The First Way .

HIS first Way is , That I have not one first or self evident principle to begin with , on which I build the Dissuasive ; but he hath , that is , he says he hath ; for he hath reproved that oral tradition , on which he and his Church relies , is such a principle ; He thought ( it may be ) he had reason then to say so ; but the Scene is altered , and until he hath sufficiently confuted his adversaries who have proved his self evident principle to be an evident and pitiful piece of Sophistry , his boasting is very vain . However , though he hath failed in his undertaking , yet I must acquit my self as well as I can . I shall therefore tell him that the truth , fulness , and sufficiency of Scripture in all matters of faith and manners , is the principle that I and all Protestants rely upon . And although this be not a first and self-evident principle , yet it is resolved into these that are . 1. Whatsoever God hath said is true . 2. Whatsoever God hath done is good . 3. Whatsoever God intends to bring to pass , he hath appointed means sufficient to that end . Now since God hath appointed the Scriptures to instruct us , and make us wise unto salvation , and to make the man of God perfect , certain it is , that this means must needs be sufficient to effect that end . Now that God did do this , to this end , to them that believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God , is as evident as any first principle . And let these Scriptures be weighed together , and see what they do amount to . John . 5. 39. Search the Scriptures for therein ye think to have eternal life . The Jews thought so , that is , they confessed and acknowledged it to be so ; and if they had been deceived in their thought , besides that it is very probable Christ would have reprov'd it , so it is very certain he would not have bidden them to have used that means to that end . And if Christ himself and the Apostles did convince the Jews out of the Scriptures of the old Testament , proving that Jesus was the Christ : if Christ himself and the Apostles proved the resurrection , and the passion , and the supreme Kingdom of Christ out of the Scriptures , if the Apostle proved him to be the Messias , and that be ought to suffer and to rise again the third day by no other precedent topic , and that upon these things Christian religion relied as upon it's intire foundation , and on the other side the Jewish Doctors had brought in many things by tradition , to which our Blessed Saviour gave no countenance , but reproved many of them , and made it plain that tradition was not the first and self evident principle to rely upon in religion , but a way by which they had corrupted the Commandment of God : It will follow from hence , that the Scriptures are the way that Christ and his Apostles walked in , and that oral tradition was not . But then to this add what more concerns the N. T. when S. Luke wrote his Gospel , in the preface he tells us , That many had taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things , which are most surely believed amongst us [ Christians , ] and that he having perfect understanding of all things ( viz. which Christ did and taught ) from the very first did write [ this Gospel ] that Theophilus might know the certainty of those things in which he had been instructed : Now here ( if we believe S. Luke ) was no want of any thing ; he was fully instructed in all things ; and he chose to write that book , that by that book Theophilus might know the truth , yea , the certainty of all things . Now if we be Christians and believe . S. Luke to be divinely inspired , this is not indeed a first but an evident principle ; that a book of Scripture can make a man certain and instructed in the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ . To the same purpose is that of S. John These things are written , that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God , John . 20. 31. and that believing ye might have life through his name . The end is salvation by Jesus Christ ; the means of effecting this , was this writing the Gospel by S. John ; and therefore it is a sure principle for Christians to rely upon , the word of God written by men divinely inspired , such as Christians believe and confess S. Luke and S. John to be . Hear S. Luke again , Acts 1. The former treatise have I made O Theophilus of all that Jesus began both to do and teach untill the day he was taken up . No man then can deny but all Christs doctrine and life was fully set down by these Evangelists and Apostles ; whether it were to any purpose or no , let I. S. consider , and I shall consider with him in the sequel . But first let us hear what S. Paul saith in an Epistle written as it is probable not long before his death ; but certainly after three of the Gospels , and divers of the Epistles were written , and consequently related to the Scriptures of the old and new Testament . [ Continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of , 2 Tim. 5. 14. knowing of whom thou hast learned them : And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures , which are able to make thee wise unto salvation , through faith which is in Christ Jesus . All Scripture is given by inspiration of God , and is profitable for doctrine , for reproof , for correction , for instruction in righteousness , that the man of God may be perfect , throughly furnished unto all good works . ] Now I demand ; Does I. S. believe these words to be true ? Are the Scriptures able to make us wise unto salvation ? Are they profitable to all intents and purposes of the spirit , that is , to teach , to reprove , to correct , to instruct ? Is the end of all this Oeconomy , to make a Christian man , yea a Christian Bishop perfect ? Can he by this dispensation be throughly furnished unto all good works , and that by faith in Jesus Christ ? If so , then this is the true principle , the Apostolical way , the way of God , the way of salvation : And if Scriptures , [ the books written by the finger of God , and the pen of Apostles ] can do all this , then they are something more than Inke varied into divers figures , unsensed characters , and I know not what other reviling Epithets I. S. is pleased to cast upon them .

Yea , but all this is nothing , unless we know that Scriptures are the word of God , that they were written by the Apostles ; and of this , the Scriptures cannot be a witness in their own behalf : And therefore oral tradition must supply that , and consequently is the only first and self-evident principle . To this I answer ; that it matters not by what means it be conveyed to us that the Scriptures are the Word of God . Oral tradition is an excellent means ; but it is not that alone by which it is conveyed . For if by oral tradition he means the testimony of the Catholick Church ; it is the best external ministery of conveyance of this , being a matter of fact , and of so great concernment . To which the testimony of our adversaries Jews and Heathens adds no small moment ; and the tradition is also conveyed to us by very many writings . But when it is thus conveyed , and that the Church does believe them to be the Word of God , then it is that I inquire , whether the Scriptures cannot be a witness to us of it 's own design , fulness , and perfection . Certainly no principle is more evident than this , none more sure and none before it ; Whatever God hath said is true , and in Scripture God did speak , and speak this ; and therefore this to us is a first , at least an evident principle .

Yea , but if this proposition , that the Scriptures are the Word of God , is conveyed to us by oral tradition , this must needs be the best and only principle ; for if it be trusted for the whole , why not for every particular . This Argument concludes thus . This is the gate of the House , therefore this is all the house . Every man enters this way ; and therefore this is the Hall and the Cellar , the Pantry and Dining room , the Bedchambers and the Cocklofts . But besides the ridiculousness of the argument , there is a particular reason why the argument cannot conclude : The reason in brief is this , because it is much easier for any man to carry a letter , than to tell the particular errand ; It is easier to tell one thing , than to tell ten thousand ; to deliver one thing out of our hand , than a multitude out of our mouths ; one matter of fact , than very many propositions ; as it is easier to convey in writing all Tullies works , than to say by heart with truth and exactness any one of his Orations . That the Bible was written by inspired men , God setting his seal to their doctrine , confirming by miracles what they first preached , and then wrote in a book , this is a matter of fact , and is no otherwise to be prov'd ( unless God should proceed extraordinarily and by miracle ) but by the testimony of wise men , who saw it with their eyes , and heard it with their ears , and felt it with their hands . This was done at first , then only consign'd , then witnessed , and thence delivered . And with how great success , and with the blessing of how mighty a providence , appears it in this ; because although as S. Luke tells us , many did undertake to write Gospels , or the declaration of the things so surely believ'd amongst Christians ; and we find in S. Clement of Alex. Origen , S. Irenaeus , Athanasius , Chrysostom and S. Hierom mention made of many Gospels , as that of the Hebrews , the Egyptians , Nazarenes , Ebionites , the Gospel of James , Philip , Bartholomew , Thomas and divers more , yet but four only were transmitted and consigned to the Church ; because these four only were written by these whose names they bear ; and these men had the testimony of God , and a spirit of truth , and the promise of Christ , that the spirit should bring all things to their minds , and he did so : Now of this we could have no other testimony but of those who were present , who stop'd the first issue of the false Gospels , and the sound of the other four went forth into all the world , according to that of Origen , Ecclesia cum quatuor tantum Evangelii libros habet , per universum mundum Evangeliis redundat ; heresies cum multa habeant , unum non habent . Those which heretics made are all lost , or slighted , those which the spirit of God did write by the hands of men divinely inspired , these abide , and shall abide for ever . Now then this matter of fact how should we know , but by being told it by credible persons who could know , and never gave cause of suspicion that they should deceive us . Now if I. S. will be pleas'd to call this Oral tradition , he may ; but that which was deliver'd by this Oral tradition was not only preach'd at first , but transmitted to us by many writings , besides the Scriptures , both of friends and enemies . But suppose it were not ; yet this book of Scriptures might be consigned by Oral tradition from the Apostles and Apostolic men , and yet tradition become of little or no use after this consignation and delivery . For this was all the work which of necessity was to be done by it ; and indeed this was all that it could do well .

1. This was all which was necessary to be done by Oral tradition ; because the wisdom of the divine spirit having resolved to write all the doctrine of salvation in a book , and having done it well and sufficiently in order to his own gracious purposes , ( for who dares so much as suspect the contrary ) there was now no need that Oral tradition should be kept up with the joynture of infallibility , since the first infallibility of the Apostles was so sufficiently witnessed , that it convinced the whole world of Christians ; and therefore was enough to consign the Divinity and perfection of this book for ever . For it was in this as in the doctrine it self contain'd in the Scriptures , God confirmed it by signs following ; that is by signs proving that the Apostles spake the minde of God , the things which they speak were prov'd and believ'd for ever ; but then the signs went away , and left a permanent and eternal event . So it is in the infallible tradition delivered by the Apostles and Apostolic age , concerning the Scriptures being the word of God ; what they said was confirm'd by all that testimony , by which they obtained belief in the Church , to their persons and doctrines ; but when they had once deliver'd this , there needed no remaining miracle , and intail of infallibility in the Church , to go on in the delivery of this ; for by that time that all the Apostles were dead , and the infallible spirit was departed , the Scriptures of the Gospels were believed in all the world , and then it was not ordinarily possible ever any more to detract faith from that book ; and then for the transmitting this book to after ages , the Divine providence needed no other course , but the ordinaary ways of man , that is , right reason , common faithfulness , the interest of souls , believing a good thing , which there was and could be no cause to disbelieve ; and an Uniuersal consent of all men , that were any ways concern'd for it , or against it , and this not only preach'd upon the house tops , but set down also in very many writings . This actually was the way of transmitting this book , and the authority of it , to after ages respectively .

These things are of themselves evident , yet because I. S. still demands we should set down some first and self evident principle , on which to found the whole procedure , I shall once more satisfie him ; And this is a first and self evident principle , whatsoever can be spoken can be written ; and if it he plain spoken , it may be as plain written . I hope I need not go about to demonstrate this ; for it is of it self evident , that God can write all that he is pleased to speak ; and all good scribes can set down in writing whatsoever another tells them ; and in his very words too if he please , he can as well transcribe a word spoken , as a word written . And upon this principle it is , that the Protestants believe that the words of Scripture can be as easily understood after they are written in a book , as when they were spoken in the Churches of the first Christians ; and the Apostles and Evangelists did write the life of Christ , his doctrines , the doctrines of faith , as plain as they did speak them , at least as plain as was necessary to the end for which they were written , which is the salvation of our souls . And what necessity now can there be , that there should be a perpetual miracle still current in the Church , and a spirit of infallibility descendant to remember the Church of all those things , which are at once set down in a book , the truth and authority of which was at first prov'd by infallible testimony , the memory and certainty of which is preserved amongst Christians by many unquestionable records , and testimonies of several natures .

2. As there was no necessity that an infallible Oral tradition should do any more but consign the books of Scripture ; so it could not do any more , without a continual miracle . That there was no continued miracle is sufficiently prov'd , by proving it was not necessary it should ; for that also is another first and self-evident principle , that the All wise God does not do any thing , much less such things as miracles , to no purpose , and for no need . But now if there be not a continued miracle , then Oral tradition was not fit to be trusted , in relating the particulars of the Christian Religion . For if in a succession of Bishops and Priests from S. Peter down to P. Alexander the seventh , it is impossible for any man to be assured that there was no nullity in the ordinations , but insensibly there might intervene something to make a breach in the long line , which must in that case be made up as well as they can , by tying a knot on it : It will be infinitely more hard to suppose , but that in the series and successive talkings of the Christian religion , there must needs be infinite variety , and many things told otherwise , and somethings spoken with evil purposes , by such as preach'd Christ out of envy ; and many odd things said , and doctrines strangely represented by such as creep into houses , and lead captive silly women : It may be the Bishops of the Apostolical Churches did preach right doctrines for divers ages ; but yet in Jerusalem , where fifteen Bishops in succession were circumcis'd , who can tell how many things might be spoken in justification of that practice , which might secretly undervalue the Apostolical doctrine . And where was the Oral tradition then of this proposition ; If ye be circumcis'd Christ shall profit you nothing . But however , though the Bishops did preach all the doctrine of Christ ; yet these Sermons were told to them that were absent , by others who it may be might mistake something , and understand them to other senses than was intended . And though infallibility of testifying might be given to the Church , that is , to the chief Rulers of it , ( for I hope I. S. does not suppose it subjected in every single Christian man or woman ) yet when this testimony of theirs is carried abroad , the reporters are not always infallible : And let it be considered , that even now since Christianity hath been transmitted so many ages , and there are so many thousands that teach it , yet how many hundreds of these thousands understand but very little of it , and therefore tell it to others but pitifully and imperfectly ; so that if God in his Goodness had not preserv'd to us the surer word of the prophetical and Evangelical Scriptures , Christianity would by this time have been a most strange thing , litera scripta manet . As to the Apostles while they lived it was so easie to have recourse , that error durst not appear with an open face , but the cure was at hand : so have the Apostles when they took care to leave something left to the Churches to put them in minde of the precious doctrine ; they put a sure standard , and fixt a rule in the Church , to which all doubts might be brought to trial , and against which all heresies might be dashed in pieces . But we have liv'd to see the Apostolical Churches rent from one another , and teaching contrary things , and pretending contrary traditions , and abounding in several senses , and excommunicating one another ; and it is impossible ( for example ) that we should see the Greeks going any whither , but to their own superiour and their own Churches to be taught Christian Religion ; and the Latins did always go to their own Patriarch , and to their own Bishops and Churches , and it is not likely it should be otherwise now , than it hath been hitherto , that is , that they follow the religion that is taught them there , and the tradition that is delivered by their immediate superiours . Now there being so vast a difference , not only in the Great Churches , but in several ages , and in several Dioceses , and in single Priests , every one understanding as he can , and speaking as he please , and remembring as he may , and expressing it accordingly , and the people also understanding it by halves , and telling it to their Children , sometimes ill , sometimes not at all , and seldom as they should ; and they who are taught , neglecting it too grosely , and attending to it very carelesly , and forgeting it too quickly ; and which is worse yet , men expounding it according to their interests , or their lusts , out of faction , or as they are mislead , and then report it accordingly : These and a thousand things more , convince us of the easiness of being deceived by Oral tradition of doctrines , which can insensibly and unavoidably be chang'd in great differences and mistakes ; but can never suffer any considering Person to believe , that mouth delivery is a better way of keeping records than writing in a book .

So that now I wonder that I. S. is pleas'd to call traditions certainty , the first principle of controversie ; the pretence of it is indeed the mother and nurse of controversie ; for in the world there is not any thing more uncertain than the report of mens words . How many men have been undone by mistaken words ? And it is well remembred that in the last unhappy Parliament , a Gentleman was called to the Bar for speaking words of truth and honesty , 1641. but against the sense of the House : The words were spoken in a great assembly , before many witnesses ; curious and malicious observers spoken at that very time ; and yet when the words were questioned , they could not agree what they were ; and consequently the sense of them might be strangely altered , since a word , the misplacing of a word , an accent , a point , any ambiguity , any mistake might change the sense ; well upon this accident the Speaker call'd to a Gentleman whom he had observed to write the words ; and to him they appealed , and he told them that which I supposed was said , but wholly differing from them that speak it , the traditionary part of the Parliament .

All the rest which I. S. says in his first Way , is nothing but a strange and arrogant bragging , which as it is inconsistent with the modesty of a Christian , so it is an ill sign of a sober and wise conviction ; for if he had demonstrated the certainty of Oral tradition , he needed no such noises ; they that speak truest , make the least stir , and when they are at peace in the truth of the thing , they are pleas'd it is well , and so they leave it to prevail by it's native strengths .

But after all this noise made by I. S. why is he so fierce to call me to first and self evident principles ? Does any school of Philosophy do so in their Systems and discourses ? Are there not in every Science divers praecognita , things to be presupposed and believ'd before we can prove any thing ? Is it reasonable when I reprove any vitious person for dishonouring God , and dissuade him from his wicked courses , that he should tell me he will not be dissuaded by my fine words , but if I will go to principles and first grounds , he will hear me ; and I must first prove what dishonouring is , and how God can be dishonoured , and whether it be only by fiction of law , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and by way of condescension it is so said ; and yet after all this , I must prove that God does care at all whether the Man say such things or no , or lastly I must prove that there is a God , before he can suffer me to reprove him upon such ungrounded discourses . Theology , and the Science of the Scriptures supposes divers grounds laid down before and believ'd ; and therefore it were a wild demand , that in every book we should make a Logical systeme , or a formal analysts of all our discourses , and make a map describing all the whole passage from the first truth , to the present affirmative .

But if I. S. will but consider what the Design of the Dissuasive was , and that the purpose of it was to prove , that the doctrine of Popery as such , is wholly an Innovation , neither Catholic , nor Apostolic ; there was no need of coming to any other first grounds , but to shew the time when the Roman propositions were not Catholic doctrines , and when they began to be esteemed so . These things are matters of fact , and need no reduction to any other first principles , but the credible testimony of men fit to be believed . But yet because I will humor . I. S. for this once ; even here also the Dissuasive relies upon a first and self evident principle as any is in Christianity ; and that is , Quod primum verum . And therefore if I prove that the Roman doctrines now controverted were not at first , but came in afterwards , then I have built the Dissuasive aright ; and now I have pointed it out , and have already in part , and in the following book have more largely done it ; therefore I hope I. S. will be as good as his word and yield himself absolutely confuted . But because there are some other reasons inclining me to think he will not perform his promise , and particularly because of the ill naturedness of [ his own ] principles , ( that I may use his own expression in in his postscript ) yet if I have fail'd in my proofs , it is not for want of clear and evident principles , but of right deductions from them ; and therefore he is mistaken in his first way of mining , and whether there be any defect in any thing else , will be put to trial in the sequel ; In the mean time , the Lion is not so terrible as he is painted .

The second Way .

IN the next place I shall try his second mine ; and believe I shall finde it big with a brutum fulmen , and that it can do no hurt but make a noise , and scare the boys in the neighbourhood .

For now though in the first way he blam'd me for relying upon no first and self evident principle ; in the second he excludes me from all right of using any , unless I will take his . He says , I have no right to alledge Scriptures or Fathers , Councils , or reason , history or instances . But why , I pray ? T is done thus : All discourse supposes that certain upon which it builds . That is his first proposition ; what he makes of it afterwards we shall see ; In the mean time , he may consider that though all his discourses suppose that certain on which they build , because his Geese are Swans , and his arguments are demonstrations , yet there are many wiser discourses which rely upon probable arguments : And so does a moral demonstration ; and such a great wit of France , Mr. Silhon supposed to be his best way of proving the immortality of the soul. Now this is nothing but a coacervation of many probabilities , which according to the subject matter ( as not being capable of any other way of probation ) amounts to the effect of a demonstration . And however this Gentleman looks big upon it , the infallibility of the Church of Rome is by the wisest of his own party acknowledged to rely but upon prudential motives ; and he is a mad man says Artistotle , who in some cases ( in which yet a man may discourse wisely enough ) looks for any more than arguments of a high probability . But what does I. S. think of arguments ad hominem ? do they suppose that certain which they build upon ? or if they do not , can there be no good discourses made upon them ? what are the wise consultations of States and Councils ? do they always discourse foolishly when they proceed and argue , but upon probabilities ? Nay what does I. S. think of General Councils who are fallible in their premisses though right in their Conclusions ? do their conclusions suppose their premisses , upon which they build their conclusions to be certain ? If not , then I. S. hath affirm'd weakly , that all discourse supposes that certain upon which it builds .

Well! but how does he build upon this rotten foundation , who hath already in this very procedure confuted his following discourse , as being such which does not , I am sure ought not ( as appears by the reasons I have brought against it ) suppose that certain on which it is built : Thus , if tradition or the way of conveying down matters of fact by the former ages testifying can fail , none of these ( viz. Scripture , reason , history , Fathers , Councils , yea instances ) are certain . This is his assumption ; and this besides that it is false , is also to none of his purposes . 1. It is false , For suppose tradition be not certain , how must all reason therefore fail ? for first there must be some reason presupposed , before the certainty of tradition can be established ; and if there be not , why does I. S. offer at a demonstrative reason to prove the certainty of tradition : ( though if there be no better reasons for it , than he hath yet shown , his reason and tradition fail together ) 2. Supposing tradition should fail , yet there may be reasons given for the excellency of Christianity , which as they confirm Christians in their faith , and beget love to the articles , so they may be sufficient to invite even the wiser heathens to consider it , and choose it .

But then suppose that these things should be uncertain upon the supposal of the uncertainty of tradition of matters of fact , yet it will avail I. S. nothing ; for it will only follow that then those things which only rely upon that matter of fact are not demonstratively certain ; but though it may fail in some things , it may be right in others , and we may have reason for one , and not for another , and then either those things must be proved some other way , or else they can be believed but only so far as the first topic will extend ; which yet though so uncertain as not to be infallible or demonstrative , may be certain enough to make men believe , and live and dye accordingly . For if we have no better , God requires no better , and by these things will bring his purposes to pass ; and if this were not true what will become of the Laity , and many the ignorant Priests of his own Church , who do not rely upon the certainty of Universal tradition , but the single testimony of their Parents or their Parish Priest ? But of this afterwards .

But to come closer to the thing ? suppose tradition of fact be certain ( for so it is in many instances , and if it be Universal , it will be allowed to be so in all ) yet it is but so certain , that yet there is a natural possibility that it should be false ; and it is possible that what the Generality of one sort of men do joyntly testifie , may yet be found false , or at least uncertain ; as the burial of Mahomet in Mecha , and his being attracted by a Loadstone , of which the Mahumetans have a long and general tradition , at least we in Christendom are made to believe so ; and if it be not so , yet it is naturally possible that they should all believe and teach a lie , and they actually do so ; yet I will allow Ecclesiastical Catholic tradition speaking morally to be certain and indubitable ; and that if this should fail , much of our comfort and certainty of adherence to Christian Religion would fail with it ; but then it is to be considered , that the certainty of tradition which is allowed , is but in matters of fact , not in doctrines , because the fact may be one , the doctrines many ; that soon remembred , these soon forgotten ; that perceived by sense , these mistaken and misunderstood ; And though it is very credibly reported and easily believed that Julius Caesar was kill'd in the Senate , yet all that he said that day , and all the unwritten orders he made , and all his orations will not , cannot so easily be trusted upon Oral tradition . So that Oral tradition is a good ministery of conveying a record , but is not the best record ; and the principle office of Oral tradition is done when the record is verified by it , when the Scripture is consign'd ; and though still it is useful , yet it is not still so necessary : For when by tradition or Oral testimony we are assur'd that the Bible is the word of God , and the great record of salvation , then we are sure that God who gave it , will preserve it , or not require it , and he that design'd it to such an end , will make and keep it sufficient to that end , and that he hath done so already is therefore notorious , because God hath been pleased to multiply the copies , and enwrap the contents of that book with the biggest interests of mankind ; that it is made impossible to destroy that divine repository of necessary and holy doctrines ; And when the Christians were by deaths and tortures assaulted to cause them to deliver up their Bibles , that they might be destroyed , the persecutors prevailed not ; they might with as much success have undertaken to drink up the sea . And that providence which keeps the whole from destruction , will also keep all it's necessary parts from corruption , lest the work of God become insufficient to the end of it's designation ; And he that will look for better security , than we can have from the certain knowledge and experience of the infallibility of the Divine providence and never failing goodness , must erect a new office of assurance .

The effect of this discourse is this ; that Oral tradition may be very certain , and in some case , is the best evidence we have in matters of fact , unless where we are taught by sense or revelation , and if it were not certain , we should be infinitely to seek for notices of things that are past ; but this is but a moral certainty , though it be the best we have ; and this is but in matters of fact , not in doctrines and orations , or notions delivered in many words ; and after all this , when tradition hath consign'd an instrument or record , a writing or a book , it may then leave being necessary , and when the providence of God undertakes to supply the testimony of man , the change is for our advantage .

Well! now having considered this second proposition , let us see what his Conclusion is ; for that also hath something of particular consideration , as having in it something more than was in the premisses . The Conclusion is this . [ Therefore a Protestant or a renouncer of tradition cannot with reason pretend to discourse out of any of these ] To which I shall reply these things . 1. This Gentleman wholly mistakes us Protestants , as he did the Protestant Religion when he weakly forsook it . Protestants are not renouncers of tradition ; for we allow all Catholic traditions that can prove themselves to be such ; but we finding little or nothing ( excepting this , that the Bible is the word of God , and that the Bible contains all the will of God for our salvation , all doctrines of faith and life ) little or nothing else , I say , descending to us by an Universal tradition , therefore we have reason to adhere to Scripture , and renounce ( as I. S. is pleased to call it ) all pretence of tradition of any matters of faith not plainly set down in the Bible .

But now since we renounce no tradition but such as is not and cannot be prov'd to be competent and Catholic , I hope with the leave of I. S. we may discourse out of Scriptures and Councils , Fathers and reason , history and instances . For we believe tradition when it is credible , and we believe what two or three honest men say upon their knowledge , and we make no scruple to believe that there is an English Plantation in the Barbadoes , because many tell us so , who have no reason to deceive us ; so that we are in a very good capacity of making use of Scriptures and Councils , &c. But I must deal freely with Mr. S. though we do believe these things upon credible testimony , yet we do not think the testimony infallible , and we do believe many men who yet pretend not to infallibility : And if nothing were Credible but what is infallible , then no man had reason to believe his Priest or his Father : We are taught by Aristotle that that is credible , Quod pluribus , quod sapientibus , quod omnibus videtur ; and yet these are but degrees of probability , and yet are sufficient to warrant the transaction of all humane affairs , which ( unless where God is pleased to interpose ) are not capable of greater assurance . Even the miracles wrought by our Blessed Saviour though they were the best arguments in the world to prove the Divinity of his person and his mission , yet they were but the best argument we needed and understood ; but although they were infinitely sufficient to convince all but the malicious , yet there were some so malicious who did not allow them to be demonstrations , but said , that he did cast out Devils by Beelzebub . Here we live by faith and not by knowledge , and therefore it is an infinite goodness of God to give proofs sufficient for us , and fitted to our natures , and proportion'd to our understanding ; but yet such as may neither extinguish faith , nor destroy the nature of hope , which although it may be so certain and sure as to be a stedfast anchor of the soul , yet it may have in it something of Natural uncertainty ; and yet fill us with all comfort and hope in believing : So that we allow tradition to be certain if it be universal , and to be credible according to the degrees of its Universality and disinterested simplicity ; and therefore we have as much right to use the Scriptures and Fathers as I. S. and all his party : and all his following talk in the sequel of this second way , relying upon a ground which I have discovered to be false , must needs fall of it self , and signifie nothing . But although this point be soon washt off , yet I suppose the charge which will recoyle upon himself will not so easily be put by . For though it appears that Protestants have right to use Fathers and Councils , Scriptures and reason , yet I. S. and his little convention of four or five Brothers of the tradition have clearly disintitled themselves to any use of these . For if the oral tradition of the present Church be the infallible and only rule of faith , then there is no Oracle but this one ; and the decrees of Councils did bind only in that age they were made , as being part of the tradition of that age ; but the next age needed it not , as giving testimony to it self , and being it 's own rule . And therefore when a question is to be disputed , you can go no whither to be tried but to the tradition of the present Church , and this is not to be proved by a series and order of records and succession ; but if you will know what was formerly believed , you must only ask , what is believed now ; for now rivers run back to their springs , and the Lamb was to blame for troubling the Wolf by drinking in the descending river , for the lower is now higher , and you are not to prove by what is past , that the present is right , but by the present you prove what was past , and Harry the seventh is before Harry the sixth , and Children must teach their Parents , and therefore it is to be hop'd in time may be their Elders . But by this means , Fathers and Councils are made of no use to these Gentlemen who have greatly obliged the world by telling us a short way to Science ; and though our life be short , yet art is shorter , especially in our way , in Theology ; Concerning which there needs no labour , no study , no reading , but to know of the present Church what was always believed , and taught , and what ought to be so ; Nay what was done , or what was said , or what was written is to be told by the present Church , which without further trouble can infallibly assure us . And upon this account the Jesuits have got the better of the Jansenists ; for though these men weakly and fondly deny such words to be in Jansenius , yet the virtual Church can tell better , whether they be or no in Jansenius , or rather it matters not whether they be or no ; for it being the present sense of the Pope , he may proceed to condemnation .

But I. S. offers at some reason for this : For ( saith he ) Fathers being eminent witnesses to immediate posterity or children of the Churches doctrine received , and Councils representatives of the Church ; their strengths as proofs , nay their very existence is not known till the notion of the Church be known , which is part of their definition , and to which they relate . This is but part of his argument , which I yet must consider apart , because every proposition of his argument hath in it something very untrue ; which when I have remark'd I shall consider the whole of it altogether .

And here first I consider that it is a strange proposition to say that the existence of the Fathers is not known till the notion or definition of the Church be known . For who is there of any knowledge in any thing of this nature that hath not heard of S. Austin , S. Jerom , S. Ambrose , or S. Gregory . The Spaniards have a proverb , There was never good Oglio without Bacon , nor good Sermon without S. Austin ; and yet I suppose all the people of Spain that hear the name of S. Austin it may be five hundred times every Lent , make no question of the Existence of S. Austin , or that there was such a man as he ; and yet I believe , not very many of them can tell the definition of the Church . Thousands of the people and the very boys see the pictures of S. Austin sold in Fairs and Markets , and yet are not so wise as to know the notion or nature of the Church ; and indeed many wiser people both among them and us will be very much to seek in the definition , when your learned men amongst your selves dispute what that nature or definition is .

But it may be though I. S. put Fathers and Councils into the same proposition , yet he means it of Councils only , and that it is the existence of Councils which is not to be had without the notion or definition of Church , and this is as false as the other ; for what tradesman in Germany , Italy , France or Spain is not well enough assur'd that there was such a thing as the Council of Trent ; and yet to the knowing of this , it was not necessary that they should be told how Church is to be defin'd . Indeed they can not know what it is to be Church-Councils , unless they know as much of Church as they do of Councils . But what think we ? Could not men know there was a Council at Ariminum more numerous than that at Nice , unless they had the notion of Church ? Certainly the Church was no part of the definition of that Council , nor did it relate , save only as enemies are relatives to each other ; and if they be , yet it is hard to say they are parts of each others definition . But it may be I. S. means this saying of good and Catholic Councils ; yet they also may be known to have been , without skill in definitions . Definitions do not tell An sit , but quid sit ; the first is to be supposed before any definition is to be inquir'd after .

Well! but how shall the being or nature of Church be known ? that 's his second proposition , and tells us a pretty thing , [ Nor is the being or nature of Church known till it be certainly known who are faithful or have true faith , who not ; which must be manifested by their having or not having the true Rule of faith . ] Why , but does the having the true rule of faith make a man faithful ? Cannot a man have the true rule of faith , and yet forsake it , or not make use of it , or hide the truth in unrighteousness ? Does the having the best antidote in the world make a man healthful , though he live disorderly , and make no use of it ? But to let that pass among the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . That which is more remarkable , is , That the being or Nature of Church is not known , till it be certainly known who are faithful or have true faith . I had thought that the way in the Church of Rome of pronouncing men faithful , or to have true faith , had been their being in the Church , and that adhering to the Church ( whose being and truth they must therefore be presupposed to believe ) had been the only way of pronouncing them faithful ; which I suppos'd so certain amongst them , that though they have no faith at all , but to believe as the Church believes , had been a sufficient declaration of the faith of ignorant men . But it seems the Tables are turned . It is not enough to go to the Church ; but first they must be assured that they are faithful and have true faith , before they know any thing of the Church .

But if the testimony of the present Church be the only rule of faith ( as I. S. would fain make us believe ) then it had been truer said ; a man can not know the being or nature of faith , till he be well acquainted with the Church . And must the Rule of faith be tried by the Church , and must the Church be tried by the rule of faith ? Is the testimony of the Church the measure and touchstone of faith , and yet must we have the faith before we have any knowledge whether there be a Church or no ? Are they both first , and both prove one another , and is there here no circle ? But however I am glad that the evidence of truth hath brought this Gentleman to acknowledge that our way is the better way ; and that we must first chuse our religion and then our Church ; and not first chuse our Church , and then blindly follow the religion of it whatsoever it be . But then also it will follow that I. S. hath destroyed his main hypothesis , and the oral tradition of the present Church is not the Rule of faith ; for that must first be known before we can know whether there be such a thing as the Church or no ; whose rule that is pretended to be .

And now follows his conclusion , which is nought upon other accounts ; [ Wherefore ( saith he ) since the properties of the Rule of Faith do all agree to Tradition our Rule , and none of them to theirs , it follows the Protestant or Renouncer of Tradition knows not what is either right Scripture , Father or Council , and so ought not to meddle with either of them . ] To this I have already answered , and what I. S. may do hereafter when he happens to fall into another fit of demonstration I know not , but as yet he hath been very far from doing what he says he hath done , that is , evidently prov'd what he undertook in this question . And I suppose I have in a following Section of this book evidently prov'd that Tradition , such I mean as the Church of Rome uses in this inquiry , leads into error or may do , as often as into truth ; and therefore though we may and do use tradition as a probable argument in many things , and some as certain in one or two things to which in the nature of the thing it is apt to minister , yet it is infinitely far from being the rule of faith , the whole Christian faith .

But I wonder why I. S. saith that for want of Tradition , we cannot know either right Scripture , Fathers or Councils . I do not think that by tradition they do know all the books of Scriptures . Do they know by Universal or Apostolical Tradition that the Epistle to the Hebrews is Canonical Scripture ? The Church of Rome had no tradition for it for above four hundred years , and they receiv'd it at last from the tradition of the Greek Church ; and then they , not the Roman Church are the great conservers of tradition , and they will get nothing by that . And what universal tradition can they pretend for those books which are rejected by some Councils ; as particularly that of Laodicea ( which is in the Code of the Universal Church , and some of the Fathers , ) which yet they now receive ; certainly in that age which rejected them , there was no Catholic tradition for them and those Fathers , which as ( I. S. expresses it ) were eminent witnesses to their immediate posterity or children of the Churches doctrine received , in all likelyhood did teach their posterity what themselves professed ; and therefore it is possible the Fathers in that Council and some others of the same sentiment might joyn in saying something which might deceive their posterity , and consequently the very ground of I. S. his demonstration is digg'd up , for it was very possible the Fathers might teach something that contradicts the present oral tradition of the Church ; because when they were alive they believed the contradictory .

But further yet , can I S. affirm that by the oral tradition of the present Church we can be infallibly taught which books were written by the Fathers , and which not ? If he can , how haps it that the Doctors of his Church are not agreed about very many of them , some rejecting that as spurious , which others quote as Genuine . If he cannot , then we may have a title to make use of the Fathers though we did renounce tradition ; because by tradition certain and infallible they do not know it ; and then if either they do not know it at all , or know it any others ways than by tradition , we may know it that way as well as they , and therefore have as good a title to make use of them as themselves .

But the good man proceeds , Since pretended instances of traditions failing depend on history , and historical certainty cannot be built upon dead characters , but on living sense in Mens hearts deliver'd from age to age that those passages are true , that is , on Tradition , it follows that if the way of tradition can fail , all history is uncertain , and consequently , all instances as being matters of fact depending on history . To this I answer ; that it is true that there are many instances in which it is certain that tradition hath fail'd , as will appear in the following Section ; and it is as true , that the record of these instances is kept in books , which are very Ancient and written by Authors so credible , that no man questions the truth of these instances : Now I grant that we are told by the words deliver'd by our Forefathers ▪ that these books were written by such men ; but then it may be our Forefathers though they kept the books safe , yet knew not what was written in them ; and if all the contents of the book had been left only to rely upon the living sense in their hearts , and the hearts of their posterity , we should have had but few books , and few instances of the failing of tradition , only one great one would have been left , that is , the losing of almost all , that that is now recorded would have been a fatal sign that Traditions fail was the cause of so sad a loss . It is well , tradition hath help'd us to the dead characters ; they bear their living sense so within themselves , that it is quickly understood when living men come to read them . But now I demand of I. S. whether or no historical certainty relies only on certain and indefectible tradition ? If it does not , then a man may be certain enough of the sacred history , though there be no certain oral tradition built on living sense in mens hearts delivered from age to age . If he does , then I must ask whether I. S. does believe Tacitus , or that there was such a man as Agricola , or that the Senate decreed that Nero should be punish'd more majorum . If he does believe these stories , and these persons , then he must also conclude that there is an Oral indefectible tradition that Tacitus wrote this book , and that every thing in that book was written by him , and it remains at this day as it was at first , and that all this was not convey'd by dead and unfens'd characters , but by living sense in our hearts . But now it will be very hard for any man to say that there is such an infallible Tradition delivering all that Roman story which we believe to be true . No man pretends that there is ; and therefore , 1. History may be relied on without a certain indefectible oral tradition . And 2. The tradition that consigns history to after ages may be , and is so most commonly , nothing but of a fame that such a book was written by such a famous person who liv'd in that age , and might know the truth of what he wrote , and had no reason to lie , but was in all regards a very worthy and a credible person . Now here is as much certainty as need to be ; the thing it self will bear no more ; and almost all humane affairs are transacted by such an Oeconomy as this ; and therefore it is certain enough , and is so esteemed , because it does all it's intentions , and loses no advantage , and perswades effectually , and regularly engages to all those actions and events , which history could do , if the certainty were much greater . For the certainty of persuasion , and prevailing upon the greatest parts of mankind , may be as great by history , wisely and with great probability transmitted , as it can be by any imaginary certainty of a tradition that any dreamer can dream of . Nay , it may be equal to a demonstration , I mean , as to the certainty of prevailing : For a little reason to a little understanding as certainly prevailes , as a greater to a deep and inquisitive understanding ; and mankind does not need demonstrations in any case , but where reason is puzled with an aequilibrium , and that there be great probabilities hinc inde . And therefore in these cases where is a probability on one side and no appearance of reason to the contrary ; that probability does the work of a demonstration . For a reason to believe a thing , and no reason to disbelieve it , is as proper a way to persuade and to lead to action as that which is demonstrated . And this is the case of history , and of instances ; which though they cannot ( no not by an Oral tradition ) be so certain , as that the thing could not possibly have been otherwise ; yet when there is no sufficient cause of suspicion of fraud and imposture , and great reason from any topic to believe that it is true , he is a very fool that will forbear to act upon that account , only because it is possible that that instance might have been not true , though he have no reason to think it false . And yet this foolish sophisme runs mightily along in I. S. his demonstrations , he cannot for his life distinguish between credible and infallible ; Nothing by him can make faith unless it demonstrate ; that is , nothing can make faith but that which destroys it , by turning it into Science .

His last argument for his second way of mining is so like the other that it is the worse for it : [ Since reasons are fetch'd from the Natures of things , and the best nature in what it is ( abstracting from disease and madness ) unalterable , is the ground of the humane part of Christian tradition , and most incomparable strength is supperadded to it as it is Christian , by the supernatural assistances of the Holy Ghost . It is a wild conceit to think any peice of nature or discourse built on it can be held certain , if Tradition ( especially Christian tradition ) may be held uncertain . ]

In this Jargon , for I know not what else to call it , there are a pretty company of nothings put together ; that indeed they are inke varied in divers figures , and unsensed characters , they are nothing else . For 1. It is false that all reason ( for so he must mean , if he would speak to any purpose ) is fetch'd from the natures of things ; some rely upon Concessions and presuppositions only ; some upon the state of exterior affairs , and introduced Oeconomies , or accidental mesnage of things ; some upon presumptions , and some even upon the weaknesses of men , upon contingencies ; and some which pretend to be reasons rely upon false grounds , and such are I. S. his demonstrations .

But suppose they did , as indeed the best reasons do , what then ? Why then , the best nature , that is , I suppose he means ( the humane ) unalterable ( abstracting from disease and madness ) is the ground of the humane part of Christian tradition . This proposition hath in it something that is false , and something that is to no purpose . That which is false is , that the nature of man unless he be mad , or diseas'd in his brain , is Unalterable . As if men could not be chang'd by interest or ambition , pride or prejudice , by weakness and false Apostles , mistake or negligence . And by any of these a man , that naturally hath faculties to understand , and capacity of learning , and speaking truth may be so changed , that he is very alterable from good to bad , from wise to foolish , from the knowledge of the truth to believe a lie , and be transported by illusions of the Devil : Every man naturally loves knowledge , that 's his nature ; and it is the best nature ; but yet it is so alterable , that some men who from the principles of this best nature are willing to learn , and they are ever learning , yet they are so altered , that they never come to the knowledge of truth .

But supposing that this best nature is the ground of the humane part of tradition , yet it is not the ground of the humane part of tradition as it is unalterable ; but as it hath a defectible understanding , and a free and a changeable will , and innumerable weaknesses , for these are so in this best nature , that it can never be without them . And therefore because this ground may be slippery , there will be no sure footing here : Especially since it is but the ground of the humane part of tradition , for which cause it can be no more ground of truth in religion , than the Roman story , than Plutarch or Livy is of infallible indefectible truth in history ; and therefore I. S. does very wisely add to this , the incomparable strengths of the supernatural assistances of the Holy Ghost . But these alone can be sufficient , if they could be proved to be given infallibly , absolutely , and without the altering condition of our making right use of them , without grieving the Holy Spirit ; of which because there is no promise , and no experience , it is no wild Conceit to think tradition may be uncertain , and yet our discourses in Religion by other principles be certain enough . But now I perceive that I. S. is no such implacable man , for all the seeming fierceness of his persuasion in his new mode of Oral tradition , but that in time he may be reduc'd to the old way of this Church ; and ground ( as he does mainly here ) her infallibility not upon new demonstrations taken from the nature of things , but upon the continual assistances and helpes of the only infallible spirit of God . That indeed is a way possible , if it were to be had ; but this new way hath neither sense nor reason : And therefore in this place he wisely puts the greatest stress upon the other . I should have proceeded a little further , if I could have understood what I. S. means , by [ any piece of nature built on Tradition ; ] and if he had not here put in the phrase of a wild Conceit , I should have wanted a name for it ; but because it is no other , I shall now let it alone , and dig into the other mines , and see if they be more dangerous than these Bugbears .