the Trinity and Incarnation that how unaccountable soever these Mysteries be it is the most useful and necessary Knowledge in the world But there is one thing still behind which I find nettles this Author and I don't wonder at it To shew how much it became the Goodness of God to reveal these Mysteries of Salvatiâ—n to us I observed That the lapsed state of Human Nature makes Supernatural Knowledge necessary For though Natural Knowledge must be allowed sufficient to all the ends of Human Life while man continued Innocent Yet when man had sinned he forfeited the Favour of God and a natural Immortality and whether he should be restored or not and by what means he should be restored depended wholly on the Sovereign Will and Pleasure of God And therefore the Light of Nature though it could direct an innocent man how to please and worship God and to preserve himself Immortal it could not teach Sinners how to make Attonement for Sin nor give them any certain Hopes that God would forâ—ive sins and bestow immortal Life on them Which makes it necessary that the Religion of a Sinner be a Revealed Religion This he imperfectly transcribes and adds True but not in the least to the purpose 'T is no Answer to that Objection but to another Namely to this Why Revelation or a â—upernatural Knowledge is necessary Here he had overshot himself in allowing Supernatural Knowledge necessary and therefore immediately qualifies it with or however highly requisite which declares this Socinian's Opinion That we might have been saved without the Knowledge of Christ or the Gospel-Revelation for I know nothing that can make any thing more necessary than the necessity of â—alvation And therefore if it be not necessary but only highly requisite we might be saved without it He adds the Reason why he says this is nothing to the purpose The Objeâ—tion was concerning a Revelation and Faith not intelligible or not conceiveable the Answer is only concerning Revelation or Supernatural Knowledge in general Why it was given to men But it is neither so nor so the Objection concerns the use of such a Revelation as contains matters which Natural Reason cannot comprehend This part of the Answer proves from the lapsed state of Human Nature the absolute Necessity of the Gospel Revelation which contains these Mysteries For if Nature can't save us it can't discover to us the way of Salvation neither and if we must be saved by a Supernatural Grace and Power it must be supernaturally revealed and what is Supernatural is the Object of Faith not of Natural Knowledge Serm. p. 24. But he adds There is a great difference between Supernaturally revealed and unconceivable the whole Christian Religion the Precepts as well as Faith of it is a Supernatural Revelation and yet a System so intelligible that it must be taught to the Women to the Poor and â—ven to little Children This is true but there is a difference between Supernatural Knowledge as opposed to Natural Knowledge and Supernatural Revelation Such things as Nature can teach us may be supernaturally revealed and the degeneracy of Mankind may make this in his Language highly requisite as the Nature and Providence of God a future State and the differences of Good and Evil But Supernatural Knowledge is a Knowledge which Nature cannot teach but must be learned only by Revelation and this is the Knowledge and a Mysterious Knowledge it is which the lapsed state of Human Nature makes necessary as necessary as the Salvation of Sinners by the Incarnation and Death of the Son of God Which makes a great difference between the Precepts and Faith of the Gospel though both contained in the same Revelation He adds It was not made the matter of Supernatural Revelation for its Difficulty Mysteriousness or Transcendency of the Human Understanding but to ascertain the Truth of it and to enforce its Authority in the world Which is in plain English to say That the Design of the Gospel-Revelation was not to teach us any thing beyond the Discovery or Comprehension of meer Natural Reason but only to give greater Certainty and Authority to the Laws and Religion of Nature And here for a conclusion I joyn Issue with this Socinian and am glad to take the least Hint for some useful Discourse Whether the Gospel Revelation contain any thing which Nature could not teach us and which Natural Reason cannot comprehend or were only intended to give greater Certainty and Authority to the Religion of Nature That the Gospel is a New Revelation of what Nature could not teach nor meer Natural Reason comprehend I shall prove not from the Name or Notion of Mysteries which these men so foolishly and absurdly ridicule but from the express Authority of St. Paul 1 Cor. 2.14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God for they are foolishness unto him neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned A brief Explication of which Words will be of great use in our present Dispute The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Natural Man as Theophilact and other Greek Fathers observe is the man who judges only by Natural Light and Reason and will receive and believe nothing beyond what Nature teaches And the Context proves this to be the true meaning of it This account the Apostle gives of the Graecian Philosophers That as the Jews required a sign so the Greeks seek after wisdom 1 Cor. 1.22 nothing would content them but some Philosophical Speculations and Natural Proofs and Demonstrations of Faith which in this Chapter he calls The enticing words of man's wisdom and opposes to the demonstration of the spirit and of power that is to the Evidence of Miracles wrought by the Spirit of God which are a more certain and infallible Proof than all their Pretences to Reason and Demonstration For where is the wise where is the scribe where is the disputer of this world hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world for after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom by natural Reason and Philosophy knew not God it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe 1 Cor. 1.20 21. These are the men who rejected the Faith of Christ of whom the Apostle here speaks and gives an account of the reason of their Infidelity in these words The natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God Which will more fully appear by examining what these things of the Spirit of God are And it is evident from the whole Context that they are matters of pure Revelation which can be known only by the Revelation of the Spirit or the whole Oeconomy of our Salvation by the Incarnation Death Resurrection Ascension of Jesus Christ the Eternal Son of God which is the Subject of the Gospel-Revelation This he calls The Wisdom of God in a Mystery even the hidden Wisdom which God ordained before the world to our glory ver 7.
an Objection against any thing that it is without Reason or as we apprehend contrary to reason we must first consider whether it be the proper Object of Reason otherwise it is no Objection as it is no Objection against sounds that we cannot see them nor against colours that we cannot hear them because sounds are not the object of sight nor colours of hearing This I think is plain Sense and good Reason too but this he says is no Answer to that Objection Why should reasonable Creatures be obliged to believe things without Reason Nor was it ever intended as an immediate Answer to it the Answer I give is That we are not oblig'd to believe without Reason but when such Men as this Author Object farther That to Believe things whose natures we do not understand and cannot account for by natural Reason is to believe without Reason it is a proper Answer to say That Reason is not judge of the Nature and Philosophy of things and nothing can be said to be without Reason or against Reason which is not the object of Reason as no man pretends that the pure Natures and â—ssences of things or their Essential Reasons Properties Unions Operations are Serm. p. 19. But herein it seems I was mistaken for I have met with a Man at last who makes Reason the judge of all this for if these be not the Objects of Reason Reason has no Object at all for our Reason can be no otherwise employed but either about Substances or their Unions Essential Reasons Operations or Properties p. 20. Very right we may know something of all this but I speak of the Philosophy of Nature Now can this new Philosopher tell us What the pure simple Essence and Substance of any thing is What naked Matter stripp'd of all Accidents and Qualities is How Soul and Body are United which cannot Touch each other How a Spirit should feel Pain or Pleasures from the Impressions on the Body How we Think and Reason Nay How we See and Hear How Thought moves our Bodies and excites our Passions And a Thousand such like Mysteries which could he Unriddle he would infinitely gratify the Inquisitive world But Christianity not Mysterious and the Philosophy of pure simple Nature are too great Discoveries for one Age and yet if ever this happens they must go together For as I observed this is all the incomprehensibility men have to complain of in the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation The first concerns the pure Nature Essence Substance of God and the Essential Distinction and Unity of the Godhead which we neither do nor can know any thing of for all Nature is a Secret and Mystery to us much more the Infinite Nature of God And the second concerns the Union of the Divine and Human Nature in the Person of Christ which is a Mystery but what we ought not to complain of since the Philosophy of all Natural Unions is a Mystery to us These things are not the Objects of Reason and therefore though we believe them upon the Authority of a Revelation without understanding the Mystery of them this is not to believe without or contrary to Reason And what now does this Socinian say to this truly not one word but falls out with Socinus and Crellius and some of his best Friends for talking so much of Mysteries which by the way shews that this is not such a new and unheard of Objection as he would pretend for now he has found out that there is no Mystery at all in the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation and he is in the right if his Socinian Explication of these Doctrines which destroys the Mystery and the Catholick Faith together may pass for the Doctrine of the Church But there has been enough said of that in the distinction between Real and Nominal Trinitarians examined which the Reader may consult and this Author answer at his leisure though I am very sensible he can never want such Answers as this for any thing 2 dly The Second Objection against such a Revelation as contains matters which natural Reason cannot comprehend is to what purpose such a Revelation serves what merit there can be in believing such Doctrines and of what good use such a Faith can be to us Serm. p. 2â— This is another Objection which he thinks no Sect of Religious ever made p. 24. but the Irreligious mâ—y make this Objection and there are more than one Sect of these As to the usefulness of it I observed That though neither Natural nor Revealed Knowledge extends to the Reasons and Causes of Nature and of Essential Properties and Operations yet both Natural and Revealed Knowledge is of as much use to us as if we did perfectly understand all the Secret and Incomprehensible Mysteries of the Nature of God or of the Natures of Creatures Both Natural and Revealed Knowledge are alike upon this account that they only acquaint us what things are and what ends they serve and then we know what use to make of them without understanding the Secret Mysteries of Nature This I shew'd both in the Knowledge of Nature and of God and added We may make all the use that can be made of this World and of every thing in it without understanding the Essential Reasons and Causes or Internal Nature of any thing This last Clause he fixes his Remarks on and that he may have something to remark he changes my Words thus We may use the World as fully and every thing in it to as good purpose as if we understood the Reasons and Internal Natures of things And then adds No Trisler not so fully nor to so good purpose as if we better understood the Natures of things Now this fully and to as good purpose are not my Words but his own nay we can make no use at all of it but only so far forth as we understand the Nature and Reasons of things in it We can use nothing to any purpose till we know or understand something of its nature and no farther can we apply it and use it than we understand its Nature and know its Properties and Powers Now this is not meerly trifling but Knavery He represents me very ridiculously asserting That we may as fully and to as good purpose use every thing in the World without knowing its Nature Vertues and Properties as if we knew them whereas I expresly assert That we must first know what things are and what ends they serve and the better we know this to be sure the better and then we know what use to make of them without understanding the secret Mysteries of Nature That is when by Experience and Observation we know what things are good for we know how to use them without understanding the secret Mysteries and Philosophy of Nature As how God created all things out of nothing how the Corn grows or our Food nourishes us and the like And thus I shew'd it was as to the Doctrine of
two Idols of Atheists and Hereticks and that make Atheists to be Atheists and Hereticks to be Hereticks p. 12. His second Proposition Ibid. runs thus That to ascertain the very and true Faith we must attend only to that meaning of Scripture which the Words and Phrases do imply Rejecting all mixture of Reason and Philosophy in our Disputes about Religion and our Inquiries about the meaning of Scripture Now let any Reader try whether he can find any such Proposition as this in all my Sermon either in words or sense I could not for some time guess what shadow of pretence he could have for charging such a Proposition on me I did indeed in some principal Articles distinguish between Faith and Philosophy between what is revealed in Scripture and what Philosophical Disputes which the Scripture takes no notice of have been raised about them and warned all men from mixing and corrupting the Faith with Philosophy but does this forbid us Expounding Scripture agreeable to Reason and common Sense and Philosophy too where Sense and Reason and Philosophy are proper judges They are not the supreme and absolute judges in matters of pure Revelation But does it hence follow that they cannot judge of their proper Objects Do I any where say That we must always expound the Scripture to a literal Sense That when Christ is called a Way a Door a Rock we must understand this literally And yet this is plainly what he would have to be my Sense as his beloved instance of Transubstantiation shews In this Sermon I have given no Rules for Expounding Scripture which in time I hope I may But what I assert is this That when by all those Methods which Wise Men observe in expounding any Writing we have found out what the true sense of Scripture must be we must not reject such Doctrines meerly because natural Reason cannot conceive or comprehend them That Revelation as to such matters as are knowable only by Revelation must serve instead of Sense natural Ideas and natural Reason p. 11. This gives a plain Answer to all his Cant about Transubstantiation from our Saviour's words This is my Body p. 12. For is there no way of knowing what is Bread and what is Flesh but by Revelation Is not this the proper object of Sense and Reason And then it does not come within my Rule for Sense and Reason must judge of their proper Objects though Revelation must serve us instead of Sense and Reason as to such matters as can be known only by Revelation that is as I expresly add we must upon the Authority of Revelation believe things which we do not see things which we have no natural notion or conception of things which are not evident to natural Reason As for instance If it be Revealed in Scripture that God has an Eternal Word his Only-Begotten Son and that in time this Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us this Son of God became Man that God sent forth his Son made of a Woman made under the Law Though neither Sense nor natural Ideas nor meer natural Reason give us any notice of it yet if we will own a Revelation we must believe it upon the sole Authority of Revelation But though Revelation in such cases be Sense and Reason to us because we have no other means of Knowledge yet Sense must judge of the natural Objects of Sense and Reason of the Objects of natural Reason but Revelation was never intended to unteach us what Sense and natural Reason evidently teach and therefore it cannot teach us that Bread is Flesh and Wine is Blood But this Socinian is got so far towards Popery that he will not allow Sense to be judge of this matter whether the Bread be Transubstantiated or not and that for a very pleasant Reason his words are these p. 13. He cannot have recourse to Sense in the case 't is only Reason and Philosophy can help him out For though the Apostles who saw and tasted that it was Bread only and not Flesh might have appealed also to their Senses yet we that never saw or tasted the Substance which Jesus gave then to the Disciples can know by Reason and Philosophy only by nothing else that it was not his Flesh and Blood That is I can't know by Sense that Christ gave Bread and Wine and not Flesh and Blood to his Disciples because I did not See and Taste my self that very Substance that Christ gave to his Disciples But can I judge by Sense that what I my self See and Taste in the Lords Supper is Bread and Wine after Consecration not Flesh and Blood For that is the Question between us and the Church of Rome not whether we receive the same now which Christ gave to the Apostles in the first Institution which they take for granted and to question which is meer Scepticism but what that change is which the words of Consecration make in the Elements to this day and if we cannot judge of this by Sense the Church of Rome have a better Plea for themselves than I thought they had And if I can't now judge by my own Senses what it was Christ gave to his Apostles and what they Saw and Tasted I fear it will much weaken some other very good Arguments against Transubstantiation But how will this Socinian who rejects the Evidence of Sense confute Transubstantiation Why that is easily done by Reason and Philosophy as thus The Text expresly says it was Bread which he blessed and brake and called it his Body therefore it was his Body in Sign and Signification not in Reality All this is Arguing 't is Reason that convinces us not Sense that the Substance he divided to them was indeed Bread not his Flesh which he neither blessed nor brake This is Reasoning indeed But did I ever reject Reasoning and Arguing about the meaning of Scripture Words and Phrases and the true Sense and Interpretation of Scripture Is there no difference between Reasoning about the Sense of Scripture and setting up the Conclusions of meer natural Reason and Philosophy against the plain and evident Doctrines of Scripture It is certain I made a manifest distinction between them p. 9. In all these cases we are concerned to enquire what the true sense of the Article is for this the Scripture teaches and so far our Faith is concerned and these are not only justifiable but necessary Disputes if the true Faith be necessary And such were the Disputes of the Catholick Fathers with the Sabellian Arian and Photinian Hereticks c. So that I allow of Arguing and Reasoning as much as he does and add But that which we are to beware of is not to mix Philosophy with our Faith nor to admit of any meer Philosophical Objections against the Faith nor to attempt any Explication of these Mysteries beyond what the Scriptures and the Faith and Practice of the Catholick Church will justify This distinction he knew very well but very honestly dissembles
and what this is immediately follows Which none of the princes of this world knew for had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory which can refer only to the Dispensation of Grace by Jesus Christ. This Nature could not teach us as it is written Eye hath not sâ—en neither ear heard neither have entred into the heart of man the things which God hath prepared for them that love him v. 9. That is such things as neither Sense nor Natural Reason could inform us of But God hath revealed them to us by his Spirit for the Spirit searcheth all things even the deep things of God for what man knoweth the things of a man but the Spirit of a man which is in him even so the things of God knoweth no man but the spirit of God Now we have received not the Spirit of the World but the Spirit which is of God that we may know those things which are freely given us of God Which proves that these are properly the things of the Spirit which could never be known but by the Revelation of the Spirit For they are the deep things of God his Secret Counsels and Purposes for the Redemption of Mankind the free Results of his own Wisdom and Goodness the things which are freely given us of God and therefore can be known and can be revealed only by the Spirit and these are the things of the Spirit which the natural Man the vain Pretender to Reason and Philosophy receiveth not Now can any man desire a plainer Proof than this how incompetent a Judge meer natural Reason is of the Mysteries of Faith of the whole Oeconomy of Gospel-Grace For what the natural Man does not receive that meer natural Reason does not receive for the only Reason why the natural Man does not receive it is because natural Reason does not receive it and what is foolishness to the natural Man is foolishness to natural Reason and what the natural Man cannot know because they are spiritually discerned that natural Reason cannot discern Now can there be a plainer Proof than this if we believe St. Paul that there are such Doctrines contained in the Gospel as natural Reason does not receive or approve but rejects with scorn For it is not said That the natural Man cannot by the mere Light of Nature find out or discover these things of the Spirit that he had asserted before but these words give a reason of the Infidelity of the Wise Men the Scribes the Disputers of this World who rejected the Faith when it was preached to them by the Apostles that the natural Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not receive or approve the Faith and not only so but rejects it as foolishness as absurd contradictious impossible unworthy of a Man of Reason and Philosophy Like the Philosoâ—hers of the Epicureans and the Stoicks who encountred St. Paul when he preached at Athens and some said What will this babler say other some He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods because he preached unto them Jesus and the resâ—rrection 17. Acts 18. If then there be such Doctrines as these in the Gospel-Revelation it is certain it can be no Oâ—jection against any Article of the Christian Faith that meer natural Reason does not receive approve comprehend it but accounts it absurd ridiculous foolish for thus the things of the Spirit of God were to the natural Man in St. Paul's days and thus they will always be Nay if the things of the Spirit of God are so far above the comprehension of Human Reason then such Doctrines as meer natural Reason does not receive have this Mark and Character of Divinity if they are contained in the Gospel-Revelation Nay let me add farther That those Doctrines which have been always owned and defended with the warmest Zeal by the Catholick Church and opposed and rejected with as great scorn and contempt by Pagans Infidels and Hereticks as a contradiction to the Reason of Mankind and the Philosophy of Nature are most likely to be the true Christian Faith for this proves that the Christian Church always believed them to be Gospel-Doctrines and Infidels and Hereticks rejected them as incomprehensible and inconceiveable and absurd to Human Reason and such the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation and Cross of Christ have always been to such natural Men. Nay farther If there be such Doctrines in the Gospel-Revelation which meer Natural Reason receiveth not but accounts foolishness then it is certain that is not the true Christian Faith which contains none of these Mysteries none of this hidden Wisdom none of these deep things of God Let the Socinian then tell us What things there are in their Faith which the Natural Man receiveth not which are above the comprehension of meer Natural Reason They glory that they have no such incomprehensible Mysteries in their Faith that they have a reasonable Faith that they have stript Christian Religion of Riddles and Mysteries and fitted it to the level and comprehension of Human Reason but this very thing wherein they glory is a demonstration against them that Socinianism is not the true Christian Faith for that contains such Doctrines as the Natural Man and meer Natural Reason receiveth not They commonly laugh at that distinction between things contrary to Reason and above Reason which Human Reason is no judge of We assert That a Divine Revelation can never contradict true Reason for a Divine Revelation must be true and true Reason is true and Truth cannot contradict Truth But we assert that there are many things in the Christian Faith which are above Reason which Reason is not a competent judge of and which Natural Men may call contradictions if every thing must pass for a contradiction to Reason which meer Natural Reason does not receive approve allow But after all they must find something above Natural Reason if they will believe like Christians for such things there are in the Christian Faith and then let them distinguish as they can between contrary to Reason and above it But I must take notice of one thing more in these words the reason why the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God and cannot know them viz. because they are spiritually discerned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are to be known and judged of only by Spiritual Arguments and Methods and therefore the Natural Man who rejects all means of Knowledge but Natural Reason can never know them The Truth and Certainty of our Faith must be learnt not from the Evidence of Natural Reason and Philosophy which was the Evidence the Philosophers expected The Greeks seek after Wisdom 1 Cor. 1.22 But â—t Paul tells us That Christ sent him to preach the Gospel not with Wisdom of words lest the Cross of Christ should be made of none effect v. 17. c 2.4 5. And my Speech and my Preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and of Power I did not confirm my Doctrine by Natural Reasons and Arguments but by the Evidence of Miracles wrought by the Power of the Holy Spirit That your Faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God And the true Interpretation and admirable Wisdom of these Divine Mysteries must be spiritually discerned also Which things also we speak not in the words which man's Wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth comparing spiritual things with spiritual There is a spiritual Language belongs to spiritual Things and we must learn the true Sense and Interpretation of the Faith not from Natural Ideas or the Words and Notions of Philosophy that is in the Socinian Language by Expounding Scripture by Natural Reason but by studying the Language of Scripture and the meaning of the Holy Ghost in it especially by comparing the Old and the New Testament together Spiritual things with Spiritual This is a way of Learning which Natural Men despise and therefore cannot know the things of the Spirit of God which must be spiritually discerned All this I think abundantly proves that there are such Mysteries in the Christian Faith as meer Natural Reason cannot discover cannot prove cannot receive and comprehend cannot interpret which shews what reason we have to distinguish betwen matters of pure Faith and Philosophy and what danger there is of corrupting the Faith by Philosophy And now I think I may conclude for I suppose no body will expect that I should defend my self against his ridiculous Charge That I am a Socinian which had he believed I should have found better treatment from him But I shall leave him to rave by himself and look upon all these Hurricanes of Fury and Vengeance as a good sign that they feel themselves mortally Wounded THE END The Distinction between Real and Nominal Trinitarians examined c. Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity p. 21 22. Vindicatition p. 150.