us by tradition; for only by this means (excluding "the fcriptures) Chrift hath appointed revealed truths 66. to be received and communicated." In the mean time, Cardinal Perron (unless he altered his mind) is in a fad cafe, who believed the authority of tradition itfelf, 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 fmall party, is fully acknowledged by the tradi tionists themselves. Dr Holden fays, (l. 1. c. 9.), that "their divines who refolve faith according to the com66 mon opinion, do inevitably fall into the fhameful "circle of proving the divine authority of the fcrip. "ture 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 cer"tainty of tradition." So that Dr Holden's way of refolving faith, is different from the common opinion of their divines; which, he fays, (1. 1. c. 3.), does not

"differ from the opinion of thofe who refolve their "faith into the private fpirits :" and this (according to Mr White, Extaf. p. 70.), is the very way of the Calvinifts, and of the abfurdeft fects. Nay, Mr White faysfarther, ibid. that he will be content to "fuffer all the

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 feems that the Calvinists, &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 holiness, and the Cardinals of the inquifition, do ufually proceed in cenfuring of doctrines. Concerning thefe divines het 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 heretics in the very firft "principles which diftinguish Catholics from here"tics?" Again, p. 144. "Thefe are thy gods, O "Rome! upon thefe thou dependeft, whilft prating ignorance triumphs in the Roman college." And he fays the fame likewife of the generality of their school

divines,

divines, whom he calls fceptics, because they do not own his demonftrative way: infomuch that he tells us, p. 64. that " few found parts are left uninfected with this plague of fcepticism;" that "this is an univerfal gangrene," p. 149. that "there are but few that go "the way of demonstration, and thefe are either wea"ried out, or else live retiredly, or defpair of any re medy of these things," p. 67. 68. And indeed all along that book he bemoans himself and his traditionary 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 fcientifical di

vines dare not profefs their knowledge, left they "fhould be exposed by the fophifters of their church to "the derifion and fcorn, either of their judges, or of "the people."

§4. So that, upon examination of the whole matter, it appears, that Mr S.'s demonstration proceeds upon a falfe fuppofition, that it is the perfuafion of their present 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 reasonably conjecture by the proceedings at Rome against Mr White; many of whofe books are there condemned, as "containing things manifeftly he "retical, erroneous in the faith, rafh, fcandalous, fe"ditious, and falfe refpectively," &c. (Exetaf. p. 9.) and all this done, notwithstanding that the chief fubject of those books is the explication and defence of this moft Catholic principle, "That oral tradition is the only rule of faith." To fum up then the whole bu finefs: If nothing be to be owned for Chriftian doc trine, (as the Traditionists fay), but what is the general perfuafion of those who are acknowledged to be in the communion of the Roman Catholic 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 Chrift and his Apoftles; fince it is so far from being the general perfuafion of that church at the prefent, that it has been, and ftill is, generally difown

ed.

ed. But Mr White has a falvo for this: For. although he grants, (Apol. p. 38.) that " very many of their "fchoolmen maintain, that tradition is neceffary only "for fome points not clearly expreffed in fcripture; "whence (he fays) it feems to follow, that they build

not the whole body of their faith upon tradition : "yet (he tells us) there is a vaft difference betwixt re"lying on tradition, and faying or thinking we do fo." Suppole 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 effect, to fay, that they do, though we have as much affurance as we can have, that they do not. Befides, how is this rule "felfevident to all, even to the rude vulgar, as to its ruling power," (as Mr S. affirms it is), when the greateft part even of the learned among them think and say, that it is not the only rule? But Mr White (ibid. p. 39.) endeavours to illuftrate this dark point by a fimilitude, which is to this fenfe: As the fceptics, who deny this principle, "That contradictions 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 practice own it, though they fay, they do not. So that the generality of learned Papifts are juft fuch Catholics as the fceptics are dogmatifts; that is, a company of abfurd people, that confute their principles by their practice. According to this reafoning, I perceive the Proteftants will prove as good Catholics as any; for they do 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. & 31. (and we may rely upon a man that writes nothing but demonstration), that if

cr

ઃઃ

we look narrowly into the bottom of our hearts, we fhall difcover the natural method of tradition to have unawares fettled our judgements concerning faith ; "however, when our other concerns awake design in us, we protest against it, and feem perhaps to our "unreflecting,

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

testants.

§ 5. Thus much may fuffice to have spoken to his two great arguments; or, as he (good man) unfortunately calls them, demonftrations, p. 173. which yet, to fay truth, are not properly his, but the author of Rufhworth's dialogues; the main foundation of which book is the fubftance of thefe 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 study his "book with that feverity as they would do an Euclid;" meaning perhaps one of Mr White's Euclids; for it does not appear by his way of demonftration, that ever he dealt with any other. As for the true Euclid, I fuppofe any one that hath tafted his writings, will, at the reading of Mr S.'s, unbend his brains without bidding, and fmile to fee himself fo demurely difcharged from a ftudy fo abfurd and ridiculous.

SECT. XI. Concerning fome other advantages of tradi tion, &c.

§ I. Should now take into confideration his ninth dif courfe, in which he pretends to open the in"comparable strength of the church's human authority, "and the advantages which accrue to it by the fuper"natural affistances of the Holy Ghoft;" but that there is nothing material in it which hath not been answered 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; because 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 by tradition,

And if

tradition, which conveys this doctrine to us. tradition of itself can infallibly affure us, that there are fupernatural affiftances of the Holy Ghoft, then a man must know, that tradition is infallible, antecedently to his knowledge of any fupernatural affiftance. And if so, what can any fupernatural affiftance add to my affurance of the certainty of tradition, which I do fuppofe to be infallible before I can know of any fupernatural affistance? Can any thing be more ludicrous, than to build first all our certainty of the affistance of the Holy Ghost upon the certainty of tradition; and then afterwards to make the certainty of tradition to rely upon the affistance of the Holy Ghoft? as if that could contribute to our affurance of the certainty of tradition; which, unless tradition be first fuppofed certain, is itself wholly uncertain.

§ 2. The conclufion of this ninth difcourfe is fomewhat exftatical; poffibly from a fudden diforder of his fancy upon the contemplation of his own performances, to fee what a man he has made himfelf, (with the help of Rushworth's dialogues), or rather, what his party has made him by the office they put upon him: for it seems (by his telling, P. 165. and 166.) Mr Creffy, and the reft, are ordained to cajole the fools, leaving him the way of reafon and principles; and that himself is chofen out to demonftrate to the wife, or those who judge of things per altiffimas caufas. In the difcharge of which glorious office, he declares, that he intends no confutation of those authors which Mr Creffy and others have meddled with: 66 yet if any will be fo charitable as to judge he hath folidly confuted them, because he hath radically and fundamentally overthrown all their arguments, &c. he fhall rejoice, and be thankful.’ That the intelligent reader (for he writes to none but fuch, p. 159.) may alfo rejoice with him, I fhall recite the whole paffage for it is thick of demonftration, and as likely as any in his book to have the altiffimas caufas contained in it.

66

§ 3. It would require a large volume to unfold particularly how each virtue contributes to fhew the in"errable indeficiency of tradition, and how the princi"ples of almoft each science are concerned in demon

ftrating