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
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-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
'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
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
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
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
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
or Disputers of this World the Socinians But to proceed the next thing remarkable is a compendious Rule to acquire Useful Knowledge N. 11. viz. Not to trouble ourselves nor others with what is Vseless were it known or what is impossible to be known at all Whereas in the Paragraph immediately preceeding he seems to charge us with saying That Things are above Reason because we know no more than concerns us or is useful And yet allowing this Notion he tells us that it is ridiculous to supersede our Disquisitions about it upon that Score that is according to his own Notion tho' we know as much of it as concerns us or is useful A bless'd Law-giver truly to institute Contradictions almost with the same Breath for I think he cannot avoid the Charge without flying to that which is as abominable in his very Thoughts as this reproachful to his Reason I mean by Pleading he intended a Mystery And now having given you enough of the Doctrinal part he carries us to Application but truly I hope I have disabled him so visibly in the former as supersedes the Necessity of a formal Reply to the latter I shall only recite the Application he has made and rather refer than answer 1st That no Christian Doctrin no more than any ordinary piece of Nature can be reputed a Mystery because we have not an adequate or compleat Idea of whatever belongs to it As for what may be attributed to inadequate Ideas I have said enough in this Chapter and tho' we may not say That the want of an adequate Idea is the formalis ratio that constitutes a Mystery yet our Inabilities in comprehending some things that are really lodg'd in it or really belong to it makes it a Mystery and as is already prov'd with as good reason as those things he counts mysterious viz. Intelligible Truths beyond the Veil 2dly What is reveal'd in Religion as it is most useful and necessary so it must and may be as easily comprehended and found as consistent with our common Notions as what we know of Wood or Stone or the like We certainly agree That GOD hath only reveal'd as much as is necessary or useful and in matters of pure Revelation no more than will give us an Idea of the Thing or what it is GOD proposes to our Belief and therefore make this an Argument that there are Things that belong to it of which we cannot form a distinct Idea and consequently from hence give it the Denomination of being Mysterious Now as for the mysterious part of any reveal'd Truth we affirm That it exceeds our Comprehension otherwise the Mystery must cease But as it exceeds our Comprehension so we say it is not necessary to be comprehended much less do we allow that it may be comprehended by common Ideas or Notions or scann'd by those Ideas So as that in case it doth not correspond with 'em we cannot call in question the Truth of what is reveal'd and comprehended No here in case Curiosity tempts us to dive into the mysterious part of any reveal'd Truth and upon the closest Researches we find ourselves unable to comprehend We are to adhere to the Substance of the Truth where we cannot comprehend the Modus of it or in other Terms adore where we cannot comprehend But as to our comprehending by common Notions or as easily as we can comprehend Wood or Stone or the like I observe 1st This Gentleman makes all Objects of Humane Knowledge equally comprehensible And 2dly That we may take our Measures for comprehending any one by those Idea's we have formed of others but I have elsewhere sufficiently discovered the Falseness of both these Assertions and there I shall not enlarge but rest upon the Conclusiveness of what hath been offered 3dly When we do as familiarly explain such Doctrines as what is known of Natural Things which I pretend we can we may then be as properly said to comprehend the one as the other This is a very bold Undertaking and not to be believed 'till he gives us good Reason and nothing less than Matter of Fact for Demonstration especially if he intends that part of those Doctrines we justly call mysterious But then in using this Familiarity We must engage him not to explain away the Substance of any Doctrine nor to reject the Doctrine if he fails in his Explication And now we come to attack him in his Strong-hold that is his Appeal to the Voice of Scripture And truly Scripture is an unquestionable Tribunal for the Decision of all Controversies in Matters of Revelation and as to their present Controversies as far as Scripture can determine every one may desire to put the Case on this Issue and Appeal to this Tribunal as well as he provided he is satisfied Scripture is on his side and he may with greater satisfaction be reputed Orthodox with this on his side than to pass for Orthodox with the whole World and have it against him But then in case he either mistakes the Sence of Scripture or has recourse to it to make it come up to the State of his Case and prove more than what can be inferr'd from it it 's very bold to say that Scripture has engaged him in this Error if it be one Here I 'm sure Scripture will be no Protection to him against a just Charge of Error because he makes an Appeal to her and retreats under her Wing for Shelter when in reality he charges his own false Reasonings or the Arguments of some particular Passions not to say unjust Propositions on Scripture as if all were the unerring Counsels and Dictates of Divine Truth And truly this Reasoner does little less when he attempts to prove that there are no Mysteries in Christianity because he endeavours to shew that the word Mystery in the New Testament is no where applied to the Thing we contend for viz. a Thing that with respect to Humane Reason contains something in it altogether incomprehensible For is it not absurd to argue against a Thing from the signification of a Word which might never have been used in Scripture and yet the Thing found there and tho' it is used yet our Author pursuant to the Mind of Scripture fixes Three several Significations on it and consequently it can be no Argument that it hath not a Fourth because it does not appear in Scripture unless he could prove that the Holy Ghost thought it necessary to reveal all the Notions or Acceptations of the word Mystery therefore if this Advocate for Reason allows the whole Case as he pretends to be put upon this Issue it will presently be given against him for want of a good Consequence So that in truth if the Controversie is to be determined by Scripture as no doubt it ought it must unavoidably turn upon this issue Whether there are not Truths set forth in Scripture in which if we enquire into the Nature of 'em a great deal is contain'd in
above Reason And therefore if this Reverend Father is not mistaken in the purport of the Holy Ghost as we have good Reason to conclude he is not the New Testament does contain the Thing if not the Word we contend for I mean proposes to our Belief Things that are Incomprehensible or above the Comprehension of Human Reason The last Argument I shall produce is two or three Passages of Scripture which because they bear an Affinity to one another I shall examine and conclude them under one Argument I begin with St. Paul's account of Humane Knowledge even under this last State of Revelation for he includes himself and the whole College of Apostles who undoubtedly enjoyed the Special Assistance of the Spirit of God nay St. Paul had been caught up into the Third Heaven where he was almost overwhelm'd with abundance of Revelations 2 Cor. 12. And yet he tells us We know but in part and we Prophesie in part 1 Cor. Cap. 13. ver 9. and the Reason assigned is We see through a Glass darkly ver 12. so that the Impediment seems to lie upon the Mind or the Immenseness of the Object not in God that denies us a competent Revelation for this is the last Revelation of himself and therefore this Glass argues an Imperfection or Inability in comprehending some of those Truths that are revealed but if this Glass be a Veil which God casts before our Eyes like that upon the Iews in as much as he does not impart in this Life a clear Discovery of certain Gospel-Truths then according to the Mind of our Author there are still Mysteries in the Gospel in the highest Sence but truly St. Clemens fixes it upon the Imperfections of Humane Knowledge since he represents the Mind in this Earthly Tabernacle as viewing Things through Sences after a gross corporeal manner whereas in another World our Knowledge will be highly enlarged for then it will be Face to Face or as he expresses it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is by a pure and naked Application of the Mind or Intuition Again it 's manifest the Object of this Imperfect Knowledge is the deep things of GOD or in plain terms the fundamental Revelations of the Gospel for the Apostle must at least comprehend if not principally intend them when he tells us And we Prophesie but in part that is those Truths we publish to the World are only reveal'd in part since we can only pretend to know or comprehend them in part And truly St. Clement asserts as much of St. Paul himself notwithstanding his abundance of Revelations for thus on his words 2 Cor. xii 4. where no doubt he receiv'd the chiefest Instructions of his Apostolick Office He was caught up into Paradise and heard unspeakable words which it is not lawful for Man to utter he observes that there was no Law nor Precept given that obliged him to stifle any of those Christian Truths GOD had committed to him so that in saying it is not lawful he intended to represent the Ineffability of the Divine Nature or the things of GOD 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And to confirm this Notion he cites three Passages that represent the Incomprehensibleness of the Divine Nature Rom. xi 33. Oh! the depth of the Riches both of the Wisdom and Knowledge of God! And again But we speak the Wisdom of God in a Mystery That is even when we speak it else it proves nothing in this place 1 Cor. ii 7. And lastly Colos. ii Ver. 23. To the Acknowledgment of the Mystery of God in Christ as you have it in the Ancient Readings in whom are hidden all the Treasures of Wisdom or Knowledge This is a very remarkable Passage and therefore I must beg leave to enlarge upon it As for the Sence of St. Clement it 's visible he looks upon it to be a Mystery tho' reveal'd and acknowledg'd and to be a Mystery because it contains something in it which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for otherwise it can be no Argument to prove what he had just before asserted Indeed our Adversary thinks he has evaded the Force of this Exposition by telling us without any tolerable Proof That the Words are to be understood of the Gospel of CHRIST but if it be the Gospel of CHRIST it may be stiled a MYSTERY in respect of its Fundamental Truths inasmuch as they contain in 'em something that 's hidden or mysterious for thus much the following Verse apparently hints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. in which if this Exposition obtains are hidden 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It 's manifest the Apostle speaks of it as reveal'd nay as it is when acknowledg'd and embrac'd and yet there is something hidden or mysterious Thus we may conclude against our Reasoner that Mystery may be put for the Gospel and yet call'd so because it contains certain Truths whose Nature cannot be fully comprehended or certain Truths that contain something in 'em that to us is incomprehensible But yet for all his majesterial decisive way of expounding Scripture I think the words more naturally point at the Mystery of our Redemption in the Incarnation of the Son of GOD especially if we add hereto the ancient Reading used by these Fathers St. Austin and St. Ambrose to the Acknowledgment of the Mystery not Knowledge of Mystery as this vain Disputer of this World would have it of GOD in CHRIST for 1st 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which immediately follows must more naturally be apply'd to Christ not to Mystery agreeable to our Translation In whom all the Treasures c. This is agreeable to the Sentiments of Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Hierom. Hom. 8. pag. 99. 2dly If the Gospel of Christ and not Christ himself was intended it would be improper to say that the Treasures of Wisdom are hid in it being a reveal'd Institution Therefore we may justly conclude pursuant to the Mind of St. Clement That the Incarnation of our Redeemer the Foundation of our Redemption and Fountain whence all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge derive is the Mystery of GOD in Christ which is to be acknowledg'd not unravel'd or fully comprehended for since it is expresly propos'd as a Mystery and remains one when embrac'd or acknowledg'd it must be so because it carries in it something that is hidden or incomprehensible Indeed Origen manifestly joyns in this Notion for in his Comment on Matt. xiii 44. he makes the Field to be the Holy Scriptures that set forth all the Means of Salvation with the greatest clearness but the Treasure to be CHRIST because in Him all the Depths of Wisdom are hid in Him in a Mystery citing this very Passage of St. Paul by way of Proof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissertis verbis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And now give me leave to make an Appeal as he does to all Equitable Persons N. 35. Whether by as good Reason and Authority it does not appear That
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
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
it be more made up of Impotent Malice or Illogical Conclusions is disputable and therefore I think myself happy to arrive at his Conclusion and more happy that I find little in it that either deserves or can justly provoke a Reply for I find him either bantering the World with his own Objections and Answers which if placed in the Ballance will not weigh a Grain to effect the Merits of the Cause either way or giving 'em an account of his next Undertakings tho' in his last Edition he 's so prudent to add a Reserve that I 'm much afraid will baulk the Expectation of the Thing for he let 's us know he 'll take his own time for it as a thing not in the Command of any Mortal and I 'm perswaded he 'll prove the Maxim by experimental Demonstration for I believe want of Health or Business or something else will make it a good while before he puts his finishing hand to his new intended System of Divinity One or two things however I cannot but remark before I take a final leave And First After all this Argument the Reader may imagine that the Difference between us is not considerable for he allows That we cannot pretend to an Adequate Knowledge of Things and we say That Divine Truths are chiefly Mysterious in respect of the Modus of 'em and as it 's impossible to comprehend the Mysterious part of 'em so we grant it 's not necessary to be known or comprehended But yet for all this the Difference is very considerable for this Gentleman peremptorily affirms That the Modus of all Revealed Truths is explicable see Num. 77. Sect. 3. And in the Conclusion he tells us If his Hypothesis stands good Whatever Instance can be alledged he means in contradiction to it must either be found not Mysterious or if it prove a Mystery not Divinely revealed so that he has formed a most Compendious Rule for discarding the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity if any be proposed whose Modus he cannot comprehend and that too by common Ideas or Notions his Hypothesis directs That they are to be rejected as not Divinely revealed Indeed whosoever surveys his Hypothesis may at the first glance discern this to be the Design though he had not blabed out the Secret in the close of it and certainly the Design is so pernicious and tho' formed on a weak Hypothesis liable to influence an unwary Reader and cheat him out of the main of his Creed that I wonder this Gentleman has escaped so long without being chastised by some Pen more accurate than I can pretend to The Second thing I shall take notice of is The Provisions he has made against an Answer for he tells us That no particular Instances or Doctrines of any sort can serve for a proper Answer to this Discourse This is pretty well truly He has been very Majesterial in advancing his own Positions and will he be as absolute in prescribing to his Answerers As if nothing must pass for an Answer that is not formed by his Model or has not received his Imprimatur As for the force of Instances it 's very well known that an opposite Instance is perfect Demonstration against a peremptory and universal Position in an Adversary and the force of Positions Arguments or Notions that exist in Theory or Universals are best illustrated and imprinted by Instances I 'm sure he proceeds by these Measures in all his Reasonings and will he debar others of those Priviledges he allows himself This is to make himself the absolute Sovereign of Reason and Argument as if the rest of Mankind had no Right to use any more of either but what he cantons out by his own Weights and Measures But he tells us Instances can be no Answer to his Discourse As long as the Reasons of it hold good Very true for if the Reasons hold good the Instances alledg'd against 'em must be impertinent or incompetent But the Instances I have produced are levell'd against his Reasons and Positions too and I hope they sufficiently destroy both and then the Method of Answering will justifie itself without his License or Approbation In a word as for this Answer I offer it to every candid impartial Reader with Deference and Submission who I question not will pass over some little Slips or Blots that may arise thro' heat of Argument if the main Lines are correct and clear And as for this Gentleman or his Zealous Admirers I tender the Substance or principal Parts of it to be treated as he has peremptorily resolved at the foot of his Discourse I mean give it no more Quarter than he will to Error but according to his utmost Abilities and Opportunities expose it in its true Colours that he may not be charg'd as an Accessary against himself in rendring his own Labours ineffectual by weakly mincing or softening of any thing FINIS Lock 's Human Vnderst lib. 4. cap. 3. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strom. lib. 5. N. 7. Sect. II. Sect. III. Sect. 8. * See Sect. 3. N. 10. * See N. 5. Sect. 3. * See N. 12. Sect. 3. * See Cap. 3. Sect. 3. * See p. 46 48.