Page images
PDF
EPUB

or without, fo it is infallible. But to carry the fuppo-. fition farther. Put the cafe, that the whole prefent age affembled in a general council, fhould declare that fuch a point was delivered to them; yet, according to Mr S. we cannot fafely rely upon this, unless we knew certainly, that thofe whom they relied on "had fecure grounds, and not bare hearsay, for what they deli"vered; and that they were not contradicted within "the space of 1500 years by any of thofe that are dead;" which it is impoffible for any one now to know.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

But to fhew how inconfiftent he is with himself in these matters, I will prefent the reader with a paffage or two in another part of his book, where he endeavours to prove, that men may fafely rely on a general and uncontrolled tradition. He tells us, p. 49. that "the common course of human converfation makes it madnefs, not to believe great multitudes of knowers, if no poffible confiderations can awaken in our reafon а doubt that they confpire to deceive us." And a little after, ibid. "Nor can any, unless their brains rove wildly, or be unfettled even to the degree of madness, fufpect deceit, where fuch multitudes agree unanimoufly in a matter of fact." Now, if men be but fuppofed to write, as well as to fpeak, what they know, and to agree in their writings about matter of fact; then it will be the fame "madness, not to believe mul

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ઃઃ

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

titudes of hiftorians, where no poffible confideration can awaken in our reafon a doubt that they have confpired to deceive us; and mens brains must rove wildly, and be unsettled even to the degree of frenzy, who fufpect deceit where fuch multitudes unanimously agree in a matter of fact." And this feems to be the great unhappinefs of Mr S.'s demonftrations, that they proceed upon contradictory principles; fo that, in order to the demonftrating of the uncertainty of books and writings, he must fuppofe all thofe principles to be uncertain, which he takes to be felf-evident and unqueftionable, when he is to demonftrate the infallibility of oral tradition.

13. 2dly, He tells us, p. 18. "The providence of "God is no fecurity against thofe contingencies the

"fcriptures

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

fcriptures are fubject to; because we cannot be cer"tain of divine providence, or affiftance to his church, " but by letter of fcripture; therefore that must first be proved certain, before we mention the church, or "God's affiftance to her :" As if we pretended there were any promife in fcripture, that God would preferve the letter of it entire and uncorrupted, or as if we could not otherwise be affured of it; as if the light of naturalreafon could not affure us of God's providence in general, and of his more efpecial care of thofe things which are of greatest concernment to us; fuch as this is, that a book containing the method and the terms of falvation fhould be preferved from any material corruption. He might as well have faid, that without the letter of scripture we cannot know that there is a God.

§14. 3dly, "Nor (fays he, p. 18. 19.) can teftimo"nies of councils and fathers be fufficient interpreters "of fcripture." We do not fay they are. Our principle is, That the fcripture doth fufficiently interpret itfelf, that is, is plain to all capacities, in things neceffary to be believed and practifed. And the general confent of fathers in this doctrine of the fufficient plainness of fcripture (which I fhall afterwards fhew) is a good evidence against them. As for obfcure and more doubtful texts, we acknowledge the comments of the fathers to be a good help, but no certain rule of interpretation: And that the Papifts think fo as well as we, is plain; inafmuch as they acknowledge the fathers to differ a mong themselves in the interpretation of feveral texts : and nothing is more familiar in all Popifh commentators, than to differ from the ancient fathers about the fenfe of fcripture. And as for councils, Dr Holden and Mr Creffy (as I faid before) do not think it neceffary to believe that always to be the true fenfe of texts which councils give of them, when they bring them to confirm points of faith. Nay, if any controverfy arise about the fenfe of any text of fcripture, it is impoffible, according to Mr Rufhworth's principles, for a council to decide either that, or any other controverfy: for (Dial. 2. §8.) he makes it his bufinefs to prove, that controverfies cannot be decided by words: and if this be fo, then they cannot be decided at all, unless he can prove,.

C c 2

that

that they may be decided without words, and confequently that councils may do their work best in the Quakers way, by filent meetings..

$15. 4thly, "Nor can (fays he, p. 20. 21.) the clear"nefs of fcripture as to fundamentals, be any help against these defects." Why not?

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

I.. Because a certain catalogue of fundamentals was never given and agreed to by fufficient authority "and yet without this all goes to wreck." I hope not, fo long as we are fure, that God would make nothin g neceffary to be believed but what he hath made plain; and fo long as men do believe all things that are plainly revealed, (which is every one's fault if he do not), men may do well enough without a precife catalogue. But fuppofe we fay, that the articles of the Apostles creed contain all neceffary matters of fimple belief, what hath Mr S. to fay against this? I am fure the Roman catechifm, fet forth by the decree of the council of Trent, fays (præfat.) as much as this comes to; viz. "That "the Apoftles having received a command to preach "the gospel to every creature, thought fit to compofe cr a form of Chriftian faith, namely to this end, that they might all think and fpeak the fame things, and that there might be no fchifms among thofe whom "they had called to the unity of faith; but that "they might all be perfect in the fame fenfe and the "fame opinion: and this profeffion of the Christian "faith and hope, fo framed by them, the Apostles "called the fymbol or creed." Now, how this end of bringing men to unity of faith, and making them perfectly of the fame fenfe and opinion, could probably be attained by means of the creed, if it did not contain all neceflary points of fimple belief, I can by no means understand. Befides, a certain catalogue of fundamentals is as neceffary for them as for us; and when Mr S. gives in his, ours is ready. Mr Chillingworth had a great defire to have feen Mr Knott's catalogue of fundamentals, and challenged him to produce it; and offered him very fairly, that whenever he might with one hand receive his, he would with the other deliver his own; but Mr Knott, though he ftill perfifted in the fame demand, could never be prevailed with to bring

forth

forth his own, but kept it for a fecret to his dying day. But, to put a final ftop to this canting demand of a catalogue of fundamentals, which yet I perceive I fhall never be able to do, because it is one of thofe expletive to pics which Popifh writers, efpecially thofe of the lowest form, do generally make ufe of to help out a book; however, to do what I can towards the ftopping of it, I defire Mr S. to anfwer the reasons whereby his friend Dr Holden (Analyf. fid. I. 1. c. 4.) fhews the unreafonableness of this demand; and likewife endeavours to prove, that fuch a catalogue would not only be useless and pernicious, if it could be given, but that it is manifeftly impoffible to give such a precise catalogue.

2. He afks, p. 21. "Is it a fundamental, that Chrift "is God? If fo, whether this be clearer in fcripture, "than that God hath hands, feet," &c.? To which I answer by another queftion, Is it clear, that there are figures in fcripture, and that many things are spoken af ter the manner of men, and by way of condefcenfion and accommodation to our capacities; and that custom and common fenfe teacheth men to diftinguish between things figuratively and properly spoken? If fo, why cannot e very one eafily understand, that when the féripture faith,, God hath hands and feet, and that Chrift is the vine, and the door, these are not to be taken properly, as we take this propofition, that "Chrift is God;" in which no man hath any reason to fufpect a figure ? When Mr S. tells us, that "he percheth upon the fpecifical nature of things," would it not offend him, if any one fhould be fo filly as to conclude from hence, that Mr S. believed himfelf to be a bird, and nature a perch? And yet not only the fcriptures, but all fober writers, are free from fuch forced and phantaftical metaphors. I remember, that Origen (/. 4.) taxeth Celfus's wilful ignorance, . in finding fault with the fcriptures, for "attributing to "God human affections, as anger, &c. ;" and tells him,. "that any one who had a mind to understand the fcrip

[ocr errors]

tures, might eafily fee, that fuch expreffions were ac"commodated to us, and accordingly to be underftood; "and that no man that will but compare thefe expref"fions with other paffages of fcripture, need to fail of "the true fenfe of them." But, according to Mr S..

C.c.3

Origin

Origen was to blame to find fault with Celfus, for think ing that the fcripture did really attribute human affections to God; for how could he think otherwife, when: "the most fundamental point is not clearer in fcripture,"than that God hath hands, feet, &c.?" How could Origen in reafon expect from Celfus, (though never fo great a philofopher), that he should be able, without. the help of oral tradition, to distinguish between what is. spoken literally, and what by a certain fcheme of speech? Theodoret (Hæret. fabul. 1. 4.) tells us of one Audæus,. who held that God had a human shape and bodily members; but he does not fay, that the reafon of this error was because he made fcripture the rule of his faith, but. exprefsly becaufe "he was a fool, and did foolifhly un"derstand thofe things which the divine fcriptures fpeak

by way of condefcenfion." So that although Mr S. is pleased to make this wife objection, yet it feems, according to Theodoret, that men do not mistake fuch. texts, either for want of oral tradition, or of fufficient: clearness in the fcriptures, but for want of common rea fon and fenfe. And if Mr S. know of any rule of faith. that is fecure from all poffibility of being mistaken by foolish and perverfe men, I would be glad to be acquaint ed with it, and with him for its fake.

SECT. IV. That fcripture is a fufficient rule to the und learned, and to the most rational doubters.

IN

SL. 'N his next difcourfe, he endeavours to fhew, that unlearned perfons cannot be juftified as acting rationally in receiving the fcripture for the word of God,. and relying upon it as a certain rule; because they are. not capable of fatisfaction concerning thefe matters. But I have already fhewn, that they are, and fhall not repeat. the fame over again. And whereas he fays, p. 24. That.

feveral profeffions all pretend to fcripture, and yet. "differ, and damn, and perfecute one another, about "these differences;" the answer is easy. That they all pretend to fcripture, is an argument that they all ac knowledge it to be the word of God, and the rule of faith; and that they are generally agreed about the fenfe of thofe plain texts which contain the fundamental points. of faith, is evident, in that thofe feveral profeffions ac

knowledge

« PreviousContinue »