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 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
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