1

POSTSCRIPT TO LETTER VIII.

[Dr. S. feems to confider the subject of the prefent letter as irrevelant to the controverfy between us.(1) On the other hand I have fhewn, that it is the most effential part and the very groundwork of it. I am indeed fenfible of the great delicacy. of the matter in question, as many more perfons and those of greater confequence than I was at first aware of, appear to be interested in it. Still, however, I. am of opinion that it ought to undergo a thorough difcuffion, in order, that all fuch perfons (many of whom have not directed their studies to theological difquifitions) may be enabled to judge how deeply the existence of the established church, the vitals of Christianity, and, of courfe, the welfare of the state, are interested in it. If in tracing the fteps, at an humble distance, of the great Athanafius, it should be my lot to drink, ftill deeper of his cup of perfecution on this account than I have hitherto done, I am content, provided I may fhare with him the approbation of the future judge whofe caufe I defend, even of Jefus, the coequal and confubftantial Son of the living God.(2)

Laying afide all arguments from fcripture, councils, and the ancient fathers, I have fhewn in the prefent letter, that the doctrine of the Church of England, as it appears on the face of her creeds, her articles and her liturgy, is diametrically oppofite

E e 2

to

(1) Advertisement to 2d. ed. p. vi.

(z) Mat, xvi, 16.

to the the tenets of Arianifm and Socinianifm.

I

have incidentally produced proofs of the utter abhorrence in which all the most eminent Proteftants of former days, Lutherans, Calvinifts, and Churchof-England men, have held thefe tenets; which abhorrence indeed they have expreffed in a manner that I by no means approve of, namely, by burning to ashes the profeffors of them, together with their writings. In particular, I have more than once mentioned the fate of the learned phyfician Servetus, who was put to death by the Proteftants of Geneva for writing a book against the doctrine of the Trinity, (as Gentili was on the fame fcore by thofe of Berne) with the approbation and concurrence of all the principal divines and founders of the Reformation in Switzerland and Germany, and amongst the reft, of the mild and conciliatory Melanchon and Bucer. The latter of thefe divines, who afterwards became the firft Proteltant profeffor of divinity at Cambridge, is particularly celebrated by Burnet for "his moderation and the fweetnefs of his temper to all who differed from him;" (1) yet fuch was his indignation against Arianifm, that not content with the burning of Servetus, he declared in his fermons, that this enemy of the Tri-' nity" deferved to have his bowels pulled out and his body torn to pieces."(2) I must add, that Calvin, who is univerfally known to have been the chief author of this tragedy, and his difciple Beza, who' both wrote books in juftification of it, reft its defence chiefly

1) Hift. Ref. part ii, p. 164.

(2) Gerard Brant, Hift. Ref. Belg. vol. i, p. 454.

chiefly on the peculiar wickedness of the tenets in queftion; maintaining, that to deny the bleffed Trinity is, "not barely herefy, but an unpardonable impiety."(1) I have had frequent occafions of fhewing that during the three firft Proteftant reigns in this country, viz. thofe of Edward VI. Elizabeth, and James I. all convict oppofers of thofe fundamental myfteries, the Trinity and the Incarnation, were condemned and put to death in quality of apoftates who had renounced the very fubftance of Christianity, and that the chief promoters and inftruments of thefe executions were the fathers and founders of the Church of England, namely, the bishops Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Coverdale,(2) Aylmer, King, Neil, (3) &c. The first mentioned amongst these, when he obliged the young king, Edward VI. to fign the death-warrant of Joan Butcher, as I have before related, made ufe for this purpose of the fame diftinction which Calvin did in the cafe of Servetus, namely, "He told the king that he made a great difference between errors in other points of divinity, and those which were against the Apostles creed : Ee 3

(1) Beza in Vit. Calv.

that

(2) The names of these two bishops appear in the process against Van Parre, as thofe of the two former do in that against Joan Butcher.

(3) The two latter prelates condemned Legat and Whitman. It appears from Fuller, that a Spanish Arian was condemned to the ftake about the time when thefe fuffered at it, but that the king, James I, chose that he and certain other heretics should end their lives in prifon rather than be brought out to public execution. The aforefaid hiftorian, who wrote in the time of Charles II, and who was a zealous churchman, fpeaking of the burnings in queftion, fays, "It may appear that God was well pleafed with them.”

that these were impieties against God, which a prince, as being God's deputy, ought to punish."(1)

But perhaps no inftance can be alleged which fo ftrongly marks the deteftation in which the founders of the Church of England held Arianism, as the conduct and language of the famous archdeacon of Winchester, Philpot, who was "the best born,”(2) and one of the most learned amongst the Proteftant fufferers under queen Mary. Happening to meet amongst his reformed brethren with one infected with this impiety, he was moved to fuch indignation as to fpit in his face. He afterwards wrote a long treatise in justification of this behaviour, ftill extant, which begins as follows: "I am amazed and do tremble both in body and fowle to heare at this day certen men, or rather not men, but covered with man's fhape, parfons of a bestly understandyng, who....are not afhamed to robbe the eternal Son of

God

(1) Burnet's Hift. Ref. part ii, p. 112.-I am far from adopting Cranmer's diftinction for the purpose for which he employed it, namely, that of religious perfecution. I am also far from making light of the disbelief of any article of faith, which Chrift by his church has propounded to us on the contrary, I am perfuaded that the wilful and obftinate denial of any one article of revealed truth, is no lefs a crime than to tranfgrefs the Almighty's moral precepts. Nevertheless I am forced thus far to agree with the Patriarch of the Church of England, that there is a great difference between other revealed truths and thofe concerning the fundamental myfteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation contained in the Apoftles Creed. There may be what divines call an invincible ignorance of the former, which cannot be admitted with refpect to the latter. For there is no other name under heaven, except that of Jefus Chrift, given amongst men whereby we must be faved. As iv, 12. This is an answer to the query which Dr. S. proposed to me on the subject of exclufive falvation, in his additional note, p. 118,

(2) Fuller's Ch. Hift. b. viii.

God and owr moft marciful Saviour of his infinite
majefty, and to pluck hym owt of the glorious throne
of his unfpeakable Deity. O impiety of all other
most detestable! O infidelity more terrible than
the palpable darkness of Egypt! O flaming fyer-
bronnes of hell, as I may ufe the words of the pro-
phet Efay against fuch apoftates! What harte may
bare fuch blafphemy? What eye may behold fuch
an enemy of God? What membre of Chrift
may allow fuch a membre of the Divel ?"(1) Such
is a specimen of the vehement language, continued
through twelve folio pages, which our firft Proteftant
archdeacon of Winchester employs against an im-
piety fo fashionable at the present day amongst men
who glory in him as their predeceffor. I might here
quote, to the fame effect, the explicit declarations
of thofe divines of the established church who are
most renowned for their orthodoxy as well as for
their learning and judgment, particularly of Hooker,
its chief ornament in the 16th century, (2) and of
Pearson who did it no lefs honour in the 17th. (3)
But what need is there of citing the opinions of
particular divines, when the whole Church of Eng-

(1) See The Apology of John Philpot: written for Spitting on
an Arian: with an Invective against the Arians, the veri natural
children of Antichrift. Strype's Mem. Ecc. vol. ii, Rec. 48.

(2) See Hooker's defence of the Athanafian Creed and the
Gloria Patri, &c. in his Ecclefiaftical Politic, b. v, § 42, in
which he gives the hiftory and definition of Arianifm, calling it
"herefy, impiety, blafphemy, damnable opinion," &c.

(3) See an Expofition of the Creed by John lord bishop of
Chester, Art. ii, in which, with a profufion of learning and rea-
foning, he confutes the ancient Arians and the modern Soci-
nians, who, in their Catechifm of Racow, pretend that the
perfons of the Bleffed Trinity are no more than attributes of
the Deity.