the arguments which tend to perfuade us that the perfon is fo infpired; and the argument that is most fit to fatisfy us of that, is, if he work miracles. Now, I would gladly know, why a learned man cannot be affured of a miracle, that is, a plain sensible matter of fact done long ago, but "by fo deep an infpection into the "fenfe of fcripture, as fhall difcover fuch fecrets that philosophy and human industry could never have ar"rived to."

$4. 3dly, Becaufe "all the feeming contradictions of fcripture must be folved, before we can out of the "bare letter conclude the Scripture to be of God's in"diting. To folve which literally, plainly and fatisfactorily, (he tells us), the memory of fo many par "ticulars, which made them clearer to thofe of the age in which they were written, and the matter "known, muft needs be fo worn out by track of time, "that it is one of the most difficult tasks in the world, p. 14. As if we could not believe a book to be of God's inditing, because there feem now to be fome contradictions in it, which we have reason to believe could easily have been folved by those who lived in the age in which it was written; or as if oral tradition could help. a man to folve thefe contradictions, when the memory of particulars neceffary for the clear folution of them, is (as himself confeffes) worn out by track of time. If Mr S. can, in order to the folution of the feeming contradictions of fcripture, demonftrate, that oral tradition hath to this day preferved the memory of those particulars neceffary for that purpose, the memory of which muft needs be long fince worn out by track of time, then I will readily yield, that his rule of faith hath in this particular the advantage of ours. But if he cannot do, this, why doth he make that an argument against our rule, which is as ftrong against his own? This is just like Captain Everard's friend's way of arguing against the Proteftants, That they cannot rely upon scripture, because it is full of plain contradictions, impoffible to be reconciled; and therefore they ought in all reason to fubmit to the infallibility of the church. And, for an inftance of fuch a contradiction, he pitched upon the three fourteen generations, mentioned in the firit of St Matthew;

Matthew; becaufe the third feries of generations, if they be counted, will be found to be but thirteen. Not to mention now how this difficulty hath been fufficiently fatisfied, both by Proteftant and Popifh commentators, without any recourfe to oral tradition; that which I take notice of, is, the unreasonableness of making this an exception against the Proteftants, when it comes with every whit as much force upon themselves. Suppofe this contradiction not capable of any folution by Proteftants, (as he affirms), and I should submit to the infallibility of the church; can he affure me that infallibility can make thirteen, fourteen? If it cannot, how am I nearer fatisfaction in this point, by acknowledging the infallibillity of the church? The cafe is the very fame as to Mr S.'s exception. If I owned oral tradition, I should be never the nearer folving the feeming contradictions of fcripture; and confequently I could not in reafon conclude it to be of God's inditing. So that, in truth, these exceptions, if they were true, would not ftrike at Proteftancy, but at Christian religion; which is the general unhappiness of moft of the Popish arguments than which there is no greater evidence, that the church of Rome is not the true mother; because fhe had rather Chriftianity fhould be deftroyed, than it fhould appear that any other church hath a claim to it. It was a work very proper for the heretic Marcion, to affault religion this way; who, as Tertullian tells us, (1. 1. contr. Marcion), writ a whole book, which he called Antithefes; wherein he reckoned up all the contradictions (as he thought) between the Old and New Teftament; but methinks it is very improper for the Papifts, who pretend to be the only true Chriftians in the world, to ftrain their wits, to discover as many contradictions as they can in the fcripture, and to prove that there is no way of reconciling them; the natural confequence of which is, the expofing of this facred inftrument of our religion, and even Christianity itself, to the fcorn of Atheists. Therefore, to be very plain with Mr S. and Captain Everard, I am heartily forry to fee, that one of the chief fruits of their converfion is, to abufe the Bible.

5. Secondly, He fays, p. 14. "That Proteftants

"cannot

If

"cannot know how many the books of fcripture ought "to be; and which of the many controverted ones may "be fecurely put into that catalogue, which not." This he proves, by faying, "It is moft palpable, that "few, or at leaft the rude vulgar, can never be affured "of it." And if this be good argument, this again is a good answer, to fay, It is not molt palpable. But I fhall deal more liberally, and tell him, that we know that juft fo many ought to be received as uncontroverted books, concerning which it cannot be fhewn there was ever any controverfy; and fo many as controverted, concerning which it appears that question hath been made. And if those which have been controverted, have been fince received by thofe churches which once doubted of them, there is now no farther doubt concerning them, because the controverfy about them is at an end. And now, I would fain know, what greater certainty oral tradition can give us of the true catalogue of the books of fcripture. For it must either acknowledge fome books have been controverted, or not. not, why doth he make a fuppofition of controverted books? If oral tradition acknowledge fome to have been controverted, then it cannot affure us that they have not been controverted, nor confequently that they ought to be received as never having been controverted; but only as fuch, concerning which thofe churches who did once raife a controverfy about them, have been fince fatisfied that they are canonical. The traditionary church now receives the epiftle to the Hebrews as canonical: I afk, do they receive it as ever delivered for fuch? That they muft, if they receive it from oral tradition, which conveys things to them under this notion, as ever delivered and yet St Hierom, fpeaking not as a fpeculator, but a teftifier, faith exprefsly of it, (Com. in Efai. chap. 6.8.) "that the cuftom of the Latin church "doth not receive it among the canonical fcriptures." What faith Mr S. to this? It is clear from this teftimony, that the Roman church, in St Hierom's time, did not acknowledge this epifle for canonical; and it is as plain that the prefent Roman church doth receive it for canonical. Where is then the infallibility of oral tradition? How does the living voice of the prefent VOL. III. church

B b

church affure us, that what books are now received by her, were ever received by her? And if it cannot do this, but the matter must come to be tried by the best records of former ages, which the Proteftants are willing to have their catalogue tried by, then it seems the Proteftants have a better way to know what books are canonical, than is the infallible way of oral tradition; and fo long as it is better, no matter though it be not called infallible.

:

§ 6. Thirdly, He fays, p. 15. "The Proteftants cannot know, that the very original, or a perfectly true 66 copy of these books, hath been preferved." It is not neceffary that they fhould know either of thefe; it is fufficient that they know that thofe copies which they have, are not materially corrupted in any matter of faith or practice and that they have fufficient affurance of this, I have already fhewn. And how doth he prove the contrary? By his ufual argument, with faying, "It is "manifeftly impoffible." But how do the church of Rome know, that they have perfectly true copies of the feriptures in the original languages? They do not pretend to know this. The learned men of that church acknowledge the various readings as well as we, and do not pretend to know, otherwife than by probable conjecture, as we alfo may do, which of thofe readings is the true one. And why fhould it be more neceffary for us to know this, than for them? If they think it reafonable to content themselves with knowing, that no material corruptions have crept into those books, so may we. And that there have not, we know by better arguments than oral tradition, even by the affurance we have of God's vigilant providence, and from a moral impoffibility in the thing, that a book fo univerfally dif perfed, and tranflated into fo many languages, and conftantly read in the affemblies of Chriftians, fhould have been materially corrupted, fo as that all thofe copies and tranflations fhould have agreed in those corruptions. And this reafon St Auftin (Ep. 48.) gives of the prefervation of the fcriptures entire, rather than any other book. If Mr S. likes it not, he may call St Austin to account for it.

$7. Fourthly, He fays, p. 15. "The Proteftants, at

leaft

"least the rudeft vulgar, can have no affurance that "those books are rightly tranflated; because they can"not be affured either of the ability or integrity of "tranflators."

Fifthly, "Nor can they (fays he, p. 16. 17.) be affured, "that the tranfcribers, and printers, and correctors of "the prefs, have carefully and faithfully done their part "in tranfcribing and printing the feveral copies and "tranflations of fcripture aright; because they only can "have evidence of the right letter of fcripture, who "ftood at their elbows attentively watching they fhould not err in making it perfectly like a former copy; and even then, why might they not mistrust their own eyes, and aptnefs to overfee?" I put these two exceptions together, because the fame anfwer will fervet them both. The grounds of thefe exceptions, if they have any, are thefe: That no man is to be trufted either for his fkill or honefty; and, That it is dangerous for men to trust their own eyes. Unless both these be true, these exceptions are of no force: for if we can be affured that other men have fufficient fkill in any thing which we ourselves do not fufficiently understand, we may be affured that those who tranflated the Bible had skill in the original languages; because very credible perfons tell us fo, and we have no reason to doubt their teftimony in this particular, more than in any other matter. So that, if we can have fufficient affurance of mens integrity in any thing, we have no reason to doubt of the skill of tranflators, transcribers, or printers: and if we can have no affurance of mens integrity in any thing, then no man can be affured there was fuch a man as Henry VIII. and yet, I hope, the church of Rome makes no doubt of it: nor can any man be affured there is fuch a city as Rome, who hath not feen it; nay, if he have, why may he not miftruft his own eyes?" P. 16. And, which is the faddeft inconvenience of all, if no body be to be trufted, nor mens own eyes, (and for the fame reason, fure, not their ears), what becomes of the infallibility of oral and practical tradition, which: neceffarily fuppofeth a competent understanding, a faithful memory, an honeft mind, in the generality of those who delivered Chrift's doctrine down to us? and by