distinction and tedrously dilates upon it to amuse his Reader But the sum of all comes to this That the words of Scripture are of no further use than as they are signs of conceptions and things and under that consideration they cannot be understood unless the things signified by them be first known at least in some gross and confused manner Whereof he gives us this instance that where we sind in Scripture that God is Omniscient we cannot understand this unless we first know what God is and what Omniscience is Therefore says he all the benefit that any can get by any Book that is written is but this that it stirs up the Mind of the Reader to reflect upon the clear and distinct Idea's of those things in his Mind which the Book treats of not that the Book can of it self bring him to the true knowledge of things much less that it can beget any clear or distinct Ideas in his Mind which were not there before And thus he tells us it is with the Scripture all the use of it is to stir up the Reader or Hearer to think of the things that it propounds and inquire into them and examine them whether they be so as they are there propounded and that they may do this they must make use of Philosophy to try what is there written Therefore adds he the Scripture is to be used not that it should of it self inform us in the truth or render the truth more clear and distinct or make it more firm to us but that it may give us occasion and matter of meditating on those things which perhaps otherwise we should never have minded Therefore says he still the utility and excellency of the Scriptures above other Books consists onely in this That the things it speaks of are of so great concernment to our everlasting blessedness not for any use they are of to instruct us in the Truth This is all the use that he allows the Scripture from whence I think will inevitably follow that he owns the necessity of no knowledge of God or Religion but what is natural And so all supernatural Revelation or at least all necessity of it is denied And if there be no other use of the Written Word but what this Author assigns it it s put into the same rank with a Crucifix or a Deaths Head Indeed the whole design of his Book and of that other Tract that is prefixed to its latter Edition written as is supposed by the same Author is utterly to undermine and overthrow the credit of the Scriptures We need not wonder that he so often derides and calumniates the Protestant Doctrine of the Spirits internal illumination of the Mind which consists in curing the indisposition of the Subject and fitting it for the right understanding of Heavenly Things of which more hereafter in an Appendix to my present Discourse when he will not allow the necessity of so much as an Enternal Light for the Revelation of Supernatural Objects as acknowledging no such things And he that is thus principled must needs be very ignorant of himself and of the ruines that Sin hath made among the whole Race of Adam and the woful depravation of Mans Nature by his first Apostasie But for the Readers full satisfaction about the necessity of Supernatural Revelation I dare commend to his perusal besides many other useful Discourses that might be named that excellent Piece of the Eminently-accomplish'd Sir Charles Wolsly concerning the Reasonableness of Scripture Belief CHAP. VII 1. A fifth Argument That this would open a gap to the most pernicious Errors in Matters of Faith 2. And Practice AGain fifthly This Assertion le ts loose the Bridle to proud and wanton Wits to overthrow the Foundations of Christian Religion for though there be not the least real repugnancy between the Doctrines of Christianity and the Principles of Right Reason and Sound Philosophy which undoubtedly there is not as I have already premised and asserted yet there being no certain and infallible Record of these Principles by which as by the Rule of Judgement particular Mens Reasonings may be tried If Scripture Revelation must be interpreted by Mens Reasonings I know not the any Error that hath ever crept into the Church of Christ either in matter of Faith or Practice since the first publication of the Gospel but may be introduced anew by this Engine The heretical Blasphemies of Servetus and Socinus which sprang up of late years and those of the Marcionites and Manichees that infested the Church in former times together with the loathsome impurities of the Gnosticks who esteemed themselves the only knowing Men or to speak in the new mode the onely Rational Divines have fair way made them by this Trim Device First Let us instance in Matters of Faith whatsoever is said in Scripture about the Creation of the World the Conception of our Saviour in a Virgins Womb the Personal Union of the two Natures the Resurrection of the Body at the last Day these with many more that might be named let them be brought to the Bar of Reason and tried by its Principles as they are to be found in the Minds of Men and what will it come to We have seen already what use some Men have made of this way to subvert the weightiest Truths of the Gospel But here it will be excepted perhaps by some That the Fundamentals of Christian Religion being clear and plain in Scripture there is no fear of this inconvenience To this I answer First If Divine Revelations must be no otherwise received or understood than as Men see ground for them in their own Reason the plainest and clearest Doctrines of Scripture will be rejected I shall here give two Instances as I find them quoted by a late learned Author The one is of Socinus who says That he would not believe Christ to have satisfied for our Sins though he should read it once and again in Scripture the infallibility of the Revealer not being sufficient to establish it unless he had declared it by its causes and effects and so satisfied Mens Reason concerning the possibility of it Smalcius is the other who says That he would not believe the Incarnation of the Son of God though he should meet with it in express terms in the Bible The same Author says elsewhere that by Reason alone we determine the possibility and impossibility of the Articles of Faith To which I might add the bold assertion of a late English Remonstrant in a Volume publish'd some years ago where he says I verily believe that in case any such unchangeableness of Gods love viz. as should assure the Saints infallible perseverance were to be found in or could regularly be deduced from the Scriptures it were a just ground to any considering Man to question their Authority or whether they were from God or no. And a late Belgick Tractator having affirmed that the
reverence of God and of his Word For want of which too many have greatly polluted these Holy Mysteries with the wanton conceits or prophane excursions of an unhollwed Wit and mortally poisoned themselves and others by their corrupt handling this Bread of Life The Special Means of Interpretation are two-fold Some are more remote which I shall only name not intending any Discourse about them because my work lies another way These remote helps are 1. Some competent knowledge of and recourse to the Original Tongues wherein the Scripture was first penned with a due observation of the proprieties of each Language 2. Skil to discern between the proper use of the Words and Phrases of Scripture and that which is Tropical and Figurative In these Grammar and Rhetorick have their use 3. Some insight into the peculiar Laws Customs and Proverbial Speeches of those times and places that the Scripture relates to which requires some knowledge in History There are sundry passages both in the Old and New Testament that have respect to the known Customs of the Gentiles as in their Divinations Idolatrous Worships Publick Games and many more that have relation to the peculiar Rites and Modes of speech in use among the Jews So that there is no part of Phylology but may have its use in the Interpretation of Scripture 4. There is great use of the several parts of Phylosophy not only moral but natural for the clearing of many things in Scripture that are of natural cognisance as about the structure of Mans Body and the faculties of the Soul the nature motion and influence of the Heavenly Bodies the temperament of the several Regions of the World as also about the Elements and Meteors about Numbers and Measures the Nature and Properties of several Creatures Beasts Birds and Plants and many other things treated of in the Bible either by way of History or Parable 5. Logick hath also its use here for the better discerning the dependence of one thing in Scripture upon another and collecting of one thing from another The more immediate Means are chiefly two 1. A due observation of the several circumstances of the Scripture to be Interpreted who it is that speaks where when and to whom upon what occasion Here also comes in the consideration of the coherents with antecedents and consequences together with the scope and design of the Speaker all which are of great use to discover the Sense of Scripture 2. Comparing Scripture with Scripture or consulting other Scriptures whether paralel with or seemingly opposite to the place under consideration Now to the use of all these forementioned Means or Helps both General and Special Remote and Immediate I think all agree But about the Rule of Interpretation there is not so universal an accord The Romanists for the most part will have this Rule to be the Judgment of the present Church meaning their own But I shall not deal with this It 's weakness in what Sense soever taken for they agree not among themselves hath been sufficiently discovered by the worthy labours of many both formerly and of late Some few there are who tell us that the Scripture supposes the Rule and Summary of Religion delivered from one Age to another which we are to be guided by in searching out the meaning of Scripture And this Rule they say is to be found in the Monuments of the Church that is in the Writings of the Fathers and Determinations of Councils from whence we are to receive the Sense of the Catholick Church and thereby know what was the Doctrine delivered by Christ and his Apostles in the first Age and according to that interpret the Scriptures But if this must be our way of proceeding we may very well despair of ever understanding the Scriptures except when they speak with so much plainness that they stand in need of no Interpretation For what a heap of uncertainties must we lay for the Foundation of our Faith It is sufficiently known that the Fathers do oft differ from each other and many times are not consistent with themselves Councils have determined contrary one to another And some things that were as far as appears to us by all extant Monuments of Antiquity agreeable to the common Sentiment in our Age were laid aside in another Besides either the far greatest part of the Doctors of the Church in the first Ages wrote nothing or their Writings are lost and of those that now go under venerable names many are plainly spurious and many dubious nor is it easie in several of them for the most sagacious Reader to find out the right Insomuch as we cannot have any tolerable assurance what was the consentient judgment of the Catholick Church in any one age about the whole Doctrine of Faith if we set the Scriptures aside Therefore to frame such a Rule of Interpretation as this is no better than to build a House of Straw upon a running Stream There were very few Writers in the two first Centuries and in the two following not very many and after this the Church did much decline and degenerate as well in Doctrine as Manners Now suppose we were sure that the Writings in each Age were undoubtedly theirs whose names they bear as it is past doubt we are not who can assure us that what was published by those few was the consentient Judgment of all or the major part of the Doctors of that Age wherein they lived Might there not be a greater number differing from them who either wrote nothing or whose Works are perished The plain truth is That this way of Interpretation does in the upshot resolve the Faith of Christians not into the certain authority of the Divinely-inspired Writings but into the fallible Testimony of the most uncertain Tradition But for the Readers further satisfaction I refer him to Monsieur Daille's learned Treatise about the right use of the Fathers a Piece of that worth that the Lord Vicount Falkland and his dear Friend Mr. Chillingworth did highly esteem it and made great use of it in their Writings against the Romanists as we are informed by Mr. Tho. Smith sometime Member of Christ's Colledge in Cambridge in his Epistle prefixed to the English Translation of that excellent and elaborate Discourse who further also tells us that we have in that Tractat a sufficient Confutation of Cardinal Perron his Book against King James and by consequence of the Marquis of Worcester against King Charles and of Doctor Vane and other Epitomizers of the Cardinal which I do the rather take notice of that it may obviate the groundless prejudices that some have of late entertained against that Incomparable Piece The received Doctrine of the Reformed Churches both ourown and those abroad hath been hitherto that the Scripture is its own Interpreter But of late there hath been an attempt to justle the Scripture aside as to this use and place Reason and Phylosophy in its room There is a Belgick
Scripture undoubtedly is and whatsoever is indeed contrary to the Voice of God speaking in this Sacred Volume whatever pretence it may have of Reason or Philosophy it is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 6. 20. It is an honest Speech of Aquinas which I find quoted by our Judicious and Learned Davenant Omnis creata Veritas est defectibilis nisi quatenus per veritatem increatam rectificatur unde nec homo nec Angelus infallibiliter ducit in veritatem nisi quatenus in iis loquentis Dei testimonium consideratur To which I shall subjoin the judgement of Cartesius whose Authority may perhaps be of more credit with some now than either that of a Schoolman or of an Apostle Memoriae nostrae pro summa regula est infigendum ea quae nobis à Deo revelata sunt ut omnium certissima esse credenda Et quamvis fortè lumen rationis quam maximè clarum evidens aliud quid nobis suggerere videretur soli tamen auctoritati divinae potius quam proprio judicio fidem esse adhibendam This says he must be firmly remembred as our chief Rule That those things which are revealed to us of God are to be believed as of all things the most certain And although perhaps the most clear and manifest light of Reason may seem to suggest to us some other thing we are nevertheless to give credit to Divine Authority alone rather than to our own judgment CHAP. IV. 1. A second Argument from the disproportion between Man's Reason and Matters of Divine Revelation 2. An Exception removed MY second Argument is That there is no proportion between Mans Reason and the Mysteries of Divine Revelation These are so sublime they are out of the ken of a Natural Understanding they are of a far different kind from the highest Natural Principles How little is it that Mans Reason by its own Light can discover of the Nature of God and his Eternal Counsels The Heathen who wanted Scripture Light did but grope as Men in the dark Act. 17. 27. How greatly are we to seek in judging of the Wisdom and Goodness and Power and Justice of God if we have no higher light than Natural Reason to direct us Nor need this seem strange when we see how much the most knowing Men are at a loss concerning themselves the nature and faculties of the Soul and the manner of its union with the Body and how little insight they have into many of the minuta naturae Can it then be wondred that Mans Reason should be unable by its own light to have a clear view of the Divine Perfections that are infinite and incomprehensible Whence was it that so many of the wisest Heathens were so gravell'd at the proceedings of a Divine Providence when they saw good Men suffer and bad Men prosper How did Cato that severe Moralist stumble at the success that Julius Caesar had against Pompey But what shall we say to that great Mistery of Mans Redemption by Christ The line of Mans Reason is too short to reach these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 2. 10. Therefore Evangelical Doctrine is frequently called a great Mistery containing such things as Eye hath not seen nor Ear Heard nor have entered into the Heart of Man to conceive things beyond the reach not of Men only but of Angels It is true that all Men could not but know God to be very good they found it and felt it in the daily effects of his sustaining and preserving Providence and his wonderful patience and forbearance towards them and they did know also that God is Just and a Righteous Avenger of Sin this they might see in the Judgments that he brought upon the World beside the inward witness of their own accusing Consciences The wrath of God was revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of Men Rom. 1. 18. And they knew the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the righteous judgment of God that they who do such wickednesses as they were conscious to in themselves were worthy of death Rom. 1. 32. But now how to reconcile these two the Goodness of God to his Creatures and his severe Indignation against Sinners so as with any satisfaction to hope for pardon and acceptance with him here their Principles of Reason faill'd them They saw themselves in a very ill case and that there was a necessity of somewhat to appease the provoked Anger of the Divine Majesty but how or which way this should be they could not tell and therefore lost themselves in a Maze of infinite Mistakes in their attempts about it Now it being so it is impossible that Reason by its Natural Principles should be a competent Judge of Scripture-Revelations It must therefore submit its own conceptions and Dictates to the Doctrine of Faith contained in the Scripture Here possibly it will be replied as before to the precedent Argument That all this may be granted of those that enjoyed not the Gospel and Written Word but where this is Reason may be allowed to judge and determine by its Principles concerning the things there revealed To this I answer two things First This implies a contradiction for it is not the Words or Sentences of Scripture that reveal any Mistery to us further than thereby the Mind of God is made known to us Now if this cannot be found out from the Scripture it self but from Principles of Reason then it is Reason it self that first discovers the Mistery I grant that Reason that is the faculty of Reason is and must be the instrument whereby we apprehend what God speaks in the Scripture But if there be any part of Scripture so dark as that its meaning cannot be gathered from the Words neither considered by themselves nor compared with other Passages of Sacred Writ I would know how comes Reason in Interpreting such an obscure place supposing it to be obscure to find that such and such Words so placed do contain in them such an Assertion when the Words and Sentences themselves cannot resolve us You 'll say our Reason teaches us by the light of its own common notions that this and no other must be the meaning of such a place Is it not then plain that Human Reason fetcheth that Truth if it be a Truth from it self and not from the Scriptures For the Scripture according to this Hypothesis gives an uncertain sound onely Reason determines it Remember we are speaking of matters of pure Revelation Now if the Sentences of Scripture under debate do neither by themselves nor with the help of any other clearly and certainly signifie any such thing as is fasten'd upon them such Arguers cannot say they have it by Divine Revelation unless they will pretend to that Enthusiastick Inspiration which they profess to decry and falsly charge upon their Opposites Secondly I add further that there are sundry things revealed in Scripture whereof God gives us no other Reason than his
other Voice than that of the Scripture in speaking to us For how improper soever such an Expression may seem to this Gentleman it is agreeable to Scripture-language And me thinks he who so hotly contends for the Usus loquendi as to make that the only supreme infallible Rule of expounding Scripture might give our Reform'd Divines leave to speak according to this Use without his supercilious censure In the mean time this Author may do well to consider whose Cause he most favours by such manner of arguing I know none that can so heartily thank him for it as the Romanists who use the same way of cavilling against us when we say that the Scripture or the Spirit of God in and by the Scripture is the sole supreme Judge of all Controversies of Faith This say they cannot be unless the Spirit of God do by an audible Voice decide the Controversie telling the one party they are in the right and the other they are in an error And because he doth not so in the Scripture therefore they deny him to be the supreme Judge of Controversies by the Scripture Thus Gretser the Jesuit in the Conference at Râ—tisâ—on Seventy five years ago Behold says he we are here disputing the Cause If the Spirit of God do by the Scriptures judge and determine Controversies let him now come let him come and pass sentence out of this Book the Bible that lay before him and say Thou Gretser art wrong and thou H. art in the right Now what doth Wolzogen by his Argumentation but justifie the profane insolency of that petulant Jesuite The Antients were of another mind they acknowledged God speaking in the Scripture to be the Judge of Controversies Thus speaks one of them to his 〈…〉 Nemo vobis credat nemo nobis de Coelo quaerendus c. Let none give credit to us or you we must seek a Judge from Heaven but what need we go thither to him having his Testament here in the Gospel And if the Spirit of God may with congruity enough be said to speak in the Scriptures as Judge of Controversies he may with as good congruity be acknowledged to speak in the Scriptures as Interpreting his own Mind there laid down And so I have done with my first Argument CHAP. X. A second Argument from the Scriptures being the only Rule of Faith affording a double Proof for the Scriptures being its own Interpreter MY next Argument follows That which is the only Rule of Faith is the only Rule to interpret its own sense But so is the Scripture That the Written Word of God is the only Rule of Faith is acknowledged by all that sincerely own the Protestant Cause Now from hence I thus argue 1. The supreme Rule of Faith is that which infallibly guides and determines us per Modum Objecti what we are to believe Now it is the Scripture in its true and genuine meaning that we are bound to believe Whatsoever therefore objejectively determines what we are to believe must accordingly determine the sense of Scripture And if any thing else besides the Scripture be the Rule to determine this that must eo ipso upon that very score be acknowledged for the Rule of Faith 2. Whatsoever is the Rule of Faith must be the Rule of deciding all Controversies of Faith This I think no Man will question Now let but this be supposed that the Scripture is the only supreme Rule of deciding all Controversies of Faith which no sound Protestant can deny it will necessarily follow That it must be the supreme Rule of clearing all Doubts and Difficulties within it self For where the Scripture is on both sides own'd for the Rule the knot of the Controversie lies in this whether this or that be the sense of the Scriptures that are alledged on both sides for were that agreed the Controversie would cease and whatsoever determines that decides the Cause Thus much the Exercitator acknowledges What ever therefore it be that 's made the Rule of Interpreting Scripture and determining the sense of it is thereby made the Rule of deciding all Controversies of Faith and is to such as so use it the Rule of their Faith CHAP. XI 1. An Exception against this Argument affirming Scripture and Reason jointly to be the Rule of Faith 2. This Novelty disproved and condemned AGainst this Argument some may have the confidence it may be to make this Exception That Scripture is not the only Rule of Faith The Papists join unwritten Traditions with the Scripture and will have us take both together for the compleat Rule of Faith This I shall not deal with there having been so much said by our Divines about it in the Controversies between us and the Church of Rome But there is another Generation of Men that join Human Reason with the Scripture to make up the Rule of Faith Lambertus Velthusius one of the Seniors of the Gallo-Belgick Church at Utrech is charged with this by Vander Weayen who cites this among many other erroneous Positions out of one of that Authors Belgick Tracts That Scripture and Reason are the Rule of Faith So then we have here a new unwritten Word found out to be part of the Canon So fertile of Monsters is this Novaturient Age. But I hope this Doctrine will not be so easily received as it is boldly obtruded Hitherto Principles of Reason and Articles of Faith were wont to be contradistinguish'd and though some things knowable by Natural Light are likewise propounded to our belief in Scripture yet such were never that I know of owned for Points of Faith otherwise than as they were attested in Scripture And in all Logick that I have been acquainted with Arguments à Testimonio are put into one rank and those that are drawn à Natura rei are put into another these latter properly belonging to Science the former to Faith Our Understandings saith C. Streso and after him Dr. Tailor apprehend things three ways The first is 〈◊〉 whereby it receives first Principles The second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby it draws Consequences from those Principles The third is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such things as we assent to from Testimony And it is a known speech of St. Austin Quod intelligimus debemus rationi quod credimus Autoritati That we understand we owe to Reason but that we believe we owe to Authority And we have hitherto taken it to be essential to a Christians Faith that in its Assent it rely upon the Infallible Veracity of the Revealer as the ratio formalis credendi Perhaps it will here be said for I cannot imagine what else can be said That the Principles of Reason are the Word of God and by him written in our Minds therefore our Assent to them is a belief of Divine Testimony as well as our Assent to what is written in the Bible and consequently they are part of the Rule of Faith
miraculous Works spoken of in Scripture were not any thing against or besides the established order of nature absolutely concludes that whatsoever the Scripture affirms to have been done did all necessarily come to pass according to the Laws of Nature and if any thing contrary to this could be found in Scripture or truly gathered from any thing in it that was certainly added to the Scripture by some sacrilegious hand as being against Nature and therefore against Reason Secondly Men that resolve to make their Reason the Rule of Interpretation will not stick to charge the Scripture with obscurity in its plainest Propositions if they suit not with their preconceived notions The experience of the present age puts it past all denial or dispute that when Men have espoused an Hypothesis which they are not willing to relinquish they will quarrel with the most evident Scripture accusing it of obscurity and to make their charge good they will endeavour by their strain'd glosses to raise a dust and darken the Sense of it though it shine never so clearly by its own light to every impartial and unprejudiced Reader Hence it is that the Papists do so frequently with open mouth charge the Apostle Paul with obscurity in his Writings because indeed he speaks more clearly and plainly than they would have him for that great Doctrine of Justification by the imputed Righteousness of Christ and against Justification by our own Works And it may be some will be as ready to find fault with the same Apostle when he says Ephes. 5. 18. Be not drunk with Wine wherein is excess but be filled with the Spirit as speaking too darkly because indeed they think he speaks too broadly against the debauchery that they practice and so plainly for the Spirit which they scorn and deride Thirdly Nay more some are grown to that heighth as I shall have occasion to shew more fully in my second Part as to assert that the Scripture is plain in nothing but universally obscure and make this their great ground for their setting up Reason and Philosophy as the Rule to determine the Sense of the Bible And let this be granted them they will soon make the Scripture speak whatsoever themselves please and so the Bible shall be but as a dead Image and Mans depraved Reason like the Daemon within shall give the Oracle 2. Come we next to matters of Practice It is easie to instance in several commands of God in Scripture that are directly opposite to the whole corrupt interest of lapsed nature As when he requires the mortifying of our earthly desires the love of our deadliest Enemies the denying our of selves in whatsoever is dear to us in this World even to the laying down of our lives for the defence of his Truth upon the bare hope of an invisible happiness in another World Now considering how Mans Reason is darkned and enslav'd and no where perfectly cured if Mens Reason must by its own Principles interpret the Sense of Scripture how numerous are the objections that will be made against these and all other Precepts that are not to the Gust of Mans degenerate nature Thus did the Gnosticks of old plead for denying the Faith in persecuting times to save their life for what said they Doth God delight in the death of Men he stands in no need of our Bloud Christ came to save Mens lives and not to expose them to hazard And with these reasonings they shisted off the-command of owning the Truth in the face of danger And what the Author of the Leviathan hath written of this with a specious though falacious pretence of Reason is not unknown But I shall instance in two extraordinary commands given to particular persons The one is that which God did by immediate Revelation give to Abraham requiring him to offer up his onely Son Isaac for a Burnt-offering What would the Principles of Natural Reason have said to this might they have been admitted to interpret this Command What Can infinite goodness require such an unnatural act as this for a Father to lay violent hands on his own Child Hath not God strictly forbidden Murder Hath he not always manifested his tender regard to the life of Man And hath he not planted that tender affection in the Heart of a Parent that makes him abhor to embrue his hands in Childs Bloud Therefore surely would Mans Reason say the meaning of this injunction is something else far different from what the words seem to sound there is some more mysterious sense to be found out and a milder interpretation to be made of this Divine Oracle such as may consist with those Notions of God which we are taught by that Internal Light that shines in the Hearts of all Men. It is most rational therefore to interpret it by an Allegory Isaac must be sacrificâ—d in Effigie or a Lamb out of the Flock must have Isaac's name put upon it and so offer'd up to God or according to the notation of his name we must sacrifice that joy and delight that we have had in our Son Isaac wherein perhaps we have exceeded by mortifying our affectious to him and have him hereafter as if we had him not The other instance shall be in the command given by our Saviour to the Rich young Man to sell all and give to the Poor and follow Him in hopes of a Treasure in Heaven We may probably suppose by the Mans turning his back what objections his Reason made against it Are not my Possessions the good Gifts of God and shall I unthankfully cast away what he hath given me I am to love my Neighbor as my self therefore surely not to strip my self of my subsistence to help my Neighbor and so lose the use and benefit of what I have True here is a plain Command But could not this mans Reason have excogitated some hidden Sense to satisfie the Command and yet save his Goods Yes sure had the Man learnt but this new Art of Interpreting that some have got now adays he might have thought within himself That selling all was the disengaging of his affections from them and giving to the poor his relieving them in a convenient proportion so as still to preserve his Estate and follow Christ he might in a good and holy life though he did not always personally attend him But now would not this way of Interpretation in either of the forenamed instances have been a plain eluding of an express command And yet I am sure the bold attempts of some in our Age who are great Pretenders to Reason have in sundry considerable and clear Points of Religion gone as far as this comes to and much further in torturing the Scriptures into a Sense as contrary to that which they fairly give us of themselves as darkness is to light And indeed by the help of this Engine what will not be adventured by audacious Wits that have cast off the awe of God and of