SECT. I. There is a Rule of Faith instituted by God. Three different Opinions among the Learned of the Roman Religion, wherein that Rule doth consist.

SInce it was the Almighties good pleasure to create Man a reasona­ble [Page] Creature, it became his Divine Wisdome and Goodness, not only to ordain an End convenient for Him, with Means likewise available there­to; but also to constitute a Way by which he might come to the certain Knowledge of both: for in vain would the two former have been in­stituted without the last, when by this alone, both the other were to be made known unto Him.

That therefore there is a Way or­dain'd by God, whereby to under­stand aright, Mans Chief End, and the proper Means available to it, re­mains without dispute. Yet such not­withstanding is the difference and dis­agreement amongst divers men of greatest Wit and Learning about it, that through their subtil Arguments, and eager Zeal to defend every one his espous'd Opinion, not a few sober well minded Christians are brought into a Labyrinth of intricate diffi­culties [Page 3] and doubts what they ought to beleeve; whilst the Controvertists in Religion, though in general they acknowledge, that the Gospel of Christ published to the World, declares wherein Mans Felicity, and the Means thereof consist, yet are at perpetual discord what the particu­lar Doctrines necessary to the Sal­vation of Mankind, contain'd in that Gospel or Revelation, be; and that, because they cannot agree where the Way which leads to the certain know­ledge of Christs Doctrine is to be found; or, as for brevity 'tis phras'd, what the Rule of Faith is.

This gave the occasion of my un­dertaking the following Inquirie; the designe whereof, is to endeavour to the utmost of my power the gain­ing a well-grounded satisfaction in a matter of so great Concern, as the Rule of Faith is to be truely known. For the compassing of which longing [Page 4] desire of my heart, I judge it the best expedient, I know of, to take an equal and impartial view of the dif­fering Opinions about it; that either, by comparing them together, I may be enabled to make a rational choice of some one before the rest; or els to gather from the whole disquisition that satisfaction is not to be expected without a further enquiry to be made wherein the Rule of Christian Faith doth really consist.

The first difference worthy of no­tice about the Rule of Faith, or the Way which guides and directs to the clear knowledge of Christs Doctrine, is concerning the nature of the assu­rance which it is to afford; some affirming, that it ought to give in­fallible certainty: whilsts others say, that it needs only yield a Moral cer­titude, or such an assurance, as is sufficient to remove actual doubting, but not which renders it impossible [Page 5] to be deceiv'd in Matters of Faith.

Those that hold the Rule of Faith to administer infallible certainty of Christian Doctrine are part of them of the Roman and part of the Reformed Church. Those who maintain the con­trary, are only some of the Reformed. As to the merit of either opinion I'le leave the discussion of it to another place; and at present shew wherein the Romish Controvertists, of which there are three distinct sorts, place the Rule of Faith.

The first sort maintain, that A General Council confirm'd by the Pope, or (as the Proposition is rendred by some) The Pope defining in a General Council cannot erre; and so make, The Definition of a General Council con­firm'd by the Pope; or The Definition of the Pope, in a General Council, The Rule of Faith.

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

is the same thing with that which others of them name confirming, whilst both place the suppos'd infalli­bility in the Popes assent; which assent those who call it defining, think per­haps they make the Proposition more obviously denote, that Prelats infalli­bility, as exclusive of all the rest thereby.

SECT. III. The second Opinion amongst the Romanists, viz. That a General Council conciliary proceeding is in­fallible in Matters of Faith taken into consideration, and it's double meaning explain'd; the truth of which in one of them only is here brought to the Test, the certainty of [Page 11] it in it's other sense being left to be examin'd in other Sections.

THis Assertion of the Second sort of Romish Controvertists, that A General Council conciliarly proceeding cannot erre in Points of Faith, may be taken in a two-fold sense, either as the words conciliarly proceeding include Tradition, which the Traditi­onists say; and then the meaning of it is, That A General Council defining according to Tradition, or the living voice of the Church cannot erre; in which sense, the consideration of it belongs to some following Sections: Or els as they are intended only to denote the exclusion of all fraudu­lent and forcible ways us'd to procure the votes of the Prelats, so as that the Definition of the Council being left to it's own freedom will be infalli­bly true, although the Means pre­parative to it, were not at all so; Against

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

That whatsoever was deliver'd to the primitive Christians by Christ and his Apostles, as a Point of Faith, hath been perpetually handed down from time to time without interrupti­on till our days as such) and it's assign'd proof, the indefectibility of Tradition, I shall say nothing here, but remit the discourse, I intend upon them, to another place; and at present enquire, Whether the present Church of Rome does in­deed depend on this Maxim, for the certainty of the purity of her Faith, That Christs Doctrine was deliver'd to her, as descending with­out interruption from Christ and his Apostles. For if it appear, upon trial made, she doth not; then however indefectible Tradition be, it may notwithstanding fall out that new Articles of Faith may be introduc'd into the Church upon some other Ground, not firm and safe, such as [Page 19] the Traditionists will, I know, grant, That the Definition of a General Council, not founded on Oral Tra­dition, but on this Presumption, That the Bishops effectually pro­ceeding to define, are immediatly in­spir'd from Heaven, is. And that the Roman Church does not rely on the mentioned Maxim for the cer­tainty of the purity and uncorrupted­ness of her Faith, I have somthing which seems considerable, and of moment, to alledge in proof:

It will not, I presume, be deny'd, That Cardinal Bellarmin, and the learned Romish Controvertists, more generally taken notice of after him, ever since the Reformation till Rush­worths Dialogues came to light, (for all that they made it their business to resolve Faith, according to the be­lief and practice of their Church, did not conclude and averr Tradition to be the alone safe Means of con­veying [Page 20] Christs Doctrine to the know­ledge of succeeding Ages. And if such great Lights among the Roman Clergy, mistook the Rule of Faith, how can we reasonably think, that the inferiour Pastors and Laics in their time, knew it aright? And if they knew it not, neither could they rely on it as such. For although it were granted (which some say) that Bellarmin himself, and all the learned Clerks of the Roman Church, no less then the other Clergy and Lay­men, did practically rely on Tradi­tion, in as much as they were Orally taught their Religion by the pre­ceding Generation; and that again by the next before it, and so still backwards, one Age of another, ever since the very first beginning of Christianity; yet unless they also knowingly did it, when once they came to make enquiry upon what stedfast Ground the Christian Faith [Page 21] was to be embrac'd, they would no longer rest upon the instruction they had when they first in their younger years believ'd, if so be up­on search made, they conceiv'd (as it seems the chiefest of them, besides many more, if not the generality, did) that the certainty of Faith was not sounded on Oral Tradition, their first Instructor in it, but on some­thing els. Yea, I think, I shall not mistake the truth, if, I say, that it was not the private opinion of some great Doctors, and their followers on­ly; but the sense of the Council of Trent it self also; That Faith is not resolv'd into Tradition as it's adequate Rule; whilst in consulting the first Decree of the fourth Session of that Council, I find two Passages, which seem to make it out: The former of them is this, Sacrosancta Oecumenica, & Generalis Tridentina Synodus, &c. perspiciens hanc (nempe [Page 22] Christianam) veritatem & Discipli­nam, contineri in Libris scriptis, & sine Scripto Traditionibus, quae ex ipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae, aut ab ipsis Apostolis Spiritu Sancto dictante, quasi per manus traditae, ad nos usque pervenerunt, Orthodoxorum Patrum exempla secuta, omnes Li­bros tam veteris quám novi Testa­menti, cùm utriusque Deus sit Au­thor, necnon Traditiones ipsas tum ad Fidem, tum ad Mores pertinen­tes, tanquam vel ore tenus a Christo, vel à Spiritu Sancto dictatas, & continuâ successione in Ecclesia Catho­lica conservatas pari pietatis affectu, ac reverentiâ suscipit, ac veneratur. The latter Passage closeth up the Decree thus; Si quis Libros ipsos integros (Scripturae scilicet) cum om­nibus suis partibus, prout in Ecclesia Catholica legi consueverunt, & in ve­teri vulgata Latina Editione haben­tur, pro Sacris & Canonicis non sus­ceperit, [Page 23] & Traditiones praedictas sci­ens & prudens contempserit, anathema sit. Omnes itaque intelligant quo or­dine, & via ipsa Synodus, post jactum Fidei Fundamentum sit progressura, & quibus potissimùm Testimoniis, ac Praesidiis in confirmandis Dogma­tibus, & instaurandis in Ecclesia Mo­ribus sit usura. In both these Passa­ges, Scripture and Apostolical Tra­ditions are plainly contradistin­guish'd, as equally relating some way or other to Christian Faith and Man­ners. And although in the former place, they seem to be principally oppos'd, as the Written, and un­written Word of God; yet not with­out this apparent intimation also, that as the Books, or written Words call'd Scripture, leade to the sense or Doctrine contain'd in them; so likewise the unwritten words where­in Apostolical Traditions are taught, guide to the meaning couch'd in [Page 24] them; so that as Scripture and Tra­ditions taken in the former sense, are held by the Council to be equal­ly the Word of God; so are they moreover in the latter sense held to be equally significative and expres­sive of the Doctrine of Salvation delivered by them. But in the lat­ter rehearsed place of the Decree, Scripture and Traditions are chiefly to be understood of written and unwrit­ten words directing to the knowledge of the Objects of Faith; as appears by these Lines here following tran­scrib'd from thence: Quibus potissi­mum Testimoniis, & Praesidiis (nem­que Scriptura & Traditionibus) in confirmandis Dogmatibus, & instau­randis in Ecclesia Moribus, sit usura Synodus. For Scripture and Traditi­ons, cannot here be taken for Christs Doctrine it self, but for Characters and Sounds, apt to discover what is meant by them. From the whole, [Page 25] therefore I gather, That the Council of Trent, resolves Faith into Scri­pture and Traditions, when taken for the Word of God, or Doctrine of Salvation, as into it's proper Object; and into the same Scripture and Traditions, when taken, the one for a Testimony in Writing, the other for an Oral Testimony, as into it's adequat Rule; saving what the Ad­verb potissimùm, in the last recited Passage of the Council may perad­venture abate.

In hopes to enervate the force of this Discourse, 'twill not improba­bly, be said, That Scripture and Apostolical Traditions, are granted to be held by the Tridentin Coun­cil, the Totum or Extent of all reveal'd Truths; and consequently, the Characters and Sounds, or the written and unwritten words, where­in they are contain'd, the material Rule of Faith; but seeing it is [Page 26] Oral Tradition that informs us of the sense of both, this alone is the formal Rule of Faith, and that even according to the mind of the Trent Fathers themselves; as the subse­quent Passage of the second Decree of the fourth Session, testifieth; Ad coercenda petulantia ingenia decernit (eadem scilicet Sacrosancta Synodus) et nemo suae prudentiae innixus in rebus Fidei, & Morum ad aedifica­tionem Doctrinae Christianae pertinen­tium, sacram Scripturam, ad suos sensus contorquens, contra eum sensum quem tenuit ac tenet Sancta Mater Ecclesia, cujus est judicare de vero sensa & interpretatione Scriptura­rum sanctarum, aut etiam contra sen­sum unanimem Patrum ipsam Scri­pturam sacram interpretari audeat.

In return to this, I shall not de­ny, but that if Holy Scripture were Writ, and Apostolical Traditions ex­press'd in Words, not plainly signi­ficative [Page 27] of one determinate sense, but had their intelligibleness in Matters of Faith and Manners from Oral Tradition, this alone would be the formal Rule of Faith. But then, in case the thing were truely so, and the late quoted place of the Council intended as much; I see not how that learned Assembly can be clear'd from contradicting it self; since Scripture, and Apostolical Traditions, if meer unintelligible Characters and Sounds, without their suppos'd au­thentick Interpreter Oral Tradition, would be so farr from being two Witnesses, or Testimonies of Christs Doctrine, (which yet, as was seen, the Council solemnly, and not transi­ently, calls them) that they would neither of them be any Witness or Testimony thereof at all; the very nature and office of a Witness or Testimony being this, to manifest, and render intelligible to those who are [Page 28] immediatly, concern'd to understand it, what it bears witness or gives testmony unto; immediatly I say, concern'd; but who those are, in respect of the Rule of Christian Faith, I deferr the enquiry of to another place. At present, in re­gard it will not, I prefume, be ad­mitted that the Council contradicts it self, the sence of the rehearsed Passage is farr more obvious, then that which hath been mention'd, if not evident, to be this; That whensoever the Holy Scripture is through either weakness or wilful­ness drawn to a wrong sense, it of Right belongs to the Governors of the Church to declare the true sence thereof; which the Council might very well think to be just and fitting without supposing the words of Scri­pture to be unsens'd Characters, since experience dayly shews, that things easie to be understood, are often mi­staken [Page 29] by the vulgar, and very plain words and sentences, wrested by men of subtil wits, to a perverse sense.

Two Witnesses then of Christs Doctrine, viz. Scripture and Tradi­tions, the Council of Trent still seems to me plainly to assert. But besides these, let's consider if there was not moreover a third, which the Prelats had an eye to, in respect of some­thing defin'd by them; for I can­not conjecture, what they should mean by the Word potissimùm, men­tioned before, except this, That there are some divine Truths, which are not so clearly contain'd, either in Scripture, or Apostolical Traditions, as to be sufficiently attested by them, and that therefore, they stood need of a further Testimony, to make them manifest; which whe­ther it was the unanimous consent of the Fathers, or the immediat assistance of the Holy Spirit, or some­thing [Page 30] els which the Council intend­ed, I have no need to be scrupu­lous about, since my business in this place, was no more but to discover, Whether the Church of Rome (as 'tis affirm'd by the Traditionists) do really rely on this Maxim for her Faith, that it was recommended to her as Orally descending by a conti­nued succession, from Christ and his Apostles; or that it is but a thing speciously pretended, on her behalf, to avouch her Doctrine by; where­in, as the preceding Discourse hath already shewn in general, so the sub­sequent will hereafter shew in par­ticular, what the truth to my ap­prehension is; whilst that which has been said, concerning the Council of Trents opinion in the Point, shall be further seconded and confirm'd by several Instances out of the same.

The first shall be, That it has de­fin'd Sess. 4 Decree. 1. What Books [Page 31] are Canonical Sp [...]ture, and anathe­matizes those who will not receive them as such, amongst which the Epistle to the Hebrews is one; and yet it has not always been esteem'd Canonical by the Western Church, as is granted by Cardinal Perron, and others of the Romish Profession, that St. Jerom, whose testimony can­not be in reason refus'd, affirms; for being in his time an eminent Member of the same Church, he could not be ignorant of her practice, and that he would Write an un­truth, whereof he might easily be detected, is not at all credible.

The Second Instance is, That the Books Arocryphal, for which there is no Universal Tradition, that they are the Word of God, as Dr. Cosins (late Lord Bishop of Durham, in his Scho­lastical History of the Canon of Scri­pture shews, are defin'd by the Council of Trent Sess. 4. Decree 1. to be Ca­nonical Scripture.

The third (and last Instance, which at present I shall produce) is to be seen, Sess. 7. Can. 9. of the Trent Synod, where we find it thus defining; Si quis dixerit in tribus Sacramentis Baptismo scil. Confirmatione, & Ordine; non imprimi Characterem in anima, hoc est signum quoddam spirituale & indelebile, unde ea iterari non possunt, Anathema sit. These according to the Traditionists are the words, or at least, the sence of the words of the Church, diffusive pronounc'd by it's Represen­tative; by which it seems there is a Tradition, that a Character or a cer­tain Spiritual indeleble signe is im­printed in the Souls of those who are baptiz'd, confirm'd and ordain'd. Now That the generality of Pastors, Pa­rents, Tutors, and Nurses (the sure Conveyers of Christianity, as the Tra­ditionists tell us, from Age to Age) should know what it is to have a Character or spiritual signe imprinted [Page 33] in the Soul (and without that they could not declare it in various forms of speech, as was requisit they should, in regard, that one main reason given by the Traditionists, why Christs Doctrine cannot fail in the conveyance, is, because it is ex­press'd so many several ways, that the generality of the Hearers, can­not chuse but understand it aright) I see small cause to think, especi­ally, when I reflect, That the great Master of the Traditionary Disci­ples in his Institut, Sacr. Tom. 2. Lect. 4. thus teacheth; Ponere signa spiritualia, ie. invisibilia contra ip­sam rationem signi est, quod pro ma­teriali oportet esse notum & visibile, pro eô veró quod significat lateris, unde non nisi inter homines, qui col­ligunt scientiam ex objectis, reperi­untur, & non possunt esse spiritualia, sed ex necessitate sensibilia. And in the page following, the same learn­ed [Page 34] Author asserteth; Ipsam perso­nam esse subjectum Characteris, cúm actio sit communis corpori, & animae, i. e. totius. If perchance it should be said, That the scope of the Canon is only to declare, that there is an appropriation, or appointment of a mans whole life, to some solemn Engagement or Action; as by Baptism to be a Christian; by Confirmation to undergoe couragiously the Chri­stian warfare; by Order to Preach the Word, to administer the Sacra­ments, &c. so that not any of them is to be iterated, and this Christians generally know; for who is igno­rant, that none us'd to be Baptiz'd, none confirm'd, none ordain'd, more then once? I reply, If the Tradi­tion of the Church be plac't wholy in that; then in case the Council has defin'd more, it could not ground the same upon the uninterrupted de­livery thereof. And that the Council [Page 35] has defin'd more, appears from this, That the Canon further declares two things, which whosoever denies, in­currs an Anathema; the one is, That the Character given in the three nominated Sacraments, is a spi­ritual sign; the other, That the soul (alone) is the subject thereof, (for although the word alone be not in the Canon; yet it is necessarily im­ply'd, because a spiritual sign can­not be imprinted in a corporeal sub­stance) and therefore, as to these, the Council could not ground the De­finition upon Tradition.

SECT. V. The Controvertists of the Re­formed Church, make Scripture the Rule of Faith. Two main different

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

tion is a like impossible; as that multi­tudes of people should not in every Age be truly desirous of their own, and their Posterities everlasting Happiness, see­ing (as I have shew'd) 'tis a thing easy and necessary to Salvation to be perform'd, to prepetuate Christs Do­ctrin by a continued practical De­livery of it, till the Consummation of all things.

However clear the truth of this may seem, yet in regard I meet with four grand Arguments urg'd stiffly against the indefectibility of Tradition, two of which are thought (by some) to be grounded on firm Reason; the other two on certain Experience; 'twill be requisit well to consider of them, and to try their strength.

The first is, That Moral Causes work not necessarily, and therefore it cannot be certainly concluded that how­ever strongly the Motives for the pra­ctical continuance of Christs Doctrin [Page 131] be appli'd to the mind, the Will will undoubtedly embrace them, and act ac­cording to them. This first Argument is sufficiently (I think) answer'd, Se­ction, 7. yet for fuller conviction I will add this here, that the same Ar­gument if appli'd to Scripture, would prove as much every jot against Scri­ptures preservation, as against the con­tinuance of Tradition. If it be repli'd, that Gods Goodness is engag'd for the preservation of Scripture; I grant it, if man use his own endeavours, other­wise, God is not (I conceive) concern'd to preserve it; for I presume no man of sound Reason will say, that God is oblig'd by his Goodness immediatly to save it Himself, or to commit the safeguard of it to the sole care of Angels, when Men, whose Concern it is to preserve it, are sufficient (if there be no default in themselves) for the work. If Mans endeavours therefore for the conservation of it [Page 132] be free in that sence which the Ob­jection supposes every action of Man to be, there will be no more certain­ty of the continuance of Scripture, then of the practical Delivery of Christs Doctrine throughout all Ge­nerations; and if the Church should at any time be without it's Rule of Faith, 'twould either dwindle away to nothing, or become a meer Babel of Anarchy and Confusion.

The second Argument to prove, That Tradition is not of an inde­fectible nature is this; If men be not free, it is no virtue at all in them to be wrought upon by Moral Motives; for what virtue can it be in any man to entertain the Christian Doctrine, and adhere to it whether he will or no? I willingly grant, it is no virtue in any man to do a thing whether he will or no; for to do a thing whether a man will or no, is (according to the common [Page 133] use of the Phrase) to do it against his Will, which as to the actus elici­tus of the Will, involves this mani­fest Contradiction, to will and nill at once the same thing. The words there­fore, whether he will or no, must be interpreted, to mean, here in the Ob­jection, no more then necessarily, or rather, in propriety of Speech, cer­tainly; for, I take a necessary effect in the most strict and proper notion of it, to be an effect wrought in a Subject wholly passive; whereas the Will is an active Principle, and al­ways determines it self, however powerfully the Motives work upon it. Whence it is, that even the bles­sed Saints and Angel's in Heaven, though their affections be most strong­ly and unalterably fix'd on God, are not necessitated thereto without their own great good-liking, and active ten­dency to the enjoyment of their So­vereign Good. If then the fruition [Page 134] of the very End, be so voluntary, that the Will is active therein, 'tis certainly so, in respect of the Means conducing to it, to the choice where­of, deliberation is prerequir'd; the office of which deliberation, is to consult what means will be most a­vailable to obtain the design'd End by; the principal of which in Morals, is Mans Summum Bonum, or sove­reign Good, namely, the fruition of God whereunto as well the Moral as Theological Vertues, are conduci­ble Means; so that to be actually virtuous, is to act for the enjoyment of the Chief Good, in a way pro­per for the attaining of it; which to do the more stedfastly, constantly, and certainly, were not, I should think, to, do less, but rather more virtuously, yet without infringing the Liberty of the Will, which retains always it's native power, when it so likes, to do otherwise. But in case the [Page 135] habit of Virtue in any man grow so strong and potent, that it perpetually incline him to pursue his Chief Good, I hope, the enjoyment of God, will not be made such a necessary effect thereby, as that he'l enjoy God, whe­ther himselfe will or no. The certainty therefore of a thing wrought by Moral Causes, is no evidence that Man is not endued with Free-will, but only shews that the Motives act so vigorously and powerfully considering the pre­sent disposition of the Mind, and the Circumstances a man is in, that the Wills native indifferency to will or not to will, is cast by them on that side, which makes for producing the Effect, but yet so, that it's the Wills own choice to do it, which determins itself by reason of the present agreeable­ness and gratefullness of the Motives thereunto. For unless we'll deny the constant Experience of all Ages, we must needs confess, that there is a [Page 136] certainty of divers Effects in the course of several things in the world (such as were mentioned Section 7. besides many more not spoken of) which flow from Moral Motives; so that it would be more tolerable if there were no way to reconcile Free-will, and that certainty, to make doubt of the former, rather then of the latter; but we see, by what has been said, That a certainty of effects proceeding from Moral Causes, and the native Liberty o [...] Mans Will; may well enough consist together.

The other two Arguments brought to prove, That Tradition is defectible are Founded on two Instances, the for­mer of which is this; The Tradition of the one true God was in a short time so defac'd and corrupted, that the world did laps into Polytheism and Idolatry, although it was setled in the heart of Noah, and firmly believ'd by him to be the way to Happiness, and [Page 137] the contradicting and deserting this to be the way to Misery; and this Doctrin according to the Traditionists, must be suppos'd, to have been so taught to his children, and by them also to their Posterity. To this I answer, first, that there is not the like reason why a Doctrin committed only to three Families, should be so permanent, as that which is entrusted to millions of people, allbeit the Motives for the preservation of it were the same. But I secondly answer, that the Motives for propagating Christianity are far more excellent, then the Motives whith Noah and his Sons had for the continuing the belief of the one true God. For the express motives in ancient time, both before, and under the Law, were only temporall rewards and punishments, which because they were seen to befal the bad and good promiscuously; in that some of both sorts abounded with Riches and Honour, and others had [Page 138] their afflictions; 'tis obvious to con­ceive, considering the frequent tenta­tions to Ambition, Luxury, and Ava­rice, that men would be farr less in­tent to regard Truth, and exercise acts of Piety and Vertue, when everlasting Bliss and Misery were only gather'd by Consequence to be the final Por­tion of good and evill men; then when in express words they were con­stantly press'd, and inculcated as Mo­tives, the one to incline men to em­brace Truth and Goodness; the other, to deterr them from Error and Vice, as since the Preaching of Christs Gospel they have ever been. Nei­ther, which I thirdly, and lastly An­swer, will it be granted, That the Tradition of the one true God ever faild, or was totally lost, till it ap­pear that Abraham and Lot, had not knowledge of Him from Sem, or some of his Progeny. Could Abra­ham (saith Dr. Stillingfleet, Origin, [Page 139] Sacr. Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 9.) when he was contemporary with Sem, be ignorant of the Truth of the Flood, when Sem, from whom he deriv'd himself, was one of the Persons who escap'd it in the Ark? Could Sem be ignorant of the actions before the Flood, when Adam, the first Man, lived some part of his time with Noah? And could Noah then be ig­norant of the Creation, and Fall of Man? The same Learned Author in the same Sect. a little before, writeth thus; Adam conversed sometime with Noah; Sem his Son, was pro­bably living in some part of Jacobs time, or Isaacs at least; And how easily, and uninterruptedly might the general Tradition of the ancient Hi­story, be continued thence to the time of Moses, when the number of Fa­milies agreeing in this Tradition was increas'd, and withall incorporated by a common ligament of Religion? [Page 140] I demand then (saith the Doctor) where can we suppose any ignorance, or cutting off this general Traditi­on, in so continued a Succession as here was?

The latter Instance offerr'd to dis­prove the Indefectibility of Traditi­on by, is about the Procession of the Holy Ghost, which the Latin Church (saith the Objection) affirms, is from the Father, and the Son, and a ne­nessary Article of Faith; the Greek Church holding, That He proceeds only from the Father, and not from the Son, disowning any such Doctrin to have been deliver'd to them by the precedent Age, or to any other Age of their Church, as the Doctrin of Christ; and yet no question can be made, but that if the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, be an Article of Faith, it was taught in the Greek, as well as in the Latin Church; and there­fore [Page 141] the Non-belief of it in the Greek Church, is an evident Argu­ment of the actual failure of Tradi­tion in this Point, and of the possibi­lity of it's failings in others also.

To this, I return, That seeing the Doctrin of the Blessed Trinity, and more especially of the Holy Ghost was purposely handled in the Se­cond General Council held at Con­stantinople, which was principally call'd for confuting and condemning Macedonius, who deni'd the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, and that neverthe­less, no mention is made in the Creed there set forth of his procession, save from the Father, [...], and also the same Creed was not only receiv'd but continued like­wise a long time after in the Latin Church, without the addition of [...] it seems strongly probable (at least) that the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, was not thought [Page 142] by the Constantinopolitan Fathers to be an Article of Catholick Faith, see­ing it was so obvious, so easie, and one would think so opportune also; after [...] to have added [...], if they had indeed believ'd it to be an Article of Faith. The ex­cuse that some make why they did it not, which is; that there was none as yet who denied the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, seems tri­vial, since it was the very Divinity of the Holy Spirit that Macedonius oppos'd, which alone therefore, if the excuse were good, should haue been asserted by the Council; and the con­trary opinion thereto only condemned. But whatever was the cause or the occasion why [...] was omitted (which I wave) this is certain that the Doctrin of the Holy Ghosts procession from the Son, is either an Article of Catholic Faith, or it is not; if it be not, Tradition is no way concern'd, let the [Page 143] Greeks and Latins too hold whether way they please about it. If it be an Article of Faith, and that the Greek and Latin Churches agree in the sub­stance and sence of it, and differ only in the manner of the expression, there has been no failure of Tradition in the Greek Church concerning the pro­cession of the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as it remains only to be known, whether the Greeks and Latins agree in Sence, though they differ in words, or the Greeks [...], per Filium be the same in effect with the Latin [...], á Filio, let's see what the Roman Doctors (who we may be sure will be no more favourable to the Greeks then's fitting) say to't. Peter Lombert, writing of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, saith; Sciendum est quòd Graeci confitentur Spiritum Sanctum, esse Filii sicut & Patris, quia & Aposto­lus dicit Spiritum Filii, & Veritas [Page 144] in Evangelio Spiritum Veritatis. Sed cùm non sit aliud Spiritum Sanctum esse Patris vel Filii, quàm esse à Pa­tre & Filio, etiam in hoc in eandem, nobiscum Fidei sententiam convenire videntur, licet in verbis dissentiant. Unde etiam quidam eorum Catholici Doctores intelligentes unam eandémque, fore sententiam praedictorum verbo­rum, quibus dicitur Spiritus Sanctus procedere à Filio, & esse Filii, pro­fessi sunt Spiritum Sanctum etiam procedere à Filio, Lib. 1. Sentent. Distinct. 11. D. E. Where the same Author goes on, to shew, That se­veral eminent Greek Fathers, Atha­nasius, Didymus, Cyrillus, and Chry­sostom accord even in expressions also about the Procession of the Holy Ghost. Aquinas propounding the Que­stion, Utrum Spiritus Sanctus proce­dat à Patre per Filium, concludes af­firmatively, and answers Objections made to the contrary, as is to be seen [Page 145] Part prima. Quaest. 26. Artic. 3. Yea, and Mr. White, however in the Apo­logie for Tradition, he calls the Greeks assertion, concerning the Holy Ghosts Procession, (as is truely said of him) a meer negative Tradition, or a De­nial that they have any such Tradi­tion, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; yet, explicating els where, the sacred My­stery of the Blessed Trinity, averrs it to be a more significant Speech to say, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Son, then from the Father and the Son, which in illustrating the Doctrine of the Trinity by Cognitum, Cognitio & Amor, he thus shews; Patet vim motivam quae est in Bono cognito, esse totam in ratione Boni, rationem veró cognitionis non esse, nisi conjunctionem hujus virtutis ad movendum; quare alio modo dicitur tertia Persona Pro­cedere à Patre, & alio modo à Filio; & [Page 146] quasi directè & principaliter à Patre, & à Filio, non nisi concomitanter seu tanquam à modo Causae. Unde non mirum, si Christus Dominus, & ali­qui Patres disertè, dicant eum proce­dere à Patré, sine mentione Filii; unde intelligitur, quòd sit magis ex­pressiva locutio dicere, quòd procedit à Patre per Filium; quàm quòd proce­dit à Patre & Filio. Cùm enim per quasi viam, & medium denotet, im­possibile est procedere per Filium, & non à Filio, quia omnis pars viae re­spectu termini, habet rationem termi­ni à quo & principii, unde ly pèr explicat & esse à, & à non primo principio.

SECT. XI. What rational assurance we have, That Scripture is not corrupted in Necessaries to salvation. The way to know what things have been ever Orally taught. Two Reasons given, why Tradition, though it be of an indefectible nature, should not be the Rule of Faith. Whether a fundamen­tal Error, can ever obtain a a setled quiet possession in the visible Church? An offer from Reason, for the impossibility of the thing. Errors not-fundamen­tal, may overspread the Church, and why? Several instances of such Errors in the Roman Church.

THe practical delivery of Christs Doctrine never (as has been seen) failing; it may, by carefully searching the Scripture, be known, what things contain'd in it are of ne­cessity to be generally believ'd and pra­ctic'd (because no more is so, but what has been always believ'd, and practic'd by Christians) provided assu­rance may be had, what has been ever practically deliver'd; and that Scripture is not corrupted in such pla­ces of it, as contain the Necessaries to salvation, or Articles of Catholick and Apostolick Faith.

For the latter, (which I'le first in­sist on) That Scripture is not cor­rupted in necessary Points, I shall briefly say but this; Since the actings of Gods Providence are not known to us, but as they are seen in second Causes, the most rational account we have, That Scripture is come safe to our hands, without Corruption in all things [Page 149] of necessity to be generally believ'd, and practic'd, is from hence; that Scripture being constantly read by multitudes of Knowing Christians, could not possibly be corrupted in Texts containing such things as were perpetually taught, repeated, and pra­ctic'd in the Church (of which sort the Necessaries to Salvation are) with­out being taken notice of, and if occa­sion requir'd, rectified.

As for satisfaction in the other difficulty, viz. What things have been ever orally taught, this in general, from what has been sayd, appears certain, that no Point of Christ's Doctrin shall ever fail. And although in this or that Place, the continuance of Chri­stian Faith be not necessary, yet where ever there has been a visible great Society of Christians, wherein it was once firmly setled, and which has had a constant succession of Pastors continued in it, nothing held by that [Page 150] society to be an Article of Faith, could totally cease to be so esteem'd, unless so vast a Body (in which there would be in every Age a considerable num­ber of wise and pious men) could either be universally impos'd on by fraud, or forc'd by violence; or that all it's Members would carelessly neg­lect, or wilfully forsake, what they believ'd to be a necessary Means to save themselves, and their Posterity from endless Torment, and to bring them to everlasting Jay. Universally then such a Body could neither desert, nor loose it's Faith, in any necessary Point. And in case any remarkable Member, or Part thereof, should ever do it, 'twould be known, and pre­sently oppos'd by the sound Part ad­hering to the Truth, as constant Ex­perience has made evident in the timely resisting of all Heresies. This, if granted to be true, plain reason will enforce our assent, that the La­tin [Page 151] or Western Church, being such a Society, as is before mentioned, did at the begining of the Reformation, and still does hold and maintain all the Articles of Catholick and Apo­stolick Faith.

Obiection, If the Latin, or Western Church, when the Reformation begun, did really hold all the Articles of Catho­lick and Apostolick Faith, by vertue of Oral Tradition communicating the same unto it; what good cause can be shewn, why Tradition should not be the Rule of Faith, even without ha­ving the Doctrins it delivers confirm'd by parallel Texts of Holy Writ?

Answer, since the Rule of Faith must doubtless be that, into which it is ultimatly resolv'd, as the best and highest Means of ascertaining Christs Doctrin to Mankind; and that the same must contain in it no Error; this Inference (I think) will be clear; that in case Oral Tradition, or [Page 152] the Living voice of the Church, ei­ther be not the best and highest means whereby to ascertain Christs Doctrin to Mankind; or that it may deliver, or teach an Error under the notion of an Article of Faith, it cannot be in justice esteem'd the Rule of Faith. And that Oral Tradition, or the Living voice of the Church, is not the best, and highest means whereby to ascertain Christs Doctrin to Man­kind, the following Paragraph (I think) will make good.

Where two Testimonies both averr and attest the same thing; if the one be of Divine, the other but of Hu­mane Authority; the Testimony that is Divine ought of Right to have the preeminence, and the relyance for the verity of what is witnessed by them, is to be ultimatly cast upon it. See­ing then the Testimony of Scripture is Divine, as being, ex confesso, the Word of God; and Tradition but [Page 153] an Humane Witness, forasmuch as it is said to be the Delivery of Christs Doctrine in the various expressions of Pastors, Parents, Tutors, Masters of Families, and Nurses, 'tis most rea­sonable, that Faith should be finally re­solved into Scripture, (and not into Tradition) as it's Rule. Yea and albeit Tradition may peradventure in some things be thought more plain then Scripture; (as for example, suppose in the Point of Christs Divinity, these words of the Nicene Creed; Deum de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, De­um verum de Deo vero; genitum non factum, consubstantialem Patri per quem omnia facta sunt;) yet that Scripture should be still esteem'd the Text, and Tradition but the best, and most certain Comment upon it, I ga­ther from hence, That it cannot well be otherwise thought, but that even the Disciples of the Apostles after the Books of the New Testament were [Page 154] publish'd and receiv'd among Christi­ans, would themselves confirm to their Auditors, what they told them they had been Orally taught by the Apostles, out of the written Word; because the very sayings of Christ himself, and his divinely inspir'd Apostles, would in common prudence be thought to be of greater weight and authority with them, then their own; although beleiv'd to be esteem'd by the people, as true and certain, as any whatsoever, not of more then Humane Authority.

Having found then (I suppose) one reason, why Tradition ought not to be held the Rule of Faith; I'le make tryal if in another sense also, it be not incapable of being justly so re­puted; for if the present Church of any one Age, can teach us an Arti­cle of Faith what is not so, but in­deed an Error; then is not Tradi­tion the Rule of Faith. Now to find out, whether the Church, in any one [Page 155] Age, can do so, or not, this will be a sure way, to try, if discovery can be made. That any Error has been ever taught by the Catholick Church, or by any known, and acknowledg'd Part of it, as an Article of Faith; for if that can be done, the possibi­lity of the thing, is put out of doubt thereby.

To make a clear discourse on this subject, 'twill be expedient to consi­der, That there be two sorts of Er­rors in Matters of Religion; Fun­damental, and not Fundamental. By Fundamental, I mean, such as either immediatly and directly, or, at least, by necessary and apparent Conse­quence, contradict some Articles of Catholick Faith; by not-Fundamen­tal, I mean, such as evidently do nei­ther. This Distinction premis'd, and allow'd of; since 'tis clear (as I take it) by what has been said of the Motives and Means of perpetuating [Page 156] Christs Doctrin in the World, that no Article of Catholick Faith can ever perish or cease to be beleiv'd; 'twill follow, that no Fundamental Error can at any time get a setled and quiet possession in the Church, but shall always, after it is taken notice of, find opposition by Orthodox Christians, because they cannot chuse but see, that the embracing of it would necessarily destroy the contrary Divine Truth firmly held (by so many, at least, as rightly consider the matter) to be necessary to Salvation. Of the assured certainty of this, we have a famous Instance in the Arian Heresie, which though eagerly pro­moted by the Wit and industry of most cunning and restless Heretics, and stiffly back'd and countenanc'd by the Authority of several great Prelats, assisted with the might and power of Temporal Potentates and Princes; yet was still oppos'd; and when frau­dulent [Page 157] and violent means had tyr'd and spent themselves, the opposit Truth prevail'd, and shew'd it self more glorious then before. But as for Errors not-Fundamental, or whose opposition to any Article of Faith is not seen, because too remotely con­tradictory thereto to be easily dis­cern'd; if such once come to be re­ceiv'd as pious Opinions, and promo­ted by the Schoolmen, I do not un­derstand, why they may not in long continuance of time, be advanc'd to the repute of being esteem'd Arti­cles of Faith. For proof of the truth of which, I'le produce some few In­stances in the Doctrin of the Church of Rome.

The first shall be this, That the Council of Trent has desin'd Sess. 7. Can. 9. That there is a Character, or certain spiritual sign, or mark im­printed in the souls of all that are Baptiz'd, Confirm'd, and Ordain'd, [Page 158] which yet I find disprov'd by an eminently Learned Gentleman of the Romish Church, (if I understand the Council and Him aright) in his Institut. Sacr. Tom. 2. Lect. 4. Pag. 32. as was shewn before in Sect. 4. of this Treatise, and so superfluously to be here again set down.

A second Instance, is the Belief of freeing souls from Purgatory, and bringing them thence to Heaven be­fore the day of Judgement, which Opinion, the last mentioned Author, Thomas Albius in his Book, De me­dio animarum statu, has prov'd to be erronious. 'Tis true indeed, he saies, That it is no Article of the Roman Faith; and I find the Trent Council, in disertis verbis, to affirm only this, Purgatorium esse, animàs­que ibi detentas fidelium suffragiis, potissimùm verò acceptabili Altaris Sa­crificio juvari. Decret. de Purgatorio, Sess. 25. But the Popes granting In­Indulgences, [Page 159] and Priviledg'd Altars, Priests saying of Masses, and the Peoples praying, and giving Alms for the delivery of souls out of Purga­tory, should better (an indifferent per­son would be apt to think) expound and declare the Churches sense, (or intention of Pastors, Parents, Tu­tors, Master of Families, and Nurses) of the word juvari, then any privat Doctor whatsoever. Yea, and if Ma­ster Whites Adversaries in this Point should urge, That there is a plain pra­ctical Tradition for the truth of the delivery of souls from Purgatory be­fore the day of Judgement, by the help of Indulgences, Masses, Prayers, and Alms, it would have some diffi­culty in it to disprove them. For that the Members of the Roman Church, do not only generally use those things to that end and purpose, but were also taught by the preceding Age to do so, will not (I presume) be [Page 160] deni'd; so that unless they were told by the Recommenders of the Practice, that it was the Product of a pious Opinion only grounded on probability; (which I cannot conjecture any like­lihood of being done by Pastors, Pa­rents, Guardians, Masters of Fami­lies, and Nurses, who most common­ly, rather press the necessity of what they teach, then otherwise) I appre­hend not how they should imbrace it, save on the same Terms they did other practical things of their Reli­gion which they judg'd to be of Ca­tholick use and necessity.

A third Instance, shall be the Do­ctrine of Transubstantiation, which if it necessarily imply a Contradiction, is doubtless an Error; and to prove it doth, I will, of many Arguments that might be urg'd, make use only of two, when I have first set down three things, which by the Traditio­nists, I am sure, by some of them, [Page 161] will be granted, to be all of them truths. The first is, That Transub­stantiation, is a conversion of the Bread into the Body, and the Wine into the Blood of Christ. The second is, That a Body hath extension, or partes extra partes. The third thing is this, That How many Hosts, or con­consecrated Elements soever they be, Christs Body is nevertheless but one. These three Propositions presuppos'd as true; I argue, That the Doctrin of Transubstantiation implies a Contra­diction, in manner following.

Whosoever teacheth, That one and the same Body, may be equally ex­tended; and not equally extended, at one and the same time, teacheth, in effect, a Contradiction to be true.

But whosoever teacheth the Do­ctrin of Transubstantiation, teacheth, that one and the same Body may be equally extended, and not equally ex­tended at one and the same time. Ergo,

Whosoever teacheth the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, teacheth, in effect, a Contradiction to be true.

The reason of the Major is this; Corpus & quoquoversus extensum, vel quod habet partes extra partes, signi­fie the same thing, and to be equally extended, and not equally extended, is one with this, to be extended to one and the same degree, and not be extended to one and the same de­gree, which to befal one and the same thing, at one and the same time, is certainly contradictory; since (in re­gard a Body and a Thing every way extended differ not) 'tis in effect to be one and the same thing and not one and the same thing at once, or the same thing not to be the same thing with it self.

The evidence for the truth of the Minor is no less then for that of the Major; for since according to the Doctrin of Transubstantiation, Christs [Page 163] Body is every where one and the same Body, and the consecrated Elements are many, (either Substances or Acci­dents) 'twill follow, That as often as the Eléments are at the same time of different sizes or bigness, the Body of Christ, which is neither more nor less extended on the Altar then the Ele­ments, must be of an unequal big­ness at the same time; or be equally, and not-equally, or just to such a de­gree, and not just to such a degree of bigness extended in one moment of time; For example, The Body of Christ under the Elements extended in one place to two degrees, and the same Body under the Elements ex­tended in another place to three de­grees, would be at the same time ex­tended just to two degrees, and not just to two degrees; and likewise just to three degrees, and not just to three degrees; which to suppose a truth (seeing a Body, and a Thing [Page 164] every way extended is the same) were to put a thing to be not the same thing which it is.

Another Argument is offerr'd a­gainst Transubstantiation thus;

To affirme Christs Body to be greater and less then it self at the same time, is, in effect, to affirm a Contradiction true.

But to affirm Christs Body to be in two or more distinct places at once, (as those who will defend Transub­stantiation must do) is to affirm it to be greater and less then it self at the same time: Ergo;

To affirm Christs Body to be in two, or more distinct places at once, is, in effect, to affirm a Contradicti­on true.

The truth of the Major, is clear from hence, That it is the same for a Body (or a thing extended) to be greater and less then it self at the same time, as to be, and not to be the same [Page 165] with it self; which is impossible.

And the Minor is equally certain, for since two distinct places are of larger extent then one, and that locus and locatum are commensurat; if one Body fill distinctly and apart one place, and yet, at the same time, fill another also, it will, of necessity, be greater and less then it self, whilst filling only one place, it will be less then it self filling two; and filling two, it will be greater then it self fil­ling only one.

Some Romanists I know will make light of all this I have said against Transubstantiation, and think to con­fute it by flatly denying, that a Body and Thing extended is all one; but of such I would fain learn, what a Body then is, or how a corporeal sub­stance, as such is distinguish'd from an incorporeal, a material from an immaterial, otherways then by ex­tension, or having partes extra partes, [Page 166] by which it is contiguous to the se­veral distinct sides of the ambient Body or Bodies that encompass it; whereas an incorporeal or immaterial substance having no such parts, is of necessity all together wheresoever it is. If it were said, that a material sub­stance is not of necessity actually ex­tended, yet naturally capable of be­ing so, which an immaterial is not; I desire to be resolv'd, whether by nature, and creation, there be or ever was, any material substance in the world without extension; if they yield (as I assure my self they will) there neither is, nor ever was; I shall take their concession for a grant, that it is a natural and innate property of matter to have extension; and conse­quently from thence inferr; that if Christs Body, in the Eucharist be un­extended, 'tis either an immaterial substance, that is, a Spirit and no Body; or els a new kind of Being, which is [Page 167] neither materal nor immaterial, since by Creation, all substances were ei­ther the one or the other, had quan­titative parts or had not. If reply were made that Christs Body is mi­raculously present in the Eucharist by way of substance, (as Aquinas and others say it is) not including mate­rial nor immaterial, but abstracting from both; I would rejoyn, and say, That the existence of such a Being is (to my apprehension) impossible; for although in Metaphysics, Philosophers speak abstractedly, first of a substance, and afterwards difference it by corpo­real and incorporeal, yet such discourse, doth not at all intend or suppose, that there either is, or can be, a substance really existing, which is neither of the two; no more then from say­ing animal est rationale, vel irrati­onale, it can be presum'd, that an ani­mal doth or may possibly exist and be neither man nor brute. The design [Page 168] of inventing such general words as substantia, animal, homo, was not to make signs of any real or possible Being to be signified by them, but to contract, and abbreviate mens discourse for the more ready under­standing of one another; as for In­stance, when we would signify in short, that Peter, James, John, and every other individual person in the world is of the same nature, to wit, a creature compounded of soul and body endued with sense and Reason, a word is fram'd to comprehend and import all that, which is, Homo, Man; and then we affirm of Peter, of James, of John &c. that he is a Man in stead of saying he is a Creature compounded of Soul and Body, endued with Sense and Reason. When again it is observ'd wherein Peter, James, John, &c. agree with every singular Brute, a word is devis'd to denote that agree­ment, to wit, animal. And since it is [Page 169] found that not only all these, but that also every corporeal and spiritual Thing whatsoever accords together in this, that they have a Being subsisting of it self, a word is us'd to shew that, which is substantia a substance; to avoid therefore the trouble of say­ing, Peter, James, John &c. this horse, bird, fish, &c. is a Thing that has a Being of it self, we contract it into this, Peter, James, &c. this horse, bird, fish is a substance; since then we see, that a Substance abstra­ctedly taken, is not only void, but even incapable of all kind of existence, to say, Christs Body is present in the blessed Sacrament after the manner of a Substance, is to the same effect, as to say, That it is neither corpore­ally, nor incorporeally there present, that is, in verity not at all. But sup­pose we that Christs Body were pre­sent in the Eucharist without exten­sion, and no other substance for the [Page 170] Accidents of Bread and Wine to sub­sist in; the Accidents, in such a case, must either subsist in Christs Body, and so extension be in a Subject un­extended, which is plainly contradi­ctory; or els, they must subsist of themselves without a Subject, which is equally impossible; for if we duly reflect, we shall find, That an Acci­dent is not any Thing really diffe­ring from it's Subject, but a meer Mode only, or manner of it's Being, or an appearance of the Subject, un­der some particular consideration, as will (I think) by the following In­stance evidently be seen; Take a piece of Paste, and mold it into se­veral forms one after another, making it now long, then round, afterward square, and twill be no thing all the while, but the very same Paste still, under various appearances, which for distinction sake, we give different ap­pellations to; so that to suppose [Page 171] length, roundness, squareness, (or long, round, square, take whether we please) really to exist, without some Thing which we denomintate long, round, square, is to suppose the meer mode of a Thing, not to be the meer mode of a Thing, but a Thing of it self, which is utterly impossible. Many strange incredible things beside would follow, upon the supposal of the Ac­cidents subsisting without a Subject, as that they are apt to do and suffer all things, which the Bread and Wine before their Transubstantiation were liable unto; as to nourish the Body, to be broken, to be split, to be cor­rupted, to be turn'd into ashes, smoke, &c. which seem to involve in them a contradiction also, in that a meer accident, which is nothing, should do and suffer something.

SECT. XII. That the Holy Scripture, or Writ­ten Word of God, is the Rule of Christian Faith. That Tra­dition is the best, and safest way and means, whereby to attain to the certain knowledge thereof. That the Multitude, or weakest sort of Christians are not able of themselves, without the help of others, to resolve Faith aright, or be rationally assur'd, what the Doctrine of Salvation is.

NOw, at length, having master'd all the difficulties in my Way; I see nothing of moment to obstruct or hinder me, why I may not from [Page 173] the premis'd Discourse securely in­ferr, That the Sacred Scripture, (i. e. Such places of it as contain the ne­cessario credenda, and agenda of Christs Gospel) is the Rule of Christian Faith; yet so, as that without the help of Tradition, it can neither be known to be the Word of God; nor when, in general, 'tis known so to be, any rational assurance can be had, That the Texts containing the Necessaries to Salvation, remain uncorrupt, but by the same Tradition; nor lastly, That those Necessaries to Salvation, can be manifested what they are, save as Tradition guides unto, and gives notice of them. All which, if I have been clear in the proof of, he that goes about to seek for the Rule of Faith and makes not Tradition his chief and best Assistant, shall never have any rational ground of certainty, that he has met with it, and explicitly knows the Contents of [Page 174] it, even though perchance he have really and indeed found it and per­adventure explicitly believes whatsoever is contain'd in it.

If it be so difficult a thing, as it seems to be, by what hath been sayd, to resolve Faith aright, or to make such use of Scripture, as to be cer­tainly inform'd by it of Christs Do­ctrin, without danger of erring or being mistaken, it might be de­manded, how the generality of Chri­stians should be able of themselves to do it. True, but such demand, as it would be reasonable and per­tinent if the Multitude were oblig'd to learn the Christian Religion of themselves, immediatly from Scri­pture; so on the contrary, if they have no obligation to do it, 'tis nei­ther the one nor the other. And that no such obligation lies upon them, the unpracticableness (to say no worse) of the thing, manifested in [Page 175] the sixt Section of this Treatise, suffici­ently testifies. We must then, would some say, pin (it seems) our Faith on others sleeves. To wave that cata­chrestical effeminate speech, let's put the Question more manlike and fairly thus, Whether the generality of the People must not of necessity rely on others Learning and Fidelity, in com­ming to the knowledge of Christs Doctrin; And my Answer then is, That there is no possible way of a­volding it without a continued Mi­racle of immediat Revelation, but that most certainly they must, and 'twas and ever will be so. For first, if we look back towards the begining of the Gospel, we shall find that the New Testament was writ by the Apostles and Evangelists in Greek, which Tongue, though granted to have been the most generally known of any one, then in the Eastern Parte, yet, that every third Christian under­stood [Page 176] that Language, is not at all to be thought on. Secondly, Nor was the Scripture presently Translated in­to every Tongue, where there were those who imbrac'd Christianity. Thirdly, Neither could poor Mecha­nicks, Labourers, Servants, and Slaves procure it, when Translated, before the ready way of Printing was In­vented; because, 'twas not formerly a little money that would buy both, or even one of the Testaments. Fourth­ly, Neither yet, if all Christians had had wherewith to buy, would there have been, till the Art of Printing was found, Books enough for half, or a quarter of them. Fifthly, Suppose we now, that by means of the Press, every one has, or might have, a Bible in their native Tongue; How is it possible, that the vulgar should know of themselves that it is the Word of God? that it has been kept free from corruption in things of necessary Be­lief [Page 177] and Practice? that it is faith­fully Translated out of the Originals? that considering what variety of Do­ctrins are in it; and in how many places dispers'd, they should be able, and at leisure, to cull out of it a Sum­mary of Fundamentals, (in case the thing it self were attainable without other helps besides Scripture) seeing millions of them are necessitated to spend their whole time almost, to get a poor Livelihood for themselves and Families? that they should be able to compare places of Scripture so ef­fectually, as rightly to compose seem­ing Contradictions in Points of Faith, thereby, when not without difficulty they are got to understand, but ordi­narily well; even plain and common things? Who so shall seriously re­flect on these matters, will doubtless think it strangely unbecoming Mans most gracious Maker, and Redeemer, to require at the hands of the poor [Page 178] ignorant people to pick out their Religion of themselves from Holy Scripture, or to depend upon their own weak performances, for finding out the true sence and interpretation of it. For (over and above what has been already shewn for the un­reasonableness of the thing) after this be first well weigh'd, in the balance of sound Reason, that the Multitude must of necessity trust o­thers, for the truth of the Tran­slation of Scripture, let an irrefra­gable Reason be given by any that can, why they should not aswell, and might as safely give credit to those for the sense of it, who are in pru­dence to be entrusted by reason of their Knowledg and Honesty for re­commending to them the sincerity of the Version, since 'tis to be presum'd they understand it to be a true tran­slation no further, then they know the sence of the words translated. Not­withstanding [Page 179] the plain verity of what has here been said, 'tis not unknown, how frequently and vehemently some popular men use to cry out to the people from the Pulpit, Believe not us, believe the Scripture, as if the meanest of their Auditors were thought by them to be the proper Judges of the Scripture sense, amongst the rest. But though their words seem to im­port as much, if we look to the bot­tom of the business, we shall discover, That even these Preachers must ac­knowledge, they intend otherwise; or els confess their design in doing it is unlawful. For when they say, Believe not us, believe the Scripture; they either intend the Texts they quote for a Proof of what they touch, or they do not. If they intend them for a Proof, their meaning must be this; believe us, yet not for our own sakes, but for the Scriptures; that is, be­lieve us, because we teach the very [Page 180] same Doctrine which the Scripture doth; or believe the Scripture to the same intent and purpose, or in the same sense we alledge it, for to be­lieve it in any other, would not have the effect of a Proof with them. But if they have no intention to use the Scriptures they quote to prove what they Preach, let them inform us to what other good intent they do it, for I cannot think of any. To seve­ral bad ends, 'tis obvious enough to conceive how it may be done; as out of covetousness, or through the desire of applause, or for promoting a faction, to humour and gratifie the people they Preach unto. But for none of these ends will they yield, I am well assur'd, they do it; and therefore I see no way to avoid it, but that the Quotations must be granted to be produc'd for Proofs, and consequently, that the persons using them have no real design by [Page 181] saying, beleeve not us, beleeve the Scripture, that the truth of their Do­ctrine should stand, or fall, accordingly as their Auditors judge it consonant, or disagreeing to the places of Holy Writ which they're directed to, for examination and tryal of the verity of what their Teachers deliver, as they themselves often (I beleeve) appre­hend; but for Proof and confirma­tion indeed of the Doctrine taught, according to the intendment of the Preacher.

Some perhaps would here be en­courag'd to assert, that this which I have last discours'd, concerning Holy Writ, (viz. that the Multi­tude cannot without better help then their own, make right use of Scri­pture, as 'tis the Rule of Faith) makes for Oral Tradition, which instructs every one from the Prince to the Peasant in all the Articles of Chri­stian Faith. To such I should answer, [Page 182] That Tradition could no more be made use of as the Rule of Faith (supposing it were so) by the Peo­ple, without the assistance of some more skilful then themselves, then Scripture can. For first, They must trust others, that what they are in­structed in by their immediat Teach­ers, is the sense of the present Ca­tholick Church. Secondly, They must have it from better Arguments then themselves can frame, That the Do­ctrine of the present Church is the very same with the Doctrine of the Church in all foregoing Ages since Christ. Thirdly, They must beleeve others, That Tradition is the alone Rule of Faith, for the Multitude (I may safely say) is not so quick sighted, as clearly to see, that there's no other way to come to a right knowledge of Christs Doctrine, but by an Oral Delivery of it. So that in fine, I am much assur'd, That the Rule of Faith [Page 183] was never intended by God for the Multitude to resolve immediatly of themselves the Christian Faith into; and that therefore the Destinction of Ecclesia docens, & discens is good, yea, necessary to be practically main­tain'd and upheld among Christians; To the former of which (I mean the Ecclesia docens) consisting of Prelats and Pastors, the Depositum, or Rule of Faith, is principally (not solely, be­cause it is lawful for any to make good use of it that can) entrusted; for that in reason, the Clergy is just­ly presum'd to be fittest, both for Skill and Will, to understand it aright, and to employ it to it's due End, whilst they can want no Helps possi­ble to be had for gaining the true sense of it; and that it is the Main of their Employ, for which they are called to their Sacred Office, to use and exercise the same to it's proper End; whereas others, generally speak­ing [Page 184] neither, have the like aduantages to understand it as it ought to be, nor so great Motives and Obligation to promote the true intendment and de­sign thereof.

Have not then the People, even every particular person of them, it might well be ask'd, a Judgement of Discretion in the choice and mat­ters of Religion? If by Judgement of Discretion be meant, That they are to do nothing, but what they themselves approve of; I readily yield they have. But in case they set them­selves to oppose their own Judgement to the Judgment of the Clergy in Matters of Faith, their Judgment will be found a Judgment of into­lerable and pernitious Indiscretion. For to make a true discovery of an Error in Faith, the Rule of Faith must be well consulted, and the Point in question duly apply'd to't, to be try'd by it; so that if either the Rule [Page 185] it self be mistaken, or the Thing to be regulated by it, be not rightly ap­ply'd, no Doctrine concerning Faith can rationally be discover'd, whether it be an Error, or a Truth. And 'tis ridiculously absurd, to think, that the vulgar sort consisting of Servants, Labourers, Mechanicks, and others, generally busied and spending their days about Temporal affairs, should be more sufficient, and able, to un­derstand the Rule of Faith aright, and to apply things doubted of there­to, so as truely to determine of their rectitude or obliquity by it, then the grave and Learned Prelats, with the profound Doctors, and others of the more Ancient and Reverend Divines, who have spent many of them thirty, several of them fourty, and some a­mongst them fifty years, or more, in the study (for the most part) of sa­cred Learning, being legally also call'd to the Office of teaching and [Page 186] directing Mankind as Christian, by a Mission successively deriv'd from Christ and his Apostles, which none besides the Clergy, how Learned or Pious soever, can justly make claim to. Would it not then astonish, and work compassion in any man of so­briety, to see the ignorant people grossly misled, to believe, They are able enough of themselves to under­stand the Scripture, in all things ne­cessary to Salvation, when as 'tis prin­cipally for instructing them aright in those very things, and keeping them to the due observance of them, that they have spiritual Guides and Go­vernours set over them by God, and his Holy Church? Which yet they are many of them poor souls, being strangely infatuated with a conceit of their own endowments, so farr from having any regard to, that although they dayly see before their eyes, That the wise and gracious God, in [Page 187] the Oeconomy of his great Family, the World, has provided and placed several men skill'd in several things; some in Civil Government, some in Laws, some in Physick, and others in other Professions, all for the Good of the Community in assisting men in those things, wherein they are pre­sum'd not to have skill enough to do the best for themselves; yet never­theless, they will not understand and discern a necessity of some skilfuller then they themselves be, to advise, direct, and order them in those grand Matters, which are of more Weigh­ty and lusting Concern to them, then all the things in the whole World besides; but in contradicti­on to the Analogy of Providence seen round about them, despiseing those, who ought to have the over­sight of their Belief and Manners, make themselves their own Instru­ctors and Rulers in the Learning and [Page 188] Management of those things, wherein if they finally miscarry, they are ruin'd to eternity.

SECT. XIII. The harme that may arise to the Church, from the belief of an Error not-Fundamental, to be an Article of Faith. The true stating of the difference, between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome. Whether or no the Church of England be justly accus'd of criminal Schism? That the joynt Concurrence of Scripture, and Oral Tradition, (or the practical Delivery of [Page 189] Christ Doctrine) was recommend­ed by the Apostles to the Church; the Restauration of which Con­currence ('tis humbly conceiv'd) would be a firm Foundation for re-uniting dissenting Christians in Matters of Religion; and the Continuance of it a lasting Means for perpetuating Chri­stianity in 'its ancient native Purity.

I have now only one Scruple more remaining, concerning Matters of Faith, and it arises from what my self concluded before, which was, That no Fundamental Error could ever get a setled footing without dis­turbance, but should perpetually meet with opposition from Orthodox Chri­stians, so that all necessary Truths, shall be continually nourish'd in the Bosom of the visible Church. In [Page 190] which if I have said right, what harm, may it with great appearance of reason be ask'd, can be found to accrew upon it, if an Error, not fundamental chance to creep into the Church, and grow by degrees to be held at length an Article of Faith, seeing the belief thereof is not in it's self destructive of Salvation? I answer, there is this great harm in it, if no other, that in case it at any time come to be discover'd, and National Churches be thereupon di­vided about it, one holding it to be an Article of Faith another taking it to be an Erroneous Doctrin, there will unavoidably a Schism happen upon it, because that Church which thinks it to be an Article of Faith, will conceive herself oblig'd to deny Communion to the other, which re­jects it as an Error; and that other which rejects it as an Error, must needs judge it to be an heinous Sin, [Page 191] to acknowledge and profess that She beleeves a Doctrin to be an Article of Faith, which in truth she holds to be an Erroneous Opinion; and yet without such acknowledgment, and answerable profession, she cannot be admitted to Communion with the Church, that believes it to be an Article of Faith. Upon this very account it is, that the Divisions be­tween the Church of Rome, and Church of England, as to the Doctrinal Part of Religion are continued; for I find, that the most cautious and wary Vindicators of the English Church from the guilt of Schism, which the Romanists incessantly ac­cuse her of, allege in excuse for her Separation, that the Church of Rome requires as necessary Conditions of her Communion, the acknowledgment of some erroneous Doctrins to be Articles of Faith, together with a publick profession of them; which Do­ctrins, [Page 192] although not damnable in their own nature, because not directly repug­nant to any Fundamental Truth, yet would become damnable to those who judging them to be Errors, should acknowledge and profess them, con­trary to their Judgments, to be Ar­ticles of Faith. To this purpose writes the learned Bishop Montague, the renowned Arch-Bishop Laud, Doctor Ferne, Doctor Hammond, the late Lord Primat of Ireland Bishop Bramhal, with others, whereunto I'le add one Cantrovertist more, of the present time, Doctor Stillingfleet, of which two last mentioned (not to multiply needless quotations about a thing so well known I'le here tran­scribe two Passages; It was not (saith the learned Primate) the erro­neous Opinions of the Church of Rome, but the obtruding them by Laws upon other Churches, which warranted a separation. Bishop Bramhals Vin­dication [Page 193] against Mr. Baxter, Pag: 101. This is clearly the state of the difference, (saith Doctor Stillingfleet) between the Church of Rome, and Church of England. The Church of Rome imposeth new Articles of Faith to be believ'd as necessary to Salvation, as appears, &c. But the Church of England makes no Arti­cles of Faith, but such as have the Testimony and Approbation of the whole Cbristian World of all Ages; and are acknowledg'd to be such by Rome it self, and in other things she requires subscription, not as Ar­ticles of Faith, but as inferiour Truths, which She expects a submis­sion to, in order to her peace and tranquillity: Thus the ingenious Do­ctor in his Rational account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion, Pag. 54. The Church of England then by this, holding nothing to be an [Page 194] Article of Faith, but what Rome it self acknowledges to be so; it's evident; That if the Church of England believe all the Articles of Catholick Faith, as she professes she doth, the Church of Rome does like­wise the same; and consequently, since every Fundamental Truth is an Article of Catholick Faith, that she believes all Fundamental Truths, no less then the other doth. So that the true and real difference between those two Churches, is not about Fundamentals, but Superstructures, which if they be Errors; or any of them; (as I think some of them are prov'd to be in Sect. 11. and if it were necessary, others, I conceive, might be) the imposing of them as Articles of Faith by the Romish Church layes the guilt of Schism at her door. But that it ever will be granted by the Romanists, while they esteem the Living Voice of [Page 195] the Church the Rule of Faith, and hold the Council of Trent to be a true Representative of the Church, that she proposes any Errors as Ar­ticles of Catholick Faith; is not to be expected. And that they'l yield to change their pretended Rule of Faith, there's small encouragement yet to hope, since 'tis true aswell of them, as of too many others, what the rational Animadverter up­on the Pamphlet entituled, The naked Truth, rightly observes, That Poli­tical Authors commonly oppose those Passages in their Adversaries Books, which are ready to fall of themselves, and pass by those which urge and press them harder. If it were not too truely so, 'twould be a matter of great amazement to me, That Scri­pture and Tradition should still be cryed up one against the other, and made to look as if they were at en­mity, [Page 196] when 'tis manifestly clear, that God at first joyn'd them ami­cably together, in that the Blessed Apostles and Evangelists recom­mended the Holy Gospel, or Reve­lation of Jesus Christ the Son of God, both in Writing, and by an Oral Delivery, and practical Profes­sion of it to the World, designing them, no doubt, to go hand in hand for Instructing, Confirming, and Re­gulating Men in the Belief and Pra­ctice of Christianity, till the end of all things. And therefore, till their joynt Concurrence be restor'd to the Church, I see not what great Good we can rationally expect by Contro­versie; whereas, if due respect and regard were had to both, the Issue and Event thereof would, as it appears in reason to me, be this, That no­thing father'd on Scripture could be assented to, and receiv'd as a Ca­tholick [Page 197] Point of Faith, unless there were likewise found a practical Tra­dition of it in the Church; nor any Doctrine be taken and held for a Catholick Tradition, but what was evidently seen by the Chief of the Clergy at least, to have a real Ground in Holy Writ; whence the Chri­stian Religion ('tis humbly conceiv'd) might be in a certain way (when­soever Interest or Passion prevented not) to be secur'd from Error and the Church from Schism.