AN ENQUIRY: WHETHER Oral Tradition OR THE SACRED WRITINGS, Be the Safest Conservatory and Conveyance OF Divine Truths, Down from their Original Delivery, through all Succeeding Ages.  
In Two PARTS.  
London, Printed for Robert Clavel, at the Sign of the Peacock in St. Paul's Church Yard, 1685.   

THE PREFACE.  
DOubtless, it would more conduce to the honour of Christ, the Peace of Christendom, and the Welfare of Souls, if Christians would agree at the least in this; rather to live as becomes the Gospel we all believe; than curiously dispute, Why we believe? For nice tamperings with, and eager contests about the Foundation of Religion are apt rather to shake, than to strengthen the Superstructures. It may prove a Snare to the profane, or unstable; who, when they shall see the Ground of their Belief, and Eternal Hopes, not to be agreed on after so many Ages, perhaps may be tempted to doubt, whether their whole Profession be not airy, and have no Basis at all.  
Yet notwithstanding, if some will attempt to displace the true One, and to justle in a false and ruinous Ground of Christian Faith and Practice, a due regard to a matter of so great Importance may justify an appearance against so dangerous a Commutation.  
The Basis of Christian Belief suffers from more than one sort of Adversaries. The injuries done to the Sacred Oracles of God by the impious Drollings, and perverse Dispute of Profane and Atheistical Men are too notorious. The Foundation of Faith has no part in the Value and Care of those Men, who scorn Believing. But this Crew is abhorred by all, who have any ordinary sense of Religion; or have not debauched even their Reason. Indeed, the danger is more sly and spreading from those who seem to be more serious, and Friends to Religion.  
Among such, the Enthusiasts undermine the Holy Scriptures by pretence to an extraordinary illuminating Conduct, and Incitations by the Holy Spirit of God. But the Mode of this Sect commonly suits but with the more Melancholy and Musing Natures; and the Experience of their follies and risks within a while exposes the Vanity of their Pretences.  
The Romanists way is the more generally plausible and winning. They present the World with a Conveyance of Religious Truths, and a Rule of Faith. Whose 
(a) Sure Footing in Christiaty: Or, rational discourses of the Rule of Faith. p. 54.  Virtue (they say) is grounded on a far stronger Basis, than all material Nature. Such they affirm the virtue to be, by which Tradition regulates her Followers to bring down Faith unerringly.  
And whereas (as seems by Cardinal 
(b) De verbo Dei non Scripto. L. 4. C. 3. In initio. 1. dem. Ibid. C. 12. Sect. Dico secundò.  Bellarmine) they formerly divided the honour of being the Foundation of Faith between Holy Scripture and Tradition; of later years, Oral Tradition has quite carried away the Credit; and has been by some Zealous Asserters cried up for the infallible Conveyance, 
(c) Sure Footing. p. 98. 41:  and only Rule of Faith; That, from which we are to receive the 
(d) Ibid. p. 117.  Sense of Scripture, which without This would be 
(e) Ibid. p. 38.  quite lost to all in the uncertainty of the Letter.  
That which is undertaken in the ensuing Papers, is an Enquiry after the Nature of Oral Tradition, and its best strength, especially in Religious Affairs; as also the full Force of Writings, especially of the sacred Scriptures; in point of Conservation, and Conveyance of what is committed to them: Upon which Enquiry it will appear, which of them is the most sufficient, and sure for that purpose. And that of the 
(a) There being only two grounds or Rules of Faith owned, viz. Delivery of it down by Writing, or by Words and Practices.— Ibid. p. 52.  two, which after Examination shall be found to be so, preserves to us (and materially considered, is) the Rule of Christian Faith; forasmuch as bringing down to succeeding Times the Christian Faith unvaried and entire; which was primitively committed to the Church by the divinely inspired Planters of it; it may satisfy, and command our Belief; secures us from assenting to any thing, but what is true. Whereas that which approves not it self to be such a faithful Depository, and Convoy, provides us not with a Rule of Faith; deserves not that Authority over our Souls; may betray us to believe a lie.  
Hence therefore Oral Tradition's errability and defectiveness in Conveyance (which shall be proved) disables it for being the overruling Standard of Christians Belief and Practice in all Ages. And on the other side, the sureness and safety of Conservation, and Transmission of Divine Truths by the Holy Scriptures (which shall be proved likewise) qualifies them for the Trust and Honour of being the Rule of Christian Faith through all Generations.  
The Author is sensible, that the Competition between Oral Tradition and Scripture has been already so excellently managed by Reverend and Learned Persons, that this present Undertaking by an obscure man may be judged Supernumerary, or worse. But he has observed, that it was 
(a) Sancta Augustini sententia est, & nota multis, & digna quae ab omnibus cognoscatur, optandum esse, ubi Haereses vigent, ut quicunque aliquâ scribendi facultate praediti sunt, two scribant omnes, etsi non modo de rebus iisdem scripture fint, sed eadem etiam allis verbis fortasse scripturi. Expedit enim, etc. Bellarm. in Praefatione ad Lectorem. Tom. 1. Edit. Ingolstadii, 1588.  Cardinal Bellarmine's Opinion; and he quotes and commends St. Augustine, wishing, that in the Church's danger all, who in some measure could, should Write; tho' they wrote not only of the same thing, but also the same in other words.— Fas est & ab hoste doceri: It may be fit sometimes to take Advice from an Adversary, especially when he has so great and pious a Second.  
This the Author hopes may be an excuse of his Adventure into the Public, and that even his Glean after others plentiful Harvest (their Learned Labours and Success) may yet be not altogether unacceptable, or useless to the Christian Church.   

THE CONTENTS.  

PART. 1.  
CHAP. 1. Of Tradition in general. Pag. 1.  
CHAP. 2. Of Oral Tradition, and, as applied to Religion what is allowed, and what denied to it. Pag. 17.  
CHAP. 3. Reasons against the Certainty, and Safety of Conveyance of Divine Truths by Oral Tradition. Pag. 26.  
CHAP. 4. Experience against Oral Tradition's being a certain Conveyance of Divine Truths. Pag. 46.  
CHAP. 5. The Arguments alleged for Oral Tradition answered. Pag. 111.   

PART. 2.  
CHAP. 1. Sacred Scriptures proved to be the safest and most certain Conservatory and Conveyance of Divine Truths. Pag. 157.  
CHAP. 2. Objections answered. Pag. 203.    

AN ENQUIRY: Whether Oral Tradition, or the Sacred Writings be the safest Conservatory and Conveyance of, etc.  
PART I.  

CHAP. I. Of Tradition in general.  

SECT. I.  
MAN is an active, capacious Creature; fitted for, and desirous of knowledge; and furnished with variety of means for the acquisition of it. In general, we come to know things in a twofold manner.  
1. By the use, and upon the strength of our own Faculties, by our Senses, whose Sensations, when frequent and uniform, we call Experience; by (a far more sublime Principle) our Reason, which judges of, corrects, and improves what is received by the Senses; forms simple Apprehensions, of them makes Propositions, and of Propositions Syllogisms; i e. discourses and elicites one Knowledge out of another. A great many Notions, Propositions, and Discourses, relating to some comprehending Subject, and cast into a Method, are called a Science, or an Art, according to the Nature of the Subject, and the Scope in treating of it.  
2. We attain to knowledge by Intelligence from others, being content to see with their Eyes, and to hear with their Ears. And here the more easy Task is well to understand the Information given by others, and which we take upon Trust from them. The Knowledge and Assent yielded to thing, on this account, and relying thus on Testimony, is called Faith, or Belief; which is different answerably to the diversity of Testimonies.  
1. Testimony is Divine, or that of God: And this has such a transcendent Prerogative; that when once it is sufficiently clear, that God has indeed affirmed a thing to be, or not to be; the Understanding may, and aught to acquiesce in such an Affirmation without any hesitancy. For God cannot lie, either ignorantly, or knowingly; because He is of infinite knowledge and veracity.  
2. Testimony is humane, or that of Man; and the Credit of this is exceedingly below that of the former. 'Tis not alone possible, but too ordinarily experienced, that Man is himself deceived, and then deceives others; nay, often knowingly, and designedly deceives. Therefore Belief must be yielded to Humane Testimony, with some suspense, and good wariness Yet even Humane Testimony deserves and has a considerable Reputation: For it is of great Use, and of some Necessity to Mankind.  
Now, Tradition (considered, not materially, or as the thing delivered; but as to what it formally includes) is Testimony: For the Assent which it begets, is Belief; as Science and Opinion, are the Effect of Argumentation, Demonstrative and Topical respectively. And whereas Testimony may be of one, or more Persons; and of more Persons, at the same time, or in times following one the other: Tradition is an Aggregation of Testimonies in a Succession, and dependence of one upon the other: It is the delivery of a thing down from one Age to another, in a way of Witnessing. By which it is distinguished from such a descent of Opinions and Practices; in which they of the former, and of the following Age (perhaps) Opine or Practise the same thing: But they do so for Reasons taken from the thing itself; and not merely because the former Age told the next Age, that the Age before them did so Opine or Practice. But Tradition imports, an expressed or employed, and a successive witnessing concerning a thing by Fathers to their Children, and that as received from their Fathers; and so on, unto the Origine of the thing witnessed to.   

SECT. II.  
Testimony and Tradition (which is a Branch of it) may be supposed to be used or alleged to a double purpose.  
1. We may suppose it Appealed to as a Judge or Rule, defining concerning the Natures of Things, and the Verity of Propositions relating to them: As whether such and such Propositions, which concern Philosophy, or Mathematics, in Aristotle, or Euclid, be true or false; or whether the Christian be the true Religion, (merely because Christians affirm it to be so.) In the Application of it, Humane Testimony and Tradition, is not so concluding a Medium. The Determination, or Sentence of it is less valid, (unless, where there is a concurrent general Attestation of Mankind;) nor is it so necessary (except where some peculiar occasion obliges to trust another's Credibility; as the case is of young Learners of a Science, to the Notions and Genius of which they are Strangers.) I said,  
1. 'Tis less valid. For things do often so much retire themselves, and require such a quickness and disengagedness of Understanding, to penetrate them; and withal there is not alone a common shortness of men's Reason, but such an exposedness also to biassing disadvantages, as render men much unqualified for Deferences, and the final umpirage of the Natures of Things, and of the Truth concerning them. Besides, there is scarce an Opinion, but is countenanced by so many Votes; that if mere Testimony must sway a man's Judgement, he must believe all, and consequently Contradictions; or he must believe none. And as there is inconvenience; so,  
2. There's no such necessity to try the Natures of the Things at this Bar. For Man has an enquiring and discursive Power, which being carefully exercised, and improved, is able to pierce unto things, and to discover them even in their retirements. And each Science, Faculty, and Art, have their respective Principles, Hypotheses, and Axioms, by which the truth of things in each may be examined; and unto which matters in controversy may be, and usually are devolved.  
And Men commonly think it their Right to have a Liberty to discuss things, and the Judgement of others concerning them: Because tho' a Man be fallible as well as others, and may be far inferior to others in natural and acquired Abilities; yet he may be better satisfied concerning his own diligence and freedom from Prepossession, Passion and Interest, than he can be of another's; every Man being best acquainted with the temper and secrets of his own Soul.  
2. Humane Testimony and Tradition, may be alleged (which is its proper Verge) in point of Fact, and as deposing about the Existence of Things; and that they are or have been: As that there were such Learned Men, as Aristotle and Euclid; that they were the Authors of such Writings, as are entitled to them: Or, that there were such Persons as Christ, and those who published and propagated his Religion in the World; and that the Books which contain the Mysteries of the Christian Religion, did come from those first Preachers and Propagators of it. Against Testimony and Tradition, in the use of it, there lie not those Exceptions, as did in the former consideration of it. For,  
1. It is much more easy for Men to ascertain themselves about the Quòd sit, and that things are in matters of Fact; than to sound the Natures of Things; to descry their coherences with, and dependences on each other; how far they may be affirmed of, and inferred from one another. 'Tis far more discernible, that some Seas ebb and slow, and in what time; than what the true Cause is of that reciprocal motion; that such and such Propositions are in Aristotle or Euclid, than to understand the just meaning of them; or (which is more) the truth of them when understood. Very Sense suffices to satisfy in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that such things are without the labour of the Understanding, and any operose Discourse. Now, where is the more easiness of knowing things, there is the less liableness to mistakes: And a less liableness to, and therefore a less probability of mistake in others, is one reason why (caeteris paribus) to give credit to their Intelligence the more securely.  
2. Mankind is forced to content themselves with Information from Testimony in multitudes of Things, which their Curiosity, or the Exigency of their Affairs do engage them to be satisfied in, and yet their own Sense or Reason can give no prospect of them.  
Those many who never crossed, nor saw the Seas, must trust others Relation; that there are such places, as Paris, Rome, Constantinople, both the Indies; where these places lie, and what their circumstances are. The reason why Men believe that they were born in such a year; on, or about such a day; and therefore that they are of such an Age; that they were Baptised, and that such is their Name; is, that they are told so. 'Tis not possible to come acquainted with Times past: and with the divers Revolutions, and Events of the numerous Ages before we were born, otherwise than by Testimony from History. If we would satisfy ourselves, whether the Books in our possession, are indeed the Works of the Authors, whose Names they bear; that, which we must have recourse to, is; that these Books have been, and are witnessed to, are generally reputed to be those Author's Works; i e. there's a general Tradition for it.  
For the two Reasons given, it is plain; that there is both a comparative safety, and likewise a necessity (in a considerable measure) of reliance upon others Testimony, and common Tradition, in many things.   

SECT. III.  
Notwithstanding what has been said on the behalf of Testimony and Tradition; yet they are not such an Oracle, that their Responses must be received indiscriminately, and without wary Examination. Though, where they well cannot mistake, or deceive; or there's little, or no temptation to misrepresent things; they may be trusty, yet both Written, and Oral Tradition are often guilty of no small failures. Of the two, Oral Tradition is subject to the more shortness and uncertainty. It is ordinary for Reports to pass from one to another, to have a general Vogue; and yet to be very false. 'Tis usual for Stories, which might be true enough in the first Relation of them, yet after they have traveled through many Mouths, to be so much altered from what they were at the first, that they look like one of Ovid's Metamorphoses. There are Traditions from Fathers, which yet the Posterity have not Faith enough, or more Wisdom than to believe. It will be found upon due Consideration, that, as when a Man hears others talking at a good distance from him, only a noise, and now and then a word or two come to his Ears, the Articulation of the rest being lost by the way; insomuch that little, if any thing is understood of what is said: So that from past and remote Ages, there arrive down to us but mere generals; confused and very short notices of things; and the Credit of those too comes weakened with acknowledgedly fabulous, or suspected intermixtures; especially is this true of those Antiquities, which mere Oral Tradition wafts to us.  
Observe Families, one would think, that considering the love which Men have for their Native Soil, the particular place of their Birth and Habitation; for their Inheritance, and for the Stock, of which they are Branches; Young Persons should be much inquisitive from their Fathers, and Fathers should delight to Story to their Children, the Circumstances pertaining to these things. Yet often (excepting some general Informations) comparatively little News is brought of such concerns, and of particulars, which happened but three or four Generations off; further than they can be certified from Registries, Deeds, and the like Writings: 'Tis not unusual for Persons to inquire of the Church-Book, how Old they are.  
Books deserve care; they are a relief of Mortality; in them the Dead Authors do in some manner survive themselves, and continue useful to the world, after they have left it. Yet what a multitude of these has Tradition suffered to perish, to be buried as well as their Authors; nothing to be left of them, except (as an Epitaph) the Titles of them! Of many there remains no more than some fragmenta, some scattered Limbs, as 'twere of a mangled Body. Several Books are fathered upon certain Authors, of whom they have, it may be, no more than the Name. Divers are more or less corrupted; some so much depraved, ut samnium in ipso samnio quaeratur, that the Books may be searched for in the very Books, and scarce found.  
Hence it follows, that Tradition is not so careful a preserver of its Deposita, as it should be; not so faithful a Relater of Things past, as that it should be thought irrefragable; and that Belief should be subjected to it promiscuously and without choice. Therefore there must be something else, and beyond it, which may instruct us how to distinguish of Testimonies and Traditions; which to mistrust, or to reject; and which to believe.  
This Director is Reason; which in its Debate and Decision of the due Credibility of Testimonies and Traditions, and of the deserved precedence of one to the other, proceeds upon the Circumstances of the Testifiers, and their qualifications. These (in general) are, 1. A sufficient knowledge of the things attested to: 2ly. Such Honesty and Integrity, as may incline the Testifiers to relate things as they know them to be. Some of the particular Rules or Cautions, in the accepting Testimonies may be, 1. The More the Testifiers are, the stronger the Testimony is, and the More are to be preferred to the Fewer (supposing a Parity of Circumstances:) 2ly. Forasmuch as generals, and the substance of things, are commonly more easily knowable, and remembered, than Particulars and minuter Circumstances, therefore Testimony may be more safely credited in the former than in the latter. 3ly. Because Integrity is least to be suspected or questioned, when not under temptation by Interest; therefore the Testimony of clear, and uninteressed Witnesses may be the more confidently admitted: 4ly. The nearer the Testifiers lived to the Times, in which what is witnessed to, was spoken or done, the more valuable their Testimony is, for the greater the remove is from what is Evidenced to, the more accidents might intervene for the clouding and misrepresentation of it.  
By this it appears, that Reason's Court is the Sovereign Judicatory, where lies the last Appeal; here it being to be determined concerning the competency and validness of the Testimony or Tradition.  
So much of Tradition in general (whose so near alliance to Testimony at large makes them much to agree in their use and force;) what it is; in what matter most properly useful and argumentative: It's Efficacy, and yet it's Failures, into what it is lastly resolved; where the relief lies against a deception by it in its Vntrustiness.  
I shall proceed next to consider Tradition, Oral Tradition, more particularly, and distinctly, and as applied to Religion.    

CHAP. II. Of Oral Tradition, as it is applied to Religion; and there, what is allowed to it, what denied.  

SECT. I.  
I Come now nearer to the Question, which being moved both of Oral Traditions, and of the Sacred Writings, Trustiness, and Certainty of Conveyance of Divine Truths, etc. I shall give them a distinct Consideration.  
And first I shall inquire: How sure and safe an immediate Conservatory and Conveyance Oral Tradition is of Divine Truths (more speculative, or more immediately practical, fundamental, or others) down from their first delivery to the Church through succeeding Ages.  
And before further procedure; it is granted, that Oral Tradition is of use in Religion; yet not so much solitary, and by itself, as in conjunction with Tradition Written.  
1. It is yielded, that tho' there be many 
(a) 
Dr. Cousins, the late Reverend Lord Bishop of Duresme, in his Scholast. History of the Canon of Scripture, pag. 4, 5.  
— Ecclesia Testis est, & custos sacrarum Literarum.— Ecclesiae Officium est, ut ver as, germanas, ac genuinas Scripturas, a falsis, supposititiis, ac adulterinis dijudicet, ac discernat. D. Whitak. de S. Script. Controu. 1. Quest. 3. Cap. 2.  
Article of Religion. 20.   internal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Arguments clear in the Scriptures themselves, whereby we may be sufficiently assured, that they were breathed from a Divine Spirit, and are truly the Word of God. Yet as to the particular and just number of those Sacred Books; every Verse and Sentence in them, whether they be more or fewer; we have no better External and Ministerial assurance, than the Constant, and Recorded Testimony of the Catholic Church, from one Generation to another, which is a Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ.  
2ly. It is confessed, that there are many particular Truths, which have had the universal, continued Profession, and Oral Attestation of the Christian Church from the Primitive to the present Times.  
3ly. It is not denied, but that if there had been no Scriptures, yet Oral Tradition might have derived some Truths to Posterity.  
4ly. Let any Points be recommended to us by so large an Approbation, and Certificate from Tradition, as Sacred Scriptures have, and we shall receive them with all beseeming regard. But then,  
1. We deny, that Oral Tradition is sufficient to preserve to us, and to ascertain us of the several particular Truths, which concern Christian Belief and Practice, together with the Sense of the Sacred Books.  
2ly. Tho' there are several Divine Truths, which have had the universal, and continued Profession of the Church; yet we deny, it would have been so happy, if there had been no Scriptures.  
3ly. Though there had been no Scriptures, Oral Tradition might have sent down some Truths to Posterity: But they would have been but few, and those too blinded with erroneous Appendages; most would have been lost; as in Hurricanes, and among Rocks and Sands, some Vessels may weather it out, yet shattered, but how many Perish!  
4ly. As to the last thing; sure, our Adversaries can't justly charge us with the contrary; there being no Point maintained by them, and denied by us, which has so ample a Recommendation.  
But I shall resume the first Concession, and the annexed Denial, and shall add: That there is a great difference between Tradition's Testification concerning the Scriptures; and Tradition's conserving the many Divine Truths, and Sense of them, and the safe transmitting them to all succeeding times. We may rely upon Tradition for the former, which is a more general thing, and in which Tradition was less obnoxious to Error; and yet not trust it for the latter, which abounds in such a variety of Particulars, in which there is the greater liableness to mistake and failance. The difference I urge may be illustrated thus;  
Suppose, one informs me of a Guide in my Journey; I credit and accept of that Information, and thank the Informant. But I rest no farther on him; but follow the Guide in the several Stages of my Journey. Or suppose, one directs me to a very Honest Man, and a very knowing Witness in my Cause: When he has done so, it is not He, but the Witness, on whom I must depend for a success in my Suit: Nay, if the Witness should chance to depose against him, I may rationally believe him, and he can't refuse the Evidence because he himself, recommended him to me, as a very credible Deponent.  
The Application is obvious. The Church's Tradition testifies, 
2 Tim. 3.15, 16, 17. Isa. 8.20.  that the Scriptures are the Oracles of God. These Oracles of God are a Guide, a Witness, in the things of God, and which belong to Man's Salvation: They affirm so much of themselves; and because they are Divine Oracles, and testified by the Church so to be, they must be believed by us in that Claim. Why now, tho' we own and pay Thanks to the Church's Tradition for the Preservation of Holy Scriptures, and Direction of Us to Them; yet we are not therefore bound to resign our Faith universally to the Tradition of the Church; but we may trust ourselves with Scriptures Guidance, and Testimony in all particular Matters of Faith and Practice. Yes, and if these Scriptures Witness against the Church's Tradition, against some Opinions, and Practices of it, for which Tradition is pretended; we ought to believe the Scriptures; and Tradition can't fairly decline the Testimony, tho' against itself.   

SECT. II.  
But against this it is urged: That there can be no Arguing against Tradition out of Scripture. The reason is, 
Sure Footing in Christianity p. 100L.  because there can be no certainty of Scripture without Tradition: This must first be supposed certain, before the Scripture can be held such. Therefore to argue against Tradition out of Scripture, is to discourse from what is (Tradition being disallowed) uncertain; which can't be a solid way of Argumentation.  
To this I reply: (Omitting, that Tradition is not the only means of our Certitude about Scripture,) That the Exception does not invalidate what I have said; for thus it is: We do confess to receive the Scriptures upon the Church's universal Tradition; and we allow this Testimony to be (in its kind) very useful and sufficiently certain; and this certainty of Tradition, quoad hoc, for the Intelligencing us concerning Scripture, is supposed by us. But then we do, and may, argue from Scripture thus supposed certain, against Tradition, i. e. against what is uncertain, or false in it, viz. Any such Points of Faith, or Practice; or such Senses of Scripture, as it would obtrude upon us; when as yet they are perhaps contrary to Scripture; and the Tradition is far short of being Universal; it may be, is very narrow, or feigned, rather than real. So that we do not proceed upon an Uncertainty, but upon what is certain by Universal Tradition (i.e. That the Books of the Old and New Testament, in the Number that we have them, are the Holy Scriptures, and Oracles of God) against what is affirmed, and can be proved by us, to be uncertain or false, in Tradition. As, in a like case: Scholars argue from what is true and clear in Reason, against what is false or dubious, tho' it have Reason pretended for it: Thus discoursing from Reason against Reason; i. e. from what is really such, against what is such, but in name and appearance.  
The sum and result of the Premises is this: That, as we do not take Tradition's Word for all the Doctrines or Practices, and Senses of Scripture, it would impose on us; though we accept of Tradition's Evidence concerning the Scriptures, as was in the beginning of this Chapter acknowledged: So nor are we obliged to the former, by acknowledgement of the latter.  
Having stated what may be allowed, and what is denied to Oral Tradition: Next it shall be examined, what Reason and Experience suggest against its sureness and safety of Conveyance: and likewise (after that) what either can pretend on its behalf.    

CHAP. III. Reasons against the Certainty and Safety of Conveyance of Divine Truths by Oral Tradition.  

SECT. I.  
IT is asserted; That the Body of the Faithful from Age to Age are the Traditioners of Divine Truths; 
Sure Footing. p. 60.100, 101.  that in reality Tradition, rightly understood, is the same thing materially with the living Voice and Practice of the whole Church essential, consisting of Pastors and Laiety.  
Now, before Reason can acquiesce in a Tradition by Pastors and Laiety, it must (according to what has been premised) be well satisfied in the fitness of the Testifiers.  
The Qualifications of Persons for a due Testification (especially in so weighty a matter as Religion) are, 1. Good knowingness of Fathers, and Ancestors in Religion; as also due care and diligence of Fathers in teaching their Children; together with good Apprehensions, Memory, and Tractableness in the Children and Posterity. 2ly. Such a measure of Integrity, through all descents, as may secure the successive Testifiers against all temptations unto swerving from what they received from Fathers. Let these Qualifications be farther considered of.  
1. The first Requisites are good Knowingness of Fathers, together with Care and Diligence; as also Apprehension, Memory, and Tractableness in Children; let us examine how far these may be found in the Laiety.  
I believe, that the value and zeal for Religion in the first and golden Age of the Church made Father's diligent to teach, and Youth to learn. But I doubt, that this Temper (as is incident to Religious Fervors) might cool afterwards; and that when Emperors became Christians, Ease and Prosperity might beget a restiveness, and neglect both in Ancestors, and Posterity. How well Fathers of Families did perform their part, and how docile Children have been, throughout the many hundred years before us, is out of our Ken. But if we may guests at times past (as there is often a likeness in some measure of the ways of Men in one Age, to those in another) by the times present, and nearer to us, it is to be wished, (I fear rather than it will be found) that all, or most Fathers and Governors of Families were such as Abraham, 
Gen. 18.19. Josh. 24.15.  and Joshua. Religion is too little minded in too many Families: The use of a Catechism is too rare; and That, when used, is often little understood, and less remembered. Commonly Parents teach their Children the Lord's Prayer, Creed, and Ten Commandments; and that is well. But these Rudiments are too slender a stock for Children to set up with, as qualified Conveyers of the Body of the Christian Faith. And if even these should pass down long by word of Mouth, and not be Written, they would be in danger of Maims or Corruptions.  
But it may be thought, 
Dr. James, in his Manuduction to Divinity. p. 108. Ex. Jo. Avent. Conc. Bas. & M. S.  that Spiritual Fathers instruct Young and Old both, and capacitate them better for being Oral Traditioners.  
Yet, when the Priests were Fools, Stocks, and slothful Beasts; when they had neither Scientiam, nor Conscientiam; neither Knowledge, nor Conscience; (as it was complained in Old time) it is not likely, that then the Clergy were very careful to instruct the Laiety; or that the Laiety should learn much from such a Clergy. When of far later years, some in Ireland, 
(a) The reverend Archbishop Usher, in a Sermon Preached before the King, June 20. 1624. on Eph. 4.13.  who would be accounted Members of the Roman Church, being demanded what they thought of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; not only rejected it with indignation; but wondered also, that it should be imagined, any of their side should be so foolish, as to give Credit to such a senseless thing: When throughout a County in England, 
(b) Dr. J. White, in his Preface to, The way to the true Church.  the Vulgar Papists were unable to render an account of their Faith, or to understand the Points of the Catechism, and uttered their Creed in a Gibberish, ridiculous to others, and unintelligible by themselves: Then the Priests failed in teaching the People, or the People in teachableness.  
But, perhaps it has been otherwise since; and was then in those Countries, where the Public and Authorised Profession of the Roman Religion gave their Clergy more freedom of Access to, and of Conversation with, the Laiety. Yet, there's an Opinion of the Romanists, which will not much forward the diligent instructing of the Laiety in the Religion of Forefathers, viz. That 
(a) The Author of Charity mistaken, etc. In Dr. Potter 's Answer to it. pag. 183. 200, 201.  it suffices the Vulgar to believe implicitly what the Church teaches: And that by virtue of such an implicit Faith, a Cardinal Bellarmine, and a Catholic Collier are of the same Belief. This implicit Faith makes quick work, and supersedes a distinct knowledge of Divine Truths; and than what much need is there of a careful Teaching them? They, who speak not so broadly, yet 
(a) Azor Instit. Mor. Part 1. Lib. 8. Cap. 6. Sect. Tertiò quaeritur. Et Sect. Sed mihi probabilius, & verius.  say, it is the common Opinion of Divines, that it is necessary to believe explicitly no more than the Apostles Creed (or the fourteen Articles, as they speak.) Nay, some hold too, that if this explicit Belief be only of the substance of the Articles confusedly and generally, it is sufficient. But, by leave of these Authors, such an explicit Belief of the Apostles Creed only, (much less a confused, and general Belief) cannot be sufficient (howsoever sufficient it may be for other purposes) to qualify the Laiety for that great Purpose, which, in these Papers, I am treating of.  
But let the utmost be supposed, viz. That the Clergy now do, and formerly did, discharge their Pastoral Duty, as amply and faithfully, as is requisite; yet the People's usual immersion in secular business, and distractions; their oscitancy in Religious matters, slowness of Understanding, frailty of Memory, in the things of God, would hugely hazard their proficiency in so large and clear a knowledge, as might fit them to be Authentic trusties in the Delivery of the Christian Faith from Generation to Generation.  
What I have writ in this Section, proceeds not in the least from an humour of reproaching any; not from any contempt of the Laiety; or, as if I expected they should be Divines. I pay Acknowledgement, and Honour to many of the Laiety for their singular Accomplishments in Religious Knowledge and Virtue: And it is out of question with me (as much as with any) that the rest of them may with their lesser measures of knowledge (for they have not generally advantages for higher Attainments; and the merciful God will not expect to Reap where he has not Sowed) live good Christians, and be saved for ever. My only aim (and that in prosecution of my undertaking) has been to show; how incompetent and very casual Traditioners the Laiety, (who are exceedingly the greater part of the Body of the Faithful) generally are of Divine Truths, in so full and distinct a manner, as may be for their preservation and security against the emerging encroachments of the contrary Errors through all Ages. So that by far the greatest weight and strength of Oral Tradition must lie upon the Clergy; whose proper business Religion is; whose Lips should preserve knowledge; and the People should seek the Law at their Mouth. Yet in that very place, where it is thus said of the Priests, it immediately follows: But ye [Priests] are gone out of the way, 
Mal. 2.7, & 8.  ye have caused many to stumble at the Law, etc. Their performance had not answered their Duty.  
But (to say no more of that) how little Clergy and Laiety both are to be relied on, as to an Oral indefectible Conveyance of Divine Truths shall be seen on a second account, in the next Section.   

SECT II.  
2ly. To an exact and constant steadiness of Tradition there is requisite an Integrity, a clearness of Spirit, an unencumbrance of Christians through all Ages, with any thing which might sway them to a Belief or Profession, contrary to that of the first Age.  
Now, if we look abroad into the World, we shall see, that commonly Men take up this or that Profession, side with this or that Party in Religion, more upon the score of Education, Example, or Interest, upon some extrinsic Motive; or upon some short and confuse Apprehensions; than upon an explicit knowledge, or at the least a truly solid Conviction of those Tenants, by which those Parties are distinguished. But to proceed more particularly.  
Among others, there are four things, which have an usual and powerful Operation upon men's Belief and Profession, to the changing or smothering their Persuasions, and the corruption of their Practice.  
1. A wantonness of Reason is very incident to Mankind. Man loves Variety; and conversing here below with little but what is mutable, in an unhappy kind of imitation learns to affect change; and is apt to be cloyed with old Truths, as with a wontedness to all things else. The hankering after some New things was not peculiar to the Athenians, and Strangers among them, but is an itch natural to all. And to cherish this affection for Novelty, there have not wanted Broachers of new Opinions in most Ages of the Church.  
2ly. There's an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinary enough; a bending the stick too much the other way, on pretence to make it straight; a Recoil from one Extremity to another: Out of keenness in contending for a Truth, a Zeal for it, it has not been unusual to , and to retreat from an Error too far on the contraty side. Both 
(a) Illud interim caven●um, ne Erroris unius odio devolvamur in alium errorem. Id si nullis fere veterum non accidit aliquâ ex parte, equidem non deprecabor hominis ociosi notam, qui haec admoneam. Tertullianus, dum nimis acriter pugn●t aaversus eos qui plus sat is tribuebant Matrimonio, delatus est in alteram foveam:— Hieronymus tanto ardore pugnat adversus eos, qui Matrimonium efferebant, cum injuriâ Virginitatis; ut ipse sub iniquo Judice vix possit suam tueri causam, si reus fiat parum reverenter tractati Conjugis, & Digamiae. Montanus, dum ardentiùs oppugnat ill●s qui passim dignis, & indignis aperiebant Ecclesiae fores, plus satis taxatâ severitate disciplinae Ecclesiasticae, in diversum incidit malum. D. Augustinus, adv●●s●s Pelagium toto studio dimicans, ali●●bi minus tribuit Libero arbitrio, quàm tribuendum putant, qui nunc in scholis regnant Theologicis. Possem hujus gener●s exempla permulta commemorare, etiam ex recentioribus. Sed praestat (opinor) in re odiosâ non esse admedum copiosum. In Epistolâ praefatoriâ ad Opera Sti. Hilarti.  Erasmus, and 
(b) Ardebant veteres Illi tanto sincerae pietatis, & Catholicae defensienis ardere, ut dum unum errorem omnium virium conatu destruere annituntur, saepe in alterum errorem oppositum deciderent, vel quodammodo decidisse videantur.— Sic Dienysius Corinthiorum Antistes, etc. In Praefatione Lib. 5ti. Bibliothecae Stae.  Sixtus Senensis, have given us Instances of this in several of the Ancients; as may be seen in the Margin.  
3. It has not been uncommon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have men's Persons in admiration, (and that not alone for Advantage, but) for their Learning, and Piety; so highly to revere them, as before Christians were ware, to become over-credulous, and to follow their Conduct. Some Heretics have been of sufficient Learning, and appearing Sanctity; and have been adhered to in the Church by no small number of Proselytes. The Reputation for Virtue, which once Pelagius had with St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine; his several Works; who were his Followers; what noise his Opinions made in the Christian World; and how the Relics of them were continued among the Massilians or Semipelagians, may be seen at large in 
(a) Historia Pelag. lib. 1. cap. 3.4, 5, 6, 7.  Vossius.  
4ly. What a strong influence have Hopes and Fears upon Men! Hopes of Ease, Profit, Preferment by their pleasing Insinuations gain great command over the Soul, and are apt to bribe the Judgement. Fear of Evil, of Confiscations, Imprisonments, Gibbets, and Stakes (tho' they are no proper Topiques to convince the Reason, yet) work hugely upon the Passions: And Men are often frighted from those Opinions, out of which they could not have been fairly and quietly disputed.  
It is the Observation of a Learned and Honourable 
(b) The Lord ●f Falkland, in his Reply, p 122.  Person, That in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth 's Reign, of many thousand Live which are in England, the Incumbents of not an hundred chose rather to lose their Benefices for Popish Opinions, than to keep them by subscribing to the Tenants of the Reformed Church of England: All who (for the greater part) must be supposed for private Interest to have dissembled their Religion, either then, or immediately before.  
But if we look higher, there is what is much more remarkable: It is Famous, there was a time when the 
(a)— Tum haeresis Arrii prorupit, totúmque Orbem, invecto Errore, turbaverat. Etenim duobus Arriis, acerrimishujus perfidiae Autoribus, Imperator etiam depravatur. Dúmque sibi Religionis Officium videtur implere, vim persecutionis exercuit: actique in Exilium Episcopi, saevitum in Clericos, animadversum in Laicos, qui se ab Arrianorum communione secreverant. Sulpic. Seu. Sac. Histor. Lib. 2.  World turned Arrian, the Orthodox Profession being under Persecution.  
After what has been said, among such hazards, such incident Biassing of the Affections and Judgement, how unsafe must an Oral Tradition be; i. e. the trusting of the great Concerns of Religion with Man's good Nature, his Constancy, and Faithfulness to Divine Truths, through Ages!  
But it may be, it will be replied to the mention of the Doctrines of Arrius and Pelagius; and the bustle they made in the Christian world; that yet the Catholic Doctrines did recover, and pass to after-Ages. And we are told, that 
(a) Sure Footing, p. 118, 119.  erroneous Opinions, and absurd Practices (tho' they may creep into the Church, and spread there awhile, yet) can never gain any solid Footing in the Church: Forasmuch as the Church is a Body of Men relying on Tradition, or the Authority of Attesting Forefathers, not on the Authority of Opinators, etc.  
In return to this, 'Tis confessed, that the Doctrines assaulted by Arrius and Pelagius were rescued, and preserved. But,  
1. In, and about that time, there was such a Constellation of Pious and Learned Lights of the Church, as could scarce be paralleled in the Ages before, or afterwards. This might be an especial Cause, that those Truths outlived their Opposition. It may be questioned, whether if the Errors of Arrius, or Pelagius, had been started, and as vigorously managed, in the Ignorant, and Corrupt Ages, which followed afterwards, they might not have found as easy an Entertainment, and have as generally prevailed, as some other Errors did.  
2ly. But how will it be proved, that it was by the strength of Oral Tradition, that these Truths were recovered, and continued? To speak only of the Divinity of Christ impugned by Arrius: (besides what has been said in the foregoing part) 1. There was manifestly a Civil Cause interposing for the Restauration of a public and free Profession of it. For as the Frown of the Prince, Constantius, and his Party armed with force, suppressed the Orthodox Opinion: So the contrary inclination, and favour of succeeding Princes, countenance from the secu●ular Power, restored it. So that this Resurrection of that Truth was not from Orel Traditions strength, an impossibility of its sailure; but was owed to Causes extrinsic; and which might, or might not have been. For there was no necessity, that the Emperers should be Orthodox, or Favourers of the Orthodox Opinion; and if they had continued still Arrian, and Persecutors of the Orthodox; and so there had been still the same Fears; it is as likely, that Arrianisme would still have been the general Profession, as it is, That the same Cause still existing, and working after the same manner, would produce the same Effect. 2ly. If we look after the Religious Cause, why may we not ascribe the Revival of the Truth to Holy Scriptures? For the Fathers had recourse to Them, during its Depression, and after it.  

(a) 
— Vnum hoc ego per hanc dignationis tue sinceram audientiam rogo: ut praesente Synodo, quae nunc de fide litigat, paucis me de Scriptures Evangelicis digneris audite.—  
Fidem Imperator quaeris, aud● eam non de novis cha●tulis, sed de Dei libris.—  
Audi, rogo, ea, quae de Christo sunt Scripta, ne sub eis ea quae non Scripta sunt, praedi●entur. Summitte ad ea, quae de libris locuturus sum. aures tuas. In Lib●o ad Constantium Augus●um, propiùs ●●em.   St. Hilary, Truth's great Champion against the Arrians, is frequent in Citation of Scripture for it. And in his Address to Constantius: He entreats that Constantius would vouchsafe (the Synod being present, which debated about the Faith) to hear him in a few words from the Evangelical Scriptures. And soon afterwards:— Thou requirest my Faith, O Emperor; hear it, not from new Papers, but from the Books of God. Where He opposes New Papers, or Writings, not to Ancient Oral Tradition, but to the Divine Books. There is something more to the like Sense in the Margin.  
After him 
(a) 
Nec ego Nicaenam Synodum tibi, nec tu Arimenensem mihi debes, tanquam praejudicaturus, objicere. Scripturarum authoritatibus res cum re, causa cum causa, ratio cum ratione concertet.  
Contra Maxim. Lib. 3 Cap. 14.   St. Augustine tells the Arrian Maximinus: He would not object to him the Synod of Nice, nor should he urge to him that of Ariminum; but he would have the dispute to be managed by Authority of Scriptures.  
That, which was thus used in Proof and Defence of this Article of Faith both under Persecution, and after it, why may not That deserve to have the honour of its Preservation, and Restitution, viz. the Holy Scripture? Especially when as Holy Scriptures, being an unvaried and permanent Standard in all alterations of the Church's State, have an aptitude for such a Purpose; whereas Oral Tradition has no probable Energy for it.  
For they of that Age, when Arrianism was generally regnant, either really changed their Judgement about the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father; and then (according to our Adversaries Principle) they would teach their Children, as they judged, and believed themselves, and so the Arrian Opinion would have continued: Or they smothered, and dissembled their Opinion out of fear, and professed contrarily to their Judgement. And in this Hypocrisy either their Children discovered them, or not. If not, then much the same Effect would follow. If they did know it, than they would scruple to believe them even in other Truths as Witnesses (and Traditioners are no more than such.) For Hypocrisy weakens the Credit of a Witness, and gets him this disadvantage, that he will be the more hardly believed, even when he speaks truth. And in this particular Truth, Children would have been put at the least to the stand. For tho' the Posterity might satisfy themselves, that the Age before the last generally embraced the Tenent contrary to the Arrian; yet they might be tempted to doubt, whether (as their immediate Fathers made show of believing the Opinion they secretly condemned; so) in remoter Ages Forefathers might not publicly profess the Divinity of Christ, rather out of compliance with the humour of the Times they lived in, than from their Hearts; and so the Tenent might have stolen down through following Ages, the manner of its old reception, and Hypocritical Profession being lost: For why might not Dissimulation be incident to one, to a former Age, as well as to another, a latter? And all this would be much more true, when an Error should possess the Church longer than the Arrian did.  
Having now examined by Reason's Test the two necessary Qualifications of the Testifiers, and Guardians of Christian Faith through Centuries of Years; and having proved, that the Dove can find no rest for the sole of her foot; that they are too fluid and sinking for Divine Truth to fix on, to conside in for safety in her passage through the many hazards of Time: I go on to Experience; and to consider what the actual performance of Oral Tradition has been, how faithfully it has acquitted itself.    

CHAP. iv Experience against Oral Traditions, being a safe and certain Conveyance of Divine Truths.  

SECT. I.  
IF Oral Tradition be a certain and infallible Conveyance of Divine Truths, which is the ground of its pretended Supreme Authority in Religion; then there has been an Uniformity, a constancy of the same Belief of the Church, from the first through following Ages.  
The Divine Scriptures indeed may retain their Integrity and Authority, though They, who own them as the only certain Conveyance and Rule of Faith, swerve from Them, and vary from one another, because they do not attend to, or misunderstand them (as, tho' some things in St. Paul's Epistles, 
2 Pet. 3.16.  and other Scriptures were wrested by the unlearned and unstable to their own destruction; who also differed from those who truly understood them; yet notwithstanding those passages in St. Paul, and those other Scriptures, remained still Canonical.) But Oral Tradition does so intimately and necessarily include in it a successive Harmony of Forefathers and Posterities Belief (it being a continued Testification of the one to the other,) that if this Coherence fails; if after Age's Belief contrariate that of the Primitive Age; if one Church's Belief opposes that of another contemporaneous with it, or perhaps agrees not well with itself at the same time, or else with what it was in times precedent; then the Conveyance breaks; and so Oral Tradition forfeits its claim to Infallibility, and consequently its arrogated Authority.  
Let us then observe, what the harmony and agreement of the Church's Belief has been through the several Ages of the World, from the first Delivery of the Truths believed.   

SECT. II.  
When God made Man, he endowed him with such a rectitude of Nature, as might enable him to glorify his great Maker, and to attain to his own Happiness. And when Man had by eating of a forbidden Fruit, contracted a general Ataxy of Soul, and particularly a great dimness of Understanding; God was pleased to relieve him, and to repair the decays of his Knowledge of what concerned him for Spiritual and Eternal purposes: Especially, doubtless God instructed him (so far as he wanted supernatural Information) about his Nature and Unity, and how he would be Worshipped. And questionless, the first Father of Mankind, and the succeeding Patriarches, did diligently teach their Children, what they themselves had received from God. And their exceeding long Lives gave them a peculiar opportunity to Catechise their Posterities through several Generations; and to recover them upon any revolt from primitive belief, or practice; and the extraordinary length of their lives was also equivalent to a greater number of Traditioners. Adam, after the birth of Seth, lived 800 years, with his Children, and children's Children, and above 200 of those 800 years with Methusalah, whose death was but a very little before the period of the old World. Methusalah was Noah's Contemporary, very near 600 years. Noah (that Preacher of Righteousness) survived with his descendants 350 Years after the Flood. And before their dispersion, and Plantation in remote places, They (especially the Heads of the Colonies) had been educated, and influenced by Noah, that just Man; and whom Gods familiarity with him, and special care over him, aught to have rendered most venerable, and Them very dutifully sequacious of Him.  
So likewise the two first Traditioners, were incomparably considerable; Adam and Eve, were the greatest Miracles that ever were. They could assure the World, that they had a Being, when as yet there was none of their own Kind, besides them: That they had near converse with the God that made them, (the Man of the Dust, the Woman of a Rib of the Man.) They could truly relate to their Children many strange things of the World, its State before, and presently upon Sin. And 'tis likely there was such an Impress of Majesty upon the First Father of Mankind, and a Prophet (as Josephus calls him) as might, and doubtless did, much awe his Children into an obsequious Regard to what he told them. Then too in the days of Noah, the drowning of the World in stupendious Waters, and the Confusion of Tongues at the building of Babel were so rare and astonishing Wonders, 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Jos. Antiq. Jud. Lib. 1. Cap. 4.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Joseph. Ibid.   as the world never since saw, and the memory of them so continued, and spread though the following Ages, that the Flood, and the (a) Ark were mentioned by all Barbarian Historians; and that (b) confusion at Babel was spoke of by a certain Sibyl, and by 
(c) Hago Grotius, ex Eusebio, in Annotatis ad Lib. de Veritate Religi. Christ. pag. 244.  Abydenus.  
One would think, that here was Defence enough, of Tradition from miscarriage; yet notwithstanding all this, as the general Practice of Mankind was so vile, All Flesh had so corrupted his way upon Earth, (which is all the account, that Scripture egives) that God was provoked to wash the Earth clean in a Deluge, so not long after the Flood, there was a great defection (in Practice, and Opinion also) from what had been delivered from Pious Fathers, concerning God, and the true Worship of Him; those Fathers, who were very qualified Testifiers; and who reported to their Children, such Divine Wonders; as both might answer, for the want of a greater Number of lesser Miracles, and likewise make the Children to dread to reject what was delivered from God by Them. Yet for all this, (I say) corrupt Notions of God, and of his Worship crept in; Polytheism, and Idolatry, entered the World. Even 
(d) Josh. 24.2.  Terah (who lived with Noah 127 years) and other Fathers of the Holy Abraham, served other Gods. And how widely, Polytheism, Idolatry, and Superstition afterwards spread in the World, and what a long possession they kept of it, is notorious.  
Thus the world apostatised and passed a Recovery by Oral Tradition, which rather confirmed it in its Apostasy, for thus Symmachus pleads for Heathenism: 
(e) Suus cuique mos, suus cuique ritus est. Jam si longa aetas ●●thoritatem religionibus faciat, servanda est tot Seculis fides: et sequendi sunt nobis Parents, qui faeliciter secuti sunt suos. Symmachi V C. Relatio ad Valent. Theodos. &: Arcad. Augustos, pro veteri Deòrum cultu adversus Christianos.  Every People have their custom, each their Rites. Now if long time can give authority to Religions, belief is to be given to so many ages, and we ought to follow our Fathers, who have happily followed Theirs.  
Unto which the Christian Poet Prudentius replies, to this Sense.  
If there be such a studiousness and care of Antique Custom, and it pleases not to departed from old Rites: There is extant in ancient Books, (He means the Scriptures) a Noble Instance; that even in the time of the Deluge, or before, the Family or People, who first inhabited the new Earth, and dwelled in the empty World, served but one God, whence our continued Race derives its pedigree, and reforms the Laws of the Piety of the Native Country.  
— Si tantum sludium est, & cura vetusti  
Moris, & a prisco placet haud descedere ritu;  
Extat in antiquis exemplum Nobile libris,  
Jam tunc diluvii sub temporae, vel priùs, Vni  
Ins●rvisse Deo gentem, quae prima recentes  
Incoluit terras, vacuoque habitavit in Orb.  
Vnde genus ducit nostrae porrecta propago  
Stirpis, & indigenae pietatis jura reformatis.  Aurel: Prudentius contra Symmachum. Lib. 2.  

SECT. III.  
The State of Religion being so crazed, the world being so corrupt in Opinion and Practice, God vouchsafed to reveal Himself to Abraham, and the other Patriarches, and at the last singled out the posterity of Abraham for his peculiar People, 
Ps. 78.5.6.7, 8. Deut. 6.6, 17.  and established a Testimony in Jacob, appointed a Law in Israel, which he commanded the Fathers: that they should make them known to their Children. That the Generation to come might know them, even the Children which should be born, who should arise and declare them to their Children; that they might set etc. Among these Laws, God commanded the owning, and Worship of himself, exclusively, of all pretended Deities whatsoever. He prescribed, in the greatest accuracy, the Substance, and very punctilios of his worship. And to fence these sacred Injunctions, the better to preserve them from violation, at the first delivery of them, God struck an holy dread into the People by Thundrings and Lightnings, and a thick Cloud, so that all in the Camp trembled: 
Exod. 19.16.  nay, so terrible was the sight, that Moses himself said, I exceedingly fear and quake. 
Heb. 12.21.  And to make all the more sure, there was superadded an explicit and formal Covenant between God and the people, solemnised with the sprinkling of Blood, part of it on the Altar, 
Exod. 24.3, 4.5.  and part on the People; and all the People answered with one Voice, and said; All the words, which the Lord hath said, will we do.  
What a large and exact Provision was here made for the safe descending of what God had committed to the People unto all Generations, and for the making them trusty Traditioners! yet how strangely were they ever and anon declining from the purity of what had been delivered to them; Fathers and Children profaning the Divine Worship, and dishonouring God, by the mixtures of Heathenish Rites, and Idolatrous Abominations.  
In the Chain of Tradition the first Link broke. That very People, who had so lately trembled at Mount Sinai, yet, tho' still so near that Mount, danced before a Golden Calf: saying, These be thy Gods, 
Exod. 32.4  O Israel which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt. If this fall out so early, how much more likely was it, that the conveyance of Religion in its purity to after Ages should fail! And the event was answerable. The Books of Judges, Kings, and Chronicles, and of several of the Prophets, so abound in examples of almost perpetual, and general defections from the Ancient Faith, and Practice, that many quotations are needless, two will be enough. 1. In the Reign of Ahab, Elijah mourned to God, that he only was left of the true Worshippers in Israel (at the least of the true Prophets,) 
1 Kings 19.10.18.  and that even his life was in danger. And tho' the Allseeing God comforted him by the account of seven thousand, who had not bowed the knee to Baal: Yet (as it seems, this was to Elijah an invisible Church; so) what were these seven thousand to the multitudes of the rest of Israel? 2ly. In Judah, so great and criminous was the Falling off from what God had anciently ordained, that good Josiah rend his Clothes, when he heard the words of the Books of the Law read; 
2 Kings 22.11.  and compared former and present Practice with what was there commanded.  
Such were the Apostasies of the Jewish Church from Primitive Doctrine, and instituted Worship, and for a long time, and without any relief, and restitution from Oral Tradition (the intervening Reformation in Josiah's Reign was owed to the Holy Scriptures:) 
2 Kings. 23.2, 3.  Till God revenged those miscarriages sharply, but very righteously, first upon the ten Tribes, and afterwards upon the remaining two.  
The two Tribes after seventy years' Correction returned home, rebuilt their City and Temple. But in time they split into several Sects, which were so many degeneracies from the first Purity of their Religion. Our Blessed Lord reproved them for their corrupt Traditions, as being a vain Worship, 
Math. 15.3.9.  and Evacuations of the Commandments of God.  
The Jews have amongst them an Oral Tradition, expository of the Law Written, and given (as is said by them) by God to Moses, entrusted by Moses with Joshua, and the seventy Elders; and by them transmitted down from one Generation to another. This that People have in 
(a)— Video Hebraeos omnes— Legem, quae per os tradita est, tanti facere, ut eam non modò aequent Legi Scriptae, sed long anteferant, tanquam animam corpori; quò sine eâ impossibile sit, ut ipsis videtur, Legem Scriptam intelligere aut observare: adeoque sine eâ Lex tota non sit nisi corpus ●ine Spiritu, etc. Episcopii Instit. Theol. L. 3. C. 4.  very high estimation, preferring it to the very Scriptures, and honouring it with room in their Creed; of which one Article is: 
(a) Leo Modena: History of the present Jews, etc. Translated by Mr. Chilmead. p. 248.  I believe that the Law, which was given by Moses, was wholly dictated by God, and that Moses put not in one Syllable of himself: And so likewise that that which we have by Tradition, by way of Explication of the Precepts of the other, hath all of it proceeded from the Mouth of God, delivering it to Moses. Yet Learned Men judge this fardel of Traditions to be a very 
(b) Episcop. Ibid. Cap. 6. per to●.  Figment; and that in some Age or other, Ancestors have imposed on the Credulity of their Posterity; that Tradition has recommended to them, That, as deriving from God which never had so sacred and infallible an Author.  
After the foregoing Observation of the Church; and how little agreeingly with its first Model Tradition preserved it for two me morable and large Periods of Time, I proceed to the Christian Church.   

SECT. iv  
Being come to the Christian Church, let us first take some account of the more early Ages of it.  
As soon as the good Seed was sown, the Enemy came, and sowed Tares among the Wheat. Tradition was not so viligant, but that many corrupt Doctrines and Practices quickly arose, and spread in the Church. Else St. August. might have spared his Book of Heresies, or the Catalogue would have been shorter.  
But I shall insist on two or three Opinions only, which have been anciently countenanced by great Names; and have been of considerable continuance in the Church, and are now generally rejected, by the Church of Rome, as well as by others.  
1. That after the Resurrection, Jerusalem should be new built, adorned, and enlarged; and that Believers in Christ should Reign with him there a thousand years; was very early believed. Papias (the Scholar of St. John) Irenaeus, Apollinarius, Tertullian, Victorinus, Lactantius, Severus, and a great multitude of Catholic Persons were of this Judgement. St. Hierome, tho' he did not hold, yet neither would he condemn this Opinion, because many Ecclesiastical Persons and Martyrs had owned it. And St. Augustine thought the Tenent tolerable, if abstracted from any carnality of Pleasures; and confesses, that he himself once held it. We have all this in 
(a) Bibl. Stae. Lib. 5. Annot. 233. & Lib. 6. Annot. 347.  Sixtus Senensis.  
But 
(b) 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  
Contra Tryphonem. p. 307.   Justine Martyr, Elder than either St. Hierome, or St. Augustine, speaks of the Millenarian Doctrine, as that which was embraced by all thorough Orthodox Christians of his time: which affirmation (whatsoever is opposed out of him elsewhere to the diminution of it) must mean, that at the least a very great number of Christians were thus Opinioned.  
And though the Judgement of more sober Christians was more clean and inoffensive concerning the Millenarian Reign, yet the apprehensions of many were more gross and sensual; as were those of the Cerinthians, as 
(a) Cerinthiani— mille quoque annos post resurrectionem in terreno regno Christi secundum carnales ventris, & lihidin●s voluptates futuros fabulantur: unde etiam Chiliastae sunt appellati. De Haeres. Cap. 8.  St. Augustine tell us, and that they were called Chiliasts.  
According to 
(b) In Johan. cap. 6.  Maldonate; St. Augustine's, and Innocent's the first Opinion of the necessity of the Eucharist to Infants, prevailed in the Church about six hundred years.  
This practice of Communicating of Infants is acknowledged by 
(c) Ut enim sanctissimi illi patres sui facti probabilem causam, pro illius temporis ratione hab●erunt, ita certè ecs nullâ salutis necessitate, id fecisse sine controversiâ credendum est. Trid. Conc. Sess. 5. Can. 4. Caranz. Summa Council.  the Council of Trent. But they deny, that the Practisers of it had any Opinion of its necessity; but used it upon some probable Motive only. And so they 
(d) Siquis dixerit, parvulis, antequam ad annos discretionis pervenerint, necessariam esse Eucharistiae Communionem: Anathema sit. Sess. 5. Can. 4. De Communione sub utraque specie, & parvulorum. Caran.  Anathematise them only; who shall affirm, that the Eucharist is necessary to Children, before they come to years of discretion. Thus the Trent-fathers'.  
But if Tradition Ancient and even Apostolical, and also Holy Scriptures, can make a Practice necessary, then (particularly) St. Augustine judged the Communicating of Infants to be necessary: For he 
(a)— Vnde nisi ex antiquâ, ut existimo, & Apostolicâ Traditione Ecclesiae Christi insitum tenent, praeter Baptismum, & participationem Dominicae Mensae, non solum ad regnum Dei, sed nec ad salutem, & vitam aeternam posse quenquam hominum pervenire. And presently after two or three Quotations out of Scripture, he adds: Si ergo, ut tot, & tanta divina testimonia concinunt, nec salus, nec vita aeterna sine Baptismo, & corpore & sanguine Domini cuiquam spectanda est, frustra sine his promittitur parvul●s. Porro si a salute, a● vitâ aeterna hominem nisi peccata non separant, per haec Sacramenta non nisi peccati reatus in parvulis solvitur. S. August. De peccati merit. & remiss. Contr. Pelag. L. 1.  discoursed for it, both from Tradition and Scriptures. For when he had asserted upon the strength of both those Topiques; that without Baptism, and partaking of the Lord's Table none can be saved; he concludes, that therefore without these, Salvation is in vain promised to Children. Without these: i. e. Baptism, and the Eucharist also. So that, tho' the Sanctissimi Patres have good words given them, yet the holy Augustine, and the rest who were of his mind, must fall under the Trent-Anathema. And, considering the clearness of the passage in St. Augustine; it is strange it should be said: [There is an Objection,— That S. Austin and Innocentius with their Councils, held that the Communion of Children was necessary for Salvation; and their words seem to be apparent. But who looks into other passages of the same Authors will find, that their words are Metaphorical; and that their meaning is, that the Effects of Sacramental Communion, to wit, an Incorporation into Christ's Body, which is done by Baptism, is of necessity for children's Salvation. Rushworth Dial. 3d. Sect. 13.] What passages they are, which do thus interpret those Author's meaning, we are not told. But,  
1. It is strange, that if St. Aug. and Innoc. intended Baptism only, and by that an Incorporation into Christ's Mystical Body, to be necessary to Children for their Salvation. They should at all mention the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood, and the partaking of the Lord's Table, to be necessary to Children for that purpose, what needed such a disert and repeated conjunction of Baptism, and of the Eucharist, in expressing that necessity, if there was no necessity of the Communion, but of Baptism only? What reason for it, except they should be thought to have a mind to darken their Sense with Words. Nay, if they meant one of the Sacraments only to be necessary to children's Salvation; tho' they explicitly mention both; why may it not be said, that they intended the Communion only, and not Baptism to be necessary for that end; seeing they are in words as express for the Communion, as for Baptism?  
2ly. As for St. Augustine, his word (in the Margin) will not without extremity of injury admit of such a Construction, as the Author  would (in his commenting way) obtrude upon them. For certainly when he says; That [without Babtism, and partaking of the Lord's Table, and of the Body and Blood of the Lord, no man can be saved] he meant properly, and without a figure, why therefore, when he adds in way of Inference, [si ergo] if therefore both these Sacraments, Baptism and the Body and Blood of the Lord, be necessary to Salvation, in vain without these is Salvation promised to Children, sure he means not metaphorically but properly likewise. Else his discourse would not be homogeneous, the Inference would not be suitable to the Premises.  
From what has been said it is plain, that St. Augustine's words are to be understood in the most obvious sense, and unstrained by a Trope. And I am persuaded, St. Augustine does not contradict Himself, disagree in other places, from what he clearly means in this, and several others.  
I shall add; that the necessity of Communicating of Infants, continued to be maintained in the Greek Church in the days of 
(a) Notandum quòd ex ho● quod dicitur hic: Nisi manducaveritis etc. Dicunt Graeci, quòd hoc Sacramentum est tantae necessitatis, quod pueris debet dari, sicut Baptismus. In Johan. Cap. 6. p. 53.  Liranus; and much later, in the time of, 
(b) Graeci— Eucharistiam parvulis etiam infantibus praeb●nt, Instit. Mor. part 1. L. 5 C. 11.  Azorius; and 'tis in use with the 
(c) Ricaut of the Armenian Church.  Armenian Church to this Age. And of this usage among the Christians in Habassia, in Egypt, and some others, 
(d) Inquiries touching, etc. Cap. 22, 23, 25.  Brerewood may be seen.  
3ly. That the Souls of the Saints departed enjoy not the beatifique Vision of God till after the Resurrection, was a belief of the Church, for some ages, 
(e) Bib. Stae. Lib 6. Annot. 345.  Sixtus Senensts gives us a long Catalogue of Persons of Note, who inclined this way; as James the Apostle, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clemens Romanus, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Prudentius, St. Ambrose, St. chrysostom, St. Augustin, Theodoret, Arethas, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Euthymius, Bernard, and Pope John the 22d. Of all these he says, that They seemed to give Authority to the Opinion by their Testimony: Tho afterwards he endeavours to interpret some of them to a commodious sense, and excuses Others of them by this; that the Church had not then determined any thing certainly in this Article, 
(f) M. Daille of the right use of the Fathers. Lib. 2. Cap 4. Vossii Theses Hist●rico-Ecclesiasticae, de slatu Animae Separatae. Luc. 2. Th' s. 1.2.3.  Authors have observed the stream of Antiquity to have run much this way, and that (if it be not now,) it was believed, 
(g) Daille Ibid. propiùs finem. Brerewood Inquiries. Cap. 15.  and defended by the whole Greek Church, till of later years.  
But the contrary to this was defined by a 
(h) Definimus— Illorum etiam animas, qui— in caelum mex recipi, & intueri clarè ipsum Deum trinum & Vnum, sicuti est. Conc. Flor. apud Caran.  Council, called first at Ferrara, but afterwards removed to Florence, not yet 250 years ago. And 
(i) De Beatit. & Canon. Sanctorum. Lib. 1● Cap. 1. In initio.  Bellarmine calls the Denying to Souls, who need no purifying by a Purgatory Fire, the clear sight of God immediately upon their departure, an Opinion of Ancient, and Modern Heretics, and he names, (with much reverence to the Fathers) Tertullian, as Primum ex Haereticis, the first of the Heretics, who maintained it, That, which made the Cardinal so fierce, it may be, was, because he conceived the 
(k) Haec quaestio fundamentum est omnium altarum; nam idcirco aute Christi adventum non ita colebantur, neque invocabantur Spiritus Patriarcharum, & Prophetarum, quemadmodum nunc Apostolos, & Martyrs colimus & invocamus, quòd Illi adhuc inferni carceribus clausi detiner entur, Ordo disputationis subnexas Praefationi ad septimam Controversiam generalem de Ecclesiâ triumphante.  Beatifical vision of God by the Saints departed before the day of Judgement, to be a Foundation of the present Worship, and Invocation of them. But howsoever, he was more civil to John 22d. because a Pope, whom he brings off thus. 
(l) Respondeo imprimis ad Adrianum, Joannem hunc reverâ sensisse, animas non visuras Deum, nisi post resurrectionem: ●aeterùm hoc sensisse, quando adhuc sentire licebat sine periculo Haeresis, nulla enim adh●c praecesserat Ecclesiae definitio. Bellarm. de Romano Pontifice, Lib. 4. Cap. 14.  John (he says) was really, and might be of this Opinion, without danger of Heresy; because there had been no determination as yet by the Church concerning it. This necessarily implies, that if the point had been determined before John's time, his Tenent would have been Heretical, therefore an Error in Faith, and that it must so far with those, whosoever have denied, or shall deny it, since the Definition of it, and so a Tenent may be in one Age an Article of Faith, which was not so in a former Age.  
But I cannot conceive how this should be, how an Opinion should be coined an Article of Faith in the Mint of Oral Tradition, which yet is affirmed to be the sole Rule of Faith, (and which is the thing I have undertaken to disprove.) For) 1. Neither can an Opinion advance into an Article of Faith, ex parte sui, in its own Nature, which was not so before, by virtue of Oral Tradition, because that is but a Witness; does not enact Articles anew, but only conveys down to us, such as were stamped Articles of Faith by Divine Authority, and delivered to the first Church's Custody. Nor, 2ly. Can an Opinion improve into an Article of Faith ex parte nostri, come to be known to us as such, if it were not known to be such in times past: Because every later Age depends for Intelligence on the Age foregoing, and can know no more, than what that Age informs of; and the foregoing Age could not teach the following one more than itself knew. So that the Opinion of Pope John must have always been the same; as much an Heresy (if at all an Heresy) before the Church's Determination, as after it; or, as little an Heresy after the Church's Determination, as it was before. And here by the way, 
Sure Footing. p. 116.  it may be observed, that tho' it is boasted, that the chief Pastor of the See of Rome has a particular Title to Infallibility built on Oral Tradition, above any See, or Pastor whatsoever: Yet the chief Pastor John did err in a material and consequential point of Faith; a very Learned Adversary being Judge. And this is but one Instance among many.  
To draw toward an end of this Section. By a view of the two or three Opinions, which had once no small countenance from the ancient Church, yet have been since turned out of favour, and two of them been vtigmatiz●d, we may perceive, that Oral Tradition has not been so even and regular in its Conveyance, as is asserted.  
And if the Ancient Church, so much nearer to the Apostles days, (nearer by so many hundreds of years, than we are now; or our Fathers were, at the first secession from the Roman Communion) did mistake, (as is yielded by the Romanists) and Oral Tradition did decline so soon; how much more probable is it, that it should grow yet more feeble, and corrupt at such a far greater distance of time! As Waters which arise clear, and of qualities agreeing with their Fountain, the farther they run, do the more contract a new relish, and gather a foulness from the Channels through which they travel.   

SECT. V  
I proceed to the Christian Churches since the more Primitive times; and as they are commonly divided into the Eastern and Western Churches; so I shall begin with the Eastern, and there speak of the Greek Church only. In which I suppose, none will question, but that Christian Religion was planted in a very ample and punctual manner; such, as might have secured a perpetuity of Primitive Truths among the Professors of them, as well as among any other Body of Christians.  
This Church administers the Eucharist to the Laiety in both kinds; allows Married Priests, denys Purgatory-fire, (to add no more.) In these things the Roman Church differs from them: One of them therefore must err, and have receded from what was delivered at the first to them. We believe the Roman Church to be guilty of the Recess, and they to be sure will deny it. But yet, which soever it be of the Churches, which is in the wrong (and one of them must be so) Oral Tradition is guilty of Mal-performance of its Duty.  
But moreover, this Church holds, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, and not from the Son: Which is a Tenent condemned by Protestants, and Romanists both. And the Grecians misbelief in this Article was judged by Card. Bellarmine so criminous, that he counted it meritorious of the sacking of Constantinople; which happened accordingly (in his calculation) at the Feast of Pentecost, 
Bellarm. de Christo. lib. 2. cap. 30.  as a Judgement of God upon them for this error about the Procession of his Holy Spirit. And he adds, That many compare the Greek Church to the Kingdom of Samaria, which separated from the true Temple, and for that was punished with perpetual Captivity.  
How far charitable in his Censure, and right in his 
(a) Vossius de tribus Symboli; in Addendis.  Chronology the Cardinal was, let others judge. But this is clear, that they of that Communion (as they are very numerous, so) do generally consent in this Opinion; that there has been an entail of it upon Posterity through hundreds of years; and that though their Reduction has been more than once attempted, yet endeavours have proved successless: the wound may have been skinned over, but it has not been healed. 
(b) Idem. Ibid.  Though at the Councils of Lions and Florence, it is said, there was something of a Closure; yet as soon as the Greeks returned home, there was presently a Rupture again; and the Churches remained at as great a distance as before. And they retain their old Error 
(a) Ricaut, of the Greek Church.  to this day, and are observed to defend it with a particular dexterity.  
The same Greek Church denies the Pope's Supremacy, that 
(b) Summa Rei Christianae. Bellar In Praef. ad lib. de summo Pontifice.  Diana of the Romanists. They may have yielded the Bishop of Rome a 
(c) See Nilus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Primacy of Order, and yet that too, not as enstated on him by Divine Right, but indulged him by the favour of Princes, and Ecclesiastical Canon. But they would never grant him a Superiority of Power and Authority: They will not 
(d) Ricaut, of the Greek Church.  yet allow it him.  
These Opinions of the Greek Church cannot in the Judgement of the Romanists (who hold contrarily to both, and are so especially concerned in the latter) descend from Christ and his Apostles: Therefore they must confess, that Tradition has miscarried. And Traditions miscarrying among so great, and formerly renowned (tho' now afflicted) a Society of Christians, for so very long a time, and in Points of such moment, must needs decry it much below that value, to which its friends have enhansed it.   

SECT. VI  
Next shall succeed a consideration of the Western Church. And what Church in the West would be more taken notice of, than the Roman? Where we are to find the most accurate Tradition, or to despair of meeting with it any where. They of that Communion having dressed up, and strengthened the Cause of Oral Tradition with the greatest advantages, which their wit and learning can give it; and claiming it as their 
(a) Sure Footing, P. 116.  Privilege,, to be the most infallible Traditioners of any Church whatsoever.  
Two things here may be considered: 1. What the Accord is of the Roman with the Ancient Church. 2ly. What her Harmony is with herself: How well Oral Tradition has preserved her in both these respects.  
First how little the Church of Rome comports, in her Opinions and Practices, with the most ancient and purest Churches, has been demonstrated by many Learned Protestants. I shall insist but on one thing, viz. The denial of the Cup to the Laiety in the Eucharist by the Roman Church.  
The Learned Cassander thought it could not be proved; that 
(a) Non puto demonstrari posse totis mille ampliùs annis, in ullâ Catholicae Ecclesiae parte sacrosanctum hoc Eucharistiae Sacramentum aliter in sacrâ synazi è mensâ Dominicâ fideli populo, quàm sub utroque panis vinique Symbolo, administratum fuisse. De saerâ Comm. sub utrâque specie. He is positive, and large in this, in his Consultation likewise. Much to the same purpose, Alphonsus a Castro. Tit. Eucharistia. Haeresi. 13.  For above a 1000 years the Sacrament of the Eucharist was otherwise administered to the faithful People, than under the Elements of Bread and Wine both. Several of our Adversaries give their suffrages with Cassander: And the Greek Church administers to the Laiety in both kinds, to the present Age. But let us come to that which will, with our Adversaries, be of more Authority.  
The Council of 
(a) Praeterea declarat, have potestatem perpetuò in Ecclesiâ fuisse, ut in Sacramentorum dispensatione, salva illorum substantia, ea statueret, vel mutaret, quae suscipientium utilitati, seu ipsorum Sacramentorum venerationi, pro rerum, temporum, & locorum varietate, magis expedire judicaret.— Quare agnoscens mater Ecclesia hanc suam in administratione Sacramentorum Anthoritatem, licèt ab initio Christianae religionis non infrequens utriusque speciei usus fuisset, tamen— hanc consuetudinem sub alterâ specie communicandi, approbavit, & pro lege habendam decrevit.— Sess. 5. Can. 2. Apud Caran.  Trent confesses, That from the beginning of Christian Religion, the use of both Bread and Wine was not uncommon. Yet [licèt] although such had been the Primitive, and not uncommon usage; the Council approved of Communicating under one kind, and decreed it to be observed as a Law. And this the Council did by virtue of a (pretended) Power of the Church to appoint, and to alter, in the administrations of the Sacraments, as should be judged expedient, for the Communicants profit, and the Veneration of the Sacraments, according to the variety of Circumstances.  
Before this the Council of 
(b) Hoc generale Concilium declarat, decernit, & definite,— quòd licèt Christus post caenam instituerit; & suis discipulis administraverit sub utraque specie panis & vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum; tamen, hoc non obstante, sacrorum Canonum Authoritas, & approbata comuetudo Ecclesiae servavit, & servat— Et similiter quòd licet in primitiuâ Ecclesià h●jusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub ut●●âque specie; tamen haec consuetudo, ad evitandum aliqua pericula & scandala, est rationabiliter introducta, quòd a conficientibus sub utrâque specie, & a laicis tantummodo sub specie panis suscipiatur.— Sess. 3. Apud Eundem.  Constance had acknowledged, That Christ after Supper, Instituted, and Administered the Venerable Sacrament to his Disciples under both kinds of Bread and Wine; and likewise, that in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds. Yet [licet] although this was so; and [hoc non obstante] notwithstanding this, the Council declared, decreed, and defined, that the Bread only should be received by the Laiety. And this Council thus defined, by virtue of certain Canons, and because of a Custom rationally introduced for the avoiding certain dangers, and scandals.  
We have had a clear and express acknowledgement of the Institution, and Primitive use of the Eucharist in both kinds; of the generality, and very long continuance of the Practice. We have this granted by two Councils, and by others who were of the Roman Communion. How came it to pass then, that a Primitive Institution and Usage, and that so long perpetuated, should be laid aside, nay, decreed against by those very Councils; and that they, who should say, that the Communicating under one kind only were Sacrilegious and Unlawful, should be dealt with as 
(a) Concil. Constan. lbid  Heretics?, Why, we may observe two Reasons given in those Councils. 1. The Church's Authority. 2ly. Expediency. Both these shall be considered of.  
1. Of the Authority of the Church in the Case. I confess that the Church has Authority in determining and altering things indifferent, as Edification, Decency, and Order shall require.  
But Governors of the Church must beware how they deal with That, which was so remarkably honoured with our great Lords, and good Saviour's solemn Institution, and first Administration of it in his own Sacred Person; and that in Commemoration of no less than of the breaking his holy Body, and of the shedding his precious Blood, and for to show the Lord's death till he come. In this August Ordinance, Time's Place, and Gesture are Circumstances; but surely Bread and Wine are Substantials. For to the substance, and integrity of a Sacrament, do concur the 
(d) Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum.— ut Sacramentum sit sacrum signans, & sacrum signatum. Pet. Lumb. Lib. 4 Distinct. 1. B.  outward, sensible Signs, as well as the inward, retired things signified; and the Eucharist consists (as 
(e)— Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans terrenâ, & caelesti. Adversus haereses. Lib. 4. Cap. 34.  Irenaeus says) of something earthly, and of something heavenly. And 'tis the Trent Father's caution, that 
(f)— Saluâ illorum substantiâ— Conc. Trid. suprà.  the substance of the Sacraments be preserved safe.  
Now I desire to know of our Adversaries, whether they think that the Church has power to lay aside the Wine and Bread both? I believe they would answer negatively. Then with what reason, and by what Authority, do they dismiss One of them, i. e. the Wine, and afford the whole Laiety but a dry Communion? Did the Sovereign Ordainer permit any such halving, and mutilation of his Sacrament? There is no such Permission to be found in the first Institution, and Administration of it by Him; nor in the Doctrine, and Practice of his Apostles afterwards. How then should the Subjects (and Councils, and Popes too, are no bigger) dare to make any distinction, where the Supreme Lawgiver Himself has made none? Let things be scanned, and it will be plain, that the Sacramental Bread and Wine, in the Administration of them to the Faithful, have the same bottom; and that there is no reason, why if the One be alterable, the other may not be so likewise. For, 1. There is the same express command of Christ for the One, as for the Other, 'Tis said, 
(a) 1 Cor. 11.24 25.  Do this: in the administration of the Wine, as well as of the Bread. And that it may not be catched at, that it is said 
(b) As for the words of our Saviour (do this in remembrance of me) they do no ways inser a precept of receiving in both kinds. First, because our Saviour said these words absolutely only of the Sacrament in the form of Bread, but in the form of Wine only conditionally (do this, as o●t as I shall drink, in remembrance of me;) not commanding them to drink but in case they did drink— that then they should do it in memory of Christ. Dr. Vane's lost sherp, etc. pag. 311, 312.  of the Body Simply, Do this; but of the Cup, Do this as oft as ye drink it: as if there were a tacit intimation of a greater necessity of communicating of the Bread, than of the Cup; and that therefore it were sufficient, if the Bread be received, tho' the Wine be not: to preclude (I say) any such Evasion, St. Paul presently applies the same [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to the Bread, as well as to the Cup: 
(c) 1 Cor. 11.26.  For as oft as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do show, etc. 2ly. Both these were administered to the same Persons. 3ly. There is the same end expressly, and distinctly assigned to both: Do this in remembrance of me. 4ly. There's as much spiritual benefit, and comfort, which redound to the Communicants by the participation of the One, as of the Other. The Wine appears to have the advantage rather of the other sacred Element. For the Substance, colour, and manner of the delivering the Wine separately from the Bread, have a peculiar Aptness to represent Blood, and Bloodshed; and consequently to impress the quicker apprehensions, and spiritual sense of our blessed Jesus' bloody death upon, and to excite the smarter affections in, the Communicants.  
By what has been said, there is evident an Equal necessity of the use of both the Sacramental Elements, and therefore the Wine is as little mutable, and dispensable with, in the Eucharistical Administration, by the Churches and Canon's Authority, as the Bread.  
As for Expediency of withholding the Cup from the Laity, and the Inexpediency of the contrary: it is not safe, or consequential upon such grounds to discourse against what is divinely instituted and commanded. But let us attend to what is pleaded.  
The Council of Constance proceeded in their Decree, upon a Custom rationally (as they say) introduced, for the avoiding dangers and scandals, or offences. But, 1. why they should insist on, and commend a Custom as rational, which was in truth but an Innovation (because contrary to the first Institution of the Sacrament by Christ, and to the first and general use in the Churches of Christ, and therefore unreasonable,) I cannot understand. Certainly, the Council had showed the Prudence and Gravity of Fathers, if they had condemned this Custom, as a Novel abuse, and had done that Right to the Sacrament, as to have restored the Administration to what it was at the Beginning. But perhaps, 2ly. The Avoidance of certain dangers, and Scandals may be some excuse. Now, what those dangers and Scandals might be, I should not have thought, but that I find Card. Bellarmin (who 
(d) De Euchar. Lib. 4. Cap. 24.6. neque ad hoc incommodum.  confesseth, that Christ instituted the Eucharist under both kinds; and that the Ancient Church administered in both kinds, yet) alleging 
(e) Ibid. Sect. Sexta ratio sumi potest ab incommodis.  some Inconveniences, which, he says, would follow upon a necessity of the use of both Species. As, 1. Because of the Numerousness of some Congregations, where yet there may be but one Priest. 2. Danger of Irreverence in casual spilling the wine. 3ly. Some cannot drink wine. 4ly. Vines do not grow, nor is wine made, in some countries'. This is the sum of the four Incommoda, Inconveniencies, in which I conceive there is not much. For, 1. If the Congregation be any where so very large, and there be but one Priest, he may procure an Assistant at the Sacramental Seasons, or the more days may be assigned for Communicating. There be many great Congregations among Protestants, each of which have but One Incumbent, and yet they do not find the administration of the Bread and Cup both, to the People, to be unpracticable. 2ly. To avoid spilling, the Priest may put the less wine into the Chalice, and tread the more carefully; this is an easi prevention of Irreverence. 3ly. The persons, who have an Antipathy to wine, are but few, and it is unreasonable, that a rare and extraordinary case should wholly suspend the force of a Law, and supersede a Practice, with respect to All, and even Extra casum extraordinarium, where there is no such extraordinary occasion. 4ly. 'Tis known, that wine is common, and sufficiently cheap in those places, where it is not made. Or if there be any odd Corner, where wine cannot be had, the third answer may serve. So much for Expediency, and the avoiding dangers and scandals.  

(a) Con. Constant. Ibid.  They of the Council add, That it is most firmly to be believed, and not at all to be doubted, that the whole Body of Christ, and his Blood, are truly contained, as well under the species of Bread, as under the species of Wine.  
'Tis likely, that they meant this pretended concomitancy, as an Argument for the no necessity of the Laieties having the Cup Administered to them, because (as they say) the whole Body and Blood of Christ is contained under the Bread alone. But (as they went upon a supposition, that there's a real Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the very Body and Blood of Christ, which we deny, and can never be proved; so) They boldly reflect upon the Wisdom of Christ, who did Ordain and Administer Wine as well as Bread, and that to the same Persons; and best knew, how he was present in the Sacrament, and would be to the end of the World; best knew what was necessary, what superfluous in his own Ordinance.  
Certainly, Christ having declared his Pleasure, by what he said and did at his Institution and Administration of the Eucharist, concerning Communicating in both kinds, Christians (without puzzling their heads about an imaginary Concomitancy, or the like needless Subtleties) are to judge; that then they partake of whole Christ in a Sacramental way; i. e. enjoy Communion of his Body, and Communion of his Blood also; whenas they drink of the Cup of Blessing, as well as eat of the Bread broken conformably to our Lord's own Institution, and accordingly as his Apostle 
(a) 
The Cup of Blessing, which we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ?  
The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ?  
1 Cor. 10.16.   sorts them out, each respectively to the other.  
Nay, suppose this fancied Concomitancy, yet it can't be a Salvo for the denial of the Cup to the People in the Eucharist. For there Christ is represented, and Christians partake of him, as 
(b) 1 Cor. 11.26  dying;. partake of his Body, as 
(a) 1 Cor. 11.24.  broken, and of Blood 
(b) Math. 26.28.  as shed; i. e. separated from his Body; but what is separated from his Body is not Concomitant with it. Hence 
(c) Par. 3. Qu. 76. Article. 2. ●.  Thomas Aquinas says, That if this Sacrament had been Administered at the very time of Christ's Passion and Death; then the Body of Christ Administered under the species of Bread would have been without the Blood; as also the Blood under the species of Wine, would have been without the Body. Why, and so it must be understood still. For things Arbitrarily Instituted (as the Eucharist was) must be considered and used, answerably to the Will and Intent of the Ordainer. It having then been Christ's pleasure, that his Sacrament should exhibit him, not as he was before, or after his Death; but as dying and parting with his Blood, Christians accordingly are to participate of his Body and Blood, considered under such circumstances as then were, when he hung bleeding on the Cross; i. e. When his Body and Blood were divided from each other, and therefore significantly of this Separation (in point of congruity, as well as precept) Christians are to receive the Wine, as well as the Bread.  
I shall annex but one thing more. It is 
(a) The Title of the Dialogue is [whether, and how, Communion in both kinds is Faith?] And toward the end of it:— Besides that the present Practice, (viz. administering in one kind) though universal, doth not deciare the Church's Faith, as in this particular, the Council of Trent shows, declaring that the Pope may dispense upon just occasion, which could not be in matters of Faith. Enchiridion of Faith. Dial. 14. pag. 75. By Fran. Covent. (Tho. White, as is supposed) Printed at Dovay, 1655.  said, (the more, I suppose, to alleviate the Church's denial of the Cup to the Laiety; when as yet the Author confesses, that among the Ancients, they did more frequently and publicly give the holy Eucharist in both kinds) that this is a Practice, but not a matter of Faith. But,  
1. Ancient Divine Practices, and Usages, (such as the Sacramental Administration) as well as Divine Doctrines, should be held sacred, and be kept inviolate by Christians.  
2ly. Faith is truly concerned in this Sacramental Practice. For in Religion, and even the Agendis of it, the things to be done, Faith and Practice are interwoven with each other; the former must guide the latter: The understanding must be right in its Belief, before the Actions can be regular. Now, that Christ did ordain the Sacrament, and command the Administration of it in after Ages, in such a way as he himself had ordained and administered it, are Credenda, things to be believed, tho' the Execution of, or Obedience to the Command be a Practical. So then the Church of Rome, denying the Cup to the People, and avowing it; disobeying a Divine Command, and maintaining that disobedience, doth offend in a matter of Practice and Faith both. For they do not barely omit a Practice or Duty, but also oppose and evacuate a Divine Command, and the obligation from it, which are Objects of Faith. And that Faith has to do in this Affair, was the Judgement of the Council of Constance; whenas they denounced, 
Concil. Constant. Ibid.  that an Assertion of the unlawfulness, or sacrilege in administering in one kind only, should be sufficient for a Man's Conviction of Heresy.  
After all, which has been discoursed in this Section, it must be concluded, that the Church of Rome have in their Half-Communion, and peremptory defence of it, departed from primitive Institution, divine command, and the Church's ancient general Usage, that Posterity has deserted Forefathers, and therefore that Oral Tradition has not done its Duty.   

SECT. VII.  
Secondly, let us examine, what the Agreement is of the Romanists among themselves. And if we find them at difference, than Tradition has not been so faithful, as to bring Truth whole and sincere to them, for if Tradition were full and uniform, it would keep them at Unity with one another.  
But even among them there may be observed Parties; who tho' in Compliment they acknowledge one first Mover, yet have each their counter-motions; tho' that Church boast of their Harmony, yet they have their discords; only, they are not so loud perhaps, as those are, among their Adversaries. Let account be taken of some of their Civil Wars.  
The Contests, between the Jesuits and Dominicans concerning Grace, and Freewill; Predetermination, and Contingency; as also between the Molinists and Jansenists; are well known.  
The 
(a) Les provinciales, or the Mystery of Jesuitism. pag. 92.  Doctrine of Probable Opinions, and many practical Doctrines of the Jesuits questionless please themselves, and likewise the 
(b) pag. 194.  polite Saints, and Courtier-like Puritans: Yet others mislike them, and believe they never descended from Jesus, nor from his Apostle, St. Peter.  
The difference between the Cassandrians and the Church, in communion whereof they live, is so great, as that it seems to be, as it were, one State within another State, and one Church within another Church; (as 
(c) Mr. Daille Of the right use of the Fathers. Lib. 1. Cap. 11.  one reports who had reason to know.)  
Some will have the 
(a) Bellarm. De Concil. Auctor. Lib 2. Cap. 14.  Pope to be above a Council; others, a Council to be above the Pope. Some affirm, that the Pope 
(b) Bellar. de Romano Pontif. L. 4. C. 2.  cannot err; Others that he may. Some are for the Pope's plenary Power, over the whole world, both in Ecclesiastical affairs, and also Political; but others allow him 
(c) Idem de Pont. Rom. L. 5. C. 1.  only a Spiritual Power directly, and immediately; yet in virtue of that spiritual Power, to have likewise a Power indirectly, and that the highest, even in Temporal matters. Of this latter Opinion Bellarmin himself was, yet it seems the French denied the Pope's power in Temporals, whether directly, or but indirectly; when as Bellarmin's 
(a) Gold. in Repl. pro. Imp. cited by Dr. Crakanthorp, of the Pope's Tempor. Monarchy. Chap. 11.  Book against Barclay, (in which Bellarmin defends the Pope's Power over Princes) was so detested by that State, that in their public Assembly, they did prohibit and forbid any, and that under the Pain of High Treason, either to keep, or receive, or print, or sell that Book.  

(b) Exomolog. C. 40.  H. P. de Cressy calls Infallibility, to him an unfortunate word; confesses, that Chillingworth has combated it with too too great success: will have it, that the Church of Rome maintains no more than an Authority; and says, he has reason, moving him to wish, that the Protestants may never be invited to Combat the Authority of the Church under the notion of Infallibility. And to show, that he is not alone in this; he makes very bold with the Council of Trent, 
Ibid.  and Pope Pius 4th, if they are not on his side; for he shelters his Opinion, under a Decision of the former, and a Bull of the latter, concerning the Oath of the Profession of Faith. And likewise Dr. Holden (in his 
(d) Quem & Cathel cae Fidei consonum inveni, &, etc.  Approbation of Cressy's Book, without any Censure of this passage) says; (He found it consonant to the Catholic Faith.)  
If this be so, as Cressy would said have it to be, than the Romanists and we are not at so much distance, as we thought we had been: for of an Authority of the Church, there's no dispute between us and them. But sure, there's more in the case than so. For the Roman Catechism set forth by decree of the Council of Trent, and by the Command of Pope Pius 5th. 
(e) Quemadmodum haec una Ecclesia errare non potest in fidei, ac morum disciplinâ tradendâ, cùm a spiritu S. gubernetur, ita, etc. Catech. Rom. Cap. 15. Quest. 15.  says, that the Church cannot Err in delivering Faith, and Manners, forasmuch as it is governed by the holy Spirit: cannot Err, i. e. is infallible. And this Church thus inerrable is that of the Roman Communion: for the same Catechism 
(f) Quid de Romano Pontifice, visibili Ecclesiae Christi Capite, sentiendum est. De eo fuit illo omnium Patrum ratio, etc. Ibid. quest. 11.  says a little before, that the Roman Pontife is the visible Head of Christ's Church. And the great Defender of the Romish Faith, Card. Bellarmin affirms, that 
(a) Catholici verò omnes constanter d●cent, Concilia generalia, a summo Pontifice confirmata, non posse errare, nec in fide explicandâ, nec in tradendis morum praeceptis, toti Ecclesiae communibus. Bellarm. de Conciliorum Autoritate. L. 1. C. 2. circa initium.  all Catholics do constantly teach, that General Councils, confirmed by the Pope, cannot Err in Faith or Manners, in explicating the one, or in delivering Precepts about the other. And in the same Chapter he adds; that 
(b)— Tota Autoritas Ecclesiae fermaliter non est nisi in Praelatis,— ergo idem est, Ecclesiam non posse errare in definiendis rebus fidei, & Episcopos non posse errare. Idem. Ibid. Sect. ex his enim locis manifeste colligitur.  the whole Authority of the Church is formally in the Prelates; and therefore, that the Church cannot err in defining matters of Faith, and that the Bishops cannot Err, are the same Thing.  
From what has been quoted, it seems that Dr. Cressy, and whosoever else may be on his side, are considerably opposed by others. Indeed the Infallibility of the Roman Church, and the great usefulness of it to them, is better understood by them, than to be parted with.  
Upon a survey of the forementioned Dissensions among Romanists themselves, the clear inference is; that either Tradition is full, and plain enough in the things disagreed about; and if so, than the Romanists themselves do not believe Tradition, rest not in what their Fathers taught them, and so transgress their own Rule of Faith; or Tradition comes down so divided, that it cannot unite them; shines so dimly, that they cannot see their way by it (as 
(c) In the points of immaculate Conception, and the Controversies between the Jesuits, and the Dominicans, etc. Exomolog. Ch. 82.  Dr. Cressy says, some learned Catholics are of Opinion) and so wander each Party in a Path by itself. And this evinces Traditions impotency, want of a sufficient plainness and certainty.  
But here is a retreat, to which our Adversaries must be followed. There is a 
(a) Enchirid. of Faith. p. 17. 113. Some what to this purpose likewise Cressy speaks, Exom. Ch. 28.  distinction made between the Faith and the Doctrine of the Church; between Points, which are de fide absolutè, and such as are de fide sub Opinion; Points of Faith strictly so called, the denial of which would amount to Heresy; and Points of Opinion rather than of Faith, and Theological speculations only. Now it will be said by our Adversaries, that the Subject of their Home-differences are not of the former, but of the latter kind, matters of mere Opinion; and therefore that their differences do not disparage Traditions care and sufficiency; that being maintained to be a Rule of Faith only.  
But to make such an Evasion useless; a strict and close dispute about Points of Faith, (which are such, and which not) is with the more difficulty manageable betwixt our Adversaries and us, because we differ about the Rule of Faith. Accordingly, they account of a Point, as a 
(a) Enchirid. of Faith p. 113. and to the like purpose, Cresly, Ibid.  Point of Faith or of mere Opinion, as it is attested to, or not attested to, by a sufficient Tradition; which they assert to be the rule of Faith; but this is the thing in question between us. Therefore, as things stand, the way will be to review the aforenamed Tenants controverted among the Romanists; and to see what their tendency and importance is in Religion, in the Judgement of any sober and unbïassed Christian; as also what our Adversaries own Sentiments are concerning them. Then,  
1. The freedom of the will in corrupted Nature; the assistance of Divine Grace; Predestination to an Eternal State; the extent of the Redemption by the Death of Christ; perseverance in Grace; look like material concerns in Religion; and the respective statings of the Questions arising on these Subjects are judged momentous by the controverting Parties: 
(b) Les Provincia les; Or, the, etc. p. 45. 41.  The Jansenists complain of sharp usage from the Molinists; that a Proposition of theirs, [viz. That the Fathers show us a just Man in the Person of St. Peter, to whom the grace, without which a Man cannot do any thing, was wanting] was censured by their Antagonists to be [temerarious, impious, blasphemous, worthy to be Anathematised, and Heretical;] and that their Persons have been traduced, and defamed in Books and Pulpits; openly and publicly accused— as Heretics.—  
The Controversies between the Remonstrants, and Contra-Remonstrants, some of the principal also between the Lutherans and the Calvinists, are much of the same kind with them contended about between the Jesuits and Dominicans, the Jansenists and Molinists; and yet sure the Romanists will have them to be more than matters of mere Opinion, and Theological speculations only, in us Protestants; because they take occasion from these and some other differences of no higher a Complexion, (at the lest can't be accused to be such, by a Romanist) to upbraid us with the 
(a) C●arity mistaken apu●● P●tter, want of Charity 〈◊〉 charged. etc. p. 58.  darkness and confusion of our Condition; and that our bitter Contentions and Speeches declare us to be of different Churches and Religions. But if these differences in Judgement and Heats, be of so high a nature, and of so desperate effects in us, why not so in them also? For suppose that some Protestants passions are more warm in these disputes, yet there are also many moderate Men on both sides; and to make them of different Religions, there must be a contrariety of Judgements, and even in matters of Faith; and if these be Points of Faith in Protestants, what just reason can be given, why they should not be such in Romanists likewise?  
2ly. 
(a) Les Previn 〈◊〉 Let●e●. 〈◊〉. p. 92.  The Doctrine of probable Opinions; and That an Opinion is then called probable, when it is grounded upon some reasons of consideration; whence it sometimes comes to pass, that the Opinion of one grave Doctor may render an Opinion probable: Much of the Casuistical Divinity of the Jesuits; their 
(b) Ibid. L●tter 9 186, etc.  easy Devotions; their knack of 
(c) Ibid. Let. 7. p. 131, 132, etc.  directing the Intention; their Doctrine of 
(d) Ibid. Let. 9 p. 202, 203, etc.  mental Reservation, and of the sufficiency of 
(e) Ibid. Let. 10. p. 231, etc.  Attrition; their Salvoes for 
(a) Ibid Let. 6. p. 115, and Let. 13. p. 285, 286, etc.  Simony, 
(b) Ibid. Let. 7. p. 134, etc.  Revenge, and 
(c) Ibid. Let. 8. p. 171, etc.  Stealing; with several Practics of the like stamp; certainly will be doomed by any, who are seriously Christians, to be destructive of that fixedness and soundness in the Faith, which is opposite to the levity of Children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of Doctrine, etc. (Eph. 4.14.) and of the Doctrine, which is according to godliness. (1. Tim. 6.3.)  
3ly. If Tenants may be thought to be de fide, points of Faith, by their influence on other Credenda and Agenda, things to be believed and done, and on the Peace of the Christian World; then certainly those Tenants, which relate to the Pope, and were even now touched on, must be Points of Faith, and that of the first Classis. For whosoever can see through things, will judge, that they are of vast inference, that on the determination of them must depend the direction of the Pope in the exercise of his Power; and of Christians in what, and how far to obey him, and his Commands, as to belief and practice. Prince's Crowns, and their Subject's Loyalty are deeply concerned in them, and consequently the Unity and Welfare of all the Churches, and States in Christendom. But Card. Bellarmine himself speaks high enough. Says he— 
(a) De quâ re agitur, cùn de prim●●u p●ntificis agitur, b●e issime d●cam, de summà rei Christian●e. Id enim qu●eritur, debeatne F●●lesia diutiùs consist●●e, 〈…〉 d●ssol●i, & con 〈◊〉. ●●d eni● aloud est 〈◊〉, an eporteat ab ●dificio fu●● 〈◊〉 n●u●n●r modere, a gre●e pasterem, ●b exercitu imperatorem, sol●m●ab astris, caput a corpore; quàm an oporteat aedifictum ruere, g●egem dissipari, e●●c●um sued●, 〈◊〉 obs●u●ari, corpus i●cere? Bellarm. In Praefati●ne ad Libros de su●nmo pontifice habitâ in Gymn●sio Romano. Anno. 1577. clica initium.  What Subject is treated of? whilst the Primacy of the (Roman) Pontife is treated of, I will tell you very briefly. [It is discoursed] of the sum of Christianity. For it is discussed, whether the Church must longer remain entire, or fall asunder, and perish. He goes on, as in the Margin.  
Why now, if the Pope have a Power given him by Christ, of Governing the Universal Church of Christ; as was the definition of the Council of Florence (apud Caranzam,) and the Christian Church be so infinitely concerned in the Pope and his Government, as is affirmed; then it can't be rationally questioned, but that our Blessed Saviour, and Lord, the Head of the Church, did declare his Pleasure concerning the true state of the Papal Office, and Power, to his Apostles; and charged them to Communicate it to the Church, to be preserved through all Ages. The reason is, because it can't be conceived consistent with our Lord's Wisdom and Goodness, to have established an universal Empire over Christians in Peter and his Successors; and yet not to have determined, and given a punctual Scheme of that Power and Jurisdiction; and consequently of Christians due obedience and dependence; seeing that (as is pretended) such a Power was designed for the guidance and preservation of all Christians in Truth, Holiness, and Peace: For the Papal Power without such a clear stating of it, would be utterly insufficient for attaining such glorious Ends. That which was intended to prevent, and to compose differences, would be itself an unhappy occasion of the greatest ruptures, as it proves to be at this day.  
Forasmuch then as the Papacy is so transcendent an Interest of the Christian Church, in the claim of our Adversaries; and that in plain reason, the fixation and certainty of the Pope's Inerrability, and of the just latitude of his Power, is so necessary to a fit discharge of the Papal Office for the behoof of the Church; and that therefore Christ was not wanting in the Revelation, and Communication of it to his Apostles and Church: Hence it follows, that because the Romanists are so uncertain, disagree so much about it, therefore they differ among themselves (not in Theological Quodlibets, or mere speculative niceties; but) in very grave and substantial Points (let them call them Points of Faith, or by what other names they please;) and which the Church was at the first instructed in.  
4ly. Between the infallibility of the Church (which the 
(a) Suprà.  Trent Catechism affirms, in which are contained the 
(b) Sacrae Synodi decreto Catechismus cons●ribitur, certaque formula, & ratio Christiani populi ab ipsis fidei rudimentis instituendi.— In Epist. dedicat.  grounds and principles of the Roman Faith; and which 
(c) Bellarm. suprà.  all Catholics teach) and the Authority of the Church only (which was 
(d) Suprà.  Cressie's belief, in which he was confirmed, 
(e) Exomol. Cap. 41.  by very Learned Catholics) there is a very wide difference; and there are consequent very divers obligations and effects.  
For if the Church cannot err, then, what it proposes aught to be believed as soon as it is made known, and understood. But if the Church may err, and have an Authority only, than its Articles and Canons may be soberly examined by some standard which is infallible; and accordingly, as they shall be found to agree with it, or to contrariate it; to yield, or to suspend Belief (quietly, and without more noise than what a meek submission to the Church's censure makes): or also, Obedience to the Church's Authority, may be a disobedience to the higher, and supreme Authority of God; who commands Christian's Orthodoxy of Belief, as well as holiness of Life.  
I must not omit, that even about this so weighty Subject, (which we are now upon; viz. Oral Traditions being the only Rule of Faith) the Romanists are not at accord among themselves, (as I touched in the Preface) 
(a) De verbo Dei non scripto. Lib. 4. Cap. 12. Sect. Dico Secundò.  Bellarmine held, that the Word of God, or Revelation made by God, was the whole and entire Rule of Faith. And this (he says) is divided into two partial Rules, Scripture and Tradition. If Scripture be in Part a Rule, and Tradition a Rule but in Part; then (in the judgement of Bellarmine) Tradition is not the only Rule of Faith. And no question but still there are those, who are of Bellarmine's mind.  
There's a Confession of 
(b) The Title of the 9th. Par. of the 3d Dialo. is, that the dissension of the Catholic Doctors concerning the Rule of Faith, doth not hurt the certainty of Tradition.  Rushworth, that there is a Dissension of the Catholic Doctors concerning the Rule of Faith; but he says, that this does not hurt the certainty of Traditions. To clear which, and to satisfy the Nephew's Scruple, grounded on this Dissension, the Uncle says; Truly, Cousin, your Objection is strong, yet I hope to content you. For— I see no great matter in the variety of Opinions amongst our Divines, etc. See what follows in the Margin. 
(c)— For you see, they seek out the Decider of Points of Doctrine, i. e. by whose mouth we are to know (upon occasion of dispute) what, and which be our Points, and Articles of our Fàith; to w●t, whether the Pope, or a Council, or both. Which is not much Material to our purpose, whatever the truth be, supposing we acknowledge no Articles of Faith, but such as have descended to us by Tradition from Christ and his Apostles. Rushworth. Ibid.   
But under savour, this variety of Opinions is very Material. For tho' (suppose) all Romanists should agree to acknowledge no Articles of Faith, but such as have descended to them by Tradition from Christ, and his Apostles; should agree to acknowledge this, in general: yet if they are still to seek; if it be still unresolved among them, who is the decider of Points of Doctrine; i. e. by whose mouth they are to know (upon occasions of dispute) what, and which determinately be their Points, and Articles of Faith, than there must be an uncertainty among them about the Points and Articles of Faith. For the belief of Articles of Faith can be no more certain, no more fixed and uniform, than the Deciders and Mouths are, by which they are to know, what and which be their Points of Faith: But that Decider and Mouth is yet confessedly unagreed on. Hence it must follow, that Tradition is hurt, is sorely wounded in its certainty: in that, it does not, either bring down primitive Truths so clearly, that there needs no dispute about them, or at the least certainly determine, who shall be the Decider, and infallible Mouth, from which to receive the Decision of them: but leaves them, (when disputes arise) to wrangle it out among themselves, as well as they can.  
From the account, which has been given, it is manifest, that the Points, in which the Romanists dissent from one another, are Points of Faith; or else that those about which Protestants differ are not such, the Tenants disagreed about among the Romanists being as material, and influential, as those controverted among the Protestant form Churches, or rather much more considerable.  
Thus in the foregoing pages, Oral Tradition has been tried by Reason and by Experience; (the few passages of Scripture quoted, being not intended for Proof of the Thing in Controversy, but only used incidentally, and in a sense which is obvious,) and is found guilty of so much uncertainty and failure, that it deserves to be judged too insufficient to be trusted with the Conveyance of divine Truths, down from their first Delivery through all succeeding ages.  
But it may happen sometimes, that there may be Arguments against a Thing, so plausible, and which may have so strong a seemingness of Demonstration, as to engage the Judgement against it; and yet there may be Arguments too for it, so far more cogent, and convincing, as (upon a weighing both) to preponderate the other, and to determine the Understanding to the affirmative part. Let us see then, whether the like may fall out in Oral Tradition, and having alleged the proofs against its sureness, and safety of Conveyance, let us next consider what, and how rational the Pleas are on its behalf, and whether they are weighty enough to turn the Scales.    

CHAP. V The Arguments alleged for Oral Tradition.  

SECT. I.  
THE Defences brought for the certainty and infallibility of Oral Tradition, are such as follow.  
1. It is pleaded, that Oral Tradition is a 
(a) Sure Footing. p. 114.  Principle Self-evident to all Mankind, who use common Reason; that 
(b) Ibid. p. 53.  Man's Nature is the Basis of it, according to those faculties in him, perfectly and necessarily subject to the Operations and Strokes of Nature; i. e. his Eyes, his Ears, handling, etc. that the 
(c) Letter of thanks, etc. p. 87. 88  way of Tradition is as efficaciously established in the very grain of Man's Nature, as what seems most natural, the propagation of their kind; that 
(d) Sure Footing. p. 54.  the virtue by which Tradition regulates her followers to bring down Faith unerringly, is grounded on a far stronger Basis, than all material Nature.  
Answ. Indeed, a Principle Self-evident, deeply founded and radicated in Man's very Nature, and more strongly grounded than all material Nature, deserves to be heedfully attended to, and preserved inviolate. But let these high strains be considered of.  
1. As to Self-evidence: First Principles (most properly) are Self-evident, being indemonstrable; not borrowing, but shining by a light of their own: Such are, [It is impossible for the same thing to be, and not to be: The whole is greater than any Part.] But in this Sense, Tradition (tho' the Author of Sure Footing, calls it a 
(a) p. 114.  first Principle) is confessed not to be Self-evident, for he undertakes to demonstrate it, as well a 
(b) p. 57  Priori, as a Posteriori. Therefore he says, that there are Principles 
(c) Letter of thanks, etc. p. 24, 25, 26.  Self-evident in an inferior manner; not as incapable of demonstration, but because they need none; being presently assented to by all, who have the use of their faculties; the notions of them stealing universally into men's understandings, and there gaining a fixed entertainment undiscernibly.  
The Instances given are; That [in a square space, 'tis a nearer way to go from one corner to that which is opposite by the Diameter, than to go by the two sides: Or, that things look less afar off, and bigger nearer hand.] 'Tis affirmed, that Tradition is a Self-evident Principle of this latter kind.  
But Tradition is not a Self-evident Principle even of this latter kind. That Testimony and Authority (and Oral Tradition, which is one sort of 
(a) That vast Testification we call Tradition.— Sure Footing. p. 54.  Testimony) has room among the Topiques, and is a seat of dialectical argumentation, is evident enough; its use and necessity (in some cases) have been acknowledged. But That Oral Tradition is a certain, infallible Medium; That 
(b) Sure Footing. p. 115.  Councils general and provincial, nay, particular Churches are infallible by proceeding upon it, is denied by Protestants to be Self-evident, evident, or but true. And tho' it is not material, what Protestants affirm, or deny in other Points disputed between them, and the Romanists, farther than they can prove; yet in this business their very denial is much sufficient, because the Question is driven up to this, viz. whether they are Owners of so much Reason, as is common to all Mankind. And let all judge, who have had conversation with them, whether (as they are no inconsiderable part of Mankind, so) they have the use of Common Reason or no; and (as one Argument of this) whether they deny such plain Propositions, as were before instanced in; or any the like, which are the Sentiments generally of Mankind.  
2ly. (Which is of some kin to the former consideration, forasmuch as the knowledge of first, and Self-evident Principles is in some Sense natural) Let Oral Tradition's Foundation in nature be examined.  
'Tis confessed, that the Faculties of Seeing and Hearing; the Memory, Understanding, Will, and Affections are from Nature, are natural to us; that according to a Method of Nature, outward Objects do excite the Faculties into Acts proper to each: That they being in motion do influence upon one another. The Senses inform the Understanding; the Understanding trusts the Memory, and gives impulses to the Will and Affections. Suitable to this procedure in Nature, I grant, that Tradition strikes upon the Senses, and those strokes are derived to the inward Faculties, and cause variety of impressions there. This is all, which I can understand by the Faculties perfect and necessary subjection to the operations and strokes of Nature; or by Traditions being grounded and engrained in Man's Nature.  
But now, how short is all this of a Proof, that Tradition is infallible, in the strength of any Basis it has in the Nature of Man! Tho' our Faculties, and their way of Operation be Natural, yet the Operations, or Exercises of them are not beyond a possibility of Error, and mistake. Sure all will allow, that the very Senses are not undeceivable, nor the Understanding inerrable; that the Memory is frail and leaky; and that the Will and Passions are not impeccable. And yet all these having to do in Tradition, it must be otherwise with them, or else it is evident, that Tradition will be crazy, fallible, and uncertain. We may conclude therefore, that as in Nature, and propagating the kind (which the Author of the Letter of Thanks says, is most natural;) so in Tradition's propogation and continuation of itself, there may have happened Abortions, Superfetations, and monstrous Births; and that much less Tradition is grounded on a far stronger Basis than all material Nature; whence it should have such a virtue, as to regulate its followers, to bring down Faith unerringly.   

SECT. II.  
2ly. It is urged, that the greatest hopes and fears imaginable (indeed infinitely greater than any other whatsoever, springing from any temporal consideration,) viz. of Heaven, and of Damnation, were proposed, 
Sure Footing. p. 59, 60.  and strongly applied to the minds of the first Believers, encouraging them to adhere to the Doctrines received, and deterring them from Apostasy; and that this was in all Ages the persuasion of the Faithful.  
Ans. 'Tis acknowledged, that the wisdom and goodness of God have endeared and facilitated to Man his Duty by Method, the most imaginably Obliging. But if it be argued from the Powerfulness of the Motives, and their prevalence too upon the first Christians, unto their actual Effects upon the generality, or far greater part of Christians throughout all ages since; such a procedure would prove, that Christians generally have been, and are virtuous, as well as Orthodox, that they have as piously imitated (and still do so,) the Apostolical sanctity, as that they have been unvaryingly constant to the Faith, the Apostles preached and wrote. For without question the one, was as strongly pressed upon the first Christians and resented by them, as the other; and the same Propositions were made to both,: Heaven was offered as the gracious Reward of holy Practice, as well as of right believing; and Hell was threatened as the Punishment of an evil Life, as well as of Heresy.  
But 'tis too well known, that primitive Purity, Zeal, and Care for Religion did too soon wear out of the Heart and Practice of Christians. An Eternity of Blessedness and Misery were known but too little, and seriously thought on. Present and material Objects, worldly Pleasures, Profit and Grandeur, beat smartly upon the Senses, and inveigle the sensual Appetite; by which Men are too commonly more governed than by Reason or Religion, and the strict dictates of either. Heaven and Hell being things future and spiritual; and, for want of a frequent and vigorous Application of them to particular Actions, work but faintly, and much unsuccessfully. Such has long been the course of this World, and still is. And 'tis not likely, that Men should have much more care of their children's Souls, than of their own. Not as if Men purposed to 
(a) Tho' Nature incline men to sin, or vicious Appetites, yet can it incline them all to this sort of sin, i. e. to teach their Children, what they think will damn them? Sure Footing. p. 61.  damn themselves, or their Children; but they offend; are too profane or indifferent, both as to Practice and Opinion; and so endanger their own, and their Posterities Salvation, through Incogitancy and Improvidence; as a Bird hasteth to the snare, and knows not that it is for his life.  
No question, but there are, and have been in all Ages, very many good Persons, who have looked not at things seen and Temporal, but at things not seen and Eternal; who have endeavoured to be sound in the Faith, and to have a good Conscience in all things: But I wish, it could not without uncharitableness be said, that such have been, and are much fewer than those, who travail the broad way. Nor have even Holy Men been so advanced by their Spiritual Condition, as to be privileged from all Obnoxiousness to Error, any more than wholly from sinning. They have still had some weaknesses of Understanding and Passions not untemptable. It might be incident even to them (their remaining frailty betraying them) to be drawn out of their road by temporal hopes or fears; or the example of a great number of Christians of their times, moving another way; especially, if they who gave the Example had a plausible appearance of Holiness; which is much winning upon well-disposed Perons, and apt to ensnare them, except they be the more wary; and we can't be sure, that the Virtuous in every Age were the most prudent and circumspect. Or suppose, that Pious Parents should have been exempt from these infirmities and misfortunes, which might at the least endanger Oral Tradition's miscarrying: Yet what security have we, (have we not reason rather to suspect the contrary?) that the Children were as Pious as the Fathers? And yet the indefectibleness of Oral Tradition depends on the children's, as well as on the Father's Piety, encouraging them by the hopes of an Eternal reward to adhere to the Doctrines taught them, and deterring them by the fears of an everlasting punishment from parting with them; it depends upon all the Fathers, and likewise their children's Piety and Constancy to Doctrines taught them throughout 1600 years.  
Notice is taken of the 
(a) Sure Footing. p. 61.  indisposition of Mankind by reason of Original corruption. But it is said, This would not hinder, but that a great part would be virtuous, and would teach their Children what, etc. And so a Body of Traditionary Christians would still be continued to the very end of the World.  
But only a great Part, and a Body, is not the Major part; and that which is great, looked upon in its self, may be little comparatively, and in respect of other things. And Rushworth 
(b) Dial. 3. Sect. 13. Where he speaks on eccasion of detaining the Cup from the Laiety.  grants, that the lesser number may be a sufficient Party to make a Tradition. Here,  
1. Is a great Fall from the large pretended Empire of Oral Tradition over Souls, and its Potency riveted in the very Nature of Mankind. It might be rationally expected, that a Self-evident Principle, whose 
(a) Suprà.  way is as efficaciously established in the very grain of Man's Nature, as what seems most natural, the propagation of their kind, should work so strongly, as to produce a more universal Effect, and that it should always keep, at the least, the far greatest part of Christians firm in the Faith first delivered; as in the propagation of the kind, sterilities and monstrous Issues are more rare; generally Nature is fruitful enough, and regular in its productions.  
2ly. I deny it to be 
(b) Sure Footing p. 60.  certain, that (but) a great Number, or Body of the first Believers, and after faithful in each Age, i. e. from Age to Age, would continue to hold themselves, and teach their Children as themselves had been taught; would preserve and derive the Body of Christian Faith as entire, and pure, as it was originally committed to the Church; and this by virtue of the hopes of an Heaven, and fears of an Hell. For how strongly soever these might be applied to the minds of the first Believers; yet, that so strong and effectual an Application of them was made by all Fathers to all their Children through all after Ages (so that the 
(a) Ibid.  Cause should be always actually causing) is uncertain, nay, very improbable, for the Reasons before given.  
3ly. If a less number may be a sufficient party to make a Tradition, then merely the comparative fewness of 
(b) Catal. Testium veritatis A●rian R●gen. in Histor. Eccles. S●avonic. Dr. Field. in the Appendix to the 3d. Book of the Church.  those, who through several former ages held, some fewer, some more, of the Points, in which we Protestants differ from the Romanists, and that thy moved Eccentricks to the generality of Christians of their times, is no rational Objection against them, and their Tenants, as if they were not truly Primitive; nor, in a parity of Reason, did it justify the Romanists Tenants, that they had got so large a Possession of the Western World; nor consequently did our Fathers deserve to be called Deserters of Tradition, because they departed from some Tenants and Practices of the Roman Church, which had stolen the general Vogue in some former blind Ages. For 'tis not affirmed, that the greatest number of Christians, but only a great Part, and a Body of them, would be trusty Traditioners. A great Party, absolutely considered, may be but little comparatively; and the Minimum quod sic in the case we are not told: Therefore the general Prevalency of certain Romish Tenants at, and before the Secession, did not conclude them to be therefore justified by Tradition (properly so called;) nor did the bare comparative Paucity suffice to condemn them of Innovation, who made the Secession.   

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

(c) Ibid. p. 219. 220, 221.  The proof of the Obligation on Posterity not to believe contrary to Forefathers from Age to Age, is thus proceeded in, viz. The second Age after the first was obliged to believe the first Age, because they saw with their Eyes what was done: The third Age was obliged to believe the second, tho' they saw it not, because the second Age could not be deceived in what the first Age told them; and they must be conceived so honest, and withal such to be the disinteressedness of the position, that they would not conspire to deceive the third Age; and so those of the third Age have the first Age's Authority applied to them. And by virtue of this same Argument, the same effect will be upon the fourth, fifth, and five hundreth Age. This is the full substance (to the best of my understanding) of the Author's Argumentation.  
Ans. In reply to this, If the matter of Fact be but some general thing (such as the Author himself has given Example of) there may be the more of Truth in this Procedure; but then there's little in it; it comes not home enough to our. business. But if the things done (or spoken) at, or about the same time, were divers; or if the thing, tho' one, were wrapped in several circumstances; then the first Eye, or Ear-Witnesses might for want of a more close and steady attention, mistake or forget some partitulars, and so might misreport, and therefore might justly be disbelieved; or the second Witnesses from the first (though suppose, things were truly and punctually reported to them by the first, yet) might misunderstand, or forget something, if not much, of what was related to them; or, if there should be no misinformation by the second Witnesses; yet the third might misapprehend, or not well remember, what the second told them. The same may be said of the Witnesses in the fourth remove, or age, with regard to the third; and of those in the fifth, with respect to these in the fourth; and so unto the five hundredth; till after a descent through so many hazards and chances, what was done, or spoken at the first, be at length wholly altered, or become very unlike to its Primitive self. Seeing then there may be such failures in successive Testifying, how can a Man be bound to believe conformably to Forefathers; especially when as perhaps he is distant hundreds of Successions from the speaking or doing the thing testified of?  
I may confirm the uncertainty of successive Testifying through Ages by a passage of an Adversary. 
(a) Rushworth Dial. 2. Sect. 7.  He putting the Question, whether the very rehearsing, and citing another's words, do not breed uncertainty and variety? resolves it in the affirmative. 'Tis true, he aims at the invalidating Scriptures certainty in conveying to after-Ages the mind of the Authors; but what he writes is adaptable to words spoken as well as written.  
For (answerably to what he discourses 
(b) Let us suppose the writer himself play the Translator, as for Example, that our Saviour himself having spoken in Hebrew, or Syriak, the holy writer is to express his words in Greek or Latin. And farther, that this which we have said of Translations be (as truly it is) grounded in the very nature of divers Languages, therefore unavoidable by any Art or Industry, will it not clearly follow, that even in the Original Copy, written by the Evanlists own hand, there is not in rigour the true and self-significant words of our Saviour, but rather a Comment, or Paraphrase, explicating and delivering the Sense thereof. Nay, let him have written in the same Language, and let him have set down every word and syllable, yet men conversant in noting the changes of meaning in words, will tell you, that divors accents in the pronunciation of them, the turning of the Speakers Head and Body this way, or that way, the allusion to some Person, or to some precedent discourse or the like, may so change the Sense of the words, that they will seem quite different in writing from what they wree in speaking.— Rushworth. Ibid. And the Title of the next (the 8th.) par. is: The uncertainty of Equivocation, which of necessity is incident in all Writings.  in the Margin) Points of Faith in the Oral Tradition of them, must have (as passed from one Country to another, so) been clothed in variety of Languages; the divers Accents in the pronunciation of the words, passing through multitudes of mouths, the divers turn of the Speakers Head or Body, this way, or that way; the allusion to some precedent discourse, or the like, may change the Sense of words, when spoken by one, from what they were, when spoken by another, as well as make them different in writing, from what they were in speaking; and Equivocation too is incident to words spoken as well as written. So that, if for these reasons the Conveyance of the Faith anciently spoken or preached by Scripture will be uncertain (as is said;) for the same reasons (if they are truly reasons) the sense and meaning of the Divine Planters of the Faith, will as uncertainly descend to us by an Oral Tradition.  
All this while I have mentioned only casualties, and the more innocent infirmities (as shortness in understanding, inheedfulness in Memory) incident to Testifiers; on the score of which there may be a misrepresentation of things, tho' there be no Conspiracy to deceive. But then if the question be concerning the Soberness and Integrity of all the Testifiers, what assurance can be given of them? There is a proneness in Men, (not alone out of inadvertency, and precipitancy, but also) out of capriciousness and ambition to be an Author, to subtract, to to add to, to alter Stories; which meeting with Credulity in others (as it often happens;) the Stories, and their Errata pass currant, and uncorrected. Besides, if there be not such a disinteressedness of the Position (or thing testified,) which frequently falls out; then the Honesty and Fairness of the Testifiers in their Relation may be the more questionable, and others may be the more suspending in their Belief.  
I suppose what I have said, is enough to show the descent of Testifications from Age to Age to be liable to great failures; especially if it be applied to Religion; where the Articles of Faith, the Sacred Practices and Senses of Scripture (which concern all these) are so many; and withal, there are so many, and so tempting Diversions of Men, as has been above proved.  
But here it is replied, that Religion is rather a Remedy of the failures attending on the descent of Testimonies. And to prove a far greater steadiness of Oral Tradition in Religion's Affairs, than in any other; there are 
(a) Sure Footing. p. 224, 225, 226, 227, 228.  alleged the great Divine Author of Religion; the superlative Interest of Mankind in it; the public miraculous Confirmation of it; the Preaching and Reception of it in all, even the remotest parts of the World; the entertainment of it among the first Christians, when they were at Age to judge of the Miracles, and Motives to Christian Religion; and among the after Christians, when they were yet scarce able to speak, much less to judge, and taught by Nature to believe their Parents. And from hence are inferred an incomparable recommendableness in Religion, and an Obligation to believe and to practise it; and likewise a most forcible Obligation on Children to believe Parents attesting to it.  
Answ. I acknowledge that to be true, which is alleged in the just commendation of Religion; and that it does deserve, and bind to a zeal, diligence, and sincerity in the Treatment of it, far above what Men bestow on any worldly thing whatsoever. I question not also, but that the incomparable remarkableness of Religion did fix deep, and indelible Impressions on the Christians of the first Age; and on all afterwards, who have known how to value love, and tender it answerably to its true worth.  
But this is that, at which I stop, i. e. Whether Christians have in all Ages so cherished the even now named virtues for Religion, as to send it down to us without any disguises, and in its genuine, and first Integrity; and this by virtue of an Oral Tradition, and of Fathers long continued testifying to their immediate Descendants; whether they have not been too cold, and careless for it; or too, whether their zeal, for want of a governing Prudence, has not sometimes transported them from one Error to an opposite one: Whether they have been so single, and upright in the Maintenance of the Truths of Religion, as the Simplicity of it does require (especially may we doubt of this Candour and Ingenuity in those, who hold the Doctrine of Equivocation,) I think, that he who has considered the Genius of Mankind, will see it probable enough; that Christians may have given worldly Interests, and corrupt Passions, too great a Preference in their dealing with Religion; the particular Truths and Practices of it: And that, were it not for some Leading Men, Persons of Parts, and Spirit, who sometimes sway the Age in which they live, (and yet these too may be overborne by a dissenting Multitude,) the most would be too prone to turn almost with every wind that should blow, and to steer their Course thither, whence they might look for the greatest Temporal ease, and advantage. And this Men might do, and yet 
(a) Sure Footing. p. 230.  not as a pack of impudent Knaves, that conspired to abuse their Posterity, purposely to damn them. For Men may act contrarily to their Duty, and to the wrong of themselves, and of theirs eventually (nay, too often do so); and yet not out of a desperate and formed purpose to destroy either.  
From what has been discoursed, it follows, that the incomparable recommendableness of Religion, and its obligingness to be believed, do not conclude a continued, and necessary obligation upon Children to believe their Parents through all Ages.  
And yet suppose, that there were such an Obligation upon Children to believe their Fathers; unless Children did believe such an obligation incumbent on them, Oral Tradition would be still failable. For than Children, Posterity would take the liberty to judge for themselves, and to vary from the Fathers, as they should see reason for it. Or if they should believe as Fathers did, it would be casual. Therefore (to make all sure) 'tis 
(a) Sure Footing. p. 215, 216.  owned and undertaken to be proved; That every Age in the Church, and all Persons in it, looked upon themselves as obliged not to vary in any thing from the Doctrine and Practice of the precedent Age.  
Yet I cannot discern in all the following Pages of that Author, any proof of this, but only an attempt to prove an Obligation on those in every Age to believe those of the precedent Age. But as this Obligation has been sufficiently disproven; so yet if it were true, could it infer that they in every Age looked upon, thought themselves obliged to believe those of the Ages foregoing; for 'tis notorious, that Men do not always think themselves obliged to believe, and to do that, which yet they are really obliged to believe, and to do.  
But I can't discover any Indication of such a Belief of Posterity concerning such an Obligation. 'Tis well known, that anciently, and in several Ages of the Church, scarce a new Opinion could start up, but it found Abettors. 'Tis strange, if there were indeed such a persuasion, as is pretended, fixed in the hearts of Christians, that so often they should have left the Road, and turned into an unbeaten Path in former Ages.  
To come nearer to our own Times: The Relinquishers of the Roman Tenants and Communion; the Deserters (as our Adversaries call them) of Tradition, were (like the Crowd in St. John's Vision) a great Multitude, which no man can number, of many Nations and Kindred's, People, and Tongues: People divided by diversity of Climates, and vast spaces of Earth and Seas; of various Complexions of Body, and Dispositions of Soul; of different Education, manner of Life, and Civil Interests. This being undeniably true, how utterly improbable is it, that so many Myriads, differenced by so many considerable Circumstances, should so unanimously agree in a departure from the Roman Church (i. e. in the Style of our Adversaries, in a defection from Tradition), if there had really been such a common Charm, and great Principle regnant among them, and uniting them in an Obsequious adherence to their Father's Faith, and in an opposition to any alteration of their Belief. Especially, it is yet the more improbable, if it be remembered, that many of these adventured on a change through the sharpest Persecutions. And the Successors of those first Reformers have maintained the Secession toward two Centuries of years, and are so well satisfied in it, that they are generally averse from a return to the Roman Communion; unto which nothing but force is likely to reduce them, if even That can do it.  
By this it appears, how highly improbable that Position is, viz. That it, is impossible, that Men should not think themselves obliged to believe, 
(a) Sure Footing. p. 216.  and to do, as their Predecessors did.  
Or if a very great improbability be supposed, and that the Secessors from Rome had such a Belief of a Tie upon them unto the Faith, and Practice of Ancestors; then for certain they acted contrarily to that Belief: But howsoever, Act they did, and Counter to the Age then, and some Ages before. And even this will weaken Oral Tradition's indefectibility. For what happened in this alteration, may have happened in the Ages before: Tho' Children (suppose) did conceive an Obligation upon them to the same Faith with that of their Fathers, and because it was their Fathers; yet if they might move contrarily to them, notwithstanding such a believed engagement, there might be a Rupture in Tradition as surely, as if they had had no sense of such Obligation.  
So that I do not see, if it should be granted, that there had been (and were still) in all Generations such a persuasion of Posterities Obligation to believe, and to practise just as Forefathers did, how such a Concession would quite do Oral Tradition's business. For tho' it may be well argued negatively; if Posterity did not conceive themselves obliged to believe and to do as their Fathers did, there can be no certainty of Oral Tradition; yet it does not necessarily follow on the other side, and affirmatively; if successive Generations do believe themselves engaged to believe, and to practise just as the foregoing did, therefore it will be sure, that they will so believe and practise. The reason is, because Men do not always, (nay too seldom) what they know it is their Duty to do. And tho' they, who first departed from Tradition, might proceed against conviction of their Obligation to the contrary: yet their Successors, not discerning the manner of the first departure, might continue it (as the 200 Men followed Absalon) in their simplicity; till continuance grew into a Prescription, and gained the Port of Tradition.  
But, notwithstanding, that the so numerous Relinquishers of Rome render it very improbable, that there was, or is a belief generally rooted in the minds of Men, that they are bound to believe, and to do conformably to Fathers; yet it may be perhaps said (to counterbalance this); that they, who keep still constant to Rome, and to Tradition, are remarkably numerous. And it is confessed, they are too many. But it may rationally be questioned, whether all, or the greatest part of them do stay in that Communion, out of a fixed belief, that they are bound to believe as their Fathers did. I am sure, their Being of that Church does not evince such a Belief in them; because there are divers other Causes, which may detain them on that side, besides such a persuasion; As Ignorance, Education, Prepossession, and Wontedness to it; variety of great Preferments and Grandeur, secular Pomp and Splendour; the profitableness and pleasingness of some Doctrines; fear from the Princes, who are Popish, and of Civil Penalties; dread of Ecclesiastical Censures, and of the Inquisition. Were they of the Roman Party more free, the Rod not so held over them, were Punishments not so severely threatened, and executed on Revolters, we should better understand, how devoted submitters they were to Oral Tradition; and how much they were convinced of it as a necessary Duty, not to let their Faith alter from that of Ancestors.  
The sum of this Section is this; 1. That it has not been proved, that there is an Obligation on Posterity to believe Forefathers, nay the contrary has been proved. 2ly. That if there were such an Obligation, yet it is not necessary, that Posterity should conceive themselves to be under such an Obligation. 3ly. That if they did conceive themselves to be so obliged, yet it does not necessarily follow, that they would move according to their Sense of such an Obligation. Therefore on this third Head there is not sufficient security given for Oral Tradition's infallibility.   

SECT. iv  
4ly The Author of the Answer to the Lord Falkland's Discourse of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome says; 
P. 10, 11, 12.  That a deeper root, which greatly strengthens, and reduces into action, the efficacity of Tradition, is; that Christian Doctrine is not a speculative knowledge, but it is an Art of living,— a practical Doctrine.— The consequence of which is, that it is not possible, that any material Point of Christian Faith can be changed as it were by obreption, whilst Men are on sleep, but it must needs raise a great scandal, and tumult in the Christian Common-weal.— We remember in a manner as yet, how Change came into Germany, France, Scotland, and our own Country. Let those be a sign to us, what we may think can be the creeping in of false Doctrine; specially, that there is no point of Doctrine contrary to the Catholic Church, rooted in any Christian Nation, that the Ecclesiastical History does not mention the times and combats by which it entered, and tore the Church in pieces.  
Here's another Argument for the great Efficacy of Tradition; in that it prevents Obreptions, so that the Church can't be assaulted by any material Error, but it is straight Alarmed, and then stands upon its guard, and consequently is in a capacity to defend, and to preserve itself. And this is one reason more, why the Church, receiving her Faith by Tradition, and not from Doctors, 
Ibid. p. 44.  hath ever kept her entire.  
Answ. 1. But first (to wave a consideration, how little an alteration some Doctrines cause in Christians Practice, whether they are held pro, or con) it is denied, that it was not possible, that any material Point of Faith can be changed, as it were by Obreption,— but it must needs raise a great Scandal and Tumult in the Christian Common-weal. For that there should be a noise, and tumult in the Church, it was requisite that there should be a Breach of Communion, a separation of one part from another. Thus it happened in the Arrian controversy, and some others; there was a manifest siding, a departure of the Dissenters from each other. Such was the Case too in Germany, England, etc. Several Corruptions had possessed the Church of Rome for a long time; and that Church made the Profession and Practice of those corruptions, a Condition of Communion with her; upon which the Protestants withdrew from her Communion; which occasioned the notice of the World; and the Gild lies on them, who were the cause of the Breach, who gave the Offence.  
But there may have been Innovations in Doctrine, and Discipline too; and yet the Members of the Church have still continued mutual Communion, and therefore no cry have been raised, little, if any, notice been taken; not because of the little consequence of the Doctrine or Practice; but (tho' it might be considerable) by reason of its surprising manner of entrance. Some things in their first beginnings, because small, and in their progresses, because stealing on sensim sine sensu, by invisible steps, are often little, if at all discerned; till arriving at some maturity, and a size, much exceeding what they had in their Infancy, and sly growth, they then manifest themselves, and awaken other's Observation. Is it not thus frequently in Nature? Are there not some latent Diseases, which make secret attempts upon the Life, and undiscovered; till by more sensible effects and rudeness to Nature, they warn the Patient of his danger? Let us inquire, whether the like may not have happened in Religion also.  
It has not been uncommon for Persons of busy Parts, and good Credit for Virtue and Learning in their times, to have moved in a little Sphere of their own, to have held some Opinions against, or beside the general Vogue of the Age. Now, suppose one such Person in Preaching or Writing, to have started a Doctrine. This coming into the Church, commended by the Reputation and plausible Arguments of the Author, wins the good liking of many, and is passable as a probable Opinion for some years: Till in the next Generation, through a wontedness to it, and a forgetfulness in what degree of assent it was at the first entertained, it comes to be believed as necessary. Which advance would be the more facile, and likely, if the Doctrine were such, as had not been expressly defined against in any general Council, for than it would pass with the greater show of Modesty; or were very advantageous, and particularly were such to the governing Party in the Church (as suppose, the Doctrine of the Supreme and Universal Domination of the Bishop of Rome; or that of Pardons and Indulgences, etc.) for then Interest would cast another weight into the Scale; and it might be judged convenient to be believed as necessary.  
By a zealous straining of Expressions and Practices, there might in time be a slip from the Mean, to an Extremity. The high and deserved Veneration for the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper might occasion some lofty expressions of it, and reverential Gestures at the Celebration of it. And then from the Hyperboles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. might arise Transubstantiation, and Adoration of the Host. There may have been very anciently a Solemn and Public Commemoration of them, who died in the Lord, in way of Thanksgiving to God for such holy, useful Persons; and of recommendation of them, as Religious Exemplars to the People. It may be, some too might pray for the Dead, out of a superabundant Charity; yet not for a release of them from Pains, but for a more speedy consummation of their begun blessedness. And hence in time might creep in an Opinion of a middle state of the departed, and Prayers for the deliverance of Souls out of a Purgatory fire. As the first Ages of the Church were Blessed with a multitude of Glorious Martyrs, so the Christians of those Ages had a very high and fitting esteem of them. Sometimes it was an use to pray at the Monuments of the Martyrs; to address them also with Rhetorical Apostrophes; till at the last the Saints departed came to be prayed to, and to be Worshipped. Thus it is intelligible enough, how there might be alterations in the Church's Doctrine and Practice, by stealth, and unobservedly; and this is sufficient to oppose to the Authors (whom I quoted at the beginning of this Section); [it is not possible, that any material Point should be changed, as it were by Obreption, etc.]  
But this secret and little noticed Intrusion of Opinions, and Practices into the Church, will be found to have been the more feasible; if we look back upon former Ages in it, and the Genius of them. For a great while Learning was very scarce, and Piety likewise. The Ignorance, Irreligion, and Debaucheries of the Laiety, and Clergy also, were so notorious in the eleventh, and following Centuries, that they occasioned the great and loud 
(a) The Authors, and the Collections out of them, may be seen, in Dr. J. White 's Way to the tr●e Church, p. 113, 114, 115. In Dr. James his Manuduction. 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108. And in Dr. Whitby's Absurdity, and Idolatry of Host Worship (the Appendix) from p. 70, to p. 108.  complaints of many who lived in the Roman Communion, and in the respective Ages; and may provoke to wonder, and grief, Those who shall read them.  
This being adverted to; 'tis so far from being impossible, that Changes should invade Religion, that rather 'tis impossible, but that Doctrines and Practices should be corrupted, and altered from their first Purity, in their passage through so long and foul a sink, as those dark and impure Ages are represented to have been. For as good Knowledge and Piety are great defensatives against Error's seizure of the Judgement, so Ignorance in the Understanding, lewdness and depravedness of the Will and Passions, make Men indifferent for Religion, and unwary in the matters of it; dispose Men to a reception of Opinions and Practices precipitantly, and without a due Examination of them, whence they come, and what they are; without a discreet prospect, whether they tend, and what their issue may be at the last. So that from what has been said, it is more than likely, that there may have been Obreptions, points of Faith, and Religious Practice may have been materially changed; and yet no great Tumult have been raised in the Christian Common-weal, no Schism; because perhaps the Innovations rushed not in the whole at once; but conveyed themselves into the Church in a Climax, insinuated themselves by sly and gradual Transitions, therefore with the less (if any) observations; especially might this surprise be undiscerned in blind and irreligious Ages.  
2. Secondly, as for notice of the changes of Opinions and Practices from Church-Histories: So great is the use of Ecclesiastical Histories, that we may with reason wish, we could rather boast of a plenty, than complain of their scarcity; which yet Learned Men do, especially considering the great extent of the Christian Church, for Time and Place; which necessarily afforded as huge a variety of Events and Revolutions. 
(a) Is. Casaub. in Proleg. ad Exercitat.  For above 200 years after the Apostles, till Eusebius Pamphilus, there was none who did more than begin to design some History of the Church, rather than seriously set about it. For a considerable while after the six hundreth year that 
(b) Idem. Ibid.  Learned Man (quoted in the Margin) doubts, whether to call those Ages, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Times of Portentiloquie, or of Ignorance. But there are those, who say as much, or more, and were Sons of the Church of Rome. The great 
(c) Nulla res ita hactenus negligi vis est, ac rerum Ecclesiasticarum gestarum vera, certa, & exactâ diligentiâ perquisita Narratio. Baron. in Praefatione ad Annal. Tom. prim.  Annalist confesses, That nothing seemed to have been so much neglected, as a true, and certain, and exact History of Ecclesiastical Affairs. And before Him, it was acknowleged by 
(d) Maximum saepenumero dolorem cepi, dum ipse mecum reputo; quàm diligenter— Acta verò Apostolorum, Martyrum, deinque Divorum nostrae Religionis, & ipsius sive crescentis Ecclesiae, sive jam adultae, op●rta maximix tenebris ferè ignorari.— Fuere qui magna pietatis loco ducerent mendacia pro religione confingere.— Lib. 5. de Trad. Discipl ..  Ludovicus Vives; That the Acts of the Apostles, of the Martyrs, and of the Saints, and the Concerns of the Church, both growing up, and grown, were unknown, being concealed under very great darkness. In this penury of Ecclesiastical History, how much of the Changes in the Church with an abundance of other very memorable accidents must have perished! In those Histories, which were Written, and are still extant, we can expect no more than the most remarkable Occurrents in the respective Ages, of which the Authors wrote (if all those). That a Change in the Church should be remarkable, it was requisite, that it should raise a Storm, cause a Public disquiet, and Breach of Communion; which yet might not have happened, tho' there were an Alteration in material Points (as has been shown above); and therefore Church-Histories (if we had more of them to speak) might be silent of it.  
And yet notwithstanding, Protestants can say more, viz. That Ecclesiastical Writings are not so wholly unintelligencing; but that they do report, when, and how several Points of the Romanists, controverted between them and us, got into the Church; how and by whom they were observed, and resisted in the several Ages of the Church. For which (among others) 
(a) Way to the true Ch. p. 195, 196, etc.  Dr. J. White may be seen. But I am not engaged necessarily to insist on this, having said what is sufficient before.   

SECT. V  
Scriptures, Councils, and Fathers, were 
(b) Sure Footing. p. 126, etc.  once drawn into the Field to engage in the defence of Oral Tradition; but upon after thoughts a Retreat is sounded to Two of them.  
For the Author of Sure Footing says; That he Discourses from his Scriptural Allegations, but 
(c) Letter of thanks, p. 106.  Topically, and that in Citation of them he proceeds on such Maxims, as are uted in Word-skirmishes, on which account he believes, that those Texts, he uses, sound more favourably for him, than for us. But in Word-skirmishes (i. e. Appearances ministered from Words, which may afford to a pleasant Sophister an opportunity of making passages seem to favour his Hypothesis, when really they do not so) I have no inclination to deal; and I conceive such a wordy velitation to be below the Gravity of the Cause depending between us, and our Adversaries.  
Next, the Author disclaims his Quotations of 
(a) Ibid. p. 105.  Councils to be intended against Protestants; if so, than I am not obliged to take notice of them. As for the Fathers, I know, all Protestants do declare, that they do highly value the Fathers, to such a degree as can be justly demanded from them, and as the Fathers themselves, were they now living, would require from them. And concerning their Testimonies (both of Holy Scripture, and of Tradition) something shall be said in the Second Part, and there, on a particular occasion.  
I have now dispatched the First Part of my Undertaking and have evinced from the Nature of Oral Tradition; from Experience or Event; and also by Answer to the Defences brought for it; That it is a very unsafe, and insufficient Conveyance of Divine Truths down from their Original Delivery unto us. And here I might rest, thinking that I had completed my work; if I might be allowed to discourse after the manner of the 
* P. 52.  Author of Sure Footing (with the change only of a few words) and to say: There being only two grounds, or Rules of Faith owned, namely, delivery of it down by Writing; and by Words and Practices, which we call Oral and Practical Tradition; 'tis left unavoidably out of the impossibility, that Oral and Practical Tradition should be infallible as a Rule, that Sacred Scriptures must be such; and therefore that they are the surest Conveyance of faith. But I shall not so crudely conclude my enquiry; but shall in a Second Part prove, Holy Scriptures to be the most safe immediate Conservatory and Conveyance of Divine Truths, down from their first Delivery, unto all after Ages: Only, having been large in the First Part; I suppose, I may be the briefer in the Second.     

PART. II. Sacred Scriptures are the safest Conservatory, and Conveyance of Divine Truths down from their Original Delivery through succeeding Ages.  

CHAP. I.  

SECT. I.  
IF we may collect the Judgement of Mankind from their Practice, we may believe, that in the Conveyance of Matters of Moment to Posterity, they judge the Precedence due to Writings about Oral Tradition; because they so commonly commit things of that nature to Books, tho' they know the Books themselves must be trusted with Tradition and Providence. How much more should this Practice take place in Religion, which concerns Men as highly, as their Blessedness does! And besides common Practice, there's great reason, why the writing things (especially Religious Doctrines, and Practices) should be preferred to the hazarding them under the Custody of Oral Tradition; That rather than This being the surest means of their preservation. For,  
1. It is much less difficult, because there is much less required, to keep a Book safe, and to hand it from one Generation to another, than to preserve a great many of Opinions and Senses of that Book, and to transmit them from Age to Age unalter'd. To the former, mere plain honesty, and an easy care are sufficient. Here's no need of much Apprehension, and Memory, and of a constant Care and Diligence to teach Posterity; here's no necessity of Posterities scrupulous attention to teaching Fathers, and of an happy docility, or promptness to learn, and all this through a long series of Ages. But these Punctilios (as has been showed before) are necessary to a faithful and unerring communicating of Truths to after-Ages in the way of Oral Tradition; therefore there is the more of difficulty, and consequently the more likelihood of miscarriage.  
2ly. Books, if kept safe, do faithfully preserve what is deposited with them. Their Memory (if I may so speak) never fails them; there's no need of an operous care to teach them, or rather to remember them, what their Authors once told them, committed to them. They warp not with the Times, in which they are extant, tho' through several Generations. They are not subject to levity and wantonness of Judgement; nor to rebound from one extremity to another; not to a sequaciousness after Men, whose Parts render them remarkable. They are not temptable by Hopes, or Fears. To be read, and to be accepted of, is their worst Avarice or Ambition: Nor does the Paper or Parchment look the paler at a Rack or a Gibbet; or the Characters fly thence upon Persecution. A Prison can't scare them, they are used to confinement, to a Chain (it may be) in a Library. Thus it is with Books. But Oral Traditioners are exposed to all those inconveniences (as has been before manifested,) whence their Traditions are infected with an answerable craziness. Therefore for this second, together with the first reason, Writings, Books, are the far less obnoxious; the more safe Conveyance. And what has been said of Writings in general, is much more true particularly of the Sacred Scriptures.  
Object. Against what has been delivered there may lie some seeming prejudice. It may be objected, that Writings have their fates, as well as their Authors. They are not exempt from either a total perishing by the oscitancy and carelessness of the Owners, or by violence from Enemies. Or at least they are liable to corruption; and that either wilful, and out of design (as, speaking of Holy Scriptures, by Heretics); or through the ignorance, or negligence of Transcribers. Whence it will follow, that notwithstanding the comparative easiness of transmitting Writings, and the Fidelity of them, if preserved; yet they may be ravished by violence from their Possessors, how honest soever they be; or they may be lost by them, if they should prove careless; or they may be adulterated upon one account, or another. And so Writings may not be preserved, or not preserved sincere and entire.  
Answ. That losses and decays, alterations and suppositiousness, have been incident to Writings, is confessed. Yet how many have escaped injury, through long tracts of time have arrived safe with us, some plenty of them in Libraries does manifest; for there have been (more or less) Lovers of Learning and Antiquity, who have been Guardians to these Orphans. And Learned Men have Methods (as Trial by Chronology, and the Customs and Modes of each Age; insight into the Style and Genius of an Author; Collation of Copies, with others) by which to distinguish the Spurious from the Genuine Works; and to right the Genuine by requisite Emendations. And of such kind of reliefs Scriptures are capable, as well as other Writings. But we shall see, that they have a much greater advantage, and are secured, above all Writings else, by peculiar Protections, and have been blessed with a special safety.   

SECT. II.  
Sacred Scriptures may be supposed to have been in danger from 1. Malice and Design. 2ly. From Casualty and Neglect. And to have been in danger,  
1. From Malice and Design of professed and public Enemies. 2ly. Of pretended Friends, I mean, Heticks.  
1. The open and professed Enemies of the Holy Scripture designed, and laboured for, their extinction. As no Professors of any Religion were ever so persecuted by the opposition and fury of the World, as Jews first, and then the Christians; so the Scriptures, in Sympathy with them, have been exposed to great hazards, but yet have survived them.  
When the Chaldeans had overrun Judea, wasted and plundered the Towns; ransacked and destroyed the Metropolis, Jerusalem; had rifled, and ruined the Temple; when they, who had escaped Slaughter, were carried away Captive into a strange Land, and the Captivity there lasted 70 years. Whenas amidst all these hurries, Vrim and Thummim, the Ark, the Pot of Manna, the Rod of Aaron; whenas these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, holy and choice Rarities of that People, and all their Glory sunk in the Deluge of an universal devastation: Yet the Holy Scriptures, which then were, triumphed over all these Calamities, (tho' the Copies were then but few, in comparison of what they were afterwards.) For soon after the return from Captivity, and reedification of the Temple, 
(a) Nehem. 8.6, 7, 8.  Ezra,— also Joshua and Bani,— caused the People to understand the Law; and the People stood in their place. So they read in the Book of the Law of God distinctly, and.—  
Some time after this, under the Tyranny of Antiochus, The 
(b) 1 Mac. 1.56, 57, 58.  Books of the Law which were found, were rend in pieces, and burnt with fire. And wheresoever was found with any the Book of the Testament; or if any consented to the Law, the King's Commandment was, that they should put him to Death. Notwithstanding this Persecution, the Holy Book outlived this Scrutiny and Cruelty.  
In the Times of Christianity, in the Reign of 
(c) Petau. Ration. p. 241, 242.  Dioclesian, there was an Imperial Edict, that the Churches should be demolished, and the Holy Scripture should be burned; and tho' some were so base, as to betray the Divine Books to the Enemy (who thence were called Traditores;) yet they weathered out this Storm also.  
Next to an invisible Divine Hand defending them, so many were the Copies of the Sacred Books (especially after the Jews return from Babylon; and more after the Gospel had been Preached and entertained in the World;) and likewise so zealously did both Jews and Christians concern themselves in them, that the Enemies might as soon have rooted out of the World the whole Generations of Jews and Christians, as the Bibles.  
2ly. For the same reasons, that there should be a Depravation of of Holy Scripture, by Additions, Subtractions, or Alterations in any thing material, as to Faith and Life; that there should be any designed, and successful Adulteration of them by Heretics, is not well conceivable. For so many were the Scriptures in their Originals; so very numerous were their 
(a) 
Qui Script. in Graecam linguam verterunt, numerari possunt; Latini autem Interpretes nullo modo, etc.  
August. De Doctrinâ Christianâ. L. 2. C. 11.5.   Translations, diffused throughout the World, where there were Christians; that if Heretics did raze out some passages, or foist in others, in any way corrupt the Text, they could do so but in some Copies, and in the Places where they came. But that they should succeed in a corruption of all the Books, or of the greater part of them, is not imaginable. Especially, whenas the Scriptures were so continually, and diligently read by all Christians. So that such Impostures must needs have been soon discovered, and warning been given to Christians to beware of the Cozenage. For this purpose we have the Suffrages of Card. Bellarmine, and of Sixtus Senensis.  
Although (says the 
(a) Eisi multa depravare conati sunt haeretici; tamen nunquam defuerunt Catholici, qui eorum corruptelas dete●erint, & non permiserint Libros sacr●s corrumpi, etc. De verbo Dei Lib. 2. Cap. 75. Et verò.  Cardinal) the Heretics have endeavoured to deprave many things, (he means in the Scriptures) yet there were never wanting Catholics, who detected those Adulterations, and permitted not the Sacred Books to be corrupted. 
(b) Quoniam (ut Augst. inqu●t) licèt omnes Fatres in hoc conspirâssent, ut seipsos, atque alios Scripturarum veritate privarent, (quoth imaginari non potest) non tamen potuissent omnes undique codices falsare, etc. Biblioth. Sanct. p. 727.  And Sixtus Senensis, quoting St. August. tells us, that, though all Fathers had conspired to deprive themselves and others of the Truth of the Scriptures; (which none can imagine) yet they could not have corrupted all the Books every where.  
How hard it was to corrupt the Holy Scripture without detection, and an Alarm to the Christian world, perhaps some guess may be made by the unsuccessfulness of such an Attempt on Books much inferior to them. For when the Papists had set a design on foot (and proceeded some way in it) of Purging the Writings of the ancient Fathers, and of some moderate Authors, the Dishonesty soon appeared, and was complained of.   

SECT. III.  
It can't be thought, that through Casualty, or supine negligence the Scriptures should expire, should be suffered to be a Prey to Moths, Mould, and Worms; to linger away in a Consumption, or to be embezeled in Vulgar, and Sordid uses, such as 
(a) Ne thuris piperisve sis cucullus. Lib. 3. Epig. 2.  Martial warns his Book against. For that which doth most envigor. men's Care and Industry for the preservation of a thing, is their high value, especially Religious Veneration for it; and such, Jews and Christians have had for the Scriptures, because known by them to be Sacred, to be the Divine Oracles, and the Contents of them to be of Eternal Consequence to them.  
The Jews, to whom pertaineth the giving of the Law, were most accurately diligent in keeping the Revelations, given to them, most entire. 
(b) De verbo Dei, L. 2. C. 2. Hi Sigitur omissis.  Card. Bellarmine quotes Philo, affirming; That for above 2000 years, even to his Time, not one word had been changed in the Law; and that any Jew would die an hundred times, rather than consent to any such change. He adds out of Johannes Isaac, that the latter Jews adore the Law ut Numen, as a Deity; and if it chanced to fall on the ground, bid a Fast for expiation of the mischance. This Bellarm. relates, and this is one of his five Arguments, why it is not to be conceived, that ever the Jews should have corrupted the Old Testament, out of Malice to the Christians, as the mistake of some is. The admirable and stupendious Care and Industry (as Heinsius calls it) of the Masorites is known; who numbered every Verse, Word, and Letter: 
In Proleg. ad exercit. in novum Testam.  And this they intended as Sepimentum Legis, a Mound, or Fence of the Law against Alterations.  
The Jews had not a greater, and more Sacred Estimation of the Law, than the Christians had for both Law and Gospel, particularly the Fathers.  
1. Their great laboriousness in the Study and Explication of the Sacred Writings, in their many Comments, and Homilies, is an indication of their incomparable Honour for them. In which work they did so abound, that suppose the Bibles should be lost (which is supposed only, not granted) far the greater part (rather the whole) might be recovered out of their Comments, Homilies, and occasional Citations in their other Writings. As this is an Argument of their singular Honour for the Scriptures, so it is a providential relief, and supernumerary way of retrieve of them, supposing the loss of them.  
2ly. The Father's high estimation and reverence for the Scriptures, are legible in Expressions concerning them, and Deferences to them.  
Irenaeus thus gins his third Book: We have not known the disposition of our Salvation by others, than those by whom the Gospel came unto us; which indeed they then preached, but afterwards by the Will of God delivered it to us in the Scriptures, as the future Foundation and Pillar of our Faith. Afterwards, in the end of the 66th. Chap. of his 4th. Book; He bids all Heretics, (and principally the Marcionit●●, and those who were like them, saying, That the Prophecies came from another God) read diligently the Gospel which was delivered by the Apostles to us, and read diligently the Prophets, and you will find every Action, every Doctrine, and every Suffering of our Lord delivered in them.  
Tertullian against Hermogenes, C. 23. I adore the fullness of the Scripture.— Let Hermogenes, and his, show that it is written. If it be not written. let him dread the Woe, which pertains to them, who add, or detract.  
Athanasius, in his Oration against the Gentiles, says: That the Scriptures are enough for manifestation of the Truth.  
St. Jerom. on Ps. 98. Every thing that we assert, we must show from the Holy Scripture.  
All things which concern Faith and Manners, are found in the plain places of Scripture; according to St. Augustine, in the 9th. Chap. of his 2d. Book of Christian Doctrine.  
These are some (amongst others) of the Father's reverential acknowledgements; their full and clear depositions for Holy Scriptures sufficiency for, and Prerogative of, being the sole Rule of Faith; and in this Point they speak like as very Protestants, as those who formed the 
(a) The words of the Article are these: Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to Salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any Man, that it should be believed as an Article of Faith, or be thought requisite, or necessary to Salvation. Evangel. nigrum. Atram. Theol.  6th. Article of the Church of England. And these passages, so plainly proving their so superlative esteem of the Holy Scriptures, do infer their most exact diligence and watchfulness for their conservation and safety. And this is sufficient for my purpose in this Section. But withal too I have gained an Argument for my main design (viz. The Testimony of the Fathers;) forasmuch as between Holy Scriptures being the safest Conveyance of Divine Truths throughout all Ages, and Scriptures being the sole Rule of Faith, there is so necessary a Connexion.  
And because the Romanists likewise allege the Fathers to give Countenance to Oral Tradition, therefore the Testimony of the Fathers in our case shall be farther considered of. And,  
1. I will appeal to any ingenious Reader of them, whether the passages which the Romanists cite out of the Fathers on the behalf of Tradition, and seemingly the most diminutive of Scripture, do in any measure come near to such a course Character of it; as that it is a Black Gospel; an Ink Theology, 
(a) Sure Footing. p. 194.  dead Characters, Waxen-natured, and pliable to the Daedalean Fancies of the ingenious Moulders of new Opinions. If men's thoughts may be judged of by their words, sure the Fathers and Romanists Sentiments of the Scriptures were very divers.  
2ly. Seeing there is a seeming contradiction of the Fathers to themselves (because they are urged by both the disagreeing Parties,) it will be fitting to inquire, whether there may not be a reconciliation of them to each other, and of some of them to themselves. For this end I suppose a good means would be: 1. Seeing the Fathers sometimes speak of Scripture without mention of Tradion, at other times speak of Tradition, not mentioning Scripture; to examine how they deliver their Sense, when they express themselves of Scripture and Tradition jointly, and comparatively of one with the other. 2ly. To see, whether their appearingly most favourable expressions of Tradition may not be very well construed in a subordination of Tradition to Scripture, very consistently with Scriptures Precedence to it.  
1. Of the Father's speaking of Scripture, and Tradition conjointly. I will begin with St. Cyprian, in his Epistle to Pompey. Being pressed with Tradition, he answers, Whence is this Tradition? Descends it from our Lords and his Gospel's Authority; or comes it from the Commands of the Apostles, and their Epistles? God declares, that those things should be done, which are written; saying to Joshua, The Book of the Law shall not departed from thy Mou●h, but thou shalt meditate in it day and night; that thou mayest observe to do all things written in it. Likewise our Lord sending his Apostles, Commands all Nations to be Baptised, and to be taught, that they observe all things, whatsoever he had Commanded.— What obstinacy, what presumption is it, to prefer humane Tradition to the Divine Dispose or Command; and not to consider, that God is angry and in wrath, when humane Tradition disregards and dissolves Divine Commands? As God warns and speaks by the Prophet Isaiah, etc. And toward the end of the Epistle,— And this it behoves God's Priests to do at this time, keeping the Divine Commands, that if Truth have declined and failed in any respect, we go back to the source of the Evangelical and Apostolical Tradition, and let the manner of our Actings take their rise thence, whence their Order and Origin risen.  
The preference of Scripture to Tradition by this ancient Father, is so plain and undeniable, that it is replied, St. Cyprian's Testimony was writ by him to defend an Error;— and therefore no wonder, if (as Bellarmine says) more errantium ratiocinetur, he discoursed after the rate of those that err; that is, assumes false grounds to build his Error on. Letter of Thanks, p. 124.  
But this is a mean Evasion. For tho' Cyprian was indeed in an Error, and did mistake in his discourse; yet it can't be affirmed with probability, or Charity to such a Saint, and Martyr; that to gratify a private Opinion he would affront so Sacred and Catholic a Principle, as the Rule of Christian Faith, and degrade Tradition from being such, if he had indeed believed it to be so.  
Yet if this should be granted to our Adversaries, the consequence would be their inconvenience. For why might not more do the same, which St. Cyprian did? and if some Father's might desert Tradition, and fly to Scripture, merely to serve a Turn, for defence of an Opinion, which they could not maintain otherwise; why may it not be as well said, that other Fathers might balk Scripture, and advance Tradition; and for the same end, viz. to support some Doctrine, or Doctrines, which else must have fallen? And upon this it would follow, (beside the imputation of inconstancy, and shifting to the Fathers) that we must be at much uncertainty, what truly was the Judgement of the Father's concerning the Rule of Faith; and that therefore the quotations out of them must in a great part be insignificant for this purpose.  
St. Basil, in his Tract, called; Questions compendiously unfolded, or answered; says, It is necessary and consonant to Reason, that every Man learn that which is needful out of the Holy Scripture, both for the fullness of godliness, and lest they accustom themselves to humane Traditions.  
'Tis acknowledged by 
(a) De amissi. gratiae. L. 1. C. 13.  Bellarmine, that this Author admits not Traditions unwritten; but then he says, it is not certainly manifest, whether these Questions were the great Basils, or rather Eustathius' of Sebastia. Yet the same 
(b) De Paenit. L. 3. C. 8.  Bellarmine. confidently quotes them as St. Basils' for Auricular Confession. So that it may seem, that the Questions were before scrupled at, only because they spoke in behalf of Scripture against Tradition, and against venial sins; which is manifest Partiality.  
But I shall bring a Testimony of St. Basil, which Bellarmine himself would own to be St. Basils'; who in his Book of the true Faith thus Discourses: If God be faithful in all his say, his Words, and Works, they remaining for ever, and being done in Truth and Equity; it must be an evident sign of Infidelity and Pride, if any one shall reject what is written, and introduce what is not written. This is a manifest Prelation of what is written, i. e. Holy Scriptures to what is unwritten, i. e. Tradition, which Bellarm. calls the unwritten word of God, in the Title to his 4th Book, De verbo Dei.  
When St. 
(a) Quid (inquam) Omousion nisi Ego & Pater unum sumus. Sed nunc nec ego Nicaenam synodum tibi, nec tu Arimineusem mihi debes t●nquam praejudicaturus cbiitere. Scripturarum Authoritatibus res cum re, causa cum causâ, ratio cum ratione concertet. Contra Maxt. Lib. 3. Cap. 14.  August. was willing to wave the Council of Nice to Maximinus, and to retire to a Decision of the Catholic Cause by Scripture; certainly that great Person judged Scripture without Tradion to be sufficient to prove an Article of Faith; or else he betrayed the Cause by appealing to a Medium, which could not evince it. For either the Nicene Council decreed the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father by Scripture without Tradition, (and then we have above three hundred venerable Fathers on our side) or if they defined it in the strength of Tradition without Scripture, or by Tradition sensing Scripture; then St. August. parting with the Council of Nice, proceeding upon Tradition only, or upon Tradition sensing Scripture, left himself nothing, or but the Letter of Scripture (which according to our Adversaries, wants all the properties of a Rule of Faith; Sure Footing. p. 29) to manage his Cause with.  
By these Testimonies it is plain, it cannot be; that the Fathers should express themselves 
(a) Tho' some Fathers speak highly of Scripture, as that it contains all Faith, etc. It is first to be marked, whether they speak of Scripture sensed, or as yet to be sensed; and if the latter, by whom, etc. Sure Footing. p. 140.  so highly of Scripture, only so far as helped and sensed by Tradidition; because, as to the Being a Rule of Faith, the Father's separate Tradition from Scripture, and set Scripture by itself.  
Much more it is far from being 
(a) 'Tis impossible, they (i. e. the Fathers) should b●ld Scripture thus interpretable (i. e. by other means th●n by Tradition) the Rul● of Faith; it being notorious, that m●st Heretics against whom they writ, held it theirs. And so had they held Scripture thus interpreted the Rule of Faith, They could not have h●ld the Heretics, since they adbered stiffly to that Root or Rule of Faith, however they might err in many particular Tenants Ibid. p. 141.  impossible, that the Fathers should hold Scripture, not interpreted by Tradition, to be the Rule of Faith, which yet is affirmed. And the Reason given is as weak as the Affirmation is untrue. For if the Scripture, not interpreted by Tradition, could not be held to be the Rule of Faith, because Heretics adhering stiffly to it, as the Rule or Root of Faith, could not be held as Heretics; then, nor could Tradition be held to be the Rule of Faith, because Heretics (as the 
(b) See Irenaeus quoted a little after.  Gnostics, and others) sticking to Tradition, as their Rule, could not be held as Heretics. There's a manifest parity of these Discourses, and the latter is as concluding as the former.  
But it is to accumulate injuries upon Scripture; because the mistakes and perverseness of Men abuse it by false glosses, and compelled deductions, therefore to judge it fit, it should forfeit its Authority. Our blessed Lord, who so condemned the Jewish Traditions, held the Scripture of the Old Testament to be the Jew's Rule of Faith; and the Sadduces, who denied the Resurrection, sure were held by him to be Heretics; and yet they disclaimed Tradition, and adhered stiffly to Scripture only, as the Root or Rule of Faith.  
Certainly, it is the impress and appointment from God, which constitute a Rule of Faith, make it to be such; and Men prove Heretics, when they wilfully wrong, pervert, and wrest it; but 'tis wonderful, that Heretics acknowledging it to be the Rule of Faith (i. e. paying to it what is due to it), or a pretence that it favours their Errors, (which is a slander of it) should unmake it a Rule of Faith, render it impossible to be held to be such.  
2ly. In enquiry about the second thing proposed, it must be considered, that the word [Tradition] has more acceptions than one: And that Tradition may be used to different Persons, at different times, in a divers manner, and to several ends.  
1. Tradition is taken sometimes (both in Scripture and Ecclesiastical Writers) not for Oral delivery of Opinions and Practices to Posterity; but for what is delivered by Writing, and even in the Sacred Scriptures. The Jew's Law and Rites are said to be such, 
(a) Act. 6.14.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Moses Traditioned; and yet they were a part of the Old Testament. St. Paul 
(b) 1 Cor. 15.3.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, delivered to the Christians, (which he had also received) that Christ died for our Sins, which was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the Scriptures 
(c) De Spiritu Sto.  St. Basil says, that our Baptism in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is according to the very Tradition of our Lord; and yet this is 
(a) Matth. 28.19.  written, with St. 
(b) Si ergo aut in Evangelio praecipitur, aut in Apostelorum Epistolis, aut Actibus, continetur, observetur etiam & haec sancta Traditio. In Ep. ad Pompeium.  Cyprian, that is an holy Tradition, which is either commanded in the Gospel, or is contained in the Epistles, and Acts of the Apostles.  
2ly. It is observed, that some of the Fathers had to do with such Heretics, as denied the Scriptures, some part of them at the least, and set up other writings in stead of them. In dealing with such, those Fathers were forced to have recourse to Tradition, that so they might dispute with their Advesaries on such a Principle, as they would allow, and this in way of condescension. IT was thus with 
(c) Cum enim ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi non rectà habeant, neque sint ex autoritate, & quia variè sint dictae, & quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his, qui nesciant Traditioner: Non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem; ob quam causam, etc. Adversus baerese. Lib. 3. Cap. 2.  Irenaeus in his Contest with the Gnostics. Who (says he) when they are argued against out of the Scriptures, accuse the very Scriptures themselves; as if they were not right, nor were of Authority sufficient; and because their Sense is various and uncertain; and because the Truth cannot be found in them by those who are ignorant of Tradition. This made Irenaeus in opposition to their fictitious Tradition, and pretended living Voice, express himself the more respectfully of such Tradition, as had brought down the Orthodox Doctrine from the Apostles, in the several Churches. Not that he preferred Tradition to Scripture; for what his Judgement was of Scripture, we have seen before; and 'tis the observation of 
(a) In Epist. nuncupatoriâ Irenaeo praefixâ.  Erasmus, that he fights against the Heretics solis scripturarum praesidiis, by the sole aid of Scriptures, i. e. Scriptures were his chief Weapons; and that if he took up Tradition, 'twas but occasionally upon the froward impudence of his Adversaries.  
3. We must distinguish of Times. The Gospel was Preached, before it was Written: It was written too, one part after another. And when the whole was written, the Copies could not presently be many, and dispersed to all Christians, especially the more new and remoto Converts. Nay, and had the Gospel never been written, than the Church must have been satisfied (if such the pleasure of God had been) with an Oral Tradition. Hence 
(a) Quid antem si neque Apostol● quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis, nun oportebat, etc. Adversus haer. L. 3. C. 4.  Irenaeus might say: what if the Apostles had not indeed left the Scriptures to us, would it not have behooved us to follow the Order of Tradition, which they had delivered to them, to whom they committed the Churches; to which Ordination do assent many Nations of Barbarians, which believe in Christ, having Salvation written in their hearts, without Characters or Ink, by the Spirit, and diligently keeping ancient Tradition. This (I say) Irenaeus might with reason write, especially against those, 
(b) Evenititaque neque Scripturis jam, neque traditioni consentire eos. Idem. L. 3. C. 2.  who consented neither to Scriptures, nor Tradition (i. e. such as descended from the Apostles.) But when as the whole Scriptures were long since written, and plentifully Communicated to the Christian world, the Case is quite altered.  
Besides, the nearer things are to their Origin, they are the more genuine and sincere; but, at the farther remove they are from it, the more they are in danger of changes and decays. Tradition must be conceived to have been much more pure at the distance of an hundred, or an hundred and fifty, or two or three hundred years, from the Apostles (and therefore then might be more rationally argued from, in some cases,) than after 7, 8, or 9 hundred years; in which revolution of so many more Ages, and after intercurrencies of many more accidents, Tradition may be more suspected of that consumptiveness, and of those changes, which Time brings upon all things; and therefore an Argument from it would be much more infirm.  
Farther yet, besides Oral, the Fathers of the more Primitive Times, might have written Traditions; such Records to prove, that such a Doctrine, or Doctrines, were professed by Apostolical Men, by Holy Martyrs, and Confessors, successively to that present Age, as were then extant, but are perished since. 
(a) Age jam qui voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotlo Salutis tuae; percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur; apud quas ipsae Authenticae eorum literae recitantur; sonantes vocem, & repraesentantes faciem uniuscujusque Tertul. de Praescrip.  Tertullian speaks of the very Authentic Letters of the Apostles, which were even then preserved in the Churches. So that the Fathers might with the more safety trust, and allege Tradition's suffrage, than we can, who live so incomparably farther off from the Apostles Days, than they did; it being very likely, that in such a far longer space of time, the more contingencies have interposed to disturb the clearness of Commerce between them and us.  
4ly. Proofs may be brought in a divers manner, and for different uses. St. Paul quoted Heathenish Poets, as well as the Law, and the Prophets. 'Tis usual, where the Subject is properly manageable upon the stock of Reason, yet to argue likewise from Testimony, to call in the concurring Judgement of others. In Religion, Protestants do not believe the Fathers to be infallible, and yet it has been usual with them to cite them, both in Homiletique Discourses, and in Polemique Writings. Testimony, tho' it be not apodictical, yet it is plausible. Example in point of Opinion, as well as of Practice is much gaining upon many; is not alone commonly better understood, but more prevalent too, than Reason, with many Capacities. And when 'tis the Testimony of many (as Tradition is) it causes those of an opposite Opinion to appear the more singular in their Persuasion; and singularity is not of the best Credit. So then the Fathers might (on some occasions) use Tradition's Authority (the general consent of Christians in some Truth, for one or more Ages) yet not demonstratively, but topically; somewhat the more to repress or to disparage in other's Opinion, the importunity of a petulant Adversary; to shame a contumacious Heretic (not, as is said, Sure Footing, p. 140, to declare that the rejecting Tradition, and adhering to Scripture, made him an Heretic); or they might urge it to the more tractable, as a probable motive to assent; tho' not as a Rule of Faith, yet as such a persuasive, as might be an occasion of Belief, and the better dispose the Soul toward Faith and Assurance: Yet still supposing Holy Scriptures to be the proper and ultimate basis of Christian Faith; and that such Traditions were consonant to them, and not overruling of them.  
I believe, that these considerations may be useful for the construction of the Fathers in such passages, wherein they make the most honourable mention of Tradition; and to show, that notwithstanding such a mention of Tradition, yet they might yield to Scripture the Supremacy in the regulation of Christian Faith, especially whenas they speak so reverently of Scripture in other places of their Works; nay, and give them the Precedence, when they compare the one with the other.  
And thus (if after a digression, yet I think not an impertinent one) I have proved the Father's unquestionable Care and Diligence in preservation of the Holy Scriptures, by their Religious and unparallelled esteem and veneration for them.   

SECT. iv  
3ly. The Holy Scriptures are secured by God's especial Protection of them. Reason suggests; that as there is a God, a Supreme, and first Cause, who made the world, and also provides for the welfare of his great Workmanship; so that the Divine Providence does mainly watch over those Creatures, on which God has imprinted the fairest Characters of his Power, Wisdom, and Goodness: Such a Creature is Man. And this Divine Providence is the Catholic Sanctuary of Mankind. After all men's own projectings and labours, here is their last and surest repose. They can't with a rational comfort Trade, Travel, Eat, Sleep, but with a sober hope of the Divine help and benediction. For if Divine Providence smile not, all men's wisest Counsels, and stoutest Endeavours will be successless: They may go forth, and never return home; their Table may be a Snare, and their Sleep Death, more than in a Metaphor.  
Next, Religion tells us, that God has designed, and prepared for Man an everlasting Blessedness, and determined of the due Qualifications of Man for that Blessedness; and it is agreed, that in the Sacred Scriptures God has revealed Himself concerning both. These Scriptures are the lively Image of God, the fair Copy of his Will, a bright Express of his Truth and Holiness, a Perspective into his Mind, and into many of his secret Counsels; authentic Records of the many and glorious manifestations of the Divine Wisdom, Power, Goodness, Mercy, and Justice, in making, governing all things, and in the Salvation of Sinners.  
From the dictates of Reason then, and much more of Religion, it is consequent, that God has an especial Care, that the Scriptures be safe, on which he has impressed so much of himself; which were 
(a) joh. 20. vit.  written, that we might believe, and believing have life; and which were 
(b) Rom. 15.4.  written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope; but how could they attain those ends, if they should perish? if this light were extinguished, how much in the dark, and forlorn would Man be!  
This peculiar watchfulness of God over the Scriptures is acknowledged by the Romanists. 
(c) Ita velente Deo ut verae lectionis ●ntegr●tas, quam hominum velmalitia, vel negligentia cor●uperent in partibus, in totâ saltem Ecclesiasticorum codi um universitate serv●retur; ne Ecclesia Christi per aliquod tempus divinarum Scriptura●um integritate careret. Bibl. Sanct. p. 727.  Sixtus Senensis attributes the preserved incorruptness of the sacred Text, to the Will of God. And Bellarmine 
(d) De verbo Dei. L. 2. C. 2. Quintum & ultimum argumentum.  argues from the Divine Providence for the preservation of the Old Testament from any injury by the Jews. Indeed, he entitles Tradition likewise to God's special care, as the 
(a) Cura ista non incumbit praecipue hominibus, sed Deo Praeter-providentiam Dei, quae est praecipua causa.— De verbo Dei non Scripto. Lib. 4. C. 12.  principal cause of its pretended safety. And this is a Confession, that God is in a particular manner the Guardian of that, by which he communicates his Mind and Pleasure to Man; (for such a thing, i. e. The unwritten word of God, he held Tradition to be.) But certainly Tradition can't lay a just claim to such an interest in Divine Providence, as the Scripture.  
1. For first, besides what I have before proved, to the just diminution of Oral Tradition; there was a providential dismission of it, and choice of Scripture, to be the Conveyance of Gods revealed Will to his Church through successive Ages. For whenas Oral Tradition had been in use for that purpose before the Flood, and some while after it, and great had been the untrustiness of it; at the length, God writ his Law Himself, and commanded what was written to be kept with a great religious care. Afterwards, as Moses, the Prophets, and Hagiographers were inspired, their Revelations were written, so far as was necessary to the Church's Edification. And when the People were in danger of seduction, and it behoved them to seek to their God for instruction; they were sent (not Children to their Traditioning Fathers; 
Is. S. 19, 20.  but) to the Law, and to the Testimony; and they were told, that those who spoke not according to that word, it was, because there was no light in them. Yes, and when the Church was generally corrupted, and therefore Tradition had not done its Duty, the Church's relief was (not from the living voice of testifying Fathers, but) from the Scripture, according to whose Canon abuses were reform. And for this Reformation, and because in it he performed the words of the Law, which were written in the Book, that Hilkiah the Priest found in the house of the Lord; Josiah stands renowned in Sacred Story with this Character; Like unto him there was no King before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, 
2 Kin. 23, 24, 25.  according to all the Law of Moses, etc.  
This way of securing Revelations by writing was continued under the Gospel; as we have them in the Evangelists, the Epistles, the Acts, and the Revelation. And this course was as needful under the Gospel, as under the legal Oeconomy, if not more. For it being intended by God, that the Gospel should be propagated beyond the narrow Confines of Judaea (where the Scriptures of the Old Testament had lodged for hundreds of years) throughout the World, and among so many Nations of such different Complexions, Customs, and Interests; there was the more danger it should be disguised, if it had been committed to the frailty of an Oral Tradition; as we know, that the more Mouths Relations pass through, the more subject they are to alterations from their primitive truth; through the ignorance, mistakes, prejudices, prepossessions, or wilfulness of the Relators. Whereas a Writing, being preserved, is a perpetual standard, by which to correct any such changes; for in these, Truth would be most likely still to appear in its first Integrity.  
Thus I have showed, how that after an experienced unsuccessfulness of Oral Conveyance, God appointed another way, and so ordered it, that Law and Gospel should be written. Now, if after, and notwithstanding such a Provision, yet it should be God's intent, that Oral Tradition only should have the prerogative to sense Scripture, and that Faith should be lastly resolved into Oral Tradition; and therefore that This, not Scripture, should be the only Rule of Faith; it must needs seem strange, and unaccountable to any rational Christian, how it should come to pass, that in the Sacred Scriptures there should be so many, and such high 
(a) Ps. 19.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Ps. 119. passim. 2 Pet. 1.19, 20, 21. Eph. 6.17. Heb. 4.12.  Encomiums of them; that our Saviour should bid the Jews, 
(b) joh. 5.39.  search the Scriptures; should tell them, they 
(c) Matth. 22.29.  erred, not knowing the Scriptures, 
(d) Matth. 22.42. joh. 10.34, 35, 36.  should dispute with, and baffle them out of the Scriptures; and by them 
(e) Luke 24.25, 26, 27.  confirm his Disciples in the Truth; that his Apostles should proceed in the same manner with the Jews: That the 
(f) Act. 17.11, 12.  Beraeans should be commended for searching the Scriptures daily, whereupon many of them believed; that St. Paul should mention it to Timothy, 
(g) 2 Tim. 3.15, 16, 17.  as an encouragement or engagement of him to continue in the things he had learned; that he from a Child had known the holy Scriptures; and that he should presently add a description of Scripture, than which a more full one sure can't be used of the Rule of Faith, viz. That it is able to make wise unto Salvation, through the Faith which is in Christ Jesus; that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the Man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works: I say, it is mighty strange, that Scripture should be thus magnified, and yet none of all this should be said there of Tradition: Nay, that either Tradition should be mentioned with disgrace, as when our Saviour 
(a) Matth. 15.2, 3.  condemns the Jew's Traditions of their Elders; and St. Paul 
(b) Col. 2.8.  warns the Colossians to beware, lest any Man spoil them,— after the Tradition of Men;— or where the word is found, yet that the sense of it should not be useful to our Adversaries purpose; which that it might be, it must be sufficient to prove, that there was more delivered by the Apostles, than was written; and that what was so delivered was a necessary Point of Faith. But when St. Paul praises the Corinthians, that they 
(c) 1 Cor. 11.3.23.  kept the Ordinances, or Traditions, as he delivered them; when he tells them, he had received that, which also he delivered to them; when he exhorts the Thessalonians 
(d) 2 Thes. 2.15.  to hold the Traditions, which they had been taught, whether by word, or (says he) our Epistle; when he commands them 
(a) 2 Thes. 3.6.  to withdraw themselves from every Brother that walks disorderly, and not after the Tradition which he received from the Apostle; there is nothing (I say) in these places, which will necessarily infer, that more was delivered by the Apostles, than was, or is written, and that what was so delivered was a necessary Point of Faith, through all Ages.  
Why now, it is a wonder, that if God (tho' he provided his Church with the Holy Scriptures, yet) pleased to enstate Oral humane Tradition in the great Office of sensing Scripture, and of being the only Rule of Faith; He did not so order it, that Scripture should modestly acknowledge its Superior, but rather let Scripture carry away all the honour from it.  
2ly. A second reason, why Oral Tradition can't plead so strong a Title to a protection by the Divine Providence, as Scripture, is this. God's Providence does ordinarily cooperate with, and prosper means answerably to their comportment with, and likelihood to reach the end intended. Now it has been before demonstrated, how weak and uncertain Tradition is; how fixed and able Writings are, to conserve Truths once delivered; and therefore 'tis rational to believe, that the Divine Aid does much rather assist to the preservation of Divine Truths by the Holy Scriptures, than by Oral Tradition; the former being much more serviceable to the promoting such an end, than the latter.  
Hitherto I have proved the continued preservation of Holy Scripture from proper Causes of such an Effect; causes ministerial, and supreme; humane care and vigilancy, and Divine special Providence.   

SECT. V  
4ly. Scripture's Preservation is manifest from the Event. Such have been the happy success of Divine Providence's watchfulness, and of humane Care and Diligence, that Christians do generally consent in this; that the Holy Scriptures are de facto continued safe, and pure to us in all things, which are necessary to be believed, and to be practised, for the obtainment of Everlasting Happiness.  
The Church of Rome professes to have the Scriptures, and the Trent Council has defined the Vulgar Latin to be those Genuine, Authentic Scriptures. How true that Determination was for the Authenticness of the Vulgar Latin Bibles, is not necessary for me to inquire; 'tis enough for me, that they acknowledge a preserved Integrity of the present Scriptures.  
So that there is not a Tenent, which we have more strong inducement to believe, upon the account even of Tradition, than that the Divine Books (the Scriptures, which we have) are indeed the Word of God, and have been faithfully derived to us from the beginning; there being no Tradition more universal for any Point than for this great important Truth; tho' Christians may run wide from each other in other matters, yet they close in this Centre.  
I conclude then, seeing that the Holy Scriptures are much more fit to keep the Truths committed to them safe, than Oral Tradition, if they be preserved; (as has been proved) and likewise that the Holy Scriptures are preserved (as is generally confessed, and even by our Adversaries); it must follow, that not Oral Tradition, but the sacred Scriptures are the surest and safest way of Conveyance of Divine Truths down from their Original delivery unto us; which to demonstrate was the scope of this Undertaking.    

CHAP. II. Objections answered.  

SECT. I.  
THere remain some things, which perhaps may be apprehended to reflect on the Prelation I have given to Scripture above Oral Tradition, in the point of preservation, which next shall be considered.  
Obj. 1. The 
(a) Almost innumerable variae lectiones in it still controverted. Sure Footing. p. 32.  many variae lectiones, divers Readins, may seem to some a reason to question Scripture's descent to us in a sufficient Purity. But,  
Answ. 1. 'Tis a question, whether all those which go under the name of Divers Readins, do truly deserve that Title. For I conceive, that not every Translation of the Bible (in whole, or in part); by whomsoever, and from whencesoever, (as suppose) by some very uncertain, or justly suspected Author; or not from the Originals, but from some Versions of them; no, nor that every Copy of the Bible (in the Original Languages) found any where, or whether of convenient Antiquity or not, are sitting to Minister matter for various Readins of the Sacred Text; i. e. are such, as merit to be considered by Learned Men, and may put them to the stand sometimes, which is the truest. Certainly, none (if any Translations at all) but such as are immediately from the Originals, have been performed by Authors of repute; or (if their Persons are not known) who give in the work no jealousy of their Integrity; none but Copies of sufficient Antiquity are considerable for such a purpose. And if such a course, and some other cations were used; it may be a great part of the Army of almost innumerable variae Lectiones would be disbanded.  
2ly. But let them stand as they are mustered by some; they are not so formidable, as to 
(a) Nay so many (variae lectiones) in the New Testament alone observed by one man, (my Lord Usher) that he durst not print them for fear of bringing the whole Book into doubt. Sure Footing. Ibid.  bring the whole Book into doubt; and doubtless the excellent Lord Primate 
(b) Supposing he said so, as the Author of S●re Footing reports  Usher. was more Good and Learned than to think so; tho' perhaps he might judge the Printing of them to be less convenient, (not as if they were rationally conclusive of any thing really disadvantageous to Scripture, but) lest the Atheistical, or the weak, might take an occasion from them to disparage the Scripture; which care to avoid the ministering occasion of scandal to others in Religious matters, has ever been the wariness of the good and prudent. But as for these divers Readins; 
(c) Dr. Br. Walton, late Lord B. of Ch. in Proleg. 7. ad Biblia Polyglort. Qui etiam citat in eundem sensum Lud. Capellum in Proleg. 6.  some of the most curious Collectors of them have not discerned any alteration made by them in the Scripture, which may wrong Faith or Manners.  

(a) In quâ tamen tam longâ & latâ a textu criginario discessione divinam tecum providentiam agnoscimus, & suspicimus: quòd nulla extiterit tam damnosa inter utrosque textus differentia, ut rectam fidem, quae ad salutem est necessaria, labefactaret aut laederet. Jacobi Vsserii Armach. ad Ludou. Cappellum Epist.  And the Reverend Archbishop Usher (before named) confesses, and venerates the Divine Care; in that (tho' he believed the Septuagint Translation widely to differ from the Original Hebrew Text, and had no Opinion of it, as a ground even of 
(b)— Haec mea sententia perpetua fuit.— Ex quibusdam veterum interpretationibus excerpi aliquas posse variantes te●tus Hebraici lectiones; ex vulgatâ Graecâ version— nullas. Idem. Ibid.  various Reaings; yet) there is no such material difference between the Hebrew Text, and even that version, as may injure the Faith necessary to Salvation.  
Our Adversaries, tho' they know of those numerous (as they say) variae lectiones, yet notwithstanding scruple not to profess to have the Genuine Scriptures, (as was said before) or if they have not, if they have been careless in a matter of so grand moment as the Conservation of Holy Writ entire, how should we trust to their fidelity in other things of less Consequence, who yet claim to be the most credible Traditioners in the world?   

SECT. II.  
Ob. 2. If it should be thought a Ground to suspect the care of the Church, and of Providence over Scripture; that, 
(d) The Epistle to the Hebrews. Of St. Jam. 2. Ep. of St. Peter. 2d. and 3d. Ep. of John. the Ep. Ju. the Revelation.  1. some Books of the New Testament are accounted now Canonical, which Anciently were not reputed so. 2. That some Books (commonly called the Apocrypha) are controverted, whether they belong to the Canon of the Old Testament, or not; it is answered.  
1. That it is no wonder, if all the Books of the New Testament were not presently generally received by all Christians, who in, especially after, the Apostles days, had multiplied into very great numbers; and lived dispersed in divers places, and very remote from each other. Time was required for all Christendom truly to inform themselves of a business of so great weight; but the reception of these Books (never doubted of by all Christians; rather doubted of, than rejected by some) was early enough to satisfy any sober expectation. The Council of Laodicea, which was had in so much reverence and esteem, by those of elder ages, that the Canons of it were received into the Code of the Universal Church, was held Anno Dom. 364. The Bishops then assembled together, 
(e) Apud Caranzam.  declare in the last Canon, what Books of the Old and New Testament were to be read publicly, and to be held as Canonical, and they only. And among those of the New Testament are reckoned the Epistles before mentioned in the Margin. The Apocalypse indeed is omitted; but it was omitted only, not rejected, it was forborn to be named, because their Custom was not usually to read it in public, for the special Mysteriousness of it. 
(a) More may be seen of this in the learned Dr. Cousins, late Bishop of Duresme; in his Scholastic. l History of the Canon of Scripture, pag. 60. 61.   

(a) De Verbo Dei. Lib. 1. c. 17, 18, 19 also Cap. 16. concerning some little portions of Holy Writ formerly controverted.  Bellarmine gives a large account of the Attestations yielded to all these Books, and to each of them; not alone by the Laodicean Council, but some others also, and by several Fathers likewise, both before and after that Council.  
Indeed after some Debates about them by some in the early days of Christianity, they were entertained by the Church without contradiction.  
2. The Controversy between us and the Romanists about the Canon of the Old Testament has in it no great difficulty, it seems to be a plain case.  
Those Arguments, by which 
(b) De Verbo Dei. L. 2. c. 2.  Bellarmine proves, that the Jews did not corrupt the Hebrew Text, do as strongly conclude, that they did not shorten the Hebrew Canon; for this latter would have been as great a fault in them, as the former, rather a greater, and would have been more difficult for them to have effected. Also 
(c) De Verbo Dei. Lib. 1. c. 8, 9, 10.  Bellarmine acknowledges, that the Book of Baruch is not found in the Hebrew Bibles; that the fragments of Daniel, i. e. The Hymn of the three Children; the History of Susanna, and of Bell and the Dragon; that the Books of Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, and of the Macchabees, are not owned by the Jews. Or if he had not confessed so much, there is evidence sufficient from the 
(a) Josephus contra Apion. Lib. 1. p. 1036. 1037.  Jews themselves, that 
(b) Primis Ordinis Canonica Volumina, quae sola apud Hebraeos in authoritate hahentur, Judaei, etc. Sixt. Senens. Bibl. Sanct. pag. 2. Certum est Libros hosce (Apocryphos sc.) ab Ecclesià, sive Synagogâ Judaicà nunquam in Canonem censitos fuisse, tam ante Christi tempora, quàm post, in hunc usque diem. Sim. Episcopii Inst. Theolog. 226. P. Ricaut. Of the Greek Church.  they never owned more Books, as Divine and Canonical, than the Protestants do; and likewise the Greek Church agree with the Protestants in rejecting the Apocrypha.  
How then the Roman great Propugnators of Tradition, consistently even with that very Principle, adopt more Books into the Canon, than the Jews ever owned, is not by me conceivable. For to the Jews were committed the Oracles of God; they, above all in the world, best knew what was committed to them; they did carefully preserve (as is seen before), and deliver to Posterity; and Posterity could honestly come by no more than what was delivered to them: I do not foresee, what exception can justly lie against this procedure. Therefore that Bellarmine should say, tho' the Jews rejected these Books, yet the 
(a) Ecclesia Catholica Libros istos, ut caet ros, pro Sacris & Canonicis habet. De verbo Dei. Lib. 1. C. 10.  Catholic Church (he means the Christian); and particularly the Trent Council received them as part of the Canon of the Old Testament, is exceeding strange, and a Riddle to me. Seeing that they have no countenance from the most Primitive, general, and long-lived Tradition of the Jewish Church. And this is enough to satisfy a rational Christian, and to refute our Adversaries, even by their own Principle.  
But yet, nor is it true, that there has been a truly Catholic reception of those Books, as Canonical, even by the Christian Church. It is 
(a) This deduction of Testimonies is largely and satisfactorily made by the late Reverend Bishop of Duresme, Dr. Cousins, in his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture.  evinced by a continued series of sufficient Testimonies, from the first Ages of the Christian Church, through the several Centuries, unto the Council of Trent; that the Books which the Protestants call Apocryphal, were judged to be such by Christians. Now, that the Council of Trent, above 1500 years after Christ, and a fragment of Christendom, should vote the Apocryphal Books to be entertained with a veneration equal to what Christians have for the unquestionable Scriptures, was a boldness which was great enough, but can lay no Obligation upon Christians.  
The result of the Discourse foregoing, concerning the Books of the Old and New Testament, is this. 1. Seeing the Books of the New Testament were never doubted of, much less rejected, by all, were so early received by all. 2ly. Seeing the Jewish Church never (for so many hundred years) admitted more Books into the Canon, than Protestants do, likewise that the Christian Church did from the beginning distinguish between the Canonical and Apocryphal Books (as has been the concurrent Testimony of the most considerable Members of it, in its several Ages.) Forasmuch (I say) that so it is; there can lie no rational Objection against the sufficient care of the Divine Providence, or the Church's diligence, in the preservation of the Holy Scriptures; upon supposal of which, it can justly be pretended, that Christians must be uncertain about the Integrity of the Scripture Canon.  
I might add, that suppos● there were a much more considerable uncertainty concerning the truly Canonical Books of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, than there is; yet there would be a fair Salvo for the care of Divine Providence, and for the security of Christians necessary Belief and Practice.  
For I humbly conceive, that if 1. The Books of the New Testament, at the first not generally received, were still as controversible, yet we should not be at a loss for any Article of Faith; there being, in the Books never disputed of, enough to establish it. Or, 2ly. Were it so, that it were altogether doubtful, whether the Books called Apocryphal, were not as truly the word of God, as those styled Canonical; perhaps, yet there is no Doctrine, which can be proved from those Apocryphal Books, contrary to what we maintain against our Adversaries. But this is Supernumerary, 
After the Author had confuted by several Testimonies of the Ancients the Canonicalness of the Books, called Apocryphal, he adds. Etsi in hac re longè superior est causa nostra, nullam tamen satis gravem causam video, cur acriter de numero Canonicorum librorum cum Pontificiis digladiemur; & Apocryphos, quos illi in Canonem referre volunt, usque adeò aver semmr, quasi Fides & Religio Christiana propterea vacillatura sit, si illi in Canonem admittantur: Eisi enim non nego esse in iis quaedam, quae vel contradictionem, vel falsitatem, vel absurditatem manifestariam prae se ferant, & difficulter, aut cum iis quos Canonicos esse utrinque in confess est, conciliari, aut cum historiae veritate, aut cum recta ratione in gratiam reduci possunt; tamen non modò nulla esse in 'tis credo; per quae dogmatis alicujus ad salutem necessarii veritas labefactari possit, sed & non pauciora esse in iis, mihi persuadeo, quae convellendis Pontificiorum erroribus faciunt, quam quae iis aut fulciendis aut stabiliendis servire possunt. Sim. Episcopii Instit. Theol. p. 227. Afterwards speaking of the Books of the New Testament, anciently questioned, says he: Sive admittantur, sive non admittantur— Certissimum nihilominus manet, caeteris, qui extra controversiam omnem positi sunt, abundè satis contineri universam doctrinam, & religionem istam, quam Revelationem tertiam (intelligit, Religionem Christianam) esse dicimus. Nullus enim in istis omnibus controversiis est apiculus, qui singulare aliquid habet inse, quoth in aliis indubitatis desideratur, imò non abundè iis continetur, ad Religionis, & doctrinae Jesu Christi tum perfectionem, tum integritatem pertinens. Idem. Ibid. pag. 229.  and might be untrue, without any prejudice to what I have discoursed in this Section.   

SECT. III.  
Obj. 3. Whereas I have said, that the safe descent of Divine Truths is so greatly provided for, because they are treasured up in the Holy Writings; it may be perhaps replied, that Oral Tradition is not destitute of this 〈◊〉 Advantage also. For one means which Bellarmine alleges of the preservation of Oral Traditions, is Scriptura, writing them in the ancient Records of the Church. Therefore he says, that 
(a) De Verbo Dei non Scripto. L. 4. C. 12.  a Doctrine is called unwritten; 
(b) Id●m. Ibid Ch. 2.  not because it is not where written, because it was not written by the first Author, but,  
Ans. 1. The Adversaries, I have to deal with, talk of Oral Tradition, as a Plenipotent thing, which is a support to itself, and needs not the prop of a Pen; is itself a spring of perpetuity to itself; and therefore, that the being written must be an accidental, and no necessary Preservative of it.  
This sure is the importance of several passages concerning it; viz. 
(a) Sure Foot. pag. 115.  Christian Tradition, rightly understood, is nothing, but the Living voice of the Catholic Church essential as Delivering. 
(b) Ibid. pag 101.  None can in reason oppose the Authority of Fathers, or Councils against Tradition. 
(c) Ibid. pag. 103.  No Authority from any History, or Testimonial writing is valid against the force of Tradition. So that Oral Tradition, is it seems, so far from a want of assistance from any writings whatsoever, that it is their strength, and overrules them.  
There is yet more said, 
(d) Ibid. pag. 56.  Oral Tradition is a Rule, not to the learned only, but also to the unlearned, to any vuloar enquirer; therefore it must not rest on Books for its Authenticness; for the unlearned and vulgar enquirers have not ability to read, to examine, to understand Books; accordingly 'tis said, that the Tradition of the 
(a) Ibid. pag. 203, 204.  present Church is to be believed.  
There is something to the same purpose in another 
(b) Enchirid. of Faith. pag. 14, 15.  Author, who has formed his Book Dialogue-wise. After the Master had read his Scholar a Lecture about Tradition; the Scholar asks him, Sir, It seems a matter of great study, not easily to be overcome, except by very learned men, to know, or to find out a constant Tradition, as to read all the Fathers, Liturgies, or Councils—. Is it not therefore sufficient Testimony of this, if the present Catholic Church universally witnesss it to be so? To this the Master, after some premises, answers, It must by necessary consequence be concluded, the Testimony of any age (he means, any present age) to be sufficient. And after a while, he closes thus, This surely convinces the Testimony of any age to be sufficient. Thus (whatsoever just exception this Divinity is exposed unto, yet) it appears by the Authors quoted, that there are some such, as I have to do with in this work, who maintain a selfsufficiency in Oral Tradition; and that though it may have, yet it can sustain itself without the aid of Books.  
2. Let it be, that Oral Tradition has help from Scripture, from writing; yet, upon a Scrutiny it will be found, that in the last issue this relief will be insufficient, so far, at the least, as to privilege Oral Tradition to be the Rule of Faith. For, 1. Were their writings, the Conservatories of Tradition, written by persons moved by the Holy Ghost, or not? If not, (and I suppose, our adversaries will not affirm they were) then these writings have a great disadvantage of the Holy Scriptures, which we profess to be the Canon of our Faith; as great a disadvantage as must be between Books written by them, who could not err, and those written by them, who might err; from whence it would follow, that what is contained in the one, must be true; that the Contents of the other, may be true, yet too they may be false, there may be that reported in them, as delivered by Christ and his Apostles, which yet was not delivered by them. But, 2. Were there Ecclesiastical Monuments of unquestionable credit, and which did from Christ and his Apostles, through each age, exacty and fully declare to us the consentient Doctrines and Practices of the universal Church, it would be very material, and we should much rejoice in it; but the case is otherwise.  
For some while, there were very few (if any) writings, save the Holy Scripture, which come to our hands. Justin Martyr is said to be the first Father, 
About 150 years after Christ.  whose works have survived to this day. There are some Books, which pretend to an early date, which yet are judged to be supposititious; some of them judged to be so by the Romanists themselves, others proved to be such by the 
(a) Cook, in censu â quorundum Scriptorum. D. James' Bastardy of false Fathers. Daille.  Protestants.  
For the first 300 years (as there was no complete Ecclesiastical History, so) the Fathers now extant, were but few; and their Works too being calculated for the times in which they lived, reach not the controversies, which for many years past, and at this day, exercise, and trouble Christendom. This paucity of the Records of the first ages 
(a) Id autem esse tempus, quo quatuor prima Concilia Oecumenica includantur, a Constantino Imp. ad Marcianum. Atque hoc vel propterea aequissimum esse, quia primorum seculorum paucissima extant monumenta; illius vero temporis, quo Ecclesia praecipuè florebat, long plurima, ut facile ex ejus aetatis Patribus, & eorum scriptis, fides ac disciplina veteris Catholicoe possit agnosci Ita Perron. Sequitur Responsio Regis. Hoc postulatum parùm illis aequum videbitur, etc. Apud Is. Casaubonum in Responsione ad Cardinalis Perronii Epistolam, pag. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42.  Card. Perron acknowledges, and does imply their insufficiency for settling Catholic Faith; when as he would have recourse made for this purpose unto the 4th. and 5th. Centuries, because then there were most writers. Tho against this, the learned Is. Casaubon excepts; and justly, forasmuch as it must be presumed, that the stream of Tradition ran purest, nearest to its Fountain.  
The Fathers after the first 300 years did often mix their own private sentiments with the Doctrines of the Church. Nor do the Fathers express themselves so, as that we may clearly distinguish, when they writ as Doctors, and when as Witnesses; when they deliver their own private Sense, and when the Sense of the Church; and if of the Church, whether it be of the Church universal, or of some particular Church? some, who have diligently perused their Writings, judge it not easy to find any such constant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is confessed by 
(a) Rushworth. Dial. 3d. Sect. 13.  a Romanist, that the Fathers speak sometimes as Witnesses of what the Church held in their days, and sometimes as Doctors; and so it is often hard to distinguish, how they deliver their Opinions, because sometimes they press Scripture or Reason, as Doctors, and sometimes to confirm a known Truth. So that he, who seeks Tradition in the Fathers, and to convince it by their Testimony, takes an hard task upon him, if he go rigorously to work, and have a cunning Critic to his Adversary. So then, Tradition must in a good measure be at a loss for succour from the Father's Writings.  
I conclude then, that Books, Writings have not given such advantages to Oral Tradition, as to render it the safest and most certain Conveyance of Divine Truths; but this Dignity and Trust is due to Holy Scriptures only; which having been at the first penned by Persons assisted by the Divine infallible Spirit, are stamped with an Authority transcendent to all humane Authority, Oral, or Written; which have been witnessed to by the concurrent Testimony of the Church, in each intermediate Age, since the Primitive Times; and which are at this day generally agreed upon, as the true Word of God, by Christians, tho' in other things, it may be some of their Heads may stand as oppositely, as those of Sampson's Foxes.   

SECT. iv  
There remains a Cavil, or two, rather than Objections, which shall have a dispatch also.  
1. We are told, that by desertion of Oral Tradition, and adherence to Scripture we do cast ourselves upon a remediless ignorance even of Scripture. 
(a) Sure Footing. P. 117.  [Tradition established, the Church is provided of a certain and infallible Rule to interpret Scripture's Letter by, so as to arrive certainly at Christ's Sense, etc.] And e contrà, 
(b) Ibid. p. 98.  without Tradition, both Letter and Sense of Scripture is uncertain, and subject to dispute.] Again, 
(c) Ibid. p. 38.  [As for the certainty of the Scriptures signisicancy,— nothing is more evident, than that this is quite lost to all, in the uncertainty of the Letter.]  
2ly. It is suggested, that the course we take, is an Enemy to the Church's Peace. 
(d) Ibid. p. 40.  [The many Sects, into which our miserable Country is distracted, issue from this Principle, viz. The making Scriptures Letter the Rule of our Faith.]  
By these passages it is evident, that this Author will have it, that Protestants have nothing, but the Letter of Scriptures, dead Characters to live upon; and that upon this he charges their utter uncertainty in the interpretation of Scriptures, and their distractions.  
Answ. But Protestants, when they affirm, That Scripture is the safest and most certain Conveyance of Divine Truths; and that consequently it is the only Rule of Faith, do mean Scriptures Letter and Sense both, or the Sense notified by the Words and Letter. And therefore the Author might have spared his Proof of this conclusion, i. e. That Scriptures Letter wants all the— properties belonging to a Rule of Faith: It was needless (I say) to prove this to Protestants. Well, but let Protestants mean, and affirm what they will; have only the Letter of Scripture, and not the Sense of it, because they admit not of Oral Tradition to Sense it. Scripture (it seems) is such a Riddle, that there is no understanding it, except we plough with their Heifer; and likewise without Tradition's cement we shall always be a pieces, and at variance amongst ourselves. But,  
1. As to the certainty of Scripture's Sense; is Scripture (in earnest) so utterly obscure? Will their Author say so of the Histories of Livy, or Tacitus; or of the Philosophical Writings of Plato, and Aristotle; or of Euclid's Elements? Can not God speak clearly, and intelligibly to Men (as Men have done), and that in matters of the greatest consequence to them? or would he not do so? The Assertion of the one, would impeach his Wisdom; of the other, his mercy and kindness to Souls.  
And if Scriptures leave us so quite in the dark, why do they call themselves a Light, a Lamp; say, 
Ps. 119. 105.13● Ps. 19.7, 8.  that they enlighten the Eyes, and make wise the simple? Were the Books of the Old Testament, the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles of the New Testament (in the respective times in which they were writ) in themselves unintelligible by them, to whom, and for whose Souls health they were writ? If they were so, than they were useless and vain: And Oral Tradition could not expound them, which was not in Being, when those Books were first, written; for That deals with the Ages following the first, conveys what was at the first delivered unto Posterity. Did God then write only to amaze his Church?  
'Tis acknowledged, that there are several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things hard to be understood (which it might please God should be, partly to win the greater veneration to the Scriptures, for what is obvious and presently seen through is in the more danger of contempt; partly for the exercise of Christian's Industry, Humility, and Charity towards each other, on occasion of dissent.) But howsoever, the Scriptures are not so locked up, but that a comp●tent diligence, and a Beraean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or readiness of mind, may be a Key to them, may open them in all Points necessary to Salvation. And if in other things we remain ignorant or not so certain, we may well bear with it, while we are yet but in viâ and not comprehensores; on our way unto, but have not yet reached perfection.  
That, which makes the noise of Scriptur's obscurity the more loud, is, that Men are apt to look upon the many subtleties of the Schools, and Niceties of Polemic Writers, as Articles of Faith; and that men have more mind to fathom depths, and to humour their curiosity (for which end, I believe, the Scriptures were not intended), and hence, are ever racking the Scriptures and vexing the Sacred Text; than to exercise themselves in a sober understanding of what is sufficiently plain, and in a conscientious practice of the Holy Rules of Life, which are evident enough. If Christians would more seriously apply themselves to these two things, they would find in the Scriptures employment enough, and they would be more contented with their difficulties.  
The Romanists have raised a cry of Scriptur's darkness upon another account, and out of Policy. For having embraced several Tenants and Practices, which Scripture does condemn, or not countenance (either it is wholly silent of them, or they are but mere appearances there, which are snatched at); and yet it is inconsistent with their grandeur, or profit, or the affected reputation of an infallibility, to part with; they are feign to press Tradition to serve in their Wars, and for the defence of them. Thus they have first made a necessity, and then have invented a Remedy for it. But when all is done, the Remedy is more imaginary than real. For how unsure a Conveyance, and consequently how weak a Proof Oral Tradition is in matters of Christian Faith and Practice, has been already evicted. So that if we must be ignorant of Scriptures Sense, unless Oral Tradition bless us with the Exposition of it; and Scriptures no farther a Light, than it is tinded at Tradition's Candle, we must sit still in much ignorance, or wander in great uncertainties; for that cannot relieve us, it is not that infallible Commentator it is pretended to be.  
2. To the upbraiding us with our Distractions, I reply,  
1. Before the charge can be made good, that the choice of Scripture for our Canon was the cause of our many Differences, and that upon that pretence we should exchange Scripture for Oral Tradition, it must be supposed, that Oral Tradition is a sure and infallible clew to guide us out of the Labyrinth of Errors into the way of Truth and Peace (the contrary to which has been sufficiently proved.) For otherwise, to leave Scripture, and to follow Tradition, would be to relinquish a Guide, or Rule, which being indicted by an unerring Spirit cannot misled us; and to choose one, which may and will carry us out of the way. Nor will the pretence of Unity make amends for this. For true Christian Peace can't be otherwhere bottomed, than on Truth; when, and so far as it is a Cement of Men to the disservice of Truth, it commences Faction. Nor Reason, nor Religion allow, much less commend, an Agreement of Persons to err together.  
2. They, who have the most amorously espoused Tradition, have also their many and great Differences (as has been showed above) only through Fear in some, and Policy in the rest, they are hushed up more, than amongst us, and so do better escape the observation and talk of the World. Nay, that Church may be justly arraigned as the guilty cause of that, which they call a great Schism, viz. The Separation of so many Churches from them (the Churches, called Protestant) by their imposition of unlawful, and therefore impossible terms of Communion with them. And 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Nilus tells the World, that their Imperiousness was the reason of the great Schism between the Greek, and the Latin Church. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. pag. 21. 22.   
Thus, as the Church of Traditioners have no few Dissensions among themselves, so they have given a beginning and continuance to the quarrels between them, and a considerable part of Christendom.  
3. there's no need of fetching our Distractions from the Rejection of Oral Tradition; there are are other true manifest Causes of them assignable.  
Our Church once flourished with Peace (and that, without the aid of an Oral Tradition) whilst the Reverend Bishops were suffered to govern it, and the Royal was able to countenance the Ecclesiastical Authority. But when the pious King, and blessed Martyr, was engaged in, and diverted by, the turmoils of a Civil War, when Episcopacy was changed for Anarchy, when the Golden reins of Government in Church and State were broken, then begun and increased our Divisions and Calamities. Unto which, it may be, there were some assisting Causes from without; some, who helped to kindle and to blow our Fires. And if the Roman Church should chance into the like afflicted State with ours, it would be obnoxious to the like Confusions. If the Mitre should be forsaken by the secular Crowned Heads, and a mutinying multitude should pull their Holy Father out of his infallible Chair; then 'tis not altogether improbable, but that Children would less heauken to testifying Fathers; but that there would be more Alumbrados, and the like Freaks might be acted among our Adversaries, which tore our Church.  
But withal, 
I think it seasonable to let my Reader know, that those Men so called (i. e. Alumb●ados) in Spain were no other, in most of their Tenants and Practices, than these our Quakers are now in England.— ● confess, I am very destitute of Books at this time, to ●●ve the Reade● so g●od an account of this b●●ness, as I could w●sh. All I can say of th● at n●w is out of some F●●●●ch Books, where I find a l●rge ●●dict against them, containing their several Tenants, and ●●rers; whereof, etc.— 〈◊〉 ●lumbrado● of S●ain 〈…〉 to be known, and talked 〈◊〉 the year of our Lord, 162●.— Dr. Meric. Ca●a●bon. T●●●tise of Euthusiasme. p. 17●, 174, 175.  and speaking in general, Christians are too apt to fail in holy prudence, meekness, charity, and such pacifique virtues, thence arise too many breaches among them; and a want of these virtues is incident to our Adversaries, as well as to Protestant's (for they are Sons of Adam too,) only they are wiser in their Generation.  
To conclude the Reply to the two last little Objections, and the whole Treatise: Eternal Blessedness is our end; the means to attain to that great end, are, right Believing, and holy Living. That which gives the Regulation to Christian Belief, and Life, is the revealed will of God. But because the Divine Revelations were delivered at the distance of many Ages from us, therefore there is need of something, which may conduct them safe and entire to us; and that, which is the safest and most certain Conveyance of them to us, is, that fixed Standard or Rule, whence we are to take the measures of our Christian Faith and Practices. Such a Conveyance, and consequently such a Standard or Rule, I have proved, not Oral Tradition, but Holy Scripture, to be.  
This being first established, there may then then be considered the Perspicuity of this Rule (which is Scripture), and the Agreement, or Unity of those, who adhere to it.  
Here, 1. We may be sure, that this Rule is very sufficiently intelligible, and clear in all things necessary for our direction to our Blessedness: But than it must be left to God's Pleasure, what difficulties and dubiousness he would mix with that sufficient plainness; and we ought to be thankful for what is plain in it, and not quarrel at the obscurities. 2ly. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ar●●t. Eth. ●. 1. C. 8.  We may be certain, that this Rule and Conveyance of Divine Truths to us (there being so much Harmony in Truth) must be very apt (it must be its most genuine effect) to harmonise Christian's Judgements, and Affections, and to beget a peaceableness of mutual Conversation; yet too it must be judged very possible, or rather more, that the folly and corruptions of Men may too much frustrate this its most natural issue.  
So that now, to conclude a thing this great Standard and Rule of Faith and Manners, because it pretends to be the most plain; and also to make mere Unity a Demonstration of the Truth, would be a crude way of Discourse. For first, a wrong way may be smooth and easy enough, perhaps more plain than that, which leads a Man to his Home: Next, not Truth only, but likewise Interest may hold Men very fast together, and the Conscience of its own guilt and feebleness may prompt to Error to strengthen itself by the closest Confederacies.    
FINIS.   

Some Books Printed for and Sold by Robert Clavel, at the Sign of the Peacock in St. Paul's Churchyard.  
THe Annals of King James, and King Charles the First.  
The Complete Conformist: Or seasonable Advice concerning strict Conformity, and frequent Celebration of the Holy Communion. In a Sermon Preached (Jan. 7. Being the first Sunday after the Epiphany, in the year 1682.) At the Cathedral, and in a Letter written to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Durham. By Denis Grenville D. D. Archdeacon, and Prebendary of Durham. London, Printed for Robert Clavel, and are to be Sold by Hugh Hutchenson in Durham.  
A Sermon Preached at Windsor, before His Majesty, the Second Sunday after Easter, 1684. By John Archbishop of Tuam. Published by His Majesty's special Command. Both sold by Robert Clavel, at the sign of the Peacock in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1684.  
3. King James not so much influenced by Gondamore, as is related by Mr. Rushworth.  
4. The Three Estates in Parliament who they were, in King James 's Speech in Parliament, 1620.  
5. An Authentic and Impartial Account of the beginning of the Troubles in Scotland, and the Wars which ensued.  
6 The True State of our late Civil Wars, their Beginnings, Causes, who the Aggressors, etc. The rest are too large to take notice here, but may be seen in the Preface.  
Varenius' Geography in Folio English, Illustrated with many Copper Cuts.  
Dr. Willis 's Works in Folio English.  
The History of the Irish Rebellion, traced from many precedings Acts to the grand Eruption, the 23d of October's 1641. and thence pursued to the Act of Settlement, 1662.  
Tracts Written by John Selden of the Inner-Temple, Esq; and Translated by the Eminent Dr. A. L. The 1st. Jani Anglorum facies altera, with large Notes thereupon. 2ly. England's Epinomis. 3ly. Of the Original of Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions of Testaments. The 4th. of the Disposition or Administration of intestate Goods.  
Mr. Scrivener 's Body of Divinity.  
Dr. Cumber on the Liturgy in Folio.  
Mr. Sam 's Britannia. Ogleby's History of Africa, Asia, and America.  
Bishop of St. David's is Vindication of the Bishop's Rights to Vote in Capital Cases— his seasonable Corrective.  
The Complete Catalogue to the end of Easter Term, 1684.  

Newly Published.  
Short Discourses upon the whole Common-Prayer, designed to inform the Judgement, and excite the Devotion of such as daily use the same by Tho. Comber. D. D.  
The Laver of Regeneration, and the Cup of Salvation, Two plain and profitable Discourses upon the two Sacraments. The 1. laying open the Nature of Baptism, and earnestly pressing the serious Consideration and Religious Observation of the Sacred Vow, made by all Christians in their Baptism. The other pressing as earnestly the frequent renewing of our Baptismal Vow at the Lords Holy Table. Demonstrating the indispensible necessity of receiving, and the great sin and danger of neglecting the Lords Supper, with Answers to the chief Pretences, whereby the Absenters would excuse themselves.  
The General Catalogue of Books Printed in England, since the Dreadful Fire of 1666, to the end of Trinity Term, 1684. To which are added a Catalogue of Latin Books, Printed in Foreign Parts, and in England since the year 1670. Printed for Rob. Clavel, at the Peacock in St. Paul's Churchyard.    

ERRATA.  
PAg. 4. l. 1. r. is, or involves in it Testimony. l. ult. for witnessed to, r. traditioned. p. 5. l. 16. for the Application, r. this Application. p. 8. l. 7. for the use, r. this use. p. 9 l. 1. r. where there is. p. 19 l. ult. for blinded, r. blended. p. 35. in marg. l. 21. for taxata, r. laxata. p. 40. l. 10. for part, r. paragraph. p. 49. l. 9 and 11. r. Methuselah. l. 12. del. very near. p. 50. l. 23. for though r. through. p. 53 p. 65. in marg. l. ult. del. p. p. 67. l. 4. for Authors. r. Others. l. 7. after this way, add or, at least, uncertainty which way. p 94. in marg. l. 12. & 13. r. Cap. 10. Quaest. 15. P. r. p. 96. in marg. l. 5. for 82. r. 43. p. 105. l. 26. r. Christians are to yield. p. 106. for or also, r. else. p. 107 l. 3. for Traditions, r. Tradition. p. 149. in marg. l. 6 after p. 108. add Of this Cressy also may be seen— During those worst times thereof (i. e. the Church) when ignorance, worldliness, pride, tyranny, etc. reigned with so much scope, I mean during the time of about six Ages before Luther— Exom. Cap. 68 p. 151. l. 2. del. above. l. 4. r. Pamphilius. p. 154. l. 15. for all Protestants do declare, r. I have the leave of all Protestants to declare. p. 157. l. 15, for Writings about, r. Writings above. p. 162. l. 10. r. the holy Scriptures. l. 24. r. Or, 2ly. p. 168. in marg. l. 9 r. His igitur. p. 172. in marg. l. ult. del. Evangel. nigrum. Atram. Thool. p. 178. l. 5. del. would, r. owns. p. 179. l. 19 for p. 29, r. 39 p. 211. l. 2. after semi-colon, r. what was committed to them they did carefully preserve. p. 218. l. 15. for their, r. those. p. 224 l. 20. r. they have only. p. 225. l. 3. for their, r. this. p. 229. l. 3. r. is no farther.