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
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
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
syllable the sense of Tradition will be in the very same danger of uncertainty and be liable to vanish we know not how Dr. Holden lays down these two Principles First That no truth can be conveyed down from man to man but by speech and speech cannot be but by words and all words are either equivocal in themselves or liable to be differently understood by several persons Secondly That such is the frame of mans mind that the same truths may be differently apprehended and understood by different persons And if this be true then Traditional Doctrines if they be deliverd by speech and words will be liable to uncertainties and ambiguities as to their sense as well as Scripture Mr. Cressy tells us That Reason and Experience shews that differences will arise even about the Writings of the Fathers and any thing but the Testimony of the present Church If this be true Tradition wholly falls into uncertainty For if difference will arise about the Writings of the Fathers how they are to be interpreted I suppose the Writings of Councils will be liable to the same inconvenience And if the whole present Church cannot declare her sense of any Traditional Doctrine otherwise than by a Council unless with the Jesuites they will epitomize the Church into the Pope and the Decrees of a Council cannot be universally dispers'd or at least never use to be but by Writing And if Differences will arise about the interpretation of that Writing as well as any other then this present infallible Authority which Mr. Cressy magnifies so much for ending Differences leaves all Controversies arising about the sense of Tradition as indeterminable as ever and they must for ever remain so till general Councils have got the knack of penning their Decrees in words which will so infallibly express their meaning to the most captious Caviller that no difference can possibly arise about the interpretation of them or else which will be more suitable to this wise Hypothesis till general Councils being convinc'd by Mr. S's Demonstrations shall come to understand themselves so well as not to entrust their Decrees any more to the uncertain way of Writing but for the future to communicate them to the World by the infallible way of oral Tradition And to mention no more Mr Knott who agrees with the other thus far that the certain sense of Scripture is only to be had from the Church speaks to this purpose That before we can be certain that this is the sense of such a Text we must either be certain that this Text is capable of no other sense as Figurative Mystical or Moral or if it be we must have some certain and infallible means to know in which of them it is taken which can be known only by revelation If this be true then by a fair parity of reason before I can be certain that this is the sense of a Doctrinal Tradition delivered down to me I must either be certain that the words in which this Tradition was expressed when it was delivered to me are capable of no other sense as Figurative Mystical or Moral besides that in which I understood them or if they be as certainly they will be capable of any of these other senses then must I have some certain and infallible means whereby to know in which of these they are taken And this can no more be known without a revelation than which is the true sense of such a Text of Scripture If it be said that the sense of a Traditional Doctrine may by different expressions be still further and further explained to me till I come certainly to understand the sense of it this will not help the matter For if these kind of cavils be good that a man cannot be certain of the meaning of any words till he can by an infallible argument demonstrate either that they cannot be taken or that they are not taken in any other sense I say if this cavil will hold then every new expression whereby any one shall endeavor to explain any Traditional Doctrine is liable to the same inconvenience which those words in which it was first delivered to me were liable to From all which it is evident that the Traditionary Church can be no more certain of the sense of their Traditional Doctrines than Protestants may be of the sense of Scripture § 12. These are his Exceptions contained in his second Discourse and of what force they are hath been examined But because he foresaw that it might be replied that these defects might in part be provided against by History by the Providence of God by Testimonies of Councils and Fathers and by the sufficient clearness of Scripture as to Fundamentals He endeavors to shew that these signifie little to this purpose First Not History because few are skilled in History and they that are not cannot safely rely upon those that are skill'd unless they knew certainly that the Historians whom they rely on had secure grounds and not bare hear-say for what they writ and that they were not contradicted by others either extant or perished How much credit is to be given to uncontrolled History by the learned and how much by the vulgar to men of skill I have already shewn I shall only add now that if this reasoning be true it is impossible for any man to be certain by History of any ancient matter of Fact as namely that there were such persons as Julius Caesar and William the Conqueror and that they invaded and conquered England because according to him we cannot know certainly that the Historians who relate these things and upon whose authority we rely had secure grounds and not bare hear-say for what they writ And that they were not contradicted by others either extant or perished is I am sure impossible for any man to know For who can tell now what was contained in those Books which are perished So that if this be requisite to make every Historical Relation credible to know certainly that it was not contradicted by any of those Books which we do not know what they were nor what was in them we can have no certainty of any ancient Fact or History for who knows certainly that some Books that are perished did not contradict whatever is written in Books that are extant Nay if this reasoning hold we can have no certainty of any thing conveyed by oral Tradition For what though the Priest tell me this was the Doctrine of Christ delivered to him unless I know that all others agree with him in this Tradition I cannot rely upon his testimony Nor then neither in Mr. Knott's opinion because the testimony of Preachers or Pastors is human and fallible unless according to his Jargon a conclusion deduced from Premises one of which is only probable may be sufficient to bring our understanding to an infallible act of Faith viz. if such a conclusion be taken Specificative whereas if it be taken Reduplicative
the nature of the subject can yield and not as those Physitians who when they have promised no less than Immortality can at last only reach to some conservation of health or youth in some small degree So I could wish the Author to well assure himself first that there is possible an Infallibility before he be too earnest to be contented with nothing less for what if humane nature should not be capable of so great a good Would he therefore think it fitting to live without any Religion because he could not get such a one as himself desired though with more than a mans wish Were it not rational to see whether among Religions some one have not such notable advantages over the rest as in reason it might seem humane nature might be contented withall Let him cast his account with the dearest things he hath his own or friends lives his estate his hope of posterity and see upon what terms of advantage he is ready to venture all these and then return to Religion and see whether if he do not venture his soul upon the like it be truly reason or some other not confessed motive which withdraws him For my own part as I doubt not of an Infallibility so I doubt not but setting that aside there be those Excellencies found on the Catholick party which may force a man to prefer it and to venture all he hath upon it before all other Religions and Sects in the World Why then may not one who after long searching findeth no Infallibility rest himself on the like supposing mans nature affords no better Are not these fair Concessions which the evidence and force of Truth have extorted from these Authors So that it seems that that which Mr. S. calls a civil piece of Atheistry is advanced in most express words by his best Friends and therefore I hope he will as he threatens me be smart with them in opposition to so damnable and fundamental an Error And whenever he attempts this I would entreat him to remember that he hath these two things to prove First That no evidence but demonstration can give a man sufficient assurance of any thing Secondly That a bare possibility that a thing may be otherwise is a rational cause of doubting and a wise ground of suspense which when he hath proved I shall not grudge him his Infallibility SECT V. § 1. THE last part of this Third Discourse endeavours to shew that the Scripture is not convictive of the most obstinate and acute Adversaries As for the obstinate he knows my mind already Let us see why the most acute Adversary may not be convinced by Scripture Because as he objects First We cannot be certain that this Book is Gods Word because of the many strange Absurdities and Heresies in the open letter as it lies as that God hath hands and feet c. and because of the contradictions in it To which I have already returned an answer Secondly Because as he saith we cannot be certain of the Truth of the letter in any particular Text that it was not foisted in or some way altered in its significativeness and if it be a negative proposition that the particle not was not inserted if affirmative not left out And if we pretend to be certain of this he demands our demonstration for it But how unreasonable this demand is I hope I have sufficiently shewn And to shew it yet further I ask him How their Church knows that the particle not was not left out of any Text in which it is now found in their Copies I know he hath a ready answer viz. by Oral Tradition But this according to him only reaches to Scriptures letter so far as it is coincident with the main body of Christian Doctrine concerning the rest of Scripture it is impossible according to his own principles that they should have any security that the particle not was not unduly inserted or left out by the Transcribers Nay as to those Texts of Scripture which fall in with the main body of Christian Doctrine I demand his demonstration that the particle not was not unduly inserted or left out not only in those Texts but also in the Oral Tradition of the Doctrines coincident with the sense of those Texts If he say It was impossible any Age should conspire to leave out or insert the particle not in the Oral Tradition so say I it was that they should conspire to leave it out of the written Text But then I differ from him thus far That I do not think this naturally impossible so as that it can rigorously be demonstrated but only morally impossible so that no body hath any reason to doubt of it which to a prudent man is as good as a demonstration Pyrrho himself never advanced any Principle of Scepticism beyond this viz. That men ought to question the credit of all Books concerning which they cannot demonstrate as to every sentence in them that the particle not was not inserted if it be affirmative or left out if it be negative If so much be required to free a man from reasonable doubting concerning a Book how happy are they that have attained to Infallibility What he saith concerning the Variae Lectiones of Scripture hath already had a sufficient answer § 2. In his Fourth Discourse he endeavours to shew That the Scripture is not certain in it self and consequently not ascertained to us First Not certain materially considered as consisting of such and such Characters because Books are liable to be burnt torn blotted worn out We grant it is not impossible but that any or all the Books in the World may be burnt But then we say likewise That a Book so universally dispersed may easily be preserved though we have no assurance that God will preserve it in case all men should be so foolish or so careless as to endeavour or suffer the abolition of it But it seems the Scriptures cannot be a Rule of Faith if they be liable to any external accidents And this he tells us Though it may seem a remote and impertinent Exception yet to one who considers the wise dispositions of Divine Providence it will deserve a deep consideration because the salvation of Mankind being the end of Gods making nature the means to it should be more setled strong and unalterable than any other piece of nature whatever But notwithstanding this wise reason this Exception still seems to me both remote and impertinent For if this which he calls a Reason be a Truth it will from thence necessarily follow not only that the Doctrine of Christ must be conveyed by such a means as is more unalterable than the course of nature but also by a clear parity of Reason that all the means of our salvation do operate towards the accomplishing of their end with greater certainty than the fire burns or the Sun shines which they can never do unless they operate
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
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
Church and skipt into the Opinions of human Sects not of human Election as Mr. S. blindly following Mr. Wh. does most absurdly translate it but he that hath returned from his Errors and hearkned to the SCRIPTVRES and conformed his life to the Truth is as it were advanced from a Man to a God At the same rate he goes on for several Pages together taking the Scriptures for an indemonstrable Principle from which all Divine Doctrines are to be demonstrated and for the Criterion whereby they are to be tried and charges the Hereticks in such words as we cannot find fitter for our Adversaries As says he naughty Boys shut out their School-master so these drive the Prophecies out of the Church suspecting that they will chide and admonish them and they patch together abundance of falshoods and fictions that they may seem RATIONALLY not to admit the Scriptures Again speaking of these Hereticks affronting the Scriptures he tells us they oppose the Divine Tradition with human Doctrines by other Traditions delivered from hand to hand that they may establish a Sect or Heresie Again he says they adulterate the Truth and steal the Rule of Faith c. but for ORAL Frauds they shall have WRITTEN Punishments But enough of this whosoever desires to see more of it let him read on where these men to their shame have directed us and see whether any Protestant can speak more fully and plainly in this Controversy The whole trust of the Papists is upon the equivocal sense of the word Tradition Which word is commonly used by the Fathers to signify to us the Scriptures or Divine Tradition as Clement here calls it but the Papists understand it of their unwritten Tradition and to this they apply all those passages in the Fathers where Tradition is honourably mentioned So Mr. S. deals with us in the Testimonies I have already examined And there is nothing of argument in those few which remain but from the ambiguity of this Word which I need not shew of every one of them in particular for whosoever shall read them with this Key will find that they are of no force to conclude what he drives at § 5. As for his Citations out of the Council of Trent by which he would prove it to be the perswasion of their present Church that Tradition is the sole Rule of Faith I have already shewn that that Council hath declared otherwise and is otherwise understood by the chief of their own Writers And therefore he did prudently to conceal in an c. those choaking words in which the Council declares itself to receive and honour with equal pious affection and reverence the Books of Scripture and unwritten Traditions And after a great deal of shuffling what a pitiful Account is it that he at last gives of that Council's putting Scripture constantly before Tradition because Scripture being interpreted by Tradition is of the same Authority as if an Apostle or Evangelist were present and therefore no wonder they honour Scripture-Testimony so as to put it before Tradition which is to say that because Scripture is subordinate to Tradition and to be regulated by it therefore it deserves to be put before it Besides if Scripture and Tradition be but several wayes of conveying the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine why should he imagine an Evangelist or Apostle to be more present by the Scripture than by oral Tradition Especially if it be considered that he supposes Scripture to be an uncertain and Tradition an infallible way of conveying this Doctrine SECT II. § 1. ALL that now remains is to confirm the precedent Discourse by Testimonies of the most eminent Persons of the Church in several Ages in which I shall not need to be large being so happily prevented by that full Account which is given of the sense of the Ancients in this matter in the Answer to Labyrinthus Cantuariensis which Mr. S. may if he pleases consult for his further Conviction § 2 I begin with the Historical Account which Eusebius gives of committing the Gospel to writing which is to this purpose viz That the Romans were not content with the Doctrine Preached unless it were also committed to writing and therefore did earnestly beg of Mark Peter's Companion that he would leave them a Monument in writing of that Doctrine which had been deliver'd to them by word of mouth And this was the occasion of the writing of St. Mark 's Gospel And when Peter did understand that this Work was publish'd being suggested by the Divine Revelation of the Holy Spirit it is said he was very much pleased with the ready and earnest desire of those Persons and that by his Authority he confirmed this Writing to the end that it might be every where read in the Church As for St. Matthew and St. John he tells us That of all the Disciples they two only have left monuments in Writing of whom it is also reported that they betook themselves to write being drawn thereto by necessity Matthew after he had preached the Word of God to the Jews and was resolved to go to other Nations wrote his Gospel in the Language of his Countrey and thus by the diligence and pains of Writing did abundantly supply the the want of his presence to those whom he left And when Mark and Luke had published their Gospel it is reported that John who had always used to preach the Word without writing it being at length wrought upon by the same reason did betake himself to write From this account it is clear that the Apostles thought it necessary for the preservation and secure conveyance of the Christian Doctrine that it should be put into Writing and that they judged this a better way to supply the want of their presence than oral Tradition Therefore the same Author tells us That the Disciples who immediately succeeded the Apostles as they travelled to preach the Gospel to those who had not yet heard the Word of Faith did with great care also deliver to them the Writings of the Holy Evangelists Again That Ignatius as he travelled towards Rome where he was to suffer exhorted the Churches of every City to hold fast the Tradition of the Apostles which as also by Writing he testified for greater security he held necessary to be copied in Writing § 4. That the Hereticks of Old made the same pretence which the Papists make now of oral Tradition in opposition to Scripture the same Eusebius tells us and withal that Books are a sufficient confutation of this pretence Those says he who were of the Heresie of Artemon said that all their Fore-fathers and the Apostles themselves had received and taught the same things which they also did and had preserved the true Teaching unto the time of Victor Bishop of Rome whose Successor Zephyrinus corrupted it And this saith he would have great probability were it not first of all contradicted by the Scripture and next if there
the 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
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
could never be prevailed with to bring forth his own but kept it for a secret to his dying day But to put a final stop to this Canting demand of a Catalogue of Fundamentals which yet I perceive I shall never be able to do because it is one of those expletive Topicks which Popish Writers especialy those of the lowest Form do generally make use of to help out a Book however to do what I can towards the stopping of it I desire Mr. S. to answer the reasons whereby his Friend Dr. Holden shews the unreasonableness of this demand and likewise endeavours to prove that such a Catalogue would not only be useless and pernicious if it could be given but that it is manifestly impossible to give such a precise Catalogue Secondly He asks Is it a Fundamental that Christ is God If so Whether this be clearer in Scripture than that Gad hath hands feet c To which I answer by another question Is it clear that there are Figures in Scripture and that many things are spoken after the manner of men and by way of condescension and accomodation to our capacities and that custom and common sense teacheth men to distinguish between things figuratively and properly spoken If so why cannot every one easily understand that when the Scripture saith God hath hands and feet and that Christ is the Vine and the Door these are not to be taken properly as we take this Proposition that Christ is God in which no man hath any reason to suspect a Figure When Mr. S. tells us That he percheth upon the specifical nature of things would it not offend him if any one should be so silly as to conclude from hence that Mr. S. believed himself to be a Bird and nature a Perch And yet not only the Sciptures but all sober Writers are free from such forc't and phantastical Metaphors I remember that Origen taxeth Celsus his wilful Ignorance in finding fault with the Scriptures for attributing to God humane affections as anger c. and tells him that any one who had a mind to understand the Scriptures might easily see that such expressions were accomodated to us and accordingly to be understood and that no man that will but compare these expressions with other passages of Scripture need to fail of the true sense of them But according to Mr. S. Origen was to blame to find fault with Celsus for thinking that the Scripture did really attribute humane affections to God for how could he think otherwise when the most fundamental Point is not clearer in Scripture than that God hath hands feet c How could Origen in reason expect from Celsus though never so great a Philosopher that he should be able without the help of Oral Tradition to distinguish between what is spoken literally and what by a certain Scheme of speech Theodoret tells us of one Audaeus who held that God had a humane shape and bodily members but he does not say that the reason of this Error was because he made Scripture the Rule of his Faith but expresly because he was a fool and did foolishly understand those things which the Divine Scriptures speak by way of Condescension So that although Mr. S. is pleas'd to make this wise Objection yet it seems according to Theodoret that men do not mistake such Texts either for want of oral Tradition or of sufficient clearness in the Scriptures but for want of common reason and sense And if Mr. S. know of any Rule of Faith that is secure from all possibility of being mistaken by foolish and perverse men I would be glad to be acquainted with it SECT IV. § 1. IN his next Discourse he endeavours to shew that unlearned Persons cannot be justified as acting rationally in receiving the Scripture for the Word of God and relying upon it as a certain Rule because they are not capable of satisfaction concerning these matters But I have already shewn that they are and shall not repeat the same over again And whereas he says That several Professions all pretend to Scripture and yet differ and damn and persecute one another about these differences the answer is easie That they all pretend to Scripture is an argument that they all acknowledg it to be the Word of God and the Rule of Faith and that they are generally agreed about the sense of those plain Texts which contain the fundamental Points of Faith is evident in that those several Professions acknowledg the Articles contained in the Apostles Creed to be sufficiently delivered in Scripture And if any Professions differ about the meaning of plain Texts that is not an argument that plain Texts are obsure but that some men are perverse And if those Professions damn and persecute one another about the meaning of obscure Texts the Scripture is not in fault but those that do so § 2. And whereas he pretends That the Scripture is not able to satisfie Sceptical dissenters and Rational doubters because nothing under a demonstration can satisfie such persons so well concerning the incorruptedness of Originals the faithfulness of Translations c. but that searching and sincere Wits may still maintain their ground of suspence with A Might it not be otherwise This hath been answered already partly by shewing that the Scripture was not intended to satisfie Scepticks and that a Demonstration is not sufficient to give satisfaction to them and partly by shewing that Rational doubters may have as much satisfaction concerning those matters as the nature of the things will bear and he is not a Rational doubter that desires more But that he may see the unreasonableness of this Discourse I shall briefly shew him That all Mankind do in matters of this nature accept of such evidence as falls short of Demonstration and that his great Friends and Masters from whom he hath taken the main grounds of his Book though he manageth them to less advantage do frequently acknowledg that it is reasonable for men to acquiesce in such assurance as falls short of Infallibility and such evidence as is less than Demonstration Do not mankind think themselves sufficiently assured of the Antiquity and Authors of several Books for which they have not Demonstrative evidence Doth not Aristotle say that things of a moral and civil nature and matters of Fact done long ago are incapable of Demonstration and that it is madness to expect it for things of this Nature Are there no passages in Books so plain that a man may be sufficiently satisfied that this and no other is the certain sense of them If there be none can any thing be spoken in plainer words than it may be written If it cannot how can we be satisfied of the certain sense of any Doctrine Orally delivered And if we cannot be so satisfi'd where 's the certainty of Oral Tradition But if Books may be written so plainly as that we may be abundantly satisfied that this is the certain
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
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
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
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
he never hear of such a thing as the Scripture or is it so hard to find it But if he hath heard of it I intreat him to resolve me these Questions 1. Whether he doth not believe that the Books of the New Testament were written at such a time when the matters of fact therein recorded were capable of being throughly examined which he cannot deny upon his own principle for tradition being then infallible as to the doctrine of Christ the writers of these Books cannot be conceived to deliver it amiss unless they resolved to contradict the present tradition of the Church which if they had done those Books could never have found any reception among Christians If tradition then convey the doctrine of Christ infalilbly these Books must convey it infallibly because they contain in them the infallible tradition of the first age of the Christian Church and were written at the time when many persons living had been able to disprove any thing contained therein repugnant to truth And that these Books were written by those persons whose names they bear I appeal to Mr S's own rule Tradition for if that be infallible in any thing it must be in this and if one age could conspire to deceive another in a matter of such concernment what security can be had that it may not do so in all other things 2. Whether he believes that those whose intention was to write an account of the life actions and doctrine of Christ did leave any thing out of their Books which did relate to them as of concernment for us to believe For upon Mr. S's principles any one may easily know what the tradition of the Church is and especially such certainly who were either present themselves at the matters of fact or heard them from those who were and what satisfaction can any one desire greater than this But the question is whether this testimony were not more safely deposited in the Church to be conveyed by word of mouth than it could be by being committed to writing by such who were eye and ear witnesses of the actions and doctrine of Christ Upon which I advance some further Queries 3. If oral Tradition were the more certain way why was any thing written at all It may be Mr. S. will tell us for moral instructions and to give precepts of good life but then why may not these be as infallibly conveyed by tradition as doctrines of faith And why then were any matters of fact and points of faith inserted in the Books of the New Testament By which it certainly appears that the intention of writing them was to preserve them to posterity Let Mr. S. tell me whether it was consistent with the wisdom of men much less with the wisdom of an infinite Being to imploy men to do that which might be far better done another way and when it is done can give no satisfaction to the minds of men 4. Whether those things which are capable of being understood when they are spoken cease to be so when they are written For Mr. S. seems to understand those terms of a living voice and dead letters in a very strict and rigorous manner as though the sense were only quick when spoken and became buried in dead letters But Mr. S. seems with the sagacious Indian to admire how it is possible for dead letters and unsenc'd characters to express mens meanings as well as words I cannot enter into Mr. S's apprehension how 24 letters by their various disposition can express matters of faith And yet to increase the wonder he writes about matters of faith while he is proving that matters of faith cannot be conveyed by writing So that Mr. S's own writing is the best demonstration against himself and he confutes his own Sophistry with his fingers as Diogenes did Zeno's by his motion For doth Mr. S. hope to perswade men that tradition is a rule of faith by his Book or not if not to what purpose doth he write if he doth then it is to be hoped some matters of faith may be intelligibly conveyed by writing especially if Mr. S. doth it But by no means we are to believe that ever the Spirit of God can do it For whatever is written by men assisted by that is according to him but a heap of dead letters and insignificant characters when Mr. S. the mean while is full of sense and demonstration Happy man that can thus out-do infinite wisdom and write far beyond either Prophets or Apostles But if he will condescend so far as to allow that to inspired persons which he confidently believes of himself viz. that he can write a Book full of sense and that any ordinary capacity may apprehend the design of it our controversie is at an end for then matters of faith may be intelligibly and certainly conveyed to posterity by the Books of Scripture and if so there will be no need of any recourse to oral tradition 5. If the Books of Scripture did not certainly intelligibly convey all matters of faith what made them be received with so much veneration in the first ages of the Christian Church which were best able to judg of the truth of the matters contained in them and the usefulness of the Books themselves And therein we still find that appeals were made to them that they thought themselves concerned to vindicate them against all objections of Heathens and others and the resolution of faith was made into them and not tradition as I have already manifested and must not repeat 6. Whether it be in the least credible since the Books of Scripture were supposed to contain the doctrines of faith that every age of the Church should look on it self as obliged absolutely to believe the doctrine of the precedent by virtue of an oral-tradition For since they resolved their faith into the written Books how is it possible they should believe on the account of an oral tradition Although then the Apostles did deliver the doctrine of Christ to all their Disciples yet since the records of it were embraced in the Church men judged of the truth or falsehood of doctrines by the conveniency or repugnancy of them to what was contained in those Books By which we understand that the obligation to believe what was taught by the precedent age did not arise from the oral tradition of it but by the satisfaction of the present age that the doctrine delivered by it was the same with that contained in Scripture It is time now to return to Mr. S. who proceeds still to manifest this obligation in posterity to believe what was delivered as matter of faith by the precedent age of the Church but the force of all is the same still viz. that otherwise one age must conspire to deceive the next But the inconsequence of that I have fully shewed already unless he demonstrates it impossible for errors to come in any other way For if we reduce the substance of
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
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
sense of such and such passages then we may reasonably rest satisfied in evidence for these matters short of Demonstration For was ever the sense of any words so plain as that there did not remain this ground of suspence that those words might be capable of another sense Mr. Rushworth says That disputative Scholars do find means daily to explicate the plainest words of an Authour to a quitc different sense And that the World might be furnish't with an advantagious instance of the possibility of this Raynaudus a Writer of their own hath made a wanton experiment upon the Apostles Creed and by a sinister but possible interpretation hath made every Article of it Heresie and Blasphemy on purpose to shew that the plainest words are not free from ambiguity But may be Mr. S. can out-do the Apostles and can deliver the Christian Doctrine so clearly that he can demonstrate it impossible for any man to put any other sense upon any of his words than that which he intended I do not know what may be done but if Mr. S. doth this he must both mend his style and his way of Demonstration Is Mr. S. sufficiently assured that there is such a part of the World as America and can he demonstrate this to any man without carrying him thither Can he shew by any necessary Argument that it is naturally impossible that all the Relations concerning that place should be false When his Demonstrations have done their utmost cannot a searching and sincere Wit at least maintain his ground of suspence with A Might it not be otherwise and with an Is it not possible that all men may be Lyars or that a company of Travellers may have made use of their Priviledg to abuse the World by false Reports and to put a Trick upon Mankind or that all those that pretend to go thither and bring their Commodities from thence may go to some other Parts of the World and taking pleasure in abusing others in the same manner as they have been imposed upon themselves may say they have been at America Who can tell but all this may be so and yet I suppose notwithstanding the possibility of this no man in his Wits is now possessed with so incredible a folly as to doubt whether there be such a place The case is the very same as to the certainty of an ancient Book and of the sense of plain expressions We have no demonstration for these things and we expect none because we know the things are not capable of it We are not infallibly certain that any Book is so ancient as it pretends to be or that it was written by him whose name it bears or that this is the sense of such and such passages in it it is possible all this may be otherwise that is it implies no contradiction But we are very well assured that it is not nor hath any prudent man any just cause to make the least doubt of it For a bare possibility that a thing may be or not be is no just cause of doubting whether a thing be or not It is possible all the people in France may dye this night but I hope the possibility of this doth not encline any man in the least to think it will be so It is possible the Sun may not rise to morrow morning and yet for all this I suppose that no man hath the least doubt but that it will § 3. But because this Principle viz. That in matters of Religion a man cannot be reasonably satisfy'd with any thing less than that infallible assurance which is wrought by Demonstration is the main Pillar of Mr. S's Book therefore beside what hath been already said to shew the unreasonableness of this Principle I shall take a little pains to manifest to him how much he is contradicted in this by the chief of his Brethren of the Tradition viz. Mr. Rushworth Dr. Holden Mr. Cressy and Mr. White who besides Mr. S. and one I. B. are so far as I can learn all the publick Patrons that ever this Hypothesis of Oral Tradition hath had in the World and if Mr. White as I have reason to believe was the Authour of those Dialogues which pass under Rushworth's name the number of them is yet less Now if I can shew that this Principle esteem'd by Mr. S. so fundamental to this Hypothesis is plainly contradicted by the principal Assertors of Oral Tradstion I shall hereby gain one of these two things either that these great Patrons of Oral Tradition were ignorant of the true foundation of their own Hythesis or that this Principle is not necessary for the support of it Not that I would be so understood as if I did deny that these very Persons do sometimes speak very big words of the necessity of Infallibility But if it be their pleasure to contradict themselves as I have no reason to be displeased so neither to be concerned for it but shall leave it to Mr. S. to reconcile them first to themselves and then if he pleases afterwards to himself § 4. I begin with Mr. Rushworth of immortal memory for that noble attempt of his to perswade the World that notwithstanding he was the first Inventer of this Hypothesis of Oral Tradition yet he could prove that the Church had in all Ages owned it and proceeded upon it as her only Rule of Faith He in his third Dialogue when his Nephew objects to him That perhaps a Protestant would say that all his foregoing Discourse was but probability and and likelyhood and therefore to hazard a mans Estate upon Peradventures were something hard and not very rationally done Replies thus to him What security do your Merchants your States-men your Souldiers those that go to Law nay even those that Till your grounds and work for their livings what security I say do all these go upon Is it greater than the security which these grounds afford surely no. And yet no man esteems them foolish All humane Affairs are hazardous and have some adventure in them And therefore who requires evident certainty only in matters of Religion discovers in himself a less mind to the Goods promised in the next life than to these which he seeks here in this World upon weaker assurance Howsoever the greatest evidence that can be to him that is not capable of convincing Demonstrations which the greatest part of Mankind fall short of is but conjectural So that according to Mr. Rushworth it is not reason and discretion but want of love to God and Religion which makes men require greater evidence for matters of Religion than for Humane Affairs which yet he tells us are hazardous and have some adventure in them and consequently are not capable of Demonstration Besides if demonstrative evidence be an essential Property of the Rule of Faith as Mr. S. affirms then this Rule cannot according to Mr. Rushworth be of any use to the greatest part of Mankind because they are not
reasonable to be supposed or no may easily be determined not only from every man 's own experience of the World but from a more advantagious Instance of the experience of the first Age of Christianity Was there ever a more knowing and diligent Teacher of this Doctrine than our Saviour and yet his Disciples fell into many mistakes concerning it So that in order to the certain propagating of it the wisdom of God thought it requisite to endue even those who had learned this Doctrine from himself with an infallible spirit by which they might be led into all Truth and secured from error and mistake which had been unnecessary had it been impossible for them to mistake this Doctrine The Apostles who taught the World by an infallible Spirit and with infinitely more advantage than ordinary Parents can teach their Children yet in all the Churches which they planted they found Christians very apt to mistake and pervert their Doctrine as appears by their frequent complaints in most of their Epistles Nay the Apostle chargeth the Generality of the Hebrews with such a degree of dulness and stupidity that after fitting time and means of instruction they were still ignorant of the very Principles of Christianity So he tells them That when for the time they ought to be Teachers of others they had need that one should teach them again which be the first Principles of the Oracles of God And St. Hierom tells us That the Primitive Churches were tainted with many gross Errors whil'st the Apostles were alive and the blood of Christ yet warm in Judea But it may be there have been better Teachers since and Children are more apt to learn now than Men were then Who knows how the World may be changed § 2. Secondly This Demonstration supposeth the hopes and fears which Christian Religion applies to Mens minds to be certain and necessary causes of actual will in Men to adhere to the Doctrine of Christ and consequently that they must necessarily adhere to it That he supposeth them to be necessary I have his own word for it for he tells us That he hath endeavoured to demonstrate the indefectibleness of Tradition as the proper and necessary effect of those causes which preserve and continue Tradition on foot and what those causes are he told us before That they are Hopes and Fears strongly applied But I hope that the indefectibleness of Tradition cannot be a necessary effect of the strong application of those Hopes and Fears unless those Hopes and Fears be a necessary cause of that effect And indeed this is sufficiently implied in his saying that they are the causes of actual will in Christians to adhere to Tradition For if these causes of actual will be constant as he must suppose then they are certain and necessary and infallible causes of adhering to this Doctrine For whatever is in act is necessary while it is so and if it be constantly in act the effect is always necessary But what a wild Supposition is this That Moral Motives and Arguments working upon a free Principle the Will of Man do necessarily produce their Effect Is it necessary that the hopes of Heaven and the fears of Hell should keep Christians constant to the Doctrine of Christ and is it not as necessary that these arguments should prevail upon them to the practice of it It is in vain to go about to demonstrate that all men must be good who have sufficient arguments propounded to them when experience tells us the contrary Nay it is in reason impossible that Moral arguments should be of a necessary and infallible efficacy because they are always propounded to a free Agent who may choose whether he will yield to them or not Indeed it is always reasonable that men should yield to them and if they be reasonable they will but so long as they are free it can never be infallibly certain that they will And if men be not free it is no vertue at all in them to be wrought upon by these arguments For what vertue can it be in any man to entertain the Christian doctrine and adhere to it and live accordingly if he does all this necessarily that is whether he will or no and can no more choose whether he will do so or not than whether he will see the light when the Sun shines upon his open eyes or whether he will hear a sound when all the Bells in the Town are Ringing in his ears or to use Mr. S's own similitudes whether he will feel heat cold pain pleasure or any other material quality that affects his senses We see then how unreasonable his Suppositions are and yet without these Grounds his Demonstration falls For if it be possible that Christians may mistake or forget the Doctrine of Christ or any part of it or be defective in diligence to instruct others in it or if it be possible that the Will of man which is free may not be necessarily and infallibly swayed by the arguments of hope and fear then it is possible that Tradition may fail And is not this a good Demonstration which supports it self upon such Principles as do directly affront the constant experience and the clearest reason of Mankind § 3. And here I cannot but take notice how inconsistent he is to himself in laying the Grounds of Tradition's certainty In one Part of his Book he tells us That Tradition hath for its Basis the best Nature in the Vniverse that is Mans Not according to his Moral part defectible by reason of Original Corruption nor yet his Intellectuals darkly groping in the pursuit of Science c. But according to those Faculties in him perfectly and necessarily subject to the operations and strokes of Nature that is his Eyes Ears Handling and the direct impressions of knowledg as naturally and necessarily issuing from the affecting those senses as it is to feel heat cold pain pleasure or any other material quality So that according to this Discourse the Basis of Tradition is not Mans Nature considered as Moral and capable of Intellectual Reflection for in this consideration it is dark and defectible But Mans Nature considered only as capable of direct sensitive knowledg and as acting naturally and necessarily Which is to say That Tradition is foundded in the Nature of Man considered not as a Man but a Brute under which consideration I see no reason why he should call it the best Nature in the Vniverse But now how will he reconcile this Discourse with the Grounds of his Demonstration where he tells us That the stability of Tradition is founded in the Arguments of Hope and Fear the Objects of which being future and at a distance cannot work upon a man immediately by direct Impressions upon his senses but must work upon him by way of Intellectual Reflection and Consideration For I hope he will not deny but that the Arguments of Hope and Fear work upon man according to his
small Sum have hired the Governors of the Church to have renounced Tradition or to have ceased to propagate it though they had known that in so doing they should have damned all their Posterity He goes on and tells us That if there were perhaps any one who did not take these courses the rest would all snarle at him call him Fool and say he was unfit to be a Priest So that the study of the Scriptures together with the Professors of it was turned into laughter and scorn by all but which is prodigious especially by the Popes who prefer their own Traditions many degrees before the Commands of God I desire Mr. S. to take notice in what kind of Times Tradition was set up against Scripture Again speaking of the choice of persons to be Priests he tells us That there was no enquiry made into their Lives no question about their Manners As for their Learning says he what need I speak of that When we see the Priests almost universally have much ado to read though but in an haesitating and spelling fashion drawing out one syllable after another without understanding either the sense of what they read or the words I am now reconciled to oral Tradition and convinced that there was great need of it in those Ages in which scarce any of the Priests could either write or read I omit the particulars of what he says concerning the common Drunkenness and Incontinency of Priests who because they made Conscience of Marriage kept Whores in their Houses concerning the dissolute Lives of Monks and concerning Nunneries which instead of being the Sanctuaries of God were he abominable Stews of Venus and the Receptacles of lascivious young men insomuch says he that at this day it is the same thing to put a Virgin into a Nunnery and to make her a common Strumpet And to shew that he does not speak these things of a few but with relation to the general corruption of that Age he adds That wickedness did so abound in all Orders of men that scarce one among a thousand was to be found who did truly live up to his Profession And if there was any one that did not follow these lewd courses he became ridiculous to others and was branded either as an insolent singular Mad-man or an Hypocrite I wil conclude this long Testimony with the character which he gives of one of the Popes of his time Clement by name viz. That he did chiefly apply himself to gratifie and oblige all the Parasites and Buffoons that had any interest in the several Courts of Princes And to this end did confer upon these and upon handsom young Boys which he much delighted in almost all the vacant Bishopricks and most of the other Church-Dâ—â—â—nities It is well that oral Tradition hath the security of Infallibility otherwise it had in all probability been lost among this lewd sort of People which yet they gravely call the Holy Roman-Catholick Church § 6. To this effect I might have produced Testimonies concerning every Age from the Ninth to the Sixteenth but Mr. Cressy hath saved me that labour who acknowledges that these worst times of the Church when Ignorance Wordliness Pride Tyranny c. reigned with so much scope When the Popes so wicked so abominable in their Lives enjoyed so unlimited a power even over secular Princes themselves and much more over the Clergy I say he acknowledges that these worst times continued during the space of about six Ages before Luther A competent time one would think for Tradition to have miscarried in were it not as Mr. S. says indefectible Mr. Cressy indeed tells us That this was to him an irrefragable Testimony of a strange watchfulness of Divine Providence over the Church to preserve it from the Gates of Hell that is established and dangerous Errors during these worst times And very likely it is that this might appear so to such a Catholick whose judgment he tells us it is to renounce his own judgment but it will never appear irrefragable to any man that hath his judgment about him unless Mr. Cressy can prove that by that phrase viz. the Gates of Hell the Scripture does not mean gross wickedness of Life as well as dangerous errors in Opinion and likewise that a general viciousness and debauchery of Manners is not as pernicious to Christianity and as destructive to the end of it as establish'd Errors in Doctrine And if so that the Providence of God is not equally concerned to preserve the Church from things equally pernicious When he hath proved these three things then this Declamatory discourse of his may signify something but not before § 7. Now if this be a true representation of the state of the Roman Church in those Ages was not this a very fit time for the Devil to play his Pranks in Will any man that reads these Testimonies think it impossible that the Doctrine of Christ should have been depraved in this Age or that the most sensless and absurd Tenets might then be brought in under the notion of Christian Doctrines When scarce any one knew what the Doctrine of Christ was When a general ignorance of Letters and almost an universal stupidity and madness had seized upon the minds of men When there was a horrid depravation of manners and a general failure of Vertue and Piety both in the Head and Members of the Church When the lives of the Popes were Tragically wicked and no footsteps of Piety appeared in them When for about 150 years together in a continued succession of 50 Popes there was scarce one pious and vertuous Man or Woman sate in that Chair When the Whores governed Rome and put out and put in Bishops at their pleasure and made their own Gallants Popes who would be sure to make a Colledge of Cardinals of such Monsters as themselves When pretty Boys and Parasites and Buffoons led the Head of the Church by the Nose and were gratified with the best Bishopricks and Dignities in the Church When there was a general decay of knowledg and defection of the Christian Faith When in many Countreys neither Sacraments nor other Ecclesiastical Rites were observed When Violence and Fraud and all the Arts of Deceit and Couzenage and blacker Arts than these were the common study and practice When Intemperance and all kind of Lewdness and Debauchery reigned in all sorts and orders of men When the generality of Bishops and Priests who according to Mr. Rushworth can only teach the Traditionary Doctrine were ignorant in the Scriptures and in every thing else very few of them being able so much as to read tolerably and did neglect to teach the People and to breed up any in knowledg to succeed them in their Office and in the lewdness of their lives did surpass the vilest of the People Was not such an Age a fit season to plant the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in Or if any thing more monstrous than
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
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
Discourse in which he pretends to open the incomparable strength of the Churches humane Authority and the Advantages which accrue to it by the supernatural assistances of the Holy Ghost But that there is nothing material in it which hath not been answered already Only I desire him to explain how the supernatural Assistances of the Holy Ghost can according to his Principles add to our assurance of the certainty of Tradition Because we can have no greater certainty of the supernatural Assistance of the Holy Ghost than we have that there is an Holy Ghost and of this we can have no certainty according to Mr. S. but by Tradition which conveys this Doctrine to us And if Tradition of it self can infallibly assure us that there are supernatural Assistances of the Holy Ghost then a man must know that Tradition is infallible antecedently to his knowledg of any supernatural Assistance And if so what can any supernatural Assistance add to my assurance of the certainty of Tradition which I do suppose to be infallible before I can know of any supernatural Assistance Can any thing be more ludicrous than to build first all our certainty of the Assistance of the Holy Ghost upon the certainty of Tradition and then afterwards to make the certainty of Tradition to rely upon the Assistance of the Holy Ghost As if that could contribute to our assurance of the certainty of Tradition which unless Tradition be first supposed certain is it self wholly uncertain § 2. The Conclusion of this Ninth Discourse is somewhat Extatical possibly from a sudden disorder of his fancy upon the contemplation of his own performances to see what a Man he has made himself with the help of Rushworth's Dialogues or rather what his Party has made him by the Office they put upon him For it seems by his telling Mr. Cressy and the rest are ordained to cajoll the Fools leaving him the way of Reason and Principles and that himself is chosen out to Demonstrate to the Wise or those who judg of things per altissimas causas In the discharge of which glorious Office he declares that he intends no Confutation of those Authors which Mr. Cressy and others have medled with Yet if any will be so charitable as to judg he hath solidly confuted them because he hath radically and fundamentally overthrown all their Arguments c. he shall rejoyce and be thankful That the intelligent Reader for he writes to none but such may also rejoyce with him I shall recite the whole passage for it is thick of Demostration and as likely as any in his Book to have the altissimas causas contained in it § 3. It would require a large Volume to unfold particularly how each virtue contributes to shew the inerrable indeficiency of Tradition and how the Principles of almost each Science are concerned in demonstrating its Certainty Arithmetick lends her Numbring and Multiplying Faculty to scan the vast Number of Testifiers Geometry her Proportions to shew a kind of infinite strength of Certitude in Christian Tradition above those Atté stations which breed Certainty in humane Affairs Logick her skill to frame and make us see the connexions it has with the Principles of our Vnderstanding Nature her Laws of Motion and Action Morality her first Principle that nothing is done gratis by a cognoscitive Nature and that the Body of Traditionary Doctrine is most conformable to Practical Reason Historical Prudence clears the Impossibility of an undiscernable revolt from Points so descended and held so Sacred Politicks shew this to be the best way imaginable to convey down such a Law as it concerns every man to be skilful in Metaphysicks engages the Essences of Things and the very notion of Being which fixes every Truth so establishing the scientifical Knowledges which spring from each particular Nature by their first Causes or Reasons exempt from change or motion Divinity demonstrates it most worthy God and most conducive to bring Mankind to Bliss Lastly Controversie evidences the total uncertainty of any thing concerning Faith if this can be uncertain and makes use of all the rest to establish the Certainty of this First Principle A very fit conclusion for such Demonstrations as went before It is well Mr. S. writes to none but intelligent Readers for were it not a thousand pities that so manly and solid and convincing a discourse as this should be cast away upon fools SECT XII § 1. AS for his Corollaries supposing them to be rightly deduced from his former Discourses they must of necessity fall with them For they signifie nothing but upon this supposition that his fore-going Discourses are true And yet this being granted it were easie to shew that most of them are grosly faulty For First Several of them are plainly coincident The second viz. None can with right pretend to be a Church but the followers of Tradition is the very same in sense with the 11 th viz No company of men hang together like a Body of a Christian Commonwealth or Church but that which adheres to Tradition So likewise the 12 th and 14 th are contained in the 15 th The 16 th and 17 th in the 19 th The 16 th 17 18 th and 19 th in the 21 st And the 32 d and 34 th in the 31 st Secondly Divers of them are manifestly absurd as the 12 th 13 th 14 th 16 th 17 th 18 th 19 th the sum of which is That there is no arguing against Tradition from Scripture or the Authority of the Church or Fathers and Councils or from History and Testimonial Writings or from contrary Tradition or Reason or any Instances whatsoever which is as much as to say If this Proposition be true That Tradition is certain then it cannot by any kind of Argument be proved to be false But is this any peculiar Consectary from the truth of this Proposition Doth not the same follow from every Proposition That if it be true it cannot be proved to be false yet no man was ever yet so frivolous as to draw such a consequence from the supposed truth of any Proposition His 23 d also is singularly absurd That there is no possibility of arguing at all against Tradition rightly understood or the living voyce of the Catholick Church with any shew of Reason These are large words It might have contented a reasonable man to have said that no good Argument could be brought against it But he is jealous of his Hypothesis and can never think it safe till it be shot-free nor will that content him but it must be also impossible for any one to make a shew of shooting at it This were I confess a peculiar priviledg of Mr. S's Discourses above other mens if they were as he says by evidence of Demonstration so secured that not only no substantial Argument could be brought against them but that even the most subtile Schoolman of them all should not be able to come near
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
to faith to arise from any thing but divine revelation and I do not yet believe any thing in Christian doctrine to be divinely revealed but what was delivered by Christ or his Apostles And my wonderment must needs be the greater because I suppose this inconsistent with Mr. S's principles For oral tradition doth necessarily imply that all points of faith were first taught by Christ and conveyed by tradition to us but if a thing may be de fide in this latter sense which was not before what becomes of resolving faith wholly into oral tradition For faith is resolved into that from whence the obligation to believe comes but here Mr. S. confesses that the obligation to believe doth arise from something quite different from oral tradition and therefore faith must be resolved into it Besides all the sense I can find in that distinction is that men are bound to believe something in one age which they were not in another and if so I shall desire Mr. S. to unperplex me in this how every age is bound to believe just as the precedent did and yet one age be bound to believe more than the precedent But however I am much obliged to him for his endeavour to unperplex me as he speaks for really I look on no civilities to be greater than those which are designed for clearing our understandings so great an adorer am I of true reason and an intelligible Religion And therefore I perfectly agree with him in his saying that Christianity aims not to make us beasts but more perfectly men and the perfection of our manhood consists in the use of our reasons From whence he infers that it is reasonable consequences should be drawn from principles of faith which he saith are of two sorts first such as need no more but common sense to deduce them the others are such as need the maxims of some science got by speculation to infer them and these are Theological conclusions The former sort he tell us the Church is necessitated to make use of upon occasion i. e. when any Heretick questions those and eadem opera the whole point of faith it self of which they were a part as in the case of the Monothelites about Christs having two wills But all this while I am far enough from being unperplexed nay by this discourse I see every one who offers to unperplex another is not very clear himself For since he makes no Theological conclusions to be de fide but only such consequences as common sence draws I would willingly understand how common sence receives a new obligation to faith For to my apprehension the deducing of consequences from principles by common sense is not an act of believing but of knowledg consequent upon a principle of faith And the meaning is no more than this that men when they say they believe things should not contradict themselves as certainly they would do if they deny those consequences which common sense draws from them As in the case of the Monothelites for men to assert that Christ had two natures and yet not two wills when the will is nothing else but the inclination of the nature to that good which belongs to it So that there can be no distinct obligation to believe such consequences as are drawn by common sense but every one that believes the principles from whence they are drawn is thereby bound to believe all the consequences which immediately follow from them Indeed the Church when people will be so unreasonable to deny such things may explain her sense of the article of faith in those terms which may best prevent dispute but this is only to discriminate the persons who truly believe this article from such as do not Not that any new obligation to faith results from this act of the Church but the better to prevent cavils she explains her sense of the article it self in more explicite terms Which as he saith is only to put the faith out of danger of being equivocated Which is quite another thing from causing a new obligation to believe As suppose the Church to prevent the growth of the Socinian doctrine should require from men the declaring their belief of the eternal existence of the Son of God Would this be to bind men to believe some thing which they were not bound to before No but only to express their assent to the Deity of Christ in the simplest terms because otherwise they might call him God by office and not by nature Now how can any one conceive that any should be first obliged to believe that Christ is God and yet receive a new obligation afterwards to believe his eternal existence Thus it is in all immediate consequences drawn by common sense in all which the primary obligation to believe the thing it self extends to the belief of it in the most clear and least controverted terms which are not intended to impose on mens faith but to promote the Churches peace For neither is there a new object of faith for how can that be which common sense draws from what is believed already neither is there any infallible proponent unless common sense hath usurped the Popes prerogative But Mr. S. offers at a reason for this which is that none can have an obligation to believe what they have not an obligation to think of and in some age the generality of the faithful have no occasion nor consequently obligation to mind reflect or think on those propositions involved in the main stock of faith From whence he saith it follows that a thing may be de fide or obligatory to be believed in one age and not in another But let Mr. S. shew how a man can be obliged to believe any thing as an article of faith who is not bound to think of all the immediate consequences of it Because faith is an act of a reasonable nature which ought to enquire into the reasons and consequences of things which it doth believe But Mr. S's mistake lies here in not distinguishing the obligation to believe from the obligation to an explicite declaration of that assent The former comes only from God and no new obligation can arise from any act of the Church but the latter being a thing tending to the Churches peace may be required by it on some occasions i. e. when the doctrine is assaulted by Hereticks as in the time of the four first General Councils but still a man is not at all the more obliged to assent but to express his assent in order to the Churches satisfaction But Mr. S. supposes me to enquire how the Church can have power to oblige the generality to belief of such a point To which his answer is she obliges them to believe the main point of faith by virtue of traditions being a self-evident rule and these implied points by virtue of their being self-evidently connected with those main and perpetually used points so that the vulgar can be rationally and connaturally
and all the Papists of forreign Countreys do as faithful agree with Mr. White in this It seems not so by the proceedings in the Court of Rome against him in which as appears by the censure of the Inquisition against him dated 17. November 1661. his doctrine is condemned not only as false seditious and scandalous but as heretical and erroneous in faith And if it were not for this very doctrine he was there censured why doth Mr. White set himself purposely to defend it in his Tabulae suffragiales If these then do agree as faithful who cannot but envy the excellent harmony of the Roman Church in which men condemn each other for hereticks and yet all believe the same things still Well Sir I am in hopes upon the same grounds Mr. S. will yield us the same charity too and tell us that we agree with him as faithful only we differ a little from him as discoursers for I assure you there is as great reason the only difference is we give them not such ill words as they do each other For let Mr. S. shew us wherein we differ more from him about the Rule of Faith than they do among themselves For Mr. White when he hath said that all kind of heresie doth arise from hence that men make the holy Scripture or a private spirit the rule of faith he presently adds it is all one if one make Councils or Pope any other way than as witnesses to be the authors of faith For saith he this is to subject the whole Church to that slavery to receive any errour for an article of faith which they shall define or propose modo illegitimo i. e. any other way then as witnesses of tradition Either then we differ from Mr. S. only as discoursers or he and his Brethren differ from each other more then as such And so any one would think who reads the oppositions and arguments against each other on this subject particularly Mr. Whites Tabulae suffragiales But let Mr. White say what he will Mr. S. tells me I am not aware how little they differ even as Divines The more shame for them to have such furious heats and oppositions where there is so little difference But as little as they differ Mr. White thinks it safer to talk of their unity in England than to try whether they be of his mind at Rome by going thither to clear himself for he justly fears he should find them differ from him some other way than as bare discoursers Yet let us hear Mr. S's reason for saith he though some speculators attribute to the Church a power of defining things not held before yet few will say she hath new revelations or new articles of faith But we know the temper of these men better than to rely on what they barely say For they say what they think is most for their purpose and one of Mr. White 's adversaries if himself may be credited plainly told him if the doctrine of the Popes infallibility were not true yet it ought to be defended because it was for the interest of the Church of Rome for which he is sufficiently rebuked by him It is one thing then what they say and another what necessarily follows from the Doctrine which they assert But for plain dealing commend me to the Canonists who say expresly the Church by which they mean the Pope may make new articles of faith and this is the sense of the rest though they are loth to speak out Else Mr. White was much too blame in spending so much time in proving the contrary But what man of common sense can imagine that these men can mean otherwise who assert such an infallibility in Pope and Councils as to oblige men under pain of eternal damnation to believe those things which they were not obliged to before such a definition And what can this be else but to make new articles of faith For an article of faith supposes a necessary obligation to believe it now if some doctrine may become thus obligatory by virtue of the Churches definition which was not so before that becomes thereby an article of faith which it was not before But these subtil men have not yet learnt to distinguish a new doctrine from a new article of faith they do not indeed pretend that their doctrine is new because they deny any such thing as new revelation in the Church but yet they must needs say if they understand themselves that old implicit doctrines may become new articles of faith by vertue of the Churches definition So little are they relieved by that silly distinction of explicit and implicit delivery of them which Mr. S. for a great novelty accquaints us with For what is only implicitly delivered is no article of faith at all for that can be no article of faith which men are not bound to believe now there are none will say that men are bound to believe under pain of damnation if they do not the things which are only implicitly delivered but this they say with great confidence of all things defined by the Church And let now any intelligent person judg whether those who assert such things do not differ wide enough from those who resolve all into oral tradition and make the obligation to faith wholly dependent upon the constant tradition of any doctrine from age to age ever since the Apostles times But Mr. S. is yet further displeased with me for saying that Pope and Councils challenge a power to make things de fide in one age which were not in another For 1. he sayes I speak it in common and prove it not 2. He adds That take them right this is both perfectly innocent and unavoidably necessary to a Church And is it not strange he should expect any particular proofs of so innocent and necessary a thing to the being of a Church But he will tell me it is in his own sense of de fide which I have already shewn to signifie nothing to his purpose Let him therefore speak out whether he doth believe any such thing as inherent infallibility in the definitions of Pope and Councils if not I am sure at Rome they will never believe that Mr. S. agrees with them as faithful if he doth whether doth not such an infallible definition bind men by vertue of it to the belief of what is then defined if it doth then things may become as much de fide by it as if they were delivered dy Christ or his Apostles For thereby is supposed an equal obligation to faith because there is a proposition equally infallible But will he say the Pope doth not challenge this Why then is the contrary doctrine censured and condemned at Rome Why is the other so eagerly contended for by the most zealous sons of that Church and that not as a school-opinion but as the only certain foundation of faith Mr. S. is yet pleased to inform me further that nothing will avail me
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
Doctrine of Christ but what is descended to them by Tradition How shall this Principle secure the Church from Heresy any more than this viz. That nothing but Truth is to be assented to doth secure men from Error Or more than this viz. That no man is to do any thing but what is wise and vertuous does secure the generality of mankind from folly and vice SECT VIII § 1. SEcondly The Principles upon which this Demonstration relies are not sufficiently proved by him His first Principle is this That Age which holds her Faith delivered thus from the Apostles neither can it self have changed any thing in it nor know or doubt that any Age since the Apostles had changed or innovated any thing therein This Proposition he tells us needs no proof to evidence it but only an Explication For since no man can hold contrary to his knowledg or doubt of what he holds nor change or innovate in the case proposed without knowing he did so 't is a manifest impossibility a whole Age should fall into an absurdity so inconsistent with the nature of one single man But by his favour that which he says is no proof but only an Explication is a proof if it be any thing and the force of it this That which is inconsistent with the nature if one single man is manifestly impossible to a whole Age but it is inconsistent with the nature of any single man to hold contrary to his knowledg c. therefore impossible to a whole Age and consequently that Age which holds her Faith delivered thus from the Apostles neither can it self have changed any thing nor c. So that in order to the making good of this first Principle Mr. S. hath left nothing unproved but only this Proposition namely That it is impossible that any one single man that holds his Faith to have been delivered uninterruptedly from the Apostles should either himself have changed any thing in it or know or doubt that any Age since the Apostles hath changed or innovated any thing therein And to make out the truth of this Proposition there only remains this to be proved viz. That it is impossible for any single man to be mistaken For if that be possible then contrary to Mr. S. a man may hold that to have been delivered as a Doctrine of Faith from the Apostles which was not so delivered § 2. His second Principle is this That no Age could innovate any thing and withall deliver that very thing to posterity as received from Christ by continual Succession He proves it thus Since man is a rational Creature he must have some Reason or Motive good or bad which he proposeth to himself as an end to be achieved by his action And whatever his remote end is his immediate end in telling posterity a late invented thing was held immdiately before is to make them belive it Wherefore since a seen impossibility cannot be a Motive to one not frantick and since 't is evidently impossiible they should make posterity believe a thing so universally known to be false as this must needs be c. it is as impossiible this Principle should faulter as that the fore-going Age should conspire to act without a motive or that the succeeding Age should believe what they know to be otherwise that is should hold both sides of a Contradiction in a clear matter of Fact The force of which is this That it is impossible that any man not frantick should attempt to innovate in matter of Christian Doctrine because the immediate end of such an attempt must be to have his new Doctrine believed but it is impossible he should attain this end and impossible he should not see that it is impossible to attain it Now a seen impossibility is an end that cannot move any one that is not frantick therefore no man that is not frantick can attempt to innovate in matter of Christian Doctrine Thus he hath demonstrated it impossible that there should be any Hereticks if a Heretick be one that attempts to innovate in matter of Christian Doctrine For if there be any such attmpters they must be frantick and if they be frantick they can be no Hereticks for Heresie implies a Crime but God will not impute the actions of mad men to them as faults Again suppose he that attempts to innovate be mistaken and I hope Mr. S. will grant that a Heretick is fallible and think that which he delivers as Christs Doctrine to be really so though indeed it be not why should such a person think it impossible to make men believe that to be received from Christ which he really thinks was received and thinks he can makes it appear that it was so And if this be granted then it is not impossible that Man though he be a rational Creature may attempt to innovate And if so then his second Principle is not proved If Mr. S. had any regard to the noble Science of Controversie whereof he pretends to be so great a Master he would not bring such trifling Sophisms instead of demonstrative Proofs And nothing less than a demonstrative Proof will serve to establish any Principle upon which a Demonstration is to be built SECT IX § 1. DOctrines and Practises which must be acknowledged to have been innovated have made the same pretence to uninterrupted Tradition And of this I shall give several Instances one among the Jews the rest among Christians 1. I shall instance among the Traditionary Jews whose perswasion in our Saviours time was and still is that their Oral Doctrine which they call their Câ—bala hath descended to them from Moses uninterruptedly Now here is the existence of such a perswasion as Mr. S. affirms to be impossible without Traditions ever-indeficiency to beget it And this perswasion of theirs is most exactly parallel with the pretensions of the Romish Church according to Mr. S. For here 's a multitude of Traditionary Jews manifoldly greater in proportion to the Dissenters in that Church than the Romish Church is in comparison to those Christians that dissent from Her Josephus tells us That the richer sort were of the perswasion of the Sadduces but the multitude were on the Pharisees side So that the Pharisees had this mark of the true Church as Bellarmine calls it common to them with the Church of Rome that they were the greatest number and so they continue to this very day insomuch that although they do not call themselves the Catholicks yet I am sure they call all Jews that do dissent from them Schismaticks Now that the Sadduces were for the written Law against Oral Tradition is I confess no credit to us but that our Saviour reproved the Traditionary Doctrines and Practises of the Pharisees because by them they made void the written Law is much more to the discredit of the Assertors of Oral Tradition Both Romanists and Pharisees they own alike a written Doctrine but then they both pretend the true