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
The DEAN of St. PAUL's APOLOGY FOR Writing against SOCINIANS c. Imprimatur Geo. Royse R. R mo in Christo Patri ac Dom. Dom. Johan Archiep. Cant. Ã Sacris Domest Jan. 17. 1692 3. AN APOLOGY FOR Writing against SOCINIANS IN DEFENCE OF THE DOCTRINES OF THE Holy Trinity and Incarnation In ANSWER to a Late Earnest and Compassionate Suit for Forbearance to the Learned Writers of some Controversies at present By WILLIAM SHERLOCK D. D. Dean of St. Paul's Master of the Temple and Chaplain in Ordinary to Their MAJESTIES LONDON Printed for Will. Rogers at the Sun over-against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet street 1693. AN APOLOGY FOR Writing against SOCINIANS c. AFTER a long silence and patient expectation what the Learned Writers of some Controversies at present as a late Author calls them would bring forth I intend by the Assistance of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnate Jesus whose Blessing I most earnestly Implore to resume the Defence of the Catholick Faith which I shall Publish in some few short Treatises as I can find Leisure for it that I may not discourage my Readers by too Voluminous a Work But before I venture to Dispute these matters any farther it is necessary to make some Apology for Disputing which is thought very Unchristian and Uncharitable and of dangerous Consequence especially when we undertake the Defence of the Fundamentals of our Faith against the rude and insolent Assaults of Hereticks Sometime since A Melancholy Stander-by would be a Stander-by no longer but interposed An Earnest and Compassionate Suit for Forbearance to the Learned Writers of some Controversies at present These Learned Writers of Controversy are the Socinians who ridiculed without any Learning or Common Sense the Athanasian Creed and the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation The Forbearance he desires is That no body should write against them though Dr. Wallis and my self are more immediately concerned in this Suit Who this Melancholy Stander-by is I shall not enquire for my Controversy is not with Men but with Doctrines and I know by experience that common fame is not always to be trusted much less suspicions but if he be a Divine of the Church of England it seems very strange that he should profess himself a Stander-by when the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith are in question and a Melancholy Stander-by to see some others undertake the Defence of it I confess I am always very jealous of men who are so very Tender on the wrong side for observe it when you will their Tenderness is always owing to their Inclination But to defend our selves let us briefly consider what he says He thinks The open Dissentions of its Professors a great blemish to the Reformation That is that it is a great blemish for any men openly to defend the true Faith which others openly oppose or secretly undermine but certainly it would be a greater blemish to the Reformation to have Old Heresies revived and the true Ancient Catholick Faith scorned and no body appear in the Defence of it But we know his mind That it is for the honour of the Reformation not to Dispute though it be for the most Important Truths Surely our Reformers were not so much against Disputing But if these Dissentions be so great a blemish to the Reformation whose Fault is it Theirs who dissent from the Truth or theirs who defend it This is a very plain case for no body would oppose the Truth if no body taught it The urging too strict an Union in matters of Faith begets dissentions That is to require an open and undisguised Profession of our Baptismal Faith in Father Son and Holy Ghost as the Terms of Christian Communion is the Criminal Cause of our Dissentions Well What shall we do then Renounce the Faith of the Trinity for the sake of Peace This he dares not say for that would pull off his disguise but Christianity must be left in that Latitude and Simplicity wherein it was delivered by our Lord and his Apostles This had been a good Proposal would he have told us what this Latitude and Simplicity is for I am for no other Faith than what Christ and his Apostles taught But I would gladly know what he means by the Latitude of Faith For if the Christian Faith be such a broad Faith must we not believe the whole breadth of it Or has Christ and his Apostles left it at liberty to believe what we like and to let the rest alone To believe that Father Son and Holy Ghost are One Supreme Eternal God or to believe that the Eather alone is the True God the Son a mere Man and the Holy Ghost nothing but a Divine Inspiration To believe that the Eternal Word was made Flesh or that Christ was no more than a Man who had no being before he was born of the Virgin Mary He can mean nothing else by this Latitude of Faith but that Christ and his Apostles have left these matters so ambiguous and undetermined that we may believe what we please and then indeed those do very ill who dispute these matters But this is such a breadth as has no depth for such a Faith as this can have no foundation Can we certainly learn from Scripture Whether Christ be a God Incarnate or a mere Man If we cannot Why should we believe either If we can then one is true and the other false and then there is no Latitude in Faith unless Christ and his Apostles have left it indifferent whether we believe what is true or what is false what they have taught us or what we like better our selves In the same manner he leaves us to guess what he means by the Simplicity of the Faith He is very angry with the School-Doctors as worse enemies to Christianity than either Heathen Philosophers or persecuting Emperors Pray what hurt have they done I suppose he means the Corruption of Christianity with those barbarous Terms of Person Nature Essence Subsistence Consubstantiality c. which will not suffer Hereticks to lye concealed under Scripture-Phrases But why must the Schoolmen bear all the blame of this Why does he not accuse the Ancient Fathers and Councils from whom the Schoolmen learnt these Terms Why does he let St. Austin escape from whom the Master of the Sentences borrowed most of his Distinctions and Subtilties But suppose these Unlucky Wits had used some new Terms have they taught any new Faith about the Trinity in Unity which the Catholick Church did not teach And if they have only guarded the Christian Faith with a hedge of Thorns which disguised Hereticks cannot break through Is this to wound Christianity in its very Vitals No no They will only prick the fingers of Hereticks and secure Christianity from being wounded and this is one great Cause why some men are so angry with the School-Doctors tho the more general Cause is because they have not Industry enough to read or understand them He