1. SInce all Superstructures must needs be weak whose foundation is not, surely laid; He who desires to be satisfy'd in Religion, ought to begin with searching out, and establishing the Ground on which Religion is built; that is, the First Principle into which the several Points of Faith are resolv'd, and on which their Certainty, as to us, depends.

[Page 2] 2. To do this, 'tis to be consider'd, that a Church is a Congregation of Faithful, and Faithful are those who have true Faith; Wherefore, till it be known which is the true Faith, it cannot be known which is the true Church. Again, A Council is a Representative, A Father, an Eminent Member of the Church, and a witness of her Doctrine; Wherefore, till it be known which is the true Church, it cannot be known which is a Council, or who a Father. Lastly, Since we can­not know which is Scripture, but by the testimony of those who recommend it; And of Hereticks we can have no secu­rity [Page 3] that they have not cor­rupted it in favour of their false Tenets; Neither can we be secure which is Scripture, till we be satisfy'd who are the truly Faithful, on whose Te­stimony we may safely relie in this affair.

3. Wherefore, he who sin­cerely aims at Satisfaction in Religion ought first of all to find out and establish some as­sured Means or Rule by which he may be secured, which is true Faith; For, till this be done, He cannot be secure ei­ther of Scripture, Church, Coun­cil, or Father; but having once done this, is in a ready way to judge certainly of all; Where­as [Page 4] if he begin with any of the other, orindeed argue from them at all, till the Rule of Faith be first settled, he takes a wrong Method, and breaks the Laws of Discourse, by be­ginning with what is less cer­tain, and indeed to him as yet uncertain; and in effect, puts the Conclusion before the Pre­mises; unless he argue, Ad Ho­minem, or against the personal Tenets of his Adversary, which is a good way to Confute, but not to Satisfie.

4. And, because the Rule of faith must be known before Faith can be known, and Faith before Scripture, Church, Coun­cils and Fathers; it appears, [Page 5] that to the finding out this Rule no assistance of Books will be requisite, for every one who needs faith, is not capable to Read and understand Books: There is left then only Reason to use in this Inquiry; And, since People of all Capacities are to be saved, much sharp­ness and depth of wit will not be requisite, but plain Natural Reason rightly directed will suffice.

5. This being so, the Me­thod of seeking satisfaction in Religion, is become strangely both more short and easie. For, here will need no tedious turn­ing over Libraries, nor learn­ing Languages, nor endless [Page 6] comparing voluminous Quota­tions, nor so much as the skill to read English, all being re­duc'd to the considering one single Point (But such an one as bears all along with it) And this too comprehensible, (as will appear) to a mean under­standing. Again, the large deba­ting particular Points in a con­troversial way is by this means avoided. For, when the Right Rule of faith is certainly known, then as certainly as there is any faith in the world, all that is received on that Rule is certain, and of faith. Not but that 'tis of excellent use too, to cherish and strengthen the faith, espe­cially of Young Believers, by [Page 7] shewing each particular Point agreeable to right Reason and Christian Principles, and re­corded expressly in, or dedu­ced by consequence from the Divinely-inspired Books.

6. Lastly. This Method is particularly suitable to the Na­ture of sincere Inquirers; who if they want the liberty of their own Native Indifferency, and be aw'd by any Authority what­ever before that Authority be made out, cannot but remain unsatisfyed, and inwardly feel they proceed not according to Nature and the conduct of un­byast Reason; Whereas, when the Authority is once made evident, Reason will cleerly in­form [Page 8] them that it becomes their Nature to assent to it.

7. But how will it appear that 'tis so easily determinable by common reason, which is the right Rule of Faith? Very evi­dently. But first we must ob­serve, the Assent called Faith, depends upon two Propositi- [What God hath said is true] and [God hath said this] out of which two necessarily follows the Conclusion, that this or that in particular is true. Of these two we are concerned onely in the latter: For to examin Why God is to be believed when he has said any thing which they call the formal Motive of faith, is not a Task for those [Page 9] who own Christianity. But all we have to do is to find out What God hath said, or (which in our case is all one) What Christ has taught; and that, vvhatever it be vvhich ac­quaints us vvith this, we call THE RULE OF FAITH; as that vvhich Regulates our belief concerning Christs Doctrine, or the Principles of Religion. Now I affirm it may by obvious Reason be discover'd vvhich this Rule is; and that by look­ing into the Nature of it, or considering what kind of thing it ought to be; vvhich is no more than attentively to reflect vvhat is meant by those two ordinary vvords, RULE and FAITH.

[Page 10] 8. And both of them ac­quaint us that the Rule of faith must be the means to assure us in fallibly vvhat Christ taught. For, in case a Rule, though we apply it to our povver, and swerve not from it, leave us still deceivable in those points in vvhich it should regulate us; vve need another Rule to secure us that vve be not actu­ally deceiv'd, and so this other and not the former is our Rule. Next, Faith (speaking of Chri­stian Faith) differs from Opi­nion in this, that opinion may be false, but faith cannot: Wherefore the Rule of faith, both as 't is a rule, and as it grounds faith, doubly involves Infallibility.

[Page 11] 9. Let us apply this to Scripture and Tradition, (for setting aside the Light of the private Spirit grounding Pha­naticism, there are no more which claim to be Rules of faith) and see to which of them this Notion fits; that is, which hath truly the Nature of the Rule of faith. And this is perform'd by examining which of them is of its own Nature, if apply'd and held to, able to as­sure us infallibly, that Christ taught thus and thus.

10. And for the Letter of Scripture, not to insist that if it be deny'd, as many, if not all the parts of the New Testament have been by some or other, [Page 12] or mention that those who re­ceive the Books, do often and always may doubt of almost any particular Text alledged, whether some fault through Malice, Negligence or weakness be not crept into it; in which Cases the Letter cannot evi­dence it self, but needs another Rule to establish it. I say, not to insist upon these things, which yet are undeniable, We see by experience Multitudes of Sects differing from one an­other, and some in most funda­mental Points, as the Trinity, and Godhead of Christ, yet all agreeing in the outward Letter. And it is not onely uncharita­ble, but even impossible to [Page 13] imagine that none among so vast Multitudes do intend to follow the Letter to their power, while they all profess to reve­rence it as much as any, read it frequently, study it diligently, quote it constantly, and zea­lously defend the sense which they conceive of it, so far that many are even ready to die for it; Wherefore it cannot be suspected but they follow it to their power; and yet 'tis so far from infallibly teaching them the Doctrine of Christ, that, all this notwithstanding, they contradict one another, and that in most fundamental points. The bare Letter then is not the Rule of Faith, as not being of [Page 14] its own Nature able to assure us infallibly, though we follow it to our power, what Christ has taught. I would not be mis­taken to have less Veneration than I ought for the Divine Books, whose Excellence and Usefulness as it is beyond man to express, so peradventure a­mongst men there are not ma­ny who conceit this deeper than my self; and I am sure not one amongst those who take the confidence to charge us with such irreverent thoughts: But we are now about another Question. They are the Word of God, and their true Sense is Faith; We are enquiring out the Rule of [Page 15] Faith; whose office 'tis not to satisfie us that we ought to be­lieve what God has said, which none doubts of, but What it is which God has said. And I af­firm, That the Letter alone is not a sufficient means to assure us in­fallibly of this; and the expe­rience of so many erring Thou­sands, is a lamentable, but con­vincing proof of it.

11. On the other side, there needs but common sense to discern, That TRADITION is able, if follow'd to ones pow­er, to bring infallibly down to after Ages, what Christ and his Apostles taught at first. For, since it means no more but delivery of Faith by dayly [Page 16] Teaching and Practise of im­mediate Forefathers to their respective Children; and it is not possible that men should be ignorant of that to which they were educated, of that which they dayly saw, and heard, and did; let this Rule be follow'd to ones power, that is, let Children resolve still to believe and practise themselves what they were taught by, and practis'd with their Fathers, and this from Age to Age; and it is impossible but all succeed­ing Children which follow this Rule, must needs from the A­postles time to the end of the World, be of the same Faith which was taught at first; For, [Page 17] while they do thus, there is no change; and, if there be no change, 'tis the same. Tradition then, thus understood, has in it the Nature of the Rule of Faith, as being able, if held to, to bring down infallibly what Christ and his Apostles taught.

12 We have found the Rule of Faith, there remains to find which body of men in the World have ever, and still do follow this Rule. For, those, and onely those, can be infalli­bly assured of what Christ taught, that is, can onely have true Faith: Whereas all the rest, since they have but fallible grounds, or a Rule for their Faith, which may deceive them, [Page 18] cannot have right Faith, but Opinion onely; which may be false, whereas Faith cannot.

13. And first, 'Tis a strong presumption that those many particular Churches in com­munion with the Roman, which for that reason are call­ed Roman-Catholicks, do hold their Doctrine by this Infalli­ble Tenure; since they alone own Tradition to be an Infal­lible Rule, whereas the Deser­ters of that Church write whole Books to disgrace and vilifie it: And, since no man in his wits will go about to weaken a Tenure by which he holds his Estate, 'tis a manifest sign that the Deserters of that [Page 19] Church hold not their Faith by the Tenure of Tradition, but rather acknowledg by their carriage that Tradition stands against them; and that 'tis their Interest to renounce it, lest it should overthrow their Cause; Wherefore, since Tra­dition [§. 11.] is the only means to derive Christs Doctrine in­fallibly down to after ages, they, by renouncing it, renounce the onely means of conveying the Doctrine of Faith certain­ly to us, and are convinc'd to have no faith, but onely opini­on. And not onely so, but even to oppose and go point-blank against it, since they oppose the onely-sure Method by which [Page 20] it can with certainty come down to us.

14. Besides, since Tradition (which I always understand as formerly explicated to be the Teaching the Faith of immedi­ate Forefathers by words and practise) hath been proved the onely infallible Rule of Faith; those who in the days of K. Henry VIII. and since have de­serted it, ought to have had in­fallible certainty that we rece­ded from it formerly; for, if we did not, but still cleav'd to it, it could not chuse but pre­serve the true Faith to us; and if they be not sure we did not, they know not but we have the true faith; and manifestly [Page 21] condemn themselves in desert­ing a Faith, which for ought they know was the true one; but Infallible Certainty that we had deserted this Rule, they can have none, since they neither hold the Fathers Infallible, nor their own Interpretation of Scri­pture, and therefore unavoida­bly ship wrack themselvs upon that desperat Rock; vvhich is aggravated by this Considera­tion, that they built not their Reformation upon a zealous care of righting Tradition, which we had formerly viola­ted, nor so much as Testimoni­al Evidence (as shall be shown presently) that we had desert­ed It, but all their pretense [Page 22] was that we had deserted Scri­pture; and, because they as­sign no other certain means to know the sense of the Holy Books but the Words, and those are shown to be no certain means, [§ 10.] 'tis plain the Reformers regarded not at all the right Rule of Faith, but built their Reformation upon a weak Foundation, and in­competent to sustain such a building: Whence, neither had the first Reformers, nor have their Followers, Faith at all, but onely Opinion.

15. On the contrary, since 'tis known and agreed to by all the World, at what time all Deserters of our Church, of [Page 23] what name soever, broke from us; as also who were the Au­thors and Abetters, and who the Impugners of such New Doctrines; besides, in what places they first begun, and were thence propagated to o­thers; but no such thing is known of us even by our Ad­versaries, whom it concerns to be most diligent Searchers af­ter it, seeing they are in a hun­dred minds about the Time when, and the Persons who in­troduc'd these pretended New Doctrines of ours, which they say vary from Scripture, as may be seen by their own words in several Books, and a­mongst others, one call'd, The [Page 24] Progeny of Protestants, and this for every point in which they pretend we have innovated, 'tis plain that when we charge them with deserting the known Do­ctrine of the former Church, and the Rule of Faith, we speak open and acknowledg'd evidence; when they accuse us of the same, their charge is ob­scure and unknown even to the very Accusers; nay, plainly prov'd false by the necessity of [...]he things being notorious, if it happen'd, and the constant dis­agreement of those who allege it, when or how it happen'd.

16. I say Notorious; for, since Points of Faith which ground all Christian practise, [Page 25] are the most concerning Truths in the World, it cannot be but the denyal of such Truths must needs raise great commotions before the opposite Tenets could be universally spread; and the change of Christian Practise and Manners which depend on those Truths, must be wonderfully manifest and known to every body; where­fore, had we been guilty of such a change, and introduc'd New Tenets, and propagated them over the Christian world, as is pretended, it must needs be manisestly and universally known that we did so; nei­ther is it possible the change should be so insensible and in­visible, [Page 26] that our very Adversa­ries cannot find it out; espe­cially this alone making their Victory over us so certain and perfect. For seeing we own TRADITION as an In-fallible Rule, We are irreco­verably overthrown, if they make out that we ever desert­ed It: and, surely, nothing should be more easie than to make out That, than which, if True, nothing can possibly be more Notorious.

17. Moreover, since it can not be, that Multitudes of men should profess to hold point's both infinitely concerning and strangely difficult to believe, and yet own no ground upon [Page 27] which they hold them: if we ever, as 'tis said we have, de­serted Tradition, vve must, till the time we took it up again, have proceeded upon some o­ther Ground or Rule of Faith: And, because none ever char­ged us with proceeding upon the Letter of Scripture or Pha­naticism, and, besides these there is no other but Tradition, 'tis plain we never deserted, but always stuck to Tradition.

18. Besides, 'tis impossible that that Body of Men which claim for their Rule of Faith, an uninterrupted Tradition from the Apostles days, should not have held to that Rule of faith from the beginning: For, o­therwise [Page 28] they must have taken it up at some time or other, and by doing so, profess to the World, that Nothing is to be held of Faith, but what descen­ded by an uninterrupted deli­very from the beginning; and yet at the same time acknow­ledg that all they then held was not so descended, but re­ceived by another Rule, This of Tradition or uninterrupted Delivery being then newly ta­ken up; which is so palpable a Contradiction, that, as Hu­mane Nature could not fall into it: so, if it could, the very pretense would have over­thrown it self, and needed no other confutation.

[Page 29] 19. Add to this, that none of those many Sects who from time to time have deserted our Church's Faith and Disciplin, and so becom her Adversaries, ever yet pretended to assign the time when we took up this Rule of Tradition; and yet a change in that on which we profess to build all the rest, must needs be of all changes the most visible, and most apt to justifie the carriage of those Revolters. Wherefore, 'tis demonstrably evident on all sides, that, as this present Bo­dy of men, call'd the Roman-Catholick Church, does now hold to Tradition, so their Predecessors uninterruptedly [Page 30] from the Apostles days did the same; that is, did hold to it ever. And, since 'tis shown before [§. 11.] that this Rule, if held to, will certainly con­vey down the true Faith un­chang'd to all after Ages, 'tis likewise demonstrable, that they have the true Faith, and are the truly Faithful, or true Church.

20. And hence by the way, is clearly seen what is meant by UNIVERSAL TRADITION, and where 'tis to be look'd for and found; which puzzles many men otherwise very ju­dicious and sincere; who pro­fess a readiness, nay a duty to follow Universal Tradition, [Page 31] but they are at a loss, how we may certainly know which is It. For, since 'tis evident that to compleat the notion of the Universality of Mankind, (for example) it were absurd to think we must take in brutes too, which are of an opposite nature to Mankind, but 'tis sufficient to include all in whom the nature of mankind is found; so, to make up the notion of Universal Tradition, it were equally absurd to think we ought to take in those in whom the nature of Tradition is not found, but its Opposit, that is, Deserters of Tradition or their Followers; but 'tis sufficient to include those in whom Traditi­on [Page 32] is found as in its Subject, that is, Adherers to Tradition or Traditionary Christians. All, therefore, that have at any time deserted the Teaching and Pra­ctise of the immediately fore­going Church, how numerous and of what name soever they be, have no show of Title to be parts of Universal Tradi­tion; and onely, they who themselves do, and whose An­cestors did ever adhere to it, how few soever they seem, are the onely persons who can with any sense pretend to be those, of whom, as Parts, Universal Tradition consists.

21. These men, therefore, by applying this their Rule, [Page 33] can certainly know who have true Faith, and which body of men is the true Church; like­wise, that a Representative of that Body is a true Council, and that an Eminent Member of it delivering down to the next Age the Doctrine believ'd in his, whether by expresly a­vouching it the Churches sense, or confuting Hereticks, is a true Father. Lastly, they can have Infallible Certainty both of the Letter and Sense of Scripture, as far as concerns Faith: For, if any fault which shocks their Faith, whether of Translator or Transcriber, creep into any passage, or, if the Text be indeed right, but yet [Page 34] ambiguous, they can rectifie the Letter according to the Law of God written in their hearts, and assign it a sense agreeable to the Faith which they find there; between which and that of the Holy Writers, they are sure there can be no disa­greement, as being both inspir'd by the same unerring Light.

22. Contrariwise, those that follow not this Rule, and so are out of this Church, of what denomination soever, First, can have no true Faith them­selves: 'Tis possible indeed and usual that some, and not seldom, many, of the Points to which they assent, are True, and the same the truly Faith­ful [Page 35] assent to, yet their Assent tothem is not Faith; for, Faith (speaking of Christian Faith) is an Assent, which cannot possi­bly be false; and not only the Points assented to, but the As­sent it self must have that di­stance from Falshood, (as is prov'd at large in Faith Vindi­cated) else 'tis not Faith, but degenerates into a lower Act, and is call'd Opinion: Now the strength of an Assent ratio­nally made, depends upon the strength of its Grounds, and all Grounds of that Assent call'd Faith, (I mean such Grounds as tell us what Christ taught) besides Tradition, are proved (§. 10.) weak and none: With­out [Page 36] It, therefore, there can be no true faith. Next, For want of that only Infallible Ground they cannot have Certainty which is true faith, who truly faithful, which the true Church, which a true Council, who a true Father, nor lastly, which is either the Letter or Sense of Scripture in Dogmatical passa­ges that concern Faith. And, since they have no Certainty of these things, they have no right nor ought in a Discourse about Faith be admitted to quote any of them; but are Themselves, and the whole Cause concluded in this single Inquiry, Who have a Competent that is, an impossible to be false, [Page 37] or Infallible Rule to arrive at Faith?

23. The solid Satisfaction, therefore, of those who inquire after true faith, is onely to be gain'd by examining who has, or who has not such a Rule. This METHOD is short and easie, and yet alone goes to the Bottom. All others, till this be had, are superficial, tedious, and, for want of Grounds, In­significant.