the controverfy between us, is, to take notice briefly, and with due limitations,

1. How much the Proteftants do allow to oral tradition.

2. What thofe things are, which Mr S. thinks fit to attribute to his rule of faith, which we fee no caufe to attribute to ours; and when this is done, any one may eafily difcern how far we differ.

$2. First, How much Proteftants do allow to oral tra. dition.

of

ift, We e grant that oral tradition, in fome circumftan. ces, may be a fufficient way of conveying a doctrine; but withal we deny, that fuch circumftances are now in being. In the firit ages of the world, when the creden da or articles of religion, and the agenda or precepts it, were but few, and fuch as had the evidence of natural light; when the world was contracted into a few families in comparison, and the age of man ordinarily extended to fix or feven hundred years; it is eafy to imagine how fuch a doctrine, in fuch circumftances, might have been propagated by oral tradition, without any great change or alterations. Adam lived till Methufelah was above two hundred years old, Methufclah lived till Sem was near an hundred, and Sem outlived Abraham: fo that this tradition need not pass through more than two hands betwixt Adam and Abraham. But though this way was fufficient to have preferved religion in the world, if men. had not been wanting to themselves; yet we find it did not prove effectual: for through the corruption and negligence of men after the flood, (if not before), when the world began to multiply, and the age of man was fhortened, the knowledge and worship of the one true God was generally loft in the word. And fo far as appears by fcripture- hiftory, the only record we have of thofe times, when God called out Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees, the whole world was lapfed into polytheism and idolatry. Therefore, for the greater fecurity of religion afterwards, when the pofterity of Abraham was multiplied into a great nation, the wifdom of God did not think fit to intruft the doctrine of religion any longer to the fallible and uncertain way of tradition, but committed it to writing. Now, that God pitched up

on this way, after the world had fadly experienced the unfuccefsfulness of the other, seems to be a very good evidence, that this was the better and more fecure way; it being the ufual method of divine difpenfations, not to go backwards, but to move towards perfection, and to proceed from that which is lefs perfect to that which is more. And the Apoftle's reafoning concerning the two covenants, is very applicable to thefe two methods of conveying the doctrine of religion: If the first had been faultless, then should no place have been fought for the fecond, Heb. viii. 7.

§3. So likewife, when Chrift revealed his doctrine to the world, it was not in his lifetime committed to writing; becaufe it was entertained but by a few, who were his difciples and followers, and who, fo long as he continued with them, had a living oracle to teach them. After his death, the Apoftles, who were to publish this doctrine to the world, were affisted by an infallible spirit, fo as they were fecured from error and mistake in the delivery of it. But when this extraordinary affistance fail. ed, there was need of fome other means to convey it to pofterity, that fo it might be a fixed and standing rule of faith and manners to the end of the world. To this end, the providence of God took care to have it committed to writing. And that Mr S. may fee this is not a conjecture of Proteftants, but the fenfe of former times, I fhall refer him to St Chryfoftom; who tells us, (homil. I. in Matth.), that Chrift left nothing in writing to his Apoftles; but, inftead thereof, did promife to bestow "upon them the grace of his Holy Spirit, faying, John xiv. He hall bring all things to your remembrance, But because in progrefs of time there were ma"ny grievous mifcarriages, both in matter of opinion, "and alfo of life and manners; therefore it was requi"fite, that the memory of this doctrine fhould be pre"ferved by writing." So long then as the Apostles lived, who were thus infallibly affifted, the way of oral tradition was fecure, but no longer; nor even then, from the nature of the thing, but from that extraordinary and fupernatural affiftance which accompanied the deliverers.

:

« &c.

§ 4. And therefore it is no good way of argument a

gainst

gainst the way of tradition by writing, which he lays fo much weight upon, p. 40. "That the Apostles, and

"their fucceffors, went not with books in their hands, "to preach and deliver Christ's doctrine, but words in "their mouths; and that primitive antiquity learned "their faith by another method, a long time before many of thofe books were univerfally fpread among the vulgar. For what if there was no need of writing this doctrine, whilft thofe living oracles, the Apostles, were prefent with the church; doth it therefore follow, that there was no need of it afterwards, when the Apoftles were dead, and that extraordinary and fupernatural affiftance was ceafed ? If the preachers now-a-days could give us any fuch affurance, and confirm all they preach by fuch frequent, and public, and unquestionable miracles as the Apoftles did; then we need not examine the doctrines they taught by any other rule, but ought to regulate our belief by what they deliver to us. feeing this is not the cafe, that ought in all reason to be the rule of our faith, which hath brought down to us the doctrine of Chrift with the greatest certainty; and this I fhall prove the fcriptures to have done.

But

$5. So that, in thofe circumstances I have mentioned, we allow oral tradition to have been a fufficient way of conveying a doctrine: but now, confidering the great increase of mankind, and the fhortness of man's life in thefe latter ages of the world, and the long tract of time from the Apostles age down to us, and the innumerable accidents, whereby, in the space of fifteen hundred years, oral tradition might receive infenfible alterations, fo as at laft to become quite another thing from what it was at firft, by paffing through many hands; in which paffage, all the mistakes and corruptions which, in the feveral ages through which it was tranfmitted, did happen, either through ignorance, or forgetfulness, or out of interest and defign, are neceffarily derived into the laft: fo that the farther it goes, the more alteration it is liable to; because, as it paffeth along, more errors and corruptions are infufed into it: I fay, confidering all this, we deny, that the doctrine of Chriftian religion could, with any probable fecurity and certainty, have been conveyed down to us by the way of oral tradition; and

2. 3

therefore

therefore do reafonably believe, that God, foreseeing this, did in his wifdom fo order things, that those perfons who were affifted by an infallible spirit in the delivery of this doctrine, fhould, before they left the world, commit it to writing which was accordingly done; and by this inftrument, the doctrine of faith hath been conveyed down to us.

$6. 2dly, We allow, that tradition, oral and written, do give us fufficient affurance, that the books of fcripture, which we now have, are the very books which were written by the Apostles and Evangelifts; nay farther, that oral tradition alone is a competent evidence in this cafe but withal we deny, that oral tradition is therefore to be accounted the rule of faith.

The general affurance that we have concerning books written long ago, that they are fo ancient, and were written by thofe whofe names they bear, is a constant and uncontrolled tradition of this, transmitted from one age to another, partly orally, and partly by the teftimony of other books. Thus much is common to fcripture with other books. But then the fcriptures have this peculiar advantage above other books, that being of a greater and more univerfal concernment, they have been more common, and in every body's hands, more read and studied, than any other books in the world whatsoever; and confequently, they have a more univerfal and better grounded atteftation. Moreover, they have not only been owned univerfally in all ages by Chriftians, except three or four books of them, which for fome time were queftioned by fome churches, but have fince been generally received; but the greatest enemies of our religion, the Jews and Heathens, never queftioned the an tiquity of them, but. have always taken it for granted, that they were the very books which the Apostles writ. And this is as great an affurance as we can have concerning any ancient book, without a particular and im mediate revelation.

$7. And this conceffion doth not, as Mr S. fuppofeth, make oral tradition to be finally the rule of faith; for the meaning of this queftion, "What is the rule of "faith" is, What is the next and inmediate means

whereby

whereby the knowledge of Chrift's doctrine is conveyed to us? So that although oral tradition be the means whereby we come to know, that these are the books of fcripture; yet thefe books are the next and immediate means whereby we come to know, what is Chrift's doctrine, and confequently what we are to believe.

$8. Nor doth this conceffion make oral tradition to be the rule of faith by a parity of reafon; as if, because we acknowledge that oral tradition alone can with competent certainty tranfmit a book to after ages, we must therefore grant that it can with as much certainty convey a doctrine confifting of feveral articles of faith, (nay, very many, as Mr White acknowledges, Rufhw. dial. 4. §9.) and many laws and precepts of life: fo becaufe oral tradition fufficiently affures us, that this is magna charta, and that the ftatute-book, in which are contained thofe laws which it concerns every man to be skilful in; therefore, by like parity of reason, it must follow, that tradition itfelf is better than a book, even the best way imaginable, to convey down fuch laws to us. Mr S. faith exprefsly it is, p.23.; but how truly I appeal to experience, and the wisdom of all lawgivers, who feem to think otherwife. Tradition is already defined to us, a delivery down from hand to hand of the fenfe and "faith of forefathers," i. e. of the gofpel or meffage of Chrift. Now, fuppofe any oral meffage, confifting of an hundred particularities, were to be delivered to an hundred several perfons of different degrees of understanding and memory, by them to be conveyed to an hundred more, who were to convey it to others, and fo onwards to a hundred descents; is it probable, this meffage, with all the particulars of it, would be as truly conveyed through fo many mouths, as if it were written down in fo many letters, concerning which every bearer fhould need to fay no more than this, that it was delivered to him as a letter written by him whofe name was fubfcribed to it? I think it not probable, though the men's lives were concerned every one for the faithful delivery of his errand or letter for the letter is a meffage which no man can mistake in, unless he will; but the errand fo difficult, and perplexed with its multitude of particulars, that it is an equal wager against every one of the mes fengers,