III. Thus (without the Ufe of any more Lo- SER M. gical Terms, not fo fuiting to a Discourse from this Place) all the Sophiftry that lies couched in the Words, rational Act, rationally, and above Reafon, vanishes at once; and we plainly see what is to be granted and what to be denied. The Major, or first Propofition, we allow, which indeed is only faying that nothing that is believed without Reafon, can be believed with Reafon: But then the fecond, or Minor Propofition is utterly false; it appearing clearly from this Dif course, that we may have very good Reason to believe many things which we cannot fully explain, and which therefore are above our Reafon or Comprehenfion. I know indeed it is objected to us again, that we ought to believe nothing but what is clear and evident: But this is wrapped up in as fallacious and equivocal Terms as the former. If no more be intended by it, than that we are not to believe any thing without clear or evident Authority; or that we ought to believe nothing but what is clear and evident as far as we believe it; I know no Body that opposes them: But if it be meant that we ought to believe nothing but what is clear and evident in every Particular, nothing but what is entirely level SER M. to our Capacities, and what we can explain, III. give a Reason, and account for; if this, I But fecondly, we may learn from the Doctrine of my Difcourfe, that it is the Duty of a Christian to make the Scriptures, and not his Reafon or Comprehenfion, the Measure of bis Faith: i. e. not to enquire or examine in the first place into the Quality of the Object, as whether a thing be comprehenfible or not, and then, as it appears to him, to proceed in his Belief or Difbelief of its being revealed: But first to examine into the Certainty of the Revelation, as whether fuch a thing be truly revealed; and if it be, to believe it notwith ftanding III. ftanding its being incomprehenfible. For to SER M. follow the firft Method, i. e. to make our Reason the Measure of Faith, is plainly also to make it the Measure of Divine Revelation. It is to affert that GOD can reveal nothing to us but what we can comprehend; which argues, that we have either a very low Opinion of GOD and his Perfections, or elfe a very high one of our own rational Endowments. But fure we should confider that finite Capacities can by no means grafp things infinite and boundlefs: Nay, we should confider that our prefent Powers of Knowledge are chiefly adapted to the things that belong to this present World; and so are unable to conceive fome things which, perhaps, we may be able to understand in the next. And therefore though the Truth and Existence of many things are discovered and revealed to us; yet we can no more expect to have a diftinct Idea of them in our prefent Capacities, than a Man born blind, though he believes there are fuch things as Light and Colours, can expect to have a Notion either of one or the other. But thirdly, What has been faid plainly fhews (if duly attended to) the Danger of the Notion we are endeavouring to expofe, from the direct Tendency it has to overthrow I 3 and III. SER M. and fubvert, not only the Fundamental Articles of our Faith, but the whole Chriftian Difpenfation, and indeed all Religion whatever, For if nothing that is above our Reafon be to be believed, and it can be proved that feveral things above Reason are in the Scriptures of the New Testament proposed to our Belief; we fhall be obliged in confequence to renounce the Scriptures, as propofing things to us incredible and falfe. Nor yet fhall we ftop here, but ftill be hurried on to deny the very Being of GOD himfelf; fince Self-existence, Eternity, Omni-prefence, Foreknowledge and other fuch like Attributes (which are neceffary to a GoD) are as incomprehenfible, and as much above our Understanding or Reafon, as any thing in the Notion of a Trinity can be. So that from the Denial of three Perfons (if founded only upon this Principle) we may be quickly brought to deny the one Gop; and from believing nothing but what we can comprehend, be led directly to believe nothing at all. But fourthly, If fome of the Articles of our Faith are fo myfterious and incomprehenfible; it certainly becomes us to treat and discourse of them with Modesty and Humility; not to be too inquifitive in our Searches after III. after them; nor too bold and forward in de- SER M. fining and describing them. The Substance of the Doctrines is what we muft defend and earneftly contend for, as being the Faith which was once delivered unto the Saints, Jude 3. But the Manner and Modus of them is not to be explained, because it is no where laid open to us in Scripture. This fhould restrain us from speaking of them otherwise than in general Terms, and in fuch as we find to have been made ufe of in the pureft Ages of the Church. If indeed Innovators of the Faith should endeavour to mifguide and delude the People, by an artful Mifapplication of the old Terms, or by an Invention of new ones; it then lyes upon the Guardians of our Faith, either to refcue the old Catholick Forms or Manner of Expreffion, or else to express the Catholick Faith in other Terms, more explicite, and not fo liable to be perverted and abufed. And if, when preffed by this Neceffity, they are forced to introduce fome new Expreffions, which may not, perhaps, be fo fimple and well known; they must anfwer for it, who made it neceffary, by not refting eafy and contented with those which, perhaps, were more primitive and plain. This, we truft, will not be imputed to those who I 4 with |