fengers, that he either forgets or mistakes fomething in it; it is ten thousand to one, that the first hundred do not all agree in it; it is a million to one, that the next fucceffion do not all deliver it truly; for if any one of the first hundred mistook or forgot any thing, it is then impoffible that he that received it from him fhould deliver it right; and fo the farther it goes, the greater change it is liable to. Yet, after all this, I do not fay but it may be demonstrated, in Mr S's way, to have more of certainty in it than the original letter. $9. 3dly, We allow, that the doctrine of Chriftian religion hath in all ages been preached to the people by the paftors of the church, and taught by Christian parents to their children: but with great difference; by fome more plainly, and truly, and perfectly; by others with lefs care and exactness, according to the different degrees of ability and integrity in paftors or parents; and likewife with very different fuccefs, according to the different capacities and difpofitions of the learners. We allow likewise, that there hath been a conftant course of vifible actions, conformable, in fome measure, to the principles of Chriftianity; but then we fay, that those outward acts and circumstances of religion may have undergone great variations, and received great change, by addition to them, and defalcation from them in feveral ages. That this not only is poffible, but hath actually happened, I fhall fhew when I come to answer his demonftrations. Now, that feveral of the main doctrines of faith contained in the feripture, and actions therein commanded, have been taught and practifed by Chriftians in all ages, (as the articles fummed up in the Apoftles creed, the ufe of the two facraments), is a good evidence fo far, that the fcriptures contain the doctrine of Chriftian religion. But then, if we confider how we come to know that fuch points of faith have been taught, and fuch external actions practifed in all ages, it is not enough to fay, there is a prefent multitude of Christians that profefs to have received fuch doctrines as ever believed and practifed, and from hence to infer that they were fo; the inconfequence of which argument I shall have a better occafion to fhew afterwards: but he that will prove this to any man's fatisfaction, muft make is evident evident from the best monuments and records of feveral ages, that is, from the most authentic books of those times, that fuch doctrines have in all thofe ages been conftantly and univerfally taught and practifed. But then, if, from thofe records of former times, it appear, that other doctrines, not contained in the fcriptures, were not taught and practifed univerfally in all ages, but have crept in by degrees, fome in one age, and fome in another, according as ignorance and fuperftition in the people, ambition and intereft in the chief paftors of the church, have miniftered occafion and opportunity : and that the innovators of thefe doctrines and practices have all along pretended to confirm them out of fcripture, as the acknowledged rule of faith; and have likewife acknowledged the books of fcripture to have defcended without any material corruption or alteration, (all which will fufficiently appear in the process of my difcourfe), then cannot the oral and practical tradition of the prefent church concerning any doctrine, as ever believed and practifed, which hath no real foundation in fcripture, be any argument against these books, as if they did not fully and clearly contain the Chriftian doctrine. And to fay the fcripture is to be interpreted by oral and practical tradition, is no more reasonable, than it would be to interpret the ancient books of the law by the prefent practice of it; which every one that compares things fairly together, muft acknowledge to be full of deviations from the ancient law. SECT. V. How much Mr S. attributes to his rule of faith more than Proteftant to theirs. §1. Secondly, to attribute to ours. much he attributes to his rule of faith than we think fit ift, We do not fay, that it is impoffible, in the nature of the thing, that this rule fhould fail; that is, either that these books fhould ceafe to defcend, or fhould be corrupted. This we do not attribute to them, because there is no need we fhould. We believe the providence of God will take care of them, and fecure them from being either loft or materially corrupted; yet we think it very very poffible, that all the books in the world may be burnt, or otherwise destroyed. All that we affirm concerning our rule of faith, is, that it is abundantly fufficient, if men be not wanting to themselves, to convey the Chriftian doctrine to all fucceffive ages; and we think him very unreasonable that expects that God should do more than what is abundantly enough for the perpetuating of Christian religion in the world. §2. 2dly, Nor do we fay, that that certainty and affurance which we have that thefe books are the fame that were written by the Apoftles, is a firft and felf evident principle; but only that it is a truth capable of evidence fufficient, and as much as we can have for a thing of that nature. Mr S. may, if he pleafe, fay, that tradition's certainty is a first and felf evident principle; but then he that fays this, fhould take heed how he takes upon him to demonftrate it. Ariftotle was fo wife as never to demonftrate firft principles; for which he gives this very good reafon, because they cannot be demon. ftrated. And most prudent men are of opinion, that a felf-evident principle, of all the things in the world, fhould not be demonstrated, because it needs not; for to what purpofe fhould a man write a book to prove that which every man muft affent to without any proof, fo foon as it is propounded to him? I have always taken a felfevident principle to be fuch a propofition, as having in itfelf fufficient evidence of its own truth, and not needing to be made evident by any thing elfe. If I be herein miftaken, I defire Mr S. to inform me better. §3. So that the true ftate of the controverfy between us, is, Whether oral and practical tradition, in oppofition to writing and books, be the only way and means whereby the doctrine of Chrift can with certainty and fecurity be conveyed down to us, who live at this distance from the age of Chrift and his Apoftles? This he affirms; and the Proteftants deny, not only that it is the fole means, but that it is fufficient for the certain conveyance of this doctrine; and withal affirm, that this doctrine hath been conveyed down to us by the books of holy fcripture, as the proper measure and standard of our religion but then they do not exclude oral tradition from being one means of conveying to us the certain : knowledge knowledge of these books; nor do they exclude the authentic records of former ages, nor the conftant teaching and practice of this doctrine, from being fubordinate means and helps of conveying it from one age to another ; nay, so far are they from excluding these concurrent means, that they fuppofe them always to have been ufed, and to have been of great advantage for the propagating and explaining of this doctrine, fo far as they have been truly fubordinate to, and regulated by these facred oracles, the holy fcriptures, which, they fay, do truly and fully contain that doctrine which Chrift delivered to his Apostles, and they preached to the world. To illuftrate this by an instance: fuppofe there were a controversy now on foot, how men might come to know what was the true art of logic which Aristotle taught his scholars; and some should be of opinion, that the only way to know this would be by oral tradition from his fcholars; which we might eafily understand, by confulting thofe of the prefent age who learned it from thofe who received it from them, who at laft had it from Ariftotle himself: but others fhould think it the fureft way to ftudy his Organon, a book acknowledged by all his fcholars to have been written by himself, and to contain that doctrine which he taught them. They who take this latter course, fuppofe the authority of oral tradition for the conveying to them the knowledge of this book; and do fuppofe this doctrine to have been taught and practifed in all ages, and a great many books to have been written by way of comment and explication of this doctrine; and that thefe have been good helps of promoting the knowledge of it. And they may well enough fuppofe all this, and yet be of opinion, that the truest measure and ftandard of Ariftotle's doctrine is his own book; and that it would be a fond thing in any man, by forcing an interpretation upon his book, either contrary to, or very foreign and remote from the obvious fenfe of his words, to go about to reconcile this book with that method of difputing which is ufed by the profeffed Ariftotelians of the prefent age, and with all that fcholaftic jargon which Mr S. learned at Lisbon, and has made him fo great a man in the fcience of controverfy, as even to enable him to demonftrate firft and felf-evident dent principles: A trick not to be learned out of Ariftotle's Organon. The application is fo eafy, that I need not make it. Concerning the properties of the rule of faith; and whether they agree solely to oral tradition. SECT. I. Aving thus endeavoured to bring the contro fo we might not quarrel in the dark, and difpute about we know not what, I come now to grapple more clofely with his book. And the main foundations of his dif course may be reduced to these three heads. I. That the effential properties of fuch a way and means as can with certainty and fecurity convey down to us the doctrine of Chrift, belong folely to oral tradition. This he endeavours to prove in his five firft difcourfes. 2. That it is impoffible that this way of oral tradition fhould fail. And this he pretends to prove in his four laft difcourfes. 3. That oral tradition hath been generally reputed by Chriftians in all ages the fole way and means of conveying down to them the doctrine of Chrift. And this he attempts to fhew in his laft chapter, which he calls, The confent of authority to the fubftance of the foregoing difcourJes. If he make good these three things, he hath acquitted himfelf well in his undertaking: but whether he hath made them good or not, is now to be examined. way 2. First, Whether the eflential properties of fuch a and means as can with certainty and fecurity convey down to us the knowledge of Chrift's doctrine, belong folely to oral tradition? The true way to measure the effential properties of this or that means, is, by confidering its fufficiency for its end for whatfoever is neceffary to make any means fufficient |