The Shepherds Wanderings Discovered, Chapter 17
CHAP. XVII. Wherein Mr. Sheppards 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58 pages are examined, and his Anſwers to two of our Arguments againſt guifted brethrens ordinary preaching, are examined, and found too ſhort.
THe firſt objection you pretend to anſwer is partly mine and partly ſome of my other reverend brethrens.
We had charged you with this Argument:
What things muſt (by Scripture-warrant) onelyonly be communicated to others in publique aſſemblies by faithfull men, who ſhall be able to teach others, and to whom ſuch things ſhall be committed by Timothies and Pauls; thoſe things duplicate page duplicate page private perſons to whom ſuch things are ſo committed, according to Scripture-warrant,Vindiciae miniſterii, p. 38. ought not in publique ſo to communicate.
But the truths of the Goſpell are ſuch as according to Scripture-warrant are onelyonly to be communicated to others by ſuch as being faithfull and able to teach others, and have thoſe things committed to them by Timothies; and private perſons are not ſuch to whom theſe things are ſo committed. Ergo.
To prove the Major I inſtanced in 2 Tim. 2.2. and ſhewed the force of it p. 40. I alluded to that place, Mal. 2.7. but not as a proofe on which I much inſiſted.
My brother Hall hath not inſtanced this Argument in his firſt Edition of his Pulpit-guard. The other Editions I have not.
Now let us ſee if you have ſufficiently anſwered this Argument, which is chiefly founded on 1 Tim. 2.2. though 1 Tim. 1.11.18.6.20. Titus 1.3. prove a part of it.
1. You anſwer by way of conceſſion, telling us, that you grant ſuch an officer as a preaching Miniſter, and tell us that they are more eminent preachers. And ſomething is undoubtedly committed to, and required of them, as to the preſervation and promulgation of the Word of God, over and above what is required of and committed to men out of office.
1. They are bound to it ex officio by their office, others not.
2. They are bound to doe it more lively and vigorouſly then others. Ro. 10.14. Eſ. 40.9. Eſ. 48.1. Ro. 9.27. Mat. 3.3. Jo. 7.37, 38.
3. They may preach with authority. Titus 2.15. 2 Theſ. 3.6. 1 Tim. 5.2.
4. They may doe it with continuance, they may make it their calling and whole worke, 2 Tim. 4.2. 1 Tim. 5.17. 1 Theſ. 5.12. 1 Tim. 3 4.
5. They are to aſſume the whole office to adminiſter the ſeales alſo.
But you ſay ſecondly, that the Texts are not excluſive but private men may doe it too.
Thirdly, you ſpend a great deale of time and paper to vindicate that text. Mal. 2.7. p. 54, 55. and thoſe places Mat. 28.19. Mar. 16.15.
Having thus analyſed your anſwer, in the next place let me come to examine the ſtrength of it.
1. From what you have granted us, I gather:
1. That there are to be ſome Preachers in office, and to theſe onelyonly it belongs to adminiſter the Sacraments, and theſe are onelyonly to preach authoritatively, vigorouſly, ex officio, conſtantly, making it their work. This is all a great truth then it ſeems.
2. That for guifted brethren, they may doe it, or they may let it alone, it is but an act of liberty in them; yet you told us before it was their duty.
3. They may doe it coldly, and poorly, and lazily: for the preacher is onelyonly bound to doe it vigorouſly and lively, p. 52. and earneſtly.
4. They can onelyonly preach precariouſly, for they have no authority, and cannot do it authoritatively, Titus 2.15.
5. They muſt not make it their whole work.
1. Surely our guifted brethren will give you little thanks for your conceſſions.
2. Surely all people that are in their right wits will take heed of hearing theſe guifted brethren, that at the moſt can but preach coldly and lazily, without authority or any vigour, without due meditation and ſtudy. Surely the countenance and bleſſing of God is moſt likely to follow thoſe that come in the name of God, and with his authority, and can command in the Lords name.
But you ſay that the Texts are not excluſive, though they doe plainly hint that thoſe that preach the Goſpell ſhould have it committed to them: yet you think that ſome may preach that have it not committed, and ſo you would make my argument a fallacy, à dicto ſecundum quid ad dictum fimpliciter. But ſir, I reply upon you:
1. Neither are any Scriptures excluſive in ſo many words that you bring to prove that they may not adminiſter the Sacraments, and that they may not preach with authority, nor make it their work; yet this you grant us, and upon good grounds.
2. What the Scriptures doe not ſay, that none may doe in the worſhip of God: for we muſt not adde to Scriptures.
But the Scriptures (although they ſay preachers in office may and ought to preach to others) yet no where ſay that the guifted brethren may doe it. Ergo.
The Scripture plainely ſayes, that thoſe that teach others muſt not onelyonly be able and faithfull, but muſt have the Scriptures committed to them: See your own rule, p. 45. Generaliter dictum, generaliter intelligendum.this (Sir) is excluſive except you can bring another Scripture that proves they may teach others, though they have not thoſe things committed to them: And beſides the Apoſtle plainely ſpeakes de re of the thing, not de modo of the manner of performance, the Apoſtle ſayes teach others, you put in authoritatively, vigorouſly, &c. Bring us a Scripture that ſayes that gifted brethren may teach others publikely, for that is plainly meant there, if you cannot, this Text is proofe enough againſt you. Your ſimilitudes prove nothing.
By your anſwer I would infer, that all the Acts of Church officers may be done by private perſons, becauſe the Scriptures, that ſay they ought to doe them, doe not ſay, others ought not.
The third part of your anſwer lies in a vindication of that Text, Mal. 2.7. The Prieſts lips ſhould preſerve knowledge, and the people ſhould require the Law at his mouth.
To this you anſwer:
1. Critically telling us the words are better read, the Prieſts lips did preſerve knowledge, &c. and ſo ſome read them.
2. That it is not excluſive.
3. That the caſe of people under the Law and Goſpell differ. For my own part I was aware of your laſt anſwer, and therefore did not inſiſt upon that place; yet now you have brought it upon the ſtage, let me take its part a little, and ſee if you have done it no wrong.
Whereas you ſay that thoſe words, Mal. 2.7. which we tranſlate. The Prieſts lips ſhall preſerve knowledge, are read by ſome, The Prieſts lips did preſerve knowledge, and this reading beſt agrees with the coherence of the words antecedent and ſubſequent, I anſwer:
1. It is true Piſcator doth ſo tranſlate it, and make the ſenſe what you ſay, but he is the onelyonly man I finde doing it: Tremellius, and Calvin, and Gualter, and Ribera, and Oecolampadius, the Septuagint, St. Hierom. Our late Annotations, &c. Tranſlate it ſhall or ſhould, and this is agreeable to Haggai 2.12. (which St. Hierome quotes as paralell.) Thus ſaith the Lord of hoſts, aske the Prieſts concerning the Law, &c. So that you ſee for one authority, for you, we have found ſeven againſt you. But let us enquire the Hebrew.
2. foreign. The word is there in the future tence, and properly to be tranſlated, ſhall, or will, or ſhould, and although it be a truth that the Hebrewes doe ſometimes confound tenſes and we often tranſlate their future tenſe by the preterperfect, yet (with ſubmiſſion to thoſe more learned and criticall in that language) I conceive it ſhould not be ſo tranſlated, except the ſenſe inforceth it, the primary and proper ſignification being otherwiſe.
3. Neither doe I ſee ſuch a neceſſity for the coherence ſake ſo to tranſlate it there;V. Our Annot. for might not the Prophet as well ſet out their impiety by their declination from their duty, as well as from the piety of the Prieſts formerly.
4. Nay under favour (Sir) the coherence is both againſt you and Piſcator too, the very next words are,— for he is the meſſenger of the Lord of hoſts; now let any judicious man judge whether the ſenſe be better as you would have it thus.
For the Prieſts lips did keep knowledge, and they did ſeeke the Law at his mouth, for he is the Angell of the Lord of hoſts, or as we read it,
For the Prieſts lips ſhould preſerve knowledge, and they ſhould ſeeke the Law at his mouth. For he is the Angell of the Lord of hoſts: or the meſſenger of the Lord of hoſts for the ſame word ſignifies both: this is the reaſon given why the people ſhould enquire the interpretation of the Law at his mouth, becauſe he is the Meſsenger▪ he is one authorized and ſent and appointed by God to open the Law.
5. But Fifthly, ſuppoſe we admit your reading, it alters not the caſe at all, for you grant that the Prieſts lips did keep knowledge, and the people did require the Law at his mouth: and this in the purer ſtate of the Jewiſh Church, and this was a piece of their ſinne that they were deviated from this practiſe, this is as much as we deſire, ſurely the Jewiſh Church order was not altered, but by their corruption in Malachies time, if we take your ſenſe it amounts to this.
In the old time, The Prieſts lips did preſerve knowledge, and they did require the law at his mouth, who was the meſſenger of the Lord of hoſts. But now the Prieſts are ignorant, and the people profane, they care for no Prieſts▪ but thinke themſelves beſt able to interpret the Law of the Lord, (for they were deviated as well as the Prieſts.) v. 11.12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Have not you warded this Text well think you (Sir?) It is as if we ſhould ſay of England.
In the Prelates times the Miniſters of the Lord Jeſus preached plainely and powerfully and conſtantly, they preached Law and Goſpell reproofes, and exhortations, and the people heard the word of God diligently and reverently, and were content to teach their families, and to repeat Sermons, and then the power of godlineſſe encreaſed, and Chriſtians kept in the Vnity of the ſpirit and the bond of peace, and walkt humbly with God, and hated Arminian and Socinian, and familiſticall Errors and Blaſphemies, and were kept under an aw of Ordinances.
But now many Miniſters are come to preach notions, and allegories, and whimzies, to read Sermons inſtead of preaching, to lay aſide preaching duty and reproofe, and to preach nothing but priviledges and myſteries and nonſenſicall notions, and to preach once a fortnight. And the people they are come to neglect and deſpiſe Ordinances, to thinke themſelves as much preachers as the Miniſters, and to know as much as they can tell them, and hence they are puft up with pride, and are taken in the ſnare of the Devill, and are continually rending and dividing one from another, and running into error and blaſphemies; and the whole Nation of profeſſors almoſt is turn'd Arminian, Socinian, or Familiſticall.
You have put the interpretation (Sir) upon the Prophets words, I have to ſtrengthen our argument helpt you with a parallell, Quam bene conveniunt.
To your ſecond anſwer in which you point us to Deodate for a note, but you have abuſed him, for he hath never a note upon the words you quote. I grant you the words onelyonly held to us, Analogically; but where is the Analogy, if not here? as the Prieſts were the onelyonly ordinary perſons that had the knowledge of the Law, betruſted to them to communicate it to others, and the people were not to go to ſeeke it at an ordinary Jewes mouth, but at the publike officers mouth, ſo the Miniſters of the Goſpell are the only ordinary perſons under the Goſpell, that have the Goſpell committed to them to teach others out of it, and Goſpell Chriſtians are not to require the opening of thoſe Myſteries at one anothers mouthes, but at theirs.
But you tell us thirdly, the Caſe is otherwiſe under the Law and Goſpell. I grant you all you ſay there, onelyonly I do not finde that Iſ. 61.8. the people of God are called Prieſts, nor doe I believe that all people generally come under thoſe promiſes: you mention onelyonly Saints, and I turne your argument upon your ſelfe thus.
If under the Goſpell people be generally more full of knowledge then under the Law, then they had need have more eminent able teachers, that ſhould give them ſtrong meat.
And theſe, Sir, had need be ſuch as are able to ſearch the deeps of Scripture, to dive into the hidden myſteries.
Beſides, as knowledge encreaſeth, ſo in ſome wantonneſſe will encreaſe, and the Goſpell preachers had need be ſuch as ſhall be able to oppoſe thoſe that gaineſay their doctrine, in oppoſing thoſe that contradict a truth.
Thoſe that maintaine a diſpute either for a truth, or for an errour, had need have ſome more abilities then unlearned gifted brethren.
A late experience of this I could tell you in the gathered company at Bury, where were many thought themſelves able enough to Preach, but being challenged by the Reverend paſtor of the Presbyterian Church, to diſpute a point, which they might have beene well verſed in (for I believe the perſons have been ſtudying it, and practiſing it theſe ſeven years) whether the Miniſters of England be true Miniſters: they were glad to ſend for ſome of their Norfolk Brethren for helpe, and ſome of the gifted brethren went, and when they returned (being miſerably bafled) by their owne confeſſion they ſaid they wanted a Scholler, yet I ſuppoſe they thought they had the ſpirit of God, but God will convince men, learning is his Ordinance to enable men both to expound Scripture and defend his truth.
In the laſt place you come to the Commiſſion, Math. 28.19. Mar. 16.15.
From which both my Brother Hall and my ſelfe urged you to ſay:
"1. That the word may be read, go make diſciples, Jo. 4.1.
"2. There is no negative Clauſe in it.
"3. In common reaſon it doth not exclude others: and to the laſt purpoſe, you ſerve us with our uſuall fare, Similitudes inſtead of proofes, it is for want of better Arguments ſure Sir.
4. You tell us the people have a commiſſion to teach.
5. That the native ſenſe of the place ſeems only an enlargement of the former commiſſion. Mat. 10.1, 2. Lu 10.1, 2.
6. That the force of the word lieth not ſo much in enabling them to the act which they might have done before, &c.
1. To your firſt cavill,Ʋ. Novar. ad loc. that the word may be tranſlated Goe make Diſciples: I anſwer, and it may be read Goe preach: it may be tranſlated, Go be Diſciples, Ʋ. Scapulam ad loc. But becauſe a word hath many ſignifications, doth it follow that any of them may be the ſenſe of that place where it is uſed?
2. But ſuppoſe it ſhould be tranſlated ſo: how is one made a Diſciple, but by converſion? and when is a man converted, but when he is brought to believe, and faith comes by hearing; then from hence will follow that the ſame thing is meant, yea and ſomething more. That thoſe that the Lord intends ordinarily to honour with the converſion of ſoules to himſelfe, muſt be commiſſion-officers in the buſineſſe of the Goſpell.
To your ſecond cavill, that the Commiſſion is not literally excluſive.
If it excludes them from baptizing, it excludes them for preaching; but you grant the former.
To your third, that in common reaſon they are not excluded. What you meane (Sir) by common Reaſon, I cannot tell. Socinian and Eraſtian reaſon wil not exclude them: but ſanctified reaſon that teacheth the ſoule to take heed of thruſting its name into a commiſſion, and doing any thing for which is not plain ground in Scripture, this will exclude them. But you tell us,
Though a Commiſſion be given to ſome to be Juſtices of the peace, yet doth not this exclude others from keeping the peace.
1. Your ſimilitude is no proofe.
2. It halts ſhamefully. Preaching is a piece of inſtituted worſhip, where the rules of inſtitution muſt be kept; but keeping the peace is not.
3. It is falſe, and the fallacy lies in keeping the peace. Every one is bound to keep the peace, as to his own private practice, not to be riotous: but every one is not to command others to keep the peace.
4. Conſtables (Sir) are officers, and ſo bound by office to keep the peace, and ſee it kept, and may doe ſomething more then Juſtices. But your guifted brethren are no officers at all.
Chriſt (you ſay) gave his Apoſtles commiſſion to heale the ſicke, Mat. 10 8. might not others therefore that had this guift heale them?
1. It is not proper to ſay, healing the ſick was an office, and the Apoſtles had a commiſſion, it was a rare guift to which they had a power.
2. Supponis quod non ſupponendum eſt. No other had that guift.
3. If any other ſhould have gone to a ſick perſon and pretended to heale miraculouſly, ſaying as Peter, Act. 3.6. In the name of the Lord Ieſus Chriſt ariſe and walk, he ſhould have ſinn'd againſt God.
I am ſick of your ſimilitudes: to goe on therefore to your third Cavill, viz.
"That the people have a commiſſion to teach, &c.
What then Sir? The commiſſion 1 Tim. 22. to teach others. Matth. 28.20. to teach all Nations. Shew us where they have ſuch a Commiſſion. They may teach by private exhortations, by an holy life; not by publique expoſitions and doctrines: ſhew us where their commiſſion to this lies.
To your fourth cavill. Suppoſe it were but an enlargement of the Apoſtles Commiſſion, yet it was the firſt commiſſion that authorized them to preach the Goſpell to all Nations, or to any but Jews; and the originall copy of the Goſpell preachers commiſſion. Thus much your ſelfe confeſſe, we ask no more.
To your fifth cavill I anſwer: That the force of that word lies in enabling them to preach the Goſpell to any ſort and condition of people, & in eſtabliſhing a perpetuall ſtanding office of Goſpel-Preachers, with whom Chriſt promiſeth to be to the end of the world; not as you would ſeem to hint, onelyonly in laying it upon them as a duty, which yet was the liberty of all beſides them. Your places, 1 Cor. 9.16, 17. Ezek. 3.17, 18. ſerve to prove what none denies you, that we muſt preach; but they will not prove that all may preach, nor that the force of that word Mat. 28.20. is no more then you would have it, for they have no reference at all to that place, warranted by Scripture.
But you tell us, That Miniſters muſt attend to preaching, and make it their work; which guifted brethren are not bound to doe.
They are beholding to you for juſtifying their lazy preaching; but God and his word are not much beholding to you for this patronage of lazy, idle, unwarranted extempore preachers.
Thus (Sir) you may ſee how ſlight an anſwer you think to ſtop the mouth of our firſt Argument with.
Our ſecond objection as you ſay is, That men that have not skill in the originall Tongues cannot underſtand, much leſſe interpret the Scriptures, much leſſe can they divide the word of God aright.
To this you anſwer: 1. That we grant, that although they be not skilled in School-learning, if called, they may preach.
2. That many of the Preachers in office this day doe not underſtand the Tongues.
3. That ſomething in the Scripture may be underſtood without the knowledge of the Tongues.
"4. That many great Schollers ſee little of Gods mind in them.
5. That the knowledge of heavenly truths is attainable only by the Spirit of God, not by any humane power or ſtrength 1 Cor. 2.14. Upon which you enlarge,
6. That many that have little of this learning, yet have much divine Learning, and a large underſtanding of the Word of God.
7. That to divide the word of God aright, is to divide to every one their portion from the word, and to fit it to the ſeverall eſtates and conditions of people that heare it: and this may be done without much humane learning.
To all this I anſwer, 1. Generally. 2. Particularly.
Nunquam quis rectius aſſiquitur alterius mentem & germanam ſententiam, quam qui ipſ… loquent… voces & proprium ſermonem audit intelligitque. Hyperius in rat. ſtudii theol. l. 1. c. 9.1. Generally. This is none of my Argument. My brother Hall doth hint it, p. 19. but Sir, (if you mean him) you wrong him, for his propoſition is this: Thoſe that want learning, both humane and divine, cannot be ſound interpreters, nor ſolid diſputants. You have ſet up a man of ſtraw, and then fall to puſhing of him. I know none that ſay, that it is ſimply unlawfull for thoſe that underſtand not the originall Tongues to interpret Scriptures.
2. But ſecondly, this we ſay, That the extraordinary and miraculous Revelation of the Spirit now ceaſing, no man can ſo ſoundly and well interpret Scriptures, as he that knows the Languages; without doubt it is no deſpicable means.
The Papiſts partly to juſtifie their ignorant Prieſts, and the authority of their vulgar tranſlation, and to juſtifie the Churches authority,Ʋ. Calv. in 1. ep. ad Corinth. c. 14. as the pillar and ground of truth, are much of your mind, that the knowledge of the Tongues is not neceſſary, and therefore have blotted out a paſſage in Eraſmus his Adages out of the late Editions, which I finde in Froben Edition fol. the paſſage will let you know his mind.
Aut ſe divinas literas interpretari conetur Graecae Latinae & Hebraicae linguae, denique & omnis antiquitatis rudis & imperitus fine quibus non ſtultum modo, verum impium eſt Theologiae myſteria tractanda ſuſcipere. Quod tamen heu nefas jam paſſim plerique faciunt qui frigidis aliquot inſtructi ſyllogiſmis & puerilibus ſophiſmatis deum immortalem? quid non auderit? quid non praecipiunt? quid non decernunt? Qui ſi poſſent cernere quos riſus vel potius quem dolorem moveant linguarum, & antiquitatis peritis quae porienta proferant, in quam pudendos errores ſubinde prolabantur, nimirum puderet illos tantae temeritatis & vel ſenes ad primae literarum elementa redirent. —Nullus unquam ſententiam alicujus intellexit ignarus Sermonis quo ſententiam ſuam explicavit, proinde Divus Hieronymus, cum conſtituiſſet arcanas interpretari literas, ne illotis ut aiunt pedibus rem tantum aggrederetur, quaeſo num ſophiſticis nugis inſtruxit ingenium? Eraſmi Adagia edit. Bafileae. 1526. p. 298. Cent. 9. Chiliadas 1. Adagio 55. tit. Illotis manibus.Num Ariſtotelicis decretis? Num his etiam Nugationibus? nugis minime. Quid igitur? in aeſtimabili ſudore trium linguarum peritiam ſibi comparavit. Quas qui ignorat non Theologus eſt ſed ſacrae theologiae violator, ac vere manibus paeriter ac pedibus illotis rem omnium maxime ſacram non tractat, ſed prophanaet conſpurcat, violat.
I ſhall not Engliſh it, ſuppoſing you underſtand Latine, I could furniſh you with many more of his minde. But I ſay, I cannot ſay that a knowledge in the Tongues is abſolutely neceſſary to me to interpret any Scriptures, but thus much we ſay.
1. He that hath not skill in the Tongues muſt take the credit of expoſitors and tranſlators, and if they quarrell, he will ſcarce know which ſide to take.
2. He will never know the full Emphaſis of Scripture, many ſweet notions of truth lie in the various ſignifications of the originall words, which Tranſlators could not hint us being to give the word only one tranſlation: v. Hyperium de ſtudio theol: c. 9.
3. There are many miſtakes in tranſlations and expoſitors.
4. There are many proper idiomes of Languages: which tranſlators cannot expreſſe. But for an abſolute neceſſity in all caſes I doe not hold it. Though I could heartily wiſh that all preachers might be able to underſtand the Originall Languages, and I thinke ſomething this way is hinted us by Gods furniſhing the firſt preachers of the Goſpell with the gift of Tongues.
And as light as you make Sir of humane learning, if you come to argue a Scripture againſt an oppoſer, that is learned, he will make you believe you had need of the Tongues, and of Logick too, and that preacher is worth little that durſt not appeare, or is not able to defend his own doctrine: nor doe I think ſuch for conſtant ordinary preachers are Gods Ordinance: indeed caſes of neceſſity have no Law. Better have one onelyonly to read Scriptures then none either to read or preach, and ſo better have preachers that can but preach other mens Sermons and Expoſitions, then no preachers at all: This I anſwer generally: now to your Cavills.
To your firſt I anſwer:
1. We onelyonly ſay, it may be in caſes of neceſſity, when ſuch as are more fit cannot be had, then let ſuch be ordained as have not ſuch skill in School-learning. But let even theſe labour for it, and the more they preach, the more they will ſee the need of it.
2. To your ſecond I onelyonly anſwer.
—Pudet haec opprobria dici,
Et dici potuiſſe et non potuiſſe refelli.
It is a ſhame to England that it hath ſo many ſuch preachers, thoſe that ordaine now, ordaine onelyonly ſuch as have a knowledge or ſolemnly engage to ſtudy the Tongues: get a ſtatute to enjoyne all Miniſters to be skilled in the Languages after ſome certaine time, (for it is fitting the preſent neceſſity ſhould be ſupplied) we will thanke you for it.
To your Third cavill I anſwer two things:
1. I know not one Scripture can be underſtood without underſtanding the Language it was wrote in, but he that expounds it muſt take the credit of the Tranſlator, and we know Tranſlations are not foreign; ſuppoſe it be the plaineſt Scripture how ſhall he know whether the words be rightly Tranſlated,Non omne quod verum eſt Scribentis mentis conſonat. Tolet. in Johan. 1. and ſo conſequently the minde of God, by comparing it with the Analogy of Faith; thus indeed the thing may be knowne to be true, but not a Truth in that Text; ſhall he know it by the coherence? and how ſhall he underſtand that without a skill in the Languages, except he takes it upon truſt, ſuppoſe there be no coherence, as in the Proverbs.
2. Surely a preacher ſhould be able to open the whole counſell of God, not this or that ſingle Text.
To your fourth cavill. viz. If humane learning be ſuch an helpe to the knowledge of Scriptures, what is the reaſon that ſome yea many great Schollers look into Scripture and ſee little of Gods mind in it, and how comes it to paſſe that many who are without humane learning have ſo large a knowledge and underſtanding hereof.
I anſwer, for great Schollers knowing ſo little of the minde of God in Scripture, you miſtake non cauſam pro cauſa.
1. Their learning and knowing of the Tongues in which they are written is not the cauſe, but there may be many reaſons.
1. Their lazineſſe or negligence, Ex eruditis igitur labi contingit alium quadam oſcitantia & ſupinitate, &c. V. Hyperium de rat. ſtudii theol. c. 9. l. 4. Alius errat ob verborum, aliu… ob rerum imperitiam; — Aliqui in errorem incidunt quadam animi perturbatione aut vitioſo affectu impulſi.—Quidam errorem amplectuntur magis authoritate & reverentia aliorum, quam judicio & veritatis inquiſitione promoti &c. V. pluta, Hyperius de ratione ſtudii theol. l. 4. c. 9. Fiunt ſubtilia ingenia poſtquam à verbo ſe patiuntur abduci & minu…tur ſuo ſenſu. Lutherus c. 4. tit. 767.not making it their buſineſſe to improve their learning and knowledge this way.
2. Their crotchicall fancies bringing to their interpretations not diſcendi pietatem, a pious heart to learne, but only diſcutiendi acumen, a criticall humour.
3. Their unſanctified undertaking their worke without prayer, and ſeeking of God by prayer that his ſpirit may guide them in the uſe of their learning, ut nec decipiant nec decipiantu…, that they may neither deceive themſelves nor deceive others.
For the ſecond part of your cavill, I anſwer:
1. I know very few men that want humane learning that can expound Scriptures.
2. They may have a large underſtanding and knowledge in the Truth of God revealed in Scriptures neceſſary to ſalvation, by conſidering the ſcope of Scripture, hearing the Scriptures preached and expounded, and the Spirit of God perſwading their hearts of the truth of what they heare.
Fifthly you tell us: That the preachers will grant you what is ſo clearely, and plainly held forth that the knowledge of heavenly truthes in Gods word is the gift of God attainable onelyonly by the ſpirit of God, and not by any humane power and ſtrength, 1 Cor. 2.14. Rom. 8.5, 6. Jude 19. Jo. 7.15, 16 Jo. 6.44, 45 Acts 13.48. Acts 16.14. Math. 11.25. Mat. 13.11. Jo. 16.13, Lu. 12.12. Jo. 14.26. Iſ. 50.4 5 Pſal. 25 14. Jo. 7.17. Gal. 1.2, 14, 15, 16. 1 Cor. 2.1, 2, 10. Math. 16.17.11 25, 27. Rev. 3.18. Lu. 24 45. 1 Cor. 1.19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27. Jo. 7.47, 48. Phil. 3 7. 1 Cor. 3.18, 19, 20.
Here are many Scriptures brought, I wiſh they be not wreſted. But this is uſuall▪ I ſaw a Pamphlet lately had ten times more to prove a man might lawfully beat his wife.
To anſwer therefore, I will tell you how farre we grant you.
1. We grant you that a ſaving practicall experimentall and a comfortable reflex knowledge of God, and of the truthes of God can only be from the ſpirit, that is the ſpirit can only teach the ſoule to come to Chriſt, and lay hold upon him, the ſpirit can onelyonly teach the ſoule experimentally and effectually, that its condition is an undone condition, that there is a ſweetneſſe and excellency in Chriſt above ten thouſand worlds, this thoſe Scriptures you bring, 1 Cor. 2.14. Jo 6.44, 45. Acts 16.14. Math. 11.25. Math. 13.11.
2. We grant you that the Spirit can onelyonly teach the Soul reflexively, Reflexivè. V. D. Auguſt. t. 1. confeſ. l. 11. c. 3.the Miniſter teacheth that God hath promiſed that whoſoever commeth unto Chriſt ſhall not be caſt away, but is elected, juſtified, ſanctified, &c. This ſome other Scriptures prove, Pſal. 25.14. 1 Cor. 2.10, 11, 12.
3. Thirdly,Perſuaſivè. we grant you that the Spirit only can teach perſwaſively, we may beſeech, God alone can perſwade Iaphet to come and dwell in the Tents of Sem, we may teach people that it is Gods will they ſhould come to Chriſt, but the Spirit alone can perſwade them to come, Jo. 6.44, 45.
4. Fourthly, we grant you that the Spirit doth guide us in the interpretation of Scripture, upon earneſt ſeeking,Ego fateor charitati tuae ſolis iis Scripturarum libris qui jam Canonici appellantur, didici hunc honorem timoremque deferre, ut nullum eorum authorem ſcribendo aliquid errâſſe firmiſſimè credam, &c. Aug. t. 2. ep. 19. cap. 1. Spiritum Sanctum eſſe ſummum Scripturae interpretem dicimus, quia ut nos certo ſimus perſuaſi de vero Scripturae ſenſu, oportet nos per Spiritum Sanctum illuminari: alioqui nunquam illam, quae fidelium mentibus ineſt, foreign aſſequemur, etſi omnibus mediis utamur. Sed haec eſt interna tantum perſuaſio & nos ipſos tantum attingit, alios enim hoc modo non cogimus. Quod vero ad externam perſuaſionem attinet: dicimus ipſam Scripturam eſſe ſui ipſius interpretem ac proinde ad externum ipſius judicium veniendum eſſe ut aliis perſuadeamu…: in quo utendum eſt mediis. Whitakerus de Interpret. Scrip q. 5 c 3 ad finem. cap. but this may be but a common work, and is in the uſe of meanes but he did infallibly guide the pen men of Scripture and the firſt planters of his Goſpell, Jo. 16.13. and ſtill he doth guide humble hearts, yet not all Saints that undertake the expounding of Scripture publikely, for then all their expoſition ſhould be infallible, and ſo no preachers expoſition is, though never ſo holy, never ſo learned, indeed St. Hierom thought his was, as it ſeemes by one paſſage in Apolog contra Iovianum, Vbicunque ſcripturas non interpretor, ſed libere de meo ſeoſu loquor, arguat me quilibet, but St. Auſtine otherwiſe in Ep. 19. ad Hieron. c. 1. Learned Whitaker in q. 5. de Interp. Scrip. c. 3. doth determine againſt the Papiſts, that the holy Ghoſt is the higheſt interpreter of Scripture, becauſe ſaith he, we muſt be enlightned by the Spirit of God, that we may be perſwaded of the true ſenſe of Scripture; for without this, ſaith he, though we ſhould uſe all meanes, yet we ſhall never attaine to that full perſwaſion which is in the Saints hearts; but this ſaith he is but an inward perſwaſion, and onelyonly reſpecting our ſelves, for we doe not thus perſwade others. But now for the outward perſwaſion, the Scripture is its own interpreter, and we muſt go to the Scripture to judge, if we will perſwade others, and in that we muſt uſe meanes.
Lectio inquirit meditatio invenit oratio poſtulat contemplatio deguſtat; quaerite legendo & invenietis meditando, pulſate orando & aperietur vobis contemplando. Aug. Ʋ. Whitakerum. ib.Thus, Sir, the ſpirit guides into truth: 1. Perſwading us infallibly ſometimes of thoſe truthes of God neceſſary to ſalvation: 2. Guiding his people in the ſearch and enquiry of truth, yet not giving them ſuch a ſpeciall infallible aſſiſtance in expounding Scripture alwayes that they cannot erre. 3. Nor doing of it extraordinarily, but in the uſe of meanes, what thoſe meanes are, Dr. Whitaker tells us excellently c. 9. of the ſame queſtion. 1. Prayer. 2. The underſtanding the Tongues. 3. A conſideration of the words, whether they be proper or figurative, limited or not limited. 4. A conſideration of the ſcope of the place, the matter, the pen man, the time of writing, &c. 5. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, like with like, and unlike with like.Qui his mediis ſic uti valet & opinionis ſue perverſitatem ac praejudicium partiumque ſtudium deponet (quo multi in omni cauſa utuntur) poterit ille quidem Scripturas ſi non in omnibus locis et in pleriſque, ſi non ſtatim ac tandem aliquando intelligere. Whitakerus ib. 6. A conſideration of the Analogy of faith. Laſtly ſaith he:
Becauſe the unlearned cannot uſe theſe meanes right: they ſhould goe to the learned, read their books, conſult their common lawes and expoſitions, argue with them, thus, ſaith he, St. Hierom, and St. Auguſti…e and the Fathers did, and (ſaith he) they muſt take heed they doe not give too much to them, and thinke the expoſition is true, becauſe theirs, but becauſe it ſtands upon the authority of Scripture and ſanctified reaſon; he concludes.
He that will thus uſe theſe meanes and lay aſide the perverſe opinion and prejudice of his own wit and parts, which many uſe upon all occaſions, he may underſtand the Scripture, if not in all places, yet in moſt, though not preſently, yet in ſome time.
Thus, Sir, the ſpirit doth guide into the knowledge of all truth, yet not ſo,
1. That any one may or ought to take any expoſition as infallible.
2. But ſo as, that it oft works in me an infallible perſwaſion of this or that truth.
3. But this the Spirit doth upon the uſe of meanes, not without humane power and ſtrength.
4. The Spirit doth helpe us to the knowledge of much truth, by bringing to remembrance what we have heard, Jo. 14.26.
5. We grant you, none are ſo fit to preach and expound Scriptures, as thoſe that have the Spirit of God: if they alſo have a capacity to uſe all other meanes which God hath appointed, and that humane learning meeting with a conceited proud ſoule, may prejudice a Chriſtian in underſtanding and ſeeking the will of God.
All this ſome of your Scriptures prove, though let me tell you ſome of your Scriptures prove neither what you would have nor this neither, nor any thing like it, as Rom. 8.5, 6. Jude 19. Jo. 17.15, 16. Acts 13.48. But what is all this to prove the two great things.
1. That the Spirit of God dwelling in us onelyonly can teach the ſoule the proper and literall meaning of the Scripture and capacitate one to expound it to another, though indeed to that there muſt be a common work of the ſpirit, as a ſpirit of illumination. Or Secondly:
2. That the ſpirit doth this without meanes, without humane power and ſtrength.
Not a Scripture of all you bring, prove either of theſe, and ſo you have ſaid a great deale to little purpoſe, your ſixth cavill is the very ſame with your fourth.
To your ſeventh I anſwer: It is indeed part of the meaning of that phraſe dividing the word of God aright, to give every one their portion, but how ſhall the unlearned doe this, if they doe not know what portion the word hath for them, and how ſhall they know that, if they doe not know the ſenſe of the words.
2. Surely the underſtanding the parts of the Chapter, and ſeverall things contained in the Text, muſt goe to dividing the word of God aright. I have done with this; I come to your reply to the Third objection.