Sure Footing in Christianity, Discourse 2
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.
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, 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 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 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, 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, 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 OnelyOnly, 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 people, to the daies of Moses without any other; OnelyOnly 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 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. foreign. 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 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 onelyonly 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, 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 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; 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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 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.
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 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.
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 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….
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.