 

 

 

THE

DOCTRINE

///
O F T HE

ﬂatbnlitk @buttb,
‘ CHURCASDOEFERIEG LA ND,

CONCERNING THE

mm (trinity,

ExPlained, and Afferted,
Againft the Dangerous Heterodoxes

in a Sermon by Dr. WILLIAM SHERLOCK,
before my Lord Mayor and the Court of

Aldermen.

 

 

 

___..-—-—

 

 

L o N o 0 N, o
. Printed for Richard Baldwin in Warwick-lane, I697.

 

 

 

,————

 

 

' ‘7

[J r’.‘ ’2” 3:
/\.: ’4‘» '_, < 3

‘ m

It»
X3 «,qu \

«A
*1

At_4‘.i
v

//
J \l/ , . .

MayRemorkg‘ upon Dr. WILLIAM SHERLOCK":
' (Fol/e and Yreacherom) Defence, and Explication,
of fome principal Articles of Faith; in a Sermon, before

my .Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen, on

April. 25. I 697.

No fooner faw the Title of this Sermon, The Danger of array!-
ing the Faith, by Philofophy :, and the Text, Let no man/foil)“,
through Philafephy; but I imagined what was the Author’s
.deﬁgn. To protect himfelf from, and to he revenged upon,
the Oxford.HMdl, and the famous Decree there made, by an
Infult upon the Learning of the Place, upon Philo/ophy it fell“. '

He addreITes his Sermon againﬂ: Philo/bphy, and Reaﬁm. Againft
Philofophy, on the Authority of a (miitaken) Text of Scripture.
Againlt Reai'on, on his own Authority, but not without a jolt provo-
cation we may be fore; becaufe he found Rea/2m 11W ﬁrﬁ again]? him.

Reafon, Sagacity, Knowledg, Wifdom, are but only ﬁveralnames
of the fame thing 5. and I never heard of any thing that Reafon was
againit, or that was againft Rea-ion, but only Folly or Fnljhaed.
Therefore, tho there have been fome, as particularly great Erafmw,
who je/iingly Wrote Encamium morie, the Pratfe of Folly: [did nOt
expett that a Dean of St. Paul’s would have preach’d for Folly, becaufe
I took preaching to bee [crime Exercife.

Dr. Sherlock bad a mind to declaim againit Reafon, and againﬂ: Phi-
lofophy: Why? For the fake, he faith, of certain Article: of Faith,
that are in great and prefent danger, from Philofophy and Reafon.
What, Man 5 wilt thou fay then that there are Articles of Faith which
difagree with Reafon, and with Philofophy ? Reafonbeing nothing elf:
but Wifdmz, nor Philofophy, but the Obfervations and Experiments

that have been made concerning the nature of things, in one word
A 2 Exp:-

$53ll‘7/

2( 4 5- ' *‘

Experience: This Undertaking, to defend the Articles of Faith, by
decrying—Reafon..andPhilofophy,.is tofayan effeé‘t, .Ihe-.Amcles_gf
Faith are not conﬁltent either with natural W tfdom, or with experimen—
Ml Ix'non/Iedg. Than which a more dangerous, or more opprobrious
thing could not be faid, by Vanimu, or Hobbs, or other the rankelt
'A theift in: the“ World?;‘. in .‘vdry deed-g" ’tis .rba whale thhatxAthei-l‘ts and
Infidels Would perfwades they reckon, and {0 far fbrth they. reckon
truly, ‘tha't'theyg'ain theirﬁpoint .by fucha Concemong' " " ~ '

' This kind'of Defen'oe therefore, is as falfe and ‘ treacherous, as our
Author’s Ex lication, of the Articles intended, is heretical and anti—
chril‘tian. an tali anxilib, mm dcﬂnﬁribm'iftllsz, the Articles of Faith .
lack no fuch Defences, or Defenders. Tho allgof them are not difco-
verable by meer Philofophy, or by natural unallil’ted Reafon, yet
they perfeétly agree with both', and receive light and conﬁrmation
from’em. ~ ‘ V " - ‘ . ‘

Well :, but feeing the Doctor had taken a conceit againft Philofophy;
Why did he choofe this Text, fo contrary, in the opinion of all Inm-
pmm, to his purpofe? For they are all of opinion, that the Apoftle
fpeaks not of Philofophy ins-general, but of the Plume}; PhilofOphy;
and more efpecially of the notions of that Philofophy, concerning
0 Trinity of Divine Spirit: and Subﬂances’: which NOtions are the very
fame with Dr. Sherlock’s, as is not only confefl'ed, but moft largely
proved, by the chief Aﬂértor of them, Dr. Cudwort/a. See Mr. Paul’s
Synop. Critic. in lac. and Dr. Cudmrrb’s Intel. S )ﬂem, p. 546, ('9‘ deim‘cpk

But let us make an: Abﬁraét or Summary of this Sermon : of the
Points or Doétrines, it advances; and of the Reafonings, that are
ufed here, to {opport them. 'And afterwards, conﬁder brieﬂy. both.
the one and the other. He obfetves, ~ - . ' -

I. That, Philofophy and Reafon are the only things, which thofe
men adore, who would have no God at all. . And ”04‘, What makes
fome men Atheills and lnlidels °, eventhe Philofophick Tincture, and ~
their adherence to Natural Reafon: the fame makes Others to be He-
retickss that is, to be Arians, Socinians, and Pelagians, :Pag. r;
and 6'. and 9, . .

2. That, to ﬁnd the true Chriflian Faith, we mult‘attend only‘to
Scripture. Not to the meer Words, or Phrafu, there ufed ; for fuch
a Confeﬂion or Declaration of the Faith would leave all the Herelies
untouch‘d, and all Hereticks in qaietfpolfeﬂ'lon.of their Opinions;

becaufe

' C «s )
; becaufe they all fubmit to the. Word:, and Flam/emf Scripture. Butfor
-afcer-taining what is the true, Faith, we mult attend to Scriptureoply,
inthis Senfe 3, namely, to what is the true Meaning of Scripture-words
and Phrafes : to that Meaning which the Pbmfe and Word: do imply 5,
rejecting all mixture of Philofophy and natural Reafon, in our Dif-
,putes and-Inquiries, concerning the Meaning of Scripture. ‘ P.r7, 8, 9., ,
31124:, as we are Chriltians ;\ and unlefs we wilL'be nnde’rltood,
to réje€t the fupreme Authority of Revelation, we mull believe thofe
Doctrines that are molt myfterious and unconceivableg: . notwithltand-
ing an} Objeétions from Natural Reafon, and from Philofophy, a-
gainﬂ: ’em. Whereupon he hath this Aphorlfm :, He that believes no
farther than natural Reafon. approves, believes his Reafon, and; not
the Revelation ,. he is a natural Philofopher, not a Believer. 5.1;,12.
4. That, Difﬁculty of conceiving a thing, nay-theabﬁlrm Uncon-
ceiwblemf: of it, mult not hinder our AWent to what is contained in
Divine. Revelation :. becaufe we do not disbelieve what is made known
to us, by Sen/2, or by Rea/'02: -,.notwithftanding any Daﬁiculty, 'or Un-
conceiwzblmefr, adhering to it. And'a's to Comradtﬁiom, It; often 0b-
Ijséted in thefe cafes: ’tis an-eafy matter, to-ﬂﬁnd Contradiétionsin
-what we do not underfland a when we will be reafoning on what we
do not underftand, therewill be Contradiﬂiom and lmpoﬂibi/itiu innu-
merable, in our Gueliés about ’em. P. 13, 14., 15, t6. 7
After this, he an fwers to two Objections; whereof the-ﬁrltis, That
it feerns very unnatural, that God having made us Reafonable Crea-
turess and thereby having made natural Reafon the meafure of Truth
'and .Fallhood to us, we lhould notwithltanding be required-to believe
Without Reafon. If wemuft believe with our Underflandings; how
can we believe what we do not underftand ? To this he anfwers, by
laying; when an Objection is made againll: any thing, or that it is (as ,
we apprehend) without Reafon, or againlt and contrary to Reafon:
the Objection is of no value, if {uch thing is not the proper Objeét of '
Reafon 5 fuch as theNatures and, EHEnces of things, their eﬂential
Reafons, their Unions, Operations, and Drapertles: which no Man
(he faith) can pretend, are the Objeéts of Reafon, or that any Man
living can know any thing of them. And this, he adds, is all the In-
comprehenﬁbility and Contradiftion that Men can charge on theDoc»
mines of the. Trinity and incarnation. P.17, 18, 19.

The lecond Objectionis, To what purpofe can-fuch 3 Revelation
ferve.

( 6 ) _

"ferve, or of what ul'e can inch a Faith'be', which is concerning things

'We CannOt‘comprehend or underliand; and to which Reafonﬁifa-
grees? He anfwers, Firji; we may ufe the World, and every thing in
it, as fully and to as good purpofe; as if we underitood the Reafons,
and internal Natures of things. The Obieé‘tion, if it hath any force,
takes place, as much againll; created Nature, or the Complex of things
called the World, as againft the Gofpel-Mylleries of the Trinity and
Incarnation : for the former is all inconceivable Myﬂny, as well as the
latter. He anfwers again, Secondly; Tho we underﬂand nor the Tri-
nity, the Incarnation, or the neceﬂity of the Satisfaft‘ion by the Death of
the Son of God : ’tis for all that a very uﬁful Knowledg, even this:
that God [a loved the W orld, that he gave his only begotten Son; to the end,
that ulnafower believer}: in him, [bald not peri/b, but have merit/ling
Life. P.2i, 22,23.

This is the Subltance, and Force of the Sermon. And one would
think, on a general View of this Dil'courfe; that all Dr. Sherlock’s
Care and Concern were for the poor diltreﬂed Articles of the Chrilti-
an Faith: that there is nothing in his Thoughts, however nothing
equally in his Thoughts; as the Defence and Patronage of the (Catho-
lick Doarines of the) Trinity, the Incarnation, and Satisfaétion. But
I know no body but himfelf, and his Party of Rulijb, as they call
them felves, that quel‘tion the Articles of the Trinity. the Incarnation,
or the Satisfaﬁion, in the Senfe they are held by the Catholick Church.
It is even necellary to caution his Hearers, and Readers, what this
Doaor’s true meaning is, when he pretends to plead for the Trinity,
and the Articles thereon depending. For when hecries Trivia, he
means three Eternal and Inﬁnite .S‘pt'n'tsz, that is, he lays Trinity, and
means Tritbeifm -° and this is the Reafon, why his Defences of the Ca-
tholick Doﬁrine of the Trinity, are as fall‘e and weak, as his Explica—
tion of that Dottrine, that! may ufe the words of the Oxford.Decree
concerning it, is heretical udiwpiu.

The whole Catholiclt Church believes; that Almighty God is”?
Inﬁnite and Eternal Spirit. The: the Divinity was fo incarnate in
the Humanity of the Lord Chril‘t, as to exert in it the Divine Attri-
butes : as Omfa‘ence, or the Knowledg of the Thoughts, and of the
Futures and Omiporem, or the Power of Miracles. Whereupon
there followed (as Divine: (peak) a Communication of Idioms: 'WhiCh
is to fay, inconliderationof this Incarnation, we fay God "Jade

an;

( 7 ) .
Man; and the Lord Cbri/i i4 true God. But by the former, iris only
meant, that by his Incarnation or lndwelling in the Humanity, it may
be faid, (fomewhat Catachrellically or improperly) that God hernia
Man: by the other, that the Lord Cbri/i is true God, IS meant; he is
God (and whatfoever may be {aid of God) in refpefi of God m him.
Farther, that our Bleﬂ‘ed Saviour by his 461w: and prime: Obedience,
did reconcile Men to God, and God to Men, and [ariaﬁed whatfoever
the 745:: 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 Newnefs of Life.
. As to the Divine Perfons, that the Divine Effence or Subllance, or
the Divinity it felf, can be no otherwife diftinguilhed or diverﬁﬁed,
but only (as the Bilhop of Womfirr words this matter) by drﬁrm
Mode: of Subﬁﬂmce, or relative Properties : which,. being conﬁdered
gagether with the Divine Effence and Attributes, are named Per.
m. ~ t
In this Faith all the Denominations of Chriftians do acquiefce. As
it is the Churches Doétrine, and her whole DoEirim about thefe Mat-
ters; ’tis alfoimbraced, by all the Set}: of Chriitians, except only the
Arians: of which Perfwaﬁon there are none (I think) in England;
nor in the Dominions of any Chriﬁian Prince or State. But Dr. Sher—
lock, and with him fome few others, endeavour to difturh this happy
Agreement and Confents they would divide us by novel DoCtrines,
and a new Ex lication of the Trinity : an Explication which is as ma;
nifeft Polytheifm and Paganifm, as any of the (old or modern) Boa.
thens were ever guilty of.~ He hath‘ not indeed in this Sermon de-
elared'exprelly, what kind of Trinity he pleadsfor; but he intimates
it, and plainly points to it, at p. 7, and 10. He owns (at p. to.) ’tis-
. the new Expiration; and at p. 7. the real Trinity: by which Names
(all Men know) he and his Party call their Trinir of Spirit: and N-
ﬂanma in all their Books. Therefore, tho i another Man had
preached this Sermon; the Errors and Weakneﬂ'es, for which ’tis ('0 re-
markable, might- have been charitably overlook’d : yet coming from
him who deﬁgns to eliablilh a Herefy, that fubverts the grand Deli n
of Chriftianity, and revives Paganifm, under the’difguife ofa (fal e)
Zeal forthe Catholick Doﬂ'rines of theTrinity, the lnrarnation, and
the Satisfaéti'on -, it would be a very drowfy Negleft, not to give no-
rice and warningof thisWolf in Shep: Clothing; or. notto duet; the.
_ a '3-

( 3 )
.Fa/fengﬁ of his Reafonings, as well as the Impicty of his Principlesand
Doélrine. I come therefore now to a particular Difcuﬂion of the {6,
"ml Pam °f bis serm‘m' “him i have already reprelTsnted in di-
llinct Propolitions. , _ . A g- . _ . ’ ‘ _ a
The ﬁr]? was : «- Philofdphy and Reafon are the only things which

' . “ thofe Men adore, 'who would have no God at all. Andwhat makes

“ fome Men Atheiﬂs, and lnﬁdch; even'the Philofophick. Tiné‘ture,and
~“ their Adherence to natural Reafon: the fame makes others to be
“ ,Hcreticks; that is, to be Arians, Socinians, and Pelagians. .. .
He intended it, without doubt, as a mighty Prejudice againi’t Real:
fon and Philol'ophy, that Atheills and lnﬁdels pretend to borh s and
that they feem to elteem nothing elfe. And, in truth, a notable Rea-
foning iris, fora Sermon; as Sermons ordinarily now go: but from
the Prefs, or in a Book, ’tisa contemprible Weaknefs. Atheiils, and
Inﬁdels, magnify Philofophy, and: Reafon: therefore Divines, and
good Chrillians, mull: be hence cautioned, that Philoi'ophy and Rea-
fon will defpoil ’em of their Pier} towards God, and theiriaitb as
Chriﬂians. Sir Francis Bacon, Lord V ”giant, is often quoted, for a'
contrary Aphorii‘m, namely this : that indeed “ a fmattering in Phi-
“ lofophy,‘inclines Men to Atheifm and lrreligion; but a Maliery in
“- it, beget: and nourajhe: Piety and Faith. And furely, Experience
has ihown, he was in the right. a F or thofe Divines, who have alfo been
Philoﬁpbm,’ are the Men, that have by their Writings done the great-
e& and molt fuccefsful Service to Religion. Which, in fuchan Age as
this, would hardly have ftood its Ground, under the Management of
Divina. that were not Philofophers‘ alfo. '
' The” ~Weapons of Atheiftsand, lnﬁdels, Dr. Sherlockfaith, are Phi-
lofophy and Reafon: I am of. opinion,,they mull: bebeatenat their

an

own Weapons aar they will never be beaten. Yield but-totthem Phi- ,

lofophy and Reafon'a the Advantage, ‘I fear, will be judged to be on
their tide. I wonder how this Doetor, who Is for excluding Reafon
and Philofophy, as Enemies to Divme Truth, would deal with the

Atheifts and inﬁdels, Butit maybe, he would buy him. a malfy Qua-r- _

to-Bible, ,with Clafps andiBoiTes; andhnock ’em down with it. _.
And it troubles him fadiytoo, that Philofophy and Reafon are the
Weapons of Hereticlv; of ~Arians, and Socinians, and Pelagians his
well as of Atheilts and lnﬁdels. And from hence he infers, as before;
that it was this fame (my) Philofophy, and Realbn,'that mule ’qm
‘ . - i ' ' Here-

a

 

. . A «1.4.. “gm“... _.. * x

(9)

Heretickr. Without doubt this was intended at the Oxﬁrd-Hequ.
Thofe morol'e old Gentlemen that could not let a Man alone, in a
fmall ﬂip, but mult be decreeing, and cenfuring, as foon as ever ’tis
faid or printed, that there are three Eternal and inﬁnite Spirits: ’tis
but ﬁt they lhould be told their own :, that ’tis they, with their Philofa-
play, and their Logicks, or Art of Reafaning, that make all the Hereticks.
And yet ’tis thought, by fome odd Fellows, on the Other hand 5 that
Philol‘cxphy and Reafon never caufed that Mifchiefthat our Preacher
pretends : and they offer, to conﬁrm what they fay, by the Example
of the Arch Heretick Soeimu: Who never underﬂood Philoﬁzpb}; nor
fo much as Logicks, or the Art of Rea/oning, till the latter part of his
Life. Toward the latter part of his Life, he got fome Skill in the
Sophifmatiml part of Logick, and 'wrote a little Treatil'e about it.
Howe’re it be -, Iﬁnd, ’tis’ like to go hard with Philofophy; Whatever
becomes of Reafon. For Dr. Sherlock warns, in effect, my Lord
Mayor, and the Court of Aldermen, that they take care, that their
Chiidren may never fee Oxford or Cambridg,‘ for there they will
catch the Infeﬂion abeilofopIo]; and after that, ’tis certain they will be
Hereticks, Arians, orSocinians, or Pelagians. The Hereticks on the
other ﬁde, many-of them, are no lefs bitter againﬂ; this fame (dam-
nable) Philofophy: they protelt, efpecially in their Latin Works;
that ’tis Philofophy that corrupted and debauch’d Divinity. I with in
my heart thefe Gentlemen (the Doctor and the Hereticks) do not
play booty, into one anothers hands: for as angry as they would
feem againfl: one another, ’tis plain, they join Stocks againﬂ: Philo-g
fo h .

I)Ayslfor poor Reafon, and the Hurt lhe does, in reducing Men from
the true F aithz, lwill conﬁder what may be {aid in the cafe, in ano-
ther part (a more opportune place) of this Anfwers and content my
felf to make here this one Reﬂeétion. ’Tis very furprizing to me,
that this DoCtor lhould turn HererieIe-mker; when he himfelf {lands
cerlfured of Herefy, and in the very point of the Trinity, by Decree
of the mo“: famous Univerﬁty in the World. Not only {0, but
fome Learned and Orthodox Writers, as great Ami-pelagiam as him-
felf. pretend to a Difcovery, that be and his Party of Realif}: are So-
ciniams and ltartjult from the fame place, from whence L. Sarina,
Orbimu, Blandram, and Other Founders of Socinianifm, ﬁrl‘t fet forth.
They prove this Charge, by two things: Firl't, that the Doétrise ’of

can

( Io ')

Dean Sherlock concerning the Divine Perfons, is exaftly the fame, with
the Beneﬁt Of Lelia: Sachem, B. Ochima, G. Blandmm, V. Gentilh,
and Other Founders of Sociniani-fm: they all teach alike, three Di-
vine Eﬂénm, Sub/fencer, and Spiriu. And whereas, again& this eve-
ry one-would be ready to objeét; that three Inﬁnite Spiritual Eﬂ’mces,
three Eternal all-perfeft Spirits, muft needs be'three Gods: againfl:
which the Scripture is oﬁtive, afferting every where, that there is
but one God. They an wer’d, there is but one God ', the Father is that
one G ad, the true God, the no]? High God, and God of the other two Di-
vine Perfom. The reafon is, the Father only 1'4 unorzgt'mteds the Son
and Spirit are originated from the Father, as their Foumain and Catt/2 :
this 13125302», or Pre-eminenee of the Father, doth intitle him to the
name of the God by way of Exceﬂehce, the one God, the. true God, the
m]! High Gods nay and of God of the Son, according to that of our
Saviour himfelf, I afcmd—to my God and to your God. Dr. Sherlock
diﬂblveth the objeéted Difﬁculty after the fame manner. For when
he hath faid, three Inﬁnite Efenm, three Eternal Spirits; he faith
alfo but one God: and interprets thofe words, I afcend to my Father
midyear Father, to my God and your God, as L. Sacimte (and that frame)
did; namely thus, in thefe very words. “ There is no Inconveni-
“ ence in oWning, that the Father is the Head, and the God, of the
“ Son, as the Son is a Divine Perfon : for the Father is the Fountain of
“ the Deit . The Son being only God of God, [that is, God origi-
“ nated tom God, namely from God the Father] therefore the Fa-
“ ther may be called hi: God. Vindic. of the Trin. p. 154. The other
Proof of the Charge of Socinianifm againit the Dean 5 and of a deﬁg‘n
to introduce it, is :, that the Doéhine of three Eﬂem and three Spi-
rittdothiegd, bheeeﬂ'ary and unavoidable Confequetteet, tothe Socinia-
nifm that is‘ittow f0 called. For tho Lafitte Seeinm, Blandmta, and the
reit, did abide a while in it ', that three Eﬂmm and Spirit: are one
God, becaufe only the ﬁrlt of them is air-70.9494, unoriginated as to
his Being and Godhead, the other two deriye Bemgand Godhead
from him: yet after {ome time, it was perceived by ’em, that three
Inﬁnite Eﬂ'eneet, three ali-perfeét Spiritt, are not the let?» three Gods,
becaufe the fecond and third are originated from the ﬁrﬂ: ; for it can
be only {aid in the cafe, that the ﬁrii‘ God generated two Other Gods.
Originated or not originated is not what maketh a God, bur Omino-
dam Perfeaion‘. therefore if the {econd and third Spirits are cad}: of

t em

( T I )
them All—perfeét, he is not lefs a God, than the ﬁrfi is.- This Reﬂecfti-
on gave birth, to the modem Socinianifm, or the Sociniantfm that
now is :, for Lelim Socimu foon dying, his Nephew Paaﬁm S ccinm con-
vinced Blandmm, and the others, that they muﬂ: no longer fay three
Emma: and Spirit: 5 but one EiTence, on: Spirit :, and alfo, but one Per-
jim. Paulina Socin'm took Perﬁm, and intelleétual Elience or inn/1633M!
_ Sub/fence, to fignify the fame thing; he thought them, equivalent
terms: therefore, becaufe he plainly faw, that. three (Inﬁnite All»
perfeét) Eﬂem‘e: or Spirit: are certainly three Gods; he contended,
being neither a Critick nor a Metaphyﬁcian, that as there is. (m: on:
Dining Eﬂ'mce or Spirit, we ought alfo to fay there is but one Divine
Perfon. In fhort; the Dean’s'more warm Oppofers fay, his Doétrine
(of a Trinity of Eﬂeace: and Spirit:) is the fame that was afﬁrmed by
, Lelim Socirzm, and other Eounders of Socinianifm: and that in its
Confeqnenccs, it leads to the modem (or prefent) Socinianifm, the
Socinianil'm of Fauﬁua Swim :, for the Unity of God, or that there
is but one God, can never be defended, by tbcﬁ: Men who hold Perﬁm
and inteﬂeaual Subﬂancc to be the fame, but only on the Principles of
Faxgem Sarina“, and the modem Socinians. Thus, lfay, {ome Ortho-
dox Writers argue a they are perfwaded, that as this Dottor main-
tains the Herefy of Lelim Socima; he mutt, of neceﬂity, by attend-
ing to the Confequmm of his Doétrine, make a Coalition or Clofnre“
(in the end) with Fauﬂm Socima, and the prefmt Socinianifm; if it be
nOt already his Opinion, and Prim. . Asfor Subfcriptions, Proteftati-
ons, and fuch like; Dr. Sherlock may multiplythem, as much as he
pleafes: but they are refolved, never to believe him ; for they pre-
tend that his Predeceﬂbrs (L. Sachem, G. Blandmm, &c.) never {tuck
ﬁt‘fuch Matters -, but made ufe of ’cm a Artiﬁm, to get into Acquain-
“Waﬁjkem with the Orthodox, and then feducethem-si But,
for ﬁrm, -I judg the Dean, tho moﬂ: certainly a Difcipleof Edie
m 'SOWN, 'may’eaﬁly be brought off,- from the Imputation of being a
.Socmtan, acmrding to the Model Of Fauﬂra Sacinm, and the preﬁat
'SOCinians. For, it is true, he holds three Eﬁncer and Spirits; and he
fhihks, ‘Pcr/im-and'imlhﬁul Sub/tame ﬁgnify the fame thing, fo that
in ‘ mhltip‘lying the one.yousneCeﬂarilymultiplythe Other : and it is-no
iefs true, that on thefe two Principles; or in confeqamce of thefe tvyo
1”“de 3? he can neverdefend the Unity of God,.but on the grounds

0f Ran/bu Socia‘m, and the modern Socinians, namely, that God is
i i B 2 indeed

( 12 )
indeed butane Perfon. Ifay, lgrant, both thei'e lmputations on the
Dottor, are true : and yet it will not follow, that in very deed he is a
Socinian after the Model of Fauﬂm, or aims to introduce the Socinian
Scheme, as ’tis held by the Modern Socinians. For having difclaimed

the life of Rea/on, in Matters of Religion, he is bound up by no Con— g

feqaencer, tho never {0 clear or certain: for all Conﬁquence: are the
Children of Reafon; againft which (in Difputes of Religion, and the

.Areicle: of Faith) the Doétor has protefted, before my Lord Mayor, ’

and the Court of Aldermen. If it be never {0 certain, that he holds
as Lelia: Sarina: did; and never {0 evident, that the neccﬂ'ary Confe-
qumce from thence, is' the Scheme of Fan/2m Somme : this can never
affect him; who difclaiming Reafan, is therefore difcharged of- the
foolilh Trouble, of attending to Confequencer 5 which are mere Brat:
of Reafou. He may be as clear of any Deﬁgn tointroduce the Scheme
of Fagin: Sacinm“, notwithftanding thefe Sufpicions, of fome right
Orthodox Men; as he is, of bringing in Preibyeeeys which, in my
heart, lcannot think he intends, now he is become a Dean. We have
faid enough, to his ﬁrlt Propolitionz, that Reafon, and Philofophy,
are the two idols of Atheil‘ts and Hereticks: and that make Atheiﬁs
to be Atheiﬂs, and Hereticks to be Hereticks.

To the Second,

He faith again: “ That to afcertain what is the very and true

“ Faith, we mull attend only to that Meaning of Scripture w-hiththe
“ Word: and thfe: do imply : rejeéling all mixtureof Rea/2n, and
“ Phi/afophy, in our Difputes about Religion, and our Inquiries con-
“ eerm'rg the Meaning of Scripture. That is, he is for givingupthe
Prateﬂant Religion, to the Old Gentleman at Rome; and the (Limiti-
an Religion in general, to the certainTriumph of Balls and Here-
ticks. Reafon and Philofophy, he faith, muft- not be admitted into
our Difputes abouc Religion, or our Inquiries concerning the Mean.
ing 0f Scripture: no, the Word: and Pbrafe: of Scripture, in their
obvious and natural Senfe, are the only things, that mull determine
our Difputes, form the Articles of Religion, and fettle the meaning
of Scripture. For inﬂance, the Qieﬁion is, concerning the Tran-
fubﬂam Eation : the Word: and Flora/e: are thefes 710i: is my Body. My
F L ES H ii Meat indeed, my BLOOD £5 Drinkimleed. He that eateeh my
FLESH,

“4—... ......

C I; > .

FLESH, and drinketh my BLOOD, the fame dweﬂeth in me, and I in him'
Yes, fay Reafon and Phllofaphy, the Lord Chrilt had a Body, and that
Body was Flefh and Blood: but when Bread is called his Body or his
Fltjh, and Wine his Blood 5 it could not be intended that Bread is Hu-
mane Flelh, or Wine is Blood, in reality of the thing, but only in ﬂgni—
ﬂotation or ﬁgn. Bread is the Flefh of Chril’c, and Wine his Blood, by
way of ﬁgn and ﬁgniﬁcation : and to lay otherwife is a Contradlllion to
the nature of the things fpoken of, that is, to Philajbphy, and alfo to
Reaﬁms which allures us that the real Body of Chrilt cannot be in
Heaven, and on the Altar, at the fame time. Exclude, now, Rea-
fon and Philofophy outof this Difpute, and from the Enquiry con-
cerning themeam‘ng of the words and phrafes of Scripture, about this
matter, and it will be undeniable that the advantage is wholly on the
Popilh ﬁde : a Proteltant Doctor, and he too a Dean of St. Pauli,
gives away our only Strengths againﬂ: the common Adverl'ary. Our
Saviour fays of a piece of Bread, This :1: my Body; if now Reafon and
Philofophy mutt not interpret, How will Dr. Sherlock, avoid, either
the Papilt on the one ﬁde, or the Lutheran on the other? He cannot.
have recourfe to Senfe, in the cafe, ’tis only Philolbphy or Reafon
that mult help him out : for tho the Apoltles who [am and M ed that it
was Bread only, and not Flelh, might have appealed a1 0 to their
.Senfetg yet m that never faw or tailed the Subltance which Jefus gave
then to the Difciples, can know by Rea/5n and Phil'afaphy only, by no»
thing elfe, that it was not his Flelh and Blood.

We argue, “ He took Bread, and bleﬂed it, and gave to his Difcip
f‘ pies, and {aids Tale, m, Thaamy Body. The Textexpreﬂy fays
It was Bread which he blell'ed and brake, and called it his Bad};
;'b{".‘ﬁr‘s it was his BMW in ﬁgn and figm'ﬁmtim, not in realit . All
Ibis ls arguing“, ”tis Reaﬁm that convinces m, not Sen/2, that t e Sub-
ﬁance he'divided to them was indeed Bread, not hi: Flejh, which he
neitherobleﬂ‘ed nor brake. . .

But If our Preacher fays, he believes it was only Bread, heraufe the
Text tt felf an: it Bread, let him conﬁder, that feeing what was called
Bread, before Chrilt blewﬁd it; after the Blelling he calls it late Body.-
We cannot know, by Sen/2 or by the Text, but by Reafon and Philo-
fOPhY 0913', that it was not changed (by the Blelling) into what now
he calls It, namely hi5 Bad}.

The

( I4 )

The Papillzs believe it was Bread that Chrilt tank: but becaufe when
he had brake and bleﬂ‘ed it, he calls it hie Body; they conclude, that
by the Bteﬂirtg it was changed into the fab/lance of Flelh, but without
change of the Accidents. 1 fay now, tho Sen/e might interpret the
words the} id my Body to the Apoitles, who ﬁne it and taﬂed it, Yet to
see (who neither {aw nor tafted) thofe words cannot be rightly inter-
preted, but only by Rea/Em and Philoﬁtpby', becaufe, tho the Text alfo
calls it Bread, yet not after it was blefFed.

lmight give a hundred the like lnltances, butl think ’tis not worth
while; for there is no man of any conﬁderation but will acknowledg,
from the force of this one Example, that Philofophy and Reafon may
be very ufeful in the Difpntes about Religion, and for al’certaining
the meaning of Scripture; and that by no means {hould they be
wholly excluded, as this Noveller pretends.

To the Third.

“ As we areSChriﬂians, and unlel's we will beunderﬂzood to reject
“ the Sn ream? Authority of Divine Revelation, we mutt believe thofe
“ Doétrlnes which are thought to be me]! myi’terious and inconceiv-
“ able, notwithftanding an} Objections from Reafan, or from Philofo.
“ play, againll ’cm. He that believes no farther than Natural Reafon
“ approves, believes his Reafon, and not the Revelation; he isa
“ Natural Philojbpher, nota Believer. He believes the Scriptures, as
“ he would believe Plato or Ted) -, not as they are infpired Writings,
“ big: as :greeable to Reafon, and as the Refult OB wife and deep
“ 0 ts. " , ‘
l'fn 'my Candle, and put on my Speétacles, 'when’ If read this;
Icould nOt believe but that i miitook, ‘for want of 'abetter ﬁghtl:
but Spectacles and Candle both hood to it, that my Eyes had. not de-
ceived me. i entFéat therefore the Dean of St. Peta t, to reconcile
what he fays here, with as clear a Palfage, in Dr. Sberleelejs mdiedn'm
of the Trinity, peg. 151. 'where the Doctor fays: ‘ﬁ Suppofe, that
“ the natural Caeﬂruat'on of the words of “Scripture import 'l’d‘ch‘a
“ Senfe, as is contrary to fome evident Principle of gee/an 3’ Their [I
“ won’t believe it. ~ How, not believe Scripture?" No, no; Iwillj‘ﬁé’.
“ lieve no pretended Revelation, which contradicts the plain Diﬁ'ates
‘f of Rea/int. Were l perfwaded that the Books called Hay Scripture
’ “ did

 

 

 

 

. ( 1:5 ) .

“ did contradict the plain Dié‘rates .of Renﬁtnﬁ would not “believe ’em.
If this Vindication of the Trinity was written, as the Doétor intimatesin
the Preface to it, by Divine lit/piratims it would tempt one to think
that his Sermon, before my Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen,
was compofed by Dinbolicnl Suggeﬂe'm; for no man, net the Doétor
himlelf, will deny, that they directly contradiét one another. The
Sermon feiys, we are to believe the melt mylterious and inconceivable
Doctrines, notw1thitanding any Objections of Reafan: the infpired
Vindication fays, we are not to believe Scripture if it contradicts
Renfon. The Sermon fays, to believe no farther than Rea/7m approves,
is to be a Philofopher, not a Believer: ,the Vindication (divinely fug—
gelled) fays, 1f Reofon approves not, but gainfays or contradias, we
are not to believe whatfoever Revelation.

A’s to that, which he intended (I imagine) as a choice Thought;
that to believe no farther than Renfon approves, is to believe the
Scriptures but only as we would believe Plato or Tully. It will nor help
the Preacher in the knit. For when the Vindicator, or any other man,
ices caufe, to dishelieve fomewhat in Tully or Plato; he conﬁders that,
tho they were indeed great men, yet being but men,they were fallible s
it might readily happen that they overfaw in fome particular matter,
overfaw what leis able Perfons might happen to difcern. But when
Reafon cannot approve Doétrines, faid by fome to be contained
inScriptterez, as fuppofe, three Inﬁnite Spiritt, each of them a God,
and yet all of them but one God : an honelt man will eaﬁly ﬁnd a great
many Expedients, much better than the Vindicator’s downright I won’t
believe the Scripture: ', He will fay, for example : Let us examine very
carefully, whether this contradiétory impoilible (and heretical) Doc-
trine :, three Inﬁnite Spirits, each of them a perfeﬂ: God, all of them
but one ‘, is indeed afﬁrmed any where in Scripture? It is not found
there, before, in exprefs words 3 it only feems to fome few Upltarts,
to be implied in {ome Paffages of Scripture: therefore, fays the honeft
Chriﬂcian, if thofe PaiTages bid anything fair, toward fucha Doc—
trine ; it’s better however to {uppofe, ’tis more congruous to think,
thatan lnfpired Writer ul'es a ﬁgurative, or it may bea catacbreﬂicd'
Expreﬂion or Phrafe, than that he delivers ﬂat Contradié‘tions, or
downright lmpolﬁbilities.

In ibort, Hey; there is an honelt Medium, between Dr. Sherlock's
lmpious I won’t believe the Scripture:, and between believing what Raﬁ):

an

° ( 16 ) ..
and Philofophy do abfolutely rejet‘t. It is this, That we know the In-'
fpired Writers do often {peak ﬁguratively, nay often catachrellrically or
improperly: All interpreters confel's fo much. There is hardly a
Chapter in the Bible where they do not obferveitmore than once;
and therefore mollify the word: or phra/e by a dexterous Interpretation.
Sothat neither the Vindicator, after all his pretences to Infpiration, 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 Alder-
men, That no Objeé‘tionsot Reajim can be admitted againll: the meer
phra/e': and word? of Scripture. A Rule of interpreting, that would
let in the Tranfubllantiation, and a hundred more abfurd and hereti-
cal Doﬂrines. 4

Onthe Fourth. I

He tells us next. “ Difﬁculty of conceiving a thing, my the abfo-
“ lute unconceivablenefs of it, mull not hinder our aﬂent to what is
“ contained in Revelation; heoaufe we do not disbelieVe what is made
,“ known to us by Sen/e, or by Rea/37:, notwithltanding any Dz‘ﬁoulty
“ or Inconreimhlene/i adhering to fuch things. And as to Contra-
“ diffiom, [0 often objeéted in thefe cafes :,- ’tis an eafy matter to ﬁnd
“ Contradiftions in what we do not underﬂand: when we will be
“ reafoning on what we do not underfland, there will be Contradic.
3‘ time and I».p.-7ﬂ;hilirie: innumerable, in our Guell'és about ’em.
lﬁncerely beliexe that God may reveal to us many things, impe.
netrable'or unconceivable, not only by the Humane Underltan‘ding,
but by the Angelica]. 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 Sen/2, or by Rea/on, notwithﬂanding .my difﬁculty
or inconceivablenefs, adhering to fome fuch things. For Smfe tells me,
that the Oar in the Water a crooked; that all dillant Bodies for Co-
lour are dark, and for Figure round; it tells me alfo a great number of‘
things in my Sleep; it prefents me (in Dreams) with abundance of
Scenes :, at which I disbelrwe, for certain Diﬁfcultiet, or animoncei'vable-
neﬁ in the things. In like manner, [know but few Men who believe
Rea/0n when it is nu clear, but perplexed with Drﬂieulrier, or dark-
ning Doubts, but efpcciall y when there is a remarkable and manifell'
lumeiwblene/r. In that cafe we do no: ufe to call it Reaﬁm, bug, at
e 3

( 17 ')
fbeft, Probability and Opinion. Great, Diﬂioulties, and a too dark 02;.
conceivableezeﬁ, are. fucha Ballance to whatfoever Reaﬁm; that they
lofe the name of Reafons, and are detruded into the rank of Likelie
' hoods : and a very honourable rank it. is, for fuch kind of Reafons. ,

~. But-he plainly [hows what he wouldhéve, andwhat his defperate
Caufe requires, when he fo carefully adds: Area Contradifh'om, and
Impajﬁbilities, there wiﬂ be many; whenever we will be reafarling about fuck
things, a: we underﬂemd not. I lhall tell him; not, if there be many,
as he fays : but if there be anyaContradiCtions, or .lmpoflibilities; .the
thing propofed ,becomes thereby, imam/cf; , But ifwe will be rea-
foning, he fays, about what we do not 'unde‘rflan'dz, there xvi/[be many
Contradictions, and Impoﬂibilities, in our Gueﬂés concerning fuch
things. Ianfwer, if thofe GuelTes do imply Contradiétions, or Im-
poﬂibilities; they are fuch Gueﬂ‘es, as none but Fools would make:
for an Impoﬂibility, or a Contradiétion, is an obvious thing; of which,
none but Pbiloﬁpber: of Gotham will be; guilty. If we are reafoning
«about'things, that we do not underftandz, and there is no occaﬁon,
. that I know of, to reafon about any thing elfe : Why mull we needs be
overfeen as far as Contradicfliom and Impojjibilitz‘e: ? are there no Mif—
gases to be made, but thofe grofs ones, lmpoﬂibilities and Contra-
- 1 mm.

It has been ever held, by the foberelt Divines, that Contradiﬁiom
cannOt be veriﬁed by the Divine Omnipotence, or Om nifcience, it felf:
and that, when We fay, allthing: are paﬂible to God; we ought to mean
it, of paﬂible things; for as for Impoﬂibilities, they are not the Objects.
of Omnipotence: God can no more do impoﬂible things, than he can
know falfe things to be true things, which (molt certainly) is not
knowable. A Sermon therefore, on behalf of Contradic'tions and Im-
poﬂibilities, cannot be more abfurd, than ’tis Heterodox, and uni-
verfally condemned, by Divines of all Perfwaﬁons. But this Dean
has outfaced a Decree, of the Univerfity of Oxford, in a matter, in
which, if they had miftaken, all the Univerﬁties of Chril’tendom had
been obliged, to declare againlh them, and would have declared:
therefore we need not to wonderuthat now in aSermon he as little
fcruples to contravene the knownand agreed Senfe and Judgment,
of all the feveral Denominations, 8r Seas, of Chriftians. I {hall

con-

( I3 )

' confefs, I am for an ingenuous Liberty 3 [and that too, in Queltions of
the greateﬂ: Importance: but every body knows, how bitterly Dr.
Sherlock has always oppofed (and {till oppofes) all Diffenters, either
from the Daﬂrine or Dz‘fdplim of the Church: therefore, thol lhould
not objeét it to another; yet to him, ’tis buﬂiis due, to tell him of
the unparallel’d lmmodefty of his Diffent, and Separation from the
Catholick Church; That he has advanced aI-Ierefy, concerning the
Bleﬂéd Trinity; condemned by General Councils, Decrees of Uni-
verlities, and Confent of Writers: and he maintains it by Pleas,
again}? Philofophy and Reafon, and for Contradii‘tions and lmpoﬂibi-
lfitifes; no iefs generally reprobated on an hands, thanhisHerefy it

el is. ' ‘ - '

On his Maw to tbeﬁrﬂ abjeeem. ‘

F ter 'fuch a Defence of his Heterodoxies, as never me before heard;
he proceeds to anfwer to ma Objections, that Mr new made;
or however, by none but himfelf. And tho it isa very injudicious,
and needlefs Confellion, of a confcience to a Man’s own lnfufﬁcience;
to pafs over known, and very~dangerous Objections: and anfweron-
ly to Chimeras, and Follies, never fuggefted, or thought of, by any.
Yet Dr. Sherlock is overfeen, much farther, and worfe, than that; for
he not only overlooks the Objections of the Socinians, and replies to
fome Weakneﬂ’es, that no body would have thought of, but the An-
fwerer : but his Anfwers are not, to thofe Objections; but to {bme-
thing elfe. ‘ The Reader [hall not again rely upon me, if Ido not fa-
tisfy him; and without the trouble of an intent Applications that
this Maintainer of Pandora, had forgot his Obieﬁion, when he came.
to his Anfwer. He objeéts, firft : ‘

“ lt feems very unnatural, that God having made us reafonable

“ Creatures; and thereby made Realbn to be to us, the Meafure of-
“ Truth, and Fallhood : we lhould be required, to believe without Rea—
“ ﬁn. And if'we mun: believe, with our llnd’erftandingss how can
“ we believe what we do not underItand 2 I do not believe, asl faid;
any Seé’t of Religious, ever made this or the like Objeétion. For iris
very. obvious to be feen, and underfloor! s that tho we are made “‘13,
nable Creatures, and do believe (or aﬂ'ent) wit-hour Lhdcrﬂz‘ndings:
yet

 

C 19 )-

yet becanfe we cannot but be aware, that Mr Rea fons andllnderfland-
ings are ﬁnite and imperfeé’t, often lhort-fighted, and as often over-
feeing things -, and the Wifdom and Power of God, feen in the Con-
trivance and Struéture of the World, molt perfeét, therefore, be may
reveal many things to us, to be believed by us, tho we underftand
them not, nor have any other Caufe of our believing them, but only,
God’s Revelation of them. ‘We ought to believe God, as Children
dotheir Parents; or as we our felves believe fage and fober Perfons,
in Matters belonging to their particular Art or Craft : that is to fay,
believe them on their Ward -, and for the juft Opinion we have, of their
fuperiour Knowledg in fuch Matters; To difpute a’gainﬁ this} is
fuch a degree of Folly s that, tho I dare not anfwer for every particu-
lar Man: yet I know well, and any reafonable body will fuppofe -,
there never was any Party of ,Men, or Sea of Religious, that could be
fo overfeen. I grant indeed, as ’tis in the Objeétion, that, Rea/2m it
the meaﬁtre of Truth and Falﬂmd -' but not the frail, fallible Reafons 0f I
Men; but the infallible Wifdom of God. And in this, all Seéts agree.
The Objeétion therefore is Chimerical, and was never made by any
fort of 'Oppofers: ’tis'only .a loofe Thought of this Preacher, and
advanced, to help ﬁll up a crude Sermon. Well, but what is the wife
Anfwer, to a filly Objection? Why, this.

“ When an Objeétion is made againft any thing, that it is, (as we
“ apprehend) without Reafon, or againﬂ: and contrary to Reafon : the
“ Objeét‘ion is of no value, if fuch thing is not the preper Objeél: of
“ Reafon. Such as the Nature: and Effence: of things, their cﬂitttial
“ Reaﬂmt, ‘Um'om, Operations, and Properties : which noMan can pre-
“ tend, are the Objeé’ts of Reafon -, or that any Man living can know
“' any thing ‘of them. And this, he 4de farther, is all the Incompre—
“ henﬁbility, or Contradiction; that any can charge on the Trinity,
“ or li'icarnatio’n. By the Trinity, meaning his Trinity of Spirit:. As
lfaids in the name of Goodnefs, what is this Anfwer, to that Ob-
jeéiion? The Objeé‘tion is; why lhould reafonable Creatures be obli—-
ged to believe things, without Reafon ? The Anfwer is 5 an Objecti-
on is 0f no value, if the Matter under difpute is not the Objeét of
Reafon- Plainly, this Anfwer is not to, that Objeétion; but concern-
ing quite‘another thing : namely, that we mull; argue by Reafon, on-

ly fer ora‘gainﬂ: fuch things as are the Objetts of Reafon. But thhat
C 2 t is

( 2° )
this wild Anfwer might 100k like fomewhat, he adds ', the Sub/faucet;
Eﬂences, Reaﬁm, Properties, ‘Um’onr, and Operation: of things, are not
Objects of Reafon: and no Man living can know any thing of them.
Then, there is nothing, that is the Objeé’t of Reafon; and no Man
living knows any thing at all : for this Enumeration (Subltances, Ell
fences, Reafons, Unions, Properties, Operations) comprehends all
things; even the whole of created and untreated Nature-1 It is cer—
tain, and confefs’d by all Men, but this Gentleman :, who feems to de-
light in nothing ['0 much as Paradoxes, and thinks the Pulpit and;
Prels the likelieli Places, to make ’em famous and remarkable: that,
our Reafon can be no otherwife imployed, but either about Subltances,
or their Unions, eﬂ”ential Reafons, Operations, or Properties. What:
is it, Sir, I pray :, but either, it is a Sub/i421“, or the Property, or Opt...
ration of a Subltance ? For as to eﬂénti‘al Reafom, and Union: -, the fOr--
mer (as well as Modes and Accidents) come under the general name-
of Propertiu. Riﬁbility (for infiance) is an efl‘entialReafon, owa
a: be it Man; and yet it is reckoned among the Properties: as Well as

Gracility, GrolTnefs, Agility, Slownels, Whitenefs, Rednefs, and

fuch like Modes and Accidents, are called the Properties of particular

Men; Properties by which they are diltinguilhed from one another._

As ellential Reafons are but Properties; {0 Unions are but the Operati-
one, of Subltances or their Prpperties. In lhort, l fay, that without
being needlelly nice, Sub/faucet, with their Properties and Operations,

will denote the whole Complex of things: their Reafom and Union:-

are fuperﬂuoully added. And if thefe are not the Objeéts of Reafon,
Reafon has no Objeéts at all : ln truth, they are the only things about
which Reafon is converfant. Metaphyﬁcians conﬁderfpiritual Sub-
flanm, their Propertiet, and Operation: : Natural Philofophers conﬁder
Bodies or corporeal Subﬁancee, their Operation: and their Properties : Par-
titular Arts and Crafts are converfant about particular Bodies; as.

Phyﬁcians and Chirurgions about the humane Body ', Chymilts about
Plants and Metals; the Lapidary about ]ewels ,the ApOthecary about

Drugs. Do thefe Artilis know nOthing abont the Subjiancee, their-
Properte'e: or Operatiom, their Union: and eﬂhtial Rea/one; about.

which, both their Minds and Bodies are every day imployed? Aft

furedly, when the Court defircd Mr. Dean of St. Paul’s to print this.
Sermon; they could not have done him a greater Dill‘ervices than
thus to prompt his Vanity, to expofe his fcandalous lnadverfions, ,to,

the

.J

 

 

Ln.

( 21 )

the View (and Scorn) of every body. It is well feen, why this Dean,
has preach’d ,againlt Philofophy; Becaufe he hath very little himfelf.
He has heard of Eﬂ‘ence, Properties, Operations, eﬂ‘ential Reafons:
and not knowing well what they mean, he guefl‘es, they are things,
that a Zealous Preacher ought to beltir himfelf againih A‘little
more Zeal and Ignorance might have qualiﬁed him, to be one of
my Lords the Inqnilitors; in the lnquilnion-0fﬁce. at'Ltkhon:
where lately they condemned an Englilh Man, to be burnt as a
Witch; becaufe {he could lignify the Hour of the Day, on a
Watch or Clock, could dance to a Fiddle; with feveral fuch little
Feats, as are eaﬁly taught to Beaﬁs. Some Perfons interceded
with the Holy Fathers, for the Man; telling ’em, lhe hadbeen
ihown all over Chriftendom : and that thefe' Tricks had been of-
ten taught, to other docile Beafls, efpecially to Elephants, But
the Fathers, as zealous as fome body elfe againll: what they
did not underllzand, anfwered; {he {hall be burnt: jfor admit--2
ting the is not a Witch ;. befure, coming from EnglandIhEiS «He:
ratio/e. - . .

He fays, Laltly: “ Thh (that the Queﬁion is abont. Eﬂiniu,
,“ "Unions, Properties) is allthe Incompnhenﬁhlcneﬁ, that 'can’ be
“ charged on the. Doé‘trines of the Trinity, . and Incarnation. Forr
my part, to deal frankly; after all the buftle and noife'ithat has
been made, on both ﬁdes, about Myﬂeriﬂ' and Incompichmfihle: :
I know no. lncomprehenﬁblenefs, or Myltery, irtthe Catholick.
Doétrines of the Trinity, and the Incarnation." lmean, .as they
are explained and declared by the Church :, and now received, by ‘
the Unitarians themfelves: not, as they are perverted, and mifre-
prefented, by a (little) Faction; that have learned, from Dr.
Cudworth, to call themfelves Realty?“ as if their.Tritheiﬁn were the,
only real Trinity. '

The Church teaches, that there is but one Eternal All-perfet‘l.
Spirits but one inﬁnite, fpititual Subﬁance: and this is what we.
indifferently call 0 'D, the Divinity, the Deity, the Divine. Na-
ture, the Divine Eﬂtnce or Subliance. As to the. diﬁinﬂion of
Pct/on: in the Deity -, to ufe the Words of the Bilhop of War--
“muff When we conﬁder a Divine Elfence, there can he c111.0.

‘ I!

( 22 )
"’ diltiné'tion conceived in it, but by diﬁ‘erent Made: of S‘ublil'fence;
“ or (what is the'fame) different relative Propertier. The Tri-
nity then is the Divine Efl‘ence, Godhead, or Deity, conlider’d
under three-dicta»: Mode: of Subﬁftence a which are called Rela-
tive Properties, becaufe they diﬂinguiﬂ), and becaufe a threefold
Relation arifes (in the Deity) from them: and Perfan: they are
Called, becaufe diftinguilhing characterizingProperties; whether
in a common Nature, or in particular Natures or Subﬁances s when
conﬁdered with the Nature or Subl‘tance, make what antient
and conllant Cullom nameth Per/3m. Thefe Modes 0r Proper-
ties ‘are by fome more particularly defcribed; St. Auﬂin, and ‘
(from him) the Divines of the Schools, inﬁll: upon lmelleflm,
NOW“, (5‘ AM: or Original Mnd or Wifdom; the Logo:
or reﬂex Mfdom, generated by Minds and the Spiration of Di-
vine Large. The ﬁrft, as generating, is named the Father; the
fecond,.being generated, by a condei'cenﬁon to humane Lan-
gua‘géyis‘ called the 5071:. the third, being a Spiration, has the
name of Spirit. lknow not, as I faid, what Myltery or Incom—
prehenliblenefs there is, in this account, which has been the
language and Expl‘ication of the Church ever fince St. Auﬁin:
and not of the Latin Church only, but of the Greek; as l in-

tend to prove at large, whenever leifure and a ﬁt opportunity
fhall ferve.

l fee plainly, that the occafion of calling the Trinity 3 Mylle-
, ry; except only among the Unlearned, or not Learned in Scho-
laftick and Philofophical Terms, and the various Acceptatrons
of them. . lfay, the occalion of calling the Doétrine of the Tri-
nity. a Myftery, was this; becaufe the term Per/2:33; and again,
Father, Son, and'Spirir, areufed‘con‘cerning the Deity, in a very
different Senle, from their Import or Meaning, when ufed of
Men, or other created Beings. For all humane Per/om, and Pa.
“’0’: and 5M, among Men, are diltinguilhed n0t only by diffe-
rent Modes, and Properties, but by dillinét Subftances, lntelleé’ts,
and Wills: but the Deity is but one Ellence or fpiritual Sub-
3311C“, with one Underﬁanding, WiU, and Energy in number.
Thusthe'ld'eaof Per/3m, and of Father, Son, and‘ Spirit, in God,
implymg'a Norion fo very diﬂérent, from the meaning offthe

ame

( 23 ')

fame terms, when fpoken of Men and created Beings: ’twas
thought'ﬁt, to fay, they are ufed concerning God, lnamxﬁical
Senfe; concerning other Beings, in a profane or common Senfe.
A Senfe of Words or Terms, not ('0 ufually applied :, or rather,
contrary to the vulgar and fecular Ufe of them, was named My)“.
my: at ﬁrft, l judg, only by the lefs Learned :, afterwards, to
conciliate the greater Reverence to theArticle, by the more
Learned alfo.

As to the Incarnation. The Doctrine of the Church, has no.
thing in it, in the lealt unconceivableor myfterious .- viz. That
the Godhead, (as St. Paul fpeaks) xoémzo‘érs or (as St. 7dr»)
iomivcoo-ev, tobemad’d and dwelletb in the Lord Chriﬂz. Not as in
Prophets, occaﬂonady, and it; meaﬁrre: but as the Soul in the Bod
dy, viz. always enlightning and actuating him; and exerting by
him and in him the Divine Attributes. Omnipotence and Omni-
~ fcience; f0 that ’tis truly faid, Godiva mede Man, and the Lord
Chraﬂ is God. V Yet not as Eutjche: exceeded in the cafe 5’ ii) that
God was changed into Man, and the Humanitywas Deiﬁed s~ which,
beﬁdes that ’tis blafphemous, is alfocontradiétory: but re, that
the Term: ufed are to be interpreted by the DoCtrines not the
Doctrine by the Terms: That is to fay; We believe, that
God is eifentially Omar-pre/Em .- but dwelling in the Lord Chriﬂb
as the Soul in the Body; that is. always inh‘gloming and 457%-
n'ng him, by an eternal indiﬂoluble ’Um'on; exerting 41/0 in loim and
by him the proper Cbaraﬁer: of the'Divinity, Omnifcience (the
Knowlcdg of'rhe future, and of the Thoughts, 86C.) and Omnipo-
tence, that is the Power of Miracles, and of Creation, as was feen.
inthe cafe of the multiplied Loaves and Fillies; therefore we
rightly. aﬁirmaC ommmication of Idioms, as to the terms: Namely,
that in refpmff. of fuel: an Incarnation, God became. Man; and the
Lord Chrift was true God. - ~ ‘

1 fay, there is nothing in thefe tonxpliCations, "that is in.
comprehenﬁble, or myfterious: there was no reafon, that [-130-
oc'ma, or (that very learned Perfon) 3‘- C'Wi’“, [hould Cf)’ 7“"
gm, and Myﬂery; and as little that Catholick Writers (hould
defend thefe Doé‘trines, under the name of great Diﬁicultieigs

my -

l

(24)

mylierious and inconceivable Articles. There is nothing in

them, that can puzzle either a learned or a difcerning Man;

nothing that ihocks our Reafon, or to which any Syltem of

:Philol‘0phy yet known makes any Oppoﬁtion. If What is in-

tendedtin the Terms: of~the&':Articles,.is made intelligible, nay

obvious; and if the Eirplication implies nothing, contrary to

Philol'Ophy Or Reafan, that: is, to experimental or- ‘to natural
Knowledg: I {hall be glad to be taught, why thefeArticles
muft be called Mjﬂeries; a name that offends f0 many, and in

which. others {a much delight, both (in my poor Judgment)

without-Caulk. . .

. To bi: Art/{oer {mm the [ti/b ‘ Objeﬁioté.

H E Second Objection is this: “ To what purpofe can fuch

“ 3 Revelation ferve, or of what ufe can fuchaFaith be;
“which is concerning things that we cannot underliand, or can‘-
-“ not comprehend? I do not think, any Sea; of Religious ever
made this Objection: for how could it efcape them, that, ant/06
one ﬁde, the Articles of Religion are not altogether inconceivable,
or unintelligible; and that an the other hand, there is fcarce any
thing in Nature, or in Art, that is altogether conceivable and in-
telligible ? e ‘

But let us hear what the Preacher fays upon it. He fays :

I. “ We may ufe the World, at full}; and every thing in it,
“ to do good purpofes as if we underﬂoodthe Reafons, and internal
“ Natures of things. No, Triﬂer; not fo fully, nor to {0 good
purpofe, as if we better nnderﬂood the Natures of things. Nay,
we can make no ufe at all of it; but only fo far forth, as we
underltand the Nature, and Reafons of things in it. We can
ufe nothing, to any 'purpofe, till we know or underliand {ome-
thtng of its Nature: and no farther can we apply it, and
ufe It, than we underﬂand its Nature, and know its PrOper-
ties and Bowers. The matter is [0 plain, I will dwell no lon-
ger upon It. _

-

He

(as)

He fays, Laltly: “ The lap/Ed State of Nature, makes fagm
“ mama! Knowleg necelTary: when Man had ﬁnned, he tor-
“ feited the Favour of God, and his natural Immortality; and
“ the Light of Nature could not teach him, how to make Atone-
“ ment for Sin; or give any hope that God would bellow
“ Immortal Life. True, but not in the leaﬂ: to the purpol'e :
’tiS no Anfwer, '20 that Objections but to another: namely, to
this; why Revelation, or a fupemamml Knowledg, is necellary;
or however, highly requiﬁte? The Objection was: COHCCID'
ing 3 Revelation, and Faith, not intelligible, or not conceiva-
ble: The Anfwer is, only concerning Revelation (or {aper—
natural Knowledg) in general, why it was given to Men?
.There is a great dili'erence between fupermmmﬂy revealed, and un-
conceimble: the whole Chrillian Religion, the Precepts as well
as Faith of it, is a ﬁepemamml Revelation; and yet a Syliem
fo intelligible, that it mutt be taught to the Women, to the
Poor, and even to little Children. It was not made the mat-
ter of fupernamml Revelation; for its Difﬁculty, Mylteriouf-
nets, or Tranfcendency of the humane Underltanding: but to
(ganglia the Truth of it; and to enﬁJrce it: Authority, in the

or . ~

I have done with the Sermon; and lhall hope that fuch Apo-
logy}: for the Articles of the Catholick Church, as ﬁrlt corrupt
thofe Articles by an Heretical Senfe put on thema and then
betray them, by a Defence partly fall'e, and partly weak; will
no more be inCOuraged to print, as well as preach, their Er-
rors and Follies. I know, ’tis an ufual Civility of the Court,
efpecially to fuch Divines as are Digniﬁed, Doétors and Deans;
to delire them, to print their Sermons: I know too, that fome
heard this Sermon, and moved the printing of it; who under-
ﬂood well the Heretical Aim of the Preacher, and expeCted
it would be anfwered by fome or other that underﬂood the
Doctrine of the Church, and how to defend it. Notwith-
ftanding, it were better, that treacherous Defences, and falfe
Reprefentations, of the Articles of our Faith, might not be

countenanced out of a (dangerous) Civility to the erroneous
D Per-

( 26 )
Perfon: or Poifon be fold, and even cried about the Streets;
from an expectation of fome good Antidote, that maybe
found againﬂ: it; Imean, that it might not be fold and cried
about, by direaion of an Honourable Court, only in com-
pliment to the mere Station'or Poit, in which Mr. Preacher ‘hapg
pens to be.

As for him, we know before-hand, what his Defence will be;
the fame that he always makes, on this occaﬁon: as he has an—
fwer’d to'the Oxford-Heads, to Dr. S—th, and to the Author of
A judgment of the Contrwer/j, between Dr. S—th and Dr.Sher-
lock; that his Oppofer is a Sabellian, or a Socinian. By which
Infolencies, and Fallhoods, he has at lafl: fo provok’d every
body; that the Charge of Socinianifm is now brought home,
to himfelf : and may it be left, where ’tis fo well deferved,
and fo truly imputed. There is nothing more true, than that
his Sentiments about the Trinity are the fame, with thol‘e of
Lelim Socinm, V. Gentilit, G. Blandratn, 3‘. Lifntane'nm, and other
Founders of Socinianifm: and that he can never defend the
Unity of God, on thofe Principles. He will be led, by a ne-
cell'ary Chain of Confequences, to the Schemeof Fan/in: Seei-
nm: which is built on this Miftake, common to him and Dr.
Sherlock, that Perﬁn and a particular intelligent Eﬂienee or Sub-
ﬁance, are equivalent terms, fo that in laying three Per/6m, you,
fay alfo three Eﬂencer. The Ground of Fnuﬂu: Socinm, and
which if true, all Men grant that his Scheme alfo of Religi-
on would be true, is, that Per/6n and aparticular inteﬂigent Sub-
fiance are the fame; that as often as you multiply one, you
multiply the Other: from whence Fan/tn: concluded, we muft
not fay three Divine Perfanes becaufe ’tis a granting three Di-
vine Sub/inneu or Effences, which would be three Gode. Left
Dr. Sherlock {hould deny, that he takes the fame Ground with
Fan/h: Socinue; and therefore, that in confequence their Schemes
are coincident; I will fubjoin his very Words: “ A Perfon‘, and
“ an inteﬂe‘gent Sub/inn“, are reciprocal terms: and three di—
“ {tint} Per/3m, are three diftinét numerical Subﬂanm, and
“ one numerical intelligent Subﬁance, is but one numerical Perfon.
“ Vindic. p. 69. Again, ‘_‘ How can three diltinct Perfons‘hgve'

‘ ut

L...4....L.e

‘( 27.) , .

"' but one numerical Subftance? What is the Diftinétion, be-
‘1' tween EﬂEncr, Perfanalr'ty, and Subﬁ/imce? p. I 3 9.

To conclude; All the Diﬁérence between F. Sacinm and this
Man is; .Socirm: faw the Confequences of his Principles, with-
out a Monitor: .the other, even when admonilh’d, does not, or
(as fome think) will not fee them.

__4_

A POSTSCRIPT
. By another Hand.

HIS Author has told his Reader, 1:. 7. that,Dr.Sh'. hath

. - not indeed in this Sermon declar’d expreﬂy, what kind
. of Trinity he pleads for; but he intimates it, and plainly
pomts to it, at p.7,e9-Io. But beﬁdes what is there laid, for
making known the Dean’s Doctrine of a Trinity of Spirit: and Sub-
114nm, I conceive it may give greater Evidence of it, to cite 3 Pat?-
fage or two concerning it out of his Book, The Vindication of the
Doarine of the Bleﬂed Trinity, &c. where we ﬁnd, p. 66. “ It is
“ plain, the'Perfons are perfeé’tly diﬁiné’t, for they are three di-
“ ftinét and inﬁnite Minds. To fay, they are three Divine
“ Perfons, and not three diftinét Inﬁnite Minds, is both Herefy
“ and Non-fenfe. They are three intelligent Beings. Father,
“ Son, and Holy Ghoft, are as really diltiné’c Perfons as Peter,
“. 7am“, and john, (p. 105.) They are three Holy Spirits, 13.). 58.
“ There is no Contradié‘tion that three Inﬁnite Minds lhould be
“ abfolutely perfect, in Wifdom, Goodnefs, Juftice and Power;
“ for thefe are Perfeélions that may be in more than one, p. 81.
“ And p. 47. We mutt allow the Divine Perfons to be real fub-
“ ﬁantial Beings—the three Divine Perfons are fubﬂantially di-
“ ftiné‘t. This now is that Dottrine which Dr. Sherlock mutt be

 

' underﬂood to plead for inithis Sermon. It is the Myltery of this

D 2 Tu-

_ ( 28 -)

Trinity, of which he fays, p. 1 2. The Ineaneeimhleneﬁoan hem/1r;
garment again]! the Truth of the Revelation, or that Sen/e of the Word:
which contain: [itch Myﬁerie:. Thefe are the thing: (he rays) we
inn/i believe, tho we do not fee 5 thing: which we have no natural Notion
or Conception of, thing: that arenotem'dene to natural Rea/3n. The
meaning is plainly this -, We muft believe his Doétrine of three
diItinél: and Inﬁnite Minds and Spirits, however it does in our
cleareft Reafon, improv’d alfo by moli: evident Revelation, intro-
duce the Worlhip of three Gods; for what is 1'0 evident both in
Reafon and Revelation, as that God is one Inﬁnite Mind and Spirit,
and not three? But Dr. Sh. has devis’d fome pretty new terms,
fuch as Selyieonﬁionfmf: and mutual Cmﬁioufmﬁ. whereby to elude
the Teltimony of Holy Scripture concerning the perfeét Onenelé
of God: but Reafon contradias him, and will nOt (offer him to
deftroy that glorious Attribute under the notion of unattainable
Mjﬂ -' She fays, it’s not Myltery, but a plain Inconlillency;
there ore Dr. Sh. would have her Mouth ftopp’d, or our Ears
ﬁopp’d, that we may not hear what Reafon fays, the in confent
with Revelation; or at- leaﬂ: that we would give no heed to what
the fays.

Our Author has told us, thatthe OxfordoDecree condemns this
Doﬁrine as Impioiu and Heretieal; contrary to the Deari the
Catholick Church, and the Church of England. But if ill be-
lieve this Preacher, the Oxford-Heads have pafs’d that Sentence,
heeaufe they give too much heed to natural Reafon and Philofophya
and exalt what thofe fay, even above Revelation. This brigsto
my mind what the late Archbiﬂmp of Bleﬂéd Memory determm’d
in the Difpute between Reafon and Revelation. Dr. Sherlock did
him a great deal of Right in a Sermon upon the fad occaﬁon of his
Death, 1 hope he will not now defpife his Judgment. That great
Man upon I 3%» 4. l. fays, I. That Rea/on i: the Faulty whereby
Revelation: are to he Jifoertted. 2. A” {Mufﬁn} Rem f“?
pofet'b the Truth of the Principle: oftuttmd Religion. 13.103“qu
ing: about Divine Revelation: int-ﬂ would”) be gnome h] the Print»-
‘ple: of natural Religion, that is, “ by there Apprehenﬁons which
“ Men naturally have of the Divine Perfeétions, and by the clear

f‘ NOLiOns of Good and Evil, which are imprinted upon 3:12:21:

. (29)
“ tures. Becaufe we have no other way to judg of what is war;
“ thy of God, and credible to be reveal’d by him, and what not,
“ but by natural Notions which we have of God, and of his eman-
“ tial Perfections—w-and by thefe Principles likewife we are to
“ interpret what God hath revealed 5 and when any doubt aiifeth
concerning the Meaning of any Divine Revelation, (as that of
the Holy Scriptures) we are to govern our {elves in the Inter-
pretation of it, by what is moll: agreeable to thofe natural N o-
“ tions which we have of God ', and we have all the Reafon in the
World to rejeé’c that Senfe which is contrary thereto. 4.. No-
“ thing ought to be receiv’d as 2 Revelation from God, which
“ plainly contradiéts the Principles of natural Religion, or over-
“ throws 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 No-
“ tion which Men have, That there :2 but one God, who only ought to
‘0 be warfhipped. Thus we fee that in the Judgment of the late
ArchbilhOp, Dr. Sherlock’s Trinity would not be made credible.
tho a Miracle lhould be wrought in T eftimony of it, becaufe it

tcontradiéts the Principles of natural Religion, that is, of natural
Rmﬁm

 

FINIS. .

RARE
ET
113

1 697

”gonna mam
ELL8T1 13 .06 1697

\IIIIIIIIIIIIIII