warmed with these sentiments and impelled by these motives of Scripture, would not have practised it, in the proper circumstances.

Suppose we fail, yet the failure could not affect any one, who was only inquiring whether he could assent to our Article, though we own, that the new virtue ought to be practised: for the case has nothing to do with the purpose of the Article: nor can any dispute about it turn upon opposite interpretations of Scripture, which is the case with all our Christian Articles of Religion.

Lastly, when you have found a virtue, which you fancy is not supported by Scripture, you have no authority to inforce it: can you say, it is "necessary to Salvation?"-all men have a right to oppose you, and to question such necessity; and run what hazards they please. You cannot " require" of any man, that he should believe what you assert: and therefore our present proposition remains unshaken.

But how wonderful is it, that the moral part of the Scriptures should be so framed as continually to give a sanction to virtue, of every kind, and in every stage of its progression! whether its improvements happen to be quicker or slower! how astonishing, that moral precepts, published as these were, should be thought more and more excellent, in proportion to the advancement men make in virtue, taste, and wisdom! I verily believe this to be the fact; and, if it is, how absurd does it make the supposition appear, that such morals could be invented by a set of Fishermen and Mechanics!

See Book iii. Chap. ix. Sect. 10.

To

This last thought is much the same, or intirely the same with Book i. Chap. xiii. conclusion; but it is wanted in both places, and cannot appear uninteresting any where.

To conclude this first part of our Article, concerning Tradition.-Whatever particular traditions we may think it right to set aside, it does not seem as if we ought to entertain any general prejudice against every thing that is unwritten. In times of simplicity and unimproved ignorance, all knowledge and all laws must be unwritten, or traditional; and in every state of literature, there must be some bye laws, some particular methods of obeying general rules, which cannot well be committed to writing; and which had better be left unwritten and changeable; there will also be respectable interpretations of what has been written, and customary practices implying unwritten regulations:sometimes we only collect previous regulations from their present presumed effects.-This is applicable to Christianity. For some considerable time, there were comparatively very few written records in the Christian Church; during that time, a good deal must go on tradition. If we had any verbal directions, which had been really given, by Christ or his Apostles, to the newly-formed Churches, we should value them very highly; these indeed seem advantages not to be expected in any degree; but very early customs and practices in such Churches, afford so strong a presumption of their having been owing to such directions, as to demand our highest respect. And writings of Fathers and decrees of Councils are to be considered in the same light; that is, as conveying an evidence of something unwritten: early comments also are esteemed as telling us received interpretations. All these ought to have weight, whenever there is no appearance of indirect motives; and when the persons, whose accounts we receive, were competently qualified to inform us.

* Wall reasons about Infant-Baptism on this principle.

But,

But, whenever we have any reason to distrust. we should be at full liberty to neglect every thing of this kind: which is a very different thing from its being held " necessary to salvation." And herein consists the happiness of us reformed Christians, that we have got rid at once of an enormous quantity of such tradition, as we could not but believe to be corrupt. In a course of years, there will generally be a good deal to be rejected; but, if there have been ignorance and superstition and interest to generate, and artifice, party zeal, ambition, and enthusiasm to nourish, there is no saying to what degree the corruption may have increased. At our reformation, it was high time to extirpate all that diseased tumor, which had been formed: the same notices are still to be examined as at first, and the same respect to be paid to whatever appears to be credible evidence; but now we are not afraid of examining freely; be our minds ever so improved, we can make use of all their powers, to judge of the past, and provide for the future.

b

Yet, when we say, that we can do this, we must not forget the distinction between those, who are qualified to judge for themselves, and those, who ought to be guided, in a good measure, by the judgment of others; between Philosophers, as we have called them, and People. Indeed, the distinction is never more wanted than here; for all imperfect reasonings with regard to traditions seem, on both sides, to owe their imperfections to the want of it. Those, who are against all traditions, reason as if all men were Philosophers : those, who plead most strongly for traditions, reason as if all men were ordinary people.

C

Book ii. Chap. iv. Sect. 3, &c.

6. 2. We

See Lardner's article of Vincent of Lerins. Works, vol. V. d Popish writers: See also Vincentius Lirinensis, p. 360.

Edit.

6. 2. We come now to take our second station, and consider the Books of the Old Testament. The difference between our Old Testament and that of our adversaries, will easily appear, from a comparison of our Article with the acts of the fourth Session of the Council of Trent; but any reasoning concerning that difference will come under the third part of our Article; about what we call the Apocrypha.

a

If we were here to attempt to deliver all the historical reflexions, which might occur to the mind of a thinking person very conversant in history, we must stop short; the field is too wide for us; and I should hope, that we might receive satisfaction concerning the truth of every part of our Article, without involving ourselves in perplexed and intricate disquisitions concerning events of very remote antiquity".

7. With regard to explanation of this second part of our sixth Article, I do not see that it is wanted, except with regard to the word "canonical," which has been considered in the first Book. It may be as well to add here, that, in the Article, those Books are called the first and second Book of Esdras, which we commonly call the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra and Nehemiah were employed much in the same way; and the Book called Nehemiah is a sort of continuation of the Book of Ezra; hence, the Jews often counted them

as

Edit. Baluz. though, in the Gallican Church, the Bishops and Doctors claim a right to think and judge for themselves and the common people but the Popes do not approve. Mosheim, 8vo. vol. IV. p. 209.

a Council of Trent, Sess. 4th, Decree 1st.

b What Collier says, vol. I. p. 284, about the settlement of the Canon by Ezra, &c. might be read here.

C Chap. xii. Sect. 2.

as one Book; and hence, they have been named as two parts of the same Book: its name taken from the principal person concerned. Esdras is the way, in which the LXX write the Hebrew name Ezra, ;-but, in the Hebrew Bible, the second Book is called Nehemiah, '. The Council of Trent, Session 4, say, Esdræ "secundus qui dicitur Nehemias."

8. We will come then to that, which seems our principal concern, the truth of this second part of our Article; and we will endeavour to prove that we may have sufficient reason for receiving, as sacred and authentic, those ancient writings, which we commonly call the Books of the Old Testament.

Perhaps, if we wanted no more than a strict proof, it might be sufficient to use the single argument, which we used formerly; that, as Christ and his Apostles acknowledged the authority of these Books, we ought also to acknowledge it: this argument we must use of course; but there seem to be some reasons independent of this, which are not to be neglected: let us first conceive these to be weighed by some one before the coming of Christ, and then let us see what reasons a Christian, as such, has for adopting the same conclusion.

Before the coming of Christ, those, who were not Jews, were Idolaters; yet some there might be ready to acknowledge, that "an idol is nothing;' and desirous to worship, at least principally, a supreme invisible God. Nothing could be more natural for a person so disposed, than to endeavour to unite in divine worship with those, who would take no offence at his opinions.-Let us conceive what would be his reflexions.

d

Opening of Introd. to Book i. Chap. xii. e 1 Cor. viii, 4.

6

Here