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
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 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 Clergy-men 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 'T is 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 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 't is 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. 'T would 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 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 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