taught: "There is no knowledge of Christ, nor of the scripture, but by revelation.”—C. Goad Refr. Drops. page. 12.

Dr. J. Owen, a man of greatest fame among the present Independents, saith: "The public, authentic, and infallible interpreter of the holy scriptures, is He who is the author of them; from the breathing of whose spirit they derive all their verity, perspicuity, and authority."-Exercit. 2, 7, 9. against Quakers.

So that we see, upon the judgment of many considerable persons, the scripture is no rule for our believing and understanding of itself; and therefore not the rule of faith and practice concerning the things therein declared.

I will give a short instance in Christ's words about regeneration. He taught, (and strange it was, no doubt, to wise Nicodemus,) that "unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." This is as plain a proposition as can be laid down, and may be credited historically. But what is that to the knowledge and experience of the new birth? That they are never like to be informed of there. Nor can that scripture be my rule in that heavenly travail, respecting the many and wonderful trials and exercises that are to be met with in it; neither can any other writing whatever. This only is the office of that Spirit and Word immortal, by which we are begotten again. What then is my rule, to inform, order, strengthen, and lead through the whole operation, but the same Spirit? All doctrinal scripture was experienced before written, or they had not been true witnesses who wrote it.

Now that which was their rule, can only guide us into the same experiences; nor are they to be rightly known before experienced. "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine," (John vii. 17,) saith Christ. I read the history of such things; this saves not. Neither can the history be the rule leading into the mystery. That belongs only to the Spirit, that searcheth out the deep things of God. 1 Cor. ii. 10.-Consequently the Spirit, and not the scripture, is the rule for so believing and living.

Obj. But is not this to make void the Protestants' plea against the Papists, viz. That the scriptures are the rule of faith and practice?

Answer. No such matter. For the question was not, whether the Spirit of Christ, or the scripture was the rule; but, whether the scripture, which is God's tradition, or popish traditions were the rule to measure the truth of doctrines and practices by? We grant that particular scriptures, rightly understood, may measure what is agreeable or disagreeable to them. That is, such doctrines and practices as are contrary to that part of scripture, more particularly relating to our days, are question

able by the scripture; especially since all parties pretend that what they say and do is according to scripture. Yet this concludes not the scripture to be the general and evangelical rule.

Obj. But if God had not revealed those things that are in scripture, by it to us, how could they have been known by us? Answer. They were known by the Light and Spirit of Christ before they were written, (for from being written they are called scripture,) therefore it is said, that the prophets "searched diligently what, and what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ, that was in them, did signify, when it testified beforehand of the sufferings of Christ." 1 Pet. i. 11.-Nor are they ever the more revealed to the blind and dark mind, because they are written. The mysteries of regeneration are as puzzling to natural wit and earthly wisdom, as before. Therefore well said Epiphanius: Only to the children of the Holy Ghost all the holy scriptures are plain and easy." Men's going to hammer out principles, without this infallible guide and rule, hath been the cause of that great confusion that is over mankind about religion to this very day.

Obj. But how else could you have known those prophecies to be true, for that is not matter of witnessing, but foretelling?

Answer. That is an extraordinary revelation, not falling within the ordinary discoveries that are absolutely necessary to man's salvation, by which God shows his power and faithfulness, that he is God, and can foretell, and will bring to pass. But must there be therefore an extraordinary light or spirit, and not rather an extraordinary sight and sense from one and the same light and spirit in them? Besides, that which gives me to believe and savour it to be from the spirit, and not by imposture, is my rule for believing it. Now that the spirit so doth, both Calvin and Beza, as before cited, assert for me, viz. "The same spirit that spake by the mouth of the prophets, must pierce into our hearts, to persuade us that they faithfully declared that which was committed to them of God."

Obj. But this light you speak of, could not tell you which way sin came into the world; that there was an Adam and Eve; that they fell after that manner, and that sin so entered the world; that Christ was born of a virgin, suffered death, and rose again; that you ought not to swear in any ease; &c. if the scriptures had not told you so.

Answer. That is boldly said. But consider well. Moses, says the vulgar opinion, had that account of the creation, above two thousand years after it, by revelation, which we find in Genesis. Now that there could be no revelation without this Divine light or spirit, which is the life of the eternal, creating Word, must needs be granted; for, saith the apostle Paul," the Spirit of God only knoweth the things of God;" (1 Cor. ii. 10,11.)

and whatever makes manifest is light." (Eph. v. 13.) And that the spirit and light are one, though two names, has been sufficiently evidenced already. If then it was this light of the eternal Word, that delivered those past things to Moses, and gave that prospect of future things to the prophets, as no doubt it was, if the scripture be credible, then to say, the light or spirit could not do it, is blasphemous as well as absurd. Again, to argue, because, the light does not reveal every circumstance of history to each individual that hath already an account thereof, that therefore it could not, is unreasonable. Were the history of the transactions of Christ and his followers wanting, as before Moses was that of Adam and his posterity, and that the Lord saw it needful to acquaint mankind therewith, no doubt but the light and spirit which revealed the account of the creation, above two thousand years after, to Moses, and foretold several hundred years many of those transactions of Christ by the prophets, would also have supplied that want. But inasmuch as an account is extant, and therefore not needed, that objection is vain.

Again, it does not follow, because every man has a measure of light to inform and rule him, that therefore he must needs know all which that light knows, or is able to reveal to him. I return that argument thus upon our adversaries. They say they have the spirit of God; then they know all that the spirit of God knows, or can reveal to them. If the latter be absurd, then the former. Again say they, the light within did not reveal Christ to the Gentiles, and that Christ should be born of a virgin, &c. the light therefore is insufficient. I return upon them thus. The Spirit of God, given to the children of Israel, (Neh. ix. 20.) did not acquaint them that Christ should be born of a virgin, nor much more of his life and bodily transactions; therefore the Spirit of God was insufficient. The like may be concluded against the Spirit in the prophets. For it is manifest from 1 Pet. i. 10, 11, that the Spirit had not revealed to all the prophets the time of Christ's appearance and sufferings. Was the Spirit therefore an insufficient rule to them? But that which falls heaviest upon our opposers, is this, that the scriptures by their own argument, are a most imperfect account themselves of what was done, not relating the hundredth part of things; therefore as insufficient in not relating what is behind, as they would weakly render the light or spirit, in not revealing to every individual those things which are already past. Nay, they may as well infer insufficiency to the Spirit, or the light within, in that it does not show all that shall be to the end of the world, which in their proper seasons there will be a necessity to know, as to reflect insufficiency upon it, because it did not foretel to former ages things that are now past, or needlessly reveal them

over again to us in this age. Neither is nor can history be the rule of that faith and life we speak of, which are so absolutely necessary to salvation; which is the faith that God, and not history, gives, and that works not by history, but by love, and overcomes the world, which millions of historical believers are overcome by, and wallow in the spirit and practice of. And the rule must be answerable to the nature and workings of the faith. The same in point of practice, which is duty done. Now history, though it inform me of others' actions, yet it does not follow that it is the rule of duty to me, since it may relate to actions not imitable, as in the case of Adam and Eve in several respects, and Christ's being born of a virgin, dying for the sins of the world, &c. wherefore this cannot be the rule of duty. The like may be said of the Jewish story, that was the particular concern and transaction of that people.

Obj. But these things ought to be believed.

Answer. I say so too, where the history has reached, and the Spirit of God hath made a conviction upon the conscience; which, says Dr. J. Owen, as before cited, gives them authority, verity, and perspicuity. But where this history has not reached any people, or they die ignorant of it, they are not responsible for not believing any such passages; as saith bishop Sanderson. It is one thing to say the scriptures ought to be read, believed, and fulfilled, and another thing to say, they are the evangelical rule of faith and life. For when I read, believe, and witness them fulfilling. I must needs have a rule by which to read, understand, believe, and witness them. Which being the Divine light and spirit of Christ, it must be that, and not themselves, that must be my rule for so reading, understanding, and believing them.

And further, to prove that the light and spirit within the heathens was sufficient to discover these things, it is granted on all hands, that the Sybils had divine sights. I mean not those made in their name by some professors of christianity, as is charged upon them to gain authority upon the Gentiles, against which Blondel writes. But those that are acknowledged, who prophesied of a virgin's bringing forth a son, and that he should destroy the serpent, and replenish the earth with righteousness, as is before cited out of Virgil, who took it out of the remains of Cumæa's verses, then among the Romans.

And for the practical part of the objection, viz. how should we have known it had been unlawful to swear at all in any case, if Mat. v. 34, had not been? (which is of most weight in this case, because it is matter of duty, and called particularly by some an evangelical precept, being a step above the righteousness of the outward law among the Jews,) I have this to say for proof of the light's sufficiency.

There were among the Jews themselves, long before Christ came, an entire people that would not swear, to wit, the Esseni. "They keep their promises," says Josephus, "and account every word they speak, of more force than if they had bound it with an oath. And they shun oaths worse than perjury; for they esteem him condemned for a liar, who without one is not believed."-Josephus' wars of the Jews, L. 2. c. 7.

Philo writes to the same purpose, and taught himself, that it was best to abstain from swearing; that one's word might be taken instead of an oath.-Philo, despec. leg. and decalog.

And Pythagoras, in his oration to the Crotonian Senators, exhorted them thus: "Let no man attest God by oath, though in courts of judicature; but use to speak such things that he may be credited without an oath."-Laert. Herm. and Orig. contr. Celf.

The Scythians are said to have told Alexander of themselves, "think not that Scythians confirm their friendship by oath. They swear by keeping their word."-Quint. Curt. in vit. Alex.

And Clinias, a Greek, and follower of Pythagoras, rather chose to suffer the fine of three talents, (which made 300l. English,) than to lessen his veracity by taking an oath. H. Grotius on Mat. v. 34.-Which act was greatly commended of Basilius, who upbraided the christians of his time with it; thereby, (after our adversaries way of drawing consequences,) prefering the light of the Gentiles before the light of the christians. Though indeed the light was, and is always one in itself. But the christian did not live up so closely to it as the heathen did, and therefore took a greater liberty, and walked in a broader way.

I would now know of our opposers, if they can yet think the light that preached this doctrine in the mount, was the same with that light that shined in the consciences of those Gentiles, so many hundred years before that sermon was written or preached, who so plainly believed, practised, and taught it, yea or nay? Perhaps some through the abundance of their envy, pride, and passion, will yet stiek out, while the more moderate will submit to such evidence, and conclude ignorance and folly have made all this opposition against us; and that of a truth, the voice which cried, (Prov. viii. 4, 6.) Unto you, O men, I call, and my voice is to the sons of men; hear, for I will speak of excellent things," was also heard by the Gentiles; and that what concerned the doctrine of holy living was not hid from them, I mean, evangelically so; provided Christ's heavenly sermon upon the mount, related by Matthew the evangelist, may be esteemed such. For their writings flow with amens thereunto.

But admitting to our adversaries that the voice was then so fow, and the manifestation of the light so small, that it discover