"leaft the rudeft vulgar, can have no affurance that "thofe books are rightly tranflated; because they can66 not be affured either of the ability or integrity of tranf"lators."

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 transcribing and printing the feveral copies and "tranflations of fcripture aright; because they only can "have evidence of the right letter of fcripture, who "stood at their elbows attentively watching they should 66 not err in making it perfectly like a former copy; and 66 even then, why might they not mistrust their own 66 eyes, and aptnefs to overfee?" I put these two exceptions together, because the fame anfwer will ferve them both. The grounds of thefe exceptions, if they have any, are these : That no man is to be trusted either for his skill or honesty; and, That it is dangerous for men to trust their own eyes. Unless both these be true, thefe exceptions are of no force: for if we can be affured that other men have fufficient skill in any thing which we ourselves do not fufficiently underftand, we may be affured that those who tranflated the Bible had skill in the original languages; becaufe very credible perfons tell us fo, and we have no reason to doubt their teftimo→ ny 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 fkill of tranflators, tranfcribers, 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, 66 why may he not miftruft his own eyes? p. 16. And, which is the faddeft inconvenience of all," if no body be to be trusted, 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

what means foever a man can be affured of thefe, by the fame he may much more eafily be affured of the ability and integrity of tranflators, tranfcribers, and printers. But, above all, it fuppofeth that mens ears and eyes cannot deceive them in those things which they are taught, and fee practifed.

Is it not very pretty to fee what pitiful shifts men that ferve an hypothefis are put to; when, to maintain infallibility, they are forced to run to the extremities of fcepticifm; and, to defend the certainty of oral tradition, (which depends upon the certainty of mens fenfes, and an affurance of the ability and integrity of those who were dead fifteen hundred years before we were born), are glad to take refuge in principles quite contrary; fuch as thefe, That we can have no affurance, but that whole profeffions of men "might hap to be knaves," p. 16.; that we can have no fufficient evidence that any man made his "copy perfectly like the former, unless we "ftood at his elbow attentively watching him, ibid. : nay, and if we did fo, we have ftill reafon to diftruft our fenfes? In fhort, all human faith fuppofeth honefty among men; and that, for matters of fact and plain objects of fenfe, the general and uncontrolled teftimony of mankind is to be credited; and for matters of peculiar skill and knowledge, that the generality of thofe who are accounted fkilful in that kind are to be relied upon for, as Ariftotle well obferves, there is no greater fign of an undifciplined wit, (or, to ufe one of Mr. S.'s fine phrafes, (in his preface), of "a man not acquainted "with the paths of fcience)," than to expect greater evidence for things than they are capable of. Every man hath reafon to be affured of a thing which is capable of fufficient evidence, when he hath as much evidence for it as the nature of that thing will bear, and as the capacity he is in will permit to him have; and, as Mr. White fays well, (Anfwer to the Lord Falkland, p. 33.), “fatif"faction is to be given to every one, according to his 66 capacity. It is fufficient for a child to believe his pa"rents; for a clown, to believe his preacher." And this is univerfally true in all cafes where we have not better or equal evidence to the contrary. But fuch is the unhappiness of the Popish doctrines, that if people

were

were permitted the free ufe of the fcripture, they would easily discern them to have no probable foundation in it, and to be plainly contrary to it; fo that it cannot be fafe for their preachers to tell the people that the fcripture is the only rule of faith, left they should find caufe not to believe them when they teach doctrines so plainly contrary to that rule.

$8. Laftly, He fays, p. 17. "The Proteftants cannot be "certain of the true fenfe of fcripture." Does he mean of plain texts, or obfcure ones? Of the true fense of plain texts, I hope every one may be certain; and for obfcure ones, it is not neceffary every one fhould. But it may be there are no plain texts in the fcriptures; then the reafon of it must be, (till Mr. S. can fhew a better), either because it is impoffible for any one to write plainly; or because God cannot write fo plainly as men; or because we have good reason to think that he would not write things neceflary for every one to believe, so as men might clearly understand him.

But he tells us, p. 17. "The numerous comments upon fcripture are an evidence that no man can be "certain of the true fenfe of it." I hope not: for if thofe numerous commentators do generally agree in the fenfe of plain texts, (as it is certain they do), then this argument fignifies nothing as to fuch texts: and as for those which are obfcure, let commentators differ about them as much as they pleafe, fo long as all neceffary. points of faith and matters of practice are delivered in plain texts. He adds, p. 17. "There are infinite difputes about the fenfe of fcripture, even in the most concerning points, as in that of Chrift's divinity." But are not commentators, both Proteftant and Popih, generally agreed about the fenfe of fcripture in that point? And what if fome out of prejudice do mistake, or out of perverfenefs do wreft, the plaineft texts of fcripture for the divinity of Chrift, to another fenfe? is this any argument that thofe texts are not fufficiently plain? Can any thing be spoken or written in words fo clear from ambiguity, which a perverfe or prejudiced mind fhall not be able to vex and force to another meaning? God did not write the fcriptures for the froward and the captious, but for those who will read them with a free

Bb3

and

and unprejudiced mind, and are willing to come to the knowledge of the truth. If Mr. S. had been converfant in the writings of the fathers, he could not but have taken notice with what confidence they attempted to prove the divinity of Christ out of scripture, as if that did afford convincing arguments for this purpose. St. Chryfoftom (hom. 32. de confubftant.) profeffes to demonftrate out of fcripture, that "the Son is of the fame fubftance "with the Father;" and relies upon fcripture alone for this, without mentioning any other kind of argument: fo that it feems St. Chryfoftom was not acquainted with the infufficiency of fcripture for the conviction of hereticks in this point; and that he was either ignorant of the (infallible) way of demonftrating this point from oral tradition, or had no great opinion of it. The fame father elsewhere, arguing against hereticks about the divinity of Chrift, fays, (hom. 7. de Sancto Phoca), that "they pervert the fcriptures, to ftrengthen their herefy " from thence." But then he does not (with Mr. S.) blame the fcripture, and fay, that this doctrine is not there delivered with fufficient clearness; but contraryways he fays, that "the fcripture is clear enough, but "the corrupt minds of hereticks will not fee what is "there contained." Had St. Chryfoftom been a true fon of the traditionary church, he would have laid hold of this occafion to vilify the fcriptures, and to fhew the neceffity of regulating our faith, not by fuch uncertain records, but by the infallible reports of oral tradition.

$9. But becaufe Mr. S. lays great weight (in feveral parts of his book) upon this exception againft fcripture, viz. "That Proteftants cannot be certain of the tru ❝ fenfe of it; therefore I fhall not content myself only to have fhewn, that we may be fufficiently certain of the fenfe of fcripture, fo far as to understand all neceffary matters of faith and practice, and that more than this is not neceffary; but fhall likewife return this exception upon him, by inquiring into thefe two things:

1. How the traditionary church can be more certain of the true fenfe of scripture than the Proteftants?

2. How they can be more certain of the true fenfe of tradition, than Proteftants of the true fenfe of fcripture?

ift, How the traditionary church can be more certain of the true fenfe of fcripture than Proteftants? They pretend to have an oral tradition of the true sense of it, delivered down from father to fon. But this only reacheth to those texts which are coincident with the main body of Chriftian doctrine. As for all other parts of fcripture, they are as ufelefs to Papifts, as they fuppofe they are to us; becaufe, wanting the help of oral tradition, they cannot be certain of one tittle of them. And as for those texts, the fenfe whereof is conveyed down by oral tradition; this fenfe is, I hope, delivered in fome words or other. And have all preachers, and fathers, and mothers, and nurfes, the faculty of delivering this fenfe in words fo plain as cannot poffibly be mistaken, or wrested to another fenfe? I am forry, that, when every one hath this faculty of fpeaking their thoughts plainly, the Holy Ghoft fhould be reprefented as not able to convey his mind to men in intelligible words. And does not his own objection rebound upon himself? If the church have a certain fenfe of fcripture orally delivered, whence are the numerous comments of the fathers upon it, and of later writers of their church, and the infinite difputes about the fense of it, in the most concerning points, viz. the efficacy of God's grace, the fupremacy of St. Peter, the infallibility of a Pope and council by immediate affiftance of the Holy Ghost? What a ftir is made about the fenfe of Dabo tibi claves; Tu es Petrus, & fuper hanc petram, &c.; Pafce oves? Do not they differ about the meaning of these texts among themselves, as much as they do from the fathers, and from the Proteftants? fome understanding them of St. Peter's fupremacy only, others of his infallibility, others of his infallibility only in and with a general council; which yet others do not allow to Pope or council from any immediate affiftance, but only from the rational force of tradition, fuppofing that the Pope and council hold to it. If oral tradition have brought down a cetain sense of these texts, why do they not produce it, and agree in it? If it have not, to ufe a hot phrase of his own, p. 17. "it is perfect phrenzy to fay they can "be certain of the true sense of scripture."

If he fay, they are by tradition made certain of the

true