Senses and consequently are things that lye within the proper Verge of Humane Understanding Again They are Discoveries made by Persons upon the same level with ourselves and consequently such as are not only liable to be mistaken but may sometimes industriously lead others into Mistakes And both these are Arguments that will engage us to demand an absolute Comprehension of the Nature of the Thing and all its Circumstances so that before we can come to a final Datermination or yield an Assent to the Truth of any such Relation We must comprehend the Nature of it so exactly as to be able to judge not only of the Possibility but Probability of it And I hope no one can have the Face to demand all this Evidence from GOD. Therefore we may conclude against our Majesterial Reasoner That the same degree of Perspicuity is not requir'd from GOD as from Man In a word if we cannot form a perfect Idea of reveal'd Truths much less of the Modus of their Existence we cannot judge of the Possibility of 'em If indeed we were able to form an Idea of the Modus of their Existence that will comport with common Notions tho' this be not the true Modus we may safely pronounce them possible but we cannot pretend to reject the Possibility of 'em unless we could judge of the real Modus and shew that it 's absurd and impossible Therefore we may conclude that all Matters reveal'd by GOD or Man are not requir'd to be equally intelligible and possible But to proceed as for those Instances of Scripture that follow in this or the next Chapter to prove Christianity a rational intelligible Religion they only prove That Reason is a concurring Instrument in embracing all religious Truths not by teaching us to comprehend the Nature of 'em but to engage our Assent where we cannot fully comprehend upon rational Motives and Convictions And we think we act upon rational Motives and Convictions in Matters of Revelation when we know as much of the thing as satisfies us what it is GOD proposes to our belief and yet find some things contain'd in 'em incomprehensible in their own nature and rely upon God's Veracity Power Wisdom and Goodness rather than reject the whole because we know but in part Nay further in the case of Miracles we grant that Reason may judge of the reality of 'em because they are Objects of Sence and are to be examin'd by the Testimony of the Senses by Ideas of Objects of Sence and the Exercitations of Reason upon 'em and because Miracles are the uncontroulable Demonstrations of the Spirit or Means of Conviction for proving the Divine Original of Revelation And we can freely grant that Reason must act by common Notions to prove Revelation to be truly Divine But when this is done there 's no Consequence that Reason must still measure reveal'd Truths by common Notions and reject 'em if she cannot fully comprehend 'em or if she cannot make 'em comport with common Notions which is the thing our Adversary labours to prove The remaining Instances which only declare the Perspicuity of the Moral Law or Christian Precepts an Ingenious Reader will presently discern how foreign and impertinent they are to his Design At the same rate he trifles when he raises an Objection from the Corruption of Humane Reason as if by making his own Answers and Objections he had vanquish'd all our Arguments gain'd the Field and might triumphantly maintain That there 's nothing in the Christian Religion mysterious or above Reason for I do not anywhere find the Ch. of England fixes the Controversie on this Bottom and therefore this is Reply enough to two of his Chapters viz. 3 4. And now we come to the Third Section where we are introduc'd with an Account of what 's mysterious and above Reason I shall for the most part take his own Accounts of it and therefore shall not much dispute any thing in the first Chapt. only I cannot forbear to remark how lame or imperfect or at least industriously equivocal all his Descriptions are He gives us two Significations of a Mystery the first I shall not examin his second is I suppose he speaks his own Opinion else he should have declar'd the contrary It is made to signifie a thing of its own nature inconceivable and not to be judg'd of by our ordinary Faculties and Ideas tho' it be never so much reveal'd Indeed I think the first part of this Description is a Mystery tho' I suppose he means in the nature of the thing or by reason of its Immensity it 's inconceivable to us or with respect to Humane Comprehension but then who knows how far he intends to carry this I mean represent a Mystery inconceivable If he intends it so as that we can form no manner of Idea of it then he imposes a manifest Absurdity upon the World for no one ever called that a MYSTERY that we could have no Notion of for such a thing may be as well Nothing as Mystery for any thing we can tell And therefore Mystery at least supposes an Imperfect or Inadequate Idea as appears from all those Instances I have hitherto produc'd otherwise we could not know what God proposes to our Belief But then if we enquire further into the thing and endeavour to unravel the Modus of its Existence we can either form no distinct Idea or at least none that will comport with common Notions And thus far we affirm That Mysteries are not to be judg'd of by our ordinary Faculties and Ideas tho' never so clearly reveal'd N. 1. I proceed to Chap. 2. where after having promis'd a wonderful Perspicuity in the Case before him he affirms That nothing can be said to be a Mystery because we have not an adequate Idea of it or a distinct View of all its Properties at once for then every thing would be a Mystery Now truly I 'm much of his Mind for I 'm perswaded that no Finite Understanding can conceive all the several Properties of any one Being at once in a distinct view This is the Peculiar of an All-wise GOD and if an adequate Idea must imply a distinct view of every Property at once and Mystery opposed to it every thing must be a Mystery to every intelligent Being but GOD So that here 's a Notion rais'd that proves nothing and no one requires it We will therefore pass this as an Unphilosophical Blunder and describe an adequate Idea to be what he aims at viz. A clear and distinct Idea of the Nature and Properties of an Object This he contends cannot be fairly opposed to MYSTERY because in the Knowledge of Humane Bodies GOD has sufficiently answer'd the Ends and Designs of it by enabling us to comprehend the principal Properties of Bodies and the Uses of 'em And therefore what remains cannot be MYSTERY N. 19 20. This is truly a Reason which is more cogent on the other hand as well in Philosophical as
our view and observation But yet in Objects of Sense which we daily see and converse with we can by no means pretend an adequate Knowledge for we cannot comprehend or penetrate into their proper Essences or radical Substances no we can go no further than Properties Powers or Faculties that discover themselves in their Effects strike the Senses and leave an Impression whence a distinct Idea is form'd Again We cannot pretend to discover the true Modes of these Properties Powers or Faculties so as to discern wherein the precise Nature of 'em consists for at least we can only resemble it by some Ideas that are form'd by the noblest of Senses that of Seeing thus of Smells and Tasts and the like So that we see the highest Philosophical Exercitations even in matters of Sense are at last wrap'd up in that we can justly call a MYSTERY It s true Objects of Sense tho' form'd from Effects and Properties create a very certain and indisputable Knowledge because confirm'd by daily and continued Observation and because the proper Objects of that part which as before concluded is not only the Vehicle but first Elaboratory of all Ideas I mean the outward Senses And therefore in Objects of Sense we must receive and embrace a Thing as it presents itself to the view of our Senses since we are assur'd that GOD has appointed no other way of communicating matters of this nature to Mankind And to receive an Object of Sense contrary to the Testimony of all our Senses tho' upon the pretended Authority of Revelation must overturn all the Measures and Principles of Humane Knowledge obliterate the Notices and Distinctions of Truth and Error raze the prime Faculties and Motrements of Reason and reduce Man the Glory of the Creation and GOD's Image and Representative infinitely below the level of Brutes that perish For this reason we may reject the Doctrine of Transubstantiation notwithstanding the highest Pretences to Miracle or Mystery since it implies a Contradiction of the Testimony of all our Senses in matters of Sense But Secondly let us consider Humane Knowledge as engag'd about the Objects of the Spiritual World or Spiritual or Immaterial Beings for this must very much alter the Scene of Knowledges and fix it upon new Measures and Principles And 1st It 's indisputably evident that our Knowledge of Spirits is of a mix'd nature since it takes its rise partly from the Powers of Natural Reason and partly from Revelation The Knowledge of God and our own Souls may in some measure be traced from the Powers of Natural Reason The Frame of our own Beings as well as that of the Universe will instruct us That there must be an Eternal All-wise and All-powerful Mover agreeable to the Sacred Language The invisible things of Him from the Creation of the World are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made even His Eternal Power and Godhead Rom. i. 20. but as for the Existence of other Beings we call Spirits or their Orders and Societies we must wholly receive it from Revelation Again As for the Nature and Ideas of a Spirit this must certainly rest on the Instructions of Reason and Revelation and after the best that can be given God knows our Attainments are very lame and imperfect the excellency of our own Faculties and Operations tell us That we are acted by a Principle within that must be highly distinct from Matter or least that we see and handle much more from that Great GOD whose Workmanship is this very Reason that thus dictates This very Argument sufficiently instructs us We ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto Gold or Silver or Stone graven by Art and Man's Device Acts xvii 29. But now tho' from good Arguments we may conclude That a Spirit is a Being somewhat distinct from Matter yet our most exalted Idea will be but a meer Negative or if Positive a Resemblance of a refined Aerial kind of Matter so that our Ideas of a Spirit is much more abstruse imperfect and conjectural than that of a Body notwithstanding the utmost assistances of Revelation And here I 'm oblig'd to make some Returns to what this Infallible Reasoner with the Authority of a Great Man on his side as he calls him has deliver'd on the Subject it amounts to this We have as clear an Idea of Spirits as Bodies since both are only to be known by their Properties and the Properties of a Spirit are as clear as those of a Body See Sect. 3. Cap. 2. N. 16 17 19. But with Submission to the Infallible Chair though some Properties which belong to those Beings we call Spirits are clearly known and agreed upon yet they are not so many nor yet so distinguishing as those of Bodies for besides the Properties of particular Bodies that distinguish each other there are Properties certainly known that belong to a Body as a Body and distinguish it from Spirit and every Being that can be imagined such are extension of Parts and a Faculty of possessing a Place in proportion to ' em These are for the most part Objects of Sense and Self-evident but we cannot decipher or determine any peculiar Properties that belong to a Spirit as a Spirit and distinguish it from Body or Matter and every thing else We may indeed conceive Spirits as Finite Beings by the resemblance of Bodies and consequently make 'em exist in a place and possess sometimes one place and sometimes another but we can form no Idea how they exist in places as we do of Bodies As for Thinking Reasoning and Willing these seem to be too remote to be the distinguishing Properties of a Spiritual Substance as such being Faculties that seem to slow after its Radical or Original Properties are given I am sure they cannot be so in the Opinion of my Author 's Great Man since in one place he tells us It 's impossible without Revelation to discover whether Omnipotency has not given to some Systems of matter fitly dispos'd a Power to perceive or think And again I see no Contradiction in it That the first Eternal Thinking Being or Omnipotent Spirit should if he pleas'd give to certain Systems of created sensless Matter put together as he thinks fit some degrees of Sense Perception and Thought Lock 's Human Vnderstanding Lib. 4. Cap. 3. N. 6. And therefore I think it appears there 's a vast Difference between the Knowledge of Spirits and Bodies insomuch that we may justly pronounce That no positive Ideas can be formed of Spirits as Spiritual Substances but what carry the resemblances of Matter in 'em other Ideas must be form'd by comparing 'em with Matter and pronouncing what they are not rather than what they are But Thirdly let us examin the Measures and Extent of Humane Knowledge with respect to the Object as it is Finite or Infinite As for the Knowledge of Finite Objects an Estimate may be taken from what has been deliver'd on the two preceeding
Arguments the Subject of which being chiefly Finite Objects The present Enquiry then is after the Knowledge of Infinite Objects and here certainly the Nature of the Being that thinks and knows will determine the Case I mean demonstrate the Imperfection of Humane Knowledge for it 's an Absurdity in Terms as well as in the Nature of the Thing to imagine that a Finite Mind should gain a perfect Comprehension of an Infinite Being insomuch that it seems no Presumption to affirm That GOD by vertue of His Omnipotence after He hath instated us in the Beatifick Vision and discover'd things that Eye hath not seen nor Ear heard nor Heart conceiv'd or in a word after we have seen Him as He is cannot possess us with an adequate Idea of His Immense and Infinite Being So that with respect to the Godhead we must affirm That our Ideas are made up of Negatives and consequently with Clemens Alex. affirm That we rather know God by concealing what He is not than what He is Or at least if we attempt any positive Conceptions we are forced to shadow 'em forth by some Finite Ideas which we have taken up and are already implanted in us Thus the Divine Attribute of Wisdom we are forc'd to resemble by a Faculty of Discerning and Comprehending infinitely surpassing the Sphere of Humane Knowledge Thus the Immensity of God by a vast space or an Idea that is without Bounds or Limits or is not to be circumscrib'd Thus Eternity by an endless Succession of Time Thus we see after our nicest Conceptions and after the most accurate Characters and Descriptions from Revelation it self we are forced to call in Finite Objects and measure the Blessed Attributes of our Creator by Finite Ideas an Undertaking so unworthy of him that it seems to be a piece of petty Larceny or rather a lesser sort of Idolatry as 't is a kind of Representation of the Invisible GOD by things that are seen by a kind of Gold or Wood or Stone graved in the shallow Understandings of Impotent Men. Here our Weakness our Blindness plainly discovers it self for tho' Knowledge in Finite Objects may appear bright and shining here it must suffer an Eclipse and lye confounded in depth of Mystery and in a word humbly make St. Paul's Recognition O the depth of the Riches of the Wisdom and Power and Immenseness of God! how unsearchable c. But Fourthly let us descend to the last Stage of Humane Knowledge I mean that about matters of Revelation And first it 's certain that pure Matters of Revelation are things of which the Mind by its own intrinsick Light can form no Ideas and consequently we cannot pretend to know any thing more of them than GOD in a reveal'd way is pleas'd to communicate It 's true He seems to be obliged to communicate Himself in such a manner that His Revelations at least may bear a resemblance to some of those Ideas we have already conceiv'd or by the Power of Natural Reason can attain to Thus does He reveal a Saviour that is GOD-Man he 's oblig'd to ascribe such Characters of Divinity to him as are agreeable to the reveal'd Characters of the Godhead and those Ideas we can form of it and in like manner as to his Humanity for otherwise I cannot conceive how any reveal'd Truth can be imprinted on the Mind without Special Inspiration But then on the other hand when God publisheth a reveal'd Truth in such Characters as suffice to inform us what he intends by it viz. a Saviour that is GOD-Man or the like he is not oblig'd neither is it any way requisite to the reception of a reveal'd Truth to demonstrate the modus of the Vnion of the two Natures First Because the Subject of Revelation being Matters not attainable by Reason and GOD the Author of them as long as we have an Idea of the thing or an Idea of what GOD proposes to be believ'd the modus of it is to be placed on the Infinite Power and Veracity of God Secondly Because a leading Design of Revelation being to establish a Confidence in God's Power and Veracity in order to an absolute Obedience and Worship He did not intend to make us Philosophers but reveal'd what was useful and necessary and directs us to adore when we cannot comprehend From what has been deliver'd we may form two or three Inferences 1st With respect to this last Argument Whatever our Attainments may be in Matters of Sense and Natural Reason it appears that pure Matters of Revelation lye at a great distance from us and consequently Knowledge cannot penetrate much beyond the Surface since they are not only things in their own nature profound and intricate but all our Discoveries rest on the good Will and Pleasure of GOD that communicates ' em And therefore if Revelation itself tells us we know but in part or imperfectly we may safely affirm it and place all Difficulties on the Imperfections of Humane Knowledge or the Depths and Mysteriousness of Reveal'd Truths 2dly It 's a notorious Absurdity to argue from Ideas of Objects of Sense or Material Objects against Immaterial ones or Finite against Infinite much more against Reveal'd ones For it manifestly appears that the Measures of Humane Knowledge are to be taken from each respective Object for as every Object hath a distinct Essence or Nature so it hath distinct Properties and Modes peculiar to its Nature and the Ideas we conceive of the one may not reach or measure the other This is even so clear that even in Properties that are common to several Objects such as Spirits and Bodies when apply'd to their respective Objects carry no manner of Resemblance to each other Thus it 's an inseparable Property of a Spirit and Body to occupy a Place and yet the manner of existing in a Place is no doubt vastly different insomuch that I cannot find how any Ideas of the Vbi of Bodies can conclude any thing against that of Spirits much less measure or define it And by a Parity of Reason we may say as much of the Unity of a Body and the Unity of an Infinite Spirit for the Unity of the Godhead or the Divine Essence may be preserv'd and yet communicate it self to Three Personal Subsistences and it must be absurd to deny this because it will not comport with our common Ideas of the Unity of a Body 3dly In Matters of Revelation it 's as absurd to Argue against Reveal'd Truths when the thing reveal'd is describ'd in such a manner that we may know what is intended by it because we cannot comprehend the Modus of it since this would oblige us to reject several things even in Objects of Sence that are hitherto Vnquestionable What I have hitherto deliver'd is by way of Principle and I shall stand by it as such in defiance of the utmost Attempts of our assuming Reasoner and having laid this Foundation I promise my self Success in unraveling his Arguments and
spiritual and infinite and consequently not to be comprehended by a finite Mind or Reason much less with that ease and clearness that Objects of Sence are convey'd to the Mind Again Matters of Sence are knowable and comprehensible by the Powers of Natural Reason but there are Matters of Revelation that are not only incomprehensible in their own nature but knowable no further than God is pleas'd to communicate or impart to us This is clear from what has been already laid down and concluded and therefore this can be no Consequence the Phoenomena of Nature are easily comprehensible therefore all matters of Revelation are so This is so absurd that I do not question but I shall make it appear in the Sequel of this Discourse That there are some Matters of Revelation which if scann'd by Ideas of Objects of Sence carry the appearance of Contradictions and yet this can be no Argument against the Truth of 'em or that we are mistaken in the purport of the Holy Ghost as the Socinians would have it when what we contend for is represented in the clearest Characters and Descriptions And yet this is the top of our Adversary's Reasonings But 2dly as for Reveal'd Matters being mysterious or above Reason it 's already concluded That the radical Essence of Objects of Sence and much more the Modes of their Properties or their Existence are above the Comprehension of Reason If so what hath been deliver'd upon Matters of Revelation will oblige us to conclude against our Adversary That they cannot be fully comprehended in their Nature or Existence much less in the Modus of it and consequently that they are in the highest sence mysterious and above Reason But to proceed in the next place he entertains you pursuant to the Notions of his great Man with a large account what Reason is and what she is not the Means of Information and Ground-Perswasion And I must freely own that I can for the most part agree with him and his great Man at least it is not requisite to enter upon a nice Examination of every Paragraph because I find he makes no particular Application of what he has so elaborately delivered in several Chapters to prove his main Design He tells us Chap. 4. Sect. 1. That the Ground of Perswasion is Evidence and Evidence he defines an exact Conformity of our Ideas or Thoughts with their Objects or Things we think upon The Description I think is well enough but all this concludes nothing to prove what he contends for viz. That nothing is above Reason for the imperfect Ideas of Infinite and Incomprehensible Beings must carry a Resemblance or Conformity to the Object or the Characters of an Incomprehensible Being and yet it does not follow but our Ideas are imperfect and that there is a great deal in the Object of which we cannot form any clear Idea Indeed if this were not so he might justly infer That there 's nothing above Reason in Revelation In a word since he hath so industriously stated the Nature of Reason and Humane Knowledge he should have proved That there are no degrees of Evidence or Knowledge with respect to the Nature of the Object or Means of Information That we have as clear and compleat an Idea of Infinite Beings as Finite of an Infinite Spirit as an Object of Sence That reveal'd Objects occurr by the same way as Objects of Sence do or That the Extent of reveal'd Knowledge does not depend on the Good Will and Pleasure of God in communicating what he pleaseth on every Object This would have clear'd off all Dispute and proved what he thinks he 's able to evince viz. That the Evidence of all the Ideas of the Operations of the Mind is as infallible as our own Being Cap. 4. N. 14. That what is reveal'd in Religion may be as easily comprehended and found as consistent with our common Notions as what we know of Wood or Stone of Air Water or the like Sect. 3. Cap. 2. N. 12. Or in a word that there 's nothing in Religion or Revelation mysterious or above Reason The two latter of these Parodoxes will receive such Replies as are proper in the Sequel of this Discourse but I cannot pass the first without a few Remarks And to put the most favourable Construction on an Ambiguous Assertion I presume he affirms That the Evidence of our Ideas which we form of the several Acts or Operations of the Mind viz. Thinking Contemplating Knowing or Comprehending are as infallible as that of our Beings This is a Maxim advanc'd to prove That we are to have the same Evidence in all speculative Ideas and consequently in all Ideas of pure Matters of Revelation for this is his Application of it Let us now but strictly require this Evidence in all the Agreements and Disagreements of our Ideas in Things meerly speculative c. Ib. To shew the Weakness or Inconclusiveness of his Arguments and the Falseness of his Positions I shall instance in the general Act or Operation of the Mind that of Thinking And First If he intends no more than that we have an Evidence that we think when we actually think or that we have a Faculty to think as infallible as that of our Being I will easily joyn with him But can this be an Argument that all our Ideas of Speculative Objects particularly of all Matters of Revelation that are form'd by Thinking rest upon an Evidence as clear as that of our Being Again If he contends for an Idea of the Nature of Thinking that carries an Evidence in it as clear and infallible as that of our Being I say we cannot form an Idea of the Nature of Thought but by retreating to some particular Instance or Object of Thought and reflecting how the Mind exercises itself upon it and before we can form a perfect Idea of the Nature of Thought we must comprehend or discern the manner of the performance and this will carry us into a great many Difficulties and Conjectures We may indeed conclude that Thought requires the application of the Object to the Mind or rather the application of the Mind to the Object which may justly be called Attention Thus far the Idea of Thinking is clear and evident But then if we enquire into the manner how this or that Object is communicated or apply'd to the Mind this seems to be inconceivable even in Objects of Sence for who can pretend to describe how Material Objects are imprinted on an Immaterial Soul Therefore we may conclude that the Ideas we can form of the Nature of Thinking and consequently of the Operations of the Mind do not carry an Evidence in 'em as infallible as that of our Being But further Admit we that we could describe the precise Modus of the Nature of Thinking and consequently had an Idea that carries as much Evidence in it as that of our Existence it 's absurd to conclude that the Mind can form Ideas of the highest Speculations equally
on Objects of Sence and consequently adjudge it to be contrary to Reason This is a Contradiction to the Eternal Laws of right Reason which in Cases of this nature direct us to fix the Absurdity or Contrariety on the Imperfections of our Understanding or the Falseness of the Rule in judging Matters of Revelation by Objects of Sence In a word from what hath been said we may in express terms affirm That we can form imperfect Ideas of Matters of Revelation so far as to know what GOD proposes to our Belief And yet when we proceed to examine the Modus of their Existence we cannot reconcile it with the Ideas of Objects of Sence and for all this we must not pronounce any thing of this nature contrary to Reason or esteem those imperfect Ideas no Ideas at all Give me leave to illustrate this matter in an Instance which the Socinian chuses to advance his own Hypothesis by exploding it I mean the Divinity of our Saviour We affirm him to be possess'd with the Fulness of the Godhead because his Divinity is describ'd in Characters that are peculiar to the Godhead and such as correspond with those Ideas of the Godhead as are form'd by the Assistance of Revelation He rejects his Divinity because he proceeds further and examins the Modus of its Existence with respect to the Unity of the Godhead and its Union with Humane Nature and thereupon forms a Modus by some common Ideas or Notions and then compares it with other Ideas of the same rank and quality and rejects those Ideas which Scripture has given us of his Divinity by pronouncing such a Revelation absurd and contrary to Reason because the Modus of its Existence with the Unity of the Godhead and Humanity a thing form'd and hammer'd out of his own shallow Understanding does not comport with common Ideas of Objects of Sence Here I think is a Complication of Absurdities or things that run counter to the eternal Measures of right Reason the Godhead of our Blessed Saviour is rejected and deny'd as contrary to Reason not because we want Revelation for it since we may read it in the clearest Characters but we must expound these away 1st Because we cannot comprehend the Modus of its Existence a thing that often exceeds our Comprehension even in Philosophical Disquisitions 2dly Because we cannot form a Modus that comports with common Ideas or Notions in Objects of Sence But if Consequences of this nature are suffer'd to take place against such legible Characters of Divinity it must overturn those Ideas of a GOD which Revelation and Natural Reason hath furnish'd us with since the Characters of both are equally clear and undeniable I have dwelt too long on this Argument but not without Design because I would not be oblig'd to make a formal Return to every little Passage that runs against us or dispels every Speck of a Cloud that 's rais'd upon Sophistry or False Arguing I am sure I have offer'd enough to take off the Force of what he hath suggested in the following Paragraph N. 5. for he 's a compleat Conjurer raises his own Devil and then lays it frames an Objection and gives his own Answer to it it 's this If any will think to evade the Difficulty by saying That the Ideas of certain Doctrines may be contrary indeed to common Notions yet consistent with ' emselves he 's but just where he was Now I have already deliver'd the Measures of forming reveal'd Ideas not by comparing 'em with Objects of Sence but Spiritual Things with Spiritual I will admit indeed it may be done by common Notions if he 'll restrain his common Notions as he does in the close of his Paragraph or at least with some Improvement added to 'em for I can freely subscribe That we cannot otherwise discern His Revelations but by their conformity with our Natural Notices of Him GOD he means or at least those Improvements we receive of Him from Revelation And in this sence our Saviour's Divinity is not contrary to common Notions for we can form an Idea of it agreeable to those Characters which Revelation and Natural Reason gives us of the Godhead but then the Difficulty lies in comprehending the Union and Existence of the two Natures together which we call the Modus of the thing and this we say is not to be measur'd by common Notices for to a Finite Mind it 's Incomprehensible But then it is not a Doctrine of Christianity that we should comprehend it much less is it a Doctrine of Reason or Christianity that we should exclude or cashier the clearest Characters of our Saviour's Divinity or Incarnation from being a Doctrine of Christianity because we cannot comprehend the manner of the Union of the two Natures nor form any clear Idea of it at least such as will comport with common Notions It 's true we may resemble it as it is done in one of our Creeds As the reasonable Soul and Flesh is One Man so GOD and Man is One CHRIST but we do not advance a Similitude into a compleat Idea or an Article of Faith But to offer a word or two more if this method of Arguing may be admitted I cannot conceive but it must explode the Belief of the Soul or any Principle distinct from Matter because we cannot fix the Modus of its Union or conceive an Idea of the manner of its incessant Intercourses with the Body To conclude this Argument from what is said I think here 's enough to defeat our Adversary's Triumphs even over his own Objection for we may safely affirm That as the Nature of the Godhead is distinguish'd by Properties peculiar to it self so we may justly conclude that it has a manner of Existence with Humanity so peculiar to itself that we must not pretend to comprehend it by comparing it with Objects of Sence and yet we can freely own that there 's neither Necessity nor Possibility of its being comprehended by us or of determining what is the precise Modus of it And thus much of his Notion of Self-consistence And as for his Sarcastical prophane way of Arguing when he tells us That Four may be called Five in Heaven he might know That Numbers are only empty Denominations and no Arguments to be form'd from 'em but as apply'd to Things and then if we consider Heavenly Objects with respect to the manner of their Existence a Vnity and a Trinity may be consistent for any thing he knows to the contrary And this is sufficient to prevent any modest Man from pronouncing Contradictions upon such unfathomable Truths by measuring their Modus by Common Notions things that exceed our Comprehension as much as they are besides the Business of our Curiosity or Faith Here we may discern the Origin of his ill Reasonings to be want of distinguishing Things I mean the Being of a Thing and the Manner of its Existence with respect to itself or as 't is united to something else From
semper discat quae sunt a Deo Here by way of Confirmation he cites St. Paul 1 Cor. xiii v. 13. Semper enim fides quae est ad magistrum nostrum permanet firma asseverans nobis quoniam solus vere Deus and afterwards concludes si secundum hunc modum quem diximus quaedam quidem quaestionum Deo commiserimus fidem nostram servabimus omnis Scriptura ideo nobis data consonans nobis invenietur Lib. 2. Adv. Haer. cap. 47. Ed. Eras. I have cited this at large because I find every thing agreeable to the Hypothesis I have hitherto advanc'd As 1st Mystery is indisputably apply'd to reveal'd Truths beyond the reach of Humane Comprehension 2dly Such reveal'd Truths apparently deliver'd in Scripture are not to be rejected because we cannot resolve the Difficulties that seem to accompany the Belief of 'em but to embrace 'em as the Word of GOD and consequently as founded in infinite Wisdom and Veracity 3dly Our Unskilfulness not to say Inabilities in comprehending Objects of Sence or Physical Matters is made an Argument that there are Mysteries in Matters of Revelation I have hitherto confin'd my self to his Rule i. e. the Fathers of the Three First Centuries but truly I can see no just reason why the Fathers of after-Ages may not be admitted into the present Controversie at least as Witnesses if not Judges I 'm sure there can nothing abstract but his groundless Fiction of a general Combination to resolve all Religion into Mystery For as for the received Use or Signification of the Word certainly after-Ages may be as competent Judges as those of the First Century And as for the Controversie itself Whether there 's any Doctrine in Christianity mysterious certainly that Age ought to be appeal'd to that had a more special occasion to bring the Controversie upon the Stage and this the Arrian Age and those that follow'd it for in this Age it 's well known those Doctrines we contend are mysterious were more nicely controverted I shall therefore add to those Passages already cited a few more which prove the Use of the word to be apply'd to things incomprehensible and that there are Doctrines in Christianity pronounc'd Mysteries and that too for the Incomprehensibleness of ' em The first I shall instance in is Dionys. Areop where in one place he describes our Saviour's Incarnation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cap. 4. de Coelest Hierarch In another place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 9. Cap. 2. de Divinis Nomin The second Instance is from a Tract entitl'd Expositio Fidei rejected indeed as a Piece of Iustin Martyr yet from Leontin's and other concluding Arguments justly esteem'd to be the Product of the Arrian Age He stiles the Unity and Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and confesses it cannot be unfolded by Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and upon the Incarnation of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in such deep Research at last concludes with this Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And now we may conclude this Chapter much in the same strain that he does N. 45. I do not find but the Fathers of the three first Centuries have exactly the same Notions of Mystery as well as those that follow them and for an Allay to his Jealousies I think they are pretty consistent as well as unanimous but then this Consistency and Unanimity happens to be against a trifling Reasoner and therefore I must take the Reverse to his concluding Period and justly hope by this time the Cause of Incomprehensible and Inconceivable or Mysteries in Religion will be more zealously maintain'd by all that sincerely respect Fathers Scripture or Reason I come now to the Fourth Chapt. Sect. 3. which is an Answer to some Scripture-Objections and particularly from the Nature of Faith I now find this Discourse swells upon me beyond Expectations and therefore as for the Scripture-passages cited by him tho' there is more in 'em than he has suggested yet I shall pass 'em especially because I think the Merits of the Cause does by no means turn upon 'em I shall therefore take up his Friend's Arguments concerning the Nature of Faith and try if he may not be compel'd by dint of Argument since he would not embrace the Advice of his Friend N. 51. And first As for what he has delivered N. 52 53. I find nothing but what has already received an Answer particularly what is cited Sect. 2. c. 2 7. or at least but what amounts to no more than will be concluded by what I 'm going to offer and therefore he may take it for a full or competent Answer viz. Reason is a necessary Handmaid or Instrument of Faith insomuch that we must believe upon Rational Motives and Convictions And thus far I know no Son of the Church of England that will dissent from him As for what is delivered N. 54. That Faith consists of two parts Knowledge and Assent I think no one will be so absurd to deny it for I 'am perswaded there can be no Assent without Knowledge Therefore in a word had I known his Design I should have excused the labour of citing so many Texts to prove it and in a few words grant That in those things we call the pure Credenda of Religion we are at least to know so much as will enable us to form an Imperfect Idea of what it is God proposes to our Belief but it does not imply such a Knowledge as enables to unravel and comprehend the whole Nature of the Object or the very Modes of its Existence or Properties or much less give a Rationale of every thing that belongs to it No if we know as much as instructs us what it is God proposes to our Belief we submit all the Difficulties that may arise from the Belief of it to God's Power and Wisdom and yield an Assent notwithstanding some seeming Absurdities upon the Infinite Veracity of God This distinguisheth Faith from a bare rational Assent in common Matters and all this is consistent with what he has delivered N. 55 56. and therefore I shall not ingage in a particular Examination of what is there offered To proceed then in order to a clear Demonstration of this Notion of Faith I shall not consider the Case of Abraham's Faith being the next thing that offers it self but shall instance in the Belief of the Creation Thro' Faith we understand that the Worlds were framed by the Word of God so that Things which are seen were made of Things which do not appear Heb. xi v. 3. Here I think is a vast difference between God's creative Power in raising the World out of nothing and restoring a dead Person to Life again before the corruptible part was any wise dissolved Indeed I cannot conceive how we can form an Idea of the possibility of such a Production that God should raise so vast a stock of Matter even all created Nature and every thing that we can form any
that in Case it manifestly contradicts the Testimony of our Sence we may justly rank it among Impossibilities and reject it as such But further than this I cannot discern that we are competent Judges of the Possibility of any Miracle for to judge of its Possibility supposes a knowledge of its Modus But this our Adversary will not allow For the manner of Miracles says he is not explicable N. 77. Thus far we are agreed but I know not how this Limitation much less those that follow affect the present Controversie Indeed he at last comes to the Point and tells us Miracles are not above Reason tho' we know nothing of the Modus But I would fain know why a Thing that contains somewhat in the Nature of it which exceeds Human Comprehension is not as properly above Reason or Mysterious as a Thing in itself intelligible only it lies dormant because shadowed thro'a Veil I 'm sure Origen tells the contrary Comment in Mat. 19. 24 26. ut supra See pag. 61. But I have exposed the Folly of this Assertion in another place Indeed I should have turned his own Arguments upon him had he not prevented me by reviving 'em in such a manner as gives me a better advantage over him We have it thus As the beginning of my Book I maintained the Manner as well as the Thing was explicable But of what Of Miracles No surely but of those Doctrines in Confirmation of which the Miracles are wrought See N. 77. This is truly an unaccountable Paradox Miracles are certainly the Demonstrations of Sence and consequently are to be scann'd and judg'd of by common Ideas even the most clear and indisputable such as result from Objects of Sence but it 's concluded that Matters of Revelation are founded on Objects that are Spiritual and Infinite and consequently are to us more abstruse and incomprehensible Again Miracles are a direct and immediate Address to the Sence and Reason of Mankind and are design'd to give an unquestionable Credit to every reveal'd Truth since they procure the Testimony of Infinite Veracity in the behalf of it and therefore all the Reason and Arguments in Nature will direct that they should pass the severest Scrutiny But in Matters of Revelation it 's concluded that a great deal rests upon the Authority of Infinite Veracity and this depends upon the Evidence of Miracles and therefore it 's absurd to demand a clearer and more precise Comprehension of the Nature of reveal'd Truths than of Miracles This Gentleman owns that Miracles are a Confirmation of reveal'd Truths that is at least as they are an absolute Attestation of their Divine Original And this is an uncontroulable Demonstration of the Truth of them Indeed I 'm perswaded the meerest Novice in Logick will tell him That we are to have at least as adequate a Knowledge of that which is to confirm as that which is confirmed by it or that the Premises are to carry as great Evidence in 'em as we expect in the Conclusion Therefore it 's absurd to say that the Modus of Miracles is inexplicable and the Modus of all reveal'd Truths not so Indeed this Gentleman seems to have furnish'd us with Weapons to fence against him with the greatest Advantage for if such Positions as these must pass for Truth it must be Truth in a Mystery And truly we could not have desir'd a better Argument against him for if the Modus of Objects of Sence be inexplicable certainly the Modus of reveal'd Truths are much more inexplicable the Immenseness of whose Nature to a Finite Mind renders them incomprehensible Again the Modus of Objects of Sence is not to be explain'd by Ideas of the same kind much less is the Modus of Infinite and Spiritual Objects to be explain'd by the Ideas of Objects of Sence So that in a word since Miracles as Objects of Sence with respect to the Modus of 'em are inexplicable and by consequence justly to be esteem'd above Reason much more are Matters of Revelation with respect to their Modus to be esteem'd inexplicable above Reason and consequently mysterious I come now to examine in the last place his pretended Historical Account of the Rise of Mystery and the Causes of it under this Title When why and by whom were Mysteries brought into Christianity Cap. 6. Sect. 3. And truly I am perswaded what has already been deliver'd will be esteem'd by an impartial Reader a sufficient Confutation to this whole Chapter at least if it answers the Title without examining any Paragraph However I think it deserves no Answer but a short Reply to the Title and that is capable of no other but such as we give to an impertinent Question of the Romanists Where was your Religion before Luther As to the time when Mystery was introduc'd I hope it 's sufficiently prov'd to be of the same Date with Christianity itself being founded not in Names or Words only but in Certain Truths that are propos'd as Objects of Faith But 2dly for the Person by whom or that introduc'd it I 'm perswaded there 's enough offer'd to charge it upon the Blessed Author of the Institution Lastly For the Reason why Mysteries were introduc'd I shall leave 'em to this notable Reasoner to dispute it out with the Infinite Wisdom of GOD in not creating Man with larger and more comprehensible Faculties or not contriving some more familiar Method of Redemption And now if what has already been deliver'd stands good against this Author there being as yet no reason to suspect it I 'll appeal to all the World whether it does not destroy the malicious Suggestions of this Chapter which make Mystery to be a Trick of Priestcraft contriv'd for the support of Secular Grandeur and Dominion But to descend to a few Particulars He observes and that too with a great deal of Contempt and Scorn That the Christian Church initiated their Converts in a Way and Method not much unlike that of the Heathen World which is the most he can make of all his Allegations Now we own the Christian Converts were gradually initiated that they were rank'd in several Classes and had a Discipline and Instructions peculiar to each Class and thereupon prohibited the publication of the sublimest Parts of Religion to any but those that had gone through the inferiour Classes and truly such Injunctions have not only the unquestionable Dictates of Prudence for their Vindication but Apostolick Practice and Approbation for 't is the establish'd Method with the Hebrew Converts as well as those at Corinth they were brought on gradually to Perfection first by Milk then by strong Meats the one accommodated to Babes in Christ the other to those of full age see Heb. v. ver 12 13 14. and 1 Cor. iii. 2. where it's probable the Iewish Converts were first instructed in those Scriptures that set forth the easiest parts of our Saviour's Offices as Prophet Priest and King but afterwards those that asserted his Divinity I 'm
THE Christian Belief Wherein is Asserted and Proved That as there is Nothing in the GOSPEL contrary to REASON yet there are some DOCTRINES in it Above REASON and these being necessarily enjoyn'd us to Believe are properly call'd MYSTERIES IN Answer to a BOOK INTITULED Christianity not Mysterious But we speak the Wisdom of God in a Mystery even the hidden Mystery of God LONDON Printed by W. Onley for Alex. Rosvile at the Dial against St. Dunstan 's Church in Fleet-street MDCXCVI THE CONTENTS BEING ARTICLES Most of 'em advanced In Opposition to the Positions of our Adversary THe Measures and Extent of Human Knowledge in Objects of Sence Page 2. Transubstantiation why to be rejected p. 6. The Knowledge of Spiritual Objects ib. Of Finite and Infinite Objects p. 11. Of Matters of Revelation p. 14. Three Inferences p. 15. A Vindication of the Maxim in Adoring when we cannot Comprehend p. 18. The Vse of Reason in Religion p. 22 23. 41 42. Matters of Revelation not so easily nor clearly comprehended as the Phaenomena of Nature p. 23. 25. His Notion of Things contrary to Reason rejected and disproved p. 33. Two Limitations to be observed before we can pronounce any thing contrary to Reason p. 33 34. Both confirmed and illustrated by the Article of our Saviour's Divinity p. 40. The Difference between a seeming Contradiction and real one asserted p. 46 Contradictions not to be pronounced in Matters of Revelation because they do not comport with common Ideas in Objects of Sence p. 47 48. Revelation a Motive of Assent as well as mean of Information p. 49. Matters of Revelation how far intelligible and possible p. 51. The Difference between Divine and Human Revelation on that account p. 52. The true Notion of a Mystery as applied to Things Incomprehensible p. 56. 61. His Notion of a Mysteryexploded p. 58. Mystery stated with respect to Inadequate Ideas p. 59. 60 62. And proved against him on his own Principles p. 62. The Notion of comprehending Things stated p. 67. The true State of the Controversie with respect to Scripture p. 73 74. Authorities of Scripture where Mystery is applyed to Incomprehensible Truths 1 Cor. 2. 7. p. 81. 1 Tim. 3. 10. p. 84. Doctrines or Divine Truths contained in Scripture that are represented as Mysterious and proved from Scipture to be so p. 89. The first Instance from 1 Cor. 1. 23. 24. second Instance 1 Cor. 13. v. 9. p. 94. And 2 Cor. 12. 4. p. 96. And Col. 2. 23. p. 97. All which are expounded at large and each Exposition ratified by the Iudgment of the Fathers The Opinions of the Fathers for the three first Ages produced against him even of those he has cited p. 105 106. How far the Knowledge of the Object is required in Faith p. 118 119. That Faith is opposed to Knowledge or Science and sometimes in Scripture implys an Assent to revealed Truths as they exceed the Sphere of Human Perception p. 121 122. This proved from Scripture and the Authority of the Fathers p. 123 124. The Belief of the Creation instanced p. 120. Mysteries proved from the Nature of Faith p. 134. Miracles not to be admitted contrary to the Testimony of the Sences and why ib. Miracles an Argument a majore That there are Mysteries in the Christian Religion p. 136 137. His Historical Account of Mysteries exploded p. 138. The Methods of Initiation in the Christian Faith and the Discipline Rites and Sanctions of the Primitive Church cleared from the Imputation of Paganism or Imposture p. 140. These neither the Cause nor Product of Mystery p. 143. The Lawfulness of Ceremonies especially such as the Establish'd Church of England enjoyns p. 145. The Authority of 'em asserted p. 146. Not opposite to Christianity p. 147. The pernicious Design of his Treatise detected p. 149 150. The Conclusion in a Vindication of the present Methods of Answering by Instances p. 151. Editions of the Fathers Clemens Alexandrinus Ed. Par. 1629. Justin Martyr Par. 1615. Irenaeus Ed. Erasmi Basil. 1560. Tertullianus Ed. Par. 1675. Origen contra Cels. Edit Cant. 1677. Dionys. vulgo Areopag Antw. 1634. Johan Chrysost. Par. 1621. Isiodor Pelysiot Par. 1638. Theophilact Lond. 1636. Origen Comment Rothomag 1668. Athanasius ex Officina Commeliana 1601. CERTAIN Christian Doctrines Properly call'd Mysteries And to be Esteem'd Above REASON c. BEFORE I make any Formal Returns to the Positions advanc'd by this Zealous Advocate for REASON I shall endeavour to fix or state the several Measures and Principles of Human Knowledge I mean with respect to the Objects of it as it includes the Knowledge of Objects of Sence of Corporeal and Spiritual Substances of Finite and Infinite and of Revealed Truths And first I can freely grant what has cost our Adversary some Pages to prove viz. That nothing in Nature can come to our Knowledge but by some of these four Means viz. the Experience of the Senses the Experience of the Mind Humane and Divine Revelation Sect. 1. Cap. 3. But yet I think it very absurd to advance one Rule or Standard for every Part or Branch of Humane Knowledge and thereupon form Arguments and charge Contradictions and Absurdities without making the least allowance or distinction with respect to the nature of the Object or the methods of knowing it Here is the Source of all our Adversary's Mistakes and Miscarriages whereby as will anon more fully appear he has cast a Cloud upon Reason rather than improv'd its Native Lustre and Glory And First as for the Knowledge of Objects of Sense it 's certain the Mind of Man the proper Seat as well as Principle of Humane Knowledge is here entertain'd by the Objects of the Material World for Nothing but Matter in the ordinary course of Natural Knowledge make an Impression upon the outward Senses so as to transmit and fix an Idea in the Mind suitable to the nature of the Object And certainly here is the great original Stock of Humane Knowledge for the Senses are not only the standing Vehicles to all those Ideas that are lodg'd in the Mind since even Faith and Revelation come by Hearing but these very Ideas if positive and formed on Things and Substances are little else but the Resemblances of material Sensations or the Ideas of some Object of Sense However exalted and refined may be the Ideas of Angels and glorified Spirits that have things presented to the view of the Mind by an immediate Intuition it 's manifest we that are cloath'd with Senses and Matter and those of a very coarse allay must have all our Ideas tinged with material Adumbrations These are that Glass upon the Mind through which we see darkly and that wonderfully incrassates and disguises the Images of Things It 's true in Objects of Sense our Ideas must be comparatively clear and exact because we are seated in the very heart or center of the material World where its Objects perpetually crowd in upon our Senses and are continually presented to
evident and infallible The Consequence in plain terms is no other than this Because the Evidence of the Ideas of one particular Object is infallible therefore the Evidence of the Ideas of every Object is so And certainly this is a Position that must pronounce all our Ideas equally clear and perfect and the Means of Information infallible and consequently there can be no Objects falsly represented to the Mind nor no Ideas false or imperfect This is Mystery with a witness or rather Positions that in his own Language are The Primary and Vniterical Origin of all his Errors Ib. But I think he sufficiently confutes himself in the following Paragraphs when he pronounces some things dubious and obscure and allows false Ideas may be contracted by Precipitancy or Inattention by Affection and Prepossession N. 18. And now for the Second where he introduces us with a Description of what is contrary to Reason viz. What is evidently repugnant to clear and distinct Ideas or to our common Notions is contrary to Reason Now truly this I think is a very lame imperfect or at least fallacious Description unless it be ballanced with some Limitations and Restrictions As first It can only hold in Objects of the same Species or Nature Thus we can only argue from Objects of Sence against Objects of Sence from Finite against finite and from Matters of Revelation against pretended Matters of Revelation For it s the greatest Absurdity in Nature to conclude any thing against any revealed Truth or Doctrine whose Object is purely Spiritual and absolutely Infinite because it doth not accord with our Ideas in Objects of Sence I 'm sure the Holy Ghost instructs us better in obliging us to compare Spiritual Things with Spiritual A sufficient Inhibition truly against discarding reveal'd Truths by any other Ideas then what are formed from antecedent Notices of Revelation Thus for our Saviour's Divinity before we yield an Assent to it it 's requisite the Characters and Properties of the Godhead which are in the Books of Revelation ascrib'd to the Father with respect to the Godhead shou'd be ascrib'd to the Son But then when this is done it 's absurd to reject this great Truth as contrary to Reason upon the force of an unreasonable Consequence formed by comparing the incomprehensible Godhead with Objects of Sence Thus the Son cannot be God because it must destroy the Unity of the Godhead for the Unity of the Godhead must be destroy'd Why Because such Unity and Plurality can never be admitted in Objects of Sence and consequently not in the sublimest Matters of Revelation But what is this but to prostitute the Glory and Majesty of the Invisible and Incomprehensible Godhead by the vilest Representations What is it but a making him like Gold Wood or Stone or Things graven by Man's Art Certain I am such Maxims as these are the highest Contradictions to Reason for if they might take place it must shake the Foundation of all Revelation even those lively Characters which the Word of God hath given of the Godhead If they must be scann'd or measured by common Notions or Ideas that result from Objects of Sence Secondly Before we pronounce any thing contrary to Reason we must be sure that we have a clear and perfect Comprehension of the Thing for tho' our Ideas that are seemingly repugnant to it be never so clear how shall we judge of the Repugnancy as long as we cannot pretend to a perfect Idea on both sides This I'm sure is a very reasonable Injunction between Objects of Sence and Matters of Revelation so that if God hath delivered any revealed Truth and by comparing it with the Ideas and Characters of other reveal'd Truths we must conclude he intended such a particular thing and at the same time discern the Incomprehensibleness of it insomuch that we cannot form an adequate Idea it 's absurd to reject it because this imperfect Idea will not comport with certain clear Ideas in Objects of Sence Here if any Difficulties Absurdities or Contradictions arise Reason will direct us to place 'em upon the Weakness of our Vnderstandings or our imperfect way of comprehending such unfathomable Objects and with St. Paul engage us to cry out Who is sufficient for these things And now if my Adversary will add these Limitations to his Definition as I 'm perswaded he 'll be forced to do I do not question but I can wipe off all the Absurdities produced in the following Chapter at least by shewing their Impertinence to the Case before us And on this account I pass by 'em as well as because there 's nothing in 'em that affects any thing already delivered but either confirms or may be fairly solved by it I therefore proceed to his Argument Sect. 2. Cap. 1. N. 4. The first thing I shall insist upon is That if any Doctrine of the New Testament be contrary to Reason we have no manner of Idea of it To say for instance that a Ball is White and Black at once Here he sufficiently discovers himself he tells us before That whatever is repugnant to common Notions is contrary to Reason and what his common Notions are the Instance before us sufficiently informs that is in plain English whatever does not comport with the most trite Ideas of Objects of Sence is contrary to Reason and therefore the most sublime revealed Truths whose Objects are Spirits and Infinite Spirits and consequently the Ideas we can pretend to must be highly imperfect because we cannot adjust them with the most common Ideas of Sence are contrary to Reason But the Absurdity of this Assertion I hope I have sufficiently exploded But to deliver my own Sentiments of matters of this nature once for all I do believe there 's an eternal and universal Harmony in Reason as well as things both created and uncreated The Reason of Mankind is certainly an immediate Transcript of Infinite Reason and all the Councels Decrees and Declarations of Heaven are the Dictates of Infinite Reason and the Reason of Mankind must be establish'd upon the unalterable Rules or Measures of Infinite Reason and therefore there can be no Ideas of Infinite Truths or Objects provided they are compleat and perfect such as GOD can conceive of Himself which really contradict the Rules and Measures of Humane Reason if she were enabl'd to comprehend 'em as clearly as her Maker But yet I think I have made it appear that after all the Researches of Reason there are reveal'd Objects of which we can form but very imperfect Ideas both with respect to their Nature Existence and Modus and yet we may form such an Idea as instructs us what GOD intends we should believe From hence we may conclude That as their nature is peculiarly distinguisht from all other Beings so is the Modus of their Existence So that it 's highly absurd to deny our Assent to the Truth of it because we can form no Idea that will comport with those we have form'd
not only the Sence of the Word but the Things we contend for are recorded in Scripture as any he has produc'd to the contrary So that in truth we are ready to render up ourselves to the Voice of Scripture as well as submit the Merits of the Cause to it without being influenc'd and carried away by such weak Practisings as he has set forth in a Dialogue that would merit some Stripes if perform'd by a School-boy rather than Applause as 't is the Product of a pretending Master of Reason See Sect. 36. And now I have done with his Scripture-authorities but cannot pass by one Remark of his which I find to be the chief Improvement that graces his Second Edition Nor is it undeserving our particular Notice that Mystery is here made the distinguishing Mark of the False and Antichristian Church See Rev. xvii 5. And no doubt but as far as any Church allows of Mysteries so far it is Antichristian and may with a great deal of Iustice tho' little Honour claim Kindred with the Scarlet Whore Here is a very bold Stricture and yet a Man with half an Eye may discern that his Observation is as irrational and ridiculous as his Inference for Mystery in this place I suppose would not have pass'd for a distinguishing Mark had not her Doctrines and Practices merited the other part of the Title viz. The Mother of Harlots and Abomination of the Earth had she not held a golden Cup in her Hand full of Abominations and Filthiness of her Fornication Ver. 4. and been drunken with the Blood of the Saints and with the Blood of the Martyrs of Iesus But as for his Inference had he consulted St. Paul's Second Epistle to the Thessalonians a little better he might have learn'd that there 's a Mystery of Iniquity as well as Godliness but perhaps he was unwilling to be disappointed of a malicious tho' illogical Suggestion he might there have inform'd himself That it was always the Devil's Business to imitate the True Religion by mighty Signs and lying Wonders if it were possible to deceive the very Elect nay that Antichrist sitteth in the Temple of GOD shewing himself that he is GOD and consequently he must pretend to Mystery with a witness So that upon the whole this Gentleman may as well assign the Devil's Miracles for a distinguishing Mark of Antichrist and prove the true Religion to be nearly related to Antichrist the Scarlet Whore and the Devil because she proceeds upon the Authority of Miracles Nay rather we may upon his Argument affirm That Miracles are a distinguishing Mark of the true Religion And since Antichrist and the Devil pretend to Miracles the Religion they pretend to must be true too Whereas we know these to be Divine and Authoritative those Diabolical and Usurped so we pronounce this the Mystery of Iniquity that the Mystery of Godliness The next thing that offers itself is the Suffrage of the Primitive Church It 's true there are a great many things intervene wherein he labours more to give us a Specimen of his Wit that Reason But truly I think they are both of a piece for I can discover nothing that deserves a single Reflection much less a formal Reply I proceed therefore to the Suffrage of the Fathers to whom he makes an Appeal He tells us indeed It is not out of any deference to their Iudgments N. 40. and therefore we must conclude he submits to it because he 's perswaded they peremptorily declare for his Opinion but I hope to prove the contrary For tho' he confesses he has bestow'd a great deal of Pains upon 'em yet this is so far from discouraging us from entering the List that I hope to make it appear that his Pains are either an Effect of his Ignorance in these Authors or of his Dishonesty in suppressing their Opinions And first all that he proves out of the Fathers is That they have asserted other Notions of Mystery than what we contend for whereas he himself assigns four or five different Notions and if Classick Authors were consulted we could produce some more and therefore he might as well reject one of his own Notions because the Fathers have not mention'd it But I find this Author upon every turn shamefully betrays his Reason for he knows not what is incumbent upon him to prove and therefore we need not wonder if he proves not his main Design I 'm sure he 's now to prove a Negative or that which amounts to it if he proves any thing viz. That the Fathers he cites no where apply the word MYSTERY to things beyond Humane Comprehension or that those Notions of the word Mystery which he finds recorded are deliver'd exclusively of all others for if he has neither cited all their Notions or Acceptations of the word nor prov'd that they are exclusive of all others he proves nothing against the acceptation of the word we now contend for and if so the most cursory Reader will presently pronounce That he must give up the Cause in case he fixes it on this Issue I mean the Authority of Fathers But because I will take no advantage of his weakness I will go along with him in his own Instances And 1st What he cites from Clemens Alexand. concludes nothing for I know no Christian that denys the Christian Religion to be an Illumination because it brought hidden things to light and that with respect to the Mosaick Veil But this only proves one of his own Notions that is indeed allow'd by us But to be short with him Whereas he has the Face to tell us That several of those Texts of Scripture alledg'd by him are by this Father expounded on his side and consequently against our Notion I shall appeal to what has been already cited from him to prove the quite contrary Indeed I could add a great deal more to discover his Judgment of the Inconceivableness of certain Objects of Faith or Matters of Revelation and because I 'm engag'd I shall produce a few Instances And first where he stiles Christianity an Illumination he speaks of the Fulness of Christ as a Mystery reveal'd indeed but the Nature of it known to a very few and he proves it from the Incomprehensible Nature of GOD Strom. lib. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet more fully on Moses's words Exod. 33. ver 18. Shew me thy Glory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. p. 365. Strom. lib. That is by the Effects of his Power Again on St. Paul's words 1 Cor. 5. Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us Strom. lib. 5. he observes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here it 's evident he argues from the Incomprehensibleness of the Divine Nature and consequently must fix the Mystery on this Bottom as well as the want of Revelation Indeed we may justly argue à majori from the Sence of this Father if the Nature of the Godhead be in the Opinion of this great Man so highly incomprehensible how much more
must the Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion be so the consists of the Union of the Divine with Human Nature and consequently in a proper sence mysterious See N. 42. Thus much for St. Clement the next Authority is Iustin Martyr which concludes nothing to his purpose For First he only uses the Word in a loose Sence and not exclusive of any other signification and if this may be an Argument against that Sence which this Reasoner declaims against it will be so against others which he has expresly assigned This may serve for a sufficient Return to the next Paragraph where Tertullian stiles all Religious Rites or Acts of Worship Mysteries which among the Heathens were generally kept secret yet tho' this be an allowed Sence of the Word it can be no Argument but that Mystery even in Tertullian's time was apply'd to Things in ' emselves abstruce or incomprehensible Of the same stamp are his Arguments from Origen which prove no more than what all sides own viz. that Mystery in a vulgar or more loose Sence is put for Symbols Types or any abstruse or sacred Matter N. 44. Certainly had this Gentleman consulted any other Pieces of this Learned Father he might have inform'd himself that he uses Mystery even in Divine Matters for Things that are to us incomprehensible Thus in the forecited Passage speaking of the Thing as it now is he expresses himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vt Supra See pag. 56. Again on the Words of our Saviour Mat. xix 24 26. he observes That GOD was able to make a Camel pass thro' an Eye of a Needle and yet no one but God or Christ or he to whom he shall reveal it is able to comprehend it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Afterwards he challenges any Man to Illustrate or Explain such Mysteries being Things only comprehended as well as performed by GOD 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 382. 1 Vol. But now in the close of this Paragraph he thinks he sufficiently explodes our Notion of Mystery when he tells us Origen was far from thinking any Doctrine of our Religion a Mystery in the present Sence of the Word that he expresly affirms them to agree all with common Notions and to commend themselves to the Assent of every well-dispos'd Hearer This truly looks very plausible but I 'm perswaded Origen in making good this Assertion will run counter to the Notions of this Indefatigable Reasoner For First It 's well known who the Holy Father was engaged with a Learned Heathen who had formed an Objection That the Christians were to believe Things tho' in themselves never so absurd or ridiculous and therefore it was his business to take off the Objection by shadowing forth the Reasonableness of every Doctrine He begins with the Doctrines of Natural Religion the Being of a God and our Love towards him but when he comes to the Mystery of our Saviour's Incarnation he makes a stand and repeats Celsus's Objection viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Answer is remarkable for it evinces the Divinity and Incarnation of our blessed Saviour as a standing Doctrine of the Christian Church to the Eternal Confusion of all Socinian Pretences to Antiquity Let our Accusers know that we as it were speaking the Sence of the Christian Church do not only think but are fully perswaded that he is Originally or in the Beginning GOD and the Son of GOD nay he is the Substantial Word Wisdom and Truth and as for his Mortal Body and Human Soul we attribute the greatest Things to it in as much as a most exact and compleat Union with his Divinity it obtains a kind of Divinity so that we may still treat our Blessed Saviour GOD and Man as GOD with the highest Acts of Divine Worship His words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You see the great Design of the Apologist is to represent how such Honour and Dignity is derived upon the Humanity of our Saviour and consequently the Reasonableness of paying Divine Worship to him even as GOD-Man or GOD Incarnate and pursuant to this to justifie those Honours that accrew to the Body of our Saviour he appeals to the Natural Transmutations of Matter whereby Bodies are often highly refin'd and improv'd and then ingeniously concludes Why should not the Infinite Power of GOD therefore be able to change the Mortal Body of Iesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus we see how out of Ignorance or a worse Principle the Disputer of this World for the Title belongs to him tho' not so deservedly as those on whom St. Paul bestows it has Misrepresented the Sence of this great Man whose main Design was to shew the Reasonableness of paying Divine Worship to the Blessed Jesus and this he sufficiently perform'd by asserting his Divinity but he did not attempt to demonstrate the Modus of the Union of the two Natures by common Notions He has indeed expresly asserted our Saviour's Divinity as well as Humanity in the highest Notion of it and I defie this profound Reasoner to state the Union of both Natures by common Ideas or Notions much less to give us as familiar an Idea of it as we have of Wood or Stone Till he has done this he trifles and we shall still believe that our Saviour's Incarnation is thus far a Mystery Thus we have turn'd those very Fathers he most relies on against him and tho' he has the Confidence to fix a peremptory Challenge upon the Writings of the three first Centuries I could produce as much more had I not a regard to my own Time and that of the Reader 's which ought to be a sufficient Consideration with every Man to prevent him from engaging in Impertinences or dwelling too long where Necessity does not require it I shall therefore only beg Leave to add the Judgment of Irenaeus Si autem omnium quae in Scripturis requirantur absolutiones non possumus invenire credere autem haec talia debemus Deo qui nos fecit rectissimè scientes quia Scripturae quidem perfectae sunt quippe à verbo Dei Spiritu ejus dictae Nos autem secundum quod minores sumus novissimi à verbo Dei Spiritu ejus scientiâ mysteriorum ejus indigemus non mirum est si in spiritualibus coelestibus in his quae habent Revelari hoc patimur nos quandoquidem eorum quae ante pedes sunt quae conteruntur à nobis videntur sunt nobiscum multa fugerunt nostram scientiam Deo haec ipsa committimus Si ergo in rebus creaturae quaedam quidem eorum adjacent Deo quaedam autem in nostram venerunt scientiam quid mali est si eorum quae in Scripturis requiruntur universis Scripturis Spiritualibus existentibus quaedam quidem absolvamus secundum gratiam Dei quaedam autem commendemus Deo non solum in hoc saeculo sed in futuro ut semper quidem Deus doceat homo autem