allow his Latitude of Faith and from hence to prove that the Scripture words have no determineâ— sense and are not to be believed in one determined sense is to prove that the multitude of Heresies destroys the certain and determined sense of Scripture and I wonder what he means who pretends to own One Faith to object against this One Faith the various and contrary Systems of Opinions in Religion unless he thinks all these contrary Systems are within the Latitude of the Vnit or of the One Faith And now that this Latitude may not pass for his own invention he tells us That God is doubly the Author of a Latitude in Faith 1. In revealing his Truth in such terms as admit of a Latitude of conception that is in not revealing it at all for if the terms admit of a Latitude of conception i. e. two contrary senses which is the truth Both cannot be and if both are equally the sense of the words then the Truth is not revealed but as far to seek as ever Now for my life cannot I imagine what else this Latitude of conception should be unless he means that God has revealed his Truths and those too the most Fundamental Articles of Christian Faith for concerning such our present Controversy is in such dubious and ambiguous Phrases that we cannot understand the true sense of them or at least that very few can and that even they few cannot be certain that they understand them in the right sense that is in that sense which God meant them tho that is improperly said for it seems God meant them in none but intended that every man should believe them in what sense he pleases This he may call a Latitude of Faith but it is such a Latitude that if I should tell any Infidels of it whom I would convert to Christianity they would presently laugh at me and my Faith too But in the second place God is the Author of a Latitude in Faith in giving to men as he sees fit such measures of knowledge and persuasion as leaves them in a higher or lower degree of Faith and even of Holiness This is impious for in the true consequence of it he charges not only all the Heresies but all the Infidelity in the world on God Almighty and justifies both their Heresies and their Infidelity by the different degrees and measures of Faith or by the No-Faith which God gives them but I am not at leisure to dispute this now for it does not concern our present purpose But if our Author would say any thing either in defence of what he pleads for or against what the Dean maintains he must show that Christians are not obliged to profess and believe one and the same Truth that agreeing in Scripture-words tho understanding them in contrary Senses is sufficient to make Orthodox Christians that we must not defend the true Faith against such as oppose it especially if they or any Peaceable men for them pretend that they believe as they can and as by Grace they are able and that the Church must not require an open and undisguised Profession of the True Faith Now all this he says is far from thinking it indifferent what men believe but very far I am sure from being any Proof of what he pleads for for there is nothing that can uphold his Cause but such an Indifferency as will not allow the Church to concern her sâ—lf what men believe nor her Members to defend the True Faith But I must conceive as I can and judge as I can and believe as I can too I must not believe what I cannot believe Very well And I need not believe any more than I can and this is true too if it be not my own fault that I can believe no more but if it be I shall hardly be excusable before God or Man I cannot it may be believe the true Faith of the Holy Trinity or it may be I cannot believe the Truth of the Christian Religion as I fear too many now-a-days will be ready to tell you some Luâ—ts and Prejudices hinder me from discerning the clear evidence of it and so long I cannot believe and therefore I hope I shall be excused and no body will be so quarrelsome as to litigate with me about it nor go about to confute me for I believe as by Grace I am able for though the Gospel be never so true if God has not given me Grace to understand so much how can I believe it For neither I nor any man alive who believes any thing can believe all that Dictating men will impose upon them But can't he believe what Reason and Divine Revelation Diâ—tate And who desires him to do more If the Doctrine of the Trinity be the Imposition only of Dictating men let him prove that and we will no longer desire him or any man to believe it But if it be the plain truth of the Gospel we will desire him to believe it and think the Church has Authority enough to require him to do it though the Church can't make that an Article of Faith which God has not made so For I hope she can require the profession of that which God has made so and that is all we desire But in Controversies the Church may declare her Sense and we are bound so far peaceably to submit and accept it as not to contradict it or teach contrary under Penalty of her Censures A very bountiful Concession for which he deserves her publick Thanks if he will but stay for them till a fit Time and Place And this he would be content I doubt it not to conceive the whole of what our Church requires as to these things which are merely her Determinations Now who can tell what he means by merely her Determinations for I never heard that the Church delivered any Doctrines especially the Creeds as merely her Determinations which would be indeed with a bare face to impose upon the Faith of Christians but she never pretended to make a Faith but to teach that Faith which was once delivered to the Saints But does he really think the Church desires no man to believe the Creeds and particularly the Doctrine of the Trinity but only not to oppose them Doth she indeed hand them to us merely as her own Determinations Can any thinking man say so But if this were all Do our Socinians observe this Why does not he first persuade them to comply thus far before he desires us not to defend the Church's Doctrine But let us hear his profound Reason For in truth it is to no purpose for her to require such Approbation and Consent which whether paid or no she can never come to have knowledge of which sort is Belief and inward Approbation Is it then to no purpose to teach men the Truth because they may put upon us and say they believe it when they do not Is it to no purpose to require
men to profess their minds sincerely because we cannot always be sure whether they do or no This is admirable Logick We must then never administer an Oath because we can't tell for all that whether the person speaks the real truth or no. But if this be true there is no need of disputing a Latitude of Faith for men may take this Latitude whether we will or no. But to exact this may breed Hypocrisy not if his Latitude of Faith be allowed for then men may sincerely profess their Faith in any Words which have Latitude enough to excuse from Hypocrisy which if we will believe him all words have whether found in Scripture or used by the Ancient Church But must nothing be done from whence bad men may take occasion to be Hypocrites Then I am sure Vertue must not be encouraged nor Vice punished because some may hence take occasion to counterfeit Virtue when they are not sincerely virtuous And I hope he will not say That requiring an inward Belief makes men Hypocrites any other ways it is not design'd for that end it does not command nor force men to be Hypocrites and if men will be Hypocrites who can help it Nay certainly if our Church required only his Peaceable Submission in what she teaches of the Trinity she might be more justly accused of encouraging Hypocrisy For what else would it be to oblige men daily to worship the Trinity when she does not suppose nor desire them to believe any such thing and to profess their Faith in Three Persons when they do not believe one word of that Doctrine But it cannot be a Seed of Charity and Christian Concord to exact this inward Belief But I think 't is great Charity to the Souls of men to exact such a Faith as is necessary to Salvation as for Charity to the Bodies of men writing against their Heresies breaks no bones And if by Concord he means an Unity of Faith which is the only Concord we are now concern'd about such a Latitude as admits of Twenty several sorts of Faith can't be this Concord and whenever there is such a Concord as an universal Liberty of Faith signifies which can be only a Civil and Political Concord I desire him to tell me whether ever he found a greater Unity in the Faith or less disputing for it After some usual Compliments pass'd upon the Dean and his Hypothesis which deserve to be scorn'd not to be answer'd he comes to Dr. Wallis his Three Somewhats The Dean says That when Dr. Wallis called the Three Persons Three Somewhats thereby he only meant that the true Notion of a Person he did not know That is that tho as the Doctor says a Person in Diviniâ— is analogous to a Person in Humanis yet by what peculiar name to distinguish them he could not tell and therefore calls them Somewhats which as the Dean says must signify That Three Persons are Three Real Subsistencies and Three Real Things not a Sabellian Trinity of mere Names And if he can think this a good occasion to ridicule the Trinity in our Prayers and Doxology by the name of Three Somewhats he is not a fit man either for the Dean or any sober Christian to dispute with But now for his unavoidable consequence of not knowing the true Notion of a Person that we then worship we know not what I have hardly met with any thing more empty and weak If we have not the true that is full Notion of a Person therefore we worship we know not what when we worship Three Persons He might as well have concluded That because we have not a compleat Notion of God nor of several of his Attributes as Omnipotence Omniscience c. all which we allow to be Incomprehensible therefore we worship we know not what when we worship an Omnipotent and Omniscient that is an Incomprehensible God But now since he pretends to own a Trinity and has ridiculed Somewhats and done little less for the word Person I would desire to know what he worships when he says that Prayer in the Litany O Holâ— Blessed and Glorious Trinity Three Persons c. And what he means when he owns â—hree that bear witness in Heaven whether they be in his opinion Three Somewhats or Three Nothings Three real Things or only Three Names But however that be he will not blush to press again his desires to all men to let this Controversy rest as it was above Thirteen hundred years ago determined by â—wo General Councils Pray who are they that will not lâ—t it rest Are they not his Friends who move these Ancient Boundaries of Peace If we must let it rest persuade them to leave us in quiet Possession of the Truth and we are content which sure he ought to do or else to let us alone in defending it For I cannot but look upon it as very partial and iniquitous to desire us to let the Controversy rest that is not to write in Defence of the Ancient Doctrine while our Adversaries freely spread Libels against it and who can imagine that any man who has any Zeal for the true Christian Faâ—th should press this As for his Reason which he thinks stands unshaken I am of opinion that neither the Dean nor any one else had occasion to shake it it was weak enough to fall of it self If some men by the Improvements they have attempted have as he says embroil'd this Doâ—trine the fault is theirs or if some will draw false Inferences from what is well and cautiously said there is no help for it as long as there are men of perverse Minds and weak Heads But sure all who have writ on this â—ubject have not embroiled it I have read what some Learned Writers of Controversy besides the present Dean of St. Paul's and Dr. Wallis have writ on this Subject within less than Thirteen hundred years which has not embroil'd nor perplex'd my understanding but given me much Satisfaction and made several things clearer to me than they were before But if this Argument were never so true it does not prove that we ought not to defend the Ancient Doctrine but only not to give any new Explications of it lest they should turn the Heads of some men As for what he quotes out of the Nouvelles de la Republique des Lettres if it signify any thing more than to let us know he understands French it must be to warn the world against Mathematicians who it seems are very busy in corrupting the Faith with their Notions of Mathematical Quantities I never saw the Book and am not Mathematician enough to be a proper Judge of it and therefore must refer it to Dr. Wallis who iâ— But now he is for carrying on his Jest in good earnest whatever the Dean think of it and would still have the Doctrine of the Trinity left on its old Foundation of Authority i.e. he would have us yield the Point to the Socinians who he knows
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
Reader to judge upon the whole whether the Dean has not quite overthrown this state of his Question and sufficiently demonstrated the Weakness of all he urged Now he is desirous to know Where is the mischief of all this For all that he designed was plainly no more then to move for Peace at least for a Truce till both Parties were calmed and might calmly Treat But methinks the fairest way for this had been to desire both Parties to hold their hands and not only to beseech one to be silent and let the others Write and Talk and Rail and Argue on too as well as they can against the Established Doctrine But methinks this very project of a Truce does not seem very reasonable for it looks as if he thought the Church and the Socinians to be upon equal terms with one another which I can by no means grant because the Church of England in this Point at least has had Sixteen hundred years prescription besides the Authority of Scripture and Reason on her side Nor can I think any Treaty lawful in such Fundamental Points but that all Catholick Christians are bound to do what they can by Reason to convince these men of their Errors and reduce them into the Bosom of the Church for I do not like our Authors way of Compounding with Hereticks and Shismaticks and I hope Posterity may find better Expedients for Vniting of Protestants than for the sake of Peace to give up truth But here though our Author could bear what he thinks a modest and just reprehension yet he is very angry with what the Dean says and looks upon it as imperious beyond measure especially when the great Argument of all is no better than a petitio principij that the Doctrine of the Trinity as Dr. Sherlock hath stated it and does defend it is a fundamental of the Christian Faith Now this I take to be a false imputation upon the Dean who does indeed as the Church of England does look on the Doctrine of Three Persons and One God as a Fundamental of the Christian Faith and this he endeavours to vindicate from those Absurdities and Contradictions which are charged upon it and gives such an Explication of it as though he believes to be true he does not lay down as necessary to be expresly believed by all nor will he esteem any man a Heretick who sincerely believes the Doctrine of the Church that there is but One God and Three Persons though he does not subscribe in all things to his Hypothesis And therefore I think the Antapologist is fallen into a fit of Melancholy when he complains of the Dean because in his Apology he quits his Adversary and neglects all that has been said against his Novelties and falls upon exposing the Peaceable man Now I should rather have wondred if in an Apology for Writing against the Socinians he had entred into the main subject of Debate when his only business was to show the weakness of such Earnest Suits as desired that no man should Write any thing in the present Controversy so that I cannot but think the Antapologist is a little if not besides himself I am sure a great deal besides the purpose to make it a matter of Accusation against the Dean that he keeps close to the proper Subject of his Discourse for I would here only ask him Whether in his Suit he undertook a Confutation of the Dean's Hypothesis If he did not then I hope his Book may be pertinently Answered and solidly Confuted too without entring into the merits of that Cause I would ask him also Whether he did not Address to all Learned Writers against the Socinians in this Conttoversy as well as to the Dean And whether what he urges be not level'd against any man's Writing in Defence of the Established Doctrine as well as of the Dean's particular Hypothesis If so 't is plain that the Dean did very well not to run out into a Vindication of his own Hypothesis or of the Doctrine of the Trinity in general but to fall upon exposing the Peaceable man as our Author terms it that is to show the insufficiency of all his pleas for Forbearance towards the Socinians and betraying the Christian Faith under the pretence of Peace and Moderation But the Dean does not like that the Faith should be stated in Scripture Language but would have School-terms pass as Fundamental in Faith as well as his own new Definitions and new Notions As to the first of these things The Dean does and that on very good reasons desire whether the Melancholy standerâ—by can admit it or no that the true Faith under what words soever it be expressed and not merely the sound of Scripture-Words should pass for Fundamental and thus far he is for School-Terms or any Terms that fix the true sense of Scripture But as to the other branch of this Accusation 't is false and ridiculous and that is answer enough to it As for the uncertain signification of Philosophical Terms methinks he should not quarrel at that which may afford his Friends the better shelter and permit every one under the same words to couch his own meaning And it seems in what he writ he did not contest either of these Points and yet in the very Page before he complains of the Dean because in his Answer he did not offer one Word to prove his own new Notions which yet he owns he did not contest with him and is still as willing as ever to decline engaging but only in his own defence he can't forbear declaring That the Dean has to his power overthrown the True Catholick Faith of the Nicene Creed as much as Philoponus or Joachim ever did nor will his Invention of Mutual Consciousness clear him from the Charge of inferring Three Gods since that can infer only an Vnity of Accord c. This he says but does not here go about to prove it because these things require more Words than the present Design admits and it may be more Reason than he is Master of and therefore 't is as easy for me and as allowable to say That the Dean's Mutual Consciousness does infer more than an Vnity of Accord as for him to say it does not And that it does infer full as great if not a greater Vnity of Substance and Nature than the words of the Nicene Creed express and if it were not for the Reason which he himself has given I should not care though I ventured to dispute this matter with him at large As for his next Section I do not know well what to make of it 't is long and full of Quotations but to what purpose he who writ it may possibly know best In the first place I think he would have none but Scripture-terms made use of in stating this Doctrine but this whether it were the Invention of Old Hereticks or New Ones hath been shewn to be in our Case very foolish and unreasonable
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
owns there is but One Christian Faith he qualifies it very notably with And every Truth which Christ and his Apostles taught ought if it can be without scruple understood without scruple to be Believed Now I would here ask him if he will not be offended at my presumption whether there be not some Christian Truths which ought to be expresly believed by all Christians this I believe he will grant because he afterwards says that what is Necessary to the Salvation of all is plain This is all we desire and then let Protestant Divines be as tender as they will in defining the number of Fundamentals The only question to our present purpose will be Whether the Doctrine of the Trinity is not one of these few Fundamentals which are necessary to Salvation And if it be certainly we may be allowed to Write in the Defence of it and to require the Profession of it from the Members of our Church and surely what is Fundamental in this Point is but One and that wherein all ought to agree and then the Faith will be but One and no such Fallacy in the Deans questions as he complains of If he will not allow the Doctrine of the Trinity to be a Fundamental I think'tis no hard matter to prove it but that is not my business nor according to the design of his Book is it his 'T is upon this supposition we argue and upon this supposition I would fain see him prove that the Church ought not to require an express belief of this Article but to leave it in such a Latitude as that every one may be Socinian Arian Sabellian or what else he please and yet pass for a very Orthodox Christian. This I take to be the Latitude he pleads for and which though in his dialect it be stiled Believing as by Grace we are able is really Believing only what we please The rest of this Paragraph concerning different measures of Faith as to the present purpose is no more than mere harangue ad populum phalerae for I cannot possibly understand that it concerns the present Controversy how God will hereafter deal with men by reason of their different Capacities and Opportunities of Knowledg and what excuses â—here may be for some mens Ignorance of the most important Truths c. And I dare affirm that all he urges here mutatis mutandis will be of as great force out of the mouth of a Turk or Deist to prove that we urge too strict an Vnity when we desire them expresly to believe the truth of the Christian Religion Suppose though there is no reason for it that we should grant him his negative Belief even for the whole Creed Will that serve his and his Clients turn Will his Socinian Friends submit to it Will they then not say a word against the Doctrine of the Trinity nor endeavour to spread their Errors any farther or if they do will he give us leave to Oppose them and Defend the Truth But now let us see in the next Section where he thinks tho upon very unjust grounds as will appear presently he has caught the Dean â—â—ipping how â—itifully to use his own Phrase and pedantically as well as unreasonably he triumphs and exults over him and endeavours to expose his Subtilty as he calls it in saying That if the Faith be One there can be nâ— more Latitude in the Faith than there is in an Vnit. Now sure this is no such Metaphysical Subtilty for if the Faith be One 't is plain there can be no more Latitude in it than in an Unit. But now for our Author 's great Discovery without any Subtilty in it There are says he as many sorts of Vnits as there are of Vnities and then he reminds the Dean of Philosophical and Arithmetical Vnits or Vnities which you please and what Latitude there may be in an Vnit. Suppose all this the Dean doth not as I can find say there is no kind of Latitude in an Vnit but only that there can be no more Latitude in the Faith than there is in an Vnit which if it be One must be so But then I pray what is the Latitude in an Vnit considered as an Unit None I think for in whatever respect 't is One 't is no more than One and has no Latitude A Compositum which is a thing he imagines the Dean may have heard of in Philosophy tho as he says it has Parts yet is but One Totum and in that respect has no Latitude and an Hundâ—ed is but One hundred and no more and therefore as an Vnit it is but an Vnit and has no Latitude And if the Faith be One as One it can have no Latitude If the Vnity of the One Fâ—ith be only an Vnity of Words then there is no Latituâ—â— â—f Words and we must comply with our Author's Fancy and never profess it in any other words than the words of Scripture But if it be an Vnity of Sense as one would think'tis most reasonable and most proper it should be among intelligent Creatures then we must agree in the same Sense and if we do not agree in some One Sense we do not agree in the same â—aith tho we do use the same Words and if we do agree in the same sense 't is no harm tho we happen not to use exactly the same words and then there may be very good reason sometimes to make use of other than Scripture words I believe then there is no Latitude in an Vnit. Yes but there is and 〈◊〉 the One Faith too especially as by the One Faith we understand what Churches and Doctors have now made it What Churches and Doctors have made the One Faith if any of them have made it more than our Saviour made it concerns not us we justify no such things But what is this to our purpose Sure these Churches and these Doctors do still require an Vnity of Faith and allow no such Latitude as our Author contends for nay I fancy he really thinks they urge too strict an Vnion and yet this for want of a better must be made an Argument to prove That there is a Latitude in the One Faith and is it not a stabbing one Some Doctors require more things as Articles of Faith than really are so ergo there is a Latitude in the One Faith But sure this is no sign that these Churches and these Doctors allow a Latitude in the One Faith if they make it stricter than Christ or his Apostles made it much less that Christ and his Apostles allow of any such Latitude of Faith But have we not whole Systems of Opinions now a-days made up into Confessions of Faith Yes we have several Systems of Arian Socinian Pelagian Calvinistical Opinions and all of them require a Subscription at least from their Divines to these several Systems without allowing his Negative Belief which is a certain proof that they do not
value the Authority of Councils no more than he does that of the Church of England The Dean he tells us demands of him Would he believe such absurd Doctrines as some represent the Trinity in Vnity to be merely upon Church-Authority To which he returns an Answer by which 't is not easy to apprehend what he means He says he is not press'd with any such absurd â—octrines It may be he is not for I am not sure tho he pretends the contrary now and then that he believes any more of the Trinity than the Socinians do But if he believes what the Church of England teacheth the Socinians I am sure do press him as well as others with pretended Absurdities Now as for such forms of speaking as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conglorified and the like he thinks we must receive them only from Church-Authority and would have those who defend them which I think he does not care to do urge nothing else The Fathers indeed good men thought the sense of these words was in Scripture and so doth he admitting what we judge good Consequents out of Scripture to be of the same truth with Scripture but poor man he confesses he is not able to prove it nor to convince others who do not think so and because he cannot convince them he thinks no body else can which may be true if he knows his men to be convinced for some men will never be convinced and some others have as little mind to convince them But he goes on Demonstrate to the world this to be the Sense of Scâ—ipture and the Controversy is at an end If he means prove it by good and sufficient Reason this we say may easily and often has been done and yet the Controversy is not at an end and I fear never will be while there are such Peacemakers as he is fluttering about the world But when he calls upon us to demonstrate this I hope he does not mean Mathematical Demonstrations unless he has a mind to trepan us into the Nouvelles and as for any other Demonstrations if he cannot give them others can if he will secure them from his Earnest Suits Well but if we can't demonstrate this we must own this to be the state of our Evidence We have for the Orthodox side Scripture interpreted by the Tradition of the Church This at length resolves it self mainly into Church-Authority This were true if there were no other certain way of knowing the true Sense of Scripture but Church-Authority for this sets aside Scripture and resolves all at last into Church-Authority and he himself has made that too contemptible to be a sure Foundation for Faith but the Scripture was so writ by the Divine Penmen as to be understood and tho a Traditionary Sense of Scripture be a very good Confirmation of what according to the ordinary rules of expounding Scripture appears to be the true and genuine Sense of it yet no Authority ought so far to over-rule us as â—â— persuade us to believe that to be the true Sense of Scripture which neither the usual signification of the words nor the circumstances of the place nor the contexture of tâ—e Reasoning proves to be so And this was the Question he ought to have Answered the Dean Whether he would have believed such things as the Socinians say are very Contradictions and Absurd and which he himself does not say are not absurd merely upon Authority though this Authority pretends Scripture without any Reason to be on its side But still he has a farther fetch which the Dean was so dull as not to smell out nor I believe would any man else though he had attended his words never so strictly and it is this that some other Concurrent Power should be called in to end this Controversy I suppose by imposing silence on all Parties This carries a show of greater impartiality than our Author usually expresses for then the Socinians as well as the Orthodox must have their hands tied up But I doubt this is not such a very fair proposal when 't is thoroughly considered for this must not be done till the Hereticks are first gratified and the Forms of Worship which some mens Consciences can't bear made easy that is the Doctrine of the Trinity thrown out of the Liturgy thank him for his extraordinary Civility to the Church of England And then no matter how severe the Laws be against any who shall write or speak more in the Controversy that is I suppose every man shall be punished who shall presume to speak one word for as well as against the Trinity and pretend to teach any such Doctrine for saying any thing of it either in the Desk or Pulpit will be speaking in the Controversy Now this I think will not amount to much less than determining the Controversy on the Sociniâ—ns side for to prohibit the teaching or asserting the Doctrine of the Trinity or the explaining of those Texts which do assert it looks very like determining that there is no such thing or at least that 't is no matter whether men believe it or no or in what sense they take the Scripture words so they do but agree to use the words But to proceed with our Author he professes a great Reverence for the Council of Nice whether in earnest or in jest let the Reader judge and speaks a great many fine things in behalf of it not worth repeating And then he falls foul upon Athanasius and his Disputations taking a hint from what the Dean said concerning his Learned and Subtil Disputations which confounded the Arians of which this Author for brevities sâ—ke and to keep close to the business in hand gives us a tedious Historical Account which is many times a very good way of dropping the main Point besides that it is always easier to tell a story than to reason well And to what other purpose all this Account serves he may guess that can for my part I see so little in it that I think it time lost to consider it any farther For I cannot understand how it proves that the Council of Nice did rely chiefly on Authority as our Author asserts and that â—heir Faith was not as the Dean says it was resolved into Scripture and Reason When he shows how his Story will prove this which was the thing in debate I will seriously consider his Quotations but in the mean time I shall leave him to read his History-Lectures to the walls and pass on a Page or two farther where we shall meet with a Masterpiece of Wit and Reason in some Learned Remarks on the Athanasian Creed which may well enough divert a Reader who is disposed for a little Mirth but will signify little to one that has a mind to be Serious But however he cannot forbear an instance or two oâ—t of that Creed to shew how apt that Creed is to lead men to mistake the Truth and to prosess Heresies and Blasphemy I suppose
at And yet I fear the Dean and he would not be at the same thing The Dean would have it and has proved it That the Doctrine of Three Persons and One God is contained in Scripture Now if I can guess at the meaning of the Standerâ—y this very Attempt put him into a Melancholy Fit and therefore he desires no man would meddle with this Controversy This was the design of his Book to persuade us not to meddle with this Controversy but to leave every man to take the words of Scripture in what sense he pleases and this I take to be different from the Dean's design of proving this Doctrine to be contain'd in Scripture and so the Dean's own Profession tho he stand to it will not bring the business so near a Compromise For I doubt that if we should grant our Author what he says That Three such Persons as the Deâ—n has defined are not asserted in Scripture yet he would not be so kind to the Church of England as to grant that Three Real Persons are there asserted which we know the Socinians deny and put strained and unnatural senses on Scripture to reconcile it to their Principles of Reason and did so long before the Dean gave any Definition of a Person or said one word in the Controversy But after all he has not fairly represented the Dean's words but has stopped where he thought fit as if the Dean had only said That all any man pretended to was to prove that this Faith is taught in Scripture whereas he went farther and added and that it contains no such Absurdities and Contradictions as should force a wise man to reject it c This I doubt the Stander-by does not love to hear of That there is no Absurdity no Contradiâ—tion in the Doctrine of the Trinity In the next Page he proceeds to account for his last reason he assign'd for the present Vnreasonableness of some mens agitating this Controversy He should have cleared his Accounts as he went along and said something more to the purpose in justification of his other Reasons before he came to the last but it may be he has a good excuse and therefore we will be contented to attend his motions Here then he tells us That the Dean calumniates him when he affirmeth this to be the Sum of his Argument That to vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity against Socinians will make men Atheists Now I desire any man to look upon his words and see if it be not so for he addresses his Suit to All who write in Vindication of the Trinity to forbear writing and to this purpose he tells them 't is unreasonable to controvert this Point and the Reason he brings to prove his Assertion is That hereby our Church at present is and the common Christianity it may be feared will be more and more daily exposed to Atheistical men by what I pray by Vindicating the Doctrine of the â—riniâ—y This is the plain sense of his words tho now he is asham'd of it and would have us believe the Sum of all was only this Such Vindications as that writ by Dr. Sherlock he should have added or by any other Learned Writers of Controversy at present at least Dr. Wallis tend rather to make men Atheists than to convert Socinians If this be allâ—he meant it were to be wish'd he would learn to speak plainer Why did he not plainly say he was not against mens writing in Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity but that he only disliked Dr Sherlock ' s Vindication But whatever the Doctor 's Vindication will do I am sure our Antapologists Politick Method for men to agree in the bare sound of words and no body to know what they mean by them or to take them in opposite and contradictory Senses would expose us and our Faith to the just Scorn of Atheists and Scepticks who by the same Art might subscribe all the Articles of the Christian Creed and yet believe never a word of the Gospel In the next Section he comes to the Secret which the Dean told him That Atheists and Deists Men who are for no Religion are of late very Zealous Socinians and which the Dean urges as a good reason why we should at present be Zealous against Socinanism and so undoubtedly it is and a far better than any he has urged to the contrary For the truth of the matter of Fact 't is notoriously known and needs no proof To invalidate this Argument I can't find that he has said one word but instead of this according to his usual way of Digressions he puts off the Reader with an Account of his Friendship and Acquaintance which he holds with no Atheists nor Deists but only with some Virtuous Rationalists and that his Virtuous Rationalists do not ridicule this Faith This Virtuous Rationalist is a new Name and I 'am afraid signifies either a Deist or a Socinian for other Men are not ashamed of their known Characters and if they do not ridicule the Doctrine of the Trinity no thanks to their good Nature nor to their good Manners they do their best as he has done to ridicule it but it is a Doctrine that won't be ridicul'd Thus much for the unreasonableness of this Controversy about the Holy Trinity In the next place he objects the Danger of it and his Argument for that is That it is a Fundamental of our Religion Now to litigate concerning a Fundamental is to turn it into a Controversy that is to unsettle at least endanger the unsetling the whole Superstructure Now in Answer to this the Dean had proved That there was very great reason to dispute and settle Fundamentals when Hereticks endeavour to unsettle them and ask'd this Author Whether the Being of a God were not a Fundamental And whether that were a good reason not to dispute for the Being of a God because Atheists denied it This made him ashamed to own his Argument and therefore he charges the Dean with misrepresenting it His pretended Misrepresentation is that he did not say That the Doctrine of the Trinity was a Fundamental in general but only if duly stated and therefore not a Fundamental as unduly stated by the Dean This is so trifling an Evasion that it is hardly worth the while to expose it Was the dispute whether the Dean should write in defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity or whether the Doctrine of the Trinity should be defended Was his Argument urged to prove that it was dangerous for the Dean whom he never named before to defend the Doctrine of the Trinity by his mistaken Notion of it or that it was dangerous to dispute a Fundamental To show the folâ—y of this pretence let us put his Argument into Mode and Figure wherein his Fundamental Doctrine of the Trinity as duly stated can be only the minor Proposition 'T is dangerous to litigate touching a Fundamental or to turn a Fundamental into a
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
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