as in reason it can desire and so satisfy its own just demands 1. The Law of Nature is a Divine Law and brings us under the obligation of its Commands so that whatever is directly contrary hereunto cannot be made part of any suture Revelation because one Divine Light is not contrary to another 2. The rational exercise of their Faculties might be and probably was made use of by the Prophets and Apostles in their revealing the Will of God to Man yet still under the Influence and Superintendence of the Holy Spirit guideing and directing them in such a measure as was necessary in order to such an end 3. This light of natural Reason together with the concurrence of those other means design'd by God in order thereunto may be made use of for the better understanding of God's reveal'd will in Scripture now after such fair Concessions made to it it ought not to exalt it self above or make it self equal to that of Divine Revelation Theism in a Christian state where Men have not only all the Opportunities of knowing and understanding the Christian Religion but also live in the outward profession of it this of all things is the most unreasonable for even the best and wisest Asserters of the Light of Nature and Human Reason do grant that in those places where Christianity is known Reason it self will find more and much stronger Arguments for the Christian than for any other Belief what soever These Theists must also prove one of these two things either 1st That there never were any such persons as the Prophets our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles in the World which is contrary to the universal Consent and Confession of all both Friends and Enemies Or else 2ly That they never made any new revelation of God's Will to Mankind which they can never be able to do As for the practical Duties of Religion we grant they are founded in Nature and agreeable to Reason but then withal we say That Revelation hath both added to the clearness of the Truth and to the necessity of the Obligation of those Duties But here they tell us That Natural Reason has discover'd enough and that there is no need of any farther Revelation to be made to Man but it is a very weak and illogical way of arguing against a Matter of Fact from a supposed needlesness that there should be any such thing we ought rather in this case to argue thus It doth sufficiently appear That God hath made such and such Declarations of his Will to Man therefore it was not needless because God doth nothing in vain Farther It is disingenuous and ungratesul for Natural Reason thus to boast it self upon its own sufficiency and not acknowledge its Benefactor seeing it now owes its present improvement in a great measure to the Benefits and Advantages it has received from Divine Revelation The Author of the Discourse of Human Reason with relation to matters of Religion printed 1690. tell us That the whole Substance of Christianity it self according to St. Iohn's account of it is most certainly founded upon that universal light which enlightens every man that cometh into the World Pa. 4. of his Presatory Letter But to this I answer 1. That St. Iohn there doth not speak of the Light of Nature but of Christ and tho' Christ be the Author of that Light yet his thus enlightning every one that comes into the World doth not supersede the necessity or lessen the excellency of Divine Revelation 2. The whole Substance of Christianity cannot be founded therein because Christianity contains in it Articles of Faith above the natural power of Reason to find out as well as matters of Practice 3. Tho' the practical part be founded in this universal Light of Nature yet Christianity may carry on the Superstructure higher than meer Nature was ever able to do 4. It is not most certain that that is the right Translation of that place of St. Iohn it may be also render'd thus He was that true Light which coming into the World enlightens every man that is every man that hath the Happiness to hear the glad tydings of the Gospel The said Author pag. 92. having before made an exact and full enumeration as he thinks it of the Principles of all or rather of meer Natural Religion In the Belief and Sense says he of these general Traths and in the practice of the Duties that result from 'em according to their full extent and tendency consists all true Religion and whatever else is introduc'd into any Religion either notional or practical I say what either doth not necessarily flow from some of these Branches or tend to enforce the observance of 'em is no essential part of true Religion but the meer Product of Superstition Folly or Design But according to his Scheme of Principles what shall we think of those Articles of the Christian Faith the Trinity the Incarnation and resurrection of the Body for these are neither included in that Enumeration nor do they necessarily flow from any Branch thereof If he say that these may tend to enforce the observance of those Duties before-mentioned this I grant but it seems a preposterous way of proving Articles of Faith to bring 'em in only by the by because the belief thereof may enforce the practice of Christian Duties though this also is true that they do so yet the true reason of our belief of 'em is because they are revealed in Scripture What Monsieur le Clerk's design or whoever else was the Author of those five Letters concerning the Divine Inspiration of holy Scriptures lately translated into English was I shall not here enquire Truth indeed forbids me to think him a Deist in the first sence before mention'd but Charity it self doth not forbid to think him one in the second that is one who would bring Divine Inspiration into as narrow a room as he could and believe as little of it in Scripture as possible Yet we ought not to be too severe in charging the consequences of an Opinion upon its Author especially when he disowns 'em to be his Opinions but on the other side we ought to be very watchful over our selves that we do not broach or defend any Opinion that may any ways tend to unhinge the Principles and undermine the Foundations of Christianity and we ought the more to suspect and carefully examine such from whence men generally draw dangerous consequences That a Papist should industriously set himself to lessen the Authority of holy Scripture and upon all occasions seek advantage against it is not so much to be wonder'd at because hereby he serves a turn and by this means endeavours to advance the Authority of his own Church that what is pretended to be wanting in Scripture may be supplied by Roman Tradition But then why they who call themselves Protestants should joyn in such a Design and pick up all the little Arguments of ill-designing Men against Scripture this is not
hence is a great presumption at least of the falseness of such Principles seeing Truth always lyes so plain and easie especially in things of this nature so consistent with our natural Apprehensions and with all other Truths both natural and revealed that it stands not in need of such perplexed ways and methods for its own defence Nor is Mr. Hobbs the only man that hath made false representations of Human Nature there are also some foreign Philosophers who have been very obnoxious in this Particular Cuperus in his Arcana Atheismi 9. 10. cb 2. lib. denies all Natural Knowledge of God and all Natural Difference betwixt Good and Evil And in his Proeme p. 2 3. he makes Natural Reason to be ratiocinatio ex innatis homini affectibus passionibus legitimè deducta And this farther account he gives of these Affections p. 3. Affectus passiones Iesu Christi mandatis contrarias sive quae nos ad ea quae ipse prohibuit sectanda stimulant per se suâ naturâ non esse malas nec expeccato originali maláve consuetudine ortas existimo These seem but bad Principles for Human Nature to proceed upon And as for right Reason Rectam sanam rationem appello ratiocinationes ex claris apud neminem controversis sacrae Scripturae sensibus vel ex expressis verbis in scripturâ contentis vel per legitimam consequentiam elicitas This indeed is true but right Reason in the just and full nature of it is of larger extent than arguing meerly from Scripture And P. Poiret in his Cogit ration de Deo lib. 3. cap. 10. makes all the Reasons of Truth and Goodness to depend wholly upon the Divine Decree and that nothing is in it self either good or evil but only as God has been pleased to make it so and might also if He had so pleased have made it quite otherwise These I shall make some short Reflections upon and leave the fuller examination thereof to some abler Pen. I have not had recourse to Scripture to prove my Assertions because my design here is to speak of Man as guided rather by Reason than Revelation and because those I have here to deal with do more especially appeal thereto Yet here I cannot but take notice of the strange Humour of some men who reject some things for those very Reasons for which they ought to receive 'em thus when they are urg'd with Scripture they look upon that only as something that would impose upon their Understanding and oblige 'em to a blind Obedience as if it designed only to erect an arbitrary government over the Minds of Men without giving any reason of its Commands But though they will not give these Writings the credit and authority justly due to 'em upon account of their divine Revelation yet it would be unreasonable to reject 'em and the things therein contained before they have enquir'd into the Reasons and credibility of 'em which if they vouchsase to do I doubt not but as our Saviour said in another case If ye believe not me yet believe my Works So here tho' they believe not the Scriptures for their authority yet they will at least be convinc'd by the Reason contain'd in ' em Thus a learned Prelate of our Church Tho' sacred Authors have little authority with Atheists speaking as meer Witnesses yet when their Testimony is attended also with the highest Reason those Reasons must be acknowledg'd and answer'd though the Author be rejected Nor do I here insist much upon the authorities even of Heathen Authors being willing so far to comply with the Humours of some of the present Age as only to appeal to mens unprejudic'd Reasons whether what is here humbly propos'd to consideration be true or no for if what is writ by any one be not in it self reasonable I know no authorities great enough to make it so Only if any think that the concurrent Testimonies of such Authors may add any strength to the things here handled I doubt not but they who have been but moderately conversant in those Writers may easily furnish themselves with such authorities from their own reading and observation I shall here advertise the Reader one thing further That whereas I have frequent occasion of making use of these words Vice and Virtue I there take 'em according to the acceptation of our old English Dictionaries and in the sense wherein the ancient moral Philosophers formerly took 'em that is to signifie much what the same thing with Good and Evil Sin and Duty as supposing 'em founded upon something more sixt and certain than the Custom of Countries or the Mode and Fashion of those with whom we do converse I should have counted this a needless Advertisement but that I find the ingenious Author of the Essay of Human Understanding p. 158 159 c. telling us That the measure of what is every where called and esteemed Virtue and Vice is his Approbation or Dislike Praise or Blame which by a secret and tacite consent establishes it self in the several Societies Tribes and Clubs of Men in the World so that Virtue is every where that which is thought praise-worthy and nothing else but that which has the allowance of publick esteem is Virtue And here he quotes Cicero Tusc. lib. 2. Nihil habet natura praestantius quà m honestatem quà m laudem quà m dignitatem quam decus Which he says are all Names for the same thing But here we may observe that he puts Honesty in the first place then Praise viz. such as is consequent hereupon quà m dignitatem that is that Dignity of Nature which is the greatest Ornament of a Man The same Author of that Essay hath much better explain'd the sense of the old Heathen Philosophers upon this Subject p. 17. If one of those had been asked here I suppose the Question should not have been propounded as before Why a Man must keep his word but rather thus why a Man should not break his word he would have answer'd because it was dishonest below the Dignity of a Man and opposite to Virtue the highest perfection of Human Nature By the Dignity of a Man I suppose was here meant the same that Tully meant by his that is the Dignity of Human Nature consider'd in it self not with respect to the accidentally good or bad Opinion that Men might entertain of it But he further tells us p. 159. That the Exhortations of inspired Teachers have not feared to appeal to common Repute Whatsoever things are lovely whatsoever things are of good report if there be any virtue if there be any praise c. Phil. 4. 8. But the Apostle doth not here appeal to common Repute absolutely but with a certain restriction and limitation that Men do not confound the notions of Good and Evil whatever things are of good report with this Proviso that there be any Virtue or any such Praise as is virtutis comes then we are to think on
so easie to give an account of Scripture doth not go about meerly to beg a favourable reception in the World as if it stood in need of such mean methods of proceeding seeing it may justly challenge a due regard and veneration from all sober and considerate persons it doth not desire to make use of any precarious Principles in its own defence nor refuses to joyn issue with its Adversaries in the most severe method of Raciocination 'T is true indeed as the Translator tells us in his Preface that it is unbecoming the dignity of such sacred Truths as the Christian Religion teaches us to build them upon unsound Principles or defend them by Sophistical Arguments If this be applied to the following Letters designing thereby to reflect upon the contrary Opinion and to magnifie the soundness of the Principles and Cogency of the Arguments contained in these I doubt not but Mr. Lowth's Answer is sufficient to convince any considerate person to the contrary The sum of the Author's Hypothesis in the five Letters seems to be this he absolutely rejects some of the Books of the Old Testament and very much questions the Authority of others of the new He doth not allow Scripture in general either as to the matter or as to the words to be inspired by the Holy Ghost excepting only some few particular Instances And as for the Difficulties that occurr therein he doth not much concern himself about 'em but takes this more easie way of solving all by acknowledging when any thing of that nature is objected that the holy Pen-men were there mistaken and contradicted themselves And as the Translator in his Preface p. 6. tells us the use of all this is to settle our Christian Religion upon a basis not to be shaken by the Difficulties about the Scripture which the Learned are forced to acknowledge to be insuperable But I am apt to believe that too little reading and considering the best Authors and too great a Tincture of Prejudice upon the Minds of Men doth sometimes make that seem an insuperable difficulty which is not so in it self Or suppose there were some such in Scripture must we therefore reject the Divine Authority of the whole because we do not understand some parts of the Bible Vid. Letter to a Deist But I do not see what sufficient Answer he returns to that place 2 Pet. 1. 17. The holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acted or carried by the Holy Ghost Here Beza gives this seasonable Caution Dextrè hoc intelligendum est ne quis divini spiritûs rectè compositos verè divinos afflatus comparet profanorum Vatum furoribus c. But the aforesaid Author comes short of the true import of the Phrase when he makes this Impulse or Influence of the Holy Ghost to be nothing more than the meer result of a pious and well-disposed Mind acting only by the strength of Memory and a well-inform'd Understanding But for a man to espouse such a dangerous and unwarrantable Opinion and when he is urged with plain and express places of Scripture such as seem non sine numine and as it were purposely so worded as if designed to obviate such a Tenent for him then to tell us as this Author doth p. 146. That no Doctrine which we esteem important ought to be grounded barely on certain manners of speaking which we cannot be sure they were exact because the Sacred Writers not affecting exactness of Style may have used that manner of expression without any design This is only to study Evasions and to lay a Foundation of something like Sceptism in Religion for after this way of arguing a man may assert or deny any thing having first thus taken off the edge of the Scripture so as that he need to fear no danger thence But he tells us p. 34. That St. Luke confesses himself in the beginning of his Gospel That he learned not that which he told us by inspiration but by information from those that knew it exactly To this I answer 1. Divine Grace is very well consistent with the sober and rational use of our Faculties tho' perhaps it is not very easie to explain the way and method how 't is done Nor is such an Inspiration as is here asserted any ways contrary to those subordinate means which St. Luke might make use of in that case Dubitandum non est quin piam diligentiam Deus direxerit 2. St. Luke doth not say that what he there writes he had only by Information It seem'd good also to me who having had perfect knowledge of all things ab initio from the beginning the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supernè coelitus from above Thus Ia. 1. 17. Every good and perfect Gift is from above 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Io. 19. 11. And this the Criticks say is the proper and usual signification of the word Vt sit adverbium loci à quâ significatione non temerè recedendum illua autem à principio sensum angustiorem reddit includitur in eo quòd se omnia consecutum esst scripturum ordine dicat The said Author is much offended at those expressions in Psal. 109. which he says are all Curses and Imprecations But he may as well say that those Woes which our Saviour denounces against impenitent Sinners Matt. 23. 14. are all Curses too whereas they are rather tender-hearted Expressions and Commiserations for those Evils which he foresaw they would bring upon themselves by their wilful Wickedness And what he says further in confirmation of his Opinion is only this That if all these words were render'd in the future tense to avoid making the Psalmist pronounce such Curses there are a great many more places in the Psalms where the Version would need to be reform'd But what if this were granted would any thing of absurdity or inconvenience follow thence 'T is further observable that he boldly advances his own Opinion many times without ever taking the least notice of those Answers that have been return'd to it both by ancient and modern Writers Thus 2 Tim. 3. 16. All Scripture is given by inspiration os God and is profitable c. But p. 189. he says this may be very well thus translated All Scripture that is divincly inspir'd is profitable but it cannot well be translated thus unless he can prove that St. Paul did suppose some of the Books of the Iewish Canon not to be inspir'd Otherwise Theophylact's Confutation of this very Opinion will still hold good where in answer to his way of reading the words Omnis scriptura que divinitùs inspirata est illa est etiam utilis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. oportebat eos novisse quòd cum suprà dixerit sacras literas nosti nunc ait omnis scriptura qualis de quâ disserehat de quâ dixit quòd sacra est omnis igitur hujusmodi divinitùs inspirata