CHAP. V. Objections removed, and some vulgar Mistakes rectified. HAVING laid down our principles, and the grounds upon which we go, our next concern is to remove or obviate whatever threatens to overturn them, or to lessen their force, lest any weak objections on one side, left unanswered, may prevail more with some persons than the strongest arguments on the other. I proceed then to the business. I. It may have been sometimes invidiously suggested, that the insisting so strongly upon the necessity of believing, or however of not opposing this doctrine, is carrying matters to an immoderate height, and tends to provoke others to run into a contrary extreme out of a kind of indignation, and excessive renitence. The plea is smooth and specious, and appears to carry a fair show of lenity and moderation in it, which are virtues much to be admired; but in reality it contains little, as here applied, more than artful abuse, and such as is frequently played with in other the like cases. For the purpose: if any person is disposed to undermine the inspiration of sacred Writ, he begins commonly with complaints of the stiffness and dogmaticalness of common Divines, which prejudice men of freer thoughts, as is pretended, against Scripture itself, and almost force them into another extreme. So again, if any man has a mind to relax the strictness of the Gospel-rule, and to bring it down to his taste, he falls to declaiming against the excessive rigour of religionists, which frighten many sober persons, as is said, from embracing religion. Complaints of that kind may sometimes be just, but they are oftener mere artifice. It will be proper to examine, in the first place, what truth there is in the suggestions brought about our running into extremes. Without all question, extremes are carefully to be avoided in every thing: extreme cold may be as bad as extreme heat: and extreme lenity is a fault, as much as extreme severity. But the thing to be proved is, that the insisting upon the doctrine of the Trinity, as an essential article, is an extreme, or that it is not in reality the true and golden mean between rigour on one hand and lukewarmness on the other. It may be true, that the insisting upon this doctrine may have that accidental effect, to prejudice weak minds the more against it, or against religion itself. In like manner, the insisting upon the doctrine of the cross, the duty of self-denial, and the necessity of universal righteousness, may have prejudiced many against Christianity, and yet daily do so. But still if the doctrine be both true and important, it must be taught and inculcated: and the question is not in such cases, whether many may not be offended or scandalized at any doctrine, but whether the doctrine be such as ought to be insisted upon. For as a very judicious and learned Prelate has appositely observed, "St. Paul has "plainly taught us how we ought to conduct ourselves "in such cases. He knew very well, that Jew and Gen"tile took great offence at the doctrine of a crucified Sa"viour, and he could not but see that Christianity would "be more favourably entertained by both, if that offence "were removed, and the Gospel reduced to a scheme of mere morality, ratified by a person sent from God, and "enforced by stronger assurances of rewards and punish"ments than had ever been given before. But, notwith"standing all this, we, says he, preach Christ crucified, "unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks "foolishness "." The reason is plain: for the ministers of Christ are under special direction, and must not dare to prevaricate in their sacred employment. They must never presume to betray the truth of the Gospel with any view to prevent offence: for such offence is taken, not given, and is therefore of no moment. They only are to bear the blame, who are causelessly offended at what they Bishop of London, in his Charge of May 28, 1730, p. 28. ought to receive with the profoundest respect and veneration. I may here also take notice, that when some persons of more warmth than wisdom have gone upon what they call healing measures, in order to reconcile many (as they supposed) to Christianity shortened and curtailed in its prime articles, they have been for the most part miserably disappointed. Their unwarrantable concessions, instead of making more Christians, (half Christians I should say,) have only made more infidels. And it was natural to think, that such would the result be. For when once the advocates for religion begin to recede beyond what they have warrant for, they give very great advantage to the enemy, who may then modestly expect to draw them on farther, upon the same motive, or principle, which had before carried them too far. For if they yield to importunity, rather than to reason, in one case, why not in another? Or if the first step taken out of the way could appear rational, why not a second, and a third, and so on, till there be no end of wandering? It is frequently the fate of those over-complying gentlemen, that while they stoop too low in hopes to fetch others up, they are themselves dragged down, and can never recover it. They are insensibly carried over to the party towards which they lean; and instead of preserving a balance, (which they lost in the first decline,) they are at length found to run in with the other extreme. The Episcopian neutrality seldom stays long, before it passes over into Arianism or Socinianism; and these again easily degenerate into Deism and Atheism. It is much to be questioned, whether mysteries, after all, are really the things which are most apt to offend the fashionable world: the purity of the Gospel precepts is the hardest of digestion; and one Commandment, very probably, may make greater difficulty than many Creeds. But the principal reason for striking at mysteries first is, because it is more decent to begin there; and after a breach once made in the main fabric, it is easy to go on to a total subversion. The Deists, in their turn, take up the same topics of moderation and lenity: "Let not the men of faith despise the men of reason; " and again, let not the men of reason despise the men of 'faith, so long as both agree in the substantial duties :" this is the cant. And truly, if moderation is to stand for yielding and complying, be it right or wrong, and if that be all the rule we have to go. by, I do not see that the men argue amiss. But surely we must stop somewhere: and where can we better stop, than at necessaries, at truths, and important truths? For things of that value ought never to be sacrificed to any temporal considerations, or to any views of a false and short-lived peace. From hence it may be inferred, that it is not owing to any immoderate rigours of the more cautious Divines, if infidelity happens to gain ground, but to the immoderate and extravagant concessions of those who are not so careful as they should be, to keep up the ancient faith in its first purity and perfection. Accordingly it may be observed, how the unbelievers caress and compliment those complying gentlemen who meet them half way, while they are perpetually inveighing against the stiff Divines, as they call them, whom they can make no advantage of. They know their friends from their foes: and it may be learned from them how the case stands: Fas est et ab hoste doceri. : To illustrate and confirm the general observations, let the reader reflect a little upon the unhappy conduct of Socinus, and the upshot of it. He had contrived a system for his friends to abide by, and he hoped they would rest there but many of them, upon the same principles, whereby he had led them so far, resolved to go farther, throwing off the worship of Christ, in consequence of their mean opinion they had entertained of him. Socinus reclaimed, remonstrated, cried out aloud, hoping to stop their progress by his earnestness, (for he had yielded too much before to talk of reason now,) and to fetch them back; but all to no purpose. He represented to them the dreadful consequences of discarding the divine worship of Christ: "That it was rendering the whole Christian religion weak and precarious, was sapping the main "foundation of their faith and hope, and grievously of"fending God the Father, and Christ Jesus: that he "had never yet met with any man of true piety and god"liness who durst venture upon it, but that he knew "several of them who had thereupon turned Epicureans, "or downright Atheistsy." All which was true: but why could not he have seen that Atheism hung at the end of the chain, till he came to the last link? Never did man more expose himself than Socinus did in that instance. For indeed the throwing off the divine worship of Christ was but the natural and inevitable consequence of his scheme, if one would act consistently: and the next consequence to that was Deism or Atheism, by his own account. So it was plainly telling the world, that he had drawn his disciples into a labyrinth, and knew not how to extricate them. To go back was a mortifying thought to vain men; to go forwards was to plunge into downright Atheism. Such generally is the fate of the self-opinionated, who will not listen to sober counsels in time, but precipitately strike off from the right way to follow they know not what, or to fix they know not where. I might mention those amongst us who began * Ipsius Christi universa religio in dubium revocetur, aut saltem mutationi et fini in hoc ipso seculo obnoxia redditur; summum et præstantissimum nostræ spei et fidei in Deum fundamentum nobis eripitur; ac denique, ne omnia hinc provenientia mala et incommoda, quæ innumerabilia sunt, enumerare hic nunc velle videar, in ipsum Christum et Deum Patrem gravissime peccatur. Socin. ad Radec. Epist. iii. p. 387. Socinus. "Quotquot ego vidi adorationis Christi oppugnatores, omnes "tandem in Atheismum sunt prolapsi; quod et tibi accidet, nisi sententiam "mutaveris." Non dixit Socinus, omnes quos ipse vidisset adorationis Christi oppugnatores tandem in Atheismum fuisse prolapsos; sed neminem se ex istorum numero adhuc novisse, qui Christiana pietate et vitæ sanctimonia esset præditus; imo nonnullos ex ipsis se vidisse aut scivisse Epicureos, et plane Atheos factos. Nec mirum esse, cum hæc ad Epicureismum et Atheismum homini Christi sacris initiato via compendiaria quædam foret. Disput, inter F. S. et Christian. Franken. p. 772, 773. |
