An apology for writing against Socinians, in defence of the doctrines of the holy Trinity and Incarnation : in answer to a late Earnest and compassionate suit for forbearance to the learned writers of some controversies at present by Edward Wetenhall

:'.'-'.

c'^-

TV

m

•tffc

^j,r

» f

*^

LIBRARY

PRINCETON, M. J.

DONATION 01'

8AMU E 1. A G N E W , ■

f - OF P HTI. A 1»K LP H I A, P A.

Letter

No.

/_ /fcu..^.ij^/

COLLECTION OF PURITAN AND
ENGLISH THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE

?

LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY

The D e a n of St. PAUL':

APOLOGY

FOR

Writing againft S o c i n i a n s, &c*

Imprimatur,

Geo. Royfe, R. Rmo- in
Jan. 17. Chrifto Patri ac Dorn>

Dom. Johan. Arcbiep.
Cam. a Sacris Domefi.

APOLOGY

FOR

Writing againft SOCINIANS,

DEFENCE

O F T H E

DOCTRINES

OF THE

Holy Trinity and Incarnation:

In ANSWER to a Lace Earnejl and Com-
paffionate Suit for Forbearance to the Ltarned
Writers of Jome Controverts at brefent.

By William Sherlock, D. D. Dean of
St. PatdySy Mafter of the Temple, and Chaplain
in Ordinary to Their MAJESTIES.

LONDON:

Printed for Zlliih iSogetg, at the Sun over-againft
Sr. Dun(hns Church in Fleetftreet, 169 j.

A N

APOLOGY

FOR

Writing againft S o c i n i a n s, &c.

jF T E R a long filence, and patient
expe&ation what the Learned Wri-
ters of Jome Controverts at prefent
( as a late Author ca!ls them )
would bring forth, I intend by the
Affi fiance of the Holy Trinity , and
the Incarnate Jefus, whofe Blefling
I moft earneftly Implore, to refume the Defence of
the Catholtck Faith ; which I fhall Publifh in fbme
few fhort Treatifes, as I can find Leifure for it,
that I may not difcourage my Readers by too Volu-
minous a Work.

But before I venture to Difpute thefe matters any
farther, it is neceffary to make (bme Apology for
Difputing ; which is thought very Unchriftian and
Uncharitable, and of dangerous Confcquence, efpe-
cially when we undertake the Defence of the Fun-
damentals of our Faith, againlt the rude and infblent
AfTaults of Hereticks.

B

Some-

% An A? 0 L 0 G Y for

Sometime fince, A Melancholy Sunder- by would
be a Stander-by no longer, but interpoled An Earneft
and Compafjionate Suit for For bear ana, toiht Ltamed
Writers of fome Controverfes at pnfeit. 1 hc(c Learn-
ed Writtrs of 'lorn 'rover /-, are the Socinians , who
ridiculed without any Learning or Common enfe,
the Athanafian Creed, and the Dgbtrmtt of th: Trini-
ty and Incarnation : The Forbearance he dtdes, is,
That no body fhould write againft them ; though
Dr. Wallis and my felf are more immediately con-
cerned in this Suit,

Who this Melancholy Staxder-by is, I fhall not en-
quire, for my Controverfy is not with Men, but with
Doctrines ; and i know by experience, that common
fame is not always to be fruited, much left fufpici-
ons ; but if he be a Divine of the Church of Eng-
land, it feems very ftrange, that he fhould profefs
himfelf a Stander-by, when the Fundamentals of
the Chriftian Faith are in queftion ; and a Melancholy
Stander-by to fee fbme others undertake the Defence
of it. I confels I am always very jealous of men,
who are fb very Tender on the wrorg fide j for ob-
ferve it when you will, their Tendernefs is always
owing to their Inclination. But to defend our felves,
let us briefly confider what he fays.
Earned He thinks, The open Dijfentions of its Profefjors a

Suit, p. i. great bkmifh to the Reformation : That is, that it is a
great blemiihfor any men openly to defend the true
Faith, which others openly oppofe, or fecretly un-
dermine ; but certainly it would be a greater ble-
mifh to the Reformat ion, to have Old Here/is revived,
and the true Ancient Cathol/ck Fnth fcorned, and no
body appear in the Defence of it. But we know his
mind, That it is ior the honour of the Reformation

not

Writing again ft Socinians. *■

not to Difpute, though it be for the mod: Important
Truths. Surely our Reformers were not fb much
again ft Deputing.

But if thefe DifTentions be fb great a blemifh to
the Reform xtion, whole Fault W\\ ? Theirs who difc
fent from the Truth, or theirs who defend it P This
is a very plain scale ; for no body would oppofe the
Truth, If no body taught it: Tbertr^gvdoftrifrah
''J tm in matters of faith, h ffrmo^si That

is, to require an open and undilguifed Profeflion
of our Baptifmal Fflith'tn father f So* y&nd Holy Gh[ly
as the Terms of Chriftian ■ ommunion, is the Cri-
minal Caufe of -our DilTen: ions. Well : What fhall
we do then ? Renounce the Faith of the Trinity, for
the fake of Peace? This he dares nor fay, for that
would pull off hisdiiguife; but Ckhfii&nity mttfi be
left in that Latitude and Simphci'y wherein it was deli' P. t.
vered by onr Lord And his Apoftles. This had been a
good Propofal, would he have told us what this La-
'■■■ an i Simplicity is ; for I am for no other Faith
th*n what Chrift and his Apoftles taught : But I
would g'adly kno v what he means by the Latitude
of Pailfi : For if the Chriftian Faith be fuch a broad
Faich, m aft we not believe the whole breadth of it?
Or has Chrift and his Apoftles left it at liberty to
believe what we like, and to let the reft alone ? To
believe that F-^er, Son, and Holy Gh oft are One Su-
preme Ettrnil God; or to believe that the Father
alone is the True God, the Son a mere Man, and the Ho-
ly G ho ft nothing but a Divine Infpiration? To' believe
that the Efefn ilWord was mid. Flefh ', or that Chrift
was no more than a M in, who had no being before
he was born of the Virgin May? He can mean no-
thing elfe by this Latitude of Faith, but that Chrift

B 2 and

4 Jn JVO LOGT for

and his Apoftles have left thefe matters fb ambiguous
and undetermined, that we may believe what we
pleafej and then indeed thofe do very ill, who di-
spute thefe matters : But this is fuch a breadth as has
no depth ; for fuch a Faith as this can have no foun-
dation. Can we certainly learn from Scripture, Whe-
ther Chrift be a God Incarnate, or a mj.re Man ? If
we cannot, Why fhould we believe either? If we
- can, then one is true, and the other falfe ; and then
there is no Latitude in Faith, unlefs Chrift and his
Apoftles have left it indifferent, whether we believe
what is true, or what is falfe ; what they have taught
us, or what we like better our (elves.

In the fame manner he leaves us toguefs what he
means by the Simplicity of the Faith. He is very an-
gry with the School- Doctors, as wor/e enemies to Chri-
P* a- ftianity, than either Heathen Philosophers, or perfecutin?
Emperors. Pray what hurt have they done ? I fuppofe
he means the Corruption of Chriftianity with thole
barbarous Terms of Perfon, Nature, Efjence, Subfift-
ence, Confubftantiality, 8cc which will not fuffer He-
reticks to lye concealed under Scripture-Phrafes : But
why muft the Schoolmen bear all the blame of this ?
Why does he not accufe the Ancient Fathers and Coun-
cils, from whom the Schoolmen learnt thefe Terms ?
Why does he let St. Auflin efcape, from whom the
Maftercf the Sentences borrowed rrioft of his Diftin-
Qions and Subtilties? But fuppofe thefe Unlucky
Wits had ufed fome new Terms, have they taught
any new Fakh about the Trinity inVnity, which the
Catholick church did not teach ? And if they have
only guarded the Chriftian Faith with a hedge of
Thorns, which difguiled Hereticks cannot break
through, Is this to wound Chriftianity in its very Vi-
tals ?

Writing agalnft Socinians.

tals ? No, no .- They will only prick the fingers of
Hereticks,and fecure Chriftianity from being wound-
ed ; and this is one great Caufe why fome men are
fo angry whhthe School- Dotfors ; tho the more ge-
neral Caufe is, becaufe they have not Induflry
enough to read or underffond them.

He (ays, The fir ft Reformers complained of this^ and
de fired a purer and more fpiritual fort of Divinity.
What ? With refpect to the Do&rine of the Trinity
and Incarnation^. What purer Reformers were thefe ?
I'm lure not our Engl/fh Reformers , whom he cen-
fures for retaining Scholaftick cramping lermsin their
Publick Prayers : He means the beginning of our Li-
tany r 0 God the Father of Heaven : 0 God the Son,
Redeemer of the World: 0 God the Holy Ghofl, pro-
ceeding from the Father and the Son : 0 Holy, Bleffed,
and Glorious Trinity , Three Perfons and One God :
Thefe are his Scholaftick, Cramping Terms, which he
would fling out of our Liturgy, when the feafbn of
fuch blefled Alterations comes. I hope thofe Excel-
lent Perfons among us, who, I doubt not, for better
Reafons did not long fince think of fome Alterati-
ons, will confider what a foul Imputation this is up-
on fuch a Defign, when fuch a perfbn fliall publick-
ly declare, That they ought to Alter and Reform the
Doctrine of the Trinity out of our Prayers.

But the whole Myftery of this Latitude and Sim*
pliaty of Faith which he pleads for, is that plaufible
Project ( which has been fb much talked of of late )
to confine our felves to Scripture Terms and Phrafes ',
to ufe none but Scripture Words in our Creeds and
Prayers, without any Explication in what fenfe
thofe words are to be underftood : As he tells us, p.
Certainly we may Worffjip God right well, yea, moft ac-

ccptably.

6 An A<P 0 LO GY for

ceptably, in wor'As of his own Stamp and Coinage. Now
at the firft Propofal few men would fufpett, that
there fhould t e any hurt in this ; though it would
make one iufpe&fbme fecret in it, to confider that
Heretic ks were the firft Propofers of it, and that Or-
thodox Cfirifdans rejected it. The Anans objected
this againft the Hamoo»(km, or tbi- Sons being of the
fi.me Sub (lance with the Father, that it was an Ucfcri-
ptural Word ; but the Nicene Fathers did. not think
this a good reafon to lay it afide: For what reafon
can there be to reject any words, which we can
prove to exprefs the true (enfe of Scripture, though
they are not found there? For mud: we believe the
Words or the Senfe of Scripture ? And what reafon
then can any man have to rejeel: the Words, though
they be no Scripture- Words, if he believes the Senfe
contained in them to be the fenfe of Scripture ? The
Homoiovjion, or that the Son had a Nature like the Fa-
ther's, tho not the fame, was no more a Scripture-
Word, than the Homooufion ; and yet the Arians
did not diflike that* becauie it was no Scripture-
Word ; nor are the Soc in his angry at any man who
fays, That Chrift is but a meer man, who had no Beir.g
before he was bom of the Virgin Mary ; tho theie
words are no where in Scripture : And is it not
ftrange, that a man who heartily believes, or at
leaft pretends to believe, that Father, Son, and Holy
Ghofl are One Eternal God, fhould be angry with a
Trinity in V nit y, or Three Perfons and one God, which
do as aptly expref> the Faith which he profe/Ies,
as anv Words he can think of?

It is very odd to be zealous for Scripture- Words
without the Scripture Senfe. If the Scripture have
any determined Senfe, then that which is the true

Senfe

Hfrtfftfg again Jl Socinians.

Senfe of Scripture, is the true Faith; and if we
muft. contend earnejlh for the true Faith, we muft con-
tend fo>- the true Senfe of Scripture, and not merely
for its Words ; and when Hereticks have ufed their
utmoft art to make the Words of Scripture fignifie
what they pleafe, is it notneccfTary to fix their true
Senfe, and toexprefs that Senfe in fuch other Words'
as Hereticks cannot pervert ?

There are Lut few words in common fpeech, but
what are fbmetimes differently ufed3 in a Proper or
M t.'p/jor/csi/, a Large or a Limited Senfe ; and all
wife and honeft men eafily under (fan J from the cir-
cumftances of the place , in what fenfe they are
ufed ; but if men be perverfe, they may expound
words properly when they are ufed metaphorically, or
metaphorically when they are ufed properly ;' and there
is no confuting them from the bare fignification of
the word, becaufe it may be, and oftentimes is ufed
both ways ; and therefore in fuch cafes we muft
conflder the Circumftances of the Text, and com-
pare it with Parallel Texts , to find out in what
fenfe the word is there ufed ; and when we have
found it, it is reafonable and neceffary to exprefs the
true Chriftian Faith, not merely in Scripture words,
which are 2bufed and perverted by Hereticks, but
in fuch other words, if we can find any fuch, as ex-
prefs the true fenfe in which the Scripture- words
are ufed, and in which all Chrifrians muft undcr-
ftand them, who will retain the Purit\ of the Chri-
ftian Faith. "We do not hereby alter the Chriftian
Faith, nor require them to believe anything more
than what the Scripture teaches, tho we require
them to profefs their Faith in other words, which
are not indeed in Scripture, but exprefs the true and

deter-

g An Jf 0 LO G Y for

determined fenfe of Scripture words. And this is all
the Latitude of Faith which this Stander-by fo tragi-
cally complains we have deftroyed, viz. That we
have brought the Scripture words to a fixt and de-
termined fenfe, that Hereticks can no longer conceal
themfelves in a Latitude of expreflion , nor fpread
their Herefies in Scripture words, with a Traditio-
nary Scnib and Comment of their own.

I would ask any man who talks at this rate about
a Latitude of Faith, Whether there be any more
than One True Chriftian Faith ? And whether
Chrift and his Apoftles intended to teach any more ?
Or whether they did not intend, That all Chriftians
fhould be obliged to believe this One Faith ? If this
be granted, there can be no more Latitude in the
Faith, than there is in a Unit ; and if they taught
but One Faith, they muft intend that their words
fhould fignifie but that one Faith ; and then there
can be no Intentional Latitude in their words neither ;
and what Crime then is the Church guilty of, if (he
teach the true Chriftian Faith, that fhe teaches it in
fuch words as have no Latitude, no Ambiguity of
Senle, which Hereticks may deny if they pleafe, but
which they can't corrupt in favour of their Herefies,
as they do Scripture words?

It is an amazing thing to me, that any man
who has any Zeal, any Concernment for the true
Chriftian Faith, who does not think it perfectly in-
different what we believe, or whether we believe
any thing or not, fhould judge it for the advantage
of Chriftianity, and a proper Expedient for the
Peace of the Church, for all men to agree in the
fame Scripture words, and underftand them in what
fenfe they pleafe ; tho one believes Chrift to be the

Eternal

Writing again ft Socinians. 9

Eternal Son of God, and another to be but a mere
man ; which it feems has no great hurt in it, if they
do but agree in the fame words : But if the Faith be
fb indifferent, I cannot imagine why we fhould quar-
rel about Words ; the fairer and honefter Propofal
is, 1 hat every man fhould believe as he pleafes, and
no man concern himfelf to confute Herefies, or to
divide the Church withDifputes ; which is the true
Latitude our Author feems to aim at ; and then he
may believe as hepleafes too.

But pray, why fhould we not write againft the
Socinmns ? Especially when they are the AggrefTors,
and without any provocation publifh and difperfe
the molt impudent and fcandaleus Libels againft the
Chriftian Faith. He will give us fbme very wife
Reafbns for this by and by, when he comes to be
plain and fuccincT ; in the mean time we muft take
fuch as we can meet with.

He is afraid people fhould lofe all Reverence for
the Litany, fhould we go on to vindicate the Do- P. 3;
£trine of the Trinity in Unity. I fhould not eafily
have apprehended this, and poflibly fome of the
common people might have been as dull as my felf,
had he not taken care before he parted, for fear no
body elfe fhould obferve it, to teach people to ridi-
cule the Trinity in their Prayers. Dr. Wallis would
not undertake to fay what a Divine Ptrfon figni-
fies, as diftinguifhed from Nature and Effence, on-
ly fays, a Per/on is fomewbat , but the True Noti-
on of a Per/on he does not know: This Author
commends this as ever held to by all Learned
Trinitarians ; for" indeed all the DocTor meant by
his fomewbat is, That Three Perfons fignify Three
Real Sub ftftencesy and are Real Things, not a Saklhan

C Tr*-

io An A 9 0 LO GY for

Trinity of mere Names. And yet in the very next
Page he teaches his Readers to ridicule the Li-
tany with the Doctors fomewhats : 0 Holy, Blejfed,
and Glorious Trinity, Three Somewhat s, and One God,

P- * 6 have Mercy on u?9 &c. Was there ever any thing
more Senfelefs, or more Prophane ! That becaufe
the Doctor would not undertake to define a Per-
fon, but only afTerted in general, That a Divine
Perfon was fomewhat, or fbme Real Being, in op-
pofition to a mere Nominal Difference and Di-
ih'n&ion ; therefore in our Prayers we may as
well call the Three Divine Perfons, Father, Son,
and Holy Ghofr, Three Jomervhats. Nobis non li-
cet ejfe tarn difertis. I am fure he has reafbn
heartily to pray, That thefe Three fomewhats, as
he prophanely calls them, would have Mercy
on him.

p. 3. In the next place he fays, He is well affured,

that the late ( Socinian ) Pamphlets would have di-
ed away, or have been now in few mens hands, had
not divers perfons taken on them the labour to con-
fute them. But did his Socinian Friends, who
were fuch bufie Factors for the Caufe, tell him
fo? Did they print them, that no body might
read them? Were they not dilperfed in every
Corner, and boafted of in every CofTee-houfe ,
before any Anfwer appeared ? However , were k
fb , is there no regard to be had to Hereticks
themfelves ? And is it not better that fuch. Pam-
phlets fhould be in an hundred hands with an
Anfwer3 than in five hands without one? I fhould
think it at any time a good reward for all the la-
bour of confuting , to refcue or preferve a very
few from fuch fatal Errors , which I doubt not

Writing againft Sbdhlans- ' j x

but is a very acceptable fervice to that Merciful
Shepherd, who was fb careful to feek one loft and
ftraggling Sheep. Herefies and Vices dy& by
being neglefted, juft as Weeds do ; for we know
the Parable , That the Devil fiivs his tares, while
men fleep. But this is no new Charge; the good
Bifhop of Alexandria met with the fame Cenfures
for his Zeal againft Arius \ for it feems that He-
refie would have died too, if it had not been op-
pofed. I doubt this Author judges of other mens
Zeal for Herefy, by his own Zeal for the Truth,
which wants a little rubbing and charing to bring
it to life ; but Herefy is all flame and fpirit, will
blow and kindle it felf, if it be not quenched.

But yet if what he fays be true, That by our
unskilful way of confuting Herefie , we run into
thofe very Abfurdities which our Adverfaries would
reduce us to ; This I confefs is a very great fault,
and when he fhews me any of thofe Abfurdities,
I will thankfully correct them ; for all the Ob-
loquies in the world will never make me blufh
to recant an Error: But before he pretends to
that, I muft defire him, that he would firft read
my Book, which I know fbme men cenfure with-
out reading it. Such general Accufations are
very fpiteful , • and commonly have a mixture
of fpite both againft the Caufe, and againft the
Peribn.

His next Argument is very obfervable: We
muft not difpute now againft Socinians, becaufe
thefi Controversies about the Trinity have been v. 4.
above Thirteen hundred years ago determined bv two
general Councils (the Nicene, and firft Conftanti-
nopolitan ) , which are owned by our Church,

C 1 and

12 An A f 0 LOO Y for

and their Creeds received into our Liturgy. £>-
go, we muft not defend this Faith againft Here-
ticks , becaufe it is the Faith of two General
Councils which are owned by our Church. Did
Athanafuts think this a good Argument againft
Writing and Difputing againft the Arians, after
the Council of Nice had condemned Arius and his
Doctrines? Did St. Bafil, Gregory Nazianzen, Nyfi
fix, St. Chrjfoflom, St. Jerom, St. Auflin, think this
a good Argument, who wrote fo largely againft
thefe Hereftes , which former Councils had con-
demned ? But this Author thinks the beft way is
to let the Matter ft and upon this bottom of Autho-
rity, that is, let Hereticks ridicule our Faith as
much as they pleafe, we muft make them no other
anfwer, but that this is the Faith of the Nicene and
Conflantinopolitan Councils, and the Faith of the
Church of England, And can he intend this for
any more than a Jeft, when he knows how So-
cinians defpile the determinations of Councils, and
particularly with what Icorn they treat the Ni-
, cent Fathers ? Is this an Age to refolve our Faith
into Church Authority '? Or would he himfelf be-
lieve fuch abfurd Doctrines as they reprefent the
Trinity in Unity to be, merely upon Church Autho-
rity? For my part I declare I would not. I
greatly value the Authority of thofe Ancient
Councils, as credible WirneiTes of the Traditionary
Senfe of the Church before thole Controverfies
were ftarted ; but were not thefe Doctrines
taught in Scripture, were they manifeftly re-
pugnant to the plain and evident Principles of
Reafon, all the Councils in- the World fhould
never reconcile me to them^ no more than they

fhould

Writing againft Socinians. j*

fhould to the Doctrine of Trar.fubftantion. Arid
therefore methinks he might have at Ieaft al-
lowed us to have challenged the Scriptures as well
as General Councils on our fide ; and to have vindi-
cated our Faith from all pretended abfurdities and
contradictions to Keafon. But would any man of
common fenfe, who had not intended to expofe the
Faith of the Holy Trinity, have told the world at
this time of day, That we have no other fafe and
lure bottom for our Faith, but only the Authority of
General Councils ? Nay, That the Council of Nice
it (elf, on whofe Authority we mull reft, had little
elfe themfelves for their Determinations but only A u-
thority, That it n\ts Authority chiefly carried the Point.
And thus for fear we fhould have believed too much
upon the Authority of Councils, which is the only
bottom he will allow our Faith, he gives them a fe-
cret ftabhimfelf, and makes their Authority ridicu-
lous. That the feveral Bifhops declared, what
Faith had been taught and received in their Churches
is true ; That this Authority chufly carried the
Point, is falle : Athanafms grew famous in the Coun-
cil for his learned and fubtile Difpntations, which
confounded the Asians ; and what Arguments
he chiefly relied en, we may fee in his Works:
And whoever dees but look into the Fathers, who
wrote againlt the Arians in thofe days, will rind,
that their Faith was refolved into .Scripture
and Reafbn? and not meerly or chiefly into Au^
thority.

And thus he comes to be Plain and Succinct, and.r
tells us, That of all Controverfles we can touch
upon at prefent , this of the Trinity is the moft
unrtajonxble, the moft dangerous, and Jo the moft un-
feafonable. I-

14 An A<P 0 LOG I for

It is the moft Vnreafonable : i : Becau/e it is on
all hands con fefs'd, the Deity is Infinite, Vnfearch-
able. Incomprehensible ; and yet every cm who pre-
tends to Write plainer than another on this con-
troversy , profeffes to make all Comprehenfible and
eafy.

I perceive he is well verfed in Mr. Hobbs's Divi«.
nity ; though I can difcover no marks of his skill
in Fathers and Councils. For. this was Mr. HobPs
reafon, why we fhould not pretend to know any
thing of God , nor inquire after his Attributes ,
becaufe he has but one Attribute, which is, that
he is Incomprehei.ftble \ and as this Author argues, It
is a fmall favour to requefl of Ptrfbns of L,°arning,
that they jhould be confident with , and not contra-
dicl them/elves : that is , That they would not
pretend to know any thing of God , whom
they acknowledge to be Incomprehenfible , which
is to pretend to know, what they confers cannot
be known. Now I defire to know , Whether
we may Difpute about the Being and Niture of
God, and his effential Attributes and Perfections ;
and vindicate the Notion of a Deity from thofe
Impoffibilities , Inconfiftencies , Abfurdities7 which
fbme Atheifiical Ph/lofbphers charge on it, not-
withstanding that we confefs God to be Incompre-
henfible? And if the Incofnprehenfibility of the
Divine Nature does not fignifie , that we can
know nothing of God, and rauft inquire nothing
about him ; the Trinity of Divine l?erfons is as
proper an object of our Faith, and modeft Inqui-
ries, as the Unity of the Divine Effence, for they
are both Incomprehenfible. And to fay., That
every one who pretends to write plainer than another

• on

Writing againft Sociaians. i *

on tins Controverfy, profeffes to make all comprthenfi-
ble and eafy , may with equal Truth and Authori-
ty be charg'd on all thofe who undertake to vin-
dicate the Notion and Idea of a God , or to ex-
plain any of the Divine Attributes and Perfecti-
ons. A finite mind cannot comprehend what is
infinite; but yet one man may have a truer
and more perfect Notion of the Nature and Attri-
butes of God than another.- God is Incomprehen-
fible in Heaven as well as on Earth, and yet Angels
and Glorified Spirits know God after another man-
ner than we do. There muft be infinite degrees
of knowledge , when the object is infinite ; and
every new degree is more perfect than that below it ;
and yet no Creature can attain the higheft degree
of all, which is a perfect comprehension : So
that the knowledge of God may increafe every
day , and men may Write plainer about thefe
matters every day, without pretending to make
all that is in God, even a Trinity in Unity, com-
prehenfible and t\-/y.

This is a fpiteful and fcandalous imputation,
and is intended toreprefent all thofe who undertake
to write about the Trinity, and to vindicate the
Primitive Faith of the Church from the (corn and
contempt of Hereticks , as a company of vain-
conceited, prefuming, but ignorant Scriblers ; who
pretend to make the Imomprthtnfiblt Nature of God,
comprehenfible and eafy. But the comfort is, we have
fo good Company, that we are able to bear this
Charge without blufhing ; even General Councils,
and thofe great Lights of the Church, Atbanafms^
St. HilUryy St. Bafil , the Gregories , St. Chryfoftom9
St. Auftin, and many others, befides all thofe who in

all

An J<P 0 LO G ? for

all fucceeding Ages to this day, have with equal
Zeal and Learning defended the fame Cauie ; and
yet never profefs'd to make a/1 comprthenfible and eafy.
All that any man pretends to in vindicating the
Doctrine of the Trinity, is to prove that this Faith is
taught in Scripture , and that it contains no
fuch Abfurdities and Contradictions , as fhould
force a Wife man to reject it, and either to re-
ject the Scriptures for its- fake , or to put
fome drained and unnatural fenfes on Scripture
to reconcile it to the Principles of Reafon;
and this, I hope, may be dene by thofe, who
yet acknowledge the Divine Nature, and the
Trinity in Unity to be Incomprehenfible.

But here he had a very fair opportunity ,
had he thought fit to take it, to correct the
Infolence and Prefumption of his Learned Wri-
ters of Controverfy ; who will not allow the
Divine Nature to be Incomprehenfible , and will
not believe God himfelf concerning his own
Nature , beyond what their Reafon can con-
ceive and comprehend ; Who deny Preference for
the fame Reafon, that they deny the Trinity , becaufe
they can't conceive it , nor reconcile it with the
liberty of Human Actions ; and for the fame rea-
fon may deny all the Attributes of God , which
have fomething in them beyond what we can
conceive : efpecially an Eternity without begin-
ing , and without Succeflion , which is charge-
able with more Abfurdities and Contradictions,
than the Trinity it felf: For a duration, which
can't be meafured ; and an eternal duration, which
can be meafured; and a SucceiTion without

a beginning,

Writing againU Socinians. 1 7

a Beginning, a Second or Third without a Firft, arc
unconceivable to us, and lock like very plain and irre-
concilable Contradictions. This is the true ufeof the
facomprekenfilility of the Divine Nature ,* not to (lop
all Enquiries after God, nor to dilcourage our Studies
of the Divine Nature and Perfections : for we may
know a great deal , and may every day increale our
knowledge of w hat is Incomprehensible, tho we cannot
know it all ,• but to check the preemption of ibmc
vain Pretenders to Reafbn, who will not own a God,
nor believe any thing of God, which their Reafbn can-
not comprehend ,♦ which mud not only make them
Hereticks, but, if purlued to its juft Confequences, muff,
make them Atheifts, or make fuch a God, as no body
will own, or worfhip, but themlelves, a God adequate
and commenj urate to their Vnderftandings, which mud
be a little, finite, comprehenfible God.

In the next place, to prove how unreafbnable it is to
Difpute in Vindication of the Trinity, he observes a-
gain, That this Matter has been fufiiciently determined
by due Authority : but having anlwered this once, I lee
no need to anfwer it again.

To back this he adds, That the prefent' ijjlie Jhews,
that in this World it never will he better underjiood ; for
it leems, as he fays, The Mafter of the Sentences, and
fome Modern Writers, have made very fad work of it.
And yet he does not feem to be very intimately ac-
quainted with the Mafter of the Sentences, nor fbme of
thefe Modern Writers. But all that he means is, that.
no body can lay any thing to the purpefe for lb abfurd
a Doctrine, as a Trinity in Vnity ; and therefore he
plainly adds, The more Men draw the difputacious §aw,
the more perplexed and intricate the Que (lion u ; and
therefore the only lecure way is, to leave off difputing

D for

18 An A? 0 LOG T for

for the Trinity, and let Socinians Difpute againft it by
themfelves. But fiich Stuff as this, deferves another
fort of Anlwer than I can give it.
Page 7. But he concludes this Argument of Vnreafonablenefs
very remarkably. And Laftly, Hereby our Church at
prefent, and the Common Chriftianity (it may be feared)
will be more and more daily expofed to Atheiflical Men ;
for this being bid the refult of the former particulars, and
fuch kind of Men daily growing upon us, it cannot be be-
lieved, they can over-look the advantages which is fo of-
ten given them. The (urn of which is, That to Vindi-
cate the Doclrine of the Trinity againft Socinians, will
make Men Atheifts. This is a very bold ftroke for a
Chriftian, and a Divine , and I ihall beg leave to ex-
poftulate this matter a little freely with him.

1/?, I defire to know, whether he thinks the Do-
(Srrine of the Trinity to be defenfible or not ? If it be
not defenfible, why does he believe it ? Why mould
we not rather openly and plainly reject the Doctrine of
the Trinity, which would be a more effectual way to
put a flop to Atheifm, than to profefs to believe it, but
not to defend it ? If it be defenfible, and there be no
fault in the Doctrine, but that (bme Men have defend-
ed it ill, would it not much more have become him to
have defended it better, than only to quarrel with thofe
who have defended it, as well as they could ?

idly, Why does he not tell the Socinians, what injury
they do to common Chriftianity, by r.diculing the
Faith of the Holy Trinity, and expofing it to the (corn
of Atheifts ? Does he think that they are no Chrifli-
ans, and ought not to be concerned for common Chri-
ftianity ? Or does he think, that Atheifts will like the
Doctrine of the Trinity ever the better, for its being
defpifed by Socinians as an abfurd contradictory Faith,

with-

Writing againU Socinians. ip

without having any Defence made by Trinitarians ?
Or does he think, that the Defences made by Trinita-
rians expofe the Faith more than the Objections of So-
cinians $ I wifh I knew his mind, and then I could teJl
what to fay to him.

3<///, How are Atheifts concerned in the Difputes of
the Trinity ? Or how are we concerned to avoid fcan-
dalizing Atheifts, who believe that there is no God at
all ? Muft we be afraid of defending the Faith of the
Trinity, left Atheifts ftiould mock at it, who already
mock at the Being of a God ? What fball we have left
of Chriftianity, it we muft either caft away, or not de-
fend every thing, which Atheifts wilL mock at > Surely
he has a very contemptible Opinion of the Doctrine of
the Trinity, that he thinks all the Defences that are, or
can be made for it, (b ridiculous, that they are enough
to make Men Atheifts.

But I can tell him a Secret, which poflibly he may
be privy to, though in great modefty he conceals his
knowledge, yte. That Atheifts and Drifts, tyfen who
are for no Religion, or at Ieaft not for the Chriftian
Religion, are of late very zealous Socinians ; and they
are certainly in the right of it : for run down the Do-
ctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation, and there is an
end of the Chriftian Religion, and with that an end
of all Revealed Religion ; and as for Natural Reli-
gion, they can make and believeas much, or as little of
it as they pleafe. And this is one Reafbn, and 1 am fure
a better than any he has given againft it, why we are,
and ought to be (b zealous at this time in oppofing&>-
clnianijm, becaufe it is the common Banner under which
all the Enemies of Religion and Chriftianity unite. This
makes that little contemptible Party think themfelves"
confiderable, that all the Atheifts and Infidels, and \i-

D i cen-

qo An A P OLOCr for

ccntious Wits of the Town, are their Converts • who
promife themfelves a glorious Triumph over Chriftia-
nity, and particularly over the Church of England, by
decrying and (corning the Catholick Faith of the Tri-
nity and Incarnation.

II. Thus much for the Vnreafonallenefs of this Con-
troverfie about the Holy Trinity ,• in the next place he
tells us the Danger of it : and he has though: of fuch an
Argument to evince the danger of Difputing for the
Holy Trinity, as, I believe, was never dreamt of be-
T*€< 7 fore . an(j t}iat js> Xhat it is One of the Fundamentals
of Chriftian Religion ; now to litigate touching a Funda-
mental, is to turn it into a Controverfie ; that is, to
unfettle, at leaH endanger the unfettling the whole Su~
perflrukure. Now I am perfectly of his mind, that it
is a dangerous thing to unfettle Foundations ; But is it
a dangerous thing too, to endeavour to preferve and
defend Foundations, when Hereticksunfettle them, and
turn them into Difpute and Controverfie ? Let us put
the Being of God, inflead of the Holy Trinity, and fee
how he will like his Argument himlelf. The Being of
a God is the Foundation of ail Religion, and therefore it
is dangerous todifputewith Atheills about the Being of
God, becaufe this is to turn a Fundamental into a. Con-
troverfie, that is, to unfettle, or to endanger the unfet ling
the whole Superftrdl are : And thus we muil not difpute
againfc Athejfts, no more than againft Socinians : And
what is it then a e mini difpute for ? What eife is worth,
disputing ? Waat elfe can we difpute for, when Foun-
dations are overturned ? What is the meaning of that
Apoftoiical Precept, Tc contend ear ne ft ly far the Faith ?
Jud. 3. What Faith muft we contend for, if not for
Fundamentals? What Faith is that which can fubfilk
without a. Foundation?

But

Writing againtt Socinians. 2 1

But I would defire this Author to tell me, whether
we mud believe Fundamentals with, or without Rea-
ibn ? Whether we mud take Fundamentals for granted,
and receive them with an implicite Faith, or know for
whatReafon we believe them ? If our Rtl gion mud not-
be built without a Foundation, like a Cattle in the Air,
it is certain, that the Fundamentals of our Faith ought
to have a very (lire Foundation, and therefore we
are more concerned to underdand and vindicate the
Reafons of our Eaith, with refpedt to Fundamentals,
than to dilpute any le(s Matters in Religion, for the
Roof mud tumble, if the Foundation fail.

What (ball Chridians do then, when Jthei/is, hfidds,
and Hereticks, drike at the very Foundations cf their
Faith ? Ought not they to fatisfle themfelves, that there
is no force in the Objections, which are made againd
the Faith ? Or mud they confirm themfelves with an
obdinate Refolution, to believe on without troubling
themfelves about Objections, in defiance of all the power
and evidence of Reafon ? This is not to believe like
Men ; Chridianity had never prevailed againd Paga-
nifm and Judaifm upon thefe Terms,- for they had Pofc
Mion, Authority, and Prefcription on their fide, which
is the only Reafon and Security he gives us for the
Faith of the Trinity, That the Ejlalli(hed Church is in Pag,%
poffsjjicr. of it.

If private Chridians then mud endeavour to fatisfie
thet&fclves in the Reafons of their Faith, when Funda-
mentals are called. in quedion, is it not the Duty of
C'xriftian Biihopsand Padors to defend the Faith, and
'to defend the Flock of -Chrid from thofe grievous
Wolves Sr. Paul prophefied of ? Is not this then prope* .
Work and 3ufmefs ? And when the Faith is publickly
oppoied and fcorned. in Printed Libels, ought it not to •

Le.

22 Aft APOLOGY for

be as publickly defended > When Hereticks difpute a-
gainft the Faith, muft we be afraid of difputing for it,
tor fear of making a Cont rover fie of Fundamentals ?
Thanks be to God, our excellent Primate is above this
fear, and has now in the Prefs a Defence of that Faith,
which th s Writer would periwade all Men to betray
by fiience ; and I hope lb great an Exampie may at Jeaft
prevail with him, to let us difpute on without any more
earnest and companionate Suits.
p*giB. HI. His lad Argument is, The Vnfeafonablenefi of
this Controyerfie. i He (ays, all Controversies are now
unfeafonable ; and J (ay a little more, that they are al-
ways To ,• for there is no Juncture feafonalle to broach
Herefies, and to oppo(e the Truth : but if Hereticks
will difpute againft the Truth unfeafonably ; there is no
time unfeafonable to defend Fundamental Truths. But
why is it (o unfeafonable in thisjunfture ? Becaufe under
God, nothing but an union of Councils, and joyning Hands
and Hearts, can preferve the Reformation, and fcarce any
thing more credit andjuflifie it, than an Vnion in Doftri-
nals. To begin with the laft flrft : Is the Vnion in
Doflrinals ever the greater, that Socinians boldly and
publickly affront the Faith of the Church, and no body
appears to defend it ? Will the World think that we
are all of a mind, becaufe there is difputing only on
one fide ? Then they will think us all Socinians, as.
(pme Forreigners begin already to fufpecl:, which will
be a very fcandalous Union* and divide us from all o-
ther Reformed Churches. Let Vnion be never (6 defira-
ble, we cannot, we muft not unite in Herefie ,- thofe
break the Union, who depart from the Faith, not
thofe who defend it. When Herefies are broached, the
bed way to preferve the Unity of the Church, is to
jDppofe and confute, [iirid fhame Herefie and Hereticks,

which

Writing againU Socinians. 3 2

which will preferve the Body of Chriftians from being
infe&ed by Herefie, and the fewer there are, who for-
fake the Faith, the greater Unity there is in the Church.

But nothing but Vnion of Counfels. and joymng Hands
and Hearts, can preferve the Reformat! en. Muft we
then turn all @>0CUtten& to preferve the Reformation*
Muft we renounce Chriftiantty, to keep out Popery ?
This Stander-by is mifinformed, for Sociniamjm is no
part of the Reformation ; and fo inconflderable and ab-
horred a Party, when they ftand by themfelves, that
all Parties who own any Religion, will joyn Counfels
and Hands and Hearts to renounce them.

But what he would infinuate is, that we (hall never
joyn againft a common Enemy, whofe Succeffes would
endanger the Reformation, while there are any Religious
Difputes among us, I hope he is miftaken, or elle we
Ihall certainly be conquered by France, for twenty fuch
companionate Suits as this, will never make us all of a
mind ,• and whether we difpute or not, if we differ as
much as if we did difpute, and are as zealous for the
Intereft of a Party, the cafe is the fame. But he has
unwarily confefs'd a great Truth, which all Govern-
ments ought to confider, That every Schifin in the
Church, is a new Party and Faction in the State,
which are always troublefome to Government when it
wants their help.

But theft Difputes about the Trinity make [port for
Papifts. It mud be difputing againft the Trinity then,
not difputing for it ; for they are very Orthodox in
this point ; and never admit' ed any Man to their Com-
munion whodifbwned this Fairh, or declared, that he
thought it at any time unreafonable, dangerous, or un-
feafonable to difpute -for ir, when it was violently op-
pofed.

I

_*4 An A? 0 LOGT for

I doubt this Proteftant Church-man has made more
fport tor Papifts, than all our other Difputes ; tor it is
a nevv thing for fiich Men to plead for Socinians^but no
new thing to tlifpute againft them; and new Sports are
always mod entertaining.

But he has himfelf ftarted an Objection, which if he
could well anfwer, I could forgive him all the reft.- But
it will he f aid, What fh all we do Z Shall we tamely by a
bafe Silence give up the Point.

This is the Objection, and he anfwers. There is no
danger of it, the Eft alii (he d Church is in poffeffim of it,
and difpute will only increafe the difturbance. But is
there no danger that the Church may be flung out of
poffefrion, and lofe the Faith, i{ (he don't defend it > No,
The Adverfaries to the received Doclriue (Why not to
the true Faith ? ) cannot alter our Articles of Religion ;
but if they can make Converts, and increale their Par-
ty, they may in time change our Articles, and then
welhall hear no more of ' compaffionate Suits for for bear-
ance. But they can difpute everlaftingly ; and let them
difpute on, we fear them not. But they are Men fub-
til,fober, induftrious ; many of them very vertuous, and
(as all musf fay') fetting afide their Opinions, devout, pi-
flit, and charitable. 1 perceive he is v^ry intimately
acquainted with them, though St. .fW'conamands all
Christians, To mark thofe which caufe divjjkns and of
fences contrary to the Doclrine which ye have learned, and
avoid them, 16 Rom. 17. But let them be never (b
goodMen, as fbme of the Heathen Philofophers were,
mud we therefore tamely fufTer them to pervert the
Faith ? But they are very zealous, and the Vreffes are
open, and ihey will never he filent . They are zealous
againft the Truth, and therefore we muft not be zeal-
ous fork ; they will write and print, and fpeak againft

the

Writing again i? Sociniaos. 2«j

the Truth, and will never be filent ; and therefore we
mud be filent, and neither write, nor fay any thing
for the Truth. Was there ever iuch a Reaion thought
of as this ? Well ! how long muft we be filent ?
Negletl them till a fit time and place : But why is not
tins as fit a time, as ever we lliail have, to prevent
their low ing Tares, or to pluck them up before they
have taken too deep Root ?• Can there be a fitter time
to oppofe Hcrefics, and to defend the true Chriftian
Faithf then when Hercticks are very bold and bulie
in fpreading their Herefes, and oppofmg the Faith ?
But when tins fit time is come (for I know not what
he means by a fit place') what {hall we do then ? Will he
then give us leave to write and difpute againfl fuch He-
rcticks ? This he will not fay ; but then let that he
done, which Jhall be jddged mo ft Chriftian and mo si
Whole fome. But what is that ? Will it ever be most
Chriftian and moH Wholefome, to difpute lor the Faith
againfl Herefie ? If ever it will be lb, why is it not
fo now ? If this never will be Chriftian and Whole-
fome, what elCe is to be done to Hereticks in fit time
and place, unlefs he intends to Phy fick 'em ?

And it leems he has a Dofe ready prepared, to lay vagi 9.
all thefe Controverfies to an Eternal Sleep ; and it is,
what he calls a Negative Belief, a pretty Contradi-
ction, but never the lefs proper Cure for Herefie. The
Project is this, as ftr as I can underiland him, That
the Socinhns Hull not be. required to own the Do-
cirines of the Trinity and Incarnation, but \hx\\fo jar
agree, as not to contradict them, nor teach contrary to
them : Now I fliould like this very well, that they
would not oppofe the received Do&rine of the Church,
but I believe he knows fome little clattering Tongues,

E which

2(5 An A? OLO'CT for

which all the Opiates he has, can never lay afleep >
and had he remembred what he had juft before (aid
concerning their Zeal, and their Eternal difputing, and
that they will never be ft lent , he would never have pro-
pofed (b im practicable a thing, as the impofing filence
on them; which, makes me fufpect, that he intends
(bmething more than what he (ays, and therefore to
prevent miftakes, I rrruft ask him a Queftion or
two.

i. Whether he will allow us, who, as he grants,,,
are in pojfeffion of this Faith of the Trinity and Incar-
nation, to keep poife/iion of it, and teach, explain,
and confirm it to our People : we will anfwer none of
their Books, if they won't write them ; but if he ex-
pects that we ihould fay nothing of, or for the Trinity,
as he would have them fay nothing againft it, we mud
beg his Pardon ;. we do not think the Doctrine of the
Trinity and Incarnation to be pf (b little concernment,
as to be parted with, or buried in filence. We believe
Chriftian Religion to'be built on this Faith, and there-
fore think ourlelves as much bound to Preacji it, as to
Preach the Gofpel ; and if they will oppofe the Faith,
as long as we. Preach it, we can have no Truce with
them.

idly, X hope he does not propofe this Negative Be°-
Hefy as he calls it, as a Term of Communion ; that tho'
we know, they deny the Trinity and the Incarnation,
yet if they will agree not publickly to oppofe and con-
tradict tiiis Faith, we (hall receive them to our Com-
munion, and fling the Worlliip of the Holy Trinity,
aad of a God Incarnate, out of our Liturgies for their

(ake.

Writing againU Socinians. tj

'foke. I grant there may be fuch things, as Ankles
af Peace, when Men joyn in the fame Communion,
notwithstanding fome iefs material Differences, while
•the Subitantials of Faith and Worfhip are lecure, and
oblige themfelvcs not to difturb the Peace of the
Church with lefs Diiputes ; but to make the Eflentials
of Faith and Worfhip meer Articles of Peace, to receive
thofe to our Communion, who deny the very Object
of our Worfhip, is as fencelels, and as great a contra-
diction to the Nature and End of Chnitian Commu-
nion, as it would be to receive Heathens, Jews, Maho-
metans into the Chriftian Church, by vertue of this
■Negative Belief. This I know he will not allow • for
he fays, We are agreed in the ether parts of our com-
mon Chriftianity : whereas it is abfolutely impoflible,
that we mould agree in any thing, which is pure Chri-
flianity, while we differ in the Fundamental Doctrines
of the Trinity and Incarnation, the owning or denying
of which makes an eflential Difference in Religion. It
alters the Object of our Worfhip, as much as the Wor-
fhip of One and of Three Perfbns in the Godhead, and
as much as the Worfhip of a God Incarnate, and of a
deified meer Man, differ. It alters the way of our Sal-
vation, as much as Faith in the Blood and Sacrifice of •
the Son of God, to expiate our Sins,
differs from believing a great and excel- See thc v^icaticn of #«
lent Prophet, and obeying his Laws. It gSffigSg
alters thc Motives and Principles of our don, pag. 156 , &c.
Obedience, as much as the Love of God,
in giving his Son, differs from hisGoodnefs in fending
an excellent Man to be our Prophet and Saviour ; as
much as the Love, Humility, and Condefcenfion of the
EterndvSon of God, in becoming Man, and in dying
as a Sacrifice for our Sins, differs from the Love ot a

E 1 itk

$8 An A ? OLOGT for

rneer Man, in preaching the Gofpel, and bearing Te-
stimony to it by his own Blood.

It changes the hopes and reliances of Sinners, as much
as the Security of a Meritorious Sacrifice offered by the
Eternal Son oi God (or the Expiation of our $>nsy dif-
fers Irom the Promiies of an extraordinary Man fentas
a Prophet from God ,• and as much as the Interceflion
of a High Pneft, who is the Eternal Son of God, and
intercedes in the Merits of his own Blood, differs from
the Interceflion of a meer, though of an excellent Man,
who has made no Atonement for our Sins, and has no
other Intereft in God, than what an innocent and obe-
dient Man can pretend to. It were eafie to enlarge on
this Argument ; but I have directed in the Margin,
where the Reader may fee it difcourfed at large.

Now if this Author, for thefe Reafons, will allow us
to inftrucT: our People in the Doctrine of the Trinity
and Incarnation, and not defire us to receive Socmians
into our Communion,- he will do good Service, if he
can bring them to his Negative Belief, and perfwade
them to be filent ; if he can't, we will try to make
them fo in time, if they have Wit enough to under-
ftand, when it is fit to be quiet.
p n In the next place he takes Sanctuary in the Aft of
Parliament in favour of Dijfentersy which he conceives
has done very much, if not full enough. But had he con-
sidered, how fevere this Act is upon his beloved Socini-
ans, he might much better have let it alone. For no
Dijfenters have any benefit by that Act, who do not
renounce Socinianifm: But heprerends to give Account
of Acts of Parliament, as he does of other Books, with-
out feeing them. But we may fee what a hearty good
will he has to the Caufe : if the Acl: has excepted Soci-
nians,

Writing againtt Socinians. 29

nictns ', it is more than he knew, and more than he wifli-
ed ; for he hoped it had not been done, and endea-
voured to perfwade the World, that all the Biflvops of
England had allowed it ,♦ for he cannot believe, that the
Body of the Bijhops dijallowed, or did not with good li-
king confent to the At}, viz. To give Liberty to Socini-
ans, as he (uppofed. This is fuch a fcandalous Reprc-
(entation of the Bifhops of England, as I'm hire, they
don't defcrve, and which in due time they may relent.

And here, without any provocation, he Ceis up the
Authority of Bifrops, againft the Lower Hdule of Con-
vocation, who never differed upon this Point, and I
"hope never will, nor will ever be tempted by fuch a
ioruard Undertaker, to difpute the Bounds of their
Authority, but content themfelves with the Ancient
Conflitution of the Church of England. But if he un-
derflands the Practice of the Primitive' and truly Apo-
ftclick Church, which he threatens thefe unruly Presby-
ters \\ ith, no better than he does K. Edw.Vl's Refor-
mation, which he fuppofes to be made by the Body of
the Bifhops, in opposition to the Presbyters (orelfe I
know not how he applies it ) he is capable of doing no
great good nor hurt. Only 1 can tell him one thing,
Thau had he fallen into the hands of K. Edw.'s Reform-
ing Bifhops, they would have reformed him out of the
Church, 01 have taught him another fort ol CompjJJio-
nate Suit than this.

He concludes with a heavy Charge upon My felf, and
Dr. Wallis, (for he mentions none elle) as if we had re- Page 13.
ceded from the Dctlrine taught even in our own Church,
about the Holy Trinity.

Do we then d ny, that there are Three Perfons and
One God? No, our bufmefs is to prove it, and explain
and vindicate it ? but- he thinks we explain it other-
wife,

£» An AT 0 LOGY for

wife, than it has been formerly explained. And
yet that very Account he gives us of it , out of
Mr. Hooker, is owned by mylelf, and particularly ex-
plained by my Hypothecs, He has given us no juft
occafion to vindicate ourfelvcs, becaufe he has not
vouchfafed to tell us, why he diflikes either of us. He
has eked fome broken pallages out of my Vindication,
about Three Eternal Minds ', which are effentialty One
Eternal Mind. And what is iht hurt of this > Is not
every Divine Perfon who is God, a Mind, and an E~
ternal Mhd * Is not the A'y&,, or the Eternal and
Uncreated Word and Wifdom of God, an Eternal and
"Uncreated Mind > Is not the£jbftantial Word and Wif-
dom of God a Mind > Is not the Eternal Spirit, which
fearcheth the deep things of God, as the Spirit of a Man
knoweth the things of a Man, a Mind ? And if I can give
any poffible account, how Three Eternal Minds ihould
be effentially One, does not this at leaft prove, that there
may be Three Divine Perfons, in the Unity of the Di-
vine Eflence ? And mould I have been miflaken in this
account, as I believe I am not, muft I therefore be
charged with receding from the Doctrine of the Church
of England ? As for Dr. WaEu, he has nothing to fay
againft him, .but his calling the Divine Perfons Some-
whats, with which he has very profanely ridiculed the
Litany, which I gave an account before.

And now can any Man tell, what Opinion this Me-
lancholy Stander-by has of the Doctrines of the Trinity,
and Incarnation > He dares not fpeak out, but gives
very broad figns, what he would be at. He difcourages
all Men from defending thefe Doctrines, declares, That
all new Attempts cannot fitmfie the old Difficulties which
he declares to be unfatisfiable, andunfoluble : That when
we have moved every Stone, Authority muB define it.

And

Writing againR Socinians.. 21

And yet this Authority extends no farther. than to a
Negative Relief, which, he (ays, is ail-that can reafona-
h'ly be required of Men, of fitch Myjlerks as ihey cannot
underfland : and thus far he profeffes himfelf hound by
our Church Articles for Peace /like. And this is his Faith Toe* 6.
of the Trinity, not to behove it, but only not tooppoic
ir. He complains of the Scholajlick cramping Terms of Fjge 2.
Three Perfons, and One God, and thinks the Vnity of
Three Perfons in One Effence, to be only a more Oriho* ?agl '"
dox Phrafe ; lb that he leaves us no words to expreis
this Doctrine by, and therefore it is time to fay nothing
about it. It is a Controverfie which expofes cur Liturgy
and is not only unprofitable, but corruptive of and preju-
dicial and injurious to our common Devotion : Co dange- Tm '■'<
rous is it to pray to the Holy, Bleffed, and Glorious Tri-
nity, Three Perfons and One God.

But then on the other hand, , he carefully pracTifes
that forbearance, which he perfwades others to, towards
his Learned Writers of the Socinian Controverfies, tho'
they were the Aflailants : never perfivades them to for-
bear expofing and ridiculing the Faith of the Church,
which would have provoked his Indignation, had he
any reverence for the Holy Trinity, and a God Incar-
nate ,• but only thinks by the Charm of a Negative
Faith, that they may be required quietly to acquiefce in -
the publick determinations. p^9,ic

He tells us over and over, how nnfeafbnable and
dangerous it is to meddle with fuch high matters, or
to orler at any Explication of what is Incomprehenjlble ; .
but it is no fault in them, to talk of Abfurditics and
Contradictions in what they do not underftand : nay,
he all along infinuates, thattheie Abfurdities and Con-
tradictions, which they charge upon the Doctrines of
the Trinity and Incarnation, are unfit isfiable, and **-
foluble. He.

An A P 0 L 0 G 7", &c.

He beftows high Encomiums upon thefe Enemies of
the Faith, but (peaks wirh wonderful Contempt of thof-
who defend it, as far as he dares,- the Fathers and
Councils are out of his reach, but the MajleroftheSen*
tence$,avi& the School. men, and all Modern Undertakers
mud feel his diiplealure : to defend theTrimcy expofes
our Liturgy, and corrupts our common Devotion ; but to
ridicule it, makes them very pious and devout Men
orOD prefer ve his Church from Wolves in Sheens
Clothing. "

And now having vindicated our Ancient Rights and
Liberties, which the Church always challenged ofde
tending the truly Catholkk and Apoflolick Faith from
the Aflaults of Hereticks, I (hall apply myfelf, as I have
ieifure, to the Defence of my Vindication of the Do-
Urine of the Holy and Ever^lejfed Trinity, and the In-
carnation of the Son of God.

THE END.

hiC'-'&fy t&

m§

.^ffcs

•■

■v.

Q&t

.