صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

"dition from the written word, because tradition is not "written by any, or in any book or writing; but be"caufe it is not written in the fcripture or Bible." Bellarmine (De verbo Dei, &c. 1. 4. c. 2.) alfo fays the fame. And as for the interpreting of fcripture, he tells us, that this is not the office of a rule, but of a judge. "There is (fays he, Charity maintained, c. 2. §3.) a

66

[ocr errors]

great and plain distinction between a judge and a rule: "for as in a kingdom the judge hath his rule to follow, "which are the received laws and cuftoms; which are not fit or able to declare, and be judges themselves, "but that office must belong to a living judge: fo the "holy fcripture is and may be a rule, but cannot be a judge." Here he makes the fcripture as much a rule for matters of faith, as the laws of the land are for civil matters. And, in his Reply to Mr. Chillingworth, he hath a chapter of above 150 pages, the title whereof is, Scripture is not the only rule of faith; which (had he with Mr. S. believed oral tradition to be the fole rule of faith) had been as abfurd, as it would be to write a book, to prove, that Turks are not the only Christians in the world. Mr. Creffy likewife (not very confiftently to himself) lays down this conclufion, (Exomolog. c. 20.), "The entire rule of faith is contained not only in fcri66 pture, but likewife in unwritten tradition."

$2. Now, all this is as contrary as can be to Mr. Rufhworth's new rule of faith. Therefore Mr. White fays, (Tabul. fuffrag. p. 96.), "They fpeak ill who "teach, that fome things are known in the church from 66 fcripture, fome by tradition." And Dr. Holden (in oppofition to those who make scripture any part of the rule of faith) advances one of the most wild and uncharitable pofitions that ever I yet met withal, viz. (Analyf. fid. l. 1. c. 6.), That "if one fhould believe all the ar

ticles of the Catholick faith, &c. for this reafon, be"cause he thought they were all exprefsly revealed in "fcripture, or implicitly contained, fo as they might be "deduced from thence, and would not have believed "them, had he not judged that they might be evinced "from fcripture: yet this man could be no true Catho"lick; becaufe (as he tells us afterwards, c. 8.) we "must receive the Chriftian doctrine as coming to us by

"tradition;

"tradition; for only by this means (excluding the fcri"ptures) Chrift hath appointed revealed truths to be re"ceived and communicated." In the mean time, Cardinal Perron (unless he altered his mind) is in a fad cafe, who believed the authority of tradition itself, for this reafon, because it was founded in fcripture.

§3. And this fundamental difference about the rule of faith, between the generality of their divines and Mr. S.'s finall party, is fully acknowledged by the traditionifts themselves. Dr. Holden fays, (l. 1. c.9.), that "their divines who refolve faith according to the com66 mon opinion, do inevitably fall into that fhameful "circle, [of proving the divine authority of the fcripture "by the church, and the infallibility of the church back "again by the fcripture], because they dare not build "their faith upon the natural evidence and certainty of "tradition." So that Dr. Holden's way of refolving faith, is different from the common opinion of their divines; which, he says, (l. 1. c. 3.), “does not dif"fer from the opinion of those who refolve their faith "into the private fpirits:" and this (according to Mr. White, Exetaf. p. 70.) is the very way of the Calvinifts, and of the abfurdeft fects. Nay, Mr. White fays farther, ibid. that he will be content to "fuffer all the

[ocr errors]

punishment that is due to calumniators, if the Roman "divines (he there fpeaks of) do not hold the fame "rule of faith with the Calvinifts, and all the abfurdest "fects." So that it seems that the Calvinifts, &c. do not in their rule of faith differ from the Papifts, but only from Mr. White, Mr. S. &c. Now, the divines he there fpeaks of, are the cenfors of doctrines at Rome, according to whofe advice his infallible Holinefs, and the Cardinals of the inquifition, do ufually proceed in cenfuring of doctrines. Concerning thefe divines he goes on to expoftulate in this manner, (ibid. p. 73.),

Shall we endure these men to fit as cenfors and judges "of faith, who agree with hereticks in the very first principle which diftinguishes Catholicks from here"ticks?" Again, p. 144. "Thefe are thy gods, O "Rome! upon these thou dependeft, whilst prating "ignorance triumphs in the Roman college." And he fays the fame likewife of the generality of their fchool

divines,

[ocr errors]

66

divines, whom he calls fcepticks, because they do not own his demonstrative way: infomuch that he tells us, p. 64. that "few found parts are left uninfected with this plague of scepticism; that this is an univer"fal gangrene," p. 149.; that "there are but few that 66 go the way of demonstration, and thefe are either "wearied out, or elfe live retiredly, or defpair of any 66 remedy of these things," p. 67.68. And indeed all along that book he bemones himself and his traditiona¬ ry brethren as a defolate and forlorn party, who have truth on their fide, but want company and encouragement. So he tells us, p. 101. that "the true fcientifi"cal divines dare not profess their knowledge, left they "fhould be expofed by the fophifters of their church to "the derifion and scorn, either of their judges, or of "the people."

$4. So that, upon examination of the whole matter, it appears, that Mr. S's demonftration proceeds upon a falfe fuppofition, that it is the perfuafion of their prefent church that tradition is the fole rule of faith. For there is no fuch matter; unless Mr. S. mean by their church, a few private perfons, who are looked upon by those who have the chief power in their church, as heretical as we may reafonably conjecture by the proceedings at Rome against Mr. White; many of whose books are there condemned, as "containing things ma"nifeftly heretical, erroneous in the faith, rafh, fcan"dalous, feditious, and false respectively, &c." (Exetaf. p. 9.): and all this done, notwithstanding that the chief fubject of thofe books is the explication and defence of this moft Catholick principle, "That oral "tradition is the only rule of faith.” To fum up then the whole bufinefs: If nothing be to be owned for Christian doctrine, (as the traditionifts fay), but what is the general perfuafion of those who are acknowledged to be in the communion of the Roman Catholick church; then much lefs can this principle, "That oral tradition "is the fole rule of faith," which is pretended to be the foundation of the whole Christian doctrine, be received as defcended from Christ and his Apoftles; fince it is fo far from being the general perfuafion of that church at the present, that it has been, and still is ge

nerally

nerally difowned. But Mr. White has a falvo for this: For although he grants, (Apol. p. 38.), that " 66 very "many of their schoolmen maintain, that tradition is "neceffary only for fome points not clearly expressed "in fcripture; whence (he fays) it feems to follow, "that they build not the whole body of their faith up

on tradition: yet (he tells us) there is a vaft diffe"rence betwixt relying on tradition, and saying or "thinking we do fo." Suppofe there be; yet I hope, that mens faying that they do not rely on tradition as their only rule, is a better evidence that they do not, than any man's furmife to the contrary is, that they do, though they think and fay they do not; which is, in in effect, to say, that they do, though we have as much affurance as we can have, that they do not. Befides, how is this rule "felf-evident to all, even to the rude 66 vulgar, as to its ruling power," (as Mr. S. affirms it is), when the greatest part even of the learned among them think and fay, that it is not the only rule? But Mr. White (ib. p. 39.) endeavours to illuftrate this dark point by a fimilitude, which is to this fenfe: As the fcepticks, who deny this principle, That contra"dictions cannot be true at once," yet in their lives and civil actions proceed as if they owned it; fo the fchoolmen, though they deny tradition to be the only rule of faith, yet by refolving their faith into the church, which owns this principle, they do alfo in praetice own it, though they fay they do not. So that the generality of learned Papifts are juft fuch Catholicks as the fcepticks are dogmatifts; that is, a company of abfurd people, that confute their principles by their praetice. According to this reafoning, I perceive the Proteftants will prove as good Catholicks as any; for they do not only think and fay, that tradition is not the rule of faith; but that they practically rely upon it, Mr. S. hath paffed his word for them: for he affures us, p. 30.

[ocr errors]

31. (and we may rely upon a man that writes nothing but demonstration), that, "if we look narrowly "into the bottom of our hearts, we fhall difcover the "natural method of tradition to have unawares fettled "our judgments concerning faith; however, when our "other concerns awake design in us, we proteft against

66 it, and feem perhaps to our unreflecting felves to em"brace and hold to the mere guidance of the letter of 66 fcripture." So that, in reality, we are as good Catholicks, and as true holders to tradition, as any Papifts of them all, at the bottom of our thoughts, and in our fettled judgment: however we have taken up an humour to protest against it, and may feem perhaps to our unreflecting felves to be Proteftants.

66

§ 5. Thus much may fuffice to have spoken to his two great arguments; or, as he (good man) unfortunately calls them, demonstrations, p. 173.; which yet, to fay truth, are not properly his, but the author of Rushworth's dialogues; the main foundation of which book is the fubftance of these demonftrations. Only, before I take leave of them, I cannot but reflect upon a paffage of Mr. S.'s, wherein he tells his readers, p. 163. that they are not obliged to bend their brains to ftu"dy his book with that severity as they would do an "Euclid;" meaning perhaps one of Mr. White's Euclids for it does not appear by his way of demonstration, that ever he dealt with any other. As for the true Euclid, I fuppofe any one that hath tasted his writings, will, at the reading of Mr. S.'s, unbend his brains without bidding, and fmile to fee himself fo demurely discharged from a study fo abfurd and ridiculous.

:

SECT. XI. Concerning fome other advantages of tradition, &c.

66

[ocr errors]

Should now take into confideration his ninth dif course, in which he pretends to " open the in66 comparable strength of the church's human authority, and the advantages which accrue to it by the fupernatural affistances of the Holy Ghoft; but that there is nothing material in it which hath not been anfwered already. Only, I defire him to explain, how the fupernatural affiftances of the Holy Ghoft can, according to his principles, add to our affurance of the certainty of tradition becaufe we can have no greater certainty of the fupernatural affiftance of the Holy Ghoft, than we have, that there is an Holy Ghoft; and of this we can have no certainty, (according to Mr. S.),

but

« السابقةمتابعة »