—oo»»ͤ—— —————

1. N DdE NX.

BronnT Mr. Charler-His notes on Pbhiloſtralus's aceount of the

life of Apollonius Danæus, I. 37. 38. His Religio Laici copied, for the moſt part, from Lord Herbert, ib. 38. He was one of the chief authors of the Oracles f Reaſon, ib. His argument againſt the worſhip of God through a Mediator conſidered, 16. 39, 40. He acknowlegeth Deiſm not to be ſafe without Chriſ- tianity, 25. 40.

BoLrNoBROKE Lord Viſcount— His Letters on tbe Stuay and Iſe of

Hiſzory, II. 265, et ſg. His Poſfibumous Mords, I. 371, S z. He raiſeth himſelf above all other writers ancient or modern, 79. 373. His invectives againſt the holy Scriptures, ib. 375, 376. Againſt the ancient philoſophers, 5. 377, Ge. And eſpecially againſt ancient and modern Chriltian writers, i5. 378, c. Charges thoſe that differ from him with madneſs, 75. 381, 382. The main principles of his ſcheme repreſented, ib. 382, 383. He treats thoſe as profane who talk of imitating God in his moral attri- butes, 16. 390, 391. Offers ſeveral objections againſt aſcribing moral attributes to the Deity, 165. 397, Gc. Yet in effect acknow- legeth thoſe attributes, i6. 404, Gc. He denies that God's end in making man was to communicate happineſs to him, 15. 402. Profeſſes to own a general Providence with regard to collective bodies; but denies a Providence, as extending to individuals, 15. 410. The inconſiſtency of his ſcheme ſhewn, and its ill con- ſequences to mankind, 15. 417, Sc. He acknowleges the great antiquity and uſefulneſs of the doctrine concerning the immor- tality of the ſoul, and a future ſtate, II. 2. Pretends neither to affirm nor deny it, z5. 3. XYet treats it as a fiction, 1⁵. 4, 5- Will not allow that the ſoul is an immaterial ſubſtance diſtinct from the body, 75. 5§. Attempts to deſtroy the moral argument for a future ſtate from the preſent unequal diſtributions of Divine Pro- vidence, 15. 15, c. Sets up as an advocate for Providence, 75. — His great inconſiſtency in this ſhewn, ib. 17. He ſpeaks with contempt of thoſe that have written of the law of nature before nim, 15. 25. Afſerts the univerſal clearneſs of that law to all man- Kind, and that no man can miſtake it, 75. 27. Yet pwns that it is often miſtaken, and affords a dubious light, i6. 3 2. Makes poly gamy to be a precept of the law of nature, 15. 36. His loofe way of talking about marriage, ib. 37. Suppoſes modeſty and chaſtity to have no foundation in nature, but to be owing to hu- man vanity, 16. The pernicious tendency of his ſcheme, with reſpect to morals, i5. 41, Gc. He denies that mankind have any need of extraordinary ſupernatural revelation, and endeavours to anſwer Dr. Clarke's arguments for it, i5. 45,&c. Vet his own ſcheme, contrary to his intention, tendeth to ſhew the ufefulneſs and neceſſity of revelation, 15. 69. His attempts to diſprove the. truth and authenticity of the Mlaic hiſtory, ib. 74, et g. His charge againſt the Scriptures, particularly the Moſaic writings, for degrading the Deity to mean and unworthy offices and em- ployments, 5, 112, Sc. And for aſcribing to God human parts