Fathers perhaps did dispute or opine to this or the like Effect but surely they never designed to impose such a Form of Belief under such damning Clauses as are contained herein This may the rather be concluded for that Gregory Nyssen penn'd the Constantinopolitan So Baronius Creed in that Council ten Years at least after Athanasius his Death And amongst other Fathers of that Council Gregory Nazianzen and Jerome cited here to little Purpose by Mr. Dean approved it as it is without the pretended Athanasian Criticisms and Severities nay without the very Filioque I had Reason therefore as to the Doctrine of the Trinity not to go beyond the Decisions of these Councils but to acquiesce in their Authorities What further Authority beyond that of the Church interposed in the Council of Nice I have no mind to speak I will also pass by here as small Faults some Blunders of Mr. Dean's which he is guilty of in his huddle of Fathers making St. Athanasius St. Hilary and St. Basil to write largely against these Heresies which former Councils had condemned whereas they all three died when there had but yet one Council sat and therein as far as with Certainty appears but one Heresy namely that of Arim condemned for I cannot allow the Quarto Decimani to have been Hereticks they could not therefore write against Heresies condemned by Councils But waving these and other Exceptions which I might justly make touching all these Fathers Writings on this Subject as being impertinently cited against me I say after all if the Worship of the Trinity might be left as these Fathers and particularly as St. Hilary in the End of his twelfth Book of the Trinity left it whose Words I produce not for a Reason any one may guess who pleases to consult them the Differences in this Controversy amongst Protestants would be nearer a Compromise And thus as to my Adhesion to the Authority of these Councils My next Charge is what I confess was great News to me that I am §. 16. Pag. 14. well vers'd in Mr. Hobbs's Divinity Truly though I neither have nor ever had any Esteem for Mr. Hobbs's Divinity yet I could wish my self better skilled in it for then I should better know it when I meet with it in other Mens Writings disguised now 't is said a certain great Person no Stranger to the Temple has lately espoused it under a very slighty Disguise and I should be able more perfectly to wipe off the Imputation of being a Disciple to it at present without any Consciousness to my self cast upon me I could here tell Mr. Dean a very true Secret that there were two Books which I was afraid to read when I was young lest they should corrupt me and Mr. Hobbs's Leviathan was one And having neglected it when my Curiosity was strongest I never read it since So that it would be very strange should I be well vers'd in a Man's Doctrine which I never read But the best of it is Mr. Dean shews here also his great Reading and cites Mr. Hobbs just as before he did the Fathers at random without giving us any Text out of him And I neither have by me nor in case I had have I leisure to search all Mr. Hobbs's Works to see whether he has any such Assertion as Mr. Dean alledges In answering Arguments from Testimony the Testimony it self ought first to be examined And this not appearing I must for that Reason wave any more particular Answer to this Charge Only as to what follows in the Apology I will renew my Request to Mr. Dean as being a Person of Learning for that small Favour that he will hereafter be consistent with and not contradict himself and particularly that he will no more affirm that Point made plain and easy which he confesses difficult and incomprehensible And to prevail with him for this Boon I will promise publickly to beg his Pardon for the Affront of making this my Request to him a second time if I do not immediately prove that in this Matter of the Trinity which here in his Apology he confesses to be an incomprehensible Mystery he does not say again and again in his Vindication thereof that he has made it plain and easy and so has contradicted himself in the Point objected First I say he confesses here the Divine Nature the Trinity of Divine Persons and the Unity of the Divine Essence to be incomprehensible Secondly He says in his Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity p. 48. that he will not pretend to fathom such a Mystery as this Here he is for the Incomprehensibility of it Then in his Preface to his Vindication he tells us the writing that Book cost him many Thoughts and those who have a mind throughly to understand it must not think much if it cost them some notwithstanding all that he has done to explain the Mystery Here 's the Difficulty of it acknowledged still Yet a little before in the very self-same Preface he says he has given a very easy and intelligible Notion of a Trinity in Vnity And in his Vindication p. 66. that his Account thereof gives a plain and intelligible Solution of all the Difficulties and seeming Contradictions in the Doctrine of the Trinity And again p. 68. in a kind of an Epiphonema This is a very plain and intelligible Account of this great and venerable Mystery as plain and intelligible as the Notion of one God or of one Person in the Godhead Notions which are very easy and intelligible and whereof all the Difficulties and seeming Repugnancies or Contradictions have received a plain and easy Solution are certainly comprehensible and easy For what hinders them from being so Or what do we mean in our present State by comprehending any Notion or Doctrine but a clear understanding it without any Difficulty or Perplexity That which I said therefore of some Writers pretending to make this Controversy comprehensible and easy is verified in him though I did not name him and so is no spiteful and scandalous Imputation of mine to him as he in his good Nature and sweet Language is pleased to stile it but was justly and truly spoken with Humility and peaceable Design And he must one Day answer if he do not repent for this his second slandering me with Spite against him whom Pag. 11 15. God knows I both loved and honoured and at present wish him as well as my own Soul nor do I reprehend any thing in him which I would bear in my self But now I may set my Heart at Rest as to this Controversy if Mr. Dean will stand to the Profession he has made for he says all that any Man therefore that he pretends to in vindicating the Doctrine of the Trinity Pag. 16. is to prove that this Faith is taught in Scripture This is that which I would be at and have contended for that we may have nothing obtruded upon us for Faith in
be a just and modest Reprehension of him and what I am sure the Man will meekly take But to make him black and odious by all Arts and to talk of reforming him out of the Church for his peaceable Desires and Well-meaning is imperious beyond Measure and what another would call Tyrannical nor will he name what Spirit it bespeaks especially when the great Argument or Foundation of all against what he has said is no better than a Petitio Principii or taking for granted the prime Matter in question namely that the Doctrine of the Trinity as Dr. Sherlock has stated and does defend it is a Fundamental of the Christian Faith This the Dean in his Apology has not offered one Word to prove but quitting his Adversaries and shutting both Eyes and Ears against all that has been said against his Novelties on this Subject violently falls upon exposing the peaceable Man which was indeed much the easier Project but whether either Christian or Honourable the World will judg The melancholy Stander-by had asserted in his 7th Page the Doctrine of the Trinity as duly stated to be one of the Fundamentals of Christian Religion And it is most plain by what he propounds as the Medium of Peace that the stating it according to Scripture and in Scripture-Language he esteems the most due stating it the Dean likes not this says it is a Proposal of old Hereticks and not only would have the Philosophical Terms now a long time usual in this Point received for Peace-sake but as Fundamental in Faith Nay and not content herewith he gives new Definitions of or affixes new Notions to these Terms and would have all pass upon us still under the Colour of Fundamentals The melancholy Stander-by to speak the whole Truth neither could nor can admit either of these namely either that Philosophical Terms never used by Scripture and besides of various Use or uncertain Signification should be made Fundamentals of Faith or that the Doctor 's new Explication of them should pass at all and his Reasons may perhaps appear anon But in what he writ he express'd not this his Dissent so as to contest either of these Points Only as he would not enter into the Controversy himself so he desired chiefly by reason of the Mischief he thought he saw arising from thence it might be at present forborn by all and he is still as willing as ever to decline engaging on either Point only in his own Defence against what the Dean has endeavoured to load him with he must now say that if any should join Issue with the Dean upon the first Article of the Nicene Creed I BELIEVE IN ONE GOD c. which is a Fundamental and the true Catholick and Apostolick Faith It will soon appear that Dr. Sherlock has in his Book contradicted and to his Power overthrown that Faith as much as ever Johannes Philoponus or Joachim the * So the Text of the Decretal stiles him Florentine Abbot or as others the Abbot of Floria or Flency the two greatest and most antient Leaders of the Tritheists ordinarily assigned ever did for according to the best Accounts of them neither of these expresly maintained more Gods than one nay they expresly disclaimed such Assertion only they so taught the Nature and Distinction of three Persons as that their Doctrine inferred three Gods from which Charge the Invention of mutual Consciousness will never clear Dr. Sherlock ' s Definition of a Person in the Godhead for such Consciousness whatever he says to the contrary can infer only an Vnity of Accord not of Substance and Nature whereas it is an Unity of Substance and Nature that the Council and Fathers have held but these things require more Words than the present Design admits To make the Sum of my Sentiments or what I would be at plainer §. 3. The holy Scripture states the Trinity under the Notion of Three bearing witness in Heaven for I have much more to say for that exagitated Text than to allow it wanting in any Copies on any other Reason but their Imperfection and affirms these three one but how they are one it determines not And Faith being a Belief of the Witness of God and Baptism a Seal or Badg of Faith when we are baptized we are baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as owning and assenting to or professing and vowing to acquiesce in their Witness touching all the whole Will of God and Method of Salvation published in the Gospel This is Scripture and here the melancholy Stander-by would stop as to Faith in this Point of the Trinity To the Incarnation there is yet no occasion to speak The Fathers in the Council of Nice did not as far as ever I could perceive by any genuine Monuments of theirs vote the Term three Persons the Incarnation of the Son of God or his Divinity though made Man was the Controversy before them rather than the Trinity and the great Product of that Council was the word Homoousion in Assertion of the Son 's being of the same Substance with the Father But the Greek Fathers of that Age did soon use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in this Case is most aptly rendred Subsistence and contend for three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Subsistences Now as to the common Definition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in divinis that is to my best Memory pretended to be taken out of Justin Martyr by Damascen a Father of much latter Age I said to my best Memory for my Condition is such at present and has been such upward of four Years that I am without the Use of the best part of my Books and now near 150 English Miles distant from a Library Yet I thank God I am Master of Justin and Damascen more ways than one be it spoken without Affront to Dr. Sherlock in case of my having read other Books I had read them near two and thirty Years ago But to return to the Definition spoken of as now I take it out of my old perhaps too imperfect Notes runs thus In the Holy Trinity an Hypostasis is an unbegun or if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Damasâ—en Dialectic cap. ult Word may be pardoned a beginningless manner of the eternal Existence of each that is of Father Son and Holy Ghost So that according to this Author it superadds nothing to the Divine Essence which is one and common to all the three save a bare manner of Existence or Subsistence Only by the way I must note as to the Authority of that Piece in the Works of Justin Martyr whence this Definition comes namely the Expositio rectae fidei it is sufficiently proved by Scultetus Rivet and others to be none of Justin's genuine Works The Latin Fathers which came soon upon the Heels of the Council and of the Greek Fathers above spoken of suspected this Word Hypostasis and St. Jerome particularly contended there
was Poison under the â—n Epistol ad Damas Tom. 2. Honey and boggled at it St. Austin acknowledges he understood not the Difference the Greeks designed between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in our present Language between Essence and Subsistence But because says he according to our Custom of Speech Essence and Substance are all one â—e Trinitat â—b 5. in fine â—apitis 8 cap. 9. therefore we dare not say one Essence three Substances but one Essence or Substance and three Persons So that when they laid aside Hypostasis they introduced a Term equivalent and perhaps more ambiguous namely Persona and then said there were three Persons in one Essence Yet at the same time St. Austin acknowledgeth the Use of this Term improper and that it was Necessity drove them to it they used this Word for â—agna prorsus â—opia humaâ—â— laborat â—â—quium Dictum est tamen tres personae non ut illud diceretur sed ne taceretur Non enim rei â—â—bilis eminentia hoc vocabulo explicare valet Cap. 9. want of a better The Father saith he and the Son and the Holy Ghost are truly three But when it is demanded three what humane Speech is defective notwithstanding we have said three Persons not that strictly we mean or intend to say this but lest we should be silent and say nothing for the Transcendency of the ineffable Matter cannot be express'd by this Word And again more fully in his seventh Book proving the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be one because the Father is Wisdom the Son Wisdom and the Holy Ghost Wisdom and in God to be wise is the same as to be and to be the same as to be God Therefore says he for expressing what is inexpressible that we may speak in some measure what we cannot speak out the Itaque loquendi causâ de ineffabilibus ut fari aliquo modo possemus quod effari nullo modo possumus dictum est à nostris Graecis una Essentia tres Substantiae a Latinis autem una Essentia tres Personae Et ut intelligatur in aenigmate quod dicitur placuit ita dici ut aliquid diceretur Ut quaereretur quid tria sunt quid tres conferimus nos ad inveniendum aliquid speciale vel generale nomen quo complectamus haec tria neque occurrit animo quia excedit supereminentia divinitatis usitati eloquii facultatem Cap. 3 4. Grecian Christians have said one Essence three Substances that is Subsistences and the Latins one Essence three Persons And that what we say may be understood at least in a Riddle we thought it good thus it should be said that something might be said When it is required what these three are we apply our selves to find out some special or general Name whereby we may comprize all the three nor does there any occur to our Thoughts because the Transcendency of the Divinity exceeds the Faculty of usual Speech He goes on to the Effect following If we take these three Abraham and Isaac and Jacob we can find somewhat common which they all have and say they are three Men but touching Father Son and Holy Ghost we cannot say they are three Fathers or three Sons nor indeed three Gods what therefore are the three Three Persons By all which it is plain they used this word Persons not because it was proper but because the Speculation was run so fine that they knew not what else or what less improper to say And let this suffice in my present Penury of Books as to the Fathers who of old either first introduced or by their Use first authorized in divinis this Term three Persons or a Trinity of Persons As to the Sense of the School-Doctors touching the word Persona in this Controversy I must speak chiefly out of my Memory having besides the Master of the Sentences and some imperfect pieces of others only St. Thomas's Sum at hand in which Work he is somewhat brief on this Term Yet even therein when he concludes it convenient that the Name Person be used touching God he does it with this Limitation that it be Conveniens est ut hoc nomen persona de Deo dicitur non tamen eodem modo quo dicitur de Creaturis not used or which is the same understood after the same manner as it is of the Creatures But I do avow it and will be bound to produce Testimonies enough as soon as I can come at Books that it is both his Doctrine and the common Doctrine of his Followers that the word Person when used touching God and the Creatures is not taken in the same equal or univocal Sense but only by way of Proportion and as to the manner Persona de Deo Creaturis non dici univoce sed analogice of signifying and Imposition of the Name it first and more properly agrees to the Creatures As to Protestant Divines also for the Reasons above touched I must be sparing in their Numbers but I am sure the Systematists ordinarily assign either four or five Differences in the Use of the Word when attributed to God and to the Creature And I find by me in my Notes this Passage which I long since transcribed out of Zanchy a judicious and learned Calvinist In the Creatures one Person is not only Una Persona creata ex contextu precedente supplenda ab altera non tam distincta quam etiam disjuncta est at proinde diversae sunt inter se substantiae licet unius naturae In Deo una Persona ab altera distincta quidem est sed disjuncta esse non porest c. De tribus Elohim Parte 2da lib. 1. c. 3. distinct from the other but disjoined and separate so that the Substances are divers though the Nature one But in God one Person is indeed distinct from the other but cannot be disjoined and therefore the Divine Persons are not only of the same Nature for so are humane Persons but of the same Essence Nay they so subsist in the same Essence that they are indeed nothing else but that Essence Somewhat very near this the Doctor to do him Justice more than once or twice expresly says in his Book I mean in his Vindication of the Holy Trinity viz. p. 47 67 104 c. that they are distinct not separate but then he in effect unsays all again much oftner and that both by his Definition of a Person in divinis and in those other Passages of his produced by me in my Paper p. 14. and by many other Passages which I might transcribe from him For my own part I am not able to excuse him from contradicting himself over and over most plainly in the Space of a dozen Lines in one of the Pages now cited viz. 67. of his Vindication for first he acknowledges These three Divine Persons are not separate Minds as created Spirits
a good Answer in the Fathers and shall the same be ill meerly because at another time in another Case it came from an Heretick The Hereticks proposing it you say renders it suspect St. Athanasius and St. Ambrose using it say I and relying upon it too gives it Authority The Hereticks used it not first but only retorted it on the Fathers Wherefore at least admit the Authority of the one to take off the Disadvantage it may sustain from the other and let the Project as you call it stand or fall according to its own naked Merit Only by the way give me leave to add that if what is just and reasonable must be rejected because it has been sometimes used by Hereticks we must oftentimes give over pleading from Scripture and quit a World of Texts therein I must acknowledg I am not able to see why Men should be so averse from the Language of the Holy Ghost either in their Prayers or Creeds The Sum of the Reason alledged is that it is the Sense of Scripture which Pag. 7. is the true Faith and not merely the Words And must we saith Mr. Dean very admirably believe the Words or Sense of the Scripture I may desire him if he can to believe this or that Sense as revealed by God for he cannot know this or that Sense or Proposition as revealed by God without the Words in which it was revealed I demand Do those Words express contain and convey to us this Sense of such or such Point of Faith or do they not If they do not then the Sense insisted on is not the Sense of the Scripture and consequently not Faith If they do why should we not keep those Words by which God hath thought fit to express this Sense Why should we separate what he has joined Are we wiser than he or can we express the Mind of God better than himself But when Hereticks have used their utmost Art to make the Words of Scripture signify what they please is it not necessary to fix their true Sense and to express that in such other Words as Hereticks cannot pervert Yes in the Name of God let us use our utmost Art to vindicate if possible all and every Scripture from Heretical Glosses or Distortions and with all the Light and Evidence we can discover and assert its genuine Sense The natural Explication of Scripture is our immediate Scope in most or in all the Arts and Sciences which as Divines we take in But what do all our Explications effect save a Proof or Discovery that this or that is the Sense contained under such Words of Scripture When therefore we have plainly proved that these Words of Scripture contain this Sense why should we change the Words If they were not plain the Explication supposing it to have done any thing to the purpose has made them plain When they are plain then why may they not be kept They may be undetermined said Mr. Dean and 't is necessary to fix their §. 10. true Sense But this is the Difficulty They may rationally at least probably admit more Senses than one and when you say you have fixed your own true Sense another shall deny the Sense you have fixed to be the true Sense at least assign another equally probable Sense And a third Person it may be a third For Instance the Apostle tells us 1 Cor. 2. 10 12. God hath revealed the Joys and Glories which he has prepared for those that love him unto us by his Spirit for the Spirit searcheth all things yea the deep things of God For what Man knoweth the things of Man save the Spirit of Man which is in him even so the things of God knoweth no Man but the Spirit of God Now we have received not the Spirit of the World but the Spirit which is of God that we might know the things which are freely given us of God This Text the learned Dr. Sherlock as well as others even Athanasius himself interpret not without Probability of the essential Spirit of God and the Doctor both in his Vindication and Apology endeavours thence to prove the Personality of the Holy Ghost and his mutual Consciousness with the Father and the Son Now I sacredly protest I remember not my self ever to have read any Socinian Author on this Text But I find some others by the word Spirit here understand the spiritual Illumination and inward Perswasion of Mind wrought in the Apostles and other faithful People And this we seem enforced from ver 12. to admit where we read the Apostles to have received the Spirit which cannot be well understood of the Person but of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost This agrees too with the Close of ver 10. The Spirit searcheth all things that is scrutari nos facit This Illumination in their Search leads all such who are endowed therewith into the knowledg and belief of all things necessary to their Salvation even the deepest Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven Further this spiritual Gift may be said to know i. e. we by this Illumination know and relish the things of God as feelingly as the Spirit of Man knows the things of a Man because this Gift is so true a Communication from God and as it were somewhat of the Divine Nature 2 Pet. 1. 4. imparted to us But that the Spirit of God here spoken of as knowing the things of God should be a Person distinct from God any more than the Spirit of a Man knowing the things of a Man is a Person distinct from the Man seems unreasonable And it is considerable that amongst others even Calvin and Beza allow by the Spirit here may be understood such Gift of Illumination as spoken of But Grotius referring us to what he had said on Mark 2. 8 c. with great Learning and Probability interprets the Spirit here of the Divine Nature of Christ and tells us it was by Christ as coming from the Bosom of his Father and knowing all his Secrets that these things were revealed to the Apostles and that the Sense here is the same as in John 1. 18. and ch 6. 46 c. and he produces many Authorities both from Scripture and Fathers touching the Divine Nature of our Lord being stiled the Spirit Now who shall determine which is the true and genuine Sense and if any of the two latter should be genuine then has not the Dean evinced hence what he conceived and particularly not the mutual Consciousness of the Holy Ghost with the Father and the Son for that the Person of the Holy Ghost is not here spoken of It were easy but that it would be tedious to give like Instances in many other Texts of Holy Scripture What shall we do then It were an admirable Expedient indeed could we determine infallibly this or that to be the true Sense of each controverted Text and then express that Sense in such Words as Hereticks cannot pervert But where shall we find
this Point but what is taught in Scripture and then I am sure there will be no fear that any wise Man should reject Scripture for its sake or put strained and unnatural Senses on it to reconcile it to Reason But that three such Persons as he has defined are by Scripture asserted or can be thence concluded to be in the Deity I have denied I do and must ever deny and conceive I have proved contradictious In the next Place having repeated his old Prevarication touching my §. 17. stiling the Socinians the learned Writers of Controversy he is displeased with me for not taking them to task for denying the Divine Nature to be incomprehensible Truly I never heard or read any of the Socinians guilty of such Presumption or Blasphemy But this I take only to be a Consequence drawn by himself from a certain Opinion of theirs and then fastned upon them Of which kind of fair dealing I will say nothing for the present But I do know there are some who deny God's Prescience of future Contigents touching which I had no Occasion to speak no more had he here but that he would hedg in any thing pertinent or impertinent to inodiate an innocent Person which being he has done I will take the Occasion to profess before the Searcher of all Hearts who knows what is in Man that he knows I do believe and in my Soul adore his Prescience that I abhor any Suspicions of it as seeing scarce any of his Perfections more clearly express'd and by a World of Instances verified in Holy Scripture Nay I voluntarily profess I cannot conceive infinite Knowledg without Prescience and though I do confess I cannot comprehend infinite Knowledg because I am very finite yet I bless him who helps my Vnbelief and has as fully possess'd my Heart with the Perswasion thereof as with the Perswasion of his Existence But I cannot so easily believe Mr. Dean's Notions for facilitating I suppose the comprehending the next Divine Attribute which he lugs-in namely Eternity which though he truly says pag. 16. lin 28 29. to be without Beginning and without Succession yet with his usual Attention he explains lin 32. to be a Succession without a Beginning a Second or a Third without a First This Notion I will not accuse him to have taken from the School-Doctors Only I must ask him why he put those Words a God Adequate and Commensurate to our Vnderstandings a little finite comprehensible God in the same Character in which he ordinarily puts the Words he cites or wire-draws from my Paper If he did it with a Design to possess the Reader that I had any such Words or had said any thing from whence such an Inserence could be made I have another Kindness to thank him for of a like Nature to his others I now proceed to account for the last Reason I assigned for the present §. 18. Unreasonableness of some Mens agitating this Controversy which was Hereby that is as both the very Title and the Paper it self expresly assert by some learned Mens present Writings on this Controversy our Church at present and the common Christianity it may be feared will be daily Pag. 18. more and more exposed to atheistical Men they being not likely to overlook the Advantages thus daily given them This Mr. Dean according to his usual way first calumniously perverts to another Sense then for this bold Stroke as he calls it will scarce allow me to be either a Christian or a Divine And lastly falls on catechising me First He calumniously perverts my Sense for says he The Sum of this is that to vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity against Socinians will make Men Atheists Not so fast good Mr. Dean This Sum agrees not either with your own reckoning or with mine Three times at least in your Paper you said these learned Writers of Controversies by me designed were the Socinians According to which your own Interpretation your Proposition or the Sum explicitely should have been this The Socinians present writing against the Trinity will make Men Atheists Do you then deny that Proposition No you 'l say I believe you thought not of it But you know very well on the other side that amongst the present learned Writers of Controversy your self were more immediately concerned they are your own Words pag. 2. And now the Sum if truly stated will be much different namely this Such Vindications of the Trinity as that writ by Dr. Sherlock tend rather to make Men Atheists than to convert Socinians This Sir was my meaning and this I re-assert For Atheists may confute Tritheism or Polytheism for my Part I see not how either is defensible and having proved such Doctrines in Religion to be false they will be ready to conclude all Religion is so too but they can never overthrow the Doctrine of one God the Father of all and one Saviour the Son of God our Lord Christ Jesus and of one Spirit sanctifying and uniting the whole Body of Christian People or of these three being one And this if you will call it a bold Stroke I stick to it and fear not being exposed though I double it The Substance of two of his Questions is answered already First Do I believe the Doctrine of the Trinity to be desensible or no I do as delivered in Scripture but not upon his novel Definitions and Hypotheses But why do I not defend it better I have partly answered it already and a further Answer to that and to his second Question will come in by and by In the mean time as to his third Whâ—â— are Atheists concerned in the Disputes of the Trinity Very much in such Vindications of it which give such a Notion of the true God as implicates or is inconsistent with it self viz. that the true God adored by all Christian People should be three infinite Minds and yet not three infinite Minds If it be as it is impossible that there should be more infinite Minds than one then will Atheists say it is impossible such a Being should exist as you describe your God to be that is there is no God After these Questions I am to be told a Secret which though in great §. 19. Pag. 19. Modesty I conceal yet possibly I may be privy to viz. that Atheists and Deists Men who are for no Religion are of late very zealous Socinians I easily believe and acknowledg Mr. Dean better acquainted with the Town than I am but if Atheists and Deists be zealous Socinians let him never again object to me my Socinian Friends for I protest I have not to my Knowledg any familiar Acquaintance much less Friendship with any Atheists or Theists in the World I pray as our Church teaches to pray FOR ALL INFIDELS AS WELL AS TVRKS AND JEWS that GOD WOVLD TVRN THEIR HEARTS And in my Sphere as God gives me Opportunity I desire to labour in his Church to that purpose but otherwise I