$10. But to return to our purpose: Mr Rushworth acknowledgeth, (Dial. 2. § 12.), that the fcripture is of itfelf fufficiently plain as to matters of practice; for he asks, "Who is fo blind as not to fee, that these things are to be found in fcripture by a fenfible, common, "and difcreet reading of it, though perhaps, by a rigo rous and exact balancing of every particular word and fyllable, any of these things would vanifh away we "know not how?" So that, for the direction of our lives and actions, he confeffeth the fcripture to be fufficiently plain, if men will but read it fenfibly and discreetly; and he fays, that he is blind that does not fee this. But who fo blind as he that will not fee, that the fenfe of fcripture is as plain in all neceffary points of faith! I am fure St Auguftin (De doct. Chrift, I. 2.) makes no difference, when he tells us, that "in those things which are plainly fet down in fcripture, we may find all those "things in which faith, and manners of life, are comprehended." And why cannot men, in reference to matters of faith, as well as of practice, read the fcriptures fenfibly and discreetly, without fuch a rigorous balancing of every word and fyllable, as will make the sense vanish away we know not how? If the fcripture be but fufficiently plain to fuch as will ufe it fenfibly and difcreetly, I do not understand what greater plainnefs can be defired in a rule; nor can I imagine what kind of rule it must be that can be unexceptionably plain to captious cavillers, and fuch as are bent to play the fool with it..

Well, fuppofe the fcriptures be not fufficiently clear as to matters of faith, and hereupon I have recourse to the church for the true fenfe of fcripture, muft I believe the church's fenfe to be the true fenfe of fuch a text, though I fee it to be plainly contrary to the genuine fenfe of the words? Yes; that I muft, or else I make myself, and not the church, judge of the fenfe of fcripture; which is the grand herefy of the Proteftants. But then I must not fuppofe, much lefs believe, that the church's sense of fuch a text is contrary to the genuine meaning of it; no, although I plainly fee it to be fo. This is hard again, on the other hand; efpecially if

that

that be true which is acknowledged both by Dr Holden and Mr Creffy, viz. that though general councils cannot mistake in the points of faith which they decree, yet they may mistake in the confirmation of them from texts of fcripture; that is, they may be mistaken about the fense of thofe texts. And if Mr S. think his brethren have granted too much, he may fee this exemplified in the fecond council of Nice, to mention no other; which, to establish their doctrine of image-worship, does fo palpably abuse and wreft texts of fcripture, that I can hardly believe, that any Papist in the world hath the forehead to own that for the true fenfe of thofe texts which is there given by thofe fathers.

11. 2dly, How the traditionary church can be more certain of the true fenfe of their traditional doctrines, than the Protestants can be of the true sense of scripture ? And this is worthy of our inquiry; because, if the bufinefs be fearched to the bottom, it will appear, (befides all other inconveniencies which oral tradition is much more liable to than scripture), that the certain fenfe and meaning of traditional doctrine is as hard to come at as the fenfe of fcripture. And this I will make appear by neceffary confequence from their own conceffions. Mr White and Mr S. fay, that the great fecurity of tradi tion is this, that it is not tied to certain phrafes and fet forms of expreffion, but the fame fenfe is conveyed, and fettled in mens hearts by various expreffions. But, according to Mr Rufhworth, this renders tradition's fenfe uncertain; for he fays, (Dial. 2. § 6.), "It is impoffible

to put fully, and beyond all quarrel, the fame fenfe " in divers words." So that if men do not receive tradition in a fenfible, common, difcreet way, (as Mr Rushworth fpeaks concerning reading the fcriptures), but will come to a rigorous and exact balancing of every particular phrafe, word, and fyllable, the fenfe of tradition will be in the very fame danger of uncertainty, and be liable to vanifh we know not how. Dr Holden (Analyf. fidei, I. I. c. 9.) lays down these two principles. Firft, That no truth can be conveyed down from man to man, but by speech; and speech cannot "be but by words; and all words are either equivocal "in themselves, or liable to be differently understood

"by feveral perfons. Secondly, That fuch is the frame "of man's mind, that the same truths may be differently apprehended and understood by different perfons." And if this be true, then traditional doctrines, if they be delivered by fpeech and words, will be liable to uncertainties and ambiguities, as to their sense, as well as fcripture. Mr Crefly (Append. c.6.) tells us, "that rea"fon and experience fhew, that differences will arife even about the writings of the fathers, and any thing "but the teftimony of the prefent church." If this be true, tradition wholly falls into uncertainty: for if dif ference will arise about the writings of the fathers, how they are to be interpreted, I fuppofe the writings of councils will be liable to the fame inconvenience; and if the whole prefent church cannot declare her sense of any traditional doctrine, otherwife than by a council, unlefs with the Jefuits they will epitomize the church into the Pope; and the decrees of a council cannot be univerfally difperfed, or at leaft never ufe to be, but by writing; and if differences will arise about the interpretation of that writing, as well as any other, then this prefent infallible authority, which Mr Creffy magnifies fo much for ending of differences, leaves all controverfies arifing about the fenfe of tradition as indeterminable as ever and they must for ever remain fo, till general councils have got the knack of penning their decrees in words, which will fo infallibly exprefs their meaning, to the most captious caviller, that no difference can poffibly arise about the interpretation of them.; or else, which will be more fuitable to this wife hypothefis, till general councils, being convinced by Mr S.'s demonftrations, fhall come to understand themselves so well, as not to intruft their decrees any more to the uncertain way of writing, but for the future to communicate them to the world by the infallible way of oral tradition. And, to mention no more, Mr Knott, (Answer to Chillingworth, c. 2. §6.) who agrees with the other thus far, that the certain fense of scripture is only to be had from the church, speaks to this purpose, That before we can be certain that this is the true fenfe of fuch a text, we must either be certain that this text is capable of no other fenfe, as figurative, myftical, or moral; or if it be, we

muft

must have fome certain and infallible means to know in which of them it is taken; which can be known only by revelation. If this be true, then, by a fair parity of reafon, before I can be certain that this is the fenfe of a doctrinal tradition delivered down to me, I muft either be certain that the words in which this tradition was expreffed, when it was delivered to me, are capable of no other fenfe, as figurative, myftical, or moral, befides that in which I understand them; or if they be, as cer-. tainly they will be, capable of any of thefe other fenfes, then must I have fome certain and infallible means whereby to know in which of thefe they are taken. And this can no more be known without a revelation, than which is the true fenfe of fuch a text of fcripture. If it be faid, that the fenfe of a traditionary doctrine may, by different expreffions, be ftill farther and farther explained to me till I come certainly to understand the fenfe of it; this will not help the matter: for if these kinds of cavils be good, that a man cannot be certain of the meaning of any words, till he can by an infallible argument demonftrate, either that they cannot be taken, or that they are not taken in any other fense; I fay, if this cavil will hold, then every new expreffion, whereby any one shall endeavour to explain any traditional doctrine, is liable to the fame inconvenience which thofe words in which it was firft delivered to me were liable to. From all which it is evident, that the traditionary church can be no more certain of the fenfe of their traditional doctrines, than Proteftants may be of the fenfe of fcrip

ture.

12. These are his exceptions contained in his fecond difcourfe; and of what force they are, hath been examined. But because he forefaw that it might be replied, that these defects might in part be provided against by hiftory, by the providence of God, by teftimonies "of councils and fathers, and by the fufficient clear"nefs of fcripture as to fundamentals;" he endeavours to fhew, that thefe fignify little to this purpose.

Ift, "Not history; because few are skilled in hiftory; "and they that are not, cannot fafely rely upon those "that are skilled, unless they know certainly, that the "historians whom they rely on, had fecure grounds,

" and

"and not bare hearfay, for what they writ; and that they were not contradicted by others, either extant or perifhed," p. 17. 18. How much credit is to be given to uncontrolled history by the learned, and how much by the vulgar to men of skill, I have already fhewn. I fhall only add now, that if this reafoning be true, it is impoffible for any man to be certain, by hiftory, of any ancient matter of fact; as, namely, that there were such persons as Julius Cæfar and William the Conqueror, and that they invaded and conquered England; becaufe, according to him, we cannot know certainly, that the hiftorians who relate thefe things, and upon whofe authority we rely, "had fecure grounds, and not "bare hearsay, for what they writ." And "that they "were not contradicted by others, either extant or pe"rifhed," is, I am fure, impoffible for any man to know: for who can tell now what was contained in thofe books which are perifhed? So that if this be requifite to make every historical relation credible, to know certainly that it was not contradicted by any of those books which we do not know what they were, nor what was in them, we can have no certainty of any ancient fact or history. For who knows certainly, that fome books that are perifhed, did not contradict whatever is written in books that are extant? Nay, if this reasoning hold, we can have no certainty of any thing conveyed by oral tradition. For what though the priest tell me this was the doctrine of Chrift delivered to him? Unless I know that all others agree with him in this tradition, I cannot rely upon his teftimony. Nor then neither, in Mr Knett's opinion (Anfw. to Chillingworth, c. 1. §33.) "because the teftimony of preachers or paflors is human and fallible, unless (according to his jargon) a conclufion "deduced from premiffes, one of which is only pro"bable, may be fufficient to bring our understanding to <6 an infallible act of faith, viz. if fuch a conclufion be "taken fpecificative; whereas, if it be taken reduplica"tivè, as it is a conclufion, it can only beget a proba"ble affent: "" which is to fay, that confidered barely as a conclufion, and fo far as in reafon it can deferve affent, it is only probable; but confidered as it ferves an hypothefis, and is convenient to be believed with reafon VOL. III.

C c

or