Additions to the Saints Everlasting Rest, Title – Preface

Additions to the Saints Everlasting Rest · Title – Preface

Additions to the Saints everlasting Rest, to be put before the Second Part.

The Preface, directed 1. To Unbelievers, and Anti-Scripturists, 2. To Papists, 3. And to the Orthodox.

BEcause it is a point of such high concernment, to be assured of the Divine Authority of the Scriptures; and all men be not of one mind in the way of proving it, and because I have not handled this so fully as the difficulty and weight of the subject doth require, as intending only a few Arguments by way of Digression, for the strengthening of weaker & less exercised Christians. I have thought meet therefore a little more fully to express my mind in this Preface, being loath to stand to enlarge the book any further. And that which I have to say, is to three sorts of Persons distinctly.

The first is, all those that Believe not the Truth of the Scriptures. Open Pagans live not among us: But Pagans professing Christianity are of late▪ too common; under the name of Libertines, Familists, Seekers, and Anti-Scripturists. Had I not known it by experience, and had conference with such, I should not speak it. And there is a remnant of Paganism and Infidelity in the best of Christians. The chief causes which pervert the understandings of men in this point, in my observation, are these two. 1. When men have deeply wounded their Consciences by sinning against Knowledge, and given the Victory to their fleshly lusts, so that they must either deeply accuse and condemn themselves, or deny the Scriptures, they choose that which seemeth the more tolerable and desirable to them; and so rather condemn the Scripture then themselves. And what malefactor would not do the like, and except against the Law which doth condemn him, if that would serve his turn? And when men that are engaged in a sinfull course, do see that the word of God doth speak so terribly against it, they dare not live in that sin while they believe the Scripture, because it is still wakening and galling their guilty Consciences: But when they have cast away their belief of the Scriptures, then Conscience will let them sin with more quietness. These men Believe not the Scriptures; principally because they would not have them to be true, rather then because they do indeed seem untrue: For their Fleshly concupiscence having mastered their Wils, their Wils have also mastered their understandings: and so as in a well ordered gracious soul all goes strait forward; in these men all is perverted and m…ves backward. These men refuse their Physick, because it is unpleasant, and not because it is unwholsome; yet at last their appetite so mastereth their Reason, that they will not believe any thing can be wholsome which goes so much against their stomacks. At least this makes them the readyer to pick a quarrell with it, and they are glad to hear of any Argument against it. Ahab believed not the message of Micheah, not because he spoke falsly, but because he spoke not Good of him, but Evil. Men will easily be drawn to Believe that to be True which they would fain have to be True; and that to be False, which they desire should be False. But alas, how short and filly a cure is this for a guilty soul! And how soon will it leave them in uncurable misery!

2. Another Reason of these mens Ʋnbelief, is the seeming contradictions that they find in the Scriptures, and the seeming impossibilities in the Doctrine of them, which so far transcend the capacity of man. To the former let me say this much. 1. It is meerly through our ignorance that Scriptures seem contradictory: I thought my self once that some places were hardly reconcileable, which now I see do very plainly agree: Plainly, I say, to them that understand the true meaning of the words. There are no humane writings but lie open to such exceptions of the Ignorant. It is rather a wonder that the Scriptures seem not to you more self▪ contradicting, if you consider, but 1. That they are written in another language, and must needs loose much in the Translation; there being few words to be found in any language, which have not divers significations. 2. That it being the language also of another Countrey to men that know not the customs, the scituation of places, the proverbial speeches and phrases of that Countrey, it is impossible but many words should seem dark or contradictory. 3. Also that the Scriptures are of so exceeding Antiquity, as no b…ks else in the world are like them. Now who knows not that in all Countries in the world customs alter, and proverbiall speeches and phrases alter? which must needs make words seem dark even to men of the same Countrey and Language that live so long after. We have many English Proverbs, which if in after Ages they should cease to be Proverbs, and men finding them in our writings shall construe them, as plain speeches, they will seem to be either false, or ridiculous non▪ sence. The like may be said of alterations of Phrases. He that reads but Chaucer, much more elder Writers, will see that English is scarce the same thing now as it was then. Though the sacred Languages have had no such great alterations, yet by this it may appear that it is no wonder, if to the ignorant they seem contradictory or difficult. Do not the Mathematicks, and all Sciences seem full of contradictions and impossibilities to the Ignorant? which are all resolved and cleared to those that understand them? It is a very foolish audacious thing that every novice or young student in Divinity, should expect to have all difficulties resolved presently, or else they will censure the Scriptures, and speak evil of the things they know not, instead of censuring themselves: When yet these men know that in the easiest Science, yea, or basest Manufacture, they must have time to learn the Reasons of them. It is usual with raw Scholars in all kind of studies, to say as Nicodemus at first did of Regeneration, How can these things be? **Sed qu…m…dmodum apud eos qui semel providentiam probe perceperunt, non minuitur, aut perit fides providentiae ob …a quae non comprehenduntur; ita ne{que} scripturae Divinitati per eam totam diffusae quidquam d…trahitur, ex eo quod ad singulas dictiones imb…cilli…as nos…ra non possit adesse arcano splendori doctrinae qui in tenui & contempta locutione del…tescit. Origen. Philocali (per Tarinum Graecolat. Edit.) pag. (mihi) 12. 13.Me thinks such frail and shallow Creatures, as all men are, should rather be so sensible of their own incapacity and ignorance, as to be readyer to take the blame to themselves, then to quarrel with the Truth. It is too large a work for me here to answer all the particular objections of these men against the several passages of Scripture: but if they would be at the pains to enquire of their Teachers, or study what is written to that end, they might find that the matter is not so difficult as they imagine. Besides what Althamer, Cumeranus, Sharpius and others have purposely written for reconciling the seeming contradictions in Scripture, they may find much in ordinary Expositors. Junius answereth two and twenty Cavils which Simplicius the Pagan raised, and after him the Antinomians used against Moses History of the Creation. And he was fit for the work, having for a years time continued in the desperate Error of Athe… himself. But the fullest Confutation of these Blasphemous conceits are in the primitive Fathers (as Origen against Celsus, Tertul. Athanas. &c) where they shall find that the worst of Pagans brought forth these Monsters, and by what weapons they were destroyed.

2. And what if you could not see how to reconcile the seeming contradictions of Scripture! When you see Arguments sufficient to prove them to be the Word of God (which I doubt not but you may see, if you will search impartially and humbly) me thinks common reason might then conclude, that all that God speaks must needs be true: though our blindness hinder us from a distinct discerning it! 2. The like I say of the seeming Impossibilities in Scripture. Is any thing too hard for Omnipotency it self? This Atheist derides it when he hears of the opening of the Red Sea, of the standing still of the Sun, &c. But dost thou believe that there is a God? If thou do, thou must needs know that he is Almighty: If not, thou hast put out the eye of Reason; For most Pagans in the world have acknowledged a God. Canst thou think that all the things thou seest, are made and preserved without a first Cause? Do the Heavens keep their courses, and the Earth produce that variety of beautifull Creatures, and the death of one, cause the Life of the other, and all kept in that order of superiority and inferiority, and all this without a first Cause? If thou say that Nature is the cause: I would fain know what it is that thou callest Nature? Either a Reasonable Being and Cause, or an unreasonable. If unreasonable, it could not produce the Reasonable spirits, as are Angels and the Souls of men, for these would be more Noble then it self: If Reasonable, is it not then God himself which thou dost call by the name of Nature? To be the first Reason, Being and Cause of all, is to be God. And then let me ask thee: Dost thou not see as great Works as these Miracles every day and hour before thine eyes? Is it not as great a work for the Sun to move, as to stand still? to move 1038442. miles an hour, being 1663/8 times bigger then all the Earth? Is it not as hard a matter for the Sea to move and keep his times in ebbing and flowing, as for it to open and stand still? It is only the rarity and strangeness that makes us think one Impossible, when we see the other daily come to pass. If it were but usual for the Sun to stand still, every man would think it a far more incredible thing that it should move, and so move? Why then cannot God do the lesser▪ who daily doth the greater? The like I might say of all the rest, but that it were too long to insist on them. And for the truth of the History, it is proved afterwards.

2. I would further ask these men, Must not a soul that is capable of Immortall Happiness, have some guide in the way thereto? If they say, No then they either think God unfaithfull or unskilfull, who having appointed man an End, hath not given him direction thereto in the Means. If they doubt whether mans soul be Immortall, and whether there be a Life of Happiness to some, and Misery to others to be expected after this, I have said enough against that doubt in this book following. And further l…t me ask them, **Socrates being near death (apud P…aton…m, Cicerone inte…prete) said thus: Magaa me spes tenet, Judices, bene mihi evenire quod mittar ad mortem: Necesse est enim ut sit alterum de duobus, ut aut sensus omnino mors omnes auferat, aut in alium quendam locum ex his locis morte migretur. Quamobrem sive sensus extinguitur, mors{que} ei somno similis est, qui nonnunquam etiam sive visis som…orum, placatissimam quietem affert; Dii honi, quid lucri est emori? aut quam multi dies reperiri possunt qui tali nocti anteponatur? &c. Sin vera sunt quae dicuntur, migrationem esse mortem, in eas oras quas qui è vita excesseruat, incolunt; id mu…to iam beatius est, te, cum ab iis qui se iudicium numero haberi volunt, evaseris, ad …os venire qui vere iudices appellentur, &c. convenire{que} eos, qui iuste & cum side vixerint. Haec peregrinatio mediocris vobis videri potest? Ʋt vero colloqui cum Orphaeo, Musaeo, Homero, Hesiodo liceat, quanti tandem aestimatis? Equidem saepe mori s… fieri posset, vellem, ut ea quae dico mihi liceret invenire. Quanta delectatione autem afficeret, &c. Ne vos quidem, Judices, ii qui me absoluistis mortem timueritis; Nec enim cuiquam bono ma…i quidquam evenire potest, nec vivo nec mortuo: Nec unquam eius res à Diis immortalibus negligentur, &c. Sic Socrates. Qu…dam & Natura nota sunt, ut Mortalitas animae penes plures ut Deus noster penes omnes. Ʋtar ergo & sententia Platonis alicuius pronunciantis. Omnis anima est Immortalis. Ʋtar & Conscientia Populi contestantis Deum Deorum. Ʋtar & reliquis communibus sensibus, qui Deum Judicem praedicant, [Deus videt] & [Deo commendo.] At cum aiunt [Mortuum quod Mortuum] & [Vive dum V…vis] & [post mortem omnia finiuntur, etiam ipsa] tunc meminero & cor vulgi cinerem, à Deo deputatum, & ipsam sapientiam seculi stultitiam pronunciatam. Tunc si & Haereticus ad vulgi vitia, vel seculi ingenia confugerit, discede, dicam, ab Ethnico, haeretice, etsi unum estis omnes. Tertul. lib. de Resurrec. carn. cap. 3.How comes it to be the Common judgement of all Nations, even the most ignorant Indians, that there is a Life after this, where the Good and the Bad shall be differently recompenced. This the ancient Barbarians believed as Herodotus testifieth of the Getae. lib. 4. and of the Egyptians Diodorus Siculus lib. 1. biblioth num. 93. The very Inhabitants of Guiny, Virginia, Guiana, Peru, China, Mexico, &c. do believe this: as you may see Descrip. Reg. Afric. Guineae, cap. 21. 44. Acosta lib. 5. c. 7. 8. Hug. Luiscot. Part. 1. cap. 25. Jo. Lerius cap. 16. Sir Walt. Raughly, &c. What Poet speaks not de Tartaro, Campis Elisiis, Manibus? And so do Philosophers of best note, except Galen, Epicurus, Plinius, &c. As for Pythagoras, and his Master Pherecides, the Druides, the Indian Brachmanes, Socrates, Plato, Cicero, Seneca, they all acknowledge it. Lege Marsil. Ficinum de Immort. Anim. Yea, Aristotle himself saw this, as appeareth De anima lib. 1. context. 65. 66. lib. 2. context. 21. lib. 3. context. 4. 6. 7. 19. 20. Sure then the light of Nature discerneth it.

Yet if these men say that there must be a Guide and Law for souls in their way to Happyness, and yet deny that the Scripture is it, I would fain know of them which is it, and where it is to be found? Hath God any other word or Law in the world above this? Sure neither Plato, nor Aristotle did ever call their books the Word of God: and Mahomets Alcoran is far more unlike to be it then theirs. If they say that Reason is the only Guide and Law, I reply, 1. Reason is but the Eye by which we see our Directory and Law, and not the Directory and Law it self. 2. Look on those Countries through the world that have no Scripture-Guide, but follow their Reason, and see how they are Guided, and what difference there is between them and Christians, (as bad as we are,) and if you think of this well, you will be ashamed of your error. Indians have Reason as well as we; Nay look on the wise Romans, and the great learned Philosophers, who had advanced their Reason so high, and see how lamentably they were befooled in Spirituals; How they worshipped multitudes of Idols, even taking those for their Gods whom they acknowledged to be Leacherous, Adulterous, Perfidious, Bloody and wicked. Read but Justins Apol. Athenagoras, Tertull. Apol. &c. Origen cont. Cels. Arnobius, Lactantius, Clemens Alex. Protreptic. Minutius Faelix, Athanas. &c. fully of this. Most certainly either the Scriptures are Gods Word and Law, or else there is none in the known world; And if there be none, how doth the just, true and Righteous God govern the Rational Creature, so as to lead him to the Happyness prepared for him? But of this in the fourth Argument following.

3. I would entreat these men but soberly to consider this; What if there were no full Absolute certainty of the truth of Scripture or Christian Religion, but it were only probable, (which no considerate m…n can deny) were it not the wisest way to receive it? what if it should prove true that there is a Hell for the wicked, what a case are you in then? You know your worldly happyness is a very dream and a shaddow; and a bruitish delight which is mixt with misery, and quieteth not the soul, and perisheth in the using. If you do lose it, you lose but a toy, a thing of nothing which you must shortly lose whether you will or no. But if you lose Heaven, and fall into Endless misery, it is another kind of loss. Me thinks then that common Reason should perswade men to venture all, though it were at uncertainty, upon that Religion which tels us but of a Possibility of a Heaven and a Hell, then to venture on a possibility of everlasting Misery, for a little bestial pleasure, which is gone while we are enjoying it! Yea, and when even in this life these sensual men have not neer so much true content as the Christian! Verily if I doubted of the truth of the Christian Religion, I durst not be of any other; but should judge it the wisest course to venture all I had in this world upon the Hopes that it propoundeth; yea, meer madness to do otherwise. If men that are at a lottery will venture a small sum for a possibility of a great one, though they know there is but one of twenty that shall get it; how much more would any wise man leave a little vanity, in hope of Everlasting Glory, and to avoid everlasting misery, though it were uncertain. But most of all, when we have that full Certainty of it as we have.

4. Lastly, I would have these men consider, that though we doubt not but to prove that Scripture is Gods perfect infallible Law, yet if it were so that this could not be proved, yet this would not over throw the Christian Religion. If the Scripture were but the writings of honest men, that were subject to mistakes, and to contradictions in the manner and circumstances, yet they might afford us a full Certainty of the substance of Christianity, and of the Miracles wrought to confirm the doctrine. Tacitus, Suetonius, Livy, Florus, Lucan, &c. were all heathens and very fallible; and yet their history affords us a certainty of the great substantial passages of the Romane affairs which they treat of, though not of all the smaller passages and circumstances. He that doubteth whether there were such a man as Julius Caesar, or that he fought with Pompey, and overcame him, &c. is scarce reasonable, if he know the Histories. So though Math. Paris, Malmesbury, Hoveden, Speed, Cambden, and our own Parliaments that enacted our Laws, were all fallible men, and mistaken in divers smaller things, yet they afford us a full Certainty that there was such a man as William the Conqueror, William Rufus, &c. that there were such Parliaments, such Lords, such fights and victories, &c. He that would not venture all that he hath on the truth of these, especially to gain a Kingdome by the venture, were no better in this then mad. Now if Scripture were but such common writings as these, especially joyned with that uncontrolled Tradition that hath since conveyed it to us, may it not yet give us a full certainty, that Christ was in the flesh, and that he preached this Doctrine for the substance, and wrought these Miracles to confirm it, and enabled his followers to work the like, which will afford us an invincible Argument for our Christianity. Therefore Grotius, &c. and so the old Fathers when they disputed with the Heathens, did first prove the truth of Christian Religion, before they came to prove the Divine Authority of the Scriptures. Not that we are at any such uncertainty, or that any Christian should dare to take up here, as if the Scriptures were not Infallible and Divine. But being now speaking to another sort of men according to their capacity, I say, if it were otherwise, yet might we have certainty of our Religion. I shall say somewhat more to these men in speaking to the rest.

2. THE second sort that I shall speak to, is the Papists. I find the chief thing that turns them from the Reformed Churches, and confirms them against us, is because they think they cannot otherwise maintain their Christianity, but by deriving it from their Church. The first Question therefore that Papists will dispute on with us, is, How know you the Scriptures to be the Word of God? For they fondly suppose, that because it cannot be known without the help of Tradition or Humane Testimony, that therefore this must be only the Testimony of the true Church, and that must be some visible Church, and that Church must be presently in Being, and must be Judge in the case, and must be Infallible in Judging, and all this can agree to no other Church; and therefore that theirs is the only true Church. And thus the particular Church of Rome will prove her self the only or universal Church. To stand here to confute these vain ungrounded Conclusions, would be to digress too far, and make this Preface too long. Yet something I wrote against their pretended Papal Infallibility, and of the uncertainty of their Faith; but being perswaded by others to insert no more Controversie here, I reserve it for a fitter place. Only I would desire briefly any Papist to shew, whether their Doctrine do not leave the whole Christian Faith at utter uncertainty, and consequently destroy it (as much as in them lies?) For seeing they build all on the supposed Infallibility of the Church; and **Vid. Gr…g. de Valent. To. 3. Disp. 1. Quaest. 1. punct. 7. §. 12. Et Bellarm. lib. 2. de sacrament. in gen. cap. 25. & suarez. de Fide Disput. 5. §. 4.that Church is the Present Church: and that is the Roman Church only; and ‖‖Suarez. de fide Disput. 5. §. 7. & Disp. 11. §. 3. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Comiliis cap. 12. & 19. & lib. 2. cap. 2. Yet sometimes they seem so pious as to preferr the Scripture before the Church: Nunquam sane mihi venit in mentem Ecclesiae iudicium sacrorum voluminū authoritati anteserre, quae spiritus caelestis afflatu exarata fuisse cum Petro confitemur, cum & pueri, qui ne primoribus quidem labris divina monumenta attigerunt, satis intelligant, verae ecclesiae rationem sine Verbi Dei integritate, quae sidei sedes est at{que} fundamentum, constare ullo modo posse Payva D^• Andard: Defens. Consilii Trident. cont. Kemnit. lib. 2. pag. (mihi) 202. Sed de aliorum impudentia vid. Rivet. Catholic. Orthodox. Tract. 1. Qu. 9. pag. 94.that is only the Pope, as the Jesuits and most Papists say, or a general Councel, as the French: see what a case they bring Christianity to with their followers? Every man that will Believe the Scripture, yea, or the Christian Faith, must 1. Believe or know that Rome is the true Church 2. That it hath Authority to Judge of Gods Word, and of the Christian Faith, which is truly it, and which not. 3. That this Authority was given by Gods Word (this must be known before men can know that God hath a Word, or what it is.) 4. That they are Infallible in this Judgement. 5. That Peter was at Rome, and was there Bishop, and conferred this Soveraignty on them as his Successors. 6. That each particular Pope is a true Pope, and lawfully called (which all the world must know, that know neither him, nor when, nor how he was called.) 7. That the Pope determines it as a matter of Faith (otherwise, they confess he may err, and be an Heretick▪) 8. And they must know where is the proper subject of Infallibility, whether in the Pope, or Councel, or else they know not which to build on (which yet they are far from agreeing on themselves.) 9. When two or three Popes sit together (which is no new thing) the world must know which is the right (for all the rest may err.) 10. Or if they joyn a Councel in the Infallibility, they must be certain that Christ hath given Councels this Infallibility. 11. And that this is only to a Councel of Romanists. 12▪ And so that the Roman Church is the Ʋniversal Church, and not only a Part, as other Churches are. 13. And that they are free from Error in Councel, and not out of it. 14. That the Councel be General and Lawful (else they confess it may err.) 15. Therefore all men must be certain that it be summoned by the Pope. 16. And that the Bishops that constitute it are lawfully called. 17. And that the Pope doth Ratifie the Acts of this Councel, as well as call the Councel (else they conclude that they are unlawfull, or may be fallible.) He that knows not all these, cannot be Certain that Scripture is Gods word, no nor of the Truth of the Christian Faith according to the Papist grounds. And can all the world be certain of them? Or are all their Laicks certain? Yea or their Clergy? Yea or any man? Adrian the sixth tells us, that the Pope is fallible: and shall we not believe the Pope himself, confessing his own Ignorance? Though councels have decreed against Councels, and Popes against Popes, over and over. Yet we must needs believe them Infallible, or forfeit our Christianity, according to their doctrine; that is, We must either renounce both Experience, Sense, and Reason, or our Faith. Is not this the way to drive the world again to Heathenism? And whether all the world lose not the Certainty of their Christianity, when there is an Inter-regnum upon the death of a Pope, let them further study. Full certain I am that the Christian world in Peters dayes did never pretend to hold their Faith upon his meer Infallibility: Nor did Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, or any of the ancientst that ever I met with, hold their Belief of Christ or Scripture on the Infallibility of the Bishop of Rome. The contrary I shall manifest in more convenient place. I will only adde this Question: How doth the Pope and his Councell know the Scripture to be Gods Word? If they Believe it on their own Authority, that is, because themselves say so, then they are self▪ Idolizers; and what makes them affirm it to be so? or what Reason have they for their Belief? If they Believe by any convincing Reason proving Scripture to be a Divine Testimony, then why may not the Clergy out of Councell, and others also Believe on the same grounds? Else the Faith of the Pope and his Councel will not have the same grounds with the faith of the People or Church besides: and then it is another faith: and so either the People or Pope are Hereticks. And why are we blamed for not Believing on the Authority of the Pope and Councel, when the Pope and Councel themselves Believe not on that (that is, their own) Authority? I hope they will not turn Enthusiasts and pretend to private extraordinary Revelations of the Spirit. If they say that they Receive the Scripture by the Tradition of the Ancient Church, and so on their Credit, why may not we know as well as they what the Ancients say in the point? and is it not the honestest way if they know more herein then we, to produce it, and shew us what and where the Antients speak? If they have it meerly upon Verbal Tradition, have not other men as good ears as the Pope and his Councel? and therefore (being as honest) to be as well credited in such reports: ‖‖So far have the Romanists been from being faithful keepers of their pretended additional Traditions, that by depraving the Monuments of Antiquity, and by adding a multitude of Legends and forged writings, to advance their own ends, they have done the Church of Christ more wrong then ever they are able to repair: (as the late …ing t…uly told the Ma…q… of Wo…c…er in his (printed) conference:) But the vanity and forgery of their pretended Monuments is fully manifested by our James: Cook's Censura Patrum Erasmus, Dan: Blond…llus (on the by in all his writings, but) most fully in his Examen Decretalium: so our Dr Jo: Re…g…olds on other parts, and many more have opened their folly.And if it be their office to keep Traditions, why have they been so careless as to lose all the rest of the things which Jesus did which John saith, would fill so many Volumes: and also all the Traditions which themselves suppose Paul to have delivered unwritten to the Thessalonians and others. Shall we believe them Infallible that have already so deceived us?

And for those that think it of Absolute necessity that the Church have some Judge for final Decision of Controversies about the sence of Scripture; and that judge it so absurd a thing for every man to be Judge; and therefore they think we must needs come to Rome for a Judge: 1. I would know whether they speak of▪ Fundamentals, and such other points as are plain in Scripture; or of smaller points that are dark? For the former, what need is there of a Judge? No Christian denyeth Fundamentals: and Heathens will not stand to the Papall Infallibility. A teacher indeed is necessary for the Ignorant: but not a Judge. It is the vilest doctrine that most ever Rome did forge▪ that Fundamentals themselves are such to us because they determine them▪ and that we cannot know them but on their Authority: yea, the Church (that is, the Pope) may by his determination, make new Fundamentals. If they were not impudent, this abomination would never have found so many Patrons. They ask us, How we know Fundamentals, and which be they? I answer, Those things that God hath made the Conditions of salvation. And what if we take in both them and more, that so we may be sure not to miss of them, so we go but to plain and weighty truths, what danger is in that? 2. Seeing all Christians in the world do hold the fundamentals (else they are not truly Christians) why are they not fit deliverers or Judges of them, as well as the Pope? 3. And for lesser and darker points, by what means is the Pope and his Councel able to determine them, and to decide the Controversie? If by rational means, what are they? and why may not as rational men decide it as truly? 4. Will it not be as hard a Question, who shall judge of the meaning of the Popes Decretals or Canons, where they are doubtfull? and so in infinitum. I see not but the Councell of Trent speaks as darkly as the Scripture; and is as hard to be understood. 5. If God leave a point dark and doubtfull, will it not remain so, whatsoever confident men may determine? 6. If God have left a certain means, and infallible Judge, for determining all controversies, and expounding Scriptures, why then is it not done, but the Church left still in such uncertainties and contentions. As some Anabaptists among us do boast of a power to work Miracles, and yet we can get none of them to shew their power in one; Just so doth the Church of Rome boast of an Infallibility in deciding of Controversies, and yet they will not infallibly decide them. If they should grow modest and say, they do not determine what is certain in it self; but what we are to rest in. I answer, Why should we be compelled to profess things uncertain? If they say, they are not all fit to be decided, and therefore the Church leaves some to mens Liberty▪ I answer, So Christ thought them not all fit to be decided, and therefore hath left many in doubtfulness; and is it not as fit we should rest in Christs decision? and his judgement concerning points fit to be cleared and decided, as in mans? The palpable mistake of that one Text 2 Pet. 1. 20. (that no Scripture is of Private Interpretation) hath misled many men in …his point. For they think it speaks of the Quality of the Interpreter, …s if Private men must not interpret it; when the Text plainly speaks of the Quality of the subject. The true Paraphrase is evidently this [q. d. Besides the Voice from Heaven, giving Testimony to Christ, we have also in the old Scriptures a sure word of Prophesie testifying of him (for to him give all the Prophets witness) whereto ye do well to take heed, as to a light shining in a dark place, &c. But then you must understand this; That no Prophesie of Christ in the old Testament is of Private interpretation, that is, it is not to be interpreted as speaking only of those private persons who were but Types of Christ, of whom indeed it literally and first speaks: For though it might seem as if the Prophets spoke of themselves, or of the Type only, who was a Private person; yet indeed it is Christ that the Spirit that spake by them intended: For the Prophesie came not in old time by the Will of man that spoke them, and therefore is not to be interpreted privately of themselves, or what they might seem to intend: but holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; and therefore his meaning must be looked to, and he intended Christ the Antitype] For example: When David said Psal. 2. Yet will I set my King on my holy hill Zion; You must not interpret this of David only, a Private person, and but a Type: but of Christ the Publique person and Antitype.

But I must spend no more words here on this kind of men.

LEt me adventure on a few words to the Ministers of the Gospel; not of advice (for that was judged presumptuous in my last, though but to the younger) but of Apologie. Though the Acceptance of this Treatise be far beyond what I expected; yet some have signified to me their dislike of some things in this second Part, of which I think it my duty to tender them satisfaction.

1. Some say it is a Digression. Answ. And what hurt is that to any man? I confess it was fitted at first to my own use (as all the rest was) and why may it not be useful to some body else? My business was not to open a Text; but to help Christians to enjoy the solid comforts which their Religion doth afford: the greatest hinderance whereof, in my observation, is a weak or unsound Belief of the Truth of it. And therefore I still think, that the very main work lyeth in strengthening their Belief. So that I am sure I digressed not from the way that led to my intended end.

2. Others have told me, that I should not have mixed controversie, with such Practical matter. Answ. And some, as wise, tell me, They had rather all were omitted then this. For the Truth must be known before the Goodness will be Desired or Delighted in. It seems to me the ordinary cause of Back sliding, when men either begin at the Affections, or bestow most of their labour there, before they have laid a good foundation in the Ʋnderstanding. And they are scarce likely to be the longest-winded Christians, nor to die for their Religion, that scarce know why they are Christians. Me thinks its preposterous for men to bestow ten or twenty years in studying the meaning of Gods word, before they well know, or can prove that it is Gods Word. As the Italians mentioned by Melancthon, that disputed earnestly that Christ was Really in the bread, when they did not well believe that he was in Heaven. If Fundamentals be controverted, it concerns us to be well seen in such Controversies. However, if this be unuseful to any man, if he will but let it alone, it will do him no harm.

3. Some blame me for making so much use of the Argument from Miracles: And withall they think it invalid, except it be apparent Truth which they are brought to confirm. Answ. 1. If it be first known to be Truth, there needs no Miracles to prove it. 2. Do not all our Divines use this Argument from Miracles? 3. And I do not by using this, hinder any man from producing or using as many more as he can. I no where say, that this is the only Argument. 4. If these men were as wise as they should be, they would take heed of shaking the Christian Cause, and striking at the very root of it, for the maintaining of their Conceits. If they take down the chief Argument which confirms it, what do they less. 5. Search the Scripture, and see, whether this were not the chief Argument, 1. which succeeded then for bringing men to Believe, 2. and which Christ himself laid the greatest weight on, and expected most from. Nathaniel believed upon Christs telling him of his conference at a distance. Joh. 1. 48, 49. Ʋpon his beginning of Miracles at Cana in Galil…e, he manifested forth his Glory, and his Disciples believed on him, Joh. 2. 11. The Jews therefore enquired for Signs, as that which must confirm any new Revelation to be of God, Joh. 2. 18. & 6. 30. 1 Cor. 1 22. And though Christ blame them for their unreasonable unsatisfied expectations herein, and would not humour them in each particular, that they would sawcily prescribe him, yet still he continued to give them Miracles, as great as they required. Though he would not come down from the Cross to convince them (for then how should he have suffered for sin) yet he would Rise again from the dead, which was far greater. They that saw the Miracle of the Loaves, …aid. This is of a Truth the Prophet that should come into the world, Joh. 6. 14. John (say they) did no Miracle: but all that John spake of this man were true: and many Believed on him there, Joh. 10. 41. Many believed when they saw the Miracles which he did, Joh. 2. 23. See also Act. 4. 16. Joh. 6. 2. & 7. 31. & 11. 47. Act. 6. 8. & 8. 6. 13. and Gal. 3. 5. Act. 2. 43. & 4. 30. & 5. 12. & 7. 36 & 14. 3. Heb. 2. 4. And Christ himself saith, If I had not done the works that no man else could do, ye had no sin (in not believing) Joh. 15. 24. And therefore he promiseth the Holy Ghost to his Disciples to enable them to do the like, to convince the world, Mar. 16. 17, 18. Yea, to do greater works then he had done, Joh. 14. 12. And he upbraideth and most terribly threatned the unbelievers that had seen his mighty works, Mat. 11. 20, 21, 23. Luk. 10. 13. Yea, the Blaspheming of the power by which he wrought them, (and his Disciples afterward were to work them) and ascribing them to the Devil, he maketh the unpardonable sin, Mat. 12. 31, 32. see also, Mat. 11. 2, 3, 4. and 13. 54. and 14. 2. Mar. 6. 2. 14. Joh. 5. 19, 20. and 7. 3. He tels them, The works that I do, bear witness of me, Joh. 5. 36. and 10. 25. Believe not me; beleive the works that I do, Joh. 10. 37, 38. Believe me for the very works sake, Joh. 14. 11. And how did the Apostles preach to convince the world, but partly by telling them of Christs Resurrection (the greatest of all his Miracles,) and his other works: and partly by doing Miracles themselves. They tell them, He was approved of God by signs and wonders, Act. 2. 22. and 7. 36. They declared also what Miracles and wonders were wrought by the Apostles, Act. 15. 12. And Paul vindicateth the Credit of his own Apostleship, and so the truth of his Testimony, to the Corinthians, thus, [Truly the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds. 2 Cor. 12. 12. The way of bringing men to Believe in those daies is expressed **Observe this Text well, and it will help you to answer the Question, [How know you the Scripture to be the Word of God?]Heb. 2. 3, 4. How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by them that heard him (there is sense to the first Receivers, and their Tradition to the next:) God also bearing them witness both with signs and wonders and divers Miracles; and gifts of the Holy Ghost according to his will. And who dare question this Witness of God? And fear fell on them all, and the name of Jesus was magnified, and men converted by the speciall Miracles that Paul did, Act. 19. 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19. I will say no more to the opposers of the sufficiency of this Argument, but wish them to answer, or learn of that blind man, Joh. 9. 16. Can a man that is a sinner do such Miracles? We know that God heareth not sinners. Or hear Nicodemus, Joh. 3. 2. We know that thou art a Teacher come from God: for no man can do these Miracles, except God be with him. Naturall Reason shews us, that God being the true, and Mercifull Governor of the World, the course of Nature cannot be altered but by his special appointment; and that he will never set the seals of his omnipotency to a lye; nor suffer the last and greatest inducement of Belief to be used to draw men to falshood: For then how deplorate were the Condition of mankind.

Object. But (you'l say) False Prophets may arise and shew signs: and Antichrist shall come with lying wonders. Answ. These are all lying wonders indeed; seeming to be Miracles, when they are not. Object. But the great question is, How we shall know which are Miracles indeed, when poor Mortals may be so easily deceived by superior powers? Answ. For the Difference between true Miracles and false, Camero, Prideaux, and most Divines that write of this Argument have handled it, to whom I referr you. I will only say this more; That We need not be curious in this enquiry: for if any doubt whether Miracles may not be wrought to delude, I would add these Qualifications to that Medium, and thus form the Major Proposition [That doctrine, or those books which were attested by Apparent, Frequent, uncontrouled Miracles, must needs be of God.] But such is this, &c. A wonder wrought once or twice may easier deceive, then that which is done one hundred times. A wonder in a Corner may be blazed falsly to be a miracle: But Christ had so many thousand witnesses (as of the Miracle of the Loaves) and five hundred at once that saw him after his Resurrection, and the Apostles appealed to whole Churches (even where they had secret adversaries) who might easily have disproved them, if it had not been true; and they spake with tongues before people of many Nations, and it was not one, nor one hundred, but the multitudes of Christians that had one gift or other of this sort, either Miracles specially so called, or healing, or prophecying, or See 1 Cor. 12. from the 1. verse to the 12. And Mark 16. 17.1 Cor 12Mark 16:17tongues, &c.

But especially no Uncontrouled Miracles shall ever be used to deceive the world. Two ways doth God Controul even the seeming Miracles of deceivers. 1. By doing greater in opposition to them, and so disgracing and confounding them, and the Authors, and the Cause; so God did by the Magicians in Egypt; by the Exorcists in Act. 19. and by Simon Magus, as Church Hystory tels us. In this Case, it is no disparagement to Gods Mercy or Faithfulness to let men work false wonders; for he doth but make them the occasion of his Triumph; that the Victory of Truth may be more eminent, and mens faith more confirmed. 2. Also by some clear and undoubted Truth (either known to Common Reason, or by former Scriptures) doth God oft Controul deceiving wonders. For if they are used to Attest an undoubted Falshood, then the former established Truth contradicting them, is sufficient controulment. So that as God will never set his own proper seal of a true Miracle to an untruth, so neither will he suffer a seeming Miracle to go uncontroul…d when it may endanger the faith and safety of mankind. Nor can it be shewn that ever he did otherwise, whereas the Miracles of Christ and his Disciples were uncontrouled, Frequent, Numerous, Apparent, Prevalent and Triumphant.

Object. Then if Miracles be wrought now, they will inferr a New Scripture. Answ. No such matter. They will prove the Testimony to be Divine, where it is certain that they are wrought to confirm any Testimony; but no more. God may work them without man, to stir up mens hearts, and rowse them to Repentance, **Vide Suar…z de fide Disput. 4▪ Sect. 3. §. 10.any new Testimony. Or he may enable man to work them for attestation of f…rmerly revealed Truth.

Object. But wick…d men may do Miracles. Answ. But not when they pl…se▪ nor for what they please, but as God pleases. Wicked men may be Witnesses of the Truth of God.

I conclu…e with this Argument. That which was the great Argument used by Christ and his Apostles to win the world to Believe, should be the Great Argument now for every man to use to that end with himself and others. But that was this from Miracles; therefore, &c.

4. The same men that make this exception, are offended that I overpass some other Arguments, which are taken to be the chiefest: as Scrip…ure Efficacy, and the witness of the Holy Ghost to the Consciences of Beli…vers.

Answ. 1. Why should I be tyed to do that which so many have done already? 2. I never intended the full h…ndling of the point, but two or three Arguments to strengthen t…e weak. And may I not choose which thought fittest, as long as I hinder no man to use what other he please? 3. The Efficacy is either on the Ʋnderstanding, or on the Will and Affections. If on the Ʋnderstanding▪ then it is the Belief of Scripture truth which is thus effected: and so the Argument should run thus: whatsoever is so effectuall as to perswade men of its Truth or Divinity, that is True or Divine; but the Scripture is such, &c. I need not speak of the absurdity of the Major. ††Lege Rob. Baronium Apolog. Tract. 9. punct. 6. Assert. 3. pag▪ 729. 730. plenissimè.Or if the Efficacy be on the Will and Affections, then it presupposeth that it is first Believed to be True. For nothing works on the Will, but by means of the Ʋnderstanding. But I neither dare, nor need to shew the weakness of such Arguments, the Papists have done too much in it, as their writings generally will shew you. See Vane, Cressye, Richworths Dialogues, Martin, Stapleton; and most run that way.

4. **Vide Doctiss. Rob. Baronium Apodix. ad Jes. Turnebullum … pag. 626. ad 729. & Tract. 9. pag. 2. pag. 696. & pag. 733. Maximopere damnamus illos qui, &c. Vide etiam V…gam, lib. 9. de Justif. c. 47. Greg. Valent. To. 3. Disp. 1. Quaest. 1. punct. 1. §. 5. Et Suarez Disp. 3. de fide, §. 3. Et Contr. Vid. Stapleton. Controv. Relect. 4. qu. 3. Art. 2. R…sp. ad Arg. 1. Et in defen…. authorit. Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 12. §. 11. Malder in 2. 2. qu. 1. Art. 1. §. 8▪ Mel. Canu. lib. 2. de loc. cap. 8.And for the Testimony of the Spirit, it consisteth, first, in its Testimony by the Miracles which it enabled the Apostles to effect for the sealing of their doctrine; 2. And in the Sanctifying Illumination of our understandings to see that which is Objectively Revealed. So that this Testimony is the efficient and not objective Cause of our Belief, in this later sence. If men should judge of the Canon of Scripture, by the immediate Testimony of the Spirit, as if this were some Exterior Revealer of what is Divinely inspired, we should then have as great variety of Canons almost as of persons. Men talk of this in meer Disputes; but I never knew the man that would undertake to determine of the Canon by retiring into his heart, and consulting meerly with the Spirit within him.

5. Another great exception of the same men, is, That I seek to satisfie Reason so much, of the Scriptures Authority: And the Reasons which they they urge against my Reasoning are these two. 1. It is too neer the Socinian way. Answ. Socinians will believe nothing, without Reason or Evidence from the Nature of the Thing Revealed: that is, They Believe nothing at all, as Certain: For if the Thing be Evident, it is (as such) the Object of Knowledge, and not of Belief. I will Believe any thing in the world which I know certainly that God speaks or Revealeth: Though the Thing in it self seem never so unreasonable. For I have Reason to Believe (or rather to Know) that All is True which God Revealeth, how improbable soever to flesh and blood. Is it not a shame that Learned men should charge this very Opinion in Chillingworth, Dr. Hammon, and others, as Read Videlius his Rationale Theolog. against Veronius, and throughout, how far Reason and Natural Principles may be used in Disputes of Divinity.guilty of Socinianism? and thereby, 1. Make the Papists brag, that we cannot confute them, but on Socinian Principles. 2. And make young Schollars through prejudice turn off from the true ways of defending Scripture Authority; to the great wrong: 1 of their own souls, 2. and of their people, 3. and of the Protestant, 4. and Christian Cause. 3. And how could all the Wits in the World do more to advance Socinianism then these men do? by making men believe, that only the Socinians have Reason for their Religion: Which if it were true, (as nothing less) who would not turn to them? 4. And what more can be done to the disgrace, and ruin of Christianity, then to make the world believe that we have no reason for it? Nor are able to prove it true against an Adversary? What would these men do, if they lived among Christs Enemies, and were challenged to defend their Religion, or prove it true? Would they say (as they do to me,) I will Believe and not Dispute? Christs Cause then would be little beholden to them. And how would they Preach for the Conversion of Infidels? if they had not Reason to give them for what they perswade them to? How will they Try the spirits, and Try all things, and hold fast that which is good, but by Discourse? But it seems these men themselves have more Reason for their believing in Christ, then in Mahomet or Antichrist. They are good Christians and Teachers that while!

But the great Argument is this, They say (and great ones write so) that the Divine Authority of Scripture is Principium indemonstrabile: a principle not to be Proved, but Believed: for no Science proves its Principles.

To which I Answ. 1. When our R. Baronius, and others do affirm it to be Principium indemonstrabile, it is not as if it were not at all demonstrable; but that it is not demonstrabile per aliam Revelationem; But they acknowledge that it contains in it those Caracters of the Divine Authority which by Reason or Discourse may be discerned. 2. It is therefore improper to say it is Credendum▪ a thing to be believed first, and directly that these Books are Gods Word; seeing it is (by consequence) confessed, that it is a Point to be Known by the foresaid Evidence; therefore not first to be believed. 3. And otherwise they contradict themselves, when they bestow whole Volumes to …rove, that, It is part of the formal object of Faith (which answers the Cur Credis?) and yet to affirm it to be principium primo Credendum, which makes it the material Object of Faith; For in this sence it cannot be both, as I shall shew. 4. How the Divine Authority of Scripture is the Principium Religionis Christianae, and how not, would hold a long debate of it self. Our R. Baronius himself saith, that [when we say all Christians should resolve their Faith into the Divine and Canonical Authority of Scripture, they do not mean that this is the only way of resolving Faith; as if no other way were possible, or available to salvation; but only that this way is the most convenient, profitable and certain; yea, and is necessary too in those Churches, where the Scriptures are known. Apologia adv. Turnebul. Tract. 1. c. 2. obs▪ 1. p. 46.] Which words shew, how far Scripture is a Principium. 5. As Theologie, Christianity, and all Religion do presuppose Reason, (as all Morality presupposeth Naturality so it is evident that some of the Principles of Religion, or of Christianity must be first proved by Reason. And so we may compare it to those inferior Sciences, whose Principles must be proved by superior Sciences▪ though not by the same Science. Though Scripture in point of excellency should not be said to be inferior to Reason, yet in point of Order it may; as still pre-requiring or pre supposing Reason. As the form is after the matter, and the habit after the faculty. 6. Those Characters of Divine Authority which Divines mention, may (at least) some of them, be demonstrated to others (as Prophesies fulfilled, (which is Miraculous oft) and all to our selves: Therefore the Scripture-Authority is not an Indemonstrable Principle. 7. The very being of all Belief lyeth in this, that it be an Assent to the Truth of an Enunciation, on the credit of the Testifier or Revealer. Now if we must first Believe Scripture to be Gods Word (and not Know it) then we must Believe it on the credit of the Revealer. And then it is by some other Revelation, or by it self. If by some other, then how know I that other Revelation to be of God? and so in infinitum. But if I believe it to be of God, because it revealeth it self to be so (as our Divines Vid. Baron. Tract. 9. per totum.say;) then this self-Revelation is, 1. either by way of proper Testimony, or 2. by Objective Evidence, to be discerned by Reason. If the former (which must be said, or it cannot be the material object of Faith) then either I must beleive every Book that affirms it self to be Divine, or else I must have some Reason to Believe this so affirming of it self more then others. And these Reasons will be things Known and not Believed. 2. But if the later (by Objective Evidence) (**Authoritatem Scripturae duplici modo Deus apud nos contestatur. 1 In eo quod eandem ornavit notandis qualitatibus & praerogativis supra omnia humana Scripta. 2. In eo quod omnium suorum corda Spiritu suo afficit ut agnoscant veritatem suam in Scriptis illis micantem. Rivet. Catholic. Orthodox. in Tractat primo. Q…aest. 12 pag. 131. Col. 2.Col 2 which is it that Divines generally say) then why do they not observe, that this is to unsay what was said, and to say plainly, that it is a thing to be Known, and not strictly Believed, that this is Gods Revelation? Things evident are the Objects of Knowledge: Things Testified are the Objects of Faith (as Testified.)

8. Yet I confess, That when we first Know this or that be a Divine Testimony, we may in a second place Believe it. For it is Revealed in Scripture; [Thus saith the Lord, &c.] And so the same thing may be, and is the object of Knowledge and of Belief. But it must (in the rational order) be Known first, and not Believed first. For else (as is said) I should Believe every writing so affirming it self Divine; or else Believe the affirmation of this without Evidence and Reason. 9. And indeed what else can be the meaning of our Divines, when they tell us, that all faith is resolved into the credit or Authority of the Testifier and Revealer? And as our Baronius, Apol. cont. Turnebul. Tract 3. §. 3. cap. 4. p. 108. saith, [Faith dependeth on two Principles, which must necessarily be foreknown, that a thing may be believed on ones Authority] Suarez rightly observeth, disp. 2. de. Fide, Sect. 4. §. 5 & disp. 3. Sect. 12. §. 1. One is, that [the party doth speak this,] The other is, that [he is one worthy to be Believed.] Mark it, he saith These two must be foreknown, and not forebelieved. (Though I know what he and others say, to make it both the objectum formale & materiale in several respects: but that can be but secondarily as I said.) As for their similitude from the Sun, which Reveals it self and other things: besides that objects of sense, and of Reason much differ in this, and similitudes prove nothing: In a sound sence I grant the thing inferred by it: To wit, that Scripture revealeth particular Truths to Belief, by way of Divine Testimony or Affirmation: But it revealeth it self to be Gods Testimony first to Knowledge by its own Characters or Excellencies (seconded by the external Testimony of Miracles;) And then 2. by Testification to Belief. Learned Hooker, Eccles. Polit. li. 2 & 3. hath shewed, that it is not first to be Believed that [Scripture is Gods Word,] but to be proved by Reason; which he affirmeth, is not very difficult demonstratively to do. I dare stay no longer on this (referring the more exact discussion to some fitter place;) only, If Scripture cannot be proved to be Gods Word by reason; 1. Why do all our Divines in their Common-Places bring Reasons to prove it? 2. How will they deal with Pagans and Enemies? Object. But they still tell you [the Spirit is only sufficient, when all Reasons are brought.] Answ. 1. Thats to remove the Question. Or when the Question is of the Objective sufficiency, they answer of the Efficient, rectifying and elevating the Faculty. 2. Who knows not that a man may Believe or Know the Scripture to be Gods Word, without any more then a common help of the Spirit. The Devils and Damned believe or know it; and so doth many an ungodly man here. But a saving Knowledge or Belief doth indeed require a special grace of the Spirit.

In a word, If Reason were of no more use here then some make it, as it were in vain to preach or writ…▪ …n this point (for Christianity;) So it would follow that he that is mad or drunk▪ or an Infant, (if not a brute) were the fitttest to make a Christian; which is so vile an imagination, that I dare say, He that hath the best and rightest Reason, and by Consideration makes the most use of it, is the best Christian, and doth God best service: And that all sin is on the contrary, for want of Right Reason, and the using of it by consideration. But me thinks, I should not need to plead for Reason, till beasts can speak and plead against me! But yet I must tell you, if you heard the Accusation▪ you would excuse my Apology.

If none but the Ignorant be an Enemy to Knowledge, sure none but the unreasonable is an enemy to Reason.

6. BƲt the greatest offence of all is, that I lay so much upon humane Testimony and Tradition: which some think uncertain; some think it would make our Faith too Humane; and some think it is too like the Papists arguing.

To all which I Answ 1. See whether the best of our Divines do not the like. I will name some of the choicest that ever the Reformed Church enjoyed. Rob. Baronius saith, Apolog cont. Turn…bul. Tract. 9 punct. 2▪ p 686. [The Testification of the present Church is a condition necessarily requisite for our believing the Scripture Authority: because Faith comes by hearing. 2. From the consent of all the present Church, or all Christians now living, the chiefest Argument may be drawn to prove the Authority of any Canonical Book. 3. From the perpetual and universal Tradition and practice of the whole Church from the Apostles times to ours, we may have a humane perswasion, and that Certain and▪ Infallible, of the Divine and Canonical Authority of those Books which were still undoubted, or which some call the Protocanonical.] Dr. Whittakers saith, [It belongs to the Church, 1. To be a witness and keeper of the Scriptures. 2. To judge and discern between Scriptures which are true and genuine, and which are false, supposititious and Apocryphal. 3. To divulge them. 4. To expound them, De Sacr. Scrip. Q. 3. contr. 1. cap. 2. pag. 203, 204.] And in his Duplicat. adv. Stapleton▪ more fully, pag. 57. [Which of us knows not the necessity of the Ministry of the Church? and that it is safely and wisely appointed of God? so that to contemn the Minist…y and Testimony of the Church, is no thing else but to err from the Faith, and rush into most certain destruction] See more pag. 15. 58. 59 &c. 364. 60. 62. 69. 77. 71. 438. 119. 328. Davenant alloweth of Hystorical Traditions, de Judice controv. p. 11. §. 3. p. 24. 27. 30. 31 32. The like might be shewed out of Camero, Chamier, Amesius, and divers ‖‖Chemnitius Exam. Concil. Trident. Part. 1. pag. (mihi) 109, 110, 111 &c. is so full, that in his eight sorts of Tradition he not only saith much more then I here do, but in some of them satisfieth And…adius himself, vide Andrad. Desens. Concilii Trident. lib. 2. pag. (mihi) 217. us{que} ad 230.others, but that I must not enlarge.

2. I would have the contrary minded tell me, How they know without Humane Testimony or Tradition, that these are the same Books which the Prophets and Apostles wrote? and wholly the same? that they are not depraved and wilfully corrupted? that these are all? How know you that one of the Books of Esther is Canonical, and the other Apocriphal? Where is the man that ever knew the Canon from the Apocripha before it was told him? and without Tradition? I confess Nemo ex scriptoribus ecclesiasticis qui continuata temporum successione ab Apostolis huc us{que} vixerunt usquam in Scriptis suis in memoriam redigere eos dignatus est. …useb Hist. Eccles. l. 3 c. 19. loquens de libris Apocryphis.Sir 50:3for my own part I could never boast of any such Testimony or Light of the Spirit (nor Reason neither) which without Humane Testimony or Tradition would have made me Believe that the Book of Canticles is Canonical and written by Solomon, and the book of Wisdom Apocriphal and written by Philo (as some think?) Or that Pauls Epistle to the Laodiceans (which you may see in Brun… in Epist. Sixtus Senensis and others) is Apocriphal, and the second and third Epistle of John, Canonical. Nor could I have known all or any Historical books, such as Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, &c. to be written by Divine inspiration, but by Tradition. Nor could I know all or any of those books to be Gods word, which contain meer Positive constitutions, as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, &c. Were it not for the same Tradition. Nor could I know that any of those books were written by Divine Inspiration which contain (besides such History and Positives) nothing but the Truths which are known by the Light of Nature, without further supernatural Revelation; if it had not been for Tradition Nor could I have known those Books to be written by Divine Inspiration, which speak of meer supernatural things, either Historical, as Christs Incarnation▪ Resurrection, &c. or Doctrinal, had not Tradition or Humane Testimony assured me, that these are the Books which those Holy men wrote, and that such undoubted, uncontroled Miracles were wrought for the Confirmation of their doctrine. Further I would know, How doth an illiterate man know, but by Humane Testimony, 1. Whether it be indeed a Bible that the Minister reads? 2. Or when he reads true, and when false? and whether any of those words be in the Bible which men say are in it? 3. Or that it is truly translated out of the Hebrew and Greek? 4. Or that it was Originally written in those languages? 5. Or that the Copies were Authentick out of which they were translated? 6. Or how will they know many Jewish Customs, or points in Chronologie, Geography, &c. without which some Scripture can never be understood? 7. Or how do the most Learned Criticks know the true signification of any one word of the Hebrew, or Greek (in Scripture or any other book,) yea Latine or English, or any language, but only by Tradition and Humane Faith?

Yea, there is no doubt but in some Cases Tradition may save without Scripture. For 1. Men were sav…d from Adam to Moses without any Scripture, that we know of. And (as Dr. Usher well observeth) One reason why they might then be without it, was the facility Vid. Euseb. Nieremberg. de Origine S. Scripturae, praecipue l. 1. & 2. & 3.and certainty of knowing by Tradition. For Methuselah lived many hundred years with Adam, and Sem lived long with Methuselah; and Isaack lived fifty years with Sem: So that three men saw from the beginning of the world till Isaacks fiftyeth year. 2. And thousands were converted and saved by the doctrine of the Apostles and primitive Preachers before it was committed to writing. So many Jews in the Captivity had not the Scripture. 3. And if any among the Abassines, Armenians, or ignorant Papists do believe in Christ upon meer Tradition (no doubt, they may) who can doubt of their salvation? For Christ saith, that whosoever Believeth in him shall not perish: (Which way soever he was brought to Believe.) Will you hear Irenaeus in this, who lived before Popery was born? adv. haer. lib. 3. cap. 4. Quid enim & si quibus de aliqua modica quaestione disceptatio esset? Nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias? (Mark, he saith not ad Ecclesiam Romanam, vel ad unam principem) in quibus Apostoli conversati sunt, & ab eis de praesenti quaestione sumere quod certum & re liquidum est? Quid autem si neque Apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis? nonne oportebat ordinem sequi Traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias? Cui Ordinationi assentiunt mul…ae gentes barbarorum eorum qui in Christum credunt, sine Charactere vel atramento scriptam habentes per spiritum in cordibus suis salutem▪ & veterem Traditionem diligenter custodientes, &c. Hanc fidem qui sine literis crediderunt, quantum ad sermonem nostrum barbari sunt; quantum autem ad sententiam & consuetudinem & conversationem, propter fidem per quam sapientissim sunt, & placent Deo, &c. Sic per illam veterem Apostolorum Traditionem, ne in conceptionem quidem mentis admittunt quodcunque (Hareticorum) portentiloqu…um est.

As for those that think it favors the Papists to argue thus from Tradition, they are quite mistaken, as I have shewed afterwards. The Papists build on the Authority of the Churches decisive judgment: But I use only the Churches Testimony. The Papists by the Church mean, 1. the present Church, 2 only their own Romish Church, 3. And in that only the Pope, or Councel (as infallible Judge.) But I mean, 1. the universal Church through the world, 2. Especially the Ancient Church next to the Apostles. 3. And therein the godly writers and Christians generally. The Papists ground all on the Church only, and think that we must first know the true Church, who is the Judge, before we can know the Scripture But I value (in some cases more) the Testimony ‖‖Origen against Celsus gives you many. vid. l. 8. & Augustin. de Civitat. Dei, l. 22. Et testimonium Porphyrii in Cyrilli l. 10. Contra Julianum: Et Hieronym. advers. l. Vigilantii. Plura vide in Annotat. Grotii in l. de Verit. Religion is, pracipue in l. 3.of Heathens, Jews, & all Hereticks (an enemies testimony being most valid against himself) And I use not their Testimony only, as they are the Church, or as Christians, but also as men, endued with sence & Reason, and the common remnants of Moral honesty. In one word, The Papists receive the Scriptures on the Authoritative Infallible Judgement of their own Church, that is the Pope: & I receive it as Gods perfect Law delivered down from hand to hand to this present age; and know it to be th… same books which the Prophets and Apostles writ, by an Infallible Testimony of rational men▪ friends and foes, in all ages. And for them that think that this lays all our faith on uncertainties, I Ans. 1. Letthem give us more Certain Grounds. 2. We have an undoubted infallible Certainty of the Truth of this Tradition, as I have after shewed. He is mad that doubts of the Certainty of VVil. the Conquerer raigning in Eng. because he hath but humane Testimony. We are Certain that the Statutes of this land were made by the same Parliaments & Kings as are mentioned to be the Authors: & that these statutes which we have now in our Books are the same which they maed. For there were many copies disperst: mens lands & estates were still held by them: there were multitudes of Lawyers and Judges whose calling lay in the continual use of them: & no one lawyer could corrupt them but his antagonist would soon tell him of it, and 1000. would find it out. So that I do not think any man doubteth of the certainty of these Acts, being the same they pretend to be. And in our case about the Scripture we have much more certainty, as I have shewed. These Copies were dispersed all over the world, so that a Cōbination to corrupt thē was impossible in secret: Men judged their hopes of salvation to lye in thē, & therefore would sure be careful to keep them from corruption, & to see that no other should do it: There were 1000s. of Ministers whose office and daily work it was to preach these Scriptures to the world, and therefore they must needs look to the preferring of them: and God was pleased to suffer such abundance of Hereticks to arise, (perhaps of purpose for this end, among others,) that no one could corrupt the Scriptures but all his adversaries would soon have catcht him in it: For all parties, of each opinion, still pleaded the same Scriptures against all the rest; even as Lawyers plead the Laws of the Land at the bar against their adversaries. So that it is impossible that in any main matter it should be depraved. What it may be in a letter or a word by the negligence of transcribers, is of no great moment. (Of which I desire the learned Reader to peruse that accurate Treatise of the truly Learned and Judicious Ludovicus Capellus, his Critica Sacra.)

Indeed the Popish Doctrine of Tradition (such as you may find in Richworths Dialogues) leads directly to Heathenisme; and buildes all our Christianity on such certain uncertainties, yea palpable untruths, that it is a wonder that they who believe them renounce not their Christianity.

But the great Objection is, that by a…guing thus, our Faith is finally resolved into humane Testimony, and so is but a humane faith. Answ. If I said that those that make this Objection, shew that they know not well what faith is, nor what the Resolving of it is, which they mention, I should not wrong them. But because I would give a satisfactory account of my Belief in this gret point, I will more particularly answer the several Questions which use to be here reaised.

Quest. Why do you Believe the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of Christ, with all the rest of the articles or doctrines of your Faith?

Answ. Because they are the Word of God; or, God hath Testified or reported them; or, hath Revealed them to the world as true, so that I have no higher or further reason to believe them to be true, but only this, God hath spoken them.

Quest How know you that God hath Revealed or Testified these things?

Answ. There are many Questions comprehended in this one; or else it is very ambiguous. In regard of the Object, It is one thing to ask, How I know it to be Revealed? and another, How I know that it is God that Revealed it? In regard of the Act, the word [How know you] is doubtfull. You may either mean in your enquiry, By what principal Efficient Cause? or By what neerest efficient? or By what Motives or convincing Arguments? Or By what naturally requisite Means? Or what Instrument? All these must not be confounded.

Quest. How know you (that is, by what moving Reasons) that these things are Revealed?

Answ. I need not Arguments; my senses of seeing and Hearing tell it me.

Quest. But how did the Prophets and Apostles know that they were Revealed to them?

Answ. Some by Internal sence (who had it by inspiration;) and some by external sence, (who heard it from God or Christ or Angels, or read the tables which he wrote.)

Quest. How did the other Believers in those time know, that these things were Revealed to the Prophets or Apostles?

Answ. By their own Testimony.

Quest. How know they that their Testimony was true.

Answ. I have answered this at large in the 4 Chap. and 3. §. If it had not been Revealed to them, they could not have Revealed it to others.

Quest But how do we in these times know that these things were Revealed to the Apostles?

Answ. Some few parte of the world know it only by unwritten Tradition: But most of all the Churches know it by the Scripture which those holy men wrot, containing those Doctrines.

Quest. But how know you that these Scriptures were written by them?

Answ. By infallible **See Chemnit. Exam. Concil. T. ident. Part. 1. pag. (mihi) 113. out of Origen Eusebius and Austin. shewing the use of this sort of Tradition.Tradition.

Quest. But how know you that they be not in the substance corrupted since?

Answ. By the same infallible Tradition assuring my Reason of it: Even as I know that the Statutes of the Land were made by those Kings and Parliaments whose names they bear: and as I know that the Works of Aristotle, Cicero, Virgil, Ovid, &c. were made by them, and are not in the substance corrupted. Yea, far greater certainly doth Tradition afford me.

Quest. But though you are thus assured of the Revelation, yet, How know you it is Divine? Or that it was God indeed that did Reveal it?

Answ. 1. You must know (as presupposed) that themselves affirm that God revealed this to them, both by their speech to those that heard them preach; and by this Scripture, which affirms it self to be of Divine Inspiration.

Quest. But how did they know themselves that they were not mistaken?

Answ. 1. Those whom God inspired, or to whom he spake, knew certainly by an unexpressible sense, that it was God himself and no delusion. God never speaks so▪ extraordinarily, but by the same act he both makes known the thing Revealed, and himself to be the Speaker. 2. Besides, they were fully certain it was no delusion, by the frequent, uncontroled Miracles which Christ did, and which he enabled them to do themselves. See more Chap. 4. §. 3. where this is fullier answered.

Quest. But how shall we know that they delude us not; and that the Scripture saith true in affirming it self to be of Divine Inspiration? For we must not believe every person or book that so affirmeth?

Answ. I have answered this in the forecited Chapter and Section.

To which I add: 1. **Vide Greg. de Valentia Ana…ys. fidei, lib. 1. cap. 25. Et Junil. de parte Divin. Legis, lib. 2. cap. 27.There are such Characters of Verity and Majesty in the Scriptures themselves that may very strongly perswade us of the Verity of them, at least, as being exceeding probable. Especially, the exceeding spirituality and Purity of them, and the High strange design of God manifested about the way of advanceing his glory, and saving mankind; which Design in all the parts of it, excellently concatenated, was not laid open by one person only, nor in one only age; but was in doing many 100 years, and opened by many several persons at that distance, so that it is impossible that they should lay their heads together to contrive it. Also the fulfilled Prophecies, shew its Verity. And if any one part have not these Characters so Evidently on it, yet it is certain, because it is attested by the rest (or some of them) that have them. 2. But that which fully perswades me, (being thus prepared by the Quality of the Writings,) is, The many, Apparent uncontroled Miracles **Phlegon in lib. 13. of his Annals, confesseth the Miracles done by Peter, as Origen saith, lib. 2. contra Celsum.which the Apostles themselves did work, who wrote these Books: God would not have enabled them to confirm a false deluding Testimony (and that of such moment) by Miracles, and such Miracles. 3. And, when I have once thus Believed, I am much confirmed, both by the experience I have of the power and sweet rellish of the doctrine of the Scriptures on my own soul; and the efficacy of it on the souls of others; and also in that I find all the rational causes of doubting of the truth of Scripture, to be removed.

Quest. But when you make Miracles your great Argument, How know you that those Miracles were indeed wrought?

Answ. By infallible Tradition, partly by the Instrumentality of Scripture, and partly by other writings, and universal confession: as I know that Julius Caesar conquered Pompey, and William the Norman woon England.

Quest. But did you at first believe the Scripture on these Grounds? Or can it be expected that unlearned people should understand the certainty of this Tradition?

Answ. 1. I first Believed that the Scripture was Gods Word, meerly upon the Common uncontradicted Affirmation of my Teachers: And so do most others that I meet with: And so proceed to see the more certain Arguments afterwards. 2. Yet if they were wisely and diligently taught them, the unlearned are capable of knowing the infallible certainty of that Tradition: Yea, and the certainty of the truth of the Translation in the substance; and that you do read truly the Scriptures to them, &c. For there is a Humane Testimony which is Certain; and so a Humane Faith: Yea, more Certain then my own Sense. Sense hath alway greater Evidence then Belief, but not so great certainty sometimes. I will rather Believe ten thousand sober, impartiall witnesses that say, they see or hear such a thing, (having no considerable contradiction,) then I would believe mine own eyes or ears for the contrary.

Quest. But is that Faith Divine and saving, when men take the Scripture for Gods Word meeerly on Report, or other weak Arguments?

Answ. It is a Faith that lies open to great danger by temptation, when the weakness of the Grounds shall appear: and will have much weakness in the mean time: but yet it may be Divine and saving. For still this mans Faith is resolved into Gods Veracity or Authority. Though on weak Grounds he take the Scripture to be Revealed by God, yet he Believes it to be True, only because God spoke or Revealed it. So that the error not lying in the Formal or Material Object of Faith, but only in the Arguments perswading that it is from God, this destroyes not the soundness and Truth of the Belief.

Object. But how know we that the Miracles were wrought to confirm the truth of these books?

Answ. They were wrought to confirm the Testimonie of men, whether delivered by Word or Writing. And this by Writing is that part of their Testimony which the Church now enjoyeth.

Object. But all that wrote the Scripture, did not work Miracles.

Answ. Their Testimony is confirmed by those that did.

Quest. Into what then do you ultimately Resolve your Faith?

Answ. If you understand the pharse of [Resolving Faith] strictly and properly, so it is Resolved only into the credit or Veracity of the Speaker, as being the Cause of the Verity of the Proposition which I believe, even the principal Efficient Cause; the Knowle…ge of whose Infallible Verity, doth, above all (and only in that kinde) cause me to Believe the things Revealed to be True.

But if you take the phrase of [Resolving Faith] in the largest sence, as it containeth not only its Resolution into its Formal Object, but into all its Causes in their several kinds▪ so it is Resolved thus. 1. As I have said, I Resolve my Faith into the Prime Truth, that is, into Gods infallible Veracity as the only Formal Object, or full proper efficient of the Verity of the Propositions believed, and the Principal Reason of my Belief. 2. I Resolve my Belief into Gods [Revelation, or Testimony] as the Principium Patefactionis, or the Naturally-necessary meanes of Application of the Former, which is the Principium Certitudinis (It is Rob. Baronius own distinction, Apodix. Tract. 3. Cap. 6. p. 123.) Yet I am forced to dissent from Baronius in that he makes this [Revelation] to be part of the Formal Object: Though [Gods Veracity or Gods Revealing,] and not the Truth of God without Revelation, be the Formal Object of Belief: yet I conceive the said Revelation to be no part of the Formal Object▪ but a Natural Meanes of the production of the Material Object by the Formal Object which is its Efficient: And that not directly of the Immediate Material Object, but of the Remote only. For the Immediate Material Object is [the Truth] of Propositions: and the Remote, is [the Proposition] which is True. Now [the Revelation is directly a Production of [the Proposition] as such; but not of the Verity of it directly: We therefore Believe it to be True, because the True God spoke it. Though in a second place the Patefaction may be said to produce the Verity of the thing. 3. I Resolve my Belief into the Characters of Divinity which are found in Scripture, and into the uncontrolled Miracles by which it was attested, as the Principal motives (conjunct) by which I am perswaded that it was God, and no other, that was the Author or Revealer. 4. I Resolve my Belief into Humane Testimony or Infallible Tradition (Rationally, not Authoritatively Infallible) as the means of discovering to me matters of Fact, viz. that the Apostles did write: that, This delivered to me is The Writing: that it is All: that such Miracles were wrought: that the Scriptures are not Depraved in any material point, or out of Design: which Books, are Canonical, and which not. Had I been the person to whom God from heaven, or Christ on Earth did Reveal these Truths Immediately, then this Resolution of my Faith should have been into my senses (made use of Rationally): I should have known by External sense, what Christ spoke, and what not; what Miracles he did: and by Internal sense, that it was God and no other that Inspired me: and by both, that it was Christ, and no other that spake and workt Miracles. But seeing I live at so great a distance, and God Revealed not these things to me Immediately, but to the Apostles, and they to others, and they to others, and so down to this day; therefore Tradition must do that for me which sense did to the first Receivers: as I say, what sense did for them, that Humane Testimony doth for us; or must carry it between their senses and our senses, and so to our Reason. 5. I Resolve my Belief into all Truths Revealed in Scripture, into the Material Object (If it were not too improper to call that a Resolving of it into that which answers the Quid Credis? and not the Cur Credis? or the Cui?) 6. I Resolve it into the Books or writings, as the Authentick Instrument Revealing Gods mind: Not into the words as in this or that language, or as considered in themselves; but as considered in Relation to the Truths which they express, viz. as they are signifiers of all those Enunciations which they contain. 7. I Resolve my Belief into Reason or my Ʋnderstanding, as the neerest vital efficient Cause. 8. I Resolve it into the Holy Ghosts Illumination or Grace as into the Remote and former Efficient, enabling and causing me to Believe sincerely and savingly (but not into any Internal Testimony of the spirit as the Object of my faith.)

(I know our Baronius opposeth Spalatensis for one of the points which I here assert (Apolog. Tract. 9. punct. 4. and 5. pag. 711. 712. 713. 714. &c.) Were it not that I have been too tedious already, I would answer those Arguments of Baronius, which is very easie to do: but to the unprejudiced and considerate I think it will seem needless or at least is fitter for another discourse.

And thus having Catechised my self, to give men an account of my Belief, and help those that are weaker herein. I shall conclude all with two or three words of Advice to the Reader.

1. BEware that you exclude not, in your arguing, any Cause or necessary Medium of your Faith. By quarrelling too eagerly with other mens grounds many men run upon this dangerous Rock. Lest they should give too much to Reason, or to Tradition, or the Church, or Miracles, some further exclude them then will stand with the Rationality and safety and Honor of Christianity; set not those things in Opposition, which may and must consist in coordination, or subordination to others.

The removal of one necessary Cause may destroy the Effect, or of one Pillar, may pull down the house; or of one of the necessary parts, may kill the man; though all the rest be let alone, or more regarded then before It is no whit derogatory to the Law of the Land, to say, I must read it with my eyes, and by the help of Spectacles, and must receive it with my hands, or ears, from a Herald or other Proclaimer, &c.

2. Take heed of denying the Perfection of Scripture in Deed, while you maintain it in words. Two sorts I would warn of this.

1. Those that plead for Traditional Doctrines not contained in * Ʋnde ista Traditio? utrumne de dominica & Evangelica Authoritate descendens? an de Apostolorum Mandatis at{que} Epistolis veniens? Ea enim facienda esse quae scripta sunt Deus testatur ad Joshuam; Non recedet Liber legis ex ore tuo, &c. si ergo aut Evangelio praecipitur, aut in Apostolorum Epistolis, aut Actibus continetur, observetur Divina haec & sancta Traditio. Quae ista obstinatio, quaeve praesumptio, humanam Traditionem Divinae dispositioni anteponere? nec animadvertere indignari & trasci Deum, quoties Divina praecepta solvit & praeterit Humana Traditio? Mar. 7. 8. 1 Tim. 6. 3. Consuetudo sine veritate, Vetustas erroris est; propter quod relicto errore sequamur veritatem. Cyprian. Epist. 74. ad Pomp. pag. 229. 231. The same place of Cyprian is vindicated by Dr. Whitaker de sac. Script. Cont. 1. Q. 6. de perfect. Script. mentioned also by Goulartius on Cypr. ibid.Mark 7:81 Tim 6:3Scripture. To these I have spoken elsewhere (Appendix to Treat. of Baptism.)

2. Those that are so eager ‖‖Doctissimi Nazianzen consi…ium ab omnibus Christianis audiendum [Divina contemplare, verum in terminis maneto: Loquere quae sunt Spiritus, & si Possibile est, nihil aliud. Nae Patris naturam nimis curiorse rimator, Ʋnigeniti essentiam, spiritus gloriam; unam in tribus Deitatem: Ʋtere verbis consuetis. Ratio pertineat ad sapientiores. Sufficiat tibi ut habeas fundamentum; superaedifficent artifices.] Ʋ…inam soli artifices superaedificarent! Ʋtin…m superstructiones suas multas & paene infinitas cum paucis & planis fundamentalibus pari aff…ctu & honore suscipiendas, non commiscerent! Si hoc conentur, decet tamen pios & prudentes Christianos discernere, inter prima illa pauca Credibilia à Christo & Apostolis immediate revelata, & innumeras illas Deductiones Theologorum pro cujus{que} ingenio & opinione cum fundamentalibus in eundum locum contrusas. Davenant. Adhort. pro pace Eccles. pag 87. 88. It was found Counsel that Pomeranus gives the Ministers of Gods Word (ne tot articulis, &c) That they should not with so many Articles and Creeds and Confessions confound the minds of plain Christians, but that they should draw up the s…me of their Belief into some few heads. Nothing hinders but that professors and Licentiates in Divinity may busie their thoughts and spend their hours upon the knotty and abstruse Questions of that sacred Faculty; but why should the heads of ordinary Christians be troubled with those curious disquisitions? Dr. Hall Peacemaker, Sect. 16. pag. 118. 119. I pray read the rest of that small Treatise: and his Pax terris a smaller, but both worthy all our serious studying. Read Ʋshers excellent Sermon on Ephes 4. 13. before King James Jun. 20. 1624. throughout.Eph 4:13to tye all men to their Expositions of Scripture, and censure all for Heretical that differ from them therein; when we have disputed and contended our selves aweary, and wrangled the Church into flames and ashes; yet that which God hath spoken obscurely, and so left difficult in it self, will remain obscure and difficult still. And that which is difficult through the weakness and incapacity of unlearned men, will be far better cleared by a rational explication, then by a bare Canon. O when will the Lord …nce perswade his Churches to take his Written Word for the only Canon of their Faith! and that in its own naked simplicity and Evidence, without the determinations and Canons of men! which are no parts of our Creed, but helps to our understandings, and bounds to our Practice in matters Circumstantial, which God hath left to mans determination; when will the Lord perswade us, not to be wise above what is written? but to acknowledge that which is unrevealed in the word, to be beyond us; and that which is more darkly revealed to be more doubtful to us. Then the hot contentions of the Church about the Mysteries of Gods Decrees, and nature and order of his immanent Acts; the nature and way of the workings of the Spirit on the Soul, &c. with a hundred quarrels about meer names and words, will be more lovingly and brotherly debated, without such alienation of affections, and reproachful expressions.

Two things have set the Church on fire and been the plagues of it above one thousand years. 1. Enlarging our Creed and making more fundamentals then ever God **A…sim confi… ma… rem tam vite…um haeresium, quam praesentium dissidio…um part…m, in Ecclesia hinc p…ae cipue natum fuiss… & esse, quod Concilia, Episcopi, Doctores Ecclesiae, nullo discrimine, quaevis Scholarum dogmata, & Cathedrarum placita pro articulis fid…i Catholicae venditarunt; pari{que} ad salutem necessitate credenda conscientiis imposuerunt: ex quavis vero interpretationis Scripturarum discrepantia, minis faci…è haereses vel Schismata fecerunt. Paraeus in Irenic. pag. (mihi) 16. Vide & pag. 15. & 41. All Peace-making Divines still harp upon this string, and yet some call it Socinian. If any would see more of the Evil of making points necessary which God made not so, you may throughout Conrad. Bergius his Prax. Cathol. see enough, and the words of very many Divines, Lutherans and Calvinists, to that end.made.

2. Composing (and so imposing) our Creeds and Confessions in our own words and phrases.

When Men have learned more manners and humility then to accuse Gods language as too general and obscure (as if they could mend it) and have more dread of God, and comp…ssion on themselves then to make those to be Fundamentals or certainties which God never made so; And when they reduce their Confessions 1. to their due extent, and 2. to Scripture phrase (that Dissenters may not scruple subscribing) then, and (I think) never till then, shall the Church have Peace about Doctrinals. ‖‖Chillingworth, Page last of the Preface, shall men be judged Socinians for advancing the Scriptures as the only Rule? I pray read well what that excellent Divine Doctor Stoughton hath written expresly and earnestly for what I now urge, in his Form of wholsom Words, about forming Church-Confessions.It seems to me no hainous Socinian motion, which Chillingworth is blamed for, viz. [Let all men believe the Scripture, and that only, and endevor to believe it in the true sense (and promise this) and require no more of others, and they shall find this not only a better, but the only means to suppress Heresie, and restore Unity, &c.]

If you say, Men may subscribe to Scripture, and yet misinterpret them, I answer, so they may do by humane Canons. If you say. They may preach against Fundamentals or Evident Truths, while yet they subscribe to the Scripture misunderstood, I answ. 1. All such weighty Truths are delivered expresly or very plainly. 2. I hope God will once not only bring into use the Ministerial Power, but also teach Magistrates to rule for Christ, to the restraining of such as shall so palpably offend as openly to contradict what they subscribe.

But that was the third and last word of advice I here intended, viz. that seeing Scripture is the sacred Perfect Law of the most high God, that men would use it Reverently, and that Magistrates would restrain men that would bring Gods Word into contempt under pretence of Preaching it, **Ordinatio. nes corum te merariae, leves, inconstantes: nunc neophytos collocant, nunc seculo obstrictos, nunc Apostatas nostros, ut Gloriâ eos obligent, quia Veritate non possunt: Nusquam facilius proficitur quam in castris rebelliū, ubi ipsum esse illic, promereri est, Ita{que} alius hodie Episcopus, cras alius; hodie Diaconus, qui cras Lector: hodie Presbyter, qui cras Laicus: Nam & Laicis Sacerdotalia Munera injungunt. Tertullian. de Praescription. advers. haeret.That every ignorant fellow, whose tongue hath catcht a Lax, may not run up into the Pulpit to ease himself; Nor every one have leave to disgorge himself in the holy Assemblies, that hath got a surfit of Pride and self-conceit. O if you knew the weakness of poor people, and how apt they are to be deceived, you would not give deceivers liberty to do their worst. You that will not give men leave to perswade your Wives to Adultery, your Children to lewdness, your Souldiers or Subjects to Rebellion or Treachery, would sure be as regardful of mens souls, and the honour of Christ. And you that will not give every fool leave to go in your names on an Embassage, who would but disgrace you; would not let men speak publikely as in the name of Christ, that cannot speak sence, to the shame of our profession; Nor should men turn Preachers as the River Nilus breeds Frogs, (saith Herodotus,) when one half moveth before the other is made▪ and while it is yet but plain mud.

But I must make this Preface no longer. I pray observe that in the Margin, and see whether our times be not like Tertullians.

Reader, As thou lovest thy Comforts, thy Faith, thy Hope, thy Safety, thine Innocency, thy Soul, thy Christ, thine Everlasting Rest; Love, Reverence, Read, Study, Obey, and stick close to Scripture. Farewel. April. 2. 1651.

OF SINCERITY.

OF SINCERITY.

A more exact enquiry into the number and use of Marks, the nature of Sincerity, with other things of great moment in the work of Self-examination.