much less as by the only one: because certainly that inward motion of the Holy Spirit wrought in our hearts, moving and inclining us objectively to assent unto, and believe the Scriptures is the principal motive in respect of the object, for which we believe the Scriptures, and therefore is the foundation and principal rule of our histo rical faith also. Wherefore we answer unto the minor proposition of the last syllogism, by plainly and directly denying that minor proposition, viz. That the Scriptures are the only medium or mean for attaining to the knowledge of the history: they are indeed one certain medium or mean, and that necessary; but they are not the only nor principal. An example for the illustration here occurs in natural and outward vision: for when I see a white or red rose, that white or red rose is the material object of my sight, and one necessary medium for the producing of that sight; yet that rose is not the only medium or mean; for the light is another, no less necessary, concurring to produce my sight, by way of formal object, by means of which I see that rose represented under such or such a colour and figure. Moreover, in that he asserts, these inward motions wrought by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers, are so undiscernible by us, that believers cannot clearly and infallibly distinguish them from their own private and pro per motions: this he supposes, but proves not. And therein he is deceived, either through his inexperience, or want of that due waiting, and attention to those motions in the divine illumination of Christ, wherewith he hath enlightened both him [the ambassador] and all men coming into the world. But our experience, together with the experience of the holy prophets and apostles, is a stronger motive to induce us to believe, that divine inward revelation is sufficiently clear and convincing by its own light and evidence, than his own bare and jejune supposition of the contrary, by reason of his want of experience or attention. As to the Latin, we have not been very curious in this writing, by reason of haste; yet have briefly answered the argument as a friend communicated it to us by letter; if he hath omitted any thing in his transmission, or we may seem not to have understood, or touched the strength of the argument, let it be remitted to us; and we, through divine assistance, shall answer it at large. George Keith, and This solution was delivered to the A brief Enodation of an Argument proposed by another Person. MOREOVER as to what relates to another person's argument against that part of R. B's second Thesis, which asserts, That divine inward revelation is that which is evident and clear of itself, moving the well disposed understanding by its own evidence, &c. to the end of the Thesis. The argument is thus formed: Such an evidence as is asserted in the Thesis, is destructive of faith, because it is not the evidence of faith. He proves the antecedent by the words of the apostle, "Faith is the evidence of things not seen," Heb. xi. 1. By which words the apostle seems to intimate, that faith hath not this kind of evidence; for if it were of things seen, it would contradict the apostle. The solution of this argument is easy; for evidence is three fold. The first is the evidence of things sensible, appertaining to the outward senses. The second is the evidence of things intellectual, but natural, appertaining to natural reason. • The third is the evidence of things spiritual and supernatural, as they are proposed to the understanding, by the inward illumination and revelation of the Holy Spirit. The first evidence may be called the evidence of sense, or animal evidence. The second the evidence of reason, or rational evidence. The third the evidence of faith, or spiritual evidence. But faith is the evidence of things not seen, that is, neither visible by the outward senses, or by natural reason; yet these things hinder not, but that faith may be the evidence of things not seen by the understanding of a man, not as operating in its own natural way, but as divinely elevated and assisted by the inward illumination and operation of the Holy Spirit. Wherefore, though things appertaining to faith may be very obscure, and as it were mere darkness, both to the outward senses, and natural reason; yet they have their evidence, if duly proposed to an understanding divinely enlightened. Is it not said in the same chapter to the Hebrews concerning Moses, that by faith he saw God? That is to say, not by the outward eye, nor |