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
it and endeavours to impose upon his Readers as if Reasoning and Arguing about the Sense of Scripture and resolving our Faith into meer natural Reason and Philosophy were the same thing He was aware what Answer would be given to this and therefore in the very next Paragraph he confutes his own Reasoning from Scripture and proves that the Text does not confute Transubstantiation But if our Preacher says he believes it was only Bread because the Text it self calls it Bread which was his own Argument 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 But if This signifies Bread then This is my Body signifies This Bread is my Body and if Bread be his Body then his Sacramental Body is not Flesh But I do not intend to dispute this Point with him but only observe That to set up his Reason and Philosophy to be absolute Judges in Matters of Faith he will not allow either Sense or Scripture to confute Transubstantiation It cannot but give all sober Christians a just Indignation to see the most Sacred and Venerable Mysteries perpetually ridicul'd at this Prophane rate In the Reign of King James there was a Pamphlet published to reconcile men to Transubstantiation by representing the Doctrine of the Trinity to the full as absurd and chargeable with as many Contradictions as Transubstantiation it self This was then charged on the Papists and they were sufficiently expos'd for it but a Great Man has lately informed us That it was writ by a Socinian to make men Papists or Socinians as it should happen which was a Glorious Design at that time of day for men who take it ill if you will not allow them to be Protestants and to enjoy the Liberty of Protestants For they could not but see that Popery was then grown very Fashionable and Tempting by the Favour and Frowns of a Popish Prince and that the generality of Christians did so firmly believe the Doctrine of the Trinity that could they have persuaded them as they endeavoured That Transubstantiation was as reasonable a Doctrine as the Trinity it was much more likely that they would turn Papists than Socinians Instead of Popery men are now running into the other Extremes of Atheism Deism and a Contempt of all Reveal'd Religion and that upon a pretence of making mere Natural Reason and Philosophy their sole Guide and Judge and now our Socinians have a new Game to play and if they dare not absolutely deny the Authority of Revelation which in many Instances they have shewn a good Inclination to yet they give a superior Authority to Reason which will serve as well and make less noise than to reject all Revelation And if you shew them how absurd this is to pretend to own a Divine Revelation and to make Revelation submit to mere Natural Reason and Philosophy they presently take sanctuary in Transubstantiation and defend it against the Evidence of Sense and the Authority of Scripture to make Reason and Philosophy the Supreme Judge in Matters of Faith and in the mean time matter not what becomes of Religion what advantage they give either to Popery or Deism so they can but expose the Faith of the Trinity He has given us a little Specimen of it here but the same Author as far as I can guess from the same Words and the same Thoughts has with his usual Civility attack'd my Lord Bishop of Sarum upon this Argument which upon this occasion I shall briefly consider His Lordship in vindication of the Christian Mysteries with great reason rejects Transubstantiation out of the number of Mysteries because it contradicts Sense in the Object of Sense his words are these Transubstantiation must not be a Mystery because there is against it the Evidence of Sense in an Object of Sense For Sense plainly represents to us the Bread and Wine to be still the same that they were before the Consecration Now I cannot think this Author in earnest in the two first Answers he gives to this His first Answer is That it is not pretended by the Papists that the Bread and Wine have received any the least Change in what is an Object of Sense This is a Discovery worthy its Author that the Papists don 't deny that they see and feel and taste and smell the sensible Qualities of Bread and Wine For who ever charged them with such a Contradiction to Sense as this But our Senses judge of the Substances of things by their sensible qualities judge that to be Bread and Wine which has all the qualities of Bread and Wine And therefore to say as the Papists do That what our Sight and Taste and Smell tell us has all the qualities of Bread and Wine is not Bread and Wine does not indeed contradict our Senses as to sensible qualities but contradicts that Judgment our Senses make of the Natures of things from their sensible qualities And this is that Contradiction to Sense which the Bishop justly charges upon Transubstantiation as is evident in his very words In his Second Answer he Disputes against the Infallibility of our Senses as he calls it by such Common Arguments as every Freshman knows how to Answer only I do not remember that the Delusions of our Dreams used to be objected against the Evidence of Sense but suppose our Senses may deceive us in some few instances wherein both Sense and Reason can Correct the mistake must they therefore deceive in the Nature of Bread and Wine Can he prove that they ever deceive us with Qualities and Accidents without a Substance For that is the Cheat of Transubstantiation It is not pretended as he observed in his First Answer That our Senses deceive us in the Colour or Figure or Taste or Smell of Bread and Wine and therefore all his instances of the Deception of our Senses are nothing to the purpose but let him give us any one instance of the other kind if he can and then we will believe Transubstantiation in Contradiction to our Senses But does he consider what the Consequence of this Argument is He will not allow it a good Argument against Transubstantiation That it contradicts Sense because our Senses may deceive us in the Objects of Sense which by the way makes his instance of the Delusions of Dreams which are not the Objects of Sense very impertinent now if contradiction to Sense be not a good Objection because Sense is not Infallible what will become of his great Argument of Contradiction to Reason For all men confess That Reason is not so Infallible as Sense is as is evident from all the Disputes and Clashings of Reason and those Absurdities and Contradictions which contending Parties mutually charge upon each other and if a Contradiction to Fallible Sense
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
be not a good Objection against the Truth of any thing how comes a Contradiction to much more Fallible Reason to be so unanswerable an Objection And then we may much more safely believe a Trinity in Unity notwithstanding all their pretended Contradictions to Reason than we can believe Transubstantiation in Contradiction to Sense But in his Third Answer he seems to be in good earnest and I shall consider it as such and it is this Transubstantiation is contradicted by Sense saith his Lordship in an Object of Sense therefore 't is a false Mystery This is as much as to say That a Faculty or Power judging of its proper Object always judges truly and must determine our Belief He must say this or his Reasoning is nothing I ask now of what Faculty or Power is Almighty God the Object He will Answer God is the Object not of Sense which discerns him not but of Reason which discovers and sees this most Glorious Being Therefore Reason by his Lordship 's own Argument judges infallibly concerning God and must determine our Belief about him We must hearken to Reason when it finds Contradictions in what men affirm concerning God Now notwithstanding his vain Brags and his Triumphant Challenge to the Bishop a very little Skill will Answer this Argument For 1. The Bishop need not say because it is not true That every Faculty and Power judges as certainly of its proper Object as Sense does and then his Argument is quite lost For if Sense judges more certainly than Reason then a manifest Contradiction to Sense is a more unanswerable Objection than any appearing and pretended Contradictions to Reason I believe this Author is the first man who ever thus universally equalled the Evidence of Reason to that of Sense or that ever affirmed that Reason could judge infallibly of God And if Reason may be mistaken which I shall take for granted especially in the Infinite and Incomprehensible Nature of God some appearing Contradictions or what some men will call Contradictions are not a sufficient reason to reject a Revelation and to disbelieve what God tells us of Himself and his own Nature 2 dly Whatever certainty we allow to our Faculties in judging of their proper Objects we must extend it no farther than to what belongs to the judgment of that Faculty The same thing may be the Object of different Faculties as it is of our different Senses but every Faculty and every Sense judges of nothing in any Object but only what belongs to it self All the Objects of Sense are the Objects of Reason too but Sense judges of nothing but what belongs to Sense and Reason of what belongs to Reason and Reason can judge no farther of any Object than it is knowable by Reason and not only the Divine but even Created Nature has such Secrets and Mysteries as are not knowable by Reason and therefore it is manifest Ignorance or Sophistry to conclude from God's being the Object of Reason therefore Reason judges infallibly concerning God For not to Dispute about the Infallible Judgment of Reason God is the Object of Reason because Reason can know something concerning God but God can be the Object of Reason no farther than he is knowable by Reason and therefore if there be any thing which Natural Reason cannot know of God as I hope this Author himself will own with respect to such matters God is not the Object of Reason and Reason cannot judge at all much less judge infallibly concerning God But as Sense leaves room for Reason in the same Object so Reason leaves room for Faith But must we not hearken to Reason when it finds Contradictions in what men affirm concerning God Yes most certainly as far as God is the Object of Reason and knowable by Reason but no farther for in such matters as Reason cannot judge of at all it cannot judge of Contradictions Sense and Reason can judge of Contradictions only for themselves or as far as their judgment reaches but may appear Contradictions themselves to each other As for instance Reason assures us that Man consists of Soul and Body which are closely united to each other and yet the Union of Spirit and Matter is no better than contradiction to the judgment of Sense for Sense knows no Union but by Contact nor any Contact but between Bodies which have extended and solid Parts that can touch each other so that an Union without Contact is one contradiction to the judgment of Sense and a Contact without extended solid parts which a Spirit has not is another and yet Reason does not matter these Contradictions to the judgment of Sense because Sense is not the Judge of such things And it is the same Case between Reason and Faith which receives its information from a Divine Revelation concerning such Matters as are not knowable by Natural Reason should Reason contradict Faith in such Matters as Reason is no Judge of this is no more an Objection against the Superior Evidence and Authority of Faith than the Judgment of Sense is against the Evidence of Reason such Contradictions are not in the nature of things but are owing to our ignorance of Nature and presumption in judging of what we cannot understand The Example he gives of such a contradiction to Reason is a Trinity of Persons every one of which is perfect God and yet all of them but One God but for my life I cannot see this plain Contradiction That Three Persons each of which has all the Perfections of Divinity and is perfect God should be so essentially united in the sâ—me One Eternal and Infinite Nature as to be but One God This is not a Contradiction in terminis it is not Three Persons and but One Person or Three Gods and but One God but Three Divine Persons and One God If the Unity of the Godhead consisted in the Unity of a Person I grant it would be a flat Contradiction to say Three Persons and One God which would be equivalent to Three Gods and One God but if the Unity of the Godhead consists in the Unity of Nature that there is but One Eternal and Infinite Nature which is the One God and this Unity and Identity of Nature be perfectly and entirely preserved in Three Divine Persons it is so far from a Contradiction to say That Three Persons are One God that it would be a Contradiction to say That Three Divine Persons who have the same One Identical Nature should be more than One God for that is to say That One Divine Nature which can be but One God is Three Gods Now this is all that Natural Reason tells us of the Unity of the Godhead That there is and can be but One Eternal Infinite Nature which is but One God this we expresly teach and therefore do not contradict Reason but then Scripture tells us That there are Three Father Son and Holy Ghost to whom the Name and Attributes of God and therefore this One Infinite
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