18. Chapter XVIII
Of Faith and Reason, and their Distinct Provinces
1. Necessary to know their boundaries.
It has been above shown, 1. That we are of necessity ignorant, and want
knowledge of all sorts, where we want ideas. 2. That we are ignorant, and want rational knowledge, where we
want proofs. 3. That we want certain knowledge and certainty, as far as we want clear and determined specific
ideas. 4. That we want probability to direct our assent in matters where we have neither knowledge of our own nor
testimony of other men to bottom our reason upon.
From these things thus premised, I think we may come to lay down the measures and boundaries between faith
and reason: the want whereof may possibly have been the cause, if not of great disorders, yet at least of great
disputes, and perhaps mistakes in the world. For till it be resolved how far we are to be guided by reason, and how
far by faith, we shall in vain dispute, and endeavour to convince one another in matters of religion.
2. Faith and reason, what, as contradistinguished.
I find every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it
gladly: and where it fails them, they cry out, It is matter of faith, and above reason. And I do not see how they can
argue with any one, or ever convince a gainsayer who makes use of the same plea, without setting down strict
boundaries between faith and reason; which ought to be the first point established in all questions where faith has
anything to do.
Reason, therefore, here, as contradistinguished to faith, I take to be the discovery of the certainty or probability of
such propositions or truths which the mind arrives at by deduction made from such ideas, which it has got by the
use of its natural faculties; viz., by sensation or reflection.
Faith, on the other side, is the assent to any proposition, not thus made out by the deductions of reason, but upon
the credit of the proposer, as coming from God, in some extraordinary way of communication. This way of
discovering truths to men, we call revelation.
3. First, No new simple idea can be conveyed by traditional revelation.
First, Then I say, that no man inspired by God
can by any revelation communicate to others any new simple ideas which they had not before from sensation or
reflection For, whatsoever impressions he himself may have from the immediate hand of God, this revelation, if
it be of new simple ideas, cannot be conveyed to another, either by words or any other signs. Because words, by
their immediate operation on us, cause no other ideas but of their natural sounds: and it is by the custom of using
them for signs, that they excite and revive in our minds latent ideas; but yet only such ideas as were there before.
For words, seen or heard, recall to our thoughts those ideas only which to us they have been wont to be signs of,
but cannot introduce any perfectly new and formerly unknown simple ideas. The same holds in all other signs;
which cannot signify to us things of which we have before never had any idea at all.
Thus whatever things were discovered to St. Paul, when he was rapt up into the third heaven; whatever new ideas
his mind there received, all the description he can make to others of that place, is only this, That there are such
things, "as eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive." And supposing
God should discover to any one, supernaturally, a species of creatures inhabiting, for example, Jupiter or Saturn,
(for that it is possible there may be such, nobody can deny,) which had six senses; and imprint on his mind the
ideas conveyed to theirs by that sixth sense: he could no more, by words, produce in the minds of other men those
ideas imprinted by that sixth sense, than one of us could convey the idea of any colour, by the sound of words,
into a man who, having the other four senses perfect, had always totally wanted the fifth, of seeing. For our simple
ideas, then, which are the foundation, and sole matter of all our notions and knowledge, we must depend wholly
on our reason; I mean our natural faculties; and can by no means receive them, or any of them, from traditional
revelation. I say, traditional revelation, in distinction to original revelation. By the one, I mean that first
impression which is made immediately by God on the mind of any man, to which we cannot set any bounds; and
by the other, those impressions delivered over to others in words, and the ordinary ways of conveying our
conceptions one to another.
4. Secondly, Traditional revelation may make us know propositions knowable also by reason, but not with the same
certainty that reason doth.
Secondly, I say that the same truths may be discovered, and conveyed down from
revelation, which are discoverable to us by reason, and by those ideas we naturally may have. So God might, by
revelation, discover the truth of any proposition in Euclid; as well as men, by the natural use of their faculties,
come to make the discovery themselves. In all things of this kind there is little need or use of revelation, God
having furnished us with natural and surer means to arrive at the knowledge of them. For whatsoever truth we
come to the clear discovery of, from the knowledge and contemplation of our own ideas, will always be certainer
to us than those which are conveyed to us by traditional revelation. For the knowledge we have that this revelation
came at first from God can never be so sure as the knowledge we have from the clear and distinct perception of
the agreement or disagreement of our own ideas: v.g. if it were revealed some ages since, that the three angles of a
triangle were equal to two right ones, I might assent to the truth of that proposition, upon the credit of that
tradition, that it was revealed: but that would never amount to so great a certainty as the knowledge of it, upon the
comparing and measuring my own ideas of two right angles, and the three angles of a triangle. The like holds in
matter of fact knowable by our senses; v.g. the history of the deluge is conveyed to us by writings which had their
original from revelation: and yet nobody, I think, will say he has as certain and clear a knowledge of the flood as
Noah, that saw it; or that he himself would have had, had he then been alive and seen it. For he has no greater an
assurance than that of his senses, that it is writ in the book supposed writ by Moses inspired: but he has not so
great an assurance that Moses wrote that book as if he had seen Moses write it. So that the assurance of its being a
revelation is less still than the assurance of his senses.
5. Even original revelation cannot be admitted against the clear evidence of reason.
In propositions, then, whose
certainty is built upon the clear perception of the agreement or disagreement of our ideas, attained either by
immediate intuition, as in self-evident propositions, or by evident deductions of reason in demonstrations we need
not the assistance of revelation, as necessary to gain our assent, and introduce them into our minds. Because the
natural ways of knowledge could settle them there, or had done it already; which is the greatest assurance we can
possibly have of anything, unless where God immediately reveals it to us: and there too our assurance can be no
greater than our knowledge is, that it is a revelation from God. But yet nothing, I think, can, under that title, shake
or overrule plain knowledge; or rationally prevail with any man to admit it for true, in a direct contradiction to the
clear evidence of his own understanding. For, since no evidence of our faculties, by which we receive such
revelations, can exceed, if equal, the certainty of our intuitive knowledge, we can never receive for a truth
anything that is directly contrary to our clear and distinct knowledge; v.g. the ideas of one body and one place do
so clearly agree, and the mind has so evident a perception of their agreement, that we can never assent to a
proposition that affirms the same body to be in two distant places at once, however it should pretend to the
authority of a divine revelation: since the evidence, first, that we deceive not ourselves, in ascribing it to God;
secondly, that we understand it right; can never be so great as the evidence of our own intuitive knowledge,
whereby we discern it impossible for the same body to be in two places at once. And therefore no proposition can
be received for divine revelation, or obtain the assent due to all such, if it be contradictory to our clear intuitive
knowledge. Because this would be to subvert the principles and foundations of all knowledge, evidence, and
assent whatsoever: and there would be left no difference between truth and falsehood, no measures of credible and
incredible in the world, if doubtful propositions shall take place before self-evident; and what we certainly know
give way to what we may possibly be mistaken in. In propositions therefore contrary to the clear perception of the
agreement or disagreement of any of our ideas, it will be in vain to urge them as matters of faith. They cannot
move our assent under that or any other title whatsoever. For faith can never convince us of anything that
contradicts our knowledge. Because, though faith be founded on the testimony of God (who cannot lie) revealing
any proposition to us: yet we cannot have an assurance of the truth of its being a divine revelation greater than our
own knowledge. Since the whole strength of the certainty depends upon our knowledge that God revealed it;
which, in this case, where the proposition supposed revealed contradicts our knowledge or reason, will always
have this objection hanging to it, viz., that we cannot tell how to conceive that to come from God, the bountiful
Author of our being, which, if received for true, must overturn all the principles and foundations of knowledge he
has given us; render all our faculties useless; wholly destroy the most excellent part of his workmanship, our
understandings; and put a man in a condition wherein he will have less light, less conduct than the beast that
perisheth. For if the mind of man can never have a clearer (and perhaps not so clear) evidence of anything to be a
divine revelation, as it has of the principles of its own reason, it can never have a ground to quit the clear evidence
of its reason, to give a place to a proposition, whose revelation has not a greater evidence than those principles
have.
6. Traditional revelation much less.
Thus far a man has use of reason, and ought to hearken to it, even in
immediate and original revelation, where it is supposed to be made to himself. But to all those who pretend not to
immediate revelation, but are required to pay obedience, and to receive the truths revealed to others, which, by the
tradition of writings, or word of mouth, are conveyed down to them, reason has a great deal more to do, and is that
only which can induce us to receive them. For matter of faith being only divine revelation, and nothing else, faith,
as we use the word, (called commonly divine faith), has to do with no propositions, but those which are supposed
to be divinely revealed. So that I do not see how those who make revelation alone the sole object of faith can say
that it is a matter of faith, and not of reason, to believe that such or such a proposition, to be found in such or such
a book, is of divine inspiration; unless it be revealed that that proposition, or all in that book, was communicated
by divine inspiration. Without such a revelation, the believing, or not believing, that proposition, or book, to be of
divine authority, can never be matter of faith, but matter of reason; and such as I must come to an assent to only
by the use of my reason, which can never require or enable me to believe that which is contrary to itself: it being
impossible for reason ever to procure any assent to that which to itself appears unreasonable.
In all things, therefore, where we have clear evidence from our ideas, and those principles of knowledge I have
above mentioned, reason is the proper judge; and revelation, though it may, in consenting with it, confirm its
dictates, yet cannot in such cases invalidate its decrees: nor can we be obliged, where we have the clear and
evident sentience of reason, to quit it for the contrary opinion, under a pretence that it is matter of faith: which can
have no authority against the plain and clear dictates of reason.
7. Thirdly, Things above reason are, when revealed, the proper matter of faith.
But, Thirdly, There being many things
wherein we have very imperfect notions, or none at all; and other things, of whose past, present, or future
existence, by the natural use of our faculties, we can have no knowledge at all; these, as being beyond the
discovery of our natural faculties, and above reason, are, when revealed, the proper matter of faith. Thus, that part
of the angels rebelled against God, and thereby lost their first happy state: and that the dead shall rise, and live
again: these and the like, being beyond the discovery of reason, are purely matters of faith, with which reason has
directly nothing to do.
8. Or not contrary to reason, if revealed, are matter of faith; and must carry it against probable conjectures of
reason.
But since God, in giving us the light of reason, has not thereby tied up his own hands from affording us,
when he thinks fit, the light of revelation in any of those matters wherein our natural faculties are able to give a
probable determination; revelation, where God has been pleased to give it, must carry it against the probable
conjectures of reason. Because the mind not being certain of the truth of that it does not evidently know, but only
yielding to the probability that appears in it, is bound to give up its assent to such a testimony which, it is
satisfied, comes from one who cannot err, and will not deceive. But yet, it still belongs to reason to judge of the
truth of its being a revelation, and of the signification of the words wherein it is delivered. Indeed, if anything
shall be thought revelation which is contrary to the plain principles of reason, and the evident knowledge the mind
has of its own clear and distinct ideas; there reason must be hearkened to, as to a matter within its province. Since
a man can never have so certain a knowledge that a proposition which contradicts the clear principles and
evidence of his own knowledge was divinely revealed, or that he understands the words rightly wherein it is
delivered, as he has that the contrary is true, and so is bound to consider and judge of it as a matter of reason, and
not swallow it, without examination, as a matter of faith.
9. Revelation in matters where reason cannot judge, or but probably, ought to be hearkened to.
First, Whatever
proposition is revealed, of whose truth our mind, by its natural faculties and notions, cannot judge, that is purely
matter of faith, and above reason.
Secondly, All propositions whereof the mind, by the use of its natural faculties, can come to determine and judge,
from naturally acquired ideas, are matter of reason; with this difference still, that, in those concerning which it has
but an uncertain evidence, and so is persuaded of their truth only upon probable grounds, which still admit a
possibility of the contrary to be true, without doing violence to the certain evidence of its own knowledge, and
overturning the principles of all reason; in such probable propositions, I say, an evident revelation ought to
determine our assent, even against probability. For where the principles of reason have not evidenced a
proposition to be certainly true or false, there clear revelation, as another principle of truth and ground of assent,
may determine; and so it may be matter of faith, and be also above reason. Because reason, in that particular
matter, being able to reach no higher than probability, faith gave the determination where reason came short; and
revelation discovered on which side the truth lay.
10. In matters where reason can afford certain knowledge, that is to be hearkened to.
Thus far the dominion of
faith reaches, and that without any violence or hindrance to reason; which is not injured or disturbed, but assisted
and improved by new discoveries of truth, coming from the eternal fountain of all knowledge. Whatever God hath
revealed is certainly true: no doubt can be made of it. This is the proper object of faith: but whether it be a divine
revelation or no, reason must judge; which can never permit the mind to reject a greater evidence to embrace what
is less evident, nor allow it to entertain probability in opposition to knowledge and certainty. There can be no
evidence that any traditional revelation is of divine original, in the words we receive it, and in the sense we
understand it, so clear and so certain as that of the principles of reason: and therefore Nothing that is contrary to,
and inconsistent with, the clear and self-evident dictates of reason, has a right to he urged or assented to as a
matter of faith, wherein reason hath nothing to do. Whatsoever is divine revelation, ought to overrule all our
opinions, prejudices, and interest, and hath a right to be received with full assent. Such a submission as this, of our
reason to faith, takes not away the landmarks of knowledge: this shakes not the foundations of reason, but leaves
us that use of our faculties for which they were given us.
11. If the boundaries be not set between faith and reason, no enthusiasm or extravagancy in religion can be
contradicted.
If the provinces of faith and reason are not kept distinct by these boundaries, there will, in matters of
religion, be no room for reason at all; and those extravagant opinions and ceremonies that are to be found in the
several religions of the world will not deserve to be blamed. For, to this crying up of faith in opposition to reason,
we may, I think, in good measure ascribe those absurdities that fill almost all the religions which possess and
divide mankind. For men having been principled with an opinion that they must not consult reason in the things of
religion, however apparently contradictory to common sense and the very principles of all their knowledge, have
let loose their fancies and natural superstition; and have been by them led into so strange opinions, and
extravagant practices in religion, that a considerate man cannot but stand amazed at their follies, and judge them
so far from being acceptable to the great and wise God, that he cannot avoid thinking them ridiculous and
offensive to a sober good man. So that, in effect, religion, which should most distinguish us from beasts, and
ought most peculiarly to elevate us, as rational creatures, above brutes, is that wherein men often appear most
irrational, and more senseless than beasts themselves. Credo, quia impossibile est: I believe, because it is
impossible, might, in a good man, pass for a sally of zeal; but would prove a very ill rule for men to choose their
opinions or religion by.