Page images
PDF
EPUB

ftrange feats they played, and what abfurdities they imrofed upon the fuperftitious credulity of princes and people, may readily imagine, not only the poffibility, but the eafinefs of innovating new doctrines as they pleased, under the fpecious pretences of antiquity, and conftant and uninterrupted tradition.

§ 8. And this kind of difcourfe concerning the poffibility of errors coming into the church, is not, as Mr. White ridiculously compares it, (Apology for tradition, p. 49.), as if an orator fhould go about to perfuade people, that "George, by the help of a long ftaff, and 66 a nimble caft of his body, and fuch like advantages, "might leap over Paul's fteeple; never confidering all "the while the difproportion of all these advantages to "the height of the fteeple: fo (faith he) he that difcour"feth at large how errors ufe to flide into man's life, "without comparing the power of the caufes of error to "the ftrength of refifting, which confifts in this princi"ple, Nothing is to be admitted but what defcends by "tradition, &c. fays no more towards proving an er"ror's over-running the church, than the orator for

86

George's leaping over the fteeple." How vain is this, when it appears, from this inftance that I have given of the fate of the Roman church in the ninth and tenth centuries, and afterwards, that the caufes of error were infinitely ftronger than the power of refiftance? The great caufes of error are, ignorance and vice: where ignorance reigns, there is no power; where vice, no will to refift it. And how great the ignorance and vitioufnefs of all orders of men in the Roman church was, is too too apparent from the teftimonies I have brought. Where was the ftrength of refifting error, when for 150 years together the Popes were the vileft of men, Bishops and Priests overwhelmed with ignorance, abandoned to all manner of vice, and moft fupinely negligent in inftructing the people? In fuch a degenerate ftate of a church, what ftrength is there in this principle, "Nothing is to "be admitted but what defcends by tradition?" When thofe who ought to teach men what that doctrine is which was derived to them by tradition, are generally careless of their duty, and ignorant themfelves what that doctrine is; when they addict themselves wholly to the fatisfying

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 suiting it to their own lufts and interests? And what fhall hinder the people from embracing those corruptions, when, by the negligence of their pastors to instruct them, and not only fo, but also 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 ftaff, and advantageous caft of his body, are more powerful caufes to enable him to leap over Paul's steeple, than this principle, That nothing is to be admitted but what defcends by tradi❝tion," is to keep errors out of a church in an ignorant and vitious age, when few or none are either able or willing to inftruct men in the truth. For fuppofe 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 heresy, any more than this, viz. "That nothing but truth is 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]

66

SECT. VIII. The fecond anfwer to his fecond demonftration.

§1. THE 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,

"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 fo înconfiftent with the nature of 66 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 fingle 66 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 first 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 Apostles, fhould either himself have changed any thing in it, or know or doubt that any age fince the Apostles 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 mistaken 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 Apostles which was not fo delivered.

[ocr errors]

§ 2. His fecond principle is this, "That no age "could innovate any thing, and withal deliver that 66 very thing to pofterity as received from Chrift by con"tinual fucceffion." He proves it thus: 66 Since man " is a rational creature, he must have some 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 "frantick, 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 66 as impoffible this principle should faulter, as that the "foregoing

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

foregoing age fhould confpire to act without a motive, or that the fucceeding age fhould believe what they "know to be otherwife; 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 frantick fhould attempt to innovate in matter of Christian doctrine, because the immediate end of fuch an attempt must be to have his new doctrine believed; but it is impoffible he should attain this end, and impoffible he should not fee that it is impoffible to attain it: now, a feen impoffibility is an end that cannot move any one that is not frantick; therefore no man that is not frantick can attempt to innovate in matter of Christian do&trine. Thus he hath demonstrated it impossible that there should be any hereticks, if a heretick be one that attempts to innovate in matter of Chriftian doctrine: for if there be any fuch attempters, they must be frantick; and if they be frantick, they can be no hereticks: 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 heretick is fallible), and think that which he delivers as Christ's doctrine to be really fo, though indeed it be not; why fhould fuch 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 master), he would not bring fuch trifling fophifms inftead 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 anfwer to Mr. S.'s fecond demonftration.

1. Doctrines and practices which must be acknowledged to have been innovated, have made the

fame

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

1st, I fhall 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-inde"ficiency to beget it." And this perfuafion of theirs is molt exactly parallel with the pretenfions of the Romish church, according to Mr. S. For here's 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. l. 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 themfelves the Catholicks, yet I am fure they call all Jews that do diffent from them fchifmaticks. 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, because by them they made void the written law, is much more to the difcredit of the afferters of oral tradition. Both Romanists and Pharifees they own alike a written doctrine; but then they both pretend the true fenfe and explication thereof to have defcended to them by oral tradition. For juft as the traditionary Christians do now, fo Jofephus tells us (ibid. 1. 17. c. 3. & de bell. Jud. I. I. c. 4. & 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. l. 18. c. 2.), that "all things that belonged to prayer and divine worship, were regulated "and administered according to their interpretations of "the law." And they both agree in this, to make void

66

the

« PreviousContinue »