the main body of Christian doctrine, could have been fecured without oral tradition; that is, if we could not have known, that thofe paffages which contain the main points of Chrift's doctrine, either had been written by men divinely inspired, or what the fenfe of them was, but from the confonancy and agreement of thofe paffages with the doctrine which was orally preached by the Apoftles: how can we be certain either of the letter or fenfe of other particular paffages, which must neceffarily want this confirmation from oral tradition; because "their first atteftation was not univerfal, nor their nature much practical?" Nay, his discourse plainly implies, that we can have no fecurity at all, either of the letter or fenfe of any other parts of fcripture, but only thofe which are coincident with the main body of Chriftian doctrine; as is evident from thefe words, p. 116. "Tradition established, the church is provided of a cer"tain and infallible rule to preferve a copy of the fcri"pture's letter truly fignificative of Christ's fenfe, as far 46 as it is coincident with the main body of Christian "doctrine preached at first; because sense writ in mens 46 hearts by tradition, can eafily guide them to correct "the alteration of the outward letter." This I perceive plainly is the thing they would be at: they would correct the outward letter of fcripture by fenfe written in their hearts; and then, instead of leaving out the second commandment, they would change it into a precept of giving due worship to images, according to the council of Trent; and a thousand other alterations they must make in the Bible, to make it truly fignificative of the fense of their church. But furely the outward letter of other paffages of fcripture, which were not intended to fignify points of faith, is equally liable to alterations : and yet the church is not by tradition provided of any way to correct these alterations when they happen; becaufe tradition doth, as this corollary implies, only furnifh the church with a certain and infallible rule of preferving a copy of the fcripture's letter, fo far as it is coincident with the main body of Christian doctrine. $10. Again, he tells us, p. 117. "Tradition esta"blifhed, the church is provided of a certain and infallible rule to interpret fcripture-letter by, fo as to as "rive certainly at Christ's sense, as far as the letter << concerns the body of Chriftian doctrine preached at "firft, or points requifite to falvation." So that whatever he may attribute to fcripture for fashion's fake, and to avoid calumny with the vulgar, as he fays very ingenuously in his explication of the 15th corollary; nevertheless it is plain, that, according to his own hypothefis, he cannot but look upon it as perfectly useless and pernicious. That it is altogether ufelefs according to his hypothefis, is plain: for the main body of Christian doctrine is fecurely conveyed to us without it; and it can give no kind of confirmation to it, because it receives all its confirmation from it; only the church is ever and anon put to a great deal of trouble to correct the alteration of the outward letter, by tradition, and fenfe written in their hearts. And as for all other parts of fcripture which are not coincident with the main body of Christian doctrine, we can have no certainty, either that the outward letter is true, nor, if we could, can we poffibly arrive at any certain fense of them. And that it is intolerably pernicious according to his hypothefis, is plain; because "every filly and upftart herefy fathers "itself upon it," p. 40. and when men leave tradition, as he fuppofeth all hereticks do, the fcripture is the most dangerous engine that could have been invented; being to fuch perfons only waxen-natured words, not fen"fed, nor having any certain interpreter; but fit to be "played upon diverfely by quirks of wit; that is, aptto, "blunder and confound, but to clear little or nothing,' p. 68. And indeed, if his hypothefis were true, the fcriptures might well deferve all the contemptuous language which he ufeth against them; and Mr White's comparifon of them with Lilly's almanack, (Apology for traditi on, p. 165.), would not only be pardonable, but proper and, unless he added it out of prudence, and for the people's fake, whom he may think too fuperftitiously conceited of those books, he might have fpared that cold excuse which he makes for ufing this fimilitude, that "it was a"greeable rather to the impertinency of the objection, "than the dignity of the fubject." Certain it is, if these men are true to their own principles, that notwithstanding the high reverence and efteem pretended to be borne 66 by them and their church to the fcriptures, they must heartily defpife them, and wish them out of the way; and even look upon it as a great overfight of the divine providence, to trouble his church with a book, which, if their difcourfe be of any confequence, can stand Catholicks in no ftead at all, and is fo dangerous and mischievous a weapon in the hands of hereticks. SECT. III. The Proteftant doctrine concerning the rule of faith. 1. HAving thus taken a view of his opinion, and confidered how much he attributes to oral tradition, and how little to the fcriptures; before I affail his hypothefis, I fhall lay down the Proteftant rule of faith; not that fo much is neceffary for the answering of his book, but that he may have no colour of objection, that I proceed altogether in the destructive way, and overthrow his principle, as he calls it, without fubftituting another in its room. The opinion then of the Protestants concerning the rule of faith, is this in general, That thofe books which we call the holy fcriptures, are the means whereby the Christian doctrine hath been brought down to us. And that he may now clearly understand this, together with the grounds of it, which in reafon he ought to have done before he had forfaken us, I fhall declare it more particularly in these following propofitions. §2. 1, That the doctrine of Christian religion was by Chrift delivered to the Apoftles, and by them first preached to the world, and afterwards by them committed to writing; which writings, or books, have been tranfmitted from one age to another down to us. So far I take to be granted by our prefent adverfaries. That the Chriftian doctrine was by Chrift delivered to the Apostles, and by them published to the world, is part of their own hypothefis. That this doctrine was afterwards by the Apoftles committed to writing, he alfo grants, corol. 29. P. IF7. "It is certain the Apostles taught the fame do"trine they writ;" and if fo, it must be as certain, that they writ the fame doctrine which they taught. I know it is the general tenet of the Papifts, that the fcriptures do not contain the entire body of Christian do&trine e; ctrine; but that befides the doctrines contained in feripture, there are also others brought down to us by oral or unwritten tradition. But Mr. S. who fuppofeth the whole doctrine of Christian religion to be certainly conveyed down to us folely by oral tradition, doth not any where, that I remember, deny that all the fame doctrine is contained in the fcriptures; only he denies the fcriptures to be a means fufficient to convey this doctrine to us with certainty, fo that we can by them be infallibly affured what is Chrift's doctrine, and what not. Nay, he feems in that paffage I last cited to grant this, in faying, that the Apostles did both teach and write the fame doctrine. I am fure, Mr. White, whom he follows very closely throughout his whole book, does not deny this in his Apology for tradition; where he faith, p. 171. that it is not the Catholick pofition, That all its do ctrines are not contained in the fcriptures." And that those writings or books which we call the holy fcriptures, have been tranfmitted down to us, is unqueftionable matter of fact, and granted univerfally by the Papists, as to all those books which are owned by Protestants for canonical. §3. 2dly, That the way of writing is a fufficient means to convey a doctrine to the knowledge of those who live in times very remote from the age of its first delivery. According to his hypothefis, there is no pofTible way of conveying a doctrine with certainty and fecurity befides that of oral tradition : the falfhood of which will fufficiently appear, when I fhall have fhewn, that the true properties of a rule of faith do agree to the fcriptures, and not to oral tradition. In the mean time, I fhall only offer this to his confideration, that whatever can be orally delivered in plain and intelligible words, may be written in the fame words; and that a writing or book which is publick, and in every one's hand, may be conveyed down with at least as much certainty and security, and with as little danger of alteration, as an oral tradition and if so, I understand not what can render it impoffible for a book to convey down a doctrine to the knowledge of after ages. Besides, if he had looked well about him, he could not but have apprehended fome little inconvenience in making that an effential effential part of his hypothefis, which is contradicted by plain and conftant experience: for that any kind of doctrine may be fufficiently conveyed by books to the knowledge of after ages, provided thofe books be but written intelligibly, and preferved from change and corruption in the conveyance, (both which I fhall be fo bold as to fuppofe poffible), is as little doubted by the generality of mankind, as that there are books. And, furely we Chriftians cannot think it impoffible to convey a doctrine to pofterity by books, when we confider that God himself pitched upon this way for conveyance of the doctrine of the Jewish religion to after ages; because it is not likely, that fo wife an agent fhould pitch upon a means whereby it was impoffible he should attain his end. $4.3dly, That the books of fcripture are fufficiently plain, as to all things neceffary to be believed and practifed. He that denies this, ought in reason to instance in fome neceffary point of faith, or matter of practice, which is not in fome place of feripture or other plainly delivered. For it is not a fufficient objection to say, P. 38. 39. That the greatest wits among the Protestants differ about the sense of those texts, wherein the generality of them fuppofe the divinity of Chrift to be plainly and clearly expreffed: becaufe, if nothing were to be accounted fufficiently plain, but what it is impoffible a great wit should be able to wrest to any other fense, not only the fcriptures, but all other books, and, which is worst of all to him that makes this objection, all oral tradition would fall into uncertainty. Doth the traditionary church pretend, that the doctrine of Chrift's divinity is conveyed down to her by oral tradition more plainly than it is expreffed in fcripture? I would fain know what plainer words fhe ever used to exprefs this point of faith by, than what the fcripture ufeth; which exprefsly calls him God, the true God, God over all bleffed for evermore. If it be faid, That those who deny the divinity of Chrift have been able to evade thefe and all other texts of fcripture, but they could never elude the definitions of the church in that matter; it is easily anfwered, That the fame arts would equally have eluded both but there was no reason why they should trouble themselves |