common, by which to determine the merits of the

cause.

Let it not be pleaded in answer to this, that without such a course of study and exercises as hath been proposed, the generality of students, at least in protestant countries, have sufficient knowledge of the contents of scripture, to qualify them to judge of such controversy; for have they not had occasion, nay have they not been inured to read the sacred books themselves, and to hear them read by others, even from their infancy? But to this I reply, that as teaching in this manner has always been accompanied more or less with human explications and glosses, the learner in so early a period is extremely ill qualified to distinguish the text from the comment. Accordingly, do we not see, that with the same practice of reading scripture and hearing it read, the notions of its doctrine, imbibed by the youth, are different in different countries and in different sects? It is of importance, before the student enter on the main question, the truth of his religion, that he should be enabled to distinguish between the commandments of God, and the traditions of the elders; between the simple truth, as it is in Jesus, and the subtleties and refinements of the theorist. These are miserably blended and confounded in all the attacks that have been made on the christian religion. And what is worse, most of the answerers, having been themselves zealous partisans of some sect, have contributed to confirm and increase the confusion. The method I have proposed doth, in my opinion, bid fairest for accomplishing the end, and enabling the student, in most cases, to make the distinction. Besides, even the attacks that have been made on the external evidences, especially in re

gard to the fulfilment of prophecies, when the argument turns on the meaning of the prediction, we are by thus familiarizing ourselves to the study of the scripture idiom, language and sentiments, prepared for understanding, and consequently for deciding upon its strength or weakness. And indeed (if we except

only the abstract and metaphysical argument, that has been urged against the possibility of miraculous events as being preternatural, which is totally independent on any question of fact, and may therefore be studied at any time) the best preparation we can make, for entering into the whole controversy concerning the truth of christianity, is a critical knowledge of holy writ, together with some proficiency both in biblical and ecclesiastic history. But further, this will be found the best method, not only for enabling us to understand the controversy, but for abridging it also. We shall be in a capacity for detecting many fallacies in reasoning, and many misrepresentations of fact, which might otherwise stagger and confound us. When thus prepared, our own penetration will, in many cases, supersede the necessity of perusing refutations.

But this method will be found not only the best. preparation for understanding the general controversy concerning the truth of our religion, but also for entering properly into the particular controversies, that have arisen among christians concerning articles of faith, matters of government, worship, discipline, or morals. When the adverse parties are both protestants, the point just now affirmed may with propriety be called self-evident; because the only infallible rule of decision admitted by both parties, is the scripture. And even in the disputes which subsist between protes

tants and papists, or Roman catholics as they affect to call themselves, this knowledge of the sacred volume and history must be of the utmost consequence; since, though we do not receive for scripture all that they account canonical, yet they admit as such all the books that are received by us; and though they will not acknowledge scripture to be the only rule of faith and manners, yet as they own its inspiration, they avow it to be a rule and an unerring rule too. The exact knowledge of its contents must therefore be of the greatest moment to one who would enter the lists with a Romanist, since those of that faction cannot, consistently with their own profession, admit any thing in religion, which is contradictory to the doctrine or precepts contained in that book: so that even upon their own principles, their tenets are liable to be confuted from scripture, if we can evince the contrariety. And with regard to all the particular popish controversies, next to the knowledge of scripture, a thorough acquaintance with ecclesiastic history is of the greatest importance. Uninterrupted tradition is a much boasted and very powerful plea with them. It is impossible without such an acquaintance with church history, for any one to conceive how miserably ill this plea is adapted to support their cause. The gradual introduction of their many gross corruptions, both in doctrine and practice, is so extremely apparent to the historic student, that even a person of moderate penetration will need no other proof, either of their novelty, or of the baseness of their extraction. He will thus in the most effectual manner be convinced of the falseness of all other foundations, tradition, popes and councils, and that the Bible is that alone on which the religion of

christians can rest immoveably. He will be apt to conclude in the words of the excellent Chillingworth (whose performance deserves a most serious perusal, not more because it is a clear detection of papistical sophistry, than because it is an admirable specimen of just and acute reasoning, he will be ready, I say, to conclude in the words of that author,) "Whatsoever else they believe besides the Bible, and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable, consequences of it, well may they hold it as a matter of opinion, but as a matter of faith and religion neither can they, with coherence to their own grounds, believe it themselves, nor require the belief of it of others, without most high and most schismatical presumption. I, for my part, after a long and (as I verily believe and hope) impartial search of the true way to eternal happiness, do profess plainly, that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my foot, but on this rock only. I see plainly and with my own eyes, that there are popes against popes; councils against councils; some fathers against others; the same fathers against themselves; a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age; the church of one age against the church of another age. Traditive interpretations of scripture are pretended, but there are none to be found. No tradition, but only of scripture, can derive itself from the fountain, but may be plainly proved, either to have been brought in, in such an age after Christ, or that in such an age it was not in. In a word, there is no sufficient certainty, but of scripture only, for any considerate man to build upon." Thus far that able advocate of protestantism. So just will the remark be found upon the trial, that those branches of knowledge, which we have

advised the student to begin with, holy writ and saered history, will beyond his conception, tend to shorten the study of all religious controversies both general and particular. The reason is obvious. It will supply him with a fund in himself, whereby he can discover the solidity or futility of almost every argument that can be advanced.

On the contrary, when one who is quite unprovided in this respect, enters on controversy either general or particular, what is the consequence? It is, I may say, invariably, one or other of these two. He is either fixed entirely in his sentiments by the first author he reads, so that the clearest proofs from reason or scripture can never shake him afterwards; or he is always the dupe of the last writer he has happened to peruse. The first is commonly the case, when there is ever so little of a previous bias from education to the principles, and a favourable opinion of the character of the author. The second holds more commonly when the bias from education, if any, is inconsiderable, and the authors on both sides ingenious and artful. Nor does this wavering in the student betray, as is commonly imagined, a want of understanding. The want it betrays is of a very different nature. It is the want of such a stock of knowledge, as is necessary to qualify the mind for judging. Or to adopt an illustration from the body; it is not the badness of his eyes, but the want of light which is the cause of his mistaking. And the best eyes in the world will not distinguish colours in the dark. It must be owned further, that even this changeableness, when it arises from such a cause as we have mentioned, shows commonly a laudable candour of temper and openness to conviction. In both cases,