Selected quad for the lemma: tradition_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
tradition_n	faith_n	reason_n	scripture_n	2,267	5	6.0519	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66556	The Scriptures genuine interpreter asserted, or, A discourse concerning the right interpretation of Scripture wherein a late exercitation, intituled, Philosophia S. scripturæ interpres, is examin'd, and the Protestant doctrine in that point vindicated : with some reflections on another discourse of L.W. written in answer to the said exercitation : to which is added, An appendix concerning internal illumination, and other operations of the Holy Spirit upon the soul of man, justifying the doctrine of Protestants, and the practice of serious Christians, against the charge of ethusiasm, and other unjust criminations / by John Wilson ...	Wilson, John, 17th cent.	1678 (1678)	Wing W2903; ESTC R6465	125,777	376

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 R●tis●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

What can be the meaning of this that these Principles are written in our Minds I cannot understand any further than this that there is begotten in our Minds a clear perception and firm perswasion of them But the great Question will be By what Act doth God write these in our Minds or beget in us this perception and perswasion of them Surely they will not say that when God creates the Soul of Man this perception or perswasion of these Principles is concreated by him in and with the Soul for if so how is it that during our Infant-state we are such strangers to them and do so continue till we come gradually by observation and experience to be acquainted with them And when we come to discern them and to be perswaded of them how come we to be assured that they are of God There must be some difference between the Testimony and the Thing testified The Principles of Reason are supposed to be the Res testata the Thing testified But what is the Testimony or the Actus Testificandi My perception or perswasion cannot be it for if so then whatsoever I perceive and am fully perswaded of I must believe to come from God and what will that come to at last These Principles of Reason are not Complex Propositions form'd by God in our Minds or suggested to us by a Divine Afflatus this would make every Man an Enthusiast The best account I can give of them is that they are such General Truths as have their foundation in the nature of things and their mutual habitudes and respects which our Reason apprehending doth therein discover the aforesaid Principles thence resulting And because it is God alone who gives to all things their several Beings and constitutes them in such and such habitudes each to other and hath given us our Reason whereby we are enabled to discern them therefore he is said to be the Author of those Principles which lie fundamentally in his Workmanship And we do not take them for Truthus upon the credit of any foregoing testimony that God gives to us of them but we assent to them propter evidentiam r●i because our Reason sees them perfectly agreeable to the nature of things and thereby finding them to be certainly true thence it gathers that they are of God from whom all Truth comes But now the method of Faith is widely different from this Here we first own the testimony of God speaking in the Scriptures and thence we are perswaded that what the Scripture speaks is true and so we come to embrace the many severals therein asserted by yielding a particular assent to them as we find them But will some say before we believe the Scriptures we must be convinced by Reason that these Scriptures are of God Very true but the effect of such a conviction is not properly Faith but Knowledge And when I know by satisfying Grounds of Reason that the Scripture is indeed the Voice of God then do I by Faith assent to what that speaks as Gods testimony And whereas there are some Truths which are knowable in some measure by Natural Light and yet are revealed likewise in the Scripture it is commonly and truly said by our Divines that as they are received by Natural Light and upon Rational Grounds so they are the Objects of Science but as they are revealed in the Scripture so and only so they are the Objects of Faith which as the Apostle tells us is the evidence of things not seen that is of things not discernable by Natural Light whether of Sense or Reason or at least that are not consider'd as such when we receive them as Objects of Faith which therefore is call'd the evidence of them because it discerns the truth and reality of them in the infallible testimony of the Revealer Now besides what hath been already said it may further be proved that Reason is not any part of the Rule of Faith For 1. Were this granted it would necessarily follow that Scripture of it self is an imperfect Rule and if so it is no Rule at all That cannot be own'd for a Rule that is not adequate and commensurate to what is to be regulated by it The known description of a Rule given by Varinus and so frequently quoted by our best Authors hath never that I know of been questioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Rule or Canon is an immutable Law and an unerring Measure which at no hand will admit of addition or diminution This is one great Argument used by our Protestant Writers to shut out Popish Traditions from being any part of the Rule of Faith because the Scripture is a perfect and sufficient Rule of it self and must be so or else it cannot be a Rule at all Of which the Reader may see enough for his satisfaction in the Learned Bishop of Down his Ductor Dubitantium Lib. 2. Cap. 3. Rule 14. p. 359 c. And the Argument is every whit as good to exclude Reason as Tradition in this case And that the Scripture is a perfect discovery of the Mind of God so far as is necessary for us to know it I have proved before in my first Argument 2. The Principles of Reason as I have formerly shewed in the proof of my first Proposition have no formal existence any where but in the Minds or Writings of fallible Men considering them as separate from the Scriptures for set the Bible aside there is no Infallible and Authentick Record of those Principles to which we can have recourse And this utterly disables them for being so much as a partial Rule of a Christians Faith 3. Principles of Natural Reason let us suppose them never so fixt and infallible are wholly aliene to matters of supernatural Revelation which are the proper Object of Faith And to measure these by them were as ridiculous as to attempt by a Carpenters Rule to take the distance of the Heavens or to spread a Fowlers Net to catch the Winds However therefore there is as hath been already acknowledged and maintain'd great use of Reason and its Principles in subordination and instrumental subserviency to the knowledge of Divine Matters yet that it is in any degree to be owned as the Rule of our Faith must not will not cannot be allowed by any that are true to the Christian Cause CHAP. XII An Exception of the Exercitator grounded upon a distinction of the Scriptures taken materially or formally propounded and the folly and fallacy of it detected BUt here the Exercitator gives us a distinction which he makes often use of as being very fit for his turn That the Scripture is taken either materially and so it signifies no more but the bare Words Phrases and Sentences of Scripture or formally and so it signifies the sense and meaning of these Words and Sentences Now says he when we say the Scripture is the Rule of Faith we do not mean the bare words but the

reverence of God and of his Word For want of which too many have greatly polluted these Holy Mysteries with the wanton conceits or prophane excursions of an unhollwed Wit and mortally poisoned themselves and others by their corrupt handling this Bread of Life The Special Means of Interpretation are two-fold Some are more remote which I shall only name not intending any Discourse about them because my work lies another way These remote helps are 1. Some competent knowledge of and recourse to the Original Tongues wherein the Scripture was first penned with a due observation of the proprieties of each Language 2. Skil to discern between the proper use of the Words and Phrases of Scripture and that which is Tropical and Figurative In these Grammar and Rhetorick have their use 3. Some insight into the peculiar Laws Customs and Proverbial Speeches of those times and places that the Scripture relates to which requires some knowledge in History There are sundry passages both in the Old and New Testament that have respect to the known Customs of the Gentiles as in their Divinations Idolatrous Worships Publick Games and many more that have relation to the peculiar Rites and Modes of speech in use among the Jews So that there is no part of Phylology but may have its use in the Interpretation of Scripture 4. There is great use of the several parts of Phylosophy not only moral but natural for the clearing of many things in Scripture that are of natural cognisance as about the structure of Mans Body and the faculties of the Soul the nature motion and influence of the Heavenly Bodies the temperament of the several Regions of the World as also about the Elements and Meteors about Numbers and Measures the Nature and Properties of several Creatures Beasts Birds and Plants and many other things treated of in the Bible either by way of History or Parable 5. Logick hath also its use here for the better discerning the dependence of one thing in Scripture upon another and collecting of one thing from another The more immediate Means are chiefly two 1. A due observation of the several circumstances of the Scripture to be Interpreted who it is that speaks where when and to whom upon what occasion Here also comes in the consideration of the coherents with antecedents and consequences together with the scope and design of the Speaker all which are of great use to discover the Sense of Scripture 2. Comparing Scripture with Scripture or consulting other Scriptures whether paralel with or seemingly opposite to the place under consideration Now to the use of all these forementioned Means or Helps both General and Special Remote and Immediate I think all agree But about the Rule of Interpretation there is not so universal an accord The Romanists for the most part will have this Rule to be the Judgment of the present Church meaning their own But I shall not deal with this It 's weakness in what Sense soever taken for they agree not among themselves hath been sufficiently discovered by the worthy labours of many both formerly and of late Some few there are who tell us that the Scripture supposes the Rule and Summary of Religion delivered from one Age to another which we are to be guided by in searching out the meaning of Scripture And this Rule they say is to be found in the Monuments of the Church that is in the Writings of the Fathers and Determinations of Councils from whence we are to receive the Sense of the Catholick Church and thereby know what was the Doctrine delivered by Christ and his Apostles in the first Age and according to that interpret the Scriptures But if this must be our way of proceeding we may very well despair of ever understanding the Scriptures except when they speak with so much plainness that they stand in need of no Interpretation For what a heap of uncertainties must we lay for the Foundation of our Faith It is sufficiently known that the Fathers do oft differ from each other and many times are not consistent with themselves Councils have determined contrary one to another And some things that were as far as appears to us by all extant Monuments of Antiquity agreeable to the common Sentiment in our Age were laid aside in another Besides either the far greatest part of the Doctors of the Church in the first Ages wrote nothing or their Writings are lost and of those that now go under venerable names many are plainly spurious and many dubious nor is it easie in several of them for the most sagacious Reader to find out the right Insomuch as we cannot have any tolerable assurance what was the consentient judgment of the Catholick Church in any one age about the whole Doctrine of Faith if we set the Scriptures aside Therefore to frame such a Rule of Interpretation as this is no better than to build a House of Straw upon a running Stream There were very few Writers in the two first Centuries and in the two following not very many and after this the Church did much decline and degenerate as well in Doctrine as Manners Now suppose we were sure that the Writings in each Age were undoubtedly theirs whose names they bear as it is past doubt we are not who can assure us that what was published by those few was the consentient Judgment of all or the major part of the Doctors of that Age wherein they lived Might there not be a greater number differing from them who either wrote nothing or whose Works are perished The plain truth is That this way of Interpretation does in the upshot resolve the Faith of Christians not into the certain authority of the Divinely-inspired Writings but into the fallible Testimony of the most uncertain Tradition But for the Readers further satisfaction I refer him to Monsieur Daille's learned Treatise about the right use of the Fathers a Piece of that worth that the Lord Vicount Falkland and his dear Friend Mr. Chillingworth did highly esteem it and made great use of it in their Writings against the Romanists as we are informed by Mr. Tho. Smith sometime Member of Christ's Colledge in Cambridge in his Epistle prefixed to the English Translation of that excellent and elaborate Discourse who further also tells us that we have in that Tractat a sufficient Confutation of Cardinal Perron his Book against King James and by consequence of the Marquis of Worcester against King Charles and of Doctor Vane and other Epitomizers of the Cardinal which I do the rather take notice of that it may obviate the groundless prejudices that some have of late entertained against that Incomparable Piece The received Doctrine of the Reformed Churches both ourown and those abroad hath been hitherto that the Scripture is its own Interpreter But of late there hath been an attempt to justle the Scripture aside as to this use and place Reason and Phylosophy in its room There is a Belgick

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