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
Interpreter preclude them 3. Were this Argument allowed it would for ever debarr us from alledging Scripture against the Romanists in any Controversie that we have with them it being notorious to all Men that this is one great difference betwixt us and them who must be the Supreme Interpreter of Scripture which they challenge as the Priviledge of their Church and we ascribe to the Scripture it self But it is a miserable Plea that this Author makes elsewhere for himself viz. That he had to do with one whom he esteemed to be no Christian but an Heathen for so he accounts the Exercitator who would no more regard the Testimony of Scripture in this Case than a Jew would regard any proof from the New Testament and therefore it was that he declined dealing with him about those Testimonies from Scripture It seems then he would make the World believe that what he had said about this was onely spoken ad hominem By which it plainly appears that our Author began to see he could not stand his ground but was not so ingenuous as to confess his Error and therefore runs behind this Bush to hide himself For 1. His Words which I quoted before out of his Book De Scripturarum Interprete do evidently shew that he speaks according to his own Mind that it was a preposterous thing in this Controversie to alledge the Testimony of Scripture and that in this Case no such proof was to be allowed see him page 217. 219. and 247. and not only so but alledges the Reasons beforementioned such as they are for this wilde Position 2. He knows very well that the Jews to whom he compares his Antagonist do not at all own the Authority of the new Testament but professedly reject it Whereas the Exercitator whatever his Religion be does avowedly own the Divine Authority of the Scripture and delcares himself willing to be dealt with in that way in that he cites our Divines Arguments from thence and endeavors to answer them for which this Author reproves him So that the case is not the same And yet I appeal to the Authors Reason Should any Jewish Writer either cite any Testimonies out of the New Testament for himself or endeavor by his own Interpretations to evade any Testimonies thence alledged against him which is plainly the Case here whether should a Christian that pretends to answer him do well to say That the New Testament is not here to be heard and that it were a preposterous thing to alledge it Should he not rather endeavor to answer the objections that are made and clear the places cited And if in case he should do as this Author doth here might he not justly be condemned for a Betrayer of the Christian Cause If it be said that though the Exercitator acknowledge the Divine Authority of the Scriptures yet he holds them to be universally ambiguous and obscure further than Humane Reason expounds them and therefore it was to no purpose to use Scripture to him till they had agreed about the Rule of Interpretation I answer The Exeroitator does indeed charge the Scripture with obscurity because of its ambiguity but it is upon this ground because hesays all words whatsoever are ambiguous If therefore this should shut out the Scripture from bearing witness in the Controversie then all Arguments from Reason must upon the same account be excluded too for they must be made up of Words and Phrases the ambiguity whereof according to the Exercitators Doctrine will render them obscure as well as the Scripture Come we now to speak something to the Scriptures alledged by our Divines which the Exercitator labors to evade But methinks it is a pleasant thing to see how he betrays his own Cause by acting against his own Method and Principles For having all along cried up Philosophy as the onely Interpreter of Scripture when himself comes interpret the Scriptures brought against him one would think he should bring his own Tools to this Work and labor by Philosophick Principles to make out the Sense that he gives of these Scriptures But he waves this and seeks to fetch out his own Sense from the Scripture it self by examining the Antecedents and Consequents and the Authors scope Now he either takes this way of Interpretation to be right or he does not If he do not he doth but juggle with his Reader and designs to cheat him but if he do indeed think it to be right he yields the Cause that not Philosophy but the Scripture it self is the Rule of Interpretation Now for the Scriptures alledged The first is that in 1 Cor. 1. 19 20 21. where the Apostle speaks very contemptibly of Humane Wisdom the like may besaid of the next 1 Cor. 2. 6. Now in these places saith the Exercitator the Apostle does not go about to deny or condemn true Wisdom but the earthly sensual Wisdom of the World that is grounded upon vain opinions and puts Men upon the eager pursuit of earthly things such as Riches and Honors and Sensual Pleasures I answer The Apostle having to do with those who thought meanly of the Doctrine of Christ Crucified and affected a name for that which the world counted Wisdom endeavors to lay all Humane Wisdom in the dust and to discover its insufficiency to conduct man to true happiness for which he prefers the Doctrine of the Gospel which was so derided as foolishness above that which the World so much admired This therefore is no impertinent allegation against the Exercitators opinion That in 1 Cor. 2. 14. I have already pressed in the prosecution of my first Argument and have vindicated it from the corrupt glosses that some have put upon it The last is that in Coloss. 2. 8. Beware lest any man spoil you through Philosophy and vain deceit Here saith the Exercitator the Apostle doth not condemn sound Philosophy but that which is vain and useless I answer Undoubtedly he doth not condemn Philosophy truely so called But he gives a caution to take heed of being deceived by it as Men may be when the use of it is extended beyond its Line and is not kept within its own proper Bounds Thus saith our learned Davenant Philosophy or Humane Reason which is the Mother of Philosophy is always found vain and deceitfull when it is carried beyond its proper limits That is says he when it attempts to determine of those things that fall not under the cognisance of Natural Reason such are those that belong to the Worship of God and to the Salvation of Man as the Points of Justification Reconciliation with God and other Matters of Faith that are above the reach of Reason and depend altogether upon Divine Revelation CHAP. XVII 1. That Sound Philosophy asserts nothing contrary to Scripture granted 2. Two Principles instanced in and Wolzogen's Tergiversation taxed 3. The two great Articles of the Creation of all things out of nothing and the
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
in them that may exercise the study of the ablest understandings Now in our searching out the Mind of God in Scripture especially in those darker places the question is what course we are to take and by what Rule we must be guided that we may not bewilder our selves or wrong the Scriptures by our mistakes To prepare the way for a Resolution of this Question I must briefly premise somewhat touching these three Terms the Scripture the Interpretation of Scripture and the Rule of that Interpretation The Scripture we speak of is the entire Volume of Holy Writ containing all those Books both of the Old and New Testament that are generally acknowledged to be Canonical Whereby I mean not the Words or Phrases of Scripture taken singly by themselves but as they are conjoin'd in Propositions or Sentences and as those Propositions stand in such a contexture and with such a dependence on and relation to what goes before and after and as in this Frame and Order they are the Instrument of declaring the Mind of God to Men. Now whereas the whole Scripture though it have the same Divine Original and be directed to the same ultimate end yet contains in it great variety of Matter Doctrine History Prophesie c. It is the two former that we are especially concern'd in and therefore shall wave the Prophetick part what is yet â—…fulfill'd further than it may fall in with any of the other the best and most convincing Interpreter of Prophesies being the event unless God should beforehand unfold them by extraordinary Inspiration which we have not in our days any ground to expect It is therefore the Doctrinal and Historical parts of Scripture that I chiefly intend in this Debate Interpretation is either Verbal or Real The former is all one with that which is commonly called Translation This I shall not meddle with further than as it is a necessary requisite to the latter which is usually called Exposition which is the opening of the true Sense of Scripture or unfolding the Mind of God signified to us by those Words and Sentences of Scripture that we are searching into Now we here suppose two things which to a sober and considerate Reader need no proof First That the Scriptures are not a heap of insignificant Words or unsens'd Characters as some late Romanists who cry up Oral Tradition for the only Rule of Faith so great is the power of prejudice and partial Interest have ridiculously and profanely affirm'd but that they have a true sense Originally and Essentially in themselves given them by their Author when they were first indited To deny or question this were to impute that to the most Wise God that common Civility forbids us to charge upon any man of ordinary understanding Secondly That the Sense of Scripture is fixt and immutable not varying with the times or altering according to the differing practice of the Church which was most absurdly asserted by Cardinal Cusanus in Epistola contra Bohemos as I find it attested by many credible Authors the Sense of Scripture is no other than what it always had and ever will have to the Worlds end The next thing to be considered is the Rule of Interpretation By which we can understand no more than the Measure by agreement or disagreement to which we judge of the Sense of the Scripture whether it be right or wrong whether it be indeed what it pretends the true Sense of the Scripture under Inquiry or a mistaken Sense unduely fasten'd upon it Or in fewer words the Rule of Interpretation is that which gives us the objective Evidence by which the true Sense of Scripture is discern'd and for which it is received Here let it be observ'd that it is one thing to inquire what means we are to use in searching out the Sense of Scripture and another what is the Rule that must guide us in determining what that Sense is For though the Rule he also a Means yet every thing that is to be used as a Means hath not the place of a Rule The Means are many the Rule but one understanding it not of any subordinate or Ministerial Rule but of that which is Supream and Autocratorical For that is the Rule under our present inquiry The Means subservient to the Interpretation of Scripture are either General or Special The General are two Méditation and Prayer 1. There must be a fixed intending of the Mind to consider of what we either read in or hear from the Scripture and of whatsoever we meet with that may help us to understand it This the Psalmist speaks of as the daily practice of every Holy-Blessed Man Psal. 1. 1 2. and professeth it of himself Psal. 119 15. 97. But secondly there is need of Prayer also for Divine Assistance to enable us to understand the Mind of God aright This the Psalmist used Psal. 119. 18. 19 26 27 73. Though he had the Copy of the Law by him according to that command of God which we have upon Record in Deut. 17. 18 19. and did use daily to read it and meditate on it yet he thought not this enough but begs of God to have his Eyes opened c. When our Saviour discoursed with his Disciples after his Resurrection concerning Himself and his Sufferings it is said Luke 24. 45. that he opened their Undestandings that they might understand the Scriptures He did not only open the Scriptures by External Instruction as it is said before vers 27 and 32. But as the Learned Grotius observes upon the place he opened their Minds by the Internal Illumination of his Spirit This the Apostle prays for in the behalf of the Ephesians and Colossians Eph. 1. 16 17 18. Col. 1. 9. though they had the Doctrine of the Scripture already published to them And the same Apostle writing to Timothy having exhorted him to consider what he had said to him he adds this Prayer for him The Lord give thee understanding in all things I would gladly suppose there are none that call themselves Christians but do own the need and use of Prayer for the understanding of Gods Will which necessarily carries with it an interpretative acknowledgement of the need we have of something from God above our natural abilities to understand the Scriptures And I do profess my self to have had the better and more honourable esteem of that great Schoolman Thomas Aquinas since I read this of him that it was his manner whensoever he was either to study in private or discourse in publick to pray fervently to God for assistance that he might learn of Him what he was to teach others and that he did candidly acknowledge in secret to his intimate Friend Reginaldus that what Divine Knowledge he had was attained by Prayer more than by any humane Wit or Labor But whose expects success in seeking Divine Assistance it behoves him to bring with him a meek and humble Heart awed with the holy fear and
own Will And if our Reason will not rest satisfied with that it will but weary it self in fruitless inquiries and dangerously miscarry by its bold determinations For instance what account can our Reason give why God should provide a Saviour for lost Man and none for the lapsed Angels Why he should cloath his only begotten Son with our dishonoured nature and expose him to so bitter Sufferings for the Sin of Man Why he should 〈…〉 severely punish the Crucifiers of his Son when what they did was fore-determined by himself in order to Mans Salvation And why he should suffer so much wickedness to be done which himself hates and could if he pleased by his Almighty Power hinder These and many more such instances might be given wherein Mans Reason is puzzl'd as not finding any thing wherein it can acquiesce but the Will and pleasure of God that thus it should be Again God requires we should believe him upon his naked Word though we know not which way that which he says can be And accordingly he so manifests to us his Mind that he will not gratifie our vanity or pride in resolving the queries and satisfying the objections that our curiosity may start about the Truth revealed It is enough for us to know what he hath said and to take it upon the Authority of his word without asking how or why And it is indeed the highest Reason imaginable that we should give absolute credit to what he speaks God's Sovereignty saith the learned Lord Verulam reaches to the whole Man extending itself no less to his Reason than his Will so that it well becomes man to deny himself universally and yield up all to him Wherefore as we are bound to obey the Law of God notwithstanding the reluctancy of our Will so are we also to believe his Word though against the reluctancy of our Reason I shall conclude this with the Words of the learned Grotius who having asserted the Doctrines of Scripture to be no way contrary to sound Reason but agreeable thereunto he he hath this remarkable passage Ultra haec pro comperto aliquid affirmare aut de Dei natura aut de ejus voluntate solo ductu humanae rationis c. How dangerous and deceitfull a thing it is to affirm any thing for certain either of the Nature or Will of God beyond what we have in Holy Writ by the sole conduct of Humane Reason we are taught by the many dissentient opinions not only of Schools but of particular Philosophers among themselves Nor is this any great wonder for if they ran out into very differing apprehensious when they disputed about the nature of their own Mind much more must it needs be so with those who are desirous to determine any thing concerning that Supreme Mind that is so far above us If prudent Men count it dangerous to search into the Counsels of Kings which by all our search we cannot discover who is there so sagacious as can hope by his own conjectures to find out what God will do among those things that depend upon his meer pleasure CHAP. V. A third Argument from the absurdity of resolving a Mans Faith into himself and his own Reason IN the third place If the Sense of Scripture be to be regulated and determined by Natural Principles then the last resolution of a Mans Faith in those points as to the formal object of it will be into Man himself and the dictate of his own Reason For the ultimate reason or ground of our believing in this case will not be the veracity of God speaking in the Scripture but the Voice of our own Reason persuading us from its own Principles when we can see nothing in the Words of Scripture to require it And this plainly falls in with the absurd conceit of the Quakers who commonly profess to own nothing that is laid down in the Bible as the Mind of God but what is witnessed by the light within them Which is no more in other terms than this That they will take nothing from the Scripture but what is agreeable to their own Reason For the light they speak of with which they say every Man comes into the World for which they alledge that in Joh. 1. 9. is nothing else but Mans Reason and the common notions of it which though some of them have heretofore denied yet now their chief Heads and Leaders do openly avow And this is that which they make the standing Rule of what they believe and practise and not the Holy Scriptures We rather say with an ancient Schoolman Apud Aristotelem argumentum est ratio rei dubiae faciens fidem sed apud Christum argumentum est fides faciens rationem The way of arguing in Aristotle's School is by Reason begetting assent but in Christ's School it is by Faith which is instead of all Reason CHAP. VI. A fourth Argument from another absurdity viz. That in Matters of pure Revelation the Mind of God may be better known by Natural Light than by Scripture Or that all supernatural Revelation is to be shut out FOurthly It will follow from this supposal That in matters of pure Revelation the Mind of God may be better known by the common principles of Natural Light than by the Holy Scriptures which carries with it a palpable contradiction For matters of pure Revelation are supposed to be supernatural and if these as laid down in Scripture cannot be understood from the Scripture it self but must have such a Sense given them as the Maxim of Natural Reason shall determine then certainly it is not Revelation but Reason that discovers them And so what need will there be of Scripture Indeed this conceit looks very like that absurd dotage of Weigelius if it be not the same with it that Mans knowledge of all things whatsoever must be fetcht from within himself not from without Tenôris says he omnia nôris omnia enim es non minus quam Deus Which besides many other prodigious absurdities plainly shuts out all supernatural Revelation And that this lies at the bottom of the Exercitators Discourse I find reason enough to suspect if not conclude For besides what he says in his sixth Chapter the first Paragraph which I shall wave insisting on in his Epilogue at the end of his Book he propounds an Objection against his whole Discourse viz. That if Philosophy be the Rule of Interpreting the Holy Scripture then the Scripture is useless and written to no purpose for seeing the truth of all the Senses of Scripture which are to be search'd out and tryed by Philosophy must first be perceived before they be drawn out and examined to what end is it that we should have recourse to Scripture to learn any thing from it This is the Objection which himself makes against his own Position In answer whereto he runs out into a long Harangue of words and as his manner is propounds a frivolous
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
of its own Interpretation CHAP. X. A second Argument from God's being the Author of Philosophy answered EVery one saith the Exercitator is the best Interpreter of his own Words and God being the Author of Philosophy to him is to be ascribed whatever Interpretation is made of the Scripture by the Maxims of Philosophy and consequently that is to be owned as the Rule of Interpretation But this is a strange way of Argumentation in a Man that pretends to Reason If he have no better skill in Expounding than he hath in Arguing he will not gain many Proselites to his Interpretations of Scripture amongst understanding and considerate Men. For 1. This Argument may with full as much or more strength be retorted upon him and that two ways First If because God is the Author of Philosophy therefore Philosâ—phy must unfold all the difficulties in Scripture Will it not as well follow that seeing God is the unquestionable Author of the Scriptures therefore the Scriptures are to resolve all the difficulties in Philosophy If it be said that the Scriptures are not designed for any such end nor fitted for such an use as to untie the knots of Philosophy their use and design is of greater and higher concernment I answer neither is Philosophy designed to clear doubts in matters of Supernatural Revelation its use being limited to matters of an inferior Orb. Again we may thus also retort the Argument If God be the best Interpreter of his own Mind then doubtless the best Interpretation of his Mind is to be fetcht from that which is the onely certain and undoubted Record of his Mind and that is the Scripture Secondly That God is the Author of all true and sound Philosophy I grant nor needed the Exercitator to have given himself the trouble of spending so many lines to prove it But I must mind him of some few things to rectifie his mistakes 1. He is widely out in supposing that the Wisdom spoken of in the Scriptures by him alledged is no other than Philosophy The Holy Ghost in most if not all of those places speaks of something higher and more excellent than meer Natural Knowledge 2. Whereas among other Humane Testimonies that the Author heaps up to prove Philosophy to be of God he brings in Lucretius lib. 5. de rerum natura the learned Vogelsangius hath discovered his shameful mistake telling him that the God whom Lucretius there means when he says Deus ille fuit Deus inclyte Memmi Qui Princeps vitae rationem invenit eam quae Nunc appellatur Sapientia c. is no other than Epicurus and must Epicurus's Philosophy be the Scriptures Interpreter 3. This I must add by way of limitation to my former concession that God is not so the Author of Philosophy as he is of the Scripture He is so far the Author of the Scripture as that he hath infallibly directed his Servants in penning its several Parts and preserved them from Error in that Work But he is not so the Author of Philosophy as infallibly to direct any Man in the World so as not to Err in his Philosophy Here therefore is a very great difference and seeing that this Philosophy which we acknowledge so far as it is sound and true to be God's Gift is no where to be found but in the Minds or Writings of fallible Men by what certain Rule shall we judge of the Maxims of Philosophy in matters of Religion whether they be undoubtedly true or no Or which way shall we be assured that the aforesaid Maxims supposing them to be unquestionably true are duely applied to the matter in controversie Whither shall we go in this case to find out such solid satisfaction as may give sufficient ground for that Divine Faith that we certainly owe to the Doctrine of Scripture Thirdly Suppose what is not that we had a clear and perfect Model or System of Sound Philosophy to have recourse to so as we may truly say of it that it is all and every Part and Particle of it of Divine Original and so complete that there is no defect in it yet still we must remember that Philosophy hath its Bounds and discovers nothing to us but those necessary Truths which fall within the compass of nature and so far we might take it for the Voice of God But as for Supernatural Verities the being and discovery whereof depend upon Gods absolute Will and Arbitrary Revelation He never intended that Philosophy should be our guide in these But here we are to keep solely and wholly to what he hath said in the Scriptures CHAP. XI A third Argument from the supposed Sufficiency of Philosophy to Interpret Scripture answered WHatsoever saith the aforesaid Author is necessary to the Rule of Interpretation perfectly agrees to Philosophy and the Principles of Reason For they are undoubtedly true free from all danger of Error and therefore cannot deceive being grounded upon unmoveable Foundations admitting no appeals impartial not inclined to this or that side in a word so sure and undoubted that they will force assent provided they be not bended or swayed by Mens prejudices or vicious inclinations But as I said before where is this Philosophy to be found If it be any where how comes it to pass that those who have in all Ages been most devoted to the study of it and most perspicacious and successfull in searching the secrets of it have yet in many things especially that concerning Religion so foully erred and have been at so great odds not onely one with another but each with himself Certain it is that the Principles of Reason and Philosophy let them be never so Sound and Stable yet they can prevail upon none any further than they are received into the Mind and they are no where received but according to the disposition and capacity of the Subject the darkness and imperfection of whose Understanding much alters the conception of the soundest Principles Besides my third Answer to the precedent Argument will serve here for let Philosophy be never so infallible it must be kept within its own proper sphere and not be applied to matters Supernatural that are wholly out of its road and above its reach Of all Parts of Philosophy the Mathematicks are generally esteemed the most demonstrative and irrefragable But if any should attempt by Mathematical Principles to Interpret what the Scripture hath reveal'd about the Creation of the World the Incarnation of Christ the Resurrection of the Body the Believers Union with Christ or the like he might well be deem'd to stand in need of a large Dose of Hellebore CHAP. XII A fourth Argument from the nature of a clear distinct Perception answered BUt says the Exercitator there is no clear and distinct perception of a thing but it begets an intimate persuasion in the Conscience of the Truth of what is so perceived which Perception and Persuasion coming from God as the
Cause it may not unfitly be call'd the Persuasion Dictate Testimony Inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God which Divines commonly but mistakingly ascribe to that which they call Supernatural Light out of their low esteem of Reason and that Natural Light that is in every Man This I confess the Author doth not make use of among the Arguments that he produceth to defend his Cause yet because it tends to beget a conceit according to the drift of his Discourse that what Men apprehend themselves to have a clear knowledge of by Reason or Philosophy is infallibly certain and thereby qualified for the sure Interpreting of Scripture I thought fit not to pass it over without some Animadversion This Assertion is a piece of wild somewhat for whether I should call it Philosophy or Divinity Sense of Nonsense I know not that if entertain'd gives ground to Men of corrupt Minds to father their most enormous Conceits upon God and his Holy Spirit Against it I shall propound a few Considerations 1. Do not all Ages of the Church bear witness that erring Persons may be as confidently persuaded of their mistaken opinions as others are of the Truth strongly conceiving what they hold to be most clear and evident so far as chearfully to lay down their lives in the defence of it So capable are Men of being deluded by their own darkned and corrupted Reason when they give themselves up to it as their sole guide that some have denied to the death those Truths that are in some degree knowable by Natural Light as that grand Maxim which is the Foundation of all Religion That there is a God witness Caesar Vaninus But for Doctrines of meer Revelation how peremptorily they are denied and upon what ground we need no farther instance than that of the Socinians or as they are otherwise called from a more Ancient Ring-leader Photinians who of all Hereticks have most perverted the Articles of our Creed and found out Followers in these latter ages who have erected a new Body of Divinity in opposition to the Catholick Theology says the Reverend Bishop of Chester Yet this new Socinian Body of Heterodoxies called by the Clergy of England in their Convocation Anno 1640. a Complication of Heresies is by its Fautors maintained with highest confidence and that under the plausible pretence of clear Perception by the Principles of Reason Upon this account One of that way denies Gods fore-knowledge of future contingencies and upon the same ground another of them denies the Doctrine of the Trinity and the two Natures of Christ because their Reason tells them as clearly and evidently as the Sun shines at Noon that these things are false 2. This countenances the absurd opinion of some ancient Philosophers That man is the measure of all things for according to this every thing must be accounted true that a Man is strongly persuaded to be so whereas the truth of our Perceptions lies in their consonancy to the nature of things which must be first supposed before we can apprehend them And therefore that great Maxim that bears such sway with some that whatsoever I have a clear and distinct Perception of is infalliby true is so far from being a sure Test of Truth and Falshood that in this dark and degenerate State of Mankind it infallibly betrays those who trust to it to innumerable and pernicious mistakes For suppose the Principle it self should be true That every thing is as we perceive provided our Perception of it be distinct and clear which way shall we be resolved whether this Perception we have of things be clear and distinct or dark and confused seeing experience puts us out of all doubt that persons as far distant in their apprehensions of the same thing as East and West do yet both of them with much confidence plead the greatest clearness and distinctness imaginable What shall we think to pass by other instances of the contest between Micajah and the four hundred false Prophets about Ahab's Expedition The false Prophets expressed as high a confidence of their being in the Right when abused by a lying Spirit as Micajah who was truely guided and acted by the Holy Spirit of God But the Explication that a late Author gives of this so much applauded Rule viz That then doth Reason clearly and distinctly perceive a thing when it perceives it as it is in it self renders it plainly ridiculous supposing the thing in question For when I am inquiring how I shall be assured that my apprehension of a thing is certainly true the meaning is how shall I be sure that I understand the thing to be as it really is for the verity of my Conception consists in its agreement with the object Therefore to make a clear and distinct Perception the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a true and right apprehension and to explain this clear and distinct Perception by saying it is a Perception of a thing as it is is to make the same thing the Index of it self and leaves me as much to seek as at first for still it will be asked how shall I know that I perceive a thing as it is or that my apprehension agrees with the nature of the thing 3. I might further add That we are obliged to believe many things whereof we cannot have a clear and distinct perception as the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead the Incarnation of our Saviour the Hypostatical Union of the Divine and Humane Nature and such like Touching which I grant we must have a clear perception that they are revealed ere we can believe them but a clear perception of the reveal'd objects themselves we cannot have they being to us incomprehensible Mysteries upon which ground both these and sundry other Scripture-Doctrines are by some rejected as unintelligible and irrational But here Des Cartes acquits himself For he somewhere gives his Readers this Caution That we should remember God the Maker of all things to be infinite and our selves finite and therefore if he reveal any thing to us of himself or other things that is above the strength of our Natural Wit such as the Mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity we must not deny them credit though we cannot clearly understand them Nor should we at all wonder that there are many things both in his immense nature and in the Creatures made by him that exceed our capacity 4. This fond conceit of the Exercitator borders upon that of the Enthusiasts whose high-flown pretences of the guidance of the Spirit and the internal living essential substantial word within them comes to no more when searcht to the quick but their own darkned and besotted Reason whose absurd Fancies and Blasphemous Dictates they daringly imputed to the Spirit of God This Clause in our Author brings him under a suspition of complying with those old Libertines and present Quakers whom he professeth to dislike onely with this difference They put their
the Spirit of God Therefore the best and safest Conceptions we can have of God are those which we learn from the Spirit of God speaking to us in and by the Scripture And if this Author were not extremely prejudiced by a partial fondness for his own darling conceits he might know that plain ordinary Christians who never had ought to do with Philosophick Learning have by their sole acquaintance with the Scriptures come to much clearer and sounder conceptions of God his Nature and Attributes than the learnedst Philosopher that ever the World had could attain by all his Wit and Study without Scripture Light and that to any Reader that is not prepossessed with false and absurd Notions of God by his own vain imagination and misguided Reason the Scriptures that speak so differently concerning that Supreme Being if prudently compared together and the circumstances on each side considered do sufficiently to the satisfaction of sober Minds discover to us their true and genuine Sense without giving the least countenance to the sottish and irrational conceits of the Anthropomorphites though a cavelling daring Wit may and will find something to quarrel with where the matter is as clear as the noon-day Sun His next instance is The Words of our Saviour at the institution of his last Supper This is my Body which the Papists interpret for Transubstantiation The Lutherans for Consubstantiation The Reformed Churches deny both understanding the words tropically whose Sense he says can be no otherwise defended but by the Principles of Natural Philosophy For answer to this I grant That in clearing this controversie there is good use of the Principles of Philosophy and Natural Reason and so there is also of Sense which undeniably convinceth us that what we see and feel and taste is Bread Yet sure we are not to make Sense the Rule of Interpreting Scripture But the true and proper Rule of Interpreting our Saviours Words This is my Body is that which the Scripture it self and that alone hath taught us viz. That Christ assumed a true Humane Body which is a truth that Reason and Philosophy could never inform us of it being a matter of pure Revelation Now this being laid down as the chief Postulatum the thing to be inquired into is What is the nature of an Humane Body and what are the essential Properties of all natural Bodies And this Natural Philosophy instructs us in as being no matter of Revelation but lying within the compass of Natural Light which teacheth us that every Natural Body is quantitative and divisible and confined to one certain place consequently that the Bread in the Sacrament of the Eucharist cannot be properly and substantially the Body of Christ which as Scripture informs us was once nailed to the Cross but is now glorified in Heaven Now the force of all this for the expounding of our Saviours Words lies in the former supposition That our Saviour assumed a true natural Humane Body together with what was even now mentioned That the same Body of Christ which he assumed is at the right Hand of God in Heaven both which are Scripture-Revelations Besides there is a wide difference between these two a help to overthrow a false Interpretation and the Rule of establishing the true one Philosophy may do the former but not the latter As in this controversie the Principles of Reason and Philosophy do convincingly assure us that Bread is not cannot be the Body of a Man But they cannot assure us what was our Saviours meaning when holding the Bread in his Hand he said This is my Body this must be resolved by what the Scripture it self speaks either there or elsewhere His third and last instance is the Doctrine of the Trinity which he says cannot be cleared without having recourse to Philosophy and here having derided the attempts of many to explicate and confirm this great Mistery by their Metaphysical Speculations he highly applauds the learned Keckerman for his happy endeavors in unfolding and demonstrating it Ex immotis Philisophiae fundamentis out of the unmoveable Foundations of Philosophy To this I answer That the curious speculations and Philosophick niceâ—ies of the Schools about the Doctrine of the Trinity have done it more prejudice than advantage and given greater occasion to the adverse part to reject it when they found so strange and incomprehensible a Mystery defended by such thin airy cobweb notions It had been much better if Men had contented themselves with those discoveries the Scripture makes of this inexplicable Mystery it being a Doctrine purely of Supernatural Revelation and not at all discoverable by Natural Light The Arguments from Reason and Philosophy brought for the proof of it by the learned Keckerman and by Claubergius a late Cartesian are examined by Vogolsangius in his Indignatio Justa c. and discarded as insufficient I grant that in this as in many other Doctrines it may be of good use to shew that there is nothing in what the Scripture says of it that contradicts any sound Principle of Reason But to go about by the Principles of Reason or Philosophy positively to demonstrate the truth of it is a thing which I take to be impossible I chuse to say of this Mystery as one does of the Divine Essence Credendo intelligitur adorando enarratur It is best understood by believing and best declared by adoring He saith the late Bishop of Down that should go to Revelation to prove that nine and nine make eighteen would be a Fool and he would be no less that goes about to prove a Trinity of persons by natural Reason Every thing must be derived from its own Fountain Thus Aquinas tells us He that by natural Reason attempts to prove the Trinity of persons doth a double prejudice to the Faith 1. He derogates from its Dignity it being proper to the Doctrine of Faith to be of such things as exceed Mans Reason 2. He hinders others from embracing the Faith by using such Arguments as are not cogent which renders it obnoxious to the Infidels contempt This is plain in Scripture that the Father is God and the Holy Ghost is God and that these are three and all three are but one God and for other subtleties and curious inquiries of busie and presumptuous Wits without and beside the Written Word I think the Truth of God never was nor ever will be beholden to them CHAP. XV. A seventh Argument from the reasonableness of Religion answered ONe Argument more I shall touch which I find alledged by two noted Socinians Smalcius and Schlichtingius as they are cited by a late learned Author in his Socinianism Confut. to prove Reason to be the Rule of deciding Controversies of Faith which may be thought improveable upon the same grounds to assert that Reason must be the Rule of interpreting Scripture And it is That of the Apostle where he asserts the Service that God requires of Christians to be 〈◊〉
in Words which Mans Wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth 4. If the common use of Speech be so sure a Rule of Interpretation as this Author makes it I wonder what was in his Mind to say of the Penmen of Scripture That if they were now living amongst us they could not be the sufficient Interpreters of their own Writings because they often wrote they knew not what Certainly the customary use of Speech which obtained in the times wherein they wrote must needs be much better known to them than it can be to any now living Why then might not they interpret their own Writings if they were now with us having the best insight into that which this Author cries up for the onely sure Rule of Interpretation 5. If the customary use of Speech must be the Rule of Interpretation the inconvenience urged by the Exercitator cap. 11. par 6. will not easily if at all be avoided viz. the interpreting of Scripture according to the erroneous apprehension of the Vulgar 6. If this be so certain a Rule as he will have it so as that he who uses it shall not fail to find out the true Sense of Scripture for so himself speaks how is it that the Sense of Scripture may not be found in all parts one as well as another for the use of Speech is the same in all And yet he acknowledges that in many things not necessary to Salvation let the Reader be never so diligent in his search he cannot find the meaning of Scripture and the reason hereof he says is to be fetcht not from the nature of the thing nor from the darkness of our minds but ex ipsa constitutione Scripturae from the very frame of Scripture it self Secondly But now whether this learned Author did not well consider what he wrote or had not well digested his own Notions or whether he designed to amuse his Reader with intricacies and ambiguities or whether he were aware of the inconvenience of his former Expressions and their liableness to exception or what other were the cause I shall not inquire But this is plain to any that attentively reads his Discourse that when he had once and again given the honour of being the onely sure Rule of Interpretation of Scripture to the common and customary use of Speech he afterwards falls to a singular use of Speech distinct from the vulgar arising from the different Character of the Writer the different occasion of Writing the different nature of the things about which he Treats and that under this singularity of the usus loquendi the custom of Speech we are to consider the Antecedents and the Consequents of a Text and the paralel places And elsewhere he says all the circumstances of the place under consideration are to be examined and this he calls Usus loquendi Scripturarius the Scripture use of Speaking And when he objects against himself that the customary manner of speaking is dubious and uncertain he answers it thus That though it be so yet God's manner of Speech in Scripture is fixed So that what was before called the common and vulgar use is now confined to God's use and the Scripture-use of Speaking which certainly does not receive Law from the custom and consent of Men but is wholly framed and ordered by the disposal of Divine Wisdom though in it he makes use of such words as receive their single signification from common use Besides this Author tells us elsewhere that Usus loquendi or custom of Speech includes in it the Analogy of Faith and all other things that are taken out of Scripture in order to the finding out of its true Sense Now if this be indeed the meaning of his Usus loquendi his opinion comes very near to that of the Reformed Churches if it be not the same with it But then what needed all this stir as if our Divines had not discovered their Minds plainly and distinctly but this Author must come and mend it whereas he hath rather darkned and obscured it by his intricate and inconsistent Discourse For whoever before him took Usus loquendi in such a sense as this And I much wonder that he who is so much for the custom of Speech should vary so widely from it in his Writing For I am sure this Phrase Usus loquendi according to that mode of Speech that hath hitherto obtained was never taken so comprehensively as to include the scope of the Text with the Antecedents and Consequents and all other circumstances and the Analogy of Faith and what ever lies in the Scripture that serves to the discovery of its true sense Except Men will assume a power to themselves of coining a new Sense of Words I cannot imagine what ground they can have to talk after the rate of this Author Our Divines speak much more properly and clearly in this business viz. That the Holy Spirit of God hath in Enditing the Scripture so attempered his Speech and so ordered and disposed the several Parts and Parcels of this Sacred Book that his Mind so far as it is necessary for us to know it may be discovered either from the obvious sense of the particular Sentences and Propositions of Scripture considered in that Order and dependence wherein they are placed or by a due comparison of one part of Scripture with another so as that the Reader may gather the Sense of Scripture from the Scripture it self This is that which our Divines mean when they say that the Scripture is its own Interpreter And when they say at any time that the Spirit of God is the Interpreter of Scripture either they speak of the Objective evidence that the Spirit gives of the Sense of Scripture and then they understand it of the Spirit as speaking in the Scripture which being the Voice of the Spirit is to us as I said our Supream Rule Or they speak of the Spirit as the efficient cause of that Subjective light â—hat is let into our Minds inabling us to understand the Scriptures And this belongs to another inquiry and doth not concern the Question about the Rule of Interpretation Now when our Writers say the Scripture is its own Interpreter they are to be understood Metonymically As when they say the Scripture is the Supream Judge of all Controversies of Faith they mean no more but that it is Judex Normaâ—is or the Supream Rule of Judgement according to which Controversies are to be ultimately decided so by proportion is it in the present Cafe And as when the Papists speak of the infallible dectding of Controversies whether they say the Pope is the infallible Judge or the Sentence given by the Pope is the infallible Rule of decision it comes all to one So when our Divines say sometimes that the Spirit speaking in the Scripture is the infallible Interpreter of Scripture and other while that the Scripture is the infallible Rule of
Appendix concerning Internal Illumination and other Operations of the Spirit upon the Soul of Man c. CHAP. I. 1. What our Protestant Divines mean by that Illumination of the Spirit which they assert as necessary to the understanding of the Scriptures and the Exercitators censure of it as Enthusiasm approved by Wolzogen 2. The Falshood of that Calumny discovered 3. Wolzogen ' s disingenuity and inconstancy 4. The necessity of the aforesaid Illumination proved 5. In what sense it is supernatural 6. Some of the Exercitators Cavils answered 7. In what sense this Illumination is immediate IN the foregoing Papers designed to clear and vindicate the Protestant Doctrine concerning the Supreme Bule of Interpreting Seripture I have had occasion frequently to deal with the Belgick Exercitator and to take notice of what he hath said that seems to be of any moment so far as concerns that point But whereas he is pleased in the procedure of his Discourse to step out of his way and deridingly to oppose the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches about the Spirits assistance in the Interpretation of Scripture as savouring of Enthusiasm I then waved medling with that part of his Book thinking it more expedient to say something to it in an Appendix by it self this being a Question altogether distinct from that other of the Rule of Interpretation In the Fourteenth Chapter of his oft-mentioned Exercitation he quotes several of our Protestant Authors of great Name and Worth giving in the words of some of them and referring us for others to the cited places The drift of their several Discourses about this point seems to be that there needs an effectual operation of the Holy Spirit to enlighten Mens understandings and cause them rightly to apprehend and readily to approve the Mind of God in Scripture That their meaning may be more clearly propounded we must distinguish of a twofold understanding of Scripture There is a Natural and merely Grammatical perception of the truth of Scripture-Propositions which a Man destitute of the Spirit of Grace may attain by common assistance in the use of ordinary means And there is a Spiritual apprehension of the things themselves contain'd in those Propositions which includes in it a hearty believing and embracing them that is not attain'd without the sanctifying work of the Spirit renewing the mind by enduing it with an heavenly supernatural Light This I find thus express'd and illustrated by the late Reverend Bishop of Norwich Natural Men says he have their Principles vitiated their Faculties bound that they cannot understand spiritual things till God have as it were implanted a new understanding in them framed the heart to attend and set it at liberty to see the Glory of God with open face Though the Veil do not keep out Grammatical Construction yet it blindeth the Heart against the spiritual Light and Beauty of the Word We see even in common Sciences where the Conclusions are suitable to our innate and implanted Notions yet he that can distinctly construe and make Grammar of a Principle in Euclide may be ignorant of the Mathematical sense and use of it Much more may a Man in Divine Truths be spiritually ignorant even where in some respect he may be said to know For the Scriptures pronounce Men ignorant of those things which they see and know In Divine Doctrine Obedience is the Ground of Knowledge and Holiness the best Qualification to understand the Scriptures To this Spiritual Understanding there is need of the aforesaid Supernatural Light And this is that which as far as I can understand our Divines mean when they assert the necessity of the Spirits Illumination Thus speaks the Church of England The Revelation of the Holy Ghost inspireth the true meaning of the Scripture into us In truth we cannot without it attain true saving knowledge Yea of this mind was Erasmus no Enthusiast who thus speaks He erreth vehemently who believes he can ever attain to the true understanding of the Canonical Scriptures unless he be inspired by the same Spirit that endited them And again They have the Book of Scripture but not the Scripture that want the Spirit without which the Scripture is not understood And M. Luther quoting a Speech of Aben-Ezra Sine supra infra i. e. without Points and Accents the Scripture cannot be understood adds a third sine intra without somewhat within viz. the Light of the Holy Spirit Now let us hear the Judgment of the Exercitator and his pretended Answerer Wolzogen about this As for the former If says he the meaning of these Divines were this that no sense of Scripture by what way or method soever found out can be fully certain to any unless by the Natural Light of our understanding we can clearly and distinctly perceive it and be fully perswaded of its truth and that this clear perception and the sense a Man hath of it be that inward perswasion and testimony of the Spirit which they intend this will be granted them But if they mean not the Natural Light of Mans understanding or what is built upon that but a Supernatural Light above and beyond Mans Natural Reason not included in the Mind or acquired by it but infused and inspired from above this says he we disclaim and condemn for Enthusiasm This is the sum of the censure that he passeth upon this Doctrine And Lud. Wolzogen who pretends to take up the Bucklers against him in defence of the Protestant Cause in stead of vindicating the forecited Authors and their Doctrine joins with the Exercitator in the calumny as appears undeniably by his own words for thus he speaks Because the Holy Spirit doth indeed still exert some power in the minds of Men therefore some have believed that he opens the sense of the Scriptures and interprets them to the Faithful Which opinion the Exercitator doth justly decry and determine that it contains mere Enthusiasm Where he expresly approves and applauds what the Exercitator had said against the Doctors of the Reformed Churches charging them with Enthusiasm for maintaining a necessity of a Supernatural Light for a saving perception of the Mind of God in Scripture And himself doth so frequently strike upon this string in several places of his Book that he seems to design the blemishing and defaming of our most eminent Protestant Writers and the Doctrine which they have asserted against Papists and Pelagians These Men cannot be ignorant that the Divines whom they thus impeach have all along in answer to the like imputation from Popish and Socinian Authors expresly and vehemently disclaimed all compliance with Enthusiasts and that some of them have written learnedly and smartly against that sort of Men. They utterly disavow their expecting any such Illumination as was given to the Prophets and Apostles and do plainly deliver their minds that what they assert doth not consist in discovering any new Doctrine unreveal'd in Scripture but in qualifying and