it; men, perhaps, learned in books, but few of the sticklers gave any great testimony of their proficiency in that science, which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated. This flame, kindled between Arminius and Episcopius, &c. for the Remonstrants, and Gomarus, Sibrandus, &c. for the Predestinarians, distracted Holland not a little, and had an ill influence upon the affairs of England, at least so far as concerned the church. But the mournfullest part of that history is the ill usage Martinus Crocius, the bishop of Landaff, and others had; who, though they were acknowledged to be sound in the faith of those things, which generally followed the judgment of Calvin, as to the main points controverted, yet, if at any time they appeared moderate in their behaviour, gentle in their words, and for accommodation in some particulars, with the remonstrants, or freewillers, Gomarus and his followers, not observing the gravity due to the assembly, the rules of debate, and least of all the meekness of christian communion, fell foul of their brethren, reproached their tenderness, and began to fix treachery upon their sober endeavours of accommodation; as if they intended to execute, as well as maintain, their reprobation, and blow up their friends, rather than not destroy their adversaries.

But if we will rise higher in our inquiry, and view the mischiefs of earlier times, flowing from this practice, the fourth and fifth centuries after Christ will

furnish us with instances enough. We cannot possibly forget the heavy life some men made about the observation of Easter day, as if their eternal happiness had been in jeopardy; for so far were they degenerated from the love and meekness of Christianity, that about keeping of a day, which perhaps was no part, but, to be sure, no essential part, of the christian religion, they fell to pieces; reproached, reviled, hated, and persecuted one another. “A DAY" was more to them, than "Christ," who was the Lord and end of days; and "victory over brethren," sweeter than the "Peace and concord of the church," the great command of Jesus, whom they called Lord.

But the remarkable and tragical story of Alexander bishop of Alexandria, and Arius his priest, in their known debate about the "nature and existence of the son of God," with the lamentable consequences thereof, as all writers upon that subject have related, witnesseth to the truth of what I say. bishop's curiosity, and the strictness of Arius; the presumption of the one to expound beyond the evidence and simplicity of the text, and the captious humour of the other, that would not abate the bishop anything for his age, or the rank he held in the church, but logically exacted the utmost farthing of the reckoning from his old pastor, first began the fray, which as it became the perplexity of church and state for some ages, so it raged to blood; and those that had been persecuted like sheep by the hea

then not long before, turned wolves against each other, and made sport for the infidels, doing their work to their own destruction. Nay, so much more Christian was Themistius the philosopher, that he, in his oration, called Consul, commended the emperor Jovianus for his moderation, and advised him to give that liberty of conscience, which professed Christians refused to allow each other; who seemed to think they never did God better service, than in sacrificing one another for religion, even as soon as ever they had escaped the heathen's shambles.

Did we duly reflect upon the unnatural heats, divisions, and excommunications among them, the many councils that were called, the strong and tedious debates held, the translations of sees, the anathemas, the banishments, wars, sackings, fires, and bloodshed, that followed this unnatural division, that sprang from so nice a controversy, one would verily believe no less, than that religion itself had been in the utmost hazard; that Judaism or Paganism were overrunning Christianity; and not that all this stir had been made. about an Iota. For the whole question was, whether Homousia, or Homoiousia, should be received for faith? In which the difference is but the single letter I; certainly, we must do violence to our understanding, if we can think that these men were followers of that Jesus, that "loved his enemies, and gave his blood for the world," who hated their brethren, and shed one another's blood for opinions; the heathen

philosophers never were so barbarous to one another, but maintained a better understanding and behaviour in their differences.

But how easily might all these confusions have been prevented, if their faith about Christ had been delivered in the words of the Scripture; since all sides pretend to believe the text? And why should any man presume to be wiser, or plainer in matters of faith, than the Holy Ghost? It is strange, that God and Christ should be wanting to express or discover their own mind; or that the words used by the Holy Ghost should have that shortness, ambiguity, or obliquity in them, that our frail capacities should be needed to make them more easy, proper, and intelligible. But that we should scarcely deliver any one article of faith in scripture terms, and yet make such acts the rule and bond of christian communion, is, in my judgment, an offence heinous against God and holy Scripture, and very injurious to christian charity and fellowship. Who can express any man's mind so fully as himself? And shall we allow that liberty to ourselves, and refuse it to God? "The Scriptures came not in old time," said the apostle Peter, "by the will of man; but holy men of God spake, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Who can speak better, or express the mind of the Holy Ghost plainer, than the Holy Ghost? The Scripture is the great record of truth, that which all these parties in controversy agree to be the declared mind and will of God, and

they unanimously say, it ought to be believed and professed as such. If this be true, in what language can we so safely and properly declare our belief of those truths, as in the very language of the Scripture?

And I cannot see how those persons can be excused in the day of God's judgment, who make men heterodox or heretical, for refusing to subscribe their articles of faith that are not in scripture terms, who in the same time offer to declare their belief of God, Christ, spirit, man's lapse or fall, repentance, sanctification, justification, salvation, resurrection, and eternal recompense, in the language of holy Scripture. I must say it is preposterous, and a contradiction, that those who desire to deliver their faith of truth, in the language of truth, shall not be reputed true believers, nor their faith admitted. This were to say, that therefore their faith is not to be received, because it is declared in the language of that very truth, which is the object of that faith, for which it ought to be received, and which is, on all hands, concluded to be our duty to believe. It seems then, we must not express our belief of God in his words but our own; nor is the Scripture a creed plain or proper enough to declare a true believer, or an orthodox Christian, without our glosses.

Are not things come to a sad pass, that to refuse any other terms than those the Holy Ghost has given us, and which are confessed to be the "rule or form of sound words," is to expose a man to the censure