Page images
PDF
EPUB

ly to the fatisfying of their ambition, and other lufts, and carrying on defigns of gain, and getting dominion over the people; what can hinder men fo difpofed from corrupting the doctrine of Christ, and fuiting it to their own lufts and interests? And what fhall hinder the people from embracing those corruptions, when, by the negli gence of their pastors to inftruct them, and not only fo, but alfo by their being deprived of the fcriptures in a known tongue, they are become utterly incapable of, knowing what the true doctrine of Chrift is? So that in an age of fuch profound ignorance and vice, and general neglect of inftruction, it is fo far from being impoffible for errors to over-run a church, that the contrary is morally impoffible; and George's long staff, and advantageous caft of his body, are more powerful caufes to enable him to leap over Paul's feeple, than this principle, "That nothing is to be admitted but what defcends by "tradition," is to keep errors out of a church in an ignorant and vicious age, when few or none are either a ble or willing to inftruet men in the truth. For fuppose this always to have been the principle of Chriftians, viz. "That nothing is to be admitted as the doctrine of "Chrift, but what is defcended to them by tradition ;" how fhall this principle fecure the church from herefy, any more than this, viz. That nothing but truth is 66 to be affented to," doth fecure men from error? or more than this, viz. "That no man is to do any thing "but what is wife and virtuous," does fecure the generality of mankind from folly and vice?

[ocr errors]

SECT. VIII. The second answer to his fecond demon ftration.

[ocr errors]

THE HE principles upon which this demonftration relies, are not fufficiently proved by him.. His first principle is this, "". That age which holds her "faith delivered thus from the Apostles, neither can it"felf have changed any thing in it, nor know or doubt "that any age fince the Apoftles had changed or inno "vated any thing therein. This propofition (he tells "us) needs no proof to evidence it, but only an expli "cation: for fince no man can hold contrary to his "knowledge,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

:

"knowledge, or doubt of what he holds, nor change or innovate in the cafe propofed without knowing he "did fo; it is a manifeft impoffibility a whole age fhould "fall into an abfurdity so inconfiftent with the nature "of one fingle man." But (by his favour) that which he fays is no proof, but only an explication, is a proof, if it be any thing; and the force of it is this: "That "which is inconfiftent with the nature of one single man, is manifeftly impoffible to a whole age; but it is inconfiftent with the nature of any fingle man to "hold contrary to his knowledge, &c. therefore impof"fible to a whole age and confequently, that age "which holds her faith delivered thus from the Apo"ftles, neither can itself have changed any thing, nor, "&c." So that, in order to the making good of this firft principle, Mr S. hath left nothing unproved, but only this propofition, namely, That it is impoffible that any one fingle man that holds his faith to have been delivered uninterruptedly from the Apoftles, fhould either himself have changed any thing in it, or know or doubt that any age fince the Apoftles hath changed or innovated any thing therein. And to make out the truth of this propofition, there only remains this to be proved, viz. That it is impoffible for any fingle man to be mista ken for if that be poffible, then, contrary to Mr S. a man may hold that to have been delivered as a doctrine of faith from the Apoftles, which was not fo delivered. 2. His fecond principle is this, That no age "could innovate any thing, and withal deliver that very thing to pofterity as received from Chrift by con"tinual fucceffion." He proves it thus:" Since man "is a rational creature, he must have fome reafon or "motive, good or bad, which he propofeth to himself "as an end to be atchieved by his action: and whatever his remote end is, his immediate end, in telling pofterity a late invented thing was held immediately "before, is to make them believe it. Wherefore, fince a feen impoffibility cannot be a motive to one not "frantic, and fince it is evidently impoffible they "fhould make pofterity believe a thing fo univerfally "known to be falfe, as this must needs be, &c. it is as impoffible this principle fhould faulter, as that the "foregoing

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

foregoing age fhould confpire to act without a mo"tive, or that the fucceeding age fhould believe what "they know to be otherwise; that is, fhould hold both "fides of a contradiction in a clear matter of fact." The force of which is this, That it is impoffible that any man not frantic fhould attempt to innovate in matter of Christian doctrine, because the immediate end of fuch an attempt must be to have this new doctrine believed; but it is impoffible he should attain this end, and impoffible he fhould not fee that it is impoffible to attain it : now, a feen impoffibility is an end that cannot move any one that is not frantic; therefore no man that is not frantic can attempt to innovate in matter of Christian doctrine. Thus he hath demonftrated it impoffible that there fhould be any heretics, if a heretic be one that attempts to innovate in matter of Christian doctrine for if there be any fuch attempters, they must be frantic; and if they be frantic, they can be no hereties: for herefy implies a crime, but God will not impute the actions of madmen to them as faults. Again, fuppofe he that attempts to innovate be mistaken, (and I hope Mr S. will grant that a heretic is fallible), and think that which he delivers as Chrift's doctrine to be really fo, though indeed it be not; why should such a person think it impoffible to make men believe that to be received from Chrift which he really thinks was received, and thinks he can make it appear that it was fo? And if this be granted, then it is not impoffible that man, though he be a rational creature, may attempt to innovate. And if fo, then his fecond principle is not proved. If Mr S. had any regard to the noble fcience of controversy, (whereof he pretends to be fo great a mafter), he would not bring fuch trifling fophifms instead of demonstrative proofs; and nothing lefs than a demonftrative proof will ferve to establish any principle upon which a demonftration is to be built.

SECT. IX. The third answer to Mr S's fecond demonftration.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

fame pretence to uninterrupted tradition. And of this I fhall give feveral inftances; one among the Jews, the reft among Chriftians.

ft, I hall inftance among the traditionary Jews, whofe perfuafion in our Saviour's time was, and ftill is, that their oral doctrine which they call their Cabala, hath defcended to them from Mofes uninterruptedly. Now, here is the existence of fuch a perfuafion as Mr S. affirms to be " impoffible without tradition's ever-in"deficiency to beget it." And this perfuafion of theirs is moft exactly parallel with the pretenfions of the Romifh church according to Mr S. For here is a multitude of traditionary Jews, manifoldly greater in proportion to the diffenters in that church, than the Romish church is in comparison to thofe Chriftians that diffent from her. Jofephus tells us (Antiq. Jud. 1. 13. c. 18.) that "the richer fort were of the perfuafion of the Sad"ducees, but the multitude were on the Pharifees fide.' So that the Pharifees 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 fo they continue to this very day; infomuch that although they do not call themselves the Catholics, yet I am fure they call all the Jews that do diffent from them fchifmatics. Now, that the Sadducees were for the written law against oral tradition, is, I confefs, no credit to us; but that our Saviour reproved the traditionary doctrines and practices of the Pharifees, becaufe by them they made void the written law, is much more to the difcredit of the afferters of oral tradition. Both Romanists and Pharifees own alike a written doctrine ; but then they both pretend the true fenfe and explication thereof to have defcended to them by oral traditon. For juft as the traditionary Chriftians do now, fo Jofephus tells us (ib. 1. 17. c. 3. et de bell. Jud. l. 1. c. 4. et l. 2. c. 12.) the traditionary Jews of old, the Pharifees, did pretend by their oral tradition to interpret the law more accurately and exactly than any other fect. In like manner he tells us (Antiq. I. 18. c. 2.) that" all things that "belonged to prayer and divine worship, were regula"ted and adminiftered 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 Pharifees did no otherwife than Mr S. does, by equalling oral tradition to fcripture; nay, preferring it above fcripture, in making it the fole rule of faith, and interpreting the feripture according to it. Hence are thofe common fayings in the Talmud, and other Jewish books: "Do not think that the written law is the foundation, "but that the law orally delivered is the right founda"' tion ; which is to fay with Mr S. that not the fcripture, but oral tradition is the true rule of faith. Again, "There is more in the words of the Scribes (viz. the "teftifiers of tradition) than in the words of the writ "ten law." Again, "The oral law excells the written,

[ocr errors]

as much as the foul doth the body;" which accords very well with what Mr S. frequently tells us, that the fcripture 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 abfurd things; as appears by that common faying among them: "If the Scribes fay 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 fcruple of whatever they deliver as tradition, though never fo contrary to reafon or sense. And, laftly, the doctrines of the Pharifees were many of them practical; such were all those which concerned external rites and obfervances, as washing of hands and cups, &c. So that these Pharifaical traditions had alfo that unfpeakable advantage which Mr S. fays renders their traditions unmistakeable, that they were daily practifed,and came down "clad " in fuch plain matters of fact, that the most stupid man "living could not poffibly be ignorant of them." Therefore, according to Mr S.'s principles, it was impoffible that any age of the Jews fhould be perfuaded that these things were commanded by Mofes, and ever fince obferved, if they had not been fo: and yet our Saviour denies these customs to have been of any fuch authority as they pretended.

§ 2. But I needed not to have taken all this pains to fhew the agreement which is between the traditionary Jews and Papifts; their own writers fo liberally acknow

ledging

« PreviousContinue »