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 ...

CHAP. XVI.

1. A Transition to the Exercitators Re∣ply to some Scriptures alledged by our Divines against his Heterodoxy. The fond Conceit of Lud. Wolzogen, That in this Controversie Scripture is not to be heard, disproved. 2. And his Plea that he makes for himself in his Cen∣sura Censurae, disabled. 3. A return to the Exercitators Exposition of the Scri∣tures alledged by our Writers. His self-contradiction noted. And the Scri∣ptures cleared.

THe Exercitator having (after his manner) asserted his own Posi∣tion, * 1.1 comes, in the seventh Chapter of his Discourse, to answer the Scriptures that some have made use of to oppose it. Before I deal with them, I cannot but take notice of the disingenuity of Ludovicus Wolzogen, who having un∣dertaken the Patronage of the Prote∣stant Cause against this Adversary, doth so shamefully throw down his Arms,

and run out of the Field: For when he comes at this seventh Chapter of his Antagonist (and again at his twelfth) wherein the Exercitator endeavors to evade or enervate the Scriptures * 1.2 brought against him this: valiant Cham∣pion not only waves the vindication of them; but for his own more plausi∣ble excuse, expresly maintains it to be a preposterous thing in this Contro∣versie about the Interpretation of Scri∣pture, to use or admit the testimony of Scripture at all; and affirms that the Cause must be decided by Reason: And therefore, as all along his Discourse, he never makes use of Scripture to defend himself, or strike his Adversary; so he lays an imputation of folly upon all our Divines that use this way of argu∣ing in the present Case. And he gives two pitiful Arguments to prove this fond Assertion.

1.

One is because the Controversie * 1.3 is about the Scripture it self, which is not to be heard in its own Cause, un∣less such places can be alledged in the explication whereof both parties a∣gree.

To this I answer, * 1.4

1. If this be granted, then whatso∣ever controversie we have with the Papists about the Authority, Perspicui∣ty and Perfection of the Scriptures, though we have never so clear proof in the Scripture it self for these things, they must all be waved as invalid. But these have hitherto been accounted controverted Points of Faith, and conse∣quently to be resolved from Scripture the only Rule of Faith: & so is this about the Scriptures Interpretation: however the Exercitator, and with him this Au∣thor, denies it; while yet both of them acknowledge it to be a Question, where∣in the whole of Religion is concerned, and (next to that of the Scriptures Au∣thority) * 1.5 the very foundation on which all Doctrines of Faith and Manners re∣lie; and which involves in it whatso∣ever Differences or Controversies there are between dissenting parties in Reli∣gion, that own the Scriptures. And is it not strange that Men should own this Controversie to be so momentous

and fundamental, and yet to deny it to be a matter of Faith, or to be de∣termined by Scripture Testimony? But,

2. Why may not the Scripture be heard speak for it self, as well as Rea∣son * 1.6 for it self? The Question under debate is whether the Rule of Inter∣preting Scripture, be the Scripture it self, or Mans Reason? Does not this as nearly touch Reason as Scripture? And yet must that be allowed to give te∣stimony in its own Cause and not the Scripture? It appears by this (as by many other passages in his Book) that this Author is a better friend to the Ex∣ercitators opinion, than to the Prote∣stant Doctrine. And indeed,

3. This is the very Language of our * 1.7 Popish Adversaries; who tell us, the Scripture cannot be its own Interpreter, because the Question is concerning it self. To which our Writers answer * 1.8 truely, That the Scripture being the Voice of God, its testimony for it self is above all other whatsoever, even in its own Cause.

His other Argument is,

Because till * 1.9 the dissentient parties have agreed about the Interpreter of the Scriptures alledged, they have no Sense, and therefore can testifie nothing:

And up∣upon this account he condemns those of the Reformed Churches that alledge Scripture in this Controversie, and blames the Exercitator for answering their Allegations.

To this I answer,

1. That any part of Scripture is with∣out * 1.10 its Sense till it have an Interpreter, is a gross absurdity and falshood. The Scripture hath its Sense, whether any Man interpret it or no. Interpretation doth not (I am sure it should not) bring the Sense and put it into the Scripture, but receive it from the Scri∣pture.

2. This Author acknowledges some Scriptures to be so clear, that the Sense is obvious: and if such Scriptures can be produced in the present Controver∣sie (as no doubt they may) Why should the difference about the Interpreter, preclude them?

3. Were this Argument allowed, it would for ever debarr us from alledg∣ing Scripture against the Romanists in any Controversie that we have with them: it being notorious to all Men, that this is one great difference betwixt us and them, who must be the Supreme In∣terpreter of Scripture? which they chal∣lenge as the Priviledge of their Church; and we ascribe to the Scripture it self.

But it is a miserable Plea that this * 1.11 Author makes elsewhere for himself, * 1.12 viz.

That he had to do with one whom he esteemed to be no Christi∣an, but an Heathen (for so he accounts the Exercitator) who would no more regard the Testimony of Scripture in this Case, than a Jew would regard any proof from the New Testament; and therefore it was, that he decli∣ned dealing with him about those Testimonies from Scripture.

It seems then he would make the World be∣lieve, that what he had said about this, was onely spoken ad hominem.

By which it plainly appears, that our Author began to see he could not * 1.13 stand his ground, but was not so inge∣nuous as to confess his Error, and there∣fore runs behind this Bush to hide him∣self. For,

1. His Words, which I quoted be∣fore out of his Book, De Scripturarum Interprete, do evidently shew that he speaks according to his own Mind, that it was a preposterous thing in this Con∣troversie to alledge the Testimony of Scripture; and that in this Case no such proof was to be allowed, (see him page 217. 219. and 247.) and not only so, but alledges the Reasons beforementi∣oned (such as they are) for this wilde Position.

2. He knows very well that the Jews (to whom he compares his Antagonist) do not at all own the Authority of the new Testament, but professedly reject it: Whereas the Exercitator (whatever his Religion be) does avowedly own the Divine Authority of the Scripture, and delcares himself willing to be dealt with

in that way, in that he cites our Di∣vines Arguments from thence, and en∣deavors to answer them; for which this Author reproves him. So that the case is not the same. And yet I ap∣peal to the Authors Reason: Should any Jewish Writer either cite any Testimo∣nies out of the New Testament for him∣self, or endeavor, by his own Interpre∣tations, to evade any Testimonies thence alledged against him (which is plainly the Case here) whether should a Chri∣stian that pretends to answer him, do well to say, That the New Testament is not here to be heard, and that it were a preposterous thing to alledge it? Should he not rather endeavor to answer the objections that are made, and clear the places cited? And if in case he should do, as this Author doth here, might he not justly be condemned for a Betray∣er of the Christian Cause? If it be said, * 1.14 that though the Exercitator acknow∣ledge the Divine Authority of the Scri∣ptures, yet he holds them to be uni∣versally ambiguous and obscure, fur∣ther than Humane Reason expounds

them; and therefore it was to no pur∣pose to use Scripture to him, till they had agreed about the Rule of Interpre∣tation. I answer, The Exeroitator does in∣deed charge the Scripture with obscuri∣ty * 1.15 because of its ambiguity; but it is up∣on this ground, because, hesays, all words whatsoever are ambiguous: If there∣fore this should shut out the Scripture from bearing witness in the Contro∣versie, then all Arguments from Rea∣son, must upon the same account, be ex∣cluded too; for they must be made up of Words and Phrases, the ambiguity whereof (according to the Exercita∣tors Doctrine) will render them obscure, as well as the Scripture.

Come we now to speak something to * 1.16 the Scriptures alledged by our Divines, * 1.17 which the Exercitator labors to evade. But methinks it is a pleasant thing to see how he betrays his own Cause, by acting against his own Method and Principles. For having all along cried up Philosophy as the onely Interpre∣ter of Scripture; when himself comes

interpret the Scriptures brought against him, one would think he should bring his own Tools to this Work, and labor, by Philosophick Principles, to make out the Sense that he gives of these Scri∣ptures. But he waves this, and seeks to fetch out his own Sense from the Scri∣pture it self, by examining the Antece∣dents and Consequents, and the Au∣thors scope. Now he either takes this way of Interpretation to be right, or he does not: If he do not, he doth but juggle with his Reader, and designs to cheat him: but if he do indeed think it to be right, he yields the Cause, that not Philosophy, but the Scripture it self is the Rule of Interpretation.

Now for the Scriptures alledged: The * 1.18 first is that in 1 Cor. 1. 19, 20, 21. where the Apostle speaks very contemptibly of Humane Wisdom; the like may besaid of the next, 1 Cor. 2. 6. Now in these places, saith the Exercitator, the Apo∣stle does not go about to deny or con∣demn true Wisdom, but the earthly, sensual Wisdom of the World, that is grounded upon vain opinions, and puts

Men upon the eager pursuit of earthly things, such as Riches, and Honors, and Sensual Pleasures.

I answer, The Apostle, having to do with those who thought meanly of the * 1.19 Doctrine of Christ Crucified, and affected a name for that which the world count∣ed Wisdom; endeavors to lay all Hu∣mane Wisdom in the dust, and to disco∣ver its insufficiency to conduct man to true happiness; for which he prefers the Doctrine of the Gospel (which was so derided as foolishness) above that which the World so much admired. This therefore is no impertinent allegation against the Exercitators opinion. That in 1 Cor. 2. 14. I have already pressed in the prosecution of my first Argu∣ment; and have vindicated it from the corrupt glosses that some have put up∣on it.

The last is that in Coloss. 2. 8. Beware lest any man spoil you through * 1.20 Philosophy, and vain deceit. Here, saith the Exercitator, the Apostle doth not condemn sound Philosophy, but that which is vain and useless.

I answer, Undoubtedly he doth not * 1.21 condemn Philosophy truely so called: But he gives a caution to take heed of being deceived by it; as Men may be, when the use of it is extended beyond its Line, and is not kept within its own proper Bounds. Thus, saith our learn∣ed Davenant, Philosophy or Humane Reason, which is the Mother of Philoso∣phy, * 1.22 is always found vain and deceitfull, when it is carried beyond its proper li∣mits, That is, says he, when it attempts to determine of those things, that fall not under the cognisance of Natural Rea∣son; such are those that belong to the Worship of God, and to the Salvation of Man, as the Points of Justification, Re∣conciliation with God, and other Mat∣ters of Faith, that are above the reach of Reason, and depend altogether upon Divine Revelation.

Notes

• * 1.1

  § 1.
• * 1.2

  Lud. Wol∣zog. de Scripturar. Interprete p. 217.
• * 1.3

  Id. ib. p. 219.
• * 1.4

  Sol.
• * 1.5

  Exercita∣tor in Pro∣logo, &c. 1. Wolzog. ubi sup. 5. & p. 90.
• * 1.6

  2.
• * 1.7

  3.
• * 1.8

  V. Riveti Isagogen, cap. 19. § 30.
• * 1.9

  2. Wolz. ubi sup. p. 247.
• * 1.10

  Sol.
• * 1.11

  § 2.
• * 1.12

  Lu. Wol. Cens. Cen∣surae p. 233
• * 1.13

  Sol.
• * 1.14

  Object. Lu. Wolz. loc. cit.
• * 1.15

  Sol.
• * 1.16

  §. 3.
• * 1.17

  Ph. Scr. Int. c. 7.
• * 1.18

  1 Cor. 1. 19, 20. 21. 1 Cor. 2. 6.
• * 1.19

  Sol.
• * 1.20

  ••••l. 2. 8.
• * 1.21

  Sol.
• * 1.22

  Davenant. in Coloss. 2. 8.