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
reverence of God and of his Word For want of which too many have greatly polluted these Holy Mysteries with the wanton conceits or prophane excursions of an unhollwed Wit and mortally poisoned themselves and others by their corrupt handling this Bread of Life The Special Means of Interpretation are two-fold Some are more remote which I shall only name not intending any Discourse about them because my work lies another way These remote helps are 1. Some competent knowledge of and recourse to the Original Tongues wherein the Scripture was first penned with a due observation of the proprieties of each Language 2. Skil to discern between the proper use of the Words and Phrases of Scripture and that which is Tropical and Figurative In these Grammar and Rhetorick have their use 3. Some insight into the peculiar Laws Customs and Proverbial Speeches of those times and places that the Scripture relates to which requires some knowledge in History There are sundry passages both in the Old and New Testament that have respect to the known Customs of the Gentiles as in their Divinations Idolatrous Worships Publick Games and many more that have relation to the peculiar Rites and Modes of speech in use among the Jews So that there is no part of Phylology but may have its use in the Interpretation of Scripture 4. There is great use of the several parts of Phylosophy not only moral but natural for the clearing of many things in Scripture that are of natural cognisance as about the structure of Mans Body and the faculties of the Soul the nature motion and influence of the Heavenly Bodies the temperament of the several Regions of the World as also about the Elements and Meteors about Numbers and Measures the Nature and Properties of several Creatures Beasts Birds and Plants and many other things treated of in the Bible either by way of History or Parable 5. Logick hath also its use here for the better discerning the dependence of one thing in Scripture upon another and collecting of one thing from another The more immediate Means are chiefly two 1. A due observation of the several circumstances of the Scripture to be Interpreted who it is that speaks where when and to whom upon what occasion Here also comes in the consideration of the coherents with antecedents and consequences together with the scope and design of the Speaker all which are of great use to discover the Sense of Scripture 2. Comparing Scripture with Scripture or consulting other Scriptures whether paralel with or seemingly opposite to the place under consideration Now to the use of all these forementioned Means or Helps both General and Special Remote and Immediate I think all agree But about the Rule of Interpretation there is not so universal an accord The Romanists for the most part will have this Rule to be the Judgment of the present Church meaning their own But I shall not deal with this It 's weakness in what Sense soever taken for they agree not among themselves hath been sufficiently discovered by the worthy labours of many both formerly and of late Some few there are who tell us that the Scripture supposes the Rule and Summary of Religion delivered from one Age to another which we are to be guided by in searching out the meaning of Scripture And this Rule they say is to be found in the Monuments of the Church that is in the Writings of the Fathers and Determinations of Councils from whence we are to receive the Sense of the Catholick Church and thereby know what was the Doctrine delivered by Christ and his Apostles in the first Age and according to that interpret the Scriptures But if this must be our way of proceeding we may very well despair of ever understanding the Scriptures except when they speak with so much plainness that they stand in need of no Interpretation For what a heap of uncertainties must we lay for the Foundation of our Faith It is sufficiently known that the Fathers do oft differ from each other and many times are not consistent with themselves Councils have determined contrary one to another And some things that were as far as appears to us by all extant Monuments of Antiquity agreeable to the common Sentiment in our Age were laid aside in another Besides either the far greatest part of the Doctors of the Church in the first Ages wrote nothing or their Writings are lost and of those that now go under venerable names many are plainly spurious and many dubious nor is it easie in several of them for the most sagacious Reader to find out the right Insomuch as we cannot have any tolerable assurance what was the consentient judgment of the Catholick Church in any one age about the whole Doctrine of Faith if we set the Scriptures aside Therefore to frame such a Rule of Interpretation as this is no better than to build a House of Straw upon a running Stream There were very few Writers in the two first Centuries and in the two following not very many and after this the Church did much decline and degenerate as well in Doctrine as Manners Now suppose we were sure that the Writings in each Age were undoubtedly theirs whose names they bear as it is past doubt we are not who can assure us that what was published by those few was the consentient Judgment of all or the major part of the Doctors of that Age wherein they lived Might there not be a greater number differing from them who either wrote nothing or whose Works are perished The plain truth is That this way of Interpretation does in the upshot resolve the Faith of Christians not into the certain authority of the Divinely-inspired Writings but into the fallible Testimony of the most uncertain Tradition But for the Readers further satisfaction I refer him to Monsieur Daille's learned Treatise about the right use of the Fathers a Piece of that worth that the Lord Vicount Falkland and his dear Friend Mr. Chillingworth did highly esteem it and made great use of it in their Writings against the Romanists as we are informed by Mr. Tho. Smith sometime Member of Christ's Colledge in Cambridge in his Epistle prefixed to the English Translation of that excellent and elaborate Discourse who further also tells us that we have in that Tractat a sufficient Confutation of Cardinal Perron his Book against King James and by consequence of the Marquis of Worcester against King Charles and of Doctor Vane and other Epitomizers of the Cardinal which I do the rather take notice of that it may obviate the groundless prejudices that some have of late entertained against that Incomparable Piece The received Doctrine of the Reformed Churches both ourown and those abroad hath been hitherto that the Scripture is its own Interpreter But of late there hath been an attempt to justle the Scripture aside as to this use and place Reason and Phylosophy in its room There is a Belgick
Interpretation here is no such difference as should just give occasion to any to say that our Divines speak variously or uncertainly or that they agree not one with another or with themselves for in the issue the meaning of them all is one and the same Now here I must look back upon what I had said in the Introduction to my Discourse concerning the special immediate means of Interpretation viz. a due observation of the several circumstances of the Scripture to be Expounded and the comparing of Scripture with Scripture In the use of which means lies the applying of the right Rule of Interpretation It is the using of Scripture to expound Scripture And when a dark or difficult Scripture is compared with some other wherein the same Truth or Doctrine is more clearly and perspicuously delivered this is conceived by many learned Men to be intended in that of the Apostle concerning the Analogy of Faith Rom. 12. 6. Whether it be so or no I shall not at present debate much less determine Noâ— shall I inquire whether that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 form of sound Words spoken of by the same Apostle in 2 Tim. 1. 13. be the same with this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as some conceive it is But this I may have leave to say that I see no incongruity or inconvenience in using the Expression or in saying that to explain obscure places of Scripture by such as are more clear and easie is to expound Scripture according to the Analogy of Faith Analogy saith Quintilian is that which the Latines call Proportion the force whereof is this That what is in doubt may be referred to something like it that is out of question that so the uncertain may be proved by the certain And why may not the like use of the Word be allowed in this case Sure I am eminent Writers both of the Roman and Reformed Churches have thus used it Analogie says Aquinas is when the truth of one Scripture is evidenced not to oppose the truth of another The Analogie of Faith saith our learned Whitaker is the constant and perpetual Sentence of Scripture in those places that are undoubtedly plain and obvious to our Understandings I might alledge to the like sense many more Authors whose excellent Worth sets them sufficiently above the contempt of the Exercitator and others of his mind that jear and deride the Analogy of Faith But waving the terms that which I am concern'd to assert is the thing it self that in expounding Scripture we must be regulated and determined by the Scripture it self and that whatsoever it speaks darkly and uncertainly in any place is to be explained by it self in those other places where it speaks more plainly which plain places do sufficiently interpret themselveâ— by their own light Now this way of Interpreting Scripture by it self hath been approved of as the best and safest by most eminent Authors Ancient and Modern Clemens Alexandrinus Iraeneus Hilary and others are cited to this purpose by Chamier Rivet Dr. Holdsworth As Esdras and his Companions of old so should we now interpret Scripture by Scripture comparing among themselves those things that are Endited by the same Spirit saith the learned Grotius plainly referring to that in Neh. 8. 7 8. Mr. Hales of Eaton in his Golden Remains says Other Expositions may give Rules of Direction for understanding their Authors but the Scripture giveâ— Rules to expound it self When the Fathers saith the Bishop of Down confirmed an Exposition of one place of Scripture by the Doctrine of another then and then onely they thought they had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Scripture demonstration and Matter of Faith and necessary belief and that this was the duty of the Christian Doctors Origen doth expresly affirm And however the Roman Doctors of this latter age especially have vehemently contended against this that the Authority of their Church may take place yet we find that in some of them that comes full up to what we say I shall give one instance Josephus a Costa as I find him cited by Chamier and Riveâ— Nihil perinde Scripturam videtur apâ—rire atque ipsa Scriptura Itaque diligens attenta frequensque lectio â—um meditatio collatio Scripturarum omnium fumma Regula ad intelligendum â—ihi semper visâ— naâ—… ex aliâ—â— Scriptur is aliae optime intelligâ—â—tur Nothing seems to me to open the Scripture like the Scripture it self Therefore diligent attentive and frequent Reading with Meditation and comparing of Scriptures hath alway seemed to me the chief Rule of all for understanding for by some Scriptures others are best understood CHAP. II. Argumentâ— to confirm the Proposition the first from the Scriptures sole sufficiency to be its own Interpreter made good by three things and first by its Perfection I proceed to some Arguments for the confirmation of this Second Proposition I shall pass over many of those that are numerously brought in by other Writers chusing to insist upon those that I take to be of greatest force and against which the greatest endeavours have been used to overthrow them My first shall be this The Scripture is of all other best fitted to be the Rule to guide us in the determining of its own sense and meaning Nothing else is so well qualified for this use And this may be evinced by its three properties its Perfection Perspicuity and Authentickness It is the most Perfect Perspicuous and Authentick Record of the Mind of God Of these Three I must distinctly Treat First this and this only is the perfect Record of the mind of God fully manifesting it to us so far as it is necessary for us to know it in order to our duty and our happiness The Apostle speaks clearly and fully for this 2 Tim. 3. 15 16 17. From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto Salvation through Faith which is in Christ Jesus All Scripture is given by inspiration from God c. Here two things are evidently Asserted viz. That the Scriptures contain in them what is sufficient both for a Minister of Christ to Teach and for any Christian to know to make him wise unto Salvation Neither of which can be if there be not that in the Scripture it self out of which the Mind of God therein deliver'd may be sufficiently understood without the suppliment of some other over-ruling Principle For 1. How can the Scripture make any man wise unto Salvation if it fall short in point of objective Evidence necessary to beget that Divine Knowledge wherein all saving Wisdom consists 2. How can it sufficiently furnish a Minister for his work of instructing his Hearers and conducting them to Life if from thence he cannot fetch enough to clear the Truth he is to deliver to them CHAP. III. The second branch of the first Argument the Scriptures Perspicuity proved SEcondly the Scripture is a
perspicuous Revelation of God's Will Whatsoever may be the ignorance or darkness of Men which hinders them from knowing what God hath said in these Sacred Records yet the objective perspicuity of them is generally asserted by Protestants against the Romanists Not that all Truths revealed in Scripture are so low and common as in their own Nature to be obvious to Man's Understanding but that as to the manner of their delivery they are so laid down in the Scripture as that they may be understood by and from the Scripture yet we mean not that every part or passage of Scripture is clear For that there are many difficulties therein we acknowledge But that the mind of God is somewhere or other in Scripture plainly propounded so far as it is necessary for us to know it one part of it giving Light to another so that the whole Scripture taken together is a Perspicuous Manifestation of his will This is proved by Moses's words in Deut. 30. 12 13 14. Speaking of the Law and the Apostles words Rom. 10. 6. c. Speaking the same of the Gospel Hence the written Word is frequently compared to a Light and is said to give understanding to the Simple Had not the Scriptures been Perspicuous how could Timothy in his Childhood have understood them How could our Saviour out of them have convinced the Sadduces of the Doctrin of the Resurrection Or the Apostles out of them prove irrefragably the truth of their Doctrin against the gainsaying Jews Or how could the Bereans try the Apostles Doctrin by searching the Scriptures These are undeniable Proofs that the Scriptures are Perspicuous and that they have a plain and certain sense obvious to a considerate Reader But all this will signifie nothing if the Scripture have not that Light in it that may discover it self and clear up its own meaning without borrowing Light from some other Principle Now because much of the stress of this Cause lies on this we must a little consider what is said against it The late Romanists do generally cry out that the Scriptures are obscure partly that they may have the fairer colour to take them out of the Peoples hands lest they should mistake or pervert them though none among them have been more guilty of that than their Doctors of greatest name for Learning partly that they may bring in their unwritten Traditions as expository of Scripture-Revelations and partly also that they may establish a necessity of an Infallible Visible Judge here on Earth to Interpret Scriptures and decide all Controversies Yet I know not any of them but will own that many things in the Scripture are clear But there is a late Writer that denies this My next work therefore shall be to deal with him and clear the Truth from his exceptions in some of the following Chapters of this Discourse CHAP. IV. The Exercitators exception against the Scriptures Perspicuity from the ambiguity of words Answered THe Belgick Exercitator whom I have oft mentioned before that he may make sure work rises higher in denying the Scriptures Perspicuity than any that I have ever met with and with confidence affirms the Scripture to be universally obscure and that no part of it is of it self clear and plain and thereupon denies that one part of Scripture can be expounded by another Yea this he laies as the foundation of his main Assertion against the Scriptures Interpreting it self And one great Reason he gives is what he hath taken a great deal of tedious pedantick pains to prove in his third Chapter That all speech being made up of Words and Phrases is abscure and doubtful because the words whereof it consists are capable of different significations and consequently may be taken in a various sense and thus it is with the Scripture it is universally ambiguous and therefore obscure To this I Answer 1. If this Reason hold then there is no Speech or Writing in the World but will fall under the same unhappy fate No Law of the Land no letter of a Friend no Oral Discourse no Treatise of whatsoever Subject and how accurately soever written shall be accounted Intelligible For all Writings and Discourses are made up of the same kind of Words and Phrases and capable of being adorn'd with the same Tropes and Figures that the Scripture is and every whit as liable to be taken in for different senses And thus no man shall know how to speak or write any thing that can be clearly understood and that excellent gift of Speech which God hath bestowed upon men to be an instrument of society and converse shall be of no other use but to be made an Engine of deceit and treachery Secondly if things be thus to what end did this Author trouble himself to Write and others to read this Book of his if all Speeches and Writings be ambiguous and obscure and not to be understood without an Interpreter of what use is this Jewel of his fancy Did he hope to lead the whole World of Interpreters out of their Labyrinths into the right path by such an ignis fatuus that by its ambiguities and uncertainties may scare and amuse them and carry them hither and thither according to the wind of their own imaginations Or hath he attain'd to a faculty above all other Writers even the best and holiest to write in such Words and Phrases as might open his meaning without entangling his Readers in ambiguities If he thinks his Book be free from this blemish methinks he might have had the modesty to conceive that the Pen-men of Scripture knew how to write as well as he If his thoughts of his Book were otherwise he might have kept it to himself and fed the Moths with it Thirdly yet again if it be thus that all words in whatsoever contexture be so ambiguous and obscure what will become of this Infallible Interpreter which our Author would set up For whatsoever Interpretation be made of any Scripture it must be framed in such words as other men use and as all kind of Writings are drawn up in and if when all is done these be obscure what are we the better For certainly according to this Authors argument even the first Principles of Nature and the most unquestionable Maxims of Philosophy when turn'd into Words and Sentences will be as ambiguous and consequently as dark as the Scriptures Fourthly whereas his impeaching the Scriptures of Ambiguity and Obscurity is not only to disable them from expounding themselves but that he may set up Philosophy as the only Interpreter he instances in several Scriptures which he says are thus Ambiguous and Obscure in the clearing whereof Philosophy cannot possibly afford us any help As for Example when he supposeth of our Saviour's Words in Joh. 5. 39. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it 's doubtful whether this be to be taken Imperatively search the Scripture or Indicatively ye do search the Scriptures Can any
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
foolishness before he know them this is all one as if he had said a true Philosopher is a Chimaera for it seems he is one who never determines of any thing till he clearly perceives what it is and then what he determines is undoubtedly true whence it will follow that every true Philosopher is infallible And where was such an one ever yet to be found Certain it is that the most eminent Philosophers not inferior in their Natural Learning to this Exercitator or any of his Companions did in the first breaking out of the Gospel make a mock of the whole Doctrine of Christianity Thus did the Philosophers at Athens when they heard St. Paul and thus did Porphyrie Celsus and others after the Apostles dayes Thirdly When this Author will have no more meant here by things Spiritual but things belonging to the Rational Soul which is a Spirit he is grosly over-seen to speak no worse For the Apostles words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the things of the Spirit of God which certainly is not the Soul of Man but the Holy Ghost And when the Apostle Jude describes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sensual or natural by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having not the Spirit surely he did not mean they had no Rational Soul but that they were destitute of the Regenerating Spirit of Grace And that of this Spirit the Apostle Paul is to be understood in the place under present consideration the whole tenour of his Discourse from vers 9 to 15. doth undeniably manifest If at least by this Gentlemans good leave the Scripture might be allowed to interpret it self The wofull ignorance and perversness concerning the things of God that discovered it self in the wisest and best civilized part of the World and such as had improved their natural light to as high a pitch as any other we can read of is an abundant evidence of what I assert concerning the darkness and pravity of Mans Reason They became as the Apostle says vain in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkned professing themselves to be wise they became fools Rom. 1. 21 22. They acknowledged a Deity and that God was to be worshipped but in the manner and way of worship how wofully were they mistaken yea those times and places that were best cultivated and that flourished most in all Humane Learning were of all other the most sottish in their Idolatrous Worships giving religious adoration to Brute Creatures to Dumb Pictures to Diseases and Humane Passions yea to Hellish Furies And whereas some that were more sagacious than the rest as Socrates Cicero and such like saw enough to condemn that way of Religion that was then in use observing the Rites in fashion tanquam legibus jussa non tanquam diis grata as St. Aug. observes out of Seneca yet when they came to enquire and determine of the true Religion they were confessedly at a loss and acknowledged that they could better cry down the wrong than find out the right They had what is indelibly planted in all men a desire of happiness but they were miserably bewilder'd in their search after it And whereas they were some of them sensible of a dreadfull blow that Man's Nature had received discerning a Combat in themselves between their Reason and their Sensual Appetite and saw the World generally over-run with wickedness and consequently vexed with a continual succession of calamities yet as they could never by natures light find out the source and spring of all this and what it was that first brought sin and sorrow upon Mankind so in vain did they weary themselves in inventing ways of reconciling themselves to God and procuring his Favour whom they saw to be displeased and of curing the Maladies of their disordered and discomposed Natures in both which they took such strange and horrid courses as did but increase the evil they lay under and exceedingly multiply their own guilts Now it being thus how can the Principles of Reason and Philosophy be a safe Rule whereby to interpret the Holy Scriptures CHAP. III. 1. Several Exceptions against the foregoing Argument removed viz. That this holds onely where the Scripture is unknown 2. That it strikes not at Right Reason and Sound Principles 3. That Reason is of God And that Truth is not contrary to Truth TO this Argument all the reply that I can conceive will be made may be reduced to a few particulars which I shall briefly dispatch It will be said That this Argument holds of Man's Reason while he is destitute of the Written Word but reacheth not them who have the Scriptures to enlighten them To pass by other Answers that may be gathered from what hath been already said This Exception yields the Cause For it supposeth Man's Reason unable to discover the Mind of God without Scripture Light And if so then whatsoever Revealed Truth is more darkly delivered in any one part of Scripture must receive light from the Scripture it self somewhere else where it speaks more plainly without which Man's Reason notwithstanding the best Natural Principles to assist it would leave him at a loss consequently it is not the principles of Reason and Philosophy that must be the Rule of Interpretation but the Scripture it self as shall be shewn hereafter But say some when we say Reason by its Principles is to Interpret Scripture we mean it of right Reason proceeding upon sound Principles and not of Reason depraved and Principles corrupted I answer these are smooth Words but what do they signifie There were some colour for this reply if uncorrupt Reason either in the Faculty or the Principles were infallibly to be found The Exception speaks of Reason abstractly and in the Idea supposing it freed from all those depravations and entanglements that have captived and debased it Whereas we are speaking of Reason as it is in Men who are to make use of it And we know what is said of Man Gen. 6. 5. God saw that the wickedness of Man was great in the earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was onely evil continually Every Man is thus depraved from his birth so that we have all need of renewing in our highest faculties in the Spirit of our Mind Eph. 4. 23. And this original depravation is increased by a farther contracted malignity through vitious habits and deceitfulness of sinfull lusts In the most it remains wholly thus and in the best in this life it is but in part renew'd and therefore in danger to mistake and that grosly in things Spiritual when it goes to work onely by its own natural Principles And whereas it may be thought or said there is no danger so long as Reason performs it works aright I reply how shall that be known by what Rule shall we examine and find out when Reason passeth a right judgment or how shall the Principles that Reason pretends to use in matters of Revelation be tryed
and Veracity God perfectly knows all the several significations of the words that he hath uttered in Scripture and whatver the Reader can apprehend in them and he is also most true and faithful and therefore would not deceive or delude any by his Words Hence he gathers that whatsoever sense may be made of any part of Scripture if it be in it self a Truth it must be own'd for the true meaning of the Spirit of God in that place To this I answer Were all this intended only of the multiplicity of subordinate Senses depending on and deducible from that immediate Sense which is but one the Argument will hold firm For if any thing do truely lie in any Mans words or by due consequence be deducible from them which himself did not mean when he spake them he must needs be charged to be either ignorant or fallacious But being intended as it is by the Author of a multiplicity of collateral and immediate Senses his Argument is a miserable inconsequence Next he attempts to prove this by the Testimony of Learned Men and begins with the Jewish Rabbins whose childish and absurd conceits need no confutation witness that instanced by this Author their proving the multiplicity of Senses out of Psalm 62. 12. the 11. in our English Translation God hath spoken once twice have I heard this that power belongeth unto God That is say they God hath propounded one single Speech but such as I can understand two ways that is many ways a certain number being put for an uncertain by drawing several Senses from it wherein the Power of God consists that he can so order and dispose his Speech as thereby to teach men a multitude of Truths And is not this a goodly gloss upon the Text and an irrefragable proof of the matter in hand Whereas the Psalmists twice hearing what God had once spoken is no more but his diligent and attentive minding of that great and weighty Truth That Power belongs unto God What he further cites out of the Fathers concerning the fecundity of Scripture containing much in a few words is all granted being understood as before of subordinate not coordinate Senses For that the Scripture should be as a formless Mass capable of being turned by Philosophy into a thousand shapes which this Authors conceit tends to never was for ought I can find any part of their meaning 2. Whereas he says Philosophy is a true certain undoubted knowledge of the nature of things demonstrated by Natural Light I ask doth Philosophy comprehend the knowledge of all things Or is the nature of all things discernable by Natural Light There are in Scripture many things Historical Prophetical and Dogmatical the knowledge whereof depends wholly upon Supernatural Revelation What can Philosophy do here And even in those things that are Natural and belong to the cognisance of Philosophy how short is that knowledge that the most learned have attained Therefore whereas this Author so proudly derides our Reformed Divines for complaining of the darkness of Mans Natural Reason if he were not too wise to be taught he might have learnt more modesty from the ancient Philosophers the best and wisest whereof did greatly bewail the darkness of Mans Understanding Even Aristotle who never I think was judged to have disparaged Humane Reason acknowledges that our Understandings even as to the most manifest things in nature are but as the Eyes of the Owl and Bat to the day-light And though both he and others of them being unacquainted with Scripture could not clearly discover the true original of this darkness yet some weak conjectures some of them have made of it and whether by any Tradition received from the Jews or by some other means I shall not enquire some general and confused intimation they had that Man had lost his Primitive Excellency that the Wings of his Soul for so they express it had by some sad fall been so broken that he could not arrive at any considerable measures of knowledge by his greatest industry And hence arose that fond mistake among some of them that the Souls of Men having had a pre-existence before their union with their Bodies and having offended in that State were for a punishment of their Error thrust into these gross terrestial receptacles and that this caused the imperfection and obscurity of Mens Understandings But to those who own the Scripture and may learn from thence what Man 's Primitive State was and how he fell and are any whit acquainted with themselves methinks it should be no strange Riddle that the Mind is clouded and benighted even in things Natural and therefore in Supernatural much more But where is that Philosophy that this Exercitator cryes up for so certain and infallible and which another Author of like Principles does with profane boldness magnifie as equal to the Holy Scriptures for its compleat perfection and infallible certainty Where is it In the Clouds Sure it never was extant among men save in the crazy conceits of some haughty self-admirers 3. As to what our Author speaks of Philosophy being usefull to detect false Interpretations of Scripture I grant that where such false Interpretations are given as do really entrench upon the undoubted Principles of Reason the weakness and folly of them may well be discover'd by Philosophy But all corrupt or perverse expositions are not to be so limited nor is this enough to render Philosophy a sufficient Rule of Interpretation The heathen Philosophers could discover the error of their vulgar Religion but could not direct men to the true and right as I have shewn before The like may be said in the present case 4. Whereas our Exercitator further adds in the close of this Argument that from the beginning of Christianity those who were the most profound Philosophers were generally confessed to be the happiest Interpreters of Scripture I am far from being of his mind none having more corrupted and depraved the Scriptures than Men of greatest eminency for Philosophick Learning which I do not at all impute to Philosophy truly so call'd but to the rashness and folly of Men who being desirous to advance that wherein they would be thought to excell have adventured to make use of their Philosophick Principles in matters of a quite different and more sublime nature But suppose we the utmost that can be supposed That an eminent Philosopher were furnished with all the most necessary accomplishments for the understanding of Scripture and should duely improve them for that end yet this would no more prove Philosophy to be the Supream rule of Interpretation than Grammar or Rhetorick which are every whit as necessary and useful to such a Work if not more No further doth any thing help us in understanding the Scripture than it directs us to those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or evidences of the true sence that lie within the Scripture it self that is by helping us to use the Scripture as the Rule
crude Conceptions into a more phantastick dress of great swelling words to amuse the ignorant Vulgar and this Gentleman hath put his opinion into a more Manly Garb to render it the more plausible to the Literate World CHAP. XIII A fifth Argument from the supposed Practice of the Ancient Fathers Schoolmen and others answered ANother Plea the Exercitator useth is drawn from the Practice of the Ancients Justin Martyr Dionysius Areopagita Origen and others making use of the Platonick or Eclectick Philosophy to Expound the difficult places of Holy Writ and of the Schoolmen and others in these latter Aâ—â—â— making the like use of the Peripatâ—â—ick Philosophy which bore the sway in their times To this I answer 1. Methinks this is a very lose and inconsequent way of arguing For though this Author professeth elsewhere that in the present controversie he intends not by Philosophy the opinion of Plato or Aristotle or any other whatever yet it is plain by his Prologue and by several passages in the Body of his Discourse that he intends the honour of being the Scriptures Interpreter to the Cartesian Philosophy And in this very Chapter wherein he alledgeth the forementioned examples of Fathers and Schoolmen he tells us that other Christians who had forsaken the Romish Church did in their Expositions of Scripture mostly though not exactly tread in the steps of the Schoolmen who made Aristotle's Philosophy their Rule till that in this last Age the light of the Cartesian Philosophy shone upon some Divines Quibus sordescere coeperunt Sacrarum literarum interpretamenta quae hujus lucis radiis non illustrata prodierunt It seems the Divines of his way despised and viliâ—ed all Interpretations of Scripture whether by Fathers or Schoolmen or by whomsoever made that were not enlightned with the beams of this new-risen Star so that all Expositions of Scripture that were made before Des Caâ—tes his happy days must be condemned to the Dust and Moths as useless and good for nothing Which by the way serves a little to abate my wonder at the daring folly of some Novelists in whose Writings I find many absurd distorted self-contradicting Expositions of Scripture not without the highest scorn cast upon all dissenting Interpreters It seems they are of this Authors persuasion and perhaps have lighted their Candle at his dark Lanthorn But truly as I do not very well relish the modesty of our Exercitator in this Discourse so I do as little admire his Logick For what a wilde consequence is this because the Ancients used the Platonick or Eclectick Philosophy as their Rule of Interpretation and the Schoolmen used the Peripatetick as their Rule of Expounding therefore the Cartesian Philosophy that differs widely from them all is the surest and most infallible Interpreter Let no man mistake me as if I hereby intended any sinister reflection on that noble Author whom the person I am dealing with pretends to follow I willingly allow him all the honour that his great Parts and Studious Inquiries may have merited without the least detraction Though I think some of his greatest admirers have done him no small injurie partly by their Superlative Elogies given to him together with their ready swallowing and pertinacious defending all his dictates but especially by extending his Rules and Methods to matters of Supernatural Revelation beyond his declared meaning if his own word may be taken which I am not concerned to examine 2. What use soever former Writers Ancient or Modern have made of their respective Philosophy in expounding Scripture it doth not yet appear that they own'd it for their Rule and if they did I am sure they did amiss I highly honour the memory of the ancient Fathers but I never took them for infallible in their Interpretations nor did they themselves nor I suppose doth the Exercitat or who yet contends for Philosophy to be the Infallible Interpreter And for the Schoolmen himself cites some Authors and might have cited many more and those of great eminency in the Church of Rome it self who have long since complained of them for corrupting Divinity by mixing it with their Philosophick Notions and yet we never find any of these so absurd as to assert Philosophy to be the Scriptures Interpreter 3. Lastly let it be consider'd whether this Author have not greatly forgotten and grosly contradicted himself in using this Argument from Example for himself professeth to maintain a new and strange opinion in asserting Philosophy to be the Interpreter of Scripture And in his Prologue he tells us that he had consulted with the Divines of all Places and Ages that is I suppose with their Writings to find out what method they used and what Rule they followed in their Interpretation of Scripture but could find nothing that would give him satisfaction and therefore he resolved to lay them all aside and try what he could do proprio marte by his own industry and that after long disquisition he at last fell upon this onely sure and infallible way which he here commends to the World Now I would know how he could speak this and yet believe what he here alledgeth that both Fathers and Schoolmen and other Modern Writers took this course of making Philosophy the Rule of Expounding Scripture CHAP. XIV 1. Answer given to a sixth Argument drawn from instances in some considerable Scripture-assertions supposed not interpretable without Philosophy viz. Such as speak of God after the manner of Man 2. Our Saviours Words about the Eucharist 3. The Doctrine of the Trinity IN the next place the Exercitator argues from instances in some considerable Scripture-Assertions which he says cannot be interpreted but by having recourse to Philosophy as the Rule of Exposition And here he insists upon three particulars which I shall examine in order First he instances in those Scriptures that speak of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the manner of Men ascribing to him the Members of an Humane Body and the affections of an Humane Soul besides Sense and Motion with many other things not competible to an Incorporeal much less to an infinite and immutable Being Touching which Expressions whereas it is truely cautioned by Divines of all sorts that these are to be explicated by such Scriptures as speak otherwise of God suitably to his immaterial and unchangeable Being this Author boldly affirms that the Scripture of it self is insufficient to direct us and that there is no way to resolve us which of these different Expressions of Scripture are to be taken properly and which not unless we take the Principles of Philosophy and Natural Reason for our guide To this I answer That Gods infinite and immense Perfections are much more clearly and fully discover'd to us in Scripture than by Natural Light The Apostle says 1 Cor. 2. 11. What man knows the things of a Man save the Spirit of Man which is in him even so the things of God knoweth no man but
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 〈◊〉
other Voice than that of the Scripture in speaking to us For how improper soever such an Expression may seem to this Gentleman it is agreeable to Scripture-language And me thinks he who so hotly contends for the Usus loquendi as to make that the only supreme infallible Rule of expounding Scripture might give our Reform'd Divines leave to speak according to this Use without his supercilious censure In the mean time this Author may do well to consider whose Cause he most favours by such manner of arguing I know none that can so heartily thank him for it as the Romanists who use the same way of cavilling against us when we say that the Scripture or the Spirit of God in and by the Scripture is the sole supreme Judge of all Controversies of Faith This say they cannot be unless the Spirit of God do by an audible Voice decide the Controversie telling the one party they are in the right and the other they are in an error And because he doth not so in the Scripture therefore they deny him to be the supreme Judge of Controversies by the Scripture Thus Gretser the Jesuit in the Conference at Râ—tisâ—on Seventy five years ago Behold says he we are here disputing the Cause If the Spirit of God do by the Scriptures judge and determine Controversies let him now come let him come and pass sentence out of this Book the Bible that lay before him and say Thou Gretser art wrong and thou H. art in the right Now what doth Wolzogen by his Argumentation but justifie the profane insolency of that petulant Jesuite The Antients were of another mind they acknowledged God speaking in the Scripture to be the Judge of Controversies Thus speaks one of them to his 〈…〉 Nemo vobis credat nemo nobis de Coelo quaerendus c. Let none give credit to us or you we must seek a Judge from Heaven but what need we go thither to him having his Testament here in the Gospel And if the Spirit of God may with congruity enough be said to speak in the Scriptures as Judge of Controversies he may with as good congruity be acknowledged to speak in the Scriptures as Interpreting his own Mind there laid down And so I have done with my first Argument CHAP. X. A second Argument from the Scriptures being the only Rule of Faith affording a double Proof for the Scriptures being its own Interpreter MY next Argument follows That which is the only Rule of Faith is the only Rule to interpret its own sense But so is the Scripture That the Written Word of God is the only Rule of Faith is acknowledged by all that sincerely own the Protestant Cause Now from hence I thus argue 1. The supreme Rule of Faith is that which infallibly guides and determines us per Modum Objecti what we are to believe Now it is the Scripture in its true and genuine meaning that we are bound to believe Whatsoever therefore objejectively determines what we are to believe must accordingly determine the sense of Scripture And if any thing else besides the Scripture be the Rule to determine this that must eo ipso upon that very score be acknowledged for the Rule of Faith 2. Whatsoever is the Rule of Faith must be the Rule of deciding all Controversies of Faith This I think no Man will question Now let but this be supposed that the Scripture is the only supreme Rule of deciding all Controversies of Faith which no sound Protestant can deny it will necessarily follow That it must be the supreme Rule of clearing all Doubts and Difficulties within it self For where the Scripture is on both sides own'd for the Rule the knot of the Controversie lies in this whether this or that be the sense of the Scriptures that are alledged on both sides for were that agreed the Controversie would cease and whatsoever determines that decides the Cause Thus much the Exercitator acknowledges What ever therefore it be that 's made the Rule of Interpreting Scripture and determining the sense of it is thereby made the Rule of deciding all Controversies of Faith and is to such as so use it the Rule of their Faith CHAP. XI 1. An Exception against this Argument affirming Scripture and Reason jointly to be the Rule of Faith 2. This Novelty disproved and condemned AGainst this Argument some may have the confidence it may be to make this Exception That Scripture is not the only Rule of Faith The Papists join unwritten Traditions with the Scripture and will have us take both together for the compleat Rule of Faith This I shall not deal with there having been so much said by our Divines about it in the Controversies between us and the Church of Rome But there is another Generation of Men that join Human Reason with the Scripture to make up the Rule of Faith Lambertus Velthusius one of the Seniors of the Gallo-Belgick Church at Utrech is charged with this by Vander Weayen who cites this among many other erroneous Positions out of one of that Authors Belgick Tracts That Scripture and Reason are the Rule of Faith So then we have here a new unwritten Word found out to be part of the Canon So fertile of Monsters is this Novaturient Age. But I hope this Doctrine will not be so easily received as it is boldly obtruded Hitherto Principles of Reason and Articles of Faith were wont to be contradistinguish'd and though some things knowable by Natural Light are likewise propounded to our belief in Scripture yet such were never that I know of owned for Points of Faith otherwise than as they were attested in Scripture And in all Logick that I have been acquainted with Arguments à Testimonio are put into one rank and those that are drawn à Natura rei are put into another these latter properly belonging to Science the former to Faith Our Understandings saith C. Streso and after him Dr. Tailor apprehend things three ways The first is 〈◊〉 whereby it receives first Principles The second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby it draws Consequences from those Principles The third is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such things as we assent to from Testimony And it is a known speech of St. Austin Quod intelligimus debemus rationi quod credimus Autoritati That we understand we owe to Reason but that we believe we owe to Authority And we have hitherto taken it to be essential to a Christians Faith that in its Assent it rely upon the Infallible Veracity of the Revealer as the ratio formalis credendi Perhaps it will here be said for I cannot imagine what else can be said That the Principles of Reason are the Word of God and by him written in our Minds therefore our Assent to them is a belief of Divine Testimony as well as our Assent to what is written in the Bible and consequently they are part of the Rule of Faith
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
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
never so inconsistent with or opposite to the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures or the Dictates of sound and sober Reason And being by this means laid open to Satanical Delusions they were easily drawn to believe the grossest absurdities and some of them to practice the vilest wickednesses contrary to common Honesty and the Publick Peace justifying all by their pretended Revelations This is the Character we have of Enthusiasts both Antient and Modern from Authors of unquestionable credit And if there be any where in this World any of the remainders of that Sect as it 's probable enough there are that entertain such wild and frantick Conceptions let them bear their sin and shame But of this I am sure that the Persons thus charged by Wolzogen and his Complices can safely appeal to all unprejudiced Persons that know them and to the most Wise and Holy God who is greater than all that they are as clear from any compliance with that Infatuated Generation as the best of their Accusers For 1. They heartily own and submit to the Holy Scriptures as the only sure and sufficient Rule of Faith and Life Accordingly whatsoever Conceptions may rise within them or be suggested to them in matters of Religion they bring them to the Bar of Scripture to stand or fall according to its Judgment not imposing their Sentiments upon the Scripture but receiving the sense of Scripture from the Scripture it self according to what hath been asserted in the precedent Discourse 2. In matters difficult and obscure that are more darkly laid down in Scripture especially in the Prophetick parts of it they forbear to determine peremptorily chusing rather to satisfie themselves with a modest hesitancy and abhorring to make their Judgments the measure of anothers Faith or superciliously to censure or despise any for their different apprehensions 3. They plead for no other Spirit of Revelation than what the Apostle prays for in behalf of the Ephesians Chap. 1. Vers. 17 18 19. which Revelation consists not in discovering any New Object to be received unreveal'd in Scripture but only in qualifying the Subject by curing the native and acquired blindness and carnality of our minds that we may rightly understand and embrace the Truths which the Scripture propounds 4. They solemnly profess and declare to all the World that whatsoever they are taught by the Holy Spirit as it is by and from the Scripture so it is in the regular exercise of their rational Faculties and such as they are â—eady at all times to give an account of from Scripture-grounds to any sober intelligent Person that shall demand it They therefore disown and reject the absurd Principles and arrogant Presumptions of the falsly-call'd Mystical Theology set on fooâ— antiently and revived in later years that pretends to Ecstatick Raptures and Deifications of the Soul by an utter cessation of all Intellectual Operations The Original of which Phantastick Theology Dr. Meric Casaubon derives from the Heathen Philosophers intimating withal the great Affinity between this and the New Method so much cried up of late Which those whom it concerns may consider of at their leisure In the mean time I take that for granted which hath been agreeably to plain and evident Scripture the acknowledged Doctrine of the Catholick Church however denied and derided by some late Innovators That the Holy Spirit of God is according to Christs own promise given to dwell in the Hearts of Christians to beget and preserve spiritual life in them to conduct them in their way to strengthen them with might in the Inner Man to shed abroad the love of God in their Hearts and witness their adoption to assist them in holy services and gradually to perfect the work of Sanctification in them To spend many words in proving this which is already so clear to all unbyass'd Judgments were to to light a Candle before the Sun As for that ridiculous sense that some have endeavour'd to fasten upon these or some of these Scriptures as if they were to be understood only of the Spirit as given to the Church in common and not to particular Christians it is so utterly inconsistent with the scope of those respective places and runs so contrary to the whole stream of Scripture and all Antiquity that I think it needless to waste time in refuting it He that will but considerately read over the several places and faithfully examine the Context may easily see the vanity of it That of the Learned Grotius is clear and full Not only the whole Collective Body of the Faithful but also particular Believers are rightly call'd the Temple of the Holy Ghost because the Spirit of God dwelleth in their Minds And if those who are careful according to the Apostles counsel not to quench the Spirit but to stir up the Grace of God in them have their hearts more warm'd and enlarged in holy Duties than others who either want that measure of Gifts or are defective in improving them I cannot conjecture why this should be made a matter of reproach but that some Men are angry at every thing that is not just of their own size or not suitable to their gust and therefore are resolved to revile and calumniate it though by those wounds the heart and life of Religion be found to lie a bleeding To shut up this I might here mind the Objector and those of his way how much it concerns them to acquit themselves of that Enthusiasm which they impeach others for It 's known to be one of the first Principles of that Grand Enthusiast Valentius Weigelius That he who would know the truth must forget whatsoever he hath learnt from Men and Books and lay it all aside as if he had never been acquainted with any thing and retreat into himself and fetch all his knowledge from thence Let this be referr'd to our Authors Consideration wherein this differs from the great Principle of his admired Master But let us hear what is further Objected to justifie these Mens prejudices Secondly It is said by some These heats are but the Frantick Freaks of a Crazed Brain and the product of a Religious Frenzy I answer 1. We need not be much moved with this sensless charge when we find the Pen-men of Sacred Writ to have little better measure made them by the same hand For of them we are told that they wrote many times they knew not what and gave forth Oracles when they were beside themselves his word is alienata mente which was one of the vile Positions of the Montanisis and Cataphrygians rejected and condemned both by Antient and Modern Divines And yet to justifie this Assertion our Author gravely cites Cicero de Divinatione calling the Raptures of their Pagan Vates by the Name of Furor and Virgil calling Sibylla a Mad Prophetess and Justin the Historian Lib. 24. where speaking of the much-famed Oracle at Delphos he tells us of a very