Scripture undoubtedly is and whatsoever is indeed contrary to the Voice of God speaking in this Sacred Volume whatever pretence it may have of Reason or Philosophy it is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 6. 20. It is an honest Speech of Aquinas which I find quoted by our Judicious and Learned Davenant Omnis creata Veritas est defectibilis nisi quatenus per veritatem increatam rectificatur unde nec homo nec Angelus infallibiliter ducit in veritatem nisi quatenus in iis loquentis Dei testimonium consideratur To which I shall subjoin the judgement of Cartesius whose Authority may perhaps be of more credit with some now than either that of a Schoolman or of an Apostle Memoriae nostrae pro summa regula est infigendum ea quae nobis à Deo revelata sunt ut omnium certissima esse credenda Et quamvis fortè lumen rationis quam maximè clarum evidens aliud quid nobis suggerere videretur soli tamen auctoritati divinae potius quam proprio judicio fidem esse adhibendam This says he must be firmly remembred as our chief Rule That those things which are revealed to us of God are to be believed as of all things the most certain And although perhaps the most clear and manifest light of Reason may seem to suggest to us some other thing we are nevertheless to give credit to Divine Authority alone rather than to our own judgment CHAP. IV. 1. A second Argument from the disproportion between Man's Reason and Matters of Divine Revelation 2. An Exception removed MY second Argument is That there is no proportion between Mans Reason and the Mysteries of Divine Revelation These are so sublime they are out of the ken of a Natural Understanding they are of a far different kind from the highest Natural Principles How little is it that Mans Reason by its own Light can discover of the Nature of God and his Eternal Counsels The Heathen who wanted Scripture Light did but grope as Men in the dark Act. 17. 27. How greatly are we to seek in judging of the Wisdom and Goodness and Power and Justice of God if we have no higher light than Natural Reason to direct us Nor need this seem strange when we see how much the most knowing Men are at a loss concerning themselves the nature and faculties of the Soul and the manner of its union with the Body and how little insight they have into many of the minuta naturae Can it then be wondred that Mans Reason should be unable by its own light to have a clear view of the Divine Perfections that are infinite and incomprehensible Whence was it that so many of the wisest Heathens were so gravell'd at the proceedings of a Divine Providence when they saw good Men suffer and bad Men prosper How did Cato that severe Moralist stumble at the success that Julius Caesar had against Pompey But what shall we say to that great Mistery of Mans Redemption by Christ The line of Mans Reason is too short to reach these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 2. 10. Therefore Evangelical Doctrine is frequently called a great Mistery containing such things as Eye hath not seen nor Ear Heard nor have entered into the Heart of Man to conceive things beyond the reach not of Men only but of Angels It is true that all Men could not but know God to be very good they found it and felt it in the daily effects of his sustaining and preserving Providence and his wonderful patience and forbearance towards them and they did know also that God is Just and a Righteous Avenger of Sin this they might see in the Judgments that he brought upon the World beside the inward witness of their own accusing Consciences The wrath of God was revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of Men Rom. 1. 18. And they knew the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the righteous judgment of God that they who do such wickednesses as they were conscious to in themselves were worthy of death Rom. 1. 32. But now how to reconcile these two the Goodness of God to his Creatures and his severe Indignation against Sinners so as with any satisfaction to hope for pardon and acceptance with him here their Principles of Reason faill'd them They saw themselves in a very ill case and that there was a necessity of somewhat to appease the provoked Anger of the Divine Majesty but how or which way this should be they could not tell and therefore lost themselves in a Maze of infinite Mistakes in their attempts about it Now it being so it is impossible that Reason by its Natural Principles should be a competent Judge of Scripture-Revelations It must therefore submit its own conceptions and Dictates to the Doctrine of Faith contained in the Scripture Here possibly it will be replied as before to the precedent Argument That all this may be granted of those that enjoyed not the Gospel and Written Word but where this is Reason may be allowed to judge and determine by its Principles concerning the things there revealed To this I answer two things First This implies a contradiction for it is not the Words or Sentences of Scripture that reveal any Mistery to us further than thereby the Mind of God is made known to us Now if this cannot be found out from the Scripture it self but from Principles of Reason then it is Reason it self that first discovers the Mistery I grant that Reason that is the faculty of Reason is and must be the instrument whereby we apprehend what God speaks in the Scripture But if there be any part of Scripture so dark as that its meaning cannot be gathered from the Words neither considered by themselves nor compared with other Passages of Sacred Writ I would know how comes Reason in Interpreting such an obscure place supposing it to be obscure to find that such and such Words so placed do contain in them such an Assertion when the Words and Sentences themselves cannot resolve us You 'll say our Reason teaches us by the light of its own common notions that this and no other must be the meaning of such a place Is it not then plain that Human Reason fetcheth that Truth if it be a Truth from it self and not from the Scriptures For the Scripture according to this Hypothesis gives an uncertain sound onely Reason determines it Remember we are speaking of matters of pure Revelation Now if the Sentences of Scripture under debate do neither by themselves nor with the help of any other clearly and certainly signifie any such thing as is fasten'd upon them such Arguers cannot say they have it by Divine Revelation unless they will pretend to that Enthusiastick Inspiration which they profess to decry and falsly charge upon their Opposites Secondly I add further that there are sundry things revealed in Scripture whereof God gives us no other Reason than his
reverence of God and of his Word For want of which too many have greatly polluted these Holy Mysteries with the wanton conceits or prophane excursions of an unhollwed Wit and mortally poisoned themselves and others by their corrupt handling this Bread of Life The Special Means of Interpretation are two-fold Some are more remote which I shall only name not intending any Discourse about them because my work lies another way These remote helps are 1. Some competent knowledge of and recourse to the Original Tongues wherein the Scripture was first penned with a due observation of the proprieties of each Language 2. Skil to discern between the proper use of the Words and Phrases of Scripture and that which is Tropical and Figurative In these Grammar and Rhetorick have their use 3. Some insight into the peculiar Laws Customs and Proverbial Speeches of those times and places that the Scripture relates to which requires some knowledge in History There are sundry passages both in the Old and New Testament that have respect to the known Customs of the Gentiles as in their Divinations Idolatrous Worships Publick Games and many more that have relation to the peculiar Rites and Modes of speech in use among the Jews So that there is no part of Phylology but may have its use in the Interpretation of Scripture 4. There is great use of the several parts of Phylosophy not only moral but natural for the clearing of many things in Scripture that are of natural cognisance as about the structure of Mans Body and the faculties of the Soul the nature motion and influence of the Heavenly Bodies the temperament of the several Regions of the World as also about the Elements and Meteors about Numbers and Measures the Nature and Properties of several Creatures Beasts Birds and Plants and many other things treated of in the Bible either by way of History or Parable 5. Logick hath also its use here for the better discerning the dependence of one thing in Scripture upon another and collecting of one thing from another The more immediate Means are chiefly two 1. A due observation of the several circumstances of the Scripture to be Interpreted who it is that speaks where when and to whom upon what occasion Here also comes in the consideration of the coherents with antecedents and consequences together with the scope and design of the Speaker all which are of great use to discover the Sense of Scripture 2. Comparing Scripture with Scripture or consulting other Scriptures whether paralel with or seemingly opposite to the place under consideration Now to the use of all these forementioned Means or Helps both General and Special Remote and Immediate I think all agree But about the Rule of Interpretation there is not so universal an accord The Romanists for the most part will have this Rule to be the Judgment of the present Church meaning their own But I shall not deal with this It 's weakness in what Sense soever taken for they agree not among themselves hath been sufficiently discovered by the worthy labours of many both formerly and of late Some few there are who tell us that the Scripture supposes the Rule and Summary of Religion delivered from one Age to another which we are to be guided by in searching out the meaning of Scripture And this Rule they say is to be found in the Monuments of the Church that is in the Writings of the Fathers and Determinations of Councils from whence we are to receive the Sense of the Catholick Church and thereby know what was the Doctrine delivered by Christ and his Apostles in the first Age and according to that interpret the Scriptures But if this must be our way of proceeding we may very well despair of ever understanding the Scriptures except when they speak with so much plainness that they stand in need of no Interpretation For what a heap of uncertainties must we lay for the Foundation of our Faith It is sufficiently known that the Fathers do oft differ from each other and many times are not consistent with themselves Councils have determined contrary one to another And some things that were as far as appears to us by all extant Monuments of Antiquity agreeable to the common Sentiment in our Age were laid aside in another Besides either the far greatest part of the Doctors of the Church in the first Ages wrote nothing or their Writings are lost and of those that now go under venerable names many are plainly spurious and many dubious nor is it easie in several of them for the most sagacious Reader to find out the right Insomuch as we cannot have any tolerable assurance what was the consentient judgment of the Catholick Church in any one age about the whole Doctrine of Faith if we set the Scriptures aside Therefore to frame such a Rule of Interpretation as this is no better than to build a House of Straw upon a running Stream There were very few Writers in the two first Centuries and in the two following not very many and after this the Church did much decline and degenerate as well in Doctrine as Manners Now suppose we were sure that the Writings in each Age were undoubtedly theirs whose names they bear as it is past doubt we are not who can assure us that what was published by those few was the consentient Judgment of all or the major part of the Doctors of that Age wherein they lived Might there not be a greater number differing from them who either wrote nothing or whose Works are perished The plain truth is That this way of Interpretation does in the upshot resolve the Faith of Christians not into the certain authority of the Divinely-inspired Writings but into the fallible Testimony of the most uncertain Tradition But for the Readers further satisfaction I refer him to Monsieur Daille's learned Treatise about the right use of the Fathers a Piece of that worth that the Lord Vicount Falkland and his dear Friend Mr. Chillingworth did highly esteem it and made great use of it in their Writings against the Romanists as we are informed by Mr. Tho. Smith sometime Member of Christ's Colledge in Cambridge in his Epistle prefixed to the English Translation of that excellent and elaborate Discourse who further also tells us that we have in that Tractat a sufficient Confutation of Cardinal Perron his Book against King James and by consequence of the Marquis of Worcester against King Charles and of Doctor Vane and other Epitomizers of the Cardinal which I do the rather take notice of that it may obviate the groundless prejudices that some have of late entertained against that Incomparable Piece The received Doctrine of the Reformed Churches both ourown and those abroad hath been hitherto that the Scripture is its own Interpreter But of late there hath been an attempt to justle the Scripture aside as to this use and place Reason and Phylosophy in its room There is a Belgick
of its own Interpretation CHAP. X. A second Argument from God's being the Author of Philosophy answered EVery one saith the Exercitator is the best Interpreter of his own Words and God being the Author of Philosophy to him is to be ascribed whatever Interpretation is made of the Scripture by the Maxims of Philosophy and consequently that is to be owned as the Rule of Interpretation But this is a strange way of Argumentation in a Man that pretends to Reason If he have no better skill in Expounding than he hath in Arguing he will not gain many Proselites to his Interpretations of Scripture amongst understanding and considerate Men. For 1. This Argument may with full as much or more strength be retorted upon him and that two ways First If because God is the Author of Philosophy therefore Philosâ—phy must unfold all the difficulties in Scripture Will it not as well follow that seeing God is the unquestionable Author of the Scriptures therefore the Scriptures are to resolve all the difficulties in Philosophy If it be said that the Scriptures are not designed for any such end nor fitted for such an use as to untie the knots of Philosophy their use and design is of greater and higher concernment I answer neither is Philosophy designed to clear doubts in matters of Supernatural Revelation its use being limited to matters of an inferior Orb. Again we may thus also retort the Argument If God be the best Interpreter of his own Mind then doubtless the best Interpretation of his Mind is to be fetcht from that which is the onely certain and undoubted Record of his Mind and that is the Scripture Secondly That God is the Author of all true and sound Philosophy I grant nor needed the Exercitator to have given himself the trouble of spending so many lines to prove it But I must mind him of some few things to rectifie his mistakes 1. He is widely out in supposing that the Wisdom spoken of in the Scriptures by him alledged is no other than Philosophy The Holy Ghost in most if not all of those places speaks of something higher and more excellent than meer Natural Knowledge 2. Whereas among other Humane Testimonies that the Author heaps up to prove Philosophy to be of God he brings in Lucretius lib. 5. de rerum natura the learned Vogelsangius hath discovered his shameful mistake telling him that the God whom Lucretius there means when he says Deus ille fuit Deus inclyte Memmi Qui Princeps vitae rationem invenit eam quae Nunc appellatur Sapientia c. is no other than Epicurus and must Epicurus's Philosophy be the Scriptures Interpreter 3. This I must add by way of limitation to my former concession that God is not so the Author of Philosophy as he is of the Scripture He is so far the Author of the Scripture as that he hath infallibly directed his Servants in penning its several Parts and preserved them from Error in that Work But he is not so the Author of Philosophy as infallibly to direct any Man in the World so as not to Err in his Philosophy Here therefore is a very great difference and seeing that this Philosophy which we acknowledge so far as it is sound and true to be God's Gift is no where to be found but in the Minds or Writings of fallible Men by what certain Rule shall we judge of the Maxims of Philosophy in matters of Religion whether they be undoubtedly true or no Or which way shall we be assured that the aforesaid Maxims supposing them to be unquestionably true are duely applied to the matter in controversie Whither shall we go in this case to find out such solid satisfaction as may give sufficient ground for that Divine Faith that we certainly owe to the Doctrine of Scripture Thirdly Suppose what is not that we had a clear and perfect Model or System of Sound Philosophy to have recourse to so as we may truly say of it that it is all and every Part and Particle of it of Divine Original and so complete that there is no defect in it yet still we must remember that Philosophy hath its Bounds and discovers nothing to us but those necessary Truths which fall within the compass of nature and so far we might take it for the Voice of God But as for Supernatural Verities the being and discovery whereof depend upon Gods absolute Will and Arbitrary Revelation He never intended that Philosophy should be our guide in these But here we are to keep solely and wholly to what he hath said in the Scriptures CHAP. XI A third Argument from the supposed Sufficiency of Philosophy to Interpret Scripture answered WHatsoever saith the aforesaid Author is necessary to the Rule of Interpretation perfectly agrees to Philosophy and the Principles of Reason For they are undoubtedly true free from all danger of Error and therefore cannot deceive being grounded upon unmoveable Foundations admitting no appeals impartial not inclined to this or that side in a word so sure and undoubted that they will force assent provided they be not bended or swayed by Mens prejudices or vicious inclinations But as I said before where is this Philosophy to be found If it be any where how comes it to pass that those who have in all Ages been most devoted to the study of it and most perspicacious and successfull in searching the secrets of it have yet in many things especially that concerning Religion so foully erred and have been at so great odds not onely one with another but each with himself Certain it is that the Principles of Reason and Philosophy let them be never so Sound and Stable yet they can prevail upon none any further than they are received into the Mind and they are no where received but according to the disposition and capacity of the Subject the darkness and imperfection of whose Understanding much alters the conception of the soundest Principles Besides my third Answer to the precedent Argument will serve here for let Philosophy be never so infallible it must be kept within its own proper sphere and not be applied to matters Supernatural that are wholly out of its road and above its reach Of all Parts of Philosophy the Mathematicks are generally esteemed the most demonstrative and irrefragable But if any should attempt by Mathematical Principles to Interpret what the Scripture hath reveal'd about the Creation of the World the Incarnation of Christ the Resurrection of the Body the Believers Union with Christ or the like he might well be deem'd to stand in need of a large Dose of Hellebore CHAP. XII A fourth Argument from the nature of a clear distinct Perception answered BUt says the Exercitator there is no clear and distinct perception of a thing but it begets an intimate persuasion in the Conscience of the Truth of what is so perceived which Perception and Persuasion coming from God as the
Cause it may not unfitly be call'd the Persuasion Dictate Testimony Inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God which Divines commonly but mistakingly ascribe to that which they call Supernatural Light out of their low esteem of Reason and that Natural Light that is in every Man This I confess the Author doth not make use of among the Arguments that he produceth to defend his Cause yet because it tends to beget a conceit according to the drift of his Discourse that what Men apprehend themselves to have a clear knowledge of by Reason or Philosophy is infallibly certain and thereby qualified for the sure Interpreting of Scripture I thought fit not to pass it over without some Animadversion This Assertion is a piece of wild somewhat for whether I should call it Philosophy or Divinity Sense of Nonsense I know not that if entertain'd gives ground to Men of corrupt Minds to father their most enormous Conceits upon God and his Holy Spirit Against it I shall propound a few Considerations 1. Do not all Ages of the Church bear witness that erring Persons may be as confidently persuaded of their mistaken opinions as others are of the Truth strongly conceiving what they hold to be most clear and evident so far as chearfully to lay down their lives in the defence of it So capable are Men of being deluded by their own darkned and corrupted Reason when they give themselves up to it as their sole guide that some have denied to the death those Truths that are in some degree knowable by Natural Light as that grand Maxim which is the Foundation of all Religion That there is a God witness Caesar Vaninus But for Doctrines of meer Revelation how peremptorily they are denied and upon what ground we need no farther instance than that of the Socinians or as they are otherwise called from a more Ancient Ring-leader Photinians who of all Hereticks have most perverted the Articles of our Creed and found out Followers in these latter ages who have erected a new Body of Divinity in opposition to the Catholick Theology says the Reverend Bishop of Chester Yet this new Socinian Body of Heterodoxies called by the Clergy of England in their Convocation Anno 1640. a Complication of Heresies is by its Fautors maintained with highest confidence and that under the plausible pretence of clear Perception by the Principles of Reason Upon this account One of that way denies Gods fore-knowledge of future contingencies and upon the same ground another of them denies the Doctrine of the Trinity and the two Natures of Christ because their Reason tells them as clearly and evidently as the Sun shines at Noon that these things are false 2. This countenances the absurd opinion of some ancient Philosophers That man is the measure of all things for according to this every thing must be accounted true that a Man is strongly persuaded to be so whereas the truth of our Perceptions lies in their consonancy to the nature of things which must be first supposed before we can apprehend them And therefore that great Maxim that bears such sway with some that whatsoever I have a clear and distinct Perception of is infalliby true is so far from being a sure Test of Truth and Falshood that in this dark and degenerate State of Mankind it infallibly betrays those who trust to it to innumerable and pernicious mistakes For suppose the Principle it self should be true That every thing is as we perceive provided our Perception of it be distinct and clear which way shall we be resolved whether this Perception we have of things be clear and distinct or dark and confused seeing experience puts us out of all doubt that persons as far distant in their apprehensions of the same thing as East and West do yet both of them with much confidence plead the greatest clearness and distinctness imaginable What shall we think to pass by other instances of the contest between Micajah and the four hundred false Prophets about Ahab's Expedition The false Prophets expressed as high a confidence of their being in the Right when abused by a lying Spirit as Micajah who was truely guided and acted by the Holy Spirit of God But the Explication that a late Author gives of this so much applauded Rule viz That then doth Reason clearly and distinctly perceive a thing when it perceives it as it is in it self renders it plainly ridiculous supposing the thing in question For when I am inquiring how I shall be assured that my apprehension of a thing is certainly true the meaning is how shall I be sure that I understand the thing to be as it really is for the verity of my Conception consists in its agreement with the object Therefore to make a clear and distinct Perception the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a true and right apprehension and to explain this clear and distinct Perception by saying it is a Perception of a thing as it is is to make the same thing the Index of it self and leaves me as much to seek as at first for still it will be asked how shall I know that I perceive a thing as it is or that my apprehension agrees with the nature of the thing 3. I might further add That we are obliged to believe many things whereof we cannot have a clear and distinct perception as the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead the Incarnation of our Saviour the Hypostatical Union of the Divine and Humane Nature and such like Touching which I grant we must have a clear perception that they are revealed ere we can believe them but a clear perception of the reveal'd objects themselves we cannot have they being to us incomprehensible Mysteries upon which ground both these and sundry other Scripture-Doctrines are by some rejected as unintelligible and irrational But here Des Cartes acquits himself For he somewhere gives his Readers this Caution That we should remember God the Maker of all things to be infinite and our selves finite and therefore if he reveal any thing to us of himself or other things that is above the strength of our Natural Wit such as the Mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity we must not deny them credit though we cannot clearly understand them Nor should we at all wonder that there are many things both in his immense nature and in the Creatures made by him that exceed our capacity 4. This fond conceit of the Exercitator borders upon that of the Enthusiasts whose high-flown pretences of the guidance of the Spirit and the internal living essential substantial word within them comes to no more when searcht to the quick but their own darkned and besotted Reason whose absurd Fancies and Blasphemous Dictates they daringly imputed to the Spirit of God This Clause in our Author brings him under a suspition of complying with those old Libertines and present Quakers whom he professeth to dislike onely with this difference They put their
the Spirit of God Therefore the best and safest Conceptions we can have of God are those which we learn from the Spirit of God speaking to us in and by the Scripture And if this Author were not extremely prejudiced by a partial fondness for his own darling conceits he might know that plain ordinary Christians who never had ought to do with Philosophick Learning have by their sole acquaintance with the Scriptures come to much clearer and sounder conceptions of God his Nature and Attributes than the learnedst Philosopher that ever the World had could attain by all his Wit and Study without Scripture Light and that to any Reader that is not prepossessed with false and absurd Notions of God by his own vain imagination and misguided Reason the Scriptures that speak so differently concerning that Supreme Being if prudently compared together and the circumstances on each side considered do sufficiently to the satisfaction of sober Minds discover to us their true and genuine Sense without giving the least countenance to the sottish and irrational conceits of the Anthropomorphites though a cavelling daring Wit may and will find something to quarrel with where the matter is as clear as the noon-day Sun His next instance is The Words of our Saviour at the institution of his last Supper This is my Body which the Papists interpret for Transubstantiation The Lutherans for Consubstantiation The Reformed Churches deny both understanding the words tropically whose Sense he says can be no otherwise defended but by the Principles of Natural Philosophy For answer to this I grant That in clearing this controversie there is good use of the Principles of Philosophy and Natural Reason and so there is also of Sense which undeniably convinceth us that what we see and feel and taste is Bread Yet sure we are not to make Sense the Rule of Interpreting Scripture But the true and proper Rule of Interpreting our Saviours Words This is my Body is that which the Scripture it self and that alone hath taught us viz. That Christ assumed a true Humane Body which is a truth that Reason and Philosophy could never inform us of it being a matter of pure Revelation Now this being laid down as the chief Postulatum the thing to be inquired into is What is the nature of an Humane Body and what are the essential Properties of all natural Bodies And this Natural Philosophy instructs us in as being no matter of Revelation but lying within the compass of Natural Light which teacheth us that every Natural Body is quantitative and divisible and confined to one certain place consequently that the Bread in the Sacrament of the Eucharist cannot be properly and substantially the Body of Christ which as Scripture informs us was once nailed to the Cross but is now glorified in Heaven Now the force of all this for the expounding of our Saviours Words lies in the former supposition That our Saviour assumed a true natural Humane Body together with what was even now mentioned That the same Body of Christ which he assumed is at the right Hand of God in Heaven both which are Scripture-Revelations Besides there is a wide difference between these two a help to overthrow a false Interpretation and the Rule of establishing the true one Philosophy may do the former but not the latter As in this controversie the Principles of Reason and Philosophy do convincingly assure us that Bread is not cannot be the Body of a Man But they cannot assure us what was our Saviours meaning when holding the Bread in his Hand he said This is my Body this must be resolved by what the Scripture it self speaks either there or elsewhere His third and last instance is the Doctrine of the Trinity which he says cannot be cleared without having recourse to Philosophy and here having derided the attempts of many to explicate and confirm this great Mistery by their Metaphysical Speculations he highly applauds the learned Keckerman for his happy endeavors in unfolding and demonstrating it Ex immotis Philisophiae fundamentis out of the unmoveable Foundations of Philosophy To this I answer That the curious speculations and Philosophick niceâ—ies of the Schools about the Doctrine of the Trinity have done it more prejudice than advantage and given greater occasion to the adverse part to reject it when they found so strange and incomprehensible a Mystery defended by such thin airy cobweb notions It had been much better if Men had contented themselves with those discoveries the Scripture makes of this inexplicable Mystery it being a Doctrine purely of Supernatural Revelation and not at all discoverable by Natural Light The Arguments from Reason and Philosophy brought for the proof of it by the learned Keckerman and by Claubergius a late Cartesian are examined by Vogolsangius in his Indignatio Justa c. and discarded as insufficient I grant that in this as in many other Doctrines it may be of good use to shew that there is nothing in what the Scripture says of it that contradicts any sound Principle of Reason But to go about by the Principles of Reason or Philosophy positively to demonstrate the truth of it is a thing which I take to be impossible I chuse to say of this Mystery as one does of the Divine Essence Credendo intelligitur adorando enarratur It is best understood by believing and best declared by adoring He saith the late Bishop of Down that should go to Revelation to prove that nine and nine make eighteen would be a Fool and he would be no less that goes about to prove a Trinity of persons by natural Reason Every thing must be derived from its own Fountain Thus Aquinas tells us He that by natural Reason attempts to prove the Trinity of persons doth a double prejudice to the Faith 1. He derogates from its Dignity it being proper to the Doctrine of Faith to be of such things as exceed Mans Reason 2. He hinders others from embracing the Faith by using such Arguments as are not cogent which renders it obnoxious to the Infidels contempt This is plain in Scripture that the Father is God and the Holy Ghost is God and that these are three and all three are but one God and for other subtleties and curious inquiries of busie and presumptuous Wits without and beside the Written Word I think the Truth of God never was nor ever will be beholden to them CHAP. XV. A seventh Argument from the reasonableness of Religion answered ONe Argument more I shall touch which I find alledged by two noted Socinians Smalcius and Schlichtingius as they are cited by a late learned Author in his Socinianism Confut. to prove Reason to be the Rule of deciding Controversies of Faith which may be thought improveable upon the same grounds to assert that Reason must be the Rule of interpreting Scripture And it is That of the Apostle where he asserts the Service that God requires of Christians to be 〈◊〉
the largest portion shall know that there is a wide difference between Earth and Heaven and that they are yet but Pilgrims and in their wilderness-state though he sometimes gives them for their encouragement a Pisgah-sight of that Heavenly Canaan towards which they are passing But what must all the forementioned joys and refreshing comforts that the Holy Scripture speaks of and the experience of the Saints bears witness to be counted no better than a juggle or a cheat the transport of frantick raptures or the mere illusion of an Enthusiastick fancy refresh'd with brisk and active spirits and filled with warm and sprightly imaginations Was it such an imaginary comfort that David pray'd for when he says Make me to hear joy and gladness that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice And again Restore to me the joy of thy Salvation And when the Psalmist says In the multitude of my thoughts within me thy comforts delight my Soul And again To the upright there ariseth light in the darkness Is this nothing but the raising of the Blood and the breaking out of the natural spirits from the oppression of melancholick fumes and refreshing the drooping fancy When the Apostle professeth that he was filled with comfort and exceeding joyful in all his tribulations Was this nothing but the effect of a Sanguine Complexion or the product of pleasing Phantasms Did this make Paul and Silas sing in their chains or was it this that cheer'd the hearts of those Blessed Martyrs who with so much joy and triumph embraced the Stake and clapped their half-consumed hands in the midst of the flames To say nothing of the many instances that might be given both in elder and later times of Persons eminent for Wisdom and Holiness who in languishing sicknesses when their Bodies have been so wasted and their strength so impair'd that they could not stir to feed or help themselves the whole frame of nature being broken by cruciating and consuming pains yet have then felt those inward Joys in their Souls which they could not siother but as Men that stood upon the threshold of Glory and had a ravishing sight and sense of the unconceivable pleasures of that other World have with that vigor and alacrity and yet with judgment and prudence poured out Praises and Thanksgivings to their Gracious Redeemer that it hath at once delighted and astonished the hearts of their intelligent Friends that came to visit them I cannot think it possible that the truth of these things should be question'd by any that do indeed believe the Scriptures and have felt the power of the Word upon their hearts But there is a Scoptick Generation of Men whose minds are so tinctur'd with a profane gaiety that the whole Bible is become to them no better than a Play-Book or a Romance upon which they love to exercise their drolling Wits by putting the Doctrines and Discourses of the Prophets and Apostles into a ridiculous dress the better to expose them to the scorn of Infidels as if they read that sacred Volume to no other purpose than as a late Author speaks of some to enable them to blaspheme God in his own stile I have indeed oft wonder'd what should betray any to this fond and iâ—rational conceit of resolving the Agonies of distress'd Consciences and the contrary Joys of serious Christians under assurance into the different temperature of their Bodies and the suitable workings of their Fancy till I met with a piece of new Divinity in a late Belgick Tractator and then I began to suspect out of what Chimny came all this smoke For this account doth that Gentleman give us of the Holy Prophets mentioned in Scripture That their Revelations proceeded from the strength and heighth of Imagination and were diversified according to the different temper and constitution of their Bodies which caused different workings in their fancy Hence he says those Prophets that were of cheerful and debonair complexion prophesied altogether of Peace and Prosperity Victory over Enemies and all things to Mens hearts content these being such things as best suited with their Imaginations On the other side those Prophets that were sad and melancholick or of angry and morose tempers they altogether prophesied of War and Blood-shed Desolation and Destruction these being such things as their drooping and dejected Fancy did most run upon Accordingly he tells us that whatsoever Revelations the Prophets received they did not at all better or advance their Understandings or beget in them any solid knowledge They were good honest Men indeed but none of the wisest for Men of note for Wisdom never were Prophets that being a work that belong'd to the Imagination and not to the Judgment In the same Chapter he undertakes to give us a reason why Josiah when he had heard the Book of the Law read in his ears and was thereby made apprehensive of some impendent calamity would not send to the Prophet Jeremy though then living because forsooth he was a Melancholick Man and one who by his many sufferings and hard usage was grown weary of his life and therefore was not likely to prophesie any good But he chose to send rather to the Prophetess Huldah who being a Woman and so it seems according to the softness of that Sex more inclined to tenderness and compassion was a fitter instrument for God to reveal his Mercy by This is a piece of that Authors Political Atheology And truly I know no kind of Divinity if we may call any such thing by that name from which this conceit that we have under consideration can more fairly be thought to derive its original But if we must look any higher for its pedegree I cannot tell whom to father it upon next to the Father of Lyes unless it be that Arabian Philosopher of great note for Learning who is said to ascribe the Miracles wrought by the Primitive Christians to the power of an exalted Imagination by virtue of which he says they had entertain'd a strong conceit of the Deity of their Master and this fancy in his apprehension was that which wrought such Wonders in Christs Name Whether that which heightened this Pagans confidence to so bold and absurd an assertion were any extraordinary skill he had in the Anatomy of the Brain or the Laws of Mechanism I know not But whatever grounds he might be supposed to have I think none that heartily owns the Christian Name will ascribe such a ridiculous perswasion to the depth of his Philosophy but to the heighth of his Infidelity CHAP. III. 1. Regular Zeal in the Duties of Religion justified 2. And vindicated from the charge of Enthusiasm 3. Madness 4. Dissimulation and placing the whole of Religion in such fervors 5. And of aiming at ill ends I Come now in the last place to speak something of the prejudices taken at those fervors that appear in some in the Exercises of Religion breaking forth