false if there be any incontestable Principles of Reason or True Maximes of Philosophy For to omit at present that 't is Repugnant to Metaphysical and Physical Axioms that Accidents should exist without a subject or that there should be Whiteness and nothing white Sweetness and nothing sweet that one Body should be penetrated by another when we find every Material substance irresistibly to defend its self from coexistence in the same place with another that is Corporeal that one the same Being should be entirely at one and the same time in distant places which is to be distant from it self yea that it should be there with contradictory adjuncts that the Sign and thing signified or Relate and Correlate should be the same I say to pass these by as having been a thousand times urged against the Papists and nothing replyed but what renders their Folly and Extravagance the greater and more remarkable I shall only say that Transubstantiation is inconsistent with the first Principles of Logick 1. No Enunciation is true but upon the account of Congruity to its Object and the previous existence of the Object according to what is affirmed of or denyed concerning it is that which grounds the verity of the Enunciation If therefore the Sacramental Elements be not the Body and Blood of Christ antecedently to the words of Consecration the Enunciation by which the Priest affirms the one to be the other must necessarily be false 2. Every Enunciation supposeth a previous Act and judgment of the Mind of which it is Manifestative for the End of words is to indicate Conceptions Unless therefore previously to consecration the Bread be judged to be the real Flesh of Christ no one can truly assert that it is so 3. In every true Enunciation the subject may by Conversion become the predicate as is evident by an induction of all propositions in the World while therefore the Body of Christ cannot in a proper and Physical sense be said to be Bread no more can Bread in a proper sense be said to be the Body of Christ. 4. No Disparate can be truly affirmed in casu recto of another that interfering with the Nature of opposites Bread and the Body of Christ therefore being Disparates the one cannot in a proper sense be predicated of the other 5. No real positive Attribute or predicate can be affirmed of a subject which is not for non entis nulla sunt attributa And therefore if the Bread be annihilated as indeed it must be unless instead of allowing Christ to have only one Body and that formed of the substance of the Virgin we should hold that he hath many Bodies and those formed of Material Particles distinct from what he was fram'd of in the Womb of the Virgin Our Saviour spake very illogically in asserting concerning that which it is not at all that it is his Body I shall wave what might be further added to this purpose only conclude it with this brief remarque That if Principles of Reason obtain so far in Things purely Supernatural as that there can be no repugnance betwixt the one and the other they ought more especially to have so much place in those things which Grace borrows and transports from Nature for its Use. Secondly When we say that there is nothing in Religion which is truly repugnant to Principles of Reason we do not by Principles of Reason understand all that this or that sort of men vote and receive for such The Universal Reason of Man-kind is of great Moment but mistaken Philosophy and false Notions of things which this and that Man admit for theorem's of Reason are of very small importance Men being mislead by their Senses Affections Interests and Imaginations do many times mingle errours and false conceits with the Genuine Dictates of their Minds and then appeal to them as the Principles of Truth and Reason when they are indeed nothâ—ng else but the vain Images of our fancies and the conclusions of Ignorance and mistake Though Reason in the Abstract and those inbâ—ed notices implanted in our Souls which upon the first exercise of our Faculties command an Assent be all consistent wâ—th the Mysteries of Faith yet Reason in the Concrete and as it exists in this and that man being weak maim'd imperfect and extremely remote from a full and just comprehension of things we do accordingly find many Articles of Revelation to have been little befriended by Axioms and principles of vulgar Philosophy But this proceeds from the Corruption of Reason its being vitiated by Lusts byassed by Interests perverted by Education darkned by Passions enthralled by Prejudice rather than from Reason it self and is to be ascribed not to the Light of Reason but to the Darkness that envelop's it It hath been usual for men according to the School they have been bred in to expound and judg of Religion in Analogy to the principles they have suckt in from thence By this means hath Religion been embased through mens subjecting the Examen and conduct of it to mistaken Philosophy He that would examine an Article of Faith by a Proposition of Reason must be careful that his Measure be just and true and not deceitful and fallacious No man ought to distrust an Article of Religion for its being against a proposition which we take to be true only because we were taught it The Prejudice done to Religion by mistaken Philosophy ought not to be dissembled and I shall therefore crave a little liberty here to unfold it And not to insist on the ill Influence that the Phenician and Chaldaick Philosophy had on the Judaick Theology though it be of easie proof that their Planetary Deities and their Teraphims sprung from thence Nor to do any more but mention that the chief Errours of the Pharisees Sadduces and Esseans took their rise from the Grecian Philosophy their Dogm's being a mixture of Pythagorean Platonick Stoick and Epicurean Notions I shall rather observe that the chiefest Errours that have infested the Christian Church arose from a mingling Gentile Philosophy with the Doctrine of the Gospel Both Irenaeus and Tertullian affirm the Errors of the Gnosticks to have sprung from the Platonick Ideas Though I think it not improbable but that their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 took their birth from Pythagoreanism The Aeons of the Valentinians if we will believe Tertullian were also â—orrowed from the Idea's of Plato but if any shall judge that they were rather derived from Hesiod I shall not contend seeing the Ancient Poets were not only the Ethnick Theologues but their chief Philosophers Epiphanius tells us that the Heresies of the Marcionites came out of the School of Plato Theodoret inform's us that Sabellius became a Heretick by his obstinacy in Plato's Doctrine Tatian being deeply tinctur'd with Platonism became thereupon Head of the Eucratists if you will give Credit to Baronius Holstenius hath shown us how the Manichean principles were fram'd from
by virtue of their being vested with an Office are obliged to yet to ascribe Actions to an Office as if it were the very Agent whereas it is meerly the Foundation from which an Obligation to the performance of such and such Actons in the due discharge of it results whatever Wit or profoundness his Friends may Imagine in it I cannot otherwise account of it than a piece of sublime Nonsense And Nonsence is not to be refuted but exposed For he betrayes the weakness of his own Reason who undertakes to encounter an absurd Phrase with Arguments Nor Secondly doth the Name Christ in the Question under Debate signifie the Gospel and Religion of Christ. 'T is indeed by the Doctrine of the Gospel as a Moral means that we come to be united to Christ but 't is not It that we are united to As the Gospel alone reveals our Union with Christ and as the Communication of the Spirit the repairing the Image of God in our Souls are only promised by it So God in his soveraign Wisdom hath ordained it to be the alone Vehiculum of the Spirit and the means of ingenerating Faith in our Hearts which are the Bonds of our Union Hence 't is called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 3.8 in opposition to the Law which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And as the purity of its Precepts and the nobleness of its Promises do admirably qualify and adapt it as an Objective Moral means of restoring the Image of God in us so through the Blessing of God attending it as His solemn Institution to this End we become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by it 2 Pet. 1.4 Though no Physical Efficiency is to be ascribed to it yet besides a Moral Efficacy which through its own frame and complexion it hath to reform Mankind beyond what any Declaration of God our selves that ever the World was made acquainted with had There is a Physical efficacious Operation of the Spirit of God accompanies it on the score of the Lords having in Infinite Sapience ordained it as a means for the communicating Grace But still 't is not the Doctrine of the Gospel that we are united to 'T is true that it is both by the Doctrine of the Gospel that we are brought to be united to Christ and 't is also true that whosoever are united to Him have the Doctrine of the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as an ingraffed and incorporated Word and are moulded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the Form of its Doctrine But yet 't is not the Terminus of the Relation of Union which intervenes betwixt Christ and them nor is it That which they are united to Mr. Sherlock I confess tells us that when Christ Joh. 15. speaks of the First person I and in Me he cannot mean this of his own person but of his Church Doctrine and Religion and that by I in him v. 4. and I in you v 5. we are to understand the Christian Doctrine dwelling and abiding in us 'T is pretty to observe with what nimble removes from the Church to the Doctrine of Christ again from the Doctrine to the Church of Christ our Author paraphraseth the first five or Six verses of that Chapter The I and me in the first 2d verses are glossed as referring to the Church I am the true Vine the meaning is saith Mr. Sherlock that Church which is founded on the Belief of my Doctrine is the true Vine Every Branch in me i. e. saith he every Member of my visible Church But then the I in you and the I in him v. 4. and 5. are expounded of the Doctrine of Christ. His flying from one quarry to another argues some inconvenience and danger he foresaw his exposition of the place encumbred with or else that some vertigo troubled his pericranium I shall at present only examine so much of his paraphrase as respects those words where in stead of the person of Christ he will have the Doctrine and Religion of Christ to be understood That which he interprets as relating to the Church of Christ which can only be understood also of his person shall hereafter be taken into consideration And as to that which lyeth now before me 't is enough not only to prejudice Mr. Sherlocks exposition but to overthrow it with all Judicious persons that-Expressions of the same Nature are not allowed the same sense I know that one and the same Word is sometimes in one the same verse differently sensed when the subject Matter context scope of the Discourse do so require But to impose disagreeing and various meanings upon Expressions of one and the same Nature occurring together where one and the same sense may safely be admitted is to violate all Laws of Exposition and to make the Scripture pliable to what purposes we please The in you and the in him v. 4. and 5. are predicates referring to the same I affirmed of the same Subject that True Vine is predicated of v. 1. and 5. But it being as well absurd to style the Doctrine of the Gospel the true Vine as to assert concerning the Church that it is in us our Author hath therefore found it necessary to make the subjects of the Propositions different though there needs no more where the Judgment is not forestalled and the mind under a chosen Occecation than the meer inspection of the Paragraph to ascertain the contrary 2 Though the subject of a Proposition may be brought into Debate where it is expressed by a Relative Pronoun yet when one speak's of Himself in the First Person by a Pronoun Demonstrative as the Evangelist introduceth Christ here doing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to say that he speaks not of Himself is no less than to give him the Lie Words in the common acceptation and stated sense of them being infallible manifestative signs of the Conceptions of the Speaker when the Author is Veracious I would know of Mr. Sherlock that supposing it had been the design of Christ to have told us that by I in you and I in Him he meant himself how he could have done it otherwise or in Terms of a more determined signification What better Evidence can we have of the sense of a Place than that had an Author intended such a meaning he could have used no plainer Expression to declare it 3 The I in you v. 4. is the same with the I that had spoken to them and through whose Word they were made clean v. 3. Now to think that this could be the Doctrine of Christ or any other than Christ himself is a Non-sensical Imagination What friendship our Author hath for the Religion of Christ I cannot tell but that he expounds Scripture at a high rate of confidence to the derogation of his Person is by the Instance before us too plain evident Nor do we Thirdly in the Question under consideration understand by Christ the Church of Christ. I shall
No particular Christian is the Body of Christ but only a Member in his Body Christ is called a Husband but then the whole Church or Society of Christians not every particular Christian is his Spouse as St. Paul tells the Church of Corinth 2 Cor. 11.2 Christ is a Shepherd and the Christian Church is his Flock Joh. 10. For the Relation between a Shepherd and Sheep doth primarily concern the whole Flock Christ is the Rock upon which his Church is built the chief corner stone and the Christian Church a Holy Temple so that all those Metaphors in their first and proper use refer to the whole Society of Christians and are designed to represent the Union between Christ and his Church To this I answer 1. That were this discourse of our Author fram'd into a Syllogism the incongruity between the conclusion and the premises would easily appear For example Christ is the Head of his Church Ergo no particular Believer is united to him but by means of their Uinion with the Church I deny the consequent surely though the King be Immediate Head to the whole Kingdom yet he is also Immediate Head to every Individual person in it Mr. Sherlocks Logick is like that of Chrysippus which men were too dull to understand though they say the Gods would have used it 2. The Church and its Individual Members being of an homogeneous Nature whatsoever is predicated essentially of the whole is equally predicable of every part 3. The Holy Ghost plainly affirms that it is between Christ and the Church as it is between the Head and Members of the same Natural Body And therefore as not only the whole Body hath influence in the disposal of it self and in the discharge of its Functions from the Head but also every particular Member hath influences of life and strength from thence so Christ is not only an Immediate Head of Direction and Rule to the whole Church but to every Individual Believer in it Whatever the Habitude of Pastors Teachers be to their particular Churches to which they are related and to the Members of which these Churches are constituted yet it is to the Word of God as the Rule of conduct by which Christ under the Notion of a Political Head governs his Church that every Individual Believer is to attend 4. Though our Author informs us that he hath almost pored out his eyes in searching the Scripture in order to his being enlightned about this and some other Notions yet I must take leave either to question the matter of Fact or to suspect that his sight was not good before or that his visible Faculty was strangely tinctured For the Apostle whose Authority and Testimony may I hope be allowed to rival Mr. Sherlocks tells us that as the whole Church is Christs Body so we are all Members in particular of Christ 1 Cor. 12.27 and that the whole Body is joyned to Christ by the conjunction which every Member hath with him 1 Cor. 12.12 And that Christ is not only a Husband to the whole Church but that he is so to every Christian appears by this seeing not only the particular Church of Corinth is said to be Espoused to Him 2 Cor. 11.2 but every Individual Believer among the Romans is also represented as Married to him Rom. 7.4 Neither do they only report him to be the Foundation Rock and corner Stone of the Church taken Collectively but likewise in its distributive acceptation 1 Pet. 2.5 Eph. 2.19 20 21 22. Thus having not only defeated the strength and force of his first objection but improved the Medium from which he musters it to subvert the cause in whose defence it was brought I proceed now to the second That the Union of particular Christians with Christ consists in their Union with the Christian Church the Sacraments which our Saviour hath instituted as Symbols of our Union with him are says he a plain demonstration Our first undertaking of Christianity is represented in our Baptism wherein we make a publick profession of our Faith in Christ and it is sufficiently known that Baptism is the Sacrament of our admission into the Christian Church c. Thus the Lords Supper is a Sacrament of Union and signifies the near Conjunction that is between Christ and the Christian Church and the mutual Fellowship of one Christian with another c. For answer whether the Sacraments import any more than a Political Union between Christ and Believers I shall wave till anon and only consider them at present as brought in proof of Christians being united to Christ by means of their Union with the Christian Church And truly if these be the weapons with which Mr. Sherlock thinks to captivate and subdue the minds of men to espouse his Notion he must either only encounter those that court their own Bondage or there will be few found following the Chariot wheels of our Hero Instead of any slaughter he is like to make amongst the Non-conformists by these Forces he only wounds himself and overthrows his own cause by them And first as to the Argument drawn from Baptism I reply these four things 1. Baptism is neither the Medium of our Union with the Catholick Visible Church nor that by which we formally become Members of a particular Instituted Church Not the latter seeing it is not only possible that a Person may be Baptised where there are not enough to form an Instituted particular Church but it may be sometimes found necessary to deny the Priviledg of Membership in an Instituted even to such as have been Baptized Yea before any particular Churches were erected there were Baptised Christians it being of such that the first Christian Churches were constituted Not the Former forasmuch as a Person may be of the Universal Visible Church and yet not be Baptised Nor is this a Chimaerical Imagination for there have been many who partly through want of opportunity to enjoy the Ordinance of Baptism partly upon other Motives though they are not justifiable have denyed themselves the Mercy of the Baptismal Laver and yet to suppose that thereupon they are not Christians is to renounce all exercise of Charity and to involve our selves under the guilt of condemning those whom the Lord hath received 2. Were Baptism as well the Medium as the Symbol of our Union with the Christian Church yet it doth not follow that we are only United to Christ by means of our Union with the Church And the reason is plain seeing none ought to be admitted to Baptism I speak of adult persons but such who are antecedently judged to be Christians Act. 8.37 Now to reckon any one a Christian who doth not before-hand own the Authority of Jesus Christ in the belief of his Doctrines and an avowed subjection to his Laws which is the Bond of our Political Union is no less than a contradiction 3. Our owning the Authority of Christ which is the Vinculum of our Political Union with
that can be possibly imagined of doing it with Security I readily acknowledge that the Articles and Precepts of Religion may in some Cases and Circumstances be safely preserved and securely conveyed down from Age to Age by Oral Tradition namely when the Things themselves to be preserved and reported are Few the Number of the Persons to be instructed in them Small the Age of those to whom the Successive Communication is given lengthened out for several Hundred years and Mankind in the mean while neither Slothful nor greatly Corrupted And accordingly God who doth all things by excellent Counsel and in his most extraordinary Works useth Natural Agents as far as their Capacities will serve did for some time take this Method not thinking it fit in the first Ages of the World to commit the Revelations He vouchsafed it to Writing But taking the Case as it now is namely that Mankind is vastly multiplied that our Lives are much shortned and contracted to what at first they were that the Doctrines Institutions and Duties which we are to be instructed in are numerous and many and that Carelessness and Debauchery have Arrested the World And I affirm that some other Means besides Oral Tradition are necessary for the safe Conveyance of Revelation from one Age to another For 1. The failure of Oral Tradition in the preserving either Things Humane or Divine argues that God having Mercifully condescended to give a Revelation of His Will to Man should pitch upon some more certain Method of conveying it to such as live in Places and Times remote from the first Delivery of it than Tradition is How many famous Institutes of Ethnick Legislators and Theories of Ancient Philosophers are lost through not being committed to Writing I will take it for granted at present that the World had a Beginning that Men were not self-Originated and that they were not Created Impure but that Sin by some accident or other made it's Entrance afterwards into the World I will likewise take it for granted that the First common Parents of Mankind whoever they were made their immediate Posterity acquainted with those important Things And yet doth not Experience tell us how insufficient Oral Tradition hath been to preserve them among the Gentile Nations The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of which those Philosophers who approach nearest the Truth alledge things to have been at first made are plainly borrowed from the Mosaical Records The Entrance of Sin by the means of certain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insolent Daemons and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Serpent which some of them suggest is evidently stollen from the Sacred Writings or at least learned by Converse with the Jewish Nation to which the Oracles of God were committed But should we grant that all these and whatever else we meet with in the Heathen Writers of this kind were preserved by Tradition among themselves Yet their Accounts about these great Important Matters are so scanty inconsistent and ridiculous that we cannot be so Foolish as to believe them to be the just and full Reports which were Communicated by our First Parents to their Immediate Off-spring I shall only add that the Tradition of the One True God though most easie to have been preserved being not only short and plain but having Foundation and Evidence in the Light of Nature was nevertheless soon Corrupted and Defaced by the Worlds lapsing into Polytheism 2. In order to Traditions being a sufficient means of conveying down Revelation to Successive Ages we must suppose both a Care from time to time in all to learn it and that perfectly an equal Capacity in all to Understand and Remember it a regard in every one to instruct others without the least Variation in what themselves had learned for if either through Sloth difference of Abilities Entanglements by the World or Corruption of Manners there should be a Failure in any of these it is easie to be apprehended what would soon become of Revealed Doctrines were there nothing else to secure their Communication from one Generation to another besides Tradition Now he that will believe all Men to be of equal Capacity equal Fidelity equal Diligence c. not only contradicts the daily Experience which we have of Men in the World but withal affirms that to be impossible namely that there should be any Errour in Doctrines of Faith or Mistakes about Institutions of Worship c. which yet we find Actually to be 3. That cannot be a sufficient and certain Medium of conveying Revelation to Mankind by which the grossest and most palpable Falshoods under pretence of Being parts of Divine Revelation have been obtruded upon the World In proof of this I need only instance the Oral Law of the Jews and the unwritten Tradition of the Papists among which I may say with modesty there are some Doctrines to be met with so far from having been at any time revealed by God that 't is a wonder being so Trifling Absurd and repugnant to Principles of right Reason they should have ever have been invented by men 4 No man can be obliged to believe what arriv's with him in way of Tradition till he have some assurance that all mankind are agreed and of the same persuasion with his instructers unless he should take his teachers to be Infallible Now as the first of these is morally impossible at least for most persons in the World who neither have Time Ability nor opportunity of resolving themselves by converse with every Individual so the last is groundless and absurd and indeed constitutes all men Infallible neither capable of being imposed upon themselves nor imposing upon others What I have said against the conveying down Revelation with security by Oral Tradition makes equally against its conveyance in writing by men not divinely Inspired As words are the representation of Conceptions so writing is the Register of Words and if men may deceive in their vocal Reports they may do the like in the consignment of their Thoughts and Words to Script Besides we shall be first at a loss to know whether those that did not write of matters of Religion who were ever the major number were at an agreement with those that wrote Secondly is is not only difficult but impossible for persons of mean Parts secular Vocations c. to consult the Writings of all those that have written of matters of Religion and yet this is necessary ere we can make a judgment in this matter Thirdly we shall find our selves endlesly entangled when we find them contradicting one another And Fourthly to add no more we shall be still at a loss both whether in that they wrote they were not imposed upon by those of whom they received it and also whether they lived and dyed in the belief of all that which may be in their younger and unexperienced Years they threw into Paper or whether afterwards in some thing or other they
express and explicite Authority of God upon it For whosoever explicitely reveal's the thing defined reveals in effect all those things which we have enumerated concerning it While the Scripture for example assureth us that Christ is a man it doth at the same time assure us that he is a Rational Creature and by telling us that he is a man it doth in effect tell us that he is not an Angel And however some late Papists talk in this Matter not to speak of others that they may shift the Protestant Arguments which they cannot Answer Yet I am sure the most learned that ever espoused the Romane Cause are at an agreement with us in this point That is an Article of Faith says Bellarmine which God hath either revealed by the Prophets and Apostles or which may be evidently inferred from thence Smiglesius against Mascorovius proclaims it ridiculous to think otherwise That is not only a part of the Christian Doctrine which is expressly revealed by the Apostles but whatsoever can be evidently deduced thence though one of the propositions going to the deducement of it have its certainty only in Natural Light saith Canus And whereas they say that Conclusio sequitur debiliorem partem the Conclusion receives it specification and is denominated from the weakest proposition I reply 1 Were that Logical Maxime to be taken in the universal Latitude which they affix to it they are yet so far from gaining any thing thereby that their whole Cause in this Matter is supplanted For if both Propositions be evidently true their Dogm's must be evidently false seeing the Conclusions that lye in repugnancy to them are our Enemies being Judges deduced from true propositions God is as much the Author of the Rational Faculty in its Regular Exercise as of Scripture and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be persuaded by God and to be persuaded by Right Reason is one and the same thing 2. That proposition in a Philosophical sense is the weakest which is remotest from self evidence and therefore where there are two premisses whereof the one hath no other Evidence but what it borrows from the Authority of the Infallible Revealer the other in the mean time havâ—ng â—ts Evidence from a light residing in it self and from its Congruity to the Essential Rectitude of our Intellectual Faculties if the Conclusion follow the fortune of the weaker proposition it must be a Conclusion of Faith and not of Science For though the Certitude of Faith be not only equal but transcendent to the Certitude of Reason Sense and Experience 2 Pet. 1.16 17 18 19. Yet the Evidence of Reason and Sense is with respect to the Object assented to the habitude it stands in to us beyond the Evidence of Faith 2 Cor. 5. â— 1 1 Cor. 13.12 Nor do the School men only allow a proposition grounded on an Axiome of Reason to be more evident than a proposition founded only on Revelation but withal not a few of the Learned'st Romanists both School-men and others will have the former to be also more Certain at least quo ad nos than the latter See Bellarm lib. 3. de justifiâ— cap. 2. Durand in 3. d. 23. quest 7. Compt. Tom. poster disp 9. 3. The forementioned Logical Axiome referrs only to the Quantity and Quality of the premisses and not to any other affections incident to them If one of the Premisses be Negative the Conclusion in the virtue of the alledged Maxâ—me must be Negative also or if one of the propositions be a particular nothing beyond a particular can be concluded though the other be an Universal And howsoever in some cases it may hold further yet this and no more was the intendment of the first establishers of it Nor indeed is it admittable in the full Latitude which the Terms seem to bear seeing of two propositions whereof the one only is true there may follow sometimes a Conclusion that is true though the other proposition be in the mean time palpably false But ere I undertake the probation of the thing it self two or three things must be necessarily premised 1. That all Fundamental Articles are contained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in so many letters and syllables in the Scripture Nor is there any thing necessary in order to our assent to them but that we understand the Terms of the Enunciations in which they are delivered 'T is true there are Terms and Phrases made use of to declare them unto the edification of Believers to secure the Minds of men from undue apprehensions of them that are not in the Scripture but this is no more than what is needful in the explaining of all Divine Truths yea all Moral Duties For example That there is One God and that the Father is this one God and that the Son is so also and the Holy Ghost likewise is declared in many express Testimonies in the Bible but in the Explication of this Doctrine and in the application of it to the Faith and Edification of Believers namely how God is One in respect of his Nature and Essence how being Father Son and Holy Ghost He subsists in these three distinct Persons what are their mutual respects to each other and what are the incommunicable Properties in the manner of their subsistence by which they are distinguished the One from the other there are such woâ—ds and phrases made use of as are not literally and syllabically contained in the Scripture but teach no other thing but what is there revealed 2. That these very Fundamental Articles may be also confirmed by consequences and logical deductions from express literal Testimonies nor do probations of this nature alter or enervate the quality of them The thing is in it self the same though the method of proof be varied For example the Doctrine of the Trinity is equally a Fundamental whether we prove it from express Texts or by consequences from literal Testimonies or by its connexion with the whole Systeme of the Gospel the Incarnation of the Son of God the Oeconomy of Redemption c. 3. That though all Fundamentals be in Terminis expressed in the Scripture that yet these very Truths do include others in them which cannot be proved but by Consequences For instance That God is a Spâ—rit is revealed in so many letters and syllables in the Bible but that therefore he hath not hands nor feet nor any corporeal members can only be concluded by way of Consequence In lâ—ke manner the Incarnation of the Son of God that the Word was made Flesh is expresly taught in the Scripture but yet there are many things predicable of the Word Incarnate which cannot be otherwise demonstrated but by Consequences and by borrowing some proposition or other from principles of Natural light Now these things being premised the lawfulness of arguing from express Scripture-Truths by deduction of Conclusions which though they be not mentioned in the Bible in letters and syllables are
apprehend things to be as indeed they are as I may affirm one thing of another as indeed it is However though I wave this Medium yet my first Argument shall be drawn from acts of simple Apprehension but built upon another Medium and it is this whatsoever I can clearly apprehend separate and apart I can apprehend the same with the same clearness united and Conjunct for example as I can clearly and distinctly apprehend a River and Wine apart I can with the same clearness apprehend them conjunct and united and yet I should be loath to trust this Cartesian principle so far as to assert that there is really a River runs Wine meerly because I can frame a complex apprehension of these two together 2. It interferes with what the Cartesians else-where and upon other occasions affirm For according to them when possibles offer themselves to our Rational Natures by a clear and distinct perception we do not otherwise perceive them than as actually existent and yet they themselves will not say that they do actually exist 3. The Objective Verity of Things is the Rule and Measure of the verity of perception for therefore are our perceptions true because consonant to the Nature of things and consequently clearness and distinctness of perception is not the Test by which we are to judge of the Natures Qualities and Modes of Beings 4. We are bound to pay an assent to many Doctrines and believe not a few things whereof we can have no clear and distinct perception such for example are the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation of the Son of God c. If we could distinctly and clearly perceive them they were no longer Mysteries and if we do not assent to and belâ—eve them notwithstanding that we do not distinctly and clearly perceive them we are hardly yea I may say not at all Christians This is so indubitable that we may yea ought to assent to many things which we have no clear and distinct perception of that Des-Cartes himself is forced to subscribe to it his words are that multis possumus assentiri quae non nisi perobscure confuse cognoscimus which as it is most true so he could have said nothing more contradictory to and subversive of his own principles 5. Experience not only tells us that Men do often err and mistake but that they do so in things about which they suppose themselves to have clear and distinct perceptions Yea if we will believe Des-Cartes impetrare a nobis non possismus ut obscure confuse cognitis quamdiâ— talia nobis apparent assensum praebeamus We cannot obtain of our selves to assent to any thing so long as we only obscurely and confusedly know it Now though this be egregiously false yet nothing could be said more to the overthrow of this great and fundamental principle of his For if men can assent to nothing but what they have a clear and distinct cognizance of and if daily experience assure that one or other is always embracing venting and justifying Errour then farewell to this principle of the Cartesians that whatsoever presents it self to us by a clear and distinct perception is really and in it self so as we do perceive it 6. Were it most true that it is impossible for any thing to be otherwise than what we clearly and distinctly perceive it yet this can be no first principle of Science because we are still at a loss how we shall know whether we have a clear and distinct perception of things yea or not Let us suppose two men imbued with Opinions whereof those of the one are repugnant with those of the other and each of them pleading a clearness and distinctness of perception in reference to his own Now I would enquire of the Cartesians by what means these two men shall be satisfied that their knowledge is clear and distinct for clearness and distinctness of perception can no more be ascribed to both of them than truth can be predicated of the two parts of a contradiction 7. The Cartesians in the justifying of this principle involve themselves in a most shameful Circle For if it be enquired how we shall know but that God hath fram'd us with such Faculties as may in the most clear and distinct perceptions we have abuse and delude us They reply that we know it from the idea which we have of Gods being perfect i e. infinitely Good and True and if they be again asked what assurance they have that this is a true idea of God they recurr to their Canon of clear and distinct perception for the justifying of it Thus they prove the truth of their Rule and Measure from the perfection of God and the perfection of God from the truth of their Rule which if I mistake not is to argue circularly Shall I add in the eighth and last place that it is nothing but Socinianism new furbished and seems indeed shapen to justify them in their most detestable Errours For it is remarkable that when they are in a sober mood they tell us that they do not renounce the Articles of the Trinity Incarnation of the Son of God c. because they are above our reason but because they judge them repugnant to the distinct and clear perceptions which they of things The words of Smalcius are We readily acknowledge many things in the Christian Religion which are above our Reason and we know that Religion transcends Reason Their quarrel with these mysteries is this that there are many things which they clearly and distinctly perceive to which these Doctrines are contradictious This I thought convenient to discourse a little the more largely because though nothing in Religion be repugnant to any true principle of Reason yet there are many things voted for principles of Reason which indeed are not so and it is no disparagement to Articles of Faith to interfere with such The Mind is so darkned by the Fall and Eclipsed by habitual Lusts that there is but little right Reason in reference to spiritual things in the World Thirdly Reason is not the positive Measure of things Divine As there are many Doctrines of Faith which Reason in its highest exaltation could never have disdiscovered so being made known it cannot in its clearest light fully comprehend them Though Revelation presupposeth Reason and doth in no one thing contradict it yet the very End of Revelation is both to certifie Reason in such things wherein through its contracted darkness it doth mistake and to inform it in those which through the essential quality of its Nature it could never have discovered Accordingly men in all ages have not only been listning after some supernatural Revelation or other but whatever they took for such they always without more ado resigned themselves to the conduct of it 'T is true they disparaged their Reason in admitting that to be a Divine Revelation which indeed was not so but on supposition that it had been such they acted most