Sure Footing in Christianity, Discourse 3
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 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.
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 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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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 duplicate page duplicate page 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 wicked, absurd, unreasonable men, 2 Thes. 3 2having 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 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.
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 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.
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 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 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. 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 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, 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,
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 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 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, 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. 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.