"ftrating its certainty. Arithmetic lends her number. "ing and multiplying faculty, to scan the vast number of "teftifiers: Geometry her proportions, to fhew a kind "of infinite ftrength of certitude in Christian tradition, "above those atteftations which breed certainty in human affairs: Logic her skill, to frame and make us "fee the connections it has with the principles of our "understanding: Nature, her laws of motion and ac"tion: Morality, her firft principle, That nothing is "done gratis by a cognofcitive nature; and that the

body of traditionary doctrine is most conformable to "practical reafon : Hiftorical prudence clears the im"poffiblity of an undifcernible revolt from points fo de "fcended, and held fo facred: Politics fhew this to be "the best way imaginable to convey down fuch a law as it concerns every man to be fkilful in: Metaphy"fics engage the effences of things, and the very no"tion of being, which fixes every truth; so establishing "the fcientifical knowledge which fprings from each particular nature, by their firft caufes or reafons, exempt from changes or motion: Divinity demonstra"teth it most worthy God, and most conducive to bring "mankind to blifs: Laftly, Controverfy evidences the "total uncertainty of any thing concerning faith, if this 6.6 can be uncertain; and makes ufe of all the reft, to "establish the certainty of this first principle."

P. 93. A very fit conclufion for fuch demonftrations as went before. It is well Mr S. writes to none but intelligent readers; for were it not a thousand pities, that fo manly, and fold, and convincing a difcourfe as this should be caft away upon fools?

I.

SECT. XII. Mr S.'s corollaries confidered.

S for his corollaries, fuppofing them to be right

$1.Alf deduced from his former difcourfe, they muft

of neceflity fall with them; for they fignify nothing, but upon this fuppofition, that his foregoing difcourfes are true. And yet this being granted, it were eafy to fhew that most of them are grofsly faulty. For, first, several of them are plainly coincident. The fecond, viz. "None can with right pretend to be a church, but the VOL. III. 66 followers

LI

་

6.6

"

"followers of tradition," is the very fame in sense with the 11th, viz. "No company of men hang together "like a body of a Christian commonwealth or church, "but that which adheres to tradition." So likewife the 12th and 14th are contained in the 15th; the 16th and 17th, in the 19th; the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th, in the 21ft; and the 32d and 34th, in the 3 1ft. Secondly, Divers of them are manifeftly abfurd; as the 12th, 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th; the fum of which is, That there is no arguing against tradition from "fcripture, or the authority of the church, or fathers and councils, or from hiftory and teftimonial writings, or from contrary tradition, or reason, or any inftances whatsoever;" which is as much as to fay, If this propofition be true," That tradition is certain," then it cannot, by any kind of argument, be proved to be falfe. But is this any peculiar confectary from the truth of this propofition? Doth not the fame follow from every propofition, That if it be true, it cannot be proved to be falfe? Yet no man was ever yet fo frivolous, as to draw fuch a confequence from the fuppofed truth of any propofition. His 23d alfo is fingularly abfurd, That "there is no poffibility of arguing at all against tradi"tion rightly understood, or the living voice of the Ca"tholic church, with any fhew of reafon." These are large words. It might have contented a reasonable man to have faid, that no good argument could be brought against it; but he is jealous of his hypothefis, and can never think it fafe till it be fhot-free. Nor will that content him; but it must be alfo impoffible for any one to make a fhew of fhooting at it. This were, I confefs, a peculiar privilege of Mr S.'s difcourfes above other mens, if they were, as he fays, by evidence of demonstration fo fecured, that not only no fubftantial argument could be brought against them, but that even the most fubtile schoolman of them all fhould not be able to come near them with fo much as a Videtur quod non. But it may be, he means no more by this corollary, than what he faid in the 18th, viz. That " no folid argu"ment from reafon can be brought against tradition." If so, then the fenfe of his 23d corollary must be this, That there is no poffibility of arguing at all against tra

dition with any folid fhew, or substantial shadow of reafon; which would be a little inconvenient. I will inftance but in one more, his 40th; which is this, "The

knowledge of tradition's certainty is the firft know"ledge or principle in controverfial divinity, i. e. with"out which nothing is known or knowable in that sci"ence:" which is to infer, that because he hath with much pains proved the certainty of tradition, therefore it is felf-evident, i. e. needed no proof. Nay, it is to conclude the prefent matter in controverfy, and that which is the main debate of his book, to be the first principle in controverfial divinity, i. e. fuch a propofition as every one ought to grant before he can have any right to difpute about it. This is a very prudent course, to make begging the question the first principle in controverfy; which would it but be granted, I am very much of his mind, that the method he takes would be the best way to make controverfy a fcience; because he that fhould have the luck or boldness to beg first, would have it in his power to make what he pleafed certain.

§2. Were it worth while, I might farther pursue the absurdities of his corollaries; for they are not so terrible as he makes fhew of, by his telling Dr Caufabon, p. 330. that "Sure footing, and its corollaries, may put him out "of his wits:" which though intended for an affront to the Doctor, yet it may be mollified with a good interpretation; for if the reading of wild and fantaftical stuff be apt to diforder a very learned head, then fo far Mr S's faying may have truth in it.

It remains only that I requite his 41ft corollary, not with an equal number, but with two or three natural confectaries from the doctrine of his book.

1. No man can certainly understand the meaning of any book whatsoever, any farther than the contents of it are made known to us by a concurrent oral tradition : for the arguments whereby he and Mr Rufhworth endeavour to prove it impoffible without tradition to attain to the certain fenfe of fcripture, do equally extend to all other books.

2. The memory of matters of fact done long ago may be better preferved by general rumour, than by public records for this is the plain English of that affertion, L12

:

That

That oral tradition is a better and more fecure way of conveyance than writing.

3. That the generality of Papifts are no Chriftians : for if, as he affirms, tradition be the fole rule of faith, and those who difown this rule be ipfo facto cut off from the root of faith, i. e. unchristianed; and if, as I have fhewn, the generality of Papists do difown this rule, then it is plain that they are no Chriftians.

PAR
R T IV.

Teftimonies concerning the rule of faith.

SECT. I. Mr S.'s teftimonies examined.

$1.TH

'Hus far, in the way of reafon and principles. The rcft is note-book learning, which, he tells us, P. 337. he is not much a friend to:" and there is no kindness loft; for it is as a little friend to him, and his caufe, as he can be to it. I fhall first examine the authorities he brings for tradition; and then produce exprefs teftimonies in behalf of fcripture. In both which I fhall be very brief; in the one, because his te ftimonies require no long anfwer; in the other, becaufe it would be to little purpose to trouble Mr S. with many fathers; who, for ought appears by his book, is acquainted with none but Father White; as I fhall fhew hereafter. By the way, I cannot much blame him for the courfe he ufes to take with other mens teftimonies; because it is the only way that a man in his circumftances can take otherwife nothing can be in itself more unreasonable, than to pretend to anfwer teftimonies by ranking them under fo many faulty heads; and having fo done, magifterially to require his adverfary to vindicate them, by fhewing that they do not fall under fome of thofe heads, though he have not faid one word against any of them particularly nay, though he have not fo much as recited any one of them; for then the trick would be spoiled, and his Catholic reader, who perhaps may believe him in the general, might fee reaion not to do fo, if he fhould defcend to particulars;

which, as he well obferves, p. 161. would make his "difcourfe to look with a contingent face."

66

§2. I begin with his three authorities from fcripture; which when I confider, I fee no reason why he, of all men, fhould find fault with my Lord Bifhop of Down's diffuafive, p. 320. for being fo" thin and flight in fcrip66 ture citations." Nor do I fee how he will answer it to Mr Rushworth, for tranfgreffing that prudent rule of his, (Dial. 2. § 14.), viz. That "the Catholic should never undertake to convince his adverfary out of "fcripture," &e. For which he gives this fubftantial reafon, ib. Because this were to ftrengthen his opponent in his own ground and principle, viz. That all "is to be proved out of fcripture," which he tells us presently after is no more fit to convince, than " a "beetle is to cut withal;" meaning it perhaps of texts fo applied as these which follow. This shall be to you a direct way, fo that fools cannot err in it, H. xxxv. 8. This is my covenant with them, faith the Lord, My fpirit which is in thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart from thy mouth, and from the mouth of thy feed, and from the mouth of thy feed's feed,from henceforth for ever, If. hx. 2t. I will give my law in their bowels, and in their hearts will I write it. Jer. xxxi. 33. From which texts if Mr S. can prove tradition to be the only rule of faith, any better than the philofophers ftone, or the longitude, may be proved from the first chapter of Genefis, I am content they fhould pass for valid teftimonies; though I might require of him, by his own law, before these texts can fignify any thing to his purpofe, to demonftrate that this is the traditionary fense of these texts, and that it hath been univerfally in all ages received by the church under that notion; and then to fhew how it comes to pafs that fo many of the fathers, and of their own commen tators, have interpreted them to another fense; and, laftly, to fhew how fcripture, which has no certain fenfe but from tradition, and of the sense whereof tradition cannot affure us, unless it be the rule of faith; I fay, how fcripture can prove tradition to be the rule of faith, which can prove nothing at all, unless tradition be first proved to be the rule of faith. This I take L 13

to