A VINDICATION OF THE Antapologist, AGAINST THE DEFENCE OF THE Dean of St. Paul's APOLOGY.  
LONDON, Printed for Richard Bentley in Russel-Street in Covent-Garden, 1695.   

A VINDICATION OF THE Antapologist, AGAINST THE Defence of the Dean of St. Paul's APOLOGY.  
'TIS not my design to take the Defender's whole Book in pieces, and answer every Clause of it; there is no occasion for that, a great deal of it signifies nothing, and is not worth any Man's notice. But I would know with what ingenuity, conscience, or forehead a Man can vent such base reproaches, contemptuous fleering scoffs and misrepresentations against a Person of so much worth? Does he think to come off by asserting [He cannot expose a Man without mentioning his Name] when 'tis generally known who is intended? 
Def. p. 14   
First, for the Ant. being a Socinian, which is the Defender's continued Charge through the whole, he says, 
Def. p. 4.  [He does not pretend to know his inward intention, all he has to do with, is his Book.] And yet there is not one Clause in it that proves this, nay there are several passages to the contrary, as Ant. p. 45. I from my heart receive every tittle of the Revealed Christian Religion; particularly as to those two Magnalia, the Trinity and Incarnation, and again, Ant. p. 5. to make the sum of my Sentiments plainer, the holy Scripture states the Trinity under the notion of three bearing witness in Heaven, and adds, he has much more to say for that exagitated Text, than to allow it wanting in any Copies, on any other reason but their imperfection.  
What could be said more? Now this the Def. would not see. 
Def. p. 8.  [This third Section he does not know well what to make of] but says [in the first place he (the Ant.) would have none but Scripture-terms made use of in stating this Doctrine; but this, whether it were the Invention of old Heretics, or new ones, hath been shown to be in our case foolish and unreasonable] I wish he had told us where he has shown this, I cannot find it: The Ant. p. 21, 22. quotes St. Athanasius, and St. Ambrose, as complaining of unscriptural words: But the Def. [is not at leisure to turn them over. 
Def. p. 22. ]  
A Man at this rate will never be confuted, if at one time he will not see things, and at another will not examine them, and when they pinch him will not know what to make of them. Methinks he can tend to pass a strange Compliment on Scripture, God left it as a Rule of Faith to the end of the World. And why should not the terms there serve our Times? What signifies it to say, [Heretics may still take them in their own sense. 
Def. p. 23. ] So they may your Unscriptural words: No doubt but those Heretics, who can pervert all Scripture-terms, may also those others which we do contrive. But what made him overlook what is really in the beginning of the third Section, and bring in something at a distance? He had no mind to see the Ant. appear no Socinian, he was resolved to call him so. He forgot the Jus Belli in Controversies, the obligation to Truth, Justice, and common Ingenuity there.  
But farther, the Ant. being asked p. 44, 45. Whether he does believe the Doctrine of the Trinity to be defensible or no? he answers, I do, as delivered in Scripture, but not upon his (viz. Dr. Sh.) Novel Definitions and Hypotheses.  
So, p. 46. the Doctrine of the Trinity is a Fundamental, if duly stated, and this he with Reverence acknowledges and believes, as Scripture states it.  
And, p. 48. says, the denial of the Trinity duly stated is Heresy. And Socinianism he calls Heresy, p. 50.  
Now with what face can a Man pretend to answer this Book, overlook all this, and brand the Author still for a Socinian, 
Def. p. 11.  and yet profess that he [has nothing else to judge him by but the Book?] I am loath to say what he deserves.  
The case was this, the very learned and peaceable Ant. met with a dangerous Explication of the Trinity by Dr. Sh. and seeing the ill Consequences likely to attend the Church in wrangling about these matters at this time a day, he desired both parties would let this Conversie alone, till fit time and place. p. 3. And that it might rest (for this Juncture) as 'twas above thirteen hundred years ago determined by two General Councils.  
P. 33. 
Def. p. 2.  He did not desire us [tamely and silently to give up a Fundamental Article of Christian Faith. Neither dissuade from Writing only in defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Nor does he beseech one to be silent, 
Def. p. 3.  and let the others Writ, Talk, Rail, Argue, etc. 
Def. p. 5.  he would not for Peace give up Truth, nor would betray Christian Faith under the pretence of Peace and Moderation. 
Def. p. 7. ]  
This truly may be matter of Melancholy consideration to all good Men, notwithstanding his Scoffs, that a Man should give himself so strange a liberty of thinking and speaking. These are false imputations, and malicious insinuations still charged, even contrary to our Author's accounts; as we find Ant. p. 9 If the old way of speaking had been kept to, the suit for peace had been let alone.  
And what can be more disingenuous? I do wonder, even to astonishment, that our Defender should pretend to Write Controversy, and be no more true in his Charges; or just in his Consequences.  
The business is, the Doctrine of the Trinity, as Dr. Sh. has stated it, is not a Fundamental of the Christian Faith; his mutual consciousness will not guard him from the inference of three Gods, since the Unity of Accord (not of Nature and Substance) is all that will follow from thence; and this, a true enquiry into the importance of the words without any farther trouble will make appear.  
But he may not like this, because the Doctor would have the word Substance thrown away, as the cause of all the Errors Men are apt to fall into about the Mystery of the Trinity: And yet 'tis in our Articles, Athanasian and Nicene Creeds, and in the Doxology at the Communion on Trinity-Sunday. And pray who abuses the Church now? If the Ant. had said as much as the Apology does in this, he must have been banged about as an enemy to the Church, that he went to expose the Creeds, the Communion Service, and the Church of England. And truly he had reason enough, according to his notion, to be afraid of the word Substance; a little Logic will teach him, that three distinct Infinite Spirits are three distinct Infinite Substances, and he may tremble at what necessary consequence will quickly be found out. His Notion is but poorly, I may say not at all justified by a later pretended Defence; though he spits Socinian Seconds in the Animadverter's face. Pag. 32. there is a great deal of obscure stuff to no purpose.  
But the Defender advocates for the Dean, that though he [gives such an Explication of the Trinity, 
Def. p. 6.  as he believes to be true, he does not lay down his Hypothesis as necessary to be expressly believed by all] but the vain boasting in the Apology, p. 85. will answer this, viz. that he has given such a notion of the Trinity as is agreeable to the phrase and expression of Scripture, such as solves all the difficulties of it.  
Let the Reader judge, 
Def. p. 12.  Whether the Reasons of the Ant. which the Defender mentions, hold good, though he will not allow them. They are these: If the Socinians be not the only persons Heterodox in the Points of the Trinity, and if these are not the only Points in which they are Heterodox, than it follows not, says Ant. that he that desired the Controversy of the Trinity to be forborn at present, did desire that no body would write against the Socinians, though his suit was chief to the Dean and Dr. Wallis.  
I cannot imagine why he takes pains to prove that [every Christian or Divine must] writ, 
Def. p. 13.  (for that is according to the Discourse there) [when the Catholic Faith is assaulted, or else he must be deemed a Neuter, or not Orthodox,] then there must be a thousand Scribblers against one Heretical Pamphlet. What if there be no need of my Defence? I may stand by very innocently, and comfort myself in seeing the Heretics beaten by others, when there is no occasion for me to help.  
The Ant. Explication of that Text, p. 23. 
Def. p. 23.  does not [overthrew the Personality of the Holy Ghost] because, if this did not, there are other Texts to prove it; and nothing is said to be in this against it. He does not say, his is the Sense of the Text; but puts this to prove, that different Interpretations may be put on one Text, and a general Sense may be sometimes well enough; and still he allows this Text may not, without Probability, be interpreted of the Essential Spirit of God. So that 'twas foolishly and wickedly spiteful to say, 
Def. p. 23.  as Def. does, that [this Example is not very much for his (the Ant.) Reputation, because it can serve no other End, but to overthrow the Personality of the Holy Ghost.] Why must every thing necessarily be a Man's Design, which may be so, when as well it may not be so? But why more particularly must this be his End here, when 'tis brought to another Purpose, and another Design is mentioned; and nothing of that which our Adversary's malevolent Inclination makes him fancy? And yet this Man does very solemnly tell us at first, 
Def. p. 4.  [He does not pretend to know his inward Intentions; and therefore, whatever he shall say in his Reflections, let him not pretend that he does it to calumniate him, since all he has to do with is his Book;] what shall we think when there is plainly Protestatio contra factum?  
He goes on with his False Charge, 
Def. p 42.  [That he (the Ant.) does plainly enough insinuate, that it was not Reason or Scripture, but Humane Force, which carried it, and determined the Point in the Council of Nice] when there's no such thing in the whole Book; and yet (according to his usual Custom) talking at Rovers, I am sure without the Book he pretends to Answer, he gives us another Cast of his Civility, that ['twas written with a Design (which he is very good at understanding) [to expose the Nicene Faith and Council, the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the Church of England.] And if we look back, we shall find him say, the Ant. [speaks a great many fine things in behalf of the Council of Nice, not worth repeating. 
Def. p. 40.  Let's see then what these things are. I have, says the Ant. a true and profound Veneration for that Council, and esteem it only Second to that of the Apostles in Act. 15. Who can think otherwise of it, that considers the number of the Fathers therein; or otherwise, that reflects on the Quality of many of them; the Number Three Hundred and Eighteen; their Quality, divers of them such, who had even at that time bid fair for Martyrdom; Confessors of the First Rank, that bore in their Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Marks of Christ; had some of them their Hands cut off, had been seared and tormented with Fire, and otherwise suffered for the Faith of Jesus; some had the Apostolic Gifts of Miracles, and one Raised the Dead. Ant. p. 36. Were not these things worth repeating? A very remarkable thing, he means not fit for him to mention, because then the Ant. proves himself no Socinian, and that does not serve the Def.'s turn.  
But pray, What makes the Def. so averse to the Ant.'s Proposal, 
Def. p. 39  of calling in [a Concurring Power] to end the Controversy? Is it for the same Reason, that some Clients will not submit to a Reference, because they love wrangling and going to Law? Or is he afraid of a Convocation? This he would have [not reasonable nor practicable:] Why so? The King can, and will (I hope) call one, if asked; when a growing Heresy infests the Church, they can come together, and they will act in such a case; and he that thinks otherwise, abuses the Constitution, or the Persons in it. But the Def. tells you, [This is not a fair Proposal; 
Def. p. 39  for the Heretics must be first gratified, the Forms of Worship, and the Doctrine of the Trinity thrown out of the Liturgy] when the Ant. says no such thing. He makes what he pleases, and fathers it on this honest absent Person: When he cannot tell what to Answer, he then mentions something odious, and runs a great way after his own Shadow with open Mouth: And this he does not only here, but in many other places of his Defence. Let the Reader compare the Books.  
As we may see again, he citys the Ant. p. 52. saying, [That no Practice be imposed upon any contrary to their Consciences. 
Def. p. 57  The Meaning of which he takes to be, That no Expressions should be allowed in the Liturgy, which any one professes are against his Conscience; nor any Rite or Ceremony required, which all are not satisfied in; and so we must part with Episcopacy, and all Order and Decency, etc.] He calls him, [Brave Protestant Reconciler. And says, 'Tis admirable Arguing for a Church of England-Man, who has read Fathers and Schoolmen.] Pray let's see how the Defender has here used him; take all his Words: In such Mysterious Points which we cannot understand, or clear ourselves in, we shall be permitted to suspend our Judgement, and not be required to declare any further Assent and Consent to the Church's Determinations, than that we will not contradict or teach contrary thereto; withal, that in the mean time no Practice be imposed upon any, contrary to their Conscience. But I would have it noted here, that I neither in my Paper did, nor do I now expose this Temper, as a Mean to qualify Men for Church-Preferments, but only for Communion. Ant. p. 51, 52. God deliver us from the Tongues and Pens of false and wicked Misrepresenters. 'Tis not disingenuous to know the true Meaning, and lay open the just Consequences of any Saying; but 'tis abusive to put a false Construction on Words, to mutilate a Sentence to make it look worse than it is. I agree with the Defender, that [there are Men of perverse Minds and weak Heads:] I am sure some are blinded with Spite, 
Def. p. 36.  and infatuated by Prejudice.  
As to our Author's Latitude of Faith and negative Belief, and as to the Title of Melancholy Stander-by, which the Defender makes himself with Dulness enough so often merry with, let him but take the Account given in the Antapology with a Candid Mind, and a Christian Temper, and I believe they will shift well enough for themselves; however, he may find reason to be a little more serious in his Behaviour about such matters.  
We meet with a mighty Bustle made about p. 31. 
Def. p. 30, 31, 32, 33, etc.  of Ant. a great deal is spent upon the Words of it: And yet, upon a most strict and impartial Examination, I profess, I do not find any Occasion given for this Heap of ill Say; they are not expressly, nor by Consequence, to be found there.  
They are these:  
[That the Fundamental Articles of Christian Faith are revealed in such ambiguous Terms, 
Def. p. 31.  that we cannot understand the true Sense of them; or at least few can.  
That God meant not Senfe, but intended that every Man should believe them in what Sense he pleased.  
That he charges all the Heresies and Infidelity in the World on God Almighty, by his Latitude of Faith, by the different Degrees and Measures of Faith which God gives, etc.  
That the Church must not require an open Profession of the true Faith.  
That nothing will uphold his Cause, 
Def. p. 32.  but such an Indifferency as will not allow the Church to concern herself what Men believe, nor her Members to defend the true Faith.  
Lusts and Prejudices hinder me from discerning the clear Evidence of the Truth, 
Def. p. 32.  and so long I cannot believe, and therefore I hope I shall be excused.]  
Nor is there any Reason for these Questions to be put.  
[Does the Church desire no Man to believe the Creeds and Doctrine of the Trinity? 
Def. p. 33.   
Is it to no purpose to teach Men the Truth? Or to require them to profess their Minds sincerely?]  
And to these let me add, that [whether there be not some Christian Truths, 
Def. p. 27.  which ought to be expressly believed by all Christians?]  
My designed Brevity will not allow me to transcribe the whole; I refer the Reader to the Book; and I am very well satisfied, he will wonder at the Defender's bold Strokes. 'Tis easy to abuse by Questions, or to make Sayings against another; but I challenge him to prove, that these things necessarily follow from any Words there.  
When all is done, we do subscribe in a large Sense, that must be admitted to save the Charity of our Church from denouncing Damnation against the Greek Church, for want of the Word Filiog. He is not the best Friend to the Establishment, who takes the Sentence so strictly, as to damn every body that believes not every Word in the Athanasian Creed: It is certainly enough to believe the Substance of our Christian Faith, touching the Trinity and the Incarnation of the Son of God. I take that to be believing faithfully.  
Dr. Falkner owns, That the Athanasian Creed gives some Explications, which are not so necessary to be understood and believed. Lib. Ecc. p. 146.  
And Dr. Stillingfleet (now Bishop of Worcester) in his Vindication of his Answer to the King's Papers, pleads in behalf of the Eastern Churches, p. 23. in these Words: Is it not a very hard Case these should be excluded the Catholic Church, and consequently from Salvation, for not rightly understanding the Subtleties of the Distinction betwixt Nature and Person? etc.  
And our Articles were never designed as Declarations of Truths, necessary to be believed only in one Sense; but as Articles of Peace, which no Subscriber should Oppose or Preach against.  
But I find our two Authors can by no means agree in their Politics. Ant. is for Alterations, and an Union of Protestants (if it can be compassed) by reasonable Methods: And, doubtless, he thinks his Way most likely (rebus sic stantibus) to preserve the Church.  
The Defender has another sort of Hopes and Belief. 
Def. p. 63.  I confess sincerely, I am not a fit Judge of such matters; I shall therefore leave it to God's Providence, and the Wisdom of my Superiors; praying hearty, that God will vouchsafe to continue our Liturgy in Use, Honour, and Veneration.  
The Ant. is against Scholastic Terms in our Prayers: He names Forbesius' Exceptions; and he would have some one answer them more satisfactorily than he can contrive to do. Now our Defender had done well, if he had here inserted an Answer to these; his Undertaking required it; but he did not think fit to meddle, but only tells you fleeringly, 
Def. p. 21.  [He hopes there are some others in the Church, that can Answer so as he would have it Answered.] Can he do nothing but call Names, and infer bad Consequences? But as long as the Ant. asserts in the midst of all this, that the things excepted against may be used without Sin, p. 21. (we know what may be done without Sin, must be done when Authority commands) he does not give any Allowance to an Opposite Separation.  
This all together would have been construed well enough by a Man not given to Bitterness, Wrath and Disputing. But however, make the worst of it, 'twill not amount to the Defender's Charge, or near it, viz. [That this Writing is directly against the received Doctrine of the Trinity and Established Worship, 
Def. p. 21, 22.  that the Ant. is a perfect Adversary to the Church.]  
The Def. 
Def. p. 62.  charges the Ant. for [giving up the Convocation, but he will [not follow him here] he says [for good Reasons; 
Def. p. 18. ] I suppose the same as when he says, [He has more Wit than to follow him through his Reading and the Schoolmen.] An ingenuous Excuse: I can assure you, he is not a Man to be followed by every Body; as he has come very near the Character given of the Nicene Fathers, excepting their miraculous Gifts, so (I can say it without Vanity or Flattery) his Reading and Learning is more than common and ordinary; though the Def. says many little things of him, which provoked me to this. One Reason he names the Ant. 
Def. p. 62.  [is on the securer side.] Our Champion is like to make a brave Defender of our Faith, and our Church's Authority, who will not scratch his Hands, when his Adversary has got the safer Side. He gives up the Convocation no more than 'twas long before, as his History makes appear, which Def. would not touch.  
'Tis certain, that Ecclesiastical Laws should not be made without Ecclesiastical Persons; this is according to the Primitive Canons, to the Proceed of Christian Emperors, and to the Methods of England: 'Twas one of those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ancient Customs that our Nation has observed.  
Farther, Queen Elizabeth since the Reformation, did prohibit the House of Commons meddling in the ordering of Church-matters, as appears by Sir Simonds D'Ewes, p. 213.  
The Speaker declared to the House of Commons, that it was her Majesty's Pleasure, That from henceforth no Bills concerning Religion shall be preferred or received into this House, unless the same should be first considered and liked by the Clergy.  
And we find the Persons attempting it, were then some forbade the House, others turned out of their Offices, others sent to the Tower; nay, there was a Submission made for transgressing in this, Anno 23. p. 284.  
This is what (I guess) our Def. would be at, but he is resolved not to burn his Fingers, and I am persuaded the Ant. is satisfied in all this.  
But whatever it was heretofore, we are to examine what the Custom has been for a considerable time passed; and here we shall find, if the King give the Parliament leave to meddle in Ecclesiastical Matters, and they do make a Law without a Lower House of Convocation, this will be obligatory: Whether we like it, or not, so it is.  
The next Charge against the Ant. is, that he says, 
Def. p. 64.  [Other Dissenters have benefit by the Act of Toleration, who do not renounce Socinianism, contrary to the express words of the Act.] And here the Ant. very [sense, sincerity, and modesty] are questioned; he claps his wings, and crows as if he were insulting over his conquered adversary: Nay, he puts him in a way to excuse himself, that he [was imposed upon by hear-say, or by a hasty conclusion, that because it was an Act of Indulgence to Dissenters, it must certainly indulge the innocent and true Protestant Socinians among the rest.] Very kindly done! but not too fast, look upon the Act, Pages in it are 309 and 317.  
In the former 'tis provided that Persons in Holy Orders, or pretending to Holy Orders, Preachers, or Teachers in Dissenting Congregations, shall be free from the Penalties of the Act for restraining Nonconformists from inhabiting in Corporations, and of the Act of Uniformity; upon condition only of the taking the Oaths, and declaring the approbation of, and subscribing to the Articles of Religion mentioned in a Statute made, 13 Eliz. (viz. 39 Articles) except 34, 35, 36. and some words of the 20th.  
In the other Clause 'tis Enacted, that the benefit of the Act shall not extend to any person that shall deny in his Preaching or Writing, the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, as it is declared in the aforesaid Articles of Religion. So that none but public Preachers, etc. are comprehended in these Restrictions; all that are not so, may believe what they please concerning the Trinity, without being excluded from the benefit of this Act, and so indeed may Preachers too; only they must not teach publicly any thing contrary to those Articles they are to Subscribe and declare their approbation (not belief) of.  
I shall conclude without returning his Scoffs, or his Lashes (which word used more than once aught to be recanted, as reflecting on a very Honourable Profession) with an earnest and a serious desire, that he will repent of all his Virulent and Malicious Speeches and Misrepresentations; that he will learn to be more true in his Charges, and just in his Consequences.  
FINIS.