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.