Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A42243
|
The grounds and occasions of the controversy concerning the unity of God &c. the methods by which it has been managed, and the means to compose it / by a Divine of the Church of England.
|
Nye, Stephen, 1648?-1719.
|
1698
(1698)
|
Wing G2135; ESTC R12220
|
49,121
|
55
|
Author from whom I beg leave to dissent will obligingly grant me That the Explainer whom he would save from Heresy understands as he explains I am sure he 's a Knave if he does not and speculative Heresy is an innocent thing in comparison with practical Knavery To declare publickly that an Article may be rightly believ'd which is not rightly understood if an Unitarian or any Friend of theirs had done it without question he had been plentifully reproach'd Mr. J. E. B. D. would not have miss'd the occasion but have enrich'd his last Rhapsody of railing with Exclamations argumentative as well as ill-natur'd How an Article rightly believ'd tho not rightly understood To see what senseless shifts these pretenders to Reason take up with to save their Heterodoxes from the imputation of Heresy and themselves from the peril of the Stake What Idea can there be had of so self-contradicting a Proposition Indeed to such a sharp Reproof as this I don't see what could have been reply'd by any Unitarian of them all or by Mr. Lock or Mr. Toland either as much Friends as they are tho neither side knows it to the Unitarians But then those Gentlemen are not capable of such an elevated Thought it is not possible for any one to rise so high but a vast-read profound Scholar who does not judg concerning the Truth of a Proposition by the Agreement or Disagreement of the Ideas contain'd in it but by a sort of Reason which what it is and how it operates no Conception can be had nor Account given But whatever Mr. J. E. would have done had this contradictory Notion been started by an Unitarian I shall deal gently with it observing only that for whose sake soever it was made publick it will save all that Assent and Consent to an Article as it lies in the Words of the Church of what Denomination soever they are and how plainly contradictory soever their Explanations it will save all alike all or none But the Unitarians want not this Plea to defend their Cause for they profess to believe the Article of the Trinity nay and what is more they explain that Article to the very same Sense as do the Nominalists for Peace sake submitting even to the Scholastick Terms which they cannot like so well as the very Phrase of Scripture Now I cannot imagine how these Unitarians so very orthodox and so exactly conformable to the Church can be left alone in the lurch for Hereticks unless it be prov'd that as one Man may be right in the Belief of an Article tho he be wrong in the Explication so another may be right in the Explication of an Article tho he be mistaken in the Belief of it But after all these things which may be righteously pleaded in behalf of the Unitarians it must not be denied but that their Adversaries had a just Motive to enter into religious Controversy while they suspected them of labouring to undermine the Christian Religion only their Adversaries were to blame that they did not more calmly and leisurely examine the Meaning of those Passages whatsoever they were at which they took Offence I purpose to offer something now to clear all Suspicions that the Nominalists may chance to entertain of the Unitarians as for the Realists no Accommodation can ever be between them and true Christians great Men out of the abundance of their Charity may forgive the Tritheism of those Heathenish Writers but by all their Wit and Learning they can never make Three infinite Minds to be but One God nevertheless I am content that they be forgiven only I would not have so much Charity wasted to forgive them that there be no Equity left for sincerer Christians In order to clear the Suspicions which the Nominalists may chance to entertain of the Unitarians that so there may be no Simultates between them no evil Grudgings no base Language no unchristian Reviling I shall consider 1. What manner of Persons those are who of late have been distinguish'd by the Name of Unitarian 2. What is the Tendency of their Doctrines And this I propound to do not by way of Answer to all the false and foul Imputations which are vomited up by Mr. Burgess Mr. Edwards or that over-bold Poetaster who makes so bold with the Almighty as to subscribe himself God's most humble most faithful and devoted Servant but I suppose that that Gentleman will excuse himself and say all the World may know he did but complement but in hopes to satisfy those fairer Disputants such as Dr. Pain and Mr. Norris whom by their Christian Candor and Equity one may with more Reason conclude heartily to believe the holy Religion which they profess Yet it will not be proper to speak to the first Head until I have premis'd a word to inform the Reader of what standing these Unitarians are When the Papists ask the Protestants Where was your Church before Luther the Protestants by way of Reply pretend to find Christians through all Ages tho of divers Denominations who are recorded to have held the same Opinions with them in like manner the Opinions which are at this day charg'd upon the Unitarians may be trac'd up from Age to Age to the very next times to the Apostles and by their early Asserters were vouch'd as truly Christian and Apostolical and in several Ages a great majority of Christian Professors holding the same they then went for Orthodox But our Church of England bearing a great Reverence for Antiquity is very zealous for the Retention of some old Philosophical Terms yet as nice and careful in explaining the same according to Scripture and Reason tho at the same time she in the Persons of her most Orthodox Sons is reproach'd by a few backsliding Tritheistick Realists as if she agreed with those antient Hereticks said to be the Founders and Predecessors of the Unitarians The Unitarians themselves I mean the English of late so call'd think it an Injury to be term'd Ebionites Alogians Arians Photinians c. or indeed any thing but Christians but when they are reproach'd by those Names of distinction they cannot forbear noting that the very Apostles Creed has lain under the Suspicion of Arianism Photinianism c. God knows how justly for we have some Orthodox Doctrines which if they are contained in that Creed are yet so covertly contain'd there that it is not every ordinary Reasoner that can espy them and by a long Train of just Consequences deduce them and bring them into light By the Apostles Creed however and by the Holy Scriptures the Unitarians are always willing to be tried and mean not to make a Peace-disturbing Schism from the Church of England at least not as long as the chief Doctors of the Church profess That by none of her Homilies Creeds or Canons they mean any such thing as a Tritheistick Trinity a Trinity with three distinct infinite Minds The present Term of Reproach with which some Men for want of
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