SECT. I.

MAN is an active, capaci­ous Creature; fitted for, and desirous of know­ledge; and furnish'd with variety of means for the acquisition of it. In general, we come to know things in a two-fold manner.

1. By the use, and upon the strength of our own Faculties, by our Senses, whose Sensations, when frequent and uniform, we call Ex­perience; by (a far more sublime Principle) our Reason, which judges of, corrects, and improves what is receiv'd by the Senses; forms sim­ple Apprehensions, of them makes Pro­positions, and of Propositions Syl­logisms; i. e. discourses and elicites one Knowledge out of another. A great many Notions, Propositions, and Discourses, relating to some comprehending Subject, and cast in­to a Method, are call'd a Science, or an Art, according to the Nature of the Subject, and the Scope in treating of it.

2. We attain to knowledge by Intelligence from others, being content to see with their Eyes, and to hear with their Ears. And here the more easie Task is well to understand the In­formation given by others, and which we take upon Trust from them. The Knowledge and Assent yielded to thing, on this account, and relying thus on Testimony, is called Faith, or [Page 3] Belief; which is different answera­bly to the diversity of Testimonies.

1. Testimony is Divine, or that of God: And this has such a transcen­dent Prerogative; that when once it is sufficiently clear, that God has indeed affirm'd a thing to be, or not to be; the Understanding may, and ought to acquiesce in such an Affir­mation without any hesitancy. For God cannot lye, either ignorantly, or knowingly; because He is of infinite knowledge and veracity.

2. Testimony is humane, or that of Man; and the Credit of this is ex­ceedingly below that of the former. 'Tis not alone possible, but too or­dinarily experienc'd, that Man is himself deceiv'd, and then deceives others; nay, often knowingly, and designedly deceives. Therefore Belief must be yielded to Humane Testimony, with some suspence, and good wariness Yet even Humane Testimony de­serves and has a considerable Re­putation: For it is of great Ʋse, and of some Necessity to Mankind.

Now, Tradition (considered, not materially, or as the thing deliver­ed; but as to what it formally in­cludes) [Page 4]is Testimony: For the Assent which it begets, is Belief; as Science and Opinion, are the Effect of Ar­gumentation, Demonstrative and To­pical respectively. And whereas Testi­mony may be of one, or more Persons; and of more Persons, at the same time, or in times following one the other: Tradition is an Aggregation of Testi­monies in a Succession, and dependance of one upon the other: It is the delivery of a thing down from one Age to another, in a way of Witnessing. By which it is distinguish'd from such a descent of Opinions and Practices; in which they of the former, and of the following Age (perhaps) O­pine or Practise the same thing: But they do so for Reasons taken from the thing it self; and not meerly because the former Age told the next Age, that the Age before them did so Opine or Practise. But Tradition imports, an express'd or imply'd, and a successive witnessing con­cerning a thing by Fathers to their Children, and that as received from their Fathers; and so on, unto the O­rigine of the thing witnessed to.

SECT. II.

Testimony and Tradition (which is a Branch of it) may be suppos'd to be us'd or alledged to a double purpose.

1. We may suppose it Appeal'd to as a Judge or Rule, defining con­cerning the Natures of Things, and the Verity of Propositions relating to them: As whether such and such Propositions, which concern Philoso­phy, or Mathematicks, in Aristotle, or Euclide, be true or false; or whe­ther the Christian be the true Reli­gion, (meerly because Christians af­firm it to be so.) In the Applicati­on of it, Humane Testimony and Tradition, is not so concluding a Medium. The Determination, or Sen­tence of it is less valid, (unless, where there is a concurrent general At­testation of Mankind;) nor is it so necessary (except where some peculiar occasion obliges to trust anothers Cre­dibility; as the case is of young Learners of a Science, to the Noti­ons and Genius of which they are Strangers.) I said,

1. 'Tis less valid. For things do often so much retire themselves, and require such a quickness and disen­gagedness of Understanding, to penetrate them; and withal there is not alone a common shortness of mens Reason, but such an exposed­ness also to biassing disadvantages, as render men much unqualified for Deferences, and the final Ʋmpirage of the Natures of Things, and of the Truth concerning them. Besides, there is scarce an Opinion, but is countenanced by so many Votes; that if meer Testimony must sway a man's Judgment, he must believe all, and consequently Contradictions; or he must believe none. And as there is inconvenience; so,

2. There's no such necessity to try the Natures of the Things at this Bar. For Man has an enquiring and discursive Power, which being care­fully exercised, and improved, is able to pierce unto things, and to discover them even in their retire­ments. And each Science, Faculty, and Art, have their respective Prin­ciples, Hypotheses, and Axioms, by [Page 7]which the truth of things in each may be examined; and unto which matters in controversie may be, and usually are devolved.

And Men commonly think it their Right to have a Liberty to discuss things, and the Judgment of others concerning them: Because tho' a Man be fallible as well as others, and may be far inferior to others in natural and acquired Abilities; yet he may be better satisfied con­cerning his own diligence and freedom from Prepossession, Passion and In­terest, than he can be of anothers; every Man being best acquainted with the temper and secrets of his own Soul.

2. Humane Testimony and Tra­dition, may be alledg'd (which is it's proper Verge) in point of Fact, and as deposing about the Existence of Things; and that they are or have been: As that there were such Learn­ed Men, as Aristotle and Euclide; that they were the Authors of such Writings, as are entitled to them: Or, that there were such Persons as Christ, and those who published [Page 8]and propagated his Religion in the World; and that the Books which contain the Mysteries of the Chri­stian Religion, did come from those first Preachers and Propagators of it. Against Testimony and Tradi­tion, in the use of it, there lye not those Exceptions, as did in the former consideration of it. For,

1. It is much more easie for Men to ascertain themselves about the Quòd sit, and that things are in mat­ters of Fact; than to sound the Na­tures of Things; to descry their co­herences with, and dependences on each other; how far they may be affirm'd of, and infer'd from one a­nother. 'Tis far more discernable, that some Seas ebb and slow, and in what time; than what the true Cause is of that reciprocal motion; that such and such Propositions are in Aristotle or Euclide, than to under­stand the just meaning of them; or (which is more) the truth of them when understood. Very Sense suf­fices to satisfie in the [...], and that such things are without the labour of the Understanding, and any operose [Page 9]Discourse. Now, where is the more easiness of knowing things, there is the less liableness to mistakes: And a less liableness to, and therefore a less probability of mistake in others, is one reason why (caeteris paribus) to give credit to their Intelligence the more securely.

2. Mankind is forc'd to content themselves with Information from Testimony in multitudes of Things, which their Curiosity, or the Exi­gency of their Affairs do engage them to be satisfied in, and yet their own Sense or Reason can give no prospect of them.

Those many who never cross'd, nor saw the Seas, must trust others Relation; that there are such places, as Paris, Rome, Constantinople, both the Indies; where these places lye, and what their circumstances are. The reason why Men believe that they were born in such a year; on, or about such a day; and therefore that they are of such an Age; that they were Baptiz'd, and that such is their Name; is, that they are told so. 'Tis not possible to come ac­quainted [Page 10]with Times past: and with the divers Revolutions, and Events of the numerous Ages before we were born, otherwise than by Testi­mony from History. If we would sa­tisfie our selves, whether the Books in our possession, are indeed the Works of the Authors, whose Names they bear; that, which we must have recourse to, is; that these Books have been, and are witnessed to, are generally reputed to be those Au­thors Works; i. e. there's a general Tradition for it.

For the two Reasons given, it is plain; that there is both a com­parative safety, and likewise a ne­cessity (in a considerable measure) of reliance upon others Testimony, and common Tradition, in many things.

SECT. III.

Notwithstanding what has been said on the behalf of Testimony and Tradition; yet they are not such an Oracle, that their Responses must be receiv'd indiscriminately, and with­out [Page 11]wary Examination. Though, where they well cannot mistake, or deceive; or there's little, or no temptation to misrepresent things; they may be trusty, yet both Writ­ten, and Oral Tradition are often guilty of no small failures. Of the two, Oral Tradition is subject to the more shortness and uncertainty. It is ordinary for Reports to pass from one to another, to have a general Vogue; and yet to be very false. 'Tis usual for Stories, which might be true enough in the first Relation of them, yet after they have tra­velled through many Mouths, to be so much altered from what they were at the first, that they look like one of Ovid's Metamorphoses. There are Traditions from Fathers, which yet the Posterity have not Faith e­nough, or more Wisdom than to believe. It will be found upon due Consideration, that, as when a Man hears others talking at a good di­stance from him, only a noise, and now and then a word or two come to his Ears, the Articulation of the rest being lost by the way; [Page 12]insomuch that little, if any thing is understood of what is said: So that from past and remote Ages, there arrive down to us but meer generals; confus'd and very short notices of things; and the Credit of those too comes weakned with acknowledged­ly fabulous, or suspected intermix­tures; especially is this true of those Antiquities, which meer Oral Tradi­tion wafts to us.

Observe Families, one would think, that considering the love which Men have for their Native Soil, the par­ticular place of their Birth and Ha­bitation; for their Inheritance, and for the Stock, of which they are Branches; Young Persons should be much inquisitive from their Fathers, and Fathers should delight to Story to their Children, the Circumstances pertaining to these things. Yet of­ten (excepting some general Infor­mations) comparatively little News is brought of such concerns, and of par­ticulars, which hapned but three or four Generations off; further than they can be certified from Registries, Deeds, and the like Writings: [Page 13]'Tis not unusual for Persons to en­quire of the Church-Book, how Old they are.

Books deserve care; they are a relief of Mortality; in them the Dead Authors do in some manner survive themselves, and continue use­ful to the world, after they have left it. Yet what a multitude of these has Tradition suffered to pe­rish, to be buried as well as their Authors; nothing to be left of them, except (as an Epitaph) the Titles of them! Of many there remains no more than some fragmenta, some scat­ter'd Limbs, as 'twere of a mangled Body. Several Books are father'd up­on certain Authors, of whom they have, it may be, no more than the Name. Divers are more or less cor­rupted; some so much depraved, ut samnium in ipso samnio quaeratur, that the Books may be search'd for in the very Books, and scarce found.

Hence it follows, that Tradition is not so careful a preserver of it's Deposita, as it should be; not so faith­ful a Relater of Things past, as that it should be thought irrefragable; [Page 14]and that Belief should be subjected to it promiscuously and without choice. Therefore there must be something else, and beyond it, which may in­struct us how to distinguish of Testi­monies and Traditions; which to mistrust, or to reject; and which to believe.

This Director is Reason; which in it's Debate and Decision of the due Credibility of Testimonies and Traditions, and of the deserv'd pre­cedence of one to the other, proceeds upon the Circumstances of the Testi­fiers, and their qualifications. These (in general) are, 1. A sufficient know­ledge of the things attested to: 2ly. Such Honesty and Integrity, as may encline the Testifiers to relate things as they know them to be. Some of the particular Rules or Cautions, in the accepting Testimonies may be, 1. The More the Testifiers are, the stronger the Testimony is, and the More are to be preferr'd to the Fewer (supposing a Parity of Cir­cumstances:) 2ly. Forasmuch as ge­nerals, and the substance of things, are commonly more easily knowable, [Page 15]and remembred, than Particulars and minuter Circumstances, there­fore Testimony may be more safely credited in the former than in the latter. 3ly. Because Integrity is least to be suspected or question'd, when not under temptation by Interest; therefore the Testimony of clear, and uninteressed Witnesses may be the more confidently admitted: 4ly. The nearer the Testifiers liv'd to the Times, in which what is witnessed to, was spoken or done, the more valuable their Testimo­ny is, for the greater the remove is from what is Evidenced to, the more accidents might intervene for the clouding and misrepresentation of it.

By this it appears, that Reason's Court is the Soveraign Judicatory, where lies the last Appeal; here it being to be determin'd concerning the competency and validness of the Testimony or Tradition.

So much of Tradition in general (whose so near alliance to Testimo­ny at large makes them much to agree in their use and force;) what it is; in what matter most proper­ly [Page 16] useful and argumentative: It's Ef­ficacy, and yet it's Failures, into what it is lastly resolv'd; where the relief lyes against a deception by it in it's Ʋntrustiness.

I shall proceed next to consider Tradition, Oral Tradition, more par­ticularly, and distinctly, and as apply'd to Religion.

SECT. I.

I Come now nearer to the Que­stion, which being mov'd both of Oral Traditions, and of the Sacred Writings, Trustiness, and Certainty of Conveyance of Divine Truths, &c. I shall give them a distinct Considera­tion.

And first I shall enquire: How sure and safe an immediate Conserva­tory and Conveyance Oral Tradition is of Divine Truths (more speculative, or more immediately practical, fun­damental, or others) down from their first delivery to the Church through succeeding Ages.

And before further procedure; it is granted, that Oral Tradition is [Page 18]of use in Religion; yet not so much solitary, and by it self, as in conjuncti­on with Tradition Written.

1. It is yielded, that tho' there be many Dr. Cosins, the late Reverend Lord Bishop of Duresme, in his Scholast. History of the Canon of Scripture, pag. 4, 5. — Ecclesia Testis est, & custos sa­crarum Literarum. — Ecclesiae Offi­cium est, ut ver as, germanas, ac ge­nuinas Scripturas, a falsis, suppo­sititiis, ac adulterinis dijudicet, ac discernat. D. Whitak. de S. Script. Controv. 1. Quest. 3. Cap. 2. Article of Religion. 20. inter­nal [...], or Ar­guments clear in the Scriptures them­selves, whereby we may be sufficiently assur'd, that they were breath'd from a Divine Spirit, and are truly the Word of God. Yet as to the particular and just number of those Sacred Books; every Verse and Sentence in them, whether they be more or fewer; we have no better Exter­nal and Ministerial assurance, than the Constant, and Recorded Testimo­ny of the Catholick Church, from one Generation to another, which is a Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ.

2ly. It is confess'd, that there are many particular Truths, which have had the universal, continued Pro­fession, and Oral Attestation of the [Page 19]Christian Church from the Primi­tive to the present Times.

3ly. It is not deny'd, but that if there had been no Scriptures, yet Oral Tradition might have derived some Truths to Posterity.

4ly. Let any Points be recom­mended to us by so large an Appro­bation, and Certificate from Tra­dition, as Sacred Scriptures have, and we shall receive them with all be­seeming regard. But then,

1. We deny, that Oral Tradition is sufficient to preserve to us, and to ascertain us of the several parti­cular Truths, which concern Chri­stian Belief and Practice, together with the Sense of the Sacred Books.

2ly. Tho' there are several Di­vine Truths, which have had the universal, and continued Profession of the Church; yet we deny, it would have been so happy, if there had been no Scriptures.

3ly. Though there had been no Scriptures, Oral Tradition might have sent down some Truths to Posteri­ty: But they would have been but few, and those too blinded with er­roneous [Page 20]Appendages; most would have been lost; as in Hurricanes, and a­mong Rocks and Sands, some Ves­sels may weather it out, yet shatter'd, but how many Perish!

4ly. As to the last thing; sure, our Adversaries can't justly charge us with the contrary; there being no Point maintained by them, and deny'd by us, which has so ample a Re­commendation.

But I shall resume the first Con­cession, and the annex'd Denyal, and shall add: That there is a great diffe­rence between Tradition's Testifica­tion concerning the Scriptures; and Tradition's conserving the many Di­vine Truths, and Sense of them, and the safe transmitting them to all succeeding times. We may rely up­on Tradition for the former, which is a more general thing, and in which Tradition was less obnoxious to Er­ror; and yet not trust it for the latter, which abounds in such a va­riety of Particulars, in which there is the greater liableness to mistake and failance. The difference I urge may be illustrated thus;

Suppose, one informs me of a Guide in my Journey; I credit and accept of that Information, and thank the Informant. But I rest no farther on him; but follow the Guide in the several Stages of my Journey. Or suppose, one directs me to a very Honest Man, and a ve­ry knowing Witness in my Cause: When he has done so, it is not He, but the Witness, on whom I must depend for a success in my Suit: Nay, if the Witness should chance to de­pose against him, I may rationally believe him, and he can't refuse the Evidence because he himself, recom­mended him to me, as a very credible Deponent.

The Application is obvious. The Church's Tradition testifies, 2 Tim. 3.15, 16, 17. Isa. 8.20. that the Scriptures are the Oracles of God. These Oracles of God are a Guide, a Wit­ness, in the things of God, and which belong to Man's Salvation: They af­firm so much of themselves; and be­cause they are Divine Oracles, and testified by the Church so to be, they must be believed by us in that Claim. Why now, tho' we owe and pay Thanks [Page 22]to the Church's Tradition for the Preservation of Holy Scriptures, and Direction of Us to Them; yet we are not therefore bound to resign our Faith universally to the Tradition of the Church; but we may trust our selves with Scriptures Guidance, and Testimony in all particular Matters of Faith and Practice. Yes, and if these Scriptures Witness against the Church's Tradition, against some Opinions, and Practices of it, for which Tradition is pretended; we ought to believe the Scriptures; and Tradition can't fairly decline the Te­stimony, tho' against it self.

SECT. II.

But against this it is urg'd: That there can be no Arguing against Tra­dition out of Scripture. The rea­son is, Sure Foot­ing in Chri­stianity p. 10 [...]. because there can be no certain­ty of Scripture without Tradition: This must first be supposed certain, before the Scripture can be held such. Therefore to argue against Tradition out of Scripture, is to discourse from what is (Tradition being disallow'd) un­certain; [Page 23] which can't be a solid way of Argumentation.

To this I reply: (Omiting, that Tradition is not the only means of our Certitude about Scripture,) That the Exception does not invalidate what I have said; for thus it is: We do confess to receive the Scrip­tures upon the Church's universal Tradition; and we allow this Testi­mony to be (in it's kind) very useful and sufficiently certain; and this cer­tainty of Tradition, quoad hoc, for the Intelligencing us concerning Scripture, is supposed by us. But then we do, and may, argue from Scrip­ture thus supposed certain, against Tradition, i. e. against what is uncer­tain, or false in it, viz. Any such Points of Faith, or Practice; or such Senses of Scripture, as it would obtrude upon us; when as yet they are perhaps contrary to Scripture; and the Tradition is far short of being Ʋniversal; it may be, is very narrow, or feigned, rather than real. So that we do not proceed upon an Ʋncertainty, but upon what is cer­tain by Ʋniversal Tradition (i.e. That [Page 24]the Books of the Old and New Testament, in the Number that we have them, are the Holy Scriptures, and Oracles of God) against what is affirm'd, and can be prov'd by us, to be uncertain or false, in Tradition. As, in a like case: Scholars argue from what is true and clear in Rea­son, against what is false or dubious, tho' it have Reason pretended for it: Thus discoursing from Reason against Reason; i. e. from what is really such, against what is such, but in name and appearance.

The sum and result of the Pre­mises is this: That, as we do not take Tradition's Word for all the Doctrines or Practices, and Senses of Scripture, it would impose on us; though we accept of Tradition's Evidence concerning the Scriptures, as was in the beginning of this Chap­ter acknowledg'd: So nor are we oblig'd to the former, by acknow­ledgment of the latter.

Having stated what may be allow'd, and what is denyed to Oral Tradi­tion: Next it shall be examin'd, what Reason and Experience suggest against its sureness and safety of Conveyance: and likewise (after that) what either can pretend on it's behalf.

SECT. I.

IT is asserted; That the Body of the Faithful from Age to Age are the Traditioners of Divine Truths; Sure Foot­ing. p. 60.100, 101. that in reality Tradition, rightly un­derstood, is the same thing materially with the living Voice and Practice of the whole Church essential, consisting of Pastors and Laiety.

Now, before Reason can acqui­esce in a Tradition by Pastors and Laie­ty, it must (according to what has been premis'd) be well satisfied in the fitness of the Testifiers.

The Qualifications of Persons for a due Testification (especially in so weighty a matter as Religion) are, 1. Good knowingness of Fathers, and Ancestors in Religion; as also due [Page 27]care and diligence of Fathers in teaching their Children; together with good Apprehensions, Memory, and Tracta­bleness in the Children and Poste­rity. 2ly. Such a measure of In­tegrity, through all descents, as may secure the successive Testifiers a­gainst all temptations unto swerv­ing from what they received from Fathers. Let these Qualifications be farther considered of.

1. The first Requisites are good Knowingness of Fathers, together with Care and Diligence; as also Apprehension, Memory, and Tracta­bleness in Children; let us examine how far these may be found in the Laiety.

I believe, that the value and zeal for Religion in the first and golden Age of the Church made Fathers diligent to teach, and Youth to learn. But I doubt, that this Temper (as is incident to Religious Fervors) might cool afterwards; and that when Emperors became Christians, Ease and Prosperity might beget a restiveness, and neglect both in An­cestors, and Posterity. How well [Page 28]Fathers of Families did perform their part, and how docile Chil­dren have been, throughout the ma­ny hundred years before us, is out of our Ken. But if we may guess at times past (as there is often a likeness in some measure of the ways of Men in one Age, to those in another) by the times present, and nearer to us, it is to be wished, (I fear rather than it will be found) that all, or most Fathers and Go­vernors of Families were such as Abraham, Gen. 18.19. Josh. 24.15. and Joshua. Religion is too little minded in too many Fami­lies: The use of a Catechisme is too rare; and That, when us'd, is often little understood, and less remembred. Commonly Parents teach their Chil­dren the Lords Prayer, Creed, and Ten Commandments; and that is well. But these Rudiments are too slender a stock for Children to set up with, as qualified Conveyers of the Body of the Christian Faith. And if even these should pass down long by word of Mouth, and not be Written, they would be in danger of Maims or Corruptions.

But it may be thought, Dr. James, in his Ma­nuduction to Divinity. p. 108. Ex. Jo. Avent. Conc. Bas. & M. S. that Spi­ritual Fathers instruct Young and Old both, and capacitate them better for being Oral Traditioners.

Yet, when the Priests were Fools, Stocks, and slothful Beasts; when they had neither Scientiam, nor Con­scientiam; neither Knowledge, nor Conscience; (as it was com­plain'd in Old time) it is not like­ly, that then the Clergy were very careful to instruct the Laiety; or that the Laiety should learn much from such a Clergy. When of far later years, some in Ire­land, The reverend Arch-Bishop Usher, in a Ser­mon Preached before the King, June 20. 1624. on Eph. 4.13. who would be accounted Members of the Roman Church, being demanded what they thought of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; not only rejected it with indigna­tion; but wondred also, that it should be imagin'd, any of their side should be so foolish, as to give Credit to such a senseless thing: When throughout a County in England, Dr. J. White, in his Preface to, The way to the true Church. the Vulgar Papists were [Page 30]unable to render an account of their Faith, or to understand the Points of the Catechism, and utter'd their Creed in a Gibberish, ridiculous to others, and unintelligible by them­selves: Then the Priests fail'd in teaching the People, or the People in teachableness.

But, perhaps it has been other­wise since; and was then in those Countries, where the Publick and Authoriz'd Profession of the Roman Religion gave their Clergy more freedom of Access to, and of Con­versation with, the Laiety. Yet, there's an Opinion of the Romanists, which will not much forward the diligent instructing of the Laiety in the Religion of Forefa­thers, viz. That The Author of Cha­rity mistaken, &c. In Dr. Potter 's Answer to it. pag. 183. 200, 201. it suffices the Vulgar to believe implicitely what the Church teaches: And that by virtue of such an implicite Faith, a Cardinal Bellar­mine, and a Catholick Collier are of the same Belief. This implicite Faith makes quick work, and super­sedes a distinct knowledge of Divine [Page 31]Truths; and then what much need is there of a careful Teaching them? They, who speak not so broadly, yet Azor Instit. Mor. Part 1. Lib. 8. Cap. 6. Sect. Tertiò quaeri­tur. Et Sect. Sed mihi probabilius, & verius. say, it is the common Opinion of Divines, that it is necessary to believe explicitely no more than the Apostles Creed (or the fourteen Articles, as they speak.) Nay, some hold too, that if this explicite Belief be only of the substance of the Articles con­fusedly and generally, it is sufficient. But, by leave of these Authors, such an explicite Belief of the Apostles Creed only, (much less a confus'd, and general Belief) cannot be sufficient (howsoever sufficient it may be for other purposes) to qualifie the Laiety for that great Purpose, which, in these Papers, I am treating of.

But let the utmost be suppos'd, viz. That the Clergy now do, and former­ly did, discharge their Pastoral Du­ty, as amply and faithfully, as is requisite; yet the Peoples usual im­mersion in secular business, and di­stractions; their oscitancy in Religious matters, slowness of Understanding, frailty of Memory, in the things of [Page 32]God, would hugely hazard their pro­ficiency in so large and clear a know­ledge, as might fit them to be Au­thentick Trustees in the Delivery of the Christian Faith from Genera­tion to Generation.

What I have writ in this Section, proceeds not in the least from an humour of reproaching any; not from any contempt of the Laiety; or, as if I expected they should be Divines. I pay Acknowledgment, and Honour to many of the Laiety for their sin­gular Accomplishments in Religious Knowledge and Virtue: And it is out of question with me (as much as with any) that the rest of them may with their lesser measures of know­ledge (for they have not generally advantages for higher Attainments; and the merciful God will not ex­pect to Reap where he has not Sow'd) live good Christians, and be saved for ever. My only aim (and that in prosecution of my undertaking) has been to shew; how incompetent and very casual Traditioners the Laiety, (who are exceedingly the greater part of the Body of the Faithful) gene­rally are of Divine Truths, in so [Page 33]full and distinct a manner, as may be for their preservation and securi­ty against the emerging encroach­ments of the contrary Errors through all Ages. So that by far the grea­test weight and strength of Oral Tra­dition must lye upon the Clergy; whose proper business Religion is; whose Lips should preserve knowledge; and the People should seek the Law at their Mouth. Yet in that very place, where it is thus said of the Priests, it immediately follows: But ye [Priests] are gone out of the way, Mal. 2.7, & 8. ye have caused many to stumble at the Law, &c. Their performance had not answered their Duty.

But (to say no more of that) how little Clergy and Laiety both are to be relyed on, as to an Oral indefectible Conveyance of Divine Truths shall be seen on a second account, in the next Section.

SECT II.

2ly. To an exact and constant stea­diness of Tradition there is requisite an Integrity, a clearness of Spirit, an unencumbrance of Christians [Page 34]through all Ages, with any thing which might sway them to a Belief or Profession, contrary to that of the first Age.

Now, if we look abroad into the World, we shall see, that com­monly Men take up this or that Profession, side with this or that Party in Religion, more upon the score of Education, Example, or Interest, upon some extrinsick Mo­tive; or upon some short and confuse Apprehensions; than upon an ex­plicite knowledge, or at the least a truly solid Conviction of those Te­nents, by which those Parties are distinguished. But to proceed more particularly.

Among others, there are four things, which have an usual and power­ful Operation upon Mens Belief and Profession, to the changing or smo­thering their Persuasions, and the corruption of their Practice.

1. A wantonness of Reason is very incident to Mankind. Man loves Variety; and conversing here below with little but what is mutable, in an unhappy kind of imitation learns [Page 35]to affect change; and is apt to be cloy'd with old Truths, as with a wontedness to all things else. The hankering after some New things was not peculiar to the Athenians, and Strangers among them, but is an itch natural to all. And to cherish this affection for Novelty, there have not wanted Broachers of new Opi­nions in most Ages of the Church.

2ly. There's an [...] ordinary enough; a bending the stick too much the o­ther way, on pre­tence to make it streight; a Re­coile from one Ex­tremity to ano­ther: Out of keen­ness in contending for a Truth, a Zeal for it, it has not been unusual to over­do, and to retreat from an Error too far on the contra­ty side. Both Illud interim caven [...]um, ne Erroris unius odio devolvamur in alium errorem. Id si nullis fere veterum non accidit aliquâ ex par­te, equidem non deprecabor homi­nis ociosi notam, qui haec admo­neam. Tertullianus, dum nimis acriter pugn [...]t aaversus eos qui plus sat is tribuebant Matrimonio, delatus est in alteram foveam:— Hieronymus tanto ardore pugnat adversus eos, qui Matrimonium efferebant, cum injuriâ Virgini­tatis; ut ipse sub iniquo Judice vix possit suam tueri causam, si reus fiat parum reverenter tracta­ti Conjugis, & Digamiae. Mon­tanus, dum ardentiùs oppugnat ill [...]s qui passim dignis, & indig­nis aperiebant Ecclesiae fores, plus satis taxatâ severitate disciplinae Ecclesiasticae, in diversum inci­dit malum. D. Augustinus, adv [...]s [...]s Pelagium toto studio dimicans, ali [...]bi minus tribuit Li­bero arbitrio, quàm tribuendum putant, qui nunc in scholis regnant Theologicis. Possem hujus gene­r [...]s exempla permulta commemo­rare, etiam ex recentioribus. Sed praestat (opinor) in re odiosâ non esse admedum copiosum. In Epistolâ praefatoriâ ad Opera Sti. Hilarti. E­rasmus, [Page 36]and Ardebant veteres Illi tanto sincerae pietatis, & Catholicae defensienis ardere, ut dum unum errorem omnium virium co­natu destruere annituntur, saepe in alterum errorem oppositum de­ciderent, vel quodammodo decidisse videantur.—Sic Die­nysius Corinthiorum Antistes, &c. In Praefatione Lib. 5ti. Bibliothecae Stae. Sixtus Senensis, have given us Instances of this in several of the Antients; as may be seen in the Mar­gent.

3. It has not been uncommon [...] to have Mens Persons in admiration, (and that not alone for Advantage, but) for their Learning, and Piety; so high­ly to revere them, as before Chri­stians were aware, to become over­credulous, and to follow their Con­duct. Some Hereticks have been of sufficient Learning, and appearing Sanctity; and have been adhered to in the Church by no small num­ber of Proselytes. The Reputation for Virtue, which once Pelagius had with [Page 37]St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine; his several Works; who were his Followers; what noise his Opinions made in the Christian World; and how the Relicks of them were con­tinued among the Massilians or Se­mipelagians, may be seen at large in Historia Pelag. lib. 1. cap. 3.4, 5, 6, 7. Vossius.

4ly. What a strong influence have Hopes and Fears upon Men! Hopes of Ease, Profit, Preferment by their pleasing Insinuations gain great com­mand over the Soul, and are apt to bribe the Judgment. Fear of Evil, of Confiscations, Imprisonments, Gibbets, and Stakes (tho' they are no proper Topiques to convince the Reason, yet) work hugely upon the Passions: And Men are often fright­ed from those Opinions, out of which they could not have been fair­ly and quietly disputed.

It is the Observation of a Learn­ed and Honourable The Lord [...]f Falkland, in his Re­ply, p 122. Person, That in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth 's Reign, of many thousand Livings which are in England, the Incumbents of not an hundred chose rather to lose their Benefices for Popish Opinions, than to [Page 38]keep them by subscribing to the Tenents of the Reformed Church of England: All who (for the greater part) must be suppos'd for private Interest to have dissembled their Religion, either then, or immediately before.

But if we look higher, there is what is much more remarkable: It is Famous, there was a time when the — Tum haeresis Arrii prorupit, totúm (que) Orbem, invecto Errore, turbaverat. Etenim duobus Arriis, acerrimishujus perfidiae Autoribus, Imperator etiam depravatur. Dúm (que) sibi Religionis Officium vi­detur implere, vim persecutionis exercuit: acti (que) in Exilium Episcopi, saevitum in Clericos, animadversum in Laicos, qui se ab Arrianorum communione secreverant. Sulpic. Sev. Sac. Histor. Lib. 2. World turn'd Arrian, the Orthodox Profession being under Perse­cution.

After what has been said, among such hazards, such incident Biassings of the Affections and Judgment, how unsafe must an O­ral Tradition be; i. e. the trusting of the great Concerns of Religion with Man's good Nature, his Constancy, and Faithfulness to Divine Truths, through Ages!

But it may be, it will be replyed to the mention of the Doctrines of Arrius and Pelagius; and the bustle [Page 39]they made in the Christian world; that yet the Catholick Doctrines did recover, and pass to after-Ages. And we are told, that Sure Footing, p. 118, 119. erroneous Opinions, and absurd Practices (tho' they may creep into the Church, and spread there awhile, yet) can never gain any solid Footing in the Church: Forasmuch as the Church is a Body of Men relying on Tradition, or the Authority of Attesting Forefathers, not on the Authority of Opinators, &c.

In return to this, 'Tis confess'd, that the Doctrines assaulted by Ar­rius and Pelagius were rescued, and preserved. But,

1. In, and about that time, there was such a Constellation of Pious and Learned Lights of the Church, as could scarce be parallell'd in the Ages before, or afterwards. This might be an especial Cause, that those Truths out-liv'd their Oppo­sition. It may be questioned, whe­ther if the Errors of Arrius, or Pe­lagius, had been started, and as vi­gorously manag'd, in the Ignorant, and Corrupt Ages, which follow'd afterwards, they might not have [Page 40]found as easy an Entertainment, and have as generally prevailed, as some other Errors did.

2ly. But how will it be prov'd, that it was by the strength of O­ral Tradition, that these Truths were recovered, and continued? To speak only of the Divinity of Christ impugn'd by Arrius: (besides what has been said in the foregoing part) 1. There was manifestly a Civil Cause interposing for the Restaura­tion of a publick and free Profession of it. For as the Frown of the Prince, Constantius, and his Party arm'd with force, suppress'd the Or­thodox Opinion: So the contrary in­clination, and favour of succeeding Princes, countenance from the secu­ [...]ular Power, restor'd it. So that this Resurrection of that Truth was not from Orel Traditions strength, an im­possibility of its sailure; but was owed to Causes extrinsick; and which might, or might not have been. For there was no necessity, that the Emperers should be Orthodox, or Fa­vourers of the Orthodox Opinion; and if they had continued still Ar­rian, and Persecutors of the Ortho­dox; [Page 41]and so there had been still the same Fears; it is as likely, that Arrianisme would still have been the general Profession, as it is, That the same Cause still existing, and work­ing after the same manner, would pro­duce the same Effect. 2ly. If we look after the Religious Cause, why may we not ascribe the Revival of the Truth to Holy Scriptures? For the Fathers had recourse to Them, du­ring it's Depression, and after it.

— Ʋnum hoc ego per hanc dignationis tue sin­ceram audientiam rogo: ut praesente Synodo, quae nunc de fide litigat, pau­cis me de Scripturis E­vangelicis digneris audi­te.— Fidem Imperator quae­ris, aud [...] eam non de novis cha [...]tulis, sed de Dei libris.— Audi, rogo, ea, quae de Christo sunt Scripta, ne sub eis ea quae non Scripta sunt, praedi [...]en­tur. Summitte ad ea, quae de libris locuturus sum. aures tuas. In Lib [...]o ad Constantium Augus [...]um, propiùs [...]em. St. Hilary, Truth's great Champion against the Arrians, is frequent in Citation of Scripture for it. And in his Ad­dress to Constantius: He entreats that Constantius would vouchsafe (the Synod being present, which debated about the Faith) to hear him in a few words from the Evangelical Scriptures. And soon afterwards:— Thou requirest my Faith, O Em­peror; hear it, not from new Papers, but from the Books of God. Where He opposes New Papers, or Writings, [Page 42]not to Antient Oral Tradition, but to the Divine Books. There is some­thing more to the like Sense in the Margent.

After him Nec ego Nicaenam Synodum tibi, nec tu Ari­menensem mihi debes, tan­quam praejudicaturus, obji­cere. Scripturarum au­thoritatibus res cum re, causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione concertet. Contra Maxim. Lib. 3 Cap. 14. St. Au­gustine tells the Arrian Maximinus: He would not object to him the Synod of Nice, nor should he urge to him that of Ariminum; but he would have the dispute to be manag'd by Authority of Scriptures.

That, which was thus us'd in Proof and Defence of this Article of Faith both under Persecution, and after it, why may not That deserve to have the honour of it's Preservation, and Restitution, viz. the Holy Scripture? Especially when as Holy Scriptures, being an unvaried and permanent Standard in all alterations of the Church's State, have an ap­titude for such a Purpose; whereas Oral Tradition has no probable E­nergy for it.

For they of that Age, when Ar­rianism was generally regnant, either [Page 43] really changed their Judgment about the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father; and then (accord­ing to our Adversaries Principle) they would teach their Children, as they judg'd, and believ'd themselves, and so the Arrian Opinion would have continued: Or they smother'd, and dissembled their Opinion out of fear, and profess'd contrarily to their Judgment. And in this Hypocrisie either their Children discover'd them, or not. If not, then much the same Effect would follow. If they did know it, then they would scru­ple to believe them even in other Truths as Witnesses (and Traditio­ners are no more than such.) For Hypocrisie weakens the Credit of a Witness, and gets him this disad­vantage, that he will be the more hardly believ'd, even when he speaks truth. And in this particular Truth, Children would have been put at the least to the stand. For tho' the Posterity might satisfie them­selves, that the Age before the last generally embrac'd the Tenent contra­ry to the Arrian; yet they might [Page 44]be tempted to doubt, whether (as their immediate Fathers made shew of be­lieving the Opinion they secretly condemn'd; so) in remoter Ages Forefathers might not publickly pro­fess the Divinity of Christ, rather out of compliance with the humour of the Times they liv'd in, than from their Hearts; and so the Te­nent might have stoln down through following Ages, the manner of it's old reception, and Hypocritical Pro­fession being lost: For why might not Dissimulation be incident to one, to a former Age, as well as to ano­ther, a latter? And all this would be much more true, when an Error should possess the Church longer than the Arrian did.

Having now examin'd by Reason's Test the two necessary Qualificati­ons of the Testifiers, and Guar­dians of Christian Faith through Centuries of Years; and having prov'd, that the Dove can find no rest for the sole of her foot; that they are too fluid and sinking for Divine Truth to fix on, to conside in for safety in her passage through [Page 45]the many hazards of Time: I go on to Experience; and to consider what the actual performance of Oral Tradition has been, how faithfully it has acquitted it self.

SECT. I.

IF Oral Tradition be a certain and infallible Conveyance of Divine Truths, which is the ground of it's pretended Supreme Authority in Re­ligion; then there has been an Ʋ ­niformity, a constancy of the same Belief of the Church, from the first through following Ages.

The Divine Scriptures indeed may retain their Integrity and Authority, though They, who own them as the only certain Conveyance and Rule of Faith, swerve from Them, and vary from one another, because they do not attend to, or misunderstand them (as, tho' some things in St. Paul's E­pistles, 2 Pet. 3.16. and other Scriptures were wrested by the unlearned and unstable [Page 47]to their own destruction; who also differ'd from those who truly un­derstood them; yet notwithstand­ing those passages in St. Paul, and those other Scriptures, remain'd still Canonical.) But Oral Tradition does so intimately and necessarily include in it a successive Harmony of Fore­fathers and Posterities Belief (it be­ing a continued Testification of the one to the other,) that if this Co-herence fails; if after Ages Be­lief contrariate that of the Primi­tive Age; if one Church's Belief opposes that of another contempora­neous with it, or perhaps agrees not well with it self at the same time, or else with what it was in times precedent; then the Conveyance breaks; and so Oral Tradition forfeits its claim to Infallibility, and consequent­ly its arrogated Authority.

Let us then observe, what the harmony and agreement of the Church's Belief has been through the several Ages of the World, from the first Delivery of the Truths believed.

SECT. II.

When God made Man, he en­dow'd him with such a rectitude of Nature, as might enable him to glorifie his great Maker, and to attain to his own Happiness. And when Man had by eating of a for­bidden Fruit, contracted a general Ataxie of Soul, and particularly a great dimness of Understanding; God was pleased to relieve him, and to repair the decays of his Know­ledge of what concern'd him for Spiritual and Eternal purposes: Especially, doubtless God instruct­ed him (so far as he wanted super­natural Information) about his Na­ture and Unity, and how he would be Worshipped. And questionless, the first Father of Mankind, and the succeeding Patriarchs, did di­ligently teach their Children, what they themselves had received from God. And their exceeding long Lives gave them a peculiar oppor­tunity to Catechise their Posterities through several Generations; and [Page 49]to recover them upon any revolt from primitive belief, or practice; and the extraordinary length of their lives was also equivalent to a greater num­ber of Traditioners. Adam, after the birth of Seth, liv'd 800 years, with his Children, and Childrens Children, and above 200 of those 800 years with Methusalah, whose death was but a very little before the period of the old World. Methusalah was Noahs Con­temporary, very near 600 years. Noah (that Preacher of Righteousness) surviv'd with his descendents 350 Years after the Flood. And before their dispersion, and Plantation in re­mote places, They (especially the Heads of the Colonies) had been edu­cated, and influenced by Noah, that just Man; and whom Gods familiarity with him, and special care over him, ought to have rendered most venerable, and Them very dutifully sequacious of Him.

So likewise the two first Traditio­ners, were incomparably conside­rable; Adam and Eve, were the greatest Miracles that ever were. They could assure the World, that they had a Being, when as yet there was none of their own Kind, be­sides [Page 50]them: That they had near converse with the God that made them, (the Man of the Dust, the Woman of a Rib of the Man.) They could truly relate to their Children many strange things of the World, its State before, and presently upon Sin. And 'tis likely there was such an Impress of Majesty upon the First Father of Mankind, and a Prophet (as Josephus calls him) as might, and doubtless did, much awe his Chil­dren into an obsequious Regard to what he told them. Then too in the days of Noah, the drowning of the World in stupendious Waters, and the Confusion of Tongues at the buil­ding of Babel were so rare and astoni­shing Wonders, [...], &c. Jos. Antiq. Jud. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. [...], &c. Joseph. Ibid. as the world never since saw, and the memory of them so continued, and spread though the fol­lowing Ages, that the Flood, and the (a) Ark were mentioned by all Barbarian Historians; and that (b) confusion at Babel was spoke of by [Page 51]a certain Sibyl, and by Hago Grotius, ex Eusebio, in Annotatis ad Lib. de Veri­tate Religi. Christ. pag. 244. Abydenus.

One would think, that here was Defence enough, of Tradition from miscarriage; yet notwithstanding all this, as the general Practice of Man­kind was so vile, All Flesh had so corrupted his way upon Earth, (which is all the account, that Scripture egives) that God was provok'd to wash the Earth clean in a Deluge, so not long after the Flood, there was a great defection (in Practice, and Opinion also) from what had been deliver'd from Pious Fathers, concerning God, and the true Worship of Him; those Fathers, who were very qualified Testi­fiers; and who reported to their Children, such Divine Wonders; as both might answer, for the want of a greater Number of lesser Miracles, and likewise make the Children to dread to reject what was delivered from God by Them. Yet for all this, (I say) corrupt Notions of God, and of his Worship crept in; Polytheism, and Idolatry, entred the World. E­ven Josh. 24.2. Terah (who lived with Noah [Page 52]127 years) and other Fathers of the Holy Abraham, served other Gods. And how widely, Polytheism, Idola­try, and Superstition afterwards spread in the World, and what a long possession they kept of it, is notorious.

Thus the world apostatiz'd and past a Recovery by Oral Tradition, which rather confirm'd it in it's Apostacy, for thus Symmachus pleads for Hea­thenisme: Suus cui (que) mos, suus cui (que) ritus est. Jam si longa aetas [...]thoritatem religionibus faciat, servanda est tot Se­culis fides: et sequendi sunt nobis Parentes, qui faeliciter sequuti sunt suos. Symmachi V. C. Relatio ad Valent. Theodos. &: Arcad. Au­gustos, pro veteri Deòrum cultu adversus Christia­nos. Every People have their custome, each their Rites. Now if long time can give authority to Religions, belief is to be given to so many a­ges, and we ought to follow our Fathers, who have happily follow'd Theirs.

Unto which the Christian Poet Prudentius replyes, to this Sense.

If there be such a studiousness and care of Antique Custome, and it pleases not to depart from old Rites: There is extant in antient Books, (He means the Scriptures) a Noble Instance; that e­ven [Page 53]in the time of the Deluge, or be­fore, the Family or People, who first inhabited the new Earth, and dwelt in the empty World, serv'd but one God, whence our continued Race derives its pedigree, and reforms the Laws of the Piety of the Native Country.

SECT. III.

The State of Religion being so craz'd, the world being so corrupt in Opinion and Practice, God vouchsa­fed to reveal Himself to Abraham, and the other Patriarchs, and at the last singled out the posterity of Abraham for his peculiar People, Ps. 78.5.6.7, 8. Deut. 6.6, 17. and established a Testimony in Jacob, appoin­ted a Law in Israel, which he com­manded the Fathers: that they should [Page 54]make them known to their Children. That the Generation to come might know them, even the Children which should be born, who should arise and declare them to their Children; that they might set &c. Among these Laws, God commanded the owning, and Worship of himself, exclusively, of all pretended Deities whatsoever. He prescribed, in the greatest accu­racy, the Substance, and very puncti­lio's of his worship. And to fence these sacred Injunctions, the better to preserve them from violation, at the first delivery of them, God strook an holy dread into the People by Thundrings and Lightnings, and a thick Cloud, so that all in the Camp trembled: Exod. 19.16. nay, so terrible was the sight, that Moses himself said, I ex­ceedingly fear and quake. Heb. 12.21. And to make all the more sure, there was super­added an explicite and formal Co­venant between God and the people, solemniz'd with the sprinkling of Blood, part of it on the Altar, Exod. 24.3, 4.5. and part on the People; and all the People answered with one Voice, and said; All the words, which the Lord hath said, will we doe.

What a large and exact Provision was here made for the safe descending of what God had committed to the People unto all Generations, and for the making them trusty Traditioners! yet how strangely were they ever and anon declining from the puri­ty of what had been delivered to them; Fathers and Children propha­ning the Divine Worship, and dis­honouring God, by the mixtures of Heathenish Rites, and Idolatrous A­bominations.

In the Chain of Tradition the first Link broke. That very People, who had so lately trembled at Mount Sinai, yet, tho' still so near that Mount, danced before a Golden Calf: saying, These be thy Gods, Exod. 32.4 O Israel which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt. If this fall out so early, how much more likely was it, that the convey­ance of Religion in its purity to af­ter Ages should fail! And the event was answerable. The Books of Judges, Kings, and Chronicles, and of seve­ral of the Prophets, so abound in examples of almost perpetual, and gene­ral defections from the Ancient Faith, [Page 56]and Practice, that many quotations are needless, two will be enough. 1. In the Reign of Ahab, Elijah mourn'd to God, that he only was left of the true Worshippers in Israel (at the least of the true Pro­phets,) 1 Kings 19.10.18. and that even his life was in danger. And tho' the All-seeing God comforted him by the account of seven thousand, who had not bow'd the knee to Baal: Yet (as it seems, this was to Elijah an invisible Church; so) what were these seven thousand to the multitudes of the rest of Is­rael? 2ly. In Judah, so great and criminous was the Falling off from what God had antiently ordain'd, that good Josiah rent his Clothes, when he heard the words of the Books of the Law read; 2 Kings 22.11. and com­par'd former and present Practice with what was there commanded.

Such were the Apostasies of the Jewish Church from Primitive Do­ctrine, and instituted Worship, and for a long time, and without any relief, and restitution from Oral Tradition (the intervening Reforma­tion in Josiah's Reign was ow'd to [Page 57]the Holy Scriptures:) 2 Kings. 23.2, 3. Till God re­veng'd those miscarriages sharply, but very righteously, first upon the ten Tribes, and afterwards upon the remaining two.

The two Tribes after seventy years Correction return'd home, re-built their City and Temple. But in time they split into several Sects, which were so many dege­neracies from the first Purity of their Religion. Our Blessed Lord reprov'd them for their corrupt Tra­ditions, as being a vain Worship, Math. 15.3.9. and Evacuations of the Commandments of God.

The Jews have amongst them an Oral Tradition, expository of the Law Writ­ten, and given (as is said by them) by God to Moses, intrusted by Mo­ses with Joshua, and the seventy Elders; and by them transmitted down from one Generation to another. This that People have in — Video Hebraeos om­nes—Legem, quae per os tradita est, tanti facere, ut eam non modò aequent Legi Scriptae, sed longe antefe­rant, tanquam animam corpo­ri; quò sine eâ impossibile sit, ut ipsis videtur, Legem Scriptam intelligere aut ob­servare: adeo (que) sine eâ Lex tota non sit nisi corpus [...]ine Spiritu, &c. Episcopii Instit. Theol. L. 3. C. 4. very high estimation, prefer­ring it to the very [Page 58] Scriptures, and honouring it with room in their Creed; of which one Article is: Leo Modena: History of the present Jews, &c. Translated by Mr. Chilmead. p. 248. I be­lieve that the Law, which was given by Moses, was wholly di­ctated by God, and that Moses put not in one Sylla­ble of himself: And so likewise that that which we have by Tra­dition, by way of Explication of the Precepts of the other, hath all of it proceeded from the Mouth of God, delivering it to Moses. Yet Learned Men judge this fardle of Traditions to be a very Epis­cop. Ibid. Cap. 6. per to [...]. Figment; and that in some Age or other, Ancestors have impos'd on the Cre­dulity of their Posterity; that Tra­dition has recommended to them, That, as deriving from God which never had so sacred and infallible an Author.

After the foregoing Observati­on of the Church; and how little agreeingly with it's first Model Tradition preserv'd it for two me mo­rable and large Periods of Time, I proceed to the Christian Church.

SECT. IV.

Being come to the Christian Church, let us first take some ac­count of the more early Ages of it.

As soon as the good Seed was sown, the Enemy came, and sow'd Tares among the Wheat. Tradition was not so viligant, but that many corrupt Doctrines and Practices quick­ly arose, and spread in the Church. Else St. August. might have spar'd his Book of Heresies, or the Cata­logue would have been shorter.

But I shall insist on two or three Opinions only, which have been antiently countenanced by great Names; and have been of consi­derable continuance in the Church, and are now generally rejected, by the Church of Rome, as well as by o­thers.

1. That after the Resurrection, Jerusalem should be new built, adorn'd, and enlarg'd; and that Believers in Christ should Reign with him there a thousand years; was very early believed. Papias (the [Page 60]Scholar of St. John) Irenaeus, Apol­linarius, Tertullian, Victorinus, La­ctantius, Severus, and a great multi­tude of Catholick Persons were of this Judgment. St. Hierome, tho' he did not hold, yet neither would he condemn this Opinion, because many Ecclesiastical Persons and Mar­tyrs had own'd it. And St. Au­gustine thought the Tenent tolera­ble, if abstracted from any carnality of Pleasures; and confesses, that he himself once held it. We have all this in Bibl. Stae. Lib. 5. Annot. 233. & Lib. 6. Annot. 347. Sixtus Senensis.

But [...], &c. Contra Tryphonem. p. 307. Justine Mar­tyr, Elder than either St. Hierome, or St. Augustine, speaks of the Millenarian Do­ctrine, as that which was embrac'd by all thorough Orthodox Christians of his time: which affirmation (whatsoe­ver is oppos'd out of him elsewhere to the diminution of it) must mean, that at the least a very great number of Christians were thus Opinion'd.

And though the Judgment of more sober Christians was more clean and inoffensive concerning the Mil­lenarian Reign, yet the apprehensions of many were more gross and sensual; as were those of the Cerinthians, as Cerinthiani—mille quo (que) annos post resurrectionem in terreno regno Christi secundum carnales ventris, & lihidin [...]s voluptates futuros fabulantur: unde etiam Chiliastae sunt ap­pellati. De Haeres. Cap. 8. St. Augustine tell us, and that they were call'd Chiliasts.

According to In Jo­han. cap. 6. Maldonate; St. Augustine's, and Innocent's the first Opinion of the necessity of the Eucharist to Infants, prevail'd in the Church about six hundred years.

This practice of Communicating of Infants is acknow­ledged by Ut enim sanctissimi il­li patres sui facti probabilem causam, pro illius temporis ra­tione hab [...]erunt, ita certè ecs nullâ salutis necessitate, id fe­cisse sine controversiâ credendum est. Trid. Conc. Sess. 5. Can. 4. Caranz. Summa Concil. the Council of Trent. But they deny, that the Practisers of it had any Opinion of its necessity; but us'd it upon some pro­bable Motive only. And so they Siquis dixerit, parvulis, antequam ad annos discretionis pervenerint, necessariam esse Eu­charistiae Communionem: Ana­thema sit. Sess. 5. Can. 4. De Communione sub utra (que) specie, & parvulorum. Caran. A­nathematize them on­ly; [Page 62]who shall affirm, that the Eu­charist is necessary to Children, be­fore they come to years of discre­tion. Thus the Trent-Fathers.

But if Tradition Antient and even Apostolical, and also Holy Scriptures, can make a Practice necessary, then (particularly) St. Augustine judg'd the Communicating of Infants to be necessary: For he — Ʋnde nisi ex antiquâ, ut existimo, & Apostolicâ Traditione Ecclesiae Christi insitum tenent, praeter Baptis­mum, & participationem Do­minicae Mensae, non solum ad regnum Dei, sed nec ad salutem, & vitam aeternam posse quenquam hominum pervenire. And pre­sently after two or three Quotations out of Scripture, he adds: Si ergo, ut tot, & tanta divina testimonia conci­nunt, nec salus, nec vita aeter­na sine Baptismo, & corpore & sanguine Domini cuiquam spectanda est, frustra sine his promittitur parvul [...]s. Porro si a salute, a [...] vitâ aeterna ho­minem nisi peccata non separant, per haec Sacramenta non nisi peccati reatus in parvulis solvi­tur. S. August. De peccati merit. & remiss. Contr. Pelag. L. 1. discours'd for it, both from Tradition and Scriptures. For when he had assert­ed upon the strength of both those To­piques; that with­out Baptism, and partaking of the Lord's Table none can be saved; he concludes, that therefore without these, Salvation is in vain promis'd to Children. Without these: i. e. Baptism, and the Eucharist also. So that, tho' [Page 63]the Sanctissimi Patres have good words given them, yet the holy Augustine, and the rest who were of his mind, must fall under the Trent-Anathema. And, considering the clearness of the passage in St. Augustine; it is strange it should be said: [There is an Objection,—That S. Au­stine and Innocentius with their Councils, held that the Communion of Children was necessary for Salvati­on; and their words seem to be apparent. But who looks into o­ther passages of the same Authors will find, that their words are Metaphorical; and that their mean­ing is, that the Effects of Sacra­mental Communion, to wit, an In­corporation into Christ's Body, which is done by Baptism, is of ne­cessity for Childrens Salvation. Rushworth Dial. 3d. Sect. 13.] What passages they are, which do thus interpret those Authors meaning, we are not told. But,

1. It is strange, that if St. Aug. and Innoc. intended Baptism only, and by that an Incorporation into Christ's Mystical Body, to be neces­sary [Page 64]to Children for their Salvation. They should at all mention the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood, and the partaking of the Lord's Table, to be necessary to Chil­dren for that purpose, what needed such a disert and repeated conjunction of Baptism, and of the Eucharist, in expressing that necessity, if there was no necessity of the Communion, but of Baptism only? What reason for it, except they should be thought to have a mind to darken their Sense with Words. Nay, if they meant one of the Sacraments only to be necessary to Childrens Salvation; tho' they explicitly mention both; why may it not be said, that they intended the Communion only, and not Baptism to be necessary for that end; seeing they are in words as express for the Communion, as for Baptism?

2ly. As for St. Augustine, his word (in the Margent) will not without extremity of injury admit of such a Construction, as the Author a­bove-named would (in his com­menting way) obtrude upon them. [Page 65]For certainly when he says; That [without Babtism, and partaking of the Lord's Table, and of the Body and Blood of the Lord, no man can be saved] he meant properly, and without a figure, why therefore, when he adds in way of Inference, [si ergo] if therefore both these Sacraments, Baptism and the Body and Blood of the Lord, be ne­cessary to Salvation, in vain without these is Salvation promised to Children, sure he means not metaphorically but properly likewise. Else his discourse would not be homogeneous, the Inference would not be suitable to the Premisses.

From what has been said it is plain, that St. Augustine's words are to be understood in the most obvious sense, and unstrain'd by a Trope. And I am perswaded, St. Augustine does not con­tradict Himself, disagree in other places, from what he clearly means in this, and several others.

I shall add; that the necessity of Communica­ting of Infants, conti­nued to be maintained in the Greek Church in the days of Notandum quòd ex ho [...] quod dicitur hic: Nisi manducaveritis &c. Di­cunt Graeci, quòd hoc Sa­cramentum est tantae ne­cessitatis, quod pueris de­bet dari, sicut Baptismus. In Johan. Cap. 6. p. 53. Li­ranus; and much la­ter, [Page 66]in the time of, Graeci—Eucharistiam parvulis etiam infantibus praeb [...]nt, Instit. Mor. par­te 1. L. 5 C. 11. Azorius; and 'tis in use with the Ricaut of the Arme­nian Church. Armenian Church to this Age. And of this usage among the Christians in Habas­sia, in Egypt, and some others, Enquiries touching, &c. Cap. 22, 23, 25. Brerewood may be seen.

3ly. That the Souls of the Saints departed enjoy not the beatifique Vi­sion of God till after the Re­surrection, was a belief of the Church, for some ages, Bib. Stae. Lib 6. An­not. 345. Sixtus Senensts gives us a long Catalogue of Persons of Note, who enclin'd this way; as James the Apostle, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clemens Romanus, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Pru­dentius, St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostome, St. Augustin, Theodoret, Arethas, Oe­cumenius, Theophylact, Euthymius, Ber­nard, and Pope John the 22d. Of all these he says, that They seem'd to give Authority to the Opinion by their Testimony: Tho afterwards he en­deavours to interpret some of them to a commodious sense, and excuses [Page 67] Others of them by this; that the Church had not then determined any thing certainly in this Article, M. Daille of the right use of the Fathers. Lib. 2. Cap 4. Vossii Theses Hist [...]rico-Ecclesiasticae, de slatu Animae Separatae. Luc. 2. Th s. 1.2.3. Authors have obser­ved the stream of Anti­quity to have run much this way, and that (if it be not now,) it was believed, Daille Ibid. propiùs fi­nem. Brerewood Enqui­ries. Cap. 15. and de­fended by the whole Greek Church, till of later years.

But the contrary to this was de­fined by a Definimus— Illorum etiam animas, qui — in caelum mex recipi, & in­tueri clarè ipsum Deum tri­num & Ʋnum, sicuti est. Conc. Flor. apud Caran. Council, call'd first at Ferrara, but afterwards remo­ved to Florence, not yet 250 years ago. And De Beatit. & Ca­non. Sanctorum. Lib. 1 [...] Cap. 1. In initio. Bellarmine calls the Denying to Souls, who need no purifying by a Purgatory Fire, the clear sight of God immediately upon their departure, an Opinion of An­cient, and Modern Heretiques, and he names, (with much reverence to the Fathers) Tertullian, as Pri­mum ex Haereticis, the first of the Heretiques, who maintain'd it, That, [Page 68]which made the Cardinal so fierce, it may be, was, because he conceiv'd the Haec quaestio fundamen­tum est omnium altarum; nam idcirco aute Christi adventum non ita coleban­tur, neque invocabantur Spi­ritus Patriarcharum, & Prophetarum, quemadmo­dum nunc Apostolos, & Mar­tyres colimus & invocamus, quòd Illi adhuc inferni carceribus clausi detiner en­tur, Ordo disputationis subnexas Praefationi ad septimam Controversiam ge­neralem de Ecclesiâ trium­phante. Beatifical vision of God by the Saints departed before the day of Judgment, to be a Foundation of the present Worship, and Invocation of them. But howsoever, he was more civil to John 22d. because a Pope, whom he brings off thus. Respondeo imprimis ad Adrianum, Joannem hunc reverâ sensisse, animas non visuras Deum, nisi post resurrectionem: [...]aeterùm hoc sensisse, quando adhuc sentire licebat sine pericu­lo Haeresis, nulla enim ad­h [...]c praecesserat Ecclesiae de­finitio. Bellarm. de Romano Pontifice, Lib. 4. Cap. 14. John (he says) was really, and might be of this Opini­on, without danger of Heresie; because there had been no determi­nation as yet by the Church concerning it. This necessarily im­plies, that if the point had been determined before John's time, his Tenent would have been Heretical, therefore an Error in Faith, and that it must so fare with those, whosoever have denyed, or shall deny it, since the Definition of it, [Page 69]and so a Tenent may be in one Age an Article of Faith, which was not so in a former Age.

But I cannot conceive how this should be, how an Opinion should be coin'd an Article of Faith in the Mint of Oral Tradition, which yet is affirm'd to be the sole Rule of Faith, (and which is the thing I have undertaken to disprove.) For) 1. Neither can an Opinion advance into an Article of Faith, ex parte sui, in its own Nature, which was not so before, by virtue of Oral Tradition, because that is but a Witness; does not enact Articles anew, but only conveys down to us, such as were stampt Articles of Faith by Divine Autho­rity, and deliver'd to the first Churches Custody. Nor, 2ly. Can an Opinion improve into an Article of Faith ex parte nostri, come to be known to us as such, if it were not known to be such in times past: Because every later Age depends for Intelligence on the Age foregoing, and can know no more, than what that Age informs of; and the foregoing Age could not teach the following one more than [Page 70]it self knew. So that the Opinion of Pope John must have always been the same; as much an Heresie (if at all an Heresie) before the Church's Determination, as after it; or, as little an Heresie after the Church's Determination, as it was before. And here by the way, Sure Foot­ing. p. 116. it may be observ'd, that tho' it is boasted, that the chief Pastor of the See of Rome has a particular Title to Infallibility built on Oral Tradition, above any See, or Pastor whatsoever: Yet the chief Pa­stor John did err in a material and consequential point of Faith; a very Learned Adversary being Judge. And this is but one Instance among ma­ny.

To draw toward an end of this Section. By a view of the two or three Opinions, which had once no small countenance from the antient Church, yet have been since turn'd out of favour, and two of them been vtigmatiz [...]d, we may perceive, that O­ral Tradition has not been so even and regular in its Conveyance, as is asserted.

And if the Antient Church, so much nearer to the Apostles days, (nearer by so many hundreds of years, than we are now; or our Fathers were, at the first secession from the Roman Communion) did mistake, (as is yielded by the Ro­manists) and Oral Tradition did de­cline so soon; how much more pro­bable is it, that it should grow yet more feeble, and corrupt at such a far greater distance of time! As Waters which arise clear, and of qualities agreeing with their Foun­tain, the farther they run, do the more contract a new relish, and gather a foulness from the Chanels through which they travel.

SECT. V.

I proceed to the Christian Churches since the more Primitive times; and as they are commonly divided into the Eastern and We­stern Churches; so I shall begin with the Eastern, and there speak of the Greek Church only. In which I suppose, none will question, but [Page 72]that Christian Religion was planted in a very ample and punctual man­ner; such, as might have secur'd a perpetuity of Primitive Truths a­mong the Professors of them, as well as among any other Body of Chri­stians.

This Church administers the Eu­charist to the Laiety in both kinds; allows Married Priests, denys Pur­gatory-fire, (to add no more.) In these things the Roman Church dif­fers from them: One of them there­fore must err, and have receded from what was delivered at the first to them. We believe the Roman Church to be guilty of the Recess, and they to be sure will deny it. But yet, which soever it be of the Churches, which is in the wrong (and one of them must be so) Oral Tradition is guilty of Mal-performance of its Duty.

But moreover, this Church holds, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, and not from the Son: Which is a Tenent condemned by Protestants, and Romanists both. And the Grecians misbelief in this [Page 73]Article was judg'd by Card. Bel­larmine so criminous, that he count­ed it meritorious of the sacking of Constantinople; which hapned ac­cordingly (in his calculation) at the Feast of Pentecost, Bellarm. de Christo. lib. 2. cap. 30. as a Judgment of God upon them for this error about the Procession of his Holy Spirit. And he adds, That many compare the Greek Church to the Kingdom of Samaria, which se­parated from the true Temple, and for that was punish'd with perpetual Captivity.

How far charitable in his Censure, and right in his Vossius de tribus Symboli; in Addendis. Chronology the Cardinal was, let others judge. But this is clear, that they of that Com­munion (as they are very numerous, so) do generally consent in this O­pinion; that there has been an en­tail of it upon Posterity through hundreds of years; and that though their Reduction has been more than once attempted, yet endeavours have prov'd succesless: the wound may have been skin'd over, but it has not been heal'd. Idem. Ibid. Though at the Councils of Lyons and Florence, it is [Page 74]said, there was something of a Closure; yet as soon as the Greeks return'd home, there was presently a Rupture again; and the Churches remain'd at as great a distance as before. And they retain their old Error Ricaut, of the Greek Church. to this day, and are ob­served to defend it with a particular dexterity.

The same Greek Church denies the Pope's Supremacy, that Summa Rei Chri­stianae. Bel­lar In Praef. ad lib. de summo Pon­tifice. Dia­na of the Romanists. They may have yielded the Bishop of Rome a See Ni­lus, [...]. Primacy of Order, and yet that too, not as enstated on him by Di­vine Right, but indulg'd him by the favour of Princes, and Ecclesiasti­cal Canon. But they would never grant him a Superiority of Power and Authority: They will not Ricaut, of the Greek Church. yet allow it him.

These Opinions of the Greek Church cannot in the Judgment of the Romanists (who hold contrarily to both, and are so especially con­cern'd in the latter) descend from Christ and his Apostles: Therefore they must confess, that Tradition has miscarried. And Traditions mis­carrying [Page 75]among so great, and for­merly renowned (tho' now afflicted) a Society of Christians, for so very long a time, and in Points of such moment, must needs decry it much below that value, to which its friends have enhans'd it.

SECT. VI.

Next shall succeed a considera­tion of the Western Church. And what Church in the West would be more taken notice of, than the Ro­man? VVhere we are to find the most accurate Tradition, or to de­spair of meeting with it any where. They of that Communion having dress'd up, and strengthned the Cause of Oral Tradition with the greatest advantages, which their wit and learning can give it; and claiming it as their Sure Footing, P. 116. Priviledge, to be the most infallible Traditioners of a­ny Church whatsoever.

Two things here may be consi­dered: 1. VVhat the Accord is of the Roman with the Antient Church. 2ly. VVhat her Harmony is with her­self: [Page 76]How well Oral Tradition has preserv'd her in both these respects.

First how little the Church of Rome comports, in her Opinions and Practices, with the most antient and purest Churches, has been de­monstrated by many Learned Pro­testants. I shall insist but on one thing, viz. The denyal of the Cup to the Laiety in the Eucharist by the Roman Church.

The Learned Cassander thought it could not be prov'd; that Non puto demonstra­ri posse totis mille ampliùs annis, in ullâ Catholicae Ecclesiae parte sacrosanctum hoc Eucharistiae Sacramen­tum aliter in sacrâ synazi è mensâ Dominicâ fideli po­pulo, quàm sub utro (que) panis vini (que) Symbolo, administra­tum fuisse. De saerâ Comm. sub utrâ (que) specie. He is positive, and large in this, in his Consultation like­wise. Much to the same purpose, Alphonsus a Ca­stro. Tit. Eucharistia. Hae­resi. 13. For above a 1000 years the Sacra­ment of the Eucha­rist was otherwise ad­ministred to the faith­ful People, than un­der the Elements of Bread and Wine both. Several of our Ad­versaries give their suf­frages with Cassander: And the Greek Church administers to the Laie­ty in both kinds, to the present Age. But let us come to that which will, with our Adversaries, be of more Authority.

The Council of Praeterea declarat, hane potestatem perpetuò in Ec­clesiâ fuisse, ut in Sacramen­torum dispensatione, sal­va illorum substantia, ea statueret, vel mutaret, quae suscipientium utilitati, seu ipsorum Sacramentorum ve­nerationi, pro rerum, tem­porum, & locorum varieta­te, magis expedire judica­ret.—Quare agnoscens ma­ter Ecclesia hanc suam in ad­ministratione Sacramento­rum Anthoritatem, licèt ab initio Christianae religionis non infrequens utrius (que) speciei usus fuisset, tamen—hanc consuetudinem sub alterâ specie communicandi, appro­bavit, & pro lege habendam decrevit.— Sess. 5. Can. 2. Apud Caran. Trent confesses, That from the be­ginning of Christian Religion, the use of both Bread and Wine was not uncommon. Yet [licèt] although such had been the Primitive, and not uncommon usage; the Council approv'd of Communicating un­der one kind, and decreed it to be ob­served as a Law. And this the Council did by virtue of a (pre­tended) Power of the Church to appoint, and to alter, in the administrations of the Sacraments, as should be judg'd ex­pedient, for the Communicants pro­fit, and the Veneration of the Sacra­ments, according to the variety of Circum­stances.

Before this the Council of Hoc generale Concili­um declarat, decernit, & definit,—quòd licèt Chri­stus post caenam instituerit; & suis discipulis administra­verit sub utra (que) specie panis & vini hoc venerabile Sa­cramentum; tamen, hoc non obstante, sacrorum Canonum Authoritas, & approbata comuetudo Ecclesiae serva­vit, & servat — Et simi­liter quòd licet in primitivâ Ecclesià h [...]jusmodi Sacra­mentum reciperetur a fide­libus sub ut [...]â (que) specie; tamen haec consuetudo, ad e­vitandum aliqua pericula & scandala, est rationabiliter introducta, quòd a conficien­tibus sub utrâ (que) specie, & a laicis tantummodo sub specie panis suscipiatur.— Sess. 3. Apud Eundem. Con­stance [Page 78]had acknow­ledg'd, That Christ after Supper, Insti­tuted, and Admini­stred the Venerable Sacrament to his Dis­ciples under both kinds of Bread and Wine; and likewise, that in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received by the faith­ful under both kinds. Yet [licet] although this was so; and [hoc non obstante] notwithstanding this, the Council declar'd, decreed, and defin'd, that the Bread only should be received by the Laiety. And this Council thus defin'd, by virtue of certain Canons, and because of a Custom rationally introduc'd for the a­voiding certain dangers, and scandals.

We have had a clear and express acknowledgment of the Institution, and Primitive use of the Eucharist in both kinds; of the generality, and very long continuance of the Practice. We have this granted by two Coun­cils, [Page 79]and by others who were of the Roman Communion. How came it to pass then, that a Primitive In­stitution and Usage, and that so long perpetuated, should be laid aside, nay, decreed against by those very Councils; and that they, who should say, that the Communicating under one kind only were Sacrilegious and Ʋnlawful, should be dealt with as Concil. Constan. l­bid, Hereticks? VVhy, we may observe two Reasons given in those Councils. 1. The Church's Authority. 2ly. Expedi­ency. Both these shall be considered of.

1. Of the Authority of the Church in the Case. I confess that the Church has Authority in determining and al­tering things indifferent, as Edification, Decency, and Order shall require.

But Governours of the Church must beware how they deal with That, which was so remarkably honoured with our great Lord's, and good Saviours solemn Institution, and first Administration of it in his own Sa­cred Person; and that in Commemo­ration of no less than of the break­ing his holy Body, and of the shedding his pretious Blood, and for to shew the Lord's death till he come. [Page 80]In this August Ordinance, Times Place, and Gesture are Circumstan­ces; but surely Bread and Wine are Substantials. For to the substance, and integrity of a Sacra­ment, do concurr the Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum. — ut Sacramen­tum sit sacrum signans, & sacrum signatum. Pet. Lumb. Lib. 4 Distinct. 1. B. outward, sensible Signs, as well as the inward, retired things signified; and the Eu­charist consists (as — Eucharistia ex du­abus rebus constans terre­nâ, & caelesti. Adversus haereses. Lib. 4. Cap. 34. Irenaeus says) of some­thing earthly, and of som­thing heavenly. And 'tis the Trent Fathers cau­tion, that — Salvâ illorum substantiâ—Conc. Trid. suprà. the sub­stance of the Sacraments be preserv'd safe.

Now I desire to know of our Ad­versaries, whether they think that the Church has power to lay aside the Wine and Bread both? I believe they would answer negatively. Then with what reason, and by what Au­thority, do they dismiss One of them, i. e. the Wine, and afford the whole Laiety but a dry Communion? Did the Soveraign Ordainer permit any such halving, and mutilation of his Sacrament? There is no such Per­mission to be found in the first In­stitution, [Page 81]and Administration of it by Him; nor in the Doctrine, and Practice of his Apostles afterwards. How then should the Subjects (and Councils, and Popes too, are no bigger) dare to make any distinction, where the Supreme Lawgiver Him­self has made none? Let things be scan'd, and it will be plain, that the Sacramental Bread and Wine, in the Administration of them to the Faithful, have the same bottom; and that there is no rea­son, why if the One be alterable, the other may not be so likewise. For, 1. There is the same ex­press command of Christ for the One, as for the Other, 'Tis said, 1 Cor. 11.24 25. Do this: in the administra­tion of the Wine, as well as of the Bread. And that it may not be catch'd at, that it is said As for the words of our Saviour (do this in remem­brance of me) they do no ways inser a precept of receiving in both kinds. First, because our Saviour said these words absolutely onely of the Sa­crament in the form of Bread, but in the form of Wine onely conditional­ly (do this, as o [...]t as y shall drink, in remembrance of me;) not commanding them to drink but in case they did drink—that then they should do it in memory of Christ. Dr. Vane's lost sherp, &c. pag. 311, 312. of the Body Simply, Do this; but of the Cup, Do this as oft as ye drink it: as if there [Page 82]were a tacit intimation of a greater necessity of communicating of the Bread, than of the Cup; and that therefore it were sufficient, if the Bread be received, tho' the Wine be not: to preclude (I say) any such Evasion, St. Paul presently ap­plys the same [ [...]] to the Bread, as well as to the Cup: 1 Cor. 11.26. For as oft as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do shew, &c. 2ly. Both these were administred to the same Persons. 3ly. There is the same end expresly, and distinctly assign'd to both: Do this in remembrance of me. 4ly. There's as much spiritual benefit, and comfort, which redound to the Communicants by the participation of the One, as of the Other. The Wine appears to have the advan­tage rather of the other sacred Ele­ment. For the Substance, colour, and manner of the delivering the Wine separately from the Bread, have a peculiar Aptness to represent Blood, and Bloodshed; and consequently to impress the quicker apprehen­sions, and spiritual sense of our blessed Jesus's bloody death upon, [Page 83]and to excite the smarter affections in, the Communicants.

By what has been said, there is evident an Equal necessity of the use of both the Sacramental Elements, and therefore the Wine is as little mutable, and dispensable with, in the Eucharistical Administration, by the Churches and Canons Authority, as the Bread.

As for Expediency of withholding the Cup from the Laity, and the In­expediency of the contrary: it is not safe, or consequential upon such grounds to discourse against what is divinely instituted and commanded. But let us attend to what is pleaded.

The Council of Constance procee­ded in their Decree, upon a Custome rationally (as they say) introduced, for the avoiding dangers and scandals, or offences. But, 1. why they should in­sist on, and commend a Custome as rational, which was in truth but an Innovation (because contrary to the first Institution of the Sacrament by Christ, and to the first and general use in the Churches of Christ, and therefore unreasonable,) I cannot [Page 84]understand. Certainly, the Council had shew'd the Prudence and Gravi­ty of Fathers, if they had condemn'd this Custome, as a Novel abuse, and had done that Right to the Sacra­ment, as to have restor'd the Admi­nistration to what it was at the Be­ginning. But perhaps, 2ly. The Avoi­dance of certain dangers, and Scan­dals may be some excuse. Now, what those dangers and Scandals might be, I should not have thought, but that I find Card. Bellarmin (who De Eu­char. Lib. 4. Cap. 24.6. neque ad hoc incommo­dum. confes­seth, that Christ instituted the Eu­charist under both kinds; and that the Ancient Church administred in both kinds, yet) alledging Ibid. Sect. Sexta ratio sumi potest ab in­commodis. some In­conveniences, which, he says, would follow upon a necessity of the use of both Species. As, 1. Because of the Numerousness of some Congrega­tions, where yet there may be but one Priest. 2. Danger of Irreve­rence in casual spilling the wine. 3ly. Some cannot drink wine. 4ly. Vines do not grow, nor is wine made, in some Countreys. This is the sum of the four Incommoda, Inconveniencies, in which I conceive there is not [Page 85]much. For, 1. If the Congregation be any where so very large, and there be but one Priest, he may procure an Assistant at the Sacramental Sea­sons, or the more days may be assigned for Communicating. There be many great Congregations among Protest­ants, each of which have but One Incumbent, and yet they do not find the administration of the Bread and Cup both, to the People, to be un­practicable. 2ly. To avoid spilling, the Priest may put the less wine into the Chalice, and tread the more care­fully; this is an easi prevention of Irreverence. 3ly. The persons, who have an Antipathy to wine, are but few, and it is unreasonable, that a rare and extraordinary case should wholly suspend the force of a Law, and supersede a Practice, with res­pect to All, and even Extra casum ex­traordinarium, where there is no such extraordinary occasion. 4ly. 'Tis known, that wine is common, and sufficiently cheap in those places, where it is not made. Or if there be any odd Corner, where wine cannot be had, the third answer [Page 86]may serve. So much for Expedien­cy, and the avoiding dangers and scandals.

Con. Con­stant. Ibid. They of the Council add, That it is most firmly to be believed, and not at all to be doubted, that the whole Body of Christ, and his Blood, are truly contain'd, as well under the species of Bread, as under the species of Wine.

'Tis likely, that they meant this pre­tended concomitancy, as an Argument for the no necessity of the Laieties having the Cup Administred to them, because (as they say) the whole Body and Blood of Christ is contain'd under the Bread alone. But (as they went upon a supposition, that there's a real Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the very Body and Blood of Christ, which we deny, and can never be prov'd; so) They boldly reflect upon the Wisdom of Christ, who did Ordain and Administer Wine as well as Bread, and that to the same Per­sons; and best knew, how he was present in the Sacrament, and would be to the end of the World; best [Page 87]knew what was necessary, what su­perfluous in his own Ordinance.

Certainly, Christ having declared his Pleasure, by what he said and did at his Institution and Admi­nistration of the Eucharist, con­cerning Communicating in both kinds, Christians (without puzling their heads about an imaginary Concomi­tancy, or the like needless Subtleties) are to judge; that then they partake of whole Christ in a Sacramental way; i. e. enjoy Communion of his Body, and Communion of his Blood also; when­as they drink of the Cup of Blessing, as well as eat of the Bread broken confor­mably to our Lord's own Institution, and accordingly as his Apostle The Cup of Blessing, which we bless, is it not the Commu­nion of the Blood of Christ? The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Bo­dy of Christ? 1 Cor. 10.16. sorts them out, each re­spectively to the other.

Nay, suppose this fancied Concomi­tancy, yet it can't be a Salvo for the denial of the Cup to the Peo­ple in the Eucharist. For there Christ is represented, and Christians par­take of him, as 1 Cor. 11.26. dying; partake [Page 88]of his Body, as 1 Cor. 11.24. broken, and of Blood Math. 26.28. as shed; i. e. separated from his Body; but what is separated from his Body is not Concomitant with it. Hence Par. 3. Qu. 76. Ar­ticle. 2. [...]. Thomas Aquinas says, That if this Sacrament had been Admini­stred at the very time of Christ's Passi­on and Death; then the Body of Christ Administred under the species of Bread would have been without the Blood; as also the Blood under the species of Wine, would have been without the Body. Why, and so it must be understood still. For things Arbitrarily Institu­ted (as the Eucharist was) must be consider'd and us'd, answerably to the Will and Intent of the Ordainer. It having then been Christ's plea­sure, that his Sacrament should ex­hibit him, not as he was before, or after his Death; but as dying and par­ting with his Blood, Christians accor­dingly are to participate of his Bo­dy and Blood, considered under such circumstances as then were, when he hung bleeding on the Cross; i. e. When his Body and Blood were di­vided from each other, and there­fore significantly of this Separation [Page 89](in point of congrui­ty, as well as pre­cept) Christians are to receive the Wine, as well as the Bread.

I shall annex but one thing more. It is The Title of the Dialogue is [whether, and how, Commu­nion in both kinds is Faith?] And toward the end of it:—Be­sides that the present Practice, (viz. administring in one kind) though universal, doth not deciare the Church's Faith, as in this parti­cular, the Council of Trent shews, declaring that the Pope may dis­pence upon just occasion, which could not be in matters of Faith. Enchiridion of Faith. Dial. 14. pag. 75. By Fran. Covent. (Tho. White, as is supposed) Printed at Douay, 1655. said, (the more, I suppose, to al­leviate the Church's denial of the Cup to the Laiety; when as yet the Author confesses, that among the Antients, they did more frequently and publickly give the holy Eucha­rist in both kinds) that this is a Practice, but not a matter of Faith. But,

1. Antient Divine Practices, and Usages, (such as the Sacramental Administration) as well as Divine Doctrines, should be held sacred, and be kept inviolate by Christians.

2ly. Faith is truly concern'd in this Sacramental Practice. For in Religion, and even the Agendis of it, the things to be done, Faith and Practice are interwoven with each other; the former must guide the [Page 90]latter: The understanding must be right in its Belief, before the Actions can be regular. Now, that Christ did ordain the Sacrament, and com­mand the Administration of it in af­ter Ages, in such a way as he him­self had ordain'd and administred it, are Credenda, things to be believ­ed, tho' the Execution of, or Obe­dience to the Command be a Practi­cal. So then the Church of Rome, denying the Cup to the People, and avowing it; disobeying a Divine Com­mand, and maintaining that disobe­dience, doth offend in a matter of Practice and Faith both. For they do not barely omit a Practice or Du­ty, but also oppose and evacuate a Di­vine Command, and the obligation from it, which are Objects of Faith. And that Faith has to do in this Af­fair, was the Judgment of the Coun­cil of Constance; whenas they de­nounc'd, Concil. Con­stant. Ibid. that an Assertion of the un­lawfulness, or sacriledge in administring in one kind only, should be sufficient for a Man's Conviction of Heresie.

After all, which has been dis­coursed in this Section, it must be [Page 91]concluded, that the Church of Rome have in their Half-Communion, and peremptory defence of it, departed from primitive Institution, divine command, and the Church's ancient general Ʋ ­sage, that Posterity has deserted Fore-fathers, and therefore that Oral Tradition has not done its Duty.

SECT. VII.

Secondly, let us examine, what the Agreement is of the Romanists among themselves. And if we find them at difference, then Tradition has not been so faithful, as to bring Truth whole and sincere to them, for if Tra­dition were full and uniform, it would keep them at Ʋnity with one another.

But even among them there may be observed Parties; who tho' in Complement they acknowledge one first Mover, yet have each their counter-motions; tho' that Church boast of their Harmony, yet they have their discords; only, they are not so loud perhaps, as those are, among [Page 92]their Adversaries. Let account be taken of some of their Civil Wars.

The Contests, between the Jesuits and Dominicans concerning Grace, and Freewil; Predetermination, and Contingency; as also between the Molinists and Jansenists; are well known.

The Les pro­vinciales, or the Mistery of Jesuitism. pag. 92. Doctrine of Probable Opini­ons, and many practical Doctrines of the Jesuites questionless please themselves, and likewise the pag. 194. polite Saints, and Courtier-like Puritans: Yet others mislike them, and believe they never descended from Jesus, nor from his Apostle, St. Peter.

The difference between the Cassan­drians and the Church, in commu­nion whereof they live, is so great, as that it seems to be, as it were, one State within another State, and one Church within another Church; (as Mr. Da­ille Of the right use of the Fathers. Lib. 1. Cap. 11. one reports who had reason to know.)

Some will have the Bellarm. De Concil. Auctor. Lib 2. Cap. 14. Pope to be above a Council; others, a Coun­cil to be above the Pope. Some affirm, that the Pope Bellar. de Romano Pontif. L. 4. C. 2. cannot err; Others that he may. Some are for the Pope's [Page 93]plenary Power, over the whole world, both in Ecclesiastical affairs, and also Political; but others allow him Idem de Pont. Rom. L. 5. C. 1. only a Spiritual Power directly, and immediately; yet in virtue of that spiritual Power, to have likewise a Power indirectly, and that the high­est, even in Temporal matters. Of this latter Opinion Bellarmin himself was, yet it seems the French denied the Pope's power in Temporals, whether directly, or but indirectly; when as Bellarmin's Gold. in Repl. pro. Imp. cited by Dr. Cra­kanthorp, of the Popes Tempor. Monarchy. Chap. 11. Book against Barclay, (in which Bellarmin defends the Popes Power over Princes) was so de­tested by that State, that in their publique Assembly, they did prohi­bit and forbid any, and that un­der the Pain of High Treason, ei­ther to keep, or receive, or print, or sell that Book.

Exomo­log. C. 40. H. P. de Cressy calls Infalli­bility, to him an unfortunate word; confesses, that Chillingworth has comba­ted it with too too great success: will have it, that the Church of Rome maintains no more than an Autho­rity; and says, he has reason, moving him to wish, that the Protestants may [Page 94]never be invited to Combat the Autho­rity of the Church under the notion of Infallibility. And to shew, that he is not alone in this; he makes very bold with the Council of Trent, Ibid. and Pope Pius 4th, if they are not on his side; for he shelters his Opinion, under a Decision of the former, and a Bull of the latter, concerning the Oath of the Profession of Faith. And likewise Dr. Holden (in his Quem & Cathel cae Fidei con­sonum inve­ni, &, &c. Approbation of Cressy's Book, with­out any Censure of this passage) says; (He found it consonant to the Catholique Faith.)

If this be so, as Cressy would sain have it to be, then the Romanists and we are not at so much distance, as we thought we had been: for of an Authority of the Church, there's no dispute between us and them. But sure, there's more in the case than so. For the Roman Catechisme set forth by decree of the Council of Trent, and by the Command of Pope Pius 5th. Quemadmodum haec una Ecclesia errare non potest in fidei, ac morum discipli­nâ tradendâ, cùm a spiritu S. gubernetur, ita, &c. Ca­tech. Rom. Cap. 15. Quest. 15. says, that the Church cannot Err in delive­ring [Page 95]Faith, and Manners, foras­much as it is govern'd by the holy Spirit: cannot Erre, i. e. is infallible. And this Church thus inerrable is that of the Roman Com­munion: for the same Catechism Quid de Romano Ponti­fice, visibili Ecclesiae Christi Capite, sentiendum est. De eo fuit illo omnium Patrum ratio, &c. Ibid. quest. 11. says a little before, that the Roman Pontife is the vi­sible Head of Christ's Church. And the great Defender of the Ro­mish Faith, Card. Bel­larmin affirms, that Catholici verò omnes constanter d [...]cent, Concilia generalia, a summo Ponti­fice confirmata, non posse errare, nec in fide explican­dâ, nec in tradendis mo­rum praeceptis, toti Eccle­siae communibus. Bellarm. de Conciliorum Autoritate. L. 1. C. 2. circa initium. all Catholiques do con­stantly teach, that General Councils, confirm'd by the Pope, cannot Err in Faith or Manners, in explicating the one, or in delivering Precepts about the o­ther. And in the same Chapter he adds; that — Tota Autoritas Ec­clesiae fermaliter non est nisi in Praelatis,—ergo idem est, Ecclesiam non posse er­rare in definiendis rebus fi­dei, & Episcopos non posse errare. Idem. Ibid. Sect. ex his enim locis manifeste col­ligitur. the whole Autho­rity of the Church is formally in the Prelates; and therefore, that the Church cannot err in defining matters of Faith, and [Page 96]that the Bishops cannot Err, are the same Thing.

From what has been quoted, it seems that Dr. Cressy, and whoso­ever else may be on his side, are considerably oppos'd by others. Indeed the Infallibility of the Roman Church, and the great usefulness of it to them, is better understood by them, than to be parted with.

Upon a survey of the foremen­tioned Dissentions among Romanists themselves, the clear inference is; that either Tradition is full, and plain enough in the things disagreed about; and if so, then the Roma­nists themselves do not believe Tra­dition, rest not in what their Fathers taught them, and so transgress their own Rule of Faith; or Tradition comes down so divided, that it can­not unite them; shines so dimly, that they cannot see their way by it (as In the points of immacu­late Conception, and the Con­troversies between the Je­suits, and the Dominicans, &c. Exomolog. Ch. 82. Dr. Cressy says, some learned Catho­liques are of Opinion) and so wander each Party in a Path by it self. And this evinces [Page 97] Traditions impotency, want of a sufficient plainness and certainty.

But here is a retreat, to which our Adversaries must be followed. There is a Enchi­rid. of Faith. p. 17. 113. Some what to this purpose likewise Cressy speaks, Ex­om. Ch. 28. distinction made be­tween the Faith and the Doctrine of the Church; between Points, which are de fide absolutè, and such as are de fide sub Opinione; Points of Faith strictly so call'd, the denial of which would amount to Heresie; and Points of Opinion rather than of Faith, and Theological speculations only. Now it will be said by our Adversaries, that the Subject of their Home-dif­ferences are not of the former, but of the latter kind, matters of meer Opi­nion; and therefore that their diffe­rences do not disparage Traditions care and sufficiency; that being main­tain'd to be a Rule of Faith only.

But to make such an Evasion use­less; a strict and close dispute about Points of Faith, (which are such, and which not) is with the more dif­ficulty manageable betwixt our Ad­versaries and us, because we differ about the Rule of Faith. Accor­dingly, they account of a Point, as a [Page 98] Enchi­rid. of Faith p. 113. and to the like purpose, Cresly, I­bid. Point of Faith or of meer Opinion, as it is attested to, or not attested to, by a sufficient Tradition; which they assert to be the rule of Faith; but this is the thing in question be­tween us. Therefore, as things stand, the way will be to review the afore­named Tenents controverted among the Romanists; and to see what their tendency and importance is in Religi­on, in the Judgment of any sober and unbïassed Christian; as also what our Adversaries own Sentiments are con­cerning them. Then,

1. The freedom of the will in cor­rupted Nature; the assistance of Di­vine Grace; Predestination to an E­ternal State; the extent of the Re­demption by the Death of Christ; perseverance in Grace; look like material concerns in Religion; and the respective statings of the Que­stions arising on these Subjects are judg'd momentous by the controver­ting Parties: Les Provincia les; Or, the, &c. p. 45. 41. The Jansenists com­plain of sharp usage from the Mo­linists; that a Proposition of theirs, [viz. That the Fathers shew us a just Man in the Person of St. Peter, to [Page 99]whom the grace, without which a Man cannot do any thing, was wanting] was censur'd by their Antagonists to be [temerarious, impious, blasphemous, worthy to be Anathematiz'd, and Heretical;] and that their Persons have been traduc'd, and defam'd in Books and Pulpits; openly and publickly accus'd—as Hereticks.—

The Controversies between the Remonstrants, and Contra-Remonstrants, some of the principal also between the Lutherans and the Calvinists, are much of the same kind with them con­tended about between the Jesuits and Dominicans, the Jansenists and Molinists; and yet sure the Romanists will have them to be more than mat­ters of meer Opinion, and Theolo­gical speculations only, in us Prote­stants; because they take occasion from these and some other differences of no higher a Complexion, (at the least can't be accus'd to be such, by a Romanist) to upbraid us with the C [...]ari­ty mistak­en apu [...] P [...]tter, want of Charity [...] charg­ed. &c. p. 58. darkness and confusion of our Condi­tion; and that our bitter Conten­tions and Speeches declare us to be of different Churches and Religi­ons. [Page 100]But if these differences in Judg­ment and Heats, be of so high a na­ture, and of so desperate effects in us, why not so in them also? For suppose that some Protestants passi­ons are more warm in these disputes, yet there are also many moderate Men on both sides; and to make them of different Religions, there must be a contrariety of Judgments, and even in matters of Faith; and if these be Points of Faith in Prote­stants, what just reason can be gi­ven, why they should not be such in Romanists likewise?

2ly. Les Pre­vin [...] Let [...]e [...]. [...]. p. 92. The Doctrine of proba­ble Opinions; and That an Opinion is then call'd probable, when it is ground­ed upon some reasons of consideration; whence it sometimes comes to pass, that the Opinion of one grave Doctor may render an Opinion probable: Much of the Ca­s [...]stical Divinity of the Jesuits; their Ibid. L [...]tter 9. 186, &c. easie Devotions; their knack of Ibid. Let. 7. p. 131, 132, &c. direct­ing the Intention; their Doctrine of Ibid. Let. 9. p. 202, 203, &c. mental Reservation, and of the sufficiency of Ibid. Let. 10. p. 231, &c. Attri­tion; [Page 101]their Salvo's for Ibid Let. 6. p. 115, and Let. 13. p. 285, 286, &c. Simony, Ibid. Let. 7. p. 134, &c. Revenge, and Ibid. Let. 8. p. 171, &c. Stealing; with se­veral Practiques of the like stamp; certainly will be doom'd by any, who are seriously Chri­stians, to be destructive of that fixed­ness and soundness in the Faith, which is opposite to the levity of Children toss'd to and fro, and carried about with every wind of Doctrine, &c. (Eph. 4.14.) and of the Do­ctrine, which is according to godliness. (1. Tim. 6.3.)

3ly. If Tenents may be thought to be de fide, points of Faith, by their influence on other Credenda and A­genda, things to be believed and done, and on the Peace of the Chri­stian World; then certainly those Tenents, which relate to the Pope, and were even now touch'd on, must be Points of Faith, and that of the first Classis. For whosoever can see through things, will judge, that they are of vast inference, that on the determination of them must depend the direction of the Pope in the [Page 102] exercise of his Power; and of Christians in what, and how far to obey him, and his Commands, as to belief and practice. Prince's Crowns, and their Subject's Loyalty are deeply concern'd in them, and consequently the Ʋ ­nity and Welfare of all the Churches, and States in Christen­dom. But Card. Bellarmine himself speaks high enough. Says he— De quâ re agitur, cùn de prim [...]u p [...]ntificis agitur, b [...]e issime d [...]cam, de summà rei Christian [...]e. Id enim qu [...]eritur, debeatne F [...]lesia diutiùs con­sist [...]e, [...] d [...]ssol [...]i, & con­ [...]. [...]d eni [...] al [...]ud est [...], an eporteat ab [...]dificio fu [...] [...] n [...]u [...]n [...]r mo [...]ere, a gre [...]e pasterem, [...]b exercitu impera­torem, sol [...]m [...]ab astris, caput a corpore; quàm an oporteat aedi­fictum ruere, g [...]egem dissipari, e [...]c [...]um sued [...], [...] obs [...]u­ [...]ari, corpus i [...]cere? Bellarm. In Praefati [...]ne ad Libros de su [...]nmo pontifice habitâ in Gym­n [...]sio Romano. Anno. 1577. clica initium. What Subject is treated of? whilest the Pri­macy of the (Roman) Pontife is treated of, I will tell you very briefly. [It is discours'd] of the sum of Chri­stianity. For it is discuss'd, whether the Church must longer remain en­tire, or fall asunder, and perish. He goes on, as in the Margent.

Why now, if the Pope have a Power given him by Christ, of Go­verning the Ʋniversal Church of [Page 103]Christ; as was the definition of the Council of Florence (apud Caranzam,) and the Christian Church be so in­finitely concern'd in the Pope and his Government, as is affirm'd; then it can't be rationally questioned, but that our Blessed Saviour, and Lord, the Head of the Church, did declare his Pleasure concerning the true state of the Papal Office, and Power, to his Apostles; and charg'd them to Communicate it to the Church, to be preserved through all Ages. The reason is, because it can't be conceiv'd consistent with our Lord's Wisdom and Goodness, to have established an universal Empire over Christians in Peter and his Suc­cessors; and yet not to have de­termined, and given a punctual Scheme of that Power and Jurisdicti­on; and consequently of Christians due obedience and dependance; see­ing that (as is pretended) such a Power was design'd for the guidance and preservation of all Christians in Truth, Holiness, and Peace: For the Papal Power without such a clear stating of it, would be utterly in­sufficient [Page 104]for attaining such glorious Ends. That which was intended to prevent, and to compose differen­ces, would be it self an unhappy occasion of the greatest ruptures, as it proves to be at this day.

Forasmuch then as the Papacy is so transcendent an Interest of the Christian Church, in the claim of our Adversaries; and that in plain reason, the fixation and certainty of the Pope's Inerrability, and of the just latitude of his Power, is so necessary to a fit discharge of the Papal Office for the be­hoof of the Church; and that there­fore Christ was not wanting in the Revelation, and Communication of it to his Apostles and Church: Hence it follows, that because the Romanists are so uncertain, disagree so much about it, therefore they differ among themselves (not in Theological Quodlibets, or meer spe­culative niceties; but) in very grave and substantial Points (let them call them Points of Faith, or by what other names they please;) and which the Church was at the first instruct­ed in.

4ly. Between the infallibility of the Church (which the Suprà. Trent Catechism affirms, in which are con­tain'd the Sacrae Synodi decreto Catechismus cons [...]ribitur, certa (que) formula, & ratio Christiani populi ab ipsis fidei rudimentis instituendi. —In Epist. dedicat. grounds and principles of the Ro­man Faith; and which Bellarm. suprà. all Catholicks teach) and the Autho­rity of the Church on­ly (which was Suprà. Cres­sie's belief, in which he was confirm'd, Exomol. Cap. 41. by very Learned Catholicks) there is a very wide difference; and there are consequent very divers obligati­ons and effects.

For if the Church cannot err, then, what it proposes ought to be believ'd as soon as it is made known, and un­derstood. But if the Church may err, and have an Authority only, then its Articles and Canons may be so­berly examin'd by some standard which is infallible; and accordingly, as they shall be found to agree with it, or to contrariate it; to yield, or to suspend Belief ( quietly, and with­out more noise than what a meek submission to the Church's censure [Page 106]makes): or also, Obedience to the Church's Authority, may be a dis­obedience to the higher, and su­preme Authority of God; who com­mands Christians Orthodoxy of Be­lief, as well as holiness of Life.

I must not omit, that even about this so weighty Subject, (which we are now upon; viz. Oral Traditions being the only Rule of Faith) the Romanists are not at accord among themselves, (as I touch'd in the Pre­face) De ver­bo Dei non scripto. Lib. 4. Cap. 12. Sect. Dico Secundò. Bellarmine held, that the Word of God, or Revelation made by God, was the whole and entire Rule of Faith. And this (he says) is divided into two partial Rules, Scripture and Tradition. If Scripture be in Part a Rule, and Tradition a Rule but in Part; then (in the judg­ment of Bellarmine) Tradition is not the onely Rule of Faith. And no question but still there are those, who are of Bellarmines mind.

There's a Confessi­on of The Title of the 9th. Par. of the 3d Dialo. is, that the dissention of the Catholique Doctors concer­ning the Rule of Faith, doth not hurt the certainty of Tradition. Rushworth, that there is a Dissension of the Catholique Doct­ors concerning the [Page 107]Rule of Faith; but he says, that this does not hurt the certainty of Traditions. To clear which, and to satisfy the Nephews Scruple, grounded on this Dis­sension, the Ʋncle says; Truly, Cousin, your Objection is strong, yet I hope to content you. For—I see no great matter in the variety of Opinions amongst our Divines, &c. See what follows in the Margent. — For you see, they seek out the Decider of Points of Doctrine, i. e. by whose mouth we are to know (upon occasion of dis­pute) what, and which be our Points, and Articles of our Fàith; to w [...]t, whether the Pope, or a Coun­cil, or both. Which is not much Material to our pur­pose, whatever the truth be, supposing we acknow­ledge no Articles of Faith, but such as have descended to us by Tradition from Christ and his Apostles. Rushworth. Ibid.

But under savour, this variety of Opini­ons is very Material. For tho' (suppose) all Romanists should agree to acknowledge no Articles of Faith, but such as have descended to them by Tradition from Christ, and his Apostles; should agree to acknowledge this, in gene­ral: yet if they are still to seek; if it be still unresolved among them, who is the decider of Points of Doct­rine; i. e. by whose mouth they are to [Page 108]know (upon occasions of dispute) what, and which determinately be their Points, and Articles of Faith, then there must be an uncertainty among them about the Points and Articles of Faith. For the belief of Articles of Faith can be no more certain, no more fix'd and uniform, than the Deciders and Mouths are, by which they are to know, what and which be their Points of Faith: But that Decider and Mouth is yet confessedly unagreed on. Hence it must follow, that Tradition is hurt, is sorely wounded in its cer­tainty: in that, it does not, either bring down primitive Truths so cleerly, that there needs no dispute about them, or at the least certain­ly determine, who shall be the Deci­der, and infallible Mouth, from which to receive the Decision of them: but leaves them, (when dis­putes arise) to wrangle it out a­mong themselves, as well as they can.

From the account, which has been given, it is manifest, that the Points, in which the Romanists dissent from one another, are Points of Faith; or else [Page 109]that those about which Protestants dif­fer are not such, the Tenents disagreed about among the Romanists being as material, and influential, as those con­troverted among the Protestant for­med Churches, or rather much more considerable.

Thus in the foregoing pages, Oral Tradition has been tryed by Reason and by Experience; (the few passages of Scripture quoted, be­ing not intended for Proof of the Thing in Controversie, but only us'd incidentally, and in a sense which is obvious,) and is found guilty of so much uncertainty and failure, that it deserves to be judg'd too insuffi­cient to be trusted with the Convey­ance of divine Truths, down from their first Delivery through all suc­ceeding ages.

But it may happen sometimes, that there may be Arguments against a Thing, so plausible, and which may have so strong a seemingness of Demonstration, as to engage the Judgment against it; and yet there may be Arguments too for it, so far more cogent, and convincing, [Page 110]as (upon a weighing both) to pre­ponderate the other, and to de­termine the Understanding to the affirmative part. Let us see then, whether the like may fall out in Oral Tradition, and having alleged the proofs against its sureness, and safety of Conveyance, let us next con­sider what, and how rational the Pleas are on its behalf, and whether they are weighty enough to turn the Scales.

SECT. I.

THE Defences brought for the certainty and infallibility of Oral Tradition, are such as follow.

1. It is pleaded, that Oral Tra­dition is a Sure Footing. p. 114. Principle Self-evident to all Mankind, who use common Rea­son; that Ibid. p. 53. Man's Nature is the Basis of it, according to those faculties in him, perfectly and necessarily subject to the Operations and Strokes of Nature; i. e. his Eyes, his Ears, handling, &c. that the Letter of thanks, &c. p. 87. 88. way of Tradition is as efficaciously established in the very grain of Man's Nature, as what seems most natural, the propagation of their kind; that Sure Footing. p. 54. the virtue by which Tradition regulates her followers to bring down Faith unerringly, is grounded on a far stronger Basis, than all material Nature.

Answ. Indeed, a Principle Self-evident, deeply founded and radi­cated in Man's very Nature, and more strongly grounded than all ma­terial Nature, deserves to be heed­fully attended to, and preserved inviolate. But let these high strains be considered of.

1. As to Self-evidence: First Prin­ciples (most properly) are Self-evi­dent, being indemonstrable; not borrowing, but shining by a light of their own: Such are, [It is im­possible for the same thing to be, and not to be: The whole is greater than any Part.] But in this Sense, Tra­dition (tho' the Author of Sure Footing, calls it a p. 114. first Princi­ple) is confess'd not to be Self-evi­dent, for he undertakes to demon­strate it, as well a p. 57. Priori, as a Posteriori. Therefore he says, that there are Principles Letter of thanks, &c. p. 24, 25, 26. Self-evident in an inferior manner; not as inca­pable of demonstration, but because they need none; being presently as­sented to by all, who have the use of their faculties; the notions of them stealing universally into Mens [Page 113]understandings, and there gaining a fix'd entertainment undiscernibly.

The Instances given are; That [in a square space, 'tis a neerer way to go from one corner to that which is opposite by the Diameter, than to go by the two sides: Or, that things look less afar off, and bigger nearer hand.] 'Tis affirm'd, that Tradition is a Self-evident Principle of this latter kind.

But Tradition is not a Self-evident Principle even of this latter kind. That Testimony and Authority (and Oral Tradition, which is one sort of That vast Testi­fication we call Tradi­tion.—Sure Footing. p. 54. Testimony) has room among the Topiques, and is a seat of dia­lectical argumentation, is evident enough; its use and necessity (in some cases) have been acknowledg'd. But That Oral Tradition is a cer­tain, infallible Medium; That Sure Footing. p. 115. Councils general and provincial, nay, particular Churches are infallible by proceeding upon it, is deny'd by Pro­testants to be Self-evident, evident, or but true. And tho' it is not material, what Protestants affirm, or deny in other Points disputed between [Page 114]them, and the Romanists, farther than they can prove; yet in this business their very denial is much sufficient, because the Question is driven up to this, viz. whether they are Owners of so much Reason, as is common to all Mankind. And let all judge, who have had conversation with them, whether (as they are no inconsiderable part of Mankind, so) they have the use of Common Reason or no; and (as one Argu­ment of this) whether they deny such plain Propositions, as were be­fore instanc'd in; or any the like, which are the Sentiments generally of Mankind.

2ly. (Which is of some kin to the former consideration, forasmuch as the knowledge of first, and Self-evident Principles is in some Sense natural) Let Oral Tradition's Foun­dation in nature be examin'd.

'Tis confess'd, that the Faculties of Seeing and Hearing; the Memo­ry, Understanding, Will, and Affe­ctions are from Nature, are natu­ral to us; that according to a Me­thod of Nature, outward Objects [Page 115]do excite the Faculties into Acts proper to each: That they being in motion do influence upon one ano­ther. The Senses inform the Un­derstanding; the Understanding trusts the Memory, and gives im­pulses to the Will and Affections. Suitable to this procedure in Na­ture, I grant, that Tradition strikes upon the Senses, and those strokes are derived to the inward Faculties, and cause variety of impressions there. This is all, which I can understand by the Faculties perfect and necessary subjection to the operations and strokes of Nature; or by Traditions being grounded and engrain'd in Man's Na­ture.

But now, how short is all this of a Proof, that Tradition is infallible, in the strength of any Basis it has in the Nature of Man! Tho' our Faculties, and their way of Opera­tion be Natural, yet the Operations, or Exercises of them are not be­yond a possibility of Error, and mi­stake. Sure all will allow, that the very Senses are not undeceivable, nor the Ʋnderstanding inerrable; that the [Page 116] Memory is frail and leaky; and that the Will and Passions are not impec­cable. And yet all these having to do in Tradition, it must be other­wise with them, or else it is evident, that Tradition will be crazy, fallible, and uncertain. We may conclude therefore, that as in Nature, and pro­pagating the kind (which the Author of the Letter of Thanks says, is most natural;) so in Tradition's propo­gation and continuation of it self, there may have hapned Abortions, Su­perfetations, and monstrous Births; and that much less Tradition is ground­ed on a far stronger Basis than all material Nature; whence it should have such a virtue, as to regulate its followers, to bring down Faith uner­ringly.

SECT. II.

2ly. It is urged, that the greatest hopes and fears imaginable (indeed infinitely greater than any other whatsoever, springing from any temporal consideration,) viz. of Heaven, and of Damnation, were [Page 117]propos'd, Sure Foot­ing. p. 59, 60. and strongly applied to the minds of the first Believers, encouraging them to adhere to the Doctrines received, and de­terring them from Apostacy; and that this was in all Ages the per­swasion of the Faithful.

Ans. 'Tis acknowledged, that the wis­dom and goodness of God have endea­red and facilitated to Man his Duty by Method, the most imaginably Obliging. But if it be argued from the Power­fulness of the Motives, and their pre­valence too upon the first Christians, unto their actual Effects upon the generality, or far greater part of Christians throughout all ages since; such a procedure would prove, that Christians generally have been, and are virtuous, as well as Orthodox, that they have as piously imitated (and still do so,) the Apostolical sancti­ty, as that they have been unva­ryingly constant to the Faith, the A­postles preached and wrote. For without question the one, was as strongly press'd upon the first Christi­ans and resented by them, as the other; and the same Propositions were made [Page 118]to both,: Heaven was offer'd as the gracious Reward of holy Practice, as well as of right believing; and Hell was threatned as the Punishment of an evil Life, as well as of Heresie.

But 'tis too well known, that pri­mitive Purity, Zeal, and Care for Religion did too soon wear out of the Heart and Practice of Christians. An Eternity of Blessedness and Misery were known but too little, and seriously thought on. Present and material Objects, worldly Plea­sures, Profit and Grandure, beat smartly upon the Senses, and in­veigle the sensual Appetite; by which Men are too commonly more governed than by Reason or Religion, and the strict dictates of either. Heaven and Hell being things fu­ture and spiritual; and, for want of a frequent and vigorous Application of them to particular Actions, work but faintly, and much unsuc­cesfully. Such has long been the course of this World, and still is. And 'tis not likely, that Men should have much more care of their Chil­drens Souls, than of their own. Not [Page 119] as if Men purpos'd to Tho' Nature in­cline men to sin, or vi­cious Appetites, yet can it incline them all to this sort of sin, i. e. to teach their Children, what they think will damn them? Sure Foot­ing. p. 61. damn themselves, or their Children; but they of­fend; are too profane or indifferent, both as to Practice and Opini­on; and so endanger their own, and their Posterities Salvation, through Incogitancy and Improvidence; as a Bird hasteth to the snare, and knows not that it is for his life.

No question, but there are, and have been in all Ages, very many good Persons, who have look'd not at things seen and Temporal, but at things not seen and Eternal; who have endeavour'd to be sound in the Faith, and to have a good Con­science in all things: But I wish, it could not without uncharitable­ness be said, that such have been, and are much fewer than those, who travaile the broad way. Nor have even Holy Men been so ad­vanc'd by their Spiritual Condition, as to be priviledg'd from all Ob­noxiousness to Error, any more than wholly from sinning. They have still [Page 120]had some weaknesses of Ʋnderstand­ing and Passions not untemptable. It might be incident even to them (their remaining frailty betraying them) to be drawn out of their road by temporal hopes or fears; or the example of a great number of Christians of their times, mo­ving another way; especially, if they who gave the Example had a plau­sible appearance of Holiness; which is much winning upon well-dispos'd Per­ons, and apt to ensnare them, except they be the more wary; and we can't be sure, that the Virtuous in every Age were the most prudent and circumspect. Or suppose, that Pious Parents should have been exempt from these infirmities and misfor­tunes, which might at the least endanger Oral Tradition's miscar­rying: Yet what security have we, (have we not reason rather to sus­pect the contrary?) that the Chil­dren were as Pious as the Fathers? And yet the indefectibleness of Oral Tradition depends on the Childrens, as well as on the Fathers Piety, en­couraging them by the hopes of [Page 121]an Eternal reward to adhere to the Doctrines taught them, and deter­ring them by the fears of an ever­lasting punishment from parting with them; it depends upon all the Fathers, and likewise their Childrens Piety and Constancy to Doctrines taught them throughout 1600 years.

Notice is taken of the Sure Footing. p. 61. indis­position of Mankind by reason of Original corruption. But it is said, This would not hinder, but that a great part would be virtuous, and would teach their Children what, &c. And so a Body of Traditionary Christians would still be continued to the very end of the World.

But only a great Part, and a Bo­dy, is not the Major part; and that which is great, look'd upon in its self, may be little comparatively, and in respect of other things. And Rush­worth Dial. 3. Sect. 13. Where he speaks on ec­casion of de­taining the Cup from the Laiety. grants, that the lesser number may be a sufficient Party to make a Tradition. Here,

1. Is a great Fall from the large pretended Empire of Oral Tradi­tion over Souls, and its Potency ri­veted in the very Nature of Man­kind. [Page 122]It might be rationally ex­pected, that a Self-evident Principle, whose Suprà. way is as efficaciously establish'd in the very grain of Man's Nature, as what seems most natural, the pro­pagation of their kind, should work so strongly, as to produce a more universal Effect, and that it should always keep, at the least, the far greatest part of Christians firm in the Faith first delivered; as in the propagation of the kind, sterili­ties and monstrous Issues are more rare; generally Nature is fruitful e­nough, and regular in its producti­ons.

2ly. I deny it to be Sure Footing p. 60. certain, that (but) a great Number, or Body of the first Believers, and after faith­ful in each Age, i. e. from Age to Age, would continue to hold themselves, and teach their Children as themselves had been taught; would preserve and derive the Body of Christian Faith as entire, and pure, as it was origi­nally committed to the Church; and this by virtue of the hopes of an Heaven, and fears of an Hell. For how strongly soever these might be [Page 123]applied to the minds of the first Believers; yet, that so strong and effectual an Application of them was made by all Fathers to all their Children through all after Ages ( so that the Ibid. Cause should be al­ways actually causing) is uncertain, nay, very improbable, for the Reasons be­fore given.

3ly. If a less number may be a sufficient party to make a Tradition, then meerly the compa­rative fewness of Catal. Testium ve­ritatis A [...]rian R [...]gen. in Histor. Eccles. S [...]avo­nic. Dr. Field. in the Appendix to the 3d. Book of the Church. those, who through several for­mer ages held, some fewer, some more, of the Points, in which we Protestants differ from the Roma­nists, and that thy mov'd Eccen­tricks to the generality of Christians of their times, is no rational Ob­jection against them, and their Te­nents, as if they were not truly Primitive; nor, in a parity of Rea­son, did it justifie the Romanists Tenents, that they had got so large a Possession of the Western World; nor consequently did our Fathers deserve to be call'd Deserters of [Page 124]Tradition, because they departed from some Tenents and Practices of the Roman Church, which had sto­len the general Vogue in some for­mer blind Ages. For 'tis not af­firm'd, that the greatest number of Christians, but only a great Part, and a Body of them, would be trusty Traditioners. A great Party, abso­lutely considered, may be but little comparatively; and the Minimum quod sic in the case we are not told: Therefore the general Prevalency of certain Romish Tenents at, and be­fore the Secession, did not conclude them to be therefore justified by Tra­dition (properly so called;) nor did the bare comparative Paucity suffice to condemn them of Innovation, who made the Secession.

SECT. III.

3ly. To assure Oral Tradition's infallibility, it is press'd; that there is an Sure Footing. p. 236, 237. Author of Sure Foot­ing. Ibid. Obligation on Posterity to be­lieve their Ancestors in a matter of Fact, or a matter delivered to have [Page 125]been (not thought or deem'd, but) done. And 'tis confidently added, [I make account, there is not a Man in the World, or ever was (such is the good­ness of rational Nature given us by God) who in his natural thoughts could ever raise such a doubt, or think he could possibly frame his thoughts to a belief of the contrary.—And it ap­pears at first sight to be a strange distortion, or rather destruction of hu­mane Nature, which can so alter it.] The Instances given, in which Po­sterity is obliged to believe An­cestors, are Ibid. p. 217. Alexander's conquer­ing Asia, Ibid. p. 236, 237. William the Conquer­or's, Harry the Eights, and Maho­met's Existence.

Ibid. p. 219. 220, 221. The proof of the Obligation on Posterity not to believe contrary to Forefathers from Age to Age, is thus proceeded in, viz. The second Age after the first was ob­liged to believe the first Age, be­cause they saw with their Eyes what was done: The third Age was obliged to believe the se­cond, tho' they saw it not, because the second Age could not be de­ceived [Page 126]in what the first Age told them; and they must be conceived so honest, and withal such to be the disinteressedness of the position, that they would not conspire to deceive the third Age; and so those of the third Age have the first Ages Authority applied to them. And by virtue of this same Argument, the same effect will be upon the fourth, fifth, and five hundreth Age. This is the full substance (to the best of my under­standing) of the Author's Argu­mentation.

Ans. In reply to this, If the matter of Fact be but some general thing (such as the Author himself has given Example of) there may be the more of Truth in this Procedure; but then there's little in it; it comes not home enough to our. business. But if the things done (or spoken) at, or about the same time, were divers; or if the thing, tho' one, were wrap'd in several circumstan­ces; then the first Eye, or Ear-Wit­nesses might for want of a more close and steady attention, mistake or for­get [Page 127]some partitulars, and so might misreport, and therefore might justly be disbelieved; or the second Witnesses from the first (though suppose, things were truly and punctually reported to them by the first, yet) might misunderstand, or forget something, if not much, of what was related to them; or, if there should be no misinformati­on by the second Witnesses; yet the third might misapprehend, or not well remember, what the se­cond told them. The same may be said of the Witnesses in the fourth remove, or age, with regard to the third; and of those in the fifth, with respect to these in the fourth; and so unto the five hundredth; till after a discent through so many hazards and chances, what was done, or spoken at the first, be at length wholy altered, or become very un­like to its Primitive self. Seeing then there may be such failures in suc­cessive Testifyings, how can a Man be bound to believe conformably to Forefathers; especially when as perhaps he is distant hundreds of [Page 128]Successions from the speaking or doing the thing testified of?

I may confirm the uncertainty of successive Testifyings through Ages by a passage of an Adversa­ry. Rush­worth Di­al. 2. Sect. 7. He putting the Question, whether the very rehearsing, and citing anothers words, do not breed uncer­tainty and variety? resolves it in the affirmative. 'Tis true, he aimes at the invalidating Scriptures cer­tainty in conveying to after-Ages the mind of the Authors; but what he writes is adaptable to words spoken as well as written.

For (answerably to what he discour­ses Let us suppose the writer himself play the Translator, as for Example, that our Saviour himself having spoken in He­brew, or Syriak, the holy writer is to express his words in Greek or Latin. And farther, that this which we have said of Translations be (as tru­ly it is) grounded in the very nature of divers Languages, therefore unavoidable by any Art or Industry, will it not clearly follow, that even in the Origi­nal Copy, written by the Evan­lists own hand, there is not in rigor the true and self-signifi­cant words of our Saviour, but rather a Comment, or Para­phrase, explicating and deli­vering the Sense thereof. Nay, let him have written in the same Language, and let him have set down every word and sylla­ble, yet men conversant in no­ting the changes of meaning in words, will tell you, that di­vors accents in the pronunciati­on of them, the turning of the Speakers Head and Body this way, or that way, the allusion to some Person, or to some pre­cedent discourse or the like, may so change the Sense of the words, that they will seem quite diffe­rent in writing from what they wree in speaking.—Rush­worth. Ibid. And the Title of the next (the 8th.) par. is: The uncertainty of Equivo­cation, which of necessity is incident in all Writings. in the Mar­gent) Points of Faith in the Oral Traditi­on of them, must have (as pass'd from one Country to ano­ther, so) been cloth­ed in variety of Languages; the di­vers Accents in the pronuntiation of the words, passing thro' multitudes of mouths, [Page 129]the divers turnings of the Speakers Head or Body, this way, or that way; the allusion to some precedent discourse, or the like, may change the Sense of words, when spoken by one, from what they were, when spoken by another, as well as make them different in writing, from what they were in speaking; and E­quivocation too is incident to words spoken as well as written. So that, if for these reasons the Conveyance of the Faith antiently spoken or preach'd by Scripture will be uncer­tain (as is said;) for the same rea­sons (if they are truly reasons) the sense and meaning of the Divine Planters of the Faith, will as uncer­tainly descend to us by an Oral Tra­dition.

All this while I have mentioned only casualties, and the more inno­cent infirmities (as shortness in un­derstanding, inheedfulness in Me­mory) incident to Testifiers; on the score of which there may be a mis­representation of things, tho' there be no Conspiracy to deceive. But then if the question be concerning the Soberness and Integrity of all the Testifiers, what assurance can be given of them? There is a proneness in Men, (not alone out of inadver­tency, and precipitancy, but also) out of capriciousness and ambition to be an Author, to substract, to to add to, to alter Stories; which meeting with Credulity in others (as it often happens;) the Stories, and their Errata pass currant, and uncorrected. Besides, if there be not such a disinteressedness of the Position (or thing testified,) which frequently falls out; then the Ho­nesty and Fairness of the Testifiers in their Relation may be the more questionable, and others may be the more suspending in their Belief.

I suppose what I have said, is enough to shew the descent of Testifications from Age to Age to be liable to great failures; especial­ly if it be applied to Religion; where the Articles of Faith, the Sacred Practices and Senses of Scripture (which concern all these) are so many; and withal, there are so ma­ny, and so tempting Diversions of Men, as has been above proved.

But here it is replyed, that Reli­gion is rather a Remedy of the failures attending on the descent of Testi­monies. And to prove a far grea­ter steadiness of Oral Tradition in Religion's Affairs, than in any other; there are Sure Footing. p. 224, 225, 226, 227, 228. alleg'd the great Di­vine Author of Religion; the superla­tive Interest of Mankind in it; the publick miraculous Confirmation of it; the Preaching and Reception of it in all, even the remotest parts of the World; the entertainment of it among the first Christians, when they were at Age to judge of the Miracles, and Mo­tives to Christian Religion; and among the after Christians, when they were yet scarce able to speak, much less [Page 132]to judge, and taught by Nature to believe their Parents. And from hence are inferr'd an incomparable recommendableness in Religion, and an Obligation to believe and to practise it; and likewise a most forcible Obli­gation on Children to believe Parents attesting to it.

Answ. I acknowledge that to be true, which is alleg'd in the just commendation of Religion; and that it does deserve, and bind to a zeal, diligence, and sincerity in the Treat­ment of it, far above what Men be­stow on any worldly thing what­soever. I question not also, but that the incomparable remarkable­ness of Religion did fix deep, and indeleble Impressions on the Chri­stians of the first Age; and on all afterwards, who have known how to value love, and tender it answera­bly to its true worth.

But this is that, at which I stop, i. e. Whether Christians have in all Ages so cherish'd the even now named virtues for Religion, as to send it down to us without any disguises, and in its genuine, and first Integri­ty; [Page 133]and this by virtue of an Oral Tradition, and of Fathers long con­tinued testifying to their immediate Descendents; whether they have not been too cold, and careless for it; or too, whether their zeal, for want of a governing Prudence, has not sometimes transported them from one Error to an opposite one: Whe­ther they have been so single, and upright in the Maintenance of the Truths of Religion, as the Simpli­city of it does require (especially may we doubt of this Candor and Ingenuity in those, who hold the Doctrine of Equivocation,) I think, that he who has considered the Genius of Mankind, will see it pro­bable enough; that Christians may have given worldly Interests, and corrupt Passions, too great a Pre­ference in their dealing with Re­ligion; the particular Truths and Practices of it: And that, were it not for some Leading Men, Per­sons of Parts, and Spirit, who some­times sway the Age in which they live, (and yet these too may be over­born by a dissenting Multitude,) [Page 134]the most would be too prone to turn almost with every wind that should blow, and to steer their Course thither, whence they might look for the greatest Temporal ease, and advantage. And this Men might do, and yet Sure Footing. p. 230. not as a pack of impudent Knaves, that con­spir'd to abuse their Posterity, purpose­ly to damn them. For Men may act contrarily to their Duty, and to the wrong of themselves, and of theirs eventually (nay, too often do so); and yet not out of a desperate and form'd purpose to destroy either.

From what has been discours'd, it follows, that the incomparable recommendableness of Religion, and its obligingness to be believed, do not conclude a continued, and necessary obligation upon Children to believe their Parents through all Ages.

And yet suppose, that there were such an Obligation upon Children to believe their Fathers; unless Children did believe such an obliga­tion incumbent on them, Oral Tra­dition would be still failable. For then Children, Posterity would take [Page 135]the liberty to judge for themselves, and to vary from the Fathers, as they should see reason for it. Or if they should believe as Fathers did, it would be casual. Therefore (to make all sure) 'tis Sure Footing. p. 215, 216. own'd and undertaken to be proved; That every Age in the Church, and all Persons in it, look'd upon themselves as obliged not to vary in any thing from the Doctrine and Practice of the precedent Age.

Yet I cannot discern in all the following Pages of that Author, any proof of this, but only an at­tempt to prove an Obligation on those in every Age to believe those of the precedent Age. But as this Obligation has been sufficiently dis­prov'd; so yet if it were true, could it infer that they in every Age look'd upon, thought themselves obliged to believe those of the Ages fore­going; for 'tis notorious, that Men do not always think themselves oblig'd to believe, and to do that, which yet they are really obliged to believe, and to do.

But I can't discover any Indi­cation of such a Belief of Posterity concerning such an Obligation. 'Tis well known, that antiently, and in several Ages of the Church, scarce a new Opinion could start up, but it found Abettors. 'Tis strange, if there were indeed such a persua­sion, as is pretended, fix'd in the hearts of Christians, that so often they should have left the Road, and turn'd into an unbeaten Path in for­mer Ages.

To come neerer to our own Times: The Relinquishers of the Roman Tenents and Communion; the Deserters (as our Adversaries call them) of Tradition, were (like the Croud in St. John's Vision) a great Multitude, which no man can number, of many Nations and Kin­dreds, People, and Tongues: People divided by diversity of Climates, and vast spaces of Earth and Seas; of various Complexions of Body, and Dispositions of Soul; of diffe­rent Education, manner of Life, and Civil Interests. This being unde­niably true, how utterly improba­ble [Page 137]is it, that so many Myriads, dif­ferenced by so many considerable Circumstances, should so unanimously agree in a departure from the Ro­man Church ( i. e. in the Style of our Adversaries, in a defection from Tradition), if there had really been such a common Charm, and great Principle regnant among them, and uniting them in an Obsequious adhe­rence to their Fathers Faith, and in an opposition to any alteration of their Belief. Especially, it is yet the more improbable, if it be remem­bred, that many of these adven­tur'd on a change through the sharpest Persecutions. And the Suc­cessors of those first Reformers have maintain'd the Secession toward two Centuries of years, and are so well fatisfied in it, that they are general­ly averse from a return to the Ro­man Communion; unto which no­thing but force is likely to reduce them, if even That can do it.

By this it appears, how highly improbable that Position is, viz. That it, is impossible, that Men should not think themselves obliged to believe, Sure Footing. p. 216. [Page 138]and to do, as their Predecessors did.

Or if a very great improbability be suppos'd, and that the Secessors from Rome had such a Belief of a Tye upon them unto the Faith, and Practice of Ancestors; then for cer­tain they acted contrarily to that Be­lief: But howsoever, Act they did, and Counter to the Age then, and some Ages before. And even this will weaken Oral Tradition's in­defectibility. For what hapned in this alteration, may have hapned in the Ages before: Tho' Children (suppose) did conceive an Obligation upon them to the same Faith with that of their Fathers, and because it was their Fathers; yet if they might move contrarily to them, not­withstanding such a believed engage­ment, there might be a Rupture in Tradition as surely, as if they had had no sense of such Obligation.

So that I do not see, if it should be granted, that there had been (and were still) in all Generations such a persuasion of Posterities Obligation to believe, and to practice just as Forefathers did, how such a Con­cession [Page 139]would quite do Oral Tra­dition's business. For tho' it may be well argued negatively; if Poste­rity did not conceive themselves ob­lig'd to believe and to do as their Fathers did, there can be no cer­tainty of Oral Tradition; yet it does not necessarily follow on the other side, and affirmatively; if suc­cessive Generations do believe them­selves engag'd to believe, and to practise just as the foregoing did, therefore it will be sure, that they will so believe and practise. The reason is, because Men do not always, (nay too seldom) what they know it is their Duty to do. And tho' they, who first departed from Tra­dition, might proceed against con­viction of their Obligation to the contrary: yet their Successors, not discerning the manner of the first departure, might continue it (as the 200 Men followed Absalom) in their simplicity; till continuance grew into a Prescription, and gain'd the Port of Tradition.

But, notwithstanding, that the so numerous Relinquishers of Rome [Page 140]render it very improbable, that there was, or is a belief generally rooted in the minds of Men, that they are bound to believe, and to do conformably to Fathers; yet it may be perhaps said (to counter­ballance this); that they, who keep still constant to Rome, and to Tra­dition, are remarkably numerous. And it is confess'd, they are too many. But it may rationally be questioned, whether all, or the greatest part of them do stay in that Communion, out of a fix'd belief, that they are bound to believe as their Fathers did. I am sure, their Being of that Church does not e­vince such a Belief in them; be­cause there are divers other Causes, which may detain them on that side, besides such a persuasion; As Igno­rance, Education, Prepossession, and Wontedness to it; variety of great Preferments and Grandure, secular Pomp and Splendor; the profita­bleness and pleasingness of some Doctrines; fear from the Princes, who are Popish, and of Civil Pe­nalties; dread of Ecclesiastical Cen­sures, [Page 141]and of the Inquisition. Were they of the Roman Party more free, the Rod not so held over them, were Punishments not so severely threatned, and executed on Revol­ters, we should better understand, how devoted submitters they were to Oral Tradition; and how much they were convinced of it as a necessary Duty, not to let their Faith alter from that of Ancestors.

The summ of this Section is this; 1. That it has not been proved, that there is an Obligation on Poste­rity to believe Forefathers, nay the contrary has been proved. 2ly. That if there were such an Obligation, yet it is not necessary, that Poste­rity should conceive themselves to be under such an Obligation. 3ly. That if they did conceive themselves to be so obliged, yet it does not ne­cessarily follow, that they would move according to their Sense of such an Obligation. Therefore on this third Head there is not sufficient security given for Oral Tradition's infallibility.

SECT. IV.

4ly The Author of the Answer to the Lord Falkland's Discourse of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome says; P. 10, 11, 12. That a deeper root, which greatly strengthens, and reduces into action, the efficacity of Tradition, is; that Christian Doctrine is not a speculative knowledge, but it is an Art of living,—a practical Doctrine. —The consequence of which is, that it is not possible, that any material Point of Christian Faith can be chang­ed as it were by obreption, whilest Men are on sleep, but it must needs raise a great scandal, and tumult in the Christian Common-weal.—We remember in a manner as yet, how Change came into Germany, France, Scotland, and our own Country. Let those be a signe to us, what we may think can be the creeping in of false Doctrine; specially, that there is no point of Doctrine contrary to the Ca­tholick Church, rooted in any Chri­stian Nation, that the Ecclesiastical History does not mention the times and [Page 143]combats by which it entred, and tore the Church in pieces.

Here's another Argument for the great Efficacy of Tradition; in that it prevents Obreptions, so that the Church can't be assaulted by any material Error, but it is strait A­larum'd, and then stands upon its guard, and consequently is in a capacity to defend, and to preserve it self. And this is one reason more, why the Church, receiving her Faith by Tradition, and not from Doctors, Ibid. p. 44. hath e­ver kept her entire.

Answ. 1. But first (to wave a consideration, how little an altera­tion some Doctrines cause in Chri­stians Practice, whether they are held pro, or con) it is deny'd, that it was not possible, that any material Point of Faith can be chang'd, as it were by Obreption,—but it must needs raise a great Scandal and Tu­mult in the Christian Common­weal. For that there should be a noise, and tumult in the Church, it was requisite that there should be a Breach of Communion, a separation of one part from another. Thus [Page 144]it hapned in the Arrian controver­sie, and some others; there was a manifest siding, a departure of the Dissenters from each other. Such was the Case too in Germany, Eng­land, &c. Several Corruptions had possess'd the Church of Rome for a long time; and that Church made the Profession and Practice of those corruptions, a Condition of Commu­nion with her; upon which the Pro­testants withdrew from her Com­munion; which occasion'd the no­tice of the World; and the Guilt lies on them, who were the cause of the Breach, who gave the Offence.

But there may have been Inno­vations in Doctrine, and Discipline too; and yet the Members of the Church have still continued mutual Communion, and therefore no cry have been rais'd, little, if any, no­tice been taken; not because of the little consequence of the Doctrine or Practice; but (tho' it might be con­siderable) by reason of its surprizing manner of entrance. Some things in their first beginnings, because small, and in their progresses, because [Page 145] stealing on sensim sine sensu, by in­visible steps, are often little, if at all discern'd; till arriving at some maturity, and a size, much exceeding what they had in their Infancy, and sly growth, they then manifest them­selves, and awaken other's Observa­tion. Is it not thus frequently in Nature? Are there not some la­tent Diseases, which make secret at­tempts upon the Life, and undis­cover'd; till by more sensible effects and rudeness to Nature, they warn the Patient of his danger? Let us enquire, whether the like may not have hapned in Religion also.

It has not been uncommon for Persons of busie Parts, and good Credit for Virtue and Learning in their times, to have mov'd in a little Sphere of their own, to have held some Opinions against, or be­side the general Vogue of the Age. Now, suppose one such Person in Preaching or Writing, to have started a Doctrine. This coming into the Church, commended by the Reputation and plausible Argu­ments of the Author, wins the good [Page 146]liking of many, and is passable as a probable Opinion for some years: Till in the next Generation, through a wontedness to it, and a forgetful­ness in what degree of assent it was at the first entertain'd, it comes to be believ'd as necessary. Which ad­vance would be the more facile, and likely, if the Doctrine were such, as had not been expresly de­fin'd against in any general Coun­cil, for then it would pass with the greater shew of Modesty; or were very advantageous, and particularly were such to the governing Party in the Church (as suppose, the Do­ctrine of the Supreme and Univer­sal Domination of the Bishop of Rome; or that of Pardons and In­dulgences, &c.) for then Interest would cast another weight into the Scale; and it might be judg'd con­venient to be believ'd as necessary.

By a zealous straining of Ex­pressions and Practices, there might in time be a slip from the Mean, to an Extremity. The high and de­serv'd Veneration for the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper might occasion [Page 147]some lofty expressions of it, and re­verential Gestures at the Celebration of it. And then from the Hyperbo­lies of [...], &c. might arise Transubstantiation, and Adoration of the Host. There may have been very antiently a Solemn and Publick Commemoration of them, who dyed in the Lord, in way of Thanksgiving to God for such holy, useful Persons; and of recommen­dation of them, as Religious Exem­plars to the People. It may be, some too might pray for the Dead, out of a superabundant Charity; yet not for a release of them from Pains, but for a more speedy consum­mation of their begun blessedness. And hence in time might creep in an Opinion of a middle state of the departed, and Prayers for the deli­verance of Souls out of a Purgato­ry fire. As the first Ages of the Church were Blessed with a multi­tude of Glorious Martyrs, so the Christians of those Ages had a very high and fitting esteem of them. Sometimes it was an use to pray at the Monuments of the Martyrs; [Page 148]to address them also with Rheto­rical Apostrophes; till at the last the Saints departed came to be prayed to, and to be Worshipped. Thus it is intelligible enough, how there might be alterations in the Church's Doctrine and Practice, by stealth, and unobservedly; and this is suffi­cient to oppose to the Authors (whom I quoted at the beginning of this Section); [ it is not possible, that any material Point should be chang'd, as it were by Obrepti­on, &c.]

But this secret and little notic'd Intrusion of Opinions, and Practices into the Church, will be found to have been the more feasible; if we look back upon former Ages in it, and the Genius of them. For a great while Learning was very scarce, and Piety likewise. The Ignorance, Irreligion, and Debaucheries of the Laiety, and Clergy al­so, were so notorious in the eleventh, and fol­lowing Centuries, that they occasion'd the great and loud The Authors, and the Collections out of them, may be seen, in Dr. J. White 's Way to the tr [...]e Church, p. 113, 114, 115. In Dr. James his Manuduction. 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108. And in Dr. Whit­by's Absurdity, and Ido­latry of Host Worship (the Appendix) from p. 70, to p. 108. complaints [Page 149]of many who liv'd in the Roman Communion, and in the respective Ages; and may pro­voke to wonder, and grief, Those who shall read them.

This being adverted to; 'tis so far from being impossible, that Chan­ges should invade Religion, that ra­ther 'tis impossible, but that Doctrines and Practices should be corrupted, and alter'd from their first Purity, in their passage through so long and foul a sink, as those dark and im­pure Ages are represented to have been. For as good Knowledge and Piety are great defensatives against Error's seizure of the Judgment, so Ignorance in the Understanding, lewdness and depravedness of the Will and Passions, make Men in­different for Religion, and unwary in the matters of it; dispose Men to a reception of Opinions and Practices precipitantly, and without a due Examination of them, whence they come, and what they are; without a discreet prospect, whether [Page 150]they tend, and what their issue may be at the last. So that from what has been said, it is more than likely, that there may have been Obreptions, points of Faith, and Religious Pra­ctice may have been materially chan­ged; and yet no great Tumult have been rais'd in the Christian Com­mon-weal, no Schisme; because per­haps the Innovations rush'd not in the whole at once; but convey'd them­selves into the Church in a Climax, insinuated themselves by sly and gradual Transitions, therefore with the less (if any) observations; espe­cially might this surprize be un­discern'd in blind and irreligious A­ges.

2. Secondly, as for notice of the changes of Opinions and Practices from Church-Histories: So great is the use of Ecclesiastical Histories, that we may with reason wish, we could rather boast of a plenty, than complain of their scarcity; which yet Learned Men do, especially con­sidering the great extent of the Christian Church, for Time and Place; which necessarily afforded [Page 151]as huge a variety of Events and Revolutions. Is. Ca­saub. in Proleg. ad Exercitat. For above 200 years after the Apostles, till Euse­bius Pamphilus, there was none who did more than begin to designe some History of the Church, rather than seriously set about it. For a consi­derable while after the six hun­dreth year that Idem. Ibid. Learned Man (quoted in the Margent) doubts, whether to call those Ages, [...], or [...], Times of Por­tentiloquie, or of Ignorance. But there are those, who say as much, or more, and were Sons of the Church of Rome. The great Nulla res ita hac­tenus negligi vis est, ac rerum Ecclesiasticarum gestarum vera, certa, & exactâ diligentiâ per­quisita Narratio. Baron. in Praefatione ad Annal. Tom. prim. Annalist confesses, That no­thing seem'd to have been so much neglected, as a true, and certain, and exact Histo­ry of Ecclesiastical Affairs. And before Him, it was acknowleg'd by Maximum saepenu­mero dolorem cepi, dum ipse mecum reputo; quàm diligenter—Acta verò Apostolorum, Martyrum, dein (que) Divorum nostrae Religionis, & ipsius sive crescentis Ecclesiae, sive jam adultae, op [...]rta maxi­mix tenebris ferè ignorari. —Fuere qui magna pietatis loco ducerent men­dacia pro religione con­fingere.—Lib. 5. de Trad. Discipl.. Lu­dovicus Ʋives; That the Acts of the Apostles, of the Martyrs, and of the Saints, and the Con­cerns of the Church, both [Page 152]growing up, and grown, were unknown, being conceal'd un­der very great darkness. In this penury of Ecclesiastical History, how much of the Changes in the Church with an abun­dance of other very memorable ac­cidents must have perished! In those Histories, which were Written, and are still extant, we can expect no more than the most remarkable Occurrents in the respective Ages, of which the Authors wrote (if all those). That a Change in the Church should be remarkable, it was requisite, that it should raise a Storm, cause a Publick disquiet, and Breach of Communion; which yet might not have hapned, tho' there were an Alteration in material Points (as has been shewn above); and therefore Church-Histories (if we had more of them to speak) might be silent of it.

And yet notwithstanding, Pro­testants can say more, viz. That Ecclesiastical Writings are not so wholly unintelligencing; but that they do report, when, and how se­veral [Page 153]Points of the Romanists, con­troverted between them and us, got into the Church; how and by whom they were observ'd, and resisted in the several Ages of the Church. For which (among others) Way to the true Ch. p. 195, 196, &c. Dr. J. White may be seen. But I am not engag'd necessarily to in­sist on this, having said what is suf­ficient before.

SECT. V.

Scriptures, Councils, and Fathers, were Sure Footing. p. 126, &c. once drawn into the Field to engage in the defence of Oral Tradition; but upon after thoughts a Retreat is sounded to Two of them.

For the Author of Sure Footing says; That he Discourses from his Scriptural Allegations, but Letter of thanks, p. 106. Topical­ly, and that in Citation of them he proceeds on such Maximes, as are ut'd in Word-skirmishes, on which ac­count he believes, that those Texts, he uses, sound more favourably for him, than for us. But in Word-skirmishes (i. e. Appearances ministred from [Page 154] Words, which may afford to a plea­sant Sophister an opportunity of making passages seem to favour his Hypothesis, when really they do not so) I have no inclination to deal; and I conceive such a wordy velita­tion to be below the Gravity of the Cause depending between us, and our Adversaries.

Next, the Author disclaims his Quotations of Ibid. p. 105. Councils to be intended against Protestants; if so, then I am not obliged to take no­tice of them. As for the Fathers, I know, all Protestants do declare, that they do highly value the Fathers, to such a degree as can be justly demanded from them, and as the Fa­thers themselves, were they now living, would require from them. And concerning their Testimonies (both of Holy Scripture, and of Tradi­tion) something shall be said in the Second Part, and there, on a parti­cular occasion.

I have now dispatch'd the First Part of my Undertaking and have [Page 155]evinc'd from the Nature of Oral Tra­dition; from Experience or Event; and also by Answer to the Defenses brought for it; That it is a very unsafe, and insufficient Conveyance of Divine Truths down from their Origi­nal Delivery unto us. And here I might rest, thinking that I had com­pleated my work; if I might be al­low'd to discourse after the man­ner of the P. 52. Author of Sure Foot­ing (with the change only of a few words) and to say: There being on­ly two grounds, or Rules of Faith own'd, namely, delivery of it down by Writing; and by Words and Practices, which we call Oral and Practical Tradition; 'tis left unavoidably out of the im­possibility, that Oral and Practical Tra­dition should be infallible as a Rule, that Sacred Scriptures must be such; and therefore that they are the surest Conveyance of faith. But I shall not so crudely conclude my enquiry; but shall in a Second Part prove, Holy Scriptures to be the most safe immediate Conservatory and Convey­ance of Divine Truths, down from their first Delivery, unto all after [Page 156]Ages: Only, having been large in the First Part; I suppose, I may be the briefer in the Se­cond.

SECT. I.

IF we may collect the Judgment of Mankind from their Practice, we may believe, that in the Conveyance of Matters of Mo­ment to Posterity, they judge the Precedence due to Writings about Oral Tradition; because they so com­monly [Page 158]commit things of that na­ture to Books, tho' they know the Books themselves must be trusted with Tradition and Providence. How much more should this Practice take place in Religion, which concerns Men as highly, as their Blessedness does! And besides common Practice, there's great reason, why the wri­ting things (especially Religious Do­ctrines, and Practices) should be preferr'd to the hazarding them un­der the Custody of Oral Tradition; That rather than This being the surest means of their preservation. For,

1. It is much less difficult, because there is much less requir'd, to keep a Book safe, and to hand it from one Generation to another, than to preserve a great many of Opinions and Senses of that Book, and to transmit them from Age to Age unalter'd. To the former, meer plain honesty, and an easie care are suf­ficient. Here's no need of much Apprehension, and Memory, and of a constant Care and Diligence to teach Posterity; here's no necessity of Posterities scrupulous attention to [Page 159]teaching Fathers, and of an happy docility, or promptness to learn, and all this through a long series of Ages. But these Punctilios (as has been shew'd before) are necessa­ry to a faithful and unerring com­municating of Truths to after-A­ges in the way of Oral Tradition; therefore there is the more of dif­ficulty, and consequently the more likelihood of miscarriage.

2ly. Books, if kept safe, do faith­fully preserve what is deposited with them. Their Memory (if I may so speak) never fails them; there's no need of an operous care to teach them, or rather to remember them, what their Authors once told them, committed to them. They warp not with the Times, in which they are extant, tho' through several Generations. They are not subject to levity and wantonness of Judgment; nor to rebound from one extremi­ty to another; not to a sequaci­ousness after Men, whose Parts ren­der them remarkable. They are not temptable by Hopes, or Fears. To be read, and to be accepted of, is [Page 160]their worst Avarice or Ambition: Nor does the Paper or Parchment look the paler at a Rack or a Gib­bet; or the Characters fly thence upon Persecution. A Prison can't scare them, they are us'd to con­finement, to a Chain (it may be) in a Library. Thus it is with Books. But Oral Traditioners are expos'd to all those inconveniences (as has been before manifested,) whence their Traditions are infected with an an­swerable craziness. Therefore for this second, together with the first reason, Writings, Books, are the far less obnoxious; the more safe Con­veyance. And what has been said of Writings in general, is much more true particularly of the Sacred Scriptures.

Object. Against what has been de­livered there may lye some seem­ing prejudice. It may be objected, that Writings have their fates, as well as their Authors. They are not exempt from either a total pe­rishing by the oscitancy and careles­ness of the Owners, or by violence from Enemies. Or at least they [Page 161]are liable to corruption; and that either wilful, and out of design (as, speaking of Holy Scriptures, by Hereticks); or through the igno­rance, or negligence of Transcribers. Whence it will follow, that not­withstanding the comparative easi­ness of transmitting Writings, and the Fidelity of them, if preserv'd; yet they may be ravish'd by vio­lence from their Possessors, how ho­nest soever they be; or they may be lost by them, if they should prove careless; or they may be adultera­ted upon one account, or another. And so Writings may not be pre­serv'd, or not preserv'd sincere and entire.

Answ. That losses and decays, alterations and suppositiousness, have been incident to Writings, is con­fess'd. Yet how many have escap'd injury, through long tracts of time have arrived safe with us, some plenty of them in Libraries does manifest; for there have been (more or less) Lovers of Learning and Antiquity, who have been Guar­dians to these Orphans. And Lear­ned [Page 162]Men have Methods (as Trial by Chronology, and the Customs and Modes of each Age; insight into the Style and Genius of an Au­thor; Collation of Copies, with o­thers) by which to distinguish the Spurious from the Genuine Works; and to right the Genuine by requi­site Emendations. And of such kind of reliefs Scriptures are capable, as well as other Writings. But we shall see, that they have a much greater advantage, and are secur'd, above all Writings else, by peculiar Protections, and have been blessed with a special safety.

SECT. II.

Sacred Scriptures may be sup­pos'd to have been in danger from 1. Malice and Design. 2ly. From Ca­sualty and Neglect. And to have been in danger,

1. From Malice and Design of profest and publick Enemies. 2ly. Of pretended Friends, I mean, He­ticks.

1. The open and profess'd Ene­mies of the Holy Scripture design'd, and labour'd for, their extinction. As no Professors of any Religion were ever so persecuted by the oppositi­on and fury of the World, as Jews first, and then the Christians; so the Scriptures, in Sympathy with them, have been expos'd to great hazards, but yet have survived them.

When the Chaldeans had over-run Judea, wasted and plunder'd the Towns; ransack'd and destroy'd the Metropolis, Jerusalem; had rifled, and ruined the Temple; when they, who had escap'd Slaughter, were carried away Captive into a strange Land, and the Captivity there last­ed 70 years. Whenas amidst all these hurries, Ʋrim and Thummim, the Ark, the Pot of Manna, the Rod of Aaron; whenas these [...], holy and choice Rarities of that People, and all their Glory sunk in the Deluge of an universal devasta­tion: Yet the Holy Scriptures, which then were, triumph'd over all these Calamities, (tho' the Copies were [Page 164]then but few, in comparison of what they were afterwards.) For soon after the return from Captivity, and reedification of the Temple, Nehem. 8.6, 7, 8. Ezra, —also Joshua and Bani,— caus'd the People to understand the Law; and the People stood in their place. So they read in the Book of the Law of God distinctly, and.—

Some time after this, under the Tyranny of Antiochus, The 1 Mac. 1.56, 57, 58. Books of the Law which were found, were rent in pieces, and burnt with fire. And wheresoever was found with any the Book of the Testament; or if any con­sented to the Law, the King's Com­mandement was, that they should put him to Death. Notwithstanding this Persecution, the Holy Book out-liv'd this Scrutiny and Cruel­ty.

In the Times of Christianity, in the Reign of Petav. Ration. p. 241, 242. Dioclesian, there was an Imperial Edict, that the Churches should be demolish'd, and the Holy Scripture should be burn'd; and tho' some were so base, as to betray the Divine Books to the E­nemy (who thence were call'd Tra­ditores;) [Page 165]yet they weathered out this Storm also.

Next to an invisible Divine Hand defending them, so many were the Copies of the Sacred Books (especi­ally after the Jews return from Baby­lon; and more after the Gospel had been Preached and entertain'd in the World;) and likewise so zea­lously did both Jews and Christians concern themselves in them, that the Enemies might as soon have rooted out of the World the whole Generations of Jews and Christians, as the Bibles.

2ly. For the same reasons, that there should be a Depravation of of Holy Scripture, by Additions, Substractions, or Alterations in any thing material, as to Faith and Life; that there should be any design'd, and successful Adulteration of them by Hereticks, is not well conceivable. For so ma­ny were the Scriptures in their Originals; so very numerous were their Qui Script. in Grae­cam linguam verterunt, nu­merari possunt; Latini au­tem Interpretes nullo mo­do, &c. August. De Doctrinâ Christianâ. L. 2. C. 11.5. Translations, diffus'd throughout the World, [Page 166]where there were Christians; that if Hereticks did raze out some passages, or foist in others, in any way corrupt the Text, they could do so but in some Copies, and in the Places where they came. But that they should succeed in a cor­ruption of all the Books, or of the greater part of them, is not imagi­nable. Especially, whenas the Scriptures were so continually, and diligently read by all Christians. So that such Impostures must needs have been soon discover'd, and warn­ing been giuen to Christians to be­ware of the Cozenage. For this purpose we have the Suffrages of Card. Bellarmine, and of Sixtus Se­nensis.

Although (says the Eisi multa depravare conati sunt haeretici; tamen nunquam defuerunt Catholici, qui eorum corruptelas dete [...]e­rint, & non permiserint Libros sacr [...]s corrumpi, &c. De verbo Dei Lib. 2. Cap. 75. Et verò. Cardinal) the Hereticks have endea­voured to deprave many things, (he means in the Scriptures) yet there were never wanting Catholicks, who detected those Adulterations, and permitted not the Sacred Books to be [Page 167]corrupted. Quoniam (ut Augst. in­qu [...]t) licèt omnes Fatres in hoc conspirâssent, ut seipsos, at (que) alios Scripturarum veritate privarent, (q [...]od imaginari non potest) non tamen po­tuissent omnes undi (que) codi­ces falsare, &c. Biblioth. Sanct. p. 727. And Six­tus Senensis, quo­ting St. August. tells us, that, though all Fathers had conspir'd to deprive themselves and others of the Truth of the Scrip­tures; (which none can imagine) yet they could not have corrupted all the Books every where.

How hard it was to corrupt the Holy Scripture without detection, and an Alarm to the Christian world, perhaps some guess may be made by the unsuccessfulness of such an At­tempt on Books much inferior to them. For when the Papists had set a design on foot (and proceed­ed some way in it) of Purging the Writings of the antient Fathers, and of some moderate Authors, the Dishonesty soon appeared, and was complain'd of.

SECT. III.

It can't be thought, that through Casualty, or supine negligence the [Page 168]Scriptures should expire, should be suffered to be a Prey to Moths, Mould, and Worms; to linger away in a Consumption, or to be embezeled in Vulgar, and Sordid uses, such as Ne thu­ris piperis­ve sis cucul­lus. Lib. 3. Epig. 2. Martial warns his Book against. For that which doth most envigor. Mens Care and Industry for the preservation of a thing, is their high value, especially Religious Ve­neration for it; and such, Jews and Christians have had for the Scriptures, because known by them to be Sa­cred, to be the Divine Oracles, and the Contents of them to be of E­ternal Consequence to them.

The Jews, to whom pertaineth the giving of the Law, were most accu­rately diligent in keeping the Re­velations, given to them, most en­tire. De ver­bo Dei, L. 2. C. 2. Hi Sigitur omissis. Card. Bellarmine quotes Philo, affirming; That for above 2000 years, even to his Time, not one word had been chang'd in the Law; and that any Jew would dye an hundred times, rather than consent to any such change. He adds out of Johannes Isaac, that the latter Jews adore the Law [Page 169] ut Numen, as a Deity; and if it chanc'd to fall on the ground, bid a Fast for expiation of the mischance. This Bellarm. relates, and this is one of his five Arguments, why it is not to be conceiv'd, that ever the Jews should have corrupted the Old Testament, out of Malice to the Christians, as the mistake of some is. The admirable and stupen­dious Care and Industry (as Heinsius calls it) of the Masorites is known; who numbred every Verse, Word, and Letter: In Proleg. ad exercit. in novum Testam. And this they intend­ed as Sepimentum Legis, a Mound, or Fence of the Law against Al­terations.

The Jews had not a greater, and more Sacred Estimation of the Law, than the Christians had for both Law and Gospel, particularly the Fa­thers.

1. Their great laboriousness in the Study and Explication of the Sacred Writings, in their many Comments, and Homilies, is an indication of their incomparable Honour for them. In which work they did so abound, that suppose the Bibles should be lost [Page 170](which is suppos'd only, not grant­ed) far the greater part (rather the whole) might be recovered out of their Comments, Homilies, and occasional Citations in their other Writings. As this is an Argument of their singular Honour for the Scrip­tures, so it is a providential relief, and supernumerary way of retrieve of them, supposing the loss of them.

2ly. The Fathers high estimation and reverence for the Scriptures, are legible in Expressions concerning them, and Deferences to them.

Irenaeus thus begins his third Book: We have not known the disposition of our Salvation by others, than those by whom the Gospel came unto us; which indeed they then preach'd, but after­wards by the Will of God delivered it to us in the Scriptures, as the future Foundation and Pillar of our Faith. Afterwards, in the end of the 66th. Chap. of his 4th. Book; He bids all Hereticks, (and principally the Marcionit [...], and those who were like them, saying, That the Prophecies came from another God) read dili­gently the Gospel which was delivered [Page 171]by the Apostles to us, and read diligent­ly the Prophets, and you will find every Action, every Doctrine, and every Suf­fering of our Lord delivered in them.

Tertullian against Hermogenes, C. 23. I adore the fulness of the Scrip­ture.—Let Hermogenes, and his, shew that it is written. If it be not written. let him dread the Woe, which pertains to them, who add, or detract.

Athanasius, in his Oration against the Gentiles, says: That the Scrip­tures are enough for manifestation of the Truth.

St. Jerom. on Ps. 98. Every thing that we assert, we must shew from the Holy Scripture.

All things which concern Faith and Manners, are found in the plain places of Scripture; according to St. Augustine, in the 9th. Chap. of his 2d. Book of Christian Doctrine.

These are some (amongst others) of the Father's reverential acknow­ledgments; their full and clear de­positions for Holy Scriptures sufficiency for, and Prerogative of, being the sole Rule of Faith; and in this Point they speak like as very Protestants, [Page 172]as those who form'd the The words of the Article are these: Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to Salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be prov'd therby, is not to be requir'd of any Man, that it should be believ'd as an Article of Faith, or be thought requisite, or necessary to Sal­vation. Evangel. nigrum. Atram. Theol. 6th. Article of the Church of England. And these passages, so plainly proving their so su­perlative esteem of the Holy Scriptures, do infer their most exact diligence and watchfulness for their conservation and safety. And this is sufficient for my purpose in this Section. But withal too I have gain'd an Argument for my main design (viz. The Testimony of the Fathers;) forasmuch as between Ho­ly Scriptures being the safest Con­veyance of Divine Truths through­out all Ages, and Scriptures being the sole Rule of Faith, there is so necessary a Connexion.

And because the Romanists like­wise allege the Fathers to give Countenance to Oral Tradition, there­fore the Testimony of the Fathers in our case shall be farther considered of. And,

1. I will appeal to any ingenious Reader of them, whether the pas­sages which the Romanists cite out of the Fathers on the behalf of Tra­dition, and seemingly the most di­minutive of Scripture, do in any measure come near to such a course Character of it; as that it is a Black Gospel; an Ink Theology, Sure Footing. p. 194. dead Characters, Waxen-natur'd, and plia­ble to the Daedalean Fancies of the in­genious Moulders of new Opinions. If Mens thoughts may be judg'd of by their words, sure the Fathers and Ro­manists Sentiments of the Scriptures were very divers.

2ly. Seeing there is a seeming con­tradiction of the Fathers to them­selves (because they are urg'd by both the disagreeing Parties,) it will be fitting to enquire, whether there may not be a reconciliation of them to each other, and of some of them to themselves. For this end I sup­pose a good means would be: 1. See­ing the Fathers sometimes speak of Scripture without mention of Tradi­on, at other times speak of Tradition, not mentioning Scripture; to exa­mine [Page 174]how they deliver their Sense, when they express themselves of Scripture and Tradition jointly, and comparatively of one with the o­ther. 2ly. To see, whether their appearingly most favourable expressions of Tradition may not be very well construed in a subordination of Tra­dition to Scripture, very consistent­ly with Scriptures Precedence to it.

1. Of the Fathers speaking of Scripture, and Tradition conjointly. I will begin with St. Cyprian, in his Epistle to Pompey. Being prest with Tradition, he answers, Whence is this Tradition? Descends it from our Lord's and his Gospel's Autho­rity; or comes it from the Commands of the Apostles, and their Epistles? God declares, that those things should be done, which are written; saying to Joshua, The Book of the Law shall not depart from thy Mou [...]h, but thou shalt meditate in it day and night; that thou mayest observe to do all things written in it. Likewise our Lord sending his Apostles, Commands all Nations to be Baptized, and to be taught, that they observe all things, whatsoever [Page 175]he had Commanded.—What obsti­nacy, what presumption is it, to prefer humane Tradition to the Divine Dispose or Command; and not to consider, that God is angry and in wrath, when hu­mane Tradition disregards and dissolves Divine Commands? As God warns and speaks by the Prophet Isaiah, &c. And toward the end of the Epistle, — And this it behoves God's Priests to do at this time, keeping the Divine Commands, that if Truth have declin'd and fail'd in any respect, we go back to the source of the Evangelical and Apostolical Tradition, and let the man­ner of our Actings take their rise thence, whence their Order and Origin rose.

The preference of Scripture to Tradition by this antient Father, is so plain and undeniable, that it is reply'd, St. Cyprian's Testimony was writ by him to defend an Error;—and therefore no wonder, if (as Bellar­mine says) more errantium ratio­cinetur, he discours'd after the rate of those that err; that is, assumes false grounds to build his Error on. Letter of Thanks, p. 124.

But this is a mean Evasion. For tho' Cyprian was indeed in an Er­ror, and did mistake in his discourse; yet it can't be affirm'd with proba­bility, or Charity to such a Saint, and Martyr; that to gratifie a private Opinion he would affront so Sacred and Catholick a Principle, as the Rule of Christian Faith, and degrade Tradition from being such, if he had indeed believed it to be so.

Yet if this should be granted to our Adversaries, the consequence would be their inconvenience. For why might not more do the same, which St. Cyprian did? and if some Fathers might desert Tradition, and flye to Scripture, meerly to serve a Turn, for defence of an Opinion, which they could not maintain other­wise; why may it not be as well said, that other Fathers might baulk Scripture, and advance Tradition; and for the same end, viz. to sup­port some Doctrine, or Doctrines, which else must have fallen? And upon this it would follow, (beside the imputation of inconstancy, and [Page 177] shifting to the Fathers) that we must be at much uncertainty, what truly was the Judgment of the Fathers concerning the Rule of Faith; and that therefore the quotations out of them must in a great part be insignificant for this purpose.

St. Basil, in his Tract, call'd; Questions compendiously unfolded, or answered; says, It is necessary and consonant to Reason, that every Man learn that which is needful out of the Holy Scripture, both for the ful­ness of godliness, and lest they ac­custom themselves to humane Tradi­tions.

'Tis acknowledged by De amissi. gratiae. L. 1. C. 13. Bellar­mine, that this Author admits not Traditions unwritten; but then he says, it is not certainly manifest, whether these Questions were the great Basil's, or rather Eustathius's of Sebastia. Yet the same De Pae­nit. L. 3. C. 8. Bel­larmine confidently quotes them as St. Basils for Auricular Confession. So that it may seem, that the Que­stions were before scrupled at, only because they spoke in behalf of Scrip­ture against Tradition, and against [Page 178]venial sins; which is manifest Par­tiality.

But I shall bring a Testimony of St. Basil, which Bellarmine himself would own to be St. Basils; who in his Book of the true Faith thus Discourses: If God be faithful in all his sayings, his Words, and Works, they remaining for ever, and being done in Truth and Equity; it must be an evident signe of Infidelity and Pride, if any one shall reject what is written, and introduce what is not written. This is a manifest Prelation of what is written, i. e. Holy Scriptures to what is unwritten, i. e. Tradition, which Bellarm. calls the unwritten word of God, in the Title to his 4 ^th Book, De verbo Dei.

When St. Quid (inquam) O­mousion nisi Ego & Pater unum sumus. Sed nunc nec ego Nicaenam synodum tibi, nec tu Arimineusem mihi de­bes t [...]nquam praejudicaturus cbiitere. Scripturarum Au­thoritatibus res cum re, cau­sa cum causâ, ratio cum ra­tione concertet. Contra Maxt. Lib. 3. Cap. 14. Au­gust. was willing to wave the Council of Nice to Maximinus, and to retire to a Decision of the Catholick Cause by Scripture; certainly that great Person judg'd Scripture without Tradi­on to be sufficient to [Page 179]prove an Article of Faith; or else he betrayed the Cause by appealing to a Medium, which could not evince it. For either the Nicene Coun­cil decreed the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father by Scrip­ture without Tradition, (and then we have above three hundred ve­nerable Fathers on our side) or if they defin'd it in the strength of Tradition without Scripture, or by Tra­dition sensing Scripture; then St. Au­gust. parting with the Council of Nice, proceeding upon Tradition on­ly, or upon Tradition sensing Scrip­ture, left himself nothing, or but the Letter of Scripture (which ac­cording to our Adversaries, wants all the properties of a Rule of Faith; Sure Footing. p. 29) to manage his Cause with.

By these Testimo­nies it is plain, it cannot be; that the Fathers should ex­press themselves Tho' some Fathers speak highly of Scripture, as that it contains all Faith, &c. It is first to be mark'd, whether they speak of Scripture sens'd, or as yet to be sens'd; and if the latter, by whom, &c. Sure Footing. p. 140. so highly of Scripture, only so far as help'd and sens'd by Tradi­dition; [Page 180]because, as to the Being a Rule of Faith, the Fathers separate Tradition from Scripture, and set Scripture by it self.

Much more it is far from being 'Tis impossible, they (i. e. the Fathers) should b [...]ld Scrip­ture thus interpretable (i. e. by other means th [...]n by Tradition) the Rul [...] of Faith; it being no­torious, that m [...]st Hereticks against whom they writ, held it theirs. And so had they held Scripture thus interpreted the Rule of Faith, They could not have h [...]ld the Hereticks, since they adbered stifly to that Root or Rule of Faith, however they might err in many particu­lar Tenents Ibid. p. 141. impossible, that the Fathers should hold Scripture, not inter­preted by Tradition, to be the Rule of Faith, which yet is affirm'd. And the Reason gi­ven is as weak as the Affirmation is untrue. For if the Scripture, not inter­preted by Tradition, could not be held to be the Rule of Faith, because He­reticks adhering stifly to it, as the Rule or Root of Faith, could not be held as Hereticks; then, nor could Tradition be held to be the Rule of Faith, because Hereticks (as the See Ire­naeus quo­ted a little after. Gnosticks, and others) sticking to Tradition, as their Rule, could not be held as Hereticks. There's a manifest parity of these Discourses, and the latter is as concluding as the former.

But it is to accumulate injuries upon Scripture; because the mistakes and perversness of Men abuse it by false glosses, and compell'd de­ductions, therefore to judge it fit, it should forfeit its Authority. Our blessed Lord, who so condemn'd the Jewish Traditions, held the Scrip­ture of the Old Testament to be the Jew's Rule of Faith; and the Sadduces, who denied the Resur­rection, sure were held by him to be Hereticks; and yet they disclam'd Tradition, and adher'd stifly to Scrip­ture only, as the Root or Rule of Faith.

Certainly, it is the impress and appointment from God, which consti­tute a Rule of Faith, make it to be such; and Men prove Hereticks, when they wilfully wrong, pervert, and wrest it; but 'tis wonderful, that Hereticks acknowledging it to be the Rule of Faith ( i. e. paying to it what is due to it), or a pre­tence that it favours their Errors, (which is a slander of it) should un­make it a Rule of Faith, render it impossible to be held to be such.

2ly. In enquiry about the second thing propos'd, it must be consider'd, that the word [Tradition] has more acceptions than one: And that Tra­dition may be used to different Persons, at different times, in a di­vers manner, and to several ends.

1. Tradition is taken sometimes (both in Scripture and Ecclesiasti­cal Writers) not for Oral delive­ry of Opinions and Practices to Po­sterity; but for what is deliver'd by Writing, and even in the Sacred Scriptures. The Jew's Law and Rites are said to be such, Act. 6.14. [...], which Moses Tradition'd; and yet they were a part of the Old Testament. St. Paul 1 Cor. 15.3. [...], delivered to the Christians, (which he had also received) that Christ dyed for our Sins, which was but [...], according to the Scriptures De Spi­ritu Sto. St. Basil says, that our Baptisme in the Name of the Fa­ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is according to the very Tradition of our Lord; and yet this [Page 183]is Matth. 28.19. written, with St. Si ergo aut in Evange­lio praecipitur, aut in Apostelo­rum Epistolis, aut Actibus, con­tinetur, observetur etiam & haec sancta Traditio. In Ep. ad Pompeium. Cyprian, that is an holy Tradition, which is either com­manded in the Gos­pel, or is contained in the Epistles, and Acts of the Apostles.

2ly. It is observed, that some of the Fathers had to do with such Hereticks, as denied the Scriptures, some part of them at the least, and set up other writings in stead of them. In dealing with such, those Fathers were forc'd to have recourse to Tradition, that so they might dis­pute with their Ad­vesaries on such a Principle, as they would allow, and this in way of conde­scention. 'T was thus with Cum enim ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem con­vertuntur ipsarum Scriptura­rum, quasi non rectà habeant, ne (que) sint ex autoritate, & quia variè sint dictae, & quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his, qui nesciant Traditione [...]: Non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem; ob quam causam, &c. Adver­sus baereses. Lib. 3. Cap. 2. Ire­naeus in his Contest with the Gnosticks. Who (says he) when they are ar­gued against out of the Scriptures, [Page 184]accuse the very Scriptures them­selves; as if they were not right, nor were of Authority sufficient; and because their Sense is various and uncertain; and because the Truth cannot be found in them by those who are ignorant of Tra­dition. This made Irenaeus in op­position to their fictitious Tradi­tion, and pretended living Voice, ex­press himself the more respectful­ly of such Tradition, as had brought down the Orthodox Doctrine from the Apostles, in the several Churches. Not that he preferr'd Tradition to Scripture; for what his Judgment was of Scripture, we have seen be­fore; and 'tis the observation of In Epist. nuncupato­riâ Irenaeo praefixâ. Erasmus, that he fights against the Hereticks solis scripturarum prae­sidiis, by the sole aid of Scriptures, i. e. Scriptures were his chief Wea­pons; and that if he took up Tra­dition, 'twas but occasionally upon the froward impudence of his Adversa­ries.

3. We must distinguish of Times. The Gospel was Preached, before it was Written: It was written too, [Page 185] one part after another. And when the whole was written, the Copies could not presently be many, and dispersed to all Christians, especial­ly the more new and remoto Con­verts. Nay, and had the Gospel never been written, then the Church must have been satisfied (if such the pleasure of God had been) with an Oral Tradition. Hence Quid antem si ne (que) Apostol [...] quidem Scriptu­ras reliquissent nobis, non­ne oportebat, &c. Ad­versus haer. L. 3. C. 4. Irenaeus might say: what if the Apostles had not indeed left the Scrip­tures to us, would it not have behoov'd us to follow the Order of Tradition, which they had delivered to them, to whom they committed the Churches; to which Ordination do assent many Nations of Barbarians, which believe in Christ, having Salvation written in their hearts, without Characters or Ink, by the Spi­rit, and diligently keeping antient Tra­dition. This (I say) Irenaeus might with reason write, especially against those, Evenitita (que) ne (que) Scripturis jam, ne (que) traditioni consentire eos. Idem. L. 3. C. 2. who consented neither to Scriptures, nor Tradi­tion (i. e. such as de­scended [Page 186]from the Apostles.) But when as the whole Scriptures were long since written, and plentifully Communicated to the Christian world, the Case is quite alter'd.

Besides, the nearer things are to their Origin, they are the more genuine and sincere; but, at the far­ther remove they are from it, the more they are in danger of changes and decays. Tradition must be con­ceiv'd to have been much more pure at the distance of an hundred, or an hundred and fifty, or two or three hundred years, from the A­postles (and therefore then might be more rationally argued from, in some cases,) than after 7, 8, or 9 hundred years; in which revo­lution of so many more Ages, and after intercurrencies of many more accidents, Tradition may be more suspected of that consumptiveness, and of those changes, which Time brings upon all things; and there­fore an Argument from it would be much more infirm.

Farther yet, besides Oral, the Fa­thers of the more Primitive Times, [Page 187]might have written Traditions; such Records to prove, that such a Do­ctrine, or Doctrines, were profess'd by Apostolical Men, by Holy Mar­tyrs, and Confessors, successively to that present Age, as were then ex­tant, but are pe­rish'd since. Age jam qui voles curio­sitatem melius exercere in ne­gotlo Salutis tuae; percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur; apud quas ipsae Authenticae eorum literae recitantur; sonantes vo­cem, & repraesentantes faciem uniuscujus (que) Tertul. de Prae­scrip. Ter­tullian speaks of the very Authentick Let­ters of the Apo­stles, which were even then preser­ved in the Churches. So that the Fathers might with the more safety trust, and allege Tradition's suffrage, than we can, who live so incomparably farther off from the Apostles Days, than they did; it being very like­ly, that in such a far longer space of time, the more contingencies have interpos'd to disturb the clearness of Commerce between them and us.

4ly. Proofs may be brought in a divers manner, and for different uses. St. Paul quoted Heathenish Poets, as well as the Law, and the [Page 188]Prophets. 'Tis usual, where the Subject is properly manageable upon the stock of Reason, yet to argue likewise from Testimony, to call in the concurring Judgment of others. In Religion, Protestants do not be­lieve the Fathers to be infallible, and yet it has been usual with them to cite them, both in Homi­letique Discourses, and in Pole­mique Writings. Testimony, tho' it be not apodictical, yet it is plausible. Example in point of Opinion, as well as of Practice is much gaining upon many; is not alone commonly bet­ter understood, but more prevalent too, than Reason, with many Capa­cities. And when 'tis the Testimo­ny of many (as Tradition is) it causes those of an opposite Opini­on to appear the more singular in their Persuasion; and singularity is not of the best Credit. So then the Fathers might (on some occa­sions) use Tradition's Authority (the general consent of Christians in some Truth, for one or more A­ges) yet not demonstratively, but to­pically; somewhat the more to re­press [Page 189]or to disparage in other's Opinion, the importunity of a petu­lant Adversary; to shame a contu­macious Heretick (not, as is said, Sure Footing, p. 140, to declare that the rejecting Tradition, and ad­hering to Scripture, made him an Heretick); or they might urge it to the more tractable, as a probable motive to assent; tho' not as a Rule of Faith, yet as such a persuasive, as might be an occasion of Belief, and the better dispose the Soul toward Faith and Assurance: Yet still sup­posing Holy Scriptures to be the pro­per and ultimate basis of Christian Faith; and that such Traditions were consonant to them, and not over-ru­ling of them.

I believe, that these considerations may be useful for the construction of the Fathers in such passages, wherein they make the most ho­nourable mention of Tradition; and to shew, that notwithstanding such a mention of Tradition, yet they might yield to Scripture the Supre­macy in the regulation of Christian Faith, especially whenas they speak [Page 190]so reverently of Scripture in other places of their Works; nay, and give them the Precedence, when they compare the one with the other.

And thus (if after a digression, yet I think not an impertinent one) I have proved the Father's unque­stionable Care and Diligence in pre­servation of the Holy Scriptures, by their Religious and unparallell'd esteem and veneration for them.

SECT. IV.

3ly. The Holy Scriptures are se­cur'd by God's especial Protection of them. Reason suggests; that as there is a God, a Supreme, and first Cause, who made the world, and also pro­vides for the welfare of his great Workmanship; so that the Divine Providence does mainly watch over those Creatures, on which God has imprinted the fairest Characters of his Power, Wisdom, and Good­ness: Such a Creature is Man. And this Divine Providence is the Ca­tholick Sanctuary of Mankind. Af­ter all Mens own projectings and [Page 191]labours, here is their last and surest repose. They can't with a rational comfort Trade, Travel, Eat, Sleep, but with a sober hope of the Di­vine help and benediction. For if Divine Providence smile not, all Mens wisest Counsels, and stoutest Endeavours will be successless: They may go forth, and never return home; their Table may be a Snare, and their Sleep Death, more than in a Metaphor.

Next, Religion tells us, that God has designed, and prepar'd for Man an everlasting Blessedness, and de­termin'd of the due Qualifications of Man for that Blessedness; and it is agreed, that in the Sacred Scriptures God has revealed Himself concerning both. These Scriptures are the lively Image of God, the faire Copy of his Will, a bright Express of his Truth and Holiness, a Perspective into his Mind, and into many of his secret Counsels; authentick Records of the many and glorious manifestations of the Divine Wisdom, Power, Good­ness, Mercy, and Justice, in ma­king, [Page 192]governing all things, and in the Salvation of Sinners.

From the dictates of Reason then, and much more of Religion, it is consequent, that God has an espe­cial Care, that the Scriptures be safe, on which he has impressed so much of himself; which were Ioh. 20. uit. written, that we might believe, and believing have life; and which were Rom. 15.4. writ­ten for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope; but how could they attain those ends, if they should pe­rish? if this light were extinguish'd, how much in the dark, and forlorne would Man be!

This peculiar watchfulness of God over the Scriptures is acknowledged by the Romanists. Ita velente Deo ut verae lectionis [...]ntegr [...]tas, quam homi­num velmalitia, vel negligentia cor [...]uperent in partibus, in totâ saltem Ecclesiasticorum codi um universitate serv [...]retur; ne Ec­clesia Christi per aliquod tempus divinarum Scriptura [...]um integ­ritate careret. Bibl. Sanct. p. 727. Sixtus Senensis at­tributes the pre­served incorruptness of the sacred Text, to the Will of God. And Bellarmine De verbo Dei. L. 2. C. 2. Quintum & ultimum argumentum. argues from the [Page 193] Divine Providence for the preserva­tion of the Old Testament from any injury by the Jews. Indeed, he entitles Tradition likewise to Gods special care, as the Cura ista non incumbit praecipue hominibus, sed Deo Praeter-providenti­am Dei, quae est praecipua causa. — De verbo Dei non Scripto. Lib. 4. C. 12. principal cause of its pretended safety. And this is a Confession, that God is in a particular man­ner the Guardian of that, by which he communicates his Mind and Pleasure to Man; (for such a thing, i. e. The unwrit­ten word of God, he held Tradition to be.) But certainly Tradition can't lay a just claim to such an interest in Divine Providence, as the Scrip­ture.

1. For first, besides what I have before prov'd, to the just diminu­tion of Oral Tradition; there was a providential dismission of it, and choice of Scripture, to be the Convey­ance of Gods revealed Will to his Church through successive Ages. For whenas Oral Tradition had been in use for that purpose before the Flood, and some while after it, and great had been the untrustiness of [Page 194]it; at the length, God writ his Law Himself, and commanded what was written to be kept with a great religious care. Afterwards, as Mo­ses, the Prophets, and Hagiogra­phers were inspir'd, their Revela­tions were written, so far as was necessary to the Church's Edifica­tion. And when the People were in danger of seduction, and it be­hoved them to seek to their God for instruction; they were sent (not Children to their Traditioning Fa­thers; Is. S. 19, 20. but) to the Law, and to the Testimony; and they were told, that those who spoke not according to that word, it was, because there was no light in them. Yes, and when the Church was generally corrupted, and therefore Tradition had not done its Duty, the Churches relief was (not from the living voice of testi­fying Fathers, but) from the Scrip­ture, according to whose Canon a­buses were reformed. And for this Reformation, and because in it he perform'd the words of the Law, which were written in the Book, that Hilkiah the Priest found in the [Page 195]house of the Lord; Josiah stands renowned in Sacred Story with this Character; Like unto him there was no King before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, 2 Kin. 23, 24, 25. accor­ding to all the Law of Moses, &c.

This way of securing Revelati­ons by writing was continued under the Gospel; as we have them in the Evangelists, the Epistles, the Acts, and the Revelation. And this course was as needful under the Gospel, as under the legal Oeconomy, if not more. For it being intended by God, that the Gospel should be propagated be­yond the narrow Confines of Judaea (where the Scriptures of the Old Testament had lodg'd for hundreds of years) through­out the World, and among so many Nations of such different Com­plexions, Customs, and Interests; there was the more danger it should be disguis'd, if it had been com­mitted to the frailty of an Oral Tra­dition; as we know, that the more Mouths Relations pass through, the more subject they are to alterations [Page 196]from their primitive truth; through the ignorance, mistakes, prejudices, prepossessions, or wilfulness of the Relators. Whereas a Writing, being preserved, is a perpetual standard, by which to correct any such chan­ges; for in these, Truth would be most likely still to appear in its first Integrity.

Thus I have shew'd, how that af­ter an experienc'd unsuccessfulness of Oral Conveyance, God appoint­ed another way, and so ordered it, that Law and Gospel should be written. Now, if after, and not­withstanding such a Provision, yet it should be God's intent, that Oral Tradition only should have the pre­rogative to sense Scripture, and that Faith should be lastly resolved into Oral Tradition; and therefore that This, not Scripture, should be the only Rule of Faith; it must needs seem strange, and unaccountable to a­any rational Christian, how it should come to pass, that in the Sacred Scriptures there should be so many, [Page 197]and such high Ps. 19.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Ps. 119. passim. 2 Pet. 1.19, 20, 21. Eph. 6.17. Heb. 4.12. Enco­miums of them; that our Saviour should bid the Jews, Ioh. 5.39. search the Scriptures; should tell them, they Matth. 22.29. err'd, not knowing the Scriptures, Matth. 22.42. Ioh. 10.34, 35, 36. should dispute with, and baffle them out of the Scriptures; and by them Luke 24.25, 26, 27. confirm his Disciples in the Truth; that his Apostles should proceed in the same manner with the Jews: That the Act. 17.11, 12. Beraeans should be commended for searching the Scrip­tures daily, whereupon many of them believed; that St. Paul should mention it to Timothy, 2 Tim. 3.15, 16, 17. as an encouragement or engagement of him to continue in the things he had learned; that he from a Child had known the holy Scriptures; and that he should pre­sently add a description of Scripture, than which a more full one sure can't be us'd of the Rule of Faith, viz. That it is able to make wise un­to Salvation, through the Faith which is in Christ Jesus; that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for [Page 198]correction, for instruction in righte­ousness; that the Man of God may be perfect, throughly furnish'd unto all good works: I say, it is mighty strange, that Scripture should be thus magnified, and yet none of all this should be said there of Tradi­tion: Nay, that either Tradition should be mentioned with disgrace, as when our Saviour Matth. 15.2, 3. condemns the Jew's Traditions of their Elders; and St. Paul Col. 2.8. warns the Colossians to beware, lest any Man spoile them, —after the Tradition of Men;— or where the word is found, yet that the sense of it should not be useful to our Adversaries purpose; which that it might be, it must be sufficient to prove, that there was more delivered by the Apostles, than was written; and that what was so delivered was a necessary Point of Faith. But when St. Paul praises the Corinthians, that they 1 Cor. 11.3.23. kept the Ordinances, or Traditions, as he delivered them; when he tells them, he had received that, which also he de­livered to them; when he exhorts the Thessalonians 2 Thes. 2.15. to hold the Tra­ditions, [Page 199]which they had been taught, whether by word, or (says he) our Epistle; when he commands them 2 Thes. 3.6. to withdraw themselves from every Brother that walks disorderly, and not after the Tradition which he received from the Apostle; there is nothing (I say) in these places, which will necessarily infer, that more was de­livered by the Apostles, than was, or is written, and that what was so delivered was a necessary Point of Faith, through all Ages.

Why now, it is a wonder, that if God (tho' he provided his Church with the Holy Scriptures, yet) pleas'd to enstate Oral humane Tra­dition in the great Office of sensing Scripture, and of being the only Rule of Faith; He did not so order it, that Scripture should modestly ac­knowledge its Superior, but rather let Scripture carry away all the ho­nour from it.

2ly. A second reason, why O­ral Tradition can't plead so strong a Title to a protection by the Di­vine Providence, as Scripture, is this. God's Providence does ordinarily [Page 200]co-operate with, and prosper means answerably to their comportment with, and likelihood to reach the end intended. Now it has been be­fore demonstrated, how weak and uncertain Tradition is; how fix'd and able Writings are, to conserve Truths once delivered; and therefore 'tis rational to believe, that the Divine Aid does much rather assist to the preservation of Divine Truths by the Holy Scriptures, than by Oral Tra­dition; the former being much more servicable to the promoting such an end, than the latter.

Hitherto I have prov'd the con­tinued preservation of Holy Scrip­ture from proper Causes of such an Effect; causes ministerial, and su­preme; humane care and vigilancy, and Divine special Providence.

SECT. V.

4ly. Scripture's Preservation is manifest from the Event. Such have been the happy success of Divine Providence's watchfulness, and of humane Care and Diligence, that Chri­stians [Page 201]do generally consent in this; that the Holy Scriptures are de facto continued safe, and pure to us in all things, which are necessary to be believed, and to be practised, for the obtainment of Everlasting Hap­piness.

The Church of Rome professes to have the Scriptures, and the Trent Council has defin'd the Vulgar La­tin to be those Genuine, Authentick Scriptures. How true that Deter­mination was for the Authentickness of the Vulgar Latin Bibles, is not necessary for me to enquire; 'tis enough for me, that they acknow­ledge a preserved Integrity of the present Scriptures.

So that there is not a Tenent, which we have more strong induce­ment to believe, upon the account even of Tradition, than that the Divine Books (the Scriptures, which we have) are indeed the Word of God, and have been faithfully deri­ved to us from the beginning; there being no Tradition more universal for any Point than for this great important Truth; tho' Christians [Page 202]may run wide from each other in other matters, yet they close in this Center.

I conclude then, seeing that the Holy Scriptures are much more fit to keep the Truths committed to them safe, than Oral Tradition, if they be preserved; (as has been prov'd) and likewise that the Holy Scriptures are preserv'd (as is gene­rally confess'd, and even by our Ad­versaries); it must follow, that not Oral Tradition, but the sacred Scrip­tures are the surest and safest way of Conveyance of Divine Truths down from their Original delivery unto us; which to demonstrate was the scope of this Undertaking.

SECT. I.

THere remain some things, which perhaps may be appre­hended to reflect on the Prelation I have given to Scripture above Oral Tradition, in the point of preserva­tion, which next shall be conside­red.

Obj. 1. The Almost innumerable variae lectiones in it still controverted. Sure Fo [...] ­ting. p. 32. ma­ny variae lectiones, di­vers Readings, may seem to some a reason to question Scripture's descent to us in a sufficient Purity. But,

Answ. 1. 'Tis a question, whether all those which go under the name of Divers Readings, do truly deserve that Title. For I conceive, that not every Translation of the Bible (in whole, or in part); by whom­soever, [Page 204]and from whencesoever, (as suppose) by some very uncer­tain, or justly suspected Author; or not from the Originals, but from some Versions of them; no, nor that every Copy of the Bible (in the O­riginal Languages) found any where, or whether of convenient Antiquity or not, are sitting to Minister mat­ter for various Readings of the Sa­cred Text; i. e. are such, as me­rit to be considered by Learned Men, and may put them to the stand sometimes, which is the truest. Certainly, none (if any Translations at all) but such as are immediately from the Originals, have been per­form'd by Authors of repute; or (if their Persons are not known) who give in the work no jealousie of their Integrity; none but Copies of sufficient Antiquity are consi­derable for such a purpose. And if such a course, and some other cations were us'd; it may be a great part of the Army of almost innumerable variae Lectiones would be disbanded.

2ly. But let them stand as they are mustred by some; they are not so for­midable, as to Nay so many (variae lectiones) in the New Testa­ment alone observed by one man, ( my Lord Usher) that he durst not print them for fear of bring­ing the whole Book into doubt. Sure Footing. Ibid. bring the whole Book in­to doubt; and doubt­less the excellent Lord Primate Supposing he said so, as the Author of S [...]re Footing reports. Ʋsher was more Good and Learned than to think so; tho' perhaps he might judge the Printing of them to be less con­venient, (not as if they were ratio­nally conclusive of any thing really disadvantageous to Scripture, but) lest the Atheistical, or the weak, might take an occasion from them to dis­parage the Scripture; which care to avoid the ministring occasion of scandal to others in Religious mat­ters, has ever been the wariness of the good and prudent. But as for these di­vers Readings; Dr. Br. Walton, late Lord B. of Ch. in Proleg. 7. ad Biblia Polyglort. Qui etiam citat in eundem sensum Lud. Ca­pellum in Proleg. 6. some of the most curious Collecters of them have not dis­cern'd any alteration [Page 206]made by them in the Scripture, which may wrong Faith or Man­ners.

In quâ tamen tam longâ & latâ a textu criginario discessio­ne divinam tecum providentiam agnoscimus, & suspicimus: quòd nulla extiterit tam damnosa in­ter utros (que) textus differentia, ut rectam fidem, quae ad salutem est necessaria, labefactaret aut laederet. Jacobi Ʋsserii Armach. ad Ludov. Cappellum Epist. And the Re­verend Arch-Bishop Ʋsher (before na­med) confesses, and venerates the Divine Care; in that (tho' he believed the Sep­tuagint Translation widely to differ from the Original Hebrew Text, and had no Opinion of it, as a ground even of — Haec mea senten­tia perpetua fuit.—Ex qui­busdam veterum interpretatio­nibus excerpi aliquas posse va­riantes te [...]tus Hebraici lectiones; ex vulgatâ Graecâ versione— nullas. Idem. Ibid. various Rea­ings; yet) there is no such material difference between the Hebrew Text, and even that version, as may injure the Faith ne­cessary to Salvation.

Our Adversaries, tho' they know of those numerous (as they say) va­riae lectiones, yet notwithstanding scru­ple not to profess to have the Ge­nuine Scriptures, (as was said before) or if they have not, if they have been careless in a matter of so grand [Page 207]moment as the Conservation of Holy Writ entire, how should we trust to their fidelity in other things of less Consequence, who yet claim to be the most credible Traditioners in the world?

SECT. II.

Ob. 2. If it should be thought a Ground to suspect the care of the Church, and of Providence over Scripture; that, The E­pistle to the Hebrews. Of St. Jam. 2. Ep. of St. Peter. 2d. and 3d. Ep. of John. the Ep. Ju. the Reve­lation. 1. some Books of the New Testament are account­ed now Canonical, which Anciently were not reputed so. 2. That some Books (commonly called the A­pocrypha) are controverted, whether they belong to the Canon of the Old Testament, or not; it is answered.

1. That it is no wonder, if all the Books of the New Testament were not presently generally received by all Christians, who in, especially after, the Apostles days, had multiplied into very great numbers; and liv'd dis­pers'd in divers places, and very re­mote from each other. Time was re­quired for all Christendom truly to [Page 208]inform themselves of a business of so great weight; but the reception of these Books ( never doubted of by all Christians; rather doubted of, than rejected by some) was early enough to satisfy any sober expectation. The Council of Laodicea, which was had in so much reverence and esteem, by those of elder ages, that the Canons of it were received into the Code of the Universal Church, was held Anno Dom. 364. The Bishops then assembled together, Apud Caran­zam. declare in the last Canon, what Books of the Old and New Testament were to be read publickly, and to be held as Canoni­cal, and they only. And among those of the New Testament are reckoned the Epistles before men­tioned in the Margent. The Apocalypse indeed is omitted; but it was omit­ted only, not rejected, it was forborn to be named, because their Custom was not usually to read it in publick, for the special Mysteriousness of it. More may be seen of this in the learn­ed Dr. Cosins, late Bishop of Duresme; in his Scholastic. l History of the Canon of Scripture, pag. 60. 61.

De Verbo Dei. Lib. 1. c. 17, 18, 19. also Cap. 16. con­cerning some little por­tions of Holy Writ for­merly controverted. Bellarmine giv's a large account of the At­testations yielded to all these Books, and to each of them; not alone by the Laodicean Council, but some others also, and by several Fathers likewise, both be­fore and after that Council.

Indeed after some Debates about them by some in the early days of Christianity, they were entertain'd by the Church without contradicti­on.

2. The Controversy between us and the Romanists about the Canon of the Old Testament has in it no great difficulty, it seems to be a plain case.

Those Arguments, by which De Verbo Dei. L. 2. c. 2. Bellarmine proves, that the Jews did not corrupt the Hebrew Text, do as strongly conclude, that they did not shorten the Hebrew Canon; for this latter would have been as great a fault in them, as the former, rather a greater, and would have been more difficult for them to have effected. Also De Verbo Dei. Lib. 1. c. 8, 9, 10. Bellarmine acknowledges, [Page 210]that the Book of Baruch is not found in the Hebrew Bibles; that the frag­ments of Daniel, i. e. The Hymn of the three Children; the History of Susanna, and of Bell and the Dragon; that the Books of Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, and of the Macchabees, are not own'd by the Jews. Or if he had not con­fessed so much, there is evidence sufficient from the Josephus contra Apion. Lib. 1. p. 1036. 1037. Jews themselves, that Primis Ordinis Canonica Volumina, quae sola apud He­braeos in authoritate hahentur, Judaei, &c. Sixt. Senens. Bibl. Sanct. pag. 2. Certum est Li­bros hosce (Apocryphos sc.) ab Ec­clesià, sive Synagogâ Judaicà nunquam in Canonem censitos fu­isse, tam ante Christi tempora, quàm post, in hunc usque diem. Sim. Episcopii Inst. Theolog. 226. P. Ricaut. Of the Greek Church. they never owned more Books, as Di­vine and Canonical, than the Protestants do; and likewise the Greek Church agree with the Pro­testants in rejecting the Apocrypha.

How then the Roman great Propug­nators of Tradition, consistently even with that very Principle, adopt more Books into the Canon, than the Jews ever own'd, is not by me conceive­able. For to the Jews were committed the Oracles of God; they, above all in the [Page 211]world, best knew what was com­mitted to them; they did carefully preserve (as is seen before), and deliver to Posterity; and Posterity could honestly come by no more than what was delivered to them: I do not foresee, what exception can justly lie against this procedure. Therefore that Bellarmine should say, tho' the Jews rejected these Books, yet the Ecclesia Catholica Libros istos, ut caet ros, pro Sacris & Canonicis habet. De verbo Dei. Lib. 1. C. 10. Ca­tholick Church (he means the Christian); and par­ticularly the Trent Coun­cil received them as part of the Canon of the Old Testament, is exceeding strange, and a Riddle to me. Seeing that they have no countenance from the most Primitive, general, and long-liv'd Tradition of the Jewish Church. And this is enough to satisfie a ratio­nal Christian, and to refute our Ad­versaries, even by their own Princi­ple.

But yet, nor is it true, that there has been a truly Catholick recepti­on of those Books, as Canonical, even by the Christian Church. It [Page 212]is This deduction of Testi­monies is largly and satisfacto­rily made by the late Reverend Bishop of Duresme, Dr. Cosins, in his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture. evinc'd by a continued series of sufficient Testimo­nies, from the first Ages of the Chri­stian Church, thro' the several Centu­ries, unto the Council of Trent; that the Books which the Protestants call Apocryphal, were judg'd to be such by Christians. Now, that the Coun­cil of Trent, above 1500 years af­ter Christ, and a fragment of Chri­stendom, should vote the Apocryphal Books to be entertain'd with a ve­neration equal to what Christians have for the unquestionable Scrip­tures, was a boldness which was great enough, but can lay no Ob­ligation upon Christians.

The result of the Discourse fore­going, concerning the Books of the Old and New Testament, is this. 1. Seeing the Books of the New Testament were never doubted of, much less rejected, by all, were so early receiv'd by all. 2ly. Seeing the Jewish Church never (for so many hundred years) admitted more Books [Page 213]into the Canon, than Protestants do, likewise that the Christian Church did from the beginning distinguish between the Canonical and Apocry­phal Books (as has been the con­current Testimony of the most consi­derable Members of it, in its se­veral Ages.) Forasmuch (I say) that so it is; there can lie no ra­tional Objection against the sufficient care of the Divine Providence, or the Churches diligence, in the pre­servation of the Holy Scriptures; up­on supposal of which, it can justly be pretended, that Christians must be uncertain about the Integrity of the Scripture Canon.

I might add, that suppos [...] there were a much more considerable un­certainty concerning the truly Ca­nonical Books of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, than there is; yet there would be a fair Salvo for the care of Divine Providence, and for the security of Christians necessary Belief and Pra­ctice.

For I humbly conceive, that if 1. The Books of the New Testa­ment, [Page 214]at the first not generally re­ceiv'd, were still as controversible, yet we should not be at a loss for any Article of Faith; there being, in the Books never disputed of, e­nough to establish it. Or, 2ly. Were it so, that it were altogether doubt­ful, whether the Books call'd Apo­cryphal, were not as truly the word of God, as those styl'd Canonical; perhaps, yet there is no Doctrine, which can be prov'd from those Apocryphal Books, contrary to what we maintain against our Adver­saries. But this is Supernumerary, After the Author had con­futed by several Testimonies of the Antients the Canoni­calness of the Books, called Apocryphal, he adds. Etsi in hac re longè superior est causa nostra, nullam tamen satis gra­vem causam video, cur acriter de numero Canonicorum librorum cum Pontificiis digladiemur; & Apocryphos, quos illi in Canonem referre volunt, us (que) adeò aver semmr, quasi Fides & Religio Christiana propterea vacillatura sit, si illi in Canonem admittantur: Eisi enim non nego esse in iis quaedam, quae vel contradictionem, vel falsitatem, vel absurditatem manifestariam prae se ferant, & difficulter, aut cum iis quos Canonicos esse utrin (que) in confesse est, conciliari, aut cum historiae veritate, aut cum recta ratione in gratiam reduci possunt; tamen non modò nulla esse in tis credo; per quae dogmatis alicujus ad salutem necessarii veritas labefactari possit, sed & non pauciora esse in iis, mihi persuadeo, quae convellendis Pontificiorum erroribus faciunt, quam quae iis aut fulciendis aut stabiliendis servire possunt. Sim. Episcopii Instit. Theol. p. 227. Afterwards speaking of the Books of the New Testament, an­tiently questioned, says he: Sive admittantur, sive non admittantur—Certissimum nihilominus manet, caeteris, qui extra controversiam omnem positi sunt, abundè satis contineri universam doctrinam, & religionem istam, quam Revelatio­nem tertiam (intelligit, Religionem Christianam) esse di­cimus. Nullus enim in istis omnibus controversiis est apicu­lus, qui singulare aliquid habet inse, quod in aliis indubitatis desideratur, imò non abundè iis continetur, ad Religionis, & doctrinae Jesu Christi tum perfectionem, tum integritatem pertinens. Idem. Ibid. pag. 229. and might be untrue, without any preju­dice to what I have discours'd in this Section.

SECT. III.

Obj. 3. Whereas I have said, that the safe descent of Divine Truths is so greatly provided for, because they are treasur'd up in the Holy Writings; it may be perhaps reply'd, that Oral Tradition is not destitute of this [...] Advantage also. For one means which Bellarmine alledges of the preservation of Oral Traditions, is Scriptura, writing them in the antient Records of the Church. Therefore he says, that De Ver­bo Dei non Scripto. L. 4. C. 12. a Do­ctrine is called unwritten; Id [...]m. I­bid Ch. 2. not because it is no where written, because it was [Page 216]not written by the first Author, but,

Ans. 1. The Adversaries, I have to deal with, talk of Oral Tradition, as a Plenipotent thing, which is a support to itself, and needs not the prop of a Pen; is it self a spring of perpe­tuity to itself; and therefore, that the being written must be an acciden­tal, and no necessary Preservative of it.

This sure is the importance of se­veral passages concerning it; viz. Sure Foot. pag. 115. Christian Tradition, rightly under­stood, is nothing, but the Living voice of the Catholick Church essential as De­livering. Ibid. pag 101. None can in reason oppose the Authority of Fathers, or Councils against Tradition. Ibid. pag. 103. No Authority from any History, or Testimonial wri­ting is valid against the force of Tra­dition. So that Oral Tradition, is it seems, so far from a want of assistance from any writings whatsoever, that it is their strength, and over-rules them.

There is yet more said, Ibid. pag. 56. Oral Tradition is a Rule, not to the learned only, but also to the unlearned, to any vuloar enquirer; therefore it must not [Page 217]rest on Books for its Authentickness; for the unlearned and vulgar enquirers have not ability to read, to examine, to understand Books; accordingly 'tis said, that the Tradition of the Ibid. pag. 203, 204. pre­sent Church is to be believ'd.

There is something to the same purpose in another En­chirid. of Faith. pag. 14, 15. Author, who has form'd his Book Dialogue-wise. After the Master had read his Scho­lar a Lecture about Tradition; the Scholar asks him, Sir, It seems a mat­ter of great study, not easily to be over­come, except by very learned men, to know, or to find out a constant Traditi­on, as to read all the Fathers, Litur­gies, or Councils—. Is it not therefore sufficient Testimony of this, if the present Catholick Church universal­ly witnesses it to be so? To this the Master, after some premises, answers, It must by necessary consequence be con­cluded, the Testimony of any age (he means, any present age) to be suffici­ent. And after a while, he closes thus, This surely convinces the Testimo­ny of any age to be sufficient. Thus (whatsoever just exception this Di­vinity is expos'd unto, yet) it ap­pears [Page 218]by the Authors quoted, that there are some such, as I have to do with in this work, who maintain a self-sufficiency in Oral Tradition; and that though it may have, yet it can sustain it self without the aid of Books.

2. Let it be, that Oral Tradition has help from Scripture, from wri­ting; yet, upon a Scrutiny it will be found, that in the last issue this re­lief will be insufficient, so far, at the least, as to priviledge Oral Tradition to be the Rule of Faith. For, 1. Were their writings, the Conservatories of Tradition, written by persons mov'd by the Holy Ghost, or not? If not, (and I suppose, our adversaries will not affirm they were) then these wri­tings have a great disadvantage of the Holy Scriptures, which we profess to be the Canon of our Faith; as great a disadvantage as must be be­tween Books written by them, who could not err, and those written by them, who might err; from whence it would follow, that what is contain'd in the one, must be true; that the Contents of the other, may be true, yet [Page 219]too they may be false, there may be that reported in them, as deliver'd by Christ and his Apostles, which yet was not delivered by them. But, 2. Were there Ecclesiastical Monu­ments of unquestionable credit, and which did from Christ and his A­postles, through each age, exacty and fully declare to us the con­sentient Doctrines and Practices of the universal Church, it would be very material, and we should much rejoice in it; but the case is other­wise.

For some while, there were very few (if any) writings, save the Holy Scripture, which come to our hands. Justin Martyr is said to be the first Father, About 150 years after Christ. whose works have survived to this day. There are some Books, which pretend to an early date, which yet are judg'd to be supposititious; some of them judged to be so by the Romanists themselves, others proved to be such by the Cook, in censu â quorundum Scriptorum. D. James's Bastardie of false Fa­thers. Da­ille. Protestants.

For the first 300 years (as there was no compleat Ecclesiastical Histo­ry, so) the Fathers now extant, were but few; and their Works too be­ing [Page 220]calculated for the times in which they lived, reach not the controver­sies, which for many years past, and at this day, exercise, and trouble Christendom. This paucity of the Records of the first ages Id autem esse tempus, quo quatuor prima Concilia Oecume­nica includantur, a Constanti­no Imp. ad Marcianum. Atque hoc vel propterea aequissimum esse, quia primorum seculorum paucis­sima extant monumenta; illius vero temporis, quo Ecclesia praeci­puè florebat, longe plurima, ut facile ex ejus aetatis Patribus, & eorum scriptis, fides ac di­sciplina veteris Catholicoe possit agnosci Ita Perron. Sequitur Responsio Regis. Hoc postula­tum parùm illis aequum videbi­tur, &c. Apud Is. Casaubo­num in Responsione ad Cardina­lis Perronii Epistolam, pag. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42. Card. Perron acknowledg­es, and does imply their insufficiency for setling Catholick Faith; when as he would have recourse made for this pur­pose unto the 4th. and 5th. Centuries, because then there were most writers. Tho against this, the learned Is. Ca­saubon excepts; and justly, forasmuch as it must be presum'd, that the stream of Tradition ran pu­rest, nearest to its Fountain.

The Fathers after the first 300 years did often mix their own pri­vate sentiments with the Doctrines of the Church. Nor do the Fathers [Page 221]express themselves so, as that we may clearly distinguish, when they writ as Doctors, and when as Wit­nesses; when they deliver their own private Sense, and when the Sense of the Church; and if of the Church, whether it be of the Church uni­versal, or of some particular Church? some, who have diligently perus'd their Writings, judge it not easy to find any such constant [...]. It is confess'd by Rush­worth. Di­al. 3d. Sect. 13. a Romanist, that the Fathers speak sometimes as Witnesses of what the Church held in their days, and sometimes as Doctors; and so it is often hard to distinguish, how they deliver their Opinions, be­cause sometimes they press Scripture or Reason, as Doctors, and sometimes to confirm a known Truth. So that he, who seeks Tradition in the Fathers, and to convince it by their Testimony, takes an hard task upon him, if he go rigo­rously to work, and have a cunning Critick to his Adversary. So then, Tradition must in a good measure be at a loss for succour from the Fathers Writings.

I conclude then, that Books, Writings have not given such advan­tages to Oral Tradition, as to ren­der it the safest and most certain Conveyance of Divine Truths; but this Dignity and Trust is due to Holy Scriptures only; which having been at the first penn'd by Persons assisted by the Divine infallible Spi­rit, are stamp'd with an Authori­ty transcendent to all humane Au­thority, Oral, or Written; which have been witness'd to by the concurrent Testimony of the Church, in each intermediate Age, since the Primi­tive Times; and which are at this day generally agreed upon, as the true Word of God, by Christians, tho' in other things, it may be some of their Heads may stand as oppositely, as those of Sampson's Foxes.

SECT. IV.

There remains a Cavil, or two, rather than Objections, which shall have a dispatch also.

1. We are told, that by deserti­on of Oral Tradition, and adherence to Scripture we do cast our selves upon a remediless ignorance even of Scripture. Sure Footing. P. 117. [Tradition establish'd, the Church is provided of a certain and infallible Rule to interpret Scrip­ture's Letter by, so as to arrive cer­tainly at Christ's Sense, &c.] And e contrà, Ibid. p. 98. without Tradition, both Letter and Sense of Scripture is un­certain, and subject to dispute.] A­gain, Ibid. p. 38. [As for the certainty of the Scriptures signisicancy,—no­thing is more evident, than that this is quite lost to all, in the uncer­tainty of the Letter.]

2ly. It is suggested, that the course we take, is an Enemy to the Churches Peace. Ibid. p. 40. [The many Sects, into which our miserable Country is distracted, issue from this Principle, viz. The making Scriptures Letter the Rule of our Faith.]

By these passages it is evident, that this Author will have it, that Protestants have nothing, but the Letter of Scriptures, dead Chara­cters [Page 224]to live upon; and that upon this he charges their utter uncer­tainty in the interpretation of Scrip­tures, and their distractions.

Answ. But Protestants, when they affirm, That Scripture is the safest and most certain Conveyance of Divine Truths; and that con­sequently it is the only Rule of Faith, do mean Scriptures Letter and Sense both, or the Sense notified by the Words and Letter. And therefore the Author might have spar'd his Proof of this conclusion, i. e. That Scriptures Letter wants all the—pro­perties belonging to a Rule of Faith: It was needless (I say) to prove this to Protestants. Well, but let Protestants mean, and affirm what they will; have only the Letter of Scripture, and not the Sense of it, because they admit not of Oral Tra­dition to Sense it. Scripture (it seems) is such a Riddle, that there is no un­derstanding it, except we plough with their Heifer; and likewise without Tradition's caement we shall always be a pieces, and at variance amongst our selves. But,

1. As to the certainty of Scrip­ture's Sense; is Scripture (in ear­nest) so utterly obscure? Will their Author say so of the Histories of Livie, or Tacitus; or of the Phi­losophical Writings of Plato, and Aristotle; or of Euclid's Elements? Could not God speak clearly, and intelligibly to Men (as Men have done), and that in matters of the greatest consequence to them? or would he not do so? The Asser­tion of the one, would impeach his Wisdom; of the other, his mercy and kindness to Souls.

And if Scriptures leave us so quite in the dark, why do they call themselves a Light, a Lamp; say, Ps. 119.105.13 [...]. Ps. 19.7, 8. that they enlighten the Eyes, and make wise the simple? Were the Books of the Old Testament, the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles of the New Testament (in the respective times in which they were writ) in themselves unintelligible by them, to whom, and for whose Souls health they were writ? If they were so, [Page 226]then they were useless and vain: And Oral Tradition could not ex­pound them, which was not in Be­ing, when those Books were first, written; for That deals with the Ages following the first, conveys what was at the first delivered un­to Posterity. Did God then write only to amaze his Church?

'Tis acknowledged, that there are several [...] things hard to be understood (which it might please God should be, partly to win the greater veneration to the Scrip­tures, for what is obvious and presently seen through is in the more danger of contempt; partly for the exercise of Christian's In­dustry, Humility, and Charity to­wards each other, on occasion of dissent.) But howsoever, the Scrip­tures are not so lock'd up, but that a comp [...]tent diligence, and a Beraean [...], or readiness of mind, may be a Key to them, may open them in all Points necessary to Salvation. And if in other things we remain [Page 227]ignorant or not so certain, we may well bear with it, while we are yet but in viâ and not com­prehensores; on our way unto, but have not yet reach'd perfection.

That, which makes the noise of Scriptur's obscurity the more loud, is, that Men are apt to look upon the many subtilties of the Schooles, and Niceties of Polemick Writers, as Articles of Faith; and that men have more mind to fathom depths, and to humour their curiosity (for which end, I believe, the Scriptures were not intended), and hence, are ever racking the Scriptures and vexing the Sacred Text; than to exercise themselves in a sober un­derstanding of what is sufficiently plain, and in a consciencious pra­ctise of the Holy Rules of Life, which are evident enough. If Chri­stians would more seriously apply themselves to these two things, they would find in the Scriptures employment enough, and they would [Page 228]be more contented with their diffi­culties.

The Romanists have raised a cry of Scriptur's darkness upon another account, and out of Policy. For having embrac'd several Tenents and Practices, which Scripture does condemn, or not countenance (ei­ther it is wholly silent of them, or they are but meer appearances there, which are snatch'd at); and yet it is inconsistent with their gran­deur, or profit, or the affected reputation of an infallibility, to part with; they are faine to press Tradition to serve in their Wars, and for the defence of them. Thus they have first made a necessity, and then have invented a Remedy for it. But when all is done, the Remedy is more imaginary than real. For how unsure a Conveyance, and conse­quently how weak a Proof Oral Tradition is in matters of Chri­stian Faith and Practice, has been already evicted. So that if we must be ignorant of Scriptures Sense, [Page 229]unless Oral Tradition bless us with the Exposition of it; and Scrip­tures no farther a Light, than it is tinded at Tradition's Candle, we must sit still in much ignorance, or wander in great uncertainties; for that cannot relieve us, it is not that infallible Commentator it is pre­tended to be.

2. To the upbraiding us with our Distractions, I reply,

1. Before the charge can be made good, that the choice of Scripture for our Canon was the cause of our many Differences, and that upon that pretence we should exchange Scrip­ture for Oral Tradition, it must be suppos'd, that Oral Tradition is a sure and infallible clew to guide us out of the Labyrinth of Errors into the way of Truth and Peace (the contrary to which has been suffi­ciently proved.) For otherwise, to leave Scripture, and to follow Tra­dition, would be to relinquish a Guide, or Rule, which being in­dited [Page 230]by an unerring Spirit cannot mislead us; and to chuse one, which may and will carry us out of the way. Nor will the pretence of Ʋnity make amends for this. For true Chri­stian Peace can't be otherwhere bottom'd, than on Truth; when, and so far as it is a Cement of Men to the disservice of Truth, it com­mences Faction. Nor Reason, nor Religion allow, much less commend, an Agreement of Persons to err together.

2. They, who have the most amorously espoused Tradition, have also their many and great Diffe­rences (as has been shew'd above) only through Fear in some, and Policy in the rest, they are hush'd up more, than amongst us, and so do better escape the observation and talk of the World. Nay, that Church may be justly arraigned as the guilty cause of that, which they call a great Schism, viz. The Separation of so many Churches from them (the Churches, call'd [Page 231]Protestant) by their imposition of unlawful, and therefore impossi­ble termes of Communion with them. And [...]. Nilus tells the World, that their Imperiousness was the reason of the great Schism between the Greek, and the Latin Church. [...]. pag. 21. 22.

Thus, as the Church of Traditioners have no few Dissentions among themselves, so they have given a beginning and continu­ance to the quarrels between them, and a considerable part of Chri­stendom.

3. Ther's no need of fetching our Distractions from the Rejection of Oral Tradition; there are are o­ther true manifest Causes of them assignable.

Our Church once flourish'd with Peace (and that, without the aid of an Oral Tradition) whil'st the Re­verend Bishops were suffered to go­vern [Page 232]it, and the Royal was able to countenance the Ecclesiastical Autho­rity. But when the pious King, and blessed Martyr, was engag'd in, and diverted by, the turmoils of a Civil War, when Episcopacy was chang'd for Anarchy, when the Golden reins of Government in Church and State were broken, then begun and increas'd our Divisions and Cala­mities. Unto which, it may be, there were some assisting Causes from without; some, who helped to kindle and to blow our Fires. And if the Roman Church should chance into the like afflicted State with ours, it would be obnoxious to the like Confusions. If the Mitre should be forsaken by the secular Crowned Heads, and a mutinying multitude should pull their Holy Father out of his infallible Chair; then 'tis not al­together improbable, but that Chil­dren would less heavken to testifying Fathers; but that there would be more Alumbrados, and the like Freaks might be acted among our Adversa­ries, which tore our Church.

But withal, I think it seasonable to let my Reader know, that those Men so call'd (i. e. Alumb [...]ados) in Spain were no other, in most of their Tenents and Practises, than these our Quakers are now in England.— [...] c [...]nfess, I am very destitute of Books at this time, to [...]ve the Reade [...] so g [...]od an account of this b [...]ness, as I could w [...]sh. All I can say of th [...] at n [...]w is out of some F [...]ch Books, where I find a l [...]rge [...] ­dict against them, containing their several Tenents, and [...] ­rers; where [...]f, &c.— [...] [...] ­lumbrado [...] of S [...]ain [...] to be known, and talk'd [...] the year of our Lord, 162 [...].— Dr. Meric. Ca [...]a [...]bon. T [...] ­tise of Euthusiasme. p. 17 [...], 174, 175. and speaking in general, Christians are too apt to fail in holy prudence, meekness, charity, and such pacifique virtues, thence arise too many breaches a­mong them; and a want of these vir­tues is incident to our Adversaries, as well as to Protestants (for they are Sons of Adam too,) only they are wiser in their Generation.

To conclude the Reply to the two last little Objections, and the whole Treatise: Eternal Blessed­ness is our end; the means to at­tain to that great end, are, right Believing, and holy Living. That which gives the Regulation to Christian Belief, and Life, is the revealed will of God. But because the Divine Revelations were de­livered [Page 234]at the distance of many Ages from us, therefore there is need of somthing, which may conduct them safe and entire to us; and that, which is the safest and most certain Conveyance of them to us, is, that fixed Standard or Rule, whence we are to take the measures of our Christian Faith and Practices. Such a Conveyance, and consequently such a Standard or Rule, I have prov'd, not Oral Tradition, but Holy Scripture, to be.

This being first establish'd, there may then then be consider'd the Perspicuity of this Rule (which is Scripture), and the Agreement, or Ʋnity of those, who adhere to it.

Here, 1. We may be sure, that this Rule is very sufficiently intelligible, and clear in all things necessary for our direction to our Blessedness: But then it must be left to Gods Pleasure, what diffi­culties [Page 235]and dubiousness he would mix with that sufficient plainness; and we ought to be thankful for what is plain in it, and not quar­rel at the obscurities. 2ly. [...] Ar [...]t. Eth. [...].1. C. 8. We may be certain, that this Rule and Conveyance of Divine Truths to us (there being so much Harmo­ny in Truth) must be very apt (it must be its most genuine effect) to harmonize Christian's Judgments, and Affections, and to beget a peacea­bleness of mutual Conversation; yet too it must be judg'd very possible, or rather more, that the folly and corruptions of Men may too much frustrate this its most na­tural issue.

So that now, to conclude a thing this great Standard and Rule of Faith and Manners, because it pre­tends to be the most plain; and also to make meer Ʋnity a Demon­stration of the Truth, would be a crude way of Discourse. For first, a wrong way may be smooth and easy enough, perhaps more plain [Page 236]than that, which leads a Man to his Home: Next, not Truth only, but likewise Interest may hold Men very fast together, and the Con­science of its own guilt and feeble­ness may prompt to Error to strengthen it self by the closest Confederacies.