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
in Words which Mans Wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth 4. If the common use of Speech be so sure a Rule of Interpretation as this Author makes it I wonder what was in his Mind to say of the Penmen of Scripture That if they were now living amongst us they could not be the sufficient Interpreters of their own Writings because they often wrote they knew not what Certainly the customary use of Speech which obtained in the times wherein they wrote must needs be much better known to them than it can be to any now living Why then might not they interpret their own Writings if they were now with us having the best insight into that which this Author cries up for the onely sure Rule of Interpretation 5. If the customary use of Speech must be the Rule of Interpretation the inconvenience urged by the Exercitator cap. 11. par 6. will not easily if at all be avoided viz. the interpreting of Scripture according to the erroneous apprehension of the Vulgar 6. If this be so certain a Rule as he will have it so as that he who uses it shall not fail to find out the true Sense of Scripture for so himself speaks how is it that the Sense of Scripture may not be found in all parts one as well as another for the use of Speech is the same in all And yet he acknowledges that in many things not necessary to Salvation let the Reader be never so diligent in his search he cannot find the meaning of Scripture and the reason hereof he says is to be fetcht not from the nature of the thing nor from the darkness of our minds but ex ipsa constitutione Scripturae from the very frame of Scripture it self Secondly But now whether this learned Author did not well consider what he wrote or had not well digested his own Notions or whether he designed to amuse his Reader with intricacies and ambiguities or whether he were aware of the inconvenience of his former Expressions and their liableness to exception or what other were the cause I shall not inquire But this is plain to any that attentively reads his Discourse that when he had once and again given the honour of being the onely sure Rule of Interpretation of Scripture to the common and customary use of Speech he afterwards falls to a singular use of Speech distinct from the vulgar arising from the different Character of the Writer the different occasion of Writing the different nature of the things about which he Treats and that under this singularity of the usus loquendi the custom of Speech we are to consider the Antecedents and the Consequents of a Text and the paralel places And elsewhere he says all the circumstances of the place under consideration are to be examined and this he calls Usus loquendi Scripturarius the Scripture use of Speaking And when he objects against himself that the customary manner of speaking is dubious and uncertain he answers it thus That though it be so yet God's manner of Speech in Scripture is fixed So that what was before called the common and vulgar use is now confined to God's use and the Scripture-use of Speaking which certainly does not receive Law from the custom and consent of Men but is wholly framed and ordered by the disposal of Divine Wisdom though in it he makes use of such words as receive their single signification from common use Besides this Author tells us elsewhere that Usus loquendi or custom of Speech includes in it the Analogy of Faith and all other things that are taken out of Scripture in order to the finding out of its true Sense Now if this be indeed the meaning of his Usus loquendi his opinion comes very near to that of the Reformed Churches if it be not the same with it But then what needed all this stir as if our Divines had not discovered their Minds plainly and distinctly but this Author must come and mend it whereas he hath rather darkned and obscured it by his intricate and inconsistent Discourse For whoever before him took Usus loquendi in such a sense as this And I much wonder that he who is so much for the custom of Speech should vary so widely from it in his Writing For I am sure this Phrase Usus loquendi according to that mode of Speech that hath hitherto obtained was never taken so comprehensively as to include the scope of the Text with the Antecedents and Consequents and all other circumstances and the Analogy of Faith and what ever lies in the Scripture that serves to the discovery of its true sense Except Men will assume a power to themselves of coining a new Sense of Words I cannot imagine what ground they can have to talk after the rate of this Author Our Divines speak much more properly and clearly in this business viz. That the Holy Spirit of God hath in Enditing the Scripture so attempered his Speech and so ordered and disposed the several Parts and Parcels of this Sacred Book that his Mind so far as it is necessary for us to know it may be discovered either from the obvious sense of the particular Sentences and Propositions of Scripture considered in that Order and dependence wherein they are placed or by a due comparison of one part of Scripture with another so as that the Reader may gather the Sense of Scripture from the Scripture it self This is that which our Divines mean when they say that the Scripture is its own Interpreter And when they say at any time that the Spirit of God is the Interpreter of Scripture either they speak of the Objective evidence that the Spirit gives of the Sense of Scripture and then they understand it of the Spirit as speaking in the Scripture which being the Voice of the Spirit is to us as I said our Supream Rule Or they speak of the Spirit as the efficient cause of that Subjective light â—hat is let into our Minds inabling us to understand the Scriptures And this belongs to another inquiry and doth not concern the Question about the Rule of Interpretation Now when our Writers say the Scripture is its own Interpreter they are to be understood Metonymically As when they say the Scripture is the Supream Judge of all Controversies of Faith they mean no more but that it is Judex Normaâ—is or the Supream Rule of Judgement according to which Controversies are to be ultimately decided so by proportion is it in the present Cafe And as when the Papists speak of the infallible dectding of Controversies whether they say the Pope is the infallible Judge or the Sentence given by the Pope is the infallible Rule of decision it comes all to one So when our Divines say sometimes that the Spirit speaking in the Scripture is the infallible Interpreter of Scripture and other while that the Scripture is the infallible Rule of
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
and so remain as evil Doers and therefore cannot be said to come forth of the Graves of Ignorance and Impiety or to Rise by the Preaching of the Gospel to newness of life because they are expresly said to come forth to the Resurrection of Damnation But if the Exercitators Principles will allow him to write after the rate he here doth I think none that hath any veneration for the Scriptures will be over-fond of such a corrupt and fallacious Interpreter But when Men are hammering out a new Divinity they must either find out a new Scripture or a new way of Expounding the Old to countenance their own Dreams that when by this Artifice they have turned out the true Christianity they may bring us in a Pagan Religion finely set out in the stately dress of Eternal Reason No wonder they cry out of Systems as Chains and Fetters to their desultorious and volatile Wits They had rather as one says of wanton Heads â—e the Purchasers of Error than the Heirs of Truth Of whom the Lord Verulam gives us a very fit Character Certè sunt qui cogitationum Vertigine delectantur ac pro servitute habent fide fixa Axiomatis constantibus restringi Liberi Arbitrii usum in Cogitando non mixùs quam in Agendo affectantes Verily says he there are some who are delighted in a giddiness of opinions and take it for a bondage to be restrained by a fixed Faith and setled Principles no less affecting the use of their Free Will in thinking than in acting And so I have dispatcht the first Part of my Work and proceed to the second Part II. The Holy Scripture the onely sure Interpreter of it self CHAP. I. 1. The Proposition asserting the Scripture to be its own Interpreter laid down Lud. Walzogen's rashness and inconsistency with himself in giving the Sense of our Reformed Divines in this Point 2. Their true meaning cleared and something touched about the Analogy of Faith 3. The Judgment of Divines Ancient and Modern in this Business HAving endeavoured to disprove the new pretended Rule of Interpretation I come in the next place to assert the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches and lay down this Proposition that the Holy Scripture is its own onely sure Interpreter But before I enter upon the opening and confirming of it I must remove something that lies in my way Ludovicus Wolzogen in his two Books de Scripturarum Interprete attempting to answer the Exercitator professeth to maintain the received Doctrine of the Protestant Churches in this Point but pretends to a more clear and distinct handling of it than hath hitherto been performed by our Divines Whereas indeed that which he propounds to maintain is a novel fancy of his own never yet owned by any Orthodox Divine that I have read or heard of viz. That the Scripture interprets it self by the Usus loquendi the custom of speaking and that this is the onely sure and undoubted Rule of Interpretation But whereas he most immodestly chargeth all that have gone before him with confusedness in this Controversie as not well understanding either it or themselves his learned self when he comes to take it in hand is so intricate and perplex so various and inconstant that it 's a difficult matter to understand what he would have He turns himself into so many forms and winds himself so many wayes and falls into so many self-contradictions that he seems to design the entangling of his Reader and the hiding of himself in a Castle of Clouds First One while he will have us understand this Usus loquendi of the vulgar use of speech common to the Scriptures with other Writings and gives us his Reason why this must be the Rule of Interpretation because common use is the onely Master of Speech and the Custome of Speakers and Writers gives Law to the signification of Words and that the use of Speech is formed by much and long Custom which when it hath at last prevailed does as it were imprint a publick Character upon Words which come by tacite consent to be received of all and he professes he sees no Reason why any should deny that the Interpretation of Scripture depends upon this use of Speech which himself says is founded upon Humane Institution but adopted and approved by the Wisdom of God in Enditing the Scripture Now that this Usus loquendi should be the Rule of Interpreting the Holy Scriptures is far wide from the Truth and from the Judgment of all Protestants and as far as I know of all other Expositors For 1. When they say the Scripture is its own Interpreter or which is all one the Rule of Interpretation to it self they understand it of something in the Scripture that is peculiar to the Scripture and not any thing that is common to it with other Writings But the vulgar and customary use of Speech is the same in all Writings where the same Language is made use of 2. It is granted on all hands that this Usus loquendi or Custom of Speech hath its place among those means that I spake of in the entrance of my Discourse that do remotely conduce to Interpretation but it reaches no further nextly and immediately than to Verbal Interpretation which is called Translation by guiding us to the right understanding of Words and Phrases and the several Modes of Speech But this comes not up to that which we call Real Interpretation which is the Exposition of the Author's Mind signified by those Words as they are so and so placed We do not therefore shut out the Use of Speech but suppose it and look at something further For instance suppose I were to inquire into the Sense of that place Joh. 1. 1. which is the instance given by Vander Weayen I may by the Use of Speech know what these several Words Begining and Word and God signifie But I must have something else to guide me to the right meaning of the entire Sentence In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God And Wolzogen himself acknowledges that there is a wide difference between words taken singly and in their first original and taken as conjoined in Propositions I may add with very good reason that there is also a wide difference between Propositions taken singly and taken in such or such a contexture of Discourse Now the use of Speech will not help us to distinguish here 3. How can the common use of Speech be a Rule in Matters of pure Revelation I think all acknowledge that the Sense of Words varies according to the difference of the subject matter about which they are used Now matters of pure Revelation are so remote from vulgar use that they had never been spoken or written by any Men if the Holy Ghost had not Endited them and communicated them to us in the Scripture And the Apostle tells us that these things are delivered not
sense and that is the thing we inquire into by the help of Philosophy and when we have thereby obtain'd the sense of Scripture-Propositions that sense we own for the Rule of our Faith and of deciding Controversies in Religion But adds he when the Reformed Doctors say the Scripture is its own Interpreter they can mean only the Words and Sentences of Scripture without the sense for it is the sense that they are seeking for and that cannot be the Rule to find out it self To this I answer 1. The distinction of the Scripture consider'd materially and formally or in respect of the matter and form is generally received But was never that I know of taken in the sense of this Author but in a far different meaning viz. The Scripture as to the matter is the Word of God and formally consider'd is the same Word as written But this Gentlemans Exposition of it serves his turn very well viz. That the Words and Phrases of Scripture are as rude matter till the sense as the form be given it by Philosophy or Humane Reason But 2. The distinction as here used is a miserable subterfuge arguing some Wit but no Honesty For when we say the Scripture is the Rule of Faith and it is the Rule of Interpretation to it self in both we mean neither the words nor the sense separately but conjointly For 1. The Scriptures are no otherwise the Rule of our Faith than as they are the Revelation of the Mind of God to us Now the Words or Sentences separated from the true sense supposing they could be so separated are not the Mind of God and the sense separated from the Words and Sentences if it might be so separated would be no Revelation for we know not the Mind of God but by the Words and his Mind as clothed with these Words or these Words as exhibiting his Mind so they are our Rule Again 2. When we say the Scripture is a Rule of Interpretation to it self we mean that if the place under consideration be plain it delivers its own sense to the Reader that well minds the contexture and dependence if it be dark we have recourse to some other plain Scripture and by the evident sense of that wherein the Mind of God lies more clearly in the words we find out his Mind in that other where it lay more darkly The fallacy of this Author in charging us to mean only the Words of Scripture when we say the Scripture is its own Interpreter lies in this he would make the World believe that we mean it of one and the same Sentence of Scripture even where it is most obscure Now as himself premiseth that Interpretation supposes some obscurity in the thing to be Interpreted so he could not but know that in the case of obscurity we mean it of the Scripture according to its different parts that the Scripture where it is plain is a Rule of Exposition to it self in those parts that are more intricate which himself also acknowledgeth to be our meaning elsewhere in his Book And yet we use no such incongruity as he supposeth in saying the Scripture expounds it self each part of Scripture being Scripture no more than in saying that the Civil or Municipal Law expounds it self when one part of the Law explains another CHAP. XIII 1. An Answer to some other Objections against the Scripture being its own Interpreter e. g. That Protestants assert a necessity of the Spirits Illumination 2. What Correspondency hath one part of Scripture with another c. 3. Some difficult places of Scripture are not explained elsewhere 4. Many Rules of Interpreting Scripture are prescribed by Divines both Ancient and Modern I Shall now consider what may be further Objected against my present Assertion besides what I have already met with in clearing my foregoing Arguments And first the Exercitator Objects That the Divines of the Reformed Churches maintain a necessity of the Spirits Internal Illumination for our right understanding of the Scripture therefore the Scripture is not a sufficient Interpreter of it self I answer What the Spirits enlightening is and how far necessary may be more seasonably discuss'd in another place and therefore I intend to speak something to it in an Appendix to this Discourse But at the present we are to consider that the Spirit is said to make known to us the Mind of God two ways 1. Objectively as it speaks to us in the Scripture which is of the Holy Spirits enditing 2. Effectively as it acts in us to help our weak understandings Now these two are widely different one from the other The former notes the Objective Evidence that is given us of Gods Mind which is by the Scripture and this is enough to render the Scripture a sufficient Rule of Interpretation to it self whether the other were necessary or no because there is in the Scripture a sufficiency in the nature of an Objective Light to discover the Will of God the latter concerns only the Subjective Light which the Spirit affords to our dark understandings that we may discern what is in the Scripture the necessity whereof doth not at all impeach the sufficiency of the former because that which makes this latter necessary is not any obscurity in the Object but an indisposition in the Subject or Faculty that is to apprehend it But it 's further objected What correspondency hath one part of Scripture with another or what right or power hath one Pen-man of Scripture over the Writings of another that the words of the one should be Interpreted by the others Thus argues the Exercitator To which I answer 1. May we not with much more reason say What correspondency hath Philosophy with Scripture Have not the several parts of Scripture all which were endited by one and the same Infallible Spirit more correspondency one with another than any of them can have with Philosophy which is the immediate product of fallible Reason 2. The Author may do well to consider what good correspondency there is between the several parts of his own Book and whether this Objection do not evidence him to be inconsistent with himself For in his third Chapter when he would prove that the words in 1 Kings 3. 12. concerning the Wisdom of Solomon are to be understood by an Hebrew Idiotism and mean no more than that the Wisdom given to Solomon was very eminent and above the ordinary rate he appeals to two other places that speak of the Piety of Hezekiah and Josiah and says Hoc ita se habere ex duobus aliis ejusdem Scriptoris locis non obscure elucescit c. That it is so appears plainly by two other places of the same Writer viz. 2 Kings 18. 5 6. and C. 23. 25. Which he says can no otherwise be truly understood but in this sense that their Piety was eminent and extraordinary It seems our Author was then in the mind that one part
Authentick Record of his Mind to conduct us in our way to Blessedness and is this all it is good for It seems by this Mans account all the Knowledge that we have any use for is in us already by Natures Light and whatsoever is delivered in Scripture must be tryed by that What could a blind Pagan have said more to the Scriptures dishonour As it is past all doubt that the Lord of Heaven and Earth in whom we live and move and are ought to be worshipp'd and served by his Rational Creatures so me thinks it should be as unquestionable that he cannot be served rightly and acceptably but by such a Worship as is according to the appointment of his own Will The meanest Man living that hath any depending on him looks they should serve him according to his Mind and not according to their own arbitrary choice And shall we think the Great Sovereign of the World will be pleased with a Worship of Mens own â—â—aming without any order or direction from him Now by which way or means could we know what that Worship is which God approves if we were in this inpsed state left to the meer conduct of Natural Light and had nor Divine Revelation to inform and guide us What piâ—…ful Work did the â—…st and learnedst of the. Heathen make about this 〈◊〉 what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did they admit into their Religious Worship as I have already 〈◊〉 in the first part of my Discourse Besides there are in Scripture many things Historicalâ— and many Prophetical Can these 〈◊〉 known by Natural Light or can we judge whether these be true or no by the help of Philosophy Moses gives us the Hâ—story of the Creation 〈◊〉 the general Deluge of the Destruction of Sodom of Israels Deliverance out of Egypt by strange Wonders and the bringing of them after forty years wandring into the Promised Land and their Establishment there for some years till for their Idolatry and other sins they were removed is recorded by other sacred Writers besides many other remarkable Histories of more personal concernment Now if we must not take these for truth from the testimony of Scripture which way shall we be satisfied Reason indeed may convince us that these things are not impossible But whether they were really so or so done as is reported all the Principles of Reason all the Maxims of Philosophy will never resolve us The like may be said of the many Prophesies concerning Christ and the after-state of the Church and about the four great Monarchies that were successively to arise with their progress and period If these and such like be examined by Philosophy what can it say to them Must these be all rejected So it seems by this Author's Discourse for he hath no kindness for any thing in Scripture but what may mind us of what we know naturally and may by the Principles of Reason be examin'd and determin'd And then what shall we say to the great Doctrine of Mans Salvation by Christ which is the grand Subject and principal Scope the of Scriptures Was there ever any syllable of this made known to the World otherwise than by Revelation There is indeed a Natural Theologie but I could never yet see ground to be perswaded that there is a Natural Christianity The knowledge of God as our Creator and Preserver is in some measure but very imperfectly attainable by Natural Light But the knowledge of Christ as the Redeemer of Sinners reconciling them to God and delivering them from the power of Satan had never been attained had there not been something above Nature to discover it If any think otherwise let them tell me how it comes about that in those Countries where the Doctrine of the Scriptures was never published there is not the least print or footstep of this great Mystery to be found But certainly he that talks of the Scriptures after the rate of this Author cannot be thought to apprehend himself to stand in any need of a Redeemer or to have any better esteem of the Gospel than that Triple-Crowned Gentleman at Rome is said to have manifested long since in his discourse with Cardinal Bembus For ought I see this Man owns nothing in the Scripture but what may be reduced to three Heads 1. The Being of God and his Attributes 2. The Immortality of the Soul and consequently Man 's future state in another World and 3. The Rules or Laws of Moral Duty because of these we have some notice by Natural Light But how miserably defective is that Light even in these So that here also we stand in need of a further Guide Some knowledge the Heathens had of God and of Mans future state but alas what does all that they have written hereabout come to but some faint guesses and probable conjectures And though they have in their Ethicks many excellent things and of great use yet they fall extream short in sundry particulars of very weighty concernment whereof we should have been utterly ignorant if the Holy Scriptures had not afforded us a more clear and perfect Rule of practice And it hath been observed by some that those Gentile Philosophers who flourish'd after the general promulgation of the Gospel though they continued still in their old Gentilism yet they wrote much more clearly and sublimely of the Nature of God and of Mans Duty here and his Eternal state hereafter than those who were before them Whether the cause of this were the converse they might have with Christians and their Writings or whether that plentiful effusion of the Spirit that was vouchsafed in those times might in some degree as to common enlightenings extend it self beyond the Churches Pale I will not determine But sure something there was beyond mere Natural Light that made them in their Notions of God and Religion so much 〈…〉 of their Predecessors I shall shut up all with this hearty and serious Wish That all who call upon God by Jesus Christ would highly honour and esteem the Holy Scriptures making them their study and delight in order to the bettering of their Hearts and manifesting the power and purity of this Word by a sober righteous and godly Conversation which would more effectually vindicate this Blessed Book from the Scorns and Reproaches of Atheists and Antiscripturists than all Disputes AN APPENDIX Concerning Internal Illumination And other Operations of the Spirit upon the Soul of Man Vindicating the Doctrine of the Protestants and the Practice of all Serious Christians from the Charge of Enthusiasm and other Unjust Criminations In the SAVOY Printed by Tho. Newcomb for Robert Boulter at the Turks Head in Cornhill over against the Royal Exchange 1677. A brief Account of the Contents of the following Appendix CHAP. I. THe Protestants Doctrine concerning the Spirits Illumination explained and defended CHAP. II. The Nature of Distresses of Conscience and Spiritual Joys open'd and the reality of them proved CHAP. III. True Zeal in the Exercises of Religion justified An
deep Cave in the Mount Parnassus near Apollo's Temple out of which proceeded a cool Air which being driven upward by a certain Wind did turn the minds of the Prophets into Madness who being thus inspired were forced to give Responses to those who came to consult with the Oracle Wolzogen is much briefer in citing this of Justin for he says no more out of him but this That the minds of the Prophets were turned into madness when they were filled with God But I have related it something more largely out of the Author himself that the Reader may the better understand the Historians meaning And is it not a goodly piece of service and greatly for the honour of Religion that a Christian Writer should compare the temper of the Lords Prophets speaking by Inspiration from Heaven to the Fanatick Fury of those Diabolical Prophets that were evidently acted by a blast from Hell He that hath so little Reverence for those Worthies who were infallibly asssted in what they preach'd and wrote as to speak thus reproachfully of them no wonder if he trample upon the Servants of the same Lord now But what do I speak of the dishonour done to the Servants of God by a Man that speaks so irreverently of God himself and his Holy Word in many passages throughout his Book as is obvious enough to the view of every unbyass'd Reader 2. Let it be consider'd what colour there can be for this Imputation when the Persons thus charged are known to be sober and considerate and in all their discourses and affairs as rational as other Men and as composed every way as any of those who thus traduce them As therefore when some said blasphemously of our blessed Saviour He hath a Devil and is mad why hear ye him Others made answer These are not the words of him that hath a Devil As if they had said Men possest or mad do not speak after this rate or carry themselves after this manner So may I say of those who are now reproach'd for Mad-men by a Generation of the same profane temper Examine the behaviour of those who are thus calumniated observe their grave deportment their serious discourse their circumspect carriage their prudent conduct of affairs and let sober Reason judge whether these be the effects of Madness Tush may some say this is nothing Men may have a partial or particular madness that takes them in some things while they remain sober in others They may be very sedate and composed in their other affairs and yet in matters of Religion they may be quite beside themselves For a Reply to this 1. Be it so then perhaps the Objectors may be as much concern'd in this as any others and the charge may be retorted upon themselves though they speak and act like Men of Reason in other things yet it seems in matters of Religion they may be mad Ipsi viderint Let themselves look to it The Prophet Jeremy saith of the Babylonians that they were Mad upon their Idols And I have heard many years ago that Doctor Holdsworth then Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge did in his Speech at the Publick Commencement complain of some in his time that were ad insaniam usque superstitiosi superstitious unto madness But 2. We will not let it go thus The Persons we are speaking of and pleading for are such as can and do give as intelligent an account whensoever required as any other of what they profess and practise in matters of Religion from the unerring Word of Truth This they plead for to this they appeal by the Precepts of this they live and in the hopes of what is there promised through the Grace of Christ they resolve to die And if this be the Cognisance and Character of Mad-men then let us henceforth look for Sober Persons no where but in Taverns Play-Houses and Bedlams and reckon all other for Mad. 3. Many instances might be given of those who while in the days of their vanity they were strangers to the power and life of Godliness had the same contemptible apprehensions of these things and have with a kind of disdain wonder'd what those persons ailâ—d whom they perceived to be zealously affected in matters of Religion above the common rate But after they came to feel the perswasive efficacy of that Regenerating Grace which some are bold to deride changing their hearts they have seen things with other eyes and with indignation wonder'd at themselves that they should be so slight and stupid in matters of so infinite concernment I doubt not but St. Paul while he was a persecuting Pharisee wonder'd at the Christians as a company of Mad-men for what they profess'd and did But afterward when his eyes were open'd to see his errour he counted himself no better than Mad for what he had formerly done agaiâ—st them To which I may add in the last place That many of those who in the days of their health and jollity have derided the persons we speak of for a company of silly distracted Fools when a Death-bed hath awaken'd their Conscience and brought them to a more sober use of their Reason and a more serious view of Eternity have then changed their minds and heartily wisht themselves of the number of those whom they have formerly reproach'd and would be glad to have some of their Oyl to put into their own dying Lamps before they were to engage in their last conflict and pass from hence into another World But however the time is hastening when these Calumniators will be sufficiently convinced of their folly and take their own reproaches home to themselves when that shall be fulfill'd that the Author of the Book of Wisdom tells us That the Righteous Man shall stand with great boldness before the face of such as have afflicted him and made no account of his labours When they see it they shall be troubled with terrible fear and shall be amazed at the strangeness of his Salvation so far beyond all that they looked for And they resenting and groaning for anguish of spirit shall say within themselves This was he whom we had sometimes in derision and a proverb of reproach We Fools counted his life madness and his end to be without honour How is he numbred with the Children of God and his lot is among the Saints But may some say there have been many Pretenders to the Spirit both in former and latter Ages who have abused the World 1. Very true and what will you conclude from thence There likewise have been and are many Pretenders to Learning and Honesty who by their cunning slights and artifices have deceived many Is this any prejudice to Learning and Honesty where they indeed are Or must we resolve that these are no where to be found because of such false Pretenders Is this to argue like Men of Reason 2. The Apostle tells us That the Devil transforms himself into