all his Writings to say any thing to remove a present Objection though never so much to the prejudice of his main Hypothesis then which I do not know any quality in a Writer which doth more certainly betray the want either of judgment or of sincerity or of a good Cause § 7. And whereas he says That Irenaeus his testimony proves it to be no Tradition for he sets down the supposed words of our Saviour which plainly shews it is a story not a Tradition a Tradition being a sense delivered not in set words but setled in the Auditors hearts by hundreds of different expressions explicating the same meaning When I consider this passage of Mr. White I confess I cannot complement him and say as he makes his Nephew do in the Dialogue between them I cannot but applaud your Discourse it hath so pleasing and attractive a countenance And again I am not able to oppose what you say by any weighty Objection your Arguments being not only strong and nervous but of so comely and winning a complexion c. I cannot I say speak all this of his present Argument But I may deservedly apply to it the last part of his Nephew's Complement That it is an Argument so framed as if without any evidence of its consequence it would perswade men to believe it But to return an Answer to this passage It seems according to Mr. White that Irenaeus was mistaken in the very nature of Tradition and if so learned a Father was ignorant in the common Rule of Faith what can we to use Mr. S's words undertakingly promise to weaker heads Mr. S. instanceth in the Creed and Ten Commandments as the principal Traditions which Parents teach their Children but now Mr. White can shew plainly that these are no Traditions but Stories because Tradition is a sense delivered not in set words c. As if Christ and his Apostles could deliver no Doctrine unless they expressed the same thing an hundred several ways But suppose they did so which no man hath any reason to imagine because a thing may be expressed as plainly by one way as by an hundred can no man deliver this Tradition who speaks it in any one of those expressions If one should employ his Servant to carry a Message and because Mr. White thinks this necessary should settle the meaning of it in his heart by telling him the same thing in an hundred several expressions and the Servant should go and deliver this Message in one of those very expressions that his Master used to him and should say these were his Masters very words would not this be well enough No if he had come to such a Philosopher as Mr. White he would soon have given him to understand that he was not fit to bring a Message or to be credited in it who had so little wit as not to know that a Message is a thing not to be delivered in set-words And now I would entreat Mr. White to reconcile himself in this matter to his Friends Mr. Rushworth says 'T is impossible to put fully and beyond all quarrel the same sense in divers words Which if it be true I would fain know what certain course Mr. White can prescribe to explicate the same meaning by hundreds of different expressions and consequently how Tradition can be infallibly conveyed by setling the sense of it in the Auditors hearts by such variety of expressions Mr. Cressy likewise a zealous Assertor of Tradition does affirm That the Primitive Churches were even to excess scrupulous in maintaining the very phrases of Traditionary Doctrines which according to Mr. White plainly shews these Doctrines to be stories not Traditions because Tradition is a sense delivered not in set-words The same Author complains That few among their learnedst Masters of Controversie propose the Points to be disputed between them and the Protestants in the Language of the Church By which I suppose he does not mean that these Controvertists were to blame in that they did not settle the sense of these Points by hundreds of different expressions explicating the same meaning but that they did not keep to the words wherein the Church had in Councils or otherwise if there be any other way declared her sense of those Points Again he says That St. Paul referring to the Doctrine setled by Oral Instruction to shew the uniformity of it everywhere calls it a form of wholsom words From whence we may conclude either that St. Paul did not well to call the Traditionary Doctrine as Mr. Cressy says he does a form of words or else which is more probable that Mr. White is mistaken in saying That a Tradition is a sense not delivered in set-words Furthermore the same Mr. Cressy tells us That St. Augustine was careful not only to deliver Traditional Truths themselves but the terms also in which those Truths were conveyed to his Times But now Mr. White could have informed St. Augustin that this officious care of his was not only superfluous but pernicious to Tradition § 8. But to return to Justin's Testimony to which the summe of Mr. Whites answer is That Justin esteem'd it not as a point necessary to salvation but rather a piece of Learning higher than the common Since he both acknowledges other Catholicks held the contrary and entitles those of his perswasion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 right in all opinions that is wholly of his own mind It is not material to my purpose whether or no Justin look'd upon this as a point necessary to Salvation so long as it is evident that he looked upon it as a Divine Revelation and part of the Christian Doctrine And yet it seems he thought it a point of more than ordinary importance because he joins it with the Doctrine of the Resurrection and says that it was not disowned by any but those who also denied the Resurrection But whereas Mr. White says that Justin acknowledges other Catohlicks to have held the contrary I hope to make it evident from the scope and series of his Discourse that he acknowledges no such thing but that the plain design of his Discourse is to shew that this Doctrine was owned by all true Christians For when Trypho asks him Whether the Christians did indeed believe that Jerusalem should be re-built c. He returns him this answer I am not such a Wretch as to speak otherwise than I think I have told thee before that my self and many others as ye all know are of the mind that this will come to pass But that many indeed of those Christians who are not of the pure and pious perswasion do not own this I have intimated to thee That the negative particle though omitted in the Copy ought to be thus inserted will be clear to any one that considers what follows For after he had spoken of those who disown this Doctrine he immediately adds by way of further description of them that
the help of tradition yet unless we be extreamly ungratful we cannot but acknowledg that God hath infinitely better provided for us in not leaving the grounds of our Religion to the meer breath of the people or the care of Mothers instructing their Children but hath given us the certain records of all the doctrines and motives of faith preserved inviolably from the first ages of the Church And when the Church saw with what care God had provided for the means of faith oral tradition was little minded thence the memory of those other things not recorded in Scripture is wholly lost all the care was imployed in searching preserving and delivering these sacred Books to posterity To these the primitive Church still appeals these they plead for against all adversaries defending their authority explaining their sense vindicating them from all corruptions Tradition they rely not on any further than as a testimony of the truth of these records or to clear the sense of them from the perverse interpretation of those Hereticks who pretended another kind of tradition than what was in Scripture And when these were silenced all the disputes that arose in the Church concerning matters of faith was about the sense of these Books as is evident by the proceedings in the case of Arius and Pelagius Wherein tradition was only used as a means to clear the sense of the Scriptures but not at all as that which the faith of all was to be resolved into But when any thing was pleaded from tradition for which there was no ground in Scripture it was rejected with the same ease it was offered and such persons were plainly told this was not the Churches way if they had plain Scripture with the concurrent sense of Antiquity they might produce it and rely upon it So that the whole use of tradition in the primitive Church besides attesting the Books was to shew the unreasonableness of imposing senses on Scripture against the universal sense of the Church from the Apostles times But as long as men were men it was not avoidable but they must fall into different apprehensions of the meaning of the Scripture according to their different judgments prejudices learning and education And since they had all this apprehension that the Scripture contained all doctrines of faith thence as men judged of the sense of it they differed in their apprehension concerning matters of faith And thence errors and mistakes might easily come into the Church without one age conspiring to deceive the next Nay if it be possible for men to rely on tradition without Scripture this may easily be done for by that means they make a new rule of faith not known to the primitive Church and consequently that very assertion is an error in which the former age did not conspire to deceive the next And if these things be possible M. S's demonstration fails him for hereby a reasonable account is given how errors may come into a Church without one age conspiring to deceive another Again let me enquire of Mr. S. whether men may not believe it in the power of the ruling part of the Church to oblige the whole to an assent to the definitions of it To speak plainer is it not possible for men to believe the Pope and Council infallible in their decrees And I hope the Jesuits as little as Mr. S. loves them or they him may be a sufficient evidence of more than the bare possibility of this If they may believe this doth it not necessarily follow that they are bound to believe whatever they declare to be matter of faith Supposing then that Transubstantiation Supremacy Invocation of Saints were but pâ—ivate opinions before but are now defined by Pope and Council these men cannot but look on themselves as much obliged to believe them as if they had been delivered as matters of faith in every age since the Apostles times Is it now repugnant to common sense that this opinion should be believed or entertained in the Church if not why may not this opinion be generally received if it be so doth it not unavoidably follow that the faith of men must alter according to the Churches definitions And thus private opinions may be believed as articles of faith and corrupt practices be established as laudable pieces of devotion and yet no one age of the Church conspire to deceive another Thus I hope Mr. S. may see how far it is from being a self-evident principle that no error can come into the Church unless one age conspire to deceive the next in a matter of fact evident in a manner to the whole world Which is so wild an apprehension that I believe the Jesuits cannot entertain themselves without smiles to see their domestick adversaries expose themselves to contempt with so much confidence Thus I come to the reason I gave why there is no reason to believe that this is the present sense of the Roman Church My words are For I see the Roman Church asserts that things may be de fide in one age which were not in another at least Popes and Councils challenge this and this is the common doctrine maintained there and others are looked on as no members of their Church who assert the contrary but as persons at least meritoriously if not actually excommunicate Where then shall I satisfie my self what the sense of your Church is as to this particular Must I believe a very few persons whom the rest disown as heretical and seditious or ought I not rather to take the judgment of the greatest and most approved persons of that Church And these disown any such doctrine but assert that the Church may determine things de fide which were not before In answer to this Mr. S. begs leave to distinguish the words de fide which may either mean Christian faith or points of faith taught by Christ and then he grants 't is non-sense to say they can be in one age and not in another Or de fide may mean obligatory to be believed In this latter sense none I think saith he denies things may be de fide in one age and not in another in the former sense none holds it Upon which very triumphantly he concludes What 's now become of your difficulty I believe you are in some wonderment and think I elude it rather then answer it I shall endeavour to unperplex you I must confess it a fault of humane nature to admire things which men understand not on which account I cannot free my self from some temptation to that he calls wonderment but I am presently cured of it when I endeavour to reduce his distinction to reason For instead of explaining his terms he should have shewed how any thing can be obligatory to be believed in any age of the Church which was no point of faith taught by Christ which notwithstanding his endeavour to unperplex me is a thing as yet I apprehend not because I understand no obligation
what he saith to a Syllogistical form it comes to this Where there is no possibility of error there is an absolute obligation to faith but there is no possibility of error in the tradition of any age of the Church ergo in every age there is an absolute obligation to believe the tradition of the present Church The minor he thus proves If no age of the Church can be ignorant of what the precedent taught or conspire to deceive the next then there is no possibility of error coming into the tradition of the Church in any age but the antecedent is true and therefore the consequent Now who sees not that the force of all this lies not in proving the minor proposition or that no age could conspire to deceive another but the consequence viz. that no error can come into a Church but by a general mistake in one whole age or the general imposture of it which we utterly deny and have shewed him already the falseness of it from his own concessions And I might more largely shew it from those Doctrines or opinions which they themselves acknowledg to have come into their Church without any such general mistake or imposture as the doctrines of Papal infallibility and the common belief of Purgatory The very same way that Mr. White and Mr. S. will shew us how these came in we will shew him how many others came in as erroneous and scandalous as those are For whether they account these matters of faith or no it is certain many among them do and that the far greatest number who assert and believe them to be the doctrine of their Church too If therefore these might come in without one age mistaking or deceiving the next why might not all those come in the same way which we charge upon them as the errors of their Church And in the same manner that corrupt doctrines come in may corrupt practises too since these as he saith spring from the other He might therefore have saved himself the trouble of finding out how an acute Wit or great Scholar would discover the weakness of this way For without pretending to be either of these I have found out another way of attaquing it than Mr. S. looked for viz. from his own principles and concessions shewing how errors might come into a Church without a total deception or conspiracy in any one age Which if it be true he cannot bind me to believe what ever he tells me the present Church delivers unless he can prove that this never came into the Church as a speculation or private opinion and from thence by degrees hath come to be accounted a point of faith Therefore his way of proof is now quite altered and he cannot say we are bound to believe whatever the present Church delivers for that which he calls the present Church may have admitted speculations and private opinions into doctrines of faith but he must first prove such doctrines delivered by Christ or his Apostles and that from his time down to our age they have been received by the whole Church for matters of faith and when he hath done this as to any of the points in controversie between us I will promise him to be his Proselyte But he ought still to remember that he is not to prove it impossible for one whole age to conspire to deceive the next but that supposing that it is impossible for any errors to come into the tradition of the Church Let us now see what Mr. S. objects against those words I then used against the demonstrating this way It is hard to conceive what reason should inforce it but such as proves the impossibility of the contrary and they have understandings of another mould from others who can conceive it impossible men should not think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their predecessors And whatever Mr. S. says to the contrary I cannot yet see but that therein I argued from the very nature and constitution of the thing For that which I looked for was a demonstration which I supposed could not be unless the impossibility of the contrary were demonstrated But if it be possible for Men Christians nay Romanists to believe on other accounts than tradition of the precedent age I pray what demonstration can there be that men must think themselves obliged to believe and do all just as their predecessors did Surely if Mr. S's fancy had not been very extravagant he could never have thought here of mens being obliged to cut their Beards or wear such Garters and Hat-bands as their forefathers did For do I not mention believing first and then doing by which it were easie to apprehend that I meant matters of faith and such practices as flow from them Neither was there any such crafty and sophistical dealing as he charges me with for I am content his doctrine be taken in his own terms and I have now given a larger and fuller account why I am far from being convinced by the way he hath used for resolving faith Passing by therefore his challenge which I accept of as long as he holds to the weapon of reason and civility I come to consider his last enquiry why I should come to doubt of such an obligation in posterity to believe their ancestors in matters of faith and he judiciously resolves it into a strange distortion of human nature but such as it seems is the proper effect of the Protestants temper which is saith he to chuse every one his faith by his private judgement or wit working upon disputable words Which as far as we own it is not to believe what we see no ground for and if this be such a distortion of human nature I envy not Mr. S's uprightness and perfection If he means that we build our faith on our private judgments in opposition to Scripture or the universal tradition of the Church in all ages let him prove it evidently in one particular and I engage for my self and all true Protestants we will renounce the belief of it If he hath any thing further to object against the grounds of our Religion he knows where to attaque me let him undertake the whole or else acknowledg it a most unreasonable thing thus to charge falsities upon us and then say we have nothing else to say for our selves We pretend not to chuse our faith but heartily embrace whatever appears to have been delivered by Christ or his Apostles but we know the Church of Rome too well to believe all which she would impose upon us and are loth to have her chuse our Religion for us since we know she hath chosen so ill for her self But if Mr. S. will not believe me in saying thus what reason have I to believe him in saying otherwise Such general charges then signifie nothing but every one must judg according to the reason on both sides I now come to the last part of my task which
and Christians concerning the Messiah's being a Temporal Prince in case it be a Point held ever delivered but most certain it is it was so held by the Jews in our Saviours time and hath been held so ever since to this day I shall not trouble the Reader with transcribing the rest of this Demonstration only desire him as he reads it over to imagine instead of Mr. S. a Pharisee demonstrating against one of Christs Disciples the Infallibility of the Oral Tradition of the Jews And I doubt not but he will find this Demonstration and every part of it changing only the Names as forcibly concluding Christ not to be the Messiah as it doth infer any point of Popery against the Protestants § 4. Before I leave this Instance of the Jewish Tradition I shall briefly consider what Mr. White hath offered by way of answer to it as First That the matter of these Traditions is nothing else but Explications of Scripture framed and invented by their own Rabbines So we say that the Popish Traditions are Innovations But then Mr. White and Mr. S. tell us That they can demonstrate them to be descended from Christ and his Apostles because it is the present perswasion of a multitude of Christians that they are so descended In like manner if this Demonstration be good the Jews can prove their Traditions to be descended from Moses and the Prophets Secondly He says that the form of these Traditions is more ridiculous than the Canting of Gypsies or the jugling of Hocus-pocus because it consists in inventing the sense of Scripture from the mysteries and numbers and changes of Letters This is a gross inexcusable mistake For though the Jews have such a Cabala called Gematry as this which Mr. White describes yet that Cabala which is urged in this Instance and which our Saviour reproves in the Pharisees by the name of Tradition is quite another thing and among the Jewish Writers known by the name of the Vnwritten or Oral Law which they say was delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai and by him conveyed to Aaron and Joshua and the Elders and successively delivered down from one Age to another and at last by Rabbi Jehuda compiled into one Volume which they call Mishna or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this does not consist in the Art of Numbring Combining or changing of Letters as Mr. White imagines But suppose it did so and were more ridiculous than he conceits it to be the Instance would be so much the more conclusive against them if what they affirm be true That Oral Tradition is infallible and that the perswasion of a Traditionary Church in any Age that such a Doctrine descended to them from Christ or Moses be a demonstration that it did so For if this be sufficient evidence 't is nothing to the purpose what the Doctrine be either for matter or form For if it be once demonstrated to have come from Christ or Moses it is without any farther dispute to be received as of Divine authority So that Mr. White quite alters the state of the question which was not whether the Jewish Cabala be absurd and ridiculous but whether the general perswasion of the Jews in any Age that it descended to them by uninterrupted Tradition from Moses be a demonstration that it did so If it be then the Jewish Cabala is as demonstratively of Divine Authority as the Oral Doctrine of the Papists Thirdly He says This Cabala was a Doctrine delivered to few and that with strict charge to keep it from Publicity and so communicate it again successively to a select Committee of a few wherein says he you may see as fair an opportunity for jugling and couzenage as in our case there is an impossibility This I think is true of the Cabala which it seems Mr. White had only in his view but is a horrible mistake if he speak of the Oral Law which was contained in the Mishnah and which this Instance only intends For of this Maimonides says expresly That in every Age from the time of Moses to Rabbi Jehudah who compiled the Mishna the Oral Law was publickly taught And that after Rabbi Jehudah had compiled it into one Volume the Israelites did generally write out Copies of it and it was every where carefully taught for fear lest the Oral Law should by forgetfulness be last among the Jews So that upon account of the publickness of the Doctrine there is as great an impossibility of Jugling and Couzenage in the case of the Jewish as of the Romish Tradition Besides was washing of Hands and Cups which they also pretended to have come down to them from Moses and to have been constantly practised in every Age a secret thing Was it not a practical Tradition and performed in a sensible matter If therefore no Age can conspire to impose upon the next in a plain custom and if an universal Tradition of such a thing cannot come in without such a conspiracy How could this be the perswasion of any Age that washing of Hands c. was prescribed by Moses and practised in all Ages if it had not truly been so § 5. Secondly As for Instances among Christians whereof many remain yet upon Record as namely the various and opposite Traditions about the time of Easter and concerning the Baptism of Hereticks and the Apostolical Tradition as St. Austin calls it concerning the admission of Infants to the Communion all which have been frequently urged in this Controversie and none of them yet sufficiently answered I shall to avoid tediousness passing by these insist only upon that of the Chiliasts which in Justin Martyr's time was the perswasion of all Orthodox Christians that is in Mr. S's Dialect of all the holders to Tradition For if notwithstanding the perswasion of that Age that this Doctrine was descended to them from the Apostles it was not really so descended then the perswasion of Christians in any Age that a Doctrine was brought down to them from the Apostles is no Demonstration that it was so § 6. To this Instance Mr. White answers by telling us that Eusebius says that this Tradition sprang from Papias a good but a credulous and simple man who it seems was mistaken in saying that it was the Apostles Doctrine But for all this Justin Martyr says it was received by all Orthodox Christians in his Time as a Doctrine descended to them from the Apostles And if Justin said true nothing can make more against their Demonstration of the Infallibility of Tradition than the natural consequence from these two sayings of Eusebius and Justin which is this That the mistake of one simple and credulous man may in an Age or two give occasion to the universal entertainment of a Doctrine as descended down to them from Christ and his Apostles when there was no such matter Hath not Mr. White now done his Rule of Faith great service by this Answer But it is according to his manner in