The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 1 · Chapter 7

The Grounds of Protestant Religion · Part 1 · Chapter 7

p. 202CHAP. VII. The Protestant Way of resolving Faith.

Several Principles premised in order to it. The distinct Questions set down, and their several Resolution given. The Truth of matters of fact, the Divinity of the Doctrine, and of the Books of Scripture, distinctly resolved into their proper grounds. Moral Certainty a sufficient Foundation for Faith, and yet Christian Religion proved to be infallibly True. How Apostolical Tradition made by his Lordship a Foundation of Faith. Of the certainty we have of the Copies of Scripture, and the Authority of them. S. Augustine's Testimony concerning Church-Authority, largely discussed and vindicated. Of the private Spirit, and the necessity of Grace. His Lordship's Way of resolving Faith vindicated. How far Scripture may be said to be known by its own Light. The several Testimonies of Bellarmine, Brierly, and Hooker, cleared.

§. 1.HAving thus far followed you through all your intricacies and windings, and shewed, with what diligence and subtilty you would juggle men out of their Faith, under a pretence of Infallibility; it will be necessary for the vindicating our Doctrine, and the clearing this important Controversie with all evidence and perspicuity, to lay down those certain grounds which we build our Faith upon. And, although it be one of the greatest of your Modern Artifices to perswade the world, that Protestants have no certain grounds of Faith at all, yet I doubt not but to make it evident, that the way taken by the most judicious and considerative Protestants, is as satisfactory and reasonable, as I have already made it appear, that yours is unreasonable and ridiculous. Which I shall the rather do, because, through the want of a clear and distinct apprehension of the true way of resolving Faith, no Controversie in Religion hath been more obscure and involved, than this hath been. Therefore for our more distinct method of proceeding, I shall first endeavour to prevent misunderstanding, by premising several things which are necessary for a through opening the state of the Controversie, and then come to the resolution of it. The things then I would premise, are these following:

1. That we enquire not after the reason, why we assent to what is divinely revealed, but after the reason why we believe any thing to be a Divine Revelation. Therefore when men speak of the last resolution of Faith into the Veracity of God revealing, they speak that which is undoubtedly true, but it reacheth not our present enquiry. I freely grant, that the ultimate reason why any thing is believed, is upon the Testimony of him from whom it comes; and the greater the knowledge and fidelity is, of him whose Testimony I believe, the stronger my Assent is, supposing I have sufficient evidence that it is his Testimony. But that is our present Question, for it being taken for granted among all Christians, that God's Testimony is absolutely infallible, there can no dispute arise concerning the ground of resolving Faith, supposing God's Revelation to be sufficiently known. For no one questions but God's Veracity however discovered, is a sufficient ground for Faith; but all the Question is, How we come to know wherein this Veracity of God doth discover it self; or what those p. 203things are which are immediately revealed by him. Therefore to tell us, that the resolution of Faith is into Gods Infallible Testimony, without shewing on what account this testimony is to be beleeved to be from God, is, to tell us that which no one doubts of, and to escape that which is the main question. For in case Isaac should have denyed submission to his Fathers will when he went to be sacrificed, till he could be satisfied concerning the lawfulness of that action which his Father went about; Do you think it had been satisfactory to him, if Abraham had told him, that God had power to relax his own Laws, and therefore he need not question the lawfulness of the action; might not Isaac have presently answered, That he did not question, that what God commanded was lawful, but that he desired, was, some evidence that he had a revelation for what he did. And the answer to this had been only pertinent and satisfactory. So that he might have no reason to question it, although he did not believe any thing more then common fidelity in his Fathers testimony. For God never (when revelations were most common) thought it necessary to multiply revelations so far, as to make one necessary to attest another; but that revelation which was communicated to one was obligatory to all concerned in it, though they could have nothing but Moral certainty for it. By this it appears, that when we now speak of the resolution of Faith, though the utmost reason of our assent, is, that Infallibility which is supposed in Divine Testimony, yet the nearest and most proper resolution of it, is, into the grounds inducing us to believe that such a Testimony is truly Divine, and the resolution of this cannot be into any Divine Testimony without a process in infinitum.

2. That when we speak of the resolution of Faith, by Faith we understand a rational and discursive act of the mind. For Faith being an assent upon evidence, or reason inducing the mind to assent, it must be a rational and discursive act; and such a one that one may be able to give an account of to another. And this account which men are able to give why they do believe, or on what ground they do it, is that which we call resolving Faith. And by this it appears, that whatever resolves Faith into its efficient cause, (which some improperly call the Testimony of the spirit) though it may be true, yet comes not home to the question. For if by the Testimony of the spirit be meant that operation of the spirit whereby saving Faith is wrought in us, then it gives no account from the thing to be believed, why we assent to it, but only shews how Faith is wrought in us by way of efficiency; which is rather resolving the question about the necessity of Grace than the grounds of Faith. Our question is not then, concerning the necessity of infused habits of Grace, but of those rational inducements which do incline the mind to a firm assent. For Faith in us, however it is wrought, being a perswasion of the mind, it is not conceivable how there should be any discursive act of the mind, without some reason causing the mind to assent to what is propounded to it. For without this, Faith would be an unaccountable thing, and the spirit of revelation would not be the spirit of wisdom; and Religion would be exposed to the contempt of all unbelievers, if we were able to give no other account of Faith, then that it is wrought in us by the Spirit of God. When we speak therefore of the resolving Faith, we mean, what are the rational inducements to believe, or what evidence there is in the object propounded to make us firmly assent to it.

3. According to the different acts of Faith, there must be assigned a different p. 204resolution of Faith. For every act being rational and discursive, must have its proper grounds belonging to it; unless we suppose that act elicited without any reason for it, which is incongruous with the nature of the humane understanding.

§. 2.There are then in the question of resolution of Faith, these three questions to be resolved. First, Why I believe those things to be true which are contained in the Book called the Scripture? 2. Why I believe the Doctrine contained in that Book to be Divine? 3. Why I believe the Books themselves to be of Divine revelation? Now every one of these questions admits of a different way of resolution; as will appear by the handling each of them distinctly.

1. If I be asked, On what grounds I believe the things to be true which are contained in Scripture? my answer must be, From the greatest evidence of truth, which things of that nature are capable of. If therefore the persons who are supposed to have writ these things, were such who were fully acquainted with what they writ of; if they were such persons who cannot be suspected of any design to deceive men by their writings; and if I be certain that these which go under the name of their writings, are undoubtedly theirs; I must have sufficient grounds to believe the truth of them. Now that the writers of these things cannot be suspected of ignorance, appears by the time and age they writ in, when the story of these things was new, and such multitudes were willing enough to have contradicted it, if any thing had beeen amiss: besides, some of the writers had been intimately conversant with the person and actions of him whom they writ most of. That they could have no intent to deceive, appears from the simplicity and candour both of their actions and writings, from their contempt of the world, and exposing themselves to the greatest hazards to bear witness to them. That these are the very same writings, appears by all the evidence can be desired; For we have as great, if not much greater reason to believe them to be the Authors of the Books under their Names, than any other writers of any Books whatsoever, both because the matters are of greater moment, and therefore men might be supposed more inquisitive about them; and that they have been unanimously received for … from the very time of their being first written, (except some very few, which upon strict examination were admitted too) and we find these very Books cited by the learned Christians under these Names in that time, when it had been no difficulty to have found out several of the Original Copy's themselves. When therefore they were universally received by Christians, never doubted of by Jews, or Heathen Philosophers: we have as great evidence for this first act of Faith, as it is capable of. And he is unreasonable who desires more.

2. If I be asked, why I believe the Doctrine contained in these Books to be Divine? I must give in two things for answer. 1. That in the Age when the Doctrine was delivered, there was sufficient reason to believe it Divine. 2. That if there was sufficient reason then, we have sufficient reason now.

1. That in the Age when the Doctrine was delivered, there was sufficient reason to believe it Divine; Supposing then, that we already believe upon the former answer, that all the matters of fact be true, I answer, that if Christ did such unparalle…d miracles, and rose from the dead, they who heard his Doctrine had reason to believe it to be of God: and this I suppose the greatest Infidel would not deny, if himself had been one of the witnesses of his actions and resurection.

p. 2052. That if they had reason then, we have so now; because tradition to us doth only supply the want of our senses, as to what Christ did and spake; i. e. That tradition is a kind of derivative and perpetuated sensation to us; it being of the same use to us now which our eyes and ears had been, if we had been actually present when Christ delivered his Doctrine and wrought his Miracles. Which that we may better understand, we may consider what the use of our senses had been, if we had been then present; and consequently what the use of tradition is now to us. Now it is apparent, that the use of the senses, to those who saw the Miracles and heard the Doctrine of Christ, was not to give any credibility to either of them, but only to be the means of conveying to them those things which might induce them to believe; the same doth tradition now to us, it doth not in it self make the Doctrin more credible, but supplies the use of our senses in a certain conveyance of those things to us which were the motives to believe then. For the motives to Faith both to them and us are the same, only the manner of conveyance is different; but our case is much the same with those who lived in the same Age, but by reason of distance of place could not be personally present at what Christ did or said; now if those persons were obliged to believe, and had sufficient reason for Faith, who by reason of distance of place could not exercise their senses about Christs Doctrine and Miracles, the same reason and obligation have we, who cannot do it by reason of distance of time. And if there be any advantage on either side, it is on ours, because though the tradition doth not in it self give any credibility to the Doctrine, yet there are such circumstances accompanying this tradition, which may much facilitate our belief above theirs: because by such a continued tradition we have an evidence of the efficacy of this Doctrine, which had so continual a power as to engage so many in all ages since its first appearance to be the propagators and defenders of it. And therefore this hath very much the advantage of the report of any credible persons in that age, who might report to any at distance the Miracles and Doctrine of Christ. And this is the way of resolution of Faith, which the Scripture it self directs us to. How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, Heb. 2.3, 4.Heb 2:3Heb 2:4and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him: God also bearing them witness both with signs and wonders, and with diverse miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? Where we plainly see, the resolution of Faith as to the Divinity of the Doctrine was into the Miracles wrought for the confirmation of it (which was the proper witness or testimony of the Holy Ghost) but the means of conveyance was by the tradition of those who were eye and ear-witnesses of what Christ said or did. As therefore it was not supposed necessary for them who saw the miracles of Christ, either to have some inward Testimony of the Spirit, or some external Infallible Testimony of the Church, to assure them that these miracles were really done by Christ, but God left them to the judgement of sense; so proportionably neither of those two is now necessary for the resolution of our Faith, but God instead of the judgement of sense leaves us to the evidence of Tradition.

Object. But all this is (you say) no more then Moral certainty, which being fallible, §. 3.we cannot from thence be assured that Christian Religion is Infallibly true? Answ. This being the great bug-bear wherewith you would fright men out of their Religion, I shall in this place shew, that it serves only to scare fools and children with. For, 1. What greater certainty had they who lived in the time of Christ and his Apostles, and did not see p. 206their Miracles? Had they, or could they have, any more than this you call moral Certainty? and, Do you really think, that all such could not be sufficiently assured, that Christian Religion was infallibly true? 2. Moral Certainty may be a sufficient Foundation for the most firm Assent; and therefore, if the matter to be believed be the infallible Truth of a Doctrine upon suitable evidence, though we have now but moral Certainty of that evidence, the Assent may be firm to such a Doctrine as infallible. And therefore the grand mistake lyes here, as though our Faith were resolved finally into this moral Certainty; or, as if the Faith of those who saw Christ's Miracles, were resolved into their eyes, and not into the Miracles; for as their eyes were but the means of conveyance of that evidence which was infallible, so is that Tradition to us by which we have our Certainty of those evidences of the infallible Truth of Christian Religion. And we are further to consider that the nature of Certainty is not so much to be taken from the matters themselves, as from the grounds inducing the Assent; that is, Whether the things be Mathematical, Physical, or Moral; if there be no reason to question the grounds of belief, the case is all one as to the nature of the Assent. So that moral Certainty may be as great as Mathematical and Physical, supposing as little reason to doubt in moral things as to their natures, as in Mathematical and Physical as to theirs. Therefore this great quarrel about moral Certainty is very unreasonable; unless it be proved, that there is no cause of firm Assent upon moral grounds; now, if the cause of the Assent may be, as equal and proportionable to their nature in moral things, as in Mathematical; there may be as firm an Assent in the One, as in the Other, as I have already shewed. For which, this reason is plain and evident, that Certainty implies the taking away all suspicion of doubt: But there can be no taking away all suspicion of doubt in Mathematical things, without Mathematical evidence; but in moral things, all suspicion of doubt is removed upon moral evidence, and therefore the Certainty may be as great in the Assent to one as the other. Thus, we see, how unjustly, and how much to the dishonour of Religion you quarrel with moral evidence, as an uncertain thing. But, I answer yet further, 3. That the greatest assurance we can desire, that any Religion is infallibly True, is from moral Certainty; and that upon these three grounds. 1. Because the grounds of all Religion are capable of no more. 2. Because the highest evidence of any Religion must depend upon it. 3. Because this, in it self, may evidently demonstrate, that Christian Religion is infallibly True.

1. There can be no greater than this moral Certainty of the main Foundations of all Religion, which are, The Being of God, and Immortality of souls; without the supposition of which, there can be no such thing as Infallibility in the world; and therefore from thence I may easily prove, that there can be no more than moral Certainty of the existence of a Deity. For, if the very notion of Infallibility doth suppose a God, then you cannot infallibly prove that there is One (in your sense of Infallibility) for then you must beg the Question, and suppose that already to be, which you are proving the existence of: Now that, Infallibility in us doth suppose the existence of God, appears most evidently, because, mans understanding being of it self fallible, it cannot be supposed in any thing infallible, without the supernatural Assistance of a being Infallible, which can be nothing else but God. But, if you think you have infallible proofs, produce them, and convince the world of Atheists by them: We acknowledge we have as great evidence and certainty, as humane nature is capable of, of a Being of p. 207such a Nature as God is, from the consideration of his works; but all this still is moral Certainty; for the grounds are neither Mathematically demonstrative, nor supernaturally infallible. What folly and madness then is it for your party to cry out so much against moral Certainty in Religion, when the Foundation of all Religion is capable of no more; And may not this justly increase our suspicion, that under moral Certainty you strike at the Foundation of all Religion?

2. Suppose God gives the most infallible evidence of any Religion, it is not possible, but that some who are bound to believe that Religion, can have any more than moral Certainty of it. And, for all that, I know the greatest Physical Certainty is as liable to question as moral; there being as great a possibility of Deception in that, as a suspicion of doubt in this, and oft-times greater. What advantage then had those who stood by, and saw the miracles of Moses and Christ, above those who did not, but had the report of them conveyed to them in an unquestionable manner? Besides, it is apparent, God's great aim in any Religion, is most at the good of those who can have only a moral Certainty of the great evidences of the Truth of that Religion; because it being God's intention, that the Religion delivered by Him, should be not meerly for the benefit of those very few persons who could be present at such things, but for the advantage of those incomparably greater numbers, who, by reason of distance of place and age, could not be present; it would argue a strange want of provision for mens Faith, unless moral Certainty were sufficient. Only you indeed will suppose that which God himself never thought necessary, viz. an infallible Testimony of the present Church; but to what good purposes you have introduced this, hath largely appeared already.

3. Moral Certainty yields us sufficient Assurance, that Christian Religion is infallibly true: And that I prove, because moral Certainty may evidently shew us the Credibility of the Christian Religion, which you deny not, nor any else; and, that from the Credibility of it, the infallible Truth of it may be proved, will appear by these two things:

1. That where there is evident Credibility in the matter propounded, there doth arise upon men an obligation to believe: And that is proved both by your own confession (as to the Churches Infallibility being believed on the Motives of Credibility) and from Gods intention, in giving such Motives, which was, to perswade them to believe, as appears by multitudes of places of Scripture; and withall, though the meer Credibility of the Motives might at first suppose some doubts concerning the Infallibility of the Doctrine, yet it is not consistent with any doubt, as to the Infallibility of the obligation to believe; because there can be no other reason assigned of these Motives of Credibility, than the inducing on men an obligation to Faith.

2. That where there is such an obligation to believe, we have the greatest assurance, that the matter to be believed is infallibly True: Which depends upon this manifest proof, That God cannot oblige men to believe a lye; it being repugnant to all our conceptions of the Veracity and Goodness of God, to imagine, that God should require from men (on the pain of eternal damnation, for not believing) to believe something as infallibly True, which is really false. Thus, you see, what a clear and pregnant demonstration we have of the infallible Truth of Christian Religion from moral Certainty; How injurious then have those of your party been, who have charged this opinion of believing upon moral Certainty, with betraying Religion, and p. 208denying Christian Religion to be infallibly True. Thus much for this grand Objection; I now come to the last Question considerable in the Resolution.

§. 4.3. On what account do I believe these particular Books of Scripture to be Gods Word? Which may admit of a double sense: 1. On what account I do believe the Doctrine contained in these Books to be Gods Word? 2. On what account I do believe the Books containing this Doctrine to be Gods Word? As to the first, I have answered already, viz. Upon the same rational evidence which God gave, that the Testimony of those who delivered, was a Divine and infallible Testimony: To the second, I answer in these two Propositions:

1. That the last Resolution of Faith is not into the Infallibility of the Instrument of conveyance, but into the Infallibility of that Doctrine, which is thereby conveyed to us. For the writing of this Doctrine is only the condition by which this Revelation is made manifest to us; it being evident from the nature of the thing, that the writing of a Divine Revelation, is not necessary for the ground and reason of Faith, as to that Revelation: because men may believe a Divine Revelation without it; as is not only evident in the case of the Patriarchs, but of all those, who in the time of Christ, and the Apostles, did believe the truth of the Doctrin of Christ before it was written. If therefore the writing be only the condition of the manifestation of the Object in a certain way to us, the ground and reason of Faith, is not to be resolved into that which is only the mode of our knowledge of the Object to be believed; but into that which is properly the ground and reason why we believe that Doctrine or Revelation to be Divine, which is contained in those Books. And this is still the case of all illiterate persons, who cannot resolve their Faith properly into the Scripture, but into the Doctrine delivered them out of Scripture. Hence we may discern the difference between the Formal Object, and the Rule of Faith; the Formal Object is that evidence which is given of the Infallibility of the Testimony of those who delivered the Doctrine; the infallible Rule of Faith to us, is the Scripture, viz. that which limits and bounds the material Objects of Faith, which we are bound to believe; and this doth therefore discover to us what those things are, which on the account of the Formal Object, we are obliged to believe.

2. Those who believe the Doctrine of Scripture to be Divine, have no reason to question the infallible conveyance of that Doctrine to us, in those Books we call the Scripture. Therefore, whatever things we are to believe in order to salvation, we have as great evidence as we can desire, that they are infallibly conveyed to us.

1. If the Doctrine of Christ be True and Divine, then all the Promises be made were accomplished: Now, that was one of the greatest, That his Spirit should lead his Apostles into all Truth;Joh. 16.…3.John 16:3 Can we then reasonably think, that if the Apostles had such an infallible Assistance of the Spirit of God with them, in what they spake in a transitory way to them who heard them, that they should want it in the delivering those Records to the Church, which were to be the standing monuments of this Doctrine to all Ages and Generations. If Christ's Doctrine therefore be True, the Apostles had an infallible Assistance of God's Spirit; if they had so in delivering the Doctrine of Christ by preaching, nothing can be more unreasonable, than to imagine such should want it, who were employed to give an account to the world of the nature of this Doctrine, and of the Miracles which accompanied p. 209Christ and his Apostles. So that it will appear an absurd thing to assert, that the Doctrine of Christ is Divine, and to question, whether we have the infallible Records of it. It is not pertinent to our Question, in what way the Spirit of God assisted them that wrote, Whether by immediate suggestion of all such things which might be sufficiently known without it; and whether in some things which were not of concernment, it might not leave them to their own judgement; (as in that place,Joh. 6.19.John 6:19 When they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, when, no doubt, God's Spirit knew infallibly whether it was, but thought not fit to reveal it) whether in some lighter circumstances the Writers were subject to any inadvertencies (the negative of which is more piously credible) whether meer historical passages needed the same infallible Assistance, that Prophetical and Doctrinal; these things, I say, are not necessary to be resolved, it being sufficient in order to Faith, that the Doctrine we are to believe, as it was infallibly delivered to the world, by the preaching of Christ and his Apostles, so it is infallibly conveyed to us in the Books of Scripture.

2. Because these Books were owned for Divine by those Persons and Ages, who were most competent Judges, Whether they were so or no. For the Age of the Apostles was sufficiently able to judge, whether those things which are said to be spoken by Christ, or written by the Apostles, were really so or no. And we can have no reason at all to question, but what was delivered by them, was infallibly true. Now, from that first Age we derive our knowledge concerning the Authority of these Books, which being conveyed to us in the most unquestionable and universal Tradition, we can have no reason in the world to doubt, and therefore the greatest reason firmly to assent, that the Books we call the Scripture, are the infallible Records of the Word of God. And thus much may suffice in general concerning the Protestant Way of resolving Faith: I now return to the examination of what you give us by way of answer to his Lordship's discourse.

The first Assault you make upon his Lordship, is, for making Apostolical Tradition a ground of Faith, §. 5.but because your peculiar excellency lyes in the involving plain things; the best service I can do, is to lay things open as they are; by which means we shall easily discern where the truth lyes. I shall therefore first shew, how far his Lordship makes Apostolical Tradition a ground of Faith, and then consider what you have to object against it. In that Section which your Margent referrs to, all that he sayes of it, is,Sect. 16. n. 20. That the Voice and Tradition of that Church which included in it Apostles, Disciples, and such as had immediate Revelation from Heaven, was Divine, and the Word of God from them is of like validity written or delivered. And, as to this Tradition (he saith) there is abundance of Certainty in it self, but how far it is evident to us, shall after appear. P. 84.At the end of the next n. 21. he saith, That there is double Authority, and both Divine, that confirms Scripture to be the Word of God. Tradition of the Apostles delivering it, and the internal worth and argument in the Scripture, obvious to a soul prepared by the present Churches Tradition, and Gods Grace. But, n. 23. he saith, That this Apostolical Tradition is not the sole and only means to prove Scripture Divine, P. 85.but the moral perswasion, reason, and force of the present Church, is ground enough for any one to read the Scripture, and esteem reverently of it. And this once done, the Scripture hath then In and home-arguments enough to put a soul that hath but ordinary Grace, out of doubt, that the Scripture is the Word of God, infallible and Divine. I suppose his Lordships meaning may be comprized in these particulars. 1. That to those who lived in the Apostolical times the Tradition of Scripture, by those who had an infallible Testimony, was a p. 210sufficient ground of their believing it infallibly true. 2. That though the conveyance of that Tradition to us be not infallible, yet it may be sufficient to raise in us a high esteem and veneration for the Scripture. 3. That those who have this esteem for the Scripture, by a through studying and consideration of it may undoubtedly believe that Scripture is the Divine and Infallible Word of God. This I take to be the substance of his Lordships discourse. We now come to examine what you object against him. Your first demand is, How comes Apostolical Primitive Tradition to work upon us, if the present Church be fallible? Which I shall answer by another, How come the decrees of Councils to work upon you,P. 82. if the reporters of those Decrees be fallible? If you say, It is sufficient that the Decree it self be infallible, but it is not necessary that the reporter of those Decrees should be so; The same I say concerning the Apostolical Tradition of Scripture, though it were infallible in their Testimony, yet it is not necessary that the conveyance of it to us should be infallible. And if you think your self bound to believe the Decrees of General Councils as infallible, though fallibly conveyed to you; Why may not we say the same concerning Apostolical Tradition? Whereby you may see, though Tradition be fallible, yet the matter conveyed by it, may have its proper effect upon us. Your next Inquiry (if I understand it) is to this sense, Whether Apostolical Tradition be not then as credible as the Scriptures? I answer freely (supposing it equally evident) what was delivered by the Apostles to the Church by word or writing, hath equal Credibility? You attempt to prove, That there is equal evidence, because the Scripture is only known by the Tradition of the Church, to be the same that was recommended by the Apostolical Church, which you have likewise for Apostolical Tradition. But, 1. Do you mean the same Apostolical Tradition here or no, which the Arch-Bishop speaks of, i. e. that act of the Apostles, whereby they delivered the Doctrine of Christ upon their Testimony to the world. If you mean this Tradition, for my part, I do not understand it as any thing really distinct from the Tradition of the Scripture it self. For, although I grant, that the Apostles did deliver that Doctrine by Word as well as Writing, yet if that Tradition by Word had been judged sufficient, I much question whether we had ever had any written Records at all. But, because of the speedy decay of an oral Tradition, if there had been no standing Records, it pleased God in his infinite Wisdom and Goodness, to stir up some fit persons to digest those things summarily into writing, which otherwise would have been exposed to several corruptions in a short time. For we see presently in the Church, notwithstanding this, how suddenly the Gnosticks, Valentinians, Manichees and others, did pretend some secret Tradition of Christ or his Apostles distinct from their writings. When therefore you can produce as certain evidence any Apostolical Tradition distinct from Scripture, as we can do, that the Books of Scripture were delivered by the Apostles to the Church, you may then be hearkened to, but not be before. 2. We have other waies to judge of the Identity of the Copies of Scripture (which we have) with those delivered by the Primitive Church, besides the Testimony of the present Church. And the judgement of the present Church considered meerly as such can be no argument to secure any man concerning the integrity and incorruption of the Books of Scripture. We do therefore justly appeal to the ancient Copies, and M. SS. which confirm the incorruption of ours. But, say you, What infallible Certainty have we of them, besides Church Tradition? P. 8….Very wisely said in several respects, as though no Certainty less than infallible, could serve mens turn as to ancient Copies p. 211of Scripture, and as though your Church could give men Infallible certainty which Copy's were ancient and which were not. But for our parts, we should not be at all nearer any certainty much less Infallibility concerning the authenticalness of any ancient Copy's, because your Church declared it self for them; neither can we imagine it at all necessary in the examination of ancient Copy's to have any Infallible certainty at all of them. For as well you may pretend it as to any other Authours, when all that we look after in such Copy's is only that evidence which things of that nature are capable of. But you make his Lordship give as wise an answer to this question of yours; They may be examined and approved by the authentical Autographa's of the very Apostles. Where is it that this answer is given by his Lordship? If you may be allowed to make questions and answers too, no doubt, the one will be as wise as the other. But I suppose you thought, nothing could be said pertinent in this case, but what you make his Lordship say: and then by the unreasonableness of that answer, because none of these Autographa's are supposed extant, and because if they were so, all men could not be Infallibly certain of them, you think you have sufficient advantage against your adversary, because thereby it would appear there can be no certainty of Scripture but from the authority of your Church. To which because it may seem to carry on your great design of rendring Religion uncertain, I shall return a particular answer.

1. Supposing we could have no certainty concerning the Copy's of Scripture but from Tradition, this doth not at all advantage your cause, §. 6.unless you could prove, that no other Tradition but that of your Church can give us any certainty of it. Give me leave then to make this supposition, That God might not have given this supernatural assistance to your Church, which you pretend makes it Infallible, Whether men through the Vniversal consent of persons of the Christian Church in all Ages, might not have been undoubtedly certain, That the Scripture we have, was the same delivered by the Apostles? i. e. Whether a matter of fact, in which the whole Christian world was so deeply engaged, that not only their credit, but their interest was highly concerned in it, could not be attested by them in a credible manner? Which is as much as to ask, Whether the whole Christian world was not at once besotted and infatuated in …he grossest manner, so as to suffer the records of those things which concerned their eternal welfare, to be imbezeled, falsified, or corrupted, so as to mistake them for Apostolical writings, which were nothing so. If it be not then credible, that the Christian world should be so monstrously imposed upon, and so grosly deceived, then certainly the Vniversal Tradition of the Society may yield unquestionable evidence to any inquisitive person, as to the integrity and incorruption of the body of Scriptures. And if it may yield such evidence, why doth it not so? when we see this was the very case of the Christian world in all Ages. Some writings were delivered to the Church of the Age they lived in, by the Apostles; these writings were so delivered, as that the Christians understood they were of things of more concernment to them than the whole world was; these writings were then received, embraced, and publickly read; these writings were preserved by them so sacred and inviolable, that it was accounted a crime of the highest nature to deliver the Copy's of them into the hands of the Heathen persecutors; these writings were still owned by them as Divine, and the rule and standard of Faith, these were appealed to in all disputes among them, these were preserved from the attempts of Hereticks, vindicated from p. 212the assaults of the most learned Infidels, transcribed into the Books of the most diligent Christians, transmitted from one Generation to another, as the most sacred depositum of Heaven; And yet is it possible, to suppose that these writings should be extorted out of their hands by violence, abused under their eyes by fraud, or suffered to be lost by negligence. Yet no other way can be imagined, why any should suspect the Books of Scripture which we have are not the same with those delivered by the Apostles. All which are such unreasonable suppositions, that they could hardly enter into any head but yours, or such whose cause you manage in these disputes; the most profligate Atheists, or most unreasonable Scepticks. If then we entertain but mean and ordinary thoughts of the Christians of all Ages, if we look upon them as silly men abused into a Religion by fraud and imposture; yet we cannot doubt, but that these persons were careful to preserve the records of that Religion, because they were so diligent in the study of it, so venturous for it, such enemies to the corrupters of it, so industrious in propagating the knowledge of it to their friends and Posterity. Do you think our Nation did ever want an Infallible Testimony to preserve the Magna Charta, supposing no authentick record of it kept in the Publick Archives of the Nation? Would not mens interest make them careful to preserve it inviolable, especially considering the frequency of causes whose decision depends upon it, and the dispersion of the Copy's abroad, and the diligence of such whose profession leads them to look to such things. And will not the same reasons hold in a greater measure for the integrity and incorruption of Scriptures? Do not the eternal Concerns of all Christians depend upon those sacred records, that, if those be not true, they were of all men most miserable? Were not innumerable Copy's of these writings suddenly dispersed abroad, and all Christians accounted it a part of their Religion to search and enquire into them? Hath there not alwayes been a succession of diligent and faithful persons, whose office and profession it hath been to read, interpret, and vindicate these Books? and who have left excellent monuments of their endeavours in this nature? Is it then possible to suppose all those Copy's at once imbezeled, all those Christians in one age deceived, all those Divines so secure and negligent that there should be any considerable alteration, much less any total depravation of these writings? When once I see a whole Corporation consent to burn their publick Charter, and substitute a new one in the place of it, and this not be suspected or discovered; When I shall see a Magna Charta foisted, and neither King nor people be sensible of such a Cheat; When all the world shall conspire to deceive themselves and their children: I may then suspect such an imposture as to the Scripture; but not before. And will not all this perswade you, that there is no necessity of making your Church Infallible in order to our certainty, that we have the same books of Scripture which were delivered by the Apostles? If not, the next news I shall expect to hear from you, will be, That we can have no certainty of the Being of God, or the Foundation of all Religion, but from your Churches Infallibility; there being every jot as much reason to say, that all mankind should be deceived into the belief of a Deity by some cunning Politicians, as that all Christians should be deceived as to the belief of such Books to be Scripture which were universally corrupted; and if you understood Consequences you would have urged one assoon as the other. But still remember, into what precipices this good doctrine of Infallibility leads you.

§. 7.But it may be your meaning is more gentle and easie, than to suppose p. 213there could be no certainty as to all the Books being the same, but only that we cannot have any Infallible certainty that there are no corruptions crept into these Books which we have, but from your Churches Testimony. To which I answer, 1. That there is no reason to suppose this should be your meaning. 2. Supposing it were your meaning, there is no reason in the thing.

1. There is no reason to suppose this should be your meaning; for you are speaking of such things which are necessary to be believed, and therefore are properly objects of Faith, but that there are no kind of corruptions crept into the Copy's of Scripture, cannot with you be an object of Faith. For those of your party do some of them confess and others contend, that there are many corruptions crept into the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New; and that there are abundance of corruptions in your Vulgar Latin is not only abundantly proved by our Writers, but acknowledged by the learnedst of your own, and irrefragably demonstrated by the different editions of Sixtus and Clement.

Suppose this were your meaning, there were no reason in the thing; For, 1. Your Church cannot Infallibly assure us, there are no corruptions. 2. We may be sufficiently assured of it without the Testimony of your Church.

1. Your Church cannot assure us at all, much less Infallibly that there are no such corruptions. For what reason can there be, Why we should rely on the judgement of only a part of the whole Society of Christians, and that part at great opposition with many other considerable Churches; must we then believe your Church where it agrees with, or it differs from the rest? If only where it agrees with the rest, then it is not the testimony of your Church we rely on, but the Vniversal consent of all: If where it differs, shew us some reason, why we should believe your Church in opposition to all others. Especially, 1. When we consider what contradiction there hath been in the testimony of your Church about this very thing: as appears not only by the great difference among your writers concerning the authentick Copy's, some still defending the Hebrew and Greek Texts, and others standing up for that great Diana of Rome the Vulgar Latin. Considering then, that by the decree of the Council of Trent the Vulgar Latin is looked on by you as the most authentick Copy of the Scripture, let any one judge whether ever this could be judged more authentick, than when the Pope himself in Cathedrâ doth revise any edition of it, and use all possible care for the setting of it forth, not only comparing it with the best ancient MS S. but taking the pains to correct it with his own hand both before and after the press, and all this was done by Sixtus 5. as himself declares in the Preface to his edition of the Vulgar Latin, A.D. 1590. Yet within little more then two years after comes out the edition of Clement 8. which, as appears by the computation of such who have taken the pains to compare them, differs from the other in some thousands of places. Now I pray tell me what Infallible certainty are we like to have concerning the Copy's of Scripture, being the same with those delivered by the Apostles, from the Infallibility of your Church, when this testimony of your Church doth so finely contradict it self within little more then two years time. Nay when Sixtus 5. his care was so great and extraordinary in his edition, that an Inscription was made in the Vatican, in perpetuam rei memoriam, which is in letters of Gold in these words, p. 214SACRAM PAGINAM EX CONCILII TRIDENTINI PRAESCRIPTO QVAM EMENDATISSIMAM DIVVLGARI MANDAVIT.

Biblioth. Vatican. p. 229.Which Inscription, as Angelus Roccha tells us, was purposely made to set forth that infinite care and pains which the Pope took in that edition, Which were so great (saith he) that it is impossible that any should recount them, and for his own part he stood astonished when he saw them: for he not only carefully corrected the Copy before the Impression, but reviewed it sheet by sheet after, that the edition might be the more faithful. And shall we after all this believe that Sixtus 5. never lived to see this edition compleat, which is the miserable shift some of your party have to avoid this evident contradiction: Or shall we think, what others pretend, That he never lived to authorize this Edition of his, whereas his Brieve doth in terms declare this to be the authentick vulgar Latin, which the Decree of the Council of Trent had respect to; but this Brieve, others say, though provided was never proclaimed; It seems then the Popes Infallibility depends upon Proclamation, but was not this Bull sufficiently proclaimed which is extant in those editions of Sixtus 5? with an injunction that this Bible be read in all Churches ne minimâ quidem particulâ, mutatâ, additâ, vel detractâ, without any the least alteration. Now then when the Vulgar Latin is owned by the Council of Trent for the authentick Copy of Scripture; when the Pope whose testimony must be supposed Infallible takes great pains in prosecution of the decree of that Council to declare and set forth the true authentick edition of this Vulgar Latin, When should we ever, if not now, expect some Infallible certainty of the true Copy of the Scripture? yet so far are we from it, that not long after men are forbidden the use of that edition under the penalty of the greater Excommunication. And all this, forsooth, under the pretence of Typographical faults, and what then must we think of that Pope who took such incessant pains to correct them? Thus we see how far we are from any certainty at all, much more from any Infallible certainty concerning the true Copy's of Scripture from the authority of your Church. 2. The authenticalness of those Copy's set forth by the appointment of the Council of Trent and the approbation of the Pope, hath no greater evidence of certainty than any other Copy's of Scripture, if they have so much. For all that Sixtus 5. pretends for the authenticalness of that Copy, is, the agreement of it with the ancient and approved Copy's both Printed and MSS. which he had caused to be diligently searched in Libraries, Than which, (saith he) there can be no more firm or certain argument of the true and genuine text. In hâc autem germani textûs pervestigatione, satis perspicuè inter omnes constat, nullum argumentum esse certius ac firmius, quam antiquorum probatorumque Codicum Latinorum fidem, quos tam impressos, quam MSS. ex bibliothecis variis conquirendos curavimus. Sixtus 5. Praefat.Well said however in this! But if the Latin Copy's be so sure a rule to judge of the authenticalness of the Text by, shall not much more the ancient Copy's of the Original Hebrew and Greek; especially when we consider, that the vast difference of the Clementine and Sixtine Bibles lay in this, that Clement the 8. did correct the Vulgar Latin according to the original in above two thousand places, when the contrary reading was established by Sixtus. For the Pope where he pleased took the Marginal Annotations in the Lovain Bibles and inserted them into the text; which Marginal Annotations contain the different readings which were observed from the comparing the Vulgar p. 215Latin with the Originals, as appears by the Preface to the Lovain Bibles. And although the Pope ex Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine (as Sixtus 5. phraseth it in the Bull before his Bibles) did take and leave where he pleased himself, yet it is evident from those who have compared them, that above two thousand places are reformed according to the Originals; and more then twice as many more might have been if his Holiness had thought good. For our industrious Dr. James, who had taken the pains accurately to compare not only the Sixtine Clementine Bibles, but the Clementine edition with the Lovain Annotations, doth in the defence of his Bellum Papale challenge Gretser the Jesuit to joyn issue with him if he dared on the point,Pag. 49. viz. of making it appear that there were 10000. differences in the Lovain Annotations from the Vulgar Latin, and that these differences arise from the comparing it with the Hebrew, Greek, and Chaldee. Are we not then at a fine pass for our Infallible certainty concerning the Copies of Scripture, if the judgement of your Church must be relyed on? Was that sufficient ground for Pope Clement to reform two thousand places, and would it not serve for all the rest? If those were truer because they agreed more with the Originals, were not the rest so too? And have not we the greatest reason to rely on the Originals when the Pope himself appeals to them, and reforms by them? According then to the judgement of your pretended Infallible Church we have as great certainty as they, for certainly the Hebrew and Greek are as obvious to us as them; and I never yet heard that your Popes did challenge to themselves among other Apostolical prerogatives the gift of tongues.

2. We may be sufficiently assured that there are no material corruptions in the Books of Scripture without your Churches testimony, not that we pretend the Apostles Autographa are still extant for us to compare our Copies with (although some of your side tell us among other rarities of the Vatican, Bailius Contr. Catech. q. 15· tr. 1. Huntl. Controv. 1. c. 13. sect. 9.that the true ancient Greek text is there extant, which the Pope would do well to oblige the world with) but we whose eyes are not blest with such noble sights as are there lockt up from all such who have not a good dose of implicite Faith about them, pretend to no such thing: but by the diligent comparing the present Copies with the most ancient MSS. by the observation of what Citations of Scripture are produced by those of the Fathers who lived when some of these Autographa were extant (as it is apparent some were in Tertullians time, and some tell us that the authentick Apocalypse was preserved in the Church of Ephesus in Honorius his time) by the diligence of the primitive writers in taking notice of the least attempt for falsification or corruption of the text; For when Marcion began to clip and falsifie the text,Iren. l. 1. c. 29. Tertul. c. Marcion. l. 5. Epiph. haeres. 42. Irenaeus presently takes notice of it and gives him a sufficient rebuke for it: and so doth Tertullian afterwards, and Epiphanius particularly takes notice of all those places which had violent hands laid upon them and rescues them from those impure attempts, so that we still enjoy them in their integrity. So that whatever endeavours were made, they were presently discovered, as that of the Arrians by St. Ambrose, Ambros. de Sp. S. l. 3. c. 11. Theodoret. de haeret. Fab. l. 1. Bellar. l. 2. de V. D. c. 7.that of Tatianus his Monotessaron by Theodoret. In so much, that Bellarmin himself confesseth; Etsi multa depravare conati sunt haeretici, tamen nunquam defuerunt Catholici, qui corum corruptelas detexerint, & non permiserint libros sacros corrumpi. That the Catholicks were as vigilant as the Hereticks malicious, and therefore could never effect their design in corrupting the Scripture. Besides, it is observable, that among those multitudes of various lections in the New Testament, of which R. Stephen made a p. 216collection out of sixteen MSS. of 2384. (which probably were occasioned by the general dispersion of Copies, and the multitudes of transcriptions by such as were either ignorant or careless) yet there are none which are material, so as to entrench upon the integrity and authority of the Copies as a rule of Faith and Manners; they are therefore but racings of the skin, but no wounds of any vital part. Abating therefore only what must necessarily be supposed in the multitudes of Copies transcribed, there is so great integrity and incorruption in those Copies we have, that we cannot but therein take notice of a peculiar hand of Divine Providence in preserving these authentick records of our Religion so safe to our dayes. But it is time now to return to you.

You would therefore perswade us, That we have no ground of certainty as to the Copies of Scripture, but comparing them with the Apostles Autographa; but I hope our former discourse hath given you a sufficient account of our certainty without seeing the Apostles own hands. But I pray what certainty then had the Jews after the Captivity, of their Copies of the Law? yet I cannot think you will deny them any ground of certainty in the time of Christ that they had the true Copies both of the Law and the Prophets; and I hope you will not make the Sanhedrin, which condemned our Saviour to death, to have given them their only Infallible certainty concerning it. If therefore the Jews might be certain without Infallibility, why may not we? for if the Oracles of God were committed to the Jews then, they are to the Christians now.

§. 8.You yet further urge, That there can be no certainty concerning the Autographa's of the Apostles, but by tradition: And may not every universal tradition be carried up as clearly at least to the Apostles times, Pag. 83.as the Scriptures, by most credible Authours, who wrote in their respective succeeding ages? I answer, We grant there can be no certainty as to the Copies of Scripture but from tradition, and if you can name any of those great things in Controversie between us, which you will undertake to prove to be as universal a tradition; as that of the Scriptures; you and I shall not differ as to the belief of it. But think not to fob us off with the tradition of the present Church instead of the Church of all ages, with the tradition of your Church instead of the Catholick, with the ambiguous testimonies of two or three of the Fathers, instead of the universal consent of the Church since the Apostles times. If I should once see you prove the Infallibility of your Church, the Popes Supremacy, Invocation of Saints, Veneration of Images, the necessity of Coelibate in the Clergy, a punitive Purgatory, the lawfulness of communicating in one kind, the expediency of the Scriptures and Prayers being in an unknown tongue, the sacrifice of the Mass, Transubstantiation (to name no mo…e) by as unquestionable and universal a tradition as that whereby we receive the Scriptures, I shall extoll you for the only person that ever did any thing considerable on your side, and I shall willingly yield my self up as a Trophey to your brave attempts. Either then for ever forbear to mention any such things, as Vniversal Tradition among you as to any things, besides Scriptures, which carry a necessity with them of being believed or practised; or once for all undertake this task, and manifest it as to the things in Controversie between us. Your next Paragraph (besides what hath been already discussed in this Chapter concerning Apostolical tradition of Scripture) empties it self into the old mare mortuum of the formal object and Infallible application of Faith, which I cannot think my self so much at leasure to follow you into, so often as you fall into it. When once p. 217you bring any thing that hath but the least resemblance of reason more than before, I shall afresh consider it, but not till then. What next follows concerning resolving Faith into prime Apostolical Tradition infallibly, without the Infallibility of the present Church, hath been already prevented by telling you, that his Lordship doth not say, That the infallible Resolution of Faith is into that Apostolical Tradition, but into the Doctrine which is conveyed in the Books of Scripture from the Apostles times down to us, Pag. 84.by an unquestionable Tradition. Your stale Objection, That then we should want Divine Certainty, hath been over and over answered; and so hath your next Paragraph, That if the Church be not infallible, we cannot be infallibly certain, that Scripture is Gods Word: and so the remainder concerning Canonical Books. It is an easie matter to write great Books after that rate, to swell up your discourses with needless repetitions; but it is the misery that attends a bad cause, and a bad stomach, to have unconcocted things brought up so often, till we nauseate them.

Your next offer is at the Vindication of the noted place of S. Austin, I would not believe the Gospel, §. 9.&c. which (you say) cannot rationally be understood of Novices, Weaklings, and Doubters in the Faith. This being then the place at every turn objected by you, and having before reserved the discussion of it to this place, I shall here particularly and throughly consider the meaning of it. In order to which, three things must be enquired into.

1. What the Controversie was which St. Austin was there discussing of?

2. What that Church was which St. Austin was moved by the Authority of?

3. In what way and manner that Churches Authority did perswade him?

1. Nothing seems more necessary for understanding the meaning of this place, than a true state of the Controversie, which S. Austin was disputing of; and yet nothing less spoke to on either side, than this hath been. We are therefore to consider, that when Manes or Manichaeus began to appear in the world, to broach that strange and absurd Doctrine of his in the Christian world, which he had received from Terebinthus or Buddas, as he from Scythianus (who, if we belieue Epiphanius, Epiph. haeres. 66.went to Jerusalem in the Apostles times, to enquire into the Doctrine of Christianity, and dispute with the Christians about his Opinions) but easily foreseeing what little entertainment so strange a complexion of absurdities would find in the Christian world, as long as the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists were received every where with that esteem and veneration: Two waies he, or his more cunning Disciples, bethought themselves of, whereby to lessen the authority of those writings, and so make way for the Doctrine of Manichaeus. One was to disparage the Credulity of Christians, because the Catholick Church insisted so much on the necessity of Faith, whereas they pretended they would desire men to believe nothing but what they gave them sufficient reason for. But all this while, since the Christians thought they had evident reason for believing the Scriptures, and consequently none to believe the Doctrine which did oppose them; therefore they found it necessary to go further, and to charge those Copies of Scripture with falsifications and corruptions, which were generally received among Christians. But these are fully delivered by S. Austin in his Book de utilitate credendi, as will appear to any one who looks into it; but the p. 218latter is that which I aim at; this he therefore taxeth them for, That with a great deal of impudence, or, to speak mildly, with much weakness, Nihil mihi videtur ab iis im…udentius dici, vel ut mitius loqua…, incuriosias & imbecillius, quam Scripturas divinas esse corruptas, cum id n…ll…, in tam recenti memo…iâ, extantibus exempla…bus possint convincere. D. August. de Utilit. cred. c. 3.they charged the Scriptures to be corrupted; and yet could not at so small a distance of time prove any corruption by any Copies which were extant. For, saith he, if they should say, They would not embrace their writings, because they were written by such who were not careful of writing Truth, their evasion would be more s…y, and their errour more pardonable. But thus, it seems, they did by the Acts of the Apostles, utterly denying them to contain matter of Truth in them; and the reason was very obvious for it, because that Book gives so clear an account of the sending the Spirit upon the Apostles, which the Manichees pretended was to be only accomplished in the person of Manichaeus. And both before and after, S. Austin mentions it as their common speech,Quam multa soleant dicere immixta esse scripturis divinis, à nescio quibus co…ruptoribus veritatis. Volunt enim nescio quos corruptores divinorum librorum ante ipsius Manichaei tempora fuisse. Id. ib. Corrupisse autem illos, qui Judaeorum legem Evangelio miscere capiebant. That before the time of Manichaeus, there had been corrupters of the sacred Books, who had mixed several things of their own with what was written by the Apostles. And this they laid upon the Judaizing Christians, because their great pique was against the Old Testament, and probably some further reason might be from the Nazarene Gospel; wherein many things were inserted by such as did Judaize. The same thing St. Austin chargeth them with, when he gives an account of their Heresie. And this likewise appears by the management of the dispute between S. Austin and Faustus, Ipsius que Novi Testamenti-Scripturas tanquam infalsatas ita legunt, ut quod voluerint inde accipiant quod nolunt rejiciant. Aug. haeres. 46. Evangilium quid…m à praedicatione Christi & esse caepit & numinari: at verò Genealogia adeo non est Evangelium, ut nec ipse ejus scriptor ausus fuerit eam Evangelium nominare. Faustus apud August. c. Faustum. l. 2. init. l. 3. init. l. 5. init. Ubi si… man…festâ veritate isti praefocantur ut obs…ssi d lu…idis verbis Sanctarum Scripturarum, exitum in iis sall…ci… suae reperire non possint; d…test monium, quod prolatum est, salsum esse res…ondent. c. Faustum. l. 11. c. 2.who was much the subtillest man among them. Faustus acknowledged no more to be Gospel, than what contained the Doctrine delivered by our Saviour, and therefore denied the Genealogies to be any part of the Gospel; and afterwards disputes against it, both in S. Matthew, and S. Luke. And after this S. Austin notes it as their usual custom, when they could not avoid a Testimony of Scripture, to deny it. Thus we see, what kind of persons these were, and what their pretences were which S. Austin disputes against, They embraced so much of Scripture, as pleased them, and no more. To this therefore S. Austin returns these very substantial Answers,Quae autoritas literarum aperiri, quis sacer liber evolvi, quod documentum cujuslibet Scripturae ad convincendos errores exeri potest, si h…c vox admittitur, si alicujus ponderis aestimatur? Id. ib. That if such proceedings might be admitted, the Divine Authority of any Books could signifie nothing at all for the convincing of errours. That it was much more reasonable, either with the Pagans, to deny the whole Bible, or with the Jews, to deny the New Testament, than thus to acknowledge in general the Books Divine, and to quarrel with such particular passages as pinched them most, that if there were any suspicion of corruption, they ought to produce more true Copies, and more ancient Books than theirs, or else be judged by the Original Languages, with many other things to the same purpose. To apply this now to the present place in dispute, S. Austin in that Book against the Epistle of Manichaeus, begins with the Preface to it, which is made in imitation of the Apostles strain, and begins thus, Manichaeus Apostolus Jesu Christi, providentià Dei Patris, &c. To this S. Austin saith, he believes no such thing, as that Manichaeus was an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and hopes they will not be angry with him for it; for he had learned of them p. 219not to believe without reason. And therefore desires them to prove it: It may be (saith he) one of you may read me the Gospel, and thence perswade me to believe it. But, Si ergo invenires aliquem, qui Evangelio nondum credit, quid faceres dicenti tibi, Non credo? Ego verò evangelio non crederem, nisi me Catholicae ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas. Quibus ergo obtemperavi dicentibus, credite Evangelio, car eis non obtemperem dicentibus mihi, Noli credere Manichaeo? c. ep. Fundam. c. 5.what if you should meet with one, who, when you read the Gospel, should say to you, I do not believe it. But, I should not believe the Gospel, if the Authority of the Church did not move me: Whom therefore I obey in saying Believe the Gospel, should I not obey in saying, Believe not Manichaeus. The Question, we see, is concerning the proving the Apostleship of Manichaeus, which cannot in it self be proved, but from some Records, which must specifie such an Apostleship of his; and to any one who should question the authenticalness of those Records, it can only be proved by the testimony and consent of the Catholick Church, without which S. Austin professeth, he should never have believed the Gospel, i. e. that these were the only true and undoubted Records, which are left us of the Doctrine and actions of Christ. And he had very good reason to say so; for otherwise the authority of those Books should be questioned every time any one, such as Manichaeus, should pretend himself an Apostle: which Controversies there can be no other way of deciding, but by the Testimony of the Church, which hath received and embraced these Copies from the time of their first publishing. And that this was S. Austin's meaning, will appear by several parallel places in his disputes against the Manichees. For in the same chapter, speaking concerning the Acts of the Apostles, Which Book (saith he) I must believe, Cui libro necesse est me credere, si credo Evangelio; quoniam utram que Scripturam similiter mihi Catholica commendat authoritas. Ib.as well as the Gospel, because the same Catholick Authority commends both; i. e. The same Testimony of the Vniversal Church, which delivers the Gospel as the authentick writings of the Evangelists, doth likewise deliver the Acts of the Apostles for an authentick writing of one of the same Evangelists: So that there can be no reason to believe the one, and not the other. So when he disputes against Faustus, who denied the truth of some things in S. Paul's Epistles; he bids him shew a truer Copy than that the Catholick Church received, which Copy, if he should produce, he desires to know how he would prove it to be truer to one that should deny it. What would you do? (saith he) Whither would you turn your self? Quid ages? quò te convertes? quam libri à te prolati originem, quam vetustatem, quam seriem successionis testem citabis? Aug. c. Faustum. l. 11. c, 2.What Original of your Book could you shew? What Antiquity, what Testimony of a succession of persons from the time of the writing of it? But on the contrary, What huge advantage the Catholicks have, who, Et vides in hâc re quid Ecclesiae Catholicae valeat authoritas, quae ab ipsis fundatissimis sedibus Apostolorum usque ad hodiernum diem succedentium sibimet Episcoporum serie, & tot populorum consensione firmatur. Id. ib.by a constant succession of Bishops in the Apostolical Sees, and by the consent of so many people, have the Authority of the Church confirmed to them for the clearing the validity of its Testimony concerning the Records of Scripture. And after laies down Rules for the trying of Copies, where there appears any difference between them, viz. by comparing them with the Copies of other Countries, Ita si de side exemplarium quaestio verteretur sicut in nonnullis, quae & paucae sunt, & Sacrarum Literarum studiosis notissimae sententiarum varietates, vel ex aliorum Regionum codicibus, unde ipsa Doctrina commeavit, nostra dubitatio dijudicaretur: vel, si ibi quoque codices variarent, plures paucioribus, aut vetustatiores recentioribus praeferrentur: & si adhuc incerta varietas, praecedens lingua unde illud interpretatum est consuleretur Id. ib.from whence the Doctrine originally came; and if those Copies vary too, the more Copies should be preferred before the fewer, the ancienter before the latter: If yet any uncertainty remains, the original Language must be consulted. This is, in case a Question ariseth among the acknowledged authentical Copies of the Catholick p. 220Church, (in which case we see, he never sends men to the infallible Testimony of the Church, for certainty as to the Truth of the Copies) but if the Question be, Whether any writing it self be authentical or no, then it stands to the greatest reason, that the Testimony of the Catholick Church should be relyed on, which, by reason of its large spread, and continual Succession from the very time of those writings, cannot but give the most indubitable Testimony concerning the authenticalness of the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists. And were it not for this Testimony, S. Austin might justly say, He should not believe the Gospel; i. e. Suppose those writings which contain the Gospel in them (for it is plain he speaks of them, and not the Doctrine abstractly considered) should have wanted that consent of the Catholick Church, that it had not been delivered down by a constant succession of all Ages from the Apostles, and were not received among the Christian Churches, but started out from a few persons who differ from all Christian Churches, as this Apostleship of Manichaeus did; he might justly question the Truth of them. And this I take to be truest and most natural account of these so much controverted words of S. Austin; by which sense the other two Questions are easily answered: for it is plain, S. Austin means not the judgement of the present Church, but of the Catholick Church, in the most comprehensive sense, as taking in all ages and places, or in Vincentius his words, Succession, Vniversality, and Consent; and it further appears, that the influence which this Authority hath, is sufficient to induce Assent to the thing attested in all persons who consider it, in what age, capacity, or condition soever. And therefore, if in this sense you extend it beyond Novices and Weaklings, I shall not oppose you in it; but it cannot be denied, that it is intended chiefly for doubters in the Faith, because the design of it is to give men satisfaction as to the reason why they ought to believe. But neither you, nor any of those you call Catholick Authours, will ever be able to prove, that S. Austin by these words ever dreamt of any infallible Authority in the present Church, as might be abundantly proved from the chapter foregoing, where he gives an account of his being in the Catholick Church, from the Consent of People and Nations from that Authority which was begun by miracles, nourished by hope, increased by charity, confirmed by continuance, which certainly are not the expressions of one who resolved his Faith into the infallible Testimony of the present Church. And the whole scope and design of his Book de utilitate credendi, doth evidently refute any such apprehension, as might be easily manifested, were it not too large a subject for this place, where we only examine the meaning of S. Austin in another Book. The substance of which, is, that That speech of his doth not contain a resolution of his Faith, as to the Divinity of Christs Doctrine; but the resolution of it, as to the Truth and authenticalness of the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists, which we acknowledge to be into the Testimony of the Catholick Church, in the most large and comprehensive sense.

The next thing we come to consider, is, an Absurdity you charge on his Lordship, §. 10.viz. That if the infallible Authority of the Church be not admitted in the Resolution, P. 85. n. 3.he must have recourse to the private Spirit, which (you say) though he would seem to exclude from the state of the Question, yet he falls into it under the specious title of Grace; so that he only changeth the words, but admits the same thing, for which you cite p. 83, 84. That therein his Lordship should averr, that where others used to say, They were infallibly resolved that Scripture was Gods Word, by the Testimony of the Spirit within them, that p. 221he hath the same assurance by Grace. Whether you be not herein guilty of abusing his Lordship by a plain perverting of his meaning, will be best seen by producing his words.P. 83. A man (saith he) is probably led by the Authority of the present Church, as by the first informing, inducing, perswading means, to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God: But, when he hath studied, considered, and compared this Word with it self, and with other writings, with the help of ordinary Grace, and a mind morally induced, and reasonably perswaded by the Voice of the Church, the Scripture then gives greater and higher reasons of Credibility to it self, than Tradition alone could give. And then he that believes, resolves his last and full assent, that Scripture is of Divine Authority, into internal arguments found in the letter it self, though found by the help and direction of Tradition without, and Grace within. Had you not a great mind to calumniate, who could pick out of these words, That the Bishop resolved his Faith into Grace? Can any thing be more plain, than the contrary is from them, when in the most perspicuous terms he says, that the last Resolution of Faith is into internal arguments, and only supposeth Tradition and Grace as necessary helps for the finding them? Might you not then as well have said, That his Lordship, notwithstanding his zeal against the Infallibility of Tradition, is fain to resolve his Faith into it at last, as well as say, that he doth it into Grace; for he joyns these two together? But, Is it not possible to assert the Vse and Necessity of Grace, in order to Faith, but the last Resolution of it must be into it? Do not all your Divines, as well as ours, suppose and prove the Necessity of Grace, in order to believing; and, Are they not equally guilty of having recourse to the private Spirit? Do you really think your self, that there is any thing of Divine Grace in Faith or no? If there be, free your Self then from the private Spirit, and you do his Lordship. For shame then forbear such pitiful calumnies; which, if they have any truth in them, You are as much concerned as Your adversary in it. You would next perswade us, That the Relator never comes near the main difficulty, which (say you) is, if the Church be supposed fallible in the Tradition of Scripture, how it shall be certainly known, whether de facto, she now errs not in her delivery of it? If this be your grand difficulty, it is sufficiently assoiled already, having largely answered this Question in terminis, in the preceding Chapter.

You ask further, What they are to do who are unresolved which is the true Church; as though it were necessary for men to know which is the true Church, before they can believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God? but when we assert the tradition of the Church to be necessary for believing the Scriptures, we do not thereby understand the particular Tradition of any particular Church whose judgement they must rely on, but the Vniversal Tradition of all Christians though this must be first made known in some particular Society, by the means of some particular persons, though their authority doth not oblige us to believe, but only are the means whereby men come acquainted with that Vniversal Tradition. And therefore your following discourse concerning the knowing the true Church by its motives is superseded; for we mean no other Church than the Community of Christians in this Controversie; and, if you ask me, By what motives I come to be certain which is a Community of Christians, and which of Mahumetans, and how one should be known from another, I can soon resolve you: But we are so far from making it necessary to know which particular society of Christians in opposition to others, is the true Church for resolving this question, that we look on it as a great argument of the Credibility p. 222as well as Vniversality of this Tradition, that all these differing Societies consent in it. And not only they, but the greatest opposers of Christianity, Jews, or Philosophers, could never see any reason to call in question such a Tradition.

His Lordship the better to represent the use of Tradition in the last resolution of Faith makes use of this illustration, That as the knowledge of Grammer and Logick is necessary in order to the making a Demonstration, yet the knowledge of the Conclusion is not resolved into Grammer or Logick, but into the immediate principles out of which it is deduced: So a mans first preparative to Faith is the Churches Tradition, but his full and last assent is resolved into the internal arguments of Scripture. This you quarrel with, and tell us, There is not the same Analogy between Logick and Church Tradition;Pag. 86. your meaning, I suppose is, because Logick doth Physically by inlarging the understanding fit men for demonstrations, but Church-Tradition cannot enable men to understand the Scripture. But cannot you easily discern that Analogy which his Lordship brought this illustration for, which is, that some things may be necessary preparatives for knowledge, which that knowledge is not resolved into. Is not this plain in Logick, and is it not as plain between Tradition and Scripture? For though Tradition doth not open our eyes to see this light, yet it presents the object to us to be seen, and that in an unquestionable manner. But for all this, say you, a man must either receive it on the sole authority of Church-Tradition, or be as much in the dark as ever. Why so? Is there any repugnancy in the thing, that Scripture should be received first upon the account of Tradition, and yet afterwards men resolve their Faith into the Scripture it self? May not a man very probably believe that a Diamond is sent him from a Friend upon the testimony of the Messenger who brings it, and yet be firmly perswaded of it, by discerning the Sparklings of it? But, say you further, The Scriptures themselves appear no more to be the Word of God, then the Stars to be of a certain determinate number, P. 86. l. 33, 34.or the distinction of colours to a blind man. If this approach not to the highest blasphemy against the Scripture, I know not what doth. He that shall compare this saying of yours, with that in the precedent Chapter, That if Christ had not left the Church Infallible, he might be accounted an Impostor and Deceiver, may easily guess how much of Religion you believe in your heart, when on so small occasions you do so openly disparage both Christ and the Scriptures. It is well yet, your Churches Infallibility can stand on no better terms than these are, which will be sufficient to keep any who have any true sense of the truth and excellency of Christ and the Scriptures from hearkening to it. But are you in good earnest when you say, that Scriptures themselves appear no more to be the Word of God, than the distinction of colours to a blind man, which is as much as nothing at all? Is there nothing at all in the excellency of the Doctrine and Precepts contained in the Scriptures, nothing in those clear discoveries of God and our selves, nothing in all those transactions between God and men, nothing in that Covenant of Redemption between God and man through Christ, nothing in the clear accomplishment and fulfilling of Prophesies, nothing in that admirable strain and style which is in the writings, nothing in that harmonious consent which is discovered in writers of several ages, interests, places, and conditions, nothing in that admirable efficacy which the Doctrine of it hath upon the souls of men to perswade them to renounce sin, the world, and themselves for the sake of it; is there nothing more (I say) in all these, which makes the Scripture p. 223appear to be the Word of God, than the distinction of colours to a blind man? Could you assoon think to account the starrs as discern any thing of Divinity from these things in the Scriptures? If your eyes were as blind as your understanding, could you assoon distinguish white from black, as the Scripture from the Alcoran, if they were both presented to you to read, and judge of them according to the evidence you found in them? Is it possible a man that owns himself a Christian, should utter such opprobrious language of the Scripture? You had been before speaking what honour you give to the Scripture, notwithstanding you pretend your Church Infallible, and I had mentioned some of those passages which occurr in your writers in disparagement of them: but I must needs say they all fall short of this; the Nose of Wax, the Inky Divinity, the Lesbian rule, are Courtlike expressions to this of yours; for this puts no difference in the world between the Scripture and the Alcoran, if your Church should propound the one as well as the other. For you could not possibly say worse of the Alcoran, then that of it self it appeared no more to be the Word of God, than distinction of colours to a blind man. I might here send you to be chastised for this insolent Atheistical expression to the Primitive Fathers, who speak so much in admiration of the excellency of Scriptures, who did vindicate them from all assaults of the Heathen Philosophers. I might send you to those of your own party, who if they have any love or tenderness for Christian Religion will not suffer such passages to pass without the most severe rebukes: I might sufficiently prove the contrary from the arguments used against Atheists by Bellarmine and others; but I shall content my self with that noble and Christian confession of your Gregory de Valentiâ, from whom you might learn more piety and modesty towards the Sacred Scriptures. There being many things in the Doctrine of Christianity it self, Cum multa sint in ipsâ Doctrinâ Christianâ quae ipsa per se fidem ill & autoritatem conciliare possint, tamen mihi maximum illud esse videtur, (ut à Clement. Alex. & à Lactant. & ab aliis est observatum) quod suâ nescio quâ admirabili vi, divinè prorsus hominum animos afficit, at que ad virtutem impellit. Est scripta verbis simplicibus, & caret ferè artificio orationis & ornamentis; nibilominus ita vehementer lectoris mentem commovet, ut nulla alia doctrina. Quod argumento est, illius autoritatem omnino Divinam esse, & non humanam; haec enim sine verborum arte, & orationis quasi lenociniis, ad efficiendum a…imorum motum non valet. Greg de Valentiâ. Analys. fidei. l. 1 c. 25.which of themselves may conciliate belief and authority, yet that seems the greatest to me (as hath been observed by Clement of Alexandria, Lactantius and others) that I know not with what admirable force, but most divine, it affects the hearts of men, and stirs them up to vertue. It is written with great simplicity, and without almost any artifice or ornament of speech; which is an argument that its authority is not humane but Divine, for no humane writing hath any power on the minds of men without a great deal of art and eloquence. How many things are there in this ingenuous and pious confession of this learned Jesuite, which might, if you have any shame left, make you sensible of the Blasphemy of your former expression. For, 1. He saith, there are many things in the doctrine of Christianity which for themselves may conciliate our belief, and manifest their authority: If for themselves, then certainly the Scriptures of themselves have a great deal more evidence, that they are the Word of God, than the distinction of colours to a blind man. 2. That the peculiar strain and genius of Scripture argues something Divine in it, because, notwithstanding its simplicity it hath so great power and efficacy on the minds of men; far beyond any humane art or Rhetorick. 3. That this may be discerned in the very Books of Scripture without the supposition of the authority of any Church; for he mentions the Doctrine meerly as written, and what may be found by the reading of it. Go then, and learn some piety and ingenuity (where it is p. 224so seldome to be learned) from a Jesuite, and think not that we shall ever have the meaner thoughts of the Scripture for such bold expressions; but, we can easily see, that the Infallibility of the Church, and the Honour of Scripture cannot possibly stand together.

Your subsequent discourse consists of some rare pieces of subtilty, which may be resolved into these consequences; If your Church of Rome hath erred as to the number of Canonical Books, then the Catholick Church, ever since Christs time, hath erred; if the Church may erre, then we cannot be certain but she hath erred; if we can have no infallible certainty, then we can have none at all; These consequences your discourse to n. 5. may be resolved into; and make good ever a one of them, I will say you have proved something; which is more than you have done yet.

N. 5. You object against his Lordship, That he requires so many things in order to the resolution of Faith, §. 11.that he makes none capable of it, but men of extraordinary parts and learning. P. 87.To which I answer, that his Lordship is not undertaking to give an account of the Faith of rude or illiterate persons, but such a one as may satisfie men of parts and learning, i. e. he endeavoured to lay down the true rational account of it, and not to enquire how far God obligeth every man that comes to Heaven, to a critical Resolution of his Faith. And therefore for the generality of such persons who heartily believe the Truth of Scriptures, but are not able to give a clear and satisfactory account of it to others; I answer, as S. Austin did in the same case,Aug c. ep. Fund. c. 4. Caeteram quippe turbam non intelligendi vivacitas, sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit: That God requires not from the common sort of believers, the subtilty of Speculation, but the simplicity of Faith; which may be very firm even in them from the reading of Scriptures, and hearing the Doctrine of it plainly delivered to them, though they are not able to give such accounts of their Faith, which may be satisfactory to any but themselves. So we say, That the way is so plain, that mean capacities may not erre therein. But, I wonder at you, of all men, that you should charge our way with intricacy, who lead men into such perplexities and difficulties, before they can be satisfied that they ought to believe; for to this end you make the infallible Testimony of the Church necessary; and, how many insuperable difficulties are there before one can be assured of that? first, he must know your Church to be the True Church, and this must be proved by a continual succession of Pastors in your Church, and by a conformity of your Doctrine with the Ancients; and, Do you think these two are not very easie introductions to Faith, like the taking Rome in ones way, to go from York to London; but, though a man should pull down a House to find a Key to open it, and after he had searched in all the rubbish of antiquity, find enough to perswade him yours may be a True Church, yet he is as far from believing as ever, unless he finds a way through another Trapdoor for his Faith, which is, that yours, though a particular Church, is yet the only Catholick Church, i. e. that the first room he comes in, is infallibly the whole house, and therefore he never needs look further. But, supposing this, yet if he doth not believe this Church to be infallible in all it says, he had as good never come into it; and therefore he must believe strenuously, That whatever it says, is infallibly True, which being so hard a task (as for a man that sees a house half down before his eyes, to believe it can never fall) it had need have some good buttresses to support it, and at last finds nothing but some feeble Motives of Credibility, which signifie nothing as to the Church, but might have been strong enough, if set in the p. 225right place, viz. not to support the Church, but to prove the truth of Christian Doctrine. These, and many other intrigues, which I have formerly discovered, do unavoidably attend the resolution of your Faith, among all persons who profess to believe on the account of your Churches Infallibility.

What follows next concerning Grace, is already answered: What certainty we have that Scripture is of Divine Revelation, and consequently what obligation lyes upon men to believe it, are things largely discoursed on in the beginning of this Chapter; and I shall suppose sufficiently cleared, till you shew me reason to the contrary: By which it will appear (contrary to what follows n. 6.) that we have the highest reasons or motives of Credibility, to assent to the Truth, and Divine Authority of the Scriptures.

But you proceed to an attempt of something new; which is,§. 12. in a long harangue to disprove his Lordships Opinion of resolving Faith into that Divine Light which appears in Scripture. This you insist on from n. 6. to n. 8. the substance of all which discourse, I suppose, may be reduced to these three things. 1. That though the Scripture be called a Light, yet that is to be understood only of those who own its authority. 2. That the Scripture cannot shew it self to be an Infallible Light. 3. That if there were such Light in Scriture, all others would see it as well as he. Before I come to a particular handling of each of these, it will be necessary to consider, What it is which his Lordship means by this Divine Light in Scripture; for, there is nothing causeth more confusion in the discourses and apprehensions of men, than the applying Metaphors taken from the sense to the acts of the Vnderstanding: For, by this means, we are apt to judge of our intellectual acts in a way wholly suitable to those of sense. We are not therefore to conceive, there can be any thing in Divine Truths, which so immediately doth discover it self to the mind, as light doth to the eye. But that only which bears proportion to the light in the mind, is reason; for mens minds being discursive, and not intuitive, they do not behold the truth of things by immediate intuition, but by such reason and arguments as do induce and perswade to assent. We are not therefore to imagine any such Light in Scripture, that doth as immediately work upon the understanding, as the Light of the Sun doth on the organs of sight; and therefore that common speech, that Light doth discover it self as well as other things, is in this sense improperly applied to the Understanding; for, whatever is discovered to the mind in a discursive manner, as all Objects of Faith are, must have some antecedent evidence to it self, which must be the ground of the act of assent. That therefore which is called the Divine Light of Scripture, is, I suppose that rational evidence which is contained in the Books of Scripture, whereby any reasonable man may be perswaded that these Books are of Divine Authority. Now that herein I say nothing beyond or besides his Lordships meaning and intention, will appear by his own discourse on this subject. For 1. His Lordship designedly disproves that Opinion that Scripture should be fully and sufficiently known as by Divine and Infallible Testimony, lumine proprio,P. 69. sect. 16. n. 10. by the resplendency of that Light which it hath in it self only, and by the witness that it can so give to it self. Because, as there is no place in Scripture that tells us such Books containing such and such particulars, are the Canon and Infallible Will of God; so, if there were any such place, that could be no sufficient proof; for, a man may justly ask another Book to bear witness to that, and so in infinitum. Again, this inbred Light of p. 226Scripture is a thing coincident with Scripture it self, and so the Principles and the Conclusion in this kind of proof should be entirely the same, which cannot be. Besides, if this inward Light were so clear, how could there have been any variety among the ancient Believers, touching the authority of S. James, and S. Judes Epistles, and the Apocalypse, &c. For certainly the Light which is in the Scripture, was the same then which now it is. On these reasons then, we see, his Lordship not only disclaims, but disproves such knowing the Scripture meerly by the Light within. Two things then I hence inferr, which will be very necessary to clear his Lordships meaning. 1. That he no where attributes such an inward Light to Scripture, that by it self it can discover that these Books are from God. 2. That where his Lordship mentions this Light most, he supposeth Tradition antecedent to it, as appears by his whole discourse. From whence I gather this to have been the plainest account of his way of resolving Faith, as I have already intimated, viz. that the resolution of Faith may be considered two waies; into the Books, and into the Doctrine contained in them. The resolution into the Books, must, of necessity, suppose Tradition, and rely upon it; and this kind of resolution of Faith, cannot be into any self-evidence, or internal Light: but, supposing the Books owned on the account of Tradition, if the Question be concerning the Divinity of the Doctrine, then he asserts, that the resolution of this is into the Divine Light of Scripture, i. e. into that rational evidence which we find of the Divinity of it, in these Books which are owned on the account of Tradition.

And that this is his Lordships meaning, appears 2. By his own Testimony,P. 101. n. 32. who was best able to explain himself; for, when he goes about to confirm his Opinion by the Testimonies of the Fathers, he tells us, This was the way which the ancient Church ever used, namely, Tradition, or Ecclesiastical Authority first, and then all other arguments, but especially internal, from the Scripture it self. And, for this first, instanceth in S. Augustine, who (saith he) gives four proofs all internal to the Scripture it self, which are, First, The Miracles. Secondly, That there is nothing carnal in the Doctrine. Thirdly, Fulfilling of Prophecies. Fourthly, The efficacy of it for conversion of the world. All these we see he instanceth in, as internal arguments, and therefore make up that which he calls Divine Light. So that all that he means by this Light of Scripture, is only that rational evidence of the Divinity of the Doctrine, which may be discovered in it, or deduced from it.

Having thus explained his Lordships meaning, it will be no matter of difficulty to return an Answer to the particulars by you alledged.

1. You say, That when Scripture is said to be a Light by the Royal Prophet, it is to be understood in this sense, Because, after we have once received it from the infallible Authority of the Church, it teacheth what we are to do and believe. But, 1. Doth not the Scripture sufficiently teach what we are to do and believe, supposing it not received on the infallible Authority of the Church? doth that add any thing to the Light of Scripture ? Or, do you suppose the necessity of infallibly believing it on the Churches Authority, before one can discern what it teacheth us to do and believe?

2. What ground have you, in the least, to imagine, that David ever believed the Scripture on the infallible authority of the Church: That he doth suppose it to be Gods Word, when he saith, It is a Light to his feet, I deny not; but that he should suppose it to be so, because the Church did infallibly tell him it was so, is a most ungrounded Assertion. Had he not sufficient evidence that the Law was from God, by those many unquestionable p. 227and stupendous Miracles, which attended the delivery of it? Was not the whole constitution and government of the Jewish Nation, an impregnable argument that those things were true, which were recorded in their Books? Did ever the Jewish Sanhedrin, High Priest, or others, arrogate to themselves any infallible Testimony, in delivering the Books of Moses to the people? The most you can suppose of a ground of certainty among them, was from that Sacred Record of the Book of the Law, which was kept in the Ark: And how could they know that was Authentick, but from the same Tradition, which conveyed the Miracles of Moses to them? So that nothing like any infallible Authority of a Church was looked on by them as necessary to believe the Law to have been from God. 3. Supposing it from tradition unquestionable, that the Law was from God, those incomparable directions which were in it might be a great confirmation to David's Faith, that it was his Word. Which is that he intends, in these words, Thy Word is a light to my feet, &c. to shew that excellency and perspicuity which was in his Word, that it gave him the best directions for ordering his conversation. And this is all which his Lordship means, that to those, who, by the advantage of Tradition, have already venerable thoughts of Scripture; the serious conversing with it, doth highly advance them, and establish their belief of it, as that Faith is thereby clinched which was driven in by education. And therefore, when he saith, That Light discovers its self as well as other things, he presently adds, not till there hath been a preparing instruction what Light it is. Thus (he saith) the Tradition of the Church is the first moral motive to belief: But the belief it self, that Scripture is the Word of God, rests upon Scripture, P. 84.when a man finds it to answer and exceed that which the Church gave in Testimony. For this his Lordship cites Origen, who, though much nearer the prime Tradition than we are, yet being to prove that the Scriptures were inspired from God, he saith, De hoc assignabimus ex ipsis Scripturis Divinis, Orig. foreign. l. 4. c. 1.quae nos competentèr moverint, &c. We will mention those things out of the sacred Scriptures, which have perswaded us, &c. To this you answer, Though Origen prove by the Scriptures themselves, that they were inspired from God; P. 88.yet doth he never avow, that this could be proved out of them, unless they were received by the infallible Authority of the Church. Which Answer is very unreasonable. For 1. It might be justly expected that his Lordship had produced an express Testimony to his purpose out of Origen, you should have brought some other as clear for his believing Scripture on the Churches Infallibility, which you are so far from, that you would put us to prove a Negative: But, if you will deal fairly, and as you ought to do, produce your Testimonies out of him, and the rest of the Fathers concerning your Churches Infallibility. Till then, excuse us if we take their express words, and leave you to gather Infallibility out of their latent meanings. 2. What doth your Infallibility conduce to the believing Scriptures for themselves? For, you say, The Scriptures cannot be proved by themselves to be Gods Word, unless they were received by the infallible Authority of the Church; it seems then, if they be so received, they may be proved by themselves to be Gods Word. Are those proofs by themselves sufficient for Faith or no? If not, they are very slender proofs: if they be, What need your Churches Infallibility? Unless you will suppose, no man can discern those proofs without your Churches Testimony; and then they are not proofs by themselves, but from your Churches Infallibility; which may serve for one accession more to the heap of your Contradictions. His Lordship p. 228asserting the last resolution of Faith to be into simply Divine Authority, cites that speech of Henr. à Gandavo, That in the Primitive Church, when the Apostles themselves spake, they did believe principally for the sake of God, and not the Apostles; from whence he inferrs, If, where the Apostles themselves spake, the last resolution of Faith was into God, and not into themselves on their own account; much more shall it now be into God, and not the present Church, and into the writings of the Apostles, than into the words of their successors made up into Tradition. All that you answer, is, That this argument must be solved by the Bishop, as well as you, because he hath granted the authority of the Apostles was Divine as well as you. Ibid.Was there ever a more senseless Answer! Doth Gandavo deny the Apostles authority to have been Divine? Nay, Doth he not imply it, when he saith, Men did not believe for the Apostles sakes, but for Gods, who spake by them. As S. Paul said, You received our word, not as the word of men, but as it is indeed the Word of God. How the Bishop should be concerned to answer this, is beyond my skill to imagine. If Origen speaks to such as believed the Scriptures to be the Word of God; so doth the Bishop too, viz. on the account of Tradition and Education. If Origen endeavoured by those proofs to confirm and settle their Faith, that is all the Bishop aims at, that a Faith taken up on the Churches Tradition, may be settled and confirmed by the internal arguments of Scripture. But, how you should from this discourse assert, That the Authority of the Church must be infallible in delivering the Scripture, is again beyond my reach, neither can I possibly think what should bear the face of Premises to such a Conclusion. Unless it be, if Origen assert, That the Scriptures may be believed for themselves, if Gandavo saith, That the resolution of Faith must be into God himself, then the Churches Authority must be infallible; but it appears already, that the premises are true, and what then remains but therefore, &c. which may indeed be listed among your rare argumentations for Infallibility.

2. That Scripture cannot manifest it self to be an infallible Light; the proof of which is the design of your following discourse.§. 13. Wherein you first quarrel with the Bishop for his arguing from the Scriptures being a Light; for thence (you say) it will only follow, that the Scripture manifests it self to be a Light, which you grant, but that it should manifest it self to be an infallible Light you deny; P. 88, 89.for (say you) unless he could shew that there are no other Lights, save the Word of God, and such as are infallible, he can never make good his consequence. For in Seneca, Plutarch, Aristotle, you read many Lights, and those manifest themselves to be Lights; but they do not therefore manifest themselves to be infallible Lights. The substance of your argument lyes in this, The Scripture discovers the Being of God; so doth the Talmud and Alcoran, as well as it; the Scripture delivers abundance of moral instructions, but these may be found in multitudes of other Books, both of Christians, and Jews, and Heathens; and as we do not thence inferr, that these Books are infallible, so neither can we that the Scriptures are. This is the utmost of sense or reason, which I can extract out of your discourse; which reduced into Form, will come to this. If the Scriptures contain nothing in them, but what may be found in other Books that are not infallible, then the Scriptures cannot shew themselves to be infallible; but the antecedent is true, and therefore the consequent. I could wish you would have taken a little more pains in proving that which must be your assumption, viz. That Scripture contains nothing in it but what may be seen in Seneca, Plutarch, Aristotle, the Talmud, Alcoran, and other Books of Jews and Heathens. p. 229These are rare things to assert among Christians, without offering at any more proof of them than you do, which lyes in this Syllogism. If Scripture contain some things which may be seen in these Books, then it contains nothing but what may be seen in these Books; but the Scripture contains some things which may be seen in other Books, viz. the existence of God, and moral instructions; therefore it contains nothing but what is in them. And, Do you really think that you have now proved, that there is nothing in Scripture that can shew it self to be infallible, because some things are common to other writings. Would you not take it very ill that any should say that you had no more brains than a Horse, or a creature of a like nature, because they have sense and motion, as well as you? Yet this is the very same argument whereby you would prove that the Scriptures cannot shew themselves to be Divine, because the Talmud, Alcoran, and Philosophers, have some things in them which the Scripture hath. But, Can you prove that the Scripture hath nothing else in it, but what may be found in any, or all of these Books? Will you undertake to shew any where such representations of the Being and Attributes of God, so suitable to the conceptions which naturally flow from the Idea of a Supreme and Infinite Being, and yet those Attributes discovered in such contrivances for mans Good, which the wit of man could never have reached to; above all, in the reconciliation of the world to himself by the death of his Son? Will you find out so exact a Rule of Piety, consisting of such excellent Precepts, such incouraging Promises as are in Scripture, in any other writings whatsoever? Can you discover any where such an unexpressible energy and force in a writing of so great simplicity and plainness as the Scripture is? Is there any thing unbecoming that Authority, which it awes the consciences of men with? Is there any thing mean, trivial, fabulous, and impertinent in it? Are not all things written with that infinite decorum and suitableness, as do highly express the Majesty of him from whom it comes, but in the most sweet, affable, and condescending manner? Are there any such arguments in the writings of Seneca, Plutarch, Aristotle, for the Being of God, and Immortality of souls, as there are in Scripture? Are there any moral instructions built on such good grounds, carried on to so high a degree, written with that life and vigour in any of the Heathen Philosophers, as are in the Scriptures? How infinitely do the highest of them fall short of the Scripture in those very things, which they seem most to have in common with it? As, were it here a fit place, might be at large discovered. But, besides, and beyond all these, Are there not other things which evidence the Divine Revelation of the Doctrine contained in Scripture, which none of the writings you mention, can in the least pretend to, viz. the accurate accomplishment of Prophecies, and the abundance of Miracles wrought for the confirmation of the Divine Testimony of those who delivered this Doctrine to the world. And these very things now to us are internal to the Scripture, the motives of Faith being delivered to us in the same Books that the Doctrine of Faith is: In which sense the Scriptures may well be said to be proved Divine by themselves, and that they appear infallible by the Light which is in them, notwithstanding you most pitifully pretend to the contrary. And, if your Church will again pardon you for such opprobrious language of Scripture, as not only to compare the writings of Seneca, Plutarch, and Aristotle with it, which yet are commendable in their kind, for moral Virtue, and natural Knowledge; but those wretched and notorious impostures of the Alcoran, and the fabulous relations of the Talmud; p. 230if, I say, your Church will pardon such expressions as these, because they tend to inhance her Infallibility, well fare that Pope, who said Heu quam minimo regitur mundus!

As for your following instance of a Candle lighted in a room, which shews that it is a light, but not who lighted it; so the sentences in Scripture are lights, and shew themselves to be such, but they cannot shew themselves to be such infallible lights which are produced by none but God himself: I answer; That I commend your discretion in making choice of a Candle rather than of the light of the Sun to set forth the Scripture by. For a Candle yields but a dim uncertain light, may be put into a dark lanthorn, and snuffed at pleasure; so would your Church fain pretend of the Scripture, that its light is very weak and uncertain, that your Church must open the sides of the Lanthorn that it may give light, and make use of some Apostolical Snuffers of the Popes keeping, to make it shine the clearer, though they often endanger the almost extinguishing of it; at least as to the generation of those who should enjoy the benefit of it. But because that poor light of a Candle cannot shew who lighted it, Will not the light of the Sun manifest it self to be no greater than that of a Candle? Cannot any one inferr from the vast extent of that light, from the vanishing of it upon the Suns setting, and its dispersing it self at his rising, that this light can proceed only from that great luminous body which is in the Heavens? And may we not proportionably inferr, from the clearness, greatness, majesty, coherency of those truths revealed in Scripture, that they must certainly come from none but God; especially being joyned with those impregnable evidences which himself by the persons who delivered them that they were imployed by himself for that end? But because this is a matter of great consequence give me leave to propound these questions to you, and after you have considered them seriously, return me a rational answer to them. 1. Doth it imply any repugnancy at all in the nature of the thing, or to the nature of God, that he should reveal his mind to the world. 2. If it doth not, as I suppose you will grant that, Whether is it possible that God should make it evident to the world that such a Revelation is from himself? 3. If this be not impossible, Is it not necessary that it should be so, supposing that God should require the belief of a Doctrine so revealed on pain of eternal damnation for not believing it? 4. Whether God may not give as great evidence of a Revelation that he makes of his mind to the world, as he doth of his Being, from the Wisdom, Goodness, and Power, which may be seen in the works of Creation? 5. Whether any other way be conceivable that it should be evident that a Doctrine comes from God, but that it contains things highly suitable to the Divine nature, things above the finding out of humane reason, things only tending to advance Holiness and Goodness in the world, and this doctrine to be delivered by persons who wrought unparalleld miracles? 6. Whether all these be not in the most evident manner imaginable contained in the Doctrine of Christianity, and in the Books of Scripture? which I leave any man that hath common sense to judge of? 7. Whether then it be not the highest disparagement of this Divine doctrine to make it stand in need of an Infallible testimony of any company who shall take the boldness to call themselves the Catholick Church, in order to the believing of it; and whether there can be any greater dishonour done it, then to say it hath no more light to discover it self Divine, than the Writings of Philosophers, not to add of Jews and Mahumetans? These things I p. 231leave you and the reader to consider of, and proceed. What follows concerning the Fathers and others proving the Scriptures to be the Word of God by themselves, after they have believed them infallibly on other grounds, is gratis dictum, unless you can prove from the Fathers, that they did believe the Scriptures infallibly on other grounds. Which when you shall think fit to attempt I make no question to answer, but in the mean time to a crude assertion it is enough to oppose a bare denyal. Your following absurdities concerning the private Spirit, infallible assurance, Apostolical tradition, have been frequently examin'd already. Only what you say, that you read, esteem, nay very highly reverence, the Scripture;Pag. 9…. is but Protestatio contra factum, as may appear by your former expressions, and therefore can have no force at all with wise men, who judge by things and not by bare words.

3. You say,§. 14▪ That if there were such sufficient light in Scripture to shew it self, you should see it as well as we; seeing you read it as diligently, and esteem it as highly as we do. What! You esteem the Scripture as highly as we,Ibid. n. 7. who say, that the Scripture appears no more of it self to be Gods Word, than distinction of colours to a blind man! You, who but in the page before had said, there was no more light in Scripture to discover it self, than in Seneca, Plutarch, Aristotle, nay as to some things than the Talmud and Alcoran! You, who say that, notwithstanding the Scriptures, Christ would have been esteemed an Ignoramus and Impostor, if your Church be not Infallible; Are you the man, who esteem as highly of the Scriptures as we do? May we not therefore justly return you your own language; and say, that if you do not see this light in Scripture, it is because your eyes are perverse, your understanding unsanctified, which instead of discovering such Divine light in Scripture as to make you love and adore it, can have the confidence to utter such expressions which tend so highly to the disparagement of it. But did not his Lordship give before a sufficient answer to this objection, by saying, 1. That the light is sufficient in it self, Pag. 86.but it doth not follow that it must be evident to every one that looks into it; for the blindness or perversness of mens minds may keep them from the discovery of it. 2. He saith, This light is not so full a light as that of the first Principles, as, that the whole is greater than the part, that the same thing cannot be, and not be, at the same time. And yet such is your sincerity, you would seem at first to perswade the Reader of the contrary in your next Paragraph; but at last you grant that he denies it to be evidently known as one of the Principles of the first sort. (For you with your wonted subtilty distinguish Principles known of themselves, into such as are either evidently, and such as are probably known of themselves, i. e. Principles known of themselves, are either such as are known of themselves, or such as are not; for what is but probably known, is not certainly known of it self, but by that probable argument which causeth assent to it). But when you deny that the Scripture is so much as one of the second sort of principles, and say expresly, That of it self it appears not so much as probably to be more the Word of God, than some other Book that is not truly such; were you not so used to Contradictions, I would desire you to reconcile this expression, with what you said a little before of your high Esteem and Reverence of the Scriptures.

3. The Bishop saith, That when he speaks of this light in Scripture, he only means it of such a light as is of force to breed Faith, that it is the Word of God; not to make a perfect knowledge. Now Faith, of whatsoever it is, this or other principle, is an evidence, as well as knowledge; and the belief is firmer p. 232than any knowledge can be, because it rests upon Divine authority, which cannot deceive; whereas knowledge (or at least he that thinks he knows) is not ever certain in deductions from Principles; but the Evidence is not so clear. Now God doth not require a full demonstrative knowledge in us that the Scripture is his Word, and therefore in his Providence hath kindled in it no light for that, but he requires our Faith of it, and such a certain demonstration as may fit that. Now what answer do you return to all this? Why, forsooth, We must have certainty, nay an Infallible certainty, nay such an Infallible certainty as is built on the Infallible Authority of the Church, yet such an Infallible Authority as can be proved only by motives of credibility; which is a new kind of Climax in Rhetorick, viz. a ladder standing with both ends upon ground at the same time. All the answer I shall therefore now give it, is, that your Faith then is certain, Infallibly certain, and yet built on but probable motives, and therefore on your own principles must be also uncertain, very uncertain, nay undoubtedly and Infallibly uncertain. What again follows concerning Canonical Books and the private Spirit, I must send them, as Constables do vagrants, to the place from whence they came, and there they shall meet with a sufficient Answer.

The remainder of this Chapter consists of a tedious vindication of Bellarmine and Brierely, §. 15.which being of little consequence to the main business,P. 91. &c. n. 8, 9. I shall return the shorter answer. I shall not quarrel much with you about the interpretation of those words of Bellarmine in the sense you give them,De Eccles. l. 3. c. 14.Sir 50:3 viz. if they be understood of absolute necessity, not of all Christians, and only in rare cases, that it is not necessary to believe that there is Scripture, on supposition that the Doctrine of Scripture could be sufficiently conveyed to the minds of any without it, as in the case of the Barbarous Nations mentioned by Irenaeus. But for you who make the tradition of the present Church Infallible, and at the least the Infallible conveyer of the formal object of Faith; I do not see how you can avoid making it as absolutely necessary to be believed as any other object of Faith: unless your Church hath some other way of conveying objects of Faith, than by propounding the Scripture infallibly to us. If therefore men are bound to believe things absolutely necessary to salvation, because contained in that Book, which the Church delivers to be the Infallible Word of God; I cannot possibly see, but the belief of the Scripture on the Churches Infallible Testimony must be as necessary necessitate medii as any thing contained in it. As for the Citation of Hooker by Brierely, Whether it be falsified or no will best be seen by producing the scope and design of that worthy Authour in the Testimonies, cited out of him. Upon an impartial view of which in the several places referred to, I cannot but say, that if Brierely's design was to shew that Hooker made the authority of the Church that into which Faith is lastly resolved, he doth evidently contradict Mr. Hookers design, and is therefore guilty of unfaithful representing his meaning. For where he doth most fully and largely express himself he useth these words, which for clearing his meaning must be fully produced. Scripture teacheth all supernaturally revealed truth, L. 3 sect. 8without the knowledge whereof salvation cannot be attained. The main principle whereon the belief of all things therein contained dependeth, is, that the Scriptures are the Oracles of God himself. This in it self we cannot say is evident. For then all men that hear it would acknowledge it in heart, as they do when they hear that every whole is more than any part of that whole, because this in it self is evident. The other we know that all do not acknowledge it when they hear p. 233it. There must be therefore some former knowledge presupposed, which doth herein assure the hearts of all believers. Scripture teacheth us that saving truth which God hath discovered to the world by Revelation, and it presumeth us taught otherwise, that it self is Divine and Sacred. The question then being by what means we are taught this; some answer, That to learn it we have no other way then only Tradition: As namely that so we believe, because both we from our predecessours, and they from theirs have so received. But is this enough? That which all mens experience teacheth them, may not in any wise be denyed. And by experience we all know, that the first Motive leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the Authority of Gods Church. For when we know the whole Church of God, hath that opinion of the Scripture, we judge it even at the first an impudent thing for any man bred and brought up in the Church to be of a contrary mind without cause. Afterwards the more we bestow our labour in reading or hearing the mysteries thereof, the more we find that the thing it self doth answer our receiv'd opinion concerning it. So that the former inducement prevailing somewhat with us before, doth now much more prevail, when the very thing hath ministred farther reason. Can any thing be more plain (if mens meaning may be gathered from their words, especially when purposely they treat of a subject) than that Hooker makes the Authority of the Church the primary inducement to Faith, and that rational evidence which discovers it self in the Doctrine revealed to be that which it is finally resolved into? For, as his Lordship saith on this very place of Hooker, The resolution of Faith ever settles upon the farthest reason it can, not upon the first inducement. P. 90.By this place then where this worthy Authour most clearly and fully delivers his judgement, we ought in reason to interpret all other occasional and incidental passages on the same subject. So in that other place. For whatsoever we believe concerning salvation by Christ although the Scripture be therein the ground of our belief, yet the authority of man is, L. 2. sect. 7.if we mark it, the key which openeth the door of entrance into the knowledge of the Scriptures. I will not dispute, whether here he speaks concerning the knowledge of Scripture to be Scripture, or concerning the natural sense and meaning of Scripture: suppose I should grant you the latter, it would make little for your purpose; for when he adds, The Scripture doth not teach us the things that are of God, unless we did credit men who have taught us that the words of Scripture do signifie those things. You need not here bid us stay a while: For his sense is plain and obvious, viz. that men cannot come to the natural sense and importance of the words used in Scripture, unless they rely on the authority of men for the signification of those words. He speaks not here then at all concerning Church-Tradition properly taken, but meerly of the authority of man, which he contends must in many cases be relyed on, particularly in that of the sense and meaning of the words which occurr in Scripture. Therefore with his Lordships leave and yours too, I do not think that in this place Hooker by the authority of man doth understand Church-Tradition, but if I may so call it Humane-Tradition, viz. that which acquainteth us with the force and signification of words in use. When therefore you prove that it is Tradition only, which is all the ground he puts of believing Scripture to be the Word of God, from those words of his, That utterly to infringe the force and strength of mans testimony, were to shake the very Fortress of Gods truth. Now (say you) How can that Fortress (the Scripture) be shaken, were not that authority esteemed by him the ground of that Fortress. That may p. 234very easily be shewn, viz. by calling in question the truth of humane testimony in general; for he plainly speaks of such a kind of humane testimony as that is, whereby we know there is such a City as Rome, that such and such were Popes of Rome, wherein the ground of our perswasion can be nothing else but humane testimony; now take away the credit and validity of this testimony, the very Fortress of truth must needs be shaken; for we could never be certain that there were such persons, as Moses, the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles in the world, we could never be certain of the meaning of any thing written by them. But how farr is this from the final resolution of Faith into Church-Tradition? But the place you lay the greatest force on, is that which you first cite out of him, Finally we all believe that the Scriptures of God are sacred, L. 2. sect. 4.and that they have proceeded from God; our selves we assure, that we do right well in so believing. We have for this a demonstration sound and Infallible. But it is not the Word of God which doth or can possibly assure us, that we do well to think it his Word. From hence you inferr, That either he must settle no Infallible ground at all, or must say that the Tradition of the Church is that ground. No Infallible ground in your sense, I grant it, but well enough in his own; for all the difficulty lies in understanding what he means by Infallible; which he takes not in your sense for a supernatural, but only for a rational Infallibility; not such a one as excludes possibility of deception, but all reasonable doubting. In which sense he saith of such things as are capable only of moral certainty, That the Testimony of man will stand as a ground of Infallible assurance;L. 2. sect. 8. and presently instanceth in these, That there is such a City of Rome, that Pius 5. was Pope there, &c. So afterwards, he saith, That the mind of man desireth evermore to know the truth according to the most Infallible certainty which the nature of things can yield: by which it is plain, that the utmost certainty which things are capable of is with him Infallible certainty; and so a sound and Infallible ground of Faith is a certain ground, which we all assert may be had without your Churches Infallible Testimony. Whether therefore Brierely and you are not guilty, if not of falsifying Hookers words, yet of perverting his meaning, let the Impartial Reader judge.