The Rule of Faith, Part 3 · Section 1 – Section 2
SECT. I.
§. 1. BEfore I come to speak particularly to his Demonstrations, Considerations touching his Demonstrations in general.I shall premise these two Considerations. First, That (according to the Principles of the Patrons of Tradition) no man can by his private Reason certainly find out the true Rule of Faith. Secondly, That (according to Mr. S.) the way of Demonstration is no certain way to find out the Rule of Faith. If either of these be made out, his Demonstrations lose all their force. If the first be made good, then he cannot demonstrate the Infallibility of Tradition, nor consequently that that is the Rule of Faith. If the second, then the way of Demonstration which he pretends to take signifies nothing.
§. 2. First, No man can (according to the principles of the Patrons of Tradition) by his private Reason certainly find out what is the Rule of Faith. Suppose a Heathen to be desirous to inform himself of the Christian Faith; in order to which he is inquisitive after some Rule by which he may take a measure of it, and come certainly to know what it is: He enquires of Christians what their Rule is, and finds them divided about it, some saying that the Scriptures, others that Oral Tradition is the Rule. In this case it is not possible (without a Revelation) for this man to find out the Rule of Faith, but by his own private Reason examining and weighing the arguments and pretences of both sides. And when he hath done this, unless he can by his Reason demonstrate that the one is a certain and infallible Rule, and the other not so, he hath not (according to Mr. S.) found out the Rule of Faith. But Reason can never do this, according to Mr. S. For speaking of demonstrating the certainty of Tradition, he tells us *P. 53., That Tradition hath for its Basis mans nature not according to his Intellectuals, which do but darkly grope in the pursuit of Science, &c. And again *Append: 2d. P. 183., speaking how Reason brings men to the Rule of Faith, he uses this comparison, She is like a dim-sighted man, who used his Reason to find a trusty Friend to lead him in the twilight, and then relied on his guidance rationally without using his own Reason at all about the Way it self. So that (according to him) the certainty of Tradition cannot be founded on Demonstration, because it is not founded in the intellectual part of man, which only can demonstrate. Besides, if it were founded in the intellectual part, yet that can never be able to demonstrate the certainty of Tradition, because that faculty which is dim-sighted, and does but grope darkly in the pursuit of Science, is uncapable of framing Demonstrations. Nor can any man understand how dim-sighted reason should see clearly to choose its guide, any more than its way, especially if it be considered what a pretty Contradiction it is, to say that Reason as it is dim-sighted can see clearly.
But Mr. Cressy is not contented to call every mans Reason dim-sighted, he ventures a step further, and calls it hoodwinkt and blind: For he tells us *Append. c. 6. Sect. 8., That private Reason is apparently a most fallible guide; and he pities *Ibid. Sect. 9.my Lord Falkland's case, because in the search of the true Religion he did betake himself to the casual conduct of blind, humane, natural Reason, which afterwards he calls *Ibid. Sect. 11.a guide that two persons cannot possibly follow together, because no two persons (that ever followed any other guide beside Authority) did or could think all things to be reasonable that all others thought so; and by consequence such a guide that as long as he continues in that office, there cannot possibly be any Church any where: which (says he) is an infallible eviction that this is an imaginary seducing guide, since it is impossible that that should be a guide appointed for any Christian, which neither Christ nor his Apostles, nor any of their Followers ever mentioned, yea, which formally destroys one of our twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed, viz. I believe the Holy Catholick Church. Thus he does by Reason clearly and infallibly evince, that Reason cannot be otherwise than a most blind and fallible guide. This it is to talk of things when a man looks only upon one side of them; as if because Reason has a blind side and is uncertain in some things, therefore we ought to conclude her universally blind and uncertain in every thing; and as if because all men cannot think all things reasonable which any one man thinks to be so, therefore it is to be doubted whether those common Principles of Reason be true which Mankind are generally agreed in. And that Mr. Cressy speaks here of the use of our private Reason in the finding out of our Rule, is clear from what he says in the next Section, viz. That this hood-wink't guide (enquiring into Scripture, and searching after Tradition) may possibly stumble upon the way to Vnity and Truth, that is, the true Catholick Church. If this be true, why does Mr. S. pretend that he can by Reason demonstrate the Infallibility of Tradition, and by this hood-wink't guide lead men to the true Rule of Faith? And what a pitiful encouragement would this be to an inquisitive Philosopher (who knowing no other guide but his Reason, whereby to find out whether Scripture or Tradition be the true Rule) to tell him that by the help of this hood-wink't guide he might possibly stumble upon the right?
A man may justly stand amazed at the inconsistency of these mens Discourses and Principles. In one mood they are all for Demonstration, and for convincing men in the way of perfect Science which is the true Rule of Faith: But then again when another fit takes them, there's no such thing as Science, humane Reason grows all on the sudden dim-sighted, and at the next word is struck stark blind; and then the very utmost that it can do towards the bringing of an unprejudiced and inquisitive person to the true Rule of Faith, is to leave him in a possibility of stumbling upon it; but if he be a Heretick that makes use of private Reason for his guide, then *Append. c. 7. Sect. 8.it is impossible but that he with his blind guide should fall into the Pit. I cannot for my part imagine how they can reconcile the blindness of humane Reason with all that noise which they make about Science and Demonstration; but this I must confess that these kind of Discourses which I meet with in Mr. S. and Mr. Cressy, are very proper Arguments to perswade a man of the blindness of humane Reason. And indeed there is one passage in Mr. Cressy, which gives me very great satisfaction concerning these matters, where he tells us *Ibid., That the Wit and Judgment of Catholicks is to renounce their own Judgment, and depose their own Wit. Now he that professes to have done this may write Contradictions, and no body ought to challenge him for it. However, it is a very ingenuous acknowledgment, that when he forsook our Church and turned Papist, he laid aside his Judgment and Wit; which is just such an heroick act of Judgment, as if a man in a bravery to shew his liberty should sell himself for a slave. I am glad to understand from an experienced Person, what charges a man must be at when he turns Roman-Catholique, namely, that whoever will embrace that Religion must forfeit his Reason.
§. 3. Secondly, The way of Demonstration is (according to Mr. S.) no certain way to find out the Rule of Faith. In his 4th Appendix *P. 253. & 254.against my Lord of Down, one of the Eight Mines (as he calls them) which he lays to blow up my Lords Dissuasive against Popery, is this, That the method he takes in dissuading cannot be held in reason to have power to dissuade, unless it be proper to that effect, that is, not common to that effect and a contrary one. Now, that being most evidently no method or way to such an effect which many follow and take, yet arrive not at that effect, 'tis plain to common sense, that my Lord of Down miscalls his Book A Dissuasive, and that it can have in it no power of moving the understanding one way or other, unless he can first vouch some particularity in the method he takes, above what's in others in which we experience miscarriage, &c. If this be true, then his method of Demonstration is no way to make men certain of what he pretends to demonstrate, because that is most evidently no way to an effect which many follow and take, yet arrive not at that effect; so that 'tis plain to common sense that Mr. S's Demonstrations can have in them no power of moving the understanding one way or other, unless he can vouch some particularity in the Demonstrations he pretends to bring, above what is in other pretended Demonstrations in which we experience miscarriage. Do not Thomas, and Scotus (as Mr. White tells us *Extasis, P. 24.) all along pretend to demonstrate? and yet it is generally believed that (at least where they contradict one another) one of them failed in his Demonstrations. Did not Mr. Charles Thynne pretend to have demonstrated that a man at one jump might leap from London to Rome? and yet I do not think any one was ever satisfy'd with his Demonstration. And Mr. S. knows one in the World (whom I will not name, because he hath since ingenuously acknowledged his Errour) who thought he had demonstrated the Quadrature of the Circle, and was so confident of it as to venture the reputation of his Demonstrations in Divinity upon it, and some of those Divinity Demonstrations were the very same with Mr. S's. Since therefore the World hath experienced so much miscarriage in the way of Demonstration, before Mr. S's Demonstrations can be allowed to signifie any thing, he must (according to his own Law) vouch some particularity in his way and method of Demonstration above what is in other mens. He hath not any where (that I remember) told us what that particularity is, wherein his way of Demonstration is above other mens: Nor can I upon the most diligent search find any peculiar advantage that his Way has more than theirs above mentioned; unless this be one that he pretends to demonstrate a self-evident Principle, and herein I think he hath plainly the advantage of Mr. Charles Thynne; and unless this may be counted another advantage, that he has so extraordinary a confidence and conceit of his own Demonstrations; and in this particular, I must acknowledge that he clearly excels all that have gone before him: In all other things, his way of Demonstration is but like his neighbours.
SECT. II.
§. 1. I Come now to examine his Demonstrations of this Self-evident Principle (as he often calls it) that Oral Tradition is a certain and infallible way of conveying Christs Doctrine from one Age to another,Mr. S's demonstration à priori. without any corruption or change; which is to say, that it is impossible but that this Rule should always have been kept to. That this is not a Self-evident Principle, needs no other evidence than that he goes about to demonstrate it. But yet, notwithstanding this, I think he hath as much reason to call this a Self-evident Principle, as to call his proofs of it Demonstrations.
§. 2. In order to his Demonstration a Priori, he lays *P. 59, 60.these four grounds, which I shall set down in his own words. First, That Christian Doctrine was at first unanimously setled by the Apostles, in the hearts of the faithful dispersed in great multitudes over several parts of the World. Secondly, That this Doctrine was firmly believed by all those faithful to be the way to Heaven, and the contradicting or deserting it, to be the way to damnation; so that the greatest hopes and fears imaginable were by engaging the Divine Authority strongly applied to the minds of the first Believers, encouraging them to the adhering to that Doctrine, and deterring them from relinquishing it; and indeed infinitely greater than any other whatever, springing from any temporal consideration: and that this was in all Ages the perswasion of the faithful. Thirdly, That hopes of good and fears of harms strongly applied are the causes of actual will. Fourthly, That the thing was feasible or within their power; that what they were bred to was knowable by them. This put, it follows as certainly that a great number or body of the first Believers and after faithful in each Age, that is, from Age to Age would continue to hold themselves and teach their Children as themselves had been taught, that is, would follow and stick to Tradition, as it doth, that a cause put actually causing produceth its effect. This is his Demonstration with the grounds of it.
§. 3. To shew the vanity and weakness of this pretended Demonstration, I shall assail it these three wayes; by shewing, First, That if the grounds of it were true they would conclude too much, and prove that to be impossible which common experience evinceth, and himself must grant to have been. Secondly, That his main grounds are apparently false. Thirdly, That his Demonstration is confuted by clear and undeniable Instances to the contrary.