Sure Footing in Christianity, Discourse 5
THE Fifth Discourse EXAMINED. About Traditions, Notion, &c.
THis whole discourse contains two Heads.
1. The opening of the Notion of Tradition. Ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6. 2. The applying of the premised Properties of the Rule unto Tradition and the conclusion from the whole. 1. Of the opening the term.
1. In the Entrance the Discourser professeth, that he had quite lost his labour in his former search for the Properties of the Rule of Faith in Scripture: Therefore, he will see, whether better hope may be to find them in his Oral or Practical Tradition, by which he meaneth, a delivery down from hand to hand of the Sence and Faith of Fore-fathers. Sect. 1.
To this, 1. We maintain, though, the Disputer have quite lost his labour (which he is willing to do) yet we have not lost ours in proving Scriptures All sufficiency, to be the Rule of Faith; and disproving his frivolous and fallacious Exceptions against it,—
2. We take his meaning, That Oral-Tradition, is a Delivery down from hand to hand, that is, by word and visible Action of the sence and faith of his Fore-fathers: Where yet we note that the matter delivered by word is part of h…s meaning; for it is the delivery of such a thing even sence and faith of Fore-fathers.
2. In the next Section, he illustrates his meaning of Tradition by a more express conceit of it in the nurturing of Children as to the knowledge of Natural, Civil, and Artificial things, S. 2.
All which without reiterating we easily grant; though it will not in all things fit so wel… to the conveying down of Faith as we may find hereafter.
3. In this Section, he saith, there wants nothing but to apply the same Method to spiritual affairs, and then may be gained a compleat and proper notion of Faith, Tradition, S. 3.
We shall therefore observe how we apply it; if justly, we shall join issue, if not we shall declare our reasonable dissent, and shew the disproportion, which is not little between Spiritual and Natural things as to the knowledge of them.
4. He applyeth this to Christians Children, and observeth.
1. They hear sounds, and have dim notions of God, Christ, Saviour, Heaven, and Hell &c. Afterward according to capacities they are put upon some External Actions, deterred from sin, taught virtue; and to do some duties of prayer, &c. They learn the Commandements, Creed, &c. And by conversing with Fore-fathers, they come to more knowledge: Then they atise a swarm of the same Religion, hold…ng the same points with the former Age: And this comes on not by leaps from 100 years to a 100. but from mouth to mouth, and day to day, as young Eaglets made to see the sun by degrees in his full glory, &c. So these proceed from perceiving the dawning to be acquainted with the common day-light of Christian Doctrine, S. 4.
Whereunto, 1. We grant this to be a rational and natural help to bring up posterity to the knowledge and Faith of Christ and a means commanded.
2. Yet we say also, that by the same means from Fathers to Children is delivered down all false, superstitious, Idolatrous Religion and all ungodliness and Profaneness. So that it is not peculiar to convey Faith.
3. We except further, that this Oral-Tradition, is not hereupon the Rule of Faith, (which the Disputer is to prove) but only a partial help or means to nurture up Children from their infancy toward the knowledge of it, which is the will of God only, revealed in the Scripture.
4. We animadvert that all this is only able to guide unto the external profession of Faith, but not without Grace to make true beleevers.
5. He proceeds to prove this a real Truth; from the practise of the Primitive Faithful, before the books of Scripture were writ: and from the first imbuing of Protest…nts with Christian Principles: Nay he affirms that the very Presbyterians, much more the Protestants do adhere to their Faith, because their Parents and Pastors taught them: and not upon the Ev…dence of Scriptures letter, He casts in the next place some reflexions on persons, and concludes, that the Protestants owe all their union and strength to Tradition; and all their distractions and weakness to the renouncing of it, S. 5.
In short to this, 1. By Primitive faithful, we suppose he means Primitive Christians in and immediately after Christs and the Apostles times; Had not these the Scriptures of the Prophets in that time? Did not they teach their Children from those Scriptures? was not Timothy taught those holy Scriptures? and was he not made wise by them unto salvation? they were not then before all Scripture was extant, nay some of the Churches then, had Epistles written from the Apostles: It seemeth this was not narrowly heeded by the Discourser.
2. No Protestants ever denied the necessary use of Tradition of Truth unto posterity, but assert it as a duty Commanded by God upon Parents to their Children to bring them unto Faith in the Revelation of God: and acknowledge, that they were at first so imbued with the Elements of true Christian Religion.
3, Yet all true Protestants grown up to knowledge deny, that they adhere to the faith of Christ upon this account, because their Parents and Pastors taught them, but because now they find it to be indeed the true revealed will of God in his written word: of the truth whereof not their own private Interpretation; but the powerful wo…k of Gods spirit by it upon their hearts perswadeth them.
4 It is something strange that this Disputer shoul… make Presbyterians and Protestants contradistinct members; unless he account the Episcopal order Protestants, and the Presbyterian scarce so much; and so cast in a bone of Contention between them: which savours not of Ingenuity. He cannot be ignorant that several of the Protestant Churches embrace Presbyterian Government; And however others are under other forms, yet have they equally contended for the Protestant Faith against Popish Errors: which doubtless they will do still.
5. It is a most unhandsome reflexion, upon those Persons whom he nameth, meerly to cast an odium on them, or render them more suspicious than others; when he desires from his Answerer more civil usage toward himself. He may receive a mark also.
6. The Protestants do owe their un…on and strength to God only, and to their stedfastness in one Scripture-Truth. Their Distractions and their we…kness, they own unto sins among them: and specially to those who forsake the simplicity and unity of Gospel-written Truth to cleave unto the vain and unsavory Traditions of men. No more to this, but only a desire, that the Discourser would resolve this question, why are there so many Sects, orders, and distractions among the Papists, if Tradition be such a soveraign Cure, and all of them are professed subjects thereunto?
6. The nature of his Tradition being thus explained, it renders, as he saith, many objections unnecessary to be answered or mentioned.
1. That this Tradition may come from a kind of Prophetical Afflatus or Inspiration; it is only built upon perfect Evidence of their best senses.
2, That Protestants have taken a wrong aim, to dispute against Res traditae, the things delivered, and so accuse Papists for holding humane Traditions, or things invented by men for faith: whereas when they speak of the Rule of Faith they mean by the word Tradition, only the Method of publickly delivering and conveying down Tenets held to have come from Christ. S. 6. This is the sum of the first Head for opening Tradition.
We perceive not yet, that Tradition explained by the Author rendreth many or any objections unnecessary to be answered or mentioned; whatever conceit he may have of his own Explanation; for it no way cleareth those two, which he himself here suggesteth. It is requisite therefore to ponder what he saith.
1. Cannot his Tradition explained be truly charged to slow from some kind of Prophetical Afflatus or slashes of pretended Inspiration, because it is built upon perfect Evidence of their best senses? may not senses even the best be deluded? yea and be so bewitched by the Devil to beleeve lies? We must therefore, seeing he hath started it, deal with him about this objection, against his Tradition.
2. We take it for granted, notwithstanding his touch…ng upon natural Tradition, his scope is to transfer all to his Popish Tradition, for which he only contends in all his discourses; when he speaks of the doctrine of Christ uninterruptedly delivered to his Romish Church thereby: and hereupon owns himself and Papists to be Traditionary Christians. But for him to argue from Tradition general to his own in special or from one kind of Tradition in the Church which is true, to another which is false, it is but fallacious, and will not be allowed him; we see him better, than to be so cheated by him.
3. We shall suggest unto him that ever since God had a Church in this world visible, there were therein, A seed after the flesh, and a seed after the Spirit. So it was between Cain and Seth in Adams family. Now doubtless Cain by Tradition taught his Children his Faith of God, which made them Apostates from the Truth: and no less did Seth teach his Poster…ty by Tradition his Faith in God; and thereby kept them to the true faith untill they mingled with the children of men and were corrupted so farre, that God took them away by the flood. Yet both these received their respective Traditions, upon the perfect Evidence of the best senses they had. Evidence of sense then, that this was delivered to them as from God, did not secure any of them from being deceived, but some higher power of the Lord guided the true seed in his way. So it was in Noahs Family. So in Abrahams, and so along unto Moses, and from him to Christ; who contended against the Pharisees in the days of his Flesh, for nulling the written commands of God by their Tradition.
4. To come neerer to him; after Christs ascending to glory, and the Apostles then surviving, there arose two parties in the Christian Church visible; The one sprung from the Mysterie of Godliness God manifest in the flesh:1 Tim. 3.15.6. 2 Thes. 2. The other spawned from the Mysterie of Iniquity. These both professed Christ, and doubtless by word of mouth taught him to their Children and Disciples; but the one purely and sincerely as the truth was in Jesus; and the other corruptly with those lyes and falsehoods which turned away many from the true faith of Christ, even in those times: and yet both these Disciples received what was delivered of Christ unto them upon perfect Evidence of their best senses; but the one with sense and reason inlightned by Gods spirit; and the other with senses, the best they had, but fascinated by the Devil, to beleeve lyes, because they loved not the Truth.
5. To draw a little closer to him, we may thus put him to it: If his Popish Tradition did indesectively issue from the Church in the Apostles time, was it from them that issued from, and contended for the Mysterie of God…iness? or from them, who took their rise from the Mystery of Iniquity, and wrought under i…? The first we deny; for Tradition meerly Popish, is but from corrupt sences of men, added to the simple Truth of Jesus which he abhors, as Peters Prelacy, The Popes succession of him, the introducing of other Mediators, besides the Son o… God, who is the only way to the Father; none of these came from Christ or his Apostles. The second is justly charged on them, that Popish Tradition is the great Apostasie from the Mysterie of Godliness; and so the design of perfecting the Mysterie of Iniquity in these latter daies: turning souls from the true Faith of Christ, unto lying vanities, and that by the hypocrisie of their Forefathers telling lyes unto their Children. This is strongly made good aga…nst the Papal Sea, by many Witnesses of Gods Truth, and specially by that Renowned Mr. Mead, in his book of the Apostasie of the latter times, from that Prophesie, 1 Tim. 4, 1, 2, 3. And by the learned Dr. Moor in his Treatise of the Mysterie of Iniquity 2 Thes. 2, 3, 4, 7. The Discourser and his Confederates have need to clear themselves from this charge: But if not (as none could do yet) the objection stands in more force notwithstanding h…s Tradition explained, that some kind of Diabolically Prophetical Asslatus, is the Cause of his Trad tion, however they rece…ve it, as he boasts, upon perfect evidence of their best senses: For so they may embrace lyes, and yet take them to be Truth.
2. He supposeth, that by his explaining the notion of his Tradition, he hath at once dasht all the objections of the Protestants against Popish Tradition; for he saith, they took all a wrong aim, to dispute against things delivered by Oral speech, in stead of Tradition it self, which is only the Method of delivering down publickly the Tenets held to come from Christ: So they have all mistaken the Papists meaning in the controversie about Tradition, and all their batteries have missed the mark.
Silly Protestants! Had they no more wit all along but to mistake the question? nay simple Jesuits! Could not they see their mistakes in all their Combats with them; and tell them they shot besides the mark? Surely this Discourser is more quick sighted to perceive this error at this day, than all his Fore-fathers. But let us use our eies also, to see this mistake if we can, or else let this Disputer see, that even in this matter he himself is mistaken.
1. Have not the Protestants alwaies in the Controversie with Papists about Traditions being the Rule of Faith, distinguished between the Form and Method of Tradition by speech, and the matter of Tradition delivered? Nay and as they have distinguished so they have determined; that as to the way of delivering Christs Doctrine by Oral Tradition, Catholici in hoc toto negotio distinguendum putant inter res quae traduntur in Ecclesia et rationem earum tradendarum. &c. Panst. To. 1. 8. c. 1. S. 18. Rationem rerum tradendarum duplic…m esse agroscimus: vel per Scripturam sacram &c. vel per quotidianam instructionem ibid. S. 19.they granted it to be a special means of conveying down Truth and bringing unto Faith; though not the only one, but joint with the Scriptures of God being conformed to them, yea and subject to be tried by them. Hear the words of one Souldier of Christ, Chamier. In this whole business) Catholicks (truly so called even Protestantss think it must be distinguished between things which are delivered in the Church, and the course or manner of delivering them. And further, the form of delivering we acknowledge twofold, either by the Holy Scripture, or by daily instruction; which is oral-Tradition. This and much more to this purpose doth this Protestant Souldier express. And no less the Churches of them, who are not offended with the name or use of Tradition rightly stated; He did not therefore take wrong aim; no more do the rest.
2. Let the Discourser speak out yet; Doth he maintain Tradition only as Oral speech to be the Rule of Faith, without the sence or matter delivered in it? Let him take his aiery Rule then which is but a senceless sound: But he tells us, that his Tradition is the method of delivering down Tenets held to come from Christ; Are not these Res Traditae? against which while we dispute, he saith we mistake the mark; And doth not he deliver these things all along in his Discourse, for Tradition to be the Rule of Faith? Let him reconcile himself: and not pretend to vent some new thing to the world, for defense of his Popish cause, seeing he saith no more, than what his Fathers have said before him, when they maintained the unwritten word of God, which was Tradition in matter and form, to be their Rule of Faith. The Protestants then mistook not in charging them to hold humane Tradition for Faith, or things invented by men.
3. The Explication of Tradition by the Author proveth not any mistake of Protestants in their disputes, neither weakens their objections against Popish Tradition. In sum to shut up this head; If the Discourser aim only to prove the necessity of giving down the doctrine of Christ by Oral-Tradition, we join issue and grant it to be a good means to bring to the Faith of the Gospel: but not the only me ns, nor independent upon any other, but such as must convey the same will of Christ contained in the Scriptures, and ought to be tried by them. Yet still do we deny it to be the Rule of Faith, which alone is the will of God, revealed in Scripture; and thence opened, and delivered down by teaching to the Sons of men.
2. After his Explication of the meaning of Tradition, he proceeds to apply the properties of the Rule of Faith unto it in the following Sections.
1. In the 7th. Sect. he saith, that to be be Evident to all as to its Existence (which is the first Property) absolutely agrees to Tradition: For this conveying Practical doctrines by best Senses, as Eies and Ears, and that by sounds daily heard, and Actions seen, is as Evident to all sorts as to its Existence, as to see and hear: So it may be insinuated into Vulgar and Children and Babes in some degree to affect them therewith.
1. We would understand what the Discourser means by this Properties absolutely agreeing to Tradition; If he mean Convertibly so that it agreeth to nothing else, we deny it: but if he mean only that it plainly or simply agreeth to it, we grant it; Vocal sounds are Ev…dent to their Existence: So are letters and writing also unto such subjects as are capable of them.
2. We grant that Oral-Tradition doth reach more ages and capacities than Scripture doth, therefore hath God commanded it to be used to our Children, as they may become capable of hearing, and observing: but still do we bind up this method to the matter, that is imported and conveid in it; that it be consonant to Gods revealed will in Scripture; and that reading also as well as hearing is as useful and necessary for subjects capable, to bring them to know Christs Doctrine.
3. We demand of him, whether practical doctrines conveied by this Tradition, be not Res Traditae, that is, matters delivered in this method? He cannot deny it? How then can he charge us with mistake, when we grant the method agreeable to Gods will for conveying his Truth, but deny their doctrins to be Christs which they give down this way. Popish Tradition in form and matter is peccant.
4. We deny, that his common vulgar children, and much more Babes, are affected with the Practical doctrines pronounced although they hear the sound of words: It would be a rare thing to shew such Babes as are affected with Doctrine: Many may hear the voice, and yet not receive the Doctrine, who are more capable then his Vulgar are.
5. Suppose these sounds may affect these persons, yet they are but only means to bring to Faith, not the Rule of it, which is the Discoursers task to make good. Therefore this Tradition may have Evidence as to the Ex…stence of means, not of the Rule of Faith, which is not to his pretended purpose. His own first Property then is not so absolutely agreeable to his professed Rule of Faith.
2. In S. 8. He applyeth his 2d. Property of the Rule to his Tradition, which is, That its ruling Power should be easily Evidenceable to any Enquirer. This he illustrates to any rude Doubter by instancing in Protestants, that if they in successive generations, should by speech deliver down to their children their professed faith, and these successively receive it, they must all be Protestants; This Tradition would have such evident ruling Power over them. This method then is easily Evidenceable to be the certain way of deriving down Christs Doctrine while the world shall last. This property therefore of the Rule of Faith agreeeth to Tradition.
Our Reply is 1. That the instance given holdeth forth only the Evidence of the ruling power of the means or method of bringing to Faith, and to walk by the true Rule of Faith; not of the Rule of Faith it self: Such is Oral-Tradition of the Truth and no more.
2. Neither is this a Reciprocal Property of the means to Faith. For it agree…h as well to help on and convey down all false Religion, as well as true; So Mahometan Tradition helps on to give down the Faith of Mahomet: and Popish Tradition to convey Popery to their Posterity; which is faith, Papal, Idolatrical, and Apostate from Christ Jesus, the only Mediator between God and Man: This way also Protestants convey their Principles unto their Children, which are the written Truths of God, or Christs true Doctrine. If therefore this Property agree to all Tradition; and not to that only which giveth out the knowledge of Christ; It is not worthy of the name of a Property, either of the means or Rule of faith, being common to all other things.
3. Further we except, that bare Oral-Tradition, is not so much as a means to bring to faith of It self, but as it carrieth in it the Principles and Doctrine of Christ and therewith indeed it may bring to the knowledge of Christ. So that this is Res Tradita or the thing delivered, without which Tradition cannot be so much as the means to bring to the faith of Christ. Concerning which this Disputer warneth us, that we mistake, if we aim at the matter of his Tradition. We grant Tradition by word of mouth to be a special way to faith, but no further then as it conveyeth the Truth of Christ. The Method without the matter is a vain found.
4. As the Ruling Power of Tradition, It may be natural and de Facto; So Tradition of falsehood may have actually a delusive power to lead to lies: Or it may be Divine and de jure, which is reciprocal with the Tradition of Truth; This indeed hath a Ruling Power from God to command Faith, and souls are bound to be obedient to it. But Popish Tradition hath no such Ruling Power; much less is it evident or evidenceable to any reasonable Enquirer; The Disputer therefore concludes falsely and fallaciously, that this Property evidently agreeth to his Popish Tradition, because it agreeth to some other kind of Tradition of Gods Truth contradistinct to that. He must therefore reason better to gain Credit to his Rule.
3. In the 9th and 10th Ss. he proceeds to apply his third Property of the Rule of Faith unto Tradition, which is, That it is apt to justifie unreflecting and undoubting persons, that they proceed rationally while they relye upon it: This he saith is found exactly in Tradition.
Concerning this we assert No Rule can justifie them as rationally proceeding in their relying on it, who irregularly use it, though it be the truest. Now that men should take any thing upon trust without reflecting on the matter delivered, or doubting of it in the least measure, whether from Oral or Scriptural Tradition, esspecially in matters of faith unto salvation, is unreasonable and brutish. For it is necessary for reasonable Creatures both to reflect, and question matters of serious concernment, (among which the matters of salvation are the greatest) before they beleeve them: whoever do otherwise, do foolishly; neither are they justifiable in relying presumptuously on the best of Rules. No Tradition of Truth therefore doth actually or can justifie such kind of irregular believers. If Popish Tradition can do it, for which the Author pleads, it must be a Rule like themselves; and so Folly may justifie folly among the Papists; but otherwise it cannot justifie them before God or Men.
Yet he goeth on to prove it and to remove objections against it.
1. It is madness (as he saith) not to beleeve great multitudes of knowers, if no possible reason be to doubt, that they conspire to deceive us. Now in his way of Tradition, all Deliverers or immediate Fore-fathers are knowers: As they who immediately heard the Apostles who were taught and practised all requisite knowledge: of which it is impossible the rudest person should be ignorant, whoever had any effect of such a teaching wrought upon him, &c. in S. 9.
We reply 1. We beleeve, that whoever had the saving Effect from the Apostles teaching wrought upon them, had all requisite knowledge to salvation, and accordingly practis'd it all their lives.
2. Yet all who heard the Apostles preach, were not such knowers, neither such practisers of their doctrine; but many turned Apostates and made shipwrack of Faith and a good Conscience; of which n their times they all complained, while the Mysterie of Iniquity was working.1 Joh. 2.19.
3. Such multitudes of knowers, as they professed to be, it is no madness to suspect, that they were deceived, and so to make their party stronger, might and did consp…re to deceive:2 Cor. 11.3. If it be madness, the Apostle was so mad, as to call them dece tful workers, and their number was not small, as is apparent: Gods true number was the least. But could all these numbers justifie any who without reflecting, or inquiring, or reasonably doubting, did rely on their word? we suppose none so w…ld as to affirm it. Reason will try before it trust.1 Thes. 5.21. And such beleevers who upon due trial, receive and hold fast that wh…ch is true and good, are justified by God himself.Joh. 1.46, 47. Hereupon Nathaniel was commended by Christ h…mself, to be an Israelite indeed: when other hasty and unreflecting hearers are rejected by him.
4. We assert there is not only possible, but probable consideration to awaken in our reason a doubt, that multitudes may conspire to deceive; that they d d so under the Mysterie of Iniquity in the Apostles time; and in carry…ng on that design of Satan in after ages, as Histories do declare, and the sad Effects of it do demonstrate to us at this day.
5. We deny that in the way of his Tradition, all Deliverers or immediate Fore-fathers were knowers; neither did they all hear the Apostles and obey them as is pretended: And if a judgment may be made by their succeeding and surviving seed, the Popish Fore-fathers were rude and ignorant enough. Let the Body therefore of these Popish …radition-Deliverers, be never so considerable for number, they are inconsiderable for weight or worth.
6. We also charitably judge that Parents may be apt to teach their Children, what they have been taught themselves to be good and true and needful to Eternal salvation; and that they would not purposely destroy them: yet this knowingly we say, that Parents carried by the strength of delusion themselves, may and do actually lead their Children to perdition which they seem to abhor.
7. We conclude, as to that which the Discourser studieth here to evince, That Fore-fathers delivering down the Truth of Christ to Children, were a good help to bring them to Faith; but their Tradition was no Rule of their Faith, when it came to Act: but the will of God revealed. Yet we deny that hence it follows, all Tradition is of a certain kind of nature to bring souls to the Faith of Christ much less Popish Tradition, which in most things seduceth souls from h m, and for this alone the Disputer here contends. In all which returns our brains rove not wildly, neither are unsettled to any degree of madness, but we have spoken the words of soberness and Truth: or if we be herein reputed to be besides our selves, it is for Christ and his Scr…ptures sake, against false Tradition. As for what the Discourser imposeth on us, that we must not suspect deceit among his multitudes unanimously agreeing in their Testimony about matter of Fact, We do not contend with him about matter of Fact. We yeeld that the multitude of his Fore-fathers did give out Tradition to their Posterity; but we strive about matters of Faith, and deny, that in their Traditions they did teach their children the true faith of Christ. And notwithstanding their postures and gestures, that they look seriously, when then speak, act themselves, and practise accordingly, and shew in the whole course of their Conversation, that they hope to be saved &c. We say the greatest False-Prophets, false Apostles, Idolaters, and superstitious ones have done the like in outw…rd professi…ns of God and h…s Christ; when their hearts have been farre remote from the Truth. No trust is to be given either to the looks or to the garb of Protestants or Papists: These things are weak to move wise men or argue men mad,…ronti nullo fidei. who suspect hypocrisie in them.
2. He moveth an objection against this justifying Power of Tradition, which he attempts to answer in S. 10. It is objected thus: Multitudes of plain honest meaning souls are as much justifiable for beleeving Scripture, therefore this property belongs not only to Tradition. His answer is, that they cannot be so much justifiable, setting aside Traditions help; For without this, the sence totally depends upon the Judgments, Fancies or skils of men; which they are unqualified to judge of, not upon the open verdict of sense and sensations, which is certain. This he illustrates by the proceedings of a Jury of the plainest high shooes in matter of Fact: and by the common course of the vulgar, in believing there were such a one as King James, and Queen Elizabeth, of which Tradition ascertains them, and not the Authority of any Statute-book &c. whence he concludes the 3d condition of the Rule of Faith, is manifestly found agreeing to Tradition.
We return to all this that the objection stands in force, notwithstanding his pretended answer to it; For the demonstration whereof, we shall reply unto particulars.
1. We have already proved that Scripture can and will justifie all them who regularly rely upon it as a Rule of Faith, that is, such as upon due and serious consideration of it, and a due reception of the will of God in it, do resign themselves to be guided by it: God will justifie such reliers on Scripture-Tradition: but none that foolishly, unreflect…ngly, and undoubt…ngly pretend to cast themselves upon it, for this is rash presumption.
2. We deny not the help of true and Faithful Tradition, to shew us that the Scripture is the true word of God; but yet this Tradition, we acknowledge not needful to give us its sence, neither want we Popish Trad…tion at all. The B…ble is sufficiently known.
3. We say aga…n, that the sence of Scripture is insp red of God; and so innate; as all propositions uttered by men carry their sence in them: speaking or preaching may hold out that sence, but it giveth none to the propositions of Gods Truth
4. Faith depending on this sence, is not relying on the judgments, Fancies or skils of men; but upon the plain revelation of God, in matters of salvation: And every man is bound to exercise his reason, and grow to such abilities that he may d scern between Truth and falshood. Hereunto the most Vulgar should labour to attain; but spiritual sluggishness in themselves, and carelesness in their guides and teachers, causeth most to sit down in ignorance, and please themselves in presuming on mercy, especially when they are taught that ignorance is the mother of Devotion. These are not justifiable by Scripture, nor by Tradition: but other serious souls are justified by God, however condemned by this Disputer.
5. Senses and sensations are not quadrate means to take in Faith. These may judge of sights and sounds, but not of spiritual matters conveyed by them. The best understanding is required to receive in these things, and that not only natural but Spiritual, which alone can receive these great things of God. Such beleevers than are not justifiable, who take in nothing of God but by their Senses and sensations. There is no proportion between these and faith; much less certainty of their reception of it: upon whose verdict yet in these matters the Discourser placeth his greatest stress and assuredness.
6. As to his Illustrations they blind the matters in hand, but give no light to them.
1. His Jury of plain High-shooes judge only of matter of Fact by the sight of six witnesses; and yet they must proceed according to the Law too: but we are contending of matters of Faith, whereof sense is no judge.
2. His application is no way fit; when he saith, take away Tradition, (which he meaneth Popish) and all ground for certain sence fails us, either for the meaning, or even Letter of Scripture. The letter of Scripture is evidently testified by Tradition faithful before Papal Rome was built, and as to the sence and meaning of Scripture it is inspired, and self evidencing to faithful humble and industrious souls searching therein without help of his Tradition.
3. As to his Method of knowing, that there were such a one as King James and Queen Elizabeth; we grant that by Tradition the rudest may come to know there were such persons; without troubling them with statute-books. Yet suppose that Statute-books make no mention of any such King or Queen, or that History should not only be silent of them, but testifie that there were no such persons: wise men would stagger at it, and not believe you, however your vulgar Tradition give it out. Let us truly bring this home to our Case. The Discourser saith, that his Popish Tradition bringeth down the Faith of Christ: The Scripture (which neither he, nor his Fathers durst deny to be the word of God) is not only silent of many points which he calls Faith; but expresly contradicts them, what wise man will believe his Tradition-Oral against Tradition Scriptural in these matters of Faith? His third Condition then agreeth not to his Tradition.
4. He advanceth his strength to make good his sixth Condition, and in doing this, he will evidently prove the fourth, fifth, and seventh also agreeing to his Tradition, in the 11th. 12th. 13th. 14th. Ss. We shall hear and try.
1. In Ss. 11. he layeth down some premises, and from them concludeth. His Argument intire and rightly formed is this. What is built on Immoveable grounds, or is certain in it self, hath in it wherewith to settle or satisfie the most piercing wits, convince the most obstinate Adversaries, and to ascertain us absolutely: but Scripture is not, and Tradition is built on such certain grounds &c. Therefore to this and not to that agree, those conditions. Other passages intervene between the premises and conclusion, deserving animadversion.
In this Argument. 1. We grant the Proposition as universally stated.
2. We deny the assumption concerning Tradition, whether universally, or particularly taken; For all Tradition is not built upon immoveable grounds, as all men know: Neither is Popish Tradition so certainly founded, for which the Discourser here only contends, however he hideth it under indefinite terms. Some Tradition we yeeld, is so built upon immoveable Grounds; as Scriptural (which we have proved) and all that Oral-Tradition which is equivalent to it, and reciprocal page missing specially he seeks to charme.
3. They cannot therefore grant his Conclusion for the certainty of his Popish Tradition to be sufficiently consequent.
2. He did foresee this, that more would be expected from him pretending to demonstrate Traditions certainty: Therefore he attempts it from intrinsecal Mediums: His argument is thus formed: That which hath for its Basis the best nature in the universe, even Mans, the Flower and End of the Rest, must needs be certain. But Tradition (suppose Popish) hath for its Basis the best nature &c. therefore, This Tradition must needs be certain. To clear up his proposition, he doth specifie and commend this best nature of Man, by these considerations of him.
1. He is not in this place considered according to his Moral part, defectible by original sin.
2. Neither according to his Intellectuals darkly groping in the pursuit of science by reflected thoughts, &c.
3▪ But according to those faculties in him perfectly and necessarily subject to the operations and stroaks of nature; that is, his Eies, Ears, &c. whence the direct impressions of knowledge as naturally and necessarily issu… from the affecting of those Senses, as … is to feel heat, cold, pain, &c. This is his first intrinsecal Medium to prove his Trad…tions certainty.
1. In the Examen of this Demonstration, we deny both the Proposition, (For a Basis of the best nature created cannot give certainty unto faith for salvation) and the Assumption also, (For no Tradition especially Popish is founded upon the best Nature) as will appear in the sequel. The conclusion then for Traditions certainty is not demonstrated from the premises. To clear the reason of our denial, we shall animadvert some things in the argument.
2. We must observe, that it is a very strange Man here presented, whose Nature is the best Basis for Faiths Tradition: How not considered in his Moral part? Not a Man of Morals, good or bad? what, nor a Man conceived in his Intellectuals, as Ʋnderstanding, or not understanding? Is it only then a Man of Sense? And is his sensitive nature the best in the universe to be the foundation of Faiths certainty by Tradition? How much doth this lift a Man above a Beast? Hear and consider ye noble Christian Ingenies; Is this a man for Faith?
3. We assert every man from Adam equally infected with Original Corruption, not only in his Moral part and disposition, (as the Discourser fixeth it) but also in his Intellectual and Sensitive Faculties; His reason, seeing, hearing, handling, &c. are all as defective by original sin, as his disposition to moral good, which, we suppose, he meaneth by his Moral part. If in one therefore he is defective or defectible, he is so in all: He hath not therefore the best nature in the universe, it being sinful.
4. We deny expresly that natures stroaks upon senses, can make direct impressions of knowledge unto Faith in any man: How many eies and ears, do receive sensible impressions by Scriptural and oral revelation, and yet never come to the true apprehension of the doctrine of Christ?
This impression must be made by an Almighty arm, to make men beleeve. Yet we deny not, but that mans sense is helpful to his understanding in its measure; therefore sights and sounds may be a good means to bring things heard and seen to the understanding: but matters of faith are proper objects of intellectual faculties, if we speak as men.
5. We judge it a brutish assertion, that the sound of the Oral Tradition of Christs Doctrine to eies, or ears, should make such impressions of knowledge naturally and necessarily, as the affecting of senses, to feel heat, cold, pain, pleasure, or any other material quality: For these are proper to sense; but the matters of faith far above. Sense takes the sound not the Faith.
6. We conclude, that neither is mans nature now the best in the Un…verse since the fall; therefore not according to the Discoursers reason, a sufficient Basis for the Certainty of that Tradition, which by him is pretended to be the Rule of Faith. Man is the subject indeed of Faith in his fallen nature: But the Divine nature only is the Basis of his own will, which is truly the Rule of the Creatures faith in him, and through his grace the main impressing cause of the knowledge of his Christ upon the souls of men, by means offered to sense and understanding for the effecting of the s…me. It is not M…n then but God, who is the true Basis of Traditions certainty, and Faiths infallibility. If this Argument therefore be from an intrinsecal Medium, it concludes very weakly as to the Discoursers purpose.
7. We infer further, That (suppose mans nature in general were the best in the universe,) yet the intire nature of man, cannot be either Basis or subject of Tradition Popish, unless all men naturally were Papists or Popish men. It is true, that it is a property adaequate to Man in his generality to speak, and give out from reason Oral-Tradition; but it is not so appropriated to Man as Man to spe…k, or give out Tradition of Remish Faith. Now this only is the Disputers aim, to found Popish Tradition upon humane nature; But most miserably doth he m…stake the mark, and miscarry in his Demonstration: Seeing falshood as well as Truth, and infidelity as well as Faith, may claim that interest in mans nature, to be as he calleth it, the Basis of it; for all are alike delivered down to Posterity by Mans Oral Tradition: And mans nature is equally a Basis to all, if to any.
3. To strengthen this Medium, he adds the frequent impressions of knowledge upon sense, many times every day: Nay more their lives are to be framed by the Precepts they hear, and conformable examples they see: So that Faith comes clad in such plain matters of Fact, that the most stupid man living cannot possibly be ignorant of it.
We must a little inquire into this passage; for it seems very strange.
1. Is this Tradition (spoken of) sine re tradita, without matter delivered? unto such only the Discourser did pretend before: Then it is a voice, and nothing else, that hath such effectual operation toward Faith; which is insipid and ridiculous.
2. Is the reiteration of such a voice, (suppose) uttering precepts from God unto the sense of hearing 10000 times a day, able to impresse faith or knowledge there? Sense is not capable of it: nor mans voice able to effect it; they do but beat the air.
3. Are the lives of all the Traditionary hearers and Seers conformed to precepts and examples, which they hear and see? or if not, Is it the duty of having their lives to be framed, sufficient to bring this Faith unto them, when it is not done? The Disputer (we suppose) will be ashamed to affirm either of them. And is not this also to consider man as to his Moral part, when his life is supposed to be conformed to precepts and Examples? which consideration of Man he excluded before, as not pertinent to his demonstration in the present Case.
4. Is Faith comming clad in matters of Fact, sufficient of it self to cause true down-right Christian practise, and influence the most stupid Creatures with knowledge? If he affirm it, we deny it. The Arm of God only can do this.
5. Are the most stupid men living among Papists under an impossibility of being ignorant of Faith, by having their senses, eies, and ears so often affected with their oral, and practical Tradition? The palpable ignorance of thousands of those sottish Creatures, contradict such an Assertion before the Sun: They may have knowledge of grosse superstitions impressed on their senses that way, but not of true faith. And not only is it so with them; but to their shame also, may it be spoken, who among protestants, where they hear and see the true faith of Jesus preached and practised daily, do abide in multitudes ignorant of the true faith of the Gospel. The Discoursers demonstration then is not firm for the certainty of his Tradition upon this Basis; notwithstanding the most frequent reiteration of words and practise upon their senses.
4. He draweth us to compare, the certainty each Christian Fore-father hath of what he hath practis'd all his life with that which a sworn witness in Court hath of what he saw and heard but once, thence to multiply, these thus-qualified witnesses, to equal the vast total of Christianity; and then to invent what force in natures universe is comparable to this inerrability of Tradition. Whence with very great confidence he concludes, that men must cease to be men, and nature loose it self, and by overstraining crack her sinews sooner, than the vast Testification called Tradition can possibly be violated. It must therefore unerringly regulate and bring down faith to its followers; whose Basis is stronger than all material nature, that is, such a one as was fit for supreme wisedome to lay for faith, being so neer and necessary means to bring Mankind to his Beatitude.
Great swelling words of vanity, here packt up together, do not scare us from a just reply to this pretended Auxiliary unto his former Demonstration▪ we do therefore thus answer.
1. Upon comparing a Christian Fore-father with a sworn witness in Court, we find both alike subject to Error and obnoxious to mistakes; which is farr from inerrability avouched hence unto Tradition: For it is possible, that a sworn witness may mistake in sight and hearing; and then his confident swearing maketh the matter worse. No lesse a Fore-father called Christian, although he be certain of what he hath practised, yet all the while may be mistaken in the matter of Faith, which is true and saving, and instead thereof imbrace lying vanities and fansies, and deliver down the same for faith unto his Children: neither of these enforce an Infallibility. We ought indeed to give much credit to a man swearing in the fear of God, and to an honest Fore-father, testifying what he hath received truely from Christ and practised; but neither of these are inerrable, nor their Testimony infallible. And besides we have just cause to suspect, the Fore-fathers intended by the Discourser to be no such witnesses as these.
2. We will multiply these thus qualified witnesses according to the just Rule of their multiplication, that i…, of them in their proper kind: Now if this Dissputer will speak out he must tell us, that the Fore-father Christian, which he mentioned, must be a Papist, for no other Christianity doth he contend; therefore in multiplying as he desireth, it must be within the verge and compass of this Christianity, that we shall deal with him about a Testimony to his Tradition. We shall therefore to avoid all fallacious dealings in this matter, consider Tradition.
1. As humane and natural.
2. As truly Christian and spiritual with respect to the matters delivered.
3. As meerly Popish as to the matters singly given down by them as Papists; and so we shall determine the matter in these Propositions, as to multiplying.
1. We shall multiply witnesses qualified concerning humane natural things unto the vast Total of Mankind, and we determine, that their continued Tradition in these matters within their sphere, may carry much certainty in many things, proved every day by experience: but yet not in all things, within the compass of Nature; neither for all this is this Tradition, which concerns all Mankind unerrable.
2. We will multiply the qualified witnesses of true Christian Doctrine descended from Christ, unto the total of true Christianity, or of Christians indeed, be it great or small; and we conclude, that their Tradition, so farre as they follow Christ uninterruptedly is certain, as any can be in the universe; yet as men and in themselves are they not infallible: They are certain and so to be trusted as farre as Christ speaketh in them, which also must be tryed by the Scr…pture.
3. We shall multiply the Authors Popish Fore-fathers, whom he stileth Christian, unto the vast Total of Papists; and then wi hout any labour of Invention, we deny all inerrability in their Tradition, which is the Rule of their Faith; and by comparing do assert, there is much more force within the compass of the Universe as to testifying to the Truth of Christ, than Romish Tradition, which is the matter only intended by this Disputer, under the general notion of Tradition, where he hides his plot, Nay we again affirm, there is nothing else, but error and errability in that Tradition pretended to come from Christ. So that hereby notwithstanding proud vain words, there is no fear of denying men to be men, nor of Natures cracking her sinews, by overstraining and loosing her self; the greatest danger is of proving Popish Tradition to be Delusion; and poor Papists to be deceived and misguided from the true faith of Christ, by their blind Fore-fathers, who about matters of Faith (which he commends) testifie by sense only.
3. We expresly deny, that ever the supreme wisdome of the Almighty laid this Tradition as a Basis for Faith, or de…ermined it as a means so near and necessary to bring Mankind to their Beatitude; however the Discourser presumptuously say, that his Romish Trad…tion is such a one as was fit for supreme wisedome to say. Dares Rome fit a foundation of Faith for God to lay? She hath framed her own Tradition to convey her filthiness down; and here a Son of he…s judgeth it fit for God to lay it as a Basis of Faith. Yet how can this Disputer say, that his Traditions-foundation is stronger then all material nature, seeing he pitcheth it on mans senses? which are most external, and belong mostly to his material part. Thus he is in and out. We acknowledge Divine wisdome hath la…d himself only the Foundation of Faith in Christ Jesus, and hath appoin…ed true Scriptural and Oral-Tradition, as concurrent means to bring men to Faith, and to blessedness by it: and here we fix, desi…ing to walk in this way.
4. We conclude from all, that Popish Tr…dition is not able unerringly to regulate its …ollowers, let them be never so exact, nor bring down true faith unto them; for it is not of God. The Discourser therefore, hath not acquitted himself of his undertaking to demonstrate the certainty of his Tradition by intrinsecal mediums. No such thing hath be done in the premises; Therefore his 6th Condition is not made good by him; and then all the rest which he builds upon this, must fail by his own Concession. This is all the Demonstration, which hitherto he hath made; and indeed it is none at all to strengthen his Tradition; but he hath made it weaker, and exposed it to ruine by the least rational Batteries.
3. In pursuance yet of his design. S. 13. He will not neglect to remind us of the Evidenceableness of Traditions Ruling power: That while the next Age beleeveth and practiseth as the former Age did, those of the latter Age are still of the same Faith with the former, as it is, that to believe the same, is to believe the same: Only he is Cautelous not to prove idem p…r idem, the same by the same.
We shall shortly return.
1. This would have been no wonder in this Discourser, who elsewhere runs round in a circle between his Church and his Tradition, proving them each by other, as Causes one of another.
2. We will not neglect to remind him also of the answer already given upon that account; which may be enough for him to review.
3. We shall only adde, that if the former age do misbelieve, then they, who follow their Trad tion, must misbelieve also: So that Tradition is as sure a rule of error and misbelief, as it is of Faith and Truth; so long as it is taken by it self abstractly without the matter delivered in it. This is no singular property then for Tradition to be the Rule of Faith or means unto it, as he promiscuously calleth it. Where then appears yet the certainty of Tradition fit for the Rule of Faith? The Author therefore hath more to do, then to open terms and explicate the proposition; for necessity lyeth on him to prove the certainty of his Tradition, which yet he hath not proved as to Faith.
4. In S. 14. He challengeth the most Sceptical Dissenter to muster all the Caprichoes of Pansie, &c. And the most obstinate and a…ute Adversaries to whet their wits to that degree of sharpness: as to be able to penetrate with n…ce dist…nctions &c. What can they say in this case? If they argue it must be from knowledge, this must be from things; the best thing is mans nature, and that is ingaged for the certainty of Tradition: But their proper task is to loose two notions, which perfect Identity binds (suppose Certainty and Tradition) and to blunder that Truth, which the noon-daies Sun of self-evidence discovers, &c.
If bold Bravadoes or daring words will do it, surely the Discourser will bear away the Bell, and level all to his own Tradition; It is well we know words are but wind, and so let them blow over. Our work is to search the bottom of the matter, and weigh his reason.
1. We may without offence inquire of this Discourser; Have his Scepticks no more but Caprichoes of fansie against his Tradition to suggest; and yet had they so many real and rational doubts against the Scripture of God? or, have the obstinate and acute Adversaries, not an Argument against his Tradition, but are put to such a strait as to loose those two notions, which perfect Identity binds; or all they can say must avail nothing? Or must we not complain, that the Disputer is partial? who could put so many doubts and objections into their mouths against the Scripture; and not one against his Tradition. We leave it to his Ingenuity to consider: It is no fair dealing.
2. Let us therefore suppose his Sceptick and obstinate Adversary urging thus against his Tradition, which possibly he may hear.
1. The one moveth his doubts against Romish Tradition after this manner; Is there not much more fallibility, in what Popish Fore-fathers give to their children, than in that Testimony which God commanded to be written, and is his very word, as acknowledged by the Trent-Confederates themselves? Is it not possible that the Discoursers Father or Teacher might delude him? and he be deluded by his Fore-father? and so thorough the Popish line, might they not all be seduced from Father to Child? How can the Discourser know but that the Tradition of other Mediators besides Jesus Christ, might be from the Devil? And the Tradition of Righteousness by mens own good works added to Christs satisfaction, may fall under the Apostles Anathema? Gal. 1.8, 9.If any, or an Angel from Heaven preach, &c. Let it be accursed. Nay how can the Method of Popish Tradition be the Rule of Faith which delivereth down so many Fables and lyes; as Popes Supremacy, Transubstantion of bread into the flesh or humane nature of Christ, born of the blessed virgin, (a monstrous Chimaera) with multitudes of such like absurdities? Who can acknowledge that Tradition, which giveth down such things to be the Rule of Faith? Sense and Reason do abhorre them.
2. The obstinate and acute Adversary moreover will tell this Discourser more smartly; That Romish Tradition of faith by Popish Fore-fathers, is from the Devil; that its Rise was with the Mysterie of Iniquity; that the Romish Church is Mystery-Babylon the great, the Mother of Harlots; that the Pope is the Apocalyptical Beast and False Prophet, that Antichrist, and Son of Perdition; That by the Hypocrysie of them who continually have told lies in their Traditions, all spiritual filthines, Idolatry, and Apostasie, have been conveied down to the present generation of Papists: yea and all this he hath proved, and will prove against them. Are all these doubts and objections only Caprichoes of Fansie, or Quirks of wit, or vain and groundless Oppositions? The Discourser may talk so, of that which he cannot answer. His Deist whom he brought in cavilling against the Faith of Scripture, hath much more to say against the Faith of his Tradition, would he but let him speak freely, but here he kept him silent, as if engaged unto his Cause.
3. If the Discourser say they mistake him, because he speaks only of the method of Tradition, not of the matters delivered; Surely he mistakes himself, for he pleads for the Rule of Faith; and Faith then must be ruled thereby, which is the matter delivered; to divide these is to separate unseparable things. Besides his Adversaries grant Oral-Tradition to be a means certainly conveying Truth and falshood: and therefore deny its appropriation unto Faith. In summe they say, as Tradition is one means to convey matters of Faith, so the matters delivered do specifie the Tradition to be good or bad: So that if such foul things be given down by his Method of Tradition, this also must be filthiness it self.
4. His Adversaries therefore see no such task incumbent on them as to loose those two notions which perfect Identity binds; for Tradition and Certainty are not so united; The noon-daies Sun would discover this to him, but that he is blinded with his own self-conceit, hugging his new Invention. Let him injoy it.
5. In S. 15. He gathers up from his premises his general conclusion: Taking for granted, that all his seven Properties of the Rule of Faith, do peculiarly belong to his Tradition, and that they are incompetent to any Competitor, he concludes in his own Judgment thus, That, Tradition is the Rule of Faith.
For a closing answer to this Discourse.
1. We deny that any of these Conditions, as rightly understood, are proper to his Tradition, which is Popish; or that he hath in the least measure proved, or made it good. And this we leave to impartial Readers to judge.
2 We offer it to observation, that the highest Demonstration, which he hath attempted to give thus farre of any particular Property hath its strength only from Man, whose nature he stileth the best in the Vniverse: And yet at the best is but frail and wavering and perishing.
3. As to all other properties of an higher descent, and more necessary Ally to the Rule of Faith, he passeth them by, as not fit to be considered in the present case, or not worthy it. Yet must he know that nothing can be the Rule of Faith without them. As Supremacy, Rectitude, Commensurateness with the matter ruled, and Indivisibility, that nothing can be taken from it, or added to it; we expect these to be reciprocal with that which is the Rule of Faith, if not, we shall not yield it so to be. These then and the rest being not so peculiar unto his Tradition, his main Conclusion is denied.
Tradition is not the Rule of Faith.
1. Not general humane Tradition, for this medleth not with Faith at all.
2. Not his special or Popish Tradition, for that falsifieth and corrupteth the true faith of the Gospel, as hath been hinted.
3. Not true Christian Oral-Tradition, as it notes only the mode of del…vering down faith, without the matter delivered, which is the will of God, the only Rule or Ground of Faith unto Salvation. What a due and necessary means God hath made it to beget faith, hath been declared, and granted. The Discourser then may silence his boasting, untill he acquit himself and his Tradition better. That he promiseth himself in the sequel by a fuller demonstration: we shall go on to try his performance.