SINCE your Zeal for the Glory of God was so fervent, that in your Prefatory Epistle to the Honourable Houses of Parliament you could not forbear instructing them in their Duty of enact­ing new Sanguinary Laws against Protestants; and since you were also pleased to assist them with the Precedent of Bartholomew Legat, who was burnt in Smithfield, A. D. 1611. for Socinianism, I expected that the Honourable Houses would have returned you their Address of Thanks for the Honour you designed 'em; especially since you are pleased to tell them, that in this your Advice, you had offered 'em a Field of Honour. Smithfield has indeed been a Field of Honour to many who have suffered Martyrdom in it under the Character of Hereticks; but what Honour the Parliament would gain by reviving the Writ upon which they were burnt, I leave to their Consideration: My Study shall be to pay you the Thanks which is due to you from all good English Freeholders, for the pious In­structions you were pleased to bestow upon their Body Representative, and to excuse that Honourable Assembly, who seem to have neglected both you and your Instructions.

First I acknowledg, that in an especial manner you have merited from the Honourable House of Commons and whole Nation, that you were pleased so far to bridle your Zeal, as to postpone the Glory of God to the Capitation, Land-Tax, Tunnage, and Excises. You say that you would not interrupt these Affairs; and therefore you would not publish your Book till they were dispatched: But if after this they should have sat till Midsummer to have qualified themselves for fighting your Battels in your Field of Honour, 'tis generally thought they might not have added to the Honour they have already obtained by the necessary Funds they have given; the Reason is, be­cause those Funds were designed by them to preserve England from Spiritual Tyranny, which your Project does actually introduce: and [Page 4]therefore I most humbly beg that some small Portion of that sweet good Nature which overflows your Dedication and Preface, may be spent in pardoning his Majesty for dismissing the Parliament from Westminster, and preferring their Service in the Country before their further Attendance upon your gracious Motions.

In the next place I return you Thanks in behalf of your Brethren the Roman Catholicks, (who have always shewed the same burning Zeal with your self for the Glory of God) that tho you frown a little upon them, yet you do not join them who worship so many I­dols in the same perilous Circumstances with the Unitarians who worship but one God. It must be own'd to your free Grace also, that the Jews come off with a chiding, but are not design'd for a Burnt-Offering, tho they blaspheme the Name of the Lord Jesus, by whose Mediation alone the Unitarians expect to be recommend­ed to the Mercy of God: and I beg your Pardon that I make a small Excursion to congratulate the Turks who acknowledg but one Person to be God, that they take care to encamp themselves at a convenient Distance from your Field of Honour.

Having thus with due Respect bespoke your gracious Favour, 'tis convenient to offer some Reasons towards giving you Satisfaction in the grand Point, viz. why the Parliament at your Request did not in their last Session enact Sanguinary Laws against the Unitarians.

And truly, Sir, the first Reason came into my Thoughts with a Fear lest the Honourable Members should not have so much as read over your Book: I have dipp'd into it here and there, and by what I have staged over, I think it an extraordinary large Treatise, con­sidering the Quantity of Matter contained in it; so that he must be a Man of great Leisure and extraordinary Patience, who will go through with it: But if any worthy Member should have had the Application to have read and considered your Book, he must there­by be convinced that there could be no need to make Penal Laws to suppress that Heresy, since it can't be supposed that any Man should be so obstinate as to continue an Unitarian, after that the Depth of your Learning, the Height of your Fancy, the Closeness of your Reason­ings, the Brightness of your Eloquence, the Clearness of your Stile, and the numerous Citations of Scripture-phrases have been so strenu­ously exerted for their Conviction. I dare prophesy, that he who reads your Book, will be convinced of Mysteries, viz. such things [Page 5]as are not intelligible to Men of Sense and Reason; nay, by the very Preface a Man may be convinced that you your self are no small My­stery, who pretend to be a Protestant Persecutor.

And this very Mystery, if well considered, will suggest to you another Reason why this Parliament, consisting of Protestant Mem­bers, could not so well comply with your Desires, as a House pack'd by K. James might have done; and therefore, Sir (since things are as they are) it had not been amiss for you to have considered the Difference between the Popish and Protestant Principle before you had addressed your late Dedication to the Parliament.

The Papists say, that since the Word of God is so obscure and mysterious, that great Controversies have arisen, and are still in­creasing, concerning the very fundamental Articles of our Faith, 'tis necessary there should be an Infallible Judg to determine finally all such doubtful Cases, in whose Sentence all Christians are bound to acquiesce. They assert the Pope in Council to be this Judg ap­pointed by God, and from thence conclude that they who refuse his infallible Sentence are obstinate Hereticks, and deserve to be put to Death. On the contrary the Protestants cannot find that God ap­pointed any such Infallible Judg, nor can they see any need of such a one, because the Scriptures are plain enough, so plain, that any honest-minded Man of common Sense may understand all things there which are needful for him to his Soul's health. Now, Sir, our Right Honourable and Honourable Houses of Parliament consisting of Pro­testants, you could not easily suppose that they would vary so far from the Principles of the Reformation, as to think that God had gi­ven us an obscure Rule of Faith, or to think themselves the Infallible Interpreters of that Rule, if it were obscure; and hereupon 'twas unlikely that they should impose their Sense of God's Word upon the Nation under those severe Penalties which you require: and since you were not pleased to shew them any Judg more infallible than your self, whose Sense they should enact, methinks in modesty at least you might excuse the Parliament for permitting poor Protestants, who are dutiful Subjects to our Rightful King William, who are Lovers of their Country, and live well with their Neighbours, to interpret the Scriptures as well as they can for their own Use, without sending them to your Field of Honour. Upon what pretence do you claim the Christian Privilege of marking Men out to destruction?

I suppose you will justify your self by saying that the Doctrine which you would have Penally established is contained in the Arti­cles of the Church of England; but to make good this Point, 'twill be necessary for you to show that the Convocation which drew up the 39 Articles were priviledged from Error, and had a just Authori­ty over the Faith of all Englishmen in their succeeding Generations. But on the contrary 'tis evident even to you (as appeareth by your Complaint of the Increase of Arminianism) that the present Clergy do very much vary from some Doctrines contain'd in the 39 Articles. And have not the present Clergy in Convocation as much right to repeal, as the former to declare Articles? and may not a future Clergy declare contrary to the present? so that were we as well built as the Antediluvian Patriarchs, we were not like to reach their Years, but must be forc'd to breath our last in your Field of Honour, should the Parliament of every Age penally establish the Clergy-Opinions, unless we could conform to their successive contrary Sentiments.

The Protestants agree with the Papists, that the Word of God is the Rule of Faith, the Difference is about the Interpreter of this Rule: The Papists depend upon the Interpretation of Authority, whilst the Protestants rely upon their own Reason, with all the helps it can get, for the Interpretation of Holy Scripture, but do not sub­mit to any Antient Writers (besides the Inspired) as Masters of their Faith; And why should we do otherwise? The Fathers had no more Right to interpret Scripture for themselves, or future Generations, than we have to interpret it for our selves or Successors, or future Ages for themselves, and those who shall come after them. Upon these Principles I cannot see what Obligation lieth upon the present Parliament in 1697, from the Authority of the Convocation held Anno 1562, to establish the Articles so long since agreed upon, un­der the penalty of Sanguinary Laws.

But suppose the Article of the Trinity (the first of the 39) were established upon pain of Death, I do not see any certain danger that will from thence arise to the Unitarians: The Article is this, There is but one Living and True God, Everlasting, without Body, Parts or Passions, of infinite Power, Wisdom and Goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible; and in Ʋnity of this Godhead there be three Persons of one Substance, Power and Eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Now the Unity and Nature of God, with all his [Page 7]Attributes declared in the former part of this Article, they are known to believe, the Belief of the three Persons is the only thing they can be questioned upon: And if their Trial should proceed upon the words contain'd in the latter part of the Article, they are safe; for by some of their late Prints, I perceive that they for peace sake submit to the Phrase of the Church, and expresly own three Per­sons, &c. tho they think the word Person not so proper as another word might be. But if their Trial must proceed upon the Sense of this lat­ter part of the Article, the Event will be doubtful, because 'twill de­pend on the Judg his desining the word Person. If the three Persons should be defined by three distinct Minds, Spirits or Substances, the Unitarian will be cast; but if Person be defined by Mode, Manifesta­tion, or outward Relation, he will be acquitted: and where is the Blas­phemy in disowning three infinite distinct Minds and Spirits?

I pray consider who are those you call blasphemous Socinians, whom you would put to death; they believe all the Articles of the Apostles Creed, which was heretofore thought a full and sufficient Summary of Faith; they believe the Law of Christ contained in the 4 Gospels, to be the only and everlasting Rule by which they ought to live here, and by which they shall be judged hereafter. 'Tis the Principle of these Men to fear the Lord of Heaven and Earth, and to walk humbly before him; as likewise thankfully to lay hold on the Message of Redemption by Christ Jesus: and they strive to express their Thankfulness by the Sincerity of their Obedience to the Law of Christ, upon which account they are heartily sorry when they come short of their Duty, and walk more watchfully in the denial of themselves, holding no Correspondency with any Lust or known Sin. 'Tis their Principle to be just in their Actions, charita­ble to all Men, and sincere in their Devotions, and to have their Hope and Conversation in Heaven. Now suppose these Men af­ter serious Consideration should not be convinced of a Trinity of Infinite Minds and Spirits, each of which is a God; and suppose they could believe nothing whereof they have no Idea, 'tis hard to revive the Writ de Haeretico comburendo for their sakes, when they be­lieve all things contained in the first Article of the Church of Eng­land, and all the Articles contain'd in the Apostles Creed, and sin­cerely endeavour to lead quiet and peaceable Lives in all godly Con­versation and Honesty.

It may be after all you will say that the Socinians do not believe what is declared in the Gospel concerning the Trinity, and Incarna­tion, but rather oppose it, and therefore their Doctrine is blasphe­mous, and they deserve Death. I confess this is the Pretence, under which every Party of Christians (when in Power) destroys one another by turns. Bonner said, the Doctrine of Transubstantia­tion was plainly revealed in Scripture; this Opinion of Bonner, La­timer oppos'd, and was therefore sent to the Field of Honour; for what? for denying Scripture, (says Bonner) which expresly declares, This is my Body. Now in this particular Case every Protestant sees that Bonner's Accusation of Latimer for denying Scripture was but a meer Pretence to uphold his Power, and cover his Malice. Latimer own'd the Scripture as much as Bonner, and believed the Divine Authority of that particular Expression (This is my Body) as much as he; the Matter in difference was not the Text, but the In­terpretation, which the one held to be literal, the other figurative: so that Latimer was not burnt for disbelieving the Scripture, but for disbelieving, and in words opposing that Interpretation of it which Bonner and the Roman Clergy gave out.

So Mr. Gailhard under the Banner of the Church of England may cite Texts of Scripture to prove his own Notion of the Trinity, In­carnation, &c. and upon this he will charge the Unitarians with Blasphemy, and an heretical Opposition to Holy Scriptures; where­as the Unitarians are convinced of the Truth and Authority of the Scriptures, as much as he is: The Matter in difference is only this, the Unitarians do not interpret the Scripture as he doth, nor do they therefore infer from the Text so as he doth. He will interpret these words of St. John, [...], so as from thence to infer that the only one Great God was incarnate: the Unitarian interprets the word [...] by ratio, rather than verbum, because it signifies Reason more primarily than Word or Speech, (for it signi­fies a Word or Speech only as that Word or Speech proceeds from reasonable Creatures) and then all he infers from that Text, (the Word was made Flesh) is that the Reason or Wisdom of God was communicated to Jesus Christ, and we all know that Divine Wisdom may be communicated to Men without the Incarnation of God. So that if the Unitarians must be sent to Smithfield, it is not for blaspheming God, or his holy Word, but because they (accord­ing [Page 9]to the best of their Judgment) interpret and infer otherwise than Mr. Gailhard doth.

But Bonner had this Advantage, that the Roman Clergy of his Days were agreed together with him in the Point upon which he condemned Latimer. But you complain that the present Clergy of the Church of England are not agreed in their Defence of the Trinitarian Doctrine, by reason that most of them maintain it upon Arminian Principles: and you think it cannot well be defended but upon the Calvinian Hypothesis. And it must indeed be granted, that the Divines of this Age are not agreed either in explaining or maintaining this Doctrine; which shews how wild a thing it was of you (when there are such Differences amongst Learned Clergy­men) to solicit the Parliament that your Lay-Sense should be by Law established, especially when you stand almost single in your way of defending your Doctrine; for you say there is but one Reverend Per­son who taketh that way.

'Tis a dangerous thing to pitch your Camp by your self with a small Party, when a Numerous Army is near. If Dr. Parker late Bp. of Oxford were living, he would tell you that you and your Pre­destinarians are Blasphemers of God: For I well remember that in one of his Prints, he said that the Calvinistical Hypothesis represent­ed God as an Omnipotent Devil. Now tho the Doctor needed not have used such hard words to express his Sense of that Horrible Decree, which some Men think to have been of God's making; yet when a Man shall consider how contrary the Reprobation-System is to the best Idea we can form of God, he will think it little less than blas­pheming the Divine Goodness; and if the Arminians of this Age had the same furious Zeal for the Glory of God which you have shown, the blasphemous Calvinists might be in danger of following Bartholomew Legat to the Field of Honour; and Mr. Gailhard could have no other Election, but to choose whether like Haman he would hang under a Gallows of his own erecting, or like Perillus, would roar in his own Bull.

Truly, Sir, it was never well with Christians since any one Party of them, calling themselves the Church, took upon 'em an Authority to impose their Interpretations of, and Inferences from Scripture upon others; nor can it ever be well among Protestants till they per­mit one another a free liberty to make Interpretations and Inferen­ces [Page 10]for themselves. If we deny this Authority to the Church of Rome, and take it to our selves, we love the Treason tho we hate the Trai­tor; we plunder the Robber, but we restore not the lost Goods to their proper Owner. Every Man who is indued with Reason, has thereby an original natural Right of using that Reason for the di­rection of his Soul, as much as he has a right to use his own Eyes to direct his Feet. Besides, God gave his Word originally into the Hands of the People, not the Priesthood; to all Israel God spake from Mount Sinai, and Christ spake his Law to all Persons who promiscu­ously followed him: so that both the Word of God, and the best Means of understanding it are originally and uncontroulably given to every Man; and whoever shall under any Penalties endeavour to abridg Mankind of the use of these Means, is an Enemy to the com­mon Rights and Liberties of Human Nature. Upon this Principle our Ancestors grounded their Reformation from Popery; they would not be led aside by the Authority of the Church against their own Sense and Reason, but by the use of their own Reason in the Inter­pretation of Holy Writ, they saw the Roman Church not only to be obnoxious to Error, but also actually erroneous; and upon this Foot of Reason was it, that they cast off the Authority of that Church, which then called it self Catholick and Apostolick.

But how do you answer for setting one Party of Protestants, who disclaim Infallibility, to persecute their Brethren who interpret dif­ferently from them? You alledg the Glory of God in your behalf. But did God tell you it was for his Glory that your Interpretation should be the Standard of other Mens Faith? or that 'tis for his Glory that the Interpretation of this or that Doctor or Convocation must be imposed upon the Realm? Have not all Doctors, and all Convocations equal Power? and are not Mankind of differing Minds? and are they not all equally engaged to promote the Glory of God? And what is the Consequence of all this? Whilst every Party by Impositions and Persecutions are forcing their own Opinions upon others for the Glory of God, there can never be Peace upon Earth, nor good Will amongst Men.

'Twould be a happy World, Mr. Gailhard, if you, and every one else who cry down Human Reason, would but seriously consider, what your selves say upon that Subject, viz. that our Understand­ings are darkened thro' natural Corruption; whereupon we are all [Page 11]subject to Error, and very prone to be misled by the Prejudices of our Education, by Interest, by evil Inclination, by Example, Passion, Inadvertency, by Pride, or any other Immorality; nay, the very na­tural Constitution and Temperament of Mens Bodies dispose them to contrary Opinions, as the Melancholy are apt to receive and retain differing Impressions from the Sanguine: Methinks this one Con­sideration of the Infirmity our Intellectuals are subject to, should restrain us from imposing our Opinions upon others. But yet since Human Reason (such as it is) is the only Guide which God hath gi­ven us whereby to judg, 1st. Whether there be any such thing as a Revelation from God or not; 2ly. In what Books that Revelation is contained; and 3ly. What is the Sense contained in those Books: Since our Reason (I say) is the only Guide in these momentous Mat­ters, every Man hath a natural Right to use it for his own Direction in any or all of these Points; and herein no Man whatsoever hath any Right to impose his Opinion upon another, tho common Humanity requireth every Man to use his Reason for the Instruction and Assist­ance of others.

What then shall we say touching the Authority of the Fathers and Antient Writers? Truly if in their Writings we find a Spirit of Pro­bity, unbiassed with Passion, Pride, or Self-Interest, we must allow them to be good Witnesses of those Matters of Fact which happened in their Times; as, that such Doctrines were then generally received, such Books then written, such Discipline then in use: but it will not follow that I must receive those Doctrines as true, because the Fathers thought they were so, since those very Fathers were subject to Error; and therefore their Belief of such Propositions can un­der no pretence be looked upon as an Authority over us: but when the antient Christian Writers give their Reasons why they received such Opinions, we have a natural Right of examining the Reasons they alledg; and if we will act like Men, we ought so to do before we receive their Opinions. Now by what I perceive in the late Uni­tarian Prints, they are sensible of the Weakness of Human Reason, and therefore they submit their Opinions, and the Reasons upon which they are grounded, to the Examination of Mankind; and yet being sensible that their Reason (such as it is) is the only Guide God has given them as to the three great Points afore mentioned, they think it their Duty to examine the Opinions of others thereby, not [Page 12]pretending to any Authority over others, nor conceiving in their Minds any Displeasure against those who differ from them. And upon this Foot all Controversies may and ought to be managed be­twixt differing Parties, without the least breach of Peace, for the benesit of each other in the discovery of Truth.

But hence comes the breach of Peace in Christian Churches, that tho they own themselves fallible, yet their Convocations, and even their private Doctors will considently alledg that they are in the Right, and will therefore impose their Sense of Scripture upon o­thers; so that a Man must not write or speak any thing contrary to their Determinations under severe Penalties. Let any Man judg whether this be to instruct us in the Faith of Christ, or to make them­felves Masters of our Faith, since our Understandings and Belief must be wholly submitted to their Interpretations.

After this manner the Dean of St. Paul's has lately insinuated his new-fangled Notion of a Real Trinity to the Ld Mayor, the Judges, and Citizens of London: in that Sermon he shews the Danger of cor­rupting the Faith by Philosophy; and then taking it for granted that his Interpretation of Scripture is the Faith, he concludes (in his own favour) that we must not use our Reason or Philosophy (as Dr. S—th hath learnedly done) to let the World see that the Dean's Notion of three distinct insinite Minds and Spirits is Tritheistical and Idolatrous. This way of arguing (if Assuming may be called so) is grounded only in the Self-confidence Men have in their own Abilities. Thus the Dean speaks, p. 8. of his Sermon, As for the Doctrine of the Incarna­tion, nothing can be plainer in Scripture than that the Son of God was made Man, that the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us, that God was manifest in the Elesh: And yet since the Incarnation of God is no where expressed in Scripture, it can be no more than meerly a Deduction from thence; but yet the Doctor will impose it upon all Christians as if it were express Scripture it self. Suppose a Papist should say, As for Transubstantiation, nothing can be plainer in Scripture than that Christ when he held the Bread in his Hand, said, This is my Body, and hereup­on conclude that you must distinguish Philosophy from Faith, and cast­ing away your vain Philosophy, hold fast to the Faith of Transubstantia­tion: 'Twere a parallel Argument to that in the Doctor's Sermon, both of them being founded in the Considence Men have of the Truth of their own Interpretations and Inferences. But after all this, [Page 13]a Protestant would not forgo the use of his Philosophy to shew that the Popish Doctrine is not only obscure but false; and an Unitari­an will still use his Reason to shew that the Doctor's Inference is not only obscure but unconcluding. As to the Doctor's first Text, The Son of God was made Man; were those very Words in Scripture, [as they are not] the Unitarian will say the Son of God does not always or necessarily signify God. So to the second Text, he will say that Expression, viz. the Word, does not plainly signify God: and in like manner to the third Text alledg'd by the Doctor, he will say, that God may be manifest in the Flesh, or by Flesh, (as his Power, Wis­dom and Goodness are made manifest by all Flesh, or in all Flesh) without being Incarnate: So that the Unitarian cannot discern that Inference or Doctrine, which the Doctor says is so plain in or from Scripture, that nothing can be plainer. What must be done in this Case then? let the Doctor enjoy his Opinion, but not impose it, nor stir up any Strife about it, nor should the Unitarian Notion be im­posed on him; but as the Doctor may have free leave to use his Philo­sophy of Self-consciousness and mutual Consciousness to support his own Opinion, or attack the Unitarian Notions, so 'tis humbly desired that the use of Reason may be permitted to other Men for their examination of his Real Trinity, and particularly that the use of Arithmetick may be indulg'd so far as to cast up whether a God and a God and a God do not amount to more than one God.

Now (Mr. Gailhard) if one of the great Doctors and Dignitaries of the Church may be mistaken in his Interpretations of Scripture, and Inferences from it, how shall you, who are but a meer Layman, hope to gain a Parliamentary Sanction to establish your Interpretati­ons of Holy Writ, and Inferences from thence? Perhaps you will say 'tis the Doctrine of the Church of England you would have penally establish'd; by the Church you mean the Convocation which made the Articles, Service-Book, and Homilies: now this Convocation was no more than an Assembly of Doctors and Clergy-men, each of whom were subject to Error; and tho they enacted their own Opi­nions into Articles and Homilies, and oblig'd their own Clergy to subscribe them in order to their admittance into Benesices, I cannot from thence see why we Laymen should put the Yoke of the Clergy upon our own Necks, and be so zealous as you are to establish the O­pinions of the Ecclesiasticks under the penalty of Fire and Faggot. [Page 14]I should think it more desirable that a Gentleman may receive his Rents, or a Tradesman his Prosits, or even a labouring Man his Wages, without subscribing the Articles or Homilies. It once seem'd good to the Holy Ghost and the Apostles to impose no Bur­dens but what were necessary, and those necessary Truths were inspi­red too.

Besides, Men cannot help the altering of their Minds; all the Sub­scriptions of the Clergy to the Predestinarian Doctrine contained in the Articles and Homilies, has not preserv'd them from contrary Sentiments, such as, when Van Harman first broach'd them, were universally judged to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England. Besides this too, a Man cannot foresee what will come to pass, and so a Doctrine which at one time may be convenient, may be otherwise when Circumstances of Times shall alter: As suppose all the Lay-men of England had subscribed only the 35th Article of our Church, which is, The two Books of Homilies contain godly and wholsome Doctrine necessary for these Times; and suppose in these Books of Homilies we shall read these Doctrines, viz. The High Power and Authority of Kings, with their making of Laws, Judgments and Offices, are the Ordinances not of Man but of God; that all Persons owe even in Conscience, Obedience, Submission and Subjection to them, as being God's Lieutenants, God's Presidents, God's Officers, God's Commissioners, God's Judges; 1st part of the Sermon of Obedience: And suppose in the second part of the same Sermon we should read these Words, Christ taught us plainly that even the wicked Rulers have their Power and Authority from God, and therefore it is not lawful for the Subjects to with­stand them, altho they abuse their Power. Suppose, I say, we Lay-men had subscribed to these Doctrines as necessary for these Times, had we not consented to the total Subversion of our Laws and Liberties, to the Slavery of Europe, and the Destruction of the Protestant Interest throughout the World? Howbeit, since General Councils, for as much as they be an Assembly of Men (whereof all be not governed by the Spirit and Word of God) may err, and sometimes have erred even in things pertaining unto God, as is declared in the 21st Article of our Church, 'tis no Heresy for us Laymen to believe that Convocations have erred in Doctrines necessary for these Times, and may err in Doctrines ne­cessary for any Times; and from hence it will be no Heresy to conclude that a Parliament may err, should they establish the Convocation-Doctrines upon the Foot of Sanguinary Laws.

There is one Reason yet remaining, why there is no need of mak­ing new Penal Laws even against blasphemous Socinians, which is because there are Laws already in force against Blasphemers of all Sorts or Sects whatsoever, without any Proviso that the blasphemous Socinians (as your Title-page speaks) shall be exempted from the Penalty: And 'tis only your Title-page and Preface which I have in this Letter considered, not at all designing to dispute with you in be­half of the Socinian or of the Unitarian Doctrines; my only Aim herein being to shew some Reasons why it was not necessary for the Parliament to enact Sanguinary Laws against those who differ from you in Opinion.

The ill-natur'd Turn of your Title-page, and the malicious and persecuting Design of your Preface convinced me that (if we may believe our Saviour Christ) you know neither the Father nor his Son. Thus our Lord Jesus taught his Disciples (John 16. 2d, 3d Verses) That they should be put out of the Synagogues, and that the Time should come, that whosoever killeth them should think that he doth God service; and these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father nor me. Now, Sir, if he who would stir up a Persecution against those who sincerely endeavour to know and do the Will of God, as 'tis revealed by Jesus Christ, knoweth neither the Father nor the Son; I did from thence conclude that the Holy Ghost (who proceedeth from the Father and the Son) was also unknown to him; and for this Reason I thought you an unsit Writer in behalf of the Trinity, and therefore did not so much as read over your Book.

I Am thinking whether ought more to be reverenc'd, the Noble Names of Vere and Sidney, whose martial Skill and well-tried Valour made havock of their Country's Enemies abroad, when the Good and Gracious Elizabeth rul'd and lov'd her loving People; or of Bonner and Gardner, whose slaming Zeal made Bonfires of Here­ticks at home, under the dire Auspices of her persecuting Sister. Indeed once I was of opinion, that the Memory of the bloody Bi­shops had been justly hated and curs'd, and did deserve to be, and was like to be hated and curs'd for ever; but I am now tempted to despise the Conquering Heroes with all their Civic Crowns, and proud triumphant Wreaths of Lawrel, as Men that fought only their Country's, not the Lord's Battels: But that Man has a Heart, illi Robur & Aes triplex, that can without weak Remorse of Consci­ence murder his dislenting Fellow-Citizen, and bravely burn his misbelieving Brother at a Stake.

With a world of School-Cant, which now a days goes for deep Learning, and ill-applied Fragments of Scripture, after the Exam­ple of no very good Master, [but Fas est & ab Hoste doceri] the thrice Orthodox Mr. J. Gailhard Gent. labours to kindle this religi­ous merciless Fire in the Breasts of the Parliament of England; to that end therefore he offers them for a Field of Honour, not Flan­ders, but Smithfield: for making good the former, they have, 'tis true, happily provided Capitation and Land-Tax, Tunnage and Excises; but as Fate would have it, they are rose without the least Care of but so much as Brush-wood for the latter: Mr. Gailhard had rather they had been blown up. It is a Fault to do the Work of the Lord negligently; but not to do it at all, to leave the good, ne­cessary, and great Work of burning Hereticks wholly on the Hands of Providence, is a great Disappointment; for Fire does not fall from [Page 17]Heaven every day, and it troubles Mr. Gailhard's righteous Soul the more, because he does not know but God may forgive the Hereticks; for his part, he will forgive, nor them, nor the Parliament. But by his favour, are not the Parliament of England to be excused, tho they have taken no care about sending Mr. Gailhard's Enemies to the De­vil? for they were prorogu'd by his Majesty's Order as soon as they had done their King and Country every other needful Service. Why then, let the King look to't, from whom [to say Truth] no better could be expected, as having declar'd when he accept­ed the Crown, that He would not be obliged to be a Persecutor. He thinks himself too good to do the persecuting Drudgery of any Body of bloody-minded (right or wrong) Believers; if He can but de­fend the Liberties of Europe from the Tyrant of France, and teach his own Subjects of different Perswasions to live amicably together, that's all he cares for. Nay, 'tis long of the King too that Parlia­ments are summon'd, and sit annually without Convocations. A Con­vocation would have consider'd, as Mr. Gailhard observes, that time is short and uncertain; and if not well improv'd for the burning of Hereticks, the Opportunity may happen to be irrecoverably lost: for Mr. Gailhard judiciously notes, That to time things well is one of the best parts of Prudence; and he acutely adds, one of the most essential Circumstances of our Actions. Whence I learn these four things: 1. That Human Actions have their Circumstances. 2. That some Circumstances of Action are but circumstantial. 3. That there are essential Circumstances of Action. 4. That some essential Circum­stances are more essential than other. A Person of good Learning, Wit, and Leisure would wonderfully improve four such Notices as these. I shall make one obvious Inference, which is this: Human Actions cannot but be always very prudent, and always well-tim'd; for Well-timing is one of the best parts of Prudence, and Prudence one of the most essential Circumstances of Human Actions. I strengthen my Inference thus; Human Actions cannot be at all, without one and all their most essential Circumstances, [whatever perchance they might without some less essential Circumstances] therefore they cannot want Prudence; and because they cannot want Prudence, they cannot but be well tim'd: thence it undeniably fol­lows, that the Parliament of England, tho they rose without prefer­ring one Sanguinary Bill, have acted like prudent Senators, and [Page 18]tim'd every thing most exactly; and that the King who prorogu'd them, before Mr. Gailhard's pious Motion for Fire and Faggot could be made, had also tim'd his Prorogation well, and acted with all the Prudence which became him. Thus by the help of Mr. Gailhard's Philosophy, the King and Parliament are secure of doing all things well, and the Exceptions which he moves against them, as I shall farther manifest, will only evince that good Sense is no essential Cir­cumstance of writing; therefore I would advise him to keep his word, and write no more: but 'tis fit he do Penance for that ill-natur'd malicious Stuff which he hath wrote already. I will examine it un­der these 4 Heads. 1. What that blasphemous Impiety is which in­flames his merciless Zeal. 2. How wide it is spread. 3. What Op­position it has met. 4. What Treatment it deserves.

After a Flourish of wild Rhetoric ungovernably sallying into sun­dry Metaphors, borrowed from things that have no affinity, all with­in the same Period, he declares what that Impiety is, which in­flames his merciless Zeal. viz. Pag. 3. Ep. Dod. Blasphemous Socinia­nism attended by Atheism, Deism, Prophaneness, Immorality, Idolatry, &c. Not one of a hundred among the Pretenders to Learning knows any thing of Socinus from an impartial Historian, or has read any of his Works; but great Numbers strive who shall speak worst of him, as if that were the only way to prove that themselves were sound and orthodox in the Faith: For my part I am fully perswaded that So­cinus was in several of his Opinions grosly mistaken, also he lies un­der the suspicion of having contributed to the Persecution of Fran, Davidis, who differed from him; but yet I may venture to say, that he was descended of an antient Family, endow'd with a piercing Wit, and accomplish'd with no mean Learning. Mr. Bidle, in his Pre­face to the Panegyric of the Polonian Knight, affirms, that none since the Apostles hath deserv'd better of the Christian Religion; so that a Man may more avail himself by reading his Works, than by perusing all the Fathers, together with the Writings of more modern Authors. It is true, this of Bidle's is the Testimony of a Friend, but then it is strangely corroborated by Accident; for it is plain that the most polite and rational modern Sermons, and other moral Discourses are extremely beholden to Socinus his Works; tho no Man of late, that I have met, has had the Ingenuity to make him the least Acknowledgment, excepting that learned and calm Tritheist Mr. How, who says, That [Page 19]his Book De Deo was wrote non sine nervis. Indeed the Enemies of Socinus, tho they mean no good to his Memory, yet frequently do him special service, and in great measure supply to him the want of a profess'd Hyperaspist: but none more than Mr. J. Gailhard, who gives such a long, disagreeing, false, and incredible Retinue to So­cinianism, that all which it is possible for an easy Reader to believe, is, that Socinianism is something which Mr. J. Gailhard mortally hates; which it may be, and never the worse on that account: for he has declar'd his mortal hatred not only against Socinians, and Jews, Deists, and Papists, but also against all the Church of England Clergy, that are of the Arminian Perswasion, and all others, whe­ther Laymen or Clergy, of what Religious Perswasion soever, that will not bring fuel to the Fire for burning those whom he shall damn for Hereticks. But let us call over the Retinue, with which Mr. Gailhard says, that Socinianism is attended: 1. By Atheism and Deism. 2. By Prophaneness and Immorality. 3. By Idolatry, and & caetera. But in the first place it is strange, that Socinianism should be attended by Atheism and Deism too, i.e. both by the Belief of a God, and by the Disbelief of a God; Notions so directly opposite, one would think they could not be both together entertain'd in the same Mind. But now I think on't, these two Charges are wisely laid together; for the Design of the Accuser is, to prove Socinia­nism a Monstrous Heresy, which it must needs be, if at the same time it affirms and denies the same Proposition. Methinks Mr. Gail­hard attacks the Socinians as the Wolf did the Lamb; Sirrah! said the Wolf to the Lamb, how dare you trouble the Water that I am drinking? Cry your Mercy, quoth the Lamb, I did not think that my lapping below could foul your Water above. Sawcy Creature, replied the Wolf, trouble it, or not trouble it, I will eat you. Thus Mr. Gailhard is for burning the Socinians right or wrong; 'tis all one to him, whether they believe in God or no: for if they will not be burn'd for denying his Existence, they shall be burn'd for believ­ing it.

But perhaps this fiery Gentleman may pretend, that he does not use the word Deism as it signisies the belief of God's Existence, but as it implies a denial of all reveal'd Religion; and so it is an Atten­dant of Socinianism. Now I confess this sort of Charge is not so perfect Nonsense as the other; but then it is a Calumny so silly, and [Page 20]so easy to be refuted, that it is good for nothing but to tempt Men, who are entirely in the Interests of the Church, to suspect that they who are called Hereticks, are not so black as they are painted, and that they who throw the San-benito over the persecuted Man's Shoul­ders, have more Devils about 'em than they that wear it: For the Racovian Catechism is allow'd to be a just Summary of Socinianism; and the first Chap. of that Catechism treats of the Certainty of Holy Scriptures, and justifies the Authority of those Books by the most cogent Arguments that can be brought, proves the Christian Religi­on to be a Divine Institution, and the Author of it a Divine Person. There may be in Socinianism more Errors than I know of, and I know some, but Atheism, and meer Deism are none of the number.

The 2d Division of the Retinue, which Mr. Gailhard would have the World believe to attend Socinianism, is made up of Profaneness and Immorality; and yet in the Racovian Catechism and Socinian Writings, there is nothing of that nature, but on the contrary, the absolute necessity of Holiness plainly and fully declar'd. When Machi­avel took notice of the Villain's Aphorism, Calumniate boldly, some­thing will be believ'd, he took it for granted that the Villain had Wit to varnish his false Calumnies with specious Colours, and to select such Instances to which he could give some air of Probability. But in the Case before us, the Persecuting Accuser has not that Wit; for he is not able to produce those Socinian Writers who give any coun­tenance to Profaneness and Immorality: and as for those Opinions which he enumerates, and calls the chief Opinions of Socinianism, (p. 5, 6. of his Book) they are the most of them, at this day, the common Opinions of the most eminent Writers of the Church of England, excepting that he has a little disfigur'd them by an unto­ward Rehearsal: nor can it be made appear, that any of the rest do tend to Profaneness and Immorality, but by Consequences far more remote and strain'd, than those which upbraid these Calvinistical Doctrines, Fatal Necessity, inconditionate Reprobation, irresistible Grace, partial Redemption, and Impossibility of Apostacy, with speaking evil of God, tempting some Men to presumption, urging others to despair. To excuse the rigid Calvinists [who of all Sects of Christians ought to be excus'd last] some moderate and charitable Persons are wont to plead, that they do not apprehend the evil Consequences of their false Doctrines; and one of our Learned Bishops has lately with the [Page 21]same ingenuous, reasonable, and Christian Charity allow'd, that the Socinians would not advance a Doctrine injurious to the Honour of Jesus Christ, but that they think, the equalling him to his Father does derogate from the Honour of God the Father Almighty.

Antient Ecclesiastical Writers, who give us the History of Here­ticks that infected the Church with strange Doctrines, do generally take notice that one of the Arts whereby they us'd to spread their Heresies, and win Proselytes, was by high Pretences to extraordina­ry Fervency in Devotion, self-denying Rigours of Life, and benefi­cent Excesses of Charity. The followers of Montanus, and Nova­tianus are reported to have been at all these pains, to put off their false Wares. But Mr. Gailhard would have the World believe, that Socinianism is a blasphemous Heresy, the Patrons whereof endeavour to promote that their Heresy, by taking into its Retinue Profane­ness and Immorality, to make it look as ugly, as offensive, and odi­ous as may be. This is altogether a new way of promoting Heresy, and not like to be very successful. Methinks if the Socinians know no better, there should be no great danger of their perverting the Orthodox from their Faith. But what cares Mr. Gailhard whether his Accusations be consistent? He describes Socinianism as a Heresy very ill made to gain Proselytes, and at the same time is extreamly concern'd, fearful, and apprehensive that it will overrun the Church, being got into her very Bowels already. I hope Socinianism is not of the nature of the Gout, for if it be, the Church is in an ill case; but I would be glad to know of Mr. Gailhard, whether he means that the speculative Errors, or Immorality, or Idolatry of Socinianism, is the Poison which is got into the Bowels of the Church. He can­not mean the first of these, for I am apt to believe, that would the Socinians but depart from their Speculative Errors, they should be forgiven all their Immorality, with their Idolatry into the bargain; for Orthodoxy of Faith has many a time compounded for Hetero­doxy of Practice, and brought off unpunish'd, scandalous Irregula­rities of Life and Conversation.

The last Division of the Retinue attending on Socinianism, he makes to be Idolatry, and & caetera. As to what concerns Idolatry, it must be confess'd that Socinus's System of Divinity is not absolute­ly free from it, for he maintaineth that Divine Worship is to be gi­ven to Jesus Christ, tho He be not the True, Almighty, and Eternal [Page 22]God, but only something, I know not what, more than a meer Man, and born in time: but I question much whether we have any of these Socinians in England; as for those late English Writers sometimes call'd Unitarians, and very injuriously term'd Socinians, they seem desirous to wash their hands of it: and their disputing some of the Articles of our Church has proceeded chiefly from their Apprehen­sions, that it would be Idolatry to admit them; and upon the pru­dent Explication which has been given of some obnoxious Terms, they wave the dispute, and come in as Brethren; in which Com­pliance if there be no Idolatry, I do not see how Idolatry can be laid to their charge. I hope Mr. Gailhard will not in anger against them, impute Idolatry to our Church by Law establish'd. It is cer­tainly no Idolatry to worship only the One, True, Eternal, and Al­mighty God: and if the One, True, Eternal, and Almighty God be repeated, not multiplied, distinguish'd, not separated in three Persons, where's the Idolatry of that? If the Socinians, Mr. Gail­hard speaks of, must be Idolaters, because they have been at some pains to make some advances towards this Metaphysical Orthodoxy, they have in their pursuit after Peace, the worst luck in the World. God forbid that our Church should take up the Principles of Mr. Gailhard, and the Popish Inquisitors, who when they have brought a Heretick to something of a Recantation, presently burn his Body, in kindness to his Soul, for fear he should relapse and be damn'd in Body and Soul both; poor Proselyte! he must have no Joy in his Orthodoxy, and cannot like that way of being sent to Heaven in a fiery Chariot.

Well then! by Mr. Gailhard's favour, it is not unlikely, but that Socinianism may get clear of the Charge of Idolatry, either by the help of her own Logick, or by virtue of the Authority of the Church: but what shall we say to & caetera? The Dissenters of the last Age baited this word unmercifully, some thought the Devil was in it, at least it was flat conjuring, that they were sure of: but they that shall take Mr. Gailhard for a Conjurer, will be very much in the wrong; because it is plain he designs no more by arraigning Socinia­nism for being attended with & caetera, but to save himself a liber­ty to swear any thing else against it, as time and occasion shall prompt him.

Should the late King James ever be brought back again to plague us, [of which the danger, God be thanked, is pretty well over] Mr. G. by the help of & caetera might pretend that it was Socinia­nism which turn'd him out. I think our Church is not willing to own that Act yet; to be sure she would not own it upon the Re-establish­ment of the Tyrant, and therefore in such case, Mr. G. might well urge it as a proper Instance of & caetera against Socinianism.

Et caetera laid to the charge of Socinianism, is like an Appeal pre­par'd beforehand upon suspicion that the Jury will find but Man­slaughter. If Socinianism should have no Atheism, nor meer Deism, no Profaneness, Immorality, nor Idolatry in it; yet & caetera will not let it live. Who can say he is not guilty of & caetera? for my part therefore I will never stint my Prayers, but my Latitudinarian Litany shall run thus: From the Devil, and the Pope, from Mr. G. & caetera, Good Lord deliver us.

The 2d thing to be examin'd in Mr. G's ill-natur'd and malicious Paper, is, How wide Socinianism is spread. If Atheism and Deism, Profaneness and Immorality, Idolatry, and & caetera, be Parcels and Portions of that Heresy, o' my Conscience the Heresy is spread over the whole World, and may require an extraordinary Remedy! to suppose that an extraordinary one will do; and if these Parcels of Socinianism are so universal, I do not wonder that the Church has her share: but let us not argue, but observe Mr. G's particular Ac­count of the growth of Deism.

1. He says that the Jews are not wanting in their Endeavours to promote the Blasphemy. Now what a Blaze would it make, if only these Socinian Jews were to be burnt? for they are a numerous Peo­ple, and for what they have done already against the Messias, scat­ter'd over the face of the Earth; but whether the burning of them be the way by which the dark Corners of the Earth are to be illu­minated, I make a question.

2. He tells us that the Mahometans, and the Socinian Genera­tion of Vipers are ever ready to join Heads to promote their com­mon Cause. Now these Mahometans are far more numerous than the whole Body of Christians, by what Appellation soever digni­fied or disgrac'd, wherefore I can't imagine how the burning of them is feasible; whether it would not be a glorious and great Work, that I don't dispute: but I can't imagine, I say, how the [Page 24]burning of so many Millions is feasible, unless perhaps by praying for Fire to come down from Heaven, and destroy them: indeed our Saviour would not oblige his Disciples James and John in that par­ticular against the Samaritans, tho he might have vindicated his own Honour by executing their Wrath; but what he may do for Mr. G. and his Calvinists, is another matter.

3. He intimates that the French Refugees among us dogmatize after the Socinian manner, which they durst not do in France for fear of Fire and Faggot. Now if this be true, I know not why these Re­fugees should be suffered to live any more than the Jews and Maho­metans; only I would humbly move, that they might be sent home to be burnt there, for why should we do the King of France's drud­gery for him? let him burn his own Hereticks if he will, now the War's ending, he'll have nothing else to do: besides, the Rogues would not know how to take their burning in England, but appeal to Heaven and Earth against us for breaking the Laws of Hospitality; but they still retain so great a Veneration for their Grand Monarch, that for ought I know upon second thoughts they may be proud of the Honour of being burnt by his Orders.

4. He arraigns all the Arminians as join'd in Confederacy with the Socinians. Arminius himself, Mr. G. notes, tho contemporary with Socinus, would never write against him, therefore, &c. which Ar­gument is good in this particular case, but in no other; for tho Mr. G. would never write against his Contemporary George Fox de­ceas'd, nor William Pen now living, yet Mr. G. is no Quaker, but a Calvinist; nor could he possibly be otherwise, being predestinated to be a Calvinist, and not a Quaker, and that not for any Merit that God foresaw in him, for that were to make God foresee what will never happen, but meerly and purely [as an Arminian would guess] because his Nature was capable of no other Christian Impression. Mr. G. also tells us, he often meets with Vorstius, Episcopius, Ber­tius, Curcellaeus, who favour the Socinians, nay go hand in hand with them in many things, and mince the matter with them. And p. 7. of his Book, he ingeniously expresses himself upon the whole mat­ter, thus: ‘As one Depth calls to another, so an Arminian can easily become a rank Pelagian, or Socinian.’ Here a wicked Pelagian, or rank Socinian would reply; As one Shallowness calls to another, so a Calvinist can easily become as wise as the Dominican Inquisitor at [Page 25] Lisbon, who at a late Act of Faith burnt an English Mare, that could tell what o'th' Clock it was by the Watch, for a Heretick. But to our purpose, here we have on the Socinian side [as Mr. G. tells us, and he knows] all the Arminians, i.e. almost all the Church of England, a Moiety of the Presbyterians, nine parts in ten of the Quakers. Indeed I was afraid that when Socinianism was once got into the Bowels of the Church, it would not be long before it reach'd her Heart, and thence diffus'd its Venom over all the mysti­cal Body. As for the Dissenters, it would never grieve a Man, that they should be infected with this pestilent Heresy, since they deserv'd to be burn'd before for Schism: For, tho the Supream Authority of the Nation has at present indulg'd their Consciences, yet no Authority upon Earth can alter the nature of Schism. As much socinianiz'd as our Ar­minian Clergy are, they yet hold fast their Orthodoxy in condemn­ing the Dissenters for Schismaticks, and doubtless will do it, in spight of King and Parliament: but 'tis very unfortunate, and infi­nitely to be lamented, that they should be Heterodox in any Article with so bad Company as the Socinians; tho 'tis very certain they are so, if there be any truth in Mr. G. nay he tells us, p. 6. of his Book, That as to most of the Matters of Grace, and Providence, the Socinians are agreed with the Arminians, and then by consequence the Armi­nians with the Socinians; so that it will be a hard case to burn the one without the other.

It is true, several of these Arminians are Men of Learning, nay and they have wrote against Socinianism too; but as Mr. G. tells us, No good is to be expected from them, upon account of some Principles of theirs [Socinian Principles] and in plain words, they are unfit to write against the Socinians: Which Declaration of his puts me in mind of what another Calvinist told me t' other day. Sir, says he, Arminianism, take my word for it, is the Parent of Socinianism, the Brat is very like in many Features; but pray mind this one, The Arminians teach that God might have forgiven the Sin of Adam without exacting any Satisfaction; upon this the Socinians raise a dispute, whether it can be plainly prov'd from Scripture that Christ died to make a Satisfa­ction, and then they assign I know not what other Reasons of his Death, which they could never have found out but for the Armini­ans. Ah! take my word for it, says he, As to Arminian and Soci­nian, the old Saw fits them both, never a Barrel better Herring; only [Page 26]I could wish that my Brother Gailhard had let the Arminians alone a while, for without their help we shall never set sire to the A— of the Socinians; but that being once happily effected, they must change their note, as to the Matters of Grace and Providence, or smoke in their turns.

But what do I talk of a Stranger? Mr. G. is the Gentleman I have to deal with; and upon a nearer consideration of him, I may well suspect, that after all his Outcries against Socinianism, he him­self is a Socinian. I dare swear the Socinians in England [if there be any in England, which is more than I know] never thought them­selves near so numerous as Mr. G. makes them; and to what pur­pose should he let them know their Numbers, but to weaken the In­terest of the Church? Nay, what sly Malice is it in him, rather than not make the Numbers of the Socinians formidable, to hook in so great a Majority of the Church into a downright participation of Heresy with them? Good God! why, if he had had any real kind­ness for his Mother the Church, he would have excus'd all the Ar­minian Churchmen from the Scandal of Socinianism, after the art­ful Example of a late very learned Vindicator of the Trinity, pleading that the Arminian Churchmen are very sound in the necessary Article of Faith, tho they are a little Socinian in the Explication: if a Churchman suffers himself to be carried beyond the antient Methods [ei­ther to the right or left] which the Church hath us'd to express her sense by, yet a wise Brother will allow him still to retain the fundamental Ar­ticle. It is true, this Plea may be stretched to excuse the Socinians, and save their Bacon also; for they can admit of a Trinity, if they may have the explaining what shall be meant by't; but the Father ne­ver invented it for them, nor have they any right to be saved by the Expedients of the Church, especially by such a particular one as this, The Difference between a necessary Article of Faith, and the manner of expressing it. A dull Heretick would be apt to conclude, that if the necessary Article of Faith was not signified in the words that ex­press it, then it was a necessary Nothing.

Farther, If Mr. G. had not been a Socinian, if he had not delibe­rately design'd to save those Hereticks from the Stake, by involving the Arminian Churchmen in the same Scandal with them, he would have pleaded, [as the above mentioned very learned Father teaches] That there may be Propositions which tend to Heresy, or savour of it, [as [Page 27]for instance several in his Vindication] which cannot be condemned for Heretical. By this admirable Device, the Arminian Churchmen may favour the Socinians, go hand in hand with the Socinians, mince the mat­ter with the Socinians, and at the last leave them in the lurch, as the Duke of York did Coleman.

I have examined Mr. G's Account how wide Socinianism is spread: I will now enquire what Opposition it has met.

1. He tells us, not indeed in plain Words, but in very intelli­gible squinting Glances; that the Watchmen whose immediate Duty it was to give warning, have thro Sluggishness or other cause neglected to blow the Trumpet at the approach of the Enemy. But but by his favour, this is a meer Story, his own pure Invention, and a notorious Slander: for tho 'tis ordinary for Watchmen to sleep when they should be upon Duty, yet our Watchmen were vigilant, upon their guard, and gave warning, tho in the Event it appear'd, they were more afraid than hurt; Beware of Socinianism, was the great Cry, and the Church took the Alarm. Prophaneness, Im­morality, and Idolatry had something of a Truce by the means; e­very Orthodox Champion ran to his Arms, and the mounted Artil­lery thunder'd against Socinianism: of a sudden a prodigious Noise was made, but no Execution done; for the Orthodox were under no Command, and kept no Order, but scuffled tumultuously with they knew not whom, nor what: This zealous Leader would scower thro the dark Vales of Antient Fathers and General Councils, that learned Author would bustle in the thorny Thickets of the Schoolmen; one or two, now and then, with wondrous Considence, and manly Resolu­tion, would bolt out upon the open Plains of natural Reason, but they were quickly forc'd to shelter, not being able to bear the Brightness and Warmth of the Meridian Sun, which illuminates and gives life to those Plains: but when all this was done, and they had time to consider whence proceeded all this Diversion which was given them, there was no Socinian in the case, only an obscure, so­ber, studious, bookish Man took offence at some of our old School­terms, of which we had no great opinion our selves, and kept 'em only because we could get no better; but then the wisest of our Doctors explain'd 'em to a very honest Sense; and the good Man aforesaid not being willing to stand with us for small things, the Contention ceas'd. I confess there are some angry People, who would make [Page 28]the Nation believe, the difference is still where it was; but whoso­ever considers impartially what has been wrote on both sides, will plainly see that we must let the suspected Book-worm be Orthodox with us, who are the Majority of the Church, now term'd Nomi­nalists, or else we must be content to be thought Heterodox with him, and let Mr. G. burn us both. But yet since never any Majority that is to be read of in History, submitted to let a lesser Number burn them, it is pity that Mr. G's Orthodox Zeal should overlook an old Heathenish, Antichristian Heresy accidentally discover'd in the very Bowels of the Church, I mean the Tritheistic Heresy, the Here­sy of three Gods. For my part I would very fain excuse some Great Names from this Scandal; but alas! the matter is but too plainly prov'd in a Book called Tritheism charg'd, &c. the Author of which, sound and orthodox in the Points he there treats of, might pass for a real Christian, if he had taken that care of his Language which Mi­chael did, when he disputed with the Devil, and not us'd such viru­lent words as 'tis likely the Devil gave the Arch-Angel. But some excuse may be made for him in this odious particular; for it is likely his liberal Railing, and throwing his Wit and his Foam about, did not proceed, at least not altogether from that evil Nature which many others are troubled with, as well as he; but rather, and mostly from that proud sowr Calvinism which he holds in common with Mr. Gailhard. But to prevent being misunderstood, I declare that I do not believe Calvinism, meer Calvinism a damnable Heresy, no more than I believe, (tho 'tis possible for a Calvinist to be sav'd so as by Fire) that that by Fire is to be understood of the burning of Here­ticks. I have read of Royal Heroes, Deliverers of their Country, whose thrice Excellent, truly Human, truly Christian Natures so tem­per'd their Calvinism, that 'twas an inoffensive harmless Speculation: if ever I have more Gods than one, I do not say more personal Gods, but more essentially distinct Gods, a Hero so form'd shall be my second: but tho I have an inquisitive Mind, I think I am in no danger of mul­tiplying Gods; no, I am resolved I will never do it, unless it should be declar'd [which I think next to impossible] that no Heresy shall be conniv'd at but Tritheism.

2. Mr. G. complains, not indeed directly and in express words, but by a side-wind thus: ‘Whether or not the Ecclesiastical Court hath in this occasion of Socinianism, acted its part according to [Page 29]Laws, I must not take upon me, but leave it to the World to judg.’ But notwithstanding all this, he does not leave it to the World to judg, but takes it upon himself; nay, he not only gives his Judgment upon the Case, but also passes Sentence upon them that concur not in the same Judgment with him, as appears by the Citations which he produces, and the Reflections which he makes upon them. Now in doing this, which he thinks he ought not to do, and promis'd that he would not, he acts against the Light of Conscience, which is a damnable Sin; whether or no it be Heresy, I will not dispute, but without dispute 'tis damnable; it may perchance escape from Fire and Faggot, but not from Fire and Brimstone, unless it be expiated by a timely and hearty Repentance.

But what are his Citations of Law against Socinianism? First a Passage or two out of a Book called The Reformation of the Ecclesiasti­cal Laws, began in the days of H. the 8th, and continued in the time of Edw. the 6th. That Book then was wrote before Faustus Socinus was born, and before England could know any thing of his Uncle Laelius, who was about twenty one Years old when Edw. the 6th died. A­gain, does Mr. Gailhard think, that the Book which he quotes, was wrote against Socinianism by inspired Writers in way of prophetick anticipation? I am afraid the Contents thereof, as to many particu­lars, will plainly evince the contrary: I know not what might ap­pear, admitting him to be an inspired Interpreter. He may inter­pret Passages out of that Book, if he so please, against Quakerism as well as Socinianism, or against the Scheme of any Party, which may perchance arise, reviving old and long buried, true or false Speculati­ons. As for the Notions which I dislike in Socinianism [for I am no Socinian, but a Member of the Church of England by Law esta­blish'd] if I could not bring against them more pertinent and solid Arguments than Mr. Gailhard offers, I would never dislike them; therefore again I suspect, that Mr. Gailhard, after all his loud Out­cries against blasphemous Socinianism, [as he phrases it] is a subtle but real Socinian, and writes booty.

Mr. G. to go on with his Citations, and his booty writing, presents the Parliament with a Fragment of a Letter from Edw. the 6th to to A. B. Cranmer; Cum vos triginta, &c. Upon which he makes this booty Reflection: So that there is something of a Parliament's Au­thority [against Socinianism.] I may well call this a booty Reflecti­on; [Page 30]for in the next words he grants, that that something wants a Parliamentary Stamp; which is as much as to say, it is a something that's just as good as nothing. We are not yet come to the end of Mr. G's Citations; he presents us with a long Story from the Ca­nons and Ecclesiastical Constitutions agreed upon in the Convocati­ons of both Provinces, Canterbury and York, 1640. And lest the Authority of these Canons should in scornful manner be set aside for want of Parliamentary Sanction, because it cannot be pretended, that Jesus Christ gave Authority to the Preachers of his Gospel to impose Laws on the Subjects of the Civil Magistrate, Mr. G. argu­mentatively notes, That King Charles the First has by virtue of his Pre­rogative Royal, and Supream Authority in Ecclesiastical Causes, straight­ly enjoined and commanded those Canons and Constitutions to be diligently observed and executed. But after all this [with Mr. G's leave be it spoken] our Lawyers know not of any such Prerogative Royal and Supream Authority in Ecclesiastical Causes, by which the King alone, without the Advice and Consent of his Lords and Commons in Parli­ament assembled, is enabled to ratify and enforce the Ceremonial or Sanguinary Rules and Orders [Canons and Constitutions I should have said] of the Convocational Clergy. Our Just, and Lawful, and Gracious King William pretends not to this Power, nor is inclin'd to let any persecuting Priests loose upon his People; and perhaps this is the true Reason, and not his being chose by the People, why he has no Defenders of his Title among such Priests: here and there perhaps a moderate and sober Churchman owns him for his Rightful and Lawful Soveraign; but Priests of persecuting Prin­ciples every Man of 'em spare not to revile him as a Conquering U­surper. Let a Prince claim and exert a Prerogative Royal and Su­pream Authority to inforce Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical, I question not but his obliged Clergy shall gratify him with a Right Divine, tho he came in by a Foreign Power, without and against the Consent of his People; but Marriage-Right, Proximity of Blood, and Consent of the People together shall signify nothing, if his Ma­jesty out of a Fatherly Affection to all his loving Subjects, will not execute the Vengeance of a Convocation, or not call a Convocation to be taught his Duty.

3. Mr. G. is troubled that Socinianism has met so little Op­position from the Bishops, who, as he intimates, have not act­ed [Page 31]their parts: and here he most andaciously, and sliely slurs the Honour of my Lords the Bishops; for tho several of them have wrote learnedly and angrily against Socinianism, some in the Real, some in the Nominal Trinitarian way, yet Mr. G. takes no notice at all of this, looking upon them as Men of the Arminian Perswasion, who, he tells us, favour the Socinians, go hand in hand with them, mince the matter with them: Hence he takes occassion to wish, that, after what several have written heretofore, some Persons of Learn­ing, sound in the Doctrinal part of the 39 Articles, [i.e. Calvinists] would appear, as a very learned and able Prelat hath in some Points ef­fectually done. Now nothing could be more sly and malicious than this particular Commendation of a single Prelat, as if all the rest favour'd the Socinians, went hand in hand with them, and mine'd the mat­ter with them. He often declares his Aversion from the Arminians, of which Perswasion most of the Bishops in their Sermons and Prints have shewn themselves; and as for the Calvinists, the only Persons sound in the doctrinal part of the 39 Articles, he says they have not appear'd, i.e. they have been wanting to their Duty against Socini­anism, for which they were sitted by their Principles. How unjust this Complaint of Mr. G. against the Bishops is, I need not stand to prove; but I appeal to the Reader whether my Censure is not just. If he had not been a rank Socinian, or worse, he would not, when he pretend­ed to write against the Socinians, have so sliely and desperately wounded the Honour of the chief Defenders of the Orthodox Faith. Indeed it looks a little odly that they should explain one and the same Article contradictory ways, both of which can hardly be true; but then since a way is discover'd, whereby contradictory Expositors may both firmly hold the Orthodox Article, tho they have different Notions of it, I could wish that Mr. G. would not involve no not the Arminian Party in the same Condemnation with the Socinians: for tho the So­cinians also will agree to the Article, if they may explain it; yet they mu t be deem'd not to agree to the Article, unless they will take up with one of the contradictory Explications, which our Church can endure: for I trow the Church may choose what contradictory Ex­plications she will endure, and is not obliged to endure all that may be offer'd; that were not only to restrain her from imposing on backward Believers, but subjecting her to be impos'd on by others, which is prodigiously unreasonable. But Mr. G. not only sliely inti­mates [Page 32]that the Bishops do not act their parts against Heresy, having an Arminian Touch thereof themselves, but that they actually stop the Course of Justice; which he can never prove, unless by the Argu­ment of his own Impunity, who so boldly calumniates and slan­ders them: but however he intimates it, and then pronounces that upon the failure of the Bishops, the Magistrate is to look into't. The Roman Clergy take upon themselves all the Labour of convict­ing and condemning Hereticks, and leave the Magistrate no trouble but to burn them: but Mr. G. devolves the whole upon the Magi­strate; that is the meaning of those words, The Magistrate is to look into it: and he proves it to be their Duty, because it is very just that every Man's hand should be against those Infidels, whose hand is against every Man. Which Argument is so happily form'd, that it not only evin­ces it to be the Magistrate's Duty to burn Hereticks, but it also proves that every Man is a Magistrate, i.e. every Man that contributes to the burning of Hereticks; his contributing to the burning of He­reticks, constitutes him a Magistrate: but I suppose he means, that every Man who is constituted a Magistrate by his own Authority, in taking upon himself to persecute Hereticks, is a Magistrate only quoad hoc; when the Heretick is burnt, there's an end of the Magi­strate, he becomes a private Man again. Mr. G. would not do so extravagant a thing, as to make every Man a Magistrate, any lon­ger than he had need of him to kill, and burn. But what if the law­ful Magistrate does not, and Mr. G's private Magistrate, empower'd by his own Malice and ill Nature, dares not defy the Toleration, and push on the burning of Hereticks? What then? What then! why then let them both look to't, he bombs them with Denunciati­ons of Curses, and Judgments from Scripture; but the same not be­ing levell'd against Patience and Long-suffering, against brotherly Love and Charity, against Toleration of Opinions, which neither blaspheme God, nor trouble the State, it is reasonably presum'd that those minatory Bombs will neither in this World, nor the next, endamage the King or the Parliament, who have enacted no Sangui­nary Laws this last Session, neither against Jews, Turks, nor infi­dels; no, nor against Church-Nominalists, Socinian Unitarians, nor real Tritheistick Trinitarians. Thus I have examin'd the third Head, and it appears that Heresy has not met the Opposition which Mr. G. could wish. In the last place, I will examine what Treat­ment he judges it to deserve.

Now here he comes in with a sage Aphorism or two, There ought to be a Proportion betwixt the Distemper, and the Remedy: extream Di­stempers require extream Remedies. And to prove the Extremity of the Distemper whereof he complains, He tells us, That to deny the Holy Trinity, and our Saviour's Divinity, is as much as in a Man lieth to pull our Religion up by the very Root, and quite to overthrow it. Which, that the Socinians do, he takes for granted, tho those who are [yet injuriously] call'd Socinians, declare that they only dispute some un­scriptural Terms with us, but are well satisfied with the sense put upon those Terms and Explications which a considerable Majority of the Church seem to be agreed in, and together with them abhor the Tritheistick Doctrine, abhor it as much as if it were Convocationally condemn'd, only they would not give their consent for burning the Persons of the Tritheists, whose Heresy, tho very absur'd and of unhappy Influence, yet is not worse than uncharitable and ill-na­tur'd Calvinism. Farther to prove the extremity of the Distemper whereof he complains, Mr. G. affirms, that Idolatry and Blasphe­my [by which latter he will mean Socinianism] are the two greatest Abominations in the sight of God; and then with impudent Reflection on the King and Parliament, he gives it us as his Judgment, That to the Toleration of those two transcendent Wickednesses we may chiefly attri­bute the Cause of the heavy Chastisements which make the Nation uneasy; i.e. expressing it in plain Words, The King and Parliament have to­lerated Popery and Socinianism, and the Toleration of those two transcendent Wickednesses, is the Cause of the War with the French, and all the foul Miscarriages attending it; of the debasing and clipping the Old, and the scarcity of the New Money; of the unsea­sonableness of the Weather; of the rot among Sheep, and the dearness of Mackeril. One may be tempted to think, that the Gentlemen of Mr. G's Kidney entertain the Opinion, that the settled Course of Nature is sometimes chang'd by particular and special Providences, for no other reason, but that they may have the opportunity to charge this, and that, and th' other evil Accident on the Doctrines and Persons, which for their Doctrines sake they mortally hate.

We are told that the Primitive Christians, [who, for ought I know, had as much Socinianism in them, as the very Considerer him­self] were injuriously us'd, just as they are now [who are injuri­ously term'd Socinians:] If any evil Accident afflicted the Publick, [Page 34]if Tiber overflow'd and damag'd the Country, Christianos ad Leones, throw the Christians to the Lions, 'tis long of their being tolera­ted, that the Gods are so angry with the Romans. Well! but Mr. G. reckons that he has fully shown the extremity of the Distem­per. Now let us see how he will proportion the Remedy. In one place he declines the invidious Office, and professes that he leaves it to the Piety and Christian Wisdom of the Parliament, to find out and apply the true and proper Remedy: but this is only a Copy of his Countenance, and a Protestation against Fact; for he'll not trust the Parliament with a matter of such importance; wherefore in the first place he warns them against dawbing with untemper'd Mortar: A­las! the Cement will not be strong and durable unless it be throughly wetted with human Blood. Next he quotes Solomon for this Saying, Fools make a mock at Sin; thence he raises this Observation, That Sin is a great Distemper, and by Sin he understands, not Wickedness of Life, but Error of Opinion, Heresy, Socinianism; for the cure of this Distemper, he quotes these other Words of Solomon, A Rod for the Fools back. And now he looks upon it as a thing most manifest, that the Socinian Sinner ought to be punish'd, and that 'tis the Magi­strate's Duty to punish him. But what shall we do now? for a Man is punish'd if only his Back suffers, and Solomon meddles no farther; but then that's no extream Remedy, 'tis pity that Solomon left the mat­ter so loosly; wherefore we must, one way or other, make his Rod; what? a Serpent? a good Improvement that; but a better and more suitable it will be, to make it a Faggot. See now how artifici­ally this Change is wrought, There is no greater Sin, says Mr. G. than Blasphemy, and no greater Blasphemy than Socinianism, that he al­ways intimates, Wherefore it deserves the heaviest Punishment, to make the Pain hold proportion with the Offence: and what heavier Punishment, and what more cruel Pain, I pray, than Fire and Faggot? When Aaron chang'd his Rod into a Serpent, we read that the Egyptian Sorcerers did the very same, only their Serpents were not a Match for Aaron's. But give me the Sorcerer that outdoes the old Egyp­tian Dealers with the Devil, and by the Magick of his Zeal turns So­lomon's Rod made for the back of Fools, into a Faggot made for the back of Hereticks: there's the true materia Medica prepar'd against the Distemper of Heresy: if the Magistrate would but apply it ac­cording to the Sorcerer's Direction, and set fire to't, Heresy would [Page 35]quickly be burnt up, only perhaps a little Hypocrisy might spring from the Ashes; but that's a harmless humble Weed, which never gives Offence, no not to zealous Powers, with Calvinistical fiery Qualifica­tions. Mr. G. is so positive, that the heaviest Punishment is the true and proper Remedy against what he calls Socinianism, that, suspect­ing his clumsy Rhetorick, and inept Applications of Scripture, might not prove effectual to obtain sanguinary Laws against Hereticks, he breaks out into this Ejaculation, and vents his Calvinistical Impa­tience in a wrylookt Prayer,—God grant none of this Land, for want of performing their Duty in their Stations, do provoke God in the way of Judgments, to make them know that he is the Lord, who both acts and speaks with a strong hand. If he were serious in this Prayer, the most that could be made of it, were, that tho he is angry with the King and Parliament for not enacting sanguinary Laws against Heresy, yet he hopes they may not be struck too, down to Hell with Thunder for that sinful neglect. But the real Design of the Prayer is, to co­ver the Impudence of charging the King and Parliament with favour­ing Heresy, and intimating that they deserve to feel the severest Judgments of God, and can expect no other. Such is the Mercy of a zealous Calvinist, his very Prayers are Libels. Just so that sly mali­tious Rogue in Horace, Me Capitolinus convictore est usus Ameco (que) I al­ways had a Kindness for Capitolinus my dear Friend and Companion; Sed tamen admiror qo pacto judicium illud fugerit; But being tried for a horrid Crime, I wonder how he scap'd hanging. To authorize the use of the extream Remedy, Fire and Faggot, Mr. G. tells us, The Emperor Theodosius decreed, That after death, an Action might lawfully be commenc'd against a Maniche, or a Donatist, to render the Hereticks Me­mory infamous. I wonder at this Quotation from Mr. G. because his Master Calvin borrow'd his denial of Free-will from the Founder of the Manichean Sect; but I commend his Wisdom, he's for commen­cing his Action against living Socinians, Theodosius against dead He­reticks; he'll do what he can to brand their Memory; but his first care is to be the death of them. Had Mr. Gailhard but the power of the Magistrate, or the Magistrate the burning Zeal of Mr. Gail­hard, what a Country should we have, so free from Hereticks, that the Orthodox would have no Enemies to trouble them, nor no need to fall out among themselves for want of room.

But here, that Mr. G's Zeal may be throughly understood, I must [Page 36]take notice, he would have the extream Remedy us'd, not only against Atheists and Deists, Papists and Armininians, French Refu­gees, Jews and Turks, but also against all heretical Tritheists of what Order or Degree soever: for in his Pref. p. 2 & 3. he commends the Oxf. Decree, Nov. 25. 1695. for condemning, as false, impious, and heretical, the Notions and Expressions of Three insinite distinct Minds and Substances in the Trinity. This Censure the Translator of the History of Val. Gentilis expresly applies to Dr. Sherlock, but Mr. G. only in general says of such Tritheists, that they affect Singularity, are wise in their own Conceit, follow By-paths in their Defence of the Trinity, and thereby declare that they are Enemies to the Cause, and have a mind to betray it. No Souldier, says he, in an Enemies Country ought to straggle out of the way under pain of Death, &c. he that does so, ought to be knock'd o'th' head; for it may reasona­bly be suppos'd he straggles with a design to desert. This he applies to Stragglers in the Cause of the Trinity: and in his Judgment, the Maintainers of Three distinct infinite Minds in the Trinity, are such Stragglers. I grant that Mr. G. has no particular spight against Dr. Sherlock, as another Calvinistical Nominal Trinitarian has; but then he is for sparing no Body that explains the Trinity, as Dr. Sher­lock does. The Translator of the History of Gentilis goes a step farther; for he boldly affirms that the Tritheism of Dr. Sherlock is worse and more reproachful to Christianity, not only than Sabellia­nism, but even than Socinianism it self; and having related how the Senate of Bern caus'd Val. Gentilis to be beheaded for this Tritheism of Three distinct infinite Minds, he concludes his Advertisment, concerning his Publication of that Story, thus: I cannot but wish that all Christian Governours and Governments would show the same magnani­mous Zeal and Courage in defence of the Faith, tho I confess, I wish not that they should do the same way; i.e. this good Calvinist Translator wishes the Government would, not behead his Tritheistical Adver­sary Dr. Sherlock, but [I suppose] burn him. The putting him to death, for that he heartily wishes, and had rather his Head were taken off, as Val. Gentilis his Head was, than lifted up as high as Paul's: this he intimates [tho 'tis the Consequence also of his pious wish] in a marginal note affix'd, p. 134. He breathes the same Calvi­nistical zealous Affection at the end of his worthy Translation, com­mending the University of Oxford, because she had unkennel'd the [Page 37]Wolf, had him in full Chase, and would not give over, as he hop'd, till she had run him down. And what is done with Wolves when they are ran down, is very well known.

Now tho I agree to the Explication which this good Doctor gives of the Trinity, [bating one or two small Contradictions which shall not break squares between us;] yet by his and Mr. Gail­hard's leave, I will give Reasons why Dr. Sherlock ought not to be be­headed, ran down, or burn'd for his Tritheism; and then I will re­fer to an Author whose Arguments will save all the Tritheists from being put to death. The first Reason that I shall offer why Dr. Sher­lock ought not to be beheaded as Val. Gentilis was; nor ran down, and knock'd o'th' head, as Wolves are; nor burn'd as Hereticks have been, is, because tho he be a Tritheist, i.e. an Heretick, and that an obstinate one; yet he is farther remov'd from the Socinian Heresy than Mr. Gailhard, or the Translator, his Brother-Calvinist, and Fellow-Nominal-Trininarian. The English Unitarians (by Mr. Gail­hard deem'd Socinians) are at perfect agreement with Mr. Gail­hard himself, the Translator, and the Catholick Church, in the Ex­plication of the Doctrine of the Trinity. The Unitarians believe, [as their chief Writer professes] that there is one insinite spiritual Sub­stance with three Properties, unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding, one eter­nal Spirit under the triple distinction of Original Mind, Reflex Wisdom, and Divine Love, &c. There is no difference at all in this matter, be­tween that Unitarian and Mr. Gailhard, the Translator, and the Ca­tholick Church, saving that the Unitarian says, the Terms Trinity, and Person are unscriptural, but he [being a Man, that does no more love to be persecuted, than to persecute, having a strong na­tural Inclination against doing and suffering Injuries both] easily gets over the unscriptural Terms, and accepts them according to the Ex­plication of the Church, as may be seen p. the 21st of his Treatise, call'd, The Agreement of the Ʋnitarians with the Catholick Church. If now the Explication of the Catholick Church, and of the Church of England, which the Unitarians and Mr. Gailhard both accept, be Socinianism, [as it must be, or the Unitarians are guilty of none] what has Mr. Gailhard been doing all this while, but making a Rod for a foolish back of his own; or to speak home, a Faggot to roast his own Ribbs? But now no Man upon English ground is more free from the Church-of-England-Explication, which the Unitarians accept, [Page 38][and which Mr. Gailhard approves, tho he calls it Socinianism] than Dr. Sh. therefore Dr. Sh. ought not to be beheaded, ran down, or burnt, whatever [in the judgment of Mr. Gailhard] himself, our Church­men, and the worthy Translatour ought. Let Dr. Sh. be ever safe from all Eccclesiastical Censures: for he, out of fear of So­cinianism, is ran from the Church-of-England-Explication of the Trinity; he determines that the Trinity is nothing if it denote not three distinct insinite Minds, and that every other Sense thereof is He­resy and perfect Nonsense. Dr. Sh. plainly sees, and ingenuously acknowledges, that the Unitarians are not afraid of our Church No­minal Trinity, but only of such a real Trinity as his, which is per­fect Tritheism; and he well observes, that the Trinity of Three di­stinct infinite Minds, is the only Trinity, which Socinus, Crellius, Schlictingius, and others of that Party have hitherto disputed against. Upon this account I am amaz'd at the extravagant Zeal of Mr. Gail­hard; he would have the Socinians burnt for their Compliance and Agreement with the Church of England and Dr. Sh. burnt for his Disagreement with the Socinians. But I have another Argument to save the Doctor, [the Church is able to save her self, and them that comply with her] and that is this; Dr. Sh. ought not to be burnt, as Mr. G. would have it, nor beheaded, nor run down, and knockt o'th' head, nor any other forcible way translated out of this Life, as a good natur'd sort of a Translator piously wishes; because he does not like it, and will not submit to it; but stands his ground, maintains his Doctrine, and keeps his Honours and Prosits in spight of all his Adversaries teeth. First a melancholly Stander-by at­tacks him with a compassionate Suit, to forbear the Controversy; him he slights as a silly spiteful Creature, and after a plenti­ful Effusion of ill Languge, bids him begone for a Madman.

Then comes up with him a witty veterane Disputant, and pours in upon him whole Vollies of reviling Animadversions, and follows him with a furious charge of Tritheism: to him he returns, not Wit for Wit, [for his M [...]gazines were destitute of those Provisions] but Railing for Railing with equal malice, and will not allow him the Honour of being a Madman, but obliquely names him some other, I know not what, grinning Creature. At last the University of Oxford, [as far as they can be represented by the Vice-chancellour and some Heads of Houses] fire a Decree at him, condemning his [Page 39] Tritheistic Explication of the Trinity, as false, impious and heretical; nay, and to make sure work of it, as contrary to the Doctrine of the Catholick Church, and particularly to the received Doctrine of the Church of England. But amidst all this dreadful Thunder and Lightning, the Doctor, a Man of a clear Spirit and Courage, stands unafrighted, and, (as if he had been dipt in some poetical case-hardning Lake) unhurt; he tramples the Oxford Decree under his Feet as extrajudi­cial, and damns it for the private Opinion of some Heads, not so wise, but he could match them any day in the Year with twice their Number, to censure their pretended Decree. He proves there's no medium between his Notion of the Trinity and Sabellianism: He maintains against the whole Body of his Confederate Adversaries, that they not only overthrow the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity, but also the very Being of a God; that they ridicule the Divine Generation, and make Sport for Atheists and Here­ticks; and as for the Person, whom he supposes to have sollicited the De­cree against him, he will allow him to be no better than a Blasphemer. By Mr. Gailhard and the Translator's leave now, if this Doctor be an Heretic, he is too mighty for their Malice, and will make them know that they have as just a Pretence to Martyrdom, and are in as fair a way for it as he. I promis'd to refer to a Book, which would save all the well-meaning erroneous Christian Tritheists from fatal Fire and Faggot, it is called An Essay concerning the Power of the Magistrate, and the Rights of Mankind in Matters of Religion. Of which Book I shall not here give any account, because I heartily wish that my Rea­der would drink from the Fountain, being strongly perswaded, that if it be thoughtfully read, and impartially considered by a well-meaning Christian, it will make him for ever asham'd of Persecu­tion: I dare not say it will make an angry Calvinist so; for, it is, I am afraid, impossible that such a fated Zealot should fall from the Grace of implacable Anger, against all that reject the Geneva Plat­form of Christianity.

I have now finished the Remarks, which I thought proper upon Mr. G's Epistle Dedicatory to the Parliament, and upon the Preface to his Book, of which I made a shift to read six or seven Pages. The reason which mov'd me to this, was a just Indignation; that this siery Gentleman should pretend that no man was fit to write against the Socinians but a Calvinist; and that the chief Doctors of the [Page 40]Church of England, who are of the Arminian Perswasion, favour the Socinians, go hand in hand with them, and mince the matter with them: For is it not the highest Impudence in him, after he had condemn'd the Socinians to the Fire, [which perhaps might be born with] to go about to prove, that the Arminian Clergy and Laity are little better than Socinians?

In the beginning of this running Century, we had few or no Calvinists, but among the Puritans: they governed all during the Civil War; yet at the Restoration were set aside again, and discoun­tenanc'd; that we have some of them crept into the Church now, is, I much fear, for no other reason, but to betray it.

I am confirm'd in this fear by the very Title of another Book just come to my hands; it is inscribed, The Growth of Errour; being an Exer­citation concerning the Rise and Progress of Arminianism, and more espe­cially Socinianism, &c. The first part of the Title is pointed against the Growth of Deism; which Pamphlet, I believe, was wrote by a sincere Christian, with a real Design [however he is mistaken] to prevent the Growth of Deism. The Author of this Growth of Errour [now I have a little lookt into him] designs to prevent the spreading of Arminian and Socinian Doctrines, both which he takes to be much the same, and equally erroneous: In his Preface he says, that there are sundry Principles advanced by Men of Reputation among the sound in Faith, that do, in their tendency, lead to what these drive at, who are of the worst sort, i.e. the English Socinians; and in the Intro­duction to his Book he tells us, Many of them, who cannot see how they differ from their Brethren, but in the way and method of explaining the same Doctrine, [which they both hold] slide into Arminianism, and from thence pass over unto the Tents of Socinus. A little after he says, Tho they set up for a middle way between the extreams of Calvin and the Ex­cesses of Van Harman [commonly called Arminius,] yet, on their turn from the former, they fall in so far with the latter, that 'tis impossible for them to make a just defence of what they hold contrary to the Arminian Sy­stem; and therefore they fall in with them, and run their Length. As much as say, deviate but one Hair's Breadth from the System of John Cal­vin, and you are presently over head and ears in Arminianism. A­gain he says, That the Arminians, who pretend a middle way between the Orthodox and the Socinian, are in the twinkling of an eye fallen under Soci­nus his Banner. His Book produces some sort of Instances to make [Page 41]good this Charge; which tempts me to compare Mr. Gailhard and this Author to Brutus and Cassius, of whom the Historian, Ʋbicun (que) ipsi essent, ibi praetexebant esse Rempublicam; Wheresoever they were, there they gloried was the Commonwealth of Rome: So these bonny Calvinists, exclusively to all others, especially the Arminians, will be the Church of England. I would old Peter Heylin were alive to tell 'em their own; in truth, I think, he was over-modest [which was but rarely his fault] to esteem a Presbyterian, i.e. a Calvinist, [for so it was in his days] worse than a Papist. For my part, I e­steem a Christian, from whatsoever Sect denominated, not except­ing the Socinians, more honourable than a persecuting Calvinist: and this is my comfort, that tho the Courage of this zealous Sect is great, yet their Number is small; they have but half the Retinue which Mr. G. allows the Socinians; there are no real Deists nor Ar­minians among them, and but few Papists, not more than there are Dominicans; some handfuls of conceal'd Hugonots in France, a pugil of ingrateful Refugees in England: Their main Strength lies among Mahometans and Atheists, of which Confederates they have so few within call, that I may venture to apply to them, dat Deus immiti Cornua curta Bovi; In English we say, Curst Cows have short Horns. Let me by the way commend the discerning Spirit of the Church of Rome, who commits the management of her flaming In­quisition to the Order of St. Dominic, a Race of bloody Calvinists, as wisely knowing what Priests are by their Principles best fitted to do the work of Devils. But I wonder in my Heart how the Author of the Growth of Errour, having condemned the English Socinians as the worst of Men, that so they might be given up to his and Mr. Gailhard's Mercy, and taken a great deal of pains to lay the Ar­minians under the same Condemnation, should yet have the confidence to tell his Readers, that many who knew him, think his Charity to­wards Men of very different Principles, of a Latitude to a Fault; whenas all that I can find by his Book, is, that his Soul is never so disturb'd with tormenting Regret, as when an Orthodox Brother is not able to make good his false Accusation against an Arminian. Festus Hommius had plaid the knave a little, and put the change on Episcopius his Words, tho for no other reason in the world, but to fasten the Imputation of Socinianism upon him: this foul play the honest Author of the Growth of Errour takes notice of, and [Page 42]makes this charitable Reflection upon it; I must confess, that in an instance or two, the report made of Episcopius was not so well ground­ed as might be wished. p. 72.

When I consider St. Paul's Character of Charity in the 13th Chapter of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, I cannot but conclude, that our Author's Friends banter'd him, when they found fault with the Latitude of his Charity: for my part I cannot see how any Charity at all can be honestly laid to his charge; for he desies Long-suffering and Kindness, is full of Envy and Pride, behaves himself un­seemly, seeketh to serve the Cause of his own Party, is easily provoked, thinketh evil in his Heart, rejoiceth in Iniquity, and not in the Truth, beareth nothing, but believeth as ill as he can of his Neighbour, and still hopes and wishes the worst. What would this Gentleman have giv'n, that the Report made of Episcopius had been true! why, what would he have got by't? Why then the poor Man might have been ran down like a Wolf, hang'd like a Dog, or burnt for an Heretic, whereas he was only banish'd: a small satisfaction that, in respect of what our Author might have received, had the States of Holland treated Episcopius with Mr. Gailhard's extream Remedy.

I am sorry I have not Health and Leisure to do this Author farther Justice, but must break off without so much as commending his Learning, Wit, and Reasoning, which are of a Latitude equal to his Charity; I beg his Excuse. But the Debt which I cannot pay him, I have some Temptation to hope, that a couragious Master among the Tritheists will, because some pages are parti­cularly aim'd at him; in one of which, p. 161. there are these words: If the contradictory Affirmation of three individual Essences being but one individual Essence, will clear the Notion from being Here­sy; then Val. Gentilis, Lismaninus, Blandrata, and the many other Propagators of the Socinian Abominations, must be also, for the same reason, clear'd from Heresy.

Upon this Passage I have but one Observation, and the Reader is at an end of his trouble.

If Dr. Sh—ck be cleared from Heresy, so also must the Soci­nians, in the judgment, not of this Author only, but of Dr. S—th also, with whom are a Moiety, if not a Majority of the Church. If Dr. S—th be clear'd from Heresy, so also must the Socini­ans, [Page 43]in the judgment of Dr. Sherlock, who concludes all the Oppo­sers of his real Tritheistic Trinity under Sabellianism, and with him are some great Names, and no contemptible Numbers. What to do with these Socinians, if I know, never trust me; if I brand them for Hereticks, let me assign what merit I please, I shall be thought [as Growth of Errour phrases it] to bereticate one or other Division of the Church: If I pass them without censure, Mr. Gail­hard will vouch that I mince the matter with them [notwithstanding the Protestation which I make, that I am an obedient Son of the Church of England] I think I had best, after the example of the Areopagites engag'd in a Difficulty which puzzl'd them as much as this does me, bid the Cause come before me a hundred Years hence.