says The first Reformers complained of this and desired a purer and more spiritual sort of Divinity What With respect to the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation What purer Reformers were these I 'm sure not our English Reformers whom he censures for retaining Scholastick cramping Terms in their Publick Prayers He means the beginning of our Litany O God the Father of Heaven O God the Son Redeemer of the World O God the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son O Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity Three Persons and One God These are his Scholastick Cramping Terms which he would fling out of our Liturgy when the season of such blessed Alterations comes I hope those Excellent Persons among us who I doubt not for better Reasons did not long since think of some Alterations will consider what a foul Imputation this is upon such a Design when such a person shall publickly declare That they ought to Alter and Reform the Doctrine of the Trinity out of our Prayers But the whole Mystery of this Latitude and Simplicity of Faith which he pleads for is that plausible Project which has been so much talked of of late to confine our selves to Scripture Terms and Phrases to use none but Scripture Words in our Creeds and Prayers without any Explication in what sense those words are to be understood As he tells us Certainly we may Worship God right well yea most acceptably in words of his own Stamp and Coinage Now at the first Proposal few men would suspect that there should be any hurt in this though it would make one suspect some secret in it to consider that Hereticks were the first Proposers of it and that Orthodox Christians rejected it The Arians objected this against the Homoousion or the Son 's being of the same Substance with the Father that it was an Unscriptural Word but the Nicene Fathers did not think this a good reason to lay it aside For what reason can there be to reject any words which we can prove to express the true sense of Scripture though they are not found there For must we believe the Words or the Sense of Scripture And what reason then can any man have to reject the Words though they be no Scripture-Words if he believes the Sense contained in them to be the sense of Scripture The Homoiousion or that the Son had a Nature like the Father's tho not the same was no more a Scripture-Word than the Homoousion and yet the Arians did not dislike that because it was no Scripture-Word nor are the Socinians angry at any man who says That Christ is but a meer man who had no Being before he was born of the Virgin Mary tho these words are no where in Scripture And is it not strange that a man who heartily believes or at least pretends to believe that Father Son and Holy Ghost are One Eternal God should be angry with a Trinity in Unity or Three Persons and one God which do as aptly express the Faith which he professes as any Words he can think of It is very odd to be zealous for Scripture-Words without the Scripture Sense If the Scripture have any determined Sense then that which is the true Sense of Scripture is the true Faith and if we must contend earnestly for the true Faith we must contend for the true Sense of Scripture and not merely for its Words and when Hereticks have used their utmost art to make the Words of Scripture signifie what they please is it not necessary to fix their true Sense and to express that Sense in such other Words as Hereticks cannot pervert There are but few words in common speech but what are sometimes differently used in a Proper or Metaphorical a Large or a Limited Sense and all wise and honest men easily understand from the circumstances of the place in what sense they are used but if men be perverse they may expound words properly when they are used metaphorically or metaphorically when they are used properly and there is no confuting them from the bare signification of the word because it may be and oftentimes is used both ways and therefore in such cases we must consider the Circumstances of the Text and compare it with Parallel Texts to find out in what sense the word is there used and when we have found it it is reasonable and necessary to express the true Christian Faith not merely in Scripture words which are abused and perverted by Hereticks but in such other words if we can find any such as express the true sense in which the Scripture-words are used and in which all Christians must understand them who will retain the Purity of the Christian Faith We do not hereby alter the Christian Faith nor require them to believe any thing more than what the Scripture teaches tho we require them to profess their Faith in other words which are not indeed in Scripture but express the true and determined sense of Scripture words And this is all the Latitude of Faith which this Stander-by so tragically complains we have destroyed viz. That we have brought the Scripture words to a fixt and determined sense that Hereticks can no longer conceal themselves in a Latitude of expression nor spread their Heresies in Scripture words with a Traditionary Sense and Comment of their own I would ask any man who talks at this rate about a Latitude of Faith Whether there be any more than One True Christian Faith And whether Christ and his Apostles intended to teach any more Or whether they did not intend That all Christians should be obliged to believe this One Faith If this be granted there can be no more Latitude in the Faith than there is in a Unit and if they taught but One Faith they must intend that their words should signifie but that one Faith and then there can be no Intentional Latitude in their words neither and what Crime then is the Church guilty of if she teach the true Christian Faith that she teaches it in such words as have no Latitude no Ambiguity of Sense which Hereticks may deny if they please but which they can't corrupt in favour of their Heresies as they do Scripture words It is an amazing thing to me that any man who has any Zeal any Concernment for the true Christian Faith who does not think it perfectly indifferent what we believe or whether we believe any thing or not should judge it for the advantage of Christianity and a proper Expedient for the Peace of the Church for all men to agree in the same Scripture words and understand them in what sense they please tho one believes Christ to be the Eternal Son of God and another to be but a mere man which it seems has no great hurt in it if they do but agree in the same words But if the Faith be so indifferent I cannot imagine why we should quarrel about Words the fairer and honester Proposal is That every
man should believe as he pleases and no man concern himself to confute Heresies or to divide the Church with Disputes which is the true Latitude our Author seems to aim at and then he may believe as he pleases too But pray why should we not write against the Socinians Especially when they are the Aggressors and without any provocation publish and disperse the most impudent and scandalous Libels against the Christian Faith He will give us some very wise Reasons for this by and by when he comes to be plain and succinct in the mean time we must take such as we can meet with He is afraid peâ—â—le should lose all Reverence for the Litany should we go on to vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity I should not easily have apprehended this and possibly some of the common people might have been as dull as my self had he not taken care before he parted for fear no body else should observe it to teach people to ridicule the Trinity in their Prayers Dr. Wallis would not undertake to say what a Divine Person signifies as distinguished from Nature and Essence only says a Person is somewhat but the True Notion of a Person he does not know This Author commends this as ever held to by all Learned Trinitarians for indeed all the Doctor meant by his somewhat is That Three Persons signify Three Real Subsistences and are Real Things not a Sabellian Trinity of mere Names And yet in the very next Page he teaches his Readers to ridicule the Litany with the Doctors somewhats O Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity Three Somewhats and One God have Mercy on us c. Was there ever any thing more Senseless or more Prophane That because the Doctor would not undertake to define a Person but only asserted in general That a Divine Person was somewhat or some Real Being in opposition to a mere Nominal Difference and Distinction therefore in our Prayers we may as well call the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost Three somewhats Nobis non licet esse tam disertis I am sure he has reason heartily to pray That these Three somewhats as he prophanely calls them would have Mercy on him In the next place he says He is well assured that the late Socinian Pamâ—â—lets would have died away or have been now in few mens hands had not divers persons taken on them the labour to confute them But did his Socinian Friends who were such busie Factors for the Cause tell him so Did they print them that no body might read them Were they not dispersed in every Corner and boasted of in every Coffee-house before any Answer appeared However were it so is there no regard to be had to Hereticks themselves And is it not better that such Pamphlets should be in an hundred hands with an Answer than in five hands without one I should think it at any time a good reward for all the labour of confuting to rescue or preserve a very few from such fatal Errors which I doubt not but is a very acceptable service to that Merciful Shepherd who was so careful to seek one lost and straggling Sheep Heresies and Vices dye by being neglected just as Weeds do for we know the Parable That the Devil sows his tares while men sleep But this is no new Charge the good Bishop of Alexandria met with the same Censures for his Zeal against Arius for it seems that Heresie would have died too if it had not been opposed I doubt this Author judges of other mens Zeal for Heresy by his own Zeal for the Truth which wants a little rubbing and chafing to bring it to life but Heresy is all flame and spirit will blow and kindle it self if it be not quenched But yet if what he says be true That by our unskilful way of confuting Heresie we run into those very Absurdities which our Adversaries would reduce us to This I confess is a very great fault and when he shews me any of those Absurdities I will thankfully correct them for all the Obloquies in the world will never make me blush to recant an Error But before he pretends to that I must desire him that he would first read my Book which I know some men censure without reading it Such general Accusations are very spiteful and commonly have a mixture of spite both against the Cause and against the Person His next Argument is very observable We must not dispute now against Socinians because these Controversies about the Trinity have been above Thirteen hundred years ago determined by two general Councils the Nicene and first Constantinopolitan which are owned by our Church and their Creeds received into our Liturgy Ergo we must not defend this Faith against Hereticks because it is the Faith of two General Councils which are owned by our Church Did Athanasius think this a good Argument against Writing and Disputing against the Arians after the Council of Nice had condemned Arius and his Doctrines Did St. Basil Gregory Nazianzen Nyssen St. Chrysostom St. Jerom St. Austin think this a good Argument who wrote so largely against these Heresies which former Councils had condemned But this Author thinks the best way is to let the Matter stand upon this bottom of Authority that is let Hereticks ridicule our Faith as much as they please we must make them no other answer but that this is the Faith of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Councils and the Faith of the Church of England And can he intend this for any more than a Jest when he knows how Socinians despise the determinations of Councils and particularly with what scorn they treat the Nicene Fathers Is this an Age to resolve our Faith into Church Authority Or would he himself believe such absurd Doctrines as they represent the Trinity in Unity to be merely upon Church Authority For my part I declare I would not I greatly value the Authority of those Ancient Councils as credible Witnesses of the Traditionary Sense of the Church before those Controversies were started but were not these Doctrines taught in Scripture were they manifestly repugnant to the plain and evident Principles of Reason all the Councils in the World should never reconcile me to them no more than they should to the Doctrine of Transubstantion And therefore methinks he might have at least allowed us to have challenged the Scriptures as well as General Councils on our side and to have vindicated our Faith from all pretended absurdities and contradictions to Reason But would any man of common sense who had not intended to expose the Faith of the Holy Trinity have told the world at this time of day That we have no other safe and sure bottom for our Faith but only the Authority of General Councils Nay That the Council of Nice it self on whose Authority we must rest had little else themselves for their Determinations but only Authority That it was Authority chiefly carried the Point
And thus for fear we should have believed too much upon the Authority of Councils which is the only bottom he will allow our Faith he gives them a secret stab himself and makes their Authority ridiculous That the several Bishops declared what Faith had been taught and received in their Churches is true That this Authority chiefly carried the Point is false Athanasius grew famous in the Council for his learned and subtile Disputations which confounded the Arians and what Arguments he chiefly relied on we may see in his Works And whoever does but look into the Fathers who wrote against the Arians in those days will find that their Faith was resolved into Scripture and Reason and not meerly or chiefly into Authority And thus he comes to be Plain and Succinct and tells us That of all Controversies we can touch upon at present this of the Trinity is the most unreasonable the most dangerous and so the most unseasonable It is the most Unreasonable 1. Because it is on all hands confess'd the Deity is Infinite Unsearchable Incomprehensible and yet every one who pretends to Write plainer than another on this controversy professes to make all Comprehensible and easy I perceive he is well versed in Mr. Hobbs's Divinity though I can discover no marks of his skill in Fathers and Councils For this was Mr. Hobb's reason why we should not pretend to know any thing of God nor inquire after his Attributes because he has but one Attribute which is that he is Incomprehensible and as this Author argues It is a small favour to request of Persons of Learning that they should be consistent with and not contradict themselves that is That they would not pretend to know any thing of God whom they acknowledge to be Incomprehensible which is to pretend to know what they confess cannot be known Now I desire to know Whether we may Dispute about the Being and Nature of God and his essential Attributes and Perfections and vindicate the Notion of a Deity from those Impossibilities Inconsistencies Absurdities which some Atheistical Philosophers charge on it notwithstanding that we confess God to be Incomprehensible And if the Incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature does not signifie that we can know nothing of God and must inquire nothing about him the Trinity of Divine Persons is as proper an object of our Faith and modest Inquiries as the Unity of the Divine Essence for they are both Incomprehensible And to say That every one who pretends to write plainer than another on this Controversy professes to make all comprehensible and easy may with equal Truth and Authority be charg'd on all those who undertake to vindicate the Notion and Idea of a God or to explain any of the Divine Attributes and Perfections A finite mind cannot comprehend what is infinite but yet one man may have a truer and more perfect Notion of the Nature and Attributes of God than another God is Incomprehensible in Heaven as well as on Earth and yet Angels and Glorified Spirits know God after another manner than we do There must be infinite degrees of knowledge when the object is infinite and every new degree is more perfect than that below it and yet no Creature can attain the highest degree of all which is a perfect comprehension So that the knowledge of God may increase every day and men may Write plainer about these matters every day without pretending to make all that is in God even a Trinity in Unity comprehensible and easy This is a spiteful and scandalous imputation and is intended to represent all those who undertake to write about the Trinity and to vindicate the Primitive Faith of the Church from the scorn and contempt of Hereticks as a company of vain-conceited presuming but ignorant Scriblers who pretend to make the Incomprehensible Nature of God comprehensible and easy But the comfort is we have so good Company that we are able to bear this Charge without blushing even General Councils and those great Lights of the Church Athanasius St. Hillary St. Basil the Gregories St. Chrysostom St. Austin and many others besides all those who in all succeeding Ages to this day have with equal Zeal and Learning defended the same Cause and yet never profess'd to make all comprehensible and easy All that any man pretends to in vindicating the Doctrine of the Trinity is to prove that this Faith is taught in Scripture and that it contains no such Absurdities and Contradictions as should force a Wise man to reject it and either to reject the Scriptures for its sake or to put some strained and unnatural senses on Scripture to reconcile it to the Principles of Reason and this I hope may be done by those who yet acknowledge the Divine Nature and the Trinity in Unity to be Incomprehensible But here he had a very fair opportunity had he thought fit to take it to correct the Insolence and Presumption of his Learned Writers of Controversy who will not allow the Divine Nature to be Incomprehensible and will not believe God himself concerning his own Nature beyond what their Reason can conceive and comprehend Who deny Prescience for the same Reason that they deny the Trinity because they can't conceive it nor reconcile it with the liberty of Human Actions and for the same reason may deny all the Attributes of God which have something in them beyond what we can conceive especially an Eternity without begining and without Succession which is chargeable with more Absurdities and Contradictions than the Trinity it self For a duration which can't be measured and an eternal duration which can be measured and a Succession without a Beginning a Second or Third without a First are unconceivable to us and look like very plain and irreconciâ—â—ble Contradictions This is the true use of the Incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature not to stop all Enquiries after God nor to discourage our Studies of the Divine Nature and Perfections for we may know a great deal and may every day increase our knowledge of what is Incomprehensible thô we cannot know it all but to check the presumption of some vain Pretenders to Reason who will not own a God nor believe any thing of God which their Reason cannot comprehend which must not only make them Hereticks but if pursued to its just Consequences must make them Atheists or make such a God as no body will own or worship but themselves a God adequate and commensurate to their Understandings which must be a little finite comprehensible God In the next place to prove how unreasonable it is to Dispute in Vindication of the Trinity he observes again That this Matter has been sufficiently determined by due Authority but having answered this once I see no need to answer it again To back this he adds That the present issue shews that in this World it never will be better understood for it seems as he says The Master of the Sentences and some Modern Writers