are attended to, every Body will be ready to contemn, inftead of Hearing it out.

1. HE makes Sacrifices the Invention of the Priefts in Egypt, yet owns the firft Sacrifices were offer'd, as they certainly were, by Fathers and Heads of Families, who have the chief Care of the Profperity of thofe under them. We may, observe by the Way, a very good Reafon from? the Origin of Things, why Sovereigns fucceeding, to the Paternal Government fhould copy that Pattern, be the Head of the Church, and have theSupreme Care and Controul in Religion. And if the Acceptableness of the Sacrifice confifts, as he fays in the Dearness and Value of it to the Owner or Offerer, how came Heads of Families to be willing to part with their best Things in order to recommend themselves to Heaven, if there was not a previous Signification and Command from thence for Sacrifice of fome kind, and then the Choice of the best of that kind followed of itself? I have fhewn in the preceding Book, how very improbable, nay morally impoffible it is that Sacrifice fhould be an human Inftitution. But if the Acceptableness is to be derived from a Submiffion to Divine Autho rity, as an Acknowledgment of the Right of commanding, and the Duty of obeying, this makes it of Divine Inftitution, and brings Reve lation along with it; for how can a Divine Command be known without Revelation? Or if the, atoning, reconciling Virtue muft arife as he fuggefts partly from the Command of God, partly from the Value and Dearness of the Thing to the Owner, what can more enhanfe the Excellency of the Sacrifice of Chrift?

2. HE fufficiently accufes the Priefts and Cler gy of understanding their own Intereft; whilft he deposes against them," That they made them"felves the only authorized Mediators between "the People and God" but is it not ftrange how it should ever come into their Heads, to part: with that beneficial Office; or to forge a Revelation that takes it out of their Hands, and fets up Christ alone in that Office and Dignity? Or how came the Proteftant Part of them, to refign an opulent flourishing Dominion over Confcience for the Sake of Truth, and comparative Po verty, and, by an uncontrouled Licence of the Age, of being vilified and run down in the open Market-Place, in Print, notwithstanding. Are thefe Accufations or Encomiums?ca

"

3. He fays without one Word of Proof, the Jews revolted fo-much to Idolatry because of the Expence of the public Worship, and the great Gains the Clergy got by it: But the Record infinuates quite another Reafon, and that was the Gratification of their lafcivious Appetites religioufly pamper'd in the Idolatrous Worship of their Neighbours.

4. THOUGH the Law of Mofes admitted no Pardon of Sin, as pertaining to Confcience in their Sacrifices, but only of Sins and Tranf greffions of the Law of their Conftitution; is it not a polite Demand, and a pleafant Kind of Challenge to any of the Clergy t, (as if any. would be fo ill at Leifure as to humour him in fuch a whimsical Propofal) to prove and make out

* Page 2434

+ Page 127.

from

from the Jewish Accounts of Sacrifice, that the Life of the Sacrifice was vicarious for the Offender; whether they were in Poffeffion of fuch an Opinion in Virtue of thofe Statutes and Ordinances, or whether it did not derive from more ancient Time; when he has over and over des clared the Jewish Sacrifices to be all Cheat, learnt in, and brought with them out of Egypt; to what purpose is it to appeal to an arrant Impofture for finding out Truth? He scan never be concluded by Evidence he has already cashier'd, and excepted againft. Befides, he has another Evafion ready, if he fhould be pinch'd at any Time with refpect to any Inftitution, or pofitive of Revelation, viz. that the Thing is interpolated. For he in effect affirms, whatever is not moral therein is interpolated*.

915. He reprefents Christianity as a political Faction among the Jews, that Chrift as the Saviour of the World, was the Gofpel of St. Paul only, and not the Gofpel of Peter, James, and Fabnt, who confin'd Salvation to the Jews only, ar Profelytes to them: Yet St. John declares openly in the Face of this Author, whoever be lieveth in him fhall not perish, but have everlafting Life 1 and that he is the Propitiation not for our Sins only, but alfo for the Sins of the whole World; and St. Peter pronounces God to be no Refpecter of Perfons, but in every Nation, he that feareth him and worketh Righteousness, is accepted of him §. That there is none other Name, under Heaven given among Men whereby we must be faved. Which Salva

tion and eternal Life this Author with amazing -Affurance and Uncharitablenefs confines to the Jews only, as if the Meffiah was Jefus and Chrift, Saviour and Deliverer to them exclufively, and in no other Senfe, but as Reftorer of the Kingdom to Ifrael, and to the Houfe of David *.

BUT not to tire the Reader with Inconfiftencies and falfe Reasoning upon this Head, I proceed to the⠀⠀

II. HIS Second Impeachment against common Christianity. This refpects the pofitives or inftituted Parts, as Means to an End. The End we are both happily agreed in, viz. moral Righte oufnefs. But he traduces and excommunicates the Chriftian Means Baptifm and the Lord's Supper (he ought to have included Worship of God through the Mediator, inasmuch as the other are the Initiation into, and continual Suftenance of this) upon two Accounts. 1. Becaufe of the great Difcord of Opinion among Chriftians with refpect to them. 2. Because they are not congemerate in his Language (I fuppofe he means congruous) Means to that End.

1. THEY are not to be endured, because there is fuch a vaft diverfity of Opinion conterning them. This he repeats with Satisfaction at the Beginning of his Book, and with triumph at the End of it. He argues the chief Ground for rejecting the peculiar, nay, the moft important and concerning Doctrines of Revela tion, is the Variety and Contrariety of Sentiments about them; that confequently none of

Page 349

the

1

the Doctrines of Revelation [as diftinguished from Deifm] can be fundamental or neceffary *. Again, to this Day there are not any two Sects, or Parties, who can agree about any one Syftem, or Scheme, of what they call pofitive inftituted Religion." I challenge all or any of them to name me any one fingle Point of Infpiration, or mere Revelation, in which they are agreed, or which they do not differently understand "and interpret as much as any two different

and contrary Doctrines in the World +." But if this is a good Argument, it proves too much, and confequently nothing at all, at leaft peculiarly against the pofitive Parts of Chriftianity. If they are to be condemned merely upon this Account, the like Diverfity of Opinion will rife up in Judgment against his own dear Religion, the Religion of Nature. Have there not actually been as many (perhaps more, two hundred and eighty are reckon'd up) Divifions and Subdivifions of Opinion concerning the Summum Bonum among Philofophers, as there are Divifions among Chriftians. Is there therefore no Truth, nothing fundamental or neceffary neither in the End, nor the Means? They both adminifter to different Opinions (though not equally different) and both are occafion'd one and the fame Way; by either adding to, or leaving out more or lefs Ideas than really belong to it; or perhaps for want of that eafy Obfervation of the Religion of the End, and the Religion of the Means, which heals the Breaches, recovers Mifunderstandings, and makes a perfect Reconciliation. Is the Fault in the Revelation, or the Readers, in their Judg ment or their Paffions, their Capacity for found

* Page 15, 16, 17.

+ Page 442, 443. Knowledge,