The several ways of resolving faith in the Roman and Reformed Churches with the authors impartial thoughts upon each of them, and his own opinion at length shewn, wherein the rule of faith doth consist ...

The ſeveral Ways of reſolving Faith in the Roman and Reformed Churches.

With the Authors impartial thoughts upon each of them.

And his own Opinion at length ſhown, wherein the Rule of Faith doth conſiſt.

Which clears upon rational Grounds the Church of England from criminal Schiſme, and lays the Cauſe of the ſeparation upon the Roman.

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 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 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 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 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.

〈1 page inserted from a different book〉

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 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

〈1 page inserted from a different book〉

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 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 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 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 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, & 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

〈1 page inserted from a different book〉

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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? 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it ſeems ſtrongly probable (at leaſt) that the proceſſion of the Holy Ghoſt from the Son, was not thought 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to have added 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , per Filium be the ſame in effect with the Latin 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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; & 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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, 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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, 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 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.

FINIS.