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 ufed 3 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 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 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 : 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 Anfwer 3 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 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
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 f ore . an( j t } iat j s> 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? 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°- Hef y 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 Eternd v Son 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 $>ns y 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 Dijfenters y 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 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 L 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 .