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
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
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
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
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
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
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