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
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
Undivided Nature belong This Reason boggles at and Socinians call a Contradiction but it is such a Contradiction as Sense would judge the Union of Spirit and Matter to be At most it is an imaginary Contradiction in the Subsistence of the Divine Nature which Reason knows nothing about and therefore can make no judgment of and such appearing-Contradictions are no Objections because they may be no Contradictions as we are sure they are none when the Doctrines charged with these Contradictions are taught in Scripture There is one distinction which seems to me to set this matter in a clear light and to answer all the Pretences of Contradictions and that is The distinction between Contradictions in Logick and Philosophy A Contradiction in Logick is when two Propositions in express terms contradict each other and all men grant that both parts of such Contradictions cannot be true as that there are Three Gods and but One God which is to say that there are and that there are not Three Gods that there is and that there is not but One only God A Contradiction in Philosophy is when any thing is affirmed concerning the Nature or Essential Properties of any Being which seems to contradict all the Notions and Ideas we have of Nature in other Beings and such Contradictions as these may be both true for the Natures of things may be contrary to and contradict each other and yet both of them be true and real Beings There are infinite Instances of this in all Nature the Ideas of Hot and Cold of White and Black of Light and Darkness of solid and fluid Bodies of Matter and Spirit are direct Contradictions in this notion of a Contradiction to each other And had we known but one of these Opposites by our Natural Ideas and the other had been revealed to us we might as justly have cried out of Contradictions as the Socinians now do when you mention a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Nature For Heat contradicts the Idea of Cold and Fluid of Solid as much as Three Persons in the Unity of Nature contradicts the Unity of Nature in the Unity of a Person This latter indeed is the natural notion we have That there is but One Person in One Subsisting Intelligent Nature for we have no example of any thing else and therefore can have no natural Idea of any other Unity but this does not prove that it cannot be otherwise for there may be Oppositions and Contrarieties in Nature and did we but consider what an infinite distance and unlikeness there is between God and Creatures we should not think it reasonable to judge of the Divine Nature by the Ideas of Created Nature This is a very real and sensible distinction between Contradictions in Logick and in Nature and Philosophy and there is a certain way to know them Logical Contradictions are always immediately reducible to is and is not for they affirm and deny the same thing in the same sence The Contradictions in Nature and Philosophy are only the opposition and contrariety there is between the Ideas of several Beings which can never be reduced to a Contradiction in Logick but through Ignorance or Mistake by changing the sense and use of words Let any Socinian try the Experiment in the Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity and reduce it to such a Contradiction if he can A Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Nature is a Contradiction to that Idea we have of the Unity of Person and Nature in created Beings but this is no Contradiction in Logick for it is not a Contradiction in the same Nature and Being as all Contradictions in Logick must be but it is a Contrariety or Contradiction if we will so call it between the Unity and Personalities of two very different Natures the Divine and the Created Nature and all the Contradiction that can be made of it is no more than this That the Unity of the Divine Nature which is perfect and undivided in Three distinct Persons contradicts the Notion of Unity in a Created Nature which admits but of One Person in One Individual Nature But there are a thousand such Contradictions in Nature that is different Natures whose Ideas are opposite and contrary to each other and yet all of them real Beings But could they make a Trinity in Unity contradict it self that the Trinity should in express terms destroy the Unity and the Unity the Trinity this would be somewhat to the purpose for it would prove a Contradiction in Logick when the Terms destroy each other but then the Trinity and Unity must be the same a Trinity of Persons and but One Person or a Trinity of Natures and but one Nature But a Trinity of Persons true proper subsisting Persons in the Unity of Nature which is the Catholick Faith is not a Contradiction in Logick though it contradicts the Notion of Human Personalities which it may do and yet be very true This is abundantly enough to shew the Weakness and Folly of this Socinian Cant about Transubstantiation the Impiety Prophaneness and mischievous Consequences of it let others consider His Third Charge is That I say That as we are Christians and unless we will be understood to reject the Supreme Authority of Divine Revelation we must believe those Doctrines which are thought to be most mysterious and inconceivable notwithstanding any Objection from Reason or from Philosophy against ' em He that believes no farther than Natural Reason approves believes his Reason not the Revelation he is a Natural Philosopher not a Believer He believes the Scriptures as he would believe Plato or Tully not as Inspired Writings but as agreeable to Reason and as the result of wise and deep Thoughts p. 14. Here he has taken some of my Words and so put them together as to conceal the whole Force of the Argument which he always takes care to do My business P. 10 11 c. was to prove That we ought to believe those Doctrines which are thought the most mysterious and inconceivable notwithstanding any Objections from Natural Reason and Philosophy against them And this I proved from the Nature Use and Authority of Revelation That Revelation as to such matters as are knowable only by Revelation must serve instead of Sense Natural Ideas and Natural Reason That if we believe upon God's Authority which is the strict Notion of a Divine Faith we must believe without any Natural Evidence merely because God has revealed it and then we must believe such things as are not evident to Sense and Reason That to believe no farther than Natural Reason can conceive and comprehend is to reject the Divine Authority of Revelation and to destroy the distinction between Reason and Faith He that will believe no farther than his Reason approves believes his Reason not the Revelation and is in truth a Natural Philosopher not a Believer Here any man may perceive that our Socinian was plainly baffled for he has