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. XII.

An Exception of the Exercitator, ground∣ed upon a distinction of the Scriptures taken materially or formally, pro∣pounded, and the folly and fallacy of it detected.

BUt here the Exercitator gives us a distinction, which he makes often * 1.1 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 Sen∣tences 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 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 Re∣ligion. 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 * 1.2 of the Scripture consider'd materially and formally, or in respect of the mat∣ter 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 Scri∣pture, as to the matter, is the Word of God; and formally consider'd is the same Word as written. But this Gen∣tlemans 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.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

But, 2. The distinction, as here u∣sed, * 1.3 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 Interpreta∣tion 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 se∣parated) are not the Mind of God: and the sense separated from the Words and Sentences, (if it might be so sepa∣rated) 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 Scrip∣ture 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 evi∣dent 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 charg∣ing us to mean only the Words of Scri∣pture, 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 ob∣scure. Now, as himself premiseth, * 1.4 that Interpretation supposes some ob∣scurity 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 in∣tricate, (which himself also acknow∣ledgeth * 1.5 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 ano∣ther.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Except. 2. Ph. Scr. Int. c. 13 par. 1. & 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 16. par. 9.
• * 1.2

  Sol. 1.
• * 1.3

  2.
• * 1.4

  Phil. Ser. Int. c. 2. par. 7.
• * 1.5

  Ib. c. 11. par. 1.