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
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
proof of this I appeal to that Decree of the Council of Trent in which they declare That because the Christian Faith and Discipline are contained in written Books and unwritten Traditions c. therefore they do receive and honour the Books of Scripture and also Traditions pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiâ with equal pious affection and reverence which I understand not how those do who set aside the Scripture and make Tradition the sole Rule of their Faith And consonantly to this Decree the general Doctrine of the Romish Church is that Scripture and Tradition make up the Rule of Faith So the Roman Catechism set forth by order of the Council of Trent says that the sum of the Doctrine delivered to the Faithful is contained in the Word of God which is distributed into Scripture and Tradition Bellarmine speaks to the same purpose That the Scripture is a Rule of Faith not an entire but partial one The entire Rule is the Word of God which is divided into two partial Rules Scripture and Tradition According to this the adequate Rule of Faith is the Word of God which is contained partly in Scripture and partly in the Tradition of the Church And that Scripture is look't upon by them as the principal Rule and primary foundation of their Faith and Tradition as only supplying the defects of Scripture as to some Doctrines and Rites not contained in Scripture must be evident to any one that hath been conversant in the chief of their controversial Divines Bellarmine where he gives the marks of a Divine Tradition speaks to this purpose That that which they call a Divine Tradition is such a Doctrine or Rite as is not found in Scripture but embraced by the whole Church and for that reason believed to have descended from the Apostles And he tells us further That the Apostles committed all to Writing which was commonly and publickly Preached and that all things are in Scripture which men are bound to know and believe explicitely But then he says that there were other things which the Apostles did not commonly and publickly teach and these they did not commit to Writing but delivered them only by word of mouth to the Prelates and Priests and perfect men of the Church And these are the Apostolical Traditions he speaks of Cardinal Perron says That the Scripture is the foundation of the Christian Doctrine either mediately or immediately And that the Authority of unwritten Tradition is founded in general on these sentences of the Apostle Hold the Traditions c. Again The things which thou hast heard of me among many Witnesses commit to faithful men c. And that the Authority of the Church to preserve and especially to declare these is founded in this Proposition viz. That the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth So that according to him the primary Rule of Faith is the Scripture in which the Authority of Tradition is founded Mr. Knott says expresly We acknowledg the H. Scripture to be a most perfect Rule for as much as a Writing can be a Rule we only deny that it excludes either Divine Tradition though it be unwritten or an external Judg to keep to propose to interpret it c. So that according to him Scripture is a perfect Rule only it does not exclude unwritten Tradition c. By which that he does not understand as Mr. S. does a concurrent Oral Tradition of all the same Doctrines which are contained in Scripture but other Doctrines not therein contained is plain from what he says elsewhere We do not distinguish Tradition from the written Word because Tradition is not written by any or in any Book or Writing but because it is not written in the Srripture or Bible Bellarmine also says the same And as for the interpreting of Scripture he tells us that this is not the office of a Rule but of a Judg. There is says he a great and plain distinction between a Judg and a Rule For as in a Kingdom the Judg hath his Rule to follow which are the received Laws and Customs which are not fit or able to declare and be Judges to themselves but that Office must belong to a living Judg So the Holy Scripture is and may be a Rule but cannot be a Judg. Here he makes the Scripture as much a Rule for matters of Faith as the Laws of the Land are for Civil matters And in his Reply to Mr. Chillingworth he hath a Chapter of above 150 Pages the Title whereof is Scripture is not the only Rule of Faith which had he with Mr. S. believed Oral Tradition to be the sole Rule of Faith had been as absurd as it would be to write a Book to prove that Turks are not the only Christians in the World Mr. Cressy likewise not very consistently to himself lays down this Conclusion The entire Rule of faith is contained not only in Scripture but likewise in unwritten Tradition § 2. Now all this is as contrary as can be to Mr. Rushworth's new Rule of Faith Therefore Mr. White says They speak ill who teach that some things are known in the Church from Scripture some by Tradition And Dr. Holden in opposition to those who make Scripture any part of the Rule of Faith advances one of the most wild and uncharitable Positions that ever I yet met withall viz. That if one should believe all the Articles of the Catholick Faith c. for this reason because he thought they were all expresly revealed in Scripture or implicitely contained so as they might be deduced from thence and would not have believed them had he not judged that they might be evinced from Scripture yet this man could be no true Catholick Because as he tells us afterwards we must receive the Christian Doctrine as coming to us by Tradition for only by this means excluding the Scriptures Christ hath appointed revealed Truths to be received and communicated In the mean time Cardinal Perron unless he altered his mind is in a sad case who believed the Authority of Tradition it self for this reason because it was founded in Scripture § 3. And this fundamental difference about the Rule of Faith between the generality of their Divines and Mr S's small party is fully acknowledged by the Traditionists themselves Dr. Holden says That their Divines who resolve Faith according to the common Opinion do inevitably fall into that shameful Circle of proving the Divine Authority of the Scripture by the Church and the Infallibility of the Church back again by the Scripture because they dare not build their Faith upon the natural evidence and certainty of Tradition So that Dr. Holden's way of resolving Faith is different from the common Opinion of their Divines which he says does not differ from the Opinion of those who resolve their Faith into the private Spirit and this according to Mr. White
liberty from greater imployments how ready I am to give him all reasonable satisfaction And in the first place I return him thanks for the weapon he hath made choice of viz. that of reason there being no other I desire to make use of in managing this debate between us And I hope he will find as much civility towards him throughout this discourse as he expresses towards me in the entrance to his if that may be accounted any real civility which is intended meerly out of design with the greater advantage to disparage the cause I have undertaken and yet see no reason to repent of If in his cursory view of two Chapters of my Book he had as he saith quite lost me he had no cause to be troubled for it if he had found far more excellent persons such as Dr. Hammond and the Disswader and Dr. Pierce instead of me But to be sure he intends not this in honour to any of us but by way of a common reproach to us all as though we did not talk out of nature or things but words and imagination I could heartily have wished Mr. S. would have cropt so much of the victory due to anothers learning and industry as to have shewed me one proposition in those discourses which a rational understanding that would be true to it self could not settle or rely on But if such insinuations as these must pass for answers I must needs say I judg M. S. equally happy in confuting our grounds and in demonstrating his own in both which his greatest strength lies in the self-evidence of his bare affirmations But it seems he is willing to resign the glory of this Victory to the judicious Author of Labyrinthus Cantuariensis or to some others for him and when they have once obtained it I shall not envy them the honour of it And I suppose those persons whoever they are may be able by this time to tell Mr. S. it is an easier matter to talk of Victories than to get them But if they do no more in the whole than Mr. S. hath done for his share they will triumph no-where but where they conquer viz. in their own fancies and imaginations Therefore leaving them to their silent conquests and as yet unheard-of Victories we come to Mr. S. who so liberally proclaims his own in the point of oral tradition Which in a phrase scarce heard of in our language before is the Post he tells us he hath taken upon him to explicate further and defend What the explicating a Post means I as little understand as I do the force of his demonstrations but this and many other such uncouth forms of speech up and down in his Book which make his style so smooth and easie are I suppose intended for embellishments of our tongue and as helps to sure-speaking as his whole Book is designed for sure-footing But letting him enjoy the pleasure and felicity of his own expressions I come to consider the matter in debate between us And his first controversie with me is for opposing the infallibility of oral tradition to doctrinal infallibility in Pope and Councils A controversie fitter to be debated among themselves than between him and me For is any thing more notorious than that infallibility is by the far greatest part of Romanists attributed to the present Church in teaching and delivering matters of faith not by virtue of any oral tradition but the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost and that this is made by them the only ground of divine faith For which Mr. S. may if he please consult his judicious Author of Labyrinthus Cantuariensis or any other of their present Writers except Mr. White and himself He need not therefore have been to seek for the meaning of this doctrinal infallibility as opposed to traditionary if he had not either been ignorant of the opinion of their own Writers or notoriously dissembled it For this infallibility is not attributed to the Rulers of the Church meerly as Doctors or Scholars but as the representative Church whose office it is to deliver all matters of faith by way of an infallible testimony to every age and thereby to afford a sufficient foundation for divine faith But Mr. S. attributes no such infallibility to the representative Church as teaching the rest but derives their infallibility from such grounds as are common to all parts of the essential Church Wherein he apparently opposes himself to the whole current of their own Authors who resolve all faith into the immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost without which they assert there could be no infallibility at all in tradition or any thing else and therefore these opinions are as opposite to each other as may be For such an infallibility is not attributed by them to the Teachers of the Church meerly on some signal occasions as Mr. S. seems to suppose when they are to explain new matters of saith but it is made by them to be as necessary as believing it self because thereby the only sure foundation of faith is laid and therefore it is very evident they make it proper to the Church in all ages Or else in some age of the Church men were destitute of suciffient grounds of faith For they by no means think it a sufficient foundation for faith that one age of the Church could not conspire to deceive another for this they will tell him at most is but a humane faith but that Christ by his promise hath assured the Church that there shall never be wanting in it the infallible assistance of his Holy Spirit whereby they shall infallibly teach and deliver all matters of saith And if this be not their opinion let them speak to the contrary which if they do I am sure they must retract their most elaborate discourses about the resolution of faith written by the greatest Artists among them Let Mr. S. then judg who it is that stumbles at the Threshold but of this difference among them more afterwards By this it appears it was not on any mistake that I remained unsatisfied in the Question I asked Whether am I bound to believe what the present Church delivers to be infallible To which Mr. S. answers I understand him not My reply shall be only that of a great Lawyers in a like case I cannot help that I am sure my words are intelligible enough for I take infallible there as he takes it himself for infallibly true although I deny not the word to be improperly used in reference to things and that for the reason given by him because fallibility infallibility belong to the knowing power or the persons that have it and not to the object But we are often put to the use of that word in a sense we acknowledg improper meerly in compliance with our Adversaries who otherwise are apt to charge us with having only uncertainties and probabilities for our faith if we do not use the term infallible as applied to
the truth of the thing I am content therefore wherever in what I have writ he meets that term so applied that he take it only in his own sense for that which is certainly true for I mean no more by it And in this sense Mr. S. answers affirmatively and gives this account of it not only because the present Church cannot be deceived in what the Church of the former age believed but because the Church in no age could conspire against her knowledg to deceive that age immediately following in matter of fact evident in a manner to the whole world The Question then is whether this be a sufficient account for me to believe that to be certainly true or to be the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles which the present Church delivers and consequently whether the resolution of faith be barely into oral tradition Thus we see the clear state of the Question between us I come therefore to the vindication of those things which I had objected against this way of resolving faith into oral tradition Three things I especially insisted on 1. That it is inconsistent with the pretensions of the present Roman Church 2. That it hath not been the way owned in all ages of the Christian Church 3. That it is repugnant to common sense and experience and that the Church of Rome hath apparently altered from what was the belief of former ages If these three be made good there will be no cause to glory in this last invention to support the sinking fabrick of that Church These three then I undertake to defend against what Mr. Serjeant hath objected against them 1. That it is contrary to the pretensions of the present Roman Church And if it be so there can be no reason for those who are of it to rely upon it For if so be that Church pretends that the obligation to faith arises from a quite different ground from this how can they who believe that Church infallible venture their faith upon any other principle than what is publickly owned by her And whosoever thinks himself bound to believe by virtue of an infallible assistance of the present Church doth thereby shew that his obligation doth not depend upon what was delivered by the former ages of the Church As those who believed the Apostles were infallible in their doctrine could not resolve their faith into the infallibility of oral tradition but into that immediate assistance by which the Apostles spake and where there is a belief of a like assistance the foundation of faith cannot ly in the indefectibility of tradition but in that infallible Spirit which they suppose the Church to be assisted by For supposing this oral tradition should fail and that men might believe that it had actually failed yet if the former supposition were true there was sufficient ground for faith remaining still And what assurance can any one have that the present Church delivers nothing for matter of faith but what hath been derived in every age from Christ and his Apostles if such an infallible Spirit be supposed in the present Church which was in the Apostles themselves For on the same reason that those who heard the Apostles were not bound to trouble themselves with the tradition of the former age no more ought they who believe the present Roman Church to have the same infallible assistance They need not then enquire whether this age knew the meaning of the former or whether one age could conspire to deceive another or whether notwithstanding both these errors might not come into the Church it is sufficient for them that the definitions of the present Church are infallible in all matters of faith Therefore my demand was built on very good reason How can you assure me the present Church obliges me to believe nothing but only what and so far as it received from the former Church And Mr. S's answer is far from being satisfactory That this appears by her manifest practice never refusing communion to any man that could approve himself to believe all the former age did For this may be resolved into a principle far different from this which is the belief of the infallibility of the present Church For supposing that they are not bound to enquire themselves into the reasons why the tradition could not fail in any age it is suffient for them to believe the Church infallible and if it be so in proposing matters of faith it must be so in declaring what the belief of the former age was But my demands go on What evidence can you bring to convince me both that the Church always observed this rule and could never be deceived in it Which question is built on these two Principles which the infallibility of oral tradition stands on 1. That the Church must always go upon this ground 2. That if it did so it is impossible she should be deceived Both which are so far from that self-evidence which M. Serjeant still pretends to in this way that the Jesuits principles seem much more rational and consistent than these do For granting them but that one Postulatum that there must be an inherent infallibility in the testimony of the present Church to afford sufficient foundation for divine faith all the rest of their doctrine follows naturally from it Whereas this new way of resolving faith is built on such suppositions which no man well in his wits will be ready to grant For unless it be self-evident that the Church did always proceed on this ground it cannot be self-evident that oral tradition is infallible because the self-evidence of this principle depends on this that in all ages of the Church the only rule and measure of faith was what was delivered by oral tradition from the age foregoing Now if it be possible that matters of faith might be conveyed in ways quite different from this what self-evidence can there be that the Church much always proceed upon this Mr. S. then must demonstrate it impossible for matters of faith to be conveyed to posterity in any other way than oral tradition and not only that the thing is impossible but that the Church in all ages judged it to be so or else he can never make it at all evident that the Church always made this her rule of faith But if either there may be a certain conveyance of the doctrine of faith another way viz. by writing or that the Church might judg that way more certain whether it were so or not either way it will appear far enough from self-evidence that she always judged of doctrines of faith meerly by the tradition of the preceding age If another way be granted possible there must be clear demonstration that the Church notwithstanding this did never make use of it for if it did make use of another way of resolving faith in any age of the Church then in that age of the Church oral tradition was not looked on as the ground of faith
and if so notwithstanding whatever Mr. S. can demonstrate to the contrary that age might have believed otherwise than the immediately preceding did For let us but suppose that all necessary doctrines of faith were betimes recorded in the Church in Books universally received by the Christians of the first ages is it not possible that age which first embraced these Books might deliver them to posterity as the rule of their faith and so down from one age to another and doth it not hence follow that the rule of faith is quite different from a meer oral tradition Let Mr. S. then either shew it impossible that the doctrines of faith should be written or that being written they should be universally received or that being universally received in one age they should not be delivered to the next or being delivered to the next those Books should not be looked on as containing the rule of faith in them or though they were so yet that still oral tradition was wholly relied on as the rule of faith and then I shall freely grant that Mr. S. hath attempted something towards the proof of this new hypothesis But as things now stand it is so far from being self-evident that the Church hath always gone upon this principle that we find it looked on as a great novelty among them in their own Church and it would be a rare thing for a new invention to have been the sense of the Church in all ages which if it hath been the strength of it is thereby taken away But let us suppose that the Church did proceed upon this principle that nothing was to be embraced but what was derived by tradition from the Apostles how doth it thence follow that nothing could be admitted into the Church but what was really so derived from them Do we not see in the world at this day that among those who own this principle contradictory propositions are believed and both sides tell us it is on this account because their doctrine was delivered by the Apostles doth not the Greek Church profess to believe on the account of tradition from the Apostles as well as the Latin If that tradition failed in the Greek Church which was preserved in the Latin either Mr. S. must instance on his own principles in that age which conspired to deceive the next or he must acknowledg that while men own tradition they may be deceived in what the foregoing age taught them and consequently those things may be admitted as doctrines coming from the Apostles which were not so and some which did may be lost and yet the pretence of tradition remain still What self-evidence then can there be in this principle when two parts of the Church may both own it and yet believe contradictions on the account of it It is then worth our enquiring what self-evidence this is which Mr. S. speaks so much of which is neither more nor less but that men in all ages had eyes ears and other senses also common reason and as much memory as to remember their own names and frequently inculcated actions Which is so very reasonable a postulatum that I suppose none who enjoy any of these will deny it Let us therefore see how he proceeds upon it If you disprove this I doubt we have lost mankind the subject we speak of and till you disprove it neither I nor any man in his wits can doubt that this rule depending on testifying that is sense or experience can possibly permit men to be deceivable Big words indeed but such as evidence that all men who are in their wits do not constantly use them For I pray Sir what doth Mr S. think of the Greek Church Had not those in it eyes ears and other senses as well as in the Latin Do not they pretend and appeal to what they received from their Fore-fathers as well as the Latins It seems then a deception is possible in the case of testifying and therefore this doth more than permit men to be deceivable for here hath been an actual deception on one side or other But we need not fear losing mankind in this for the possibility of error supposeth mankind to continue still and if we take away that we may sooner lose it than by the contrary But what repugnancy can we imagine to humane nature that men supposing doctrines of faith to come down from Christ or his Apostles should yet mistake in judging what those doctrines are Had not men eyes and ears and common sense in Christ and the Apostles times And yet we see even then the doctrine of Christ was mistaken and is it such a wonder it should be in succeeding ages Did not the Nazarenes mistake in point of circumcision the Corinthians as to the resurrection and yet the mean time agree in this that Christs doctrine was the rule of faith or that they ought to believe nothing but what came from him Did not the Disciples themselves err even while they were with Christ and certainly had eyes and ears and common sense as other men have concerning some great articles of Christian faith viz. Christs passion resurrection and the nature of his Kingdom If then such who had the greatest opportunities imaginable and the highest apprehensions of Christ might so easily mistake in points of such moment what ground have we to believe that succeeding ages should not be liable to such misapprehensions And it was not meerly the want of clear divine revelation which was the cause of their mistakes for these things were plain enough to persons not possessed with prejudices but those were so strong as to make them apprehend things quite another way than they ought to do So it was then and so it was in succeeding ages for let Parents teach what they pleased for matters of faith yet prejudice and liableness to mistake in Children might easily make them misapprehend either the nature or weight of the doctrines delivered to them So that setting aside a certain way of recording the matters of faith in the Books of Scripture and these preserved entire in every age it is an easie matter to conceive how in a short time Christian Religion would have been corrupted as much as ever any was in the world For when we consider how much notwithstanding Scripture the pride passion and interests of men have endeavoured to deface Christian Religion in the world what would not these have done if there had been no such certain rule to judg of it by Mr. S. imagins himself in repub Platonis but it appears he is still in faece Romuli he fancies there never were nor could be any differences among Christians and that all Christians made it their whole business to teach their posterity matters of faith and that they minded nothing in the world but the imprinting that on their minds that they might have it ready for their Children and that all Parents had equal skill and fidelity in delivering matters of
Religion to their posterity Whereas in truth we find in the early ages of the Christian Church several differences about matters of faith and these differences continued to posterity but all parties still pleading that their doctrine came from the Apostles it fell out unhappily for Mr. S. that those were commonly most grosly deceived who pretended the most to oral tradition from the Apostles still we find the grand debate was what came from the Apostles and what not whereas had tradition been so infallible a way of conveying how could this ever have come into debate among them What did not they know what their Parents taught them It seems they did not or their Parents were no more agreed than themselves for their differences could never be ended this way Afterwards came in for many ages such a succession of ignorance and barbarism that Christian Religion was little minded either by Parents or Children as it ought to have been instead of that some fopperies and superstitions were hugely in request and the men who fomented these things were cried up as great Saints and workers of miracles So that the miracles of S. Francis and S. Dominick were as much if not more carefully conveyed from Parents to Children in that age than those of Christ and his Apostles and on this account posterity must be equally bound to believe them and have their persons in equal veneration If men at last were grown wiser it was because they did not believe Mr. S's principles that they ought to receive what was delivered by their Parents but they began to search and enquire into the writings of former ages and to examine the opinions and practices of the present with those of the primitive Church and by this means there came a restauration of Learning and Religion together But though matters of fact be plain and evident in this case yet M. S. will prove it impossible there should any errors come into the Christian Church and his main argument is this because no age of the Church could conspire against her knowledg to deceive that age immediately following in matter of fact evident in a manner to the whole world But before I come more particularly to shew the weakness of this argument by manifesting how errors might come into the Church without such a conspiracy as this is I shall propound some Queries to him 1. What age of the Church he will instance in wherein all persons who were not cast out of the Church had the same apprehensions concerning all points of faith i. e. that none among them did believe more things delivered by Christ or the Apostles than others did I am sure he can neither instance in the age of the Apostles themselves nor in those immediately succeeding them unless Mr. S. the better to defend his hypothesis will question all written records because they consist of dead letters and unsenc't characters and wordish testimonies Never considering that while he utters this he writes himself unless he imagins there is more of life sense and certainty in his Books than in the Scriptures or any other writing whatsoever 2. Where there were different apprehensions in one age of the Church whether there must not be different traditions in the next For as he looks on all Parents as bound to teach their Children so on Children as bound to believe what their Parents teach them On which supposition different traditions in the succeeding age must needs follow different apprehensions in the precedent 3. Whether persons agreeing in the substance of doctrines may not differ in their apprehensions of the necessity of them As for instance all may agree in the article of Christs descent into Hell but yet may differ in the explication of it and in the apprehension of the necessity of it in order to salvation So that we must not only in tradition about matters of faith enquire what was delivered but under what notion it was delivered whether as an allowable opinion or a necessary point of faith But if several persons nay multitudes in the Church may have different notions as to the necessity of the same points by what means shall we discern what was delivered as an opinion in the Church and what as an article of faith But Mr. S. throughout his discourse takes it for granted that there is the same necessity of believing and delivering all things which concern the Christian doctrine and still supposes the same sacredness concern necessity in delivering all the points in controversie between the Romanists and Us as there was in those main articles of faith which they and we are agreed in Which is so extravagant a supposition that it is hard to conceive it should ever enter into the head of a person pretending to reason but as extravagant as it is it is that without which his whole fabrick falls to the ground For suppose we should grant him that the infinite concerns which depend on the belief of the Christian doctrine should be of so prevalent nature with the world that it is impossible to conceive any one age should neglect the knowing them or conspire to deceive the next age about them yet what is all this to the matters in difference between us Will Mr. S. prove the same sacredness necessity concern and miraculously attestedness as he phrases it in the Invocation of Saints Purgatory Transubstantiation Supremacy c. as in the believing the death and resurrection of the Son of God If he doth not prove this he doth nothing for his arguments may hold for doctrines judged universally necessary but for no other Therefore Mr. S. hath a new task which he thought not of which is to manifest that these could not be looked on as opinions but were embraced as necessary articles of faith For unless he proves them such he can neither prove any obligation in Parents to teach them their Children nor in Children to believe what their Parents taught but only to hold them in the same degree which they did themselves When Mr. S. will undertake to prove that the whole Church from the time of Christ did agree in the points in difference between us as necessary articles of faith I may more easily believe that no age could be ignorant of them or offer to deceive the next about them But when Mr. S. reflects on his frequent concession that there are private opinions in the Church distinct from matters of faith he must remember before he can bring home his grounds to the case between their Church and ours that he must prove none of the things in debate were ever entertained as private opinions and that it is impossible for that which was a private opinion in one age to become a matter of faith in the next But because this distinction of his ruins his whole demonstration I shall first propound it in his own terms and then shew how from thence it follows that errors may come into the Church and be
entertained as matters of faith His words are It being evident that we have but two ways of ordinary knowledg by acts of our soul or operations on our body that is by reason and experience the former of which belongs to Speculators or Doctors the second to Deliverers of what was received or Testifiers And this distinction he frequently admits not only in the present age of the Church but in any for the same reason will hold in all From hence I propose several Queries further to Mr. S. 1. If every one in the Church looked on himself as bound to believe just as the precedent age did whence came any to have particular opinions of their own For either the Church had delivered her sense in that case or not if not then tradition is no certain conveyer of the doctrine of Christ if she had then those who vented private speculations were Hereticks in so doing because they opposed that doctrine which the Church received from Christ and his Apostles If Mr. S. replies that private speculations are in such cases where there is no matter of faith at all he can never be able to help himself by that distinction in the case of his own Church for I demand whether is it a matter of faith that men ought to believe oral tradition infallible If not how can men ground their faith upon it If it be then either some are meer speculators in matters of faith or all who believe on the account of the Popes infallibility are Hereticks for so doing 2. If there were speculators in former ages as well as this whether did those men believe their own speculations or no If not then the Fathers were great Impostors who vented those speculations in the Church which they did not believe themselves And it is plain Mr. S. speaks of such opinions which the asserters of do firmly believe to be true And if they did then they look on themselves as bound to believe something which was not founded on the tradition of the Church and consequently did not own oral tradition as the rule of faith So that as many speculators as we find in the Churh so many testifiers we have against the infallibility of oral tradition 3. Whether those persons who did themselves believe those opinions to be true did not think themselves obliged to tell others they ought to believe them and consequently to deliver these as matters of faith to their children Let Mr. S. shew me any inconsequence in this but that it unavoidably follows upon his principles that they were bound to teach their Children what themselves received as the doctrine of Christ and that the obligation is in all respects equal as if they had believed these things on the account of oral tradition 4. If Children be obliged to believe what their Parents teach them for matters of faith then upon Mr. S's own concessions is not posterity bound to believe something which originally came not from Christ or his Apostles For it appears in this case that the first rise was from a private opinion of some Doctors of the Church but they believing these opinions themselves think themselves obliged to propagate them to others and by reason of their learning and authority these opinions may by degrees gain a general acceptance in the ruling part of the Church and all who believe them true think they ought to teach them their Children and Children they are to believe what their Parents teach them Thus from Mr. S's own principles things that never were delivered by Christ or his Apostles may come to be received as matters of faith in the present Church Thus the intelligent Reader needs no bodies help but Mr. S. to let him understand how Invocation of Saints Purgatory Transubstantiation c. though never delivered either by Christ or his Apostles may yet now be looked on as articles of faith and yet no age of the Church conspire to deceive another Either then Mr. S. must say there never were any private opinators or speculators in the Church as distinct from testifiers and then he unavoidably contradicts himself or he must deny that posterity is bound to believe what their fore-fathers delivered them as matters of faith which destroys the force of his whole demonstration Perhaps he will answer that Children are not bound to believe what barely their Parents or any other number of persons might deliver as matters of faith but what the whole Church of every age delivers This though the only thing to be said in the case yet is most unreasonable because it runs men upon inextricable difficulties in the way of their resolving faith For suppose any Children taught by their Parents what they are to believe Mr. S. must say they are not bound to believe them presently but to enquire whether they agree with the whole Church of that age first before they can be obliged to assent Which being an impossible task either for Children or men of age to find out in the way of oral tradition this way of resolving faith doth but offer a fairer pretence for infidelity For we see how impossible it is for Mr. S. to make it appear that their Church is agreed about the rule of faith for by his own confession the far greater number as speculators oppose the way asserted by him how much more difficult then must it needs be to find out what the sense of the whole essential Church is in all matters which Parents may teach their Children for doctrines of faith So that if Children are not bound to believe what their Parents teach them till they know they teach nothing but what the whole Church teaches it is the most compendious way to teach them they are not bound to believe at all But if this distinction be admitted as Mr. S. makes much use of it then it appears how errors may come into the Church at first under the notion of speculations and by degrees to be delivered as points of faith by which means those things may be received in the Church for such which were never delivered by Christ or his Apostles and yet no age conspire to deceive the next which was the thing to be shewed This is one way of shewing how errors may come into the Church without one ages conspiring to deceive the next but besides this there are several others I might insist upon but I shall mention only two more 1. Misinterpreting the sence of Scripture 2. Supposing it in the power of some part of the Church to oblige the whole in matters of faith For the first we are to consider that no imaginable account can be given either of the writing or universal reception of the Books of the New Testament if they were not designed for the preservation of the doctrine of Christ. And although it should be granted possible for the main and fundamental articles of Christian faith such as the Apostles Creed gives a summary account of to have been preserved by
the help of tradition yet unless we be extreamly ungratful we cannot but acknowledg that God hath infinitely better provided for us in not leaving the grounds of our Religion to the meer breath of the people or the care of Mothers instructing their Children but hath given us the certain records of all the doctrines and motives of faith preserved inviolably from the first ages of the Church And when the Church saw with what care God had provided for the means of faith oral tradition was little minded thence the memory of those other things not recorded in Scripture is wholly lost all the care was imployed in searching preserving and delivering these sacred Books to posterity To these the primitive Church still appeals these they plead for against all adversaries defending their authority explaining their sense vindicating them from all corruptions Tradition they rely not on any further than as a testimony of the truth of these records or to clear the sense of them from the perverse interpretation of those Hereticks who pretended another kind of tradition than what was in Scripture And when these were silenced all the disputes that arose in the Church concerning matters of faith was about the sense of these Books as is evident by the proceedings in the case of Arius and Pelagius Wherein tradition was only used as a means to clear the sense of the Scriptures but not at all as that which the faith of all was to be resolved into But when any thing was pleaded from tradition for which there was no ground in Scripture it was rejected with the same ease it was offered and such persons were plainly told this was not the Churches way if they had plain Scripture with the concurrent sense of Antiquity they might produce it and rely upon it So that the whole use of tradition in the primitive Church besides attesting the Books was to shew the unreasonableness of imposing senses on Scripture against the universal sense of the Church from the Apostles times But as long as men were men it was not avoidable but they must fall into different apprehensions of the meaning of the Scripture according to their different judgments prejudices learning and education And since they had all this apprehension that the Scripture contained all doctrines of faith thence as men judged of the sense of it they differed in their apprehension concerning matters of faith And thence errors and mistakes might easily come into the Church without one age conspiring to deceive the next Nay if it be possible for men to rely on tradition without Scripture this may easily be done for by that means they make a new rule of faith not known to the primitive Church and consequently that very assertion is an error in which the former age did not conspire to deceive the next And if these things be possible M. S's demonstration fails him for hereby a reasonable account is given how errors may come into a Church without one age conspiring to deceive another Again let me enquire of Mr. S. whether men may not believe it in the power of the ruling part of the Church to oblige the whole to an assent to the definitions of it To speak plainer is it not possible for men to believe the Pope and Council infallible in their decrees And I hope the Jesuits as little as Mr. S. loves them or they him may be a sufficient evidence of more than the bare possibility of this If they may believe this doth it not necessarily follow that they are bound to believe whatever they declare to be matter of faith Supposing then that Transubstantiation Supremacy Invocation of Saints were but pâ—ivate opinions before but are now defined by Pope and Council these men cannot but look on themselves as much obliged to believe them as if they had been delivered as matters of faith in every age since the Apostles times Is it now repugnant to common sense that this opinion should be believed or entertained in the Church if not why may not this opinion be generally received if it be so doth it not unavoidably follow that the faith of men must alter according to the Churches definitions And thus private opinions may be believed as articles of faith and corrupt practices be established as laudable pieces of devotion and yet no one age of the Church conspire to deceive another Thus I hope Mr. S. may see how far it is from being a self-evident principle that no error can come into the Church unless one age conspire to deceive the next in a matter of fact evident in a manner to the whole world Which is so wild an apprehension that I believe the Jesuits cannot entertain themselves without smiles to see their domestick adversaries expose themselves to contempt with so much confidence Thus I come to the reason I gave why there is no reason to believe that this is the present sense of the Roman Church My words are For I see the Roman Church asserts that things may be de fide in one age which were not in another at least Popes and Councils challenge this and this is the common doctrine maintained there and others are looked on as no members of their Church who assert the contrary but as persons at least meritoriously if not actually excommunicate Where then shall I satisfie my self what the sense of your Church is as to this particular Must I believe a very few persons whom the rest disown as heretical and seditious or ought I not rather to take the judgment of the greatest and most approved persons of that Church And these disown any such doctrine but assert that the Church may determine things de fide which were not before In answer to this Mr. S. begs leave to distinguish the words de fide which may either mean Christian faith or points of faith taught by Christ and then he grants 't is non-sense to say they can be in one age and not in another Or de fide may mean obligatory to be believed In this latter sense none I think saith he denies things may be de fide in one age and not in another in the former sense none holds it Upon which very triumphantly he concludes What 's now become of your difficulty I believe you are in some wonderment and think I elude it rather then answer it I shall endeavour to unperplex you I must confess it a fault of humane nature to admire things which men understand not on which account I cannot free my self from some temptation to that he calls wonderment but I am presently cured of it when I endeavour to reduce his distinction to reason For instead of explaining his terms he should have shewed how any thing can be obligatory to be believed in any age of the Church which was no point of faith taught by Christ which notwithstanding his endeavour to unperplex me is a thing as yet I apprehend not because I understand no obligation
to faith to arise from any thing but divine revelation and I do not yet believe any thing in Christian doctrine to be divinely revealed but what was delivered by Christ or his Apostles And my wonderment must needs be the greater because I suppose this inconsistent with Mr. S's principles For oral tradition doth necessarily imply that all points of faith were first taught by Christ and conveyed by tradition to us but if a thing may be de fide in this latter sense which was not before what becomes of resolving faith wholly into oral tradition For faith is resolved into that from whence the obligation to believe comes but here Mr. S. confesses that the obligation to believe doth arise from something quite different from oral tradition and therefore faith must be resolved into it Besides all the sense I can find in that distinction is that men are bound to believe something in one age which they were not in another and if so I shall desire Mr. S. to unperplex me in this how every age is bound to believe just as the precedent did and yet one age be bound to believe more than the precedent But however I am much obliged to him for his endeavour to unperplex me as he speaks for really I look on no civilities to be greater than those which are designed for clearing our understandings so great an adorer am I of true reason and an intelligible Religion And therefore I perfectly agree with him in his saying that Christianity aims not to make us beasts but more perfectly men and the perfection of our manhood consists in the use of our reasons From whence he infers that it is reasonable consequences should be drawn from principles of faith which he saith are of two sorts first such as need no more but common sense to deduce them the others are such as need the maxims of some science got by speculation to infer them and these are Theological conclusions The former sort he tell us the Church is necessitated to make use of upon occasion i. e. when any Heretick questions those and eadem opera the whole point of faith it self of which they were a part as in the case of the Monothelites about Christs having two wills But all this while I am far enough from being unperplexed nay by this discourse I see every one who offers to unperplex another is not very clear himself For since he makes no Theological conclusions to be de fide but only such consequences as common sence draws I would willingly understand how common sence receives a new obligation to faith For to my apprehension the deducing of consequences from principles by common sense is not an act of believing but of knowledg consequent upon a principle of faith And the meaning is no more than this that men when they say they believe things should not contradict themselves as certainly they would do if they deny those consequences which common sense draws from them As in the case of the Monothelites for men to assert that Christ had two natures and yet not two wills when the will is nothing else but the inclination of the nature to that good which belongs to it So that there can be no distinct obligation to believe such consequences as are drawn by common sense but every one that believes the principles from whence they are drawn is thereby bound to believe all the consequences which immediately follow from them Indeed the Church when people will be so unreasonable to deny such things may explain her sense of the article of faith in those terms which may best prevent dispute but this is only to discriminate the persons who truly believe this article from such as do not Not that any new obligation to faith results from this act of the Church but the better to prevent cavils she explains her sense of the article it self in more explicite terms Which as he saith is only to put the faith out of danger of being equivocated Which is quite another thing from causing a new obligation to believe As suppose the Church to prevent the growth of the Socinian doctrine should require from men the declaring their belief of the eternal existence of the Son of God Would this be to bind men to believe some thing which they were not bound to before No but only to express their assent to the Deity of Christ in the simplest terms because otherwise they might call him God by office and not by nature Now how can any one conceive that any should be first obliged to believe that Christ is God and yet receive a new obligation afterwards to believe his eternal existence Thus it is in all immediate consequences drawn by common sense in all which the primary obligation to believe the thing it self extends to the belief of it in the most clear and least controverted terms which are not intended to impose on mens faith but to promote the Churches peace For neither is there a new object of faith for how can that be which common sense draws from what is believed already neither is there any infallible proponent unless common sense hath usurped the Popes prerogative But Mr. S. offers at a reason for this which is that none can have an obligation to believe what they have not an obligation to think of and in some age the generality of the faithful have no occasion nor consequently obligation to mind reflect or think on those propositions involved in the main stock of faith From whence he saith it follows that a thing may be de fide or obligatory to be believed in one age and not in another But let Mr. S. shew how a man can be obliged to believe any thing as an article of faith who is not bound to think of all the immediate consequences of it Because faith is an act of a reasonable nature which ought to enquire into the reasons and consequences of things which it doth believe But Mr. S's mistake lies here in not distinguishing the obligation to believe from the obligation to an explicite declaration of that assent The former comes only from God and no new obligation can arise from any act of the Church but the latter being a thing tending to the Churches peace may be required by it on some occasions i. e. when the doctrine is assaulted by Hereticks as in the time of the four first General Councils but still a man is not at all the more obliged to assent but to express his assent in order to the Churches satisfaction But Mr. S. supposes me to enquire how the Church can have power to oblige the generality to belief of such a point To which his answer is she obliges them to believe the main point of faith by virtue of traditions being a self-evident rule and these implied points by virtue of their being self-evidently connected with those main and perpetually used points so that the vulgar can be rationally and connaturally
made capable of this their obligation But we are not now enquiring what the obligation to believe the main points of faith is nor whether tradition be a self-evident rule but how there should be a new obligation to believe something self-evidently connected with the former points is beyond my capacity to understand And they must be vulgar understandings indeed that can rationally and connaturally be made capable of such an obligation For if it be self-evidently connected with the main points no one can believe the one without believing the other for nothing is self-evident but what a man assents to at the first apprehension of it and if he doth so how comes there a new obligation to believe it Is it possible to believe that any thing consists of parts and not believe that that whole is greater than any of those parts for this is a thing self-evidently connected with the nature of the whole But these are self-evident riddles as the former were unintelligible demonstrations And yet though these be rare Theories the application of them to the case of the Roman Church exceeds all the rest Whence saith he the Government of our Church is still justified to be sweet and according to right nature and yet forcible and efficacious Although I admire many things in Mr. S's Book yet I cannot say I do any thing more than this passage that because men are obliged to believe no implied points but such as are self-evidently connected with the main ones therefore the Government of the Roman Church is sweet and according to right nature c. Alas then how much have we been mistaken all this while that have charged her with imposing hard and unsufferable conditions of communion with her No she is so gentle and sweet that she requires nothing but the main points on the account of a self-evident rule and implied points by reason of self-evident connexion with the former I see Mr. S. if he will make good his word is the only person who is ever like to reconcile me with the Church of Rome For I assure you I never desire any better terms of communion with a Church than to have no main points of faith required from me to assent to but what are built on a self-evident rule nor any implied points but such as are self-evidently connected with the former And no work can be more easie than to convince me upon these grounds for all endeavors of proof are taken away by the things being said to be self-evident For the very offer of proof that they are so self-evidently proves they are not so For what ever is proved by somthing beside it self can never be said without a contradiction to be self-evident But not to tye up Mr. S. from his excellent faculty of proving if Mr. S. will prove to me that any of the points in difference between us as Transubstantiation Purgatory Supremacy of the Roman Church c. have any self-evident connexion with any main point of faith in the Apostles Creed I solemnly promise him to retract all I have writ against that Church so far shall I be from needing a new obligation to believe them But if these be so remote from self-evidence that they are plainly repugnant to sense and reason witness that self-evident doctrine of Transubstantiation what then must we think of Mr. S. Surely the least is that since his being a Roman Catholick his mind is strangely inlightned so far that those things are self-evident to him which are contradictions to the rest of the world But withal M. S. acquaints us with another mysterie which is how these points descended by a kind of tradition and yet confesses they were never thought of or reflected on by the generality till the Church took occasion to explain them Such a silent tradition doth very sutably follow the former self-evident connexion For he that can believe Transubstantiation ro be self-evident no wonder if he believes that to have been delivered by a constant Tradition which was never heard of from the Apostles times to these Now Mr. S. is pleased to return to me and draws up a fresh charge against me which is that I act like a Politician and would conquer them by first dividing them and making odious comparisons between two parties of Divines But to shew us how little they differ he distinguishes them as faithful and as private discoursers in the former notion he saith they all hold the same divinely constituted Church-Government and the same self-evident rule of faith but as private discoursers he acknowledges they differ in the explication of their belief I meddle not here with the Government of their Church which I have elsewhere proved to be far enough from being divinely constituted but with the rule of faith and the question is whether the infallibility of oral tradition be that self-evident rule which that Church proceeds on Yes saith Mt. S. they are all as faithful agreed in it but as discourses they differ about it Which in short is that all in the Church of Rome who are not of his opinion know not what they say and that they oppose that which they do really believe Which in plain English is that they are egregious dissemblers and prevaricators in Religion that they do intolerably flatter the Pope and present Church with loud declamations for their infallibility but they do really believe no such thing but resolve all into oral tradition But is not this an excellent agreement among them when Mr. White and his party not only disown the common doctrine of the infallibility of Pope and Councils but dispute against it as pernicious and destructive to Christian faith on the other side the far greater part of Romanists say there can be no certainty of faith unless there be an infallible divine testimony in the present Church and this lodged in Pope and Councils that those who endeavour to overthrow this are dangerous seditious heretical persons Accordingly their Books are censured at Rome their opinions disputed against and their persons condemned And yet all this while we must believe that these stick together like two smooth Marbles as faithful though they are knocked one against another as discoursers and that they perfectly agree in the same self-evident rule of faith when all their quarrels and contentions are about it and those managed with so great heat that heresie is charged of one side and Arch-heresie and undermining Religion on the other Doth he think we never heard of Mr. White 's Sonus Succinae nor of that Chapter in it where he saith that the doctrine of Pope and Councils infallibility tends to overthrow the certainty of Christian faith and that the propagating such a doctrine is a greater crime than burning Temples ravishing the sacred Virgins on the Altars trampling on the body of Christ or the sending the Turk or Antichrist into Christian Countreys Or doth he think we can believe that the Pope and Cardinals the Jesuites
and all the Papists of forreign Countreys do as faithful agree with Mr. White in this It seems not so by the proceedings in the Court of Rome against him in which as appears by the censure of the Inquisition against him dated 17. November 1661. his doctrine is condemned not only as false seditious and scandalous but as heretical and erroneous in faith And if it were not for this very doctrine he was there censured why doth Mr. White set himself purposely to defend it in his Tabulae suffragiales If these then do agree as faithful who cannot but envy the excellent harmony of the Roman Church in which men condemn each other for hereticks and yet all believe the same things still Well Sir I am in hopes upon the same grounds Mr. S. will yield us the same charity too and tell us that we agree with him as faithful only we differ a little from him as discoursers for I assure you there is as great reason the only difference is we give them not such ill words as they do each other For let Mr. S. shew us wherein we differ more from him about the Rule of Faith than they do among themselves For Mr. White when he hath said that all kind of heresie doth arise from hence that men make the holy Scripture or a private spirit the rule of faith he presently adds it is all one if one make Councils or Pope any other way than as witnesses to be the authors of faith For saith he this is to subject the whole Church to that slavery to receive any errour for an article of faith which they shall define or propose modo illegitimo i. e. any other way then as witnesses of tradition Either then we differ from Mr. S. only as discoursers or he and his Brethren differ from each other more then as such And so any one would think who reads the oppositions and arguments against each other on this subject particularly Mr. Whites Tabulae suffragiales But let Mr. White say what he will Mr. S. tells me I am not aware how little they differ even as Divines The more shame for them to have such furious heats and oppositions where there is so little difference But as little as they differ Mr. White thinks it safer to talk of their unity in England than to try whether they be of his mind at Rome by going thither to clear himself for he justly fears he should find them differ from him some other way than as bare discoursers Yet let us hear Mr. S's reason for saith he though some speculators attribute to the Church a power of defining things not held before yet few will say she hath new revelations or new articles of faith But we know the temper of these men better than to rely on what they barely say For they say what they think is most for their purpose and one of Mr. White 's adversaries if himself may be credited plainly told him if the doctrine of the Popes infallibility were not true yet it ought to be defended because it was for the interest of the Church of Rome for which he is sufficiently rebuked by him It is one thing then what they say and another what necessarily follows from the Doctrine which they assert But for plain dealing commend me to the Canonists who say expresly the Church by which they mean the Pope may make new articles of faith and this is the sense of the rest though they are loth to speak out Else Mr. White was much too blame in spending so much time in proving the contrary But what man of common sense can imagine that these men can mean otherwise who assert such an infallibility in Pope and Councils as to oblige men under pain of eternal damnation to believe those things which they were not obliged to before such a definition And what can this be else but to make new articles of faith For an article of faith supposes a necessary obligation to believe it now if some doctrine may become thus obligatory by virtue of the Churches definition which was not so before that becomes thereby an article of faith which it was not before But these subtil men have not yet learnt to distinguish a new doctrine from a new article of faith they do not indeed pretend that their doctrine is new because they deny any such thing as new revelation in the Church but yet they must needs say if they understand themselves that old implicit doctrines may become new articles of faith by vertue of the Churches definition So little are they relieved by that silly distinction of explicit and implicit delivery of them which Mr. S. for a great novelty accquaints us with For what is only implicitly delivered is no article of faith at all for that can be no article of faith which men are not bound to believe now there are none will say that men are bound to believe under pain of damnation if they do not the things which are only implicitly delivered but this they say with great confidence of all things defined by the Church And let now any intelligent person judg whether those who assert such things do not differ wide enough from those who resolve all into oral tradition and make the obligation to faith wholly dependent upon the constant tradition of any doctrine from age to age ever since the Apostles times But Mr. S. is yet further displeased with me for saying that Pope and Councils challenge a power to make things de fide in one age which were not in another For 1. he sayes I speak it in common and prove it not 2. He adds That take them right this is both perfectly innocent and unavoidably necessary to a Church And is it not strange he should expect any particular proofs of so innocent and necessary a thing to the being of a Church But he will tell me it is in his own sense of de fide which I have already shewn to signifie nothing to his purpose Let him therefore speak out whether he doth believe any such thing as inherent infallibility in the definitions of Pope and Councils if not I am sure at Rome they will never believe that Mr. S. agrees with them as faithful if he doth whether doth not such an infallible definition bind men by vertue of it to the belief of what is then defined if it doth then things may become as much de fide by it as if they were delivered dy Christ or his Apostles For thereby is supposed an equal obligation to faith because there is a proposition equally infallible But will he say the Pope doth not challenge this Why then is the contrary doctrine censured and condemned at Rome Why is the other so eagerly contended for by the most zealous sons of that Church and that not as a school-opinion but as the only certain foundation of faith Mr. S. is yet pleased to inform me further that nothing will avail me
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
he never hear of such a thing as the Scripture or is it so hard to find it But if he hath heard of it I intreat him to resolve me these Questions 1. Whether he doth not believe that the Books of the New Testament were written at such a time when the matters of fact therein recorded were capable of being throughly examined which he cannot deny upon his own principle for tradition being then infallible as to the doctrine of Christ the writers of these Books cannot be conceived to deliver it amiss unless they resolved to contradict the present tradition of the Church which if they had done those Books could never have found any reception among Christians If tradition then convey the doctrine of Christ infalilbly these Books must convey it infallibly because they contain in them the infallible tradition of the first age of the Christian Church and were written at the time when many persons living had been able to disprove any thing contained therein repugnant to truth And that these Books were written by those persons whose names they bear I appeal to Mr S's own rule Tradition for if that be infallible in any thing it must be in this and if one age could conspire to deceive another in a matter of such concernment what security can be had that it may not do so in all other things 2. Whether he believes that those whose intention was to write an account of the life actions and doctrine of Christ did leave any thing out of their Books which did relate to them as of concernment for us to believe For upon Mr. S's principles any one may easily know what the tradition of the Church is and especially such certainly who were either present themselves at the matters of fact or heard them from those who were and what satisfaction can any one desire greater than this But the question is whether this testimony were not more safely deposited in the Church to be conveyed by word of mouth than it could be by being committed to writing by such who were eye and ear witnesses of the actions and doctrine of Christ Upon which I advance some further Queries 3. If oral Tradition were the more certain way why was any thing written at all It may be Mr. S. will tell us for moral instructions and to give precepts of good life but then why may not these be as infallibly conveyed by tradition as doctrines of faith And why then were any matters of fact and points of faith inserted in the Books of the New Testament By which it certainly appears that the intention of writing them was to preserve them to posterity Let Mr. S. tell me whether it was consistent with the wisdom of men much less with the wisdom of an infinite Being to imploy men to do that which might be far better done another way and when it is done can give no satisfaction to the minds of men 4. Whether those things which are capable of being understood when they are spoken cease to be so when they are written For Mr. S. seems to understand those terms of a living voice and dead letters in a very strict and rigorous manner as though the sense were only quick when spoken and became buried in dead letters But Mr. S. seems with the sagacious Indian to admire how it is possible for dead letters and unsenc'd characters to express mens meanings as well as words I cannot enter into Mr. S's apprehension how 24 letters by their various disposition can express matters of faith And yet to increase the wonder he writes about matters of faith while he is proving that matters of faith cannot be conveyed by writing So that Mr. S's own writing is the best demonstration against himself and he confutes his own Sophistry with his fingers as Diogenes did Zeno's by his motion For doth Mr. S. hope to perswade men that tradition is a rule of faith by his Book or not if not to what purpose doth he write if he doth then it is to be hoped some matters of faith may be intelligibly conveyed by writing especially if Mr. S. doth it But by no means we are to believe that ever the Spirit of God can do it For whatever is written by men assisted by that is according to him but a heap of dead letters and insignificant characters when Mr. S. the mean while is full of sense and demonstration Happy man that can thus out-do infinite wisdom and write far beyond either Prophets or Apostles But if he will condescend so far as to allow that to inspired persons which he confidently believes of himself viz. that he can write a Book full of sense and that any ordinary capacity may apprehend the design of it our controversie is at an end for then matters of faith may be intelligibly and certainly conveyed to posterity by the Books of Scripture and if so there will be no need of any recourse to oral tradition 5. If the Books of Scripture did not certainly intelligibly convey all matters of faith what made them be received with so much veneration in the first ages of the Christian Church which were best able to judg of the truth of the matters contained in them and the usefulness of the Books themselves And therein we still find that appeals were made to them that they thought themselves concerned to vindicate them against all objections of Heathens and others and the resolution of faith was made into them and not tradition as I have already manifested and must not repeat 6. Whether it be in the least credible since the Books of Scripture were supposed to contain the doctrines of faith that every age of the Church should look on it self as obliged absolutely to believe the doctrine of the precedent by virtue of an oral-oral-tradition For since they resolved their faith into the written Books how is it possible they should believe on the account of an oral tradition Although then the Apostles did deliver the doctrine of Christ to all their Disciples yet since the records of it were embraced in the Church men judged of the truth or falsehood of doctrines by the conveniency or repugnancy of them to what was contained in those Books By which we understand that the obligation to believe what was taught by the precedent age did not arise from the oral tradition of it but by the satisfaction of the present age that the doctrine delivered by it was the same with that contained in Scripture It is time now to return to Mr. S. who proceeds still to manifest this obligation in posterity to believe what was delivered as matter of faith by the precedent age of the Church but the force of all is the same still viz. that otherwise one age must conspire to deceive the next But the inconsequence of that I have fully shewed already unless he demonstrates it impossible for errors to come in any other way For if we reduce the substance of
what he saith to a Syllogistical form it comes to this Where there is no possibility of error there is an absolute obligation to faith but there is no possibility of error in the tradition of any age of the Church ergo in every age there is an absolute obligation to believe the tradition of the present Church The minor he thus proves If no age of the Church can be ignorant of what the precedent taught or conspire to deceive the next then there is no possibility of error coming into the tradition of the Church in any age but the antecedent is true and therefore the consequent Now who sees not that the force of all this lies not in proving the minor proposition or that no age could conspire to deceive another but the consequence viz. that no error can come into a Church but by a general mistake in one whole age or the general imposture of it which we utterly deny and have shewed him already the falseness of it from his own concessions And I might more largely shew it from those Doctrines or opinions which they themselves acknowledg to have come into their Church without any such general mistake or imposture as the doctrines of Papal infallibility and the common belief of Purgatory The very same way that Mr. White and Mr. S. will shew us how these came in we will shew him how many others came in as erroneous and scandalous as those are For whether they account these matters of faith or no it is certain many among them do and that the far greatest number who assert and believe them to be the doctrine of their Church too If therefore these might come in without one age mistaking or deceiving the next why might not all those come in the same way which we charge upon them as the errors of their Church And in the same manner that corrupt doctrines come in may corrupt practises too since these as he saith spring from the other He might therefore have saved himself the trouble of finding out how an acute Wit or great Scholar would discover the weakness of this way For without pretending to be either of these I have found out another way of attaquing it than Mr. S. looked for viz. from his own principles and concessions shewing how errors might come into a Church without a total deception or conspiracy in any one age Which if it be true he cannot bind me to believe what ever he tells me the present Church delivers unless he can prove that this never came into the Church as a speculation or private opinion and from thence by degrees hath come to be accounted a point of faith Therefore his way of proof is now quite altered and he cannot say we are bound to believe whatever the present Church delivers for that which he calls the present Church may have admitted speculations and private opinions into doctrines of faith but he must first prove such doctrines delivered by Christ or his Apostles and that from his time down to our age they have been received by the whole Church for matters of faith and when he hath done this as to any of the points in controversie between us I will promise him to be his Proselyte But he ought still to remember that he is not to prove it impossible for one whole age to conspire to deceive the next but that supposing that it is impossible for any errors to come into the tradition of the Church Let us now see what Mr. S. objects against those words I then used against the demonstrating this way It is hard to conceive what reason should inforce it but such as proves the impossibility of the contrary and they have understandings of another mould from others who can conceive it impossible men should not think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their predecessors And whatever Mr. S. says to the contrary I cannot yet see but that therein I argued from the very nature and constitution of the thing For that which I looked for was a demonstration which I supposed could not be unless the impossibility of the contrary were demonstrated But if it be possible for Men Christians nay Romanists to believe on other accounts than tradition of the precedent age I pray what demonstration can there be that men must think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their predecessors did Surely if Mr. S's fancy had not been very extravagant he could never have thought here of mens being obliged to cut their Beards or wear such Garters and Hat-bands as their forefathers did For do I not mention believing first and then doing by which it were easie to apprehend that I meant matters of faith and such practices as flow from them Neither was there any such crafty and sophistical dealing as he charges me with for I am content his doctrine be taken in his own terms and I have now given a larger and fuller account why I am far from being convinced by the way he hath used for resolving faith Passing by therefore his challenge which I accept of as long as he holds to the weapon of reason and civility I come to consider his last enquiry why I should come to doubt of such an obligation in posterity to believe their ancestors in matters of faith and he judiciously resolves it into a strange distortion of human nature but such as it seems is the proper effect of the Protestants temper which is saith he to chuse every one his faith by his private judgement or wit working upon disputable words Which as far as we own it is not to believe what we see no ground for and if this be such a distortion of human nature I envy not Mr. S's uprightness and perfection If he means that we build our faith on our private judgments in opposition to Scripture or the universal tradition of the Church in all ages let him prove it evidently in one particular and I engage for my self and all true Protestants we will renounce the belief of it If he hath any thing further to object against the grounds of our Religion he knows where to attaque me let him undertake the whole or else acknowledg it a most unreasonable thing thus to charge falsities upon us and then say we have nothing else to say for our selves We pretend not to chuse our faith but heartily embrace whatever appears to have been delivered by Christ or his Apostles but we know the Church of Rome too well to believe all which she would impose upon us and are loth to have her chuse our Religion for us since we know she hath chosen so ill for her self But if Mr. S. will not believe me in saying thus what reason have I to believe him in saying otherwise Such general charges then signifie nothing but every one must judg according to the reason on both sides I now come to the last part of my task which
is to shew that this way is repugnant to common sense and experience and that the Church of Rome hath apparently altered from what was the belief of former ages To which purpose my words are It is to no purpose to prove impossibility of motion when I see men move no more is it to prove that no age of the Church could vary from the preceding when we can evidently prove that they have done it And therefore this argument is intended only to catch easie minds that care not for a search into the history of the several ages of the Church but had rather sit down with a superficial subtilty than spend time in further enquiries But two things M. S. tells me are required ere I can see that their faith varies from the former first to see what their Church holds now and then to see what the former Church held before and he kindly tells me if he sees any thing I see neither well It seems I want Mr. S's spectacles of oral tradition to see with but as yet I have no cause to complain of the want of them but I see much better without them than with them He tells me I cannot see what their present Church holds and therefore I cannot assure any what was held before because if I renounce tradition I take away all means of knowing The reason why I cannot candidly see as he phrases it what their Church holds now is because I cannot distinguish between faith and its explication some Schoolmen and the Church By which it seems it is impossible for me to know what their Church holds concerning Invocation of Saints Worship of Images Communion in one kind for those are the points I there mention wherein it is evident that the Church of Rome hath receded from the doctrine and practise of the primitive Church Or are these only the opinions and practises of some Schoolmen among them and not the doctrine and practise of their Church But that we might come to some fuller state of these controversies I wish M. S. would settle some sure way whereby we might know distinctly what are the doctrines and practices of their Church If the Council of Trent and Roman Catechism be said to be the rule of doctrine I desire no other so that those may be interpreted by practices universally allowed among them As when that Council only defined that due honour be given to Saints the general practice of that Church may tell us what they mean by that due honour and if that be not fair I know not what is But I see all the shift Mr. S. hath is when he is pinched to say these are the opinions of Schoolmen and private speculators and not the doctrine of their Church And if such shifts as these are must serve the turn I should wonder if ever he be to seek for an answer But the shortest answer of all would be that none but those of their Church can know what she holds and therefore it is to no purpose for Protestants to write against her or it may be that none but Mr S. and one or two more can tell for many among them say those are the doctrines of their Church which they deny to be So that except Mr. White and Mr. S. and some very few demonstrators more all the rest are School-men private Opinators and not to be relied on But I cannot see what their Church held formerly neither No wonder at all of that for if I cannot see an object so near me as the present Church how can it be expected I should see one so much further off as the doctrine of former ages And his reason is so strong as may well perswade me out of one at least of my five senses For saith he if I question tradition I question whether there be any doctrine delivered and so any Fathers And is not this argued like a Demonstrator First he supposes there never was any way used in the world but oral tradition and then strongly infers if I deny that I can know nothing But I can yet hardly perswade my self that the Fathers only sate in Chimney-corners teaching their Children by word of mouth and charging them to be sure to do so to theirs but as they loved preserving the doctrine of faith they should have a great care never to write down a word of it But why I wonder should Mr. S. think that if I do not allow of oral tradition I must needs question whether there were any Fathers I had thought I might have known there had been Fathers by their Children I mean the Books they left behind them But if all Mr. S. pleads for be only this that no Books can be certainly conveyed without tradition he dispute's without an adversary but as I never opposed this so I am sure it doth him little service It is then from the Books of the Fathers that I find what the sense of the Church of their age was and from thence I have shewed how vastly different the opinions and practices of the Roman Church are from those of the primitive Although then I may not think my self obliged to believe all that the present Church delivers for matter of faith yet I hope I may find what the opinions and practice of the former Church were by the records that are left of it And the reason why I cannot think any one obliged to believe what every age of the Church delivers is because I think no man obliged to believe contradictions and I see the opinions and practices of several ages apparently contrary to each other Well but I call this way a superficial subtilty and so I think it still so little have Mr. S's demonstations wrought upon me But saith he is that which is wholly built on the nature of things superficial No but that which pretends to be so built may And of that nature I have shewed this way to be and not the former But that I may not think him superficial as well as his way he puts a profound Question to me What do I think Controversie is and that he may the better let me know what it is he answers himself I deal plainly with you saith he you may take it to be an art of talking and I think you do so though you will not profess it but I take it to be a noble science But to let him see that I will deal as plainly with him as he doth with me I will profess it that I not only think Controversie as usually managed but some mens way of demonstrating Mr. S. may easily know whom I mean to be a meer art of talking and nothing else But he takes it to be a noble science yes doubtless if Mr. S. manage it and he be the judg of it himself His meaning I suppose is by his following words that he goes upon certain principles and we do not We have already seen how certain his principles have
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
can write plainly and intelligibly and that this Book which he hath endited is so written and doth not depend upon Tradition for its sense and interpretation then the most scurrilous language is not bad enough for the Scriptures then what are those Sacred Writings but Ink variously figured in a Book unsensed Characters waxen natur'd words not yet sensed nor having any certain Interpreter but fit to be plaid upon diversly by quirks of wit that is apt to blunder and confound but to clear little or nothing These with many other disgraceful terms he very liberally bestows upon Divine Oracles the consideration whereof did it not minister too much horrour would afford some comfort for by this kind of rude usage so familiar with him towards his Adversaries one may reasonably conjecture that he doth not reckon the Scriptures among his Friends § 9. And whereas he saith That the Scriptures have preserv'd many particular passages which because their source or first attestation was not universal nor their nature much practical might possibly bave been lost in their conveyance down by Tradition this is impossible according to his Hypothesis For if neither the Scriptures letter nor the certain sense of it as to the main body of Christian Doctrine could have been secured without Oral Tradition that is if we could not have known that those passages which contain the main points of Christs Doctrine either had been written by men divinely inspired or what the sense of them was but from the consonancy and agreement of those passages with the Doctrine which was orally preached by the Apostles how can we be certain either of the letter or sense of other particular passages which must necessarily want this confirmation from Oral Tradition because their first attestation was not universal nor their nature much practical Nay his discourse plainly implies that we can have no security at all either of the letter or sense of any other parts of Scripture but only those which are coincident with the main body of Christian Doctrine as is evident from these words Tradition established the Church is provided of a certain and infallible Rule to preserve a copy of the Scriptures Letter truly significative of Christs sense as far as it is coincident with the main body of Christian Doctrine preached at first because sense writ in mens hearts by Tradition can easily guide them to correct the alteration of the outward letter This I perceive plainly is the thing they would be at they would correct the outward letter of Scripture by sense written in their hearts and then instead of leaving out the second Commandement they would change it into a precept of giving due worship to Images according to the Council of Trent and a thousand other alterations they must make in the Bible to make it truly significative of the sense of their Church But surely the outward letter of other passages of Scripture which were not intended to signifie points of Faith is equally liable to alterations and yet the Church is not by Tradition provided of any way to correct these alterations when they happen because Tradition doth as this Corollary implies only furnish the Church with a certain and infallible Rule of preserving a copy of the Scriptures letter so far as it is coincident with the main body of Christian Doctrine § 10. Again he tells us Tradition established the Church is provided of a certain infallible Rule to interpret Scripture letter by so as to arrive certainly at Christs sense as far as the letter concerns the body of Christian Doctrine preached at first or points requisite to Salvation So that whatever he may attribute to Scripture for fashions sake and to avoid Calumny with the Vulgar as he says very ingenuously in his explication of the 15 th Corollary nevertheless 't is plain that according to his own Hypothesis he cannot but look upon it as perfectly useless and pernicious That 't is altogether useless according to his Hypothesis is plain for the main body of Christian Doctrine is securely conveyed to us without it and it can give no kind of confirmation to it because it receives all at its confirmation from it only the Church is ever and anon put to a great deal of trouble to correct the alteration of the outward letter by tradition and sense written in their hearts And as for all other parts of Scriptue which are not coincident with the main body of Christian Doctrine we can have no certainty either that the outward Letter is true nor if we could can we possibly arrive at any certain sense of them And that it is intolerably pernicious according to his Hypothesis is plain because * every silly and upstart Heresie fathers it self upon it and when men leave Tradition as he supposeth all Hereticks do the Scripture is the most dangerous engine that could have been invented being to such Persons only * waxen natured words not sensed nor having any certain Interpreter but fit to be play'd upon diversly by quirks of wit that is apt to blunder and confound but to clear little or nothing And indeed if his Hypothesis were true the Scriptures might well deserve all the contemptuous language which he useth against them and Mr. White 's comparison of them with Lilly's Almanack would not only be pardonable but proper and unless he added it out of prudence and for the Peoples sake whom he may think too superstitiously conceited of those Books he might have spared that cold excuse which he makes for using this similitude that it was agreeable rather to the impertinency of the Objection than the dignity of the Subject Certain it is if these men are true to their own Principles that notwithstanding the high reverence and esteem pretended to be born by them and their Church to the Scriptures they must heartily despise them and wish them out of the way and even look upon it as a great oversight of the Divine Providence to trouble his Church with a Book which if their Discourse be of any consequence can stand Catholicks in no stead at all and is so dangerous and mischievous a weapon in the hands of Hereticks SECT III. § 1. HAving thus taken a view of his opinion and considered how much he attributes to Oral Tradition and how little to the Scriptures before I assail this Hypothesis I shall lay down the Protestant Rule of Faith not that so much is necessary for the answering of his Book but that he may have no colour of objection that I proceed altogether in the destructive way and overthrow his Principle as he calls it without substituting another in its room The opinion then of the Protestants concerning the Rule of faith is this in general That those Books which we call the Holy Scriptures are the means whereby the Christian Doctrine hath been brought down to us And that he may now clearly understand this together with the grounds of it which
in reason he ought to have done before he had forsaken us I shall declare it more particularly in these following Proposiâ—ions § 2. 1. That the Doctrine of Christian Religion was by Christ delivered to the Apostles and by them first preached to the World and afterwards by them committed to Writing which Writings or Books have been transmitted from one age to another down to us So far I take to be granted by our present Adversaries That the Christian Doctrine was by Christ delivered to the Apostles and by them publish'd to the World is part of their own Hypothesis That this Doctrine was afterwards by the Apostles committed to writing he also grants Corol. 29. 'T is certain the Apostles taught the same Doctrine they writ and if so it must be as certain that they writ the same Doctrine which they taught I know it is the general Tenet of the Papists that the Scriptures do not contain the entire body of Christian Doctrine but that besides the Doctrines contained in Scripture there are also others brought down to us by oral or unwritten Tradition But Mr. S. who supposeth the whole Doctrine of Christian Religion to be certainly conveyed down to us solely by oral Tradition doth not any where that I remember deny that all the same Doctrine is contained in the Scriptures only he denies the Scriptures to be a means sufficient to convey this Doctrine to us with certainty so that we can by them be infallibly assured what is Christ's Doctrine and what not Nay he seems in that passage I last cited to grant this in saying that the Apostles did both teach and write the same Doctrine I am sure Mr. White whom he follows very closely throughout his whole Book does not deny this in his Apology for Tradition where he saith that it is not the Catholick position that all its Doctrines are not contained in the Scriptures And that those Writings or Books which we call the Holy Scriptures have been transmitted down to us is unquestionable matter of fact and granted universally by the Papists as to all those Books which are owned by Protestants for Canonical § 3. Secondly That the way of Writing is a sufficient means to convey a Doctrine to the knowledg of those who live in times very remote from the age of its first delivery According to his Hypothesis there is no possible way of conveying a Doctrine with certainty and security besides that of oral Tradition the falshood of which will sufficiently appear when I shall have shewn that the true properties of a Rule of Faith do agree to the Scriptures and not to oral Tradition In the mean time I shall only offer this to his consideration that whatever can be orally delivered in plain and intelligible words may be written in the same words and that a Writing or Book which is publick and in every ones hand may be conveyed down with at least as much certainty and security and with as little danger of alteration as an oral Tradition And if so I understand not what can render it impossible for a Book to convey down a Doctrine to the knowledg of after-ages Besides if he had looked well about him he could not but have apprehended some little inconvenience in making that an essential part of his Hypothesis which is contradicted by plain and constant experience For that any kind of Doctrine may be sufficiently conveyed by Books to the knowledg of after-ages provided those Books be but written intelligibly and preserved from change and corruption in the conveyance both which I shall be so bold as to suppose possible is as little doubted by the generality of mankind as that there are Books And surely we Christians cannot think it impossible to convey a Doctrine to posterity by Books when we consider that God himself pitched upon this way for conveyance of the Doctrine of the Jewish Religion to after-ages because it is not likely that so wise an Agent should pitch upon a means whereby it was impossible he should attain his end § 4. Thirdly That the Books of Scripture are sufficiently plain as to all things necessary to be believed and practised He that denies this ought in reason to instance in some necessary point of Faith or matter of Practice which is not in some place of Scripture or other plainly delivered For it is not a sufficient objection to say that the greatest wits among the Protestants differ about the sense of those Texts wherein the generality of them suppose the Divinity of Christ to be plainly and clearly expressed Because if nothing were to be accounted sufficiently plain but what it is impossible a great wit should be able to wrest to any other sense not only the Scriptures but all other Books and which is worst of all to him that makes this objection all oral Tradition would fall into uncertainty Doth the Traditionary Church pretend that the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity is conveyed down to her by oral Tradition more plainly than it is expressed in Scripture I would fain know what plainer words she ever used to express this point of Faith by than what the Scripture useth which expresly calls him God the true God God over all blessed for evermore If it be said that those who deny the Divinity of Christ have been able to evade these and all other Texts of Scripture but they could never elude the definitions of the Church in that matter it is easily answered that the same Arts would equally have eluded both but there was no reason why they should trouble themselves so much about the latter for why should they be solicitous to wrest the definitions of Councils and conform them to their own opinion who had no regard to the Churches Authority If those great Wits as he calls them had believed the sayings of Scripture to be of no greater authority than the definitions of Councils they would have answered texts of Scripture as they have done the definitions of Councils not by endeavouring to interpret them to another sense but by downright denying their Authority So that it seems that oral Tradition is liable to the same inconvenience with the written as to this particular § 5. And of this I shall give him a plain instance in two great Wits of their Church the present Pope and Mr. White the one the Head of the Traditionary Church as Mr. S. calls it the other the great Master of the Traditionary Doctrine These two great Wits notwithstanding the plainness of oral Tradition and the impossibility of being ignorant of it or mistaking it have yet been so unhappy as to differ about several points of Faith insomuch that Mr. White is unkindly censured for it at Rome and perhaps here in England the Pope speeds no better however the difference continues still so wide that Mr. White hath thought fit to disobey the summons of his chief Pastor and like a prudent man rather to write against him here out
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
Moral and Intellectual part else how are they Arguments And if man according to his Moral part be as he says defectible how can the indefectibility of Tradition be founded in those Arguments which work upon man only according to his Moral part I have purposely all along both for the Readers ease and mine own neglected to take notice of several of his inconsistencies but these are such clear and transparent Contradictions that I could do no less than make an example of them SECT V. § 1. THirdly This Demonstration is confuted by clear and undeniable Instances to the contrary I will mention but two First The Tradition of the one true God which was the easiest to be preserved of any Doctrine in the World being short and plain planted in every mans Nature and perfectly suited to the reason of Mankind And yet this Tradition not having past through many hands by reason of the long Age of man was so defaced and corrupted that the World did lapse into Polytheism and Idolatry Now a man that were so hardy as to demonstrate against matter of Fact might by a stronger Demonstration than Mr. S's prove that though it be certain this Tradition hath failed yet it was impossible it should fail as Zeno demonstrated the impossibility of motion against Diogenes walking before his eyes For the Doctrine of the one true God was setled in the heart of Noah and firmly believed by him to be the way to happiness and the contradicting or deserting of this to be the way to misery And this Doctrine was by him so taught to his Children who were encouraged by these Motives to adhere to this Doctrine and to propagate it to their Children and were deterred by them from relinquishing it And this was in all Ages the perswasion of the faithful Now the Hopes of Happiness and the Fears of Misery strongly applied are the causes of actual will Besides the thing was feasible or within their power that is what they were bred to was knowable by them and that much more easily than any other Doctrine whatsoever being short and plain and natural This put it follows as certainly that a great number in each Age would continue to hold themselves and teach their Children as themselves had been taught that is would follow and stick to this Tradition of the one true God as it doth that a cause put actually causing produceth its effect Actually I say for since the cause is put and the Patient disposed it follows inevitably that the cause is put still actually causing This demonstration which concludes an apparent falshood hath the whole strength of Mr. S's and several advantages beyond it For the Doctrine conveyed by this Tradition is the most important being the first Principle of all Religion the danger of corrupting it as great the facility of preserving it much greater than of the Christian Doctrine for the causes before mentioned And yet after all it signifies nothing against certain experience and unquestionable matter of Fact only it sufficiently shews the vanity of Mr. S's pretended Demonstration built upon the same or weaker Grounds § 2. Secondly The other Instance shall be in the Greek Church who received the Christian Doctrine as entire from the Apostles and had as great an obligation to propagate it truly to Posterity and the same fears and hopes strongly applied to be the actual causes of will in a word all the same Arguments and Causes to preserve and continue Tradition on foot which the Roman Church had And yet to the utter confusion of Mr. S's Demonstration Tradition hath failed among them For as Speculators they deny the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son and as Testifiers they disown any such Doctrine to have been delivered to them by the precedent Age or to any other Age of their Church by the Apostles as the Doctrine of Christ. § 3. To this Instance of the Greek Church because Mr. White hath offered something by way of answer I shall here consider it He tells us That the plea of the Greek Church is Non-Tradition alledging only this That their Fathers do not deliver the Doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost not that they say the contrary which clearly demonstrates there are no opposite Traditions between them and us But this was not the thing Mr. White was concerned to do to demonstrate there were no opposite Traditions between the Greeks and the Latines but to secure his main Demonstration of the impossibility of Traditions failing against this Instance For that the Greeks have no such Tradition as this That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son is as good an evidence of the failure of Tradition as if they had a positive Tradition That he proceeds only from the Father especially if we consider that they charge the Latin Church with Innovation in this matter and say that the addition of that Clause of the Procession from the Son also is a corruption of the ancient Faith and a Devilish Invention Why then does Mr. White go about to baffle so material an Objection and I fear his own Conscience likewise by a pitiful Evasion instead of a solid Answer What though there be no opposite Traditions between the Greek and Latin Church yet if their Faith be opposite Will it not from hence follow that Tradition hath failed in one of them I wonder that Mr. White who hath so very well confuted the Infallibility of Popes and Councils and thereby undermined the very Foundations of that Religion should not by the same light of Reason discover the fondness of his own Opinion concerning the Infallibility of Oral Tradition which hath more and greater absurdities in it than that which he confutes And to shew Mr. White the absurdity of it I will apply his Demonstration of the Infallibility of Christian Tradition in general to the Greek Church in particular by which every one will see that it does as strongly prove the impossibility of Traditions failing in the Greek Church as in the Roman-Catholick as they are pleased to call it His Demonstration is this Christ commanded his Apostles to preach to all the World and lest any one should doubt of the effect he sent his Spirit into them to bring to their remembrance what he had taught them which Spirit did not only give them a power to do what he enclined them to but did cause them actually to do it I cannot but take notice by the way of the ill consequence of this which is that men may doubt whether those who are to teach the Doctrine of Christ will remember it and teach it to others unless they have that extraordinary and efficacious assistance of the Holy Ghost which the Apostles had if this be true his Demonstration is at an end for he cannot plead that this assistance hath been continued ever since the Apostles He proceeds The Apostles preached this Doctrine the Nations understood it lived according to it and valued
innovated have made the same pretence to uninterrupted Tradition Fourthly That it is not the present perswasion of the Church of Rome whom he calls the Traditionary Christians nor ever was that their Faith hath descended to them solely by Oral Tradition If I can now make good these four things I hope his Demonstration is at an end SECT VII § 1. THat these Principles wholly rely upon the truth of the Grounds of his Demonstration a Priori For if the Doctrine of Christ was either imperfectly taught in any Age or mistaken by the Learners or any part of it forgotten as it seems the whole Greek Church have forgot that fundamental Point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost as the Roman Church accounts it or if the Arguments of hope and fear be not necessary causes of actual will to adhere to Tradition then there may have been changes and innovations in any Age and yet men may pretend to have followed Tradition But I have shewn that Ignorance and Negligence and Mistake and Pride and Lust and Ambition and any other Vice or Interest may hinder those causes from being effectual to preserve Tradition entire and uncorrupted And when they do so it is not to be expected that those Persons who innovate and change the Doctrine should acknowledg that their new Doctrines are contrary to the Doctrine of Christ but that they should at first advance them as Pious and after they have prevailed and gained general entertainment then impudently affirm that they were the very Doctrines which Christ delivered which they may very securely do when they have it in their power to burn all that shall deny it § 2. I will give a clear Instance of the possibility of this in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation by shewing how this might easily come in in the Ninth or Tenth Age after Christ. We will suppose then that about this time when universal Ignorance and the genuine Daughter of it call her Devotion or Superstition had overspread the World and the generality of People were strongly enclined to believe strange things and even the greatest Contradictions were recommended to them under the notion of Mysteries being told by their Priests and Guides that the more contradictions any thing is to Reason the greater merit there is in believing it I say let us suppose that in this state of things one or more of the most eminent then in the Church either out of design or out of superstitious ignorance and mistake of the sense of our Saviour's words used in the Consecration of the Sacrament should advance this new Doctrine That the words of Consecration This is my Body are not to be understood by any kind of Trope as the like forms in Scripture are as I am the Vine I am the Door which are plain Tropes but being used about this great Mystery of the Sacrament ought in all reason to be supposed to contain in them some notable Mystery which they will do if they be understood of a real change of the substance of Bread and Wine made by vertue of these words into the real Body and Blood of our Saviour And in all this I suppose nothing but what is so far from being impossible that it is too usual for men either out of Ignorance or Interest to advance new Opinions in Religion And such a Doctrine as this was very likely to be advanced by the ambitious Clergy of that time as a probable means to draw in the People to a greater veneration of them which advantage Mr. Rushworth seems to be very sensible of when he tells us That the power of the Priest in this particular is such a priviledg as if all the learned Clerks that ever lived since the beginning of the World should have studied to raise advance and magnifie some one state of men to the highest pitch of Reverence and Eminency they could never without special light from Heaven have thought of any thing comparable to this I am of his mind that it was a very notable device but I am apt to think invented without any special light from Heaven Nor was such a Doctrine less likely to take and prevail among the People in an Age prodigiously ignorant and strongly enclined to Superstition and thereby well prepared to receive the grossest Absurdities under the notion of Mysteries especially if they were such as might seem to conciliate a greater honour and reverence to the Sacrament Now supposing such a Doctrine as this so fitted to the humor and temper of the Age to be once asserted either by chance or out of design it would take like wild-fire especially if by some one or more who bore sway in the Church it were but recommended with convenient gravity and solemnity And although Mr. Rushworth says It is impossible that the Authority of one man should sway so much in the World because sayes he surely the Devil himself would rather help the Church than permit so little pride among men yet I am not so thoroughly satisfied with this cunning reason For though he delivers it confidently and with a surely yet I make some doubt whether the Devil would be so forward to help the Church nay on the contrary I am enclined to think that he would rather choose to connive at this humble and obsequious temper in men in order to the overthrow of Religion than cross a design so dear to him by unseasonable temptations to pride So that notwithstanding Mr. Rushworth's reason it seems very likely that such a Doctrine in such an Age might easily be propagated by the influence and authority of one or a few great Persons in the Church For nothing can be more suitable to the easie and passive temper of superstitious Ignorance than to entertain such a Doctrine with all imaginable greediness and to maintain it with a proportionable zeal And if there be any wiser than the rest who make Objections against it as if this Doctrine were new and full of contradictions they may easily be born down by the stream and by the eminency and authority and pretended sanctity of those who are the heads of this Innovation And when this Doctrine is generally swallowed and all that oppose it are looked upon and punished as Hereticks then it is seasonable to maintain that this Doctrine was the doctrine of forefathers to which end it will be sufficient to those who are willing to have it true to bend two or three sayings of the Ancients to that purpose And as for the contradictions contained in this Doctrine it was but telling the People then as they do in effect now that contradictions ought to be no scruple in the way of Faith that the more impossible any thing is 't is the fitter to be believed that it is not praise-worthy to believe plain possibilities but that this is the gallantry and heroical power of Faith this is the way to oblige God Almighty for ever to us to believe flat and down-right
contradictions For God requires at the Peoples hands as Mr. Rushworth tells us a Credulity of things above and beyond Nature nay beyond all the Fables be it spoken with respect that ever man invented After this Doctrine hath proceeded thus far and by the most inhumane severities and cruelties supprest Dissenters or in a good measure rooted them out then if they please even this new word Transubstantiation may pretend also to Antiquity and in time be confidently vouched for a word used by Christians in all Ages and transmitted down to them by those from whom they received the Doctrine of the Sacrament as a term of Art appendant to it And when a superstitious Church and designing Governors have once gained this Post and by means of this enormous Article of Transubstantiation have sufficiently debauched the minds of men and made a breach in their understandings wide enough for the entertaining of any Error though never so gross and sensless then Innovations come in amain and by sholes and the more absurd and unreasonable any thing is it is for that very reason the more proper matter for an Article of Faith And if any of these Innovations be objected against as contrary to former belief and practice it is but putting forth a lusty act of Faith and believing another contradiction that though they be contrary yet they are the same § 3. And there is nothing in all this but what is agreeable both to History and Experience For that the Ninth and Tenth Ages and those which followed them till the Reformation were thus prodigiously ignorant and superstitious is confirmed by the unanimous consent of all Historians and even by those Writers that have been the greatest Pillars of their own Religion And Experience tells us that in what Age soever there are a great company of superstitious People there will never be wanting a few crafty Fellows to make use of this easie and pliable humor to their own ends Now that this was the state of those Ages of the Church will be evident to any from these Testimonies Platina writes of Pope Romanus that he null'd the Acts of his Predecessor Stephanus For sayes he these Popes minded nothing else but how they might extinguish both the Name and Dignity of their Predecessors And if so who can doubt but that these Popes who made it their business to destroy the very memory of their Ancestors would be very little careful to preserve the Doctrine of Fore-fathers But what the care of those Times was in this particular may be conjectured from what Onuphrius says by way of confutation of that passage in Platina concerning Pope Joan's reading publickly at Rome at her first coming thither This says he is utterly false for there was nothing that they were less sollicitous about in those Times than to furnish the City with any publick Teachers And the time which Onuphrius speaks of was much about the beginning of the Tenth Century Phil. Bergomensis says It happened in that Age through the slothfulness of men that there was a general decay of Vertue both in the Head and Members Again These Times through the Ambition and cruel Tyranny of the Popes were extremely unhappy For the Popes setting aside the fear of God and his Worship fell into such enmities among themselves as cruel Tyrants exercise towards one another Sabellicus says It is wonderful to observe what a strange forgetfulness of all Arts did about this time seize upon men insomuch that neither the Popes nor other Princes seem'd to have any sense or apprehension of any thing that might be useful to humane life There were no wholsome Laws no Reparations of Churches no pursuit of liberal Arts but a kind of stupidity and madness and forgetfulness of manners had possessed the minds of men And a little after I cannot says he but much wonder from whence these Tragical Examples of Popes should spring and how their minds should come to be so devoid of all Piety as neither to regard the Person which they susteined nor the place they were in Sigonius speaking of these Times about the beginning of the Tenth Century calls them the foulest and blackest both in respect of the wickedness of Princes and the madness of the People that are to be found in all Antiquity Genebrard speaking of the same Time This says he is called the unhappy Age being destitute of men eminent for Wit and Learning as also of famous Princes and Popes In this Time there was scarce any thing done worthy to be remembred by Posterity And he adds afterwards But chiefly unhappy in this one thing that for almost 150 years together about 50 Popes did utterly degenerate from the vertue of their Ancestors He should have added further but even to a miracle happy in another respect that during this long and total degeneracy from the Piety and Vertue of their Ancestors they did not in the least swerve from them in matter of Faith and Doctrine A thing incredible were there not Demonstration for it Werner gives this Character of that Time About the year of our Lord One Thousand there began an effeminate Time in which the Christian Faith begun to degenerate exceedingly and to decline from its ancient vigour insomuch that in many Countries of Christendom neither Sacraments nor Ecclesiastical Rites were observed And people were given to Soothsaying and Witchcrafts and the Priest was like the People It seems by this Testimony that Tradition did faulter a little in that Age else the Christian Faith could not possibly have degenerated and declined so very much And which threatens Mr. S's Demonstration most of all that the Practical Tradition of Sacraments and other Ecclesiastical Observances did fail in many Christian Countries Gerbert who lived in that Time gives this short Character of the Roman Church in an Epistle of his to Stephen Deacon of that Church The World stands amazed at the Manners of Rome But most full is the complaint of a great Prelate of the Church concerning those Times In the West says he and almost all the World over especially among those who were called the Faithful Faith failed and there was no fear of God among them it seems the Argument of Fear had lost its force Justice was perished from among men and violence prevailing against equity governed the Nations Fraud Deceit and the Arts of Couzenage were grown universal All kind of Vertue gave way as an useless thing and wickedness supply'd its place The World seemed to be declining apace towards its Evening and the second coming of the Son of man to draw near For Love was grown cold and Faiâ—h was not found upon Earth All things were in Confusion and the World looked as if it would return to its old Chaos All sorts of Fornication were committed with the same freedom as if they had been lawful Actions for men neither blushed at them nor were punish't for them Nor did the Clergy
that can be imagined it might then have taken place for what Weeds would not have grown in so rank a Soyl Doth Mr. S. think it impossible that those that were born in the Church then should be ignorant of the Doctrine of Christ when scarce any one would take the pains to teach it them or that it could then have been altered when so few understood and fewer practised it When ptodigious Impiety and Wickedness did overspread the Church from the Pope down to the meanest of the Laity can any one believe that men generally made Conscience to instruct their Children in the true Faith of Christ Was it impossible there should be any neglect of this Duty when all others failed That there should be any mistake about the Doctrine of Christ when there was so much Ignorance unless he be of Mr. Rushworth's mind who reckons Ignorance among the Parents of Religion Where were then the Arguments of Hope and Fear Were they strongly applied or were they not Were they causes of actual will in Christians to believe well when they lived so ill Or is Christianity only fitted to form mens minds to a right belief but of no efficacy to govern their lives Hath Christ taken care to keep his Church from Error but not from Vice As the great Cardinal Perron stooping below his own Wit and Reason to serve a bad Cause tells us That the Church sings and will sing to the end of the World I am black but I am fair that is to say I am black in Manners but fair in Doctrine As if the meaning of the Prophesies and Promises of Scripture made to the Church were this that by the extraordinary care of Gods Providence and peculiar assistance of his Holy Spirit she should be wicked but Orthodox to the end of the World Where were then the vigorous causes imprinting Christ's Doctrine and continuing it more particularly at Rome than any where else and of securing that See and its supreme Pastor in the faith and practice of the Christian Doctrine above any other See or Pastor whatsoever Who is so little versed in History as not to understand the dismal state of Religion in the Romish Church in those times Who does not know what advantages the Bishops of Rome and their servile Clergy made of the ignorance and superstition of those and the succeeding Ages and by what Arts and steps they raised themselves to that power which they held in the Church for a long while after When they could tread upon the necks of Princes and make a great King walk bare-foot and yield himself to be scourged by a company of petulant Monks When they could send any man upon an Errand to visit the holy Sepulchre or the Shrine of such a Saint and command five or six Kings with great Armies upon a needless expedition into the Holy Land that so during their absence they might play their own Game the better When they could mint Miracles and impose upon the belief of the People without the authority of any ancient Books absurd and counterfeit Tales of ancient Saints and Martyrs as delivered down to them by Tradition and could bring that foppish Book the Legend almost into equal Authority and Veneration with the Bible and perswade the easy people that St. Denys carried his own head in his hand after it was cut off two miles and kiss'd it when he laid it down Any one that shall but reflect upon the monstrous practises of the Roman Bishops and Clergy in these Ages the strange Feats they played and what absurdities they imposed upon the superstitious credulity of Princes and People may readily imagine not only the possibility but the easiness of innovating new Doctrines as they pleased under the specious pretences of Antitiquity and constant and uninterrupted Tradition § 8. And this kind of Discourse concerning the possibility of Errors coming into the Church is not as Mr. White ridiculously compares it as if an Orator should go about to perswade people that George by the help of a long staff and a nimble cast of his body and such like advantages might leap over Paul 's Steeple never considering all the while the disproportion of all these advantages to the height of the Steeple so saith he he that discourseth at large how Errors use to slide into mans life without comparing the power of the causes of Error to the strength of resisting which consists in this Principle Nothing is to be admitted but what descends by Tradition c. says no more towards proving an Error 's over-running the Church than the Orator for George 's leaping over the Steeple How vain is this When it appears from this Instance that I have given of the state of the Roman Church in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries and afterwards that the causes of Error were infinitely stronger than the power of resistance The great causes of Error are Ignorance and Vice where Ignorance reigns there 's no Power where Vice no Will to resist it And how great the Ignorance and Viciousness of all orders of men in the Roman Church was is too too apparent from the Testimonies I have brought Where was the strength of resisting Error when for 150 years together the Popes were the vilest of men Bishops and Priests overwhelmed with Ignorance abandoned to all manner of vice and most supinely negligent in instructing the People In such a degenerate state of a Church what strength is there in this Principle Nothing is to be admitted but what descends by Tradition When those who ought to teach men what that Doctrine is which was derived to them by Tradition are generally careless of their Duty and ignorant themselves what that Doctrine is When they addict themselves wholly to the satisfying of their Ambition and other Lusts and carry on designs of Gain and getting Dominion over the People What can hinder men so disposed from corrupting the Doctrine of Christ and suiting it to their own Lusts and Interests And what shall hinder the People from embracing those Corruptions when by the negligence of their Pastors to instruct them and not only so but also by their being deprived of the Scriptures in a known Tongue they are become utterly incapable of knowing what the true Doctrine of Christ is So that in an Age of such profound Ignorance and Vice and general neglect of Instruction 't is so far from being impossible for Errors to over-run a Church that the contrary is morally impossible and George's long staff and advantagious cast of his Body are more powerful causes to enable him to leap over Paul's Steeple than this Principle That nothing is to be admitted but what descends by Tradition is to keep Errors out of a Church in an ignorant and vicious Age when few or none are either able or willing to instruct men in the Truth For suppose this always to have been the Principle of Christians viz. That nothing is to be admitted as the
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
is the very way of the Calvinists and of the absurdest Sects Nay Mr. White says farther That he will be content to suffer all the punishment that is due to Calumniators if the Roman Divines he there speaks of do not hold the same Rule of Faith with the Calvinists and all the absurdest Sects So that it seems that the Calvinists c. do not in their Rule of Faith differ from the Papists but only from Mr. White Mr. S. c. Now the Divines he there speaks of are the Censors of Doctrines at Rome according to whose advice his infallible Holiness and the Cardinals of the Inquisition do usuall proceed in censuring of Doctrines Concerning these Divines he goes on to expostulate in this manner Shall we endure these men to sit as Censors and Judges of Faith who agree with Hereticks in the very first Principle which distinguishes Catholicks from Hereticks Again These are thy gods O Rome upon these thou dependest whil'st prating Ignorance triumphs in the Roman Colledg And he says the same likewise of the generality of their School-Divines whom he calls Scepticks because they do not own his Demonstrative way Insomuch that he tells us That few sound parts are left uninfected with this Plague of Scepticism that this is an universal Gangrene that there are but few that go the way of Demonstration and these are either wearied out or else live retiredly or despair of any remedy of these things And indeed all along that Book he bemoans himself and his Traditionary Brethren as a desolate and forlorn Party who have Truth on their side but want company and encouragement So he tells us That the true scientifical Divines dare not profess their knowledg lest they should be exposed by the Sophisters of their Church to the derision and scorn either of their Judges or of the People § 4. So that upon examination of the whole matter it appears that Mr. S's Demonstration proceeds upon a false Supposition That it is the perswasion of their present Church that Tradition is the sole Rule of Faith For there is no such matter unless Mr. S. mean by their Church a few private persons who are look'd upon by those who have the chief power in their Church as Heretical as we may reasonably conjecture by the proceedings at Rome against Mr. White many of whose Books are there condemned as containing things manifestly Heretical erroneous in the Faith rash scandalous seditious and false respectively c. And all this done notwithstanding that the chief subject of those Books is the explication and defence of this most Catholick Principle That Oral Tradition is the only Rule of Faith To sum up then the whole business If nothing be to be owned for Christian Doctrine as the Traditionists say but what is the general perswasion of those who are acknowledged to be in the communion of the Roman Catholick Church then much less can this Principle That Oral Tradition is the sole Rule of Faith which is pretended to be the foundation of the whole Christian Doctrine be received as descended from Christ and his Apostles since it is so far from being the general perswasion of that Church at the present that it has been and still is generally disowned But Mr. White has a salvo for this For although he grant That very many of their School-men maintain that Tradition is necessary only for some Points not clearly expressed in Scripture whence he says it seems to follow that they build not the whole Body of their Faith upon Tradition yet he tells us there is a vast difference betwixt relying on Tradition and saying or thinking we d◠so Suppose there be yet I hope that mens saying that they do not rely on Tradition as their only Rule is a better evidence that they do not than any mans surmise to the contrary is that they do though they think and say they do not which is in effect to say that they do though we have as much assurance as we can have that they do not Besides how is this Rule self-evident to all even to the rude Vulgar as to its ruling power as Mr. S. affirms it is when the greatest part even of the Learned among them think and say that it is not the only Rule But Mr. White endeavours to illustrate this dark point by a similitude which is to this sense As the Scepticks who deny this Principle That Contradictions cannot be true at once yet in their lives and civil actions proceed as if they owned it So the Schoolmen though they deny Tradition to be the only Rule of their Faith yet by resolving their Faith into the Church which owns this Principle they do also in practice own it though they say they do not So that the generality of learned Papists are just such Catholicks as the Scepticks are Dogmatists that is a company of absurd people that confute their Principles by their practice According to this reasoning I perceive the Protestants will prove as good Catholicks as any for they do only think and say that Tradition is not the Rule of Faith but that they practically rely upon it Mr. S. hath past his word for them For he assures us and we may rely upon a man that writes nothing but Demonstration that if we look narrowly into the bottom of our hearts we shall discover the natural method of Tradition to have unawares setled our Judgments concerning Faith however when our other Concerns awake design in us we protest against it and seem perhaps to our unreflecting selves to embrace and hold to the meer guidance of the Letter of Scripture So that in reality we are as good Catholicks and as true holders to Tradition as any Papist of them all at the bottom of our thoughts and in our setled judgments however we have taken up an humour to protest against it and may seem perhaps to our unreflecting selves to be Protestants § 5. Thus much may suffice to have spoken to his two great Arguments or as he good man unfortunately calls them Demonstrations which yet to say truth are not properly his but the Authors of Rushworth's Dialogues the main foundation of which Book is the substance of these Demonstrations Only before I take leave of them I cannot but reflect upon a passage of Mr. S s wherein he tells his Readers that they are not obliged to bend their brains to study his Book with that severity as they would do an Euclid meaning perhaps one of Mr. White 's Euclids for it does not appear by his way of Demonstration that ever he dealt with any other As for the true Euclid I suppose any one that hath tasted his Writings will at the reading of Mr. S's unbend his brains without bidding and smile to see himself so demurely discharged from a study so absurd and ridiculous SECT XI § 1. I Should now take into consideration his Ninth
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
but this if a Pope and Council should define a new thing and declare they ground themselves on new lights as did their first reformers in England but I shall find he saith no such fopperies in faith-definitions made by the Catholick Church Is this the man who made choice of reason for his weapon could there be a greater calumny cast on our Church than to say her reformers grounded themselves on new lights when our great charge against the Church of Rome is for introducing Novelties and receding from pure and primitive antiquity Whether the charge be true or no yet sure it follows they did not declare they ground themselves on new lights but expresly the contrary Well but Pope and Councils neither define new things nor ground themselves on them but what means the man of reason that they make no new definitions surely not for then what did they meet for and what mean their decrees but he intends that they deliver no new doctrine but how must that be tried or hath Mr. S. gained the opinion of infallibility both from Pope and Councils that we must believe his bare word but we not only say but prove that even their last Council hath defined many things which never were delivered by Christ or his Apostles And it is to no purpose whether they say they ground themselves on new lights or pretend to an infallible assistance for it comes all to the same at last For if the assistance be infallible what matter is it whether the doctrine hath been revealed or no for on this supposition it is impossible that Pope and Council should miscarry Therefore if any Church be guilty of fopperies in faith-definitions it must be that which you miscall the Catholick but is more truly known by the name of the Roman Church There is yet one piece of Mr. S's sagacity to be taken notice of as to this particular which is that I am at an end of my argument because I say the opinion of the Pope and Councils infallibility is the common doctrin maintained in which I confound the Church with the schools or some private opinaters and then carp at those mens tenets And this is the force of all that Paragraph He tells me I want not wit to know that no sober Catholick holds humane deductions the rule of their faith schoolmen definers of it nor the schools the Tribunal whence to propose it authoritatively and obligingly to the generality of the faithful Neither doth Mr. S. want the wit to know that our present enquiry is concerning the sense of their present Church about the rule of faith Since then Mr. S. must confess it necessary to faith to know what the certain rule of it is let me enquire further whether any particular person can know certainly what it is unless he knows what the Church owns for her rule of faith and whether that may be owned as the Churches judgement which is stifly opposed by the most interessed persons in the Roman Church and the most zealous contenders for it Especially when the Pope who is said to be Head of the Church condemns the doctrine asserted and that only by a small number of such who are as much opposed by themselves as by any of us Is it then possible to know the Churches judgement or not if not 't is to no purpose to search for a rule of faith if it be which way can we come to know it either by most voices or the sense of the Governours of the Church either of the ways I dare put it to a fair tryal whether oral tradition or the infallibility of Pope and Councils be the Doctrine most owned in the Church of Rome But Mr. S. still tells us these are only private opinators and schoolmen who assert the contrary doctrine to his But wiill not they much more say on the other side that this way of oral trodition is a novel fancy of some few half-Catholicks in England and tends to subvert the Roman Church But is the present Pope with Mr. S. a private opinator or was the last a meer schoolman I am sure what ever Mr. S. thinks of him he thought not so of himself when he said he was no Divine in the controversie of Jansenius Doth the Court of Rome signifie no more with Mr. S. than a company of scholastick Pedants that know not what the sense of the Church is concerning the rule of faith I meddle not with the Schools but with the authority of the present Church and him whom Mr. S. owns for the head of it and is it consistent with his headship to condemn that doctrine which contains in it the only certain rule of faith Mr. S. may then see they were no such impertinent Topicks which I insisted on and as stout as Mr. S. seems to be I an apt to believe he would not look on the censure of the Inquisition as an impertinent Topick But at last Mr. S. offers at something whereby he would satisfie me of the sense of the Church as to this particular and therefore asks whether I never heard of such a thing as the Council of Trent I must ingenuously confess I have and seen more a great deal of it than I am satisfied with But what of that there he tells me I may find a clear solution of my doubt by the constant procedure of that most grave Synod in its definitions That is I hope to find that oral tradition was acknowledged there as the only self-evident rule of faith If I do this I confess my self satisfied in this enquiry But how much to the contrary is there very obvious in the proceedings of it For in the 4 th Session the Decree is That Scripture and tradition should be embraced with equal piety and reverence and the reason is because the doctrine of faith is contain'd partly in Scripture partly in tradition but what arts must Mr. S. use to infer from hence that oral tradition in contradistinction to Scripture was looked on as the only rule of faith I cannot but say that the ruling men of that Council were men wise enough in their generation and they were too wise wholly to exclude Scripture but because they knew that of it self could not serve their purposes they therefore help it out with tradition and make both together the compleat rule of faith Where I pray in all the proceedings of that Council doth Mr. S. find them define any thing on the account of oral tradition instead of which we find continual bandyings about the sense of Scripture and Fathers which might have been all spared if they had been so wise as to consider they could not but know the sense of the present Church nor that of the precedent and so up to the time of Christ. But they were either so ignorant as not to light on this happy invention or so wise and knowing as to despise it It is true they would not have their doctrines looked
principle And he that can believe that I wonder he should scruple believing the Popes infallibility for certainly no principle of the Jesuits is more wild and absurd than this is Besides I admire how it came into Mr. S's head to think no error could come into history unless one age conspired to deceive another when we find no age agreed in the present matters of fact which are done in it as to the grounds and particulars of them to give Mr. S. an instance home to his purpose in the late Council of Trent we see already what different representations there are made of it in so little a time as hath already passed since the sitting of it One though he had all the advantages imaginable of knowing all proceedings in it living at the same time conversing with the persons present at it having the memoires and records of the Secretaries themselves yet his story is since endeavoured to be blasted by a great person of the Roman Church as fictitious and partial We see then it is at least supposed that interest and prejudice may have a great hand in abusing the world in matter of story though one age never agree to deceive another And instead of being perswaded by Mr. S's demonstrations I am still of the mind that we have no sufficient security of the truth of any story which was not written while those persons were in being who were able to contradict the errors of it However I deny not but some notorious matters of fact such as Alexanders bare conquests of Asia might by the visible effects of it be preserved both in Asia and Greece for a long time But if we come to enquire particularly whether this or that was done by him in his conquest which is alone pertinent to our purpose we have no security at all from tradition but only from the most authentick records of that story And by this I hope Mr. S. will have cause to thank me for unblundring his thoughts his own civil expressions and shewing him how errors may come into a story without one age conspiring to deceive the next and what a vast difference there is between preserving a bare matter af fact and all the particulars relating to it And hereby he may easily see how far the obligation extends in believing the report of former ages For there can be no obligation to believe any further than there is evidence of truth in the matter we are obliged to If then there be not only a possibility but a very great probability of mistakes and errors in matters of fact I pray what obligation doth there ly upon men absolutely to believe what is delivered by the preceding age But to put an issue to this controversie let Mr. S. examine himself and try if he can name one story that was never written which was ever certainly propagated from one age to another by meer oral tradition and if he cannot he may thereby see how little real force his argument hath in the world For all the force of tradition lies in an unquestionable conveyance of those Books which contain in them the true reports of the actions of the times they were written in But can Mr. S. think that if the Roman history had never been written it had been possible for us to have known what was done under the Kings and Consuls as now we do Yet if his principle holds this necessarily follows for those of that age could not but know them and no age since could conspire to deceive the next And from hence the most useful consequence of all is that Mr. S. might have writ a history from the beginning of the world to this day with a full relation of all particulars if there had never been any Book written in the world before And doth not Mr. S. deserve immortal credit for so rare an invention as this is and all built on nothing short of demonstrations But Mr. S. very prudently foresees what it is I must be forced to recur to viz. that being baffled with his former demonstration I have no other shift to betake my self to but to say the case is different between histories and points of faith And therefore to bring his business home he applies it at large to the delivery of the Christian faith which that he might do in more ample sort he very finely descants on the old Verse Quis quid ubi c. containing the circumstances of human actions and from every one of them derives arguments for the infallibility of oral tradition which briefly and in plain English may be summed up thus Since the author of this doctrine was the Son of God the doctrine it self so excellent and delivered in so publick a manner in the most convincing way by miracle and good living and for so good an end as to save mens souls and that by writing it in mens hearts and testified to others and all this at a time when men might judg of the miracles and motives for believing it therefore since in all these respects it was incomparably beyond the story of Alexanders conquests it follows that in a manner infinitely greater must the obligation be to believe Christs doctrine than Alexanders or William the Conqerours victories or any history of the like nature whatsoever All which I freely grant but cannot yet see how from thence it follows that oral tradition is the only rule of faith or the means whereby we are to judg what is the doctrine of Christ and what not Those arguments I confess prove that the Christians of the first age were highly concerned to enquire into the truth of these things and that they had the greatest reason imaginable to believe them and that it is not possible to conceive that they should not endeavour to propagate so excellent a doctrine and of so high concernment to the world But the question is whether abstractly from the Books written in the first age of the Christian Church there is so much infallibility in the oral tradition of every age that nothing could be embraced for Christs doctrine which was not and consequently whether every age were bound to believe absolutely what was delivered it by the precedent for the doctrine of Christ Mr. S. therefore puts himself to a needless task of proving that every age was bound to believe the doctrine of Christ which I never questioned but the dispute is whether every age be bound on the account of oral tradition to believe what is delivered by the precedent for Christs doctrine But it is to be observed all along how carefully Mr. S. avoids mentioning the written Books of the New Testament because he knew all his game about oral tradition would be quite spoiled by a true stating the matter of fact in the first ages of the Christian Church I hope he will not be angry with me for asking him that question about the Scripture which he asks me about the Council of Trent did
FEBR. 27. 1666. Tractatus cui Titulus The Rule of Faith A doctissimo Viro Iohanne Tillotson scriptus Imprimatur una cum Appendice Humfr. London THE Rule of Faith or an ANSWER to the TREATISE of Mr. I. S. entituled Sure-footing c. By JOHN TILLOTSON D.D. Preacher to the Honourable Society of Lincolns-Inn To which is Adjoined A REPLY TO Mr. I.S. his 3 d APPENDIX c. By EDW. STILLINGFLEET D. D. One of His Majesties Chaplains in Ordinary The second Edition LONDON Printed by H.C. for O. Gellibrand at the Golden-Ball in St. Paul's Church-yard 1676. To my Honoured and Learned Friend Mr. Edward Stillingfleet SIR I Have with a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction read over your Book which I find in every part answerable to its Title viz. A Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion And now I thank you for it not only as a private favour but a publick benefit No sooner had I perused it but I met with a Discourse entituled Sure-footing in Christianity And although I have no small prejudice against Books with conceited Titles yet I was tempted to look into this because it pretended to contain Animadversions on some Passages in your Book which I had so lately read over Vpon perusal of which Animadversions I found that the Author of them had attaqued and in his own opinion confuted a page or two in your Book This drew me on to take a view of his main Discourses which because they are in great vogue among some of his own Party and do with an unusual kind of confidence and ostentation pretend to the newest and most exact fashion of writing Controversie as being all along demonstrative and built upon self-evident Principles Therefore I resolved throughly to examine them that I might discover if I could upon what so firm and solid Foundations this High and Mighty Confidence was built But before I had entred upon this undertaking I met with a Letter from the Author of Sure-footing to his Answerer directing him how he ought to demean himself in his Answer In which Letter though there be many things liable to great exception yet because I am unwilling to be diverted from the main Question I shall not argue with him about any of those matters only take leave to use the same liberty in managing my Answer which he hath assumed to himself in prescribing Laws to me about it Therefore without taking any further notice of his Letter I address my self to his Book THE RULE of FAITH PART I. The Explication and State of the Question SECT I. § 1. THe Question he propounds to himself to debate is What is the Rule of Faith In order to the resolution wherof he endeavours First To fix the true notion of these two Terms Rule and Faith Which way of proceeding I cannot but allow to be very proper and reasonable but I can by no means think his explication of those Terms to be sufficient He tells us That a Rule is that which is able to regulate or guide him that useth it In which description as in many other passages of his Book he is plainly guilty of that which he taxeth in Mr. Whitby that is the confounding of a Rule and a Guide by making Regulating and Guiding to be equivalent words But for this I am no further concerned than to take notice of it by the way The fault which I find in this definition is that it doth not make the thing plainer than it was before so that no man is the wiser for it nor one jot nearer knowing what a Rule is He pretends to tell English-men what a Rule is and for their clearer understanding of this word he explains it by a word less remov'd from the Latine A Rule is that which is able to regulate him that useth it just as if a man should go about to explain what a Law-giver is by saying he is one that hath the power of Legislation Of the two he had much better have said that a Rule is a thing that is able to rule him that useth it though this be nothing but an explication of the same word by it self § 2. Not much better is his explication of the term Faith which he tells us in the common sense of Mankind is the same with Believing He declar'd indeed before-hand that he did not intend to give rigorous School-definitions of either this or the former word and to do him right he hath not in the least swerv'd from his intention It were to be wish'd he had prefac'd some such thing to his Demonstrations for the Reader will find that they are not one whit more rigorous than his Definitions the latter of which doth very much resemble the Country-man's way of defining who being ask'd by his Neighbour what an Invasion was after some study told him very gravely that an Invasion was as if he should say an Invasion In like manner Mr. S. tells us that Faith or which is all one Belief is the same with Believing which in my apprehension is but a Country-definition unless the interposing of those solemn words in the common sense of Mankind may be thought to mend the matter This puts me in mind of what Mr. S. says in his Transition as he calls it where he gives the Reader an account what feats he hath done in his Book He will see says he I take my Rise at the meaning of the words Rule and Faith this known I establish my First Principles in this present matter to be these viz. A Rule is a Rule Faith is Faith This is the right self-evident method he talks so much of and his Principles agree admirably well with his Definitions If he had but proceeded in the same method and added that A Rule of Faith is a Rule of Faith that Oral Tradition is Oral Tradition and that to say Oral Tradition is the Rule of Faith is as much as to say Oral Tradition is the Rule of Faith the whole business had been concluded without any more ado and I think no body would have gone about to confute him § 3. Rejecting then his way of Definition as inept and frivolous and no ways tending to give a man a clearer notion of things I shall endeavour to explain a little better if I can the meaning of these Terms A Rule when we speak of a Rule of Faith is a Metaphorical word which in its first and proper sense being applied to material and sensible things is the Measure according to which we judg of the straightness and crookedness of things And from hence it is transferred by analogy to things moral or intellectual A moral Rule is the Measure according to which we judg whether a thing be good or evil and this kind of Rule is that which is commonly called a Law and the agreement or disagreement of our actions to this Rule is suitably to the Metaphor called rectitude or obliquity An intellectual Rule
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
of harms-way than to venture the infallibility of plain oral Tradition for the Doctrines he maintains against a practical Tradition which they have at Rome of killing Hereticks Methinks Mr. S. might have spared his brags that he hath evinced from clear reason that it is far more impossible to make a man not to be than not to know what is rivetted into his soul by so oft repeated sensations as the Christian Faith is by Oral and Practical Tradition and that it exceeds all the power of Nature abstracting from the cases of madness and violent disease to blot knowledg thus fixt out of the soul of one single Believer insomuch that sooner may all mankind perish than the regulative vertue of Tradition miscarry nay sooner may the sinews of entire nature by overstraining crack and she lose all her activity and motion that is her self than one single part of that innumerable multitude which integrate the vast testification which we call Tradition can possibly be violated when after he hath told us that the City of Rome was blest with more vigorous causes to imprint Christ's Doctrine at first and recommend it to the next Age than were found any where else and consequently that the stream of Tradition in its source and first putting into motion was more particularly vigorous there than in any other See and that the chief Pastor of that See hath a particular Title to Infallibility built upon Tradition above any other Pastor whatsoever not to dilate on the particular assistances to that Bishop springing out of his divinely constituted Office when I say after all this quaint Reason and rumbling Rhetorick about the infallibility of Oral Tradition and the particular infallibility of the Bishop of Rome built on Tradition we cannot but remember that this great Oracle of Oral Tradition the Pope and this great Master of it Mr. White who is so peculiarly skill'd in the Rule of Faith have so manifestly declar'd themselves to differ in points of Faith For that the Pope and his Congregation general at Rome have condemn'd all his Books for this reason because they contain several Propositions manifestly heretical is a sign that these two great Wits do not very well hit it in matters of Faith and either that they do not both agree in the same Rule of Faith or that one of them does not rightly understand it or not follow it And now why may not that which Mr. S. unjustly says concerning the use of Scripture be upon this account justly apply'd to the business of Oral Tradition If we see two such eminent Wits among the Papists the Pope and Mr. White making use of the self-same and as they conceive the best advantages their Rule of Faith gives them and availing themselves the best they can by acquired skills yet differ about matters of Faith what certainty can we undertakingly promise to weaker heads that is to the generality of the Papists in whom the Governors of the Church do professedly cherish ignorance for the increasing of their devotion § 6. Fourthly We have sufficient assurance that the Books of Scripture are conveyed down to us without any material corruption or alteration And he that denies this must either reject the authority of all Books because we cannot be certain whether they be the same now that they were at first or else give some probable reason why these should be more liable to corruption than others But any man that considers things will easily find that it is much more improbable that these Books should have been either wilfully or involuntarily corrupted in any thing material to Faith or a good Life than any other Books in the World whether we consider the peculiar Providence of God engaged for the preservation of them or the peculiar circumstances of these Books If they were wrirten by men divinely inspired and are of use to Christians as is acknowledged at least in words on all hands nothing is more credible than that the same Divine Providence which took care for the publishing of them would likewise be concerned to preserve them entire And if we consider the peculiar circumstances of these Books we shall find it morally impossible that they should have been materially corrupted because being of universal and mighty concernment and at first diffused into many hands and soon after translated into most Languages and most passages in them cited in Books now extant and all these now agreeing in all matters of importance we have as great assurance as can be had concerning any thing of this nature that they have not suffered any material alteration and far greater than any man can have concerning the incorruption of their oral Tradition as I shall shew when I come to answer the thing which he calls Demonstration § 7. Fifthly That de facto the Scripture hath been acknowledged by all Christians in former Ages to be the means whereby the doctrine of Christ hath with greatest certainty been conveyed to them One good evidence of this is That the Primitive Adversaries of Christian Religion did always look upon the Scripture as the standard and measure of the Christian Doctrine and in all their writing against Christianity took that for granted to be the Christian Faith which was contained in those Books there having not as yet any Philosopher risen up who had demonstrated to the World that a Doctrine could not with sufficient certainty and clearness be conveyed by writing from one Age to another But how absurd had this method of confuting Christian Religion been if it had been then the publick profession of Christians that the Scriptures were not the Rule of their Faith How easie had it been for the Fathers who apologized for and defended Christian Religion to have told them they took a wrong measure of their Doctrine for it was not the principle of Christians that their Faith was conveyed to them by the Scriptures and therefore it was a fond undertaking to attaque their Religion that way but if they would effectually argue against it they ought to enquire what that Doctrine was which was orally delivered from father to son without which the Scriptures could signifie no more to them than an unknown Cipher without a Key being of themselves without the light of Oral Tradition only an heap of unintelligible words unsensed Cha racters and Ink variously figured in a Book and therefore it was a gross mistake in them to think they could understand the Christian Religion like their own Philosophy by reading of those Books or confute it by confuting them Thus the Fathers might have defended their Religion nay they ought in all reason to have taken this course and to have appealed from those dead senseless Books to the true Rule of Faith the living voice of the Church Essential But doth Mr. S. find any thing to this purpose in the Apologies of the Fathers If he hath discover'd any such matter he might do well to acquaint the World
enough for the perpetuating of Christian Religion in the world § 2. Secondly Nor do we say that that certainty and assurance which we have that these Books are the same that were written by the Apostles is a first and self-evident Principle but only that it is a truth capable of evidence sufficient and as much as we can have for a thing of that nature Mr. S. may if he please say that Traditions certainty is a first and self-evident Principle but then he that says this should take heed how he takes upon him to demonstrate it Aristole was so wise as never to demonstrate first Principles for which he gives this very good reason because they cannot be demonstrated And most prudent men are of opinion that a self-evident Principle of all things in the World should not be demonstrated because it needs not For to what purpose should a man write a Book to prove that which every man must assent to without any proof so soon as it is propounded to him I have always taken a self-evident Principle to be such a Proposition as having in it self sufficient evidence of its own truth and not needing to be made evident by any thing else If I be herein mistaken I desire Mr. S. to inform me better § 3. So that the true state of the Controversie between us is Whether Oral and Practical Tradition in opposition to Writing and Books be the only way and means whereby the Doctrine of Christ can with certainty and security be conveyed down to us who live at this distance from the age of Christ and his Apostles This He affirms and the Protestants deny not only that it is the sole means but that it is sufficient for the certain conveyance of this Doctrine and withall affirm that this Doctrine hath been conveyed down to us by the Books of holy Scripture as the proper measure and standard of our Religion But then they do not exclude Oral Tradition from being the means of conveying to us the certain knowledg of these Books Nor do they exclude the authentick Records of former Ages nor the constant teaching and practise of this Doctrine from being subordinate means and helps of conveying it from one age to another Nay so far are they from excluding these concurrent means that they suppose them always to have been used and to have been of great advantage for the propagating and explaining of this Doctrine so far as they have been truly subordinate to and regulated by these sacred Oracles the Holy Scriptures which they say do truly and fully contain that Doctrine which Christ delivered to his Apostles and they preached to the world To illustrate this by an instance suppose there were a Controversy now on foot how men might come to know what was the true Art of Logick which Aristotle taught his Scholars and some should be of opinion that the only way to know this would be by oral Tradition from his Scholars which we might easily understand by consulting those of the present age who learned it from those who received it from them who at last had it from Aristotle himself But others should think it the surest way to study his Organon a Book acknowledged by all his Scholars to have been written by himself and to contain that Doctrine which he taught them They who take this latter course suppose the authority of oral Tradition for the conveying to them the knowledg of this Book and do suppose this Doctrine to have been taught and practised in all Ages and a great many Books to have been written by way of Comment and explication of this Doctrine and that these have been good helps of promoting the knowledg of it And they may well enough suppose all this and yet be of opinion that the truest measure and standard of Aristotle's Doctrine is his own Book and that it would be a fond thing in any man by forcing an interpretation upon his Book either contrary to or very forreign and remote from the obvious sense of his words to go about to reconcile this Book with that method of disputing which is used by the professed Aristotelians of the present age and withal that scholastick Jargon which Mr. S. learn'd at Lisbon and has made him so great a man in the Science of Controversie as to enable him to demonstrate first and self-evident Principles a trick not to be learn'd out of Aristotle's Organon The Application is so easy that I need not make it THE RULE of FAITH PART II. Concerning the Properties of the Rule of Faith and whether they agree solely to Oral Tradition SECT I. § 1. HAving thus endeavoured to bring the Controversy between us to its clear and true state that so we might not quarrel in the dark and dispute about we know not what I come now to grapple more closely with his Book And the main foundations of his Discourse may be reduced to these three Heads First That the essential Properties of such a way and means as can with certainty and security convey down to us the Doctrine of Christ belong solely to Oral Tradition This he endeavors to prove in his five first Discourses Secondly That it is impossible that this way of Oral Tradition should fail And this he pretends to prove in his four last Discourses Thirdly That Oral Tradition hath been generallly reputed by Christians in all Ages the sole way and means of conveying down to them the Doctrine of Christ. And this he attempts to shew in his last Chapter which he calls The Consent of Authority to the substance of his foregoing Discourses If he make good these three things he hath acquitted himself well in his undertaking But whether he hath made them good or not is now to be examined § 2. First Whether the essential Properties of such a way and means as can with certainty and security convey down to us the knowledge of Christ's Doctrine belong solely to Oral Tradition The true way to measure the essential Properties of this or that means is by considering its sufficiency for its end For whatsoever is necessary to make any means sufficient for the obtaining of its end is to be reputed and essential Property of that Means and nothing else Now because the end we are speaking of is the conveyance of the knowledg of Christ's Doctrine to all those who are concerned to know it in such a manner as they may be sufficiently certain and secure that it hath received no change or corruption from what it was when it was first delivered From hence it appears that the means to this end must have these two Properties 1. It must be sufficiently plain and intelligible 2 ly It must be sufficiently certain to us that is such as we may be fully satisfied concerning it that it hath received no corruption or alteration If it have these two conditions it is sufficient for its end but if it want either of them it must necessarily fall short of
otherwise than by the usual and frequent success of it when it is applied Nor do I think that the Doctrine of the Gospel was ever intended for that purpose God hath provided no remedy for the wilful and perverse but he hath done that which is sufficient for the satisfying and winning over of those who are teachable and willing to learn And such a disposition supposeth a man to have laid aside both Scepticism and Obstinacy § 7. Sixthly That it be certain in it self Seventhly That it be absolutely ascertainable to us These two are comprehended in the second Property I laid down so that I have nothing to say against them but that the last looks very like a contradiction absolutely ascertainable to us which is to say with respect to us without respect to us for absolutely seems to exclude respect and to us implies it Having thus shewn that the seven Properties he mentions are either coincident with those two I have laid down or consequent upon them or absurd and impertinent it remains that the true Properties of a Rule of Faith are those two which I first named and no more SECT II. § 1. LEt us now see how he endeavors to shew that these Properties agree solely to Oral Tradition He tells us there are but two Pretenders to this Title of being the Rule of Faith Scripture and Oral Tradition these Properties do not belong to Scripture and they do to Oral Tradition therefore solely to it A very good Argument if he can prove these two things That these two Properties do not belong to Scripture and that they do to Oral Tradition § 2. In order to the proving of the First that these Properties do not belong to Scripture he premiseth this Note That we cannot by the Scriptures mean the sense of them but the Book that is such or such Characters not yet sensed or interpreted But why can we not by the Scriptures mean the sense of them He gives this clear and admirable reason because the sense of Scripture is the things to be known and these we confess are the very points of Faith of which the Rule of Faith is to ascertain us Which is just as if a man should reason thus Those who say the Statute-Book can convey to them the knowledg of the Statute-Law cannot by the Statute-Book mean the sense of it but the Book that is such or such Characters not yet sensed or interpreted Because the sense of the Statute-Book is the things to be known and these are the very Laws the knowledg whereof is to be conveyed to them by this Book which is to say that a Book cannot convey to a man the knowledg of any matter because if it did it would convey to him the thing to be known But that he may farther see what excellent reasoning this is I shall apply this Paragraph to Oral Tradition for the Argument holds every whit as well concerning that To speak to them in their own language who say that Oral Tradition is their Rule we must premise this Note that they cannot mean by Oral Tradition the sense of it that is the things to be known for those they confess are the very Points of Faith of which the Rule of Faith is to ascertain us when they say then that Oral Tradition is the Rule of Faith they can only mean by Oral Tradition the words wherein it is delivered not yet sensed or interpreted but as yet to be sensed that is such or such sounds with their aptness to signifie to them assuredly God's mind or ascertain them of their Faith for abstracting from the sense and actual signification of those words there is nothing imaginable left but those sounds with their aptness to signifie it When he hath answered this Argument he will have answered his own In the mean while this Discourse that he who holds the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith must needs by the Scriptures mean a Book void of sense c. Because otherwise if by Scripture he should understand a Book that hath a certain sense in it that sense must be the Doctrine of Christ which is the very thing that this Book is to convey to us I say this Discourse tends only to prove it an absurd thing for any man that holds Scripture the means of conveying Christ's Doctrine to understand by the Scripture a Book that conveys Christ's Doctrine This being his own reason put into plain English I leave the Reader to judg whether it be not something short of perfect Science and Demonstration Nay if it were throughly examined I doubt whether it would not fall short of that low pitch of Science which he speaks of in his Preface where he tells us that the way of Science is to proceed from one piece of sense to another § 3. Having premised this that by the Scriptures we must mean only dead Characters that have no sense under them He proceeds to shew that these dead Characters have not the Properties of a Rule of Faith belonging to them Which although it be nothing to the purpose when he hath shewn it yet it is very pleasant to observe by what cross and untoward Arguments he goes about it Of which I will give the Reader a tast by one or two instances In the first place he shews that it cannot be evident to us that these Books were written by men divinely inspired because till the seeming contradictions in those Books are solved which to do is one of the most difficult tasks in the world they cannot be concluded to be of God's enditing Now how is this an Argument against those who by the Scriptures must mean unsensed letters and characters I had always thought contradictions had been in the sense of words not in the letters and characters but I perceive he hath a peculiar opinion that the four and twenty letters do contradict one another The other instance shall be in his last Argument which is this that the Scripture cannot be the Rule of Faith because those who are to be ruled and guided by the Scriptures letter to Faith cannot be certain of the true sense of it which is to say that unsensed letters and characters cannot be the Rule of Faith because the Rule of Faith must have a certain sense that is must not be unsensed letters and characters which in plain English amounts to thus much unsensed letters and characters cannot be the Rule of Faith that they cannot § 4. And thus I might trace him through all his Properties of the Rule of Faith and let the Reader see how incomparably he demonstrates the falshood of this Protestant Tenet as he calls it that a sensless Book may be a Rule of Faith But I am weary of pursuing him in these airy and phantastical combats and shall leave him to fight with his own fancies and batter down the Castles which himself hath built Only I think fit here to acquaint him once for
all with a great Secret of the Protestant Doctrine which it seems he hath hitherto been ignorant of for I am still more confirmed in my opinion that he forsook our Religion before he understood it that when they say the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith or the means whereby Christ's Doctrine is conveyed down to them they mean by the Scriptures Books written in such words as do sufficiently express the sense and meaning of Christ's Doctrine § 5. And to satisfy him that we are not absurd and unreasonable in supposing the Scriptures to be such a Book I would beg the favour of him to grant me these four things or shew reason to the contrary First That whatever can be spoken in plain and intelligible words and such as have a certain sense may be written in the same words Secondly That the same words are as intelligible when they are written as when they are spoken Thirdly That God if he please can endite a Book in as plain words as any of his creatures Fourthly That we have no reason to think that God affects obscurity and envies that men should understand him in those things which are necessary for them to know and which must have been written to no purpose if we cannot understand them St. Luke tells Theophilus that he wrote the History of Christ to him on purpose to give him a certain knowledg of those things which he writ But how a Book which hath no certain sense should give a man certain knowledg of things is beyond my capacity St. John saith that he purposely committed several of Christ's miracles to Writing that men might believe on Him But now had Mr. S. been at his elbow he would have advised him to spare his labour and would have given him this good reason for it because when he had written his Book no body would be able to find the certain sense of it without oral Tradition and that alone would securely and intelligibly convey both the Doctrine of Christ and the certain knowledg of those miracles which he wrought for the confirmation of it If these four things be but granted I see not why when we say that the Scriptures are the means of conveying to us Christ's Doctrine we may not be allow'd to understand by the Scriptures a Book which doth in plain and intelligible words express to us this Doctrine SECT III. 6 1. ANd now although this might have been a sufficient Answer to his Exceptions against the Scriptures as being incapable of the Properties of a Rule of Faith because all of them suppose that which is apparently false and absurd as granted by Protestants viz. That the Scriptures are only an heap of dead letters and insignificant characters without any sense under them and that oral Tradition is that only which gives them life and sense Yet because several of his Exceptions pretend to shew that the true Properties of a Rule of Faith do not at all appertain to the Scriptures therefore I shall give particular Answers to them and as I go along shew that Tradition is liable to all or most of those Exceptions and to far greater than those § 2. Whereas he says it cannot be evident to Protestants from their Principles that the Books of Scripture were originally written by men divinely inspired I will shew him that it may and then answer the reasons of this Exception It is evident from an universal constant and uncontrolled Tradition among Christians not only oral but written and from the acknowledgment of the greatest Adversaries of our Religion that these Books were originally written by the Apostles and Evangelists And this is not only a Protestant Principle but the Principle of all mankind That an undoubted Tradition is sufficient evidence of the Antiquity and Author of a Book and all the extrinsecal Argument that can ordinarily be had of a Book written long ago Next it is evident that the Apostles were men divinely inspired that is secured from error and mistake in the writing of this Doctrine from the miracles that were wrought for the confirmation of it Because it is unreasonable to imagine that the Divine power should immediately interpose for the confirmation of a Doctrine and give so eminent an attestation to the Apostles to convince the World that they were immediately appointed and commissioned by God and yet not secure them from error in the delivery of it And that such miracles were wrought is evident from as credible Histories as we have for any of those things which we do most firmly believe And this is better evidence that the Apostles were men divinely inspired than bare oral Tradition can furnish us withal For setting aside the authentick relation of these matters in Books it is most probable that oral Tradition of it self and without Books would scarce have preserved the memory of any of those particular miracles of our Saviour and his Apostles which are recorded in Scripture And for the probability of this I offer these two things to his consideration First No man can deny that memorable persons have lived and actions been done in the world innumerable whereof no History now extant makes any mention Secondly He himself will grant that our Saviour wrought innumerable more miracles than are recorded in Scripture And now I challenge him to shew the single vertue of oral Tradition by giving an account of any of those persons or their actions who lived 1500 or 2000 years ago besides those which are mentioned in Books or to give a catalogue but of ten of those innumerable miracles wrought by our Saviour which are nor recorded by the Evangelists with circumstances as punctual and particular as those are clothed withal If he can do this it will be a good evidence that oral Tradition singly and by it self can do something but if he cannot 't is as plain an evidence on the contrary that if those actions of former times and those miracles of our Saviour and his Apostles which are recorded in Books had never been written but entrusted solely to oral Tradition we should have heard as little of them at this day as we do of those that were not written § 3. Now to examine his Reasons for this Exception First He saith 't is most manifest that this cannot be made evident to the vulgar that Scripture was written by men divinely inspired This Reason is as easily answered by saying 't is most manifest that it can But besides saying so I have shewed how it may be made as evident to the vulgar as other things which they do most firmly and upon good grounds believe Even the rudest of the vulgar and those who cannot read do believe upon very good grounds that there was such a King as William the Conqueror and the miracles of Christ and his Apostles are capable of as good evidence as we have for this Secondly He says this cannot be evident to the curious and most speculative Searchers
as the capacity he is in will permit him to have And as Mr. White says well Satisfaction is to be given to every one according to his capacity it is sufficient for a Child to believe his Parents for a Clown to believe his Preacher And this is universally true in all cases where we have not better or equal evidence to the contrary But such is the unhappiness of the Popish Doctrines that if people were permitted the free use of the Scripture they would easily discern them to have no probable foundation in it and some of them to be plainly contrary to it so that it cannot be safe for their Preachers to tell the people that the Scripture is the only Rule of Faith lest they should find cause not to believe them when they teach Doctrines so plainly contrary to that Rule § 8. Lastly He says the Protestants cannot be certain of the true sense of Scripture Does he mean of plain Texts or obscure ones Of the true sense of plain Texts I hope every one may be certain and for obscure ones it is not necessary every one should But it may be there are no plain Texts in the Scriptures then the reason of it must be till Mr. S. can shew a better either because it is impossible for any one to write plainly or because God cannot write so plainly as men or because we have good reason to think that he would not write things necessary for every one to believe so as men might clearly understand him But he tells us The numerous Comments upon Scripture are an evidence that no man can be certain of the true sense of it I hope not for if those numerous Commentators do generally agree in the sense of plain Texts as 't is certain they do then this Argument signifies nothing as to such Texts And as for those which are obscure let Commentators differ about them as much as they please so long as all necessary Points of Faith and matters of Practice are delivered in plain Texts He adds There are infinite disputes about the sense of Scripture even in most concerning Points as in that of Christ's Divinity But are not Commentators both Protestant and Popish generally agreed about the sense of Scripture in that Point And what if some out of prejudice do mistake or out of perverseness do wrest the plainest Texts of Scripture for the Divinity of Christ to another sense Is this any argument that those Texts are not sufficiently plain Can any thing be spoken or written in words so clear from ambiguity which a perverse or prejudiced mind shall not be able to vex and force to another meaning God did not write the Scriptures for the froward and the captious but for those who will read them with a free and unprejudiced mind and are willing to come to the knowledg of the Truth If Mr. S. had been conversant in the writings of the Fathers he could not but have taken notice with what confidence they attempt to prove the Divinity of Christ out of Scripture as if that did afford convincing arguments for this purpose St. Chrysostom professes to demonstrate out of Scripture That the Son is of the same substance with the Father and relies upon Scripture alone for this without mentioning any other kind of Argument So that it seems St. Chrysostom was not acquainted with the insufficiency of Scripture for the conviction of Hereticks in this Point and that he was either ignorant of the infallible way of Demonstrating this point from Oral Tradition or had no great opinion of it The same Father elsewhere arguing against Hereticks about the Divinity of Christ says That they pervert the Scriptures to strengthen their Heresie from thence But then he does not with Mr. S. blame the Scripture and say that this Doctrine is not there deliver'd with sufficient clearness but contrarywise he says That the Scripture is clear enough but the corrupt minds of Hereticks will not see what is there contain'd Had St. Chrysostom been a true Son of the Traditionary Church he would have lain hold of this occasion to vilifie the Scriptures and to shew the necessity of regulating our faith not by such uncertain Records but by the infallible Reports of Oral Tradition § 9. But because Mr. S. lays great weight in several parts of his Book upon this Exception against Scripture viz. That Protestants cannot be certain of the true sense of it Therefore I shall not content my self only to have shewn that we may be sufficiently certain of the sense of Scripture so far as to understand all necessary matters of Faith and Practice and that more than this is not necessary but shall likewise return this Exception upon him by enquiring into these two things 1. How the Traditionary Church can be more certain of the true sense of Scripture than the Protestants 2. How they can be more certain of the true sense of Tradition than Protestants of the true sense of Scripture 1. How the Traditionary Church can be more certain of the true sense of Scripture than Protestants They pretend to have an Oral Tradition of the true sense of it delivered down from Father to Son But this only reacheth to those Texts which are coincident with the main body of Christian Doctrine as for all other parts of Scripture they are as useless to Papists as they suppose they are to us because wanting the help of Oral Tradition they cannot be certain of one tittle of them And as for those Texts the sense whereof is conveyed down by Oral Tradition this sense is I hope delivered in some words or other And have all Preachers and Fathers and Mothers and Nurses the faculty of delivering this sense in words so plain as cannot possibly be mistaken or wrested to another sense I am sorry that when every one hath this faculty of speaking their thoughts plainly the Holy Ghost should be represented as not able to convey his mind to men in intelligible words And does not his own Objection rebound upon himself If the Church have a certain sense of Scripture orally delivered whence are the numerous Comments of the Fathers upon it and of later Writers in their Church and the infinite Disputes about the sense of it in the most concerning Points viz. The efficacy of Gods grace the Supremacy of St. Peter the infallibility of a Pope and Council by immediate assistance of the Holy Ghost What a stir is made about the sense of Dabo tibi Claves Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram c. Pasce oves Do not they differ about the meaning of these Texts among themselves as much as they do from the Fathers and from the Protestants Some understanding them of St Peters Supremacy only others of his infallibility others of his infallibility only in and with a general Council which yet others do not allow to Pope or Council from any immediate assistance but only from the
rational force of Tradition supposing that the Pope and Council hold to it If oral Tradition have brought down a certain sense of these Texts why do they not produce it and agree in it If it have not to use a hot phrase of his own 't is perfect phrenzy to say they can be certain of the true sense of Scripture If he say they are by Tradition made certain of the true sense of Scripture so far as it concerns the main body of Christian Doctrine and do all agree in it and that is suffcient then I ask him What are those points of Faith which make up the body of Christian Doctrine He will tell me they are those which all Catholicks agree to have descended to them from the Apostles by a constant and uninterrupted Tradition I enquire farther how I shall know what is the certain sense of Scripture so far as it concerns these points He must answer as before that that is the true sense which all Catholicks agree to have descended to them by Tradition Which amounts to this that all Catholicks do agree in the sense of Scripture so far as they do all agree in it It is to be hoped that the Protestants how much soever at present they differ about the sense of Scripture may in time come to as good an agreement as this This brings to my remembrance a passage or two of Mr. Cressy the one in his Appendix where he tells us That as it is impossible that Hereticks should agree any other way than in Faction so it is impossible that Catholicks should differ in points of Faith Why so Were not those Catholicks first who afterwards became Hereticks and when they became so did they not differ in points of Belief Yes but here lies the conceit when they began to differ then they ceas'd to be Catholicks therefore Catholicks can never differ in points of Faith The other passage is where he says That he hath forsaken a Church where Vnity was impossible c. and betaken himself to a Church where Schism is impossible This last Clause That Schism is impossible in their Church cannot possibly be true but in the same absurd and ludicrous sense in which it is impossible for Catholicks to differ in points of Belief For he cannot deny but that it is possible for men to break off from the Communion of their Church which in his sense is Schism but here is the subtilty of it No Schismatick is of their Church because so soon as he is a Schismatick he is out of it therefore Schism is impossible in their Church And is it not as impossible in the Church of England Where Mr. Cr. might have done well to have continued till he could have given a better reason of forsaking Her § 10. But to return to our purpose Mr. Rushworth acknowledgeth that the Scripture is of it self sufficiently plain as to matters of practice for he asks Who is so blind as not to see that these things are to be found in Scripture by a sensible common and discreet reading of it though perhaps by a rigorous and exact balancing of every particular word and syllable any of these things would vanish away we know not how So that for the direction of our lives and actions he confesseth the Scripture to be sufficiently plain if men will but read it sensibly and discreetly and he sayes that he is blind that does not see this But who so blind as he that will not see that the sense of Scripture is as plain in all necessary points of Faith I am sure St. Austin makes no difference when he tells us That in those things which are plainly set down in Scripture we may find all those things in which Faith and Manners of life are comprehended And why cannot men in reference to matters of Faith as well as of Practice read the Scriptures sensibly and discreetly without such a rigorous balancing of every word and syllable as will make the sense vanish away we know not how If the Scripture be but sufficiently plain to such as will use it sensibly and discreetly I do not understand what greater plainness can be desir'd in a Rule Nor can I imagine what kind of Rule it must be that can be unexceptionably plain to captious Cavillers and such as are bent to play the fool with it Well suppose the Scripture be not sufficiently clear as to matters of Faith and hereupon I have recourse to the Church for the true sense of Scripture Must I believe the Churches sense to be the true sense of such a Text though I see it to be plainly contrary to the genuine sense of the words yes that I must or else I make my self and not the Church judg of the sense of Scripture which is the grand Heresie of the Protestants But then I must not suppose much less belive that the Churches sense of such a Text is contrary to the genuine meaning of it no although I plainly see it to be so This is hard again on the other hand especially if that be true which is acknowledged both by Dr. Holden and Mr. Cressy viz. That though general Councils cannot mistake in the Points of Faith which they decree yet they may mistake in the confirmation of them from Texts of Scripture that is they may be mistaken about the sense of those Texts And if Mr. S. think his Brethren have granted too much he may see this exemplified in the second Council of Nice to mention no other which to establish their Doctrine of Image-worship does so palpably abuse and wrest Texts of Scripture that I can hardly believe that any Papist in the World hath the forehead to own that for the true sense of those Texts which is there given by those Fathers § 11. Secondly How the Traditionary Church can be more certain of the true sense of their Traditional Doctrines than the Protestants can be of the true sense of Scripture And this is worthy our enquiry because if the business be search'd to the bottom it will appear besides all other inconveniences which oral Tradition is much more liable to than Scripture that the certain sense and meaning of Traditional Doctrine is as hard to come at as the sense of Scripture And this I will make appear by necessary consequence from their own Concessions Mr. White and Mr. S. say that the great security of Tradition is this that it is not tied to certain phrases and set-forms of expression but the same sense is conveyed and setled in mens hearts by various expressions But according to Mr. Rushworth this renders Tradition's sense uncertain for he says 'T is impossible to put fully and beyond all quarrel the same sense in divers words So that if men do not receive Tradition in a sensible common discreet way as Mr. Rushw. speaks concerning reading the Scriptures but will come to a rigorous and exact balancing of every particular phrase word and
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
more necessarily than any natural causes now how they can do so upon voluntary Agents I desire Mr. S. to inform me § 3. He proceeds by a long Harangue to shew That not only these material Characters in themselves are corruptible but in complexion with the causes actually laid in the World to preserve them entire because either those causes are material and then they are also liable to continual alterations or spiritual that is the minds of men and from these we may with good reason hope for a greater degree of constancy than from any other piece of nature which by the way is a very strange Paradox that the actions of voluntary Agents have a greater certainty and constancy in them than those of natural Agents of which the fall of Angels and Men compared with the continuance of the Sun and Stars in their first state is a very good evidence § 4. But he adds a Caution That they are perfectly unalterable from their nature and unerrable if due circumstances be observed that is if due proposals be made to beget certain knowledg and due care used to attend to such proposals But who can warrant That due proposals will always be made to men and due care used by them If these be uncertain where 's the constancy and unerrableness he talks so much of So that notwithstanding the constancy of this spiritual cause the mind of man of preserving Scriptures entire yet in order to this as he tells us So many actions are to be done which are compounded and made up of an innumerable multitude of several particularities to be observed every of which may be mistaken apart each being a distinct little action in its single self such as is the transcribing of a whole Book consisting of such Myriads of words single letters and tittles or stops and the several actions of writing over each of these so short and cursory that it prevents diligence and exceeds humane care to keep awake and apply distinct attentions to every of these distinct actions Mr. Rushworth much outdoes Mr. S. in these minute Cavils for he tells us That supposing an Original Copy of Christs words written by one of the Evangelists in the same language let him have set down every word and syllable yet men conversant in noting the changes of meanings in words will tell us that divers accents in the pronunciation of them the turning of the speakers head or body this way or that way c. may so change the sense of the words that they will seem quite different in writing from what they were in speaking I hope that Oral and Practical Tradition hath been careful to preserve all these circumstances and hath deliver'd down Christ's Doctrine with all the right Traditionary Accents Nods and Gestures necessary for the understanding of it otherwise the omission of these may have so altered the sense of it that it may be now quite different from what it was at first But to answer Mr. S. We do not pretend to be assured that it is naturally impossible that the Scriptures should have been corrupted or changed but only to be sufficiently assured that they have not received any material alteration from as good Arguments as the nature of the Subject will bear But if his Reason had not been very short and cursory he might easily have reflected that Oral Tradition is equally liable to all these contingencies For it doth as much prevent diligence and exceed humane care to keep awake and apply distinct attentions to the distinct actions of speaking as of writing And I hope he will not deny that a Doctrine Orally delivered consists of words and letters and accents and stops as well as a Doctrine written and that the several actions of speaking are as short and cursory as of writing § 5. Secondly He tells us Scripture formally considered as to its significativeness is also uncertain First Because of the uncertainty of the letter This is already answered Secondly Because the certain sense of it is not to be arrived to by the Vulgar who are destitute of Languages and Arts. True where men are not permitted to have the Scriptures in their own Language and understand no other But where they are allowed the Scriptures translated into their own Language they may understand them all necessary points of Faith and Practice being sufficiently plain in any Translation of the Bible that I know of And that eminent Wits cannot agree about the sense of Texts which concern the main points of Faith hath been spoken to already § 6. As for the Reverence he pretends to Scripture in the conclusion of his Fourth Discourse he might have spared that after all the raillery and rudeness he hath used against it It is easie to conjecture both from his principles and his uncivil expressions concerning them what his esteem is of those Sacred Oracles Probably it was requisite in prudence to cast in a few good words concerning the Scriptures for the sake of the more tender and squeamish Novices of their Religion or as Mr. Rushworth's Nephew says frankly and openly for the satisfaction of indifferent men that have been brought up in this verbal and apparent respect of the Scripture who it seems are not yet attained to that degree of Catholick Piety and Fortitude as to endure patiently that the Word of God should be reviled or slighted Besides that in reference to those whom they hope hereafter to convert who might be too much alienated from their Religion if he had expressed nothing but contempt towards a Book which Protestants and Christians in all Ages till the very dregs of Popery have been bred up to a high veneration of it was not much amiss to pass this formal complement upon the Bible which the wise of his own Religion will easily understand and may serve to catch the rest But let him not deceive himself God is not mocked SECT VI. § 1. SEcondly He comes to shew That the Properties of a Rule of Faith belong to Oral Tradition And First He gives a tedious explication of the nature of this Oral Practical Tradition which amounts to this That as in reference to the civil Education of Children they are taught their own and others names to write and read and exercise their Trades So in reference to Religion the Children of Christians first hear sounds afterwards by degrees get dim notions of God Christ Saviour Heaven Hell Vertue Vice and by degrees practise what they have heard they are shewn to say Grace and their Prayers to hold up their hands or perhaps eyes and to kneel and other postures Afterwards they are acquainted with the Creed Ten Commandments and Sacraments some common Forms of Prayer and other practises of Christianity and are directed to order their lives accordingly and are guided in all this by the actions and carriage of the elder faithful and this goes on by insensible degrees not by leaps from
a Hundred years to a Hundred but from Month to Month and even less If this be all that Tradition doth this is nothing but what is done among Protestants and that with greater advantage because we always teach Children to say their Prayers in a known Tongue so as they may understand them And we also teach them the Creed and Ten Commandments and the Sacraments so many as Christ hath instituted and no more So that if this be so infallible a way of conveying the Doctrine of Christianity we have it among us And we do over and besides instruct them in the Scriptures which are the authentick Instrument whereby Christ's Doctrine is conveyed to us But then we do not suppose as his Hypothesis necessarily enforceth him to do that the Christian Doctrine is equally taught and learned by all but by some more by others less perfectly according to the different abilities and diligence of Parents and Teachers and the various capacities and dispositions of Children whereas his Hypothesis falls if all or at least the generality of Parents do not instruct their Children with the like exactness and if the generality of Children do not receive this Doctrine in the same perfection that it is delivered For if it be taught or received with any variation it must necessarily be so conveyed and these variations will grow daily I had thought he would have told us how all Parents do teach their Children the whole Body of Christ's Doctrine and explain to them every part of it in a Hundred or a Thousand several expressions signifying the same sense and not have instanced in two Set-forms such as the Creed and Ten Commandments for according to Mr. White That cannot be a Tradition which is delivered in set-words § 2. Having thus explained Oral Tradition he comes to shew that the Properties of a Rule of Faith agree to it I have already shewed that the true Properties of a Rule of Faith are but two viz. That it be plain and intelligible and that it be sufficiently certain The first of these that Oral Tradition may deliver a Doctrine plainly and intelligibly I grant him All the difficulty is about the second Property whether we have sufficient assurance that the Doctrine delivered down by Oral Tradition hath received no coruption or change in its conveyance And all that he pretends to prove in this Discourse is That if this Rule hath been followed and kept to all along the Christian Doctrine neither hath nor can have received any change that is if the next Age after the Apostles did truly and without any alteration deliver the Christian Doctrine to their immediate Successors and they to theirs and so on then upon this supposition the Doctrine of the present Traditionary Church must be the very same with that which was delivered to the Apostles All this is readily granted to him But that this Rule hath always been followed nay that it is impossible there should have been any deviation from it as he pretends this we deny not only as untrue but as one of the most absurd Propositions that ever yet pretended to demonstrative evidence THE RULE of FAITH PART III. In which Mr. S's Demonstrations and Corollaries are examined SECT I. § 1. BEfore I come to speak particularly to his Demonstrations I shall premise these two Considerations First That according to the Principles of the Patrons of Tradition no man can by his private Reason certainly find out the true Rule of Faith Secondly That according to Mr. S. the way of Demonstration is no certain way to find out the Rule of Faith If either of these be made out his Demonstrations lose all their force If the first be made good then he cannot demonstrate the Infallibility of Tradition nor consequently that that is the Rule of Faith If the second then the way of Demonstration which he pretends to take signifies nothing § 2. First No man can according to the principles of the Patrons of Tradition by his private Reason certainly find out what is the Rule of Faith Suppose a Heathen to be desirous to inform himself of the Christian Faith in order to which he is inquisitive after some Rule by which he may take a measure of it and come certainly to know what it is He enquires of Christians what their Rule is and finds them divided about it some saying that the Scriptures others that Oral Tradition is the Rule In this case it is not possible without a Revelation for this man to find out the Rule of Faith but by his own private Reason examining and weighing the arguments and pretences of both sides And when he hath done this unless he can by his Reason demonstrate that the one is a certain and infallible Rule and the other not so he hath not according to Mr. S. found out the Rule of Faith But Reason can never do this according to Mr. S. For speaking of demonstrating the certainty of Tradition he tells us That Tradition hath for its Basis mans nature not according to his Intellectuals which do but darkly grope in the pursuit of Science c. And again speaking how Reason brings men to the Rule of Faith he uses this comparison She is like a dim-sighted man who used his Reason to find a trusty Friend to lead him in the twilight and then relied on his guidance rationally without using his own Reason at all about the Way it self So that according to him the certainty of Tradition cannot be founded on Demonstration because it is not founded in the intellectual part of man which only can demonstrate Besides if it were founded in the intellectual part yet that can never be able to demonstrate the certainty of Tradition because that faculty which is dim-sighted and does but grope darkly in the pursuit of Science is uncapable of framing Demonstrations Nor can any man understand how dim-sighted reason should see clearly to choose its guide any more than its way especially if it be considered what a pretty Contradiction it is to say that Reason as it is dim-sighted can see clearly But Mr. Cressy is not contented to call every mans Reason dim-sighted he ventures a step further and calls it hood-winkt and blind For he tells us That private Reason is apparently a most fallible guide and he pities my Lord Falkland's case because in the search of the true Religion he did betake himself to the casual conduct of blind humane natural Reason which afterwards he calls a guide that two persons cannot possibly follow together because no two persons that ever followed any other guide beside Authority did or could think all things to be reasonable that all others thought so and by consequence such a guide that as long as he continues in that office there cannot possibly be any Church any where which says he is an infallible eviction that this is an imaginary seducing guide since it is impossible that that should be
a guide appointed for any Christian which neither Christ nor his Apostles nor any of their Followers ever mentioned yea which formally destroys one of our twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed viz. I believe the Holy Catholick Church Thus he does by Reason clearly and infallibly evince that Reason cannot be otherwise than a most blind and fallible guide This it is to talk of things when a man looks only upon one side of them as if because Reason has a blind side and is uncertain in some things therefore we ought to conclude her universally blind and uncertain in every thing and as if because all men cannot think all things reasonable which any one man thinks to be so therefore it is to be doubted whether those common Principles of Reason be true which Mankind are generally agreed in And that Mr. Cressy speaks here of the use of our private Reason in the finding out of our Rule is clear from what he says in the next Section viz. That this hood-wink't guide enquiring into Scripture and searching after Tradition may possibly stumble upon the way to Vnity and Truth that is the true Catholick Church If this be true why does Mr. S. pretend that he can by Reason demonstrate the Infallibility of Tradition and by this hood-wink't guide lead men to the true Rule of Faith And what a pitiful encouragement would this be to an inquisitive Philosopher who knowing no other guide but his Reason whereby to find out whether Scripture or Tradition be the true Rule to tell him that by the help of this hood-wink't guide he might possibly stumble upon the right A man may justly stand amazed at the inconsistency of these mens Discourses and Principles In one mood they are all for Demonstration and for convincing men in the way of perfect Science which is the true Rule of Faith But then again when another fit takes them there 's no such thing as Science humane Reason grows all on the sudden dim-sighted and at the next word is struck stark blind and then the very utmost that it can do towards the bringing of an unprejudiced and inquisitive person to the true Rule of Faith is to leave him in a possibility of stumbling upon it but if he be a Heretick that makes use of private Reason for his guide then it is impossible but that he with his blind guide should fall into the Pit I cannot for my part imagine how they can reconcile the blindness of humane Reason with all that noise which they make about Science and Demonstration but this I must confess that these kind of Discourses which I meet with in Mr. S. and Mr. Cressy are very proper Arguments to perswade a man of the blindness of humane Reason And indeed there is one passage in Mr. Cressy which gives me very great satisfaction concerning these matters where he tells us That the Wit and Judgment of Catholicks is to renounce their own Judgment and depose their own Wit Now he that professes to have done this may write Contradictions and no body ought to challenge him for it However it is a very ingenuous acknowledgment that when he forsook our Church and turned Papist he laid aside his Judgment and Wit which is just such an heroick act of Judgment as if a man in a bravery to shew his liberty should sell himself for a slave I am glad to understand from an experienced Person what charges a man must be at when he turns Roman-Catholique namely that whoever will embrace that Religion must forfeit his Reason § 3. Secondly The way of Demonstration is according to Mr. S. no certain way to find out the Rule of Faith In his 4th Appendix against my Lord of Down one of the Eight Mines as he calls them which he lays to blow up my Lords Dissuasive against Popery is this That the method he takes in dissuading cannot be held in reason to have power to dissuade unless it be proper to that effect that is not common to that effect and a contrary one Now that being most evidently no method or way to such an effect which many follow and take yet arrive not at that effect 't is plain to common sense that my Lord of Down miscalls his Book A Dissuasive and that it can have in it no power of moving the understanding one way or other unless he can first vouch some particularity in the method he takes above what 's in others in which we experience miscarriage c. If this be true then his method of Demonstration is no way to make men certain of what he pretends to demonstrate because that is most evidently no way to an effect which many follow and take yet arrive not at that effect so that 't is plain to common sense that Mr. S's Demonstrations can have in them no power of moving the understanding one way or other unless he can vouch some particularity in the Demonstrations he pretends to bring above what is in other pretended Demonstrations in which we experience miscarriage Do not Thomas and Scotus as Mr. White tells us all along pretend to demonstrate and yet it is generally believed that at least where they contradict one another one of them failed in his Demonstrations Did not Mr. Charles Thynne pretend to have demonstrated that a man at one jump might leap from London to Rome and yet I do not think any one was ever satisfy'd with his Demonstration And Mr. S. knows one in the World whom I will not name because he hath since ingenuously acknowledged his Errour who thought he had demonstrated the Quadrature of the Circle and was so confident of it as to venture the reputation of his Demonstrations in Divinity upon it and some of those Divinity Demonstrations were the very same with Mr. S's Since therefore the World hath experienced so much miscarriage in the way of Demonstration before Mr. S's Demonstrations can be allowed to signifie any thing he must according to his own Law vouch some particularity in his way and method of Demonstration above what is in other mens He hath not any where that I remember told us what that particularity is wherein his way of Demonstration is above other mens Nor can I upon the most diligent search find any peculiar advantage that his Way has more than theirs above mentioned unless this be one that he pretends to demonstrate a self-evident Principle and herein I think he hath plainly the advantage of Mr. Charles Thynne and unless this may be counted another advantage that he has so extraordinary a confidence and conceit of his own Demonstrations and in this particular I must acknowledge that he clearly excels all that have gone before him In all other things his way of Demonstration is but like his neighbours SECT II. § 1. I Come now to examine his Demonstrations of this Self-evident Principle as he often calls it that Oral Tradition is a certain and infallible way of
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
sense and explication thereof to have descended to them by Oral Tradition For just as the Traditionary Christians do now so Josephus tells us the Traditionary Jews of old the Pharisees did pretend by their Oral Tradition to interpret the Law more accurately and exactly than any other Sect. In like manner he tells us That all things that belonged to Prayer and Divine Worship were regulated and administred according to their interpretations of the Law And they both agree in this to make void the Word of God by their Tradition which the Pharisees did no otherwise than Mr. S. does by equalling Oral Tradition to Scripture nay preferring it above Scripture in making it the sole Rule of Faith and interpreting the Scripture according to it Hence are those common sayings in the Talmud and other Jewish Books Do not think that the written Law is the foundation but that the Law Orally delivered is the right foundation which is to say with Mr. S. that not the Scripture but Oral Tradition is the true Rule of Faith Again There is more in the words of the Scribes viz. the Testifiers of Tradition than in the words of the written Law Again The Oral Law excells the Written as much as the Soul doth the Body which accords very well with what Mr. S. frequently tells us That the Scripture without Tradition is but a dead Letter destitute of life and sense Hence also it is that they required the People as the Traditionary Church does now to yield up themselves to the dictates of Tradition even in the most absurd things as appears by that common saying among them If the Scribes say that the right hand is the left and the left the right that Bread is Flesh and Wine is Blood hearken to them that is make no scruple of whatsoever they deliver as Tradition though never so contrary to Reason or Sense And lastly The Doctrines of the Pharisees were many of them practical such were all those which concerned external rites and observances as washing of hands and cups c. So that these Pharisaical Traditions had also that unspeakable advantage which Mr. S. says renders their Traditions unmistakeable That they were daily practised and came down clad in such plain matters of Fact that the most stupid man living could not possibly be ignorant of them Therefore according to Mr. S's Principles it was impossible that any Age of the Jews should be perswaded that these things were commanded by Moses and ever since observed if they had not been so And yet our Saviour denies these Customs to have been of any such Authority as they pretended § 2. But I needed not to have taken all this pains to shew the agreement which is between the Traditionary Jews and Papists their own Writers so liberally acknowledging it Mr. White indeed says That the Faith of the Jews was not delivered to them Orally but by Writing than which nothing can be more inconsistent with his Hypothesis For if the Jewish Faith was conveyed to them not Orally but by Writing then either the Jewish Church had no sufficient Rule of Faith or else a Writing may be such a Rule But other of their Champions make great use of the Parallel between the Traditionary Jews and the Romish Church to confirm from thence their own Traditionary Doctrines Cardinal Perron hath a full passage to this purpose As this says he is to preserve a sound and entire respect to the Majesty of the ancient Mosaick Scripture to believe and observe not only all the things which are therein actually contained but also those things which are therein contained mediately and relatively as the Doctrines of Paradise c. which were not contained therein but mediately and by the authority which it gave to the deposition of the Patriarchal and Mosaick Tradition preserved by heart and in the Oral Doctrine of the Synagogue So this is to preserve a sound and entire respect to the Majesty of the Apostolical Scripture to believe and observe all the things which it contains not only immediately and by it self but mediately and by reference to the Apostolical Traditions to which in gross and generally it gives the Authority of Apostolical Doctrines and to the Church the Authority of Guardian and Depositary to preserve and attest them Voysin in his Observations upon Raymundus Martyn tells us That as in the Old Law the great Consistory at Jerusalem was the foundation of the true Tradition so says he the See of Rome is the foundation of our Traditions And as the continual succession of the High Priests and Fathers among the Jews was the great confirmation of the Truth of their Traditions so says he with us the Truth of our Catholick Doctrine is confirmed by a continual succession of Popes § 3. From all this it appears that the Pharisees among the Jews made the same pretence to Oral Tradition which the Papists do at this day according to Mr. S. And if so then Mr. S's Demonstration a Posteriori is every whit as strong for the Jews against our Saviour as it is for the Papists against the Protestants For we find that in our Saviour's time it was then the present perswasion of the Traditionary Jews that their Faith and their Rites and the true sense and interpretation of their written Law was descended from Moses and the Prophets to them uninterruptedly which we find was most firmly rooted in their hearts But the Jews had a constant Tradition among them that the Messiah was to be a great temporal Prince And though the Letters of the Prophesies concerning him might well enough have been accommodated to the low and suffering condition of our Saviour yet they did infallibly know that their Messiah was to be another kind of person from sense written in their hearts from the interpretation of those Prophesies Orally brought down to them from the Patriarchal and Mosaick Tradition preserved by heart and in the Oral Doctrine of the Synagogue and from the living voyce of their Church essential that is the universal consent of the then Traditionary Jews If it be said That the Jewish Tradition did indeed bring down several Doctrines not contained in Scripture of Paradise of Hell of the last Judgment of the Resurrection c. as Cardinal Perron affirms but it did not bring down this Point of the Messiah's being a Temporal Prince Then as Mr. S. asks us so the Jew does him By what vertue Tradition brought down those other Points and whether the same vertue were not powerful to bring down this as well as those Then he will ask him farther Is there not a necessary connexion and relation between a constant Cause and its formal Effect So that if its formal Effect be Points received as delivered ever the proper Cause must be an ever-delivery whence he will argue from such an Effect to its Cause for any particular Point and consequently for this Point that is in Controversie between Jews
adds that the whole Body is under every little part in its full proportions for he says expresly That the Head and Foot of the Body of Christ are as far distant from one another in the sacrament as they are in Heaven as if one should say that a Body all whose parts lye within the compass of a small pins-head may yet within that little compass have parts two yards distant from one another And lastly how the sensible species of Bread e. g. quantity whiteness softness c. can exist without any subject to affirm the possibility of which as generally they do is to say that there may be quantities of white and soft nothings For this is the plain English of that assertion that sensible species may exist without a subject which being strip't of those terms of Art species and subject that do a little disguise it it appears to be plain Non-sense Now the proper and necessary consequence of this Doctrine is to take away all certainty and especially the certainty of sense For if that which my sight and taste and touch do all assure me to be a little piece of Wafer may notwithstanding this be Flesh and Blood even the whole Body of a man then notwithstanding the greatest assurance that Sense can give me that any thing is this or that it may be quite another thing from what Sense reported it to be If so then farewel the Infallibility of Tradition which depends upon the certainty of Sense And which is a worse consequence if this Doctrine be admitted we can have no sufficient assurance that the Christian Doctrine is a Divine Revelation For the assurance of that depending upon the assurance we have of the Miracles said to be wrought for the confirmation of it and all the assurance we can have of a Miracle depending upon the certainty of our senses it is very plain that that Doctrine which takes away the certainty of Sense does in so doing overthrow the certainty of Christian Religion And what can be more vain than to pretend that a man may be assured that such a Doctrine is revealed by God and consequently true which if it be true a man can have no assurance at all of any Divine Revelation Surely nothing is to be admitted by us as certain which being admitted we can be certain of nothing It is a wonder that any man who considers the natural consequences of this Doctrine can be a Papist unless he have attained to Mr. Cressy's pitch of Learning who speaking of the difficult Arguments wherewith this Doctrine was pressed says plainly I must answer freely and ingenuously that I have not learned to answer such Arguments but to despise them And if this be a good way when ever we have a mind to believe any thing to scorn those Objections against it which we cannot solve then Christian Religion hath no advantage above the vilest Enthusiasms and a Turk may maintain Mahomet and his Alcoran in opposition to Christ and his Doctrine against all that Grotius or any other hath said if he can but keep his countenance and gravely say I have not learned to answer such Arguments but to despise them § 10. I will add one Instance more in another kind to shew the uncertainty of Oral and Practical Traditions and that shall be the Tradition concerning Pope Jone than which scarce any was ever more generally received in the Historical kind Many and great Authors affirm it as Testifiers of the general Fame None ever denied it till the Reformers had made use of it to the disadvantage of Popery Since that time not only Papists deny it but several of our own Writers cease to believe it Phil. Bergomensis tells the story thus Anno 858. John the 7 th Pope c. The Tradition is that this person was a Woman c. Here 's an Oral Tradition He concludes thus In detestation of whose filthiness and to perpetuate the memory of her Name the Popes even to this day going on Procession with the People and the Clergy when they come to the place of her Travel c. in token of abomination they turn from it and go a by-way and being past that detestable place they return into the way and finish their Procession Here is one Practical Tradition And for avoiding of the like miscarriages it was decreed that no one should thereafter be admitted into St. Peter 's Chair priusquam per foratam sedem futuri Pontificis genitalia ab ultimo Dyacone Cardinale attractarentur Here is another with a Witness Sabellicus relates the same and moreover says that this Porphyry Chair was in his time to be seen in the Popes Palace He adds indeed that Platina thinks that this Tradition of Pope Jone was not faithfully delivered to Posterity But however says he such a Tradition there is Concerning the first Practical Tradition Platina says that he may not deny it For the second he thinks the Chair rather design'd for a Stool for another use c. He concludes These things which I have related are commonly reported yet from uncertain and obscure Authors Therefore I resolved says he briefly and nakedly to set them down lest I should seem too obstinately and pertinaciously to have omitted that which almost all affirm It is no wonder that he says the Authors of this Report were uncertain and obscure since so very few writ any thing in that Age. But suppose none had writ of it so long as he acknowledges it to have been a general Oral Tradition attested by a solemn and constant Practice it has according to Mr. S's Principles greater certainty than if it had been brought down to us by a hundred Books written in that very Age. So that here 's an Oral and Practical Tradition continued we are sure for some hundreds of years preserved and propagated by a solemn practice of the Popes Clergy and People of Rome in their Processions and by a notorious Custom at the Election of every Pope and in a matter of so great importance to their Religion the honour of the See of Rome and the uninterrupted Succession from St. Peter being so nearly concerned in it that had it been false they had been obliged under pain of Damnation not only not to have promoted it but to have used all means to have discovered the falsity of it Therefore Mr. S. is bound by his own Principles either to allow it for a Truth or else to give an account when and how it begun which may possibly be made out by We Metaphysitians as he styles himself and his Scientifical Brethren but I assure him it is past the skill of Note-book Learning SECT X. § 1. IT is not the present perswasion of the Church of Rome nor ever was that their Faith hath descended to them by Oral Tradition as the sole Rule of it And this being proved the Supposition upon which his Demonstration is built falls to the ground And for the
them with so much as a videtur quod non But it may be he means no more by this Corollary than what he said in the 18 th viz. That no solid Argument from Reason can be brought against Tradition If so then the sense of his 23 d Corollary must be this That there is no possibility of arguing at all against Tradition with any solid shew or substantial shadow of Reason which would be a little inconvenient I will instance but in one more his 40 th which is this The knowledg of Traditions Certainty is the first knowledg or Principle in Controversial Divinity i. e. without which nothing is known or knowable in that Science Which is to infer that because he hath with much pains proved the certainty of Tradition therefore it is self evident i. e. needed no proof Nay it is to conclude the present matter in Controversie and that which is the main debate of his Book to be the first Principle in Controversial Divinity i. e. such a Proposition as every one ought to grant before he can have any right to dispute about it This is a very prudent course to make begging the question the first Principle in Controversie which would it but be granted I am very much of his mind that the method he takes would be the best way to make Controversie a Science because he that should have the luck or boldness to beg first would have it in his power to make what he pleased certain § 2. Were it worth while I might further pursue the Absurdities of his Corollaries For they are not so terrible as he makes shew of by his telling Dr. Casaubon That Sure-footing and its Corollaries may put him out of his Wits Which though intended for an Affront to the Doctor yet it may be mollified with a good interpretation for if the reading of wild and phantastical stuff be apt to disorder a very learned head then so far Mr. S's saying may have truth in it It remains only that I requite his 41 Corol. not with an equal number but with two or three natural Consectaries from the Doctrine of his Book First No man can certainly understand the meaning of any Book whatsoever any farther than the Contents of it are made known to us by a concurrent Oral Tradition For the Arguments whereby he and Mr. Rushworth endeavour to prove it impossible without Tradition to attain to the certain sense of Scripture do equally extend to all other Books Secondly The memory of matters of Fact done long ago may be better preserved by general Rumor than by publick Records For this is the plain English of that Assertion That Oral Tradition is a better and more secure way of Conveyance than Writing Thirdly That the Generality of Papists are no Christians For if as he affirms Tradition be the sole Rule of Faith and those who disown this Rule be * ipso facto cut off from the Root of Faith i. e. unchristian'd And if as I have shewn the Generality of Papists do disown this Rule Then it is plain that they are no Christians THE RULE of FAITH PART IV. Testimonies concerning the Rule of Faith SECT I. § 1. THus far in the way of Reason and Principles The rest is Note-book Learning which he tells us he is not much a Friend to and there is no kindness lost for it is as little a Friend to him and his Cause as he can be to it I shall first examine the Authorities he brings for Tradition and then produce express Testimonies in behalf of Scripture In both which I shall be very brief in the one because his Testimonies require no long Answer in the other because it would be to little purpose to trouble Mr. S. with many Fathers who for ought appears by his Book is acquainted with none but Father White as I shall shew hereafter By the way I cannot much blame him for the course he uses to take with other mens Testimonies because it is the only way that a man in his circumstances can take otherwise nothing can be in it self more unreasonable than to pretend to answer Testimonies by ranking them under so many faulty Heads and having so done magisterially to require his Adversary to vindicate them by shewing that they do not fall under some of those Heads though he have not said one word against any of them particularly nay though he have not so much as recited any one of them for then the Trick would be spoiled and his Catholick Reader who perhaps may believe him in the general might see Reason not to do so if he should descend to particulars which as he well observes would make his Discourse to look with a contingent Face § 2. I begin with his three Authorities from Scripture which when I consider I see no reason why he of all men should find fault with my Lord Bishop of Down's Dissuasive for being so thin and sleight in Scripture-Citations Nor do I see how he will answer it to Mr. Rushworth for transgressing that prudent Rule of his viz. That the Catholick should never undertake to convince his Adversary out of Scripture c. For which he gives this substantial Reason because this were to strengthen his Opponent in his own Ground and Principle viz. That all is to be proved out of Scripture which he tells us presently after is no more fit to convince than a Beetle is to cut withall meaning it perhaps of Texts so applied as these are which follow This shall be to you a direct way so that Fools cannot err in it This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit which is in thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart from thy mouth and from the mouth of thy Seed and from the mouth of thy Seeds seed from henceforth for ever I will give my Law in their bowels and in their hearts will I write it From which Texts if Mr. S. can prove Tradition to be the only Rule of Faith any better than the Philosophers Stone or the Longitude may be proved from the 1 Cap. of Genesis I am content they should pass for valid Testimonies Though I might require of him by his own Law before these Texts can signifie any thing to his purpose to demonstrate that this is the Traditionary sense of these Texts and that it hath been universally in all Ages received by the Church under that Notion and then to shew how it comes to pass that so many of the Fathers and of their own Commentators have interpreted them to another sense And lastly to shew how Scripture which has no certain sense but from Tradition and of the sense whereof Tradition cannot assure us unless it be the Rule of Faith I say how Scripture can prove Tradition to be the Rule of Faith which can prove nothing at all unless Tradition be first proved to be the Rule of Faith This
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
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 that proposition homo est animal rationale he may be capable of a new obligation to believe the former which is involved in this it may be justly questioned whether such an one as to himself can truly say homo est animal rationale or no. But after such rare subtilties he doth very well to tell me that I ought to consider what Logick tells us that the conclusion is in the premises which reflection in his his court-like expression he saith will much unblunder my thoughts But let the conclusion be as long as it will in the premises will any man in his wits say that he that believes the truth of the premises is not hereby bound to believe the conclusion and the more the one is involved in the other the less is it possible to make the obligation to believe them distinct And it is hard for me to believe that this is a way to unblunder my thoughts when I see what horrible confusion such expressions argue in his own Let the Church then clear her thoughts never so much yet all this cannot amount to a distinct obligation to believe those things which were involved before but to a more explicit declaring them for the Churches peace and satisfaction The only conclusion then involved in these premises is that if some things may be de fide in one age which were not in another then the present age may believe otherwise than the precedent did And if this doctrine be held in the Church of Rome nothing can be more evident than that Mr. S's first principle of controversie is far from being the doctrin of the Roman Church which was the thing to be proved My second chief argument against this way of oral tradition was that it had not been owned in all ages of the Christian Church to manifest which I enquired into the reason of the obligation in any age of the Church to believe and practise just as the precedent did Mr. S. rejoices in that confession of mine that the only thing to be proved in this case is that every age of the Church and all persons in it look'd on themselves as obliged not to vary in any thing from the doctrine and practise of the precedent age And I there offer the choice of three ways to prove it reason testimony or tradition he tells me he excepts the way of reason yet quarrels with me for pressing for a demonstrative medium to prove it when yet Mr. S. seldom speaks under the rate of demonstrations But he thereby notes the unconsonancy of my carriage Wherein I wonder That I should desire them to perform this promise viz. to give us demonstrations for the grounds of faith But saith withal he will yeild me the honour of professing I have no demonstration but probability for the ground of mine and he makes this serious protestation for himself that he should esteem himself very dishonest did he assert and press on others any argument for the ground of his faith which he judged not evident that is demonstrative What is it these men mean when they cry up their own way for demonstrative and say that we build our faith meerly on probabilities Do they say that Religion is capable of strict and rigorous demonstration If so let them demonstrate the being of God and immortality of the soul with as much evidence as that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles And it is strange if they think particular problems in religion are more capable of demonstration than those Theorems on which they are built But by all the enquiry I can make all the difference between us is that Mr. S. will have that called a demonstration which is scarce a probability and we call that sufficient reason which any wise man may safely rely on in matters of Religion In the mean time how much do we suffer by our modesty that because we speak not as big as Mr. S. does we must be censured presently to have nothing but probabilities fot our faith Are those bare probabilities which leave no suspition of doubt behind them And such we freely assert the grounds of our Religion to do i. e. I assert that we have the highest actual certainty of the truth of our Religion which the mind of any reasonable man can desire and if Mr. S's demonstrations can do any more than this let him tell us what it is For my part I know nothing higher in the mind of man than a certain assent and if I did not think there was the greatest ground in Religion for that I abhor dissimulation so much that I should leave off perswading men to embrace it And if any men have made us shy of the word demonstration and infallibility they are such men as Mr. S. have done it who talk of these things when their arguments fall beneath some of the remotest probabilities we insist on Nay if there be any force in his demonstration as to matters of fact it hath been used by us long before his Book saw the light But we love to give the true names to things and not to lose our credit with all intelligent persons by playing Mountebanks in Religion crying up those things for infallible cures which an ordinary capacity may discern the insufficiency of But was it any thing but justice and reason in me to expect and call for a demonstration from them who talk of nothing under it And therefore I said that it was impossible to demonstrate this way of oral tradition unless it were proved impossible for men not to think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their predecessors did For where the contrary is not only possible but easily supposable as that men may believe those things as new articles of faith which are defined by Pope and Council I wonder how Mr. S. will demonstrate that men must look on themselves as obliged to believe just as their predecessors did For I had thought demonstrations had never place in contingent propositions but it seems Mr. S. who tells me Logick will unblunder my thoughts intends to make a new one for me And I assure you so he had need before I shall ever call his arguments demonstrations and although he thinks himself very honest in calling them so yet I should think him much wiser if he did not But before I come to the particular debate of these things I freely tell him that I grant all he requests I shall take along with me the nature of the matter in hand the doctrines and practices spoken of the manner of delivering them the necessary circumstances which give weight to both yet for all these I cannot look on his way as demonstrative And that both our meanings may be better understood it is very necessary the Reader should have a true account of the state of the Question between us And if he will believe me I never intended to dispute with him
or any one else whether men were bound to wear their clothes or build houses or manage estates just as their predecessors did but whether every age is obliged to believe and practise just as the precedent did by virtue of meer oral tradition for about that is all the controversie between us I do not deny but that a succeeding age may look on it self as bound to believe what the precedent did but whether that obligation doth arise purely from the delivery of that doctrine by the precedent in the way of of tradition is the thing in dispute between us For in case the ground of faith be wholly the written Word conveyed from age to age I deny not but an obligation to believe descends with the doctrine to every succeeding age But that which Mr. S. is to prove is that abstractly from Scripture every age is absolutely bound to believe just as the precedent did without any enquiry whether that doctrine doth agree with Scriptures or no but that he is therefore bound to believe all which is proposed to him because it was the doctrine of the immediately preceding age And this is that which I deny and desire Mr. S. to prove For which he first gives us a large instance in historical matters and then comes to the matters of Christian faith His instance is in Alexanders conquest of Asia as to which he saith that the memory of it is fresh and lively though some thousand years since and that the universal and strong perswasion of this matter of fact was not caused by Books as Curtius his History but by human tradition that the continuance of this perswasion was the notoriety of the fact to the then livers which obliged them to relate it to their posterity and that this testifying by the fore-fathers was that which obliged posterity to believe things as true because there could be no imaginable motive why the whole world should conspire to deceive them or be deceivable in their sensations on which principle it passed to the next age and so came down by way of tradition to our dayes the obligation to believe in every age depended upon this that the senses of the first could not be deceived and having this security in every age that no one would conspire to deceive the next it follows that no age could say a former age testified so unless it did so therefore saith he it follows demonstratively that it was testified and so the descendents in every age to the very end of the world have the same obligation to believe their immediate fore-fathers saying it was testified by theirs and so to the very first who were witnesses of his actions This is the substance of what he more largely discourses in several Paragraphs which when he hath done he tells me he expects what I will reply to this discourse Not to frustrate therefore his expectation and in order to the Readers satisfaction we are to consider that in the present case there are two distinct questions to be resolved 1. How a matter of fact evident to the world comes to be conveyed to posterity 2. By what means a compleat history of all passages relating to it may be conveyed As to the first I grant that a fact so notorious as Alexanders conquest of Asia might have been preserved by human tradition and conveyed in a certain way from one age to another But if we enquire into that which is alone proper to our question viz. by what means we may judg what is true and false as to the particulars of that conquest then I deny that bare tradition is to be relyed on in this case For the certainty of conveyance of all paticulars doth depend not upon the bare veracity but the capacity and skill of communicating from one age to another For which one would think we need no clearer evidence than the consideration of the different account of former times in the several Nations of the world For who can imagine but the barbarous Nations were as unwilling to deceive their posterity as any other yet we see a vast difference in the histories of former ages among them and more civilized people And I wish Mr. S. would rather have instanced in some history which had been preserved meerly by tradition and not in such a one which if any other hath been most carefully recorded and propagated to posterity If Mr. S. would have undertaken to have told us who they were that first peopled America and from what place they came by the tradition of the present inhabitants and what famous actions had been done there in former ages we might have thought indeed that sole tradition had been a very safe way to convey matters of fact from one age to another But since all Mr. S's arguments will hold as well for the Scythians and Americans and the most barbarous Nations as the most civil and polite what reason can Mr. S. give why there is not among them as certain an account of former ages as among the Greeks and Romans Were not their senses who saw those matters of fact as uncapable of being deceived as others Was not every age among them as unwilling to deceive their posterity as elsewhere Yet notwithstanding the force of Mr. S's demonstration we see for want of letters how grosly ignorant they are of what was done before them And if this principle were true why have we not as true an account of the eldest ages of the world as of any other Nay why were letters invented and writing ever used if tradition had been found so infallible But it is one thing superficially to discourse what is impossible should be otherwise and another to consider what really hath been in the world Doth not the constant experience of all times prove that where any history hath not been timely recorded it hath been soon corrupted by notorious falsities or obscured by fabulous reports As we see among our selves what difference there is in point of certainty between the several stories of K. Arthur and William the Conqueror what will Mr. S. say that those who lived in K. Arthurs time could not know what he did or that they conspired to deceive their posterity But if tradition be so infallible why have we not the ancient story of Britain as exact as the modern If Mr. S. will impute it to the peoples ignorance want of letters frequent conquests by other Nations and succeeding barbarism he may easily find how many ways there are for matters of fact to be soon lost or corrupted when they have not been diligently preserved by authentick records and that without one age conspiring to deceive another But notwithstanding Mr. S's confidence I cannot think it possible for Mr. S. to believe that we should have had as true an account of Alexanders conquest of Asia if Arrian Curtias or Plutarch had never writ his story as we have now Yet this he must assert by vertue of his
take notice of what I have elsewhere said I am resolved to let him see I am not at all concerned about it I begin to understand him so well by this Appendix that I can give my self a reasonable account why he thought it not fit to meddle with any other part of my Book But if Mr. S. be resolved not to answer any of the testimonies I there produce unless I single them out and print them at the end of this Answer i. e. remove them from that evidence which attends them in the series of the discourse I can only say he is the most imperious answerer I have met with who is resolved never to deal with an adversary but on his own unreasonable terms Thus heartily wishing Mr. S's Science as great as his opinion of it and a good effect of our endeavours to promote the one by removing the other I am Sir Your affectionate friend and servant Edward Stillingfleet London June 28. 1665. FINIS Postscript SIR SInce the dispatch of the former Papers I have met with another Treatise wherein I find my self concerned written by the Author of Fiat Lux the Title whereof is Diaphanta I am afraid the Title affrights you for I assure you it is the most formidable thing in his whole Book But the man is a very modest man and hugely different from Mr. S's humor for he is so far from offering to demonstrate the grounds of faith that all he pretends to in the title of his Book is to excuse Catholick Religion against the opposition of several Adversaries What fault I pray hath the Catholick Religion committed that it must now come to be excused instead of being defended But when I look into that part which concerns my self I presently understand the meaning of it which is not to excuse Catholick Religion but themselves for not being able to defend it For he very ingeniously tells us that faith is firm and constant though all his talk for it be miserably weak i. e. he is sure they have an excellent Religion though he knows not what to say for it and their faith is a very good faith but it hath not yet had the good fortune to be understood by them For he acknowledges that as often as they dispute they are beyond the business so may any one believe who reads their late Books which is in effect to say there is no way left of disputing any longer with adversaries about their faith only they must believe it stoutly themselves but it is to no purpose to offer to defend it Nay it doth their faith a great deal of mischief for saith he in reading controversies we see not so much the nature of the faith as the wit of him who opposes or defends it From whence we may easily gather what unspeakable mischief they do their cause by writing for it By which expressions we may guess at what a low ebb the defence of their faith is among them for the way now taken to defend it is by disowning the defenders of it and by saying that they only vent their own opinions and though we confute them never so much yet their faith holds good still Was ever a good cause driven to such miserable shifts as these are especially among those who pretend to wit and learning One he saith T. C. vents a private opinion of his own and it is not a pin matter whether it stand or fall another he saith the same of I. S. a third of J.V.C. and yet for all this their religion is very firm and sure and they are all at perfect agreement about it Is this the victory over me Mr. S. mentions to be so easie a thing I see that by the same figure M. S. calls his way of arguing demonstration running out of the field shall be accounted conquering For I never saw any person do it more openly than this Author does For he plainly confesses that his Catholick Gentleman went quite besides his business that he built upon indefensible principles that his theological ratiocination was indeed pretty but too weak to hold And are not we hugely too blame if we do not cry up such mighty Conquerors as these are Truly Sir I expect the very same answer should be returned to your Book that Mr. S's argument is a pretty theological ratiocination and that your answer is not unwitty but though that way will not hold another will Thus when they are beaten off Infallibility they run to Tradition and when they are again beaten off Tradition then back again to Infallibility So that the short of all their answers is though such a one cannot defend our faith yet I can though I cannot yet the faith is firm and constant still I wonder what their Superiors think of this way of proceeding among them we should imagine if they be so weak as they say themselves they had much better keep them from appearing abroad and exposing their cause so ridiculously to contempt But it may be they think their faith is the better as well as their devotion for their ignorance and that it would be a mighty disparagement to their cause for such silly people to be able to defend it It is enough for them to admire it themselves and to say as their common people use to do though they cannot defend it yet there are some that can And although it may be no particulat person can do it yet their cause is able to defend it self But for all that I can see by such kind of answers the intention of them is to intreat us not to triumph over the weakness of their present Writers but to wait till the Cause it self thinks fit to write And when it doth so they may expect a further answer but it were a great piece of cruelty for us to hasten their ruine who fall so fast before us by each others Pens FINIS Books Printed for and Sold by Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Pauls Church-yard and at the white Heart in VVestminster-hall A Rational account of the grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord-Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer of T.C. folio Sermons preached upon several occasions with a discourse annexed concerning the true reasons of the sufferings of Christ wherein Crellius's Answer to Grotius is considered fol. Irenicum A Weapon-Salve for the Churches wounds in quarto Origines Sacrae or a Rational Account of the Grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scriptures and matters therein contained quarto A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it in Answer to some Papers of a revolted Protestant wherein a particular account is given of the Fanaticisms and Divisions of that Church octavo An Answer to several late Treatises occasioned by a Book entituled A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in
the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the communion of it the first Part octavo A second Discourse in vindication of the Protestant grounds of Faith against the pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church in Answer to the Guide in Controversie by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with a particular enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church octavo An Answer to Mr. Cresey's Epistle Apologetical to a person of Honour touching his Vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet octavo All written by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty Knowledg and Practice or a plain Discourse of the chief things necessary to be known believed and practiced in order to Salvation by S. Cradock quarto A Book very useful for Families The Remains of Sir Walter Rawleigh in twelves A Discourse of War and Peace by Sir Robert Cotton in octavo The Moral Philosophy of the Stoicks in octavo Hodders Arithmetick twelves The Triumphs of Rome over despised Protestancy octavo The Original of Romances octavo The Advice of Charles the Fifth Emperor of Germany and King of Spain to his Son Philip the Second upon resignation of his Crown to his said Son twelves Observations upon Military and Political affairs by the Right Honourable George Duke of Albemarle folio published by Authority A Fathers Testament by Phineahs Fletcher in octavo The Explication of the Terms of the Question P. 180. * P. 4. * P. 159◠Mr. S's Rule of Faith * p. 41. * P. 117. * P. 337. * Append. 4th p. 319. * P. 68. * p. 116. * p. 117. * Apology for tradition p. 165. The Protestant Doctrine concerning the Rule of Faith * P. 117. * P. 171. P. 38 39. * P. 54. * P. 116. * Mr. Wh. Exetasis P. 9. * P. 39. How much Protestants allow to Oral Tradition * Hebr. 8.7 * P. 40. * Rushw. Dial. 4. Sect. 9. * p. 93. How much Mr. S. attributes to his Rule of Faith more than Protestants to theirs * P. 11. * P. 11. * P 3. P. 12. * P. 12. * P. 11 12. * Analys Fid. L. 1. c. 3. * P. 12. * P 12. That the Properties of a Rule of Faith belong to Scriptute * P. 13. * P. 14. * P. 17. * Luke 1.3 4. * John 20.31 Mr. S's Exceptions against Scripture examined * P. 13. * P. 13. * P. 13 14. * P. 14. * L. 1. contr Marcion * P. 14. * Com. in Esai c. 6 c. 8. * P. 15. * Ep. 48. * P. 15. * P. 16 17. * P. 16. * P. 16. * P. 16. Preface * Answ. to the Lord Falkland P. 33. * P. 17. * P. 17. * P. 17. * Hom. 32 de Consubstant * Hom. 7 de Sanctc Phoca * P. 17. * Exomolog 2 d. Edit p. 554. * Exomolog c. 53. Sect. 2. * Dial. 2. Sect. 12. * De Doctr. Christ. L. 2. * Dial. 2. Sect. 6. * Analys Fidei L. 1. c. 9. * Append. c. 6. * Answ. to Chilling c 2. Sect. 6. * P. 17 18. * Answ. to Chilling c. 1. Sect. 33. * P. 49. * Ibid. * P. 18. * P 18 19. * Dial. 2. Sect. 8. * P. 20 21. * Praefat. * Analys Fid. L. 1. c. 4. * P. 21. * L. 4. * Haeret. Fabul l. 4. That Scripture is a sufficient Rule to the Unlearned and to the most Rational doubters * P. 24. * P. 25.26 27. * Dial. 2. Sect. 7. * De bonis malis Libris * P. 27. Sect. 3. 4. * Ibid. Sect. 6. * L. 1. c. 1. * C. 19. Sect. 5. * C. 32. Sect. 4. * Append. c. 5. * C 40. Sect. 3 c. * Append. Sect. 2. 3. * C. 5. Sect. 6. * P. 14 15. * P. 30. * P. 46. * Letter to his Answerer p. 5. That Scripture is sufficient to convince the most acute Adversaries and that it is sufficiently certain * P. 28. * P. 31. * P. 31. * P. 116. * P. 32. * P. 33. * P. 34. * P. 34. * P. 34. * P. 35. * P. 36. * Dial. 2. Sect. 7. * P. 38. * P. 38. * P. 38. * P. 38. * Dial. 2. Sect. 14. * P. 41. That the Properties of a Rule of Faith do not belong to Oral Tradition * Apolog. P. 81. Considerations touching his Demonstrations in general * P. 53. * Append 2 d. P. 183. * Append. c. 6. Sect. 8. * Ibid. Sect. 9. * Ibid. Sect. 11. * Append. c. 7. Sect. 8. * Ibid. * P. 253. 254. * Extasis P. 24. Mr. S's demonstration à priori * P. 59 60. The First answer to this Demonstration * P. 60. * P. 75. * P. 54. * P. 78. * P. 89. * P. 54. * Chron. ad Annum Christ. 352. * Ad An. 363. * Ad An. 364. * Advers Lucifer * Ibid. * Ibid. * In Epist. ad Galat. l. 3. * Orat. 20. 21. * Orat. 25. * Chron. ad Annum octavum Maurit * Caus. Dei * P. 65. * Hist. Aethiop * P. 67. * P. 62. * P. 6◠The second Answer to his Demonstration * P. 53. * Heb. 5.11 12. * Advers Luciferian * P. 75. * P. 60. * P. 53. * P. 53. * Apology for Tradition p. 51. * Phoc. Ep. 7. * De Fid. Theol. Tract 1. Sect. 4. * Ibid. Sect. 5. * P. 53. 54. * Ibid. * P. 78. * P. 86. * P. 89. * P. 90 91. * P. 93. Mr. S's Demonstration à posteriori * P. 76. * P. 77 78. The First Answer to his second Demonstration * Dial. 1. Sect. 4. * Dial. 3. Sect. 7. * Dial. 1. Sect. 4. * In Vit. Romani Papae 117. A. C. 900. * In Platin. * Anno 506. * Anno 9.8 * Ennead 9. L. 1. Anno. 900. * De Regn. Ital. L. 6. * Chron. L. 4. * Fascic Tempor * Epist. 40. * Bell. Sacr. L. 1. c. 8. * Elfric Serm. ad Sacerdot * C. 2. 3. * De Rom. Pontif. L. 4. c. 12. * Annal. Tom. 10. Anno 900. * In Convers. Sancti Pauli Serm. 1. * C. 3. * C. 5. * C. 6. * C. 9. * C. 11. * C. 13 * C. 14 * C. 16. * C. 20 21 23. * C. 25. * C. 27. * Exomolog C. 68. * Ibid. * Dial. 3. Sect. 3. * Dial. 3. Sect. 7. * Reply to K. James L. 4. C. 6. * Apology for Tradition p. 49. The second Answer to his second Demonstration The third Answer to Mr. S's second Demonstration * Antiq. Jud. l. 13. c. 18. * Ibid. l. 17. c. 3. de Bell. Jud. l. 1. c. 4. l. 2. c. 12. * Antiq. l. 18. c. 2. * De Fid. Theol. Tract 1. Sect. 6. * Rep. to K. James observ 3. c. 4. * Pugio Fid. p. 145. * P. 76. * Apol. 123 c. *