SInce our last Discourse upon the Famous Ser­mon of Hell, preach'd before the Queen, 7th of March, 1690. upon Matth. 25.46. and Printed by Their Majesties Special Command, The Author has this Year 93. publish'd 4 Sermons, two of them preach'd An. 79. and two An. 80. upon John 1.14. This he has done to clear himself from Socinianism.

He says in his Advertisement to the Reader, That he has Revis'd and Enlarg'd them; so that we cannot tell what Part of them was preach'd at the time Speci­fied, or what added since, to clear his Reputation now that he is got into an higher Station, so as to make such a Vindication necessary. For it is to be presum'd that he did not think it worth his while before, other­wise he would not so long have lain under the Im­putation of having been neither Christened, nor a Chri­stian in his Principles: Both which have not only been loudly Clamour'd, but objected in Print against him many years ago. Wherein only he truly Exercis'd Non-Resistance; For he opened not his Mouth.

But it is never too late to mend. And if he be not now; Pray God he may be a good Christian before he dies. For I must confess, I do not think it suffici­ently Evinc'd in these Sermons. In the Reading of which the Character which the History of the Ʋnitarians gives (tho' falsly) of Grotius came into my Mind; wherein he endeavours to make Grotius a tho'ro'-pac'd Socinian, but yet to have cover'd his Meaning so craf­tily, particularly in his Comments upon this First Chap­ter of St. John's Gospel, whence this Author has taken his Text, as not to be known to be a Socinian, unless to a very discerning Reader.

And I must observe, that this Author in the foresaid 4 Sermons, tho' he seems to speak home sometimes; yet has taken special Care to avoid the only Shibboleth which the Christian Church could find out to discover the several Sorts of Arian and other Hereticks, who deny'd the Divinity of Christ. which was Consubstantiality. That God the Son was of the same Substance with his Father.

Several of them (for there were several Subdivisions of them, and of different Opinions) would allow Christ to be of the like Substance with the Father▪ That is [...], but not [...], that is of the same Substance. And except the single Iota, which is betwixt these two Words, they could swallow the whole Nicene Creed, by vertue of Distinctions, in which they were great Masters; And it is very strange that this Author should forget this only Matterial Word, which is the heart of the whole Cause, and expresly asserted in the Nicene Creed; especially considering that Sermon 3. p. 140, 141. he quotes the words in that Creed immediately following these [Being of one Sub­stance with the Father] which words he does not men­tion; and which being own'd by him would have been a more clear and full Vindication of his Orthodoxy in this point, than all these 4 Sermons; And since it was impossible he should forget it, he repeating the same Sentence in the Creed wherein it is contain'd; we must conclude; that be left it out on purpose, and consequent­ly, That he does not really believe it; 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. Even our Modern Biddle in his Confession of Faith touching the Holy Trinity, Printed in the Year 1648. and now re­printed in the Year 1691. Artic. 3. Confesses Christ to be Our Lord, yea Our God, and yet in the same Arti­cle asserts, That he hath no other than a Human Nature. But he was a Senseless Socinian, tho' now much Admir'd amongst them in London, and his Books carefully re­printed. He Refin'd from the Socinians, and added to it the Old Anthropomorphite Heresie, That God was a Body, of the Shape of a Man, Fingers, Eyes, Toes. &c. [Page 2]As the Socinians refin'd from the Arians, and gave the Son of God no Existence before his Birth of the Virgin, and have exceedingly Entangled their Cause by it. The Arians were more Subtle and Learned than any of their Follo [...]ers, who have grafted upon their Stock. It was hard to discover the depth of Arianism, They defended themselves with Nice distinctions.

They would call the Son, God, yea, Truly and Re­ally God. As this Author confesses. 2 Serm. p. 123. And what plainer or fuller words could readily be de­sired, wherein to confess the true and real Divinity of Christ in opposition to Angels and to Men; who are cal­led Gods, but it is only in a Figurative and Borrowed Sense? They are not truly and really God, as the Ari­ans said of Christ.

The Author in the same Sentence explains himself, and those whom he calls his Adversaries (whether A­rians or Socinians) who say that Christ is truly and really God, by adding these words, by Office, and by Divine Appointment and Constitution.

That is a very vain Distinction: For a God by Office, or any other way, so he be truly and really God, is as great as a God by Nature, because nothing can be greater than God.

Besides, a God by Office, if he be truly and really God, must likewise be a God by Nature, for he could not, otherwise, be Truly and Really God: as he could not be truly and really Man, who were not a Man by Na­ture, or who did not truly and really partake of the Na­ture of Man.

And, as a Consequence of all this, the Author tells, ibid. That our Adversaries did allow the very same Ho­nour and Worship to be given to the Truly and Really God, tho' by Office, which we give to him who is God by Nature

And as these Adversaries could not be found out by the word GOD, which they freely allow'd to Christ; no, not by the words Truly and Really God: So neither could the word Eternity fully discover them, viz. To assert Christ to have been from Eternity.

We know several Adversaries to Christianity, who have asserted the World to have been from Eternity, and yet would not allow it to be God. It is part of the Muggletonian Creed, at this day, that Earth and Water were from Eternity, and yet not God.

A Book call'd The Oracles of Reason (by that Execra­ble Char. Blount, Mr. Gildon, and others of H [...]bb's wretched Disciples) does argue expresly for the Eterni­ty of the World, and of Mankind too, in the same State they are in now. This is printed for our Instru­ction in the Year 1693. as one Branch of our Glorious Reformation, and Christian Toleration. And if these Wits allow Eternity to meer Men, much less would these Socinians stick to call Christ Eternal, who own him to be truly and really God. For whatever is so, must be Eternal.

Therefore, as I said before there was no Shibboleth, which all these our Adversaries did refuse, but that of Consubstantiality, and which this Author does refuse; and while he does so, he must still be reckoned among these Adversaries to the Christian Cathelick Faith. Tho' Tho among what particular Species or Denomination of them I will not determine; or whether he may not have refin'd to a degree and Peculiarity by himself, for he delights in Bold Stroaks.

Mr. Biddle above told, is own'd by the Socinians, as a good and laudable Brother, tho he set up the Old and Exploded Heresie of the Athropomorphites: And the Arians are admitted into their Communion, and, as such, quoted and pleaded by them against the Or­thodox, tho they held the Prae-Existence of Christ before his Incarnation, which the Socinians have rejected. A­mong whom some, even at this day, hold the Persona­lity of the Word, and Holy Ghost, which others of them do absolutely deny. Some of them make these to be Creatures, others to be Really and Truly God, and not any thing different from God.

Nay the Old Nazarens, Ebionites, &c. are in the Brief Hist. of the Ʋnitar. Quoted as the Primitive Fa­thers of the Socinian Opinion, some of whom rejected the Scriptures, others all of it, but some Particular Books, which pleas'd their Fancies; Others own'd o­ther Scriptures never Received by the Church; and publickly allow'd and practised Altering the Holy Scriptures, which they called Mending of them; and some of them said that Christ was begot by Joseph like other Men, Nay by their Latudinarian Principles, Ma­homet himself, and his Alcoran must be admitted into their Confederacy, who speak more honourably of Christ than the Socinians themselves, and deserve the Name of Ʋnitarians, even in their own Sense; as much as they can pretend to.

In the Church of Rome, if you will but own Expres­sly the Authority of their Church, to the Height they Assert it; you shall be own'd a good Catholick, and ex­cused by an Implicit Faith in all other Articles of the Creed, tho you be never so ignorant, or hold particular Opinions different from the Church.

So, with the Socinians, if you will but reject the Consulstantiality of Christ, you shall have Liberty to make him a God, or a Creature, or what you will; You may talk of his Eternity, his True and Real God-Head; His being God of God, Light of Light, &c. They have distinctions for all these. And tho they love not; nor like the Expressions, yet they can make a hard shift with them: They can puzzle People's Understandings, tho by very foolish and contradictory Arguments, How God by his Infinit Power, might have bestowed True and Real Divinity upon another, and that even from Eternity; for what he can do to day, he might have done Yesterday, and so backwards for ever.

But then, this would have been only a voluntary Act of God; and what he did, he might not have done, if he had so pleased; and consequently, that this A­dopted God, tho from Eternity, was still a Precarious, tho a True and Real God; and yet not properly to be called a Creature, that is, like Finite Things, pro­duc'd in time.

But on the other hand, to make another Person Con­substantial, that is, of the same Nature with God the Father, this infers the necessity of a Plurality of Persons [Page 3]in the very Nature of the Godhead, and so to be of the Essence of God, as Faculties are of the Essence of the Soul, so that it could not be a Soul without the Faculties, nor a God, without the Persons, and tho one depends upon another, and springs from another, yet they are all equally Necessary, Co-Eternal, and Co-Equal, as be­ing all of the same Nature.

This grows too hard for a Distinction, and our Ʋni­tarians, as they call themselves, will compound for a­ny thing, so you keep off from this Consubstantiality.

And therefore the Christian Church could find no other Criterion to discover the subtle Heresie of these pretend­ed Ʋnitarians of several Degrees and Classes, who, tho differing never so widely among themselves, yet all join, and reckon themselves as Brethren; against the most Glorious, and most ample Revelations of the ever Blessed Trinity, Recorded in the Holy Scriptures of God. And whoever refuse this Test, cannot be accounted sound in the Christian Faith.

But where there is unwillingness it will one way or another shew it self; and it is easie to distinguish be­twixt those Expressions which proceed from a hearty Conviction, and those which are taken up out of force and necessity, to clear our selves from an Imputation which lies upon Us.

This your Dr. discovers pretty plainly, in the pre­sent Case; for being necessitated, in a Vindication of himself, as to the Doctrin of the Trinity, to use the Word Persons, he does it, as brought to it against his Will, very grudgingly and slightly, he does pass it over, and cannot conceal his Inclination rather to the Distinction used by the Anti-Trinitarian Hereticks, to elude those Texts which speak of the Trinity, which is, that there are three Differences in the Deity, which are express'd 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 hee 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 thus they may make as many Persons, in this Sense of theirs, as their Fancy pleases to suggest. And in this Sense, and no other, the Dr. is pleased to let the word Persons pass, since we must have it; tho at the same time he gives it such a stab, as shews that he is by no means reconciled to it. But take his own words, which he gives as his determination of the whole Matter, and the utmost to which he will be brought. Serm. 2. p. 120.

‘Here then I fix my foot: That 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 three 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: Jerom does somewhere desire to be excused from it.’

Thus the Dr. and according to this, where he has occasion to name the Three Persons of God, he adds to explain himself, his own word Differences, which he likes better, thus, p. 122. The Three Differences or Persons in the Divine Nature, expressed in Scripture by the Names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, &c. and so in other places.

And here, He has fixt his foot; you shall have no more of him, if you be not pleased with this, you must let it alone, and trouble him no more about Socinianism, Arianism, or any of these like Matters.

But this somewhere of St Jerome's was a strange Quo­tation for so Grave a Dr. to bring into the Pulpit upon so serious a Subject, if he thought it so. For, I fancy he spoke this with a Smile, saying to himself— I'll make this poor Auditory believe that I have a place of St. Jerome under my Thumb, to overthrow all this business of different Persons in God; which word since they force me to use, I'll be revenged on it. But I will not name the Place in St. Jerome, for there are Rogues will be Examining of it, and put me to a great deal of trouble; It will do well enough for a Squib among the Crowd.

But these poor hopes are vanished; for this Dr. has already been taken to task, and stands Corrected for this, by a much more Learned Person than himself. The Author of the Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock's Book Entituled, A Vindication of the Holy and ever Blessed Trinity, &c. Printed 1693. There Chap. 8. p. 265. This Place of St. Jerome is quoted. And it is shewn, that St. Jerom did not Scruple to use the word [Person] or desired to be excused (as our Author comi­cally words it, by way of wit) but on the contrary, that he did use the word [Person] and in the same Sense, in this Question, which is put upon it by us at this day, as one of the distinct Subsistences of the Divine Nature, or Substance, whom he did own to be Tres Personas Sub­sistentes. But that what scruple he had was concerning the Greek word Hypostasis, which yet he did not abso­lutely reject, nor refuse to make use of it, but thought it needed some Explanation, or rather Caution, in the use of it.

But this Author (whatever scruple he may have, which he signifies in Hints very plain) 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.

The great Art of the Socinians is in altering the meaning of Words, so that no words almost can bind them. And this Dr. does very subtlely recommend their Interpretations of Scripture, by bringing them sometimes to prove the Divinity of Christ, that so he may take you off the much more strong and full proof which lies in the true and plain meaning of the words. For example. Serm. 2. p. [...]0. He brings Phil. 2; 6. &c. as a Proof of the Divinity of Christ; who being in the Form of God, thought it no Robbery to be equal with God. But instead of he thought is not Robbery, [...]. The Dr. would have the Sense [Page 4]to be, He did not arrogate to himself to be equal with God, tho' it is quite contrary to the words, which are liter­ally translated. He thought it not Robbery to be equal: (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 Dr T. This is the Im­pudent answer which the Brief History of the Ʋnitari­ans gives to this Text, and which the Dr. 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,

But now to bring himself off from seeming to fa­vour the Socinians in this Intepretation: He pretends to prove the Divinity of Christ from it, thus; Christ did not arrogate to himself to be Equal with God; (i. e.) He made no Ostentation of his Divinity, and this the Dr. says, He takes to be the true Meaning of that Phrase.

But it means much more easily, That Christ had no Divinity to make Ostentation of, that he did not so much as pretend to it, or arrogate it to himself.

By this Socinian Interpretation of the Dr's, Here is first a very weak Argument brought for the Divinity of Christ, which is the most effectual Method to destroy a Cause. Secondly, Here is a very strong Argument for his Divinity diverted and eluded. For let the Text lie in the plain and Grammatical Interpretation of the words, and they are not to be answer'd by the Socinians: For if it was no Robbery in Christ to be Equal with God, it follows unavoidably, That he was True and Real God by Nature.

Let us come now to the other great point of Soci­nianism, the Doctrine of Satisfaction. They deny that the Death of Christ was a Satisfaction paid to the Justice of God for our Sins, for the Dr. has Clear'd himself in this Point likewise.

He hath Clear'd himself indeed! not only to have been, but still to continue a rank Socinian in this Point, even where he endeavours most to make a shew, as if he were come off it. He mumbles it like Thistles. For tho the Great point be the Satisfying God's Justice. Yet he is so very Careful to avoid coming upon that Question, That he names it but once in all those 4 Sermons; And that after such a manner as plainly dis­covers, that he is still of the Opinion he told us in his Sermon of Hell, of which he says there is no Certain­ty, Because there was no need of any Satisfaction to Gods Justice at all. And that God's Justice is to be Consider'd no otherwise than as a Politi [...]u [...] 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 Ʋsurpation of wick­ed Men. As if God were afraid of being Deposed by them. A strange Notion of the Justice of God! But this New Doctrin of making Hell precarious does total­ly overthrow the Doctrine of the Satisfaction of Christ, and plucks it up Root and Branch: For, if there be no cer­tainty of a Hell, there can be no Necessity of Satisfaction for Sins; which this means are remitted without it. But your Author thinks to put us off with a Complement in this matter. Serm. 4. p. 211. He says, that this way of Remitting Sins by the Death of Christ, was a way, indeed, very Honourable to the Justice of God, and the Authority of his Laws. And this is every word he says, as to the Justice of God in all these 4 Sermons.

He comes off like a Courtier, I confess, and will let it be very Honourable for God; (that is Civil!) if we would let alone any Arguments as to what the Nature of Justice requires, which makes it more than Honour­able, even Necessary, That a full and adequate Satisfa­ction be made to Justice; otherwise, Justice can be no more Justice, and God is no more Justice.

Besides, it will appear that, if there was no necessi­ty of satisfying Justice, it was not only, not very Ho­nourable in God, but even not reconcileable to any No­tion we can have of Justice, to take the life of an In­nocent Person without any necessity in the world.

You are a sort of People hard to be pleas'd, Therefore this good Dr. in Compliance to your Infirmi­ty; and because indeed he has treated very slightly of the Satisfaction in these 4 Sermons; he has since preach­ed a Sermon before the Queen at White-hall 9th of A­pril. 93. upon Heb. 9.29. on purpose, Cencerning the Sacrifice and Satisfaction of Christ; and it is publish'd by Her Majesties Special Command, and was put into the Gazette.

All this Honour had his Sermon of Hell above told; of which, we have formerly discours'd at large; and this shall have as fair dealing from me, to be Im­partially and honestly examin'd, without any Flattery.

First therefore, I will shew the most Barbarous, Ab­surd, and Blasphemous Notion he has of the Christian Religion in General.

And then, as to the Doctrine of Satisfaction, that he is Expresly Socinian.

His Notion of the Christian Religion, in these first Four, and this single Sermon express'd, did I confess amaze me, beyond any thing ever I read, except of the same Author: And if no name had been affixed, I should have guess'd no other than Muggleton, it is ex­actly his Size of apprehending the Scriptures, or ra­the ofr a Lucian, or a Julian to mock, and slander Christianity out of the World.

But that you may know whether there be Reason for all this. First, I will shew you, That he makes the Foundation of Christion Religion to be some foolish and wicked Fancies, which got into People's heads, he knows not, and says, no matter, How, and instead of Reforming these, and commanding us to Renounce and Abbor them; which one would have expected; and which Christ did to all other Wickedness; The Dr's Scheme is, That God in Compliance with these, and to indulge Men in these same Wild and wicked Phancies, did send Christ, Took his Life, and Instituted the whole Aeconomy of the Christian Religion.

This appears so Dreadful, and astonishingly Impious, [Page 5]that you must have patience to take it in pieces, and see by what degrees the Dr. arrived at this New pitch of Super-Hobbism.

First, Those Revelations which all the Christian World has hitherto believ'd God gave at the Beginning to Adam, and after to the Patriarchs and Prophets more expresly of the Promised Seed; and those Types and Institutions which God from the Beginning did ap­point as Shadows and sensible Representations of the Expiatory Death of Christ upon the Cross, 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 that of the World's; All these the Dr. thinks to be only Fancies and Imaginations. which came (he knows not how) into Men's Brains.

And that to comply with these was the End of Christ's Incarnation, Death, &c. Whereas, on the Contrary, it has been the Received Opinion, that instead of God's imitating or following the Inventions of Men, or In­spirations of the Devil, That the Institutions of false and Idolatrous Religions, were but Corruptions and I­mitations of the True Religion Instituted by God; and that in this the Devil was but an Ape of God Almighty, whence arose the saying, That where God has a Church, the Devil has a Chappel, (i. e.) That the Devil does Ape and Imitate the Institutions which God has appointed in his Holy Religion. Hence the Devil had his Sacri­fices, his Feasts, his Priests, &c. Not that these Insti­tutions were of the Devil's Invention; He did only i­mitate God's Institution in all these things, as the Feast to his Calves, was in imitation of God's Feast in Ju­dah, (1 Kings 12.32. But this Author turns the Ta­bles, and would have the Devil, or wicked Men, by his Inspiration to have first invented these Religious Rites; And then that God did follow their Steps, and framed his Religion after the Pattern of theirs, or in Condescension to their wicked Phancies or Imaginations, as this Author words it. By which means, instead of the common Opinion, That God was the Author of all Religious Worship, and the Devil the Corrupter of it; This Author would persuade us. That the Devil was the Author and first Inventer of it, and that God came in but at the second hand in imitation of the Devil, and to graft upon his Stock; So that, if the Devil and Fool­ish men had let alone their Inventions, as of the Ne­cessity of Sacrifices, and Vicaricus Suffering, of a Medi­ator, and of Mysteries; we had had no need of a Me­diator, of a Christ to have been a Sacrifice for us, or of any Mystery, or Religion at all: For all these the Dr. tells us, we owe to these Phantastical, and even Diabolical Prejudices, and Gross Conceptions of Mankind. And this was not out of Forgetfulness of what is said above of their Institution by God. No, He mentions it several times, but so slightly and with that Contempt, as if no stress at all were to be laid upon it.

Page 5. of the single Sermon. He says. This Notion of the Expiation of Sin by Sacrifice, whether it had its first Rise from Divine Revelation, and was afterwards propagated from Age to Age by Traditiou [...] I say, from whencesoever this Notion come.—And P. 11. He (God) seems either to have possessed Mankind with this Principle, or to have permitted them to be so persuaded, that Sin was not to be Expiated but by Blood; that is, either by the Death of the Sinner. or of the Sacrifice.

Serm. 4. upon John 1.14. p. 185. It is not easie to give a certain account of the true Original of some Notions and Prejudiees concerning God and Religion, which have ge­nerally obtained in the World. Several of these Notions he mentions in the same place, as Expiation of Sin by Sacrifices; The Necessity of Mediators to God, Rever­ence to Mysteries, &c.

And these Notions (however come by) He does not make to be grounded upon any Truth, any solid Reason, but to be meerly Phantastical, to be common Prejudices of Mankind; Nay to be not only weak and fool [...]sh, but wicked and abominable. Hear his own words, Begin­ning of Sermon 4th. p. 179. He calls these, The Weaknesses and Common Prejudices of Mankind—very weak and gross apprehensions. p. 189. very edd and Phantastical—very Lewd and Impious — very Inhuman and Cruel, and e­very way unworthy of the Deity. p. 206. Inveterate pre­judices. Single Serm. p. 7. Barbarous and Inhuman. p. 29. Enormities and Cruelties. — Ʋnreas [...]nable and Bloody way of Worship. p. 35. Inhumne and Ineffectual way of Sacrificing one another, whereby instead of Expiating their Guilt, they did inflame it; and by thinking to make Atonement for their Sins, they did in truth add to the number and heinousness of them. Serm. 4. p. 186. He calls this Worship the Worship of Devils, and not of God. And Serm. 3. p. 155. He confesses, The Devil and the World to be the two Great Enemies of our Salvation, which Christ came to Conquer and Triumph over.

Now, who would imagine, that the End of Christ's Coming should be to gratify these Enemies of his whom he came to Destroy; To comply and condescend to these; and to indulge these Wild and Diabolical No­tions of Mankind!

But this subtle Doctor has found it out. Serm. 4. p. 179. The Wisdom of God thought fit thus to order things, in Great Condescension to the Weakness, and common Pre­judices of Mankind.—P. 184. For 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 Ezek, where it is said, That God gave them Statutes which were not good p. 187 God seems likewise to have very much suited the D [...]spe [...]sation of the Gos­pel, and the Method of our Salvation by the Incarnation and Sufferings of his Son, to the common Prejudices of Man­kind, especially of the Heathen World — by Gratifying them in some measure, and in a gracious Compliance with our Weakness, by bending and accommodating the way and method of our Salvation to our weak Capacity, and imper­fect Conceptions of things. p. 186. God seems to have had great Consideration of some very weak and gross Appro­hensions of Mankind concerning Religion. p. 206. And he hath in great Goodness and Condescension to our Invete­rate Prejudices concerning these things.—app [...]ared in the end of the World to take away Sin by the Sacrifice of him­self. Single Serm. p. 5. Anether reason of this Lispensa­tion seems to have been a Gracious Condescension and Com­pliance [Page 6]of Almighty God, with a certain apprehension and persuasion which had very early and universally obtained among Mankind, concerning the Expiation of Sin, and ap­peasing the effendid Deity by Sacrifices. p. 6. God was pleased to comply so far with these Notions and Apprehen­sions of theirs, as to make his own Son both a Priest and a Sacrifice. Serm. 4 p. 192. And indeed a great part of the Jewish Religion and Worship was a plain Condescension to the General Apprehensions of Men concerning this way of Appeasing the Deity by Sacrifice. p. 193. And with this General Notion of Mankind, whatever the ground or foundation of it might be, God was pleased so far to comply, as once for all to have a General Atonement made for the Sins of all Mankind, by the Sacrifice of his Only Son. 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.

This Notion of theirs he calls Superstition, to think that there needed any Mediator betwixt God and Man. They indeed mistook the Mediator, and therein was their Superstition and Idelatry: But the Notion was Right and Necessary; and deduc'd to them from Adam. (to whom it was Reveal'd) tho' they knew it not. But if their Notions of a Mediator and Sacrifice for Sin was wicked, Abominable, &c. as this Author says, was it not wicked and abominable to comply with such a wicked and abominable Notion? Nay, were not the very thing of a Mediator, or Sacrifice for Sin, a wicked and abominable thing? How otherwise was the bare Notion of it so wicked and abominable? I see not how he can escape upon this Scheme, either to ju­stifie the Heathen Sacrifices, or Condemn that of Christ. Either to say that there was no need of a Mediator, or to Confess that their Notion of it, which he calls Su­perstition was just and good. But if it was Superstiti­on, is it not Superstition still? If a Mediator in Gene­ral be Superstition, is not this or that Mediator the same Superstition? Is not appointing any Mediator a Superstition? And must it not be Superstition in any to think it necessary? As the Heathens did.

And yet to Comply with this Superstition of theirs, the Dr. maker the end of Christ's coming to be our Me­diator, p. 196. In a Gracious Complyance with this com­mon Apprehension—God was pleas'd to constitute and appoint One in our Nature to be a perpetual Advocate and Intercessor in Heaven for us. Again we know the Socintans are much offended, that there should be any Mystery in our Religion. And for this the Dr. gives the same Reason, (viz.) That it was only to comply with an odd Notion the World had got to have M [...]steries in their Religion, Serm. 4 p. 188. The World was much given to admire Mysteries in Religion, p. 190. Since the W [...]rld had such an Admiration for Mysteri [...]s—God gave them a Mystery inde [...]d. The Mystery of Godliness, God manifest in the Flesh, &c. 1 Tim. 3.16.

Otherwise we needed not have had any Mystery in our Religion, norany Mediator, nor any Expiatory Sacrifice.

Blessed God! This Man makes no more of the My­steries of our Religion than to satisfie Men's 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 satisfie their 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 Crucify'd, only to outdo Raw-Head and Bloody Bones, the Inhumanity of the H [...]athen 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 Rary-Shows? And what an account is it of Religion to say, That God was manifest in the Flesh to satisfie such Childish Curiosity, and because the World was given to admire Mysteries!

They were given likewise to Sacrifice, not only Beasts, but to Sacrifice one Man for another, an Inno­cent Person for the Guilty. But was not this a very wicked and inhuman Custom? Yes. The Dr. confesses it to have been even Diabolical. And yet to comply with this wicked and Diabolical Custom, and in Imita­tion of it, he would have to be the reason why God Sacrific'd Christ, an Innocent Person for the Guilty?

It makes all my Flesh creep, and my Soul to tremble within me, but to repeat such Blasphemous Schemes of Divinity, which makes God to be the Devil's Ape, and to have follow'd his wicked Inventions in the Institu­tion of the Christian Religion.

But on the Contrary Christ himself assures us, That he came to destroy the works of the Devil, not to Com­pound with the Devil, much less to Gratify him, in fol­lowing his wicked Suggestions which he had put into the Minds of Men; and to carry them to greater heights of wickedness than ever the Devil himself could have done, or so much as have imagin'd, viz. Instead of the Sacrifices of Beasts, or of Men (which the Hea­thens practis'd) to sacrifice the S [...]n of God himself.

The Dr. puts this Objection, p. 28. of single Ser­mon. And gives two Answers to it: First, That God did not command his Son to be Sacrific'd, but his Provi­dence permitted the wickedness and violence of Men to put him to Death.—And that this is no mo [...]e a Reslection upon the Providence of God than any Enormities and Cru­elties which by his Permission are daily committed in the World.

1. But if there was no more than God's bare Permissions in the Sacrifice of Christ, as in all other wicked Action, How was his Death a Sacrifice more than the Death of any other Man? You say, that God's Govenant with him for Remission of the Sins of the Penitent was grounded upon his Death, and made with him before his Death; was not this a more than a bare Permission of his Death? How did God make him both a Priest and a Sacrifice, by his Death, as the Dr. says he did, if he concurr'd no otherwise to his Death than by such [Page 7]a bare Permission as he suffers an honest Man to be murder'd by Thieves? But

2. This cannot be called bare Permission. It was a Method of God's own finding out, and Ordering; which exceeded the Inventions of Men and Angels. It is said, Acts 4.28. That God did determine it before to be done. But tho God permits evil, You will not say, That he does determine, or Order it to be done; And God sent his Son for this very end and purpose. This was more than only permitting it.

The Dr. Explains it, p. 32. by this Comparison, Suppose, says he, A Malefactor condemn'd, and the King's Sin to save him—is contented to submit to great Dis­grace, and Sufferings.

But suppose the King's Son prays and begs of his Father with Tears, That he would excuse him from such Suffering, as Christ pray'd to his Father. Mat. 26.39. That that Cup might pass from him?

You would seem to imply as if Christ's Suffering were not voluntary.

No, not all. But that it was not only his Father's bare Permission, but his express will and pleasure that his Son should Suffer. Therefore Christ said, Not mine, but thy will be done, And therefore because it was his Father's Will that he should Suffer, he did voluntarily and resignedly submit to it. But I hope you will make this something more than his Father's bare per­mitting of it.

It is said Isaiah 53.10. That it pleas'd the Lord to bruise him (Christ) and to put him to Grief, and he made Christ's Soul an Offering for Sin. This exceeds a bare Permssion, such as that by which God permits the En­ormities and Cruelties committed in the World, which is all this Author would have meant by it.

His second Answer is, p. 29. That by this means God did at once put an End to that unreasonable and bloody way of Worship, which has been so long practised in the World—And it hath ever since obtained this effect, of making all other Sacrifices to cease, in all Parts of the World where Christianity hath prevailed.

This is only repeating the Objection, instead of answering it, (as if the Sacrifice of Christ (upon this Author's Scheme) were not more unreasonable and bloody than any other Sacrifices used before.

And this being all the Dr. says to the Objection, we must suppose that he still thinks it to be so unreasonable. And it is the more, and not the less so, that it was as he says, p. 22. to comply with an unreasonable Ex­pectation Men had of being sav'd by the Vicari [...]us Suffering of some other in their stead; and that it was to gratifie this unreasonable Expectation of theirs, That Christ did suffer; for, if it was unreasonable for them to expect it, it was unreasonable in Christ to suffer it.

Repeat the Dr's own Words—

We are now upon vindicating Gods Providence for the permission of Evil. that is, starting another que­stion, to divert us from this we are upon, which is, The reason of Gods sending his Son to Expiate the Sins of Men.

‘But this Expectation how unreasonable soever, plain­ly shews it to have been the Common apprehension of Mankind in all Ages that God would not be appeas­ed, nor should Sin be pardoned without Suffering: But yet so that Men generally conceiv'd 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. And very probably, as I said before, in Compliance with this apprehension of Mankind, and in Condescension to it, as well as for other weighty Reasons, best known to the Divine Wisdom, God was pleased to find out such a Sacrifice.’

The Dr. says here, That it is only probable that was the Reason.

Is it probable that God would Sacrifice his Son, in Compliance with an Expectation, How unreasonable soever?

But the Dr. in what I have quoted out of him before does not make any doubt, or perhaps of it; but sets it down as a plain Case. As Serm. 4. p. 192. And in­deed (says he, in a positive Asseveration) A great Part of the Jewish Religion was a PLAIN Condescension to the general Apprehensions of Men concerning this way of ap­peasing God by Sacrifice. And therefore he does not scru­ple Impiously to Blaspheme that Religion which God gave to the Jews, and therein to arraign God its Au­thor. He says, as above Quoted. Serm. 4. p. 184. That the Religion and Laws which God gave them was far from being the B [...]st; Nay, plainly, that they were not good, by applying to them that Text. Ezek. 20.25. or at least approving others Application of it that way, to which end he produces it.

These Laws were not Good, that is, says the Dr. they were very imperfect in Comparison of what he could have given them.

So you may say of the Christian Laws; they are Imperfect in respect to those of Heaven. At this rate, nothing can be good but God. Yet God said of his works, that they were very good. And said so of his Laws which he gave to the Jews out of his own mouth. And sure it is a most presumptuous Blasphemy for any Man to say, that they were not good. They were the same with the Christian Laws, as much as could be before Christ came. They were all Types and Fore­runners of his coming; and therefore they are call'd Rom. 7.14. Spiritual; their meaning was all Spiritual; They are called Heb. [...] 2.16. the Go­spel, and it is said, that the Gospel was first preacht to the Jews, and that Acts 15.11. they were sav'd by the Gospel, as well as we. The preaching of Christ is the Gospel; and he was preached and exhibited in the whole Jewish Aeconomy, as the Seed promised, Gen. 3.15. which things the Angels desire [...] To stoop down with Reverence and admire. 1 Pet. 1.12. They exceeded all Created understand­ings ever to comprehend the full Glory, and Goodness, and Wisdom which is contain'd in them, they far ex­cel the whole material Creation; and the least Mat. Tittle of the Law is preferr'd be­fore [Page 8]Heaven and Earth, 5.18. Luke 16.17. and shall out-last them. And was this Law far from being the best? Could this wise Dr. have found out better? Were these Statutes which were not good, and Judgments whereby Men should not live? Was this the meaning of these words. Ezek. 20.25? Whereas the Reason given in the very same Sentence, v. 24 for God's threatning to give them Statutes which were not good, was as a just Judgment upon them for despising those good Statutes which he had given them. Such Statutes, says God, v. 11. which if a Man do he shall even live in them. Yet this Author would have these to be the Statutes whereby men should not live. This is an Excellent Interpretation! And for the word give, which I suppose must have misled this Author, viz. That God is said to give them these Statutes which were not good, and therefore he has Interpreted these to be the Law which God gave them; 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. As God has threat­ned, Deut. 4.28. That it they would not serve him, He would give them up to Idolatry to serve Gods of Wood and Stone, &c. But to say that the Laws which God gave were far from being the best, that they were not good, is such a bold stroke as stops nothing short of Blasphemy. Whereas to express their exceeding Excel­lency, and that there was no manner of defect or im­perfection in them; They are often compared to Gold purified 7 times in the Fire, till no dross at all was left. They were called Prov. 30.5. Pure and Perfect, and therefore we are commanded neither to add nor diminish, They are called our Deut. 32.47. Life, Rom. 7.2. Holy, and Just, and Good, Psal. 119.96. far exceeding all Perfection; But Dr. Til—t thinks they were nothing but a Complaisance to the Folly and Wickedness of Men. O good God! Was the Glorious Gospel and Salvation by Christ, not only exhited under its Types in the L [...]r, but Tit. 1.2. promised before the World began. Eph. 3.11. Purposed from Eternity, Ps. 119.15 2. Found­ed forever; was the Heb. 13.20. Blood of the Everlasting Testament shed for no other Reasons but to comply with Men's fool­ish Expectations, How unreasonable so­ever!

That such dreadful Blasphemy should ever be heard in a Christian Nation! That it should pass uncensured!

The Dr. says there may be other weighty Reasons, best known to the Divine Wisdom.

This is perfect shirting and putting off. No doubt the Divine Wisdom his many reasons for every thing He does, which we cannot Comprehend. But the Dr. gives no other reason; and 'tis to be supposed he would have given a better, if he had it. Our dis­pute is not what God knows, but what God has Re­vealed. And how this Dr. understands those Revelations, and whether according to the received Doctrine of the Catholick Church, particularly as it is professed in the Church of England, in that Great and Fundamental Point of the Satisfaction of Christ, wherein if what is said be not sufficient. I will further shew you, that he is altogether a Socinian, even in this Sermon which he has published to blind the Eyes of the World, and free himself from that Imputation.

First, He absolutely and avowedly cuts 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 o [...] the Reasons of Christ's Dying for us; Not (says the Dr. in this Sermon, p. 11.) That God could not have pardoned sin without Satisfaction made to his Ju­stice, either by the suffering of the sinner himself, or if a Sacrifice in his stead. p. 26. God did not want Goodness to have forgiven sin freely, and without any satisfaction.

Why? Will you say that God did want so much Goodness?

By Goodness here you mean Mercy; and we know it is the proper effect of Mercy to forgive; and God's Mercy is Infinite; and so is his Justice, they do not Thwart or Contradict one another, but they Exalt and Magnify one another.

Now the Dr. would put a Sophism upon us. To bid us deny that Goodness, or Mercy will forgive; Or to say that God is stinted in his Mercy or Goodness. But we will say, That Justice cannot be satisfied, without full Payment made; and that God is not crippled or stinted in his Justice more than in his Mercy: for He is Justice it self, and therefore what is necessary to the Nature of Justice, must be so to His Nature, for they are the same. In your Sense, Gods Atributes fight with one another, and one must overcome the other.

But, as we explain it, They all stand Full and Infi­nite, and no one Encroaches upon the other: but they Rejoice and Exalt together, and one Extols and Glorifies the other.

That Gods Justice is magnified in Requiring full sa­tisfaction, His Wisdom in Finding it; and his Mercy or Goodness in Giving that Satisfaction for us.

Now I appeal to your self whether this be not more Rational, than to make the End of all the Glorious Dis­pensation of the Gospel to be nothing else than a Com­pliance with a parcel of unreasonable; and even wicked and Diabolical Fancies which had possess'd Men's Minds, no matter how: Especially considering that the Author and Preacher of this Glorious Conceit, Serm. 4. p. 180. confesses, That notwithstanding of all that he can say in favour of this Brat of his own Brain, It may still seem strange to a Considering Man, that God, who, without all this Circumstance and Condescension, could have done the Business for which his Son came into the World—should yet make choice of this way for the Redemption and Recovery of fallen Man. That is to say, That God should Sacrifice his own Son for nothing, to no purpose in the World, when all that his Son came for, might have been as well done without it. And this indeed must eternally seem strange to any Man of common sense.

But the Doctor defends himself in the words just following, (viz.) I make no manner of doubt to say that it would be a great presumption and boldness in any Man, to affirm that the infinite Wisdom of God could not have brought about the Salvation of Men by any other way, than by this very way in which he hath done it.

This is the Doctor's usual Topick (which I ob­serv'd to you in our last Conversation concerning his Sermon of Hell) when Reason fails him to fly to God's Omnipotence, and dare us to say that God cannot do this or that; and therefore that what the Dr. says, may be true, for who dare say that God cannot make it true?

But after all, will you say that God could not have sav'd Man any other way than by the Sacrifice of Christ.

To avoid that Irreverent manner of Expression, of saving God cannot— I say that, from the very nature of Justice, which is God, there was a necessity for a full and adequate Satisfaction to be made for sin.

Whether any other Satisfaction could have been found besides the Sacrifice of Christ? is another que­stion. And not to enter into the Depths of God, I will give you these Reasons why no other way was pos­sible by any Argument or Thought imaginable to us. Because the Person must be Infinite, who could pay an Infinite Debt, (for such is Sin, being an offence against Infinite Goodness) and likewise must be Man, that the same Nature which offended, should make the Satis­faction. And therefore that Christ took upon him the Nature of Man, and not the Person of any Man; that he might make Satisfaction for Mankind, and not on­ly for any particular Person. Hence he took all our Natural, but none of our Personal Infirmities. He was subject to Sleep, Weariness, Grief, Pain, and even Death, all which are incident to our Nature: But not to Sickness, Blindness, Lameness, or any Personal in­firmities. Since therefore it was necessary that our Redeemer must be God-Man, I think it will follow that it could be none other but Christ.

Again, I think this Question is decided Matth. 26.39. where Christ prays, That if it were possible that Cup might pass from him. Which shews that it was not possible for him to accomplish the Redemption of Man which he had undertaken; without suffering death, Otherwise, no doubt, God wou'd not have refused the Petition of his Well beloved Son. And it is no impeach­ment of the Wisdom of God, to say, there was no other way possible. But, on the contrary, it is carrying the notion of Wisdom to the utmost height, that when there was but one possible way, Wisdom should find it out.

And the Dr. himself stumbles upon this unawares: it is hard to be constant in Error, which is it self all unconstancy. p. 10 of single Serm. he said, That nothing less than the perfect Innocency and Holiness of him who was to be a Sacrifice for us, could have explated the guilt of our sins, and purchas'd eternal Redemption for us. Se­condly, Great Sufferings likewise in our nature, even to the suffering of Death were requisit to the perfect expia­tion of Sin; I say even to the suffering of Death.

These are the Doctor's words. From whence I ar­gue, That none had perfect Innocency and Holiness but God, and therefore that none but He COƲLD have Explated the Guilt of our Sins.

Secondly, The Sufferings, for Explating the Guilt of our Sins, must be in our Nature, therefore the Expia­tor must be likewise Man.

Thirdly, These Sufferings must be even unto Death. From all which it follows, that none cou'd be this Ex­piator but Christ God and Man, and that he must Suffer even unto Death.

If all which be true, then I desire the Dr. to answer his own Objection, and tell us how it was possible for the Redemption of Man to have been effected any other way?

I would recommend to him his own Advice upon this very matter. Serm. 4th p. 181. which he says he follows, All along, to take the express Declarations, or at least, the pregnant Intimations of Scripture, for his Ground and Guide: it being always safest to take the Reasons of the Divine Counsels and Actions from God himself.

Now we wou'd gladly know (for he has no where told us) in what place of Scripture it is reveal'd, that God's sending his Son and all the Aeconomy of the Gospel was to Gratifie and Indulge the Senseless and Wicked Prejudices, which Men had pick'd up concern­ing Religion. For that is the account the Dr. gives us of his Faith. And it is more Monstrous by far than any ever I heard set up, even by the Socinians themselves.

Yet the Dr. does not forsake them, tho' he thus ad­vances sometimes in stretches beyond them. For single Serm. p: 21. He sets up in express terms, the account the Socinians give of the Remission of Sins by Christ, viz. That it was not upon account of any Sa­tisfaction made by Christ for our sins; but only an Ar­bitrary Covenant, they cannot tell why, which God made with Christ, that if he wou'd be Crucified, God wou'd remit the sins of the Penitent. And that there was no need nor necessity for this Covenant, because God might have remitted sins, as well without this Covenant; or upon any other Covenant, the turning of a Straw, or what you will; or upon no Covenant at all. So that this Covenant with Christ, was wholly Causeless, Needless and Arbitrary.

The same Socinian Covenant this Author sets up in the page above quoted, where he says, That upon the Sufferings of Christ, God thereupon entered into a Cove­nant of Grace and Mercy with Mankind, wherein he en­gag'd himself to forgive the sins of these who Believe and Repent.

Thus this Author holds with the Socinians by exclu­ding the Satisfaction from being any part of the Cove­nant or consider'd at all in it.

You wou'd make one think it strange how the Dr. came to Preach and Publish such a Sermon as this with a design against the Socinians.

It was really to do them service; And reconcile Men more to their principles, by lessening the Diffe­rences which are conceiv'd betwixt them and us, (a [Page 10]Topick much in practice with the Jesuits in their Di­sputes with the Protestants, as Mahomet went to the Mountain which wou'd not come to him) which he makes so small as to consist in nothing but words. p. 32. to signifie just nothing. p. 31. For an account of this you will find pp. 16. 31. and 32. He sums up the difference 'twixt the Socinians and us, as to the Do­ctrine of Satisfaction, to consist only in this, That the Socinians say Christ suffered for us, or for our Sake; whereas others wou'd have it understood that Christ suffered for us, that is, in our stead. Which the Dr. proves, p. 32. to be a meer Controversie about words. And so the matter is shortly reconcil'd, which has so much taken up the Christian Church. And that very undeservedly and uncharitably, if the difference be no more than this Author wou'd have us believe: Out of Friendship to which Party is easie to discover; for he has turn'd the Doctrine of Satisfaction, which is the whole of this Controversie, to be no part of the Con­troversie; and indeed without it all the rest is a Contest about words, and he wou'd make you believe, that there is more betwixt the Socinians and Ʋs, than, whe­ther Christ died for our Sake, or, in our Stead, which, he says, are the same.

Having thus cleverly brought off his belov'd Socinians, Witness the sweet and gentle Epithets of Brutal, False, Nonsence, &c. which in one page of the History of the Ʋnitarians (p. 24.) are bestow'd on us. That our Faith is absurd, and contrary both to Reason, and to it self: Impossible, in­excusable, and that not to disern it is not to be a Man. Ibid. Besides many other the like Endearing Com­plements, in other places. As Impudent, Blasphemous, and even Diabolical, and Idolatrous; Polytheisme, Depths of Satan: Thus they call the Christian Doctrine which we pro­fess. he no longer conceals his Dear and In­timate Affection to them. He prefers them before all sorts of Men in the World, and says, 2 Serm. p. 72. That even the Pro­testant, the Popish, nay, the very Jesuits them­selves, are in Comparison of them, but meer Scolds and Bunglers. And p. 70, 71. He says, To do right to the Writers on that side ( The Socinians) I must own generally they are a Pattern of the fair way of Di­sputing, and of Depating matters of Religion, with­out Heat and unseemly Reflections upon their. Ad­versaries.

They generally argue matters with that Temper and Gravity; 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 Sub­tilty enough, with a very gentle Heat; and few hard words.

A Man could hardly describe his Mistress in a softer Air. The Socinians must be very ill natur'd if they take any thing amiss which this Gentleman has said against them. It was meer 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 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 Dr. has told us that there is no­thing betwixt them and us, but a meer Controversie about words, which all mean the same thing. And then, that they are the best Temper'd, the Goodest sort of People in all the World. So that we need not be afraid of them, nor stand upon our guard against them. And then they are the most Ingenious, and the Sweetest Men, that we should love to Converse with them, and Read their Writings; all the Christian writers are but Scolds and Bunglers to them.

This is our Author's Method of opposing Socinanism, nor are they behind him in their Civility and due Re­spect, in the Answer they have Publish'd this year 1694. to his abovesaid four Sermons, with other Discourses against them. He (say they, that is, Dr. Tid. whom they call Arch Bishop of Cant.) is the Common Father of the Nation, Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Tri­nity. Occasion'd by four Sermons Preach­ed by his Crace the Lord Arch Bishop of Cant, &c. p. 43.) and has Instructed the Socinians themselves, with the Air and Language of a Fa­ther, not of an Adversary, or a Judge— He is Respected and Lov'd by All, but those that are also known to Hate their Country; He hath no other Maligners, but the Enemies of the Nation it self, &c.

CLAW ME AND I'LL CLAW YOU— Here is Love and good Correspondence in abnudance These Gentlemen know their Friends; And the Cause of Chri­stianity is like to be well Defended, when it is maintain'd by some of a Party, on purpose that it may be soundly an-swer'd by others of them, who play Booty to one anothers Hands. And commend and recommend one another to all Mens Esteem and Veneration.

But that this may not be discover'd, they Argree sometimes, like Counsels at the Bar, to fall foul upon one another, even to Scold, and call Names: which, to the wise Observers, serves only to expose either their Contradictory Banter, or otherwise their Hypocri­tical Malice, and Deceit.

Thus notwithstanding of Dr. T's Honey Words, above told, and all his Love-fits, to the Socinians, he sends them a Bit and a Blow. Amantium Ira— He plays with his Clog.

First, I will give you his Character of Secinus himself, the Head and Founder of that Order, and then of the Socinians his followers.

1st Serm. p. 17. 18. He tells the method of Socin­us in Interpreting Scriptures, which was, meerly by Criticising upon words, and searching into all the Senses they are possibly capable of, till he can find one, tho' never so forc'd and forreign, that will save harmless the Opinion, which he was before hand res [...]lved to main­tain, even against the most Natural and Obvious Sense [Page 11]of the Text which he undertakes to Interpret. p. 44. That he puts quite another Sense upon the Scripture, than the Dr. believes, was thought of by any Christian Writer whatsoever before Socinus, p 45. He accuses the Novelty— great Violence and Ʋnreasonableness, and utter Inconsistency of Socinus's Interpretations of Scripture. And, that it may not be forgot, he re­peats all this again, 2 Serm. p. 57. and in p. 58. he calls Socinus's Interpretations Strain'd and Violent— Pitiful and wretched shifts— Precarious and Arbi­trary— without either Reason or Modesty (p. 68.) And as to the Novelty of it, Socinus himself makes no difficulty to own it, nay, he seems rather to rejoyce and Applaud himself in it. Ʋnhappy Man! That was so wedded to his own Opinion, that no Objection, no Diffi­culty could divorce him from it. (p. 77.) Socinus— Imposing a new and very odd and violent Sense— Con­trary to the Sense of the Christian Church in all Ages down to this time— And all this only to serve and sup­port an Opinion which he had entertain'd before, and therefore was resolv'd one way or other to bring the Scripture to comply with it. And if he cou'd not have done it, it is greatly to be fear'd, that he wou'd at last have call'd in question the Divine Authority of S. John's Gospel, rather than have quitted his Opinion.

And to speak freely, I must needs say, that it seems to me a much fairer way to reject the Divine Authority of a Book. than to use it so Disingeniously, and to wrest the plain Expressions of it, with so wuch strain­ing and violence from their most Natural and Obvious Sense: for no Doctrine whatsoever can have any certain foundation in any Book, if this Liberty be once admitted, without regard to the plain Scope and Occasion of it, to play upon the Words, and Phrases. p. 80. Socinus by a dangerous Liberty of imposing a forreign and forc'd Sense upon particular Texts (has) brought the whole (H. Scriptures) into uncertainty. p. 82.— Any one that reads him may see he was sufficiently conscious to him­self (of the Novelty and Boldness of his Interpretation) p. 83. Socinus was the first Author of this Interpreta­tion, because it was impossible he could ever have been so fond of so ill favour'd a Child, if it had not been his own. p. 114 Of which (Antiquity) as Socinus had but little Knowledge, so he seems to have made but little account.

This is our Author's Character of Socinus, a Man of no Learning, despising Antiquity, because Ignorant of it. Arrogant and Conceited, past all Modesty, Boasting that none in the World understood the true meaning of Scripture before himself. Of which the Dr. gives se­veral Quotations out of his own words. 2 Serm. p. 69. Yet that his Shifts were Pitiful and Wretched, Strain'd and Violent, Precarious and Arbitrary, with­out either Reason or Modesty; That he was so positive an Opiniator, that he wou'd rather have deny'd the H [...]ly Scripture. than been convinc'd of his Error; that he dealt so Disingeniously with the Holy Scripture, wresting the plain Expressions of it in such a manner, that the Dr, thought it preferrable to reject their Di­vine Authority, rather than to abuse them as he has done: Nay, that no Writing whatsoever can have any certain meaning, if Socinus's Liberty be allow'd of playing with the VVords and Phrases.

Thus much for Socinus himself. Let us now see whether this Author gives a more favourable Chara­cter of his Disciples, to make good the High Eulo­giums above told? Serm. 2. p. 69. speaking of Schlictingius, one of the first Form in his School our Author says, he carry'd himself with more Confidence, but much less Decency than his Master; That he spoke so Extravagantly, and with so much Contempt of these Great and Venerable Names, who were the chief Propagators of Christianity in the World, and to whom all Ages do so justly pay a Reverence, That (he said) those Ancient Interpreters went so far from the Apostles meaning, as if they had Rav'd and been out of their Wits.

And the Dr. says in general of the Socinians Serm. 1st p. 39. That their Interpretations of the Holy Scrip­tures were strange and extravagant. (p. 44.) did con­tradict not only the Ancient Fathers, but the General Consent of all Christians for 1500 years together. p. 61. That they avoid the plain and necessary Consequence of Holy Scriptures by strain'd and forc'd Arts of Interpre­trtion. p. 62. Than which nothing can be more unnatural and violent. p. 65. Which I dare say no Indifferent Rea­der of St. John, that had not been preposess'd and byas'd by some violent prejudice would ever have thought of. p. 75. The plainest Text for any Article of Faith, how Fundamental and Necessary s [...]ever, may, by the same Arts and ways of Interpretation, be cluded and rendered utterly ineffectual for the establishing of it. p. 92. 93. This is so Arbitrary and Precarious a supposition, that I must confess my self a little out of Countenance for them, that Men of so much Wit and Reason should ever be put to so sorry and pitiful a Shift. p. 96. This is so Inartificial, not to say Absurd a way of avoiding a Diffi­culty— that no Man of common Ingenuity would make use of it. p. 99. A Sense so very flat, that I can hardly abstain from calling it Ridiculous. p. 113. We may plainly see by this, That they can Interpret a Text right when necessity forceth them to it, and they cannot, with­out great Inconveniency to their Cause, avoid it: But when Men have once resolv'd to hold fast an Opinion they have taken up, it then becomes, not only Convenient but Necessary to understand nothing that makes against it: And this is truly the present Case: But in the mean time, where is Ingenuity and love of Truth? p. 115. They Triumph without Modesty, and without Mea­sure. p. 125. Do they see no Absurdity in all this? Nothing that is contrary to Reason and Good Sense? Nothing that feels like Inconsistency and Contradiction? p. 129. Which way (the Socinians way) of dealing with them (the Holy Scriptures) seems to be really more Con­tumelious to those Holy Oracles, than the down-right rejecting of their Authority. And single Serm. p. 18. He that can deny this (the Doctor's Argument against the Socinians) is perverse to the highest degree, and I fear beyond the possibility of being Convicted. p. 20. Men may generally wrangle about any thing, but what a fri­volous Contention, what a Trifling in serious matter, [Page 12]what Barretry in Divinity is this? p. 30. So little do Men in the heat of Dispute and Opposition, who are re­solv'd to hold fast an Opinion in despight of Reason and Good Sense, consider that they do many times in effect, and by necessary Consequence, grant the very thing in ex­press terms, they do so stifly and pertinaciously deny. p. 32. And this for no other reason, that I can imagine, but because they have deny'd it so often; and so long.

These so different Characters which the Dr. gives of Socinus, and the Socinians, may be Reconciled, by saying, as I suppose the Dr. means, that this later Evil Character belongs to them, only in this present Controversy of the Trinity, the Divinity and Satisfacti­on of Christ. But that the former High and most Ex­traordinarly Excellent Character is due to them, in other matters of Religion, as against the Church of Rome; which the Dr. seems to intend, 2. Serm. p. 79. where he says. That the Socinian Writers have mana­ged the Cause of the Reformation against the Innova­tions and Corruptions of the Church of Rome, both in Doctrine and Practise, with great acuteness and advan­tage.

And yet in the very next words. he says, That the Socinians have put into their (the Papists) hands better and sharper Weapons than ever they had before for the weakening and undermining of the Authority of the Holy Scriptures. And p. 129. That nothing hath given a greater force to the Exceptions of the Church of Rome against the Holy Scriptures, being a sufficient and certain Rule of Faith, than the uncertainty into which they ( the Socinians) have brought the plainest Texts ima­ginable for the Establishing of Doctrines of the greatest Moment in the Christian Religion, by their Remote and Wrested Interpretations of them. And p. 124. That to avoid the shaddow and appearance of a Plurality of Deities, they ran readily into it. And into downright Idolatry.

Now how invalidating the Holy Scriptures, and in­troducing Idolatry is managing the Cause of the Refor­mation, with Accuteness and Advantage against the Church of Rome, I leave to the Worthy Dr. to Ex­plain. And likewise how Men can deserve such extra­vagant Commendations for Wit, and Modesty; and all Discretion and Temper in one point of Controversy; and in another to be quite void of all these, to fall in­to all Ridiculous Absurdities and Contradictions, and to manage either without Reason or Modesty; to be so Wedded to their own Opinion, as rather to Renounce the Holy Scriptures than endure to be convinced by them, in their most foolish and groundless Errors, taken up against the whole Christian World since the days of Christ.

Modesty and Sweetness in a-Mans Temper, will shew it self in all his Actions. And a strong Reason cannot overlook a Contradiction in one case more than another, at least not to be obstinately so Wedded to it, as to be deaf to all Conviction.

But we have spent too much time upon this Au­thor's Character of these Socinians; which is not ma­terial, otherwise, than to shew his own Unconstancy, and Inconsistency with himself; How unwillingly he is brought to appear against them; And what Salvoes and Shifts he makes use of to make them understand him, That he might not lose their Favour.

God grant Him and Them true Conviction, and Save Unstable Souls from their Snares.