The DEAN of St. PAUL's APOLOGY FOR Writing against SOCINIANS c. Imprimatur Geo. Royse R. R mo in Christo Patri ac Dom. Dom. Johan Archiep. Cant. Ã Sacris Domest Jan. 17. 1692 3. 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 WILLIAM SHERLOCK D. D. Dean of St. Paul's Master of the Temple and Chaplain in Ordinary to Their MAJESTIES LONDON Printed for Will. Rogers at the Sun over-against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet street 1693. AN APOLOGY FOR Writing against SOCINIANS c. AFTER a long silence and patient expectation what the Learned Writers of some Controversies at present as a late Author calls them would bring forth I intend by the Assistance of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnate Jesus whose Blessing I most earnestly Implore to resume the Defence of the Catholick Faith which I shall Publish in some few short Treatises as I can find Leisure for it that I may not discourage my Readers by too Voluminous a Work But before I venture to Dispute these matters any farther it is necessary to make some Apology for Disputing which is thought very Unchristian and Uncharitable and of dangerous Consequence especially when we undertake the Defence of the Fundamentals of our Faith against the rude and insolent Assaults of Hereticks Sometime since A Melancholy Stander-by would be a Stander-by no longer but interposed An Earnest and Compassionate Suit for Forbearance to the Learned Writers of some Controversies at present These Learned Writers of Controversy are the Socinians who ridiculed without any Learning or Common Sense the Athanasian Creed and the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation The Forbearance he desires is That no body should write against them though Dr. Wallis and my self are more immediately concerned in this Suit Who this Melancholy Stander-by is I shall not enquire for my Controversy is not with Men but with Doctrines and I know by experience that common fame is not always to be trusted much less suspicions but if he be a Divine of the Church of England it seems very strange that he should profess himself a Stander-by when the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith are in question and a Melancholy Stander-by to see some others undertake the Defence of it I confess I am always very jealous of men who are so very Tender on the wrong side for observe it when you will their Tenderness is always owing to their Inclination But to defend our selves let us briefly consider what he says He thinks The open Dissentions of its Professors a great blemish to the Reformation That is that it is a great blemish for any men openly to defend the true Faith which others openly oppose or secretly undermine but certainly it would be a greater blemish to the Reformation to have Old Heresies revived and the true Ancient Catholick Faith scorned and no body appear in the Defence of it But we know his mind That it is for the honour of the Reformation not to Dispute though it be for the most Important Truths Surely our Reformers were not so much against Disputing But if these Dissentions be so great a blemish to the Reformation whose Fault is it Theirs who dissent from the Truth or theirs who defend it This is a very plain case for no body would oppose the Truth if no body taught it The urging too strict an Union in matters of Faith begets dissentions That is to require an open and undisguised Profession of our Baptismal Faith in Father Son and Holy Ghost as the Terms of Christian Communion is the Criminal Cause of our Dissentions Well What shall we do then Renounce the Faith of the Trinity for the sake of Peace This he dares not say for that would pull off his disguise but Christianity must be left in that Latitude and Simplicity wherein it was delivered by our Lord and his Apostles This had been a good Proposal would he have told us what this Latitude and Simplicity is for I am for no other Faith than what Christ and his Apostles taught But I would gladly know what he means by the Latitude of Faith For if the Christian Faith be such a broad Faith must we not believe the whole breadth of it Or has Christ and his Apostles left it at liberty to believe what we like and to let the rest alone To believe that Father Son and Holy Ghost are One Supreme Eternal God or to believe that the Eather alone is the True God the Son a mere Man and the Holy Ghost nothing but a Divine Inspiration To believe that the Eternal Word was made Flesh or that Christ was no more than a Man who had no being before he was born of the Virgin Mary He can mean nothing else by this Latitude of Faith but that Christ and his Apostles have left these matters so ambiguous and undetermined that we may believe what we please and then indeed those do very ill who dispute these matters But this is such a breadth as has no depth for such a Faith as this can have no foundation Can we certainly learn from Scripture Whether Christ be a God Incarnate or a mere Man If we cannot Why should we believe either If we can then one is true and the other false and then there is no Latitude in Faith unless Christ and his Apostles have left it indifferent whether we believe what is true or what is false what they have taught us or what we like better our selves In the same manner he leaves us to guess what he means by the Simplicity of the Faith He is very angry with the School-Doctors as worse enemies to Christianity than either Heathen Philosophers or persecuting Emperors Pray what hurt have they done I suppose he means the Corruption of Christianity with those barbarous Terms of Person Nature Essence Subsistence Consubstantiality c. which will not suffer Hereticks to lye concealed under Scripture-Phrases But why must the Schoolmen bear all the blame of this Why does he not accuse the Ancient Fathers and Councils from whom the Schoolmen learnt these Terms Why does he let St. Austin escape from whom the Master of the Sentences borrowed most of his Distinctions and Subtilties But suppose these Unlucky Wits had used some new Terms have they taught any new Faith about the Trinity in Unity which the Catholick Church did not teach And if they have only guarded the Christian Faith with a hedge of Thorns which disguised Hereticks cannot break through Is this to wound Christianity in its very Vitals No no They will only prick the fingers of Hereticks and secure Christianity from being wounded and this is one great Cause why some men are so angry with the School-Doctors tho the more general Cause is because they have not Industry enough to read or understand them He
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
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
dispute the Bounds of their Authority but content themselves with the Ancient Constitution of the Church of England But if he understands the Practice of the Primitive and truly Apostolick Church which he threatens these unruly Presbyters with no better than he does K. Edw. VI.'s Reformation which he supposes to be made by the Body of the Bishops in opposition to the Presbyters or else I know not how he applies it he is capable of doing no great good nor hurt Only I can tell him one thing That had he fallen into the hands of K. Edw.'s Reforming Bishops they would have reformed him out of the Church or have taught him another sort of Compassionate Suit than this He concludes with a heavy Charge upon Myself and Dr. Wallis for he mentions none else as if we had receded from the Doctrine taught even in our own Church about the Holy Trinity Do we then deny that there are Three Persons and One God No our business is to prove it and explain and vindicate it but he thinks we explain it otherwise than it has been formerly explained And yet that very Account he gives us of it out of Mr. Hooker is owned by myself and particularly explained by my Hypothesis He has given us no just occasion to vindicate ourselves because he has not vouchsafed to tell us why he dislikes either of us He has cited some broken passages out of my Vindication about Three Eternal Minds which are essentially One Eternal Mind And what is the hurt of this Is not every Divine Person who is God a Mind and an Eternal Mind Is not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Eternal and Uncreated Word and Wisdom of God an Eternal and Uncreated Mind Is not the substantial Word and Wisdom of God a Mind Is not the Eternal Spirit which searcheth 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 possible account how Three Eternal Minds should be essentially One does not this at least prove that there may be Three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Divine Essence And should I have been mistaken in this account as I believe I am not must I therefore be charged with receding from the Doctrine of the Church of England As for Dr. Wallis he has nothing to say against him but his calling the Divine Persons Somewhats with which he has very profanely ridiculed the Litany which I gave an account before And now can any Man tell what Opinion this Melancholy Stander-by has of the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation He dares not speak out but gives very broad signs what he would be at He discourages all Men from defending these Doctrines declares That all new Attempts cannot satisfie the old Difficulties which he declares to be unsatisfiable and unsoluble That when we have moved every Stone Authority must define it And yet this Authority extends no farther than to a Negative Belief which he says is all that can reasonably be required of Men of such Mysteries as they cannot understand and thus far he professes himself bound by our Church Articles for Peace sake And this is his Faith of the Trinity not to believe it but only not to oppose it He complains of the Scholastick cramping Terms of Three Persons and One God and thinks the Unity of Three Persons in One Essence to be only a more Orthodox Phrase so that he leaves us no words to express this Doctrine by and therefore it is time to say nothing about it It is a Controversie which exposes our Liturgy and is not only unprofitable but corruptive of and prejudicial and injurious to our common Devotion so dangerous is it to pray to the Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity Three Persons and One God But then on the other hand he carefully practises that forbearance which he perswades others to towards his Learned Writers of the Socinian Controversies tho' they were the Assailants never perswades them to forbear exposing and ridiculing the Faith of the Church which would have provoked his Indignation had he any reverence for the Holy Trinity and a God Incarnate but only thinks by the Charm of a Negative Faith that they may be required quietly to acquiesce in the publick determinations He tells us over and over how unseasonable and dangerous it is to meddle with such high matters or to offer at any Explication of what is Incomprehensible but it is no fault in them to talk of Absurdities and Contradictions in what they do not understand nay he all along insinuates that these Absurdities and Contradictions which they charge upon the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation are unsatisfiable and unsoluble He bestows high Encomiums upon these Enemies of the Faith but speaks with wonderful Contempt of those who defend it as far as he dares the Fathers and Councils are out of his reach but the Master of the Sentences and the School-men and all Modern Undertakers must feel his displeasure to defend the Trinity exposes our Liturgy and corrupts our common Devotion but to ridicule it makes them very pious and devout Men. GOD preserve his Church from Wolves in Sheeps Clothing And now having vindicated our Ancient Rights and Liberties which the Church always challenged of defending the truly Catholick and Apostolick Faith from the Assaults of Hereticks I shall apply myself as I have leisure to the Defence of my Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy and Ever-blessed Trinity and the Incarnation of the Son of God THE END Earnest Suit p. 1. P. 2. P. 2. P. 3. P. 3. P. 16. P. 3. P. 4. P. 5 Page 7. Page 7. Page 8. Page 8. Page 9. See the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation pag. 256 c. Page 11. Page 13. Page 7. Page 6. Page 2. Page 6. Page 17. Page 9 10.