THE SEVERAL WAYS Of Resolving FAITH, IN THE ROMAN and REFORMED CHURCHES. With the Author's 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 Schism and lays the Cause of the separation upon the Roman.  
YORK. Printed by Stephen Bulkley, and are to be sold by Richard Lambart Bookseller in the Minster-yard. 1677.   

THE PUBLISHER, To the Pious and Intelligent READER.  
IF, Reader, thou be indeed so qualified, as the style I give thee, imports, the following Treatise will, I am confident, find a very grateful acceptance with thee. For as the Subject of its Discourse is of highest Consequence, and so esteemed by all who have a greater value for the Truth of Christianity, then for the Concern of secular Interests and Enjoyments; so will the handling of it be, with that impartiality, sincerity, and seriousness seen performed, that thou'lt easily own it to be a Tract wholly designed for conviction and satisfaction, not at all for contention or ostentation. This, 'tis true, makes it appear in a plain and homely dress, the Author having purposely declined Rhetorical Ornaments as fit for an eloquent insinuating Harangue, then for a controversial strict Discourse, whose aim and intent should not be to please the Fancy with gay and empty appearences, but to fix the Understanding with plain and solid Truths. Whereunto how far this small Piece in what it treats of, is conducible, I shall wholly leave to thy own impartial thoughts to judge. Permit me yet (which with modesty enough, I may crave) to use the freedom to tell thee, that the Way the Author takes for effecting his desire (which is to be confirmed upon sure Grounds, What the Means instituted by God, for attaining to the certain knowledge of Christ's Doctrine be) is such, that nothing but very calumny can accuse him of any sinister or partial proceeding. This although a Motive material for recommending the perusal of his Book, especially considering how polemic Disputes are too frequently managed, yet was my apprehension of the soundness of the Discourse itself, and of the great assistance it brings to the rational defence of the truly Protestant Profession (but not of whatsoever is so called by every Opinionist) the principal Inducement that moved me (with my friend's permission) to publish it. I speak not this (Courteous Reader) to forestall in the least thy Judgement, but remit thee to thy full liberty; and the rather, because to do otherwise, were to offer violence to the nature of the Treatise itself, whose entire complexion, in the whole and every part thereof, is ingenuous and free, looking on whatsoever is within its prospect with the most equal eye imaginable, and yet passing over nothing of moment without a due inspection of it, as by an indifferent view thereof thou wilt easily perceive. Farewell.   

The Contents.  
SEction 1. There is a Rule of Christian Faith, or a Way whereby to come to the certain knowledge of Christ's Doctrine, instituted by God. Three different Opinions among the Learned of the Roman Religion, where that Way is to be found; or wherein the Rule of Faith (as 'tis called by Controvertists) doth consist.  
Sect. 2. The Ground of the first Opinion of the Romanists (which places the Rule of Faith in the Definition of a General Council confirmed by the Pope) being this, That a General Council confirmed by the Pope, cannot err in Matters of Religion, seriously considered of, and thought to be erroneous.  
Sect. 3. The Reason of the second Opinion among the Romish Party, (namely, That the Definition of a General Council conciliarly proceeding with, or without the Pope, is the Rule of Faith) held to be, That a General Council conciliarly acting is infallible in Catholic Points of Faith, taken into consideration; and it's double meaning explained, the truth of which in one of them only is here brought to the Test; the certainty of it, in its other sense, being left to be examined in its due place afterward  
Sect. 4. The Foundation, whereon we find the third Opinion of the Romanists (to wit, that Oral Tradition, or the living Voice of the Present Church in every Age is the Rule of Faith) to be built, viz. That Tradition is in Articles of Faith perpetually the same in all Ages, well dived into, and more largely (because of the present great vogue it has with the learned of the Romish Profession here in England) insisted on, than the Grounds of both the two former Opinions are.  
Sect. 5. The Controvertists of the Reformed Church, make Scripture the Rule of Faith. Two main different Opinions, notwithstanding in what sense it is so held to be. The former Assertion, viz. That the Scripture is clear to every understanding illuminated by the Holy Ghost, in all those things which are necessary to salvation, throughly inspected and esteemed to be more plausible than sound. A Sect, that holds private inspiration of the Spirit of God, absolutely necessary, as well for knowing, as understanding the Word of God. Another sort of People, who talk of a Light within them, to be their sole Guide in Matters of Belief and Practice. Both these Pretensions fairly discussed, and found to be Delusions  
Sect. 6. The other Assertion which some of the Reformed hold, viz. That all things necessary to Salvation, are clear in Scripture to every understanding, impartially reflected on, and Reasons given why 'tis thought to be rather popular and pleasing, then solid and satisfactory.  
Sect. 7. Whether the Rule of Faith affords infallible, or but moral certitude of Christ's Doctrine. Whether we may not now in our days have as great certainty thereof, as the Disciples of the Apostles had. And whether the like certainty which they had be not enough for the Church of the present and future Ages.  
Sect. 8. By what Means the knowledge of a Matter of Fact (such as the preaching of the Gospel by Christ and His Apostles was) may be perpetuated. An examen of the force of the Romanists main Argument whereby they endeavour to show, that Scripture cannot be the Rule of Faith. Whether the Scripture be not as intelligent in Points of Faith as Tradition or the Living voice of the Church is.  
Sect. 9 What the Properties of the Rule of Faith be, and whether they agree to Holy Scripture.  
Sect. 10. An Enquiry, Whether Christ's Doctrine has been practically conveyed without intermission from the days of the Apostles, unto ours. And of what validity four grand Arguments urged against the indefectibility of Tradition, are.  
Sect. 11. 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 settled quiet possession in the visible Church? An offer from Reason for the impossibility of the thing. Errors not-Fundamental, may overspread the Church, or, at least, a great and considerable part of it, and why? Several Instances of such Errors in the Roman Church.  
Sect. 12. That the Holy Scripture, or Written Word of God, is the Rule of Faith. That Tradition is a necessary 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 assured, what the Doctrine of Salvation is.  
Sect. 13. The harm 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. The Church of England cleared from the guilt of Schism, and the Roman justly blamed for being Cause of the separation. That the joint Concurrence of Scripture and Oral Tradition, (or the practical Delivery of Christ's Doctrine) was recommended by the Blessed Apostles to the Church; the Restauration of which Concurrence, ('tis humbly conceived) would be a firm Foundation for reuniting dissenting Christians in Matters of Religion; and the Continuance of it a lasting Means for perpetuating Christianity in its Ancient native Purity.   

Errata.  
In the Contents, Sect. 6. l. 2. read for Reformed, Reformation. Sect. 8. l. 8. for intelligent intelligible.  
Pag. 9 l. 15. r. but impious. p. 17. l. last (viz. p. 31. l. 1. r. Canonical Scripture. p. 32. l. 12. 13. r. Church diffusive. p. 40 l. 16. r. Efforts p. 47. l. 6. r. formerly. p. 62. l. 5, 6. r. to be performed, actually. p. 72. l. 7. r. so often as. p. 82 l. 2. r. as prone as possible. p. 91. l. 17. blot out if. p- 97. l. 10. r. die. l. 11. r. sedet. p. 99 l. 1. r. de. scendit. l. 13. r obtemperantibus. p. 100 l. 1. r. Act. 4. 12. p. 101. l. 11. r. nascetur. p. 106. l. 3. r. descendet. p. 112. l. 15. r. in Scripture, as. l. 16. Traditionist. p. 113. l. 5 r. Traditionist. p. 121. l. 18. r. ascension. p. 122. l. 2. r. ascension p. 126, 127 r. of what validity Four— are? p. 128. l. 3. r. thus; l. 14. those p 141. l 15, 16. r. in the Creed there set forth. l. 18 and that also. p. 142. l. 23. r. or it is not; p. 143. l. 14. r. Latins. l. 19 Lombard. p. 144. l. 4, 5. r. ineandem nobiscum. l. 8. unam eandemque fore sententiam. p. 145. l. 1. r. Quaest. 36. p. 146. l. 5. r. disertè dicant. p. 154. l. 20. r. as an Article. p. 158. l. 7. r. superfluous. p. 161. l. 9 soever there be. p. 162. l. 10. r. and not to be extended. p. 170. l. 2. r. in such case. p. 171. l. 16. r. spilt. p. 179. l. 19 r. what they teach. p. 183. l. 4. r. Distinction. p. 192. l. 10. r. Lawd. p. 195. l. 13. r. Polemical  
The rest are more obvious literal mistakes, in appearences, yield, adhear, oblid'g, Antichrist, Writing, all be it, vulgar, with some small characters for great, and great for small.   

The several Ways of resolving Faith in the Roman and Reformed Churches.  
With the Author's 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 Schism, 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 Almighty's good pleasure to create Man a reasonable Creature, it became his Divine Wisdom 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 ordained by God, whereby to understand aright, Man's 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 subtle Arguments, and eager Zeal to defend every one his espoused Opinion, not a few sober well minded Christians are brought into a Labyrinth of intricate difficulties and doubts what they ought to believe; whilst the Controvertists in Religion, though in general they acknowledge, that the Gospel of Christ published to the World, declares wherein Man's Felicity, and the Means thereof consist, yet are at perpetual discord what the particular Doctrines necessary to the Salvation of Mankind, contained in that Gospel or Revelation, be; and that, because they cannot agree where the Way which leads to the certain knowledge of Christ's Doctrine is to be found; or, as for brevity 'tis phrased, what the Rule of Faith is.  
This gave the occasion of my undertaking the following Inquirie; the design 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 truly known. For the compass 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 else 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 Christ's 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 deceived 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'll leave the discussion of it to another place; and at present show wherein the Romish Controvertists, of which there are three distinct sorts, place the Rule of Faith.  
The first sort maintain, that A General Council confirmed by the Pope, or (as the Proposition is rendered by some) The Pope defining in a General Council cannot err; and so make, The Definition of a General Council confirmed 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 supposed infallibility in the Pope's assent; which assent those who call it defining, think perhaps they make the Proposition more obviously denote, that Prelates 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 explained; the truth of which in one of them only is here brought to the Test, the certainty of it in its other sense being left to be examined in other Sections.  
THis Assertion of the Second sort of Romish Controvertists, that A General Council conciliarly proceeding cannot err in Points of Faith, may be taken in a twofold 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 err; in which sense, the consideration of it belongs to some following Sections: Or else as they are intended only to denote the exclusion of all fraudulent and forcible ways used to procure the votes of the Prelates, so as that the Definition of the Council being left to its own freedom will be infallibly true, although the Means preparative to it, were not at all so; Against   

 
 
 
 
 
 
That whatsoever was delivered 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 assigned proof, the indefectibility of Tradition, I shall say nothing here, but remit the discourse, I intent upon them, to another place; and at present inquire, Whether the present Church of Rome does indeed depend on this Maxim, for the certainty of the purity of her Faith, That Christ's Doctrine was delivered 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 introduced 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 immediately inspired 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 something which seems considerable, and of moment, to allege in proof:  
It will not, I presume, be denied, That Cardinal Bellarmin, and the learned Romish Controvertists, more generally taken notice of after him, ever since the Reformation till rushworth's 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 aver Tradition to be the alone safe Means of conveying Christ's 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 inferior 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 than 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 steadfast Ground the Christian Faith was to be embraced, they would no longer rest upon the instruction they had when they first in their younger years believed, if so be upon search made, they conceived (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 else. 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 itself also; That Faith is not resolved 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, etc. 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 contradistinguished, as equally relating some way or other to Christian Faith and Manners. And although in the former place, they seem to be principally opposed, as the Written, and unwritten Word of God; yet not without this apparent intimation also, that as the Books, or written Words called Scripture, lead to the sense or Doctrine contained in them; so likewise the unwritten words wherein Apostolical Traditions are taught, guide to the meaning couched 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 chief to be understood of written and unwritten words directing to the knowledge of the Objects of Faith; as appears by these Lines here following transcribed 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 Christ's Doctrine itself, 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 its 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 its 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 revealed Truths; and consequently, the Characters and Sounds, or the written and unwritten words, wherein they are contained, 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 expressed 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 truly so, and the late quoted place of the Council intended as much; I see not how that learned Assembly can be cleared from contradicting itself; since Scripture, and Apostolical Traditions, if mere unintelligible Characters and Sounds, without their supposed authentic Interpreter Oral Tradition, would be so far from being two Witnesses, or Testimonies of Christ's 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 immediately, concerned to understand it, what it bears witness or gives testmony unto; immediately I say, concerned; but who those are, in respect of the Rule of Christian Faith, I defer the enquiry of to another place. At present, in regard it will not, I prefume, be admitted that the Council contradicts itself, the sense of the rehearsed Passage is far more obvious, then that which hath been mentioned, 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 sense thereof; which the Council might very well think to be just and fitting without supposing the words of Scripture to be unsensed Characters, since experience daily shows, that things easy to be understood, are often mistaken by the vulgar, and very plain words and sentences, wrested by men of subtle wits, to a perverse sense.  
Two Witnesses then of Christ's 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 Prelates had an eye to, in respect of something defined 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 contained, 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 immediate assistance of the Holy Spirit, or something else 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 affirmed 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 shown in general, so the subsequent will hereafter show 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 confirmed by several Instances out of the same.  
The first shall be, That it has defined Sess. 4 Decree. 1. What Books are Canonical Spature, 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 esteemed 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 refused, 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. Cousins (late Lord Bishop of Durham, in his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture shows, are defined 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 sense of the words of the Church, diffusive pronounced by its Representative; by which it seems there is a Tradition, that a Character or a certain Spiritual indelible sign is imprinted in the Souls of those who are baptised, confirmed and ordained. 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 sign imprinted in the Soul (and without that they could not declare it in various forms of speech, as was requisite they should, in regard, that one main reason given by the Traditionists, why Christ's Doctrine cannot fail in the conveyance, is, because it is expressed so many several ways, that the generality of the Hearers, cannot choose 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 man's whole life, to some solemn Engagement or Action; as by Baptism to be a Christian; by Confirmation to undergo courageously the Christian warfare; by Order to Preach the Word, to administer the Sacraments, etc. so that not any of them is to be iterated, and this Christians generally know; for who is ignorant, that none used to be Baptised, none confirmed, none ordained, more than once? I reply, If the Tradition of the Church be placed wholly in that; then in case the Council has defined more, it could not ground the same upon the uninterrupted delivery thereof. And that the Council has defined more, appears from this, That the Canon further declares two things, which whosoever denies, incurs 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 employed, 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 showed) 'tis a thing easy and necessary to Salvation to be performed, to prepetuate Christ's Doctrine 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 urged 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 requisite 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 Christ's Doctrine be applied to the mind, the Will will undoubtedly embrace them, and act according to them. This first Argument is sufficiently (I think) answered, Section, 7. yet for fuller conviction I will add this here, that the same Argument if applied to Scripture, would prove as much every jot against Scriptures preservation, as against the continuance of Tradition. If it be replied, that God's Goodness is engaged for the preservation of Scripture; I grant it, if man use his own endeavours, otherwise, God is not (I conceive) concerned to preserve it; for I presume no man of sound Reason will say, that God is obliged by his Goodness immediately 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 Man's endeavours therefore for the conservation of it be free in that sense 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 Christ's Doctrine throughout all Generations; and if the Church should at any time be without its Rule of Faith, 'twould either dwindle away to nothing, or become a mere 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 itself, however powerfully the Motives work upon it. Whence it is, that even the blessed Saints and Angels in Heaven, though their affections be most strongly and unalterably fixed 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 prerequired; the office of which deliberation, is to consult what means will be most available to obtain the designed End by; the principal of which in Morals, is Man's Summum Bonum, or sovereign Good, namely, the fruition of God whereunto as well the Moral as Theological Virtues, 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 steadfastly, 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 its 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'll enjoy God, whether himself will or no. The certainty therefore of a thing wrought by Moral Causes, is no evidence that Man is not endued with , but only shows 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 , and that certainty, to make doubt of the former, rather than 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● Man's 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 defaced and corrupted, that the world did laps into Polytheism and Idolatry, although it was settled in the heart of Noah, and firmly believed by him to be the way to Happiness, and the contradicting and deserting this to be the way to Misery; and this Doctrine according to the Traditionists, must be supposed, 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 Doctrine committed only to three Families, should be so permanent, as that which is entrusted to millions of people, albeit the Motives for the preservation of it were the same. But I secondly answer, that the Motives for propagating Christianity are far more excellent, than the Motives  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 temporal rewards and punishments, which because they were seen to befall 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 far less intent to regard Truth, and exercise acts of Piety and Virtue, when everlasting Bliss and Misery were only gathered by Consequence to be the final Portion of good and evil men; then when in express words they were constantly pressed, and inculcated as Motives, the one to incline men to embrace Truth and Goodness; the other, to deter them from Error and Vice, as since the Preaching of Christ's 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 failed, or was totally lost, till it appear that Abraham and Lot, had not knowledge of Him from Sem, or some of his Progeny. Can 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 derived himself, was one of the Persons who escaped it in the Ark? Can 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 jacob's time, or isaac's 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 increased, and withal 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 offerred 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 necessary Article of Faith; the Greek Church holding, That He proceeds only from the Father, and not from the Son, disowning any such Doctrine to have been delivered to them by the precedent Age, or to any other Age of their Church, as the Doctrine 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 its failings in others also.  
To this, I return, That seeing the Doctrine 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 called for confuting and condemning Macedonius, who denied 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 received 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 by the Constantinopolitan Fathers to be an Article of Catholic Faith, seeing it was so obvious, so easy, and one would think so opportune also; after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if they had indeed believed 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 opposed, which alone therefore, if the excuse were good, should have 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 Doctrine 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 concerned, 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 sense 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 Sense, 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 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 show, 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 Apology for Tradition, he calls the Greeks assertion, concerning the Holy Ghosts Procession, (as is truly said of him) a mere negative Tradition, or a Denial that they have any such Tradition, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; yet, explicating else 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 shows; 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 settled 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 Christ's Doctrine never (as has been seen) failing; it may, by carefully searching the Scripture, be known, what things contained in it are of necessity to be generally believed and practised (because no more is so, but what has been always believed, and practised by Christians) provided assurance may be had, what has been ever practically delivered; and that Scripture is not corrupted in such places of it, as contain the Necessaries to salvation, or Articles of Catholic and Apostolic Faith.  
For the latter, (which I'll first insist on) That Scripture is not corrupted in necessary Points, I shall briefly say but this; Since the actings of God's 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 believed, and practised, 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 practised in the Church (of which sort the Necessaries to Salvation are) without being taken notice of, and if occasion required, rectified.  
As for satisfaction in the other difficulty, viz. What things have been ever orally taught, this in general, from what has been said, appears certain, that no Point of Christ's Doctrine 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 settled, 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 esteemed, 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 imposed on by fraud, or forced by violence; or that all its Members would carelessly neglect, or wilfully forsake, what they believed 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 lose its Faith, in any necessary Point. And in case any remarkable Member, or Part thereof, should ever do it, 'twould be known, and presently opposed 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 beginning of the Reformation, and still does hold and maintain all the Articles of Catholic and Apostolic Faith.  
Objection, If the Latin, or Western Church, when the Reformation begun, did really hold all the Articles of Catholic and Apostolic Faith, by virtue of Oral Tradition communicating the same unto it; what good cause can be shown, why Tradition should not be the Rule of Faith, even without having the Doctrines it delivers confirmed by parallel Texts of Holy Writ?  
Answer, since the Rule of Faith must doubtless be that, into which it is ultimately resolved, as the best and highest Means of ascertaining Christ's Doctrine 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 Christ's Doctrine to Mankind; or that it may deliver, or teach an Error under the notion of an Article of Faith, it cannot be in justice esteemed 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 Christ's Doctrine to Mankind, the following Paragraph (I think) will make good.  
Where two Testimonies both aver and attest the same thing; if the one be of Divine, the other but of Humane Authority; the Testimony that is Divine aught of Right to have the preeminence, and the reliance for the verity of what is witnessed by them, is to be ultimately 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 Christ's 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 than Scripture; (as for example, suppose in the Point of Christ's 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 esteemed 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 published and received 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 say of Christ himself, and his divinely inspired Apostles, would in common prudence be thought to be of greater weight and authority with them, than their own; although believed to be esteemed by the people, as true and certain, as any whatsoever, not of more than Humane Authority.  
Having found then (I suppose) one reason, why Tradition ought not to be held the Rule of Faith; I'll make trial 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 Catholic Church, or by any known, and acknowledged 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 immediately and directly, or, at least, by necessary and apparent Consequence, contradict some Articles of Catholic Faith; by not-Fundamental, I mean, such as evidently do neither. This Distinction premised, and allowed of; since 'tis clear (as I take it) by what has been said of the Motives and Means of perpetuating Christ's Doctrine in the World, that no Article of Catholic Faith can ever perish or cease to be believed; 'twill follow, that no Fundamental Error can at any time get a settled and quiet possession in the Church, but shall always, after it is taken notice of, find opposition by Orthodox Christians, because they cannot choose 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 Heresy, which though eagerly promoted by the Wit and industry of most cunning and restless Heretics, and stiffly backed and countenanced by the Authority of several great Prelates, assisted with the might and power of Temporal Potentates and Princes; yet was still opposed; and when fraudulent and violent means had tired and spent themselves, the opposite Truth prevailed, and showed itself more glorious than 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 discerned; if such once come to be received as pious Opinions, and promoted by the Schoolmen, I do not understand, why they may not in long continuance of time, be advanced to the repute of being esteemed Articles of Faith. For proof of the truth of which, I'll produce some few Instances in the Doctrine of the Church of Rome.  
The first shall be this, That the Council of Trent has designed Sess. 7. Can. 9 That there is a Character, or certain spiritual sign, or mark imprinted in the souls of all that are Baptised, Confirmed, and Ordained, which yet I find disproven 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 shown 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 proved to be erroneous. 'Tis true indeed, he says, 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 Pope's granting InIndulgences, and Privileged Altars, Priests saying of Masses, and the People's 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 Church's sense, (or intention of Pastors, Parents, Tutors, Master of Families, and Nurses) of the word juvari, than any private 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 denied; 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, than otherwise) I apprehend not how they should embrace it, save on the same Terms they did other practical things of their Religion which they judged to be of Catholic 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 urged, 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 parts extra parts. The third thing is this, That How many Hosts, or conconsecrated Elements soever they be, Christ's Body is nevertheless but one. These three Propositions presupposed as true; I argue, That the Doctrine 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 Doctrine 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 parts, signify 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 befall 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 itself.  
The evidence for the truth of the Minor is no less than for that of the Major; for since according to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Christ's 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 than 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 offerred against Transubstantiation thus;  
To affirm Christ's Body to be greater and less than itself at the same time, is, in effect, to affirm a Contradiction true.  
But to affirm Christ's 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 than itself at the same time: Ergo;  
To affirm Christ's 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 than itself at the same time, as to be, and not to be the same with itself; which is impossible.  
And the Minor is equally certain, for since two distinct places are of larger extent than 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 than itself, whilst filling only one place, it will be less than itself filling too; and filling two, it will be greater than itself 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 distinguished from an incorporeal, a material from an immaterial, otherways then by extension, or having parts extra parts, 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 resolved, whether by nature, and creation, there be or ever was, any material substance in the world without extension; if they yield (as I assure myself 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 infer; that if Christ's Body, in the Eucharist be unextended, 'tis either an immaterial substance, that is, a Spirit and no Body; or else 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 Christ's 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 rejoin, 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 intent or suppose, that there either is, or can be, a substance really existing, which is neither of the two; no more than from saying animal est rationale, vel irrationale, it can be presumed, 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 men's 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 framed to comprehend and import all that, which is, Homo, Man; and then we affirm of Peter, of James, of John etc. 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 observed wherein Peter, James, John, etc. agree with every singular Brute, a word is devised 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 itself, a word is used to show that, which is substantia a substance; to avoid therefore the trouble of saying, Peter, James, John etc. this horse, bird, fish, etc. is a Thing that has a Being of itself, we contract it into this, Peter, James, etc. this horse, bird, fish is a substance; since than we see, that a Substance abstractedly taken, is not only void, but even incapable of all kind of existence, to say, Christ's 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 Christ's 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 Christ's Body, and so extension be in a Subject unextended, which is plainly contradictory; or else, 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 its Subject, but a mere Mode only, or manner of its 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 mould 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 mere mode of a Thing, not to be the mere 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 turned into ashes, smoke, etc. which seem to involve in them a contradiction also, in that a mere 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 assured, what the Doctrine of Salvation is.  
NOw, at length, having mastered all the difficulties in my Way; I see nothing of moment to obstruct or hinder me, why I may not from the premised Discourse securely infer, That the Sacred Scripture, (i. e. Such places of it as contain the necessario credenda, and agenda of Christ's 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 giveth 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 contained in it.  
If it be so difficult a thing, as it seems to be, by what hath been said, to resolve Faith aright, or to make such use of Scripture, as to be certainly informed by it of Christ's Doctrine, 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 obliged to learn the Christian Religion of themselves, immediately 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 sixth 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 coming to the knowledge of Christ's Doctrine; And my Answer then is, That there is no possible way of avolding it without a continued Miracle of immediate Revelation, but that most certainly they must, and 'twas and ever will be so. For first, if we look back towards the beginning 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 embraced Christianity. Thirdly, Neither could poor Mechanics, 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 Doctrines are in it; and in how many places dispersed, they should be able, and at leisure, to cull out of it a Summary of Fundamentals, (in case the thing itself 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 Man's 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 sense and interpretation of it. For (over and above what has been already shown for the unreasonableness of the thing) after this be first well weighed, 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 Knowledge and Honesty for recommending to them the sincerity of the Version, since 'tis to be presumed they understand it to be a true translation no further, than they know the sense 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 intent otherwise; or else confess their design in doing it is unlawful. For when they say, Believe not us, believe the Scripture; they either intent the Texts they quote for a Proof of what they touch, or they do not. If they intent 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 allege 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 gratify the people they Preach unto. But for none of these ends will they yield, I am well assured, they do it; and therefore I see no way to avoid it, but that the Quotations must be granted to be produced for Proofs, and consequently, that the persons using them have no real design by saying, believe not us, believe 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 trial of the verity of what their Teachers deliver, as they themselves often (I believe) apprehend; but for Proof and confirmation indeed of the Doctrine taught, according to the intendment of the Preacher.  
Some perhaps would here be encouraged to assert, that this which I have last discoursed, concerning Holy Writ, (viz. that the Multitude cannot without better help than 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 than themselves, than Scripture can. For first, They must trust others, that what they are instructed in by their immediate Teachers, is the sense of the present Catholic Church. Secondly, They must have it from better Arguments than 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 believe 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 Christ's Doctrine, but by an Oral Delivery of it. So that in fine, I am much assured, That the Rule of Faith was never intended by God for the Multitude to resolve immediately of themselves the Christian Faith into; and that therefore the Distinction of Ecclesia docens, & discens is good, yea, necessary to be practically maintained and upheld among Christians; To the former of which (I mean the Ecclesia docens) consisting of Prelates 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 presumed 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 advantages 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 asked, 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 Judgement of the Clergy in Matters of Faith, their Judgement will be found a Judgement of intolerable and pernicious 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 applied to't, to be tried by it; so that if either the Rule itself be mistaken, or the Thing to be regulated by it, be not rightly applied, no Doctrine concerning Faith can rationally be discovered, whether it be an Error, or a Truth. And 'tis ridiculously absurd, to think, that the vulgar sort consisting of Servants, Labourers, Mechanics, 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 truly to determine of their rectitude or obliquity by it, than the grave and Learned Prelates, with the profound Doctors, and others of the more Ancient and Reverend Divines, who have spent many of them thirty, several of them forty, and some amongst them fifty years, or more, in the study (for the most part) of sacred Learning, being legally also called to the Office of teaching and directing Mankind as Christian, by a Mission successively derived 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 Governors 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 far from having any regard to, that although they daily 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 skilled in several things; some in Civil Government, some in Laws, some in Physic, and others in other Professions, all for the Good of the Community in assisting men in those things, wherein they are presumed not to have skill enough to do the best for themselves; yet nevertheless, they will not understand and discern a necessity of some skilfuller than they themselves be, to advise, direct, and order them in those grand Matters, which are of more Weighty and lusting Concern to them, than 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 ruined to eternity.   

SECT. XIII. The harm 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 accused of criminal Schism? That the joint 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 conceived) would be a firm Foundation for reuniting 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 myself concluded before, which was, That no Fundamental Error could ever get a settled footing without disturbance, but should perpetually meet with opposition from Orthodox Christians, so that all necessary Truths, shall be continually nourished in the Bosom of the visible Church. In which if I have said right, what harm, may it with great appearance of reason be asked, can be found to accrue 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 its 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 discovered, and National Churches be thereupon divided about it, one holding it to be an Article of Faith another taking it to be an Erroneous Doctrine, there will unavoidably a Schism happen upon it, because that Church which thinks it to be an Article of Faith, will conceive herself obliged 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 believes a Doctrine to be an Article of Faith, which in truth she holds to be an Erroneous Opinion; and yet without such acknowledgement, 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 acknowledgement of some erroneous Doctrines to be Articles of Faith, together with a public profession of them; which Doctrines, 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 Judgements, to be Articles of Faith. To this purpose writes the learned Bishop Montague, the renowned Archbishop Laud, Doctor Ferne, Doctor Hammond, the late Lord Primate of Ireland Bishop Bramhal, with others, whereunto I'll 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'll 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 believed as necessary to Salvation, as appears, etc. 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 acknowledged to be such by Rome itself, and in other things she requires subscription, not as Articles of Faith, but as inferior 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 itself acknowledges to be so; it's evident; That if the Church of England believe all the Articles of Catholic Faith, as she professes she doth, the Church of Rome does likewise the same; and consequently, since every Fundamental Truth is an Article of Catholic Faith, that she believes all Fundamental Truths, no less than 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 proved 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 lays 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 Catholic Faith; is not to be expected. And that they'll 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 entitled, 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 truly so, 'twould be a matter of great amazement to me, That Scripture and Tradition should still be cried up one against the other, and made to look as if they were at enmity, when 'tis manifestly clear, that God at first joined 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 joint Concurrence be restored to the Church, I see not what great Good we can rationally expect by Controversy; 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 fathered on Scripture could be assented to, and received as a Catholic 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 Catholic 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 conceived) might be in a certain way (whensoever Interest or Passion prevented not) to be secured from Error and the Church from Schism.   
FINIS.