A Twofold Vindication OF THE Late Archbishop of Canterbury, And of the Author of The History of Religion.  
The first Part defending the said Author against the Defamations of Mr. Fr. Atterbury's Sermon, and both those eminent Persons against a Traitorous Libel, titled, The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson considered.  
In two Letters to the Honourable Sir R. H.  
The second containing Remarks on the said Sermon, and a Reply to the same Libel.  
Wherein some Right is done to that great and good Man Dr. Tillotson, in the Points of the Original of Sacrifices, the Sacrifice of Christ, Future Punishments, etc.  
And a word in Defence of the Eminent Bishop of Salisbury.  
By another Hand.  
London, Printed in the Year 1696.   

SIR,  
I Have received by your favour some Papers written by two very Learned Persons, which you say are ready for the Press, occasioned by two extraordinary angry Men, Mr. Atterbury and Mr. Monroe, who have expressed their Displeasure against my History of Religion. I dare not give my Opinion of their Writings, I am too much an obliged Party; besides, their own Abilities will much better show it than I can express it: but I fancy, that if Mr. Atterbury and Mr. Monroe had imagined they should have raised such a Strength against them, they would hardly have mustered up their own weak Forces.  
For Mr. Atterbury, I know him not, but he has made himself known by choosing a very improper place (the Pulpit) to vent a Passion unsuitable to Christianity, or common Morality; for such must an injurious Violence be esteemed, that has no Reason pretended to excuse, or at least to extenuate the Passion: From that place we expect to be taught by Persuasion, not by Railing; yet he seems to have a Christian Consideration that hinders him from writing some Body's Life; if he means mine, I will free him from his tender Christianity, and own that I writ the History of Religion; and if he pleases to use the freedom I give him, I assure him I shall not be displeased at any Truth that he can write: but if his usual Passion guides him other-ways, I shall attend him with such Answers, and make him such suitable Returns, as will be proper for the occasion, and consider his Calling with as little respect as he did the sacred Place where he chose to rail.  
For Mr. Monroe he is angry at every thing, he sputters at the Government, and will not allow that most excellent Man Dr. Tillotson, late Archbishop of Canterbury, either to have a Title to that, or any Parts or Abilities; but at a venture, among many other Errors, charges him to be a Socinian, and at the same time discovers he does not know what a Socinian is; then falls upon the Bishop of Salisbury, and then with an obliging Anger ranks me with those great Men: but his furious Wildness is sufficiently laid open by these two Learned Men.  
When I writ the History of Religion, I was very much pleased to see the Church of England (which I have fought for, and shall ever defend) so free from all those Heathenish Rites and Superstitions, retained by the Priest-Craft of the Church of Rome, and could not but admire to see any that professed to be a Minister of the Church of England offended at it; nor can I imagine any Reason for such a Concern, unless they would have the very Name of Priest of what Persuasion so ever, so sacred that it should not be irreverently handled: if this should be the cause, I dare venture to assure them they will find no return, for could any write with such a Disadvantage to the Ministers of the Church of England, the Popish Priests would not show any Displeasure to see them condemned here, that they pretend to believe will be damned hereafter.  
But Mr. Monroe seems to grumble something about Sacrifices, as if I had writ concerning the Original of them. I could not be so dull as not to know the beginning of them was as early as Abel, I only traced the use of them, with the Rites and superstitious Ceremonies taught and enlarged from time to time by the Heathen Priests, and how they were still continued and imitated by the Priest-Craft of the Church of Rome, which I thought I had made evident by Matter of Fact. A Friend of mine, of Quality and Learning, told me, he asked a Minister why he was displeased at the History of Religion? he answered, that they were whipped upon the Backs of the Romish Priests; I could not but wonder how they got up there to receive the Lashes of the others.  
I believe that there are some so in love with Power, that they were displeased I inveighed against Persecution, by which they exercise it: if that offend any, I shall always persist in receiving their Displeasure; for I presume I have clearly showed that it is contrary to the teaching of the Gospel; we are there taught to love our Neighbours as ourselves, and certainly they would hardly seem such Neighbours that would be Executioners; they would not seem to love others as themselves, unless they were equally desirous to be their own Hangmen.  
But Mr. Monroe is yet more severe, and will be the Judge of what I mean; for being displeased, as it seems, that I writ against Transubstantiation, he says I meant it against the Trinity, though I had not a thought, nor writ a word that could give him the least cause to pronounce so rash a Sentence. I remember a Justice of Peace in a Play that bid his Clerk make the Mittimus while he examined the Party; but of all Men living I would not have him my Arbitrary Judge, for he that makes himself worse than others, would probably condemn me to be worse than I am.  
But I leave these two angry Men to the Correction of those two Learned Persons, to whom (as in Gratitude I ought) I shall ever acknowledge great Obligations, by whose Strength my Weakness is sufficiently supported: I shall only add, that I have read of a wise Philosopher that would not trust himself while he was in Passion; but these reversed Philosophers raise all their Confidence from their Passions. I have seen an angry Cur bite at a Wheel because it moved from him; and I presume that dark keeping is the cause of such a causeless Fierceness.  
At the latter end of one of these Learned men's Writings, I find a very charitable Answer for me to Dr. Sherlock, who in his Defence of that excellent Man Dr. Tillotson, late Archbishop of Canterbury, (in answer to The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson considered) is pleased, unprovok'd by any Cause, to call my History of Religion an execrable Pamphlet, and me an Atheist or Deist, which it seems is all one to him, for he says, it matters not which, and that my Design is to ridicule Christian Religion. If these heavy Charges be true, I readily confess 'tis an execrable Pamphlet indeed; but he is not pleased to give the least reason to excuse or justify so much undeserved Bitterness: if it be Dr. Sherlock's, as generally believed, I will not venture to pretend to cope with him in harsh and virulent Expressions, he is more furnished than I am with Ammunition proper for such a War, witness the Muster of his angry Forces in that learned Book which charges him with Tritheism; but I hope he will not be displeased if with an unmoved Temper I endeavour to: free myself from such uncharitable Imputations. But of all Men living, the Doctor seems to me the most improper Man to charge any one with ridiculing Religion, and not accompany his Charge with the least Cause or Reason for it, since he is not only indicted for it, but the Indictment made good upon him; if the Proof of Idolatry, Impious and Heretical Opinions can do it, and the Charge made out by a Doctor of the Church of England, a Man of most extraordinary Learning and Parts, with strong Reason and Authority, and for aught I can see to the contrary, very unanswerable by Mr. Dean; and not only charges him for his public Writings, but for his private Practice, if no regard of Conscience can ridicule Religion. This is set forth by that most Learned Person in his Animadversions on Dr. Sherlock's Book, entitled, A Vindication of the holy and ever blessed Trinity, which charges him with Tritheism, though Mr. Dean is pleased most peremptorily to declare that he has made his Notions plain and obvious, though by Words and Phrases neither obvious nor plain: but the Charge is made out upon him with strength of Reason and Learning; neither of which Dr. Sherlock is pleased to bestow on me for his severe Judgement, perhaps he believes (as indeed he may) that his only pronouncing makes it as obvious and plain, as his endeavouring to prove it would have been.  
The Charge of ridiculing Religion in his own Practice, arises from his seeming Contempt of Conscience, one of the chief Rules of Christianity, by professing he would suffer Martyrdom rather than take the Oaths; but he was easily converted when Interest more prevailed upon him than such a slighted part of Christianity; nor stopped there, but ridiculed Providence itself, to bring it in Aid to justify his contradictory Consciences: for what can more appear the ridiculing of Providence, than to endeavour to make it the Justifier of Mischief and Injustice, if but successful enough? But if the Doctor can make this good, he will reach a more sublime Art of Priest-Craft, than any that I have described in the History of Religion. But it may be he does not believe that I ridicule the Christian Religion comprehended in the Gospel, but the Religion which he calls Christian, that differs from the Gospel, and is founded upon new and extravagant Notions; for he is charged with Blasphemy by the same Learned Person, in his Book of the Knowledge of Christ; on such a Religion I confess if I had the Art of ridiculing, I would willingly bestow it.  
But since he is not pleased to give the least reason for his hard and uncharitable Censures cast upon me at a venture, I will take the opportunity to refer it to any impartial Reader, if he pleases to examine it, whether I have not in my History of Religion pursued the blessed Rules and Precepts of the Gospel with a sacred Veneration, and upon that strong and sure Foundation have endeavoured to build all my Reasons and Arguments: but the Doctor perhaps would have his Notions received as true Christian Religion, though not founded on the Gospel; and consequently not to believe those dark Notions, is to ridicule Christianity.  
With the same passionate Liberty he calls me a Deist or an Atheist, it matters not which. I cannot imagine how any Man should venture to pronounce such a blasphemous Indifferency: but seriously reflecting upon what the Doctor has writ, I began to imagine that he had so fully and clearly convinced himself, (since he thought he had made it so plain to others) that there were three distinct equal and Infinite Being's; that consequently he presumed if any did not believe in three Gods, it mattered not whether they believed any at all; and if his Notion of three Gods equally Infinite and Almighty were true, it seems to follow, that he that does not believe the three, must be guilty of Atheism, though he believes in one. By this he seems to have reason to make Deism and Atheism of equal respect: So that every one is concluded an Atheist that is not of the Doctor's Opinion. This adventurous Passion can only proceed from the Opinion of his own Infallibility, and is angry at any that will not believe in him.  
I know not what Answer to make to his downright calling Names, there's no Argument can arise from direct railing, and such in the common Method of the World are replied to with nothing but Blows; but I shall only say that he calls me what I am not, and to wave the harsh word which is due to him, I shall only add, that what I say is true, and leave the contrary to rest upon him.  
I will conclude with one Assurance, that I shall not take it ill of any one that shall offer Reasons unclogged with Passion against any thing I have writ; and if I cannot clearly answer them, I will submit and acknowledge my Error; and that any one may have the freer Invitation, I own that the History of Religion was writ by,  
SIR, Your true Friend, and most humble Servant, Ro. Howard.   

A VINDICATION OF His Grace, the (late) Archbishop OF CANTERBURY; And of the (Honourable) Author of The History of Religion:  
From the Defamations and Scandals of Mr. Fr. Atterbury; and of a (Traitorous) Libel supposed to be written by Dr. M—roe, with this Title, The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson considered, etc.  
In two Letters to the (Honourable) Author of The History of Religion.  
Printed in the Year, 1696.   

TO THE PUBLISHER.  
SIR,  
I Hear, my Letters to our honourable Friend, the Author of the History of Religion, are in your Hands; and that you have thoughts of putting them into the Press: if so, I pray, let this to yourself go along with them. For I ought to inform you: that I have received an Answer from our Friend, concerning the great Favours, and Liberalities of King James to him. He avows, that His Majesty, both when he was King, and while he was only Duke of York, never did him any Favour, nor made him the Offer of any: but on the contrary, showed to him all the Unkindness, that Occasion and Opportunity (at any time) enabled him to express.  
It appears then, that the Libeler, knowing the great Services of our Friend to the Crown and Royal Family, took it for granted; that King James had endeavoured to win him, to the Popish and Arbitrary Interest, by Preforments and Liberalities: and so (at adventures) he makes it one part of his Gild and Naughtiness; that he would not be bought by Favours, the meaning of which he might so easily guests at. But had his Majesty been as bountiful, as the Libeler supposed; Why might not our Friend have taken those Favours, either as part of the Reward, due to his Services; or as His Majesty's Royal Munificence, to Wit and distinguishing Abilities: Why was he obliged to understand them, as Bribes and Corruptions, as the Libeler would have them interpreted? This Ungrateful Man, says our Popish Accuser, forgot all the King's Bounties to him, and was with the most forward in turning him out. Let us grant to a Fool both his Lies; yet where (however) is the Ungratitude, when never any thing was given to our Friend by the Royal Family, which he might not most justly put to the account either of his Services, or his Abilities?  
But King James, Father Petre, and the Nuncio, knew better things, than to fling away their Money on a Person, whom his Virtue, more than his Fortunes, had set so much above the reach of Bribes: they were for a contrary method, to Browbeat, and Mortify him by Oppositions. But neither would this do, he remained the same to his Religion and Country, as he was to the Crown and Royal Family, when they were attacked by the Republican Faction: that is, he was (Heroically) firm to both, while they were the weaker side, without seeking afterwards from either, the Rewards of his Merit to them. You and I, Sir, have nothing so much valued by us, as the Friendship and Esteem of a Fortitude, Constancy, and Virtue so extraordinary; nor any thing that we desire so much, as the long Life and Prosperity of a Friend, whom with so much reason we value and love. This is all that I need now to say, saving that I am, with the greatest Respect,  
Your most Obliged, and Assured Friend, N. S.   

The First LETTER; Being Reflections on a Sermon, preached before her (late) most Excellent Majesty, on these words of Solomon, The Scorner seeketh Wisdom, and findeth it not: By Francis Atterbury, Student in Christ-Church, Oxford.  
To the Honourable and Learned Author of The History of Religion. SIR,  
AS I had the Honour, to see The History of Religion, before you gave way, that it should go to the Press: So I cannot but wonder, that any should be so roused, and even affrighted and scared, by a Book, which seemed to me, not only true and useful, happily thought and as well expressed, but also altogether inoffensive to every true Lover of (a sincere undisguised) Piety and Morality. I deny not, that when I began to read the Book; the Term Priest-Craft, there often used, and the Instances you give of it, made me a while doubtful, what might be the Author's Aim; whether he might not (at length) stretch his Notion of Priest-Craft, not only to the impious Frauds of Pagan Priests, and the pious Frauds (as you civilly call them) of some Christian Priests, but even to all Revealed Religion, as if it were an Imposture that has depraved, rather than explained and enforced Natural Religion, that new Mistress of many of our Modern Wits. But when I had gone over the whole, with such an Attention, as I thought was due to the Subject treated of; and of the Conceptions and Observations of an Author, whose Pen had always hitherto been successful: I perceived, to my great Satisfaction, that the Thoughts in the Book had been conceived in the last Reign; and by occasion of the danger we were in, from Popery. You draw a Parallel, between the Pagan and the Romish-Priests: you are so impious as to think, nay to say and publish it to the World, that a Popish Priest is as errand a Knave, as Cato thought the (old) Roman Augurs: you even dare to add, that their Sin and Gild is greater, because the latter had not a Rule to direct them, but the other act against a most plain Rule (a directing Gospel, as you speak) merely for Profit. You give so many, and so pertinent Instances of this, that had you published your Book in the last Reigns, when it was thought and written, you had been enrolled among our Confessors: but now that the Danger is past, and the Church's turn is served by you, and (the few) such as you are; Mr. Atterbury is for putting you into the Seat of Scorners.  
After you had finished the Scenes, in which you expose, first Rome-Pagan, then Rome-Antichristan; you are so unlucky, as to drop some words against Persecution; and also to advise the contending Parties of Christians, that, Setting aside their Wranglings about obscure and undecidable Questions and Mysteries; they would consider the Gospel as a Doctrine (chiefly) of Love, Mercy and Charity, and behave themselves accordingly towards one another. Haec tetigit Gradive tous urtica Nepotes: this (envenomed) Sting in the Tail of your Book, has so wounded Mr. Atterbury; that he could not forbear running up (immediately) into his Pulpit, to tell (no less Persons than) the Queen of England, and her whole Court, what kind of Man you are. See here, what Characters he has given you. He is so possessed with the Notion of pious Frauds and Priest-Craft, as to apply it (indifferently) to all Religions, and to every thing in Religion. Bless me, and deliver me, from the Malevolence of a Student! as he writes himself. But choleric and revengeful Men, commonly wound themselves most, when they are endeavouring to wound others: here is a Book written against Popery, and Persecution; Mr. Atterbury is so angry at it, that he cries out, Men of Israel, help, here is a damnable Book written against all Religion, and every thing in Religion. That is, he owns no Religion, nor any thing as part of Religion, but only Popery and Persecution. Truly, he has been a Student at Christ-Church so long, to good purpose: but was it necessary, he should vomit up such a secret, before the Queen, and the Court of England; might it not have been better whispered, among his Jacobite Friends? But her Majesty was pestered with too many such Chaplains: Men that cannot abide to hear, I do not say, our holy Father the Pope, or the sacred College, but not a Romish Priest, spoken disrespectfully of.  
At Pag. 16. he suggests the writing the History of your Life, in revenge for your History of Religion. He is (surely) a pleasant Man; he would write the History of an Anonymous, or nameless Author; that is, of one he does not know. But as before he told us his Religion, Persecution and Popery; so here he lets us know his Wit and Honesty: he would write, he says, of he knows not whom, and he cares not what, provided it be black enough. For that's the (only possible) meaning, of writing a Life in Revenge.  
But if his blind Rage will permit a third Person, to interpose between him and the Author of the History of Religion; I entreat him, that when he writes, I may furnish him with some Memorials: better, I assure him, than Malice, and Ignorance of his Adversary, will ever minister to him. I can tell him, that (the sad Man) the Author of the History of Religion, has a good degree of Charity to the Poor, and as great of the Virtue of Liberality to the Learned: I can inform him, of your Compositions to the Theatre, which made your younger Years so famous; and of the (unanswerable) Defences you have since made for the Nation's Rights against Arbitrary Power and Tyranny. I dare not, I confess, tell him of your Posts of Trust and Honour: for he will be unreconcileably alienated, when he knows, that to all your other Naughtiness, you are a Williamite too.  
He takes for his Text, the words of Solomon, Prov. 14.6. A Scorner seeketh Wisdom, and findeth it not. From hence he would raise an Invective, a Sermon he calls it, against you, and the History of Religion. A Man would wonder, how this Text should make for Popery and Persecution; or against the Patrons of Sincerity, and Liberty, in Religion. But what is there, so remote, or hid from others, that a Student cannot discover it? Father Atterbury is able, I doubt not, to prove from this Text, or to disprove any Proposition in Euclid. For Students do not hold themselves obliged, to reason accurately and closely, as other (common) Men must; but by leaping over some (intervening) unsuitable Propositions, may skip from Tumult to King Pipin, or what is as good, from Historian to Scorner. Yet methinks, since this Gentleman had a mind to declaim (before the Queen) against the History of Popish Jugglers and Cheats, he should have shown his Zeal in some other way, rather than in a Sermon, or from a Text of Holy Scripture: for of all Abominations, there is none so detestable; as to wiredraw, wind, and bow the sacred Text, to argue against itself; that is, to patronise Impostures and Deceits.  
In the Prosecution of his Text, so pat (as every one sees) to his purpose; he falls to considering, what may be the Reasons, why the Scorner seeketh Wisdom, and findeth it not. One of the Reasons he offers is very marvellous; it is this, because the Scorner (saith he, pag. 12.) is a Man of quick and lively Parts. Such Men (saith he further, there) are apt to give themselves a Loose, beyond plain Reason and common Sense. I know not, I confess, what he means; nor (I believe) can all the Students of Christ-Church, interpret it to me. But be that as it will; the thing he aims at, in that whole Page, is, that quick and lively Parts are marvellous Hindrances, in the Quest of Wisdom and Truth; according to him, the only hopeful Candidate of Wisdom, is a Sancho Pancha.  
But it will not yet go out of my Mind, nor can I keep my Eye off it; that a Court-Chaplain should have so little Government with him, that, so soon as he had read a Book against Popery and Persecution, he should from the Pulpit and in the Royal Presence, attack the Author in such Terms as these: He has written the History of Religion, and were I not withheld by Religion, I would write his History. What! is it such an Offence, at this time of day, to write a few Sheets against Popery; that no Person of Honour must put Pen to Paper, on that Subject, on pain of being libelled by her Majesty's Chaplain, for that's the unquestionable Meaning of writing his Life? But he is withheld, he says, from writing this Life, by Religion. By what Religion, Sir? Would you have us to think, after you have defamed him in such Language as this, and to such an Auditory, 'tis from Conscience, and Love of your Brother, that you do not libel him to the (unsignificant) Rabble? It is evident then, that you have (hypocritically) feigned a religious Tenderness; to which you are an utter Stranger: must we be obliged to call it your Religion, your Charity, and Tenderness, that you are content not to write his Life to the common Herd; when you have actually pointed at him, in a sacred Place and Exercise, in the Presence of the Prince, and most illustrious Personages of the Kingdom? And for whom is it, that you sergeant this pious Tenderness? For an Anonymous Writer, for one you do not know. For as to Report, and the Whispers of those sagacious Men, who so certainly know all Authors, they are so oft mistaken: that, except it be here and there a Student, no body heeds them; or rather, every Body abhors them.  
I am amazed, that any Man (especially a Man of Learning and Wit) should utter so many Follies, and Contradictions, in a Pulpit: and also oversee them all again, when he prepared his Notes for the Press.  
For Instance.  
He asperses an honourable Person, in the very highest degree, in the Royal Presence: and yet 'tis mere Religion, he says, that withholds him, from writing his Life to the common People. That is, he has swallowed the Camel, and is now grievously straining at the Gnat. Again,  
He has an Inclination to libel (or as he calls it, write the Life of) the Author of the History of Religion: and yet this Author is nameless; that is, utterly unknown to Father Atterbury, and his whole Fraternity.  
Again; He saith, this Book is directed against all Religion, and every thing in Religion: and yet the very design of the Book, is this; that ' 'tis a shame, that so many have had no Religion but their Belly and their Profit; and a Pity, that others are persecuted only for Religion, and Conscience towards God. Once more,  
He saith; that the thing which the Scorner seeketh for, is Wisdom: and yet he adds; he finds it not, because he has quick and lively Parts. That is, according to this Student; the Scorner seeks, for what he has: and he misses it, because he possesses it. It is well, that the Student's Sermons are so short, as they always (I observe) are: for these are such flat and direct Contradictions; that if there were many of them, they would too much expose the Preacher, to the Contempt of his (very meanest) Hearers.  
I have done with Father Francis, for the present; only this, Sir, I shall promise you: that when he is disposed to try his Hand in writing Lives; he shall have the Satisfaction, to see his own Picture, drawn in such lively Colours, as Time shall not easily deface.  
Sir, I think, I shall not need to mind you; that you ought not to be in the least disturbed, at the Sauciness of an obscure Academic. For being bred, as they are, among mean Companions; and comparing themselves only with Undergraduates, Servitors, and Gippoes': when they first appear abroad in the World, the poor Wretches always make themselves ridiculous, by not knowing themselves, and their Rank in the World. They think, that all Mankind has that Reverence for them; which their Scissors, and College-Servants, are forced to show them: and from hence, when they get into the wooden Box, instead of (the Apostolical) Reprove and Exhort; they fall to (Porterly) Reproach and Scandalise.  
On the contrary; I doubt not, you will always be pleased and happy, in the Recollection of the immortal Services; which you have done the Royal Family, the Monarchy, the Liberties of the Nation, the Commonwealth of Learning, particularly Learned Men; and that nothing may escape your Influences, to the calamitous and poor. I promise myself, that you will not lay Father Atterbury's want of Honesty, good Sense and Government, against such Advantages as these: but rather you will be mindful to give Thanks to God, who has lifted you (by favourable Providences) so much above the (unheeded) Reproaches, of an unfinished Pulpiteer.  
Sir, I am your most obliged, most assured, and most humble Servant, N. S. April 3. 95.   

The Second LETTER, In Answer to, The Charge of Socinianism, against Dr. Tillotson, considered; and to the Appendix, concerning the History of Religion.  
SIR,  
SInce my last, here is another weak Brother that has taken Offence, at The History of Religion.  
I confess, I wish the History had gone to the Press, with that Title, which yourself (in the Manuscript Copy) gave it; The History of Religion, as it has been abused by Priest-Craft. The words, as it has been abused by Priest-Craft, might have prevented some People's Mistakes: who now seeing in the Title Page The History of Religion; and meeting with little in the Book itself, but an Account of the various Perversions of Religion by (Pagan and Popish) Priest-Craft; they infer, that by Religion the Author means even all Religion. The Publishers of your Book feared, it should seem; that if Priest-Craft were not left out of the Title of your Book; it would raise such a Jealousy in those for whose Use and Good the Book is designed: that they would never suffer themselves to be undeceived; that is, they would never read it, and thereby be informed of the Abuses put on them, by Impostors pretending to Religion. Either way, the Book was like to be mistaken; but the Publishers (who put it forth, I may add that also, against your Inclination, because you thought it now not so necessary or seasonable) judged it not advisable, to give occasion of Offence in the very Title. But (as I said) it appears by the Event; that it had been better to keep the Title, given to his Book by the Author himself: for all your Maligners (that have hitherto appeared) seem to be misled by the present Title. Because the Title is The History of Religion; and the Book is only an Exemplification of the Corruptions and Abuses thereof, by some wicked Priests: therefore they cry out, 'tis written against Religion, and the Sacerdotal Function. But jacta est alea; 'tis now too late, to recall the oversight of the Title: we must be content, to examine what your Opposers have to object to the Book.  
Enough (I think) has been said to Mr. Atterbury; you are now attacked by one who does not put his Name to his Book; but the Title of it, is this. The Charge of Socinianism, against Dr. Tillotson, considered: with a Supplement, by occasion of an History of Religion. In the former Part, that against Dr. Tillotson, late Archbishop of Canterbury; our Author pretends at p. 10. that the Archbishop's Design in publishing his four Sermons against the Socinians was, only that he might be sound answered by them: and further, that they and the Archbishop play booty, into one another's hands. Pag. 9 He adds, The Archbishop printed his Sermons, and procured the Recommendation of them by the Court, that he might serve the Socinians, and more reconcile Men to their Principles. But lest the Confederacy between him and the Socinians should be discovered, they agree, (saith our Author) like Counsel at the Bar; to fall foul (sometimes) on one another, and even to scold and call hard Names: which to wise Observers (says he again) serves only to discover so much the more their Hypocrisy and Deceit.  
But it is the least part of his Charge against the Archbishop, that he is a Socinian; and wrote only to oblige them, and to betray the Cause into their hands: for he says, pag. 13. Dr. Tillotson is owned by all the Atheistical Wits of England, as their true Primate and Apostle; in him they glory and rejoice, and make their Boasts of him. He leads them, not only the whole length of Socinianism; they are slender Beaux who have got no further; but to call in question all Revelation. He sums up almost his whole Charge against the Archbishop, at pag. 32, and 33. in these words. He exceeds the Theistical Juncto, in the Barbarous Accounts he gives of the Rise of Christian Religion: for they make it to be only the Invention of wicked Men, and of Devils; he makes it to be a mean Compliance with those Inventions, of Devils and wicked Men. He contends, that all Revealed Religion is good for nothing, but only to preserve outward Peace, in this World. 'Tis a Maxim with him, that a Mother's suckling her own Children, is of more necessary and indispensible Obligation; than to believe in Christ. He disputes openly, and professedly, against the Satisfaction by Christ: and according to him, not only the Eternity, but the Being of Hell, is a precarious Supposition. To add now no more; he he says at p. 16. that a plain and downright Hobbism appears in the Archbishop's Sermons; and that the same Thread runs thorough all his Works. Besides these (as every one knows, most false) Imputations on the Archbishop's Books and Doctrine; our Author speaks of his Person, with like Malevolence and Contempt: he never calls him Archbishop, but Dr. Till. or Jo. Cant, or such like. And he concludes his whole Performance, with an Address to the Clergy and People; to separate from this, and some other Heretical and Impious Bishops: He assures them, that by the Canons of the Catholic Church, they not may, but aught to separate; and that it is not Schism, to depart from those Guides, who corrupt Religion by their Heresies.  
After these Compliments to the Archbishop; our famous Author (for his Book will certainly make him so) proceeds to sprinkle his Flowers, upon you. At first, he is much in doubt, whether the Archbishop was not Author of The History of Religion: but that Doubt he soon dismisses; and he resolves, that it is written by Sir R. H— d. I suppose, for no other reason; but that he thought fit, to divide the nauseous Load of his Stomach, between two: it would have seemed too malevolent and implacable, to discharge it all, upon one Man. Besides, as 'tis one of the Delights (as well as Undecencies) of excessive Anger and Malice; to repeat the same Charges and Reproaches, over and over: if our Author had wrote but against one, he had miss the Satisfaction of easing his Mind by re-iterating his Scandals; and saying again and again the same lewd and mad things.  
When the most learned Writer had fixed in his Mind upon an Author, for the History of Religion; though he is content it should not be the Archbishop himself, yet of necessity it must be one of his Grace's Disciples and Proselytes. And for this most (dangerous) Charge, I confess (Sir) yourself gave occasion enough, in your Book: by the respectful mention you make of his Grace; and by your quoting, and (most wickedly) applauding some Passages of his Sermons, which recommend a pacific Temper and Carriage, as the greatest and surest Argument of a right Christian.  
But here, before we go farther, it will be proper and useful; seeing our (immortal) Author has been so careful, to discover the (Heretical and Blasphemous) Writer of the History of Pagan and Popish Cheats in Religion, for you meddle with no other; to inquire, and (if we can) to ascertain our Conjecture, who it is that is thus greatly concerned and angry at their Detection: and whether I rightly guess at the Man, or no; yet I shall not fail (I think) to give his true Character, both as to his Honesty, Principles and Abilities.  
The Vogue of the Town lays this Libel, to a certain Jacobite Club; others again to a late Dean, who has quitted his Deanery, because he would not take the Oaths that are required, since his present Majesty was declared King. I do not believe, it was written by a Club; for this, in my Opinion, incontestable Reason: that whereas it consists of three Parts, and (were it not printed in an extreme small Character) would be a bulky Book, yet the whole is very uniform; the Language, Thoughts, Theology, are throughout the same, every where of a piece. As to the Dean, having read his former Works, to which his Name is affixed; I dare to discharge him wholly, from having the least hand in, or liking of, this (equally silly and wicked) Trifle. The Dean writes after another manner, Elegantly, Judiciously, Learnedly; I doubt not, he is a much better Man, than so much as to approve the (shameless) Falsifications and Scandals, that appear here in every Paragraph. No, no, the Author came from beyond Tweed, if not beyond the Tay: the many Northern Improprieties and Barbarisms (both in the Phrase, and the writing particular Words) never used by any Englishman; and the Calvinism, or rather the Knoxism, in the whole; are manifest Indications that our Author is a Scot Nor has Dr. M—roe been able to keep his own Secret: 'tis got abroad among a great many, that this late Professor in one of the Scotch Universities, and a Bishop Elect, is the Man that has thought himself qualified, to censure the Doctrine of an Archbishop of Canterbury; and to encounter with the (Great) Author of the History of Religion.  
That he is a Scot, I prove (I say) first, by the Northern Improprieties and Solecisms (as well in the writing of particular Words, as in the Phrase) which abound in every Page of this Pamphlet: I believe, Sir, you will be of my Mind; if you cast your Eye but on a few of them.  
For Positive, he always writes Positive.  
For Estimation, our Highland Aristarchus says Esteemation; and never other ways.  
When you say Innoscence, the most Learned Professor takes it to be Innocence: and hereupon commits I know not how many Blunders; and vents his Follies as fast, as elsewhere his Malice.  
Then, for his Phrase, or improper Application of Words, and Proverbial Expressions; his Elegances are such as these. The Man above-told. The Reasons above-told. Barbarous Notion of the Christian Religion. Barbarous Account of the Rise of the Christian Religion. It makes all my Flesh to creep. No Englishman ever writes so, or uses these words in that sense, or that order.  
His Theology too, as I observed before, is Knox all over. For though the Scotch Divines of the Episcopal Party, forsook Mr. Calvin and Mr. Knox in the Question about Church-Government: yet in Points of Doctrine, they have varied nothing at all from Mr. Knox, Author of the Reformation in Scotland; and Mr. Knox took Mr. Calvin for his Copy. Hence it is, that our present Libeler so often Cants and Calvinizes'; you would think the Bishop Elect were some Speaker in a Quakers, or Anabaptists Meeting-place: of which, I suppose, the Reason is; because he would pass for an Elect Bishop, as well as a Bishop Elect. For Example.  
Pag. 15. I compare our Natural Light or Knowledge, to the Creation of the first Day. And it is the Light of the first Day, that we enjoy still; but not as it was that day created. It was regulated and modelled the fourth Day into the Sun, Moon, and Stars; and now we have no Participation at all of the Light of the first Day, but what we have from its Regulation on the fourth Day, and conveyed to us from the Sun: which I compare to Revealed, that is, to the Christian Religion. God is Light (1 John 1.5.) and Christ is called (Mal. 4.2.) the Sun of Righteousness: and though there is a precedent natural Knowledge of God, like the Light of the first Day; yet now that Christ is revealed, the true Knowledge of God must be had in the Face of Christ.  
Pag. 8. As we explain the matter, [he means the Satisfaction by Christ] all the Attributes of God stand full and infinite; they rejoice and exalt together. But this I cite, not for the Divinity, but for the monstrous Impropriety and Cant of the Language: the words full and exalt being altogether senseless here.  
P. 21. God is not only Just, but is Justice in the Abstract, Justice is the Nature of God.— All the Justice we have, is but a Ray sent down, from the Essential Restitude [he aimed to say Rectitude] in God.  
At p. 7. He affirms, that the Law and Gospel are the same; and he thinks that St. Paul has so taught us, Heb. 4.2. At p. 9 he contends; that it was indispensably necessary, that a full and adequate Satisfaction should be made for Sin, to the Justice of God. At p. 21. he will have it, that Justice will exact the uttermost Farthing, Justice MUST do it, and otherways it were not Justice: and from hence he concludes; that because God is Justice, and Justice cannot forgive the Debt of Sin, therefore God cannot forgive it. All this is Calvinism, or rather Knoxism. But what Name shall we give to his Impiety, when speaking of our Saviour, he fears not to call him (p. 22.) that accursed and devoted Head? He did not learn this of Mr. Calvin, or of Mr. Knox; Mr. Calvin makes this judicious Note on Gal. 3.13. Christus peccati & maledictionis reus erat, non in se, sed in nobis; sive quatenus nostram Personam susceperat. As who should say, the Lord Christ is not to be called accursed in his own Person, but only as representing or sustaining our Persons, the Persons of Sinners. Therefore Accursed Head, when spoken of our Saviour, is not only harsh, improper and overbold; but heretical and impious. But of our Author's Divinity, more hereafter; let us now see, what are his Principles, and how he stands affected toward the Government: it may be, we shall find that all this Cry about Socinianism, Hobbism and Irreligion, is nothing but this; that they are Charges, very fit for a Jacobite to lay to a Williamite, because they are black enough.  
He often intimates that the Court, and the King and Queen, did design to countenance the Archbishop's Blasphemies, Socinianism, and Super-Hobbism, that's his word, by their commanding his Sermons to be printed.  
He will not own the Archbishop, the Bishop of Sarum, or any of the new Bishops, to be Bishops, as being set up by an incompetent Authority; but only Persons bearing themselves to be Bishops: and the peculiar Name he has found for them, because he delights in abusing the words of Sacred Scripture, is, Spiritual Wickednesses in High Places.  
At p. 15. he discharges his Choler upon those; who (as he phrases it) have deserted, betrayed, and taken Arms against King James.  
With respect to the Oaths, that are required to the present Government, because he cannot jest but in the words of Holy Scripture, he says, because of SWEARING, the Land mourneth. He was so afraid, that some dull Reader might overlook his Contempt of the Scriptures, and his Treason to the Government; that he was careful to write the word Swearing in Capital Letters.  
He compliments the present Archbishop, upon his Accession to the Chair of Canterbury, in these words. On Novemb. 16. 1694. Dr. Tillotson was struck with that fatal Apoplexy, that carried him out of the World the 4 th' day after; to make room for another comprehensive Latitudinarian, who looked over Lincoln, to succeed him. He intended (without doubt) to allude to the Proverb, the Devil looked over Lincoln: but to spoil his Conundrum, the Proverb doth not intend Lincoln Cathedral, but Lincoln College, to which place his Grace never had a Relation. 'Tis easy to see, by these Passages, that the late Archbishop, the Author of the History of Religion, and other great Men, are out of this Author's good Graces; not for any real Socinianism or Hobbism, but only because they are notorious Williamites: Hobbian and Socinian are the worst Names, that we can now give; so 'tis expedient, that all Williamites should be represented as Socinians and Hobbists.  
A Man that shall thus undertake to reproach his Sovereign, to spit upon the Government, and to accuse the greatest Divines of the Kingdom, as partly not understanding, partly heretically perverting the Doctrine of the Church, aught to be a Person of very great Abilities; in respect both of Judgement, and Learning. Every one will blame such daring Attempts, in a Man of very mean, or no Wit and Erudition: such a one, let the Grounds of his Opposition and Complaints happen to be never so just, should patiently expect, till a sufficient Head and Hand shall enterprise to manage the Accusation. But the Chitt who at present has ventured upon all this, is so utterly unfurnished of the Qualities, requisite to such a Work; that the Care of a Village-Cure, or of a Country-School, is hugely above him. I pray (Sir) have the Patience if you can, to take account of some Instances of our Author's Learning, and Judgement.  
He had heard say, or had read somewhere; that St. Peter's words, which things the Angels desire to look into, are very emphatical in the Greek; therefore to seem learned in a Tongue which he can scarce read, with much to do he finds the Text, and sets it down thus; which things the Angels desire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to stoop down with Reverence, and admire. Here first, the High-land Critic instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which last will never be found in any but a High-land Vocabulary. In the next place, he interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by to stoop down with Reverence, and admire; a sense never put on the word by any Lexicographer, no not by the meanest Abcedarian Grecian. Indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (or as the Learned Professor speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is rendered by some Critics, se inclinando introspicere; which (it may be) he took for to stoop down with Reverence and admire: but the Critics meant thereby, to view exactly, after the manner of Persons that stoop or bow that they may observe a thing the more distinctly: the Signification of stooping down to honour and admire, is a discovery that we owe to this great Author only, all the Grammarians and Critics will reject it. In my opinion, our Author acted prudently, when foreseeing that with the late Revolution in Scotland, the Presbytery would be the Trump-Card; that he might quit his Station with Credit, he feigned himself a Jacobite, and refused the Oath: he was conscious to himself, that the Presbytery would never continue a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Professor's Chair; much less, allow of this Criticism on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it denotes stooping down to honour and admire, when (here) it so certainly signifies only stooping down to view distinctly and exactly.  
He falls upon the Bishop of Salisbury, for his Explication of the Incarnation and the Divinity of our Saviour; he says, this Explication implies both Heresy and Idolatry. He (kindly) instructs the (poor) Bishop, how the Incarnation is to be understood. 'Tis not (says our Professor) rightly accounted for, by the Similitude of the Inhabitation of Jehovah in the Cloud of Glory: no less Inhabitation [of the WORD] than an Impersonation can declare or truly describe the Incarnation; for no other sort of Inhabitation can carry with it Communicatio Idiomatum, that is, can make God to be called that thing, or that thing be called God. Mr. Hill and this Author were best to confer Notes, they alike understand the Church's Doctrine about these Mysteries; and have equal right to censure the Doctrine of this Learned Prelate. If he slights Mr. Hill, yet it may be his Lordship may have so much Charity for his Countryman; as to inform him, that Impersonation of the Divine WORD, is the Eutychian Heresy. The Catholic Church never says, that the Divine WORD, but the Humane Nature is impersonated by the Incarnation. 'Tis the Manhood that is impersonated in the WORD, or as the Athanasian Creed speaks, is taken into God; not the WORD that is impersonated in the Manhood. The Manhood which is not a Person, is rightly said to be impersonated by being taken into the Person of the Divine WORD; but the WORD being always a Person, cannot be impersonated by the Incarnation. It was with great Propriety that his Lordship used the word Inhabitation; as not only not implying any heretical Ambiguity, as Impersonation does, but being the very term used by St. John; who (John 1.14.) explains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (or He was made Flesh) by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or He inhabited in our Nature, in the Human Nature or Manhood.  
The Archbishop had said; It pleased God there should be some Mysteries in the Christian Religion, such as, three Persons who are but one God, the Incarnation of God in the Human Nature, God satisfying for Sin in his own Person: probably, saith the Archbishop, for this Reason among others; because it had been found by Experience, that Men have a great Inclination for Mysteries, and are hardly contented with a Religion that has not something in it Sublime, Mysterious, and above Human Capacity. What says Momus to this? Why, his Answer is not more morose and malevolent, than 'tis impious and profane. P. 6. Blessed God, this Man makes no more of the Mysteries of our Religion, than only to satisfy men's foolish Curiosities. He that will have a Maypole shall have a Maypole; since you will have Mysteries, here's one for you, God manifested in the Flesh. This is to satisfy your foolish longing after Mysteries, and to give you your full of Mysteries. Was there ever so impious a Burlesque upon God, and the Religion of Christ;— as if He was incarnate and crucified, only to outdo Rawhead and Bloody-bones.— What are Mysteries, without any farther Consideration than as Mysteries; but the height of Folly, perfect Rary-shows. The Archbishop said not, that Mysteries are of no other consideration or use in Religion, but only to satisfy the Curiosity and Inclination of Men; but that this is one Reason, among many others by him assigned, why there are some Mysteries in the Christian Religion: he giveth divers other Reasons of the Incarnation and the Satisfaction, and some Illustrations of the Mystery of the Trinity; besides this which so much displeases our Professor. Was it becoming of a Man, pretending to Probity and Learning; to run out into such wild Expressions as these, by occasion of the Archbishop's (inoffensive) saying, that the Christian Mysteries might be (in part) intended to satisfy the general Inclination of Mankind, for Mysteries and sublime things? Would any but our (mad) Author have fallen hereupon, to comparing the Trinity to a Maypole; the Crucifixion of our Saviour, to Rawhead and Bloody-bones; and all Mysteries to Rary-shows and the height of Folly? Is this the Sobriety of a Bishop Elect; or a Reflection to be prefaced with, a Blessed God? He that manifestly perverts the words of another, to an impious sense; or puts innocent Words and Sentences, into profane Terms and Expressions, is guilty of Blasphemy against God, and the highest Injury and Uncharitableness to his Neighbour. And if the Archbishop's words had in the Consequences of them, ministered real occasion for such kind of Comparisons; as the Maypole, Rary-show, Rawhead, and the rest of this Author's Extravagance and Wickedness: yet seeing those Consequences were never intended by the Archbishop, but are most contrary to his Mind and Sentiments concerning the Mysteries he defended: this Author out of Reverence to those Mysteries themselves, should have forbore such horrid Terms; which would have been very foul and black, even in the Mouth of a Socinian. I know not what Excuse can be made for our Author; unless we should say; that, poor Man, with his Preferments he also lost his Wits.  
Not quite to tyre you, Sir, with the Specimen (I promised) of our Author's Honesty, Wit and Learning; I will give you but one Example more of it. 'Tis the principal design of his Book, to prove the Archbishop, the Bishop of Salisbury, and the Author of the History of Religion, are Socinians; the other Charges of Irreligion and Hobbism, come in only by the by, and only sometimes, when his inflamed Choler wholly disorders his Brain. Therefore now, doth he himself understand what that Socinianism is, which he charges upon others: for 'tis not uncommon with malicious Men, to charge others with Socinianism, Popery, Hobbism, and such like, which they have heard (from divers) are very bad things; without knowing (scarce) at all what is implied in those words. I assure you, this is (very much) our Author's case: he has charged you and others with Socinianism, not as 'tis an Heresy understood and detested by him; but only as 'tis a word of Scandal and Reproach. You will believe me, when you know that he says;  
P. 32. None were more violent Persecutors than the Arians, that is the Socinians; when they had Power. When he says here; the Arians, that is, the Socinians: you know, Sir, he might as well have said; the Jews, that is, the Roman Catholics.  
P. 2. There was no Shibboleths, which all these our Adversaries [the Anti-Trinitarians] did refuse; but that of Consubstantiality, or that the Father, Son and Spirit are Consubstantial: which also this Author [the Archbishop] does refuse; and while he does so, he must be reckoned among those Adversaries. First, the Archbishop never refused the word Consubstantial. Then, you (Sir) who have been so conversant with the ancient History of the Church, remember very well; that neither did all Anti-Trinitarians reject Consubstantial, nor all Catholics admit of it. It was first advanced by Paul of Samosata (Patriarch of Antioch) who held as the Socinians now do; and was rejected by a Council of 72 Catholic Bishops, assembled at Antioch against the said Paul. Afterwards, it was approved by the first Nicen Council, but refused by the Bishops of Britain, Gaul and Germany; not because they disliked the thing signified thereby, but because they would not admit of an unscriptural Term in declaring Points of Faith. As for the Arians, they were only the Anomaean Arians who disliked the word Consubstantial, the rest admitted of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Consubstantial) as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of like Substance. Socrat. H. E. l. 3. c. 25.  
P. 2. They (the Socinians) puzzle Peoples Understandings, though by very foolish and contradictory Arguments; how God by his Infinite Power may bestow true and real Divinity upon another, and that from all Eternity: because what he can do to day, he might have done yesterday, and so backwards for ever. All this, Sir, is a Chimaera of his own; and was never held, or said, by any Socinian: they hold, on the direct contrary; that it implies a Contradiction that Divinity (or so much as simple Existence) can be bestowed by one Person on another Person from all Eternity; they suppose, that bestowing and receiving imply an actual Priority of the Person who bestows Being or Divinity, and that in this case the Giver and Receiver cannot be Coeternal. In a word, our Anti-Socinian Professor imputes the very Doctrine of the Catholic Church, to the Socinians: 'tis the Church (not the Socinians) that holds, that God can bestow true and real Divinity on another, and that from all Eternity; and 'tis the Churches, not the Socinians Argument, because what he might have done to day or yesterday, he might also do from forever. When he calls this, a foolish and contradictory Argument; all Men (but himself) know, that he declares himself a Socinian, as often as he says it.  
P. 30. Of the English Socinians, some say, the Trinity is three, who are one Person: others of 'em say, the Trinity is three Persons, whereof two are Creatures. But if there be any such, as he pretends, neither Party of 'em are Socinians: English they may be, but Socinians they are not.  
'Tis with like Truth, and Knowledge of our English Vnitaries, that he says in the same Page; They excommunicate, and depose from their Ministry, those of their own Party, who deny that Divine Worship is to be paid to the Lord Christ. I am certainly informed that the unitarians in England have no Ministry at all; they do not separate from the Church, on the account of their different Opinion from the Church: they never separated in England, from the common Assemblies to worship; which, in my Opinion, is pious, charitable and prudent; for it is the Separation, not the difference of Opinion, that begets the Heats among contending Parties. But the occasion of these Mistakes of our worthy Author, is; that though (it should seem) he hath read the Brief History of the unitarians, his (Northern) frozen Head perceives not the Subtleties, of this Mercurial Tribe: he knows neither their Discipline, nor Doctrine; and is of their mind without being aware of it.  
I know, Sir, you are weary of these Follies: I will therefore draw our Author, in little; and having so presented him to you, leave him to your Pity and Prayers.  
He was a Bishop Elect, in that Juncture, when only such were chosen by the King and the Nuntio, to the Episcopal Chairs of England and Scotland; as would not fail to make those Churches contemptible and ridiculous, by their notorious Unsufficiency and Incompetency.  
He is a Jacobite; but made so, by nothing but his (too certain) Fears, that the Presbytery would never endure a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Theological Chair.  
With him, the Archbishop, the Bishop of Sarum, and the Author of the History of Religion, are most blasphemous Socinians; because our Professor mistakes the Doctrine of the Church, and the Arguments she useth, for the Socinian Doctrine and Reasons.  
He is an Anti-Socinian, who believes that God the Father could not bestow true and real Divinity on another Person, from all Eternity: and that 'tis foolish and contradictory, to say, that what God might do to day, he'might do yesterday, and backwards for ever.  
An Antiquarian he is, who has discovered (in ancient History) such an only Shibboleth of Orthodoxy, in the Trinitarian Questions; as was first advanced by one of the Socinians Patriarches, and rejected by a Council of (72) Catholic Bishops.  
He is a Christian, who is not content to think it, but publishes it (in Print) to all the World; that Jesus Christ is an accursed and devoted Head.  
This is your Man, Sir; the Critic, Wit, Historian, Divine, who resolves to make an Example of all Latitudinarian Archbishops and Bishops, and all their Disciples and Seconds: of which number, he saith, you are the first and most considerable; and as such, 'tis but just and fit, that you should be treated accordingly. What he objects, is partly against yourself, and partly against your History of Religion.  
As to yourself; he saith. You are a Disciple of (that late execrable) Jo. Cant, or (as he otherwise call him) John Till. You have copied, he saith, after him, very exactly: insomuch that this Critic himself is sometimes in doubt; whether The History of Religion were written by you, or by the Archbishop. Elsewhere he saith, your History doth square most exactly with the Archbishop's Notions and Scheme of Religion. Yet he owns, that you are not altogether so profligate, or have more of Art and Address, than that Archbishop of Theists and Hobbists: you are more modest or more cunning, those are his words, than the other; you do not attack Religion in such broad words, as he. But 'tis the endeavour of both of you, of him more openly, of you more secretly, to ridicule all Religion; and to resolve it wholly into Priest-Craft. And I must confess, Sir; that your History and the Archbishop's Sermons have a like Thread. He, in most of his Sermons, combats the seven-headed Beast; as a Divine, by Argument; you as a Gentleman, in the Historical Way: he shows, how defenceless and weak, Popery is; you, how ridiculous and foppish it is. And the learned Professor, by exclaiming thereupon against both of you as designing to ridicule all Religion, abundantly intimates; that to him, there is no other Religion but Popery.  
He has an obscure Period at p. 31. that you assisted in turning a certain Neighbour out of House and Home, who had not only never injured you, but had done more for you than all your Relations and other Friends ever did. The meaning is, you had a share in effecting the late Revolution; or as our Author elsewhere speaks concerning some others, in deserting, betraying and excluding King James: who (as this Man says) did more for you, than all your Friends or Relations ever have done. I am wholly a Stranger, to the Particulars of this Charge; therefore I can only say: either 'tis true, or 'tis false. If 'tis false, his Lordship Elect is a great Rascal, saving the Reverence belonging to his Coat and Profession; to devise and publish to the World a Tale, that (in his opinion) implies the very foulest and blackest of Crimes and Scandals. But if it is true, that when King James had done a great deal for you; after all, you concurred with, nay you highly promoted the Revolution: the Charge here brought against you, will amount to thus much. That whereas 'tis too well known, that his late Majesty's Favours to any of his Protestant Subjects, were designed only to gain them to the Popish and Arbitrary Interest: you could not be bought, no not by more than all your Friends and Relations ever did for you, to side against the Interests of your Religion and Country. No Money, no Preferments, no Favours (it should seem) could bribe you; to give up the Protestant Religion, or the Freedom and Properties of the Nation. A most terrible Accusation; and on your part a Treachery not to be purged, with Sacrifice or Offering for ever! But then after all this, to write a History too against (the holy Cheats of) your King's and Friend's Religion: this is such an Aggravation of your former Fault, that our Author will not say, the Lord have Mercy on you; but in the Highland Phrase, It makes his Flesh to creep. I am of opinion, that an Highlander's Flesh naturally creeps: for our Beggars say, that set a— on a Board or Table, with the Head West, or East, or South, the— will not fail to turn itself, and creep Northward.  
As to your Book, his general Charge against it, is; that 'tis designed against all Religion, and especially all Positive (or revealed) Religion: from whence he takes occasion to Nickname you Sir Positive; or as he writes (according to the High-land Orthography) Sir Positive. If you say; but what Instances can he give out of your History, from whence any sober Man would infer, that you meant to expose Religion in general; and not, only the pious Frauds of Modern Rome, and the Tricks of Rome Pagan? I can only answer, that what Collections (out of the History) he may have by him, I know not; but the Particulars which he mentions, are these.  
P. 27. You set up, he saith, unreconcilable War against all Mystery. How so; have you dropped the least word against the Doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, or the Satisfaction? No, you are more modest or else more cunning (he saith) than the Archbishop; you are a Man of more Art and Address, than to expose your Credit by broad words: but this you do. You make Transubstantiation your (pretended) Mark; but your Level (or Design) is against the Trinity, and other Mysteries of the Catholic Church. I perceive, Sir, you must never expect; to be delivered from the Imputations of Irreligion, Socinianism, and such like: for it should seem, when your Mark (which you openly set up) is Transubstantiation; your Design, Levelly or Aim (in spite of you) shall be Religion and the Trinity. I think, I may say; as what you have done, admits of no Defence, with such Judges as Dr. M—roe: so with others, it can need none.  
At p. 29. he falls upon the word Priest-Craft, and mauls it most terribly. He saith, that the thing by you designed, ought rather to be called Lay-Craft, or State-Craft; than Priest-Craft: for Religion has been more corrupted by Laymen, especially by Parliaments, than by Priests. Yet at length, he is willing to admit (there) of the term Priest-Craft; provided it be applied rightly: that is, to those cursed Priests, the Latitudinarians and Socinians.  
You manifest your Impiety again, in what you say (in the History) concerning the Creeds; that have been devised by Arians, Photinians, Catholics, Papists, Protestants, and all the Sub-divisions of these Parties: for you note, that in very deed, Creeds are the spiritual Revenges, of dissenting Parties, upon one another. I must confess, that you but too plainly intimate, in the History; that according to your (weak) Judgement, it had been better to content ourselves with the Apostles Creed, as unsufficient as those poor Men were to pen a Creed for the Church, which they had planted: than that every Party should contrive a new Creed, with anathemas and Damn'ems to every Clause of it. But the Professor (a sagacious Man) doth not at all believe, that you had any pacific or charitable Aim, in what you offer: no, no, your Intention (he says, p. 30.) was this, That Atheists, Latitudinarians and Socinians might get into the Church without swearing, or subscribing to I know not how many Lies. And all to no purpose; for no subscribing or swearing will ever keep 'em out.  
Again, he observes; that you would persuade People, that there is no Condemnation for Error; because it proceeds (say you) from Innoscence, which is to say Ignorance and Weakness. Here he has got a common place, upon which to read: for not having Grammar enough to distinguish Innoscence from Innocence; he proves largely (and most learnedly) that all Ignorance is not Innocence; or that all Persons shall not be judged as innocent, because they were ignorant. He saith further, that 'tis very hard to determine, which are Sins of Ignorance: but be sure, says he, Sins of Intrigue and Design are not Sins of Innocence; and here comes in your (black) Ingratitude in not betraying your Country and Religion, to your great (Arbitrary and Popish) Friend, though you were tempted with such mighty Offers and Liberalities, as he says.  
His last Instance of your bad Inclination, is; that you argue so largely against punishing People for mere Conscience, and simple Error. Your Arguments against Persecution, are; that Force does not convince, it may make Men Hypocrites, but never true Converts: and that the Prescriptions in the Gospel, concerning the erroneous, are all gentle and meek; not Arms, or Proscriptions, or Mulcts.  
To the first, he answers; Punishments are inflicted for other Ends, besides converting the Criminal: they are intended, for vindicating the Honour of God; and to prevent the Infection of others.  
Our Author, it would seem, knows not; that God is honoured, not dishonoured, by every Person's professing and acting, as his Conscience persuades him that 'tis the Will of God he should act and profess: and consequently that to punish such Persons, however erroneous; is no other, but to punish them for their Loyalty and Obedience to God.  
But Punishment, he saith, may prevent the Infection from spreading among others. Yes, witness the Persecutions of the Primitive Christians; which were so successful for suppressing their Opinions: that they begat the famous Proverb, Sanguis Martyrum est semen Ecclesiae, the Seed of the Church is the Blood of its Martyrs. But admitting it were true, what he says, that Persecution may prevent the growth of Opinions and Sects; yet how will the Inquisitor General help it, if God himself has forbid this means of Prevention? It is our Saviour that said; let the Tares grow up with the Wheat, lest with the Tares you pluck up also the Wheat. The Tares are Errors, which therefore in that Parable are said to be sown: yet the Tares must not be plucked up, nay must be suffered to grow up with the Wheat; lest our (ignorant) Zeal mistake the true Wheat for Tares. The Judgement, which are Tares and which Wheat, is reserved (saith our Saviour there) to God; if it were left to Men, while they (think they) gather the Tares, they will root up also the Wheat, Mat. 13.29.  
But to this, and to your other Argument; that the Gospel prescribes only gentle means, to be used to the Erroneous: He replies, the Prescriptions against Force, and the gentle Methods hinted in the Gospel, are directed only to Preachers; not to the Civil Magistrates. Who is no more bound up by those Prescriptions, from punishing the Erroneous; than the Commands of turning the other Cheek, and give him thy Cloak also, restrain him from punishing the Injurious, or such as steal from others. 'Tis only to Preachers, he saith, not to the Magistrate; that Forbearance and Gentleness is required, toward the Erroneous. On the contrary, it is certain to me; that not to root up the Tares is a Charge, given wholly to the Magistrate, and not at all to Preachers. Preachers (as Preachers) must root up the Tares; by Argument, Exhortation, and such like Christian Means. 'Tis well known to all, that Preachers have no Power (either from God or Men) to root up by Force or any external Punishment: it would be a senseless Prohibition, let not Preachers hang, or burn, or sequester Men for their Errors; because every one is aware, 'tis not at all in their Power, nor ever was, but only in the Magistrates. I say, for this reason 'tis even self-evident; that the Prescriptions against Force or rooting up, belong not (as our Inquisitor contends) to Preachers, but to Magistrates, who only have that Power.  
Whereas he adds; you might as well plead the Charges of turning the other Cheek, and give him thy Coat also, against the Magistrates punishing Violence and Theft: I answer, the Cases are altogether unlike. The Magistrate is permitted, nay required to punish Violence and Theft; because in such Offences we sin both wittingly and wilfully: but Error and Mistake (which some call Heresy, and this Author calls Blasphemy) are involuntary, and pure Innoscence; which I would not have the Professor mistake again for Innocence, though it also implies and supposes Innocence.  
I cannot see any thing more, Sir, in this Libel, that concerns you, or The History of Religion; I will conclude therefore, with only saying: that as you were somewhat concerned that Mr. Atterbury, a Man of Learning and Wit (O how unlike, to this other, he!) should first mistake the Design of your Book, and then make such haste to scandalise you for it in the very Royal Presence; so without doubt you will smile at it, that all the Irreligion, Profaneness and Socinianism charged upon it, is resolved at last into only this (and by Malice itself) that 'tis a perfect copying after the Sermons and Opinions of Archbishop Tillotson. This is the utmost, we see, that yours and the Government's worst Adversary could make of it.  
Sir, I am your most assured, most obliged, and most affectionate Friend, N. S. July 17, 1695.   

THE AUTHOR OF The History of Religion VINDICATED From the Scandalous and Unchristian INVECTIVES of Mr. F. A. IN A SERMON At WHITEHALL, On Proverbs xiv. 6.  
Buchanan Franciscanus & Fratres.— In sanctos quicquam cave dicere fratres.  
Printed in the Year, 1696.   

KING Charles' the Second, and James the Just, that waited for the Divine Right, as long as waiting was good, were often nicked with punishing Texts, which, by being maliciously timed, were in mere reading turned into downright satire: but our Preacher is not for a dry Bob and away, he will serve himself of his Text, before he, and that Part; and the words are these, Prov. 14.6. A Scorner seeketh Wisdom and findeth it not.  
The first thing Mr. Fr. Att. propounds for his Inquiry, is, who is the Person represented under the Character of the Scorner. Solomon, no doubt, designed a general Reproof, but our Preacher's whole Sermon is levelled at a particular and honourable Person, Sir R. H. the Author of the History of Religion, him he would have us to understand by the Scorner, let Solomon intend whom he will. Here let me borrow an Allusion from Mr. Bays in the Rehearsal [much such a Poet, as Mr. F. A. is a Preacher.]  
As dull Mortals fear  
The Event of such things as shall never appear;  
So though it be hard  
To find in the Word  
What was never at first by the Writer put there,  
Yet a Preacher acute  
By the help of his Priestcraft-Resentment can do't.  
Of the Jewish Scorner in his Text, typical of our English Gentleman [as he would have us conceive] he says. The frequent Revolutions in the Jewish State contributed mightily to unsettle the Scorner's Thoughts, and create in him a slight opinion of the eternal Differences of Right and Wrong, Good and Evil: but our Gentleman was, in the Revolutions intimated, fixed and settled in his Thoughts on the loyal suffering Side, and his unshaken Virtue held out, till it happily reached its merited Reward. But there were a sort of zealous Pretenders to Religion among the Jews, [though whether typical of any such among us, I know not] that were never loyal, but when they were caressed.  
After the Character of the Scorner, it had been proper for Mr. Att. to have defined, and explained what was the Wisdom, which he sought, and found not, but that he declined, and he had reason; for had he determined the Wisdom mentioned in his Text, to have been true Religious Wisdom, he had been prevented of much of his Malice, and must have been forced to allowed Sir R. H. the Praise of having sought true Religious Wisdom, and had he called it profane worldly Wisdom, than his angry Libel had run into ridiculous Jest; For what strange thing is it, that a Man who seeks Worldly Wisdom should not find Spiritual? it's as if I should say Mr. Att. seeks a Prebendary's Place, and cannot find a Captains. It's not to be expected that a Man should find what he does not seek. But though he will not explain the nature of the Wisdom in his Text, yet he will tell us, what is meant by seeking it, i. e. he will tell us what is meant by seeking the Lord knows what. And he makes nothing of broad undisguised Contradictions, now affirming that, The Scorner makes freer Inquiries after Truth, shakes off the Prejudices of Education more thoroughly, than the rest of Mankind; and presently after saying of this selfsame Scorner, that he is unconcerned what God and wise Men in all Ages and Countries have said. But great Men can contradict themselves as well as Mr. Att. though perhaps not reach the just height of such a particular Atterburianism as this.  
He sets down as a Note of Infamy, that which adorns the Character of a wise Man above any thing else, viz. his examining things to the bottom, taking nothing upon trust, not relying on the Authority of Man. Well, Sir Robert! if these be the Sins you have to answer for, you have the noble Beraeans to keep you company, and at the day of Judgement St. Paul shall speak a word for you both. But it must be confessed, that a Church-Pharisee is ten times more civil, than a Heathenish Knight, for he takes all upon trust, all he hears from his Superiors is Gospel, out of Reverence to Authority he examines nothing to the bottom.  
Thus far I have considered Mr. At Preface, and the opening of the Text, as he calls it, and now I come to his Observation, which, what it is, we are to seek, for he has not set it down; but as when he did not define Wisdom, he explained the meaning of seeking it, so now an Observation, which he never made, he will justify, and he justifies it, by as extraordinary a method, as ever ill made or unmade Observation was justified. For he wisely shows how it comes to pass, that Men who set up for a more than ordinary Fame in Wisdom and Goodness by contemning Religion, and Religious Men, do, and must fail of the End they propose, because, as wise as they are in other things, they are uncapable of impartial Inquiries after Divine Truth, in plain English, they fail of the End which they propose, because they do not propose the End which they fail of. Well! go thy ways honest Fr. Att. thou art a shrewd Fellow, I'll say that for thee, and hast Logic and Wit enough to write against the Socinians.  
Mr. Att. assigns four things, which render a Man incapable to search successfully after Truth, especially Divine Truth. The first is Pride, this he defines to be, an undue value which a Man has for himself, and his own Opinion, with a Disregard for every thing beside. Having thus defined, immediately he starts an Abuse upon old Hobbs, whose Leviathan, though I hold to be an ill Book, a very ill Book, more impious, though not more malicious, than the Sermon about the Scorner, yet the Passage cited from his Epistle, by way of Reproach, is ingenious and honest. I will set it in its proper Light, not that Mr. Att. may be ashamed of his Misrepresentation, he is more hardy than so, but that all Lovers of Honesty and Truth among the Clergy, may be ashamed of their Brother Att. Hobbs had said, what he thought proper to recommend his Book to the Patronage of his honoured Friend Mr. Fr. Godolphin, and supposing that what he had said, was yet hardly enough to furnish Mr. G. with a satisfactory Reply to them who might happen to condemn his Work, he comes off with a witty piece of Raillery, thus, If notwithstanding this, you find my Labour generally decried, you may be pleased to excuse yourself, and say, I am a Man that love my own Opinions, and think all true I say, and that's more than any Man will be persuaded to say for the Author of the Scorner. But if loving a Man's own Opinions must be an Instance of Pride, let the Reader consider, whether most loves his own Opinions, Sir R. H. who can indulge a peaceable good Subject to differ from him, and enjoy the present Parliamentary Liberty of Conscience, without envying or censuring him, or Mr. Att. who in bold defiance of the Laws of his Country, reproaches all Men that do not believe, as he does; and than if this be a piece of Pride, and Pride hinders Knowledge, has not Mr. Att. proved himself a Blockhead, which he need not have done neither? but some Orators will use, in spite of Tully's Caution against it, in re non dubiâ, argumentis non necessariis, in a matter not doubtful, Arguments not necessary.  
It's crudely said by him, that Pride is a great Enemy to Knowledge, he ought to have shown how; for an Inclination to be proud of Knowledge, seems to prompt a Man to Study, and let Mr. Att. say what he pleases, there are more humble Blockheads than proud ones.  
He reproaches the Gentleman whom he represents under the Character of a Scorner, for a superficial Sciolist, positive in his Opinions, and hardy in his Assertions. Now though that honourable Person is ever as ready to give, as take a sober Liberty of philosophising and prophesying, yet Positiveness would be less odious in him, whose excellent Natural Parts, and all desirable Advantages of Study and Conversation, make it as probable for him, as any Man breathing to come to the knowledge of the Truth, whatever is the Object of his Inquiry: But what an insufferable Presumption is it, in young Mr. Att. who translated himself but t'other day, from working on another Man's profane satire, to the study of Divinity? What an insufferable Presumption is it in him, to be positive? whereas if his Genius had inclined him to the search of Religious Truths, and all his Time been spent that way, and no Hours given to wild Joys or soft Delights, he could yet have but slenderly stored himself with wise and useful Notices, being yet but a young Man, and a very young Divine: and what sets his Credit still lower, Divinity his Fate, and not his Choice, the Study not which he passionately loves, but comfortably lives by. And then I must tell him, one had better be a half Philosopher, a half Physician, or a half-bred Man, than a half Divine; for the half-bred Man is not in so much danger of becoming a Fop, the half Physician an Empiric, the half Philosopher an Atheist, as the half Divine of becoming a merciless Persecutor of all that differ from his Opinions, pursuing them, when the Law ties his Hands, with an unchristian reviling Tongue. But Mr. Att. has one extraordinary Remark concerning the Mischief of Pride. He affirms that it will harden the Scorner in his way against whatever wise Men can think or say. This precious Youth that translated Absalon and Achitophel, cannot but have heard of Elkanah Settle, who has two Verses, for whose Character soever they were intended, that agree well with the Translator's.  
At his wise Think some Diviners guests,  
But his wise Sayings no Records express.  
I am sure there are no such in his Libel. As for the humble Duties of the Cross, Sir R. H. does as sincerely own his Obligations to them, as any good Christian can, and needs as little Forgiveness, at least as Mr. Att. Indeed for Mysteries, 'tis likely he could wish none imposed, but such as are clearly revealed, which also by being revealed cease to be Mysteries, and are then but improperly so called. But Mysteries which are not plainly revealed, but plainly contradict Sense and Reason, them his Conscience seems not strong enough to digest. 'Tis impudent Calumny to intimate, that if Sir R. H. cannot give himself a certain plain account in what manner, and to what end God did a thing, he therefore concludes that God did it not at all. But it really is Sir R. H's Weakness not to believe the Interpretation of a Text given by a Priest, which serves his Priest-Craft. Even any Explication which tends to the increase of the Priest's Honour, or Power, Wealth, or odd Worldly Convenience, he is too apt to suspect; nay I have heard it said of him, that he thinks it an Instance of subtle Impiety for Priests to twist their Worldly Sensual Advantages with the Honour of God Almighty; and fancies that they learned the Trick of a Heathen Painter, one Phidias, who was hired to draw only the Picture of Minerva, but the ambitious Artist so curiously joined his own in the same Tablet, that his mortal Phyz was not to be expunged without impairing the Glories of the Goddess.  
Nay, and which is worse than all this, though Mr. Att. has strenuously belied Sir R. H. yet he has unluckily charged him with one thing, which I am afraid will stick; I will be fair, and repeat it in the Preacher's own words, If he has not as clear an Idea of every term in an Article of Faith, as he has of those in a Mathematical Proposition, 'tis presently unphilosophical, absurd, and foolish, invented by those whose Interest it is to puzzle men's Understandings, that they may have their Wills and Affections at their Service.  
On my Conscience Sir R. is guilty, and he really wrongs Mr. Att. that says there is not one true word in his scurrilous Libel. But the Charge which can hardly be avoided, may admit of some Plea in its Defence, or Excuse, for I do not see how an Article can be believed that is not understood, Can a Man believe he knows not what? if that be in his Power, Sir R. has not only a proud but a stubborn Understanding; but then also it will be in Mr. At power to believe Transubstantiation, and if in his power, I think it was not well done to refuse it to King James; for he that can believe a Proposition whereof he has no Idea, aught in Conscience to oblige the chief Magistrate, under whom he lives, with being of his Religion, unless he had beforehand given his Promise to the King of Morocco. But I have another thing to reason with Mr. Att. All Articles of Faith necessary to Salvation are plain and easy to be understood by an ordinary Capacity, the best Preachers have ever professed it. Now I would fain know of Mr. Att. whether their being proposed in difficult Terms, whereof we have no clear Idea, be that thing which makes them plain and easy; if it be, than we are more beholding to the Schoolmen and their Followers, than to the first Apostles; but if difficult Terms cannot make an Article of Faith plain and easy, I desire to be acquainted for what end such are made use of, except to puzzle men's Understandings.  
To see how some Teachers can vary their Notes! when they treat of the Reasonableness of the Christian Religion, than all the Doctrines thereof are plain and easy to be understood: but when they plead in defence of Mysteries, whereof we can have no clear Idea, and they that plead for them, have confused, and different Ideas, than they may be difficult, inexplicable, and never the worse.  
The next Particular in the Character of the Scorner is said to be a strange and unreasonable Suspicion. Upon this Head Mr. At Discourse is loose, and undetermined; he will allow an Inquirer to be cautious, but not suspicious: but how these two differ, where wise Caution ends, and where faulty Suspicion begins, as for that, he begs his Reader's Pardon. Caution and Suspicion are but different words for one and the same thing. A Man may be too cautious, and he may also be not suspicious enough, as the elegant old Man of Ascra notes, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Credulity and Diffidence have both undone Men.  Between foolish Suspicion, that is not to be satisfied with good Reasons, and easy Credulity which is satisfied without any at all, there is a certain Virtue [says Casaubon upon Theophrastus] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Name, prudentiae velut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which flows from Wisdom, by which we believe them who deserve Belief, and suspect their Honesty who believe well of no body, that is not of their Opinion.  
The third Topick whence Mr. Att. draws the Character of the Scorner, is, false Wit, which he defines to be bold jesting upon things sacred and serious. Quickness of Wit he commends, coldly indeed, but as well as a poor Pretender could; but, false Wit, that which exerts itself in satire and Drollery, that he inveighs against, and says it betrays a Man into a thousand Errors, for one it discovers to him; and I believe it, and that's the reason, himself is so often, and so much in the wrong. He never aimed at any Wit, but this satirical, drolling false Wit; and he made the greatest show of it, when he took upon him to be John Dreyden's Broker, and with a sorry Roman Gloss calandered for Colleges and Schools, that infamous English Libel of Absalon and Achitophel, which an old cankered Poet stuffed with common-place Wit, and mercenary dictated Scandal. Now since Mr. Att. never pretended to any other Wit but this satirical drolling false Wit, and to this still continues his Pretence; if his Character of the Scorner represents any Man now living, it represents himself: and therefore all this while what has he been doing, but drawing his own Picture, and like an inverted Narcissus, throwing Stones at it?  
It cannot be denied, but that the eminent deceased Person, on whom Mr. Att. reflects, p. 12. excelled in false Wit, with quickness of Thought he would ridicule Religion, and plead surprisingly for Vice; but then he openly and bitterly repent, which is more than I ever heard that Mr. Att. has done for his vile Journeywork under a hungry rhyming Sinner.  
As for Miracles, I see nothing in the History of Religion, but that Sir R. firmly believes all which are recorded in the Bible, though I am indeed apt to suspect he may imagine, [for I will not tell a Lie for him] that the counterfeit Miracles of juggling Priests first tempted cautious and suspicious bad Men, to call in question the truth of the Miracles of Jesus Christ. Just so it is the Impudence, Pride, and Lordly ill Nature of such Priests as Att. that makes the Worthy and Reverend Clergy of the Church of England, had in no greater Veneration.  
If Mr. Att. had censured old Hobbs for teaching that Right is founded in Power, or that the Command of the Civil Magistrate makes the Scripture a Law to us, God forbid that I should speak a word in his Vindication: But the Accusation preferred against him, p. 13. is so shamefully false, that I much wonder, if this notorious Slanderer can henceforth ever hope the least Credit should be given to what he affirms or denies of any Man whatsoever. The Accusation is this: The great Leader of the Libertines of this Age, thought he had said something very prejudicial to the Divinity of Christ, when he had translated, after an absurd manner, the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and blasphemously told us, that that was as much as to say, the Verb of God.] But the words of Hobbs in the 36 th' Chapter of his Leviathan are these. Our Saviour is called the Word, not because he was the Promise, but the Thing promised; they, that taking occasion from this place, do commonly call him the Verb of God, do but render the Text more obscure, they might as well term him the Noun of God; for as by Noun, so also by Verb, we understand but a part of Speech, a Voice, a Sound, that neither affirms, nor denies, nor commands, nor promises, nor is any Substance Corporeal or Spiritual; and therefore it cannot be said to be either God or Man, whereas our Saviour is both. In this place Hobbs reproves those that called Christ the Verb of God, and Att. says that Hobbs speaks against the Divinity of Christ, whereas Hobbs openly professes that our Saviour is both God and Man. The Jesuits have not with greater Impudence belied Luther and Calvin. With the same hardness of Brow and spirit of Falsehood, he affirms, that Hobbs pretended to give a mighty Blow to the Doctrine of Grace, by saying, that Infusion and Inspiration signified in plain English, inpouring and inblowing; whereas all I meet with in Chap. 34. is, that Inspiration taken properly signifies blowing into a Man [inblowing is At term] some thin and subtle Air, etc. but the word is used in Scripture metaphorically only, as where it is said, God inspired into Man the Breath of Life, no more is meant, than that God gave unto him Vital Motion: and where it is said, All Scripture is given by Inspiration from God, it signifies, that God inclined the Spirit or Mind of the Writers to write that which should be useful to such and such good purposes. I have taken Pains to vindicate Hobbs [who has Faults enough to answer for, without being unjustly charged] from these particular unjust Charges, that the Reader may understand how convenient it is, to imitate the noble Beraeans, and examine carefully, whether all those things are true which are sometimes told them è Cathedrâ.  
In the fourth place, Mr. Att. ascribes the Deception [that is his word] of the Scorner, to his Sensuality. Now I can hardly believe but that the Translation of Absalon and Achitophel was done by another hand, though it goes under At Name, who perhaps might be hired to father it, because he seems not to have Learning enough to be so wicked; for here he imagines the word Deception to be synonimous with Error or Ignorance, whereas it signifies Deceit or Cozenage: Sensuality indeed is likely to prevent a Man from Knowledge, but poor Mr. Att. by his Ignorance of Grammar is fallen into another Doctrine, viz. that Sensuality is the cause of the Scorner's Deceptions, i. e. Sensuality helps him to deceive others. 
—— Nec te vox barbara turbet,  
Aut temere erumpens linguâ titubante Solacus:  
Tota sanctos oppone Patres, Mysteria sacra;  
Turpe est grammaticis submittere colla capistris.  Buch. Fran. But that which Mr. Att. would have said, had he had Skill to express it, is, that Sensuality does discourage the Scorner from enquiring after, and fatally prevent him from finding Wisdom. Very true: But what will he hence prove? I know what naturally follows, viz. that Sir R. H. whose Knowledge, whose Observations, and Experience through all the most useful Parts of Learning, are so very considerable, has led a studious Philosophical Life, and that Mr. Att. who does not understand Grammar, has spent his time in Sensuality, when he should have plied his Book. But of all the Lines in Mr. At holy Invective, Sir R. aught to forgive him two or three, p. 14. where telling his Reader in what Age of Life the Humour of scorning is most prevalent, he pertinently observes, it is commonly incident to Men at that time of their Lives, when their Lusts are most ungoverned, and their Blood boils hottest; it is chiefly the young robust Sinner, that indulges himself in it, while he is in the midst of his Enjoyments. That is as much as to say, that old Age has banished from Sir R's Breast, or at least abated the Humour, while young and robust Mr. Att.— But this Humour of the Scorner will in time wear off with him also.  
But pray how has Sir R. set his Face directly against the Doctrines of Religion? it does not appear from his late History, unless his Accuser means the false Doctrines of Religion; and let him set his Face, and his Heart as directly and strongly against them as he pleases, I am afraid he will be able to do little more than save his own Soul. But in truth Sir R. has dealt very sparingly on this Argument, and has chose such particular inoffensive Instances of Priest-Craft, that none but Pagan and Popish Priests have the least reason to be angry: I am sure no Presbyters of the Church of England are concerned, unless those few, who make it their business to have the Belief of unintelligible, an unexplicable Mysteries, enforced by cruel and unchristian Penalties. Let our Preachers be but content, that the People own the Authority of the Sacred Book, particularly, that they agree to those Texts [whose Sense is so much controverted] as true, in that sense which the Writer designed, though what that is, is not certain, and not compel them to confess something more, something against their Consciences, till a Majority of Convocation-men [who only pretend to make, I should say declare Articles of Faith] shall determine what is the true sense of the controverted Texts, and their Credit shall stand fair with the Ages to come, for all that Sir R. has said in his History of Religion.  
P. 16. l. 1. Mr. Att. has these remarkable words, Some Men who write pretended Histories of Religion, are beholding to the real Religion of others that their Histories are not written.  
Here we are, first, to inquire how Sir R. H. has provoked Mr. Att. that he threatens to write his History.  
2. How dangerous it is to provoke a Priest to write one's History.  
3. Whom is Sir R. H. beholding to, that his History is not written. Of these in their order.  
1. How Sir R. H. has provoked, etc.  
Has Sir R. H. questioned the Existence of a Deity? or denied the Truth of Revealed Religion? this were to provoke the generality of Mankind, but by good luck no such thing is laid to his Charge, though if it were, it might be easily disproven from his Writings. What then? has he slurred the Divine Right of Episcopacy, and given the Prelates but a Parliamentary Right in the room? has he dressed up the grave Doctrines of Nonresistance, and Passive Obedience in an odd Disguise, which were ugly enough in their own true Shape, that so they may be laughed at, as well as hated by the People? Has he confounded Arbitrary Power that had well nigh confounded the Nation? for aught I know, something of this nature he may have done, but it's no matter, Mr. Att. has swallowed all this; that which sticks, and will not down, is a pretended History of Religion: Well then! what's the fault of that History? what Injury is it to Mr. Att. if the World be made acquainted, how the Heathen Priests topped false Doctrines upon the People, and by cunning wicked Arts made a Gain of them? how they puzzled their Understandings and stole their Wills and Affections, how they cherished their Ignorance, and scared 'em from the free use of their Reason? What heinous Provocation is it against a Priest of the Church of England, if the Nation be told how the Priests of the Roman Communion imitate the Religious Frauds of the Priests of the Heathens? If Mr. Att. will be concerned at this, he will tempt Men to believe, that our Religious Guides pursue the same Methods of Priest-craft as the other, but then 'tis Att. that libels the Church, and not Sir R. H. for he only in general Terms, and very modestly wishes that Reformed Churches did not violently pursue the same; nay, in his Preface, he gladly takes occasion [so studious is he to make his Court to our Church] to commend the excellent Spirit, and useful Teaching of the late Archbishop, whose Life and Learning, whose honest, wise and useful way of plain teaching, sets his Honour far above the most venerable Names in all Antiquity.  
2. How dangerous it is to provoke a Priest to write one's History, that's next to be enquired. Luther and Calvin wrote [though not under that very Name] Histories of Religion, widely different from what the Romanists write, insomuch that the incensed Jesuits have wrote their History; and never did the famous Society themselves practise more enormous Villainies, than they laid to the Charge of those two famous Reformers. Now if Mr. Att. should look back on his own Life, and charge Sir R. with all the vile Deeds, whereof he himself has ever been guilty, in troth he would make a fine Picture of the old Gentleman, and be fully even with him for his History. It were a good Motto for a Clerical Historiographer, Nemo me impune lacesset; for I don't think any Man's Innocence a sufficient Security while he exposes Priest-Craft. I shall content myself to give but one Example, but that an illustrious one, to justify my Opinion. When King John began to set his Face directly against the Corruptions, the Priest-craft Corruptions of the Church of Rome, a parcel of ungracious Monks could not bear it, not they, no, not from their Sovereign, therefore they poisoned him with the Sacrament of the Altar; and when they had done, they wrote his History, and published him for a Wicked and Atheistical, a Foolish and Tyrannical Prince; yet Protestant Authors give him a better Character, and there are Circumstances which will incline an unprejudiced Man to believe that this King deserved it.  
I did not think to have given another Instance, but just as I am writing this, there comes into my Head a very remarkable one, which also has a particular Circumstance fit for Mr. Att. to consider, so that I know not how to pass it by. Pausanias' in his Baeotics gives an accurate Description of Trophonius' Antrum, and says, that he himself consulted the Oracle there. Now Pausanias was a Grammarian of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and lived in the second Century; so that by Mr. At favour, Oracles did not cease at the coming of Christ, which Anthony van Dal● has proved beyond all Contradiction. But to my Instance. Pausanias declares by what Rites and Ceremonies, they prepared themselves, who, to consult the Oracle, would descend into the Cave, and how they returned back, by the same Hole they went down, their Feet foremost. Then has he these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. They say that none ever miscarried in the Cave, but that all returned that went down, except one only, one of Demetrius' Halbadiers: Now that Fellow had not run through the ritual course of Preparation for the Descent, and descended, like an ungracious Fellow as he was, not to consult the Oracle, but to discover the Priest-craft: him therefore for this unpardonable Sin, the Priests of Trophonius made away, knowing that the dead tell no Tales; his Body was afterwards found the Lord knows how far from the mouth of the Cave, and then they wrote his History, the Substance whereof was this, That he was a profane Scorner, who with much ado, had made a shift to get rid of good Principles, and such stiff Opinions, as he found inconsistent with a Soldier's Life, and that he knew very little of the Divine Mysteries of the Gods, by reason he was a proud, suspicious, witty, sensual Fellow.  
The third and last thing to be enquired is, to whom Sir R. H. is beholden that his History is not written, i. e. that he is not scandalously abused, for that Mr. Att. means; otherwise, to write his History, were to oblige the Age, and perpetuate an honourable Name to a nobly descended Gentleman, who deserves it, with our latest Posterity: And what a noble Theme were it to a Man that had a Genius capable! The Roman and Grecian Orators prodigally wasted their Eloquence on meaner Subjects than the unshaken Loyalty of Sir R. H. during the Troubles of K. Charles the First, and Second, his Faithfulness to his Country during the Reign of King James, his Courage and Wisdom in defending the happy Choice of the People, and the Right of our present successful Deliverer, our just and lawful King William.  
But we are to inquire to whom Sir R. is beholden, that after he has exposed Priest-craft, he himself is not scandalously abused, and defamed in a virulent and lying sort of a History. Mr. Att. says that Sir R. is beholden to the real Religion of others, meaning, no doubt, of himself and Friends. Now real Religion will certainly restrain a Man from false Reproaches, but nevertheless [to suppose that Mr. Att. has some Religion] that was not the thing which restrained him from a scandalous History, for than it would have restrained him also from a scandalous Sermon; much less was it any Reverence to Sir R. H. as being a Person of Honour, and a Privy-Counsellor: for Priests have not given such a Divine Right to Kings, but that they dare open their Characters, and will do it, when they find themselves neglected. King William our invited Defender, our successful Deliverer, our rightly chosen, just and lawful Sovereign, has not escaped from impudent and wicked, unrighteous, and ingrateful Reflections in Priestly Protestations, Prints and Preachments: Was it then Sir R. H's good luck which saved him from unchristian Reproaches? A Man must have very good luck that lives unreproached in the midst of a crooked and perverse Generation, the late excellent Archbishop could not do it, but was even by Priests reported a Socinian, though he has wrote against their reputed Heresy, if not with all the Evidence which could be desired, yet beyond any other Trinitarian; and [which recommends him to the Esteem of all sincere Christians] he has wrote with a due Charity to Dissenters, which also is part of the honourable Character of that good Man, the present Bishop of Gloucester. But what do I talk of good luck? a word which unthinking Men use when the Reason of a thing is not very plain. A little thinking and reasoning will perhaps satisfy the curious why the Author of the History of Religion has not been dressed up in the San Benito. For, reason we thus: Would Mr. Att. be content that his Character should be opened, and the History of his Life drawn forth? he must needs have more Tenderness for his own Reputation than so. He knows it is not Prudence [or should know so] to break his Neighbour's Windows, when his own House is made of Glass.  
Again, we may consider, that though a Dog may bark, and no body mind him, yet if he by't, he may chance to have his Teeth knocked out.  
The railing of Mr. Fr. Atterbury I have reproved; as to the other short part which may be called Sermon, I will remark but one thing, upon one Period.  
They say, a fair Reasoner ought to represent the full force of his Adversary's Argumentations, but there's no need he should mend them, unless he begin to be sick of his own Hypothesis; wherefore I cannot but wonder at one Period of Mr. At Sermon, p. 19 The Jews were a Proverb and a Byword to the rest of the World, the perpetual Subject of Contempt and Reproach; and who would have thought [may we suppose one of those wise Heathens to have said] that Truth should have lain hid, among such an odd sort of People in such a little spot of the World? Now what Disciple of Spinoza or Hobbs could have put such pointed words into the Mouth of a wise Heathen? and what Preacher beside Att. would have done it? there too, where he held not himself obliged to make something of a Reply, to take off the ill Influence it might chance to have on young unstable People? it would have become him, at least to have subjoined, that that odd sort of People were God's chosen, and the special care of his miraculous Providence, and the little spot of Ground by them inhabited, blessed above all the Earth.   

SIR,  
'TIS to no purpose to tell the World what moved me to write this Pamphlet, yet for my own sake, I am contented that they know what did not: It was not a desire of your Favour, I had that before, and was in no danger of losing it; it was not any Command from Sir R. H. he hardly knows my Face, needs none of my Defence, and I heartily beg his Pardon for the Sauciness of the Attempt; it was not to get Bread, but that proves itself, for I conceal my Name, that I may not lose my Curacy; yet could the Age bear plain dealing as well from a poor Priest, as from a generous Poet, I would soon be known: for though no Man who has so little, is so little concerned about getting more, yet I am not of so poor a Spirit neither, but that I could pati divitias, suffer to have my Commons mended. You called to my mind t'other day [I thank you] this excellent Proverb, Wisdom is good with an Inheritance; take me a disputing the Inspiration of the Author, and tell my Friends, a kind Wish is too good for me.  
As to the Reasons and Arguments which I have used against the Libeler, I doubt not but that they will appear to the impartial Reader, plain, strong and convincing; but whether my Readers be impartial, or biased, 'tis all one to me, I shall be as well satisfied in angering a Zealot for Priest-craft, as in pleasing an honest Enquirer after, and Lover of Truth.  
My Style is careless, but I hope intelligible, it should have been quick and sharp, but you forbade it, wherein you were to blame. For, 1. The lewd Libeler is the most virulent and audacious that ever wrote. 2. His Friends among us, that are most fierce for securing the Trade of Priest-craft, are least concerned for the Honour of God, in restraining vile Immoralities. 3. I never yet knew nor heard of a Zealot for Priest-craft, but the same was, as the Libeler, an Impugner of the Right and Title of King William to the Crown. Now, Sir, what do you think of yourself, that would have me deal gently with Men that blaspheme both God, and the King? Do you think your good Nature will bear you out? I hope you are not hedging in an Interest against the Return of Popery and Slavery, which, since the Reduction of Namur, even the Jacobites are grown weary of expecting. I know not what to say to you, but for once, since I have complied with the excess of your Humanity, if the World will forgive my fault, I will forgive yours; nay, and be so liberally obliging to you, as to lend an Ear to your softer Counsels another time. So fare you well.  
Nou. 4. 1695.   

A REPLY TO THE Anonymous Edinburgh Libeler,  
Wherein the Honourable Sir R. H's History of Religion is vindicated from the invidious, and unreasonable Exceptions of Priest-Craft.  
Also some Right done to that great and good Man Dr. Tillotson, late Archbishop of Canterbury.  
And a Word offered in Defence of his surviving Friend, the Eminent Bishop of Salisbury.  
Printed in the Year, 1696.   

HAving lately had sight of a Libel, said to be printed at Edinburgh, and forged by a true Son of the Church, [so the Author would have it believed] I congratulate Sir R. H. the being plentifully railed at, in so good Company as the late Archbishop, 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 Countrymen, provided there be never an Edinburgh Libeler among them.  
Were I the Praeceptor entrusted 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 Archbishop 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 Reformed, I would put into his Hands no Book sooner, than Bp Burnet's exact and faithful History of the Reformation: and to teach him to distinguish Truth from Falsehood, [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 unawed Examination of the Grounds of what is commonly received] 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 called a Supplement. A Supplement, bless us! and yet the two former carried convitiorum plaustra, Waggon-loads of Slander; such store of Lie quantum in Acheronte mortuorum est, the dead may as easily be numbered: 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 Malcontent 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, though 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 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 Layman 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 Style and Air of the Archbishop, than 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 Revealed Religion, and turns it into what he calls Priest-craft. Whereas 'tis that Gentleman's formed Design to separate Religion both Natural and Revealed from Priest-craft. He is concerned 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 though 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 Libeler hopes to detract from Sir R.H. by accusing him of having borrowed 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 published none, but wherein the latter does agree with him. As for the latter, he has through a long course of Life, shown a steady Honesty, in all his Writings, a solid Judgement; 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 Style and agreeable turns of Ingenuity, which must needs win the Heart 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 confessed 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 borrowed from Sir R. H. and confined his Wit to Sir Robert's juster reasonings, his Fame also might have defied the impotent Malice of the Libeler.  
But the Libeler 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 though there is a wonderful variety of false Doctrines preached up and down in the World, yet he has advanced 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, though 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 amazed at the senseless Calumny. There's an ironical way of Commendation, whereby the Person commended is exposed to Contempt and Scorn; and there's a witless way of railing, whereby a spiteful Wretch destroys his own Credit. Machiavelli has abused the Libeler with his villainous false Axiom, Fortiter calumniare, aliquid saltem adhaerebit; for against 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 gaudy Atheist, or a scandalous Non-juror might sometimes obtrude an unwelcome Visit on Archbishop Tillotson; but he must have been a Man truly virtuous, and in all probability not meanly learned, that could have an Intimacy with him: for though his Grace was as easy of Access, as Business, Civility, or Charity required him; yet he received 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 Libeler 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 Libeler for his unchristian and injurious Treatment of Archbishop Tillotson: and that no just occasion of Offence may be given to any sincere Christian, I must premise, that the Libeler has so twisted his Objections against the Archbishop, 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 through the Heathen Sacrifices, to wound those of Moses, he is to be condemned for it; but this thing he says well, that the Heathen Sacrifices ought no more to be spared, for their Resemblance to the Sacrifice of Moses, than a Criminal aught to be pardoned for wearing the same coloured Garments as the Judg: I add, than a treacherous Coward ought to be pardoned for his blue Coat, or a nonswearing Parson pardoned his cursing the King for his cursing the Unitarians also, under the invidious Name of Socinians. The Libeler affirms, that Mr. Blount builds on the same Foundation as Dr. Tillotson in his Sermon of Sacrifices, etc. though 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 blamed for that, unless it can be proved, that the Doctor's Foundation is weak: and if Mr. Blount goes not the same length as Dr. Tillotson, that's no Reproach 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 Libeler 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 revealed Religion, as a Human Invention, that's a Devilish Invention of the Libeler.  
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 Archbishop has not said, no, nor so much as intimated: had the Libeler himself but imagined, that the Archbishop had intimated so much, he would not have failed to point out the place; but the Archbishop 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 Libeler reviles the Archbishop for what he has taught, now on this Article, now on that, without Order, or Art, after a desultory manner, familiar to frantic Enthusiasts, as his Spirit moved 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 Libeler in his Supplement objects against the Archbishop, concerning the Original of Sacrifice. 2. Concerning the Sacrifice of Christ. 3. Concerning future Punishments. On the first Topic, the Archbishop is blamed 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 Libeler 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 hired this Fellow to write against the Archbishop, hired 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 Discourse concerning the Sacrifice and Death of Christ, or brought in by way of Similitude, as they are by the Archbishop; the Reader may peruse the whole Paragraph, which begins thus, And indeed a very great part of the Jewish Religion, etc. 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 laughed at for meddling with that he does not understand, though 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 Archbishop, cited and reproved by the Libeler, there are two things to be distinctly considered: 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, possessed by that Apprehension. 1. The general Apprehension, etc. p. 9 the Archbishop calls it, a certain Apprehension and Persuasion, which had very early and universally obtained among Mankind; only he will not determine, p. 10. whether it had its rise from Divine Revelation, or otherwise. But the Libeler, like that sort of Person, whose way is to rage, and be confident, positively affirms, that there is nothing more plain, than how the Heathen came to the Knowledge of Sacrifice, viz. that Cain, though he corrupted the true Religion, yet preserved the Institution and derived the Worship of Sacrifices to his Posterity. So pag. 27. and p. 5. in his Charge of Socinianism against the Archbishop considered, he doubts not to affirm, that Sacrifice was commanded by God to Adam, and that all the Christian World have hitherto believed, that God revealed 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 Libeler, 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 vicious Interests, by his Passions and Affections, 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 happened 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 offered unto God a more excellent Sacrifice than Cain. And hence to plead thus; Divine Faith relies upon Divine Revelation: if Abel by Faith offered, than 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 Persuasion that God would amply reward him, for his testifying his Obedience, in such Instances, as he found himself obliged 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 Persuasion, how God would graciously reward that pious Affection, which he sought to testify by Sacrifice; such Persuasion is the same thing as Faith, though 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 considered, 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, ascribed to the virtue of his Faith, is in 1 Joh. 3.12. ascribed 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, than it must follow, that the Offerer offered in hopes of Reward, which hope of a Reward he could not reasonably entertain, unless he offered 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 looked 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 expressly required. 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 condemned 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 received a positive Divine Command, follows the Conduct of his Reason in the Worship which he pays to God, he of himself does not appoint the same, but God that endowed him with the Principle of Reason: and though the way which he chooses of worshipping God, may not improperly be called Will-worship, because he chooses it; yet, nor does it deserve to be condemned, 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 encouraged to our Duty; but our Obedience to the former, when we are no farther instructed, nor encouraged, shall be, not only graciously accepted, but also largely rewarded. That the Will-worship mentioned Col. 2.23. is not condemned 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 looked 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 wellpleasing 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 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 offered by those modester mistaken Men, [who do not hold Opinions they know not why] to persuade that Sacrifices were at first instituted by positive Precept from God, I have now answered. Let the Libeler, if he can, answer those Arguments, which [as it appears to me] do fully evince, that the first Sacrificers sacrificed, moved 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 worshipped with Sacrifice. But, 2. On the contrary, there are many Texts scattered 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, etc. 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 possessed the Minds of the stupid Jews concerning the intrinsic Excellence of Sacrifice, the great Value of it, by itself, 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 offered up with clean Hands, he was pleased both with the one and the other. Thus may the literal Sense of any Text be paraphrased away to serve an Hypothesis, but I shall show, that God, who often renewed his Laws and Commands of Righteousness, has disclaimed 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 spoke 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 entertained 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 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, though 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 Alwise God reasoning well, he did not. By this time, I suppose, the Reader will grant me that the Libeler was unreasonably angry at the Archbishop, for not determining whether Sacrifice owed its Original to Revelation, or Natural Reason; and unreasonably confident to determine the former; but when he affirms, that all the Christian World have hitherto believed, 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 imposed 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 Libeler to affirm, that all the Christian World have been always persuaded of the contrary, it is not easy to imagine; but of this I am convinced, that he having belied an Archbishop of as great Knowledge and Virtue, 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 abovementioned Paragraph of the Archbishop, cited and reproved by the Libeler, is God's Condescension to the Jews, who were possessed with the general Apprehension of Mankind, concerning the way of appeasing him by Sacrifice. What the Archbishop 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 borrowed from the Gentiles, and by long use endeared to the Jews, which, though little useful to the nobler Purposes of Religion, were yet of an indifferent nature, and innocent in themselves, those he adopted into the Ceremonial of his own Service by the Ministry of his Servant Moses. But the Libeler, p. 2. of his Supplement, represents the Archbishop, 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, bestowed 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 Libeler; for, when the Devil slanderously accused Job, it was not by falsely charging him with some vile Wickedness, which his righteous Soul abhorred; 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 Libeler fears not to accuse a Man, little inferior 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 worshipped. I see a Scholar may outdo his Master, and even a Man, when he gives his Mind to it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, clearly put down the Grand Accuser; but I will not wonder at it, for the Man that does this, has the Conscience of a nonswearing Jacobite, and outdoes his Master only in Impudence not in Cunning. For this is very evident, that though Sacrifice most probably was invented by the untutored Reason of the first good and grateful Men, yet when the Administration of it was restrained to peculiar Persons, they quickly played 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 Archbishop 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 unstrained Reason. 1. 'Tis very agreeable to Scripture-Accounts concerning Sacrifice: that the Rites and Ceremonies in use among the Heathens, gave occasion to the Rites and Ceremonies among the Jews, cannot perhaps be proved by plain, full and express words of Scripture; but neither can the contrary be so proved, nay the contrary cannot be fairly inferred 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, though 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, etc. 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 covered with a Cloud, and to be seen only by the Eyes of the Mind, 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 dressed 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 borrowed from Strangers, through the Indulgence of your God, are corrected and separated from all their odious, vile and base Pollutions, are so ordered and disposed, as to lead you to a right knowledge 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 persuaded, that he will grant me this Paraphrase is unforced 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 preferable 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 indulged. 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 Judgement, Acts 13.8. Exod. 20.25. Levit. 1.2. Numb. 6.1. Gal. 4.3.  
I pass over the Testimonies of Ancients and Moderns, Jews and Christians, who have declared their Opinion fully with the Archbishop in this matter, viz. that the Rites and Ceremonies in use among the Heathens gave occasion to the Rites and Ceremonies among the Jews, which God indulged to his People, when he had corrected, limited, ordered 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 cared 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 unstrained Reason.  
1. Consider the Circumstances of the Mosaic 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 suitable 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 cleansed them from Sin.  
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 passed into Law but in the days of Moses; we read nothing of them in Scripture before that Lawgiver: What! was God's Nature changed, 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 purged from Egyptian Abuse and Superstition?  
3. The Multitude, the Pomp, the Splendour of the Jewish Rites speak them to be of Heathen Original. Had God imposed the Jewish Rites, either merely 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 self considered, has nothing to entice 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 Music, odoriferous Perfumes, joyful Dance, 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 itself 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 of the latter from the former? I will assign the Reason.  
The Egyptians long before the days of Moses were a People famed 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, oppressed with the hardest Slavery, and used 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 misused Slaves; he must be a very obstinate Man, that will not acknowledge 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 its full Strength, let it be considered, 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 deserved, though they deserved no good one; and would the Egyptians borrow their Rites from such a People think you? the libeler's Faith cannot digest it, as for what his Tongue may say, I matter not that, nor he neither. Again, as the Egyptians were famed for their Learning, and Antiquity, so were they not meanly proud of these Advantages; ancient 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 declined Foreign Intercourse and Friendships, and that for this very reason, that they might preserve their ancient 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 changed their Manners, the Jews should have been the last whom they would have followed. I need add no more on this Head, when I have noted that the most famous Grecian Philosophers are said to have traveled into Egypt, as the famous School of the World for Knowledge sacred and profane, thence they borrowed 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 mixed many things borrowed from the Egyptians with their own holy Rites.  
I have said enough to justify what the Archbishop hath taught concerning the Original of Sacrifice; and who is there now, that will not be amazed at the Impudence of the Libeler, who in his first Libel against the Archbishop, is not ashamed to vomit up this ignorant, false and inconsistent Charge, p. 5. This Author [meaning the Archbishop] would persuade us, that the Devil was the Author and first Inventor 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 Archbishop leaves it in doubt, whether Sacrifice took its Original from Natural Reason, or Divine Revelation, and might without any Injury to the Cause of Religion, have determined the former: and he asserts but this, that when the sacrifical, and other ritual way of Worship came to be grossly corrupted, God purged it from all its gross Corruption; and because the Jews were incorrigibly fond of it, God having purged it from all its gross Corruption, and ordered and disposed it wisely, he then in pity to the Infirmity of his People, indulged it to them, but always signified that he had no pleasure in Ritual Services for their own sakes, and that what he most esteemed 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-hardened Conscience vouch such notorious odious Lies, such broad and bare faced Calumnies as the Libeler. 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, neque in bonâ segete nullam esse spicam nequam, neque in malâ non aliquod bonum, in the best Field of Corn some bad Ears, in the worst some good ones. But the libeler's Supplement is a Field which throws up plenty of wild Fancies, gross Mistakes, malicious Reproaches, false Imputations; yet wherein he quarrels the Archbishop, 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 Libeler is doomed the most severely of all the Sons of Men; if freewill, none e'er worse used his Liberty, no not the Traitor Judas; for, 'tis true, he betrayed 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 raised against the Archbishop, but his Grace's Reasonings are not considered, nor answered, that's not the libeler's way.  
On the former, both the late Archbishop, 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. 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 offered does deserve, is unjust. That Lord who exacts the utmost Penalty of the Breach of a just Law, is just; but he is not obliged to exact it, because than he were obliged 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 considered 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 Supreme, always having the Power, not to punish so far. Indeed Inferior Officers are absolutely bound to exact the utmost Penalty of the Law transgressed, unless their Commission leaves some Cases to their Discretion; but the supreme Governor of a Nation, and the great Governor 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 dispensed 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 misspend 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 Libeler 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 worth, that is, as to the Merits of the Cause, but it will sly in the face of the Libeler, who vends his unintelligible Whimsies for received Opinions; wherefore I will cite him one or two Ancients 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 Archbishop's Sermon on Matth. 25.46. I shall leave the doing him farther Right to an abler Hand.  
The Archbishop proposed to explain, how it can stand with the Justice and Mercy of God, to punish Temporal Sins with Eternal Punishments. Rejecting the common weak Solutions which passed in an Age less inquisitive and wicked than ours, this is the chief thing on which the Archbishop insists. Tho he that promises does thereby pass over a Right to another, and is obliged 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 obliged to execute what he hath threatened 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 Libeler pretends to reason against; indeed their words are plain and carry their Evidence with them: but the Libeler, well knowing how impossible it was to disprove plain and evident Doctrines, conjures up all the Powers of his old cankered Mind, the Spirit of Envy and of Malice, of Impudence and of Falsehood, 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 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 Archbishop's formed Design, to show how Hell-Punishments did consist with the Divine Justice, and Goodness, etc. and he has done it beyond reasonable Objection. The only thing which can with any shadow of sober reasoning be objected against the Archbishop, 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 virtuous Life. Had the Libeler 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 imposed by warm Professors, have given occasion to Atheists to suspect the Grounds of all Religion, and to Theists to question the Truth of our revealed.  
Among the rest of Christian Articles generally received, which seem at first sight not so very agreeable 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 aught 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 obliged to account for the reasonableness of Punishments, which could not but be of eternal Duration. 3. While the Archbishop supposes a Power in God to remit of his Sentence, and not punish to the utmost extent of his threatenings, 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 virtuous and godly Life, before the Liberties and Pleasures, of a sinful,  
The odious Calumnies against the late Archbishop, which the Libeler threw in my way, being thus removed, I return to the Justification of Sir R. H's admirable History of Religion, which also I designed.  
The Libeler in his Supplement marked 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 introduced by Priest-craft. I will not deny, but that Mr. Blount does suppose Sacrifice to have been an Heath'nish Invention introduced by Priest-craft; but for all that the Archbishop, 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 persuaded, that a great deal of Priest-craft was early super-induced 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 Chapel at White-Hall, a Noble Lord asked his Majesty, why he would suffer that Person to appear there, who had deciphered his Father's Letters taken at Naseby; the King replied, Man! I ought to thank him for those he did not decipher: And ought not the Libeler to have thanked Sir R. H. for the many scandalous Instances of Priest-craft, which he has so obligingly passed over in silence. As to the Particular of Sacrifice [which though 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 allotted 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 Libeler prove thence, that Sir R. H. took his History out of Mr. Blount's Diana, or will he prove thence, that Idolatry 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 affirmed, 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 received its Birth from Princes, at whose Charge it was afterwards educated by ecclesiastics. Now the Invention of Idolatry, is one thing, the Institution, and passing it into a Law, another; so that, for all that is here affirmed, Men might be first cheated into the Opinion by Priests, who studied to make their Court to Kings, at the expense of the People.  
The Libeler 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 concerned aught 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 Virtue 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 Republic; but that Kings raised 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, be for ever honoured; but let Priests, that is, if they would deserve Esteem, know their Distance, and their Duty: there's designing Sauciness in them, when they join their Honour so nearly to that of Kings; from writing Kings and Priests, they'll rise to the vain Style 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, overtop the tallest Branches, nay tear it all to pieces: every adhering part still lives, and every creeping Fiber 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 Libeler 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 declared how true a sense he has of Religion in that just and noble Character which he has given of the Archbishop's Sermons. But if this Libeler would fain know distinctly what is State-craft, and 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 called State-craft, or Kingcraft: burr when Priests preach up Passive Obedience, and Nonresistance, 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 Clerocatacurievontisms; 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 uttered, nor does the Libeler charge him to have uttered the least word against Faith in Christ, Repentance, and good Works.  
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 concerned 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, though Priest-craft be the thing he chiefly studies, yet he is not his Craft's-Master.  
But further [says the Libeler] Sir R. H. spits his Venom against the Mosaical Institution, and to prove this Charge he citys 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, than the Penmen of the New Testament spit Venom at it most outrageously; for they frequently speak of it in their Epistles, after the same manner, as Sir R. H. in his History. Nay, St. Paul in one place, says all our Fathers were under a Cloud, under a Veil; and if I be not much mistaken, he calls their mysterious Rites and Ceremonies beggarly Elements.  
But setting aside the Authority of the sacred Penmen, have not all the Doctors which have laboured in expounding the Mosaical Ceremonies, acknowledged them to be very puzzling? The Calvinists are generally persuaded, 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 designed 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 men's learning the Duties of Morality from the Ceremonial Law, it was certainly dark as for inclining them to Virtue, it was, without 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 mere 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 examined whether the Libeler 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 raised 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.  
3. But has Socinus wrote against Christianity?  
The Downfall in Blackfriars upon Father Drury, and his Popish Conventicle, was impudently published beyond Sea, by a bold turn of lying Priest-craft, as a sad Judgement upon an Assembly of Heretics; this is the very Picture of the libeler'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 boar to his Memory, even the Adversaries of that famous Man will vindicate him from the libeler'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' 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 Judgement, and left all the Antichristian Stuff to Sir R. H. no such matter, for they fought against Christianity too with Socinian Arms, if the libeler'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, though he grants, that that Doctor has since made some Amends, and I think he is something altered, 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 Churchof- England-Clergy, and some of the Dissenting Ministers, as appears by their Prints, are of the Arminian Persuasion in the Quinquarticular Controversy; and he may well remember how bitterly all those Doctrines were inveighed 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 concerned in already.  
And now I expect to be called rank Socinian, perhaps Atheist, mere Atheist at least, but that from the Libeler will be no Disgrace; yet not to create needless Envy to myself, nor bring unjust Suspicion on Sir R. H. I solemnly profess, that I know no more of his Mind in these matters, than from his History; and that I myself 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 borrowed Socinian Arms? they are reckoned 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 revealed: i. e. the way of Salvation declared by Jesus Christ still retains the Name of Mystery, just as Men, who had received their sight, are called blind, in that Expression of the Gospel, The blind see. The revealed Mystery of the Gospel Sir R. H. believes and reuerences: then for unrevealed Mysteries, he is not such an Enemy to them, as the Libeler would persuade; for though 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 than that, and some Doctrines akin to it, are falsely called unrevealed, or not fully revealed 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 Libeler, 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 happened to censure, perhaps when he was pleased 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 Libeler 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 Libeler either, do what he can. Sir R. H. also seems to hint, that knowing Men may sometimes submit their Practice to crafty Priests, though they can't their Understanding. The Morocco Ambassador was contented to wear a wide Sleeve, though 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 Ambassador, to save the Honour of her flying Chapel, now happily resting [blessed be the Angel-Carriers for it] at Loretto.  
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 Mysteries 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 dreamed of such monstrous Superfoetations.  
P. 28. l. 1. The Libeler would prove, that Religion ought to be mysterious, because God is Incomprehensible. As if he should say, because God has not fully revealed 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, Deaeque  
Insanam ob sophiam donent tonsore.  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 Alwise; and from these two certain Notions, we learn that his Dominion over us is absolute, and exercised 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 Libeler, in answering of which, I shall answer the Substance of his reasoning for Mystery.  
Pag. 28. l. 3. There are Mysteries irreconcilable 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 revealed 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 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 fullness, as must needs surprise, 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 looked 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 believed, some Commands to be obeyed; and it is absolutely necessary that both of them be so very plain, that an honest-minded Man may certainly understand them: for though it must be confessed, we do not pay so ready Obedience as we ought to the plain Commands of our Almighty Lawgiver, 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 believed, though 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 though we understand the sense of the Article of the Resurrection, yet we do not perceive the Probability, but nevertheless are obliged 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 confessed 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 promised to raise the Dead. So now I may venture to tell the Libeler, who with plain dulness 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 Libeler 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 revealed to no purpose, because Revelation is not needful in things which are plain and obvious without it. The 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 judge the World by the Man Christ Jesus; and yet we could not have dived to the bottom of it, if God had not plainly revealed it: for the virtuous Discourses of the Heathens were enforced but with a conjectural and doubtful Supposition of a future Judgement, it was the Man Christ Jesus who openly and assuredly proclaimed 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 raised 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 Judgement, 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 revealed to good purpose; and though Revelation be not necessary 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 Libeler to task, for any other of his wild Talk about Mystery, because all the common Mistakes on that Topick are so manifestly discovered 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 Libeler, 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.  
I will load his Affirmative with Inconvenience, A Mystery [says he] is that, whereof we know something, though not all. Then, say I, he himself is a Mystery; for though we know him for a Slanderer of the best of Men, a Libeler 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 harboured in his mysterious Heart.  
I am in haste to take leave of this Topick; yet casting my Eye backward, cannot forbear remembering 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, 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 performed even by the Man that is well disposed.  
2. Heaven is in some measure described in the New Testament, and as far as it is there described it may be understood, and as far as it is understood, it is no Mystery▪ the Methods of fitting us for Heaven are also described in the New Testament, fully described, 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 promised 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 altered from their former Darkness, yet to me the Reason is obvious and manifest. Crafty Priests pretend that Heaven, and the way to it is very mysterious, that so honest and plain People may be moved 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 Cairo moved against Chremylus in Aristophanes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. in English thus it found'st— 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.  
4. But if a Man valued his eternal Interest no more, than to trust the Libeler 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 Libeler for his Guide, must have a great care that he avoid the Scandal of good Morality; for which, though Sir R. H. has a high Esteem, and cannot forbear his strained Encomiums on that late moral Preacher Archbishop 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 revealed. 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, though they do not live up to it neither, nor indeed is there any thing to be got by it.  
2. The Man that will be conducted to Heaven by the Libeler, must be content to put himself under the Discipline of Religion, revealed Religion; for revealed Religion [which is a Complex of the Methods of conveying him thither] differs infinitely from moral Religion, which is falsely so called, because nothing is Religion, but that which is revealed [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 revealed Religion puts Men under Discipline, and that managed 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 itself.  
3. The Candidate of Heaven must take notice, according to the Libeler, that a belief of those things which Religion teaches, is sufficient to entitle a Man to a Sect, to be an Epicurean, or a Stoic; but there goes more to make a good Christian 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 unconceivable Privileges and Promises are annexed 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 governed 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 abovementioned, the Libeler assures him, that if he does not submit to these Methods, he sets himself out of all 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 abovesaid.  
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 libeler'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 ashamed to argue seriously against this ignorant and scandalous Libeler: but that none may say he is only ridiculed, and misrepresented, not answered 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 falsely. That chief Topick is, his distinction between Morality and Revealed 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 Virtue, and build their hopes of Happiness on their Assent to they know not what mysterious Propositions. Now I will show that Morality and Revealed Religion are much the same, that they are divers Names, under which the same things are denoted.  
Morality may be defined 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.  
That which is usually called 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 Virtues that are agreeable to Natural Reason.  
Natural Reason hath been ingeniously compared 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 Judge of every thing which can be made the Duty of a Man.  
Christianity, which is now the only true revealed Religion, is a perfect System of all the Laws of Nature, of all those Virtues which Natural Reason, free from Passions and Prejudices, approves; and all those Laws, all those Virtues, 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 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 revealed Religion of Christ, is the old moral Religion, which careless Neglects, hasty Passions, and evil Examples had almost banished out of the World. But now it will be asked, why it's called Revealed Religion? that's the next thing I have to show.  
And here let it be considered, that though there is not a virtuous 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 established all the Instances of good Morality upon stronger Foundations.  
The Mosaical Religion, the Morality whereof was encumbered and darkened with a heavy Burden of numerous strange Rites and Ceremonies, did exhibit only Temporal Promises and Threats, to persuade the Jews to Obedience: Or if there were any thing beyond this Life promised or threatened, 'twas in such obscure Expressions, that 'twas uncertain, and not to be made out but by laboured Reasonings and long Deductions.  
The wiser Heathens, who discoursed reasonably, and lived well, enforced their wise Discourses, and good Examples, with but faint and doubtful Probabilities of a Life to come, wherein successful Wickedness should be punished, and injured Virtue rewarded; and when they could not demonstrate their Argument, were fain to be content with this harmless Speculation, that Virtue was Reward enough to itself, 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 descried before by waving Flashes, by sudden glances of Rays faint and weak: He revived languishing Morality by the Revelation of a Resurrection, and a Judgement to come; and God gave Testimony to the Revelation of his Son, by Signs and Wonders supernatural, and contestable. The Reason of Man could not have attained to the certain knowledge 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, revealed from Heaven, and confirmed 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 guests why the Libeler undervalues Morality, and extols the Discipline [as he words it] of Revealed 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 managed 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 saved whether they will or no, though not for nothing neither. What a sad thing is it, that this Discipline should be relaxed now! how will the Gentlemen answer it to God, and their Country, who have laid open the Enclosures 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 revealed Religion, and nothing being Religion but revealed, could have no Religion at all; and the present Age, though living under revealed 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 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 Libeler 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 Archbishop Tillotson, has sufficiently published to the World, that he has an high Esteem and Veneration for Priests, Priests that are Men of Learning and Virtue, though they follow their late thrice excellent Metropolitan at a distance, and but as Ascanius followed Aeneas, non passibus aequis.  
The coming in of King William, was a Test upon all Orders of Men, and openly discovered 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 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 Libeler 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 passed 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 Libeler 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 Priests, and Latitudinarian Ministers of Satan.  
One thing in him is very pleasant, he would fain persuade 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 passed between them, they are both the most civil and good-natured Gentlemen, the most endearing, faithful, and inseparable Friends that one shall meet with in a Summer's Day.  
The Libeler 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 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 Libeler outdoes all his Brethren; for Instance, pap. 31. l. 4. col. 1. take these words— God dwells in Light inaccessible, in thick Clouds and Darkness, caused 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, atque eme quod Mithridates  
Composuit—  
Pag. 96. of the History of Religion there occurs this word Innoscence, instead of which the Libeler reads Innocence. Innoscence being but an uncouth word, I am willing to suppose the Libeler has corrected a false Print, but then his Reflections 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 itself any noxious Influence upon other Men; therefore wholly beside the matter is that Reflection of the libeler's— when Ignorance is set up to countenance Infidelity and Irreligion, than 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 persuasive 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 determined, 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 not forgive him, that is, his blunt and scurrilous Impudence, borrowed 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 arrived 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 Libeler notes, that Ignorance will not excuse, is Ingratitude: his Note is just, but his Instance is a notorious, villainous and treasonable Falsehood. So that an honest Pagan would say of him as Chrysalus of Archidemides, 
— 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 dethroned 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 Libeler rubbed his Forehead hard when he ventured on that Lie; for nothing was more known through the whole Court, than that the late King numbered him, and used him, as one that could not be brought to sacrifice the Religion and Laws of his Country to the Arbitrary Lust of a Priestridden Tyrant.  
This lewd Libeler 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 asked 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 Libeler reckons in the last place, for Sins not to be excused 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 observed, that the whole Aim of our Saviour in the Gospel, was to use clearness: The Libeler 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 myself, with a very small stock of Learning, and a little better portion of Humanity, go off at a great rate.  
Pag. 31. Col. 1. The Libeler crowds into two or three Lines as much Folly and Fury as he is able. For having charged 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 pronounced that Crime to be Death, and then pronounces— nor would these Sons of Belial have escaped it, had they lived in any Christian Country. He that overflows with such audacious, shameless Eruptions of artless Malice, overdoes 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 exercised by Priests, by Priests without whom there is no Religion, this, this is that which fires the Libeler 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 provoked 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, mere Craft, and subtle 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 contestable Argument, that there's no Christianity in the Country. One word more; why is this Libeler angry, that Sir R. H. has shown how Religion has been corrupted by Priest-craft, whenas he himself confesses, that Priests have corrupted it, though not so much as Parliaments? I cannot imagine his meaning, unless it be, that he thinks none aught to corrupt Religion, but Priests, and Priests may do what they please with it.  
Let the Reader now be judge, whether what this lewd Libeler 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 guests 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 Libeler, The Prophets prophecy falsely, 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.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
NO venerable injured Name in all the Catalogue of English Bishops better deserves to be vindicated from the base Calumnies of audacious Libelers, than the incomparable Dr. Tillotson, late Archbishop of Canterbury: sure 'tis the awful sense which this Age has of the great Honour due to his thrice happy Memory, which makes them who are best able, so slow to do him Justice.  
There was published t'other day indeed a Pamphlet, styled, Reflections upon a Libel, entitled [The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson considered, etc.] but so sad and sorry a Story is that, so coldly does the Writer defend his Grace's most useful and truly Christian Sermons, so perversely does he draw that great Man into the favouring his private, scandalous, indefensible Doctrines, that the Archbishop seems worse used by the Vindicator, than by any his most spiteful Adversaries.  
Who this Vindicator should be, does not plainly appear, but he has a mind to be guessed at, and therefore I will oblige him. He must, at least, be a Friend of the Dean of St. Paul's, because he tells us, p. 10. something, I know not what, how that Dean happened to be an eminent Man, and he gives him the honourable Appellations, which that Learned Person seldom forgets when he speaks of himself; and towards the Conclusion, p. 61. as if he had resolved openly to discover himself, he falls upon an honourable Gentleman with more than Billingsgate Rudeness, charges him with ridiculing the Christian Religion, proscribes him for an Atheist or Deist, which he saith is all one, calls his History of Religion an execrable Pamphlet.  
The Design of the Author of the History of Religion [says this Nominal Vindicator of the Archbishop, who has one word for him, and two for a Friend behind the Curtain] is to ridicule the Christian Religion, without offering at one reason, why it ought to be ridiculed. Such Impudence as this ought not to be suffered to go off with flying Colours; therefore let it be noted,  
1. That the Design of this Nominal Vindicator, is to calumniate an honourable and honest Christian Gentleman; for he accuses him of ridiculing the Christian Religion, without offering one Instance wherein he has ridiculed it.  
2. That Gentleman is so far from ridiculing the Christian Religion in that Book of his abovementioned, that I defy all Persons whatsoever, of Clergy or Lay-Denomination, that have taken Offence at it, to assign any one Instance, wherein he detracts from any of the Practical Duties of our holy Religion required by Jesus Christ.  
3. Tho that Gentleman is no Friend to Priest-craft, yet he is the most mild and temperate Adversary, that ever opposed the pious Frauds of impious Hypocrites: for he is content that all who please, all who can, believe all the pretended Mysteries now in vogue, which puzzle the most thoughtful and discerning Wits of the Age, and all that shall be devised at any time hereafter, by Men that can't employ themselves better; provided that they who can't believe them, may not be induced by persuasive Penalties to profess they do.  
4. Tho the Christian Religion is truly Divine, and of all things ought not to be ridiculed, yet some Priests for twenty Reasons ought not to be spared; I will pay down half the twenty now, this present, and the remainder upon demand.  
(1.) Some ought not to be spared, because they themselves ridicule Religion by the apish Modes in which they dress it; the most of these are Romanists.  
(2.) Some, because they make a Gain of it, by superinduced false Doctrines.  
(3.) Some, because they exact the Belief of they know not what.  
(4.) Some, because they make the Life of Religion to consist in Discipline.  
(5.) Some ought not to be spared, because they teach that there's no Religion in Morality.  
(6.) Some, because they teach that there can be no Religion without Priests.  
(7.) Some, because they can't dispute without bringing against one another railing Accusations.  
(8.) Some, because they make a very great show, of a very little Learning.  
(9) Some not to be spared, because they preach up one thing one day, and another the next.  
(10.) Some, because they indent with Kings, and give and take Divine Right from them, as Offence is given to, or removed from themselves.  
The Nominal Vindicator of the Archbishop, when he accuses the Author of the History of Religion for an Atheist, or Deist; being in running haste, throws in these words— it matters not which: No? Is a Deist quite as bad as an Atheist? What will become of his old Friend Socrates, and one or two more generous Heathens, of whom he and many a truly honest, pious, Christian Priest have had a very charitable Opinion? He that from his Heart sincerely believes there is a God, and that he is a Rewarder, cannot be a very wicked Man, though it is to be confessed, he cannot be so good as a true Christian.  
One word more with this Nominal Vindicator, Why is the History of Religion such an Execrable Pamphlet? it does not diminish the Authority of the Sacred Writings, it does not detract from any Precept which our Lord Christ has given us, nor from the Revelations wherewith he has enforced his Precepts; it does not prejudice any honest Priest in the faithful Discharge of his Function, no nor in the Recovery of his Temporal Rights, due to him in such a Spiritual Dignity, by English Law; it is only out of their way, who being devoid of true Religion would make a trade of the outward Form. They are the Men, the only Men who curse the History of Religion, and let them curse on, they will but curse it into greater Credit; the Bookseller may venture on a second Edition, their Curses will publish it so widely, he need not fear but that a numerous Impression will go off. I beg one for my Advice; and I promise, seeing I can't set it in my Study where I would, because honest Mr. Johnson tells me the Book of Homilies is the next best Book to the Bible, I will be sure to place it next after the Book of Homilies.  
FINIS.