"flatter himself with hopes of preferment, becaufe of "his virtue or learning? Men do not now, as former"ly, rife in the church by fuch arts," c. 11.-" Which "of thofe that are now-a-days advanced to the Pontifi"cal dignity, hath fo much as perfunctorily read, or heard, or learned the fcriptures; yea, or ever touched any more than the cover of the Bible?" c. 13. Again, fpeaking of the prodigious covetoufnefs of the governors of the church, and the, grofs neglect of their flocks: "They would (fays he, c. 14.) much more

66

66

66

66

66

contentedly bear the lofs of ten thousand fouls, than "of ten or twelve fhillings. But why do I say more contentedly, when, without the leaft trouble or diftur"bance to themfelves, they can bear the lofs of fouls? a thing fo far from their care, that it never entered "into their thoughts." Had the hereticks of those days but had wit enough, and a little money, they might, it feems, for a small fum, have hired the governors of the church to have renounced tradition, or to have ceafed to propagate it, though they had known that in fo doing they fhould have damned all their pofterity. He goes on, and tells us, that "if there were perhaps any one who did not take thefe courfes, the "reft would all fnarl at him, call him fool, and fay he was unfit to be a priest. So that the ftudy of the fcriptures, together with the profeffors of it, was turned "into laughter and fcorn by all; but, which is prodigious, efpecially by the Popes, who preferred their own "traditions many degrees before the commands of God." I defire Mr. S. to take notice in what kind of times tradition was fet up againft feripture. Again, fpeaking of the choice of perfons to be priefts, he tells us, c. 16. that "there was no inquiry made into their lives, no question about their manners. As for their learning, (fays he), what need I fpeak of that, when we fee "the priests, almoft univerfally, have much ado to "read, though but in an hefitating and fpelling fahion, drawing out one fyllable after another, without understanding either the fenfe of what they read, or the words?” I am now reconciled to oral tradition, and convinced, that there was great need of it in those ages, in which scarce any of the priests could either write VOL. III.

66

66

66

66

Hh

or

61

66

66

or read. I omit the particulars of what he fays (c. 20. 21. 23.) concerning the common "drunkenness and incontinency of priests, who [because they made con"fcience of marriage] kept whores in their houses; " concerning the diffolute lives of monks; and concerning nunneries, which, instead of being "the fanctuaries of God, were the abominable stews of Venus, and the "receptacles of lafcivious young men; infomuch (fays he) that at this day it is the fame thing to put a virgin "into a nunnery, and to make her a common ftrumpet." And, to fhew that he does not speak these things of a few, but with relation to the general corruption of that age, he adds, c. 25. "that wickednefs did fo "abound in all orders of men, that fcarce one among a thousand was to be found who did truly "live up to his profeffion; and if there was any one “that did not follow these lewd courfes, he became ri"diculous to others, and was branded either as an in"folent fingular madman, or an hypocrite." I will conclude this long teftimony with the character which he gives (c. 27.) of one of the Popes of his time, Clement by name, viz. That "he did chiefly apply himself to gratify and oblige all the parafites and buffoons that "had any intereft in the feveral courts of princes; and, "to this end, did confer upon these, and upon hand"fome young boys, (which he much delighted in), al"moft all the vacant bishopricks, and most of the other

86

church-dignities" It is well that oral tradition hath the fecurity of infallibility, otherwife it had in all probability been loft among this lewd fort of people, which yet they gravely call the holy Roman Catholick church.

§ 6. To this effect I might have produced teftimonies concerning every age from the ninth to the fixteenth : but Mr. Creffy hath faved me that labour; who acknowledges, (Exomolog. c. 68.), that "thefe worft times of "the church, when ignorance, worldlinefs, pride, tyranny, &c. reigned with fo much fcope; when the Popes (fo wicked, so abominable in their lives) enjoy"ed fo unlimited a power even over fecular princes themselves, and much more over the clergy:" I fay, be acknowledges, that "thefe worst times continued during the fpace of about fix ages before Luther."

A

competent

competent time, one would think, for tradition to have mifcarried in, were it not, as Mr. S. fays, indefectible. Mr. Creffy indeed tells us, (ibid.), that this was to him an irrefragable teftimony of a strange watchfulness of "divine providence over the church, to preferve it "from the gates of hell (that is, eftablished and dan

66

gerous errors) during thefe worst times." And very likely it is that this might appear fo to fuch a Catholick, "whofe judgment (he tells us) it is, to renounce his own judgment." But it will never appear irrefragable to any man that hath his judgment about him, unlefs Mr. Creffy can prove, that by that phrafe, viz. the gates of hell, the fcripture does not mean grofs wickednefs of life, as well as dangerous errors in opinion; and likewife, that a general vitioufnefs and debauchery of manners is not as pernicious to Christianity, and as deftructive to the end of it, as established errors in doctrine; and if fo, that the providence of God is not equally concerned to preferve the church from things equally pernicious. When he hath proved thefe three things, then this declamatory difcourfe of his may fignify fomething, but not before.

$7. Now, if this be a true reprefentation of the ftate of the Roman church in thofe ages, was not this a very fit time for the devil to play his pranks in? Will any man that reads these teftimonies, think it impoffible that the doctrine of Chrift fhould have been depraved in this age; or that the most fenfeless and abfurd tenets might then be brought in under the notion of Christian do-ctrines; when scarce any one knew what the doctrine of Chrift was; when a general ignorance of letters, and almost an univerfal ftupidity and madness, had feized upon the minds of men; when there was a horrid depravation of manners, and a general failure of virtue and piety, both in the head and members of the church; when the lives of the Popes were tragically wicked, and no footfteps of piety appeared in them; when for about 150 years together, in a continued fucceffion of fifty Popes, there was scarce one pious and virtuous man (or woman) fat in that chair; when the whores governed Rome, and put out and put in Bishops at their pleasure, and made their own gallants Popes, who would be fure to make a college

Hh 2

college of Cardinals of fuch monfters as themselves; when pretty boys, and parafites, and buffoons, led the head of the church by the nofe, and were gratified with the beft bishopricks and dignities in the church; when there was a general decay of knowledge, and defection of the Christian faith; when in many countries, neither facraments nor other ecclefiaftical rites were observed; when violence and fraud, and all the arts of deceit and cozenage, and blacker arts than thefe, were the common tudy and practice; when intemperance, and all kind of lewdness and debauchery, reigned in all forts and orders of men; when the generality of Bishops and Priests (who, according to Mr. Rufhworth, Dial. 3. § 3. can only teach the traditionary doctrine) were ignorant in the fcriptures, and in every thing elfe, very few of them being able fo much as to read tolerably; and did neglect to teach the people, and to breed up any in knowledge to fucceed them in their office; and in the lewdnefs of their lives did furpafs the vileft of the people? Was not fuch an age a fit feafon to plant the doctrine of transubstantiation in? Or if any thing more monftrous than that can be imagined, it might then have taken place; for what weeds would not have grown in fo rank a foil? Doth Mr. S. think it impoffible, that thofe that were born in the church then fhould be ignorant of the doctrine of Chrift, when fearce any one would take the pains to teach it them; or that it could then have been altered, when fo few understood, and fewer practifed it? When prodigious impiety and wickednefs did overfpread the church, from the Pope down to the meanest of the laity, can any one believe, that men generally made confcience to inftruct their children in the true faith of Christ? Was it impoffible there fhould be any neglect of this duty, when all others failed; that there fhould be any miftake about the doctrine of Christ, when there was fo much ignorance? unless he be of Mr. Rushworth's mind, who (Dial. 3. §7.) reckons ignorance among the parents of religion. Where were then the arguments of hope and fear? Were they ftrongly applied, or were they not? Were they caufes of actual will in Chriftans to believe well when they lived fo ill? Or is Chriftianity only fitted to form mens minds to a right belief, but of

no

66

no efficacy to govern their lives? Hath Chrift taken care to keep his church from error, but not from vice? as the great Cardinal Perron, ftooping below his own wit and reason to serve a bad caufe, tells us, (Reply to King James, l. 4. c. 6.), that "the church fings, and will fing to the end of the world, I am black, but I am fair: "that is to fay, I am black in manners, but fair in do"ctrine:" As if the meaning of the prophecies and promises of fcripture made to the church were this, that, by the extraordinary care of God's providence, and peculiar affiftance of his Holy Spirit, fhe fhould be wicked, but othodox, to the end of the world. Where were then the vigorous caufes imprinting Chrift's doctrine, and continuing it more particularly at Rome than any where else; and of fecuring that fee, and its fupreme pastor, in the faith and practice of the Christian doctrine, above any other fee or paftor whatfoever? Who is fo little verfed in hiftory, as not to understand the dismal state of religion in the Romish church in thofe times? Who does not know what advantages the Bifhops of Rome, and their fervile clergy, made of the ignorance and fuperftition of thofe and the fucceeding ages; and by what arts and steps they raised themfelves to that power which they held in the church for a long while after; when they could tread upon the necks of princes, and make a great King walk barefoot, and yield himself to be fcourged by a company of petulant monks: when they could fend any man upon an errand to vifit the holy fepulchre, or the fhrine of fuch a faint; and command five or fix Kings with great armies upon a needlefs expedition into the holy land, that fo, during their abfence, they might play their own game the better: when they could mint miracles, and impofe upon the belief of the people (without the authority of any ancient books) abfurd and counterfeit tales of ancient faints and martyrs, as delivered down to them by tradition; and could bring that foppish book the Legend almoft into equal authority and veneration with the Bible; and perfuade the eafy people, that St. Denys carried his own head in his hand, after it was cut off, two miles, and kiffed it when he laid it down? Any one that fhall but reflect upon the monftrous practices of the Roman Bishops and clergy in thofe ages, the strange

Hh3