being the rule of faith, fcripture, and oral tradition: thefe properties do not belong to fcripture, and they do to oral tradition; therefore folely to it. A very good argument, if he can prove these two things: "That "these two propertics do not belong to scripture, and "that they do to oral tradition."

§ 2. In order to the proving of the first, that these properties do not belong to fcripture, he premifeth this note, p. 13. "That we cannot by the fcriptures mean "the fenfe of them; but the book, that is, fuch or fuch "characters not yet fenfed or interpreted." But why can we not by the fcriptures mean the fenfe of them? He gives this clear and admirable reason, Because the sense of the fcripture is" the things to be known; and these we "confefs are the very points of faith of which the rule "of faith is to afcertain us." Which is just as if a man fhould reafon thus: Those who say the ftatute-book can convey to them the knowledge of the ftatute-law, cannot by the ftatute-book mean the fenfe of it, but the book; that is, fuch or fuch characters not yet fenfed or interpreted; because the fenfe of the statute-book is the thing to be known, and these are the very laws, the knowledge whereof is to be conveyed to them by this book. Which is to fay, that a book cannot convey to a man the knowledge of any matter; because, if it did, it would convey to him the thing to be known. But that he may farther fee what excellent reasoning this is, I fhall apply this paragraph to oral tradition; for the argument holds every whit as well concerning that: Το

66

fpeak to them in their own language, who fay that "oral tradition is the rule, we must premise this note, "that they cannot mean by oral tradition the fenfe of "it, that is, the things to be known; for those they "confefs are the very points of faith of which the rule of "faith is to afcertain us. When they say then, that o❝ral tradition is the rule of faith, they can only mean "by oral tradition the words wherein it is delivered, "" not yet fenfed or interpreted, but as yet to be fenfed; "that is, fuch or fuch founds, with their aptness to figni"fy to them affuredly God's mind, or afcertain them of "their faith: for, abstracting from the fenfe and actual "fignification of thofe words, there is nothing imagi

A a 3

nable.

"nable left, but those founds, with their aptness to fi66 gnify it." When he hath anfwered this argument, he will have anfwered his own. In the mean while, this difcourfe, that he who holds the fcriptures to be the rule of faith, muft needs by the fcriptures mean a book void of fenfe, &c.; becaufe otherwife, if by fcripture he fhould 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 scripture a book that conveys Christ's doctrine. This being his own reason, put into plain English, I leave the reader to judge whether it be not fomething fhort of perfect science and demonftration. Nay, if it were thoroughly examined, I doubt whether it would not fall fhort of that low pitch of science which he fpeaks of in his preface; where he tells us, that " the way of fcience is to proceed from one piece ❝of fenfe to another."

3. Having premised this, that by the fcriptures we muft only mean dead characters that have no fenfe 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 purpose when he hath fhewn it; yet it is very pleasant to obferve by what crofs 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; becaufe, till the feeming contradictions in "those books are folved, which to do, is one of the moft "difficult tasks' in the world, they cannot be concluded 66 to be of God's inditing," p. 14. Now, how is this an argument against thofe who by the fcriptures muft 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 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 cer"tain of the true fenfe of it:" which is to fay, that unfenfed letters and characters cannot be the rule of faith, because the rule of faith must have a certain sense; that is, muft 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 properties of the rule of faith, and let the reader fee how incomparably he demonftrates the falfhood of this Protestant tenet, as he calls it, that a senseless book may be a rule of faith, But I am weary of purfuing him in thefe airy and phantaftical combats; and fhall leave him to fight with his own fancies, and to batter down the castles which himself hath built. Only I think fit to acquaint him, once for all, with a great fecret of the Proteftant doctrine, which it feems he hath hitherto been ignorant of, (for I am still more confirmed in my opinion, that he forfook our religion before he understood it), that when they say the scriptures are the rule of faith, or the means whereby Chrift's doctrine is conveyed down to them, they mean by the fcriptures, books written in fuch words as do fufficiently express the sense 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 fpoken in plain and intelligible words, and fuch 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 please, can indite a book in as plain words as any of his creatures.

4. That we have no reafon to think that God affects obfcurity, and envies that men should understand him, in thofe things which are neceffary for them to know; and which must have been written to no no purpose, if

we

we cannot understand them. St. Luke tells Theophilus, chap. i. 3. 4. that he wrote the hiftory of Christ to him, on purpose to give him a certain knowledge of those things which he writ. But how a book which hath no certain fenfe, fhould give a man certain knowledge of things, is beyond my capacity. St. John faith, chap. xx. 31. that he purposely committed feveral of Chrift'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 reason for it, Because, when he had written his book, no body would be able to find the certain fense of it without oral tradition; and that alone would fecurely 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.

$1.A

ND now, although this might have been a fufficient anfwer to his exceptions against the fcriptures, as being incapable of the properties of a rule of faith; because all of them fuppofe that which is apparently 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 most of thofe 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

I

"vinely inspired;" I will fhew him, that it may, and then anfwer the reasons 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 greatest adverfaries of our religion, that these books were originally written by the Apostles and Evangelifts. And this is not only a Proteftant principle, but the principle of all mankind, “That an undoubted tradition is fufficient "evidence of the antiquity and author of a book," and all the extrinfical argument that can ordinarily be had of a book written long ago.

Next, it is evident, that the Apostles were men divinely inspired, 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 unreasonable to imagine, that the divine power should fo 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 commissioned 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 authentick relation of thefe matters in books, it is moft probable, that oral tradition of itself, and without books, would scarce have preserved the memory of any of thofe particular miracles of our Saviour and his Apostles 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 virtue of oral tradition, by giving an account of any of thofe perfons, or their actions, who lived 1500 or 2000 years ago, befides thofe which are mentioned in books; or to