صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

manner of a spirit? (and yet this they affirm concerning the presence of Christ's body in the facrament. One might as well say, that snow is black, but not after the manner of blackness, but in the way of whiteness; which is to talk nonsense after the manner of sense): How the whole body of Christ can be contained under the least sensible part of the species of bread ? (as is generally affirmed :

: nay, and Scotus adds, that the whole body is under every little part in its full proportion; for he says expressly, (ibid. qu. 1. n. II.), that “the head and the foot “ of the body of Christ are as far distant from one ano“ther in the facrament, as they are in heaven ; ” as if one should Tay, that a body, all whose parts lie within the compass of a small pin's head, may yet within that little compass have parts two yards distant from one another): and, lastly, How the sensible fpecies of bread, e.g. quantity, whiteness, softness, &c. can exist without any fübject ? To affirm the possibility of which, as generally they do, is to say, that there may be quantities of white and soft nothings : for this is the plain English of that assertion, “That sensible species may exist with

out a subject;" which being stripped of those terms of art, Species and subject, that do a little disguise it, it appears to be plain nonfenfe.

Now, the proper and necessary consequence of this doctrine is, to take away all certainty, and especially the certainty of sense. For if that which my fight, and taste, and touch, do all assure me to be a little piece of wafer, may, notwithstanding this, be flesh and blood, even the whole body of a man; then, notwithstanding the greatest assurance that sense can give me, that any thing is this or that, it may be quite another thing from what sense reported it to be. If so, then farewel the infallibility of tradition, which depends upon the certainty of sense. And, which is a worse confequence, if this doctrine be admitted, we can have no sufficient assurance, that the Christian doctrine is a divine revelation : for the assurance of that depending nipon the assurance we have of the miracles said to be wrought for the confirmation of it, and all the assurance we can have of a miracle depending upon the certainty of our senses, it is very plain, that that doctrine

[ocr errors]

which takes away the certainty of sense, does in so doing overthrow the certainty of Christian religion. And what can be more vain, than to pretend, that a man may be assured, that such a doctrine is revealed by God, and consequently true, which if it be true, a man can have no assurance at all of any divine revelation ? Surely nothing is to be admitted by us as certain, which being admitted, we can be certain of nothing. It is a wonder, that any

man who considers the natural consequences of this doctrine, can be a Papist, unless he have attained to Mr. Cressy's pitch of learning; who, speaking of the difficult arguments wherewith this doctrine was pressed, fays plainly, (Exomol. c. 73. $7.), “ I must answer

freely and ingenuously, that I have not learned to answer such arguments, but to despise them.” And, if this be a good way, whenever we have a mind to believe any thing, to scorn those objections against it which we cannot solve; then Christian religion hath no advantage above the vileft enthusiasms; and a Turk may maintain Mahomet and his Alcoran, in opposition to Christ and his doctrine, against all that Grotius, or any other, hath said, if he can but keep his countenance, and gravely fay, “ I have not learned to answer such ar

guments, but to despise them.”

Š 10. I will add one instance more in another kind, to show the uncertainty of oral and practical traditions ; and that shall be the tradition concerning Pope Joan; than which scarce any thing was ever more generally received in the historical kind. Many and great authors affirm it, as testifiers of the general fame. None ever denied it till the reformers had made use of it to the disadvantage of Popery. Since that time, not only Papists deny it, but several of our own writers cease to believe it. Phil. Bergomensis tells the story thus : Anno “ 858, John, the 7th Pope, &c. The tradition is, that " this person was a woman, &c." Here is an oral tradition. He concludes thus : “ In detestation of whose

filthiness, and to perpetuate the memory of her name, “ the Popes, even to this day, going on procession with “ the people and clergy, when they come to the place “ of her travail, &c. in token of abomination, they “ turn from it, and go a by-way; and, being past that Kk 2

“ detestable


“ dereitable place, they return into the way, and finish " their procession.” Here is one practical tradition. " And, for avoiding of the like miscarriages, it was de

creed, that no one thould thereafter be admitted into " St. Peter's chair, priusquam per foratam fedem futuri

Pontificis genitalia ab ultimo Diacono Cardinale attrecta

rentur." Here is another with a witness. Sabellicus relates the same, (Ennead. 9. l. 1.); and moreover fays, that “this porphyry chair was, in his time, to be “ seen in the Pope's palace.” He adds indeed, that

Platina thinks, that this tradition of Pope Joan was not faithfully delivered to posterity. But however, (says he), such a tradition there is concerning the first practical tradition.” Platina fays, that he may

not deny it.” For the second, he thinks "the chair “ rather designed for a stool, for another ufe, &c." He concludes, " These things which I have related are “ commonly reported, yet from uncertain and obscure

authors; therefore I resolved (says hc) briefly and nakedly to set them down, lest I should seem too ob

Itinately and pertinaciously to have omitted that which “ almost all affirm.” It is no wonder, that he fays the authors of this report were uncertain and obscure, fince so very few writ any thing in that age. But, fuppose

none had writ of it, so long as he acknowledges it Ito have been a general oral tradition, attested by a folemn and constant practice, it has, according to Mr.Si's principles, greater certainty than if it had been brought down to us by a hundred books written in that very age. So that here is an oral and practical tradition, continued, we are sure, for some hundreds of years, preserved and propagated by a folemn practice of the Fopes, clergy, and people of Rome, in their processions, and by a notorious custom at the election of every Pope ; and in a matter of fo great importance to their religion, (the honour of the fee of Rome, and the uninterrupted fucceilion from St. Peter, being so nearly concerned in it), that, had it been false, they had been obliged, under pain of damnation, not only not to have promoted it, but to have used all means to have discovered the falsity of it. Therefore Mr. S. is bound, by his own principles, either to allow it for a truth, or else to give an account when and how it began; which may possibly be made out by we metaphysicians,” (as he styles himself and his scientifical brethren, p. 340.): but I assure him it is past the skill of note-book learning, P. 337. SECT. X. The fourth answer to his second demonstra



$ 1. IT T is not the present persuasion of the church of

Rome, nor ever was, that their faith hath descended to them by oral tradition as the sole rule of it. And this being proved, the supposition upon which his demonstration is built, falls to the ground.

And for the proof of this, I appeal to that decree of the council of Trent, (Decret. primum quartæ /ell.), in which they declare, that because the “ Christian faith “ and discipline are contained in written books and un“ written traditions, &c. therefore they do receive and “ honour the books of scripture, and also tradition, pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia, with equal pious affecti

on and reverence;" which I understand not how those do who set aside the scripture, and make tradition the sole rule of their faith. And consonantly to this decree, the general doctrine of the Romish church is, that scripture and tradition make up the rule of faith. So the Roman catechism, (set forth by order of the council of Trent), says, (in præfat.), that “the sum of the do“ &trine delivered to the faithful is contained in the word “ of God, which is distributed into scripture and tradi« tion." 'Bellarmine (De verbo Dei, &c. l. 4. C. 12.) speaks to the same purpose, that “ the scripture is a rule • of faith, not an entire, but partial one. The entire “ rule is the word of God, which is divided into two “ partial rules, fcripture and tradition." According to this, the adequate rule of faith is the word of God, which is contained partly in fcripture, and partly in the tradition of the church. And that scripture is looked upon by them as the principal rule and primary foundation of their faith, and tradition as only supplying the defects of seripture, as to some doctrines and rites not contained in scripture, must be evident to any one that has been converfant in the chief of their controversial divines.


KK 3

[ocr errors]

Bellarmine, (De verbo Dei non fcripto. l. 4. c.9.), where be gives the marks of a divine tradition, speaks to this purpose, that that which they call a divine tradition, is fuch a doctrine or rite as is not found in scripture, but embraced by the whole church; and for that reason believed to have descended from the Apostles. And he tells us farther, (ibid. c. 11.), that the Apostles committed all to writing which was commonly and publickly preached; and that all things are in scripture which men are bound to know and believe explicitly: but then he says, that there were other things which the Apostles did not commonly and publickly teach ; and these they did not commit to writing, but delivered them only by « word of mouth to the Prelates and Priests, and per“ feet men of the church.” And these are the Apoltolical traditions he speaks of. Cardinal Perron says, (Reply, ohservat. 3. 6.4.), that “the scripture is the « foundation of the Christian doctrine, either mediately

or immediately. And that the authority of unwrit

ten tradition is founded in general on these sentences “ of the Apostle, Hold the traditions, &c. 2 Thess.ii. 15.; " again, The things which thou hast heard of me among

many witnesses, commit to faithful men, &c.” 2 Tim. ii. 2. And that “ the authority of the church to pre“ serve, and especially to declare these, is founded in " this proposition, viz. That the church is the pillar and ground of truth,i Tim. iii. 15. So that, according to him, the primary rule of faith is the scripture, “ in ” which the authority of tradition is founded.” Mr. Knott (Charity maintained, c. 2. $ 1.) says expressly, “ We acknowledge the holy fcripture to be a molt per"fect rule, for as much as a writing can be a rule;

we only deny that it excludes either divine tradition, " though it be unwritten; or an external judge, to keep,

to propose, to interpret it, &c." So that, according to him, scripture is a perfect rule; only it does not exclude unwritten tradition, &c. By which that he does not understand, as Mr. S. does, a concurrent oral tradition of all the fanie doctrines which are contained in fcripture, but other doctrines not therein contained, is plain from what he fays elsewhere, (Reply to Mr.Chillingworth, C. 2. $ 170.), “We do not distinguish tra

6 dition

« السابقةمتابعة »