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. 1.) 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. 1, 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 divers1 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

1 Chemnitius examen Concil. Trident, par. i. p. (mibi) 109-111, &c., is so full, that, in his eight sorts of tradition, he not only saith much more than I here do, but in some of them satisfieth Andradius himself. Vide Andrad. Defens, Concil. Trident. lib. ii. p. (mihi) 217, usque ad 230. Nemo ex scriptoribus ecclesiasticis qui continuata temporum successione ab apostolis buc usque vixerunt usquam in scriptis suis in memoriam redigere eos dignatus est. -Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. 19. loquens de libris Apocryph.

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?

m

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?

Vide Euseb. Niremberg-de Orig. Scripturæ, præcipue, lib. 1—3.

Nonne oporteret in antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias?" (Mark, he saith not ad ecclesiam Romanam, vel ad unum principem.') "In quibus apostoli conversati sunt, et ab eis de 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 et 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 heretics," 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

n Origen against Celsus gives you many. Vide lib. 8. et Aug. ' de Civit. Dei,' lib. 12. et testimonium Porphyrii in Cyril.' lib. 10: contra Julian.' et Hieronym. 'adver. lib. Vigilant.' Plura vide in 'Annot. Grot. in lib. de Verit. Religionis' præcipue, in lib. 3.