The First Discourse.

THE Author both in his Preface and Entrance into his Discourse premiseth as fair demands, as may be, to be grounds of rational arguing in matters of Contro­versie debated between him and his Adver­saries, but how unevenly he followeth them in his mistaken way, hath appeared partly in the Examination of his Preface, and will do more in sifting his Discourses.

1. He proposeth this as determined by Reason, That to know the meaning of those words, which express the thing under debate is necessary for satisfaction in that matter. That Logick assures it to be a ready way to a clear decision of most perplexing difficulties: That the meaning of the word includes in it self the nature of the thing, together with the Considerations and Attributes intrinsecally [Page 2] belonging to that nature; so that we may know what is to be affirmed and denied of that thing: Therefore he applyeth this method unto the present debate about the Rule of Faith, to know the meaning of the words, which may give a clear and brief satisfacti­on, both what is not that Rule, and what is it.

Unto this fair and plausible demand, so far as solid Reason doth approve it, we shall grant without dispute. Meanings of words about all Controversies must be understood to bring debates unto a rational period: yet with re­spect to the reason added, That words include the nature of things, &c. Our grant must be with limitation; For notions do not alwayes truly express the nature of things signified by them, but may be dissentaneous or contra­ry to the same: We therefore thus limit our Grant; That words or names have their force or import from the Authority of the Im­posers; If they be by God himself imposed, or by divine Instinct, they doubtless import the nature of the thing, so far as God would signifie it by them: but if words be framed by mens phancies to denote what they would have them, they fall far short of declaring the nature of things, yea and sometimes are opposite thereunto. Notional descriptions of things therefore are oft-times faulty, and help not to knowledge. Let us therefore in our debate consider these words or terms, Rule, Faith, and the Rule of Faith, as God speaketh of them in his Word; and we are [Page 3] agreed: we shall have there the true meaning of them, and upon good ground may we ex­pect clear satisfaction, What the Rule of Faith is, and what not. No more needs to be said unto this, but to animadvert, That here the Author puts a great stress upon words to open the nature of things; but else-where he sleights words, Grammar, Criticism (in the the best sense) as wordish or airy fansies, when his Adversaries pinch him to the pur­pose in opening the mind of God thereby in the Scriptures.

2. He begins to tell us what is the meaning of the word Rule; It signifieth a thing (saith he) which is able to regulate or guide him, who useth it: Hereupon he addeth that it must have all those qualities, by which it is able to do that, its proper Effect.

This is a short account of the meaning of the Rule here mentioned; and may serve to describe a Carpenters Rule unto his boy for drawing lines upon Timber to make an Idol:Isa. 44.13. but we must look for a better discovery of it, as to its nature and use in this place. In general: Regula est mensura recti & obliqui. [...]. Arist. A Rule is a Measure both of things straight and crooked. So that the nature of a Rule is to be a Measure meeting out things measura­ble, and so distinguishing straight from crooked, and right from wrong: and here­unto it guides the hand that useth it.

Yet this general sense is not sufficient in this place; we must therefore descend to specials for the right meaning of the notion. [Page 4] This term Rule then is diversified in its sense according to the various kinds of things unto which commonly it is applyed: As,

1. When applyed to natural things, it hath a meaning natural.

2. When applyed to things Artificial, and Mechanical it must have a sense sutable, and consistent with those matters.

3. When applyed to Moral concernments, it must have a meaning competent to moral and civil actions.

4. When applyed to divine, and spiritual matters, it must have a sense proper and pe­culiar unto those affairs of Religion, in points of faith and practise. Now to this sense of a Rule (whatever it be found to be) are we bound up in our present debate.

The use of that word, which is by ours translated Rule, we find by the Spirit expres­sed in three Epistles, ( [...]) which the Au­thor knoweth is frequently used, or abused rather by his Trent-Fathers, in their Canons. Of this word if we may give the meaning, as in the premises is allowed, we find it to be both of a more restrained sense; as in that passage of the Apostle,2 Cor. 10.13. [...], &c. Acts 18.9, 10, 11. According to the mea­sure of the Rule, which God hath distributed un­to us, a measure to reach even unto you: which Rule was a special revelation of Gods will unto him, that he should abide at Corinth, and go through his measure in preaching the Gospel there, because God had much peo­ple in that place and City.

Again, we have it in a more large sense, wherein we are now concerned. So we read, when the Apostle had declared that nothing availed any thing in Christ Jesus, that is,Gal. 6.15 16. the Church of Christ, but the New Creature or Crea­tion, he subjoyneth this incouragement to those, who are conformed thus in Chist, As, [...]. many as walk according to this Rule, Peace be on them; where by Rule is meant the Will of God in the New Creation revealed unto them, who share in it, measuring out the line for believing and walking according to his good pleasure, who created them. A like use we find of it by the same Apostle to the Philippians, Let us walk by the same Rule: Phil. 3.16. [...]. He had been pressing them to pursue perfection in Christ, whereunto he giveth his own ex­ample as a directive, and thereupon exhorts all that partake of that high calling, accor­ding to the pitch in the stature of Christ, whereunto they had attained, to walk by the same Rule, that is, the Will of God made known by the Preachings and Writings of the Prophets and Apostles. So that the sense, meaning or nature of this Rule in our debate, (it being divine) is the Will of God revealed, measuring out the lines unto creatures for true believing, and walking safely unto attaining the purchased salvation. Unto this meaning of the Rule we shall adhere.

3. He addeth unto his sence of a Rule the proper Qualities of it. as 1. That it must be evident as to its Existence unto sense, if it be to guide it; or to the understanding, if it be [Page 6] an Intellectual Rule:, Sect. 3.— 2. That it must be Evident to all those who are to be re­gulated by it, that there is such a thing, Sect. 4.— 3. That it must be knowable to those who can have doubts in them (that is, in a manner all mankind, even the rudest vulgar) that the Intellectual Rule hath a vertue to guide their understandings right, and so deserveth to be relied on as a Rule. Wherefore it must be, either Evident by its own light, or Evidence­able by and to reason, Sect. 5.—4. That it must be certain in it self, or establisht on sure grounds: otherwise it is not possible, that can be in true sense called a Rule, which one may follow, and yet go wrong, or be misled, Sect. 6.

All these properties we freely grant to belong to that which is truly a Rule; only re­serving, that there are others also considera­ble, and to be added in their place, as ne­cessary to our Rule under debate, as any of these.

4. In the 7^th. and 8^th. Section, He giveth us the meaning of the word Faith; where (having premised that he intends not to give a rigorous School-definition of it, but only to reflect upon some of its properties) he giveth this account; Faith is the same with Believing In the common sense of mankind▪ And Di­vine Faith is the be­lieving. of God in revealed Truths, which imports necessarily some kind of knowledge of supernatural things; as Heaven its self, and the imcomparably great Good of the next Life: Moreover Love also is annexed by him unto this Knowledge or Faith, (as he parallels [Page 7] them) without which none can come to hea­ven: Both which knowledge and love are had by Mankind, only by believing; and hence is Faith conceived, necessary for the Salvation of Mankind, learned, and vulgar, being capa­ble of the same; which faith also he asserts to be a virtue mainly conducing to Bliss, and its Influence towards it (which he calls its merit) consisting in this, that it makes us submit our understandings to the Divine ve­racity, and so to adhere to those Truths as raise us to heaven. S. 16. This is all that he giveth in this discourse to make out the sence of Faith.

With respect to this discovery of Faith, we shall deal openly with the Author, in granting what is true, in desiring what is defective, and in denying what is false in it.

1. We grant that Faith and Believing are synonomous or of the same signification in the Common sence of English Mankind; and that Divine Faith is the believing of God in revealed Truths, which imports knowledge of those supernatural good things as Heaven and Eternal Life: A­gain, that Faith, which giveth this know­ledge of supernatural good things, work­eth by love toward them, without which none can come to Heaven; And this Faith is necessary for Salvation unto all sorts of men, learned and unlearned, of higher and of the vulgar sort: In fine we yield [Page 8] this Faith to be a special virtue of Christ mainly conducing unto Bliss by submit­ting mens understandings unto Divine ve­racity, and causing them to adhere to those Truths, which being truly received will raise up souls to Heaven: This is the sum, which we can gather out of ma­ny words of the Author about, the mea­ning of Faith: and all this we yield free­ly, and so far are agreed.

2. Yet as defective to a fuller descrip­tion of Faith needful in our debate, we desire some addition to be supplied: as mainly the very Form of it, which must difference it from Faith that is not saving. This by the Apostle is phrased, The Spi­rit of Faith, 2 Cor. 4.13. or Spiritual Faith: which we conceive not to be sufficiently expressed by Divine Faith forementioned; For Faith may be stiled Divine upon several ac­counts. 1. Objectively only, as receiving those Propositions of Truth given by God; this Humane Faith, or Credence may do, which is meerly Natural, and insufficient thereby to raise up souls to Heaven: This is not that which bringeth to Salvation of it self. 2. Subjectively also, which is called Divine.Eph. 2 8. 2 Pet. 1.1. 3. Ratione Principii, from the immediate Creator and Donor of it, which is God, and he directs this lot of precious Faith unto those who are appointed to Salvation: Humane Faith is his Creature, but this Spirit of Faith, is his [Page 9] special workmanship in Christ Jesus.

2. Ratione Formae, from the intrinsecal formal nature of it, which is Spirit, or Spi [...]i [...]ual and Divine; 2 Cor. 4.13. Joh. 3.6. 2 Pet. 1.4 now Faith is a mem­ber of the new birth or Creature; and that is said to be spirit of spirit, or the Divine Nature. This we must look upon as transcendental in its kind, seeing it is­sueth from God its Author, who puts forth the very power of his Arm to work it, and make men believe:Isay. 53.1. Rom. 10.16. We must desire this then in that Faith about the Rule whereof we are now discoursing.

3. Ratione finis, from the end is it rightly stiled Divine, because it maketh the soul rest in God, and acquiess in no­thing else: This is noted of Abraham, Ps. 116.7. Rom. 4.20. That he was strong in faith giving glory to God, yea Faith is not satisfied but in God alone, as its full Rest. This is indeed Divine Faith, and being so taken we con­sider it in this place: which may yet more appear by these proper Acts of it.

1. That it only doth evidence the invi­sible Father in the Son,Heb. 11.1, 27. and by his Spi­rit working out salvation for sinners.Rom. 10, 9, 10.

2. That it causeth Assent unto all the Truths of God in his will revealed unto this Salvation.Joh. 3.16. Joh. 6.29.

3. That it worketh Affiance or Trust in this God and his word, for the perfecting of this Salvation unto souls who cleave to him.

[Page 10] Heb. 11.1. Isai. 28.16.4. That it consequently realizeth or substantiates things hoped for, and so hol­deth out souls in the certain expectation of them. All this is necessary to be known and experimented by all souls of all ranks, learned and unlearned, in order to their salvation: Of faith under this discovery do we treat, and now are about the sta­ting the Rule of it.

3. That which we deny as odious in the former discovery of faith by the Autho [...] is the Merit of the work or influence o [...] it as to blessedness; which we detest,

1. As brutish, that any Act of God [...] own Grace in man should be meritoou [...] as to him who gave it; The receiving alm [...] by the beggars hand is proportionably more meritorious towards a Fellow-Crea­ture giving it, than any work of dut [...] from man to God: and yet none wil [...] thank the beggar for taking; but he con­fesseth himself a debtor to the giver.

2, We cannot but abhorre it, as sa­vouring of Antichristian Pride and arro­gancy against God, so much as to pretend to be able to merit of him, any thing but Hell. Let the Author then hugg [...] his meritorious Faith and fit a Rule for it: We profess, that Faith alone which emp­tieth man of himself, and abaseth him, giving all glory to God for his free grace in our Salvation.

We shall leave this, with one single [Page 11] note impressed on it. In all Religions, wherein a Godhead is confessed, true and false, Mahometan, or other Pagan Pro­fessions; as they all pretend Faith in their Gods, so none (that we know) arrogate any merit to their Faith, save only Pa­pists. That which is worst of all, thinks it deserves best at the hands of God: Popish Faith then is that only which is as­serted meritorious here by the Author. He had need therefore to find out such a Rule which may maintain the merit of it; and none can do this but his Traditi­on: He hath therefore wisely design­ed it.

5. He proceeds to speak of the Rule of Faith jointly, and to determine several pro­perties belonging to it as it is such a Rule, [...] S. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, & 16. And he summeth up all in S. 17. which thus he orderly ranketh.

1. The Rule of Faith must be plain and 1 self-evident, as to its Existence, to all.

2. It must be Evidenceable, as to its Ru­l [...]ng 2 Power, to the Vulgar.

3. It must be apt to settle and justifie un­doubting 3 persons.

4. It must be apt to satisfie the most 4 Sceptical Dissenters, and rational Doub­ters.

5. It must be able to convince the most 5 obstinate and acute Adversaries.

[Page 12] 6 6. That it be built upon immoveable grounds, and be certain in its self.

7 7. That it be absolutely ascertainable to us.

We shall not weary the Readers with multiplying word for word, but we have those two things to try.

1. The meaning of those words jointly, Rule of Faith.

2. The Properties claimed thereunto in this place.

To the first, It is but needful to under­stand those words in Syntaxe, as well as in their single posture; and that because the Author changeth often his form of expressing this: Sometimes he stileth it, the Rule of Faith as in the Titles of his Discourse, and elsewhere: Sometimes he speaketh of it as the Rule or Means to Faith S. 9. S. 11. S. 15. And so several times in his following Treatise: Where also all along he calleth it the Rule of Faith.

At this various Expression in this Con­troversie we are at a stand, knowing a great difference between Means leading to Faith, and the Rule of Faith it self: We may grant something to be the means (or as the Author calls it) a Rule to Faith, which we shall never yield to be the Rule of Faith, about which Protestants contend with Papists. It was doubtless a good means to bring Simon Peter to the Faith, [Page 13] when his Brother Andrew told him,Joh. 1.41.45. we have found the Messias, So was Phillips report to Nathaniel, we have found him of whom Moses in the Law, and the Prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, a good help to lead him to Christ, and to faith in him: no less was the work of Phillip and An­drew helping the Greeks to come to Je­sus,Joh. 12▪ 22▪ a very ready means to bring them to Faith in him; yet was not this speech of theirs the Rule of Faith; For that was on­ly the Will of Christ himself the Eternal word of the Father, which was revealed to them. We shall yield the same to speech and writing of Christ, that they are means to Faith, but of themselves no Rule of Faith.

In the present Controversie therefore we desire to clear the force of this Geni­tive (of Faith) which is not here the Genitive of the End terminating the means; but of the subject regulated or to be ru­led, and ordered by that Rule unto which it is subjected; So that the praeexistence of Faith in the soul is supposed before the actual regulation of it by the Rule, for how can that be ruled which is not? In this sence do the Protestants understand the Rule of Faith, in their Disputes with the Jesuits; wherein these also seem to a­gree, however they shift sometimes in ambiguous expressions: Of this therefore we fore-warn the Author; that we put a [Page 14] great difference between means directing to Faith, and the rule disposing of Faith: To this we shall keep close in our present work, and make bold to call him back un­to it, where his words vary from it, if he pretend to speak any thing to the Rule of Faith. And this premised, we shall con­sider now the properties of this Rule as they are proposed by him.

As to the proper conditions named by the Author, they are not all applicable unto that which is stiled, a Means or Rule to Faith; neither as we suppose, so intended by him, but to that which is truly the Rule of Faith; which must command, order, and direct Faith to work regularly to its end, which is the salvation of souls: And all these which are orderly forementioned by us as urged by him together with the reasonable grounds of them, we grant, and shall admit them in our further Exa­mination following; but these are not all, to which we are bound up. We desire therefore the addition of others insepara­ble to that, which truly is the Rule of Faith, which the Discourser must also grant as issuing from the intrinsecal nature and causes of it; and this ground being laid, we shall by them proceed both to the Exa­mination, and Demonstration of the rule of Faith, following the Author in the me­thod of his Discourses.

All the Properties mentioned by him, are drawn from that habitude or respect, which the rule should have unto the per­sons or subjects to be ruled by it: This in general he makes all mankind, but in special, sorts them into vulgar, rude, or unlearned, and into more intelligent, in­genious, or learned men; and into those that are setled in the Faith, and into He­terodox, Infidels, who are Aliens to it; so again into doubting or Sceptical souls, and such as are obstinate and acute Adver­saries unto the Faith of Christ: with re­spect to these several sorts he frameth the properties of that Rule, which he calleth Means to Faith, and Rule of Faith, promiscuously and unfitly.

But those properties, which we desire to add, arise from God the Author and Object of Faith, who alone can give Rule to it, and from the nature of faith it self, which is to be ruled by it: as

1. The true Rule of Faith must have Supream, Soveraign Power, praeceptive as well as directive unto Faith:Eph. 2.3. For what is Faith in its being, as a special Grace in­fused, but the creature and workmanship of God? And if so, none can give Law and Rule to it, but its Maker; and that Rule must imply Gods own supream Au­thority in it; no less can order Faith than this; The Command of God, and the Fa [...]th of Jesus, are of the same descent [Page 16] and must be kept together. Again, the true genuine Operation of Faith is recipro­cal with God; this giveth God that glory which he will not part withall to ano­ther;Isai. 26.4. Joh. 14.1. therefore must the Rule of this su­premely order it unto God; neither is it to be directed by any other, but what is subordinate to this. He will not have his Faith any more than his Fear taught by the precepts of men. Supreme then is the rule of Faith above all.

Deut. 32.4.2. The rule of Faith, (which is genu­ine and sincere) must be purely right and strait not subject to any warping, or yielding unto the crooked dispositions of men. For it is given ftom that God, who is Rectitude it self; Psal. 19.8. and he hath revealed it to bring souls directly to him-self, that they may not miscarry. Otherwise the Rule of Faith cannot measure true, and false, or right and wrong, which is the most intrinsecal nature of it. Absolute Rectitude then is the inseparable Property of the Rule of Faith.

3. The rule of Faith, is that which giveth a compleat measure, and full pro­portion to Faith, for all its Operations toward God: So that Faith and its Rule are Commensurate: Likeness of Propor­tion then, the Rule must have to Faith, as Faith to It: They must meet even, or else Faith will be found faulty and so want its measure: Proportionating power [Page 17] then is a due property of the Rule of Faith ordering Faith, its pitch in working, and in its duration.

4. The Rule of Faith consists in Indivi­sibility. It is one, simple, undivided thing; there is no adding to it, nor taking from it, nor mixing with it: but as Faith is a simple Grace singled out to God, so the Rule must be as simple or undivided, which keepeth Faith unfeigned, and guides in­separably unto God. A warping Rule, will easily make a warping Faith. Indivisibility then is a natural Property of the Rule of Faith. So much for our Addition; other things might be added, but they will fall either under these, or under the other forenamed by him. And now having gotten this Di­scovery of the rule of Faith, we shall go along with the Discourser, and try to what and to whose claim this truly belongeth; as he directeth in his next Discourse.

THE Second Discourse EXAMINED.

IN this Discourse to Examine strictly the matters contained in it, we must observe, that after the pretext of the Title; Shewing the two first Properties of the rule of Faith ut­terly incompetent to Scripture; there are two general heads offered.

1. Several Presumptions in the 8 former Sections.

2. Several exceptions pretended to be an­swered from the ninth Section to the end.

1. As to the Presumptions, we shall consi­der them in their order.

1. It is presumed, that there was a clear Description of the Rule of Faith given in the former Discourse.

The Author must not be offended if we de­ny this, for it is a defective Explication: and let him consider whether the other things sug­gested, do not more discover the nature, and intrinsecal properties of the rule of Faith than his. If he will join issue putting all together we shall consent.

[Page 19]2. It is presumed, that there are two main Pretenders to the Claim of being the Rule of Faith. viz. Tradition and Scripture: Al­though the Private Spirit, Private reason, Testimonies of Fathers &c. May have a place in the Claim, since they are thought to give unto the respective reliers on them se­curity of Gods sense in them. Sect. 1.

We shall accept of this Duel between Tradition and Scripture, leaving out all Se­conds or Thirds, to shorten our Controver­sie. But by the way, may we suppose that neither of these nakedly taken, can be the rule of Faith, and that not without the Authors concession. For in the close of the first Section, he saith, Gods sence in any of these, that is, points of Faith, is the rule of Faith; and the others obtain that name only, because they are thought to give unto the Reliers on them security of that Gods sence. If the Author will stand to his word here, we are like to put our discourses into a fair way to find out Truth. Gods sence either in Tradition or Scripture is, as we take it, Gods mind or will revealed concerning the way of Salvation, which we assert to be the only rule of Faith: Traditions Oral or Scriptural, are but helps to bring us unto this sence; therefore they can only obtain the Ti­tle of the rule of Faith Metonymically, as due means ordered and annexed to help thereunto. So that the issue is this: Gods sence, mind or will made known in Scripture, [Page 20] or Tradition is the rule of Faith only. Our business then is to try, whether his Tradi­tion, or, the Scripture of Truth, which we assert, do give to us the sence of God.

3. It is presumed with a Note, that they who say Scripture is their rule of Faith cannot mean by Scripture the sence of it, that is, the things to be known; for they are the very points of Faith, of which the Rule of Faith is to ascertain us. The rest in this second Section are fruitless amplifications.

1. In reply to this, we deny the Authors presumption as irrational and brutish, How? Cannot they who say Scripture is their Rule of Faith, mean by scripture the sence of it? Why so? Is this Impossibility ei­ther Moral, that they cannot de jure or in right reason say so? or, Is it natural, that they have no wit, or ability to say so? His Jesuitical Champions against Scripture, have found that they both could and did urge the Scripture senced by God in it self, to the vanquishing of all the proud and blasphemous attempts of those Adversaries against his word. And they had the greatest reason for it and right unto it; for it is brutish to give a sence­less Rule to men, much more to belie­vers who live by Faith. Unhappy souls must Protestants be, if such an Impossibi­lity were laid upon them.

2. His reason is as forceless, as his As­sertion wild, yea and crossing to the very [Page 21] words dropt from him in the close of the former Section. There he had said; the Rule of Faith must give Gods sence, that is, Points of Faith. Here he saith Scripture as a rule cannot be meant with the sence of it, that is, the things known by it; for those are the very points of faith: How do these agree? That which giveth Gods sence, even points of faith is the rule of faith, and scripture (which is Gods word) with its sence which are points of faith, cannot be the rule of faith. His account is, because the rule Faith must ascertain us of the points of faith, therefore it cannot be the same. Had he said, the means or rule to Faith do but ascertain us of Gods mind in points of faith, which is its only rule, he had made a clear distinction: But the Rule of faith is altogether the same with Gods sence, mind, or will, in points of Faith re­vealed, which must regulate Faith in all its Actings.

3. It is a most unjust imposition of the Au­thor upon those who assert Scripture to be the Rule of Faith, that they cannot mean by the word Scripture, that book as yet senc't, or interpreted, but as to be senc't; For in that writing there are none but characters that may have an aptness to sig­nifie Gods mind. Doth the Author think the Protestants in their Assertion, do mean by Scripture nothing but the written character or dead letter? sure he [Page 22] cannot think so, if he have read their de­fense for Scriptures Right to be the Rule of faith upon that account that it doth notifie really and fully the mind of God unto salvation: But if yet he doe think so, and would force them to this, that by the term of Scripture, there is nothing litterally carried but written Charectars: they are not confined to his thoughts; they know Scripture or the word of God, and the will of God are convertible; and so they assert Scripture to be the Rule of Faith. Will the Discourser suffer it, if we should say, that he cannot mean by Tradition-oral which he makes the Rule of his Faith, any word senc't, but to be senc't, which were i [...]deed vox et praeterea nihil, a meer empty sound? We think not; and yet we shall try him upon that in our progress with him. Let him know in the interim that we both can and will mean Scripture the Rule of our Faith, senc't by God himself immediately inspiring the penmen of it, when he gave it to them and by them, as well and better, than he can mean his Tradition by word of month senc't, which if it be at all will be found not to be senc't by God, but by the Evil one, Even that Tradition which is meerly Popish. We shall leave this his Quibble upon the notion of Scripture; nothing by the way, that we put a dif­ference between the sence of Scripture, [Page 23] which God hath given to it, and the in­terpretation which Man offereth, not­withstanding he confounds them in this Section. If any thing else be intended in this Impossibillity laid on Scripture as a Rule of Faith, to be senc't; It must be on this account, that the Rule of Faith is supposed by him not possible to be actu­ally senc't; And his discourse then may be summ'd up in such an Argument; That which is the Rule of Faith cannot be actually senc't, but Scripture is asserted to be the Rule of Faith, therefore as such it cannot be actu­ally senc't. The Proposition in this is so fowly false, that a man of Reason can­not pretend to assert it, and then the whole argument is vain: If none of those be his meaning he must better his note be­fore it be intelligible; and if in any we have but his meaning, we have also made good that Scripture actually senc't by God, and only so, is the true Rule of Faith.

4. All this presumed by the Author, he proceeds hereupon to apply his two first Properties of the Rule of Faith, viz. Evi­dence of its Existence and Evidenceableness of its Ruling Power to all; and to prove that they are wholly incompetent unto Scrip­ture in Ss. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8.

1. In order to vindicate Scriptures consis­tency with these properties, we shall pre­mise these following principles to be fore­known, [Page 24] and then infer such Truths as may tend to invalidate the proofs urged by the Discourser, against it.

1. The eternal Jehovah, God blessed for ever, who is the first and the last of all his Creatures, that framed the Spirit of Man within him, is the Onely, Eminent, and per­fect Law giver unto the Sons of Adam, who works Faith and ruleth it in the Hearts of his, D [...]us ipse est Regula primó re­gulans. to receive Christ Jesus for Righteous­ness and Life, as revealed by him. This is the Rule of Rules.

2. Gods will revealed in the Rectitudo and Latitude of it concerning the Just [...]fication and Salvation of sinners by the Righteousness of his own Son, manifested in the flesh, obey­ing, suffering, dying, rising, ascending in the Flesh to the Right hand of the Father, and there making intercession for them, is the on­ly adequate, and perfect Rule of Faith, ru­ling and ordering it in all its actings upon Christ, H [...]b. 1.1. [...] necessary to salvation. These the Au­thors dares not deny.

3. This will of God was committed to the Prophets, and by his own Son to the Apo­stles, that it might be made known to th [...]ir respective Ages, and succe [...]ding Generations, these two waies.

1. By Oral Tradition, that is, by spea­king, declaring and preaching of it, to their present Posterity in their respective times surviving: By this means did God ordinarily make known his will unto his [Page 25] people, to the daies of Moses without a­ny other; Onely extraordinarily God did in those daies sometimes appear to the Patriarchs, and immediately spake unto them himself.

2. By written-Tradition, Ex. 24.4. Isai. 30.8. Hab. 2 2. Mat. 28.19. 2 Thes. 2.2. Revel. 1.11. which is Scrip­ture, injoined first to Moses, then to the Prophets afterward by the Lord unto his Apostles, this way or means they used jointly with their preaching, which also was to continue to the worlds end. Where note, that these were but means to help unto the knowledge of the Rule of Faith, and the reception of it; but not the Rule it self; This is only the will of God re­vealing Christ Jesus to be the alone Foun­dation or Ground-work for souls to build on unto eternal life.

4. This will of God made known by the Prophets and Apostles either in preaching or writing was o [...]e and the same. This in con­sidering and comparing the old and new Testament is most evidently apparent: So that neither d [...]d their writing add unto their Tradition, nor their Tradition to their writing; but both uttered the same will of God without the least alteration; to the Exact reception whereof the Apo­stle binds the Church under the penalty of Christs Anathema. Gal. 1.8, 9. Such an Identity cannot the Discourser shew between his Tradition, and the writings of the Apo­stles and Prophets. It will therefore be [Page 26] found no Tradition from them, or owned by them.

[...] Tim. 3.16. Jer. 23, 28, 29. Heb. 4.12.5. The whole Scripture wherein this Will is made known is inspired, or spirited by God himself: and so senced by him: So that it is no dead letter, but the quick and lively word of God, he breathing in it and by it; nor needs it to be senced by mens Tradition: Hereupon it is, that the Holy Ghost guiding the Pen-men of Scrip­ture, useth the Titles of Scripture and God synonymously, As Gal. 3.8. The Scrip­ture foreseeing, that God would justifie the Heathen by Faith, preached before the Gos­pel to Abraham, saying, In thee shall all Na­tions be blessed. Did the Scripture foresee? which is but a dead letter in the Authors account? or, Did not God speaking in and by the Scripture foresee this? Doubtless it was so; yet Scripture is intitled to one of the greatest Acts of Gods Soveraignty even his Providence: God therefore is in it and breaths forth his will by it unto men.Scriptura est Regula regulata. [...]. Is not this then the Rule of Faith ruled by God himself?

6. The Scripture hence is concluded to be worthy of Faith, and to be beleeved for its self, it being Gods very breathing, and therefore deservedly the Rule of Faith. This was and is an Apostolical Principle known sufficiently in the Church, and therefore to be beleeved by Christians; and not to be proved, as if it wanted Evidence of [Page 27] its Existence: seeing it hath been ever, and uninterruptedly so received in the Church both Jewish and Christian: And to go about to shake it now, is but to kick against the pricks; The word of the Lord is such a fire, as will devour the Ad­versaries of it.

7. This Hypothesis we adde, That both these waies and means of oral and written-Tradition for making known the will of God for salvation by Christ (which is, the onely Rule of Faith) were and are equally Evi­dent, or Evidenceable as to their Existence to all persons whom they did or do concern. The Truth of rhis is indubitable, as to those Ages and generations, wherein both those means were given together; That speech was Evident, in declaring the will of God, unto them that could understand speech; and that writing was as Evid [...]nt a means to reveal the will of God to them, who were capable and knew letters, who can doubt, but he, who is resolved to be­leeve nothing?

But the greatest trouble is about suc­ceeding Generations,Dub. whether they are as equally evident to all persons concerned now, as they were then? Here it seems Scripture must depend upon Tradition for i [...]s Evidence; for what Posterity can know, this to be the Scripture, but that, to which their Fathers or Predecessors do dictate, and declare the same, and if so, [Page 28] Tradition is more evident, giving Evi­dence to the very Existence of Scrip­ture.

Sol.To remove this rub out of the way, we shall suggest these notes.

1. That both these means of bringing men unto the knowledge and Faith of Christ, were instituted by God jointly to carry on that work,Hos. 6.5. Hos. 8.12. and respectively to concur in their mutual help of each other for the effecting of the same: Otherwise God would not have needlesly added Scripture to Oral-preaching or Tradition by word of mouth.

2. The mutual help of these to each o­ther is,

1. That true and faithful Tradition de­clareth the Scripture to be Gods true written Law or will.

2. That this Scripture doth it self de­monstrate by its innate light, that the Tradition of the same mind of God con­tained in this writing is true: So that the evidence of Scriptures existence may be and is known to us by way of Tradition; but the Evidence of the Being of Traditions truth, can ordinarily be given alone from Scriptures Testimony. Let men judge how one Evidence can help to Faith without the other.

3. The help given by Tradition to E­vidence Scriptures Existence, is not ment of Popish Tradition; For Gods Traditi­on [Page 29] instituted, was before either Pope, Pa­pists or their Tradition were heard of in the world. And besides this since their Tradition hath been declared and confir­med by their Trent-Fathers; thereby they have made no Scripture to be Scripture, and the lying vanities of their own brains, to be the very will of God, which is hor­rid Blasphemy. Now this Tradition alone is that for which the Author contendeth under the general notion of Tradition, but he may know, we can distinguish and deny.

8. In the last place, this is the closing Hypothesis. That the Reason of Gods com­mand for writing his will, which was once only delivered by speech or word of mouth, was to provide against the Evils incident un­to Tradition; and to be as a Touch-stone or Rule to try True and False Tradition by it in all ages. This is most true, for God himself calleth back straglers by Tradition, to the Law, and to the Testimony to set them right. But we suppose the Author will boggle at it, and not so easily grant it: Therefore shall we labour to clear it to mens Reasons, and Conscience: by these Considerations.

1. Consider we the evils incident to Tra­dition from Adam to Christ: The first Tradition of Gods Covenant for salvati­on given by himself to Adam, was by the old serpent corrupted in his Assault; [Page 30] Hath God said ye shall not eate of every tree of the garden? Gen. 7.1. His wile was to make them forget Gods voice, and so he did: A­dam delivered the same Law of sacrifice to Cain and Abel; This kept it by Faith unto the death; the other corrupted it, and slew his Brother for keeping it con­scientiously: So in Cain's line Tradition of Gods will was falsified, however in the line of Abel it was for some time preser­ved in its Truth: So is it evident in the several lines of Noah, Abraham, &c. Un­to Moses, that however their Fathers de­livered purely Gods truth unto them by word of mouth; yet their children per­verted it in giving it down; So that God complains of their unfaithfulness by Mo­ses in his Age, and by the Prophets in their respective generations, that by ad­ding, and taking away, and mingling mens Inventions with his Law they falsified his Tradition. No otherwise was it in the Gospel time of Christs manifestation in the Flesh;1 Tim. 3.16. 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. 2 Thes. 7.7.11. No sooner was the Mysterie of Godliness preached but the Mysterie of Ini­quity was set on working, and the Tradi­tion of this exceedingly obscured the Truth of Christ preached; So that by Traditionary lyars then, great obstructi­ons were laid to the spreading of the Gos­pel, and the ground work also of the great Apostasie then foretold: So that de facto it appears that Cr [...]l-Tradition was [Page 31] liable to great corruption; There was Cause then, why the only wise God should provide against such growing evils in his Church.

2. Consider we the provision made by God against this incroaching corruption, which was two-fold.

1. Extraordinary, Gen. 3.4.6, 12, 17, 26.35. &c. and that was by his own frequent appearing to the Fathers be­fore the Law, delivering to them his Co­venant, and repeating it as necessity re­quired, by reason of their weakness se­veral times, unto the daies of Moses; Exod. 19, 20. which also he vouchsafed then to Israel, to fix his Law on their hearts; and no less as he thought fit, several waies appeared he to the Prophets to reform the abuses of corrupt Tradition in their respective times which needs no proof.

2. Ordinary Provision also did God make against the falsifying of his Traditi­on, Exod, 24.4. Evod. 31.18. Deut. 10.5. Deut. 17.18. Jos. 1.8. which was his command for writing his Covenant, as he began to do some­what of it himself, with his own finger: This copy would he have to be reserved, and laid up, both for Rulers, Priests, and People to order all their thoughts, words, and waies by it; and thereby also to di­stinguish between Truth and Falshood, good and evil.

No less upon this account did he en­joyn the Prophets in their respective times successively, to write what they [Page 32] preached, at least an abridgement of it, and lay it up for a Record to testifie a­gainst and reform sinners who walked af­ter the vain Traditions of their Fore-fa­thers.Joh. 5.39. Yea further our Lord Jesus him­self provoked the Pharisees (who by their Tradition made the Law of God of none effect) unto the Scripture, as the great and true Witness of himself. Once more the Apostle by the Spirit of Christ giveth us the sure account of the reason for wri­ting Gods Law,Gal. 3.19. it was added because of Transgression, that is, to prevent Israels warping or turning aside to false waies of worship, by the superstitious and ido­latrous Traditions of their Fathers. From all which put together it appears that it was Gods mind to have Oral-Tradition tried, rectified, and ruled by his written will, or Scripture; This then must be a better evidence of Truth than the word of mouth by men.

3. As assistent unto the former, we shall adde only this note, Natural Reason, Sense and Experience concurre to make good this Hypothesis: For the strongest and most faithful memory of man may sail sometimes, and therefore their spee­ches faulter, but if the matters testified be written, and upon faithful Record, this will testifie my mistakes in mens spee­ches, as the Authentick Copy by which they must be proved. The Author there­fore [Page 33] who pretends to so much reason, we hope will not deny this; And if so, his Reason will guide him to yield mo [...]e Honour to Gods Scripture, than to Mans.

2. These things being premised; to coun­terwork the Authors proofs of the Incom­petency of his two first Rules unto Scrip­ture. We shall summe up his objections shortly, and return to them orderly.

1. He urgeth, It is not evident, that the books pretended to be Gods word are in­deed Scripture, or divinely inspired S. 3. —2. It is not evident, how many those books of Scripture are S. 4.—3. It is not evident, that the Origin [...]l Copy of those books was preserved indeficiently entire. S. 5.—4. It is not evident that the Translations of this Origin [...]l are true. S. 6, —5. It is not evi­dent, but that the Transcribers or Printers have been careless, Knaves, or Hereti [...]ks. S. 7. —6. Suppose all these were clear. The true Sence of Scripture is not evident. S. 8. All th [...]s is hid from the Vulgar, &c.

Now to reply unto these, we shall from the former Truths inferre.

1, That the Scripture as to its Existence in the book supposed, is as evident or Evi­denceable to Subjects capable of knowing it: as that there is light, or that there are Co­lorus to such as have the faculty of seeing. And it is absurd to require that light should be evident into blind men. That [Page 34] there is such a book of Scripture called the Bible in the world, All nations Infidel or Christian must confess, as much as they do any known books of men: but to know this to be divinely inspired belon­geth only to subjects qualified, which some rude and vulgar may be, and some wise and learned of the world may not be, from whom it [...]s hid.

1. It was evident to be Gods word, (as the Author grants) to them in whose daies it was given; So that, what was, may be still.

2. We assert Faithful Tradition, to have its proper use for making known this book to be the Scripture of God from Generation to Generation: So God orde­red the Fathers to deliver his Law down­ward to their children,Psal. 78.5. and these to their succeeding generation.

3. Hence also it follows, that Scrip­ture which is the written will of God is as self evident to them who can see and read it, as the living voice of any declaring the same to them, who hear it. But to require this to be so manifest unto such vulgar, as are wilfully ignorant, or to such Doubters, who will not be resol­ved, or to more curious searchers, who make it their work to find out, and ca­vil at the seeming contradictions of Scrip­ture is most unreasonable; for they are not subjects capable to receive that, [Page 35] which the meanest understanding diligent­ly exercised therein, may and doth per­ceive.

2. We assert, That it is no less Evi­dent, or Evidenceable to Subjects capable, even the vulgar, desiring after knowledge, that the number of books, which are the Scripture of God, is determined in the old and new Testament, written by the Prophets and Apostles. That no more are truly Scripture, but such as were written by the Prophets and Apostles, is confessed, not on­ly by Bellarmine and other Jesuits: but by the Trent-Convention it self unto which the Author subscribeth. It is true that all of them do father Apocryphal books upon the Prophets, which were none of theirs; but in many particulars appear to be the works of Impudent lyars. And these they in­sert among the Scriptures of the Prophets which their seduced people do readily swallow down: But never did so much darkness from the bottomless pit so farre prevail as to hide this imposture from the true and seeing witnesses of Jesus, but that they could discover it; and the light shining at this day must needs clear up these mists of delusion, if men were wil­ling to see the light. However these proofs we suggest.

1.Acts 10.43. 1 Pet. 1.10 The Scripture of the New Testa­ment (which the Author will not deny) beareth witness to all the Prophets, that [Page 36] they did speak and write of that salvation for sinners purchased by Jesus, and evi­dently manifested in the Gospel. All which writings of Moses and the Prophets are owned,Rom▪ 3.2. as the Infallible Oracles of God, by the Spirit of Christ. This Evi­dence is sure.

2. As to the new Testament, the known Titles of the Pen-men, the constant reception of them in the Church, and the faith­ful Tradition, which God hath continued by his witnesses from Age to Age, whose Authority we assert, do give full evidence of its Existence, and ruling Power also o­ver Consciences (It containing with the rest the will of God): So that unless men shut their eies, they may see clearly the Power of God in this Scripture inabling it to be the Rule of Faith. Yet we need not any Tradition descending from the My­sterie of Iniquity to give Test unto this; but do deny it, as the convoy of all Fal­shood; which the Polemical discourses of the Protestants h [...]ve sufficiently disco­vered against the Jesuits. Let Readers judge.

3. We affirm, That God the Author of the Scriptures gave the first and original Co­pies in the language known and used in the Church; viz. The old Testament in the He­brew mostly, and the new in the Greek tongue. In these God ordered his Prophets and A­postles to preach and write unto his Church [Page 37] in their respective times; And the wisdom of God herein, would not make his Mi­nisters to be Barbarians unto his people to whom they did preach and write. This Truth is made good by Protestant wri­ters against that Trent Constitution, which maketh their Vulgar Latin the only Au­thentick language to correct others by it: We refer for a larger account unto them­selves, yet here we shall suggest some­thing to the Objection.

1. We accept from God, and assert, the Testimony of Faithful Tradition from the Prophets and Apostles continued by his good Providence thorough all succee­ding Ages unto this d [...]y. Yet here also we exclude Popish Tradition as pernicious­ly false, corrupting and destroying the Truth of Gods written will.

2. We reject as a most unreasonable de­mand, that for the just reception of the Scripture as the Rule of Faith, the vulgar in every nation must know and understand the Original languages wherein they were given; or be sure of the skill of others in the same. Was it necessary, when the Spirit fell upon the Apostles inabling them to speak the great things of God in the several languages of all the nations, then dwelling in Jerusalem, that they must un­derstand Hebrew and Greek, or be per­swaded of other mens skils therein, to re­ceive the words of the Prophets urged, as [Page 38] a Rule of faith? Was it not enough for them to receive this will of God written by the Prophets, and now revealed unto them in their native tongues, for a Rule unto their Faith? No more necessity is there now, that the vulgar should un [...]erstand the Originals; neither is there just cause for them to mist [...]ust their Teachers who faithfully open this Scripture to them; seeing they offer their doctrine to be tri­ed; and Enemies themselves cannot just­ly gainsay it; and the very Truth revea­led from Scripture in their Mother Tongue, carrieth self Evidence in it to their Con­sciences. This then is too frivolous, any way to impede the Scripture to be the Rule of faith, for the want of Evidence or Evidenceableness of its Existent Power. The Author hath more Cause to find fault with his own Tradition, which teacheth their vulgar to worship God in an un­known tongue; which is both abomina­ble to God and destructive to those poor deluded souls.

4. We conclude, that the same God, who gave the Scriptures in the first Copy; as he did inable his servants to speak it in all lan­guages: so doubtless ordered he them to write those revelations of God to the nations con­verted in their own Languages; which was no more, than the Translations of them; whence others in successive times attemp­ted the same work for the edifying of the [Page 39] Church, and informing others. So that it is not impossible but that the Truth of Scripture may be self-evident, though translated: it is not word, but matter, which is the Rule of faith. Yet more distinctly to return to this

1. We suppose there may be litteral mi­stakes in Translations, yet are these tria­ble and corrigible by other hands; So there is a remedy: But among all none are more vi [...]ely corrupt, and justly culpa­ble then the Authors vulgar Latin, which his Tradition upholdeth.

2. We acknowledge, that in these, that Scripture which holdeth forth the will of God to salvation, is self-Evident; and to be known.

3. We embrace faithful Tradition, as a good Testimony in this case also; though we refuse Popish fables.

4. It is unequa [...] to require the vulgar to have skill in all Translations before they can take Scripture as a Rule of faith; It is enough that they receive the Truth of God from thence, by those who faith­fully declare it, and believe it, because it is written. But as to the matter of Translations and their force, it is a work of a larger scope, however the Author do but touch it here to make a stumbling block; we must therefore referre to the greater works of Protestants clearing this: and note by the way that no soul hath [Page 40] cause to be offended, e [...]ther at Transla­tors or Translation, when the true will of God unto Salvation is held out by them. Scr [...]pture hath its Evident Existence, and evidenceable power even in Translati­ons.

5. God being the only Author and Protector of Scriptures Truth, we infer, That the variety, weakness, insufficiency and knavery of Copiers, Transcribers, Scribes, and Printers, cannot enervate the Evidence of Scri­ptures-Tradition, or incapacitate it to be the Rule of Faith. The o [...]ly wise God hath o­ver-ruled them all, and stirred up able and upright men to display the hypocrisie of Hereticks; and ev [...]dence his written truth, which is evident to this day. Never were there a worse pack of knaves, than those who [...]esigned the Index Expurgatorius; and yet they have got l [...]ttle by their kna­very. We are no whit startled at this, neither hath any soul reason to be offen­ded at the Scripture for it; For the My­sterie of Truth and Godlines, is too mighty for the Mystery of Iniquity and Falshood; and will preva l. We shall only say for a close of this; That faith in Gods Pro­vidence, a discerning reception of faith­ful Tradition, and a dil [...]gent search into the Scriptures, and studying of them, will clear its evidence sufficiently, and secure us from being cheated by knaves.

[Page 41]6. The Scripture being spirited by God, and so truly senced, we close against the last objection. That it is no hard task to be certain of the sence of it, God having sp [...]ken plainly therein his mind and will as to mans salvation. Psal. 19.7.8. This testimony of God is sure making wise the simple, yea his Com­mand is pure enlightening the eies; So the Psalmist saith, who doubtless (without disparagement to him) knew the Scripture better then this Discourser. As to the numerous Comments, and infinite disputes pre [...]ended about the sence of it, which render it no task for the vulgar to under­take; We shall only say, the multitude of those vain words cannot darken the knowledge of God plainly exhibited there­in; Yet for this trouble may we charge mainly his Jesuitical corrupters. But yet neither they nor any other deceivers can keep the Truth of God therein from shi­ning forth: His instance in the point of Christs Divinity, that it is obscured by Interpreters of the Scripture is forceless; For however the Gospel is hid to them, who will not see, and to the wise of this world, who will not receive the simpli­city of his word, but rather perish: Yet to humble souls no Truth is more appa­rent or more expresly delivered in the Scripture, than the God-head of Christ. Perverse men may make darkness light, and l [...]ght darkness unto themselves.

And lastly to his Censure that it is per­fect phrenzy to deny, that to search out the sence of Scripture is not a task for the vulgar, we shall only inquire of him: Did not Christ speak to the vulgar among the rest, when he said, Search the Scriptures, they are they which testifie of me? Did he not therein propose the Rule of Faith to them, as a task or work fit for them to undertake? or was Christ phrantick when he layeth such a task upon every one that would be saved, or is capable of it? Of such phrenzy we are not afraid to be by this Discourser charged as guilty. And now having thus sifted the first general part of this Discourse consisting of his Presumptions about, and his Objections a­gainst the Scripture; We propose it to ingenious Readers to Judge, What hath he said more in this Controversie against the Scripture, than the Subtilest Jesuits have s [...]id before him? Who have been an­swered sufficiently by the Truth it self. Or what he proved against the Evidence of Scriptures Ex [...]stence, or the Evidenceable­ness of its power to be the Rule of Faith? Only he hath set up a man of straw to fight aga [...]nst it; He disputes against Scrip­tures letter without its sence to be the Rule of Faith, which never any Protestant maintained. Let him glory in his victory, It is enough that his design is so farre seen.

[Page 43]2. In the other general Head of this Dis­course, he proposeth several Exceptions that may be alledged against his objections, and therein seeks to solve them or take them off. It is requisite, that we consider, how he dis­chargeth himself in this also, and to animad­vert what is just upon the same.

1. He alledgeth as urged by Protestants.

1. That,1 H [...]story. the defects pretended in Scripture by him in his former objections may be provi­ded against by skill in history.

Whereunto we shortly reply.

1. That the defects charged on Scrip­ture by him are Causeless, and therefore need not to be supplyed by History.

2. We deny not true History the Au­thority of an Humane Testimony to mat­ter of Truth.

3. The Authors Tradition needs the help of History more than Scripture; for it is humane at best, and therefore mans Testimony must support it; nay and in most things is false too, and therefore such Historians will serve them best, that had nothing but bare H [...]ar-say for what they wrote.

2. He excepts if History must provide, then all that take Scripture for their Rule of Faith must be skilled in Histories: Now few of the unlearned vulgar, nor of the middle sort of prudent men, nay of very good Schollars are able to judge of points in History; Then their faith is not rational or virtuous, but [Page 44] an hair braind op [...]n [...]onative rashness bu [...]lt up­on principles whereof they can make no judgment. Section. 9.

To all which we say.

1. There is no such need of skill in va­riety of Histories; The Scripture is self-evident as to saving Truth; and it is e­nough for all to be skill'd in the Sacred hi­story of God, given by his Prophets, to bring to Faith unto salvation: Learned and unlearned ought to get skill herein if they be saved.

2. Faith built hereupon is rational and virtuous working by love, obedience un­to God, and no hair-braind Opiniona­tive rashness.

3. Whatever help Protestants may crave from H stories of men as to Consent, the Author must know, they take not them for Principles to build their faith upon, they know better. The Author might then have spared th [...]s historical Allegati­on; for it hurts not our Cause; souls may be true Beleevers, and yet no Histori­rians.

2 Provi­dence.2. He brings in some replying (as he saith) of necessity, and not willingly, even what their Judgments slowing from the [...]r Princi­ples would no [...], That God assists his Church, and therefore his Providence will take care that the Contingencies whereunto the Scriptures let­ter, their Rule of Faith, is subject to, shall be avoided.

We shall be plain in our return to th [...]s passage.

1. It is a slander that Protestants princi­ples do influence their Judgments so as that they are not willing, but are necessi­tated to grant, That God assists his Church, and that his providence secureth the Scrip­ture both in the letter and sence of it. We acknowledge Gods special Provi [...]ence, daily to assist his own Church, and pow­erful to preserve his Scripture unto this day; and we blesse him with our souls, because he hath magnified his word above all his name. Psal. 138.2.

2. We deny yet, that Scriptures Letter without its sence is our Rule of Faith, though the Discourser would fasten it upon us throughout; It is a Rudiment remotely hel­ping to it, as speech is: but not the Rule of Faith it self, as we have before sta­ted.

3. Yet we acknowledge; Protestants do deny Gods Assistance to the Popish Church, as being none of his, but false and Adulterate, however the Discourser means no Church else, thorough his whole Trea­tise: But we espie his drift.

He asks then, how we are certain in our way of such an Assistance.

We answer,

1. We are of the Church, and true Body of Christ while by Faith we are u­ni ed to him as the Head.

[Page 46] Mat. 16.18. Joh. 16.13.2. We have many very great and preci­ous promises in this Scripture, (which he cannot deny to be the word of God) and these secure us being beleeved by us, both of Gods Assistance, and his Providence preserving his written will unto us.

He demands again, that we must make our Rule in Scripture Certain, before we mention Faith, Church or Gods Assistance. For the Rule of Faith is the means to bring to it, and this must be certain Antecedent­ly, to the Notions of Faith, Faithful or Church, Sect. 10.

We grant his demand, and therefore say.

1. God himself hath given Testimony to the certainty of Scriptures Truth, which makes it the Rule of Faith, by comman­ding his will to be written.

2. The letter of this Scripture is but a means unto, not a Rule of Faith; and by hearing and reading the same we come to know the will of God, which is the Rule of Faith.

3. It is strange, that here the Discourser asserts, that the Rule of Faith must be An­tecedent to the notion of Faith, and that also, to the notion of Faithful or the Church; Else where he saith, upon the Account of his Tradition, that the Church must precede this Tradition, and this fore­goe Faith, he rings the changes: but we freely grant, the Rule of Faith from hea­ven [Page 47] doth precede all; yea and the means to faith must go before its effect, yea and the Rule must prove the Church, not the Church the Rule.

4. We conclude, that by Faith in this Gods-Scripture-Rule, we are gathered into Fellowship with the Father, Son, and Spi­rit, with the Apostles and Saints of God, and so are of his Church; neither need we the help of the Authors Tradition, Faith, or Church, to secure us further: We are sure being b [...]ilt upon that Rock, from whence neither he, nor the Powers of Darkness can remove us. Let him look to his own footing.

3. He pretends, that some do urge, the Testimonies of Councils, or Fathers, to be suf­ficient Interpreters of Scripture, and so they make up the defects objected by him.

We shall first return to this passage, and explicate the Protestants allegation of Councils and Fathers in this Case.

1. They do honour Councils and Fathers which are such indeed; and they are such only who honour God, and subject their determinations unto his written will: And in this point we assert that Article of the Church of England concerning this mat­ter. Scripture makes Councils and Fa­thers such as God will own; They make not Scripture either in letter or Sence.

2. They pin not their Faith upon ei­ther of these, as if they gave them their [Page 48] Rule for beleeving, but acknowledge the grace of God given unto them, if they open rightly Scripture Rule, and inter­pret the mind of God therein, and upon that account thank God for them.

In the next place, from this supposed Alle­gation, the Discourser draweth some Con­sequents, which we shall weigh.

1. That if the Allegation be true, then none can be capable of the Rule of Faith, nor of Faith it self, but those who are read in Councils and Fathers.

Unto this shortly we say,

1. Let this absurdity-consequent be laid upon them; who so make the Alle­gation, as he represents it, which no sound Protestant will do.

2. We deny this Consequence from t [...]e explication premised; Christians are true Believers by knowing Scriptures, and not Councils nor Fathers.2 Chron. 20.20. Believe his Prophets and ye shall prosper.

2. He inferreth if the Councils and Fa­thers help the Rule of Faith, they must be accounted Infallible, which (he saith) none, but Catholicks, that is, Romish or Pseudo-Ca­tholicks will say: or else they must urge some other infallible guide to interpret the Scriptures by.

Hereunto also we reply.

1. Let them who alledge Councils to the purpose pretended, fence off this Con­sequence, we know none such.

[Page 49]2. We deny Councils and Fathers to be infallible; no true Catholicks will grant it, though false ones do: That Council of the Apostles only was such, who could truly say, it seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and us: All successive were good, as farre as they walked by the same Rule, but none infallible: neither did any of them ever pretend to be so: Only spuri­ous Conventions, have dared to arro­gate the spirits presence, when the Devil himself acted them in decreeing against Gods written truth.

3. We assert God the best interpreter of himself, and so his Scripture of it self; It is a light and a lamp to them that walk thereby in the way unto Salvation: To this infallible guide Gods spirit in his word we adhere.

3. The last fault he finds about the for­mer Allegation, is concerning the notions of Fathers, Councils, Church and rule of Faith, and the [...]r order. A Father, he saith, is an eminent and known witnesser to Posterity of the sence and Faith of the Church: The Church is a notion presupposed to a Father: A Council is a representative of the Church, and a right Council of the true Church, which he meaneth Romish and Popish only. Council therefore and Father presuppose Church, and Church presupposeth Faithful, and Faithful presupposeth Faith, and Faith the rule of Faith: In vain then do they strive [Page 50] to piece out the sufficiency of Scriptures let­ter, to be the Rule of Faith by these helps, seeing that Rule must give being to all these S. 11.

Unto this plainly we return.

1. As to the Notions and order of rule of Faith, Faith, Faithful, Church, Councils and Fathers we will not contend with him, if they be understood genuinely, and ex­clusively to Popish notions of all those things.

2, We assert also, that our rule of Faith which is the will of God revealed in Scrip­ture, must foregoe Faith, Faithful, Church and every member or part appertaining thereunto, for it doth give being to all.

3. Let them therefore, who strive to piece out the sufficiency of Scriptures let­ter to be the Rule of Faith, by the help of Councils and Fathers, lye under the blame which the Author casts upon them: We are not concerned, nor any of the Prote­stant Churches in this matter.

4. In the close of this we shall animad­vert; that here he speaketh to his own case, as much as ours, that his rule of faith which is Oral-Tradition foregoeth faith, Faithful, Church, &c. And yet elsewhere, Church must foregoe the Tradition, and one mouth must deliver it to another, is not this to run in a ring, and to be a cir­cular Discourser? Viderit ipse.

[Page 51]4. The last Exception against his Objecti­ons he saith is, some reply that Fundamen­tals are clear in Scripture, which may be e­nough to evidence it to be the Rule of Faith.

This also we affirm in the Apostles words that the houshold of God are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Pro­phets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; and all this is revealed in their writings by the Lord. It is there­fore clear in Scripture.

Yet he objects to this.

1. That by sufficient Authority a cer­tain Catalogue of Fundamentals, was never given or agreed unto: And the discourse grows ticklish when we talk of Fundamen­tals, and hazardous upon the mistake of one to ruine all.

Whereunto we shall only say.

1. That Gods Authority is all-sufficient to lay the Fundamentals of salvation, which he hath done in the Scriptures of the Prophets and Apostles.

2. That the foundation or the fundamen­tal ground of mans Salvation is but one, the Catalogue then is soon made:1 Cor. 3.11. other foun­dation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Understand we this ei­ther of the foundation personal, which is the person of Christ, upon which the per­sons of beleevers are built as living stones to make an house for God; This is but [Page 52] one: Or if we take it for the foundation Doctrinal, 1 Cor. 3.11. Act. 4 12. it is but that one saving truth, that by his name alone can salvation be obtained: Or if it be looked on as a foun­dation practical, that is as Christ is laid an Example to us, that we should walk as he walked; All this is but one, and this most plainly, evidently, and expresly laid down in the Scripture of God: So that this is no ricklish nor dangerous matter to treat upon, as the Discourser suggests. As to other subordinate Truths naturally deduced from this, how few or many soe­ver they be, they may be called seconda­rily Fundamentals; neither can it be ha­zardous to the end of Faith, that is, mans salvation to treat solidly of them. We may then say safely, Fundamentals are cle [...]r in Scripture to them who will see.

2. He expostulates, Is it in a fundamen­tal, that Christ is God? if so, he asks again whether this be clearer in Scripture, than that God hath hands, feet, nostrils, and pas­sions like ours? Seeing then that this lat [...]er point is certain to lead vulgar heads into ex­ceeding great errors, and that Heresies are as seemingly clear in the outward Face of Scripture as Fundamental Truths, how mi­staken a principle do they rely upon for the main hinge of their salvation, who say that Fundamentals are so clear in Scriptures let­ter to every Capacity? S. 12.

To solve all this difficulty.

1. To the former question we answer roundly, it is the Fundamental, Isa. 45.22. Jer. 23.6. that Christ is God; For otherwise he could not be our Saviour: He is indeed Jehovah our Righ­teousness: This is our Rock.

2. To the next question we say it im­ports a fallacie under a double sence: For, if the meaning be, whether in Scripture when we re [...]d, God said to have hands &c. be not as clear, as that Christ is said to be God; we ea [...]ily grant it. But if it be in­quired whether that proposition, God hath hands, &c. be in Scriptures sence a [...] c [...]ear, as that Christ is God. Thi [...] we deny, for this latter is a Proposition consisting of proper terms, God is properly attributed to Christ; but t [...]e former is a Proposition figurative, when hands, feet▪ &c. are at­tributed unto God; and therefore is not so clear to be understood, wi [...]hout tur­ning the Metaphors into proper terms, which is no hard matter for common un­derstandings to do; when they know God speaks of himself after the manner of men, not to debase God, but to help us in our way to conceive his Providence and migh­ty works competent to God, by eies and hands which men use. He that knoweth God to be a spirit, cannot by these figu­rative expressions be led into such Errors as the Discourser doth preten [...].

[Page 54]3. We conclude therefore that his in­ference is false; Scripture upon this ac­count is no mistaken Principle to rely up­on for our salvation; but the surest word of Truth to cause Christ the day starre to arise in our hearts; And he is the Author of Eternal Salvation. Here is our sure-foo­ting still, and unsh [...]ken standing.

THE Third Discourse EXAMINED.

IN this Discourse the Attempt is to prove the three following P [...]operties of the Rule of Faith, utterly incompetent to Scrip­ture; we shall keep along with him, and try his steps herein.

1. He layeth down his third property of the Rule of Faith, which he laboureth to prove inconsistent with Scrip [...]ure; and for the more clear proceeding, we shall form it to this Argument.

That which is the Rule of Faith, must have in it an Aptness to settle and justifie these un­learned persons who rely undoubtingly upon it, but, the Scripture hath not in it such an apt­ness to settle and justifie such persons, unlearned [Page 55] and undoubtingly relying thereon. This pro­perty is not competent unto it. The Propositi­on is in the first Section, and the Assumpti­on in the second.

Having the argument in this form, we shall try the premisses, and then judge of the conclusion, 1. As to the proposition.

1. The Subject herein is the Rule of Faith, the main point in hand.

2. The Attribute is the Property spoken of it, Aptness to settle and justyfie those un­learned persons, who rely undoubtedly on it.

3. The connection between these is ne­cessary; This Rule must have this proper­ty. Now before we affirm or deny, it is need [...]ul to distinguish about the justifying and settling power of the Rule.

1. It may respect the way of believing (which the Discourser passeth over,) that it must justifie Faith to be the way of life.

2. It doth respect persons rulable by it, whom here he only mentions, to be un­learned persons, relying undoubtingly up­on it; who are to be distinguished also.

1. Unlearned may be understood, either absolutely and simply such, who are meer sots; or comparatively such; who though unlearned in respect of men more skilful; yet have a reasonable understanding exer­cised according to their capacity for ap­prehending the will of God as revealed in the Scripture.

[Page 56]2. Undoubtedly relying, may note, ei­ther souls foolishly presumptuous, or else through faith beleevingly confident, and re­gularly walking thereby: Hence we thus determine.

1. It is a necessary property for the Rule of Faith to justifie the way of believing, and those that are not much learned, yet beleevingly confident and undoubtingly relying on it, yea and to settle them while regularly walking by it. The proposition thus stated we grant. The Rule of Faith must have such an aptness to justifie and settle these.

2. If this be meant of such unlearned ones, as are grossely ignorant, rude, and sottish pretenders to the Rule of Faith and yet presumptuously undoubting there­upon; we utterly deny the Proposition, The Rule of Faith hath no such property as an aptness to justifie or settle such persons in their grosse ignorance, presumptuous confidence, and irregular walking in their profession of the same. In this sence we put the Author to the proofe of this pro­position. No Rule is bound to justifie irregu­larities in any.

2. The Proposition being granted in the former sence, we deny the Assumpti­on that the Scripture hath not such an apt­ness to justifie and settle men; and assert, that the Scripture is most apt to settle and justifie in their way such persons, who [Page 57] though not so learned, yet in faith un­doubtingly rely upon it, and labour regu­larly to walk by it. So indeed a Rule must justifie such as are rulable by it.

Now to make good this upon Scriptures Rule, we shall resume that undeniable P [...]inciple, all Scripture is inspired or spiri­ted by God; Whence we inferre these proofs.

1.2 Tim. 3, 15.16. The All-sufficiency of Gods wisdome is most apt to settle and justifie all souls beleevingly relying on it: but the Scrip­tures contains and reveals the All-suffici­ent wisedom of God, so that they are a­ble to make souls wise unto salvation, therefore is the Scripture most apt to ju­stifie and settle learned and unlearned per­sons, that rely on it.

2. The Infallibility and immutability of God is most apt to settle and justifie all per­sons of all sorts beleevingly relying on them.Heb. 6.17, 18. But the Scripture hath the Infallibi­lity, and immutability of God revealed in it, and annexed to it; therefore, is it most apt to settle and justifie all persons un­doubtingly by Faith relying on it. Gods word and oath are in the Scripture, and they are most apt to give souls the best settlement.

3. The Holines, Rectitude, Psal. 119.140. and Purity of God, is most apt to settle and justifie Souls in their relying on it. But the Scripture, is full of that Holiness of God, it is his h [...]ly [Page 58] word, therefore is it most apt to settle and justifie souls faithfully relying on it, and walking regularly by it. Thus far for ma­king good the denial of the Assumption, and of our Assertion for Scriptures Apt­ness to settle and justifie souls depending on it, which we hope will appear force­able to right reason. Now is it our work to disprove the Authors reasoning against Scriptures fitness, as he giveth it in the se­cond section.

1. It is suggested, No man is justifia­ble for assent or practise of any thing, of which either by common-sense or some Re­flexion they cannot take to be true; but these unlearned persons proceeding undoub­tingly, have no occasion to reflect, nothing then can justifie them, but Principles of Com­mon-sense; but by this they have no self-assurance of Scriptures letter, being utterly ig­norant, when it was writ, by whom, how brought down, &c.

We reply,

1. Scriptures letter is not our Rule, that can justifie any without its sence; upon which false ground he still proceeds.

2. None ought to be so unlearned as to be utterly ignorant of the Scriptures to be Gods word, it having been alwaies a Principle received in the Church; nor undoubtingly to proceed upon such igno­rance in their presumptions.

[Page 59]3. They that know not letters, nor can read the letter of Scripture, yet may know the sence and meaning of God in it savingly, being taught by sound Aposto­lical Tradition, not Popish delusion.

4. It is not necessary for their justifica­tion that they must know, when and by whom the Scriptures letter was writ: If they receive Gods revelation therein be­leevingly, (which by the light of nature only they cannot do, but with the help of the spirit) and walk regularly thereby, God by his Scripture will justifie them. But for grosly ignorant, and presumptu­ous ones who do not attain to Scriptures Rule but abuse it; The Rule cannot ju­stifie but condemn them.

2. He suggesteth this, to invalidate Scriptures aptness to justifie its follow­ers; That these unlearned, and undoub­ting Ones, may depen [...] upon the great schollarship of their teachers; of which not­withstanding they can have no more know­ledge but what sensation by eies and ears can help them, which cannot judge of such high skills: not so much as it doth of Tradesmen or Artists, by seeing their works. Neither can their uncultivated Reason give them knowledge this way of the goodness of Christian Doctrine; and its p [...]oportion unto bliss

Now what is all this to weaken Scrip­tures aptness for justifying its Followers.

[Page 60]1. Suppose these unlearned do depend upon their Teachers abilities, and hone­sty.

2. That they have nothing but sensati­on by eies and ears to judge of them, and an uncultivated reason uncapable of such skills pretended by their Teachers. The proper issue must be, that they make this skill of their leaders to be their Rule, which cannot justifie those, who know not, what those skills do mean, and yet depend upon them. These may be more to blame, than those who trust Artists, when they see their work. But herein the Discourser, as well as elsewhere seems to make Christian Religion too much like a Mechanical Trade to be hammered out by sensation, which yet is known in the Church to be of a Higher Extract and to be taught from heaven though entertain­ed and helpt on to practise by sense and reason. In summe, all the hurt inten­ded must fall upon the Teachers skill, and the Disciples ignorance, the Scripture of God cannot justly be blamed here. Put we this case;Act. 17.11. the Beraeans heard the A­postle preach, and were convinced of the Truth of Jesus, and received it; Yet they had no cognisance of Pauls skill and lear­ning further than as he opened the Scrip­tu [...]es unto them; and having heard, they searched daily the Scriptures, whether matters were so as he had taught, and [Page 61] finding them concordant thereunto, they received the word with all readiness of mind; whereby they were not only ju­stified but commended to be noble souls above many. Had they depended upon mans skill, they might have been con­demned. Let the Author look into this glass, and condemn his unlearned foolish ones, but justifie the Scriptures of God, which justifieth beleevers [...]n it self.

3. His main suggestion is, that many Professions pretending to Scripture, differ, damn, condemn and perhaps persecute one another; Now these vulgar, unlearned ones being unable to judge which is most to be trusted, their sense brings them to an inextri­cable blunder; They have so much reason, which tells them there is but one Truth; but these honest Schollars of down-right Na­ture, and of her lowest form, being unable to judge which truly follow the Scriptures letter, cannot be justifiable by Scripture for following it under any party. Therefore it must be meerly for want of Light or evidence in the Directive Power of the Rule. This properly then is not competent to Scriptures letter.

We contend not for Scriptures letter, without its sence or spirit, which we must urge as often as the Discourser argueth a­gainst the letter only. But to this main stumbling block, that we may remove it, we shall reply in these particulars.

[Page 62]1. It is to be granted and lamented, that there have been and are so many dif­ferences among Chr [...]stians professing faith in the Scriptures of God both about the letter and sence of it, but this is no just cause for men to be offended at Gods word, any more then at the Eternal word himself; about whom the thoughts of mens hearts were not only various but contradicting each other: Yet this varie­ty and contradiction is known not to be as great or greater than these among his own Sects about his Traditionary Rule of Faith; but we stay not upon this recri­mination.

2. The dissentions of Professors about Scripture, or about Christ himself, argue not want of light in the one, or in the o­ther: For the Son of God revealed in them is the light of the world unto sal­vation; but they may note blindness in them who so much differ thorough unbe­lief, ignorance, and perverseness: who are no more fit to discourse of the things of God, than blind men of Colours: and we suppose no seeing man will be offen­ded, if they differ in their judgments, who cannot sensibly know them, and believe his own senses.

3. These honest Schollars of downright Nature, and of her lower Form; seeing they have so much reason (so the Dis­courser grants) as will tell them there is [Page 63] but one Truth in the Scripture, may pos­sibly imploy both their sensations and reasonings to know the meaning of God therein concerning the way of his salvati­on, and hold it it fast, yea and get hea­ven by it also, notwithstanding the diffe­rences among learned men disputing about the letter in several particulars. It was the confession of that good Father; The unlearned arise, and take heaven by vio­lence, whilest learned men are disputing thereabout. And in doing this, the Scrip­ture both can and will justifie them walk­ing by this Rule.

4. But we have Cause to fear, that these honest Schollars of Nature, are but some of the Authors making, who conti­nue grossely ignorant, and presumptuous; and are feign [...]d by him to put off their own ignorance and maintain their own confidence upon the obscurity of Scrip­tures letter, and their hear-say of its be­ing the Rule of Faith: of whom we thus determine, that the Rule of Faith is not bound to justifie such irregular Professors of it. The Discourser then may justly lay the sin upon his Schollars, they de­serve it; but most wickedly doth he thence charge defect of Light or Evidence, or Power of iustifying its followers upon the Scripture.

2. In the third Section, he attempts to prove his fourth Property of the Rule [Page 62] [...] [Page 63] [...] [Page 64] of Faith incompetent unto Scripture; His Arguments runs thus.—The Rule of Faith must be apt of its own nature to satisfie the most Sceptical Dissenters, and rational Doub­ters, that the Doctrine it holds forth came from Christ. But, The Scripture is not able so to satisfie of its own nature the most Sceptical Dis­senters, &c. Therefore, This cannot be the Rule of Faith.

1. Unto this, we say; It is needful to open terms, before any thing can justly be denied or granted: The greatest diffi­culty is about the Subject, to whom the satisfaction must be given: The Discour­ser calls them Sceptical Dissenters, and Rational Doubters; whom he describes to be Thoughtful men, calling things to a strict account, before they yield over their Assent; Therefore nothing less than a de­monstration can bind those Active vola­tile souls from hovering in doubts, when their Eternal good is concerned. We must ask him before we proceed. Are these rational Doubters within the Church, or without it: If within Scripture, Argu­ments are fit to use to them; But if without, they are Infidels uncapable of Scripture reasonings; These Scepticks a­mong Naturalists are professed Enemies to knowledge, and will not yield to Scienti­fical Mediums, neither will demonstrati­ons though Divine satisfie them: And in truth as the Apostle stiles them, they are [Page 65] wicked, absurd, unreasonable men, 2 Thes. 3 2 having no Faith: These then are no Subjects rulable by the Rule of Faith, and therefore is it not proper to the Rule to satisfie them. Hence then in this sence we deny the Pro­position as untrue. Yet if it be meant of rational Doubters indeed within the Church and not Heretical Apostates, The Scripture is fully able to satisfie their doubts about the doctrine of Christ; and in this sence we grant the Proposition, and deny the Assumption: And this must rest upon proof.

2. We still distinguish between the Rule of Faith which only concerns them under it; and the Means to Faith which respecteth others. Now to satisfie these Scep [...]icks; Other Arguments must be made use of to perswade them of the necessity of the doctrine of Christ and Truth of it, before Scripture Authority is imposed on them, such the Apostle useth to the A­thenians and Roman Gentiles convincing them by their own light of their own lost condition;Acts 17. Rom. 1. and the necessity of seeking righteousness in another unto salvation. If these prevail, then Scripture-Revelation will be effectual to convince of this Righ­teousness to be had in Christ Jesus; as some of those Dissenters found.

3. To discharge this objection, in those captious suggestions about indeavouring to demonstrate to these Scepticks the in­spiration [Page 66] of Scriptures letter, reconciling seeming contradictions, stating number of books, Original, Translations to be true, and the sence of them to be sure, (as ur­ged Sect. 3.) Yet these persons are left in suspence, with a why might it not be o­therwise? smiling at their indeavours, who labour by these to perswade them to the Rule of Scriptures letter: We shall di­stinctly give answer in these P.

1. Excepting still, that we urge not Scrip­tures letter unsenced upon any as the Rule of Faith, we say, it is incongruous, in winning these gentile wits to the Doctrine of Christ, to begin with Scripture demonstra­tions towards them; It is likely they will smile at such Indeavours, and abide still in suspence about it. The proper work with them is to convince them of their sinfulness, brutishness, and ignorance of the way of salvation by such Principles as the light of nature must grant; though be­ing clouded with lust in some it will not. If by this means these persons may be shamed and humbled, and taken off from their proud conceits in vilifying the Re­velation of God, then may Scripture de­monstration somewhat prevail, and satisfie: but if men be perverse, they will flout at the strongest reason, so some of the A­thenians did at Pauls discourse. But all this concerns only the means of bringing men to the Faith, which is no Rule of it.

[Page 67]2. The Rule of Faith is in correlation with those who are ruled by it; therefore it is just that it should be able to satisfie the reasonable doubts of them, who pro­fess to be ruled by it: but is it therefore to satisfie the sophistical ventilations of Sceptical d ssenters from it? As good reason is it, that the Carpenters Rule should direct and satisfie the Apothecary in ordering his Medicines.1 Cor 2.14. If the natural man cannot discern spiritual things (such as is the Rule of Faith) much less can or will those Opinionative dissenting Scep­ticks discern or entertain them. Is God bound to satisfie these? no more is his Scripture.

3. Let the Subjects in this Case be sta­ted capable of satisfaction from the Rule of faith, that is, such believers, as may be apt to doubt of the doctrine of Christ from weakness and not from wickedness, the Scripture is most able to satisfie all their haesitations and doubts, and as con­taining the sum of the Covenant of grace, is set up purposely to resolve and drive out all doubts concerning Christ. So the Apostle determineth.Rom. 10.6, 7, 8, 9. Say not in thine heart, who shall ascend into heaven, that is, to bring down Christ, &c. It is as if he had said, doubt not, reason not doub­tingly in your spirit about Christ. The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and heart, that is, the word of faith, which [Page 68] we preach, and now I wr [...]te of unto you, &c. This is your satisfying and settling Rule. Whence we conclude, it is no such wearisome or tedious way to be sa­tisfied of doubts by the Scripture to them, who humbly seek it: but that it is easily victorious by reason of its certainty and infallibility over the shock of doubts, and assaults of intellectual fears. In this, Scrip­ture both in the letter and spirit of it, is not defective, but compleat; therefore by this property also is it the Rule of Faith.

3. In the fourth Section he undertakes to prove the fifth Property, which he assign­ed to the Rule of Faith, to be incompe­tent to Scripture. His arguing must be thus. The Rule of Faith must be Convictive of the most obstinate and acute Adversaries to it. But, The Scriptures letter is not so. There­fore, It cannot be the Rule, &c. The Pro­position is taken for granted by the Discour­ser and the Assumption only he indeavours to make good to the end of this discourse in all the sections following.

Before we deny or grant, or disprove any of his Objections we must examine terms.

1. In the proposition, the Affection attr buted to the Rule of Faith, is to be Convictive, which term may be understood of Convictive Virtually, or Convictive actu­ally.

[Page 69]2. These Adversaries are considerable, whether they be in the Church or out of it; For this Discourser argueth also against Scripture, and yet he takes himself to be in the Church.

3. The Scriptures letter we admit not without its sence, which still he obtrudes upon us. Now these considered, we say.

1. That the Rule of Faith must have Convictive Power to answer all Adversa­ries against it; So we grant the Proposi­tion.

2. That the Rule of Faith is not bound de Facto to be Convictive of such obstinate and acute Adversaries; So we deny it.

3. That the Scripture in the Letter and sence of it, is all-sufficient to convince all reason though obstinately adverse to it of the w [...]y of Gods salvation by his Christ. For the reason of it is strong, even Al­mighty, and the Truth of it infallible; why then should it not convince?

4. That it is perverseness in the Dis­courser to require this in Scriptures-letter unsenced; We assert Scripture fully: and hereupon deny his Assumption; We shall try his proof.

1. He brings in the Adversary persona­ted under the Notion of a Deist making his obj [...]ctions. He imagins some Text of Scrip­ture quoted to convince him of some point, (suppose) of Faith. He asks how you are [Page 70] sure that it is the word of God? You al­ledge the Excellencies of it: And the Dis­courser indeed doth grant it, so farre, that eies enlightened by true Faith, may discern something in it above nature, and cry Digi­tus Dei est hic: But this Deist will answer that many parts of this book of God, are indeed very excellently good; but that the Devil can transform himself into an Angel of Light, and therefore, it may be his book, as well as Gods. This is the scope of the objecti­on to bring the Scriptures into suspicion, that it may be the Devils book and not Gods; and so all the Excellencies of it to be the Issues of the Father of lies.

Unto this we reply

1. That it is a most odious suggestion, which he being a Professed Christian; puts into the mouth of his Deist, (that otherwise might never have entred into his thoughts) that the Devil should be the Author of Scripture; Just like him, who speaking of the Souldiers delusive Apologie, that his disciples stole Christ away while they slept, (infused into them by large hire from the Rulers to obscure Christs Resurrection) said, What fools were they? could not they have said rather. that the Devil had taken him away? This might have salved them­selves, and put the Assertours of his Re­surrection to a farther trouble of proving it: And so the Speaker left it. No less [Page 71] doth this Discourser in favour to the Scrip­ture of God, make this objection, and so leave it. Yet we shall not leave him so in this case; but return as the Lord Je­sus, the Eternal word of the Father unto the Pharisees, when they charged him to cast out Devils by the Prince of Devils;Mat. 12.26. If Satan cast out Satan he is divided against himself; How shall then his Kingdome stand? So if the Devil should ab [...]t the word of Scripture, which is the Power of God set up to destroy his Kingdome in the world; he must needs be the subver­ter of his own Kingdome. No just cause therefore is there to object that the De­vil, as transforming himself into an An­gel of light, might be the Author of Scriptures Excellencies; for it is the bane of his Kingdome.

2. We may inquire into this new na­med Person the Deist, stiled before the most obstinate and acute Adversary; who and what he is? Whether a subject, fit for the Rule of Faith to deal withall? The notion seems to hint a person who grants a God, that is in Abstracto; That there is such a First Being called God; and this is all, but denieth him in Concreto, that is, to be such a One as he hath revealed himself to be in word and works: which in Gods account is a meer Atheist, who acknowledgeth not God to be such as in his Covenant he hath made known him­selfEph. 2.12. [Page 72] to be. The Rule of Faith hath no­thing to do with these men as a Rule; For they reject it. These have need of means and arguments proper to them to bring them unto the Faith of the Scrip­ture, before this be pressed on them, as a Rule to command them.

3. It is no impeachment of the Scrip­tures Excellency and convictive power; though blind men see it not,2 Cor. 4.3. and perverse men will not be convinced by it: If the Gospel be hid, it is hid to them who are lost, and they perish by their wilful and ob­stinate blindness: God and his word are ju­stified in this case. And though they will not acknowledge Gods power in his word re­vealed, yet they will confess in the sad issue of unbelief, Digitus Dei est hic. The hand of Gods vengeance is hence come upon them.

2. He m [...]kes his Deist to requite the Excellencies of Scripture with many strange Absurdities, and Heresies (as he saith) by the Protestants own confession, lying in the open letter of Scripture most unworthy of God, as that he hath hands, &c. He finds Texts against acknowledged Science, and reckons up a multitude of Contradictions therein▪ which are such in their own Judg­ment, &c. In reply to this passage.

1. if any Protestant have confessed, or be of that Judgment, That strange absur­dities, and Heresies, that any thing against true Science acknowledged, or that contra­dictions [Page 73] lye in the open letter of Scripture inspired of God, he had need correct his Judgment, and explain his confession. It's true, that Absurd, Heretical, and Per­verse disputers have by their sences made absurdities, and heresies, and contradictions, in the letter of Scripture, but God de­livered no such things in that written let­ter, unworthy of himself however he hath condescended to speak to us of himself after the manner of men: His sence is writ­ten in the letter with the Sun-beam, though blind men see it not. What though those sottish, carnal Anthropomorphits, read­ing such passages in Scripture, where hands, eies, nostrils, love, Anger and passions, are spoken of God, do foolishly phansie him, as a Man? Doth this conclude a­gainst Scripture, as if it taught men to think so of God? or doth it not condemn the beastliness of men so to abuse Scrip­ture and Metamorphose God into a Man? We know Eies and Ears &c. are figura­tive and metaphorical expressions of the Providence and Government of God in the world; and the sence of figures is the proper meaning of any thing which they represent. It were good that the Dis­courser would perswade his Deist (who perhaps is himself,) to be more reasona­ble in arguing against Scripture.

2. We deny that there is any thing in Scripture against acknowledged Science, [Page 74] but against that which is so falsly cal­led.

3. Contradictions real in Scripture there are none, but such as Corrupt Dispu­ters have feigned. Those then weaken not Scripture.

4. We do not abandon Scripture as our Rule of Faith, when we say there are no Contradictions therein, but seeming ones to bad-sighted men: We confess no here­sies to be in the open letter, nor any Antecedent knowledge to be our Rule of Faith, but the will of God alone revealed in the Scriptures. True it is that Reli­gious Education, and honest Tradition, were means to bring us to understand the Scripture which is our Rule, but that means is not the Rule it self. Let the Deist consider this: or let him answer a Quaere in a common case; The Carpenter being about to bring his Boy to the use of his Rule, informeth him of the Inches, half-feet, and feet, with other lines and mea­sures contained in his Rule; is his know­ledge of those things prerequired to the right use of the Rule, become the Rule it self? His sence and reason will not suf­fer him to say so in this Case to men: however he is sharply set to dispute more unreasonably against God.

3. He puts into the mouth of his Deist all the former objections of his Sceptick to be more obstinately and acutely urged: As,

[Page 75]1. If ye answer those passages, which give hands &c. to God, by other Scriptures controlling them. He tells you, then ye hold both parts of a Contradiction, which is absurd.

2. If ye recurr to reason or Science, tea­ching, that God is immutable, a Spirit, &c. He replyeth, Science then is your Rule, and not Scripture.

3. If ye say ye relye on your Fore­fathers, or Pastours skill, then their skill of which ye cannot judge, was your rule, or else ye must come to Tradition, and de­sert your letter-Rule.

4. He challengeth you, that ye bring a­long with you thoughts by which ye inter­pret Scripture, and to which ye will hold; and so you make the Scripture a thing ruled, but not a Rule.

5. He asks this smart question, how ye are certain of the truth of the letter in the Text, or whether it be not foisted in, or some way altered, &c. as leaving out such a particle as (Not) which will turn a nega­tive into an affirmative.

6. If you reply, Consent of Copies, he saith all may be alike faulty; That other Scriptures might be, not come to knowledge; In short, that Copies, Translations, and va­riety of readings are full of uncertainty: Nay the last, so many in the New Testa­ment, that Bishop Ʋsher durst not print them for fear of bringing the whole book into [Page 76] doubt. If you say that the Faith of Christ was taught from Father to Son, &c. He challenges you, to desert your own Rule, and imbrace Tradition, the Rule of Roman Catholicks; in fine, without this Error, might creep into the Text in substantial points of Faith, which devolves into this; That Scrip­ture-letter held forth as a Rule of Faith, can never convince an obstinate and acute Adversary.

To these many words, we shall return these few things.

1. That the Discourser doth but Cramb­en recoquere, that is needlesly, and unsa­vorily reiterate, what he made his Scep­tick speak; only he may suppose it more obstinately and acutely done by his Deist, whom he hath armed for this purpose.

2. He concludes nothing but against Scriptures letter unsenced; which never any Protestant (unless wild) did main­tain of it self to be the Rule of Faith; but as expressing Gods will.

3. Figurative expressions of God, and proper discoveries of him are not contra­dictory; therefore he that opens the one by the other, is farre enough from holding both parts of a Contradiction, as is fond­ly, not acutely suggested.

4. We acknowledge the Exercise of reason and Science needful requisits, and useful means under the teaching of Gods spirit, to understand the Rule of Faith [Page 77] delivered in the Scripture, but this means is not the Rule it self.

5. Protestants never denied, but strong­ly asserted the necessary use of our Fore­fathers teaching their children the Law of the Lord; and so, honest and faithful Tra­dition to be an appointed means to bring to the knowledge of the Rule of Faith re­vealed in the Scripture: Nevertheless they grant not any Tradition Oral or Scriptural to be the Rule it self; much less Popish Tradition which is the Rule of Roman Ca­tholicks: but have proved it to be delu­sive and Apostate from the Faith of Christ.

6. It is a foolish challenge, that Pro­testants bring forestalled thoughts, there­by to interpret Scripture to their own wills, and so make it a thing Ruled, but not a Rule. For Scripture by its innate sence held out, forms their thoughts as the Soveraign Rule to square them by; So their thoughts are ruled by it, and they are not the Rule of that.

7. As to his smart question, We shall mild­ly return, it hath been answered already; Gods Providence hath kept his own writ­ten Oracles in his Church from time to time. And to avoid prolixity, we do re­ferre this Deist to peruse the Protestant Assertours of Scriptures Truth; who have rationally and firmly confuted all these Jesuitical quirks about the Originals, Tran­slations, [Page 78] and various readings of Scripture. If he be not obstinate to destruction he may receive satisfaction from them, slips or omissions of a tittle or term may be by the oscitancy of some, (worthy of sharp­est censure) but this is curable by com­paring with others. But as to what is charged upon that Admirable Man, Bishop Ʋsher, we must suspend our giving credit to the testimony of this personated Deist. He might well suspect, what use the ob­stinate Adversaries of Gods word might make of the various readings; but feared not the shaking of the Authority of the New Testament thereby, or of the weak­ning Scripture-Truth by the same.

8. It seems all this while, that this Deist is a Roman Catholick; for were he one at large, he would be as obstinate to be perswaded to Christ by oral, as by written Tradition. Let us unsmask him then, and he is a Jesuitical Papist; who hath ob­stinately enough oppugned the Scripture of God; but how accutely, let the wise Reader judge. Surely nothing hath been proved at all to enervate the power of Scripture Reason, as to the convincing of the most obstinate and acute Adversary of the necessity of Faith in Christ Jesus unto eternal Salvation. We shall therefore be­stow no further labour upon him, but ra­ther be obedient to the Apostles Rule: If any man consent not to the wholesome1 Tim. 6, 3.4.5. [Page 79] words of our Lord Jesus Christ, he is a proud fool, knowing nothing, dotingly sick about questions, strifes of words, per­verse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the Truth; from these with-draw thy self. So we have done with the obstinate Opposer.

THE Fourth Discourse EXAMINED.

IN this fourth Discourse the Author strives to prove the two last Properties of the Rule of Faith, 6th. and 7th. incompetent to Scripture: Certainty in it self, and As­certainableness to us. The last of these he saith must stand or fall with the former; therefore he insists only upon the Rules cer­tainty in it self. Form it thus. That which is the Rule of Faith must be certain in it self, and Ascertainable unto us, but the Scripture is not certain in it self, nor Ascertainable un­to us, therefore it cannot be the Rule of Faith.

In this Syllogism, we deny the As­sumption, although we grant not the proposition neither, but upon a due un­derstanding [Page 80] of the terms. It rests upon the Discourser to make proof against Scrip­ture; but the upshot of all his ventilation, is against the letter of Scripture only: His Title beareth it against the Scripture in its full comprehension; but his dis­course is against the letter, which barely taken by it self, no Protestant ever held to be a Rule of Faith, but with its sence; and yet this Disputer will father this all along upon them as Assertors of it, and so labour to batter them. But it is all injurious and fallacious, unworthy of an ingenious Discourser. Yet let us see and consider how he acquits himself in this field.

1. He premiseth some distinctions a­bout the Scriptures letter; As that it is con­sidered, either Materially as such and such Characters, or Formally as significative of a determinate sence supposed to be Christs. Again, both of these are considerable, ei­ther in its single self, or as dependention other helps or Causes on foot in the world. S. 1.

We shall animadvert a little here be­fore we proceed; The first distinction seemeth uncouth and strange to us, and unknown in any, unless Popish schools: That the Divisum, the thing divided, and the Membra dividentia, the parts di­viding, should be every way one and the same: So it is here, The Scriptures-Let­ter [Page 81] is the Divisum, or thing divided; The Character, which is the very same with the Letter, and its significativeness or aptness to signifie, is an Affection indivisible from it: unless we make Scripture letter to be as insignificant dashes, and crooked lines, which new scriblers use to make. Indeed we know that Scripture as the integrum or whole hath been divided into, the letter as its matter; and the sence as its form, as into its due parts. This we grant, and what use the Discourser will make of his distinction, we shall consider though we grant it not as lawful: The Second is but a various acception of letter and signifi­cativeness together, either in it self, or in dependence upon helps or causes of its preservation: we may note the use he makes of this also.

2. He applies his first distinction in Sect. the 2d. to this purpose by way of proof of his assumption; as is really implied; That which is lyable to be destroyed, as to be burnt, torn, blotted, worn out &c. is not certain in it self to endure, and therefore not ascertainable unto us. But Scriptures letter being the Basis of its significativeness of Gods Sence is so liable to be destroyed; Therefore this cannot be certain in it self to endure, nor ascertainable unto us, and then no Rule of Faith, being so perish­ble. Whereunto the wise Disposition of Divine Providence is urged to back it; That he intending mans salvation, would not lay [Page 82] it upon such weak means subject to perishing so many waies.

As to this passage our reply is this.

1. The Discourser mistakes still his mark with us in disputing against Scrip­tures letter only.

2. In his complication of words is am­biguity, when sometimes he calleth Scrip­tures letter the Rule of Faith, sometimes the means unto it: between which we have stated a great difference already, we grant Scriptures letter to be a means to Faith, but not the Rule of it.

3. We lay not the letter of Scripture, as the Basis of Gods sence, or Faiths Rule, but only as one special means of expressing it; Gods Arm alone is the Ba­sis upon which his revealed will or the Rule of Faith is grounded; not perishable or al [...]erable Elements, as is causelesly suggested.

4. Suppose books, letters, characters, or Elements, that express the will of God should be destroyed, (which God never hitherto totally suffered) yet the word and will of God, the Rule of Faith en­dureth for ever:Mat. 5 18. 1 Pet. 1 15. Heaven and Earth may pass away, but not one jot or tittle of Gods law. The Almighty will secure and perpetuate it.

5. It is no impeachment of the glory of D [...]vine Wisdome and Providence to or­der and bring about Mans salvation by [Page 83] weakest means and in themselves perisha­ble; but the greatest sublimation of it; therefore did God choose weak things not only to confound the mighty, but to bring about the most powerful effects in mans Salvation. So God is pleased, by the foolishness of writing his will, as well as preaching, to save them that beleeve: Upon which account the Apostle wrote to the Corinthians to whom he also prea­ched.1 Cor. 1.21.27. Words fail as much as letters or rather more speedily: Yet the Discourser will not deny, but that the wise disposi­tion of Divine Providence doth by Oral Tradition bring about salvation unto men. Let him weigh then, which is the strong­est and most lasting means, words or wri­tings. We do not slightly passe over, but most seriously consider, adore and ad­mire divine Providence, who thus crosseth the wisdome of the world in effecting his m [...]ghtiest designs by most weak and des­picable means, in the account of his sub­tlest Adversaries: We have therefore an­swered the Exception.

3. In the next place he proceeds to [...]rove the uncertainty of Scriptures letter, [...] s. 3, 4, 5. and then of the Scriptures signi­ [...]icativeness, S. 6. In S. 3. he considers [...]criptures letter in the Causes of its preser­ [...]ation, which he makes two.

1. Some material liable to conitnual alte­ [...]ations, and innumerable Contingencies, [Page 84] (suppose writing, printing, &c.

2. Some Spiritual, as Mens minds con­tradistinct to hands. Hence he premiseth, that from these noblest pieces in nature in good reason we may hope for a greater de­gree of Constancy, than from any other, nay for a perfect unalterableness, and in conceiving truth an inerrableness, if due Circumstances be observed, which are two here noted.

1. Due proposals to affect sense and so be­get natural knowledge.

2. Due care to attend unto such proposals, when the impression of the objects is heeded, and the mind affected by it.

In return to this passage.

1. We take for granted, that the mate­rial Characters spoken of, are the very letter of Scripture considered in the cau­ses of their preservation.

2. We grant freely that the material means of preserving Scriptures-letter are liable to many alterations and contingen­cies, as in hand-writing and printing.

3. We say, that mens minds are mo­rally mutable and corruptible notwith­standing their physical Immateriality: Now this moral Corruption of mens minds in­dangereth Truth most; therefore there is no such reason as is pretended, to hope for greater constancy from them, in p [...]e­serving-Scriptures letter, than from me [...] hand-work in writing, forasmuch as th [...] [Page 85] mind guides the hand: much lesse a per­fect unalterableness, and inerrableness in conceiving Truth, although the due cir­cumstances proposed by the Discourser be observed.

4, Mens minds are as deficient preser­vatives of Scriptures-letter, as their hands, both by moral Corruption and obnoxious­ness to perpetual alteration through the alloy of their material compart.

5. Notwithstanding the due proposal of object and due care to attend, there must be also a due disposition of the Subject, and means of bringing home, or impressing the object on the mind, to beget the cer­tain knowledge of any thing; and no less of Scripture.

6. Though God make use of mans mind and hand as means to continue his Scrip­ture in his Church, yet he himself alone is the efficient and preserving Cause of it, who will keep it from perishing.

In the 4th Section he makes a reflecti­on from his premises.

1. That the Rule of Faith must be obvious to men of ordinary sense, not only to Spe­culators.

2. That Objects of senses, are either Na­tural, as simple vulgar actions, and matters of Fact, which being oft repeated, are un­mistakable &c. or compounded Actions, as the Transcribing a whole book consisting of such myriads of words &c. that it exceeds [Page 86] humane ear, to keep awake and apply di­stinct attentions to every of those distinct actions. Yet he grants, that this defect may be provided against, by the care of many so­ber and sedulous Examiners who may ascer­tain the truth of the letter of a whole book u [...]to us, &c.

Hereunto we shortly reply.

1. The Rule of Fai [...]h ought to be ob­vious to men of ordinary sense, in their own language and plainest way for their understanding; And no less ought these vulgar souls set themselves to apprehend the Rule of faith to salvation; therefore hath God given them reasonable souls.

2. These souls are not bound to look over Transcribers and observe so many myriads of words, single letters, tittles and stops, no more then the Beraeans were, who searched the Scriptures given to them, without such excessive labour.

3. Whatever numerous multitude the Discourser requires to ascertain him of the truth of Scriptures letter; It satisfieth us, that God hath raised up his Instruments in all ages, both for number and weight sufficient to be his Competent witnesses of his written-Tuth; And what is Gods good pleasure in this matter, contents us, notwithstanding the Exactions of unrea­sonable men.

4. Yet we wonder, that the Discourser should trouble himself and his Readers, [Page 87] with recalling the certainty of Scriptures letters being; which was enough debated in the two first properties of evidence as to its existence; wherein these are coinci­dent: but we must follow him, as he leadeth.

5. In this 5th. Sect. He applyeth his former Discourse to the matter in hand, which to contract, we shall form into this Argument. If it were certain that there had been such a multitude of Examiners of Scrip­tures letter in each Copy taken from the first Original, &c. If by Excommunication or heavy Ecclesiastick Prohibitions, and Mulcts it had been provided for from the be­ginning, that none should presume to take a Copy of it, nor that permitted to be read, unless thus examined, then much might have been said for the certainty of Scriptures letter: but, no such order or exactness was ever found to be used, especially about the New Testament, therefore Scriptures letter may be uncertain in every tittle, notwith­standing the diligence used de facto to pre­serve it uncorrupted. This is the sum, only he harps upon some doctrine of Christs writ­ten in hearts, which he calls Tradition, whereby Scriptures letter may be ascertai­ned; which he referrs to another place.

Hereunto we orderly return.

1. No multitudes of men even the best, can give more assurance of Scriptures let­ter, than a few, where God is the preser­ver [Page 88] of it: Men by their crowds may pre­vail with men, as to gain humane Faith to any thing; but God himself by few or one witness is able to give certainty of his Truth, and work faith unto sal­vation.

2. No Excommunications, Prohibiti­ons or Mulcts, either from Ecclesiastick or Civil powers, can keep mens hearts more upright, and faithful to their Trust, than the Almighties threatnings, venge­ance and curse denounced against such e­vil doers; therefore the Discourser may do well to consider, whose punishments are most likely to keep men upright, Gods or M [...]ns: If Gods; he will see h [...]s Consequence from mens Exactions is not firm, to give us more certainty of mens integrity in the present case; seeing Gods judgments de facto do not keep men up­right.

3. As to the Assumption, it is partly granted, that no such numbers, and Ex­actness, as the Author captiously requires, may be found: but otherwise we deny it, and assert; that God hath alwaies maintained his number for this work to ascertain Scriptures-letter both in the old and new Testament: Whereupon the ve­ry Romish adversaries are forced to con­fesse it to be the word of God, however this Disputer thinks by his paralogisms to delude the world.

[Page 89]4. From the premises we conclude, Scriptures letter cannot be uncertain in every title, seeing the Almighty Arm of God hath directed it, and by the faithful diligence of his witnesses conveied it unto us.

5. As to his exceptions, that the more Copies make the more errors, and many Corrections to have passed over the vul­gar Edition, and still various readings make doubts, we answer.

1. That is not justly to be charged upon Scripture, which is accidental to it, by some mens Oscitancies and Gods per­mission, who orders even such evils of men to the manifestation of his own Truth, and the shame of lyars: This hurts us nor.

2. The vulgar Edition, which the Trent-Confederacy, have Canonized, is the most corrupt of any, as hath been shewed by many witnesses: What impudence then is it for their Pope to injoin it to his Creatures, as the only Authentick Copy? As it is most current, so is it most Cur­rently false.

3. Multitude of Copies do not corrupt Scripture but the multiplied faults of men, for which God will plead with them: Yet is there a sufficient Remedy also a­gainst this evill; by more careful inspecti­on of faithful Instruments under Gods gui­dance. These then are but reiterated cavils.

[Page 90]6. As to his close, That we will not have the sence of Christs Doctrine writ in hearts to be the Rule for Correcting of Scriptures letter, which writing he takes for his Tradition, and the help of it to ascertain Scriptures letter, he referrs to another enquiry, we say.

1. We acknowledge that Spirit-writing of Christs Law in hearts, to be a glorious saving work; beyond the Discoursers phansie of it here.

2. We deny it in any measure to favour Popish Tradition, or to be a Rule of cor­recting Scrip [...]ure; for by this must hearts try, whether that be the same mind of Christ written in them as is in the Scrip­ture of God: which will be declared, where the Author urgeth that Scripture for his ends.

3. We shall expect howsoever, what certainty will accrue to Scriptures letter from his Tradition, in the place where he shall offer it; and there consider it.

6. In this Section he argueth against the 2d. thing proposed, which is Scriptures significativeness, Thus, Scriptures letter is uncer­tain; therefore, the certainty of Scriptures significativeness is quite lost therein. This he exemplifieth.

1. In the vulgar, they have no Arts, Grammar, Logick, &c. they are unable to compare places, and want Principles to set­tle their Judgments therein.

[Page 91]2. In the wits of Protestants and Socini­ans clash [...]ng against each other with Scrip­ture, about the great points of the B. Trini­ty and Christs Divinity. The weak vulgar cannot attain the sence of Scripture: The strong and learned do not, for they differ a­bout it: therefore Scriptures-letter is not certain in it self, and so cannot perform the office of the Rule of faith, to guide Man­kind in their way to Faith, with a rational assuredness.

In short to all this.

1. We deny the Antecedent, and have proved the contrary, even the certainty of Scriptures-letter under the good hand of God, given and continued untill now de Facto, and which the same Providence will keep in being and duration: there­fore the Consequence is false, Scriptures significativeness is not lost upon that ac­count.

2. As to the vulgar they have reasona­ble souls, and thence natural Logick, which God required them to exercise for understanding his Law written; and deli­vered unto them; unto which all that Mankind may attain through grace, and be saved by it, who do diligently attend on such Revelations of God; though they have no Arts or skils: as captiously are required by the Discourser: God requires not these but the former.

3. As to the clashing of witts among [Page 92] the Orthodox and Socinians: one by Scripture affirming, and the other deny­ing the Trinity, or Deity of Christ, This concludes not uncertainty in the Scrip­tures letter or sense; but infirmity, or worse, iniquity in men, who pervert the plain written word of God. St. Paul ac­cording to the wisedome given to him wrote to the Hebrews; yet many unsta­ble and unlearned, untaught of God, wrested his Epistles, as they did other Scriptures unto their own destruction. Were his Epistles or the Scriptures any whit the more uncertain in their letters or sense because of their perverse abuse of them? The Disputer dares not say so; and then let him answer himself.

4. These things being clear we infer, Scripture in letter and sence, is certain in its self, and so ascertainable to us, and therefore can perform the office of the Rule of Faith, to guide men in the true way of Faith, with a rational assuredness, who do sincerely and knowingly resign themselves to be ruled by it.

In fine to this Discourse we remind the Author still, We maintain not the Scrip­ture-letter barely to be the Rule of Faith; but the Scr pture spirited and senced by God. This is the Protest [...]nt Confe [...]sion: We therefore close with this Counter-Con­clusion general against that of the Discour­ser, which he layeth against Scripture. [Page 93] The Scripture of God in its integrity wants none of the forementioned properties belonging to the Rule of Faith.

7. In this last Section he dischargeth these two things.

1. An Apologie for himself, to keep him from being mistaken, as if in these Discourses he were an Enemy to Scripture; He telleth us therefore, that in a great part, he doth but argue as to man.

2. He declares also, that he acknowledg­eth such Excellencies in those sacred Ora­cles, as would task the tongue of men and Angels to lay them forth: And in short that he contests with them only, who main­tain Scriptures-letter to be the Rule of Faith: which he supposeth is warranted by the A­postles and their Successors, who went not with books in their hands to preach and de­liver Christs Doctrine, but with words in their mouths, &c.

Unto this briefly we return.

1. Arguing against Truth only, as to man, will not render any excusable or g [...]iltless, when all the while he cordially disputes against God in his written word, which is true and Faithful.

2. As for the Reverence he bears to those sacred Oracles, it is by his own con­fession in another place with this proviso, that they be senced by his Tradition: otherwise he concludes them to be no words of God. And is not this great ho­nour [Page 94] done to the Scripture, that mans Tradition should make it Divine Truth?

3. He professeth to contest with none but such as hold Scriptures-letter only unsenced to be the Rule of Faith: And who are they? Surely they are no Pro­testants: Let him not therefore falsly charge them.

4. The instance of the Apostles will not help him; For though they went not with books in their hands to preach, yet both Christ himself read a written Text out of the Prophet Isaiah, Luk. 4.17.18, 19, 20. [...]1. Acts 2, 16, [...]5. and preached on it; And the Apostles also themselves urge constantly the writings of the Pro­phets to make good their Doctrine of Christ: So that they were no Enemies to the right use of Scriptures-letter; Nei­ther are we. It had been to better pur­pose, if the Discourser had brought this Example to his own Priests and P [...]elates with other idle Droans, to teach them to preach without book; and in that rational convincing way as the Apostles did: But this would spoil his Popish Cause.

2. The next thing in his close is a Cri­mination of others, whom he stileth Re­volters (suppose from his Tradition to the Scripture): These he saith put the Scriptures into the peoples hand to please them, and leave it to their Interpretation: So it is brought to the vilest contempt: This makes so many Sects in this our miserable Country, [Page 95] Country, that it is impossible to bring them under Ecclesistical or Temporal Government; and in sum, this Principle that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith is the necessary Parent of such ruinous and unredressable disorders.

Here we have his Reverend thoughts of the Scripture, where his venom is dis­gorged against the word of God, and the Assertours of it: But it is a most un­true and malitious charge, whereunto it were answer abundantly sufficient, only to say, The Lord rebuke thee Satan: But yet we shall adde some things by way of reply in the words of soberness and Truth.

1. It is no Revolt from lying Tradition to the Truth of God in Scripture, but a Conversion from Idols unto God.

2. Scripture is the gift of God to his people, and Protestants dare not deny it to, or take it from, them; (as the Papal Powers exalting themselves above God most Antichristianly do) yet is it not left to every ones vain and private Interpreta­tion: This is slanderous.

3. Scripture being the Rule of Faith, wherever it ruleth, maketh souls most or­derly and exactly obedient to Civil, and True Church-Government. It doth indeed oppugne the Tyrannical Hierarchy of Rome, and every thing that exalts it self against God: but it makes souls obedient to Pow­ers [Page 96] ordained of God and that for Con­science sake. This soul reproach the Au­thors fore-fathers have charged on the Scripture, and he walketh in their steps: We shall only retort thus much in ex­perienced Truth, that both France and England have felt the sad and deadly E­vents of their Traditionary Jesuitical Do­ctrine, which the Scriptures of God and the lovers of them abhorre. We con­clude then Scriptures Rule of Faith is no Parent of ruinous and unredresseable dis­orders, but of the sweetest order, which followed, would work out most perfect peace in the Church and in the world:Isai. 11.6, 7, 8, 9. The wolf would dwell with the lamb &c. Righteousness and Peace would then kisse each other, yea and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth. This is Scriptures Honour, the Rule of our Faith. We shall now hear what he can say for his Tradition.

THE Fifth Discourse EXAMINED. About Traditions, Notion, &c.

THis whole discourse contains two Heads.

1. The opening of the Notion of Tradi­tion. Ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6. 2. The apply­ing of the premised Properties of the Rule unto Tradition and the conclusion from the whole. 1. Of the opening the term.

1. In the Entrance the Discourser profes­seth, that he had quite lost his labour in his former search for the Properties of the Rule of Faith in Scripture: Therefore, he will see, whether better hope may be to find them in his Oral or Practical Tradition, by which he meaneth, a delivery down from hand to hand of the Sence and Faith of Fore-fathers. Sect. 1.

To this, 1. We maintain, though, the Disputer have quite lost his labour (which he is willing to do) yet we have not lost ours in proving Scriptures All suf­ficiency, [Page 98] to be the Rule of Faith; and dis­proving his frivolous and fallacious Excep­tions against it,—

2. We take his meaning, That Oral-Tradition, is a Delivery down from hand to hand, that is, by word and visible Acti­on of the sence and faith of his Fore-fa­thers: Where yet we note that the mat­ter delivered by word is part of h [...]s mea­ning; for it is the delivery of such a thing even sence and faith of Fore-fathers.

2. In the next Section, he illustrates his meaning of Tradition by a more express conceit of it in the nurturing of Children as to the knowledge of Natural, Civil, and Artificial things, S. 2.

All which without reiterating we easily grant; though it will not in all things fit so wel [...] to the conveying down of Faith as we may find hereafter.

3. In this Section, he saith, there wants nothing but to apply the same Method to spi­ritual affairs, and then may be gained a com­pleat and proper notion of Faith, Tradi­tion, S. 3.

We shall therefore observe how we ap­ply it; if justly, we shall join issue, if not we shall declare our reasonable dissent, and shew the disproportion, which is not little between Spiritual and Natural things as to the knowledge of them.

4. He applyeth this to Christians Chil­dren, and observeth.

[Page 99]1. They hear sounds, and have dim noti­ons of God, Christ, Saviour, Heaven, and Hell &c. Afterward according to capacities they are put upon some External Actions, deterred from sin, taught virtue; and to do some duties of prayer, &c. They learn the Commandements, Creed, &c. And by con­versing with Fore-fathers, they come to more knowledge: Then they atise a swarm of the same Religion, hold [...]ng the same points with the former Age: And this comes on not by leaps from 100 years to a 100. but from mouth to mouth, and day to day, as young Eaglets made to see the sun by de­grees in his full glory, &c. So these proceed from perceiving the dawning to be acquain­ted with the common day-light of Christian Doctrine, S. 4.

Whereunto, 1. We grant this to be a rational and natural help to bring up po­sterity to the knowledge and Faith of Christ and a means commanded.

2. Yet we say also, that by the same means from Fathers to Children is deli­vered down all false, superstitious, Idola­trous Religion and all ungodliness and Profaneness. So that it is not peculiar to convey Faith.

3. We except further, that this Oral-Tradition, is not hereupon the Rule of Faith, (which the Disputer is to prove) but only a partial help or means to nur­ture up Children from their infancy to­ward [Page 100] the knowledge of it, which is the will of God only, revealed in the Scrip­ture.

4. We animadvert that all this is only able to guide unto the external profession of Faith, but not without Grace to make true beleevers.

5. He proceeds to prove this a real Truth; from the practise of the Primitive Faithful, before the books of Scripture were writ: and from the first imbuing of Prote­st [...]nts with Christian Principles: Nay he affirms that the very Presbyterians, much more the Protestants do adhere to their Faith, because their Parents and Pastors taught them: and not upon the Ev [...]dence of Scriptures letter, He casts in the next place some reflexions on persons, and con­cludes, that the Protestants owe all their union and strength to Tradition; and all their distractions and weakness to the re­nouncing of it, S. 5.

In short to this, 1. By Primitive faith­ful, we suppose he means Primitive Chri­stians in and immediately after Christs and the Apostles times; Had not these the Scriptures of the Prophets in that time? Did not they teach their Children from those Scriptures? was not Timothy taught those holy Scriptures? and was he not made wise by them unto salvation? they were not then before all Scripture was extant, nay some of the Churches then, [Page 101] had Epistles written from the Apostles: It seemeth this was not narrowly heeded by the Discourser.

2. No Protestants ever denied the ne­cessary use of Tradition of Truth unto po­sterity, but assert it as a duty Comman­ded by God upon Parents to their Chil­dren to bring them unto Faith in the Revelation of God: and acknowledge, that they were at first so imbued with the Elements of true Christian Religion.

3, Yet all true Protestants grown up to knowledge deny, that they adhere to the faith of Christ upon this account, be­cause their Parents and Pastors taught them, but because now they find it to be indeed the true revealed will of God in his written word: of the truth whereof not their own private Interpretation; but the powerful wo [...]k of Gods spirit by it upon their hearts perswadeth them.

4 It is something strange that this Disputer shoul [...] make Presbyterians and Protestants contradistinct members; unless he account the Episcopal order Protestants, and the Presbyterian scarce so much; and so cast in a bone of Contention between them: which savours not of Ingenuity. He cannot be ignorant that several of the Protestant Churches embrace Presbyterian Government; And however others are un­der other forms, yet have they equally contended for the Protestant Faith against [Page 102] Popish Errors: which doubtless they will do still.

5. It is a most unhandsome reflexion, upon those Persons whom he nameth, meerly to cast an odium on them, or ren­der them more suspicious than others; when he desires from his Answerer more civil usage toward himself. He may re­ceive a mark also.

6. The Protestants do owe their un [...]on and strength to God only, and to their stedfastness in one Scripture-Truth. Their Distractions and their we [...]kness, they own unto sins among them: and specially to those who forsake the simplicity and unity of Gospel-written Truth to cleave unto the vain and unsavory Traditions of men. No more to this, but only a desire, that the Discourser would resolve this question, why are there so many Sects, orders, and di­stractions among the Papists, if Tradition be such a soveraign Cure, and all of them are professed subjects thereunto?

6. The nature of his Tradition being thus explained, it renders, as he saith, ma­ny objections unnecessary to be answered or mentioned.

1. That this Tradition may come from a kind of Prophetical Afflatus or Inspiration; it is only built upon perfect Evidence of their best senses.

2, That Protestants have taken a wrong aim, to dispute against Res traditae, the [Page 103] things delivered, and so accuse Papists for holding humane Traditions, or things inven­ted by men for faith: whereas when they speak of the Rule of Faith they mean by the word Tradition, only the Method of pub­lickly delivering and conveying down Tenets held to have come from Christ. S. 6. This is the sum of the first Head for opening Tra­dition.

We perceive not yet, that Tradition explained by the Author rendreth many or any objections unnecessary to be answered or mentioned; whatever conceit he may have of his own Explanation; for it no way cleareth those two, which he himself here suggesteth. It is requisite therefore to ponder what he saith.

1. Cannot his Tradition explained be truly charged to slow from some kind of Prophetical Afflatus or slashes of preten­ded Inspiration, because it is built upon perfect Evidence of their best senses? may not senses even the best be deluded? yea and be so bewitched by the Devil to be­leeve lies? We must therefore, seeing he hath started it, deal with him about this objection, against his Tradition.

2. We take it for granted, notwith­standing his touch [...]ng upon natural Tradi­tion, his scope is to transfer all to his Po­pish Tradition, for which he only contends in all his discourses; when he speaks of the doctrine of Christ uninterruptedly de­livered [Page 104] to his Romish Church thereby: and hereupon owns himself and Papists to be Traditionary Christians. But for him to argue from Tradition general to his own in special or from one kind of Tradition in the Church which is true, to another which is false, it is but fallacious, and will not be allowed him; we see him better, than to be so cheated by him.

3. We shall suggest unto him that ever since God had a Church in this world vi­sible, there were therein, A seed after the flesh, and a seed after the Spirit. So it was between Cain and Seth in Adams fa­mily. Now doubtless Cain by Tradition taught his Children his Faith of God, which made them Apostates from the Truth: and no less did Seth teach his Poster [...]ty by Tradition his Faith in God; and there­by kept them to the true faith untill they mingled with the children of men and were corrupted so farre, that God took them away by the flood. Yet both these received their respective Traditions, upon the perfect Evidence of the best senses they had. Evidence of sense then, that this was delivered to them as from God, did not secure any of them from being deceived, but some higher power of the Lord guided the true seed in his way. So it was in Noahs Family. So in Abrahams, and so along unto Moses, and from him to Christ; who contended against the Phari­sees [Page 105] in the days of his Flesh, for nulling the written commands of God by their Tradition.

4. To come neerer to him; after Christs ascending to glory, and the Apostles then surviving, there arose two parties in the Christian Church visible; The one sprung from the Mysterie of Godliness God ma­nifest in the flesh:1 Tim. 3.15.6. 2 Thes. 2. The other spawned from the Mysterie of Iniquity. These both professed Christ, and doubtless by word of mouth taught him to their Children and Disciples; but the one purely and sincerely as the truth was in Jesus; and the other corruptly with those lyes and falsehoods which turned away many from the true faith of Christ, even in those times: and yet both these Disciples recei­ved what was delivered of Christ unto them upon perfect Evidence of their best senses; but the one with sense and reason inlightned by Gods spirit; and the other with senses, the best they had, but fasci­nated by the Devil, to beleeve lyes, be­cause they loved not the Truth.

5. To draw a little closer to him, we may thus put him to it: If his Popish Tradition did indesectively issue from the Church in the Apostles time, was it from them that issued from, and contended for the Mysterie of God [...]iness? or from them, who took their rise from the Mystery of Iniquity, and wrought under i [...]? The first [Page 106] we deny; for Tradition meerly Popish, is but from corrupt sences of men, added to the simple Truth of Jesus which he abhors, as Peters Prelacy, The Popes succession of him, the introducing of other Mediators, besides the Son o [...] God, who is the only way to the Father; none of these came from Christ or his Apostles. The second is justly charged on them, that Popish Tradition is the great Apostasie from the Mysterie of Godliness; and so the design of perfecting the Mysterie of Iniquity in these latter daies: turning souls from the true Faith of Christ, unto lying vanities, and that by the hypocrisie of their Fore­fathers telling lyes unto their Children. This is strongly made good aga [...]nst the Papal Sea, by many Witnesses of Gods Truth, and specially by that Renowned Mr. Mead, in his book of the Apostasie of the latter times, from that Prophesie, 1 Tim. 4, 1, 2, 3. And by the learned Dr. Moor in his Treatise of the Mysterie of Iniquity 2 Thes. 2, 3, 4, 7. The Dis­courser and his Confederates have need to clear themselves from this charge: But if not (as none could do yet) the objection stands in more force notwithstanding h [...]s Tradition explained, that some kind of Diabolically Prophetical Asslatus, is the Cause of his Trad tion, however they re­ce [...]ve it, as he boasts, upon perfect evi­dence of their best senses: For so they [Page 107] may embrace lyes, and yet take them to be Truth.

2. He supposeth, that by his explaining the notion of his Tradition, he hath at once dasht all the objections of the Protestants against Popish Tradition; for he saith, they took all a wrong aim, to dispute against things delivered by Oral speech, in stead of Tra­dition it self, which is only the Method of delivering down publickly the Tenets held to come from Christ: So they have all mista­ken the Papists meaning in the controver­sie about Tradition, and all their batteries have missed the mark.

Silly Protestants! Had they no more wit all along but to mistake the question? nay simple Jesuits! Could not they see their mistakes in all their Combats with them; and tell them they shot besides the mark? Surely this Discourser is more quick sighted to perceive this error at this day, than all his Fore-fathers. But let us use our eies also, to see this mistake if we can, or else let this Disputer see, that even in this matter he himself is mistaken.

1. Have not the Protestants alwaies in the Controversie with Papists about Traditions being the Rule of Faith, di­stinguished between the Form and Me­thod of Tradition by speech, and the mat­ter of Tradition delivered? Nay and as they have distinguished so they have de­termined; [Page 108] that as to the way of delive­ring Christs Doctrine by Oral Tradition, Catholici in hoc toto negotio di­stinguen­dum putant inter res quae tra­duntur in Ecclesia et rationem e­arum tra­dendarum. &c. Panst. To. 1. 8. c. 1. S. 18. Rationem rerum tra­dendarum duplic [...]m esse agros­cimus: vel per Scrip­turam sa­cram &c. vel per quotidia­nam in­structionem ibid. S. 19. they granted it to be a special means of conveying down Truth and bringing unto Faith; though not the only one, but joint with the Scriptures of God being confor­med to them, yea and subject to be tried by them. Hear the words of one Souldi­er of Christ, Chamier. In this whole business) Catholicks (truly so called even Protestantss think it must be distinguished between things which are delivered in the Church, and the course or manner of delivering them. And further, the form of delivering we ac­knowledge twofold, either by the Holy Scrip­ture, or by daily instruction; which is oral-Tradition. This and much more to this purpose doth this Protestant Souldier ex­press. And no less the Churches of them, who are not offended with the name or use of Tradition rightly stated; He did not therefore take wrong aim; no more do the rest.

2. Let the Discourser speak out yet; Doth he maintain Tradition only as O­ral speech to be the Rule of Faith, with­out the sence or matter delivered in it? Let him take his aiery Rule then which is but a senceless sound: But he tells us, that his Tradition is the method of deli­vering down Tenets held to come from Christ; Are not these Res Traditae? a­gainst which while we dispute, he saith [Page 109] we mistake the mark; And doth not he deliver these things all along in his Dis­course, for Tradition to be the Rule of Faith? Let him reconcile himself: and not pretend to vent some new thing to the world, for defense of his Popish cause, seeing he saith no more, than what his Fathers have said before him, when they maintained the unwritten word of God, which was Tradition in matter and form, to be their Rule of Faith. The Prote­stants then mistook not in charging them to hold humane Tradition for Faith, or things invented by men.

3. The Explication of Tradition by the Author proveth not any mistake of Pro­testants in their disputes, neither wea­kens their objections against Popish Tra­dition. In sum to shut up this head; If the Discourser aim only to prove the ne­cessity of giving down the doctrine of Christ by Oral-Tradition, we join issue and grant it to be a good means to bring to the Faith of the Gospel: but not the only me ns, nor independent upon any other, but such as must convey the same will of Christ contained in the Scriptures, and ought to be tried by them. Yet still do we deny it to be the Rule of Faith, which alone is the will of God, revea­led in Scripture; and thence opened, and delivered down by teaching to the Sons of men.

[Page 110]2. After his Explication of the meaning of Tradition, he proceeds to apply the pro­perties of the Rule of Faith unto it in the fol­lowing Sections.

1. In the 7th. Sect. he saith, that to be be Evident to all as to its Existence (which is the first Property) absolutely agrees to Tra­dition: For this conveying Practical doctrines by best Senses, as Eies and Ears, and that by sounds daily heard, and Actions seen, is as Evident to all sorts as to its Existence, as to see and hear: So it may be insinuated into Vulgar and Children and Babes in some de­gree to affect them therewith.

1. We would understand what the Dis­courser means by this Properties absolute­ly agreeing to Tradition; If he mean Con­vertibly so that it agreeth to nothing else, we deny it: but if he mean only that it plainly or simply agreeth to it, we grant it; Vocal sounds are Ev [...]dent to their Ex­istence: So are letters and writing also unto such subjects as are capable of them.

2. We grant that Oral-Tradition doth reach more ages and capacities than Scripture doth, therefore hath God com­manded it to be used to our Children, as they may become capable of hearing, and observing: but still do we bind up this method to the matter, that is imported and conveid in it; that it be consonant to Gods revealed will in Scripture; and that [Page 111] reading also as well as hearing is as use­ful and necessary for subjects capable, to bring them to know Christs Doctrine.

3. We demand of him, whether practical doctrines conveied by this Tradition, be not Res Traditae, that is, matters delive­red in this method? He cannot deny it? How then can he charge us with mistake, when we grant the method agreeable to Gods will for conveying his Truth, but deny their doctrins to be Christs which they give down this way. Popish Tra­dition in form and matter is peccant.

4. We deny, that his common vulgar children, and much more Babes, are af­fected with the Practical doctrines pro­nounced although they hear the sound of words: It would be a rare thing to shew such Babes as are affected with Doctrine: Many may hear the voice, and yet not receive the Doctrine, who are more capa­ble then his Vulgar are.

5. Suppose these sounds may affect these persons, yet they are but only means to bring to Faith, not the Rule of it, which is the Discoursers task to make good. Therefore this Tradition may have Evi­dence as to the Ex [...]stence of means, not of the Rule of Faith, which is not to his pretended purpose. His own first Pro­perty then is not so absolutely agreeable to his professed Rule of Faith.

[Page 112]2. In S. 8. He applyeth his 2d. Property of the Rule to his Tradition, which is, That its ruling Power should be easily Evidencea­ble to any Enquirer. This he illustrates to any rude Doubter by instancing in Prote­stants, that if they in successive generations, should by speech deliver down to their chil­dren their professed faith, and these succes­sively receive it, they must all be Prote­stants; This Tradition would have such e­vident ruling Power over them. This me­thod then is easily Evidenceable to be the certain way of deriving down Christs Do­ctrine while the world shall last. This pro­perty therefore of the Rule of Faith agree­eth to Tradition.

Our Reply is 1. That the instance gi­ven holdeth forth only the Evidence of the ruling power of the means or method of bringing to Faith, and to walk by the true Rule of Faith; not of the Rule of Faith it self: Such is Oral-Tradition of the Truth and no more.

2. Neither is this a Reciprocal Property of the means to Faith. For it agree [...]h as well to help on and convey down all false Religion, as well as true; So Mahome­tan Tradition helps on to give down the Faith of Mahomet: and Popish Traditi­on to convey Popery to their Posterity; which is faith, Papal, Idolatrical, and A­postate from Christ Jesus, the only Me­diator between God and Man: This way [Page 113] also Protestants convey their Principles unto their Children, which are the writ­ten Truths of God, or Christs true Do­ctrine. If therefore this Property agree to all Tradition; and not to that only which giveth out the knowledge of Christ; It is not worthy of the name of a Property, either of the means or Rule of faith, being common to all other things.

3. Further we except, that bare Oral-Tradition, is not so much as a means to bring to faith of It self, but as it carrieth in it the Principles and Doctrine of Christ and therewith indeed it may bring to the knowledge of Christ. So that this is Res Tradita or the thing delivered, with­out which Tradition cannot be so much as the means to bring to the faith of Christ. Concerning which this Disputer warneth us, that we mistake, if we aim at the mat­ter of his Tradition. We grant Tradition by word of mouth to be a special way to faith, but no further then as it conveyeth the Truth of Christ. The Method with­out the matter is a vain found.

4. As the Ruling Power of Tradition, It may be natural and de Facto; So Tra­dition of falsehood may have actually a delusive power to lead to lies: Or it may be Divine and de jure, which is reciprocal with the Tradition of Truth; This indeed hath a Ruling Power from God to com­mand Faith, and souls are bound to be [Page 114] obedient to it. But Popish Tradition hath no such Ruling Power; much less is it evident or evidenceable to any reasonable Enquirer; The Disputer therefore con­cludes falsely and fallaciously, that this Property evidently agreeth to his Popish Tradition, because it agreeth to some o­ther kind of Tradition of Gods Truth contradistinct to that. He must therefore reason better to gain Credit to his Rule.

3. In the 9th and 10th Ss. he proceeds to apply his third Property of the Rule of Faith unto Tradition, which is, That it is apt to justifie unreflecting and undoubting per­sons, that they proceed rationally while they re­lye upon it: This he saith is found exactly in Tradition.

Concerning this we assert No Rule can justifie them as rationally proceeding in their relying on it, who irregularly use it, though it be the truest. Now that men should take any thing upon trust without reflecting on the matter delivered, or doubting of it in the least measure, whe­ther from Oral or Scriptural Tradition, es­specially in matters of faith unto salvation, is unreasonable and brutish. For it is ne­cessary for reasonable Creatures both to reflect, and question matters of serious con­cernment, (among which the matters of salvation are the greatest) before they beleeve them: whoever do otherwise, do [Page 115] foolishly; neither are they justifiable in relying presumptuously on the best of Rules. No Tradition of Truth therefore doth actually or can justifie such kind of irregular believers. If Popish Tradition can do it, for which the Author pleads, it must be a Rule like themselves; and so Folly may justifie folly among the Pa­pists; but otherwise it cannot justifie them before God or Men.

Yet he goeth on to prove it and to re­move objections against it.

1. It is madness (as he saith) not to be­leeve great multitudes of knowers, if no po­ssible reason be to doubt, that they con­spire to deceive us. Now in his way of Tradition, all Deliverers or immediate Fore-fathers are knowers: As they who immedi­ately heard the Apostles who were taught and practised all requisite knowledge: of which it is impossible the rudest person should be ignorant, whoever had any effect of such a teaching wrought upon him, &c. in S. 9.

We reply 1. We beleeve, that who­ever had the saving Effect from the A­postles teaching wrought upon them, had all requisite knowledge to salvation, and accordingly practis'd it all their lives.

2. Yet all who heard the Apostles preach, were not such knowers, neither such practisers of their doctrine; but ma­ny turned Apostates and made shipwrack [Page 116] of Faith and a good Conscience; of which n their times they all complained, while the Mysterie of Iniquity was work­ing. 1 Joh. 2.19.

3. Such multitudes of knowers, as they professed to be, it is no madness to sus­pect, that they were deceived, and so to make their party stronger, might and did consp [...]re to deceive:2 Cor. 11.3. If it be madness, the Apostle was so mad, as to call them de­ce tful workers, and their number was not small, as is apparent: Gods true number was the least. But could all these num­bers justifie any who without reflecting, or inquiring, or reasonably doubting, did rely on their word? we suppose none so w [...]ld as to affirm it. Reason will try be­fore it trust.1 Thes. 5.21. And such beleevers who up­on due trial, receive and hold fast that wh [...]ch is true and good, are justified by God himself.Joh. 1.46, 47. Hereupon Nathaniel was commended by Christ h [...]mself, to be an Israelite indeed: when other hasty and unreflecting hearers are rejected by him.

4. We assert there is not only possi­ble, but probable consideration to awa­ken in our reason a doubt, that multitudes may conspire to deceive; that they d d so under the Mysterie of Iniquity in the Apostles time; and in carry [...]ng on that de­sign of Satan in after ages, as Histories do declare, and the sad Effects of it do de­monstrate to us at this day.

[Page 117]5. We deny that in the way of his Tra­dition, all Deliverers or immediate Fore-fathers were knowers; neither did they all hear the Apostles and obey them as is pretended: And if a judgment may be made by their succeeding and surviving seed, the Popish Fore-fathers were rude and ignorant enough. Let the Body there­fore of these Popish [...]radition-Deliverers, be never so considerable for number, they are inconsiderable for weight or worth.

6. We also charitably judge that Pa­rents may be apt to teach their Children, what they have been taught themselves to be good and true and needful to Eter­nal salvation; and that they would not purposely destroy them: yet this knowing­ly we say, that Parents carried by the strength of delusion themselves, may and do actually lead their Children to perdi­tion which they seem to abhor.

7. We conclude, as to that which the Discourser studieth here to evince, That Fore-fathers delivering down the Truth of Christ to Children, were a good help to bring them to Faith; but their Tra­dition was no Rule of their Faith, when it came to Act: but the will of God re­vealed. Yet we deny that hence it fol­lows, all Tradition is of a certain kind of nature to bring souls to the Faith of Christ much less Popish Tradition, which in most things seduceth souls from h m, and for [Page 118] this alone the Disputer here contends. In all which returns our brains rove not wildly, neither are unsettled to any de­gree of madness, but we have spoken the words of soberness and Truth: or if we be herein reputed to be besides our selves, it is for Christ and his Scr [...]ptures sake, against false Tradition. As for what the Discourser imposeth on us, that we must not suspect deceit among his multitudes unanimously agreeing in their Testimony about matter of Fact, We do not contend with him about matter of Fact. We yeeld that the multitude of his Fore-fathers did give out Tradition to their Posterity; but we strive about matters of Faith, and deny, that in their Traditions they did teach their children the true faith of Christ. And notwithstanding their po­stures and gestures, that they look seri­ously, when then speak, act themselves, and practise accordingly, and shew in the whole course of their Conversation, that they hope to be saved &c. We say the greatest False-Prophets, false Apostles, Idolaters, and superstitious ones have done the like in outw [...]rd professi [...]ns of God and h [...]s Christ; when their hearts have been farre remote from the Truth. No trust is to be given either to the looks or to the garb of Protestants or Papists: These things are weak to move wise men or argue men mad, [...]ronti nul­lo fidei. who suspect hypocrisie in them.

[Page 119]2. He moveth an objection against this justifying Power of Tradition, which he at­tempts to answer in S. 10. It is objected thus: Multitudes of plain honest meaning souls are as much justifiable for beleeving Scripture, therefore this property belongs not only to Tradition. His answer is, that they cannot be so much justifiable, setting aside Traditions help; For without this, the sence totally depends upon the Judgments, Fancies or skils of men; which they are un­qualified to judge of, not upon the open verdict of sense and sensations, which is cer­tain. This he illustrates by the proceedings of a Jury of the plainest high shooes in mat­ter of Fact: and by the common course of the vulgar, in believing there were such a one as King James, and Queen Elizabeth, of which Tradition ascertains them, and not the Authority of any Statute-book &c. whence he concludes the 3d condition of the Rule of Faith, is manifestly found agree­ing to Tradition.

We return to all this that the objection stands in force, notwithstanding his pre­tended answer to it; For the demonstra­tion whereof, we shall reply unto parti­culars.

1. We have already proved that Scrip­ture can and will justifie all them who re­gularly rely upon it as a Rule of Faith, that is, such as upon due and serious consi­deration of it, and a due reception of the [Page 120] will of God in it, do resign themselves to be guided by it: God will justifie such reliers on Scripture-Tradition: but none that foolishly, unreflect [...]ngly, and un­doubt [...]ngly pretend to cast themselves upon it, for this is rash presumption.

2. We deny not the help of true and Faithful Tradition, to shew us that the Scripture is the true word of God; but yet this Tradition, we acknowledge not needful to give us its sence, neither want we Popish Trad [...]tion at all. The B [...]ble is sufficiently known.

3. We say aga [...]n, that the sence of Scripture is insp red of God; and so in­nate; as all propositions uttered by men carry their sence in them: speaking or preaching may hold out that sence, but it giveth none to the propositions of Gods Truth

4. Faith depending on this sence, is not relying on the judgments, Fancies or skils of men; but upon the plain revelation of God, in matters of salvation: And eve­ry man is bound to exercise his reason, and grow to such abilities that he may d scern between Truth and falshood. Hereunto the most Vulgar should labour to attain; but spiritual sluggishness in themselves, and carelesness in their guides and teachers, causeth most to sit down in ignorance, and please themselves in pre­suming on mercy, especially when they [Page 121] are taught that ignorance is the mother of Devotion. These are not justifiable by Scripture, nor by Tradition: but other se­rious souls are justified by God, however condemned by this Disputer.

5. Senses and sensations are not qua­drate means to take in Faith. These may judge of sights and sounds, but not of spiritual matters conveyed by them. The best understanding is required to re­ceive in these things, and that not only natural but Spiritual, which alone can receive these great things of God. Such beleevers than are not justifiable, who take in nothing of God but by their Sen­ses and sensations. There is no proporti­on between these and faith; much less certainty of their reception of it: upon whose verdict yet in these matters the Discourser placeth his greatest stress and assuredness.

6. As to his Illustrations they blind the matters in hand, but give no light to them.

1. His Jury of plain High-shooes judge only of matter of Fact by the sight of six witnesses; and yet they must proceed according to the Law too: but we are contending of matters of Faith, whereof sense is no judge.

2. His application is no way fit; when he saith, take away Tradition, (which he meaneth Popish) and all ground for [Page 122] certain sence fails us, either for the mea­ning, or even Letter of Scripture. The letter of Scripture is evidently testified by Tra­dition faithful before Papal Rome was built, and as to the sence and meaning of Scrip­ture it is inspired, and self evidencing to faithful humble and industrious souls search­ing therein without help of his Tradition.

3. As to his Method of knowing, that there were such a one as King James and Queen Elizabeth; we grant that by Tra­dition the rudest may come to know there were such persons; without troubling them with statute-books. Yet suppose that Statute-books make no mention of any such King or Queen, or that History should not only be silent of them, but te­stifie that there were no such persons: wise men would stagger at it, and not believe you, however your vulgar Tradition give it out. Let us truly bring this home to our Case. The Discourser saith, that his Popish Tradition bringeth down the Faith of Christ: The Scripture (which neither he, nor his Fathers durst deny to be the word of God) is not only silent of many points which he calls Faith; but expresly contradicts them, what wise man will be­lieve his Tradition-Oral against Tradition Scriptural in these matters of Faith? His third Condition then agreeth not to his Tradition.

[Page 123]4. He advanceth his strength to make good his sixth Condition, and in doing this, he will evidently prove the fourth, fifth, and seventh also agreeing to his Tradi­tion, in the 11th. 12th. 13th. 14th. Ss. We shall hear and try.

1. In Ss. 11. he layeth down some premi­ses, and from them concludeth. His Ar­gument intire and rightly formed is this. What is built on Immoveable grounds, or is certain in it self, hath in it wherewith to settle or satisfie the most piercing wits, convince the most obstinate Adversaries, and to ascertain us absolutely: but Scripture is not, and Tradi­tion is built on such certain grounds &c. Therefore to this and not to that agree, those conditions. Other passages intervene be­tween the premises and conclusion, deser­ving animadversion.

In this Argument. 1. We grant the Proposition as universally stated.

2. We deny the assumption concern­ing Tradition, whether universally, or par­ticularly taken; For all Tradition is not built upon immoveable grounds, as all men know: Neither is Popish Tradition so certainly founded, for which the Dis­courser here only contends, however he hideth it under indefinite terms. Some Tradition we yeeld, is so built upon im­moveable Grounds; as Scriptural (which we have proved) and all that Oral-Tra­dition which is equivalent to it, and reci­procal [...] [Page 126] specially he seeks to charme.

3. They cannot therefore grant his Con­clusion for the certainty of his Popish Tra­dition to be sufficiently consequent.

2. He did foresee this, that more would be expected from him pretending to de­monstrate Traditions certainty: Therefore he attempts it from intrinsecal Mediums: His argument is thus formed: That which hath for its Basis the best nature in the universe, even Mans, the Flower and End of the Rest, must needs be certain. But Tradition (sup­pose Popish) hath for its Basis the best na­ture &c. therefore, This Tradition must needs be certain. To clear up his proposition, he doth specifie and commend this best nature of Man, by these considerations of him.

1. He is not in this place considered ac­cording to his Moral part, defectible by original sin.

2. Neither according to his Intellectuals darkly groping in the pursuit of science by reflected thoughts, &c.

3▪ But according to those faculties in him perfectly and necessarily subject to the ope­rations and stroaks of nature; that is, his Eies, Ears, &c. whence the direct impressi­ons of knowledge as naturally and necessa­rily issu [...] from the affecting of those Sen­ses, as [...] is to feel heat, cold, pain, &c. This is his first intrinsecal Medium to prove his Trad [...]tions certainty.

1. In the Examen of this Demonstra­tion, we deny both the Proposition, (For a Basis of the best nature created cannot give certainty unto faith for sal­vation) and the Assumption also, (For no Tradition especially Popish is foun­ded upon the best Nature) as will appear in the sequel. The conclusion then for Traditions certainty is not demonstrated from the premises. To clear the reason of our denial, we shall animadvert some things in the argument.

2. We must observe, that it is a very strange Man here presented, whose Na­ture is the best Basis for Faiths Tradition: How not considered in his Moral part? Not a Man of Morals, good or bad? what, nor a Man conceived in his Intellectuals, as Ʋnderstanding, or not understanding? Is it only then a Man of Sense? And is his sensitive nature the best in the uni­verse to be the foundation of Faiths cer­tainty by Tradition? How much doth this lift a Man above a Beast? Hear and consider ye noble Christian Ingenies; Is this a man for Faith?

3. We assert every man from Adam equally infected with Original Corrupti­on, not only in his Moral part and dispo­sition, (as the Discourser fixeth it) but also in his Intellectual and Sensitive Facul­ties; His reason, seeing, hearing, handling, &c. are all as defective by original sin, [Page 128] as his disposition to moral good, which, we suppose, he meaneth by his Moral part. If in one therefore he is defective or de­fectible, he is so in all: He hath not therefore the best nature in the universe, it being sinful.

4. We deny expresly that natures stroaks upon senses, can make direct impressions of knowledge unto Faith in any man: How many eies and ears, do receive sen­sible impressions by Scriptural and oral re­velation, and yet never come to the true apprehension of the doctrine of Christ?

This impression must be made by an Almighty arm, to make men beleeve. Yet we deny not, but that mans sense is helpful to his understanding in its mea­sure; therefore sights and sounds may be a good means to bring things heard and seen to the understanding: but matters of faith are proper objects of intellectual fa­culties, if we speak as men.

5. We judge it a brutish assertion, that the sound of the Oral Tradition of Christs Doctrine to eies, or ears, should make such impressions of knowledge naturally and necessarily, as the affecting of senses, to feel heat, cold, pain, pleasure, or any o­ther material quality: For these are pro­per to sense; but the matters of faith far above. Sense takes the sound not the Faith.

[Page 129]6. We conclude, that neither is mans nature now the best in the Un [...]verse since the fall; therefore not according to the Discoursers reason, a sufficient Basis for the Certainty of that Tradition, which by him is pretended to be the Rule of Faith. Man is the subject indeed of Faith in his fallen nature: But the Divine nature only is the Basis of his own will, which is truly the Rule of the Creatures faith in him, and through his grace the main impressing cause of the knowledge of his Christ up­on the souls of men, by means offered to sense and understanding for the effect­ing of the s [...]me. It is not M [...]n then but God, who is the true Basis of Traditions certainty, and Faiths infallibility. If this Argument therefore be from an intrinse­cal Medium, it concludes very weakly as to the Discoursers purpose.

7. We infer further, That (suppose mans nature in general were the best in the uni­verse,) yet the intire nature of man, can­not be either Basis or subject of Tradition Popish, unless all men naturally were Pa­pists or Popish men. It is true, that it is a property adaequate to Man in his genera­lity to speak, and give out from reason Oral-Tradition; but it is not so appropri­ated to Man as Man to spe [...]k, or give out Tradition of Remish Faith. Now this on­ly is the Disputers aim, to found Popish Tradition upon humane nature; But most [Page 130] miserably doth he m [...]stake the mark, and miscarry in his Demonstration: Seeing falshood as well as Truth, and infidelity as well as Faith, may claim that interest in mans nature, to be as he calleth it, the Basis of it; for all are alike delivered down to Posterity by Mans Oral Tra­dition: And mans nature is equally a Basis to all, if to any.

3. To strengthen this Medium, he adds the frequent impressions of knowledge upon sense, many times every day: Nay more their lives are to be framed by the Pre­cepts they hear, and conformable examples they see: So that Faith comes clad in such plain matters of Fact, that the most stupid man living cannot possibly be ignorant of it.

We must a little inquire into this pas­sage; for it seems very strange.

1. Is this Tradition (spoken of) sine re tradita, without matter delivered? unto such only the Discourser did pretend be­fore: Then it is a voice, and nothing else, that hath such effectual operation to­ward Faith; which is insipid and ridi­culous.

2. Is the reiteration of such a voice, (suppose) uttering precepts from God unto the sense of hearing 10000 times a day, able to impresse faith or knowledge there? Sense is not capable of it: nor mans voice able to effect it; they do but beat the air.

[Page 131]3. Are the lives of all the Traditiona­ry hearers and Seers conformed to precepts and examples, which they hear and see? or if not, Is it the duty of having their lives to be framed, sufficient to bring this Faith unto them, when it is not done? The Disputer (we suppose) will be asha­med to affirm either of them. And is not this also to consider man as to his Moral part, when his life is supposed to be conformed to precepts and Examples? which consideration of Man he exclu­ded before, as not pertinent to his demon­stration in the present Case.

4. Is Faith comming clad in matters of Fact, sufficient of it self to cause true down-right Christian practise, and influ­ence the most stupid Creatures with knowledge? If he affirm it, we deny it. The Arm of God only can do this.

5. Are the most stupid men living a­mong Papists under an impossibility of being ignorant of Faith, by having their senses, eies, and ears so often affected with their oral, and practical Tradition? The palpable ignorance of thousands of those sottish Creatures, contradict such an Asser­tion before the Sun: They may have know­ledge of grosse superstitions impressed on their senses that way, but not of true faith. And not only is it so with them; but to their shame also, may it be spoken, who among protestants, where they hear and [Page 132] see the true faith of Jesus preached and practised daily, do abide in multitudes ig­norant of the true faith of the Gospel. The Discoursers demonstration then is not firm for the certainty of his Tradition up­on this Basis; notwithstanding the most frequent reiteration of words and practise upon their senses.

4. He draweth us to compare, the cer­tainty each Christian Fore-father hath of what he hath practis'd all his life with that which a sworn witness in Court hath of what he saw and heard but once, thence to multiply, these thus-qualified witnesses, to equal the vast total of Christianity; and then to invent what force in natures universe is comparable to this inerrability of Tradition. Whence with very great confidence he concludes, that men must cease to be men, and nature loose it self, and by overstraining crack her sinews sooner, than the vast Testification called Tradition can possibly be violated. It must therefore unerringly regulate and bring down faith to its followers; whose Basis is stronger than all material nature, that is, such a one as was fit for supreme wisedome to lay for faith, being so neer and necessary means to bring Mankind to his Beatitude.

Great swelling words of vanity, here packt up together, do not scare us from a just reply to this pretended Auxiliary unto [Page 133] his former Demonstration▪ we do there­fore thus answer.

1. Upon comparing a Christian Fore-father with a sworn witness in Court, we find both alike subject to Error and obnoxious to mistakes; which is farr from inerrability avouched hence unto Traditi­on: For it is possible, that a sworn wit­ness may mistake in sight and hearing; and then his confident swearing maketh the matter worse. No lesse a Fore-father called Christian, although he be certain of what he hath practised, yet all the while may be mistaken in the matter of Faith, which is true and saving, and in­stead thereof imbrace lying vanities and fansies, and deliver down the same for faith unto his Children: neither of these enforce an Infallibility. We ought in­deed to give much credit to a man swea­ring in the fear of God, and to an honest Fore-father, testifying what he hath re­ceived truely from Christ and practised; but neither of these are inerrable, nor their Testimony infallible. And besides we have just cause to suspect, the Fore-fathers intended by the Discourser to be no such witnesses as these.

2. We will multiply these thus quali­fied witnesses according to the just Rule of their multiplication, that i [...], of them in their proper kind: Now if this Dis­sputer will speak out he must tell us, that [Page 134] the Fore-father Christian, which he men­tioned, must be a Papist, for no other Christianity doth he contend; therefore in multiplying as he desireth, it must be within the verge and compass of this Christianity, that we shall deal with him about a Testimony to his Tradition. We shall therefore to avoid all fallacious dea­lings in this matter, consider Tradition.

1. As humane and natural.

2. As truly Christian and spiritual with respect to the matters delivered.

3. As meerly Popish as to the mat­ters singly given down by them as Pa­pists; and so we shall determine the matter in these Propositions, as to multiplying.

1. We shall multiply witnesses quali­fied concerning humane natural things un­to the vast Total of Mankind, and we determine, that their continued Traditi­on in these matters within their sphere, may carry much certainty in many things, proved every day by experience: but yet not in all things, within the compass of Nature; neither for all this is this Tra­dition, which concerns all Mankind un­errable.

2. We will multiply the qualified wit­nesses of true Christian Doctrine descen­ded from Christ, unto the total of true Christianity, or of Christians indeed, be it great or small; and we conclude, that their Tradition, so farre as they follow [Page 135] Christ uninterruptedly is certain, as any can be in the universe; yet as men and in themselves are they not infallible: They are certain and so to be trusted as farre as Christ speaketh in them, which al­so must be tryed by the Scr [...]pture.

3. We shall multiply the Authors Po­pish Fore-fathers, whom he stileth Chri­stian, unto the vast Total of Papists; and then wi hout any labour of Invention, we deny all inerrability in their Tradition, which is the Rule of their Faith; and by comparing do assert, there is much more force within the compass of the Universe as to testifying to the Truth of Christ, than Romish Tradition, which is the mat­ter only intended by this Disputer, un­der the general notion of Tradition, where he hides his plot, Nay we again affirm, there is nothing else, but error and erra­bility in that Tradition pretended to come from Christ. So that hereby notwith­standing proud vain words, there is no fear of denying men to be men, nor of Natures cracking her sinews, by over­straining and loosing her self; the greatest danger is of proving Popish Tradition to be Delusion; and poor Papists to be de­ceived and misguided from the true faith of Christ, by their blind Fore-fathers, who about matters of Faith (which he com­mends) testifie by sense only.

[Page 136]3. We expresly deny, that ever the su­preme wisdome of the Almighty laid this Tradition as a Basis for Faith, or de [...]ermi­ned it as a means so near and necessary to bring Mankind to their Beatitude; how­ever the Discourser presumptuously say, that his Romish Trad [...]tion is such a one as was fit for supreme wisedome to say. Dares Rome fit a foundation of Faith for God to lay? She hath framed her own Tradition to convey her filthiness down; and here a Son of he [...]s judgeth it fit for God to lay it as a Basis of Faith. Yet how can this Disputer say, that his Traditions-foundation is stronger then all material na­ture, seeing he pitcheth it on mans sen­ses? which are most external, and belong mostly to his material part. Thus he is in and out. We acknowledge Divine wis­dome hath la [...]d himself only the Founda­tion of Faith in Christ Jesus, and hath ap­poin [...]ed true Scriptural and Oral-Tradition, as concurrent means to bring men to Faith, and to blessedness by it: and here we fix, desi [...]ing to walk in this way.

4. We conclude from all, that Popish Tr [...]dition is not able unerringly to regu­late its [...]ollowers, let them be never so exact, nor bring down true faith unto them; for it is not of God. The Discour­ser therefore, hath not acquitted himself of his undertaking to demonstrate the cer­tainty of his Tradition by intrinsecal me­diums. [Page 137] No such thing hath be done in the premises; Therefore his 6th Condi­tion is not made good by him; and then all the rest which he builds upon this, must fail by his own Concession. This is all the Demonstration, which hitherto he hath made; and indeed it is none at all to strengthen his Tradition; but he hath made it weaker, and exposed it to ruine by the least rational Batteries.

3. In pursuance yet of his design. S. 13. He will not neglect to remind us of the Evidenceableness of Traditions Ruling pow­er: That while the next Age beleeveth and practiseth as the former Age did, those of the latter Age are still of the same Faith with the former, as it is, that to believe the same, is to believe the same: Only he is Cautelous not to prove idem p [...]r idem, the same by the same.

We shall shortly return.

1. This would have been no wonder in this Discourser, who elsewhere runs round in a circle between his Church and his Tra­dition, proving them each by other, as Causes one of another.

2. We will not neglect to remind him also of the answer already given upon that account; which may be enough for him to review.

3. We shall only adde, that if the for­mer age do misbelieve, then they, who follow their Trad tion, must misbelieve [Page 138] also: So that Tradition is as sure a rule of error and misbelief, as it is of Faith and Truth; so long as it is taken by it self ab­stractly without the matter delivered in it. This is no singular property then for Tra­dition to be the Rule of Faith or means unto it, as he promiscuously calleth it. Where then appears yet the certainty of Tradition fit for the Rule of Faith? The Author therefore hath more to do, then to open terms and explicate the proposi­tion; for necessity lyeth on him to prove the certainty of his Tradition, which yet he hath not proved as to Faith.

4. In S. 14. He challengeth the most Sceptical Dissenter to muster all the Capri­choes of Pansie, &c. And the most obstinate and a [...]ute Adversaries to whet their wits to that degree of sharpness: as to be able to penetrate with n [...]ce dist [...]nctions &c. What can they say in this case? If they argue it must be from knowledge, this must be from things; the best thing is mans nature, and that is ingaged for the certainty of Tradi­tion: But their proper task is to loose two notions, which perfect Identity binds (sup­pose Certainty and Tradition) and to blun­der that Truth, which the noon-daies Sun of self-evidence discovers, &c.

If bold Bravadoes or daring words will do it, surely the Discourser will bear a­way the Bell, and level all to his own Tradition; It is well we know words are [Page 139] but wind, and so let them blow over. Our work is to search the bottom of the matter, and weigh his reason.

1. We may without offence inquire of this Discourser; Have his Scepticks no more but Caprichoes of fansie against his Tradition to suggest; and yet had they so many real and rational doubts against the Scripture of God? or, have the obstinate and acute Adversaries, not an Argument against his Tradition, but are put to such a strait as to loose those two notions, which perfect Identity binds; or all they can say must avail nothing? Or must we not complain, that the Disputer is parti­al? who could put so many doubts and objections into their mouths against the Scripture; and not one against his Tra­dition. We leave it to his Ingenuity to consider: It is no fair dealing.

2. Let us therefore suppose his Scep­tick and obstinate Adversary urging thus against his Tradition, which possibly he may hear.

1. The one moveth his doubts against Romish Tradition after this manner; Is there not much more fallibility, in what Popish Fore-fathers give to their children, than in that Testimony which God com­manded to be written, and is his very word, as acknowledged by the Trent-Con­federates themselves? Is it not possible that the Discoursers Father or Teacher [Page 140] might delude him? and he be deluded by his Fore-father? and so thorough the Popish line, might they not all be seduced from Father to Child? How can the Discour­ser know but that the Tradition of other Mediators besides Jesus Christ, might be from the Devil? And the Tradition of Righteousness by mens own good works added to Christs satisfaction, may fall under the Apostles Anathema? Gal. 1.8, 9. If any, or an Angel from Heaven preach, &c. Let it be accursed. Nay how can the Method of Popish Tradition be the Rule of Faith which delivereth down so many Fables and lyes; as Popes Supremacy, Transub­stantion of bread into the flesh or humane nature of Christ, born of the blessed vir­gin, (a monstrous Chimaera) with multi­tudes of such like absurdities? Who can acknowledge that Tradition, which giveth down such things to be the Rule of Faith? Sense and Reason do abhorre them.

2. The obstinate and acute Adversary moreover will tell this Discourser more smartly; That Romish Tradition of faith by Popish Fore-fathers, is from the Devil; that its Rise was with the Mysterie of In­iquity; that the Romish Church is Myste­ry-Babylon the great, the Mother of Harlots; that the Pope is the Apocalyptical Beast and False Prophet, that Antichrist, and Son of Perdition; That by the Hypo­crysie of them who continually have told [Page 141] lies in their Traditions, all spiritual fil­thines, Idolatry, and Apostasie, have been conveied down to the present generation of Papists: yea and all this he hath pro­ved, and will prove against them. Are all these doubts and objections only Ca­prichoes of Fansie, or Quirks of wit, or vain and groundless Oppositions? The Discourser may talk so, of that which he cannot answer. His Deist whom he brought in cavilling against the Faith of Scripture, hath much more to say against the Faith of his Tradition, would he but let him speak freely, but here he kept him silent, as if engaged unto his Cause.

3. If the Discourser say they mistake him, because he speaks only of the me­thod of Tradition, not of the matters delivered; Surely he mistakes himself, for he pleads for the Rule of Faith; and Faith then must be ruled thereby, which is the matter delivered; to divide these is to separate unseparable things. Besides his Adversaries grant Oral-Tradition to be a means certainly conveying Truth and falshood: and therefore deny its appro­priation unto Faith. In summe they say, as Tradition is one means to convey mat­ters of Faith, so the matters delivered do specifie the Tradition to be good or bad: So that if such foul things be given down by his Method of Tradition, this also must be filthiness it self.

[Page 142]4. His Adversaries therefore see no such task incumbent on them as to loose those two notions which perfect Identi­ty binds; for Tradition and Certainty are not so united; The noon-daies Sun would discover this to him, but that he is blind­ed with his own self-conceit, hugging his new Invention. Let him injoy it.

5. In S. 15. He gathers up from his pre­mises his general conclusion: Taking for granted, that all his seven Properties of the Rule of Faith, do peculiarly belong to his Tradition, and that they are incompe­tent to any Competitor, he concludes in his own Judgment thus, That, Tradition is the Rule of Faith.

For a closing answer to this Discourse.

1. We deny that any of these Conditi­ons, as rightly understood, are proper to his Tradition, which is Popish; or that he hath in the least measure proved, or made it good. And this we leave to impartial Readers to judge.

2 We offer it to observation, that the highest Demonstration, which he hath attempted to give thus farre of any par­ticular Property hath its strength only from Man, whose nature he stileth the best in the Vniverse: And yet at the best is but frail and wavering and perishing.

3. As to all other properties of an high­er descent, and more necessary Ally to the Rule of Faith, he passeth them by, as not fit [Page 143] to be considered in the present case, or not worthy it. Yet must he know that nothing can be the Rule of Faith without them. As Supremacy, Rectitude, Commensurateness with the matter ruled, and Indivisibility, that nothing can be taken from it, or ad­ded to it; we expect these to be reciprocal with that which is the Rule of Faith, if not, we shall not yield it so to be. These then and the rest being not so peculiar unto his Tradition, his main Conclusion is denied.

Tradition is not the Rule of Faith.

1. Not general humane Tradition, for this medleth not with Faith at all.

2. Not his special or Popish Tradition, for that falsifieth and corrupteth the true faith of the Gospel, as hath been hinted.

3. Not true Christian Oral-Tradition, as it notes only the mode of del [...]vering down faith, without the matter delivered, which is the will of God, the only Rule or Ground of Faith unto Salvation. What a due and necessary means God hath made it to be­get faith, hath been declared, and granted. The Discourser then may silence his boa­sting, untill he acquit himself and his Tra­dition better. That he promiseth himself in the sequel by a fuller demonstration: we shall go on to try his performance.

THE Sixth Discourse EXAMINED.

THe Title of this Discourse tells us, it is an Endeavour to demonstrate a Priori the Indefectibleness of Tradition. Where­in we have.

1. His Preface, Ss. 1, 2, 3.—2. His Demonstration, S. 5.—3. His answer to some Objections, Ss. 6, 7, 8. All are to be considered orderly.

1. In his preface he brings in some, com­mending his former discourses: but withall questioning; Was this Tradition held to? Who beg [...]n to desert that Rule? Whoever held to it? or Was it ever held to by any? Ss. 1.

2. He chargeth the Protestants to make this labour of his further demonstration nee­dless, being cast in their Cause, &c. S. 2.

3. He makes a needless digression, about an Exaction upon his Rule. S. 3.

4. He promiseth a double demonstration of his Conclusion. S. 4.

All this might have been better spared and the Discourser might have fallen close­ly to his Demonstration; which would have advantaged him more, and lesse bur­dened his Readers with a multitude of needless words. We will not follow him at his Range, but shortly animadvert up­on the special Heads. Commend his Dis­courses they who can: We shall onely reply to the Queres. Supposing Tradition twofold. 1. General of all things.

2. Special of Faith. And these two un­der the notions, either of the manner of delivery, or Matter delivered by it. And then we return to them thus.

1. None did ever question, or doubt, but that alwaies by speech all things have been derived from the Fathers to the Children; neither could this ever be deser­ted; by the law nature.

2. Considering this Mode of Tradition carrying in it matters of Faith, which here the Discourser owns as delivered by the Apostles, we say many did desert their Doctrine of Faith, while they survived; and all the continued deserters of the same Truth in all Ages since, are of the same stock.

3. They only held to the Apostles Tra­dition of Faith by preaching, who kept close to the same doctrine written by them and to none besides it: and by such it was and is held unto at this day. S. 1.

[Page 146]4. The Discourser hath not prov'd evi­dently that Romish Tradition is a certain Rule of Faith, and Scripture not. His fallacious treating upon Tradition in ge­neral, and Scriptures letter, are but sense­less gingles; for neither is the one denied its due place, nor the other at all affir­med by the Protestants: Therefore are they not cast in their Cause, as he vainly cryeth out.

5. They assert true Tradition oral of Christs Doctrine in its true use; and prove that Papists have fallen from that Rule, by the undeniable effects of that Apostasie in Doctrines expresly contrary to that of Christs and his Apostles, maintained by them to this day; which is enough to make them blush and be ashamed; but that a Roman face is steeled against such modest reflexions. The matter delivered if evil, spoileth the method of delivering, be it never so good.

6. The Discourser forgets himself to be an Adversary to, while he takes upon himself to be a Judge over Protestants; but to his Censure they reply.

1. They do not in the least tacitely yeeld the Doctrine held by the Romish Church, to be of Faith, uninterruptedly come down from the Apostles, or that it was ever and is Christs Doctrine. They do openly and lowdly deny it; neither were ever any of their Jesuitical Champi­ons [Page 147] able to disprove them. If so, let the Author produce them: We grant the derivat [...]on of Christs Doctrine downwards by Tradition Oral and Scriptural, in all things concurring; but Pop [...]sh Oral-Tra­dition we abhorre as much as that abhors the Scripture of God. This is a foolish Censure then by the Disputer.

2. They appeal to God against the blin­ding of their Consciences with glances of Fancy from private Interpretations of Gods word, or deafning their ears with false Ecchoes from those sacred Oracles, who is their righteous Judge, and will deter­mine the Cause between Protestants and Papists: who they be that lye against God, and who that maintain his Truth, in his appointed time. In the in­terim, the Discourser had need to remem­ber that he must appear himself at the judgment seat of Christ, and be certain­ly judged, for all those hard and ungodly reproaches cast upon the Scriptures of God under pretence of honouring them. Woe be to them at that day who shall then be found guilty of drawing away souls from the faith of God manifested in the flesh unto other Daemon-Mediators by the hypocrisie of them who give down lying Traditions. Their Consciences will be found to have been seared with an hot i­ron. Let him and his be afraid of this judgment, S. 2.

[Page 148]7. In S. 3. It is hard to say what the Discourser aimeth at; for it may well be put in a Parenthesis as not necessary to this Discourse. Yet we shall say some­thing to it.

1. It is no unreasonable expectation that the Rule of Faith should both order its Followers, and oblige them not to desert it: So God hath established his Rule in the Holy Scriptures.

2. The goodness of our Saviour is not to found his Rule of Faith upon mans nature, but upon God himself, that it may be able to rule Souls unto life, and oblige them firmly unto Faith.

3. It is no less the justice of the Lord to suffer an Efficacy of Delusion to go along with Popish Tradition, to spread that Religion under the name of Christi­an. And having thus replyed to these things in his Preface, we shall expect his promise of a double demonstration, which he giveth, S. 4.

2. He enters upon his first a Priori. S. 5. Here he would have us pick out his demonstration from four Grounds laid down by him.

1. That Christian Doctrine was at first unanimously settled by the Apostles in the hearts of the Faithful in great multitude [...] over several parts of the world.

2. That this Doctrine was firmly beleeved by them to be the way to Heaven, and the contra­dictory [Page 149] to it the way unto Damnation.

3. That hopes of goods (as Heavenly) and Fears of harms, (as Damnation) strongly ap­plyed, are the Causes of Actual Will.

4. That the thing was feesible, that what­ever they were bred to, was knowable by them. All this put as his Medium, his Conclusion is. That it followeth as certainly, a great Body of the first Believers, and After-faith­ful in each Age, that is, from Age to Age, would continue to hold themselves and teach their Children, as themselves had been taught, that is that they should follow and stick to Tradition; as it doth, that a Cause put act­ually causing, produceth its Effect.

1. This is somewhat an obscure way of Demonstration; It had been plainer and shorter to have given it in three proposi­tions, so more easily might we have seen the strength of his conclusion: We shall to help the Readers more clearly to judge in this matter, contract it, and put it under view together. His conclusion pretended by him to be inferred is, The Indefectibleness or Actual indefectiveness of Tradition from Christ and his Apostles. (Suppose of the Romish Faith or Religi­on, as it is gathered into a systeme by his Trent-Fathers, and is now received and practic'd by Papists) For this is the only thing contended for by him in all his Dis­courses: Otherwise that Oral-Tradition of humane concernments is from the begin­ning [Page 150] indefective actually and indefectible so long as mankind is in being on earth, must be yielded by all. His Medium to conclude this must be gathered out of his 4 grounds, or at least the proof of it: The whole together must be thus formed. That Doctrine of Faith, which was at first delivered by Christ and his Apostles, and firmly beleeved by all the Faithful in that Age, and willed and known by all the Faith­ful in all succeeding Generations to this very Age, is actually Indefective from the time of Christ. But,

The Traditional Doctrine of Faith com­piled in the Trent-Canons, and as now be­leeved and practised in the bulk of it by Pa­pists at this day, is that which at first Christ delivered, &c. Therefore

This Traditionall Doctrine of Faith recei­ved and practised by Papists at this day, is actually indefective from the time of Christ.

In th [...]s demonstrative Syllogism accor­ding to the Discoursers platform laid, we peremptorily deny the Assumption: which if he can prove, we yield his Conclusion; but as soon may he prove darkness to be light, and Hell to be Heaven. And un­till he perform this Task, we judge his Demonstration, but a Quibble, not wor­thy of a farther answer. No actual Inde­fectiveness, then much lesse indefectibility from Christ, is made good to Popish Tradi­tion, which is this Disputers Rule of Faith.

[Page 151]1. As to what he may conceive of proof lying in his grounds, we shall grant what is to be granted, which will avail him nothing; and except against the rest.

1. We grant that the sound of the A­postles Doctrine went into all the earth,Rom, 10.18. and their words to the end of the world. So also was the same delivered in their writings and Epistles; Each Tradition was of equal account with them.

2. We except that however they deli­vered this Doctrine to their ears and to their eies; yet they could not settle it in their hearts;2 Cor. 3.3 for then no Apostates had been in those daies: This was a work for Gods spirit only. Neither indeed was this Gods way to propagate truth to others; for it was a secret work which none could know but such as had it. The means of conveying Gospel Doctrine must be visi­ble, as preaching and writing, such as work upon senses, which the Author con­tends for under the notion of a Rule. It may be therefore perhaps his meaning, that those multitudes did learn the Apo­stles Doctrine by heart, that is, without book, which best suiteth with his Tradi­t [...]on to teach their Children by heart: but this is poor Heart-work unto salva­t [...]on. This makes no more for his Inde­fectiveness, than to note the Term only from whence it must begin; Take it all in the soundest Sence.

[Page 152]2. As to his second ground.

1. We grant it fully as concerning them, who were truly faithful, that they did beleeve Christs Doctrine to be the way to Heaven, and the deser [...]ing of it the way to damnation; and that the hopes of Heaven, and fears of Hell impressed upon their minds by divine Authority, d [...]d make not only the first Believers, but all truly faithful in all Ages following to adhere to that Doctrine of Christ, and d d deterr them from the relinquishing of it.

2. Yet we deny all them to be truly faithful, who professedly in the first and following times received this Doctrine; neither did hopes of Heaven nor fears of Hell ke [...]p many from forsaking the Truth of Christ in the times of the Apostles; for there were multitudes of Apost [...]tes from it under the Mystery of Iniquity in those daies; And no lesse were in Ages following, when the Apostasie grew stron­ger, notwithstanding therefore these hopes and fears many might and did fall from the Faith. This step then in the Discour­sers Climax for h [...]s Demonstration is but feeble: And it doth concern him to study more seriously whether the Romish Apo­stasie took not rise from the worse and failing party then, which hath been char­ged and proved against them. His Inde­fective Tradition must then fail him, unless [Page 153] it be from Apostate Professors in that Age

3. As to his next ground. 1. We grant that Hopes of Goods, and Fears of Harms, are objective Causes of actual will, and no more; for they move the will to chuse and to refuse.

2. We add further, that the strength of Application of these objects, whether in matters natural, or spiritual unto the will, must be to victory over all repulses, to actuate the will unto its office of chu­sing, or refusing.

3. That in spiritual matters the Appli­cation must be made to mans will by the Arm of God, or else Heaven will never keep them close to the way of Truth, nor Hell, e­ver deterr them from relinquishing it; nor actuate will to a regular choice or refu­sal. Now the Event in those first times plainly shews, that hopes of Heaven and fears of Hell, did not actuate the wills of beleevers to adhere to Christs saving Do­ctrine, nor terrifie them from relinqui­shing it; for many fell away, notwithstan­ding the strength of those Motives, be­cause they were not applyed by the Pow­er of God. Which being so, the Discour­ser had need mind this role of his Ladder also, or else it will crack and not bear his Traditional Fore-fathers in bringing down his Traditionary faith to this Age: For he can never prove that their wills were acted by God upon thoughts of Heaven [Page 154] or Hell to bring down the Truth of Christ unto their Posterity, seeing his Trent-Ca­nons contain so many falshoods contrary to the same.

4. To his last ground. 1. It may be yeelded, that it was in their power (God vouchsafing them natural understandings) to know literally the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, and yet not in their power to stand to it.

2. We deny neverthelesse that it was in the power of all those multitudes pre­tended savingly to know the Doctrine of Christ, unless those onely who were taught of God, and upon whose wills his own Arm had made impression of his motives to keep them fixed to the truth of the Gospel. Now seeing there were so many deficient in saving knowledge both of for­mer and latter times; It will be a very hard matter for the Discourser to draw out from these premised grounds, a cer­tain conclusion of his Traditions Indefec­tiveness or Indefectibility, from the Truth of Christ, to the false Religion of Rome at this day: Idem jungat vulpes & mul­geat hircos. The same wild Foxes then may coat, And milk the Romish Goat. Yet let us look forward and see what way he will make in clearing up the objections pro­posed by himself.

[Page 155]3. He now cometh to satisfie objectors out of his foresight, and so he hopes to clear his Demonstration.

1. He saith, The indisposition of the wills of beleeving Parents, by reason of Original Cor­ruption, may be objected as a cause hinde­ring them from a faithful delivery of Christs Truth down unto their Chil­dren. Unto which he attempts to give satis­faction. S. 6. To avoid transcribing of words we shall animadvert upon his answer and re­ply.

1. That we grant freely Christs Do­ctrine was intended to be an Antidote a­gainst that original malice, and an help to preserve mens minds and wills right and pure: For he was manifested to de­stroy the works of the Devil; of which that was the first and worst.

2. We doubt not,1 Joh. 3.8. but that the Gospel of the Son of God did heal the corrupt na­tures of many to whom God applyed it by his special Grace: Therefore Christs wisdome is not questioned as if the means appointed by him were not fit to do the Effect. But when this Discourser minds us of many thousands of Martyrs and ho­ly Confessors, who by the Power of this Doctrine overcame this inbred declivity of their wills; we may as justly remind him of so many millions, to whom the sound of it came, whose natures were never healed, nor w [...]lls rectified by it. And be­sides [Page 156] we deny that his Traditionary fore-fathers, as to his Trent-Doctrine, were such Martyrs and Confessors whose wills were so cured: And we leave it upon him to prove it,

3. We deny that this Doctrine of Christ was delivered by the best willed souls only by Oral, but also by Scriptu­ral Tradition, against both which neither the stratagems of the Devil, nor the gates of Hell did or could prevail.

4. We add that however weak the Disputer may think Original sin to be, yet it inclineth to all malignity against God, and Apostasie from the Truth of Christ: but much more when Parents are to be supposed to have improved that root of bitterness by bringing forth many bitter fruits in Actual sins, habituating them­selves unto backslidings from God; and then it will not be so hard for him to grant they might be so vicious as to se­duce their Children.

5. Although we are willing to think, no Parents should be so unnatural, to teach their children, what they think will damn them; Yet we shall offer to him some Experiments which are undenia­ble.

1. There have been Parents who have offered their children to the Devil; such therefore may be at this day. 2. Parents bewitched themselves, are most apt to fa­scinate [Page 157] their Children to idol-worship, &c. A Father-theef usually teacheth his Son to be a Theef, though he knows the end will be the Gallows. When the blind do lead the blind, they will both fall into the ditch. Nay nothing is more evident, than that Parents bred up in superstitious and idolatrous waies, will force their Chil­dren to be of the same Religion, that if themselves be damned, they shall be dam­ned with them. And to this efficacious delusion God hath given up them, who loved not his Scripture-Truth. No grea­ter Example of it than in Rome.

5. These things being thus stated, how hath the Discourser quitted himself of the first objection? The Tradition of Romish Faith is notwithstanding descended from minds and wills, not only not healed by the Gospel, but more perniciously infect­ed with wilfull and obstinate falshood a­gainst the written Truth of Christ.

2. The next objection is, That the fickle nature of the will, may exempt her from the Law of Causes. Whereupon he makes some Queries, to which we shall an­swer.

1. We grant that good is the object of the will, and doth affect it when it is sufficiently applied: Natural good to na­tural will, and spiritual good to spiritual will.

[Page 158]2. We assert Temporal goods and harms, do more affect natural wills than all Spi­ritual: Experience sheweth it, men usually prefer temporal rewards before heaven, and fear bodily punishments more than hell; such wills are fickle.

3. His world of Beleevers we take for the multitude of his Popish Fore-fathers, and their wills were carried under blind, superstitious minds, to forsake the Truth of Christ, and so to seduce Posterity; not­withstanding the loss of infinite goods, and gain of infinite Harms. Such wills are no Causes of conveying down the Truth of Christ. In all this nothing strengthens his demonstration.

3. The last knot which he would un­tie, is That the Objector doth fault the Application of these motives to the wills of his Traditionary Fore-fathers; and then their wills may fail in doing th [...]ir office. What his reply is, we shall weigh and an­swer.

The Discourser may put his Teeth and nails to untye this knot, and all to no purpose; For that which is a sufficient ap­plication of these spiritual motives to mens wills, so as to make them faithful in giving down Truth, must needs convert them, and make them of flesh, spirit. Now all applications from humane strength are not able to change mans will; It must be Gods arm alone, that can so effectually [Page 159] apply the foresaid motives. Leaving there­fore his Reflection upon pursuit of ends proposed by undoubted Authority, and his needless illustrations of it by a King preparing for Expedition, or a Gentle­man travelling to Rome, we fall upon his proof of a sufficient application of these motives, which we find to be mostly hu­mane, and only his last instance any whit ingaging God; To all he urgeth we thus re­ply.

1. VVe observe, he gathers his suffici­ency of application from humane means, which we deny to be sufficient to actuate mans will into regular working; and this in 5 particulars.

1. The proposal of Gods supremely-fallible veracity from man to man, is not suf­ficient to turn the will truly to close with Truth; for then it would have been done upon all that heard Christ and his Apo­stles preach it.

2. The representation of these infinite goods by most familiar Metaphors, venera­ble Sacraments or the spectable Majesty of Ceremonies (nay of Romish themselves) is no sufficient application to move the will to close with the Truth of Christ. These are weak operatives from men when they are true; but pernicious when adulterate as in Rome.

[Page 160]3. The Applications of these goods in the Visibility of the words being made flesh, was not sufficient to change mens wills unto the choice of Truth; for then all a­mong whom he Tabernacled, would have chosen him and cleaved to him. Unless the Discourser think the setting of him forth by Crucifixes or Popish Pageantry may do more; which is some of the spawn of his Tradition. These turn hearts to Satan.

4. The Application of these goods by Examples in course of life and acti­ons and outward shews, is not sufficient to turn wills unto the truth of Christ. Long experience makes this good. Indeed if the misteries of God were mechanical and maniable (as he makes them) he might have hope to make many of that Trade. It may be so with Papists.

5. All the frequent and efficacious ap­plication of these eternal goods and harms by Education under Parents and by the Dis­cipline and oeconomy of the Church is not suf­ficient to change wills to God: It was not so to all under the Apostles government, it was less in after ages; but not at all in that Ro­mish Church, for which the Discourser con­tends; nay they harden wills against God. In all these he hath not cured the faulting of his Application. The knot is made faster.

[Page 161]6. In the last place he offers something worth consideration indeed, if he could prove it to his purpose, Christianity urg'd to execution, gives its Followers a new life, and a new nature; than which a neerer ap­plication cannot be imagin'd. This is ap­plication sufficient indeed of these mo­tives to the regeneration of men; for this must change the will: but none can so urge Doctrine, but God himself. Yet if this be made serv [...]ceable to the mans turn, he must prove.

1. That this Doctrine preacht by the Apostles with urgency, did give a new life to all their professed followers.

2. That the multitudes thus regenera­ted by the Apostles, did give this new na­ture to the [...]r followers.

3. That these also did give a new life by their Doctrine to the Generation Fol­lowing, and so successively to all the fore-fathers of him and Papists unto this day. But all yours is false; and impossible to be made good. For the huge gulf made be­tween the Apostles doctrine and Appli­cation, and Popish doctrine with their application, will never suffer this to arise from that, or consist with it. The Testi­mony of several Centuries concerning the wicked doctrins and beastly lives both of Popes and Papists, will sufficiently de­monstrate, that Christian Doctrine was ne­ver so applyed to them, as to make them [Page 162] new creatures. If this Tradition hath, it must needs send forth sad swarms or mul­titudes of such Christians among them to the worlds end. Thus we have the strength of his first Demonstration. A further clearing we are promised in the next dis­course.

THE Seventh Discourse EXAMINED. About an Objection cleared.

IN this Discourse the summe may be ta­ken in 3 Heads general.

1. An objection and proposed answered. Sect. 1.

2. An Elucidation of the a [...]swer by sta­ting the rise of Heresie. Ss. 2. 3. 4.—

3. A close excusing th s Parergon, by the usefulness of it. Sect 5.

1. The Objection formed by him, may run thus, There have been actually many He­reticks or Deserters of Tradition, therefore Tradition must needs have been defective and interrupted.

We understanding this Tradition to be of the Primitive Doctrine of Christ, (whether it be Oral or Scriptural) do grant the Antecedent, There have been many Heretical Deserters of that Tradition which the Discourser cannot deny; how­ever he would wave the Consequence as concluding against his Daemon. But we yeeld the whole Argument, and shall maintain it.

1. The Antecedent is verified all along, since that Man of sin, and son of perditi­on was revealed, who exalted himself a­bove the [...], or Augusti, 2 Thes. 2.4. and sat in the Temple of God, shewing himself that he was God. Thus his Ʋniversal Head hath done; and he and his Hierarchy have been and are the sons of that great Apost [...]cy, who did desert the true Faith of Christ taught and written to them; and are tur­ned and keep unto most damnable Here­sies that ever were invented. These prove plainly a defection from, and an interrup­tion of the true Tradition from Christ.

2. The Consequent therefore of Tra­ditions defectiveness cannot be denied; nei­ther dareth the man here expresly to de­ny it. Only so farre as his skill serveth him, he labours notwithstanding to assert his conclusion, the Indefectiveness of his Tradition. His props are broken Reeds, which fall with their building by a touch.

1. Contingency is urged, Such a thing may be in working upon a whole species or kind; an yet the general Indeficiency ab [...]de. We can tell him, there is not only a Contingency, 1 Cor. 11.19. but a necessity laid by heaven; that such Heresies must be, that they who are approved may be made mani­fest. Yet again if it be but a Contingent defect of Trad [...]tion, it is enough to destroy the Indef ctibility.

2. It is a most gross untruth, That the Causes propagating faith to Posterity, are as Effic [...]cious, s those which are laid to propa­gate mankind; unworthy of a man of Reason to utter. For, the Causes [...]f Mans propa­gation are natural and laid under provi­dence necessarily producing the same kind; but the causes of Faiths conveiance and preservation among men, such as the Au­thor mentions, Fore-fathers teaching, Church Inspection &c. are voluntary, de­pending on mans will; and therefore weak and uncertain to produce the ef­fect intended. Are these equal then in force of propagation? Besides the reason added is insipid; Because Faith continueth no longer than Mankind its only Subject. Suppose th [...]s true: Is therefore Faiths Pro­pagation as extensive and sure as Mankinds? Or is Faith con-natural to Mankind? Or because Faith is competent only to Man, is it proper to all men? What mea [...]s the man by such wild kind of reasonings? [Page 165] As well might he say; Mankind is born learned.

3. It is as frothy a suggestion, he ma­keth in the next place, That these Causes of Faiths propagation before explicated, are effectively powerful to make multitudes dai­ly debar themselves of those pleasures, which are the Causes of Mankinds propagation. The Inference hence must be, that Faiths propagation is more ample and sure, be­cause it hinders the propagation of men O monstrous fruit of Popish Tradition. What can he mean, but that his Traditi­onary faith hindreth men from marrying, and so from p [...]opagating their kind; that their F [...]ith may have the better increase? Which is one express character of Anti­christian Apostasie to forbid men to marry. And the Author here confesseth that his Traditionary faith puts a bar unto such marriage pleasures allowed and ordained of God for propagation of Mankind, and so his Church among them. Unless he mean adulterous and unlawful pleasures; which he knows that his Traditionary Faith could never bar out of their Mo­nasteries and Nunneries: and that it hath allowed common stews for the relief of those Monastical Persons, to whom they have interdicted Marriage, as an unholy thing. Their own Children of Rome have written, and testified these things to their faces. Why then should not the Discour­ser [Page 166] blush to render such a reason of Faiths more certain increase to a Posterity of Beleevers, then the Propagation of all Mankind? If he will not, we shall cast a vail over him and pass away.

4. As to his last proof from History, since the first planting of Christianity, Th [...]t by experience we shall find more particular failing in propagating their Kind than their Faith.

1. We challenge him to produce such an History, or else he is a Fabler.

2. We charge him with this Issue, which must follow from his History al­ledged, That there have been more Belie­vers born than men. For if Faith have failed less in its propagation, than men in propagating their kind; there must needs be more Faith than Manhood in the world, Risum teneatis Amici? If the Discourser be a reasonable man, and lear­ned as he seemeth to profess himself, let him clear himself from this absurd Conse­quence of his Historical proof: Or if not, let him ingeniously say he was mistaken: but if he will not, all men may see that a spirit of perverseness doth misguide him. So much to his answer of the Obje­ction.

2. All that follows in Ss. 2, 3, & 4. The Discourser himself stileth very truly a Parergon, that is, a Glosse besides the Text, or a needless digression, beside the matter in [Page 167] hand, or a troublesome Parenthesis, justly to be expunged; Yet not to leap over all at once (as justly it may be slighted) we shall make some steps over it, in a way of Animadversion. In the second and third he sheweth the Rise and growth of Heresie; In the fourth the sad consequents of the same.

We shall not repeat all he saith, but animadvert upon his passages S. 2.

1. He supposing Heresie an Evil inci­dent in the visible Church, and seducing from it, we add, It must then be the true Primitive Church settled by the Apostles, not the Apostate Church of Rome, (which the Author intends) For it can be no he­resie to separate from Hereticks as being such; among which none are greater than Papists sworn to their Trent-Doctrine. And that he must mean this Church, and not the other, every Reader may per­ceive from his own suggestion: That these Deserters lay hold on some accidental mis­carriages, as foolish Opinions or ill lives of some in the Church, which they aggravate b [...]y [...]nd all reason to justifie their Rebellion. Were there such foolish opinions in the Church Apostolical? Or such ill lives a­mong them to give occasion unto such, who pretended better, to forsake them? Idolatrous Balaamits indeed, and Lasci­vious Nicolaitans, left them, because their doctrine was truly spiritual, and [Page 168] and their lives too strict, and holy for them. If the Discourser therefore cha­racterize Hereticks by this, in forsa­king a Church for foolish doctrins, and loose lives; It will prove at last bet­ter to be such an Heretick, than a mem­ber of such a Church, when he saith, that there are but some so bad; and that their failings are aggravated beyond all reason: Let him know that all his Church are a­like guilty in matter of Doctrine, if not in beastliness of life; and that false Do­ctrine and wicked life cannot be aggra­vated beyond reason or measure upon such as pretend to be of the Church of Christ. It is no Rebellion to relinquish Rome, for wicked opinions and sinful lives; nor an unreasonable crime to aggravate their a­bominations, which may make the Hea­vens blush to behold, and be astonished, that they should be acted under the name of Christ.

2. As to his method of inventing new Tenets, and suting them by plausibleness and licentiousness w [...]th the passionate hu­mors of d [...]vers; and so drawing into a Fa­ction, get the state on their sides; and so having [...]ndemnity and hop [...]s of rewards, their Corrupt [...]e low Revolters bandy with them against the former Church, and thus a Body is made &c▪ Our return is, 1. Th t t [...]is is the fairest description of the Me h [...]d taken by R [...]me Papal in their [Page 169] Apostasie from Christs Doctrine delive­red by the Apostles in word and writing, none could give a more lively discovery of it from History.

2 That this they did by their Oral-Tradition contradicting the Scripture of Truth.

3. The known newness of which to the first settled Doctrine of Christ, is so evi­dent, that to deny it, were (as the Dis­courser phraseth it) to tell an open lye to no imaginable purpose.

3. As to his Inferences fetcht from the premises.

1. We see plainly that it is the Romish Society, which he covers under the name of the Church, concerning which we pro­fessedly assert, that they have erred from the Faith of Christ; and that by their Tradition. And this is proved in the sight of the Christian World, above their contradiction.

2. The Protestants who maintain the former, seek out no new Rule but the first and oldest, even the Scripture of God as senced by himself.

3. They detest private Inspirations in­consistent with the word of God; they scorn quirks of wit to blunder any; their learning is not wordish nor curiously Cri­tical: but such whereby their most lear­ned Jesu [...]ts have been proved foolish So­ph [...]sters, in defending their cause against [Page 170] the Scriptures of God; even the wise­dome of God in his Mystery.

4. They scorn to hook in Romish Ca­tholicks, but tell them plainly that their Infallible and evident way of Tradition is a Lie; neither do they cry victory, but where Gods word (which he cannot de­ny) prevaileth and puts them to si­lence.

5. The Protestants are not ambitious of any name, given or assumed by men; They content themselves with that Pri­mitive Name of Christs Disciples, divinely imposed,Act. 11.26. which is Christians, no new Name. As for the name of Catholick they offer to prove. If the reason of it be the holding of the Catholick Faith, delive­red by the Apostles, it is most properly theirs; as our own Country men have made good, and that famous Chamier stileth the Protestants commonly by that name in opposition to Papists. His E­numeration of Titles afterwards is ridicu­lous and scandalous: Who knoweth not that the Papists named them Lutherans and Zuinglians in scorn, who entertained the Doctrine of Christ preached by them? Did Luther or Zuinglius baptize Sects in­to their own names, any more then the Apostle Paul? The Discourser may be ashamed of such Foolish reflexions. Let Tritheits and Sacramentarians injoy the Title of their Tenets, if they deserve them. [Page 171] The Protestants will maintain their name (however they glory in none, but the name of Christ Jesus put upon them, from their Profession of Christs Truth against Romish and Antichristian Falshood; The Combi­nation they leave to those Popish vassals, that are conspired against the Scripture-Truth.

Lastly, as to the poor Quakers and Dippers, the man knoweth or may know, that his Popish Emissaries have abused them, taught them Quaking and Dipping; and then abuse them. It is known that the Jesuitical Mountebanks have transfor­med themselves into all sorts of Sectaries, that have been active in these latter times; and that they have more prevailed under a Form of Godliness with poor simple souls to invalidate the Authority of Scrip­tures, and to deny Just fication of sinners by the Righteousness of Christ without them, by a pretended Christ within them, than ever they have done, since their Trent-Doctrine was established. They have more cause therefore to incourage these so far Proselytes of theirs, than thus to jeer them. It is but a just Di­version to put him upon the reconciling of all the names of the several orders in his own Romish Catholick Profession; there he will find work enough, if he pas­ses by the names of other Sectaries.

[Page 172]2. All in S. 3. is Calumny and slander, cast upon the Protestants; which they blow off easily and truly. 1. They throw not by that Scripture Rule (which they professe) to take up Tradition without it; They maintain not Scriptures Letter their Rule. 2. They never denied Oral-Tradition of that Truth of Christ, which is written. 3. They leave not men to in­terpret Scripture to their fancies, but mainta [...]n the sufficiency of Scripture to o­pen it self to rational understanders of it; all the Contradictions then suggested they detest. 4. It is a sin rightly charged up­on Romish Powers, to punish any for de­serting their Traditionary Rule of Fals­hood, which they recommend. And a greater sin it is for Protestants to punish those under them for following the Scrip­tures too close, being the Rule which themselves recommended and applauded, as the whole and sole Basis of their Re­formation; for they must sin not only a­gainst the Truth, but the Light it self. And that a Papist should charge this up­on Protestant Church-Powers before the Sun, if he can prove, it weel say,

We shall yet say, no Principle of Pro­testantism alloweth this. Let the guil­ty suffer, let the innocent go free. This makes not Tradition any whit the better, [Page 173] neither renders the Scripture-Rule any whit the worse.

3. In the fourth Sect. He draweth sad consequences from his premises, which we shall only shake off from our Scripture-Rule; whence his use will be as useless, as his Parergon.

1. Protestant Christians learn better from the Scriptures, than to wreak their malice against their Persecuters; or by numbers to involve nations in war and blood. The Scripture Rule teacheth them to pray for those that persecute them, and bless them that curse them. This is the natural Fruit of Scripture Grace; and made good by multitudes of suffering Christians: who will heartily say Amen to that Peti­tion, God of his mercy avert such war and blood from our distracted Nation. This is a malicious insinuation against the Scripture-Rule: They who own it, abhorr diso­beying of a certain and known legall Au­thority, and of making Rebellion, and an unimpowred sword the Defence of Truth.

2. His next insinuation hereupon is to prudent Considerers, how much it condu­ceth to State-unity and peace, that the Principle of conveying Faith, be built up­on Sensible Evidence, acknowledgable by all Mankind, when rightly understood. This in plain Terms is Romish Tradition. And hereupon let us a little querae.

[Page 174]1: How many of Mankind, can or do understand this?

2. Can they who know it, upon due com­paring it with the primitive Doctrine of Christ, understand it otherwise than to be a Lie?

3. Is the way of conveying down Faith by lies conducible to State-Unity, and Peace?

4. Why hath not this Tradition made peace among those Popish Nations of Germany, Spain, France, and Portugal. &c. Who are enslaved to it? Nay hath not this Jesuitical-Traditionary Doctrine been the only cause of blood and Massa­cres in France, &c? The Scripture Rule will advise Christian Rulers and States bet­ter for keeping themselves in a prospe­rous Unity and Peace:Psal. 2, 12. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, &c. Whatever worldly Po­liticians say; Submission of Thrones and Powers to the Law of the Prince of Peace in the simplicity of the Gospel, is the on­ly way to have swords beaten into Plow­shares, and Spears into pruning hooks; and to settle Peace in all Nations. This digression hath been forced by the Dis­coursers Parergon; leaving his Demonstra­tion: whereunto the trouble of it is due.

3. In Sect. 5. To make amends, he telleth us, The usefulness of this Parergon, serves to elucidate as it were practically and experimentally, the certainty of Tradition, &c.

We shall close up this Discourse with him by some counter-positions.

1. With the best eies we have, we can perceive no Elucidation by all that he hath said of the Certainty of his Romish Tra­dition; nor any eies but his own, or such as look with his spectacles, can perceive any such thing: But in truth he darkens knowledge by many vain words, as any careful, judicious and impartial Reader will see.

2. The number of the actual Deserters of the way of natural Tradition we judge was none; Seeing constantly Fathers to children, did still convey down their lan­guage: but the Revolters from Aposto­lical Trad [...]tion were numerous, as the very Scriptures and the next following Centuries do evidence. As to the De­serters of Romish Apostatical Tradition, (for this the Discourser must mean, and he can go no higher) if they were but few (as he observeth) then was fulfilled that Prophesie, That all that dwell upon the Earth should worship that Romish Be [...]st, and receive his mark,Rev. 13. whose names were not written in the Lambs book of Life. Let him make the best of it.

3. Protestant Revolters from Rome, did maintain Christs Tradition before, though not Popish; neither gave they their Inter­pretations of Scripture, as Tradition misplace The Disputer is mistaken.

[Page 176]4. The unsavory urging of the means to lessen Mankinds Propagation beneath that of Faith, and greatning the means of Faiths Issue beyond that of Mankind, must nause­ate a Rational stomack that hath any sa­vour of Christianity in it: As

1. The numerous contingencies hin­dring the propagation of mans nature, more than of Faith.

2. The da [...]ly decay of men, by natu­ral and accidental deaths, not incident to Faith.

3. The whole Nations into which Tra­dition hath and doth propagate it self &c. without one Deserter of it.

4. The many External Instruments for propagating Faith, when single Progeni­tors only continue their kind. From all, which he concludes the causes of propa­gating a Body of Traditionary Christians, are lesse needing any particular Provi­dence, than the keeping on Foot a Body of men. Wherefore they be all roving Arguments in his account, that are against the Perpetuation of his Tradition, and as well may they be against the perpetuating Mankind; And his answer is ready for them, only that they do so.

O the blindness and efficacious delusi­on which God hath sent upon these se­ducing Papists, while they contend against his Scripture Truth! Can an understand­ing Christian beleeve, that there are more [Page 177] Contingencies, or accidents hindring mens propagation than Faiths. If thousands of accidental deaths lessen the number of men, Are there not millions of [...]ns in e­very man which are so many spiritual deaths destroying faith? What means the Man by such wild expressions? Doth not also the Faith of men dye with them, as to their being in the world? And besides them, Are there not millions of men in the world surviving, who have no Faith when multitudes of Believers dye? Do only sin­gle Progenitors or lawful Fathers beget Children among the Papists? Are there nor as many Adulterous Parents with them as Emissaries who compass sea and lan [...] to make Rom [...]sh Proselytes? Is Popish Faith so fruitful by their Tradition? So it may be among Whores: But in Christs own observation, it is otherwise, as to the off-spring of true Faith; So his que­stion imports, when the Son of Man commeth, shall he find Faith in the Earth? Luk. 18.8. He doubts not to [...]nd men enough; but he foreseeth [...]e [...] Beleevers. What the Bo­dy of Traditionary Christians means, we may know to be a most [...]me [...]o [...] seed of Pa­pists, to whom he approp [...]ates that Title: And yet that there should be such a vast number of such corrupt Beleevers, excee­ding all other mankind, is most inc [...]edible; unless the Pope hath [...]egotten all the earth to him; and then his Men and his Belee­vers [Page 178] are but equal; In short, it is little les [...] then Blasphemy to say, that Faith needs less of particular Providence to pro­duce it than Man, seeing the most spe­cial Providence g [...]eth it, and the arm of God worketh it in special chosen Subjects, to whom it is designed. But what will not a spirit of delusion utter against the Almighty? In fine this sottish discourse, was sufficiently uncovered, as to its folly. S. 1. Neither would we have said any more here, but as provoked with his un­savory re [...]terations of the same: We shall conclude, here is no Demonstration of Romish Traditions Indefectiveness made good. If yet the Discourse should bold­ly say, that he ha [...]h done it; It will be answer enough in his own kind to tell him, That he saies so. Enough of this: We shall inquire further into his second Demonstration.

THE Eighth Discourse EXAMINED.

HErein he pretends a Demonstration of the Ʋninterruptedness of his Tradition, à Posteriori, or from the Effect: Where­in.

2. He sheweth his scope to shew the cer­tainty of Faiths conveiance guarded, and on all sides Evident. S. 1.

2. He pretendeth the needlesness of this labor as to Protestants, S. 2.

3, He layeth down the Effect which is the Medium of his Demonstration, S. 3.

4. He offers the proof of it, Ss. 4, 5.

5. He advanceth his conclusion, S. 6. We shall reply orderly.

1. To his aim or mark set up, we only say, he will do his cause right, and play the man, if he hit it: but we doubt his skill.

2. If his indeavour were needless upon the Protestants Account, he might well have spared it: but he thought it not so, whatever he saith; therefore he pursueth [Page 180] his work. But why was it needless as to them? Have they granted his Conclusion? He dareth not say so. Yet he examines them upon some Interrogatories, to which he desireth them to answer candidly, and so they will.

1. To his fi [...]st. Quaere they reply. That the Doctrine of the Trinity, Incarnation, and all Points of sound Faith delivered in the Scriptures, were held in all Ages since Christ, by Gods Church: Yet they have some limitations, and Exceptions to pro­pound unto him.

1. That these Doctrines were held then in the true and genuine state of them; not with corrupt glosses concealed under these terms, which were various.

2. That in the true and sound sense of the Trinity and Incarnation there is not a full agree [...]ent between Protestants and Pa­pists. For they differ about the notions o [...] [...]rd and Image used about the Trinity: an [...] how vastly they disagree about the words being made Flesh, and th [...] ends of the in [...]rnation of the Son of God: the Con­troversies about that Monster of Transub­stantiation making Christs fle [...]h of bread, and about the Mediator in his person, na­tures, &c. maintained to this day be­tween them, do s [...]fficiently declare.

3. Although Protestan [...]s acknowledge these doctrines in truth to be held in the Church of God, yet they agree not that [Page 181] upon this account alone, it was truly cal­led Gods Church; for in word man [...] pro­fessed these, and yet held things destru­ctive to them; as among the [...]rent Ana­themas may appear, that Rome doth at this day. They judge therefore that the T [...] ­tle of Gods Church, is truly given unto that Body alone, which resigneth it self up unto Christ as th [...]ir Head: to be ruled by him in doctrine, worsh [...]p, and disci­pline, according to his Evangelical Law written by the Prophets and Apostles. Herein the Discourser will hardly acknow­ledge an agreement with them.

2. To his second quaere they say, that these p [...]ints of Faith were taught by Fa­thers to Children, and by the former Age to the lattet: But withall they say, That all true Teachers, Fathers and o­thers, taught them these things from the Scriptures, and du [...]st not imbue them with any Doctrine that was not written: So that Oral did but convey the Scriptural Tra [...]tion: which use of it Protestants did alwaies grant: And what advantage hath the man by this Concession?

3. To his third quae [...]e, they demur a little, before they expresly answer.

1. They stick upon the notion of Vir­tue of Tradition-oral; and they conceive, there is both a natural force of speech to make known things, and an assistent power or virtue given it by Gods ord [...]nance, [Page 182] as it is appointed a means to give down the true knowledge of Christs doctrine. Again they stop upon those terms, Others as well as these; which they think he should mean of other points of saving Faith, as those of the Trinity and Incarnation: but they suspect him to intend other points of Romish Faith, which he should have exprest. Upon these Terms debated, now they answer.

1. That they are affirmative in this, That by the natural virtue of speech natural matters of Truth are given down to Po­sterity.

2, They assert that by divine virtue as­sisting, this Oral-Tradition convey [...]th down the saving knowledge of Christ from Fa­ther to Children, in all points of Truth revealed in the Scripture unto Salvati­on.

3. They charge deceit upon this Dis­courser in concealing his other points, to be brought down by virtue of his Tradition. And question him, why he did not name his other points of Popish Faith, deba­sing Scriptures, settling their Popes Supre­macy, their lye of Transubstantiation, their Fable of Purgatory, &c. Which he insinu­ates, must uninterruptedly proceed from Christ, and his Apostles; as the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation.

4. They are positively negative (howe­ver he may not suspect them) That the [Page 183] divine vertue assisted not the Tradition of any of these Popish Artic [...]es, or the like, imported under those other: [...]nd do af­firm that by the power of Satan that first lyer and deceive [...], all those untruths issuing from the mistery of [...]n [...]qu [...]ty were power­fully given down to P [...]pists in O [...]al-Tra­dition contrary to [...]ods written word: It being under Gods permissive, and over­ruling Provide [...]ce as apt to convey down Falshood and lyes to Posterity, as any Truth of God.

4. As to his 4th Quaere about Conne­ction between Cause and Effect.

1. They yeeld under the Providence of God constituting a nec [...]ssary conne­ction between subo [...]dinate natural causes, and their formal effects; as betwee [...] the Sun and light.

2. In voluntary Causes and effects, as Tradition and Faith, where God hath not settled a necessary connection, they deny the constant issue of such Effects from such Causes.

3. They yeeld also where the Truth of Christ was ever delivered, it was ever re­ceived: that is, by them to whom it was delivered effectually by the spirit of God in such Tradition.

4. They deny that Papists can argue from any such Effect, to such a Cause for any point that is in Controversie between them and Protestants; For all meerly Po­pish [Page 184] Points cannot be asserted, as ever de­livered f [...]om Christ unto this day; there­fore can the [...] not be so received. Jesui­tical impude [...] [...]ay be ashamed to say it. Whereupon the Discourser, adds as a sub­terfuge, (In case it be a Point we held ever delivered) Hath he been contending all a­long for the indefectibil [...]ty of Traditiona­ry Romish Faith from Chr [...]st, as ever delivered, and as ever received from Christ to this day? And now come to shuffle in this job, In case it were by them held so ever delivered? Is it their holding it e­ver or never delivered, that makes it so? What unreasonable arguing is this? Are there an [...] points of Faith that were not at first delivered by Christ and so ever drawn down from him? Had any Church power to make new points of Faith in a­ges after? How then should any true point of Faith be otherwise held, but as ever delivered from Christ. To save a­ny more pains they say.

1. No points of Faith controverted by Papists with Protestants, are ever or unin­terruptedly delivered from Christ to them at this day; neither can they be rationally so [...]eceived. They who will be bl nd must be blind. The Sun beam is not clearer then this.

2. From all the Concessions of Pro­testants, it appears not needless that he should demonstrate better the Indefectibi­lity of his Tradition. If not, he hath pro­ved [Page 185] nothing; and so our dispute may be well put to an end. As to his suspicion, it is malitious folly: For Protestants know no chance, nor Fortune, nor contingency in Gods ordering means to bring down the true Faith of Christ unto the worlds end: but an infinite wise and unchangeable Pro­vidence; which hath ordained true and faithful Tradition both Scriptural and oral to preserve the saving knowledge of Christ unto his chosen in the world: which also suffereth and ordereth lying Tradition to fascinate those unto perdition, who will not receive the love of the Truth, that they might be saved. But he pursueth his design and method at first intended, and we shall closely follow him, to try his attainments therein.

3. He proceeds to his Demonstration from the Effect, about which he laieth down. 1. His Medium or Ground of it. S. 3.— 2. His Proof of this, S, 4. 5.—3. His Con­clusion. S. 6. The sum of all which Sections, to make the work shorter and easier to be apprehended, may be reduced to this form of Argument in three propositions.

That which is the present perswasion of Tra­d [...]tionary Christians, or, Romish Catholicks, that their faith hath descended from Christ and his Apostles uninterruptedly by Oral-Tradition, is undoubtedly a Truth, But

It is the present perswasion of Romish Catho­licks, &c. Ergo, This uninterrupted descent of [Page 186] their Faith from Christ by Oral Tradition is undoubtedly a Truth.

1. In this Syllogism we have at once a view of all his strength in this second Demonst [...]ation: And to cut the sinews of it, we deny the Proposition as most ridicu­lously false: Had he offered it only to his blind Papists it might have past for current with them, as other notorious fal­shoods do, g ven them by Tradition: But to argue thus with Protestants or any o­ther reasonab [...]e men, not of his R ligion, is to expose himself to hi [...]sing. For who of them w l [...] value the present pe [...]swasion of Romish Catholicks about the unin­terruptedness of their Tradition as an un­doubted Truth? and so it must be, if it be a certain Medium to infer a true conc usi­sion. The Protestants therefore deny his Proposition, whereof he labours not to make the least proof at all, but beggs it as a ground not to be questioned. We dare not trust Popish perswasions; there­fore we grant it not. And untill he prove it, his Demonstration is void, and our work is at stand.

2. His endeavour is to prove his As­sumption in S. 4. 5. and that by two Prin­ciples (as he calleth them) which when he hath done is but to little purpose; for we believe that Romish Catholicks have such a present perswasion without proof. And the impossibility of the being of this [Page 187] perswasion in them, we grant, without the existence of their pretended indefici­ency of Romish Tradition: But impossible it would have been that such a perswasi­on should be, had the ever-indifficiency of Christs Doctrine alone continued with them. Yet we will glance at his Prin­ciples, which he thus laieth down.

1. That Age which holds her Faith delivered thus from the Apostles, neither can it self have changed any thing in it, nor know or doubt, that any Age since the Apostles had changed or innovated any thing therein.

2. No Age could innovate any thing, and withall deliver that very thing to Posterity, as received from Christ by continual Succession.

Upon these he descants a little to delude his unwary Reader; but we shall a little sift him.

1. Are these indeed Principles? Then they must be known to men as men, and command their reason by such light, as they cannot but unreasonably deny: Now what man as a meer Man regards the Faith of Christ either to its being or Tra­duction? They are no Principles to them.

2. What Ages doth this man mean, that cannot change nor innovate Faith, so held to be delivered from the Apostles? Surely they must be successive Generati­ons of Papists and these were alwaies fit­test to prove their own perswasions. So [Page 188] he plainly argueth, That the perswasion of Romish Catholicks about indeficiency of their Tradition must be true, because no Age of them could change or inno­vate that which was delivered of faith un­to them. This wil [...] do it indeed, if such things pass for Principles.

3. We do charge it on several Ages of Pap [...]sts, that hower de jure they co [...]ld not do it; yet de facto they have both changed and innovated that Faith of Christ once delivered by the Apostles to the Saints in the written Gospel, and with­all have conveied it unto posterity, as re­ceived from Christ by continued Successi­on. Several Centuries have declared it: And this daies experience testifieth to it, that their Teachers do perswade them, that all their abominations in doctrine and worship, which the Lord abhorrs, and the rest of the Christian world know­eth to be false, are indefectively descen­ded by Trad [...]tion from Christ unto them.

4. The pretence of an Impossibility that whole Ages should thus deceive and be deceived is frivolous; seeing the thing is visibly done; as it was also foretold, that the world should go after the Romish Beast, God hath past that sentence upon those earthly m [...]nded men, who love not the simple spiritual Truth of Christ. Neither is it rare for seared Consc [...]ences to deli­ver falshoo [...] for Truth against their know­ledge. And the s [...]o [...]er they begin thus [Page 189] to corrupt their Off-spring every month ripening to a capacity of such knowledge, it is the more effi [...]acious; To all which Motives are not wanting to ingage unto their faction all they can; For the glory of the world binds them, which the Pa­pal Interest doth so much as it can assure them of: And in fine, To hold contradi­ctions, and tell lies for their advantage, is nor are thing for them, who are the the sworn Vassals unto Romish Tradition, against the Scriptures of God: They must contradict themselves, who walk so con­trary unto the Lord in faith and practice. From the premises then men may see the ridiculousness of h [...]s Principles.

4. Yet he advanceth from these his Conclusions in S. 6. Seeing this is the pre­sent perswasion of Romish Catholicks that their Faith is uninterrupte [...]ly descended from Christ to them, and the ages of their Fore-fathers could not change or innovate it nor deliver it, if innovated, as received from Christ by continual succession; therefore the indefectiveness of their Traditionary Fai h from Chr [...]st must be true: They hold it descended to them as such, therefore it di [...] descend to them as such. And hence the Demonstrator collects confidently, That no power nor wit of man could make their Faith now held to be so descended, but its having been actually so descended: that is, by the only existence of Traditions indefi­c [...]ency this present perswasion could be ef­fected [Page 190] in Romish Catholicks of their faiths un­interrupted descent from the Apostles: For they hold that the Church, (which is their Romish) never failed in Faith.

Unto all which we reply in shorr, and leave it to be weighed in an equal bal­lance.

1. His proposition is denied, Popish perswasion argueth not the indefectiveness of their Tradition.

2. His Principles are vain and begg'd, by which he makes good his Assumpti­on.

His Inference is the same with his me­dium. They hold their Faith descended to them as such, therefore it did descend to them as such.

4. Although the Power and wit of man, could not have made them hold their Faith to be so ever descended to them, unless it had been so actually de­scended; Yet some Power and wit of the Devils added to it, under the r [...]gh­teous judgment of God, could easily de­lude them, and make them hold that, which was not true.

5. Their tenaciousness of their Romish Churches never failing in the Faith of Christ, is the grand delusion by which the old Serpent hath beguiled them into their obstinate and wilful erring by its Tradition. Her Apostasie is so notorious that if the Scripture be the word of God, [Page 191] she cannot be the Church of Christ.

6. We conclude from all, that the Dis­courser [...] Demonstration [...]s sappless and irra­tional, concluding nothing as he preten­ded, which we leave to the judgment of the most acute Christian Readers. Blind Papists may beleeve him and perish by him; but such whose eies are he [...]led with Christs eye-salve, will easily perceive, there is neither Truth nor Reason in it. So that we hold still.

• 1. Romish Oral-Tradition of their Trent-faith is not uninterruptedly descended from Christ and his Apostles.
• 2. Scriptural Tradition of the Gospel-faith, is indefectively descended from Christ and his Apostles unto us.

He next proceeds from Demonstrati­on unto Church-proof of the indefective­ness of his Tradition.

THE Ninth Discourse EXAMINED.

IN this Discourse the Author endeavours to better his Demonstration by the strength of the Churches Testimony un [...]o his Tradition, wherein occurre unto obser­vation.

1. A preface unto his Discouse. S. 1.

2. A discovery of the Churches Humane Authority. S. 2, 3, 4.

3. A narration of her div [...]ne Assistances in testifying, S. 5, 6, 7. &c.

1. In his preface he personates an objecter, who should say, that by all his former dis­courses, (they being but Nature) a Heathen by his natural wit may become a good Chri­stian: To which hav ng in his loose fashion returned; He t [...]lls us it was out of his road, and only that hence he might take his rise to shew how far Christian Trad [...]tion is streng­thned above the greatest humane Testimo­ny, &c.

Not to repeat his many words, we shall only note somethings in his re­ply.

1. Seeing he wonders what else should be supernaturality, but supernatural mo­tives laid before natural men, to be con­sidered and received by natural faculties; we cannot but wonder that such a Master in his Church should be so ignorant of Supernaturality, or a state of Grace above nature; Nicodemus was not so dark in this business. We therefore shall shortly suggest.

1. That nothing beneath Regeneration, Joh. 3.3. can put a man above the state of nature, or make him supernatural or spiritual.

2. The objective Power of supernatural motives, is not of it self sufficient to rege­nerate, being apprehended only by the scantling of natural reason: but the Al­mighty Spirit of God must come upon souls to make them be born Spirit of Spi­rit, to effect this.Joh. 3.6. Moral perswasion may make almost a Christian, as Agrippa was, but not a Christian truly and through­out.

3. No extraordinary Inspiration is ex­pected for each particular man, as to this effect, but the Ordinary work of Gods spi­rit by his word, which is so far from un­raveling the order of Gods best Providence in bringing men to salvation; that no­thing doth more magnifie and confirm [Page 194] it. And if this be the very Notion of Fa­natickness, let our souls be under that Cha­racter, to which the Discourser must come if ever he be saved, although now he jeers it.

4. All this is out of his road, (as he saith) and indeed it is as many other things, needless and inapt unto his present business; but he excuseth it, that it was but to take his rise, to shew Traditions strength by the humane Authority and di­v [...]ne Assistances of his Church: He were best to beware, lest (as the Schollar) he mount on the wrong side of the horse, and tumble over. He offers to rise to the Assistances of the Holy Ghost, which he saith are built upon Perfections of will in the Faithful, or on Virtues, the effects pro­perly attributed to that Divine Person How? The Assistances of the Holy Gho [...] built upon mens wills, and its own Ef­fects? He attempts his rise most sillily, we judge the Effects of the Spirit to be built upon his Person, and not this, c [...] its Operation upon them; and man [...] will to be the subject of the spirits infl [...] ­ence, and not the Basis on which it [...] built. This fore-bodes but a bad expedition; yet we shall try what he will do Although the sum of all expressed here hath been handled heretofore.

2. Before he declareth these Assista [...] ces of the Holy Spirit, he adventureth to she [...] [Page 195] first the Churches Humane Authority for testifying, to exceed any other in the world; which he doth by comparing it with the vast number of Turks, Testifiers of Tradition from their Mahomet; in Sect. 2, 3, & 4th. This may be shortly presented to one view in this form of Argument. If the humane force of the Churches Testimony that their Faith descended from Christ unto them by indefective Tradition, farre exceed the witness of the Turks concerning their Mahomets existence, then its Authority is to be beleeved before theirs, But

The humane force of the Churches Testimo­ny far exceeds that of the Turks, Therefore, The Churches witness is much more to be be­leeved, &c.

The Assumption is expresly laid down, a­verred by the Author S. 2. The Propo­sition is supplied to form the Argument; The proof of the Assumption is given, S. 3. And the Conclusion drawn. S. 4.

Now having the whole matter so laid forth before us, we shall both animad­vert upon and answer to the whole Ar­gument.

1. When he urgeth the Churches Testi­mony we must understand him speaking of the Romish Church, whose Authority he maintains.

2. We note also that he speaks not of this Church, as Such, but only of them as Men; for here he urgeth only their hu­mane Testimony.

[Page 196]3. We wonder at the Mans artificial Logick in this, as in other places, to prove circularly Idem per Idem: Elsewhere he tells us, that his infallible and Inde­fective Tradition only can make men fit witnesses in our present controversie, and here he urgeth Humane Testimony to make good indefectiveness of his Tra­dition; So he may make us giddy by rounding us in a circle; but rather then so, we will stand still, and m [...]ke a retro­grade motion in denying the whole form of his Argument, as foolish and ridicu­lous, not shewing him to be the Man, which he would seem to be: In the next help of his Assistances, we shall see him in the same fault.

4. To the matter of his Argument, we deny his Assumption, That the Huma [...]e Authority of his Churches Test mony f [...]r their Tradition, doth far exceed the Testi­mony of the Turks for the [...]r Tradition a­bout the Existence of th [...]ir Mahomet: For as men they are equally sinners, and may equally be deceived and deceive. So were Jews and Gentiles. He hath no cause therefore to charge Protestants as unjust to grant that to a body of Turks, which their Passion makes them question, and even deny to a Church of Christians; for here he speaks of his Church, not as Christian, but as Humane; only as they are men and not Christians. Moreover [Page 197] the Protestants do yield the same to both; That under the just judgement of God the Mahometans may maintain their Tra­d [...]tion o [...] Mahomets Existence indefective­ly; but not as des [...]ended from Go [...]. And no lesse under Gods sen [...]ence of ju­stice may the Papists convey the Tradition of their false faith, and [...]dolat [...]ons wor­ship indefect vely to the r own per [...]ition: but not [...]s descen ed from Christ. He must therefore prove what he averts, before that his con lusion will get credit.

5. As to his proof, S. 3. It is but an empty sound, to which we ret [...]rn.

1. The credibil ty of witnesses depends more upon the Quality, than the Q [...]an­tity of Testifiers, both for matters of Faith and of Fact. One Elijah testifying unto Gods Truth, is of more value than the Test of 4 [...]0 Priests for Baal: Num­bers therefore will not help h m against Truth.

2. Suppose there were vast multitudes, whom the Apostle [...] and Disciples conver­ted in many distant Nati [...]ns, and there were but an han [...]ful o [...] men about Mecha, and some other places where Mahomet conquered and pl [...]nted his Doctrine; the Turks will tell him, t [...]at the Apostles con­verted them to be Christians, and not to be Papists: Neither did any of them give testimony unto Popish Tradition: And also that as many of theirs, saw their Mahomets [Page 198] existence as of those multitudes converted, who saw Christ in the flesh. The Dis­courser were best to provide an answer for them.

3. It is more than probable, that it was easier for a single company of Arabians, and Syrians to conspire in a lye for Ma­homet, than it was for such a multitude converted, as suckt in Christianity at first, to conspire in a lye for Christ; Nay we say they did not, they durst not, yet this hinders not, but that it was as easie for a multitude of Popish Fore-fathers as they were men, to conspire to a lye as much as Arabians and Syrians, as they are such: We see no difference in this Case.

4, As to his repeated sensations to know Christs Doctrin, we say no more but this, that the Turks sensations may be as good and as quick, and as oft repeated about their fabulous doctrins of Mahomet, as the Papists in reiterating their many fables in their Religion unto their Posterity: And if so, this Argument of sensation (wherewith he nauseates his Readers) is little worth. The Turks Testimony for the Traditions of his Mahomet, may be as firm as the humane Testimony of the Romish Church, for their Popish Tradition given down to this day. However we will be no Umpires between them. Let them make good their Authority one a­gainst [Page 199] another; They will joyn issue at last: For their Traditions will destroy them. See the strength of the Humane Authori­ty of his Church for his Tradition.

6. From this exceeding Humane Au­thority of his Church (having lasht fran­tick and stark mad Opiniasters, who deny it) he concludeth no greater evidence can be to ascertain the conveiance of their Faith from Christs time unto them. Unto the support whereof he ingageth Scripture and Metaphy­sicks, S. 4.

We need trouble our selves about this; for the premises being false, the Conclu­sion must fall; yet but to glance.

1. It is no strange thing for Frantick and mad men to think all others like them­selves. Surely if this man were master of his reason, he must needs see the weak­ness of his Argument, and unreasonable­ness of his conclusion; and not cast fire­brands at his opponents; and say they are mad. Himself will prove the Opinia­ster.

2. Is there no greater Evidence of their indefective Tradition than the Humane Authority of their Church? Why then doth he add the Assistances of the Holy Ghost as greater. So he seems to advance his reasoning from that as the less and lower unto those helps as better and higher.

3. What his Metaphysicks do demon­strate of the perfect method and waies of [Page 200] essential Wisdome, in laying this inde­fect [...]ve Tradition, as such a means (unto mans salvation, that all Gods other pre­servation of natural things in their kinds, scarce deserves the name of a Providence in comparison of that; We must desire him to shew us, before we can see it. Our M [...]taphysicks re [...]ch not th [...]t Mistery of Salvation. But perhaps he is Hyper-Hyperph [...]sic [...]l.

4. How he brings in Scripture by Head and shoulders, to help the humane Au­thority of his Churches Testimony for the indefectiveness of his Tradition, it is st [...]ange to us; And how he ingageth the Lord Jesus, Joh. 3, 16. Matth. 6.26. To adv [...]nce his Tradition together with Gods sp [...]r [...]t in the Apostle, 1 Cor. 9.9. and in David that holy Meditator on Go [...] L [...]w. Ps. 93.5. Where his vulgar Transl [...]tion corru [...]ts the Text too, and in stead of Thy Testimonies O Lord are very sure, do render it, Thy Testimonies are made too much credible. It may astonish sober and understand ng Readers: For what hath Gods love in giving his only be­g [...]tten Son to love sinners, or, his Care over his Children, more than over Fowls and Ox­en, to do with Romish Tradition, which is a Lye, and contrad [...]cts Scripture-Truth? The Lord abhorrs it. And did David ever th [...]nk th [...]t the Testimonies of God, were Popish Trad [...]tions? Or, did he pro­phesie [Page 201] of them? Never did man more gro­sly abuse, and misapply Scripture than this. If this be his Church-Traditional-Interpretation; Reason must loath it. But the best is, he giveth his quotations in Latin, that the vulgar should not under­stand them. Here we have the close of his Churches humane Authority, testifying to his Tradition. Let this piece of La­tin answer his, Traditiones & ineptiae Pon­tificiae incredibiles factae sunt nimis.

3. He proceeds to shew those Assist­ances of the Holy Spirit superadded to na­ture, given to his Church, which he leavs to be scanned by the leasurely thoughts of Attentive considerers, S 5.

We wish all the leasure and attentive­ness unto the Intelligent considerers of him; the more they be, they will cast him in this point of his Assistances, which we leave to Trial. But in the interim he is guilty of the crime again of proving Idem per Idem. Must his Tradition testifie to those Assistances to make them such, or else they are false? And the [...] must these Assistances testifie to the truth and perpe­tuity of his Tradition? If this be good Lo­gick; The Discourser will carry all be­fore him: But men will laugh at him for such reasoning; much more may under­standing Christians have him in Derision. And indeed this is enough to answer to the end of this Discourse: But least he [Page 202] clamour, that we do not hear him out, we shall consider what follows.

1. In general, S. 6. He asserts, the Ef­fect wrought by these assistances, in his wit­nesses, to be veracity, beyond all others, who have not the same: Now to leave out his bombast stuffing of Phantasms, &c. I shall cast his Assertion by adding a Proposition to it into this form of Argument.

If Popish Christians by grace are far more fixt to Veracity, than others not imbued with those Heavenly Tenets (who yet naturally speak Truth, if design hinder not; yea even Fools and Drunkards) then a multitude of them incomparably exceeds in point of testifying the same number of others, unfortified by Christs Doctrine. But

Popish Christians are far more fixt to vera­city by Grace than others, &c. Ergo, These Popish Christians must exceed in point of testify­ing unto their Tradition. This is the general sum.

There is no wrong done to him by for­ming his discourse thus. It is true Popish here is added to Christians; for such only he can intend, seeing he denieth such As­sistances to any Christians out of his Church: and yet he deludes his Readers under the general notions of Christians, as if his witnesses were all professed Chri­stians. This by the way

To the Argument, 1. Seeing the Pro­position is Hypothetical, including many [Page 203] particulars, though we may grant it in the whole; yet several things supposed by him, and included in it, are false; As

1. That it is natural for every man to speak Truth, if d [...]sign hinder not. True it is, man was created Truth in Gods Image, and so did necessarily speak truth: But af­ter the Father of lyes had deceived him, and he was fallen from the Image of God, Every man became a lye; and naturally speaks not Truth but falshood, as their Father doth; and that from the womb without design.

2. As to his instance in Fools and Drun­kards speaking Truth without artifice. Let his Popish witnesses be like them or go beyond them, he gains little by it; for those witless Creatures speak no truth of God at all, with which we have to do. And what Truth they do bewray, it is out of weakness or wickedness; and let the Authority then of such advance the vera­city of Popish Testifiers, so much as may be, (for with those he doth compare them.) And indeed they will prove spiri­tual Fools, and Drunkards all. Whence may be judged easily, what truth they will testifie for Christ. In a word if De­sign may hinder men from speaking truth, none are more to be suspected than Popish witnesses, whose Religion hath been car­ried on from the first Defection to this [Page 204] day upon Papal Designs, most inconsistent with the Faith of the Gospel.

2. But letting go the Proposition, we deny his Assumption, Pop [...]sh Christians are not far more fixt to Veracity by their Te­nets, or pretended Grace, than other men not imbued with them; for they may be im­bued with better. Were there nothing but their own Trent Testimony-work ope­ned about this, a clearer Demonstration, cannot be given to prove the Averseness of Popish witnesses to Veracity, as to de­claring Christs pure Doctrine and the way of his Salvation. This therefo [...]e must be proved by the Discourser, or else his wit­ness is not worth a straw.

2. In special he laboureth to prove this Veracity of his Testifiers, by his formen­tioned assistances of the Holy Ghost, whereof he giveth an account in all the sequel of this discourse; numbring many.

1. In S. 7. The first Assistance to Ve­racity in his Witnesses (as he saith) is the cure of Original Corruption in them by Grace, so that they incline not to the un­due love of Creatures, nor the injuring of Gods ten Comm [...]ndements; But it implants in their hearts an over-powring Love of Su­preme spiritual Goods, which leaveth their natural disposition to Truth, free to do its Effect, and renders needless, that crafty way of design, &c.

[Page 205]1. Here we must note, that this is but Actum agere, to say over the same thing again; for this he had ascr [...]bed unto his Tradi [...]ionary Christians before. Needless therefore is it so to repeat it: there is e­nough there answered to it.

2. Though we grant the power of Grace sufficient to take off hearts from the love of creatures, and to fix hearts upon the love of spiritual goods; Yet we deny this Effect wrought upon Popish Witnes­ses.

3. It is apparent, that they have done the greatest inj [...]ry to known rational, Or­ders, even the Ten Commandements, laid for the subsistence of the Universal well-being of M [...]nkind; that they have excluded the second Command forbidding their Image worship, and turned the whole Law from the Spirituality of it to become meerly literal and external, as the Pharisees did by their carnal glosses.

4. As to design, it hath been said and we say it again, The whole Popish Religion since the Roman Empire, was changed from Temporal to Spiritual, hath been carried on meerly upon the Papal Design. Histo­ries proclaim it against all Contradiction, that the Pope by his Religious Emissaries hath enhanced K [...]ngdoms, and brought the powers of the Earth under to pro­mote his worldly designs; Hereupon their prosperity became one of the great Cha­racters [Page 206] of the True Church: The Myste­ry of Jesuitism hath revealed much of this. These witnesses then are more to be sus­pected than other men: Neither are their Natures by all they hold, set free unto Ve­racity. This Assistance then is nothing, the Holy Ghost will not own it. More­over, were this a fit place to ingage up­on a corrupt passage here used, it should be made appear, that Grace doth not on­ly leave mans natural disposition free to veracity, but makes a reall change in mans nature from a Lye into Truth. Let it pass here.

2. The next supernatural Assistance un­to the Veracity of his Testifiers, is in S. 8. by him made to be supernatural Motives of E­ternal goods and harms, subjected to mens hopes and fears, much more powerful than natural to oblige unto Veracity in natural matters, which the sufferings of the Mar­tyrs in all ages declare; therefore his wit­nesses having such motives, must needs speak truth.

1. That this is a supernatural Assist­ance objectively and externally to some, who may have an impression of it from Gods spirit, may be granted.

2. But why doth the Discourser weary us with his Battisms, to tumble over the same things so often? The force of this hath been repulst before.

[Page 207]3. We deny that these motives have prevailed with his Popish witnesses to speak Truth for Christ: For their Trent-Canons injoyn many lies and fables in­stead of Gospel-Truth: Whatever force therefore those motives may have upon such, who duely receive them, to perswade them unto veracity, they have had none upon those Popish Testees; natural Tests concerning matters of Fact are much mo [...]e true. The inward work of the spirit is that only which makes men to speak truth for God: Neither Heaven nor Hell will perswade without this.

3. In S. 9. He giveth us to consider a­nother supernatural Assistance unto his Te­stifiers for Tradition, which is the ingaging of them unto veracity by the Sacraments of the Church, held to have been instituted by Christ himself. Now if oaths and other Ce­remonies, do keep natural men to their Trust which are made by them; how much more must the Sacraments of Christ, both ge­neral to all Christians, and special to Offi­cers, oblige all not to prevaricate from the Faith held, nor belye their Fore-fathers, nor betray their Deposition?

1. We have had this help also to Tra­dition once before pressed, whereunto an­swer enough was made. Yet we are put to it once again.

2. These Sacraments which are Christs, are indeed supernatural external means, [Page 208] ingag [...]ng men to be Truth, speak Truth, and do Truth as unto God; but these may be used (as some Papists themselves confess) without the Assistance or Coo­peration of the Holy Ghost. And in such case they do indeed de jure oblige men to speak truth, but not de facto; for many use falshood, who do receive them,

3. The supernatural virtue of these also, is peculiar only to those two Sacraments, which the Lord himself instituted, viz. Baptisme and the Lords supper, (whatever Papists do hold otherwise) For he had no more; they have made the rest; which being of humane Institution, are no As­sistances of the Ghost.

5. The Corruption which they have made in Christs own Sacraments by ad­ding to Baptism, and taking away half from his Supper, together with the ad­dition of five other Sacraments appointed to be peculiar to several Conditions and Orders men (which the Lord never inten­ded) are all ineptae Tesserae, very unseemly pledges to oblige men to Veracity, being Falshood themselves.

5. These may by the efficacious work­ings of Satan, ingage souls not to preva­ricate from their Faith held (though false) nor belye their Fore-Fathers, but take for truth all that they have told them (though nothing but Fables) nor to be­tray their Depositum or Trust whatever it [Page 209] be. But what is all this to Veracity? We can tell him, that his Sacrament of the Al­tar was used to obl [...]ge some of his Pro­fession to be true to their Trust in [...]oncea­l [...]ng Powder-plots for execuitng most bar­barous and unheard of Massa [...]res. Was this to ingage unto Veracity? The good Lord keep poor Souls from being deluded, by such deceits of these supernatural As­sistances. Procul, Proculite, Profani.

4. In S. 10. He suggesteth this among his supernatural Assistances: That Christian Fathers (that is, Popish) cannot misteach their Children unreceived doctrine for received, contrary to their own knowledge; and that with­out the least good to themselves, to debar them Heaven and send them unto Hell gratis. Which could not enter into the most depraved na­ture to harm another without any good to himself. Besides their Sanctity and number and Chr [...]sts Law of Charity with them, will not suffer them to do such a thing, but keep them to Veracity.

1. We have here another Crambe-re­coction, but we must labour to digest it, and rid it off; that it offend not too much.

2. Is this a Supernatural Assistance to deny, that wh [...]ch could not enter into the most depraved nature to do, even to harm another without any good unto ones self? What doth the man mean by this? Sure­ly his Super-naturality is become very low.

[Page 210]3. We question the Sanctity of Popish Fore-Fathers, (as we have just cause to do) and of making Heaven their first Love, and of their looking on Spiritual goods, as their main concern. We must see their pro­geny, who have received their Faith from them, walk in more spiritual waies, before we can trust this report. Neither doth their number avail with us; for the most may be the worst, as hath been already de­clared.

4. Christ's Law indeed is the Law of cha­rity, which when written in hearts, ina­bleth▪ them to love Neighbours, and Chil­dren in their order; neither will it suffer them to debar any from Heaven, or to send them to Hell gratis: But in Idola­trous souls, though Parents, no such law is written; but being deceived themselves they have also deceived their Ch ldren, and have barr'd them out of Heaven and sent them to Hell gratis. This hath been shewed already: And so it may be still with them that follow lying Tradition. Quantum, Quantum? O how great is this supernatural Assistance? Miserable children of miserable Parents so mis­guided.

5. In S. 11. He adds another Assist­ance as Supernatural unto Veracity given to his Testifiers of Tradition, and that is, the great Recommends, which Christian Doctrine had received from Fore-Fathers; both by [Page 211] the Faithful transmission of its serious im­port, the Universality, conceited wisedom, goodness &c. of the Recommenders: In comparison of which all Recommendation of Natural or Civil Truth, doth lev [...]tate like an inconsiderable Fe [...]ther or Air. These Recommends then must keep them to speak truth.

1. As to this may we mind the Discour­ser, these Recommends are not in his terms of the Method of delivering by speech, but only of Christian Doctrine, which is the matter delivered, and was wa­ved heretofore.

2. These Recommends at highest, were but from men, whose Ʋniversality, con­ceited wisdome and goodness in speaking for Tradition, are very questionable. How then comes this to be a supernatural Assist­ance to Veracity?

3. Whatever this Recommendation be, it hath not kept Romish-Tradition-Deli, verers unto Truth; for they have given down deceits and Falshood from Fathers to Children: therefore it hath been no help unto Veracity as to them.

4. If the H [...]ghest Recommends may fix unto Truth, we shall give the Dis­courser to consider the Recommends of God himself given unto Scripture-Tradi­tion, Jer. 23.28. in comparison of the vast poize and weight whereof all the Recommendation mentioned by him, lev [...]tates indeed like Air [Page 212] and an inconsiderable Feather: Yet neither he nor his seduced Papists will receive this Truth of God before their Tradition. Wo unto them self-condemned souls!

6. In S. 12. He giveth another Su­pernatural Assistance unto Veracity, which is Christian Affection of Parents unto Chil­dren: This is so efficacious in them to bring their Children to everlasting and infinite Bliss in Heaven, and to keep them from intolerable and endless miseries in Hell, that they must needs speak truth unto them in giving down their Tradition.

1. Why doth the man so trouble his Readers with vain and useless repetitions. We have had Parents Affections once and again urged and answered, their sanctity also superadded, which here he stileth Christianity: and yet all this proved inef­fectual to make Fathers speak Truth to their Children; for they have left them lyes in stead thereof, given down by their Tra­dition.

2. All the Christian Affection, which Popish Fore-fathers do express unto their Children is, but to make them Papists; and in this way they labour to bring them to bliss in Heaven, and keep them from miseries in Hell, or leave them in Purga­tory. And in this way Parents and Chil­dren may perish together, as deceiving and being deceived, with a form of Christia­nity for the very truth and power of it: [Page 213] And if sensation be enough (as he saith) to make such Christians, there need no su­pernatural helps, to compass this Effect: Neither indeed is this Christian Affection, an ingagement to speak truth, it self being a delusion.

7. In S. 13. He addeth this as a super­natural Assistance to Veracity, even the Cre­dit and Repute, which his Testifyers look unto in the world among men, that must needs keep them from lying: This he amplifieth by comparing it with other mens converse in the world, whose credit for Truth speaking, is their life in society; and their discredit for lying their undoing: And at last tells us, That the Advantage, which the natural care of Credit, giveth to the preserving Tradition inviolable, is incomparable, and in a manner infinite.

It is boldly spoken: but let us try, whe­ther it be as truly asserted.

1. Is Credite or Repute with men mo­ving us to speak Truth, a supernatural As­sistance? What is natural then? The very Gentiles that knew not Christ, were upon this Account perswaded to Veracity: They were ashamed, some more Moral of them, to tell lyes upon that account.

2. There is a Credit indeed, and a good Report with God, which may be a super­natural help unto Veracity; but the Dis­courser speaks not a word of that: After this did all the Saints look, and they had [Page 214] a good report in heaven, from Abel to the last of all as that Catalogue sheweth which the Apostle mak [...]th.Heb. 11.2.39 Rom 2.29 2 Cor. 10.18. And it is written, That only is Creditable Religion whose praise is not of men but of God; And he alone is approved, whom the Lord commendeth. To this we should yeeld, that such as ex­pect Credit, or Praise with God, will think and speak, and do truth.

3. This being none of that Credit which the Author speaks of, as aimed at by Te­stifiers, We assert it is neither supernatural nor can it effectually oblige unto Vera­city: For what is man to man, but as one lyar to another, who doubtless will applaud; or if the lye be too loud, at least excuse one another. But as to his Testyfiers for h [...]s Tradition, if Histories may h [...]ve any cred [...]t, the most debauched fel­lows and Devils incarnate have not been more-brazen faced and impudent in any sorts of lies, than some of them: Men ha­ving Consciences seared with a hot iron, Mr. Mead Apostasie of latter daies. have been exercised in giving down lying Tra­ditions of false Mediators. It is not fit here to relate all Histories; We referre therefore to the faithful Relaters of them.

This prop of Credit then among men, is no supernatural help to Popish Fathers, or Pastors unto Veracity in their Traditions, notwithstanding all other ingagements bin­ding them thereunto. It is therefore In­comparable [Page 215] boldness, and an Evil in a man­ner Infinite against the most infinite God, who is Truth it self, in this Disputer thus to vent his own vain fancies for Christs Doctrine, and falseshood for Truth.

8. Lastly in S. 14. Having laboured thus far to support the Veracity of his Testifiers unto the Indefectiveness of his Tradition, with his pretended supernatural Assistances (though with a very unhappy success) He now musters up a number of Arts and Scien­ces contributing to his former witnesses; telling us withall, that each vertue contri­butes to shew the inerrable Indeficiency of his Tradition: And after an hint upon their several assistances, he concludeth, that he hath proved his Tradition to be an iner­rable Rule, and m [...]de the Indefectibleness of it Scientifically Evident, and as strong as nature and grace strained to their utter­most, can make it.

O confident man! Who in his w [...]tts, that hath seriously read and considered his arguments, can beleeve him? Hath he made his Demonstration of his Traditions Inde­fectiveness as strong as Nature and Grace strained to their uttermost, can make it? Surely Nature is a stranger to Popish Tra­dition, and Grace truly so called is an e­nemy to it, if ever Grace dropt from the lips of Christ in the Gospel; For he hath thrown down all Tradition contradicting the Spirit of Scripture among the Jews; [Page 216] And would he set it up again among Christians? It is impious to think, much more with such boldness to utter it.

As to his Muster of Arts for his help, it is so sapless and ridiculous that to name them in this great business in hand, is to shew the Author to be scarce himself in reason; when he call'd them in to his As­sistance. It would make a pretty Theme for a Pasquil, or a Romance to be fram'd upon, or to make a new Comedy of the Arts attending one Complementing, with the Tripple-cround Papal Tradition, and at last all vanishing and leav [...]ng it to shift for it self: But it is a hard tasks to answer seriously such frivolous allegations. Who­ever doth it must suppose.

1. That Arithmetick can only give the number of his false witnesses.

2. That Geometry by its lines, can only measure them as earthly minded ones.

3. That Logick indeed, will discover all the Parologi [...]ms of his Testees.

4. That Natures Law w [...]ll condemn their forged inventions and Actions.

5. That Morality will discover his Tra­dition to be gratis, to no purpose.

6. That History for several ages proves his Tradition deficient.

7. That Politicks, if they do favour him, it is in the worst sense, that is, with subtilties and deceits.

[Page 217]8. That Metaphysicks, can give no En­tity to that which is not, and thar is the indefective descent of Popish Tradition from Christ.

9. That Divinity, which is truly the knowledge of God in Christ revealed in the Scripture, is so farre from demonstrating Popish Tradition worthy of God, or to bring Mankind to bliss, that it damns to Hell every way and practice contradicting Scripture-Truth.

10. As to Controversie he doth a little puzzle us; For Popish Controversie will settle and unsettle any thing for Truth or no Truth at their pleasure: But if he will stand to the Apostles expression of conten­ding for the Faith once delivered to the Saints, we shall make it good,Jud. 15.3. there was no such Principle delivered by Christ or his Apostles, that Oral-Tradition must be the first upon which all others depend. Nay more, that Scripture needs no security from his Tradition, nor any thing else that can mainly concern salvation; but that all Tradition Orall must be made good by Scripture, or else it cannot guide to salva­tion, but to destruction, being false and erroneous.

To close: Why doth this Discourser so palpably dissemble at last, to tell us that he hath many other Testimonies of his Traditions Infallibleness, but it is not his Task to pursue them? Hath he not repeated [Page 218] the same proofs over and over to turn up our stomacks, if we were squeamish? Was it not his intended work from the beginning to prove the infallibleness of his Tradition to his utmost, and yet he saith it was not his task? Who can be­leeve him? Notwithstanding the man is content from what he hath said, to con­clude that he hath proved it self-Evident, That Romish Tradition is an Inerrable Rule, and not only Indefective but In­defectible from Christ to this day, and that by the utmost strained strength of Na­ture and Grace. Lord open this Mans eies. We conclude too: Nothing but the utmost of Satans Efficacy, and Ma [...] Lust, could work such delusion.