Undivided Nature belong This Reason boggles at and Socinians call a Contradiction but it is such a Contradiction as Sense would judge the Union of Spirit and Matter to be At most it is an imaginary Contradiction in the Subsistence of the Divine Nature which Reason knows nothing about and therefore can make no judgment of and such appearing-Contradictions are no Objections because they may be no Contradictions as we are sure they are none when the Doctrines charged with these Contradictions are taught in Scripture There is one distinction which seems to me to set this matter in a clear light and to answer all the Pretences of Contradictions and that is The distinction between Contradictions in Logick and Philosophy A Contradiction in Logick is when two Propositions in express terms contradict each other and all men grant that both parts of such Contradictions cannot be true as that there are Three Gods and but One God which is to say that there are and that there are not Three Gods that there is and that there is not but One only God A Contradiction in Philosophy is when any thing is affirmed concerning the Nature or Essential Properties of any Being which seems to contradict all the Notions and Ideas we have of Nature in other Beings and such Contradictions as these may be both true for the Natures of things may be contrary to and contradict each other and yet both of them be true and real Beings There are infinite Instances of this in all Nature the Ideas of Hot and Cold of White and Black of Light and Darkness of solid and fluid Bodies of Matter and Spirit are direct Contradictions in this notion of a Contradiction to each other And had we known but one of these Opposites by our Natural Ideas and the other had been revealed to us we might as justly have cried out of Contradictions as the Socinians now do when you mention a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Nature For Heat contradicts the Idea of Cold and Fluid of Solid as much as Three Persons in the Unity of Nature contradicts the Unity of Nature in the Unity of a Person This latter indeed is the natural notion we have That there is but One Person in One Subsisting Intelligent Nature for we have no example of any thing else and therefore can have no natural Idea of any other Unity but this does not prove that it cannot be otherwise for there may be Oppositions and Contrarieties in Nature and did we but consider what an infinite distance and unlikeness there is between God and Creatures we should not think it reasonable to judge of the Divine Nature by the Ideas of Created Nature This is a very real and sensible distinction between Contradictions in Logick and in Nature and Philosophy and there is a certain way to know them Logical Contradictions are always immediately reducible to is and is not for they affirm and deny the same thing in the same sence The Contradictions in Nature and Philosophy are only the opposition and contrariety there is between the Ideas of several Beings which can never be reduced to a Contradiction in Logick but through Ignorance or Mistake by changing the sense and use of words Let any Socinian try the Experiment in the Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity and reduce it to such a Contradiction if he can A Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Nature is a Contradiction to that Idea we have of the Unity of Person and Nature in created Beings but this is no Contradiction in Logick for it is not a Contradiction in the same Nature and Being as all Contradictions in Logick must be but it is a Contrariety or Contradiction if we will so call it between the Unity and Personalities of two very different Natures the Divine and the Created Nature and all the Contradiction that can be made of it is no more than this That the Unity of the Divine Nature which is perfect and undivided in Three distinct Persons contradicts the Notion of Unity in a Created Nature which admits but of One Person in One Individual Nature But there are a thousand such Contradictions in Nature that is different Natures whose Ideas are opposite and contrary to each other and yet all of them real Beings But could they make a Trinity in Unity contradict it self that the Trinity should in express terms destroy the Unity and the Unity the Trinity this would be somewhat to the purpose for it would prove a Contradiction in Logick when the Terms destroy each other but then the Trinity and Unity must be the same a Trinity of Persons and but One Person or a Trinity of Natures and but one Nature But a Trinity of Persons true proper subsisting Persons in the Unity of Nature which is the Catholick Faith is not a Contradiction in Logick though it contradicts the Notion of Human Personalities which it may do and yet be very true This is abundantly enough to shew the Weakness and Folly of this Socinian Cant about Transubstantiation the Impiety Prophaneness and mischievous Consequences of it let others consider His Third Charge is That I say That as we are Christians and unless we will be understood to reject the Supreme Authority of Divine Revelation we must believe those Doctrines which are thought to be most mysterious and inconceivable notwithstanding any Objection from Reason or from Philosophy against ' em He that believes no farther than Natural Reason approves believes his Reason not the Revelation he is a Natural Philosopher not a Believer He believes the Scriptures as he would believe Plato or Tully not as Inspired Writings but as agreeable to Reason and as the result of wise and deep Thoughts p. 14. Here he has taken some of my Words and so put them together as to conceal the whole Force of the Argument which he always takes care to do My business P. 10 11 c. was to prove That we ought to believe those Doctrines which are thought the most mysterious and inconceivable notwithstanding any Objections from Natural Reason and Philosophy against them And this I proved from the Nature Use and Authority of Revelation That Revelation as to such matters as are knowable only by Revelation must serve instead of Sense Natural Ideas and Natural Reason That if we believe upon God's Authority which is the strict Notion of a Divine Faith we must believe without any Natural Evidence merely because God has revealed it and then we must believe such things as are not evident to Sense and Reason That to believe no farther than Natural Reason can conceive and comprehend is to reject the Divine Authority of Revelation and to destroy the distinction between Reason and Faith He that will believe no farther than his Reason approves believes his Reason not the Revelation and is in truth a Natural Philosopher not a Believer Here any man may perceive that our Socinian was plainly baffled for he has
made an Abstract or Summary as he calls it P. 4. of my Sermon but in his own Method his own Words and directly contrary to my Sense That is he has abstracted from every thing that is in the Sermon that no Man living by his Abstract can tell what the Subject or Drift of the Sermon was or any one Argument contained in it I 'm sure I who made the Sermon knew nothing of it but by mere guess as I read it in his Abstract and would those Men who read these Remarks be but so fair and honest as to read the Sermon too there would need no other Answer The First Branch of my Sermon in his Abstract P. 8. is this 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 Now any one would think that this were one of the Heads of my Sermon which is so far from truth that there is no such Proposition to be found there but the contrary to this is to be found there in express words In the first Page of my Sermon there are these words What some Men call Philosophy and Reason and there is nothing so foolish and absurd which some Men will no call so is the only thing which those Men adore who would either have no God or a God and Religion of their own making And what Attempts some have made to undermine all Religion and others to corrupt and transform the whole Frame of the Christian Religion upon a pretence of its contradicting Natural Reason and Philosophy is too well known to need a Proof And soon after P. 2. This vain Pretence to Reason and Philosophy the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the vain deceit in my Text which is applicable to all vain spurious Philosophy as well as Platonism and is so meant by the Apostle And P. 7. Truly that which makes some men Infidels makes others Hereticks that is a vain Pretence to Philosophy Now let any man judge Whether this be to charge Atheism Infidelity and Heresy upon Reason and Philosophy or upon what some men call Reason and Philosophy which may be very foolish and absurd Whether the Pretences of contradicting Reason and Philosophy and the vain Pretences to Philosophy signify Reason and Philosophy This is wilful Misrepresentation for it is impossible he should mistake I having expresly distinguisht between these vain Pretences to Philosophy and true Philosophy p. 3. Whoever considers what an Enemy these vain Pretences to Philosophy have always been to Religion will see need enough for this Caution of the Text. True Reason and the true knowledge of Nature which is true Philosophy would certainly direct us to the acknowledgment and worship of that Supream Being who made the World and yet we know there never was an Atheist without some pretence to Philosophy Though it seems as this Author tells us p. 9. there has been an Arch-heretick even Socinus himself without it and so may all his Disciples be too and yet be vain Pretenders to Reason and Philosophy however I am as Orthodox in this Point as my Lord Bacon himself whom he objects against me whose Sense I exactly expressed though not his Words But nothing can more fully declare my sense in this particular than what the Reader may find p. 10. 2dly Let us now consider what great reason we have to reject all the vain Pretences to Reason and Philosophy when opposed to a Divine Revelation For that i◠all the Apostle intends in this Caution not to discourage the use of Reason or the study of Philosophy which are great improvements and a delightful entertainment of Human Minds and with a wise and prudent conduct may be very serviceable to Religion too but we must not set up any Conclusions in Philosophy against the Christian Faith nor corrupt the Faith with a mixture of Philosophy nor reject any Revealed Truths for want of Natural Ideas to conceive them by Nothing can be plainer than this That I am very far from condemning the sober use of Reason and Philosophy though with the Apostle I will not allow them to oppose the Authority of a Divine Revelation So that our Author need not be so terribly frighted as if this Innocent Sermon were a designed revenge against the Oxford Heads the Learning of the Place and Philosophy it self p. 1. though the Apostle indeed will not allow Philosophy alone to make Decrees in Articles of Faith here is no danger of setting up Folly and Falshood which would be to encroach upon his Province or of writing a second Moriae Encomium or praise of Folly Here is no danger that the Articles of Faith should disagree with true Reason and Philosophy though a vain appearance a Socinian Philosophy may contradict the Articles of Faith Nay my Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen p. 9. notwithstanding this Sermon may very safely send their Children to Cambridge or Oxford if they get good Tutors for them who will reach them no Socinian Logick or Philosophy And which is more we may confute Atheists and Infidels by Reason and Philosophy p. 8. without being at the charge of buying a massy Quarto Bible with Clasps and Bosses to knock'em down with As he very wittily and with great reverence to the Holy Scriptures expresses it For Reason and Philosophy may confute Atheists and Infidels though they have no Authority to make or unmake Articles of Faith as to matters of pure Revelation Nay more than this still if it be possible to please him we will allow Reason and Philosophy to confute Heresies though not to judge absolutely in matters of Faith Which I suppose is the reason why as he observes p. 9. Hereticks many of them are no less bitter against this same damnable Philosophy They protest especially in their Latin Works that 't is this Philosophy that corrupted and debauched Divinity Damnable is a very fashionable word and shews him to be well bred and to have good Acquaintance but it is a very great Truth That though Catholick Christians would never build their Faith on Philosophy yet Hereticks have always had great reason to rail at true Philosophy as I observed in my Sermon p. 10. The importunity of Hereticks did very often engage the Catholick Fathers in Philosophical Disputes but this they did not to explain the Christian Mysteries by Philosophy but only to shew that as incomprehensible as these Mysteries are the Philosophy of Hereticks and their Objections against these Articles were very absurd And such Disputes as these may sometimes be absolutely necessary and of great use to shame these vain Pretences to Philosophy while we do not put the trial of our Faith upon this issue And thus much for his first Proposition for it is none of mine that Reason and Philosophy are the
what he sees and feels or what he can prove to be true by plain and undeniable Reason meerly because there are unconceivable difficulties in it as there is in every thing even the most certain and familiar things in Nature And if revealed Truths are not more unconceivable than many Natural Objects of Sense and Reason why should their being unconceivable be a greater Objection against believing a Revelation than it is against believing our Sense and Reason in matters equally unconceivable Serm. p. 13. This Argument is easily understood but can never be Answered and therefore he wisely resolved not to understand it In Answer to this he tells us That he does not always believe his Senses nor his Reason neither when it is not clear but perplext with difficulties or darkening doubts but especially when there is a remarkable and manifest inconceivableness Nor do I require he should but my only Question is Whether he does not believe both his Senses and Reason that there are many things in the World whose Natures are so mysterious that he cannot conceive or comprehend the Reasons and Philosophy of them That though he sees Men and Beasts Heaven and Earth Sun Moon and Stars he will not believe that there are such things as he sees because he cannot understand the Philosophy of their Natures and sees a great many things done by them which are perfectly unaccountable and would have been thought absolutely impossible had we not seen them done These are all the contradictions and impossibilities which I say men may make or find when they know not the Philosophical Natures of things nor how they act and yet will be reasoning and guessing at them which this wise Author calls a Sermon for Contradictions But do I require any man to believe Contradictions Nay do I say that there are any such Contradictions But this I say that there are such unconceivable Mysteries in all Created Nature much more in the Incomprehensible Nature of God as some Gotham Philosophers as he who knows them best calls them charge with impossibilities and contradictions and yet these Gotham Philosophers are so wise as not to disbelieve their Senses as to the being of those things how unconceivable and incomprehensible soever their natures are and this is all I ask that in matters of pure Revelation we give the same credit to Revelation that in the Objects of sense we give to sense i. e. not to disbelieve what is revealed As that God has an Eternal Son and that this Eternal Son in time was made Man because the Eternal Generation and Incarnation are inconceivable Mysteries as we do not disbelieve that there are any Men in the World because Human Generations and the Union of Soul and Body are inconceivable Mysteries in Nature Towards the Conclusion of my Sermon I Answered Two Objections against believing a Revelation as to such Doctrines which are inconceivable and incomprehensible to meer Natural Reason And here to prepare the way he first scorns the Objections as never made before or however by none but my self That I pass over known and very dangerous Objections and Answer only to Chimera's and Follies never suggested or thought of by any p. 18. I am glad to find that he grows ashamed of these Socinian Chimera's and Follies but let us hear what they are 1. It is thought very unnatural that when God has made us reasonable Creatures and therefore made natural Reason to us the measure of truth and falshood he should require us to believe without Reason as we must do if he reveal such things to us as we do not and cannot possibly know the reasons of If we must believe with our understanding how can we believe things which we cannot understand Now this Socinian does not believe that any Sect of Religious ever made this or the like Objection Let him as he says snuff his Candle once more and look into the late Socinian Pamphlets What is the meaning of all their Zeal for Reason in this Cause of their great noise and outcry about Mysteries Nonsense Contradictions What is the meaning of their Expounding Scripture by Reason not like Fools but like Wise men Why has this Author shewn such a furious Zeal against believing a Revelation notwithstanding any Objections from meer Natural Reason and Philosophy against it If as he now says our Reason and Understandings are finite and imperfect and the Wisdom and Power of God most perfect Therefore he may reveal many things to us to be believed by us though we understand them not nor have any other cause of our believing them but only God's Revelation of them p. 19. Nothing can be more true than what he says that Reason is the measure of truth and falshood but not the frail Fallible Reason of Men but the Infallible Wisdom of God If he be sincere and hearty in this we are perfectly agreed for this is the very Doctrine of my Sermon which he has so furiously opposed or would be thought to oppose for to speak the Truth he has not opposed the Doctrine of my Sermon but in his own Language his own Chimera's and Follies But here is either a Fallacy in his Words or he gives up his Cause which it is plain he never intended The Question is not absolutely What is the Rule and Measure of Truth and Falshood but what is so to us Now if he will allow that Frail and Fallible Reason is not a Rule to us then we may believe things which our Reason does not approve nay which it may judge improbable and false And if the infallible Wisdom of God be a Rule to us it can be so only in a Revelation and then we may and must believe the infallible Wisdom of God in a Revelation against the Objections of Frail and Fallible Reason And one may easily guess there is something amiss still notwithstanding all these concessions for as silly an Objection as he says this is which I am glad to hear he will by no means own that I have Answered it and then I have very ill luck indeed to make a silly Objection which was never made before and not be able to Answer it when I have done The Answer I give to this Objection is this That the Matter of the Objection is not true for we do understand both what it is we believe and the reasons why we believe it and this I suppose may pass for an Answer to that Objection But then it is farther Objected That we believe such things whose Natures we cannot understand and cannot account for by natural Reason To this I Answer That Reason is not the judge of the Nature and Philâ—sophy of things nor does it require us to believe nothing but what we thus understand and comprehend For then as I had shewn we must no more believe Sense and Reason than Revelation And this I take to be a good Answer too but then to shew the reason of this I add When we make
the Trinity and Incarnation that how unaccountable soever these Mysteries be it is the most useful and necessary Knowledge in the world But there is one thing still behind which I find nettles this Author and I don't wonder at it To shew how much it became the Goodness of God to reveal these Mysteries of Salvatiâ—n to us I observed That the lapsed state of Human Nature makes Supernatural Knowledge necessary For though Natural Knowledge must be allowed sufficient to all the ends of Human Life while man continued Innocent Yet when man had sinned he forfeited the Favour of God and a natural Immortality and whether he should be restored or not and by what means he should be restored depended wholly on the Sovereign Will and Pleasure of God And therefore the Light of Nature though it could direct an innocent man how to please and worship God and to preserve himself Immortal it could not teach Sinners how to make Attonement for Sin nor give them any certain Hopes that God would forâ—ive sins and bestow immortal Life on them Which makes it necessary that the Religion of a Sinner be a Revealed Religion This he imperfectly transcribes and adds True but not in the least to the purpose 'T is no Answer to that Objection but to another Namely to this Why Revelation or a â—upernatural Knowledge is necessary Here he had overshot himself in allowing Supernatural Knowledge necessary and therefore immediately qualifies it with or however highly requisite which declares this Socinian's Opinion That we might have been saved without the Knowledge of Christ or the Gospel-Revelation for I know nothing that can make any thing more necessary than the necessity of â—alvation And therefore if it be not necessary but only highly requisite we might be saved without it He adds the Reason why he says this is nothing to the purpose The Objeâ—tion was concerning a Revelation and Faith not intelligible or not conceiveable the Answer is only concerning Revelation or Supernatural Knowledge in general Why it was given to men But it is neither so nor so the Objection concerns the use of such a Revelation as contains matters which Natural Reason cannot comprehend This part of the Answer proves from the lapsed state of Human Nature the absolute Necessity of the Gospel Revelation which contains these Mysteries For if Nature can't save us it can't discover to us the way of Salvation neither and if we must be saved by a Supernatural Grace and Power it must be supernaturally revealed and what is Supernatural is the Object of Faith not of Natural Knowledge Serm. p. 24. But he adds There is a great difference between Supernaturally revealed and unconceivable the whole Christian Religion the Precepts as well as Faith of it is a Supernatural Revelation and yet a System so intelligible that it must be taught to the Women to the Poor and â—ven to little Children This is true but there is a difference between Supernatural Knowledge as opposed to Natural Knowledge and Supernatural Revelation Such things as Nature can teach us may be supernaturally revealed and the degeneracy of Mankind may make this in his Language highly requisite as the Nature and Providence of God a future State and the differences of Good and Evil But Supernatural Knowledge is a Knowledge which Nature cannot teach but must be learned only by Revelation and this is the Knowledge and a Mysterious Knowledge it is which the lapsed state of Human Nature makes necessary as necessary as the Salvation of Sinners by the Incarnation and Death of the Son of God Which makes a great difference between the Precepts and Faith of the Gospel though both contained in the same Revelation He adds It was not made the matter of Supernatural Revelation for its Difficulty Mysteriousness or Transcendency of the Human Understanding but to ascertain the Truth of it and to enforce its Authority in the world Which is in plain English to say That the Design of the gospel-Gospel-Revelation was not to teach us any thing beyond the Discovery or Comprehension of meer Natural Reason but only to give greater Certainty and Authority to the Laws and Religion of Nature And here for a conclusion I joyn Issue with this Socinian and am glad to take the least Hint for some useful Discourse Whether the Gospel Revelation contain any thing which Nature could not teach us and which Natural Reason cannot comprehend or were only intended to give greater Certainty and Authority to the Religion of Nature That the Gospel is a New Revelation of what Nature could not teach nor meer Natural Reason comprehend I shall prove not from the Name or Notion of Mysteries which these men so foolishly and absurdly ridicule but from the express Authority of St. Paul 1 Cor. 2.14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God for they are foolishness unto him neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned A brief Explication of which Words will be of great use in our present Dispute The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Natural Man as Theophilact and other Greek Fathers observe is the man who judges only by Natural Light and Reason and will receive and believe nothing beyond what Nature teaches And the Context proves this to be the true meaning of it This account the Apostle gives of the Graecian Philosophers That as the Jews required a sign so the Greeks seek after wisdom 1 Cor. 1.22 nothing would content them but some Philosophical Speculations and Natural Proofs and Demonstrations of Faith which in this Chapter he calls The enticing words of man's wisdom and opposes to the demonstration of the spirit and of power that is to the Evidence of Miracles wrought by the Spirit of God which are a more certain and infallible Proof than all their Pretences to Reason and Demonstration For where is the wise where is the scribe where is the disputer of this world hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world for after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom by natural Reason and Philosophy knew not God it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe 1 Cor. 1.20 21. These are the men who rejected the Faith of Christ of whom the Apostle here speaks and gives an account of the reason of their Infidelity in these words The natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God Which will more fully appear by examining what these things of the Spirit of God are And it is evident from the whole Context that they are matters of pure Revelation which can be known only by the Revelation of the Spirit or the whole Oeconomy of our Salvation by the Incarnation Death Resurrection Ascension of Jesus Christ the Eternal Son of God which is the Subject of the Gospel-Revelation This he calls The Wisdom of God in a Mystery even the hidden Wisdom which God ordained before the world to our glory ver 7.
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.