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-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