Page images
PDF
EPUB

66

and the direct impreffion of knowledge, as naturally " and neceffarily iffuing from the affecting those fenfes, as it is to feel heat, cold, pain, pleasure, or any other material quality." So that, according to this dif course, the basis of tradition is not man's nature confi dered as moral, and capable of intellectual reflection; for in this confideration, it is dark and defectible: but man's nature, confidered only as capable of direct sensitive knowledge, as acting naturally and neceffarily: which is to fay, that tradition is founded in the nature of man, confidered not as a man, but a brute; under which confideration, I fee no reason why he fhould call it the best nature in the univerfe. But now, how will he reconcile: this difcourfe with the grounds of his demonstration, where he tells us, that the ftability of tradition is founded in the arguments of hope and fear; the objects of which, being future and at a distance, cannot work upon a man immediately by direct impreffions upon his fenfes, but muft work upon him by way of intellectual reflection and confideration? For I hope he will not deny, but that the arguments of hope and fear work upon man according to his moral and intellectual part, elfe how are they arguments? And if man, according to his moral part, be (as he fays) defectible, how can the indefectibility of tradition be founded in thofe arguments which work upon man only according to his moral part? I have purposely all along, both for the reader's ease and mine own, neglected to take notice of feveral of his inconfiftencies: but thefe are fuch clear and transparent contradictions, that I could do no less than make an example of them.

SECT. V. The third anfwer to his demonftration.

§1. and undeniable inftances to the contrary. I

Hirdly, This demonftration is confuted by clear

will mention but two.

ft, The tradition of the one true God, which was the eafieft to be preferved of any doctrine in the world, being fhort and plain, planted in every man's nature, and perfectly fuited to the reafon of mankind. And yet this.tra

[ocr errors]

.66

[ocr errors]

dition, not having paffed through many hands, by rea fon of the long age of man, was fo defaced and corrupted, that the world did lapfe into polytheifm and idolatry. Now, a man that were fo hardy as to demonstrate against matter of fact, might, by a fronger demonftration than Mr S.'s, prove, that though it be certain this tradition hath failed, yet it was impoffible it fhould fail: as Zeno demonftrated the impoffibility of motion, against Diogenes walking before his eyes. For the doctrine of the one true God " was fettled in the heart of Noah, "and firmly believed by him to be the way to happi"nefs; and the contradicting or deferting of this, to be "the way to misery." And this doctrine was by him fo taught to his children; who were" encouraged by thefe motives to adhere to this doctrine, and to propa"" gate it to their children, and were deterred by them from relinquifhing it. And this was in all ages the perfuafion of the faithful." Now, the "hopes of happinefs, and the fears of mifery, ftrongly applied, are "the caufes of actual will. Befides, the thing was feafible, or within their power; that is, what they were "bred to, was knowable by them;" and that much more easily than any other doctrine whatsoever, being fhort, and plain, and natural. "This put, it follows as certainly, that a great number in each age would "continue to hold themselves, and teach their children as themselves had been taught, that is, would follow "and ftick to this tradition of the one true God, as it "doth, that a caufe put actually caufing, produceth its "effect. Actually, I fay; for fince the caufe is put, " and the patient difpofed, it follows inevitably, that "the cause is put ftill actually caufing." This demonftration, which concludes an apparent falfehood, hath the whole ftrength of Mr S.'s, and feveral advantages beyond it. For the doctrine conveyed by this tradition, is the most important, being the first principle of all religion; the danger of corrupting it as great, the facility of preferving it much greater, than of the Christian doctrine, for the caufes before mentioned: and yet, after all, it fignifies nothing against certain experience, and unquestionable matter of fact; only it fufficiently fhews

66

[ocr errors]

the

the vanity of Mr S.'s pretended demonstration, built upon the fame or weaker grounds.

[ocr errors]

§2. 2dly, The other inftance fhall be in the Greek church, who received the Chriftian doctrine as entire from the Apostles, and had as great an obligation to propa gate it truly to posterity, and the fame "fears and hopes ftrongly applied, to be the actual caufes of will;" in a word, all the fame arguments and caufes to preferve and continue tradition on foot, which the Roman church had and yet, to the utter confufion of Mr S.'s demonftration, tradition hath failed among them. For, as fpeculators, they deny the proceffion of the Holy Ghoft from the Son; and, as teftifiers, they difown any fuch doctrine to have been delivered to them by the precedent age, or to any other age of their church, by the Apoftles, as the doctrine of Christ.

$3. To this inftance of the Greek church, because Mr White hath offered fomething by way of answer, I fhall here confider it. He tells us, (Apology for tradition, p. 51.), that "the plea of the Greek church is non-"tradition; alledging only this, that their fathers did "not deliver the doctrine of the proceffion of the Holy "Ghoft; not that they fay the contrary: which clear"ly demonstrates there are no oppofite traditions beCC. tween them and us." But this was not the thing Mr White was concerned to do, to demonstrate there were no opposite traditions between the Greeks and the Latins, but to fecure his main demonftration of the impoffibility of tradition's failing, against this inftance. For that the Greeks have no fuch tradition as this, that the "Holy Ghoft proceeds from the Son," is as good evidence of the failure of tradition, as if they had a pofitive tradition," that he proceeds only from the Father;" efpecially if we confider, that they (Phoc. ep. 7.) charge the Latin church with innovation in this matter; and fay, that the addition of that claufe," of the proceffion "from the Son alfo," is a corruption of the ancient faith, and a devilish invention. Why then does Mr White go about to baffle fo material an objection, and I fear his own confcience likewife, by a pitiful evasion, inftead of a folid anfwer? What though there be no op pofite traditions between the Greek and Latin church?

yet,

yet, if their faith be oppofite, will it not from hence follow, that tradition hath failed in one of them? I wonder that Mr White, who hath so very well confuted the infallibility of Popes and councils, and thereby undermined the very foundation of that religion, fhould not, by the fame light of reafon, difcover the fondnefs of his own opinion concerning the infallibility of oral tradition, which hath more and greater abfurdities in it than that which he confutes. And to fhew Mr White the abfur. dity of it, I will apply his demonftration of the infalli bility of Chriftian tradition in general, to the Greek church in particular; by which every one will fee, that it does as ftrongly prove the impoffibility of tradition's failing in the Greek church, as in the Roman Catholic, as they are pleafed to call it. His demonftration is this: (De fid. et theolog. tract. 1. §4.) "Chrift commanded "his Apoftles to preach to all the world; and left any one fhould doubt of the effect, he sent his Spirit into "them, to bring to their remembrance what he had "taught them; which Spirit did not only give them a

[ocr errors]

66

power to do what he inclined them to, but did caufe "them actually to do it." I cannot but take notice by the way, of the ill confequence of this; which is, that men may doubt whether thofe who are to teach the doctrine of Christ will remember it, and teach it to others, unless they have that extraordinary and efficacious affiftance of the Holy Ghoft, which the Apostles had. If this be true, his demonftration is at an end; for he cannot plead that this affiftance hath been continued ever fince the Apoftles. He proceeds, "The Apoftles preached this doctrine; the nations understood it, lived according to it, and valued it as that which was neceffary to them "and their pofterity incomparably beyond any thing "elfe." All this I fuppofe done to and by the Greeks, as well as any other nation. Thefe things being put, "it cannot enter into any man's understanding, but "that the Chriftian [Greeks] of the first age, being "the fcholars of the Apoftles, could and would earnest

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ly commend the Chriftian doctrine to their pofterity; "if fo, it is evident that they did. So that the continuance of purity of the faith in the [Greek] church, " is founded upon this, that fathers always delivered

[ocr errors]

"the

"the fame doctrine to their children which they had re"ceived from their fathers, and did believe it under "this very notion and title as received. Nor could any

one [of that church] deliver another doctrine under "this title, but he would be convinced of a lie by the "reft and if the whole [Greek] church fhould endeavour to deliver a new doctrine under that title, [and "there is the fame reason if they fhould leave out any "article of the old doctrine] that whole age would be

[ocr errors]

in their confciences condemned of perfidioufnefs and "parricide. Now, this is as impoffible, as it is that all "mankind should confpire to kill themselves." And he "afterwards (ibid. §3.) gives the reafon why it is fo impoffible that tradition fhould fail, and it is a very bold and faucy one, that "if the tradition of the Christian "faith be not more firm than the course of the fun and

[ocr errors]

moon, and the propagation of mankind, then God "hath fhewn himself an unfkilful artificer." What is there in all this demonstration which may not be accommodated to the Greek church with as much force and advantage as to the Catholic? unless he can fhew, that it is very poffible that all the men in Greece may confpire to kill themselves, but yet abfolutely impoffible that all the men in the world fhould do fo; which I am fure he cannot fhew, unless he can demonstrate, that though it be poffible for a million of as wife men as any are to be found in the world together, to confpire to do a foolish action, yet it is impoffible that a hundred millions, not one jot wifer than the other, should agree together to the doing of it.

4. From all this it appears, that Mr White's answer to this objection doth not fignify any thing to his purpofe. For if the proceffion of the Holy Ghoft was part of Chrift's doctrine, then it was delivered by the Apoftles to the Greek church; if fo, they could not fail to deliver it down to the next age, and that to the next, and fo on; but it seems they have failed. Where then is the force of hopes and fears ftrongly applied?" Where are the certain caufes of actual will to adhere to this doctrine? Why is not the effect produced, "the causes being put actually caufing?" If the ApoAles delivered this doctrine, oral tradition is fo clear and unmistakeable,

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »