Secondly, And here I would have those men, who cannot endure this resting upon *humane Testimony, to consider of what necessity it is for the producing of our Faith. Something must be taken upon trust from man whether they will or no: and yet no uncertainty in our Faith neither. First. The mere illiterate man, must take it upon trust, that the book is a Bible which he hears read, for else he knows not but it may be some other book. Secondly, That those words are in it, which the Reader pronounceth. Thirdly, That it is translated truly out of the original languages. Fourthly, That the Hebrew and Greek Copies, out of which it was translated, are true Authentic Copies. Fifthly, That it was originally written in these languages. Sixthly, Yea and the meaning of divers Scripture passages, which cannot be understood without the knowledge of Jewish customs, of Chronology, of Geography, &c. though the words were never so exactly translated. ⟨p. 211⟩All these with many more the vulgar must take upon the word of their Teachers. And indeed a faith merely humane, is a necessary preparative to a faith Divine, in respect of some means and Praecognita necessary thereto. If a Scholar will not take his masters word, that such letters have such or such a power, or do spell so or so: or that such a Latin or Greek word hath such a signification; when will he learn, or how will he know? Nay how do the most learned linguists know the signification of words in any language, and so in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, but only upon the credit of their Teachers and Authors? And yet certain enough too in the main. Tradition is not so useless to the world or the Church as some would have it; Though the Papists do sinfully plead it against the sufficiency of Scripture, yet Scriptures sufficiency or perfection is only in suo genere, in its own kind, and not in omni genere, not sufficient for every purpose. Scripture is a sufficient rule of Faith and life, but not a sufficient means of conveying it self to all generations and persons. If humane Testimony had not been necessary, why should Christ have men to be witnesses in the beginning? And also still instruments of persuading others, and attesting the verity of these sacred records to those that cannot otherwise come to know them?
SEcondly, And here I would have those men, who cannot endure this resting upon *humane Testimony, to consider of what necessity it is for the producing of our Faith. Something must be taken upon trust from man whether they will or no: and yet no uncertainty in our Faith neither. First. The meer illiterate man, must take it upon trust, that the book is a Bible which he heares read, for els he knows not but it may be some other book. Secondly, That those words are in it, which the Reader pronounceth. Thirdly, That it is translated truly out of the originall languages. Fourthly, That the Hebrew and Greek Copies, out of which it was translated, are true Authentick Copies. Fifthly, That it was originally written in these languages. Sixthly, Yea and the meaning of divers Scripture passages, which cannot be understood without the knowledg of Jewish customes, of Chronologie, of Geography, &c. though the words were never so exactly translated. ⟨p. 211⟩All these with many more the vulgar must take upon the word of their Teachers. And indeed a faith meerly humane, is a necessary preparative to a faith Divine, in respect of some means and Praecognita necessary thereto. If a Scholar will not take his masters word, that such letters have such or such a power, or do spell so or so: or that such a Latine or Greek word hath such a signification; when will he learn, or how will he know? Nay how do the most learned linguists know the signification of words in any language, and so in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, but only upon the credit of their Teachers and Authors? And yet certaine enough too in the maine. Tradition is not so useles to the world or the Church as some would have it; Though the Papists do sinfully plead it against the sufficiency of Scripture, yet Scriptures sufficiency or perfection is only in suo genere, in its owne kind, and not in omni genere, not sufficient for every purpose. Scripture is a sufficient rule of Faith and life, but not a sufficient means of conveying it self to all generations and persons. If humane Testimony had not been necessary, why should Christ have men to be witnesses in the beginning? And also still instruments of perswading others, and attesting the verity of these sacred records to those that cannot otherwise come to know them?
- *Yet do I believe that that of 2 Pet. 1.20. is generally mistaken: as if the Apostle did deny private men the liberty of interpreting Scriptures even for themselves. When it is in regard of the object, and not of the interpreter that the Apostle calleth it [Private]. As if he should say: The Prophets are a sure Testimony of the Doctrine of Christianity: but then you must understand that they are not to be interpreted of the Private men that spoke them, for they were but types of Christ the Public person, so Psal. 2. & 16. &c. are to be interpreted of Christ, and not of David only a private person, and but a type of Christ in all, so that Peter answereth the Question of the Eunuch in Acts 8. Of whom doth the Prophet speak? of himself (privately) or some other (more public) man? This is I think the true meaning of Peter.Yet do I believe that that of 2 Pet. 1.20. is generally mistaken: as if the Apostle did deny private men the liberty of interpreting Scriptures even for themselves. When it is in regard of the object, and not of the interpreter that the Apostle calleth it [Private]. As if he should say: The Prophets are a sure Testimony of the Doctrine of Christianity: but then you must understand that they are not to be interpreted of the Private men that spoke them, for they were but types of Christ the Publique person, so Psal. 2. & 16. &c. are to be interpreted of Christ, and not of David only a private person, and but a type of Christ in all, so that Peter answereth the Question of the Eunuch in Acts 8. Of whom doth the Prophet speak? of himself (privately) or some other (more publike) man? This is I think the true meaning of Peter.
