late Archbishop was a meer self-interested Man But if this be not the plain meaning no nor the meaning plain or obscure then the Considerer is falsly accus'd I will lay the matter before the Reader The Considerer begins his Answer to his Grace the late ArchBp with an Apology for his undertaking to answer so many Men of the first Order in the Church eminent for real Worth and excellent Learning He expresses a particular Deference to his Grace as he ought above all the rest He then declares the Motives which perswaded him to answer this being done that his Cause might not lose by the Meanness and Obscurity of his Person he ingeniously notes that in the Commonwealth of Learning there 's no regard had to Titles of Honour wherefore if he has prov'd his Point it avails his Opposers nothing that they are great Pensioners of the World biass'd by Rewards and Aws It will indeed hence follow that the Considerer did mean that in his Judgment the Honours and Profits enjoy'd by the ArchBp might have some influence on his mind to hinder him from discerning plainly the state of the Question or freely speaking his Mind but this can never be made to signify that the ArchBp was a meer self-interested Man but by such a Figure as makes the Name of a Learned and Religious Person truly signify profound Learning and solid Religion 'T is not the most uncommon thing in the World for good Men in great Places to be influenc'd sometimes and in some things by self-interest but a meer self-interested Man is one who is wholly govern'd by self-interest whose Opinions alter as his Interest does whose Stile accommodates it self to the Changes of Times and the Steps of his own Advancement But tho I am satisfied that the Considerer's Words do not reflect on the ABp so injuriously as the Bishop of W. would perswade yet I think it had been better that they had been unsaid for they are off from the Argument unbecoming and best excus'd by observing that none of all his Antagonists but has more to answer for upon this account than he As for that Charge of ridiculing the Articles of the Christian Religion the Unitarians stand upon it that they are perfectly innocent only they acknowledg that they have wrote satyrically against the Heathenish Error of the Realists but they hope they may be forgiven their Endeavours to put Tritheism to open Shame especially because they never wish'd to see it hang'd or burn'd I have now noted what may be justly pleaded on behalf of the Unitarians to acquit them from the Guilt of an undue management of the Controversy but there are two things wherein I cannot excuse them the first is a piece of Rashness and Indiscretion the second a Trespass against a distinguishing Precept of the Christian Religion The Story of Dulcinea is pointed not against the Orthodox Doctrine but the Scholastick Unscriptural Terms of the Nominalists Now it was a piece of Rashness and Indiscretion to ridicule those Terms how obnoxious soever unto which for Peace sake they now confess their Consciences could submit Sure they could not hope that the old Scholastick Terms should be laid aside at their Instance George Duke of Saxony thought not amiss of the Reformation which Luther drove at but that it should be made at the Instance of a pitiful Monk seem'd to him intolerable The Trespass against a distinguishing Precept of the Christian Religion of which I think the Unitarians are in some measure guilty is That when they have been odiously misrepresented foully calumniated maliciously expos'd haughtily insulted rated revil'd and censur'd by this and t'other Adversary better skill'd at Libelling than Logick they have not taken it with all the compos'd Firmness of Mind with all the steddy Patience which the Commands of the Holy Gospel requir'd and the Example of their blessed Master made practicable but when they have been barbarously us'd have answer'd angrily again It 's true the worst Returns that they have made compar'd with what they have suffer'd may seem perfect Courtship but if they had never been mov'd from an even Christian Temper when all manner of evil was spoke against them without just Cause their Labours would have gain'd a still higher Esteem and perhaps have been handed down to late Posterity as the most absolute Patterns of a dexterous and able pertinent close and just Management of Controversy I should now examine how the Controversy has been manag'd by those Authors who have oppos'd the Unitarians whether upon the Principles of Tritheism or upon a misunderstanding of one another about certain Terms of Art which admit divers Constructions But I am really afraid of examining this well knowing that I should meet abundance of Unchristian Matter not capable of any favourable Representation Should I but shew how they have treated one another the impartial Reader would certainly say that the Unitarians ought to sit down content under the Injuries which have fall'n to their share and therefore I hope these Authors will give me leave to pass them over all but one who has distinguish'd himself by peculiar Antichristian Excesses with this general not harsh Censure In some of their Writings there appears much Learning so much Learning that it runs into Confusion such Confusion that tho you may perceive whom they love and whom they hate yet you cannot easily divine what Opinions they are for or against in others there are to be met better digested Learning and a strong Vivacity of Wit This Man despairs of solving the Difficulties he meddles with but honestly hopes that one time or other a lucky Interpreter will rise that presumes he has started a Notion which seems to give some light to help to form some general Idea of Matters in question but among them all there 's little or no Christian Moderation and Temper Yet if these great Persons had confin'd themselves to close Reasoning and left the zealous angry part to Mr. Edwards their Cause would not have suffer'd for want of calling Names That worthy Author's Book entit'led A brief Vindication of the fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith is such an entire piece of Railing that no Rabsheka before Christ nor Lucian since ever equall'd it 'T is wrote too all in the Strain of Bombomachides-Cluninstaridy-Sarchides Great Neptune's Grandchild I vanquish'd the stupendous Giant COL sprung from the prolifick putrefying Gore of the odious Leviathan we fought on Altercando's Plains where Lana Caprina has so often committed Fools and Philosophers together I push'd hard at first in vain the mighty Monster roar'd in vain disgorg'd his poisonous Replies for now collecting all my Powers into one impetuous Volume I pour'd in upon him 500 bald Reproaches Conundrums and Blunders innumerable and to perfect the glorious Work I murder'd his Fame but that with some few trifling Stories two malicious Witticisms and one lewd obscene Allusion I ruin'd the whole Posse of the Unitarians struck their chosen Champion dead
therefore publickly profess'd their Agreement with the Church of England on this and other disputed Articles I ought not in reason but to look upon them as sound and orthodox Members of the Church of England as to their Faith If it be still objected That there is in some of the first Prints of these Unitarians something very like a formal Opposition of the Articles of the Church let it be consider'd they have of late answer'd for themselves confessing that careless or less accurate Expressions may have been us'd by both Parties of which neither ought to take advantage because which is originally a Tritheist's Argument but the Nominalists acquiesce in 't there is no Heterodox Intention on either side Nay the Unitarians have desir'd that those Passages in their Writings which might be wrested by an ill-natur'd Adversary to their Disadvantage be interpreted according to their later more accurate and careful explaining their Minds If it be farther urg'd by those that love no Satisfaction but the Ruin of poor Men who have had the Misfortune to displease them that it is an intolerable Shame for the Unitarians to shift about thus after they have made a hurly-burly in the Chutch they may perhaps desire to know whether they are more to blame than the Realists and whether they may not have as free leave to explain their first Writings as the Realists to explain their first For Dr. S th was not angry at the Dean for explaining his obnoxious Tritheistick Phrases but because his Explanation was as arrant Tritheism as his first obnoxious Tritheistick Phrases which cannot be said of the Unitarians in that Book where they have declar'd their Agreement with the Catholick Church Whereupon even Mr. Edwards cries out Why should I contend with these Catholick and Orthodox Men Who will fall out with those that profess agreement with the Catholick Church Indeed he does not use these friendly Words till the very latter end of the very worst Book he ever wrote It 's true he acknowledg'd himself in debt to the Civility of the nameless Socinian so he calls him for he calls no Man he dislikes by a right Name and promis'd a return of Civility about six Leaves before but it seems he had not quite discharg'd his Stomach of the foul Matter which lay upon it and could not speak him fair till he had call'd him all the names he could think on just his way of dealing with Mr. Bold for seven or eight Leaves together he represents him as a Subverter of the Foundations of Christianity a Worshipper of the Idol that Mr. Hobbs and Mr. Lock have set up a dull phlegmatick horrid lying Fellow c. and in the close he is ready if what he says is true to express the deference which he ows to Mr. Bold's Person and Office From whence tho it does not follow but that Mr. Bold may be a learned and honest Man for all that Mr. Edwards says is not Gospel yet it does plainly follow that Mr. Edwards thinks he ows a deference to an Antichristian Idolatrous dull horrid lying Fellow and that he is ready to express the same and by joining Mr. Bold's Person whom he represents as an Antichristian c. he fairly implies that it is his Perswasion that the Office sanctifies the Person tho the Person be an Antichristian Idolatrous dull horrid lying Fellow I hope without offence to any sober Man it may be set down as an instance of Priestcraft this subtle Contrivance That the holy Office of the spiritual Man should expiate whatever is done amiss by the Sinner I word it gently and don 't pursue it so far as the matter leads I have said what I had to say concerning the Persons of the late Deceas'd and now living Unitarians and as far as I perceive the Men are honest their Conversation blameless the Holy Scripture is their Rule and they interpret it according to the best of their understanding nay as good luck will have it they interpret it just as the founder and major part of the Church does and have always so interpreted it tho they did not always perceive the Agreement between the Church and themselves they are not as they have been odiously revil'd Men of no seriousness in Religion meer Deists much less Atheists or as a Reverend Father out of the abundance of his Charity compliments them irreligious profligate Villains but it is to be hop'd that he will recal those bitter words at least for his own sake for I am told they are resolv'd to make it plainly appear to the World that his Lordship's Doctrine in some of his Books and in some perhaps not accords as much with the Racovian Catechism as theirs so that if there be not two Rules to judg of Heresy one Fire will serve them and his Lordship both I come now to consider what is the Tendency of the Unitarian Doctrines only one Question I have to premise Supposing that the Conversation of these Men is such as becomes the Gospel which from my Soul I believe but their Doctrines false and of mischievous Tendency would it not have become their jealous Adversaries who by the Rules of the Gospel are oblig'd to believe the best which a Cause will bear to have look'd upon them as Men erring through Ignorance and not perceiving the mischievous Tendency of their Doctrines A good Man cannot promote a Doctrine which he knows to be false or of mischievous Consequence but a zealous or a proud Man is capable of suspecting a Doctrine to be false and of mischievous Consequence which is nothing so Two ways the Unitarians defend their Doctrines from the Imputation of mischievous Consequence or Tendency 1. By ingenuously carefully and largely explaining their Minds on those Articles which they were charg'd to deny or expound amiss 2. By making it appear that they have no particular private Opinions about Matters commonly held necessary to Salvation different from the Church of England i. e. if the Bishops and chief Doctors of the Church know what the Church means 1. By ingenuously c. The Writer who drew up the Trinitarian Scheme quotes not the Authors whence he drew it I suppose because his Design was to reprove the Errors of Men and spare their Persons Mr. Edwards who knows not when his Friends are well us'd tells him he had no credible Authors to vouch that Scheme Sure he meant creditable But 't is no new thing for Men of bustling Learning to forget their Mother-tongue The Unitarian will not pretend to find credible Authors i. e. Authors fit to be trusted for the Scheme which he looks upon as erroneous they may be credible in Matters of fact in Matters of Faith not so Matters of Faith are not to be taken on the bare Credit of any Man's word but if creditable i. e. Authors of esteem to vouch that Scheme will content Mr. Edwards he may have them in due time and to be very civil to him he shall
do not themselves believe it is methinks no other than to tempt Scepticks to conclude that enough cannot be said to establish their Authority which Mr. Edwards of all Men ought not to do unless he himself be a meer Deist which Imputation as yet I forbear to lay to his Charge tho in truth by his last Book which he calls A Vindication of Fundamental Articles c. but might better have entitled it A Vindication of Railing see p. 26 27. which Title the Book fully answers for it is one interrupted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it does not appear that he is a Christian Queen Elizabeth had a Secretary who when he retir'd to Tihalds his Country Seat was wont to lay aside his Cognizances of Honour with these words Lie there Lord Burleigh and then the grave Statesman would be very merry and gamesome It take Mr. Edwards to have much of that honourable Gentleman's Humour for I cannot imagine that he has utterly renounc'd Christianity only perhaps when he writes or preaches Controversy he cries Lie by for a while lie by so long good Christian but the angry Story once finish'd or the Sermon over he 's the same Mr. Edwards as learned as honest and as pious as he was before I beg my Reader always to consider that I defend Socinianism only quo ad hoc it is not the Road to meer Deism in the next place I will prove that meer Deism is not the Road to Atheism Deism I defin'd to be Natural Religion founded on the Belief of the Existence of a God and of a future Life There may for ought I know be Men who would be counted Deists that believe not a jot of the Life to come but these I judg if they were put to 't would hardly be able to distinguish themselves from downright Atheists To me it is all one to question the Existence of a God and to question his future Retributions but Natural Religion which depends on the Belief that God is and that he is a Rewarder cannot be the Road to Atheism I will not deny but that Mr. Edwards knows the Road to Atheism as well as any Man breathing but he must not put it upon us that Deism is that Road he may as well bear us in hand that sailing Eastward is the Road to the West-Indies There cannot be a plainer Contradiction than to say That the Belief of a God leads to the Belief of none Were Atheism the prevailing Opinion I grant to Mr. Edwards we should quickly see it move apace to the Ruin and Subversion of Kingdoms and Common-wealths Societies and Bodies Politick but upon the Principles of Deism i. e. on the Foundation of Natural Religion publick Peace and Order stood firm before the days of the Christian Revelation and did it not do so among the neighbour Nations that hated the Jews Among the Deists during the flourishing days of the growing Greatness of the Romans there were I believe as few Atheists as there are among Christians now Let no malicious Adversary here pretend that I plead the Cause of Deism no I do not this I do I maintain that Deism is not the Road to Atheism as some Men very weakly and imprudently have affirm'd for it rather is the Road to Christianity I know Mr. Edwards will be angry with me for what I am going to tell him but let him summon all the Powers and Skill he has in Logick seasoning it with a dose of ill Nature quantum sufficit and then refute me if he can I here affirm That if the Man who is not yet a Christian be an honest moral Deist a Believer in God and an Expecter of a future Judgment he is at least in precinctu ad salutem and stands fair to be a Christian no reveal'd Religion offers so reasonable Grounds to win him as the Christian Now I much wonder that so ingenuous and moderate a Man as Mr. Norris should join with Mr. Edwards in so ignorant invidious and designing an Assertion as this viz. Deism is the Road to Atheism Mr. Norris's elegant way of wording it is He that is once a Deist is in a hopeful way of being an Atheist whenever he pleases No Mr. Norris no an honest moral Deist's Principles are directly pointed against Atheism but a spiteful proud and cruel Christian is in very great danger of being an Atheist if he be not one already But perhaps Mr. Edwards may reply he spake not of a Deist who never had been a Christian but that his meaning was The Man who falls from Christianity to Deism is in the Road to be an Atheist To this I reply That tho the Unitarians are firmly perswaded of the Truth of the Christian Religion yet they need not grant the Assertion thus explain'd to be true for what Christianity teaches beyond that which natural Reason dictates has not the Efficacy to prevent Atheism which natural Reason has however I am content and I think the Unitarians ought to be so likewise That the Man who is afraid of a Bullet should wear a Coat of Mail as well as keep out of Gun-shot I hope the Reader now plainly sees that there is never a Link of Mr. Edwards's Chain that will hold The Unitarians are Orthodox of which more anon The Socinians are so far Orthodox that they are firmly perswaded of the Verity of the Christian Religion and are not meer Deists Conscientious moral Deists are in no danger of being Atheists But is there no dangerous Road leading to Atheism of which Men ought to be warn'd that they come not near it Yes there is and it is a wide Road too pav'd all along with rash Censures ill Language false Stories barbarous unchristian Dealing forg'd Decrees of inconditional Reprobation and Stoical Fate this is the Road and the Persecutor the Slanderer and the Calvinist drive hard like so many Jehu's in it leaving Deism a long way off on the right hand The Christian Religion does not allow its Professors to be so much as proper Judges of Heresy as commonly understood much less to be Executioners of Hereticks for the reason given why the Tales should not be pull'd up before the Harvest is lest some good Corn should be pull'd up with it The Christian Religion directs Men by fair Carriage by the Words of Truth and Soberness to convince them whom we think in the wrong He that is cruel abusive and unjust can be a Christian only in name in reality he is Infidel all over Then for Calvinism that four System which is good for nothing but to fight with but I hope Mr. Edwards is innocent from that for he has sourness enough without it how should it otherwise than tend to Atheism when it represents Man without Free-will and God without Goodness 2. The Unitarians defend their Doctrines from the Imputation of mischievous Consequence or Tendency by making it appear that they have no particular private Opinions about matters commonly held necessary to Salvation different