Page images
PDF
EPUB

whereby the knowledge of Chrift's doctrine is conveyed to us? So that although oral tradition be the means whereby we come to know, that these are the books of fcripture; yet thefe books are the next and immediate means whereby we come to know, what is Chrift's doctrine, and confequently what we are to believe.

§ 8. Nor doth this conceffion make oral tradition to be the rule of faith by a parity of reafon; as if, because we acknowledge that oral tradition alone can with competent certainty tranfmit a book to after ages, we must therefore grant that it can with as much certainty convey a doctrine confifting of feveral articles of faith, (nay, very many, as Mr. White acknowledges, Rufbw. dial. 4. $9.), and many laws and precepts of life: fo because oral tradition fufficiently affures us, that this is magna charta, and that the ftatute-book, in which are contained thofe laws which it concerns every man to be skilful in; therefore, by like parity of reafon, it must follow, that tradition itself is better than a book, even the best way imaginable, to convey down fuch laws to us. Mr. S. faith exprefsly it is, p. 23.; but how truly, I appeal to experience, and the wifdom of all lawgivers, who feem to think otherwife. Tradition is already defined to us, 66 a delivery down from hand to hand of the fense and "faith of forefathers," i. e. of the gospel or meffage of Chrift. Now, fuppofe any oral meffage, confifting of an hundred particularities, were to be delivered to an hundred feveral perfons of different degrees of understanding and memory, by them to be conveyed to an hundred more, who were to convey it to others, and fo onwards to a hundred descents; is it probable, this message, with all the particularities of it, would be as truly conveyed through fo many mouths, as if it were written down in fo many letters, concerning which every bearer fhould need to fay no more than this, that it was delivered to him as a letter written by him whose name was fubfcribed 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 meffage which no man can mistake in, unless he will; but the errand fo difficult, and perplexed with its multitude of particulars, that it is an equal wager against every one of the mef fengers,

fengers, that he either forgets or mistakes fomething 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 fucceffion do not all deliver it truly; for if any one of the first hundred miftook or forgot any thing, it is then impoffible that he that received it from him fhould deliver it right; and fo the farther it goes, the greater change it is liable to. Yet, after all this, I do not fay but it may be demonftrated, in Mr. S.'s way, to have more of certainty in it than the original letter.

$9. 3y, We allow, that the doctrine of Chriftian religion bath in all ages been preached to the people by the paltors of the church, and taught by Chriftian parents to their children: but with great difference; by fome more plainly, and truly, and perfectly; by others with lefs care and exactnefs, according to the different degrees of ability and integrity in paftors or parents; and likewife with very different fuccefs, according to the different capacities and difpofitions of the learners. We allow likewife, that there hath been a conftant course of vifible actions, conformable, in fome measure, to the principles of Christianity; but then we fay, that those outward acts and circumftances of religion may have undergone great variations, and received great change, by addition to them, and defalcation from them in feveral ages. That this not only is poffible, but hath actually happened, I fhall fhew when I come to answer his demonstrations. Now, that feveral of the main doctrines of faith contained in the fcripture, and actions therein commanded, have been taught and practifed by Chriftians in all ages, (as the articles fummed up in the Apofles creed, the ufe of the two facraments), is a good evidence fo far, that the fcriptures contain the doctrine of Chriftian religion. But then, if we confider how we come to know that fuch points of faith have been taught, and fuch external actions practifed in all ages, it is not enough to fay, there is a prefent multitude of Christians that profefs to have received fuch doctrines as ever believed and practifed, and from hence to infer that they were fo; the inconfequence of which argument I fhall have a better occafion to fhew afterwards: but he that will prove this to any man's fatisfaction, muft make it

evident

evident from the best monuments and records of feveral ages, that is, from the most authentick books of those times, that fuch doctrines have in all thofe ages been conftantly and univerfally taught and practifed. But then, if, from thofe records of former times, it appear, that other doctrines, not contained in the fcriptures, were not taught and practised univerfally in all ages, but have crept in by degrees, fome in one age, and fome in another, according as ignorance and fuperftition in the people, ambition and interest in the chief paftors of the church, have ministered occafion and opportunity; and that the innovators of thefe doctrines and practices have all along pretended to confirm them out of fcripture, as the acknowledged rule of faith; and have likewife acknowledged the books of fcripture to have defcended without any material corruption or alteration, (all which will fufficiently appear in the procefs of my difcourfe); then cannot the oral and practical tradition of the prefent church concerning any doctrine, as ever believed and practifed, which hath no real foundation in fcripture, be any argument against thefe books, as if they did not fully and clearly contain the Chriftian doctrine. And to fay the fcripture is to be interpreted by oral and practical tradition, is no more reasonable, than it would be to interpret the ancient books of the law by the prefent practice of it; which every one that compares things fairly together, muft acknowledge to be full of deviations

from the ancient law.

SECT. V. How much Mr. S. attributes to his rule of faith more than Proteftants to theirs.

OW

§1. Secondly, How much more he attributes to his

rule of faith than we think fit to at

tribute to ours.

1f, We do not fay, that it is impoffible in the nature of the thing that this rule fhould fail; that is, either that thefe books fhould ceafe to defcend, or fhould be corrupted. This we do not attribute to them, becaufe there is no need we should. We believe the providence of God will take care of them, and fecure them from being either loft or materially corrupted; yet we think if

very poffible, that all the books in the world may be burnt, or otherwise deftroyed. All that we affirm concerning our rule of faith, is, that it is abundantly fufficient, if men be not wanting to themselves, to convey the Christian doctrine to all fucceffive ages; and we think him very unreasonable that expects that God fhould do more than what is abundantly enough, for the perpetuating of Chriftian religion in the world.

$2. 2dly, Nor do we fay, that that certainty and affurance which we have that these books are the fame that were written by the Apoftles, is a first and self-evident principle; but only that it is a truth capable of evidence fufficient, and as much as we can have for a thing of that nature. Mr. S. may, if he pleafe, fay, that tradition's certainty is a first and felf-evident principle; butthen he that fays this, fhould take heed how he takes upon him to demonftrate it. Ariftotle was fo wife, as never to demonftrate firft principles; for which he gives this very good reafon, because they cannot be demonftrated. And most prudent men are of opinion, that a felfevident principle of all things in the world should not be demonftrated, because it needs not: for to what purpose fhould a man write a book to prove that which every man muft affent to without any proof, fo foon as it is propounded to him? I have always taken a felf-evident principle to be fuch a propofition, as having in itself fufficient evidence of its own truth, and not needing to be made evident by any thing else. If I be herein mistaken, I defire Mr. S. to inform me better.

$3. So that the true ftate of the controversy between us, is, Whether oral and practical tradition, in oppofition to writing and books, be the only way and means whereby the doctrine of Chrift can with certainty and fe curity be conveyed down to us, who live at this distance from the age of Chrift and his Apoftles? This he affirms; and the Proteftants deny, not only that it is the fole means, but that it is fufficient for the certain conveyance of this doctrine; and withal affirm, that this doctrine hath been conveyed down to us by the books of holy fcripture, as the proper measure and ftandard of our religion but, then they do not exclude oral tradition from being one means of conveying to us the certain knowledge

way

knowledge of thefe books; nor do they exclude the authentick records of former ages, nor the conftant teaching and practice of this doctrine, from being fubordinate means and helps of conveying it from one age to another; nay, fo far are they from excluding thefe concurrent means, that they fuppofe them always to have been ufed, and to have been of great advantage for the propagating and explaining of this doctrine, fo far as they have been truly fubordinate to, and regulated by these facred oracles, the holy fcriptures, which, they fay, do truly and fully contain that doctrine which Christ delivered to his Apoftles, and they preached to the world. To illuftrate this by an inftance: Suppose there were a controverfy now on foot, how men might come to know what was the true art of logick which Ariftotle taught his scholars; and fome fhould be of opinion, that the only way to know this would be by oral tradition from his fcholars; which we might eafily understand, by confulting those of the prefent age who learned it from thofe who received it from them, who at last had it from Ariftotle himself: but others fhould think it the fureft to ftudy his Organon, a book acknowledged by all his fcholars to have been written by himself, and to contain that doctrine which he taught them. They who take this latter course, fuppofe the authority of oral tradition for the conveying to them the knowledge of this book; and do fuppofe 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 knowledge of it. And they may well enough fuppofe all this, and yet be of opinion, that the trueft measure and standard of Ariftotle'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 foreign and remote from the obvious sense of his words, to go about to reconcile this book with that method of difputing which is ufed by the profeffed Ariftotelians of the prefent age, and with all that fcholaftick jargon which Mr. S. learned at Lisbon, and has made him fo great a man in the fcience of controverfy, as even to enable him to demonftrate first and felfevident

« PreviousContinue »