VI.

pretend only to difparage modern tradition, and to fet up that ART. which was more ancient: they make no fuch distinction, but hold close to the Scriptures. When St. Paul fets out the advantages that Timothy had by a religious education, he mentions this, that of a child he had known the holy Scriptures, 2 Tim. iii, which were able to make him wife unto falvation, through faith 15, 16. which was in Chrift Fefus: that is, the belief of the Chriftian religion was a key to give him a right understanding of the Old Testament; and upon this occafion St. Paul adds, all Scripture (that is, the whole Old Teftament) is given by divine infpiration; or (as others render the words) all the divinely infpired Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for inftruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. The New Teftament was writ on the fame defign with the Old; that, as St. Luke expreffes it, we might know the certainty of Lake i. 4. thofe things wherein we have been inftructed: These things were John xx. written, faith St. John, that ye might believe, that Jefus is the 31. Chrift, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name. When St. Peter knew by a special revelation that he was near his end, he writ his fecond Epiftle, that they might have that as a mean of keeping those things 2 Pet. i. always in remembrance after his death. Nor do the Apoftles give 15. us any hints of their having left any thing with the Church, to be conveyed down by an oral tradition, which they themfelves had not put in writing: they do fometimes refer themselves to fuch things as they had delivered to particular Churches; but by tradition in the Apostles' days, and for fome ages after, it is very clear, that they meant only the conveyance of the faith, and not any unwritten doctrines: they reckoned the faith was a facred depofitum which was committed to them; and that was to be preferved pure among them. But it were very easy to fhew in the continued fucceffion of all the Chriftian writers, that they ftill appealed to the Scriptures, that they argued from them, that they condemned all doctrines that were not contained in them; and when at any time they brought human authorities to juftify their opinions or expreffions, they contented themselves with a very few, and thoie very late authorities: fo that their defign in vouching them seems to be rather to clear themselves from the imputation of having innovated any thing in the doctrine, or in the ways of expreffing it, than that they thought thofe authorities were neceffary to prove them by. For in that cafe they must have taken a great deal more pains than they did, to have followed up, and proved the tradition much higher than they went.

We do alfo plainly fee that fuch traditions as were not founded on Scripture, were eafily corrupted, and on that account

Were

ART. were laid afide by the fucceeding ages. Such were the opi-. VI. nion of Chrift's reign on earth for a thousand years; the faints not feeing God till the refurrection; the neceffity of giving infants the Eucharift; the divine infpiration of the feventy Interpreters; befides fome more important matters, which in respect to thofe times are not to be too much defcanted upon. It is alfo plain, that the Gnofticks, the Valentinians, and other hereticks, began very early to fet up a pretenfion to a tradition delivered by the Apoftles to fome particular perfons, as a key for understanding the fecret meanings that might be in Scripture; in oppofition to which, both Irenæus, Tertullian, and others, make use of two forts of arIren. 1. 3. c. guments: The one is the authority of the Scripture itself, by 1,2,3,4,5. which they confuted their errors. The other is a point of Tertul. de fact, that there was no fuch tradition. In afferting this, 20, 21, 25, they appeal to thofe Churches which had been founded by the Apoftles, and in which a fucceffion of Bifhops had been continued down. They fay, in these we must search for apoftolical tradition. This was not faid by them as if they had defigned to establish tradition, as an authority diftinct from, or equal to the Scriptures: but only to fhew the falsehood of that pretence of the hereticks, and that there was no fuch tradition for their herefies as they gave out.

Prefc. cap.

27, 28.

When this whole matter is confidered in all its parts, fuch as, 1ft, That nothing is to be believed as an article of faith, unless it appears to have been revealed by God. 2dly, That oral tradition appears, both from the nature of man, and the experience of former times, to be an incompetent conveyer of truth. 3dly, That fome books were written for the conveyance of thofe matters, which have been in all ages carefully preferved and esteemed facred. 4thly, That the writers of the first ages do always argue from, and appeal to these books: And, 5thly, That what they have faid without authority from them has been rejected in fucceeding ages; the truth of this branch of our Article is fully made out.

If what is contained in the Scripture in exprefs words, is the object of our faith, then it will follow, that whatsoever may be proved from thence, by a juft and lawful confequence, is alfo to be believed. Men may indeed err in framing these confequences and deductions, they may mistake or stretch them too far: but though there is much fophiftry in the world, yet there is alfo true logick, and a certain thread of reasoning. And the fense of every propofition being the same, whether expreffed always in the fame or in different words; then whatsoever appears to be clearly the fenfe of any place of Scripture, is an object of faith, though it fhould be otherwife exprefied than as it is in Scripture, and every just inference from

VI.

it must be as true as the propofition itself is therefore it is a ART. vain cavil to afk exprefs words of Scripture for every Article. That was the method of all the ancient hereticks: Chrift and his Apoftles argued from the words and paffages in the Old Teftament, to prove fuch things as agreed with the true sense of them, and fo did all the fathers; and therefore so may we do.

The great objection to this is, that the Scriptures are dark, that the fame place is capable of different fenfes, the literal and the myftical: and therefore, fince we cannot understand the true fenfe of the Scripture, we must not argue from it, but feek for an interpreter of it, on whom we may depend. All fects argue from thence, and fancy that they find their tenets in it: and therefore this can be no fure way of finding out facred truth, fince fo many do err that follow it. In answer to this, it is to be confidered, that the Old Teftament was delivered to the whole nation of the Jews; that Mofes was read in the Synagogue, in the hearing of the women and children; that whole nation was to take their doctrine and rules from it: all appeals were made to the Law and to the Prophets among them: and though the prophecies of the Old Testament were in their style and whole contexture dark, and hard to be understood; yet when fo great a queftion as this, who was the true Meffias? came to be examined, the proofs urged for it, were paflages in the Old Testament. Now the question was, how thefe were to be understood? No appeal was here made to tradition, or to church-authority, but only by the enemies of our Saviour. Whereas he and his Difciples urge thefe paffages in their true fenfe, and in the confequences that arofe out of them. They did in that appeal to the rational faculties of those to whom they spoke. The Chriftian religion was at firft delivered to poor and fimple multitudes, who were both illiterate and weak; the Epiftles, which are by much the hardest to be understood of the whole New Teftament, were addrefied to the whole Churches, to all the Faithful or Saints; that is, to all the Chriftians in those Churches. Thefe were afterwards read in all their aflemblies. Upon this it may reafonably be afked, were thefe writings clear in that age, or were they not? If they were not, it is unaccountable why they were addrefled to the whole body, and how they came to be received and entertained as they were. It is the end of fpeech and writing, to make things to be understood; and it is not fuppofable, that men infpired by the Holy Ghoft, either could not or would not exprefs themselves fo as that they should be clearly understood. It is alfo to be obferved, that the new difpenfation is oppofed to the old, as light is to darkneis, an open face 'to a

vailed,

VI.

ART. vailed, and fubftance to fhadows. Since then the Old Teftament was fo clear, that David both in the 19th, and moft copioufly in the 119th Pfalm, fets out very fully the light which the laws of God gave them in that darker state, we have much more reafon to conclude, that the new difpenfation fhould be much brighter. If there was no need of a certain expounder of Scripture then, there is much less now. Nor is there any provifion made in the new for a fure guide; no intimations are given where to find one from all which we may conclude, that the books of the New Teftament were clear in those days, and might well be understood by those to whom they were at firft addreffed. If they were clear to them, they may be likewife clear to us: for though we have not a full hiftory of that time, or of the phrafes and cuftoms, and particular opinions of that age; yet the vast induftry of the fucceeding ages, of these two laft in particular, has made fuch difcoveries, befides the other collateral advantages which learning and a nicenefs in reafoning has given us, that we may justly reckon, that though fome hints in the Epiftles, which relate to the particulars of that time, may be fo loft, that we can at best but make conjectures about them; yet upon the whole matter, we may well understand all that is neceflary to falvation in the Scripture.

We may indeed fall into miftakes as well as into fins: and into errors of ignorance, as well as into fins of ignorance. God has dealt with our underftandings as he hath dealt with our wills: he propofes our duty to us, with ftrong motives to obedience; he promifes us inward affiftances, and accepts of our fincere endeavours: and yet this does not hinder many from perithing eternally, and others from falling into great fins, and fo running great danger of eternal damnation; and all this is becaufe God has left our wills free, and does not conftrain us to be good. He deals with our understandings in the fame manner; he has fet his will and the knowledge of falvation before us, in writings that are framed in a fimple and plain ftyle, in a language that was then common, and is ftill well understood, that were at first defigned for common ufe; they are foon read, and it must be confefled that a great part of them is very clear: fo we have reafon to conclude, that if a man reads thefe carefully and with an honeft mind; if he prays to God to direct him, and follows fincerely what he apprehends to be true, and practifes diligently those duties that do unquestionably appear to be bound upon him by them, that then he fhall find out enough to fave his foul; and that such miftakes as lie ftill upon him, fhall either be cleared up to him by fome happy providence, or fhall be forgiven him by that infinite mercy, to which his fincerity and diligence

VI.

is well known. That bad men fhould fall into grievous errors, ART. is no more strange, than that they should commit heinous fins: and the errors of good men, in which they are neither wilful nor infolent, will certainly be forgiven, as well as their fins of infirmity. Therefore all the ill use that is made of the Scripture, and all the errors that are pretended to be proved by it, do not weaken its authority or clearness. This does only fhew us the danger of studying them with a biaffed or corrupted mind, of reading them too carelessly, of being too curious in going farther than as they open matters to us; and in being too implicit in adhering to our education, or in fubmitting to the dictates of others.

So far I have explained the first branch of this Article. The confequence that arifes out of it is fo clear, that it needs not be proved: That therefore nothing ought to be esteemed an Article of Faith, but what may be found in it, or proved from it. If this is our rule, our entire and only rule, then fuch doctrines as are not in it ought to be rejected; and any Church that adds to the Chriftian religion, is erroneous for making such additions, and becomes tyrannical if the imposes them upon all her members, and requires pofitive declarations, fubfcriptions, and oaths, concerning them. In fo doing the forces fuch as cannot have communion with her, but by affirming what they believe to be falfe, to withdraw from that which cannot be had without departing from the truth. So all the additions of the five Sacraments, of the invocation of angels and faints, of the worshipping of images, croffes, and relicks; of the corporal prefence in the Eucharift; of the facrifice offered in it for the dead as well as for the living, together with the adoration offered to it, with a great many more, are certainly errors, unless they can be proved from Scripture; and they are intolerable errors, if as the Scripture is exprefs in oppofition to them, fo they defile the worship of Chriftians with idolatry: but they become yet most intolerable, if they are impofed upon all that are in that communion, and if creeds or oaths in which they are affirmed, are required of all in their communion. Here is the main ground of justifying our forming ourselves into a diftinct body from the Roman Church, and therefore it is well to be confidered. The further difcuffing of this will come properly in, when other particulars come to be examined.

From hence I go to the second branch of this Article, which gives us the Canon of the Scripture. Here I fhall begin with the New Teftament; for though in order the Old Teftament is before the New, yet the proof of the one being more diftinctly made out by the concurring teftimonies of other writers, than can poffibly be pretended for the other, and the New giving an authority

H