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
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
which the Apostles left the Faith He says To leave Faith in the Latitude in which it was delivered is to impose no Determinations of such words i.e. of such words as may carry with them different Notions as necessary to Salvation but to allow each Person to believe the matter propounded in one of those senses whatever it be which the words naturally bear and which in his Conscience he judges truest This don't seem either safe or reasonable because a Word or Phrase may naturally be capable of divers senses and yet it may be demonstrable that in one place it must be taken in one sense and in another place in another sense so that to take it in the wrong sense in either place may be Ridiculous Absurd and Heretical Now I am persuaded that the Apostles never intended to leave Faith in this Latitude nor was it reasonable they should for then we need profess but one General Article That the Scriptures are true and every man should be left to make what he would of them which would be a pretty and easy kind of Unity of Faith comprehending all or at least almost all Heresies for which some places of Scripture are always urged by their Abettors which seem to them naturally to signify what they assert or at least they say so and our Author has told us in another place That we are to believe them in what they constantly profess But if he means only That we should not impose any more determinate Signification on such Words than what the Apostles appear to have design'd them in nor limit them to such Specialties as they cannot be proved to be limited to in Scripture we agree with him But this will not serve his Cause for here we must take in the Circumstances of the Place the Coherence with other Texts c. and then we will limit them no farther than what evidently appears to be the true sense of them and so far we think it reasonable to limit them and not to leave every one to interpret them as he fancies and yet be obliged to account him Orthodox and not to oppose his False and Erroneous Interpretations which is to permit all Heresies to go on and never say a word against them But I hope he will allow That all Scripture has some determinate Sense or else it signifies nothing and that this Sense in the great Articles of Faith is obvious and intelligible to Impartial Diligent and Unprejudiced Seekers and that as far as this determinate Sense we ought all to agree For tho in some lesser matters we cannot easily fix this determinate Sense nor know certainly what it is and therefore may without any great danger be ignorant and may own our Ignorance yet as to the Prime Articles of our Faith we ought certainly to understand them in some determinate sense tho under that Compass some Specialties may be contain'd to either of which it is not necessary to determine our Assent for else indeed we do not understand them at all and do only repeat a huddle of words when we confess our Faith Now if our Author can show me some plain determinate Sense of those Places which we urge that comprehends under it both what we assert and what the Socinians maintain only as such Specialties either of which may agree with the natural Sense and plain Meaning of the Words in all those places I will join with him in desiring no body to write against the Socinians at least not with any Warmth or Zeal as allowing them to be no Hereticks nor involved in any dangerous Errors In the next Paragraph because the Dean was not good at guessing he will explain what he meant by Simplicity of Faith and not any longer leave it to guess though he first of all gives the Dean liberty to take it in what sense he please even in that of Foolishness and thinks that the Apostle would in a sort justify the expression but neither the Apostle nor common sense will justify the pertinency of it in this place He tells us then that he really meant Plainness Vnmixedness Purity and I believe the Dean is as desirous as he that the Faith should be preserved as Plain and as Pure as the Apostles left it and yet I fancy that will not hinder him nor any man else from defending it against the rude Assaults of Hereticks nor from using reason in its Defence For the Dean's design is to keep the Christian Faith Pure and Vnmixt from Heretical Glosses which make it quite another thing than what the Apostles left it and not as our Author fears to vamp Philosophy into Faith But now the Dean must answer for what he has presumed to say in favour of the Schoolmen and must be confuted from his own words for asking such an unreasonable question as What hurt have they done And here he spends Three Pages to show his own reading and the Schoolmens Follies and particularly those of the Master of the Sentences but I have more wit than to follow him through all these Particulars In short therefore I suppose the Dean did not intend to justify every thing that they said but only thought they had done no harm by the words Person Nature Essence Subsistence and Consubstantiality which the Dean expresly mention'd and thought them a good Defence against Hereticks concealing themselves under Scripture-Phrases And that the Dean did not intend to vindicate them in all things nor to fix on them the Character of Infallibility is plain from what our Author cites And that the use of these words hath done more harm than good I leave our Author to prove at his leisure and so pass over all his tedious Harangue against the School-Doctors let him bang them about by himself and vent his displeasure against them as long as he will it may be a good exercise and serve to divert his Anger from the Church of England and its Orthodox Defenders But how he and the Animadverter will agree the matter I cannot guess And it may be 't was this that mollified his Displeasure by that time he came to the Fathers who otherwise were like to have smarted for the same kind of Folly but now are like to come off pretty well and he has given us a reason for it which I like well because it argues some Modesty He owns they are guilty as well as the School-Doctors but his respect would not let him expose their Venerable Names He has indeed caught them in a great fault but he is so kind as to let them escape I am glad he has so much reverence for the Ancient Doctors I only wish he had as much for the Ancient Faith and would let that escape his Lashes too But the Dean accuses him of not understanding or not reading the Schoolmen What the Dean tâ—ere says I verily believe may be true but neither does he affirm it to be our Author's case nor will I because he now tells us he
has read them and thinks he doth generally understand them and I had rather take his word than contest that point with him But the Dean says he censured even our English Reformers for retaining Scholastick Cramping Terms in their Publick Prayers This he denies but owns that he did modestly wish that they had observed the same Temper as did the Foreign Reformers which implies that they ought to have done so and yet did not which notwithstanding the Modesty of it I take to be censuring them Nay and is not what follows Censuring our Litany and the Compilers of it If it be not I am sure the Dissenters themselves never censured it But by these Terms the Dean says he means the beginning of the Litany And how comes he to know his thoughts A very pretty question For how should any man with out conjuring know by his own words that he meant the Litany which he prophanely and scornfully ridicules â—ut he meant not that alone a good excuse for it seems he meant also the â—reface in the Communion Service before the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on Trinity Sunday that is Who art one God one Lord not one only Persâ—n but three persons in one Substance for that which we believe of the Glory of the Father the same we believe of the Son and of the Holy Ghost without any difference or inequality And has not that School Divinity enough in it And if this be all the hurt in School Diviniâ—y it will make every good Christian very fond of it for it contains the true â—hristian Faith But because the Dean has pitch'd upon the other he will stick by it Generously done Now let us see how he defends his Censure Luther and Calvin are both called in to help Luther left out that Petition O Ho'y Blessed and Glorious Trinity Three Persons and One God Of which he confesses the Lutherans give another reason viz. That the German Word did not so expresly signify a Trinity as to exclude a Triplicity but he will not allow this to be currant but I suppose they understood I uther's reason better than he And then Calvin disliked it also but so he did Episcopacy and will he think that a sufficient ground to censure our Reformers for retaining it But to what purpose are these Citations Let them be as express as they will they are no Argument to us who are no more bound to acquiesce in their Judgment than our Author is in that of the Compilers of our Liturgy for whom I think he should have as much Reverence as either for Luther or Calvin But other Foreigners also and our Nonconformist Countreymen have strong exceptions against this part of the Litany which he cannot answer as he would I am sorry for it but I hope there are some others in the Church who can How he would have them answered I cannot tell but I suppose he can answer them so as to satisfy himself which sure cannot be without sufficient reason to justify the Lawfulness of these Forms And if that can be done which if it could not he must be a Hypocrite in using them I am sure 't is no sign of a Tenderness for the Credit of the English Reformation to endeavour thus to expose it and to publish what he thinks to be the Infirmities of it when this publication can serve no other end than to encourage men in their opposition to and dislike of the Establish'd Church Certainly it had been more proper to have reserved these Complaints till his fit Time and Place But he will grant that these Forms may be used without sin but yet he judgeth it much safer not to come so near dividing the Deity and so far to distract Devotion But must we not then lay aside the Apostolical Form of Benediction in constant use among us the Doxology and the Form of Baptism for fear of dividing the Deity and distracting Devotion For in all these there is as express distinct and particular mention of Three I dare not add Persons for fear of offending our Author as in the Litany But still he would have these Forms reduced to more Scriptural ones to bring in our own Dissenters whom we ought if possible I hope I may add by reasonable Methods to bring in and unite to us But here I cannot but observe that this and a great deal more of his Book is directly Writing against the received Doctrine of the Trinity and the Established Worship of the Church of England Now what is this to the design of his Book to persuade men not to Write in Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity Did he do that only that he might have liberty to Ridicule and Expose it I must confess 't is a good Argument to engage men not to Write in Defence of this Doctrine of the Church if he can make it out that it ought not to be retain'd But methinks 't is such a kind of Argument that bespeaks a man not so much a Peacemaker as a profest Adversary And besides I would ask him Whether it be less Dangerous and less Vnseasonable at present for him to Write against the Established Doctrine and Worship of the Church than for others to Write in Defence of them In the next Section he tells us That Vnscriptural Words were complained of by the Fathers as well as by Hereticks and by the Fathers first for which he cites St. Athanasius and St. Ambrose whom I am not now at leisure to turn over nor does it seem very material to the present business St. Athanasius he owns Apologizeth for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Necessity of it and if that will be allowed as a good reason I suppose the Dean will not desire more in favour of Vnscriptural Terms and therefore since our Author is willing I think we had as good let this project stand upon its own merits Here then he is very liberal and will allow us to Vindicate Scripture from Heretical Glosses Why then may we not Write in Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity and show what is the true sense of Scripture in that Point And if we may do this Why is it not seasonable to do it now Hereticks are so busy in perverting the true sense of Scripture And if he will grant us this the main design of his Book is overthrown But when we have plainly proved that these words of Scripture contain this sense why should we I suppose he means in our Creeds and Articles change the Words I will tell him one short reason if he does not know it already and that is because when we have proved this to be the true sense of Scripture so as to satisfy honest and unprejudiced Minds yet perverse Hereticks may still take them in their own sense and so we shall be never the nearer the knowledge of their Minds nor able to distinguish them unless we require them to profess they believe them in that
sense which we have proved to be the true sense and then it must be in other Words for though we have shown to all reasonable men what is the true meaning of them and so made the sense of the words plain yet the words are the same that they were and therefore every one who took them in a perverse sense before may do so still if he will Besides why may not any man who believes that to be the true sense which has been shown so to be profess his Belief in those terms when required by the Church as well as in Scripture Words which he takes in the same sense The Dean urges They i.e. Scripture-Words may be undetermined and 't is necessary to fix their true sense But this says our Author is the Difficulty They may rationally at least probably admit of more senses than one c. He gives an example of this which is not very much for his Reputation because it can serve no other end but to overthrow the Personality of the Holy Ghost and his Intimate Conscious Knowledge of God and were my design at present to dispute the sense of particular Texts it were easy to show that it is not the Obscurity of the Text but his own Inclination which makes him fancy his Latitude of Sense but it is a vain thing in such a cause as this to infer a general Rule from a particular Instance For how many instances soever of this nature he could give if he will allow that there are any express Texts for the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which will not admit such a Latitude of sense as he must acknowledge if he will allow the Doctrine of the Trinity to be a Scripture-Doctrine there can be no pretence then to leave such a Fundamental Article in such a Latitude of sense that men may either own or deny a Trinity as they please Further He would be clearly for expressing some fixed true sense of all Controverted Texâ—s in such Words as Hereticks cannot pervert but for two or three Reasons which are worth hearing His first Reason is because he cannot always be sure which sense is most truly affixed But can he never be sure of this in any Texts that have been Controverted If he can then this is no reason why it should not be done in them His second Reason depends upon the first and so must stand or fall with that for where we can be sure which is the true sense of Scripture there is no such danger of changing Faith and changing Scripture by fixing the sense but the greater fear is of having no Scripture if you have no determined sense of it His last Reason as urgent as all the rest is that we cannot tell where to find such Words as Hereticks cannot pervert I grant some Hereticks are so perverse as to wrest almost any words to their own sense or else the Socinians could never have wrested such plain Texts of Scripture and forced them to comply with their Notions But that some words have been found that Hereticks could not pervert is I think undeniable since they have and do frequently refuse to subscribe to them and raise such opposition against them as for instance the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Arians always opposed Now if these words did not plainly contain such a sense as doth expressly contradict their Opinions why should they not profess their Faith in such words He could assign many words pitch'd upon from time to time to guard the Faith and prick the fingers of Hereticks c. What then This is no proof that all words can be perverted or that none were ever pitch'd upon that could not As to the two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Personae pitch'd upon by him and so learnedly Criticis'd upon I shall only say in short that these and such other words as the Church of England delivers her Doctrine in have prick'd the fingers of some men or else what makes the Socinians cry out so There is something plainly signified by them which the Antitrinitarians think not so easily reconcilable to their Opinions as the Words of Scripture are though it be indeed no more than we say and prove to be contain'd in Scripture or else why do they not rest contented with them as well as with the words of Scripture Suppose there are some Homonymies as our Author complains in some words used in this Controversy will these words admit the Heresies against which they are directed Will they admit Socinian Opinions Or do they contradict them If they do then they serve the end for which they were designed notwithstanding these Homonymies Our Author seems to think That Words cannot be found to fix the Sense of Scripture unless the same words will exclude All Heresies concerning the Subject to which they are apply'd which is manifestly absurd For if I confess that God is Almighty in the most express terms that can be imagined may I not for all that affirm that he is not Just or Good And must the word Almighty be rejected because it does nâ—â— exclude All Heresies concerning the Divine Nature though it sufficiently exclude all such Blasphemous Notions as make God a weak and impotent Being Now though I confess Three Persons in the Godhead 't is no wonder that I may nevertheless hold Heresy and Blasphemy and assert Three Gods too but can I under these words mean that there is not a Trinity of Persons as Socinians affirm But Hereticks may here conceal themselves under a larger Latitude of Expression and spread their Heresies with a Traditionary Sense and Comment of their own more exactly and more poisonously then the purity of the Holy Text would have permitted How shall we be able to deal with this man who is so well skilled in the versatile wit of Hereticks that neither Scripture-words nor all the words made use of by the Antient Fathers with great Caution and Judgment are able to hold him I wonder how he knows what either Heresy or Orthodoxy is as to the Doctrine of the Trinity when if we may believe him there are no words that do determinately signify either but both the words of Scripture and Fathers will equally serve both But now we must return to the Latitude of Faith which the Dean tragically complains of him for pleading for c. Here our Author is much out of humour at some Questions which the Dean put to him and I do not wonder that it goes against his stomach to answer them briefly and plainly though he says he will For upon reading his Answers they appear neither brief nor plain nor can I well tell what to make of his tedious harangue for some Pages together The Dean asks him if there be any more Faiths than One to this indeed he answers plainly That Faith as Truth can be but One But then in what follows he makes it neither brief nor plain for though he
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
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
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