fuffers great alterations, in being carried about only by word of mouth. How great would be the alteration at the end of two or three ages; if the matter was not by that time quite forgotten? How much greater variation then, (I am fpeaking of the ordinary courfe of things) how much greater variation, I fay, muft fo large a narration, as that of the whole evangelical history, and such a system of doctrine, as that delivered by Chrift and his apoftles, have fuffered, if it had not been committed to writing? And what neceffity was there of a ftanding miracle in favour of oral tradition, when a written word would answer all the purposes we could defire ?

The doctrine of the new teftament is of a large compafs. The preceptive doctrine itself is very copious. And there is fo much of moment in the hiftory of Chrift, for fatisfying us that he came from God to deliver thofe precepts, and to enforce them with those motives which make up another part of his doctrine; fo much of moment in writing down the period of time wherein he appeared, and in naming places and perfons, known to agree with the history of that time; fo much of moment in the circumstances of his birth, and manner of life, the miracles he performed, the prophecies to which he appealed, the predictions he himself delivered, the death he fuffered, his rifing from that death, and fending down the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost upon his immediate followers: that the doctrine itself, notwithstanding all his declarations of the importance of receiving it, would in the courfe of a few ages have had very little regard paid to

it,

it, if there had been no fuch circumstances to attend it. And now will any man pretend, that all these could in any tolerable measure, according to the ordinary courfe of things, have been preferved by tradition, fo as to gain any degree of credit, 500 or 1000 years after the things were faid to be tranfacted? He must have a judgment very different from that of mankind in general, who can believe it. And if the fubftance of Christ's doctrine, together with the hiftorical facts which fupport it, would in all probability have been loft, without a written word to convey the true account of them: what credit can we rationally give to thofe fuppofed traditions of the apostles, which were not committed to writing? or what reason have we to believe it was ever defigned by the apostles that fuch traditions fhould be preferved, which were not by themfelves committed to writing, as the main doctrine and the hiftorical facts were?

It is further to be noted, that the tradition above defcribed is not the only reason why we receive the books of the new teftament. For the intrinfic goodness of the moral doctrine contained in those books fpeaks for itself. And as to those things, which are peculiar to chriftianity: they are so far from being inconfiftent with that reafon and judgment, which teach us to fubmit to whatever upon good evidence appears to have the stamp of divine authority; that they approve themselves to a ferious mind, as being well fuited to the condition of thofe to whom the gospel is offered. But the traditions of the Romish church, befides that they are defective in external

external evidence, are many of them plainly inconfiftent with and contrary to the written word, and even to common fenfe; fo far are they destitute of any fufficient teftimony, that ever they were taught by Chrift or his apoftles. If any of them can be proved from fcripture; then they ought not to be mentioned in contradiction to it. But the greatest part of them have no pretence this way: being not only unworthy of the apoftles, but manifeftly inconfiftent with their acknowledged doctrine, contained in their writings, and with the doctrine of Chrift, their Lord and ours.

To set these therefore, as the church of Rome does, upon an equal foot with the holy fcriptures, is not only to weaken the faith of chriftians, but the ready way to destroy it; by drawing off their minds from a due regard to that compleat scheme of found doctrine, which is a fure rule for their conduct, into an endless maze of uncertainty at the beft, and a conftant danger of more and more pernicious errors. And what can be the confequence of this, efpecially when the ufe of the fcriptures is denied to the people; but that the people must entirely depend on the prieft, and receive from his mouth whatever he is pleafed to call either fcripture or tradition? By thefe means the fcripture itself is in effect only parcelled out to the people by oral tradition. It is at this rate to very little purpose that the word of Chrift is conveyed to the prefent age in writing. It can be of no effect to those who truft in traditions, as delivered to them by their priests. For 'tis only the priest's telling F

a

a man, that fuch is the tradition of the church: and then, let the thing be ever so contrary to fcripture, he must comply.

This is the natural tendency of putting traditions upon an equal foot with feripture. And in the church of Rome, where this is practifed, the event answers to it. The holy fcriptures are hereby loft to the common people: loft, to all the excellent purposes for which they were defigned. The people's whole religion is locked up in the breast of the priest: he thinks it more for his purpofe to deal in traditions, than in the written word: and hence comes that prodigious ignorance in matters of religion, which reigns among the common people; and from which, while this continues to be their condition, there is no hope of restoring them.

have been

I cannot leave this article without taking some notice of a text or two of fcripture, upon which the papifts lay a great ftrefs in favour of tradition. 1 Theff. II. 15. Therefore, brethren, ftand faft, and hold the traditions which ye taught, whether by word or our epiftle. And ch. III. ver. 6. We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jefus Chrift, that ye withdraw yourfelves from every brother that walketh diforderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us: To the fame purpose they quote I Cor. XI. 2. 2 Tim. I. 13. II. 2. III. 14. But concerning these, and all others of like kind, it is fufficient to fay in one word: that they manifeftly relate to what these christians, and the evangelist Timothy in particular, had with their

See Grounds of cath. doct. pag. 17, 18.

Own

own ears heard from an infpired apostle, and fo were in no danger of forgetting; which cafe is intirely different from that of traditions, handed down by word of mouth from one generation to another, by perfons not infpired. So that there is not the least resemblance between the traditions here spoken of, and those of the church of Rome.

The second article of pope Pius's creed is this.

II. I do admit the holy fcripture in the fame fenfe, which holy mother church bath held and doth hold; whofe business it is to judge of the true fenfe and interpretation of the holy fcriptures: nor will I ever receive or interpret them otherwife than according to the unanimous confent of the Fathers.

From the tenor of this article it appears, that the fcripture in general is accounted fo obfcure, even in things of greatest importance, that the common people must by no means be allowed to take their own fense of it, but muft have recourse to the interpretation of the church. But this is quite contrary to the tenor of Chrift's do&trine: who exhorted, and even charged and commanded the common people, to fearch the fcripF 2 tures,