Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	scripture_n	sense_n	word_n	3,390	5	4.5906	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59900	A vindication of Dr. Sherlock's sermon concerning The danger of corrupting the faith by philosophy in answer to some Socinian remarks / by William Sherlock ...	Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.	1697 (1697)	Wing S3371; ESTC R21027	27,441	45

not one word to answer but only says that I contradict this my self in my Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity where I assert That suppose the natural Construction of the Words of Scripture import such a Sense as is contrary to some evident Principle of Reason I won't believe it Of this more presently but what is this to the purpose Is there no difference between what Reason can't conceive comprehend approve and what the Reason of all Mankind contradicts No difference between believing what we do not see what we have no natural notion or conception of what is not evident to natural Reason and believing in contradiction to sense and such natural Notions and natural Evidence as all Mankind agree in But he is very much troubled according to his Principle of believing Scripture no farther than Natural Reason and Philosophy approves how to distinguish between believing Plato and Tully and believing a Revelation He says They look upon Plato and Tully as great Men but Fallible p. 15. and therefore may take the liberty to dissent from them and believe them no farther than Reason approves Very right but will he believe the Scripture any farther than Reason can conceive comprehend approve Have a care of that But they will do as well if Reason will not approve of such Scripture Doctrines as it can't conceive and comprehend they will Expound and Torture Scripture till it submits to Reason For it is more congruous to think that an Inspired Writer uses a Figurative or it may be a Catachrestical very Catachrestical Expression or Phrase than that he delivers flat contradictions or downright impossibilities That is to say they must by all means believe or pretend to believe the Scripture but then they must never own any thing to be in Scripture which their Reason calls a flat contradiction or downright impossibility which is the very same thing for the reason why they will not allow that the Scripture contains any thing which their Reason does not approve is because they must believe the Scripture but must not believe it beyond their own Reason and Comprehension and the only difference they make between Plato and Tully and the Scripture is That they can safely reject their Authority when they please but must be at the trouble of Expounding away whatever they do not approve in the Scripture This is what I told them in the Vindication and as Impious as this Author thinks it I will venture to Transcribe that whole Paragraph But I have not done with our Author thus but must give him a little more about Expounding Scripture according to Reason For I affirm that Natural Reason is not the Rule and Measure of Expounding Scripture no more than it is of Expounding any other Writing The true and only way to interpret any Writing even the Scriptures themselves is to examine the use and propriety of Words and Phrases the Connexion Scope and Design of the Text its allusion to Ancient Customs and Usages or Disputes c. For there is no other good reason to be given for any Exposition but that the words signify so and the circumstances of the place and apparent Scope of the Writer requires it But our Author as many others do seems to confound the Reasons of believing any Doctrine with the Rules of Expounding a Writing We must believe nothing that contradicts the plain and express Dictate of Natural Reason which all Mankind agree in whatever pretence of Revelation there be for it Well say they then you must Expound Scripture so as to make it agree with the necessary Principles and Dictates of Reason No say I that does not follow I must Expound Scripture according to the use and significations of the Words and must not force my own Sense on it if it will not bear it But suppose then that the Natural Construction of the words import such a sense as is contrary to some evident Principle of Reason Then I wont believe it How Not believe Scripture No no. I will believe no pretended Revelation which contradicts the plain Dictates of Reason which all Mankind agree in and were I persuaded that those Books which we call the Holy Scriptures did so I wou'd not believe them and this is a fairer and honester way than to force them to speak what they never intended and what every impartial man who reads them must think was never intended that we may believe them To put our own Sense on Scripture without respect to the use of words and to the Reason and Scope of the Text is not to believe Scripture but to teach it to speak our Language is not to submit to the Authority of Scripture but to make Scripture submit to our Reason even in such matters as are confessedly above Reason as the Infinite Nature and Essence of God is Though I am never so well assured of the Divine Authority of any Book yet I must Expound it as I do other Writings for when God vouchsafes to speak to us in our own Language we must understand his words just as we do when they are spoke by men Indeed when I am sure that it is an Inspired Writing I lay it down for a Principle That it contains nothing absurd and contradictions or repugnant to the received Principles of Natural Reason but this does not give me Authority to Expound the words of Scripture to any other sense than what they will naturally bear to reconcile them with such Notions as I call reason for if one man has this liberty another may take it and the Scripture will be tuned to every man's private Conceit and therefore in case the plain sense of Scripture contradicts those Notions I have of things if it be possible to be true I submit to the Authority of Scripture if it seems to include a Contradiction and Impossibility if that Contradiction be not plain and notorious and in such matters as I am sure I perfectly understand there I submit again and conclude it is no Contradiction though I cannot comprehend how it is if I can by no means reconcile it I will confess I do not understand it and will not pretend to give any sense of it much less to give such a sense of it as the words will not bear His Fourth Charge is that I say Difficulty of conceiving a thing nay the absolute unconceivableness of it must not hinder our assent to what is contained in Revelation because we do not disbelieve what is made known to us by Sense or by Reason notwithstanding any difficulty or inconceivableness adhering to such things These are neither my Words nor my Argument My Argument is this That since as I had shewn in matters of pure Revelation which can be known no other way Revelation must stand in the place of Sense and Reason we must allow no Objections against revealed Mysteries but what we will allow to be good Objections against Sense and Reason Now no man questions the truth of

A VINDICATION OF Dr. Sherlock's SERMON CONCERNING The Danger of Corrupting the Faith by Philosophy IN ANSWER TO SOME Socinian Remarks By WILLIAM SHERLOCK D. D. Dean of St. Paul's Master of the Temple and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty LONDON Printed for W. Rogers at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet MDCXCVII To the Right Honourable Sir EDWARD CLARKE LORD MAYOR And to the Honourable Court of Aldermen MY LORD I Beg leave to Present Your Lordship with the Vindication of my Sermon lately Published by the Order of Your Court against the Cavils Calumnies and wilful Misrepresentations of a Socinian Writer The Argument is of that great Consequence that it deserves to be defended and this Pamphleteer has so rudely reflected upon the Honour and Sincerity of the Court for their Order to Print it that I look'd upon my self under a double Obligation to Defend so Important a Truth and in that to justify Your Lordship's Order I pray God rebuke that perverse Spirit of Infidelity and Heresy which is gone abroad in the World and secure the Faith of Christians from all the Arts and Insinuations of Impostors That God would bless Your Lordship's Government and preserve this Great City from all Temporal and Spiritual Evils is the hearty Prayer of MY LORD Your Lordship's Most Obedient Servant William Sherlock A VINDICATION OF Dr. SHERLOCK'S Sermon before my LORD MAYOR c. WHEN I receiv'd the threatning and boasting Message from some busy Factors of the Socinian Fraternity what work they would make with my late Sermon before my Lord Mayor concerning the Danger of corrupting the Faith by Philosophy my greatest Concernment was how to meet with their Answer which usually comes last to my hands and how to bear the Drudgery of reading it for their Arguments have been spent long since and that little Wit they had is now degenerated into Railing That scurrilous Treatment they have lately given to so many Excellent Persons especially to that Great Man the Bishop of Worcester is a fair Warning to all who dare oppose them what they must expect And besides the Experience of their many former Civilities I had more than ordinary reason to expect it now they being touch'd in a very sensible part without any other Defence to make And this Author has not deceiv'd my Expectations for upon a Perusal of his Remarks I find nothing of Argument a very little Wit and abundance of Railing His Wit and Railing be to himself but I am sorry I can find nothing that looks so like an Argument as to administer occasion for any useful Discourse This there is no help for if Men will write Books without any Arguments to be answered there is nothing to be done but only to shew that they have offered nothing to the purpose or that needs an Answer And this will be done in a few words for he has disputed at large against what I never said nor thought but has not one word against any part of the Argument of that Sermon His Title-Page pretends a great Zeal for the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and of the Church of England concerning the Blessed Trinity Which is as true as that Richard Baldwin printed this Pamphlet who has publickly disowned it in Print But though a Socinian Conscience can digest such Godly Cheats as a piece of Wit and Artifice yet a Wise Man would not venture on them because Mankind hate to be abused and grow very jealous of Men of Tricks And yet had we to deal with Modest Men it would be thought a little of the latest for a Socinian to talk of defending the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and of the Church of England concerning the Blessed Trinity For their Cant about Real and Nominal Trinitarians and Three Infinite Minds and Spirits is too well known to pass for so much as a Jest any longer and till they can defend the Judgment of their Disinteressed Person a little better than by scorning the Answer which they will never be able to make any other Reply to it were time for them could they find any thing else to say in the room of it to let that alone And yet this is what he would bring this present Dispute to if he knew how He often flirts at Three Infinite Minds and Spirits though there is no such Expression in the whole Sermon but still he says I intimate this in asserting a Real Trinity Now if Three Infinite Minds and Spirits be essential to the Notion of a Real Trinity as his Inference supposes it is the best Vindication that could possibly be thought of for that Expression For not to believe a Real Trinity is to deny the Father to be a True and Real Father and the Son to be a True and Real Son and the Holy Ghost to be a True and Real Spirit and this is to deny the Catholick Faith of Father Son and Holy Ghost which cannot be a Real Trinity cannot be really Three if each of them be not truly and really what is signified by those Names But though that Phrase of Three Infinite Minds and Spirits was used very innocently by me only to signify Three Infinite Intelligent Persons each of which is Infinite Mind and Spirit and neither of them is each other which is the Catholick Faith yet I freely acknowledge as I have done more than once That it is liable to a very Heretical Tritheistick Sense if understood absolutely and in that Sense I always disowned it And it is a sign Men have very little to say when they make such a noise with an inconvenient Form of Speech though expounded to a Catholick Sense But the Margin will direct the Reader where he may find the true State of this Controversy But what is all this to my Sermon which neither explains nor defends any particular Hypothesis about the Trinity but is a general Vindication of the Christian Faith from the Pretences of Reason and Philosophy But The Doctrine of the Catholick Church and of the Church of England concerning the Blessed Trinity explained and asserted against the dangerous Heterodoxies in a Sermon by Dr William Sherlock c And Remarks upon Dr. William Sherlock ' s False and Treacherous Defence and Explication of some Principal Articles of Faith c. were more specious Titles and both so good that they knew not which to chuse and therefore adorned the Title-Page with one and the Frontispiece with the other that if ever a poor Sermon was confuted with Titles which have a strange Magick in them this is utterly undone But it is time to consider his Remarks which exactly answer the Title that they are nothing to the purpose I am not at leisure to follow him in all his Harangues and his Wit and Buffoonry I despise too much to take notice of it and when it appears that a Man has discharged all his Artillery of Witticisms against his own Mistakes he is witty at his own Cost too He has