they saw 'em thro a Veil or in St. Paul's Language with respect to further Discoveries thro a Glass darkly And what is this but that they knew them in part or by inadequate Ideas I 'm sure our Knowledge is as much cramp'd in several of those Instances produc'd by our Author from the Intricacy and Immensity of the Things ' emselves as those Gospel-truths shut up from the Iews by the Mosaick Veil of Types and Figures And consequently why is not the one as much a Mystery to us as the other to the Iews and for this very reason because we know them inadequately But to go a little further with him I remember in the State of his Question as well as in other places he gives us to understand That all Reveal'd Matters may be judg'd of even by common Notions both as to their Manner and Existence as easily as the ordinary Phoenomena of Nature and therefore concludes That there 's nothing in the Gospel contrary to Reason or above it and That no Christian Doctrine can be properly call'd a MYSTERY This is the State of the Question and what he asserts must be a Criterion in judging what is mysterious or above Reason So that we may hence conclude and that upon his own Principles too That that Thing whose Manner or Existence cannot be conceiv'd even with as much ease and clearness as the ordinary Phoenomena of Nature is a Mystery and above Reason Certainly here is a fair Concession and such as will make things mysterious because we can but form inadequate Ideas for as this Author confesses we can form Ideas of the Beings of Things and know as much as is useful from their Properties and Effects whilst we are ignorant of the manner of their Existence or Production See N. 8 11. the one of Plants and the other of Rain Here he manifestly fixes our inadequate Ideas upon the Modus of Things with respect to their Operations and Existence that is our Ideas are inadequate because we cannot decipher wherein their Modus consists tho' we know their principal Properties by their Effects and Uses And now we may call in his own Principles to conclude against him and affirm That inadequate Ideas must necessarily imply a Mystery for inadequate Ideas imply our Ignorance as to the Modus of Things and that thing whose Modus cannot be comprehended according to his own Principles is mysterious and above Reason Here I think he pretends to Out-do the most improv'd Arts of Priestcraft whilst he declares for nothing but Reason and banishes Mystery out of the World and yet imposes things that surpass the highest Mystery since he labours to make the World embrace his Contradictions for the undoubted Decrees of Reason This is in his own language trifling with a witness or pitiful shifting or fooling or what not and such as discovers a mighty Scarcity of good Arguments N. 13. But he hath not done with us yet and therefore concludes with an obliging Proposal If they will still be fooling and call these things Mysteries I 'm willing to admit as many as they please in Religion if they will allow me likewise to make mine as intelligible to others as these are to me Ib. I hope I have made good the first part That there are true and proper Mysteries even in the Schools of Nature And if so it 's manifest notwithstanding his vain Triumphs we have an Argument à majori That there are Mysteries in Revelation I say it 's a majori to every one but him that has the Face to assert That an infinite incomprehensible Spirit is an Object equally intelligible with Objects of Sence or with Wood or Stone As for the last part of his Proposals I believe every one will consent That he shall make all those reveal'd Truths we call Mysteries as intelligible as he 's able provided he 'll promise not to reject 'em because he fails in his Undertaking or in a word because he cannot make them compare with common Ideas or Notions And now I hope I have said enough to invalidate all the Arguments of this Chapter But lest he should think me rude or that I neglect him too much I shall make some short Returns to a few Passages that are yet behind And 1st He instructs us what it is to comprehend a Thing viz. When it s chief Properties and their several Vses are known to us for to comprehend in all correct Authors is nothing else but to know and as of what is not knowable we can have no Idea so is it nothing to us I shall for once admit that in the common Notion of Humane Perception or Comprehension we think we know or comprehend a Thing sufficiently when its chief Properties and their several Uses are known to us but may we not at the same time discern that there are others we cannot conceive and that the Modus or precise Nature of those we know are inconceivable And so we may without Offence or in a strict and proper way of Speech affirm That there 's a great deal mysterious in the thing and above Reason and yet we do not pronounce it above Reason as he suggests ib. because we know no more than concerns us but because there 's something inconceivable tho' to conceive it does not so directly concern us But 2dly as for that which is mysterious even in Matters of Revelation we do not pretend that it is any thing to us I mean as if we were oblig'd to comprehend or define the precise Modus of the thing This is to be a Mystery and no Mystery However since we discern in certain reveal'd Truths something which we cannot comprehend we may believe those reveal'd Truths to be so far mysterious and they so far concern us as to pay the Obedience of Faith to 'em and not reject the Whole because we cannot comprehend Every-thing that belongs to ' em This ought to be an Eternal Rule to our Author in matters of Revelation because it 's founded upon his own Words and Principles We believe the Divinity of our Saviour because we have not only its Uses set forth but we have it represented in the principal Properties of the Godhead even such as are ascrib'd to GOD the Father and consequently in the Sence of this Author we may be said to comprehend or know this Divine Truth Therefore if any thing arises as to the Modus of its Existence or otherwise that is mysterious not knowable or of which we can have no Idea his own Rule directs him that this is nothing to him and consequently is by no means to be an Argument against this Divine Truth I 'm sure if 't is not ridiculous not to supersede our Disquisitions in matters that do not directly concern us another Assertion of his ib. it 's undoubtedly ridiculous to make Disquisitions in such Cases and make them an Argument for rejecting the clearest reveal'd Truths which is the constant Practice of the Modern Reasoners
tolerable Ideas of and yet without any Materials to work upon can never be comprehended The Platonist supposed a Soul to the World and the Aristotelian a first Mover but could never give any tolerable account of the Rise of Mundane Matter without making it eternal In short they always taught That an Agent necessarily supposes a Patient really distinct from the Patient especially in external Actions And we know in Numbers it 's universally true Ex nihilo nihil est And we can conceive no otherwise in Nature at least the Reasoner cannot on his Principles pretend to it for he tells us we can form no manner of Idea of nothing and therefore how it is possible to form an Idea of the Creation by common Ideas when all our Ideas take their rise from Created Beings even that of the Infinite and Eternal Being are resembled by Objects of his own production It 's true we say this is an effect of Infinite Power but we have no notion of the Thing unless we apply Infinite Power to that which is the Subject of it which is nothing into every thing and when all is done we form an Idea of this Infinite Power purely by the Effects of it in Finite Beings So that upon the whole it 's evident the Belief of the Creation that implys a Production of all things out of nothing is an Object that exceeds Humane Comprehension and consequently we may conclude that Faith which yields an Assent to the Doctrine of the Creation often implys an Assent to a Thing that contains something in it that is Incomprehensible And indeed that Objects of Faith contain Things that exceed Humane Comprehension is a Truth so indisputable that Faith in the Judgment of the Primitive Church-Writers was on this account distinguished from Knowledge or Science It 's true In all Objects of Faith we are to know so much of 'em as to direct us what it is God proposes to our Belief And Secondly We are to believe That it is God that proposes ' em Thirdly In all Acts of Faith we are to yield an Assent to the Truth or Being of Things and this supposes that we have formed at least an imperfect Idea of their Nature but for the Quomodo sint that is for the Manner of their Being or Existence that may be an act of Knowledge or Science but not of Faith so that if seeming Contradictions or Absurdities arise on this account and consequently are thus far justly Incomprehensible Faith throws us upon the Infinite Veracity of God All this I shall endeavour to confirm by the Authorities of the Primitive Church And First The Passage already cited from Irenaeus manifestly instructs us That there are Difficulties and MYSTERIES in Revealed Truths which Humane Reason cannot comprehend and obliges us to commit all such Matters to GOD because they were delivered by his Word and Spirit and what is this but to embrace and believe upon his Infinite Veracity And at last concludes That if we observe the Method Fidem nostram servabimus omnis Scriptura à Deo nobis data consonans nobis invenietur Does not this imply that there are things contained in Matters of Faith that are Incomprehensible Yea rather that all seeming Difficulties or Absurdities that arise from 'em when scann'd by common Notions or Ideas are to be committed to God as the best Expedient to preserve a right Faith see Pag. 64. But Secondly Clemens Alexand. seems to state the Notion of Faith more clearly in opposition to Science And first he fixes the Foundation of Faith in the Word of GOD or the Holy Scriptures and represents it as an Irrefragible Foundation that carries the highest Demonstration in it and that we are to enquire no further than Ipse dixit upon which he advances this Maxim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And to let us see how far he extends it he instances in the fore-cited Passage to the Heb. Cap. xii v. 12. and thence proceeds to state the Difference between Science and Faith thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vid. Stro. Lib. 2. P. 362 3 4. and in his 5th Book he 's more full 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here we see Faith is resolved into the Infinite Power and Veracity of GOD insomuch that we are obliged to believe as soon as we know it to be the Word of GOD or as soon as we know GOD proposes any thing to our Belief Here we find Science and Faith opposed the one requiring Demonstration or Arguments drawn from the Nature of the Thing the other not so Therefore we must conclude That if GOD proposes any thing to our Belief that contains Matters incomprehensible or not reconcileable with common Notions Faith in the Opinion of this Father will command an Assent insomuch that his Infinite Power and Veracity must over-ballance all seeming Absurdities and Contradictions But to conclude this Argument I shall produce the Judgment of St. Chrysostom Thus he assigns the Reason why the Natural Man cannot receive the Things that be of GOD 1 Cor. ii v. 14. viz. For the Immensity of the Things ' emselves far exceeding the Comprehension of the most Improved Reason and for the want of Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 7. And upon the Article of the Creation Heb. xi v. 3. he tells us The Mind that is prepared for the Reception of Faith must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 she must be elevated above Sence and all sensible Objects and pass over the Weakness of Humane Reasonings and afterwards Whereas says he Faith is vilified as a Thing that is void of Demonstration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather a Thing full of Folly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostle shews us in this one Instance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the very Article says he is not established by Reason but rather the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 22. In Epist. Heb. Again we find him describing Faith under the very same Notion Hom. 23. in Ter. Iohan. where upon Nichodemus's Words How can a Man be born when he is old v. 4. he observes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Upon which he enlarges and tells us It is the Question of Hereticks upon the Incarnation of our Blessed Saviour demanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that by the weakness of common Notions or Reasonings destroy his Immense Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and at last concludes That such Practices or Questions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And on the Second Part of the Question about entring the Womb a Second time he observes When a Man proceeds upon common Notions or Reasonings in Spiritual Matters and does not receive the Dictates of Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He talks like a Drunken or Mad-man uttering the most absurd and ridiculous things And now certainly we may conclude what St. Chrysostom's Notion of Faith was without drawing Inferences and that it every way agrees with that of Clemens Alexandrinus It 's therefore manifest Faith is distinguished from Knowledge or Science not only
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
Positions And first to take him in the order we find him before he gives you a State of the Question he begins with the main Burden of his Song and introduces you with some Sarcastical Reflections upon the Managements and Maxims of Divines about Religion As if the generality of Christians had no Notion of Religion but Mystery and Divines unanimously owned their Ignorance about it Whilst they gravely tell us we must adore what we cannot comprehend and yet majesteriously obtrude contradictory Comments as infallible Demonstrations of an unfathomable Mystery It 's visible this whole Paragraph is spent upon the Clergy for who are to account for Mens Ignorance or absurd Notions in Religion but those whose Business it is to instruct and remove ' em Again Who are to answer for Contradictions but the Clergy that resolve all into unfathomable Mystery and yet by their peremptory Comments pretend to unravel all to a Demonstration This is a Strain of impregnated Malice that runs thro' the whole Book where the Clergy by Insinuation Consequence or downright Assertions are charg'd with Imposture as if they had industriously combin'd to resolve all Religion into Mystery even to the carrying on of Contradictions For in one place he makes it an Asylum or Shelter to their Ignorance in another an Artifice of Usurpation to oblige the Laity to admit nothing as a Branch of their Creed till it hath been ratified from their Confessor's Chair In a word he represents 'em as Introducers of Deism he might have added as Subverters of all Religion too since he makes 'em labour in nothing but Absurdities and Contradictions And now you have the Character or Temper of the Man and see where his poyson'd Arrows are directed I shall with Patience or rather Contempt pass by all Strictures of this kind and content my self with the Confidence of wiping off his Calumnies by confuting his Positions To return then As for the Comments of some Divines neither the Church nor Body of the Clergy are to account for the Indiscretions which Heat or Passion has surpriz'd some of them into but I 'm perswaded the Comments of others will stand the Test of Reason and Argument to establish those Truths we call MYSTERIES better than those of his Faction or Perswasion to shake or overturn ' em As for the Maxim that instructs us to Adore what we cannot Comprehend I think it 's extreamly proper where we can prove a Mystery for if God recommends an Article of Faith that exceeds the Comprehension of a Finite Mind we may rest satisfied with an imperfect Idea even tho' it be no more than what is needful to point out to us what God intends by it and then surrender our Judgments to His Infinite Veracity for the rest A considerable Instance of Obedience even the Obedience of Faith as well as Adoration After this he presents us with the Opinions of some particular Persons or at least the Fictions of his own Brain concerning the Authority of Fathers Councels and Scripture and the Rules of interpreting it But I 'm concern'd to assign what Deference is to be paid to Fathers or Councels or what Rules to be observ'd in interpreting Scripture till he thinks fit to charge our Constitution with Error in these matters This is foreign to the Argument we are now engag'd in The next thing he presents us with is Two Opinions of nameless Parties concerning the Use of Reason in Religion and the Sence of Scripture and at last makes all sides that differ from his Notions joyn in this Position for I can put no other gloss on his words when he affirms That both from different Principles agree That several Doctrines of the New Testament belong no further to the Enquiries of Reason than to prove them Divinely reveal'd and that they are properly Mysteries still Ib. N. 6. That there are Doctrines in the New Testament that may be properly call'd Mysteries still I do not question but I can evince in the Sequel of this Tract But I cannot find where the Church of England has declar'd herself That Reason hath nothing to do with some Reveal'd Doctrines but only to prove them divinely reveal'd for certainly Faith it self is a rational Assent to a Divine Truth and Reason will not only be concern'd to enquire and prove whether God hath deliver'd it but to form some Idea tho' an imperfect one of the Nature of this Truth at least such an Idea as will convince us what it is God proposes to our Belief Else we assent to we know not what But after the utmost Researches of Reason our very Reason may inform us that there may be a great deal in this Truth or Doctrine with respect to the Nature or Modes of the thing which She can by no means comprehend and consequently may still be justly accounted a Mystery And now we come to his own Positions On the contrary we hold That nothing reveal'd whether as to its manner or existence is more exempted from its Disquisitions than the ordinary Phoenomena of Nature and that there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to Reason nor above it and that no Christian Doctrine can be properly called a MYSTERY This he proposes as the State of the Question agreeable to the Title of his Book and consequently all that follows is only a confirmation or making good of this Position I must confess I should be so fair to him as to wait his Arguments but because nothing shall stick upon the Reader I shall make something of a return to such Decretory Assertions in the order we find them And First this great Reasoner seems to play the Sophister and express himself in a very ambiguous manner He tells us That no Reveal'd Truth is exempted from the Disquisitions of Reason And truly if he intends no more than that the sublimest Reveal'd Truths may be examin'd by Reason as far as she is able to comprehend them we shall entirely joyn with him for Revelation is thus far an Address to the Reason of Mankind and she may lawfully endeavour to discover and conceive as much of their manner and existence as possible Provided she does not reject what she cannot comprehend and that too upon this very Argument Because she cannot comprehend the whole Manner and Existence of them Thus far Reason may be concern'd and yet Reveal'd Truths may be justly said to be above Reason and mysterious and consequently his Positions do by no means answer his Design which is to prove That Nothing is mysterious or above Reason But if he intends that Matters of Revelation both with respect to their Manner and Existence may be scann'd and comprehended by Reason as easily as the Phoenomena of Nature this we utterly deny and with very good reason too 1st Because there 's no connexion in the Consequence the Phoenomena of Nature are often Objects of Sence and of a finite nature But there are reveal'd matters that are in their very frame
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
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
hence I pass to N. 9. for nothing intervenes that directly concerns the present Controversie or at least has not had a Reply to it And here I cannot joyn with him when he affirms That a seeming Contradiction even in Matters of Revelation is to us as much as a real one for I think the Difference is palpable in all cases but especially in Contradictions upon the Nature of Things for We call that a seeming Contradiction when there 's a Repugnancy discovers itself but we have not a clear and perfect Conviction of it And I suppose this must arise for want of a clear and perfect Idea of each Term or rather Object of the Contradiction and till this is gain'd Reason must suspend and neither determine that she is in the right or wrong till fresh Evidence offers to turn the Scale But now a real Contradiction or rather a clear Contradiction for it should pass under this Name with respect to our knowledg of it is When we have a clear and unquestionable Idea of both parts of it or both Objects and thence conceive an irreconcilable Repugnancy But now in matters of pure Revelation whose Nature is spiritual and infinite I cannot see how Reason can direct us to pronounce or determine real or clear Contradictions between them and Common Notions because we cannot pretend to an adequate or clear Idea I mean that which is comparatively so with respect to those of Objects of Sence and consequently cannot decree what real Repugnancy lies between them And therefore if seeming Contradictions or Difficulties arise by comparing reveal'd Truths with common Ideas or Notions Reason cannot as this Author would have it pronounce a real Contradiction and suspect there can be no reveal'd Truth especially when there are the clearest Characters of the thing corresponding with Ideas of the same nature Here Reason must oblige us to place the Contradictions on our Inabilities in comprehending Matters of this nature and yield an Assent upon the Authority of Infinite Power and Veracity For when Revelation has set forth the thing in the clearest Characters and the very same in which the fundamental Article of all Revelation is represented to us I mean that of the Godhead if seeming Contradictions must be suffer'd to discard it it 's impossible we can yield any Assent to the Being of a GOD for where the Characters are as clear for one as the other and both rest on the same Authority that of Revelations to dispute the one must call in question the other Proceed we in the next place to consider what is deliver'd on the Authority of Revelation he means that which is Divine Cap. 2. N. 11. And here I cannot be reconcil'd to the Distinction he gives us Revelation is not a necessitating Motive of Assent but a Mean of Information Now truly I can see no Absurdity in saying That the same thing may be a Mean of Information and a Motive of an Assent too for an Information carries an Assent along with it proportionable to the Credit or Authority of the Informer Now Revelation is certainly a Mean of Information since it presents us with new Objects which Natural Reason could never discover But besides this it is an Information that proceeds from Infinite Veracity attended with Infinite Power Wisdom and Goodness Herein it 's distinguish'd from Human Revelation And therefore when once we are assur'd so as to yield a firm Assent that such a particular Article is reveal'd it becomes the most necessitating Motive of Assent I mean to the Truth of it because this being granted here 's Infinite Veracity Wisdom Power and Goodness against our Imperfect Conceptions and the seeming Difficulties founded in ' em When once we assent or yield it to be Divine Revelation I think we may safely affirm against this Reasoner We may believe purely upon his Word without Evidence at least such as he requires in the things ' emselves Here the Authority of him that speaks not my Conception of the thing or what he says is the Ground of my Perswasion But to proceed as for what this Reasoner says of GOD's Omnipotence and Contradictions N. 13. no one is so silly to imagine that real Contradictions are an Object of Omnipotence but there may be Contradictions which we apprehend as real that in truth are but seeming ones and particularly when we cannot fully comprehend the nature of both the Terms or Objects and it 's already concluded that in matters of Revelation Reason will often direct us to suspect our Judgments and esteem 'em as such And then I hope there 's no Absurdity in Pronouncing seeming Contradictions and Impossibilities a proper Subject of God's Omnipotence Thus far our Saviour will bear us out for all things are possible with God Matt. xix 26. But to pursue him a little further he tells us N. 16. speaking of GOD's Revelations His Words must be intelligible and the Matter possible And as for unintelligible Relations we can no more believe them from the Revelation of GOD than from that of Man for the conceiv'd Ideas of Things are the only Subjects of believing and therefore all Matters reveal'd by GOD or Man must be equally intelligible and possible We are then to expect the same degree of Perspicuity he means with respect to the knowledge of the Object from GOD as from Man tho' more of Certitude from the first than the last he means with respect to the Veracity of the Publisher Answ. What has already been deliver'd upon Matters of Revelation I hope will satisfie any reasonable Man how far a reveal'd Truth is requir'd to be intelligible It 's concluded GOD has discover'd so much of the Nature of reveal'd Truths as is useful or necessary and consequently He has at least discover'd so much as is sufficient to inform us upon Principles of Revelation what He proposes to our Belief but He did not intend to make us Philosophers so as to enable us to comprehend the Modus of reveal'd Truths or form an Idea of the Manner of Existence in order to believe the Truth of ' em This we cannot pretend even in Physical Disquisitions nay I think it 's justly concluded that in Matters of Revelation which are for the most part Spiritual and Infinite we are not to dispute the Possibility of their Existence by measuring 'em by Objects of Sence for in reality this is the same with comprehending the Modus of their Existence since we cannot absolutely declare against the Possibility of their Existence without a Faculty of comprehending and determining the Modus of it and passing an Estimate upon it as absurd and impossible And therefore we say That Matters of Revelation are to be understood so far as to conceive what GOD proposes to our Belief but not to comprehend the Modus of their Existence such Ideas are not the necessary Subjects of Faith Again In Humane Revelation the Object is Matters of Fact and thing we attain to by the Testimony of our
'em which we cannot comprehend and consequently are mysterious and above Reason whether Scripture deliver 'em under these Denominations or no. This may be true tho' the Word Mystery were no where to be found in Scripture or tho' Scripture had not so much as hinted that there were any thing mysterious or incomprehensible If this can be proved our Adversary must acknowledge that there are Mysteries in Christianity still The Instances of our Saviour's Incarnation already produced move upon this Supposition and I shall be ready to prove it whenever he shall think fit to impugn the Truth of it But besides this I shall in some measure condescend to his own Method and tho' I shall not Examine every Passage of Scripture to see whether he has rightly stated the Signification of the Word yet I do not question but we may offer as strong Arguments to apply it sometimes to the Sence we contend for as he hath done for another and besides this I hope to produce some Passages of Scripture that assure us there are still those things in Christianity we properly call Mysteries and if this be performed I hope it may without Affectation be said that his Appeal to the Tribunal of Scripture is defeated And 1st because I do not design Opposition or Disputes for Opposition's sake I shall own that the Word MYSTERY is used in the several Sences he hath put upon it I. For the Gospel in general II. For some unfolded Secrets And III. For things veil'd by Parables but this is by no means an Argument that there is no other signification to be found in Scripture for I am perswaded I can prove the contrary with as much Authority and Force of Reason as he can produce against it I mean that it 's sometimes used to express the Incomprehensibleness of certain Truths tho' reveal'd And 1. That Mystery must imply something that is in the Nature of it to us incomprehensible St. Paul seems to have assured us But we speak the Wisdom of God in a Mystery even the hidden Wisdom of God 1 Cor. 2. 7. All sides agree that the Apostle points at the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith and particularly the Redemption of the World by Jesus Christ and more primarily the most abstruse part of it his Incarnation 2. It 's visible the Apostle speaks of it as a Mystery even when he reveals it for he reveals the Wisdom of God in a Mystery He now speaks to the Perfect that had own'd the Gospel and the Divine Authority of his Preaching as appears from the preceding Verse and it 's their peculiar to have the Meat of the Word or the Mysteries of the Kingdom of GOD communicated to 'em and therefore tho' this Wisdom of GOD be a Mystery and consequently he delivers it as such yet the Perfect believe when they cannot comprehend because it is the Wisdom of GOD I am sure this Notion is agreeable to the Judgment of Clemens Alexandrinus for he uses the very Word of the Apostle and calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nay he makes this an Argument why the Fundamental Truths of the Gospel should only be communicated to the Pure and Perfect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. ut supra Strom. Lib. 1. And therefore since the Apostle reveals it in a Mystery it must be so because it contains something in it that is incomprehensible Hence we may justly Vindicate our English Translation which does not joyn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as our Adversary would have it but makes it a Repetition or Enlargement upon the Divine Wisdom viz. even the Hidden Wisdom It 's true our Adversary endeavours to evade this Exposition because we are told in the 10th Verse But God hath revealed them to us by his Spirit But the Words manifestly referr to those Things which in the preceding Verse God is said to have prepared for them that love him which are chiefly the Benefits of our Redemption and the Consequent of this fundamental Revelation or at least if it must be this fundamental Instance of Divine Wisdom it is only reveal'd so as to let us know what God intends by it and assures us of the Truth of it but not to comprehend the whole Nature of it or in a word it is so reveal'd as any other thing is reveal'd in a Mystery that is when something remains in it that is not to be comprehended so that in Truth here 's Mystery in two Sences 1st With respect to the Incomprehensibleness of the Thing And 2dly With respect to the Thing before it was communicated to us And thus far not only the Natural Construction of the Words but the Authority of a Learned Expositor carries us Vid. Theophilact in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Secondly I shall insist on that noble Passage of St. Paul to Timothy Ep. 1. Cap. 3. Ver. 10. And without Controversie great is the Mystery of Godliness God was manifested in the Flesh justified in the Spirit seen of Angels preached unto the Gentiles believed on in the World received up into Glory It 's observable our Adversary expounds as accurately as he reasons for he produces this for his eighth Passage where Mystery is put for the Gospel in general whereas it 's manifest the Words cannot without the greatest Violence be applyed to any thing but a Divine Person represented under certain Divine Characters and indeed to none but our Saviour the Corner-Stone of the Gospel but not the Gospel for truly the Apostle seems in this place to have given a description of his whole Mediation I am sure the Current of the Fathers as well as of after Commentators apply it to none but our Saviour But now since our Saviour's Incarnation is this Mystery of Godliness it 's evident the Apostle does not speak of what it was before it was reveal'd but what it is after it is preached and believed on in the World and therefore he calls it a Mystery not because it was so before it was reveal'd but because it still remains so and thereupon he endeavours to represent it as such by inlarging upon the Nature and Incomprehensibleness of it God was manifest in Flesh the Foundation of this Mystery the following Characters being only their Appendages that take their rise and concenter in it This is an Exposition that discovers itself so clearly that we find our Adversary industriously huddling up this Passage as it were in a Mystery without giving any tolerable account of it and at last is forced to confess That the gracious Manifestation of Christ and his Gospel is to us wonderfully stupendous and surprizing N. 30. So that we plainly read Mystery in the very Sence we contend for I am sure we have the Opinion of some Ancient Church-Writers to ratifie it Of this Opinion we find Athanasius in his Tract against Paulus Samosatenus de Incarnatione Verbi where he gives his Judgment è Cathedra as Archbishop of Alexandria for first he lays open the
as the Objects of it are Matters of Revelation but as they contain Things that are incomprehensible and yet it yields an Assent upon the Infinite Veracity of the Word of GOD I 'm sure this Great Man has dropt such unlucky Words against our Adversary's Principles or his Methods of Examining Divine Truths as if he were risen from the Dead and were preparing to accuse him of Heresie or some sly Maxims that look that way I should therefore advise him to weigh the Opinion of so Great a Person before he advances too far and yet when I consider what severe Censures he has past upon the Writers of this Age I despair of Success in giving Advice in this kind for I cannot think he 'll ever be perswaded to take his Measures of Faith from an Age or any Writer in it when he makes 'em as it were to have entred into a League to turn all Religion into Mystery and this another to be Name for Imposture or Priestcraft If this be true to be instructed by such a Race of Men is in plain English to take up one's Faith from those that have fallen away from the Faith but of this I shall say more in the last Chapter To return then It 's now abundantly evident that the Notion of Faith which we now contend for is not a Thing contrived to advance a particular Hypothesis or serve a particular Design but by no means such a one as he suggests viz. To stop the Mouths of such as demand a Reason where none can be given and to keep as many in Ignorance as Interest shall think convenient See N. 48. But I hope an Impartial Reader will find it establish'd upon a good Foundation or in a word upon such Reasons as he is not able to subvert or remove beside if it be a Contrivance we have this Apology that it is not a late Forgery since we have traced it almost as far as any Ecclesiastical Records besides those of Scripture admit of and this is a considerable Presumption of the Injustice of such foul-mouthed Aspersions 'till he gives us a better Set of Arguments to remove it which is the next Thing that should be examined but truly there appears so little in 'em that I think they scarce deserve a distinct Examination The First is If Faith were not a Perswasion resulting from the previous Knowledge and Comprehension of the Thing believed there could be no Degrees nor Differences of it Now First It 's manifest the Argument is advanced on a false Supposition and that which runs thro' all his Observations viz. That we deny all Degrees of a previous Knowledge of the Object whereas we say there must be at least such a previous knowledge of the Object as instructs us what it is GOD proposes to our Belief but there 's no necessity of Comprehending the Absolute Nature of the Thing so as to be able to give a Rationale of every Thing that really belongs to it and that too by trying it by common Notions And moreover we say the different Degrees of Faith do by no means rise from such a Comprehensive Knowledge No when once we know what GOD proposes to our Belief the Degrees of Faith arise from the Application of GOD's Veracity to our Minds and Consciences if the Mind is possessed with a deep Sence of it as to engage us to place an absolute Confidence in it tho' we cannot form a Rationale of the Thing yet we may embrace it with the highest Degrees of Faith I 'm sure this is the Doctrine which this Man of Reason might have learn'd from S. Paul in the Case of Abraham Who against Hope believed in Hope and being not weak in Faith he considered not his own Body now dead nor yet the Deadness of Sarah's Womb he staggered not at the Promise thro' Vnbelief but was strong in Faith giving Glory to GOD and being fully perswaded that what he had promised he was also able to perform and therefore it was imputed to him for Righteousness Rom. iv 18 19 20 21. 2d Arg. The Subject of Faith must be intelligible to all since the Belief thereof is commanded under no less a Penalty than Damnation As for the Intelligibleness of Objects of Faith I have already stated how far that is necessary but with Submission I think the Sin and Damnation of Unbelief arises not because GOD has furnish'd us with a perfect Rationale of the Nature of every Object of Faith and we reject it but because he hath furnish'd us with Means sufficient to know what he hath proposed to our Belief and to know that he hath proposed them and we will fully reject 'em and consequently what he proposes but more especially because he hath asserted the Truth of 'em by the highest Demonstrations of the Spirit in mighty Signs and Wonders This was the Case of the Iews but now ye say Ye see therefore your Sin remaineth 4th Arg. Except Faith signifies an Intelligible Perswasion we cannot give others a Reason of the Hope that is in us The Inference is apparently false for we certainly give a Reason and that too according to the Mind of St. Peter of any Article of Faith when we prove that it is Revealed by GOD and that we yield an Assent to the Truth of it tho' we cannot remove every Difficulty that may arise from it upon the Authority of Infinite Veracity As for his Third and Fifth Observations I shall Appeal to any unprejudiced Reader whether there 's any thing in 'em that deserves a particular Reply more than in those Objections he first framed and then answered For as the former prove nothing against the Incomprehensibleness of Matters of Faith so the latter were never advanced to prove the Necessity of admitting such Objects of Faith Upon the whole then I think it appears there are Matters of Faith that contain Things in 'em which are Incomprehensible and yet Faith yields an Assent upon the Authority of Infinite Veracity and consequently it 's an uncontroulable Argument there are Mysteries in the Christian Religion The next thing to be considered is his Reply to the Argument of Miracles Cap. 5. Sect. 3. And First he entertains you with the Nature of a Miracle And as for the Description he gives us I find in the Main no Reason to except against it after this he guards it with some Limitations The First of which is That a Miracle is not to be admitted contrary to Reason I suppose he means contrary to common Notions or those Idea's which Reason has formed from Sence Experience or Instruction And no doubt this is a very just Limitation For a Miracle is performed upon Objects of Sense and 't is an Address to our Senses or a Demonstration accommodated to the outward Senses by some sensible Effects or Operations and consequently nothing is to be admitted as a Miracle that contradicts the Testimony of the Senses and we are at least so far Judges of its possibility
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