age can confpire to impofe upon the next in a plain cuftom; and if an univerfal tradition of fuch a thing cannot come in without fuch a confpiracy, how could this be the perfuafion of any age, that wafhing of hands, &c. was prefcribed by Mofes, and practifed in all ages, if it had not truly been fo?.

$5. 2dly, As for inftances among Christians, whereof many remain yet upon record; as, namely, the various and oppofite traditions about the time of Easter, and concerning the baptifm of hereticks, and the apoftolical tradition (as St. Austin calls it) concerning the admission of infants to the communion; all which have been frequently urged in this controverfy, and none of them yet fufficiently anfwered: I fhall, to avoid tedioufnefs, paffing by thefe, infist only upon that of the chi Liaft; which, in Juftin Martyr's time, was the perfuafion of all orthodox Chriftians; that is, (in Mr. S.'s dialect), of all the holders to tradition. For if, notwithstanding the perfuafion of that age, that this doctrine was defcended to them from the Apostles, it was not really fo defcended; then the perfuafion of Chriftians in any age, that a doctrine was brought down to them from the Apostles, is no demonstration that it was fo.

§6. To this inftance Mr. White answers, (Apol. p.78. 79. c.), by telling us, that Eufebius fays, that this tradition fprang from Papias, a good, but a credulous and fimple man, who it feems was mistaken in saying, that it was the Apostles doctrine. But, for all this, Juftin Martyr fays, it was received by all orthodox Chriftians in his time, as a doctrine defcended to them from the Apostles. And if Juftin faid true, nothing can make more against their demonftration of the infallibility of tradition, than the natural confequence from thefe two fayings of Eufebius and Justin; which is this, That the mistake of one fimple and credulous man may, in an age or two, give occafion to the univerfal entertainment of a doctrine, as descended down to them from Chrift and his Apostles, when there was no fuch mat

ter.

Hath not Mr. White now done his rule of faith great fervice by this anfwer? But it is according to his manner, in all his writings, to fay any thing to remove a present objection, though never fo much to the preju

dice of his main hypothefis: than which, I do not know any quality in a writer, which doth more certainly betray the want either of judgment, or of fincerity, or of a good caufe.

66

66

66

66

§ 7. And whereas he fays, (Apol. p. 81.), that "I"renæus's teftimony proves it to be no tradition: for "he fets down the fuppofed words of our Saviour, "which plainly fhews it is a story, not a tradition; a "tradition being a fenfe delivered, not in fet words, "but fettled in the auditors hearts by hundreds of dif"ferent expreffions explicating the fame meaning:" When I confider this paffage of Mr. White, I confess I cannot compliment him, and fay, (as he makes his nephew do in the dialogue between them, Rushworth, dial. 4. § 4.), I cannot but applaud your discourse, it hath "fo pleafing and attractive a countenance; and again, (ibid. §5.), "I am not able to oppose what you fay by any weighty objection, your arguments being not only ftrong and nervous, but of fo comely and "winning a complexion, &c.:" I cannot, I fay, fpeak all this of his prefent argument; but I may defervedly apply to it the last part of his nephew's compliment, that it is an argument fo framed, as if, without any evi"dence of its confequence, it would perfuade men to "believe it." But to return an answer to this paffage: 1t feems, according to Mr. White, that Ireneus was miftaken in the very nature of tradition: and if fo learned a father was ignorant in the common rule of faith, 66 what can we (to ufe Mr. S.'s words, p. 39.) "undertakingly promife to weaker heads? Mr. S. inftanceth in the creed and ten commandments, as the principal traditions which parents teach their children; but now Mr. White can fhew plainly, that thefe are no traditions, but ftories; becaufe "tradition is a fenfe de"livered not in fet words, &c." As if Chrift and his Apoftles could deliver no doctrine, unless they expressed the fame thing an hundred several ways. But fuppofe they did fo, which no man hath any reafon to imagine, because a thing may be expreffed as plainly by one way as by an hundred, can no man deliver this tradition who fpeaks it in any one of thofe expreffions? If one should employ his fervant to carry a meffage, and,

113

because

because Mr. White thinks this neceffary, fhould fettle the meaning of it in his heart, by telling him the fame thing in an hundred feveral expreffions; and the fervant fhould go and deliver this meffage in one of thofe very expreffions that his master used to him, and fhould fay, these were his master's very words; would not this be well enough?

66

No; if he had come to fuch a philofopher as Mr. White, he would foon have given him to understand, that he was not fit to bring a meffage, or to be credited in it, who had fo little wit as not to know, that a meffage is a thing not to be delivered in fet words. And now, I would intreat Mr. White to reconcile himfelf in this matter to his friends. Mr. Rufhworth fays, (Dial. 1. § 6.), "It is impoffible to put fully, and be66 yond all quarrel, the fame fenfe in divers words : " which if it be true, I would fain know what certain course Mr. White can prefcribe, " to explicate the fame meaning by hundreds of different expreffions ;" and, confequently, how tradition can be infallibly conveyed, 46 by fettling the fense of it in the auditors hearts," by fuch variety of expreflions. Mr. Creffy likewife, a zealous afferter of tradition, does affirm, (Exomolog. c. 10. $4.), that "the primitive churches were even to excess fcrupulous in maintaining the very phrases of traditionary doctrines;" which, according to Mr. White, plainly fhews these doctrines to be ftories, not traditions; because tradition is a fenfe delivered not in fet words." The fame author complains, (ibid. c. 19. 2.), that "few among their learnedest mafters of con"troverfy propofe the points to be difputed between "them and the Proteftants in the language of the "church." By which, I fuppofe, he does not mean, that thefe controvertifts were to blame, in that they did not fettle the fenfe of thefe points by hundreds of different expreffions explicating the fame meaning, but that they did not keep to the words wherein the church had in councils, or otherwife, if there be any other way, declared her fenfe of thofe points. Again, he fays, (ib. c. 27. §2.), that "St. Paul, referring to the "¿edrine fettled by oral inftruction, to fhew the uni"formity of it every where, calls it a form of whol"Some

66

"fome words." From whence we may conclude, either that St. Paul did not well to call the traditionary doctrine (as Mr. Creffy fays he does) a form of words or elfe, which is more probable, that Mr. White is miftaken in faying, that a tradition is a fenfe not deli"vered in fet words." Furthermore, the fame Mr. Creffy tells us, (ib. c. 28. § 1.), that St. Auguftine was careful, not only to deliver traditional truths "themselves, but the terms alfo in which thofe truths 66 were conveyed to his times." But now Mr. White could have informed St. Auguftine, that this officious care of his was not only fuperfluous, but pernicious to tradition..

66

66

§ 8. But to return to Juftin's teftimony; to which the fum of Mr. White's answer is, That " Juftin esteemed it not as a point neceffary to falvation, but rather a piece 61 of learning higher than the common; fince he both acknowledges other Catholicks held the contrary, and intitles thole of his perfuafion κατά πάντα ὀρθογνώμονες, " right in all opinions; that is, wholly of his own mind." It is not material to my purpofe, whether or no Juftin looked upon this as a point neceffary to falvation, fo long as it is evident, that he looked upon it as a divine revelation, and part of the Chriftian doctrine. And yet, it feems, he thought it a point of more than ordinary importance, because he joins it with the doctrine of the refurrection; and fays, that it was not difowned by any, but those who alfo denied the refurrection. But whereas Mr. White fays, that "Juftin acknowledges other Catholicks "to have held the contrary," I hope to make it evident, from the scope and series of his difcourfe, that he acknowledges no fuch thing; but that the plain defign of his difcourfe is, to fhew, that this doctrine was owned by all true Chriftians. For when Trypho asks him, whether the Chriftians did indeed believe, that Jerufalem fhould be rebuilt? &c. he returns him this anfwer, (Dial. cum Tryph. p. 306. edit. Lutet. 1615),

I am not

"fuch a wretch as to fpeak otherwife than I think. I "have told thee before, that myself and many others (as ye all know) are of the mind, that this will come to pafs. But that many indeed of thofe Chriftians who are [not] of the pure and pious perfuafion do not own

66

46

"this, I have intimated to thee." That the negative particle (though omitted in the copy) ought to be thus inferted, will be clear to any one that confiders what follows for after he had spoken of those who difown this doctrine, he immediately adds, by way of farther defcription of them, that though they are called Chriftians, yet in truth they are not Chriftians, in these words: For of thefe, (viz. the difowners of this doctrine), "who are called indeed Chriftians, but are atheistical "and impious hereticks, I have fhewed thee, that they "teach in all points, blafphemous, atheistical, and ab"furd things. But, that ye may know that I do not

fay this for you only, 'I will, according to my ability, " compile all these difcourfes which have paffed between 66 us, into one piece; in which I will by writing make "profeflion of this very thing which I now declare to

66

you. For I do not chufe to follow men, or the do"ctrines of men; but God, and fuch doctrines as are "from him. And though you may have converfed with "fome who are called Christians, and yet do not ac

་་

knowledge this; but even dare to blafpheme the God "of Abraham, and the God of Ifaac, and the God of "Jacob; who alfo fay, that there is no refurrection of "the dead, but that fo foon as they die their fouls are "received into heaven: do not count thefe men Chri"ftians; no more than a man that confiders things rightly, would own the Sadducees, and fuch like fects, to be Jews, &c. But I myfelf, and as many Christians as are thoroughly of the right perfuafion, do both know, that there fhall be a refurrection of the flesh, "and a thousand years in Jerufalem, which shall be built, "adorned, and enlarged, &c." Can any thing be plainer, than that Juftin endeavours by this difcourfe to fatisfy Trypho, that this point they were fpeaking of was a divine doctrine, and owned to be fo by all Chriftians, except fuch as did only bear the name and title of Chriftians, but were indeed blafphemous hereticks, and deniers of the refurrection? By which character, that he intends to defcribe the impious fects of the Gnofticks, will appear by and by. So that Mr. White muft either allow the inferting of the negative particle, which Mr. Mede (Nov. edit. p. 664.) proves to have been omitted in the

copy,