Examination of them I. Which is most agreeable to the Revealed Will of God II. Which doth offer fairest for the Benefit and Advantage of Mankind I. Which is most agreeable to the revealed Will of God For that we are sure is the most faithfull saying since Men of Wit and Reason may deceive us but God cannot When the Apostles first preached this Doctrine to the World they were not bound to believe what they affirmed to be a faithfull saying till they gave sufficient Evidence of their Authority from God by the wonderfull Assistance of the Holy Ghost But now this faithfull saying is contained in the Books of the New Testament by which we are to judge of the Truth of all Christian Doctrines And when two different Senses of Places of Scripture are offer'd we are to consider which is most Reasonable to be preferr'd And herein we are allow'd to Exercise our Reason as much as we please and the more we do so the sooner we shall come to Satisfaction in this matter Now according to Reason we may judge that Sense to be preferr'd 1. Which is most plain and easie and agreeable to the most receiv'd Sense of Words not that which is forced and intricate or which puts improper and metaphorical Senses upon Words which are commonly taken in other Senses especially when it is no Sacramental thing which in its own Nature is Figurative 2. That which suits most with the Scope and Design not only of the particular Places but of the whole New Testament which is to magnifie God and to depress Man to set forth the Infinite Love and Condescension of God in giving his Son to be a Propitiation for our Sins to set up the Worship of one true God in Opposition to Creatures to Represent and Declare the mighty Advantages Mankind receive by the Sufferings of Christ Iesus 3. That which hath been generally receiv'd in the Christian Church to be the Sense of those places For we are certain this was always look'd on as a matter of great Concernment to all Christians and they had as great Capacity of understanding the Sense of the Apostles and the Primitive Church had greater Helps for knowing it than others at so much greater Distance And therefore the Sense is not to be taken from modern Inventions or Criticisms or pretences to Revelation but that which was at first deliver'd to the Christian Church and hath been since received and embraced by it in the several Ages and hath been most strenuously asserted when it hath met with Opposition as founded on Scripture and the general Consent of the Christian Church 4. That which best agrees with the Characters of those Persons from whom we recive the Christian Faith and those are Christ Iesus and his holy Apostles For if their Authority be lost our Religion is gone and their Authority depends upon their Sincerity and Faithfulness and Care to inform the World aright in matters of so great Importance 1. I begin with the Character which the Apostles give of Christ Iesus himself which is that he was a Person of the greatest Humility and Condescension that he did not assume to himself that which he might justly have done For let the Words of S. Paul be understood either as to the Nature or Dignity of Christ it is certain that they must imply thus much that when Christ Iesus was here on Earth he was not of a vain assuming humour that he did not boast of himself nor magnifie his own Greatness but was contented to be look'd on as other Men although he had at that time far greater and Diviner Excellency in him than the World would believe Less than this cannot be made of those Words of the Apostle Who being in the form of God he thought it not robbery to be equal with God but made himself of no Reputation and took upon him the form of a Servant Now this being the Character given of him let us consider what he doth affirm concerning himself For although he was far from drawing the People after him by setting forth his own Perfections yet upon just Occasions when the Iews contested with him he did Assert such things which must savour of Vanity and Ostentation or else must imply that he was the Eternal Son of God For all Mankind are agreed that the highest degree of Ambition lies in Affecting Divine Honour or for a meer Man to be thought a God How severely did God punish Herod for being pleased with the Peoples folly in crying out the Voice of God and not of Man And therefore he could never have born with such positive Assertions and such repeated Defences of his being the Son of God in such a manner as implied his being so from Eternity This in his Disputes with the Iews he affirms several times that he came down from Heaven not in a Metaphorical but in a proper Sense as appears by those words What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before In another Conference he asserted that he was before Abraham Which the Iews so literally understood that without a Metaphor they went about to stone him little imagining that by Abraham the calling of the Gentiles was to be understood But above all is that Expression which he used to the Iews at another Conference I and my Father are one which they understood in such a manner that immediately they took up stones to have stoned him What means all this Rage of the Iews against him What for saying that he had Vnity of Consent with his Father No certainly But the Iews misunderstood him Let us suppose it would not our Saviour have immediately explained himself to prevent so dangerous a Misconstruction But he asked them what it was they stoned him for They answer him directly and plainly because that thou being a man makest thy self God This was home to the purpose And here was the time for him to have denied it if it had not been so But doth he deny it Doth he say it would be Blasphemy in him to own it No but he goes about to defend it and proves it to be no Blasphemy for him to say that he was the Son of God i. e. so as to be God as the Iews understood it Can we imagine that a meer Man knowing himself to be such should Assume this to himself and yet God to bear witness to him not only by Miracles but by a Voice from Heaven wherein he was called his beloved Son in whom he was well pleased Could God be pleased with a mortal finite despicable Creature as the Iews thought him that assumed to himself to be God and maintained and defended it among his own People in a solemn Conference at a very Publick Place in one of the Portico's of the Temple And this he persisted in to the last For when the High Priest adjured him by the living God to tell whether he
take our Nature upon him than that a man should be rapt up into Heaven that it might be said that he came down from thence For in the foâ—mer Supposition we have many other places of Scripture to support it which speak of his being with God and having Glory with him before the World was whereas there is nothing for the other but only that it is necessary to make some tolerable Sense of those words 4. It is more Reasonable to believe that God should become Man by taking our Nâ—ture upon him than that Man should become God For in the former there is nothing but the Difficulty of conceiving the Maâ—â—â—r of the Union which we all grant to be so between Soul and Body but in the other there is a Repugnancy in the very Conception of a Created God of an Eternal Son of Adam of Omnipotent Infirmity of an Infinite finite Being In the former Case an Infinite is united to a Finite but in the other a Finite becomes Infinite 5. It is more Reasonable to believe that Christ Iesus should suffer as he did for our sakes than for his own We are all agreed that the Sufferings of Christ were far beyond any thing he deserved at God's hands but what Account then is to be given of them We say that he made himself a voluntary Sacrifice for Expiation of the Sins of Mankind and so there was a great and noble End designed and no Injury done to a willing Mind and the Scripture as plainly expresses this as it can do in Words But others deny this and make him to suffer as one wholly Innocent for what Cause To make the most Innocent Persons as apprehensive of Suffering as the most Guilty and the most righteous God to put no difference between them with Respect to Suffering 6. It is more Reasonable to suppose such a Condescension in the Son of God to take upon him the Form of a Servant for our Advantage than that a meer Man should be Exalted to the Honour and Worship which belongs only to God For on the one side there is nothing but what is agreeable to the Divine Nature viz. Infinite Love and Condescension and Pity to Mankind on the other there is the greatest Design of Self-Exaltation that ever was in Humane Nature viz. for a meer Man to have the most Essential Attributes and Incommunicable Honour which belongs to God And whether of these two is more agreeable to the Spirit and Design of the New Testament let any man of understanding judge For as it is evident that the great Intention of it is to magnifie the wonderful Love of God in the sending of his Son so it is as plain that one great End of the Christian Doctrine was to take Mankind off from giving Divine Worship to Creatures and can we then suppose that at the same time it should set up the Worship of a meer Man with all the Honour and Adoration which belongs to God This is to me an incomprehensible Mystery indeed and far beyond all that is implied in the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation For it subverts the very Foundation of the Design of Christianity as to the Reforming Idolatry then in being it lays the Foundation for introducing it into the Woâ—ld again for since the Distance between God and his Creatures is taken away in the matter of Worship there is nothing left but the Declaration of his Will which doth not exclude more Mediators of Intercession but upon this Ground that the Mediation of Redemption is the Foundation of that of Intercession And it is far more easie for us to suppose there may be some things too hard for us to understand in the Mystery of our Redemption by Iesus Christ than that at the same time it should be both a Duty and a Sin to worship any but the true God with proper Divine Worship For if it be Idolatry to give it to a Creature then it is a great Sin for so the Scripture still accounts it but if we are bound to give it to Christ who is but a Creature then that which in it self is a Sin is now become a Necessary Duty which overthrows the Natural Differences of Good and Evil and makes Idolatry to be a meer Arbitrary thing And I take it for granted that in Matters of Religion Moral Difficulties are more to be regarded than Intellectual because Religion was far more designed for a Rule of our Actions than for the Satisfaction of our Curiosity And upon due Examination we shall find that there is no such frightfull Appearances of Difficulties in the Mystery of the Incarnation as there is in giving Divine Worship to a Creature And it ought to be observed that those very Places which are supposed to exclude Christ from being the true God must if they have any force exclude him from Divine Worship For they are spoken of God as the Object of our Worship but if he be not excluded from Divine Worship then neither is he from being the true God which they grant he is by Office but not by Nature But a God by Office who is not so by Nature is a new and incomprehensible Mystery A Mystery hidden from Ages and Generations as to the Church of God but not made known by the Gospel of his Son This is such a kind of Mystery as the Heathen Priests had who had Gods many and Lords many as the Apostle saith i. e. many by Office although but one by Nature But if the Christian Religion had owned one God by Nature and only one by Office the Heathens had been to blame chiefly in the Number of their Gods by Office and not in the Divine Worship which they gave to them But S. Paul blames the Heathens for doing Service to them which by Nature are no Gods not for doing it without Divine Authority nor for mistaking the Person who was God by Office but in giving Divine Worship to them who by Nature were no Gods which he would never have said if by the Christian Doctrine Divine Worship were to be given to one who was not God by Nature But these are indeed incomprehensible Mysteries how a Man by Nature can be a God really and truly by Office how the Incommunicable Perfections of the Divine Nature can be communicated to a Creature how God should give his Glory to another and by his own Command require that to be given to a Creature which himself had absolutely forbidden to be given to any besides himself It is said by a famous Iesuit I will not say how agreeably to their own Doctrines and Practices about Divine Worship that the Command of God cannot make him worthy of Divine Worship who without such a Command is not worthy of it And it is very absurd to say that he that is unworthy of it without a Command can become worthy by it for it makes God to command Divine Honour to be given to one who
upon those terms For by reason of the paucity and therefore the ambiguity of the Original words of the Hebrew language the strange Idioms of it the different senses of the same word in several Conjugations the want of several modes of expression which are used in other Languages and above all the lofty and Metaphorical way of speaking used in all Eastern Countries and the imitation of the Hebrew Idioms in the Greek Translation of the Old Testament and Original of the New you can hardly affix a sense upon any words used therein but a man who will be at the pains to search all possible significations and uses of those words will put you hard to it to make good that which you took to be the proper meaning of them Wherefore although I will not deny to our adversaries the praise of subtilty and diligence I cannot give them that which is much more praise-worthy of discretion and sound judgment For while they use their utmost industry to search all the most remote and Metaphorical senses of words with a design to take off the genuine and proper meaning of them they do not attend to the ill consequence that may be made of this to the overthrowing those things the belief of which themselves make necessary to salvation For by this way the whole Gospel may be made an Allegory and the Resurrection of Christ be thought as metaphorical as the Redemption by his Death and the force of all the Precepts of the Gospel avoided by some unusual signification of the words wherein they are delivered So that nothing can be more unreasonable than such a method of proceeding unless it be first sufficiently proved that the matter is not capable of the proper sense and therefore of necessity the improper only is to be allowed And this is that which Socinus seems after all his pains to pervert the meaning of the places in controversie to rely on most viz. That the Doctrine of satisfaction doth imply an impossibility in the thing it self and therefore must needs be false nay he saith the infallibility of the Revealer had not been enough in this Case supposing that Christ had said it and risen from the dead to declare his own Veracity unless he had delivered it by its proper causes and effects and so shewed the possibility of the thing it self And the reason he saith why they believe their Doctrine true is not barely because God hath said it but they believe certainly that God hath said it because they know it to be true by knowing the contrary Doctrine to be impossible The controversie then concerning the meaning of the places in dispute is to be resolved from the nature and reasonableness of the matter contained in them for if Socinus his reason be answerable to his confidence if the account we give of the sufferings of Christ be repugnant not only to the Justice Goodness and Grace of God but to the nature of the thing if it appear impossible that mankind should be redeemed in a proper sense or that God should be propitiated by the Death of his Son as a Sacrifice for sin if it enervate all the Precepts of Obedience and tend rather to justifie sins than those who do repent of them I shall then agree that no industry can be too great in searching Authors comparing places examining Versions to find out such a sense as may be agreeable to the nature of things the Attributes of God and the design of Christian Religion But if on the contrary the Scripture doth plainly assert those things from whence our Doctrine follows and without which no reasonable account can be given either of the expressions used therein or of the sufferings of Christ if Christ's death did immediately respect God as a sacrifice and was paid as a price for our redemption if such a design of his death be so far from being repugnant to the nature of God that it highly manifests his Wisdom Justice and Mercy if it assert nothing but what is so far from being impossible that it is very reconcileable to the common principles of Reason as well as the Free-Grace of God in the pardon of sin if being truly understood it is so far from enervating that it advances highly all the purposes of Christian Religion then it can be no less than a betraying one of the grand Truths of the Christian Doctrine not to believe ours to be the true sense of the places in controversie And this is that which I now take upon me to maintain II. For our clearer proceeding herein nothing will be more necessary than to understand the true state of the Controversie which hath been rendred more obscure by the mistakes of some who have managed it with greater zeal than judgment who have asserted more than they needed to have done and made our Adversaries assert much less than they do And by this means have shot over their Adversaries heads and laid their own more open to assaults It is easie to observe that most of Socinus his Arguments are levelled against an opinion which few who have considered these things do maintain and none need to think themselves obliged to do it which is That Christ paid a proper and rigid satisfaction for the sins of men considered under the notion of debts and that he paid the very same which we ought to have done which in the sense of the Law is never called Satisfaction but strict Payment Against this Socinus disputes from the impossibility of Christ's paying the very same that we were to have paid because our penalty was eternal Death and that as the consequent of inherent guilt which Christ neither did nor could undergo Neither is it enough to say That Christ had undergone eternul Death unless he had been able to free himself from it for the admission of one to pay for another who could discharge the debt in much less time than the offenders could was not the same which the Law required For that takes no notice of any other than the persons who had sinned and if a Mediator could have paid the same the Original Law must have been disjunctive viz. That either the Offender must suffer or another for him but then the Gospel had not been the bringing in of a better Covenant but a performance of the old But if there be a relaxation or dispensation of the first Law then it necessarily follows that what Christ paid was not the very same which the first Law required for what need of that when the very same was paid that was in the obligation But if it be said That the dignity of the person makes up what wanted in the kind or degree of punishment this is a plain confession that it is not the same but something equivalent which answers the ends of the Sanction as much as the same would have done which is the thing we contend for Besides if the very same had been paid in the strict sense
make atonement for him which is as much as is ever said of any Expiatory Sacrifices And in the Verse before where we render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his own voluntary will it is by the vulgar Latin rendred Ad placandum sibi Dominum by the Syriack Version Ad placationem sibi obtinendam à Domino and to the same purpose by the Chaldee Paraphrast but no one Version considerable that so renders it as to make Burnt-offerings to be Free-will offerings here which are spoken of distinctly and by themselves afterwards And the Chaldee Paraphrast Ionathan thus explains This is the Law of the Burnt-offering i. e. Quod venit ad expiandum pro cogitationibus cordis but although the Iews be not fully agreed what the Burnt-offerings were designed to expiate yet they consent that they were of an Expiatory nature Which might make us the more wonder that Crellius and others should exclude them from it but the only reason given by him is because they are distinguished from Sacrifices for sin as though no Sacrifices were of an Expiatory nature but they and then the Trespass-offerings must be excluded too for they are distinguished from Sin-offerings as well as the other The ignorance of the Iews in the reason of their own customs hath been an occasion of great mistakes among Christians concerning the nature of them when they judge of them according to the blind or uncertain conjectures which they make concerning them So that the Text is oft-times far clearer than their Commentaries are Setting aside then the intricate and unsatisfactory niceties of the Iewish Writers about the several reasons of the Burnt-offerings and Sin and Trespass-offerings and the differences they make between them which are so various and incoherent I shall propose this conjecture concerning the different reasons of them viz. That some Sacrifices were assumed into the Jewish Religion which had been long in use in the world before and were common to them with the Patriarchs and all those who in that age of the world did fear and serve God and such were the Burnt-offerings for expiation of sin and the fruits of the earth by way of gratitude to God Other Sacrifices were instituted among them with a particular respect to themselves as a people governed by the Laws of God And these were of several sorts 1. Symbolical of God's presence among them such was the daily Sacrifice instituted as a testimony of God's presence Exod. 29. from v 38. to the end 2. Occasional for some great mercies vouchsaâ—ed to them as the Passover and the Solemn Festivals c. 3. Expiatory for the sins committed against their Law And these were of three sorts 1. Such as were wholly consumed to the honour of God which were the Burnt-offerings 2. Such of which some part was consumed upon the Altar and some part sell to the share of the Priests and these were either sins particularly enumerated by God himself under the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or else generally comprehended under the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being allowed to be expiated because committed through inadvertency 3. Such whereof a less part was consumed as in the Peace-offerings of the Congregation mentioned Levit. 23.19 whereof the blood was sprinkled only the inwards burnt and the flesh not eaten by the persons that offered them as it was in the Peace-offerings of particular persons of which as being private Sacrifices I have here no occasion to speak but only by the Priests in the Court and these had something of expiation in them For thence saith Vatablus the Peace-offering was called by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Expiatorium and the LXX commonly render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and several of the Iews think the reason of the name was That it made peace between God and him that offered it But the great reason I insist on is Because all the things which were used in an Expiatory Sacrifice were in this too the slaying of the Beast the sprinkling of the bloâ—d and the consumption of some part of it upon the Altar as an Oblation to God which are the three ingredients of an Expiatory Sacrifice for the shedding of the blood noted the bearing the punishment of our iniquity and the sprinkling of it on the Altar and the consuming of the part of the Sacrifice or the whole there that it was designed for the expiation of sin From whence it follows that the phrase of a sweet-smelling savour being applied under the Law to Expiatory Sacrifices is very properly used by St. Paul concerning Christ's giving up himself for us so that from this phrase nothing can be inferred contrary to the Expiatory nature of the death of Christ but rather it is fully agreeable to it VIII But Crellius hath yet a farther Argument to prove that Christ's death cannot be here meant as the Expiatory Sacrifice viz. That the notion of a sacrifice doth consist in the oblation whereby the thing is consecrated to the honour and service of God to which the mactation is but a bare preparation which he proves Because the slaying the sacrifice might belong to others besides the Priests Ezek. 44.10 11. but the oblation only to the Priests To this I answer 1. The mactation may be considered two ways either with a respect to the bare instrument of taking away the life or to the design of the Offerer of that which was to be sacrificed As the mactation hath a respect only to the instruments so it is no otherways to be considered than as a punishment but as it hath a respect to him that designs it for a Sacrifice so the shedding of the blood hath an immediate influence on the expiation of sin And that by this clear Argument The blood is said to make an Atonement for the soul and the reason given is because the life of the flesh is in the blood So that which was the life is the great thing which makes the Atonement and when the blood was shed the life was then given from whence it follows that the great efficacy of the sacrifice for Atonement lay in the shedding of the blood for that end Thence the Apostle attributes remission of sins to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the shedding of the blood and not to the bare Oblation of it on the Altar or the carrying it into the Holy of Holies both which seem to be nothing else but a more solemn representation of that blood before God which was already shed for the expiation of sins which was therefore necessary to be performed that the concurrence of the Priest might be seen with the sacrifice in order to expiation For if no more had been necessary but the bare slaying of the Beasts which was the meanest part of the service the people would never have thought the institution of the Priesthood necessary and least of all that of the High-Priest unless some solemn action
have something revealed and that plainly enough viz. that God created all things and yet here is a Mystery remaining as to the manner of doing it Hath not God plainly revealed that there shall be a Resurrection of the dead and must we think it unreasonable to believe it till we are able to comprehend all the changes of the Particles of Matter from the Creation to the General Resurrection But it is said that there is no Contradiction in this but there is in the Mystery of the Trinity and Incarnation It is strange Boldness in Men to talk thus of Monstrous Contradictions in things above their Reach The Atheists may as well say Infinite Power is a Monstrous Contradiction and Godâ—s Immensity and his other unsearchable Perfections are Monstrous Paradoxes and Contradictions Will Men never learn to distinguish between Numbers and the Nature of Things For three to be one is a Contradiction in Numbers but whether an Infinite Nature can communicate it self to three different Subsistences without such a Division as is among Created Beings must not be determined by bare Numbers but by the Absolute Perfections of the Divine Nature which must be owned to be above our Comprehension For let us examine some of those Perfections which are most clearly revealed and we shall find this true The Scripture plainly reveals that God is from everlasting to everlasting that he was and is and is to come but shall we not believe the Truth of this till we are able to fathom the Abyss of God's Eternity I am apt to think and I have some thoughtful Men concurring with me that there is no greater Difficulty in the Conception of the Trinity and Incarnation than there is of Eternity Not but that there is great Reason to believe it but from hence it appears that our Reason may oblige us to believe some things which it is not possible for us to comprehend We know that either God must have been for ever or it is impossible he ever should be for if he should come into Being when he was not he must have some Cause of his Being and that which was the first Cause would be God But if he was for ever he must be from himself and what Notion or Conception can we have in our Minds concerning it And yet Atheistical men can take no Advantage from hence because their own most absurd Hypothesis hath the very same Difficulty in it For something must have been for ever And it is far more reasonable to suppose it of an Infinite and Eternal Mind which hath Wisdom and Power and Goodness to give Being to other things than of dull stupid and sensless Matter which could never move it self nor give Being to any thing besides Here we have therefore a thing which must be owned by all and yet such a thing which can be conceived by none Which shews the narrowness and shortness of our Understandings and how unfit they are to be the Measures of the Possibilities of things Vain men would be wise they would fain go to the very bottom of things when alas they scarce understand the very Surface of them They will allow no Mysteries in Religion and yet every thing is a Mystery to them They cry out of Cheats and Impostures under the Notion of Mysteries and yet there is not a Spire of Grass but is a Mystery to them they will bear with nothing in Religion which they cannot comprehend and yet there is scarce any thing in the World which they can comprehend But above other things the Divine Perfections even those which are most Absolute and Necessary are above their Reach For let such Men try their Imaginations about God's Eternity not meerly how he should be from himself but how God should coexist with all the Differences of Times and yet there be no Succession in his own Being I do not say there is such Difficulty to conceive a Rock standing still when the Waves run by it or the Gnomon of a Dial when the Shadow passes from one Figure to another because these are gross unactive things but the Difficulty is far greater where the Being is Perfect and always Active For where there is Succession there is a passing out of not being in such a duration into being in it which is not consistent with the Absolute Perfection of the Divine Nature And therefore God must be all at once what he is without any Respect to the Difference of Time past present or to come From whence Eternity was defined by Boethius to be a perfect and complete Possession all at once of everlasting Life But how can we from any Conception in our Minds of that being all at once which hath such different Acts as must be measur'd by a long Succession of Time As the Creating and Dissolving the Frame of the World the promising and sending the Messias the Declaring and Executing a general Judgment how can these things be consistent with a Permanent Instant or a Continuance of being without Succession For it is impossible for us in this Case as to God's Eternity to form a clear and distinct Idea in our Mind of that which both Reason and Revelation convince us must be The most we can make of our Conception of it is that God hath neither Beginning of Being nor End of Days but that he always was and always must be And this is rather a necessary Conclusion from Reason and Scripture than any distinct Notion or Conception of Eternity in our Minds From whence it evidently follows that God may reveal something to us which we are bound to believe and yet after that Revelation the Manner of it may be incomprehensible by us and consequently a Mystery to us Hath not God Revealed to us in Scripture the Spirituality of his own Nature That he is a Spirit and therefore will be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth For that is a true Reason why Spiritual Worship should be most agreeable to him Now if we could have a clear distinct positive Notion in our minds of God's Spiritual Nature we might then pretend that there is nothing mysterious in this since it is revealed But let such men Examine their own thoughts about this matter and try whether the utmost they can attain to be not something Negative viz. because great Absurdities would follow if we attributed any thing Corporeal to God for then he must be compounded of Parts and so he may be dissolved then he must be confined to a certain place and not every-where present he cannot have the Power of Acting and Self-determining which a meer Body hath not For the clearest Notion we can have of Body is that it is made up of some things as parts of it which may be separated from each other and is confined to a certain place and hath no Power to move or act from it self But some of these men who cry down Mysteries and magnifie Reason to shew how slender
their pretences to Reason are have asserted a Corporeal God with Shape and Figure It was indeed well thought of by those who would make a Man to be God to bring God down as near to Man as might be But how to Reconcile the Notion of a Body with Infinite Perfections is a Mystery to me and far above my Comprehension But if it be no Mystery to such Men they must either deny God's Infinite Perfections or shew how a bodily Shape can be capable of them But some men can confound Finite and Infinite Body and Spirit God and Man and yet are for no Mysteries whereas these things are farther from our Reach and Comprehension than any o◠those Doctrines which they find fault with But to proceed If we believe Prophecy we must believe God's fore-knowledge of future events For how could they be fore-told if he did not fore-know them And if he did fore-know those which he did fore-tell then it was either because those only were revealed to him which is inconsistent with the Divine Perfections or that he doth fore-know all other Events and only thought fitting to Reveal these But how can they solve the Difficulties about Divine Prescience Is there no Mystery in this Nothing above their Comprehension What then made their great Master deny it as a thing above his Comprehension Because nothing can be fore-known but what hath a certain Cause and therefore if evil Actions be fore-told God must be the Cause of them and Men will not be free Agents in them And yet it is most certain that the Sufferings of Christ by the Wickedness of Men were fore-told What then Must we make God the Author of Sin God forbid Will the righteous Judge of all the Earth punish Mankind for his own Acts which they could not avoid Then we must yield that there is something in the manner of the Divine Prescience which is above our Comprehension And the most Searching and Inquisitive Men have been forc'd to yield it at last as to the Connection between the Certainty of Prescience and the Liberty of humane Actions Is it not then much better to sit down quietly at first Adoring the Infiniteness of God's incomprehensible Perfections than after all the huffings and disputings of Men to say In Ignorantiâ solà quietem invenio as the great Schoolman did Surely then here is something plainly revealed and yet the manner of it is still a Mystery to us I shall not now insist on any more of the particular Attributes of God but only in general I desire to know whether they believe them to be finite or infinite If to be finite then they must have certain bounds and limits which they cannot exceed and that must either be from the imperfection of Nature or from a Superiour Cause both which are repugnant to the very Being of God If they believe them to be infinite how can they comprehend them We are strangely puzled in plain ordinary finite things but it is madness to pretend to comprehend what is Infinite and yet if the Perfections of God be not Infinite they cannot belong to Him I shall only add in Consequence to this Assertion That if nothing is to be believed but what may be comprehended the very Being of God must be rejected too And therefore I desire all such who talk so warmly against any Mysteries in Religion to consider whose work it is they are doing even theirs who under this pretence go about to overthrow all Religion For say they Religion is a Mystery in its own Nature not this or that or the other Religion but they are all alike all is Mystery and that is but another Name for Fraud and Imposture What were the Heathen Mysteries but tricks of Priest-craft and such are maintained and kept up in all kinds of Religion If therefore these men who talk against Mysteries understand themselves they must in pursuance of their Principles reject one God as well as three Persons For as long as they believe an Infinite and Incomprehensible Being it is Nonsense to reject any other Doctrine which relates to an Infinite Being because it is Incomprehensible But yet these very Men who seem to pursue the Consequence of this Principle to the utmost must assert something more incomprehensible than the Being of God For I appeal to any man of common Understanding whether it be not more agreeable to Reason to suppose Works of Skill Beauty and Order to be the Effects of a Wise and Intelligent Being than of Blind Chance and Unaccountable Necessity whether it be not more agreeable to the Sense of Mankind to suppose an Infinite and Eternal Mind endued with all possible Perfections to be the Maker of this visible World than that it should start out from it self without Contrivance without Order without Cause Certainly such men have no Reason to find fault with the Mysteries of Religion because they are incomprehensible since there is nothing so Absurd and Incomprehensible as their darling Hypothesis And there is nothing which can make it prevail but to suppose Mankind to be as Dull and Insensible as the first Chaos Thus I have shewn that it is not unreasonable for God to require from us the Belief of something which we cannot comprehend 2. I now come to consider whether those who are so afraid of incomprehensible Mysteries in our Faith have made it so much more easie in the Way they have taken And notwithstanding all the Hectoring talk against Mysteries and things incomprehensible in Religion I find more insuperable Difficulties in point of Reason in their Way than in ours As for instance 1. It is a more Reasonable thing to suppose something Mysterious in the Eternal Son of Gods being with the Father before the World was made by him as S. Iohn expresses it in the beginning of his Gospel than in supposing that although Iohn the Baptist were born six Months before Iesus Christ that yet Christ was in Dignity before him What a wonderful Mystery is this Can Men have the Face to cry down Mysteries in deep Speculations and matters of a high and abstruse Nature when they make such Mysteries of plain and easie things and suppose the Evangelist in profound Language and lofty Expressions to prove a thing which was never disputed viz. although Christ Iesus were born six Months after Iohn yet he was in Dignity before him 2. It is a more Reasonable thing to suppose that a Divine Person should assume humane Nature and so the Word to be made Flesh than to say that an Attribute of God his Wisdom or Power is made Flesh which is a Mystery beyond all Comprehension There may be some Difficulties in our Conception of the other but this is a thing beyond all Conception or Imagination For an Accident to be made a Substance is as absurd as to imagine it to subsist without one 3. It is more Reasonable to suppose that the Son of God should come down from Heaven and