reading the scripture that leads them into heresy, but their not reading it enough. To say therefore that the people's reading the scripture is an inlet of heresy, and to say, no, it is not their reading it, but their not reading it enough, is the inlet of heresy, is an express contradiction; the former, our objectors say; the latter, our Saviour, his apostles, and the primitive church say; and I think it is no hard matter to determine which of these two contradictions we ought to believe.

5. And lastly, According to this objection, the best way to keep men from being heretics is to deprive them of all means of arriving at the knowledge of the truth and this, I confess, is a very certain way, though not a very honest one. Let men know nothing of religion, and to be sure they cannot be heretics, it being impossible for men to err in their conceptions of those things whereof they have no notion. Put out a man's eyes, and you certainly prevent his being imposed upon by false mediums of sight to mistake one colour or figure for another; and yet I fancy most men would think this a cruel kind of courtesy. But if men must not be allowed scripture to instruct them in the truth, for this reason, because it may occasionally mislead them into errors and heresies; then they must be allowed no means of instruction that may occasion them to err, and consequently no means at all, there being no imaginable means of instruction which may not be an occasion of errors and heresies. Is the scripture itself in its own nature an occasion of misleading men into heresy, or not? If you say it is, consider, before you say it, how it could consist with the truth and veracity of God to publish such a book to the world,

as tends in its own nature to seduce and mislead the understandings of those that read it. If you say it is not so in itself, but only that it may be so accidentally, I would fain know what means of instruction is there which may not accidentally become an occasion of misleading men into heresy; and therefore if this be a sufficient reason to deprive men of scripture, it is sufficient to deprive them of all other means of instruction. And seeing the knowledge of religion is the food of men's souls, to keep them in ignorance for fear they should err, is to deny them food for fear they should surfeit. There is no doubt but men whose minds are tinctured with heretical pravity will be apt enough to extract the poison of error out of the clearest conveyances and discoveries of truth; but what then? Do not bad men ordinarily apply the best things to the worst purposes? If men fall into heresy by reading the scripture, where lies the fault? Not in the scripture, sure; no Christian will pretend that; and if it be in themselves, in their pride, or vainglory, or covetousness, or sensuality, (as it is demonstrable it is,) is it just that all should be deprived of it, because some ill men have made an ill use of it? Some men have surfeited by eating and drinking, is it just that all mankind therefore should be deprived of meat and drink? Suppose a prince, pretending to be an infallible geographer, should issue out a proclamation commanding all his subjects to travel at midnight, and should assign this as the reason of it, that he had been certainly informed that several of them had lost their way at noon, and wandered into bogs and precipices by the light of the sun; would any one imagine this to be the true reason, or rather would not every one be

lieve that his true design was to keep his people in ignorance of the roads and situation of his country, that so they might never be able to discover the errors of his maps, which would perhaps discover him to be not only a fallible geographer, but also a very erroneous one? And where the people are forbid travelling in the light of the scripture, whatever may be pretended, wise men will believe that the true reason is, not to prevent the people's falling into errors, but to prevent the discovering the errors of those to whose guidance and direction they are wholly and solely subjected. And this I conceive is a sufficient answer to the first objection, viz. that the allowance of the scripture to the people is a dangerous inlet of error and heresy. I proceed therefore to the second, which is this:

Obj. 2. That there are many things recorded in scripture which are very apt to suggest lewd thoughts to the people, and thereby to corrupt their manners, as particularly the many bad examples therein related, which are of a very contagious nature, and consequently dangerous for the people to converse with. In answer to which, I desire these four things may be seriously considered.

1. That this objection strikes as much against the scripture itself as against the people's reading it. For what worse thing can be said of the scripture than this, that it is such an infectious book, so apt to excite impure thoughts in men's minds, and to kindle lewd affections in their hearts, that it is by no means fit the people should read it? Should this be said to a Turk or a heathen, who had never read one word in the Bible, he would certainly conclude it to be nothing but a canto of ribaldries, written for

no other end but to provoke and entertain the lascivious inclinations of mankind. And certainly had our objectors but as much reverence for this holy book as they pretend, they would rather oblige the people to read it, than withhold it from them upon a pretence that doth so scandalously reflect upon its reputation. If there be any such passages in scripture as are apt to start lewd thoughts in men's minds, the utmost that can be fairly pretended is, that those passages ought to have been left out of the people's Bibles, or at least to have been left untranslated: but to urge this as a reason why all the rest of the scripture should be denied to the people, insinuates as if the whole were nothing else but a mere kennel of contagious obscenities. For to urge that for a reason why the scripture in general should not be read by or to the people, (which at most is only a reason why some few passages of it should not be read by them,) is to suppose the whole scripture to be made up of such passages as are apt to infuse vicious thoughts into the people; than which what can there be supposed more false in itself, or more derogatory to the scripture?

2. This objection, if it proves any thing, doth as well prove that it was unfit for God to publish the scripture to the people, as it is for the people to read it. For is it fit that he, who is a God of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, should publish such things to the world as are apt to engender impure thoughts in men's minds? And yet, though men's minds were as apt to imbibe impure thoughts when these things were first published as they are now, this hindered not God from publishing them to the world in such languages as are best known and understood by the

people. Either therefore God did not so well know what is apt to corrupt men's minds as our wise objectors; or he was less concerned than they to preserve them from being corrupted; or what they object is both false and scandalous. For to say, that the wise and holy God hath published such things to the world as his ministers find necessary to conceal from the world, lest its thoughts should be corrupted by them, is in effect to say, that his ministers are grown wiser than he, or are more concerned for the interest of holiness than he. If the vicious examples, for instance, that are recorded in scripture are more apt to deprave men than to instruct them, what need they have been recorded? What is there in the mere story of Noah's drunkenness and incest, and David's adultery, considered abstractly from the good instructions it gives, that should move God to deliver it down to all future posterity? If it serve no good ends, it is recorded to a bad purpose; and therefore, if for this reason, because it is apt to corrupt men's minds, the church be obliged to conceal it now, for the very same reason God was obliged to have concealed it for ever. Either therefore we must say that God did very ill in publishing it, or that the church doth very ill in suppressing it; for God could have no other end in publishing it to the world, but only to instruct the world by it. If therefore it be not instructive, God was mistaken; but if it be, it is fit the world should be acquainted with it.

3. That this objection doth expressly contradict the scripture itself; for whereas it tells us, that the bad examples recorded in scripture would be apt to deprave the people's minds and manners, St. Paul