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 't is 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 't is 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 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 Amecoque 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 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 't is 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 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 Vnitarians 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 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 Church-men 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 Mâ—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 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
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 't will 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 't is 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 Vnity 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 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 't will 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 'T is 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 'T is 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 't is 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
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
Excellent truly Human truly Christian Natures so temper'd their Calvinism that 't was 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 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 't is 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 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 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