A Twofold Vindicatio …

A Twofold Vindication OF THE Late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, And of the Author of The History of Religion.

The first Part defending the said Au­thor against the Defamations of Mr. Fr. Atterbury's Sermon, and both those emi­nent Persons against a Traiterous Libel, titled, The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson consider'd.

In two Letters to the Honourable Sir R. H.

The second containing Remarks on the said Sermon, and a Reply to the same Libel.

Wherein some Right is done to that great and good Man Dr. Tillotson, in the Points of the Original of Sacrifices, the Sacrifice of Christ, Future Punishments, &c.

And a word in Defence of the Eminent Bi­shop of Salisbury.

By another Hand.

London, Printed in the Year 1696.

SIR,

I Have receiv'd by your favour some Pa­pers written by two very Learned Per­sons, which you say are ready for the Press, occasion'd by two extraordinary angry Men, Mr. Atterbury and Mr. Monroe, who have express'd their Displeasure against my History of Religion. I dare not give my Opinion of their Writings, I am too much an oblig'd Party; besides, their own Abilities will much better shew it than I can express it: but I fancy, that if Mr. Atterbury and Mr. Monroe had imagin'd they should have rais'd such a Strength against them, they would hardly have muster'd up their own weak Forces.

For Mr. Atterbury, I know him not, but he has made himself known by chusing a very improper place (the Pulpit) to vent a Passion unsutable to Christianity, or common Mora­lity; for such must an injurious Violence be esteem'd, that has no Reason pretended to excuse, or at least to extenuate the Passion: From that place we expect to be taught by Perswasion, not by Railing; yet he seems to have a Christian Consideration that hinders him from writing some Body's Life; if he [Page 2] means mine, I will free him from his tender Christianity, and own that I writ the Histo­ry of Religion; and if he pleases to use the freedom I give him, I assure him I shall not be displeased at any Truth that he can write: but if his usual Passion guides him other-ways, I shall attend him with such Answers, and make him such sutable Returns, as will be proper for the occasion, and consider his Calling with as little respect as he did the sa­cred Place where he chose to rail.

For Mr. Monroe he is angry at every thing, he sputters at the Government, and will not allow that most excellent Man Dr. Tillotson, late Archbishop of Canterbury, either to have a Title to that, or any Parts or Abilities; but at a venture, among many other Errors, charges him to be a Socinian, and at the same time discovers he does not know what a Socinian is; then falls upon the Bishop of Salisbury, and then with an obliging Anger ranks me with those great Men: but his fu­rious Wildness is sufficiently laid open by these two Learned Men.

When I writ the History of Religion, I was very much pleas'd to see the Church of England (which I have fought for, and shall ever defend) so free from all those Heathenish Rites and Superstitions, retain'd by the Priest-Craft of the Church of Rome, and could not but admire to see any that pro­fest [Page 3] to be a Minister of the Church of Eng­land offended at it; nor can I imagine any Reason for such a Concern, unless they would have the very Name of Priest of what Per­swasion so ever, so sacred that it should not be irreverently handled: if this should be the cause, I dare venture to assure them they will find no return, for could any write with such a Disadvantage to the Ministers of the Church of England, the Popish Priests would not shew any Displeasure to see them con­demn'd here, that they pretend to believe will be damn'd hereafter.

But Mr.Monroe seems to grumble some­thing about Sacrifices, as if I had writ con­cerning the Original of them. I could not be so dull as not to know the beginning of them was as early as Abel, I only trac'd the use of them, with the Rites and superstitious Ceremonies taught and enlarged from time to time by the Heathen Priests, and how they were still continued and imitated by the Priest-Craft of the Church of Rome, which I thought I had made evident by Matter of Fact. A Friend of mine, of Quality and Learning, told me, he ask'd a Minister why he was displeas'd at the History of Religion? he answer'd, that they were whipt upon the Backs of the Romish Priests; I could not but wonder how they got up there to receive the Lashes of the others.

[Page 4]I believe that there are some so in love with Power, that they were displeased I in­veigh'd against Persecution, by which they exercise it: if that offend any, I shall al­ways persist in receiving their Displeasure; for I presume I have clearly shew'd that it is contrary to the teaching of the Gospel; we are there taught to love our Neighbours as our selves, and certainly they would hardly seem such Neighbours that would be Execu­tioners; they would not seem to love others as themselves, unless they were equally desi­rous to be their own Hangmen.

But Mr. Monroe is yet more severe, and will be the Judg of what I mean; for being displeased, as it seems, that I writ against Transubstantiation, he says I meant it against the Trinity, though I had not a thought, nor writ a word that could give him the least cause to pronounce so rash a Sentence. I re­member a Justice of Peace in a Play that bid his Clerk make the Mittimus while he examin'd the Party; but of all Men living I would not have him my Arbitrary Judg, for he that makes himself worse than others, would pro­bably condemn me to be worse than I am.

But I leave these two angry Men to the Correction of those two Learned Persons, to whom (as in Gratitude I ought) I shall ever acknowledg great Obligations, by whose Strength my Weakness is sufficiently suppor­ted: [Page 5] I shall only add, that I have read of a wise Philosopher that would not trust himself while he was in Passion; but these revers'd Philosophers raise all their Confidence from their Passions. I have seen an angry Cur bite at a Wheel because it moved from him; and I presume that dark keeping is the cause of such a causeless Fierceness.

At the latter end of one of these Learned Mens Writings, I find a very charitable An­swer for me to Dr. Sherlock, who in his De­fence of that excellent Man Dr. Tillotson, late Archbishop of Canterbury, (in answer to The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson considered) is pleased, unprovok'd by any Cause, to call my History of Religion an execrable Pamphlet, and me an Atheist or Deist, which it seems is all one to him, for he says, it mat­ters not which, and that my Design is to ri­dicule Christian Religion. If these heavy Charges be true, I readily confess 'tis an exe­crable Pamphlet indeed; but he is not pleas'd to give the least reason to excuse or justify so much undeserv'd Bitterness: if it be Dr. Sher­lock's, as generally believ'd, I will not venture to pretend to cope with him in harsh and vi­rulent Expressions, he is more furnish'd than I am with Ammunition proper for such a War, witness the Muster of his angry Forces in that learned Book which charges him with Trithe­ism; but I hope he will not be displeased if [Page 6] with an unmov'd Temper I endevour to: free my self from such uncharitable Imputations. But of all Men living, the Doctor seems to me the most improper Man to charge any one with ridiculing Religion, and not accompany his Charge with the least Cause or Reason for it, since he is not only indicted for it, but the Indictment made good upon him; if the Proof of Idolatry, Impious and Heretical Opi­nions can do it, and the Charge made out by a Doctor of the Church of England, a Man of most extraordinary Learning and Parts, with strong Reason and Authority, and for ought I can see to the contrary, very unanswerable by Mr. Dean; and not only charges him for his publick Writings, but for his private Practice, if no regard of Conscience can ri­dicule Religion. This is set forth by that most Learned Person in his Animadversions on Dr. Sherlock's Book, entituled, A Vindication of the holy and ever blessed Trinity, which charges him with Tritheism, tho Mr. Dean is pleased most peremptorily to declare that he has made his Notions plain and obvious, tho by Words and Phrases neither obvious nor plain: but the Charge is made out upon him with strength of Reason and Learning; neither of which Dr. Sherlock is pleased to be­stow on me for his severe Judgment, perhaps he believes (as indeed he may) that his only pronouncing makes it as obvious and plain, as [Page 7] his endeavouring to prove it would have been.

The Charge of ridiculing Religion in his own Practice, arises from his seeming Con­tempt of Conscience, one of the chief Rules of Christianity, by professing he would suffer Martyrdom rather than take the Oaths; but he was easily converted when Interest more pre­vail'd upon him than such a slighted part of Christianity; nor stopt there, but ridicul'd Pro­vidence it self, to bring it in Aid to justify his contradictory Consciences: for what can more appear the ridiculing of Providence, than to endeavour to make it the Justifier of Mischief and Injustice, if but successful enough? But if the Doctor can make this good, he will reach a more sublime Art of Priest-Craft, than any that I have describ'd in the History of Religion. But it may be he does not believe that I ridi­cule the Christian Religion comprehended in the Gospel, but the Religion which he calls Christian, that differs from the Gospel, and is founded upon new and extravagant Notions; for he is charg'd with Blasphemy by the same Learned Person, in his Book of the Knowledg of Christ; on such a Religion I confess if I had the Art of ridiculing, I would willingly bestow it.

But since he is not pleased to give the least reason for his hard and uncharitable Censures cast upon me at a venture, I will take the op­portunity to refer it to any impartial Reader, [Page 8] if he pleases to examine it, whether I have not in my History of Religion pursued the blessed Rules and Precepts of the Gospel with a sacred Veneration, and upon that strong and sure Foundation have endeavour'd to build all my Reasons and Arguments: but the Doctor perhaps would have his Notions receiv'd as true Christian Religion, tho not founded on the Gospel; and consequently not to believe those dark Notions, is to ridicule Chri­stianity.

With the same passionate Liberty he calls me a Deist or an Atheist, it matters not which. I cannot imagine how any Man should venture to pronounce such a blasphemous Indifferency: but seriously reflecting upon what the Doctor has writ, I began to imagine that he had so fully and clearly convinc'd himself, (since he thought he had made it so plain to others) that there were three distinct equal and Infinite Beings; that consequently he presum'd if any did not believe in three Gods, it matter'd not whether they believ'd any at all; and if his Notion of three Gods equally Infinite and Al­mighty were true, it seems to follow, that he that does not believe the three, must be guilty of Atheism, tho he believes in one. By this he seems to have reason to make Deism and Athe­ism of equal respect: So that every one is con­cluded an Atheist that is not of the Doctor's Opinion. This adventurous Passion can only [Page 9] proceed from the Opinion of his own Infalli­bility, and is angry at any that will not be­lieve in him.

I know not what Answer to make to his downright calling Names, there's no Argu­ment can arise from direct railing, and such in the common Method of the World are re­plied to with nothing but Blows; but I shall only say that he calls me what I am not, and to wave the harsh word which is due to him, I shall only add, that what I say is true, and leave the contrary to rest upon him.

I will conclude with one Assurance, that I shall not take it ill of any one that shall offer Reasons unclogg'd with Passion against any thing I have writ; and if I cannot clearly an­swer them, I will submit and acknowledg my Error; and that any one may have the freer Invitation, I own that the History of Religion was writ by,

SIR,
Your true Friend, and most humble Servant, Ro. Howard.
A VINDICATION OF His …

A VINDICATION OF His Grace, the (late) Archbishop OF CANTERBƲRY; And of the (Honourable) Author of The History of Religion:

From the Defamations and Scandals of Mr. Fr. Atterbury; and of a (Trai­terous) Libel supposed to be written by Dr. M—roe, with this Title, The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson considered, &c.

In two Letters to the (Honourable) Author of The History of Religion.

Printed in the Year, 1696.

TO THE PUBLISHER.

SIR,

I Hear, my Letters to our honourable Friend, the Author of the History of Religion, are in your Hands; and that you have thoughts of putting them into the Press: if so, I pray, let this to your self go along with them. For I ought to inform you: that I have re­ceiv'd an Answer from our Friend, concerning the great Favours, and Liberalities of King James to him. He avows, that His Ma­jesty, both when he was King, and while he was only Duke of York, never did him any Favour, nor made him the Offer of any: but on the contrary, shew'd to him all the Unkind­ness, that Occasion and Opportunity (at any time) enabled him to express.

[Page 14]It appears then, that the Libeller, know­ing the great Services of our Friend to the Crown and Royal Family, took it for granted; that King James had endea­vour'd to win him, to the Popish and Ar­bitrary Interest, by Preforments and Libe­ralities: and so (at adventures) he makes it one part of his Guilt and Naughtiness; that he would not be bought by Favours, the meaning of which he might so easily guess at. But had his Majesty been as bountiful, as the Libeller supposed; Why might not our Friend have taken those Favours, either as part of the Reward, due to his Services; or as His Majesty's Royal Munificence, to Wit and distinguishing Abilities: Why was he obliged to understand them, as Bribes and Corruptions, as the Libeller would have them interpreted? This Ungrateful Man, says our Popish Accuser, forgot all the King's Bounties to him, and was with the most forward in turning him out. Let us grant to a Fool both his Lies; yet where (however) is the Ungratitude, when [Page 15] never any thing was given to our Friend by the Royal Family, which he might not most justly put to the account either of his Services, or his Abilities?

But King James, Father Petre, and the Nuncio, knew better things, than to fling away their Money on a Person, whom his Vertue, more than his Fortunes, had set so much above the reach of Bribes: they were for a contrary method, to Brow-beat, and Mortify him by Oppositions. But neither would this do, he remained the same to his Religion and Country, as he was to the Crown and Royal Family, when they were attacked by the Republican Faction: that is, he was (Heroically) firm to both, while they were the weaker side, without seeking afterwards from either, the Rewards of his Merit to them. You and I, Sir, have nothing so much valued by us, as the Friendship and Esteem of a Fortitude, Constancy, and Ver­tue so extraordinary; nor any thing that we desire so much, as the long Life and Prosperity of a Friend, whom with so much [Page 16] reason we value and love. This is all that I need now to say, saving that I am, with the greatest Respect,

Your most Obliged, and Assured Friend, N. S.

The First LETTER; Being Reflections on a Sermon, preach'd before her (late) most Excellent Majesty, on these words of Solomon, The Scorner seeketh Wisdom, and findeth it not: By Francis Atterbury, Student in Christ-Church, Oxford.

To the Honourable and Learned Author of The History of Religion.
SIR,

AS I had the Honour, to see The History of Religion, before you gave way, that it should go to the Press: So I cannot but won­der, that any should be so rouzed, and even affrighted and scared, by a Book, which seem­ed to me, not only true and useful, happily thought and as well exprest, but also altoge­ther inoffensive to every true Lover of (a sin­cere undisguised) Piety and Morality. I deny not, that when I began to read the Book; the Term Priest-Craft, there often used, and [Page 18] the Instances you give of it, made me a while doubtful, what might be the Author's Aim; whether he might not (at length) stretch his Notion of Priest-Craft, not only to the im­pious Frauds of Pagan Priests, and the pious Frauds (as you civilly call them) of some Christian Priests, but even to all Revealed Re­ligion, as if it were an Imposture that has depraved, rather than explained and inforced Natural Religion, that new Mistress of many of our Modern Wits. But when I had gone over the whole, with such an Attention, as I thought was due to the Subject treated of; and of the Conceptions and Observations of an Author, whose Pen had always hitherto been successful: I perceived, to my great Sa­tisfaction, that the Thoughts in the Book had been conceived in the last Reign; and by oc­casion of the danger we were in, from Pope­ry. You draw a Parallel, between the Pagan and the Romish-Priests: you are so impious as to think, nay to say and publish it to the World, that a Popish Priest is as errant a Knave, as Cato thought the (old) Roman Augurs: you even dare to add, that their Sin and Guilt is greater, because the latter had not a Rule to direct them, but the other act against a most plain Rule (a directing Gospel, as you speak) meerly for Profit. You give so many, and so pertinent Instances of this, that had you published your Book in the last [Page 19] Reigns, when it was thought and written, you had been inrolled among our Confessors: but now that the Danger is past, and the Church's turn is served by you, and (the few) such as you are; Mr. Atterbury is for putting you into the Seat of Scorners.

After you had finished the Scenes, in which you expose, first Rome-Pagan, then Rome-Antichristan; you are so unlucky, as to drop some words against Persecution; and also to advise the contending Parties of Christians, that, ‘Setting aside their Wranglings about obscure and undecidable Questions and My­steries; they would consider the Gospel as a Doctrine (chiefly) of Love, Mercy and Charity, and behave themselves according­ly towards one another.’ Haec tetigit Gra­dive tous urtica Nepotes: this (invenom'd) Sting in the Tail of your Book, has so wound­ed Mr. Atterbury; that he could not forbear running up (immediately) into his Pulpit, to tell (no less Persons than) the Queen of England, and her whole Court, what kind of Man you are. See here, what Characters he has given you. ‘He is so possessed with the Notion of pious Frauds and Priest-Craft, as to apply it (indifferently) to all Religions, and to every thing in Religion.’ Bless me, and deliver me, from the Malevolence of a Student! as he writes himself. But cholerick and revengeful Men, commonly wound them­selves [Page 20] most, when they are endeavouring to wound others: here is a Book written against Popery, and Persecution; Mr. Atterbury is so angry at it, that he cries out, Men of Israel, help, here is a damnable Book written a­gainst all Religion, and every thing in Re­ligion.’ That is, he owns no Religion, nor any thing as part of Religion, but only Pope­ry and Persecution. Truly, he has been a Student at Christ-Church so long, to good purpose: but was it necessary, he should vo­mit up such a secret, before the Queen, and the Court of England; might it not have been better whisper'd, among his Jacobite Friends? But her Majesty was pester'd with too many such Chaplains: Men that cannot abide to hear, I do not say, our holy Father the Pope, or the sacred College, but not a Romish Priest, spoken disrespectfully of.

At Pag. 16. he suggests the writing the Hi­story of your Life, in revenge for your Hi­story of Religion. He is (surely) a pleasant Man; he would write the History of an Ano­nymous, or nameless Author; that is, of one he does not know. But as before he told us his Religion, Persecution and Popery; so here he lets us know his Wit and Honesty: he would write, he says, of he knows not whom, and he cares not what, provided it be black enough. For that's the (only possible) meaning, of writing a Life in Revenge.

[Page 21]But if his blind Rage will permit a third Person, to interpose between him and the Author of the History of Religion; I intreat him, that when he writes, I may furnish him with some Memorials: better, I assure him, than Malice, and Ignorance of his Adversary, will ever minister to him. I can tell him, that (the sad Man) the Author of the Hi­story of Religion, has a good degree of Cha­rity to the Poor, and as great of the Vertue of Liberality to the Learned: I can inform him, of your Compositions to the Theater, which made your younger Years so famous; and of the (unanswerable) Defences you have since made for the Nation's Rights against Arbitrary Power and Tyranny. I dare not, I confess, tell him of your Posts of Trust and Honour: for he will be unreconcileably alie­nated, when he knows, that to all your other Naughtiness, you are a Williamite too.

He takes for his Text, the words of Solo­mon, Prov. 14.6. A Scorner seeketh Wisdom, and findeth it not. From hence he would raise an Invective, a Sermon he calls it, a­gainst you, and the History of Religion. A Man would wonder, how this Text should make for Popery and Persecution; or against the Patrons of Sincerity, and Liberty, in Reli­gion. But what is there, so remote, or hid from others, that a Student cannot discover it? Father Atterbury is able, I doubt not, to [Page 22] prove from this Text, or to disprove any Proposition in Euclid. For Students do not hold themselves obliged, to reason accurately and closely, as other (common) Men must; but by leaping over some (intervening) un­sutable Propositions, may skip from Tumult to King Pipin, or what is as good, from Hi­storian to Scorner. Yet methinks, since this Gentleman had a mind to declaim (before the Queen) against the History of Popish Jugglers and Cheats, he should have shown his Zeal in some other way, rather than in a Sermon, or from a Text of Holy Scripture: for of all Abominations, there is none so detestable; as to wire-draw, wind, and bow the sacred Text, to argue against it self; that is, to patronize Impostures and Deceits.

In the Prosecution of his Text, so pat (as every one sees) to his purpose; he falls to considering, what may be the Reasons, why the Scorner seeketh Wisdom, and findeth it not. One of the Reasons he offers is very marvel­lous; it is this, because the Scorner (saith he, pag. 12.) is a Man of quick and lively Parts. ‘Such Men (saith he further, there) are apt to give themselves a Loose, beyond plain Reason and common Sense.’ I know not, I confess, what he means; nor (I believe) can all the Students of Christ-Church, inter­pret it to me. But be that as it will; the thing he aims at, in that whole Page, is, that [Page 23] quick and lively Parts are marvellous Hinde­rances, in the Quest of Wisdom and Truth; according to him, the only hopeful Candidate of Wisdom, is a Sancho Pancha.

But it will not yet go out of my Mind, nor can I keep my Eye off it; that a Court-Chaplain should have so little Government with him, that, so soon as he had read a Book against Popery and Persecution, he should from the Pulpit and in the Royal Presence, at­tack the Author in such Terms as these: ‘He has written the History of Religion, and were I not withheld by Religion, I would write his History.’ What! is it such an Offence, at this time of day, to write a few Sheets against Popery; that no Person of Ho­nour must put Pen to Paper, on that Subject, on pain of being libelled by her Majesty's Chaplain, for that's the unquestionable Mean­ing of writing his Life? But he is withheld, he says, from writing this Life, by Religion. By what Religion, Sir? Would you have us to think, after you have defamed him in such Language as this, and to such an Auditory, 'tis from Conscience, and Love of your Bro­ther, that you do not libel him to the (un­significant) Rabble? It is evident then, that you have (hypocritically) feigned a religi­ous Tenderness; to which you are an utter Stranger: must we be obliged to call it your Religion, your Charity, and Tenderness, that [Page 24] you are content not to write his Life to the common Herd; when you have actually pointed at him, in a sacred Place and Exer­cise, in the Presence of the Prince, and most illustrious Personages of the Kingdom? And for whom is it, that you counterfeit this pious Tenderness? For an Anonymous Writer, for one you do not know. For as to Report, and the Whispers of those sagacious Men, who so certainly know all Authors, they are so oft mistaken: that, except it be here and there a Student, no body heeds them; or rather, every Body abhors them.

I am amazed, that any Man (especially a Man of Learning and Wit) should utter so many Follies, and Contradictions, in a Pul­pit: and also oversee them all again, when he prepared his Notes for the Press.

For Instance.

He asperses an honourable Person, in the very highest degree, in the Royal Presence: and yet 'tis meer Religion, he says, that with­holds him, from writing his Life to the com­mon People. That is, he has swallowed the Camel, and is now grievously straining at the Gnat. Again,

He has an Inclination to libel (or as he calls it, write the Life of) the Author of the Hi­story of Religion: and yet this Author is name­less; that is, utterly unknown to Father At­terbury, and his whole Fraternity.

[Page 25]Again; He saith, this Book is directed a­gainst all Religion, and every thing in Religi­on: and yet the very design of the Book, is this; that 'tis a shame, that so many have had no Religion but their Belly and their Profit; and a Pity, that others are persecuted only for Religion, and Conscience towards God. Once more,

He saith; that the thing which the Scorner seeketh for, is Wisdom: and yet he adds; he finds it not, because he has quick and lively Parts. That is, according to this Student; the Scorner seeks, for what he has: and he misses it, because he possesses it. It is well, that the Student's Sermons are so short, as they always (I observe) are: for these are such flat and direct Contradictions; that if there were many of them, they would too much expose the Preacher, to the Contempt of his (very meanest) Hearers.

I have done with Father Francis, for the present; only this, Sir, I shall promise you: that when he is disposed to try his Hand in writing Lives; he shall have the Satisfaction, to see his own Picture, drawn in such lively Colours, as Time shall not easily deface.

Sir, I think, I shall not need to mind you; that you ought not to be in the least disturbed, at the Sawciness of an obscure Academick. For being bred, as they are, among mean Companions; and comparing themselves only [Page 26] with Under-graduates, Servitors, and Gippoes: when they first appear abroad in the World, the poor Wretches always make themselves ridiculous, by not knowing themselves, and their Rank in the World. They think, that all Mankind has that Reverence for them; which their Sizers, and College-Servants, are forced to show them: and from hence, when they get into the wooden Box, instead of (the Apostolical) Reprove and Exhort; they fall to (Porterly) Reproach and Scandalize.

On the contrary; I doubt not, you will al­ways be pleased and happy, in the Recollecti­on of the immortal Services; which you have done the Royal Family, the Monarchy, the Liberties of the Nation, the Common-wealth of Learning, particularly Learned Men; and that nothing may escape your Influences, to the calamitous and poor. I promise my self, that you will not lay Father Atterbury's want of Honesty, good Sense and Government, a­gainst such Advantages as these: but rather you will be mindful to give Thanks to God, who has lifted you (by favourable Provi­dences) so much above the (unheeded) Re­proaches, of an unfinish'd Pulpiteer.

Sir,
I am your most obliged, most assured, and most humble Servant, N. S.

The Second LETTER, In Answer to, The Charge of Socinianism, against Dr. Tillotson, considered; and to the Appendix, concerning the Hi­story of Religion.

SIR,

SInce my last, here is another weak Brother that has taken Offence, at The History of Religion.

I confess, I wish the History had gone to the Press, with that Title, which your self (in the Manuscript Copy) gave it; The Hi­story of Religion, as it has been abused by Priest-Craft. The words, as it has been abused by Priest-Craft, might have prevented some Peo­ples Mistakes: who now seeing in the Title Page The History of Religion; and meeting with little in the Book it self, but an Account of the various Perversions of Religion by (Pa­gan and Popish) Priest-Craft; they infer, that by Religion the Author means even all Reli­gion. The Publishers of your Book feared, it should seem; that if Priest-Craft were not [Page 28] left out of the Title of your Book; it would raise such a Jealousy in those for whose Use and Good the Book is design'd: that they would never suffer themselves to be undeceived; that is, they would never read it, and thereby be informed of the Abuses put on them, by Impostors pretending to Religion. Either way, the Book was like to be mistaken; but the Publishers (who put it forth, I may add that also, against your Inclination, because you thought it now not so necessary or seasonable) judged it not advisable, to give occasion of Offence in the very Title. But (as I said) it appears by the Event; that it had been better to keep the Title, given to his Book by the Author himself: for all your Maligners (that have hitherto appeared) seem to be misled by the present Title. Because the Ti­tle is The History of Religion; and the Book is only an Exemplification of the Corruptions and Abuses thereof, by some wicked Priests: therefore they cry out, 'tis written against Re­ligion, and the Sacerdotal Function. But jacta est alea; 'tis now too late, to recal the over­sight of the Title: we must be content, to examine what your Opposers have to object to the Book.

Enough (I think) has been said to Mr. At­terbury; you are now attacked by one who does not put his Name to his Book; but the Title of it, is this. The Charge of Socinianism, [Page 29] against Dr. Tillotson, considered: with a Sup­plement, by occasion of an History of Religion. In the former Part, that against Dr. Tillotson, late Arch-bishop of Canterbury; our Author pretends at p. 10. that the Arch-bishop's De­sign in publishing his four Sermons against the Socinians was, only that he might be soundly answered by them: and further, that they and the Arch-bishop play booty, into one ano­thers hands. Pag. 9. He adds, ‘The Arch-bishop printed his Sermons, and procured the Recommendation of them by the Court, that he might serve the Socinians, and more reconcile Men to their Principles.’ But lest the Confederacy between him and the Soci­nians should be discovered, they agree, (saith our Author) like Counsel at the Bar; to fall foul (sometimes) on one another, and even to scold and call hard Names: which to wise Observers (says he again) serves only to dis­cover so much the more their Hypocrisy and Deceit.

But it is the least part of his Charge against the Arch-bishop, that he is a Socinian; and wrote only to oblige them, and to betray the Cause into their hands: for he says, pag. 13. ‘Dr. Tillotson is owned by all the Atheistical Wits of England, as their true Primate and Apostle; in him they glory and rejoice, and make their Boasts of him. He leads them, not only the whole length of Soci­nianism; [Page 30] they are slender Beaux who have got no further; but to call in question all Revelation.’ He sums up almost his whole Charge against the Arch-bishop, at pag. 32, and 33. in these words. ‘He exceeds the Theistical Juncto, in the Barbarous Accounts he gives of the Rise of Christian Religion: for they make it to be only the Invention of wicked Men, and of Devils; he makes it to be a mean Compliance with those Inven­tions, of Devils and wicked Men. He contends, that all Revealed Religion is good for nothing, but only to preserve outward Peace, in this World. 'Tis a Maxim with him, that a Mother's suckling her own Children, is of more necessary and indis­pensible Obligation; than to believe in Christ. He disputes openly, and profes­sedly, against the Satisfaction by Christ: and according to him, not only the Eterni­ty, but the Being of Hell, is a precarious Supposition.’ To add now no more; he he says at p. 16. that a plain and downright Hobbism appears in the Arch-bishop's Sermons; and that the same Thread runs thorow all his Works. Besides these (as every one knows, most false) Imputations on the Arch-bishop's Books and Doctrine; our Author speaks of his Person, with like Malevolence and Con­tempt: he never calls him Arch-bishop, but Dr. Till. or Jo. Cant, or such like. And he [Page 31] concludes his whole Performance, with an Address to the Clergy and People; to separate from this, and some other Heretical and Im­pious Bishops: He assures them, that by the Canons of the Catholick Church, they not may, but ought to separate; and that it is not Schism, to depart from those Guides, who corrupt Religion by their Heresies.

After these Compliments to the Arch-bi­shop; our famous Author (for his Book will certainly make him so) proceeds to sprinkle his Flowers, upon you. At first, he is much in doubt, whether the Arch-bishop was not Author of The History of Religion: but that Doubt he soon dismisses; and he resolves, that it is written by Sir R. H—d. I suppose, for no other reason; but that he thought fit, to divide the nauseous Load of his Stomach, be­tween two: it would have seemed too male­volent and implacable, to discharge it all, upon one Man. Besides, as 'tis one of the Delights (as well as Undecencies) of excessive Anger and Malice; to repeat the same Charges and Reproaches, over and over: if our Author had wrote but against one, he had missed the Sa­tisfaction of easing his Mind by re-iterating his Scandals; and saying again and again the same lewd and mad things.

When the most learned Writer had fixed in his Mind upon an Author, for the History of Religion; tho he is content it should not be [Page 32] the Arch-bishop himself, yet of necessity it must be one of his Grace's Disciples and Proselytes. And for this most (dangerous) Charge, I confess (Sir) your self gave occasion enough, in your Book: by the respectful mention you make of his Grace; and by your quoting, and (most wickedly) applauding some Passages of his Sermons, which recommend a pacifick Temper and Carriage, as the greatest and surest Argument of a right Christian.

But here, before we go farther, it will be proper and useful; seeing our (immortal) Author has been so careful, to discover the (Heretical and Blasphemous) Writer of the History of Pagan and Popish Cheats in Reli­gion, for you meddle with no other; to in­quire, and (if we can) to ascertain our Conjecture, who it is that is thus greatly concerned and angry at their Detection: and whether I rightly guess at the Man, or no; yet I shall not fail (I think) to give his true Character, both as to his Honesty, Principles and Abilities.

The Vogue of the Town lays this Libel, to a certain Jacobite Club; others again to a late Dean, who has quitted his Deanry, because he would not take the Oaths that are required, since his present Majesty was declar'd King. I do not believe, it was written by a Club; for this, in my Opinion, incontestable Rea­son: that whereas it consists of three Parts, [Page 33] and (were it not printed in an extream small Character) would be a bulky Book, yet the whole is very uniform; the Language, Thoughts, Theology, are throughout the same, every where of a piece. As to the Dean, having read his former Works, to which his Name is affixed; I dare to discharge him wholly, from having the least hand in, or liking of, this (equally silly and wicked) Trifle. The Dean writes after another manner, Ele­gantly, Judiciously, Learnedly; I doubt not, he is a much better Man, than so much as to approve the (shameless) Falsifications and Scandals, that appear here in every Paragraph. No, no, the Author came from beyond Tweed, if not beyond the Tay: the many Northern Improprieties and Barbarisms (both in the Phrase, and the writing particular Words) never used by any English-man; and the Cal­vinism, or rather the Knoxism, in the whole; are manifest Indications that our Author is a Scot. Nor has Dr. M—roe been able to keep his own Secret: 'tis got abroad among a great many, that this late Professor in one of the Scotch Universities, and a Bishop Elect, is the Man that has thought himself qualified, to censure the Doctrine of an Arch-bishop of Canterbury; and to incounter with the (Great) Author of the History of Religion.

That he is a Scot, I prove (I say) first, by the Northern Improprieties and Solecisms [Page 34] (as well in the writing of particular Words, as in the Phrase) which abound in every Page of this Pamphlet: I believe, Sir, you will be of my Mind; if you cast your Eye but on a few of them.

For Positive, he always writes Possitive.

For Estimation, our Highland Aristarchus says Esteemation; and never other ways.

When you say Innoscence, the most Learned Professor takes it to be Innocence: and here­upon commits I know not how many Blun­ders; and vents his Follies as fast, as else­where his Malice.

Then, for his Phrase, or improper Appli­cation of Words, and Proverbial Expressions; his Elegances are such as these. The Man above-told. The Reasons above-told. Barba­rous Notion of the Christian Religion. Bar­barous Account of the Rise of the Christian Religion. It makes all my Flesh to creep. No English-man ever writes so, or uses these words in that sense, or that order.

His Theology too, as I observed before, is Knox all over. For tho the Scotch Divines of the Episcopal Party, forsook Mr. Calvin and Mr. Knox in the Question about Church-Government: yet in Points of Doctrine, they have varied nothing at all from Mr. Knox, Author of the Reformation in Scotland; and Mr. Knox took Mr. Calvin for his Copy. Hence it is, that our present Libeller so often [Page 35] Cants and Calvinizes; you would think the Bishop Elect were some Speaker in a Quakers, or Anabaptists Meeting-place: of which, I suppose, the Reason is; because he would pass for an Elect Bishop, as well as a Bishop Elect. For Example.

Pag. 15. ‘I compare our Natural Light or Knowledg, to the Creation of the first Day. And it is the Light of the first Day, that we enjoy still; but not as it was that day created. It was regulated and model­led the fourth Day into the Sun, Moon, and Stars; and now we have no Participation at all of the Light of the first Day, but what we have from its Regulation on the fourth Day, and convey'd to us from the Sun: which I compare to Revealed, that is, to the Christian Religion. God is Light (1 John 1.5.) and Christ is called (Mal. 4.2.) the Sun of Righteousness: and tho there is a precedent natural Knowledg of God, like the Light of the first Day; yet now that Christ is revealed, the true Know­ledg of God must be had in the Face of Christ.’

Pag. 8. ‘As we explain the matter, [he means the Satisfaction by Christ] all the Attributes of God stand full and infinite; they rejoice and exalt together.’ But this I cite, not for the Divinity, but for the mon­strous Impropriety and Cant of the Language: [Page 36] the words full and exalt being altogether senseless here.

P. 21. ‘God is not only Just, but is Ju­stice in the Abstract, Justice is the Nature of God.—All the Justice we have, is but a Ray sent down, from the Essential Resti­tude [he aimed to say Rectitude] in God.’

At p. 7. He affirms, that the Law and Go­spel are the same; and he thinks that St. Paul has so taught us, Heb. 4.2. At p. 9. he con­tends; that it was indispensably necessary, that a full and adequate Satisfaction should be made for Sin, to the Justice of God. At p. 21. he will have it, that Justice will exact the uttermost Farthing, Justice MUST do it, and otherways it were not Justice: and from hence he concludes; that because God is Justice, and Justice cannot forgive the Debt of Sin, therefore God cannot forgive it. All this is Calvinism, or rather Knoxism. But what Name shall we give to his Impiety, when speaking of our Saviour, he fears not to call him (p. 22.) that accursed and devoted Head? He did not learn this of Mr. Calvin, or of Mr. Knox; Mr. Calvin makes this ju­dicious Note on Gal. 3.13. Christus peccati & maledictionis reus erat, non in se, sed in no­bis; sive quatenus nostram Personam susceperat. As who should say, the Lord Christ is not to be called accursed in his own Person, but only as representing or sustaining our Persons, [Page 37] the Persons of Sinners. Therefore Accursed Head, when spoken of our Saviour, is not only harsh, improper and overbold; but heretical and impious. But of our Author's Divinity, more hereafter; let us now see, what are his Principles, and how he stands affected toward the Government: it may be, we shall find that all this Cry about Socinianism, Hobbism and Irreligion, is nothing but this; that they are Charges, very fit for a Jacobite to lay to a Williamite, because they are black enough.

He often intimates that the Court, and the King and Queen, did design to countenance the Arch-bishop's Blasphemies, Socinianism, and Super-Hobbism, that's his word, by their com­manding his Sermons to be printed.

He will not own the Arch-bishop, the Bi­shop of Sarum, or any of the new Bishops, to be Bishops, as being set up by an incompetent Authority; but only Persons bearing them­selves to be Bishops: and the peculiar Name he has found for them, because he delights in abusing the words of Sacred Scripture, is, Spiritual Wickednesses in High Places.

At p. 15. he discharges his Choler upon those; who (as he phrases it) have deserted, betrayed, and taken Arms against King James.

With respect to the Oaths, that are requi­red to the present Government, because he cannot jest but in the words of Holy Scripture, he says, because of SWEARING, the Land [Page 38] mourneth. He was so afraid, that some dull Reader might overlook his Contempt of the Scriptures, and his Treason to the Govern­ment; that he was careful to write the word Swearing in Capital Letters.

He compliments the present Arch-bishop, upon his Accession to the Chair of Canterbury, in these words. ‘On Novemb. 16. 1694. Dr. Tillotson was struck with that fatal Apo­plexy, that carried him out of the World the 4th day after; to make room for ano­ther comprehensive Latitudinarian, who look'd over Lincoln, to succeed him.’ He intended (without doubt) to allude to the Proverb, the Devil look'd over Lincoln: but to spoil his Conundrum, the Proverb doth not in­tend Lincoln Cathedral, but Lincoln College, to which place his Grace never had a Relation. 'Tis easy to see, by these Passages, that the late Arch-bishop, the Author of the History of Religion, and other great Men, are out of this Author's good Graces; not for any real Socinianism or Hobbism, but only because they are notorious Williamites: Hobbian and Socinian are the worst Names, that we can now give; so 'tis expedient, that all Willia­mites should be represented as Socinians and Hobbists.

A Man that shall thus undertake to re­proach his Sovereign, to spit upon the Go­vernment, and to accuse the greatest Divines [Page 39] of the Kingdom, as partly not understanding, partly heretically perverting the Doctrine of the Church, ought to be a Person of very great Abilities; in respect both of Judgment, and Learning. Every one will blame such daring Attempts, in a Man of very mean, or no Wit and Erudition: such a one, let the Grounds of his Opposition and Complaints happen to be never so just, should patiently expect, till a sufficient Head and Hand shall enterprize to manage the Accusation. But the Chitt who at present has ventur'd upon all this, is so utterly unfurnish'd of the Quali­ties, requisite to such a Work; that the Care of a Village-Cure, or of a Country-School, is hugely above him. I pray (Sir) have the Patience if you can, to take account of some Instances of our Author's Learning, and Judgment.

He had heard say, or had read somewhere; that St. Peter's words, which things the An­gels desire to look into, are very emphatical in the Greek; therefore to seem learned in a Tongue which he can scarce read, with much to do he finds the Text, and sets it down thus; which things the Angels desire [...], to stoop down with Reverence, and admire. Here first, the High-land Critick instead of [...] reads [...]; which last will ne­ver be found in any but a High-land Voca­bulary. In the next place, he interprets [Page 40] [...] by to stoop down with Reverence, and admire; a sense never put on the word by any Lexicographer, no not by the meanest Abcedarian Grecian. Indeed [...] (or as the Learned Professor speaks [...]) is rendred by some Criticks, se inclinando in­trospicere; which (it may be) he took for to stoop down with Reverence and admire: but the Criticks meant thereby, to view exactly, after the manner of Persons that stoop or bow that they may observe a thing the more distinctly: the Signification of stooping down to honour and admire, is a discovery that we owe to this great Author only, all the Grammarians and Criticks will reject it. In my opinion, our Author acted prudently, when foreseeing that with the late Revolution in Scotland, the Presbytery would be the Trump-Card; that he might quit his Station with Credit, he feigned himself a Jacobite, and refused the Oath: he was conscious to himself, that the Presbytery would never continue a [...] in the Professor's Chair; much less, allow of this Criticism on [...], that it denotes stooping down to honour and admire, when (here) it so certainly signifies only stooping down to view distinctly and exactly.

He falls upon the Bishop of Salisbury, for his Explication of the Incarnation and the Divinity of our Saviour; he says, this Expli­cation implies both Heresy and Idolatry. He [Page 41] (kindly) instructs the (poor) Bishop, how the Incarnation is to be understood. 'Tis not (says our Professor) rightly accounted for, by the Similitude of the Inhabitation of Jehovah in the Cloud of Glory: no less Inhabitation [of the WORD] than an Impersonation can declare or truly describe the Incarnation; for no other sort of Inhabitation can carry with it Communicatio Idiomatum, that is, can make God to be called that thing, or that thing be called God. Mr. Hill and this Author were best to confer Notes, they alike under­stand the Church's Doctrine about these My­steries; and have equal right to censure the Doctrine of this Learned Prelate. If he slights Mr. Hill, yet it may be his Lordship may have so much Charity for his Country-man; as to inform him, that Impersonation of the Divine WORD, is the Eutychian Heresy. The Catholick Church never says, that the Divine WORD, but the Humane Nature is impersona­ted by the Incarnation. 'Tis the Manhood that is impersonated in the WORD, or as the Atha­nasian Creed speaks, is taken into God; not the WORD that is impersonated in the Manhood. The Manhood which is not a Person, is rightly said to be impersonated by being taken into the Person of the Divine WORD; but the WORD being always a Person, cannot be impersonated by the Incarnation. It was with great Propriety that his Lordship used the [Page 42] word Inhabitation; as not only not implying any heretical Ambiguity, as Impersonation does, but being the very term used by St. John; who (John 1.14.) explains [...] (or He was made Flesh) by [...], or He inhabited in our Nature, in the Human Nature or Manhood.

The Arch-bishop had said; ‘It pleased God there should be some Mysteries in the Christian Religion, such as, three Persons who are but one God, the Incarnation of God in the Human Nature, God satisfying for Sin in his own Person: probably, saith the Arch-bishop, for this Reason among o­thers; because it had been found by Expe­rience, that Men have a great Inclination for Mysteries, and are hardly contented with a Religion that has not something in it Sublime, Mysterious, and above Human Capacity.’ What says Momus to this? Why, his Answer is not more morose and malevolent, than 'tis impious and profane. P. 6. ‘Blessed God, this Man makes no more of the Mysteries of our Religion, than only to satisfy Mens foolish Curiosities. He that will have a May-pole shall have a May-pole; since you will have Mysteries, here's one for you, God manifested in the Flesh. This is to satisfy your foolish long­ing after Mysteries, and to give you your full of Mysteries. Was there ever so im­pious [Page 43] a Burlesque upon God, and the Reli­gion of Christ; — as if He was incarnate and crucified, only to out-do Raw-head and Bloody-bones.—What are Mysteries, with­out any farther Consideration than as My­steries; but the height of Folly, perfect Rary-shows. The Arch-bishop said not, that Mysteries are of no other consideration or use in Religion, but only to satisfy the Curiosity and Inclination of Men; but that this is one Reason, among many others by him assigned, why there are some Mysteries in the Christian Religion: he giveth divers other Reasons of the Incarnation and the Satisfaction, and some Illustrations of the Mystery of the Trinity; besides this which so much displeases our Pro­fessor. Was it becoming of a Man, pretend­ing to Probity and Learning; to run out into such wild Expressions as these, by occasion of the Arch-bishop's (inoffensive) saying, that ‘the Christian Mysteries might be (in part) intended to satisfy the general Inclination of Mankind, for Mysteries and sublime things?’ Would any but our (mad) Author have fallen hereupon, to comparing the Tri­nity to a May-pole; the Crucifixion of our Sa­viour, to Raw-head and Bloody-bones; and all Mysteries to Rary-shows and the height of Folly? Is this the Sobriety of a Bishop Elect; or a Reflection to be prefaced with, a Blessed God? He that manifestly perverts the words [Page 44] of another, to an impious sense; or puts inno­cent Words and Sentences, into profane Terms and Expressions, is guilty of Blasphemy a­gainst God, and the highest Injury and Uncha­ritableness to his Neighbour. And if the Arch-bishop's words had in the Consequences of them, ministred real occasion for such kind of Comparisons; as the May-pole, Rary-show, Raw-head, and the rest of this Author's Ex­travagance and Wickedness: yet seeing those Consequences were never intended by the Arch-bishop, but are most contrary to his Mind and Sentiments concerning the Myste­ries he defended: this Author out of Reve­rence to those Mysteries themselves, should have forbore such horrid Terms; which would have been very foul and black, even in the Mouth of a Socinian. I know not what Ex­cuse can be made for our Author; unless we should say; that, poor Man, with his Prefer­ments he also lost his Wits.

Not quite to tire you, Sir, with the Spe­cimen (I promised) of our Author's Ho­nesty, Wit and Learning; I will give you but one Example more of it. 'Tis the prin­cipal design of his Book, to prove the Arch-bishop, the Bishop of Salisbury, and the Au­thor of the History of Religion, are Socinians; the other Charges of Irreligion and Hobbism, come in only by the by, and only sometimes, when his inflamed Choler wholly disorders his [Page 45] Brain. Therefore now, doth he himself un­derstand what that Socinianism is, which he charges upon others: for 'tis not uncommon with malicious Men, to charge others with Socinianism, Popery, Hobbism, and such like, which they have heard (from divers) are very bad things; without knowing (scarce) at all what is implied in those words. I assure you, this is (very much) our Author's case: he has charged you and others with Socinia­nism, not as 'tis an Heresy understood and de­tested by him; but only as 'tis a word of Scandal and Reproach. You will believe me, when you know that he says;

P. 32. ‘None were more violent Perse­cutors than the Arians, that is the Socinians; when they had Power.’ When he says here; the Arians, that is, the Socinians: you know, Sir, he might as well have said; the Jews, that is, the Roman Catholicks.

P. 2. ‘There was no Shibboleth, which all these our Adversaries [the Anti-Trinita­rians] did refuse; but that of Consubstan­tiality, or that the Father, Son and Spirit are Consubstantial: which also this Author [the Arch-bishop] does refuse; and while he does so, he must be reckoned among those Adversaries.’ First, the Arch-bishop never refused the word Consubstantial. Then, you (Sir) who have been so conversant with the antient History of the Church, remember [Page 46] very well; that neither did all Anti-Trinita­rians reject Consubstantial, nor all Catholicks admit of it. It was first advanced by Paul of Samosata (Patriarch of Antioch) who held as the Socinians now do; and was rejected by a Council of 72 Catholick Bishops, assembled at Antioch against the said Paul. Afterwards, it was approved by the first Nicen Council, but refused by the Bishops of Britain, Gaul and Germany; not because they disliked the thing signified thereby, but because they would not admit of an unscriptural Term in decla­ring Points of Faith. As for the Arians, they were only the Anomaean Arians who disliked the word Consubstantial, the rest admitted of [...] (Consubstantial) as well as [...] of like Substance. Socrat. H. E. l. 3. c. 25.

P. 2. ‘They (the Socinians) puzzle Peo­ples Understandings, tho by very foolish and contradictory Arguments; how God by his Infinite Power may bestow true and real Di­vinity upon another, and that from all Eter­nity: because what he can do to day, he might have done yesterday, and so back­wards for ever.’ All this, Sir, is a Chimera of his own; and was never held, or said, by any Socinian: they hold, on the direct con­trary; that it implies a Contradiction that Divinity (or so much as simple Existence) can be bestowed by one Person on another Person from all Eternity; they suppose, that [Page 47] bestowing and receiving imply an actual Priority of the Person who bestows Being or Divinity, and that in this case the Giver and Receiver cannot be Co-eternal. In a word, our Anti-Socinian Professor imputes the very Doctrine of the Catholick Church, to the Socinians: 'tis the Church (not the Socinians) that holds, that God can bestow true and real Divinity on another, and that from all Eternity; and 'tis the Churches, not the Socinians Argument, because what he might have done to day or yester­day, he might also do from forever. When he calls this, a foolish and contradictory Argument; all Men (but himself) know, that he declares himself a Socinian, as often as he says it.

P. 30. ‘Of the English Socinians, some say, the Trinity is three, who are one Per­son: others of 'em say, the Trinity is three Persons, whereof two are Creatures.’ But if there be any such, as he pretends, nei­ther Party of 'em are Socinians: English they may be, but Socinians they are not.

'Tis with like Truth, and Knowledg of our English Ʋnitaries, that he says in the same Page; ‘They excommunicate, and depose from their Ministry, those of their own Party, who deny that Divine Worship is to be paid to the Lord Christ.’ I am cer­tainly informed that the Ʋnitarians in Eng­land have no Ministry at all; they do not se­parate from the Church, on the account of [Page 48] their different Opinion from the Church: they never separated in England, from the common Assemblies to worship; which, in my Opi­nion, is pious, charitable and prudent; for it is the Separation, not the difference of Opinion, that begets the Heats among contending Parties. But the occasion of these Mistakes of our worthy Author, is; that tho (it should seem) he hath read the Brief History of the Ʋnitarians, his (Northern) frozen Head per­ceives not the Subtleties, of this Mercurial Tribe: he knows neither their Discipline, nor Doctrine; and is of their mind without being aware of it.

I know, Sir, you are weary of these Follies: I will therefore draw our Author, in little; and having so presented him to you, leave him to your Pity and Prayers.

He was a Bishop Elect, in that Juncture, when only such were chosen by the King and the Nuntio, to the Episcopal Chairs of England and Scotland; as would not fail to make those Churches contemptible and ridiculous, by their notorious Unsufficiency and Incompe­tency.

He is a Jacobite; but made so, by nothing but his (too certain) Fears, that the Presby­tery would never indure a [...] in the Theological Chair.

With him, the Arch-bishop, the Bishop of Sarum, and the Author of the History of [Page 49] Religion, are most blasphemous Socinians; be­cause our Professor mistakes the Doctrine of the Church, and the Arguments she useth, for the Socinian Doctrine and Reasons.

He is an Anti-Socinian, who believes that God the Father could not bestow true and real Divinity on another Person, from all Eternity: and that 'tis foolish and contra­dictory, to say, that what God might do to day, he'might do yesterday, and backwards for ever.

An Antiquarian he is, who has discovered (in antient History) such an only Shibboleth of Orthodoxy, in the Trinitarian Questions; as was first advanced by one of the Socinians Patriarchs, and rejected by a Council of (72) Catholick Bishops.

He is a Christian, who is not content to think it, but publishes it (in Print) to all the World; that Jesus Christ is an accursed and devoted Head.

This is your Man, Sir; the Critick, Wit, Historian, Divine, who resolves to make an Example of all Latitudinarian Archbishops and Bishops, and all their Disciples and Se­conds: of which number, he saith, you are the first and most considerable; and as such, 'tis but just and fit, that you should be treated accordingly. What he objects, is partly a­gainst your self, and partly against your Hi­story of Religion.

[Page 50]As to your self; he saith. You are a Disci­ple of (that late execrable) Jo. Cant, or (as he otherwise call him) John Till. You have copied, he saith, after him, very exactly: in­somuch that this Critick himself is sometimes in doubt; whether The History of Religion were written by you, or by the Archbishop. Elsewhere he saith, your History doth square most exactly with the Archbishop's Notions and Scheme of Religion. Yet he owns, that you are not altogether so profligate, or have more of Art and Address, than that Arch­bishop of Theists and Hobbists: you are more modest or more cunning, those are his words, than the other; you do not attack Religion in such broad words, as he. But 'tis the endeavour of both of you, of him more openly, of you more secretly, to ridicule all Religion; and to resolve it wholly into Priest-Craft. And I must confess, Sir; that your History and the Archbishop's Sermons have a like Thread. He, in most of his Sermons, combats the seven-headed Beast; as a Divine, by Argument; you as a Gentleman, in the Historical Way: he shows, how defenceless and weak, Popery is; you, how ridiculous and foppish it is. And the learned Professor, by exclaiming there­upon against both of you as designing to ri­dicule all Religion, abundantly intimates; that to him, there is no other Religion but Popery.

[Page 51]He has an obscure Period at p. 31. that ‘you assisted in turning a certain Neigh­bour out of House and Home, who had not only never injur'd you, but had done more for you than all your Relations and other Friends ever did.’ The meaning is, you had a share in effecting the late Revolu­tion; or as our Author elsewhere speaks con­cerning some others, in deserting, betraying and excluding King James: who (as this Man says) did more for you, than all your Friends or Relations ever have done. I am wholly a Stranger, to the Particulars of this Charge; therefore I can only say: either 'tis true, or 'tis false. If 'tis false, his Lordship Elect is a great Rascal, saving the Reverence belonging to his Coat and Profession; to devise and publish to the World a Tale, that (in his opinion) im­plies the very foulest and blackest of Crimes and Scandals. But if it is true, that when King James had done a great deal for you; after all, you concurred with, nay you highly promoted the Revolution: the Charge here brought against you, will amount to thus much. That whereas 'tis too well known, that his late Majesty's Favours to any of his Protestant Subjects, were designed only to gain them to the Popish and Arbitrary Interest: you could not be bought, no not by more than all your Friends and Relations ever did for you, [Page 52] to side against the Interests of your Religion and Country. No Money, no Preferments, no Favours (it should seem) could bribe you; to give up the Protestant Religion, or the Freedom and Properties of the Nation. A most terrible Accusation; and on your part a Treachery not to be purged, with Sacrifice or Offering for ever! But then after all this, to write a History too against (the holy Cheats of) your King's and Friend's Religion: this is such an Aggravation of your former Fault, that our Author will not say, the Lord have Mercy on you; but in the Highland Phrase, It makes his Flesh to creep. I am of opinion, that an Highlander's Flesh naturally creeps: for our Beggars say, that set a — on a Board or Table, with the Head West, or East, or South, the — will not fail to turn it self, and creep Northward.

As to your Book, his general Charge against it, is; that 'tis designed against all Religion, and especially all Positive (or revealed) Re­ligion: from whence he takes occasion to Nick-name you Sir Positive; or as he writes (according to the High-land Orthography) Sir Possitive. If you say; but what Instances can he give out of your History, from whence any sober Man would infer, that you meant to expose Religion in general; and not, only the pious Frauds of Modern Rome, and the [Page 53] Tricks of Rome Pagan? I can only answer, that what Collections (out of the History) he may have by him, I know not; but the Particulars which he mentions, are these.

P. 27. You set up, he saith, unreconcileable War against all Mystery. How so; have you dropt the least word against the Doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, or the Satis­faction? No, you are more modest or else more cunning (he saith) than the Archbishop; you are a Man of more Art and Address, than to expose your Credit by broad words: but this you do. ‘You make Transubstantiation your (pretended) Mark; but your Level (or Design) is against the Trinity, and other Mysteries of the Catholick Church.’ I perceive, Sir, you must never expect; to be delivered from the Imputations of Irreli­gion, Socinianism, and such like: for it should seem, when your Mark (which you openly set up) is Transubstantiation; your Design, Level or Aim (in spight of you) shall be Religion and the Trinity. I think, I may say; as what you have done, admits of no Defence, with such Judges as Dr. M—roe: so with others, it can need none.

At p. 29. he falls upon the word Priest-Craft, and mauls it most terribly. He saith, that the thing by you designed, ought rather to be called Lay-Craft, or State-Craft; than [Page 54] Priest-Craft: for Religion has been more corrupted by Lay-men, especially by Parlia­ments, than by Priests. Yet at length, he is willing to admit (there) of the term Priest-Craft; provided it be applied rightly: that is, to those cursed Priests, the Latitudinarians and Socinians.

You manifest your Impiety again, in what you say (in the History) concerning the Creeds; that have been devised by Arians, Photinians, Catholicks, Papists, Protestants, and all the Sub-divisions of these Parties: for you note, that in very deed, Creeds are the spiritual Revenges, of dissenting Parties, upon one another. I must confess, that you but too plainly intimate, in the History; that according to your (weak) Judgment, it had been better to content our selves with the Apo­stles Creed, as unsufficient as those poor Men were to pen a Creed for the Church, which they had planted: than that every Party should contrive a new Creed, with Anathema's and Damn 'ems to every Clause of it. But the Professor (a sagacious Man) doth not at all believe, that you had any pacifick or cha­ritable Aim, in what you offer: no, no, your Intention (he says, p. 30.) was this, ‘That Atheists, Latitudinarians and Socinians might get into the Church without swear­ing, or subscribing to I know not how many [Page 55] Lies. And all to no purpose; for no sub­scribing or swearing will ever keep 'em out.’

Again, he observes; that you would per­swade People, that there is no Condemna­tion for Error; because it proceeds (say you) from Innoscence, which is to say Ignorance and Weakness. Here he has got a common place, upon which to read: for not having Gram­mar enough to distinguish Innoscence from Innocence; he proves largely (and most learn­edly) that all Ignorance is not Innocence; or that all Persons shall not be judged as inno­cent, because they were ignorant. He saith further, that 'tis very hard to determine, which are Sins of Ignorance: but be sure, says he, Sins of Intrigue and Design are not Sins of Innocence; and here comes in your (black) Ingratitude in not betraying your Country and Religion, to your great (Ar­bitrary and Popish) Friend, tho you were tempted with such mighty Offers and Libe­ralities, as he says.

His last Instance of your bad Inclination, is; that you argue so largely against punish­ing People for meer Conscience, and simple Error. Your Arguments against Persecution, are; that Force does not convince, it may make Men Hypocrites, but never true Con­verts: and that the Prescriptions in the [Page 56] Gospel, concerning the erroneous, are all gen­tle and meek; not Arms, or Proscriptions, or Mulcts.

To the first, he answers; Punishments are inflicted for other Ends, besides converting the Criminal: they are intended, for vindi­cating the Honour of God; and to prevent the Infection of others.

Our Author, it would seem, knows not; that God is honoured, not dishonoured, by every Person's professing and acting, as his Conscience perswades him that 'tis the Will of God he should act and profess: and conse­quently that to punish such Persons, how­ever erroneous; is no other, but to punish them for their Loyalty and Obedience to God.

But Punishment, he saith, may prevent the Infection from spreading among others. Yes, witness the Persecutions of the Primitive Christians; which were so successful for sup­pressing their Opinions: that they begat the famous Proverb, Sanguis Martyrum est semen Ecclesiae, the Seed of the Church is the Blood of its Martyrs. But admitting it were true, what he says, that Persecution may prevent the growth of Opinions and Sects; yet how will the Inquisitor General help it, if God himself has forbid this means of Prevention? It is our Saviour that said; let the Tares grow up with [Page 57] the Wheat, lest with the Tares you pluck up also the Wheat. The Tares are Errors, which therefore in that Parable are said to be sown: yet the Tares must not be plucked up, nay must be suffered to grow up with the Wheat; lest our (ignorant) Zeal mistake the true Wheat for Tares. The Judgment, which are Tares and which Wheat, is reserved (saith our Saviour there) to God; if it were left to Men, while they (think they) gather the Tares, they will root up also the Wheat, Mat. 13.29.

But to this, and to your other Argu­ment; that the Gospel prescribes only gentle means, to be used to the Erroneous: He re­plies, the Prescriptions against Force, and the gentle Methods hinted in the Gospel, are di­rected only to Preachers; not to the Civil Magistrates. Who is no more bound up by those Prescriptions, from punishing the Er­roneous; than the Commands of turning the other Cheek, and give him thy Cloak also, re­strain him from punishing the Injurious, or such as steal from others. 'Tis only to Preach­ers, he saith, not to the Magistrate; that For­bearance and Gentleness is required, toward the Erroneous. On the contrary, it is certain to me; that not to root up the Tares is a Charge, given wholly to the Magistrate, and not at all to Preachers. Preachers (as Preach­ers) must root up the Tares; by Argument, [Page 58] Exhortation, and such like Christian Means. 'Tis well known to all, that Preachers have no Power (either from God or Men) to root up by Force or any external Punishment: it would be a senseless Prohibition, let not Preachers hang, or burn, or sequester Men for their Errors; because every one is aware, 'tis not at all in their Power, nor ever was, but only in the Magistrates. I say, for this rea­son 'tis even self-evident; that the Prescrip­tions against Force or rooting up, belong not (as our Inquisitor contends) to Preachers, but to Magistrates, who only have that Power.

Whereas he adds; you might as well plead the Charges of turning the other Cheek, and give him thy Coat also, against the Magistrates punishing Violence and Theft: I answer, the Cases are altogether unlike. The Magistrate is permitted, nay required to punish Violence and Theft; because in such Offences we sin both wittingly and wilfully: but Error and Mi­stake (which some call Heresy, and this Au­thor calls Blasphemy) are involuntary, and pure Innoscence; which I would not have the Professor mistake again for Innocence, tho it also implies and supposes Innocence.

I cannot see any thing more, Sir, in this Libel, that concerns you, or The History of Religion; I will conclude therefore, with on­ly saying: that as you were somewhat con­cerned [Page 59] that Mr. Atterbury, a Man of Learning and Wit (O how unlike, to this other, he!) should first mistake the Design of your Book, and then make such haste to scandalize you for it in the very Royal Presence; so without doubt you will smile at it, that all the Irre­ligion, Profaneness and Socinianism charged upon it, is resolved at last into only this (and by Malice it self) that 'tis a perfect copying after the Sermons and Opinions of Archbishop Tillotson. This is the utmost, we see, that your's and the Government's worst Adversary could make of it.

Sir,
I am your most assured, most obliged, and most affectionate Friend, N. S.
THE AUTHOR OF The Hi …

THE AUTHOR OF The History of Religion VINDICATED From the Scandalous and Unchristian INVECTIVES of Mr. F. A. IN A SERMON At WHITE-HALL, On Proverbs xiv.6.

Buchanan Franciscanus & Fratres. —In sanctos quicquam cave dicere fratres.

Printed in the Year, 1696.

KING Charles the Second, and James the Just, that waited for the Divine Right, as long as waiting was good, were often nick'd with punishing Texts, which, by being maliciously tim'd, were in meer reading turn'd into downright Satyr: but our Preacher is not for a dry Bob and away, he will serve himself of his Text, before he, and that Part; and the words are these, Prov. 14.6. A Scorner seeketh Wisdom and findeth it not.

The first thing Mr. Fr. Att. propounds for his Inquiry, is, who is the Person repre­sented under the Character of the Scorner. Solomon, no doubt, design'd a general Re­proof, but our Preacher's whole Sermon is levell'd at a particular and honourable Per­son, Sir R. H. the Author of the History of Religion, him he would have us to understand by the Scorner, let Solomon intend whom he will. Here let me borrow an Allusion from Mr. Bayes in the Rehearsal [much such a Poet, as Mr. F. A. is a Preacher.]

[Page 64]
As dull Mortals fear
The Event of such things as shall never appear;
So tho it be hard
To find in the Word
What was never at first by the Writer put there,
Yet a Preacher acute
By the help of his Priestcraft-Resentment can do't.

Of the Jewish Scorner in his Text, typical of our English Gentleman [as he would have us conceive] he says. The frequent Revo­lutions in the Jewish State contributed migh­tily to unsettle the Scorner's Thoughts, and create in him a slight opinion of the eternal Differences of Right and Wrong, Good and Evil: but our Gentleman was, in the Revo­lutions intimated, fix'd and settled in his Thoughts on the loyal suffering Side, and his unshaken Vertue held out, till it happily reach'd its merited Reward. But there were a sort of zealous Pretenders to Religion a­mong the Jews, [tho whether typical of any such among us, I know not] that were never loyal, but when they were caress'd.

After the Character of the Scorner, it had been proper for Mr. Att. to have defin'd, and explain'd what was the Wisdom, which he sought, and found not, but that he declin'd, and he had reason; for had he determin'd the [Page 65] Wisdom mention'd in his Text, to have been true Religious Wisdom, he had been pre­vented of much of his Malice, and must have been forc'd to allow'd Sir R. H. the Praise of having sought true Religious Wisdom, and had he call'd it profane worldly Wisdom, then his angry Libel had ran into ridiculous Jest; For what strange thing is it, that a Man who seeks Worldly Wisdom should not find Spiri­tual? it's as if I should say Mr. Att. seeks a Prebendary's Place, and cannot find a Cap­tain's. It's not to be expected that a Man should find what he does not seek. But tho he will not explain the nature of the Wisdom in his Text, yet he will tell us, what is meant by seeking it, i. e. he will tell us what is meant by seeking the Lord knows what. And he makes nothing of broad undisguis'd Contradictions, now affirming that, The Scorner makes freer Inquiries after Truth, shakes off the Prejudices of Education more thorowly, than the rest of Mankind; and presently after saying of this self-same Scorner, that he is unconcern'd what God and wise Men in all Ages and Countries have said. But great Men can contradict themselves as well as Mr. Att. tho perhaps not reach the just height of such a particular Atterburianism as this.

He sets down as a Note of Infamy, that which adorns the Character of a wise Man [Page 66] above any thing else, viz. his examining things to the bottom, taking nothing upon trust, not relying on the Authority of Man. Well, Sir Robert! if these be the Sins you have to answer for, you have the noble Beraeans to keep you company, and at the day of Judg­ment St. Paul shall speak a word for you both. But it must be confess'd, that a Church-Pharisee is ten times more civil, than a Hea­thenish Knight, for he takes all upon trust, all he hears from his Superiors is Gospel, out of Reverence to Authority he examines no­thing to the bottom.

Thus far I have consider'd Mr. Att's Preface, and the opening of the Text, as he calls it, and now I come to his Observation, which, what it is, we are to seek, for he has not set it down; but as when he did not define Wis­dom, he explain'd the meaning of seeking it, so now an Observation, which he never made, he will justify, and he justifies it, by as extraordinary a method, as ever ill made or unmade Observation was justified. For he wisely shows how it comes to pass, that Men who set up for a more than ordinary Fame in Wisdom and Goodness by contemning Reli­gion, and Religious Men, do, and must fail of the End they propose, because, as wise as they are in other things, they are uncapable of impartial Inquiries after Divine Truth, in [Page 67] plain English, they fail of the End which they propose, because they do not propose the End which they fail of. Well! go thy ways honest Fr. Att. thou art a shrewd Fellow, I'll say that for thee, and hast Logick and Wit enough to write against the Socinians.

Mr. Att. assigns four things, which render a Man incapable to search successfully after Truth, especially Divine Truth. The first is Pride, this he defines to be, an undue value which a Man has for himself, and his own Opinion, with a Disregard for every thing beside. Having thus defin'd, immediately he starts an Abuse upon old Hobbs, whose Levia­than, tho I hold to be an ill Book, a very ill Book, more impious, tho not more malicious, than the Sermon about the Scorner, yet the Passage cited from his Epistle, by way of Reproach, is ingenious and honest. I will set it in its proper Light, not that Mr. Att. may be asham'd of his Misrepresentation, he is more hardy than so, but that all Lovers of Honesty and Truth among the Clergy, may be asham'd of their Brother Att. Hobbs had said, what he thought proper to recommend his Book to the Patronage of his honour'd Friend Mr. Fr. Godolphin, and supposing that what he had said, was yet hardly enough to furnish Mr. G. with a satisfactory Reply to them who might happen to condemn his [Page 68] Work, he comes off with a witty piece of Railery, thus, If notwithstanding this, you find my Labour generally decried, you may be pleas'd to excuse your self, and say, I am a Man that love my own Opinions, and think all true I say, and that's more than any Man will be per­swaded to say for the Author of the Scorner. But if loving a Man's own Opinions must be an Instance of Pride, let the Reader consider, whether most loves his own Opinions, Sir R. H. who can indulge a peaceable good Subject to differ from him, and enjoy the present Parliamentary Liberty of Conscience, with­out envying or censuring him, or Mr. Att. who in bold defiance of the Laws of his Country, reproaches all Men that do not be­lieve, as he does; and then if this be a piece of Pride, and Pride hinders Knowledg, has not Mr. Att. prov'd himself a Blockhead, which he need not have done neither? but some Orators will use, in spight of Tully's Caution against it, in re non dubiâ, argumen­tis non necessariis, in a matter not doubtful, Arguments not necessary.

It's crudely said by him, that Pride is a great Enemy to Knowledg, he ought to have shown how; for an Inclination to be proud of Know­ledg, seems to prompt a Man to Study, and let Mr. Att. say what he pleases, there are more humble Blockheads than proud ones.

[Page 69]He reproaches the Gentleman whom he re­presents under the Character of a Scorner, for a superficial Sciolist, positive in his Opini­ons, and hardy in his Assertions. Now tho that honourable Person is ever as ready to give, as take a sober Liberty of philosophizing and prophesying, yet Positiveness would be less odious in him, whose excellent Natural Parts, and all desirable Advantages of Study and Conversation, make it as probable for him, as any Man breathing to come to the knowledg of the Truth, whatever is the Ob­ject of his Inquiry: But what an insufferable Presumption is it, in young Mr. Att. who translated himself but t'other day, from work­ing on another Man's profane Satyr, to the study of Divinity? What an insufferable Pre­sumption is it in him, to be positive? whereas if his Genius had inclin'd him to the search of Religious Truths, and all his Time been spent that way, and no Hours given to wild Joys or soft Delights, he could yet have but slen­derly stor'd himself with wise and useful No­tices, being yet but a young Man, and a very young Divine: and what sets his Credit still lower, Divinity his Fate, and not his Choice, the Study not which he passionately loves, but comfortably lives by. And then I must tell him, one had better be a half Philosopher, a half Physitian, or a half-bred Man, than a half [Page 70] Divine; for the half-bred Man is not in so much danger of becoming a Fop, the half Physitian an Emperick, the half Philosopher an Atheist, as the half Divine of becoming a merciless Persecutor of all that differ from his Opinions, pursuing them, when the Law ties his Hands, with an unchristian reviling Tongue. But Mr. Att. has one extraordina­ry Remark concerning the Mischief of Pride. He affirms that it will harden the Scorner in his way against whatever wise Men can think or say. This pretious Youth that translated Ab­salom and Achitophel, cannot but have heard of Elkanah Settle, who has two Verses, for whose Character soever they were intended, that agree well with the Translator's.

At his wise Thinkings some Diviners guess,
But his wise Sayings no Records express.

I am sure there are no such in his Libel. As for the humble Duties of the Cross, Sir R. H. does as sincerely own his Obligations to them, as any good Christian can, and needs as little Forgiveness, at least as Mr. Att. In­deed for Mysteries, 'tis likely he could wish none impos'd, but such as are clearly reveal'd, which also by being reveal'd cease to be My­steries, and are then but improperly so call'd. But Mysteries which are not plainly reveal'd, [Page 71] but plainly contradict Sense and Reason, them his Conscience seems not strong enough to di­gest. 'Tis impudent Calumny to intimate, that if Sir R. H. cannot give himself a certain plain account in what manner, and to what end God did a thing, he therefore concludes that God did it not at all. But it really is Sir R. H's Weak­ness not to believe the Interpretation of a Text given by a Priest, which serves his Priest-Craft. Even any Explication which tends to the increase of the Priest's Honour, or Power, Wealth, or odd Worldly Conve­nience, he is too apt to suspect; nay I have heard it said of him, that he thinks it an In­stance of subtle Impiety for Priests to twist their Worldly Sensual Advantages with the Honour of God Almighty; and fancies that they learn'd the Trick of a Heathen Painter, one Phidias, who was hir'd to draw only the Picture of Minerva, but the ambitious Artist so curiously join'd his own in the same Tablet, that his mortal Phyz was not to be expung'd without impairing the Glories of the God­dess.

Nay, and which is worse than all this, tho Mr. Att. has strenuously belied Sir R. H. yet he has unluckily charged him with one thing, which I am afraid will stick; I will be fair, and repeat it in the Preacher's own words, If he has not as clear an Idea of every [Page 72] term in an Article of Faith, as he has of those in a Mathematical Proposition, 'tis presently unphilosophical, absurd, and foolish, invented by those whose Interest it is to puzzle Mens Ʋnder­standings, that they may have their Wills and Affections at their Service.

On my Conscience Sir R. is guilty, and he really wrongs Mr. Att. that says there is not one true word in his scurrilous Libel. But the Charge which can hardly be avoided, may admit of some Plea in its Defence, or Excuse, for I do not see how an Article can be believ'd that is not understood, Can a Man believe he knows not what? if that be in his Power, Sir R. has not only a proud but a stubborn Understanding; but then also it will be in Mr. Att's power to believe Transub­stantiation, and if in his power, I think it was not well done to refuse it to King James; for he that can believe a Proposition whereof he has no Idea, ought in Conscience to oblige the chief Magistrate, under whom he lives, with being of his Religion, unless he had before-hand given his Promise to the King of Morocco. But I have another thing to reason with Mr. Att. All Articles of Faith necessary to Salvation are plain and easy to be under­stood by an ordinary Capacity, the best Preachers have ever profess'd it. Now I would fain know of Mr. Att. whether their [Page 73] being propos'd in difficult Terms, whereof we have no clear Idea, be that thing which makes them plain and easy; if it be, then we are more beholding to the School-men and their Followers, than to the first Apostles; but if difficult Terms cannot make an Article of Faith plain and easy, I desire to be ac­quainted for what end such are made use of, except to puzzle Mens Understandings.

To see how some Teachers can vary their Notes! when they treat of the Reasonable­ness of the Christian Religion, then all the Doctrines thereof are plain and easy to be understood: but when they plead in defence of Mysteries, whereof we can have no clear Idea, and they that plead for them, have confus'd, and different Idea's, then they may be difficult, inexplicable, and never the worse.

The next Particular in the Character of the Scorner is said to be a strange and unreasona­ble Suspicion. Upon this Head Mr. Att's Discourse is loose, and undetermin'd; he will allow an Inquirer to be cautious, but not suspicious: but how these two differ, where wise Caution ends, and where faulty Suspicion begins, as for that, he begs his Rea­der's Pardon. Caution and Suspicion are but different words for one and the same thing. A Man may be too cautious, and he may also [Page 74] be not suspicious enough, as the elegant old Man of Ascra notes,

[...].
Credulity and Diffidence have both undone Men.

Between foolish Suspicion, that is not to be satisfied with good Reasons, and easy Cre­dulity which is satisfied without any at all, there is a certain Vertue [says Casaubon up­on Theophrastus] [...] without Name, prudentiae velut [...], which flows from Wis­dom, by which we believe them who deserve Belief, and suspect their Honesty who believe well of no body, that is not of their Opi­nion.

The third Topick whence Mr. Att. draws the Character of the Scorner, is, false Wit, which he defines to be bold jesting upon things sacred and serious. Quickness of Wit he commends, coldly indeed, but as well as a poor Pretender could; but, false Wit, that which exerts it self in Satyr and Drollery, that he inveighs against, and says it betrays a Man into a thousand Errors, for one it discovers to him; and I believe it, and that's the rea­son, himself is so often, and so much in the wrong. He never aim'd at any Wit, but this satyrical, drolling false Wit; and he made the [Page 75] greatest show of it, when he took upon him to be John Dreyden's Broker, and with a sorry Roman Gloss calander'd for Colleges and Schools, that infamous English Libel of Absa­lom and Achitophel, which an old canker'd Poet stuff'd with common-place Wit, and mercenary dictated Scandal. Now since Mr. Att. never pretended to any other Wit but this satyrical drolling false Wit, and to this still continues his Pretence; if his Character of the Scorner represents any Man now living, it represents himself: and therefore all this while what has he been doing, but drawing his own Picture, and like an inverted Narcissus, throwing Stones at it?

It cannot be denied, but that the eminent deceas'd Person, on whom Mr. Att. reflects, p. 12. excell'd in false Wit, with quickness of Thought he would ridicule Religion, and plead surprizingly for Vice; but then he open­ly and bitterly repented, which is more than I ever heard that Mr. Att. has done for his vile Journey-work under a hungry rhiming Sinner.

As for Miracles, I see nothing in the Hi­story of Religion, but that Sir R. firmly be­lieves all which are recorded in the Bible, tho I am indeed apt to suspect he may imagine, [for I will not tell a Lie for him] that the counterfeit Miracles of juggling Priests first [Page 76] tempted cautious and suspicious bad Men, to call in question the truth of the Miracles of Jesus Christ. Just so it is the Impudence, Pride, and Lordly ill Nature of such Priests as Att. that makes the Worthy and Reverend Clergy of the Church of England, had in no greater Veneration.

If Mr. Att. had censur'd old Hobbs for teaching that Right is founded in Power, or that the Command of the Civil Magistrate makes the Scripture a Law to us, God forbid that I should speak a word in his Vindica­tion: But the Accusation preferr'd against him, p. 13. is so shamefully false, that I much wonder, if this notorious Slanderer can hence­forth ever hope the least Credit should be given to what he affirms or denies of any Man whatsoever. The Accusation is this: The great Leader of the Libertines of this Age, thought he had said something very prejudicial to the Divinity of Christ, when he had translated, after an absurd manner, the Greek word [...], and blasphemously told us, that that was as much as to say, the Verb of God.] But the words of Hobbs in the 36th Chapter of his Levia­than are these. Our Saviour is called the Word, not because he was the Promise, but the Thing promised; they, that taking occasion from this place, do commonly call him the Verb of God, do but render the Text more obscure, they might [Page 77] as well term him the Noun of God; for as by Noun, so also by Verb, we understand but a part of Speech, a Voice, a Sound, that neither affirms, nor denies, nor commands, nor promises, nor is any Substance Corporeal or Spiritual; and therefore it cannot be said to be either God or Man, whereas our Saviour is both. In this place Hobbs reproves those that called Christ the Verb of God, and Att. says that Hobbs speaks against the Divinity of Christ, where­as Hobbs openly professes that our Saviour is both God and Man. The Jesuits have not with greater Impudence belied Luther and Calvin. With the same hardness of Brow and spirit of Falshood, he affirms, that Hobbs pre­tended to give a mighty Blow to the Doctrine of Grace, by saying, that Infusion and Inspi­ration signified in plain English, inpouring and inblowing; whereas all I meet with in Chap. 34. is, that Inspiration taken properly signifies blowing into a Man [inblowing is Att's term] some thin and subtile Air, &c. but the word is used in Scripture metaphorically only, as where it is said, God inspir'd into Man the Breath of Life, no more is meant, than that God gave unto him Vital Motion: and where it is said, All Scripture is given by Inspiration from God, it signifies, that God inclin'd the Spirit or Mind of the Writers to write that which should be useful to such and such good [Page 78] purposes. I have taken Pains to vindicate Hobbs [who has Faults enough to answer for, without being unjustly charg'd] from these particular unjust Charges, that the Reader may understand how convenient it is, to imi­tate the noble Beraeans, and examine carefully, whether all those things are true which are sometimes told them è Cathedrâ.

In the fourth place, Mr. Att. ascribes the Deception [that is his word] of the Scorner, to his Sensuality. Now I can hardly believe but that the Translation of Absalom and Achi­tophel was done by another hand, tho it goes under Att's Name, who perhaps might be hir'd to father it, because he seems not to have Learning enough to be so wicked; for here he imagines the word Deception to be synonimous with Error or Ignorance, whereas it signifies Deceit or Cozenage: Sensuality indeed is likely to prevent a Man from Knowledg, but poor Mr. Att. by his Ignorance of Grammar is fall'n into another Doctrine, viz. that Sensuali­ty is the cause of the Scorner's Deceptions, i. e. Sensuality helps him to deceive others.

——Nec te vox barbara turbet,
Aut temere erumpens linguâ titubante Solacus:
Tot sanctos oppone Patres, Mysteria sacra;
Turpe est grammaticis submittere colla capistris.
Buch. Fran.

[Page 79] But that which Mr. Att. would have said, had he had Skill to express it, is, that Sensuality does discourage the Scorner from inquiring after, and fatally prevent him from finding Wisdom. Very true: But what will he hence prove? I know what naturally follows, viz. that Sir R. H. whose Knowledg, whose Ob­servations, and Experience through all the most useful Parts of Learning, are so very considerable, has led a studious Philosophi­cal Life, and that Mr. Att. who does not understand Grammar, has spent his time in Sensuality, when he should have pli'd his Book. But of all the Lines in Mr. Att's holy Invective, Sir R. ought to forgive him two or three, p. 14. where telling his Reader in what Age of Life the Humour of scorning is most prevalent, he pertinently observes, it is commonly incident to Men at that time of their Lives, when their Lusts are most ungo­vern'd, and their Blood boils hottest; it is chiefly the young robust Sinner, that indulges himself in it, while he is in the midst of his Enjoyments. That is as much as to say, that old Age has banish'd from Sir R's Breast, or at least abated the Humour, while young and robust Mr. Att. — But this Humour of the Scorner will in time wear off with him also.

But pray how has Sir R. set his Face di­rectly against the Doctrines of Religion? it [Page 80] does not appear from his late History, unless his Accuser means the false Doctrines of Re­ligion; and let him set his Face, and his Heart as directly and strongly against them as he pleases, I am afraid he will be able to do little more than save his own Soul. But in truth Sir R. has dealt very sparingly on this Argument, and has chose such particular inoffensive Instances of Priest-Craft, that none but Pagan and Popish Priests have the least reason to be angry: I am sure no Presbyters of the Church of England are concern'd, un­less those few, who make it their business to have the Belief of unintelligible, an unex­plicable Mysteries, enforc'd by cruel and un­christian Penalties. Let our Preachers be but content, that the People own the Authority of the Sacred Book, particularly, that they agree to those Texts [whose Sense is so much controverted] as true, in that sense which the Writer design'd, tho what that is, is not cer­tain, and not compel them to confess some­thing more, something against their Con­sciences, till a Majority of Convocation-men [who only pretend to make, I should say de­clare Articles of Faith] shall determine what is the true sense of the controverted Texts, and their Credit shall stand fair with the Ages to come, for all that Sir R. has said in his History of Religion.

[Page 81] P. 16. l. 1. Mr. Att. has these remarkable words, Some Men who write pretended Histories of Religion, are beholding to the real Religion of others that their Histories are not written.

Here we are, first, to inquire how Sir R. H. has provok'd Mr. Att. that he threatens to write his History.

2. How dangerous it is to provoke a Priest to write one's History.

3. Whom is Sir R. H. beholding to, that his History is not written. Of these in their order.

1. How Sir R. H. has provok'd, &c.

Has Sir R. H. question'd the Existence of a Deity? or deny'd the Truth of Revealed Reli­gion? this were to provoke the generality of Mankind, but by good luck no such thing is laid to his Charge, tho if it were, it might be ea­sily disprov'd from his Writings. What then? has he slurr'd the Divine Right of Episcopa­cy, and given the Prelates but a Parliamentary Right in the room? has he dress'd up the grave Doctrines of Non-Resistance, and Pas­sive Obedience in an odd Disguise, which were ugly enough in their own true Shape, that so they may be laugh'd at, as well as hated by the People? Has he confounded Ar­bitrary Power that had well nigh confounded the Nation? for ought I know, something of this nature he may have done, but it's no [Page 82] matter, Mr. Att. has swallow'd all this; that which sticks, and will not down, is a pre­tended History of Religion: Well then! what's the fault of that History? what Injury is it to Mr. Att. if the World be made ac­quainted, how the Heathen Priests topp'd false Doctrines upon the People, and by cunning wicked Arts made a Gain of them? how they puzled their Understandings and stole their Wills and Affections, how they cherish'd their Ignorance, and scar'd 'em from the free use of their Reason? What hainous Provoca­tion is it against a Priest of the Church of England, if the Nation be told how the Priests of the Roman Communion imitate the Religious Frauds of the Priests of the Heathens? If Mr. Att. will be concern'd at this, he will tempt Men to believe, that our Religious Guides pursue the same Methods of Priest-craft as the other, but then 'tis Att. that libels the Church, and not Sir R. H. for he only in general Terms, and very modestly wishes that Reformed Churches did not vio­lently pursue the same; nay, in his Preface, he gladly takes occasion [so studious is he to make his Court to our Church] to com­mend the excellent Spirit, and useful Teach­ing of the late Arch-bishop, whose Life and Learning, whose honest, wise and useful way of plain teaching, sets his Honour [Page 83] far above the most venerable Names in all Antiquity.

2. How dangerous it is to provoke a Priest to write one's History, that's next to be in­quir'd. Luther and Calvin wrote [tho not under that very Name] Histories of Reli­gion, widely different from what the Roma­nists write, insomuch that the incens'd Je­suits have wrote their History; and never did the famous Society themselves practise more enormous Villanies, than they laid to the Charge of those two famous Reformers. Now if Mr. Att. should look back on his own Life, and charge Sir R. with all the vile Deeds, whereof he himself has ever been guil­ty, in troth he would make a fine Picture of the old Gentleman, and be fully even with him for his History. It were a good Motto for a Clerical Historiographer, Nemo me impune la­cesset; for I don't think any Man's Innocence a sufficient Security while he exposes Priest-Craft. I shall content my self to give but one Example, but that an illustrious one, to justify my Opinion. When King John began to set his Face directly against the Corrupti­ons, the Priest-craft Corruptions of the Church of Rome, a parcel of ungracious Monks could not bear it, not they, no, not from their So­veraign, therefore they poison'd him with the Sacrament of the Altar; and when they had [Page 84] done, they wrote his History, and publish'd him for a Wicked and Atheistical, a Foolish and Tyrannical Prince; yet Protestant Au­thors give him a better Character, and there are Circumstances which will incline an un­prejudic'd Man to believe that this King de­serv'd it.

I did not think to have given another In­stance, but just as I am writing this, there comes into my Head a very remarkable one, which also has a particular Circumstance fit for Mr. Att. to consider, so that I know not how to pass it by. Pausanias in his Baeotics gives an accurate Description of Trophonius's Antrum, and says, that he himself consulted the Oracle there. Now Pausanias was a Grammarian of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and liv'd in the second Century; so that by Mr. Att's favour, Oracles did not cease at the coming of Christ, which Anthony van Dal [...] has prov'd beyond all Contradiction. But to my Instance. Pausanias declares by what Rites and Ceremonies, they prepar'd them­selves, who, to consult the Oracle, would de­scend into the Cave, and how they return'd back, by the same Hole they went down, their Feet foremost. Then has he these words [...], &c. They say that none ever miscarried in the Cave, but that all re­turn'd that went down, except one only, one [Page 85] of Demetrius's Halbadiers: Now that Fellow had not run thrô the ritual course of Prepa­ration for the Descent, and descended, like an ungracious Fellow as he was, not to con­sult the Oracle, but to discover the Priest-craft: him therefore for this unpardonable Sin, the Priests of Trophonius made away, knowing that the dead tell no Tales; his Body was afterwards found the Lord knows how far from the mouth of the Cave, and then they wrote his History, the Substance whereof was this, That he was a profane Scorner, who with much ado, had made a shift to get rid of good Principles, and such stiff Opinions, as he found inconsistent with a Soldier's Life, and that he knew very little of the Divine Mysteries of the Gods, by reason he was a proud, suspicious, witty, sensual Fellow.

The third and last thing to be inquir'd is, to whom Sir R. H. is beholden that his Hi­story is not written, i. e. that he is not scan­dalously abus'd, for that Mr. Att. means; o­therwise, to write his History, were to ob­lige the Age, and perpetuate an honourable Name to a nobly descended Gentleman, who deserves it, with our latest Posterity: And what a noble Theme were it to a Man that had a Genius capable! The Roman and Gre­cian Orators prodigally wasted their Elo­quence on meaner Subjects than the unshaken [Page 86] Loyalty of Sir R. H. during the Troubles of K. Charles the First, and Second, his Faithful­ness to his Country during the Reign of King James, his Courage and Wisdom in defending the happy Choice of the People, and the Right of our present successful Deliverer, our just and lawful King William.

But we are to inquire to whom Sir R. is beholden, that after he has expos'd Priest-craft, he himself is not scandalously abus'd, and defam'd in a virulent and lying sort of a History. Mr. Att. says that Sir R. is be­holden to the real Religion of others, mean­ing, no doubt, of himself and Friends. Now real Religion will certainly restrain a Man from false Reproaches, but nevertheless [to suppose that Mr. Att. has some Religion] that was not the thing which restrain'd him from a scandalous History, for then it would have restrain'd him also from a scandalous Sermon; much less was it any Reverence to Sir R. H. as being a Person of Honour, and a Privy-Counsellor: for Priests have not given such a Divine Right to Kings, but that they dare open their Characters, and will do it, when they find themselves neglected. King William our invited Defender, our successful Deliverer, our rightly chosen, just and law­ful Soveraign, has not escap'd from impudent and wicked, unrighteous, and ingrateful Re­flections [Page 87] in Priestly Protestations, Prints and Preachments: Was it then Sir R. H's good luck which sav'd him from unchristian Re­proaches? A Man must have very good luck that lives unreproach'd in the midst of a crooked and perverse Generation, the late excellent Arch-bishop could not do it, but was even by Priests reported a Socinian, tho he has wrote against their reputed Heresy, if not with all the Evidence which could be de­sired, yet beyond any other Trinitarian; and [which recommends him to the Esteem of all sincere Christians] he has wrote with a due Charity to Dissenters, which also is part of the honourable Character of that good Man, the present Bishop of Gloucester. But what do I talk of good luck? a word which un­thinking Men use when the Reason of a thing is not very plain. A little thinking and rea­soning will perhaps satisfy the curious why the Author of the History of Religion has not been dress'd up in the San Benito. For, reason we thus: Would Mr. Att. be content that his Character should be open'd, and the History of his Life drawn forth? he must needs have more Tenderness for his own Re­putation than so. He knows it is not Pru­dence [or should know so] to break his Neigh­bour's Windows, when his own House is made of Glass.

[Page 88]Again, we may consider, that tho a Dog may bark, and no body mind him, yet if he bite, he may chance to have his Teeth knock'd out.

The railing of Mr. Fr. Atterbury I have reprov'd; as to the other short part which may be called Sermon, I will remark but one thing, upon one Period.

They say, a fair Reasoner ought to repre­sent the full force of his Adversary's Argu­mentations, but there's no need he should mend them, unless he begin to be sick of his own Hypothesis; wherefore I cannot but wonder at one Period of Mr. Att's Sermon, p. 19. The Jews were a Proverb and a By-word to the rest of the World, the perpetual Subject of Contempt and Reproach; and who would have thought [may we suppose one of those wise Hea­thens to have said] that Truth should have lain hid, among such an odd sort of People in such a little spot of the World? Now what Disci­ple of Spinoza or Hobbs could have put such pointed words into the Mouth of a wise Heathen? and what Preacher beside Att. would have done it? there too, where he held not himself oblig'd to make something of a Reply, to take off the ill Influence it might chance to have on young unstable Peo­ple? it would have become him, at least to have subjoin'd, that that odd sort of People [Page 89] were God's chosen, and the special care of his miraculous Providence, and the little spot of Ground by them inhabited, blessed above all the Earth.

SIR,

'TIS to no purpose to tell the World what mov'd me to write this Pam­phlet, yet for my own sake, I am contented that they know what did not: It was not a desire of your Favour, I had that before, and was in no danger of losing it; it was not any Command from Sir R. H. he hardly knows my Face, needs none of my Defence, and I heartily beg his Pardon for the Sawciness of the Attempt; it was not to get Bread, but that proves it self, for I con­ceal my Name, that I may not lose my Cu­racy; yet could the Age bear plain dealing as well from a poor Priest, as from a generous Poet, I would soon be known: for tho no Man who has so little, is so little concern'd about getting more, yet I am not of so poor a Spirit neither, but that I could pati divitias, suffer to have my Commons mended. You call'd to my mind t'other day [I thank you] [Page 90] this excellent Proverb, Wisdom is good with an Inheritance; take me a disputing the Inspira­tion of the Author, and tell my Friends, a kind Wish is too good for me.

As to the Reasons and Arguments which I have used against the Libeller, I doubt not but that they will appear to the impartial Reader, plain, strong and convincing; but whether my Readers be impartial, or biass'd, 'tis all one to me, I shall be as well satisfied in angring a Zealot for Priest-craft, as in plea­sing an honest Enquirer after, and Lover of Truth.

My Stile is careless, but I hope intelligi­ble, it should have been quick and sharp, but you forbad it, wherein you were to blame. For, 1. The lewd Libeller is the most viru­lent and audacious that ever wrote. 2. His Friends among us, that are most fierce for securing the Trade of Priest-craft, are least concern'd for the Honour of God, in restrain­ing vile Immoralities. 3. I never yet knew nor heard of a Zealot for Priest-craft, but the same was, as the Libeller, an Impugner of the Right and Title of King William to the Crown. Now, Sir, what do you think of your self, that would have me deal gently with Men that blaspheme both God, and the King? Do you think your good Nature will bear you out? I hope you are not hedging in [Page 91] an Interest against the Return of Popery and Slavery, which, since the Reduction of Namur, even the Jacobites are grown weary of ex­pecting. I know not what to say to you, but for once, since I have comply'd with the excess of your Humanity, if the World will forgive my fault, I will forgive yours; nay, and be so liberally obliging to you, as to lend an Ear to your softer Counsels another time. So fare you well.

A REPLY TO THE Anony …

A REPLY TO THE Anonymous Edinburgh Libeller,

Wherein the Honourable Sir R. H's History of Religion is vindicated from the invidious, and unrea­sonable Exceptions of Priest-Craft.

Also some Right done to that great and good Man Dr. Tillotson, late Arch-bishop of Canterbury.

And a Word offer'd in Defence of his surviving Friend, the Eminent Bishop of Salisbury.

Printed in the Year, 1696.

HAving lately had sight of a Libel, said to be printed at Edinburgh, and forg'd by a true Son of the Church, [so the Author would have it be­liev'd] I congratulate Sir R. H. the being plentifully rail'd at, in so good Company as the late Arch-bishop, a Prelate of the most consummate Worth that ever sat on the Throne of Canterbury, and the learned Bishop Burnet, to whose singular Merits, the English may well forgive the flagitious Attempts of hun­dreds of his Country-men, provided there be never an Edinburgh Libeller among them.

Were I the Praeceptor intrusted with the breeding of a hopeful young Gentleman, to season his tender Mind with the sound and honest Principles of holy Religion, I would have him carefully read Arch-bishop Tillotson's Sermons. To acquaint him with the nature of the English Government, to instruct him in the true Interest of his Country, and to let him into the Differences between the Romanists, and the Reform'd, I would put into his Hands no Book sooner, than Bp Burnet's exact and faithful History of the Reformation: and to [Page 96] teach him to distinguish Truth from Falshood, [that so he might happily conjoin the Chri­stian and the Philosopher, which is impossible to be done, but by a free use of Reason, and an unaw'd Examination of the Grounds of what is commonly receiv'd] Sir R. H. should be none of the last Examples, which I would propose for his Imitation; for as every Man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own Lust, so every Man is cheated, when he is misled by his own Credulity.

That part of the infamous Libel, on which I shall chiefly reflect, is call'd a Supplement. A Supplement, bless us! and yet the two for­mer carried convitiorum plaustra, Waggon­loads of Slander; such store of Lies quantum in Acheronte mortuorum est, the dead may as easily be numbred: I will make him swallow some, and let things take their course; for who can forbear his Amen to the Bilbo-prayer, Rumpatur quisquis rumpitur invidia, Let Envy burst the Male-content with its rank poisonous Plethory.

When Caiaphas told the Chief Priests and Pharisees, It is expedient that one Man should die for the People, he prophesied, tho he did not know it, and his words were true in a sense which he never intended: So our true Son, but of the Lord knows what Church, [I am sure of no Church under the King of [Page 97] England's Dominions] speaks more Truth in his first Paragraph, than in all his Work beside. Some of his words are these, The History of Religion gives a like account of Re­ligion as Dr. Tillotson, and quotes him with great Applause, as the true Pattern of Orthodox Divinity, and much in the Doctor's Stile and Air. If Sir R. H. in his History gives such an ac­count of Religion as the ABp does in his Sermon, what good Christian, or what but morally honest Deist, would offer to open his Mouth against it? If the honourable Lay-man quotes the venerable Prelate with great Applause, as the true Pattern of Orthodox Divinity; who, but an inveterate Schisma­tical Non-juror, would be so contemptibly foolish, as to accuse him of want of Reve­rence to Priests because of their Character? and if the History of Religion be wrote in the Stile and Air of the Arch-bishop, then all ingenious and discerning Men will confess, that it has, beside the usefulness of its excel­lent Matter, all the happy accession of win­ning Ornament, which Wit and Words can give it. Naturalists say, that venomous Ser­pents carry their Antidote with them, but this foolish pestiferous Animal presents his An­tidote first; so that his Poison is like to have no effect on his Readers. Sir R. H. he lastly saith, ridicules all Reveal'd Religion, and turns [Page 98] it into what he calls Priest-craft. Whereas 'tis that Gentleman's form'd Design to separate Religion both Natural and Reveal'd from Priest-craft. He is concern'd that there should be any Knaves among the Priests, and so ma­ny Fools among the People; wherefore he does his part, to instruct the one, and convince the other: and tho there be little hopes, that Argument should prevail much upon the lat­ter, who by their Craft maintain their Pride, their Power, and Luxury, yet by making the former wiser, these may chance to be brought to something of Reason.

The Libeller hopes to detract from Sir R.H. by accusing him of having borrow'd his Hi­story, from a Work of Mr. Blount's: In An­swer to this I note, that neither of those Gen­tlemen pretend to invent their Matter, and since they treat of one and the same Subject, it is not strange, if they make some the same Observations. I wish the former had pub­lish'd none, but wherein the latter does agree with him. As for the latter, he has through a long course of Life, shown a steddy Ho­nesty, in all his Writings, a solid Judgment; and whosoever has Wit enough to lend, he has no need to borrow. He adorns his Subject with that just reasoning and proper method, with that Manly Stile and agreeable turns of Ingenuity, which must needs win the Heart [Page 99] and convince the Understanding of every Reader, that is not interestedly obstinate, nor naturally stupid: And then, without giving any just cause of Offence, [which it is to be confess'd Mr. Blount has done] he entertains us delightfully and usefully on several Topics, that are not to be met with in the Great Diana. Had Mr. Blount but borrow'd from Sir R. H. and confin'd his Wit to Sir Robert's juster reasonings, his Fame also might have defied the impotent Malice of the Libeller.

But the Libeller is no Borrower; what he says of them, whom he has chose to hate, is pure Invention, so false, that no body could have the Impudence to say it before him; and tho there is a wonderful variety of false Do­ctrines preach'd up and down in the World, yet he has advanc'd some new, and is gone beyond his best-worst Masters. I shall take notice of the Particulars as I meet them. But when he reproaches Mr. Blount for an Atheist, [whom I will not vindicate, tho I think him but a Deist, which is no good Character nei­ther for one bred up in the Christian Reli­gion, and capable of examining the Grounds of it] and tells of his Intimacy with Dr. Til­lotson, the Reader cannot but be amaz'd at the senseless Calumny. There's an ironi­cal way of Commendation, whereby the Per­son commended is expos'd to Contempt and [Page 100] Scorn; and there's a witless way of railing, whereby a spiteful Wretch destroys his own Credit. Machiavel has abus'd the Libeller with his villanous false Axiom, Fortiter ca­lumniare, aliquid saltem adhaerebit; for 'gainst a Man generally well spoken of, much seen, and long tried, a subtle Whisper might chance to create unjust Suspicions, but heavy loads of odious Calumnies flung at such a one will not leave a Blemish. It is possible that a gawdy Atheist, or a scandalous Non-juror might sometimes obtrude an unwelcome Visit on Arch-bishop Tillotson; but he must have been a Man truly vertuous, and in all proba­bility not meanly learn'd, that could have an Intimacy with him: for tho his Grace was as easy of Access, as Business, Civility, or Charity requir'd him; yet he receiv'd none but the best, the bravest, and most knowing into his Bosom. A just Defence of this fa­mous and incomparable Prelate, I wish well to, but have not the happy Leisure, nor just Ability which the Work requires; yet that the Defamatory Libeller may not triumph in his Iniquity, I will examine his Supplement further than I intended. So then, before I do that Right, which was my first Intention, to Sir R. H. I must reprove the Libeller for his unchristian and injurious Treatment of Arch-bishop Tillotson: and that no just occasion of [Page 101] Offence may be given to any sincere Christian, I must premise, that the Libeller has so twisted his Objections against the Arch-bi­shop, with those against Mr. Blount, that there's no avoiding some Defence of that un­fortunate Gentleman; but as for his Theisti­cal, or Atheistical Notions, [if he has any such] God forbid that I should offer the least word in Defence of them. If Mr. Blount meant thrô the Heathen Sacrifices, to wound those of Moses, he is to be condemn'd for it; but this thing he says well, that the Heathen Sacrifices ought no more to be spar'd, for their Resemblance to the Sacrifice of Moses, than a Criminal ought to be pardon'd for wearing the same colour'd Garments as the Judg: I add, than a treacherous Coward ought to be par­don'd for his blew Coat, or a non-swearing Parson pardon'd his cursing the King for his cursing the Unitarians also, under the invidious Name of Socinians. The Libeller affirms, that Mr. Blount builds on the same Foundation as Dr. Tillotson in his Sermon of Sacrifices, &c. tho he does not go the length of his Master Dr. Tillotson. Now what if Mr. Blount does build on the same Foundation as Dr. Tillotson? I hope he is not to be blam'd for that, unless it can be prov'd, that the Doctor's Founda­tion is weak: and if Mr. Blount goes not the same length as Dr. Tillotson, that's no Re­proach [Page 102] to the Doctor, unless it can be shown, that he went beyond the even measures of just reasoning: and to suppose that both these do really look upon Sacrifice as a Human In­vention, can the Libeller produce a Divine Command instituting and requiring the same? if he can, let him rail and spare not, other­wise it is plain, he rails, because it is easier for a Man of his Parts and Principles, to rail than argue. But that Dr. Tillotson speaks of re­veal'd Religion, as a Human Invention, that's a Devilish Invention of the Libeller.

There be Religions in the World, the great­est part of which is Human Invention, and the Revelation pretended, a Pretence and no more; but that the Revelations made to Moses, or those imparted to the World by the Ministry of Jesus Christ, were Inventions of Men, this the Arch-bishop has not said, no, nor so much as intimated: had the Libeller himself but imagin'd, that the Arch-bishop had intimated so much, he would not have fail'd to point out the place; but the Arch-bishop not giving him the occasion to belie him plausibly, he does it roundly and boldly, not doubting but that a foolish Jacobite of no Faith, will believe a lying Jacobite of no Conscience at any time.

But whereas the Libeller reviles the Arch-bishop for what he has taught, now on this [Page 103] Article, now on that, without Order, or Art, after a desultory manner, familiar to frantick Enthusiasts, as his Spirit mov'd him, and ill Language came in his way; I think it more be­coming for me to propose something of Me­thod, and so to consider, 1. What the Libel­ler in his Supplement objects against the Arch-bishop, concerning the Original of Sacri­fice. 2. Concerning the Sacrifice of Christ. 3. Concerning future Punishments. On the first Topic, the Arch-bishop is blam'd for teaching, in his Sermon of the Sacrifice and Sa­tisfaction of Christ, That a very great part of the Jewish Religion which was instituted by God him­self, seems to have been a plain Condescension to the general Apprehension of Mankind concerning the way of appeasing the offended Deity with Sacri­fices. This the Libeller pronounces a most irra­tional and blasphemous Account of Christ's Sa­crifice and Death; but, say I, 'tis no Account at all of the Sacrifice and Death of Christ, being only a short Digression from that Subject. They that hir'd this Fellow to write against the Arch-bishop, hir'd him for the sake of his Impudence, not for any great Cunning to varnish his Scandal, and give it the Air of Pro­bability. The general apprehension of Man­kind concerning Sacrifice, and the Conde­scension of God to the Jews might properly enough be used by way of Exordium to a [Page 104] Discourse concerning the Sacrifice and Death of Christ, or brought in by way of Simili­tude, as they are by the Arch-bishop; the Reader may peruse the whole Paragraph, which begins thus, And indeed a very great part of the Jewish Religion, &c. He that can­not distinguish the general Apprehension of Mankind, and the Condescension of God to the Jews, from the particular Sacrifice and Death of Christ, was never made to decide a con­troverted difficult Question, but to be laugh'd at for medling with that he does not under­stand, tho a Malapert Ignoramus should not scape so neither; and therefore I shall give him some farther Correction before he and I part.

In the Paragraph of the Arch-bishop, cited and reprov'd by the Libeller, there are two things to be distinctly consider'd: 1. The general Apprehension of Mankind concerning the appeasing God by Sacrifice. 2. God's Condescension to the Jews, who were, with the rest of Mankind, possess'd by that Appre­hension. 1. The general Apprehension, &c. p. 9. the Arch-bishop calls it, a certain Appre­hension and Perswasion, which had very early and universally obtain'd among Mankind; only he will not determine, p. 10. whether it had its rise from Divine Revelation, or otherwise. But the Libeller, like that sort of Person, whose [Page 105] way is to rage, and be confident, positively affirms, that there is nothing more plain, than how the Heathen came to the Knowledg of Sa­crifice, viz. that Cain, tho he corrupted the true Religion, yet preserv'd the Institution and de­riv'd the Worship of Sacrifices to his Posterity. So pag. 27. and p. 5. in his Charge of Soci­nianism against the Arch-bishop consider'd, he doubts not to affirm, that Sacrifice was com­manded by God to Adam, and that all the Christian World have hitherto believ'd, that God reveal'd to Adam his Pleasure concerning that Worship. Of which two things, the former is at least suspicious, but the latter is noto­riously false, and he knows it. To take off all Suspicion from the former, let the Libeller, if he can, produce one Text of Scripture, where the least mention is made of any Law imposing the Worship of Sacrifice given to Adam, Abel, or Cain, Noah, Abraham, his Pa­triarchal Progeny, or any Man whatsoever, before the days of Moses: but instead of that, he gives his suspicious Assertion all the Air of a presumptuous Boldness, not so much as pretending an Argument, by way of Conse­quence remote, in favour of it: for it is not enough for him, with the rest of Mankind, to be liable to Mistakes, unless he also lets his Reader see, that he judges of Truth by his vitious Interests, by his Passions and Af­fections, [Page 106] by his sick Prejudices, and malicious Distaste; yet I will not take the advantage of his leaving his Magisterial Sayings to shift for themselves, but fairly consider what Men of better Temper, more Sense and greater Learning, who have happen'd erroneously to say the same, were wont to plead in defence of their so doing. 1. They were wont to cite Heb. 11.4. By Faith Abel offer'd unto God a more excellent Sacrifice than Cain. And hence to plead thus; Divine Faith relies upon Di­vine Revelation: if Abel by Faith offer'd, then he, or his Father had an immediate Re­velation from God, requiring that Service. But why that Consequence? for is it not e­nough to raise the Gift of Abel to the Title of [...], a greater Sacrifice, i. e. in the acceptation of God, than Cain's; if it pro­ceeded from a truly pious Affection, and a firm Perswasion that God would amply re­ward him, for his testifying his Obedience, in such Instances, as he found himself oblig'd to by his Reason. Reason was a Digest or Body of Laws, which we know that God did give to Adam; but, that God gave him any other, that we do not know. It is not un­reasonable to think, that Natural Reason might lead Abel to sacrifice, that Natural Reason might beget in Abel a Perswasion, how God would graciously reward that pious [Page 107] Affection, which he sought to testify by Sa­crifice; such Perswasion is the same thing as Faith, tho not as Mosaical Faith, nor Christi­an Faith. He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and that he is a Rewarder: Indeed the Object of Faith grows wider, according to the compass which Revelation gives it, but still 'tis Faith in God to believe that, which Reason judges to be highly probable. But further, to show the Weakness of the Consequence drawn from this Text, it may be consider'd, that in the same, Abel's Sacri­fices are called Gifts, which intimates, that they were voluntary Offerings, which pro­ceeded purely from his own Inclination and Choice, and not from any express Law, any positive Command which required them at his Hands; nor is it of small moment to note, that the Acceptation which Abel's Sa­crifice found with God in this Text, ascrib'd to the virtue of his Faith, is in 1 Joh. 3.12. ascrib'd to his righteous Works. 2. That Sacrifices owe their Original to a Divine Command, some would infer from Gen. 4.5. where it is said, that Cain's Countenance fell, because God had no respect to his Offering. For they argue thus; If Cain's Countenance fell, [which was a Token of his dejected Mind] because his Offering was not respected, then it must follow, that the Offerer offer'd in [Page 108] hopes of Reward, which hope of a Reward he could not reasonably entertain, unless he offer'd in Obedience to a Divine Com­mand, and not upon a Presumption of his own Brain. But why might not the Sons of Adam hope for Reward and Blessings from the Goodness of God, when they sought to propitiate him according to the best of their Understandings, where they had no positive Precept? I see not but they had all reason for hope in this case, especially if they look'd on their Creator, which they certainly did, as a just and merciful Being. But the Argument drawn from this Text of Genesis, must needs appear of no force, if a Man will but consi­der, that we find in Scripture, God has ac­cepted of Services paid, nay Services but in­tended to be paid, [witness David's purpose to have built him a Temple] which he never particularly expresly requir'd. 3. Some think that Sacrifice must needs owe its Original to positive Divine Command, because otherwise they know not how to excuse the first Sacri­ficer from Will-worship, which they think is condemn'd by the Apostle, Col. 2.23. Now I grant it is not for Man of himself to appoint how, or with what, God shall be worshipped: But when Man, not having receiv'd a posi­tive Divine Command, follows the Conduct of his Reason in the Worship which he pays [Page 109] to God, he of himself does not appoint the same, but God that endow'd him with the Principle of Reason: and tho the way which he chuses of worshipping God, may not im­properly be called Will-worship, because he chuses it; yet, nor does it deserve to be con­demn'd, nor does the Apostle condemn it. The Voice of Reason is the Voice of God, as well as miraculous Divine Revelation: we are farthest instructed by the latter, by the latter we are more powerfully encourag'd to our Duty; but our Obedience to the former, when we are no farther instructed, nor en­courag'd, shall be, not only graciously ac­cepted, but also largely rewarded. That the Will-worship mention'd Col. 2.23. is not con­demn'd by the Apostle, I refer to Dr. Ham­mond, who has made that out beyond Con­tradiction. Briefly, and plainly, where the Matter of Will-worship is unlawful, there Will-worship is to be look'd on as a Sin; but where the Matter of it is perfectly lawful, and not forbidden, there Will-worship is not only no Sin, but an Act of Religion, holy and well-pleasing unto God: which is very evi­dent, not only from the natural Reason of the thing, but also from the Letter of Scrip­ture, which bears honourable Testimony to the good purpose of David's Heart, and to the voluntary Abstinences and Austerities of [Page 110] the Rechabites; also the Practice of our Saviour in observing a Feast instituted by the Maccabees, does abundantly confirm the same. The chief Arguments that have been offer'd by those modester mistaken Men, [who do not hold Opinions they know not why] to perswade that Sacrifices were at first instituted by posi­tive Precept from God, I have now answer'd. Let the Libeller, if he can, answer those Ar­guments, which [as it appears to me] do fully evince, that the first Sacrificers sacrific'd, mov'd thereunto by the sole Impulse of their own honest reasoning Minds; and those Ar­guments I shall mention. 1. As a Prelimi­nary, it will go a great way, that neither in the Books of Moses, nor of any Sacred Wri­ters, is there the least mention of a Com­mand from God for his being worshipp'd with Sacrifice. But, 2. On the contrary, there are many Texts scatter'd up and down, which declare the little or no Esteem that God sets upon that Worship. God expostu­lates with the Sacrificers, and asks them to what purpose were the multitude of their Sacrifices, and plainly tells them, that he was satiated with them, that he had no pleasure in them, that he hated them, &c. Psal. 40.7. Isa. 1.11, 12, 13, 14. To evade these plain words, some are contented to plead, that a weak but inveterate Opinion had possess'd the [Page 111] Minds of the stupid Jews concerning the in­trinsick Excellence of Sacrifice, the great Va­lue of it, by it self, without Obedience, and that God did not intend strictly to signify that Sacrifice was an Abomination to him, but to teach those Jews to consider, which it was, Sacrifice or Obedience, that he esteemed most: Sacrifice alone, Sacrifice without Righ­teousness, that God hated; but when Sacri­fice was offer'd up with clean Hands, he was pleas'd both with the one and the other. Thus may the literal Sense of any Text be para­phras'd away to serve an Hypothesis, but I shall show, that God, who often renew'd his Laws and Commands of Righteousness, has dis­claim'd the having spoke unto the Jews, and commanded them to sacrifice: this is a third Argument, and enough alone to determine this Controversy; Jer. 7.22. For I spake not unto your Fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the Land of Egypt, concerning Burnt-offerings or Sacrifices. That God might abate the great Opinion which the Jews had entertain'd concerning Burnt-offe­rings and Sacrifices, he professes he never commanded them in the day that he brought his People out of Egypt. O! but for all that, say our Adversaries, God might have com­manded them in the early days of the World, soon after he created Man: but this of all [Page 112] their Evasions is the most weak and senseless; for it were an impertinent Argument, and not at all fitted to abate the extravagant Opinion which the Jews had of Sacrifice, if God who did not command the same, when he brought his People out of Egypt, should have commanded that Worship in the be­ginning of the World: Had God commanded Sacrifices in the beginning of the World, that early Command must have made them as sacred and necessary, as any later could do. To abate the extravagant Opinion which the Jews had of Sacrifice, nothing less could be pertinent, than letting the People know that God never commanded it, nor in the days of Moses, nor in the days of the first Men. The Prophet indeed brings in God professing with a seeming Restriction, that he never commanded it, when he brought his People out of Egypt; but it is accountable that he should so speak, tho he never command­ed it before, because we have no account that he did command it before; and if the Prophet by a decent Prosopopeia, represents the All-wise God reasoning well, he did not. By this time, I suppose, the Reader will grant me that the Libeller was unreasona­bly angry at the Arch-bishop, for not de­termining whether Sacrifice ow'd its Original to Revelation, or Natural Reason; and un­reasonably [Page 113] confident to determine the for­mer; but when he affirms, that all the Chri­stian World have hitherto believ'd, that which he so confidently and unreasonably determines, he says that which is notoriously, false; for, granting him to be the Ignoramus which he seems to be, yet he must needs have read something: Some few must needs have fallen under his notice, among a crowd of Writers, which declare their Thoughts on our side, viz. that Natural Reason first taught Men to sacrifice, which Service, when in process of Time, it became loaded with Superstition and Fraud, it pleased God to separate from its grosser Corruptions, and indulge to his Peo­ple, with such Regulations as were proper to distinguish them from the Heathen, and render that innocent, and in some measure useful. Christian Fathers, and others, a good round Number are cited by Dr. Spencer, de legibus Hebr. Ritualibus, and Dr. Outram, de Sacrificiis, who all agree that no Command from God impos'd the Rite of Sacrifice on the first Sacrificers, but that they were led into it by their own Natural Reason, judging it a good Testimony of their Gratitude to God, to present him with something of that all which his Bounty had given them. What should tempt the Libeller to affirm, that all the Christian World have been al­ways [Page 114] perswaded of the contrary, it is not easy to imagine; but of this I am convinc'd, that he having belied an Arch-bishop of as great Knowledg and Vertue, as ever wore that Dignity, is fitted to say any thing of any Man, to affirm the falsest, and deny the most evident thing in the World.

The second remarkable thing in the above-mention'd Paragraph of the Arch-bishop, ci­ted and reprov'd by the Libeller, is God's Condescension to the Jews, who were possess'd with the general Apprehension of Mankind, concerning the way of appeasing him by Sacrifice. What the Arch-bishop hath taught on this Head, may be fairly and chiefly drawn up thus. When Religion ran to de­cay, and there was no end of numerous Rites and Ceremonies, it pleased God for the restoring that, for the reforming and regulating these, 1. Strictly to forbid his People all Idolatry. 2. To admit no Rites whatsoever into his Service that were im­moral or dishonest; but then as for those borrow'd from the Gentiles, and by long use endear'd to the Jews, which, tho little use­ful to the nobler Purposes of Religion, were yet of an indifferent nature, and innocent in themselves, those he adopted into the Cere­monial [Page 115] of his own Service by the Ministry of his Servant Moses. But the Libeller, p. 2. of his Supplement, represents the Arch-bishop, together with Mr. Blount, agreeing, that Sacrifice was a Trick, and a barbarous Invention of wicked and foolish Men; also teaching, that the Jewish Ritual was nothing but a Compliance of God with the barba­rous Wickedness of Men. [...]. A little great Gre­cian, full of the Spirit of his blind Father, bestow'd this Stricture on the Accuser of his Brethren, who has his Name from the bu­siness he goes about, viz. slandering and ac­cusing: I apply it not improperly to the Libeller; for, when the Devil slanderously accus'd Job, it was not by falsly charging him with some vile Wickedness, which his righteous Soul abhor'd; but by slighting the high Character which God gave of his up­right Servant, and objecting, that his Piety, so much commended, was not Affliction-proof. But this Libeller fears not to accuse a Man, little inferiour to Job, save that he had not his numbers of Children and Cattle, to ac­cuse him (I say) of blaspheming the Ma­jesty of Heaven, and speaking ill of the ways by which God was content to be worshipp'd. I see a Scholar may out-do his Master, and even a Man, when he gives his Mind to it, [Page 116] [...], clearly put down the Grand Accuser; but I will not wonder at it, for the Man that does this, has the Con­science of a non-swearing Jacobite, and out-does his Master only in Impudence not in Cun­ning. For this is very evident, that tho Sa­crifice most probably was invented by the untutor'd Reason of the first good and grate­ful Men, yet when the Administration of it was restrain'd to peculiar Persons, they quick­ly plaid Tricks with it, such as sensual and covetous Men are always given to; but when they brought up Human Sacrifice, that surely was a barbarous Invention, a mischievous Trick of the inhuman Sacrificer, to gratify his own vindictive Spirit: For whom will Calchus nominate to appease the Wrath of his Apollo, but some unhappy envied Sinon? With such Inventions and Tricks as these, far is it from God that he should comply, and far from the Arch-bishop was the im­puting to God such a Compliance: But that God should condescend to indulge the Jews some Heathenish Rites, not wicked nor im­moral, that is very agreeable to the Scripture-Accounts concerning Sacrifice, and very pro­bable from the Consequences of unstrain'd Reason. 1. 'Tis very agreeable to Scripture-Accounts concerning Sacrifice: that the Rites and Ceremonies in use among the Heathens, [Page 117] gave occasion to the Rites and Ceremonies among the Jews, cannot perhaps be prov'd by plain, full and express words of Scrip­ture; but neither can the contrary be so prov'd, nay the contrary cannot be fairly in­ferr'd thence, which this can, being not ob­scurely implied in several places, and there­fore I might well call it agreeable to Scrip­ture; Deut. 4.7, 8. For what Nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them as the Lord our God is in all things, that we call upon him for? and what Nation is there so great, that hath Statutes and Jugdments so righteous as all this Law which I set before you this day? This place Jonathan, and the Jeru­salem Targum paraphrase thus. 'Tis the Cu­stom of the Nations to carry their Gods about on their Shoulders, that they may seem near, tho they are far enough off, for they hear not with their Ears, i. e. they have no Ears to hear; whereas the Word of the Lord is seated high on his Throne above, and he hears our Prayers whenever we pray before him, &c. Moses therefore, that he might engage the Minds of the Jews to God, and the Ceremonial Ordinances which God had instituted by him, seems in the Text to de­sign this reasoning. I know that you desire a God, a God not cover'd with a Cloud, and to be seen only by the Eyes of the Mind, [Page 118] not a God so far as that is from you, but a God that illustriously manifests his Presence, and by Prodigies, Oracles and symbolical Representations, does as it were set himself before your Eyes plainly to be beheld: Well, I know that you have a very great Opinion of the sacred Rites in use among the Gentiles, and that nothing would please you more than Religion drest up after their Modes, with much busy Ceremony and Pomp, which you look on as Tokens of Divine Presence. Now I would have you consider that God has graciously condescended to your Desires, insomuch that I dare confidently appeal to you, what Nation has their Gods so near, as the Lord you God is unto you? What Nation has so glorious Testimonies of Di­vine Favour and Presence as you have? You that admire the Rites of Strangers so much, tell me what Foreign Nation worships their Gods with Rites so decent, and significant, so innocent, so grave and so becoming, as you do: for you worship not the great and good God with that wild mixture of Gentile Rites, some of which are very ridiculous, some very cruel, some impure and abominable; no, the Rites which you have borrow'd from Strangers, thrô the Indulgence of your God, are corrected and separated from all their odious, vile and base Pollutions, are so order'd [Page 119] and dispos'd, as to lead you to a right know­ledg of God, which brings him near to you, and you to him. If the Reader be really free from all Prejudices and Prepossessions, I am much perswaded, that he will grant me this Paraphrase is unforc'd and very na­tural. He may please to consider further, that Moses in the Text compares the Rites of the Jews and Gentiles together, to show the Jews how their Rites were preferrable to the Rites of the Gentiles, which implies a similitude between them: and 'tis not easy to think, that God of himself would fashion the Jews Rites to a Conformity with the Rites of the Gentiles; but 'tis very reasona­ble to think that God might indulge the Jews, as much as might be any ways made fitting to be indulg'd. I have been so long on this Text, which I have in great measure interpreted in the words of Dr. Spencer, that I shall but mention what others are quoted for the same purpose, and refer the Reader to that learned Author, who applies them with great Learn­ing, Wit and Judgment, Acts 13.8. Exod. 20.25. Levit. 1.2. Numb. 6.1. Gal. 4.3.

I pass over the Testimonies of Antients and Moderns, Jews and Christians, who have declar'd their Opinion fully with the Arch-bishop in this matter, viz. that the [Page 120] Rites and Ceremonies in use among the Heathens gave occasion to the Rites and Ceremonies among the Jews, which God indulg'd to his People, when he had cor­rected, limited, order'd them so, as to pre­vent Idolatry, and take away several un­happy occasions of Immorality; these I pass over, because, notwithstanding what some sometimes pretend, I never knew a Man that car'd two straws for Authority when he saw that Authority was against him, and thought that Reason was for him. Where­fore I proceed to show, that the Doctrine I am treating of, appears probable from the Con­sequences of unstrain'd Reason.

1. Consider the Circumstances of the Mo­saick Rites, they were not such as God could take delight in, for any real Excellency in them, they were not perfective of Human Nature, had no Tendency to make Men more just, merciful and temperate. Now it is not reasonable to think that God would load his People with such empty Rites, only to show his Power, only because he would do it; but very sutable it is to the Notions which we have of God, to believe that he might conde­scend to the Infirmities of his People, and in­dulge them Rites to which they were addicted, when he had cleans'd them from Sin.

[Page 121]2. Consider the time when the Rites of the Jews were instituted, for 2000 Years the People of God were unacquainted with those Rites, which pass'd into Law but in the days of Moses; we read nothing of them in Scripture before that Lawgiver: What! was God's Nature chang'd, was he grown weary of the Purity and Simplicity of the Worship which the best Men of the first Ages paid him? How vain an Imagination were this! and how likely therefore [for new Manners we say need new Laws] that God, having to do with a People grown re­fractory, and prone to Idolatry, by their long Converse with the Egyptians, should, to prevent their Idolatry, indulge them some use of Egyptian Rites purg'd from Egyptian Abuse and Superstition?

3. The Multitude, the Pomp, the Splen­dor of the Jewish Rites speak them to be of Heathen Original. Had God impos'd the Jewish Rites, either meerly to show his Power, or to adumbrate something of the Gospel-Dispensation, one is apt to think they needed not to have been so numerous, nor so glorious; numerous and glorious were the Rites of the Gentiles, and there's a reason for it. Idolatry nakedly and in it [Page 122] self consider'd, has nothing to intice the Minds of Men, therefore that stood in need of making use of those bewitching Rites, which might strike upon the Senses, and tempt the vain Imaginations of Men, such as sumptuous Priestly Robes, solemn Pro­cessions, pompous Spectacles, glorious Tem­ples, sweet Musick, odoriferous Perfumes, joyful Dancings, Images shining with Gold and Jewels. But true Religion which is acceptable to God on its own account dwells in the Mind, exerts its self in Praises of, and Prayers to God, in Acts of Temperance, Justice and Mercy, this needs not multitudes of pompous Rites to re­commend it: For to consider it well, is all that is requisite to bring Men in love with it. Therefore when God gave the Jews Rites many and pompous, it is most like­ly he did it, by way of Condescension to their Infirmity, who were so strongly ad­dicted to that, which of it self could not profit.

5. The near Affinity and Resemblance between the Rites of the Jews and the Gentiles, makes it highly probable, that the Rites of the former were borrowed from the latter. But why not as well the Rites [Page 123] of the latter from the former? I will assign the Reason.

The Egyptians long before the days of Moses were a People fam'd for their Learn­ing, and much taken notice of for the so­lemn Rites and Usages in Matters Civil and Profane; whereas the Jews grew from an envied Family, to a numerous hated People, whom the Egyptians, jealous of their Num­bers, opprest with the hardest Slavery, and us'd with the most contemptuous Scorn, inventing Lies to their Disgrace, and ex­acting Tasks above their Strength. Now a Man must be stupidly senseless, that can imagine, or impudently partial, that dares affirm, that so celebrated a Nation as the Egyptians, pompously and operosely su­perstitious, threw off the bewitching Rites of their Ancestors which they had been so long, so much in love with, to fol­low the strange Rites of their poor mise­rable misus'd Slaves; he must be a very obstinate Man, that will not acknowledg the Egyptians to have been as averse to the Rites as the Persons of the Jews, for such is the general Disposition of Mankind, those they have the least love for, their Man­ners they least imitate: but to give this Ar­gument [Page 124] its full Strength, let it be consider'd, that the Jews were held as a vile and base People in the Eyes of other Nations be­sides the Egyptians; few Historians take any notice of them, and they that do, men­tion them with Scorn and Indignation, give them a Character much worse than they deserv'd, tho they deserv'd no good one; and would the Egyptians borrow their Rites from such a People think you? the Libeller's Faith cannot digest it, as for what his Tongue may say, I matter not that, nor he neither. Again, as the Egyp­tians were fam'd for their Learning, and Antiquity, so were they not meanly proud of these Advantages; antient Writers de­scribe them very full of themselves, opini­ative of their own Ways, and Manners, and utterly averse, not only from all Com­munication with the despicable Jews, but also with any other Neighbours; they stu­diously declin'd Foreign Intercourse and Friendships, and that for this very reason, that they might preserve their antient Rites and Customs sacred and safe from Innovation [I refer for Authorities to Dr. Spencer, from whom I borrow the most I say in this matter:] if the Egyptians would have chang'd their Manners, the [Page 125] Jews should have been the last whom they would have follow'd. I need add no more on this Head, when I have noted that the most famous Grecian Philosophers are said to have travelled into Egypt, as the famous School of the World for Knowledg sacred and profane, thence they borrow'd their Rites; and Plutarch one of the many Au­thors who tells us so, does likewise affirm of the Jews in his Life of Pythagoras, that they mix'd many things borrowed from the Egyptians with their own holy Rites.

I have said enough to justify what the Arch-bishop hath taught concerning the Original of Sacrifice; and who is there now, that will not be amaz'd at the Im­pudence of the Libeller, who in his first Libel against the Arch-bishop, is not a­sham'd to vomit up this ignorant, false and inconsistent Charge, p. 5. This Author [meaning the Arch-bishop] would per­swade us, that the Devil was the Author and first Inventer of it [i. e. of Sacrifice] and that God came in but at the second hand in imitation of the Devil, to graft upon his Stock? For, as I have shown, the truth is, the Arch-bishop leaves it in doubt, whether Sacrifice took its Original [Page 126] from Natural Reason, or Divine Revela­tion, and might without any Injury to the Cause of Religion, have determin'd the former: and he asserts but this, that when the sacrifical, and other ritual way of Wor­ship came to be grosly corrupted, God purg'd it from all its gross Corruption; and because the Jews were incorrigibly fond of it, God having purg'd it from all its gross Corruption, and order'd and dispos'd it wisely, he then in pity to the Infirmity of his People, indulg'd it to them, but al­ways signified that he had no pleasure in Ritual Services for their own sakes, and that what he most esteem'd was Obedience to the Laws of Righteousness. Generally base Men do either find or make some Um­brage for their Calumnies, but never did wicked Wretch with Case-harden'd Con­science vouch such notorious odious Lies, such broad and bare fac'd Calumnies as the Libeller. It's plain to me, if the Devil be a worse Creature, 'tis only because he has the greater Power. 'Tis a Note of Varro's, which one would think could not but be true, ne (que) in bonâ segete nullam esse spicam nequam, ne (que) in malâ non aliquod bonum, in the best Field of Corn some bad Ears, in the worst some good ones. But the Li­beller's [Page 127] Supplement is a Field which throws up plenty of wild Fancies, gross Mistakes, malicious Reproaches, false Imputations; yet wherein he quarrels the Arch-bishop, or Sir R. H. not one honest, probable or pardonable Saying arises. How this comes to pass, is to me pure Amazement: if it be Fate, the Libeller is doom'd the most se­verely of all the Sons of Men; if Free-will, none e're worse us'd his Liberty, no not the Traitor Judas; for, 'tis true, he betray'd a better Man, but I do not read, he so belied him.

On two more Heads, viz. the Death of Christ, and the Eternity of Hell-Punish­ments, great Out-cries are rais'd against the Arch-bishop, but his Grace's Reasonings are not consider'd, nor answer'd, that's not the Libeller's way.

On the former, both the late Arch-bishop, and the present Bishop of Sarum speak to this purpose, We know no reason but that God might, if it had pleased him, have brought about the Salvation of Man­kind by another way than the Death of Christ, his Justice did not necessarily oblige him to redeem the World by the Blood of his Son. [Page 128] I must confess, I think, that the Modern Unitarians have more carefully, judiciously and exactly handled this Subject, than either of these two very learned and good Bishops; but in Defence of what the latter teaches, these things are plain and obvious. That Lord who punishes his Vassal without a Cause, or more than the Cause offer'd does deserve, is unjust. That Lord who exacts the utmost Penalty of the Breach of a just Law, is just; but he is not oblig'd to exact it, because then he were oblig'd not to be merciful: this Argument is close, plain, and must conclude the Dispute, un­less Justice [according to the Dream of John Calvin] be one thing with respect to Man, and another with respect to God. I will prove that the Notion of the word Justice is one and the same, let it be consi­der'd with respect to God or Man. We read of no other measures of Justice in Scripture than never punishing beyond Demerit; the Punisher, if a Supream, al­ways having the Power, not to punish so far. Indeed Inferiour Officers are absolute­ly bound to exact the utmost Penalty of the Law transgress'd, unless their Com­mission leaves some Cases to their Discre­tion; but the supream Governour of a [Page 129] Nation, and the great Governour of the World, may if they please, forgive much, and be never the less just, they may so for all that we read in Scripture, they may so for all that we can discover by Reason. A constant unrelenting Execution of Justice leaves no room for Mercy; but wise and gracious Acts of Mercy in proper time and place dispens'd are no Blemish at all to Justice. But if we suppose God to be just by other measures of Justice than Scrip­ture and Reason acquaint us with, we mispend our time in talking about his Justice. Again, if we suppose Justice, with respect to God, to be something which we can't understand, or rather something con­trary to that which we do understand, and that it always requires full Satisfactions for Sin, the Consequence of this will be, that God can forgive no Sin; so that what the Libeller disputes for, is the eternal Misery of Mankind. Let him dispute for his own Soul, as being unworthy of the Mer­cy which he blasphemously reproaches, but 'tis an odd Opinion for one that calls him­self a true Son of the Church, that nei­ther God, nor the King can be just, while he is on this side Hell and the Grave. To urge Authority here is an Argument little [Page 130] worth, that is, as to the Merits of the Cause, but it will sly in the face of the Libeller, who vends his unintelligible Whimsies for receiv'd Opinions; where­fore I will cite him one or two Antients and Moderns of that Class who might hope for his good word, if it be possible for any such to come from his Lips. Atha­nasius, Tom. 1. Serm. contra Arianos, p. 239. Edit. Commel. Aug. l. 13. de Trin. c. 10. Calvin. Instit. l. 2. c. 12. §. 1. Zanchius l. 11. de Incarnatione, c. 3. quaest. 1: I spare the Reader the trouble of long Transcriptions, and refer him to Grotius against Ravenspergerus in defence of his Book De satisfactione Christi, who has col­lected many more Authorities for the very same Doctrine which our two Bishops teach concerning the Death of Christ.

When I have replied a few words in Vindication of the Arch-bishop's Sermon on Matth. 25.46. I shall leave the doing him farther Right to an abler Hand.

The Arch-bishop propos'd to explain, how it can stand with the Justice and Mercy of God, to punish Temporal Sins with Eternal Punishments. Rejecting the [Page 131] common weak Solutions which pass'd in an Age less inquisitive and wicked than ours, this is the chief thing on which the Arch-bishop insists. Tho he that promises does thereby pass over a Right to another, and is oblig'd in Justice and Faithfulness to make good his Promise, yet he that threatens keeps the right of punishing in his own Hand, and is not oblig'd to exe­cute what he hath threatned further than the Reason and the Ends of Government require. To the same purpose the learned Bp Burnet teaches, That there is a Right of punishing Sinners vested in God, which he may use, or not use, as he pleases. There is not the least Syllable of what is here said by either of these worthy, learned and pious Prelates, which the Libeller pretends to reason against; indeed their words are plain and carry their Evidence with them: but the Libeller, well knowing how im­possible it was to disprove plain and evi­dent Doctrines, conjures up all the Powers of his old canker'd Mind, the Spirit of Envy and of Malice, of Impudence and of Falshood, by the help of which, after he has told his Reader that Mr. Blount argues a­gainst future Punishments, at least the Eter­nity of them, he adds,—Exact Dr. Tillotson's [Page 132] Notion in his Sermon upon Hell. And he goes on thus: —Mr. Blount disputes as Dr. Tillotson does, as if future Punish­ments were inconsistent with the Good­ness of God, when as it was the Arch-bishop's form'd Design, to show how Hell-Punishments did consist with the Divine Justice, and Goodness, &c. and he has done it beyond reasonable Objection. The only thing which can with any shadow of so­ber reasoning be objected against the Arch-bishop, is, that if God has it in his Power to forbear the executing of Eternal Ven­geance on the wicked, yet it is not fit that the People should be told so from the Pul­pit, for thereby the Preacher lessens the Discouragements of Sin, and very much weakens the strongest Argument in the World to a holy and vertuous Life. Had the Libeller had but a grain of quick Sense, [...] would have insisted on this Charge, but a Bigot always sacrifices his Wit to his Zeal. Yet after all, the De­fence of his Grace would have been ob­vious to an equal Considerer: For, 1. Who is there that observes not, how the many unaccountable Systems of Christianity, which are impatiently contended for, and anathematically impos'd by warm Pro­fessors, [Page 133] have given occasion to Atheists to suspect the Grounds of all Religion, and to Theists to question the Truth of our reveal'd.

Among the rest of Christian Articles generally receiv'd, which seem at first sight not so very agreeeble to Natural Reason, that of Eternal Punishments is one; hence arose a necessity of examining the Article, and explaining how much was, and how much ought to be understood by it. 2. The sense of the words for ever and everlastingly, not being always the same in Scripture, the Archbishop found himself not oblig'd to account for the reasonableness of Punish­ments, which could not but be of eternal Duration. 3. While the Arch-bishop sup­poses a Power in God to remit of his Sen­tence, and not punish to the utmost ex­tent of his Threatnings, he does not in the least indulge the Sinner to think, but that future Punishments shall certainly be of that Duration and Intenseness, that it is infinitely more reasonable to prefer the Labours and Hardships of a vertuous and godly Life, before the Liberties and Plea­sures, of a sinful,

[Page 134]The odious Calumnies against the late Arch-bishop, which the Libeller threw in my way, being thus remov'd, I return to the Justification of Sir R. H's admirable History of Religion, which also I design'd.

The Libeller in his Supplement mark'd p. 27. inveighing against the Censurers of Priest-craft in general, has these words. Tho they have no account from the Heathen how their Sacrifices began, yet these Gentle­men are very sure, they were first introduc'd by Priest-craft. I will not deny, but that Mr. Blount does suppose Sacrifice to have been an Heath'nish Invention introduc'd by Priest-craft; but for all that the Arch-bishop, or Sir R. H. has said, Sacrifice may owe its first Original to the natural Reason of pious good Men in the Infancy of the World; only they both were per­swaded, that a great deal of Priest-craft was early super-induc'd by the Sacerdotal Administrators, of which Sir R. H. has taken but very sparing notice.

Upon King Charles his Restoration, a certain eminent Doctor appearing in the Chappel at White-Hall, a Noble Lord ask'd [Page 135] his Majesty, why he would suffer that Person to appear there, who had decy­pher'd his Father's Letters taken at Nase­by; the King replied, Man! I ought to thank him for those he did not decypher: And ought not the Libeller to have thank'd Sir R. H. for the many scandalous In­stances of Priest-craft, which he has so obligingly past over in silence. As to the Particular of Sacrifice [which tho the Priests did not invent, yet they early made their Markets on't] we read even in the Old Testament, that the Jewish Admini­strators of it, were not contented with that share of Honour and Maintenance which was legally alloted them; and the Votaries of the fair Sex, had something to complain of of another nature, witness the Story of Hophni and Phineas: the Ro­mish Priests have copied this lewder Craft, and yet there's not a word concerning it in all the History of Religion.

As to that Accusation, that Mr. Blount and Sir R. H. do not agree in the Accounts which they give of the Original of Idolatry, I ask, will the Libeller prove thence, that Sir R. H. took his History out of Mr. Blount's Diana, or will he prove thence, that Idolatry [Page 136] is neither State-craft nor Priest-craft? But how do Mr. Blount and Sir R. H. differ in the Accounts which they give of the Original of Idolatry? Why, he says, that Mr. Blount makes Idolatry to be the In­vention of Kings, Sir R. H. of Priests. But, as his manner is, he belies them both: Sir R. H's words, at most, come but to this, that Priests promoted Idolatry, that they got by it, that it seems impossible it should enter into the Minds of Men without some Direction and Design. Now for all that is here affirm'd, Men might be first cheated into the Opinion and Practice of Idolatry by Kings, only to the Satis­faction of Priests, who found their account in promoting it. What he quotes from Mr. Blount, is no more than that the Pri­mitive Institution of Idolatry receiv'd its Birth from Princes, at whose Charge it was afterwards educated by Ecclesiasticks. Now the Invention of Idolatry, is one thing, the Institution, and passing it into a Law, another; so that, for all that is here affirm'd, Men might be first cheated into the Opinion by Priests, who studied to make their Court to Kings, at the expence of the People.

[Page 137]The Libeller has one Line impertinent, and invidious above all the rest, 'tis this. Malice to Kings and Priests commonly go together.

This joining Kings and Priests together is another Instance of Priest-craft, for the omission of which, the Parties concern'd ought to have been silently thankful. As for Sir R. H. he has given sensible Testi­monies of his Affection and Reverence for Priests, Priests of like Sincerity and Ver­tue as that excellent Prelate, of whose Sermons he makes honourable mention in his Preface, and but with the last necessi­ty was consenting to retire from that im­patient Tyranny, which for a while bore down all our Rights, Religious and Civil, before it. But see the Craft of some Men, they flatter Kings, not for any love they bear to a Crown, more than to the Rods and Axes of a Republick; but that Kings rais'd to Heaven by them, may draw them up after; they make all to be Law which comes from the Mouth of Kings, that Kings may make all that to be Gospel, which comes from the Mouth of Priests. Let the Name of Kings in God's Name, [Page 138] be for ever honour'd; but let Priests, that is, if they would deserve Esteem, know their Distance, and their Duty: there's designing Sawciness in them, when they join their Honour so nearly to that of Kings; from writing Kings and Priests, they'll rise to the vain Stile of the Butcher's Son, Ego & Rex meus. Crafty Priests, like Ivy, twist their clinging Arms around the Royal Oak, tenaciously adhere, rob the Root of its nutritive Moisture, and if not timely torn away, o're-top the tallest Branches, nay tear it all to pieces: every adhering part still lives, and every creep­ing Fibre plots to steal into the decays of the poor dying Trunk, and there a new Root infix; for it is all one to the Ivy, so it have but a Supporter, whether 'tis a vigorous living, or a dull dead one.

Reflecting on Sir R. H. and others, the Libeller says, They make Religion to be State-craft or Priest-craft, as it serves their Purpose. I answer for Sir R. H. that he has suffi­ciently declar'd how true a sense he has of Religion in that just and noble Character which he has given of the Arch-bishop's Sermons. But if this Libeller would fain know distinctly what is State-craft, and [Page 139] what Priest-craft, neither confounding the Terms, nor uniting the Sense, I will tell him. When Kings make use of the learned Sophistry of obsequious Priests to support their illegal Arbitrary Power, that Design in Kings is properly call'd State-craft, or King-craft: bur when Priests preach up Passive Obedience, and Non-resistance, their so doing is Priest-craft; for such crafty Priests as those would not lavish a poor Prayer for ever a King of 'em all, if it was not in prospect of a mighty Protecti­on to bear them out in all their unwar­rantable Clerocatacurieuontisms; if this cramp word be too hard for the Reader, he may pick the sense of it out of 1 Pet. 5.3.

The next Charge against Sir R. H. is this: He makes use of the Errors of the Church of Rome to undermine Christianity. But sure a Man may reprove the Errors of the Church of Rome without under­mining Christianity, unless those Errors be­long to the Foundation, which God forbid it should be said; this I am sure, Sir R. H. has not utter'd, nor does the Libeller charge him to have utter'd the least word against Faith in Christ, Repentance, and good Works.

[Page 140]It is usual with Men to be fond of their own Conceptions, and confident that eve­ry beloved Error of theirs belongs to the Foundation of Faith; but for one that calls himself a true Son of the Church, to be so much concern'd at the Reproof of Romish Errors, argues that there's false fire in his Zeal, or but a cold Indifference in his Pro­testant Profession, and that for his parti­cular, tho Priest-craft be the thing he chiefly studies, yet he is not his Craft's-Master.

But further [says the Libeller] Sir R. H. spits his Venom against the Mosaical Institution, and to prove this Charge he cites Hist. of Relig. p. 58. where Sir R. H. has these words, Christ came to redeem us from the darkness of that Condition we were in by strange and puzzling Methods of Reli­gious Ceremonies and Mysteries, various Rites of sacrificing, good for nothing but to con­found and distract the Minds of Men. Now if this be to spit Venom at the Mosaical Institution, then the Pen-men of the New Testament spit Venom at it most outra­giously; for they frequently speak of it in their Epistles, after the same manner, [Page 141] as Sir R. H. in his History. Nay, St. Paul in one place, says all our Fathers were under a Cloud, under a Vail; and if I be not much mistaken, he calls their myste­rious Rites and Ceremonies beggarly Ele­ments.

But setting aside the Authority of the sacred Pen-men, have not all the Doctors which have labour'd in expounding the Mosaical Ceremonies, acknowledg'd them to be very puzzling? The Calvinists are generally perswaded, that God instituted the Ceremonial Digest, purely because he would do it; for no other reason but to prove his People, whether they would obey his Laws, which had no other Good­ness in them, but what his Arbitrary Sanction gave them: but the learned Spen­cer hath satisfied me, that God design'd in all those Laws to distinguish his People from the Heathen, and wean them from Idolatry; but yet, as Dr. Spencer confesses, it is not so very plain of every Ceremony, what was the natural Tendency thereof to such good End. But as for Mens learn­ing the Duties of Morality from the Ce­remonial Law, it was certainly dark as for inclining them to Vertue, it was, with­out [Page 142] Contradiction, weak, and it were a wonder if the Minds of Men should not be confounded and distracted by such Me­thods.

But now for a dismal Charge! This Sir R. H. like a meer Infidel, not having the Fear of God before his Eyes, borrows the Socinian Arms against Christianity.

To this I answer; 1. It is a silly Cavil. Such a one borrows Arms or Arguments against this, or that; whereas the only thing worth noting, is, whether the Bor­rower understands, and uses them with Skill.

2. Let it be examin'd whether the Li­beller does not borrow his Reproaches; indeed they are so gross and impudent they should be his own, yet were it worth the while, I could show how he runs in debt for them to some of his craftier Bre­thren, who have rais'd Slander to such a height, that it is not safe, no, not for a Man of the greatest Integrity, to reprove any the most odious Instances of Priest-craft.

[Page 143]3. But has Socinus wrote against Chri­stianity?

The Downfal in Black-fryars upon Fa­ther Drury, and his Popish Conventicle, was impudently publish'd beyond Sea, by a bold turn of lying Priest-craft, as a sad Judgment upon an Assembly of Hereticks; this is the very Picture of the Libeller's Charge: For, not to recount the Books which Socinus has wrote in Confirmation of the Christian Religion, not to mention the honourable Testimony which the Po­lonian Knight has bore to his Memory, even the Adversaries of that famous Man will vindicate him from the Libeller's base Reproach. Mr. How, as firm a Trinitarian as any Non-jurant Jacobite of 'em all, and much an honester Man, fairly confesses con­cerning Socinus's Book de Deo, that it is wrote not without Nerves, i. e. in plain English, it was wrote strongly and well; that, and his other Books have been well worn by the best of our Preachers, and they have mended their preaching by it. But per­haps they read with Judgment, and left all the Antichristian Stuff to Sir R. H. no such matter, for they fought against Chri­stianity [Page 144] too with Socinian Arms, if the Libeller's word may be taken. Time was [he says in his Postscript, pag. 24.] that Dr. Sherlock was a rank Socinian in the Doctrine of Satisfaction, tho he grants, that that Doctor has since made some Amends, and I think he is something alter'd, but whe­ther for the better or the worse, I will not take upon me to determine. But Sir R. H. may comfort his Heart, for the better part of the Church-of-England-Clergy, and some of the Dissenting Ministers, as appears by their Prints, are of the Armini­an Perswasion in the Quinquarticular Con­troversy; and he may well remember how bitterly all those Doctrines were inveigh'd against, under the Name of Socinianism. Now who knows but that Sir R. H's So­cinianism may in time come to be good Orthodox Doctrine? 'tis honest and plain, as much of it as he is concern'd in al­ready.

And now I expect to be call'd rank So­cinian, perhaps Atheist, meer Atheist at least, but that from the Libeller will be no Disgrace; yet not to create needless Envy to my self, nor bring unjust Suspi­cion on Sir R. H. I solemnly profess, that [Page 145] I know no more of his Mind in these matters, than from his History; and that I my self agree with Socinus no farther, than he agrees with the plain and sound Doctrine of the Gospel; which I think he does not in some Points, particularly in that Doctrine, that a Dignified and Crea­ture-God is capable of Divine Worship. The Trinitarians have undoubtedly the better of the Socinians here; but then, to deal ingenuously on all Hands, the present Uni­tarian Writers do not espouse that Error of Socinus.

4. What are the Doctrines of Christia­nity, against which Sir R. H. has fought with borrow'd Socinian Arms? they are reckon'd up thus, the Trinity, Incarnation, Divinity and Satisfaction of Christ, and every thing in which is the least pretence of Mystery. But what says Sir R. H.? why, he allows the Gospel to be a Mystery, a Mystery reveal'd: i. e. the way of Salva­tion declar'd by Jesus Christ still retains the Name of Mystery, just as Men, who had receiv'd their sight, are call'd blind, in that Expression of the Gospel, The blind see. The reveal'd Mystery of the Gospel Sir R. H. believes and reverences: then for [Page 146] unreveal'd Mysteries, he is not such an Enemy to them, as the Libeller would perswade; for tho perhaps he does not believe them, because he has no Idea of them, yet neither does he disbelieve them. Of things whereof he has no Idea, neither does he affirm or deny any thing. If any one shall object, that he declares against Transubstantiation, I grant it; but then that, and some Doctrines akin to it, are falsly call'd unreveal'd, or not fully re­veal'd Mysteries; for they are plain and manifest Contradictions. But I suspect that the Reader may desire I should speak home; what says Sir R. H. to the Myste­ries of the Trinity, Incarnation, Divinity and Satisfaction of Christ? Why, he says nothing at all to them, he does not trouble his Head about them, yet he may believe more of them than every body is aware on: for all him, the Libeller, and every one else, may believe as much of them as they can; only he would not have them who are good at believing, force others to believe more than they can, in spite of their Senses.

The Imposition of difficult Speculations Sir R. H. has happen'd to censure, perhaps [Page 147] when he was pleas'd with the Consideration of the plainness of our Saviour's Sermons; but he may defend himself with a Golden Axiom of Dr. Sherlock's—Nothing can be a greater Injury to the Christian Religion, than to render it obscure and difficult. If that Doctor be not of the same Mind still, Sir R. H. can't help that. I know not how it came to pass, but so it is, he has asserted, that Crafty, Heathenish and Ro­mish Priests do not believe the ridiculous things which they impose. But I hope that the Libeller will not make Mysteries of ridiculous things, to prove that Sir R. H. ridicules Mysteries; for ridiculous things will be ridiculous, let Sir R. H. or the Libeller either, do what he can. Sir R. H. also seems to hint, that knowing Men may sometimes submit their Practice to crafty Priests, tho they can't their Un­derstanding. The Morocco Embassador was contented to wear a wide Sleeve, tho he never expected to catch the Moon in it: and some say King Charles the Second was a Votary of our Lady, but he had not a word to say to that Embassador, to save the Honour of her flying Chappel, now happily resting [blessed be the Angel-Carriers for it] at Loretto.

[Page 148]5. What mean these words, Sir R. H. le­vels directly at the Trinity, Incarnation, Divinity and Satisfaction of Christ? I have heard much of the Divinity, Incar­nation and Satisfaction of Christ; but of the Trinity of Christ I never heard before, I believe nor Sir R. H. neither.

What new great Mystery's this, that's come to Town,
So long kept silent, and so lately known?

I always thought there was an exuberant Foecundity in Mystery, but never dream'd of such monstrous Superfoetations.

P. 28. l. 1. The Libeller would prove, that Religion ought to be mysterious, because God is Incomprehensible. As if he should say, because God has not fully reveal'd his own Nature; or, because we are not ca­pable, fully to understand his Nature, therefore we are not capable to understand those things which he fully reveals, and which most concern us.

—Dîi [...]te, Damasippe, Deae (que)
Insanam ob sophiam donent tonsore.

[Page 149] Whether the Nature of God may be fully understood or not, affects not the Question concerning the Nature of Religion: thus much we do know of God, that he is Al­mighty, and All-wise; and from these two certain Notions, we learn that his Dominion over us is absolute, and exercis'd in ways most agreeable to Reason. 'Tis dishonourable to God to assert, that he proposes to our Belief what we cannot understand: and it is impossible for Man to obey God, by believing what he cannot understand; if there be any thing in Re­ligion which is contrary to, or above our Reason, we may be content to be igno­norant of it, for it does not concern us. But I will set down an entire Period of the Libeller, in answering of which, I shall answer the Substance of his reasoning for Mystery.

Pag. 28. l. 3. There are Mysteries irre­concileable to them in their own Natures, and in the Natures of every thing they see before them; yet they would have every thing in a supernatural Religion reveal'd from Heaven, to be so plain, that their Reason should be able to dive to the very bottom of it: which if it were, it would be no Revelation, or perfect­fectly [Page 150] to no purpose; for what needed Reve­lation in things that are obvious, and plain without it?

Concerning the Understanding which we have of our own Nature, and the nature of other things, I shall say nothing, be­cause that Subject is now treated of, with so clear and exact a fulness, as must needs surprize, satisfy, and please impartial think­ing Men.

The Author starts out into the World early and young, but with so vast a stock of Learning, it would be look'd on not without Admiration in the Chair of a Ve­nerable Professor. But whether we per­fectly understand our own Composition, whether we have adequate Conceptions of the nature of things, or no, what's that to the nature of Religion? In Reli­gion some Propositions are to be believ'd, some Commands to be obey'd; and it is absolutely necessary that both of them be so very plain, that an honest-minded Man may certainly understand them: for tho it must be confess'd, we do not pay so ready Obedience as we ought to the plain Commands of our Almighty Lawgiver, [Page 151] yet were his Commands wrote in myste­rious words, hard to be understood, it would be impossible to obey them at all: So in Propositions to be believ'd, tho our beloved Vices may much retard our Assent, even after we understand the sense of them, and perceive their Probability; yet if we do not both understand the Sense of them, and perceive their Probability, it is im­possible we should believe them, or think them to be true, which is what is meant by believing. If any one should object, that tho we understand the sense of the Ar­ticle of the Resurrection, yet we do not perceive the Probability, but nevertheless are oblig'd to believe it: I reply, That we not only understand the Sense, but also perceive the Probability of this funda­mental Article. For, 1. It is confess'd that the Resurrection of the Dead does not imply a Contradiction. 2. We suppose it possible only to the Power of God, who can do all things, not implying a Contra­diction. 3. We believe it will be, because we believe that that is a faithful History, wherein it is recorded, that God who is true, as well as Almighty, hath promis'd to raise the Dead. So now I may venture to tell the Libeller, who with plain dulness [Page 152] pleads not, but betrays the Cause of my­sterious Priest-craft, that if our Reason cannot dive to the bottom of an Article in Religion, neither can our Belief dive to the bottom of it: if we understand but in part, we believe but in part, and that part which puzzles our Reason, exceeds our Belief. But why would the Libeller have us believe to the bottom of an Article, when to the bottom we cannot dive? What is to be got by believing more than we can understand? nothing, nothing to the poor Believer, neither in this World, nor in that which is to come, but very much for the Man that coins the Article, and imposes it under the Penalty of Hell and Damnation. The Priest gains a sort of Divine Honour to himself by his myste­rious Article; and he that commands our Affections, will one way or other have a Finger in our Purses.

The latter part of the Period above quoted carries this sense — That part of Supernatural Religion, to the bottom of which our Reason can dive, is no Reve­lation, or reveal'd to no purpose, because Revelation is not needful in things which are plain and obvious without it. The [Page 153] wildness and falseness of this Assertion will be clearly seen by Instance. Our Reason can dive to the bottom, that is, plainly understand the sense of this Article—God hath appointed a day, wherein he will judg the World by the Man Christ Jesus; and yet we could not have div'd to the bottom of it, if God had not plainly reveal'd it: for the vertuous Discourses of the Hea­thens were enforc'd but with a conjectu­ral and doubtful Supposition of a future Judgment, it was the Man Christ Jesus who openly and assuredly proclaim'd that Doctrine, and God Almighty credited his Testimony with Signs and Wonders, above the ordinary Power of Nature; nay as a satisfactory Earnest of the general Resur­rection, Christ in his Life-time rais'd one or two from the dead, and together with himself, many others also did arise from Death.

That we now know, there will be a Resurrection, and a Day of Judgment, does not prove we could have known it with­out Revelation: but, that we could not have known it without Revelation, plain­ly proves, that it was reveal'd to good pur­pose; and tho Revelation be not necessary [Page 154] in things plain and obvious, yet it was necessary in things not plain, to make them plain; and it is not the part of a Mi­nister of the Gospel to obscure the Doctrines and Notions which his Master made plain and certain.

I did not think to have taken the Libel­ler to task, for any other of his wild Talk about Mystery, because all the common Mistakes on that Topick are so manifestly discover'd by a very great Master, that I do not expect a Man of Reputation will in haste venture a Defence against him. But one artificial pleasant stroke I must not balk. A Mystery [says the Libeller, de­fining it like a Logician] is not that where­of we know nothing at all. But I will dispute with him this his Negative Defi­nition, and prove, that if that, to which he gives the Name of Mystery, be any thing, it is that, whereof we know no­thing at all. I prove it thus. If that which we do know, be not at all myste­rious now we do know it; then the My­stery, if such a thing there be, must con­sist in that, whereof we know nothing at all: thus his Negative Definition is ut­terly ruined.

[Page 155]I will load his Affirmative with Incon­venience, A Mystery [says he] is that, whereof we know something, tho not all. Then, say I, he himself is a Mystery; for tho we know him for a Slanderer of the best of Men, a Libeller of our just and legal Government under King William, yet this is but knowing him in part, and viewing an imperfect Draught of a very ugly Picture; no Man living knows how many worse Devils are harbour'd in his mysterious Heart.

I am in haste to take leave of this To­pick; yet casting my Eye backward, can­not forbear remembring him of one grave piece of dull false reasoning, 'tis this. Is not Heaven a Mystery to us? Do we under­stand it perfectly? Can we describe it? and is it not reasonable, is it not necessary, that the Methods of fitting us for it, and of convey­ing us thither, should be very mysterious to us?

I reply, 1. This making Mysteries of the Holiness which God requires, and the Happiness which he promises, is a trea­cherous giving up the Cause of Religion, [Page 156] and a shameful Temptation to downright Atheism. A very mysterious Promise at most is but a cold Enforcement of Duty, and a very mysterious Duty is in danger to be ill perform'd even by the Man that is well disposed.

2. Heaven is in some measure describ'd in the New Testament, and as far as it is there describ'd it may be understood, and as far as it is understood, it is no Mystery▪ the Methods of fitting us for Heaven are also describ'd in the New Testament, fully describ'd, and may be perfectly un­derstood by any Person of ordinary Capa­city, that honestly applies his Mind to the Consideration of the same; and if he pur­sues the Methods there set down, they will certainly convey him to Heaven, for Heaven is plainly promis'd to so doing.

3. Tho the Author of the History of Religion thought it a matter of Astonish­ment, that the Humour and Affectation of Mystery should continue, when Reli­gion and Faith were by our Saviour's coming alter'd from their former Darkness, yet to me the Reason is obvious and ma­nifest. Crafty Priests pretend that Hea­ven, [Page 157] and the way to it is very mysterious, that so honest and plain People may be mov'd to take them for their Guides. Indeed a Man would be glad of a good Guide, when the way that leads to the place where his Interest lies is very my­sterious, dark, and hard to be found; but how should a Priest know it better than another Man, whose natural Endowments, and industrious Improvements are as great as his, perhaps greater? so it often happens. I am sure 'twere a hard case, that a Man of Honour and Honesty, Experience and Learning should be led by the Nose by a Priest, who confesses that Himself un­derstands but little of the Doctrine which he preaches. It was a just Complaint which Cario mov'd against Chremylus in Ari­stophanes, [...], &c. in English thus it founds — He has his Eyes in his Head, and follows the Steps of a blind Man; one that had Brains as well as Eyes, would not do it. I have known a Dog that could see, lend his Eyes to the blind; but this odd Master of mine santers with his Eyes open after a blind Stroler; and because I am his Man, I must have no more Wit than to bear him com­pany.

[Page 158]4. But if a Man valued his eternal In­terest no more, than to trust the Libeller with directing him the Methods of going to Heaven, what Methods would that Master of Mystery direct him? why he has set them down, p. 28, 29. I will put his Methods in method for him, and give them mostly in his very words, exactly according to his sense.

1. The Man that would go to Heaven, and▪ take the Libeller for his Guide, must have a great care that he avoid the Scandal of good Morality; for which, tho Sir R. H. has a high Esteem, and cannot forbear his strain'd Encomiums on that late moral Preacher Arch-bishop Tillotson, yet it will never carry a Man to Heaven, any more than his own natural Strength can lift him up to the Skies; for Morality is not Religion, nothing is Religion but that which is reveal'd. Morality is nothing but believing according to the Light of Nature; the Adversaries of Priest-craft may suppose it to consist in living up to that Light, tho they do not live up to it neither, nor indeed is there any thing to be got by it.

[Page 159]2. The Man that will be conducted to Heaven by the Libeller, must be content to put himself under the Discipline of Re­ligion, reveal'd Religion; for reveal'd Re­ligion [which is a Complex of the Me­thods of conveying him thither] differs infinitely from moral Religion, which is falsly so call'd, because nothing is Religion, but that which is reveal'd [as was above noted]: for moral Religion [to allow the Phrase a while] teaches only to believe according to the Light of Nature; at most, but to practise according to that Light; whereas reveal'd Religion puts Men under Discipline, and that manag'd by others, and those others are Priests, and none but Priests, for without Priests there can be no Religion; and to cry out against Priests, who have the Administration of Religion, is the same thing as to decry Religion it self.

3. The Candidate of Heaven must take notice, according to the Libeller, that a belief of those things which Religi­on teaches, is sufficient to entitle a Man to a Sect, to be an Epicurean, or a Stoick; but there goes more to make a good Chri­stian [Page 160] than so: What more? good moral Practice? no, no, 'tis no matter for that. But when a Man believes the Mysteries which Religion teaches, the next thing he has to do, is to enter himself into a Society or Corporation, which is called the Church; for Morality having no Promise, entitles Men to no Privileges but what they have by Nature: but unconceiveable Privileges and Promises are annex'd to the Society or Corporation of the Church.

4. That the Candidate of Heaven may not mistake, and enter into a wrong So­ciety or Corporation, [which would be a damnable Mistake] he must be sure to take notice, that the right Corporation is govern'd by Episcopal Officers, who have power to expel out, and admit into their Society according to the Rules of their Charter: and the Sentences which they pronounce, they say, Christ has given his infallible Promise to ratify in Heaven.

5. That the Candidate of Heaven may not be tempted to dislike and scruple the Methods above-mention'd, the Libeller assures him, that if he does not submit to these Methods, he sets himself out of all [Page 161] hopes of future Happiness, and there's an end of him. The Sum and Substance of all in plain English comes to this—A Man need never trouble himself about leading a good Life, let him but believe as his Priest would have him, and submit himself to the Discipline of the Spiritual Corpora­tion, and he need never fear going to Hea­ven. So then more Athanasiano, Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessa­ry, that he makes use of the Methods above-said.

Father Poza, a Jesuit, is reported to assert, that an ill Interpretation may be made of those words, I believe in God the Father Almighty: but I defy the wittiest Jesuit breathing to make out a good Inter­pretation, nay to make out an Interpre­tation not scandalous, of these the Libel­ler's Methods. But after all, one thing I will say for him, viz. that I have reason to believe, that the Methods which he commends to others, he himself religiously follows.

I am almost asham'd to argue seriously against this ignorant and scandalous Li­beller: but that none may say he is only [Page 162] ridicul'd, and misrepresented, not answer'd and refuted, I will reason with him on the chief Topick of all this wild Stuff, of which he speaks in general Terms so extravagantly and falsly. That chief To­pick is, his distinction between Morality and Reveal'd Religion, by the means of which he takes occasion to blaspheme God and good Men, and tempts the weaker sort of People to have low Thoughts of true Piety and Vertue, and build their hopes of Happiness on their Assent to they know not what mysterious Propositions. Now I will show that Morality and Reveal'd Religion are much the same, that they are divers Names, under which the same things are denoted.

Morality may be defin'd to be the Pra­ctice of all those things which Natural Reason, free from Passion and Prejudice, approves as just and fitting to be done. Monroe says, that believing according to the Light of Nature, is Morality: but he minds not what he says, venting what comes uppermost, so that in this Particular it is his chance to be wrong, as when he calumniates 'tis his choice.

[Page 163]That which is usually call'd the Law of Nature, is nothing else but Convenientia cum naturâ rationali, an Agreement with Rational Nature, or Natural Reason; Mo­rality is the actual Observance of that Law, the Practice of all those Vertues that are agreeable to Natural Reason.

Natural Reason hath been ingeniously compar'd to the changeable Lustre of a Dove's Neck, which appears of other Co­lours to me, than it does to him who stands not in the same Light that I do: but Natural Reason, free from Passions and Pre­judices, is the proper Judg of every thing which can be made the Duty of a Man.

Christianity, which is now the only true reveal'd Religion, is a perfect System of all the Laws of Nature, of all those Vertues which Natural Reason, free from Passions and Prejudices, approves; and all those Laws, all those Vertues, by the ge­neral Consent of Men, fall under the Name of Morality.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ, is a moral Gospel; his Errand into the World, was [Page 164] to re-establish the despised Authority of moral Goodness, to teach Men to set aside their vicious Prejudices, and impartially consider the Reasonableness of moral Good­ness.

In short, the reveal'd Religion of Christ, is the old moral Religion, which careless Neglects, hasty Passions, and evil Exam­ples had almost banish'd out of the World. But now it will be ask'd, why it's call'd Reveal'd Religion? that's the next thing I have to show.

And here let it be consider'd, that tho there is not a vertuous Precept in the whole Gospel, which was never heard of in the World before; yet Christ gave the whole a new Sanction, and a more awful Autho­rity, he establish'd all the Instances of good Morality upon stronger Foundations.

The Mosaical Religion, the Morality whereof was encumbred and darkened with a heavy Burden of numerous strange Rites and Ceremonies, did exhibit only Temporal Promises and Threats, to perswade the Jews to Obedience: Or if there were any thing beyond this Life [Page 165] promis'd or threatned, 'twas in such ob­scure Expressions, that 'twas uncertain, and not to be made out but by labour'd Rea­sonings and long Deductions.

The wiser Heathens, who discours'd rea­sonably, and liv'd well, enforc'd their wise Discourses, and good Examples, with but faint and doubtful Probabilities of a Life to come, wherein successful Wickedness should be punish'd, and injur'd Vertue re­warded; and when they could not demon­strate their Argument, were fain to be content with this harmless Speculation, that Vertue was Reward enough to it self, and a good Man happy, even when he was grievously tormented.

Our blessed Lord and Master Jesus Christ was the most consummate Doctor, the most authoritative Lawgiver, that the World ever knew: It was He that brought Life and Immortality to light, which were de­scri'd before by waving Flashes, by sudden glances of Rays faint and weak: He re­viv'd languishing Morality by the Revela­tion of a Resurrection, and a Judgment to come; and God gave Testimony to the Revelation of his Son, by Signs and Won­ders [Page 166] supernatural, and uncontestable. The Reason of Man could not have attain'd to the certain knowledg of these things, if God had not made them known by the Ministry of his Son. In short; the Pre­cepts of the Christian Religion, are Moral Precepts, and obvious to Natural Reason; but the Sanction and Enforcement of them by future Retributions, that's Divine, re­veal'd from Heaven, and confirm'd by Mi­racles.

Having given this account of the nature of Morality, and shown what that is which gives it the Name of revealed Re­ligion, I hope I may have leave to guess why the Libeller undervalues Morality, and extols the Discipline [as he words it] of Reveal'd Religion, perhaps the cause may be this; Morality is a dry, lean busi­ness, a crafty Priest can make no Earnings of it, there's more by half to be got by Discipline. Discipline! Discipline manag'd by others, by the Administrators of Reli­gion, by Priests, O 'tis a fine thing! for not only may the Laity obtain Salvation by submitting to it, but they may be made to be sav'd whether they will or no, tho not for nothing neither. What a sad thing [Page 167] is it, that this Discipline should be relax'd now! how will the Gentlemen answer it to God, and their Country, who have laid open the Inclosures of the Corporation? I know not [said an Orator of no mean Craft in my hearing] which is worse, that the People go astray, or that they may do it. This Age is as unhappy by not being kept under Discipline, as the Ages before Moses; for they living before reveal'd Religion, and nothing being Religion but reveal'd, could have no Religion at all; and the pre­sent Age, tho living under reveal'd Religion, yet not under Discipline, had even as good live under no Religion. The Sum and Substance of Religion consists in Discipline; for, says Monroe, there can be no Religion without Priests, and they are the Admi­nistrators of Discipline. But what shall we do in this case? He that tells us there can be no Religion without Priests, where­by he damns the first Ages of the World, confesses there never were more Priests without Religion than now, so that it must go hard with this present Age. The Au­thor of the History of Religion had more Honesty and good-Nature, more Wit and good Sense, than to talk at this angry, de­cretory, censorious, scandalous rate: he [Page 168] meddles not with the numbers of wicked Priests, only, for the Honour of Priests that are truly religious, he taxes the Frauds of the crafty; and why that should be imputed to him as an unpardonable Sin, the Libeller will never be able to say, who owns, that wicked Priests are no where more severe­ly reprehended than in Scripture. That Man must have no regard to his own Cre­dit, who finds fault with the History of Religion; for the Author in celebrating the Fame of the late Arch-bishop Tillotson, has sufficiently publish'd to the World, that he has an high Esteem and Veneration for Priests, Priests that are Men of Learning and Vertue, tho they follow their late thrice excellent Metropolitan at a distance, and but as Ascanius follow'd Aeneas, non passibus aequis.

The coming in of King William, was a Test upon all Orders of Men, and openly discover'd who had a true Zeal for the Interest of their Country, and the Preser­vation of their Religion, and who were only jealous of a private and less honoura­ble Interest. The History of Religion, in like manner, is a Test upon all its Readers, no Man can declare his dislike of that [Page 169] Book, but at the same time he proclaims that he esteems the Substance of Religion to consist in that, which is least to be un­derstood, that he is all for Discipline, as the Libeller phrases it, and if it were in his power, would treat all them that do not believe as he does, very scurvily.

A great deal of dull, false, railing, idle Stuff, p. 29. and 30. being pass'd over, I note, that he presses the Biddelite Socini­ans [as he calls them] in one Point, with an unanswerable Objection: but those that consent with Mr. Biddle are in no greater an Error than the Trinitarians, and the Unitarians have a Charity for them both, while they live well, and lay not a per­secuting weight upon their beloved Error.

What the Socinians and present Unita­rians hold, in what they agree, in what they differ, the Libeller shows that he does not understand, and 'tis not worth the while to lead him into a true sense of the Controversy: for when all is done, his way is to curse, and not to argue; and they that differ from him, in what Particulars soever, shall be sure to be branded with the vile Names of Cursed [Page 170] Priests, and Latitudinarian Ministers of Satan.

One thing in him is very pleasant, he would fain perswade the World, that the Differences between Dean Sherlock, and Dr. South in explaining the Trinity, are not worth speaking of, but only such as may happen between any Men of the same Faith. It is a wonder he did not tell us, that as notwithstanding some slight Diffe­rences of Opinion, both those Doctors were still Orthodox in the Faith; so notwith­standing an angry word or two by chance past between them, they are both the most civil and good-natur'd Gentlemen, the most endearing, faithful, and inseparable Friends that one shall meet with in a Summer's Day.

The Libeller advances a new Charge, never before heard of, p. 31. Socinian-La­titudinarian Ministers wrap up the Mystery of their Iniquity in Darkness lest it should be de­tected: How this can stand with his for­mer Charge, that they would have all things in Religion be so plain, that Reason may be able to dive to the bottom of them, I cannot imagine: But I must confess these contra­dictory [Page 171] Charges are two or three Pages asunder, and he may defend himself by very great Authorities.

As for wrapping up—something—I know not what, in Darkness, the Libel­ler out-does all his Brethren; for Instance, pap. 31. l. 4. col. 1. take these words—God dwells in Light inaccessible, in thick Clouds and Darkness, caus'd by Light too strong for our weak Senses. Here he takes Light and Darkness for one and the same thing, or Light to be the cause of Dark­ness, I can't tell which; and by the Epi­thets which he gives to Light and Darkness, he intimates that the greater the Light is, the thicker must be the Dark­ness.

Ocyus Archigenem quaere, at (que) eme quod Mithridates
Composuit—

Pag. 96. of the History of Religion there occurs this word Innoscence, instead of which the Libeller reads Innocence. In­noscence being but an uncouth word, I am willing to suppose the Libeller has corrected a false Print, but then his Re­flections [Page 172] are unjust, for in that place Sir R. H. speaks of simple Error, Error which proceeds from Ignorance, not faulty Igno­rance, but Incapacity: and such Error he deems innocent, because the erring Person could not help it; nor has such Error of it self any noxious Influence upon other Men; therefore wholly beside the matter is that Reflection of the Libeller's—when Ignorance is set up to countenance Infidelity and Irreligion, then it is all Innocence. But this forgetful Calumniator having spit his Venom in this Column, licks it up again in the next, professing [and so far agree­ing with the Author of the History] that he is far from thinking every Error criminal; and that no body is more for perswasive Me­thods than he, as to Errors which proceed from Weakness, and have not Malice in them. Tho but a few Lines before, to point a Calumny which he was aiming against Men of Moderation, he determin'd, that Blasphemy, Idolatry, and Treason were but Errors. His Contradictions are thicker sown now, and truly I think the worthy Persons whom he traduces, would do well to forgive him, because he falls out with himself in every other Line, to their suffi­cient Vindication. Yet one thing I will [Page 173] not forgive him, that is, his blunt and scurrilous Impudence, borrow'd a veteris malevoli Poetae maledictis, when he pre­tends to set down what Faults Ignorance cannot excuse. The first he notes, are Affectation and Pride. But why this to the Author of the History of Religion? who, if proud, has more in him to excuse the Fault than most Gentlemen have, and many a Priest that I know, is proud of less.

But after all, he never arriv'd at that arrogant height of Positiveness, as to de­termine thus—Whosoever does not be­lieve as I do, without doubt he shall pe­rish everlastingly: nor do I believe there are any the least Seeds of this Ecclesiasti­cal Positiveness growing in the Mind of that honourable Gentleman.

The second Sin which the Libeller notes, that Ignorance will not excuse, is Ingra­titude: his Note is just, but his Instance is a notorious, villanous and treasona­ble Falshood. So that an honest Pagan would say of him as Chrysalus of Archide­mides,

[Page 174]
—Aedepol certè scio
Vulcanus, Sol, Luna, Dies, Dei quatuor
Scelestiorem nullum illuxere alterum.

The Author of the History's share in the Revolution, is so far from blemishing, that it adds a new Lustre to his bright Honour. He that could be content in the prime vigorous Years of Life, to seek his Fortunes with an unhappy dethron'd Prince, has now evidently shown to all the World, that his Soul is devoted to serve the Crown with his private Interest, or any thing else, but the Extirpation of the Protestant Religion, and the utter Ruin of his Country.—But that the late King had laid such Obligations on the Author of the History, as to do more for him than all the Friends he had in the World; the Libeller rubb'd his Forehead hard when he ventur'd on that Lie; for nothing was more known through the whole Court, than that the late King number'd him, and us'd him, as one that could not be brought to sacrifice the Religion and Laws of his Country to the Arbitrary Lust of a Priest-ridden Tyrant.

[Page 175]This lewd Libeller seems to be of the mind of an old Barretter, who instructing his Lawyer to load their Adversary with a very invidious and scandalous Imputation; the Lawyer ask'd him, what Proof could be made of it? to which the litigious Knave replied, Say it, say it, Man, and let them disprove it. But this unconscionable Im­pudence takes away all Credit from a more plausible Calumny.

The Libeller reckons in the last place, for Sins not to be excus'd by Ignorance, Sins of Intrigue and Design: but 'tis ma­nifest that here sua vineta caedit, he cuts down the Hedges of his own Vineyard. The plainer the Doctrine, sure the farther from Intrigue and Design; but between Intrigues and Mysteries, there's a near and apparent Relation. The Author of the History of Religion rightly and truly ob­serv'd, that the whole Aim of our Saviour in the Gospel, was to use clearness: The Libeller does not love clearness, and yet one would wonder he should not; for he's as ill made for the carrying on an Intrigue as any dull Priest of 'em all, who makes such mean Fellows as my self, with a [Page 176] very small stock of Learning, and a little better portion of Humanity, go off at a great rate.

Pag. 31. Col. 1. The Libeller crowds into two or three Lines as much Folly and Fury as he is able. For having charg'd the Author of the History, and such as agree with him [and they are the most Men of good Sense and firm Integrity] with blaspheming God, and ridiculing Re­ligion, which their Souls abhor, he notes, that God has pronounc'd that Crime to be Death, and then pronounces—nor would these Sons of Belial have escap'd it, had they liv'd in any Christian Country. He that overflows with such audacious, shame­less Eruptions of artless Malice, over-does Machiavel's cursed Advice; for from so profligate and careless a Writer, no Man will expect either Truth or Reason. But why Sons of Belial? I fancy he had an Eye to Pasor's Descant on the word [...], nomen origine Heb. latinè sine jugo, h. e. impatiens jugi, i. e. disciplinae. To be im­patient of the Yoke of Discipline, Disci­pline in which consists the Substance of Religion, Discipline exercis'd by Priests, by Priests without whom there is no Religion, [Page 177] this, this is that which fires the Libeller so, that he terms it Blasphemy and irre­ligious Jesting; this, this is Belialism, and to relax this Discipline by Toleration, that's so unchristian an Act, it provok'd him to declare, p. 29. col. 1. That Kings and Par­liaments have corrupted Religion, as well as Priests, and Parliaments more than Priests. I find that even Kings are upon their good Behaviour with crafty Priests, but they make no reckoning at all of Parliaments; their flattering Oratory is Mercenary, meer Craft, and subtile bargaining. That Human Ordinance, which would be Di­vine, must execute Temporal Wrath upon the Contemners of Spiritual Discipline: for the neglect of this, both Kings and People fall under Interdict; and the Life of a Dissenter from Discipline, is an uncon­testable Argument, that there's no Chri­stianity in the Country. One word more; why is this Libeller angry, that Sir R. H. has shown how Religion has been cor­rupted by Priest-craft, whenas he himself confesses, that Priests have corrupted it, tho not so much as Parliaments? I cannot imagine his meaning, unless it be, that he thinks none ought to corrupt Religion, but Priests, and Priests may do what they please with it.

[Page 178]Let the Reader now be judg, whether what this lewd Libeller applies to two most learned and pious Bishops, in p. 23. quoted from Hosea 9.7. does not fitly agree to his own Person, [for I am told he is a Non-jurant Priest] The Prophet is a Fool, the Spiritual Man is mad. In the same Section he quotes Jer. 23.10. Because of swearing the Land mourneth: the Reader may guess what swearing he, that has not sworn Allegiance to King William, mean­eth; but the Prophet meaneth common swearing, and indeed it is that, together with the unquiet Machinations of the Non-jurants, and the Unfaithfulness of them that took the Oaths only to save their Places, which troubles the Land. He aims ano­ther Text, Jer. 5.31. against the Bishop of Sarum, a Priest worthy of all Honour; but I will better apply it, to crafty wicked persecuting Priests, such as the Libeller, The Prophets prophesy falsly, and the Priests bear rule by their means; but the People of England, wiser than the Jews, do not love to have it so, and I hope there will be an end thereof. Amen.

POST-SCRIPT.

NO venerable injur'd Name in all the Catalogue of English Bishops bet­ter deserves to be vindicated from the base Calumnies of audacious Libellers, than the incomparable Dr. Tillotson, late Arch-bishop of Canterbury: sure 'tis the awful sense which this Age has of the great Ho­nour due to his thrice happy Memory, which makes them who are best able, so slow to do him Justice.

There was publish'd t'other day indeed a Pamphlet, stil'd, Reflections upon a Li­bel, entituled [The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson consider'd, &c.] but so sad and sorry a Story is that, so coldly does the Writer defend his Grace's most useful and truly Christian Sermons, so perversly does he draw that great Man [Page 180] into the favouring his private, scandalous, indefensible Doctrines, that the Arch-bi­shop seems worse us'd by the Vindicator, than by any his most spiteful Adversaries.

Who this Vindicator should be, does not plainly appear, but he has a mind to be guess'd at, and therefore I will oblige him. He must, at least, be a Friend of the Dean of St. Paul's, because he tells us, p. 10. something, I know not what, how that Dean happen'd to be an eminent Man, and he gives him the honourable Appellations, which that Learned Person seldom forgets when he speaks of himself; and towards the Conclusion, p. 61. as if he had resolv'd openly to discover himself, he falls upon an honourable Gentleman with more than Billingsgate Rudeness, charges him with ridiculing the Christian Religion, pro­scribes him for an Atheist or Deist, which he saith is all one, calls his History of Re­ligion an execrable Pamphlet.

The Design of the Author of the History of Religion [says this Nominal Vindicator of the Arch-bishop, who has one word for him, and two for a Friend behind the Curtain] is to ridicule the Christian Reli­gion, [Page 181] without offering at one reason, why it ought to be ridicul'd. Such Impudence as this ought not to be suffer'd to go off with flying Colours; therefore let it be noted,

1. That the Design of this Nominal Vindicator, is to calumniate an honourable and honest Christian Gentleman; for he accuses him of ridiculing the Christian Re­ligion, without offering one Instance where­in he has ridicul'd it.

2. That Gentleman is so far from ridi­culing the Christian Religion in that Book of his abovemention'd, that I defy all Persons whatsoever, of Clergy or Lay-Denomination, that have taken Offence at it, to assign any one Instance, wherein he detracts from any of the Practical Duties of our holy Religion requir'd by Jesus Christ.

3. Tho that Gentleman is no Friend to Priest-craft, yet he is the most mild and temperate Adversary, that ever oppos'd the pious Frauds of impious Hypocrites: for he is content that all who please, all who can, believe all the pretended Myste­ries [Page 182] now in vogue, which puzzle the most thoughtful and discerning Wits of the Age, and all that shall be devis'd at any time hereafter, by Men that can't employ them­selves better; provided that they who can't believe them, may not be induc'd by perswasive Penalties to profess they do.

4. Tho the Christian Religion is truly Divine, and of all things ought not to be ridicul'd, yet some Priests for twenty Rea­sons ought not to be spar'd; I will pay down half the twenty now, this present, and the remainder upon demand.

(1.) Some ought not to be spar'd, be­cause they themselves ridicule Religion by the apish Modes in which they dress it; the most of these are Romanists.

(2.) Some, because they make a Gain of it, by superinduc'd false Doctrines.

(3.) Some, because they exact the Belief of they know not what.

(4.) Some, because they make the Life of Religion to consist in Discipline.

[Page 183](5.) Some ought not to be spar'd, because they teach that there's no Religion in Mo­rality.

(6.) Some, because they teach that there can be no Religion without Priests.

(7.) Some, because they can't dispute without bringing against one another railing Accusations.

(8.) Some, because they make a very great show, of a very little Learning.

(9.) Some not to be spar'd, because they preach up one thing one day, and another the next.

(10.) Some, because they indent with Kings, and give and take Divine Right from them, as Offence is given to, or remov'd from themselves.

The Nominal Vindicator of the Arch-bishop, when he accuses the Author of the History of Religion for an Atheist, or Deist; being in running haste, throws in these words—it matters not which: No? [Page 184] Is a Deist quite as bad as an Atheist? What will become of his old Friend Socrates, and one or two more generous Heathens, of whom he and many a truly honest, pious, Christian Priest have had a very cha­ritable Opinion? He that from his Heart sincerely believes there is a God, and that he is a Rewarder, cannot be a very wicked Man, tho it is to be confess'd, he cannot be so good as a true Chri­stian.

One word more with this Nominal Vindicator, Why is the History of Reli­gion such an Execrable Pamphlet? it does not diminish the Authority of the Sacred Writings, it does not detract from any Precept which our Lord Christ has given us, nor from the Revelations wherewith he has enforc'd his Precepts; it does not prejudice any honest Priest in the faith­ful Discharge of his Function, no nor in the Recovery of his Temporal Rights, due to him in such a Spiritual Dignity, by English Law; it is only out of their way, who being devoid of true Religion would make a trade of the outward Form. They are the Men, the only Men who curse the History of Religion, and let them [Page 185] curse on, they will but curse it into greater Credit; the Bookseller may venture on a second Edition, their Curses will pub­lish it so widely, he need not fear but that a numerous Impression will go off. I beg one for my Advice; and I promise, see­ing I can't set it in my Study where I would, because honest Mr. Johnson tells me the Book of Homilies is the next best Book to the Bible, I will be sure to place it next after the Book of Homilies.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.