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
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
value the Authority of Councils no more than he does that of the Church of England The Dean he tells us demands of him Would he believe such absurd Doctrines as some represent the Trinity in Vnity to be merely upon Church-Authority To which he returns an Answer by which 't is not easy to apprehend what he means He says he is not press'd with any such absurd â—octrines It may be he is not for I am not sure tho he pretends the contrary now and then that he believes any more of the Trinity than the Socinians do But if he believes what the Church of England teacheth the Socinians I am sure do press him as well as others with pretended Absurdities Now as for such forms of speaking as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conglorified and the like he thinks we must receive them only from Church-Authority and would have those who defend them which I think he does not care to do urge nothing else The Fathers indeed good men thought the sense of these words was in Scripture and so doth he admitting what we judge good Consequents out of Scripture to be of the same truth with Scripture but poor man he confesses he is not able to prove it nor to convince others who do not think so and because he cannot convince them he thinks no body else can which may be true if he knows his men to be convinced for some men will never be convinced and some others have as little mind to convince them But he goes on Demonstrate to the world this to be the Sense of Scâ—ipture and the Controversy is at an end If he means prove it by good and sufficient Reason this we say may easily and often has been done and yet the Controversy is not at an end and I fear never will be while there are such Peacemakers as he is fluttering about the world But when he calls upon us to demonstrate this I hope he does not mean Mathematical Demonstrations unless he has a mind to trepan us into the Nouvelles and as for any other Demonstrations if he cannot give them others can if he will secure them from his Earnest Suits Well but if we can't demonstrate this we must own this to be the state of our Evidence We have for the Orthodox side Scripture interpreted by the Tradition of the Church This at length resolves it self mainly into Church-Authority This were true if there were no other certain way of knowing the true Sense of Scripture but Church-Authority for this sets aside Scripture and resolves all at last into Church-Authority and he himself has made that too contemptible to be a sure Foundation for Faith but the Scripture was so writ by the Divine Penmen as to be understood and tho a Traditionary Sense of Scripture be a very good Confirmation of what according to the ordinary rules of expounding Scripture appears to be the true and genuine Sense of it yet no Authority ought so far to over-rule us as â—â— persuade us to believe that to be the true Sense of Scripture which neither the usual signification of the words nor the circumstances of the place nor the contexture of tâ—e Reasoning proves to be so And this was the Question he ought to have Answered the Dean Whether he would have believed such things as the Socinians say are very Contradictions and Absurd and which he himself does not say are not absurd merely upon Authority though this Authority pretends Scripture without any Reason to be on its side But still he has a farther fetch which the Dean was so dull as not to smell out nor I believe would any man else though he had attended his words never so strictly and it is this that some other Concurrent Power should be called in to end this Controversy I suppose by imposing silence on all Parties This carries a show of greater impartiality than our Author usually expresses for then the Socinians as well as the Orthodox must have their hands tied up But I doubt this is not such a very fair proposal when 't is thoroughly considered for this must not be done till the Hereticks are first gratified and the Forms of Worship which some mens Consciences can't bear made easy that is the Doctrine of the Trinity thrown out of the Liturgy thank him for his extraordinary Civility to the Church of England And then no matter how severe the Laws be against any who shall write or speak more in the Controversy that is I suppose every man shall be punished who shall presume to speak one word for as well as against the Trinity and pretend to teach any such Doctrine for saying any thing of it either in the Desk or Pulpit will be speaking in the Controversy Now this I think will not amount to much less than determining the Controversy on the Sociniâ—ns side for to prohibit the teaching or asserting the Doctrine of the Trinity or the explaining of those Texts which do assert it looks very like determining that there is no such thing or at least that 't is no matter whether men believe it or no or in what sense they take the Scripture words so they do but agree to use the words But to proceed with our Author he professes a great Reverence for the Council of Nice whether in earnest or in jest let the Reader judge and speaks a great many fine things in behalf of it not worth repeating And then he falls foul upon Athanasius and his Disputations taking a hint from what the Dean said concerning his Learned and Subtil Disputations which confounded the Arians of which this Author for brevities sâ—ke and to keep close to the business in hand gives us a tedious Historical Account which is many times a very good way of dropping the main Point besides that it is always easier to tell a story than to reason well And to what other purpose all this Account serves he may guess that can for my part I see so little in it that I think it time lost to consider it any farther For I cannot understand how it proves that the Council of Nice did rely chiefly on Authority as our Author asserts and that â—heir Faith was not as the Dean says it was resolved into Scripture and Reason When he shows how his Story will prove this which was the thing in debate I will seriously consider his Quotations but in the mean time I shall leave him to read his History-Lectures to the walls and pass on a Page or two farther where we shall meet with a Masterpiece of Wit and Reason in some Learned Remarks on the Athanasian Creed which may well enough divert a Reader who is disposed for a little Mirth but will signify little to one that has a mind to be Serious But however he cannot forbear an instance or two oâ—t of that Creed to shew how apt that Creed is to lead men to mistake the Truth and to prosess Heresies and Blasphemy I suppose
at And yet I fear the Dean and he would not be at the same thing The Dean would have it and has proved it That the Doctrine of Three Persons and One God is contained in Scripture Now if I can guess at the meaning of the Standerâ—y this very Attempt put him into a Melancholy Fit and therefore he desires no man would meddle with this Controversy This was the design of his Book to persuade us not to meddle with this Controversy but to leave every man to take the words of Scripture in what sense he pleases and this I take to be different from the Dean's design of proving this Doctrine to be contain'd in Scripture and so the Dean's own Profession tho he stand to it will not bring the business so near a Compromise For I doubt that if we should grant our Author what he says That Three such Persons as the Deâ—n has defined are not asserted in Scripture yet he would not be so kind to the Church of England as to grant that Three Real Persons are there asserted which we know the Socinians deny and put strained and unnatural senses on Scripture to reconcile it to their Principles of Reason and did so long before the Dean gave any Definition of a Person or said one word in the Controversy But after all he has not fairly represented the Dean's words but has stopped where he thought fit as if the Dean had only said That all any man pretended to was to prove that this Faith is taught in Scripture whereas he went farther and added and that it contains no such Absurdities and Contradictions as should force a wise man to reject it c This I doubt the Stander-by does not love to hear of That there is no Absurdity no Contradiâ—tion in the Doctrine of the Trinity In the next Page he proceeds to account for his last reason he assign'd for the present Vnreasonableness of some mens agitating this Controversy He should have cleared his Accounts as he went along and said something more to the purpose in justification of his other Reasons before he came to the last but it may be he has a good excuse and therefore we will be contented to attend his motions Here then he tells us That the Dean calumniates him when he affirmeth this to be the Sum of his Argument That to vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity against Socinians will make men Atheists Now I desire any man to look upon his words and see if it be not so for he addresses his Suit to All who write in Vindication of the Trinity to forbear writing and to this purpose he tells them 't is unreasonable to controvert this Point and the Reason he brings to prove his Assertion is That hereby our Church at present is and the common Christianity it may be feared will be more and more daily exposed to Atheistical men by what I pray by Vindicating the Doctrine of the â—riniâ—y This is the plain sense of his words tho now he is asham'd of it and would have us believe the Sum of all was only this Such Vindications as that writ by Dr. Sherlock he should have added or by any other Learned Writers of Controversy at present at least Dr. Wallis tend rather to make men Atheists than to convert Socinians If this be allâ—he meant it were to be wish'd he would learn to speak plainer Why did he not plainly say he was not against mens writing in Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity but that he only disliked Dr Sherlock ' s Vindication But whatever the Doctor 's Vindication will do I am sure our Antapologists Politick Method for men to agree in the bare sound of words and no body to know what they mean by them or to take them in opposite and contradictory Senses would expose us and our Faith to the just Scorn of Atheists and Scepticks who by the same Art might subscribe all the Articles of the Christian Creed and yet believe never a word of the Gospel In the next Section he comes to the Secret which the Dean told him That Atheists and Deists Men who are for no Religion are of late very Zealous Socinians and which the Dean urges as a good reason why we should at present be Zealous against Socinanism and so undoubtedly it is and a far better than any he has urged to the contrary For the truth of the matter of Fact 't is notoriously known and needs no proof To invalidate this Argument I can't find that he has said one word but instead of this according to his usual way of Digressions he puts off the Reader with an Account of his Friendship and Acquaintance which he holds with no Atheists nor Deists but only with some Virtuous Rationalists and that his Virtuous Rationalists do not ridicule this Faith This Virtuous Rationalist is a new Name and I 'am afraid signifies either a Deist or a Socinian for other Men are not ashamed of their known Characters and if they do not ridicule the Doctrine of the Trinity no thanks to their good Nature nor to their good Manners they do their best as he has done to ridicule it but it is a Doctrine that won't be ridicul'd Thus much for the unreasonableness of this Controversy about the Holy Trinity In the next place he objects the Danger of it and his Argument for that is That it is a Fundamental of our Religion Now to litigate concerning a Fundamental is to turn it into a Controversy that is to unsettle at least endanger the unsetling the whole Superstructure Now in Answer to this the Dean had proved That there was very great reason to dispute and settle Fundamentals when Hereticks endeavour to unsettle them and ask'd this Author Whether the Being of a God were not a Fundamental And whether that were a good reason not to dispute for the Being of a God because Atheists denied it This made him ashamed to own his Argument and therefore he charges the Dean with misrepresenting it His pretended Misrepresentation is that he did not say That the Doctrine of the Trinity was a Fundamental in general but only if duly stated and therefore not a Fundamental as unduly stated by the Dean This is so trifling an Evasion that it is hardly worth the while to expose it Was the dispute whether the Dean should write in defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity or whether the Doctrine of the Trinity should be defended Was his Argument urged to prove that it was dangerous for the Dean whom he never named before to defend the Doctrine of the Trinity by his mistaken Notion of it or that it was dangerous to dispute a Fundamental To show the folâ—y of this pretence let us put his Argument into Mode and Figure wherein his Fundamental Doctrine of the Trinity as duly stated can be only the minor Proposition 'T is dangerous to litigate touching a Fundamental or to turn a Fundamental into a
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
the Trinity is That it makes sport for Papists To which the Dean answers It must be disputing against the Trinity then not disâ—uting for it for they are very Orthodox in this Point and never admitted any man to â—heir Communion who disowned this faith or declared that he thouâ—ht it at any time unreasonable dangerous or unseasonablâ— to dispute for it when it was Violently opposed This he thinks fit to return no answer to but only to deny that the Dean took any notice of it but says it was too warm for him and that he let it slip through his fingers The Dean observed farther that if this Argument to prove the unseasonableness of this Controversy in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity in this juncture from the necessity of Union of Counsels and joining of hands and hearts for the Preservation of the Reformation have any Force it must signify that we shall never join against a common enemy whose Successes â—ould endanger the Reformation while there are any Religious Disputes among us which is a confession that every Schism in the Church is a new Party and Faction in the State which are always troublesome to Government when it wants their help He seems surprizâ—d at this as not aware of this Consequence the truth of which he has not Confidence enough to deny nor Reason enough to answer but only sences a little for his beloved Socinians as a very small inconsiderable Party and so quiet and peaceable in their Principles that there is no danger of their disturbing Government Now if all this be true it only proves the Impertinency of his Argument for then we may still write against the Socinians and yet unite Counsels and join hands and hearts to preserve the Reformation of which the Sociniâ—ns as the Dean before urged and he thought fit to take no notice of are no part And now passing by some poor trifling reflections we must come to his mind in a passage of more weight but pray What are these trifling Reflections which he is so good natured as to pass by They are only some Reflections on his Answer to an Objection started by himself in these Words shall we tamely by a base silence give up the Point Of which he tells us there is no danger for a wise Reason viz. That the Established Church is in possession of it and the Aâ—versaries of the received Doctrine cannot alter our Articles of Religion Now this Answer is apparently weak and the insufficiency of it is shown by the Dean in a few words as indeed a few are enow to do it and I suspect he passes by these Reflections upon a very reasonable account because he could not answer them I shall not therefore trouble my Reader with the Repetition of them nor ask our Author any Question for fear he should say I fall on Catechising him which possibly will not agree with a man of a negative Belief But it may be the Reader will not be angry if I ask him a Question or two Whether because our Articles oblige us to profess our Faith in the Holy Trinity this be a good reason why we should not defend it And if the Socinians as he tells us have a Zeal too no less ardent than that of Church men Whether this be a reason why we should by a base silence suffer them to spread their Poyson without contradicting them If our Author were to Answer this question I suppose he would in his Melancholy fit say yes by all means for if no body Disputes with them they will leave off Disputing But will they leave off Perverting the People Will they leave off making Proselytes to their Heretical Opinions Nor do I believe after all that the charms of our Author 's Melancholy Suit and Peaceable Rhetorick would be able to silence them though no body should Write against them For why then did they unprovoked make the first Onset and as soon as they thought the times would bear it openly Disperse their envenomed Libels which I don't question but they would have done sooner if they had thought it safe If our Author had told us they had no ardent Zeal his argument would have been much more to the purpose for then indeed there would have been more reason to neglect them since there would have been less reason to fear the spreading of the infection Well but whether they will leave off Disputing or no 't is fit we should and neglect them till a fit time and place which is the weighty passage that the Dean will not understand but however whether he will understand or no we must wait for this fit time and place before we open our Mouths in Defence of the Truth I wonder our Author would not stay for them before he writ against the Deans gross pack of Errors as he is pleased to stile them for certainly according to his own rule he ought to have remained a Stander-by as Melancholy as he pleases till what he himself calls a fit time and place were come For it seems tho the Dean thought the present a fit time not upon those Reasons which he himself gives and which our Author has not Confuted but as our Author who I suppose by this time has got the gift of discerning Spirits faith because he had leisure and a mind to give the world some new specimen of his skill in Dispute and for other reasons that the world talk of yet all these Reasons are not able to convince him but that the fittest time and place is a full House of Convocation And if we grant this may not the present also be a fit time till the other can be compass'd tho not the fittest and the fittest persons a Committee chosen by that great and reverend Assembly Here I had a great mind to be at the old way of Questions but since he is so afraid of being catechis'd I must to humour him put the case Categorically and besides referring him to what the Dean has already said tell him what exceptions I have against his Proposals which I look upon as neither reasonable nor practicable for certainly there is no great reason why those Doctrines which have been so long since defined by a Convocation should never be defended against the assaults of scornful Cavillers and Opposers till a Convocation can meet and order an Answer to their scandalous Pamphlets and then overlook it again before it goes to the Press And I think the Authority lodged in the Archbishop and Bishop of London to License Books may be sufficient to justify any man whom they approve in Writing in Defence of the Established Doctrine without waiting for a New Convocation Or else what was that Authority lodged there for I hope not to license Books against the Doctrine of the Church nor yet merely to license such as do not at all meddle with the Doctrines of our Religion And if this Authority be sufficient we know the Dean was thus far
he does not particularly know this which it is certain might have passed without any of their Consents and how many dissented I never enquired his Opinion Belief or Disbelief must be owing only to his Inclination And if we could suppose what God be thanked there is no danger of the Majority of the Lords anâ— Commons to have as little understanding of and Zeal for the Catholick Faith as our Author has we might have a Socinian Creed made without the Assent of one English Bishop or at least such Articles of Communion framed as would admit all manner of Hereticks into the Bosom of the Church and allow all to be Orthodox Christians that believe but as well of Christ as the Mahometâ—ns do And this our Author at least as far as concerns those Hereticks for whom alone he is Advocate at present hopes to see done for he hopes that Authority namely King and Parliament will in time relax what more is necessary for such an Vnion as is possible to be patched up by a Latitude of Faith and a Negative Belief I hope they will not and think there is reason to conclude from some late Proceedings that they will not But we must not pass by his Reflections on the Dean's wonted Civility in Taxing him with pretending to give an account of Acts of Parliament as he doth of other Books without seeing them This is indeed very uncivil not to believe a man except he produces Witnesses that heard or saw him read the Act and since he thinks this a hardship I will not give him the trouble but I must needs say there was no reason for the Dean to think otherwise before for by the account which he gives of this Act no man that thought that he had either Sense or Sincerity or Modesty could imagine that he had ever seen it but was imposed upon by hear-say or by a hasty conclusion that because it was an Act of Indulgence to Dissenters it must certainly Indulge the Innocent and true Protestant Socinians among the rest This would have been his best excuse and much more allowable than still to stand to it That other Dissenters have benefit by that Act who do not renounce Sociâ—ianism contrary to the express words of the Act. But let us see how he makes it good What then do you think of a tâ—cit connivance at their stay at home I think there is no such Connivance allowed by the Act nor can I believe it is the meaning of the words of the â—ct or the design of those who made it And I am sure this Melancholy Dream of a tacit Connivance is a very scandalous representation of the Bishops and of the whole Parliament for this is to tolerate Atheism Deism and Profaneness and to give men free Liberty not only to be of what Religion they will but of none at all if they like that better But then What do you think of a tacit Connivance quietly to come to our Congregations This I think is no new favour but what was always openly allowed to all who were not Excommunicate and is very far from a Tacit Approbation or â—oleration of their Erroneous Opinions to let them come thither where they cannot join with us but they must be supposed to renounce these Errors for I am sure there is no allowance in the Act for them to join with us only in such parts of our Worship as do not expresly relate to the Holy Trinity any more than to hold separate Assemblies of their own without declaring their Faith in the Holy Trinity And then for his Vetuit inquiri I wonder where he will find it there is no such thing in the Act and I believe any Lawyer will satisfy him that what Law was in force against Socinianism before is so still and the same Inquisition may be made after them but if any whose business it is to discover such Offenders or punish them when known will neglect their Duty 't is their Connivance and not the Law that affords Impunity But I wonder what makes him Dream of a tacit Connivance for Socinians because they are expresly excepted ' â—is just as if he should say the Articles of the Church of England give a tacit Connivance to them because they require every man to renounce their Errors and to Confess his Faith in the Holy Trinity This is an excellent Argument to prove all Hereticks true Church of England men even though they should Write Earnest Suits and enter their Protests against Her But if this will not do he now has and then had in his head though he had not occasion to out with it another favour shown by the Parliament to Dissenters not by this Act indeed but by a former Statute which took away the Writ de Haeretico Comburendo which it seems he was afraid might hurt his Socinâ—an Friends in case some such of their Friends as Mr. â—ean were in the place they affect but now he says he hopes this custom here is in a fair way to be aboliâ—â—ed This is so silly that I can hardly call it spiteful for its silliness is an Antidote against its spite every one knows that Writ was taken away to secure the Church of England against the fears of a Popish Successor which was the only danger of reviving that Writ which had been so long out of use that it was hardly known among Protestants Which argues no great tendernâ—ss in him for the Church of England to insinuate so vile an Accusation as if this practice of Burning Hereticks had been so very customary that he can still only hope that an Act of Parliament can put a stop to it His Conclusion is so Rambling and so very Furious that I begin to fear his Melancholy has some spice of Frenzy in it and therefore it is time to leave off Disputing without returning the Compliments or Advice which he has given the Dean at Parting FINIS Earn Suâ— p. 7. Antap. p. 1. Ant. p. 11. p. 2. Ant. p. 3. Sect. 2. P. 4. Ant. p. 5. Ant. Sect. 3. Ant. p. 5. Ant. p. 5. P. 8. P. 11. P. 12. Sect. 7. p. 18. Sect. 8. p. 20. P. 2â— Sect. 9. p. 21. P. 23. P. 23. P. 25. p. 27. Sect. 11. P. 27. p. 28. p. 28 29. Sect. 12. p. 30. Apol. p. 8. Antap. p. 30. p. 3â— p. 31. p. 31. p. 31. p. 31. P. 31. Sect. 14 p. 33 Sect. 15 p. 34. P. 3â— p. 39. p. 39. p. â—â— p. 41. pâ— 42. p. 43. Pâ— 43. P. 44. Eâ—rn Suit p 7. Antap p. 44. Sect. 19. p. 45. P. 31. Ant. p. 51. Ant. p. 51. Ant. p 51. Earn Sâ—â—â— P. 10. Ant. P. 51. Ant. p. 52. P. 52. Apol. p. 26. Ant. p. 52. P. 53. P. 53. Apol. p. 26. Ant. p. 53. P. 54. Ant. p. 55. Sect. 25. Ear. Suit p. 11. Ant. p. 55. P. 54. Sect. 125. P 55.