of the former communion, it seems, think us of the latter quite out of the way to falvation, and accordingly are unwearied in perfuading, as they have opportunity, the members of our church, especially the lower and more ignorant part of them, to quit it for theirs. The neceffity of doing this, they infift upon sometimes with so much plausibility, and always with so much confidence, that I hope you will not think a few difcourfes ill employed on a subject of fuch very great importance, both to our private fatisfaction and public fecurity, in refuting the arguments they usually bring against us, and teftifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye ftand. To proceed regularly in this matter, I fhall

I. Inquire what is the rule of Chriftian faith and life: and

II. Examine by this rule the peculiar doctrines and prac tices of the Romish church.

I. I fhall inquire what is the rule of Christian faith and life: from whence we are to learn what things our religion requires as neceffary, and what it forbids as unlawful: for, if we do the one, and avoid the other, we are undoubtedly safe. Now, as Jesus Christ is the fole author of our faith *, those things, and thofe alone, which he taught himself, and commiffioned his difciples to teach, are parts of our faith. What his doctrine was we find in no less than four accounts of his life and preaching given in the gofpels. To what belief his difciples converted men, we find in the Acts. What they taught men after their converfion, we read in the epiftles. These feveral books, which make up the New Teftament, all Christians allow to contain an original and undoubtedly true account of our religion. The only poffible question is, whether they contain a full and clear account? Now such a one they, without queftion, intended to give, for what could induce them defignedly to give any other? Befides, St. Luke, in the very beginning of his gospel, tells us, that having a perfect understanding of those things which were believed amongst Chriftians, be bad taken in hand to fet forth a declaration of them, that those he wrote to might know the certainty of what they had been inftructed in. And St. John, in the conclufion

of his, tells us, that though our Saviour did, and doubtless faid also, many things that were not written in that book, yet thefe, fays he, are written that ye might believe that Jefus is the Chrift, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name *. This being then their intention, can we poffibly think they failed of it? Two of the evangelists at leaft were conftantly prefent at our Saviour's difcourfes, the other two heard them either from him, or his immediate followers, and they had the prom fe of his Spirit to bring all things to their remembrance whatsoever he had faid unto them†. Could they after all forget any part of this that was material and neceffary? That any of them should do fo is very strange, much more that they all fhould. That St. Luke, the companion of the apostles, and the writer of their acts, that he too, in relating what they taught their converts, should unhappily omit any thing effential, ftill adds to the wonder and that no one of the many epiftles written to inftruct the churches in their faith and duty, fhould fupply this defect, is beyond all belief.

But fuppofing the fcripture ever so perfect in itself, yet the church of Rome objects that it is not clear to us: even to the learned many things are hard to be understood, which therefore to the unlearned must be impoffible. Nay, fometimes they tell us not one fentence of it hath a meaning, which by our own private judgment we can be certain of. But furely the apofles were not worse writers with a divine affistance, than others commonly are without it. What they spoke and preached was plain, else they spoke to no purpose: and why fhould not the fame things be as plain when they were written down? Some paffages indeed might to fome perfons be difficult even at first, and more are doubtlefs become fo by length of time. But that the main of the New Testament is intelligible enough, cannot be with any modefty denied. And for the rest, what at firft fight is difficult, may with due confideration of our own, and help of others, be made easy; what is obfcurely expreffed in one place, may be clearly expreffed in another; and what is clearly expreffed in no place, we may fafely, for that very reafon, conclude it is not neceffary for us to understand or believe.

But

John xx. 30, 31.

† John xiv. 26.

But allowing the fcriptures to have been at first sufficiently intelligible, how do we know they are come down to us uncorrupted? I answer, by all the fame arguments which prove the incorruptness of any other ancient book in the world, and by this argument farther, that thefe books having many more copies of them, being much wider difperfed, and much more carefully read, and warmly difputed about, than any other whatever; it is in proportion more incredible that either chance or defign fhould alter them, in any thing confiderable, without discovery from fome quarter, even were no particular providence to watch over writings fo worthy of its care. And accordingly, in fact, amidst all the various readings which fuch a number of copies muft produce, there is not one that affects the leaft article of our religion. But if ever so faithfully preserved, ftill how fhall the unlearned know when they are faithfully tranflated? Why, most paffages all parties agree in, and on those they disagree about, common fenfe, comparison of other texts, confideration of what goes before and after, and confulting, as opportunity offers, judicious and honeft perfons of different perfuafions, will enable any perfon to pass a fufficient judgment, fo far as he is concerned to judge, which is right and which is wrong, which is clear and which is doubtful. Indeed there is in general but little danger of any grofs impofitions upon men being attempted, much lefs fucceeding, for any continuance, in a land of knowledge and freedom, whatever may be, or hath been, under Popish tyranny and darknefs. Since therefore the fcriptures contain a full and clear account of Christianity, written by the very apoftles and first difciples of our Lord himself, and honestly delivered down into our hands, we have plainly fuch a rule for our faith as all men in all cafes are ever fatisfied with; nor have we any need to look farther. And yet the farther we do look into other pretended rules, the better we fhall be fatisfied with that we have already. For, let what will be faid againft fcripture, as not being a fufficient rule, it must be a fufficient one, unlefs there be fome other; and, upon a fair examination, it will evidently appear there is no other. The Romanists indeed tell us of one which they speak of in very high terms, and that is the traditionary doctrine of what they call the Catholic Church. The apoftles, they fay,

inftructed

inftructed their converts very diligently in every article of faith. Those converts again, knowing it to be their indis penfable duty, could not fail to inftruct, with the fame diligence, minifters their flocks, parents their children, every Christian his neighbour. And thus, by a continued fucceffion of teaching, all the doctrines of religion are handed down in their church, they tell us, uncorrupted to this day. Whoever either added, omitted, or changed any thing, must, they think, by every one round him, be immediately charged with a mistake; and, if he perfifted in it, convicted of a heresy, whilft the reft were confirmed in the ancient truth. And therefore to hold what the church holds, is a rule that can never mislead us. Now it must be owned indeed, that our Saviour delivered his doctrine to the apoftles, and they to all the world by word of mouth; and this way of delivering at firft was fufficient; and therefore St. Paul exhorts the Thef falonians, to hold fast the traditions he had taught them, whether by word or by letter *. But then, in the nature of things, how long could this laft? Suppofe but the eafieft common story were to be told from one perfon to another, without being written down, for only 100 or 200 years, and let each perfon, as he received it, have ever so strict a charge to tell it in the fame manner; yet, long before the end of that time, what fecurity could we poffibly have that it was true at first, and unaltered ftill? And you cannot but fee there is much lefs fecurity, that a confiderable number of doctrines, especially fuch as compofe the Popish creed, fhould be brought down fafe for 1700 years together, through fo many millions of hands, that were all liable, through ignorance, forgetfulness, and fuperftition, to mistake them, or, through knavery and defign, to alter them. But it will be faid, in a case of such importance as religion, men would be more careful in delivering truth than in others. Undoubtedly they ought; but who can be fecure that they would? It is of equal importance to be careful in practifing it too; yet we all know how this hath been neglected in the world; and therefore have reason to think the other hath been no lefs fo. But whoever made the firft change, they fay, muft have been immediately discovered.

2 Theff. ii. 15.

discovered. Now, fo far from this, that persons make changes in what they relate, without difcovering it themselves; alterations come in by infenfible degrees: one man leaves out, or varies, or adds one little circumftance; the next, another; till it grow imperceptibly into a different thing. In one age a doctrine is delivered as a probable opinion; the following age Ipeaks of it as certain truth; and the third advances it into an article of faith. Perhaps an oppofition rifes upon this, as many have done : some have said such a doctrine was delivered to them, others that it was not: and who can tell whether at laft the right fide or the wrong have prevailed? Only this is certain, that whichfoever prevails, though by a small majority at first, will ufe all means of art and power to make it appear an universal confent at laft, and then plead uninterrupted tradition. But though fuch things as these may poffibly be done in almost any age, yet they are easy to be done in fuch ages, as were five or fix of thofe, that preceded the reformation; when, by the confeffion of their own hiftorians, both clergy and laity were fo univerfally and fo monstrously ignorant and vicious, that nothing was too bad for them to do, or too abfurd for them to believe. But ftill they tell us, we Proteftants receive it upon the authority of tradition, that fcripture is the word of God: and why can we not as well receive other things upon the fame authority? I answer, we receive fcripture by no means upon the authority of tradition merely; much less the tradition of their prefent church; but partly on account of its own reasonablenefs, and the characters of divine wisdom in it; partly from the teftimony which one part of it bears to the other; and lastly, upon the written evidence given us, chiefly indeed by the earliest Christians, but in fome measure alfo by Jews and Heathens themselves, that the authors of these books were the difciples of our Lord, and the things faid by them true. But then to tell us, that because we receive fcripture upon this evidence, we must therefore receive a long lift of doctrines upon mere tradition, after 17 ages, is to affirm that the memory of things may be as well preferyed for ever, by general rumour and hearsay, as by authentic records. But here they plead, that the tra dition which they depend on, is not altogether unwritten, but partly recorded by the ancient fathers of the church. To this

we