all her activity and motion, that is, herself, than one fingle part of that innumerable multitude which integrate the vaft teftification which. we call tradition, can poffibly be violated;" when after he hath told us, p. 116. that "the city of Rome was bleffed with more vigorous caufes to imprint Chrift's doctrine at firft, and recommend it to the next age, than were "found any where elfe; and confequently, that the "ftream of tradition, in its fource and first putting into "motion, was more particularly vigorous there than in "any other fee; and that the chief paftor of that fee "hath a particular title to infallibility, built upon tra"dition, above any other paftor whatfoever: not to di "late on the particular affiftances of that Bifhop, fpring

ing out of his divinely conftituted office :" when, I fay, after all this quaint reafoning and rumbling rhetoric, about the infallibility of oral tradition, and the particular infallibility of the Bishop of Rome, built on tradition, we cannot but remember, that this great oracle of oral tradition, the Pope, and this great mafter of it, Mr White, who is fo peculiarly fkilled in the rule of faith, have fo manifeftly declared themselves to differ in points of faith. For that the Pope, and his congrega tion general at Rome, have condemned all his books, for this reafon, because they contain feveral propofitions "manifeftly heretical," (Mr Wh. exetafis, p.9.), is a fign, that thefe two great wits do not very well hit it in matters of faith; and either that they do not both agree in the fame rule of faith, or that one of them does not rightly understand it, or not follow it. And now, why may not that which Mr S. unjustly fays concerning the ufe of fcripture, p. 39. be upon this account juftly applied to the bufinefs of oral tradition?" If we see two "fuch eminent wits among the Papifts, (the Pope and "Mr White), making ufe of the felf-fame, and, as they conceive, the beft advantages their rule of faith gives them, and availing themselves the beft they can, by acquired fkill, yet differ about matters of "faith; what certainty can we undertakingly promise "to weaker heads, that is, to the generality of the Pa

pifts," in whom the governors of the church do pro

felledly

feffedly cherish ignorance for the increafing of their devotion?

§6. 4thly, We have fufficient affurance that the books of fcripture are conveyed down to us without any material corruption or alteration. And he that denies this, muft either reject the authority of all books, because we cannot be certain whether they be the fame now that they were at first or else give fome probable reason why thefe fhould be more liable to corruption than others. But any man that confiders things, will eafily find, that it is much more improbable that thefe books fhould have been either wilfully or involuntarily corrupted in any thing material to faith or a good life, than any other books in the world, whether we confider the peculiar providence of God engaged for the preservation of them, or the peculiar circumftances of thefe books. If they were written by men divinely infpired, and are of use to Christians, as is acknowledged, at least in words, on all hands; nothing is more credible, than that the fame divine providence which took care for the publishing of them, would likewife be concerned to preserve them entire. And if we confider the peculiar circumftances of thefe books, we fhall find it morally impoffible that they fhould have been materially corrupted; becaufe, being of univerfal and mighty concernment, and at first diffufed into many hands, and foon after tranflated into moft languages, and moft paffages in them cited in books now extant, and all these now agreeing in all matters of importance, we have as great affurance as can be had concerning any thing of this nature, that they have not fuffered any material alteration; and far greater than any man can have concerning the incorruption of their oral tradition; as I fhall fhew when I come to answer the thing which he calls demonftration.

$7. 5thly, That de facto the fcripture hath been ac knowledged by all Chriftians, in former ages, to be the means whereby the doctrine of Chrift hath, with greatest certainty, been conveyed to them. One good evidence of this is, that the primitive adverfaries of Christian religion did always look upon the fcripture as the standard and measure of the Christian doctrine; and, in all their writings against Christianity, took that for granted to be

the

the Christian faith which was contained in those books; there having not as yet any philofopher rifen up, who had demonftrated to the world, that a doctrine could not, with fufficient certainty and clearnefs, be conveyed by writing from one age to another. But how abfurd had this method of confuting Chriftian religion been, if it had been then the public profeffion of Chriftians, that the fcriptures were not the rule of their faith? How eafy had it been for the fathers, who apologized for and defended Christian religion, to have told them, they took a wrong measure of their doctrine? for it was not the principle of Chriftians, that their faith was conveyed to them by the fcriptures, and therefore it was a fond undertaking to attack their religion that way; but if they would effectually argue against it, they ought to inquire what that doctrine was which was orally delivered from father to fon, without which the fcriptures could fignify no more to them than an unknown cypher without a key; being of themselves, without the light of oral tradition, only a heap of unintelligible words, "unfenfed characters," and "ink varioufly figured in a book;" and therefore it was a grofs mistake in them to think they could underftand the Chriftian religion, like their own philofophy, by reading of those books, or confute it by confuting them. Thus the fathers might have defended their religion; nay, they ought in all reafon to have taken this course, and to have appealed from thofe dead fenfeless books, to the" true rule of faith, the living voice of the church "effential." But doth Mr S. find any thing to this purpofe in the apologies of the fathers? If he hath difcovered any fuch matter, he might do well to acquaint the world with it, and make them wifer. In the mean time, I fhall inform him what I have found, that the fathers never except against that method, but appeal frequently from the flanderous reports and mifreprefentations which were made of their doctrine, to the books of fcripture, as the true ftandard of it.

§ 8. Another evidence, that Chriftians, in all ages fince the Apostles times, have owned the fcriptures for the rule of their faith, is, that the fathers, in their homilies, did ufe conftantly to declare to the people what they were to believe, and what they were to practise, out

of

of the fcriptures; which had been moft abfurd and fenfelefs, had they believed, not the fcriptures, but fomething elfe, to have been the rule of faith and manners. For what could tend more to the feducing of the people from Mr S.'s fuppofed rule of faith, oral tradition, than to make a daily practice of declaring and confirming the doctrines of the Christian faith from the fcriptures? Had the ancient fathers been right for Mr S.'s way, they would not have built their doctrine upon fcripture, perhaps not have mentioned it, for fear of giving the people an occafion to grow familiar with fo dangerous a book; but rather, as their more prudent pofterity have done, would have locked it up from the people in an unknown tongue, and have fet open the ftores of good wholesome traditions; and, inftead of telling them, as they do most frequently, “Thus faith the fcripture," would only have told them, "This is the voice of the effential church; "thus it hath been delivered down by hand to us from our forefathers."

$9. I might add for a third evidence, the great malice of the enemies and perfecutors of Chriftianity against this book, and their cruel endeavours to extort it out of the hands of Chriftians, and destroy it out of the world, that by this means they might extirpate Chriftianity: for it feems they thought that the abolishing of this book would have been the ruin of that religion. But according to Mr S.'s opinion, their malice wanted wit: for, had all the Bibles in the world been burnt, Chriftian religion would nevertheless have been entirely preferved, and fafely tranfmitted down to us, by fenfe written in mens hearts, with the good help of Mr S.'s demonftrations. Nay, their church would have been a great gainer by it: for this occafion and parent of all herefy, the fcripture, being once out of the way, the might have had all in her own hands; and, by leading the people in the fafe paths of tradition, and confequently of fcience, might have made them wife enough to obey. Well; but fuppofe the perfecutors of Christianity miftook themselves in their defign, how came the Chriftians in those days to be fo tenacious of this book, that rather than deliver it, they would yield up themselves to torments and death? why did they look upon thofe who out of fear delivered VOL. III.

Z

And

up

up their books, as apoftates, and renouncers of Chriftianity? And if they had not thought this book to be the great inftrument of their faith and falvation; and if it had really been of no greater confideration than Mr W. and Mr S. would make it, why fhould they be fo loth to part with a few "unfenfed characters, waxen-natured

rr

words, to be played upon diverfely by quirks of wit; "that is, apt to blunder and confound, but to clear "little or nothing?" why should they value their lives at fo cheap a rate, as to throw them away for a few infignificant fcrawls, and to fhed their blood for "a little "ink varioufly figured in a book?" Did they not know, that the fafety of Chriftianity did not depend upon this book? Did no Christian then understand that, which, according to Mr S. no Chriftian can be ignorant of, viz. that not the fcripture, but unmistakeable and indefectable oral tradition was the rule of faith? Why did they not confider, that though this letter-rule of heretics had been confumed to ashes; yet their faith would have lain safe, and "been preferved entire in its spiritual causes, mens "minds, the nobleft pieces in nature?" p. 34. Some of them indeed did deliver up their books, and were called traditores; and I have fome ground to believe, that thefe were the only traditionary Chriftians of that time, and that the reft were confeffors and martyrs for the letter-rule. And if this be not evidence enough, that the fcriptures have always been acknowledged by Christians for the rule of faith, I fhall, when I come to examine his teftimonies for tradition, (with the good leave of his diftinction between fpeculators and teftifiers), prove, by most exprefs teftimony, that it was the general opinion of the fathers, that "the fcriptures are the rule of Chri"flian faith;" and then, if his demonstration of the infallibility of tradition will inforce, that as teftifiers they muft needs have spoken otherwife, who can help it?

SECT. IV. How much Proteftants allow to oral tradition.

$1. Having, thus laid down the Proteftant rule of faith, with the grounds of it, all that now remains for me to do towards the clear and full stating of

the