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
Scripture undoubtedly is and whatsoever is indeed contrary to the Voice of God speaking in this Sacred Volume whatever pretence it may have of Reason or Philosophy it is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 6. 20. It is an honest Speech of Aquinas which I find quoted by our Judicious and Learned Davenant Omnis creata Veritas est defectibilis nisi quatenus per veritatem increatam rectificatur unde nec homo nec Angelus infallibiliter ducit in veritatem nisi quatenus in iis loquentis Dei testimonium consideratur To which I shall subjoin the judgement of Cartesius whose Authority may perhaps be of more credit with some now than either that of a Schoolman or of an Apostle Memoriae nostrae pro summa regula est infigendum ea quae nobis à Deo revelata sunt ut omnium certissima esse credenda Et quamvis fortè lumen rationis quam maximè clarum evidens aliud quid nobis suggerere videretur soli tamen auctoritati divinae potius quam proprio judicio fidem esse adhibendam This says he must be firmly remembred as our chief Rule That those things which are revealed to us of God are to be believed as of all things the most certain And although perhaps the most clear and manifest light of Reason may seem to suggest to us some other thing we are nevertheless to give credit to Divine Authority alone rather than to our own judgment CHAP. IV. 1. A second Argument from the disproportion between Man's Reason and Matters of Divine Revelation 2. An Exception removed MY second Argument is That there is no proportion between Mans Reason and the Mysteries of Divine Revelation These are so sublime they are out of the ken of a Natural Understanding they are of a far different kind from the highest Natural Principles How little is it that Mans Reason by its own Light can discover of the Nature of God and his Eternal Counsels The Heathen who wanted Scripture Light did but grope as Men in the dark Act. 17. 27. How greatly are we to seek in judging of the Wisdom and Goodness and Power and Justice of God if we have no higher light than Natural Reason to direct us Nor need this seem strange when we see how much the most knowing Men are at a loss concerning themselves the nature and faculties of the Soul and the manner of its union with the Body and how little insight they have into many of the minuta naturae Can it then be wondred that Mans Reason should be unable by its own light to have a clear view of the Divine Perfections that are infinite and incomprehensible Whence was it that so many of the wisest Heathens were so gravell'd at the proceedings of a Divine Providence when they saw good Men suffer and bad Men prosper How did Cato that severe Moralist stumble at the success that Julius Caesar had against Pompey But what shall we say to that great Mistery of Mans Redemption by Christ The line of Mans Reason is too short to reach these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 2. 10. Therefore Evangelical Doctrine is frequently called a great Mistery containing such things as Eye hath not seen nor Ear Heard nor have entered into the Heart of Man to conceive things beyond the reach not of Men only but of Angels It is true that all Men could not but know God to be very good they found it and felt it in the daily effects of his sustaining and preserving Providence and his wonderful patience and forbearance towards them and they did know also that God is Just and a Righteous Avenger of Sin this they might see in the Judgments that he brought upon the World beside the inward witness of their own accusing Consciences The wrath of God was revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of Men Rom. 1. 18. And they knew the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the righteous judgment of God that they who do such wickednesses as they were conscious to in themselves were worthy of death Rom. 1. 32. But now how to reconcile these two the Goodness of God to his Creatures and his severe Indignation against Sinners so as with any satisfaction to hope for pardon and acceptance with him here their Principles of Reason faill'd them They saw themselves in a very ill case and that there was a necessity of somewhat to appease the provoked Anger of the Divine Majesty but how or which way this should be they could not tell and therefore lost themselves in a Maze of infinite Mistakes in their attempts about it Now it being so it is impossible that Reason by its Natural Principles should be a competent Judge of Scripture-Revelations It must therefore submit its own conceptions and Dictates to the Doctrine of Faith contained in the Scripture Here possibly it will be replied as before to the precedent Argument That all this may be granted of those that enjoyed not the Gospel and Written Word but where this is Reason may be allowed to judge and determine by its Principles concerning the things there revealed To this I answer two things First This implies a contradiction for it is not the Words or Sentences of Scripture that reveal any Mistery to us further than thereby the Mind of God is made known to us Now if this cannot be found out from the Scripture it self but from Principles of Reason then it is Reason it self that first discovers the Mistery I grant that Reason that is the faculty of Reason is and must be the instrument whereby we apprehend what God speaks in the Scripture But if there be any part of Scripture so dark as that its meaning cannot be gathered from the Words neither considered by themselves nor compared with other Passages of Sacred Writ I would know how comes Reason in Interpreting such an obscure place supposing it to be obscure to find that such and such Words so placed do contain in them such an Assertion when the Words and Sentences themselves cannot resolve us You 'll say our Reason teaches us by the light of its own common notions that this and no other must be the meaning of such a place Is it not then plain that Human Reason fetcheth that Truth if it be a Truth from it self and not from the Scriptures For the Scripture according to this Hypothesis gives an uncertain sound onely Reason determines it Remember we are speaking of matters of pure Revelation Now if the Sentences of Scripture under debate do neither by themselves nor with the help of any other clearly and certainly signifie any such thing as is fasten'd upon them such Arguers cannot say they have it by Divine Revelation unless they will pretend to that Enthusiastick Inspiration which they profess to decry and falsly charge upon their Opposites Secondly I add further that there are sundry things revealed in Scripture whereof God gives us no other Reason than his
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a reasonable service that is say they a Service agreeable to Reason To this I answer two things First I know no cause to recede from the Sense that is usually given by our Interpreters seeing it so fairly offers it self from the Words themselves and therefore do judge with the learned Dr. Hammond on the place that the Apostle calling upon Christians to present their Bodies a living Sacrifice holy acceptable unto God even their reasonble service doth evidently oppose this to the Sacrifices of the Ceremonial Law which were no other than irrational Creatures first killed and then offered up to God But Secondly Be it given but not granted that the Apostles meaning is what these Men put upon it viz. That the Service God requires of Christians is agreeable to Reason I have already premised and asserted that Christian Religion is perfectly rational whence it will undeniably follow that there is an excellent harmony a full and complete accord betwixt Reason and Religion And although some daring Wits that make high pretences to Reason have by their profane Jeers at the Misteries of Christianity and their turning the Doctrines and Phrases of Holy Scripture into Drollery contributed not a little to the Atheism of the present age yet I am past all doubt that no man is or can be an Atheist that hath not first baffled and besotted his Reason If any therefore hath gone about to set Reason and Religion at variance it hath been through some misprision taking some groundless imagination for Reason or some corrupt opinion or practice for Religion But if any shall hence argue that Mans Reason is to be the Rule of Religion or that Doctrines of Supernatural Revelation are to be interpreted and the Sense of them determined by Natural Principles we deny the consequence and leave them to prove it Our Saviour tells us that his yoke is easie but if any should thence Argue that therefore our ease must be the Rule of interpreting his Commands I think few would be found so blind or foolish except Men of profligate and debauched Consciences that would admit of such an absurd Argumentation And there is no less absurditity in this That because Religion is a Reasonable Service therefore our Reason must be the Rule of interpreting the Doctrinces of Rëligion CHAP. XVI 1. A Transition to the Exercitators Reply to some Scriptures alledged by our Divines against his Heterodoxy The fond Conceit of Lud. Wolzogen That in this Controversie Scripture is not to be heard disproved 2. And his Plea that he makes for himself in his Censura Censurae disabled 3. A return to the Exercitators Exposition of the Scritures alledged by our Writers His self-contradiction noted And the Scriptures cleared THe Exercitator having after his manner asserted his own Position comes in the seventh Chapter of his Discourse to answer the Scriptures that some have made use of to oppose it Before I deal with them I cannot but take notice of the disingenuity of Ludovicus Wolzogen who having undertaken the Patronage of the Protestant Cause against this Adversary doth so shamefully throw down his Arms and run out of the Field For when he comes at this seventh Chapter of his Antagonist and again at his twelfth wherein the Exercitator endeavors to evade or enervate the Scriptures brought against him this valiant Champion not only waves the vindication of them but for his own more plausible excuse expresly maintains it to be a preposterous thing in this Controversie about the Interpretation of Scripture to use or admit the testimony of Scripture at all and affirms that the Cause must be decided by Reason And therefore as all along his Discourse he never makes use of Scripture to defend himself or strike his Adversary so he lays an imputation of folly upon all our Divines that use this way of arguing in the present Case And he gives two pitiful Arguments to prove this fond Assertion 1. One is because the Controversie is about the Scripture it self which is not to be heard in its own Cause unless such places can be alledged in the explication whereof both parties agree To this I answer 1. If this be granted then whatsoever controversie we have with the Papists about the Authority Perspicuity and Perfection of the Scriptures though we have never so clear proof in the Scripture it self for these things they must all be waved as invalid But these have hitherto been accounted controverted Points of Faith and consequently to be resolved from Scripture the only Rule of Faith so is this about the Scriptures Interpretation however the Exercitator and with him this Author denies it while yet both of them acknowledge it to be a Question wherein the whole of Religion is concerned and next to that of the Scriptures Authority the very foundation on which all Doctrines of Faith and Manners relie and which involves in it whatsoever Differences or Controversies there are between dissenting parties in Religion that own the Scriptures And is it not strange that Men should own this Controversie to be so momentous and fundamental and yet to deny it to be a matter of Faith or to be determined by Scripture Testimony But 2. Why may not the Scripture be heard speak for it self as well as Reason for it self The Question under debate is whether the Rule of Interpreting Scripture be the Scripture it self or Mans Reason Does not this as nearly touch Reason as Scripture And yet must that be allowed to give testimony in its own Cause and not the Scripture It appears by this as by many other passages in his Book that this Author is a better friend to the Exercitators opinion than to the Protestant Doctrine And indeed 3. This is the very Language of our Popish Adversaries who tell us the Scripture cannot be its own Interpreter because the Question is concerning it self To which our Writers answer truely That the Scripture being the Voice of God its testimony for it self is above all other whatsoever even in its own Cause His other Argument is Because till the dissentient parties have agreed about the Interpreter of the Scriptures alledged they have no Sense and therefore can testifie nothing And up-upon this account he condemns those of the Reformed Churches that alledge Scripture in this Controversie and blames the Exercitator for answering their Allegations To this I answer 1. That any part of Scripture is without its Sense till it have an Interpreter is a gross absurdity and falshood The Scripture hath its Sense whether any Man interpret it or no. Interpretation doth not I am sure it should not bring the Sense and put it into the Scripture but receive it from the Scripture 2. This Author acknowledges some Scriptures to be so clear that the Sense is obvious and if such Scriptures can be produced in the present Controversie as no doubt they may Why should the difference about 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
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
that we may know him that is true And this was promised of old when the Lord says by his Prophet I will put my Law into their inward parts and write it in their hearts which besides an external Revelation implies necessarily an internal Illumination Most true it is that as the light of the body is the eye so the light of the Soul is Reason but if as our Saviour says this light which is in us be darkness how great is that darkness And that it is so with this internal eye as to matters Heavenly till the Spirit of Grace enlighten it is evident by Scripture and all experience But as far as I can understand there are two things in the present point that are especially quarrell'd at viz. That the Spirits enlightening of our minds is affirm'd to be Supernatural and to be Immediate I shall say something to them both First Some are angry at our Divines for maintaining such a thing as Supernatural Illumination The Exercitator rejects all Supernatural Light as a Figment And Velthusius for whose Orthodoxy Wolzogen's credit lies at stake denies the distinction of Natural and Supernatural Light and affirms peremptorily that our knowledge of whatsoever Object whether natural or reveal'd is attained by one and the same Internal Light and that with him is no other than the natural light of reason Now if his meaning were no more but this that whatsoever Objects are presented to us Natural or Supernatural they are all perceived by the same natural faculty of Reason or Understanding I know no Man so absurd as to deny it But if he means as he must if he mean any thing that our Reason or Understanding apprehends all Objects of what kind soever by no other inward light but what is connatural to it needing no supernatural light to help it he must pardon us if we prefer the Authority of Scripture and the Judgment of the Catholick Church before his Novel Conceits Surely when David pray'd for the opening of his eyes to see the wonders of God's Law and when St. Paul pray'd that the Ephesians might have the eyes of their minds enlightened they did not conceive that by the Spirits enlightening no more was meant than the natural light of Mans Reason for they knew that themselves and those they pray'd for had that already as they were Rational Creatures and therefore there was no more need to pray for that than to pray that God would make them Men. But for the further clearing of this the word Supernatural may have respect either 1. to Mans nature as finite and so far innocently imperfect or 2. to Mans nature depraved and so sinfully defective If we consider Man in his first state though his actual knowledge was short of what by further experience he might have attain'd and at the best had its bounds from the finiteness of his being yet I doubt not but he had sufficient light connatural to his understanding for the perception of the highest Mysteries whensoever they should have been propounded to him with clear Objective evidence But it is not so with Man fallen The light of Mans natural understanding is now so weak and dim that there needs a new supervenient light raising and quickening the mind to a greater perspicacity than lapsed Nature hath or can of it self attain to for the right understanding of spiritual things how plainly soever propounded And in this sense we own and assert the saving light of the Spirit to be supernatural in that it elevates the understanding to such a power or ability of knowing heavenly Mysteries as Nature in its â—apsed state hath not of it self nor can recover by its own greatest industry without the special Grace of God It is an acknowledged truth that every thing is received according to the capacity and fitness of the Recipient To a right understanding of any thing there is required a suitableness between the Faculty and the Object The eye cannot perceive smells nor the ear hear colours Nor can any sensitive power reach to the apprehension of things purely intellectual so neither can the mind of a mere natural Man that is darken'd and depraved by sin while it so remains duly apprehend matters spiritual and heavenly It is the Observation of a late Author that the best and most effectual remedy for the thorow curing of our Intellectual diseases is that which alters the Crasis and disposition of the mind because as he very well argues 't is suitableness to that which makes the way to Mens Judgments and settles them in their perswasion there being few as he further adds that hold their Opinions by Arguments and dry reasonings but by congruity to the understanding and consequently by relish in the affections Now as sound Philosophy doth according to the aforesaid Author go far for the cure of Mens mistakes by giving their minds another tincture to wit in such things as lie within the sphere of Nature so where this comes short as in things of supernatural Revelation it certainly doth there is need of supernatural aid This Mr. Baxter hath very well exprest I think says he that in the very hearing or reading Gods Spirit often so concurreth as that the Will it self shall be touched with an internal gust or savour of the goodness contained in the Doctrine and at the same time the understanding with an internal irradiation which breeds such a sudden apprehension of the verity of it as Nature gives Men of Natural Principles And I am perswaded that this increased by more experience and love and inward gusts doth hold most Christians faster to Christ than naked reasoning could do And were it not for this unlearned ignorant persons were still in danger of Apostasie by every subtile Caviller that assaults them And I believe that all true Christians have this kind of internal knowledge from the suitableness of the truth and goodness of the Gospel to their new quickened illuminated sanctified Souls The Apostle tells us God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness hath shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Where he manifestly compares the great Work of God in enlightening the dark heart of Man with spiritual knowledge to the first forming of Light which was the Act of a Creating Power when Darkness cover'd the face of the Deep Let the greatest External or Objective Light be afforded if there be not likewise in order to the reception of that a Subjective Light infused it will prove as we find in Joh. 1. 5. The Light shineth in Darkness and the Darkness comprehended it not Two passages in the Exercitator I shall here take notice of The one is where he says That the opinion of our Divines concerning this Supernatural Light seems to him to have had its Original from the received Axiom of the Aristotelick Philosophers
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