The Second Part: The Proofs Of The Truth And Certain Futurity Of Our Rest; And That The Scripture Pr

The Second Part: The Proofs Of The Truth And Certain Futurity Of Our Rest; And That The Scripture Pr

THE SECOND PART

CONTAINING

THE PROOFS OF THE TRUTH AND CERTAIN FUTURITY

OF OUR REST; AND THAT THE SCRIPTURE PROMISING

THAT REST TO US, IS THE PERFECT INFALLIBLE WORD

AND LAW OF GOD.

TO MY DEARLY BELOVED FRIENDS,

THE INHABITANTS OF BRIDGNORTH,

BOTH MAGISTRATES AND PEOPLE,

RICHARD BAXTER devoteth this part of this Treatise, in testimony of his unfeigned love to them, who were the first to whom he was sent, as fixed, to publish the Gospel: and in thankfulness to Divine

Majesty, who there privileged and protected him:

HUMBLY beseeching the God of mercy, both to save them from that spirit of pride, separation, and levity, which hath long been working among them; and also to awake them thoroughly from their negligence and security, by his late heavy judgments on them: and that as the flames have consumed their houses, so the Spirit of God may consume the sin that was the cause; and by those flames they may be effectually warned to prevent the everlasting flames; and that their new-built houses may have new-born inhabitants; and that the next time God shall search and try them, he may not find one house among them, where his word is not daily studied and obeyed, and where they do not fervently call upon his name.

THE PREFACE

DIRECTED

I. TO UNBELIEVERS AND ANTI-SCRIPTURISTS;

II. TO PAPISTS;

III. 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 are 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 and less exercised Christians: I have thought meet, therefore, a little more fully to express my mind in this preface, being loth 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, to 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 understanding 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 than 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 sinful 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 awaking and galling their guilty consciences; but when they have cast away their belief of the Scripture, 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 than because they do indeed seem untrue; for their fleshly concupiscence having mastered their wills, their wills have also mastered their understandings; and so, as in a well-ordered, gracious soul, all goes straight forward; in these men all is perverted, and moves backward. These men refuse their physic, because it is unpleasant, and not because it is unwholesome: yet at last their appetite so mastereth their reason, that they will not believe any thing can be wholesome which goes so much against their stomachs. At least this makes them the readier to pick a quarrel with it, and they are glad to hear of any argument against it. Ahab believed not the message of Micaiah, not because he spoke falsely, 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 silly a cure is this for a guilty soul; and how soon will it leave them in incurable misery!

2. Another reason of those men's unbelief, is the seeming contradictions that they find in the Scriptures, and the seeming impossibilities in the doctrines of them, which so far transcend the capacity of man. To the former, let me say this much: 1. It is merely through our ignorance, that scriptures seem contradictory. I thought myself once that some places were hardly reconcilable, which now I see do very plainly agree: plainly, I say, to them that understand the true meaning of the words. There are no human 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 lose 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 country, to men that know not the customs,

the situation of places, the proverbial speeches, and phrases of that country, it is impossible but many words should seem dark or contradictory. 3. Also, that the Scriptures are of so exceeding antiquity, as no books else in the world are like them. Now, who knows not that in all countries in the world, customs alter, and proverbial speeches and phrases alter; which must needs make words seem dark, even to men of the same country 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 would seem to be either false, or ridiculous nonsense. The like may be said of alteration 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 contrary or difficult. Do not the mathematics, 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 kinds of studies, to say as Nicodemus did at first of regeneration, 'How can these things be?' Methinks such frail and shallow creatures, as all men are, should rather be so sensible of their own incapacity and ignorance, as to be readier to take the blame to themselves, than 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 inquire 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 Althamar, 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's 'History of the Creation.' And he was fit for the work, having for a year's time continued in the desperate error of atheism 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), methinks common reason might then conclude, that all that God speaks must needs be true, though our blindness hinders us from a distinct discerning of it.

2. The like I say of the seeming impossibilities in Scripture: is any thing too hard for Omnipotency itself? The 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 dost, 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 things thou seest are made and preserved without a first cause? Do the heavens keep their courses, and the earth produce that variety of beautiful 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 than itself: 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 10,388,442 miles an hour, being 166 times bigger than 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? Is it not 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 immortal happiness, have some guide in the way thereto? If they say no, then they either think God unfaithful or unskilful, who having appointed man an end, hath not given him direction thereto in the means. If they doubt whether man's soul be immortal, 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 let me ask them, How comes it to be the common judgment of all nations, even the most ignorant Indians, that there is a life after this, where the good and the bad shall be differently recompensed? This the ancient barbarians believed, as Herodotus testifieth of the Getæ, (lib. iv.;) and of the Egyptians,

Diodorus Siculus, (lib. i. Biblioth. numb. 93.) The very inhabitants of Guinea, Virginia, Guiana, Peru, China, Mexico, &c., do believe this, as you may see, 'Descrip. Reg. Africæ, Guianæ,' (cap. 21, 24.;) Acost.

(lib. v. c. 7, 8;) Hugh Luiscot. (part. i. cap. 25;) Joannes Lerius, (cap.

16;) Sir Walter Raleigh, &c. What poets speak not de Tartaro, campis Elysiis, Manibus? and so do philosophers of best note, except Galen,

Epicurus, Plinius, &c. As for Pythagoras, and his master, Pherecides, the Druids, the Indian Brahmins, Socrates, Plato, Cicero, Seneca, they all acknowledge it. Lege Marcilium Ficinum 'de Immort. Anim.;' yea, Aristotle himself saw this, as appeareth 'De Anima,' (lib. i. context. 65, 66, lib. ii. context. 21, lib. iii. 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 happiness, 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 Mahomet's 'Alcoran' is far more unlike to be it than 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 itself: 2. Look on those countries through the world that have no Scripture-guides, 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 into 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 them for their gods, whom they acknowledged to be lecherous, adulterous, perfidious, bloody, and wicked. Read but Justin's

'Apolog.' Athenagoras, Tertullian's 'Apolog.,' &c., Origen's 'Cont.

Cels.' Arnobius, Lactantius, Clemens Alexand. Protreptic. Minutius Felix, Athanas., &c., fully of this. Most certainly, either the Scriptures are God's 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 happiness 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 man 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 happiness is a very dream and a shadow, and a brutish delight, which is mixed 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. Methinks, then, that common reason should persuade men to venture all, though it were at uncertainty, upon that religion which tells us but of a possibility of a heaven and a hell, rather than 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 near so much 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, mere 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 God's full and infallible law, yet, if it were so that this could not be proved, this would not overthrow the christian religion. If the Scriptures were but the writings of honest men, that were subject to mistakes and 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 Roman affairs which they treat of, though not of all the smaller passages and circumstances. He that doubteth whether there was such a man as Julius Cæsar, or that he fought with Pompey and overcame him, &c. is scarce reasonable, if he knew the histories; so, though Matthew

Paris, Malmsbury, 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 kingdom by the venture, were no better in this than mad. Now, if Scripture were but such common writings as these, especially joined with the 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 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.

The second sort that I shall speak to, are 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 human 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 the 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 herself 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 persuaded by others to insert no more controversy here, I reserve it

for a fitter place. Only I would desire briefly any papist to show, 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 upon the supposed infallibility of the church and that church is the present church, and that is the Roman church only; and that is only the pope, as the Jesuits and most papists say; or a general council, 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 God's word, and of the christian faith, which is truly it, and which not. 3.

That this authority was given by God's word (this must be known, before men can know that God hath a word, or what it is). 4. That they are infallible in their judgment. 5. That Peter was at Rome, and was their bishop, and conferred this sovereignty 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 heretic. 8. And they must know where is the proper subject of infallibility, whether in the pope or council, or 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 join a council in the infallibility, they must be certain that Christ hath given councils this infallibility. 11. And that this is only to a council of Romanists. 12.

And so that the Roman church is the universal church, and not only a part, as other churches are. 13. And that they are free from error in council, and not out of it. 14. That the council 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 ratify the acts of this council, as well as call the councils; else they conclude that they are unlawful, or may be fallible. He that knows not all

these, cannot be certain that Scripture is God's word, no, nor of the truth of the christian faith, according to the papists' 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 VI. tells us, 'that the pope is fallible:' and shall we not believe the pope himself, confessing his own ignorance? though councils have decreed against councils, 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 interregnum upon the death of a pope, let them further study. I am fully certain, that the christian world in Peter's days, did never pretend to hold their faith upon his mere infallibility. Nor did Justin, Irenæus, Tertullian, Cyprian, or any of the ancientest 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 a more convenient place. I will only add this question: 'How doth the pope and his council know the Scripture to be God's 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 council, and others also, believe on the same grounds? Else the faith of the pope and his council 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 the pope are heretics. And why are we blamed for not believing on the authortiy of the pope and council, when the pope and council 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, they receive the Scripture by tradition of the ancient church, and so on their credit; why may we not know, as well as they, what the ancients say in the point? And is it not the honestest way, if they knew more herein than we, to produce it, and show us what and where the

ancients speak? If they have it merely upon verbal tradition, have not other men as good ears as the pope and his council; and, therefore, being as honest, to be as well credited in such reports? And if it be their office to keep traditions, have they been so careless as to lose all the rest of the things which Jesus did, which John saith will fill so many volumes; and also 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 sense 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 smaller points that are dark: for the former, what need is there of a judge? No Christian denieth fundamentals, and heathens will not stand to the papal infallibility. A teacher, indeed, is necessary for the ignorant, but not a judge. It is the vilest doctrine that almost 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 which 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 that? 2. Seeing all

Christians in the world do hold the fundamentals (else they are not truly Christians), why are they not fit deciders or judges of them, as well as the pope? 3. And for lesser and darker points, by what means is the pope and his council able to determine them, and to decide the controversy? If by any 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 pope's decretals or canons, where they are doubtful? and so in infinitum. I see not but

the council of Trent speaks as darkly as the Scripture, and is as hard to be understood. 5. If God leave a point dark and doubtful, 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 show their power in one; just so doth the church of Rome boast of an infallibility in deciding of controversies, yet they will not infallibly decide them. If they should grow modest, and say, they do not determine what is certain in itself, but what we are to rest in; 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 that we should rest in Christ's decision, and his judgment concerning points, fit to be cleared and decided, as in man's? The palpable mistake of that one text, 2 Pet. 1:20, that no scripture is of private interpretation, hath misled many men in this point; for they think it speaks of the quality of the interpreter, as 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 prophecy testifying of him (for to him give all the prophets witness), whereunto ye do well to take heed, as to a light shining in a dark place, &c. But then you must understand this, that no prophecy 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 prophecy 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 spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost: and therefore his meaning must be looked to, and he intended Christ the antitype. For example,

David said, "Yet will I set my King on my holy hill of Zion." (Psal. 2.)

You must not interpret this of David only, a private person and but a type; but of Christ the public person, and antitype.

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

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 apology. 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 somebody 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 lieth 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 controversy with such practical matter. Answ. And some, as wise, tell me they had rather all were omitted than this. For the truth must be known before the goodness will be desired or delighted in. It seems to me the ordinary cause of backsliding, when men either begin at the affections, or bestow most of their labour there, before they have laid a good foundation in the understanding. And they are scarce likely to be the longest winded Christians, nor to die for their religion, that scarce know why they are Christians. Methinks it is preposterous for men to bestow ten or twenty years in studying the meaning of God's word, before they well know or can prove that it is God's 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, withal, 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 need 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 nowhere 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. 5. If they take down the chief arguments which confirm it, what do they less? 6. 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 believing upon Christ's telling him of his conference at a distance. (John 1:48,

49.) Upon his beginning of miracles at Cana, in Galilee, he manifested forth his glory, and his disciples believed on him. (John

2:11.) The Jews, therefore, inquired for signs, as that which must confirm any new revelation to be of God. (John 2:18, and 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 saucily 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 sufferred for sin?) yet he would rise again from the dead, which was far greater. They that saw the miracle of the loaves, said, "This is of a truth the prophet that should come into the world," (John 6:14.) "John," say they, "did no miracle; but all that John spake of this man was true: and many believed on him there."

(John 10:41.) "Many believed when they saw the miracles which he did." (John 2:23. See also Acts 4:16; John 6:2, 7:31, 11:47; Acts 6:8, and 8:6, 13; Gal. 3:5; Acts 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 had no sin in not believing." (John 15:24.) And therefore he promiseth the Holy Ghost to his disciples, to enable them to do the like to convince the world. (Mark 16:17, 18.) Yea, to do greater works than he has done. (John 14:12.) And he upbraideth, and most terribly threateneth the unbelievers that had seen his mighty works. (Matt. 11:20, 21, 23; Luke 10:13.) Yea, the blaspheming of the power by which he wrought them, and his disciples afterwards were to work them, and ascribing them to the devil, he maketh the unpardonable sin. (Matt. 12:31, 32) See also

Matt. 11:2–4, 13:54, and 14:2; Mark 6:2, 14; John 5:19, 20, and 7:3.) He tells them, "The works that I do, bear witness of me." (John 5:36, and 10, 25.) "Believe not me, believe the works that I do." (John

10:37, 38.) "Believe me for the very works' sake." (John 14:11.) And how did the apostles preach to convince the world; but partly by telling them of Christ's 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. (Acts 2:22, and 7:36.) They declared also what miracles and wonders were wrought by the apostles. (Acts 15:12.) And Paul vindicated 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 days, is thus expressed, "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?" (Heb. 2:3, 4.) There is sense to the first receivers, and then 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 special miracles that Paul did.

(Acts 19:11, 12, 16–19.) 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, (John 9:16;) Can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?

We know that God heareth not sinners. Or, hear Nicodemus, We know thou art a teacher come from God, for no man can do these

miracles, except God be with him; John 3:2. Natural reason shows us, that God being the true and merciful Governor of the world, the course of nature cannot be altered, but by his special appointment, and that he will never set the seal of his omnipotency to a lie; nor suffer the last and greatest inducement of belief, to be used to draw men to falsehood: for then how deplorate were the condition of mankind!

Object. But you will say, False prophets may arise and show 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 refer you. I will only say this more, that we need not be curious in this inquiry. 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, and uncontrolled miracles, must needs be of God. But such is this, &c.; a wonder wrought once or twice, may easier deceive, than that which is done one hundred times. A wonder in a corner may be blazed falsely to be a miracle; but Christ had so many thousand witnesses, as of the miracle and the loaves; and five hundred at once that saw him after his resurrection, and the apostles appealed to whole churches, even when 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 especially so called, or healing, or prophesying, or tongues, &c. (See 1 Cor. 12 from ver. 1 to 12, and Mark 16:17.) But especially no uncontrolled miracles shall ever be used to deceive the world. Two ways doth God control 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 exorcist, in Acts 19; and by Simon Magus, as church history tells us. In this case, it is no disparagement to God's 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 men's faith more confirmed. 2. Also, by some clear and undoubted truth, either known to common reason, or by former scriptures, doth God often control deceiving wonders. For if they are used to attest an undoubted falsehood, then the former established truth contradicting them, is sufficient controlment. 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 uncontrolled when it may endanger the faith and safety of mankind. Nor can it be shown that ever he did otherwise; whereas, the miracles of Christ and his disciples were uncontrolled, frequent, numerous, apparent, prevalent, and triumphant.

Object. Then if miracles be wrought now, they will infer 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 men's hearts, and rouse them to repentance, and not to confirm any new testimony; or he may enable men to work them for attestation of formerly-revealed truth.

Object. But wicked men may do miracles.

Answ. But not when they please, nor for what they please, but as God pleases. Wicked men may be witnesses of the truth of God.

I conclude with the 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 scripture efficacy, and the witness of the Holy Ghost to the consciences of believers.

Answ. 1. Why should I be tied to do that which so many have done already? 2. I never intended the full handling of the point, but two or three arguments to strengthen the weak. And may I not choose which I thought fittest, as long as I hinder no man to use what other he please? 3. The efficacy is either on the understanding, or on the will and affections. If on the understanding, then it is the belief of scripture-truth which is thus effected: and so the argument should run thus: Whatsoever is so effectual as to persuade men of its truth or divinity, that is true or divine; but the Scripture is such, &c. I need not speak of the major. 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 understanding. But I neither dare, nor need to show the weakness of such arguments; the papists have done too much in it, as their writings generally will show you.

See Vane, Cressy, Richworth's 'Dialogues,' Martin, Stapleton; and most run that way.

4. And for the testimony of the Spirit, it consisteth, 1. 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 latter sense. 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 mere disputes, but I know not the man that would undertake to determine

of the canon by retiring into his heart, and consulting merely with the Spirit within him.

5. Another great exception of the same men is, that I seek to satisfy reason so much of the Scripture's authority: and the reasons which they urge against my reasoning, are these two. It is too near 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 itself seem ever so unreasonable. For I have reason to believe, or rather to know, that all is true which God revealed, how improbable soever to flesh and blood. Is it not a shame that learned men should charge this very opinion in Chillingworth, Dr.

Hammond, and others, as guilty of Socinianism? and there by, 1.

Make the papists brag, that we cannot confute them, but on Socinian principles; 2. And make young scholars, 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 of the world do more to advance Socinianism than 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, than 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 Christ's enemies, and were challenged to defend their religion, or prove it true? Would they say, as they say to me, 'I will believe and not dispute?' Christ's cause would then 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 persuade 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 no more reason for their believing

in Christ, than 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 answer, 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 characters 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 God's word, seeing it is, by consequence, confessed that it is a point to be known by the aforesaid evidence; therefore, not first to be believed.

3. And, otherwise, they contradict themselves when they bestow whole volumes to prove 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 sense it cannot be both, as I shall show. 4. How the divine authority of Scripture is the principium religionis Christianæ, and how not, would hold a long debate of itself. 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, 'Apolog. advers.

Turnebul.' (Tract. i. cap. 2, Observ. i. pag. 46,) which words show how far Scripture is a principium. 5. As theology, 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 prophecies fulfilled, and all to ourselves; therefore, the scripture authority is not an indemonstrable principle. 7. The very being of all belief lieth 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 God's 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 itself. 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 itself to be so, as our divines 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 believe every book that affirms itself to be divine, or else I must have some reason to believe this, so affirming of itself, more than others; and these reasons will be things known and not believed. But if the latter, by objective evidence, which is it that divines generally say, then why do they not observe that this is to unsay what they have said, and to say plainly, that it is a thing to be known, and not strictly believed, that this is God's 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 to 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 itself 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? as our Baronius, 'Apol. cont. Turnebul.' (Tract. iii. sect.

3, cap. iv. pag. 108,) saith, faith dependeth upon two principles, which must necessarily be foreknown, that a thing may be believed on one's authority, as Suarez rightly observeth, (Disp. ii.) 'De Fide,'

(sect 4, 5, and Disp. iii. sect. 12, sect. l.) One is, that the party doth speak this; the other is, that he is one worthy to be believed. Mark, he saith these two must be fore-known, and not fore-believed. Though I know what he and others say, to make it both the objectum formale et materiale in several respects; but that can be but secondarily, as I said. As for their similitude from the sun, which reveals itself and other things; besides that objects of sense and reason much differ in this, and similitudes prove nothing; in a sound sense, 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 itself to be God's 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.' (lib. ii. and iii.) hath showed, that it is not first to be believed that Scripture is God's 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 Scriptures cannot be proved to be God's 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. That is 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 God's word, without any more than 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 than some make it, as it were in vain to preach or write in this point for Christianity, so it

would follow, that he that is drunk or mad, or an infant, if not a brute, were the fittest 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 methinks 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. But the greatest offence of all is, that I lay so much upon human testimony and tradition, which some think uncertain: some think that it would make our faith too human, and some think it is too like the papist's arguings.

To all which I answer, 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, 'Apol. con. Turnebul.' (Tract. ii. 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' time to ours, we may have a human persuasion, and that certain and infallible, of the divine and canonical authority of those books which were still undoubted, or which some call the protocanonical. Doctor Whitaker 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, suppositious, and apocryphal; 3. To divulge them; 4. To expound them. 'De Sac. Script.;' (quæst. iii. cont. l, c. ii. p. 203, 204;) and in his 'Duplicat. Advers. Stapleton,' more fully, (p.

47.) Which of us knows not the necessity of the ministers of the church; and that it is safely and wisely appointed of God? so that to contemn the ministry and testimony of the church, is nothing else but to err from the faith, and rush into most certain destruction. See more, (p. 15, 58, 59, &c., 364, 60, 62, 69, 77, 78, 438, 119, 328.)

Davenant alloweth of historical tradition, 'De Judice Controv.' (p. 11, sect. 3, 24, 27, 30, 31, 32.) The like might be showed out of Camer.,

Cham., Ames., and divers others, but that I must not enlarge.

2. I would have the contrary-minded tell me how they know, without human 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 apocryphal? Where is the man that ever knew the canon from the apocryphal before it was told him, and without tradition? I confess, for my own part, I could never boast of any such testimony, or light of the Spirit, nor reason neither, which without human testimony or tradition would have made me believe that the Book of Canticles is canonical, and written by Solomon, and the Book of Wisdom apocryphal, and written by Philo, as some think; or that Paul's

Epistle to the Laodiceans, which you may see in Bruno in 'Epist.,'

Sixtus Senensis, and others, is apocryphal, and the second and third Epistles 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

God's word, which contain mere 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 mere supernatural things, (either historical, as Christ's incarnation, resurrection, &c. or doctrinal,) had not tradition or

human testimony assured me that these are the books which those holy men wrote, and that such undoubted, uncontrolled miracles were wrought for the confirmation of their doctrine. Further, I would know, How doth an illiterate man know but by human 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 copies were authentic out of which they were translated? 6. Or how will they know many Jewish customs, or points in chronology, geography, &c., without which some scripture can never be understood? 7. Or how do the most learned critics know the true signification of any one word of the Hebrew or Greek in Scripture, or any other book, yea, Latin or English, or any language, but only by tradition and human faith?

Yea, there is no doubt but in some cases tradition may save without any Scripture: for, 1. Men were saved, from Adam to Moses, without Scripture that we know of: and, as Dr. Usher well observeth, one reason why they might be without it, was the facility and certainty of knowing by tradition; for Methuselah lived many hundred years with Adam, and Shem lived longer with Methuselah, and Isaac lived fifty years with Shem; so that three men saw from the beginning of the world till Isaac's fiftieth 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 mere tradition, (no doubt they may,) who can question their salvation? for Christ saith, that "whosoever believeth in him shall not perish," which way soever he was brought to believe. Will you hear Irenæus in this, who lived before popery was born? "Quid enim et si quibus de aliqua modica quæstione disceptatio esset? Nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias?" (Mark, he saith not 'ad ecclesiam Romanam, vel ad unum principem.') "In quibus apostoli conversati sunt, et ab cis dc præsenti quæstione sumere quod certum et 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 multæ gentes barbarorum eorum qui in Christum credunt, sine charactere vel atramento scriptam habentes per Spiritum in cordibus suis salutem, et veterem traditionem diligenter custodientes, &c. Hanc fidem qui sine literis crediderunt, quantum ad sermonem nostrum barbari sunt; quantum autem ad sententiam et consuetudinem ct conversationem, propter fidem per quam sapientissimi sunt, et placent Deo, &c. Sic per illam veterem apostolorum traditionem, ne in conceptionem quidem mentis admittunt quodcunque (hæreticorum) portentiloquium est." ('Adv. Hæres.' lib. 3. c. 4.)

As for those that think it favours the papists to argue thus for tradition, they are quite mistaken, as I have showed afterwards. The papists build on the authority of the church's decisive judgment; but I use only the church's 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 council, 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 of heathens, Jews, and all hereties, an enemy's testimony being most valid against himself: and I use not their testimony only, as they are of the church, or as Christians, but also as men endued with sense and reason, and the common remnants of moral honesty. In one word, the papists receive the Scriptures on the authoritative, infallible judgment of their own church, that is, the pope: and I receive it as God's perfect law, delivered down from hand to hand to this present age, and know it to be the same book which was wrote by the prophets and apostles, 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 answer, 1. Let them give us more certain grounds. 2. We have an undoubted, infallible certainty of the truth of

this tradition, as I have after showed. He is mad that doubts of the certainty of William the Conqueror's reigning in England, because he hath but human testimony. We are certain that the statutes of this land were made by the same parliaments and kings that are mentioned to be the authors; and that those statutes which we have now in our books are the same which they made; for there were many copies dispersed. Men's lands and estates were still held by them. There were multitudes of lawyers and judges, whose calling lay in the continual use of them; and no one lawyer could corrupt them, but his antagonist would soon tell him of it, and a thousand 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 showed.

These copies were dispersed all over the world, so that a combination to corrupt them in secret was impossible. Men judged their hopes of salvation to lie in them, and therefore would sure be careful to keep them from corruption, and to see that no other hand should do it.

There were thousands of ministers, whose office and daily work it was to preach those Scriptures to the world, and therefore they must needs look to the preserving of them; and God was pleased to suffer such abundance of heretics to arise, perhaps of purpose for this end, among others, that no one could corrupt the Scriptures, but all his adversaries would soon have catched him in it: for all parties, of each opinion, still pleaded the same Scriptures against all the rest, even as lawyers plead the law 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.

Indeed, the popish doctrine of traditions, such as you may find in 'Richworth's Dialogues,' leads directly to heathenism, and builds 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 arguing thus, our faith is finally resolved into human testimony, and so is but a human faith.

Answ. If I said that those that make this objection, show that they know not what faith is, nor what the resolving of it is which they mention, I should not wrong them; but because I would give them a satisfactory account of my belief in this great point, I will more particularly answer the several questions which use to be here raised.

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 it is God that revealed it? In regard of the act, the words "How know you?" are doubtful. You may either mean, in your inquiry, by what principal, efficient cause, or by what nearest efficient, or by what means or convincing arguments, or by what naturally requisite means, or by 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 me.

Quest. But how did the prophets and apostles know that they were revealed to them?

Answ. Some by internal sense, who had it by inspiration, and some by external sense, who heard it from God, or Christ, or angels, or read the tablet which he wrote.

Quest. How did the other believers in those times know that these things were revealed to the prophets or apostles?

Answ. By their own testimony.

Quest. How knew they that their testimony was true?

Answ. I have answered this at large in the fourth chapter, and third section. 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 parts of the world knew it only by unwritten tradition; but most of the churches know it by the Scripture which those holy men wrote, containing those doctrines.

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

Answ. By infallible 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 of it, even as I know that the statutes of the land were made by those kings in 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 certainty doth tradition afford us.

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. You must know, as presupposed, that themselves affirm that God revealeth this to them, both by their speech to those that heard them preach, and by this Scripture which affirms itself 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 inexpressible 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, uncontrolled miracles which Christ did, and which he enabled them to do themselves. See more, chap. iv. sect. 3., where this is more fully answered.

Quest. But how shall we know that they delude us not, and that the Scripture saith true in affirming itself to be of divine inspiration; for we must not believe every person or book that so affirmeth?

Answ. I have answered this in the before-cited chapter and section.

To which I add: 1. There are such characters of verity and majesty in the Scriptures themselves, that may very strongly persuade 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 advancing his glory and saving mankind; which design, in all the parts of its excellency concatenated, was not laid open by one person only, nor in one only age; but was in doing many hundred 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 show its verity. And if any one part have not these

characters so evident 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 persuades me, being thus prepared by the quality of the writings, is the many apparent uncontrolled miracles which the apostles themselves did work, who wrote those books. God would not have enabled them to confirm a false, deluding testimony, and that of such a 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 relish 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 Cæsar conquered Pompey, and William the Norman won 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 God's word, merely 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 Scripture to them, &c. For there is a human testimony which is certain; and so a human faith; yea, more certain than my own sense.

Sense hath always greater evidence than belief; but not so great certainty sometimes. I will rather believe ten thousand sober,

impartial witnesses, that say, they see or hear such a thing, having no considerable contradiction, than 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 God's word merely 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 man's faith is resolved into God's 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 persuading that it is from God, this destroys 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 testimony of the 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 phrase 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 he proposition which I believe, even the principal, efficient cause; the knowledge of whose infallible verity doth, above all, and only in that kind, cause me to believe the things revealed to be true.

But if you take the phrase of "resolving faith" in the largest sense, 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 God's infallible veracity, as the only formal object, or full, proper, efficient of the verity of propositions believed, and the principal reason of my belief. 2. I resolve my belief into God's revelation or testimony, as the principium patefactionis, or the naturally necessary means of application of the former, which is the principium certitudinis (it is

Rob. Baronius's own distinction. ('Apodix. Tract.' iii. c. 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 the veracity of God 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 means 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 motive conjunct, by which I am persuaded that it was God, and no other, that was the author or revealer. 4. I resolve my belief into human testimony, or infallible tradition, rationally, not authoritatively infallible, as the means of discovering to me the 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 points, 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 be 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 wrought 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 human 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, as 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 cur credis, or the cui? 6. I resolve it into the books or writings, as the authentic instrument revealing God's 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 understanding, as the nearest vital, efficient cause. 8. I resolve it into the Holy Ghost's illumination or grace, as into the remote 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, 'Apol. Tract.' ix. punct. 4, 5, p. 711–714, &c. Were it not that I have been too tedious already, I would answer those arguments of Baronius, which is very easy 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 myself 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

men's 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 than will stand with the rationality, and safety, and honour of Christianity. Set not those things in opposition which may and must consist in co-ordination, 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 than 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. To these I have spoken elsewhere: 'Appendix to Treatise of Baptism.'

2. Those that are so eager as to tie all men to their expositions of Scripture, and censure all for heretical that differ from them therein.

When we have disputed and contended ourselves a-weary, and wrangled the church into flames and ashes, yet that which God hath spoken obscurely, and so left difficult in itself, 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 than by a bare canon. O when will the Lord once persuade 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 man's determination! When will the Lord persuade 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 God's 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 mere 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 than ever God made.

2. Composing, and so imposing, our creeds and confessions in our own words and phrases.

When men have learned more manners and humility than to accuse God's language as too general and obscure, as if they could mend it, and have more dread of God, and compassion on themselves, than 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. It seems to me no heinous Socinian motion which Chillingworth is blamed for, viz. Let all men believe the Scripture, and that only, and endeavour 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 heresy, and restore unity, &c.

If you say men may subscribe to Scripture, and yet misinterpret it, I answer, so they may do by human canons. If you say, they may preach against fundamentals, or evident truths, while yet they subscribe the Scripture misunderstood, I answer, 1. All such weighty truths are delivered expressly, or very plainly. 2. I hope God will once not only bring into use 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.

↑ Back to top