it, if there had been no fuch circumftances 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 historical 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 reafon have we to believe it was ever defigned by the apoftles that fuch traditions fhould be preserved, 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 described is not the only reafon 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 christianity: they are fo far from being inconfiftent with that reafon and judgment, which teach us to submit 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 gofpel 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; so far are they deftitute of any sufficient testimony, that ever they were taught by Chrift or his apoftles. If any of them can be proved from fcripture; then t 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 apostles, but manifeftly inconfiftent with their acknowledged doctrine, contained in their writings, and with the doctrine of Chrift, their Lord and ours.

To fet these therefore, as the church of Rome does, upon an equal foot with the holy fcriptures, is not only to weaken the faith of christians, 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 priest, and receive from his mouth whatever he is pleased 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 man, that fuch is the tradition of the church: and then, let the thing be ever fo contrary to fcripture, he must comply.

This is the natural tendency of putting traditions upon an equal foot with fcripture. And in the church of Rome, where this is practifed, the event anfwers 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 breaft 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.

I cannot leave this article without taking fome notice of a text or two of scripture, upon which thepapists lay a great ftrefs in favour of tradition. 1 The II. 15. Therefore, brethren, ftand faft, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle. 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 chriftians, and the evangelift Timothy in particular, had with their

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

Own

own ears heard from an inspired 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 leaft refemblance 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 Scripture in the fame fenfe, which holy mother church bath held and doth bold; whofe business it is to judge of the true fenfe and interpretation of the holy Scriptures: 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 so obscure, even in things of greatest importance, that the common people muft by no means be allowed to take their own fenfe of it, but must 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,

tures, in which they thought they had eternal life: and gave this reafon for it; because thofe fcriptures teftified of him. John V. 39. Now this exhortation, and this reafon for it, he could never have given, if he had thought it out of the power of the common people, by diligent fearch to understand the fcriptures, or to fee that they did indeed testify of him. And further: if we will believe an apoftle of Chrift, the fcripture is able to make us wife unto falvation, through faith in Chrift Jefus; being given by inspiration of God, for this very purpose, that it may be profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for inftruEtion in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto good works. 2 Tim III. 15, 16, 17. Now these ends it is impoffible the fcripture fhould ever anfwer, if it be so very obfcure in thofe things upon which falvation depends, that a fincere enquirer, of an ordinary capacity, could not be able to underftand it, or would, for want of the church's help, be in danger of perverting it to his ruin. They were not, it seems, fo difficult, but that Timothy had known them from a child: even those very jcriptures, which, in the next words, St. Paul tells him were able to make him wife unto falvation. And yet it does not appear, that in his childhood he had any other teachers, than his grandmother Lois, and his mother Eunice.

But the Romanists pretend to prove, from scripture itself, that the fcripture is not clear and plain in all things neceffary; that is to say, in all fuch points wherein our falvation is so far • concerned

+ Grounds of cath. doct. pag. 15.