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
or present Socinianism the Socinianism of Faustus Socinus for the Unity of God or that there is but one God can never be defended by these Men who hold Person and intellectual Substance to be the same but only on the Principles of Faustus Socinus and the modern Socinians Thus I say some Orthodox Writers argue they are perswaded that as this Doctor maintains the Heresy of Laelius Socinus he must of necessity by attending to the Consequences of his Doctrine make a Coalition or Closure in the end with Faustus Socinus and the present Socinianism if it be not already his Opinion and Aim As for Subscriptions Protestations and such like Dr. Sherlock may multiply them as much as he pleases but they are resolved never to believe him for they pretend that his Predecessors L. Socinus G. Blandrata c. never stuck at such Matters but made use of 'em as Artifices to get into Acquaintance and Esteem with the Orthodox and then seduce them But for my part I judg the Dean tho most certainly a Disciple of Laelius Socinus may easily be brought off from the Imputation of being a Socinian according to the Model of Faustus Socinus and the present Socinians For it is true he holds three Essences and Spirits and he thinks Person and intellectual Substance signify the same thing so that in multiplying the one you necessarily multiply the other and it is no less true that on these two Principles or in consequence of these two Principles he can never defend the Unity of God but on the grounds of Faustus Socinus and the modern Socinians namely that God is indeed but one Person I say I grant both these Imputations on the Doctor are true and yet it will not follow that in very deed he is a Socinian after the Model of Faustus or aims to introduce the Socinian Scheme as 't is held by the Modern Socinians For having disclaimed the use of Reason in Matters of Religion he is bound up by no Consequences tho never so clear or certain for all Consequences are the Children of Reason against which in Disputes of Religion and the Articles of Faith the Doctor has protested before my Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen If it be never so certain that he holds as Laelius Socinus did and never so evident that the necessary Consequence from thence is the Scheme of Faustus Socinus this can never affect him who disclaiming Reason is therefore discharged of the foolish Trouble of attending to Consequences which are mere Brats of Reason He may be as clear of any Design to introduce the Scheme of Faustus Socinus notwithstanding these Suspicions of some right Orthodox Men as he is of bringing in Presbytery which in my heart I cannot think he intends now he is become a Dean We have said enough to his first Proposition that Reason and Philosophy are the two Idols of Atheists and Hereticks and that make Atheists to be Atheists and Hereticks to be Hereticks To the Second He saith again That to ascertain what is the very and true Faith we must attend only to that Meaning of Scripture which the Words and Phrases do imply rejecting all mixture of Reason and Philosophy in our Disputes about Religion and our Inquiries concerning the Meaning of Scripture That is he is for giving up the Protestant Religion to the Old Gentleman at Rome and the Christian Religion in general to the certain Triumph of Deists and Hereticks Reason and Philosophy he saith must not be admitted into our Disputes about Religion or our Inquiries concerning the Meaning of Scripture no the Words and Phrases of Scripture in their obvious and natural Sense are the only things that must determine our Disputes form the Articles of Religion and settle the meaning of Scripture For instance the Question is concerning the Transubstantiation the Words and Phrases are these This is my Body My FLESH is Meat indeed my BLOOD is Drink indeed He that eateth my FLESH and drinketh my BLOOD the same dwelleth in me and I in him Yes say Reason and Philosophy the Lord Christ had a Body and that Body was Flesh and Blood but when Bread is called his Body or his Flesh and Wine his Blood it could not be intended that Bread is Humane Flesh or Wine is Blood in reality of the thing but only in signification or sign Bread is the Flesh of Christ and Wine his Blood by way of sign and signification and to say otherwise is a Contradiction to the nature of the things spoken of that is to Philosophy and also to Reason which assures us that the real Body of Christ cannot be in Heaven and on the Altar at the same time Exclude now Reason and Philosophy out of this Dispute and from the Enquiry concerning the meaning of the words and phrases of Scripture about this matter and it will be undeniable that the advantage is wholly on the Popish side a Protestant Doctor and he too a Dean of St. Pauls gives away our only Strengths against the common Adversary Our Saviour says of a piece of Bread This is my Body if now Reason and Philosophy must not interpret How will Dr. Sherlock avoid either the Papist on the one side or the Lutheran on the other He cannot have recourse to Sense in the case 't is only Philosophy or Reason that must help him out for tho the Apostles who saw and tasted that it was Bread only and not Flesh might have appealed also to their Senses yet we that never saw or tasted the Substance which Jesus gave then to the Disciples can know by Reason and Philosophy only by nothing else that it was not his Flesh and Blood We argue He took Bread and blessed it and gave to his Disciples and said Take eat This is my Body The Text expresly says it was Bread which he blessed and brake and called it his Body therefore it was his Body in sign and signification not in reality All this is arguing 't is Reason that convinces us not Sense that the Substance he divided to them was indeed Bread not his Flesh which he neither blessed nor brake But if our Preacher says he believes it was only Bread because the Text it self calls it Bread let him consider that seeing what was called Bread before Christ blessed it after the Blessing he calls it his Body We cannot know by Sense or by the Text but by Reason and Philosophy only that it was not changed by the Blessing into what now he calls it namely his Body The Papists believe it was Bread that Christ took but because when he had brake and blessed it he calls it his Body they conclude that by the Blessing it was changed into the substance of Flesh but without change of the Accidents I say now tho Sense might interpret the words this is my Body to the Apostles who saw it and tasted it yet to us who neither saw nor tasted those words cannot be rightly interpreted but only by
desperate Cause requires when he so carefully adds As to Contradictions and Impossibilities there will be many whenever we will be reasoning about such things as we understand not I shall tell him not if there be many as he says but if there be any Contradictions or Impossibilities the thing proposed becomes thereby incredible But if we will be reasoning he says about what we do not understand there will be many Contradictions and Impossibilities in our Guesses concerning such things I answer if those Guesses do imply Contradictions or Impossibilities they are such Guesses as none but Fools would make for an Impossibility or a Contradiction is an obvious thing of which none but Philosophers of Gotham will be guilty If we are reasoning about things that we do not understand and there is no occasion that I know of to reason about any thing else Why must we needs be overseen as far as Contradictions and Impossibilities are there no Mistakes to be made but those gross ones Impossibilities and Contradictions It has been ever held by the soberest Divines that Contradictions cannot be verified by the Divine Omnipotence or Omniscience it self and that when we say all things are possible to God we ought to mean it of possible things for as for Impossibilities they are not the Objects of Omnipotence God can no more do impossible things than he can know false things to be true things which most certainly is not knowable A Sermon therefore on behalf of Contradictions and Impossibilities cannot be more absurd than 't is Heterodox and universally condemned by Divines of all Perswasions But this Dean has outfaced a Decree of the University of Oxford in a matter in which if they had mistaken all the Universities of Christendom had been obliged to declare against them and would have declared therefore we need not to wonder that now in a Sermon he as little scruples to contravene the known and agreed Sense and Judgment of all the several Denominations or Sects of Christians I shall confess I am for an ingenuous Liberty and that too in Questions of the greatest Importance but every body knows how bitterly Dr. Sherlock has always opposed and still opposes all Dissenters either from the Doctrine or Discipline of the Church therefore tho I should not object it to another yet to him 't is but his due to tell him of the unparallel'd Immodesty of his Dissent and Separation from the Catholick Church That he has advanced a Heresy concerning the Blessed Trinity condemned by General Councils Decrees of Universities and Consent of Writers and he maintains it by Pleas against Philosophy and Reason and for Contradictions and Impossibilities no less generally reprobated on all hands than his Heresy it self is On his Answer to the first Objection AFter such a Defence of his Heterodoxies as never was before heard he proceeds to answer to two Objections that never were made or however by none but himself And tho it is a very injudicious and needless Confession of a conscience to a Man 's own Insufficience to pass over known and very dangerous Objections and answer only to Chimeras and Follies never suggested or thought of by any Yet Dr. Sherlock is overseen much farther and worse than that for he not only overlooks the Objections of the Socinians and replies to some Weaknesses that no body would have thought of but the Answerer but his Answers are not to those Objections but to something else The Reader shall not again rely upon me if I do not satisfy him and without the trouble of an intent Application that this Maintainer of Paradoxes had forgot his Objection when he came to his Answer He objects first It seems very unnatural that God having made us reasonable Creatures and thereby made Reason to be to us the Measure of Truth and Falshood we should be required to believe without Reason And if we must believe with our Understandings how can we believe what we do not understand I do not believe as I said any Sect of Religious ever made this or the like Objection For 't is very obvious to be seen and understood that tho we are made reasonable Creatures and do believe or assent with out Understandings yet because we cannot but be aware that our Reasons and Understandings are finite and imperfect often short-sighted and as often overseeing things and the Wisdom and Power of God seen in the Contrivance and Structure of the World most perfect therefore he may reveal many things to us to be believed by us tho we understand them not nor have any other Cause of our believing them but only God's Revelation of them We ought to believe God as Children do their Parents or as we our selves believe sage and sober Persons in Matters belonging to their particular Art or Craft that is to say believe them on their Word and for the just Opinion we have of their superiour Knowledg in such Matters To dispute against this is such a degree of Folly that tho I dare not answer for every particular Man yet I know well and any reasonable body will suppose there never was any Party of Men or Sect of Religious that could be so overseen I grant indeed as 't is in the Objection that Reason is the measure of Truth and Falshood but not the frail fallible Reason of Men but the infallible Wisdom of God And in this all Sects agree The Objection therefore is Chimerical and was never made by any sort of Opposers 't is only a loose Thought of this Preacher and advanced to help sill up a crude Sermon Well but what is the wise Answer to a silly Objection Why this When an Objection is made against any thing 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 Vnions Operations and Properties which no Man can pretend are the Objects of Reason or that any Man living can know any thing of them And this he adds farther is all the Incomprehensibility or Contradiction that any can charge on the Trinity or Incarnation By the Trinity meaning his Trinity of Spirits As I said in the name of Goodness what is this Answer to that Objection The Objection is why should reasonable Creatures be obliged to believe things without Reason The Answer is an Objection is of no value if the Matter under dispute is not the Object of Reason Plainly this Answer is not to that Objection but concerning quite another thing namely that we must argue by Reason only for or against such things as are the Objects of Reason But that this wild Answer might look life somewhat he adds the Substances Essences Reasons Properties Vnions and Operations of things are not Objects of Reason and no Man living can know any thing of them Then there is nothing that is the Object of Reason and no