a guide appointed for any Christian which neither Christ nor his Apostles nor any of their Followers ever mentioned yea which formally destroys one of our twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed viz. I believe the Holy Catholick Church Thus he does by Reason clearly and infallibly evince that Reason cannot be otherwise than a most blind and fallible guide This it is to talk of things when a man looks only upon one side of them as if because Reason has a blind side and is uncertain in some things therefore we ought to conclude her universally blind and uncertain in every thing and as if because all men cannot think all things reasonable which any one man thinks to be so therefore it is to be doubted whether those common Principles of Reason be true which Mankind are generally agreed in And that Mr. Cressy speaks here of the use of our private Reason in the finding out of our Rule is clear from what he says in the next Section viz. That this hood-wink't guide enquiring into Scripture and searching after Tradition may possibly stumble upon the way to Vnity and Truth that is the true Catholick Church If this be true why does Mr. S. pretend that he can by Reason demonstrate the Infallibility of Tradition and by this hood-wink't guide lead men to the true Rule of Faith And what a pitiful encouragement would this be to an inquisitive Philosopher who knowing no other guide but his Reason whereby to find out whether Scripture or Tradition be the true Rule to tell him that by the help of this hood-wink't guide he might possibly stumble upon the right A man may justly stand amazed at the inconsistency of these mens Discourses and Principles In one mood they are all for Demonstration and for convincing men in the way of perfect Science which is the true Rule of Faith But then again when another fit takes them there 's no such thing as Science humane Reason grows all on the sudden dim-sighted and at the next word is struck stark blind and then the very utmost that it can do towards the bringing of an unprejudiced and inquisitive person to the true Rule of Faith is to leave him in a possibility of stumbling upon it but if he be a Heretick that makes use of private Reason for his guide then it is impossible but that he with his blind guide should fall into the Pit I cannot for my part imagine how they can reconcile the blindness of humane Reason with all that noise which they make about Science and Demonstration but this I must confess that these kind of Discourses which I meet with in Mr. S. and Mr. Cressy are very proper Arguments to perswade a man of the blindness of humane Reason And indeed there is one passage in Mr. Cressy which gives me very great satisfaction concerning these matters where he tells us That the Wit and Judgment of Catholicks is to renounce their own Judgment and depose their own Wit Now he that professes to have done this may write Contradictions and no body ought to challenge him for it However it is a very ingenuous acknowledgment that when he forsook our Church and turned Papist he laid aside his Judgment and Wit which is just such an heroick act of Judgment as if a man in a bravery to shew his liberty should sell himself for a slave I am glad to understand from an experienced Person what charges a man must be at when he turns Roman-Catholique namely that whoever will embrace that Religion must forfeit his Reason § 3. Secondly The way of Demonstration is according to Mr. S. no certain way to find out the Rule of Faith In his 4th Appendix against my Lord of Down one of the Eight Mines as he calls them which he lays to blow up my Lords Dissuasive against Popery is this That the method he takes in dissuading cannot be held in reason to have power to dissuade unless it be proper to that effect that is not common to that effect and a contrary one Now that being most evidently no method or way to such an effect which many follow and take yet arrive not at that effect 't is plain to common sense that my Lord of Down miscalls his Book A Dissuasive and that it can have in it no power of moving the understanding one way or other unless he can first vouch some particularity in the method he takes above what 's in others in which we experience miscarriage c. If this be true then his method of Demonstration is no way to make men certain of what he pretends to demonstrate because that is most evidently no way to an effect which many follow and take yet arrive not at that effect so that 't is plain to common sense that Mr. S's Demonstrations can have in them no power of moving the understanding one way or other unless he can vouch some particularity in the Demonstrations he pretends to bring above what is in other pretended Demonstrations in which we experience miscarriage Do not Thomas and Scotus as Mr. White tells us all along pretend to demonstrate and yet it is generally believed that at least where they contradict one another one of them failed in his Demonstrations Did not Mr. Charles Thynne pretend to have demonstrated that a man at one jump might leap from London to Rome and yet I do not think any one was ever satisfy'd with his Demonstration And Mr. S. knows one in the World whom I will not name because he hath since ingenuously acknowledged his Errour who thought he had demonstrated the Quadrature of the Circle and was so confident of it as to venture the reputation of his Demonstrations in Divinity upon it and some of those Divinity Demonstrations were the very same with Mr. S's Since therefore the World hath experienced so much miscarriage in the way of Demonstration before Mr. S's Demonstrations can be allowed to signifie any thing he must according to his own Law vouch some particularity in his way and method of Demonstration above what is in other mens He hath not any where that I remember told us what that particularity is wherein his way of Demonstration is above other mens Nor can I upon the most diligent search find any peculiar advantage that his Way has more than theirs above mentioned unless this be one that he pretends to demonstrate a self-evident Principle and herein I think he hath plainly the advantage of Mr. Charles Thynne and unless this may be counted another advantage that he has so extraordinary a confidence and conceit of his own Demonstrations and in this particular I must acknowledge that he clearly excels all that have gone before him In all other things his way of Demonstration is but like his neighbours SECT II. § 1. I Come now to examine his Demonstrations of this Self-evident Principle as he often calls it that Oral Tradition is a certain and infallible way of
but by so deep an inspection into the sense of Scripture as shall discover such secrets that Philosophy and human Industry could never have arrived to As if we could not be assured that any thing were written by men divinely inspired unless it were above the reach of human understanding and as if no man could know that this was our Saviours Doctrine Whatever ye would that men should do unto you that do ye likewise unto them because every one can understand it But if there were more mysteries in the Scriptures than there are I hope a man might be satisfied that they were written by men divinely inspired without a clear comprehension of all those mysteries The evidence of the inspiration of any person doth not depend upon the plaineness or sublimity of the things revealed to him but upon the goodness of the arguments which tend to perswade us that the person is so inspired And the Argument that is most fit to satisfy us of that is if he work miracles Now I would gladly know why a learned man cannot be assured of a miracle that is a plain sensible matter of Fact done long ago but by so deep an inspection into the sense of Scripture as shall discover such secrets that Philosophy and human Industry could never have arrived to § 4. Thirdly Because all the seeming contradictions of Scripture must be solved before we can out of the bare letter conclude the Scripture to be of God's enditing to solve which literally plainly and satisfactorily he tells us the memory of so many particulars which made them clearer to those of the Age in which they were written and the matter known must needs be so worn out by tract of time that it is one of the most difficult tasks in the World As if we could not believe a Book to be of God's enditing because there seem now to be some contradictions in it which we have reason to believe could easily have been solved by those who lived in the Age in which it was written Or as if oral Tradition could help a man to solve these contradictions when the memory of particulars necessary for the clear solution of them is as himself confesses worn out by tract of time If Mr. S. can in order to the solution of the seeming contradictions of Scripture demonstrate that oral Tradition hath to this day preserv'd the memory of those particulars necessary for that purpose the memory of which must needs be long since worn out by tract of time then I will readily yield that his Rule of Faith hath in this particular the advantage of ours But if he cannot do this why does he make that an Argument against our Rule which is as strong against his own This is just like Capt. Everard's Friend's way of arguing against the Protestants That they cannot rely upon Scripture because it is full of plain contradictions impossible to be reconciled and therefore they ought in all reason to submit to the infallibility of the Church And for an instance of such a contradiction he pitched upon the three fourteen Generations mentioned in the first of St. Matthew because the third Series of Generations if they be counted will be found to be but thirteen Not to mention now how this difficulty hath been sufficiently satisfied both by Protestant and Popish Commentators without any recourse to oral Tradition that which I take notice of is the unreasonableness of making this an Exception against the Protestants when it comes with every whit as much force upon themselves Suppose this Contradiction not capable of any solution by Protestants as he affirms and I should submit to the infallibility of the Church can he assure me that infallibility can make thirteen fourteen If it cannot how am I nearer satisfaction in this point by acknowledging the infallibility of the Church The case is the very same as to Mr S's Exception if I owned oral Tradition I should be never the nearer solving the seeming contradictions of Scripture and consequently I could not in Reason conclude it to be of God's enditing So that in truth these Exceptions if they were true would not strike at Protestancy but at Christian Religion which is the general unhappiness of most of the Popish Arguments than which there is no greater evidence that the Church of Rome is not the true Mother because she had rather Christianity should be destroyed than it should appear that any other Church hath a claim to it It was a work very proper for the Heretick Marcion to assault Religion this way who as Tertullian tells us writ a whole Book which he call'd Antitheses wherein he reckoned up all the Contradictions as he thought between the Old and New Testament But methinks it is very improper for the Papists who pretend to be the only true Christians in the World to strain their wits to discover as many contradictions as they can in the Scripture and to prove that there is no way of reconciling them The natural consequence of which is the exposing of this sacred Instrument of our Religion and even Christianity it self to the scorn of Atheists Therefore to be very plain with Mr. S. and Captain Everard I am heartily sorry to see that one of the chief fruits of their Conversion is to abuse the Bible § 5. Secondly He says that Protestants cannot know how many the Books of Scripture ought to be and which of the many controverted ones may be securely put in that Catalogue which not This he proves by saying 't is most palpable that few or at least the rude vulgar can never be assured of it And if this be a good Argument this again is a good Answer to say it is not most palpable But I shall deal more liberally and tell him that we know that just so many ought to be received as uncontroverted Books concerning which it cannot be shewn there was ever any Controversy and so many as controverted concerning which it appears that Question hath been made And if those which have been controverted have been since received by those Churches which once doubted of them there is now no further doubt concerning them because the Controversy about them is at an end And now I would fain know what greater certainty oral Tradition can give us of the true Catalogue of the Books of Scripture For it must either acknowledg some Books have been controverted or not if not why doth he make a supposition of controverted Books If oral Tradition acknowledg some to have been controverted then it cannot assure us that they have not been controverted nor consequently that they ought to be received as never having been controverted but only as such concerning which those Churches who did once raise a Controversy about them have been since satisfied that they are Canonical The Traditionary Church now receives the Epistle to the Hebrews as Canonical I ask Do they receive it as ever delivered for such That they must
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
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
its end For if it be not plain and intelligible it cannot convey this Doctrine to our knowledg if it be not certain we cannot be assured that that Doctrine which it brings down to us for the Doctrine of Christ is really such § 3. I know he assigns more Properties of this Means which he calls the Rule of Faith but upon examination it will appear that they either fall in with these two or do not at all belong to it As First That it must be plain and self-evident to all as to its existence Nothing can be more frivolous than to make this a Property of any thing because whosoever enquires into the Properties of a thing is supposed to be already satisfied that the thing is Secondly That it be evidenceable as to its Ruling power that is as he explains himself that men be capable of knowing that it deserves to be relied on as a Rule By which he must either understand the certainty of it and then it falls in with the second Property I mentioned and is the same with the sixth which he lays down Or else he means more generally that it is the property of a Rule that men be capable of knowing that it hath the Properties of a Rule For I understand not how a man can know that any thing deserves to be relied on as a Rule otherwise than by knowing that it hath the properties of a Rule that is that it is sufficient for its end But at this rate a man may multiply the Properties of things without end if the evidence of a thing as to its existence be one Property and then that we be capable of knowing that it is such a thing be another § 4. Thirdly That it be apt to settle and justifie undoubting Persons What he means here by setling undoubting Persons I am not able on the sudden to comprehend because I understand not what unsettles a man besides doubting for if a man be but so well satisfied about any thing as to have no doubt concerning it I do not easily apprehend how he can be setled better that is how his mind can be more at rest than not to doubt But if by undoubting Persons he means those who do not doubt for the present but afterwards may doubt then I perceive what he means by apt to settle undoubting Persons viz. apt to settle Persons when they do doubt that is when they are not undoubting Persons As for justifying undoubting Persons if he means that whosoever securely relies on this Rule ought of right to be acquitted as acting rationally in so doing this is plainly consequent upon the two Properties I have laid down For if the means of conveying Christ's Doctrine be sufficiently plain and certain every man that relies upon it is justified in so doing because he trusts a means which is sufficient for its end § 5. Fourthly That it be apt to satisfie fully the most Sceptical Dissenters and Rational Doubters For it 's aptitude to satisfie Rational Doubters that plainly follows from the sufficient certainty of it But why it should be a necessary property of a Rule of Faith to be apt to satisfie the most Sceptical Dissenter I can no more divine than I can why he should call a Dissenter Sceptical which are repugnant terms For a Sceptick is one who neither assents to any thing nor dissents but is in a perpetual suspence because he looks upon every opinion as balanced by a contrary opinion of equal probability without any inclination of the Scales either way But if by the most Sceptical Dissenter he means only a Sceptick one that doth not believe the Doctrine of Christ nor any thing else then would I fain know what that is which in reason is apt fully to satisfie such a person If any thing will sure a Demonstration will but there is no aptitude at all in a Demonstration to satisfie him who doubts whether there be any such thing as a Demonstration and likewise questions the certainty of all those Principles from whence any conclusion can be demonstrated And those who are most Sceptical profess to doubt of all this § 6. Fifthly That it be apt to convince the most obstinate and acute Adversary If the Rule be plain and certain the most acute Adversary may be convinced by it if he will that is if he be not obstinate but if he be obstinate that is such a one as will not be convinced but will persist in his Error in despite of all evidence that can be offered him then I must profess that I do not know any kind of evidence that is apt to convince that man that will not be convinced by any reason that can be propounded to him And that he ought not to have expected this from any Rule of Faith though never so self-evident he might have learn't from the same Author in whom he may find his chief Properties of the Rule of Faith if he had but had the patience to have consider'd his Explication of them I mean Dr. Holden who layes down the second Property of the Rule of Faith or as he calls it the means whereby we come to the knowledge of Revealed Truth in these words Another viz. Condition of this Means c. is That it be apt of its own Nature to afford the greatest true and rational certainty to all men without exception to whom the knowledg of it shall come provided they be furnish'd with the faculty of Reason and have their minds purified from all Passion and Lust which do as he tells us Cap. 6. often hinder the most sagacious Persons from understanding the most evident and manifest Truths Now I suppose Obstinacy to be the effect of Passion and Lust. If Mr. S. mean that the Rule of Faith must be apt to conquer Obstinacy and make men lay it aside I cannot understand this neither unless he mean that the Rule of Faith must be a Cudgel which the Traditionary Church have been good at and may use it again when occasion serves for none but they have Title to it upon a Church-account as Mr. S. tells us Corol. 10. But setting aside this I do not know any thing else that is apt to conquer Obstinacy Not the clearest Reason or the strongest Demonstration for that I am sure is no ways fitted to combat a wilful and unreasonable humour with any probability of success And if any one doubt of this if he will but make trial he may easily be convinc'd by experience how unapt obstinate Persons are to be convinc'd by Reason I do not know any thing that ever carried greater evidence than the Doctrine of Christ preached by himself and his Apostles to the obstinate Jews and confirmed by multitudes of unquestionable miracles and yet we do not find by the success of it that it was so very apt to convince those that were obstinate And no man can judg of the aptitude of a means to an end
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
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
the truth of the thing I am content therefore wherever in what I have writ he meets that term so applied that he take it only in his own sense for that which is certainly true for I mean no more by it And in this sense Mr. S. answers affirmatively and gives this account of it not only because the present Church cannot be deceived in what the Church of the former age believed but because the Church in no age could conspire against her knowledg to deceive that age immediately following in matter of fact evident in a manner to the whole world The Question then is whether this be a sufficient account for me to believe that to be certainly true or to be the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles which the present Church delivers and consequently whether the resolution of faith be barely into oral tradition Thus we see the clear state of the Question between us I come therefore to the vindication of those things which I had objected against this way of resolving faith into oral tradition Three things I especially insisted on 1. That it is inconsistent with the pretensions of the present Roman Church 2. That it hath not been the way owned in all ages of the Christian Church 3. That it is repugnant to common sense and experience and that the Church of Rome hath apparently altered from what was the belief of former ages If these three be made good there will be no cause to glory in this last invention to support the sinking fabrick of that Church These three then I undertake to defend against what Mr. Serjeant hath objected against them 1. That it is contrary to the pretensions of the present Roman Church And if it be so there can be no reason for those who are of it to rely upon it For if so be that Church pretends that the obligation to faith arises from a quite different ground from this how can they who believe that Church infallible venture their faith upon any other principle than what is publickly owned by her And whosoever thinks himself bound to believe by virtue of an infallible assistance of the present Church doth thereby shew that his obligation doth not depend upon what was delivered by the former ages of the Church As those who believed the Apostles were infallible in their doctrine could not resolve their faith into the infallibility of oral tradition but into that immediate assistance by which the Apostles spake and where there is a belief of a like assistance the foundation of faith cannot ly in the indefectibility of tradition but in that infallible Spirit which they suppose the Church to be assisted by For supposing this oral tradition should fail and that men might believe that it had actually failed yet if the former supposition were true there was sufficient ground for faith remaining still And what assurance can any one have that the present Church delivers nothing for matter of faith but what hath been derived in every age from Christ and his Apostles if such an infallible Spirit be supposed in the present Church which was in the Apostles themselves For on the same reason that those who heard the Apostles were not bound to trouble themselves with the tradition of the former age no more ought they who believe the present Roman Church to have the same infallible assistance They need not then enquire whether this age knew the meaning of the former or whether one age could conspire to deceive another or whether notwithstanding both these errors might not come into the Church it is sufficient for them that the definitions of the present Church are infallible in all matters of faith Therefore my demand was built on very good reason How can you assure me the present Church obliges me to believe nothing but only what and so far as it received from the former Church And Mr. S's answer is far from being satisfactory That this appears by her manifest practice never refusing communion to any man that could approve himself to believe all the former age did For this may be resolved into a principle far different from this which is the belief of the infallibility of the present Church For supposing that they are not bound to enquire themselves into the reasons why the tradition could not fail in any age it is suffient for them to believe the Church infallible and if it be so in proposing matters of faith it must be so in declaring what the belief of the former age was But my demands go on What evidence can you bring to convince me both that the Church always observed this rule and could never be deceived in it Which question is built on these two Principles which the infallibility of oral tradition stands on 1. That the Church must always go upon this ground 2. That if it did so it is impossible she should be deceived Both which are so far from that self-evidence which M. Serjeant still pretends to in this way that the Jesuits principles seem much more rational and consistent than these do For granting them but that one Postulatum that there must be an inherent infallibility in the testimony of the present Church to afford sufficient foundation for divine faith all the rest of their doctrine follows naturally from it Whereas this new way of resolving faith is built on such suppositions which no man well in his wits will be ready to grant For unless it be self-evident that the Church did always proceed on this ground it cannot be self-evident that oral tradition is infallible because the self-evidence of this principle depends on this that in all ages of the Church the only rule and measure of faith was what was delivered by oral tradition from the age foregoing Now if it be possible that matters of faith might be conveyed in ways quite different from this what self-evidence can there be that the Church much always proceed upon this Mr. S. then must demonstrate it impossible for matters of faith to be conveyed to posterity in any other way than oral tradition and not only that the thing is impossible but that the Church in all ages judged it to be so or else he can never make it at all evident that the Church always made this her rule of faith But if either there may be a certain conveyance of the doctrine of faith another way viz. by writing or that the Church might judg that way more certain whether it were so or not either way it will appear far enough from self-evidence that she always judged of doctrines of faith meerly by the tradition of the preceding age If another way be granted possible there must be clear demonstration that the Church notwithstanding this did never make use of it for if it did make use of another way of resolving faith in any age of the Church then in that age of the Church oral tradition was not looked on as the ground of faith
principle And he that can believe that I wonder he should scruple believing the Popes infallibility for certainly no principle of the Jesuits is more wild and absurd than this is Besides I admire how it came into Mr. S's head to think no error could come into history unless one age conspired to deceive another when we find no age agreed in the present matters of fact which are done in it as to the grounds and particulars of them to give Mr. S. an instance home to his purpose in the late Council of Trent we see already what different representations there are made of it in so little a time as hath already passed since the sitting of it One though he had all the advantages imaginable of knowing all proceedings in it living at the same time conversing with the persons present at it having the memoires and records of the Secretaries themselves yet his story is since endeavoured to be blasted by a great person of the Roman Church as fictitious and partial We see then it is at least supposed that interest and prejudice may have a great hand in abusing the world in matter of story though one age never agree to deceive another And instead of being perswaded by Mr. S's demonstrations I am still of the mind that we have no sufficient security of the truth of any story which was not written while those persons were in being who were able to contradict the errors of it However I deny not but some notorious matters of fact such as Alexanders bare conquests of Asia might by the visible effects of it be preserved both in Asia and Greece for a long time But if we come to enquire particularly whether this or that was done by him in his conquest which is alone pertinent to our purpose we have no security at all from tradition but only from the most authentick records of that story And by this I hope Mr. S. will have cause to thank me for unblundring his thoughts his own civil expressions and shewing him how errors may come into a story without one age conspiring to deceive the next and what a vast difference there is between preserving a bare matter af fact and all the particulars relating to it And hereby he may easily see how far the obligation extends in believing the report of former ages For there can be no obligation to believe any further than there is evidence of truth in the matter we are obliged to If then there be not only a possibility but a very great probability of mistakes and errors in matters of fact I pray what obligation doth there ly upon men absolutely to believe what is delivered by the preceding age But to put an issue to this controversie let Mr. S. examine himself and try if he can name one story that was never written which was ever certainly propagated from one age to another by meer oral tradition and if he cannot he may thereby see how little real force his argument hath in the world For all the force of tradition lies in an unquestionable conveyance of those Books which contain in them the true reports of the actions of the times they were written in But can Mr. S. think that if the Roman history had never been written it had been possible for us to have known what was done under the Kings and Consuls as now we do Yet if his principle holds this necessarily follows for those of that age could not but know them and no age since could conspire to deceive the next And from hence the most useful consequence of all is that Mr. S. might have writ a history from the beginning of the world to this day with a full relation of all particulars if there had never been any Book written in the world before And doth not Mr. S. deserve immortal credit for so rare an invention as this is and all built on nothing short of demonstrations But Mr. S. very prudently foresees what it is I must be forced to recur to viz. that being baffled with his former demonstration I have no other shift to betake my self to but to say the case is different between histories and points of faith And therefore to bring his business home he applies it at large to the delivery of the Christian faith which that he might do in more ample sort he very finely descants on the old Verse Quis quid ubi c. containing the circumstances of human actions and from every one of them derives arguments for the infallibility of oral tradition which briefly and in plain English may be summed up thus Since the author of this doctrine was the Son of God the doctrine it self so excellent and delivered in so publick a manner in the most convincing way by miracle and good living and for so good an end as to save mens souls and that by writing it in mens hearts and testified to others and all this at a time when men might judg of the miracles and motives for believing it therefore since in all these respects it was incomparably beyond the story of Alexanders conquests it follows that in a manner infinitely greater must the obligation be to believe Christs doctrine than Alexanders or William the Conqerours victories or any history of the like nature whatsoever All which I freely grant but cannot yet see how from thence it follows that oral tradition is the only rule of faith or the means whereby we are to judg what is the doctrine of Christ and what not Those arguments I confess prove that the Christians of the first age were highly concerned to enquire into the truth of these things and that they had the greatest reason imaginable to believe them and that it is not possible to conceive that they should not endeavour to propagate so excellent a doctrine and of so high concernment to the world But the question is whether abstractly from the Books written in the first age of the Christian Church there is so much infallibility in the oral tradition of every age that nothing could be embraced for Christs doctrine which was not and consequently whether every age were bound to believe absolutely what was delivered it by the precedent for the doctrine of Christ Mr. S. therefore puts himself to a needless task of proving that every age was bound to believe the doctrine of Christ which I never questioned but the dispute is whether every age be bound on the account of oral tradition to believe what is delivered by the precedent for Christs doctrine But it is to be observed all along how carefully Mr. S. avoids mentioning the written Books of the New Testament because he knew all his game about oral tradition would be quite spoiled by a true stating the matter of fact in the first ages of the Christian Church I hope he will not be angry with me for asking him that question about the Scripture which he asks me about the Council of Trent did