Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

‹‹ received, even upon the authority of miracles, attefted "with a fingular degree of evidence, as a revelation from "God, which cannot, in all its branches and articles, be made appear, at leaft not inconfiftent with the conceptions of man.'

The propofitions here laid down, I take to be thefe: That a doctrine may be proved to be revealed from heaven, by miracles properly attefted, tho', at the fame time, it be inconfiftent with the conceptions of man: And that the great writers named above, would have pitied any one that had affirmed the contrary. I own, it was quite beyond my expectation, that I found fome of these writers introduced on the fide of those who are for laying reftraints upon Reafon, and particularly Dr. Taylor, who was certainly one of the most noble advocates for freedom of thinking, that had, at that time, ever appeared in the Chriftian world. Is it poffible, thought I, that Dr. Jeremy Taylor fhould advance any thing in fupport of Enthufiafin? I must look over his Liberty of Propherying once again. In pufuance of this reflexion, I referred myfelf first to the Index to the folio volume of his Polemical Works where, under the word Miracles, this plain, but ftrange propofition, immediately ftruck my eyes-Miracles not a fufficient argument to prove a doctrine.-Hence we are directed to page 1020, fect. 11. of Liberty of prophecying, where we find the foregoing propofition thus extended, and explained.

[ocr errors]

And although the argument drawn from Miracles is good to atteft a holy doctrine, which, by its own worth, will 'fupport itself after way is a little made by miracles; yet, of itfelf, and by its own reputation, it will not fupport any fabrick for, inftead of proving a doctrine to be true, it makes that the miracles are fufpected to be illufions, if they be pretended in behalf of a doctrine which, we think, we have Reafon to account falfe.And again, a few lines below But then, when not only true miracles are an infufficient argument to prove a truth fince the establishment of Chriftianity, but What a flat contradiction are thefe paffages to Dr. Patten's whole fyftem! It must be owned, he was wonderfully overfeen in bringing the name of this Divine into view, whofe judgment and fpirit were fo directly contrary to I do moft heartily agree with him, however, that Dr. Taylor did really underftand the principles and foundation of Chriftianity; but then, if Dr. Taylor did, it will too evidently follow, that our modern Divine does not underftand them. To this let us add one obfervation more,―That if Prideaux,

his own.

Hh 4

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed]

that it comes from God and fo far we allow Reafoning to be necellary. The act of Faith, is a belief of all the truths Sid which it propofeth to us, how incomprehenfible foever, they i may be and here all Reafoning is precluded. On one fide, the motives of affent lay a firm foundation for our Faith; and on the bother, the myfteries that it propofes to us are fo far. above our Reafon, that in order to believe the one, it is necel fary to renounce the other. We have then nothing elfe to de but to raise our eyes towards Heaven, to difcover the Star of Faith, and the origin of the Chriftian religion, which comes from God: but when we have discovered this Star, we are. obliged to follow it, as the Magi did, still it conducts us to Jefus Chrift (a) tads boog trod dyst lliw

From this quotation then we fee, that it is a foul afperfion upofi the Papists, proceeding from ignorance, when it is af

[graphic]
[ocr errors]

tu od wolls yg sd biolЯ to Baidu noqueftig fah Sermons de Monf, l'Abbé du Jarry, Paris, 1709. 12 Sermon. Nous avons à éviter deux écueils également à craindre à fçavoir, d'examiner trop la Religion, & de ne l'examiner pas affez : car être Chrétien parce que l'on eft ne de parens Chrétiens, comme l'on feroit Turc fil on étoit né de parens Turcs; être prêt de mourir pour la defenfe d Religion (car Voilà la difpofition où nous devons être) être prêt, dis je, de mourir pour la defenfe d'une Reli gion, feulement parce que nous y avons été élévez ce feroit plutôts une ftupidité grofliére, qu'une Foi foumifer comme raifonner, red flechir difputer fans ceffe fur les articles de la Religion, c'est moins une Foi éclairée qu'une curiofité dangereufe, pour ne pas dire une infidelite fecrette. Il faut donc raifonner & fe fervir de la Raifon pour fevoir fi nôtre Religion vient de Dieu et quand nous fommes une fois éclairez für ce point, il faut renoncer à fa Raifon, pour croire tous les autres. Nous Si vous embraffez une Religion fans fçavoir d' où vous etes un infenfé: fi vous doutez de cette Religion Auteur, êtes un infidelle. C'eft pour cela qu'il y a deux chofes à confiderer dans celui qui eroit le motif qui lui fait embrafler la Foi, et qui lui en fait pro duire les actes; habitude, & les actes de cette Foi meme motif qui nous attache à la Foi, c'eft de fçavoir qu' elle vient da ciel; & voilà où le raifonnement et néceffaire. Lacte de la Foi. c'eft de croire des veritez qu'elle nous enfeigne, toutes incomprehenfibles qu' elles font & voilà où il ne faut point de raisonnement. Les motifs de nôtre crédulité rendent d'un côté, notre Foi évidente et d'ailleurs les myfteres qu' elle nous propofe, font fi fort au-deffus de notre raifon, il faut renoncer an à l' une pour croire les autres. Il faut donc lever ever les yeux vers le ciel, 1903 491 de Dieu, decouvrir l'étoile de la Foi, & l'origine de la mais après l'avoir découverte, nous fommes obligez de la fuivre, comme les Mages, jufq' à ce qu'elle nous conduite à Jefus-Chrift.dan dise opalwond sits a disTeds of a disdoits doides Chordfirmed tads

1

firmed of them, that they take from us all use of Reason in matters of Religion; for it is plain that they admit of enquiry till we have found the external evidences of a revelation; and this is all the liberty with which our Proteftant Doctor thinks fit to truft us. But the Papifts are confiftent with themselves; they eafe us, indeed, of all further trouble in the exercise of our own reafon, yet they provide a resource for us in the Reafon of the church, to whofe decifions they make us over, and in which we are fubmiffively to acquiefce. But here Dr. Patten fails us; as to the method we are to pursue, after we are fatisfied that a revelation comes from God, I do not find that he has given any directions, or fo much as once as thought of it, tho' it feems to be a matter of real importance. A Revelation must be delivered in words; how is a man to proceed, in order to attain the fenfe and meaning of the words in which it is delivered? In this cafe, he must be determined, either by his own Reafon, or by the Reason of fomebody elfe: if his own Reafon is to be his guide, he must find the contents of the Revelation agreeable to the principles of his own Reason; otherwife it is improperly applied at all to the examination of them. Reafon must be supposed to be a judge of what is reasonable, or elfe it may be left quite out of the question; and it will be full as abfurd to exhort a man to examine, as to exhort the horse he rides. If, therefore, in the courfe of my enquiry, I meet with a propofition that, in any fenfe, contradicts the conceptions I have of Truth and Falfhood, I have the fame right to reject it, in that fenfe, as I have to employ my thoughts at all in the confideration of it: and if Dr. Patten allows the one, I defy him to withhold the other. They follow one another as naturally, and neceffarily, as the fhade follows its body when the fun fhines.

If we are to take the meaning of a Revelation, not from the determination of our own Reafon, but from the decifions of others, I then afk the good Doctor, where he apprehends this right of deciding is lodged? I make no doubt but he will readily reply, in our own Church. But can it be maintained, that the Church of England enjoys any rights and privileges that do not equally belong to the Church of Rome? Has Proteftantifim the fecret of conferring any power and authority upon the Church, which Popery cannot confer? If the Church of England affumes to itfelf, the liberty of explaining, and interpreting fcripture, can the fame liberty be confiftently denied to, the Church of Rome? And if there be any fuch legitimate power refiding at prefent in the Popish Church, will not Truth oblige us to confefs, that it was al

ways

1

[ocr errors]

ways refident there? And if always there, then it exifted there before the Reformation; and if fo, in what manner, or by what argument will Doctor Patten juftify a feparation from that Church? Upon what motive would the Doctor himself have become a Proteftant, had he lived in thofe days? All that the Church of Rome ever pretended to, was, the right of fixing their own fenfe upon the words of fcripture; and by the help of this they held all the Christian world in fubjection, But if herein they only exercifed a right that juftly belonged to them, then it was certainly wrong to oppofe, and break from them, on no other account, than because they exercifed it, which was really the fact. The fair confequence of this, is, that we have all been living in a state of fchifm ever fince that time, and ought to make amends for what is paft, by re turning into the bofom of our injured Mother, with all the hafte we can.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

It was just now afked, upon what motive Dr. Patten would have become a Proteftant, had he lived at the time of the Reformation? let us push this enquiry a little farther, and be fomething more particular. The doctrine of Tranfubstantia tion has been, and is generally looked upon as one of the greateft corruptions in the Romish Church; but had our learned Doctor been bred up in the belief of this doctrine, it does not appear to me, that he has any one principle in his mind by which he could ever have got rid of it. It is a known fact, and worth obferving, that at the time of the Reformation, the real and corporeal prefence of Chrift in the facrament, had been the received and established doctrine of the universal Christian Church, from the latter end of the eleventh century, a space of very near five hundred years: this must be allowed to have been a long poffeffion, which, if it does not imply a right, at least there ought to be very good arguments to fet afide the plea. I beg to know from whence thefe arguments could be drawn? A fenfible author(a) bath lately obferved, that in the conferences held be-. tween the Papifts and Reformers, upon the fubject of this doctrine, if they came to argue upon the opinions of the Fathers, the Papifts had evidently the advantage in the dif pute; and to juftify this obfervation, produces paffages from feveral of them; than which nothing can be more clear on the popifh fide of the question. The paffages are these ; we are taught, that when this nourishing food is confecrated, it becomes the flesh and blood of Chrift: (Juftin Martyr).

(a) Gilpin's Life of Bishop Latimer.

What

« AnteriorContinuar »