makes known his Nature, or his Will, or both. Now 'tis true, that what is made known by God to us (that is, what Truths he is pleased to discover) is a Rule of Faith. That is, the Discoveries he is pleased by divine Revelation to make, are the Measure and Standard of our Belief and Actions; for we are bound to give our affent to what he declares, and do as he commands. But then God, tho' confidered as manifefting himself, that is, making his Nature and Will known to us by divine Revelation, and thereby fhewing us what we must believe and practice; I fay, God thus confidered, is not himself our Rule of Faith, but our Ruler, that is, the Maker, Difcoverer, Giver and Prefcriber of our Rule. And do not a Rule, and the giver of a Rule, widely differ from each other? Are God himself, and the Truths and Precepts uttered by him, one and the fame Thing? Will any Man fay, that a Law-giver is a Law, Her Majefty and the two Houfes are an Act of Parliament, that a Juftice of the Peace is a Warrant, &c? And yet a Man may as properly affirm thefe Things, as fay, that God the giver of our Rule, is himfelf our Rule.

Now if God, or the Spirit, confidered as manifefting himself by Divine Revelation, cannot be our Rule; then neither can he be our Rule, when confidered as manifefting himself by Divine immediate Revelation. For the Manner of the Divine Revelation makes no Difference. What he manifefts is our Rule, whether it be manifefted by immediate Revelation, or by that which is mediate only. And he himself cannot be our Rule, confidered as manifefting himself, whether he manifeft himfelf by mediate or immediate Revelation. Because which way foever he manifefts himself, 03

that

that is, his Nature and Will, he must be different from what is manifefted, that is, from the Truths and Commands revealed by himself. And confequently, fince the Truths and Commands revealed by him are our Rule of Faith, as I have fhewn; 'tis plain, that God confidered as revealing those Truths and Commands, cannot be our Rule, whether he reveal them to us immediately or mediately, unless we will confound the Matters revealed with the Revealer of them, and make them one and the fame thing, which is most abfurd.

But there are Diverse Arguments, by which our Adverfaries endevor to prove, that the Spirit is a Rule of Faith. Thefe therefore I am obliged briefly to confider.

1. 'Tis faid, that the Spirit is that Fountain of Truth from which the Scriptures proceed; and therefore the Spirit must be a Rule of Faith. Now 'tis true, the Spirit is that Fountain of Truth from which the Scriptures proceed; but then, I muft add, that for this very Reafon he neither is, nor can be, a Rule of Faith. For I have fhewn, that God (and confequently the Spirit) who is the gi ver of the Rule, and from whom the Rule proceeds, cannot himfelf be the Rule which he gives; and that that alone which is revealed by him, is, and must be the Rule of Faith.

2. "Tis faid, that the Spirit is a Rule, becaufe Him by alone we attain the true knowledge of God, and are led into all Truth, and are taught all things. But I answer, 1. that when we fay, that by the Spirit alone we attain the true knowledge of God, we mean; that he alone difcovers it to us, and enables us to difcern it. But then he difcovers it to us by affording us the Scriptures, and he enables us to difcern it by affifting us in the ftudy of them.

And

And this he may do without being a Rule of Faith. For the Rule of Faith is not himself; but that which he discovers to us, and enables us to difcern, concerning himself. 2. that the Spirit does indeed lead us into all Truth, that is, into the Knowledge and Practice of all neceffary faving Truths; and that he teaches us all things, that is, all things neceffary to Salvation. But will it therefore follow, that he is a Rule of Faith? No furely. For the Leader must be diftinguished from what he leads us into the knowledge and practice of; and the Teacher from what he teaches.

3. 'Tis faid, that fince the Certainty and Authority of the Scriptures themfelves do depend upon the Spirit, and fince they are therefore received for truth, because they were dictated by the Spirit; therefore, fince the Scriptures are a Rule, the Spirit is a Rule alfo; nay, 'tis more a Rule than the Scriptures them felves, according to that known Maxim of the Schools, Propter quod unumquodque eft tale, illud ipfum eft magis tale. But I anfwer, that the Certainty and Authority of the Scriptures themselves do indeed depend upon the Spirit, and the Scriptures are therefore received for Truth, because they were dictated by the Spirit; but will it follow from thence, that the Spirit is a Rule of Faith? Yes, fay our Adverfaries, by virtue of that known Maxim above-mentioned, which imports, that that, becaufe of which makes a thing is fuch, or that which will make a ☛ thing fuch, is it felf more fuch. And confequently, fay they, fince 'tis becaufe of the Spirit that the Scriptures are a Rule of Faith, that is, fince the Scriptures being a Rule of Faith depends upon the Spi-, rit, or fince the Scriptures are therefore a Rule of Faith, because they proceeded from the Spirit; 04

*tis

'tis plain, that the Spirit is also a Rule of Faith, nay, that he is more a Rule of Faith than the Scriptures themselves.

But our Adverfaries do not understand this Maxim, and therefore do moft grofly misapply it. For this Maxim does never hold true, unless the fame thing may be affirmed of both the things fpoken of. I fhall illuftrate this by giving fome familiar inftances. If I fhould fay, the Moon is bright because of the Sun, that is, the Sun makes the Moon bright; this Maxim will prove, that the Sun is more bright than the Moon. Because brightnefs may be affirmed both of the Sun and the Moon, that is, it may be truly faid that both the Sun and Moon are bright. But if I should fay, the Piature is ugly becaufe of the Painter, this Maxim will not prove, that the Painter himself is more ugly than the Picture. Because the Painter that drew an ugly Picture, might himself be a very handfom Man. And the reafon why this Maxim will not hold true in this inftance, is this, becaufe ug linefs may not be affirmed both of the Painter and the Picture, that is, it cannot be truly faid, that both the Painter and the Picture are ugly. For tho' the Picture is, yet the Painter is not ugly.

'Twere easy for me to enlarge upon the Interpretation and fevera! Limitations of this Maxim I have been difcourfing of. Particularly, I might. further fhew, that it holds true only in Caufes per fe, and not in Caufes per accidens. But what has been faid is fufficient for my prefent purpose, and for the reft I refer the Reader to the Metaphyfi cians. I proceed therefore to the Application.

Our Adverfaries endevor to prove, that fince the Scriptures are a Rule of Faith because of the Spirit, therefore the Spirit it felf must also be a Rule

by

by Virtue of the Maxim above-mentioned. But
I affirm, that that Maxim does not hold true in
this Inftance. And the reason is plain; because
being a Rule of Faith cannot be affirmed of both,
that is, it cannot be truly faid, that both the Spi-
rit and the Scriptures are Rules of Faith. For I
have fhewn, that the Spirit neither is, nor can be,
a Rule of Faith; tho' 'tis granted on both Sides
that the Scriptures are.
'Tis true, had our Adver-
faries proved, that the Spirit is a Rule of Faith;
they might then have proved by this Maxim, that
the Spirit is more a Rule of Faith than the Scrip-
tures but fince they cannot prove that the Spirit is
a Rule of Faith, nay, fince I have plainly proved
that it cannot be a Rule of Faith, in this cafe, I
fay, for them to pretend to prove the Spirits being
a Rule of Faith by Virtue of the Maxim above-
mentioned, is to take that for granted which was to
be proved, and then to prove it by fuch a Maxim as
cannot hold, unless what they would prove by it be
fuppofed already true. And this is fo ftrange a Blun-
der in Reafoning, as I cannot fufficiently admire.

4. 'Tis faid, that we receive the Scriptures for our Rule of Faith upon the Teftimony of the Spirit, and therefore the Spirit it felf is alfo a Rule of Faith. Now if by the Teftimony of the Spirit they mean his declaring to us by immediate Revelation that the Scriptures are a Rule of Faith; then I utterly deny that we do receive them as our Rule of Faith upon the Teftimony of the Spirit. But if by the Teftimony of the Spirit they mean that Atteftation which the Spirit gave by Miracles to what the Apostles and infpired Writers did publish in the Scriptures; then we freely own, that we do receive them as our Rule of Faith upon the Teftimony of the Spirit. But furely no Man in his