The Rule of Faith, Part 1

The Rule of Faith · Part 1

p. 1THE RULE of FAITH.

PART. I. The Explication and State of the Question.

SECT. I.

§ 1. THe Question he propounds to himself to debate, is,The Explication of the Terms of the Question. What is the Rule of Faith? In order to the resolution wherof, he endeavours,

First, To fix the true notion of these two Terms, Rule, and Faith. Which way of proceeding I cannot but allow to be very proper and reasonable; but I can by no means think his explication of those Terms to be sufficient. He tells us, That a Rule is that which is able to regulate, or guide him that useth it: In which description, as in many other passages of his Book, he is plainly guilty of that which he taxeth p. 2in Mr. P. 180.Whitby, that is, the confounding of a Rule and a Guide, by making Regulating and Guiding to be equivalent words. But for this I am no further concerned, than to take notice of it by the way: The fault which I find in this definition is, that it doth not make the thing plainer than it was before; so that no man is the wiser for it, nor one jot nearer knowing what a Rule is. He pretends to tell English-men what a Rule is; and for their clearer understanding of this word, he explains it by a word less remov'd from the Latine, A Rule is that which is able to regulate him that useth it; just as if a man should go about to explain what a Law-giver is, by saying, he is one that hath the power of Legislation. Of the two, he had much better have said, that a Rule is a thing that is able to rule him that useth it, though this be nothing but an explication of the same word by it self.

§ 2. Not much better is his explication of the term Faith, which he tells us, in the common sense of Mankind, is the same with Believing. **P. 4.He declar'd indeed before-hand, that he did not intend to give rigorous School-definitions of either this or the former word; and (to do him right) he hath not in p. 3the least swerv'd from his intention. It were to be wish'd he had prefac'd some such thing to his Demonstrations; for the Reader will find, that they are not one whit more rigorous than his Definitions; the latter of which doth very much resemble the Country-man's way of defining, who being ask'd by his Neighbour what an Invasion was, after some study, told him very gravely, that an Invasion was as if he should say an Invasion: In like manner Mr. S. tells us; that Faith (or which is all one, Belief) is the same with Believing; which in my apprehension is but a Country-definition, unless the interposing of those solemn words [in the common sense of Mankind] may be thought to mend the matter. This puts me in mind of what Mr. S. says in his **P. 159…Transition (as he calls it) where he gives the Reader an account what feats he hath done in his Book: He will see (says he) I take my Rise at the meaning of the words Rule and Faith; this known, I establish my First Principles in this present matter, to be these, viz. A Rule is a Rule, Faith is Faith. This is the right self-evident method he talks so much of, and his Principles agree admirably well with his Definitions. If he had but proceeded in the same method, and p. 4added, that A Rule of Faith is a Rule of Faith; that Oral Tradition is Oral Tradition; and that to say, Oral Tradition is the Rule of Faith, is as much as to say, Oral Tradition is the Rule of Faith, the whole business had been concluded without any more ado; and I think no body would have gone about to confute him.

§ 3. Rejecting then his way of Definition, as inept and frivolous, and no ways tending to give a man a clearer notion of things, I shall endeavour to explain a little better (if I can) the meaning of these Terms.

A Rule (when we speak of a Rule of Faith) is a Metaphorical word, which in its first and proper sense being applied to material and sensible things, is the Measure according to which we judg of the straightness and crookedness of things. And from hence it is transferred by analogy to things moral or intellectual. A moral Rule is the Measure according to which we judg, whether a thing be good or evil; and this kind of Rule is that which is commonly called a Law, and the agreement or disagreement of our actions to this Rule, is suitably to the Metaphor called rectitude, or p. 5obliquity. An intellectual Rule is the Measure according to which we judg whether a thing be true or false; and this is either general, or more particular. Common notions, and the acknowledged Principles of Reason, are that general Rule, according to which we judg whether a thing be true or false. The particular Principles of every Science are the more particular Rules, according to which we judg whether things in that Science be true or false. So that the general notion of a Rule is, that it is a measure, by the agreement or disagreement to which we judg of all things of that kind to which it belongs.

§ 4. Faith, though both among sacred and prophane Writers, it be used many times more generally, for a perswasion or assent of the mind to any thing wrought in us by any kind of argument; yet, as it is a Term of Art used by Divines, it signifies that particular kind of assent which is wrought in us by Testimony or Authority. So that Divine Faith, which we are now speaking of, is an assent to a thing upon the testimony or authority of God, or, which is all one, an assent to a truth upon Divine revelation.

p. 6§ 5. A Rule of Faith is the Measure, according to which we judg what matters we are to assent to, as revealed to us by God, and what not. And more particularly, the Rule of Christian faith is the Measure, according to which we are to judg what we ought to assent to, as the Doctrine revealed by Christ to the world, and what not.

§. 6. So that this Question, What is the Rule of Christian faith? supposeth a Doctrine revealed by Christ to the world; and that that Doctrine was intelligibly and entirely delivered by Christ to his Apostles, and sufficient confirmation given to it; that this Doctrine was in the same manner published to the world by the Apostles, who likewise gave sufficient evidence of the truth of it. All this is necessarily supposed in the Question: For it would be in vain to enquire whether this or that be the Rule of Christian Faith, if such a thing as the Christian Faith were not first supposed. When therefore we enquire what is the Rule of Christian Faith? the meaning of that enquiry is, by what way and means the knowledg of Christ's Doctrine is conveyed certainly down to us, who live at the distance of so p. 7many Ages from the time of it's first delivery; For this being known, we have the Rule of Faith; that is, a measure by which we may judg what we are to assent to, as the Doctrine of Christ, and what not. So that when any Question ariseth about any particular Proposition, whether this be part of Christ's Doctrine, we may be able by this Rule to resolve it.

SECT II.

§ 1. THe next thing to be considered is his resolution of this Question;Mr. S's Rule of Faith. by which we shall know what his opinion is concerning the Rule of Faith; for that being known, the Controversie between us will easily be stated.

His opinion in general is, that oral or practical Tradition (in opposition to writing; or any other way that can be assigned) is the Rule of Faith. By oral or practical Tradition, he means **p. 41.a delivery down from hand to hand (by words, and a constant course of frequent and visible actions, conformable to those words) of the sense and faith of Forefathers.

§ 2. Now, that I may bring the Controversie between us to a clear state, I am first p. 8to take a more particular view of his Opinion concerning the Rule of Faith, that so I may the better understand how much he attributes to Oral Tradition, and what to the Scriptures, or written Tradition. And then I am to lay down the Protestant Rule of Faith, that so it may appear how far we agree, and how far we differ. The sum of what he attributes to Oral Tradition, so far as can be collected out of so obscure and confused a Discourse, may be reduced to these five Heads.

§. 3. First, That the Doctrine of Christian Religion was delivered by Christ to the Apostles, and by them published to the World; and that the Age which first received it from the Apostles, delivered it as they received it, without any change or corruption to their Children, and they to theirs, and so it went on solely by this way of Oral Tradition. This is the sum of his Explication of Tradition, Disc. 5th.

§. 4. Secondly, That this way alone is not only sufficient to convey this Doctrine down to all Ages certainly, and without any alteration; but it is the only possible way that can be imagined, of conveying p. 9down a Doctrine securely from one Age to another. And this is the natural result of his Discourse about the Properties of a Rule of Faith: For if the true Properties of a Rule of Faith do belong to Oral Tradition, then it is a sufficient means; and if those Properties do solely and essentially appertain to it, and are incompatible to any thing else (as he endeavours to prove) then it is impossible there should be any other way.

§. 5. Thirdly, That it is impossible this means should fail, or miss of its end; that is, the Doctrine of Christ being once put into this way of conveyance, it can neither cease to descend, nor be at any time corrupted or changed in its descent. This is that which his Demonstrations pretend to prove.

§ 6. Fourthly, That the infallibility of Oral Tradition, or the impossibility of its failing, is a first and self evident principle. This he frequently asserts throughout his Book.

§ 7. Fifthly, That this way of Oral Tradition, hath de facto in all Ages been acknowledged by Christians, as the only way and means whereby the Doctrine of p. 10Christianity hath been conveyed down to them. And this is that which he attempts to prove from the Consent of Authority.

§ 8. As for the Scriptures, he grants them indeed to have been written by men divinely inspired, and to contain a Divine Doctrine, even the same which is delivered by Oral Tradition; so he tells us **P. 117., 'Tis certain the Apostles taught the same Doctrine they writ. But then he denies it to be of any use without Oral Tradition, because neither the letter, nor sense of it, can without that be ascertain'd; so he saith in his Letter to Dr. Casaubon **P. 337., As for the Scriptures (ascertaining their letter and sense, which is done by Tradition) 'tis clear they are of incomparable value; not only for the Divine Doctrine contained in them, but also for many particular passages, whose source or first attestation not being universal, nor their nature much practical, might possibly have been lost in their conveyance down by Tradition. Where, though he give the Scriptures very good words, it is to be understood, provided they will be subordinate, and acknowledg that they owe their sense and their being intelligible and useful to Oral Tradition. For if any man shall presume p. 11to say, That this Book hath any certain sense without Oral Tradition; or that God can write plainly and intelligibly, and that this Book which he hath endited is so written, and doth not depend upon Tradition for its sense and interpretation; then the most scurrilous language is not bad enough for the Scriptures; then what are those Sacred Writings **Append. 4th. p. 319., but Ink variously figured in a Book **P. 68., unsensed Characters, waxen natur'd words, not yet sensed, nor having any certain Interpreter, but fit to be plaid upon diversly by quirks of wit; that is, apt to blunder and confound, but to clear little or nothing. These, with many other disgraceful terms, he very liberally bestows upon Divine Oracles; the consideration whereof, did it not minister too much horrour, would afford some comfort; for by this kind of rude usage, so familiar with him towards his Adversaries, one may reasonably conjecture, that he doth not reckon the Scriptures among his Friends.

§ 9. And whereas he saith, That the Scriptures have preserv'd many particular passages, which because their source or first attestation was not universal, nor their nature much practical, might possibly bave been lost in their conveyance down by Tradition; p. 12this is impossible, according to his Hypothesis. For if neither the Scriptures letter, nor the certain sense of it, as to the main body of Christian Doctrine, could have been secured without Oral Tradition; that is, if we could not have known that those passages which contain the main points of Christs Doctrine, either had been written by men divinely inspired, or what the sense of them was, but from the consonancy and agreement of those passages with the Doctrine which was orally preached by the Apostles; how can we be certain either of the letter or sense of other particular passages which must necessarily want this confirmation from Oral Tradition; because their first attestation was not universal, nor their nature much practical? Nay, his discourse plainly implies, that we can have no security at all either of the letter or sense of any other parts of Scripture, but only those which are coincident with the main body of Christian Doctrine, as is evident from these words **p. 116., Tradition established, the Church is provided of a certain and infallible Rule to preserve a copy of the Scriptures Letter truly significative of Christs sense, as far as it is coincident with the main body of Christian Doctrine preached at p. 13first; because sense writ in mens hearts by Tradition, can easily guide them to correct the alteration of the outward letter. This I perceive plainly is the thing they would be at, they would correct the outward letter of Scripture by sense written in their hearts; and then, instead of leaving out the second Commandement, they would change it into a precept of giving due worship to Images, according to the Council of Trent; and a thousand other alterations they must make in the Bible, to make it truly significative of the sense of their Church. But surely the outward letter of other passages of Scripture, which were not intended to signifie points of Faith, is equally liable to alterations; and yet the Church is not by Tradition provided of any way to correct these alterations when they happen; because Tradition doth, as this Corollary implies, only furnish the Church with a certain and infallible Rule of preserving a copy of the Scriptures letter, so far as it is coincident with the main body of Christian Doctrine.

§ 10. Again, he tells us**p. 117., Tradition established, the Church is provided of a certain & infallible Rule to interpret Scripture letter p. 14by, so as to arrive certainly at Christs sense, as far as the letter concerns the body of Christian Doctrine preached at first, or points requisite to Salvation. So that whatever he may attribute to Scripture for fashions sake, and to avoid Calumny with the Vulgar, as he says very ingenuously in his explication of the 15th Corollary; nevertheless 'tis plain, that according to his own Hypothesis, he cannot but look upon it as perfectly useless and pernicious. That 'tis altogether useless, according to his Hypothesis, is plain; for the main body of Christian Doctrine is securely conveyed to us without it, and it can give no kind of confirmation to it, because it receives all at its confirmation from it; only the Church is ever and anon put to a great deal of trouble to correct the alteration of the outward letter, by tradition and sense written in their hearts. And as for all other parts of Scriptue which are not coincident with the main body of Christian Doctrine, we can have no certainty, either that the outward Letter is true; nor, if we could, can we possibly arrive at any certain sense of them. And that it is intolerably pernicious, according to his Hypothesis, is plain, because * every silly and upstart Heresie fathers it self upon it; and p. 15when men leave Tradition (as he supposeth all Hereticks do) the Scripture is the most dangerous engine that could have been invented; being to such Persons only * waxen natured words, not sensed, nor having any certain Interpreter; but fit to be play'd upon diversly by quirks of wit; that is, apt to blunder and confound, but to clear little or nothing. And indeed, if his Hypothesis were true, the Scriptures might well deserve all the contemptuous language which he useth against them; and **Apology for tradition, p. 165.Mr. White's comparison of them with Lilly's Almanack, would not only be pardonable, but proper; and (unless he added it out of prudence, and for the Peoples sake, whom he may think too superstitiously conceited of those Books) he might have spared that cold excuse which he makes for using this similitude, that it was agreeable rather to the impertinency of the Objection than the dignity of the Subject. Certain it is, if these men are true to their own Principles, that notwithstanding the high reverence and esteem pretended to be born by them and their Church to the Scriptures, they must heartily despise them, and wish them out of the way, and even look upon it as a great oversight of the Divine p. 16Providence to trouble his Church with a Book, which, if their Discourse be of any consequence, can stand Catholicks in no stead at all, and is so dangerous and mischievous a weapon in the hands of Hereticks.

SECT. III.

§ 1. HAving thus taken a view of his opinion,The Protestant Doctrine concerning the Rule of Faith. and considered how much he attributes to Oral Tradition, and how little to the Scriptures; before I assail this Hypothesis, I shall lay down the Protestant Rule of Faith; not that so much is necessary for the answering of his Book; but that he may have no colour of objection, that I proceed altogether in the destructive way, and overthrow his Principle, as he calls it, without substituting another in its room. The opinion then of the Protestants concerning the Rule of faith, is this in general, That those Books which we call the Holy Scriptures, are the means whereby the Christian Doctrine hath been brought down to us. And that he may now clearly understand this, together with the grounds of it, (which in reason he ought to have done before he had forsaken us) I shall declare it more particularly in these following Proposi…ions.

p. 17§ 2. 1. That the Doctrine of Christian Religion was by Christ delivered to the Apostles, and by them first preached to the World, and afterwards by them committed to Writing; which Writings, or Books, have been transmitted from one age to another down to us. So far I take to be granted by our present Adversaries. That the Christian Doctrine was by Christ delivered to the Apostles, and by them publish'd to the World, is part of their own Hypothesis. That this Doctrine was afterwards by the Apostles committed to writing, he also grants, Corol. 29. **P. 117.'Tis certain the Apostles taught the same Doctrine they writ; and if so, it must be as certain that they writ the same Doctrine which they taught. I know it is the general Tenet of the Papists, that the Scriptures do not contain the entire body of Christian Doctrine; but that besides the Doctrines contained in Scripture, there are also others brought down to us, by oral or unwritten Tradition. But Mr. S. who supposeth the whole Doctrine of Christian Religion to be certainly conveyed down to us solely by oral Tradition, doth not any where, that I remember, deny that all the same Doctrine is contained in the Scriptures; only he denies p. 18the Scriptures to be a means sufficient to convey this Doctrine to us with certainty, so that we can by them be infallibly assured what is Christ's Doctrine, and what not. Nay, he seems in that passage I last cited, to grant this; in saying, that the Apostles did both teach and write the same Doctrine. I am sure Mr. White (whom he follows very closely throughout his whole Book) does not deny this, in his Apology for Tradition; **P. 171.where he saith, that it is not the Catholick position, that all its Doctrines are not contained in the Scriptures. And that those Writings or Books which we call the Holy Scriptures, have been transmitted down to us, is unquestionable matter of fact, and granted universally by the Papists, as to all those Books which are owned by Protestants for Canonical.

§ 3. Secondly, That the way of Writing is a sufficient means to convey a Doctrine to the knowledg of those who live in times very remote from the age of its first delivery. According to his Hypothesis, there is no possible way of conveying a Doctrine with certainty and security, besides that of oral Tradition; the falshood of which will sufficiently appear, when I shall have shewn, p. 19that the true properties of a Rule of Faith do agree to the Scriptures, and not to oral Tradition. In the mean time, I shall only offer this to his consideration, that whatever can be orally delivered in plain and intelligible words, may be written in the same words; and that a Writing or Book which is publick, and in every ones hand, may be conveyed down with at least as much certainty and security, and with as little danger of alteration as an oral Tradition. And if so, I understand not what can render it impossible for a Book to convey down a Doctrine to the knowledg of after-ages. Besides, if he had looked well about him, he could not but have apprehended some little inconvenience in making that an essential part of his Hypothesis, which is contradicted by plain and constant experience: For that any kind of Doctrine may be sufficiently conveyed, by Books, to the knowledg of after-ages; provided those Books be but written intelligibly, and preserved from change and corruption in the conveyance, (both which I shall be so bold as to suppose possible) is as little doubted by the generality of mankind, as that there are Books. And surely we Christians cannot think it impossible to p. 20convey a Doctrine to posterity by Books, when we consider that God himself pitched upon this way for conveyance of the Doctrine of the Jewish Religion to after-ages; because it is not likely that so wise an Agent should pitch upon a means whereby it was impossible he should attain his end.

§ 4. Thirdly, That the Books of Scripture are sufficiently plain, as to all things necessary to be believed, and practised. He that denies this, ought in reason to instance in some necessary point of Faith, or matter of Practice, which is not in some place of Scripture or other plainly delivered. For it is not a sufficient objection to say, P. 38, 39.that the greatest wits among the Protestants differ about the sense of those Texts, wherein the generality of them suppose the Divinity of Christ to be plainly and clearly expressed: Because, if nothing were to be accounted sufficiently plain, but what it is impossible a great wit should be able to wrest to any other sense; not only the Scriptures, but all other Books; and (which is worst of all to him that makes this objection) all oral Tradition would fall into uncertainty. Doth the Traditionary Church p. 21pretend that the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity is conveyed down to her by oral Tradition, more plainly than it is expressed in Scripture? I would fain know what plainer words she ever used to express this point of Faith by, than what the Scripture useth; which expresly calls him God, the true God, God over all, blessed for evermore. If it be said, that those who deny the Divinity of Christ have been able to evade these and all other Texts of Scripture, but they could never elude the definitions of the Church in that matter; it is easily answered, that the same Arts would equally have eluded both; but there was no reason why they should trouble themselves so much about the latter; for why should they be solicitous to wrest the definitions of Councils, and conform them to their own opinion, who had no regard to the Churches Authority? If those great Wits (as he calls them) had believed the sayings of Scripture to be of no greater authority than the definitions of Councils, they would have answered texts of Scripture, as they have done the definitions of Councils; not by endeavouring to interpret them to another sense, but by downright denying their Authority. So p. 22that it seems that oral Tradition is liable to the same inconvenience with the written, as to this particular.

§ 5. And of this I shall give him a plain instance in two great Wits of their Church, the present Pope, and Mr. White; the one the Head of the Traditionary Church, as Mr. S. calls it; the other the great Master of the Traditionary Doctrine. These two great Wits, notwithstanding the plainness of oral Tradition, and the impossibility of being ignorant of it, or mistaking it, have yet been so unhappy as to differ about several points of Faith; insomuch that Mr. White is unkindly censured for it at Rome, and perhaps here in England the Pope speeds no better; however, the difference continues still so wide, that Mr. White hath thought fit to disobey the summons of his chief Pastor, and like a prudent man, rather to write against him here out of harms-way, than to venture the infallibility of plain oral Tradition for the Doctrines he maintains, against a practical Tradition which they have at Rome of killing Hereticks.

Methinks Mr. S. might have spared his brags, that he hath evinced from clear reason, p. 23**P. 54.that it is far more impossible to make a man not to be, than not to know what is rivetted into his soul by so oft repeated sensations, (as the Christian Faith is by Oral and Practical Tradition) and that it exceeds all the power of Nature (abstracting from the cases of madness, and violent disease) to blot knowledg thus fixt out of the soul of one single Believer; insomuch, that sooner may all mankind perish, than the regulative vertue of Tradition miscarry; nay, sooner may the sinews of entire nature by overstraining crack, and she lose all her activity and motion, that is, her self; than one single part of that innumerable multitude which integrate the vast testification, which we call Tradition, can possibly be violated; when after he hath told us, **P. 116.that the City of Rome was blest with more vigorous causes to imprint Christ's Doctrine at first, and recommend it to the next Age, than were found any where else; and consequently, that the stream of Tradition in its source and first putting into motion, was more particularly vigorous there than in any other See; and that the chief Pastor of that See hath a particular Title to Infallibility built upon Tradition, above any other Pastor whatsoever; not p. 24to dilate on the particular assistances to that Bishop, springing out of his divinely constituted Office; when, I say, after all this quaint Reason and rumbling Rhetorick about the infallibility of Oral Tradition, and the particular infallibility of the Bishop of Rome built on Tradition; we cannot but remember, that this great Oracle of Oral Tradition the Pope, and this great Master of it Mr. White, who is so peculiarly skill'd in the Rule of Faith, have so manifestly declar'd themselves to differ in points of Faith. For that the Pope and his Congregation general at Rome have condemn'd all his Books for this reason, because **Mr. Wh. Exetasis. P. 9.they contain several Propositions manifestly heretical, is a sign that these two great Wits do not very well hit it in matters of Faith; and either that they do not both agree in the same Rule of Faith, or that one of them does not rightly understand it, or not follow it. And now, why may not that which Mr. S. unjustly says concerning the use of Scripture, be upon this account justly apply'd to the business of Oral Tradition **P. 39.? If we see two such eminent Wits among the Papists (the Pope, and Mr. White) making use of the self-same, and as they conceive, the best advantages p. 25their Rule of Faith gives them; and availing themselves the best they can by acquired skills, yet differ about matters of Faith; what certainty can we undertakingly promise to weaker heads, that is to the generality of the Papists, in whom the Governors of the Church do professedly cherish ignorance for the increasing of their devotion.

§ 6. Fourthly, We have sufficient assurance that the Books of Scripture are conveyed down to us, without any material corruption or alteration. And he that denies this, must either reject the authority of all Books, because we cannot be certain whether they be the same now that they were at first; or else, give some probable reason why these should be more liable to corruption than others. But any man that considers things, will easily find that it is much more improbable that these Books should have been either wilfully or involuntarily corrupted, in any thing material to Faith or a good Life, than any other Books in the World; whether we consider the peculiar Providence of God engaged for the preservation of them, or the peculiar circumstances of these Books. If they were wrirten by men divinely inspired, and are of use to Christians, p. 26as is acknowledged (at least in words) on all hands; nothing is more credible, than that the same Divine Providence which took care for the publishing of them, would likewise be concerned to preserve them entire. And if we consider the peculiar circumstances of these Books, we shall find it morally impossible, that they should have been materially corrupted, because being of universal and mighty concernment, and at first diffused into many hands, and soon after translated into most Languages, and most passages in them cited in Books now extant, and all these now agreeing in all matters of importance, we have as great assurance as can be had concerning any thing of this nature, that they have not suffered any material alteration, and far greater than any man can have concerning the incorruption of their oral Tradition, as I shall shew when I come to answer the thing which he calls Demonstration.

§ 7. Fifthly, That de facto the Scripture hath been acknowledged by all Christians, in former Ages, to be the means whereby the doctrine of Christ hath with greatest certainty been conveyed to them. One good evidence of this is, That the Primitive p. 27Adversaries of Christian Religion did always look upon the Scripture as the standard and measure of the Christian Doctrine, and in all their writing against Christianity, took that for granted to be the Christian Faith which was contained in those Books; there having not as yet any Philosopher risen up who had demonstrated to the World, that a Doctrine could not with sufficient certainty and clearness be conveyed by writing from one Age to another. But how absurd had this method of confuting Christian Religion been, if it had been then the publick profession of Christians, that the Scriptures were not the Rule of their Faith? How easie had it been for the Fathers, who apologized for, and defended Christian Religion, to have told them they took a wrong measure of their Doctrine; for it was not the principle of Christians, that their Faith was conveyed to them by the Scriptures, and therefore it was a fond undertaking to attaque their Religion that way; but if they would effectually argue against it, they ought to enquire what that Doctrine was which was orally delivered from father to son, without which the Scriptures could signifie no more to them than an unknown Cipher p. 28without a Key; being of themselves, without the light of Oral Tradition, only an heap of unintelligible words, unsensed Cha: racters, and Ink variously figured in a Book; and therefore it was a gross mistake in them, to think they could understand the Christian Religion (like their own Philosophy) by reading of those Books, or confute it by confuting them. Thus the Fathers might have defended their Religion; nay, they ought in all reason to have taken this course, and to have appealed from those dead senseless Books, to the true Rule of Faith, the living voice of the Church Essential. But doth Mr. S. find any thing to this purpose in the Apologies of the Fathers? If he hath discover'd any such matter, he might do well to acquaint the World with it, and make them wiser; in the mean time, I shall inform him what I have found, that the Fathers never except against that method, but appeal frequently from the slanderous reports and misrepresentations which were made of their Doctrine to the Books of Scripture, as the true standard of it.

§ 8. Another evidence that Christians in all Ages since the Apostles times, have owned the Scriptures for the Rule of their p. 29Faith, is, That the Fathers in their Homilies did use constantly to declare to the People what they were to believe, and what they were to practise, out of the Scriptures; which had been most absurd and sensless, had they believed not the Scriptures, but something else to have been the Rule of Faith and Manners. For what could tend more to the seducing of the People from Mr. S's supposed Rule of Faith Oral Tradition, than to make a daily practise of declaring and confirming the Doctrins of the Christian Faith from the Scriptures? Had the antient Fathers been right for Mr. S's way, they would not have built their Doctrine upon Scripture; perhaps not have mentioned it, for fear of giving the people an occasion to grow familiar with so dangerous a Book; but rather (as their more prudent Posterity have done) would have lock'd it up from the people in an unknown Tongue, and have set open the stores of good wholsome Traditions; and instead of telling them (as they do most frequently) thus saith the Scripture, would only have told them, this is the voice of the essential Church; thus it hath been delivered down by hand to us, from our Forefathers.

p. 30§ 9. I might add for a Third evidence, the great malice of the Enemies and Persecutors of Christianity, against this Book; and their cruel endeavours to extort it out of the hands of Christians, and destroy it out of the World, that by this means they might extirpate Christianity. For it seems they thought, that the abolishing of this Book would have been the ruine of that Religion. But (according to Mr. S's opinion) their malice wanted wit; for had all the Bibles in the World been burnt, Christian Religion would nevertheless have been entirely preserv'd, and safely transmitted down to us by sense written in mens hearts, with the good help of of Mr. S's Demonstration. Nay, their Church would have been a great gainer by it: For this Occasion and Parent of all Heresie the Scripture, being once out of the way, she might have had all in her own hands, and by leading the people in the safe paths of Tradition, and consequently of Science, might have made them wise enough to obey. Well, but suppose the Persecutors of Christianity mistook themselves in their design, how came the Christians in those days to be so tenacious of this Book, that rather than deliver it, they would yield up themselves to torments p. 31and death? And why did they look upon those who out of fear delivered up their Books, as Apostates and Renouncers of Christianity, if they had not thought this Book to be the great Instrument of their Faith and Salvation, and if it had really been of no greater consideration than Mr. Wh. and Mr. S. would make it? Why should they be so loth to part with a few unsens'd Characters, waxen natur'd words, fit to be play'd upon diversly by quirks of wit, that is, apt to blunder and confound, but to clear little or nothing? Why should they value their lives at so cheap a rate as to throw them away for a few insignificant scrawls, and to shed their blood for a little Ink variously figured in a Book? Did they not know, that the safety of Christianity did not depend upon this Book? Did no Christian then understand that, which (according to Mr. S.) no Christian can be ignorant of, viz. that not the Scripture, but unmistakeable, indefectible Oral Tradition was the Rule of Faith? Why did they not consider, that though this Letter Rule of Hereticks had been consum'd to ashes, yet their Faith would have lain safe, and been preserved entire in its * Spiritual Causes, Men's minds, p. 32the noblest pieces in Nature? Some of them indeed did deliver up their Books, and were call'd Traditores, and I have some ground to believe, that these were the only Traditionary Christians of that time, and that the rest were Confessors and Martyrs for the Letter Rule. And if this be not evidence enough, that the Scriptures have always been acknowledged by Christians for the Rule of Faith, I shall, when I come to examine his Testimonies for Tradition, (with the good leave of his distinction between Speculators and Testifiers) prove by most express Testimony, that it was the general opinion of the Fathers, That the Scriptures are the Rule of Christian Faith; and then, if his demonstration of the infalliblity of Tradition will enforce that as Testifiers, they must nesds have spoken otherwise, who can help it?

SECT. IV.

§. 1. HAving thus laid down the Protestant Rule of Faith, How much Protestants allow to Oral Tradition.with the grounds of it; all that now remains for me to do, towards the clear and full stating of the Controversie between us, is to p. 33take notice briefly, and with due limitations:

1. How much the Protestants do allow to Oral Tradition.

Secondly, What those things are which Mr. S, thinks fit to attribute to his Rule of Faith, which we see no cause to attribute to ours; And when this is done, any one may easily discern how far we differ.

§ 2. 1. How much Protestants do allow to Oral Tradition.

First, We grant that Oral Tradition in some circumstances, may be a sufficient way of conveying a Doctrine; but withall we deny, that such circumstances are now in being. In the first Ages of the World, when the credenda or Articles of Religion, and the agenda or Precepts of it, were but few, and such as had the evidence of Natural light; When the World was contracted into a few Families in comparison, and the age of man ordinarily extended to six or seven hundred years; it is easie to imagine, how such a doctrine, in such circumstances, might have been propagated by Oral Tradition, without any great change or alterations. Adam lived till Methuselah was above two hundred years p. 34old, Methuselah lived till Sem was near an hundred, and Sem out-liv'd Abraham: So that this Tradition needed not pass through more than two hands, betwixt Adam and Abraham. But though this way was sufficient to have preserved Religion in the world, if men had not been wanting themselves; yet we find it did not prove effectual. For through the corruption and negligence of men after the Flood, (if not before) when the world began to multiply, and the age of man was shortned, the knowledg and worship of the one true God was generally lost in the world. And so far as appears by Scripture-History, (the only Record we have of those times) when God called out Abraham from Vr of the Chaldees, the whole world was lapsed into Polytheisme and Idolatry. Therefore, for the greater security of Religion afterwards, when the posterity of Abraham was multiplied into a great Nation, the wisdom of God did not think fit to entrust the Doctrine of Religion any longer to the fallible and uncertain way of Tradition, but committed it to writing. Now that God pitched upon this way, after the world had sadly experienced the unsuccesfulness of the other, seems to p. 35be a very good evidence that this was the better and more secure way: it being the usual method of the Divine dispensations, not to go backwards, but to move towards perfection, and to proceed from that which is less perfect to that which is more. And the Apostles **Hebr. 8.7.Heb 8:7reasoning concerning the two Covenants is very applicable to these two methods of conveying the Doctrine of Religion; if the first had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for a second.

§ 3. So likewise, when Christ revealed his Doctrine to the world, it was not in his life-time committed to writing; because it was entertained but by a few, who were his disciples and followers, and who so long as he continued with them had a living Oracle to teach them. After his death the Apostles, who were to publish this Doctrine to the world, were assisted by an infallible Spirit, so as they were secured from error and mistake in the delivery of it. But when this extraordinary assistance failed, there was need of some other means to convey it to posterity, that so it might be a fixt and standing Rule of Faith and Manners to the end of the world. To this end the p. 36providence of God took care to have it committed to writing. And that Mr. S▪ may see this is not a conjecture of Protestants, but the sense of former times, I shall refer him to St. Chrysostom, (Homil. 1. in Matth.) who tells us, That Christ left nothing in writing to his Apostles; but in stead thereof did promise to bestow upon them the grace of his holy Spirit, saying, John 14. He shall bring all things to your remembrance, &c. But because in progress of time there were many grievous miscarriages both in matter of Opinion, and also of Life and Manners; therefore it was requisite that the memory of this Doctrine should be preserved by writing. So long then as the Apostles lived, who were thus infallibly assisted, the way of Oral Tradition was secure, but no longer; nor even then from the nature of the thing, but from that extraordinary and supernatural assistance which accompanied the deliverers.

§ 4. And therefore it is no good way of Argument against the way of Tradition by writing, which he lays so much weight upon, **P. 40.That the Apostles and their Successors went not with Books in their hands to preach and deliver Christ's Doctrine, but p. 37words in their mouths; and that primitive antiquity learned their faith by another method, a long time before many of those Books were universally spread among the vulgar. For what if there was no need of writing this Doctrine, whilst those living Oracles, the Apostles, were present with the Church? Doth it therefore follow that there was no need of it afterwards when the Apostles were dead, and that extraordinary and supernatural assistance was ceased? If the Preachers now adays could give us any such assurance, and confirm all they preach by such frequent, and publick, and unquestionable miracles as the Apostles did; then we need not examine the Doctrines they taught by any other Rule, but ought to regulate our belief by what they delivered to us. But seeing this is not the case, that ought in all reason to be the Rule of our Faith, which hath brought down to us the Doctrine of Christ with the greatest certainty: And this I shall prove the Scriptures to have done.

§ 5. So that in those circumstances I have mentioned, We allow Oral Tradition to have been a sufficient way of conveying a Doctrine; but now considering the great increase of mankind, and the shortness of p. 38mans life in these latter ages of the world, and the long tract of time from the Apostles age down to us; and the innumerable accidents whereby, in the space of 1500 years, Oral Tradition might receive insensible alterations, so as at last to become quite another thing from what it was at first, by passing through many hands: in which passage, all the mistakes and corruptions which (in the several Ages through which it was transmitted) did happen, either through Ignorance, or Forgetfulness, or out of interest and design, are necessarily derived into the last: So that the further it goes, the more alteration it is liable to▪ because as it passeth along, more Errours and Corruptions are infused into it. I say, considering all this, we deny, that the Doctrine of Christian Religion could with any probable security and certainty have been conveyed down to us by the way of Oral Tradition. And therefore do reasonably believe, that God fore-seeing this, did in his wisdom so order things, that those persons who were assisted by an infallible spirit in the delivery of this Doctrine, should before they left the world commit it to p. 39writing; which was accordingly done: And by this Instrument, the Doctrine of Faith hath been conveyed down to us.

§ 6. Secondly, We allow, that Oral Tradition is a considerable assurance to us, that the Books of Scripture which we now have, are the very Books which were written by the Apostles and Evangelists; but withall we deny, That Oral Tradition is therefore to be accounted the Rule of Faith.

The general Assurance that we have concerning Books written long ago, that they are so ancient, and were written by those whose names they bear, is a constant and uncontroll'd Tradition of this, transmitted from one Age to another; partly Orally, and partly by the Testimony of other Books. Thus much is common to Scripture with other Books. But then the Scriptures have this peculiar advantage above other Books, that being of a greater and more universal concernment, they have been more common and in every bodies hands, more read and studied than any other Books in the World whatsoever; and consequently, they have a more universal and better grounded attestation. Moreover, they have not only p. 40been owned universally in all Ages by Christians (except three or four Books of them, which for some time were questioned by some Churches, but have since been generally received) but the greatest Enemies of our Religion, the Jews and Heathens, never questioned the Antiquity of them, but have always taken it for granted, that they were the very Books which the Apostles writ. And this is as great an assurance as we can have concerning any ancient Book, without a particular and immediate Revelation.

§ 7. And this Concession doth not, as M. S, supposeth, make Oral Tradition to be finally the Rule of Faith; for the meaning of this question, (What is the Rule of Faith?) Is, What is the next and immediate means whereby the knowledge of Christs Doctrine is conveyed to us? So that although Oral Tradition be the means whereby we come to know that these are the Books of Scripture, yet these Books are the next and immediate means whereby we come to know what is Christs Doctrine; and consequently, what we are to believe.

§ 8. Nor doth this Concession make p. 41Oral Tradition to be the Rule of Faith, by a parity of Reason; as if because we acknowledge that Oral Tradition can with sufficient certainty transmit a Book to After ages, we must therefore grant that it can with as much certainty convey a doctrine consisting of several Articles of Faith (nay very many, as Mr. White acknowledges **Rushw. Dial. 4. Sect. 9.) and many Laws and Precepts of Life: So because Oral Tradition sufficiently assures us that this is Magna Charta, and that the Statute-Book, in which are contain'd those Laws which it concerns every man to be skilful in; therefore by like parity of Reason it must follow, that Tradition it self is better than a Book, even the best way imaginable, to convey down such Laws to us. Mr. S. saith **p. 93.expresly it is; but how truly, I appeal to experience, and the wisdom of our Law-givers, who seem to think otherwise. Tradition is already defin'd to us, a delivery down from hand to hand, of the sense and faith of Fore-fathers; i. e. of the Gospel, or message of Christ. Now suppose any Oral message, consisting of an hundred particularities, were to be delivered to an hundred several persons of different degrees of understanding and memory, by them to be conveyed to an hundred p. 42more, who were to convey it to others, and so onwards, to a hundred descents; Is it probable this Message, with all the particularities of it, would be as truly conveyed through so many mouths, as if it were written down in so many Letters, concerning which every Bearer should need to say no more than this, That it was delivered to him as a Letter written by him whose name was subscribed to it? I think it not probable, though the mens lives were concerned every one for the faithful delivery of his Errand or Letter. For the Letter is a message which no man can mistake in, unless he will; but the Errand so difficult, and perplexed with its multitude of particulars, that it is an equal wager against every one of the Messengers, that he either forgets, or mistakes something in it; it is ten thousand to one, that the first Hundred do not all agree in it; it is a Million to one, that the next Succession do not all deliver it truly; for if any one of the first Hundred mistook, or forgot any thing, it is then impossible that he that received it from him should deliver it right; and so the farther it goes, the greater change it is liable to. Yet after all this I do not say, but it may be demonstrated, in Mr. S's p. 43way, to have more of certainty in it than the Original Letter.

§ 9. Thirdly, We allow, That the Doctrine of Christian Religion hath in all Ages been preached to the People by the Pastors of the Church, and taught by Christian Parents to their Children; but with great difference, by some more plainly, and truly, and perfectly; by others, with less care and exactness, according to the different degrees of ability and integrity in Pastors or Parents; and likewise with very different success, according to the different capacities and dispositions of the Learners. We allow likewise, That there hath been a constant course of visible actions, conformable in some measure to the Principles of Christianity; but then we say that those outward acts and circumstances of Religion may have undergone great variations, and received great change, by addition to them, and defalcation from them, in several Ages. That this not only is possible, but hath actually happened, I shall shew when I come to answer his Demonstrations. Now that several of the the main Doctrines of Faith contained in the Scriptute, and actions therein commanded, have been p. 44taught and practised by Christians in all Ages (as the Articles summed up in the Apostles Creed, the use of the two Sacraments) is a good evidence so far, that the Scriptures contain the Doctrine of Christian Religion. But then if we consider, how we come to know that such points of Faith have been taught, and such external Actions practised in all Ages, it is not enough to say, there is a present multitude of Christians that profess to have received such Doctrines as ever believed and practised, and from hence to infer that they were so; the inconsequence of which Argument, I shall have a better occasion to shew afterwards: But he that will prove this to any mans satisfaction, must make it evident from the best Monuments and Records of several Ages, that is, from the most Authentick Books of those times, that such Doctrines have in all those Ages been constantly and universally taught and practised. But then if from those Records of former times it appear, that other Doctrines, not contained in the Scriptures, were not taught and practised universally in all Ages, but have crept in by degrees, some in one Age, and some in another, according as Ignorance, and Superstition in p. 45the People, Ambition and Interest in the chief Pastors of the Church, have ministred occasion and opportunity; and that the Innovators of these Doctrines and Practises, have all along pretended to confirm them out of Scripture, as the acknowledged Rule of Faith; and have likewise acknowledged the Books of Scripture to have descended without any material corruption or alteration, (all which will sufficiently appear in the process of my Discourse) then cannot the Oral and practical Tradition of the present Church, concerning any Doctrine, as ever believed and practised, which hath no real foundation in Scripture, be any argument against these Books, as if they did not fully and clearly contain the Christian Doctrine. And to say the Scripture is to be interpreted by Oral and Practical Tradition, is no more reasonable, than it would be to interpret the antient Books of the Law, by the present practise of it; which every one, that compares things fairly together, must acknowledg to be full of deviations from the antient Law,

p. 46SECT. V.

How much Mr. S. attributes to his Rule of Faith, more than Protestants to theirs.§ 1. 2dly. HOw much more he attributes to his Rule of Faith. than we think fit to attribute to ours.

1. We do not say, that it is impossible in the nature of the thing, that this Rule should fail, that is, either that these Books should cease to descend, or should be corrupted. This we do not attribute to them, because there is no need we should: We believe the providence of God will take care of them, and secure them from being either lost, or materially corrupted; yet we think it very possible, that all the Books in the World may be burnt, or otherwise destroyed. All that we affirm concerning our Rule of Faith, is that it is abundantly sufficient (if men be not wanting to themselves) to convey the Christian Doctrine to all successive Ages; and we think him very unreasonable, that expects that God should do more than what is abundantly enough, for the perpetuating of Christian Religion in the world.

§ 2. Secondly, Nor do we say, that that certainty and assurance which we p. 47have, that these Books are the same that were written by the Apostles, is a first and self-evident Principle; but only that it is a truth capable of evidence sufficient, and as much as we can have for a thing of that nature. Mr. S. may, if he please, say that Traditions certainty is a first and self-evident Principle; but then he that says this, should take heed how he takes upon him to demonstrate it. Aristole was so wise as never to demonstrate first Principles, for which he gives this very good reason, because they cannot be demonstrated. And most prudent men are of opinion, that a self-evident Principle, of all things in the World, should not be demonstrated, because it needs not. For to what purpose should a man write a Book to prove that which every man must assent to, without any proof, so soon as it is propounded to him? I have always taken a self-evident Principle to be such a Proposition; as having in it self sufficient evidence of its own truth, and not needing to be made evident by any thing else, If I be herein mistaken, I desire Mr. S. to inform me better.

§ 3. So that the true state of the Controversie between us, is, Whether Oral p. 48and Practical Tradition, in opposition to Writing and Books, be the only way and means whereby the Doctrine of Christ can with certainty and security be conveyed down to us, who live at this distance from the age of Christ and his Apostles? This He affirms, and the Protestants deny; not only that it is the sole means, but that it is sufficient for the certain conveyance of this Doctrine; and withall affirm, that this Doctrine hath been conveyed down to us by the Books of holy Scripture, as the proper measure and standard of our Religion: But then they do not exclude Oral Tradition from being the means of conveying to us the certain knowledg of these Books. Nor do they exclude the authentick Records of former Ages, nor the constant teaching and practise of this Doctrine, from being subordinate means and helps of conveying it from one age to another. Nay, so far are they from excluding these concurrent means, that they suppose them always to have been used, and to have been of great advantage for the propagating and explaining of this Doctrine, so far as they have been truly subordinate to, and regulated by these sacred Oracles, the Holy Scriptures; p. 49which, they say, do truly and fully contain that Doctrine which Christ delivered to his Apostles, and they preached to the world. To illustrate this by an instance; suppose there were a Controversy now on foot, how men might come to know what was the true Art of Logick which Aristotle taught his Scholars; and some should be of opinion, that the only way to know this would be by oral Tradition from his Scholars; which we might easily understand by consulting those of the present age, who learned it from those who received it from them, who at last had it from Aristotle himself: But others should think it the surest way to study his Organon, a Book acknowledged by all his Scholars, to have been written by himself, and to contain that Doctrine which he taught them. They, who take this latter course, suppose the authority of oral Tradition, for the conveying to them the knowledg of this Book; and do suppose this Doctrine to have been taught and practised in all Ages, and a great many Books to have been written by way of Comment and explication of this Doctrine; and that these have been good helps of promoting the knowledg of it. And they may well p. 50enough suppose all this, and yet be of opinion that the truest measure and standard of Aristotle's Doctrine is his own Book; and that it would be a fond thing in any man, by forcing an interpretation upon his Book either contrary to, or very forreign and remote from the obvious sense of his words, to go about to reconcile this Book with that method of disputing which is used by the professed Aristotelians of the present age, and withal that scholastick Jargon which Mr. S. learn'd at Lisbon, and has made him so great a man in the Science of Controversie, as to enable him to demonstrate first and self-evident Principles; a trick not to be learn'd out of Aristotle's Organon. The Application is so easy, that I need not make it.