II. we poffibly arrive at any certain sense of them. And SECT. that it is intolerably pernicious, according to his hypothefis, is plain, because "* every filly and upftart here-* P. 40. fy fathers itself upon it;" and when men leave tradition (as he fuppofeth all hereticks do) the fcripture 66 “ is the most dangerous engine that could have been in vented, being to fuch perfons only 66 * waxen-natur'd* P. 68. 66 66 words, not sensed, nor having any certain inter * tion, pag. preter; but fit to be play'd upon diversly by quirks "of wit; that is, apt to blunder and confound, but "to clear little or nothing." And indeed, if his hypothesis were true, the fcriptures might well deserve all the contemptuous language which he useth against them; and Mr. White's comparison of them* Apology with Lilly's almanack, would not only be pardon- for tradiable, but proper; and (unless he added it out of pru-165. dence, and for the peoples fake, whom he may think too fuperftitiously conceited of thofe books) he might have spared that cold excufe which he makes for ufing this fimilitude, "that it was agreeable rather to the impertinency of the objection than the dignity of "the fubject." Certain it is, if these men are true to their own principles, that notwithstanding the high reverence and efteem pretended to be born by them and their church to the fcriptures, they must heartily despise them, and wifh them out of the way: and even look upon it as a great overfight of the divine providence to trouble his church with a book, which, if their discourse be of any confequence, can ftand catholicks in no ftead at all, and is fo dangerous and mischievous a weapon in the hands of hereticks. SECT. 66 PART The proteftant concern ing the rule of faith. $ 1. SECT. III. Aving thus taken a view of his opinion, and confidered how much he attributes to doctrine oral tradition, and how little to the fcriptures; before I affail his hypothefis, I fhall lay down the proteftant rule of faith; not that fo much is neceffary for the answering of his book, but that he may have no colour of objection, that I proceed altogether in the deftructive way, and overthrow his principle, as he calls it, without fubftituting another in its room. The opinion then of the proteftants concerning the rule of faith, is this in general, that thofe books which we call the holy fcriptures, are the means whereby the chriftian doctrine hath been brought down to us. And that he may now clearly underftand this, together with the grounds of it (which in reafon he ought to have done before he had for. faken us) I fhall declare more particularly in these following propofitions. § 2. First, that the doctrine of christian religion was by CHRIST delivered to the apostles, and by them first preached to the world, and afterwards by them committed to writing; which writings, or books, have been transmitted from one age to another down to us: fo far I take to be granted by our present adverfaries. That the christian doctrine was by CHRIST delivered to the apoftles, and by them published to the world, is part of their own hypothefis. That this doctrine was afterwards by the apoftles commit"*'Tis cerP. 117. ted to writing, he also grants, corol. "tain the apoftles taught the fame 29. doctrine they " writ; C 1 III. * writ ;" and if so, it must be as certain that they SECT writ the fame doctrine which they taught. I know it is the general tenet of the papifts, that the fcriptures do not contain the entire body of christian doctrine, but that besides the doctrines contained in scripture, there are also others brought down to us by oral or unwritten tradition. But Mr. S. who fuppofeth the whole doctrine of chriftian religion to be certainly conveyed down to us folely by oral tradition, doth not any where, that I remember, deny that all the fame doctrine is contained in the fcriptures; only he denies the scriptures to be a means fufficient to convey this doctrine to us with certainty, fo that we can by them be infallibly affured what is CHRIST's doctrine, and what not. Nay, he seems in that paffage I last cited to grant this, in saying that the apoftles did both teach and write the fame doctrine. I am fure Mr. White (whom he follows very closely through his whole book) does not deny this, in his apology for tradition; where he faith," that it is not the ca- P. 171. "tholick pofition, that all its doctrines are not con"tained in the fcriptures." And that those writings or books which we call the holy fcriptures, have been tranfmitted down to us, is unquestionable matter of fact, and granted universally by the papists, as to all thofe books which are owned by protestants for canonical. §3. Secondly, that the way of writing is a fufficient means to convey a doctrine to the knowledge of those who live in times very remote from the age of its first delivery. According to his hypothesis, there is no poffible way of conveying a doctrine with certainty and fecurity befides that of oral tradition; the falfhood II. PART falfhood of which will fufficiently appear, when I fhall have fhewn, that the true properties of a rule of faith do agree to the fcriptures, and not to oral tradition. In the mean time I fhall only offer this to his confideration, that whatever can be orally delivered in plain and intelligible words, may be writ ten in the fame words; and that a writing or book which is publick, and in every one's hand, may be conveyed down with at leaft as much certainty and fecurity, and with as little danger of alteration, as an oral tradition. And if fo, I understand not what can render it impoffible for a book to convey down a doctrine to the knowledge of after-ages. Befides, if he had looked well about him, he could not but have apprehended fome little inconvenience in making that an effential part of his hypothefis, which is contradicted by plain and conftant experience for that any kind of doctrine may be fufficiently conveyed, by books, to the knowledge of after-ages, provided those books be but written intelligibly, and preferved from change and corruption in the conveyance, (both which I fhall be fo bold as to fuppofe poffible) is as little doubted by the generality of mankind, as that there are books. And furely we chriftians cannot think it impoffible to convey a doctrine to pofterity by books, when we confider that God himself pitched upon this way for conveyance of the doctrine of the jewish religion to after-ages; because it is not likely that fo wife an agent should pitch upon a means whereby it was impoffible he fhould attain his end. §. 4. Thirdly, that the books of scripture are fufficiently plain, as to all things neceffary to be believed and practised. He that denies this, ought in reafon III. reafon to inftance in fome neceffary point of faith, SECT. or matter of practice, which is not in fome place of fcripture or other plainly delivered. For it is not a fufficient objection to fay, "that the greatest P. 38. 39. "wits among the proteftants differ about the fenfe "of those texts, wherein the generality of them રે fuppofe the divinity of CHRIST to be plainly "and clearly expreffed;" because, if nothing were to be accounted fufficiently plain, but what it is impoffible a great wit should be able to wrest to any other fenfe, not only the fcriptures but all other books, and (which is worst of all to him that makes this objection) all oral tradition would fall into uncertainty. Doth the traditionary church pretend that the doctrine of CHRIST's divinity is conveyed down to her by oral tradition more plainly than it is expreffed in fcripture? I would fain know what plainer words fhe ever used to exprefs this point of faith by, than what the fcripture ufeth, which exprefly calls him " God, the true GOD, GOD over "all, bleffed for evermore." If it be faid, that those who deny the divinity of CHRIST have been able to evade thefe and all other texts of fcripture, but they could never elude the definitions of the church in that matter; it is easily anfwered, that the fame arts would equally have eluded both; but there was no reason why they fhould trouble themselves so much about the latter; for why fhould they be folicitous to wreft the definitions of councils, and conform them to their own opinion, who had no regard to the church's authority? if those great wits (as he calls them) had believed the fayings of fcripture to be of no greater authority than the deVOL. IV. finitions 6 N |