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
saith are Philosophy and Reason I am of opinion they must be beaten at their own Weapons or they will never be beaten Yield but to them Philosophy and Reason the Advantage I fear will be judged to be on their side I wonder how this Doctor who is for excluding Reason and Philosophy as Enemies to Divine Truth would deal with the Atheists and Infidels But it may be he would buy him a massy Quarto-Bible with Clasps and Bosses and knock 'em down with it And it troubles him sadly too that Philosophy and Reason are the Weapons of Hereticks of Arians and Socinians and Pelagians as well as of Atheists and Infidels And from hence he infers as before that it was this same scurvy Philosophy and Reason that made 'em Hereticks Without doubt this was intended at the Oxford Heads Those morose old Gentlemen that could not let a Man alone in a small slip but must be decreeing and censuring as soon as ever 't is said or printed that there are three Eternal and Infinite Spirits 't is but fit they should be told their own that 't is they with their Philosophy and their Logicks or Art of Reasoning that make all the Hereticks And yet 't is thought by some odd Fellows on the other hand that Philosophy and Reason never caused that Mischeif that our Preacher pretends and they offer to confirm what they say by the Example of the Arch Heretick Socinus Who never understood Philosophy nor so much as Logicks or the Art of Reasoning till the latter part of his Life Toward the latter part of his Life he got some Skill in the Sophismatical part of Logick and wrote a little Treatise about it Howe're it be I find 't is like to go hard with Philosophy whatever becomes of Reason For Dr. Sherlock warns in effect my Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen that they take care that their Children may never see Oxford or Cambridg for there they will catch the Infection of Rhilosophy and after that 't is certain they will be Hereticks Arians or Socinians or Pelagians The Hereticks on the other side many of them are no less bitter against this same damnable Philosophy they protest especially in their Latin Works that 't is Philosophy that corrupted and debauch'd Divinity I wish in my heart these Gentlemen the Doctor and the Hereticks do not play booty into one anothers hands for as angry as they would seem against one another 't is plain they join Stocks against Philosophy As for poor Reason and the Hurt she does in seducing Men from the true Faith I will consider what may be said in the case in another part a more opportune place of this Answer and content my self to make here this one Reflection 'T is very surprizing to me that this Doctor should turn Heretick-taker when he himself stands censured of Heresy and in the very point of the Trinity by Decree of the most famous University in the World Not only so but some Learned and Orthodox Writers as great Anti-pelagians as himself pretend to a Discovery that he and his Party of Realists are Socinians and start just from the same place from whence L. Socinus Ochinus Blandrata and other Founders of Socinianism first set forth They prove this Charge by two things First that the Doctrine of Dean Sherlock concerning the Divine Persons is exactly the same with the Heresy of Laelius Socinus B. Ochinus G. Blandrata V. Gentilis and other Founders of Socinianism they all teach alike three Divine Essences Substances and Spirits And whereas against this everry one would be ready to object that three infinite Spirituall Essences three Eternal all-perfect Spirits must needs be three Gods against which the Scripture is positive asserting every where that there is but one God They answer'd there is but one God the Father is that one God the true God the most High God and God of the other two Divine Persons The reason is the Father only is unoriginated the Son and Spirit are originated from the Father as their Fountain and Cause this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Pre-eminence of the Father doth intitle him to the name of the God by way of Excellence the one God the true God the most High God nay and of God of the Son according to that of our Saviour himself I ascent to my God and to your God Dr. Sherlock dissolveth the objected Difficulty after the same manner For when he hath said three Infinite Essences three Eternal Spirits he saith also but one God and interprets those words I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God as L. Socinus and that Junto did namely thus in these very words There is no Inconvenience in owning that the Father is the Head and the God of the Son as the Son is a Divine Person for the Father is the Fountain of the Deity The Son being only God of God that is God originated from God namely from God the Father therefore the Father may be called his God Vindic. of the Trin. p. 154. The other Proof of the Charge of Socinianism against the Dean and of a design to introduce it is that the Doctrine of three Essences and three Spirits doth lead by necessary and unavoidable Consequences to the Socinianism that is now so called For tho Laelius Socinus Blandrata and the rest did abide a while in it that three Essences and Spirits are one God because only the first of them is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unoriginated as to his Being and Godhead the other two derive Being and Godhead from him yet after some time it was perceived by 'em that three Infinite Essences three all-perfect Spirits are not the less three Gods because the second and third are originated from the first for it can be only said in the case that the first God generated two other Gods Originated or not originated is not what maketh a God but Omnimodous Perfection therefore if the second and third Spirits are each of them All-perfect he is not lefs a God than the first is This Reflection gave birth to the modern Socinianism or the Socinianism that now is for Laelius Socinus soon dying his Nephew Faustus Socinus convinced Blandrata and the others that they must no longer say three Essences and Spirits but one Essence one Spirit and also but one Pers Faustus Socinus took Person and intellectual Essence or intellectual Substance to signify the same thing he thought them equivalent terms therefore because he plainly saw that three Infinite All-perfect Essences or Spirits are certainly three Gods he contended being neither a Critick nor a Metaphysician that as there is but one Divine Essence or Spirit we ought also to say there is but one Divine Person In short the Dean's more warm Opposers say his Doctrine of a Trinity of Essences and Spirits is the same that was affirmed by Laelinus Socinus and other Founders of Socinianism and that in its Consquences it leads to the modern
Man living knows any thing at all for this Enumeration Substances Essences Reasons Unions Properties Operations comprehends all things even the whole of created and uncreated Nature It is certain and confess'd by all Men but this Gentleman who seems to delight in nothing so much as Paradoxes and thinks the Pulpit and Press the likeliest Places to make 'em famous and remarkable that our Reason can be no otherwise imployed but either about Substances or their Unions essential Reasons Operations or Properties What is it Sir I pray but either it is a Substance or the Property or Operation of a Substance For as to essential Reasons and Vnions the former as well as Modes and Accidents come under the general name of Properties Risibility for instance is an essential Reason of Man as he is Man and yet it is reckoned among the Properties as well as Gracility Grossness Agility Slowness Whiteness Redness and such like Modes and Accidents are called the Properties of particular Men Properties by which they are distinguished from one another As essential Reasons are but Properties so Unions are but the Operations of Substances or their Properties In short I say that without being needlesly nice Substances with their Properties and Operations will denote the whole Complex of things their Reasons and Vnions are superfluously added And if these are not the Objects of Reason Reason has no Objects at all In truth they are the only things about which Reason is conversant Metaphysicians consider spiritual Substances their Properties and Operations Natural Philosophers consider Bodies or corporeal Substances their Operations and their Properties Particular Arts and Crafts are conversant about particular Bodies as Physicians and Chirurgions about the humane Body Chymists about Plants and Metals the Lapidary about Jewels the Apothecary about Drugs Do these Artists know nothing about the Substances their Properties or Operations their Vnions and essential Reasons about which both their Minds and Bodies are every day imployed Assuredly when the Court desired Mr. Dean of St. Paul's to print this Sermon they could not have done him a greater Disservice than thus to prompt his Vanity to expose his scandalous Inadversions to the View and Scorn of every body It is well seen why this Dean has preach'd against Philosophy Because he hath very little himself He has heard of Essence Properties Operations essential Reasons and not knowing well what they mean he guesses they are things that a zealous Preacher ought to bestir himself against A little more Zeal and Ignorance might have qualified him to be one of my Lords the Inquisitors in the Inquisition-Office at Lisbon where lately they condemned an English Mare to be burnt as a Witch because she could signify the Hour of the Day on a Watch or Clock could dance to a Fiddle with several such little Feats as are easily taught to Beasts Some Persons interceded with the Holy Fathers for the Mare telling 'em she had been shown all over Christendom and that these Tricks had been often taught to other docile Beasts especially to Elephants But the Fathers as zealous as some body else against what they did not understand answered she shall be burnt for admitting she is not a Witch be sure coming from England she is a Heretick He says Lastly This that the Question is about Essences Vnions Properties is all the Incomprehensibleness that can be charged on the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation For my part to deal frankly after all the bustle and noise that has been made on both sides about Mysteries and Incomprehensibles I know no Incomprehensibleness or Mystery in the Catholick Doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation I mean as they are explained and declared by the Church and now received by the Unitarians themselves not as they are perverted and misrepresented by a little Faction that have learned from Dr. Cudworth to call themselves Realists as if their Tritheism were the only real Trinity The Church teaches that there is but one Eternal All-perfect Spirit but one infinite spiritual Substance and this is what we indifferently call GOD the Divinity the Deity the Divine Nature the Divine Essence or Substance As to the distinction of Persons in the Deity to use the Words of the Bishop of Worcester When we consider a Divine Essence there can be no distinction conceived in it but by different Modes of Subsistence or what is the same different relative Properties The Trinity then is the Divine Essence Godhead or Deity consider'd under three different Modes of Subsistence which are called Relative Properties because they distinguish and because a threefold Relation arises in the Deity from them and Persons they are called because distinguishing characterizing Properties whether in a common Nature or in particular Natures or Substances when considered with the Nature or Substance make what antient and constant Custom nameth Persons These Modes or Properties are by some more particularly described St. Austin and from him the Divines of the Schools insist upon Intellectus Notitia Amor or Original Mind or Wisdom the Logos or reflex Wisdom generated by Mind and the Spiration of Divine Love The first as generating is named the Father the second being generated by a condescension to humane Language is called the Son the third being a Spiration has the name of Spirit I know not as I said what Mystery or Incomprehensibleness there is in this account which has been the Language and Explication of the Church ever since St. Austin and not of the Latin Church only but of the Greek as I intend to prove at large whenever leisure and a fit opportunity shall serve I see plainly that the occasion of calling the Trinity a Mystery except only among the Unlearned or not Learned in Scholastick and Philosophical Terms and the various Acceptations of them I say the occasion of calling the Doctrine of the Trinity a Mystery was this because the term Persons and again Father Son and Spirit are used concerning the Deity in a very different Sense from their Import or Meaning when used of Men or other created Beings For all humane Persons and Father and Son among Men are distinguished not only by different Modes and Properties but by distinct Substances Intellects and Wills but the Deity is but one Essence or spiritual Substance with one Understanding Will and Energy in number Thus the Idea of Persons and of Father Son and Spirit in God implying a Notion so very different from the meaning of the same terms when spoken of Men and created Beings 't was thought sit to say they are used concerning God in a mystical Sense concerning other Beings in a profane or common Sense A Sense of Words or Terms not so usually applied or rather contrary to the vulgar and secular Use of them was named Mystery at first I judg only by the less Learned afterwards to conciliate the greater Reverence to the Article by the more Learned also As to the Incarnation The Doctrine of the
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