his holy Word Men whose glory it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let but others follow the Tract that some have already trodden out to them and they will make the whole Bible one great Cipher utterly insignificant of his Mind and Will by whose Authority it was endited and that which Erasmus feared in his time Ne sub obtentu priscae literaturae caput erigere tentet Paganismus may be unhappily fulfilled in our days CHAP. VIII The sixth and last Argument from one great end of Scripture-Revelation to supply the Defects and correct the Mistakes of our Reason An Exception of the Exercitator answered LAstly One great end of Scripture-Revelation is to help our Understandings in matters of Religion partly by rectifying our mistaken and depraved Reason and keeping us from being misled in the Things of God by the Principles we have received partly by supplying the defects of Reason acquainting it with those things which by its own Natural Light it could never reach being by their sublimity and mysteriousness wholly above it Therefore the Doctrine of Scripture doth in its tendency 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cast down reasonings and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 captivate every Notion or Conception to the obedience of Christ 2. Cor. 10. 5. For any therefore in matter of doubt or difficulty about the Sense of Scripture-Revelation to run to the Principles of Reason is to measure the Rule by that which should be measured by it And what a base dishonour is this to the Sacred Oracles to subject them to the usurp'd Dictatorship of that which is to be regulated by them and to submit themselves to its final Judgement But here the Exercitator replies That in the present case the Divine Oracles are not submitted to the Judgement of Reason or Philosophy but onely the Letters and Syllables the Words and Sentences of Scriture which are nothing but loquaces soni aut horum mutae notae some wordy sounds or the dumb signs of them framed for the purpose by Humane Institution which therefore may without any disparagement be subjected to the Judgement of Reason and Philosophy which are the eminent Gifts of God And for the better managing of this Plea he makes great use of a Discinction which he elsewhere inculcates to wit the consideration of the Scriptures Materially or Formally To this I answer 1. Surely had the Ancient Church been of this Gentlemans Mind they would never have so severely censured the Traditores that delivered up their Bibles to the Persecuters to save their own lives in the days of Dicolesian and it might have been pleaded in their behalf that they did not give up the Divine Oracles but only a heap of Dumb Signs or Characters in Ink and Paper 2. And the same would have justified the rage of Antiochus in tearing and burning the Books of the Law and the madness of the Papists in doing the like at several times by the Protestants Bibles all which might by the help of this shuffle have pleaded for themselves that they did not burn the Holy Scriptures no by no means but only a bundle of unsens'd Characters 3. As for the Exercitators distiction which is the foundation of this conceit I intend to deal with it hereafter when I come to speak of Scripture being its own Interpreter Therefore at present I shall let it pass CHAP. IX The contrary Arguments Examined and Answered the first from some Positions of the Exercitator about the manifold Sense of Scripture c. I Come now to examine what was alledged by the Adverse Part and to answer the Arguments whereby they would prove Reason and Philosophy to be the Scriptures best Interpreter 1. The Exercitator argues from some Positions by him formerly laid down which he supposes himself to have demon stratively proved in his 4th Chapter viz. That the next and immediate Sense of the Scripture is manifold and whatsoever Truths occur to the Readers Mind in the perusal of any Scripture they are all to be taken for the true intended sense and meaning of that Scripture and Philosophy being the true certain and undoubted knowledge of the nature of things demonstratively deduced from the Principles of Natural Light therefore by this the several Truths that lie in the Scripture may be best drawn out and demonstrated and all false Interpretations discovered and consequently this is the infallible Rule of Interpretation This is the Sum of his Argument For answer Here are many things crowded together in this captious Sorites which must be particularly discussed that the vanity and folly of the whole may the better appear 1. He supposes the immediate Sense of Scripture to be manifold and that one and the same Sentence of Scripture affords great variety of different Senses This I deny and do maintain with the consentient Judgment of the Reformed Churches that the Sense of Scripture is but one Thus much I grant 1. That there may be varions applications or accommodations made of one and the same Liâ—eral Sense of Scripture so it be done with due caution and â—o otherwise can that threefold Sense which some speak of Allegoricla Anagogical Tropological be allowed 2. That one single Sentence of Scripture may and frequently doth contain many very weighty Truths in it but these are not Co-ordinate Senses of the same Proposition this is but one the rest are but either some Specials included in their General or some deductions from Scripture Assertions as of Conclusions from their Principles wherein they are virtually comprehended 3. I further grant That sundry passages of Scripture especially in the Old Testament have a mystical Sense besides the Literal to wit when one thing is propounded as a Type representing somewhat else But then the thing signified by the words of Scripture is but one namely that onely which the Literal Sense exhibits which propounds the Type The Antitype is not signified by the words in those Scriptures but by the Type which those words do immediately speak of For example when we find in Numb 21. 8 9. how by God's command Moses set up a Brazen Serpent upon a Pole for the Bitten Israelite to look on that he might be heal'd these words that relate the History signifie no more than what they literally import But the Brazen Serpent there spoken of did indeed signifie somewhat else for it did tipically represent the future Crucifixion of Christ for the Salvation of Sinners as our Saviour himself hath taught us Joh. 3. 14. Indeed this conceit of the multiplicity of Senses serves our Exercitators turn very well because it helps to render the Scripture ambiguous and thereby obscure and that is the principal strength of his Cause of which I shall speak hereafter in due place Mean while let us see what he hath to say for this fancy Two kinds of proof he uses the one from Reason the other from the Testimony of learned Men. His Reasons are drawn from Gods Omniscience
which the words offer may be plain and easie when the sense that the Author intends by them which is a clean other thing is very dark and obscure And so confident is the Gentleman in this conceit that he superciliously slights Expositors of Scripture for not minding this distinction and for want hereof taking oft times the simple sense for the true one To make this wild and senseless distinon good he instanceth in several passages of Scripture wherein he would make us believe this Two-fold sense is to be found I shall therefore before I proceed endeavour to clear those Passages or the principal of them Sect. 2. One instance he gives is of those expressions in Scripture The Arme and Finger of God The simple sense of which Words and that which they do of themselves offer to the Reader he sayes is very obvious being known by common use but â—he thinks no Divine so void of Wit as to take that obvious sense for the true meaning of the Author By this it appears this Gentleman conceives that the sense which those Words of themselves offer is proper without any Trope or Figure as if God had a bodily Arme or Finger as a Man hath But by his favour he is greatly out The Arme and Finger of God according to common acceptation with any that are vers'd in the Scriptures have no other than an improper sense nor do they signifie any more than the Power of God though the word Arme or Finger either singly taken or applyed to Men signifies somewhat else according to that known Maxime Verba sunt intelligenda secundum subjectam materiam Words are to be understood according to the subject matter about which they are used And this holds in all manner of Speeches and Writings whatsoever the matter in hand directs to the sense of the Words A second instance is in Joh. 14. 6. where our Saviour says I am the Way the Truth and the Life What obvious sense it is that this Author conceives from common use of speech to be in these words different from our Saviours meaning I cannot divine Nor can I see how they can signifie any more or less to him that is acquainted with the Doctrine of the Gospel than what our Saviour means by them who calls himself The Way by no unapt Metaphor because as himself expounds it in the latter end of the Verse it is by Him that Sinners are to come to the Father that is to Reconciliation with him and fruition of him It is by Him that is by the Merit of his Blood by the Light of his Doctrine by the Conduct of his Pattern and by the Power of his Spirit And herein he is The Truth that is the Substance and real Completion of all the Types and Shadows under the Law and consequently he is The Life by a known Metonyme of the effect for the cause in that he is the Author that is the Purchaser and Bestower of that Eternal Life that Sinners come to enjoy in God A further instance is given in those words of our Saviour This is my Body where he affirms That the plain and easie sense which the words of themselves offer to the Reader is that which the Romish Church takes them in but the sense of our Saviour in speaking them which he grants to be that which the Reformed Churches give of them this he says is dark and obscure But I suppose he cannot be ignorant that there are considerable Doctors of the Romish Church eminent for Learning who have acknowledged that they should never have entertained that sense of the words which asserts Transubstantiation if the Authority of the Church had not moved them And our Writers have abundantly manifested the gross absurdity of that sense and among others Dr. Brevint in his late excellent Discourse of the Mystery of the Romish Mass hath clearly and to great satisfaction proved the Protestant sense of that speech of our Saviours from the very words themselves I cannot well understand by this Authors discourse of what setled Perswasion he is in matters of Religion He now and then insinuates something that carries with it a dislike of the Romanists and their way But it is plain enough by this and many other passages in his Book that the Reformed Churches are little befriended by him Lastly He instances in those Scriptures where God is said to be Lord of Heaven and Earth the King of Nations and King of Kings and where he is said to have begotten a Son Psal. 2. and to have loved the World Joh. 3. 16. In all which he says the obvious but mistaken sense and that which the Vulgar apprehend is that God after the manner of men is a Lord and King and doth beget and love which he esteems to be grosly absurd To these I answer distinctly 1. As for the places where God is called Lord and King and said to Reign over the Nations with all of like import in these we are taught by what we find elsewhere in Scripture to remove from God whatever savours of imperfection and to ascribe nothing to him but what suits with a most excellent and most perfect Being Nor do the aforesaid Expressions in their plain and obvious sense signifie either more or less than that God is the Universal Sovereign of the World Ruling his Creatures with infinite Wisdom and Power according to their different natures and conditions the Inferiour sort by instinct and natural necessity his Intellectual Creatures by Laws as the proper Instrument of Moral Government And what the Exercitators sentiments are about this I cannot conjecture If he be for that Novel Opinion of Thomas Anglus ab Albis that God doth not properly Govern us by Laws as Kings do their Kingdoms but as an Engineer doth his Engine by Physical Motion and that therefore he is call'd our Lord and King only in a Metaphorical sense I must enter a dissent against such an absurd and Atheistical conceit and put him to prove his Assertion and answer the Arguments that are in print against it 2. As for the second Of begetting a Son Psal 2. 7. Interpreters do much differ about it Some conceive the first and immediate sense of the words to respect David whom God had delivered out of his great afflictions and rais'd to a Kingdom which deliverance and exaltation was to him as a second Birth And this they illustrate by what is said of the Roman Emperors that they had two Birth-days the one of their Persons when they came into the World the other of their Empire when they were seated in the Throne and that Christ is here intended only as the Antitype prefigured by David Others understand these words properly and immediately of Christ and that with respect to one of these two either 1. To his Eternal Generation in reference to which he is called the Eternal and only begotten Son of God The truth of which Generation we
are upon Scripture-testimony to receive without searching into the manner it being a Mystery infinitely above our reach which therefore he that will boldly intrude into may justly fear to be overwhelm'd with its Glory Or 2. To the Temporal Manifestation of that Eternal Generation a thing being then said to be done when it is manifested to be done And so the words are applied by the Apostle Paul to our Saviours Resurrection whereby as the same Apostle says elsewhere He was declared to be the Son of God with power Though I know there is who understands those words of Christs Resurrection immediately and in it self partly because it was as it were a second Birth to the Humane Nature partly because it was as they conceive the beginning of his Installment into his Regal Office which might be called his Birth by Analogy to what was said before concerning the Roman Emperors I shall not take upon me to determine which of these ways of Explication is to be adhered to But be it what it will this I need not be afraid to say that it is Scripture if any thing that must clear the difficulty and decide the difference it is not Philosophy in its highest Exaltation that can be a sufficient Rule to resolve us the matter in hand being so wholly foreign to the best and clearest Natural Light 3. Then for the last instance Joh. 3. 16. where God is said to love the World though in this as in all other things we are not to measure God by our selves yet this is undoubted that by Gods love to Mankind is every where plainly and clearly meant his Will to do them good discovering it self in answerable effects and the Complacency that he takes in the good that he doth for them or works in them Nor do I think that any man who heedfully reads the Scriptures can take it otherwise And this is no way unbecoming the Divine Perfections but fully agreeing to his Nature and the Manifestations that he hath made of himself both by Natural and Supernatural Light Now as to this distinction which the Exercitator so much applauds condemning all others that are not as fond of it as himself I find sufficient reason to reject it and do affirm that the Words and Sentences of Scripture taken in such a coherence among themselves and connexion with the whole and otherwise than thus they have no sense that is properly theirs do exhibit to the Reader no other sense than what is indeed the Authors meaning being written for no other end but to signifie his mind for our safe guidance to Blessedness And to think that they have any other sense than what is indeed the truemind and meaning of the Author is â—o charge the Holy Scriptures with the vilest Imposture What would we think of that man that should either speâ—k or write so as that his words should carry one meaning and himself intend another Would he not be judged a Deceiver And shall we dare to fasten such a piece of Hypocrisie upon the Holy God and that in a business wherein Mans Everlasting Happiness is concern'd What thoughts have these men of God who can talk thus of the Scriptures that are his acknowledged Word But let it be consider'd before I leave this matter whether our Author do not by this distinction contradict himself For 1. When he is in preparation to his future discourse explaining what he means by the material Object of Interpretation he plainly asserts that Words are first and immediately the signification of the inward Conceptions of the Mind â—and because those Conceptions are representations of things in the Understanding hence the Words that declare those Conceptions are used to signifie and denote things Now if so how comes it about that the Words of Scripture can have a different sense from what the Author intends seeing as the Exercitator acknowledgeth they are signs or notes of the Conceptions of his Mind 2. This same Author when he is proving a multiplicity of true senses in the same Text of Scripture and that whatsoever Interpretations be they never so many and various are given if they be Truths in themselves they are also the true Expositions of that place useth this Argument That else God would be chargeable with deceiving Men by using such Words as he knew Men would be ready to take in such different senses as he never meant This the Author rejects with abhorrence as not agreeing with the Divine Perfections How well he agrees with himself and how this may be reconciled with the forementioned conceit of such a twofold sense as we have been speaking of the simple sense of the Words of Scripture and the true sense of the Speaker let the Reader judge CHAP. VIII 1. A fifth Exception That the plainest Scriptures may be wrested 2. A sixth from the multiplicity of Commentaries and Expositions removed IN the next place it will be said that the plainest Scriptures are liable to be wrested and perverted by Men of corrupt minds therefore they are not perspicuous enough to Interpret themselves Suppose what is indeed too true and sufficiently made good by our Adversaries in this cause that the plainest Scriptures may be perverted So may the best and truest Principles of Reason and Philosophy Nor can any Man devise how to speak or write so but a wicked and malicious Wit may put an absurd or horrid sense upon the most innocent Words And of this I think we have instances enough every day But what is this to the sense which the Words and Sentences of Scripture in such a Contexture and with reference to and dependence upon the Antecedents and Consequents and the whole Tenour of the Authors Discourse do offer to the Reader That the Scripture thus consider'd is of it self liable to such ambiguous senses is a profane and sensless calumny bringing that Holy Volume under the same condemnation with the Devils Oracles that were purposely contrived by that great Enemy of Mankind to cheat and abuse the Pagan World But may some say do not many take the Words of Scripture in a far different sense from what the Author of Scripture intended No doubt they do what then That is not because the Words give them that sense but because they impose that sense upon the Words to make them comply with their own apprehensions In the sixth place the Exercitator argues against the perspicuity of the Scriptures from the multitude of Commentaries Animadversions Interpretations for he loves to heap up words written by Learned Men upon the whole Scripture or the several parts of it whence he concludes it as a thing unquestionable that the Scripture is obscure so obscure that it cannot Interpret its own sense I answer That there are some difficulties in Scripture that may exercise yea and exceed the ablest Wits and that many things in it may be obscure to the Reader for want of using the
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
not silence but regulate and conduct it There is nothing in Religion but what is perfectly rational and suitable to mans intellectual nature It is to our Rational Powers that the Scriptures are propounded and as our belief of them is one of the highest acts of Reason so it is by our Reason in its due exercise that we search into them not only to find out the signification of the Words and Phrases of Scripture and discern the difference between proper and Figurative Expressions besides many other things that tend to their Verbal Exposition but likewise to observe the dependence of one Clause on another and compare the several parts of Scripture together thereby it is that we gather Consequences from Scripture-Principles and hereby do we instrumentally judge of the Mind of God as signified to us by the Words of Scripture Secondly We also grant That the Principles of Reason have their use about those things in Scripture that are discoverable by Natural Light as that there is a God and that God is to be worshipped that the Soul is Immortal that good is to be done and evil to be avoided and many such like But even in these considered as they are delivered by the Spirit of God in Scripture I think Reason is not Magisterially and Authoritatively to Judge of them being under this notion to be received as the Decrees of a higher Court wherein Man's Reason is but a Servant In this Case therefore Reason only gives in its suffrage and ministerially subscribes by vertue of its own impressed notions to Scripture-Dictates Aquinas propounding a question about Mans believing such things as may be proved by Natural Reason resolves it necessary for Mens more speedy more common and more certain attainment of Divine Knowledge that they should receiveby Faith not only those things that are above Natural Reason but those also that are discernable by Natural Light Whereby he plainly gives the pre-eminency to Revelation above Reason even in the Natural Principles of Religion Thirdly I grant that there is great use of Natural Principles in points of pure Revelation viz. To shew that these are not against sound Reason and to disprove the objections that are made against them from a pretended contrariety to Natural Light It was no small advantage to the Christian Cause in the Primitive Times that the Ancient Fathers in their Apologies for the Doctrine of Christ against the Heathen Philosophers turned their own Weapons upon them and repelled their absurd Cavils by their own acknowledged Maxims Fourthly I further grant that no Sense of Scripture is to be admitted for genuine if we do indeed find it to be certainly inconsistent with or contradictory unto any true and undoubted Principle of Reason For God who is the Author of all truth as well natural as supernatural cannot contradict himself This I confess is a very ticklish point and calls for great wariness and circumspection it being so â—asie and so ordinary for Men to be swayed by Imagination Interest and Prejudice to call that Reason which is as far from being so as midnight is from being high noon And Men may through Ignorance Incogitancy or Perversness suppose a contradiction where there is none Nevertheless this we may safely say that whatsoever is certainly and undeniably proved to be a Principle of Reason there can be nothing in Scripture that really contradicts it But Fifthly The Knot of the Controversie lies here whether Humane Reason by its own Natural Principles or those Philosophical Axioms that are thence deduced as its Supream Commanding Rule must guide and determine us in examining and deciding what is the Sense of those parts of Scripture that are purely of Supernatural Revelation And this is that which is here denied The affirmative is maintained by some and indeed it seems to be the great Helena of that sort of Men who have imbibed the new Divinity of Socinus and the Foundation of all their Heterodoxies upon this account it is that they so vehemently oppose the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead the Eternal Deity of our Lord Jesus the Personality of the Holy Ghost the Doctrines of Original Sin of the Satisfaction of Christ and Justification by his imputed Righteousness with sundry other material points that are commonly called to the Bar of Humane Reason by these Doctors of the Racovian Faith Not that they have any sound Reason on their side for their Novelties are extremely irrational as hath been abundantly demonstrated by those judicious Authors that have dealt with them But trusting to their own Reason and its Dictates in matters so far above Nature this hath led them into these dangerous precipices True it is whether in pretence to blind the Eyes of others or out of the conviction of Truth or out of the usual fate of Error to contradict it self these Men sometimes let fall that which carries with it a fair appearance of disclaiming the Judgment of Reason in Matters of Faith as may be seen in their great Master Socinus And such passages in him and his followers may possibly give some colour to the Exercitator to charge the Reformed Divines with wronging the Socinians in saying they make Mans Reason the Rule of Interpretation for himself seems to be ambitious of the honour of finding this out and it may be they have no where asserted it in Terminis or spoken it out so broadly as this Gentleman hath done But notwithstanding all this flourish when they argue against the forementioned Doctrines received upon clear Scripture-warrant by all the Christian Churches in the World from the beginning of Christianity their grand objection is drawn from Reason to which they appeal in all these Controversies as to their Oracle and thereupon set their Wits at work to wrest and winde the Scriptures alledged in defence of those Doctrines every way they can imagine to evade their plain meaning and fasten on them a Sense of their own making suitable to their beloved Maxims Besides many other passages there are of that Party that discover what their Mind is in this point But these are not the first that set this presumptuous Doctrine on foot I find it laid to the charge of the Manichees as irrational and absurd as their Conceptions were that they professedly suspended the Articles of Faith upon the judgment of Reason and required Men to believe nothing but what they could prove by Reason So much we learn from him who was once one of them but happily delivered out of their snare CHAP. II. 1. The first Argument disabling Reason and Philosophy for being the Scriptures Interpreter from the condition of Mans depraved Reason in this lapsed State 2. The Apostles Words in 1 Cor. 2. 14. urged and vindicated from some Mens mistaken Glosses 3. The Argument enforced from the foul mastakes of the most Rational among the Heathen in matters of Religion NOW that Reason or Philosophy cannot in the Sense given be the Scriptures Interpreter
That nothing is in the Understanding that hath not been first in the sense Which says he the Divines receiving for an undoubted truth did never call off their minds from their senses and finding the knowledge drawn from thence to be very lame and imperfect and next to nothing they judged all rational knowledge to be no better yet happening by chance sometimes to make use of their mere understanding in the perception of some things and thereby attaining some true and solid knowledge which they found to be of a far other nature than that which they used to fetch from the senses therefore they took this latter kind of knowledge to be something Divine and Supernatural To this I answer 1. By what Power or Authority doth this confident Gentleman break Windows into the breasts of others and take upon him to know the secret thoughts and inward conceptions of their minds Did they ever tell him that this was their apprehension of things or that their Doctrine of Supernatural Light was built upon the Authority of Aristotle or deduced from any of his Axioms Or doth his New Philosophy furnish him with skill sufficient to search the hearts of Men touching their particular Sentiments as he pretends it doth to shew him the mind of God in Scripture-Revelations I think it furnisheth him for both alike But I wish it had taught him better to know himself 2. Neither were Aristotle nor his Followers such Dolts or Blockheads in maintaining the forementioned Axiom as to take it in that absurd meaning that nothing could be received into the Understanding but what is the Object of Sense For they clearly maintain the knowledge of those things that fall not under sense as of God and Angels and of Universals that are abstracted from sense But that all our knowledge of things without us comes in by the Senses especially by those two that are not unfitly called the Senses of Discipline Sight and Hearing is I think evident enough by all Experience besides what we find in Scripture concerning the knowledge we have of God which is either Natural or by Revelation Now as for the former the Apostle sure was not deceived by Aristotle's Axiom when he tells us That the invisible things of God from the Creation of the World are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made even his Eternal Power and Godhead And for the knowledge of things revealed we are taught by the same Apostle that Faith cometh by hearing And our Saviour's most usual method of Preaching by Parables may shew us how requisite it is for Man in this state to have his understanding inform'd even in things Spiritual and Heavenly by the help of sense and sensible Objects The other passage is that where he says That this Supernatural Light is a thing unintelligible he knows not what to make of it nor how to conceive of it Is it says he something ordinary or is it extraordinary To his Demand I answer It is beyond the reach of corrupted and depraved Nature and so it is extraordinary but it is the inseparable priviledge of renew'd Nature and so far it is ordinary for it is communicated to all who partake in the saving Grace of Christ. But 2. Whereas this Author says He knows not what this enlightening of the Spirit is I easily believe him considering what our Saviour says of the Spirit of Truth which he promised to his Disciples That the World could not receive him because it seeth him not neither receiveth him And it is no wonder for Men to speak slightingly or contemptuously of the things they know not Upon which very account many excellent Truths plainly revealed in the Gospel are by audacious Wits exploded and derided as unintelligible Mysteries Yet 3. Me thinks Mens Reason might tell them if it were not wofully blinded by pride prejudice or passion that the unaccountableness of the nature of a thing or of the manner how it is can be no sufficient Argument against its existence The most perspicacious Inquirers into the Secrets of Nature do acknowledge themselves convinced of the certain existence of many things the nature whereof and the manner of their production they are not able to conceive much less to discover Thou knowest not says Solomon what is the way of the Spirit nor how the Bones do grow in the Womb of her that is with Child It is beyond the ken of Mans understanding infallibly to know or demonstratively to prove 1. The way of the Spirit or Soul whether it be produced by Creation or Traduction or what other way And 2. How the Body is form'd in the Womb. I know some learned Men have gone far in their Discoveries but the ablest of them have been put to a stop meeting with some knots which they could not untie I might ask these Curious Questionists How they can solve the many Doubts that may be raised about the Species of sensible Objects and about the Phantasms in the Mind or give us a satisfying account whence they come how they are framed and where it is that they are first received Or I might demand of them Which way the Soul and Body are united to each other and how they come to act one upon another with a thousand more difficulties that occur where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is unsearchable though the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be undeniable How much more may this be affirm'd of things purely revealed the sublimity whereof so vastly exceeds the former Secondly Another thing these Men dislike is That the Spirits enlightening of the Mind is said to be Immediate 1. Now if the word Immediate be taken as it is sometimes explain'd for such as supersedes Man's use of God's appointed means as if he were to expect some internal voice or impulse to reveal to him the Mind of God we disclaim all Immediate Actings of the Spirit in this sense But if Immediate be taken as it may very properly for such an operation of the Holy Spirit as doth Immediatè attingere mentem that by it self without the interposition of any second cause reacheth the mind of Man so we maintain that there is no effectual operation of the Spirit of God upon the Soul of Man but what is in this sense Immediate For what created Agent is there to come between the Spirit of God and the Soul of Man or that can by its own efficiency come at the Soul of Man to work upon it This nothing can do but an Infinite Spirit If any will say That there is something else comes between the Spirit of God and the Soul of Man in this business let them assign what it is Is it the Scripture it self That can act but Objectively nor can it do that further than it is understood and believed That therefore which works upon the Mind by a proper efficiency to redress the indisposition of the Faculty and to enable it to know and