controversies, (which was the reason that in several other Synods we find they were wont to lay the Bible before them,) and that there is nothing in the Nicene Creed, but what is to be found in the Bible; that Cardinal Bellarmine hath nothing to reply to it but this: "Constantine was indeed a Great Emperor, but no great Doctor." Which is rather a scoff, than an answer; and casts a scorn not only upon him but upon that great council, who, as the same Theodoret witnesseth, assented unto that speech of Constantine. So it there follows in these words: "The most of the Synod were obedient to what he had discoursed, and embraced both mutual concord and sound doctrine."

And accordingly St. Hilary a little after extols his son Constantius for this, that he adhered to the Scriptures; and blames him only for not attending to the true Catholic sense of them. His words are these, (in his little Book which he delivered to Constantius,) " I truly admire thee, O Lord Constantius the Emperor, who desirest a Faith according to what is written." They pretended to no other in those days; but (as he speaks a little after) looked upon him that refused this, as Antichrist. It was only required that they should receive their Faith out of God's Books, not merely according to the words of them, but according to their true meaning, (because many "spake Scripture without Scripture, and pretended to Faith without Faith," as his words are;) and herein Catholic and constant Tradition was to guide them. For whatsoever was contrary to what the whole Church had received and held from the beginning, could not in reason be thought to be the meaning of that Scripture which was alleged to prove it. And, on the other side, the Church pretended to no more than to be a witness of the received sense of the Scriptures; which were the bottom upon which they built this Faith.

Thus I observe Hegesippus saith, (in Euseb. his History, L. iv. c. 22.) that when he was at Rome, he met with a great many Bishops, and that "he received the very same Doctrine from them all." And then, a little after, tells us what that was, and whence they derived it, saying, "That in every succession of Bishops, and in every City, so they held; as the law preached, and as the Prophets, and as the LORD." That is according to the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament.

I shall conclude this particular with a pregnant passage which I remember in a famous Divine of our Church, (Dr. Jackson, in his Treatise of the Catholic Church, chap. 22,) who writes to this effect:

That Tradition which was of so much use in the Primitive Church, was not unwritten Traditions, or Customs, commended or ratified by the supposed infallibility of any visible Church, but did especially consist in the confessions or registers of particular Churches. And the unanimous consent of so many several

Churches, as exhibited their confessions to the Nicene Council, out of such forms as had been framed and taught before this controversy arose, about the Divinity of Christ; and that voluntarily and freely (these Churches being not dependent one upon another, nor overswayed by any authority over them, nor misled by faction to frame their confessions of Faith by imitation, or according to some pattern set them), was a pregnant argument, that this faith, wherein they all agreed, had been delivered to them by the Apostles and their followers, and was the true meaning of the holy writings in this great Article; and evidently proved, that Arius did obtrude such interpretations of Scripture as had not been heard of before; or were but the sense of some private persons in the Church, and not of the generality of believers.

In short, the unanimous consent of so many distinct visible Churches, as exhibited their several Confessions, Catechisms, or Testimonies of their own or forefathers' Faith, unto the council of Nice, was an argument of the same force and efficacy against Arius and his partakers, as the general consent and practice of all nations, in worshipping a Divine Power in all ages, is against Atheists. Nothing but the ingrafted notion of a Deity could have induced so many several nations, so much different in natural disposition, in civil discipline and education, to affect or practise the duty of Adoration. And nothing but the evidence of "the ingrafted word" (as St. James calls the Gospel) delivered by CHRIST and his Apostles in the holy Scriptures, could have kept so many several Churches as communicated their confessions unto that council, in the unity of the same Faith.

The like may be said of the rest of the four first General Councils; whose decrees are a great confirmation of our belief, because they deliver to us the consent of the Churches of Christ, in those great truths which they assert out of the holy Scriptures.

And could there any Traditive Interpretation of the whole Scripture be produced upon the authority of such original Tradition as that now named, we would most thankfully and joyfully receive it. But there never was any such pretended; no, not by the Roman Church, whose doctors differ among themselves about the meaning of hundreds of places in the Bible. Which they would not do sure, nor spend their time unprofitably in making the best conjectures they are able, if they knew of any exposition of those places in which all Christian Doctors had agreed from the beginning.

But more than this, we allow that Tradition gives us a considerable assistance in such points as are not in so many letters and syllables contained in the Scriptures, but may be gathered from thence, by good and manifest reasoning. Ór, in plainer words perhaps, whatsoever Tradition justifies any Doctrine that may be proved by the Seriptures, though not found in express

terms there; we acknowledge to be of great use, and readily receive and follow it, as serving very much to establish us more firmly in that truth, when we see all Christians have adhered to it.

This may be called a confirming Tradition: of which we have an instance in the doctrine of Infant Baptism, which some ancient Fathers call an Apostolical Tradition. Not that it cannot be proved by any place of Scripture; no such matter: for though we do not find it written in so many words that Infants are to be baptized, or that the Apostles baptized Infants, yet it may be proved out of the Scriptures; and the Fathers themselves, who call it an Apostolical Tradition, do allege testimonies of the Scriptures to make it good. And therefore we may be sure they comprehend the Scriptures within the name of Apostolical Tradition; and believed that this Doctrine was gathered out of the Scriptures, though not expressly treated of there.

In like manner we, in this Church, assert the authority of Bishops above Presbyters, by a Divine right; as appears by the Book of Consecration of Bishops, where the person to be ordained to this office, expresses his belief "that he is truly called to this Ministration according to the will of our LORD JESUS CHRIST." Now, this we are persuaded may be plainly enough proved to any man that is ingenious, and will fairly consider things, out of the holy Scriptures, without the help of Tradition; but we also take in the assistance of this for the conviction of gainsayers; and by the perpetual practice and Tradition of the Church from the be. ginning confirm our Scripture proofs so strongly, that he seems to us very obstinate, or extremely prejudiced, that yields not to them. And therefore to make our Doctrine in this point the more authentic, our Church hath put both these proofs together, in the preface to the form of giving orders, which begins in these words: "It is evident unto all men, diligently reading the holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in CHRIST'S Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.”

I hope nobody among us is so weak as to imagine, when he reads this, that by admitting Tradition to be of such use and force as I have mentioned, we yield too much to the Popish cause, which supports itself by this pretence. But if any one shall suggest this to any of our people, let them reply, that it is but the pretence, and only by the name of Tradition, that the Romish Church supports itself: for true Tradition is as great a proof against Popery, as it is for Episcopacy. The very foundation of the Pope's Empire (which is his succession in St. Peter's Supremacy) is utterly subverted by this; the constant Tradition of the Church being evidently against it. And therefore let us not lose this advantage we have against them, by ignorantly refusing to receive true and constant Tradition; which will be so far from leading us into their Church, that it will never suffer us to think of being of it, while it remains so opposite to that which is truly Apostolical.

I conclude this with the direction which our Church gives to Preachers in the Book of Canons, 1517, (in the Title Conciona tores,) That "no man shall teach the people any thing to be held and believed by them religiously, but what is consentaneous to the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament; and what the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops have gathered out of that very doctrine." This is our rule whereby we are to guide ourselves; which was set us on purpose to preserve our Preachers from broaching any idle, novel, or Popish Doctrines; as appears by the conclusion of that injunction: "vain and old wives' opinions, and Heresies, and Popish Errors, abhorring from the Doctrine and Faith of CHRIST, they shall not teach; nor any thing at all whereby the unskilful multitude may be inflamed either to the study of novelty, or to contention."

But though nothing may be taught as a piece of Religion, which hath not the fore-named original, yet I must add, that those things which have been universally believed, and not contrary to Scripture, though not written at all there, nor to be proved from thence, we do receive as pious opinions. For instance, the perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God our SAVIOUR, which is so likely a thing, and so universally received, that I do not see why we should not look upon it as a genuine Apostolical Tradition.

I have but one thing more to add, which is, that we allow also the Traditions of the Church, about matters of Order, Rites and Ceremonies. Only we do not take them to be parts of God's worship; and if they be not appointed in the holy Scriptures, we believe they may be altered by the same or the like authority with that which ordained them.

As for what is delivered in matters of Doctrine, or Order, by any private Doctor in the Church, or by any particular Church, it appears by what hath been said, that it cannot be taken to be more than the private opinion of that man, or the particular decree of that Church, and can have no more authority than they have: that is, cannot oblige all Christians, unless it be contained in the holy Scripture.

Now such are the Traditions which the Roman Church would impose upon us, and impose upon us after a strange fashion.Our people may hereby be admonished not to suffer themselves to be deceived and abused by words and empty names, without their sense and meaning. Nothing is more common than this, especially in the business of Traditions, about which a stir is raised, and it is commonly given out, that we refuse all Traditions. Than which nothing is more false, for we refuse none truly so called; that is, Doctrine delivered by CHRIST, or His Apostles. No, we refuse nothing at all, because it is unwritten, but merely because we are not sure it is delivered by that authority to which we ought to submit.

Whatsoever is deliverd to us by our Lord and His Apostles, we receive as the very word of GOD, which we think is sufficiently declared in the holy Scriptures. But if any can certainly prove, by any authority equal to that which brings the Scriptures to us, that there is any thing else delivered by them, we receive that also. The controversy will soon be at an end, for we are ready to embrace it when any such thing can be produced.

Nay, we have that reverence for those who succeeded the Apostles, that what they have unanimously delivered to us, as the sense of any doubtful place, we receive it, and seek no farther. There is no dispute whether or no we should entertain it.

To the Decrees of the Church also we submit, in matters of Decency and Order; yea, and acquiesce in its authority, when it determines doubtful opinions.

But we cannot receive that as a Doctrine of CHRIST, which we know is but the tradition of man, nor keep the ordinances of the ancient Church in matters of decency, so unalterably as never to vary from them, because they themselves did not intend them to be of everlasting obligation. As appears by the changes that have been made in several times and places; even in some things which are mentioned in the holy Scriptures, being but customs suited to those ages and countries.

In short, Traditions we do receive, but not all that are called by that name. Those which have sufficient authority, but not those which are imposed upon us by the sole authority of one particular Church, assuming a power over all the rest.

It is a calumny to affirm that the Church of England rejects all Tradition; and I hope none of her true children are so ignorant, as when they hear that word, to imagine they must rise up and oppose it. No: the Scripture itself is a tradition; and we admit all other traditions, which are subordinate, and agreeable unto that; together with all those things which can be proved to be Apostolical by the general testimony of the Church in all ages: nay, if any thing not contained in Scripture, which the Roman Church now pretends to be a part of God's word, were delivered to us by as universal uncontrolled tradition as the Scripture is, we should receive it as we do the Scripture.

But it appears plainly that such things were at first but private opinions, which now are become the doctrines of that particular Church, who would impose her decrees upon us under the venerable name of Apostolical universal tradition; which I