And thus for fear we should have believed too much upon the Authority of Councils which is the only bottom he will allow our Faith he gives them a secret stab himself and makes their Authority ridiculous That the several Bishops declared what Faith had been taught and received in their Churches is true That this Authority chiefly carried the Point is false Athanasius grew famous in the Council for his learned and subtile Disputations which confounded the Arians and what Arguments he chiefly relied on we may see in his Works And whoever does but look into the Fathers who wrote against the Arians in those days will find that their Faith was resolved into Scripture and Reason and not meerly or chiefly into Authority And thus he comes to be Plain and Succinct and tells us That of all Controversies we can touch upon at present this of the Trinity is the most unreasonable the most dangerous and so the most unseasonable It is the most Unreasonable 1. Because it is on all hands confess'd the Deity is Infinite Unsearchable Incomprehensible and yet every one who pretends to Write plainer than another on this controversy professes to make all Comprehensible and easy I perceive he is well versed in Mr. Hobbs's Divinity though I can discover no marks of his skill in Fathers and Councils For this was Mr. Hobb's reason why we should not pretend to know any thing of God nor inquire after his Attributes because he has but one Attribute which is that he is Incomprehensible and as this Author argues It is a small favour to request of Persons of Learning that they should be consistent with and not contradict themselves that is That they would not pretend to know any thing of God whom they acknowledge to be Incomprehensible which is to pretend to know what they confess cannot be known Now I desire to know Whether we may Dispute about the Being and Nature of God and his essential Attributes and Perfections and vindicate the Notion of a Deity from those Impossibilities Inconsistencies Absurdities which some Atheistical Philosophers charge on it notwithstanding that we confess God to be Incomprehensible And if the Incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature does not signifie that we can know nothing of God and must inquire nothing about him the Trinity of Divine Persons is as proper an object of our Faith and modest Inquiries as the Unity of the Divine Essence for they are both Incomprehensible And to say That every one who pretends to write plainer than another on this Controversy professes to make all comprehensible and easy may with equal Truth and Authority be charg'd on all those who undertake to vindicate the Notion and Idea of a God or to explain any of the Divine Attributes and Perfections A finite mind cannot comprehend what is infinite but yet one man may have a truer and more perfect Notion of the Nature and Attributes of God than another God is Incomprehensible in Heaven as well as on Earth and yet Angels and Glorified Spirits know God after another manner than we do There must 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 highest degree of all which is a perfect comprehension So that the knowledge of God may increase every day and men may Write plainer about these matters every day without pretending to make all that is in God even a Trinity in Unity comprehensible and easy This is a spiteful and scandalous imputation and is intended to represent all those who undertake to write about the Trinity and to vindicate the Primitive Faith of the Church from the scorn and contempt of Hereticks as a company of vain-conceited presuming but ignorant Scriblers who pretend to make the Incomprehensible Nature of God comprehensible and easy But the comfort is we have so good Company that we are able to bear this Charge without blushing even General Councils and those great Lights of the Church Athanasius St. Hillary St. Basil the Gregories St. Chrysostom St. Austin and many others besides all those who in all succeeding Ages to this day have with equal Zeal and Learning defended the same Cause and yet never profess'd to make all comprehensible and easy 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 such Absurdities and Contradictions as should force a Wise man to reject it and either to reject the Scriptures for its sake or to put some strained and unnatural senses on Scripture to reconcile it to the Principles of Reason and this I hope may be done by those who yet acknowledge the Divine Nature and the Trinity in Unity to be Incomprehensible But here he had a very fair opportunity had he thought fit to take it to correct the Insolence and Presumption of his Learned Writers of Controversy who will not allow the Divine Nature to be Incomprehensible and will not believe God himself concerning his own Nature beyond what their Reason can conceive and comprehend Who deny Prescience for the same Reason that they deny the Trinity because they can't conceive it nor reconcile it with the liberty of Human Actions and for the same reason may deny all the Attributes of God which have something in them beyond what we can conceive especially an Eternity without begining and without Succession which is chargeable with more Absurdities and Contradictions than the Trinity it self For a duration which can't be measured and an eternal duration which can be measured and a Succession without a Beginning a Second or Third without a First are unconceivable to us and look like very plain and irreconciâ—â—ble Contradictions This is the true use of the Incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature not to stop all Enquiries after God nor to discourage our Studies of the Divine Nature and Perfections for we may know a great deal and may every day increase our knowledge of what is Incomprehensible thô we cannot know it all but to check the presumption of some vain Pretenders to Reason who will not own a God nor believe any thing of God which their Reason cannot comprehend which must not only make them Hereticks but if pursued to its just Consequences must make them Atheists or make such a God as no body will own or worship but themselves a God adequate and commensurate to their Understandings which must be a little finite comprehensible God In the next place to prove how unreasonable it is to Dispute in Vindication of the Trinity he observes again That this Matter has been sufficiently determined by due Authority but having answered this once I see no need to answer it again To back this he adds That the present issue shews that in this World it never will be better understood for it seems as he says The Master of the Sentences and some Modern Writers
man should believe as he pleases and no man concern himself to confute Heresies or to divide the Church with Disputes which is the true Latitude our Author seems to aim at and then he may believe as he pleases too But pray why should we not write against the Socinians Especially when they are the Aggressors and without any provocation publish and disperse the most impudent and scandalous Libels against the Christian Faith He will give us some very wise Reasons for this by and by when he comes to be plain and succinct in the mean time we must take such as we can meet with He is afraid peâ—â—le should lose all Reverence for the Litany should we go on to vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity I should not easily have apprehended this and possibly some of the common people might have been as dull as my self had he not taken care before he parted for fear no body else should observe it to teach people to ridicule the Trinity in their Prayers Dr. Wallis would not undertake to say what a Divine Person signifies as distinguished from Nature and Essence only says a Person is somewhat but the True Notion of a Person he does not know This Author commends this as ever held to by all Learned Trinitarians for indeed all the Doctor meant by his somewhat is That Three Persons signify Three Real Subsistences and are Real Things not a Sabellian Trinity of mere Names And yet in the very next Page he teaches his Readers to ridicule the Litany with the Doctors somewhats O Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity Three Somewhats and One God have Mercy on us c. Was there ever any thing more Senseless or more Prophane That because the Doctor would not undertake to define a Person but only asserted in general That a Divine Person was somewhat or some Real Being in opposition to a mere Nominal Difference and Distinction therefore in our Prayers we may as well call the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost Three somewhats Nobis non licet esse tam disertis I am sure he has reason heartily to pray That these Three somewhats as he prophanely calls them would have Mercy on him In the next place he says He is well assured that the late Socinian Pamâ—â—lets would have died away or have been now in few mens hands had not divers persons taken on them the labour to confute them But did his Socinian Friends who were such busie Factors for the Cause tell him so Did they print them that no body might read them Were they not dispersed in every Corner and boasted of in every Coffee-house before any Answer appeared However were it so is there no regard to be had to Hereticks themselves And is it not better that such Pamphlets should be in an hundred hands with an Answer than in five hands without one I should think it at any time a good reward for all the labour of confuting to rescue or preserve a very few from such fatal Errors which I doubt not but is a very acceptable service to that Merciful Shepherd who was so careful to seek one lost and straggling Sheep Heresies and Vices dye by being neglected just as Weeds do for we know the Parable That the Devil sows his tares while men sleep But this is no new Charge the good Bishop of Alexandria met with the same Censures for his Zeal against Arius for it seems that Heresie would have died too if it had not been opposed I doubt this Author judges of other mens Zeal for Heresy by his own Zeal for the Truth which wants a little rubbing and chafing to bring it to life but Heresy is all flame and spirit will blow and kindle it self if it be not quenched But yet if what he says be true That by our unskilful way of confuting Heresie we run into those very Absurdities which our Adversaries would reduce us to This I confess is a very great fault and when he shews me any of those Absurdities I will thankfully correct them for all the Obloquies in the world will never make me blush to recant an Error But before he pretends to that I must desire him that he would first read my Book which I know some men censure without reading it Such general Accusations are very spiteful and commonly have a mixture of spite both against the Cause and against the Person His next Argument is very observable We must not dispute now against Socinians because these Controversies about the Trinity have been above Thirteen hundred years ago determined by two general Councils the Nicene and first Constantinopolitan which are owned by our Church and their Creeds received into our Liturgy Ergo we must not defend this Faith against Hereticks because it is the Faith of two General Councils which are owned by our Church Did Athanasius think this a good Argument against Writing and Disputing against the Arians after the Council of Nice had condemned Arius and his Doctrines Did St. Basil Gregory Nazianzen Nyssen St. Chrysostom St. Jerom St. Austin think this a good Argument who wrote so largely against these Heresies which former Councils had condemned But this Author thinks the best way is to let the Matter stand upon this bottom of Authority that is let Hereticks ridicule our Faith as much as they please we must make them no other answer but that this is the Faith of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Councils and the Faith of the Church of England And can he intend this for any more than a Jest when he knows how Socinians despise the determinations of Councils and particularly with what scorn they treat the Nicene Fathers Is this an Age to resolve our Faith into Church Authority Or would he himself believe such absurd Doctrines as they represent the Trinity in Unity to be merely upon Church Authority For my part I declare I would not I greatly value the Authority of those Ancient Councils as credible Witnesses of the Traditionary Sense of the Church before those Controversies were started but were not these Doctrines taught in Scripture were they manifestly repugnant to the plain and evident Principles of Reason all the Councils in the World should never reconcile me to them no more than they should to the Doctrine of Transubstantion And therefore methinks he might have at least allowed us to have challenged the Scriptures as well as General Councils on our side and to have vindicated our Faith from all pretended absurdities and contradictions to Reason But would any man of common sense who had not intended to expose the Faith of the Holy Trinity have told the world at this time of day That we have no other safe and sure bottom for our Faith but only the Authority of General Councils Nay That the Council of Nice it self on whose Authority we must rest had little else themselves for their Determinations but only Authority That it was Authority chiefly carried the Point
Reason This is not to believe like Men Christianity had never prevailed against Paganism and Judaism upon these Terms for they had Possession Authority and Prescription on their side which is the only Reason and Security he gives us for the Faith of the Trinity That the Established Church is in possession of it If private Christians then must endeavour to satisfie themselves in the Reasons of their Faith when Fundamentals are called in question is it not the Duty of Christian Bishops and Pastors to defend the Faith and to defend the Flock of Christ from those grievous Wolves St. Paul prophesied of Is not this their proper Work and Business And when the Faith is publickly opposed and scorned in Printed Libels ought it not to be as publickly defended When Hereticks dispute against the Faith must we be afraid of disputing for it for fear of making a Controversie of Fundamentals Thanks be to God our excellent Primate is above this fear and has now in the Press a Defence of that Faith which this Writer would perswade all Men to betray by silence and I hope so great an Example may at least prevail with him to let us dispute on without any more earnest and compassionate Suits III. His last Argument is The Unseasonableness of this Controversie He says all Controversies are now unseasonable and I say a little more that they are always so for there is no Juncture seasonable to broach Heresies and to oppose the Truth but if Hereticks will dispute against the Truth unseasonably there is no time unseasonable to defend Fundamental Truths But why is it so unseasonable in this Juncture Because under God nothing but an union of Councils and joyning Hands and Hearts can preserve the Reformation and scarce any thing more credit and justifie it than an Union in Doctrinals To begin with the last first Is the Union in Doctrinals 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 because there is disputing only on one side Then they will think us all Socinians as some Forreigners begin already to suspect which will be a very scandalous Union and divide us from all other Reformed Churches Let Union be never so desirable we cannot we must not unite in Heresie those break the Union who depart from the Faith not those who defend it When Heresies are broached the best way to preserve the Unity of the Church is to oppose and confute and shame Heresie and Hereticks which will preserve the Body of Christians from being infected by Heresie and the fewer there are who forsake the Faith the greater Unity there is in the Church But nothing but Union of Counsels and joyning Hands and Hearts can preserve the Reformation Must we then turn all Socinians to preserve the Reformation Must we renounce Christianity to keep out Popery This Stander-by is misinformed for Socinianism is no part of the Reformation and so inconsiderable and abhorred a Party when they stand by themselves that all Parties who own any Religion will joyn Counsels and Hands and Hearts to renounce them But what he would insinuate is that we shall never joyn against a common Enemy whose Successes would endanger the Reformation while there are any Religious Disputes among us I hope he is mistaken or else we shall certainly be conquered by France for twenty such compassionate Suits as this will never make us all of a mind and whether we dispute or not if we differ as much as if we did dispute and are as zealous for the Interest of a Party the case is the same But he has unwarily confess'd a great Truth which all Governments ought to consider That every Schisin in the Church is a new Party and Faction in the State which are always troublesome to Government when it wants their help But these Disputes about the Trinity make sport for Papists It must be disputing against the Trinity then not disputing for it for they are very Orthodox in this point and never admitted any Man to their Communion who disowned this Faith or declared that he thought it at any time unreasonable dangerous or unseasonable to dispute for it when it was violently opposed I doubt this Protestant Church-man has made more sport for Papists than all our other Disputes for it is a new thing for such Men to plead for Socinians but no new thing to dispute against them and new Sports are always most entertaining But he has himself started an Objection which if he could well answer I could forgive him all the rest But it will be said What shall we do Shall we tamely by a base Silence give up the Point This is the Objection and he answers There is no danger of it the Established Church is in possession of it and dispute will only increase the disturbance But is there no danger that the Church may be flung out of possession and lose the Faith if she don't defend it No The Adversaries to the received Doctrine Why not to the true Faith cannot alter our Articles of Religion but if they can make Converts and increase their Party they may in time change our Articles and then we shall hear no more of compassionate Suits for forbearance But they can dispute everlastingly and let them dispute on we fear them not But they are Men subtil sober industrious many of them very vertuous and as all must say setting aside their Opinions devout pious and charitable I perceive he is very intimately acquainted with them though St. Paul commands all Christians To mark those which cause divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine which ye have learned and avoid them 16 Rom. 17. But let them be never so good Men as some of the Heathen Philosophers were must we therefore tamely suffer them to pervert the Faith But they are very zealous and the Presses are open and they will never be silent They are zealous against the Truth and therefore we must not be zealous for it they will write and print and speak against the Truth and will never be silent and therefore we must be silent and neither write nor say any thing for the Truth Was there ever such a Reason thought of as this Well! how long must we be silent Neglect them till a fit time and place But why is not this as fit a time as ever we shall have to prevent their sowing Tares or to pluck them up before they have taken too deep Root Can there be a fitter time to oppose Heresies and to defend the true Christian Faith then when Hereticks are very bold and busie in spreading their Heresies and opposing the Faith But when this fit time is come for I know not what he means by a fit place what shall we do then Will he then give us leave to write and dispute against such Hereticks This he will not say but then let
have made very sad work of it And yet he does not seem to be very intimately acquainted with the Master of the Sentences nor some of these Modern Writers But all that he means is that no body can say any thing to the purpose for so absurd a Doctrine as a Trinity in Unity and therefore he plainly adds The more Men draw the disputacious Saw the more perplexed and intricate the Question is and therefore the only secure way is to leave off disputing for the Trinity and let Socinians Dispute against it by themselves But such Stuff as this deserves another sort of Answer than I can give it But he concludes this Argument of Unreasonableness very remarkably And Lastly Hereby our Church at present and the Common Christianity it may be feared will be more and more daily exposed to Atheistical Men for this being but the result of the former particulars and such kind of Men daily growing upon us it cannot be believed they can over-look the advantages which is so often given them The sum of which is That to Vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity against Socinians will make Men Atheists This is a very bold stroke for a Christian and a Divine and I shall beg leave to expostulate this matter a little freely with him 1st I desire to know whether he thinks the Doctrine of the Trinity to be defensible or not If it be not defensible why does he believe it Why should we not rather openly and plainly reject the Doctrine of the Trinity which would be a more effectual way to put a stop to Atheism than to profess to believe it but not to defend it If it be defensible and there be no fault in the Doctrine but that some Men have defended it ill would it not much more have become him to have defended it better than only to quarrel with those who have defended it as well as they could 2dly Why does he not tell the Socinians what injury they do to common Christianity by ridiculing the Faith of the Holy Trinity and exposing it to the scorn of Atheists Does he think that they are no Christians and ought not to be concerned for common Christianity Or does he think that Atheists will like the Doctrine of the Trinity ever the better for its being despised by Socinians as an absurd contradictory Faith without having any Defence made by Trinitarians Or does he think that the Defences made by Trinitarians expose the Faith more than the Objections of Socinians I wish I knew his mind and then I could tell what to say to him 3dly How are Atheists concerned in the Disputes of the Trinity Or how are we concerned to avoid scandalizing Atheists who believe that there is no God at all Must we be afraid of defending the Faith of the Trinity lest Atheists should mock at it who already mock at the Being of a God What shall we have left of Christianity if we must either cast away or not defend every thing which Atheists 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 so ridiculous that they are enough to make Men Atheists But I can tell him a Secret which possibly he may be privy to though in great modesty he conceals his knowledge viz. That Atheists and Deists Men who are for no Religion or at least not for the Christian Religion are of late very zealous Socinians and they are certainly in the right of it for run down the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation and there is an end of the Christian Religion and with that an end of all Revealed Religion and as for Natural Religion they can make and believe as much or as little of it as they please And this is one Reason and I am sure a better than any he has given against it why we are and ought to be so zealous at this time in opposing Socinianism because it is the common Banner under which all the Enemies of Religion and Christianity unite This makes that little contemptible Party think themselves considerable that all the Atheists and Infidels and licentious Wits of the Town are their Converts who promise themselves a glorious Triumph over Christianity and particularly over the Church of England by decrying and scorning the Catholick Faith of the Trinity and Incarnation II. Thus much for the Unreasonableness of this Controversie about the Holy Trinity in the next place he tells us the Danger of it and he has thought of such an Argument to evince the danger of Disputing for the Holy Trinity as I believe was never dreamt of before and that is That it is One of the Fundamentals of Christian Religion now to litigate touching a Fundamental is to turn it into a Controversie that is to unsettle at least endanger the unsettling the whole Superstructure Now I am perfectly of his mind that it is a dangerous thing to unsettle Foundations But is it a dangerous thing too to endeavour to preserve and defend Foundations when Hereticks unsettle them and turn them into Dispute and Controversie Let us put the Being of God instead of the Holy Trinity and see how he will like his Argument himself The Being of a God is the Foundation of all Religion and therefore it is dangerous to dispute with Atheists about the Being of God because this is to turn a Fundamental into a Controversie that is to unsettle or to endanger the unsetling the whole Superstructure And thus we must not dispute against Atheists no more than against Socinians And what is it then we must dispute for What else is worth disputing What else can we dispute for when Foundations are overturned What is the meaning of that Apostolical Precept To contend earnestly for the Faith Jud. 3. What Faith must we contend for if not for Fundamentals What Faith is that which can subsist without a Foundation But I would desire this Author to tell me whether we must believe Fundamentals with or without Reason Whether we must take Fundamentals for granted and receive them with an implicite Faith or know for what Reason we believe them If our Religion must not be built without a Foundation like a Castle in the Air it is certain that the Fundamentals of our Faith ought to have a very sure Foundation and therefore we are more concerned to understand and vindicate the Reasons of our Faith with respect to Fundamentals than to dispute any less Matters in Religion for the Roof must tumble if the Foundation fail What shall Christians do then when Atheists Infidels and Hereticks strike at the very Foundations of their Faith Ought not they to satisfie themselves that there is no force in the Objections which are made against the Faith Or must they confirm themselves with an obstinate Resolution to believe on without troubling themselves about Objections in defiance of all the power and evidence of