"nable left, but thofe founds, with their aptnefs to fig nify it." When he hath answered this argument, he will have answered his own. In the mean while, this difcourfe, that he who holds the fcriptures to be the rule of faith, must needs by the fcriptures mean a book void of fenfe, &c.; because otherwise, if by fcripture he should understand a book that hath a certain fenfe in it, that fenfe must be the doctrine of Chrift, which is the very thing that this book is to convey to us: I fay, this difcourfe tends only to prove it an abfurd thing for any man that holds fcripture the means of conveying Christ's doctrine, to understand by the fcripture a book that conveys Christ's doctrine. This being his own reafon put into plain English, I leave the reader to judge whether it be not fomething fhort of perfect fcience and demonstration. Nay, if it were thoroughly examined, I doubt whether it would not fall fhort of that low pitch of fcience which he fpeaks of in his preface; where he tells us, that "the way of science is to proceed from one piece of sense to "another."

66

$3. Having premised this, that by the feriptures we muft only mean dead characters that have no fense under them, he proceeds to fhew, that thefe dead characters have not the properties of a rule of faith belonging to them. Which, although it be nothing to the purpofe when he hath fhewn it, yet it is very pleafant to obferve by what cross and untoward arguments he goes about it; of which I will give the reader a tafte, by one or two inftances.

In the first place, he fhews, that it cannot be evident to us, that "these books were written by men divinely infpired; because, till the feeming contradictions in "thofe books are folved, which to do is one of the most "difficult tasks in the world,, they cannot be concluded to be of God's inditing," p. 14. Now, how is this an argument against those who by the fcriptures must mean unfenfed letters and characters? I had always thought contradictions had been in the fenfe of words, not in the letters and characters: but I perceive he hath a peculiar opinion, that the four and twenty letters do contradict one another,

The other inftance fhall be in his laft argument;

which

AS

is this, p. 17. That "the fcripture cannot be the rule "of faith, because those who are to be ruled and guided "by the fcripture's letter to faith, cannot be certain of "the true sense of it :" which is to fay, that unfenfed letters and characters cannot be the rule of faith, becaufe the rule of faith must have a certain fense; that is, must not be unfenfed letters and characters; which in plain English amounts to thus much, unfenfed letters and characters cannot be the rule of faith, that they cannot.

4. And thus I might trace him through all his pro perties of the rule of faith, and let the reader fee how incomparably he demonftrates the falfehood of this Proteftant tenet, as he calls it, that a senseless book may be a rule of faith. But I am weary of pursuing him in these airy and phantastical combats; and fhall leave him to fight with his own fancies, and to batter down the cafiles which himself hath built. Only I think fit to acquaint him, once for all, with a great fecret of the Protestant doctrine, which it feems he hath hitherto been ignorant of, (for I am ftill more confirmed in my opinion, that he forfook our religion before he understood it), that when they fay the fcriptures are the rule of faith, or the means whereby Christ's doctrine is conveyed down to them, they mean by the fcriptures, books written in fuch words as do fufficiently exprefs the fenfe and meaning of Chrift's doctrine.

$5. And to fatisfy him that we are not abfurd and unreasonable in fuppofing the fcriptures to be fuch a book, I would beg the favour of him to grant me these four things, or fhew reafon to the contrary.

1. That whatever can be spoken in plain and intelligible words, and such as have a certain fenfe, may be written in the fame words.

2. That the fame words are as intelligible when they are written, as when they are spoken.

3. That God, if he pleafe, can indite a book in as plain words as any of his creatures.

4. That we have no reason to think that God affects obfcurity, and envies that men fhould understand him, in those things which are neceflary for them to know; and which must have been written to no purpofe, if we cannot understand them. St Luke tells Theophilus,

chap.

chap. i. 3. 4. that he wrote the hiftory of Chrift to him, on purpose to give him a certain knowledge of thofe things. which he writ. But how a book which hath no certain fenfe, fhould give a man a certain knowledge of things, is beyond my capacity. St John faith, chap. xx. 31. that he purposely committed feveral of Christ's miracles to writing, that men might believe on him. But now, had Mr S. been at his elbow, he would have advised him to fpare his labour; and would have given him this good reafon for it, becaufe, when he had written his book, no body would be able to find the certain fenfe of it without oral tradition; and that alone would securely and intelligibly convey both the doctrine of Christ, and the certain knowledge of thofe miracles which he wrought for the confirmation of it. If these four things be but granted, I fee not why, when we fay that the fcriptures are the means of conveying to us Chrift's doctrine, we may not be allowed to understand by the fcriptures, a book which doth in plain and intelligible words exprefs to us this doctrine.

SECT. III. Mr S's exceptions against scripture examined.

•A

ND now, although this might have been a fufficient answer to his exceptions against the scrip tures, as being incapable of the properties of a rule of faith; becaufe all of them fuppofe that which is appa rently falfe and abfurd, as granted by Proteftants, viz. that the fcriptures are only a heap of dead letters and infignificant characters, without any fenfe under them ; and that oral tradition is that only which gives them life and fenfe yet, because several of his exceptions pretend to fhew, that the true properties of a rule of faith do not at all appertain to the fcriptures; therefore I fhall give particular anfwers to them; and, as I go along, fhew, that tradition is liable to all or moft of those exceptions, and to far greater than those.

§2. First, Whereas he fays, P. 13. "It cannot be e"vident to Proteftants from their principles, that the "books of fcripture were originally written by men di

"vinely

"vinely inspired;" I will fhew him, that it may, and then answer the reafons of this exception.

It is evident, from an univerfal, conftant, and uncontrolled tradition among Chriftians, not only oral, but written, and from the acknowledgment of the greateft adverfaries of our religion, that these books were origi nally written by the Apoftles and Evangelifts. And this is not only a Proteftant principle, but the principle of all mankind, That an undoubted tradition is fufficient e"vidence of the antiquity and author of a book," and all the extrinsical argument that can ordinarily be had of a book written long ago.

66

Next, it is evident, that the Apostles were men divinely infpired, that is, fecured from error and mistake in the writing of this doctrine, from the miracles that were wrought for the confirmation of it; because it is unreafonable to imagine, that the divine power fhould so remarkably interpofe for the confirmation of a doctrine, and give fo eminent an atteftation to the Apostles to convince the world, that they were immediately appointed and commiffioned by God, and yet not fecure them from error in the delivery of it. And that fuch miracles were wrought, is evident from as credible hiftories as we have for any of those things which we do moft firmly believe. And this is better evidence, that the Apostles were men divinely inspired, than bare oral tradition can furnish us withal; for, fetting afide the authentic relation of thefe matters in books, it is most probable, that oral tradition of itself, and without books, would scarce have preferved the memory of any of thofe particular miracles of our Saviour and his Apoftles which are recorded in fcripture. And for the probability of this, I offer these two things to his confideration.

1. No man can deny, that memorable perfons have lived, and actions been done in the world innumerable, whereof no history now extant makes any mention.

2. He himself will grant, that our Saviour wrought innumerable more miracles than are recorded in fcripture. And now, I challenge him to fhew the fingle vir tue of oral tradition, by giving an account of any of thofe perfons, or their actions, who lived 1500 or 2000 years ago, befides those which are mentioned in books;

or

or to give a catalogue but of ten of those innumerable miracles wrought by our Saviour, which are not recorded by the Evangelifts, with circumftances as punctual and particular as thofe are clothed withal. If he can do this, it will be a good evidence, that oral tradition fingly, and by itself, can do something; but if he cannot, it is as plain an evidence, on the contrary, that if thofe actions of former times, and thofe miracles of our Saviour and his Apoftles which are recorded in books, had never been written, but intrufted folely to oral tra dition, we fhould have heard as little of them at this day, as we do of thofe that were not written.

$3. Now to examine his reafons for this exception : ift, He faith, p. 13. "It is most manifeft, that this cannot be made evident to the vulgar, that scripture was written by men divinely inspired." This reafon is as easily answered, by faying, It is moft manifeft that it can. But befides faying fo, I have fhewed how it may be made as evident to the vulgar, as other things which they do moft firmly, and upon good grounds, believe. Even the rudeft of the vulgar, and those who cannot read, do believe upon very good grounds, that there was fuch a king as William the Conqueror; and the miracles of Chrift and his Apoftles are capable of as good evidence as we have for this.

2dly, He fays, p. 13. 14. "This cannot be evident to "the curious and moft fpeculative fearchers, but by fo "deep an inspection into the fenfe of fcripture, as fhall "difcover fuch fecrets that philofophy and human in"dustry could never have arrived to:" As if we could not be affured, that any thing were written by men divinely inspired, unless it were above the reach of human understanding; and as if no man could know that this was our Saviour's doctrine, Whatever ye would that men fhould do unto you, that do you likewife unto them, becaufe every one can understand it. But if there were more mysteries in the fcriptures than there are, I hope a man might be fatisfied, that they were written by men divinely inspired, without a clear comprehenfion of all thofe mysteries. The evidence of the infpiration of any person doth not depend upon the plainnefs or fublimity of the things revealed to him, but upon the goodness of

the