he does not particularly know this which it is certain might have passed without any of their Consents and how many dissented I never enquired his Opinion Belief or Disbelief must be owing only to his Inclination And if we could suppose what God be thanked there is no danger of the Majority of the Lords anâ— Commons to have as little understanding of and Zeal for the Catholick Faith as our Author has we might have a Socinian Creed made without the Assent of one English Bishop or at least such Articles of Communion framed as would admit all manner of Hereticks into the Bosom of the Church and allow all to be Orthodox Christians that believe but as well of Christ as the Mahometâ—ns do And this our Author at least as far as concerns those Hereticks for whom alone he is Advocate at present hopes to see done for he hopes that Authority namely King and Parliament will in time relax what more is necessary for such an Vnion as is possible to be patched up by a Latitude of Faith and a Negative Belief I hope they will not and think there is reason to conclude from some late Proceedings that they will not But we must not pass by his Reflections on the Dean's wonted Civility in Taxing him with pretending to give an account of Acts of Parliament as he doth of other Books without seeing them This is indeed very uncivil not to believe a man except he produces Witnesses that heard or saw him read the Act and since he thinks this a hardship I will not give him the trouble but I must needs say there was no reason for the Dean to think otherwise before for by the account which he gives of this Act no man that thought that he had either Sense or Sincerity or Modesty could imagine that he had ever seen it but 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 This would have been his best excuse and much more allowable than still to stand to it That other Dissenters have benefit by that Act who do not renounce Sociâ—ianism contrary to the express words of the Act. But let us see how he makes it good What then do you think of a tâ—cit connivance at their stay at home I think there is no such Connivance allowed by the Act nor can I believe it is the meaning of the words of the â—ct or the design of those who made it And I am sure this Melancholy Dream of a tacit Connivance is a very scandalous representation of the Bishops and of the whole Parliament for this is to tolerate Atheism Deism and Profaneness and to give men free Liberty not only to be of what Religion they will but of none at all if they like that better But then What do you think of a tacit Connivance quietly to come to our Congregations This I think is no new favour but what was always openly allowed to all who were not Excommunicate and is very far from a Tacit Approbation or â—oleration of their Erroneous Opinions to let them come thither where they cannot join with us but they must be supposed to renounce these Errors for I am sure there is no allowance in the Act for them to join with us only in such parts of our Worship as do not expresly relate to the Holy Trinity any more than to hold separate Assemblies of their own without declaring their Faith in the Holy Trinity And then for his Vetuit inquiri I wonder where he will find it there is no such thing in the Act and I believe any Lawyer will satisfy him that what Law was in force against Socinianism before is so still and the same Inquisition may be made after them but if any whose business it is to discover such Offenders or punish them when known will neglect their Duty 't is their Connivance and not the Law that affords Impunity But I wonder what makes him Dream of a tacit Connivance for Socinians because they are expresly excepted ' â—is just as if he should say the Articles of the Church of England give a tacit Connivance to them because they require every man to renounce their Errors and to Confess his Faith in the Holy Trinity This is an excellent Argument to prove all Hereticks true Church of England men even though they should Write Earnest Suits and enter their Protests against Her But if this will not do he now has and then had in his head though he had not occasion to out with it another favour shown by the Parliament to Dissenters not by this Act indeed but by a former Statute which took away the Writ de Haeretico Comburendo which it seems he was afraid might hurt his Socinâ—an Friends in case some such of their Friends as Mr. â—ean were in the place they affect but now he says he hopes this custom here is in a fair way to be aboliâ—â—ed This is so silly that I can hardly call it spiteful for its silliness is an Antidote against its spite every one knows that Writ was taken away to secure the Church of England against the fears of a Popish Successor which was the only danger of reviving that Writ which had been so long out of use that it was hardly known among Protestants Which argues no great tendernâ—ss in him for the Church of England to insinuate so vile an Accusation as if this practice of Burning Hereticks had been so very customary that he can still only hope that an Act of Parliament can put a stop to it His Conclusion is so Rambling and so very Furious that I begin to fear his Melancholy has some spice of Frenzy in it and therefore it is time to leave off Disputing without returning the Compliments or Advice which he has given the Dean at Parting FINIS Earn Suâ— p. 7. Antap. p. 1. Ant. p. 11. p. 2. Ant. p. 3. Sect. 2. P. 4. Ant. p. 5. Ant. Sect. 3. Ant. p. 5. Ant. p. 5. P. 8. P. 11. P. 12. Sect. 7. p. 18. Sect. 8. p. 20. P. 2â— Sect. 9. p. 21. P. 23. P. 23. P. 25. p. 27. Sect. 11. P. 27. p. 28. p. 28 29. Sect. 12. p. 30. Apol. p. 8. Antap. p. 30. p. 3â— p. 31. p. 31. p. 31. p. 31. P. 31. Sect. 14 p. 33 Sect. 15 p. 34. P. 3â— p. 39. p. 39. p. â—â— p. 41. pâ— 42. p. 43. Pâ— 43. P. 44. Eâ—rn Suit p 7. Antap p. 44. Sect. 19. p. 45. P. 31. Ant. p. 51. Ant. p. 51. Ant. p 51. Earn Sâ—â—â— P. 10. Ant. P. 51. Ant. p. 52. P. 52. Apol. p. 26. Ant. p. 52. P. 53. P. 53. Apol. p. 26. Ant. p. 53. P. 54. Ant. p. 55. Sect. 25. Ear. Suit p. 11. Ant. p. 55. P. 54. Sect. 125. P 55.
Reader to judge upon the whole whether the Dean has not quite overthrown this state of his Question and sufficiently demonstrated the Weakness of all he urged Now he is desirous to know Where is the mischief of all this For all that he designed was plainly no more then to move for Peace at least for a Truce till both Parties were calmed and might calmly Treat But methinks the fairest way for this had been to desire both Parties to hold their hands and not only to beseech one to be silent and let the others Write and Talk and Rail and Argue on too as well as they can against the Established Doctrine But methinks this very project of a Truce does not seem very reasonable for it looks as if he thought the Church and the Socinians to be upon equal terms with one another which I can by no means grant because the Church of England in this Point at least has had Sixteen hundred years prescription besides the Authority of Scripture and Reason on her side Nor can I think any Treaty lawful in such Fundamental Points but that all Catholick Christians are bound to do what they can by Reason to convince these men of their Errors and reduce them into the Bosom of the Church for I do not like our Authors way of Compounding with Hereticks and Shismaticks and I hope Posterity may find better Expedients for Vniting of Protestants than for the sake of Peace to give up truth But here though our Author could bear what he thinks a modest and just reprehension yet he is very angry with what the Dean says and looks upon it as imperious beyond measure especially when the great Argument of all is no better than a petitio principij that the Doctrine of the Trinity as Dr. Sherlock hath stated it and does defend it is a fundamental of the Christian Faith Now this I take to be a false imputation upon the Dean who does indeed as the Church of England does look on the Doctrine of Three Persons and One God as a Fundamental of the Christian Faith and this he endeavours to vindicate from those Absurdities and Contradictions which are charged upon it and gives such an Explication of it as though he believes to be true he does not lay down as necessary to be expresly believed by all nor will he esteem any man a Heretick who sincerely believes the Doctrine of the Church that there is but One God and Three Persons though he does not subscribe in all things to his Hypothesis And therefore I think the Antapologist is fallen into a fit of Melancholy when he complains of the Dean because in his Apology he quits his Adversary and neglects all that has been said against his Novelties and falls upon exposing the Peaceable man Now I should rather have wondred if in an Apology for Writing against the Socinians he had entred into the main subject of Debate when his only business was to show the weakness of such Earnest Suits as desired that no man should Write any thing in the present Controversy so that I cannot but think the Antapologist is a little if not besides himself I am sure a great deal besides the purpose to make it a matter of Accusation against the Dean that he keeps close to the proper Subject of his Discourse for I would here only ask him Whether in his Suit he undertook a Confutation of the Dean's Hypothesis If he did not then I hope his Book may be pertinently Answered and solidly Confuted too without entring into the merits of that Cause I would ask him also Whether he did not Address to all Learned Writers against the Socinians in this Conttoversy as well as to the Dean And whether what he urges be not level'd against any man's Writing in Defence of the Established Doctrine as well as of the Dean's particular Hypothesis If so 't is plain that the Dean did very well not to run out into a Vindication of his own Hypothesis or of the Doctrine of the Trinity in general but to fall upon exposing the Peaceable man as our Author terms it that is to show the insufficiency of all his pleas for Forbearance towards the Socinians and betraying the Christian Faith under the pretence of Peace and Moderation But the Dean does not like that the Faith should be stated in Scripture Language but would have School-terms pass as Fundamental in Faith as well as his own new Definitions and new Notions As to the first of these things The Dean does and that on very good reasons desire whether the Melancholy standerâ—by can admit it or no that the true Faith under what words soever it be expressed and not merely the sound of Scripture-Words should pass for Fundamental and thus far he is for School-Terms or any Terms that fix the true sense of Scripture But as to the other branch of this Accusation 't is false and ridiculous and that is answer enough to it As for the uncertain signification of Philosophical Terms methinks he should not quarrel at that which may afford his Friends the better shelter and permit every one under the same words to couch his own meaning And it seems in what he writ he did not contest either of these Points and yet in the very Page before he complains of the Dean because in his Answer he did not offer one Word to prove his own new Notions which yet he owns he did not contest with him and is still as willing as ever to decline engaging but only in his own defence he can't forbear declaring That the Dean has to his power overthrown the True Catholick Faith of the Nicene Creed as much as Philoponus or Joachim ever did nor will his Invention of Mutual Consciousness clear him from the Charge of inferring Three Gods since that can infer only an Vnity of Accord c. This he says but does not here go about to prove it because these things require more Words than the present Design admits and it may be more Reason than he is Master of and therefore 't is as easy for me and as allowable to say That the Dean's Mutual Consciousness does infer more than an Vnity of Accord as for him to say it does not And that it does infer full as great if not a greater Vnity of Substance and Nature than the words of the Nicene Creed express and if it were not for the Reason which he himself has given I should not care though I ventured to dispute this matter with him at large As for his next Section I do not know well what to make of it 't is long and full of Quotations but to what purpose he who writ it may possibly know best In the first place I think he would have none but Scripture-terms made use of in stating this Doctrine but this whether it were the Invention of Old Hereticks or New Ones hath been shewn to be in our Case very foolish and unreasonable
Scripture and not with Innovations of their own This if he be sincere and plain in what he says is all we desire and if he will promise never to revoke this Grant we will be satisfied In the next place he is for admitting known Socinians into the Communion of the Church The Dean had said He hoped he the Stander-by did not propose this Negative Belief as he calls it as a Term of Communion that though we know them â—o deny the Trinity and Incarnation yet if they will agree not publickly to oppose and contradict this Faith we shall receive them to our Communion Thus far our Author cites but the Dean had said also and fling the Worship of the Holy Trinity and of a God Incarnate out of our Liturgies for their sake This he very roundly answers and utterly confutes with a short Why not This is indeed a short Question and needs no long Answer for in the next Page if he would but look on it the Dean has given him a sufficient Reason Why not But he thinks to evade all by putting an impertinent Case too long to be recited here and indeed not worth it For it doth by no means reach the Point which isc Whether the Governors of the Church ought to make the Terms of Communion so large as that known professed Socinians and Arians may fully communicate with us as compleat and Orthodox Members of the Church and not as our Author gravely puts it Whether every Preacher should stop when he sees a Socinian come into the Church Besides he supposes his Socinian to be a known good liver and professing the common Christianity but it may be we may not agree with him and suppose I should not be so happy as to think so well of his Socinian Friend as he doth will he then give me leave to turn him out of the Church But what is all this to the Publick Constitutions of a Church and the Laws of Communion Must they be made so loose as to admit all sorts of Hereticks because an Heretick of any sort may sometimes appear at least to be a good liver and profess to believe the Common Christianity c. as there have been such Professors of other Heresies and may be of any as well as of this If our Author answers this too with a Why not I desire he will subjoin a Reason for what he says and then he may deserve a Reply And now our great Champion of wrong'd Innocence out of his extraordinary Generosity and love of Peace and Truth cannot forbear observing that the Dean wrongs the poor innocent Socinians and imputes sundry Points very iniquitously stated to them which yet they hold not as he states them And first he tells us If he the Dean as some in the world had had Personal Dealing with the generality of his Parishioners as to matters of Conscience he would say That the Ignorance of many Church-people and so the Errors of their Conceptions touching God and the Three Persons in the Godhead much more alter as to them the Object of the Christian Worship The Dean I believe tho not so unacquainted with his Parishioners while he had a Parish yet never met with such Ignorance as this and yet no man doubts but there are some persons very ignorant who have no distinct Conceptions of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost but yet have no Heretical Opinions about them and I wonder this Stander-by who is so fond of a Negative Belief should not see a difference between a Negative Orthodoxy and professed positive Heresy By the same Argument he might as well prove that all other Hereticks ought to be received into the Communion of the Christian Church because there are a great many Christians that are extremely ignorant in all other Points of Faith But tho a general confused indistinct Knowledge with a sober and pious Conversation may qualify men for Christian Communion yet profest Hereticks ought to be flung out of the Church The first are the Churches Care to instruct them better as Opportunity and their Capacities will admit the others are her profest Enemies and must be removed from the Church to preserve the sound parts from infection and I can t imagine what Notion a man can have of Church-Communion without Unity of Faith tho the same Communion may admit of very different degrees of Knowledge It would be too tedious and not very pertinent here to run thorough these things but I am sure for all his haste the Dean has not in this place imputed any thing to the Socinians but what they avowedly and in Print maintain for it is evident that the Socinians do deny the Meritorious Sacrifice and the Meritorious Intercession of our Saviour that they do also deny that the Eternal Son of God Offered himself that God demonstrated his Love to us by sending his own Son in a proper sense as opposed to a mere Man or Created Spirit and consequently they do deny the Humility and Condescension of the Eternal Son of God in becoming Man c. and therefore these things are not iniquitously imputed to the Socinians which yet are the very things which the Dean's Discourse imputes to them and therefore he has no reason to add That some men Write against them without understanding them but I am afraid 't is too true That some men Apologize for them without understanding thâ—m As to the Socinians altering the Object of Religious Worship I refer the Reader to that Discourse of the Dean's to which he himself has referr'd in his Apology where he will find that point more largely handled and fully and clearly Proved But now we come to a great Point and which takes up a great many Pages in our Author about the Authority of Parliaments Bishops and Convocations on which Head I have some good Reasons not to be so large and to desire the Reader 's excuse if I do not follow our Author in all he says on this Subject especially since our proper business doth not require it and therefore I do not care to ramble like him unless I had the same advantage as he has to be on the securer side 'T is not safe to define what Parliaments can do without Convocationâ— or Bishops without Presbyters But I am sure the Church has no cause to thank our Author who would first betray her Faith and then diminish her Authority even in things purely Spiritual First he gives up the Convocation for what reason is manifest and for which the Inferior Clergy are bound to thank him And then he does the same in effect for the Bishops when he allows so much to the Parliament for they have not so much as a Negative Voice there and Articles of Faith may be coined even against the express will of every one of them and though he cannot believe the Body of the Bishops disallowed or did not with good liking consent to the Act of Toleration if