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 Catholic 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 itself.  
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, Knowledge, 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, though 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 preached 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 Knowledge. 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, 'tis the whole that Atheists and Infidels would persuade; 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 mere 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 Platonic 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 Philosophic Tincture, and their adherence to Natural Reason: the same makes others to be Heretics; 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 mere Words, or Phrases, there used; for such a Confession or Declaration of the Faith would leave all the Heresies untouched, and all Heretics 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: 'tis 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 Falsehood 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 Reason, or that any Man living can know any thing of them. And this, he adds, is all the Incomprehensibility and Contradiction that Men can charge on the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. P. 17, 18, 19  
The second Objection is; To what purpose can such a Revelation serve, or of what use can such a Faith be, which is concerning things we cannot comprehend or understand; and to which Reason disagrees? He answers, First; we may use the World, and every thing in it, as fully and to as good purpose; as if we understood the Reasons, and internal Natures of things. The Objection, if it hath any force, taketh place, as much against created Nature, or the Complex of things called the World, as against the Gospel-Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation: for the former is all inconceivable Mystery, as well as the latter. He answers again, Secondly; Tho we understand not the Trinity, the Incarnation, or the necessity of the Satisfaction by the Death of the Son of God: 'tis for all that a very useful Knowledge, even this, that God so loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son; to the end, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting Life. P. 21, 22, 23.  
This is the Substance, and Force of the Sermon. And one would think, on a general View of this Discourse; that all Dr. Sherlock's Care and Concern were for the poor distressed Articles of the Christian Faith: that there is nothing in his Thoughts, however nothing equally in his Thoughts; as the Defence and Patronage of the (Catholic Doctrines of the) Trinity, the Incarnation, and Satisfaction. But I know no body but himself, and his Party of Realists, as they call themselves, that question the Articles of the Trinity, the Incarnation, or the Satisfaction, in the Sense they are held by the Catholic Church. It is even necessary to caution his Hearers, and Readers, what this Doctor's true meaning is, when he pretends to plead for the Trinity, and the Articles thereon depending. For when he cries Trinity, he means three Eternal and Infinite Spirits; that is, he says Trinity, and means Tritheism: and this is the Reason, why his Defences of the Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity, are as false and weak, as his Explication of that Doctrine, that I may use the words of the Oxford-Decree concerning it, is heretical and impious.  
The whole Catholic Church believes; that Almighty God is one Infinite and Eternal Spirit. That the Divinity was so incarnate in the Humanity of the Lord Christ, as to exert in it the Divine Attributes: as Omniscience, or the Knowledge of the Thoughts, and of the Future; and Omnipotence, or the Power of Miracles. Whereupon there followed (as Divines speak) a Communication of Idioms: Which is to say, in consideration of this Incarnation, we say God was made Man; and the Lord Christ is true God. But by the former, 'tis only meant, that by his Incarnation or Indwelling in the Humanity, it may be said, (somewhat Catachrestically or improperly) that God became Man: by the other, that the Lord Christ is true God, is meant; he is God (and whatsoever may be said of God) in respect of God in him. Farther, that our Blessed Saviour by his active and passive Obedience, did reconcile Men to God, and God to Men, and satisfied whatsoever the Justice of God required for the Pardon of Sin, and the Donation of eternal Life; on the Conditions however (on our part) of Faith, Repentance, and Newness of Life.  
As to the Divine Persons, that the Divine Essence or Substance, or the Divinity itself, can be no otherwise distinguished or diversified, but only (as the Bishop of Worcester words this matter) by different Modes of Subsistence, or relative Properties: which, being considered together with the Divine Essence and Attributes, are named Persons.  
In this Faith all the Denominations of Christians do acquiesce. As it is the Church's Doctrine, and her whole Doctrine about these Matters; 'tis also embraced, by all the Sects of Christians, except only the Arians: of which Persuasion there are none (I think) in England; nor in the Dominions of any Christian Prince or State. But Dr. Sherlock, and with him some few others, endeavour to disturb this happy Agreement and Consent; they would divide us by novel Doctrines, and a new Explication of the Trinity: an Explication which is as manifest Polytheism and Paganism, as any of the (old or modern) Heathens were ever guilty of. He hath not indeed in this Sermon declared expressly, what kind of Trinity he pleads for; but he intimates it, and plainly points to it, at p. 7, and 10. He owns (at p. 10.) 'tis the new Explication; and at p. 7. the real Trinity: by which Names (all Men know) he and his Party call their Trinity of Spirits and Substances, in all their Books. Therefore, though if another Man had preached this Sermon; the Errors and Weaknesses, for which 'tis so remarkable, might have been charitably overlooked: yet coming from him who designs to establish a Heresy, that subverts the grand Design of Christianity, and revives Paganism, under the disguise of a (false) Zeal for the Catholic Doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Satisfaction; it would be a very drowsy Neglect, not to give notice and warning of this Wolf in Sheep's Clothing; or not to detect the Falseness of his Reasonings, as well as the Impiety of his Principles and Doctrine. I come therefore now to a particular Discussion of the several Parts of his Sermon, which I have already represented in distinct Propositions.  
The first was: 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 Philosophic Tincture, and their Adherence to natural-Reason: the same makes others to be Heretics; that is, to be Arians, Socinians, and Pelagians.  
He intended it, without doubt, as a mighty Prejudice against Reason and Philosophy, that Atheists and Infidels pretend to both; and that they seem to esteem nothing else. And, in truth, a notable Reasoning it is, for a Sermon; as Sermons ordinarily now go: but from the Press, or in a Book, 'tis a contemptible Weakness. Atheists, and Infidels, magnify Philosophy, and Reason: therefore Divines, and good Christians, must be hence cautioned, that Philosophy and Reason will despoil 'em of their Piety towards God, and their Faith as Christians. Sir Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam, is often quoted, for a contrary Aphorism, namely this: that indeed a smattering in Philosophy, inclines Men to Atheism and Irreligion; but a Mastery in it, begets and nourishes Piety and Faith. And surely, Experience has shown, he was in the right. For those Divines, who have also been Philosophers, are the Men, that have by their Writings done the greatest and most successful Service to Religion. Which, in such an Age as this, would hardly have stood its Ground, under the Management of Divines, that were not Philosophers also.  
The Weapons of Atheists and infidels, Dr. Sherlock 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 Heretics; 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 Heretics. 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 'tis said or printed that there are three Eternal and Infinite Spirits: 'tis but fit they should be told their own; that 'tis they, with their Philosophy, and their Logicks, or Art of Reasoning, that make all the Heretics. And yet 'tis thought, by some odd Fellows, on the other hand; that Philosophy and Reason never caused that Mischief that our Preacher pretends: and they offer, to confirm what they say, by the Example of the Arch Heretic 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 Logic, and wrote a little Treatise about it. Howe'er it be; I find, 'tis 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, 'tis certain they will be Heretics, Arians, or Socinians, or Pelagians. The Heretics on the other side, many of them, are no less bitter against this same (damnable) Philosophy: they protest, especially in their Latin Works; that 'tis Philosophy that corrupted and debauched Divinity. I wish in my heart these Gentlemen (the Doctor and the Heretics) do not play booty, into one another's hands: for as angry as they would seem against one another, 'tis 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 myself to make here this one Reflection. 'Tis very surprising 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 Spiritual 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 answered, 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 entitle 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 though 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 Critic 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 (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 persuaded, 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, etc.) 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 judge the Dean, though 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 'tis held by the Modern Socinians. For having disclaimed the use of Reason, in Matters of Religion, he is bound up by no Consequences, though 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 Heretics: and that make Atheists to be Atheists, and Heretics to be Heretics.  

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 Heretics. 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. Paul's, 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; 'tis only Philosophy or Reason that must help him out: for though 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 expressly says it was Bread which he blessed and broke, and called it his Body; therefore, it was his Body in sign and signification, not in reality. All this is arguing; 'tis Reason that convinces us, not Sense, that the Substance he divided to them was indeed Bread, not his Flesh, which he neither blessed nor broke.  
But if our Preacher says, he believes it was only Bread, because the Text itself 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, though 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 Reason and Philosophy; because, though the Text also calls it Bread, yet not after it was blessed.  
I might give a hundred the like Instances, but I think 'tis not worth while; for there is no man of any consideration but will acknowledge, 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 Supreme 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. Paul's, 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 persuaded 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, though 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, 'tis 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 mere 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; 'tis 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 'tis 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 darkening 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 Balance 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 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, itself: 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 'tis Heterodox, and universally condemned, by Divines of all Persuasions. 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 Judgement, 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, though I should not object it to another; yet to him, 'tis but his due, to tell him of the unparallelled Immodesty of his Dissent, and Separation from the Catholic 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 itself 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 though 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 Chimaeras, 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 Falsehood: 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 'tis very obvious to be seen, and understood; that though we are made reasonable Creatures, and do believe (or assent) with out Understandings: yet because we cannot but be ware, that our Reasons and Understandings are finite and imperfect, often , 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, though 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 ourselves 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 superior Knowledge in such Matters. To dispute against this, is such a degree of Folly; that, though 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 'tis in the Objection; that, Reason is the measure of Truth and Falsehood: 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: 'tis only a lose Thought of this Preacher; and advanced, to help fill 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, Unions, 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, Unions, 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 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 confessed 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 employed, 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 Unions; 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 needlessly nice, Substances, with their Properties and Operations, will denote the whole Complex of things: their Reasons and Unions 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 Surgeons about the humane Body; Chemists 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 Unions and essential Reasons; about which, both their Minds and Bodies are every day employed? 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 preached 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 Heretic.  
He says, Lastly: This (that the Question is about Essences, Unions, 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 Catholic 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 than is the Divine Essence, Godhead, or Deity, considered 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 ancient 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 intent 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 Scholastic 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 Being's. 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 Being's: 'twas thought sit, to say, they are used concerning God, in a mystical Sense; concerning other Being's, 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 judge, 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 Church, has nothing in it, in the least unconceivable or mysterious: viz. That the Godhead, (as St. Paul speaks) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; or (as St. John) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tabernacled and dwelleth in the Lord Christ. Not as in Prophets, occasionally, and in measure: but as the Soul in the Body, viz. always enlightening and actuating him; and exerting by him and in him the Divine Attributes, Omnipotence and Omniscience; so that 'tis truly said, God was made Man, and the Lord Christ is God. Yet not as Eutyches exceeded in the case; so that God was changed into Man, and the Humanity was Deified; which, besides that 'tis blasphemous, is also contradictory: but so, that the Terms used are to be interpreted by the Doctrine; not the Doctrine by the Terms: That is to say; We believe, that God is essentially Omni-present: but dwelling in the Lord Christ, as the Soul in the Body; that is, always enlightening and actuating him, by an eternal indissoluble Union; exerting also in him and by him the proper Characters of the Divinity, Omniscience (the Knowledge of the future, and of the Thoughts, etc.) and Omnipotence, that is the Power of Miracles, and of Creation, as was seen in the case of the multiplied Loaves and Fishes; therefore we rightly affirm a Communication of Idioms, as to the terms: Namely, that in respect of such an Incarnation, God became Man; and the Lord Christ was true God.  
I say, there is nothing in these two Explications, that is incomprehensible, or mysterious: there was no reason, that F. Socinus, or (that very learned Person) J. Crellius, should cry Jargon, and Mystery; and as little that Catholic Writers should defend these Doctrines, under the name of great Difficulties, mysterious and inconceivable Articles. There is nothing in them, that can puzzle either a learned or a discerning Man; nothing that shocks our Reason, or to which any System of Philosophy yet known makes any opposition. If what is intended in the Terms of these Articles, is made intelligible, nay obvious; and if the Explication implies nothing, contrary to Philosophy or Reason, that is, to experimental or to natural Knowledge: I shall be glad to be taught, why these Articles must be called Mysteries; a name that offends so many, and in which others so much delight, both (in my poor Judgement) without Cause.   

To his Answer unto the last Objection.  
THE Second Objection is this: To what purpose can such a Revelation serve, or of what use can such a Faith be; which is concerning things that we cannot understand, or cannot comprehend? I do not think, any Sect of Religious ever made this Objection: for how could it escape them, that, on the one side, the Articles of Religion are not altogether inconceivable, or unintelligible; and that on the other hand, there is scarce any thing in Nature, or in Art, that is altogether conceivable and intelligible?  
But let us hear what the Preacher says upon it. He says: 1. We may use the World, as fully; and every thing in it, to as good purpose; as if we understood the Reasons, and internal Natures of things. No, Trisler; not so fully, nor to so good purpose, as if we better understood the Natures of things. Nay, we can make no use at all of it; but only so far forth, as we understand the Nature, and Reasons of things in it. We can use nothing, to any purpose, till we know or understand something of its Nature: and no farther can we apply it, and use it, than we understand its Nature, and know its Properties and Powers. The matter is so plain, I will dwell no longer upon it.  
He says, Lastly: The lapsed State of Nature, makes supernatural Knowledge necessary: when Man had sinned, he forfeited the Favour of God, and his natural Immortality; and the Light of Nature could not teach him, how to make Atonement for Sin; or give any hope that God would bestow Immortal Life. True, but not in the least to the purpose: 'tis no Answer, to that Objection; but to another: namely, to this; why Revelation, or a supernatural Knowledge, is necessary; or however, highly requisite? The Objection was, concerning a Revelation, and Faith, not intelligible, or not conceivable: The Answer is, only concerning Revelation (or supernatural Knowledge) in general, why it was given to Men? 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 even to little Children. It was not made the matter of supernatural Revelation; for its Difficulty, Mysteriousness, or Transcendency of the humane Understanding: but to ascertain the Truth of it; and to enforce its Authority, in the World.  
I have done with the Sermon; and shall hope that such Apologists for the Articles of the Catholic Church, as first corrupt those Articles by an Heretical Sense put on them; and then betray them, by a Defence partly false, and partly weak; will no more be encouraged to print, as well as preach, their Errors and Follies. I know, 'tis an usual Civility of the Court, especially to such Divines as are Dignified, Doctors and Deans; to desire them, to print their Sermons: I know too, that some heard this Sermon, and moved the printing of it; who understood well the Heretical Aim of the Preacher, and expected it would be answered by some or other that understood the Doctrine of the Church, and how to defend it. Notwithstanding, it were better, that treacherous Defences, and false Representations, of the Articles of our Faith, might not be countenanced out of a (dangerous) Civility to the erroneous Person: or Poison be sold, and even cried about the Streets; from an expectation of some good Antidote, that may be found against it; I mean, that it might not be sold and cried about, by direction of an Honourable Court, only in compliment to the mere Station or Post, in which Mr. Preacher happens to be.  
As for him, we know beforehand, what his Defence will be; the same that he always makes, on this occasion: as he has answered to the Oxford-Heads, to Dr. S—th, and to the Author of A Judgement of the Controversy, between Dr. S—th and Dr. Sher-Iock; that his Opposer is a Sabellian, or a Socinian. By which Insolences, and Falsehoods, he has at last so provoked every body; that the Charge of Socinianism is now brought home, to himself: and may it be left, where 'tis so well deserved; and so truly imputed. There is nothing more true, than that his Sentiments about the Trinity are the same, with those of Laelius Socinus, V Gentilis, G. Blandrata, J. Lismaninus, and other Founders of Socinianism: and that he can never defend the Unity of God, on those Principles. He will be led, by a necessary Chain of Consequences, to the Scheme of Faustus Socinus: which is built on this Mistake, common to him and Dr. Sherlock; that Person and a particular 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 'tis 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 admonished, 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 declared expressly, 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, etc. 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 Nonsense. They are three intelligent Being's. 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 Being's— 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, though 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, improved 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 devised 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 stopped, or our Ears stopped, that we may not hear what Reason says, though 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 Catholic Church, and the Church of England. But if we will believe this Preacher, the Oxford-Heads have passed 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 determined 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 Judgement. 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 judge of what is worthy of God, and credible to be revealed 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 ourselves 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 received 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 Judgement of the late Archbishop, Dr. Sherlock's Trinity would not be made credible, though a Miracle should be wrought in Testimony of it, because it contradicts the Principles of natural Religion, that is, of natural Reason.  
FINIS.