be a just and modest Reprehension of him and what I am sure the Man will meekly take But to make him black and odious by all Arts and to talk of reforming him out of the Church for his peaceable Desires and Well-meaning is imperious beyond Measure and what another would call Tyrannical nor will he name what Spirit it bespeaks especially when the great Argument or Foundation of all against what he has said is no better than a Petitio Principii or taking for granted the prime Matter in question namely that the Doctrine of the Trinity as Dr. Sherlock has stated and does defend it is a Fundamental of the Christian Faith This the Dean in his Apology has not offered one Word to prove but quitting his Adversaries and shutting both Eyes and Ears against all that has been said against his Novelties on this Subject violently falls upon exposing the peaceable Man which was indeed much the easier Project but whether either Christian or Honourable the World will judg The melancholy Stander-by had asserted in his 7th Page the Doctrine of the Trinity as duly stated to be one of the Fundamentals of Christian Religion And it is most plain by what he propounds as the Medium of Peace that the stating it according to Scripture and in Scripture-Language he esteems the most due stating it the Dean likes not this says it is a Proposal of old Hereticks and not only would have the Philosophical Terms now a long time usual in this Point received for Peace-sake but as Fundamental in Faith Nay and not content herewith he gives new Definitions of or affixes new Notions to these Terms and would have all pass upon us still under the Colour of Fundamentals The melancholy Stander-by to speak the whole Truth neither could nor can admit either of these namely either that Philosophical Terms never used by Scripture and besides of various Use or uncertain Signification should be made Fundamentals of Faith or that the Doctor 's new Explication of them should pass at all and his Reasons may perhaps appear anon But in what he writ he express'd not this his Dissent so as to contest either of these Points Only as he would not enter into the Controversy himself so he desired chiefly by reason of the Mischief he thought he saw arising from thence it might be at present forborn by all and he is still as willing as ever to decline engaging on either Point only in his own Defence against what the Dean has endeavoured to load him with he must now say that if any should join Issue with the Dean upon the first Article of the Nicene Creed I BELIEVE IN ONE GOD c. which is a Fundamental and the true Catholick and Apostolick Faith It will soon appear that Dr. Sherlock has in his Book contradicted and to his Power overthrown that Faith as much as ever Johannes Philoponus or Joachim the * So the Text of the Decretal stiles him Florentine Abbot or as others the Abbot of Floria or Flency the two greatest and most antient Leaders of the Tritheists ordinarily assigned ever did for according to the best Accounts of them neither of these expresly maintained more Gods than one nay they expresly disclaimed such Assertion only they so taught the Nature and Distinction of three Persons as that their Doctrine inferred three Gods from which Charge the Invention of mutual Consciousness will never clear Dr. Sherlock ' s Definition of a Person in the Godhead for such Consciousness whatever he says to the contrary can infer only an Vnity of Accord not of Substance and Nature whereas it is an Unity of Substance and Nature that the Council and Fathers have held but these things require more Words than the present Design admits To make the Sum of my Sentiments or what I would be at plainer §. 3. The holy Scripture states the Trinity under the Notion of Three bearing witness in Heaven for I have much more to say for that exagitated Text than to allow it wanting in any Copies on any other Reason but their Imperfection and affirms these three one but how they are one it determines not And Faith being a Belief of the Witness of God and Baptism a Seal or Badg of Faith when we are baptized we are baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as owning and assenting to or professing and vowing to acquiesce in their Witness touching all the whole Will of God and Method of Salvation published in the Gospel This is Scripture and here the melancholy Stander-by would stop as to Faith in this Point of the Trinity To the Incarnation there is yet no occasion to speak The Fathers in the Council of Nice did not as far as ever I could perceive by any genuine Monuments of theirs vote the Term three Persons the Incarnation of the Son of God or his Divinity though made Man was the Controversy before them rather than the Trinity and the great Product of that Council was the word Homoousion in Assertion of the Son 's being of the same Substance with the Father But the Greek Fathers of that Age did soon use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in this Case is most aptly rendred Subsistence and contend for three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Subsistences Now as to the common Definition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in divinis that is to my best Memory pretended to be taken out of Justin Martyr by Damascen a Father of much latter Age I said to my best Memory for my Condition is such at present and has been such upward of four Years that I am without the Use of the best part of my Books and now near 150 English Miles distant from a Library Yet I thank God I am Master of Justin and Damascen more ways than one be it spoken without Affront to Dr. Sherlock in case of my having read other Books I had read them near two and thirty Years ago But to return to the Definition spoken of as now I take it out of my old perhaps too imperfect Notes runs thus In the Holy Trinity an Hypostasis is an unbegun or if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Damasâ—en Dialectic cap. ult Word may be pardoned a beginningless manner of the eternal Existence of each that is of Father Son and Holy Ghost So that according to this Author it superadds nothing to the Divine Essence which is one and common to all the three save a bare manner of Existence or Subsistence Only by the way I must note as to the Authority of that Piece in the Works of Justin Martyr whence this Definition comes namely the Expositio rectae fidei it is sufficiently proved by Scultetus Rivet and others to be none of Justin's genuine Works The Latin Fathers which came soon upon the Heels of the Council and of the Greek Fathers above spoken of suspected this Word Hypostasis and St. Jerome particularly contended there
that Infallibility or those Words Some have maintained whatever their Judgment is now I know not nor must concern my self if they use to contradict themselves Some I say have maintained that there is no infallible Judg on Earth nor any need of one being we have as far as is necessary to Salvation an infallible Rule the Scriptures of Truth Suppose then as to the forementioned Place we should take some such ample wide or large Sense as this The Joys and Glories of Heaven the good things which God has prepared for them that love him we could never have known without Divine Revelation nor should ever have had a Sense Relish and Perswasion of without a Work of Illumination and Conviction upon our Minds or more generally without other Aids and Assistances of Grace This well enough sutes with the Text and thus much is sufficient to conclude hence for Salvation or to any Intent of holy Life and this all Protestants will acquiesce in at least none will contradict Why may not we stop then here in this general This restraining of the Word of God from that LATITVDE and Generality and the Vnderstandings of Men from that Liberty wherein Christ and the Apostles left them is and has been the only Foundation of all the Schisms in the Church and that which makes them immortal Mr. Chilling worth Ch. IV. n. 16. Sense without affixing any of those particular Senses to the Text that is Is it not best to leave it in its full Latitude without restraining the word Spirit Further I would be clearly for expressing some fixed true Sense of all controverted Texts in such Words as Hereticks cannot pervert but for two or three Reasons one already mentioned namely that I cannot always be sure which Sense is most truly affix'd and being I am not or cannot be so a second Reason will be that by expressing such Sense in such Words and fixing it to Scripture so that now such Sense should become the Sense of Scripture it being as we know the Sense of Scripture which is the true Faith not meerly the Pag. 7. Words I should fear by this means Mens changing Faith or which is much the same changing Scripture And a third Reason which is as urgent as all the rest is I do not know nor does it appear that any Man knows no nor that any Church or Council ever have known where to find such Words which Hereticks cannot pervert I could assign many Words from time to time pitch'd upon to prick the Fingers of Hereticks and guard the Faith but I will content my self Pag. 5. with two neither of which Mr. Dean can pretend to be unacquainted with they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Personae These we know have been long thought fit Terms to fix the Sense of Scriptures But are they Words which Hereticks cannot pervert or are they not more equivocal and so more pervertable than most of the usual Terms in Scripture The first indeed is several times used singularly in the Greek of the New Testament and rendred constantly by the old Interpreter Substantia but by many Moderns and particularly by our Translators two or three ways Three times that now occur to me by Confidence 2 Cor. 9. 4. and ch 11. 17. Heb. 3. 14. yet in the first of these Places Beza tells us it might have been rendred in hoc fundamento gloriationis which is near the first and natural Import of the Word And Castellio renders it in hâc materiâ Erasmus in hoc argumento which we may fitly english in this Subject of Boasting Once viz. Heb. 11. 1. by Substance which is its Philosophical Acceptation And once by Person which I may call the Ecclesiastical or Scholastical Acceptation of the Word affixed to this Place by Theophilact as it is said by Authority of Gregory Nissen but I have neither by me to consult After all notwithstanding we no where read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture though frequently in the Fathers Suppose then we take this Term Three Hypostases to fix the Sense of that Text There are three that bear Witness in Heaven c. Are there now no more Homonymies of it that yet we have seen Yes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Budaeus is almost the same as Existence and Evil has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for both which he gives good Authority Again Nicephorus Callistus tells us The Word is scarce in use amongst the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hist lib. 10. cap. 15. in Sentent lib. 1. Dist 23. Antients in any certain Signification but the Moderns have frequently used it for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per totam secularium scholam are the same says Estius Now all the World knows that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although used ordinarily by Aristotle for his Predicament of Substance yet more properly signifies Essence or Nature Three Hypostases then may be interpreted three Essences or Natures and under this Term may Tritheism it self in its worse Sense lurk Nor are there wanting those who tell us this very Term led Philoponus into his Heresy Further Bellarmine will have it that Hypostasis properly signifies Substantiam primam which In Controv. de Christo is not necessarily 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a Person but may be any meaner Animate or even an Inanimate individual I could add yet two or three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Niceph. ubi supr more Significations of this Word out of the above-mentioned Nicephorus Callistus who vouches good Authority for the meanest of them which I will not here set down lest the Dean should say I teach People to ridicule the Trinity in their Prayers when I only report the Words of approved Authors to caution others against unadvised and obnoxious Terms But it is plain from what I have said this Term is further from fixing the Sense of Scripture than the Terms of Scripture Next as to the word Persona though that Word be now upon the Authority above-mentioned by Beza brought in and justly too into our modern Translations yet it was true in Aquinas's time and since that too that it was neither in Old nor New Testament used touching God Nomen persona in Scripturis veteris vel novi Testamenti non invenitur dictum de Deo 1. q. 29. â— 3. And when used plurally as the former it must be acknowledged an Ecclesiastical or Scholastical Word sound out as the other for â—ixing if possible the Sense of Scripture to use the Dean's Phrase and does it do it The Dean no doubt knows what Laurentius Valla a Critick but no Socinian says of its Congruity in this Point And it is too trite a Subject to reckon up all its Homonymies I will only remind that it is taken in one Sense in humanis for a single Substance separate and by it self in another in divinis for such a
Council of Nice as most Men living yet I judg there is nothing has more exposed that Council than those tedious and jejune Disputes reported by some to have passed therein I have I say a true and profound Veneration for that Council and esteem it only second to that of the Apostles in Acts 15. Who can think otherwise of it that considers the Number of the Fathers therein or otherwise that reflects on the Quality of many I do not say all of them the Number three hundreed and eighteen their Quality divers of them such who had even at that time bid fair for Martyrdom Confessors of the first Rank that bore in their Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Eccles Hist l. 1. c. 7. Marks of Christ they are Theodoret's Words of them in allusion to the Apostles that had some of them their Hands cut off had been seared and tormented with Fire and otherwise suffered for the Faith of Jesus and of some I remember he says that they had the very Apostolick Gifts of Miracles he mentions one who had raised the Dead The Decrees of such Persons I confess next to those of the Apostles do obtain very much upon me But as to these Decrees in Points of Faith what shall we do for them I know of none but their Creed which asserts indeed the Divinity of the Son and his Consubstantiality with the Father but of the Holy Ghost it makes only a bare mention without asserting any thing only professing simply the Belief of the Holy Ghost This Creed has been most religiously preserved and the Greek Text thereof reputed sacred insomuch that in the Latin Edition of St. Cyril of Alexandria his Dialogues touching the Trinity we have the Greek Text set down intire by it self Admitting therefore this Creed inviolably yet as to the Disputes in this Council by Mr. Dean's Favour we are much to seek Athanasius reports one Dispute he had with Arius but if I mistook not my self when I read it that was in the way to the Council and not in the Council it self for Athanasius being at that time only a Deacon though chief of the Alexandrian Quire of Deacons I am not satisfied that he was admitted so wonderfully to dispute in the Council as Mr. Dean pretends I could give many Reasons for my Opinion herein but for Brevities sake forbear them Then as to the Disputes reported by Gelasius Cyzicenus Photius whose Credit I need not assert censures him as a pitiful and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phot. Biblioth Cod. 15. mean Writer superficial and his Book no more Argumentative than Historical So I render that obscure Passage of my Author cited in the Margin And though Alfonsus Pisanus the Jesuit has lick'd him up and put him off with all the Credit he can yet hear what a late Doctor and Fellow of the Sorbon says of him Genuina act a minimè continet His Book contains not the genuine Acts of the Council nay the Acts Edmund Richer Hist Concil gen l. 1. c. 2. Equidem cum maximo animi moeroredicere cogor nullos extare libros in quibus tot tantáque fictitia scripta quà m in tomis Conciliorum legantur §. 6. thereof never came intirely to us And if not the Acts of the Council much less the Debates whereof the Acts were the Result Gelasius indeed talks of having transcribed and collected what he writes out of old Parchments of Dalmatius Archbishop of Cyzicum which he found intire in his Father's House but either this was a Device to put off his Work with better Colour and Authority or else that Dalmatius if Author of that History was as shallow as himself A better and in these Matters a more judicious Historian though I confess as to the Lives of Saints a little Monkish and Legendary gives us this Account as to the Point in Hand Hosius Bishop of Corduba seems to be the first who brought in to be treated of in Councils I suppose he means the mention of those Words Substance and Subsistence or Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For being sent by Constantine the Emperor to Alexandria for appeasing the Disturbances which Ariu◠had raised there and * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 endeavouring also to pull up by the Roots the Opinion of Sabellius of Libya he moved the Question touching Substance and Subsistence by which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much of a certain contentious kind of trifling the word imports very near what we call Banter was kindled And the Nicene Council which was held at length esteemed that Question unworthy of Debate or Mention But afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when some again began to contend and trifle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 touching this Matter the Synod of Alexandria seems to me wisely to have resolved what I before reported Now the Decree of the Synod of Alexandria which he before reported was this Forasmuch as the Question of Substance and Subsistence or Person has much disturbed the Churches and frequent Contentions and Disputations have heretofore passed touching these Words the Synod of Alexandria having discussed the Signification and proper Import of them has decreed that there is no need of these Terms touching God for the word Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no where found in Holy Writ But St. Paul for the better expressing his Doctrine abused the word Subsistence or Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Notwithstanding this Synod has decreed that these Words should be used after another way when any have occasion to confute the Heresy of Sabellius lest through Want or Dubiousness of Words we should think that in discoursing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God we call one thing by three Names but that every of the Names which we use in the Trinity being trebly distinguish'd should be theologically express'd by a proper Subsistence Thus my Author who also presently after the Passage where I first broke off reports a remarkable Piece of Advice out of Evagrius which I ought not to omit Evagrius Ascetes saith he in his Book of Monasticks disswades us to discourse boldly and on our Heads touching the Deity and would by no means have Men to go about to define God he being most simple For adds he every Proposition or Enunciation contains either some general Nature which is predicated or some special one or else some Difference properly or Accident or somewhat compounded and made up of these But if we can perceive none of these in the Holy Trinity let us adore that with Silence which we cannot utter or declare Nicephor Callist l. 10. c. 15. St. Austin himself whose Authority ought to go vastly further is sometimes in the same strain who though in his numerous Books of the Trinity he sists Veriùs enim cogitatur Deus quà m dicitur veriùs est quam cogitatur De Trin. lib. 7. all as fine as he can yet at length confesses to the same Effect with
my Author last cited the Subject to be beyond Expression For saith he our Thoughts of God are commonly more true than our Expressions But God more truly is than we can think But to return again to History and Mr. Dean The Coessentiality or Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father was the Point determined against Arius in the Council of Nice which was indeed previous or preliminary to one Part of the Doctrine of the Trinity but the Controversy of the Trinity of Persons was not raised but by the Followers of Arius not by himself as Baronius both witnesses and proves and therefore could not be decided in the Council of Nice If therefore we were to stand only to the Decrees of the Council of Nice in the Matter of the Trinity our Faith herein would be comparatively very short For by that Council neither was there affirmed a Trinity of Persons nor Unity of the three It is not therein so much as determined what the Holy Ghost is Mr. Dean therefore did me wrong if he intended those Words The Council of Nice Pag. 13. on whose Authority we must rest namely in Point of the Trinity should be understood to be my Words He may be permitted to confound the learned and subtil Disputations of Athanasius in behalf of the Divinity of Christ which Point indeed was determined in the Council of Nice and the Controversy of the Trinity in Unity to which there was some considâ—â—â—â—â— Advance made in the Council of Constantinople he I say may be admitted to confound these two together and to rest for both upon the single Authority of the Council of Nice because in that Council he will find Athanasius and so may hope to hook in the Confession commonly called the Creed of St. Athanasius I use the Terms of our own Liturgy but I expresly avouched the Authority of the Nicene and first Constantinopolitan Councils in Conjunction as having betwixt them setled the Doctrine of the Trinity yet not in the hard Words which after-Ages used For in these two Councils though there be in effect three Persons declared yet is not the term three Persons used but both the Matter and the Language wherein the Decision is made looks much liker that of the Scripture than what we find in a certain later Creed when Men proceeded to draw Consectaries from these Councils Definitions and put such their Consectaries into hard artificial and intricate Terms and then imposed all for Faith with so much Nicety that it is at least as easy to mistake as to understand the Truth and sometimes really the Mistake is much the more obvious I cannot forbear an Instance or two out of the Creed just now mentioned usually ascribed to Athanasius but if Vossius be in the right compiled much after his Age by one Anastasius as he conjectures if my Memory fail not for I have not my Book by me that Creed then thus proceeds THE FATHER IS ETERNAL THE SON ETERNAL AND THE HOLY GHOST ETERNAL AND YET THEY ARE NOT THREE ETERNALS BVT ONE ETERNAL AS ALSO THERE ARE NOT THREE INCOMPREHENSIBLES NOR THREE VNCREATED BVT ONE VNCREATED AND ONE INCOMPREHENSIBLE Suppose now a Man should thus argue hence If there are three yet not three uncreated but one uncreated then two of the three must be created For the three must be either created or uncreated that is eternally existent But it is further also added that there are not three Eternals but one Eternal therefore supposing the Father to be uncreated and eternal as of the three most properly and essentially Uncreatedness and Eternity belongs to him insomuch as the Son is his Begotten and the Holy Ghost proceeds from him supposing I say the Father uncreated and eternal it seems hence unavoidably to follow the Son and the Holy Ghost are created and not eternal for there are not three Uncreated nor three Eternals The same may be said in like manner as to the other Attributes of Incomprehensible and Almighty And if any should profess the Son and Holy Ghost created or not eternal would not all cry out immediately Heresy Blasphemy It will not be sufficient here to say It is confessed before that the Son is uncreate and the Holy Ghost uncreate c. for that Confession is now contradicted by saying there is but one uncreate What shall we then do to extricate our selves from the Niceties of this Creed How few of the People have the Clew Verily not one in a thousand of the Laity that ' Hic ponuntur adjectivè istae dictiones viz. coaeterni c. ibi autem adjectivè Glossa ad verbum Coaeterni De summa Trinitate c. 1. Firmiter credimus say sing or receive this Creed and it may be not one in an hundred of the Clergy But to salve all behold a wholesom Distinction out of a known Gloss When we say the Father Son and Holy Ghost are all three uncreate we take Uncreate as an Adjective and then the Proposition is true When we say there are not three uncreate we take it as a Substantive For if we should say there are three uncreated taking it as a Substantive it were Heresy And so in the case of Eternal when we say the Father is eternal the Son eternal the Holy Ghost eternal and all three eternal we take Eternal as an Adjective But if we should take Eternal as a Substantive then we must deny that there are three Eternals surely then by the way must we also deny that there are three infinite Minds and that even according to Athanasius himself But to come again to the Gloss Can now any Man living give me a Reason why Uncreate or Eternal should be less an Adjective when understood of an uncrete Substance or Essence than it is when understood of an uncreate Person And yet taking it either substantively or adjectively if I should so use it as to deny there are three uncreated Persons I am as much a Heretick as if I should say there are three uncreated Essences There is therefore very happily a further Remedy in the said Gloss namely that Hic designat Personas ibi Essentiam Gl. ubi supra when we profess all three are uncreate and coeternal we must understand or supply the word Person When we say there is but one Uncreate and one Eternal we must understand Essence or Nature In fine then if we have not Metaphysicks enough and Grammar enough to find out when a Word is to denote the Essence and when the Person or perhaps when it is to be taken adjectively when substantively we shall be led by the very Letter of this Creed to profess Heresy and Blasphemy instead of the true Faith Were it not now better that this Creed were either made plainer or totally laid aside than urged and used as it is But indeed neither of the two Councils mentioned made any such Creed as this nor as I really believe did Athanasius himself He and others of the
of the said Lords and Commons But that it ever came before the Convocation cannot be proved When even eight Bishops in the House of Lords protested against it no one can believe that it would then have pass'd a Convocation and therefore no doubt it was never brought before them And thus proceeded the two first Years of King Edward the Sixth his Reformation as far as I can collect from my afore-mentioned Authors which two Years broke the Ice and made way for perfecter Work For by these Proceedings the Eyes of the Clergy no less than of the People who had both need enough began to be opened many of both sorts got a Taste of the Truth and took a Relish of the Reformation which by the Vigilance of the Government and indefatigable Diligence of the Reformers but chiefly by the prevailing and victorious Power of the Truth and the Influence of God's Spirit daily grew and advanced insomuch that a happy Forwardness towards a Settlement presented it self in the succeeding Part of this Reign But I may truly say Had not the Reformers taken Time by the Forelock and they not begun with the Dawn of the Day Had the King Council and the immortal Archbishop staid for such a Convocation which would have approved their Reformation in all likelihood we had had little or as I affirmed no Reformation at all in King Edward's and God only knows whether in the second following Reign For how the next of all might have strengthned Popery as Bones broke and once well knit again are they say the stronger in that Part we are not able to guess Sure it is could the Body of the Clergy in the Beginning have crushed the Designs of the Reformation they would have done it and by many sad Instances shewed their good Will Wherefore as to the later Years of King Edward and the Corrections and Additions made to the Liturgy near towards the End of his Reign I am not concern'd to speak Only ex abundanti I will Part 2. p. 169. add it appears by Dr. Burnet the making these was the Work of the Reformers not of the Convocation And it is supposed saith Dr. Heylin Hist Reform Anno 1552. pag. 126. the Convocation durst not canvass or alter what was before settled by the King's Authority and Act of Parliament Indeed all Men know that ever since the Submission of the Clergy in Henry the VIIIth's Time the Convocation hath been cut off from meddling with the State of Religion except as they are authorized by the King And had there been any such Authority given no doubt we should have found the Footsteps thereof I do not think it needful to speak more largely on this Point What I have said will sufficiently evince I did not speak without Book in what I hinted If any one else use to do so let him look to it After this Endeavour to expose my Ignorance Mr. Dean intimates his §. 27. Regret that I had not made my compassionate Suit in a severer Age than this the Reign of our merciful and gracious Princes for which Kindness of his I only return my Prayers that he may never feel the Severity of such Hands into which he could be content others should have faln And then he proceeds to tell the World I conclude with a heavy Charge upon himself and Dr. Wallis a greater Person would have said Dr. Wallis and himself that they have receded from the Doctrine taught even in our own Church about the Holy Trinity The whole of this is not true I never charged Dr. Wallis with receding from the Doctrine taught in our Church but rather expresly alledging his Words We mean by Persons in divinis no more but somewhat analogous to Persons I said this has been ever held by all learned Trinitarians All I mentioned which troubled me as to the Doctor 's explaining of the Trinity was an indecent Expression of which I have no mind to speak more But as to Dr. Sherlock I did produce not broken Passages as Mr. Dean stiles them but his intire Definition or Description of a Person in divinis which he gives in his Vindication of the Trinity and as I have said the Sum of his Hypothesis in his very own Words which I read in and transcribed from his Book And I do now expresly avow though I did not then do it so directly that he has receded herein from the Doctrine formerly taught not only in our Church but in the whole Christian World in this Point And I think I have already made it out as far as is consistent with the Brevity I here design But whereas he says that that very Account Pag. 30. which I give of the Trinity out of Mr. Hooker ' s Book is owned and particularly explained by his Hypothesis I must acknowledg he has indeed owned it in his Book but in the same contradicted it both in express Terms and by his Hypothesis And I add 't is impossible by his Hypothesis to explain it He contradicts it in express Terms One Substance and three Properties was Mr. Hooker's Language and whence taken I have shewn Three real substantial Beings which if it signifies not Vind. pag. 47. Pag. 83. three Substances I cannot tell what it signifies and three proper distinguishing Characters had it not been for Affectation of Novelty he might as well have said three Properties are Mr. Dean's Terms And these I take to be Contradictions For one Substance and three Substances that is three Substances and not three because only one Substance with three Properties is a Contradiction if any in the World His Hypothesis contradicts that is destroys it For his Definition or Account what we are to mean by a Person in the Holy Trinity is part of his Hypothesis But that makes the three Persons three real substantial Beings Vind. p. 47 48 49 50 c. three distinct infinite Minds three uncreated Spirits that is immaterial Substances three intelligent Beings having each Vnderstanding Will and Power of Action Now this as before made out is contradictious to the Doctrine brought by Mr. Hooker And because his Hypothesis in the very first fundamental Point of it namely the Definition he gives of a Person contradicts the former Explication of the Trinity therefore 't is impossible to explain that by his However we will take the other Part of his Hypothesis and try whether we can find therewith any more Consistency As he supposes these three uncreated Spirits to be distinct by Self-consciousness so to be one numerically one Essence or one God by mutual Consciousness But by the former Part of his Hypothesis each Person had and to use his Words knew and felt himself to have an Vnderstanding Will and Power of Action of his own Now though the Supposal of mutual Consciousness may in some measure explain how each thereby may have or be possess'd of one anothers Knowledg or Vnderstanding yet that any can have or be
was Poison under the â—n Epistol ad Damas Tom. 2. Honey and boggled at it St. Austin acknowledges he understood not the Difference the Greeks designed between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in our present Language between Essence and Subsistence But because says he according to our Custom of Speech Essence and Substance are all one â—e Trinitat â—b 5. in fine â—apitis 8 cap. 9. therefore we dare not say one Essence three Substances but one Essence or Substance and three Persons So that when they laid aside Hypostasis they introduced a Term equivalent and perhaps more ambiguous namely Persona and then said there were three Persons in one Essence Yet at the same time St. Austin acknowledgeth the Use of this Term improper and that it was Necessity drove them to it they used this Word for â—agna prorsus â—opia humaâ—â— laborat â—â—quium Dictum est tamen tres personae non ut illud diceretur sed ne taceretur Non enim rei â—â—bilis eminentia hoc vocabulo explicare valet Cap. 9. want of a better The Father saith he and the Son and the Holy Ghost are truly three But when it is demanded three what humane Speech is defective notwithstanding we have said three Persons not that strictly we mean or intend to say this but lest we should be silent and say nothing for the Transcendency of the ineffable Matter cannot be express'd by this Word And again more fully in his seventh Book proving the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be one because the Father is Wisdom the Son Wisdom and the Holy Ghost Wisdom and in God to be wise is the same as to be and to be the same as to be God Therefore says he for expressing what is inexpressible that we may speak in some measure what we cannot speak out the Itaque loquendi causâ de ineffabilibus ut fari aliquo modo possemus quod effari nullo modo possumus dictum est à nostris Graecis una Essentia tres Substantiae a Latinis autem una Essentia tres Personae Et ut intelligatur in aenigmate quod dicitur placuit ita dici ut aliquid diceretur Ut quaereretur quid tria sunt quid tres conferimus nos ad inveniendum aliquid speciale vel generale nomen quo complectamus haec tria neque occurrit animo quia excedit supereminentia divinitatis usitati eloquii facultatem Cap. 3 4. Grecian Christians have said one Essence three Substances that is Subsistences and the Latins one Essence three Persons And that what we say may be understood at least in a Riddle we thought it good thus it should be said that something might be said When it is required what these three are we apply our selves to find out some special or general Name whereby we may comprize all the three nor does there any occur to our Thoughts because the Transcendency of the Divinity exceeds the Faculty of usual Speech He goes on to the Effect following If we take these three Abraham and Isaac and Jacob we can find somewhat common which they all have and say they are three Men but touching Father Son and Holy Ghost we cannot say they are three Fathers or three Sons nor indeed three Gods what therefore are the three Three Persons By all which it is plain they used this word Persons not because it was proper but because the Speculation was run so fine that they knew not what else or what less improper to say And let this suffice in my present Penury of Books as to the Fathers who of old either first introduced or by their Use first authorized in divinis this Term three Persons or a Trinity of Persons As to the Sense of the School-Doctors touching the word Persona in this Controversy I must speak chiefly out of my Memory having besides the Master of the Sentences and some imperfect pieces of others only St. Thomas's Sum at hand in which Work he is somewhat brief on this Term Yet even therein when he concludes it convenient that the Name Person be used touching God he does it with this Limitation that it be Conveniens est ut hoc nomen persona de Deo dicitur non tamen eodem modo quo dicitur de Creaturis not used or which is the same understood after the same manner as it is of the Creatures But I do avow it and will be bound to produce Testimonies enough as soon as I can come at Books that it is both his Doctrine and the common Doctrine of his Followers that the word Person when used touching God and the Creatures is not taken in the same equal or univocal Sense but only by way of Proportion and as to the manner Persona de Deo Creaturis non dici univoce sed analogice of signifying and Imposition of the Name it first and more properly agrees to the Creatures As to Protestant Divines also for the Reasons above touched I must be sparing in their Numbers but I am sure the Systematists ordinarily assign either four or five Differences in the Use of the Word when attributed to God and to the Creature And I find by me in my Notes this Passage which I long since transcribed out of Zanchy a judicious and learned Calvinist In the Creatures one Person is not only Una Persona creata ex contextu precedente supplenda ab altera non tam distincta quam etiam disjuncta est at proinde diversae sunt inter se substantiae licet unius naturae In Deo una Persona ab altera distincta quidem est sed disjuncta esse non porest c. De tribus Elohim Parte 2da lib. 1. c. 3. distinct from the other but disjoined and separate so that the Substances are divers though the Nature one But in God one Person is indeed distinct from the other but cannot be disjoined and therefore the Divine Persons are not only of the same Nature for so are humane Persons but of the same Essence Nay they so subsist in the same Essence that they are indeed nothing else but that Essence Somewhat very near this the Doctor to do him Justice more than once or twice expresly says in his Book I mean in his Vindication of the Holy Trinity viz. p. 47 67 104 c. that they are distinct not separate but then he in effect unsays all again much oftner and that both by his Definition of a Person in divinis and in those other Passages of his produced by me in my Paper p. 14. and by many other Passages which I might transcribe from him For my own part I am not able to excuse him from contradicting himself over and over most plainly in the Space of a dozen Lines in one of the Pages now cited viz. 67. of his Vindication for first he acknowledges These three Divine Persons are not separate Minds as created Spirits
Which my Author says is contrary to the Doctrine of Greg. Naz. the great Divine Niceph. Callist Hist lib. 18. cap. 48. Philoponus I must confess I know not what is I do not say the Dean believes three Gods God forbid I should but I do avow he has said what necessarily infers three Gods I hope therefore according to his Promise p. 11. he will thankfully correct this Absurdity and not blush to recant an Error § 4. After this my general Vindication I am now to descend to the Particulars I am charged with And first he charges me in Effect in his Title-page but more expresly in Pag. 2. and in other Places that I desired no Body would write against Socinians Whatsoever my Intent was of which I think he wants the Gift of discerning Spirits to capacitate him for being a Judg I am sure he can never prove this Charge from my Paper in which the only Controversy mentioned was that of the Trinity and possibly some of its Subdivisions Now it is notorious 1 That the Socinians are not the only Persons Heterodox in these Points 2 That these are not the only Points in which they are Heterodox There are also divers others in which I believe in my Conscience they grievously err The Doctor then might have written against the Socinians and not meddle with the Doctrine of the Trinity Therefore when I desired the Controversy of the Trinity might for the present be sorborn I did not desire that no Body should write against the Socinians The next Touch at me which I will remark is if I am a Divine of Apol. pag. 2. the Church of England why should I profess he means stile my self a Stander-by I answer perhaps I was not so conceited of my Skill at the Weapon as others are But admit I had been must every one that thinks he has found out some new Pass or Guard draw presently upon the next Man he meets begirt with a Sword Should all of the Doctor 's Degree or mine have written on that Subject where had been the End of Books I was therefore on this Account as well as in the Sense before mentioned a Stander-by and on how many Scores melancholy it is too long and too sad to recount I heartily pray neither Mr. Dean nor any other Christian may have like Reason But he is always very jealous of Men who are so tender of the wrong Side It is evident indeed to any who reads my Paper I have express'd therein a Tenderness 1 For the Church of England and the Nicene Faith 2 For the Credit of the Reformation 3 For Peace and Holiness Is any or are all these the wrong Side As to his Observation which he tells us he has made and which he subjoins touching Mens Tenderness being due to their Inclinations he may keep these his profound politick Notes for better Purpose I own my Inclination to the three Points mentioned and wish the same both in him and in all Members of our Church As to his perverting my peaceable Assertions and making them what he pleases by odious That is's in the two next Paragraphs and a multitude of other Places These are such open disingenuous Arts that I will only note them and having told my Reader that this is his common way of dealing with me to the end he may cast Reproach and a publick Hate upon me I will concern my self to answer only to the more material Points or to the Gross of the Res substrata which he imputes to me I confess my self an Enemy to such open Disputes between Protestants §. 5. as only publish to the common Enemies the Divisions of the Protestants Nor do I find the Reformers to have been whatever Mr. Dean says for such Disputings nor that the voluntary Disputings of unauthorized Persons have ever suppressed but rather revived old Heresies How I would have those who should write in this Controversy authorized I will anon set down In the mean time I come to that Latitude and Simplicity wherein I suppose Christian Faith was delivered and wherein I would have Pag. 3 c. it left which Mr. Dean will not understand And first he would gladly know what I mean by the Latitude of Faith Now because he seems to be at a great deal of Pains here to mistake me another Man would have said to blunder I will tell him that Latitude here is a metaphorical Term and I will not be so exact as to suppose it translated to our purpose either from Astronomy or Geography but taking it meerly for one of the triple Dimensions of Bodies apply it by way of Similitude to that Extent of Signification which Terms of any Proposition may naturally both in themselves and in their Dependance on Precedents and Subsequents admit All Men who have read and considered do know that the same Words may carry with them different Notions and that the Compass of those different Notions though it be bounded by the common Import of the Words yet does often times include divers Specialties in it And this I affirm as to the Propositions of Faith both in Holy Scripture and even in the Apostles Creed it self As to the latter I instance in that Clause He descended into Hell our Divines have told us it admits three or four Though it be a Christian's Duty to believe every Article of this Creed I conceive the agreeing upon some one Sense wherein to interpret every Article of it is not so absolutely necessary but that some one of them may be taken in a LATITVDE and either not determined to any one Interpretation or resolved to be capable of more Practic Cat. lib. 5. §. 2. Senses Dr. Hammond himself allows two and whosoever understands and believes it in either of those Senses though he should haply doubt or distrust the other of them is not guilty either of Heresy or Unbelief No nor supposing that by Contention he divide not the Church or himself from it is he to be taxed with Schism Now to leave Faith in the Latitude in which it was delivered is to impose no Determinations of such Words or Expressions 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 the truest And this Allowance I particularly demand as to the Point in hand as set down 1 John 5. 7. And such Allowance in this as well as in other disputed Points would I say soon reduce Controversies amongst Protestants to a very small Compass at least the Heats in managing them would cease Then as to what I mean by Simplicity he says I leave it to guess Is this then a Word of Difficulty or is this Phrase the Simplicity of Faith unusual and uncertain But when no Exception else could be found Nodus in scirpo must be pretended Take then good Mr. Dean the Simplicity of Faith in what
the Church-Catechism has taught thereof out of the Creed to be sufficient to any Christian Practice which can be superstructed hereon Yet I must not thus conclude what I have to say for my Justification in my Reflection on the Master of the Sentences the learned Dean being so well versed in the School-men has certainly heard of a certain Censure or Caution to some Texts of the Masters in these Words Magister non tenetur And what is that in plain English but that on these Subjects the Master has writ so as that his very Scholars or Partizans are ashamed of him and not able with all their Subtilties to defend him One of the first Articles as I take it to which this Note is put is Charitas quâ diligimus Deum proximum est Spiritus sanctus Or Charitas quae est amor Dei proximi non est aliquia Creatura that is Charity whereby we love God and our Neighbour is no created being but the Holy Ghost This would afford admirable Consequents But to let them pass untouch'd being that the Assertion it self so intimately concerns the Holy Ghost as to pronounce in some measure touching his very Quiddity as I may so speak and being that the Holy Ghost is the third Person in the Trinity this must necessarily be acknowledged to be a very considerable Point in the Controversy of the Trinity And then neither have all the Papists been very Orthodox in the Disputes about As to the Orthodoxy of all the Papists in Point of the Trinity I would ask Mr. Dean if he never heard any thing of a Design some had of getting in or adding the Blessed Virgin to the Trinity and what a Trinity they would in such Case have made of it Or how Orthodox that Party was in their Conceptions either of the Deity or of that Trinity c. the Trinity as Mr. Dean says Apol. p. 23. for the Master himself advanced herein a gross heretical Proposition nor was the melancholy Stander-by unacquainted with the Master when he only with a light Touch censured what the Master had troubled the World with on this Controversy For my own part I would be unwilling to be put upon it to defend what yet the Master asserts and after his way endeavours to prove in another Place touching the Holy Ghost that saith he the Holy Ghost is an Act of Love so I render Dilectionem or the Love of Spiritum sanctum Dilectionem esse sive amorem Patris Filii quo scilicet Pater diligit Filium Filius Patrem Dist 10. F. the Father and of the Son namely wherewith the Father loveth the Son and the Son the Father Notwithstanding that that Distinction has no such Stricture that I have observed set upon it by the Scholastick Censors and notwithstanding too that Mr. Dean has more amply explicated and espoused it Vind. p. 130 c. The Father saith the Dean is original Mind and Wisdom The Son the Word and Wisdom of the Father that is the reflex Knowledg of himself which is the perfect Image of his own Wisdom and the Holy Ghost that Divine Love which the Father and Son have for each other These he calls three substantial Acts in God so distinct as that they can never be the same But whose will consider what Idea our Minds frame of Self-reflection and Love the Latin Term is Dilectio will rather stile these immanent Actions how permanent soever they may be supposed Now that an Action though immanent can be a living intelligent Substance an infinite eternal Mind is what I would be loth to be bound to the Proof of But says the Dean why did you not accuse the Fathers and Councils for the Master took most of what he has out of them Suppose that I had so much Reverence for the Fathers and Councils as to be willing their Names should not be blemish'd am I to be chastised for that He and all the World know I could not read the Master's Book but I must read therein the Names and oftentimes the Places of the Fathers whence he took most of what he says I could not therefore be ignorant that many of these things are to be found in the Fathers But I was desirous I say that their venerable Names should shine as bright as may be and that the rather for that this Rummager has after a sort weeded their Writings and very often taken only the worst things out of them The Father out of whom he has injudiciously amass'd together the most he has of the Trinity complains those his Books of the Trinity were almost ravish'd out of his Hands before he could amend or finish Aug. Retract lib. 2. cap. 15. them as he would have done and that he intended not to have published them but to have spoken what he thought of this Argument in another Work When therefore I find St. Austin produced proving the Son the Beginning a Principle or Original Principium the Word is and that not only in respect of the Creatures but even of the Holy Ghost from such a Testimony of Scripture as this is They said unto him Who art thou and he answered Even the same that I said unto you from the Beginning which the vulgar Latin and St. Austin as well as some other Fathers corruptly read The Beginning who also speak to you I let St. Austin pass who in effect did as good as ask Pardon for his Mistake or misapplying this Text and I tax him who taking no Notice of the Father's excusing his imperfect Work alledgeth even the most culpable Passages in it for legitimate Proofs Libellus Male cum recitas incipit esse tuus He by this Means makes the Fathers Over-sights his and is justly to be blamed for them But as to his Faithfulness in dealing with the Fathers hear what a great Man says His Books of the Sentences says Mornaeus he has made up out of Pieces of the Fathers here and there culled out and put together in a certain Order which Fathers he by changing omitting adding Words at pleasure has forced to serve his Plot and bowed to the corrupt Divinity of his Age. And however Orthodox any who affect Dispute and endless Speculation may judg him in the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation Bellarmine himself after Recital of his Works adds this Account on him out of Matthew Paris That he was accused of Heresy in the Matter of the Incarnation and condemn'd at Paris nineteen Years after his Death Then as to the Point of the Trinity the Case wherein I taxed him L. Danaeus a Geneva Divine and no Socinian avows and proves that in every Part of his Disputation In quâlibet hujus Disputationis parte negligentia dolo malo aequiparatur Censura ad Dist 35. lib. 1. hereon his Fraud and Negligence are equal And whosoever will spend a few Hours in perusing the said Danaeus's Prolegomena to his Commentary on the first Book of
recommend his Judgment as more sincere and competent Now these three of the first Reformers I shall abide by at present as having censured the Divinity of the Schools much more severely than I did after them But these were not our English Reformers and I censured even them for retaining Scholastick Cramping Terms in their publick Prayers By Mr. Dean's Favour I censured them not only I modestly wished they had used the same Temper as did the foreign Reformers in banishing hard or Scholastick Terms out of our Prayers By these Terms he says I mean the Beginning of the Litany And how came he to know my Thoughts I will assure him I meant not that alone I will not touch upon divers Collects But what does he think of that Preface in the Communion Service ordered to be used before the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on Trinity Sunday Has not that School-Divinity enough in it all address'd to God by way of direct Adoration However because he has pitch'd upon the other I am content to stick by it and shall only give him touching it the Sense of two of the first Reformers I confess not ours in England for I express my Sorrow that they observed not such Caution but two the most eminent who led the way to them Luther lest that Petition O Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity c. out of the Liturgy as not only his Enemies Bellarmine and others accuse him to have done but the German Office to this Day evidenceth And Gerard Brochmand and other learned Lutherans not only confess but defend him for it saying the German Word which they use for the Trinity signifies Triplicity rather than Trinity But if that had been all why could not Trinity have been adopted into High Dutch as well as into English There was another Reason for it which I am loth to speak Calvin not only omits it but thus censures it It is good says he to forbear such Forms of speaking which are either too rough or remote from the Vse of the Holy Scripture The Prayer so Utile est supersedere à formulis loquendi nimiùm asperis vel à Scripturae usu remotis Precatio vulgo trita sancta Trinitas unus Deus miserere nostri mihi non placet ac omnino Barbariem sapit Epist quâ fidem admonitionis confirmat ad Polonos Tom. ult p. 687. common with the People O Holy Trinity one God have Mercy upon us does not please me and altogether savours of Barbarity Had the Socinians been the only Persons who except against it more might be said for the retaining it But as to its Original it was certainly never in the publick Prayers till introduced by Pope Gregory the Great the Compiler of the Litany for the main part or the Body of it though not perfectly in the Form it now stands in and Ethnici in summâ rerum ignorantiâ quem potissimum Deûm aut Dearū orarent nesciebant omnes igitur precabantur c. Casaub what other Innovations came in with it is sufficiently known No less a Man than Casaubon will tell us whom the Church imitated or what Precedents she had in such accumulate repeated Invocations Exercitat p. 327. Edit Londin A. D. 1614. Or Ad An. D. XXXII N. 14. And not only in a manner all our Nonconformist Countrymen elder or later but Foreigners of great Learning have strong Exceptions against this Part of the Litany If any will answer those which amongst others the learned Johannes Forbesius in his Instructiones Historico-Theologicae Part. 1. Qu. 31. a. 1. brings I will acknowledg to owe great Satisfaction to such a Person For however Hâc formulâ periculosè disperguntur cogitationes conceptiones precantis veluti ad diversa objecta quas recolligere conatur collectione objectorum in unum Nullo nititur praecepto vel exemplo sacrae Scripturae vel catholicae antiquitatis imo ab eisdem à doctrinâ saniorum Scholasticorum ab ipsâ ratione Theologicâ Discrepat c. Forbes I acknowledg some Men may use the prescribed Form without Sin yet I cannot but judg it much safer not to go so near dividing the Deity and so far to distract Devotion Much more than this could I say which I cannot answer so well as I would on this Subject but this may suffice to shew the Glance I gave was not without Cause And the reducing divers of our Prayers to more Scriptural Forms would much recommend our Reformation to foreign Divines as well as to those of our own Country whom we ought if possible to bring in and unite to us But this is only a plausible Project much talked of of late and such §. 9. Pag. 6. which Hereticks in former Days were the first Proposers of The Arians objected this against the Homoousions that it was an unscriptural Word By Mr. Dean's Favour he herein contradicts St. Athanasius himself who accuses the Arians that they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first began to fight against God from unwritten Terms or Arguments and particularly objects against them using the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or unbegotten pleading that it was an unscriptural Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Athanas in Epist de Synod Nic. contra Haeresin Arian decretis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lb. p. 282. and therefore suspitious having also various Significations but that the simple written and truest Terms which had but one Signification were those in Scripture the Father and the Son that unbegotten was used by the Heathens who knew not the Father nor the Son but that of the Father was known to be from our Lord 's own Mouth And doth he not at the same time apologize from the Necessity that lay upon the Council for the Use of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though not in Scripture and together confess that the most accurate Expressions or Notions of the Truth are rather to be taken from the Scriptures than other Books It were to be wished this Father had been more constant to this his ingenuous Acknowledgment Again did not St. Ambrose also in the like Case disputing against the Arians say as much of Ingenitus in Latin that it was no Scripture-term and therefore refuse it I am under great Infelicity that I am without so many of my Books and so being oftentimes to trust Memory or old Notes cannot make my Answers so close and pertinent as otherwise I might But I am sure St. Ambrose and I think in his Book of our Lord's Incarnation answering the Arians Argument for proving the Father and the Son not to be of the same Nature and Substance namely that one was ingenitus unbegotten the other genitus begotten now said they the same Nature and Substance cannot be begotten and unbegotten returns roundly In sanctâ Scripturâ nusquam invenio non legi or to that purpose Unbegotten is no where in Scripture I am not I am sure far from his very Words Now was this
Substance distinct but not separate Now upon the whole have either of these Words fix'd the Sense of the Scripture so that Hereticks cannot pervert it and have a private Sense of their own touching it May not a Man 1 Own three Hypostases or three Persons that is profess Faith in or under the two most Orthodox Terms that have been found out and none but God and himself know what he means Nay may he not hold to the Words and yet hold Heresy yea Blasphemy and that in divers particular Senses which I have named and which I have declined to name for that the Subject is so tender Again 2 May not a Man use the Words quite contrary to the Forms in which the Fathers generally use them and yet speak Orthodox Truth Did not if Theodoret say Truth the Council of Sardis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodor. Hist lib. 2. cap. 8. say This Catholick Tradition and Confession have we received and taught this do we hold that there is but one Hypostasis meaning thereby one Substance of the Deity Nay lastly must it not be acknowledged that at least one of these Words viz. Hypostasis has given occasion to the Tritheites Heresy as any Man may see who pleases to consult what Photius what Leontius the Byzantine Advocate and what Nicephorus Callistus report of Thiloponus too long here to be inserted Were it not better then to keep to Scripture-Words in which all agree than to take up new ones of humane Invention and contend and damn one another about them when yet it is apparent we may use these however artificial refined Terms and be as far from agreeing in Sense as ever we were nay much further than if we had kept to Scripture-Language Hereticks may here conceal themselves under a larger Latitude of Expression Pag. 8. and spread their Heresies with a traditionary Sense and Comment of their own more exactly and poisonously than the Purity and Simplicity of the Holy Text would have permitted But if any be still fond of the Litigious Ecclesiastical or Scholastical Terms in their Confessions and Articles let them stand for me In the Orthodox Sense and for Peace sake they may be subscribed to only in our Prayers at least wherein a most intire Assent and Consent without doubting or doubling is to be ingaged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us have Scripture and speak to God as he has revealed himself to us What then must we reform the Doctrine of the Trinity out of our Prayers as in his good-natured Fit Mr. Dean expresses it No but put it in there only as God has put it in our Bibles And my Hopes and Desires of seeing this done I take to be no foul Imputation nor at all Pag. 5. likely to cast an ill Reflection on any Design of excellent Persons whatsoever But I must return with my Apologist to the Latitude of Faith which §. 11. he again to use his own Term tragically complains of me for pleading for and demands whether there be any more than one true Christian Faith Pag. 8. 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 Here are Questions enow and Fallacy enough in them I answer briefly and plainly Faith as Truth can be but one And every Truth which Christ and his Apostles taught ought if it can be without Scruple understood without Scruple to be believed All Christians are obliged to believe to the utmost of their Understandings each Truth by Christ and his Apostles taught But whether a determinate explicite Belief of all the Truths which Christ and his Apostles taught be absolutely necessary to the Salvation of every private Christian or even of every Christian Doctor I take to be a Question worthy of the Dean's Consideration For mine own part I dare not affirm it but judg a Latitude must be allowed and in such Determinations as exceed most Mens Understanding some such Temper as my Notion of a Negative Belief must be admitted Which Term by his good Favour has no more Impropriety or Contradiction in it than that more usual one amongst Divines of a Negative Righteousness whence I trans-sumed it thinking it for a Reason which he may guess at more palatable to some People than an implicite Faith and I having so fully and perspicuously defin'd it it was poor and pedantic in him to carp at the Term. In a word we are to reject nothing as false nor esteem any thing as mean superfluous or unprofitable which our Lord or his Apostles have taught We are to give Diligence to understand and as we can understand explicitely to believe all but there are many Points in Divinity that is in the whole Body of what our Lord and his Apostles have taught whereof perhaps we may not have so clear and determinate a Sense as that we can say this or that is it which our Lord and his Apostles intended to oblige us to believe And here we must either totally suspend our Faith till we can better satisfy our selves in the mean while not contradicting or else we must believe though not without some Tenderness what to us appears the more probable of the several Points in Scruple Now the Belief of the more probable Side cannot be stiled Faith but in a certain Latitude of the Name 'T is sure our Lord and his Apostles full well knew they both spoke and writ to People of very different Capacities and Circumstances and no doubt accordingly accommodated their Doctrine What was necessary to the Salvation of all is by them delivered very plain and I will add 't is short Certa semper sunt in paucis says Tertullian And all learned Protestant Divines have been ever very tender in defining the Number of Fundamentals or what things are necessary by all to be believed to their Salvation Here the Minumum quod sic as we commonly speak is a difficult Point to determine and Dr. Hammond in his Book of Fundamentals has amply shewn there must be as to the Number of them a Latitude allowed according to different States or Circumstances of Men. But his Authority is infinitely greater who said Vnto whomsoever much is given of him shall be much required Consequently of him who knew not or giving honest Diligence to know understood not what is revealed a less measure of Faith shall be expected So that even here I stand to it is a Latitude Suppose a Man to have been baptized to understand competently the Apostles Creed and the common Rules of Christian Duty to profess the Belief hereof to shew his Love to God and Christ by good Works and a Life savouring of Heaven to live in the Communion of such a Church or Society of Christians as will allow such a Person for a Member of Christ though perhaps he may not be admittted for want of great Knowledg and a Faith of deeper Mysteries into
Power to enact the Conditions of it and make Articles of Faith 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 or teach contrary under Penalty of her Censures And this I would be content to conceive the whole of what our Church requires as to those things which are meerly her Determinations 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 Knowledg of which sort is Belief and inward Approbation To exact this may breed Hypocrisy it cannot be a Seed of Charity and true Christian Concord And thus as to that Latitude Simplicity and negative Belief which have so much offended the Apologist though I am well satisfied that had I imbraced his Definitions and Hypotheses he would have allowed me as great a Latitude in deceding from the Churches Doctrine as he has taken himself And now passing by many Favours so I call divers scornful Expressions §. 13. by the way which Mr. Dean is pleased to bestow upon me I come next to profess that notwithstanding any thing which he hath said to the contrary I am clearly of the Mind still that it is Opposition chiefly which keeps many Heterodox Opinions and Pamphlets alive But it is better such Pamphlets should be in an hundred Hands with an Pag. 10. Answer than in sive without one Not to tell him he takes Care by the rate he receives for every Sheet he publishes that such Pieces of his as the Vindication of the Trinity shall not be in the Hands of one Person in an hundred I am sure at least on a certain time I could not spare Money to buy it I will only say 't is hard to determine which more subverts the Orthodox Doctrine the Adversaries Impugnations or his Vindication I have heard that the wicked Vanninus so writ in Proof of the Being of a God as to increase the Suspition of Atheists that there was none And I do avow that Dr. Sherlock has so vindicated the Trinity that he has to his Power made the Unity asserted by the Fathers utterly impossible and run into the very Absurdity whereto the Adversaries would reduce us For if his Definitions and Hypotheses be true there must unavoidably be three Gods as has been shewn and there may be as well three thousand or as many as Varro says the Romans ever had No these three are one says Mr. Dean one by mutual Consciousness I answer besides that this amounts to no more than to an Unity of Accord which as has been said is not the Unity that the Church and Fathers ever held and which we have seen the Council of Sardis avowed to be the Catholick Faith ever taught received and delivered down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Substance or an Unity of Substance besides this I say three thousand Minds or Spirits may be as well conceived mutually conscious as three and so we may defend Polytheism or maintain all the Gods of the Heathen to have been but one Indeed I never read any Christian Writer to go so near in express Terms asserting a Plurality of Gods ad the Dean of St. Pauls has done a God and a God and a God as has been shewn And if this kind of speaking be not direct or full enough what is wanting in express Terms is abundantly made up in his Hypothesis which unavoidably infers three Gods and those no more or otherwise one than even an infinite Number could there be such a Number of Minds might be one which two Points though I was content to stile only the Absurdities to which our Adversaries would reduce us yet I know what Names other People would have given them could they have been found in any Writings of mine Further it is to be considered Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy and ever Blessed Trinity an august and glorious Title vastly raising the Expectation of all who read or hear it came out with the Solemnity of a Publick I had almost said Canonical Licence in its Front affixed thereto by an Ecclesiastical Reverend Person authorized by Law for such Purpose So did his Apology also This at first Sight represents the Doctrine contained in them not as the Sentiments of a private Doctor but as Doctrine approved by our Church for there are at least three Doctors of the Church to avouch for it And some will say If it be thus authorized by the Chaplains are not certain other much greater Persons concerned for it What Advantage now may the Enemy take every way thence Plainly forasmuch as other Doctors and Bishops of the Church cannot but disapprove and disclaim this Explication or Notion of the three Persons or of the Trinity and only of such an Unity as there asserted it will and must be said we are neither agreed amongst our selves as to Trinity nor Unity Shall therefore the melancholy Stander by be thought an Enemy to the Church for desiring such Writings as these may be forborn Again Mr. Dean tells us that Dr. Wallis when he called the three Persons Pag. 9. three Somewhats thereby only meant that the true Notion of a Person he did not know And hereto by the way Mr. Dean according to his wonted Ingenuity or Care subjoins I commended this No Sir that which I commended was what I wish had been to be found in you Dr. Wallis's Orthodoxy in the Acceptation of the word Persons in divinis set down by me in the Doctor 's own Words for something analogous to Persons and not signifying just the same But to commend Dr. Wallis or any one who worships three Persons for saying he does not know what a Person is is so far from me that I say Mr. Dean in imputing the Saying to Dr. Wallis and the commending it to me has wronged us both egregiously the Doctor in exposing him and Multitudes in him as liable to this unavoidable Consequence that they worship they know not what and me in telling the World I commend them that do so I delight not to search further into much less to exaggerate the Advantages Dr. Sherlock's Books on this Subject have given our Adversaries of all kinds By these Touches it is plain more may be assigned But as to those two above-named Particulars which I only stiled Absurdities the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or original Grounds of all the rest having now shewn them expresly enough I must mind Mr. Dean of his Promise that he will correct them and it may be a fit Subject for some of those few short Treatises which he has told us he will publish on this Argument as he has leisure whether he correct them thankfully or no I value not much provided Pag. 11. he sincerely or expresly recant them which in case of Errors he has said he will not blush to do However I will not blush to press
this Point but what is taught in Scripture and then I am sure there will be no fear that any wise Man should reject Scripture for its sake or put strained and unnatural Senses on it to reconcile it to Reason But that three such Persons as he has defined are by Scripture asserted or can be thence concluded to be in the Deity I have denied I do and must ever deny and conceive I have proved contradictious In the next Place having repeated his old Prevarication touching my §. 17. stiling the Socinians the learned Writers of Controversy he is displeased with me for not taking them to task for denying the Divine Nature to be incomprehensible Truly I never heard or read any of the Socinians guilty of such Presumption or Blasphemy But this I take only to be a Consequence drawn by himself from a certain Opinion of theirs and then fastned upon them Of which kind of fair dealing I will say nothing for the present But I do know there are some who deny God's Prescience of future Contigents touching which I had no Occasion to speak no more had he here but that he would hedg in any thing pertinent or impertinent to inodiate an innocent Person which being he has done I will take the Occasion to profess before the Searcher of all Hearts who knows what is in Man that he knows I do believe and in my Soul adore his Prescience that I abhor any Suspicions of it as seeing scarce any of his Perfections more clearly express'd and by a World of Instances verified in Holy Scripture Nay I voluntarily profess I cannot conceive infinite Knowledg without Prescience and though I do confess I cannot comprehend infinite Knowledg because I am very finite yet I bless him who helps my Vnbelief and has as fully possess'd my Heart with the Perswasion thereof as with the Perswasion of his Existence But I cannot so easily believe Mr. Dean's Notions for facilitating I suppose the comprehending the next Divine Attribute which he lugs-in namely Eternity which though he truly says pag. 16. lin 28 29. to be without Beginning and without Succession yet with his usual Attention he explains lin 32. to be a Succession without a Beginning a Second or a Third without a First This Notion I will not accuse him to have taken from the School-Doctors Only I must ask him why he put those Words a God Adequate and Commensurate to our Vnderstandings a little finite comprehensible God in the same Character in which he ordinarily puts the Words he cites or wire-draws from my Paper If he did it with a Design to possess the Reader that I had any such Words or had said any thing from whence such an Inserence could be made I have another Kindness to thank him for of a like Nature to his others I now proceed to account for the last Reason I assigned for the present §. 18. Unreasonableness of some Mens agitating this Controversy which was Hereby that is as both the very Title and the Paper it self expresly assert by some learned Mens present Writings on this Controversy our Church at present and the common Christianity it may be feared will be daily Pag. 18. more and more exposed to atheistical Men they being not likely to overlook the Advantages thus daily given them This Mr. Dean according to his usual way first calumniously perverts to another Sense then for this bold Stroke as he calls it will scarce allow me to be either a Christian or a Divine And lastly falls on catechising me First He calumniously perverts my Sense for says he The Sum of this is that to vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity against Socinians will make Men Atheists Not so fast good Mr. Dean This Sum agrees not either with your own reckoning or with mine Three times at least in your Paper you said these learned Writers of Controversies by me designed were the Socinians According to which your own Interpretation your Proposition or the Sum explicitely should have been this The Socinians present writing against the Trinity will make Men Atheists Do you then deny that Proposition No you 'l say I believe you thought not of it But you know very well on the other side that amongst the present learned Writers of Controversy your self were more immediately concerned they are your own Words pag. 2. And now the Sum if truly stated will be much different namely this Such Vindications of the Trinity as that writ by Dr. Sherlock tend rather to make Men Atheists than to convert Socinians This Sir was my meaning and this I re-assert For Atheists may confute Tritheism or Polytheism for my Part I see not how either is defensible and having proved such Doctrines in Religion to be false they will be ready to conclude all Religion is so too but they can never overthrow the Doctrine of one God the Father of all and one Saviour the Son of God our Lord Christ Jesus and of one Spirit sanctifying and uniting the whole Body of Christian People or of these three being one And this if you will call it a bold Stroke I stick to it and fear not being exposed though I double it The Substance of two of his Questions is answered already First Do I believe the Doctrine of the Trinity to be desensible or no I do as delivered in Scripture but not upon his novel Definitions and Hypotheses But why do I not defend it better I have partly answered it already and a further Answer to that and to his second Question will come in by and by In the mean time as to his third Whâ—â— are Atheists concerned in the Disputes of the Trinity Very much in such Vindications of it which give such a Notion of the true God as implicates or is inconsistent with it self viz. that the true God adored by all Christian People should be three infinite Minds and yet not three infinite Minds If it be as it is impossible that there should be more infinite Minds than one then will Atheists say it is impossible such a Being should exist as you describe your God to be that is there is no God After these Questions I am to be told a Secret which though in great §. 19. Pag. 19. Modesty I conceal yet possibly I may be privy to viz. that Atheists and Deists Men who are for no Religion are of late very zealous Socinians I easily believe and acknowledg Mr. Dean better acquainted with the Town than I am but if Atheists and Deists be zealous Socinians let him never again object to me my Socinian Friends for I protest I have not to my Knowledg any familiar Acquaintance much less Friendship with any Atheists or Theists in the World I pray as our Church teaches to pray FOR ALL INFIDELS AS WELL AS TVRKS AND JEWS that GOD WOVLD TVRN THEIR HEARTS And in my Sphere as God gives me Opportunity I desire to labour in his Church to that purpose but otherwise I
am so far from espousing the Conversation much less Friendship of any such as that I say with the great Apostle If any Man love not the Lord Jesus Christ let him be Anathema Maranatha And as for my own part I from my Heart receive every Tittle of the revealed Christian Religion particularly as to those two Magnalia the Trinity and Incarnation Touching the former I have once and again declared my Judgment and Faith and touching the latter this being the meetest Place wherein to profess my Faith of it I do profess sincerely to believe my Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God the Word who was in the Beginning and who was with God and was and is God blessed for ever to have been in fulness of Time made of a Woman and so to have become Flesh or truly taken upon him Flesh and Blood to have been in the World as we are in the World subject to all Infirmities Sin only excepted and that as such having by himself purged our Sins he is sat down on the right Hand of the Majesty on high and as he lives for ever to make Intercession for us so he shall come to judg the World at the last Day Thus do I from my Heart adore and preach him and shall do I trust to my dying Hour I know indeed and have Converse with some who are not in all these Particulars of my Mind yet neither are they licentious Wits nor do they ridicule and scorn this Faith nor do I see how any sober Men dare ridicule it But some vertuous Rationalists having perhaps faln upon bad Books and by that Means lying under strong Prepossessions they misinterpret these Passages of Holy Scripture which I have reported and others like and endeavour to evade their Evidence when applied to that Sense to which we of the Church of England alledg them Now I do not think Stiffness and an immoderate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a winding up the State of each Question still higher and higher and then disputing scornfully and defending all in new Methods or by new Hypotheses to be the way to reclaim these Men but what I conceive to be most serviceable I shall before I have done speak out and submit As to Men that ridicule and scoff at any thing in Religion yea though it be erroneous as long as it is consistent with Holiness and Charity has a fair Claim to Scripture and seems deducible thence I think such Scoffers highly prophane and both these and all such who treat those that are not of their Opinions with Scorn and Haughtiness I judg them to be next door to David's Scorners Psal 1. namely in the highest Class of the Wicked and very near being incorrigible which is all I will say as to this Imputation of my having entertained a Friendship with such Men. Mr. Dean goes on and says I have found out such a Reason to prove §. 20. Pag. 20. the present Danger of disputing the Controversy of the Holy Trinity as he believes was never dream'd of and that is that it is one of the Fundamentals of Christian Religion Now to litigate touching a Fundamental is to turn it into Controversy c. Here I must again complain of soul dealing my Words were The Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity in whose Names we and all Christians are or ought to have been baptized is esteemed as it is if duly stated one of the Fundamentals of Christian Religion It is apparent I did affirm the Doctrine of the Trinity a Fundamental with this Restriction if duly stated He charges it upon me as affirm'd simply and at large I deny it to be a Fundamental or so much a Truth as Dr. Sherlock states it in his Vindication of it viz. that there is a Trinity of infinite Minds c. though with Reverence I acknowledg and believe it to be both a Truth and a Fundamental as the Scripture states it Now for Men to take the Name of a fundamental and revered Truth the Holy Trinity and affix it to a novel and gross Pack of Errors and to go on to dispute for those Errors under the sacred Title of a Fundamental of the Catholick and Apostolick Faith which was plainly enough my Sense this I say and stand to it is of dreadful Danger and may prove of as mischievous Consequence as most Practices assignable For in case the Adversary disprove and expose that Error it is not with the Generality of People the Error that suffers but that great Truth the sacred Name whereof was abused And whereas he demands Is it dangerous to preserve and defend Foundations when Hereticks unsettle them I answer he has truly done neither neither secured nor defended them but very surely has he done a third thing he has to his Power changed them Wherefore to all that dreadful aggravative Discourse which takes up a whole Page and an half spent to render me ridiculous and my Assertion Pag. 20 21. extravagant as if according to what I urge Men might not argue against Atheism I will give no other Answer than that I pray God to forgive him the making this Parallel and grant unto him hereafter better to employ his Time and Parts than in such open and unartificial Exaggerations In the next Page follows a Piece of News which I am truly to thank him for touching a Treatise in the Press from our excellent Primate Pag. 22. Now though this Intimation was intended against the Design of my Paper as an Argument from Authority and the Authority too of such a Person whom should I offer to except against I should most justly expose my Judgment if no more yet so welcome is the Tidings he tells me that here also I forgive both this his ill Intent and the sly Scoff with which he concludes that Paragraph not doubting but when I see that Piece I shall find in it both plain and perspicuous Scripture-Notions clear Reason and genuine Antiquity Besides I must tell the Apologist I look upon his Grace both by his publick Station and personal Qualifications far otherwise capacitated to write on this Subject than a private Doctor such as I suppose Mr. Dean was when he writ what he stiled the Vindication of the Holy and ever Blessed Trinity I now come to what he has to say against my last Argument for a temporary §. 21. Forbearance of these Disputes which he thus reports that I say All Controversies are now unseasonable in such a Juncture wherein nothing but an Vnity of Counsels and joining Hands and Hearts can preserve the Reformation and scarce any thing more credit it than an Vnion in Doctrinals This Report of my Argument is according to his wonted Candour and Veracity But my Argument by his Favour stood not so in my Paper it was more carefully express'd had more Parts and those pressing closer I desire it may be considered I was to say as much as I could in a little and however Mr.
to imitate §. 24. my Saviour and answer one captious Question with another 1st He asks Whether I will allow them whom I grant to be in Possession of the Faith of the Trinity and Incarnation to keep Possession of it to teach explain and confirm it to their People And I will ask him Whether he never saw certain Royal Injunctions assigning fit Subjects for Sermons Some in Queen Elizabeth's Time and others since ordinarily transmitted to the Clergy by the Primate of the Kingdom that Preachers shall in their Sermons purely and sincerely declare unto their Hearers the Word of God and in the same exhort them to good Works to Works of Faith as Mercy and Charity that they shall forbear difficult and controversial Points Now although this of the Trinity be not that I remember mentioned yet I am sure there is the same Reason of it as of those that are And by his Favour I will ask him further whether it be not fit to obey such Injunctions or whether the Doctrine of the Trinity be not as difficult and remote from the common Peoples Understanding as is the Doctrine of Predestination and God's Decrees Notwithstanding this I yield In the Name of God let Ministers at due Season as on Trinity-Sunday and the Feast of the Nativity of our Lord preach to their People as they judg it most edifying the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation only let them do it plainly easily purely and sincerely according to Scripture and not with Innovations of their own His 2d Particular I expected would have been a Question also as he promised but he had either forgot his Promise or changed his Mind and so he puts the Case categorically thus I hope says Mr. Dean he that is the melancholy Stander-by does not propose this Negative Belief as he calls it as a Term of Communion that though we know them to deny the Trinity and Incarnation yet if they will agree not publickly to oppose and contradict this Faith we shall receive them to our Communion Now though he has not proposed this in form of a Question yet I will answer it with a very short one Why not At least as far forth as we know that is as they profess they can in Conscience join with us Nay has not Mr. Dean done it or would he not in the Case I shall now put namely Suppose him or me to be in the Pulpit beginning our Prayer before Sermon either as some do with the Collect Prevent us O Lord c. or with some Form or Conceptions of our own in which notwithstanding is nothing of Controversy intermix'd and to subjoin to our own Prayer that of our Lord's Suppose in like manner after Sermon we should use either that Collect Grant we beseech thee c. or some Prayer of our own and then give the Blessing to the whole Congregation promiscuously Admit now that in the Beginning of our very first Prayer we should have seen a Person whom we know to be a good Liver and professing the common Christianity in other Points but so unhappy as that he cannot be convinced of the Doctrine of three Persons in the Godhead as it is ordinarily taught or of the Incarnation of the second Person though he does from his Heart believe and confess Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and hold all other the Articles of the Apostles Creed would or should either Mr. Dean or I in such case stop as soon as we saw that Person in the Congregation and bid him go out refusing he should join with us in those Prayers or receive his Share in that Blessing to both which he heartily says Amen that is Shall I not admit him to Communion as far as I know he does consent and desire to communicate with me and other Orthodox Christian People I know the Story of St. John the Evangelist and Cerinthus but Cerinthus was anotherguise Heretick than such Person as in the Character supposed I might animadvert as I pass that in pag. 27. Mr. Dean imputes sundry Points very iniquitously stated to the Socinians which yet they hold not as he states them I am not concerned to defend the Socinian Errors but as I love Truth and Peace I cannot forbear observing that he here wrongs them First as to what he speaks of the Object of Christian Worship if he as some in the World had had personal dealing with the Generality of his Parishioners as to Matters of Conscience he would say that the Ignorance of many Church-People and so the Errors of their Conceptions both touching God and touching the three Persons in the Godhead much more alter as to them the Object of the Christian Worship than do the Errors of the Socinians Again whereas he says the Socinians deny that the Son of God offered himself a Sacrifice to expiate our Sins I do so far depend upon my Memory as to avow they affirm our Lord Jesus to have been Victimam verè expiatoriam a Sacrifice truly expiatory they are the Words of the Author of the short Exposition of the Apostles Creed whether Slicktingius as I rather think or Crellius I cannot now tell having not seen my Book divers Years Nor do they deny the Love of God to Mankind in giving his only Son to be our Prophet and Saviour and Redeemer too nor his Intercession as their High Priest in virtue of his Blood shed as an Atonement for our Sins They differ from us perhaps in explaining the Nature of Expiation and Satisfaction but both an Expiation and a Satisfaction they allow Some Men write against them without understanding them But I forbear further intermeddling in these kinds of Injuries though to use Mr. Dean's Words it were easy to enlarge on this Argument I am not writing a Defence Pag. 28. of the Socinians only I am vindicating a peaceable Design in a Man that is none but loves Godliness Vertue and good Works where-ever he meets with them and who may chance sooner to perswade many Socinians to be silent by making it apparent he would not wrong them however odious others make them by unjust Charges than will those be able who try their Skill and strain their Veracity in fierce and haughty Disputes against them Men may have Wit enough if they have Justice done them to understand when it is fit to be quiet who will scarce sit down silent under publick Calumnies In the next Place Mr. Dean falls upon me for saying very much is done §. 25. namely for present Union by the late Act in Favour of Dissenters and taxes me here again according to his wonted Civility with pretending to give Account of Acts of Parliament as I do of other Books without seeing them A strange kind of Incredulity touching my Reading has possess'd this Gentleman Must I not be believed to have read Books except I produce Witnesses that heard or saw me read them I can produce Witnesses now in London where I bought this
I find done was that at some Distance of time several Attempts and Proceedings pass'd in order to it and Extracted out of Dr. Burnet at length the Work was finish'd by divers Committees successively but those neither of the Convocation nor named by the Convocation Indeed Cranmer was the principal Person and who else were imployed therein may be seen in Dr. Burnet's 2d Part p. 196 197. But before it received the Royal Confirmation the King died and the Work fell with him says my Author As to the second I do not observe any Notice was taken of it either by the Bishops then in Power or by the Parliament And I conjecture the Reason to be for that it was known full well to the Reformers that the Generality of the Clergy were at that time Papists in See Dr. Burnet Part 2. p. 96. their Hearts which hindred the Church of many Powers and Privileges that otherwise might have been granted to her And however many of them for that time complied yet in Q. Mary's Days when Popery came to be resettled by Parliament all of them save 177 if we may believe See his Journal pag. 23. Part 2. p. 50. Sir Simon D' Ewes turned about again or became I apists As to the third It was resolved saith Dr. Burnet that many Bishops and Divines should be sent the same who afterwards compiled the Liturgy saith Dr. Heylin were sent to Windsor to labour in the Matter of the Communion-Service but that required so much Consideration that they would not enter into it during a Session of Parliament However it was finish'd and publish'd with the King's Proclamation March 8 1547 8 as Dr. Heylin tells us And for the fourth what Answer was given to it doth not appear Thus the Reverend Doctor However most certain it is that neither were these Bishops and Divines named by the lower House of Convocation but by the King and Council as will by and by appear nor the Alterations by them made ever brought before that House What further Dr. Burnet records done by this Convocation upon the Bishops sending down to the lower House a Declaration concerning the Sacrament to be received in both kinds and the Marriage of the Clergy to the former of which all consented and to the latter most I need not report What I have faithfully thus represented from him is the Sum of that Account which he says is all he could recover of that Convocation Pag. 50. And what shall the Man do that comes after him Despairing therefore of more touching this Convocation we will go on with Fox and others in the Proceedings of the Reformation made without them Not only the Communion was enjoyned by Act of Parliament to be ministred in both kinds to which it may be said the Convocation consented but by the same Parliament solitary Communion of the Priest or private Masses were put down of which that we find the Convocation had never been consulted and to which that lower House for many Reasons would never have consented and the Curates required at least one Day before the Communion to exhort all Persons that should be present to prepare themselves for receiving Fifthly After this most godly Consent of the Parliament continues my Author making no mention of a Convocation for that now was broke up with the Parliament The King being no less desirous to have Fox p. 1183. the Form of the Administration of the Sacrament truly reduced to the right Rule of the Scripture and first Use of the Primitive Church than he was to establish the same by his own Regal Laws appointed certain of the most grave and learned Bishops and others of his Realm to assemble together at his Castle at Windsor and there to argue and intreat upon this Matter and conclude upon and set forth one perfect and uniform Order according to the Rule and Use aforesaid Here was made the then new English uniform Order of the Communion Sixthly In the mean while that these learned Persons were thus occupied about their Conferences the Lord Protector and the rest of the King's Council farther remembring that the time of the Year approaching wherein were practised many superstitious Abuses and blasphemous Ceremonies against the Glory of God and Truth of his Word and determining the utter abolishing thereof directed their Letters unto the Godly and Reverend Father Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury requiring him that upon the Receipt thereof he should will every Bishop within his Province forthwith to give in Charge to all the Curates of their Diocesses that neither Candles should be any more born upon Candlemas-day neither yet Ashes used in Lent nor Palms upon Palm-Sunday which was done accordingly And one of the Letters may be seen in my Author expresly saying All this was done by my Lord Protector 's Grace with the Advice of other the King's Majesty's most honourable Council dated Jan. 28 1547 8 at which time the King had reigned one Year compleat Seventhly Contention and Strife arising amongst the common People in divers Places of the Realm about Images what of these had been idolatrously abused and what not and consequently what should be pulled down and destroyed what left the Lords of the Council by one Advice thinking it best of good Experience for the avoiding all Discord and Tumult that all manner of Images should be clean taken out of Churches and none suffered to remain did thereupon again write their Letters unto the Archbishop of Canterbury to that Effect The Copy of the Letters bearing Date Feb. 11 1547 8 with Boner's Letters in Obedience to the Archbishop's Mandate thereupon may be seen at large in Fox Eighthly By this time the uniform Order for the Communion in English being finished Letters missive from the Council are issued forth to the Bishops of the Realm concerning the Communion to be administred according to the Tenour of the said Book Which Letters also may be read in the same Author p. 1184. bearing Date at Westminster March 13 1548. Ninthly Notwithstanding all these Orders to proceed through the perverse Obstinacy and dissembling Frowardness of many of the Priests who therefore never consented hereto in Convocation there arising a marvellous Schism and Variety of Fashions in celebrating the Common Service and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church the King's Council having good Intelligence hereof did by their prudent Advices again appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury with certain of the best learned and discreet Bishops and other learned Men to draw and make one convenient and meet Order Rite and Fashion of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacrament to be had and used within the Realm which was accordingly done and the Book which was the first of the two in his Reign was by the King exhibited to the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament about Nov. 4 1548. in the second Year of his Reign in which Parliament it pass'd with the Assent
possess'd of another's Will by being conscious to him what his Will is much less should have the Power of another because he knows as well as he what he can do is in my Apprehension impossible For it makes Understanding Will and Power to be the same thing And it is plain mutual Consciousness in Propriety of Speech implies only mutual Knowledg I may know another's Will yet not be able to bring mine to it I may know what another is able to do yet not arrive at his Power Much more might be said to shew the Insufficiency of mutual Consciousness for salving the Unity of three such Persons as he has supposed in one Nature any otherwise than as three Individuals are united in one special Nature which will not serve his turn but I had rather make an end Before he concludes he must clothe me as he has been used to do others §. 28. and as the Heathen did the Primitive Christians that Beasts might sooner seize them or as the Inquisitors do Hereticks before their Execution in some monstrous Shape that the World at least the Church may abhor me Accordingly in an insulting Mood as thinking himself to have run me down he puts the Question And can any Man tell what Opinion this Pag. 30. melancholy Stander-by has of the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation And he answers it himself that I dare not speak out but I give very broad Signs what I would be at But can any Man tell how the Doctrine of the Incarnation comes in here My Paper had not so much as named it Only we must know the Doctor had writ on it and he could not give me Load enough except he possess the World that I dissent from him in a Doctrine wherein perhaps he is more Orthodox as well as in that wherein he is Heterodox I said perhaps he is more Orthodox in the Doctrine of the Incarnation but admitting the necessary and immediate Consequence of one Branch of his Hypothesis he is not so For if Self-consciousness alone distinguish one Mind whether finite or infinite from another then inasmuch as all must allow there is no more essential Property of the rational Soul than to be conscious to it self it will follow that there are two Persons in Christ viz. the second Person of the Godhead and the Man Christ Jesus which I think is Nestorianism Else he must deny the Son of God did take a rational Soul or became truly Man utrum horum But forasmuch as this is only a Consectary of his Doctrine and not expresly delivered by him I affix it not to him However I must complain he has done me wrong here fliely and beyond the present Cue to put the World upon a Jealousy of my Orthodoxy in Point of the Incarnation and for a Farewell having by corrupting dismembring and misplacing my Words fastned upon me divers extravagant things as said by me which I never said as will appear by inspecting my Paper to expose me as the greatest Applauder of the Socinians to take off my Sheeps Clothing as he calls it and put me on the Wolves In Conclusion devoutly praying God to preserve his Church from such as me But if I may have Liberty to answer his Question I will satisfy the World what Opinion I have both of all the Controversies on Foot amongst English Protestants for others I meddle not with and particularly of those of the Trinity and Incarnation First As to all Controversies amongst English Protestants I had in my Paper express'd my Opinion and Affection too p. 12. perhaps with so much Moderation and Justice that Mr. Dean thought not fit to take any notice of that Part. A happy Page of mine that which alone as far as I can perceive escaped his good-natured Pen. Now the Sum of what I there said and suggested in other Places of my Paper is this that being we are all agreed in the common Christianity thereby I mean the Apostles Creed and the Evangelical Law which is the Sum of Holy Scripture therefore both all private Doctors except in the Schools and all other private Persons of what Party soever should let Controversy alone and keep their Minds to themselves refrain from exposing one another and treasuring up to one another Wrath against an evil Day and should bend all their Studies to reform their own and others Lives worshipping God sincerely according to their Consciences and blessing him for their present Liberty and studying to be quiet and to do their own Business This is my Sense for the present as to all Controversies amongst us Protestants in general Then as to the two particular Doctrines by him mentioned I have sufficiently declared my Judgment already in this Paper And I will add thereto only thus much that my Opinion as to the Controversy betwixt Dr. Sherlock and me as more fully I have set it forth in this Paper is not by me newly taken up For above one and thirty Years ago being then a Preacher in Oxford I publickly averr'd what I still judg to be Truth and what was not then taxed as Heretical That he that shall affirm there are three Persons in the Godhead taking the word Person properly or strictly as we do in ordinary Cases is guilty of a more grievous Error than he who altogether denies three Persons That both then I had and since have subscribed several times to the Church-Articles which are plain enough in these Points That otherwise according to Law as required I have given Assurance of my Orthodoxy and Conformity nor have I done or writ any thing by which I have retracted such Subscription or Conformity and therefore I fear no Man's good Will as to reforming me out of the Church But in Sum I think it no Point of Nonconformity to desire and in my Sphere endeavour promote or perswade the reforming of such things in our Church as keep many good Men out of it And therefore notwithstanding my Engagements to the Church and Adherence thereto I declare it as my Judgment that the Church is bound upon her Faith that is upon her Promise often and on several Occasions given especially upon the Profession she has made in time of her Adversity to reform her Liturgy in divers Points and to relax the Conditions of her Communion as soon as a convenient State of Affairs offers it self of which I do not pretend to be a competent Judg but am of opinion much Delay will be dangerous And in case when a fit Season offers it self the Church should not reform or relax as abovesaid I fear she will forfeit much of her Credit and scarce be believed again in a Day of Tribulation if it should happen to her which God forbid Mr. Dean concludes with a Promise that having vindicated the antient Pag. 32. Rights and Liberties of the Church to defend the truly Catholick and Apostolick Faith from the Assaults of Hereticks he shall apply himself as his leisure serves to the Defence of his Vindication c. Alas good Man Who ever went about any-wise to infringe those Liberties Is intreating Men a while to forbear dangerous Disputes and those too so managed as to expose both themselves the Truth and the Church an Invasion of their Liberties nay and of the Rights of the Church too Verily if the Doctrine of three infinite Minds their Self-consciousness and mutual Consciousness be not either censured by our Church or generally disowned by the Divines of it it will soon be thought the Churches Doctrine And this being about a Fundamental perhaps some shortly will put the Question not where was your Church and Faith before Luther but where before Dr. Sherlock till he wrote you were not clear in Fundamentals For my Part I have admired to see first such an Explication of the Trinity and then such a Reassertion of it reviling and menacing an humble Man for Moderation and dissenting from Novelties and Heterodoxies come forth with publick Licence But to return to the Need there was of the Dean's vindicating the antient Rights and Liberties of the Church The Case is just the same as if a Stranger in a time of War accidentally finding a Friend of his engaged in a private hazardous Rencounter against experienced Duelists and trusting to some new little Slights he had got should cry out to them all to hold their Hands and by all means that he could use should perswade them to desist telling them they had more need to be at their Prayers for Publick Peace and to reserve themselves Strength and Skill against the Common Enemy Now it would be a pleasant thing in such a Juncture to hear this Stranger 's Friend exclaim against the kind Stranger for attempting or infringing therein his and the publick Rights and Liberties of Mankind given forsooth to all by the Law of Nature to defend themselves Even just so much Occasion and Reason had Mr. Dean to undertake a Vindication of the antient Rights and Liberties of the Church against me He will now apply himself he says as his leisure serves to the Defence of his Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation Now I must beg his Pardon to say I can conceive but two ways in the World he has to vindicate it the one and that the most honourable is to write such a Piece as the Great St. Austin did in his latter Years and which is commonly put in the Beginning of his first Tome called his Retractations The other such a shift as some Men now and then have been put to to buy up or get into his Hands if it were possible all the Copies of his Book and destroy them that so his beloved Hypothesis may die away By either of these Means he may effectually vindicate his Vindication But if he be above this honest Advice I cannot help it Invitum qui servat idem facit occidenti I'shall not God willing trouble either the World or him any more with animadverting upon his Writings FINIS