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
proof of this I appeal to that Decree of the Council of Trent in which they declare That because the Christian Faith and Discipline are contained in written Books and unwritten Traditions c. therefore they do receive and honour the Books of Scripture and also Traditions pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiâ with equal pious affection and reverence which I understand not how those do who set aside the Scripture and make Tradition the sole Rule of their Faith And consonantly to this Decree the general Doctrine of the Romish Church is that Scripture and Tradition make up the Rule of Faith So the Roman Catechism set forth by order of the Council of Trent says that the sum of the Doctrine delivered to the Faithful is contained in the Word of God which is distributed into Scripture and Tradition Bellarmine speaks to the same purpose That the Scripture is a Rule of Faith not an entire but partial one The entire Rule is the Word of God which is divided into two partial Rules Scripture and Tradition According to this the adequate Rule of Faith is the Word of God which is contained partly in Scripture and partly in the Tradition of the Church And that Scripture is look't upon by them as the principal Rule and primary foundation of their Faith and Tradition as only supplying the defects of Scripture as to some Doctrines and Rites not contained in Scripture must be evident to any one that hath been conversant in the chief of their controversial Divines Bellarmine where he gives the marks of a Divine Tradition speaks to this purpose That that which they call a Divine Tradition is such a Doctrine or Rite as is not found in Scripture but embraced by the whole Church and for that reason believed to have descended from the Apostles And he tells us further That the Apostles committed all to Writing which was commonly and publickly Preached and that all things are in Scripture which men are bound to know and believe explicitely But then he says that there were other things which the Apostles did not commonly and publickly teach and these they did not commit to Writing but delivered them only by word of mouth to the Prelates and Priests and perfect men of the Church And these are the Apostolical Traditions he speaks of Cardinal Perron says That the Scripture is the foundation of the Christian Doctrine either mediately or immediately And that the Authority of unwritten Tradition is founded in general on these sentences of the Apostle Hold the Traditions c. Again The things which thou hast heard of me among many Witnesses commit to faithful men c. And that the Authority of the Church to preserve and especially to declare these is founded in this Proposition viz. That the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth So that according to him the primary Rule of Faith is the Scripture in which the Authority of Tradition is founded Mr. Knott says expresly We acknowledg the H. Scripture to be a most perfect Rule for as much as a Writing can be a Rule we only deny that it excludes either Divine Tradition though it be unwritten or an external Judg to keep to propose to interpret it c. So that according to him Scripture is a perfect Rule only it does not exclude unwritten Tradition c. By which that he does not understand as Mr. S. does a concurrent Oral Tradition of all the same Doctrines which are contained in Scripture but other Doctrines not therein contained is plain from what he says elsewhere We do not distinguish Tradition from the written Word because Tradition is not written by any or in any Book or Writing but because it is not written in the Srripture or Bible Bellarmine also says the same And as for the interpreting of Scripture he tells us that this is not the office of a Rule but of a Judg. There is says he a great and plain distinction between a Judg and a Rule For as in a Kingdom the Judg hath his Rule to follow which are the received Laws and Customs which are not fit or able to declare and be Judges to themselves but that Office must belong to a living Judg So the Holy Scripture is and may be a Rule but cannot be a Judg. Here he makes the Scripture as much a Rule for matters of Faith as the Laws of the Land are for Civil matters And in his Reply to Mr. Chillingworth he hath a Chapter of above 150 Pages the Title whereof is Scripture is not the only Rule of Faith which had he with Mr. S. believed Oral Tradition to be the sole Rule of Faith had been as absurd as it would be to write a Book to prove that Turks are not the only Christians in the World Mr. Cressy likewise not very consistently to himself lays down this Conclusion The entire Rule of faith is contained not only in Scripture but likewise in unwritten Tradition § 2. Now all this is as contrary as can be to Mr. Rushworth's new Rule of Faith Therefore Mr. White says They speak ill who teach that some things are known in the Church from Scripture some by Tradition And Dr. Holden in opposition to those who make Scripture any part of the Rule of Faith advances one of the most wild and uncharitable Positions that ever I yet met withall viz. That if one should believe all the Articles of the Catholick Faith c. for this reason because he thought they were all expresly revealed in Scripture or implicitely contained so as they might be deduced from thence and would not have believed them had he not judged that they might be evinced from Scripture yet this man could be no true Catholick Because as he tells us afterwards we must receive the Christian Doctrine as coming to us by Tradition for only by this means excluding the Scriptures Christ hath appointed revealed Truths to be received and communicated In the mean time Cardinal Perron unless he altered his mind is in a sad case who believed the Authority of Tradition it self for this reason because it was founded in Scripture § 3. And this fundamental difference about the Rule of Faith between the generality of their Divines and Mr S's small party is fully acknowledged by the Traditionists themselves Dr. Holden says That their Divines who resolve Faith according to the common Opinion do inevitably fall into that shameful Circle of proving the Divine Authority of the Scripture by the Church and the Infallibility of the Church back again by the Scripture because they dare not build their Faith upon the natural evidence and certainty of Tradition So that Dr. Holden's way of resolving Faith is different from the common Opinion of their Divines which he says does not differ from the Opinion of those who resolve their Faith into the private Spirit and this according to Mr. White
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
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
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
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
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
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
the Faith by Scripture This says he is a great Triumph of our Faith to demonstrate our Opinions so strongly and to overthrow the contrary by Testimonies from Scripture And neither in this Epistle nor the other does he make any mention of Oral Tradition Next he cites that known place in Irenaeus But what if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures ought we not to follow the Order of Tradition c. This makes clearly against him for it implies that now the Apostles have left us the Scriptures we ought to follow them The other passage he cites out of Irenaeus Lib. 1. c. 3. is a clear eviction that he did not consult the Book For he puts two sayings together which he had met with in Mr. White immediately one after the other and because Mr. White had cited Lib. 1. c. 3. for the first saying and brought in the other immediately upon it with an Et rursus Again c. Therefore Mr. S. who is of a right Traditionary temper which is to take things easily upon trust himself and require Demonstration from others concluded that these sayings were in the same place though in truth they are in several Books As for the Testimony it self there is nothing in it to Mr. S's purpose besides the word Tradition which Irenaeus does often apply to Scripture as well as Oral Tradition and there is nothing in this place to determine it to Oral Tradition His Testimonies out of Origen will do him less stead For every one that hath been conversant in the Writings of that Father knows what he means by the Churches Tradition preserved by order of Succession viz. The mystical Interpretations of Scripture which he says were delivered by the Apostles to the Governors of the Church and by them down from hand to hand If this be the Tradition Mr. S. contends for Origen is at his service if it be not I assure him he is not for his turn Next comes Tertullian concerning whom as also Origen the Papist upon occasion thinks it enough to reply in St. Hierom's words As for Tertullian I have nothing to say of him but that he is not a man of the Church Whatever he was these are his words If thou beest but a Christian believe what is traditum deliver'd And here 's nothing again but the word deliver'd which as I have said is indifferent to Written or Oral Tradition if the Circumstances do not determine it to one as here they do very unluckily for Mr. S. to the Scripture For he disputes here against Marcion who denied the Flesh of Christ and who to maintain that denied his Nativity and expunged the whole History of it out of the Gospel But saith Tertullian by what authority dost thou do this If thou be a Prophet foretell something If an Apostle preach publickly If Apostolical be of the Apostle's mind If no more but a Christian believe what is delivered And where delivered But in those Instruments or Books of the Gospel out of which as Tertullian immediately before tells us Marcion had made bold to expunge this Story As for his Testimonies out of Athanasius the two first of them prove nothing but that Faith comes down from our Ancestors or was by them delivered to us which no body denies Nor is there a word in either of them concerning oral in opposition to written Tradition The third Testimony is out of an Epistle to Epictetus to whom Athanasius writing concerning those who held Christ's Body to be Consubstantial with his Divinity tells him this was so gross a conceit that it needed no sollicitous confutation but that it would be a sufficient answer to say in general the Orthodox Church was not of that mind our Fathers did not think so From whence Mr. S. infers that Tradition is held by him a sole sufficient Rule of Faith and the only Answer to be given why we reject Points from Faith c. But if he had consulted the Book he would not have inferred that this was the only Answer to be given c. For it immediately follows But lest from our being wholly silent these Inventers of evil things should take occasion to be more impudent it will be good to recite a few passages out of Scripture c. And from thence he confutes them at large It was so gross an Error that he thought it might be sufficient without bringing particular arguments out of Scripture against it to say that it was contrary to the ancient Faith but yet lest they should if he had said no more have taken boldness from thence and thought that nothing more could be said against it therefore he confutes it from particular Texts of Scripture And what in his opinion was the sufficient Rule of Faith Mr. S. might have seen at the beginning of this Epistle from these words That Faith which was professed by the Fathers in that Council viz. the Nicene according to the Scriptures is to me sufficient c. It seems that Scripture was to him the Rule and Standard whereby to judg even the Creeds of General Councils Mr. S. says he will be shorter in the rest and so will I. For what is to be said to Testimonies brought at a venture when he that brings them had he read the Books themselves could not have had the face to have brought them Such is this out of Clem. Alezand As if one of a Man becomes a Beast like those infected with Circes poyson so he hath forfeited his being a Man of God and faithful to our Lord who spurns against Ecclesiastical Tradition and leaps into Opinions of human Election Mr. S. knows whose way of quoting this is to pick a bit out of the midst of a Text that sounds something towards his purpose and leave out the rest which would make it evident to be meant just contrary Yet I cannot charge this wholly upon Mr. S. whose implicit Faith were it not for his culpable Ignorance might excuse him But for his Seducer Mr. White how he can acquit himself of so foul an Imputation I leave it to any ingenuous Papist to judg when I have nakedly set the whole passage before him Clemens speaking of Hereticks who relinquish the Scripture or abuse it by wresting it to their lusts says Men who deal in matters of highest importance must needs commit great Errors if they do not take and hold the RVLE OF TRVTH from Truth it self For such men having once deviated from the right way do likewise err in most particulars probably because they have not the Faculty of distinguishing Truths and Falshoods perfectly exercised to choose what ought to be chosen For if they had this they would be ruled by the Divine SCRIPTVRES Therefore as if any of Mankind should become a Beast in such sort as those who were bewitched by Circe even so he hath lost his being a Man of God and abiding faithful to the Lord who hath spurned against the Tradition of the
Church and skipt into the Opinions of human Sects not of human Election as Mr. S. blindly following Mr. Wh. does most absurdly translate it but he that hath returned from his Errors and hearkned to the SCRIPTVRES and conformed his life to the Truth is as it were advanced from a Man to a God At the same rate he goes on for several Pages together taking the Scriptures for an indemonstrable Principle from which all Divine Doctrines are to be demonstrated and for the Criterion whereby they are to be tried and charges the Hereticks in such words as we cannot find fitter for our Adversaries As says he naughty Boys shut out their School-master so these drive the Prophecies out of the Church suspecting that they will chide and admonish them and they patch together abundance of falshoods and fictions that they may seem RATIONALLY not to admit the Scriptures Again speaking of these Hereticks affronting the Scriptures he tells us they oppose the Divine Tradition with human Doctrines by other Traditions delivered from hand to hand that they may establish a Sect or Heresie Again he says they adulterate the Truth and steal the Rule of Faith c. but for ORAL Frauds they shall have WRITTEN Punishments But enough of this whosoever desires to see more of it let him read on where these men to their shame have directed us and see whether any Protestant can speak more fully and plainly in this Controversy The whole trust of the Papists is upon the equivocal sense of the word Tradition Which word is commonly used by the Fathers to signify to us the Scriptures or Divine Tradition as Clement here calls it but the Papists understand it of their unwritten Tradition and to this they apply all those passages in the Fathers where Tradition is honourably mentioned So Mr. S. deals with us in the Testimonies I have already examined And there is nothing of argument in those few which remain but from the ambiguity of this Word which I need not shew of every one of them in particular for whosoever shall read them with this Key will find that they are of no force to conclude what he drives at § 5. As for his Citations out of the Council of Trent by which he would prove it to be the perswasion of their present Church that Tradition is the sole Rule of Faith I have already shewn that that Council hath declared otherwise and is otherwise understood by the chief of their own Writers And therefore he did prudently to conceal in an c. those choaking words in which the Council declares itself to receive and honour with equal pious affection and reverence the Books of Scripture and unwritten Traditions And after a great deal of shuffling what a pitiful Account is it that he at last gives of that Council's putting Scripture constantly before Tradition because Scripture being interpreted by Tradition is of the same Authority as if an Apostle or Evangelist were present and therefore no wonder they honour Scripture-Testimony so as to put it before Tradition which is to say that because Scripture is subordinate to Tradition and to be regulated by it therefore it deserves to be put before it Besides if Scripture and Tradition be but several wayes of conveying the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine why should he imagine an Evangelist or Apostle to be more present by the Scripture than by oral Tradition Especially if it be considered that he supposes Scripture to be an uncertain and Tradition an infallible way of conveying this Doctrine SECT II. § 1. ALL that now remains is to confirm the precedent Discourse by Testimonies of the most eminent Persons of the Church in several Ages in which I shall not need to be large being so happily prevented by that full Account which is given of the sense of the Ancients in this matter in the Answer to Labyrinthus Cantuariensis which Mr. S. may if he pleases consult for his further Conviction § 2 I begin with the Historical Account which Eusebius gives of committing the Gospel to writing which is to this purpose viz That the Romans were not content with the Doctrine Preached unless it were also committed to writing and therefore did earnestly beg of Mark Peter's Companion that he would leave them a Monument in writing of that Doctrine which had been deliver'd to them by word of mouth And this was the occasion of the writing of St. Mark 's Gospel And when Peter did understand that this Work was publish'd being suggested by the Divine Revelation of the Holy Spirit it is said he was very much pleased with the ready and earnest desire of those Persons and that by his Authority he confirmed this Writing to the end that it might be every where read in the Church As for St. Matthew and St. John he tells us That of all the Disciples they two only have left monuments in Writing of whom it is also reported that they betook themselves to write being drawn thereto by necessity Matthew after he had preached the Word of God to the Jews and was resolved to go to other Nations wrote his Gospel in the Language of his Countrey and thus by the diligence and pains of Writing did abundantly supply the the want of his presence to those whom he left And when Mark and Luke had published their Gospel it is reported that John who had always used to preach the Word without writing it being at length wrought upon by the same reason did betake himself to write From this account it is clear that the Apostles thought it necessary for the preservation and secure conveyance of the Christian Doctrine that it should be put into Writing and that they judged this a better way to supply the want of their presence than oral Tradition Therefore the same Author tells us That the Disciples who immediately succeeded the Apostles as they travelled to preach the Gospel to those who had not yet heard the Word of Faith did with great care also deliver to them the Writings of the Holy Evangelists Again That Ignatius as he travelled towards Rome where he was to suffer exhorted the Churches of every City to hold fast the Tradition of the Apostles which as also by Writing he testified for greater security he held necessary to be copied in Writing § 4. That the Hereticks of Old made the same pretence which the Papists make now of oral Tradition in opposition to Scripture the same Eusebius tells us and withal that Books are a sufficient confutation of this pretence Those says he who were of the Heresie of Artemon said that all their Fore-fathers and the Apostles themselves had received and taught the same things which they also did and had preserved the true Teaching unto the time of Victor Bishop of Rome whose Successor Zephyrinus corrupted it And this saith he would have great probability were it not first of all contradicted by the Scripture and next if there
did not remain the Writings of other Brethren much more ancient than Victor 's time c. in the Books of all whom Christs Divinity is acknowledged And afterwards he tells us that these Hereticks did change and corrupt the Scriptures to bring them to their Opinions so Mr. S. tells us that the outward Letter of Scripture ought to be corrected by Tradition and Sense written in mens hearts St. Hierom also tells us That the Hereticks were wont to say we are the Sons of the Wise who did from the beginning deliver down to us the Apostolical Doctrine but he adds that the true Sons of Judah adhere to the Scripture § 4. That Scripture is sufficiently plain in all things necessary St. Chrysostome All things in the Divine Scriptures are plain and straight Whatsoever things are necessary are manifest St. Austin having spoken of the profoundness of Scripture adds Not that those things which are necessary to Salvation are so hard to be come at But saith he when one hath there attained Faith without which there is no pious and right living there are besides many dark and mysterious things c. Again The manner of speech in Scripture how easie is it to all though few can penetrate to the bottom of it Those things which it plainly contains it speaks without disguise like a familiar Friend to the heart of the learned and unlearned How will Mr. S. reconcile this with his grand Exception against Scripture And what these things are which are plainly contained in Scripture the same Father tells us else-where in these words Among those things which are plainly set down in Scripture all those things are to be found which comprehend Faith and good Manners The same St. Austin as also Clement in the Book which Mr. White quoted for the understanding of obscure Texts of Scripture directs us not to Tradition but to the plain Texts without which he expresly says there would be no way to understand them § 5. That Scripture is so plain as to be fit to determine Controversies Justin sure thought so when disputing with Trypho concerning a point wherein the Jew had Tradition on his side he told him he would bring such proofs to the contrary as no man could gain-say Attend says he to what I shall recite out of the Holy Scriptures proofs which need not to be explained but only to be heard Mr. White might have found likewise much to this purpose in his Clement But not to tire my Reader in a Point which the Ancients abound with I shall only produce the judgment of Constantine in that solemn Oration of his to the Council of Nice wherein he bewails their mutual oppositions especially in Divine things concerning which they had the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit Recorded in Writing For says he the Books of the Evangelists and Apostles and the Oracles of the old Prophets do evidently teach us what we ought to think of the Divine Majesty Therefore laying aside all seditious contention let us determine the matters in question by Testimonies out of the Divine Writings Not a word of any other Tradition but Scripture which was held evident enough in those days though now Mr. S. tells us it is not sufficient to decide that Controversy about the Divinity of Christ. § 6. Lastly That Scripture is the Rule of Faith Irenaeus The method of our Salvation we have not known by any other but those men by whom the Gospel came to us which then they preached but afterwards by the Will of God delivered it to us in the Scriptures to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our Faith St. Cyprian the Church hath ever held a good Catholick yet Mr. S. takes notice that he erred in a Point of Faith and perhaps the rather because Mr. Rushworth had told him that he was not theirs in this Controversy For says he St. Cyprian seems to think that the Resolution of Faith was to be made into Scripture and not into Tradition But that we may not seem to accept of this of courtesie from him nor yet wholly to despise it I shall offer this one Testimony instead of many out of that Father who being opposed with an Argument from Tradition demands Whence have you that Tradition Comes it from the Authority of the Lord and of the Gospel or from the Epistles of the Apostles For God testifies that we are to do those things which are written c. If it be commanded in the Gospel or contained in the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles then let us observe it as a Divine and Holy Tradition Hilary commends Constantius the Emperor for regulating his Faith only according to those things which are written And to oblige him to deserve this commendation he adds He who refuses this is Antichrist and who dissembles in it is Anathema Optatus concerning the Controversy with the Donatists asks who shall be Judge and answers himself the Scriptures Which he illustrates by the similitude of a Father who delivered his Will orally to his children while he was living but when he was dying caused it to be written in lasting Tables to decide all Controversies that might happen among them after his death The passage is large and it is obvious to apply it Basil maintaining the Doxology as it was used in his days says Thus we received it from our Fathers but adds immediately This is not enough for us that it is the Tradition of the Fathers for they followed the Authority of the Scriptures making its Testimonies the Principles upon which they built He has indeed in the same Book a passage much insisted on by the Papists concerning unwritten Traditions but withal he says those Traditions were secretly conveyed which makes all the rest of no use to Mr. S. Chrysostom having mentioned several Heresies directs how they may be avoided viz. By attending to the Faith delivered and looking upon all that disagrees from that as adulterate For says he as those who give Rules do not put men upon a curious enquiry after many measures but bid them keep to the Rule given so is it in Opinions But no body will attend to the Scriptures if we did we should not only not fall into Errors our selves but also rescue those that are deceived Again If we would be throughly conversant in the Scriptures we should be instructed both in right Opinions and a good life Again among the many Sects of Christians it will be easie to judge of the right if we believe the Scriptures because these are plain and true If any one agree with these he is a Christian if he contradict them he is far from this Rule St. Austin calls the Scipture the Divine Balance for the weighing of Doctrine Again the Holy Scripture sayes he fixeth the Rule of our Doctrine And accordingly himself uses it both in his Dispute with Maximinus to whom he
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