The safe religion, or, Three disputations for the reformed catholic religion against popery proving…The safe religion, or, Three disputations for the reformed catholike religion against popery proving…

All the question therefore is of the Minor: which I prove, 1. From the Popish principles, 2. From their Practices, both which do plainly show that their new Religion is a mere Weather-cock that must fit with the wind of the mutable conceits of the Pope and his Clergy. Even like the Religion of the Enthusiasts that wait still for new Revelations to be superadded to the Scripture.

All the question therefore is of the Minor: which I prove, 1. From the Popish principles, 2. From their Practices, both which do plainly shew that their new Religion is a meer Weather-cock that must fit with the winde of the mutable conceits of the Pope and his Clergy. Even like the Religion of the Enthusiasts that wait still for new Revelations to be superadded to the Scripture.

And first for their principles, one is that [The Scripture is not the whole word of God, or sufficient rule of faith or manners, but only a part of the Word and Rule, and that unwritten Traditions are the other part: Yea Rushworths Dialogues, Bellarmine, and the rest of them ordinarily, tell us that Scripture was not chiefly given to be a Rule of faith at all: saith Bellarm. de verbo dei li. 4. cap. 12. [Finis Scripturae pracipuus non est, ut sit Regula fidei, sed ut variis documentis, exemplis, adhortationibus, nunc terrendo, nunc instruendo, nunc minando, nunc consolando adjuvet nos in hae peregrination.] that is [The chief end of Scripture, is not to be a Rule of faith: but that by divers documents, examples, adhortations, sometime by affrighting, sometime by instructing, sometime by threatening, sometime by comforting, it may help us in this our peregrination.] It is then unwritten Traditions that are part of Gods Word, and at least part of the Rule of faith: And where these Traditions are to be found, and what they are, and how many, and by what notes they may all be known, either they dare not tell us, for fear of bringing mens faith to a certainty, from under ⟨p. 130⟩the lock and key of the Pope, or else in telling us they do but cloud the business with general terms, or else disagree among themselves. That the Scripture it self is delivered to us infallibly, we doubt not: and thereby we know the Canonical books: But this may be done without another word of God: The act of Delivery from the Apostles is not a new Revelation or Word of God, but the natural means of conveying the word to those for whom it was intended: And the object of that Act of Delivery was not another Word of God, but all and only these same Canonical Books: so that I know which is the Canon (among other reasons) because I can prove (not by another Word of God, but) by infallible humane Testimony (such as I have of the Laws of this Land) that the Bible, and these particular books in it were actually delivered by the holy Writers to the Churches. If God write the two Tables of stone, and therein make known that they are his Laws, and then Deliver these to Moses, this Delivering is not a new Word of God, but a necessary act for the promulgation of the Word: So that if you ask an Israelite how he knows, whether only the ten Commandments and all those ten were contained in the Tables?