Archbishop TILLOTSON Vindicated FROM The Charge of Socinianism.   

REFLECTIONS UPON A LIBEL lately Printed, entitled,[ The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. TILLOTSON considered, &c.]  
LONDON: Printed for Richard Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard. MDCXCVI.   

The CONTENTS.  
THE Archbishop Vindicated, 

SECT. I. From the Charge of not using the Word Consubstantial, page. 3  
SECT. II. From using the Word Person slightly, page. 6 

with some Reflections upon the Animadverter on the Dean of St. Paul's, page. 11    
SECT. III. The Archbishop's Exposition of Phil. 2.5. Vindicated, page. 17  
SECT. IV. The Charge about our Saviour's Satisfaction, and Hell-Torments, Answered, page. 20  
SECT. V. The Charge disproved of the Archbishop's advancing a Barbarous, Absurd, and Blasphemous Notion of the Christian Religion, page. 25  
SECT. VI. The Charge of Blasphemy Answered about the Jewish Law, page. 40  
SECT. VII. A second Charge about our Saviour's Satisfaction Answered, page. 45  
SECT. VIII. The Archbishop Vindicated from the Charge of Advancing a Socinian Covenant, page. 47  
SECT. IX. The Charge Answered about Christ's Sacrifice, page. 48  
SECT. X. Of the Socinians owning a Satisfaction, page. 49  
SECT. XI. Of the Socinian way of Disputing, page. 50  
SECT. XII. The Charge of undermining the Unity of the Godhead, Answered, page. 54  
SECT. XIII. The Charge of Hobbism Answered, page. 55  
SECT. XIV. The Charge about Revealed Religion Answered, page. 57  
SECT. XV. The Charge about Mother's Nursing their Children, proved to be impertinent, page. 59  
SECT. XVI. The Charge answered of Comparing the Archbishop with Mr. blunt, &c. page. 61  
SECT. XVII. The Conclusion. page. 64.     

The Author's Absence from the Press, which he could not overlook himself, has occasioned the following ERRATA.  
page. 5. line 8. from bott. for And tho here, r. Tho here. p. 9. l. 6. r. quotes. p. 10. l. 3. from bott. after Mystery, add by the strength of Reason. p. 11. l. 6. from bott. r. so teach them to keep. p. 15. Marg. for p. 84. r. p. 87. p. 18. l. 19. r. ipso. p. 22. l. 4. after also add be not. p. 30. l. 6. from bott. r. to the contrary. p. 34. l. ult. r. 'Tis indeed highly. p. 39. l. 32. r. excepts. p. 49. l. 27. for and as r. as. p. 51. l. 30. r. Affections. p. 54. l. 26. for Principal r. Principle. p. 59. l. 17. for putting r. put. p. 62. l. 20. r. Archbishop. p. 63. l. 9. deal it. Smaller Mistakes are left to the Reader's candour.   

REFLECTIONS Upon a Libel lately Printed, entitled,[ The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson considered.]  
IT has been long disputed amongst Wise men, Whether impudent and notorious Calumnies should rather be butted in silence by the Persons who suffer under them, or be exposed as such by solemn Vindications. They will die of themselves, say some men, Truth will prevail at the long run, and slanders only grow considerable when they are taken notice of. On the other hand, a lie briskly affirmed is believed by weak and prejudiced Persons; and there are great numbers of People who cannot bear up against positive boldness; and though upon examination they find no grounds for it, yet through a natural diffidence of their own Understandings, and an unwillingness to suppose that their Friends can be capable of such Crimes; they will rather distrust their Senses, than not yield to the daring assertions of those whose Persons or Opinions they have a respect for. So that if one compares the Reasons on both sides, 'tis here, as it is in most other cases where Prudence must determine it, sometimes convenient, and sometimes not, to Vindicate the Reputations of those who are unjustly attacked by the Tongues or Pens of wicked or malicious Persons.  
It seems to be very necessary when the injured Persons are dead; and that from thence an opportunity is taken to spread those virulent ●●●umnies which the Authors durstnot have published when they were alive: Especially if they have been instruments of much good whilst they were in this world; and above all, if some of the best of their Actions are the very things for which they have so severely suffered; then an obligation seems to lye upon those that stay behind, to rescue the Reputation of these their Teachers, Governors, or Benefactors, from the hands of those who, if they can but throw dirt enough upon Honester and Better Men than themselves( if they act upon Principles different from those which they would appear to own) care not what mischief they do to Religion and the Church of God.  
For these Reasons therefore it has been thought advisable, That public notice should be taken of a villainous Pamphlet lately dispersed with great industry by the Jacobites, entitled, The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson Considered: In Examination of some Sermons he has lately Published on purpose to clear himself from that Imputation. In which, as I hope fully to make appear, there is not one thing laid to that Great and that Good Man's Charge, but what is a direct Slander, and wherein the Author openly and designedly Misrepresents Archbishop Tillotson's meaning, or Misquotes his Words, or makes him Teach Doctrines as different from those which he really Teaches, as Light is from Darkness.  
This, if it can be proved, will fall as heavy upon this libeler, as he does upon the late Archbishop; only here is the unhappy difference, he that comes first has the opportunity of prepossessing those who were already inclinable to be prepossessed; and 'twill here fall out, as it almost always does in cases of this nature, that those who pretend to be satisfied with what this libeler says, will inquire no further, for fear they should be obliged to alter their Opinion. But without any further Preface, I shall take his Libel in pieces, in order as it lies.  

SECT. I. The Archbishop vindicated from the Charge of not using the Word Consubstantial.  
HE is very angry, That when the Archbishop proves our Blessed Saviour to be really and truly God, and the Son of God from all Eternity, he does not use the term {αβγδ} or Consubstantial, which was the Test of the catholics of old, by which they found out the Arians with whom they disputed, who would allow {αβγδ}, or that the Son was of a like Substance with the Father, tho they would not allow him to be of the same. 
Charge of Socin. p. 1. col. 2.  Dr. Tillotson( as he always indecently calls the Archbishop) says he, quotes the words in the Nicene Creed that immediately follow these [ Being of the same Substance with the Father], but does not mention these; which if he had owned, it would have been a more clear and full Vindication of his Orthodoxy in this Point, than all these four Sermons. And since it was impossible he could forget them, when he repeated the same Sentence of the Creed wherein they are contained; we must conclude that he left them out on purpose, and consequently, That he does not really believe them, tho he endeavours with all his art to cast a Mist before the Reader's Eyes in other Expressions, which to some might seem tantamount, as Arius and his Followers did.  
Now, if the Archbishop does use Expressions which are really tantamount, then what I have quoted from this libeler is a Slander, and a malicious Insinuation, which can signify nothing to hurt the Archbishop's Memory, since it is very well known, that every Sunday and Holiday, when the Nicene Creed was red in the Church, he expressed his Belief of it, by joining with the Priest that officiated as devoutly as any other Christian in the Assembly did.  
But this is not all: In these very Sermons, the Archbishop sufficiently explains himself. 
Serm 1. p. 16.  All these glorious Titles, [ Word, Life, Light, fullness,] did really meet in the messiah, who is the Word; and who before his Incarnation was from all Eternity with God, partaker of his Divine Nature and Glory. Again, 
Serm. 1. p. 23.  The same was in the beginning with God; that is, Tho the Word was truly and really God, yet he was not God the Father, who is the Fountain of the Deity, but an Emanation from him, the only begotten Son of God from all Eternity with him; to denote to us, that which is commonly called by Divines, and for any thing I could ever see properly enough, the distinction of Persons in the Deity. Again, 
Serm. 1. p. 36. " Christ was God by Participation of the Divine Nature and Happiness together with the Father, and by way of Derivation from him as the Light is from the Sun; which is the common Illustration which the Ancient Fathers of the Christian Church give us of this Mystery, and is perhaps the best and fittest that can be given of it.  
Can any words be plainer than these, to show that the Archbishop really believed the Son to be Consubstantial with the Father? Could he otherwise partake of the Divine Nature? Could it be an Emanation from him, and yet from all Eternity with him any other way? Or, is not Light Consubstantial and entirely Coaeval too with the Sun? Or when the Arians asserted that Jesus Christ was Light of Light, as some of them did in their Expositions of Faith, could they possibly mean it in a strictly literal Sense, which manifestly supposes Consubstantiality? Do they hold the Son of God to be really Eternal? There are several Expositions of Faith against them in the Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret; in all which the catholic Church took especial care to establish the Eternity of the Son of God, as knowing when that was done, his Consubstantiality with the Father would necessary follow; Eternity being one of the incommunicable Properties or Attributes of the Divine Nature, which cannot be given to any thing that is made, let the time of its being made, be as Ancient as it will. The Arians indeed owned that Christ was before all Ages, but that is not owning him to be Eternal; they pretended( some of them at least) to disallow that there was a {αβγδ} or {αβγδ} before Christ; but they meant by that a Portion of Time, or else they meant nothing at all by it. Now Time is nothing but a measure of Duration, and so there could be no Time before something that was capable of Succession was created, which Duration might be measured by.  
The Archbishop was under no obligation to use that particular Term, it being no where to be found in Scripture, whose Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity he had obliged himself to set down, and there to rest. And if our most Holy Faith be not a Contention about Words; nay, if it be indifferent how it is explained, provided the Explication be fair, and without fraud; then this Clamour against the Archbishop is wilfully unjust, since 'tis made by one that had red over his Sermons, and that knew that he expressly owned, That the Son of God was from all Eternity an Emanation from God the Father, really partaker of the Divine Nature with him; which words are as plain as words can be, to express what the catholic Church always believed concerning the Divinity of the Son of God.  
The Socinian Considerer therefore does the Archbishop justice in this particular, when he owns him to be a real Trinitarian, and accordingly allows him to have a right to allege particular Texts of Scripture to prove the Divinity of our Saviour in the sense in which 'tis believed by the catholic Church, which( says he) the Nominal Trinitarians have no right to do. And 'tis for doing him this Justice that this libeler does so often scurrilously insinuate, that the Archbishop and the Socinians were really reconciled, however outwardly they kept at a distance for forms sake, to blind those that could not see narrowly into things. But of this more hereafter.  
And tho here, to do this libeler right, and that I will do in every thing as near as I can, he is not the only Man that pretends to think so, since the warm Charger of Tritheism upon Dr. Sherlock's Notion of the Trinity hints the same thing, tho covertly, towards the Conclusion of his Charge, 
Tritheism charged, &c. p. 304.  which since he knows from these Sermons to be a Calumny, he knows also( no man better) what the Duty is which lies upon him to take it off.  
But would this angry Gentleman have given his Rage one minutes time to cool, he would have seen, that 'tis morally impossible that the Socinian Considerer could have been so far acted by the Archbishop of Canterbury's restraining Grace( as he spitefully words it) as to fall upon some, and pass by others; when that very Man accuses the Archbishop himself of holding the Doctrine of the Trinity, because he was one of the great Pensioners of the World; 
Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity by the Archbishop of Canterbury, &c. p. 44. col. 1.  that is, in other words, because he was a faithless Hypocrite, who professed to believe a Trinity, only because 
Ibid. p. 44. col. 2.  he must maintain it, and durst do no otherwise; which is as vile a reproach upon the Archbishop's Memory, as could be said by any mortal Man; nay, and this too was said of the Archbishop in print by this Considerer, whilst the Archbishop was alive. Should the Charger's Insinuation be true, the Archbishop must have known Mankind but very indifferently, since he could be so far imposed upon as to employ a Man to fall upon some particular Persons for defending the Doctrine of the Trinity, when that very Man whom he thus employed, was ready to vent black and virulent Calumnies against himself for teaching that self-same Doctrine, and did within some few Months after accordingly vent them.   

SECT. II. The Archbishop vindicated from using the Word Person slightly: With some Reflections on the Animadverter on the Dean of St. Paul's.  
HIS next Charge against the Archbishop, is, 
Charge of Socinianism, p. 3. col. 1.  That he uses the word Person very grudgingly and slightly, as brought to it against his will, so that he cannot conceal his Inclination rather to the distinction used by the Anti-Trinitarian heretics, to elude those Texts which speak of the Trinity, which is, that there are three Differences in the Deity which are expressed in Scripture by the three Denominations of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and which they allow are spoken of after the manner of Persons, as Wisdom is said to build her House, &c. But they will not allow them to be truly and properly Persons, or different subsistences, but only three several Acceptations of the same Person, according to the different manner of his revealing himself upon several occasions. And in this sense, and no other, the Doctor is pleased to let the word Persons pass, since we must have it.  
Whether all this be Truth or Calumny, will appear by these Passages. 
Serm 2. Concerning the Divinity of our B. Saviour, p. 120.  There are Three differences in the Deity which the Scripture speaks of by the Names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and every where speaks of them, as we use to do of distinct Persons. And therefore I see no reason why in this Argument we should nicely abstain from using the word Person; tho I remember that St. Hierom does somewhere desire to be excused from it. But in his single Sermon of the Unity of the Divine Nature, where he is to prove, That 
Sermon. Concerning the Unity of the Divine Nature, p. 25.  the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, or of three real differences or distinct Persons in one and the same Divine Nature, is not inconsistent with the Unity of God. Among other things he says thus 
Ibid. p. 31, 32, 33. , Let it be further considered, That tho neither the word Trinity, nor perhaps Person, in the sense in which 'tis used by Divines when they treat of this Mystery, be any where to be met with in Scripture; yet it cannot be denied, but that Three are there spoken of by the Names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in whose Name every Christian is baptized, and to each of whom the highest Titles and Properties of God are in Scripture attributed; and these Three are spoken of with as much distinction from one another, as we use to speak of Three several Persons. So that tho the word Trinity be not found in Scripture, yet these Three are there expressly and frequently mentioned, and a Trinity is nothing but Three of any thing. And so likewise, tho the word Person be not there expressly applied to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, yet it will be very hard to find a more convenient word, whereby to express the distinction of these Three; for which reason I could never yet see any just cause to quarrel at this Term. For since the Holy Spirit of God in Scripture hath thought fit in speaking of these Three to distinguish them from one another, as we use in common speech to distinguish Three several Persons; I cannot see any reason why in the Explication of this Mystery, which purely depends upon Divine Revelation, we should not speak of it in the same manner as the Scripture doth. And tho the word Person is now become a Term of Art, I see no cause why we should decline it, so long as we mean by it neither more nor less than what the Scripture says in other words.  
Can the Archbishop now be said to use the word Person grudgingly or slightly, or against his Will, when he stands up in defence of it? Can any Man say without slandering him, that he 
Charge of Socin. p. 3. col. 2.  will not too nicely abstain from the word Person, or any other word, since he can make it signify what he pleases, only a difference, or a somewhat, or a no-what, by a Mental Reservation, tho he knows those he disputes with, and those he speaks to, take it in another Sense? Or can any Man that but pretends to Integrity and Honesty, say, That the Archbishop 
Ibid p. 13. col. 1.  opposes the Doctrine of the Trinity as taught by Divines? How, or where does he 
Ibid. p. 13. col. 1.  peremptorily determine against the Sense of Divines as antiscriptural? Or because the Archbishop has asserted that 
Sermon. Unity of Divine Nature, p. 31, 32.  no such word as Person is to be found in Scripture, in the sense in which it is used by Divines, what reason is there from thence to insinuate that the Archbishop should affirm that there is 
Charge of Socin. p. 13. col. 2.  no such Thing as Person to be found in Scripture, when it is used of the Trinity? Things it seems, and Words, with our libeler, signify both alike.  
But he will say, perhaps, That he does not here examine this last Passage out of the Archbishop's Sermon of the Unity of the Divine Nature, but only that out of his Second Sermon, concerning the Divinity of our Blessed Saviour; and there( says he) Dr. Tillotson seems unwilling to admit the word Person. Why pray? because St. Hierom somewhere desires to be excused from it. 
Charge of Socin. p. 3. col. 2.  This somewhere of St. Hierom's is( in our Libeller's Opinion) a strange Quotation for so grave a Doctor to bring into the Pulpit upon so serious a Subject, if he thought it so. Whatsoever he thinks, for my part I can see no lightness in it, nothing being more common than to say, that any Author says a thing somewhere, when he that quotes him does not think it necessary to produce the place, as here 'tis evident it was not.  
When St. Paul quoted Aratus to the Athenians, he produces the place without so much as naming the Author from whom he takes it. 
Acts 17.28.  As certain also of your own Poets have said; and just so he quotes Epimenides to Titus 
Tit. 1.12. . That's a stranger way of quoting than the Archbishop's, since there is neither Author nor Book name, and yet the Apostle produces both those Passages, to give weight to what he was then to say to the Athenians, and to Titus.  
Yet this excuse, should it be made, is not sufficient. This libeler had red the Archbishop's Sermon of the Unity of the Divine Nature, before his Libel was sent to the Press; for he says in his Preface, That his Animadversions( as he calls them) were written before the Archbishop's Death. If so, he ought to allow the Archbishop that Justice which all Men mutually give and take as their undoubted Right, to interpret one place of his Works by another, if there is not a manifest Contradiction; and consequently, supposing that in the former Passage the Archbishop may be thought to seem unwilling to use the word Person of the Blessed Three in the Trinity, yet that cannot be his meaning, because in the later Passage he not only allows, but urges Arguments why other People ought not to lay it aside, and such Arguments too as plainly prove him, in the Socinian Considerer's Language, a real Trinitarian, and yet no Tritheist.  
But this is not all that I have to say concerning this Cavil;( for Objection it is none.) It is plain, that instead of being unwilling to use the word Person, the Archbishop brings Reasons why it ought to be used; and after his particular way, equally compounded of good Nature, and good Breeding, gently reproves those who nicely abstain from a Term which had been for so many Ages used in the catholic Church. And by them he does in all probability mean some very Eminent Persons in the Church, who had not long before taken much pains to vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity, and the Incarnation, from the Objections and Cavils of the Socinians. These Learned Men were for substituting other words instead of those Terms of Art by which the Church was accustomend to represent its Conceptions concerning these great Mysteries, for which they have been severely handled by some warm Animadverters. Our good Archbishop, who always reproved in the Spirit of Meekness, when he saw that those who took a wrong course, did it out of a good design, thought his mildred way the best, and the most effectual to show his sense of this matter. But why then( will it be said) does our libeler calumniate the Archbishop, as if he had neglected that very thing which he sees he did? Even because he does not fall upon those who had offered some new Terms, as some others had done just before. This was offence enough to our libeler. The Archbishop gives his Opinion softly, like a Friend, like a Christian, and like a Father of the Church; even so, as tho the Persons concerned could not but take it to themselves, yet at the same time they must see that it was said in Love, as all Reproofs ought to be.  
But alas! this would not do some Mens business: The Dean of St. Paul's happened to be one of those Eminent Men who had affirmed, That the use of these Terms of Art, and Person amongst the rest, had very much obscured the Doctrine of the Trinity, instead of explaining it 
Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 101. . Now he having incurred the Displeasure of the Jacobites, for reasons very well known to the whole Nation, they were willing he should be represented to the World as a Prevaricator, a Corrupter of the Faith, a Blasphemer, and what not? Those that did thus represent him, Jacobites or not, were highly approved of; whereas those who gently excused what they did not very well like, were to be represented as Socinians themselves for so doing. And this is the true reason of this Calumny; for the Archbishop had plainly declared 
Serm. Of Unity of Divine Nature, p. 29.  that he was not afraid to own, that other Men might very commmendably attempt a more particular Explication of this great Mystery, tho he durst not pretend to it, as knowing both the difficulty and the danger of such an attempt.  
This one would have thought might have been a warning to the Animadverter upon the Dean of St. Pauls, how he had used so much sharpness in his Writings against him, for fear the World should have suspected that it was a personal Pique, more than Love of the Truth, that set him on first, and sharpened his Pen afterwards. For tho a man's meaning should be never so unbiased, yet if he gives occasion to the World to imagine otherwise, those that are convinced by his Reasons, may be tempted to despise his Person, which would be a very mortifying Consideration to Men of some Tempers, if they could once be brought to believe it. There are several things which may blind the Eyes of the Wise, besides a Gift; and when they are so blinded, they may be lead, ere they are ware, to do the business of those, who tho they at present speak them fair, and commend their Learning and Acuteness, yet at the bottom will esteem them but as Tools, and would use them as such, if they presuming upon their Services, should contradict these their Applauders in any matter of moment.  
What I have here said, is no Digression from my general Design, which is to rescue Archbishop Tillotson's Memory out of the hands of those who delight to blacken it. And the Animadverter upon the Dean of St. Pauls has shown too great a sharpness towards the Archbishop, up and down in his Writings, not to be taken notice of. I declare( to speak in his own Language) that I fear him as little as he does Dr. Sherlock, and should reverence him as much as I fear him little, if he had shew'd a Temper equal to his Learning and Skill in winding and wresting an Argument, which last indeed is very extraordinary. I know but one use that can result from such a way of handling of an Adversary, which is, that it may frighten Men from going never so little out of the common Road, lest they should fall into such hands, and so keep their Thoughts to themselves till they have been carefully and impartially scanned by indifferent Persons.  
But that I may dispatch what I have to say to the Animadverter upon Dr. Sherlock all at once, I shall remind him of a very true Assertion of his own, namely, 
Animadversions, p. 348.  That of all Men living, such as will be Writers, espicially provoking insulting Writers, are concerned to tread tenderly, and to take every step with the utmost Caution, where they do not find a Grammatical Bottom firm under them. Accordingly I demand of him who 
Ibid. p. 332.  is a graecian in his heart, what he meant by finding fault with the Dean of St. Pauls's 
Ibid. p. 335.  Lucifer Caralitanus? does not he know that {αβγδ} and {αβγδ} in Greek, and Caralis in Latin, were received Names of Cagliari or Calaris, as it is most usually called? Henricus Valesius( who perhaps understood Greek as well as that young Gentleman of Westminster-School whom the Animadverter employed to examine the Accents of the Greek Citations in Dr. Sherlock's Vindication) translates these words of Socrates 
Hist. Eccl. l. 3. cap. 5. , {αβγδ}, thus, Lucifer Caralis, quae Urbs est Sardiniae, erat Episcopus 
Christopherson also, who was a very Learned M●n, transl●tes them thus, Lucifer Caralorum, Urbis Sardiniae, fuit Episcopus. ; and in his Index calls him, Lucifer Caralitanus; and so does Dr. Cave, v. Lucifer, in his Historia Literaria. If their Verdict is excepted against as Modern Writers, St. Hierom's sure will pass in this case,( tho not for the signification of the word Hypostasis) who calls him Caralitanus in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, and concludes his Account of him with these words, Sub Juliano Principe Caralis reversus, Valentiniano regnant obiit.  
The Dean's 
Animad. p. 341.  then for than is not so mortal a fault as this new Aristarchus imagines. The Translators of the Bible, and the Composers of our Liturgy knew no difference in the spelling of these two words; nor do any Editions of the Bible and Liturgy, which I have consulted, make any alteration to this day. So that tho for these last forty or fifty years the Printers have commonly distinguished the Adverb of Time from the Note of Comparison by the variation of the Vowel; yet, since it was not anciently or but rarely practised, a Man cannot be accused of writing ungrammatically that does not observe their Distinction: And this our Animadverter, who is against the 
Prefat. p. 14.  useful Philosophy of Alterations, should a little have considered before he had taxed the Dean with writing false English upon this account. Moreover, that he may not measure me by himself, and imagine that I take him up, as he does the Dean of St. Pauls, only for the pleasure of exposing him, I shall direct him to an Author, whose Authority in matters of this kind, will go full as far as his own, and that is the Bishop of Rochester, who in his admirable History of the Royal Society usually writes then for than, as knowing that the new way of writing that word, had not gained sufficient Authority to be always allowed in a Book, which was designed to be( as it most certainly will) a pattern to Posterity how they should writ elegantly and exactly upon Philosophical Subjects.  
Some of the Animadverter's Friends desire to know what he means by the word Pre-heminence; it cannot( say they) be mistaken for Pre-eminence, because that comes from the Latin word Praeeminere, which has no h in the middle of it.  
But since this Gentleman, by playing the Pedant with the Dean of St. Pauls, has encouraged others to do the like with him, without incurring the suspicion of being Pedants themselves, I shall put him in mind of a thing he is often guilty of, and that is, of altering of parts of Speech against the Analogy of his own Language; and that he almost always does in a Word, which methinks he should be intimately well acquainted with, viz. writ. This Verb is thus formed, writ, wrote, written, or writ. So that the Preterperfect Tense, wrote, is never to be promiscuously used for the Passive Participle written or writ. And yet the Animadverter, and his Friend the Charger do generally say, have been wrote, is wrote, seem wrote, and the like; for have been written, is written, seem written, which in Latin would run thus, fuere scripsit, est scripsit, videntur scripsit; in which Language his Friends at Westminster-School know such sort of Constructions to be very elegant. Wrote and written are never( as I believe) mistaken each for the other in the English Bible, nor Liturgy; which Books, may for the Grammatical Constructions of Nouns and Verbs be appealed to as Standards of our Language in most Cases. He commits the like oversight in the words undertook and mistook, which are only the Preter-perfect-Tenses of the Verbs undertake and mistake, which he uses participially for undertaken and mistaken. For, I have undertook, is not more Elegant than I have took, which every Man at first view sees to be false English.  
But the Charger is not only mistaken in the Use of w●●●, but sometimes he falters in the Constructions of his Sentences. Let him make English of these words: 
Tritheism charged, p. 99.  For as much as the Consequent may indeed infer and prove both the Being and Unity of the Antecedent, but cause or give it, it neither does nor can. Nothing answers here to as much as. But as he in kindness to the Dean of St. Pauls puts his Arguments into form for him, when he pretends that the Dean cannot do it himself; so I shall make English of his Sentence, because he did not do it himself. For tho the Consequent may indeed infer and prove both the Being and Unity of the Antecedent, yet cause or give it, it neither does nor can. And now I appeal to the Animadverter, if this be not what the Charger of Tritheism upon Dr. Sherlock ought to have said, if he had intended to speak either English, or Sense.  
Within three Pages of this Elegant Sentence, 
Ibid. p. 102. l. 19.  the Charger tells the Dean of St. Pauls, That what he says of the Principle of Self-Consciousness is newly and postliminiously thrust in; which word postliminiously, as he uses it, is( to speak in his own style) downright nonsense, according to the Animadverter's account of that word. 
Animad. p. 367, &c.  The Latin word Postliminium, from whence this Adverb postliminiously is derived, signifies the return of a Prisoner out of Captivity; and the jus Postliminii was that right, by which, according to the Roman Law, every Citizen of Rome upon his return out of Captivity re-enter'd upon all the Possessions, and enjoyed all the privileges which he had a right to possess and enjoy before he was taken Captive by his Enemies; so that not only to thrust in postliminiously, is very near nonsense, since a Man cannot well be said to be thrust into his old Possessions, from which he had been kept back by force; Men being generally willing in such Cases to get home again as soon as they can; but the word postliminiously as it is joined with newly, makes a contradiction; it being impossible for any one thing to be new and postliminious at the same time.  
The new Philosophers think that the Charger has asserted as absurd a thing in Philosophy, as ever the Dean of St. Pauls asserted in Divinity, when he maintains 
Trith. charged, p. 73, 74. , that an Image by Reflection is an Emanation from the Prototype or Exemplar, from which the Species sensibiles issue or proceed; they can easily understand how the Rays of Light which are reflected from all Bodies by Angles equal to the Angles of Incidence, should consequently represent the true Figure of the Bodies from which they are reflected, to the Eye upon which they fall after that Reflection; but as for real Emanations from the Bodies themselves, those they do with very good reason laugh at, and( I had almost said) at those too who at this time of day assert them.  
When the Charger bids the Dean of St. Pauls 
Ibid. p. 84.  answer Picus Mirandula's Letter to Hermolaus Barbarus, in defence of the Schoolmen and their Terms; he banters his Reader under a pretence of exposing Dr. Sherlock. Hermolaus Barbarus was not unacquainted with the Schoolmens way of handling Philosophical Subjects, and consequently if he did despise and scoff at it, it could not be upon that account. Hermolaus Barbarus was one of the greatest Philosophers of that Age. He translated Aristotle's Logical Tracts, and Themistius's Paraphrase upon his Posterior Analytics, into Latin with so great applause, that Picus himself thought it worth while to imitate them, for which mark of his esteem Hermolaus thanks him 
Politian. Epist. Lib. ●●. Ep. 3.  in the Letter that precedes this which our Charger alludes to, in Politian's Collection. In short, Hermolaus was one of the Learnedest Men of his Age in all manner of Ancient Learning. Such a Man so thoroughly versed in the Aristotelian Philosophy, could not despise Terms of Art, as such, tho he justly might as Barbarous, when truly proper Latin ones might have been substituted in their place. This was the real State of the Controversy between those two very Learned Men, as appears by Picus's Letter, and Barbaru●'s Reply, both printed by Politian in the same place. For which reason a Man who is said to have been for many Years public Orator of a very renowned University, should( one would think) have been cautious how he had misrepresented one of the greatest Masterpieces of Modern Oratory any where extant, had it been only out of respect to his old Profession.  
I have taken no notice of the Scholastical part of this Man's Writings: That Learned Gentleman, who has undertaken to account with him for them, is so very well able to do it as it ought to be done, that it would be presumption in me to attempt to take any part of his Work out of his hand. The Animadverter cannot reasonably complain at any Man's Severity, who by his Ishmaelitish way of Writing has alarmed all that are, or ever intend to be Authors. He, whose hand is against every Man, may justly expect that every Man's hand should be against him; and he that arraigns Dr. Sherlock for faults that the Learnedest and Carefullest Writers in the World might have been arraigned for as well as he, since they are chargeable only upon the Printers, who in England are nor over-correct, opens a way( if such sort of Accusations should take place) to destroy the Credit of the most useful Books we have, and to frighten every modest Man from publishing his Composures, when for ought he knows, such barbarous Usage as our Animadverter bestows upon his Antagonists, is all the requital that he shall have for his pains. But it is time to return to our libeler.   

SECT. III. The Archbishop's Exposition of Phil. 2.5. Vindicated.  
HE says that the Archbishop under a pretence of producing that passage, Phil. 2.5. against the Socinians 
Charge of Socinianism, p. 4. col. 1. , has interpnted it after their manner, and thereby eluded a very strong Argument for the Divinity of Christ, and substituted a very weak one in its room; which( says this libeler) is a very effectual method to destroy any Cause whatsoever.  
The Archbishop's words are these, 
Serm. 2. p. 90, 91.  And that he was not only with God, before he assumed human Nature, but also was really God, St. Paul tells us, Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the Form of God, {αβγδ}, did not arrogate to himself to be equal with God, that is, he made no Ostentation of his Divinity: For this I take to be the true meaning of that Phrase, both because it is so used by Plutarch, and because it makes the Sense much more easy and current, thus, who being in the Form of God, did not assume an Equality with God, that is, he did not appear in the Glory of his Divinity, which was hide under a Veil of human Flesh and Infirmity. But he emptied himself, and took upon him the form of a Servant, &c.  
Hereupon our libeler exclaims at a high rate: 
Charge of Socinian. p. 3. col. 2. p. 4. col. 1.  St. Paul's words are, Who being in the Form of God, thought it not Robbery to be equal with God. But instead of, He thought it not Robbery, {αβγδ}, the Doctor would have the sense to be, He did not arrogate to himself to be equal with God; tho it is quiter contrary to the words which are literally translated. He thought it not Robbery, i.e. he did make himself equal. He did not arrogate to himself to be equal, i.e. He did not make himself equal. Senses, which are in terms opposite. He did, says the Text. He did not, says the Doctor. This is the impudent Answer which the Brief History of the Unitarians gives to this Text, and which the Doctor here recommends. And he says, That that Phrase is used so by Plutarch; but he names not the words, nor quotes the place, which he would have done, if he had thought it for his purpose. For he cannot deny, that the words are rightly translated, and they cannot bear two opposite Senses.  
Now, whether this libeler be more guilty of slandering, or the Archbishop of prevaricating and misinterpreting the words of Scripture, let Grotius and Dr. Hammond judge. Grotius must be allowed a competent Judge, because our libeler acquits him of Socinianism in the very beginning of his Libel; and as for Dr. Hammond no Man ever yet charged him with it, either directly or by consequence.  
Grotius's Interpretation is this. 
In locum.  {αβγδ} est locutio Syriaca. In Liturgia Syriaca 
The Liturgy which Grotius quotes, is an Office of Baptism composed by Severus Patriarch of Alexandria, and printed by Guido Fabricius Boderianus at Antwerp in Plantin's Press, in 1572.  Johannes Baptista, Christo Baptismum ab ipsa expetenti dicit, {αβγδ}, lo elbuk guzaltho, non assumam rapinam. Solent qui aliquid bellica virtute peperere id omnibus ostentare, ut Romani in triumpho facere solebant. Non multo aliter Plutarchus in Timoleonte {αβγδ}. Sensus est non venditavit Christus, non jactavit istam potestatem, quin saepe etiam imperavit, ne quod fecerat vulgaretur.  
This Interpretation of these words, which is the same with our Archbishop's, and from whence he might perhaps first have taken it, is contradicted by Dr. Hammond, but not because it favours Socinianism, but because in his Opinion it is not warrantable by the Greek Text. What he says to justify it as not favouring Socinianism, being very much to the present purpose, I shall transcribe, both because it strengtheners the Archbishop's Interpretation, and because afterwards when he endeavours to overthrow it, he takes no notice of the words of Plutarch, which as one of Grotius's strongest Arguments, are only taken notice of by Archbishop Tillotson.  
Dr. Hammond's words are these, 
In locum.  This[ namely that {αβγδ} signifies the real Essence of the thing here spoken of] being thus evident of this first Phrase, {αβγδ}, where Christs Divinity is asserted, and that precedaneous to his Humiliation, and as the Terminus à quo, the term of Elevation, from which his Exinanition and Humiliation takes its rise, and is much increased thereby, there would now be little gained to the Cause of the Photinians or Arians, in case the Phrase that follows, {αβγδ}, which we render, thought it no Robbery to be equal with God, should appear to be mistaken. For when it is once acknowledged that Christ was God before his Assumption of our Human Nature, and that being really God, or {αβγδ} subsisting in the real Form of God, he took our human Nature upon him; it is by necessary consequence concluded, that he is equal with God, which is all that is pretended by any from this second Phrase. For as to them that affirm Christ a Deus factus, a God that had a beginning of being so, and from thence deny his equality with the Father; it is evident that they date his Divinity from his Resurrection and Exaltation,( which is manifestly confuted by his being God before his Humiliation) and they that affirm him {αβγδ} of like( but not {αβγδ} of the same) being with the Father, are sufficiently confuted by the Notion of {αβγδ} here set down, as it signifies the real Being of God, wherein he was {αβγδ}, subsisting; for that includes Equality, and not Likeness only. Now, for the Phrase {αβγδ}, that it should signify Christ's not assuming to appear like God; or spectari tanquam Deum, to be looked on as God, and so belong to his forbidding many times to have his Power and Divine Greatness proclaimed; there is but one Argument, which to me makes it any thing probable,( and that not taken notice of by them that defend that sense) and that taken from the {αβγδ}, but, which follows v. 7. For in this notion of the Phrase, it would most commodiously agree with that, he would not assume or own so much Greatness, but humbled or emptied himself, &c. where that assuming, and that humbling, are directly opposite, and so most agreeable to the importance of {αβγδ}, but, a note of Opposition. And indeed this notion of the Phrase would very well connect it to the Antecedents, thus, he being in Form, &c. i.e. truly and eternally God, when he came down on Earth, would not thus assume and magnify his Power, but, {αβγδ}, diminished, or lessened, and humbled himself; asked at one time, why callest thou me good? none is good save God; and at another, commanded that his Miracles which demonstrated him to be God, should not be divulged. And this Notion consists very well with the Context, and the Assertion of Christ's Divinity; for being God, he might yet choose to conceal his being so.  
I leave it now to the Conscience of this shameless scribbler, if it be not quiter seared, whether his charging the Archbishop with recommending the Impudent Answer, which the Unitarian Historian gives to this Text, be not an Impudent Calumny. For tho I have never consulted that Socinian Pamphlet, yet I am sure its Author can never interpret this Text as the Archbishop interprets it after Grotius and Dr. Hammond, unless he will give up his Cause. Now it was said long ago by him, who was Truth itself, that if Satan be divided against himself( that is, if a Socinian brings solid Arguments to prove Jesus Christ to be God by Nature, as well as Man) his Kingdom cannot stand.   

SECT. IV. The Charge about our Saviour's Satisfaction, and Hell-Torments, Answered.  
THE Archbishop is accused of rank Socinianism 
Charge, &c. p. 4. col. 1.  by this libeler, because he names but once the word Satisfaction in his four Sermons, Concerning the Divinity of our Blessed Saviour. He pretends, indeed, to ground his Charge upon a Sermon preached by the Archbishop at Whitehall in the Year 1689. upon Matth. 25.46. wherein 
Ibid.  he makes the Archbishop assert, That there is no certainty of Hell-Torments, because there was no need of any Satisfaction to God's Justice at all; and that God's Justice is to be considered no otherwise than as a politic to secure his Government, and therefore does not infer any Punishment of Sinners; but that his Threats may be only in Terrorem, or so far to be inflicted, as may secure his Government from the Rebellion and Usurpation of wicked Men. From all which he ironically concludes with these words, As if God were afraid of being deposed by them.  
This Accusation relating to the four Sermons by themselves, and to that other Sermon by its self,( upon which our libeler mentions some Animadversions of his own, which I have never seen) which he calls a h●llish one in another place, shall be distinctly considered. In his third Sermon Archbishop Tillotson says thus 
Serm. 3. p. 155, 156. , By assuming our frail and mortal Nature, he[ the Son of God] became capable of suffering, and of shedding his precious Blood for us, and by that means of purchasing forgiveness of Sins, and eternal Redemption for us. And again 
Ibid. p. 166. , The Son of God took our Nature upon him, that by his bitter Passion he might make Expiation for Sin.  
That these two Passages are directly leveled against the Socinian Doctrine, which denies the Satisfaction of Jesus Christ, is most manifest. What does purchasing forgiveness of Sins and eternal Redemption signify, but only that God would not forgive Sin freely? And why not? but only to satisfy his Justice? Is not this the proper notion of an Expiatory Sacrifice, that thereby the Anger of God is appeased, and his Wrath turned away from us? Can this libeler pretend that he did not red these Passages? That would be strange, since he could say that the word Satisfaction occurs but once in all these Sermons. Did he not understand their meaning? Perfectly well; but if he had owned that he had observed them, it would have confuted his Calumny, and destroyed his Design. The Christian Religion, it seems, according to this man's new Divinity, lies not in Things and Propositions, in Doctrines and Precepts, but in Words and Names; so that tho the Articles of Religion be never so solidly proved, yet if some particular words be also made use of, all will not do. Our libeler pretends to think that gives him a right to blacken and calumniate those upon whom he can fasten this neglect( as he calls it) in the foulest manner possible, provided that upon other accounts they have incurred his displeasure.  
What he says of the Archbishop's Sermon of Hell-Torments is equally calumnious. The Archbishop no where says directly or indirectly through that whole Discourse, That there is no certainty of Hell; and much less upon this reason, Because there is no need of any Satisfaction to God's Justice. He proves that the words for ever and everlasting, when applied to the Miseries of the damned after Death, are to be taken in a literal Sense. For tho they do not always in Scripture signify an endless Duration; 
page. 6. Edit. 4to.  ( u) yet since the very same Words and Expressions are used concerning the duration of the punishment of wicked Men in another Life, that are used concerning the eternal Happiness of good Men in another Life; there is great reason why we should understand them in the same extent: Both because if God had intended to have  told us, that the punishment of wicked Men shall have no end; the Languages wherein the Scriptures are written, do hardly afford fuller and more certain words, than those that are used in this case, whereby to express to us a duration without end; and likewise, which is almost a peremptory decision of the thing, because the duration of the punishment of wicked Men is in the very same Sentence expressed by the very same word which is used for the Duration of the Happiness of the Righteous. As is evident from the Text, These, speaking of the wicked, shall go, {αβγδ}, into eternal Punishment, but the righteous, {αβγδ}, into Life eternal.  
And whereas this libeler charges the Archbishop with saying, That God's Justice is to be considered no otherwise than as a politic to secure his Government, and therefore does not infer any Punishment of Sinners; the Archbishop teaches the quiter contrary in these words, 
page. 12.  Justice indeed is concerned, that the Righteous and the Wicked should not be treated alike; and farther yet, that greater Sins should have a heavier punishment, and that mighty Sinners should be mightily tormented.  
Why then all this Clamour? Because the Archbishop asserts in the very next words, That all this may be considered and adjusted in the degree and the intenseness of the suffering, without making any difference in the duration of it; Pursuant to a very true Proposition which he had laid down just above, That the appointing and apportioning of Penalties to Crimes, is not so properly a consideration of Justice as of Prudence in a Lawgiver. Which Proposition was advanced to vindicate the Justice of God from the Objections of those who find fault with the Disproportion that there is between temporary Sins, and eternal Punishments.  
But the Archbishop's Notion of threatenings in general has been most laid hold of to fasten all these Calumnies upon him. Now his Notion of threatening is this, 
page. 13.  He that threatens, keeps the right of punishing in his own hand, and is not obliged to execute what he hath threatened any farther than the Reasons and Ends of government do require. And he may without any injury to the Party threatened, remit and abate as much as he pleaseth of the punishment that he hath threatened. This is absolutely true, and necessary consequent upon that Idea of threatenings which all Mankind have, and by which they constantly act.  
Now because the Archbishop had affirmed all this in the general, and from hence among other reasons shown, that it is not inconsistent with the Justice of God to threaten to punish Sins which were soon committed, with a very lasting, nay, an eternal Punishment; therefore this libeler infers, That the Archbishop actually taught that Hell-Torments are inflicted only in Terrorem; which is unjust to the last degree.  
Nay, so far was the Archbishop from drawing this particular Conclusion from those general premises, which this scribbler charges him with, that after he has proved that God's Oath to Sinners, That they should never enter into his Rest, can in the plain sense of the words be extended no farther than to the Exclusion of Impenitent Sinners out of Heaven, and their falling finally short of the Rest and Happiness of the righteous; he subjoins these words, 
page. 15.  That we are to consider that both the Tenor of the Sentence which our Blessed Saviour hath assured us will be passed upon them at the Judgement of the Great Day, Depart ye cursed into everlasting Fire; and likewise this Declaration in the Text, That the wicked shall go away into everlasting Punishment, tho they do not restrain God from doing what he pleases, yet they cut off from the Sinner all reasonable hopes of the Relaxation or Mitigation of them. For since the great Judge of the World hath made so plain and express a Declaration, and will certainly pass such a Sentence, it would be the greatest folly and madness in the World for the Sinner to entertain any hope of escaping it, and to venture his Soul upon that hope▪  
These are the Archbishop's express words, from whence( in my opinion) it manifestly follows, that this libeler calumniates; what he says, is directly contrary not only to what the Archbishop affirms, but proves. This every Reader, who will but red over that Sermon, must plainly see; and indeed, it ought to be red and studied upon other accounts, besides that of vindicating Archbishop Tillotson's Memory, it being one of the most rational, and most pathetical Exhortations to fly from Sin here, that we may avoid eternal Misery hereafter, which is any where extant in our Language.   

SECT. V. The Charge disproved of the Archbishop's advancing a Barbarous, Absurd, and Blasphemous Notion of the Christian Religion.  
THE next Charge against the Archbishop, is, That he has advanced 
Charge of Socin. p. 4. col. 2.  a most Barbarous, Absurd, and Blasphemous Notion of the Christian Religion. This is fastened upon him for the reasons which he gives, why God may be supposed to have taken this particular Method, which we see he has to save Mankind.  
Our libeler pretends to ground this virulent Accusation upon the Archbishop's denying the Position of those who maintain that God could not possibly any other way have saved Mankind, because his Justice could not possibly any other way have been satisfied. For the Archbishop had expressly asserted, 
Serm. 4. p. 181.  That it is great presumption and boldness in any Man to affirm, that the Infinite Wisdom could not have brought about the Salvation of Men by any other way than this very way in which he hath done it. Which according to our libeler, is rank Socinianism.  
When the Archbishop had once laid down this for a certain Position,( which is not his single Opinion, being asserted by Grotius, and many Orthodox Divines both at home and abroad, before him) he was obliged to assign other reasons for the Incarnation of the Son of God, than that which is constantly given by those who stand up for the Vindictive Justice of God, as they are pleased to call it.  
For the Question is not, Whether a Satisfaction was necessary before God could have pardoned Sin? That the Archbishop no where denies; but, Whether any other Satisfaction could, if God had so pleased, have been sufficient? If it could not, then that is a full and adequate Reason why God, after he had decreed to pardon Sin, resolved that his Son should in the fullness of time assume our Nature, who consequently did then assume it. If it might, and our Archbishop dares not assert the contrary, then one is naturally lead to inquire, Why, when God might have accepted of a less satisfaction without injuring any of his Attributes, he yet choose to accept of this? A Satisfaction is allowed on all hands to be due to God's Justice: This Satisfaction was pitched upon for other reasons than that of the insufficiency of any other besides. Our libeler thought fit to confounded these things together, that so he might throw more dust into his Readers eyes, and render his Calumnies the more plausible. But it is time now to consider the Reasons assigned by the Archbishop.  
Which before I do, I shall only premise this one thing, namely, That in case the Reasons which he gives should not have been any of the Inducements, upon which God choose to work out our Salvation, yet it does not in the least follow from thence, that the Archbishop was a Socinian, or inclined to Socinianism. That man does not deny the Incarnation of the Son of God, who gives wrong reasons why he was incarnate; nor does he invalidate the Satisfaction which was made to the Justice of God by the Blood of Jesus Christ that was  shed upon the across, who says, That he thinks it is great presumption and boldness to say, that God could not any other way have brought about the Salvation of Mankind, than by this very way in which he hath done it. This I think is so plain, that it needs no proof, and yet this is the only thing that looks like a colour for all that malicious Stuff, which the libeler has upon this occasion vented against the Archbishop.  
His two first Reasons our libeler passes over, because if he had mentioned them, he had overthrown all that he has said. But tho he passes them over, I must not: They are these,( 1.) 
Sermon of Sacrifice and Satisfaction of Christ, p. 6.  God sent his Son into the World to vindicate the Honour of his Laws, which, if Sin had gone altogether unpunished, would have been in great danger of falling into contempt.( 2.) 
Ibid. p. 7.  That he might forgive Sin in such a way as yet effectually to discountenance and discourage it, and to create in us the greatest horror and hatred of it, which could not have been by an absolute Pardon without any Punishment inflicted, or Satisfaction made to the Honour of his Justice.  
These Reasons, which are express against the Socinians, being passed over, our libeler exclaims only against the rest, namely, 
Serm. iii. p. 136.  That Christ was incarnate in great condescension to the weakness and common Prejudices of Mankind: 
Serm. iv. p. 186, 187.  That as in some of the Laws given by Moses, God was pleased particularly to consider the hardness of the hearts of the Jews; so he seems likewise to have very much suited the Dispensation of the Gospel, and the Method of our Salvation by the Incarnation and Sufferings of his Son, to the common Prejudices of Mankind: 
Ibid. p. 188, 189, 190.  That the World was much given to admire Mysteries in Religion; the Jews had theirs, several of which by God's own appointment were reserved and kept secret in a great measure from the People; the Heathen likewise had theirs; the Devil always affecting to imitate God so far as served his wicked and malicious designs; therefore here was a Mystery indeed; a Mystery beyond all dispute, and beyond all comparison: 
Ibid. p. 190, 191.  That since there was a great inclination in Mankind to the Worship of a visible and a sensible Deity, God was pleased to appear in our Nature; that they who were so fond of a visible Deity, might have one to whom they might pay Divine Worship without danger of Idolatry, and without injury to the Divine Nature: 
Ibid. p. 191, 192, 193.  That since Men had a notion of the Expiation of the Sins of Men, and appeasing the offended Deity by Sacrifices( and of Men too), God compli'd with this their Notion, and such a Sacrifice was pitched upon as was full and perfect, and consequently adequate to the true intention of an Expiatory Sacrifice: 
Ibid. p. 195.  That since the Superstition of the World thought it too great a presumption to address their Requests and Supplications to the Deity immediately; and also 
Ibid. p. 194.  canonised after their Deaths those Eminent Persons who in their life-time had been great Benefactors to Mankind; 
Ibid. p. 196.  therefore God was pleased to constitute and appoint one in our Nature to be a perpetual Advocate and Intercessor in Heaven for us, to offer up our Prayers to God his Father, and to obtain Mercy for us, and Grace to help in time of need.  
These, with the two first name, are the Reasons assigned by the Archbishop, why God pitched upon this particular way to bring about the Salvation of Mankind; after which he concludes, 
Sermon of Sacrifice and Satisfaction of Christ, p. 13, 14.  That for these Ends and Reasons, and perhaps for many more as great and considerable as these, which our shallow Understandings are not able to fathom, the Wisdom of God hath pitched upon this Way and Method of delivering Mankind from the guilt and dominion of Sin by the Sacrifice of his Son.  
To prove this the more effectually, the Archbishop observes, That the Religion and Laws which God gave to the Jews, were far from being the best and most perfect in themselves; in which sense he says, That some understand that passage in Ezekiel, where it is said, That God gave them Statutes which were not good; that is, very imperfect in comparison of what he could and would have given them, had they been capable of them, and yet such as were well suited to their present capacity and circumstances 
Serm. iv. p. 184. .  
All this, how true soever, is by our libeler represented as Absurd, Barbarous, and Blasphemous; and to make it appear so, he has dressed it up in such Expressions as truly answer to those Epithets which he has fastened upon the Archbishop's Notion. And indeed( to use his own words) what he says upon this occasion, 
Charge of Socinianism, p. 6. col. 2.  makes all my Flesh creep, and my Soul tremble within me, as often as I red it, and much more when I writ it down, which I should forbear to do, if it were not necessary to my design to leave this Slanderer perfectly without excuse.  
For after he has said what he thinks fit about the Archbishop's Notion, he breaks out into this horrid Rapture, 
Ibid.  Blessed God! this Man makes no more of the Mysteries of our Religion, than to satisfy Mens foolish curiosities. He that will have a May-pole, shall have a May-pole. Since you will have Mysteries, here's one for you, God manifest in the Flesh. This is to satisfy your foolish longing after Mysteries, and to give you your fill of Mysteries. Was there ever so impious a Burlesque upon God, and upon the Religion of Christ? As if he was incarnate for no other end, but to make People wonder and gaze, and because of the Mystery forsooth! And that he was crucified only to outdo Raw-head and Bloody-bones, the inhumanity of the Heathen Sacrifices! That is, to cure the wickedness and folly of Men by overacting them in both! For what are Mysteries, without any further consideration than as Mysteries, that is, Wonders and strange things, but the height of folly, perfect Raree-shews? And what an account is it of Religion to say, That God was manifest in the Flesh, to satisfy such childish Curiosities, and because the World was given to admire Mysteries?  
Who can forbear crying out with the injured Psalmist, who in his distress cried unto the Lord against Doeg, and he heard him 
Psal. cxx. 3. , What shall be given unto thee? or what shall be done unto thee, thou false tongue? But I must forbear; I am vindicating that Man, in whose Study a bundle of Libels was found after his Death,( and this perhaps in Manuscript amongst the rest) with this Inscription, These are Libels, God forgive them, I do. I shall only therefore observe how foully he is misrepresented by this libeler, before he comes to this Exclamation.  
The Archbishop had asserted that( amongst other Reasons) Jesus Christ was sent into the World to comply with some general Notions, 
Serm. iv. p. 192.  which were so universal, that they seem to have had their Original from the first Parents of Mankind, either immediately after the Creation, or after the Flood; 
Ibid. p. 187.  and thereby to wean them by degrees from their gross Conceptions of things, and rectify more easily their wrong apprehensions, by gratifying them in some measure, and 
Ibid. p. 196.  effectually extirpate the Idolatry which the choosing wrong Mediators lead them into; and 
Ibid. p. 205.  also perfectly to supply the two great wants, concerning which Mankind was at so great a loss before, namely the want of an effectual Expiatory Sacrifice for Sin upon Earth, and of a prevalent Mediator and Intercessor with God in Heaven.  
All this, which setting the last part aside, was no more than what God had already done for the Jews, our scribbler calumniates, and in order to that misrepresents.  
For whereas the Archbishop calls these general Notions, Weakness and Common Prejudices, 
Ibid. p. 206.  inveterate Prejudices, and 
Ibid. p. 186.  gross Apprehensions; our libeler calls them, under a pretence that the Archbishop had done so too, 
Charge of Socin. p. 4. col. 2.  foolish and wicked Fancies, 
Ibid.  wild and wicked Fancies, 
Ibid. p. 5. col. 1.  diabolical Prejudices, 
Ibid. col. 2.  wicked and abominable Prejudices, 
Ibid. p. 6. col. 2.  wicked Suggestions that the Devil had put into the minds of Men, and the like. Now there is a great deal of difference between what the Archbishop says, and what he is made to say by this libeler. Effects of Weakness may arise from the Infirmities to which we are all subject, and so be very far from being Suggestions of the Devil. Adam by eating of the forbidden Fruit, had offended God, for which offence he was thrust out of Paradise. We know of no positive Laws which the Ante-Diluvian patriarches were obliged to observe, after our first Parents were driven out of Paradise, except that of keeping the Sabbath, and of having but one Wife. But how to appease God already offended, and how to be assured that their Prayers should be effectually heard as they had occasion to offer them up, they seem to have been in a good measure at a loss, if we may argue from Moses's Silence in the first five Chapters of Genesis. If then Adam and his Posterity until Noah were left to themselves to Worship God by the Natural Light of their own Reason, as for any thing which appears to us the contrary they were; 'tis no wonder, if in a compass of Ages they embraced some general Notions which took universal Root; and which, upon the sending of his Son into the World, God might graciously think fit to comply with, by giving such a Law upon such grounds as might direct Mens practise aright according to their preconceived Notions, and thereby wean them from any Superstitious Customs, which in so long time might take too general root among them. So that tho the Customs afterwards introduced, might be sinful, yet that is no reason why the Original Notions from which some Men by the instigation of the Devil took occasion to introduce these Customs, should have any sinfulness in them; since there is so great a difference between Sinfulness and Weakness, and between the necessary effects of each. And since it has been but too frequently seen, that wicked Men have turned good Designs, and wrested good Principles to impious Purposes, it may rationally be conceived, that when once Men had imbibed a Notion of the necessity of a Mediator between them and God, and of Expiation of Sin by Sacrifice, being ignorant of the right way how to come at the one, and to do the other, the Devil might take advantage of this their ignorance, and led them to practices truly worthy of such a Tempter.  
It is injuriously done therefore in our libeler to confounded things together, so very different in their Natures, as Notions and Consequences afterwards drawn from those Notions and Practices taken up upon these Consequences. For these Notions and inveterate Prejudices 
i. e. Common preconceived Notions, which through long continuance h●d taken deep footing, and were generally received in the World. , were the almost unavoidable Consequences of Man's Condition after the Fall, who saw himself destitute of help, and God, from whom his help was to come, offended, and testifying his Displeasure by those severe Dispensations of his Providence which they had so dismally smarted under; the Flood particularly, which one would think all Mankind could not but take warning by. Therefore the Son of God took our Nature upon him to comply with these Notions and General Apprehensions. But the superstitious and inhuman Practices, into which some Nations were lead by the Temptations of the Devil, who took an advantage of this their Blindness, were not indulged nor imitated, as this libeler profanely speaks first himself, and then pretends to father upon the Archbishop. Those the Son of God came to wean Men from, and by so doing destroy the Works of the Devil. This I think was a design worthy of God, and these Reasons are by no means unbecoming his Infinite Wisdom, as far as we ignorant Wretches are able to judge. At least, this must be most manifest, that after the Archbishop had in his Discourse concerning the Sacrifice and Satisfaction of Christ, in the first place plainly asserted, That the Son of God was made Man, and suffered upon Earth to vindicate the Honour of God's Laws, that Satisfaction might be made to the Honour of his Justice, and also to create in us the greatest horror and hatred of Sin possible; for this libeler to affirm that the Archbishop has betrayed and corrupted the Christian Religion by giving us an Absurd, Barbarous, and Blasphemous Representation of it, when in that very Representation he says nothing but what is suitable to God's own Methods upon another occasion: I say, for this libeler thus to accuse the Archbishop, is one of the most abominable, of the most unjust, and of the vilest Slanders that ever was uttered against a Prelate of his Worth and Character in the Christian World.  
Besides, we are here to consider, that God foresaw, tho not decreed the Fall of Man, and his subsequent Ruin without free Grace; he foresaw also what courses Man would run into, and what general Notions he would imbibe in his helpless and forlorn Estate: all this he as much foresaw, as he did the hard-heartedness of his Ancient People the Jews; so that when we see the hardness of their hearts so much compli'd with, as we find it was in the Mosaical Dispensation, I can discern no such Blasphemy in asserting, that since these things were all foreseen by, and known to God, before the Foundations of the World were laid, regard should be had to them in that Decree by which he did from all Eternity resolve that his Son should in the fullness of time take our Nature upon him, and make such an Expiation for us as God would accept of, and be such a Mediator as we wanted. For these Notions, if mistaken, were the effects of Weakness, not of Malice; whereas the hard-heartedness of the Jews proceeded from Stubbornness, Obstinacy, and Unbelief, three of the most provoking Sins that a People could be guilty of towards their Benefactor, and above all, their God.  
But after all, the Archbishop no where denies, That the Notion of the Necessity of a Mediator, and of Expiation of Sin by Sacrifice, did originally come from God by an immediate Revelation to Adam, or some of the first patriarches of the old World. Of the Notion of Expiation of Sin by Sacrifice, he expressly says, Whether it had its rise from Divine Revelation, and was afterwards propagated from Age to Age by Tradition; I say from whence soever this Notion came, it hath of all other Notions concerning Religion, excepting those of the Being of God, and his Providence, and of the recompenses of another Life, found the most universal Reception, and the thing hath been the most generally practised in all Ages and Nations, not only in the old, but in the new-discovered Parts of the World.  
And tho he says nothing to insinuate the same of the Notion of a Mediator; yet he says nothing against it; He does not call it a Weakness, much less 
P. 6. col. 1.  a Superstitious Opinion, 
The pretence to this Charge arises from these words( Serm. iv. p. 195.) The World was mightily bent upon addressing their Requests and Supplications, not to the Deity immediately, because their Superstition thought that too great a presumption, but by some Mediators between the gods and them, who might with advantage in this humble manner present their Requests so as to find acceptance. 'tis plain, that the word Superstition here, which our libeler interprets, as if the Archbishop had understood it absolutely of offering up Petitions to the Deity by a Mediator, relates only to the Heathens not going immediately to God, but applying themselves to those who had no Power to intercede. That indeed was a Superstitious Notion, and so our libeler himself owns, when he says,( p. 6. col. 1.) That the Heathens mistook the Mediator, and that therein was their Superstition and Idolatry. What can this Concession be, but giving himself the lie? He charges the Archbishop with Blasphemy, for saying, That the Notion of the Necessity of a Mediator, which the Heathens had, was superstitious; when it is evident to any Man living that reads the words, that the Archbishop says only what this libeler owns himself, namely, That in mistaking the Mediator, and taking those to intercede, whose Intercessions could not possibly be available, the Ancient Heathens were guilty of Superstition and Idolatry too,( in worshipping these their insignificant Mediators) as the Archbishop also calls it in the next page.. ( as our libeler impudently charges him) but only 
Serm. iv. p. 196.  a Common Apprehension, which is equally true, whether it came originally from God or no. And I suppose no Man needs be  told how different the Notions of Superstition and Common Apprehensions are.  
Here, I suppose, no Man will blame the Archbishop for being cautious in asserting things to be revealed to us, that we cannot be positive about, whether they are revealed or not. He is accused of maintaining, 
Charge of Socin p. 5. col. 1.  ( g) That those Revelations which all the Christian World has hitherto believed God gave at the beginning to Adam, and after to the patriarches and Prophets more expressly of the promised Seed; and that those Types and Institutions which God from the beginning did appoint as shadows and sensible Representations of the Expiatory Death of Christ upon the across, such as Sacrifices, which for this end were commanded to Adam, practised by Cain and Abel his Children, and descended by uninterrupted Tradition, even to his Heathen Posterity; tho they knew not their Original, more than they did their own, or the Worlds, were only Fancies and Imaginations, which came( he knows not how) into Mens brains.  
What has been already said, shows the horrid Injustice of this Accusation. What Revelations do we red of given to Adam concerning Expiatory Sacrifices? Will any Man positively say, That the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel were any other than Offerings of Thanksgiving? Have not Dr. Outram 
De Sacrificiis, lib. 1. cap. 1. , and Dr. Spencer 
Lib. 3. De legib. Hebraeor. Dissert. 2. cap. 4.  abundantly proved, That the most considerable of the Ancient Fathers, and the Learnedest of the Jewish rabbis, who have treated of these matters, have taught, that the Ante-Diluvian patriarches, and indeed all before Moses, sacrificed only by the Light of Nature, without any Precepts about sacrificing in general, tho perhaps some of them, as Abraham had, might receive Orders to offer up this or that particular Sacrifice? And do not these two Learned Divines take pains to prove, that it was their Opinion also, as well as the Ancients? Dr. Outram pretends, indeed, not to give his Opinion of either side, tho the pains he takes to set this Opinion in a full Light, rather than that of those who hold that Sacrifices were commanded originally by God, shows his Propensity to it, which is enough for my present purpose, since neither he who wrote expressly against the Socinians, nor Dr. Spencer, were ever accused of leaning to them in their Writings. Highly probable that God might reveal something concerning them to Adam, and this probability the Archbishop hints at in the words before alleged; but farther, he nor no Man else can directly gather from the words of Scripture( which and which only are, as I take it, to be our Guides) what God has revealed, and what he has not. None but Men of our Libeller's Impudence will pretend to find Revelations where( for ought they know) there are none; much less dare they assert things for certain Truths, and then calumniate others for not asserting the same, which at the most are but probabilities.  
But there is no part of the Archbishop's Notion so much exclaimed against, as what he says of Mysteries. 'twas that occasioned the foul-mouthed Rapture which I quoted above: let us therefore examine it. The Archbishop had assigned it as a secondary Reason, why Jesus Christ was sent into the World, 
Serm. iv. p. 188, 189.  That Men who were much given to admire Mysteries in Religion, might have one that was a Mystery indeed, such a one as should obscure and swallow up all other Mysteries. In proof of which, he quoted what the Apostle St. Paul says of the great Mystery of the Christian Religion in allusion to, and contempt of the Heathen Mysteries: Without Controversy, great is the Mystery of Godliness, God manifested in the Flesh. Is here now any thing profane or Blasphemous? Is this a new 
Charge of Socin. p. 5. col. 1.  pitch of Super-Hobbism? Was not the greatest, and the most august▪ part of the Jewish Worship kept secret from the People, that they might stand in greater awe of it? And does not the Archbishop expressly affirm, That the Devil in imitation of this Method, and knowing the efficacy of this Secrecy, to keep the deluded World in awe, involves all his Worship in Mysteries which were kept secret from the People? Is it not part of the weakness of Mankind, to despise and disregard what they are familiarly acquainted with, and can perfectly comprehend? Would not Men have been easily tempted to have despised the Christian Religion, if its Mysteries had been only such Notions as thinking Men could have found out by the strength of Natural Reason? Or what more possible way could have been contrived to secure a constant Veneration to be paid to it, than to have all its Duties plain and obvious, and all its Mysteries truly incomprehensible by the acutest Wits, who should at any time venture to explain them? Especially, when the certainty of the Revelation was once secured, and Men were satisfied that they were obliged to believe nothing but what God, who cannot lie, required them to believe. If the Archbishop had set this down as a primary reason of the Christian economy, it might have occasioned some scruple; but when it is but slightly mentioned in comparison of the rest, the outcry against the Archbishop shows the Libeller's Malice; and if the Adnimadverter against the Dean of St. Pauls may be believed, his profaneness too 
See Preface to the Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock's Vindication, &c. Second Edition, where he charges the Dean of St. Paul's with Blasphemy for misrepresenting Dr. own, and making him utter such Expressions as he pretended both to disown and to abhor. .  
Besides, if God be Omniscient, he sees every thing in all its possible views; he knows the Nature of Man, which is what Man knows not himself; knowing our Nature, he knows our Infirmities, and allows for them at the same time that he is angry with us for our Sins; consequently he knows that it is one of our Infirmities to admire more what we cannot thoroughly comprehend, than what we can; and accordingly he knows, that this would be of great advantage to recommend the Christian Religion to the unbelieving World. Why therefore this may not be allowed as a secondary Reason, why God made choice of this mysterious way to save us, I cannot see.  
Another outcry also, which our libeler makes upon this occasion, is, That God sent his Son to be an Expiatory Sacrifice in compliance with an unreasonable Expectation of Mankind. In answer to what he says, I shall first transcribe the Archbishop's words, which are these, 
Sermon Concerning the Sacrifice and Satisfaction of Christ, p. 34, 35, 36.  The Nature and Design of Expiatory Sacrifices was plainly this: To substitute one living Creature to suffer and die instead of another; so that what the Sinner deserved to have suffered, was supposed to be done to the Sacrifice, that is, it was slain to make an Atonement for the Sinner. And tho there was no Reason to hope for any such effect from the Blood of Bulls or Goats, or of any other living Creatures that were wont to be offered up in Sacrifice; yet that both Jews and Heathens did expect and hope for it, is so very evident, that it cannot without extreme Ignorance or Obstinacy be denied. But this Expectation how unreasonable soever, plainly shows it to have been the common apprehension of Mankind, in all Ages, that God would not be appeased, nor should Sin be pardonned without suffering: But yet so, that Men generally conceived good hopes, that upon the Repentance of Sinners, God would accept of a vicarious Punishment, that is, of the suffering of some other in their stead.  
To make all this pass for 
Charge of Socin. p. 8. col. 1.  dreadful Blasphemy, our libeler begins his Quotation at these words, But this Expectation how unreasonable soever, without taking any manner of notice of what passed before, upon the account of which he had affirmed, that this Expectation was unreasonable. We know who quoted Scripture after this manner upon another occasion; and if our Blessed Saviour's reasoning be good, his we are, whose Works we do.  
The Colour for this Slander lies in misrepresenting the word Unreasonable. This word, as innumerable others, has two Senses, the one proper, the other figurative. A thing is properly said to be unreasonable for which no reason drawn from the nature of the Subject-matter, which is in question, can be assigned. A thing may and often is figuratively said to be unreasonable, which is unjust, injurious, or wicked. Now it is plain to any Man of common Sense that reads the words already quoted, that the word unreasonable is here only to be understood in its proper Signification. For in those words, which our libeler left out, the Archbishop had laid it down for a certain Proposition, That there was no reason in the thing itself for any Man to hope that the Blood of Bulls and Goats should expiate Sin, tho both Jews and Heathens did expect and hope for it; and it was only in pursuance of this Proposition, that he said this was unreasonable.  
Pray now where is the harm of asserting, That God complied with a general Expectation that all the World had, that a vicarious Punishment for Sin should be accepted, tho Men could draw no reason from the nature of the thing to expect that such a vicarious Punishment would be esteemed satisfactory by an angry God? The truth is, the unreasonableness of this Expectation in the literal Sense of the words, is( for ought I know) one of the best and strongest Arguments to prove, that Sacrifices were immediately instituted by God, which has been lately excellently pursued by Dr. Williams, in his Discourse of the certainty of a Divine Revelation. So little reason had this scribbler to cavil at words, which seem to have been founded upon that very Principle, which he would be thought to patronise; and which from hence it appears, that he does not thoroughly understand. But, how strong soever the probabilities are, and I do not go about in the least to abate their strength, yet we have no positive assurance that God did actually possess Mankind with this Principle. We have already seen, That very Learned Men, both Ancient and Modern, are of another Opinion. If he did not, then pray what reason, what just ground could Men have to think that God would accept of a vicarious Punishment, especially the Blood of Beasts? How unavailable the Blood of Beasts, or of sinful Men is in this case, appears from God's sending a sufficient Sacrifice at last; and I suppose there is no need of Arguments to prove, that all fruitless Expectations are unreasonable. Yet this was all the colour that our libeler had for all this Clamour. For the Archbishop does not say, That the Notion which the Jews and Heathens had, that God would accept of a vicarious Punishment was an unreasonable Notion. He only says, That the Expectation which they had, that the Blood of Bulls and Goats, and much less of wicked Men like themselves, would be accepted by God, was an unreasonable Expectation; which Assertion of the Archbishop's is exactly suitable to the Doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and consequently ( even in our Libeller's judgement, as I suppose) not Blasphemy.  
Before I dismiss this Head, I shall take notice of an Insinuation of our Libeller's in his Preface, which affects both the Archbishop and his Vindicator Dr. Williams, and both of them injuriously alike. He says, That the Socinian Considerer having excepted to the Reasons assigned by the Archbishop for the Incarnation of the Son of God, Dr. Williams vindicates some of them, but leaves these which have been here considered, totally untouched; and then he refers his Reader to the 61st and 62d Pages of the Doctor's Vindication; after which he goes on thus, Whether they were material to be answered, I leave to what follows. And whether they are answerable upon Christian Principles, I leave to the judgement of the Reader, and this sort of No-vindication of them. Doubtless Dr. Tillotson would red this Vindication of himself, before he licenced it to be printed. And if he could have given any Answer to these most monstrous Objections made against him, he would certainly have done it; wherefore we must conclude him Self-condemned.  
This Author betrays himself to be a careless Reader that shall affirm, The Archbishop licenced Dr. Williams's Vindication; and much more, when he comes in with his doubtless he had red it. For the Doctor in his Epistle to Mr. Chadwick, expressly saith, he perused but a part of it; and I may tell him a very small part, since it was but the Week before his Grace fell ill and died, that any part of it was put into his hands.  
By this sly Accusation, the Socinian Considerer has wrong done him, and accordingly ought to be righted; for tho he except against the Archbishop's Reasons, yet he does not except against them as Blasphemous Errors,( as this libeler calls them in the words immediately following those already quoted) but only as unsufficient to prove that, for which they are produced by the Archbishop, which are two very different things. Dr. Williams also has reason to complain, for instead of leaving these things totally untouched in the very Pages quoted by this libeler, he makes the very Answer which it was proper for him to make. For in this Answer he shows, that if the Considerer's way of reasoning be good, not only the Son of God ought not to have been incarnate so long after Adam's Fall, but neither( according to the Socinian Hypothesis) ought Christ to have come into the World, or the Gospel to have been preached. So that his Argument by proving too much, proves nothing at all; and Dr. Williams having shown that it does so, makes a just Reply to what his Adversary had objected. And for what he says of Mysteries, the Doctor says, He would reserve it for another place, which was no shift, because it was a Subject he thought more proper to reserve for another place in his Book, viz. in his Vindication of the Bishop of Worcester; but in the time between, he had a sight of a Book fitting for the Press, wherein the Notion of Mystery was excellently discoursed of; and therefore the Doctor refers his Reader expressly thither, in p. 68. of the said Vindication. And lastly, That the Archbishop in the third place has wrong done him by this Insinuation, is evident from what has been said, which I shall not now repeat.   

SECT. VI. The Charge of Blasphemy Answered about the Jewish Law.  
BLASPHEMY being a word which our libeler often has in his Mouth, he uses it upon the Archbishop's account of the Law given by Moses 
Serm. iv. p. 183, 184. , and of the Dispensation of God towards the Jewish Nation, which( according to him) was full of condescension to the Temper and Prejudices, and other Circumstances of that People: For( as he there goes on) the Religion and Laws which God gave them, were far from being the best and most perfect in themselves, in which sense some understand that passage in Ezekiel, where it is said, That God gave them Statutes which were not good, that is, very imperfect in comparison of what he could and would have given them, had they been capable of them; and yet such as were very well suited and fitted to their present Capacity and Circumstances. Of which expressions our Libeller's Character is, 
Charge of Socinianism, p. 7. col. 2.  That in them he scruples not impiously to blaspheme that Religion which God gave to the Jews, and therein to arraign God its Author.  
To prove this bold Charge, he makes a tedious Harangue in commendation of the Laws which God gave the Jews, which his commendation is very true; but as it is here brought in, 'tis nothing at all to his purpose, unless it be to show his Malice. The Laws given by Moses were of several sorts, and given at several times. Some were Moral, as the Decalogue; some Judicial, which peculiarly related to the Jews as they were a People united under one Government; some again were Ceremonial, as all those were which concerned their Priesthood, and their Sacrifices, their Purifications, their Clothes, and the like. Of these last there were two sorts; some were typical of that great Expiatory Sacrifice made by Christ, of which we have a full Account in the Epistle to the Hebrews; others were designed to keep the Israelites from some particular Idolatries that were practised by the Nations which were round about them. As for the time in which they were given, some were given before the Israelites made the Golden Calf, others afterwards.  
Having premised all this, which even our libeler himself cannot deny, I shall consider what the Prophet Ezekiel says to the Jews in the xxth Chapter of his prophesy. Some of the Elders of the People being come to inquire of the Lord, because of the distress which they were in at that time from the Babylonians, the Prophet tells them from the Lord, That they ought a little to look back upon the condition of their Forefathers in Egypt, when God first lifted up his hand to bring them out of Egypt into the Land of Canaan. 
Ver. 7, 8.  First, he upbraids them with their unwillingness to leave the Abominations of Egypt, tho they had been so severely used by the Men of that Country, and had groaned so earnestly after a Deliverance 
Ver. 10, 11. . However( as he tells them afterwards) God did bring them out of Egypt, whilst they were polluted with the Idolatries of that Country, and gave them Statutes in the Wilderness, which if a Man do, he shall even live in them 
Ver. 13. ; and yet for all this, that Generation rebelled against him in the Wilderness, and walked not in his Statutes, and despised those Judgments, which if a Man do, he shall even live in them, for which reason he threatened to destroy them 
Ver. 14. . However, for his own Names sake, God wrought that it should not be polluted[ i. e. set at nought, and vilified, as if he who had brought them into the Wilderness, could not there preserve them] before the Heathen[ i. e. the Egyptians] in whose sight he had brought them out. But 
Ver. 15, 16.  yet he punished them for their Idolatries, by causing that whole Generation to wander in the Wilderness, and suffering none but Caleb and Joshua to reach the promised Land. And 
Ver. 21, &c.  because the following Generations were not like to do any better than their Fathers had done before them, but would not execute the Judgments of God, and would despise his Statutes, and pollute his Sabbaths, and fix their Eyes upon their Father's Idols, therefore 
Ver. 25.  GOD GAVE THEM STATUTES THAT WERE NOT GOOD, AND JUDGMENTS WHEREBY THEY SHOULD NOT LIVE; and pronounced them polluted in their own gifts, in passing by all that openeth the Womb, that he might disgrace them, to the end that they might know that he was the LORD.  
From hence it is manifest, That the Statutes that were not good, in the 25th Verse, are directly opposed to the Statutes and Judgments which if a Man do, he shall even live in them, in the 11th Verse; which very Statutes and Judgments they are blamed for despising in the 13th Verse. It is equally manifest, That these Statutes that were not good, and Judgments whereby they should not live; were given them by God as a judgement for not executing the Judgments of God, for despising his Statutes, polluting his Sabbaths, and turning their Eyes after their Fathers Idols, which he upbraids them with in the Verse foregoing 
Verse 24. . So that if it be presumptuous and terrible Blasphemy to say, That God gave them Statutes that were not good, it is such Blasphemy as God himself put into the Mouth of his Prophet Ezekiel, to tell the Elders of Israel in his Name.  
But our libeler says, 
page. 8. col. 1.  That God is said to give them these evil Statutes, v. 25. no otherwise than as he is said to pollute them, v. 26. that is, to suffer them to be polluted, and to follow Idolatry, there meant by the Statutes which were not good. All which is very wide of, if not directly contrary to the Prophet's meaning, as we shall soon see.  
But before we can come to that, we must not overlook our Libeller's Prevarication, in calling these Statutes which were not good, evil Statutes: There is here a great deal of difference between not good and evil. Good here is not understood morally, and consequently is not opposed to evil, but to kind and merciful; and therefore not good, is explained by these words, whereby they should not live. In the same sense St. Peter said, That the Ceremonial Law was a Yoke which neither they,[ i. e. the Jews of his time] nor their Fathers were able to bear. The mistaking of this, gave our libeler an opportunity to call these evil Statutes, and consequently to make all this clamour.  
Now to understand the Prophet's meaning more fully, we are to consider, That soon after the Israelites were gotten to Mount Sinai, God gave them the Decalogue, and some few other Moral and Judicial Laws, fixed the Worship of the Tabernacle, constituted Aaron High-Priest, entailed the Priesthood upon his Family, appointed the daily Sacrifice, and settled the Atonement which the High-Priest was to make yearly in the Holy of Holies for the whole People, wherein he was so immediately and properly a Type of Jesus Christ, and his Atonement Typical of that great Expiatory Sacrifice, which our Blessed Saviour offered of himself upon the across. This was the first Body of Laws which God gave by Moses, and these were the Judgments, which if they would have obeyed they might have lived in them, that is, they would have had a pleasant, easy Task, nothing which could in any sense whatsoever have been accounted a burden, or a Yoke, by an ingenuous and a dutiful People. These Laws begin at the xxth, and end with the xxxist Chapter of Exodus.  
Then comes the Revolt of the Children of Israel, who could not bear Moses's absence for Forty Days, but must have visible Representations of God, and got Aaron to join with them. Hereupon God was greatly provoked, and tho at Moses's entreaty, and lest his Name should be polluted among the Heathen, he did not utterly destroy them, yet he then superadded another Set of Laws, whereby they were chained up in almost every thing they did. They were restrained in Eating, and Drinking, and clothing, in Tilling the Ground, in observing particular Days, and Months, and Years. They were dealt withal as Children; and upon this very account St. Paul calls these superadded Laws weak and beggarly Rudiments, and upbraids the Galatians with their longing again to be in Bondage to them. Which very Laws he says, were given because of Transgression, because they shew'd so early a Propensity to Idolatry; and which-Propensity it seems could no other way be kerbed but by such Restrictions as should in every thing they did necessary put them in mind of that God whom alone they were to Worship.  
Such a Body of Laws given upon such an occasion, tho they could not be said to be Evil( in the English sense of the word) yet they might be very justly said to be not Good. They were enacted as a Punishment for the former Idolatries of the Israelites, and as a fence against their relapsing into any new ones. And now, if our libeler should cavil, and say, That this was not a compliance with, and condescension to the Humours and Weaknesses of the Jews; yet he will not be able to deny, but that it was an Accommodation, and such a one as was peculiarly fitted to bridle and restrain them from running after strange gods, tho it had not its full effect till after their return from Babylon.  
To all this, which effectually vindicates the Archbishop's Assertion, and gives an account of what our Blessed Saviour often hints at, that such and such Laws were given by God to Moses, because of the hardness of the hearts of those to whom they were given; I know nothing that can be objected, if we consider what the Prophet says in Verse 26. just after he had  told them, That the LORD had given them Statutes that were not good, and Judgments whereby they should not live; namely, That he pronounced them unclean in their Gifts, in passing by all that opened the Womb, that he might disgrace them, to the end that they might know that he was the LORD: that is, That he declared that he esteemed them to be an unclean People, and unfit to serve at his Altar, or to offer up their own Gifts to him themselves, in passing by all their first-born, whom he had set apart before for his Service, and in taking one particular Tribe, the Levites, in their stead, which would be an eternal disgrace upon them, when their latest Posterities should see themselves irreversibly shut out from ministering before him, whereby they would of necessity see that he is JEHOVAH, a Jealous God, that would not suffer his Honour to be given to an Idol, or his Glory to another.  
That this Interpretation agrees better with the Original, than that in our Common Versions, will( I believe) appear evident to every one that will weigh the Reasons upon which Dr. Spencer grounds it, from whom I own myself to have received it. Tho the signification of the 25th Verse, which our libeler so much exclaims at, and which he accuses of presumptuous and dreadful Blasphemy, stands equally firm, whether this be allowed or no; and that destroys all his Calumnies; which is enough to my present purpose.   

SECT. VII. A Second Charge about our Saviour's Satisfaction Answered.  
THIS libeler charges the Archbishop with 
Charge of Socin. p. 8. col. 2.  absolutely and avowedly cutting off the whole Doctrine of Satisfaction due to the Justice of God for our Sins; or if due, that it need not be paid; and therefore, whatever other Reasons there may be, That can be none for Christ's dying for us. All this has been spoken to at large already under the ivth Head; and therefore I shall only say, That he who positively affirms that God did accept of the Satisfaction made by Christ, and who proves that Jesus Christ did in the properest Sense of the words suffer in our stead, does as fully own this Satisfaction, tho he dares not affirm that God's Justice could not have been satisfied any other way, or that God could not have pardoned Sin without any Satisfaction at all; as he who grounds the necessity of this Satisfaction upon particular Notions of the Vindictive Justice of God, which according to him could not have any other way been satisfied.  
Let us examine however this Libeller's Reasons, which are these two:( 1.) 
Ibid. p. 9. col. 1.  He says, The Person must be infinite, who could pay an infinite Debt, for such is Sin, being an offence against infinite Goodness. If this Reason holds, then all Sins are equal, because every Sin, as such, is an offence against infinite Goodness. Now, if a Position be false, then all reasonings founded upon that Position must be false likewise.  
( 2.) He argues from our Saviour's Prayer, Matth. 26.39. 
Ibid.  Father, if it be possible, let this Cup pass from me. Which Prayer, says this libeler, shows, That it was not possible for him to accomplish the Salvation of Man, which he had undertaken, without suffering Death; Otherwise( as he wisely adds) no doubt God would not have refused the Petition of his well-beloved Son. This second Reason is as weak as the former; and its weakness lies in not considering how any thing may be said to be impossible with God: Either( 1.) Because it implies a contradiction in itself: Or,( 2.) Because God has already otherwise decreed. In this second Sense, it was impossible that the Cup should pass from our Blessed Saviour, when he prayed, that it might, in the Garden. It was decreed that the Man Christ Jesus should suffer Death in the stead of sinful Man, to save him from Death: This Decree being once past, it became irreversible, Immutability being one of the Essential Attributes of God. And this shows why it was not possible for the Cup to pass from the Man Christ Jesus who suffered, and who prayed that he might not Suffer, because his Sufferings were decreed before the Foundations of the World were laid.   

SECT. VIII. The Archbishop Vindicated from the Charge of Advancing a Socinian Covenant.  
ONE would think 'twere Folly, but 'tis only Malice in this libeler, to charge the Archbishop with 
Ibid. p. 9. col. 2.  setting up a Socinian Covenant, and excluding the Satisfaction of Christ, when he says 
Sermon of Sacrifice and Satisfaction of Christ, p. 33. , That upon the Sufferings of Christ, God entered into a Covenant of Grace and Mercy with Mankind; wherein he engaged himself to forgive the Sins of those who Believe and Repent, and to make them Partakers of Eternal Life.  
Now, whether the Archbishop does really set up a Socinian Covenant, and exclude the Satisfaction of Christ, will appear by the Context. He says therefore 
Ibid. p. 31. , That tho the term Satisfaction be no where used in Scripture in this Sense, yet 
Ibid. p. 32.  since God is graciously pleased to accept of the Sacrifice of the Blood of Christ which was  shed upon the across, for the Debt which we owed to his Justice; and to declare himself fully pleased and contented with it, why it may not properly enough be called Payment or Satisfaction, I confess I am not able to understand. Not that God was angry with his Son, when he thus laid on him the Iniquity of us all; no, he was always well pleased with him; and never better, than when he became obedient to the Death, even the Death of the across, and bore our Sins in his own Body on the three. Nor yet, that our Saviour suffered the very same that the Sinner should have suffered, namely, the proper Pains and Torment of the damned. But that his Obedience and Sufferings were of that value and esteem with God, and his voluntary Sacrifice of himself so well-pleasing to him, that he thereupon entered into a Covenant of Grace and Mercy with Mankind, wherein he hath engaged himself to forgive the Sins of those who Believe and Repent, and to make them Partakers of Eternal Life.  
To say after all this, That 
Charge of Socin. p. 9. ocl. 2.  the Covenant which God made with Christ according to the Archbishop, was wholly Causeless, Needless, and Arbitrary, or that the Archbishop holds with the Socinians, by excluding the Satisfaction made to the Divine Justice by the Effusion of the Blood of Christ upon the across, from being any part of the Covenant, or considered at all in it, is as black a Calumny as could well be contained in so small a compass of words.   

SECT. IX. The Charge Answered about Christ's Sacrifice.  
HE cavils at the Archbishop for saying 
Sermon of Sacrifice and Satisfaction of Christ, p. 44. , That God did not command his Son to be sacrificed, but his Providence permitted the wickedness and violence of Man to put him to Death. And then he both foolishly and maliciously asks 
Charge of Socin. p. 6. col. 2. , If there were no more than God's bare Permission in the Sacrifice of Christ, as in all other wicked Actions; how was his Death more a Sacrifice than the Death of any other Man?  
One would think that this libeler never heard of God's making use of the wickedness and follies of Men to bring about his own righteous and holy Purposes. And there needs no pains to prove, according to this libeler, that God is directly the Author of Sin. For the Archbishop here was only speaking of the manner how Christ was put to Death, which he tells us, was not by God's commanding the Jews to require, or Pontius Pilate to deliver up Jesus to be crucified, but by his suffering the one to pursue their execrably malicious purpose, and the other timorously to be their Executioner, without mentioning one syllable of the reason why God thus permitted it; that came under his Second Head, and he does here, in terminis, distinguish the manner of doing it, from the design why it was done. This is plain from the Archbishop's words, and it is a full Answer to all that malicious Harangue which our libeler makes upon this occasion, concerning God's commanding, and not barely permitting his well-beloved Son to be a Sacrifice for the Sins of Mankind.   

SECT. X. Of the Socinians owning a Satisfaction.  
IN examining the Controversy between us and the Socinians, concerning the Satisfaction of Christ, the Archbishop finds, That they have owned so much as makes their refusing to aclowledge that our Blessed Saviour suffered in our stead, to be little more than a Controversy about words. Because whilst they assert that he died for our Benefit, they must mean as we do, who say, That Christ died in our stead, that is to say 
Sermon of Sacrifice and Satisfaction of Christ, p. 48. , That by virtue of his Death and Sufferings, he saved us from the Wrath of God, and procured our escape from Eternal Death; which( says the Archbishop) for ought I know, is all that any body means by his dying in our stead. From which words our libeler takes an occasion spitefully to insinuate, that the Archbishop says this with an intention to give up the Cause to his beloved Socinians, as this Calumniator calls them.  
To judge between the Archbishop and this libeler, 'tis necessary to see what the Archbishop has done in this Sermon.( 1.) He has proved at large by ample Testimonies from Scripture, and the Nature and Intention of Expiatory Sacrifices, and as understood and practised by all Mankind, that our Blessed Saviour was truly an Expiatory Sacrifice, did really make an Atonement, and consequently did literally suffer in our stead.( 2.) Then he shewed that the Socinians do acknowledge what is in a manner an equivalent to this, namely, That Jesus Christ suffered for our Benefit; and consequently, that( according to them) his Obedience and Sufferings in their meritorious consequence redound as much to our advantage as we pretend and say they do. From whence he concludes, that the Socinians have kept up a 
Ibid.  perverse Contention to disturb the peace of the Church.  
If this be true,( and that it is true, appears to every one that reads the Sermon) where's the harm of saying so? does a Man join with any Party of Men, when he accuses them of Perverseness and Contentiousness, for not speaking in the Language of the Scripture and the Church, whilst in the main they agree to what he says? Or, does he give up a Cause, who proves that his side, and not his Adversaries, speak the Language of the Scriptures? On the contrary, can there be any more likely way to bring the Socinians into the Communion of the Church, and to persuade them to renounce their Heresy, than to let them see that in some of the chiefest Points about which great and warm Disputes have arisen, they do really hold the same things with the catholic Church? A good Man disputes not for Victory, but for Truth, and he knows that he does not betray his Cause, when he shows his Adversaries what unreasonable Men they are, to raise a Dust about a thing wherein at the bottom there is very little if any disagreement.   

SECT. XI. Of the Socinian way of Disputing.  
THE Archbishop having in his Second Sermon, Concerni●g the ●●c●rnation of our Blessed Saviour, taken an occasion to give a Character of the Socinians way of disputing, Among other things he says 
page. 71. , That generally they are a Pattern of the fair way of disputing, and of debating Matters of Religion without Heat and unseem●y Reflections upon their Adversaries. They g●●erall● argue Matters with that Temper and Gravity, and with that freedom from Passion and Transport, which becomes a serious and weighty Argument. And for the most part, they reason closely and clearly, with extraordinary guard and caution, with great dexterity and decency, and yet with smartness and subtlety enough; with a very gentle heat, and few hard words. In a word, they are the strongest Managers of a weak Cause, and which is ill founded at the bottom, that perhaps ever yet meddled with Controversy. Insomuch, that some of the Protestants, and the generality of the Popish Writers, and even of the Jesuits themselves, are in comparison of them but mere Scolds and Bunglers.  
Upon all this our libeler passes this good-natured and righteous Censure. 
Charge of Socin. p. 10. col. 1, 2.  A Man could hardly describe his Mistress in a softer Air. The Socinians must be very ill-natured if they take any thing amiss which this Gentleman has said against them. It was mere necessity; they see how unwillingly and artificially he has done it; and when rightly understood( no doubt they understand him) what he has said, is with a design to give a better Account of them than has yet been done, to take off that frightful Character with which some have painted them, not allowing them the very Name of Christians. Whereas alas! the Doctor has  told us, that there is nothing betwixt them and us, but a mere Controversy about Words, which all mean the same thing.  
It is hardly possible to misrepresent a Man more slanderously than the Archbishop is here misrepresented in so few words. No man that ever looked much into the Fratres Poloni, but knows the Archbishop's Character of the Socinian Writers, as far as they are concerned in it, to be strictly true. Of them, and them only the Archbishop speaks; for this Sermon was preached in 1679. before any of those virulent Pamphlets, which the Socinians have of late years been dispersing about the Nation, were published. That calmness of theirs did their business at that time in a very great degree, and did but too too much insinuate into the Affection of those that red their Writings. The Socinians were then settled, after a sort, in a Popish Country, where they knew all the ecclesiastics were their mortal Enemies, from whom they looked for nothing but a total Extirpation, which at last befell them between thirty and forty years ago. Their only support during their Establishment lay in some of the Nobility and People of Quality, several of whom sent their Children to Racow to be educated, where the Socinians had gotten leave to erect an Academy. These Men knew very well that such sort of Followers as theirs, were only to be lead by a calm and Gentleman-like way of writing and preaching, joined with a certain simplicity of manners, and innocency of Life; in all which things, if we may believe the Accounts which have been printed concerning them, they were more than ordinarily Eminent. All this the Archbishop was no stranger to. As for our libeler, which is greatest, his Ignorance, or his Malice, I will not take upon me to determine.  
But to make his Calumny go down, he lays down two shameless untruths.( 1.) He says that the Doctor( as he rudely calls the Archbishop) has  told us, That there is nothing betwixt the Socinians and us, but a more Controversy about Words; when he knows that the Archbishop never said any thing like it of the Disputes concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation; all that he said, was concerning the Satisfaction of Christ, the catholic Doctrine concerning which, he proves the Socinians to hold in effect, tho in words they disown it. But this has been spoken to already.( 2.) He makes the Archbishop say, That all the Christian Writers are but Scolds and Bunglers to the Socinians; which is notoriously false. The Archbishop says only, Some of the Protestant Writers, and the generality of the Popish; which words some, and the generality, are very restrictive Terms, and which being used, make the Archbishop's Proposition literally true.  
And yet, as plainly as these words are expressed, a Writer of a much higher Rank than this libeler, says 
Tritheism charged upon Dr. Sherlock's Notion, &c. p. 304. , That he cannot come up to the Lambeth-strain in declaring the Socinians the only Scholars and Disputants in the World, in comparison of whom, some of the most Eminent upon both accounts that Christendom ever had, are but more Bunglers. Now, as he directly points at what has been quoted from the Archbishop in these words, so he does as plainly know that he misrepresents him by leaving out the limiting words some, and the generality, which would have destroyed his spiteful inuendo, and have contradicted all that he makes the Archbishop say, That the Socinians were the only Scholars and Disputants in the World; which last words, or something equivalent, he is here challenged to produce out of the Archbishop's Writings, or to own that he has calunniated the first Prelate of that Church, of which himself is a Member, and in which he is believed to be preferred. And this, let me tell him, is a Crime which in the Primitive Church would not have been overlooked in any private Presbyter whatsoever, let his Merits have been what they would, and his Zeal in defending the Doctrine of the Church against all manner of Innovators never so ardent. And since so great a fault is overlooked in him, it ought to make him not quiter so severe upon his Governors because they are gentle to other Men, when he knows himself to be equally obnoxious upon other accounts. But I must return to our libeler.  
He has been at a great deal of pains to gather up all the hard Characters which the Archbishop gives of the Socinian Arguments, and their way of reasoning, and then sets them against what he had said in commendation of them before, insinuating thereby that the Archbishop has wilfully contradicted himself to keep the Socinians favour, whilst he must say something at the same time to please the People.  
This malicious Method of his is answered in three words.( 1.) A Man may reason very calmly, tho his Arguments be stark nought.( 2.) The worse the Cause be which a Man undertakes to defend, the greater need he has of Dexterity and Wit to manage it, and of calmness and softness in proposing his Arguments to the World, if he intends they shall gain admittance.( 3.) An impudent Answer( i.e. such a one as he that uses, must suppose his Adversary to want common Consideration if he swallows it) may be softly expressed, and dressed up with great seeming Modesty.( 4.) A Man may in writing a great deal, speak now and then some indecent Words, tho the Tenor of his Discourse may in the general be very respectful towards the Persons whom he opposes, and the Subject which he treats of.  
I shall not now affront my Reader so much, as to make any Application; for I am sure, if he has Common Sense, he will see how to make it; and if he has Common Honesty, he will then make it just as I may be supposed to desire he should.   

SECT. XII. The Charge of undermining the Unity of the Godhead, Answered.  
BUT these are light stroke in comparison of what follows. This libeler accuses the Archbishop of 
page. 12. Postscript, col. 1.  really undermining the Unity of God, by setting it up upon a Foundation which he himself in his Sermon upon that Subject quiter overthrows. The Archbishop had asserted 
Sermon Concerning the Unity of the Divine Nature, p. 8. ," That the Unity of the Divine Nature was a Notion wherein the greatest and the wisest part of Mankind did always agree; that is, as he explains himself presently after 
Ibid. , That there is one Supreme Being, the Author and Cause of all, whom the most Ancient of the Heathen Poets commonly called the Father of gods and men. And yet after this he says 
Ibid. p. 16. , That the generality of the Heathens were grossly guilty both of believing more gods, and of worshipping false gods. From which two passages laid together, our libeler infers 
page. 12. col. 2. Postscript. , That the Archbishop builds the Unity of God upon the belief of the greatest Part of Mankind, when he confesses that this greatest Part did not believe the Unity of God.  
This is a downright Calumny, and one of the blackest that could be charged upon any Man whatsoever. The design of the Archbishop in that Sermon was to prove, that whilst the Heathens generally owned one Supreme God that was the Principal and Original of all things, they worshipped several subordinate Deities, really distinct from one another at the same time; which design he executes for several Pages together. Now to show that this libeler knew that what he said was a Calumny, as well as I do, when he brings what he calls a Salvo for this most palpable Contradiction, he quotes the Archbishop's words thus 
Sermon of Unity of Divine Nature, p. 15. , The Unity of the Divine Nature,— was the Primitive and General Belief of Mankind, and Polytheism and Idolatry were a Corruption and Degeneracy from the Original Notion which Mankind had concerning God. Whereas the Sentence in the Archbishop's Sermon runs thus, The Unity of the Divine Nature, or the Notion of one Supreme God, Creator and governor of the World, was the Primitive and General Belief of Mankind: And Polytheism and Idolatry were a Corruption and Degeneracy from the Original Notion which Mankind had concerning God. Which, as I take it, is something different from what our libeler would have us believe; the very stress of the Question lying in those words which he has fraudulently suppressed. No Man that ever looked into Pagan Antiquity, can deny that the generality of the Ancient Heathens worshipped many false gods. And it has been unanswerably proved against the Papists in the Disputes betwixt us and them, concerning the Idolatry of the Church of Rome, That Mankind did generally agree in the Belief of one Supreme Being, to whom all the other Deities were subordinate, and by whom they were all either created or begotten.   

SECT. XIII. The Charge of Hobbism Answered.  
OUR libeler is so intent upon finding Fault, that he Charges the Archbishop with Hobbism for Preaching Doctrines which are the immediate results of Passive Obedience. In a Sermon Preached several Years ago before King Charles II. the Archbishop took an occasion upon those words of Joshua, If it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom you will serve, to discourse of the Power which the Civil Magistrate has in matters of Religion. And because a false Religion may be legally established in a Nation, as well as a true one, the Question naturally arises, Whether those who believe the true Religion are bound to endeavour to propagate it in a country where severe Laws are made against it, and those who teach it? That is to say, Whether a Christian in Japan is bound to preach the Christian Religion in that country, where he is sure he shall be put to death without mercy, if the Fact be proved upon him, nay, perhaps, if he be but suspected to be a Christian? This the Archbishop determines in the Negative, and says, 
Sermon, Vol. 3. Octavo, p. 379, 380, 381.  That if a false Religion be established by Law, the Case here is the same as in all other Laws that are sinful in the Matter of them, but yet made by a lawful Authority; in this Case the Subject is not bound to profess a false Religion, but patiently to suffer for the constant profession of the true. To which he adds these words. And to speak freely in this matter, I cannot think( till I be better informed, which I am always ready to be) that any pretence of Conscience warrants any Man that is not extraordinarily Commissioned as the Apostles and first Publishers of the Gospel were, and cannot justify that Commission by Miracles as they did, to affront the established Religion of a Nation( though it be false) and openly to draw Men off from the profession of it, in contempt of the Magistrate and the Law: All that Persons of a different Religion can in such a Case reasonably pretend to, is to enjoy the private Liberty and Exercise of their own Conscience and Religion; for which they ought to be very thankful, and to forbear the open making of proselytes to their own Religion,( though they be never so sure that they are in the right) till they have either an extraordinary Commission from God to that purpose, or the Providence of God make way for it by the permission or connivance of the Magistrate. Not but that every Man hath a Right to publish and propagate the true Religion, and to declare it against a false one: But there is no Obligation upon any Man to attempt this to no purpose, and when without a Miracle it can have no other effect but the loss of his own Life; unless he have an immediate Command and Commission from God to this purpose, and be endowed with a Power of Miracles, as a public Seal and Testimony of that Commission, which was the Case of the Apostles.  
I have transcribed the more, to prevent Cavilling, if it be possible. Let the Reader now judge of these words of our libeler. 
Charge of Socin. p. 13. 2.  His[ i. e. the Archbishop's] politics are Leviathan, and his Religion is Latitudinarian, which is none; that is, nothing that is positive, but against every thing that is positive in other Religions; whereby to reduce all Religions to an uncertainty, and determinable only by the Civil Power: Against whose command Dr. T. does not think it lawful to preach the Gospel without such extraordinary Commission as the Apostles had, and that we were able to vouch it with Miracles, as they did: Which is as much as Hobbs himself could have asked, if he had got into the Pulpit in Person, and not his Deputy.  
The Archbishop says, That every Man has a right to publish and propagate the true Religion, and to declare it against a false one; but is under no Obligation so to do to no purpose, and with apparent hazard of his Life, unless he have an immediate Command and Commission from God himself, and be endowed with a Power of Miracles. This libeler says, That the Archbishop does not think it lawful to do all this against the Command of the Civil Magistrate. This is too gross to need a descant.   

SECT. XIV. The Charge about Revealed Religion Answered.  
HIS next stroke against the Archbishop's Sermon before the House of Commons, Nov. 5. 1678, are of a like Nature. The Archbishop's design in that Sermon, was suitably to the occasion of the Day to show the unjustifiableness of that furious Zeal by which the Papists endeavour to exterminate those of a contrary persuasion from themselves, out of the Countries wherein they have Power. Our Saviour's words to his Disciples, when they were angry with the Samaritans, and would have had him have called for Fire from Heaven to destroy them as Elias did, because they affronted him when they perceived that he was going up to Jerusalem, Ye know not what spirit ye are of; the son of man is not come to destroy mens lives, but to save them: I say, these words of our Saviour's gave the Archbishop an opportunity to discourse with more Authority upon this Matter, than otherwise he could well have done.  
Among other topics used by the Archbishop to urge this point, one great one was drawn from the Nature of Religion, which is chiefly intended to make us like God here, that so we may be happy with him hereafter. Now 
Vol. 3. Serm. p. 18.  because it is impossible for us to be like God, When our Religion serves to no other purpose but to be a Bond of Conspiracy, to inflame our Tempers to a greater fierceness, and to set a keener edge upon our Spirits than they had before, so that instead of being the better for it, we shall certainly be the worse; therefore, and therefore only was it that the Archbishop said 
Ibid. , That it were better there were no Revealed Religion, and that human Nature were left to the conduct of its own Principles and Inclinations, which are much more mildred and Merciful, much more for the Peace and Happiness of human Society, than to be acted by a Religion that inspires Men with so wild a Fury, and prompts them to commit such Outrages; and is continually supplanting Government, and undermining the welfare of Mankind.  
It is the 
Charge of Socin. p. 14. col. 2.  outward welfare of Mankind, says this slanderous libeler, that the Archbishop is still speaking of; whereby he would insinuate, that the Archbishop teaches, That the chiefest and almost only consideration of Religion, is to respect the Peace and Quietness of this World: And therefore he clips the foregoing and some other Sentences of this Sermon out from the rest, and then makes his own Glosses upon them. Even out of the Sentence already quoted, he leaves out these words, That inspires Men with so wild a Fury, and prompts them to commit such Outrages, which give another turn to the Sentence, and show the true Reason why such a Religion is so very dangerous, that even Atheism and Infidelity cannot have worse things said of them, than may be truly said of so Bloody a Religion as this. It is as manifest as the Sun, and visible to any one that reads the Archbishop's Sermon never so carelessly, that his great warmth against the Church of Rome, and its furious Zeal against heretics, which he exposes in that Sermon, proceeds only from his just Indignation, that under a pretence of propagating our common Christianity, which teaches us to be like God, it should inspire Mankind with Principles truly devilish: That so, like the Pharisees proselytes, its Sons should become ten times more the Children of Darkness than otherwise they would have been. The Archbishop says nothing, he insinuates nothing like what our libeler affixes upon him, and that any Man may see that reads that Sermon, and consequently those scraps of Quotations in their proper places.  
For to what purpose should any Religion be believed and practised, if it does not answer the end for which it was enjoined? If it leads us to practices directly opposite to those ideas which we must necessary form to ourselves of God, can we be in a worse condition by being Infidels, than by living up to the Precepts of such a Religion? If this be not plain, I know not what is: But there is no fence against foul-dealing, and any thing may be made out of any thing, if Men will take a liberty to pick up broken Sentences from different places in Mens Writings, without attending to the Context, and then putting them together again as they please.   

SECT. XV. The Charge about Mothers Nursing their Children, proved to be impertinent.  
THE abovesaid Course is the most usual way of misrepresenting Mens Opinions, but it is not the only one. Sometimes the plain meaning of single and absolute Sentences may be wilfully misconstrued, when Men are resolved against common Candour. Such a misconstruction I charge upon our libeler, in his Harangue upon these words of the Archbishop's in his First Sermon Concerning the Education of Children. 
page. 103.  Mothers nursing of their own Children is a natural Duty: And because it is so, of a more necessary and indispensible Obligation than any positive Precept of Revealed Religion.  
Here, thinks he, I have a fair field before me to expose the Archbishop; and I will spare nothing that( as far as lies in my power) shall effectually do it. And therefore thus he cries out; 
Charge of Socin. p. 14. col. 2.  But it is not only matters of such consequence as Government, which the Doctor prefers to Revealed Religion: But to show his utmost contempt of it, he has found out so very mean a thing to compare to it, and prefer before it, as must surprise and astonish every Christian Reader. He makes a Woman's giving out her Child to Nurse, to be a more heinous matter, than to renounce Christ and all Revealed Religion. And then after quoting the Archbishop's words, he tells us, 
Ibid. p. 15. col. 1.  That the Belief of Christ is nothing else but a positive Precept of Revealed Religion. And so on.  
True Malice is always as foolish as it is mischievous: otherwise this would never have been objected. Common Sense has for many Ages taught Divines to distinguish between the Credenda and the Agenda of Christianity; between the things we are to believe, and the things we are to practise; and the same Common Sense taught every Reader of this Sermon of the Archbishop's, till our libeler came and informed us better, that the Archbishop compared only practical Duties together, when he preferred the natural Duty of Womens nursing their own Children to any positively enjoined practical Duty of a Revealed Religion: And therefore there was no need to put in the word practical after positive, because the Thing spoken itself. For the Archbishop wrote to those that would red, because they knew they wanted Instruction, not to those that red only to find fault; and the former sort he was sure would always join candour to humility, and then he was equally certain, that he should neither be misunderstood, nor misrepresented.   

SECT. XVI. The Charge answered of Comparing the Archbishop with Mr. blunt, &c.  
IT is not long since two blasphemous and impertinent Books have been dispersed about, one called Great is Diana of the Ephesians, or the Original of Idolatry, written by Charles blunt; the other entitled, A History of Religion, written by Sir Positive At-all, a very great Reformer, and a very notable Man. The Design of these two Men is to ridicule the Christian Religion under two different views, though without offering at one single Reason why it ought to be ridiculed: And this the former does under colour of exposing the Heathens, and the latter the Papists. The Historian quotes the Archbishop in his Preface with great respect: blunt says some things to which our dreaming libeler fancies he can find somewhat that is very like in the Archbishop's Sermons. Hereupon( as if these two Men had entered into a Confederacy with the Archbishop to destroy all Religion) this libeler writes a long Supplement to his Libel, wherein he compares the Archbishop's Sermons to these two Execrable Pamphlets; and still takes care to represent the Archbishop's Doctrine as the worst of the three. Several things in that Supplement are peculiarly levelled at those two Discourses, without any immediate relation to the Archbishop, by which our libeler shows, that he can writ well, and reason justly, when he pleases, which makes him the more unexcusable when he does not. But all that he says of the Archbishop is so very spiteful, and so very unjust, that I think nothing can exceed it. I say unjust, because it is founded upon those individual Passages which have been considered at large already: And which have been proved to contain nothing in them contrary to the Design of the Christian Religion, and which consequently can never be compared with the Writings of an Atheist,( or Deist, it matters not which) without the highest injury possible.  
There is but one Passage produced out of the Archbishop's Writings in the Supplement, but what has been spoken to already; and that is this, 
Sermon concerning the Sacrifice and Satisfaction of Christ, p. 52, 53.  In this Dispensation of God's Grace and Mercy to Mankind, by the death of his Son, God seems to have gone to the very extremity of things, and almost further than Goodness and Justice will well admit, to afflict Innocency itself to save the Guilty:— It looks almost like hatred of Innocency and his own Son. This Sentence of the Archbishop's our libeler compares with the following Passage of Charles Blount's, 
Great Diana, p. 15.  As if the Almighty Justice could be no otherwise appeased for the Errors of the Wicked, but by the Sufferings of the Innocent. 
Charge of Socin. p. 26. col. 2.  And concludes thus, ( (i))" These two Almosts[ of the Archbishop's] are like two Greek Negatives, which make an Affirmative: And show this Doctor to be both almost and altogether such a Christian as his Disciple blunt.  
Before I say any thing to all this Stuff, I must take notice, that this libeler several times insinuates, that Charles blunt was an intimate Friend of the Archbishop's: Whereas I am very well assured, that when he came to the Archbishop's upon a pretended Case of Conscience, not long before his unfortunate End, the Archbishop did not know his Face, though they discoursed together for some time; in which time blunt saying some odd things, it gave the Archbishop a curiosity to inquire who he was; which Curiosity does not so well consist with that Friendship that our libeler would make the World believe there was between them. So that his Truth, as an Historian, is as little to be valued, as his Justice as a Reasoner. But to return to our Subject.  
When he has thus spit his Venom, he takes out the poison in the next words 
Ibid. , And indeed, without the Doctrine of the Satisfaction, there can no rational Account be given for the typical Sacrifices before Christ came, and much less for his Sacrifice who was Innocency itself. These words do not show his prudence in managing his own Cause, so much as the foregoing Sentence shew'd his Malice: For what he here owns, is in effect the very thing which the Archbishop asserted above; namely, That according to the Rules of Human Prudence, God's Dispensation in saving Mankind could be but very difficultly accounted for; which is no more than what St. Paul argues at large, 1 Cor. 1. For thus the Apostle reasons, when he says, That that which was a stumbling-block to the Jews upon one account, who thereby lost their expectation of a Temporal Messiah, was foolishness to the Greeks upon another, because they could not reconcile it to the Principles of their Philosophy, which was nothing but natural Reason improved by Thought and Study. The whole Doctrine of Satisfaction as revealed, it is what these Philosophers could never have thought of; and therefore when we are to give an account of what Natural Reason would judge of the Death of Christ, we must say, that therein God seems to have gone to the very extremity of things, and almost further than Goodness and Justice will well admit: And if so, then this is an admirable topic from which to persuade Men to Holiness,( which was the Use the Archbishop made of it) by exhorting them to consider what a wonderful way God took to express his hatred of Sin by; even such a one as, according to Human ways of reasoning, looked almost like hatred of Innocency and his own Son▪  
Whether now it follows from hence that the Archbishop is almost, and altogether such a Christian as Charles blunt, this libeler himself shall judge, provided he will take St. Paul in, 
1 Cor. 1.18, &c. to the end of the Chapter.  who says the very same thing that the Archbishop does, tho in other words.  
No Man can well judge of Sentences, unless he takes in the Context, especially in a continued Discourse. Charles blunt had been impiously ridiculing Sacrifices as such, ascribing their Invention to some Crafty and Designing Priests, and then concludes, As if the Almighty Justice could no otherwise be appeased for the Errors of the Wicked, but by the sufferings of the Innocent. The Archbishop was exhorting Men to hate and detest Sin which had cost God so dear, that he gave the dearly beloved of his Soul to death; nay he seemed according to Human reasoning, to have gone to the very extremity of things, almost further than Goodness and Justice would well admit.  
Is here now any thing alike? Could any thing but Malice, mixed with Folly, raise such a Suggestion? When our libeler himself takes pains to prove, that nothing but Infinite Wisdom could have found out such a Method to redeem us, and which consequently must seem foolishness, as the Apostle expressly says it does, to our shallow Understandings, which would be dazzled with things so much above our Comprehension.   

SECT. XVII. The Conclusion.  
BUT it is time now to give over; it is a tedious thing to take notice of every malicious Expression which are many times repeated, and may be met with in almost every Period of this Libel. I do not remember that I have omitted any one Accusation: I have quoted our libeler and the Archbishop too with all possible exactness, and I am not conscious to myself that I have weakened any one of his Reflections in the repetition: And as I have dealt with him aboveboard, so I am not afraid of any Reply that can be made to what I have said. His Words, which are faithfully cited, vindicate me from being thought to use too much sharpness towards him, for which otherwise, perhaps, I might have been esteemed blame-worthy in my way of treating him. When Men writ like Gentlemen and Christians, they ought to be tenderly handled; and if they do not, yet even then Retaliation is not allowable; and that, I think, I am very far from returning upon this libeler; and so, I believe, the impartial Reader will readily grant upon examining what we both have said.  
What I have written was due to the Memory of that Great Man, whom I have endeavoured to defend. No pains has been spared to blacken him since his Death; abundance of little Stories have been gathered up, or made on purpose to defame him; and that by Men, who, one would have thought, might have spent their Time to much better purpose. That their Calumnies might be the better listened to, this Prodromus was first sent out to prepare the World to believe what they should say; for they knew it would be no hard thing to bring Men to credit any Stories, though never so horrid, of those who were already represented as Atheists and Super-Hobbists. But I think I have proved this libeler to be a slanderous Calumniator pretty sufficiently in the foregoing Paper, which, if I mistake not, will affect his Fellow-Libellers, who have commended this Libel of his in print. It is not so much the Archbishop, as those who have communicated with him, that are struck at in these sort of Pamphlets; and the thing these Men aim at, is, that every Bishop and Presbyter of the Church of England that have owned Dr. Tillotson to be Archbishop of Canterbury, may be esteemed not only as Betrayers of the Church's Rights, but also as Betrayers of the Christian Religion itself, by acknowledging his Authority whom they have endeavoured to prove to have been not so much as a Christian. But I hope the detection of those notorious Falshoods which this libeler has vented against Archbishop Tillotson's Memory, will teach the unbiased part of the Nation what may reasonably be believed of all those Stories, which those who have publicly commended this Libel have themselves published against a Man who is not now able to answer for himself.   
FINIS.   

Books Printed for Richard Chiswell.  
A Discourse of the Pastoral Care. By Gilbert Burnet, D.D. Lord Bishop of Sarum. 1692.  

— his Four Discourses delivered to the Clergy of the diocese of Sarum: Concerning, I. The Truth of the Christian Religion. II. The Divinity and Death of Christ. III. The Infallibility and Authority of the Church. IV. The Obligations to continue in the Communion of the Church. 8vo. 1694.  
— his Sermon at the Funeral of Archbishop Tillotson. 1694.  
— his Sermon preached before the King at St. James's chapel, on the 10th of February, 1694/ 5. being the First Sunday in Lent, on 2 Cor. 6.1.   
A Commentary on the First Book of Moses called Genesis. By the Right Reverend Simon, Lord Bishop of Ely. 4to. 1695.  
The Possibility, and Expediency, and Necessity of Divine Revelation. A Sermon preached at St. Martin's in the Fields, January 7. 1694/ 5. at the beginning of the Lecture for the Ensuing Year; Founded by the Honourable Robert boil, Esq;. By John Williams, D. D.  

— his Certainty of Divine Revelation. Being his Second Sermon preached at the said Lecture. 1695.  
— his Characters of Divine Revelation. Being his Third Sermon preached at the said Lecture. 1695.  
— his Vindication of the Sermons of his Grace John Archbishop of Canterbury, concerning the Divinity and Incarnation of our Blessed Saviour; and of the Lord Bishop of Worcester's Sermon on the Mysteries of the Christian Faith, from the Exceptions of a Late Socinian Book, entitled, ( Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity.) To which is annexed a Letter from the Lord Bishop of Sarum to the Author of the said Vindication on the same subject.  
— his Sermon preached at St. Laurence Jewry, Sept. 28. 1695. at the Election of the Lord Mayor for the Year ensuing.   
Archbishop Tillotson's Sermons of Sincerity and Constancy in the Faith and Profession of the True Religion. 8vo. 1695.  
☞ Another Volume of his Sermons preached on Several Occasions, never yet Printed, is in the Press, and will be published this Michaelmas Term.  
Animadversions on Mr. Hill's Book entitled, A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers, against the Imputations of Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum. 4to. 1695.  
Remarks of an University-Man upon a late Book, falsely called, A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers, against the Imputations of Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum, written by Mr. Hill of Killmington.  
A Discourse upon 1 Pet. IV. 8. wherein the Power and Efficacy of Charity, as it is a means to procure the Pardon of Sin, is Explained and Vindicated: By the Reverend Mr. John Whitefoot, Sen. of Norwich. 8vo. Printed for William Graves of Cambridge; and sold by Ric. Chiswell.