Sure-footing in Christianity, or Rational discourses on the rule of faith with short animadversions on Dr. Pierce's sermon : also on some passages in Mr. Whitby and M. Stillingfleet, which concern that rule / by J.S.

COROLLARIES From The former Discourses.

1. NOne can pretend to have Faith (by the or∣dinary course of God's Providence) but the holders to Tradition. 'Tis prov'd by our Conclu∣sion formerly deduc't, (Disc. 5. §. 15.) that Tradition is the Rule of Faith, that is, the Or∣dinary Way to arrive at Faith.

2. None can with right pretend to be a Church but the Followers of Tradition. For, since (Corol. 1.) none can have Faith by the ordinary course of God's Providence but the holders to Tradition, and a Church must be a Congrega∣tion of persons truly Faithful, or who have true Faith coming to them by ordinary means, (as we daily experience,) 'tis manifest that none but the Followers of Tradition can pretend to be a true Church.

3. None can be of the Church or any Church but Followers of Tradition. For, seeing a Church is a Congregation of persons who have true Faith coming to them by ordinary means, and (Disc. 5. §. 15.) Tradition is this means, it follows that none are of the Church or any Church but they who have true Faith by this means, that is, who fol∣low the means of Tradition.

Those who renounce Tradition or Immediate Delivery, are ipso facto cut off from the Root of Faith, and cease to be truly called Faithful. For

seeing that is to us, or in the way of reasoning, the Root of any Knowledge whence that Know∣ledge springs, and Faith is no Knowledge in us, (Disc. 1. 15. and Corol. 1.) but by relying on the Rule of Faith or Tradition as on its Princi∣ple, 'tis manifest that they who renounce Tra∣dition want the Root of Faith, nor consequent∣ly are Faithful nor of the Church, but are Dead branches or Opiners onely.

5. That company of men who follow such Ance∣stours as formerly renounc't Tradition or Imme∣diate Delivery are no less cut off from the Root of Faith. For, since (Corol. 4.) those Ancestours renouncing Tradition formerly were by so doing cut off from the Root of Faith, their Followers (for how many Generations soever they conti∣nue) must be so likewise, as wanting and not daring even to pretend to that Faith••causing Principle of Tradition or uninterrupted Delivery which their Forefathers had renounc't.

6. They who follow such Ancestors as formerly had manifestly renounc't Tradition (how nume∣rous soever) can never claim to be a part of Chri∣stian Tradition or deliverers of Faith. First, be∣cause (Corol. 5.) they are cut off from Tradition and so can be no part of it. Next, because Chri∣stian Tradition is Indeficient or Uninterrupted, (Disc. 6, 8, and 9.) and so none can lay claim to it who cannot lay claim to Uninterruptedness; which those we speak of cannot. The saying then of Vincentius Lirinensis, Id teneamus quod ubi∣que,

quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est, and that we must follow Vniuersality, Antiqui∣ty, and Consent, can onely be meant within the verge of those who adhere to Tradition, or fol∣low the Doctrin formerly deliver'd, not of those who have broke from it; otherwise all Here∣ticks in the world, especially the Primitive ones might claim to be part of the Church.

7. They who pretend themselves Reformers in Faith, do ipso facto, manifest themselves cut off from the Root of Faith and the Church. For since Points of Faith are Truths, and so have no Degrees in them, but are Indivisible; Reforma∣tion in Faith cannot mean mending Faith, but putting it anew. But this presupposes Tradition Interrupted, wherefore Reformers in Faith must renounce Uninterruptedness of Delivery, that is, they must renounce Tradition; (Disc. 6. 8, 9.) and consequently they are cut off from the Root of Faith. (Coroll. 4.)

8. That Body of men who adhere to Tradition can evidence clearly and plainly who are truly Faithful, who not. For, since (Coroll. 4. & 5.) to those men 'tis all one to renounce Immediate or Uninterrupt∣ed Delivery, or follow those who renounc't it, as to be cut off from the Root of Faith; and all one to be Faithful and to rely on that Principle: Again, seeing 'tis evident by clear matter of Fact who rely and proceed upon it, who not; That Body of men who adhere to Tradition can evidence clearly and plainly who are truly

Faithful, who not; and (if Church-Govern∣ment be instituted by our Saviour and so a Point of Faith, and so descended to us by the Rule of Faith) who are of the Church, who not.

9. None else can give any certain account who are to be held truly Faithful and of the Church, who not. For since without Tradition both Let∣ter and Sence of Scripture is Uncertain (Disc. 4.) and subject to dispute (as we also daily experi∣ence) it follows that all the deniers of Traditi∣on are uncertain who have the right Letter or Sence of Scripture; that is, whom they are to esteem Faithful (or sit to be of the Church) whom not. Again, Tradition being the onely certain Rule of Faith, if one Revolter from it may be admitted, all may, so they prosess Chri∣stianity in outward talk which they will easily do: Wherefore, since the Denier of Tradition deems some one Revolter from it to be of the Church, that is, himself; he may, nay ought judge so of all the rest, provided they talk a few fine pious words of God and Christ, which what Hereticks but did?

10. None can rationally punish the Revolters from their Faith but that Body which adheres to radition. For since, setting aside Tradition, both Letter and Sence of Scripture is Uncertain, (Disc. 4.) the Guilt of those Revolters is also Uncertain: seeing then none can even pretend to correct a fault much less punish it upon uncer∣tain Grounds, none can rationally go about to

punish their Revolters from Faith unless it be that body which adheres to Tradition; and They can. For, in regard Tradition's Certainty is evi∣dent to the rudest by common sence, (Disc. 5. §. 8.) and likewise 'tis as evident to Governours who revolt from it as it is to know when one dis∣acknowledges and rises against a settled civil Au∣thority and the Laws of the Land; 'Tis most manifest that the Revolter hath both Passion or Guilt enough to be held punishable, and the Christian Magistrate evidence enough of his Fact to go about to punish it. To avoid mistake, I declare that in this Corollary I onely discourse what may or may not be done upon a Church-account, what may be fit to be done upon a State-account, I am neither able to judge, nor do I meddle with it.

11. No Company of men hang together like a Body of a Christian Common-wealth or CHURCH but that which adheres to Tradition. For, since 'tis manifest that every external Commonwealth or Body of men hath some Outward Marks proper to it, by which the members of it have their coherence, or consistency and that those are cer∣tain tokens to distinguish it from any other; and as manifest that all the marks proper to a Church as such depend upon the Rule of Faith, (Disc. 1. §. 15.) and their Certainty on its; and lastly, that none of the pretended Rules of Faith (all of them building on Scripture's Letter) are Certain, (Disc. 2. 3, 4.) without Tradition; it

follows that no other company have any Princi∣ple of Distinction from others, that is either of Constitution or self-preservation under the no∣tion of Church, but that which adheres to Tradi∣tion. All the loud out-cry then made common∣ly against that Body which adheres to Tradition, call••d Roman-Catholick, for accounting it self onely the Vniversal Church and excluding all o∣thers is but empty noise, and her claim rational and well-grounded, till it be shown by evident Discourse that the other Pretenders have some other more Evident and Certain Rule to know who are of the Church who not, than this of Tra∣dition now produc't and explicated; upon which she proceeds and by which she consists.

12. There is no arguing against Tradition out of Scripture. For, since (as we have prov'd Disc. 4.) there can be no absolute Certainty of Scripture's Letter without Tradition, this must first be suppos'd Certain ere the Scripture's Letter can be rationally held such; and consequently ought in reason to be held Vncertain while Tra∣dition is thought ••it to be argu'd against, that is, while it's Certainty is doubted of. Wherefore since none can argue solidly upon uncertain Grounds, none ought to argue against Tradition out of the Letter of Scripture.

13. None can in reason oppose the Authority of the Church or any Church against Tradition. First because in reality Tradition (rightly understood) is the same thing materially with the living Voic••

and Practice of the whole Church Essential, consist∣ing of Pastors and Layity; which is so ample that it includes all imaginable Authority which can be conceiv'd to be in a Church. Secondly, be∣cause in the way of generating Faith Tradition formally taken is antecedent to, (Disc. 2. §. 11.) and so in the way of Discourse working by for∣mal and abstracted notions its notion must be presuppos'd and its Certainty establish't before the notion and Certainty of Faith, consequently of Faithful, and consequently of Church, which must necessarily be a congregation of Faithful. Whence they would argue very preposterously who should go about to oppose Church against Tradition; this being the same as to think to esta∣blish the House by overthrowing the Foundation.

14. None can in reason oppose the Authority of Fathers or Councils against Tradition. This is evident by the former, (Corol. 13.) in regard nei∣ther of these have any Authority but as Repre∣sentatives of the Church, or Eminent Members of the Church: Nor can any determin certainly what is a Father or Council (Disc. 2. §. 11.) till the notion of Church, that is of Faithful, that is of Faith, that is of Rule of Faith, that is of Tra∣dition be certainly establish't.

15. No Disacknowledgers of Tradition are in Due of reason but in Courtesy onely to be allow'd to argue out of Scripture's Letter, Father or Council. For, since, wanting Tradition they have Certain∣ty of none of those (as was prov'd, Disc. 2. §. 11.)

'tis manifest that, disacknowledging Tradition, while they alledge and talk of these they alledge and talk of things themselves do not know to be Certain. Wherefore, 'tis too great a Condescen∣dence and courtesy in Catholiks to let them run forwards descanting with wordish Discourses on those Testimonies after their raw manner, since they might justly take their advantage against them and show they have no right to make use of Principles, which their own Grounds can never make good to them; as was Tertullian's smart and solid way, de Praescr. Haeret. c. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. denying them the use of Scrip∣ture who deny'd the Church; which would save many an aiery confus'd discourse about words, unapt to evidence any thing satisfactorily. Nor can the right of an Opponent to argue ad homi∣nem licence them to claim this favour from our Controvertists; in regard we never held that Scri∣ptures Letter hammer'd upon by Criticisms and such pretty knacks of human Learning was the Ground of our Faith nor the way to establish it, but onely as interpreted by the Language and Practice of the Church; nor consequently can we hold it capable to be prejudic't by such endea∣vours of private Wits. Though then we should al∣low them a Copy of the Letter, and consequent∣ly so far a liberty to argue ad hominem against us; yet we never allow'd their method of arguing from it, as efficacious, either to build or evert Fai••h, but our learned Controvertists ever held

direct contrary. Whence, in case they clamour that in not following their wild method we de∣sert Scripture (to avoid which calumny with the vulgar I conceive one reason our Controvertists generally were so civil to them as to cope with them in their fleight way) the unreasonableness of the Calumny is to be made appear, which is quicklier done, not their unreasonable expecta∣tion to be satisfy'd.

16. No Authority from any History or Testi∣monial Writing is valid against the force of Tra∣dition. For, since Falshood is as easy to be writ or printed as Truth, 'tis evident those Books can give no Testimony to themselves that what they express is certainly true; and, if we say they are abetted by the Testimony of other Books, the same question recurrs concerning them, in what Age soever they were writ. It remains then that 'tis onely the Acceptation of Men or Sence writ in their Hearts and so convey'd down from Fa∣ther to Son that these Books are true Histories and not Fables, which gives them any Autho∣rity: But this has plainly the nature of Tradi∣tion; They have therefore no Authority but by force of Tradition: Therefore they can have no possible force against Tradition; since, if Tradition, or the conveying down from hand to hand sence writ thus universally in men's hearts, can deceive us, no such Books can have any Authority at all: Wherefore, not the Books, but the Sence writ in men's hearts of the Goodness

and skill of the Authours of those Books (upon which qualifications the Truth of each passage contain'd in those Books is built) is to be al∣ledg'd against Christian Tradition, since 'tis that Sence which authorizes those Books and gives Credibility to those passages, and so is stronger than any dead Testimony from the Books them∣selves. Which devolves into this, that onely some great Tradition or living Testimony for things past, can, in point of Authority, be pretended an equal match to Christian Tradition or competent to be alledg••d against it.

17. No Tradition is alledg'd or alledgeable in reason against Christian Tradition. That none is alledg••d is Evident from matter of Fact: For, the Adversaries of Catholick Tradition never pretend the Consent or constant Sence of great multitudes deriv'd from age to age by living voice that at such a time former Tradition was relinquish't, new Faith introduc't, or the old Faith chang'd or abolisht; but onely odd ends or scraps of Histories or other dead Testimonies, according as they light on some passage which seems favourable to them, or may be rendred interpretable that way. Whence, there are al∣most as many minds as men about the time when any change was made; nay, some of their best Champions, D^r Whitaker, and M^r Powel, profess the time of the Romish Churches change cannot easi∣ly be told, and that they cannot tell by whom or at what time the Enemy did sow the Papists Doctrin:

This, I say, being so, 'tis most Evident they decline the pretence of any Tradition against ours, and the very way of deriving down orally and practically Sence writ in mens Hearts by matter of Fact working on their Senses; and, in∣stead of that, recurr to pittiful shreds and frag∣ments o•• words, utterly unauthoriz'd if the Tra∣dition for that Books Goodness can fail: And, if Catholick Tradition, which in its source was so largely extended, visible and practicable by all can faulter, ten thousand times more easily may the Tradition for any particular Book, which in comparison of the other can be but of a very obscure Original, fail and deceive us.

Now, that no Tradition is alledgeable against us by Protestants appears hence, that their im∣mediate Forefathers little more than an 100. Years ago being Catholicks; that is, holders of their Faith no Novelty but uninterruptedly de∣scended, could never conspire to deliver to them any such sence that the Roman Church had alter'd her Faith, since they had the con∣trary sence writ in the Tables of their hearts. Nor can they have recourse to the Greek Church for a Tradition opposit to ours for any points of Faith in which they differ from us, for they will find none such. Nor is the Greek Church Pro∣genitours to them here in England, nor by con∣sequence can they derive traditionarily from them.

18. No solid Argument from Reason or intrin∣secal

Principles is producible against Christian Tradition. For, since Arguments, if solid, are taken from Things or Nature, and the Certainty of Christian Tradition is built on the best Na∣ture, that is, Man's; not according to what is alterable in it, but what is (abstracting from dis∣ease) absolutely unalterable; that is, on Know∣ledge imprinted by natural Sensations; and this Knowledge strengthen'd and made most lively by the oft-repeatedness of those Sensations, and the import of the Things known: Also, since most efficacious Causes actually appli'd, that is, impossible not to do the Effect, and Effects impossible to be without such a Cause's Exi∣stence are engag'd for the ever-continuance or Uninterruptedness of Tradition (as hath been shown, Disc. 6. & 8.) and the force of those preserving Causes strengthen'd by the most po∣werful assistances of the Holy Ghost, (Disc. 9.) or by best Graces superadded to best Nature; 'Tis impossible any solid Argument from Rea∣son should be brought against Tradition.

19. The arguing by way of some few Instances (as the manner is) can have no force against Tra∣dition's Certainty and Indefectiveness. For, seeing a pretended Instance of Tradition's failing is a particular action presumed to be long ago past, and particulars out of the very nature of being particulars are surrounded by a thousand indivi∣duating circumstances or rather constituted by them, that is, are plac't in the proper sphere of

Contingency: and that particular Action is put to be long ago past, and ••o affects not our Senses by Experience (in which is founded the force of Instances, in regard Experimental Knowledge is a necessary Effect of the Things being such as it is known) Nor have we, or can we have with∣out Tradition, any certain knowledge (Coroll. 16.) that the Points of Faith pretended to have miscarried or to have been alter'd then, or else the manner of expressing them, were not mis∣taken then or misrepresented to us now; nor that Interest (for example) of one party pas∣sion between both, ambiguity of words, slight∣ness or confusedness of report grounding the Historians narration, rashness of belief in him, corruption of his Books since they were writ, and innumerable other chances apt to occasion mis∣take did not intervene; any of which would render the Instance uncertain, and the Argu∣ment from it Inconclusive. Again, seeing we can have certainty of our own meaning of our words when we demonstrate, and also of our consequence, it follows that the way for a solid man to answer Traditions pretended demonstra∣bleness must be to show the incoherence of the Terms, and not to bring some old story against it; which were to produce Uncertainty known to be such, against pretended Certainty and not yet known to be other than such; nay whose Evidence we cannot in reason deny till we can solve the connexion of Terms drawn from

intrinsecal Mediums, on which 'tis built.

20. The denying Tradition is a proper and necessary disposition to Fanatickness. For, since no Argument taken from any dead or written Testimony, (Coroll. 12. 14. 16.) nor living Testimony of Tradition, (Coroll. 13. 17.) nor from any thing in Nature, Coroll. 18.) that is, from any thing without us which is a second Cause, is valid against Tradition: It follows that Tradition cannot be denied but by pretending some Light or Knowledge within us deriv'd from the immediate Influence of the First Cause. To which pretence helps its difficulty to be confu∣ted; in regard 'tis easie to stand stiff in this Te∣net that they see clearly such Truths by an in∣ward Light, and that therefore it were a mad∣ness to go about to confute their own manifest Experience; whereas, were Arguments pro∣duc-t openly, they and their confutations might be publisht together, and the Truth would lie expos'd to the scanning and decision of the In∣different part of the world, and be clear'd by a few Replies if a right method of discourse be taken. Wherefore, since Nature will easily teach the obstinate deniers of any Principle to avail themselves by the best plea they can to escape confuting, 'tis manifest that Nature will connaturally carry the deniers of Tradition to Fanatick Pranciples, and that men are so long and no longer preserv'd from Fanatickness than they follow Tradition or the openly declar'd

Sence of Forefathers either in our Church or some other Congregation.

Again, Tradition being the way of coming to Faith by the open use of our Senses, the denying it must drive the deniers to deny that way, and to recurr to Knowledge had some other way; Not to Knowledge acquir'd by human skill, (the Knowledge of such high mysteries being confes∣sedly more than human) therefore to infus'd Knowledge; and this not infus'd by ordinary wayes, as preaching, teaching of Forefathers and such like (as we experience such Knowledges to be infus'd into us) for this again falls into the way of Tradition; therefore they can onely have refuge to inward Light or Knowledge infus'd extraor∣dinarily or without connatural means; to make which the common road of receiving Heaven's Influences is the very definition of Fanatickness.

21. Fanatick Principles can have no force against Tradition, though unconfutable but by it. For, since they pretend for their ground a Light with∣in imprinted on such a manner as manifests God the Authour, that is, an Effect which onely themselves know and are conscious of, and on the other side nothing appears why such a kind of Impression is impossible, nay 'tis granted possi∣ble, 'tis clear none can argue against that in∣ward Light's existence out of the nature of that inward perswasion Fanaticks have, in regard 'tis latent and unknown. It follows then that the way to conclude against it is to show out of evi∣dent

Principles the contrary to these Inspiration to be Truth: None therefore (as plain matter of Fact testifies) taking the way of arguing from Principles absolutely evident, or demonstrating, but Catholiks or the followers of Tradition, and they effecting this by virtue of Tradition, Disc. 5, 6, 8.) it follows that they and onely they are able to confute Fanaticks and conclude their inward Light delusive. Again, since a Fanatick builds on conceited experience of Divine Inspiration, there is no hopes to convince his Judgment without producing Demonstration for the con∣trary; a task onely performable in the way of Tradition. Which is enforc't and strengthen'd by this Consideration, that the Basis of Tradi∣dition is natural Knowledge directly imprinted by his Senses, in which Knowledges he is unde∣ceivable; and these Sensations or Knowledges are daily repeated, not on one private temper but on innumerable millions conspiring in the same, that is, Tradition is built on almost Infi∣nit, daily and most manifest Experiences; where∣as the conceited Effect of Inspiration, or his strong persuasion that God speaks thus inwardly is found with consent of tenets in a few onely; and liable to deceit by depending upon Fancy, not Sense; as appears in diseased or mad persons, and the Fanaticks contradicting one another though both proceeding on the same Principle. With∣out Tradition's help then 'tis very hard (if not impossible) to confute Fanaticks, (as Experi∣ence

also testifies by Protestants being forc't to recurr to Tradidion in disputes with them) though very easy with it, or by means of it.

22. There is no arguing against Tradition with∣out questioning the Constancy of every species in Nature, that is the Certainty of whole Na∣ture. For, seeing Man's Nature is as necessarily fit to receive the direct Impressions of Objects on his Soul, that is Natural Knowledges, and as necessarily determin'd to work for a motive or reason good or bad, as Fire is to heat or water to wet, and this absolutely and alwayes abstracting from disease incapacitating him to use his senses or his Fancy, and both these spring out of the very Substance of his Nature as Rational or of such a species, which Original Corruption hin∣ders not; it follows that he is as fit for those O∣perations, and consequently will as frequently perform them as Fire burn, water wet, fruit-trees bear fruit, or any other species in Nature do its ptoper Effect; that is generally, and onely rarely and contingently fail, unless the Au∣thour of Nature order the whole course of it worse for Man than for other things, which were blasphemy to say, and contrary to Experience; since we find a course of Super∣naturals on foot, and that they comfort and strengthen man's true nature as hath been for∣merly declared. Less liable then is the human Species to contingency in those its natural ope∣rations than any other kind is. Wherefore,

seeing Traditions Certainty is grounded upon direct natural Knowledges, and its Indefective∣ness on Mankind's Incapableness to act without some motive; to argue against It were to questi∣on These, that is, the constancy of the best and best-supported Species in Nature, and a fortiori the Constancy of the rest.

Note here, that all the Arguments brought by witty Reasoners against Tradition are fetcht from the Contingency of some one or some few Particulars, whence by a wild kind of roving way they would conclude the defectibleness of the Generality or of the entire Species: But, because it looks too palpably inconsequent in Logicall form to say, a few can err, ergo all, therefore they use to bring it in with a why not. So that all the arguers against Tradition from natural reason oppose directly any Constancy in the Species or Generality, and so are destroyers of natural Certainty and of their own Argu∣ments to boot.

23. There is no possibility of arguing at all a∣gainst Tradition rightly understood, or the living voice of the Catholick Church with any show of reason. For, since 'tis evident that Scripture's Copy or Letter is in the whole and every tittle Uncertain (Disc. 2, and 4.) without Tradition; as also that the writings of Fathers, Councils, History, and of any written or dead Testimony whatever, (Corol. 14, and 16.) are utterly unauthoriz'd otherwise than by means of

Tradition, and that no living Testimony or Tra∣dition is alledgable against the Tradition we speak of or Catholick Tradition, (Corol. 13. and 17.) Nor any pretended Instance of Tradition••s failing has force but by its being faithfully convey'd down by Tradition and depending on Tradition for its Certainty, (Corol. 19.) and all Arguments from Natural Reason are so weak that they destroy all Certainty in that mat∣ter while levell'd against Tradition, (Corol. 18. & 22.) It follows, that no Argument from any Au∣thority publickly appearing in the world, nor yet from intrinsecal mediums fetcht from second Causes in Nature can bear any show against Tra∣dition. Nor yet from private Effects pretended from the first Cause, call'd Inspiration or Light of the Private Spirit (Corol. 21.) For, (be∣sides what has been concluded for this point) however this preten••e may make the first Syll••••∣gism, yet when it comes to be prov'd, that is made appear outwardly, that the first Cause in∣spir'd thus or thus, no extraordinary Effects pro∣per to that Cause (as miracles) being produci∣ble, their arguing or Proof is at an end, how∣ever their Inward Adhesion stands. There be∣ing then no other Argument imaginable, but what is fetcht from Authority living or dead, or else from Effects or Experience testifiable by those Authorities, or from proper Effects or Causes in the ordinary course of natural things, or from extraordinary private and unseen pre∣tended

Effects of the first Cause; and none of these bearing any show against Tradition; 'Tis evident There is no possibility of arguing against Tradition rightly understood, or the living voice of the Catholick Church, with any show of Rea∣son.

24. Tradition is the First Principle in the way of Authority as it engages for matter of Fact long ago past. For, seeing that is the first Principle in any Knowledge into which all Knowledges in that kind are resolv'd to establish their Cer∣tainty, and all ptetended Authorities for any matter of Fact long ago past (Corol. 16.) and consequently all Knowledges caus'd by the means of them, are resolv'd finally into Tradi∣tion and depend on it for their Certainty; it fol∣lows that Tradition is the very first Principle in the way of Authority as it undertakes for the truth of matters of Fact long ago past.

25. Tradition, in the matter of Tradition (that is, in matter of Fact before our time) is Self-evident to all those who can need the Knowledge of such things, that is, to all Mankind who use common Reason. This is evident from the for∣mer; For, first Principles are to be Self-evident to all those who are to use them and proceed upon them, which in our case is the most ordina∣ry vulgar.

26. The Certainty of Tradition being establisht the whole Body of the Faithful (by which I mean Catholicks) or the Church Essential, is, by rely∣ing

on it, infallibly certain that it is in possession of Christ's true doctrin. For, since Tradition is Self-evidently a Certain way if followd (Disc. 5. §. 8. & 13.) and both best Nature and best Grace in this world are engaged that it hath been and shall be ever followed. (Disc. 6. and 9.) Again, since the Certainty of what Faith was formerly taught must needs descend to us as matter of Fact formerly past, that is whose Certainty depends on Authority, and Tradition is the first Princi∣ple in way of Authority as it engages for matters of Fact formerly past (Corol. 24.) and Self-evi∣dent to the proceeders on it (Corol. 25.) that is to the Body of Catholicks: Lastly, since Chri∣stian Tradition rightly understood is nothing but the living voice of the Catholick Church Essen∣tial as delivering, 'tis manifestly and manifoldly evident that that Body which relies on It, that is the Catholick Church or (Corol. 6. & 11.) the whole Church Essential, is infallibly Certain that she is in secure possession of Christs true Doctrin.

27. Tradition once establisht, General Coun∣cils and even Provincial ones, nay particular Churches are Infallible by proceeding upon It. For the same reason; in regard that proceeding on it they proceed upon a Certain and Self-evi∣dent Principle; (Corol. 24. & 25.) that is such a one as neither they can mistake nor it mislead them.

28. The Roman See with its Head are particu∣larly

Infallible by the same means. For, in re∣gard a more vigorous Cause put at first is apt to produce a greater Effect, and the Coresidence, Joynt-endeavours, Preaching, Miracles, and lastly Martyrdome of the two Chief Apostles working upon that City which commanded the greatest part of the world were more vigorous Causes to imprint Christs Doctrin at first and re∣commend it to the next age than was found any where else; it follows that the stream of Tradi∣tion in its source and first putting into motion was more particularly vigorous here than in any other See. Again, since uninterrupted publi∣city of professing Faith makes a greater visibili∣ty of Faith, which is a manifest advantage to Tradition, and no Patriarchal See but the Ro∣man hath continued ever from the Primitive times in a publick Profession of Christs Faith, being held under by Barbarians; hence the Ro∣man See (and inclusively their Pastours and most their chief Pastour) have a particular title to Infallibility built on Tradition above any other See or Pastour whatsoever. Not to mention and dilate on the particular Assistances to the Clergy of that See, and most particular to its Bishop, springing out of their divinely consti∣tuted office, in regard 'tis a position unac∣knowledged by Adversaries against whom I am discoursing.

29. Tradition establisht, the Church is provi∣ded of a certain and Infallible Rule to preserve a

Copy of the Scripture's Letter truly significative of Christs sence, as far as it is coincident with the main Body of Christian doctrin preacht at first. For, since ••tis certain the Apostles taught the same Doctrin they writ, ••tis manifest the Scripture••s Letter was at first (for what of it was intended to signify Points of Faith) significative of Faith or Sence writ by miracles, preaching and pra∣ctice in the hearts of the first Faithful: Where∣fore, since the same sence that was preacht at first was preserv'd all along unalterably by Tra∣dition, (Disc. 6. & 8.) and the same sence in mens hearts can easily guide them to correct the alteration of the outward Letter, so as to pre∣serve it significative of the sence first delivered; Therefore Tradition establisht the Church is provided of a certain and Infallible Rule to pre∣serve a Copy of the Scripture's Letter truly sig∣nificative of Christ's sence, as far as Scripture is coincident with the main body of Christian Do∣ctrin preacht at first.

30. Tradition establisht the Church is provided of a certain and Infallible Rule to interpret Scri∣pture's Letter by, so as to arrive certainly at Christ's Sence, as far as that Letter concerns the Body of Christian Doctrin preacht at first or points requisit to Salvation. For, since (Disc. 6. & 8.) Tra∣dition preserves the first deliver'd sence alive in mens hearts sent down by way of living voice and Christian practice; and these were in the beginning evidently a most certain way of know∣ing

the Sence of the Letter, ••tis evident that they are still such. Wherefore Tradition esta∣blisht the Church is provided, &c.

31. Tradition establish't nothing can be recei∣ved by the Church as h••ld from the first or ever, un∣less held ever. For, since (Disc. 5. §. 13. & Disc. 6. & 8. & Corol. 24, & 25.) Tradition is self-evi∣dently a certain method of conveying down matters of Fact as they were found, it follows that, Tradition establish't, points not held ever must be convey'd down such as they were found, that is as not held ever and consequently not as held from the first or ever.

32. Tradition establish't 'tis impossible any Er∣rour against Christ••s Faith should bee received by the Church; that is no Errour contradicting Faith can be received as of Faith. For, since to be re∣ceived as of Faith is (Disc. 6. & 8.) to Traditio∣nary Christians the same as to be received as held ever or from Christs time, and (Corol. 31.) no point at all, though disparate or indifferent, not-held-ever can be received as held-ever, 'tis evident that much less can an erroneous point contradicting what was held ever be received as held-ever.

33. Notwithstanding Tradition, Erroneous O∣pinions and (their proper Effects) absurd Practi∣ces may creep into the Church and spread there for a while. For, since, notwithstanding the Certainty of Tradition, the Church is still, ac∣cording to our Saviour, a Congregation made

up of good and bad, and the Bad will do like themselves, that is be glad to invent and propa∣gate such Principles as shall make for their own Ends or for Vices, that is, Erroneous ones; A∣gain, since it cannot be expected but that mul∣titudes even of good men in the Church should in using their private reasons be liable to Errour in divers particular points or Cases, and that the remoteness of Christian Principles or Points of Faith from the Principles of particular Actions or Cases is apt to make the opposition between them not easily nor clearly discoverable at first, nay the ambiguity in wording them may make them appear at first sight fairly reconcilable till the Terms be distinguisht and clear'd from equi∣vocation; 'tis very evident that Tradition's Cer∣tainty hinders not but Erroneous Opinions, and (their proper Effects) absurd Practices may creep into the Church and spread there for a while.

34. Erroneous Opinions can never gain any solid footing in the Church. For, since (Disc. 5. §. 15. Corol. 11.) the Church is a Body of men relying on Tradition or the Authority of attest∣ing Forefathers, not on the Authority of Opina∣tors, these Opinions can never have any firmness in her by means of Authority; and, on the other side, being Erroneous, they can never gain any depth of adhesion by being demonstrably true; nor (Errour being necessarily opposit to Truth) can they even maintain their quiet posture by

being evidently not opposit to Faith; It follows that neither upon the score of Reason nor Authority can they sink deep into the minds of the Faithful (at least the intelligent party of them) or gain any solid footing in the Church; but are subject to be contradicted or have their verity disputed by the searching and unsatisfy'd wits of Opposers.

35. The Prudence requisit in Church-Govern∣ment is one Cause why Erroneous Opinions are not immediately but after some long time perhaps to be declared against by the Authority of the whole Church. For, since a Church is a most vast and sacred Common-wealth, and so of the greatest gravity and Authority imaginable, she is not in prudence to engage it trivially in sleight occa∣sions, nor rashly when the point is unevident. Wherefore, seeing an Erroneous Opinion, while held but by few, is of sleight concern, and so onely fit to be taken notice of by inferiour Of∣ficers; when universally held is of great Autho∣rity amongst the multitude; she is in Prudence to suspend till its Opposition to Faith be clear'd by the Science of Divinity, and this satisfacto∣rily to a great part of the Opinatours; lest ei∣ther she should in stead of tares pluck up wheat, or use her Authority more to destruction than edification by a too hasty decision.

36. No Erroneous Opinion in Divinity, if Vniversal and Practical, can be very long per∣mitted in the Church. For since (Corol. 31.) a

meer Opinion can never gain the Authority of a Traditionary point, 'tis manifest it can never subsist when it is shown to clash with any of the said Points: Wherefore, since it is liable to dis∣cussion, and men are naturally of different Judg∣ments and Interests, and the variety and Nature of worldly Interest is such that if any thing makes for the Interest of some 'tis for that very reason against the Interest of another, it will excite them to discussion and sifting its Confor∣mity or Disconformity to Christian Principles, which is the way to clear the Terms and make it appear. But, especially, seeing absurd or irrational Practices are the proper Effects of Er∣roneous Principles, and that our natural Cor∣ruption inclines men to follow such Practices till they be checkt by regard to something held Sacred, that is by being shown opposit to Faith; it follows that, till this opposition be shown, they will infallibly grow on still more and more, till they come to such an height of absurdity that they need now no skill to discover them: Expe∣rience teaching us that the most palpable and evident method to try the Truth of any Specu∣lation is to put it into matter and bring it into Practice. Those irrational Practices therefore must needs after some time discover themselves opposit to Christian behaviour, and consequently confess the Principle which begot them opposit to Christian Faith; which done, it presently loses its credit, and is quasht by the incompa∣rably

more powerful force and all over-bearing Authority of Tradition.

37. Erroneous Opinions and the irrational Practices issuing from them (though suppos'd Vni∣versal and of long continuance) can never cor∣rupt substantially the Iudgments or Wills of the Faithful. For, since (Corol. 31.) nothing not held ever or not coming from Christ can possibly be accepted as held ever or coming from Christ, 'tis evident no Erroneous Opinion can come to gain the sacredness and repute of a Traditionary point, nor their proper practices the Esteem of Christian Practice; Wherefore, Traditionary Points being the Principles which absolutely possess the Judgmenrs and govern the lives of the Faithful as Christians, it follows that no Opini∣on can ever be held by them but in a conciev'd subordination to Traditionary points or points of Faith, nor practic••t by them but with a con∣ceivd subordination and conformity to those Practices which spring from undoubtedly-known Christian Tenets or Traditionary points. See∣ing then what is not held and practic••t but as conceivd subordinate to other Tenets and Pra∣ctices must needs be less held than those others, nay not held at all otherwise than conditionally or upon supposal of such a subordination, ••tis clearly consequent that Traditions Certainty is so powerful an Antidote that bad Opinions and Practices can never corrupt substantially and

absolutely the Judgments or wills of the Faith∣full.

38. No Erroneous Opinion or its proper Practice is imputable to the Church properly and formally ta∣ken. For, since the Church, formally as such, pro∣ceeds on Christian Tradition, no such Opinion nor consequently Practice is imputable to the Church properly and formally taken, but onely to some men in the Church (materially consi∣der'd) as left to the contingent force of their pri∣vate Discourses: that is, indeed, to the Schools not the Church.

39. 'Tis exceedingly weak and senceless to think to impugn the Church by objecting to her such Opinions and Practices. For, since they concern her not, nor are imputable to her as Church, or to her Members as Faithful, the wise Objection can onely signify thus much, that the Church has men in her who are fallible in their private Discourses or School-disputes; that is, she has men in her who are men. A heavy imputation!

40. The Knowledge of Tradition's Certainty is the first Knowledge or Principle in Controversial Divi∣nity, that is, without which nothing is known or knowable in that Science. For, since Controversy or the Science which establishes the Certainty of Faith depends on these two Propositions, Whate∣ver God said is true, and God said this, the former of which is out of Controversy as we now handle it with our modern Dissenters, and onely the

later is the subject of our debate: Seeing also (as hath been largely and manifoldly evident) nothing can ascertain us of this but Tradition, nor It unless its Certainty be known, it follows that the Knowledge of Tradition's Certainty is the first Knowledge or Principle in Controversial Di∣vinity.

41. Christ's promise to his Church (however com∣fortable to the Faithful) can bear no part in the notion of the Rule of Faith, nor be the first Prin∣ciple of a Controversial Divine. For, since Christ's promise to his Church is held as a point of Faith, that is, receiv'd upon the Rule of Faith, that is, subsequent to that Rule, 'tis manifest that it can be no part of that Rule nor first Principle in Con∣troversy. Again, the Rule of Faith (Disc. 1. §. 4, and 9.) must be so evident as to its Existence that no other Knowledge must intervene between the natural power of Understanding and It, and this in the meanest vulgar; but, that Christ promist his Church Infallibility is not thus self-evident but needs other Knowledges to evidence it, un∣less we will make all come by Inspiration. Besides, if God's Providence laid in second Causes for Tradition's Indeficiency be not Certain in its self, (abstracting from Christ's promise to his Faithful) Tradition can never convey certainly that Pro∣mise to us; It must then be assur'd to us by Scripture's Letter ascertain'd onely by imagin'd diligence from Copy to Copy, not by Tradi∣tion;

that is, that Letter could not be certain its self, and so fit to ascertain others, till Tradi∣tion's Certainty be establish't antecedently: And, were it suppos'd a true Letter, this Letter (Tra∣dition being as yet suppos'd unknown to be able to convey down certainly Christs sence) must be interpreted onely by private skills; and so, all the Churches Veracity, that is, all Mankinds Sal∣vation must be built on that private Interpreta∣tion. Private, I say; for in that supposition, till the Scripture's Letter for that point be Interpret∣ed certainly truly, the Churches veracity or power to interpret it truly is not yet known: which, besides the common Rule that no Scrip∣ture is of private Interpretation, is particularly and highly faulty in this case, that it would make our Fundamental of Fundamentals, the Certainty of our Rule of Faith, rely on such a private Interpretation. Moreover, to say Tradi∣tion of the Church is Certain because Christ pro∣mist it, puts it to be believ'd not seen; and is the same in Controversy as it is in Nature to say in common, such an Effect is wrought because 'tis God's will; which gives no account of that par∣ticular Effect, but onely sayes something in com∣mon: Wherefore, since the Certainty of the Rule of Faith (it being antecedent to Faith) must be seen not believ'd, a Controversial Di∣vine ought to make it seen; that is, ought to de∣monstrate its Certainty and Indeficiency by in∣trinsecal

mediums or dependence on proper Causes. It signisies therefore no more in the Sci∣ence of Controversy to say Christ promist, than in Natural Science to answer to every Question, in stead of showing a proper Cause, that God wills it; which is a good saying for a Christian, as is also the other; but neither of them a competent Prin∣ciple either for Philosopher or Controvertist.