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 ...
Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.
1693
Approx. 58 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 19 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images.
Text Creation Partnership,
Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :
2005-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).
A59791
Wing S3265
ESTC R21192
12054584
ocm 12054584
53128
This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of
Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal
. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.
Early English books online.
(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A59791)
Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 53128)
Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 580:2)
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 ...
Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.
[4], 32 p.
Printed for Will. Rogers ...,
London :
1693.
Marginal notes.
Advertisement: prelim. p. [1].
Reproduction of original in Cambridge University Library.
Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.
Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors.
EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.
EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).
The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.
Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.
Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.
Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.
The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.
Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).
Keying and markup guidelines are available at the
Text Creation Partnership web site
.
eng
Trinity.
Incarnation.
Socinianism.
2003-11 TCP
Assigned for keying and markup
2003-12 Apex CoVantage
Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images
2005-01 Mona Logarbo
Sampled and proofread
2005-01 Mona Logarbo
Text and markup reviewed and edited
2005-04 pfs
Batch review (QC) and XML conversion
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.
à
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
says
,
The
first
Reformers
complained
of
this
,
and
desired
a
purer
and
more
spiritual
sort
of
Divinity
.
What
?
With
respect
to
the
Doctrine
of
the
Trinity
and
Incarnation
?
What
purer
Reformers
were
these
?
I
'm
sure
not
our
English
Reformers
,
whom
he
censures
for
retaining
Scholastick
cramping
Terms
in
their
Publick
Prayers
:
He
means
the
beginning
of
our
Litany
:
O
God
the
Father
of
Heaven
:
O
God
the
Son
,
Redeemer
of
the
World
:
O
God
the
Holy
Ghost
,
proceeding
from
the
Father
and
the
Son
:
O
Holy
,
Blessed
,
and
Glorious
Trinity
,
Three
Persons
and
One
God
:
These
are
his
Scholastick
,
Cramping
Terms
,
which
he
would
fling
out
of
our
Liturgy
,
when
the
season
of
such
blessed
Alterations
comes
.
I
hope
those
Excellent
Persons
among
us
,
who
,
I
doubt
not
,
for
better
Reasons
did
not
long
since
think
of
some
Alterations
,
will
consider
what
a
foul
Imputation
this
is
upon
such
a
Design
,
when
such
a
person
shall
publickly
declare
,
That
they
ought
to
Alter
and
Reform
the
Doctrine
of
the
Trinity
out
of
our
Prayers
.
But
the
whole
Mystery
of
this
Latitude
and
Simplicity
of
Faith
which
he
pleads
for
,
is
that
plausible
Project
(
which
has
been
so
much
talked
of
of
late
:
)
to
confine
our selves
to
Scripture
Terms
and
Phrases
;
to
use
none
but
Scripture
Words
in
our
Creeds
and
Prayers
,
without
any
Explication
in
what
sense
those
words
are
to
be
understood
:
As
he
tells
us
,
Certainly
we
may
Worship
God
right
well
,
yea
,
most
acceptably
,
in
words
of
his
own
Stamp
and
Coinage
.
Now
at
the
first
Proposal
few
men
would
suspect
,
that
there
should
be
any
hurt
in
this
;
though
it
would
make
one
suspect
some
secret
in
it
,
to
consider
that
Hereticks
were
the
first
Proposers
of
it
,
and
that
Orthodox
Christians
rejected
it
.
The
Arians
objected
this
against
the
Homoousion
,
or
the
Son
's
being
of
the
same
Substance
with
the
Father
,
that
it
was
an
Unscriptural
Word
;
but
the
Nicene
Fathers
did
not
think
this
a
good
reason
to
lay
it
aside
:
For
what
reason
can
there
be
to
reject
any
words
,
which
we
can
prove
to
express
the
true
sense
of
Scripture
,
though
they
are
not
found
there
?
For
must
we
believe
the
Words
or
the
Sense
of
Scripture
?
And
what
reason
then
can
any
man
have
to
reject
the
Words
,
though
they
be
no
Scripture-Words
,
if
he
believes
the
Sense
contained
in
them
to
be
the
sense
of
Scripture
?
The
Homoiousion
,
or
that
the
Son
had
a
Nature
like
the
Father's
,
tho
not
the
same
,
was
no
more
a
Scripture-Word
,
than
the
Homoousion
;
and
yet
the
Arians
did
not
dislike
that
,
because
it
was
no
Scripture-Word
;
nor
are
the
Socinians
angry
at
any
man
who
says
,
That
Christ
is
but
a
meer
man
,
who
had
no
Being
before
he
was
born
of
the
Virgin
Mary
;
tho
these
words
are
no
where
in
Scripture
:
And
is
it
not
strange
,
that
a
man
who
heartily
believes
,
or
at
least
pretends
to
believe
,
that
Father
,
Son
,
and
Holy
Ghost
are
One
Eternal
God
,
should
be
angry
with
a
Trinity
in
Unity
,
or
Three
Persons
and
one
God
,
which
do
as
aptly
express
the
Faith
which
he
professes
,
as
any
Words
he
can
think
of
?
It
is
very
odd
to
be
zealous
for
Scripture-Words
without
the
Scripture
Sense
.
If
the
Scripture
have
any
determined
Sense
,
then
that
which
is
the
true
Sense
of
Scripture
,
is
the
true
Faith
;
and
if
we
must
contend
earnestly
for
the
true
Faith
,
we
must
contend
for
the
true
Sense
of
Scripture
,
and
not
merely
for
its
Words
;
and
when
Hereticks
have
used
their
utmost
art
to
make
the
Words
of
Scripture
signifie
what
they
please
,
is
it
not
necessary
to
fix
their
true
Sense
,
and
to
express
that
Sense
in
such
other
Words
as
Hereticks
cannot
pervert
?
There
are
but
few
words
in
common
speech
,
but
what
are
sometimes
differently
used
,
in
a
Proper
or
Metaphorical
,
a
Large
or
a
Limited
Sense
;
and
all
wise
and
honest
men
easily
understand
from
the
circumstances
of
the
place
,
in
what
sense
they
are
used
;
but
if
men
be
perverse
,
they
may
expound
words
properly
when
they
are
used
metaphorically
,
or
metaphorically
when
they
are
used
properly
;
and
there
is
no
confuting
them
from
the
bare
signification
of
the
word
,
because
it
may
be
,
and
oftentimes
is
used
both
ways
;
and
therefore
in
such
cases
we
must
consider
the
Circumstances
of
the
Text
,
and
compare
it
with
Parallel
Texts
,
to
find
out
in
what
sense
the
word
is
there
used
;
and
when
we
have
found
it
,
it
is
reasonable
and
necessary
to
express
the
true
Christian
Faith
,
not
merely
in
Scripture
words
,
which
are
abused
and
perverted
by
Hereticks
,
but
in
such
other
words
,
if
we
can
find
any
such
,
as
express
the
true
sense
in
which
the
Scripture-words
are
used
,
and
in
which
all
Christians
must
understand
them
,
who
will
retain
the
Purity
of
the
Christian
Faith.
We
do
not
hereby
alter
the
Christian
Faith
,
nor
require
them
to
believe
any
thing
more
than
what
the
Scripture
teaches
,
tho
we
require
them
to
profess
their
Faith
in
other
words
,
which
are
not
indeed
in
Scripture
,
but
express
the
true
and
determined
sense
of
Scripture
words
.
And
this
is
all
the
Latitude
of
Faith
which
this
Stander-by
so
tragically
complains
we
have
destroyed
,
viz.
That
we
have
brought
the
Scripture
words
to
a
fixt
and
determined
sense
,
that
Hereticks
can
no
longer
conceal
themselves
in
a
Latitude
of
expression
,
nor
spread
their
Heresies
in
Scripture
words
,
with
a
Traditionary
Sense
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
Christian
Faith
?
And
whether
Christ
and
his
Apostles
intended
to
teach
any
more
?
Or
whether
they
did
not
intend
,
That
all
Christians
should
be
obliged
to
believe
this
One
Faith
?
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
must
intend
that
their
words
should
signifie
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
she
teach
the
true
Christian
Faith
,
that
she
teaches
it
in
such
words
as
have
no
Latitude
,
no
Ambiguity
of
Sense
,
which
Hereticks
may
deny
if
they
please
,
but
which
they
can't
corrupt
in
favour
of
their
Heresies
,
as
they
do
Scripture
words
?
It
is
an
amazing
thing
to
me
,
that
any
man
who
has
any
Zeal
,
any
Concernment
for
the
true
Christian
Faith
,
who
does
not
think
it
perfectly
indifferent
what
we
believe
,
or
whether
we
believe
any
thing
or
not
,
should
judge
it
for
the
advantage
of
Christianity
,
and
a
proper
Expedient
for
the
Peace
of
the
Church
,
for
all
men
to
agree
in
the
same
Scripture
words
,
and
understand
them
in
what
sense
they
please
;
tho
one
believes
Christ
to
be
the
Eternal
Son
of
God
,
and
another
to
be
but
a
mere
man
;
which
it
seems
has
no
great
hurt
in
it
,
if
they
do
but
agree
in
the
same
words
:
But
if
the
Faith
be
so
indifferent
,
I
cannot
imagine
why
we
should
quarrel
about
Words
;
the
fairer
and
honester
Proposal
is
,
That
every
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
pe●●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
)
Pam●●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
.
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
irreconci●●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
,
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
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
that
be
done
,
which
shall
be
judged
most
Christian
and
most
Wholesome
.
But
what
is
that
?
Will
it
ever
be
most
Christian
and
most
Wholesome
,
to
dispute
for
the
Faith
against
Heresie
?
If
ever
it
will
be
so
,
why
is
it
not
so
now
?
If
this
never
will
be
Christian
and
Wholesome
,
what
else
is
to
be
done
to
Hereticks
in
fit
time
and
place
,
unless
he
intends
to
Physick
'
em
?
And
it
seems
he
has
a
Dose
ready
prepared
,
to
lay
all
these
Controversies
to
an
Eternal
Sleep
;
and
it
is
,
what
he
calls
a
Negative
Belief
,
a
pretty
Contradiction
,
but
never
the
less
proper
Cure
for
Heresie
.
The
Project
is
this
,
as
far
as
I
can
understand
him
,
That
the
Socinians
shall
not
be
required
to
own
the
Doctrines
of
the
Trinity
and
Incarnation
,
but
shall
so
far
agree
,
as
not
to
contradict
them
,
nor
teach
contrary
to
them
:
Now
I
should
like
this
very
well
,
that
they
would
not
oppose
the
received
Doctrine
of
the
Church
,
but
I
believe
he
knows
some
little
clattering
Tongues
,
which
all
the
Opiates
he
has
,
can
never
lay
asleep
;
and
had
he
remembred
what
he
had
just
before
said
concerning
their
Zeal
,
and
their
Eternal
disputing
,
and
that
they
will
never
be
silent
,
he
would
never
have
proposed
so
impracticable
a
thing
,
as
the
imposing
silence
on
them
;
which
makes
me
suspect
,
that
he
intends
something
more
than
what
he
says
,
and
therefore
to
prevent
mistakes
,
I
must
ask
him
a
Question
or
two
.
1.
Whether
he
will
allow
us
,
who
,
as
he
grants
,
are
in
possession
of
this
Faith
of
the
Trinity
and
Incarnation
,
to
keep
possession
of
it
,
and
teach
,
explain
,
and
confirm
it
to
our
People
:
we
will
answer
none
of
their
Books
,
if
they
won't
write
them
;
but
if
he
expects
that
we
should
say
nothing
of
,
or
for
the
Trinity
,
as
he
would
have
them
say
nothing
against
it
,
we
must
beg
his
Pardon
;
we
do
not
think
the
Doctrine
of
the
Trinity
and
Incarnation
to
be
of
so
little
concernment
,
as
to
be
parted
with
,
or
buried
in
silence
.
We
believe
Christian
Religion
to
be
built
on
this
Faith
,
and
therefore
think
ourselves
as
much
bound
to
Preach
it
,
as
to
Preach
the
Gospel
;
and
if
they
will
oppose
the
Faith
,
as
long
as
we
Preach
it
,
we
can
have
no
Truce
with
them
.
2dly
,
I
hope
he
does
not
propose
this
Negative
Belief
,
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
oppose
and
contradict
this
Faith
,
we
shall
receive
them
to
our
Communion
,
and
fling
the
Worship
of
the
Holy
Trinity
,
and
of
a
God
Incarnate
,
out
of
our
Liturgies
for
their
sake
.
I
grant
there
may
be
such
things
,
as
Articles
of
Peace
,
when
Men
joyn
in
the
same
Communion
,
notwithstanding
some
less
material
Differences
,
while
the
Substantials
of
Faith
and
Worship
are
secure
,
and
oblige
themselves
not
to
disturb
the
Peace
of
the
Church
with
less
Disputes
;
but
to
make
the
Essentials
of
Faith
and
Worship
meer
Articles
of
Peace
,
to
receive
those
to
our
Communion
,
who
deny
the
very
Object
of
our
Worship
,
is
as
senceless
,
and
as
great
a
contradiction
to
the
Nature
and
End
of
Christian
Communion
,
as
it
would
be
to
receive
Heathens
,
Jews
,
Mahometans
into
the
Christian
Church
,
by
vertue
of
this
Negative
Belief
.
This
I
know
he
will
not
allow
;
for
he
says
,
We
are
agreed
in
the
other
parts
of
our
common
Christianity
:
whereas
it
is
absolutely
impossible
,
that
we
should
agree
in
any
thing
,
which
is
pure
Christianity
,
while
we
differ
in
the
Fundamental
Doctrines
of
the
Trinity
and
Incarnation
,
the
owning
or
denying
of
which
makes
an
essential
Difference
in
Religion
.
It
alters
the
Object
of
our
Worship
,
as
much
as
the
Worship
of
One
and
of
Three
Persons
in
the
Godhead
,
and
as
much
as
the
Worship
of
a
God
Incarnate
,
and
of
a
deified
meer
Man
,
differ
.
It
alters
the
way
of
our
Salvation
,
as
much
as
Faith
in
the
Blood
and
Sacrifice
of
the
Son
of
God
,
to
expiate
our
Sins
,
differs
from
believing
a
great
and
excellent
Prophet
,
and
obeying
his
Laws
.
It
alters
the
Motives
and
Principles
of
our
Obedience
,
as
much
as
the
Love
of
God
,
in
giving
his
Son
,
differs
from
his
Goodness
in
sending
an
excellent
Man
to
be
our
Prophet
and
Saviour
;
as
much
as
the
Love
,
Humility
,
and
Condescension
of
the
Eternal
Son
of
God
,
in
becoming
Man
,
and
in
dying
as
a
Sacrifice
for
our
Sins
,
differs
from
the
Love
of
a
meer
Man
,
in
preaching
the
Gospel
,
and
bearing
Testimony
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
of
God
for
the
Expiation
of
our
Sins
,
differs
from
the
Promises
of
an
extraordinary
Man
sent
as
a
Prophet
from
God
;
and
as
much
as
the
Intercession
of
a
High
Priest
,
who
is
the
Eternal
Son
of
God
,
and
intercedes
in
the
Merits
of
his
own
Blood
,
differs
from
the
Intercession
of
a
meer
,
though
of
an
excellent
Man
,
who
has
made
no
Atonement
for
our
Sins
,
and
has
no
other
Interest
in
God
,
than
what
an
innocent
and
obedient
Man
can
pretend
to
.
It
were
easie
to
enlarge
on
this
Argument
;
but
I
have
directed
in
the
Margin
,
where
the
Reader
may
see
it
discoursed
at
large
.
Now
if
this
Author
,
for
these
Reasons
,
will
allow
us
to
instruct
our
People
in
the
Doctrine
of
the
Trinity
and
Incarnation
,
and
not
desire
us
to
receive
Socinians
into
our
Communion
,
he
will
do
good
Service
,
if
he
can
bring
them
to
his
Negative
Belief
,
and
perswade
them
to
be
silent
;
if
he
can't
,
we
will
try
to
make
them
so
in
time
,
if
they
have
Wit
enough
to
understand
,
when
it
is
fit
to
be
quiet
.
In
the
next
place
he
takes
Sanctuary
in
the
Act
of
Parliament
in
favour
of
Dissenters
,
which
he
conceives
has
done
very
much
,
if
not
full
enough
.
But
had
he
considered
,
how
severe
this
Act
is
upon
his
beloved
Socinians
,
he
might
much
better
have
let
it
alone
.
For
no
Dissenters
have
any
benefit
by
that
Act
,
who
do
not
renounce
Socinianism
:
But
he
pretends
to
give
Account
of
Acts
of
Parliament
,
as
he
does
of
other
Books
,
without
seeing
them
.
But
we
may
see
what
a
hearty
good
will
he
has
to
the
Cause
:
if
the
Act
has
excepted
Socinians
,
it
is
more
than
he
knew
,
and
more
than
he
wished
;
for
he
hoped
it
had
not
been
done
,
and
endeavoured
to
perswade
the
World
,
that
all
the
Bishops
of
England
had
allowed
it
;
for
he
cannot
believe
,
that
the
Body
of
the
Bishops
disallowed
,
or
did
not
with
good
liking
consent
to
the
Act
,
viz.
To
give
Liberty
to
Socinians
,
as
he
supposed
.
This
is
such
a
scandalous
Representation
of
the
Bishops
of
England
,
as
I
'm
sure
,
they
don't
deserve
,
and
which
in
due
time
they
may
resent
.
And
here
,
without
any
provocation
,
he
sets
up
the
Authority
of
Bishops
,
against
the
Lower
House
of
Convocation
,
who
never
differed
upon
this
Point
,
and
I
hope
never
will
,
nor
will
ever
be
tempted
by
such
a
forward
Undertaker
,
to
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
.
Notes, typically marginal, from the original text
Notes for div A59791-e290
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.