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
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
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