Part 21

5. That there be a most diligent comparing of the place of the Scripture to be explicated, with others of the same similitude or dissimilitude, For oftentimes one Scripture doth unfold and open another, and one Text doth enucleate and make plain another: Which for want of a due comparison one with another, may occasion the mistaking of the true sense of the place that is to be expounded.

6. And chiefly in explicating any place, regard must be had to the Analogy of faith: Because the Scriptures do not contradict one another, especially in the Articles of faith, and the chief points necessary to be believed.

[Sidenote: 2 Pet. 1. 20.]

[Sidenote: Rom. 8. 7.]

[Sidenote: Isai. 29. 14.]

[Sidenote: 1 Cor. 1. 19, 20.]

7. There ought a due comparison be made with the judgments and sentiments of other Interpreters, according as the Apostle saith: _That no Prophecie of Scripture is of any private interpretation_: Which ought to be rendered as learned _Beza_ and Dr. _Hammond_ give it: “No Prophecie of Scripture is _propriæ incitationis_, of a Mans own or proper incitation, motion, or loosing forth;” for so the Greek is, ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται. Of which _Beza_ gives this learned note. “The Prophets truly are to be read, but so that the gift of interpretation be begged of God, that the same God may be the Author and Interpreter of the Prophetical writings.” For though a Man have by nature never so great endowments, of understanding, judgment and reason, or have never so large and ample acquirements, or presume never so highly to be assisted with the Spirit; yet his own single judgment ought not to be relyed upon in the exposition of the Scriptures; but he ought to call in to his aid, and to consider the sentiment and opinion of others. For it is obvious into what dangerous errors the _Arrians_, _Pelagians_ and _Antitrinitarians_ of old, and the _Socinians_ and _Arminians_ of later years have faln, by making their innate notions and the strength of natural reason to be the chief and principal rules for interpreting of the Scriptures by. And there is hardly any one thing that the Scriptures are more against, or do more condemn, than the too much extolling and idolizing of Humane and Carnal reason. _Because the carnal mind_ τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς, _is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be_; of which _Beza_ saith: _Probatio cur intelligentia carnis sit mors, quia, inquit, Dei est hostis_. And again, the Text saith: _For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise_, τὴν σοφίαν τών σοφῶν, _and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent_; τὴν σύνεσιν των συνετων. And again, _Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?_ σοφίαν τοῦ κόσμου τούτου. And the words of the Hebrew in that place of _Isaiah_ do signifie all that height of wisdom or understanding, that Men either have by Nature, or acquire by Art and Industry. Neither is it safe for a Man to rely upon his own single acquired parts, be they never so vast or great; because in the most ages, the most pestilent Errors and damnable Heresies have been vented and maintained by Men that were of the greatest acquired endowments. And that it is often as vain to presume upon having the guidance of the Spirit, as are the other two, is manifest in the late times of Rebellion and Confusion; where every Man pretending the Spirit, made such wild and extravagant expositions of the Scriptures, as few ages have known before; and is still kept up by the giddy troop of Fanatical Quakers, and the like.

There is another rule which the learned do use, in expounding of the Scriptures, which is often either too far extended, or not rightly limited and applied, which is this; That Men in interpreting of the Scriptures should keep close to the literal sense, if it include not an absolute absurdity. Whereby Allegorical, Metaphorical, Mystical and Parabolical Expositions are not only cried down, but by some even abhorred and detested, which thing ought not absolutely and simply to be approved of; and therefore we shall make it plain in some few particulars.

[Sidenote: John 9. 6, 7.]

1. In Historical relations of matters of fact, we ought to keep close to the literal meaning, and not to deviate a jot from it, otherwise we should overthrow the best part of the Christian Faith, and destroy the chief foundation of Scripture truths. But notwithstanding this, though we ought to hold to the literal sense in respect of the matter of fact, yet we are not always to be bound to the bare letter in the mood, means or manner of the performance. As may be plain in these examples. 1. It is apparent that our Saviour Christ cured the Man that was born blind, and the means and manner is described: _He spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay. And said unto him, Go wash in the pool of Siloam (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore and washed, and came seeing._ Now as to the matter of fact, that the Man born blind was cured and had his sight restored, is a truth according to the sense of the letter; and that the manner, which was by spittle and earth made into Clay, and his eyes covered or anointed with it, and washing in the pool of _Siloam_, was also literally true, is manifest. But it were absurd so far to stick to the letter, as to believe that clay, and spittle, and washing in the poole _Siloam_, were true and real natural means to produce that effect; no, that were absurd, and therein the literal sense is not to be followed.

[Sidenote: 1 Kings 22. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.]

[Sidenote: Jerem. 23. 24.]

[Sidenote: 1 Kings 8. 27.]

[Sidenote: Rom. 16. 27.]

2. Again concerning _Ahab_, thus much is literally true in matter of fact that he was perswaded to go up to _Ramoth Gilead_ by his false Prophets in whose mouths there was a lying Spirit. But the manner there declared of sending the lying Spirit into their Mouths, cannot rationally be presumed to be true in a literal sense, but in a Metaphorical; for that the Lord was set on his Throne, and all the Host of Heaven standing by him, on the right hand and on the left, must needs be a Metaphor taken from an Emperour or a King that sits on his Throne, and all his Counsellors, Princes, Estates and Officers about him, to deliberate and consult what is to be done. And this is the highest and most apt Metaphor that the supream Majesty of Heaven and Earth can be represented by; not that in the literal sense it must be believed to be acted just in that mood and manner, but as the most apposite Metaphor that can be found to express the proceedings of the Heavenly Majesty by, and that for these reasons. 1. God is Infinite and is every where by his Power, Essence and Presence, and therefore cannot literally be said to be comprehended in any locality, but after a Metaphorical sense and expression. For the Prophet saith: _Do not I fill Heaven and Earth, saith the Lord?_ And as _Solomon_ confesseth: _But will God indeed dwell upon the earth? Behold, the heaven, and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee: how much less this house that I have builded?_ 2. God who is only wise, and before whose eyes _all things lie open, and naked_, cannot litterally be said to consult or deliberate, or to ask his creatures how a thing shall be done or brought to pass, because his wisdom is, like himself, Infinite, and need ask counsel of none, and therefore must the manner of the performance of the deceiving of _Ahabs_ Prophets needs be Metaphorically understood, and not literally, which is the thing that we would demonstrate.

[Sidenote: 1 John 1. 5.]

[Sidenote: 1 Tim. 6. 16.]

3. Further concerning Satans afflicting of _Job_ in his Goods, Cattels, Children, Servants, and in his own Body, is a real truth literally so taken as to the matter of fact; but the manner of Satans appearing before God, with the Sons of God, cannot without manifest absurdity be understood in a literal sense but in a Metaphorical, that God who is Omnipotent, did command, order, send and limit him, what and how far he was to act. For otherwise _God is light in whom there is no darkness at all, dwelling in the light which no Man can approach unto_; but Satan is bound _in chains of everlasting darkness_, and therefore cannot be said literally to appear in person before God, but by way of a Metaphor. So when the Angel telleth the Virgin _Mary_, that the should conceive in her womb, and she not understanding how that should come to pass, because she had not known Man, the Angel answered, _the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee_. Though the matter of fact be an undoubted truth, and an Article of faith, literally so taken; yet the manner of the Holy Ghosts coming upon her, and the power of the highest overshadowing her, cannot be understood in a literal sense, as though it were by that natural and humane way that Men and Women do beget and conceive Children by, for that were horrid and absurd (as some late prophane, wretched and debauched Atheists have spattered forth) but after a Metaphorical sense, and a most mystical meaning. So that it is plain that where a matter of fact may be literally and Historically true, yet the manner how that matter of fact is brought to pass may be, nay must be Metaphorical, or else an absurdity will follow, which was the thing undertaken to be proved.

4. There is nothing more common and usual in Scripture than Metaphors, as when Christ saith, _I am a vine, I am the door of the sheep, I am the living bread that came down from heaven_: Though they be Metaphors, yet the things signified and intended by them are as really and certainly true, as are the Metaphors themselves, and sometimes more true; because sometime the Metaphor is not used for the verity of its existence, but according to the common use and opinion, as _O foolish Galatians who hath bewitched you?_ doth intend no more but an allusion to vulgar opinion, that held that men might be bewitched and inchanted. And so Christ in the true mystical and spiritual meaning is as really a spiritual vine, door and bread, as there are any of such things in nature, or being. But as that which is Literally and Historically true in matter of fact, or meaning, is not to be deceeded from; so that which is a Metaphor ought not to be turned into a literal thing, nor on the contrary, the literal sense ought not to be made Metaphorical.

[Sidenote: Matth. 7. 24, 25, 26, 27.]

5. Parables are Similitudes taken from things that may have been done, or that are supposed to have been done, and so the thing to which the comparison is made, or from whence the Similitude is taken, need not always be a thing that hath been performed in all the circumstances and manner thereof; it is sufficient that the thing was possible, or rationally probable to have been acted, or at least supposed so to have been. As for instance in that Parable, where our Saviour saith: _That those that hear his words and do them are like a wise man that built his house upon a rock; and he that heareth them, and doth them not, is like a foolish man, that built his house upon the sand_: now it is not necessary that there should be two such men, that in matter of fact did after that manner (though there might have been many men before the time of our Saviour that might have done so) but it was sufficient that the thing from which the comparison was made, was possible, rational and probable. But the thing intended by the Parable or Similitude, is alwayes a spiritual truth and certainty. Concerning which learned _Beza_ upon the Parable of the Rich Man and _Lazarus_ doth give us this remarkable Marginal note: “Although Christ doth relate an History, notwithstanding he writeth spiritual things under Figures, which he knew were suitable to our sense. For neither are Souls endowed with Fingers and Eyes, neither do they suffer thirst, neither have they mutual conference one with another. Therefore the sum is, that faithful Souls after they be departed from their Bodies, do lead a pleasant and blessed life without the World: And that most horrible torments are prepared for the reprobates, which can no more be conceived by our minds, than the immense Glory of Heaven.”

[Sidenote: _De Civitat. Dei_ _lib._ 13. _c._ 21. _p._ 404.]

[Sidenote: _Ut supra_ _l._ 15. _c._ 27. _p._ 475.]

6. As for an Allegory, which is a continuation of a Metaphor, and properly signifies a figure expressing one thing by another, from ἄλλος, and ἀγορέω, _enuntio_, and this is very frequently used in the Scriptures, as when the Apostle speaking of the two Sons of _Abraham_, _the one from Hagar a bond-woman, the other from Sarah a free woman_, saith: _These things are an Allegorie_, ἅτενα ἀλληγορόυμενα, which things do express one thing by another; From whence we may note, 1. That Allegories that tend to edification, keeping the Analogie of Faith, and not perverting or overthrowing the literal sense, ought not to be so much cried down nor condemned, as some have done both against _Origen_ and others. “For the Apostle here, as _Beza_ hath noted, made it manifest, that he had followed the footsteps of the Prophet _Isaiah_, who did foretel that the Church was to be constituted of the Children of Sarah that was barren, that is to say of those who meerly and spiritually were by Faith to be made the Sons of _Abraham_, rather than of _Hagar_ that was fruitful, even then foretelling the rejection of the Jews, and the vocation of the Gentiles.” 2. Allegories may be used, and the literal sense nevertheless preserved also for the History is literally true that _Sarah_ and _Hagar_ were two living Women, the one _Abrahams_ Wife a free Woman, the other his Servant, and a bond-woman, and yet this did not hinder but that thereby an Allegory might be used, and they might, and did signifie and express another thing than what was meerly contained in the letter. 3. We cannot here but add the grave and learned opinion of S. _Augustin_ upon this very point, who rejecting the tenent of some that made Paradise and the things therein contained, meerly corporal, and of some that made it only spiritual and intelligible, doth run a middle course betwixt these two extreams, saying thus: “As though Paradise could not be corporal, because also it might be understood to be spiritual: As though therefore there were not two Women _Agar_ and _Sarah_, and of them two Sons of _Abraham_, one of the bond-woman, the other of the free woman, because the Apostle saith that the two Testaments were prefigured in them; or therefore that water had flowed from no rock _Moses_ smiting, because there by a figurative signification Christ also may be understood, the Apostle saying, _and the rock was Christ_.” And after concludeth thus: “These and some others may be spoken of understanding Paradise spiritually, and may be spoken without contradiction, while notwithstanding the most faithful verity of that History may be believed in the commendable narration of the things done or performed.” This same opinion this learned Father doth maintain in another place, where he is speaking of the Ark of _Noah_.

Having premised these rules for the right expounding of the Scriptures, we shall now come to the main things that we purpose to handle in this Chapter. And those that would uphold a kind of omnipotency in Devils, and maintain their great power in Elementary and Sublunary things, the better to defend the great power of Witches, do alledge divers places of Scripture, and expound them in favour of their gross tenents, which now we shall examine and confute in order as they lie.

1. The first colourable argument that they produce, is from the Devils or the Serpents tempting and seducing of _Eve_, where labouring to prove the Devils power, and his visible apparition to Witches, and making a compact with them, they pretend that in the seducing of _Eve_ he did visibly appear unto her and vocally discourse with her, and to that purpose that he essentially entred into the Body of the Serpent, and spoke through its Organs, or that he assumed the visible and corporeal shape of a Serpent, and so discoursed, and had collocution with her. To answer which (that we may proceed methodically,) we shall lay down and labour to prove these two positions. 1. That if it were granted that he did it either way, it would be no advantage, thereby to prove the ordinary power of Devils or Witches.

2. That that place of Scripture, if rightly weighed and considered, will no way make it rationally appear, that the Devil performed that temptation any other way but only mentally; and that the History there in the manner and circumstances of it, is only to be Allegorically and Metaphorically expounded. And as to the first, if it were granted it proves nothing to the purpose, for the power of Devils or Witches, as these two Arguments will sufficiently evince.

[Sidenote: _Argum. 1._]

1. From no single instance or particular proposition, can ever a general conclusion be rightly drawn by any known and certain rules of Reason or Logick; for _Syllogizari non est ex particulari_, is known to any Tyronist in that Art. But if Satan for that once should have entred into the natural Serpent, or assumed his shape, it is a deceivable and vitious way of arguing, that therefore he hath such a power over all Bodies at all times when he pleaseth, or that he can assume what shape he please, and therefore it certainly and rationally concludeth nothing of validity.

[Sidenote: _Argum. 2._]

[Sidenote: 1 Cor. 10. 13.]

2. In the temptation of _Eve_, there was something more extraordinary than can be assigned in any other temptation whatsoever, except that of Christ. And therefore was there a more peculiar and extraordinary dispensation from God in that case than can be shewed in any others but that of Christ. For now it pleaseth God in his merciful providence, so to order and overrule the malice of his hellish will, and to restrain and bridle his envious nature, that though his will be never so wicked, yet is he kept in his chains of darkness, _and God will not suffer his people to be tempted, above what they are able, but will with the temptation also make way to escape that they may be able to bear it_. Now _Adam_ and _Eve_ were in an extraordinary condition in respect of the Saints of God in this life, or of any other persons, and there was a more high and greater end in the providence of God in ordering and permitting of that temptation than there is or can be in any others, but that of Christ: And therefore from what the Lord permitted, and ordered to do in that temptation, or the liberty that he might grant him to exert his own power then, will no argument rationally follow that he can commonly and at his pleasure perform as much, and so maketh no firm conclusion.

[Sidenote: _Vid. Pererii Comment. in locum._]

And as concerning that place of Scripture in the third of _Genesis_ the great and learned Jesuit _Pererius_ doth undertake with tooth and nail to prove that it is to be literally interpreted, and that Satan did really enter into the Body of the natural Serpent, and spoke in him, or through his Organs; and laboureth (though in vain) to enervate and overthrow the strong arguments of his Brother in Religion, the most learned Cardinal _Cajetan_, Where he rejecteth the opinion of those that hold that the Devil did assume a Body in the shape of a Serpent; because (he saith) that Satan presently after the temptation ended must have deposited and put off the assumed body, but that the Serpent was after in Paradise, and therefore that he did not act it in an assumed Body. Therefore we shall also pass by that opinion of assuming of Bodies, as being a meer groundless figment invented by the dreaming Schoolmen, as we shall demonstrate hereafter. But to proceed in order, We shall first shew that the place must of necessity admit of an Allegory or Metaphor. And secondly, we shall lay down positive Arguments to shew the absurdity and impossibility of the Devils speaking in the Serpent, or by his Organs. And thirdly, we shall answer all objections that are material, and that in these particulars.

1. The thing that in that History is to be taken literally, is that _Eve_ was tempted and seduced; but the instrument by which it was done, the manner and circumstances, must of necessity have an Allegorical or Metaphorical interpretation, otherwise no sense rationally can be made of the place at all.

[Sidenote: _Vid. Dialog._ Discourses of Spirits and Devils. _Dialog._ 4. _p._ 110.]

2. “There can no blame of the action be imputed to Satan himself, if neither absolutely, nor properly, nor Historically, nor Allegorically, nor Metaphorically, nor no ways else he be named in that very History of _Evahs_ tentation, wherein the action it self with the several circumstances is fully and plainly expressed. For the action especially being so weighty a matter, was necessary to be known in every point: And therefore it is not to be doubted, but that the History concerning the same is so exactly set forth, with every circumstance, as that any Man may be able to judge of the principal Actors therein at the least. So then, although the Devil in that History, be neither absolutely, nor Historically, nor properly expressed by name; yet must we acknowledge him to be therein Allegorically and Metaphorically set forth at the least, or otherways impose no blame upon him at all concerning the action.” And therefore must _Pererius_ needs confess a Metaphor in the place, or else the Devil cannot be made an actor in the business.

3. It was no natural Serpent but the Devil himself Metaphorically set forth by the name of a Serpent, who gave the onset upon _Evah_ in that tentation. For by Allegories and Metaphors there is evermore some other thing meant than that which is literally expressed. And that this is so, is thus proved. If in that action the Devil himself be not Historically and properly, but Allegorically and Metaphorically, called a Serpent, because he is most crafty and subtile; then undoubtedly the objection of a natural Serpent to be used in that action is very inconvenient: But the antecedent is true, and therefore also the consequent.

[Sidenote: Apoc. 12. 3, 4, 5.]

[Sidenote: _Id._ 20. 2.]

4. The antecedent to that Hypothetical Argument foregoing is easily thus proved: It is an accustomed thing in the Sacred Scriptures to use the names of other creatures in setting forth to our sense the Intellectual Creatures themselves. Hereupon it is that in the _Apocalypse_ the Devil (by a perpetual Allegory) is called a Dragon or Serpent: And therefore in this History of _Evahs_ tentation, by the like perpetual Allegory he is also called a Serpent. For no Man can be so absurd and foolish to think that the Devil literally and properly (in that of the Revelation) can be called a Dragon or Serpent; but only in a Metaphorical and Mystical sense, and therefore must in right reason be taken so in that place of _Genesis_; for one part of Scripture is alwaies best interpreted by another.

[Sidenote: Gen. 49. 9.]

[Sidenote: Revel. 5. 5.]

[Sidenote: Matth. 3. 7.]