REMARKS ON Dr. SHERLOCK 's SERMON OF The Danger of corrupting the Faith by Philosophy ADVERTISEMENT Lately Published AN Apology for the Parliament humbly representing to Mr. John Gailhard some Reasons why they did not at his Request enact Sanguinary Laws against Protestants in their last Session In two Letters by different Hands Sold by Richard Baldwin THE DOCTRINE OF THE Catholick Church AND OF THE CHURCH of ENGLAND CONCERNING THE Blessed Trinity Explained and Asserted Against the Dangerous Heterodoxes in a Sermon by Dr. WILLIAM SHERLOCK before my Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen LONDON Printed for Richard Baldwin in Warwick-lane 1697. Remarks upon Dr. WILLIAM SHERLOCK's False and Treacherous Defence and Explication of some principal Articles of Faith in a Sermon before my Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen on April 25. 1697. I No sooner saw the Title of this Sermon The Danger of corrupting the Faith by Philosophy and the Text Let no man spoil you through Philosophy but I imagined what was the Author's design To protect himself from and to be revenged upon the Oxford-Heads and the famous Decree there made by an Insult upon the Learning of the Place upon Philosophy it self He addresses his Sermon against Philosophy and Reason Against Philosophy on the Authority of a mistaken Text of Scripture Against Reason on his own Authority but not without a just provocation we may be sure because he found Reason was first against him Reason Sagacity Knowledg Wisdom are but only several names of the same thing and I never heard of any thing that Reason was against or that was against Reason but only Folly or Falshood Therefore tho there have been some as particularly great Erasmus who jestingly wrote Encomium moriae the Praise of Folly I did not expect that a Dean of St. Paul's would have preach'd for Folly because I took preaching to be a serious Exercise Dr. Sherlock had a mind to declaim against Reason and against Philosophy Why For the sake he saith of certain Articles of Faith that are in great and present danger from Philosophy and Reason What Man wilt thou say then that there are Articles of Faith which disagree with Reason and with Philosophy Reason being nothing else but Wisdom nor Philosophy but the Observations and Experiments that have been made concerning the nature of things in one word Experience This Undertaking to defend the Articles of Faith by decrying Reason and Philosophy is to say in effect the Articles of Faith are not consistent either with natural Wisdom or with experimental Knowledg Than which a more dangerous or more opprobrious thing could not be said by Vaninus or Hobbs or other the rankest Atheist in the World In very deed 't is the whole that Atheists and Infidels would perswade they reckon and so far forth they reckon truly that they gain their point by such a Concession This kind of Defence therefore is as false and treacherous as our Author's Explication of the Articles intended is heretical and antichristian Non tali auxilio non defensoribus istis the Articles of Faith lack no such Defences or Defenders Tho all of them are not discoverable by meer Philosophy or by natural unassisted Reason yet they perfectly agree with both and receive light and confirmation from ' em Well but seeing the Doctor had taken a conceit against Philosophy Why did he choose this Text so contrary in the opinion of all Interpreters to his purpose For they are all of opinion that the Apostle speaks not of Philosophy in general but of the Platonick Philosophy and more especially of the notions of that Philosophy concerning a Trinity of Divine Spirits and Substances which Notions are the very same with Dr. Sherlock's as is not only confessed but most largely proved by the chief Assertor of them Dr. Cudworth See Mr. Pool's Synop. Critic in loc and Dr. Cudworth's Intel. System p. 546 deinceps But let us make an Abstract or Summary of this Sermon of the Points or Doctrines it advances and of the Reasonings that are used here to support them And afterwards consider briefly both the one and the other He observes 1. That Philosophy and Reason are the only things which those men adore who would have no God at all And that what makes some men Atheists and Infidels even the Philosophick Tincture and their adherence to Natural Reason the same makes others to be Hereticks that is to be Arians Socinians and Pelagians Pag. 1. and 6. and 9. 2. That to find the true Christian Faith we must attend only to Scripture Not to the meer Words or Phrases there used for such a Confession or Declaration of the Faith would leave all the Heresies untouch'd and all Hereticks in quiet possession of their Opinions because they all submit to the Words and Phrases of Scripture But for ascertaining what is the true Faith we must attend to Scripture only in this Sense namely to what is the true Meaning of Scripture-words and Phrases to that Meaning which the Phrase and Words do imply rejecting all mixture of Philosophy and natural Reason in our Disputes and Inquiries concerning the Meaning of Scripture P. 7 8 9. 3. That as we are Christians and unless we will be understood to reject the supreme Authority of Revelation we must believe those Doctrines that are most mysterious and unconceivable notwithstanding any Objections from Natural Reason and from Philosophy against ' em Whereupon he hath this Aphorism He that believes no farther than natural Reason approves believes his Reason and not the Revelation he is a natural Philosopher not a Believer P. 11 12. 4. That Difficulty of conceiving a thing nay the absolute Vnconceivableness of it must not hinder our Assent to what is contained in Divine Revelation because we do not disbelieve what is made known to us by Sense or by Reason notwithstanding any Difficulty or Vnconceivableness adhering to it And as to Contradictions so often objected in these cases 't is an easy matter to find Contradictions in what we do not understand when we will be reasoning on what we do not understand there will be Contradictions and Impossibilities innumerable in our Guesses about ' em P. 13 14 15 16. After this he answers to two Objections whereof the first is That it seems very unnatural that God having made us Reasonable Creatures and thereby having made natural Reason the measure of Truth and Falshood to us we should notwithstanding be required to believe without Reason If we must believe with our Understandings how can we believe what we do not understand To this he answers by saying when an Objection is made against any thing or that it is as we apprehend without Reason or against and contrary to Reason the Objection is of no value if such thing is not the proper Object of Reason such as the Natures and Essences of things their essential Reasons their Unions Operations and Properties which no Man he saith can pretend are the Objects of
Reason and Philosophy because tho the Text also calls it Bread yet not after it was blessed I might give a hundred the like Instances but I think 't is not worth while for there is no man of any consideration but will acknowledg from the force of this one Example that Philosophy and Reason may be very useful in the Disputes about Religion and for ascertaining the meaning of Scripture and that by no means should they be wholly excluded as this Noveller pretends To the Third As we are Christians and unless we will be understood to reject the Supream Authority of Divine Revelation we must believe those Doctrines which are thought to be most mysterious and inconceivable notwithstanding any Objections from Reason or from Philosophy against ' em He that believes no farther than Natural Reason approves believes his Reason and not the Revelation he is a Natural Philosopher not a Believer He believes the Scriptures as he would believe Plato or Tully not as they are inspired Writings but as agreeable to Reason and as the Result of wise and deep Thoughts I shufft my Candle and put on my Spectacles when I read this I could not believe but that I mistook for want of a better sight but Spectacles and Candle both stood to it that my Eyes had not deceived me I entreat therefore the Dean of St. Pauls to reconcile what he says here with as clear a Passage in Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of the Trinity pag. 151. where the Doctor says Suppose that the natural Construction of the words of Scripture import such a Sense as is contrary to some evident Principle of Reason Then I won't believe it How not believe Scripture No no I will believe no pretended Revelation which contradicts the plain Dictates of Reason Were I perswaded that the Books called Holy Scripture did contradict the plain Dictates of Reason I would not believe ' em If this Vindication of the Trinity was written as the Doctor intimates in the Preface to it by Divine Inspiration it would tempt one to think that his Sermon before my Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen was composed by Diabolical Suggestion for no man not the Doctor himself will deny that they directly contradict one another The Sermon says we are to believe the most mysterious and inconceivable Doctrines notwithstanding any Objections of Reason the inspired Vindication says we are not to believe Scripture if it contradicts Reason The Sermon says to believe no farther than Reason approves is to be a Philosopher not a Believer the Vindication divinely suggested says if Reason approves not but gainsays or contradicts we are not to believe whatsoever Revelation As to that which he intended I imagine as a choice Thought that to believe no farther than Reason approves is to believe the Scriptures but only as we would believe Plato or Tully It will not help the Preacher in the least For when the Vindicator or any other man sees cause to disbelieve somewhat in Tully or Plato he considers that tho they were indeed great men yet being but men they were fallible it might readily happen that they oversaw in some particular matter oversaw what less able Persons might happen to discern But when Reason cannot approve Doctrines said by some to be contained in Scripture as suppose three Infinite Spirits each of them a God and yet all of them but one God an honest man will easily find a great many Expedients much better than the Vindicator's downright I won't believe the Scriptures He will say for example Let us examine very carefully whether this contradictory impossible and heretical Doctrine three Infinite Spirits each of them a perfect God all of them but one is indeed affirmed any where in Scripture It is not found there besure in express words it only seems to some few Upstarts to be implied in some Passages of Scripture therefore says the honest Christian if those Passages bid any thing fair toward such a Doctrine it 's better however to suppose 't is more congruous to think that an Inspired Writer uses a figurative or it may be a catachrestical Expression or Phrase than that he delivers flat Contradictions or downright Impossibilities In short I say there is an honest Medium between Dr. Sherlock's Impious I won't believe the Scriptures and between believing what Reason and Philosophy do absolutely reject It is this That we know the Inspired Writers do often speak figuratively nay often catachrestically or improperly All Interpreters confess so much There is hardly a Chapter in the Bible where they do not observe it more than once and therefore mollify the words or phrase by a dexterous Interpretation So that neither the Vindicator after all his pretences to Inspiration is to be heard when he cries I won't believe the Scripture nor yet the Preacher when he cants to my Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen That no Objections of Reason can be admitted against the meer Phrases and words of Scripture A Rule of Interpreting that would let in the Transubstantiation and a hundred more absurd and heretical Doctrines On the Fourth He tells us next 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 And as to Contradictions so often objected in these cases 't is an easy matter to find Contradictions in what we do not understand when we will be reasoning on what we do not understand there will be Contradictions and Impossibilities innumerable in our Guesses about ' em I sincerely believe that God may reveal to us many things impenetrable or unconceivable not only by the Humane Understanding but by the Angelical But 't is not true what our Preacher here adds by way of confirmation or proof namely that we believe what is made known to us by Sense or by Reason notwithstanding any difficulty or inconceivableness adhering to some such things For Sense tells me that the Oar in the Water is crooked that all distant Bodies for Colour are dark and for Figure round it tells me also a great number of things in my Sleep it presents me in Dreams with abundance of Scenes all which I disbelieve for certain Difficulties or an Inconceivableness in the things In like manner I know but few Men who believe Reason when it is not clear but perplexed with Difficulties or darkning Doubts but especially when there is a remarkable and manifest Inconceivableness In that case we do not use to call it Reason but at best Probability and Opinion Great Difficulties and a too dark Vnconceivableness are such a Ballance to whatsoever Reasons that they lose the name of Reasons and are detruded into the rank of Likelihoods and a very honourable rank it is for such kind of Reasons But he plainly shows what he would have and what his
intelligent Essence or Substance are equivalent terms so that in saying three Persons you say also three Essences The Ground of Faustus Socinus and which if true all Men grant that his Scheme also of Religion would be true is that Person and a particular intelligent Substance are the same that as often as you multiply one you multiply the other from whence Faustus concluded we must not say three Divine Persons because 't is a granting three Divine Substances or Essences which would be three Gods Lest Dr. Sherlock should deny that he takes the same Ground with Faustus Socinus and therefore that in consequence their Schemes are coincident I will subjoin his very Words A Person and an intelligent Substance are reciprocal terms and three distinct Persons are three distinct numerical Substances and one numerical intelligent Substance is but one numerical Person Vindic. p. 69. Again How can three distinct Persons have but one numerical Substance What is the Distinction between Essence Personality and Subsistence p. 139. To conclude All the Difference between F. Socinus and this Man is Socinus saw the Consequences of his Principles without a Monitor the other even when admonish'd does not or as some think will not see them A POSTSCRIPT By another Hand THIS Author has told his Reader p. 7. that Dr. Sh. hath not indeed in this Sermon declar'd expresly what kind of Trinity he pleads for but he intimates it and plainly points to it at p. 7 10. But besides what is there said for making known the Dean's Doctrine of a Trinity of Spirits and Substances I conceive it may give greater Evidence of it to cite a Passage or two concerning it out of his Book The Vindication of the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity c. where we find p. 66. It is plain the Persons are perfectly distinct for they are three distinct and infinite Minds To say they are three Divine Persons and not three distinct Infinite Minds is both Heresy and Non-sense They are three intelligent Beings Father Son and Holy Ghost are as really distinct Persons as Peter James and John p. 105. They are three Holy Spirits p. 258. There is no Contradiction that three Infinite Minds should be absolutely perfect in Wisdom Goodness Justice and Power for these are Perfections that may be in more than one p. 81. And p. 47. We must allow the Divine Persons to be real substantial Beings the three Divine Persons are substantially distinct This now is that Doctrine which Dr. Sherlock must be understood to plead for in this Sermon It is the Mystery of this Trinity of which he says p. 12. The Inconceivableness can be no Argument against the Truth of the Revelation or that Sense of the Words which contains such Mysteries These are the things he says we must believe tho we do not see things which we have no natural Notion or Conception of things that are not evident to natural Reason The meaning is plainly this We must believe his Doctrine of three distinct and Infinite Minds and Spirits however it does in our clearest Reason improv'd also by most evident Revelation introduce the Worship of three Gods for what is so evident both in Reason and Revelation as that God is one Infinite Mind and Spirit and not three But Dr. Sh. has devis'd some pretty new terms such as Self-consciousness and mutual Consciousness whereby to elude the Testimony of Holy Scripture concerning the perfect Oneness of God but Reason contradicts him and will not suffer him to destroy that glorious Attribute under the notion of unconceivable Mystery She says it 's not Mystery but a plain Inconsistency therefore Dr. Sh. would have her Mouth stopp'd or our Ears stopp'd that we may not hear what Reason says tho in consent with Revelation or at least that we should give no heed to what she says Our Author has told us that the Oxford-Decree condemns this Doctrine as Impious and Heretical contrary to the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and the Church of England But if we will believe this Preacher the Oxford-Heads have pass'd that Sentence because they give too much heed to natural Reason and Philosophy and exalt what those say even above Revelation This brings to my mind what the late Archbishop of Blessed Memory determin'd in the Dispute between Reason and Revelation Dr. Sherlock did him a great deal of Right in a Sermon upon the sad occasion of his Death I hope he will not now despise his Judgment That great Man upon 1 John 4.1 says 1. That Reason is the Faculty whereby Revelations are to be discerned 2. All supernatural Revelation supposeth the Truth of the Principles of natural Religion 3. All Reasonings about Divine Revelations must necessarily be governed by the Principles of natural Religion that is by those Apprehensions which Men naturally have of the Divine Perfections and by the clear Notions of Good and Evil which are imprinted upon our Natures Because we have no other way to judg of what is worthy of God and credible to be reveal'd by him and what not but by natural Notions which we have of God and of his essential Perfections and by these Principles likewise we are to interpret what God hath revealed and when any doubt ariseth concerning the Meaning of any Divine Revelation as that of the Holy Scriptures we are to govern our selves in the Interpretation of it by what is most agreeable to those natural Notions which we have of God and we have all the Reason in the World to reject that Sense which is contrary thereto 4. Nothing ought to be receiv'd as a Revelation from God which plainly contradicts the Principles of natural Religion or overthrows the Certainty of them Under this Head that excellent Man concludes That a Miracle is not enough to give credit to a Prophet that teacheth any thing contrary to that natural Notion which Men have That there is but one God who only ought to be worshipped Thus we see that in the Judgment of the late Archbishop Dr. Sherlock's Trinity would not be made credible tho a Miracle should be wrought in Testimony of it because it contradicts the Principles of natural Religion that is of natural Reason FINIS
Reason or that any Man living can know any thing of them And this he adds is all the Incomprehensibility and Contradiction that Men can charge on the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation P. 17 18 19. The second Objection is To what purpose can such a Revelation serve or of what use can such a Faith be which is concerning things we cannot comprehend or understand and to which Reason disagrees He answers First we may use the World and every thing in it as fully and to as good purpose as if we understood the Reasons and internal Natures of things The Objection if it hath any force takes place as much against created Nature or the Complex of things called the World as against the Gospel-Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation for the former is all inconceivable Mystery as well as the latter He answers again Secondly Tho we understand not the Trinity the Incarnation or the necessity of the Satisfaction by the Death of the Son of God 't is for all that a very useful Knowledg even this that God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son to the end that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting Life P. 21 22 23. This is the Substance and Force of the Sermon And one would think on a general View of this Discourse that all Dr. Sherlock's Care and Concern were for the poor distressed Articles of the Christian Faith that there is nothing in his Thoughts however nothing equally in his Thoughts as the Defence and Patronage of the Catholick Doctrines of the Trinity the Incarnation and Satisfaction But I know no body but himself and his Party of Realists as they call themselves that question the Articles of the Trinity the Incarnation or the Satisfaction in the Sense they are held by the Catholick Church It is even necessary to caution his Hearers and Readers what this Doctor 's true meaning is when he pretends to plead for the Trinity and the Articles thereon depending For when he cries Trinity he means three Eternal and Infinite Spirits that is he says Trinity and means Tritheism and this is the Reason why his Defences of the Catholick Doctrine of the Trinity are as false and weak as his Explication of that Doctrine that I may use the words of the Oxford-Decree concerning it is heretical and impious The whole Catholick Church believes that Almighty God is one Infinite and Eternal Spirit That the Divinity was so incarnate in the Humanity of the Lord Christ as to exert in it the Divine Attributes as Omniscience or the Knowledg of the Thoughts and of the Future and Omnipotence or the Power of Miracles Whereupon there followed as Divines speak a Communication of Idioms Which is to say in consideration of this Incarnation we say God was made Man and the Lord Christ is true God But by the former 't is only meant that by his Incarnation or Indwelling in the Humanity it may be said somewhat Catachrestically or improperly that God became Man by the other that the Lord Christ is true God is meant he is God and whatsoever may be said of God in respect of God in him Farther that our Blessed Saviour by his active and passive Obedience did reconcile Men to God and God to Men and satisfied whatsoever the Justice of God required for the Pardon of Sin and the Donation of eternal Life on the Conditions however on our part of Faith Repentance and Newness of Life As to the Divine Persons that the Divine Essence or Substance or the Divinity it self can be no otherwise distinguished or diversified but only as the Bishop of Worcester words this matter by different Modes of Subsistence or relative Properties which being considered together with the Divine Essence and Attributes are named Persons In this Faith all the Denominations of Christians do acquiesce As it is the Churches Doctrine and her whole Doctrine about these Matters 't is also imbraced by all the Sects of Christians except only the Arians of which Perswasion there are none I think in England nor in the Dominions of any Christian Prince or State But Dr. Sherlock and with him some few others endeavour to disturb this happy Agreement and Consent they would divide us by novel Doctrines and a new Explication of the Trinity an Explication which is as manifest Polytheism and Paganism as any of the old or modern Heathens were ever guilty of He hath not indeed in this Sermon declared expresly what kind of Trinity he pleads for but he intimates it and plainly points to it at p. 7 and 10. He owns at p. 10. 't is the new Explication and at p. 7. the real Trinity by which Names all Men know he and his Party call their Trinity of Spirits and Substances in all their Books Therefore tho if another Man had preached this Sermon the Errors and Weaknesses for which 't is so remarkable might have been charitably overlook'd yet coming from him who designs to establish a Heresy that subverts the grand Design of Christianity and revives Paganism under the disguise of a false Zeal for the Catholick Doctrines of the Trinity the Incarnation and the Satisfaction it would be a very drowsy Neglect not to give notice and warning of this Wolf in Sheeps Clothing or not to detect the Falseness of his Reasonings as well as the Impiety of his Principles and Doctrine I come therefore now to a particular Discussion of the several Parts of his Sermon which I have already represented in distinct Propositions The first was Philosophy and Reason are the only things which those Men adore who would have no God at all And what makes some Men Atheists and Infidels even the Philosophick Tincture and their Adherence to natural-Reason the same makes others to be Hereticks that is to be Arians Socinians and Pelagians He intended it without doubt as a mighty Prejudice against Reason and Philosophy that Atheists and Infidels pretend to both and that they seem to esteem nothing else And in truth a notable Reasoning it is for a Sermon as Sermons ordinarily now go but from the Press or in a Book 't is a contemptible Weakness Atheists and Infidels magnify Philosophy and Reason therefore Divines and good Christians must be hence cautioned that Philosophy and Reason will despoil 'em of their Piety towards God and their Faith as Christians Sir Francis Bacon Lord Verulam is often quoted for a contrary Aphorism namely this that indeed a smattering in Philosophy inclines Men to Atheism and Irreligion but a Mastery in it begets and nourishes Piety and Faith And surely Experience has shown he was in the right For those Divines who have also been Philosophers are the Men that have by their Writings done the greatest and most successful Service to Religion Which in such an Age as this would hardly have stood its Ground under the Management of Divines that were not Philosophers also The Weapons of Atheists and infidels Dr. Sherlock
or present Socinianism the Socinianism of Faustus Socinus for the Unity of God or that there is but one God can never be defended by these Men who hold Person and intellectual Substance to be the same but only on the Principles of Faustus Socinus and the modern Socinians Thus I say some Orthodox Writers argue they are perswaded that as this Doctor maintains the Heresy of Laelius Socinus he must of necessity by attending to the Consequences of his Doctrine make a Coalition or Closure in the end with Faustus Socinus and the present Socinianism if it be not already his Opinion and Aim As for Subscriptions Protestations and such like Dr. Sherlock may multiply them as much as he pleases but they are resolved never to believe him for they pretend that his Predecessors L. Socinus G. Blandrata c. never stuck at such Matters but made use of 'em as Artifices to get into Acquaintance and Esteem with the Orthodox and then seduce them But for my part I judg the Dean tho most certainly a Disciple of Laelius Socinus may easily be brought off from the Imputation of being a Socinian according to the Model of Faustus Socinus and the present Socinians For it is true he holds three Essences and Spirits and he thinks Person and intellectual Substance signify the same thing so that in multiplying the one you necessarily multiply the other and it is no less true that on these two Principles or in consequence of these two Principles he can never defend the Unity of God but on the grounds of Faustus Socinus and the modern Socinians namely that God is indeed but one Person I say I grant both these Imputations on the Doctor are true and yet it will not follow that in very deed he is a Socinian after the Model of Faustus or aims to introduce the Socinian Scheme as 't is held by the Modern Socinians For having disclaimed the use of Reason in Matters of Religion he is bound up by no Consequences tho never so clear or certain for all Consequences are the Children of Reason against which in Disputes of Religion and the Articles of Faith the Doctor has protested before my Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen If it be never so certain that he holds as Laelius Socinus did and never so evident that the necessary Consequence from thence is the Scheme of Faustus Socinus this can never affect him who disclaiming Reason is therefore discharged of the foolish Trouble of attending to Consequences which are mere Brats of Reason He may be as clear of any Design to introduce the Scheme of Faustus Socinus notwithstanding these Suspicions of some right Orthodox Men as he is of bringing in Presbytery which in my heart I cannot think he intends now he is become a Dean We have said enough to his first Proposition that Reason and Philosophy are the two Idols of Atheists and Hereticks and that make Atheists to be Atheists and Hereticks to be Hereticks To the Second He saith again That to ascertain what is 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 concerning the Meaning of Scripture That is he is for giving up the Protestant Religion to the Old Gentleman at Rome and the Christian Religion in general to the certain Triumph of Deists and Hereticks Reason and Philosophy he saith must not be admitted into our Disputes about Religion or our Inquiries concerning the Meaning of Scripture no the Words and Phrases of Scripture in their obvious and natural Sense are the only things that must determine our Disputes form the Articles of Religion and settle the meaning of Scripture For instance the Question is concerning the Transubstantiation the Words and Phrases are these This is my Body My FLESH is Meat indeed my BLOOD is Drink indeed He that eateth my FLESH and drinketh my BLOOD the same dwelleth in me and I in him Yes say Reason and Philosophy the Lord Christ had a Body and that Body was Flesh and Blood but when Bread is called his Body or his Flesh and Wine his Blood it could not be intended that Bread is Humane Flesh or Wine is Blood in reality of the thing but only in signification or sign Bread is the Flesh of Christ and Wine his Blood by way of sign and signification and to say otherwise is a Contradiction to the nature of the things spoken of that is to Philosophy and also to Reason which assures us that the real Body of Christ cannot be in Heaven and on the Altar at the same time Exclude now Reason and Philosophy out of this Dispute and from the Enquiry concerning the meaning of the words and phrases of Scripture about this matter and it will be undeniable that the advantage is wholly on the Popish side a Protestant Doctor and he too a Dean of St. Pauls gives away our only Strengths against the common Adversary Our Saviour says of a piece of Bread This is my Body if now Reason and Philosophy must not interpret How will Dr. Sherlock avoid either the Papist on the one side or the Lutheran on the other He cannot have recourse to Sense in the case 't is only Philosophy or Reason that must help him out for tho 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 We argue He took Bread and blessed it and gave to his Disciples and said Take eat This is my Body 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 But if our Preacher says he believes it was only Bread because the Text it self calls it Bread let him consider that seeing what was called Bread before Christ blessed it after the Blessing he calls it his Body We cannot know by Sense or by the Text but by Reason and Philosophy only that it was not changed by the Blessing into what now he calls it namely his Body The Papists believe it was Bread that Christ took but because when he had brake and blessed it he calls it his Body they conclude that by the Blessing it was changed into the substance of Flesh but without change of the Accidents I say now tho Sense might interpret the words this is my Body to the Apostles who saw it and tasted it yet to us who neither saw nor tasted those words cannot be rightly interpreted but only by
desperate Cause requires when he so carefully adds As to Contradictions and Impossibilities there will be many whenever we will be reasoning about such things as we understand not I shall tell him not if there be many as he says but if there be any Contradictions or Impossibilities the thing proposed becomes thereby incredible But if we will be reasoning he says about what we do not understand there will be many Contradictions and Impossibilities in our Guesses concerning such things I answer if those Guesses do imply Contradictions or Impossibilities they are such Guesses as none but Fools would make for an Impossibility or a Contradiction is an obvious thing of which none but Philosophers of Gotham will be guilty If we are reasoning about things that we do not understand and there is no occasion that I know of to reason about any thing else Why must we needs be overseen as far as Contradictions and Impossibilities are there no Mistakes to be made but those gross ones Impossibilities and Contradictions It has been ever held by the soberest Divines that Contradictions cannot be verified by the Divine Omnipotence or Omniscience it self and that when we say all things are possible to God we ought to mean it of possible things for as for Impossibilities they are not the Objects of Omnipotence God can no more do impossible things than he can know false things to be true things which most certainly is not knowable A Sermon therefore on behalf of Contradictions and Impossibilities cannot be more absurd than 't is Heterodox and universally condemned by Divines of all Perswasions But this Dean has outfaced a Decree of the University of Oxford in a matter in which if they had mistaken all the Universities of Christendom had been obliged to declare against them and would have declared therefore we need not to wonder that now in a Sermon he as little scruples to contravene the known and agreed Sense and Judgment of all the several Denominations or Sects of Christians I shall confess I am for an ingenuous Liberty and that too in Questions of the greatest Importance but every body knows how bitterly Dr. Sherlock has always opposed and still opposes all Dissenters either from the Doctrine or Discipline of the Church therefore tho I should not object it to another yet to him 't is but his due to tell him of the unparallel'd Immodesty of his Dissent and Separation from the Catholick Church That he has advanced a Heresy concerning the Blessed Trinity condemned by General Councils Decrees of Universities and Consent of Writers and he maintains it by Pleas against Philosophy and Reason and for Contradictions and Impossibilities no less generally reprobated on all hands than his Heresy it self is On his Answer to the first Objection AFter such a Defence of his Heterodoxies as never was before heard he proceeds to answer to two Objections that never were made or however by none but himself And tho it is a very injudicious and needless Confession of a conscience to a Man 's own Insufficience to pass over known and very dangerous Objections and answer only to Chimeras and Follies never suggested or thought of by any Yet Dr. Sherlock is overseen much farther and worse than that for he not only overlooks the Objections of the Socinians and replies to some Weaknesses that no body would have thought of but the Answerer but his Answers are not to those Objections but to something else The Reader shall not again rely upon me if I do not satisfy him and without the trouble of an intent Application that this Maintainer of Paradoxes had forgot his Objection when he came to his Answer He objects first It seems very unnatural that God having made us reasonable Creatures and thereby made Reason to be to us the Measure of Truth and Falshood we should be required to believe without Reason And if we must believe with our Understandings how can we believe what we do not understand I do not believe as I said any Sect of Religious ever made this or the like Objection For 't is very obvious to be seen and understood that tho we are made reasonable Creatures and do believe or assent with out Understandings yet because we cannot but be aware that our Reasons and Understandings are finite and imperfect often short-sighted and as often overseeing things and the Wisdom and Power of God seen in the Contrivance and Structure of the World most perfect therefore he may reveal many things to us to be believed by us tho we understand them not nor have any other Cause of our believing them but only God's Revelation of them We ought to believe God as Children do their Parents or as we our selves believe sage and sober Persons in Matters belonging to their particular Art or Craft that is to say believe them on their Word and for the just Opinion we have of their superiour Knowledg in such Matters To dispute against this is such a degree of Folly that tho I dare not answer for every particular Man yet I know well and any reasonable body will suppose there never was any Party of Men or Sect of Religious that could be so overseen I grant indeed as 't is in the Objection that Reason is the measure of Truth and Falshood but not the frail fallible Reason of Men but the infallible Wisdom of God And in this all Sects agree The Objection therefore is Chimerical and was never made by any sort of Opposers 't is only a loose Thought of this Preacher and advanced to help sill up a crude Sermon Well but what is the wise Answer to a silly Objection Why this When an Objection is made against any thing that it is as we apprehend without Reason or against and contrary to Reason the Objection is of no value if such thing is not the proper Object of Reason Such as the Natures and Essences of things their essential Reasons Vnions Operations and Properties which no Man can pretend are the Objects of Reason or that any Man living can know any thing of them And this he adds farther is all the Incomprehensibility or Contradiction that any can charge on the Trinity or Incarnation By the Trinity meaning his Trinity of Spirits As I said in the name of Goodness what is this Answer to that Objection The Objection is why should reasonable Creatures be obliged to believe things without Reason The Answer is an Objection is of no value if the Matter under dispute is not the Object of Reason Plainly this Answer is not to that Objection but concerning quite another thing namely that we must argue by Reason only for or against such things as are the Objects of Reason But that this wild Answer might look life somewhat he adds the Substances Essences Reasons Properties Vnions and Operations of things are not Objects of Reason and no Man living can know any thing of them Then there is nothing that is the Object of Reason and no