and what none would contend for but he that either knows not what he asks or has a mind to overthrow the true Faith The next thing as near as I can guess that he endeavours to shew from Fathers Schoolmen and Protestant Divines is That the word Person is equivocal and uncertain in its signification I hope then his Clients may like it the better as being able to make use of it in a sense agreeable to their own Doctrines But after all this Vncertainty of the word Person about which he has shown so much Learning as far as I can find there is so much of its Signification agreed to on all hands that the Antitrinitarians are unwilling to use it as evidently including something that will not go down with them and I fear that this is the true reason of our Author's Quarrel against it But now our Author has shown himself such a Master of Books he can't forbear stepping a little out of the way again to show himself as great a Master of Reason and therefore falls foul upon the Dean for contradicting himself for making Three Minds and One Mind and making the Persons Distinct and not Separate which is to him an unavoidable Contradiction And who can help it if it be What the Dean maintains is not so to every body's apprehension especially if it be considered in his own words without our Author's Comment on them for it may be understood how Three Minds are One tho it be something difficult to apprehend that they are three sames and not three sames And I can no more understand our Author's arguing That if they are Distinct they are Separate also than he can the Dean's when he says they are Distinct and yet not Separate which I believe will not sound like an Absurdity to any but a Socinian Vnderstanding But if the Dean has been mistaken and has fallen short in his Arguing and has also set up an Hypothesis full of Contradictions which yet there are a great many Wiser men than our Author do not believe what would all this be to the Design of our Author's Book If Dr. Sherlock does not argue well must no body therefore write that can argue better If his Hypothesis be unreasonable is it therefore unreasonable to write in Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity Or is the Doctrine it self unreasonable Some men we know think so and this may be several strokes in his Book be suspected to be the Opinion of our Author However he is so great a Lover of Peace why then does he quarrel so much with the Orthodox Writers and the Church of England that he is willing to admit the old way of speaking and the Ancient Notion of a Divine Person as being more consistent and less obnoxious Which if it had been kept to he had fâ—rborn his Suit 'T is the New Notion then that he quarrels at but why then must all men be desired not to write in Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity even tho they do hold to the old Notion But hâ—re that is in the Ancient Notion of a Person or rather in that Word since it has been a long time in use without ever defending or explaining the thing he would have our Divines stop for Peace sake And I believe they will gratify him so far as not to enter into any farther Disputes about it if he will secure that the Socinians shall not oppose this but subscribe to it and not write against it Now he would persuade us and so it may be he might if we had never seen his Melancholy â—uit or did not understand English That all he desired was that men would stop at the Ancient Notion c. when 't is plain to any English understanding that he desired a great deal more viz. That no body would write at all in Defence of the Ancient Faith or Ancient Notion â—f a Person though our Adversaries do daily affront and ridicule the Doctrine of the Church and the Ancient Notion too For I only desire to know Whether the ridiculing the Athanasian Creed which was the occasion of Dr. Sherlock's Vindication be not ridiculing the Ancient Notion This being all his harmless Design he is very angry at the Imputation of Disguised Heretick c. What he is I determine not but I am sure he writes just as if he were such an one and since he has not set his Name I can't apprehend it any ways uncharitable to suspect so much of an unknown Author of whom we have nothing else to judge by but his Book which I am sure will never prove that he is any thing better and does well deserve to have a Brand set upon it that unwary Readers may not be deceived by it And this I believe whatever he doth very few Orthodox Hearty Asserters of the Catholick Faith will think a Calumny Now for the Dean's New Hypothesis again who did not keep within bounds and stop where he ought to have done but must needs be rambling and therefore he must have a lash or two for that And for the Reader 's great Edification our kind Author will give an account how far he had read of the Dean's Book when he writ which and several other as weighty Accounts of himself and his private Concerns I leave to the Reader that has Curiosity enough to peruse them But the Dean holds that which necessarily infers Three Gods and in his Apology goes beyond himself as in his Vindication he went plainly beyond and contrary to the Doctrine of the Fathers Schools and Protestant Divines Pray what 's the matter now Why he calls the Son a God Incarnate and the Holy Ghost a God and therefore infallibly by vertue of this little Particle a there must be Three Gods all the world can't help it For tho he expresly says These Three are but One God and proves it too yet as long as he says the Son is a God Incarnate there is nothing can vindicate him from the Imputation of Tritheism and therefore he must according to his Promise thankfully correct this Absurdity now it is so plainly shown him But does a God Incarnate signify any more but that he who is Incarnate is God Which if we were always to deal with such Criticks is a much safer way of speaking than to say he is God Incarnate for among those who own a Trinity of Divine Persons in the Godhead a God Incarnate can signify no more than that One of the Divine Persons who is really and truly God is Incarnate but to say God Incarnaâ—e might be abused by such perverse Criticks to signify That the whole Trinity which is the One God is Incarnate The next Complaint of our Author is That the Dean charges him with desiring that no body would write agaâ—nst the Socinians And pray is not that the design of his Melancholy Suit To most mens apprehensions I dare say it is nor do I find that he himself makes any exception
A DEFENCE OF THE Dean of St. Paul's APOLOGY FOR Writing against the SOCINIANS A DEFENCE OF THE Dean of St. Paul's APOLOGY FOR Writing against the SOCINIANS IN ANSWER TO THE ANTAPOLOGIST LICENS'D LONDON Printed for William Rogers at the San over-against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet MDCXCIV A DEFENCE OF THE Dean of St. Paul's APOLOGY FOR Writing against the SOCINIANS ONE would have thought that when the Ancient Doctrine of a Trinity in Unity had not only been contradicted but openly scorn'd and ridicul'd with as little Modesty as Sense it had been no unpardonable Crime to undertake the Defence thereof But it seems a certain Stander-by being a little touch'd with Melancholy could not bear such an Attempt for this is to litigate touching a Fundamental and that is to turn it into a Controversy that is to unsettle at least endanger the unsettling the whole Superstructure So that when some Learned Writers took upon them to chastise the Insolence of these Busy and Factious Underminers of Christianity who in the opinion of any one that is not overrun with Melancholy must be thought by their bold Attempts upon the Fundamentals of our Faith to have endeavour'd the unsettling the whole Superstructure this Stander-by was put into a sudden Fright to see men so unreasonable as to write in Vindication of a Fundamental Article of the Christian Faith which it becomes Peaceable men rather tamely and silently to give up than to litigate concerning it And therefore he addresses in An Earnest and Compassionate Suit to the Learned Writers in Defence of the Churches Doctrine to hold their hands and forbear at least till a fit time But it seems All men had not the same Sentiments of this Peaceable Design as the Melancholy Author of it had nor could the Compassionaâ—e Suit work its hop'd-for effects on the minds of All Learned Writers 'T is no wonder therefore that the Dean of St. Pauls was not thereby discouraged from resuming the Defence of the Catholick Faith but only thought it necessary before he ventured to dispute these matters any farther to make some Apology for Disputing and to show that notwithstanding what this Author endeavours to persuade the world it is neither Vnchristian nor Vncharitable nor of Dangerous Consequence But this Apology of the Dean's did it seems stir the Spleen of our Stander-by and move the Choler of this Peaceable and Modest Person who would but it seems he could not especially towards the Church of England observe the common Rules of Good Manners And therefore we must not blame him if in his Reply to the Dean we do notwithstanding his designing the contrary and composing his Mind as far as he was able meet with Bitterness Passion Cavilling Insolence and Ill Language for tho he will not pardon such things in himself and therefore 't is to be hop'd will do private Penance for them yet it may become us to pardon them and let it pass as he says too many do for a Point of Justice in such case calcare fastum majori fastu And besides since he owns that 't is not without difficulty that Human Nature forbears rendring an Angry and Disdainful Reply to Haughty and Ill-natur'd Answers or those which are fancied to be such if he does now and then do so himself we may suppose it was because he could not help it and therefore it is excusable for I hope the Plea which he makes for Hereticks may serve also for himself and if a man must Conceive as he can and Judge as he can and Believe as he can so he must also Write as he can And this I think will also be a sufficient Apology to our Author for my not being of his mind for since I must conceive as I can and judge as I can I find that for my life I cannot judge his Discourse to be either rational or well design'd but rather as he would fain have the world think of the Endeavours of other Learned Writers Vnreasonable Vnseasonable and of Dangerous Consequence And therefore without any farther Compliment I shall venture to bestow some short Remarks upon it in which I shall also confine my self to the main Design of the Book which is as we shall hear him confessing himself anon To dissuade men from Writing in Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity and therefore I shall not think my self concerned to enlarge in the Confutation of those Arguments against the Dean's Hypothesis which ever and anon he gives us into the bargain for my business is only to consider what he says in Defence of his Peaceable Design of persuading All men as well as the Dean not to write in Defence of the Truth if he thinks it so But I must desire one thing of Our Author That because he falls foul on the Dean for pretending to know his Intent when he wanted the Gift of discerning Spirits to capacitate him for being a Judge of it he would take notice That I do not pretend to know his inward Intentions any more than his Name And therefore whatever I shall say in my Reflections let him not pretend that I do it to calumniate and inodiate him since all I have to do with is his Book But now let us come closer to the purpose and be plain and succinct as far as our Author 's intricate way of Writing will permit who begins as he also goes on with heavy Accusations against the Dean for his Bitterness Insolence Ill Language Indignities False Imputations and at least seemingly malicious insinuations against himself Whether all this be true and whether the Dean in any place treats him with greater Sharpness than such a Writer deserves must be left to the Impartial Reader to judge One of the False Imputations with which he charges the Dean is That he says He called the Socinians learned Writers of Controversy whom he now protests he did not mean by that Character And tho his Title-Page be so ambiguous that it might easily be mistaken either for a Suit to Learned Writers or for Forbearance to Learned Writers yet I am apt to believe him because he has not dissuaded the Socinians from Writing against the Trinity but other Learned Writers from Writing for it A good Orthodox Excuse But waving this and many Instances of the like Disingenuity he will present here the main State of the Cause betwixt the Dean and himself which in short is this That the Disputes touching the Controversies of the Holy Trinity might be at present let alone till fit time and place I suppose he means only by the Orthodox Writers who defend that Doctrine for he himself protests that by Learned Writers to whom he addressed his Suit he did not mean Socinians And to persuade to this he had said This particular Controversy is of all others at present most unreasonable most dangerous and most unseasonable This may pass for a state of the Question and I will leave it to the
against the Truth of the Charge he does not say it was not his design tho it is very iniquitous in the Dean to charge him with it because whatever his Intent was he has given us two admirable Reasons why it cannot be concluded from his Book The first is That others as well as Socinians are Heterodox in this Point But the Dean and Dr. Wallis writ only against Socinians and he owns his Suit was chiefly to them and no body else is particularly named in his Suit and therefore the Dean guessed pretty right and had some reason for his guess 2dly These are not the only Points in which they are Heterodox and therefore the Doctor had liberty to write against them in other Points But still was not he and every body else desired to forbear them in these their principal Errors And did the Dean charge him with any thing more For in this present Controversy what had he to do with their other Errors And yet I believe many at least of his Reasons for not writing will hold as well in other Points as in this of the Trinity In the next place he gives an account why he stiles himself a Stander by which does not become any Divine of the Church of England in such a Fundamental Article of the Christian Faith The first Reason he gives is his mean opinion of his own Skill in the Controversy but it is modestly express'd with a perhaps and therefore perhaps it was his ill opinion of the Controversy it self His next Reason is That every one who is skill'd at his Weapon must not draw upon every one he meets begirt with a Sword but if they draw upon him or to take it out of the Metaphor assault the Catholick Faith which every Christian is concerned in and every Divine concern'd to defend it does not become him to be a Stander by but to use his Skill to defend himself and his Faith for to be a Stander-by in such cases in plain English is to be a Neuter and when there is a dispute of Faith if a Neuter be not a Heretick he cannot be Orthodox for he is on neither side if we can suppose a Medium between these two In the next place he does not like to be thought tender on the wrong side but certainly he is so if he means any thing that he speaks He readily owns what I believe no body will lay to his charge That he has shown a Tenderness to the Church of England and the Nicene Faith I suppose by those severe Reflections which he makes upon both and his Burlesque of the Athanasian Creed and the Litany which as yet stand in our Liturgy and are like to do so till it fall into the hands of such Melancholy Reformers as out of pure Tenderness for the Credit of the Old Reformation are for changing the Frame of our most Fundamental Articles or resolving them all into a mere Negative Belief which is to leave no positive Faith in the Church And here our Author would know how he is Tender on the Wrong side when he has only express'd a tenderness for the Church of England the Credit of the Reformation and for Peace and Holiness and I 'le warrant you has not said one word in favour of the Socinian Heresy and therefore the Dean may keep his profound politick Notes of mens tenderness being due to their Inclinations for better purposes What these purposes are I know not but certainly 't is no improbable conjecture that men have some Inclinations to that for which they express a great tenderness though t is possible this Rule may sometimes fail and that tenderness which our Author saith he has expressed for the Church of England may not be due to his Inclinations But now let us go forward to the next Paragraph and we shall meet with some farther instances of the Dean's disingenuous arts who perverts our Author's Peaceable Assertions and makes what he pleases of them by odious that is's which the Reader must know is his common way of dealing A short but heavy Charge this if it be true but the comfort is that he who reads the Dean's Book with his own Eyes rather than the Antapologists will find no ground for such an Accusation for he does no where pervert his Peaceable assertions nor do his that is's Misrepresent the consequences of our Author's Assertions And I take it for no disingenuous art to expose any Assertion by shewing its true mâ—â—ning and laying open the just consequences of it Aâ—â— as to that publick hate which he saith the Dean endeavouâ—s to cast on him I don't see how that can be since 〈◊〉 Dean has never mentioned his Name and therefâ—â—◠〈◊〉 did not know him or had no mind to expose him In the next Section he confesses himself an 〈◊〉 â—o such open Disputes between Protestants as only Puâ—liâ—â—â—o the common Enemies the Divisions of the Protestants And so I believe is the Dean too as also to all such open Disputes among Christians as have the same ill consequences with respect to the common Enemies of Christianity and yet I believe neither he nor our Author would from hence conclude That we must not dispute against any Popish Errors because this publiâ—hes to the common Enemies of Christianity the Divisions of the Christians or that if there be any such open Disputes those who defend the Truth when openly contradicted must bear the blame of them As to what he says That Voluntary Disputings have never suppressed but rather revived old Heresies If he means by Voluntary Disputing a necessary Defence as he must mean if it be any thing to the present purpose 't is very wisely thought of that disputing against those who revive and propagate old Heresies is the thing which revives them How this Projector for the Churches peace would have those who should Write in this Controversy authorized he will set down anon and then 't will be time enough to admire the wisdom of his Contrivance Let us in the mean time come to his Latitude of Faith which is another branch of his notable project for Peace which he still adheres to though I think he has given little or no answer to what the Dean urged against it so that the Dean's Arguments hold good still notwithstanding his Exceptions against them Nor are we one dram the wiser for all that fine Lecture which he here reads concerning Latitude as a Metaphorical term derived from Astronomy Geography Triple Dimensions or what else you please nor yet for his citation from one who I believe was far enough from his Latitude of Faith For I can't yet find what he would be at in the present point unless it be what he has been already charged with That every man should be let alone to believe what he pleases so he doth but profess to believe the Words of Scripture though in never so perverse a sense This I can't believe is that Latitude in
Authorized to Write in Defence of the Doctrine of the â—rinity It seems very hard that we may not Vindicate the Fundamentals of our Religion from Absurdities Contradictions and Falshoods impâ—ted to them till a Convocation can be called to do it Which in my apprehension is not easily practicable unless we could have a Convocation always fitting which he cannot think either feasible or convenient according to our Constitution And yet if they are not always sitting it will be very difficult and troublesome immediately to call them to Confute every Heretical Doctrine that in times of Liberty may be broach'd by Bold and Daring men When it may be fit to do thus I leave those to whom it belongs to judge but I am sure 't is neither reasonable nor practicable every time Hereticks oppose the Truth Now by this method he says All Sons of the Church would and must be concluded And are they not already concluded by the Articles Liturgy Homilies c. which he says our Adversaries cannot alter I suppose he would not have us obliged to Subscribe every Line and Tittle in such a Book revised and approved by a Convocation as a Fundamental of Christianity but only the Doctrines there defined as Fundamental And thus I think in the present Point All Sons of the Church are already concluded by Subscribing the Articles and Creeds and if this would do it as our Author imagines there would already be a due end put to these Controversies But according to his Peaceable Notion of Subscription by his proposed method All Sons of the Church would not be concluded any farther then to hold their Tongues for they might still believe and inwardly approve the Socinian Doctrines or any other which thouâ—â—â— he may think a due end of these Controversies yet few others will But after all How would this put an End to these Controversies If a Convocation should meet and determine on the side of our Articles and Write a Book to justifie the truth will this put an End to these Controversies Will the Socinians be generally Converted any more than they are by Learned mens Writings now I doubt they would hardly acquiesce in such a Book though drawn up by our Author who though he would be favourable enough to them yet I hardly believe would be able to satisfy them Which he thinks will not be till we can make things plain which are confessedly unsearchable if not as some pretend unintelligible The plain English of which I take to be That it is impossible to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity so as to satisfy even rational and sober men And then I cannot apprehend how his Method would put an End to these Controversies any other ways than by a Negative Belief though I very much question whether even upon such terms he could persuade the Socinians to be silent But still he cannot see any readier Expedient than this towards such an Vnion as in the present state of things may be adjudged possible Indeed I cannot tell whether a real Christian Union in the present state of things will be adjudg'd possible or no nor whether such an Vnion as our Author pleads for be necessary for our Affairs and would be effectual to keep out Popery and beat the King of â—rance but I hope both may be done without it But if such an Union as is indeed desirable and such as there ought to be in the Church of Christ be not possible I know the fault is not in the Church nor only in her professed Enemies who will not comply but in such pretended Friends as under the colour of Peace do openly affront and condemn the Faith of the Church and vilify her Constitutions thereby hardening and encouraging her Adversaries in their Obstinacy and giving them hopes that by their means they shall at length obtain the Terms they desire But of this Negative Belief enough has been said only I cannot but take notice of one thing here desired by our Author That no Praâ—tice be imposed upon any contrary to their Consciences The meaning of which I take to be as is plain from several other places of his Book and particularly from p. 10 of the Earn Suit That no Expressions should be allowed in the Liturgy which any one professes are against his Conscience nor any Rite or Ceremony required which all men are not satisfied in and so we must part with Episcopacy and all Order and Decency to satisfy mens pretences to Conscience This is a brave Protestant Reconciler and this is admirable arguing for a Church-of England-man and one who has read Fathers and Schoolmen This is such a loose and wild Principle as if duly adhered to we must tolerate most if not all Errors Schisms and Vices that were ever heard of in the world The next thing we are to answer is a Captious Question with which he pretends to answer the Dean who as he imagines had put such an one to him The Dean had ask'd him Whether he would allow us who as he grants are in possession of this Faith of the Trinity and Incarnation to keep possession of it and teach explain and confirm it to our people Now because he is resolved to be as captious as the Dean he asks him Whether he never saw certain Royal Injunctions assigning fit Subjects for Sermons No doubt but he has What then Why then Must they not be obeyed Yes But what of all this To discourse concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity is not there prohibited But is there not the same reason of it as of those things that are I believe not For as I take it the Trinity and Incarnation are more Fundamental Points than the Disputes about Predestination and more necessary to be believed by Christian People Besides the Controversy then was not only with such as wholly denied the Article but among those who differed in the sense of the Article while there was something contained plainly in the Article to which both sides agreed tho some would have more included in it than others could find or would allow to be there asserted Which Controversy Authority saw fit to silence at that time since both sides owned the Truth of the Article which asserted a Divine Predestination and would not let every one in their Pulpits run into nice useless and hurtful questions nor do we desire this should be allowed in the Doctrine of the Trinity And when he has Interest enough at Court to procure a Royal Injunction that no man shall write or speak concerning the Trinity we know what we have to do but till then his Royal Injunctions are no more to the purpose than his own Arguments But however he will not stand with us for this Point for notwithstanding this he yields that Ministers should at due season preach to their people the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation only let them do it plainly easily purely and sincerely according to
has read them and thinks he doth generally understand them and I had rather take his word than contest that point with him But the Dean says he censured even our English Reformers for retaining Scholastick Cramping Terms in their Publick Prayers This he denies but owns that he did modestly wish that they had observed the same Temper as did the Foreign Reformers which implies that they ought to have done so and yet did not which notwithstanding the Modesty of it I take to be censuring them Nay and is not what follows Censuring our Litany and the Compilers of it If it be not I am sure the Dissenters themselves never censured it But by these Terms the Dean says he means the beginning of the Litany And how comes he to know his thoughts A very pretty question For how should any man with out conjuring know by his own words that he meant the Litany which he prophanely and scornfully ridicules â—ut he meant not that alone a good excuse for it seems he meant also the â—reface in the Communion Service before the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on Trinity Sunday that is Who art one God one Lord not one only Persâ—n but three persons in one Substance for that which we believe of the Glory of the Father the same we believe of the Son and of the Holy Ghost without any difference or inequality And has not that School Divinity enough in it And if this be all the hurt in School Diviniâ—y it will make every good Christian very fond of it for it contains the true â—hristian Faith But because the Dean has pitch'd upon the other he will stick by it Generously done Now let us see how he defends his Censure Luther and Calvin are both called in to help Luther left out that Petition O Ho'y Blessed and Glorious Trinity Three Persons and One God Of which he confesses the Lutherans give another reason viz. That the German Word did not so expresly signify a Trinity as to exclude a Triplicity but he will not allow this to be currant but I suppose they understood I uther's reason better than he And then Calvin disliked it also but so he did Episcopacy and will he think that a sufficient ground to censure our Reformers for retaining it But to what purpose are these Citations Let them be as express as they will they are no Argument to us who are no more bound to acquiesce in their Judgment than our Author is in that of the Compilers of our Liturgy for whom I think he should have as much Reverence as either for Luther or Calvin But other Foreigners also and our Nonconformist Countreymen have strong exceptions against this part of the Litany which he cannot answer as he would I am sorry for it but I hope there are some others in the Church who can How he would have them answered I cannot tell but I suppose he can answer them so as to satisfy himself which sure cannot be without sufficient reason to justify the Lawfulness of these Forms And if that can be done which if it could not he must be a Hypocrite in using them I am sure 't is no sign of a Tenderness for the Credit of the English Reformation to endeavour thus to expose it and to publish what he thinks to be the Infirmities of it when this publication can serve no other end than to encourage men in their opposition to and dislike of the Establish'd Church Certainly it had been more proper to have reserved these Complaints till his fit Time and Place But he will grant that these Forms may be used without sin but yet he judgeth it much safer not to come so near dividing the Deity and so far to distract Devotion But must we not then lay aside the Apostolical Form of Benediction in constant use among us the Doxology and the Form of Baptism for fear of dividing the Deity and distracting Devotion For in all these there is as express distinct and particular mention of Three I dare not add Persons for fear of offending our Author as in the Litany But still he would have these Forms reduced to more Scriptural ones to bring in our own Dissenters whom we ought if possible I hope I may add by reasonable Methods to bring in and unite to us But here I cannot but observe that this and a great deal more of his Book is directly Writing against the received Doctrine of the Trinity and the Established Worship of the Church of England Now what is this to the design of his Book to persuade men not to Write in Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity Did he do that only that he might have liberty to Ridicule and Expose it I must confess 't is a good Argument to engage men not to Write in Defence of this Doctrine of the Church if he can make it out that it ought not to be retain'd But methinks 't is such a kind of Argument that bespeaks a man not so much a Peacemaker as a profest Adversary And besides I would ask him Whether it be less Dangerous and less Vnseasonable at present for him to Write against the Established Doctrine and Worship of the Church than for others to Write in Defence of them In the next Section he tells us That Vnscriptural Words were complained of by the Fathers as well as by Hereticks and by the Fathers first for which he cites St. Athanasius and St. Ambrose whom I am not now at leisure to turn over nor does it seem very material to the present business St. Athanasius he owns Apologizeth for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Necessity of it and if that will be allowed as a good reason I suppose the Dean will not desire more in favour of Vnscriptural Terms and therefore since our Author is willing I think we had as good let this project stand upon its own merits Here then he is very liberal and will allow us to Vindicate Scripture from Heretical Glosses Why then may we not Write in Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity and show what is the true sense of Scripture in that Point And if we may do this Why is it not seasonable to do it now Hereticks are so busy in perverting the true sense of Scripture And if he will grant us this the main design of his Book is overthrown But when we have plainly proved that these words of Scripture contain this sense why should we I suppose he means in our Creeds and Articles change the Words I will tell him one short reason if he does not know it already and that is because when we have proved this to be the true sense of Scripture so as to satisfy honest and unprejudiced Minds yet perverse Hereticks may still take them in their own sense and so we shall be never the nearer the knowledge of their Minds nor able to distinguish them unless we require them to profess they believe them in that
this was meant for an instance to show his Tenderness for the Church of England who owns and embraces this Creed He has found out a way and as far as I know the Glory of the Invention may be all his own to prove from this Creed that Two of the Three Persons are not Eternal but Created because there is but One Eternal and One Vncreated and therefore Two of the Three must be Created tho the Creed expresly says of each of the Three Persons That he is Eternal and Uncreated Any man I think would rather hence conclude That these Three are One Eternal and One Uncreated than that Two of the Three are not Eternal And I dare venture any man for making such a mistake tho he hath a less Metaphysical Head than our Author and less Grammar to direct him how to discern when a word is to be taken adjectively or substantively And now he tells us Therefore i.e. because of what has been said he had reason as to the Doctrine of the Trinity not to go beyond the Decisions of the Councils but to acquiesce in their Authorities as if that were all he had urged when 't is plain that he affirm'd That it was Authority that chiefly carried the Point in these Councils and would have us urge nothing but their bare Authority in defence of our Faith and whether from what he has said there be reason for us thus to expose our selves for Fools to our Adversaries I leave every one to judge who knows what Reason means So that the Dean's question was very pertinent and still retains its first force for I would fain see this Author show us any man of sense who would believe such absurd Doctrines as the Socinians represent the Trinity in Vnity to be merely upon Church Authority What farther Authority beyond that of the Church interposed in the Council of Nice he has no mind to speak But I think what he does speak does plainly enough insinuate that it was not Reason nor Scripture but Human Force which carried it and determined the Point in that Council and would any man who did not intend to expose both the Nicene Faith and Council too insinuate this Let the Dean then be as charitable as he will in his Opinion I am hard to believe that this was writ with any other design than to expose the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Church of England as well as the Council of Nice which no doubt is much beholding to him because he would not speak all he knew of it but leave every one to suspect the worst And after the same manner I find he is willing to oblige the Dean for he will also pass by here as small faults some Blunders of Mr. Dean's but not without naming them for fear the Reader should be so dull as not to apprehend them without notice One of them or rather All is That he makes St. Athanasius St. Hilary and St. Basil tho I cannot find either Hilary or Athanasius named by the Dean in that huddle of Fathers to write largely against those Heresies which former Councils had condemned whereas they all three died when there had but yet one Council sat This Blunder may I hope pass indeed but for a small Fault or rather as I take it for none at all For as to Hilary he is not mentioned by the Dean and then for Athanasius the Dean a line or two before that huddle of Fathers that sticks in our Author's throat says of him that he wrote against the Arians after they were condemned by the Council of Nice which I hope is no Blunder And then if St. Basil did dye after one Council only had sat did not the rest there named live and write after more Councils than one had sat And therefore if some here named writ after one Council and others after two or more what Blunder is it to say in general They writ against Heresies which former Councils had condemned Is not this agreeable to the common form of speech And yet it may be they might write against some things condemned by more Councils than one tho not General ones But however these Fathers he says are impertinently cited against him this I am sure is impertinently said for 't is evident enough that what they are cited for is directly contrary to what he would persuade us to for they wrote against Heresies condemned by former Câ—uncils and that it is for which the Dean cites them and the Antapologist if I can tell what to make of his Arguments has all this while been persuading us not to write against the Antitrinitarians because they were condemned by former Councils Now on which side the Impertinency lies let any other Stander by judge And thus much and more than enough as to his adhesion to the Authority of these Councils which I can make nothing else of but that he would have nothing added to the Determinations of these Councils But all this while how does this prove That Authority chiefly carried the Point or that we may not write in defence of what these Councils have determined And now our Author after all this tedious Harangue should come to vindicate his Reasons from those Exceptions which the Apologist has made against them but that is a Task which does not agree so well with him He He has not I suppose Leisure and Books enough about him being so many miles from his Study and his Adversaria for the proper Month it may be are not at hand and therefore let his Reasons shift for themselves as well as they can these hard times As to his Reflections on the Dean to whom he now wholly applies what he had formerly said in general against all who write in Defence of the True Faith and for whose sake alone I believe indeed he wrote for Contradicting and not being consistent with himself while he says he has made that Point plain and easy which he confesses difficult and incomprehensible they need no very long Answer for the Dean does not pretend to have made the Doctrine of the Trinity so easy and plain as that there is now nothing in the Nature of God incomprehensible Nor doth he say That so much of the Mystery as he has made plain is incomprehensible It is then no Contradiâ—tion to make it plain that there are and how also there may be without any Contradiction to the Nature of an Infinite and Eternal Spirit Three Persons and but one God and yet to confess that the Nature of God is Incomprehensible But now this Controversy is like to be at an end for says our Author Now I may set my heart at rest as to this Controversy if Mr. Dean will stand to the profession he has made That all that any man that he pretends to in Vindicating the Doctrine of the Trinity is to prove that this Faith is taught in Scripture This our Author adds is that which he would be
Controversy But the Doctrine of the Trinity as duly stated is a Fundamental Ergo 'T is dangerous to litigate touching the Doctrine of the Trinity as duly stated Now if he will not allow the Major Proposition his Argument is nothing and if he will then the Force of his Argument consists in the danger of disputing Fundamentals and iâ— seems the Dean placed the Force of his Argument right and if that Argument be good it is as good against disputing for the Being of a God against Atheists for the Being of a God is as Fundamental as the Doctrine of the Trinity So that this limitation of duly stated does not at all concern this Argument of disputing about the Trinity but the Argument only provâ—s that we must not dispute about the Doctrine of the Trinity as duly stated because it is a Fundamental and I suppose whenever we talk of defending the Trinity we mean it as duly stated But tho the Stander-by would not allow any man to defend Fundamentals yet our worthy Primate being not under his Jurisdiction has ventured to do it This was then News to him and welcome Tidings too if we may believe him and he pretends also to pay great Deference to his Authority tho one would hardly guess so by the Lash he gives him for Licensing by his Chaplain the Dean's Apology But what has he to answer this Authority Why he hopes in that Piece to find as I hope too by this time he has plain and perspicuous Scripture-Notions clear Reason and genuine Antiquity Will this justify the writing of that Piece If so then 't is not unreasonable nor unseasonable nor dangerous to write in defence of Fundamentals and even of the Doctrine of the Trinity but farther he was capacitated by his Publick Station c. Very well And if that will justify him why will not his approving the Apology justify the Dean at least in writing that Book And why may not his Vindicacion be as well justified by the Approbation of another who was also capacitated by his Publick Station either to write or to License other men to write on this Subject His last Argument is the Vnseasonableness of this Controversy he says All Controversies among Protestants are now unseasonable the Dean adds somewhat more that they are always so for there is no Juncture seasonable to broach Heresies and oppose the Truth To this he answers That there may be Controversies among Protestants without Heresy but it is not easy to conceive any Controversy but that one side or other must oppose the Truth and this I believe the Dean thinks always Vnseasonable but the present Dispute was about Fundamental Articles and therefore he had very good reason to mention only the Vnseasonableness of broaching Heresies And he seems to me to urge a very good Argument why no Juncture can be unseasonable to defend the Truth when 't is oppos'd For if Hereticks will dispute against the Truth unseasonably there is no time unseasonable to defend Fundamental Truths But can any thing be more pleasant than his Proof of the Seasonableness of some Controversies he might have said of all even of Socinianism it self in all Junctures from the University-Exercises in the Divinity-Schools where men who are all of a mind dispute with one another not to oppose the Truth but to learn how to defend it against the common Enemy when occasion serves He might as well have proved that Civil Wars are not always unseasonable because 't is never unseasonable for Fellow-Citizens to learn the use of their Arms in a Martial Scene without Bloodshed But his Argument why it is so unseasonable in this Juncture is this Because under God nothing but an Vnion of Counsels and joining of hands and hearts can preserve the Reformation and scarce any thing more credit and justify it than an Vnion in Doctrinals Here he complains that the Dean left out somewhat at the latter end and therefore I will add it and it is this so above all other Controversies none can be well thought of worse timed than this let the Reader judge whether this injured the Force of his Argument especially since it was afterwards particularly considered In answer to this in the first place the Dean asks Is the Vnion in Doctrinals ever the greater that Socinians boldly and publickly affront the Faith of the Church and no body appears to defend it All that he answers to this is that he does not love Affronts especially to the Faith of the Church and don 't know that the Socinians affront it and is sorry for it if they do it may be he will not allow writing against the Faith and endeavouring to ridicule it to be an Affront which he knew very well the Sociniâ—ns did if he knew that ever the Dean writ against the Socinians which was in Answer to as Prophane and as Scurrilous a Libel as ever was writ But whether he will allow this to be affronting of the Faith or no I suppose he will allow that it is opposing it which argues no great Vnion in Doctrinals tho no body should defend it unless as the Dean adds the world should think we are all of a mind because there is disputing only on one side and then they will think us all Socinians as some Foreigners begin alreaâ—y to suspect which will be a very scandalous Vnion and divide us from all other Reform'd Churches His Answer to this and a very Politick and Grave one it is as far as I can guess amounts to this That if we live good lives and let our Adversaries alone the world will credit our Practice Articlâ—s Homilies c. and therefore think us no Socinians Now if subscribing the Articles be no more than he makes it to be they cannot conclude us to be no Socinians from our Articles because a man may subscribe them and yet believe never a word of them in which case the only way to show that we do believe them is to defend and vindicate them and then I believe the world will think us no Socinians but otherwise I fear they will as the Dean says think us all Socinians which will be a very scandalous Vnion indeed As to what he says of Pamphlets dying away if they were not opposed I am not in all cases of his mind and see no present prospect of it especially in this Controversy which so much gratifies Atheists and Infidels But if these Heresies would in time dye away of themselves which yet I much question as not finding that false Opinions always lose ground by not being opposed what must be done in the mean time must we all pass contentedly for Socinians in the eye of the world and be afraid to say we are none I believe all men would not think this much for the Glory of the Reformation nor would the Cause of Religion be much beholding to us for it But his great Argument to prove this Juncture unseasonable to defend the Doctrine of
the Trinity is That it makes sport for Papists To which the Dean answers It must be disputing against the Trinity then not disâ—uting for it for they are very Orthodox in this Point and never admitted any man to â—heir Communion who disowned this faith or declared that he thouâ—ht it at any time unreasonable dangerous or unseasonablâ— to dispute for it when it was Violently opposed This he thinks fit to return no answer to but only to deny that the Dean took any notice of it but says it was too warm for him and that he let it slip through his fingers The Dean observed farther that if this Argument to prove the unseasonableness of this Controversy in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity in this juncture from the necessity of Union of Counsels and joining of hands and hearts for the Preservation of the Reformation have any Force it must signify that we shall never join against a common enemy whose Successes â—ould endanger the Reformation while there are any Religious Disputes among us which is a confession that every Schism in the Church is a new Party and Faction in the State which are always troublesome to Government when it wants their help He seems surprizâ—d at this as not aware of this Consequence the truth of which he has not Confidence enough to deny nor Reason enough to answer but only sences a little for his beloved Socinians as a very small inconsiderable Party and so quiet and peaceable in their Principles that there is no danger of their disturbing Government Now if all this be true it only proves the Impertinency of his Argument for then we may still write against the Socinians and yet unite Counsels and join hands and hearts to preserve the Reformation of which the Sociniâ—ns as the Dean before urged and he thought fit to take no notice of are no part And now passing by some poor trifling reflections we must come to his mind in a passage of more weight but pray What are these trifling Reflections which he is so good natured as to pass by They are only some Reflections on his Answer to an Objection started by himself in these Words shall we tamely by a base silence give up the Point Of which he tells us there is no danger for a wise Reason viz. That the Established Church is in possession of it and the Aâ—versaries of the received Doctrine cannot alter our Articles of Religion Now this Answer is apparently weak and the insufficiency of it is shown by the Dean in a few words as indeed a few are enow to do it and I suspect he passes by these Reflections upon a very reasonable account because he could not answer them I shall not therefore trouble my Reader with the Repetition of them nor ask our Author any Question for fear he should say I fall on Catechising him which possibly will not agree with a man of a negative Belief But it may be the Reader will not be angry if I ask him a Question or two Whether because our Articles oblige us to profess our Faith in the Holy Trinity this be a good reason why we should not defend it And if the Socinians as he tells us have a Zeal too no less ardent than that of Church men Whether this be a reason why we should by a base silence suffer them to spread their Poyson without contradicting them If our Author were to Answer this question I suppose he would in his Melancholy fit say yes by all means for if no body Disputes with them they will leave off Disputing But will they leave off Perverting the People Will they leave off making Proselytes to their Heretical Opinions Nor do I believe after all that the charms of our Author 's Melancholy Suit and Peaceable Rhetorick would be able to silence them though no body should Write against them For why then did they unprovoked make the first Onset and as soon as they thought the times would bear it openly Disperse their envenomed Libels which I don't question but they would have done sooner if they had thought it safe If our Author had told us they had no ardent Zeal his argument would have been much more to the purpose for then indeed there would have been more reason to neglect them since there would have been less reason to fear the spreading of the infection Well but whether they will leave off Disputing or no 't is fit we should and neglect them till a fit time and place which is the weighty passage that the Dean will not understand but however whether he will understand or no we must wait for this fit time and place before we open our Mouths in Defence of the Truth I wonder our Author would not stay for them before he writ against the Deans gross pack of Errors as he is pleased to stile them for certainly according to his own rule he ought to have remained a Stander-by as Melancholy as he pleases till what he himself calls a fit time and place were come For it seems tho the Dean thought the present a fit time not upon those Reasons which he himself gives and which our Author has not Confuted but as our Author who I suppose by this time has got the gift of discerning Spirits faith because he had leisure and a mind to give the world some new specimen of his skill in Dispute and for other reasons that the world talk of yet all these Reasons are not able to convince him but that the fittest time and place is a full House of Convocation And if we grant this may not the present also be a fit time till the other can be compass'd tho not the fittest and the fittest persons a Committee chosen by that great and reverend Assembly Here I had a great mind to be at the old way of Questions but since he is so afraid of being catechis'd I must to humour him put the case Categorically and besides referring him to what the Dean has already said tell him what exceptions I have against his Proposals which I look upon as neither reasonable nor practicable for certainly there is no great reason why those Doctrines which have been so long since defined by a Convocation should never be defended against the assaults of scornful Cavillers and Opposers till a Convocation can meet and order an Answer to their scandalous Pamphlets and then overlook it again before it goes to the Press And I think the Authority lodged in the Archbishop and Bishop of London to License Books may be sufficient to justify any man whom they approve in Writing in Defence of the Established Doctrine without waiting for a New Convocation Or else what was that Authority lodged there for I hope not to license Books against the Doctrine of the Church nor yet merely to license such as do not at all meddle with the Doctrines of our Religion And if this Authority be sufficient we know the Dean was thus far