in earnest and pathetical Expressions whether in bewailing of Sin oâ— petitioning for Mercy or Thanksgiving for Blessings received or dispensing the Word of Reconciliation to the People This is sharply censured by the aforesaid Author Lud. Wolzogen as savouring of Enthusiasm or bordering upon Frenzy and cunningly designed for the driving on of some ambitious ends To this I Reply We are commanded to be fervent in spirit serving the Lord and that whatsoever our hand findeth to do we should do it with our might The Psalmist says I cried with my whole heart And even that Heathen Prince to whose Royal City the Prophet Jonah was sent with a threatning message requires his Subjects to cry mightily unto God The Apostle says It is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing And is there any thing so good as that it can better challenge the heighth and heat of our affections and endeavours than Religion in the services whereof we have so immediately to do with God who calls for the heart and hath declared his abhorring of a dull luke-warm temper I grant that it is too possible for Zeal to have its excesses and irregularities And among the rest there is an indiscreet Zeal sometimes appearing in some well-meaning Persons that wants the conduct of a well-order'd Judgment which as I take to be much more pardonable than a careless or prophane indifferency so I conceive it may have ministred some occasion to those vile reproaches that are cast upon all that are seriously and heartily Religious But that fervor of spirit that I undertake for and assert to be not only justifiable but commendable in the Duties of Religion is that which is raised by a right apprehension of the Object about which it is conversant guided by a composed understanding and attended with an humble awful Reverence becoming sinful dust in its appearance before the Great and Holy God Should not Sinners in their addresses to the Most High have their hearts deeply touch'd with sorrow for the sins that they apprehend themselves or others for whom they are concern'd to be guilty of or liable to Doth it become an Offender that is to beg his Pardon to do it in a stupid manner as if he had no more sense of his fault than a Stone or a Brute And what incongruity is it for us in our Petitions for Mercy to have our desires raised to the highest pitch that we can reach Is the pardoning and purifying Grace of Christ of so little worth or use to us as they need be but coldly or carelesly askt as if our words freezed between our lips or as if we did not greatly pass whether we were heard or no Or can we expect that God should hear those Petitions which we our selves scarce feel when they go from us Did ever any Malefactor plead at the Bar for his Life or an hunger-starv'd Begger crave an Alms at the door after this dull and sleepy rate And when we are blessing God for his Benefits should we not with the Psalmist call upon all our powers to praise him And should not those whose work it is to dispense the Word of Life deliver their Message in such a manner as that their Hearers may discern they are in good earnest and that the Word spoken to them is that whereon their Eternal Life or Death depends Is it not requisite that the Servants of Christ should in this work be as is recorded for the honour of Apollos fervent in spirit especially considering the quality of most Hearers who are so hardly raised to a due point of zeal and fervency that as Mr. George Herbert speaks they need a Mountain of Fire to kindle them The said worthy Author adviseth Preachers to make choice of moving and ravishing Texts and to dip and season all their Words and Sentences in their Hearts before they come into their Mouths truly affecting and cordially expressing all that they say so that the Auditors may plainly perceive that every word is heart-deep with other passages of like import In short what cause of blame is it for any in the exercises of Devotion whether publick or private to endeavour what they can to have their own and others hearts affected in some measure suitable to the work in hand and to have their expressions in some due proportion answerable to the affections of their hearts This is all I plead for and the utmost as far as I know that can be charged upon the Generality of the Persons accus'd What some particular here and there may be guilty of I am not concern'd to vindicate That there are many follies and extravagancies in some of all Perswasions he must be a great Stranger in the World that knows not and miserably enslaved to the Interest of a Party that confesseth not But the Lord knows we have all more cause to blame our selves for our coldness and remissness than others can have to blame us for too much fervor I heartily wish that both they and we were all more thorowly Baptized with this Fire But let us a little examine the pretensions of our Accusers As for the charge of Enthusiasm which some make use of to asperse what they dislike in Religion The Word saith a late Learned Author is of it self good but fallen into discredit by the vice of Men for there is an holy Enthusiasm when the Soul is wholly irradiated or enlightened of God But taking it in the worst sense as it is by these Objectors I may say of it as Mr. â—iales of Eaton once said of the words Schism and Heresie that it is made a Theological Scare-Crow For it being inconsistent with some Mens Principles to acknowledge any efficacious supernatural Operations of the Spirit of Grace upon the heart of Man and as contrary to their disposition and practice to be seriously fervent in Religion it becomes their Interest to brand whatsoever lies out of their road with the opprobrious name of Enthusiasm that is as they sometimes explain it a pretence of being acted by the Holy Spirit or a false conceit of Inspiration What the Sect of Enthusiasts was appears sufficiently by the testimony of those Learned Men who have written against them both in former and later times From whom we have this account That those who were censured and condemned by the Church of Christ under that Notion were such as slighted if not rejected the Scriptures as a dead Letter a lame and imperfect Guide insufficient to be the Rule of Faith or Practice in room whereof they profess'd to be acted by Immediate Revelations which they call'd the Internal and Spiritual Word teaching them higher Wisdom than any contain'd in the Scriptures And whatsoever was strongly suggested to them or made any vehement impression upon their minds as that which they thought they should believe or do they embraced it as a Divine Inspiration and Magisterially imposed it upon others were it
not silence but regulate and conduct it There is nothing in Religion but what is perfectly rational and suitable to mans intellectual nature It is to our Rational Powers that the Scriptures are propounded and as our belief of them is one of the highest acts of Reason so it is by our Reason in its due exercise that we search into them not only to find out the signification of the Words and Phrases of Scripture and discern the difference between proper and Figurative Expressions besides many other things that tend to their Verbal Exposition but likewise to observe the dependence of one Clause on another and compare the several parts of Scripture together thereby it is that we gather Consequences from Scripture-Principles and hereby do we instrumentally judge of the Mind of God as signified to us by the Words of Scripture Secondly We also grant That the Principles of Reason have their use about those things in Scripture that are discoverable by Natural Light as that there is a God and that God is to be worshipped that the Soul is Immortal that good is to be done and evil to be avoided and many such like But even in these considered as they are delivered by the Spirit of God in Scripture I think Reason is not Magisterially and Authoritatively to Judge of them being under this notion to be received as the Decrees of a higher Court wherein Man's Reason is but a Servant In this Case therefore Reason only gives in its suffrage and ministerially subscribes by vertue of its own impressed notions to Scripture-Dictates Aquinas propounding a question about Mans believing such things as may be proved by Natural Reason resolves it necessary for Mens more speedy more common and more certain attainment of Divine Knowledge that they should receiveby Faith not only those things that are above Natural Reason but those also that are discernable by Natural Light Whereby he plainly gives the pre-eminency to Revelation above Reason even in the Natural Principles of Religion Thirdly I grant that there is great use of Natural Principles in points of pure Revelation viz. To shew that these are not against sound Reason and to disprove the objections that are made against them from a pretended contrariety to Natural Light It was no small advantage to the Christian Cause in the Primitive Times that the Ancient Fathers in their Apologies for the Doctrine of Christ against the Heathen Philosophers turned their own Weapons upon them and repelled their absurd Cavils by their own acknowledged Maxims Fourthly I further grant that no Sense of Scripture is to be admitted for genuine if we do indeed find it to be certainly inconsistent with or contradictory unto any true and undoubted Principle of Reason For God who is the Author of all truth as well natural as supernatural cannot contradict himself This I confess is a very ticklish point and calls for great wariness and circumspection it being so â—asie and so ordinary for Men to be swayed by Imagination Interest and Prejudice to call that Reason which is as far from being so as midnight is from being high noon And Men may through Ignorance Incogitancy or Perversness suppose a contradiction where there is none Nevertheless this we may safely say that whatsoever is certainly and undeniably proved to be a Principle of Reason there can be nothing in Scripture that really contradicts it But Fifthly The Knot of the Controversie lies here whether Humane Reason by its own Natural Principles or those Philosophical Axioms that are thence deduced as its Supream Commanding Rule must guide and determine us in examining and deciding what is the Sense of those parts of Scripture that are purely of Supernatural Revelation And this is that which is here denied The affirmative is maintained by some and indeed it seems to be the great Helena of that sort of Men who have imbibed the new Divinity of Socinus and the Foundation of all their Heterodoxies upon this account it is that they so vehemently oppose the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead the Eternal Deity of our Lord Jesus the Personality of the Holy Ghost the Doctrines of Original Sin of the Satisfaction of Christ and Justification by his imputed Righteousness with sundry other material points that are commonly called to the Bar of Humane Reason by these Doctors of the Racovian Faith Not that they have any sound Reason on their side for their Novelties are extremely irrational as hath been abundantly demonstrated by those judicious Authors that have dealt with them But trusting to their own Reason and its Dictates in matters so far above Nature this hath led them into these dangerous precipices True it is whether in pretence to blind the Eyes of others or out of the conviction of Truth or out of the usual fate of Error to contradict it self these Men sometimes let fall that which carries with it a fair appearance of disclaiming the Judgment of Reason in Matters of Faith as may be seen in their great Master Socinus And such passages in him and his followers may possibly give some colour to the Exercitator to charge the Reformed Divines with wronging the Socinians in saying they make Mans Reason the Rule of Interpretation for himself seems to be ambitious of the honour of finding this out and it may be they have no where asserted it in Terminis or spoken it out so broadly as this Gentleman hath done But notwithstanding all this flourish when they argue against the forementioned Doctrines received upon clear Scripture-warrant by all the Christian Churches in the World from the beginning of Christianity their grand objection is drawn from Reason to which they appeal in all these Controversies as to their Oracle and thereupon set their Wits at work to wrest and winde the Scriptures alledged in defence of those Doctrines every way they can imagine to evade their plain meaning and fasten on them a Sense of their own making suitable to their beloved Maxims Besides many other passages there are of that Party that discover what their Mind is in this point But these are not the first that set this presumptuous Doctrine on foot I find it laid to the charge of the Manichees as irrational and absurd as their Conceptions were that they professedly suspended the Articles of Faith upon the judgment of Reason and required Men to believe nothing but what they could prove by Reason So much we learn from him who was once one of them but happily delivered out of their snare CHAP. II. 1. The first Argument disabling Reason and Philosophy for being the Scriptures Interpreter from the condition of Mans depraved Reason in this lapsed State 2. The Apostles Words in 1 Cor. 2. 14. urged and vindicated from some Mens mistaken Glosses 3. The Argument enforced from the foul mastakes of the most Rational among the Heathen in matters of Religion NOW that Reason or Philosophy cannot in the Sense given be the Scriptures Interpreter
Resurrection of the same numerical Body proved against the Exercitator to be asserted in Scripture THE Exercitators next Work is to answer the great Argument which he says some urge against his opinion viz. Philosophy and consequently Humane Reason asserts many things that are repugnant to Divinity and the Scriptures and therefore they cannot be allow'd for the Rule of Interpreting Scripture He denies the Antecedent and so do I. What Authors they be in the Reformed Churches that thus argue I know not But this I know that it is no uncommon thing for pugnacious Wits to draw the Sword upon the shadow of a Dream and make Hector-like declamations against Utopian Adversaries Set aside those Authors who are engaged by some Atheological Hypothesis which they have espoused as the Papists and the Lutherans in the Doctrine of the Eâ—charist I know not any Man of Learning and Understanding who hath such a thought that there is any thing in Scripture derogatory or contradictory to true Philosophy or Sound Reason or that believes any thing true in Philosophy to be false in Divinity Whatsoever is true any where is true every where Here therefore our Author may put up his Dagger But there is one thing which I cannot well pass over That the Exercitator pretending to confute those who assert a contrariety between the Principles of Philosophy and Divinity and instancing in these two Ex nihilo nihil fit and Idem non potest numericè reproduci Instead of solving the knot he cuts it and plainly affirms both these Principles to be true absolutely and without limitation both in Philosophy and Divinity confidently asserting that the Scripture doth no where teach us That the World was made of nothing or that the same numerical Body shall rise at the last day And here Wolzogen unworthily deserts the Christian Cause not vouchsafing to write one word in vindication of these grand Truths against this bold Adversary but tells us he is content the Man should enjoy his own opinion though he says he could easily have refuted him Which makes his silence the more inexcusable and brings him under greater suspition of Heterodoxy notwithstanding all his Rhetorical Flourishes But it is time I should return to our Author who if he had not been too much in love with Novelty might without the least prejudice to his Cause unless it have some other Monster in the Belly of it that is not yet come to the birth have answered that these Axioms are true in a limited Sense both in Philosophy and Divinity viz. That by a finite created Power nothing can be made of nothing and that by the like limited power the same numerical Body that perisheth cannot be reproduced But that nevertheless to an infinite Power all things that imply not contradiction are possible But it seems by this Authors words that he disowns the received Doctrine of the worlds Creation out of Nothing and the Reproduction of the same individual Body 1. By denying the former he must necessarily maintain the Eternity of Preexistent Matter whereas if God be the Maker of all Beings besides himself as the Scripture sufficiently assures us then nothing besides himself could be Eternal but he must in making the World make the Matter whereof the World consists which Matter therefore must be made of nothing The first Article in the most ancient Creeds as the Reverend Bishop of Chester hath observed had instead of these words Maker of Heaven and Earth or together with them this Clause The Maker of all things visible and invisible agreeably to that of the Apostle Coloss. 1. 16. which distribution is so comprehensive that it will not admit of any Exception all things whatsoever being either visible or invisible and whatsoever can be supposed necessary to the making of the World it must of necessity come under one of these two Members of the distribution and consequenly be of Gods making And indeed if it were otherwise then something else besides God must have a necessary uncreated independent Being which carries with it so broad a Contradiction as Mans Reason left fair to it self cannot allow Again 2. By disclaiming the latter this Author evidently denies the Resurrection for that imports the rising again of the same Body that fell according to that known Speech of Damascen so oft cited by our Divines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if the same numerical Body rise not but another is made de novo for the Soul to animate this is not a Resurrection but a new Creation and then the first Creation of the World may as aptly be called a Resurrection as that which is so stiled by the Holy Ghost in Scripture But I think the Scripture speaks plain enough in this Case though this Author will not own it when it says that at the last day This corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality And that our Lord Jesus Christ shall then change our vile Body that it may be made like unto his glorious Body And that If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in us he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken our mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in us Add to this that Argument from the description of the place whence the Resurrection shall begin which I cannot better represent to the Reader than in the words of the learned Bishop of Chester They which sleep in the dust of the Earth Dan. 12. 2. and they which are in the Graves Joh. 5. 28. shall hear the Voice and Rise And Rev. 20. 13. The Sea shall give up the dead which are in it and Death and the Grave deliver up the dead which are in them But if the same Bodies did not Rise they which are in the dust should not revive If God should give us any other Bodies than our own neither the Sea nor the Grave should give up their dead That shall Rise again which the Grave gives up the Grave hath nothing to give up but that Body which was laid into it therefore the same Body which is Buried shall at the last day be revived And whereas the Socinians who are our Adversaries in this as well as in many other Articles of our Faith to evade this Argument will have the Graves spoken of in Joh 5. 28. to be the Graves of ignorance and impiety there meant and the Rising to be Mens coming to the knowledge of Christ c. the aforesaid learned Person answers them That Christ expresly speaks of bringing Men to Judgement vers 27. and divides those that are to come out of their Graves into two Ranks vers 29. neither of which can be so understood The first are those which have done good before they come out of their Graves these therefore could not be the Graves of Ignorance and Impiety from which no good can come The second are such who have done evil
What can be the meaning of this that these Principles are written in our Minds I cannot understand any further than this that there is begotten in our Minds a clear perception and firm perswasion of them But the great Question will be By what Act doth God write these in our Minds or beget in us this perception and perswasion of them Surely they will not say that when God creates the Soul of Man this perception or perswasion of these Principles is concreated by him in and with the Soul for if so how is it that during our Infant-state we are such strangers to them and do so continue till we come gradually by observation and experience to be acquainted with them And when we come to discern them and to be perswaded of them how come we to be assured that they are of God There must be some difference between the Testimony and the Thing testified The Principles of Reason are supposed to be the Res testata the Thing testified But what is the Testimony or the Actus Testificandi My perception or perswasion cannot be it for if so then whatsoever I perceive and am fully perswaded of I must believe to come from God and what will that come to at last These Principles of Reason are not Complex Propositions form'd by God in our Minds or suggested to us by a Divine Afflatus this would make every Man an Enthusiast The best account I can give of them is that they are such General Truths as have their foundation in the nature of things and their mutual habitudes and respects which our Reason apprehending doth therein discover the aforesaid Principles thence resulting And because it is God alone who gives to all things their several Beings and constitutes them in such and such habitudes each to other and hath given us our Reason whereby we are enabled to discern them therefore he is said to be the Author of those Principles which lie fundamentally in his Workmanship And we do not take them for Truthus upon the credit of any foregoing testimony that God gives to us of them but we assent to them propter evidentiam râ—i because our Reason sees them perfectly agreeable to the nature of things and thereby finding them to be certainly true thence it gathers that they are of God from whom all Truth comes But now the method of Faith is widely different from this Here we first own the testimony of God speaking in the Scriptures and thence we are perswaded that what the Scripture speaks is true and so we come to embrace the many severals therein asserted by yielding a particular assent to them as we find them But will some say before we believe the Scriptures we must be convinced by Reason that these Scriptures are of God Very true but the effect of such a conviction is not properly Faith but Knowledge And when I know by satisfying Grounds of Reason that the Scripture is indeed the Voice of God then do I by Faith assent to what that speaks as Gods testimony And whereas there are some Truths which are knowable in some measure by Natural Light and yet are revealed likewise in the Scripture it is commonly and truly said by our Divines that as they are received by Natural Light and upon Rational Grounds so they are the Objects of Science but as they are revealed in the Scripture so and only so they are the Objects of Faith which as the Apostle tells us is the evidence of things not seen that is of things not discernable by Natural Light whether of Sense or Reason or at least that are not consider'd as such when we receive them as Objects of Faith which therefore is call'd the evidence of them because it discerns the truth and reality of them in the infallible testimony of the Revealer Now besides what hath been already said it may further be proved that Reason is not any part of the Rule of Faith For 1. Were this granted it would necessarily follow that Scripture of it self is an imperfect Rule and if so it is no Rule at all That cannot be own'd for a Rule that is not adequate and commensurate to what is to be regulated by it The known description of a Rule given by Varinus and so frequently quoted by our best Authors hath never that I know of been questioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Rule or Canon is an immutable Law and an unerring Measure which at no hand will admit of addition or diminution This is one great Argument used by our Protestant Writers to shut out Popish Traditions from being any part of the Rule of Faith because the Scripture is a perfect and sufficient Rule of it self and must be so or else it cannot be a Rule at all Of which the Reader may see enough for his satisfaction in the Learned Bishop of Down his Ductor Dubitantium Lib. 2. Cap. 3. Rule 14. p. 359 c. And the Argument is every whit as good to exclude Reason as Tradition in this case And that the Scripture is a perfect discovery of the Mind of God so far as is necessary for us to know it I have proved before in my first Argument 2. The Principles of Reason as I have formerly shewed in the proof of my first Proposition have no formal existence any where but in the Minds or Writings of fallible Men considering them as separate from the Scriptures for set the Bible aside there is no Infallible and Authentick Record of those Principles to which we can have recourse And this utterly disables them for being so much as a partial Rule of a Christians Faith 3. Principles of Natural Reason let us suppose them never so fixt and infallible are wholly aliene to matters of supernatural Revelation which are the proper Object of Faith And to measure these by them were as ridiculous as to attempt by a Carpenters Rule to take the distance of the Heavens or to spread a Fowlers Net to catch the Winds However therefore there is as hath been already acknowledged and maintain'd great use of Reason and its Principles in subordination and instrumental subserviency to the knowledge of Divine Matters yet that it is in any degree to be owned as the Rule of our Faith must not will not cannot be allowed by any that are true to the Christian Cause CHAP. XII An Exception of the Exercitator grounded upon a distinction of the Scriptures taken materially or formally propounded and the folly and fallacy of it detected BUt here the Exercitator gives us a distinction which he makes often use of as being very fit for his turn That the Scripture is taken either materially and so it signifies no more but the bare Words Phrases and Sentences of Scripture or formally and so it signifies the sense and meaning of these Words and Sentences Now says he when we say the Scripture is the Rule of Faith we do not mean the bare words but the
of Scripture may have correspondency with another and this so far as that the one may expound the other But now the case is alter'd If it be replied in his behalf That these places by him quoted were penned by one and the same Writer and therefore might well have correspondency each with other but this makes nothing for those who interpret one part of Scripture by some other that was not written by the same Hand I rejoin That the first and second Book of Kings were endited by the same Spirit I grant and shall make some use of it in my third Answer to this Authors Objection But that they were both written by the same Hand or suppose they were that the Writer intended by the latter to explain what he had written in the former is more than he or any other for him can prove 3. The Scriptures though written by parts and at several times and by several persons yet they all own God for their Author by whose Spirit they were endited and they are all together to be taken for his Counsel to Sinners And then what injury or incongruity is there in making use of what one hath written more plainly to unfold what was more darkly written by another When we compare the Evangelists together to explain what one says more briefly by what another lays down more fully we do not in this so much inquire into the sense and meaning of the Evangelists as into the Mind of God whose Secretaries they were The like may be said of the Prophets If the Prophets or Apostles spake of their own heads or wrote only a signification of their own private Sentiments there might be some colour for this Objection But the Apostle tells us That no Prophesie of Scripture is of private Interpretation that is the Prophets in their Writings were not the Interpreters of their own Mind but of the Mind of God by whom they were sent and by whose Spirit they were acted as it follows in the next Verse For Prophesie came not in old time by the will of man but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost And thus much the Exercitator acknowledgeth where he saith That God is the Author of the Scriptures and that he did always guide his Amanuenses to write the Truth giving them the assistance of his unerring Spirit and that whatsoever they wroteâ—… pure Truth free from all mixture of Fâ—â—shood or Errour But there is another Discourse prefixed to a latter Edition of the so oft-mentioned Exercitation and thought by many to come from the same Author the Writer whereof sticks not to assert this audacious Falshood That the Prophets in their Narkatives and in all matters of Speculation that is whatsoever was not matter of moral Duty did disagree among themselves and â—onsequently that what is said by one is not to be explained by the words of another Which with other passages of like import does at once call in question the whole Truth and consequently the Divine Authority of the Scriptures For if the Pâ—â—men of Scripture elash one against another in their Writings either God was not the Author of whâ—â— they wrote but themselves or the God of Truth must be charged with Falshood for of two diâ—…ent Opinions both cannot be true Whose design it is that the Author of that Theologico-Political Tractat drives except that of the great Enemy of Mankind I know not But he sufficiently manifests a vile esteem of the Holy Scriptures and a desire to beget the like in others For he takes very earnest pains with the utmost of his art and skill to â—â—ke up and exagitate their seeming disagreements as real contradictions casting a great deal of scorn upon all Expositors as Fools or Madmen that attempt to reconcile them His discourse in this and sundry other odious passages which I abâ—or to mention doth apparently tend to promote the cause of the Antiscripturists besides the help 〈◊〉 affords which is not a little to the Romish Interest The Author indeed would seem by some Expressions here and there to intimate his dislike of the Ponâ—ifician Party But we know it is consistent enough with the Politick Principles of Men of that way to speak much more than he hath done against that very Cause that they are studiously projecting under that Covert to advance But I return from this Digression to what I was about If any thing in the Laws of a Kingdom be difficult and perplex and there be something in some other Law of the same Kingdom though written or printed by other hands that speaks more clearly of that matter what wrong is it to the Law or the Law-maker or Printer if a Learned Council comparing one with another expound that which is more dark in one part of the Laws by that which is more perspicuous in another both proceeding from the same Authority and both obliging to the same persons Judge alike in the present case This Objection therefore is of no force But it is further urged That there are some difficult places of Scripture that are no where explained in any other part and some things that being but once spoken in Scripture cannot be explained by any parallel place And here our â—â—ercitator refers us for instances to his great Friend Stapleton For answer 1. Whereas it is said there are difficulties in some parts of Scripture that are no where cleared how does any Man know this Doth it follow that there is no such thing because we cannot find it Do we think our selves of so piercing or capacious understandings that nothing in the Scripture that is intelligible can escape our discovery Those who have acquainted themselves with Antient and Modern Expositors do know that many difficulties which former Interpreters have in vain struggled with and some that they have wholly left untoucht either as not apprehending them to be difficulties or conceiving them insuperable have been made very clear and plain by some later Writers Verily God will have us know that the opening of his Mind doth not depend only or chiefly upon the pregnancy of Mans Wit but upon his gracious assistance and blessing which he affords or withholds when and where himself sees fit Again the Scriptures were penn'd not only for the past and present but for all succeeding Ages of the Church to the end of the World And as some parts of them which peculiarly concern'd some Ages past were perhaps better understood in those Ages than they can be by us now as certainly many things were that belong'd to the Jewish Oeconomy so I know not but we may rationally suppose that some other parts of Scripture which to us seem unintelligible may have special reference to the Church in after-Ages and that those whom they so nearly concern shall have more light afforded for the understanding of them in their days than we have in ours As without doubt some Prophetick Scriptures not