"rive certainly at Christ's sense, as far as the letter concerns the body of Chriftian doctrine preached at first, or points requifite to falvation." So that whatever he may attribute to fcripture for fashion's fake, and to avoid calumny with the vulgar, as he fays very ingenuoufly in his explication of the 15th corollary; neverthelefs it is plain, that, according to his own hypothesis, he cannot but look upon it as perfectly useless and pernicious. That it is altogether ufelefs according to his hypothefis, is plain; for the main body of Chriftian doctrine is fecurely conveyed to us without it; and it can give no kind of confirmation to it, because it receives all its confirmation from it; only the church is ever and anon put to a great deal of trouble to correct the alteration of the outward letter, by tradition, and fense written in their hearts. And as for all other parts of fcripture, which are not coincident with the main body of Christian doctrine, we can have no certainty, either that the outward letter is true, nor, if we could, can we poffibly arrive at any certain fenfe of them. And that it is intolerably pernicious according to his hypothefis, is plain; because "every filly and upftart herefy fathers "itfelf upon it," p. 40. and when men leave tradition, as he fuppofeth all heretics do, the fcripture is the most dangerous engine that could have been invented; being to fuch perfons only waxen-natured words, not fen"fed, nor having any certain interpreter; but fit to be "played upon diverfely by quirks of wit; that is, apt to "blunder and confound, but to clear little or nothing." p. 68. And indeed, if his hypothefis were true, the fcriptures might well deferve all the contemptuous language which he ufeth against them; and Mr White's comparifon of them with Lilly's almanack, (Apology for tradition, p. 165.) would not only be pardonable, but proper; and, unless he added it out of prudence, and for the people's fake, whom he may think too fuperftitioufly con ceited of those books, he might have fpared that cold excufe which he makes for ufing this fimilitude, that "it

was agreeable rather to the impertinency of the ob"jection, than the dignity of the fubject." Certain it is, if thefe men are true to their own principles, that notwithstanding the high reverence and efteem pretended to

be borne by them and their church to the fcriptures, they muft heartily despise them, and with 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 the difcourfe be of any confequence, can stand Catholics in no ftead at all, and is fo dangerous and mifchievous a weapon in the hands of heretics.

'SECT, III. The Proteftant doctrine concerning the rule of faith.

Sr. Having thus taken a view of his opinion, and

confidered how much he attributes to oral tradition, and how little to the feriptures; before I affail his hypothefis, I fhall lay down the Proteftant rule of faith; not that fo much is neceffary for the anfwering 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 Scriptures, are the means whereby the Chriftian doctrine hath been brought down to us. And that he may now clearly understand this, together with the grounds of it, which in reafon he ought. to have done before he had forfaken us, I fhall declare it more particularly in these following propofitions.

2. 1, That the doctrine of Chriftian religion was by Chrift delivered to the Apoftles, and by them firft preached to the world, and afterwards by them committed to writing; which writings, or books, have been tranfmitted from one age to another down to us. So far I take to be granted by our prefent adverfaries. That the Chriftian doctrine was by Chrift delivered to the Apoftles, and by, them publifhed to the world, is part of their own hypothefis. That this doctrine was afterwards by the Apostles committed to writing, he alfo grants, corol. 29. p. 117. "It is certain the Apoftles taught the "fame doctrine they writ;" and if fo, it must be as certain, that they 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 Chriftian.

doctrine;

doctrine; but that befides the doctrines contained in fcripture, 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 fcriptures to be a means fufficient to convey this doctrine to us with certainty, fo that we can by them be infalli bly affured what is Christ's doctrine, and what not. Nay, he feems in that paffage I laft cited, to grant this, in fay ing, that the Apoftles did both teach and write the fame doctrine. I am fure Mr White, whom he follows very clofely throughout his whole book, does not deny this in his Apology for Tradition, where he faith, p. 171. that "it is not the Catholic pofition, That all its doctrines are not contained in the fcriptures." And that thofe writings or books which we call the holy fcriptures, have been tranfmitted down to us, is unquestionable matter of fact, and granted univerfally by the Papifts, as to all thofe books which are owned by Proteftants for canonical.

66.

§3. zdly, 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 hypothefis, there is no poffible way of conveying a doctrine with certainty and fe curity befides that of oral tradition: the falsehood of which will fufficiently appear, when I fhall have shewn, 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 written in the fame words; and that a writing or book which is public, and in every one's hand, may be conveyed down with at least 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 ef

fential

fential part of his hypothefis, which is contradicted by plain and constant 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 himfelf pitched upon this way for conveyance of the doctrine of the Jewith religion to after ages because it is not likely that fo wife an agent fhould pitch upon a means whereby it was impoffible he fhould attain his end.

4. 3dly, That the books of fcripture are fufficiently plain as to all things neceffary to be believed and prac tifed. He that denies this, ought in reafon to inftance in fome neceffary point of faith, 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, p. 38. 39. That the greatest wits among the Proteftants differ about the fenfe of thofe texts wherein the generality of them fuppofe the divinity of Chrift to be plainly and clearly expreffed: becaufe, if nothing were to be accounted fufficiently plain, but what is impoffible a great wit fhould be able to wrest to any other fenfe, not only the fcriptures, but all other books, and, which is wort of all to him that makes this objection, all oral tradition would fall into uncertainty. Doth the traditionary church pretend, that the doctrine of Chrift'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 exprefsly calls him God, the true God, God over all blessed for evermore. If it be faid, That thefe who deny the divinity of Christ have been able to evade those and all other texts of fcripture, but they could never elude the definitions of the church in that matter; it is easily answered, That the fame arts would equally have eluded both but there was no reason why they should trouble themselves

fo

fo 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 thofe great wits, as he calls them, had believed the fayings of fcripture to be of no greater authority than the definitions of councils, they would have anfwered texts of fcripture as they have done the definitions of councils: not by endeavouring to interpret them to another fenfe; but by downright denying their authority. So that it feems that oral tradition is liable to the fame inconvenience with the written as to this particular.

5. And of this I fhall give him a plain inftance in two great wits of their church, the prefent Pope and Mr White, the one, the head of the traditionary church, as Mr S. calls it; the other, the great master of the traditionary doctrine. Thefe two great wits, the Pope and Mr White, notwithstanding the plainnefs of oral tradition, and the impoffibility of being ignorant of it, or mistaking it, have yet been fo unhappy as to differ a bout feveral points of faith; infomuch that Mr White is unkindly cenfured for it at Rome; and perhaps here, in England, the Pope speeds no better. However, the difference continues ftill fo wide, that Mr White hath thought fit to disobey the fummons of his chief paftor; and, like a prudent man, rather to write against him here, out of harm's way, than to venture the infallibi lity of plain oral tradition for the doctrines he maintains, against a practical tradition which they have at Rome, of killing heretics.

Methinks Mr S. might have fpared his brags, p. 54. that he hath evinced from clear reason, that it is far more poffible to make a man not to be, than not to "know what is rivetted into his foul by fo oft repeated "fenfations, (as the Chriftian faith is by oral and prac "tical tradition); and that it exceeds all the power of nature, abstracting from the cafes of madness and vi "olent difeafe, to blot knowledge, thus fixed, out of "the foul of one fingle believer; infomuch that sooner may all mankind perifh, than the regulative virtue "of tradition mifcarry; nay, fooner may the finews of entire nature, by overftraining, crack, and the lofe

all