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 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 'T were 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 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 't is 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 't is 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 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
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 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 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
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 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 if Tiber overflow'd and damag'd the Country Christianos ad Leones throw the Christians to the Lions 't is 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