A VINDICATION OF Dr. Sherlock's SERMON CONCERNING The Danger of Corrupting the Faith by Philosophy IN ANSWER TO SOME Socinian Remarks By WILLIAM SHERLOCK D. D. Dean of St. Paul's Master of the Temple and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty LONDON Printed for W. Rogers at the Sun against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet MDCXCVII To the Right Honourable Sir EDWARD CLARKE LORD MAYOR And to the Honourable Court of Aldermen MY LORD I Beg leave to Present Your Lordship with the Vindication of my Sermon lately Published by the Order of Your Court against the Cavils Calumnies and wilful Misrepresentations of a Socinian Writer The Argument is of that great Consequence that it deserves to be defended and this Pamphleteer has so rudely reflected upon the Honour and Sincerity of the Court for their Order to Print it that I look'd upon my self under a double Obligation to Defend so Important a Truth and in that to justify Your Lordship's Order I pray God rebuke that perverse Spirit of Infidelity and Heresy which is gone abroad in the World and secure the Faith of Christians from all the Arts and Insinuations of Impostors That God would bless Your Lordship's Government and preserve this Great City from all Temporal and Spiritual Evils is the hearty Prayer of MY LORD Your Lordship's Most Obedient Servant William Sherlock A VINDICATION OF Dr. SHERLOCK'S Sermon before my LORD MAYOR c. WHEN I receiv'd the threatning and boasting Message from some busy Factors of the Socinian Fraternity what work they would make with my late Sermon before my Lord Mayor concerning the Danger of corrupting the Faith by Philosophy my greatest Concernment was how to meet with their Answer which usually comes last to my hands and how to bear the Drudgery of reading it for their Arguments have been spent long since and that little Wit they had is now degenerated into Railing That scurrilous Treatment they have lately given to so many Excellent Persons especially to that Great Man the Bishop of Worcester is a fair Warning to all who dare oppose them what they must expect And besides the Experience of their many former Civilities I had more than ordinary reason to expect it now they being touch'd in a very sensible part without any other Defence to make And this Author has not deceiv'd my Expectations for upon a Perusal of his Remarks I find nothing of Argument a very little Wit and abundance of Railing His Wit and Railing be to himself but I am sorry I can find nothing that looks so like an Argument as to administer occasion for any useful Discourse This there is no help for if Men will write Books without any Arguments to be answered there is nothing to be done but only to shew that they have offered nothing to the purpose or that needs an Answer And this will be done in a few words for he has disputed at large against what I never said nor thought but has not one word against any part of the Argument of that Sermon His Title-Page pretends a great Zeal for the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and of the Church of England concerning the Blessed Trinity Which is as true as that Richard Baldwin printed this Pamphlet who has publickly disowned it in Print But though a Socinian Conscience can digest such Godly Cheats as a piece of Wit and Artifice yet a Wise Man would not venture on them because Mankind hate to be abused and grow very jealous of Men of Tricks And yet had we to deal with Modest Men it would be thought a little of the latest for a Socinian to talk of defending the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and of the Church of England concerning the Blessed Trinity For their Cant about Real and Nominal Trinitarians and Three Infinite Minds and Spirits is too well known to pass for so much as a Jest any longer and till they can defend the Judgment of their Disinteressed Person a little better than by scorning the Answer which they will never be able to make any other Reply to it were time for them could they find any thing else to say in the room of it to let that alone And yet this is what he would bring this present Dispute to if he knew how He often flirts at Three Infinite Minds and Spirits though there is no such Expression in the whole Sermon but still he says I intimate this in asserting a Real Trinity Now if Three Infinite Minds and Spirits be essential to the Notion of a Real Trinity as his Inference supposes it is the best Vindication that could possibly be thought of for that Expression For not to believe a Real Trinity is to deny the Father to be a True and Real Father and the Son to be a True and Real Son and the Holy Ghost to be a True and Real Spirit and this is to deny the Catholick Faith of Father Son and Holy Ghost which cannot be a Real Trinity cannot be really Three if each of them be not truly and really what is signified by those Names But though that Phrase of Three Infinite Minds and Spirits was used very innocently by me only to signify Three Infinite Intelligent Persons each of which is Infinite Mind and Spirit and neither of them is each other which is the Catholick Faith yet I freely acknowledge as I have done more than once That it is liable to a very Heretical Tritheistick Sense if understood absolutely and in that Sense I always disowned it And it is a sign Men have very little to say when they make such a noise with an inconvenient Form of Speech though expounded to a Catholick Sense But the Margin will direct the Reader where he may find the true State of this Controversy But what is all this to my Sermon which neither explains nor defends any particular Hypothesis about the Trinity but is a general Vindication of the Christian Faith from the Pretences of Reason and Philosophy But The Doctrine of the Catholick Church and of the Church of England concerning the Blessed Trinity explained and asserted against the dangerous Heterodoxies in a Sermon by Dr William Sherlock c And Remarks upon Dr. William Sherlock ' s False and Treacherous Defence and Explication of some Principal Articles of Faith c. were more specious Titles and both so good that they knew not which to chuse and therefore adorned the Title-Page with one and the Frontispiece with the other that if ever a poor Sermon was confuted with Titles which have a strange Magick in them this is utterly undone But it is time to consider his Remarks which exactly answer the Title that they are nothing to the purpose I am not at leisure to follow him in all his Harangues and his Wit and Buffoonry I despise too much to take notice of it and when it appears that a Man has discharged all his Artillery of Witticisms against his own Mistakes he is witty at his own Cost too He has
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
and what this is immediately follows Which none of the princes of this world knew for had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory which can refer only to the Dispensation of Grace by Jesus Christ. This Nature could not teach us as it is written Eye hath not sâ—en neither ear heard neither have entred into the heart of man the things which God hath prepared for them that love him v. 9. That is such things as neither Sense nor Natural Reason could inform us of But God hath revealed them to us by his Spirit for the Spirit searcheth all things even the deep things of God for what man knoweth the things of a man but the Spirit of a man which is in him even so the things of God knoweth no man but the spirit of God Now we have received not the Spirit of the World but the Spirit which is of God that we may know those things which are freely given us of God Which proves that these are properly the things of the Spirit which could never be known but by the Revelation of the Spirit For they are the deep things of God his Secret Counsels and Purposes for the Redemption of Mankind the free Results of his own Wisdom and Goodness the things which are freely given us of God and therefore can be known and can be revealed only by the Spirit and these are the things of the Spirit which the natural Man the vain Pretender to Reason and Philosophy receiveth not Now can any man desire a plainer Proof than this how incompetent a Judge meer natural Reason is of the Mysteries of Faith of the whole Oeconomy of Gospel-Grace For what the natural Man does not receive that meer natural Reason does not receive for the only Reason why the natural Man does not receive it is because natural Reason does not receive it and what is foolishness to the natural Man is foolishness to natural Reason and what the natural Man cannot know because they are spiritually discerned that natural Reason cannot discern Now can there be a plainer Proof than this if we believe St. Paul that there are such Doctrines contained in the Gospel as natural Reason does not receive or approve but rejects with scorn For it is not said That the natural Man cannot by the mere Light of Nature find out or discover these things of the Spirit that he had asserted before but these words give a reason of the Infidelity of the Wise Men the Scribes the Disputers of this World who rejected the Faith when it was preached to them by the Apostles that the natural Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not receive or approve the Faith and not only so but rejects it as foolishness as absurd contradictious impossible unworthy of a Man of Reason and Philosophy Like the Philosoâ—hers of the Epicureans and the Stoicks who encountred St. Paul when he preached at Athens and some said What will this babler say other some He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods because he preached unto them Jesus and the resâ—rrection 17. Acts 18. If then there be such Doctrines as these in the Gospel-Revelation it is certain it can be no Oâ—jection against any Article of the Christian Faith that meer natural Reason does not receive approve comprehend it but accounts it absurd ridiculous foolish for thus the things of the Spirit of God were to the natural Man in St. Paul's days and thus they will always be Nay if the things of the Spirit of God are so far above the comprehension of Human Reason then such Doctrines as meer natural Reason does not receive have this Mark and Character of Divinity if they are contained in the Gospel-Revelation Nay let me add farther That those Doctrines which have been always owned and defended with the warmest Zeal by the Catholick Church and opposed and rejected with as great scorn and contempt by Pagans Infidels and Hereticks as a contradiction to the Reason of Mankind and the Philosophy of Nature are most likely to be the true Christian Faith for this proves that the Christian Church always believed them to be Gospel-Doctrines and Infidels and Hereticks rejected them as incomprehensible and inconceiveable and absurd to Human Reason and such the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation and Cross of Christ have always been to such natural Men. Nay farther If there be such Doctrines in the Gospel-Revelation which meer Natural Reason receiveth not but accounts foolishness then it is certain that is not the true Christian Faith which contains none of these Mysteries none of this hidden Wisdom none of these deep things of God Let the Socinian then tell us What things there are in their Faith which the Natural Man receiveth not which are above the comprehension of meer Natural Reason They glory that they have no such incomprehensible Mysteries in their Faith that they have a reasonable Faith that they have stript Christian Religion of Riddles and Mysteries and fitted it to the level and comprehension of Human Reason but this very thing wherein they glory is a demonstration against them that Socinianism is not the true Christian Faith for that contains such Doctrines as the Natural Man and meer Natural Reason receiveth not They commonly laugh at that distinction between things contrary to Reason and above Reason which Human Reason is no judge of We assert That a Divine Revelation can never contradict true Reason for a Divine Revelation must be true and true Reason is true and Truth cannot contradict Truth But we assert that there are many things in the Christian Faith which are above Reason which Reason is not a competent judge of and which Natural Men may call contradictions if every thing must pass for a contradiction to Reason which meer Natural Reason does not receive approve allow But after all they must find something above Natural Reason if they will believe like Christians for such things there are in the Christian Faith and then let them distinguish as they can between contrary to Reason and above it But I must take notice of one thing more in these words the reason why the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God and cannot know them viz. because they are spiritually discerned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are to be known and judged of only by Spiritual Arguments and Methods and therefore the Natural Man who rejects all means of Knowledge but Natural Reason can never know them The Truth and Certainty of our Faith must be learnt not from the Evidence of Natural Reason and Philosophy which was the Evidence the Philosophers expected The Greeks seek after Wisdom 1 Cor. 1.22 But â—t Paul tells us That Christ sent him to preach the Gospel not with Wisdom of words lest the Cross of Christ should be made of none effect v. 17. c 2.4 5. And my Speech and my Preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and of Power I did not confirm my Doctrine by Natural Reasons and Arguments but by the Evidence of Miracles wrought by the Power of the Holy Spirit That your Faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God And the true Interpretation and admirable Wisdom of these Divine Mysteries must be spiritually discerned also Which things also we speak not in the words which man's Wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth comparing spiritual things with spiritual There is a spiritual Language belongs to spiritual Things and we must learn the true Sense and Interpretation of the Faith not from Natural Ideas or the Words and Notions of Philosophy that is in the Socinian Language by Expounding Scripture by Natural Reason but by studying the Language of Scripture and the meaning of the Holy Ghost in it especially by comparing the Old and the New Testament together Spiritual things with Spiritual This is a way of Learning which Natural Men despise and therefore cannot know the things of the Spirit of God which must be spiritually discerned All this I think abundantly proves that there are such Mysteries in the Christian Faith as meer Natural Reason cannot discover cannot prove cannot receive and comprehend cannot interpret which shews what reason we have to distinguish betwen matters of pure Faith and Philosophy and what danger there is of corrupting the Faith by Philosophy And now I think I may conclude for I suppose no body will expect that I should defend my self against his ridiculous Charge That I am a Socinian which had he believed I should have found better treatment from him But I shall leave him to rave by himself and look upon all these Hurricanes of Fury and Vengeance as a good sign that they feel themselves mortally Wounded THE END The Distinction between Real and Nominal Trinitarians examined c. Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity p. 21 22. Vindicatition p. 150.
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