By FAITH, we understand, an assent of the mind, in such manner, to the discoveries made of God thereto, as to resign up to God, and have dependence upon Him, as the great Creator and Saviour of his people; which is inseparable from good works.

That men, in all ages, have had a belief of God, and some knowledge of Him, though not upon equal discovery, must be granted from that account that all story gives of mankind in matters of religion. Several have fully performed this; of old, Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Augustine, and others; of latter times, Du Plessy, Grotius, Amiraldus, L. Herbert, and above all, Dr. Cudworth: and indeed the relics we have of the most ancient historians and authors, are a demonstration in the point. Now the scripture tells us, that "no man knows the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son reveals Him :a" and “as none know the things of man, save the spirit of man; so the things of God knows no man, but the Spirit of God."" Hence we may safely conclude, that the creating word that was with God, and was God, in whom was life, and that life the light of men, and who is the quickening Spirit, was he by whom God in all ages hath revealed himself; consequently, that light or spirit must have been the general rule of men's knowledge, faith, and obedience, with respect to God. And thus much Pythagoras, who lived about six hundred years before those words were spoke or writ, laid down for a maxim, viz. That no man can know what is agreeable to God, except a man hear God himself,' and that must be within; for that was his doctrine. To which the apostle and prophet thus agree: 1. In that "whatever makes manifest is light." 2. That "whatever might be known of God was made manifest within; for God (who is light, 1 John i. 5.) had shewn it unto them: and, "God hath shewn unto thee, O man, what is good, and what God requireth of thee," &c. Which could not be without the light of his Son shining in man's conscience: therefore the light of Christ in the conscience must needs have been the general rule, &c. It was by this law that Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Melchizedeck, Abimelech, Job, Jethro, &c. walked and were accepted, as saith Irenæus and Tertullian; They were just by the law written in their hearts: then was it their rule, to and in that just state.

Obj. It seems then you deny the scriptures to be the general rule, &c.

Answ. How can they be the general rule, that have not

a Mat. xi. 17.

1 Cor. ii. 11.

Iren. 1. 2. c. 30.

* Eph. v. 13. Rom. i. 19. d Mic. vi. 8.' Tertul. con. Jud. p. 184.

been general? That which was both before and since they were in being, must needs be more general than they: but that was this light in the conscience, the law and guide of those Patriarchs (for the scriptures began long after, in the time of Moses) consequently that must be the general rule, &c.

Obj. But granting that the light within were so before scripture was extant; yet, since the writings of holy scripture, the scripture, and not the light, hath been the general

rule.

Answ. That cannot be, unless Palestina, or Canaan, a little province of Asia, was the whole world, and that the Jews, a particular people, were all mankind. For at what time those writings were among the Jews, other nations were only left to the law and light within. This the apostle confirmeth in that passage," For the Gentiles, which have not the law (that is, the outward law, or law written upon stone) do by nature the things contained in the law, which sheweth the work of the law written in their hearts." And the Gentiles themselves called it, the immutable law; the everlasting foundation of virtue; no lifeless precepts, but immortal; a sacred good, God the overseer; the living rule; the root of the soul; that which makes the good man.' Thus Thales, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Plotia, Hieron, Philo, Plutarch, as cited. And saith Sophocles, God grant that I may always observe that venerable sanctity in my words and deeds which these noble precepts (writ in man's heart) require: God is their father, neither shall they ever be abrogated; for there is in them a great God that never waxeth old.' More reverent epithets than our opposers can afford, as their books but too openly witness; yet would go for Christian men, though manifestly short of Heathens.

Thus it is evident that the scripture was not the general rule, after it was given forth.

Obj. But hath it not been since, and is it not now, the general rule? &c.

Answ. There hath been since, and is now, the same impediment; for before Christ's coming in the flesh, and since, where the scriptures never reached, there hath been the same light. And though nations, by not glorifying God as God, when they have known him, have been given up to all manner of iniquities, insomuch as their understandings have been greatly veiled; yet did not the light within so entirely lose its ruling exercise among them, as that they lived without any sense of such a thing: therefore still the scriptures have.

Rom. ii. 14, 15.

not been, neither are, the general rule; no not so much as of any age; since in no age can it be proved that the whole, or greatest part of the world, had them. But had they been so for some one or two ages, as they never were; yet the granting it will not reach our question, where the word general implieth the nature of the thing itself respecting mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, and so to the end.

Obj. But is not the scripture the rule, &c. of our day?

Answ. If the rule, then the general rule: for whatsoever is the rule of faith and life, excludeth all other from being general, they being but particular in respect of itself: therefore not the rule, though a rule, of faith and life.

But besides their not being general, I have several rea sons to offer, why they cannot be the rule of faith and life, &c.

(a) If now the rule, then ever the rule; but they were not ever the rule; and therefore they cannot now be the rule. That they were not ever the rule is granted: but that they are not therefore now the rule, may be by some denied; which I shall prove thus. If the faith of God's people in all ages be of one nature, then the rule but of one nature but clear it is, Heb. xi. the faith has been but

(a) Justin Martyr saith, 'that all are Christians who live with Christ, as Abraham and Elias; and amongst the Greeks, as Socrates, Heraclitus, &c.' See Scultetus on him: who also saith, that some at this day are of his judgment, who have taught that Melchizedeck, Abimelech, Ruth, Rachab, the queen of Sheba, Hiram of Tyre, Naaman the Syrian, and the city of Nineveh, are in the catalogue of Christians.'

་

Eusebius Pamph. in his Ecclesiastical History, saith, That Abraham and the ancient fathers were Christians:' and defines a Christian to be, one that by the knowledge and doctrine of Christ excels in moderation of mind, in righteousness and continency of life, and strength of virtue and godliness towards one only God.' See Scultetus on him.

Clemens Alexandrinus saith, 'The law of nature and of discipline is one. And Moses seems to call the Lord the Covenant:' for he had said before, the covenant was not to be sought in scripture; for that is the covenant, which God, the cause of all, settleth, whence his nature in Greek is derived. And in the preaching of Peter, thou mayest find the Lord called the Word, or Reason, and the Law. See his 1st book Strom. at the end. And before, page 353, he saith, The Law and the Gospel is the operation of one Lord, who is the virtue and wisdom of God: and the fear which the law had bred, is merciful to salvation and the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. That she (that is, Wisdom) that ministereth providence, is mistress and good; and the power of both procureth salvation: the one chastising as mistress; the other being bounti ful, as a benefactor; for one must pass from darkness to life; and, applying his ear to wisdom, first be a servant, then a faithful minister, and so ascend into the number of sons, and be brought into the elect adoption of sons. That the law works to make them immortal, that chuse to live temperately and justly.' And again, Evil men do not understand the law; but they that seek the Lord, do understand every good thing.' And the whole first book of the Stromata is espe cially to prove the antiquity of the one true religion, or philosophy, as he calls

it.

of one nature. In short, if the holy ancients had faith before they had or wrote scripture, they had a rule before they had or wrote scripture; for where faith is, there is a rule for that faith. And if the faith be of one nature, the rule is of one nature also. And since the faith is inward, spiritual, begotten of the immortal word, in which is life, and that life the light of men, and that this word of life and light was the rule; then no book, writing, or engraving ou visible and perishable matter, can be the rule now.

Again; such as the faith is, such must the rule be; but the faith is, as before, inward and spiritual, which no mere book can be.

2. If the scriptures were the general rule, they must have always been a perfect rule, ever since they were a rule: but this is impossible, since they were many hundred years in writing, and are now imperfect also as to number; how then are they the perfect rule?

That they were not the perfect rule before they were written, must be granted and that they were many hundred years writing, must also be allowed: and that they are imperfect now, as to number, I prove:

First, "Enoch's Prophecy," is mentioned by Jude, but not extant in the Bible. "The Book of the Wars of the Lord," Numb. xxi. 14. "The Book of Jasher," Josh, x, 13. 2 Sam. i, 18. "The Book of Nathan," 2 Chron. ix. 29. "The Book of Shemaiah, 2 Chron. xii. 15." "The Book of Jehu :" "The Epistle of the apostle Paul to the Laodiceans," Colos. iv. 16. and several others men, tioned in the scriptures, not now extant. And lastly, Luke says, "That many took in hand to relate from eye-witnesses the things most surely believed, &c.'

2. Now, it is taken for granted, that John wrote many years after Luke: some think Luke wrote before Mark, However, Matthew and Mark were not many, and to this day we see no more than those four in our bibles; and therefore many such writings are lost and if lost, then the scriptures, as aforesaid, are not perfect; and if imperfect, how can they be the rule of faith, since the rule of faith must be perfect?

3. My third reason is this; the scriptures, however use, ful to edification and comfort, seem not in their own nature and frame to have been compiled and delivered as the general rule, and intire body of faith, but rather written upon particular occasions and emergencies. The doctrines are scattered throughout the scriptures; insomuch that those societies, who have given forth verbal confessions of their faith, have been necessitated to toss them to and fro, search here and search there, to lay down this or the other princi

ple; and then as like the original text as their apprehensions can render it: whereas, were it as plain and distinct as the nature of a rule requires, they needed only to have given their subscription for a confessior. Besides, here they are proper, there metaphorical: in one place literally, in another mystically to be accepted: most times points are to be proved by comparing and weighing places coherent; where to allude aptly, and not wrong the sense, is difficult, and requires a clear and certain discerning, notwithstanding the clamours upon us about infallibility. Now from all this, with abundance more that might be said, plain is it that the scriptures are not plain but to the spiritual man thus Peter said of Paul's writings, that "in many things they were hard to be understood?" Therefore not such a rule, which ought to be plain, proper, and intelligible.

5. Again, the scripture cannot be the rule of faith, because it cannot give faith; for faith is the "gift of God, which overcomes the world :" neither of practice, because it cannot distinguish of itself, in all cases, what ought to be practised, and what not; since it contains as well what ought not to be practised, as what ought.

This was the case of Christ's disciples, who had no particular rule in the Old Testament writings for the abolishing of some part of the Old Testament religion on the contrary, they might have pleaded for the perpetuity of it, because Christ said unto them, "Do as they say that sit in Moses's chair," more reasonably than many who make that a plea now-a-days for their invented worships. What then guided them in their declaring void and relinquishing those things? For instance, God gave circumcision as a sign for ever:" And Paul tells the Galatians, “that if they be circumcised, Christ should profit them nothing:"" was not this the spirit of truth, that leads into all truth, that the apostles made the judge and rule of their doctrine and practice? So said James, and the assembly of the apostles, when they told the believers, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us," &c.

66

These very men that say it is the rule of faith and life, deviate in their proof from their assertion; for the scriptures no where say so of themselves. Here they fly to meanings and interpretations: the question arises not about the truth of the text, for that is agreed on all hands; but the exposition of it: if then I yield to that man, do I bow to the letter of the text, or to his interpretation? If the latter, as manifestly I do; is the scripture, or that man's sense Eph. ii. 8. 1 Johu v. 4. 'Gal. v. i, 2. *Acts xv. 28.

Gen. xvii. 7.