The Rule of Faith, Part 3 · Section 9

The Rule of Faith · Part 3 · Section 9

p. 241SECT. IX.

§. 1. DOctrines and Practises which must be acknowledged to have been innovated,The third Answer to Mr. S's second Demonstration. have made the same pretence to uninterrupted Tradition. And of this I shall give several Instances; one among the Jews, the rest among Christians.

1. I shall instance among the Traditionary Jews, whose perswasion in our Saviours time was, and still is, that their Oral Doctrine, which they call their C…bala, hath descended to them from p. 242Moses uninterruptedly. Now here is the existence of such a perswasion, as Mr. S. affirms to be impossible without Traditions ever-indeficiency to beget it. And this perswasion of theirs is most exactly parallel with the pretensions of the Romish Church according to Mr. S. For here's a multitude of Traditionary Jews, manifoldly greater in proportion to the Dissenters in that Church, than the Romish Church is in comparison to those Christians that dissent from Her. Josephus tells us **Antiq. Jud. l. 13. c. 18., That the richer sort were of the perswasion of the Sadduces, but the multitude were on the Pharisees side. So that the Pharisees had this mark of the true Church (as Bellarmine calls it) common to them with the Church of Rome, that they were the greatest number, and so they continue to this very day; insomuch that although they do not call themselves the Catholicks, yet I am sure they call all Jews that do dissent from them Schismaticks. Now that the Sadduces were for the written Law against Oral Tradition, is I confess no credit to us; but that our Saviour reproved the Traditionary Doctrines and Practises of the p. 243Pharisees, because by them they made void the written Law, is much more to the discredit of the Assertors of Oral Tradition. Both Romanists and Pharisees they own alike a written Doctrine, but then they both pretend the true sense and explication thereof to have descended to them by Oral Tradition. For just as the Traditionary Christians do now, so Josephus tells **Ibid. l. 17. c. 3. & de Bell. Jud. l. 1. c. 4. & l. 2. c. 12.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 **Antiq. l. 18. c. 2.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 p. 244the 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 p. 245rites 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 **De Fid. & Theol. Tract. 1. Sect. 6.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 p. 246Rule 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 **Rep. to K. James, observ. 3. c. 4.) 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 p. 247the Church the Authority of Guardian and Depositary to preserve▪ and attest them. Voysin in his Observations upon Raymundus Martyn, **Pugio Fid. p. 145.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 p. 248Moses 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. **P. 76.asks us, so the Jew does him; p. 249By 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 p. 250Christ 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 **Apol. 123, &c.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) p. 251as 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 foreign. 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, 'tis nothing to the purpose what the Doctrine p. 252be 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 p. 253Maimonides **In Praefat. Sum. Talmud.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?

p. 254§. 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 **Apol. p. 78, 79, &c.by telling us, that Eusebius says that this Tradition sprang from Papias (a good but a credulous and simple man) p. 255who 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 all his Writings, to say any thing to remove a present Objection, though never so much to the prejudice of his main Hypothesis; then which I do not know any quality in a Writer which doth more certainly betray the want either of judgment, or of sincerity, or of a good Cause.

§. 7. And whereas he says **Apol. p. 81., That Irenaeus his testimony proves it to be p. 256no Tradition; for he sets down the supposed words of our Saviour, which plainly shews it is a story, not a Tradition; a Tradition being a sense delivered not in set words, but setled in the Auditors hearts by hundreds of different expressions explicating the same meaning. When I consider this passage of Mr. White, I confess I cannot complement him, and say (as he makes his Nephew do in the Dialogue **Rushworth Dial. 4. Sect. 4.between them) I cannot but applaud your Discourse, it hath so pleasing and attractive a countenance. And again **Ibid. Sect. 5., I am not able to oppose what you say by any weighty Objection, your Arguments being not only strong and nervous, but of so comely and winning a complexion, &c. I cannot (I say) speak all this of his present Argument. But I may deservedly apply to it the last part of his Nephew's Complement, That it is an Argument so framed, as if without any evidence of its consequence it would perswade men to believe it. But to return an Answer to this passage: It seems (according to Mr. White) that Irenaeus was mistaken in the very nature of Tradition: and if so learned a Father was ignorant in the p. 257common Rule of Faith, what can we (to use Mr. S's words **P. 39.) undertakingly promise to weaker heads? Mr. S. instanceth in the Creed, and Ten Commandments, as the principal Traditions which Parents teach their Children; but now Mr. White can shew plainly that these are no Traditions but Stories, because Tradition is a sense delivered not in set words, &c. As if Christ and his Apostles could deliver no Doctrine unless they expressed the same thing an hundred several ways. But suppose they did so (which no man hath any reason to imagine, because a thing may be expressed as plainly by one way as by an hundred) can no man deliver this Tradition who speaks it in any one of those expressions? If one should employ his Servant to carry a Message, and (because Mr. White thinks this necessary) should settle the meaning of it in his heart, by telling him the same thing in an hundred several expressions; and the Servant should go and deliver this Message in one of those very expressions that his Master used to him, and should say these were his Masters very words; would not this be well enough?

p. 258No, if he had come to such a Philosopher as Mr. White, he would soon have given him to understand that he was not fit to bring a Message, or to be credited in it, who had so little wit as not to know that a Message is a thing not to be delivered in set-words. And now I would entreat Mr. White to reconcile himself in this matter to his Friends. Mr. Rushworth says **Dialog. 2. Sect. 6., 'Tis impossible to put fully and beyond all quarrel the same sense in divers words: Which if it be true, I would fain know what certain course Mr. White can prescribe to explicate the same meaning by hundreds of different expressions, and consequently how Tradition can be infallibly conveyed by setling the sense of it in the Auditors hearts by such variety of expressions. Mr. Cressy **Exomolog. c. 10. Sect. 4.likewise (a zealous Assertor of Tradition) does affirm, That the Primitive Churches were even to excess scrupulous in maintaining the very phrases of Traditionary Doctrines; which (according to Mr. White) plainly shews these Doctrines to be stories, not Traditions, because Tradition is a sense delivered not in set-words. The same Author complains, p. 259**Ibid. c. 19. Sect. 2.That few among their learnedst Masters of Controversie, propose the Points to be disputed between them and the Protestants, in the Language of the Church. By which I suppose he does not mean, that these Controvertists were to blame in that they did not settle the sense of these Points by hundreds of different expressions explicating the same meaning, but that they did not keep to the words wherein the Church had in Councils or otherwise (if there be any other way) declared her sense of those Points. Again **Ibid. c. 27. Sect. 2.he says, That St. Paul, referring to the Doctrine setled by Oral Instruction, to shew the uniformity of it everywhere, calls it a form of wholsom words. From whence we may conclude either that St. Paul did not well to call the Traditionary Doctrine (as Mr. Cressy says he does) a form of words, or else (which is more probable) that Mr. White is mistaken in saying, That a Tradition is a sense not delivered in set-words. Furthermore, the same Mr. Cressy **Ibid. c. 28. Sect. 1.tells us, That St. Augustine was careful not only to deliver Traditional Truths themselves, but the terms also in which those Truths were conveyed to his Times. But now p. 260Mr. White could have informed St. Augustin, that this officious care of his was not only superfluous, but pernicious to Tradition.

§. 8. But to return to Justin's Testimony; to which the summe of Mr. Whites answer is, That Justin esteem'd it not as a point necessary to salvation; but rather a piece of Learning higher than the common: Since he both acknowledges other Catholicks held the contrary, and entitles those of his perswasion foreign right in all opinions, that is, wholly of his own mind. It is not material to my purpose, whether or no Justin look'd upon this as a point necessary to Salvation, so long as it is evident that he looked upon it as a Divine Revelation and part of the Christian Doctrine. And yet it seems he thought it a point of more than ordinary importance, because he joins it with the Doctrine of the Resurrection, and says that it was not disowned by any but those who also denied the Resurrection. But whereas Mr. White says that Justin acknowledges other Catohlicks to have held the contrary, I hope to make it evident from the scope and series of his Discourse, p. 261that he acknowledges no such thing; but that the plain design of his Discourse, is to shew that this Doctrine was owned by all true Christians. For when Trypho asks him **Dial. cum Tryph. p. 306. Edit. Lutet· 1615., Whether the Christians did indeed believe that Jerusalem should be re-built, &c. He returns him this answer, I am not such a Wretch as to speak otherwise than I think. I have told thee before that my self and many others (as ye all know) are of the mind that this will come to pass. But, that many indeed of those Christians who, are [not] of the pure and pious perswasion, do not own this, I have intimated to thee. That the negative particle (though omitted in the Copy) ought to be thus inserted, will be clear to any one that considers what follows. For after he had spoken of those who disown this Doctrine, he immediately adds by way of further description of them, that though they are called Christians yet in Truth they are not Christians, in these words; For of these (viz. the Disowners of this Doctrine) who are called indeed Christians, but are atheistical and impious Hereticks, I have shewed thee that they teach in all Points p. 262blasphemous, atheistical and absurd things. But that ye may know that I do not say this for you only; I will, according to my ability, compile all these Discourses which have past between us into one piece; in which I will by Writing make Profession of this very thing which I now declare to you. For I do not choose to follow men or the Doctrines of men, but God and such Doctrines as are from him. And though ye may have conversed with some who are called Christians, and yet do not acknowledg this; but even dare to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who also say that there is no Resurrection of the dead, but that so soon as they dye their Souls are received into Heaven: Do not count these men Christians; no more than a man, that considers things rightly, would own the Sadduces and such like Sects to be Jews, &c. But I my self, and as many Christians as are thoroughly of the right perswasion, do both know that there shall be a Resurrection of the Flesh, and a thousand years in Jerusalem which shall be built, adorned and enlarged, &c. Can any thing be plainer than that Justin endeavours by this Discourse to p. 263satisfie Trypho, that this Point they were speaking of was a Divine Doctrine, and owned to be so by all Christians; except such as did only bear the Name and Title of Christians, but were indeed blasphemous Hereticks and deniers of the Resurrection? By which Character that he intends to describe the impious Sects of the Gnosticks, will appear by and by. So that Mr. White must either allow the inserting of the negative Particle (which Mr. Mede **Nov. Edit. p. 664.proves to have been omitted in the Copy) or else acknowledg that those who are Christians only in Name, but in Truth are impious blasphemous and absurd Hereticks, may properly be said to be of the pure and pious Opinion of the Christians. And if only these be the other Catholicks, whom Mr. White says Justin acknowledges to have held contrary to the Millenaries, I am contented he should make his best of them. If Mr. White should blame the inserting of the negative particle [not] into Justin's Text, as too great a boldness with the Fathers; it were easily answered, that the sense evidently requires it. And in such a case it is no boldness, but such a liberty as the p. 264most Learned of their own Interpreters and Commentators upon the Fathers do frequently take. And for Mr. S. if he takes offence at this, one may with reason (since the exigency of the sense plainly requires the inserting of it) demand of him (what he **p. 31.unreasonably does of us in relation to all the affirmative Propositions of Scripture) to demonstrate that the particle [not] was not left out of this Clause of Justin, by those who Transcribed the Book. But besides the exigency of the sense in this place; that the negative ought to have been inserted, will appear by the reference which Justin makes in this passage to something foregoing in the same Dialogue. I have (says he) declared to thee before that my self and many others are of the mind that this will come to pass. But, that many indeed of those Christians, who are [not] of the pure and pious perswasion, do not own this, I have intimated to thee. For of these, who are called indeed Christians but are Atheistical and Impious Hereticks, I have shewed thee that they teach in all Points blasphemous, atheistical, and absurd things. In these words he plainly refers p. 265to some precedent passage, which if it can be found will be a certain Key to open to us the sense of this place. I know that Mr. Mede **Ibid.(perhaps not observing it) thought that passage to have been fraudulently expunged by the Enemies of the Millenary Opinion: But it seems to me to be still extant. For I find towards the beginning of this Dialogue, after that Justin had endeavoured to prove at large out of Scripture this glorious coming of Christ, and to refute those who applied the Texts produced by him to that purpose to Hezekiah, and to Solomon whose falling off to Idolatry he occasionally mentions; whereupon Trypho objects to him that many who were called Christians, did also communicate in the Idol-feasts: To this, I say, I find Justin returning this answer **P. 253.: First, He denies not that there are such as these who own themselves Christians, and confess the crucified Jesus to be both Lord and Christ, and yet teach not his Doctrines, but the Doctrines of seducing spirits. But, says he, We who are the Disciples of the true and pure Doctrine of Jesus Christ are from this very thing the more strengthned p. 266in our Faith, and become more confirmed in the Hope which by him hath been declared to us. For we now see those things visibly and effectually accomplish't which he before-hand told us would be done in his Name. For he said, Many shall come in my Name, &c. By which Hope any one that reads the Antecedents and Consequents will plainly see that Justin means the Hope of the Millennium (which he had been speaking of before) and consequently of the Resurrection, which he looked upon as having a strict Connexion with the Doctrine of the Millennium; because (as he tells us afterwards) this Doctrine was denied by none but such as also denied the Resurrection. And of these men his description runs on in these words, foreign, &c. Many (saith he) both are and have been, that have come in the Name of Jesus, and taught both to speak and do atheistical and blasphemous things; and are by us denominated from those men from whom each of their Doctrines and Opinions had its rise (namely as it follows Marcionites, Valentinians, &c.) and all these in their several ways teach men to blaspheme the Creator p. 267of the Vniverse, and the Christ whose Coming was foretold by him, and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But we have no communion with them, as knowing them to be atheistical and impious, &c. This passage in hand, when I compare it with the Text before quoted and consider the words and characters of them both, I cannot but believe it the very same that he refers to in those words, I have declared to thee, I have intimated to thee, &c. If so, the matter in Controversie is clear, that the Doctrine of the Millennium was universal. If it be not the same, I could wish to be shew'd some other place in this Dialogue, where Justin makes any such Declaration or Intimation. In the mean while by comparison of these places, it is evident there are but two sorts of men that Justin speaks of. First, Who believe the Millennium; We the Disciples **foreign.of the true and pure Doctrine, &c. viz. My self and many others; again, my self and as many Christians as are thoroughly **foreign.of the right perswasion. Secondly, Who deny the Millennium; Many Christians, saith Justin; but what Christians? Of a right p. 268perswasion? That, saith he, I have signified before. foreign &c. For I have shewed thee of them who are called Christians, but are indeed Atheists and impious Hereticks, that they teach blasphemous and atheistical and absurd things: And true it is, he did shew before that those who deny'd the Millennium were many in number, and were called Christians, &c. but were Teachers of blasphemous and atheistical things, &c. and known to be Atheists and Impious, &c. But he shewed it of none other besides these. So that if this Doctrine were likewise denied by many Christians of the pure and pious perswasion, than Justin Martyr had foulely forgot himself. But if not, then it is plain that the Transcribers have wronged Justin by leaving out a Negative which ought to have been inserted. It is worth observing by the way how Mr. White pleases himself with false and frivolous Criticisms upon the words, foreign & foreign. False they are, as Mr. White shall know if he desires to hear any more of them; and frivolous they are rendered by my preceding Discourse; for which reason I say no more of them. But I p. 269think he may do well hereafter (as Mr. S. **P. 68.warily suggests) not to engage himself, nor be hook't by others, out of his own infallible way, but leave it wholly to the **P. 69.Bird-witted Hereticks (as Mr. S. calls them) to perch upon the specifical natures of Words, as he does of Things.

§. 9. Besides these Instances I have given of Doctrines and Practises which Mr. S. cannot deny to have been innovated, I might instance likewise in the chief Points of Popery, and shew that for all their pretence to Tradition, they are really Innovations. But because this would engage me in tedious Disputes about particular Points, I will only single out one of their most fundamental Doctrines, viz. that of Transubstantiation; concerning which I shall shew that, notwithstanding it is the universal perswasion of the present Roman Church, yet they have not, nor can have any assurance that it was the Doctrine of Christ, and that it is descended to them by an uninterrupted Tradition. I shall not at all contend against the word Transubstantiation (which is generally acknowledged to be new) but p. 270only the thing signified by it, a substantial change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. And this I might shew at large not to have been the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers. But because Mr. White, and Dr. Holden, and Mr. Cressy do so frequently and confidently tell us, that nothing is to be reputed a Traditionary Doctrine the contrary whereof hath been publickly held by any Catholick who continued afterwards uncensured, and in the Communion of the Church: Therefore I shall content my self at present with one clear Testimony, and that of a very eminent Person in the Church, St. Theodoret, concerning whom Pope Leo (in an Epistle to him, at the end of Theodoret's Works) gives this Testimony, That in the judgment of the Apostolick See he was free from all stain of Heresie. The passage I intend is in his Dialogues, between a Catholick under the name of Orthodoxus, and Eranistes who susteined the person of an Heretick. Eranistes **Dialog. 2.maintaining that the Body of Christ was changed into the substance of the Divinity, he illustrates it by this similitude. As (says p. 271he) the Symbols of the Lords Body and Blood are one thing before the invocation of the Priest; but after the invocation are changed and do become another thing: So the Body of our Lord, after his Ascension, is changed into the Divine substance. To which Orthodoxus returns this answer, Thou art caught in thine own Net. Because the mystical Symbols after Consecration do not pass out of their own Nature; for they remain in their former substance, figure, and appearance, and may be seen and handled even as before. He does not only in express words deny the substance of the Symbols to be changed, but the occasion upon which these words are brought in, and the scope of them (if they be of any force against the Hereticks illustration) renders them uncapable of any other sense. When Mr. S. hath answered this Testimony, I have more for him.

That which I mainly urge against this Doctrine is, the monstrous Absurdities and Contradictions contained in it, together with the necessary consequence of them. Several of the Absurdities of it are well brought together by Scotus p. 272**Distinct. l. 4. dist. 10. qu. 1. n. 3., who tells us, That to prove the possibility of Christs Body being contained under the species of Bread and Wine many things must be proved which seem to involve a Contradiction; as, 1. That one quantum (or extended Body) may be together in the very same place with another. 2. That a less quantum may be together in the same place with a greater; i. e. a Body of less extension may occupy not only the same, but as much room as a Body of greater extension does; which is to say no more but this, that a Body less than another may be as great as that other even whil'st it is less than it. 3. That a greater quantum may be together with every part of a less quantum, i. e. a Body that is greater than another, may be as little as the least part of that other Body which is less than it. 4. That a subject may be without quantity, i. e. there may be a Body which hath no kind of Magnitude. 5. That a Body may be somewhere where it was not before, without changing its place, i· e. a Body may be removed to another place, whil'st it remains still in the same place▪ 6. That a quantum may be without any p. 273quantitative Mode, i. e. a Body may be extended without any manner of extension. The possibility of all which, he saith (and I am very much of his mind) it would be too tedious a work to prove; and therefore he only attempts to prove the two last, which (in all reason) is work enough for one man. All these seeming Contradictions (as he modestly calls them) are by his own acknowledgment involved in this Doctrine. To these I might add many more; as, How a thing can be said to be changed into another thing which did exist before? How a Body can be present in a place after the manner of a spirit? and yet this they affirm concerning the presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament; one might as well say that Snow is black, but not after the manner of blackness, but in the way of whiteness, which is to talk non-sense after the manner of sense: How the whole Body of Christ can be contained under the least sensible part of the species of Bread, as is generally affirmed: nay, and Scotus **Ibid. qu. 1. n. 12.adds, that the whole Body is under every little part in its full proportions; for he says expresly, That the p. 274Head and Foot of the Body of Christ are as far distant from one another in the sacrament, as they are in Heaven; as if one should say that a Body, all whose parts lye within the compass of a small pins-head, may yet within that little compass have parts two yards distant from one another: And lastly, how the sensible species of Bread, e. g. quantity, whiteness, softness, &c. can exist without any subject? to affirm the possibility of which (as generally they do) is to say that there may be quantities of white and soft nothings; For this is the plain English of that assertion, that sensible species may exist without a subject; which being strip't of those terms of Art (species and subject) that do a little disguise it, it appears to be plain Non-sense.

Now the proper and necessary consequence of this Doctrine is to take away all certainty, and especially the certainty of sense. For if that which my sight and taste and touch do all assure me to be a little piece of Wafer, may notwithstanding this be Flesh and Blood, even the whole Body of a man; then notwithstanding the greatest assurance that Sense can give me, that any thing is this or p. 275that, it may be quite another thing from what Sense reported it to be. If so, then farewel the Infallibility of Tradition, which depends upon the certainty of Sense: And which is a worse consequence, if this Doctrine be admitted we can have no sufficient assurance that the Christian Doctrine is a Divine Revelation. For the assurance of that depending upon the assurance we have of the Miracles said to be wrought for the confirmation of it, and all the assurance we can have of a Miracle depending upon the certainty of our senses, it is very plain that that Doctrine which takes away the certainty of Sense does in so doing overthrow the certainty of Christian Religion. And what can be more vain than to pretend, that a man may be assured that such a Doctrine is revealed by God, and consequently true, which if it be true, a man can have no assurance at all of any Divine Revelation? Surely nothing is to be admitted by us as certain, which being admitted we can be certain of nothing. It is a wonder that any man who considers the natural consequences of this Doctrine can be a Papist; unless he have attained to Mr. Cressy's pitch of p. 276Learning, who speaking of the difficult Arguments wherewith this Doctrine was pressed, says **Exomol. c. 73. Sect. 7.plainly, I must answer freely and ingenuously, that I have not learned to answer such Arguments, but to despise them. And if this be a good way, when ever we have a mind to believe any thing to scorn those Objections against it which we cannot solve; then Christian Religion hath no advantage above the vilest Enthusiasms; and a Turk may maintain Mahomet and his Alcoran (in opposition to Christ and his Doctrine) against all that Grotius, or any other hath said, if he can but keep his countenance, and gravely say, I have not learned to answer such Arguments, but to despise them.

§. 10. I will add one Instance more in another kind, to shew the uncertainty of Oral and Practical Traditions, and that shall be the Tradition concerning Pope Jone; than which scarce any was ever more generally received in the Historical kind. Many and great Authors affirm it, as Testifiers of the general Fame. None ever denied it till the Reformers had made use of it to the disadvantage of Popery. Since that time p. 277not only Papists deny it, but several of our own Writers cease to believe it. Phil. Bergomensis tells the story thus: Anno 858. John the 7th, Pope, &c. The Tradition is that this person was a Woman, &c. Here's an Oral Tradition. He concludes thus; In detestation of whose filthiness, and to perpetuate the memory of her Name, the Popes even to this day going on Procession with the People and the Clergy, when they come to the place of her Travel, &c. in token of abomination they turn from it, and go a by-way; and being past that detestable place, they return into the way, and finish their Procession. Here is one Practical Tradition. And for avoiding of the like miscarriages, it was decreed that no one should thereafter be admitted into St. Peter's Chair priusquam per foratam sedem futuri Pontificis genitalia ab ultimo Dyacone Cardinale attractarentur: Here is another with a Witness. **Ennead. 9. L. 1.Sabellicus relates the same; and moreover says that this Porphyry Chair was in his time to be seen in the Popes Palace. He adds indeed that Platina thinks that this Tradition of Pope Jone was not faithfully delivered to Posterity. But however (says p. 278he) such a Tradition there is. Concerning the first Practical Tradition, Platina says that he may not deny it. For the second, he thinks the Chair rather design'd for a Stool for another use, &c. He concludes, These things which I have related are commonly reported, yet from uncertain and obscure Authors: Therefore I resolved (says he) briefly and nakedly to set them down, lest I should seem too obstinately and pertinaciously to have omitted that which almost all affirm. It is no wonder that he says the Authors of this Report were uncertain and obscure, since so very few writ any thing in that Age. But suppose none had writ of it, so long as he acknowledges it to have been a general Oral Tradition attested by a solemn and constant Practice, it has (according to Mr. S's Principles) greater certainty than if it had been brought down to us by a hundred Books written in that very Age. So that here's an Oral and Practical Tradition, continued we are sure for some hundreds of years, preserved and propagated by a solemn practice of the Popes, Clergy and People of Rome in their Processions, and by a notorious Custom at the Election of every Pope; and in a p. 279matter of so great importance to their Religion (the honour of the See of Rome, and the uninterrupted Succession from St. Peter being so nearly concerned in it) that, had it been false, they had been obliged under pain of Damnation, not only not to have promoted it, but to have used all means to have discovered the falsity of it. Therefore Mr. S. is bound by his own Principles either to allow it for a Truth, or else to give an account when and how it begun; which may possibly be made out by We Metaphysitians (as he **P. 340.styles himself, and his Scientifical Brethren) but I assure him it is past the skill of **P. 337.Note-book Learning.