laid down the Protestant Rule of Faith with the grounds of it all that now remains for me to do towards the clear and full stating of the Controversie between us is to take notice briefly and with due limitations 1. How much the Protestants do allow to Oral Tradition Secondly What those things are which Mr. S thinks fit to attribute to his Rule of Faith which we see no cause to attribute to ours And when this is done any one may easily discern how far we differ § 2. 1. How much Protestants do allow to Oral Tradition First We grant that Oral Tradition in some circumstances may be a sufficient way of conveying a Doctrine but withall we deny that such circumstances are now in being In the first Ages of the World when the credenda or Articles of Religion and the agenda or Precepts of it were but few and such as had the evidence of Natural light When the World was contracted into a few Families in comparison and the age of man ordinarily extended to six or seven hundred years it is easie to imagine how such a doctrine in such circumstances might have been propagated by Oral Tradition without any great change or alterations Adam lived till Methuselah was above two hundred years old Methuselah lived till Sem was near an hundred and Sem out-liv'd Abraham So that this Tradition needed not pass through more than two hands betwixt Adam and Abraham But though this way was sufficient to have preserved Religion in the world if men had not been wanting themselves yet we find it did not prove effectual For through the corruption and negligence of men after the Flood if not before when the world began to multiply and the age of man was shortned the knowledg and worship of the one true God was generally lost in the world And so far as appears by Scripture-History the only Record we have of those times when God called out Abraham from Vr of the Chaldees the whole world was lapsed into Polytheisme and Idolatry Therefore for the greater security of Religion
afterwards when the posterity of Abraham was multiplied into a great Nation the wisdom of God did not think fit to entrust the Doctrine of Religion any longer to the fallible and uncertain way of Tradition but committed it to writing Now that God pitched upon this way after the world had sadly experienced the unsuccesfulness of the other seems to be a very good evidence that this was the better and more secure way it being the usual method of the Divine dispensations not to go backwards but to move towards perfection and to proceed from that which is less perfect to that which is more And the Apostles reasoning concerning the two Covenants is very applicable to these two methods of conveying the Doctrine of Religion if the first had been faultless then should no place have been sought for a second § 3. So likewise when Christ revealed his Doctrine to the world it was not in his life-time committed to writing because it was entertained but by a few who were his disciples and followers and who so long as he continued with them had a living Oracle to teach them After his death the Apostles who were to publish this Doctrine to the world were assisted by an infallible Spirit so as they were secured from error and mistake in the delivery of it But when this extraordinary assistance failed there was need of some other means to convey it to posterity that so it might be a fixt and standing Rule of Faith and Manners to the end of the world To this end the providence of God took care to have it committed to writing And that Mr. S may see this is not a conjecture of Protestants but the sense of former times I shall refer him to St. Chrysostom Homil. 1. in Matth. who tells us That Christ left nothing in writing to his Apostles but in stead thereof did promise to bestow upon them the grace of his holy Spirit saying John 14. He shall bring all things to your remembrance c. But because in progress of time there were many grievous miscarriages both in matter of Opinion and also of Life and Manners therefore it was requisite that the memory of this Doctrine should be preserved by writing So long then as the Apostles lived who were thus infallibly assisted the way of Oral Tradition was secure but no longer nor even then from the nature of the thing but from that extraordinary and supernatural assistance which accompanied the deliverers § 4. And therefore it is no good way of Argument against the way of Tradition by writing which he lays so much weight upon That the Apostles and their Successors went not with Books in their hands to preach and deliver Christ's Doctrine but words in their mouths and that primitive antiquity learned their faith by another method a long time before many of those Books were universally spread among the vulgar For what if there was no need of writing this Doctrine whilst those living Oracles the Apostles were present with the Church Doth it therefore follow that there was no need of it afterwards when the Apostles were dead and that extraordinary and supernatural assistance was ceased If the Preachers now adays could give us any such assurance and confirm all they preach by such frequent and publick and unquestionable miracles as the Apostles did then we need not examine the Doctrines they taught by any other Rule but ought to regulate our belief by what they delivered to us But seeing this is not the case that ought in all reason to be the Rule of our Faith which hath brought down to us the Doctrine of Christ with the greatest certainty And this I shall prove the Scriptures to have done § 5. So that in those circumstances I have mentioned We allow Oral Tradition to have been a sufficient way of conveying a Doctrine but now considering the great increase of mankind and the shortness of mans life in these latter ages of the world and the long tract of time from the Apostles age down to us and the innumerable accidents whereby in the space of 1500 years Oral Tradition might receive insensible alterations so as at last to become quite another thing from what it was at first by passing through many hands in which passage all the mistakes and corruptions which in the several Ages through which it was transmitted did happen either through Ignorance or Forgetfulness or out of interest and design are necessarily derived into the last So that the further it goes the more alteration it is liable to because as it passeth along more Errours and Corruptions are infused into it I say considering all this we deny that the Doctrine of Christian Religion could with any probable security and certainty have been conveyed down to us by the way of Oral Tradition And therefore do reasonably believe that God fore-seeing this did in his wisdom so order things that those persons who were assisted by an infallible spirit in the delivery of this Doctrine should before they left the world commit it to writing which was accordingly done And by this Instrument the Doctrine of Faith hath been conveyed down to us § 6. Secondly We allow that Oral Tradition is a considerable assurance to us that the Books of Scripture which we now have are the very Books which were written by the Apostles and Evangelists but withall we deny That Oral Tradition is therefore to be accounted the Rule of Faith The general Assurance that we have concerning Books written long ago that they are so ancient and were written by those whose names they bear is a constant and uncontroll'd Tradition of this transmitted from one Age to another partly Orally and partly by the Testimony of other Books Thus much is common to Scripture with other Books But then the Scriptures have this peculiar advantage above other Books that being of a greater and more universal concernment they have been more common and in every bodies hands more read and studied than any other Books in the World whatsoever and consequently they have a more universal and better grounded attestation Moreover they have not only been owned universally in all Ages by Christians except three or four Books of them which for some time were questioned by some Churches but have since been generally received but the greatest Enemies of our Religion the Jews and Heathens never questioned the Antiquity of them but have always taken it for granted that they were the very Books which the Apostles writ And this is as great an assurance as we can have concerning any ancient Book without a particular and immediate Revelation § 7. And this Concession doth not as M. S supposeth make Oral Tradition to be finally the Rule of Faith for the meaning of this question What is the Rule of Faith Is What is the next and immediate means whereby the knowledge of Christs Doctrine is conveyed to us So that although Oral Tradition be the means whereby we come to
could never be prevailed with to bring forth his own but kept it for a secret to his dying day But to put a final stop to this Canting demand of a Catalogue of Fundamentals which yet I perceive I shall never be able to do because it is one of those expletive Topicks which Popish Writers especialy those of the lowest Form do generally make use of to help out a Book however to do what I can towards the stopping of it I desire Mr. S. to answer the reasons whereby his Friend Dr. Holden shews the unreasonableness of this demand and likewise endeavours to prove that such a Catalogue would not only be useless and pernicious if it could be given but that it is manifestly impossible to give such a precise Catalogue Secondly He asks Is it a Fundamental that Christ is God If so Whether this be clearer in Scripture than that Gad hath hands feet c To which I answer by another question Is it clear that there are Figures in Scripture and that many things are spoken after the manner of men and by way of condescension and accomodation to our capacities and that custom and common sense teacheth men to distinguish between things figuratively and properly spoken If so why cannot every one easily understand that when the Scripture saith God hath hands and feet and that Christ is the Vine and the Door these are not to be taken properly as we take this Proposition that Christ is God in which no man hath any reason to suspect a Figure When Mr. S. tells us That he percheth upon the specifical nature of things would it not offend him if any one should be so silly as to conclude from hence that Mr. S. believed himself to be a Bird and nature a Perch And yet not only the Sciptures but all sober Writers are free from such forc't and phantastical Metaphors I remember that Origen taxeth Celsus his wilful Ignorance in finding fault with the Scriptures for attributing to God humane affections as anger c. and tells him that any one who had a mind to understand the Scriptures might easily see that such expressions were accomodated to us and accordingly to be understood and that no man that will but compare these expressions with other passages of Scripture need to fail of the true sense of them But according to Mr. S. Origen was to blame to find fault with Celsus for thinking that the Scripture did really attribute humane affections to God for how could he think otherwise when the most fundamental Point is not clearer in Scripture than that God hath hands feet c How could Origen in reason expect from Celsus though never so great a Philosopher that he should be able without the help of Oral Tradition to distinguish between what is spoken literally and what by a certain Scheme of speech Theodoret tells us of one Audaeus who held that God had a humane shape and bodily members but he does not say that the reason of this Error was because he made Scripture the Rule of his Faith but expresly because he was a fool and did foolishly understand those things which the Divine Scriptures speak by way of Condescension So that although Mr. S. is pleas'd to make this wise Objection yet it seems according to Theodoret that men do not mistake such Texts either for want of oral Tradition or of sufficient clearness in the Scriptures but for want of common reason and sense And if Mr. S. know of any Rule of Faith that is secure from all possibility of being mistaken by foolish and perverse men I would be glad to be acquainted with it SECT IV. § 1. IN his next Discourse he endeavours to shew that unlearned Persons cannot be justified as acting rationally in receiving the Scripture for the Word of God and relying upon it as a certain Rule because they are not capable of satisfaction concerning these matters But I have already shewn that they are and shall not repeat the same over again And whereas he says That several Professions all pretend to Scripture and yet differ and damn and persecute one another about these differences the answer is easie That they all pretend to Scripture is an argument that they all acknowledg it to be the Word of God and the Rule of Faith and that they are generally agreed about the sense of those plain Texts which contain the fundamental Points of Faith is evident in that those several Professions acknowledg the Articles contained in the Apostles Creed to be sufficiently delivered in Scripture And if any Professions differ about the meaning of plain Texts that is not an argument that plain Texts are obsure but that some men are perverse And if those Professions damn and persecute one another about the meaning of obscure Texts the Scripture is not in fault but those that do so § 2. And whereas he pretends That the Scripture is not able to satisfie Sceptical dissenters and Rational doubters because nothing under a demonstration can satisfie such persons so well concerning the incorruptedness of Originals the faithfulness of Translations c. but that searching and sincere Wits may still maintain their ground of suspence with A Might it not be otherwise This hath been answered already partly by shewing that the Scripture was not intended to satisfie Scepticks and that a Demonstration is not sufficient to give satisfaction to them and partly by shewing that Rational doubters may have as much satisfaction concerning those matters as the nature of the things will bear and he is not a Rational doubter that desires more But that he may see the unreasonableness of this Discourse I shall briefly shew him That all Mankind do in matters of this nature accept of such evidence as falls short of Demonstration and that his great Friends and Masters from whom he hath taken the main grounds of his Book though he manageth them to less advantage do frequently acknowledg that it is reasonable for men to acquiesce in such assurance as falls short of Infallibility and such evidence as is less than Demonstration Do not mankind think themselves sufficiently assured of the Antiquity and Authors of several Books for which they have not Demonstrative evidence Doth not Aristotle say that things of a moral and civil nature and matters of Fact done long ago are incapable of Demonstration and that it is madness to expect it for things of this Nature Are there no passages in Books so plain that a man may be sufficiently satisfied that this and no other is the certain sense of them If there be none can any thing be spoken in plainer words than it may be written If it cannot how can we be satisfied of the certain sense of any Doctrine Orally delivered And if we cannot be so satisfi'd where 's the certainty of Oral Tradition But if Books may be written so plainly as that we may be abundantly satisfied that this is the certain
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
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
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
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
the Faith by Scripture This says he is a great Triumph of our Faith to demonstrate our Opinions so strongly and to overthrow the contrary by Testimonies from Scripture And neither in this Epistle nor the other does he make any mention of Oral Tradition Next he cites that known place in Irenaeus But what if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures ought we not to follow the Order of Tradition c. This makes clearly against him for it implies that now the Apostles have left us the Scriptures we ought to follow them The other passage he cites out of Irenaeus Lib. 1. c. 3. is a clear eviction that he did not consult the Book For he puts two sayings together which he had met with in Mr. White immediately one after the other and because Mr. White had cited Lib. 1. c. 3. for the first saying and brought in the other immediately upon it with an Et rursus Again c. Therefore Mr. S. who is of a right Traditionary temper which is to take things easily upon trust himself and require Demonstration from others concluded that these sayings were in the same place though in truth they are in several Books As for the Testimony it self there is nothing in it to Mr. S's purpose besides the word Tradition which Irenaeus does often apply to Scripture as well as Oral Tradition and there is nothing in this place to determine it to Oral Tradition His Testimonies out of Origen will do him less stead For every one that hath been conversant in the Writings of that Father knows what he means by the Churches Tradition preserved by order of Succession viz. The mystical Interpretations of Scripture which he says were delivered by the Apostles to the Governors of the Church and by them down from hand to hand If this be the Tradition Mr. S. contends for Origen is at his service if it be not I assure him he is not for his turn Next comes Tertullian concerning whom as also Origen the Papist upon occasion thinks it enough to reply in St. Hierom's words As for Tertullian I have nothing to say of him but that he is not a man of the Church Whatever he was these are his words If thou beest but a Christian believe what is traditum deliver'd And here 's nothing again but the word deliver'd which as I have said is indifferent to Written or Oral Tradition if the Circumstances do not determine it to one as here they do very unluckily for Mr. S. to the Scripture For he disputes here against Marcion who denied the Flesh of Christ and who to maintain that denied his Nativity and expunged the whole History of it out of the Gospel But saith Tertullian by what authority dost thou do this If thou be a Prophet foretell something If an Apostle preach publickly If Apostolical be of the Apostle's mind If no more but a Christian believe what is delivered And where delivered But in those Instruments or Books of the Gospel out of which as Tertullian immediately before tells us Marcion had made bold to expunge this Story As for his Testimonies out of Athanasius the two first of them prove nothing but that Faith comes down from our Ancestors or was by them delivered to us which no body denies Nor is there a word in either of them concerning oral in opposition to written Tradition The third Testimony is out of an Epistle to Epictetus to whom Athanasius writing concerning those who held Christ's Body to be Consubstantial with his Divinity tells him this was so gross a conceit that it needed no sollicitous confutation but that it would be a sufficient answer to say in general the Orthodox Church was not of that mind our Fathers did not think so From whence Mr. S. infers that Tradition is held by him a sole sufficient Rule of Faith and the only Answer to be given why we reject Points from Faith c. But if he had consulted the Book he would not have inferred that this was the only Answer to be given c. For it immediately follows But lest from our being wholly silent these Inventers of evil things should take occasion to be more impudent it will be good to recite a few passages out of Scripture c. And from thence he confutes them at large It was so gross an Error that he thought it might be sufficient without bringing particular arguments out of Scripture against it to say that it was contrary to the ancient Faith but yet lest they should if he had said no more have taken boldness from thence and thought that nothing more could be said against it therefore he confutes it from particular Texts of Scripture And what in his opinion was the sufficient Rule of Faith Mr. S. might have seen at the beginning of this Epistle from these words That Faith which was professed by the Fathers in that Council viz. the Nicene according to the Scriptures is to me sufficient c. It seems that Scripture was to him the Rule and Standard whereby to judg even the Creeds of General Councils Mr. S. says he will be shorter in the rest and so will I. For what is to be said to Testimonies brought at a venture when he that brings them had he read the Books themselves could not have had the face to have brought them Such is this out of Clem. Alezand As if one of a Man becomes a Beast like those infected with Circes poyson so he hath forfeited his being a Man of God and faithful to our Lord who spurns against Ecclesiastical Tradition and leaps into Opinions of human Election Mr. S. knows whose way of quoting this is to pick a bit out of the midst of a Text that sounds something towards his purpose and leave out the rest which would make it evident to be meant just contrary Yet I cannot charge this wholly upon Mr. S. whose implicit Faith were it not for his culpable Ignorance might excuse him But for his Seducer Mr. White how he can acquit himself of so foul an Imputation I leave it to any ingenuous Papist to judg when I have nakedly set the whole passage before him Clemens speaking of Hereticks who relinquish the Scripture or abuse it by wresting it to their lusts says Men who deal in matters of highest importance must needs commit great Errors if they do not take and hold the RVLE OF TRVTH from Truth it self For such men having once deviated from the right way do likewise err in most particulars probably because they have not the Faculty of distinguishing Truths and Falshoods perfectly exercised to choose what ought to be chosen For if they had this they would be ruled by the Divine SCRIPTVRES Therefore as if any of Mankind should become a Beast in such sort as those who were bewitched by Circe even so he hath lost his being a Man of God and abiding faithful to the Lord who hath spurned against the Tradition of the
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
did not remain the Writings of other Brethren much more ancient than Victor 's time c. in the Books of all whom Christs Divinity is acknowledged And afterwards he tells us that these Hereticks did change and corrupt the Scriptures to bring them to their Opinions so Mr. S. tells us that the outward Letter of Scripture ought to be corrected by Tradition and Sense written in mens hearts St. Hierom also tells us That the Hereticks were wont to say we are the Sons of the Wise who did from the beginning deliver down to us the Apostolical Doctrine but he adds that the true Sons of Judah adhere to the Scripture § 4. That Scripture is sufficiently plain in all things necessary St. Chrysostome All things in the Divine Scriptures are plain and straight Whatsoever things are necessary are manifest St. Austin having spoken of the profoundness of Scripture adds Not that those things which are necessary to Salvation are so hard to be come at But saith he when one hath there attained Faith without which there is no pious and right living there are besides many dark and mysterious things c. Again The manner of speech in Scripture how easie is it to all though few can penetrate to the bottom of it Those things which it plainly contains it speaks without disguise like a familiar Friend to the heart of the learned and unlearned How will Mr. S. reconcile this with his grand Exception against Scripture And what these things are which are plainly contained in Scripture the same Father tells us else-where in these words Among those things which are plainly set down in Scripture all those things are to be found which comprehend Faith and good Manners The same St. Austin as also Clement in the Book which Mr. White quoted for the understanding of obscure Texts of Scripture directs us not to Tradition but to the plain Texts without which he expresly says there would be no way to understand them § 5. That Scripture is so plain as to be fit to determine Controversies Justin sure thought so when disputing with Trypho concerning a point wherein the Jew had Tradition on his side he told him he would bring such proofs to the contrary as no man could gain-say Attend says he to what I shall recite out of the Holy Scriptures proofs which need not to be explained but only to be heard Mr. White might have found likewise much to this purpose in his Clement But not to tire my Reader in a Point which the Ancients abound with I shall only produce the judgment of Constantine in that solemn Oration of his to the Council of Nice wherein he bewails their mutual oppositions especially in Divine things concerning which they had the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit Recorded in Writing For says he the Books of the Evangelists and Apostles and the Oracles of the old Prophets do evidently teach us what we ought to think of the Divine Majesty Therefore laying aside all seditious contention let us determine the matters in question by Testimonies out of the Divine Writings Not a word of any other Tradition but Scripture which was held evident enough in those days though now Mr. S. tells us it is not sufficient to decide that Controversy about the Divinity of Christ. § 6. Lastly That Scripture is the Rule of Faith Irenaeus The method of our Salvation we have not known by any other but those men by whom the Gospel came to us which then they preached but afterwards by the Will of God delivered it to us in the Scriptures to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our Faith St. Cyprian the Church hath ever held a good Catholick yet Mr. S. takes notice that he erred in a Point of Faith and perhaps the rather because Mr. Rushworth had told him that he was not theirs in this Controversy For says he St. Cyprian seems to think that the Resolution of Faith was to be made into Scripture and not into Tradition But that we may not seem to accept of this of courtesie from him nor yet wholly to despise it I shall offer this one Testimony instead of many out of that Father who being opposed with an Argument from Tradition demands Whence have you that Tradition Comes it from the Authority of the Lord and of the Gospel or from the Epistles of the Apostles For God testifies that we are to do those things which are written c. If it be commanded in the Gospel or contained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles then let us observe it as a Divine and Holy Tradition Hilary commends Constantius the Emperor for regulating his Faith only according to those things which are written And to oblige him to deserve this commendation he adds He who refuses this is Antichrist and who dissembles in it is Anathema Optatus concerning the Controversy with the Donatists asks who shall be Judge and answers himself the Scriptures Which he illustrates by the similitude of a Father who delivered his Will orally to his children while he was living but when he was dying caused it to be written in lasting Tables to decide all Controversies that might happen among them after his death The passage is large and it is obvious to apply it Basil maintaining the Doxology as it was used in his days says Thus we received it from our Fathers but adds immediately This is not enough for us that it is the Tradition of the Fathers for they followed the Authority of the Scriptures making its Testimonies the Principles upon which they built He has indeed in the same Book a passage much insisted on by the Papists concerning unwritten Traditions but withal he says those Traditions were secretly conveyed which makes all the rest of no use to Mr. S. Chrysostom having mentioned several Heresies directs how they may be avoided viz. By attending to the Faith delivered and looking upon all that disagrees from that as adulterate For says he as those who give Rules do not put men upon a curious enquiry after many measures but bid them keep to the Rule given so is it in Opinions But no body will attend to the Scriptures if we did we should not only not fall into Errors our selves but also rescue those that are deceived Again If we would be throughly conversant in the Scriptures we should be instructed both in right Opinions and a good life Again among the many Sects of Christians it will be easie to judge of the right if we believe the Scriptures because these are plain and true If any one agree with these he is a Christian if he contradict them he is far from this Rule St. Austin calls the Scipture the Divine Balance for the weighing of Doctrine Again the Holy Scripture sayes he fixeth the Rule of our Doctrine And accordingly himself uses it both in his Dispute with Maximinus to whom he
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
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
on as novelties therefore they speak much of tradition and the ancient faith but that was not by what their Parents taught them but what the Fathers of the Church delivered in their writings for by these they judged of traditions and not the oral way And therefore I see little reason to believe that this was either the sense of the Council of Trent or is the sense of any number of Roman Catholicks much less of the whole Church none excepted as Mr. S. in his confident way expresses it And if he will as he saith disavow the maintaining any point or affecting any way which is not assented to by all I hope to see Mr. S. retract this opinion and either fall in with the Court of Rome or return as reason leads him into the bosom of the Church of England But there seems to be somewhat more in what follows viz. that though schoolmen question the personal infallibility of the Pope or of the Roman Clergy nay of a General Council yet all affirm the infallibility of tradition or the living voice of the Church essential and this he saith is held by all held firmly and that it is absolutely infallible To this therefore I answer either Mr. S. means that none do affirm that the universal tradition of the Church essential can err or that the Church of Rome being the Church essential cannot err in her tradition But which way soever he takes it I shall easily shew how far it is from proving that he designs it for For if he take it in the first sense viz. that all the faithful in all ages could not concur in an error then he may as well prove Protestants of his mind as Papists for this is the foundation on which we believe the particular Books of Scripture If this therefore proves any thing it proves more then he intends viz. that while we thus oppose each other we do perfectly agree together and truly so we do as much as they do among themselves But if Mr. S's meaning be that all of their Religion own the Roman Church to be the Church essential and on that account that it cannot err setting aside the absurdity of the opinion it self I say from hence it doth not follow that they make oral tradition the rule of faith because it is most evident that the ground why they say their Church cannot err is not on Mr. S's principles but on the supposition of an infallible assistance which preserves that Church from error So that this falls far short of proving that they are all agreed in this rule of faith which is a thing so far from probability that he might by the same argument prove that Scripture is owned by them all to be the rule of faith For I hope it is held by all and held firmly that the living voice of God in Scripture as delivered to us is infallible and if so then there is as much ground for this as the other But if we enquire what it is men make a rule of faith we must know not only that they believe tradition infallible but on what account they do so For if tradition be believed infallible barely on the account of a promise of infallibility to the present Church then the resolution of faith is not into the tradition but into that infallible assistance and consequently the rule of faith is not what bare tradition delivers but what that Church which cannot err in judging tradition doth propose to us It is not therefore their being agreed in general that tradition is infallible doth make thâ—m agree in the same rule of faith but they must agree in the ground of that infallibility viz. that it depends on this that no age could conspire to deceive the next But all persons who understand any thing of the Roman Church know very well that the general reason why tradition is believed infallible is because they first believe the Church to be infallible whereas Mr. S. goes the contrary way and makes the infallibility of the the Church to depend on the infallibility of tradition And therefore for all that I can see we must still oppose private Opinators in this controversie the Church of Rome not having declared her self at all on Mr. S's behalf but the contrary and the generality believing on the account of the present Churches infallibility And it is strange Mr. S. should find no difference between mens resolving faith into common sense and into the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost If this then be the first principle of controversie as Mr. S. pretends we see how unlikely they are to agree about other matters who are so much divided about the principle of resolving them And if this be the ground of faith then most Romanists build on a wrong Foundation But if the infallibility of oral tradition be the foundation on which that formidable structure is erecting which he speaks of wo then to the Court of Rome for that is known to build on quite a different foundation And if this as he saith rises apace and has advanced many stories in a small time it only lets us know how fast their divisions grow and that they are building so fast one against another that their Church will not stand between them By this discourse Mr. S. pretends to answer all those If 's which follow which are these In case the Church may determine things de fide which were not before whether the present Church doth then believe as the precedent did or no if it did how comes any thing to be de fide which was not before if it did not what assurance can I have that every age of the Church believes just as the precedent did and no otherwise when I see they profess the contrary And if a thing may be de fide in one age which was not in a foregoing then a Church may deliver that as a matter of faith at one time which was never accounted so before by which means the present Church may oblige me to believe that as a matter of faith which never was so in Christs or the Apostles times and so the infallibility on the account of tradition is destroyed To all which Mr. S. gives a very easie answer viz. that they do not hold any disparate or unimplied points of faith but such as are involved and implied in the main point This is no more easily said then understood for if these be implied in the former how can there come a new obligation to believe them For to take his own instance will any man in his senses say that he that believes homo est animal rationale doth not believe homo est animal and this he makes choice of as an example how one point of faith may be involved in another so as to receive a distinct obligation to believe it I grant that homo est animal is involved in the other but he that shall say that after he hath assented
I take to be as shameful a Circle as that wherewith Dr. Holden upbraids the generality of his Brethren § 3. I proceed to his Authorities from Fathers and Councils all which not one of them excepted he hath taken out of Mr. White 's Tabulae Suffragiales without the least acknowledgment from whom he had them And that it might be evident that he had not consulted the Books themselves for them he hath taken them with all their faults and with the very same errors of Citation which Mr. White had been guilty of before him So that though he is pleas'd to say of himself that he he is a bad Transcriber yet I must do him that right to assure the Reader that he does it very punctually and exactly § 4. He begins with Councils of which he tells us he will only mention three in several Ages The first is the First Synod of Lateran One might have expected after he had told us he would mention three in several Ages he should have produced them according to the order of Time and have begun with the Council of Sardica which was near 300 years before the Lateran But there was a good reason why the Lateran should be first produced viz. because it is mentioned before the other in Mr White 's Book Well but what says this Synod We all confess unanimously and consequently with one heart and mouth the Tenets and Sayings of the Holy Fathers adding nothing substracting nothing of those things which are delivered us by them and we believe as the Fathers have believed we Preach so as they have taught The force of which Testimony Mr. S. lays upon the Word delivered as if that Word where-ever it is met with in Councils or Fathers must needs be understood of oral delivery whereas it is a general Word indifferently used for conveyance either by writing or word of mouth In this place it plainly refers to the writings of particular Fathers out of whom a long catalogue of Testimonies against the Heresie of the Monothelites had been read just before this Declaration of the Synod Now what signifies this to oral Tradition's being the Rule of Faith that this Synod declares her Faith in opposition to the Heresie of the Monothelites to be consonant in all things to those Testimonies which had been produced out of the Fathers The next is the Council of Sardica out of an Epistle of which Council he cites these words We have received this Doctrine we have been taught so we hold this Catholick Tradition Faith and Confession Which are general words and indifferently applicable to Oral Tradition or Writing or both But be they what they will Mr. S. ought not to have been ignorant that this Council was rejected by St. Austin and other Orthodox Fathers as Binnius acknowledges and which is more that the latter part of this Epistle out of which part Mr. S. cites these words which contains a Confession of Faith is by Baronius and after him by Binnius proved to have been surreptitiously added For though it be found in Theodoret and mentioned by Sozomen yet Baronius thinks that it was the Arian Confession composed by the false-Synod of Sardica which sate at the same time and that Sozomen lighting upon it perhaps mistook it for the Confession of the Orthodox Synod of the same name However that be he proves out of Athanasius and from the Testimony both of the Eastern and Western Bishops that the Council of Sardica did not so much as add one word or tittle no nor so much as explain any thing in the Nicene Faith But Mr. White sayes nothing of this and therefore Mr. S. could not who is no Speculator in these matters but only as a Testifier delivers down these authorities to us as he received them by hand from Mr. White and if the word Tradition be but in them they are Demonstrative As for his Testimonies from the 2 d Council of Nice which he calls the 7 th General Council who pretended their Doctrine of Image-worship to have descended to them by an uninterrupted Tradition and proved it most doughtily by Texts of Scripture ridiculously wrested by impertinent sayings out of obscure and counterfeit Authors and by fond and immodest Stories as is acknowledged by Pope Adrian the 6 th of Apparitions and Womens Dreams c. for which I refer the Reader to the Council it self which is such a mess of Popperies that if a general Council of Atheists had met together with a design to abuse Religion by talking ridiculously concerning it they could not have done it more effectually I say as for his Testimonies from this Council I shall refer Mr. S to that Western Council under Charles the Great which a little after at Francford condemned and also fully confuted the Decisions of this Council calling their pretended Tradition of Image-worship putidissimam Traditionem a most stinking Tradition These are his authorities from Councils Where says he we see General Councils relying on the Teaching of the Fathers or fore-going Church and on the Churches Tradition as their Rule c. Where does he see any such matter Or where does he see General Councils Was the Council of Lateran a General one Or was the Council of Sardica If it was let him shew how the 2 d. of Nice could be the 7 th General Council Mr. White must write more explicitly and say which are General Councils which not otherwise he will lead his friends into dangerous mistakes § 4. After ancient Councils not so ancient neither let us says he give a glance at Fathers Glance is a modest word and yet I doubt whether ever the Fathers had so much as that from him Before I speak particularly to his Testimonies from the Fathers I shall mind him of what Mr. Rushworth says in general viz. That who seeks Tradition in the Fathers and to convince it by their Testimony takes an hard task upon him c. Again As in other Points so even in this of the Resolution of Faith as Doctors seem to differ now-adays so might the Fathers also If this be true Mr. S. is not very likely by a few Testimonies out of the Fathers to prove that Tradition is the sole Rule of Faith But let us see what he has done towards it He begins with a saying of Pope Celestine to the Fathers of the Ephesin Council Now therefore we must act with a common endeavor to preserve things believed and retained to this very time by Succession from the Apostles Binnius's other Reading of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quite spoils the force of this Citation which Mr. S. puts upon the word Succession But read it how he will why may not the Christian Doctrine be said to come by Succession from the Apostles when it is transmitted to us by Scripture as well as when by oral Tradition I am sure the same Celestine in an Epistle to Cyril commends him for defending