REFLECTIONS To a Late BOOK, Entitled, The GENVINE REMAINS OF Dr. Tho. Barlow, Late BISHOP of LINCOLN. Falsely pretended to be Published from His LORDSHIP'S Original Papers. With a CATALOGUE of SOCINIAN WRITERS. Haec volebum, nescius ne esses. Preface to the Remains. LONDON, Printed for Robert Clavell, at the Peacock in St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCXCIV. Imprimatur. Guil. Lancaster, R. P. D. Hen. Episco. Lond. à Sacris Domest. July 25. 1694. TO THE REVEREND DOCTOR FULLER, CHANCELLOR OF THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH in LINCOLN. SIR, AS I shall constantly endeavour to approve myself sensible of my late Lord Bishop of Lincoln's great Favours in general, so in particular I think myself happy in your Friendship, which I have not a little Experienced ever since my first admission into the Church of Lincoln, by virtue of his Lord Bishop's Patronage. When I was with you at Lincoln in May last, you were pleased to inquire about the late Bishop of Lincoln's Original MSS, which were entrusted with my Brother Chaplain and myself; and to express your Concern very much, that such poor Scraps of Learning should be Printed under the Authority of so great a Name as Doctor Barlow's was; and that the Genuine Remains which were Extant, did not only injure the Memory of him that was a Learned Father of our Church, but occasioned some Persons to censure and condemn those whom he had left his Legatees for his Papers: I did then assure you, that we that had the Bishop's MSS had taken all imaginable Care of them, having never parted with any of them, nor gave consent that any part or parcel of them should be Printed; and that what had happened was altogether without our knowledge. And thus much I gave you for truth under my own Hand, in a Paper which I left with you; the Substance of which I read to the Reverend Doctor Gardiner, our present Subdean, who was equally concerned with yourself, that any thing should pass abroad under our late Bishop's Name and Character, which might in the least prejudice the Church and his Memory. I then satisfied you both, that one Sir P. P. and the late Vicar of Bugden, were the confederate Pedlars, that have endeavoured to impose upon the World so much varnished Ware, for the sake of Twenty Guineas gave for the Copy; as his Wife informed a Reverend Friend of mine. Soon after I left Lincoln, I met with the late Minister of Bugden, who confessed he did communicate the Directions to a young Divine, which ushers in the rest of the Remains to Sir P. P. which MSS I told him was not completed; for being admitted sometime to a freedom of Discourse with his Lordship, upon my mentioning once the Printing of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he was pleased to say, That he feared his Directions were imperfect; for having written them at several times, they required a careful Review, and more Time than he had then to spare for such a purpose; but said he hoped to be more at leisure to consult hereafter, what was proper to be done: My Lord in a few Months after died, without perusing his own Original MSS. or Correcting of any Copy, that had been taken after it: And many of those Copies which were wrote from the Original were imperfect; my Lord commanding oftentimes that only some part of his Directions should be copied out, which, said he, may be sufficient for some who are very curious in Books, or perhaps not able to buy many. At my return hither I delayed no time to acquaint Mr. Brougham with the ill Consequences which I apprehended might ensue, upon our suffering so much Injustice to be done to our late Lord's Memory, without any Advertisement, or Notice taken of it by us, who were jointly concerned in our own Vindication, as well as our Lord's: I desired him (since he had all the Bishop's MSS. in his custody at Queen's College Oxon.) to consult them that were useful for our present purpose, in exposing the Defects of the Genuine Remains; he readily answered my Request, and returned me the following Letter which I send you; and being confident you will be pleased with the design of doing Justice to the Memory of a Learned Prelate, which has suffered in the Publication of little things, whilst the more weighty Effects of his indefatigable Pains and Study have (according to his own Inclinations and Will) been kept from being made Public. I am Sir, Your most Obliged Servant, William Offley. Middleton-Stony, Jun. 23. 94. REFLECTIONS On a Late BOOK, etc. SIR, YOU may remember, that discoursing with you frequently about some Pieces that have appeared under the late Learned and Pious Bishop of Lincoln's Name, particularly that of the Genuine Remains, I always expressed my Sense about them to this effect; That though there was foul play practised in the publishing of them, and such as deserved to be taken notice of, yet that those concerned therein had laid their design (of getting a penny) so open, and their poor Arts of raising the price and bulk of a Book so obvious and undisguised, that they were visible to every Eye without being pointed to, and so needed not be more effectually exposed than they had done it themselves. And for the clearing us, whom the Bishop was pleased to appoint Legatees for all his own Original Manuscripts, I thought it sufficient for us openly to disavow (as for my part, I did upon all occasions) our being either consenting or so much as privy to the Printing any of them; which if we had been minded to do, it had been easy to have made choice of such, as were infinitely more worthy of the Bishop's Character. And to remove all Suspicion at the greater distance, I failed not to acquaint others (as opportunity served) that the Bishop, at the disposal of his MSS. showed no inclination to have any of them published after his Decease; for that the freedom being taken to ask his Lordship whether he would have any of them Printed, his Answer was, (as near as I could recollect) that he did not desire that any should. Now though this did not amount to an absolute Prohibition, yet I told them we took it to be a Signification of the Bishop's Mind, and accordingly thought ourselves bound religiously to observe it, notwithstanding the expectations and importunities of others, or the Advantage we might otherwise propose to ourselves. And thus being in no wise conscious to ourselves, of sending any thing abroad under the Bishop's Name; I hope it may seem the more excusable that we have been the less concerned to publish our Innocence. The only thing then that could be expected from us, was, that something should be offered in Vindication of the Bishop's Memory, to which upon several accounts we own a great Esteem and Veneration, and which indeed would be extremely injured, if the World should believe (what is suggested in the Pompous Title) that Those were THE Genuine Products of the Learned Prelate's long Study and Labour. But the truth is, I could never persuade myself that any that were acquainted with his Lordship's great Abilities (as few were ignorant of them) could ever entertain so injurious a thought of him. It was very well known that as He had made a noble Collection of Books, so he put them to better use than any thing that's Printed since his Death doth show; and has taken the most effectual way to make them serviceable hereafter, by bequeathing them to Bodley's and Queens- College Libraries in Oxford, and thereby accomplishing his own often repeated promises, and the hopes that others had conceived thereupon. And these Considerations you know, Sir, wrought so far with me, that I thought it unnecessary any thing should be offered in print, either for the Vindication of our Patron, or the Satisfaction of others. And herein you seemed heretofore to concur with me. Nevertheless, since as well upon the said accounts, as to justify ourselves from some groundless surmises, you judge it needful something should be said; I am ready to communicate a few things that occurred to me in the perusal of the Remains (for to take notice of every thing that would bear a Reflection, would be an endless labour) and shall leave it to your Discretion to make what use of them you think fit. It was not to be expected, but that one specious Pretence or other would be made use of to palliate the matter, and the rather, because the most unbecoming Actions (like the homeliest Faces) require the most Art to set them off. And therefore to make Bookseller and Buyer the better to swallow the Pill, nothing less is pretended than the gratifing the Learned World, and erecting a lasting Monument of Praise to the Bishop's Memory, by the Publication of this Book. As to the latter part of the Plea, it must be owned that the Pious Architect's Zeal for the Bishop's Honour has transported him so far, that rather than want Materials for a Monument, he has piled together such despicable ones, as if compared with others the Bishop has left behind Him, would make Him lamented as buried in Ruins. How far he designed to oblige the World by this Collection of Relics, is only discernible to the Searcher of Hearts; but how far he has compassed that Design, others may judge: And I can't forbear (on this Occasion) reflecting on the subtle Trade which the Romish Friars drive in vending the Relics of their Saints, which, there are shrewd Temptations to believe, is not so much for the benefit of the People as themselves. But that which seems a Jest upon the Reader's Understanding, is, that the Editor would make him believe he is tender of (a) p. 567. swelling the Volume to too great a bulk, when 'tis visible he has scraped together both Old and New, Good and Bad, Genuine and Adulterate, the one to be a Vehicle to the other, and both together to screw Mr. Dunton up to a Pitch. If the World be so Superstitious as to be fond of Relics, does he think Men will renounce their Senses too, and in spite of them believe that he is in good earnest careful not to be too bulky, when to advance the number of Sheets he has added several of his own, and patched up a third part of the rest of the Book out of old Pieces, witness the Preface to the Gunpowder Treason, the Tract against Baxter, and the two Metaphysical Exercitations; when he has gleaned up a parcel of private Letters and Correspondencies, and much other crude and indigested Matter, which we may reasonably presume the Bishop would never have desired should have seen any other light after his death, but that of the Flames? In the Directions to a Young Divine, there are abundance of things marshaled under that Head, which the Bishop never intended for that purpose. Amongst others, there's a Syllabus of Socinian Questions foisted in; concerning which 'twould perhaps puzzle the Editor to give a satisfactory Answer to any of these Four Questions. Why it was Printed at all? Why at such an unseasonable time? Why under a false and improper Head? And why so lame and imperfect? Why Printed at all? Was it that the Editor would have the Bishop thought an Abettor of Socinianism? from which he stood at as great a Distance, as one part of a Contradiction from the other, as every one knows that was not a mere Stranger both to his Writings and Conversation. Or was it for the general Information of Mankind, in a part of knowledge they might with more safety be ignorant of? The Socinians are looked upon by some as great Masters of reasoning, and perhaps they bid as fair for it, as the weakness of the Cause, they maintain, will admit of: So that what M. Cato observed of Caesar, seems in some wise applicable to Socinus, Vnum ex Omnibus ad Evertendam Rempublicam [Christianam] Sobrium accessisse. And his Opinions being so dangerous to the Foundation of Christianity, it is somewhat unaccountable what necessity there was, to be directed to Chapter, Page, and Section, where to find them asserted to all the advantage they are capable of: Especially if we consider, that Men are naturally too inquisitive after forbidden Knowledge: The Experiment cost our first Parents very dear, and their Posterity have ever had such a fatal Curiosity to pry into the Errors of former Ages, as never needs to be set on edge. Whatsoever therefore the Bishop might Communicate to a particular Friend, and one that was more than ordinarily curious in the Study of Theological Matters (as the Prefacer has it) yet he could never intent that Syllabus of Questions (in the dress it appears in) for common and Public Use: Much less would he ever have consented to the dispersing of it at such a time as this, when the Pestilent Heresies of Socinus are more industriously propagated in the Nation than ever. But there is yet more Injustice done the Bishop, by Printing it under an improper Head. 'Tis certain he never made That any part of his Instructions to a young Divine, either in that Copy the Editor met with or any other. For the Learned Prelate could not be ignorant, how dangerous it might prove to a Novice in Divinity, to direct him to a number of Socinian Writers, without Signifying withal where to find their Errors confuted. This had been to prescribe Poison without its Antidote; to pervert and lead astray his young Student, rather than instruct him in the right Search of Truth, and so to influence his more injudicious years with the leaven of Heresy, as it might cost him some time and pains to wear off the Impression. But lastly, if printed it must be, and at an unseasonable time too, and moreover under an improper Head; why was it after all sent abroad so lame and imperfect, I mean, without those references to Orthodox Authors, who have designedly and successfully writ against the Socinians, and which are found in the Bishop's Original Papers? I am not willing indeed to believe that the Collector omitted them, out of any affection to Socinianism. No, to do him right, he is so true to his main end, and has so carefully inserted (without Distinction) whatever might serve to promote it, that he can't be suspected to postpone his Interest in favour of that, or any other Persuasion whatsoever. And therefore we may well enough suppose he has left out nothing that was in the Copy he met with: But then, is there not reason to expostulate the Case with him, why this or any thing else should be published under a great Name from Copies defective or unfinished, to the Impairing of the Author's Reputation, and rather injury than benefit of others? But to make no more words about it, to show how Genuine a Remain this same (amongst others) is, I have sent you what I find in the Bishop's MSS concerning the Anti-Socinian Writers, which I should think, ought rather to have been Printed single, and the other omitted, than the contrary. What follows the Directions (to Page 383.) is little else but some private Letters and scattered Papers, gleaned up from several Quarters; many of which are not to be found amongst the Bishop's Writings; a certain sign this, that if they be Genuine, he set little or no value on them; it being his constant Method, when he communicated any thing he valued, to his Friends, to desire them to return the Copy, or at least to cause it to be transcribed before he sent it. Amongst his Papers there are found Letters writ from every Corner of the Compass, and amongst others, some signed with P. P. and dated from the Strand, near the Maypole. If all were such as His, it would be worth the while to make a Present of them to the Haberdasher of Small-wares in the Poultry. But I would first know whether P. P. would take it well to have His Exposed to public Censure. The Prefacer to the Remains, (if that be his Name at large) says that no Works are more grateful to Critical Readers, than such as are comprised by way of Epistle. Now I do assure him, His are very entertaining that way; and if we should divert the Reader at his cost, it would be but a just Retaliation. However, his Letters will be kept by way of Reprisal for further Service. Next in order follow a Preface to a Discourse concerning the Gunpowder-Treason, an Answer to a Tract of Mr. Baxter's, and a little after two Metaphysical Exercitations; all which being in Print before, 'tis hard to say for what end they are now reprinted, unless to swell the Volume, and thereby lay a Tax upon the Subject. I believe few will think the Translator of the Exercitations has merited any thing by his pains, either from the Bishop or the Reader. For of good Latin States, he has made them but very indifferent English one's, and as unintelligible to the English Reader, (for whom, I suppose, they were designed) as Rosacrusian Philosophy. The like, nay much worse Treatment have the States of Questions met with, which begin p. 568. and so in a manner close the Book. These they have given us in such an Heterogeneous, Equivocal Mongrel Version, as I defy the whole Fraternity of Translators to match, from the famous R. L. down to M's. Schoolboys. So that it may truly be vouched upon this occasion, if ever, Faciunt intelligendo ut nihil intelligant. Besides 'tis manifest, the Bishop has writ them hastily and incuriously; And though probably he might sometimes read them in the College Chappel, yet it can no more from thence be concluded, that he calculated them for the Press, than that a Man designs every thing he utters amongst private Friends should be proclaimed at the Cross. But whatsoever they are in themselves, they have suffered in many places, by being garbled, depraved and ill Translated, and sometimes by the omission of (what was of great Use in such short and imperfect Tracts) the References to particular Authors, who have handled the Points more copiously. That this Charge may not seem to be laid without Ground, I will give you a few Specimens of the Translator's or Transcriber's Performance in one of the States. And to prevent all Suspicion, as if I intended to aggravate the matter, and with a spiteful Diligence to cull out the worst for a Pattern of the rest, I will be so fair as to look no farther than into the very first Question that offers itself, and from thence leave others to judge what may be expected in the rest. The first Question than is, * p. 568. An Praescientia Divina à Rebus praevisis tollat Contingentiam? where we need not seek far before the Translator gives us some Trials of his Skill. For in the very first Page but one, and within the compass of half of it, there are half as many Blunders as Lines. Instead of Alicui praesens esse, (lin. 14.) as it is in the Original, and as the Author's Sense requires it should be, we read corruptly, Alicujus praesens esse. The Bishop is proving that a Future Contingent, cannot be actually Present (Scientiae etiam Divinae) even to Divine Knowledge; and gives this Reason for it, because Alicui praesens esse supponit esse ex parte rei, To be present to any one, etc. not alicujus, but alicui in the same Case with Scientiae Divinae. This, 'tis true, may be a slip of the Press, but it looks much liker an Error elsewhere. Two or three Lines further the Bishop adds, Cum ideo Deus praescivit Futura Contingentia ab aeterno, necesse est ut ipsi etiam sint futura, nempe respectu actualis existentiae. This is rendered, When therefore God did foreknow future Contingencies from Eternity, it is necessary that they should be to him even Future. Now any Schoolboy would have rendered [Come ideo] properly [Since therefore]; and necesse est ut ipsi etiam sint futura, should likewise have been turned, It is necessary that they be future even to him, or to him also, not to him even future; because, 'tis plain, Etiam makes Ipsi Emphatical, not Futura; agreeably to the Bishop's design, which was to prove that Future Contingents are future even to God, is, to him as well as to others; that which some, whom he mentions, did deny. But the next words that follow are perverted more inexcusably. The words in the MS. are, Futura Contingentia ab aeterno non erant, which the unskilful Garbler has turned, They were not futura contingentia ab aeterno; which neither answers the Bishop's Latin, nor his Argument, nor makes him write consistently with Truth, or with himself. It answers not his Latin; For these words Futura contingentia ab aeterno non erant, are a Proposition secundi Adjacentis (as the Logicians term it) wherein the Verb includes both the Copula and the Predicate; and so non erant signifies as much as non existebant, or non erant existentia: and the Sense of the words will be, that Future Contingents were not existent from all Eternity. This will appear plain enough, if we consider the Argument. For the Bishop's Assertion immediately preceding is, that Future Contingents could not be present with God from Eternity, in respect of their actual Existence; the medium whereby he proves it expressly, is, because Future Contingents ab aeterno non erant, were not existent from Eternity, therefore he infers from Eternity they could not be present with God. Thus it appears the Translator has neither understood the Sense of the Bishop's words, nor the drift of his Argument: and yet both these are more pardonable, than to make him assert that which is really false in itself, and moreover a Contradiction to what he had said just before. It is false to say, They were not futura Contingentia ab Aeterno; for future Contingents were such from Eternity; the matter of this Proposition, for Instance, Petrus Dominum abnegabit, being future and contingent from Eternity. And if they were not from Eternity, than they could not be fore-known by God from Eternity; but the Bishop had said in the words foregoing, that God fore-knew them from Eternity: Therefore to make Him assert that Future Contingents were not from Eternity, is to make him inconsistent with himself: For which all due Thanks to the Translator's Care and Judgement. If any of the forementioned Mistakes seem too light to be animadverted upon; yet Mistakes they are, and such as none that had rightly understood what he had been about, could have been guilty of. And stumbling upon so many within so short a compass, and at the very Threshold (as it were), I thought I needed go no further in; looking upon these as an Omen, or sufficient warning what we have to trust to elsewhere. But besides the unfaithfulness of the Version-part either the Transcriber of the States (whom the Editor speaks of p. 567.) took but imperfect Copies of them, or the Translator has assumed (by what authority, I know not) an Inquisitorial Power of Purgation, or rather Depravation, through the whole. And of this also (according to promise) I will seek for no other proof, but what the first Question furnishes us with. The Bishop, it seems, resolves it into these two Conclusions: 1. Quod Deus Futura Contingentia cognoscat. 2. Quod cognitio haec eorum contingentiam non tollat. The former (viz.) That God does foreknow future Contingents, he proves, against the Socinians, by three Arguments; the first of which is taken from God's Foreknowledge and Prediction of the Circumstances of our Saviour's Conception and Birth. This the Purgator has vouchsafed to transmit more faithfully than the other, though not entirely neither. But for the other two, he has so contracted them into Shorthand, that they are rather Hints than Arguments, as is easily perceived by comparing the Arguments as managed by the Bishop, and as docked and mangled in the Remains. The Bishop's Second Argument stands thus: 2. Joh. 19 v. 36. Christo de arbore infelici Suspenso, unà cum Sicariis, accedunt Milites; reliquorum crura frangunt, sed Christi crura integra relinquunt & illaesa: Rationem reddit Textus, Omnia haec gesta sunt, ut Scriptura impleretur, dicens, Non frangetur ejus os unum. Cum ideo hoc Deus praedixit, cumque contingens omnino erat, (Milites enim potentiam habuerunt liberam, ut frangerent, & Christi crura talia erant, ut facilè frangi poterant) manifestum est Futura contingentia Deo esse certò cognita. Dico, Certò cognovit Deus crura non esse frangenda, alias falli poterat, quod tamen Sacer Textus expressè negat. Joh. 10.35. Si illos dixit Deos, ad quos Sermo Dei factus est, & Scriptura solvi non potest, etc. Scil. si Christo fides, Scriptura 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, non potest solvi, i. e. violari aut irrita reddi; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, non possibile est, seu (quod idem) impossibile est ut solvatur: Et ideo necesse est ut Futura Contingentia ita eveniant prout praedixit Deus. Here is some Management of an Argument in this; but one must have very good Eyes, or else the Translator's Spectacles, that can discern the true stress of it, as he has ordered it; which take as follows, at Large. And then it was foretold, that not a Bone of Christ should be broken on the Cross, and many Circumstances were verified according to the Prophecies of old therein. The same Fate has the Bishop's Third Argument undergon, which in the MS. runs thus, 3. Deus hoc sibi arrogat ut incommunicabile Deitatis privilegium, quod futura praenuntiet. Isa. 41.22, 23. Sic enim Deus falsos alloquitur Prophetas— Annuntiate futura, ut cognoscamus, quia Dii estis. Sic Isa. 44.6, 7. Praeter me non est Deus: quis mihi similis? Vocet & denuntiet, ex quo constitui populum antiquum; ventura & futura annuntient iis. Sic Dan. 2. Mysterium, quod Rex interrogat, Sapientes, Magi, Arioli & Aruspices nequeunt indicare Regi; sed est Deus in Coelo revelans mysteria, qui indicabit Tibi, O Rex, quae ventura sunt in novissimis temporibus. Nempe futura in novissimis temporibus revelat Deus, eaque contingentia: nam (1o.) Futura necessaria non solum Daemons, said & homines sapientes revelare poterant; at futura, de quibus sacer Textus hic loquitur, Deus sibi-ipsi soli arrogat revelanda (2o.) Futura de quibus hic loquitur Daniel, erant de regno Christi Sub Evangelio, de regno Babylonico, Persico, Macedonico, Romano; futura scil. per homines liberrimè administrata. At haec omnia certò & infallibiliter praedixit Deus. Ergo, Futura contingentia certò cognoscit. Of all this the Epitomiser vouchsafes to give us only a short hint in these words: This Foreknowledge in Scripture God assumes to Himself, and upbraids the False Prophets, because they did not know things to come, Isa. 44. Dan. 2. The Bishop having said all he thought necessary upon the first Position abovementioned, viz. That God fore-knows future Contingents, he refers his Hearers for further Information to several * Qui plura vellet, Aquin. vid at P. 1. qu. 14. Magistr. Sentent. ●. 1. ●u. 38. Et Commentatores ibi ●●●●m omnes, praecip●è Fran●●● C●mel, ●a●●ar. Disput. in p●●●●m partem Aquin. tibi per 〈◊〉 de Praesetentia Dei circa F●●. Canting. fusè disputat & nerv●●è, etc. Authors, who handle it more largely; whom the Purgator has very judiciously passed over, though one would think such References were of most Use in Abstracts, or short States. You see I have run through the Book, but after a Desultory manner: Yet these Evidences (out of many that might be produced) are sufficient to show what an unlimited and an unwarrantable Liberty is taken, not only to publish things without the Author's Consent, either express or presumptive, but also to maim, corrupt and abuse them, and after all to Palm them for Genuine upon the World. I would here make an end, but that the Editor has contrived such a Remain for the close of his Book, as deserves not to be passed over without an Observation. 'Tis a Letter of the Bishop's to his Clergy, occasioned by an Order of Sessions, for the Prosecution of the Laws against Dissenters, which whatever Service or Credit it may do the Bishop, I am sure can do the Editor neither. For 'tis notorious that Sir P. P. has been a Champion for Toleration; witness the Case of Toleration heretofore Printed with his Name to it, and his Preface to a former Book of the Bishop of Lincoln's Tracts: And yet he has taken care to let the World understand by this Letter, that the Bishop thought the Laws against Dissenters good, and their Execution necessary, and that he not only required his Clergy to publish the abovesaid Order, and diligently to advance the design of it, but inforc'd the Reasonableness of Conformity to the Established Church by such Arguments, as in my opinion, 'tis scarce possible to comprise more or weightier in so small a compass. The Letter is but of two Pages, and if you have read it, pray tell me whether the Bp. has not said as much as could well be said, in so few lines, & what your thoughts were upon reading of it. Was it not obvious to conceive, that Considering Men would begin to question, whether the Discourse for Toleration, Printed amongst others lately under the Bp's Name, were really the Bp's, or some Supposititious Piece? (And then let Sir P. see how he will avoid the suspicion of Forgery). Or if they acquit Sir P. in that, they would at least perceive, that how reasonable soever in the Theory a Toleration might seem to the Bp. yet when he came to reduce it to Practice, and have to do with the troublesome Spirit of our Dissenters, he found it not feasible, nor consistent with the Weal of the Church: And then let Sir P. (the Champion for Toleration,) see how he will justify the Publishing so much against a Toleration, and under a Government too, that he would fain flatter for having granted it, and Established it by Law. I fear I have transgressed the bounds of a Letter; therefore I shall add no more, save only to put in a short Caveat or two. And in the first place, Caveat Emptor, let the Purchaser beware hereafter, how he is imposed upon by Surreptitious Pieces. All Coins have not the true Stamp; and some that have, have too great a mixture of the Alloy in the Metal to pass currant. And if I might be admitted for once to be of Counsel to Persons of Quality and Learning, I would humbly advise them to be very cautious whom they admit à Secretis, lest it be their lot (as it has been lately of a Spiritual and a Temporal * Vid. Sir Joh. Thompson's Vindication of the E. of A. Lord) to have their Privacies exposed by some Relickmonger or other. I am Your affectionate Friend and Servant, Hen. Brougham. Queen's-College, June 20. 1694. What relates to the Socinian Controversy, and is found in the Bishop's MS. but omitted in the Remains, is as follows: An Mysteria Fidei à ratione naturali apprehendi possunt? Negant. 1. LUbbertus de Christo Servatore. l. 4. cap. 12. pag. 582. 2. Jac. ad Portum Orthodoxâ fidei defension. cap. 30. pag. 377. 3. Ludovicus Crocius in Anti-Socinianismo. Disp. 7. pag. 64. 4. Andrea's Prolaeus in Mataeologiâ sua Socinianâ. c. 2. p. 21, 22. etc. 5. Christianus Dithmarsus in Coll. Exercitationum Anti-Socinianarum. Exercit. 2. p. 32. etc. 6. Balth. Meisnerus Considerate. Theologiae Photinianae. cap. 4. pag. 310. 7. Joh. Hoornebeck Socinianismi Confutati, Tom. 1. l. 1. c. 5. fusè. 8. Sam. Maresius in Hydrâ Socinianismi confutatâ. l. 1. c. 25. p. 392. 9 Suarez Opusc. lib. 3. cap. 1º, 2o. 10. Pet. Lombard. Sent. Lib. 2. Disp. 26. Vid. Commentatores, ibid. 11. Aquinas. 22. Quaest. 2. Art. 3. 4. & Commentatores, ibid. An Sociniani sint verè Christiani? Negant. 1. LUdov. Crocius Antisocinianismi. Disp. 1. §. 4. 2. Andraeas' Prolaeus in Mataeol. Socinianâ. c. 1. qu. 5. l. 7. etc. 3. Balthas. Meisnerus in brevi Consid. Theologiae Photinianae. c. 4. pag. 294. etc. 5. pag. 634. 4. Jacob. Martinus. Synopsi Religionis Photinianae▪ cap. 6. §. 26. pag. 144. etc. 1. §. 14. 5. Joh. Polyander Concertat. Anti-Socinianâ. 1a. Disp. 4, 5. 6. Joh. Hoornebeck Socinianismi Confut. Tom. 1. l. 2. c. 9 pag. 188. Authores aliqui qui contra F. Socinum. Senensem, suique sequaces scripserunt. 1. JAcobus ad Portum, SS. Theologiae in Acad. Lausannensi Professor, scripsit Defensionem Fidei Orthodoxae adversus Christophori Ostorodii Institutiones Religionis Christianae, Genev. Edit. An. 1613. 4 to. 2. Sibrandus Lubbertus scripsit contra F. Socinum, lib. 4. de Jesus Christo Servatore. 4 to. 3. Andrea's Essenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hug. Grotii scripsit Lib. cui Titulus— Triumphus Crucis, seu Fides Catholica de Satisfactione Christi contra Joh. Crellium Fran. 4 to. 4. Johan. Henr. Bisterfeldius Nassovius scripsit de Vno Deo, Patre, Filio, & Spiritu Sancto, contra Joh. Crellii, l. 2. de Vno Deo Patre. Lug. Bat. 1639. 4 to. 5. Wolfangus Franzius scripsit Disp. varias adversus Photinianos pro Satisfactione Christi, Sub hoc Titulo, Disputationes Theolog. de Sacrificiis Satisfactionis Christi pro peccatis totius Mundi praestitae. Typis Firmissimis. 4 to. 6. Christanus Mathias Dithmarsus in Academiâ Noricorum Altorfinâ Professor, scripsit & edidit Collegium Exercitationum Theologicarum Anti-Photinianum, in quo Disputationes decem. (1.) De Notitiae Dei naturalis existentia & essentiâ. (2.) De Notitiae naturalis usu & efficaciâ. (3.) De 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Nomenclaturâ Divinâ in genere & in specie de nomine Jehova. (4.) De appellatione Deus. (5.) De appellatione Adonis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dominus. (6.) De Dei definitione, genere & Praedicatorum qualitate. (7.) De Essentiae Divinae unitate. (8.) De naturâ Attributorum Divinorum ad intra consideratorum. (9) De Attributis Divinis ad extra. (10.) De ordine Attributorum Divinorum. 4 to. 7. Valentinus Legdaeus Suerinensis edidit Examen refutationis Valent. Smalcii, quam Thesibus Alberti Graweri de Aeternâ Deitate & Incarnatione Filii Dei, opposuit. 4 to. 8. Joh. Winterus Naumbergensis edidit refutationem Sententiae F. Socini de Justificatione hominis coram Deo, quam tractat in praelectionibus Theolog. cap. 15. Problemata Socini quinque ponit & refellit. 4 to. 1. An in Justificatione nostrâ peccata nostra deleantur nudâ remissione, sine Satisfactione? Asserit Socinus. 2. An Deus poterat peccata condonare sine Satisfactione? Asserit Socinus. 3. An Vitae innocentia possit censeri loco Satisfactionis, & articulum Justificationis ingredi? Asserit Socinus. 4. An Deus voluerit peccata sine satisfactione condonare? Asserit Socinus. 5. An Christus pro peccatis nostris satisfecerit? Negat Socinus. Idem scripsit Collationem & Differentiam Vet. & Nou. Testamenti Sacerdotum: Item Tractatum de hac quaestione, An Adamus in statu Integritatis fuerit Mortalis? Asserit Socinus. Negat Winterus. 9 Joh. Junius Ecclesiae Sylvae Ducensis Pastor scripsit Refutationem Praelectionum Theologicarum F. Socini Senensis, Amstelod. 1633. 8vo. 10. Balthazar Meisnerus in Academiâ Wittebergensi Professor scripsit Lib. cui Tit. Brevis Consideratio Theologiae Photinianae, prout eam F. Socinus descripsit libello cui titulus— Quod Evangelici omnino debent se illorum coetui adjungere, qui falsò Ariani & Ebionitae vocantur. 8vo. 11. Jacob. Martin. scripsit Lib. cui tit— Synopsis totius Religionis Photinianae ex illorum Institutione brevi, Volkelio, Ostorodo, aliisque ejus sectae authoribus repetitae & breviter refutatae. 8vo. 12. Johan. Junius Ecclesia Assendelphensis Minister scripsit Examen Responsionis F. Socini ad Librum Jacobi Wieki, de Divinitate Filii Dei, & Spiritus Sancti. Amstelod. An. 1628. 8vo. 13. Johan. Polyander Professor Leidensis scripsit Lib. cui Tit. Prima concertatio Anti-Sociniana Disputationibus 48. comprehensa. Amstel. An. 1640. 8vo. 14. Joh. Paulus Fetwinger in Acad. Altdorphinâ Alumnorum Noricorum Ephorus scripsit Lib. cui Titulus— Vindiciae Incarnationis Jesu Christi aeterni Patris aeterni Filii, pro Alberto Grawero Professor olim Jenensi. 8vo. 15. Andrea's * Idem Keslerushabet Logicae & Metaphysicae Socinianae Examen. Keslerus Superintendens Eisfeldensis scripsit Lib. cui Tit. Physicae Photinianae Examen, etc. An. 1630. 8vo. 16. Jacob. Martin. scripsit Lib. cui Tit. J. Martini de tribus Elohim Liber primus, Photinianorum novorum, praecipuè Georg. Emeldeni blasphemiis oppositus. An. 1619. Octavo. 17. Andrea's Volanus scripsit Lib. cui tit. Paraenesis Ard. Volani ad omnes in regno Poloniae, magno Ducatu Lithuaniae, Somosatenianae Doctrinae Professores: & ad nova Ebionitarum contra Paraenesin objecta respontio. Spirae. An. 1582. 18. Prodiit not ita pridem Libellus cui titulus, Specimen refutationis libri Johanis Crellii de Satisfactione Christi. Authore L. V etc. Trajecti ad Rhenum. An. 1648. 12 more. 19 Extat Meditatio Theologica de usu * Vide sis hac de re Joach. Stegman. de Judice & norma Fidei Controversiarum Libros duos. Eleutheropoli. An. 1644. & abusu rationis Humanae in interpretandis & aestimandis rebus & Scriptures Divinis. per C.S.A. Lug. Batav. 1633. 12 more. 20. Ambrose de Penalosa scripsit Opus egregium de Christi & Spiritus Sancti Divinitate, & Trinitatis Mysterio contra Socinianos'. An. 1635. Fol. 21. Nicolaus Arnoldus Polonus Ecclesiae Beetkumanae Minister librum edidit cui Tit. Johan. Maccovius Redivivus, continens. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pontificiorum Socinianorum, etc. 2. Casus Conscientiae ad normam Doctrinae Socinianae. 3. Anti-Socinum, cum Appendice de Atheis. An. 1647. 4 to. 22. Hugo Grotius de Satisfactione Christi contra, F. Socinum ‖ i e. Socino. cui resp. Andrea's Essenuis in Triumpho Crucis, & L. V in Specimine refutationis Joh. Crellii de Satisfactione Christi. 8vo. 23. Vid. Ludou. Lucium de Satisfactione Christi contra Michaelem Gettichium. Edit. Basil. 1612. 8vo. 24. Lambert. Danaeus in P. Lomb. Sentent. lib. 1. multa pro Trinitate disputat. Edit An. 1580. 8vo. 25. Christianus Becmannus Bornensis edidit Exercitationes Theolog. pro Deitate Christi, etc. contra Socinum, Smalcium, Ostorodum, Crellium, Mennonem Simonis, Paracelsum, Wiegelium, etc. Amst. An. 1643. Fol. 26. Joh. Paulus Felwingern scripsit Examen disquisitionis brevis edit. Norembergae. 1637. 8vo. 27. Sam. Maresii Xenia Academica, seu de Divinitate & Personalitate Sp. Sancti contra Socinianos' (cum aliis) 4 to. 28. Disputatio Theologica Orthodoxa de Sanctissima Trinitate. Authore Josepho Voisin. Par. 1647. 8vo. 29. Socinianismi confutati. Tomus 1. Authore Johanne Hoornebecke Professor Ultrajectano. Vltrajecti. 1650. 4 to. 30. Hydra Socinianismi expugnata contra Joh. Volkelium & Joh. Crellium. per Sam. Maresium, Groningae. 1651. 4 to. 31. Bernardus Paxillus scripsit Monomachian pro defensione Fidei Trinitatis. Cracov. 1616. In Bibleoth. Bodl. 32. Joh. Cloppenburg scripsit Vindicias pro Deitate Sp. Sancti, adversus Joh. Bidellum Anglum. Franck. 1652. 33. Josuae Stegmanni Photinianismus, seu succincta refutatio errorum Photinianorum, etc. Rhinthelii. 1623. 8vo. Alii pene infiniti, Pontificii pariter & Reformati seize Socino opposuere, ut passim videre est. Vide sis. Aegidium Hunnium in Articulo de Trinitate. Polanum in Syntagm. Theol. l. 3. c. 2. ad 11. Barthol. Terres in 1. part. Aquinatis. Benedict. Szentkiral. Transylvanum contra Georgium Enjedinum. Hieron. Zanchium de tribus Elohim, etc. Hannib. Rosseli Comment. in Paemandrum Hermetis. Calvinum in defension Orthodoxae fidei sacrae Trinitatis contra M. Servetum, & Georg. Blandr. Erasmum Brochmannum, qui utraque Controversiarum parte quaestiones Socinianas proponit & discutit. Dionysium Petavium, qui fusè pariter & doctè in Dogmatis Theologicis tractandis contra Socinum disputat, testimoniis ex intimâ Antiquitate petitis. Tandem longum Scriptorum Catalogum (eorum nempè qui contra Socinum & sui sequaces militant) tibi exhibet Christianus Becmannus Bornensis in Exercitationibus Theologicis Amstelodami editis An. 1643. pag. 12. Ubi Authores 56 plus minus enumerat, qui justo Bello & Marte internecino contra Socinum, ipsumque etiam Socinianismum animosè militant. Qui vellet, videat. Scholastici (quod ad Articulum Trinitatis attinet) in 1. Sent. P. Lombardi distinct. 2. & in 1. parte Aquinatis multa disputant, curiosa magis fateor quam viro cordato profutura. Quorum omnium Catalogum laboriosè contextum tibi exhibet Johan. Martinez de Ripaldâ in Lib. Sent. 1. Disp. 2. FINIS. Advertisement. A Daily Office for the Sick: Compiled out of the Holy Scripture, and the Liturgy of our Church. With occasional Prayers, Meditations and Directions. The Pantheon, Representing the fabulous Histories of the Heathen Gods, and most Illustrious Heroes; in a short, plain and familiar Method, by way of Dialogue, for the Use of Schools. Written by Fra. Pomey, of the Society of Jesus: Author of the French and Latin Dictionary, for the Use of the Dauphin. Both Printed for R. Clavell at the Peacock in St. Paul's Churchyard.