— 1 7 1 1 1 CHARLES H. SMITH. A Of the PRINeIPAL DEISTICAL WRITERS THAT HAVE Appeared in EVGLANVD in the Laſt and Preſent CæNruRVY; WIT H OBSERVATIONsS upon them, AND 90O M E AccouNT of the ANswERs that have been publiſhed againſt them. In ſeveral LETTERS to a FRIEND. VOL. I. TüE FIFETH EDITION. By JOoHN LELAND, D. D. LONDO N-. Printed by W. RicHARDsoO and S. CLARK, For R. and J. DopsLEV in Pall-Mall, and T. LoxGMaN in Pater-noſter-Row. M DCC LXVI. 1 9 12 1 4 6 3 9 E 1 W — 5 — — — 8— 5 — O ₰ —2 TeH E 1O man that is not utterly unacquainted 3 with the ſtate of things among us can be ignorant, that in the laſt, and eſpe- cially in the preſent age, there have been many books publiſhed, the manifeſt deſign of which was, to ſet aſide revealed religion. Never in any country where Chriſtianity is pro- feſſed, were there ſuch repeated attempts to ſub- vert its divine authority, carried on ſometimes under various diſguiſes, and at other times with- out any diſguiſe at all. The moſt noted writers on that ſide, have been at liberty to produce their ſtrongeſt objections; theſe objections have been retailed by others: and many ſeem to take it for granted, that Chriſtianity hath received very ſen- ſible wounds by the ſeveral attacks that have been made upon it, and that they have greatly hurt its credit, and weakened its authority. Vor. I. 2 But ii PREEACE. But whoſoever will be at the pains impartially to examine thoſe of the Deiſtical Writers that have hitherto appeared among us, and to compare them with the anſwers which have been made to them, will find, that upon a nearer view they are far from being ſo formidable as ſome have been apt to ap- prehend. And ſince there are few that have leiſure or patience for a particular enquiry into the ſeveral writings which have a ppeared in this controverſy; ſome judicious perſons, who wiſh well tothe intereſt of our common Chriſtianity, have been of opinion, that it might be of real ſervice to give a ſummary view of the moſt noted books that have been pub- liſhed againſt revealed religion for above a century paſt, together with proper obſervations upon them. From ſuch a view, the reader might be enabled to form ſome notion of the ſeveral turns this contro- verſy hath taken, how often the enemies of re- vealed religion have thought proper to change their methods of attack, the different diſguiſes and appearances they have put on, and the ſeveral ſchemes they have formed, all directed to one main end, uiz. to ſet aſide revelation, and to ſub- ſtitute mere natural religion, or, which ſeems to have been the intention of ſome of them, no reli- gion at all in its room. Upon ſuch a compariſon between thoſe that have attacked Chriſtianity, and thoſe that have written in defence ofit, it would appear, that if it be really true, that deiſin and infidelity have made a great progreſs among us, it muſt have been owing to ſomething elſe than the force of reaſon and argument; that the Chriſtian religion is in no danger from a free and impartial enquiry; and that the moſt plauſible objections PR EFEACE üij objections which have been brought againſt it, though advanced with great confidence, and fre- quently repeated, have been fairly and ſolidly con- futed. Such a view would make it manifeſt, that the enemies of Chriſtianity have not generally be- haved as became fair adverſaries, but have rather acted, as if they judged any arts lawful by which they thought they might gain their cauſe. And yet notwithſtanding their utmoſt efforts for above a century paſt, they have really been able to ſay but little againſt the Chriſtian religion, conſidered in its original purity, as delivered by Chriſt and his apoſtles, or to invalidate the ſolid evidences by which it is atteſted and confirmed. For theſe reaſons it hath been judged, that a ſhort and comprehenſive view of the principal Deiſtical Writers of the laſt and preſent age, might be of great uſe. And as the courſe of my ſtudies hath led me to be converſant in ſeveral of thoſe writings which have been publiſhed on both ſides in this important controverſy, it was urged upon me, by ſome perſons for whom I have a great regard, to undertake this work. There was one great ob- jection which hindered me for ſome time from at- tempting it, and which ſtill appeareth to me to be of no ſmall weight, and that is, that as according to the plan that was formed, it would be neceſſary to give an account of the anſwers publiſhed to the books I fhould have occaſion to mention, this would oblige me to take notice of ſome of my own. I am ſenfible how difficult it is for an au- thor to ſpeak of his own performances in fuch a manner as not to intrench upon the rules of de- cency. If he gives a favourable character of them, 4 2 this iv PREFETA CGCE. this will be intrepreted as a proof of his vanity, any appearance of Which is uſually turned to his diſadvantage. And on the other hand, if he ſhould make no mention of his own books at all, where the nature of the deſign in which he is engaged makes it proper for him to mention them, this might perhaps be cenſured as a falſe and affected modeſty. It is no caſy matter to keep clear of theſe extremes, and for this reaſon it would have been a particular pleaſure to me to have ſeen this work undertaken by another hand; but as this hath not been done, I have choſen rather to at- tempt it myſelf, than that a work, which I cannot but think might be of real ſervice, ſnould be neg- lected. It cannot be expected, that a diſtincét no- tice ſhould be taken of all the writers that have ap- peared among us againſt revealed religion for this century paſt. This, if it could be executed, would take too large a compaſs, and be of no great uſe. A view of the principal of them, or, at leaſt, of thoſe, who have made the greateſt noiſe, may be ſufficient. And the deſign is not to give an hiſtorical account of the authors, or of their perſonal characters, but to give ſome idea of their writings, which alone we have properly to do with. The method propoſed, and for the moſt part urſued, is this: The ſeveral writers are mentioned in the order oftime in which they appeared. Some account is given of their writings, and of the ſe- veral ſchemes they! have advans ecd, as far as the cauſe of revelation is concerned. And great care has been taken to make a fair repreſentarion ot them, according to the beſt j judgr nent I could form of their delign. Some obſervations are add- ed, PREEACE. v ed, which may help to lead the reader into a juſt notion of thoſe writings, and to detect and obviate the ill tendency of them. There is alſo an ac- count ſubjoined of the anſwers that were publiſh- ed, not a all of them, but ſome of the moſt remark- able, or ſuch as have come under the author's ſpe- cial notice. And very probably ſome have been omitted, which might well deſerve to be particu- larly mentioned. This may ſuffice to give a general idea of the following work; at the end of which there are ſome reflections ſubjoined, which ſeem naturally to ariſe upon ſuch a view as is here given. Ob- ſervations are made on the conduct of the Deiſts in the management of the argument. And the whole concludes with a brief repreſentation of the evidences for the Chriſtian religion, and its excel- lent nature and tendency. What has been now laid before the reader, is taken from the Preface to the firſt edition: and it gives a juſt account of the original nature and de- ſign of this work, which was at firſt intended only to make up one volumnc. But not long after the publication of it, I was put in mind of a conſider- able omiſſfion Ihad been guilty of in making no mention of Mr. Hume, who was looked upon to be one of the moſt ſubtle writers that had of late appeared againſt Chriſtianity. About the ſame time was publi iſhed a pompous edition of the works of the late Lord Viſcount Bolingbroke, in five volumes 4to, the three laſt of which ſe emecdl to be principally intended zoaiaft revealed, and even againſt fome important principles of what is uſua lly called natural hgioi Some perſons, for W hol E vi PREEACGCE. whoſe judgment and friendſhip I have a great re- gard, were of opinion, that to complete the deſign vnich was propoſed in publiſhing the Vieav f tbe Deiſiical Mriters, it was neceſſary to take a di- ſtinét notice of the writings of Mr. Hume and Lord Bolingbroke: and that in that caſe it might be of uſe to make more large and particular obſerva- tions upon them, than could properly be done where a number of writers came under conſidera- tion. This produced a ſeoond volume, which, though it had the ſame title witlr the former, viz. A Viev of tbe Deiftical II' riters, yet differed from it in this, that it did not contain ſtrictures and obſervations upon a variety of authors, but a large and particular conſideration of the only two there examined, viz. Mr. Hume and the late Lord Bolingbroke, eſpeci- ally the latter. And this was judged neceffary, conſidering his Lordſhip's high reputation as a wri- ter; and that there is ſcarce any of the objections againſt Chriſtianity which he hath not repeated and urged in one part or other of his works, and that with a peculiar confidence, and with. all the ſtrength of reaſon and vivacity of imagination he was maſter of. And as Ithen thought Ihad finiſh- ed the deſign, that volume ended with an Addreſa to Deiſis and profeſſed Cbriſtians, which appeared to me to be a proper concluſion of the whole. But after the ſecond volume was publiſhed, ſome letters were ſent me relating both to that and the former volume, which put me upon reconſidering ſome things in them, and making farther addi- tions and illuſtrations, which I thought might be of advantage to the main deſign. Theſe were thrown into a Suphplement, which made up a third volume, 7 PFREF ACk. vij volume, and was publiſhed ſeparately for the uſe of thoſe who had purchaſed the two former. I am now called upon to publiſh a new edition of the whole in a ſmaller letter, which reduces the work to two volumes. The chief difference be- tween this and the former edition in tbree volumes is this: that the Supplement, which before made a diſtinct volume, is now taken into the body of the work: the ſeveral additions and illuſtrations are inſerted in the places to which they reſpectively be- long: and all that related to one author is laid to- gether in a continued ſeries. To render that part of the work which relates to Lord Bolingbroke more complete, there are ſubjoined to it, the Refloczions on the late Lord Bolingbroke’s Letters on the Study and Uſe of Hiſtory, which were republiſhed in the Supplement, with conſiderable additions and im- provements, though without the political part. The General Roefleclions on the Deiſtical Writers, together with the Summary of tbe Evidences for Cbriſtianity, were originally placed at the end of the firſt volume, then intended to be the only one. But now that the whole is publiſhed together in raοο volumes, it is judged they will come more na- turally in the ſecond volume of this edition; where alſo is placed the Addreſs to tbe Deiſzs and pro- feſſed Cbriſtians, which properly concludes the work; and the Reflections on the Breſent State IT bings in tkeſe Nations are added by way of Appen- diw. It gives me ſome concern that this work is become ſo much larger than was at firſt intended, which I am afraid will prove a diſadvantage to it, and diſguſt or diſcourage ſome readers. But I hope favourable allowances will be made, conſi- derin 2 ₰ viii P. R EFEACE. dering the extent of the deſign, and the variety of matters here treated of. I believe it will appear, that there ars few objections which have been ad- vanced in this controverſy, but what are taken notice of in the following work, and either ſuffi- ciently obviated, or references are made to books where fuller anſwers are to be found. May Gop in his holy providence follow what is now publiſhed with his bleſſing, that it may prove of real ſervice to the important intereſts of religion among us, to promote which, as far as my ability reaches, I ſhall ever account the greateſt happineſs of my life. And it ſhould be the matter of our ear- neſt prayers to Gop, that all thoſe who value them- ſelves upon the honourable name and privileges of Chriſtians, may join in united efforts to ſupport ſo glorious a caufe, in which the preſervation and ad- vancement of true religion and virtue, the peace and good order of ſociety, and the preſent and eternal happineſs of individuals are ſo nearly con- cerned. Ihave nothing farther to add, but that in this as well as the former editions, the whole is con- ducted in a ſeries of letters, which were written to my moſt worthy and much eſteemed friend, the Reverend Dr. Thomas Wilſon, rector of Mal- brook, and prebendary of Meſiminſter, in the form in which they now appear. T H E FEIRS T VOL U M. E. LETTER I. page I. Co ME accbunt f thoſe that frſt took ußon them The name f Deiſts. Obſervarions on Lord Herbert Cherbury's Soheme. ELEE TT E R II. P. 14. Farther Obſervations on Lord Herbert's Soheme. POST8CRIPT T. P. 22. An account f a remarkable incident relating to Lord Herbert f Cherbury. Reflections upon it. LET T E R III. P. 31. Obſervations on Mr. Hobbes's Writings. L E I TEKR VV. F. 37. Reflections on Mr. Charles Blount's and Mr. Toland's Writings I. E T T ER V. P. 48. The Earl ꝗf Shafteſbury's writings examined. L ETTER VI. P. 65. The account given f the Earl g Shafteſbury' vritings in the Foregoing letter, vindicated. LETTER VII. P. 34. An account ef Mr. Collins's Diſcourſe of Free-thinking; and f hix book, intitled, The Grounds of the Chriſtian Religion. LETT E R VIII. P. I0r. r. Woolſton's Diſcourſes on the miracles of our Saviour con⸗ fidered. L ETTE R IX. P. 112. An accaunt& Dr. Tiadal's Chriſtianity as old as the Creation. VoL. I. b L E T. X CON TENI S. LETTEERX. h. 131. Dr. Morgan's 5ook, called The Moral Philoſopher examined. LET TER XI. P. I5I. The pamphlet, intitled, Chriſtianity not founded on Argument, examined. LE TTER XII. P. 167. A pamphlet, intitled, The Reſurrection of Jeſus conſidered, examined and confuted. 1. ETT ER XIII. P. 193. An account o Mr. Chubb's Poſthumous works. E B I T E R. XIV. P. 210. Some farther remarks on Mr. Chubb's Boſthumous works. LE TITER XV. P. 241. Cbſervations on a Pamphlet, intitled, Deiſm fairly Stated, and fully vindicated. A brief account Lord Bolingbroke's at- tempt againſi the Seriptures, in his Letters on the Study and Uſe of Hiſtory. LETT ER XVI. P. 253. Some general obſervations upon Mr. Hume's Scheme in his Phi- loſophical Eſſays. LE TTER XVII. P. 272. Obſer vations on dr. Hume's Eſſay concerning a particular Pro- vidence and a future State. L E T T E R XVIII. P. 284. An examination of the firft part f Wr. Hume's Eſſay on Mi- racles, wbhich is deſigned to ſbew, that miracles are incapable of being proved by any eævidence whatſoever. LE r T ER XIX. P. 303. Roflections on the ſecond hart Mr. Hume's Eſſay on Miracles, vbich is deſigned to ſbew, that in fact there never was a mira- culous event, eſtabliſbed upon fuch ævidence as can reaſonably be depended ußon. A⅔ particular examination o what he has ofrered coacerning the miracles attributed tothe Abbè de Paris. L ET TER KNX. P. 336. Additional Obſervations relating to Mr. Hume, with remarks on an ingenious Baper, containing an examination of Mr. Hume's arguments in his Eſſay on Miracles. LE TIT E R XXI. P. 355. Farther Reflestions relating to the Abbé de Paris, and the grear ſanctity aſeribed to him. Obſervatiens on ſome paſſages in Mr. Hume’'s CONTENTS. xi Hume's Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals; re- lating to Self-denial, Mortification, and Humility. PosTrscRIp T. P. 368. An account of Mr. Douglaſs's beok, intitled, The Criterion; or Miracles examined,&c. LEITTER XXII. P. 371. General remarks on Lord Bolingbroke's oſthumous works. LE T TER XXIII. P. 335. An ingquiry into Lord Bolingbroke's Sroofr of the Being and Attributes f Gop, and his ſentiments concerning the aiwins perfe ctions. L ETT ERXXIV. P. 409. Lord Bolingbroke's account of the doctrine ꝗf divine providence con faceered. And the objections againſt a Particular providence examined. MMMONKNNNNNNNNOAOOKNx 1 H 6CONTITENI AH E COND VOLUMͤE. LERTTERXXV. P. T. 3 OD Bolingbroke'- fentiments cond erning the immortalitp —I the ſoul and a future fiate, examined. 4 LETTER XXVI. P. 25. Obſervations on Lord Bolingbroke's accounz of the lauw of nature. LETTE R XXVII. P. 43. An examination of what 4, rd Bolingbroke has ng revele ation in general. LETTER XXVIII. P. 70. Lerd Bolingbroke's ſtrange repreſentation of the Fewiſb revela- ion examin edl. LETTER XXIX. P. 109. Fered concern- ingbroke's s objeclions againſt the divine original and au- f the ſc ript ures of th ¶◻ I Teſtamen: confidered. L E PTP- xi CONTENTS. LETTERNXXX. P. 127. Farther objections of Lord Bolingbroke againſt the Moſaic wrik- ings, and the ſcriptures of the Old Teſament, conſidered. E E TT ER XXXI. P. 162. Reflections ußon the favourable repreſentation made by Lord Bolingbroke, gf the excellent nature and deſign of the original Chriſtian reuelation. Thoſe Paſſages which ſeemed deſigned to expo ſe the doctrines, and invalidate the Proofs and evidencer ꝗ Chriſtianity, conſidered. L ETT ERXXXII. P. 197. Lord Bolingbroke's oljections againſt the lauws and doctrines f Chriſtianit y* LETT ER XKXXXIII. P. 221. The Chriſtian doctrine ęf future retributions vindicated. Con- cluſion of the obſervations on Lord Bolingbroke’r Soſthumour works. LETT. ER XXXIV. P. 243. Deſigned to introduce the Reſlections on the late Lord Boling- broke's Letters on the Study and Uſe of Hiſtory, uhich are fubjoined at large. LETTERXXXV. P. 350. The acoount of the Deiftical Writers cloſed, with general reflec- tions on thoſe writers. L ETT E R IXXVI. P. 366. A Summary f the evidences f Chriſtianity. 7 CO0 NCEUSIO N. P. 397. In an Addreſs to Deiſts and profeſſed Chriſtians. A PPENDI X. P. 418. Reflections on the preſent hiate&f things in theſe nations. N. B. For a fuller account of the Contents, ſee the Head preceding each Letter. And for the ſubject-matter of the Reflections on Lord Bolingbroke's Letters on the Study and Uſe of Hiſtory, ſee the Contents prefixed to that Piece, Vol. II. p. 24 5, Gc. A VIEW A VIEw of the DEISTICAL WRITERS, Sc. In ſeveral LErTERS to a FRIENDp. LETTER II. Some account of tboſe that firſt took upon them tbe name of Deiſts. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, one of the moſt eminent deiſlical writers that appeared in England in tbe laſt age. His attempt to form Deiſm into a Syſtem. Obſervations upon bis ſcheme, and upon the five prin- ciples in wobich be makes all religion to conſiſt. It is Hexon that ibe Lnowlege of tbem was very imperfegᷣt and defective in ibe beatben world; and tbat a revelation from God for clearing and confirming iboſe imporiant Principles migbt be of great advantage. Dear Sir, NOW enter upon the taſle you have enjoined me, the giving ſome account of the principal Deiſtical writers that have appeared among us for above a century paſt. The reaſons given by you, and other judicious friends, have convinced me that ſuch a work might be of uſe, if properly executed; we only differed as to the fitneſs of the perſon that was to execute it. My objections have been over-ruled; I muſt therefore ſet about it as well as I can: and if Iwere ſure that otkers would look upon this attempt with the ſame favourable eye, that your candour and friendſhip for me will incline you to do, I ſhould be in no great pain about the ſucceſs of it. VoL. I. B The 2 A View of ibe Dxis TIcAL. Writers. Let. I. The name of Deiſts, as applied to thoſe who are no friends to revealed religion, is ſaid to have been firſt aſſumed about the middle of the fixteenth century, by ſome gentlemen in France and Italy, who were willing to cover their oppoſition to the Chriſtian revelation by a more honourable name than that of Atheiſts. One of the firſt authors, as far as I can find, that makes expreſs mention of them, is Viret, a divine of great eminence among the firſt Reformers, who in the epiſtle dedica- tory prefixed to the ſecond tome of his Inſtruction Chretienne, which was publiſhed in 1563, ſpeaks of ſome perſons in that time who called themſelves by a new name, that of Deilts. Theſe, he tells us, profeſſed to believe a God, but ſſiewed no regard to Jeſus Chriſt, and conſidered the doctrine of the apoſtles and evangeliſts as fables and dreams. He adds, that they laughed at all religion, notwithſtanding they conformed themſelves, with regard to the outward appearance, to the re- ligion of thoſe with whom they were obliged to live, or whom they were deſirous of pleaſing, or whom they feared. Some of them, as he obſerves, profeſſed to believe the immortality of the ſoul; others were of the Epicurean opinion in this point, as well as about the providence of God with reſpect to mankind, as if he did not concern himſelf in the government of human affairs. He adds, that many among them ſet up for learning and philoſophy, and were ſocked upon to be perſons of an acute and ſubtil genius; and that, not content to periſh alone in their error, they took pains to ſpread the poiſon, and to in- fect and corrupt others, by their impious diſcourſes, and bad examples a. I leave it to you to judge, how far the account this learned author gives of the perſons that in his time called themſelves Deiſts, is applicable to thoſe among us who take upon them the ſame title, and which they ſeem to prefer to that of Chriſtians, by which the diſciples of Jeſus have hitherto thought it their glory to be diſtinguiſhed. That which properly characterizes theſe Deiſts is, that they rejeèt all revealed religion, and diſcard all pretences to it, as owing to impoſture or enthuſiaſm. In this they all agree, and in profeſſing a regard for natural reli- gion, though they are far from being agreed in their notions of it. They are claſſed by ſome of their own writers into two ſorts, mortal and immortal Deiſts b. The latter acknowlege a eny it, or at lealt repreſent it as a very tuture ſtate, the former d a See Bayle's dictionary, article Viret. 2 Oracles of 4 uncertain Let. 1. Lord HERBERT ef Cherbury. 3 uncertain thing. And though theſe are, by ſome among them- ſelves, repeſented under a very diſadvantageous character, and as little better than Atheiſts, they are, it is to be feared, the more numerous of the two. And indeed ſome of their moſt eminent modern writers ſeem to be very eaſy about theſe diffe- rences. With them all are true Deiſts who oppoſe revelation, whether they own future rewards or puniſhments or not. And they ſpeak with great regard of thoſe diſintereſted Deiſts, who profeſs to purſue virtue for its own ſake, without regard to fu- ture retributions c. In giving an account of the deiſtical writers that have appeared in theſe nations(for I ſhall not meddle with thoſe of a foreign growth), I fhall go back to the former part of the laſt century: and the firſt I fhall mention, and who deſerves a particular no- tice, is that learned nobleman, Lord Edward Herbert, Baron of Cherbury. He may be juſtly regarded as the moſt eminent of the deiſtical writers, and in ſeveral reſpects ſuperior to thoſe that ſucceed him. He may be alſo conſidered as the firſt re- markable Deiſt in order of time, that appeared among us as a writer in the laſt century. For the firſt edition of his book de Veritate was in 1624, Wwhen it was publiſhed at Barir. It was afterwards publiſhed at London, as was alſo his book de Cauſis errorum, to which is ſubjoined his treatiſe de Religione Laici. Some years after this, and when the author was dead, his cele- brated work de Religione Gentilium was publiſhed at Amſterdam, in 1663, in quarto, and it was afterwards reprinted there in 1700, OCtavo, which is the edition I make uſe of; and an Eng- li% tranſlation of it was publiſhed at London in 1705. His lordſhip ſeems to have been one of the firſt tliat formed Deifſm into a Syſtem, and aſſerted the ſufficlency, unve ality, and abiolute perfection of natural religion, with a view to diſcard all extraordinary revelation as uſeleſs and needleſs. He ſcems to aſſume to himſelf the glory of having accompliſhed it with great labour, and a diligent inſpection into all religions; and applauds himſelf for it, as happier than any Archimedos d. This univerſal religion he reduceth to five articles, which he fre- quently mentioneth in all his works. 1. That there is one ſupreme God. 2. That he is chiefly to be worſhipped. 3. That piety and virtue is the principal part of his worſhip. 4. That we muſt repent of our ſins: and if we do ſo, God will Pardon them. 5. That there are rewards for good men, and s See Chriſtianity as old as the Creation, P. 332, 333. ed. Svo. 4 De Relig. Gent. cap. 15. init. B 3 puniſhments 4 A View of tbe DEIsTIcAL Writers. Let. 1. puniſhments for bad men, in a future ſtate; or, as he ſome- times expreſſeth it, both here and hereafter. I' heſe he repre- ſents as common notices inſcribed by God on the minds of all men, and undertakes to ſhew that they were univerſally acknow- leged in all nations, ages, and religions. This is particularly the deſign of his book de Religione Gentilium; though it is but comparatively a ſmall part of that work which tendeth directly to prove that theſe articles univerſally obtained: the far greater part of it is taken up with an account of the heathen religion and ceremonies, which he hath performed with an abundance of learning, and hath intermixed many ſoftening apologies for the pagan ſuperſtition and idolatry. As he repreſents theſe five articles as abſolutely neceſſary, the five pillars, as he calls them, on which all religion is built; ſo he endeavours to fhew that they alone are fufficient, and that nothing can be added to them, Wwhich can tend to render any man more virtuòus, or a better man. But then he ſubjoins this limitation,“ provided theſe articles be well explained in their « full latitude e.“ This univerſal religion which all men agree in, his Lordſhip repreſents to be the only religion of which there can be any certainty, and he endeavours to ſhew the great ad- vantages that would ariſe from men's embracing this religion, and this only. One of the reaſons he offers to recommend it is this, that this catholic or univerſal religion anſwers the ultimate deſign of the holy ſcriptures. Sacrar um literarum fini ultimo *intentionigue quadrat.“ He adds, That“ all the doctrines «there taught aim at the eſtabliſhment of theſe five catholic ¹*articles, as we have often hinted; there is no ſacrament, rite „¹or ceremony there enjoined, but what aims, or ſeems to aim, «c at the eſtabliſhment of theſe five articles.“ Sce his reaſons at the end of his Religio Laici. One would be apt to think by what this noble writer here offers, that he muſt have a very favourable opinion of Chriſti- anity as contained in the holy ſcriptures; ſince he repreſents it as the great deſign of all its doctrines, and even of the rites and ſacraments there injoined, to eſtabliſh thoſe great principles in which he makes religion properly to conſiſt. Accordingly he expreſsly declares in the above-mentioned treatiſe, that it was far from his intention to do harm to the beſt religion, as he there calls Chriſtianity, or the true faith, but rather to eſtabliſh both f. ½Appendix to Relig. Laici, C. 3. † Relig. Laici, p. 28. But Let.. Lord HERBEERT f Cherbury. 3 But I am ſorry that I am obliged to ſay, that notwithſtanding theſe fair profeſſions, his Lordſhip on all occaſions inſinuateth prejudices againſt all revealed religion, as abſolutely uncertain, and of little or no uſe. He inveigheth promiſcuouſly, as many others have done ſince, againſt all prerences to revelation, with- out making a diſtinction between the falſe and the true. He often ſpeaks to the diſadvantage of Harticular religion, which is a name he beſtoweth upon the Chriſtian religion, and any reve- lation that is not actually known and promulgated to the whole world. And he repreſenteth it as containing doctrines, which diſguſt ſome men againſt all religion, and therefore is for recom- mending what he calls the univerſal religion, as the beſt way to prevent men's having no religion at all. And particularly he inſinuates, that the Chriſtian religion granteth pardon on too eaſy terms, and derogateth from the obligations to virtues. A reflection which is manifeſtly owi ing toa miſapprehenſion or miſ- repreſentation of the doctrine of Chriſtianity on this head. So he elſewhere ſuppoſeth, that the faith there required is no more than a bare aſſent to the doctrines there taught, though nothing is capable of a clearer proof, than that the faith on which fo great a ſtreſs is laid in the goſpel covenant, is to be underſtood of a vital operative principle, which purifieth the heart, and is productive of good works; and that the neceſſity of true holi- neſs and virtue is there ſtrongly inculcated. The charge he ad- vanceth againſt Chriſtianity might be more juſtly retorted upon himſelf, who though he mentions it to the praiſe of his univer- ſal religion, that it giveth no licence to ſin, but bindeth men ſtrictly to the ſeverity of virtue; yet to ſhew what reaſon ſinners have to hope for pardon, offereth ſeveral pleas and excuſes that tend to extenuate the guilt of ſin. Particularly he urgeth, that men's ſins are not for the moſt part committed out of enmity againſt God, or to caſt diſnonour upon him, but with a view to their own particular advantage or pleaſure, and are choſen by them under the appearance of ſome good h. And in his book de Veritate he declares, that thoſe are not lightly to be con- demned, who are carried to ſin by their particular bodily con- ſtitution; and he inſtances particularly in the rage of luſt and anger; no more than a dropſical perſon is to be blamed for his immoderate thirſt, or a lethargic perſon for his lazineſs and inactivity. He adds indeed, that he does not ſet up as an apo- ⁵ See the appendix to his Relig. Laici, Qu. 6 à De KRelig. Gentil. p. 268. Dr. Tindal talks in the ſame ſtrain. Chriſt. as old as the Ecte p. 32. ed. 8vo. B 3 logiſt 6 A View of the DEisTIeA Writers. Let. 1 logiſt for, wicked men, but yet that we ought to paſs a mild cenſure upon thoſe who are carried to ſin by a corporal and al- moſt neceſſary propenſity to vice. Neque tamen me hic conſce- lerati cujufvis Patronum ſchto; ſed in id ſolummodo contendo, ult mitiori ſententia de iis fatuamus, qui corporea, brutali,& tan- tum non neceſſaria Probenſione in peccata prolabuntur. This apo- logy may be carried very far, ſo as to open a wide door to licen- tiouſneſs, and would ſoon introduce a very looſe morality. But not to inſiſt upon this, I would obſerve that the principal deſign of his treatiſe de Religione Laici ſeems to be to ſhew, that the people can never attain to any ſatisfaction as to the truth and certainty of any particular revelation, and therefore muſt reſt in the five articles agreed to by all religions. This particularly is the intention of his fourth and fifth queries in the appendix to that treatiſe In his fourth query he ſuppoſes, that the things which are added to thoſe common principles from the doctrines of faith are uncertain in their original; and that though God be true, the Laics can never be certain that what is pretended to be a revelation from God is indeed a true revelation from God. In his fifth query he urgeth, that ſuppoſing the originals to be true, yet they are uncertain in their explications. To this pur- poſe he takes notice of the multiplicity of ſects among Chriſ- tians; and that the Laicys can never be ſufficiently ſure of the meaning of the revelation concerning which there are ſo many controverſies; that in order to arrive at any certainty in theſe matters, it would be neceſſary either to learn all languages, 1⁰ rvad all the celebrated writers, and to conſult all thꝰ( learned men that bave not written, a method which is manifeſtly ab- ſurd and impracticable; or elſe to have recourſe to a ſupreme judge controverſies appointed by common conſent. It is an obſervation that will undoubtedly occur to you on this occaſion, that his Lordſhip here maketh uſe preciſely of the ſame way of talking, to ſhew that the Laics can have no cer- tainty about any revelation at all, which the writers of the Ko- miſp Church have frequently urged to ſhew the neceſſity the people are under to rely intirely upon the authority of the Church or Poße, becauſe of the difficulties or the impoſſibility of their coming to any certainty in the way of examination or private judgment. But if the Laity cannot be certain of revealed religion, becauſe of the controverſies that have been raiſed about the articles of it, for the ſame reaſon it may be ſaid, that they can arrive at no certainty with reſpect to his Lordſhip's catholic univerſal religion: for though he repreſenteth men as univerſally agreed in the five articles, in which he makes that religion to conſiſt, Let. 1. Lord HER BERT of Cherbury. 7 conſiſt, it is undeniable that there have been great contro Ferſies about them; and that the modern Deiſts, as well as ancient Philoſophers, are divided in their ſentiments in relation to them, eſpecially when explained, as he requireth they ſhould be, in their full latitude. He ought not therefore to make a thing's being controverted to be a proof of its uncertainty, and that men can come to no ſatisfaction about it; a principle which he and other Deiſts often inſiſt upon, but which maniffeſtly leads to univerſal ſcepticiſm. But this is not the only inſtance, in which arguments have been brought againſt Chriſtianity, that in their conſequences tend to ſubvert all religion, and all evi- dence and certainty of reaſon. From this general view of Lord Herbert's Scheme, it ſuffi- ciently appears that his deſign was to overturn all revealed, or, as he calls it, particular religion, and to eſtabliſh that natural and univerſal religion, the clearneſs and perfection of which he ſo much extols, in its room, as that which alone ought to be acknowleged and embraced as true and divine. I ſhall now freely lay before you ſome obſervations that have occurred to me in conſidering the ſcheme of this noble author. One is this, that he hath carried his account of natural reli- gion much farther than ſome others of the Deiſts have done. Itwere to be wifhed, that all that glory in this character would agree with this noble Lord in a hearty reception of thoſe articles, which he repreſenteth as ſo eſſentially neceſſary, and of ſuch vaſt importance. Theſe he would have to be explained in their full extent, and that except they be properly explained they are not ſufficient; and thus explained they include the belief not only of the cxiſtence, but the attributes of God; of ſome of which in his book de Veritate he gives a good account, and of his provi- dence and moral government. He aſſerts, that God is to be worſhipped, and that this worſhip includeth our offering up to him our prayers and thankſgivings¹; that piety and virtue are abſolutely neceſſary to our acceptance with God: and he parti- cularly urgeth the neceſſity of obſerving the ten commandments: that we are obliged to repent of our ſins in order to our obtain- ing forgiveneſs, and that this repentance includeth both a for- row for our fins, and a turning from them to the right way. He alſo inſiſteth upon the beliet of the immortality of the Soul, and a future ſtate of rewards and puniſhments, in which God will recompenſe men according to t heir actions, and even accord- ing to their thoughts x. Theie things he ſuppoſeth to be com- 1 Da Veritate, p. 271, 272. De Relig. Gentil. p. 283. B 4 mon 8 A View of tbe DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 1. mon notices, ſo clear that he can ſcarce be accounted a reaſon- able creature who denieth them. And yet I am afraid, if all theſe things are to be looked upon as neceſſary, many that call themſelves Deiſts will be as loth to admit his Lordſhip's natural and catholic religion, as Chriſtianity itſelf. There is reaſon to apprehend, that ſome of their ſtrongeſt prejudices againſt Chriſ- tianity ariſe from its ſetting thoſe principles in too clear a light, and inforcing them in too ſtrong a manner. It is true, that when they are for putting a fair gloſs upon Deiſm, and aſſerting the ſufficiency and perfection of natural reſigion abſtracted from all revelation, they are willing to have it thought that their re- ligion includeth the belief of thoſe important articles. They are then obliged to have recourſe to his Lordſhip's ſyſtem, and the arms he hath furniſhed them with; but at other times they make it plainly appear that they are far from being fixed in theſe principles. His Lordſhip declares, that it is neceſſary theſe ar- ticles ſhould be well explained. And indeed they are expreſſed in very general and indefinite terms. But there is no great like- lihood of their agreeing in the explications of them. It is a thing well known, that many who have made no ſmall figure among our modern Deiſts, have denied ſome of his Lordſhip's five articles, at leaſt taken in the extent in which he ſeems will- ing to underſtand them. God's moral government and parti- cular providence; his worſhip, eſpecially as it includes prayer and praiſe; man's free agency, the immortality of the Soul, and a future ſtate of retributions, have made no part of their creed. Some of them have been far from pleading for that ſtrictneſs of virtue, which his Lordſhip tells us natural religion obliges men to; and inſtead of urging the neceſſity of repentance, have, after Spinoſa, repreſented it as a mean, an unreaſonable, and wretched thingl. And the rewards and puniſhments of a future ſtate have been exploded under the notion of bribes and terrors, a regard to which argueth a ſordid and mercenary tem- per of ſoul, inconſiſtent with a true and generous virtue. Another reflection that it is proper to make on Lord Herbert's Scheme is this: that theſe five principles, in which he makes his univerſal religion to conſiſt, were not ſo very clear and well known to all mankind, as to make an external revelation need- leſs or uſeleſs. His Lordſhip indeed ſuppoſeth them to be com- mon notices inſcribed by a divine hand in the minds of men: 1 Pœnitentia virtus non eſt, ſive ex ratione non oritur: quem facti pœnitet pis miſer ſeu impotens eſt. Spin. Eth. Pt. 4. Prop. 54 and Let. 1. Lord HERBERT of Cherbury. 9 and accordingly he ſets himſelf to prove, with a great ſhew of learning in his book de Keligione Gentilium, that theſe principles were univerfally believed and acknowleged by the people in all ages, countries, and religians. But any man that carefully exa- mines his book will find, that all that he really proves is no more than this; that there were ſome imperfect veſtiges of theſe im- portant truths preſerved among the Gentiles, and that the know- lege of them was never abſolutely and totally extinguiſhed, which will be eaſily allowed. But he has not proved, that the people, or even all thoſe that paſſed for wiſe and learned, had a diſtinct knowlege and aſſurance of thoſe principles, eſpeci- ally if taken in their juſt extent. The teſtimonies he hath pro- duced by no means prove ſuch an univerſal agreement: what he ſeemeth principally to rely upon is the reaſonableneſs and evidence of the principles themſelves, which he ſuppoſeth to be ſo plain, that no rational man can be ignorant of them. Thus he declares, that be wonld ſooner doubt whether the beams of the ſun ſhone upon thoſe regions, than ſuppoſe that the knowlege of God, the evidences of whoſe exiſtence and perfections are ſo obvious from his works, did not enlighten their mindsm. And he cannot be perſuaded, that any of them worſhipped the ſun as the chief Deity, becauſe of the incredible abſurdity of ſuch a practice, which he well expoſes n. But when we are enquiring what men do in fact believe and prac- tiſe, we are not to judge of it from what we apprehend it is reaſonable for them to believe and practiſe. If this were a proper place to take a diſtinct view of the proofs he hatk offered, in relation to his famous five articles, it would be no hard matter to ſhew, that according to his own repre- ſentation of the caſe, they were not ſo univerſally acknowleged and clearly known among the Gentiles, as to make a farther reve- lation and inforcement of them to be of no uſe or advantage. This might be particularly ſfnewn with regard to the firſt and ſecond of theſe articles, viz. That there is one ſupreme God, and that this God is to be worſhipped; which are principles of the greateſt importance, and which lie at the foundation of allthe reſt. Notwithſtanding the pains he hath taken to excuſe and palliate the pagan ſuperſtition and idolatry, and to prove that they worſhipped the one true God, the ſame that we adore, under various names, and by various attributes; yet he owns, that what were at firſt only different names, came in proceſs of time, as ſuperſtition increaſed, to be regarded and worſhipped De Relig. Gentil, p. 225. n Ibid. p. 27, 247. 10 A View of ibe DEis TIcAL Writers. Let. r. as different gods. It is plain, from expreſs and formal paſſages, produced by him from ancient writers, that ſome nations wor- ſhipped no other Deities but the ſun, moon, and ſtars. When in the third chapter of his book de Kelig. Gentil. he mentions the names of the Deity which were in uſe among the Hebreus, and ſhevs that thoſe names and titles were alſo uſed among the Gentiles; he owneth that the Hebrews appropriated theſe names and titles to the One ſupreme God, ſuperior to the ſun, but that the Gentiles underſtood by them no other than the ſun itſelf. He thinks it indecd probable that the worſhip they rendered to the ſun was ſymbolical, and that they iatended to worſhip God by the ſun as his moſt glorious ſenſible image; and ſometimes he is very poſitive that they did ſo, and that they rendered no proper worſhip to any but the ſupreme God. But at other times he ſpeaks very doubtfully about it, and pretends not poſitively to aſſert it, bt leaves the reader to his own judgment in this matter 0. And elſewhere he acknowleges, that the people per- haps did not ſufficiently underſtand this ſymbolical worſhip. Symbolicum illium cultum hauid ſatis forſan intellexit P. It is indeed a little ſtrange, that if the notion and belief of one only ſupreme God univerſally obtained among the Gentiles, none but the Hebreus ſhould have made the acknowlegement of the One ſupreme God, the Maker and Lord of the Univerſe, the funda- mental article of their religion; and that in the laws of other ſtates, particularly among the learned and polite nations of Greece and Romeé, Polytheiſm was eſtabliſhed, and the public worſhip was directed to be offered to a multiplicity of Deities. Many of the Heathens, by his own acknowlegement, thought that the God they were to worſhip ſhould be viſible, and looked upon it to be incongruous, that he who demanded worſhip from all fhould hide himſelf from his worſhippersa. And though it was a notion which generally obtained among them, that ſome kind of external worſhip was neceſſary to be rendered to their Deities, yet as to the manner of their worſhip he doth not deny that ſome of the Heathen rites were ridiculous, others abſurd and even impious. To which it may be added, that ſome of their wiſeſt men acknowleged, that they were ignorant of the proper manner in which God is to be worſhipped, except he himſelf, or ſome perſon ſent by him, ſhould pleaſe to reveal it. There is a remarkable paſſage in Plato's ſecond Alcibiad, which hath been often quoted. Sccrates meeting Alcibiades, who was 1” - 9o) De Relig. Gentil. p. 25. 310. v Ibid. p. 293. a Ibid. p. 26.. going — —·—— Let. 1. Lord HERBERT f Cherbury. 11 going to the temple to pray, prons to him that he knew not ho w to perform that duty aright, and that therefore it was not ſafe for him to do it; but that he ſhould wait for a divine In- ſtructor to teach him how to behave both towards the gods and men; and that it was neceſſary that God ſhould ſcatter the dark- neſs which covered his ſoul, that he mignt be put in a condi- tion to diſcern good and evil. To the ſame purpoſe, Iambli- chus in Vita Pythag. cap. 28. ſpeaking of the principles of di- vine worſtip faith, It is manifeſt that thoſe things are to be „* done which are pleaſing to God, but what they are it is not ¹«*eaſy to know, except a man were taught them by God him- ſell, or by ſome perſon that had received them from God, or *«obtained the knowlege of them by ſome divine means.* The third article mentioned by his Lordſhip as univerſally agreed on is, that piety and virtue is the principal part of God's vorldin, But not to urge that the proof he brings of an uni- verſal agreement in this prineĩple ſeems to be very defective, this article would be of no great uſe, except men were alſo gene- rally agreed as to the nature and extent of true piety and virtue. And it can ſcarce be reaf ſonably denied, that a revelation from God pointing out our way to us, and containing a clear ſigni- fication of the divine will, with regard to the particulars of the duty required of us, would be of great uſe. Lord Herbert himſelf, after having mentioned ſome virtues which were ho- noured among the aennn acknowlegeth, that beſides theſe there were many other things looked upon to be neceſſary to true piety, eſpecially thoſe things which ſhewed a devout or grateful temper towards the gods, and the obſervation of the public rites and ceremonies of religion“; which is in other words to ſay, that the joining in ſuperſtitious and idolatrous worſhip, for ſuch the eſtabliſned public worſhip was, made up a neceſſary part of the heathen piety and virtue, and was counted a principal ingredient in a good man's character. As to the fourth article, that men muſt repent of their ſins, and that if they do ſo God will pardon them, it might eaſily be ſhewn that the Gentiles were far from being agreed what are to be accounted ſins; ſince ſome ſins and vices of a very enor- mous kind were not only practiſed and pleaded for by ſome of their philoſophers, but permitted and countenanced by the public laws, nor were they agreed what is included in a true repentance. His Lordſhip himſelf acknowlegeth, that the Antients ſeldom uſed the word repentance in the ſenſe ir rhich f De Relig. Gentil. p. 250. Wée 12 A View of tbe DEIsTIcAL. Writers. Let. 1. we take its. And that they did not look upon it to be an atonement for all crimes, but for thoſe of a leſs heinous nature; and that they generally looked upon other things to be alſo ne- ceſſary, and laid the principal ſtreſs upon luſtrations, and the rites of their religion, for purifying and abſolving them from guilt. And any one who duly conſiders, that the diſpenſing of pardon is an act of the divine prerogative, the exerciſe of which depends upon what ſecmeth moſt fit to his ſupreme governing wildom, cannot but be ſenſible that it muſt needs be a great advantage to be aſſured, by an expreſs Revelation from God, upon what terms the pardon of ſin is to be obtained, and how far it is to extend. With regard to the fifth article about future rewards and puniſhments, which he repreſenteth to be, as it really is, of vaſt importance, though he ſometimes expreſſeth himſelf as if the Heathens were generally agreed, that good men would be re- warded with eternal life; at other times he intimates that they only agreed in this, that there would be rewards and puniſh- ments in a future ſtate; and ſometimes, that they held this only, that there would be rewards for good men, and puniſh- ments for bad men, either in this life or after it. And he him- felf frequently owns in his book de Veritate, that what kind of rewards ſhall be conferred, or puniſhments inflicted, cannot be certainly known from the light of natural reaſont. But we need not inſiſt farther on theſe things. His Lordſhip himſelt fairly granteth, that the knowlege the Gentiles had of the One ſupreme God was lams and imperfet; which he attri- butes to the floth or cunning of the Prieſts, who neglected to inſtruct the people, or inſtructed them wrong; and that from thence it came to paſs, that the rays the divine light being interceßted, a wonderful darkneſs verſpread the minds f the vulgar.„VUnde etiam factum, ut radiis divini luminis inter- —˙ceptit, mira caligo vulgi animis obducta eſſet u.“ And he obſerves, that by what was added by the Prieſts, Poets, and Philoſephers, the whole fabric of truth was in danger of fall- zng to the ground. Tota inclinata in caſumque Prona nutavit veritatis fabrica x. And at the cloſe of his book de Relig. Cen- ril. he owns, that at length, the purer parts of divine wor- mip being neglected, the whole of religion ſunk by degrees into ſuperſtition and that thoſe five articles were almoſt over- whelmed with a heavy load of errors, ſo as to be perceived only * De Kelig. Gentil. p. 268.*De Veritate, p. 57,& alibi. „ De KReilig. Gent p. 225. X Ibid. p. 283. by Let. 1. Lord HERBRERT f Cherbury. 13 by the wiſer ſort of men, a perſpicacioribus viris, i. e. by thoſe who had a penetration above the vulgar Y. Now this being a true repreſentation of the caſe as it ſtood in fact, whatever it was owing to, it can ſcarce be reaſonably denied, that if God ſhould, in compaſſion to the corrupt and ignorant ſtate of mankind, grant an expreſs revelation of his will, to clear and reſtore thoſe great principles which had been ſo much obſcured and perverted, to recover men to the right knowlege and worſhip of God, and to explain and infoice the main important parts of their duty, this would be of ſignal benefit to the world, and a remarkable proof and effect of his great goodneſs. His Lordſhip indeed in ſeveral parts of his works, throws out hints and ſuſpicions as if either ſuch a reve- lation from God could not be given, or at leaſt that there can be no way of knowing, or being aſſured, that ſuch a revelation has been really given; but he no-where offers any proof of it. The general invectives he ſo frequently makes againſt Prieſts, Oracles, Impoſtures, prove nothing; except it be allowed to be a reaſonable principle, that becauſe there have been falſe pre- tenders to revelation, therefore there never was nor can be a true one: a way of talking and reaſoning this, that might paſs among the inferior tribe of deiſtical writers, but which is abſo- lutely unworthy of his Lordſhip's ſenſe and learning. Whereas it may rather be gathered from it, that mankind, in all ages, have been generally perſuaded, that it was both pofſible for God to grant an extraordinary revelation of his will, and that if he did, it would be of great advantage. Impoſtors have built upon this principle, but this doth not ſnew the principle itſelf to be falſe, which hath as good a title to paſs for a common notion, as ſome of the five articles which he repreſenteth to be ſo clear and univerſally acknowleged. The only reaſonable concluſion that can be drawn from the many impoſtures and falſe revelations, which had been put upon mankind, is not that all pretences to revelation are falſe and vain, but that we ought to be very careful to diſtinguiſh the falſe from the true, and impartially to conſider and examine the proofs that are brought, and not to receive any revelation without ſufficient credentials of its divine authority. But it would be a moſt unreaſonable limitation of the divine power and wiſdom to affirm, either that God cannot make extraordinary diſcoveries of his will to par- ticular perſons, in ſuch a manner that the perſons to whom they are immediately communicated may be certain that they came v De Relig Gentil. p. 310. fron Trronm 14 A Viecw of the DEisricAtL. Writers. Let 2 from God, or that he cannot commiſſion and enable ſuch per⸗ ſons to communicate to others what they have received from him, or cannot furniſh them with ſuch credentials of their di- vine miſſion, as may be ſuſficient to convince the world that they were ſent of God, and to make it reaſonable for others to receive the doctrines and laws which ſuch perſons deliver in his name. And it hath been proved, with great ſtrength and evidence, that this hath actually been the caſe with regard to the Chriſ- tion relevation. There are other reflections that might be made on Lord Herbert's ſyſtem. But I am willing to give you and myſelf a little reſpite, and ſhali therefore reſerve them to be the ſubjeét of another letter. L E I I F. R II. Farther Obſervations on Lord Herbert's Scheme. Tbe Pbiloſopbers not qualified to recover Mankind from tbe darensſs and corruption into wbich ibey Were fallen. The uſefulneſs of ibe Chriſtian Revelation to that pur- Poſe. Iis not having been univerſally promulgated in all nations and ages no juſt prejudice againſt it. Otber objeliions of Lord Herbert conſidered. Writers ibat bave appeared againſt bim. S r, N my former letter an account was given of Lord Herbert's ſcheme; and it was ſhewn, that taking the ſtate of mankind, and of the Gentile world, as it really was, according to his own repreſentation of the caſe, an expreſs revelation from God, confirmed by his divine authority, for clearing and inforcing thoſe articles which his Lordſhip ſuppoſeth to be neceſſary, would be of great uſe. I now add, that in fact the Chriſtian Revelation hath been of ſignal advantage to the world, for giving men a clearer knowlege and fuller certainty of thoſe important truths than they had before. Our noble author indeed ſpeaks with admiration of the ancient philoſophers, as capable of inſtructing men in a proper manner, if they would have attended to their inſtructions. But then he owns, that the Let. 2. Lord HERBERT of Cherbury. 135 the people had little regard to the purer doctrine of the philo- ſophers a. And indeed I do not ſec how it could be— that they fhould place any dependence upon their dictates, which were for the moſt part regarded only as the tenets of their ſeveral ſchools, in which the people had little concern. They were not the miniſters of religion, nor could pretend to any authority that ſhould make them he regarded as the guides and inſtructors of mankind, or cauſe their opinions to paſs for laws. The moſt eminent among them were contradicted by others of great name: many of them laboured to make all things s appear doubtful and uncertain; and thoſe of them that had the Pr lelt notions frequently affected to conceal them, os were afraid to divulge them. What Alcinous hath obſerved concerning Plato, with reſpect to the inquiry concerning the chief good, might be applied to ſome other matters of great im- portance. That which is worthy of all honour, ſuch as the *„ſupreme Good, he conceived not eaſy to be found, and if found, not ſafe to be declared b.“ His Lordſhip afiurei us, that the philoſophers werealways aſkeat Iwith th 27/3 ſacherſtitious 200 ſluß of the Beople. But if thi s was the caſe, they ſeem to have been very improper perſons to reclaim them from it, ſince 5 was— univerſal maxim among them, and particulary re- commended by one of the beſt of them, Sbictetus, that every man ought to worſhip according to the las or cuſtoms of his country c. And it is well known that their eſtabliſhed worſhip was polytheiſm and idolatry. Varro, in a paſſag age quoted by his Lordſhip, divides the heathen theology into Sthree kinds the fabꝛtlous, which belonged to the poets; the Shyfical, w hich was that of the philoſophers; and the civil. He ſpeaks with diſregard of the two former, and repreſenis the laſt as that in which the people were concerned, and which alone could be of real uſe to them. And this he explaineth to be that whieh was eſtabliſhed by the laws, and adminiſtered by the prieſts, and which ſfhewed what gods they were publicly to wo iuun what rites they were to obſerve, and what ſacrifices it was proper for any man to offer ¹. If a reformation of the world by the philoſophers was not to be expected, for the reaſons now given, his Lordſhip will own it was not to be hoped for from ch e prieſts, againſt whom he bitterly inveighs as the authors of all ſuperſtition, and of the 11 11 a De RKelig. Gentil. p. 310 Plato, cap. 27. in Stanley's lives o Enchirid. cap. 38. 4 D 16 A View of the DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 2. great corruption of religion in the heathen world. And as littbe was it to be expected from the lawgivers and great men of the ſtate, who generally patronized the eſtabliſhed ſuperſtition, of which they themſelves had been in a great meafure the authors or promoters, and were ready to puniſh any that oppoſed it. And if there were any of them who were for reforming and correcting ſome abuſes in the public ſuperſtitions, and explod- ing ſome of the groſſer fables that were received among the people, as his Lordſhip obſerves Mutius Scævola the chief pon- tiff, and Varro, were for doing, he owns that the attempts were vain and ineffectual, becauſe the errors and ſuperſtitions were become inveterate“. This being the true ſtate of the caſe, it is hard to ſee what other method could be taken, that would prove ſo effectual to recover mankind from their ſuperſtition and idolatry, as the giving an extraordinary revelation, attended with ſufficient credentials, to inſtruct men in the name of God, concerning the nature of true religion to aſſure them of the certainty of its great principles, and to inforce the practice of its important duties, by the ſtrongeſt and moſt prevailing motives. And accordingly, when Chriſtianity appeared with the moſt illuſtrious atteſtations of a divine miſſion and revelation from heaven, it effected what no precepts or doctrines of the philoſo- phers had been able to do. The pagan polytheiſm and ſuper- ſtition fell before it: and it hath actually produced this great advantage, that the principles upon which our author layeth ſo much ſtreſs, have been better known and underſtood, and more univerſally acknowleged, than they were before. It is incon- teſtible, that Chriſtians are more generally agreed in thoſe great principles, than ever men were in tlie Pagan world. They are ſet in a clearer light, and men come to à greater certainty about them. That they are ſo far preſerved among the Mahometans, was allo originally owing to the light of the ewiſb and Chriſ- tian revelation. And it is very probable that his Lordſhip him- ſelf is very much obliged to Chriſtianity, though he doth not acknowlege it, for the full perſuaſion he every-where expreſſeth as to thefe important articles; ſeveral of which were denied by ſome, and doubted by others of the ancient philoſophers. Though therefore it is not to be wondered at, that thoſe among the Deiſts who have an averſion to theſe principles when taken in their juſt extent, ſhould be againſt Chriſtianity, yet Lord Herbert, who aſſerteth them to be of ſuch vaſt conſe- quence, ought, one ſhould think, to have been very thankful De Relig. Gent. p. 311. 80 Let. 2. Lord HERBERT f Cherbury. 17 to God for having inforced them by an ex prels and well- atteſted revelation, and given them a divine ſanCtion. And if he were fincere in the acknowlege ment he ſometimes makes, that the explaining and inforcing thoſe great principles is the ultimat deſign of the holy Scripture, to which all its doctrines, an even its rites and ſacraments te nd, he ought certainly to have entertained very favourable thoughts of Chriſtianity, of its doctrines as well as precepts, and even of its rites and poſitive inſtitutions. But that which ſeemeth principally to have prejudiced his Lordſhip againſt Chriſtianity is, that it is what he calleth a Har- ticular re ꝛig gion; whereas the true religion muſt be univerſal, and promulgated to all mankind. He frequently urgeth, that nothing leſs than ſuch an univerſal religion as he pleadeth for, can ſupport the honour of God's univ erſal providence, and the care he exerciſeth towards the whole human race; which no particular religion can do; and that otherwiſe the Gentiles muſt be ſuppoſed to be univerſally loſt and damned, which it were cruel and injurious to God to imagine. This is what hath been often urged and repeated by the Deiſts ſince. To this it may be juſtly anſwered; that thoſe who maintain the Chriſtian revelation, may think as honourably as any others conſiſtently can of the univerſal care and providence of God to- wards mankind. No-where is this more clearly aſperted tha in the ſacred writings, which declare God's univerſal goodneſs and benignity towards the human race in ſtrong termns; and that he hath been continually doing them good, and hath never left himſelf without witneſs among them. We muſt not indeed carry this ſo far as to aſſert, that all men have an actual know- lege of the great principles of religion, and of their duty, be- cauſe we may imagine that the univerſal care of providence towards mankind requireth that it ſnould be ſo; which ſeems to be the courſe of his Lordſhip's reaſoning; for this is contrary to evident and undeniable fact and experience. But we acknew- lege that God hath given to all men the principle of reaſon, together with a natural ſenſe of right and wrong, which would be of great uſe to aſſiſt them in the knowlege of religion. and to direct them in the practice of their duty, if duly cultivated and improved to the utmoſt that it is naturally capable of. But beſides this, Chriſtians generally maintain, a und the holy ſcrip- tures lead us to think, that God hath from time to time made extraordinary diſcoveries of his will to mankind; that ſome ſuch diſcoveries were made 5 the firſt anceſtors of the human race, who were bound by all obligations to tranſmit them to their Vol. I. C poſterity; 3 ¶◻ 18 A Viecy of tbe DEisTIeAL. Writers. Let. 2. poſterity; that therefore there was an original univerſal religion, embraced by the firſt parents of mankind, and tranſmitted from them to their deſcendents; that accordingly ſome of the moſt eminent ancient philoſophers aſcribed the knowlege and belief of ſome of the great principles, inſiſted upon by this noble au- thor, to a tradition derived from the moſt early ages, though his Lordſhip never maketh the leaſt mention of tradition, as one ſource of that knowlege and belief of theſe things, which ob- tained among the nations; that this religion, which was both originally derived from revelation, and agreeable to nature and reaſon, was gradually obſcured, and became greatly corrupted, though ſtill ſome remarkable traces and veſtiges of it remained among the Gentiles; that God was pleaſed in his wiſe and good providence to interpoſe by various methods, and by raiſing up excellent perſons from time to time, to keep thoſe remains of the ancient religion from being totally extinguiſhed; that at laſt he was graciouſly pleaſed to ſend his Son into the world, a perſon of divine dignity and glory, to recover men to his true knowlege and pureé worſhip, to direct and aſſiſt them in the practice of their duty, to ſhew them the true means of their reconciliation and acceptance with God, and to bring life and immortality into the moſt clear and open light; that this reve- lation was attended with the moſt illuſtrious atteſtations, and made a wonderful progreſs through a conſiderable part of the known world, and would have ſpread ſtill farther than it did, if it had met with ſuch a reception as the excellency and import- ance of it well deſerved; and finally, that as to thoſe to whom it never was actually communicated, God will deal with them in a juſt, a wiſe, and equitable way, and will make all proper allowances for their want of the advantages which others enjoy. The aſſerters of the Chriſtian revelation are under no obliga- tions to limit God's univerſal benevolence. They leave thofe that are deſtitute of this revelation to God's infinite mercy; and can think more favourably of their caſe, than thoſe con- ſiſtently can do, who will not allow that they were under any great darkneſs, and ſuppoſe them to have acted in manifeſt op- poſition to the moſt clear univerſal light. The objection ariſing againſt the Chriſtian revelation for want of its being univerſally known and promulgated, hath been often conſidered and obviated, nor is this a proper place to enter upon a large and particular diſcuſſion of it. At pre- ſent it may be ſufficient to obſerve, that the objection proceeds npon a wrong foundation; viz. that the univerſal goodneſs and benignity of the common Parent of the univerſe neire that Let. 2. Lord HERBERT f Cherbury. 19 that he fhould communicate his benefits to all his creatures alike, and in equal degrees. It is evident, in fact, that in the diſtribution of his benefits God acteth as a free and ſovereign benefactor, diſpenſing them in vety various degrees, always undoubtedly for wiſe reaſons, but thoſe reaſons often not known to us. It cannot reaſonably be denied, that he hath made ſome whole cla ſſes of beings vaſtly fuperior to others in valuable gifts and endowments, and capacities for happinels: and ſome in- dividuals of the ſame claſs of beings are karaurec with much greater advantages than others And, if we look particularly into God's dealings with the human race, we may obſerve a very remarkable variety. Some are from the beginning endued with much greater natural abilities, and more excellent 4— ſitions, and are placed in a more favourable ſituation, and hap pier circumſtances. Some whole nations are eminently giſlih- guiſhed from others, not only with reſpect to many other ad- vantages of human life, but with reſpect to the means of moral improvement, and are furniſhed with more excellent helps for making a progreſs in wiſdom and virtue, and conſequently i in true happine ſs. All theſe differences between perſons and nations are under the direction of divine providence, as all muſt own that acknowlege a providence, as his Lerdihip profeſſeth to do. And thoſe that are diſtinguiſhed from others by ſuperior advantages, ought to be thankful to God for thoſe adu antages, and to aſ- cribe them to his goodneſs, and not deny that God hath given them thoſe advantages, becauſe there are others that have them not, or not in an equal degree. Since therefore the diſtinguiſhing ſome per ſons and nations with valuable advantages above others, is not inconſiſtent with the univerſal benignity of the great Parent of mankind, for if it were he would not do it; it can never be proved, that he may not grant a revelation to any part of mankind, except at the ſame time it be granted equally to the whole world. Indeed, if all men every-where where required actually to believe that revelation, and were to be condemned for not believing it, it would be neceſſary to have it univerſally pro- mulgated: but ſince the actual belief of z is— of thoſe only to whom it is actually publiſhed, and they, to whom it is not made known, are not put into a worſe condition than if there had been no ſuch revelation granted at all, no argument can be brought to ſhew that it is inconſiſtent with the divine wiſdom or goodneſs, to grant ſuch a revelation to ſome part of mankind, though i it be not actually promulgated to the whole human race. E ſpecially if, in its own nature and original inten- tion, it was fitted and deſigned to be ot univerſal extent: which 2 18 20 A View of the DzisrTIcAL Writers. Let. 3. js the caſe of the Chriſtian revelation. Thoſe therefore who are ſo circumſtanced as to have an opportunity of knowing it, ought io be very thankful to God on that account, and not refuſe or reject their own advantages and privileges, becauſe all others are not partakers of them as well as they. This would be a moſt abfurd and irrational conduct. I fhall only further obſerve, that this author ſeems frequently to make it a great objection againſt what he calls Particular reli- gion, that it inſiſteth upon other things as neceſſary, beſides the religion of nature, as contained in theſe five articles Religion, according to him, is notitiarum communium ſymbolum a, a Creed containing common notions or truths: and theſe common no- tices he reduceth to the five above-mentioned. But will any man undertake to prove, that God cannot reveal any truths to mankind, but preciſely theſe five articles, or that all uſeful religious knowlege is wholly abſolved in them? May there not be truths which, though not preciſely the ſame with thoſe articles, may be of great uſe for clearing and confirming them, for inſtructing men in the fuller knowlege of God, and of his will, and of the methods of bis grace towards us, or for direct- ing us in our duty, and animating us to the practice of it? And muſt all theſe be diſcarded at once, as of no uſe in religion, becauſe they are diſtinct from the articles ſo often referred to? Or muſt a well-atteſted revelation be rejected, becauſe it con- taineth ſome things of this kind? Our noble author himſelf, tho' he ſuppoſes theſe articles to be abſolutely neceſſary, ſeems not to be quite fure that they are ſufficient. For he obſerves, that God's judgments and proceedings are not fully known to any man: and therefore he will not take upon him poſitively to pronounce, that theſe articles are fufficient. Quanm ob cau- fam neque eos fuficere Protinus qixerim b. But if they ſhould be ſuppoſed to comprehend all that it is required from the heathens, who never had the light of the Chriſtian revelation, it doth not follow that they are alſo alone ſufficient for thoſe to whom this oſing God to give an extra- toring religion when greatly in the way of ſalvation, nent in divine knowlege, revelation is made known. For fu ordinary revelation of his will f ₰½ corrupted, and el arly directi and helping forward their impr 3 5.. 1 3. 1 1 d virtuous praGice, as it would be a ſignal and in a holy a advantage to thoſe to whom ſuch a revelation is given, ſo it wlay them under additional obligations. Some ) muſt neceſſaril) would, in conſequence of it, be neceſſary to be believed, things and done, by thoſe to whom this revelation is made known, 92. 22 /1. De Relig. Gentil. P. 293 which à 5 1 r 2 He Verlt. P Let. 2. Lord HERBERT of Cherbury. 21 which they were not ſo expreſly obliged to believe and practiſe before. And it would be a ſtrange thing to complain againſt revelation on this account, or accuſe it of falſnood, and to chooſe rather to be without the ſignal advantage of ſuch a re- velation, and its glorious benefits, privileges, and hopes, than to be obliged to receive the diſcoveries it brings, and to prae- tiſe the duties which reiult from them. One of the firſt Enghib writers that publiſhed animadverſions on Lord Herbert's ſcheme(for I fhall not takeé notice of wWhat ) was Mr. RKichard that Wds M ſome learned foreigners have done this way Baxter, in a bôok publiſhed in 1671, which he calls,“ « reaſons for the Chriſtian religion, and no reaſon agai And which he deſigned as an appendix to his excell of the reaſons of the Chriſtian religion. One part otf contains, Animadverſions on a Tractate de Veritate, written * by the noble and learned Lord Edward Herbert, Baron of Cherbury. This writer makes judicious refiectious on ſeveral paſſages in that book; but takes no notice of his Tract de Re- ligione Laici, nor of that learned work de Religione Gentilium, which probably he had not ſeen. The celebrated Mr. Lock, in his Eſſay on Human Underſtanding, hath ſome obſervations on Lord Herbert's five articles, to ſhew, that however reaſonable they may appear to be, they cannot be juſtly accounted common notices in the ſenſe in which that Lord repreſents them; viz. as clearly inſcribed by the hand of God, in the minds of all menc. And in his ˙ Raaſonableneſs of Cbriſtianity as deli- vered in the Scrißtures,“ he hath, without formally mentioning Lord Herbert, furniſhed a proper antidote againſt his ſcheme, by ſhewing, with great clearneſs and force, the uſefulneſs of divine revelation for ſetting the great principles of the law of nature, and the important duties of religion and morality in a ſtrong and convincing light, and inforcing them wirh the moſt powerful motives; and that the mere natural unaſſiſted light of reaſon was, as things were circumſtanced, inſufficient and in- effectual for that purpoſe a. This matter is alſo fully and di- ſtinctly treated in Dr. Wbhitby's learned work, intituled, The MNeceſſity and UÜſefulneſs of the Chriſtian Revelation, by reaſon of the Corruptions of the principles f natural Reli and Heathens. London, 8vo, 1705. The only author among us, that Iknow, „ conſidered the whole of Lord Herbert'sé c Eſſay on human Underſta i. c. 3. S 1. 15. 17. 18, 19. d Ses his works, vol. ii. P. 74,& 1 Ath edit — ————— —— —— V b 22 A View of tbe DEzisTIcAL Writers. Let. 2. a direct anſwer to his writings, is the reverend Mr. Halyburton, profeſſor of divinity in the univerlity of St. Andrew, in a book which was publiſhed after the author's death, at Edinbungh, in 1714, Ato, intituled Narural Religion inſuhicient, and Revealed neceſſary to men's Haßhbineſs-e in which particularly the * Wwritings of the learned Lord Harbert, the great patron of deiſm; to wit, his books de Veritate, de Religione Gentilium, ¹⸗ and his Religio Laici, in ſo far as they aſſert nature's light c able to conducét us to future bleſſedneſs, are conſidered, and ²⸗ fully anſwered.“ In this elaborate performance he ſets him- ſelf largely and diſtinctly to ſhew that the light of nature is greatly defctive, even with reſpect to the diſcoveries of a Deity, and the worſhip that is to be rendered to him; with reſpect to the inquiry concerning man's true happineſs; with reſpect to the rule of duty, and the motives for inforcing obedience. That it is unable certainly to diſcover the means of obtaining pardon of ſin; or to eradicate inclinations to ſin, and ſubdue its power. And, laſtly, he argues its inſufficiency from a general view of the experience of the world. He afterwards proceeds diſtinctly to confider the five articles to which the Lord Herbert reduces nis catholic religion. He anſwers the proofs his Lordſhip has brought to ſhew that thoſe articles did univerſally obtain; and, on the contrary, offers ſeveral proofs to ſhew that they did not ſo obtain. And he endcavours diſtinctly to anſwer the principal arguments and pleas urged by Lord Herbert; and, after him, by NIr. Blount, for the fufficiency of natural religion. Whoſo- ever carefully examines what this learned and pious author has offered on theſe ſeveral heads, will find many excellent things; though the narrowneſs of his notions in ſome points hath pre- judiced ſome perſons againſt his work, and hindered them trom regarding and conſidering it ſo much as it deſerves. I ſhall here conclude my account of Lord Herbert, in which I have been the more particular, becauſe as he was one of the ürſt, ſo he was confeſſedly one of the greateſt writers that havé appeared among us in the deillical cauſe. P.9 TIA AP. ſidered. 8 K, FTER I had finiſhed the two foregoing letters, I ſaw a X large anonymous letter, which was fent to you, and by you communicated to me, relating to LoRp HERBERT OE CHER- BURT. A remarkable Incident, relaling to Lord Herbert, con- Let. 2. Lord HERBERT f Cherbury. 23 BUR. This letter deſerves particular notice; and what I have to obſerve upon it may be properly inſerted here, immediately after the obfervations which have been made upon that noble writer in the preceding! etters. I readily agres with this gen- tleman, in acknowleging what, as he Obſepres, N Mr. Baxter owns in his animadverfions on Lord Herbert's tract de Veritate, that there are excellent things in that book, and that many of the rules there propoſed may be of great uſe. But I had no occa- ſion to take vandulat notice of them, as I propoſed only to make ſome general obſervations on his Lordhip: 8 ſcheme, as far as the cauſe of Chriſtianity is concerned. I hope the writer of that letter, who appears to be a man of ſenſe, and a friend to Chriſtianity, as well as a great admirer of Lord Herbert, will find upon peruſing the foregoing reflections, that I have done his Lordſhip juſtice, and not puſhed the charge againſt him farther than there is juſt ground for it. WhatI hare there ſaid is perfectl y agrecable to what tis ingenious gentleman has ob- ſerved in this letter; where, after having faid, that Lord Her- bert is commonly reputed to have been the firſt ſtarter of Deiſm in the laft century; he adds,%Suppoſing the charge to be * true, as I greatly ſuſpect it is, yet I am convinced upon ſe- «ε veral good reaſous, that he was nevertheleſs a Deiſt of more 4½ honour, and of greater candour and decency, as he was of ** far greater parts and learning, than many that have appeared «« under that denomination fince.“ fe ſubjoins,“ Had he «« lived in theſe days, wherein the ſubject, then new, has been *thoroughly canvaſſed, and no ſtone left unturned to find out *«the truth, and bring it into fair light; Iown I have charity ¹c enough to ſuppoſe, and almoſt to belicve, that Lord Herberz αwould either have been an advocate for revelation, or at leaſt ¹c have forbore oppoſing it.“ This gentleman takes notice of a manuſcript which he had lately ſeen, containing the life of Lord Herbert of Cberbury, drawn up from memorials penn'd by himſelf, and which is now in the poſſeſſion of a gentleman of diſtinction whom he does not name. He mentions that Lord's good conduct when he was Ambaſſador at Parig, and ſome other things that do not come within the compaſs of my deſign, which is not to give an account of the lives and characters of the authors I mention, but only to confider their writings, and thoſe no farther than they relate to the controverſy between the Chriſtians and the Deiſts. But there is one thing in that manuſcript life of Lord Hens ert, which the writer of the anonymous letter ca 3 C 4 34 A View of the DEisTicAL Writers. Let. 2. ne ident, and which is indeed of ſuch a hature, that I cannot pa it by without a particular notice. Aa having obſerved, that Lord Herbert's tract de Veritate was his favourite work, he produced a large extraét relating to it in that Lord's own words, ſignifying, that tho' it had been roved by ſome very learned men to whom he had ſhewn it, g whom he mentions Grotiug, yet as the frame of his e book was ſo different from what had been written here- tofore on this ſubject, and he aphn rehended he ſhould meet with much oppoſition, he did conſi ider, whether it were not better for him for a while to ſuppreſs it. And then his Lordſhip pro- ceeds thus: «Being thus doubtfal in my chamber, one fair day in the es ſummer, my caſement being open towards the ſouth, the ſun «e fhining clear, and no wind ſüirring. I took my book, de Ve- **ritate, in my hands, and, kneeling on my knees, devoutly ſaid * theſe words. O thou eternal Gad, aut hor of this light uhich ec nouν ſbines ußon me, and giver g all inward iiluminations; 3 ** I do beſeech the 2 of thine infinite goodneſi, to Bardon a „* greater requeſt tban a fiuner ought to make: I am not ſatis- 54 HRed enough, whether I ſpall u aiſ this book: if it be for thy glor y, unhea thee give me ſome ſign from heaven; I not, * I ſpall fußpreſi it. Ihad no ſooner ſpoken theſe words, but a 1s long, though yet gentle noiſe, came forth from the heavens „*(for it was like nothing on earthy which did ſo chear and „ comfort me, that I took my petition as granted, and that I ²* had the ſign Idemanded; whereupon alſo I reſolved to print ** my book. This, howf trange ſoever it may ſeem, I proteſt, * before the eternal God, is true: neither am I any way ſuper- 44 ſtitiouſly deceived herein; ſince I did not only clearly hear ² the noiſe, but, in Cueft ſky that ever Iſaw, being with- * out all cloud, did, to my thinking, ſee the place from whence 4s jt came.“ The ingenious writer of the letter ſays, he will make no re- marks on this incident, but ſen dit as he finds it; but he makes no doubt, that ſome obſervations upon this and other things In that life, would be acceptable to the friends of religion. Iſhall mention ſome reflections that have occurred to me upon this occafion. ve no doubt of his Lordſhip's fincerity in this account. The ſerious air with which he relates i it, and the ſolemn pro- teſtation he makes, as in the preſence of the eternal God, will not ſuffer us to queſtion the truth of what he relates; viz. that he both made that addreſs to God which he mentions, and that, in Let. 2. Lord HERBERT Of Cherbury. 25 in conſequence of this, he was Parluadedd that he heard the noiſe he takes notice of, and which he took to come from heaven, as nd regarded it as a mark of God s approbation of the requeſt e had made. And accordingly this great man was determined by it to publiſh a his book. He ſeems to have conſidered it as a kind of imprimatur given to it from heaven, and as ſignifying the divine approbation of the book itſelf, and of what was con- tained in it. I cannot help thinking, that if any writer, zealous for Chriſ- tianity, had given fuch an account of himſelf, as praying for and expectinga a ſign from heaven to determine his doul bt, whe- ther he ſhould publiſh a book he had compoſed in favour of the Chriſtian cauſe; and, upon hearing a noiſe, which he took to be from heaven, had looked upon it as a mark of the divine approbation, and as a call to publiſh that book; it would have paſſed for a high fit of enthuſ ſiaſm, and would no doubt have ſubjected the author to much ridicule among the gei ntlemen that oppoſe revealed religion. What judgment they will paſs upon it in Lord Herberl's caſe I do not know. But, conſidering the great partiality they have often ſhewn in their own favour and againſt Chriſtianity, it is not improb„that ſome of them may be apt to interpret this incident, as giving a divine ſanction to a book, which contains indeed ſeveral important truths, but withal hath ſome principles which are unfavourable to the Chriſtian religion; or, at leaſt, the e) may be willing to have it believed, that this is as much to be depended vpon as the ſigns and atteſtations ſaid to be given from heaven to the firſt preach- ers and publ lihers of the goſpel revelasion. There are ſome things ob bfervable in Lord Herbert's ſolemn addreſs to God, which, I think, are highly commendable, and would incline one to think very favourably of his Lordſhip's intentions. He diſcovereth in it a great veneration for the Deity, and a deep ſenſe of his dependence upon him as the author of light, and the giver of all inwardl illuminatiens. This is agreeable to the ſentiments of the beſt and wiſeſt men in ages. But yet I think it may be juſtly doubted, whether an addreſs of fuch a particular kind, as that made by his Lordſhip, was proper or regular. It does not ſeem to me, that we are well-founded to apply for or to expect an extraordinary ſign from heaven, for determining doubts concerning the he diency of publiſhing a book. Methinks, 18 4 a man hath uſed his beſt endeavours to find out truth, and, ich certainly ought not to be neglected, hath humbly vyniei: to God to aſſiſt and direct him in his enquiries; if he hath che teſtimeny of his own con- ſcience 5 a 1! 26 A View of tbe DEisr IcAL. Writers. Let. 2. ſcience to che uprightneſs of his own iatentions, and that he is not actuated by pride and vain-glory, by an affectation of ſingu- larity, or any worldly ſiniſter ends and views; and if he is ſa- tisfied, upon the moſt diligent and impartial examination, that what he hath advanced is both true, and of great importance to mankind, and is only afraid of the oppoſition it may meet with; I think, in ſuch a caſe, eſpecially if he hath alſo the advice of good and judicious friends concerning it, he hath ſufficient grounds to proceed upon, and doth not need a par- ticular ſign from heaven to determine him. This ſeems to be a putting it on a wrong foot, ſince God hath not in his word given us any ground to expect that he will anſwer ſuch a re- queſt; nor is there any reaſon to expect it from the nature of the thing. His Lordſhip himſelf ſeems to have ſuſpected that ſuch an addreſs and expectation was not regular, when he begs of God to Hardon it, as being a greater requeſt than a finner ought to make. I believe it will be acknowleged, that fudden impreſſions, or ſuppoſed ſigns from heaven, like that upon which Lord Herbert ſeemeth to lay ſo great a ſtreſs, are very equivocal, and not much to be depended upon for infor- mation in truth, or direction in duty. They may lay perſons open to miſtake and deluſion. It cannot be denied, that, in ſuch caſes, men are in danger of being impoſed upon by the warmth of their own imaginations, eſpecially if they be wrought up to a ſtrong deſire and expectation of an extraordinary ſign from heaven, in favour of a deſign which they heartily wiſh eed. is evident from his own account of it, that this was Lord Herbert's cafe. His mind was full of his book, highly prepoſſeſſed in favour of its truth and uſefulneſs. He ſeems not to have been diffident of the truth and goodneſs of the book tſelf, but only to have been in doubt about the expediency of its publication; and he took a very extraordinary way to obtain direction concerning it. Nothing leſs would ſatisfy him, than a ſign from heaven; and it is plain that he was big with expect- ation. His imagination was warmed with the hope of a fign that ſhould be a mark of the divine approbation. It is not to be wondered at, that a mind thus prepared ſhould be diſpoſed to interpret any incident that ſnould happen, in favour of its Own prepoſſeſſions, and as countenancing the purpoſe he had entertained in his own breaſt. Taking it in this view, nothing happened, but what may reaſonably enough be accounted for, without ſuppoſing any thing ſupernatural in the caſe. He doth not mention any articulate voice, or words ſpoken to him as rom ſnould ſucc Ithink i — Let. 2. Lord HERBERT of Cherbury. 27 from heaven, directing him what to do, or ſignifying an appro- bation of his deſign. He only maketh mention of a noiſe that ſeemed to him to come from heaven. He giveth no particular account what kind of noiſe it was, but only that it was loud and yet gentle, and that it camæ from heaven, for it war like nothing on earth, that it was in a ſorene ſky, and that to his thinking he ſau the place from uhence it came. In this ſituation of his mind, any noiſe that happened at that preciſe juncture, and which had ſomething unufual in it(and it is eaſy to ſuppoſe ſe- veral things of this kind) might be apt to make an impreſſion on his imagination. Iſhall only put one ſuppoſition, and it is this, that at that time it might happen to thunder a a diſtance, which might well be in ſummer-time, though in that part of the ſky which was within his view there was no cloud to be ſeen, and all ſeemed perfectly ſerene. And the noiſe&f thunder heard re- mote(to uſe Milton's phraſe) coming at that inſtant, when the ſoul was filled with expectation of ſomething extraordinary, would undoubtedly greatly affect him, and might be regarded as a ſign of approbation from heaven, which was what he ſought for. And then no wonder that it comforted and cheared him, as his Lordſhip obſerves it did. It is, I muſt confeſs, a great ſatisfaction to me to reilect, that the evidence of the Chriſtian revelation doth not depend upon ſuch equivocal ſigns as this. The atteſtations given to the firſt preachers and publiſhers of the Goſpel wereof ſuch a kind, that ſuppoſing them to have really happened they could not reaſon- ably, or with the leaſt appearance of probability, be aſcribed to any thing but a divine interpoſition; and therefore mighrt juſtly be regarded as marks of the divine approbation of the Chriſtian ſcheme. Upon this occaſion I cannot help drawing ſome kind of pa rallel in my own mind, between this incident that happened to this noble Lord, and that extraordinary appearance from heaven which St. Paul gives an account of, and which, with what fol- lowed upon it, had ſuch an effect upon him, as to conquer bis obſtinate prejudices, and to engage him to profeſs and preach that faith in Chriſt, which he himſelf had zealouſly perſecuted before. I believe the warmeſt advocates for Chriſtianity would be ready to own, that if that great apoſtle had had no better account to give of the reaſons and motives of his converſion, than ſuch a ſign from heaven as Lord Herbert mentions, this would have been a very ſlender foundation, either for himſelf or others, to go upon, in receiving the Chriſtian doctrine as of divine original. But the ſlighteſt compariſon of the caſes may 3 let 28 A Viow of the DEISTIcAI. Writers. Let. 2. let us ſee that there is a wide and amazing difference between them. Lord Herbert's mind was prepoſſeſſed with the expectation of a ſi gn from heaven. He ſought it, he applied to God for it, he had an hope that ſomething of this kind would happen. And when the thing came, which he took for a ſign, it was in favour of what he no doubt ſtrongly wiſhed and deſired belore. And yet, prepoſſeſſed as his imagination was, he hear d no voice of words, no articulate langusg ge, henilhing to him the divine will. But St. Paul was the fartheſt in the world from deſiring or expecting a ſign from heaven in favour of the religion of JFeſus. the contrary, his mind was at that very Rinſtant W holly poſſeſſed with the ſtrongeſt Preindies againſt it. He was then going to Damaſcus with a commiſſion from the high- reſ. ſeize the diſciples of Jeſus, and bring them to Tea. A7 to der puniſhed; and he was perſuaded in his own con- ſcience that lhe was right in doim g L0. He breat hed out threat- n, as the ſacred writer expreſſeth it. abe himlſelf te hat 5, verily thought with himſeif, that he oubt to do man] s contrary To the name f Jeſus of eth. In this circumſtance of things, if we fhould ſuppoſe him ſeized with a ſudden pang of ent thaſiaſm, though this is by no means likely to have happened to him, as he was travelling along the road at noon- day wich ſeveral others in his company: but if we ſhould ſuppoſe that lor nething of this kind hap pened „ and that 5 ſaw an ex ordinar y light from heaven, which he took to be a ſign th appro oved the work in which he was then engage d; or if he tho ught he alſo heard a voice from abore ſpeaking to him, and anima ating him to go on and cou geouſly to execute the commiſfio n he had received from the high-prieſt, and pror miing him ſucceſs in it; there might poſfibl ſome pretences aſcribing it to the working of an oOver heated imagination, 6 led with the deſign he was upon, W hich ngaged all his thoughts and reſolutions. But it is plain, that, in the temper he was then in, he could not 4 77111 5 2a haugpten ag 5 1 to bim (d poſſibly have the leaſt exped tarion ob Jeſus of Nazareth's ap- pearing to him with a celeſtial ſplendor and glory, calling tohim : H with a majeſtic voice from heaven, and in wor ls which he roving him for his enmity to him, and per- his diſciples, appointing him his miniſter diſtinctly heard, r age againft le, and commiſſioning him to preach the Gof ſpel to the aund to invite them to a par tici ipation of the benefits ges of hi bingdom; which were things the molt remote from his appi chenfion t that could pofſibly be conceived. I need ſec uting Let. 2. Lord HERBERT of Cherbury. 29 I need not here particularly repeat all 8 circumſtances of a ſtory ſo well known, as that of the divine appearance eiwhi ich occaſioned St. Paul's converſion. But taking in the whole, as he himſelf relateth it, it is abſolutely impoflſible that it ſhould have been the effects of his own enthufiaſtic c imagination, con- ſidering how his mind was at that time diſpoſed. To which may be added the conſequent effects which ſhewed the reality of it. Struck blindh with the glory of the app obliged to be led to Da amaſcug. And it on of Ananias's hands, in the name of Joſus, ſight reſtored. There was immediately a w onde rfu 1 change in his diſpoſitions, notions, and incli natic lightened at once, without human inſtru lon, in a knowlege of tlie religion of Jeſus, than which nothin be more contrary in many points to the phariſaical principles and prejudices he had ſo decply imbibed.. He was endued with the moſt extraordinar) y gifts the Holy Ghoſt, and had 4 power of communicating thoſe hiftan toc thers ue the layi his hands in the name of a crucif riſen Jefus;⸗ in the ſame ſacred name was enabled to perform the moſt il- luſtrious miracles Theſe were matters of fact in which could not be deceived himfelf, and of which there were num- bers of witneſſes. And accordingly he went through the m ions preaching Jeſfur Chriſt, and him cr ueified,: as the Latſour and Lord; which he did with ſuch evidence, and had ſuch extraordinary atteſtations from heaven accompanying him, that vaſt numbers were brought over by his miniſtry to embrace a ion which was abſolutely contrary to their moſt rooted prejudices, inclinations, and intereſts. There might poſſibly be ſome ſuſpicions with regard to the relation of a fact ſo circumſtanced as was that of Lord Herbert. It might be thought poſſible, that an author might feign an approbation from heaven in favour of ſome peculiar notions he had entertained, and of a book of which he was very fond zud upon which he ſeems to have valued himſelf. Not that there is any reaſonable ground of ſuſpicion, that this nobie writer feigned what he relates concerning this incident. But yet ſome may ſuppoſe, that an author might p ſſibly b be under ſome temptation to deviate from the rules of truth in ſuch a caſe. But no ſuch ſuſpicion can be entertained in St. Paul's caſe, that he ſhould have feigned a heavenly appearance in favour of a religion, which he was well known to have hated, perſecuted. and deſpiſed, and which was abſolutely contrary — . 1-. 1 1 A 1.— to the prejudices to which he had been ſo obſtinately addiéted, 8, 2. — — S . and ——————— — 2 — b — 30 A View of tbe DEisricAL Writers. Let. 2. and to all his worldly expectations, connections, and intereſts. To which it may be added, that he gave the higheſt poſſible proof of his own ſincere belief of the fact as he has related it, by his inviolable adherence to that religion, to which he was by this extraordinary means converted; though he expoſed him- ſelf by it to the bittereſt perſecutions, and to the greateſt and moſt various labours and fufferings that any one man ever en- dured; and which he bore with an invincible conſtancy, and even with a divine exultation and joy, ſupported by the teſti- mony of a good conſcience, and the hope of a glorious reward in the heavenly world. Upon the whole, let us put the ſuppoſition that Lord Herbert, in the account he hath given of what happened to him, has had the ſtricteſt regard to truth, which for my part I have no doubt of; and that the account St. Paul hath given of the extraordi- nary appearance to him from heaven is alſo true; there is this vaſt difference between the caſes; that granting all that hap- pened to Lord Herbert to have been as he relates it, there is nothing in it but what may be accounted for in ſome ſuch manner as that mentioned above, without ſuppoſing any thing ſupernatural in the caſe; but granting the truth of the relation which St. Paul gives of the divine appearance to him, with the effects that followed upon it, there is no poſſibility of account- ing for it in a natural way, or indeed in any other manner, than by owning an extraordinary and ſupernatural interpoſition. Though therefore the former, granting it to be true, can by no means be depended upon as a certain mark of the approbation of beaven given to Lord Herbert's book; yet the latter, ſup- poſing it in like manner true, affordeth a convincing proof of an extraordinary atteſtation given from heaven to the divine miſſion and glory of a crucified Jefus, and to the truth and divine original of the Chriſtian revelation. I may perhaps be thought to have expatiated too much in my reflections on this occaſion. But I hope I fhall be excuſed, when jt is conſidered, that the incident is of ſo uncommon a nature; that it relateth to a perſon of Lord Herbert's character and eminency; and that the account of it is extracted from memo- rials written by himſelf. Iihall make no farther remarks on the anonymous letter than to obſerve, that the writer of it makes mention of the anſwers to Lord Herbert, publiſhed by Mr. Baxter and Mr. Halyburton. He alſo takes notice of the Weehfy Miſcellany, as having lately appeared againſt him. Thé two former I have taken Eet. 3. Mr. HoBBES's Writings. 31 taken notice of above; the latter I have not ſeen, and therefore know not how far ſome of the obſervations there made may have coincided with mine. S. ₰ L. E I T. E R III. Obſervations on Mr. Hobßbes's writings. He ſometimes profeſſetb a regard io the ſcripture as tbe word and lauo of God, at otber times ridicules inſpiration or revelation. He attempts to invalidate ibe ſacred Canon, and makes religion and ibe autbority of ſcripture to depend entirely on tbe authority of tbe magiſtrate. His ſtrange maxims in morality and politics. His ſcheme tends to ſubvert natural religion as well as revealed. Confuted by ſeveral learned authors. Nmy two former letters ſome obſervations were made on the 1 writings of that eminent Deiſt, Lord Herbert of Cherbury. The next writer I fhall mention was in ſeveral reſpects of a dif- ferent character from that noble Lord, though alſo very fa- mous in his time, the noted Mr. Thomas Hobbes of Malmſbury. There have been few perſons, whoſe writings have had a more pernicious influence in ſpreading irreligion and infidelity than his; and yet none of his treatiſes are directly levelled againſt revealed religion: and therefore I fhall content myſelf with ſome brief general reffections upon them. He ſometimes affects to ſpeak with veneration of the ſacred writings. He expreſsly de- clareth, that though the laws of nature are not laws as they proceed from nature, yet“as they are given by God in holy * ſcripture, they are properly called laws; for the holy ſcrip- “ture is the voice of God, ruling all things by the greateſt ¹righta.“ But though he ſeems here to make the laws of ſcripture to be the laws of God, and to derive their force from his ſupreme authority, yet in many other paſſages, ſome of a De Cive, cap. iii,§ 33. ; Whiich 3² A Viev of the DEisrieAL Writers. Let. 3. which I ſhall have occaſion to mention, he ſuppoſeth them to have no authority but what they derive from the prince or civil power. He ſometimes ſeems to acknowlege inſpiration to be a fupernatural gift, and the immediate hand ꝗf God; at other times he treats the pretence to it as a ſign of madneſs; and by a jingle upon the words repreſents God's/ſpeaking to the ancient prophets in æ dream or viſion, to be no more than their dream- ing that he ſpoke to them, or dreaming between fleebing and uaking b. To weaken the authoriry of the ſacred Canon, he endeavours to fhew, that the books of Moſes, and the hiſtorical writings of the Old Teſtament, were not written by thoſe whoſe names they bear; and that they are derived to us from no other authority, but that of Bſdras, who reſtored them when they were loſt e. A ſuppoſition in which he hath been ſince followed by others on the ſame ſide, and very lately by a noble Lord: though the abſurdity of it is manifeſt, and hath been fully ex- poſed d. As to the writings of the New Teſtament, he acknow- legeth, that they are as ancient as the times of the apoſtles, and that they were written by perſons who lived in thoſe times, ſome of whom ſaw the things which they relate; which is what many of our modern Deiſts ſeem unwilling to own. And tho' he inſinuates that the copies of the ſcriptures were but few, and only in the hands of the Eccleſiaſtics, yet he adds, that he ſees no reaſon to doubt, but that the books of the New Teſtament as we have them, are the true regiſters of thoſe things which were done and ſaid by the prophets and apoſtlese. But then he moſt abſurdly pretends, that they were not received as of divine authority in the Chriſtian church, till they were declared to be ſo by the council of Laodicea, in the year after Chriſt 364: though nothing is capable of a clearer proof, than that their authority was acknowleged among Chriſtians from the apoſtolic times. He expreſsly aſſerts, that we have no aſſurance of the certainty of ſcripture, but the authority f the church, and this he re- folveth into the authority of the commonwealth: and declares, that till the ſovereign ruler had preſcribed them,“ thé precepts „¹of ſcripture were not obligatory laws, but only counſel and „¹advice, which he that was counſelled might without injuſtice *«⁴ refuſe to obſerve, and being contrary to the laws could not *„*without injuſtice obſerve;“ that the word of the interpreter „ Leviath. p. 196. c Ibid. p. 200, 201, 203. d Reflec- tions on Lord Bolingbroke's letters, p. 51,&c.* Leviath. p. 204. 4 of Let. 3. Mr. HoßREs' Writings. 33 of ſcripture is the word of God, and the ſovereign magiſtrate is the interpreter of ſcripture, and of all doctrines, to whoſe authority we muſt ſtand f. Yea, he carrieth it ſo far as to pro- nounce, that Chriſtians are bound in conſcience to obey the laws of an infidel king in matters of religion; that ˙thought ¹e is free, but when it comes to confeſſion of faith, the private **reaſon muſt ſubmit to the public, that is to ſay, to God's “ lieutenant.“ And accordingly he alloweth the ſubject, being commanded by the ſovereign, to deny Chriſt in words, holding firmly in his heart the faith of Chriſt: and that in that caſe, ¹e it is not he that denieth Chriſt before men, but his governor * and the laws of his countrys.“ And he expreſsly declareth, that idolatry to which a man is compelled by the terror of death is not idolatry. And this being the caſe, it is not to be wondered at, that he ſpeaks with contempt of the ancient mar- tyrs. In this the fucceeding Deiſts have not failed to imitate him. They have reproached thoſe excellent perſons as having died as a fool diethh; as if it were a ridiculous and ſenſeleſs thing to endure hardſhips and ſufferings, for the ſake of truth and conſcience. And yet thoſe have been always juſtly admired, who have expoſed themſelves to the greateſt dangers in a noble cauſe, and who would not do a baſe thing to ſave their lives. Mr. Hobbes acknowlegeth the exiſtence of God, and that we muſt of neceſſity ariſe from the effects which we behold to the eternal Power of all powers, and Cauſe of all cauſes; and he blames thoſe as abſurd, who call the world, or the ſoul of the world, God: but he denies that we know any more of him, than that he exiſts; and ſeems plainly to make him corporeal; for he affirms, that that which is not body is nothing at all ¹; And though he ſometimes ſeems to acknowlege religion and its obligations, and that there is an honour and worſhip due to God, prayer, thankſgivings, oblations, erc. yet he advanceth principles which evidently tend to ſubvert all religion. The account he gives of it is this,“ that from the fear of power in- * vilible, feigned by the mind, or imagined from tales publicly ¹e allowed, ariſeth religion, not allowed ſuperſtition.“ And he elſewhere reſolveth religion into things which he himſelf derides; viz.«opinions of ghoſts, ignorance of ſecond cauſes, ¹devotion to what men fear, and taking of things caſual for *e Pprognoſtics k.“ He takes pains in many of his works to prove f See queſt. concerning liberty, p. 136. De cive, cap. 17 Leviath. p. 169. 283, 284. s Ibid. p. 238. 271. k See Chriſt. not founded on argument, p. 32, 33. 1 Leviath. 214. 371. Ibid. p. 54 VoL. I. D man 34 A View af ihe DiisTIcAL Writers. Let. 3. man to be a neceſſary agent, and expreſsly aſſerts the materiality and mortality of the human ſoul; and he repreſents the doc- trine concerning the diſtinction between ſoul and hody in man, to be an error contracted by the contagion of the demonology of the Grecks. We may obſerve by the way the great difference there is in this reſpect between Mc. Hobbes and Lord Herbert. This noble writer has reckoned the notion and belief of a future ſtate among the common notices naturally obvious to the minds of all men: but the account Mr. Hobbes is pleaſed to give of it is this, that the belief of a future ſtate after death,“ is a * belief grounded upon other men's ſaying, that they knew it ** ſupernaturally, or that they knew thoſe, that knew them, „ that knew others, that knew it ſupernaturally 1.“ That we may haye the better notion of this extraordinary writer, it may not he amiſs to mention ſome other of his maxims. He aſſerts, that by the law of nature every man hath a right to all things, and over all perſons, and that the natural condition of man is a ftate of war, a war of all men againſt all men: that there is no way ſo reaſonable for any man as to anticipate, that is, by force and wiles to maſter all the perſons of others that he can, ſo long till he ſees no other power great enough to endan- ger him. That the civil laws are the only rules of, good and evil, juſt and unjuſt, honeſt and diſhoneſt; and that antecedently to ſuch laws every action is in its own narure indifferent: that there is nothing good or evil in itfelf, nor any common laws conſtituting what is naturally juſt and, unjuſt; that all things are meaſured by what every man judgeth fit, where there is no civil government, and by the laws of ſociety, where there is one m, That the power otf the ſovereign is abſolute, and that he is not bound by any compacts with his ſubjects; that nothing. the ſovereign can do to the ſubject can properly be called inju- rious or wrong; and that the king's word is fufficient to take any thing from any ſubject, if there be need, and the king is judge of that need n, In Mr. Hobbes we have a remarkable inſtance what ſtrange extravagancies menof wit and genius may fall into, who, whilſt they value themſelves upon their ſuperior penetration, and laugh at popular errors and ſuperſtition, often give into notions ſo wild and ridiculous, as none of the people that govern them- ſelves by plain common ſenſe could be guilty of. It will hardiy 1 m De cive, cap. vi.§ 18. cap. X.§1. cap. Xii.§ 1. Leviath. p. 24, 25. 60, 61, 62, 63. 72. n Lev. P. 90. 100. be 1 Leviath. p. 74 LEet. 3. Mr. Horzs's Writings. 33 be thought too ſevere a cenſure to ſay, that Mr. Hobbos's ſcheme ſtrikes at the foundation otf all religion, both natural and re- vealed. That it tendech not only to ſubvert the authority of the ſcripture, but to deſtroy God's moral adminiſtration. T hat it confoundeth the natural differences of good and evil, virtue and vice, and taketh away the diſtinction between ſoul and body, and the liberty of human actions. That it deſtroyeth the beſt principles of the human natufe, and inſtead of that innate benevolence and ſocial diſpoſition, which ſhould unite men together, ſuppoſeth all men to be naturally in a ſtate ot war with one another. That it erecteth an abſolute tyranny in the ſtate and church which it confounds, and maketh the will of the prince or governing power the ſole ſtandard of right and wrong; and that it deſtroyeth all the rights of private conſci- ence, and indeed leaveth no room for conſcience at all. Butnotwithſtanding the ill-tendency of many of Mr. Hobbeg's principles, yet the agreeableneſs of his ſtile, of which he was a great maſter, joined to his dogmatical way of pronouneing with a very deciſive air, and the very oddneſs and apparent no- velty of his notions, gave them a great run for a time, and did no fmall miſchief. He himſelf boaſteth of the good reception his Leviathan met with among many of our gentry: but the mani- fold abſurdities and inconſiſtencies of his ſcheme, and the per- nicious conſequences of it to religion, morality, and the civil government, have been ſo well expoſed, and ſet in a clear Üight, that there are not many of our modern Deiſts that would be thought openly to eſpouſe his ſyſtem in its full extent. And yet it cannot be denied, that there are not a few things in their writings borrowed from his; aud that ſome of them have choſen rather to follow him than Lord Herbert in ſeveral of his principles; and particularly in aſſerting the mate- riality and mortality of the human ſoul, and denying man's free agency. Mr. Hobbes met with many learned adverſaries; among whom we may particularly reckon Dr. Serh Ward, afterwards biſhop of Saliſbury, and archbiſhop Brambal. The latter argued with great acuteneſs againſt that part of his ſcheme which relates to liberty and neceſſity; and afterwards actacked the whole of his ſyſtem in a piece called the Catching& the Levia- than, publiſhed at London in 1658; in which he undertakes to demonſtrate out of Mr. Hobbes's own works, that no man who is thoroughly an Hobbiſt can be“a good Chriſtian, or a good commonwealch's-man, or reconcile himſelf to himfelf.“ The reverend Mr. Teniſon, afterwards archbiſhop of Canterbury, D 2 gave V 35⁵ A View of ibe DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 3. gave a ſummary view of Mr. Hobbes's principles, with a judi- cious confutation of them, in a book called, The Creed f Mr. Hobbes eæxamined, publiſhed in 1670. To theſe may be added the famous Earl of Clarendon, who writ“ a brief view and ««* ſfurvey of the dangerous and pernicious errors to the church „«mand ſtate in Mr. Hobbes's book, intitled Leviathan.“ This was publiſhed in 1676. Biſhop Parker, Mr. Tyrrel, but above all biſhop Cumnzberland, in his juſtly celebrated work De Legibus Naturæ, did alſo diſtinguiſh themſelves in this controverſy. It is to be obſerved, that the learned writers, who oppoſed Mr. Hobbes, did not ſo much apply themſelves to vindicate revealed religion, or the Chriſtian ſyſtem, as to eſtabliſh the great prin- cipſes of all religion and morality, which his ſcheme tended to ſubvert; and to ſhew, that they had a real foundation in rea- ſon and nature. And in this they certainly did good ſervice to religion. VYet ſome of the enemies of revelation endeavoured to take advantage of it, as if this ſnewed that there is no other ro- ligion but thée law of nature, and that any extraordinary revela- tion is needleſs and uſeleſs. Thus on every ſuppoſition theſe gentlemen ſeem reſolved to carry their cauſe againſt Chriſtianity. If there be no law of nature, no real difference in the nature of things, between moral good and evil, virtue and vice, there is no ſuch thing as religion at all, and conſequently no Chriſtian religion. On the other hand, if it be proved, that there is ſuch a thing as the religion and lawof nature, which is founded in the very nature and relations of things, and agreeable to right reaſon, then it is concluded, that this alone is ſufficient, and mat it is clear and obvious to all mankind; and therefore they need no revelation to inſtruct them in it, or aſſure them of it. A very wrong concluſion this! ſince it is manifeſt that a well- atteſted revelation from God would be of very great uſe, both farther to clear and confirm ſome of the important principles of natural religion, which, though in themſelves reaſonable, were in fact greatly obſcured and perverted in the corrupt ſtate of mankind; and alſo to inſtruct men in things, which however highly uſeful to be known, they could not have clearly diſco- vered or been fully aſſured of, by the mere unaſſiſted light of nature without a divine revelation. This might lead one into a train of reflections on the con- nection there is between natural and revealed religion. But I muſt content myſelf with giving ſhort hints of things. To enlarge farther upon them would not ſuit my preſent deſign. Nou will probably hear from me again ſoon: and in the mean time, Iam,&c. LE T- L ILETTER IV. Mr. Charles Blount's notes on ibe life of Apollonius Tyanæus deſigned to expoſe Cbriſtianity. His Religio Laici copied for tbe moſt part from Lord Herbert. He bad a chief hand in ibe Oracles of Reaſon. He at- tacks the dostrine of a mediator as unworthy of God. His remarkable conceſſion ibat it is not ſafe to truſt 10 Deiſm alone without Cbriſtianity joined with it. Mr. Toland, another deiſtical wwriter; very fond of aſſerling Daradowes. The deſign of bis Amyntor to render t be Canon of tbe New Teſtament uncertain. He gives a large catalogue of ſpurious goſpels, and attempts to ſpew rbat tbey were equally received and acknocwleged in tbe primitive times, with the goſpels which are now looked upon as autlbentic. The contrary fully proved in the anſcvers tbat were made to him. § T R, MONG thoſe who openly avowed the cauſe of deiſm, and ſeemed zealous to promote it, may be reckoned Charles Blount, Eſquire. In 1680 he publiſhed a tranſlation of the two firſt books of Pbiloſtratus's Life of Apollonius Tyanæus with large notes, which are manifeſtly intended to ſtrike at revealed religion. Abollonius, you know, was a Bythagorean philoſopher that lived in the firſt century, whoſe character and miracles were oppoſed by the Pagans to thoſe of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. Hierocles wrote a book to this purpoſe, which was anſwered by Euſebius, who hath plainly proved, that Philo- ſtratus was a vain and fabulous writer, and that his accounts are full of romantic ſtories and ridiculous fables. And whoever impartially conſiders Phitzſtratus's book, Wwhich is ſtill extant, muſt be convinced that Euſebius's cenſure upon it is juſt. No- thing can be ſuppoſed more different than Phileſtratus's manner of writing, ſtuffed with rhetorical flouriſhes and vain oſtenta- D 3 tions 3⁸ A Vieww of the Drisrica. Writers. Let. 4. tions of learning, is from the plain, ſober, artleſs narration of the evangeliſts, which hath all the characters of genuine unaf- fected ſimplicity, and a ſincere regard to truth. To which it may be added, that Apollonius's philoſophy, and the wonders he is faid to have wrought, all tended to uphold the reigning eſta- bliſhed ſuperſfition and idolatry, which at the ſame time had all worldly advantages on its ſide; and yet was not able to op- poſe the progreſs of Chriſtianity, which triumphed over it, though deſtitute of all thoſe advantages, and though it had all the powers of the world againſt it. ⁴ manifeſt proof this, how vaſtly ſuperior the evidence of our Saviour's divine charac- ter and miracles was to any thing that could be produced in oppoſition to it. And yet many of our modern Deiſts have been fond of running che parallel between Aollonius and Jeſus Chriſt. Mr. Plount in his notes has thrownout feveralinſinuations againſt the miracles ofour Saviour, in which he has been followed, and even exceeded, by fome fucceeding writers, of whom l may after wards give ſome account. This gentleman has on ſeveral occaſions difoovered a ftrong prejudice againſt the ſcriptures; and ſhewn how willing he is to lay hold on whatſoever he thinks may expoſe them: it could be only owing to this, that he finds fault with that manner of expreſſion, he opened his mouith, and faid a. A cenfure Which may be thought to proceed from an extraordinary nicety, rather than a true juſtneſs of taſte. But though this, and other oriental idioms and forms of ſpeech, may differ from what is uſual among us, the language 8 ſcripture has been always admired by the beſt judges. In 1683, the ſame gentleman publiſhed a ſmall book, intitled, Raligio Laici, which is little more than a tranſlation of Lord Horbert's treatiſe of the ſame name. The additions and im- provements he has made are ſo few, and of ſuch ſmall moment, as not to deferve a diſtinct conſideration, and therefore I ſhall refer to the reflections already made on Lord Herbent's ſcheine. Some years after, in 1693, there was another book publiſhed, in which Mr. Flount had a principal concern, and which was I plainly intended to propagate infidelity. It had a pompous les Reaſfon, and was publiſhed after Mr. vs unhappy end, by his friend Mr. Charles Gildon, who 1 uſhered it into the world by a preface in defence of ſelf-mur- lty of to get rid of the , The Oraol 1 der, which that gentleman had been guil G uneaſineſs of a paſſion which proved too violent for him. The G title of the book ſeemed to promiſe demonſtration, as if it were a Blount's notes on Philoſtratus, p. 69. intended Let. 4. Mir. BLouxr's Writings. 39 intended to ſerve as an infallible guide in matters of religion. But there is little order or method in it, or regularity of deſign. It is a collection of diſſerent pieces, conſiſting for the moſt part of letters between Mr. Plount and his friends, intermixed with fragments and tranſlations from ſome Greek and Latin authors, done with-no great exactneſs. That parrof the book Wwhich relates to natural religion, and its ſufficiency, proceeds chieflfy upon Lord Herbert's plan. There are two of the tracts particularly remarkable this way: the one is a Summary Account of the Deiſt's religion, by Mr. Blount: the other is a Letter from A. W. to Mr. Blount con- cerning natural religion, as oppoſed to divine revelation. In the former of theſe, Mr. Plaunt having ſet himſelf to ſhew, that God is not to be worſhipped by an image, or by ſacrifices, next endeavoureth to prove, that he is not to be werſhipped by a mediator. He pretends that the worſhip of God by a mediator derogateth from his infinite mercy, equally as an image doth from his ſpirituality and infinity. But his argument is founded upon a miſapprehenſion or mifrepreſentation of the goſpel ſcheme. Far from derogating from the mercy or goodneſs of God, the appointment of ſuch a mediator, as the goſpel pro- poſeth, is one of the moſt ſignal inſtances of his grace and goodneſs towards mankind., It is a wiſe and gracious proviſion for exerciſing his mercy towards guilty creatures, in ſuch a way as is moſt becoming his own glorious government and per- fections, and moſt conducive to their peace and comfort, and moſt proper to remove their guilty jeaſouſies and fears. But he farther urgeth, that if God appointed the mediator, this ſhews that he was really reconciled to the world before, and conſequently that there was no need of a mediator. It ſheweth indeed, that God had kind thoughts of mercy, and gré ious intentions towards the human race, but this doth not prove that therefore the appointment of a mediator was needleſs. On the contrary, his wiſdom determined him to take this method as the propereſt way of exerciſing his mercy, and diſ- penſing the effects of his goodneſs; of which he is certainly the fitteſt judge. And whoſoever duly conſiders the ſublime idea given us in the goſpel of a mediator, the work upon which he was ſent, and the offices he is inveſted with, may obſerve ſuch characters of the divine wiſdom and gooduneſs in it, ſuch a regard to the honour of God, and to the comfort and penefit and happineſs of mankind, as ought greatly to recom- mend the goſpel ſcheme. But the diſtinct conſideration of theſe D 4 things 4⁰ A Vievs of tbe DEisricaL Writers. Let. 4. things would take up more room than the preſent deſign will allow. To this tract is prefixed a letter from Mr. Blount to Dr. Sy- denbam, in which there is this remarkable paſſage: That e undoubtedly in our travels to the other world the common ¹road is the ſafeſt; and though Deiſm is a good manuring of ¹e a man'’s conſcience, yet certainly, if ſowed with Chriſtianity, it will produce the moſt plentiful crop.“ Here he ſeems plainly to own, that it is not ſafe to truſt to Deiſm alone, if Chriſtianity be not joined with it b. As to the other tract I mentioned, the letter written by A. W. to Mr. Blount concerning natural religion as oppoſed to divine revelation, the chief heads of natural religion are there reduced to ſeven articles. I. That there is an infinite and eternal God, Creator of all things. 2. That he governs the world by his providence. 3. That it is our duty to worſhip and obey him as our creator and governor. 4. That our worſhip conſiſts in Prayer to him, and praiſe of him. 5. That our obedience con- ſiſts in the rules of right reaſon, thé practice whereof is moral virtue. 6. That we are to expect rewards and puniſhments hereafter according to our actions in this life, which includes the ſoul's immortality, and is proved by our admitting provi- dence. 7. That when we err from the rules of our duty, we ought to repent, and truſt in God's mercy for pardon c. Here Lord Herbert's five articles, which were all that he accounted neceſſary, are enlarged to ſeven, which indeed may be regarded as farther explications of the former; and with other explica- tions they might be enlarged to a ſtill greater number. What was obſerved concerning Lord Herbert's articles may be applied to theſe. It will be acknowleged, that they are agreeable to right reaſon, but this is no proof that therefore an expheſs divine revelation would not be needful in the preſent ſtate of mankind, to ſet them in a ſtronger light, and give them addi- tional force. Several of the Deiſts would be far from agreeing with this writer in ſome of the articles he mentions. The firſt article runs thus, that there is one eternal ſelfexiſtent God, Creator of all things. Where it is plainly ſuppoſed, that the world was created; and yet, in another part of that book, Mr. Blount has taken the pains to tranſlate a large fragment of Qcellus Lucanus, which is deſigned to prove the eternity of the world d. And it appears that he himſelf does not diſapprove 46 b Oracles of Reaſon, p. 87. 91. e Ibid. p. 197. 4 Ibid. p. 212— 228. it. ——— Let. 4. Mr. BrouuT's Writings. 41 it. In another part of theſe pretended Oracles, in a letter from Mr. Gildon to Mr. Blount, the opinion of the origin of good and evil, from two different eternal principles, the one good, the other evil, is repreſented as not unreaſonable e. In another of the above-mentioned ſeven articles it is declared, that the worſbip uwe owe to God conſits in Prayer to Him, and Braiſe of Him: and yet it is well known, that this has been conteſted, and denied, by ſome of the ancient philoſophers and modern Deiſts. And Mr. Blount himſelf in his notes upon the life of Apollonius Tyanæus, having obſerved that ſome of the heathens uſed no prayers at all, inſinuates, in their names, objections againſt that duty f. With regard to the fifth article, that cur obedience conſiſts in the rules of right reaſon, the gractice uheregf is moral virtue; this is eaſily faid in general, but there is no great likelihood, that if they were to come to a particular ex- plication, they would agree what is to be locked upon as included in the rules of right reaſon, and in the practice of moral virtue. Some of them would probably think it reaſon- able to indulge the appetites and paſſions in inſtances which others would not think reaſonable or proper: even in a point of ſuch conſequence as ſelf-murder, ſome of the ancient philo- ſophers and modern Deiſts have pleaded for it, whilſt others have condemned it: and it is openly juſtified(as was before obſerved) in the preface to theſe Oracles of Reaſon. And one ſhould think no reaſonable man could deny that expreſs pre- cepts, determining by a divine authority the particulars of moral duty, would be of great advantage. As to the article of future rewards and puniſhments, and the ſoul's immortality; this is repreſented by Mr. Blount, in a letter te rhe right Ponourable the moſt ingenious Strephon, and by A. W. in his letter to Mr. Blount, as a neceſſary part of natural religion; and yet he obſerves, that the ancient heathens diſagreed about it 2. And, in another part of theſe Oracles, it is declared to be probable, that the ſoul of man is not of an intirely diſtinct nature from the body, but only a purer material compoſition àh. And the ſoul's materiality is not very conſiſtent with the doctrine of its immortality. And now we may ſee what to judge of A. W. s argument againſt Chriſtianity, That“ if the reaſons of the “Chriſtian religion were evident, there would be no longer any ¹*contention or difference about it: and if all do not agree in **it, thoſe marks of truth in it are not viſible, which are e Oracles of Reaſon, p. 194. f Notes on Philoſtratus, p. 38. s Oracles of Reaſon, p. 201. R Ibid, p. 1564. 187. 3 ¹¹ neceſſary 4² A Vieaw of tbe DEisricAL. Writers. Let. 4. ¹* neceſſary to draw our aſſent i.“ This argument, if it were good for any thing, would prove that there are no viſible marks of truth in natural religion, no more than in revealed; ſince it cannot be denied that men differ about the one as well as the other. But the truth is, the argument doth not conclude in either caſe. There are ſeveral things in the Oracles Reaſon, which are particularly deſigned againſt the holy ſcriptures, and which have been repeated by others ſince. But the ſacred writings have been fully vindicated againſt thoſe exceptions. Mr. Blount has particularly attacked the writings of Moſes, and the moſt conſi- derable part of what he has offered to this purpoſe, is borrowed either from the learned author of the Archæologiæ Pbhilaſophicæ, who though he differed in ſome things from what is generally Jooked upon as the true interpretation of M%s's ſenſe, was far from intending to fubvert the authority of the Moſaic writings; or from the author of the hypotheſis of the Præadamites, who afterwards retracted his own book. From this writer Mr. Slount hath given us a literal tranſlation for ſeveral pages toge- ther, in two different parts of this book, without making the leaſt deenolegemeu of it, or taking any notice of the anſwers that had been returned. In like manner he hath thought pro- per to repeat the objections which have been frequently urged againſt the Moſaic Writings, from the irreconcileableneſs of the accounts there given with the antiquities pretended to by the molt learned heathen nations, particularly the Chaldeans and Egyptians. Our great Stillingfteet had, in the firſt book of his Origines Sacra, very amply conſidered the at matter, and clearly mewn the va anity of thoſe pretences, yet they are here again advanced with as much confidence as if they had never been refuted. The ſame obſervation may be made with regard to the arguments of Ocellus Lucanus, about the eternity of the world, which are tranflated and produced with great pomp, by Mr. Blount, though they had been unanfwerably expoſed in the laſt-mentioned lear— treatiſe k. The Oracles g Keaſon were animadverted upon by Mr. John Bradley, in a book publiſhed at London in 1699, in 12mo, intitled, An Imßartial Vieu of the Truth ꝗ& Chriſtianity, with the Hiſtory ofthe Life and Miracles Apollonius Tyanæus: 70⁰ hich are added, Some Reflections on a Boak called Oracles ęf Kea- fon. This book I have not ſcen. Dr. Michols s conference with 1 Oracles of Reaſon, p. 201. 206. k Origines Sacræ, book 3. chap. 2. fect. 4, 5, 6, 7. a Theiſt Let. 4. Adr. ToLANP'S Writings. 43 a Theiſt was alſo particularly deſigned by the learned and inge- nious author in oppoſition to the Oracles Keaſon; and he hath not left any material part of that book unanſwered. The firſt part of this conference was püblifhed at London, in 12mo, in 1696, and the other three parts in the following years. But what deſerveth our ſpecial notice, Mr. Gildon, the publiſher of the Oracles of Reaſon, and who had recommended them to the world with a pompous elogium, Was afterwards, upon mature conſideration, convinced of his error; of which he gave a re- markable proof, in a good book, which he publiſhed ſome years after, in 1705, intitled, The Deiſt s Manual. It is obſerv- able, that the greateſt part of this book is taken up in vindi- cating the doctrines of the exiſtence and attributes of God, his providence and government of the world, the immortality of the ſoul, and a future ſtate. And his reaſon for it was, as he himſelf intimates, becauſe many of the Deiſts, with whom he was well acquainted, did really deny thoſe great principles which lie at the foundation of all religion, or at leaſt repre- ſented them as doubtful and uncertain. And their not admit- ting natural religion in its juſt extent formed ſome of their prin- cipal prejudices againſt the Chriſtian revelation. The next writer, of whom I ſhall give ſome account, is Mr. Toland, who, though he called himfelf a Chriſtian, made it very much the buſineſs of his life to ſerve the cauſe of infi- delity, and to unſettle men's minds with regard to religion. There are many things in his writings which ſhew that he was very fond of aſſerting things that had an appearance of novelty, however deſtitute of reaſon or probability; a remarkable in- ſtance of which he has given in his ſtrange attempt to prove, that motion is eſſential to matter. See his letters to Serena, Letter 3d. 1. In another book, which he calls Pant heiſticon, publiſhed in 1720, he has ſhewn himſelf a favourer and admirer of the Pant heiſtic philoſophy, i. e. that of Spinoſa, which ac- knowlegeth no other God but the univerſe. The firſt thing that made Mr. Toland taken notice of, was his Chriſtianity nor myfterious, or a diſcourſe ſbewing that there is nothing in the gobel contrary to reaſon, or above it, and that no Chriſtian doëirine can be properly called a myftery. This was publiſhed in 1696, and was animadverted upon by ſeveral writers of learning and reputation, as Mr. Becconſal, Mr. Beverly, Mr. ¹ This is confuted in Dr. Clarke's Demonſtration,&c. p. 24. Edit. 7th. John ——— b b 44 A View of tbe DEisTIcAL Writers. Let. 4. Jobn Norris, Dr. Payne, Mr. Synga, afterwards archbiſhop of Tuam, and Mr. Broun, afterwards biſhop of Corke. In 1709, he publiſhed at the Hague two Latin diſſertations. The firſt is intitled, Adeiſidæmon ſive Titus Livius a fuperſtitione vindi- catus. In qua diſſertatione probatur Livium hiſioricum in ſacris, Srodigiis,& oſtentis enarrandis, haudguaquam fuiſſe credulum aut fuperſtitioſum: ißſamque ſuperſtitionem non minus Reipublicæ (R non magis) exitioſam ſſe, quam purum putum at heiſmum. The ſecond diſſertation bears the title of Origines Judaicæ, ſive Strabonis de Moyſe& religione Judaica hiſtoria breviter illuſtrata. In this diſſertation he ſeems to prefer the account of this Pagan author concerning Moſes and the Jewiſp religion before that which is given by the Jeuws themſelves. Theſe two diſſertations were anſwered by Mr. La Faye, miniſter at Utrecht, in a book printed in 1709, and intitled, Defenfio religionis, nec non Moſis & Gentis Judaicæ contra duas diſſertationes Joannis Tolandi. And by Mr. Benoit, miniſter at Defft, in his Melange de re- marques critiques, hiſtorigues, Philoſophiques, theologiques, fur fesr douoc diſſertations de Mr. Toland, intitulez, Vun! Homme ſans fußerſtition,& lautre les origines fudaigues, printed at Delft in 1712. But what I ſhall here particularly take notice of, and dy which he hath chiefly diſtinguiſhed himſelf, is the pains he hath taken to invalidate the authority of the ſacred canon of the New Teſtament, and to render it uncertain and precarious. This ſeems tohave been the deſign of the book he calls myntor, which he publiſhed in 1698, and in which he hath given a catalogue of books, attributed in the primitive times to Jaſus Chriſ, his apoſtles, and other eminent perſons,“ together with ¹* remarks and obſervations relating to the canon of ſcripture.“ He hath there raked together whatever he could find relating to the ſpurious goſpels, and pretended ſacred books, which appeared in the early ages of the Chriſtian church. Theſe he hath produced with great pomp to the number of eighty and upwards, and though they were moſt of them evidently falſe and ridiculous, and carried the plaineſt marks of forgery and zmpoſture, of which, no doubt, he was very ſenſible, yet he has done what he could to repreſent them as of equal authority with the four goſpels, and other ſacred books of the New Teſta- ment, now received among Chriſtians. To this end he has taken advantage of the unwary and ill-grounded hypotheſes of fome learned men, and has endeavoured to prove that the books of the preſent canon lay concealed in the coffers of private per- ſons, till the latter times of Trajan or Adrian, and were not Kpowa to the clergy or churches of thoſe times, nor diſtinguiſh- E .„————————j Let. 4. Mr. TorAND' Writings. 45 ed from the ſpurious works of heretics; and that the ſcriptures, which we now receive as canonical, and others which we now reject, were indifferently and promiſcuouſly cited and appealed to by the moſt ancient Chriſtian writers. His deſign in all this, manifeſtly is to fhew, that the goſpels and other ſacred writ- ings of the New Teſtament, now acknowleged as canonical, really deſerve no greater credit, and are no more to be depended upon, than thoſe books which are rejected and exploded as for- geries. And yet he had the confidence to pretend, in a book he afterwards publiſhed, that his intention in his Amyntor, was not to invalidate, but to illuſtrate and confirm the canon of the New Teſtament m. This may ſerve as one inſtance, among many that might be produced, of this writer's fincerity. Several good anſwers were returned to Toland's Amyntor. Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Samuel Clarke publiſhed a fmall tract in 1699, intitled, Some Rælections on that Part of the book called Amyntor, which relates to the Writings of the primitive Fathers, and the Canon ꝗf the New Teſtament. In this he gave an early ſpecimen of thoſe talents, which he afterwards employed to ſo great advantage in the defence of Chriſtianity. The ſame book was afterwards anſwered by the ingenious Mr. Srephen Wye, in his Hiſtorical Account and Dæfence gf the Canon f the Neu Teſament, in Anſwer to Amyntor. And by Mr. Richardſon, in his Canon of the Neu Teſtament vindicated; whoſe work hath been juſtly and generally eſteemed, as executed with great learning and judgment. To theſe may be added, Mr. Jones, who hath confidered this matter diſtinctly, and at large, in * his Neu' and full Method ettling the canonical Aurhority *f the Neu Teſtament,“ which was publiſhed at London in 1726, in two volumes 8vo; to which a third fſmall one was afterwards added, publiſhed in 1727, but left unfiniſhed by reaſon of the author's death. Theſe learned writers have plainly ſnewn Mr. Toland's great unfairneſs and diſingenuity in his whole management of the argument: That he has frequently impoſed upon his readers by falſe quotations, or by groſly mifrepreſenting the authors m See Toland's preface to his Nazarenus, p. 9. This very odd book was well anſwered by Mr.(afterwards Dr.) Mangey, in hie Remarks upon Nazarenus. On which Mr. Toland made ſome re- fleclions in a tract he called Mangoneutes. Mr. Paterſon alſo publiſhed his Anti-Nazarenus, in anſwer to Mr. Toland's book. And Dr. Thomas Brett took ſome notice of it in the preface to his Tradition neceary to explain and interpret the boly Scriptures he 46 A Visw of ibe DEisrrcAaL Writers. Let. 4. he cites: That he has been guilty of great blunders, and ridi- culous miftakes: That ſeveral of the writings he produces, as having been written in the apoſtolic age, were forged ſo late as ihie third or fourth century: That by far the greateft part of thoſe writings, of which he hath given ſo pompous a catalogue, and which he would put upon the world as moſt ancient and apoſtolical, are expreisly rejected by the authors whom he himſelf refers to, as ſpurious and apocryphal, or even as abſurd and impious forgeries: That as to thoſé few of them which are not expreſsly rejected and condemned by the writers who have mentioned them, it doth not appear by any one teſtimony, that they were ever generally received, and acknowleged in thie Chriſtian church, or equalled with thie books of the ſacred ca- non; and that even thoſe authors who have been thought to quote ſome of them with aprobation, yet expreſsly declare, that none but the four goſpels were received in the Chriſtian church, as of divine authority: That though ſome of the falſe goſpels, that they might the better paſs upon the people, were com piled out of the genuine goſpels, with ſuch additions, omiſ- ſions, and interpolations, as might beſt anſcer the deſign of the compilers; this did not hinder their being generally reject- ed: whereas the four goſpels, the ſame which we now receive, were generally acknowleged from the beginning: That theſe and other ſacred books of the New Teſtament were, even in the earlieſt ages, ſpread into diſtant countries, and were in the poſſeſſion of great numbers of perſons, and read in the churches as divine: And fiqally, that ſeveral of the genuine writers of the three firſt centuries have left vs catalogues of the ſacred books of the New Teſtament, but in none of thoſe catalogues do any of the apocryphal goſpels appear. To ſet this whole matter in a clearer light, Mr. Jones has given us a complete enumeration of all the apocryphal books of the New Teſtament, and made a critical inquiry into each of choſe books, with an Engliſp verſion of thoſe of them which are now extant, and a particular proof that none of them were ever admitted into the Canon. And he hath diſtinctly pro- duced and conſidered every teſtimony relating to them, that is to be found in any Chriſtian writer or writers of the firſt four centuries after Chriſt. Upon all that hath been written on this ſubject, it is a juſt and natural reflection, that as the number of ſpurious goſpels, which were rejected by the primitive Chriſtians, ſhews how ſcrupulous they were not to admit any books as canonical, but thoſe of whoſe truth and authenticity they had ſufficient Peo 0 Let. 4. Mr. TorAND'S Writings. 47 ſo their admitting, and receiving with ſo general a conſent, the four goſpels which are now in our hands, affordeth a ſtrong argument, that they had undoubted evidence of the genuine truth and certainty of the evangelical records, which fully ſatis- fied them who lived neareſt thoſe times, and who had the beſt opportunities of knowing; and that to this it was owing, that they, and no others, were generally received and acknowleged as of divine authority. On this occaſion it is proper to mention Dr. Lardner's excel- lent work of the Credibility of the Goſbel- Hiſtory; in the ſecond part of which, conſiſting of ſeveral volu nes, he hath made a full and accurate collection of the paſſages which are to befound in the writers of the firſt ages of the Chriſtian church, relating to the four goſpels, and other ſacred books of the New Teſta- ment. This he hath executed with ſo much fidelity and dili- gence, and with ſuch exactneſs of judgment, that the Engliſp reader, Who hath not opportunity to conſult the originals, will be ablę to judge for himſelf, upon conſidering the paſſages of the original authors, which are very faithfully tranſlated. This affordeth ſo clear and continued a proof of their having been generally received in the earlieſt ages of the Chriſtian ehurch, that one would hope it ſhould put an end to this Part of the controverſy. LE I TE R 4⁸ A View of tbe DEis TIcAL Writers. Let. 5. —O, 2 No erENS Nſ S„ LAN 7 Iœ/ SE A⁴&& LEETITER V. The Earl of Shafteſbury, a fine and much admired writer. Not veryconſiſtent in tbe account hbe gives of Cbriſtianity. He caſteth reflegtions on ibe dottrine of future rewards and puniſpments, as if it were of diſſervice to the intereſts of virtue. The contrary ſpevon from his owon acknocw- legements. His Lordbip reſolves zbe credit of boly writ zwbolly into tbe authority and appointment of tbe flate. Re frequently takes occaſion to expoſe the Scripiures, and repreſents ijbem as uncertain, and not to be depended upon. U bat be ſaitb concerning ridicule, as ibe teſt and criterion of trutb, examined. It is ſpezvn, ibat a turn to ridicule is not the propereſt diſpoſition for finding out truth: and tbat there is great danger of its being miſapplied. His Lordſpip's ouwon coritings furniſp in- ſtances of ſuch a wrong application. Autbors men- tioned that bave written againſt bim. F 2 k, I gives me a real concern, that among the writers who have appeared againſt revealed religion, I am obliged to take no- tice of the noble author of thie Characteriſticc. Some indeed are not willing to allow that he is to be reckoned in this num- ber. Paſſages are produced out of ſome of his writings, in which he expreſſeth very favourable ſentiments of Chriſtianity. Thus he doth particularly, in a preface, which, and I believe juſtly, is aſcribed to his lordſhip as the author, prefixed to a volume of ſelect ſermons of Dr. Benfamin Wbichcot, publiſhed in 1698. In that preface he finds fault with thoſe in this pro- fane age, that repreſent not only the inſtitution of preaching, but even the goſpel itſelf, and our holy religion to be a fraud. He expreſſeth his hope, that from ſome things in thoſe ſermons, even they that are prejudiced againſt Chriſtianity may be in- duced to like it the better; and that the vein of goodneſs, which appears throughout theſe diſcourſes, will make ſuch as are already —-————— ————.—, Let. 3. Earl gf SHAFTESBURV. 49 already Chriſtians, prize Chriſtianity the more; and the fair- neſs, ingenuity, and impartiality, which they learn from hence, will be a ſecurity to them againſt the contrary temper of thoſe other irreconcilable enemies to our holy Faith. In 1716, ſome of his letters were publiſtied at London, under the title of Several Letters written by a noble Lord to a young Man in The Univerſity. 8vo.“ In theſe letters, which were written a few years before the Earl of Shafteſbury's death, in the years 1707, 1708, 1709, there are excellent ſentiments and advices, and ſome which ſeem to diſcover a real regard for the Chriſtian religion. It were greatly to be wiſhed, on many accounts, that his Leachiy had always expreſſed himſelf in an uniform manner on this fubject. No impartial man will deny him the praiſe of a fine genius. The quality of the writer, his lively and beau- tiful imagination, the delicacy of taſte he hath ſhewn in many inſtances, and the graces and embelliſhments of his ſtyle, though perhaps ſometimes too affected, have procured him many ad- mirers. To which may be added his refined ſentiments on the beauty and excellency of virtue, and that he hath often ſpoken honourably of a wiſe and good providence, which miniſters and governs the whole in the beſt manner; and hath ſtrongly aſſerted, in oppoſition to Mr. Hobbeg, the natural differences between good and evil; and that man was originally formed for ſociety, and the exerciſe of mutual kindneſs and benevo- lence; and not only ſo, but for religion and piety too n. Theſe things have very much prejudiced many perſons in his favour, and prepared them for receiving almoſt implicitly whatever he hath advanced. And yet it cannot be denied, that there are many things in his books, which ſeem to be eviden ntly calculated to caſt contempt upon Chriſtianity, and the holy Scriptures. It is in the Characteriſtics that we are properly to look for an account of his Lordſhip's ſentiments. They were firſt publiſhed in three volumes 8vo. in 1711. And the laſt part of his life was employed in reviſing them, and preparing for a new and moſt correct edition of them, w hich accordingly was publiſhed immediately after his death. In them he completed the whole of his works which he intended fhould be made public. And theſe books are ſo generally read, and by many ſo much ad- mired, that it is neceſſary to take notice of thoſe things in them which ſeem to have a bad aſpect on religion, and to be of a dangerous influence d tendency. n Characteriſtics, vol 224. VoL. I. E Of 30 A View of tbe DEISsTIcAt Writers. Let. 3. Of this kind are the frequent reflections he hath caſt on the doctrine of future rewards and puniſhments. This, as Iobſerved in a former letter, is repreſented by Lord Herbert as a funda- mental article of natural religion: And though he carries it too far in making it an innate priuciple, in which all mankind are, and have been always agreed; yet it cannot be denied, that there were ſome notices and traces of it generally ſpread among the nations, though mixed with much obſcurity, and which probably had a great effect in preſerving the remains of religion and virtue among the people, though contradicted by ſeveral ſects of their philoſophers. It is the great advantage and glory of Chriſtianity, that it hath cleared and confirmed this impor- tant principle, and hath brought life and immortality into an open light. But the author of the Characteriſtics frequently expreſſeth himſelf in a manner, which tendeth to raiſe a preju- dice againſt this great principle of natural and revealed religion, as if it were of little uſe in morals, yea, and in many caſes of a bad tendency. Thus, after having made an elegant repre- ſentation of the happy ſtate of things in the heathen world, and the liberty and harmony which then prevailed, he proceeds to ſhew the different ſtate of things among Chriltians, which he ſeems chiefiy to attribute to the notion and belief of a future ſtate. A new ſort of policy(ſaith he) which extends itſelf * to another world, and conſiders the future lives and happi- *« neſs of men rather than the preſent, has made us leap beyond «c the bounds of natural humanity, and out of a ſupernatural « charity has taught us the way of plaguing one another moſt *c heartily. It has raiſed an antipathy which no temporal in- *e tereſt could ever do; and intailed upon us a mutual hatred * to all eternity. The ſaving ſouls is now the heroic paſ- «e ſion of exalted ſpirits o.“ This is not the only place where his lordſhips ſpeaks with ridicule of the ſæving of ſouls, and of thoſe uho as: for their ſouls fakes and make a careful Brovifion for hereafter P. And he elſewhere tells us, ſpeaking of the expectation of God's diſpenſing rewards and puniſhments in a future life, that“ an expectation and dependency ſo miraculous * and extraordinary as this is, muſt naturally take off. from *² other inferior dependencies and encouragements. Where ²e infinite rewards are thus inforced, and the imagination *e ſtrongly turned towards them, the other common and natu- ‧e ral motives to goodneſs are apt to be neglected, and loſe 0 Charadteriſtics, vol. i. p. 18, 19, edit. 5th. Ibid. vol. iii. P. 302. 5„much Let. 35. Earl of SHAFTESBURV. 51 much by diſuſe. Other intereſts are hardly ſo much as com- *«puted, whilſt the mind is thus tranſported in the purſuit of 24 2 bigh advantage, and ſelf-intereſt, ſo narrowly confined «within ourſelves. On this account all other affections to our *« friends, relations, or mankind, are often flightly regarded, „as being worldly, and of little moment in reſpect of the „¹² intereſt of our ſouls a.“ To the ſame purpoſe he repreſents it, as if the Chriſtian were ſo urged to have his converſation in heaven, as not to be obliged to enter into any engagements with t his louue er world, or to concern himſelf either with the buſi- neſſes of life 6 or with the offices of private friendſbiß, or the ſervice of the public: and that theſe are to be regarded embarraſſments to Bim in working out his oun ſalvationn. It ſeems to be a natural inference from all this, that according to his repreſentation of the matter, it were better for mankind not to believe, or have any regard to a future ſtate at all. For if the belief be weak, he tells us it will be of the worſt conſe- quence. There can, ſays he, in ſome reſpects, be nothing * more fatal to virtue than the weak and uncertain belief of ** future rewards and puniſhments: for the ſtreſs being wholly * laĩd on this foundation, if this foundation ſeems to fail, there «* is no farther Pro or fecurity to men's virtues.“ And, on the other hand, if the belief be ſtrong, and deeply im preſſed upon the mind, it will cauſe men to neglect the intereſts and duties of this preſent life, the duties they owe to their friends, their neighbours, and their country. This is the account his Lordſhip gives of it; but it is groſaly miſrepreſented. For ſince that virtue and goodneſs which is to be re ldled Dere- after includes, according to the ſcripture account of it, the do- ing good here on earth as far as we have an opportur i and even a diligence in the buſineſs of our ſeveral callings, and the exerciſe of ſocial duties, it is evidently wrong to fayt that a regard to the recompences of a future ſtate muſt carry us off from theſe duties, when, on the contrary, it bindeth us more ſtrongly to the performance of them. Our having our converſa- rion in heaven is not deſigned to cauſe us to neglect: the duties incumbent upon us here on earth; for theſe are moſt expreſsly enjoined in the goſpel-law, as being comprehended in that righteoufneſs which entitleth us to that future glory; but that we ſhould not take up with the inferior df this pfeſent world as our proper ultimate portion anc h t 4 1 6 1 13 2 Characteriſtics, vol, ii. p. 68 r Ibid. vol. i. p. 99. 100. e Ibid. vol. ii. p. 6 5² A View of ibe DEIsTicAL. MWriuers. Let. g. dur views to a nobler ſtate, where we hope to arrive to the true felicity and perfection of our natures. And this certainly is an admirable leſſon, highly to the honour of Chriſtianity; ſince it is a too great affection and eſteem for worldly enjoyments that puts men upon wrong purſuits, and is the principal ſource of the greateſt diſorders of human life. Several other paſſages might be produced, in which his Lord- ſhip ſeems to repreſent the belief and expectation of a future ſtate as of pernieious inſftuence. Thus he obſerves," that the « principle of ſelf-love, which is naturally ſo prevailing in us, *« is improved and made ſtronger every day by the exerciſe of «« the paſſions on a ſubject of more extended intereſt;“(by which he refers to the expectation of eternal happineſs in a fu- ture ſtate)“ and that there may be reaſon to apprehend, that «a temper of this kind will extend itſelf through all the parts «« of life. And this has a tendency to create a ſtricter atten- „ tion to ſelf-good and private intereſt, and muſt inſenſibly di- „ miniſh the affection towards public good, or the intereſt of *«*F ſociety, and introduce a certain narrowneſs of ſpirit, which „« is obſervable in devout perſons of almoſt all religions and **perſuaſionst.“ Here he lays a heavy charge on the hope of future happineſs; as if it had a bad tendency to ſpread an in- ordinate criminal ſelfifhneſs through the whole of human life, to diminiſh the public good affections, and introduce a narrow- neſs of ſpirit. A moſt unjuſt charge this! Since it might eaſily be ſhewwn, that the belief and hope of ſuch a happineſs as the Goſpel ſets before us, and which is there repreſented as a ſtate of perfect goodneſs and the moſt extended benevolence, and for which that charity which ſeeketh nor her own is one of the beſt preparatives, has a tendency, if rightly underſtood, to enlarge the heart, to purify and ennoble the ſoul, and raiſe it above the little narrow intereſts of the fleſhy ſelf, and to fill it with the higheſt idea of God, and his immenſe goodneſs. But his Lordfhip urges, That““ thoſe who talk of the re- «⸗ wards of virtue make it ſo very mercenary a thing, and have « talked ſo much of its rewards, that one can hardly tell what „there is in it after all that is worth rewarding u.“ He obſerves that the moſt Beroic virtue, private friendſbiß, and zeal for the Bublic, have little notice taken of them in our hoh religion, * Charadteriſtics, vol. ii. p. S8. a Ibid. vol. i. P. 97. x It has been noted by the Peiſtical writers, that zeal for the public, or love to a man's country, which was ſo much inculcated by ſomè of the antient philoſophers and moraliſts, is paſſed over in the ——————— D,0 nv— z —½ — —,———— ———P—,————————— —— Dõ—·. Let. 5. Earl of SHAaFTESBURV. 33 religion, nor have any reward promiſed them; though if they be comprehended in the things that are vely and virtuous, and praiſe-worthy, they are both commanded there, and ſhall ac- cording to the goſpel-ſcheme be rewarded; but his Lordſhip who the Goſpel; and this is mentioned as a defect in the Chriſtian morality. But if the matter be rightly conſidered, there is nô juſt foundarion for this objection. To have recommended as by a divine authority, what the Romans generally underſtood by love to their country, a ſtrong paſſion for the glory of it, and which often car- ried them to do great injuſtice to thoſe of other nations, would not have been ſuited to the nature of a revelation, which was deſigned for the general good of mankind, and to promote univerſal benevo- lence. And if our Saviour had exhorted the Jews in the name of God to a zeal for their country, and its liberties, this, in the diſpo- ſition they were then in, could have been looked upon in no other light, than as ftirring them up to tumults and inſurrections. But of love to our country, as it ſignifies a true and affectionate concern for the public good, he gave an admirable example, and his exam- ple hath the force of a precept, according to the Chriſtian ſyſtem. This will be evident to any one that impartially conſiders the affec- tion he ſhewed to the Jewiſh nation, from whom he ſprung accord- ing to the fleſh, the amiable concern he expreſſed for the miſeries he foreſaw were coming upon them, and the endeavours he uſed to prevent thofe evils, by checking the tumultuous ſpirit which was then working among them, and engaging them to a peaceable ſubjection to the Roman government. The ſame obſervation may be made with regard to the apoſtles and firſt publiſhers of Chriſ- tianity after our Saviour's refurrection. If they had in the name of God urged it upon the Jews and Gentiles, among whom they preached the goſpel, to be zealous for their country, and had pro- miſed divine rewards to ſo beroic a virtue, this would undoubtedly have been regarded as an attempt to raiſe diſturbances in the ſtate. It could not, as things were circumſtanced, have produced any good effects, and might probably have had very bad ones. But if by zeal for the public be meant a hearty deſire and endeavour to promote the public good, and the real welfare of the community, nothing can be better fitted to anſwer that end than the Chriſtian law. It hath a manifeſt tendency, wherever it is ſincerely believed and em- braced, to make good magiſtrates, and faithful and peaceable ſub- jects, and to render men truly uſeful to the public, by engaging them to a diligent diſcharge of the duties of their ſeveral ſtations and relations, and to the practice of univerſal righteouſneſs. Chriſti- anity, which requires us to exert ſo noble a ſpirit of diſintereſted benevolence, as to be ready to lay down our lives for the brethren, 1 John iii. 16. would certainly engage and animate us, if properly called to it, even to lay down our lives for the good of the com- munity. A virtuous regard to the public happineſs, and a contri- buting as far as in us lies to promote it in our ſeveral ſtations, make E 3 a par 54 A View of tbe DEisT IcAL Writers. Let. 5. who ſuppoſes the contrary, mentions it as an advantage, that no præmium or penalty being inforced in theſe caſes, it leaves more room for diſintereſtedneſs, the virtue is a free choice, and the magnanimity is left entirev. And does not this inſinuate, that if no reward had been promiſed at all, to any part of our duty, it would have been the better for us, and our virtues would have been the more excellent? In like manner he repre- ſents that reſignation to God, which depends upon the hope ot ir finite retributions or rewards, to be a falſe reſignation, which ciſcvers no worth nor virtue; ſince it is only a man's reſigning his preſent life and pleaſure conditionally, for that which he himſelf owns to be beyond an equivalent ². And yet this right honourable author himſelf acknowlegeth, that if by the hope of reward be underſtood the hope and deſire of virtuous enjoyments, or of the very practice and exerciſe of virtue in another life, it is far from being derogatory to virtue, put is rather an evidence of our loving it. And nothing is more evident to any one that is acquainted with the holy ſcriptures, than that tho' the future happineſs is there ſometimes metaphorically deſcribed under ſplendid ſenſible images, which his Lordſhip is pleaſed to reſiect uoon as trifling and childiſh b, yet the idea there given us of it is che nobleſt, the ſublimeſt, that can be conceived. It is repreſented as a ftate of conſummate holineſs, goodneſs, and purity, where we ſhall arrive to the true perfection of our natures; a ſtate into which not hing ſball enter that dęfileth; where the ſpirits of the juſt ſhall be made perfec, and even their bodies fhall be refined to a wonderful degree; where they ſhall be aſſociated to the glorious general aſſembly of holy and happy ſouls, and to the moſt excellent part of God's creation, with whom they ſhall cultivate an eternal friendſhip and har- mony; and, which is chiefly to be conſidered, where they ſhall be admitted to the immediate viſion of the Deity, and ſhall be transformed, as far as they are capable of it, into the divine likeneſs. Such is the happineſs the Goſpel ſetteth before us, and which certalnly furniſheth a motive fitted to work upon the wortbieſt minds. And the being animated by the hope of ſuch a reward hath nothing mean or mercenary in it, but rather is an argument of a great and noble ſoul. a part of that excellent and praiſe-worthy conduct, which it is the great deſign of the Chriſtian religion to promote, and which, ac- cording to the divine promiſes there given us, ſhall be crowned with a glorious reward. Characteriſt. p. 98, 09, 100, 101. 2 Ibid. vol. ii. p. 59. a Ibid. vol. ii. p. 5 5. 56. p Ibid. vol. i. p. 282. And ———— — Let. 5. Earl of SHAFTESBURV. 55 And even as to the fear of puniſhment, this alſo may be of ſignal uſe to reſtrain the exorbitancies of the paſſions, to check the career of vice, and to awaken men to ſerious thoughts, and thereby put them in the way of better impreſſions. His Lord- ſhip himſelf aſſerteth the uſefulneſs of puniſhments as well as rewards in all well-regulated governments. And with reſpect to future puniſhments he acknowlegeth, that ˙ though this ſervice of fear be allowed ever ſo low and baſe, yet religion being ſtill a diſcipline and progreſs of the ſoul towards per- fection, the motive of reward and puniſhment is primary, and of the higheſt moment with us, till being capable of more ſublime inſtructions, we are led from this fervile ſtate to the generous ſervice of affection and love«c.“ And he elſewhere expreſsly declareth, that“ the hope offuture rewards, *and fear of future puniſhments, how mercenary or ſervile ſo- «ever it may be accounted, is yet in many inſtances a great „advantage, ſecurity, and ſupport to virtue,“ and he offereth ſeveral conſiderations to prove that it is ſo 4. I cannot there- fore help thinking that this admired writer has done very wrong in throwing out ſo many inſinuations againſt the doctrine of future retributions, and againſt the holy Scriptures and Chriſ- tian divines for inſiſting ſo much upon it, as though it were of ill inſtuence in morals. Iam perſuaded, that any one who duly conſiders the ſtate of mankind, and what a mighty in- fluence our hopes and fears have upon us by the very frame of our nature, muſt be ſenſible that if the ſeripture had only con- tained fine and elegant diſcourſes on the beauty of virtue, and the deformity of vice, inſtead of propoſing the ſanctions of eternal rewards and puniſhments, it would neither have been ſo becoming the majeſty and dignity of the ſupreme legiſlator, nor ſo well fitted to anſwer the end of a revelation deſigned for common uſe. The ſcripture indeed doth every-where ſuppoſe, and frequently repreſenteth the excelleney of holineſs and vir- tue, and the turpitude and deformity of vice and ſin, and the good effects of the one, and bad effects of the other, even in this preſent ſtate. But it is the great advantage of the Chriſ- tian revelation, that it carrieth our views beyond this narrow tranſitory ſcene to a future eternal ſtate, and deriveth its moſt important motives from thence, which he himſelf acknowlegeth to be of infinitely greater force; and, which is very odd, he ſecemeth to make the very force of thoſe motives an objection c ₰ c 6 .₰ 4 e Characteriſt, vol. ii. p. 63, 273. a Ibid. vol. ii. p. 60. et ſeq. E 4 againſt 56 againſt inſiſting upon them, as if they would render all other motives and conſiderations uſeleſs. The prejudices his Lordſhip had conceived againſt Chriſti- anity ſufficiently appear from ſeveral of thoſe paſſages that have been mentioned; to which many ochers might be added. He is pleaſed indeed more than once to declare himſelf a very ortho- dox believer. He hath aſſured us, in his ironical way, of his KRteady ortbodoxy, and entire fubmiſſion to the truly Chriſtian ana Cat holic doctrines f our holy church as by lau eſtabliſbed: And that he faithfully embraces the holy myſteries o our religion even in the minuteſt Particulars, notwithſtanding their amazing depthe. For which he gives this reaſon, that* when the *⁴ ſupreme powers have given their ſanction to a religious re- ** cord or pious writ, it becomes immoral and profane in any * one to deny or diſpute the divine authority of the leaſt line **or ſyllable contained in it ſ.“ To the ſame purpoſe he elſe- where declares, that the myſteries of religion are to be deter- mined by thoſe to whom the ſtate has gned the guardianſbiß and promulgation of ibe divine Oracles; and that the authority and direction gf zhe lau is the onſy ſecurity againſt heterodoxy and error, and the only warrant for the authority of our ſacred Fymbols 8. So that according to him, Chriſtianity has no other foundation than what will ſerve a falſe religion as well as the true. And elſewhere in the perſon of the ſceptic, he talks of our viſible ſovereign's anſwering for us in matters reli- gion h. In this his Lordſhip exactly agrees with Mr. Hobbes: He is indeed far from aſſerting with that writer that there is nothing good or evil in its own nature, and that virtue and vice depend wholly on human authority and laws; this he on all occaſions ſtrenuoufly argueth againſt. But he comes into another part of his ſcheme, the making the magiſtrate or ſu- preme civil power, the ſole judge of religious truth and ortho- doxy, and reſolving all doctrines and opinions in religion, and the authority of what ſhall be accounted holy writ, into the appointment of the ſtate; a ſcheme which abſolutely deſtroyeth the rights of private judgment and çonſcience, and which evi- dently condemneth the conduct and judgment of Chriſt and his apoſtſes, and the primitive Chriſtians at the firſt plantation of Chriſtianity, and of thoſe excellent men that ſtood up for the reformation of it ſince. 12 A View of the DEisT cAL Writerr. Let. 3. 9 * Characteriſtics, vol. iti. p. 315, 316. f Ibid. p. 231. ² Ibid. p. 71. vol. i p. 360. n Ibid, vol. ii. p. 353. But Let. 5. Earl of SHAFTESBURVY. 57 But notwithſtanding our noble author's pretended veneration and ſubmiſſion to the holy writ by public authority eſtabliſhed, he hath taken occaſion to expoſe the ſcripture as far as in him lay to ridicule and contempt, of which many inſtances might be produced. Not to mention the inſinuations he has thrown out relating to particular paſſages both in the Old Teſtament and the New, he hath endeavoured to expoſe che ſpirit of pro- phecy, and made a ludicrous repreſentation of it, and compared it with the extravagancies of the maddeſt Enthufiaſts i. Mira- cles he will not allow to be any proofs, though ever ſo certain k, or, that there is any ground to believe their having been done, but the authority of our governors, and of thoſe whom the ſtate has appointed the guardiang of holy writ!¹. He ſpeaks with ridicule, as other Deiſtical writers have often done, of what he calls the ſPecious pretence f moral certainty, and matter factm, and inſinuates that the facts recorded in the goſpels are abſolutely uncertain, and that he that relies upon thoſe accounts muſt be a ptical Cbriſtiann. He reprefents St. Paul, as ſpeaking ſcobtically, and as no way certain or Boſitive as to the lation made to him, though the contrary is manifeſt from the 's oOwn moſt expreſs declarationso. The very encomiums ne ſometimes pretends to beſtow upon the ſcriptures are of ſuch a kind, as tend rather to give a low and mean idea of them. Thus he commends the 5oetical Parts ſcribture, Job, Pſalms, Proverbs, and other intire volumes of the ſacred collection, as full ef humorous diſcourſfes, and jocular wit; and ſaith, that the ſa- red writers“ had recouſe to humour and diverſion, as a proper means to promote religion, and ſtrengthen the eſtabliſhed faith.“ In like manner he tells us, that our Saviour's diſcourſes were ſbarp, witty, and humorous; and that his miracles were done with a certain air of feſtivity; and ſo that it ig imboſfible not to be moved in a Bleaſant manner at their recital; i. e. it is impoſ- ble not to laugh at them p. But though he ſeemeth here to commend his good humour, as he calls it, and elſewhere repre- ſents Chriſtianity as in the main a witty god-natured religion, he inſinuateth that this may be all an artful pretence to cover deep deſigns, and ſchemes laid for worldly ambition and power. Having obſerved, that the affection and love which procures a e adherence to the new religiaus foundation, muſt depend cither on a real or counterfeit goodneſs in the religious Founder, ics, vol. i. p. 45. vol. iii. p. 67. Ibid. vol. ii. 1 Ibid. vol. iii. p. 71, 72, 73. m Ibid. Jvol. i. a Ibid. vol. iii. p. 72. 2 Ibid. p. 74, 75. P Ibid. whom 58 A View of tbe DEisrIc AL Writers. Let. 5. whom he had called before the divinely auit horized inſtruetor, and ſbiritual Chief; he adds, that“ whatever ambitious ſpirit may “ inſpire him, whatever ſavage zeal or perſecuting principle * may be in reſerve, ready to diſcloſe itſelf, when authority and power is once obtained, the firſt ſcene of doctrine how- ever, fails not to preſent us with the agreeable views of joy, « love, meekneſs, gentleneſs, and moderation d.“ I believe few that conſider how this is introduced, will doubt its being deſigned as an inſinuation againſt the character of the holy Jeſus; an inſinuation for which there is not the leaſt founda- tion in his whole conducét, or in the ſcheme of religion he hath taught, and which therefore is as malicious as it is ground- leſs. Agreeably to this he elſewhere intimates, that the goſpel was only a ſcheme of the clergy for aggrandizing their own power. He repreſents it as a natural ſuſpicion of thoſe who are called ſceptical. That the holy records themſelves were no “ other than the pure invention and artificial compliment of an intereſted party in behalf of the richeſt corporation, and *moſt profitable monopoly which could be erected in the ** world*.“ But any one that impartially conſiders the idea of religion ſet before us in the New Teſtament, in its primitive ſimplicity, will be apt to look upon that which his Lordſhip repreſenteth as a natural fuſpicion to be the moſt unreaſonable ſuppoſition in the world. If an ambitious and ſelf-intereſted clergy, and particularly the favourers of the papal Hierarchy, had been to forge a goſpel or ſacred records to countenance their own claims, or if they had had it in their power to have corrupted and new modelled them in their favour, the Chriſtian religion and worſhip would in many inſtances have been very different from what it now appeareth to be in the ſacred writings of the New Teſtament. Mr. Hobbes himſelf was ſo ſenſible of this, even where he inveighs againſt the clergy as endeavouring to put their own laws upon the Chriſtian people for the laws of God, and pretends that the books of the New Teſtament were in the firſt ages in the hands only of the Bœcle- haftics, yet he adds, that he is perſuaded“ they did not falſify „« the ſcriptures; becauſe, if they had had an intention ſo to do *¹they would ſurely have made them more favourable to their „power over Chriitian princes, and civil ſovereignty, than ** they ales.“ ₰ 66 ⁴ Characferiſt. p. 114, 115.* Ibid. p. 336. s Hobbes's Leviath. p. 203, 204. 9 His 113 Let. 5. Earl of SBAFTESBURVv. 39 His Lordſhip on many occaſions inſinuates, that the original records of Chriſtianity are not at all to be depended upon. He frequently repeats the charge of corruptions and interpolations; and particularly concludes the laſt Miſcellany of his third volume with a heap of objections againſt the ſcriptures, drawn from the great number of copies, various readings, different gloſſes and interpretations, apocryphal and canonical books, frauds of thoſe through whoſe hands they have been tranſmitted to us, Gc.a. Theſe objections are put into the mouth of a gentleman whom he makes go off the ſtage with an air of triumph, as if they were unanfwerable. And yet they are no other than what have been frequently conſidered and obviated by the learned defenders of the Chriſtian cauſe. Dr. Tindal hath ſince urged all the objections and more of the ſame kind more largely, and with greater force than his Lordſhip had done; and a full anſwer hath been returned to them, ſufficient to ſatisfy an impartial enquirer b. I have already dwelt longer on this right honourable author than I at firſt intended, but you will undoubtedly expect that, before Jleave him, I ſfhould take ſome notice of that part of his ſcheme, where he ſeemeth to ſet up ridicule as the beſt and ſureſt criterion of truth: This deſerves the rather to be con- ſidered, becauſe there is not perhaps any part of his writings, of which a worſe uſe hath been made. L am ſenſible that ſome ingenious writers have been of opinion, that in this his Lord- ſhip has been greatly miſtaken or mifrepreſented: That his opinion, if fairly examined, amounts only to this, that ridicule may be of excellent uſe, either againſt ridicule itſelf, when falſe and miſapplied, or againſt grave ſpecious and deluſive impoſ- tures: that he diſtinguiſhes between true and falſe ridicule, and between genteel wit, and ſcurrilous buffoonery, which with- out decency or diſtinction raiſes a laugh from every thing. This he condemneth as juſtly offenſive, and unworthy of a gentle- man and a man of ſenſe. He would have religion treated with good manners, and is for ſubjecting ridicule to the judgment of reaſon; and declares, that as he is in earneſt in defending rail- lery, ſo he can be ſober in ihe ufe&f it. Several paſſages are produced to this purpoſe?. But whatever apology may be made for this noble writer, I think it cannot be denied, that he has frequently expreſſed himſelf very incautiouſly on this head, a Characteriſt. vol. iii. p. 317— 344. b See particularly Anſwer to Chriſtianity as old as the Creation, vol. ii. chap. 5. 7, 8. 5 Characteriſt. vol. i. p. 11. 63. 83, 84, 35. 128. and 60 A View of tbe DEisT ICAL Writers. Let. 5. and in a manner that may lead perſons into a very wrong me- thod of enquiring and judging concerning truth. He not only expreſsly calls ridicule a teſt, and a criterion truth, but de- clares for applying it to every thing, and in all caſes. He would have us carry the rule of ridicule conſtantly with us, i. æ. that we muſt be always in a diſpoſition to apply ridicule to what- ever offers, to ſee whether it will bear d. He obſerves, that *e truth may bear all lights, and one of thoſe principal lights or natural mediums, by which things are to be viewed in order to a thorough recognition, is ridicule itſelf, or that manner of proof(for ſo he calls it) by which we diſcern whatever is liable to juſt raillery on any ſubject e.“ And 46 it, without endeavouring to put himſelf in as good *ha humour as poſſible s.“ i. æ. treating it as he himſeltf ex- preſſeth it, in a way of wit and raillery, Bleafantry and mirth. And indeed what kind of ridicule his Lordſhip is for, and how he is for applying it in matters of religion, plainly appears from many ſpecicens he has given us ot it in ſeveral parts of his works; pecially in his third volume, which is deſigned as a kind of review and detence otf all his other treatiſes. hhe beſt and wiſeſt men in all ages have always recommend- calm attention and ſobriety of mind, a cool and impartial examination and enquiry, as the prepereſt diſpoſition for finding Out truth and judging concerning it. But according to his Lordſhip's repreſentation of the caſe, thoſe that apply them- ſelves to the ſearching out truth, or judging what is really true, ſerious, and excellent, muſt endeavour to put themſelves in a merry humour, to raiſe up a gaiety of ſpirit, and ſeek whether in the object they are examining they cannot find out Jomot hing thas may be juſtly laugh'd at. And it is great odds, that a man who is thus diſpoſed will find out ſomething fit, as he imagines, to excite his mirth, in the moſt ſerious and im- rtat Such a temper is ſo far from a tendengy to diſqualify a man for cool and ſedate reſſection, haracteriſt. p. 11, 12. e Ibid, vol. i. p. 61. f Ibid. 1e e. rational Eet. 5. Earl of SüAaFTESBURV. 61 rational and deliberate ſearch. A calm diſpaſſionate love of truth, with a diſpoſition to examine carefully and judge impartially, and a prevailing inclination to jeſt and raillery, ſeldom meet together in the ſame mind. This diſcovereth rather an odd turn and vivacity of imagination, than ſtrong reaſon and ſound judgment; and it would be a ſtrange attempt to ſet up wit and imagination, inſtead of reaſon and judgment, for a judge and umpire in matters of the greateſt conſequence. Our noble author indeed frequently obſerves, that truth can- not be hurt by ridicule, ſince when the ridicule is wrong placed, it will not hold.“‧Nothing is ridiculous, but what is deformed, *enor is any thing proof againſt raillery, but what is handſome and juſt: this weapon therefore can never bear an edge againſt virtue and honeſty, and bears againſt every thing contrary to it b.“ It will be readily allowed, that truth and honeſty cannot be the ſubject of juſt ridicule; but then this ſuppoſeth, that ridicule itſelf muſt be brought to the teſt of cool reaſon. And accordingly his Lordſhip acknowleges, that it is in rea- lity a ſerious ſtudy to temper and regulate that humour i. And thus after all, we are to return to gravity and ſerious reaſon as the ultimate teſt and criterion of ridicule, and of every thing elſe. But though the moſt excellent things cannot be juſtly ridiculed, and ridicule, when thus applied, will, in the judg- ment of wiſe and thinking men, render him that uſeth it ridi- culous, yet there are many perſons on whom it will have a very different effect. The ridicule will be apt to create preju- dices in their minds, and to inſpire them with a contempt, or at leaſt a diſregard of things, which when zwnieſeriod in a proper light, appear tobe of the greateſt worth, and importance. The face ꝗ truth indeed, as his Lordſhip obſerves, is not leſs fair and beautiful for all the counterfeit vizarde that havèe been But upon it; yet theſe vizards may ſo conceal and diſguiſe its beauty as to make it look a quite different thing from what it really is. It cannot be denied, that truth, piety, and virtue, have often been the ſubjects of ridicule; and bad, but witty, men have met with too much ſucceſs in expoſing them to the deriſion and contempt, inſtead of recommending them to the eſteem and veneration of mankind. 1t is our author's own obſervation, that falſe ear neſt is ridiculed, but the falſa feſt Haſſes ſecure. And though he ſays, he cannot conceive how any man fhould be laugb'd out ꝗ his wits, as ſome have been ſr rightened out them, yet there have been and are too many a llces of ₰ h Charadcteriſt. vol. i. p. 11. 128, 129. 1 Ibid. p. 128. perſons 6² AView of tbe DEisTIcAL Writers. Let. 5. perſons that have been laugh'd out of their religion, honeſty, and virtue. Weak and unſtable minds have been driven into atheiſm, profaneneſs, and vice, by the force of ridicule, and have been made aſhamed of that which they ought to eſteem their glory. His Lordſhip is pleaſed to repreſent ridicule as the fitteſt way of dealing with Ent hufiaſts, and venders of miracles and ro- Bhecy; and having mentioned the reveries of the French pro- phets, and recommended BartlomyFair drollery, as proper to be uſed on ſuch occaſions, he gives a broad hint, that if this method had been taken againſt the reformation, or againſt Chriſtianity, at its firſt riſe, it would have beeen effectual to deſtroy it without having recourſe to perſecution k. He has here plainly let us know in what light he regarderh our holy reli- gion: on other occaſions, he declares only for genteel raillery, but here it ſeems what he calls the Bartlomy-Fair met hodl, which I believe will hardly paſs for very genteel raillery, is ſuppoſed to be ſufficient, not only againſt that ſet of Enthufiaſts who were called the French prophets, but againſt Chriſtianity itſelf. But he ſeems not to have conſidered, that the great author and firſt publiſhers of the Chriſtian religion were ſcoffed and derided as well as expoſed to grievous ſufferings and torments, and that they had trial gf cruel mochings, as well as of bonds and im- Briſonments. It appears from what remains of the works of Celſus, as well as from what Cæcilius ſaith in Minucius Felix, that no ſarcaſm or ridicule was ſpared among the heathens, by which they thought they could expoſe Chriſtianity. Tho' when they found this ineffectual to ſuppreſs it, they from time to time had recourſe to more violent and ſanguinary methods: And indeed thoſe that have been moſt prone to ſcoff at religion and truth, have often been moſt prone to perſecute it too. A ſcorn- ful and contemptuous ſpirit, which is an uſual attendant on ridicule, is apt to proceed to farther extremes; nor am I ſure that they, who on all occaſions throw out the bittereſt ſarcaſms againſt religion, and its miniſters, would not, if it were in their power, give more ſubſtantial proofs of their averſion. His Lordſhip indeed honoureth that raillery and ridicule, which he recommends, with the name of good-uemour; and by ſhuffling one of theſe for the other, and playing upon the words, maketh himſelf merry with his reader. But gocod-humour taken in the beſt ſenſe, for what he calls the ſuceteſt, kindeſt diſpoſition, is a different thing from that ſneering faculty, which diſpoſes men to k Characteriſt. vol. i. p. 28, 29. Calt Let. 5. Earl of SHAFTESBURV. 63 caſt contempt upon perſons and things, and which is often ma- naged in a manner little conſiſtent vith a true benevolence. The proper uſe of ridicule is to expoſe ſuch follies and abſur- dities as ſcarce deſerve or admit a very ſerious conſideration: but to recommend raillery and ridicule as fit to be employed on all occaſions, and upon the moſt weighty and nportan lud jects, and as the propereſt means for diſcerning truth, appear to be an inverting the juſt order of things. kr is, even Phen innocently uſed, for the moſt part a trifling employment, and a man of great genius cannot addicét himſelf much to it, without deſcending beneath his character. Indeed there needs no more to give one a diſguſt at this pretended teſt of truth, than to con- ſider the uſe his Lordil hip has made of it. When he is in any degree ſerious, he ſhews how capable he is to inform and pleaſe his reader; but when he gives a looſe to gaiety and ridicule, he often writes in a manner unworthy of himſelf. And I am apt to think that if nothing of his had been publiſhed, but the two firſt treatiſes of his firſt volume, and the third volume, in which he chiefly indulges himſelf in thoſe liberties, he would have generally paſſed in the world for a ſprightly and ingenious, but very trifling writer. He often throws out his ſucers and flirts againſt every thing that comes in his way; and with a mixture of low and ſolemn phraſe, and grave ridicule, he ſome- times manages it ſo, that it is not very eaſy to diſcern his true ſentiments, and what it is that he really aims at. This is not very conſiſtent with the rule he himſelf has laid down more than once; viz. That“ it is a mean, impotent, and dull ſort of * wit, which leaves ſenſible perſons in a doubt, and at a loſs 4⁴to underſtand what one's real mind is.“ And again he cen- ſures“ ſuch a feigned gravity& immoral and illiberal, foreign 8* 5 the character of a good writer, a gentleman, and a man *of ſenſe¹.“ There ſeems to be no other way of ſcreening him from his own cenſure, but by ſuppoſing that he ima agine ed his true intention with regard to Chriſtiauity, and the holy Scriptures, might be perceived ba his concealed ridicule. And for the moſt part, it is ſo it is hard to know Wl erher covered way of rie le! before he is aware ay ſenfible perſon, through it muſt be acknowleged that, dorshe 15 ſome particular places, he eſt or earneſt. By this eals upon the reader a friend, gives a the part of an open more dangerous bl and avowed enemy. 1 7 1. 7f] 7,„— Charadteriſt. vol 8. 53. Vol. iii. p. 229. 3 5 Upon 64 A Vieu of tbe DEisTICAL Writers. Let. 57 Upon the whole it may be juſtly faid, that in this noble and ingenious author, we have a remarkable inſtance of the wrong application of that talent of ridicule, of which he was ſo great a maſter. And if it has fucceeded ill in his hands, how much more may it be expected to do ſo in thoſe who for want of his genius, are not able to riſe above low buffoonery, nor capable of diſtinguiſhing groſs and ſcurrilous raillery and ſcandal from wit and delicate ridicule! His Lordſhip hath ſince had many aukward imitators, and probably will have more, who will be apt to apply his teſt of ridicule, not only, as he himſelf hath given them an example, againſt revealed religien, but againſt all religion, even that which is called natural, and againſt that virtue, of which, in his ſerious moods, he hath profeſſed himſelf ſo great an admirer. I fhall conclude my account of this celebrated author with obſerving, that the Characteriſtics have been attacked, or at leaſt ſome particular paſſages in them have been occaſionally animadverted upon by ſeveral learned writers, by Biſhop Berk- ley, Dr. Wolton, Dr. Warburton, and others. That part of his Lordſhip's ſcheme which repreſents a regard to future rewards, as derogating from the dignity and excellency of virtue, hath been particularly conſidered by Mr. Balguy, in a ſhort but judi- cious tract, written like his other traéts, in a very polite and maſterly manner. It is intitled, Aletter to a Deift concerning the beauty and eæxellency of moral virtue, and the fupbort and imßprovement wbhich it receives from the Chriſtian Revelation. 8VO, 1729. But I know of none that has undertaken to anſwer the whole, but Mr. now Dr. John Brouun in a treatiſe intitled, Eſſays on the Characteriſtics, publiſhed in 1750: This work is divided into three Eſſays: The firſt is on ridicule, conſidered as a teſt of truth: The ſecond is on the obligations of men to virtue, and the neceſſity of religious principles: The third is on revealed religion and Chriſtianity. Under theſe ſeveral heads he hath conſidered whatever appeared to be moſt obnoxious in the writings of our noble author. The length of this letter may ſeem to need an apology. But you, I know, will agree with me, that as it was proper, in purſuance of the deſign in which I am engaged, to take notice of this admired writer, ſo it was neceſſary to make ſuch obſer- vations as might help to obviate the prejudices ſo many are apt to entertain in his favour, to the diſadvantage even of Chriſtianity itſelf. L E T. Let. 6. Earl of SHAFTESBURVY. 65 AK S Lee A ee ne E — ‿ — Scpeane L E T TER VI. The account given of tbe Earl of Shafteſbury's writiugs in thbe foregoing letter vindicated againſt ibe exceptions that bad been made againſt it. The being influenced by the hope of tbe reward promiſed in ibe goſpel batb notbing in it diſingenuous and ſlaviſp. Ii is not inconſiſtent zwith loving virtue for its ocon ſake, but tends ratber to beigbien our eſteem for its worib and amiableneſs. Earl of Shafteſ- bury ſcems in bis Inquiry concerning Virtue to ered ſuch a ſcheme of virtue asis independent of Religion, and may ſubſiſt without it. Tbe apology be mabes for doing ſo. Tbe cloſe connexion there is betcween Religion, and Virtue ſbewn from bis oton principles and acknotolege- ments. Virtue not only confined to good actions towards mankind, but takes in proper affeklions towards ihe Deity as an eſſential part of it. He acknowleges ibat man is born io religion. A remarkable paſſage of Lord Bolingbroke's to the fame pur poſe. § 7˙, HENI firſt publiſhed the Vieu the Deiſtical Writers, the foregoing letter contained the whole of what Ithen intended with. regard to the obſervations to the Earl of Shafteſ bury. But not long after the publication of it, ſome perſons who profeſs to be real friends to Chriſtianity, and I doubt not are ſo, let me know that they wiſhed I had not put his Lord- ſhip into the liſt of the Deiſtical Writers: and they thought the charge againſt him had in ſome inſtances been carried too far. This put me upon reviſing what I had written relating to that matter, with great care. And if I had found juſt cauſe to think, that in this inſtance I had been miſtaken in the judgment I had formed, I ſhould have thought myſelf obliged publicly to acknowlege it. For when I formed the deſign of taking a view of the Deiſtical writers, I fixed it as a rule to myſelf to make a fair repreſentation, as far as I was able, of the ſenti- ments of thoſe writers, and not to puſt the charge againſt them Vox. I. F tarther b ———— 66 A View of tbe DEISTIcAL. Writers. Let. 6. farther than there appeared to me to be juſt ground for. And it would have given me a real pleaſure to have reaſon to rank ſo fine a writer as the Earl of Shafteſbury among the friends of the Chriſtian cauſe. But upon the moſt impartial inquiry I was able to make, I have not ſeen reaſon to retract any thing 1 had offered with regard to that noble Lord. I thought it ne- ceſſary therefore in the Supplement 1 the l icw f theé Deiſtical Writers to publiſh a letter on that ſubject, which I fhall here ſubjoin to the preceding one, that the Reader may have all be- fore him which relates to that noble writer in one view. It can ſcarce I think be denied by any impartial perſon who hath read the Characteriſtics without prejudice, which are the only works he avowed, and which had his laſt hand, that there are ſeveral paſſages in them, which ſeem plainly intended to ex- poſe Chriſſianity and the holy Scriptures. And there is great reaſon to apprehend, that not a few have been unwarily led to entertain unhappy prejudices againſt revealed religion, and the authority of the ſcriptures, through too great an admiration of his Lordſhip's writings. Some inftances of this kind have come under my own particular obſervation., And therefore it appear- eth to me upon the moſt mature conſideration, that I could not in conſiſtency with the deſign I had in view, omit the making ſome obſervations upon that admired author, as far as the cauſe of Chriſtianity is concerned. That part of my obſervations on Lord Shafteſpury's works, which I find hath been particularly excepted againſt, is the ac- count given of his ſentiments with regard to future rewards and puniſhments. It hath been urged, that his deſign in what he has written on this fubject, was not to inſinuate that we ought not to be influenced by a regard to future rewards and puniſh- ments, the uſefulneſs of which he plainly acknowlegeth; but only to ſhew that it is wrong to be acted merely by a view to the reward, or by a fear of the puniſhment, without any real in ward love to virtue, or any real hatred and abhorrence of vice. To this purpoſe his Lordſhip obferves, that“ to be bribed „only, or terrified into an honeſt practice, beſpeaks little of «e real honeſty or worth— and that if virtue be not really eſtim- «« able in itfelf, he can ſee nothing eſtimable in following it for „the ſake of a bargain a.“ He aſks,* How fhall we deny that to ſerve God by compulſion, or for intereſt merely, is *¹ ſervile and mercenaryb?" And he puts the caſe of a perſon's being*incited by the hope of reward to do the good he 2 Characteriſt. vol. i. p. 97. d Ibid. vol. ii. p. 272. ℳ᷑ h⸗ hatées, Let. 6, Earl of SHAFTESBURV. 67 ** hates, and reſtrained by the fear of puniſmment from doing * the ill to which he is not otherwiſe in the leaſt degree averſe;“ and obſerves, that““there is in this caſe no virtue whatfoever°.“ If his Lordſhip had faid no more than this, he would have ſaid no more than every real friend to Chriſtianity will allow; tho' in this caſe there would ſtill be great reaſon to complain of his Lordſhip's having made a very unfair repreſentation of the ſenſe of thoſe divines, ho think it neceſſary to urge the motives drawn from future rewards and puniſhments. It is true, that if the belief of future retributions fhould have no other effect than the putting ſome reſtraint upon men's outward evil actions, and regulating their external behaviour, even this would be of great e to the community: but this is far from being the intended. Thoſe certainly muſt knovr advanta only oc principal thing little of the nature and tendency of the Chꝛ iſtian religion, who ſhould endeavour to perſuade themſelves or others, that tho' a man had a real love of vice in his heart, and only abſtained from ſome outward vicious practices for fear of puniſhment; and tho' he had an inward averſion to true goodneſs and virtue, and only performed ſome outward acts that had a fair appear- ance; this alone would denominate him a good man, and intitle him to the future reward. For this were to ſuppoſe that tho' he were really a vicious and bad man, without that purity and ſincerity of heart on which the ſcriptures lay ſo great a ſtreſs, yet the practiſing ſome external acts of obedience, deſtitute of all true goodneſs, and of virtuous affections, would intitle him to the favour of God, and to that eternal happineſs which is promiſed in the Goſpel. If any perſons ſhould teach this, I would readily join with his Lordſhip in condemning them. But he hath not contented himſelf with ſtriking at the ſuppoſed wrong ſentiments of divines, whom he loves on all occaſions to expoſe. There are ſeveral paſſages in his Lordſhip's writings which appear to be directly intended to repreſent the inſiſting ſo much as is done in the Goſpel upon the eternal rewards and puniſhments of a future ſtate, as having a bad influence on the moral temper; and particularly as tending to ſtrengthen an inor- dinate ſelfifhneſs, and to diminiſh the affections towards public good, and to make men neglect what they owe to their friends, and to their country. He plainly intimates the diſadvantages ac- infinite rewards in view, and cruing to virtue from the ha that in that caſe the common and natural motives to goocdneſs are Characteriſt. vol. ii. p. 55. FE2 aßt 68 A Viow of ibe DEisTIcAl. Writers. Let. 6. äpt to be negletted and laſe much by diſuſe d. He repreſents the being influenced by a regard to future rewards and puniſh- ments as at beſt diſingenuous, ſervile, and the flaviſp kind, and to this he oppoſes a liberal ſervice, and the principle q love, and the loving God and virtue for God and virtue's ſakes: and accordingly he determines that thoſe duties, to which men are carried without any view to ſuch rewards, are for thät reaſon more noble and excellent, and argue a higher degree of virtue. If the caſe really were as his Lordſhip is pleaſed to repreſent it, it muſt certainly give a very diſadvantageous idea of Chriſtianity; as ĩf the inſiſting upon thoſe moſt important motives drawn from a future eternal world, which our Saviour came to ſet in the ſtrong- eſtlight, tended to introduce and cheriſſ a wrong temper ofmind, narrow and ſelfiſh, diſingenuous and ſervile, to weaken our be- nevolent affections both public and private, and to take us off from the duties and offices of the civil and ſocial life. At that rate ĩt could not be ſaid that the Goſpel is a friend to ſociety and to mankind: and inſtead of promoting the practice of true virtue, it would rather derogate from it, and degrade it from its proper dignity and excellence. It Was therefore neceſſary to ſhew, as I endeavoured to do in my obſervations on Lord Shafteſpury's writings, that this is far from being a juſt repreſen- tation of the nature and tendency of the Chriltian doctrine of future rewards and puniſhments. The moſt noble and extenſive benevolence, exerting itſelf in all proper effects and inſtances, in oppoſition to a narrow ſelfiſſ diſpoſition, is what Chriſtianity every-where recommendeth and inforceth in the moſt engaging manner; and it is its peculiar advantage that it carrieth our views to a better ſtate, where the benevolence which is now begun ſhall be completed, and ſhall be exerciſed in a more enlarged ſphere, and extend to a nobler ſociety. And can the hope of this poſſibly tend to diminiſh our benevolence, or muſt it not rather heighten and improve it? When a man hath a firm and ſteady perſuaſion, that the Supreme being will regard his perſevering conſtaney in a virtuous courſe with everlalting feli- city, this inſtead of weakening his inward affection to virtue, and his moral ſenſe of its worth and excellency, muſt in the na- ture of things greatly confirm and eſtabliſh it. There is there- fore an entire conſiſtency between the loving virtue for its own d Several paſſages to this purpoſe were produced out of the Cha- deciflics in the preceding Letter, which I need not here repeat. Characteriſtics, vol. Ii. p. 271, 272, 273. ſake, — 2—— Let. 6. Earl of SHAFTESBURVY, 69 ſake, i. e. as his Lordſhip explains it, becaußſe it is amiable in tſelft, and the being animated to the purſuit and practice of it by ſuch rewards as the Goſpel propoſeth. For it never appeareth more excellent and lovely, than when it is conſidered as recom- mending us to the favour and approbation of him who is the ſupreme original Goodneſs and Excellence, and as preparing us for a complete happineſs in a future ſtate, where it ſhall be raiſed to the higheſt degree of beauty and perfection. In like manner it muſt mightily ſtregthen our abhorrence of vice, and dur ſenſe of its turpitude and malignity, to conſider it as not only at preſent injurious and diſgraceful to our nature, but as an oppoſition to the will and law of thè moſt wiſe and 1ighteous Governor of the world, who will in a future ſtate of retribu- tions inflict awful puniſnments upon thoſe who now obſtinately perſiſt in a preſumptuous courſe of vice and wickedneſs. Our noble author himſelf, when he propoſeth to ſhew uhat obligation there is to virtue, or uhat reaſon to embrace it, which is the ſubject of the ſecond book of his Inquiry, reſolveth it into this, that moral rectitude or virtue mußt be the advantage, and vice the miſery and aiſadvantage every creature. And that it is the creature's intereſt to be up holly good and virtuous. To prove this ſeems to be the entire deſign of that book, which he concludes with obſerving, that virtue ig the good, and vice the ill of every one. He ſeems indeed, in diſplaying the advantages of the one and diſadvantages of the other, to confine himfelf wholly to this preſent life, and to abſtract from all conſideration of a future ſtate. But if the repreſenting virtue be to our intereſt here on earth, and conducive to our preſent happineſs, be a juſt ground of obligation to virtue, and a proper reaſon to em- Srace it, which his ſecond book is deſigned to ſhew, then ſurely if it can be proved, that it tendeth not only to our hap- pineſs here, but to procure us a perfeét happineſs in a future ſtate of exiſtence, this muſt mightily heighten the obligation to virtue, and ſtrengthen the reaſon for embracing it. If having regard to the preſent advantages of virtue be conſiſtent in his ſcheme with loving virtue for its own ſake, and as amiable in itſelf, and doth not render the embracing it a mercenary or flaviſh ſervice, why ſhould it be inconſiſtent with a liberal ſer- vice to be aſſured that it fhall make us happy for ever? Or why fhould they be accounted greater friends or admirers of virtue, who conſider its excellency only with regard to the s Characteriſt. vol. ii. p. 67. s Ibid, p. 81. 98. F 3 narror V — ͤͤ 70 A View of the DEisricAL Writers. Let. 6. narrow limits of this tranſitory life, than they who regard it as extending its beneficial influence to a nobler ſtate of exiſtence, and who believe that it fhall flouriſh in unfading beauty and glory to eternity? That an affection in itſelf worthy and excel- Ient fhould grow leſs ſo, by conſidering it as ſo pleaſing to the Supreme Being that he will reward it with everlaſting happi- nels, and raiſe it to the higheſt perfection it is capable of in a future ſtate, would be a ſtrange way of reaſoning. It was obſerved in the account given of the Earl oſ Shafteſbu- ry's writings, in the preceding letter, that there are ſeveral paſſages in which he acknowlegeth, that the hope of future rewards, and fear of future puniſhments, is a great advantage, ſecurity, and ſupport to virtue. If theſe paſſages had been concealed or dülguiſed, there might have been juſt ground of complaint. But they were fairly laid before the reader, as well as thoſe that ſeemed to be of a contrary import, that he might be able to form a judgment of his Lordſhip's ſentiments, how far he is conſiſtent with himſelf, and whether the cenſures be well founded, which he paſſeth upon thoſe who inſiſt upon the rewards promiſed in the goſpel, as powerful motives to virtue. He chargeth them as“ reducing religion to ſuch a philoſophy, * as to lcave no room for the principle of love— and as building « a future ſtate on the ruins of virtue, and thereby betraying «e religion, and the cauſe of God h.“ He repreſenteth them as if they were agalaſt a liberal ſervice, flowing from an eſteem and lovée gf God, or a ſenſe of duty and gral itude, and a lobe of ⁊he dutiful and grateful part, as good and amiable in itjolf i. And he expreſly declareth,“ That* the hope of future reward, «c and fear of future puniſhment, cannot conſiſt in reality with * virtue or goodnels, if it either ſtands as eſſential to any ¹«moral performance, or as a conſiderable motivé to any act, of „« which ſome better affection ought alone to be a fufficient * cauſe k.“ Here he ſeems not willing to allow, that the re- gard to future retributions ought to be ſo much as a conſiderable motive to well-doing; and aſſerteth, that to be influenced by it as ſuch a motive, cannot conſiſt in reality with virtue or good- neſs. This is in effect to ſay, that we ought not to be influ- enced by a regard to future rewards and puniſhments at all. For if they be believed and regarded at all, they muſt be a con- 1 1... Ag. 3.. ſiderable motive; fince, as he himſelf obſerveth, where infinite h Characteriſt. vol, ii. p. 272. 279. i Ibid. p. 270. P. 27 79 P. 27 Ibid, p. 58. rewards Let. 6. Earl of SHaFTESBURY. 71 rewards are firmly believed, they muſt needs have a mighty in- Huence, and will over-balance other motives 1. If therefore it be inconſiſtent with true virtue or goodneſs, to be influenced by them as a conſiderable motive, it is wWrong to propoſe them to mankind. For why ſhould they be propoſed, or to what pur- poſe believed, if it be inconſiſtent with true goodneſs to be in- fluenced by them in proportion to their worth and importance? His Lordſhip elſewhere obſerves,“ That by making rewards ¹and puniſhments“[i. e. the rewards and puniſRments pro- poſed in the Goſpel; for to theſe he evidently refers]“ the *¹ principal motives to duty, the Chriſtian religion in particular « is overthrown, and the greateſt principle, that of love, re- „¹ jected n.“ When he here brings ſo heavy a charge againſt thoſe who make the rewards of the Goſpel their Principal motives, his meaning ſeems to be this: That they make the hope of future eternal happineſs a more powerful motive than the preſent ſatisfaction and advantages virtue hath a tendency to roduce, which are the motives he ſo largely inſiſts upon, and which he calls the common and natural motives to goodneſs. And is the being more animated by the conſideration of that eternal happineſs which is the promiſed reward of virtue, than by any of the advantages it yields in this preſent ſtate(though theſe alſo are allowed to have their proper weight and influence) ſo great a fault, as to deſerve to be repreſented as a ſubverting of all religion, and particularly the Chriſtian? If the eternal life promifed in the Goſpel be rightly underſtood, the hope of it includeth a due regard to the glory of God, to our own higheſt happineſs, and to the excellency of virtue and true holineſs; all which are here united, and are the worthieſt motives that can be propoſed to the human mind. There is a perfect har- mony between this hope, and what his Lordſhip ſo much extols, the principle of divine love, fuch as ſeparates from ævery thing worlaly, ſenſual, and meanly intereſted. Nor can it be juſtly ſaid concerning this hope of the Goſpel reward, what he ſaith of a violent affection towards private good, that the more there is of it, the leſs room there is for an al ction towards goodneſr itſelf, or any good and deſerving object, worthy of love and admiration for its own fake, fuch as God is univerſally acknouwleged to ben. The very reward itſelf includeth the per- fection of love and goodneſs; and the happineſs promiſed prin- 1 Characteriſtics, vol. ii. p. 68. m Ibid. p. 279. n Ibid. P. 58, 59. FE 4 cipally 72² A View of tbe DEisT Ic-AL Writers. Let. 6. cipally conſiſteth in a conformity to God, and in the fruition of him; and therefore the being powerfully animated with the hope of it is perfectly conſiſtent with the higheſt love and admi- ration of the Deity, on the account of his oun infinite excellengy. It appeareth to me, upon conſidering and comparing what hath been produced out of Lord Shafteſpury's writings, that though his Lordſhip's good ſenſe would not allow him abſo- lutely to deny the uſefulneſs of believing future retributions; yet he hath in effect endeavoured on ſeveral occaſions to caſt a ſlur upon Chriſtianity, for propoſing and inſiſting upon what he calls infinite rewards; and thus hath attempted to turn that to its diſadvantage which is its greateſt glory; viz. its ſetting the important retributions of a future ſtate in the cleareſt and ſtrongeſt light, and teaching us to raiſe our affections and views ro things inviſible and eternal. His Lordſhip hath, upon the moſt careful and diligent reviſal of his works, ſuffered thoſe obnoxious paſſages ſtill to continue there. Nor will any man wonder at this, who conſidereth the deſign and tendency of many other paſſages in his wrirings: That he hath taken oc- caſion to ridicule the ſpirit of prophecy, and to burleſque ſeve- ral paffages of holy writ: That he hath repreſented the ſcrip- tures as abſolutely uncertain, and the important facts by which Chriſtianity is atteſted as not to be depended upon: That he hath inſinuated injurious reflections upon the character and in- tentions of the bleſſed Founder of our holy religion: That he hath repreſented our Faith in the Goſpel as having no other foundation than the authority of the ſtate; and hath hinted, that it could hardly have ſtood the teſt of ridicule, and even of Bartholomew-Fair drollery, had it been applied to it at its firſt appearance°. As I have been engaged ſo far in an examination of Lord Shafteſbury's writings, I ſhall take this occaſion to make ſome farther obſervations on his celebrated Inquiry concerning Virtue. He ſets out with obſerving, That““ religion and virtue appear ¹to be ſo nearly related, that they are generally preſumed in- ¹ ſeparable companions. But that the practice of the world ¹¹ does not ſeem in this reſpect to be anſwerable to our ſpecu- lations:“ That“ many who have had the appearance of ¹*l great zeal in religion, have yet wanted the common affec- *tions of humanity P. Others again, who have been con- * fidered » See all this clearly fhewn, p. 57,& ſeq. It will readily be acknowleged, that the appearance of religion zs often feparated from true virtue: but real practical religion ne- ceſſarily Let. 6. Earl of SHAFTIESBURV, 73 ⁴ſidered as mere Atheiſts, have yet been obſerved to practiſa «« the rules of morality, and act in many caſes with ſuch good „ meaning and affection towards mankind, as might ſeem to «* force an acknowlegement of their being virtuous 4.“ His Lordſhip therefore propoſeth to enquire,%What honeſty or „« virtue is, conſidered by itſelf, and in what manner it is in- ¹ fluenced by religion: how far religion neceſſarily implies ee virtue: and whether it be a true ſaying, that it is impoſſible * for an Atheiſt to be virtuous, or ſhare any real degree of ho- *«neſty or merit 1.“ In that part of the Inquiry, in which he propoſeth to ſhew what virtue is, he ſeems to make it properly conſiſt in good affections towards mankind, or in a man's having“ his diſpo- *«F ſition of mind and temper ſuitable and agrecing to the good *«of his kind, or of the ſyſtem in which he is included, and of „*which he conſtituteth a parts.“ And he had before declared, that ſome who have been conſidered as mere Atheiſts, have acted with ſuch good affection towards mankind, as might ſeem to force an acknowlegement that they are virtuous. And as this is the notion his Lordſhip gives of the nature of virtue; ſo when he treats of the obligation to virtue, and the reaſon there is to embrace it, which is the ſubject of the ſecond book of the Inguiry, he ſeems to place it in its tendency to pro- mote our happineſs in this preſent life, without taking any no- tice of a future ſtate. Accordingly, many have looked upon the Inguiry as deſigned to ſet up ſuch a notion of virtue and its obligation, as is inde- pendent on religion, and may ſubſiſt without it. And in the progreſs of that Inquiry, his Lordſhip takes occaſion to com- pare Atheiſm with ſuperſtition or falſe religion, and plainly gives the former the preference; and ſeems ſomerimes to ſpeak ten- derly of it. Having obſerved, that nothing can poſſibly, in a rational creature, exclude a principle of virtue, or render it ineffectual, except what either,“ 1. Takes away the natural ¹“*and juſt ſenſe of right and wrong: 2. Or creates a wrong *„¹ſenſe of it: 3. Or cauſes the right ſenſe of it to be oppoſed by contrary affectionst.“ As to the firſt caſe, the taking away the natural ſenſe of right and wrong, he will not allow ceſſarily comprehendeth virtue; and as far as we are defcient in the practice of virtue, we are deficient in what religion indiſpenſibly requireth of us. 4 Characteriſt. vol. ii. p. 5, 6.* Ibid. p. 7. s See jbid. p. 31. 77, 78. 85, 87,& paſſm. t Ibid. p. 40. that 1 74 A View of the DsISTIcAL Writers. Let. 6. that Atheiſm, or any ſpeculative opinion, perſuaſion, or belief, is capable immediately or directly to exclude or deſtroy it; and that it can do it no other way than indirect!y by the interven- tion of oppoſite affections, cafually excited by ſuch belief u. As to the ſecond caſe, the wrong ſenſe, or falſe imagination of right and urong, he fays, That“ however Atheiſm may be „ indirectly an occaſion of men's loſing a good and ſufficient ¹*o ſenſe of right and wrong, it will not, as Atheiſm merely, be ¹« the occaſion of ſetting up a falſe ſpecies of it; which only *«falſe religion, or fantaſtical opinion, derived immediately from «⁴ ſuperſtition and credulity, is able to efféct.“ As to the third caſe, which renders a principle of virtue ineffectual; viz. its being oppoſed by contrary affections, he ſays, ThatAtheiſm, „¹though it be plainly deficient, and without remedy, in the « caſe of ill judgment on the happineſs of virtue, yet it is not „« indeed of neceſſity the cauſe of ſuch ill judgment. For with- «« out an abſolute aſſent to any hypotheſis of Theiſm, the ad- “ vantages of virtue may poſſibly be ſeen and owned, and a *high opinion of it eſtabliſhed in the mind y.“ Our noble author was ſenſible of the offence he had given, by ſeeming to ſpeak favourably of Atheiſts, and by erecting a ſyſtem of virtue independent of religion, or the belief of a Deity; and in a treatiſe he publiſhed ſome years after the In- quiry, intituled, The moraliſts, a Philoſophical Rhaßſody, makes an apology for it: That“ he has endeavoured to keep the «α faireſt meaſures he could with men of this ſort,“[viz. athe- zſtical perſons, and men of no religion]“ alluring them all he ««was able, and arguing with a perfect indifference even on «the fubject of a Deity— having this one chief aim and inten- **tion, how in the firſt place to reconcile thoſe perſons to the *¹ principles of virtue; that by this means, a way might be *« Jaid open to religion, by removing thoſe greateſt, if not only ec obſtacles to it, which ariſe from the vices and paſſions of * men.— That it is upon this account chiefly he endeavours to « eſtabliſh virtue upon principles by which he is able to argue «wwith thoſe, who are not yet inclined to own a God, or ¹ future ſtate.—He owns, he has made virtue his chief ſubject, „and in ſome meaſure independent on religion; yet he fancies he may poſſibly appear at laſt as high a divine, as he is a *moraliſt:— And fays,“%He will venture to affirm,— That c whoever fincerely defends virtue, and is a realiſt in mora- Characteriſt. vol. ii. p. 44, 45-„ Ibid. p. 40, 51. 52. / Ibid. p. 69. ee lity, Let. 6. Earl of SuaFTESBURV. 75 lity, muſt of neceſſity in a manner, by the ſame ſcheme of «*reaſoning. prove as very a realiſt in divinity ²2.“ Aud elſe- where he fſays, That“ We juſtly as well as charitably conclude, that it was his deſig applying r himſelf to the *men of looſer prin cipl les, to lead them into ſuch an appre- ¹« henſion of the conſtitution of mankind, and of human ** aftzirs, as might form in them a notion of order in things, and aw hence an acknowlegemer the w deif na. good- *«neſs, and beauty, which is Supreme; that being thus far 4* becume proſelytes, they might be prepared for that divine *love which our religion would teach them, when once they ſhould embrace it, and form themſelves to its ſacred cha- *craéter ². 5 This muſt be owned to be a handſome apology: So that if we take his Lordſhip's own account of his intention in his Inquiry, it was not to favour Atheiſm, but rather to reclaim men from it; to reconcile Atheiſts to the principles of virtue, and thereby bring them to a good opinion of religion. It may no doubt be of real ſervice to the intereſts of virtue, to endea- vour to make men ſenſible of its great excellency in itſelf, and its preſent natural advantages, which his Lore dſhip ſets forth at large, and in a very clegant manner. And this is no more than hath been often repreſent ed by th oſe divines, who yet think it neceſſary to inſiſt on the rewards and puniſhments of a future ſtate. There are indeed many that have faid, what no man who knows the world, and the hiſtory 0f mankind, can deny, that in the preſent ſituation of human affairs, a ſeady adhe- rence to virtue often ſubjects a man to fevere trials and ſuffer- ings; and that it frequently happene that bad and vicious men are in very proſperous outwa aſtances; but I ſcarce know any that have maintained W 3Lordſhip calls that an- fortunate opinion; viz. That virtu an enemy to ** happineſs in life;“ or who f virtue is the 4 natural ill, and vice the na 97. y creature b.“* Nor would any friend to Chriſtianity have foumd faul t with hi Lordſh nip' s endeavoui ing to ſhew, th rame of the human conſtitution, virtue has a 3 e to promote our ſatisfaction and happinels, even in 8 Breſent life; and that vice has naturally a contrary tendency. But certainly it was no way nece ſaryt 0 his deſ Iuppolin g it to have been, Geriſties vol. il. p. 256 3 2 1bi 296 Charaderiſtics, vol. ii, p. 266, 267, 268. Ibid. p. 279. 6 lbia P. 71, 72. 1 throw 76 A Vieto of tbe DEISTIeAL Writers. Let. 6. throw out ſo many inſinuations as he has done againſt the being influenced by a regard to future rewards and puniſhments; as if it argued a higher degree of virtue to have no regard to them at all. And though in ſeveral paſſages he ſhews the advantage which ariſes to virtue from religion, and the belief of a Deity, yet whilſt he ſeems to allow that virtue may ſubſiſt, and even be carried to a conſiderable degree without it, I am afraid it will give encouragement to thoſe he calls the men looſer prin- ciples; and that inſtead of reclaiming them from Atheiſm, it will tend to make them eaſy in it, by leading them to think they may be good and virtuous men without any religion at all. His Lordſhip ſeems, from a deſire of Reebing the faireſt mea- ſures, as he expreſſes it, with men tbis ſort, to have car- ried his complaiſance too far, when he aſſerts, that Atheiſim has no direct tendency either to take away and deſtroy the na- tural and juſt fenſe of right and wrong, or to the ſetting up a Falſe ſpecies of it. This is not a proper place to enter into a diſtinct conſideration of this ſubject. Iſhall content myſelf with producing ſome paſſages from the moſt applauded Doctor of modern Atheiſm, Spinoſa, and who has taken the moſt pains to form it into a ſyſtem. He propoſeth, in the fifteenth chapter of his Tractatus Theologico-politicus, to treat of thbe natural and divil right of every man. De jure uniuſcujuſque naturali& civili. And the ſum of his doctrine is this: That every man has a natural right to do whatever he has power to do, and his inclination prompts him to; and that the right extends as far as the force. By natural right, or læu, Jus& inſtitutum naturæ,“ he underſtands nothing elſe but the rules of the ¹«⁴¹nature of each individual; according to which it is determined ³« to exiſt and act after a certain manner.“ And after having obſerved, e Per jus& inſtitutum naturæ nihil aliud intelligo, quam regulas naturæ uniuſcujuſque individui, ſecundum quas unumquodque natu- raliter determinatum concipimus ad certo modo exiſtendum& ope- randum. ExX. gr. piſces a natura determinati ſunt ad natandum, magni ad minores comedendum, adeoque piſces ſammo naturali jure aqua potiuntur,& magni minores comedunt—“ Sequitur „unumquodque individuum jus ſummum habere ad omnia quæ poteſt— Nec hic ullam agnoſcimus differentiam inter homines& * reliqua naturæ individua, neque inter homines ratione præditos. ¹„⁴&☛ inter alios qui veram rationem ignorant, neque inter fatuos, ¹* delirantes,& fanos. Quare inter homines quamdiu ſub imperio ſolius natutæ vivere conſiderantur, tam ille qui rationm nondum novit, vel qui virtutis habitum nondum habet, ex ſolis legibus appetitus ſummo jare vivit, quam ille qui ex legibus rationis vitam Let. 6. Earl of SHAFTESBURV. 77 obſerved, that“ the large fiſhes are determined by nature to * devour the fmaller, and that therefore they have a natural ¹ right toc do ſo,“— and that“ every individual has the higheſt ¹*right to do all things which it has power to do;“ he de- clares, That“¹in this caſe he acknowleges no difference be- tween men and other individuals of nature, nor between „„«men that make a right uſe of their reaſon and thoſe that do ««not ſo; nor between wiſe men and fools.— That he that «* does not yet know reaſon, or has not attained to a habit of *«* virtue, hath as much the higheſt natural right to live ac- ¹„ cording to the ſole laws of apperite, and to do what that *«*inclines him to, as he that directs his life by the rules of rea- „¹„ſon hath to live according to reaſon.“—— Accordingly, he direétly aſſerts,“ That the natural light of every man is de- * termined not by ſound reaſon, but by iaclina aion, or appe- tite and power.— That therefore whatever any man, con- ſidered as under the ſole government of nature, judges to be *uſeful for himſelf, whether led by ſound reaſon, or prompted ** by his paſſions, he has the higheſt natural right to endeavour **to procure it for himſelf any way he can, whether by force *«wor fraud; and conſequently to hold him for an enemy, who would hinder him from gratifying his inclination: and that vitam ſuam dirigit. Hoc eſt, ſicuti ſapiens jas ſummum habet ad omnia qur ratio dictitat, five ex legibus rationis vivendi; ſic etiam ignarus& animi impotens ſummum jus habet ad omnia quæ appetitus haudtt, ſive ex legibus appetitus vivendi. Jus itaque naturale uniuſ- cujuſque hominis, non ſana ratione, ſed cupiditate& potentia de- terminatur— Quicquid itaque unuſquiſque qui ſub ſolo naturæ imperio confideratur, ſibi utile vel ductu ſanæ rationis, vel ex af- fectuum impetu judicat, id ſummo naturæ jure appetere,& quacun- que ratione, ſive vi, ſive dolo, ſive precibus, ſive quocunque deinum modo facilius poterit, ipſe capere licet,& conſequenter pro hoſte habere eum, qui impedire vult, quo minus animum expleat ſuum. Ex quibus ſequitur jus& inſtitutum naturæ ſub quo omnes naſcuntar, & maxima ex parte vivunt, nihil niſi quod nemo cupit,& nemo poteſt, prohibere; non contentiones, non odia, non iram, non olos. nec abſolute aliquid quod appetitus ſuadet, averſari. Nec miru nam natura non legibus humane rationis, quæ non niſi um Dutile& conſervationem intendunt, ſed inhnitis aliis, quæ totius naturæ, cujus homo particula eſt, æternum ordinem reſpi ciunt: ex cujus ſola neceſſitate, omnia individua certo modo determinantur ad exiſtendum& operandum.—Oſlendimus jus naturale fola poten- tia cujuſque determinari.—Nemo, niſi promiſſo aliud accedat, de fide alterius poteſt eſſe certus, quandoquidem unuſquiſque naturæ jure dolo agere poteſt; nec pactis ſtare tenetur, niſi ſpe majoris boni, vel métu majoris mali.— Tract. Theolog. Polit. cap. xvi 7 frc 73 A Vieus f tbe DEITSTICAL Writers. Let. 6. **from hence it follows, that the right and law of nature, under * which all are born, and for the moſt part live, only prohibits ** that which a man does not deſire, or which is out of his *power, nor is it averſe to contentions, hatred, wrath, deceit, or to any thing that the appetite puts him upon. And no wonder; f for nature is not confine e0 within tne laws of human „reaſon, Which only intend the true benefit of mankind, but depends upon infinite other things which re ſpect the eternal order of univerfal nature, of which man is only a minute part; from the neceſſity of which alone all individuals are „ determined to exiſt and operate after a certain manner.“ He Often repeats it in that chapter, I'hat natural right is only de- ¹ termined by the power of every individual.“ And he ex- Preſsly aſſerts, That“no man can be ſure of another man's ¹ fidelity, except he think it his intereſt to keep his promiſe; fince every man has a natural right to aét by fraud or deceit, ⸗« nor is obliged to ſtand to his engagements, but from the * hope of greater good, or fear of greater ill.“ I think it muſt be owned, that theſe principles have not merely an indirect and caſual, but a plain aud direct tendency to take away or pervert the natural ſenſe of right and uvrong, or to introduce a falſe ſpecies of it, if the ſubſtituting power Sand inclination, inſtead of reaſon and juſtice, can be d Lounred ſo. This is to argue conſequentially from Atheiſm, when all things are reſolved into nature, and eternal neceſſity, by which are underſtood the neceſſary effects of matior and motion. Suneſ indeed owns, that it is more profitable to live according to the dictates of reaſon, or the preſcriptions of the civil lavo, than merely according to appetite or natural right. But whilſt men think they have the higheſt natural right to do whatever they have power to do, And inclination prompts them to, civil laws will be but fecble ties, and bind a man no farther than when he has not po wer, or thinks it not for his intereſt to break them. Virtue and vice, fidelity and fraud, are on a level; the one equally anaed in natural right as the other: And hou. any man can be truly virtuous upon this ſcheme I cannot ſec. It appears to me therefore, that inſtead of endeavouring to ſhew that virtue may ſubſiſt without religion, or the belief of a God and a future ſtate, one of the moſt important ſervices that can be done to mankind is to fhew the cloſe connection here is between religion and virtue or good order, and that the atter cangot be maintained without thee former. And this in- deed plainly follows from ſome of the principles laid down by our noble author in his Zuaguiny. —— Alchough et. 6. Earl of SHAFTESBURV. 79 757 Although he ſeems to have intended to ſhew that an Atheiſt may be really virtuous; and obſerves in a paſſage cited above, A the at without the belief of a Deity,"the advantages of virtue *may poſlibl y be ſeen and owned, and a high opinion of it «« eſtablifhed in the mind,“ he there ad ds,«However it muſt be confeſſed, that the natural tendency of Atheiſm is very *c different d.“ Where he ſeems plainly to allow, that Atheiſm is naturally an enemy to virtue, and that the direct tendency of it is to hinder the mind from entertaining a right opinion of virtue, or from having a due 3 nf 4 of its advantage.And elſe- where, ſpeaking of the Atheiſtical belief, he obſerves, that it «⅜ tends to the weaning the affectiof ns from every thing amiable «« and ſelf-worthy. For how little diſpoſed muſt a perſon be ** to love or admire any thing as orderly in the univerſe, who «« thiaks the univerſe itſelf a pattern of diſordere.“ To this may be added another remarkable paſſage in which his Lord- ſhip declares, That„he who only doubts of a God may poſ- ee fibly lament his own unhappineſs, and wiſh to be convir e Lblhun hat he who denies a Deity is daringly preſumptuous, 4* and bt up an ôõpinion againſt the ſentiments of mankind, **and being of ſociety.“ W here he ſeems plainly to pronounce that Atheiſm is ſubverſive of all virtue, which in his ſcheme hath an eſſential relation to ſociety, and the good of the public. And accordingly he adds, That it is eaſily ſeen, that“ one of * theſe,“ viz. he that only doubts,“ may bear a due reſpect **to the magiſtrates and the laws, but not the other,“ viz. he hat denies a Deity,“ who being obnoxious to them is juſtly e* 1n dumihe able f.“ Several paſſages might be produced, in which his Lordſhip repreſents the tendency religion hath to promote virtue. He obſerves, That“nothing can more highly contribute to the **fixing of right apprehenſions, and a ſound judgment or ſenſe „*of right and wrong, than to believe a God, who is repre- ſented ſuch, as to be a true model or example of the moſt *«exact juſtice, and higheſt goodneſs and worth z!“ And again, That°this bel ief muſt undoubte dly ſerve to raiſe and ¹* increaſe the affection towards virtue, and help to ſubmit and « fubdue all other affections to this alone.—- And that, when *«this Theiſtieal belief is intire and perfect, there muſt be a ¹ſteady opinion of the ſuperintendency of a Supreme Being, a *¹ witneſs and ſpectator of human life, and conſcious of what- 8 1 108. 4 Characteriſt. vol. ii. P. 69. e Ibid. p. 70. f Ibid. p. 260. ² Ibid. p. 51. ſoever S0 A Vieuw of tbe DzisrTIcaL Writers. Let. G. 6 ¹*¹ ſoever is felt or acted in the univerſe, ſo that in the perfecteſt ** receſs, or deepeſt ſolitude, there muſt be one ſtill preſumed ¹* remaining with us, whoſe preſence ſingly mult be of more „moment than that of the molt auguſt aſſembly upon earth: ¹ze and that in ſuch a preſence, as the pame of guilty actions muſt bé the greateſt of any, ſo—muſt the honour be of well- ** doing, even under the unjuſt cenſures of a world. And in «⁴ this caſe it is very apparent, how conducing a perfect Theiſm muſt be to virtue, and how great a deliciency there is in Atheiſm b.“ He fhews, That“where by the violence of «rage, luſt, or any other counter⸗working paſſions, the good ¹⁴ affection may frequently be controuled and overcome—if re- „ligion interpoſing creates a belief that the ill paſſions of this **⁴ kind, no leſs than their conſequent actions, are the objects 1**of a Deity's animadverſion, it is certain, that ſuch a belief ¹*muſt prove a ſeaſonable remedy againſt vice, and be in a par- ¹ticular manner advantageous to virtue i. And he concludes the firſt book of the Inquiry concerning Virtue with obſerving, That“ we may hence determine juſtly the relation which vir- ⸗tue has to piety: the firſt not being complete but in the ««c latter. And thus, ſalth he, the perfection and height of ¹c virtue muſt be owing to the belief of a God k.“ From theſe paſſages it ſofficiently appears, that thoſe who would ſeparate virtue from religion cannot properly plead Lord Shaſteſbury's authority for it. And indeed not only is religion a friend to virtue, and of the higheſt advantage to it, but as it ſignifies proper affections and diſpoſitions towards the Supreme Being, is itfelf the nobleſt virtue. It is true that his Lordſhip ſeems frequently to place virtue wholly in good affections to- wards mankind. But this appears to be too narrow a notion of it. He himſelf makes virlue and moral rectitude to be equi- valent terms!; and moral rectitude ſeems as evidently and ne- ceſſarily io include right affections towards God, as towards thoſe of our own ſpecies. He that is deficient in this, muſt certainly be deficient in an eſſential branch of good affection, or moral rectitude. If a human creature could not be ſaid to be rightly diſpoſed, that was deſtitute of affections towards its na- tural parents, can he be ſaid to be rightly diſpoſed, who hath not a due affection towards the Common Parent, as Lord Shafteſ- bury calls him, of all intellectual beings? This noble Writer deſcribes virtue to be that which is beautiful, fair, and amiable d Characteriſt. vol. ii. p. 5 7. 1 Ibid. p. 60, 61. k Ibid. p. 75. 1 Ibid. p. 2, 31 Let. 6. Earl of SHAFTESBURVY. 81 in diſpoſition and action. And he aſks,%Whether there is ««on carth a fairer matter of ſpeculation, a goodlier view or „¹„contemplation, than that of a beautiful, Proportioned, and becoming action m?“ And is there any thing more beautiful, more juſtly- proportioned, and more becoming, than the acting ſuitably to the relation we bear to the Supreme Being, and the ſerving, adoring, and honouring him, as far as we are capable of doing ſo? Is there ſuch a beauty and harmony in good affections towards thoſe of our own ſpecies, and muſt there not be ſtill more beauty and excellency in having our minds formed to proper affections and diſpoſitions towards our Maker, Pre- ſerver, and Benefactor, the ſource and Principle, to uſe our author's expreſſions, all being and perfection, the fupremèe and Fovereign beauty, the original g all which is good and amiable? His Lordſhip ſpeaks in the higheſt terms of the pleaſing con- ſciouſneſs which is the effect of love or kind affections towards mankind. But certainly there is nothing that can yield more of a divine ſatisfaction, than that which ariſeth from a con- ſciouſneſs of a man's having approved himſelf to the beſt of beings, and endeavoured to promote his glory in the world, and to fulfil the work he hath given us to do. And it will be readily acknowleged, that a neceſſary part of this work is the doing good to our fellow. creatures. The very notion he ſo frequently gives of virtue, as having an eſſential relation to a ſyſtem, ſeems, if underſtood in its pro- per extent, to include religion, and cannot ſubſiſt without it. His Lordſhip indeed freq ently explains this as relating to the ſyſtem of the human ſpecies, to which we are er jonlahh related, and of which we conſtitute a part. But he alſo repre- ſents the human ſyſtem as only a part of the univerfal one, and obſerves that“as man muſt be conſidered as having a relation ** abroad to the ſyſtem of his kind; ſo even the ſyſtem of his **o kind to the animal ſyſtem: this to the world(our earth) and this again to the bigger world, the univerſe n.“ And that“having recognized this uniform conſiſtent fabric, and owned the univerfal ſyſtem, we muſt of conſequence acknow- „ lege an univerſal mind o.“ He aſſerts, that good affection, * in order to its being of the right dind. mult be intire:“ and that ‧a partial affection, or ſocial„Without re- ** gard to a complete ſociety or whole, is in itſelf an incon- ** fiſtency, and implies an abſolute contradiction P.“ But how p. 286. 9 Ibid. G an 43 .9⸗ —— V V 82 A View of the DEisTIcAL Writers. Let. 6. can that affection to the ſyſtem be ſaid to be intire, or of the right kind, which hath no regard to the author of it, on whom the whole ſyſtem, the order, and even the very being of it, ab- ſolutely depends? and without whom indeed there could be properly no ſyſtem at all, nothing but diſorder and confuſion? On this occaſion it will be proper to produce a remarkable paſ- ſage in his third volume; where he obſerves, That““ if what ¹„he had advanced in his Inguiry, and in his following Philo- ⁴fſophic Dialogue, be real— it will follow, that ſince man is ſo ** conſtituted by means of his rational part, as to be conſcious «of this his more immediate relation to the univerſal ſyſtem, ««and principle of order and intelligence, he is not only by na- *ture ſciable within the limits of his own ſpecies or kind, but „in a yet more generous and extenſive manner. He is not only * born to virtue, friendſhip, honeſty, and faith, but to religion, ««piety, adoration, and a generous ſurrender of his mind to „„whatever happens from the Supreme Cauſe or order of things, „ which he acknowleges intirely juſt and perfect 4.“ I have inſiſted the more largely upon this, becauſe many there are among us that talk highly of virtue, who yet ſeem to look upon religion to be a thing in which they have little or no concern. They allow that men are formed and deſigned to be uſeful to one another: but as to What is ufually called piety towards God, or thoſe acts of religion, of which God is the immediate object, this does not enter at all into their notion of virtue or morality. They ſlight it as a matter of no conſe- quence; and think they may be good and virtuous without it. But not to urge, that religion or a true regard to the Deity, is the beſt ſecurity for the right performance of every other part of our duty, and furniſheth the ſtrongeſt motives and engage- ments to it; which cercainly ought greatly to recommend it to every lover of virtue; there is nothing which ſeems to be ca- pable of a clearer demonſtration from the frame of the human nature, and the powers and faculties with which man is endued, than that he alone of all the ſpecies of beings in this lower world, is formed with a capacity for religion, and that conſe- quently this was one principal deſign of his creation, and with- out which he cannot properly anfwer the end of his being. To what hath been produced from the Earl of Shafteſbury, I fhall add the teſtimony of another writer, whom no man will ſuſpect of being prejudiced in favour of religion, the late Lord Viſcount Bolingbroke; who, though he ſometimes ſceins to make man 4 Characteriſt. vol, iii, p. 224. only Let. 6. Earl of SuaFTESBURV. 93 only a higher kind of brute, and blames thoſe who ſuppoſe that the ſoul of man was made to contemplate God, yet at other times finds himſelf obliged to acknowlege, that man was principally deſigned and formed for religion. Thus in the ſpecimen he gives of a meditation or ſoliloquy of a devout Theiſt, he talks of ** feeling the ſuperiority of his ſpecies;“ and adds,“‧I ſhould ¹rouze in myſelf a grateful ſenſe of theſe advantages above all «others, that Tam a creature capable of knowing, of adoring, ¹and worſhipping my Creator, capable of diſcovering his will ¹„in the law of my nature, and capable of promoting my hap- *pineſs by obeying it.“ And in another paſſage, after in- veighing, as is uſual with him, againſt the pride and vanity of philoſophers and divines in exalting man, and flattering the pride of the human heart, he thinks fit to acknowlege, That ¹* man is a religious as well as ſocial creature, made to know and ¹*adore his Creator, to diſcover and to obey his will.— That ¹«greater powers of reaſon, and means of improvement, have ¹*been meaſured out to us than to other animals, that we might ¹be able to fulfil the ſuperior purpoſes of our doſtination, ¹*abereof religion is undoubtedly the chief.— And that in theſe ¹the elevation and pre-eminence of our ſpecies over the infe- „rior animals conſiſts:.“ I think it plainly followeth from what Lord Bolingbroke hath here obſerved, and which ſeems to be perfectly juſt and reaſonable, that they who live in an ha- bitual neglect of religion, are chargeable with neglecting the chief purpoſe of their being, and that in which the true glory and pre-eminence of the human nature doth principally conſiſt: and that conſequently they are guilty of a very criminal con- duct, and which they can by no means approve, to the great Author of their exiſtence, who gave them their noble powers, and to whom as the wiſe and righteous Governor of the world they muſt be accountable for their conduct. I have been carried farther in my obſervations on this ſobject than Iintended; but if this may be looked upon as a digreſſion, 1 hope it will not be thought unſuitable to the main deſign 1 have in view. I am, Sir,&c. r Lord Bolingbroke's works, vol. v. p. 300, 391. See alſo to the ſame purpoſe, ibid, p. 340. 3 Ibid. p. 470. G 2 LET- A View of the DæisTIcAL Writers. Let. 7. e 6. LETITE R VII. Mr. Collins's Ditcourſe of Free-thinking. He gives a long catalogue of diviſions among ihe clergy, witb a vieco to ſpew the uncertainty of tbe Chriſtian religion. His attempt to prove tbat there was a general corrup- tion of tbe goſpels in lbe ſixtb century. The abſurdity of ibis manifeſted. His pretence ibat friendſhip is not required in tbe goſpel, ibo' ſtronghy recommended by Epi- curus, ſpezon to be vain and groundleſs. An account of his book, intitled, The Grounds and Reaſons of the Chriſtian Religion. The pernicious deſign and tendency of that book ſbecon. He allocws Cbriſtianity no foundation but the allegorical, i. e. as he underſtands it, the falſe ſenſe of tbe Old Teſtament prophecies. His met hod unfair and diſingenuous. Some account of ibe principal anſcers publiſbed againſt tbat book, and 8 againſt the Scheme of literal prophecy conſidered, cobich was defigned to be a defence of it. F † F, 1 Free-t hinkers. It was Written by Anthony Collins, Eſquire, though publiſhed, as his other writings are, without his name. The fame gentleman had, in 1707, publiſhed an May concern- ing the uſe o roaſon in Bropofitions, the evidence whereof dehends ußon human tæſtimony: In which there are ſome good obſerva- tions, mixed with others of a ſuſpicious nature and tendency. In this eſſay there are animadverſions upon ſome paſſages in a tract written by Dr. Francis Gaſtrel, afterwards Lord Biſhop of Cbheſter, intitled, Some Conſiderations concerning the Trinty, and aging that Controverſy, publiſhed in 1702. To of which, publiſhed in 1707, that learned and judicious 7 5 Wy 0) 16 me third edition Let. 7. Mr. CortIVsS. 85 judicious divine ſubjoined a vine dication of it, in anſwer 10 Mr. Collins's Eſſay. This gentleman alſo diſtinguiſhe d himſelf by writing againſt the immateriality and immortality of the human ſoul, as he afterwards did agai int human liberty and free-a gen. cy: and, with regard to both theſe, was anfwered by Dr. Sa- tel Clark, with that clearneſs and ſtrength for which that hat author u as ſo remarahle. J. b e diſcourſe on Free-thinking is nitr s of the beſt 21 men in all ages. But there is great reaſon to com- plain of a very unfair and di iſinge enuous procedure throughout uates, that thoſe who ſtand the whole book. He all along 1 up for revealed religion are el enemies to a juſt liberty of thought, and to a free examination and inquiry. His deſign is certainly levelled againſt Chriſtianity, and yet he ſometimes affects to ſpeak of it with reſpect. He no where argues directly againſt it, but takes every occaſion to throw out ſneers and inſinuations, which tend to raiſe prejudices in the minds of his readers. No ſmall part of this book is taken up in invectives againſt the clergy, and in giving an account of the diviſions that have been mong them about the articles of the Chriſtian faith. If there hath dee nany thing unwarily advanced by any of them, if they any odd or abſurd opinions, or have in the heat of have vented diſpute caſt raſh and angry ce nſure s upon one another, theſe things are here turned to the diſadvantage of Chriſtianity itſelf s if this excellent religion were to be anſwerable for all the paſ- ſions, follies, and exorbitancies of thoſe that make profeſſion of it: Or, as if the differences which have been among Chriſtians re a proof that there is nothing in the Chriſtian religion that can be ſafely depended upon. T his indeed has been a ſtanding nough it is viz. that „ 1 topick for declamation in all the deiſtical writin founded upon a principle which is manifeſtly falt whatever has been at any time controverted is doub btful and un- certain: A principle, which, as I had occaſion to obſerve be- fore, would ſet zſide the moſt important truths of natural re ligion as well as revealed. But theſe gentlemen too often aet, as if they were not very ſollicitous about the they could deſtroy the latter with it. A great noiſe is raiſed in this Diſcourſe E. about the pĩous frauds of ancient fathers and modern clergy and their forging, corrupting, and mangling of authors; an ed the Scri it is inſinue ued, that they have altered and corri tures, as beſt ſerved their own purpoſes and intere ſ Shafteſbury had inſinuated the ſame thing before, and theſe G 3 clamours 86 A View of the DEisTIcAIL. Writers. Let. 7. clamours are continually renewed and repeated; though it hath been often ſhewn with the utmoſt evidence, that a general al- teration and corruption of the holy Scriptures was, as the caſe was circumſtanced, an impoſſible thing. And we have the plaineſt proof in fact, that even in the darkeſt and moſt corrupt ages of the Chriſtian church, the Scriptures were not altered in favour of the corruptions and abuſes which were then intro- duced; fince no traces of thoſe corruptions are to be found there; on the contrary, they furniſh the moſt convincing argu- ments for detecting and expoſing thoſe corruptions. But what he ſeems to lay the greateſt ſtreſs upon is a paſſage from Victor of Tmuis, in which it is ſaid, that at the command of the emperor Anaſtaſius, the holy goſpels were corrected and amended. This our author calls n account o a general alter- ation of the four goſpels in the ſixth century. And he ſays, it was diſcovered by Dr. Mills, and was very little known before a. But then he ſhould have taken notice of what Dr. Mills has added, viz. that it is certain as any thing can be, that no ſuch altered goſpels were ever publiſhed; and that if the fact had been thus, it would have been mentioned with deteſtation by all the hiſtorians, and not be found only in one blind paſſage of a puny chronicle. Indeed there cannot be a plainer inſtance of the power of that prejudice and bigotry againſt Chriſtianity, which has poſſeſſed the minds of the gentlemen that glory in the name of Frez-thinkers, than their laying hold on ſuch a ſtory as this to prove a general corruption of the goſpels, con- trary to all reaſon and common ſenſe. Let us ſuppoſe the em- peror Anaſtaſius to have had an intention to alter the copies of the goſpels,(which yet it is highly improbable he ſhould attempt) he could only have got ſome of the copies inte his hands: There would ſtill have been vaſt numbers of copies ſpread through different parts of the empire, which he could not lay hold of, eſpecially conſidering how much he was hated and oppoſed: or ĩf we ſhould make the abſurd and impoſſible ſuppoſition of his being able to get all the copies throughout the caſt into his hands; yet as there were ſtill innumeérable copies in the weſt, where he had little or no power, they would have immediately detected the alteration and çorruption, if there had been any. Loud complaints would have been made of the attempt, but no ſuch complaints were ever made. And, in fact, it is evident, that there have been no greater differences ſince that time between the caſtern and weſtern copies than a2 Diſcourſe on Freethinking, p. 89, 90. there Let. 7. Mr. CorLINs. 87 there were before. And it is undeniably manifeſt from great numbers of authors, who lived in the preceding ages, and whoſe works are come down to us, that the ſcriptures, a great part of which is tranſcribed into their Writings, were the ſame before that pretended alteration, that they have been ſince. With a view of ſfhewing the uncertainty of the ſacred text of the New Teſtament, this author takes notice of the various readings collected by Dr. Mills, which he ſays amount to thirty thouſand. This objection has been ſo fully expoſed, and this whole matter ſet in ſo clear a light by the famous Dr. Bentley, under the character of Phileleut herus Lipſienſis, that one ſhould think it would have been for ever ſilenced. And yet it has been frequently repeated ſince by the writers on that ſide, and par- ticularly by Dr. Tindal, in his Chriſtianity as old as the Crea- tion, without taking the leaſt notice of the clear and ſatisfac- tory anſwer that had been returned to it. The ancient prophets have been the conſtant objects of the ſneers and reproaches of theſe gentlemen. And accordingly this writer has told us, that to obtain the Hrophetic ſpirit they played ußon muſic, and drank wine b. That they might very lawfully and properiy drink wine, in a country where there was great plenty of it, may well be allowed without any dimi- nution of their character: and that they employed muſic, par- ticularly in ſinging praiſes to God, may be concluded from ſeveral paſſages in the ſacred writings. But certainly if they had the prophetie ſpirit at all, neither wine nor muſic gave it them, or could enable them to foretel things to come. But then he does them the honour to ſay, They were great Free- thinkers, and that“ they writ with as great liberty againſt the *eſtabliſhed religion of the Jews(which the people looked on **as the inſtitution of God himſelf), as if they looked upon it * all to be impoſture“ That the prophets freely declared againſt the Jeuνb corruptions, againſt their idolatries and im- moralities, and againſt their laying the chief ſtreſs on ritual obſervances, whilſt they neglected the weightier matters of the law, is very true. And this is here by an unpardonable diſin- genuity repreſented as an inveighing againſt the Moſaic diſpen- fation, as if they did not believe it to have been originally of divine inſtitution: whereas it is to the laſt degree evident, that they all along ſuppoſe the law of Moſes to have been inſtituted by God himſelf, and reprove the people and prieſts, not for their ² Diſcourſe of Free-thinking, p. 153. 6G 4 adherence 88 A View ef tbe DEisTICAL Writers. Let. 7. adherence to that law, but for their deviations from it, and neglect of the moſt important duties there enjoined. This gentleman has given us a long liſt of Free-tbinkergs; but there is none of them all of whom he ſeems to ſpeak with greater complacency than Epicurus; though he owns that his fyſtem was a Syſtem ef Atheiſm e. And afier having obſerved, that Epicurus was eminent for that moſt divine of all virtues, Jriendſbiß, he ſays, ihat we Chriſtians ought to hape a kigh veneration of him on this account, becauſe even our holy religion it ſelf does not any where particularly require eæf us this virtue. The noble author of the Characteriſtics had made the ſame obſervation before him; and both the one and the other cite a paſſage from Biſhop Taylor, to ſhew that there is no word pro- perly ſignifying Friendſbiß in the New Teſtament. Thus they have happily hit upon an inſtance in which the morality of thę goſpel is defective, and exceeded by that of Ebicurus. But it ought to be conſidered, that friendſhip, when underſtood of a particular affection between two or more perſons, is not always a virtue. It may in ſome caſes incroach upon a nobler and more extenſive benevolence, and may cauſe perſons, and hath often done ſo, to ſacrifice the moſt important duties to private affec- tions. Or, Wwhere this is not the caſe, yet where friendfhip ariſeth from a particular conformity of natural tempers and in- clinations between ſome men and others, or as Lord Shaftebury expreſſes it, that peculiar relation which is formed by a conſent and harmony of minds, it does not properly come under the preſcription of a law, nor can be the matter of a general pre- cept. But if it be underſtood of that benevolence which uniteth virtuous minds in the ſacred bands of a ſpecial cordial affection, never was this more ſtrongly recommended and en- forced than in the goſpel of Jeſus. It requireth us to love and do good to all mankind, in which ſenſe Biſhop Taylor rightly obſerves in the very paſſage referred to, that Chriſtian charity is Friendſbip to all the world. And the laſt-mentioned noble wri- ter aſketh, Can any friendſpip be ſo heroical as love to mankindds obliged to love one ancther with a Hure beart fervently. Lord Shafteſbury is pleaſed to mention St. Paul's ſaying, that Berhape JFor a good man one would even dare to die, and obſerves, that mate affection towards good men, whom it repreſenteth as 1 c Diſcourſe of Free-thinking, p. 90. 129. d Charaderiſt. vol. ii. p. 229. the Iet. 7. Mr. CoLLINSs. 39 the aßoſtle is ſo far from founding any precept upon it, that he ſbers it in with a very dubious beradventure e. But it is to be ſuppoſed, his Lordſhip had not conſidered that noble paſſage of St. John, Hereby Berceive we the love ꝗf God, becauſe be, our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, laid down bis life for us, and we ought t lay doun our lives for the brethren, 1 John iii. 16. Can friendfhip be carried to a nobler height, or be enforced by more engaging motives, or a more powerful example? Can it be pretended, that the moſt divine f all virtues, friend- ſbiß, is not required of us in our holy religion, when we are there required, if properly called to it, to give ſo glorious a proof of our friendfhip to our Chriſtian brethren, whom we are taught to regard as united to us by the moſt ſacred ties? 4 We ſhall diſmiſs this diſcourſe of Freethinking with obſerving, that as the author of it hath put Solomon into his liſt of Free- thinkers, for aſſerting, as he pretends he did, the mortality of the ſoul, and denying a future ſtate, though the contrary is manifeſt from what Sotomon himſelf faith Eccleſ. Kii. 7. 14. 80 he takes that occaſion to inform his reader, that the immortality of the ſoul was Fr ans, and was an in- vention of their f. the ſame thing before in his letters to Serenas, and this may help us to judge how far ſome of our boaſted Free-thinkers are from being friends to narural religion taken in its juſt extent. Soon after this diſcourſe of vinking appeared, the Reverend Mr. Hoadley, lord biſhop of Wincbeſter, publiſhed ſome very ſenſible Queries addreſſed to the aut hors of a late Diſcourſe of Free thinking, in which the diſhoneſt infinuations, falſe reaſonings, and pernicious tendency of that treatiſe are laid open in a ſhort and conciſe, but clear and convincing man- ner. There were ſeveral other ingenious pamphlets publiſhed ro the ſame purpoſe. But none of them was ſo generally admired and applauded as the Remarhs on a late Diſcourſe ꝗf Free-thinking by Phileleutherus Lipſienſis, 2.. Dr. Bentley. This learned writer hath ſo fully and effectually detected and expoſed the great and inexcuſable miſtakes committed by the author of that diſcourſe, his blunders and abſurdities, his fre- quent wrong tranſlations, and mifunderſtanding of the authors he quotes, or wilful perverſions and mifrepreſentations of their Characteriſt. vol. i. p. 102. f Diſcourſe of Free think- jng, p. 152. s Letter 2d. . ſenſe, 90 A View of the DEisrT IcAL Writers. Let. 7. ſenſe, that it might one ſhould think have diſcouraged him from appearing any more as a writer in this cauſe h. But ſuch was this gentleman's zeal againſt chriſtianity, that ſome ycars after he thought fit to attack it in another way, Wwhich was more ſubtil and more dangerous. He publiſhed a Diſcourſe on the graunds and reaſons of the Chriffian religion. London 1724. 8vo. as if his deſign had beeen to do real ſervice to Chriſtianity by eſtabliſhing it upon a ſure and ſolid founda- tion. Ihe ſcheme he lays down is this: That our Saviour and his apoſtles put the whole proof of Chriſtianity ſolely and en- tirely upon the prophecies of the Old Teſtament: That if theſe * There was a French tranſlation of the Diſcourſe of Free-thining carried on under Mr. Collins's own eye, and printed at the Hague in 1714; though it bears London in the title-page. In this tranflation ſeveral material alterations are made, and a different turn is given to ſeveral paſſages from what was in Mr. Collins's original Engliſp. This is plainly done with a view to evade the charges which had been brought againſt bim by Dr. Bentley, under the character of Pbileleutberus Liphenſis, ſome of which charges that bore very pro- perly againſt Mr.(Coluins's book, as it was firſt publiſhed, will appear imperrinent to thoſe that judge only by this tranflation. But care ¹s talcen not to give the leaſt notice oftheſe alterations to the reader, upon whom it was made to paſs for a faithfal verſion of the original. Al! this is clearly ſfnewn by the author of the French tranſlation of Dr. Bentley's Remarks on tée Diſcourſe of Free-thinking, which was printed at Amſerdam in 1738, under the title of Friponerie Laique dæs pretendus Eſprits forts d' ingleterre: The Lay-craft of the pretenaea Free-thinkers/ England. This gentleman, Mr. De la Chapelle, has made it appear that Mr. Collins, and his Tranſlator, who acted under his direclion, have been guilty of palpable falſifcations and frauds; which ill became one who had in that very boo raiſed a lood outcry againſt the clergy for corrapting and mangling of authors, and for pious frauds in tbe tranflation or publiſbing of books. And I cannot but obſerve on this occaſion, what muſt have occurred to every one that has been much converſant in the Deiſtical writers, that it would ke hard to produce any perſons whatſoever who are chargeable with more unſair and fraudulent management in their quotations, in curtailing, adding to, or altering, the paſſages they cite, or taking them out of their connexion, and making them ſpeak directly contrary to the ſentiments of the authors. It is well known that they affeét frequently to quote Chriſtian divines; but they ſeldom do it fairly, and often wilfully mifrepreſent and per- vert their meaning. Many glaring inſtances of this ſort might be produced out of the writings of the moſt eminent Deiſtical authors, if any man ſhould think it worth his while to make a collection to this purpoſe. pProoſs Let. 7. NMr. CorLins. 91 proofs are valid, Chriſtianity is eſtabliſhed upon its true founda- tion; but if they are invalid, and the arguments brought from thence be not concluſive, and the prophecies cited from thence not fulfilled, Chriſtianity has no juſt foundation, and is there- fore falfe. Accordingly he ſets himſelf to ſhew, that the pro- phecies cited in the New Teſtament from the Old in proof of Chriſtianity, four or five of which he particularly con ſiders, are only typical and allegorical proofs; and that allegorical proofs are no proofs according to ſcholaſtic rules, i. e. as he plainly intends it, according to the rules of ſound reaſon and common ſenſe. He aſſerts, that the expectation of the Meſſiah did not obtain among the Jews, till a little before the time of our Sa- viour's appearing, when they were under the oppreſſion of the Romans; and that the apoſtles put a new interpretation on the Jewiſb books, which was not agreeable to the obvious and ſiteral meaning of thoſe books. and was contrary to the ſenſe of the Jewwiſb nation: that Chriſtianity deriveth all its authority from the Old Teſtament, and is wholly revealed there, not lite- rally, but myſtically and allegorically; and that therefore Chriſtianity is the allegorical ſenſe of the Old Teſtament, and is not improperly called Myſtical Judaiſm; and that conſequently ly ſpeaking the ſoe true canon of the Old Teſtament is proper Chriſtians: that the allegorical reaſoning is ſet up by St. Paul, and the other apoſtles, as the true and only reaſoning proper to bring all men to the faith of Chriſt, and all other methods of reaſoning are wholly diſcarded. Thus it appeareth that the evident deſign of this author's book is to ſhew, that the only foundation on which Chriſtianity is built is falſe: that the firſt publiſhers of the goſpel laid the whole ſupport and credit of Chriſt's divine miſſion, and of the religion he taught, upon pre- tended Jeuwi p prophecies, applied in a ſenſe which had no foundation in the prophecies themſelves, and contrary to the plain original meaning and intention of thoſe prophecies; which the Jeus had never underſtood nor applied in that ſenſe, and which had nothing to ſupport it but allegory; i. e. the mere fancy of him that ſo applies it. If we needed any farther proof of our author's intentions towards Chriſtianity, it might be obſerved, that he repreſents Jeſus and his apoſtles as having founded their religion on prophecy, in like manner as the ſeveral ects among the Heathens did theirs on divination. And theſe prophets, he tells us, manifeſted their divine inſpiration by the alſcovery f gocdz, and talling ęf fortunes i. So that he ¹ Diſcourſe on the grounds,&c, of the Chriſtian religion, ch. vi. 5 makes 92 A Viow of the DEISTICAI, Writers. Let. 7. makes Jeſus and his apoſtles found their religion on the pre- dictions of fortune-tellers and diviners, and thoſe miſapplied too; which plainly ſnews what a deſpicable idea this writer intended to convey of the Chriſtian religion, and the bleſſed author of it. Few books have made a greater noiſe than chis did at its firſt publication. The turn given to the controverſy had ſomething in it that ſeemed new, and was managed with great art; and yet when cloſely examined, it appears to be weak and triſfing. The very fundamental principle of the author's whole ſyſtem, viz. that the prophecies of the Old Teſtament are the ſole foundation of Chriſtianity, and the only proofs and evidences inſiſted upon by our Saviour and his apoſtles, in confirmation of it, is abſolutely falſe; as any one may know that can read the New Teſtament. For it is undeniable, that our bleſſed Lord often appealeth to his wonderful works, as manifeſt proofs that the Father had ſent him; and the apoſtles in like manner frequently appealed to his miracles and reſurrection, and to the miracles wrought, and the extraordinary gifts of the holy ghoſt poured forth in his name, as unconteſted proofs of the divine authority of that ſcheme of religion which they publiſhed to the world. With regard to the prophecies, the courſe of his rea- ſoning really amounts to this: that becauſe there are difficul- ties and obſcurities attending ſome very few paſſages cited out of the Old Teſtament in the New, as having a reference to the times of the goſpel; and we cannot well at this diſtance ſee the propriety of the application; therefore the whole of the New Teſtament is falſe: and the accounts given of our Saviour, his excellent diſcourſes, the miracles he performed, and the illuſtri- ous atteſtations given to him from heaven, are of no force at all; and all the arguments drawn from thence are ineffectual and vain. It is in the ſame ſtrain of reaſoning, that he con- cludes that becauſe four or five prophecies, for he produces no more, cited in the New Teſtament from the Old, ſeem not to relate to the goſpel times in a literal, but in a ſecondary and typical, i. e. as he explains it, an allegorical ſenſe, therefore none of the Old Teſtament prophecies can be applied directly and literally at all, or have any relation to our Saviour and the goſpel diſpenſation. And becauſe the modern Feuws conteſt the application of ſome prophecies to the Meſſiah, which are applied to our Saviour in the New Teſtament, therefore the ancient Jews allowed none of thoſe prophecies to be applied to the Meſſiah, which in the New Teſtament are applied to him. And Yet the contrary is invincibty evident from their writings ftill n extant, Let. 7. Mr. CoLxLINs. 9 extant, by which it appeareth that moſt of the prophecies ap- plied to our Saviour in the New Teſtament, and many others not there mentioned, were underſtood of the Meſſiah by the ancient Jews, as many of them ſtill are by the moſt celebrated of the modern 7 themſelves. And it was certainly a ſtrange attempt in this author, to endeavour to prove that the Jews had no notion or expe Ctation of the Meſſiah, till a little before the times of our Saviour, when all their writers with one con- ſent, ancient and modern, who are the proper judges in ſuch a caſe, agree that there had been all along among them an hope and expectation of the Meſſiah, founded, as they univerſally believed, on the ſacred writings. It may further let us ſee this writer's ingenuity, that becauſe St. Paul makes uſe of an alle- gory in his epiſtle to the Galatians, though he there manifeſtly introduces it by way of illuſtration, and expreſsly declares to thoſe to whom he writes, that theſe things are allegorized, therefore he layeth the whole ſtreſs of his mumende upon alle- Lor as the principal and only proof; and that he and the other apoſtles abſolutely reject a lother reaſonin 2g but the allegorical, which is no reaſoning at all. And yet any one that ever read St. Paul's epiſtles muſt know, that he often makes uſe of rea- ſoning and argument, and very cloſe reaſoning too. The laſt inſtance I ſhall produce of this author's extraordinary way of arguing is, that bec- auſe the apoſtles and ſacred writers of the New Teſtament acknowlege the authority of the Old, and draw proofs from thence, therefore the New Teſtament is of no autho- rity at all, and the Old Teſtament is the ſole Canon of Chriſtians, 1. e Becauſe there is an harmony between the Old Teſtament and the New, and becauſe the former had foretold a glorious perſon who was to introduce a new and more perfect diſpenſation;, therefore that new and more perfeét di ſpeuſ ation is no new diſ- penſation at all, but is abſolutely and in all reſpects the ſame with that old and more im perfect one in which it was figured and foretold, and which was deſigned to prepare the way for it. Having made theſe general obſervations. it will be proper to take notice of ſome of the anſwers that were made to this book; and here that which was written by Dr. Chandler, the lord bichop of Coventry and Litchfeld, deſerveth ſpecial notice. It was pub- liſhed in 172 5, and is intitled A Deæſence ꝗ&f Chr Mianity from the Sro bhecies the Old Teſtament. 1 his is a ver 7 learnedh and ela- boraee performance, and executed with great judgment. In it he biſhop firſt ſets himſelf to e that there was a general expectatahn of the Meſſi ah at the time w hen our Saviour ap- pre I Peared; and he traces this CXPCCtation from tnat tme to the very age of the prophets themfelves. He then proceeds to ſhew, 94 A Viev of the DEisTIcAL Writers. Let. 7. that to ſupport this expectation there were expreſs literal pro- phecies, that truly concern the Meſſiah, of which he produceth twelve, which he particularly conſiders; and he proves with great evidence, that they were applied by the antient Jeus to the Meſſiah, and that it appeareth from the prophecies them- ſelves, that they could not be applied to any other. He then goes on to ſhew, that beſides theſe, there were typical prophecies to the ſame effect, and which were intended to be applied to the Meſſiah. The author of the Grounds,&c. had every-where re- preſented typical prophecies, as ſignifying no more than that they were afterwards applied in an allegorical ſenſe, and had aſſerted that there appear not the leaſt traces of a typical intention in the writings of the Old Teſtament, or any other Jeus of thoſe times. In oppoſition to which, the biſhop plainly proves, from the writings of the prophets themſelves, that they were wont to propheſy by types, and to ſpeak of themſelves or others as types of other perſons and people, on purpoſe to foretel what ſfhould be done by or to ſingle perſons or nations hereafter; of which he giveth feveral inſtances: that therefore typical actions and typical diſcourſes made part of the prophetic language, and were undérſtood by the people to carry a reference to ſome- thing future. And conſequently, if the prophets ſpeak of the Meſſiah in their own perſons, or of other perſons as types of him, there is nothing in this but what is agrecable to the known prophetic language. He makes it appear, that the pro- phets themſelves underſtood ſome of thoſe prophecies as typical of the Meſſiah, and at the time of delivering thoſe prophecies, gave intimations that they were thus to be referred: that accordingly the Jeus acknowlege, that there were types in the Old Teſtament, and particularly that there were types of the Meſſiah; and that both the antient and modern Jeus under- ſtand many texts of the Meſſiah as the Chriſtians do, which are plainly typical; and he ſhews, that there were good reaſons for covering fome of the events relating to the Meſſiah under the veil of types, which were not to be fully explained till the age in which they were fulfilled. He next proceeds to give a diſtinét account of the texts pre- tended by the author of the Grounds to be miſapplied. He juſtly obferves, that if the principal characters of the Meſſiah be evidently found in the 7ewiſp ſcriptures, to the ſame intent for which they are cited by Chriſt and his apoſtles, it is unreaſon- able to quit a certain trath, becauſe every individual circum- ſtance is not equally clear; and it doth not plainly appear at this d Let. 7. NMr. CoLrLINs. 93 this time how two or three authorities are to be applied to the Meſſiah. And that the expreſſion that it might be fulhlled, on which the author layeth ſo great a ſtreſs, was ſometimes deſign- ed 9 the Jeus to mean no more than that ſomething anſwered alike in both caſes, or that there was a ſuitableneſs in the cauſe or circumſtances of one event to the other: and he ſhews, that the ſame way of ſpeaking continueth among the Jeus to this day. With relation to the allegorical way, he obſerves that it was chiefly in condeſcenſion to the Jeuı(ᷣ Chriſtians that St. Paul at all uſed it; but that nothing can be more falſe and diſinge- nuous than to pretend that he never uſed any other way of reaſoning than this. Finally, he thinks it may be allowed, that conſidering the illuſtrious atteſtations given to our Saviour, which plainly ſhewed that he was a teacher fent from God, his interpretation of the prophecies ought to be acquieſced in; ſince he wrought his miracles by the ſame ſpirit by which thoſe prophecies were delivered; and he inſtances in ſeveral prophe- cies, the interpretation of which given by our Lord, though different from that of the Jeuws, was actually fulfilled and veri- fied by the event. There was another learned author of the ſame name with the biſhop, Mr.(afterwards Dr.) Sauuue, Chandler, who alſo diſtin- guiſhed himſelf on this occaſion, in a book intitled, A Vindica- tion gf the Chriſtian Keligion, publichedl in 1725, 8vo. In the former part of that work, he hath a diſcourſe on the nature and uſe of miracles; in which, after having ſtated the true notion of a miracle, and given the characters that diſtingnilh true miracles from falſe, he clearly vindicates the miracles of our Saviour, and ſhews, that as they were circumſtanced, they were convincing proc ofs of his divine miſſion. The ſecond part of the ſame book is particularly deſigned as an anſwer to the author of the Grounds and Reaſons of the Chriflian Religion. After having ſhewn, that the prophecies of the Old Teſtament are not the only proofs of Chriſtianity, and that it is very abſurd to pretend, as that author had done, that the Old Teſta- ment is the ſole canon of Chriſtians, he clearly evinceth, that many of rhoſe prophecies had a farther reference than to the times when they were firſt delivered; and Berriculasly, that they contain a deſcription of a great and good perſon, to pro- ceed from David, who, notwithſtanding his ſufferings, ſhould be highly exalted, and under whom true religion and righte ouſneſs ſhould be. more extenſive than be fore; that theſe pro- Phecies relate principally to a ſpiritual ſalvation and deliverance; and that the Jews in onr Saviour's time, as appeareth from their 96 A View of tbe DEisT IcAL Writers. Let. 7. their moſt antient writings, applied many of thoſe prophecies to the Meiſiah. He next treats of the double ſenſe of prophe- cies, which the author of the Groundés had ridiculed, and ſhews that there is no abſurdity in ſuppoſing that as ſome prophecies relate wholly to the Meſſiah, ſo othlers may relate partly to his time, and partly to the times when they were firſt delivered: and that this double ſenſe of the prophecies was originally in- tended, and was ſo underſtood by the Jewr. He accounts for the particular places excepted againſt by the author of the Grounds, and obſerves, as the biſhop had done, that the apoſtles ſometimes quote paſſages from the old Teſtament, not in a way of direct proof, but to illuſtrate the argument they are upon; and ſometimes by way of accommodation to ſignify a corre- ſpondence of events, and to deſcribe things that happened in their own times, by expreſſions derived from the antient pro- phetic writings. That as arguments ad hominem have been always allowed, ſo if there were ſome particular paſſages in the antient prophets, which were applied by the Jeus to the Meſ- ſiah, the reference of which was not ſo natural and clear, the apoſtles were fully juſtifiable in applying them to Jeſus Chriſt, in their reaſonings with the Jeus, as far as they did agree with his perſon and character; but that there are few inſtances of this kind; nor did the apoſtles make uſe of this way of argu- ing, except to the Jeuws or Jeuiſb proſelytes: and even to them they did not put the chief ſtreſs on theſe things, but laid before them other ſolid and ſubſtantial proofs of Chriſtianity. Finally, if the difficulties which attend the quotations out of the Old Teſtament were much greater than they really are, yet this would not affect the credit or truth of the Chriſtian religion, which hath ſo many evidences to ſupport it. There were ſeveral other good anfwers publiſhed to the Groundi,&c. and which weré ſo well executed, as to deſerve that a particular account ſhould be given of them, if my pre- ſcribed limits would allow. Among others, Dr. Bullock's ſer- mons were very juſtly and highly eſteemed, in which“ the rea- „ ſoning of Chriſt and his apoſtles in their defence of Chriſ- *e tianity is conſidered. To which is prefixed a preface, taking « notice of the falſe repreſentations of Chriſtianity, and of the *¹*apoſtle's reaſoning in defence of it, in a book intitled, A D'ſ ¹* ccurſe f the Grounds and Reaſons gf the Chriftian Relig ion. London, 8vo. 172 5. Dr. Sykeg alſo publiſhed an HSay upon the Truth of the Chriſtian Keligion, wherein its real Foundation in the Cld Teæſiament is ſbewn, ocraſioned by the Diſcourfe gf the Grounds, London, 8 vν. 1725. In this book it is both clearly proved, Let. 7. Mr. CorrINs. 97 proved, that there are ſome direct prophecies relating to the Meſſiah in the old Teſtament, eſpecially in the Book of Daniel; and there are many good obſervations to ſhew, that the New Teſtament writers often quote paſſages by way of accommoda- tion and alluſion only and that moſt of the Texts produced as prophecies by the author of the Grounds are of this kind. To theſe may be added, an ingenious treatiſe, intitled, The true Grounds and Reaſons of the Chriſtian Religion, in obpoſition to the Fahe ones ſet forth in a late book, intitledl, The Grounds,&c. London, 89°, L7 25. Latters ro the author of the Diſcourſe of the Grounds, ſbewing that Chriſtianity is fupborted by facts well atteſtecdl; that the words of Iſaiab, chap. vii. 14. in their literal ſenſe, are a Broßhbecy f the birth and concoption of the Meſſias; and that the goſpel-application ꝙf ſeveral other Baſſages in the Old Teſtament is jußt, by Jobn Greene, 8vο, London, 1726. Mr. Whiſton alſo pu bliſhed, The literal actumßliſbment g Serinture- Broßphecies, being a hull anfwer to a late Diſcourſe of the Ground's, &c. London, 8ν5, 17 24. And he afterwards publiſhed, A Sup- plement 5 the literal accomßpliſbment ꝗf ſoripture-prophecies, London, 8ν°. 1725. It may be proper alſo to mention a book vebich was occaſioned by the Grounds,&c. though not directly in anſwer to it, intitled, The Ox and Intent œf Prophedy in the ſeveral ages of the Cpurch, by Dr. Thomas Sberlock, biſhop of London. This is an exc ellent performance, in which a regu- lar ſeries of prophecy is deduced through the ſeveral ages from the beginning, and its great uſefulneſs ſhewn. The various degrees of ligh t are diſtinctly marked out, which were ſucceſ- ſively communicated in ſuch a manner as to anſwer the great ends of religion, and the deſigns of providence, till thoſe great events to which they were intended to be ſubſervient, ſhould receive their accompliſmment. There was another valuable book, which, though not publiſhed till ſome years after, may be conſidered as particularly deſigned againſt the Grounds,&c. viz. The argument from Hrophecçy, in Brogf that Fh is The Melliab, vindicated, in ſome confiderations on the Prophecies the Old Teſtament, as the grounds and Eaehe of rhe Chriſtian religion, by Mo(s Louman, London, 8 v%, 1733. The laſt book I ſhall here take notice of, as Puh ihed on this occaſion, was A Review f the Controverſy between the Author&f the Diſcourſe of the Grounds and Reaſons of the Chriſtian Religion and his Adverſaries, in a Letter to tbe Author, 8⁰ο, 1726, by Mr. Thomas Jeffrey. This is drawn up in a clear and judicious manner, and was deſervedly well eſteemed. Vor. I. H The 98 A View of tbe DEisTIcAL Writers. Let. 7. The author of the Grounds,&c. thought fit in 1727, to publiſh a ſecond book, which was to paſs for a defence of his firſt, in anſwer to his ſeveral adverſaries, and particularly to the Biſhop of Litchfeld. It was intitled, The Scheme of literal Pro- Bhecy confidered. In this book he very ſlightly paſſeth over the chief things he ought to have proved, and on which in his for- mer book he had laid the greateſt ſtreſs. Inſtead of confirm- ing what he had ſo poſitively aſſerted before, that the prophe- cies of the Old Teſtament were the only proof on which Chriſ- tianity is founded, he only ſhews that they are part of the proof inſiſted on by our Saviour and his apoſtles, and moſt diſingenuoufly ſuppoſes, that his adverſaries would not allow them to be any proofs at all. He had affirmed with great con- fidence, that none of the ancient Jews ever underſtood any of thoſe prophecies of the Meſſiah, which are applied to Chriſt in the New Teſtament: But the utmoſt that he now attempts to ſhew is, that ſome of thoſe prophecies were not underſtood by the antient Jeus of the Meſſiah; and even for this he can give no other rcaſon than that ſome of the modern Jeus do not ſo apply them. He has nothing now to prove that the Old Teſtament is the only Canon of Chriſtians, or that the allegorical ſenſe is the only fenſe of prophecies intended by our Saviour and his apoſttes. And Wwhereas his anſwerers had urged, that though moſt of the prophecies applied in the New Teéſtament to our Lord Jeſus Chriſt were literally fulfilled in him, yet ſome particular paſſages might be uſed only in a way of illuſtration and accommodation, and not as direct proofs; he ſets himſelf, as his manner is, with a mighty pomp of quo- tations, to ſhew the abſurdity of ſuppoſing that the apoſtles method of citing prophecies was nothing but a mere accommo- dation of phraſes, as if his adverſaries had held that all the paſſages cited in the New T'eſtament from the Old were applied only by way of accommodation, which not one of them ever aſſerted. He puts on an appearance of anſwering what the Biſhop had alleged concerning the general and conſtant tradi- tion, Which had obtained amongſt the Jews with regard to the Meffiah; and he conſiders the twelve prophecies that learned writer had produced as literally fulfilled in the Meſſiah. But any one that will take the pains to compare what he hath here offered with the book he pretends to anfwer, will find how little he has been able to fay, that is really to the purpoſe, and how far he has been from invalidating the proofs which had been bronght. He often ſlips over the moſt material things that had been urged, and, as the Biſhop afterwards complained, 2 takes Let. 7. Mr. CoLLINS. 99 takes no more notice of them than if he had not read them. If he can but find a fingle paſſage in any Jewiſb or Chriſtian writer, though but a modern one, and contrary to the general conſent of interpreters, this is laid hold on to ſet aſide the Bi- ſhop's interpretation, and to ſhew that the ews did not general- ly underſtand a prophecy of the Meſſiah, or apply it to him, though clear evidence had been Pduwe that they ſo applied it. But there is no part of the Literal Scheme,&c. which the author has ſo much lab oured, as that where he hath collected together all tha at he col uld mMeer with againſt the antiquity and authority of the book of Daniel, and the prophecies contained there. This occaſioned a ſecond anſwer from the learned Biſhop, intitled, A Vindication of tbe Defence of Chriſtianity from the Propbecies of the Old Teſtament, publiſhed in 1728, in which he hath largely and very lolidly vindicated the antiquity and authority of the book of Daniel, and the aphlücation of the prophecies thiere contained to the Meſʒſiah againſt the author's objections: And hath alſo fully obviated whatſoever he had far- ther advanced againſt the antiquity and varverfality of the tra- dition and expectation among the Jeuu⁵ concerning the Meſſiah. The learned Dr. Hogers had before this publiſhed his very valuable ſermons on the Necellity divine Revelation, and the Truth ofthe Chr Me⸗ an Religion. To which is prefixed a preface, with ſome remarks on a late book, intitled, The Scheme literal ſadlered, London, 1727, 8vo. Soon after which, g enon pamphlet, intitled, The krue Grounds of the Ex Vee⸗ n gfthe Maſſtas, in two Letters by Ph lalet hes, London, 1727, faid to be writter Bullock 410 3 appeared again to great advantage in this 3 cont verſy, in a treatiſe, intitled, The Meaſaning ꝙf Cbriſt and l zi, apolies vindicat 7, in two parts. 1. AR Defence ment from Miracles, proving the Argument from Pro neceſſary to a rational Defence ꝗf our Keligion. 2. A Defen the Argument from Proßhegy, Broving the Chriſtia n Scheme to have a rational Foundation upon ⁊ he Prophecies gf the Old Ta ment, in anſwer to a book, zneitked, The Scheme ꝗ&f literal Pro- Shecy conſidered, London, 1728, 8 vo. In this bool k, Dr. aaen ſinds great kault with our au thor“ s way of managing the argu- ment: He obſerves, that he has not on *nunguarded expreſſions of ingeniou * adding to, and curtailing paſſages refe ** diſingenuous methods unbecoming a man cerity, wreſted them to purpoſes apparent Fc „* true import.“ And yet no man had raiſed a louder H 2 Prophecy con there came out an in Dr. Wykes. br 100 A View of ibe Dzsisrica Writers. Let- J. againſt the clergy, for abuſing, corrupting, and mangling of authors to ſerve their own purpoſes, than this Gentleman had done in his Diſcourſe of Free-thinhing. The Biſhop in his vin- dication makes the ſame complaint againſt him, ſo does Dr. Samuel Chandler, who publiſhed on this occaſion a judicious Vindication of the Antiquity and Aut hority f Daniel's Prophecies, and their Application to Jeſus Chriſt- In anſwer to the objec- tions of the author of the Scheme f literal Probhecy conſidered, London, 1728, 8%. About the ſame time was publiſhed, Chriſtianity the Perfection o all Religon, natural and revealed, auherein ſome ꝗ the principal Propheciey relating to the Weſſiab in the Old Teſtament are ſbewn to belong to him in the literal ſenſe, in oppoſition to the attempts o the literal Scbeme,&c. by Thomas Jeftreys, London, 1728. l fhall conclude this Letter with obſerving, that this attack againſt Chriſtianity, though carried on with great art as well as malice, produced this ad- vantage, that it gave occaſion to a full and accurate examina- tion into the nature, deſign, and extent of many of the Old Teſtament prophecies, and to the placing ſome difficult pal- ſages in a clearer light. L E TTE R LETTE R VVII. Mr. Woolſton's Diſcour ſes on ibe miracles of our Sæviour. Under pretence of ſanding up for tbe allsgorical ſenſe O Scripture, be endea vours abſoluteh to deſtroy the trutb of the fatts recorded in the goſpels. His diſingenuous 7ε preſentation of tke ſenſe of the fatbers on ihis bead, and his falſe quotalions. He charges tbe accounts given of Cbriſtis miracles as abſurd, falſe, and incredible. His groſs and profane buffoonry, and baſe reflettions on tho cbaracter of our Saviour; and yet be pretends a zeal for bis Bonour and Meſſiabſbip. A ſpecimen of his way of reaſoning with regard to ſeveral of Chriſt's miracles, and bis reſurretätion. Many good anſcvers publiſped againſt him. , HAVE already taken notice of ſeveral attempts, which were manifeſtly intended to ſubvert the truth and divine autho- rity of our holy religion. The laſt that was mentioned was that of the author of the Diſcourſe of the grounds and reaſons of the Chriſtian religion, who, under pretence of ſetting Chriſ- tianity on a ſure and ſolid foundation, had endeavoured to ſhew that it hath no juſt foundation at all; that it is founded wholly on the Old Teſtament prophecies, taken not in a literal, but merely in an allegorical, i. e. as he plainly deſigned it, in a falſe ſenſe, contrary to the original intention of the prophecies themſelves. In oppoſition to him it was clearly ſhewn, that many of the Old Teſtament prophecies are juſtly applied to our Saviour in their proper and literal ſenſe. Beſides Which it was urged, that there were other ſolid proofs of Chriſtianity, parti- cularly that our Saviour's miracles, and his reſurrection from the dead, were illuſtrious atteſtations given to him from heaven, and evident proofs of his divine miſſion. And now, under pre- tence of acting the part of a moderator in this controverſy, a new antagoniſt aroſe, Mr. Woolſton, Who endeavoured to alle- II 3 gorize 10² A Viety of the DaisTIcAt. Writers. Let. 8. gorize away the miracles of our Saviour, as Mr. Collins had done the prophecies. This he firſt attempted in a pamphlet, inti- tled, A Moderator between an Infidel and an Aboſtate; and in two Supplements to it. And afterwards more largely in ſix Diſ- courſes on the miracles of our Saviour, which were ſucceſſively publiſhed at different, times, in the years 1727, 1728, and 1729. The deſign of all which is to ſhew, that the accounts of the great facts recorded in the goſpels are to be underſtood wholly in a myſtical and allegorical ſenſe; and that taken in the literal and hiſtorical ſenſe they are falſe, abſurd, and fic- titious. This attempt he hath carried on with greater rude- neſs and inſolence than any of thoſe that appeared before him. The Earl of Shafteſbury, even where he unhappily ſets up ri- dicule as the teſt and criterion of truth, expreſſeth his diſap- probation of ſcurrilous buffoonry, groſs raillery, and an illibe- Tal hind of wit. And if there ever was any performance to Which theſe characters might be juſtly applied, it is this of Mr. Woolfton. The ſame noble writer obſerves, that to manage a debate ſo as to Mend the ublic ear, is to be wanting in tbat reſpect that is due to the fociety—and that ubhat is contrary 10 good breading, is, in this ręſpect, as contrary to liberty. If we are to judge of Mr. Woolſton's writings by this rule, they are as inconfiſtent with a juſt liberty, as they certainly are with good breeding and decency. Thereée are two ways by wh deſign he hath in view. The ſenſe of our Saviour's miracles is der dy the moſt antient and venerable Writers of the C hurch: the other is, by ſhewing the abſurdity of thie accounts given in the goſpels, taken s to anſwer the by ſhewing that the literal in the literal ſenſe. With regard to the firſt of theſe, he hath with great pomp produced many teſtimonies of the fathers, for h the profoundeſt veneration; and, by a endeavoureth to repreſent them as abſo- whom he profe ſtrange c Iutely denying acts themſelves related in the goſpel; be- cauſe, according to a cuſtom which then obtained, they added 1 4( to the literal, a ſpiritual and⸗ Ilegorical ſenſe, and took occaſion from thence to make pious alluſior He pretendeth, that if we will adhere to the fathers, the geel is in no ſort æ literal ſory; and that the hiftory of Feſals's life is only an emblematical repre- fentation&f his ſpiritual life in the ſouls of men. But it is cer- tain, and was evidently proved by his learned anſwerers, that cal and myſtical ſenſe, the fathers firſt ſup- poſed the literal fenſe, and the hiſtorical truth of the facts, and upon tHem built their allegocical interpretations. It is acknow- leged, in giving the allego 1 Let. 8. Mr. WooLsTox. 103 leged, that in theſe they often exceeded juſt bounds, and too much indulged the vagaries of a pious fancy: but to pretend, that they intended to deny that the facts recorded by the evan- geliſts were really done, is one of the moſt confident impoſi- tions that were ever put upon mankind; and it is not to be doubted, but the author himſelf was ſenfible of this. Many glaring inſtances of unfairneſs and diſingenuity in his quotations from the fathers were plainly proved upon him. It was ſhewn, that he hath quoted books generally allowed to be ſpurious, as the genuine works of the fathers, and hath, by falſe tranfla- tions, and injurious interpolations, and foiſting in of words, done all that was in his power to pervert the true ſenſe of the authors he quotes, and that ſometimes he interprets them in a manner directly contrary to their own declared ſenſe, in the very paſſages he appeals to, as would have appeared, if he had fairly produced the whole paſſage. It is not to be wondered at, that an author who was capable of fuch a conduct, ſhould ſtick at no methods to expoſe and miſrepreſent the accounts given by the evangeliſts of our Sa- viour's miracles. Under pretence of ſhewing the abſurdity of the literal and hiſtorical ſenſe of the facts recorded in the goſ- pels, he hath given himſelf an unreſtrained licence in invective and abuſe. The books of the evangeliſts, and tbe facts there related, he hath treated in a ſtrain of low and coarſe buffoonry, and with an inſolence and ſcurrility that is hardly to be paral- lelled. He aſſerts, that they are full f improbabilitieg, incredi- bilities, and groſi abfurdities: that they are like Gulliverian tales of nerſons and things that out the ronance never had a being: that neither the fathers, nor the apoſtles, nor Jeſutr him- felf meant that his miracles ſpould be taken in the literal, buit in the myſtical and parabolical fenſe. And he expreſly declares, that if fefus's miracles, literally taken, will not abide the teſt ſenſe and reaſon, they mußt be rejected, and Jeſus's authority along with thema. He caſteth ſeveral reflections on our bleſſed Lord, ſo baſe and ſcurrilous, that they cannot but be extremely offen- ſive to a Chriſtian ear; and which even ſober heathens, many of whom regarded him as a perſon of great wiſdom and virtue, would have been aſhamed of; and yet this author charges the biſhop of London with ignorance or malice, in repreſenting him as a writer in favaur of infidelity. He declares that he is the fartheſt qf any man from being engaged in the cauſe of infidels ar deiſtr. And that he writes not for the ſervice of infidelity, a Diſcourſe iv. p. 16. H 4 Which 104 A View of the DEISTicAaL Writers. Let. 8. which has no Hlace in bis heart, but for the honour of the holy Jeſus, and in Defence f Chritianity. The like declarations he fr equeęntly repeateth. He ends his fourth diſcourſe on our Sa- viour's miracles with avowing, that his deſign in theſe his diſ- courſes, is the advancement f the trutb and of the Meſſiabfliß of the holy feſus, to uhom be glory for ever, Amen. He con- cludes his fixth diſcourſe in the ſame manner; and expreſſes himſelf in his firſt and ſecond Defence to the like purpoſe. Any one that compares theſe declarations with the whole ſtrain of his diſcourſes, will be apt to entertain the worſt opinion ima- ginable of the writer's ſincerity; and the moſt extenſive charity will ſcarce be able to acquit him from the moſt groſs and ſhocking prevarication. But not to inſiſt farther on this, one would have expected, that after all the clamours he hath raiſed againſt the evangeli- cal accounts of our Saviour's miracles, he ſhould have had ſome formidable objections to produce; and yet, when ſtripped of the ridiculous turn he hath given them, they are, except ſome few difficulties, which are far from being new, and have been ſolidly anſwered, contemptibly vain and trifling. It is an objection he frequently repeats aga ainſt what we are told con- cerning our Saviour's curing the diſeaſed, the blind, the lame, Gc. that the evangeliſts have not given us an exact account of the nature and ſymptoms of their diſtempers, as phyſicians and ſurgeons would have done, that we might know whether the cure was ſupernatural. And if they had done this, it would, no doubt, have been improved as a ſtrong preſumption of art and contrivance in the relaters, and as no way conſiſtent with that honeſt, artleſs ſimplicity of narration, for which the evan- geliſts are ſo remarkable. With regard to the cure of the man that was born blind, he finds fault that our Saviour did not cure him with a word ſeaiiu hich he ſays would havè been a great and raal miracle; and if he had done ſo, as he did in ſeveral other caſes, u writer would have been as far from be- lieving it as before. He will have it, that under pretence of anointing the blind man's eyes with clay and ſpittle, Jeſus made uſe of a ſovereign balſam which wrought the cure, and ſup- poſes, in direct contradiction to the whol e ſtory, that his blind- nels was only a flight diſorder of the eyes, which was wearing away with age, and that therefore the reſtoring him to his ſight was no miracle at all, though the man himſelf, his parents, and friends, that had known him all along, and the chief ieſts and phariſees, who made a ſtrict enquiry into the caſe, uld not help acknowleging that it was a very great one. Cur Saviour's Let. 8. Mr. WooLSsToON. 105 Saviour's diſcovering to the Samaritan Woman the ſecrets of her paſt life, which convinced her of his being a prophet, and from whence he took occaſion to give her the moſt excellent inſtructions concerning the nature of true religion, paſſes with this writer for the trick of a fortune teller. And whereas it ap- peareth from the account given by the evangeliſt, that the Sa- maritans looked for the Meſſiah under the igea of a divine teacher, and the Saviour of the world, he repreſents it as if they expected the Meſſiah not as a Hrince Or a Brophet, but a confurer only. Several other inſtances might be produced, in which ne addeth or varieth circumſtances, and altereth the ſtory as recorded by the evangeliſts, that he may take occaſion to place it in a ridiculous light. It is a remarkable conceſſion which is made by him in the eginning of his fifth Diſcourſe,“ that it will be granted on *all hands, that the reſtoring a perſon indiſputably dead to life is a ſtupendous miracle, and that two or three ſuch mi- «« racles, well-atteſted and credibly reported, are enough to «conciliate the belief, that the author of them was a divine ¹¹agent, and inveſted with the power of Godb.“ Three mi- racles of this kind are recorded in the goſpel to bave been wrought by Jeſus; viz. his raiſing Jairus's Caughter, the widow's ſon at Nim, and Lazarus. And what has our author to object againſt theſe accounts? He objects in general againſt them all, that the perſons raiſed ought to have been magiſtrates or perſons of eminence. But the raiſing ſuch perſons would not have been ſo agreeable to the reſt of our Saviour's conduct and character, who ſhunned what might have the appearance of oſtentation, or be looked upon as an attempt to make an intereſt with the great. He farther objects, that the perſons that were raiſed ſhould have told what they had ſcen and done in the ſe- parate ſtate. And if the evangeliſts had been romantic writers that wanted to amuſe their readers with ſtrange ſtories, they might probably have inſerted ſome things of this kind into their accounts. But they confined themſelves to the plain fads, as far as they knew them, which they have related with the greateſt ſimplicity. He objects particularly againſt the ſtory of raiſing Fairus's daughter, becauſe ſhe was but a girl t elve pyears old; as if the raiſing one of that age was not as great a miracle as if ſhe had been twenty. He next pretends that ſhe was only in a fit, though all the perſons about her, and her neareſt relations, were ſatisfled that ſhe was dead, and were — A p Diſc. v. p. 3. making 8 106 A View of the DEISTIeAL. Writers. Let. 8 making the uſual preparations for her funeral. It is enough with him to diſcredit the ſtory of ralſing the widow's ſon at Naim from the dead, that he was not a perſon of importance, but a youth and the ſon of a poor woman., And he has with great kagacity diſcovered, that Jeſus's accidental meeting the corpſe, and touching the bier, is a plain proof that it was all a contrivance between him and the oun man: To mention ſuch objections is toconfute them. But perbaps he hath ſtronger ones to produce againſt the ſtory of the reſurrection of Lazarus, which he pronounceth to be ſuch a contexture gf folly and fraud, as is not to be æguall d in all romantic hifory. And yet the prin- cipal objection he hath to offer is no more than this, that three of the evangeliſts have not mentioned it. But no argument can be drawn agaianſt the truth of the fact from their ſilence; ſince it is evident that they never deſigned, or pretended to record all the remarkable miracles which our Saviour wrought; and St. Jobn, who was an eye-witneſs, and who chieſdy takerh n0- tice of the things which the others had omitted, hath given us a very diſtinct and particular account of it. Among the cir- cumſtances which Mr. Woolflon looks upon to be ſufficient to ſet aſide that ſtory, one is, that we are told, Jefus weßt. This was a ſign of his great humanity, and the goodneſs of his tem- per, but our aut thor thinks a ſioical apathy would have become him better. Another is, that Jeſus called to Lazarus with a Ioud voice to come Forth; which was certainly very proper, that all who eie Preſent might attend and obſerve. And what is very odd, he makes Tee, arus's being bound in grave clothes, and aving his head bound about with a n kin, to be a very ſuſpici- ous ſiga that he had not been really dead; and bery wiſely has found out, that Lazarus by a concert with Jeſus, who was at a conſiderable diſtance when it happened, contrived to be buried, and lie in the grave four days, that Jeſus might have the honour of ſeeming to raiſe him up from the dead. And becauſe the Jews took counſel to kill Jeſus, and he withdrew for a while from their rage, this is produced as a proof that the Jews knew he was guilty of a fraud, and that heh himſelf was conſcious of Ir; whereas it idesns fiom the whole account, that their taking counſel to put him to death, was owing to their being ſe nüble „ 2 12 miracle, and th a8t it was too evident to 1 was likely to draw tl 1 after him. hich he makesi 3 a Jeu,ſp 6 evangelical ſtory ol .* f the greatnels of t 1S W 21 Fi¹ lor, 2;2 2 He infinnates n that he declareth to be a comblicatio 1 are A K, ale eal 1 2 Let. 3. Mr. WooLs Tox. 107 that the guards ſet by the Roman governor, at the deſire of the chief prieſts, to watch the body of Jeſus, ſuffered themſelves to be bribed or intoxicated by the diſciples; in which he is more quick-ſighted than the chief prieſts and Phariſees, whom it more nearly concerned, who it is plain ſuſpected no ſuch thing; in which caſe, inſtead of excuſing, they would have endeavoured to get them ſeveroly puniſhed, But what he ſeems to lay the principal ſtreſs upon is a ſuppoſed covenant between the chief prieſts and Jeſus's diſciples, that the ſeal with which the ſtone of the door of the ſepulchre was ſealed ſhould not be broken, till the three days were entirely paſt; and that there- fore the rolling away the ſtone from the ſepulchre, and breaking the ſeal before the threeé days were ended, was a breach of that covenant, and a proof of an impoſture. A moſt extraordinary conceit this! as if the rulers of the Jeus would have troubled themſelves to enter into a concert with Jeſus's diſciples, whom they hated and deſpiſed, and who at that time had hid themſelves for fear of them, and were fled; or as if ſuch a covenant could bind our Lord from riſing when he judged fitteſt. As to that part of the objection which ſuppoſes, that he ought to have lain in the grave, according to his own prediction, three whole days and nights, it proceeds from a real or affected ignorance of the Joνν ᷣEſ phraſeology. This is a modern objection. The an- cient enemies of Chriſtianity did not pretend that Jeſus roſe be- fore the time prefixed; for they very well knew that, according to a way of ſpeaking uſual among the Jeues and other nations, his riſng again on any part of the third day was ſufficient to anſwer the prediction. This matter was ſet in a clear light in the trial ꝓf the witneſſes. Yet the objection was again repeated by the author of the Refurrection Jeſus conſidered, and was ſo fully expoſed by the learned anſwerers, that one would hope we ſhall hear no more of itc. Mr. TVooſton makes it alſo a great objection againſt the truth of Jeſus's refurrection, that he did not ſhew himſelf after his death to the chief-prieſis and rulers of the Jews. And indeed there is no objection with which the deiſtical writers have made a greater noiſe than this. It is urged particularly by the author of the Roſurrection ęf Jeſus confidered; but above all, Mr. Chubb has inſiſted upon it at large, and with great confidence, in his poſthumous works, vol. i. p. 337, G ſeg. And yet good rea- ſons may be afſigned, why it was not proper that ĩt ſhould be ſo. c gee the Evidence of the reſurrection cleared, p. 64,&c. and Mr. Chandler's Witneſſes of the reſurrection re-exam. p. 14— 19. Conſidering 168 A View of ibe DEIs TicAL Writers. Let. 8. Conſidering the cruel and inveterate malice they had ſhewn againſt jeſus, and the power of their prejudices, there is no Melihood of their ſubmitting ta the evidence. They had at- tributed his miracles to the power of the devil; and his raiſing Lazarus from the dead, of which they had full information, only put them upon attempting to deſtroy him. Inſtead of being wrought upon by the teſtimony of the ſoldiers, they en- deavoured to ſtifle it. And if Jeſus had ſRewn himſelf to them after his paſſion, and they had pretended it was a ſpectre or a deluſion, and had ſtill refuſed to acknowlege him after this, it would have been inſiſted upon as a ſtrong preſumption againſt the reality of his reſurrection. But let us ſuppoſe that Jeſus had not only appeared to them afteèr his reſurrection, but that they themſelves had acknowleged the truth of his reſurrection and aſcenſion, and had owned him for their Meſſiah, and brought the body of the Jeriſp nation into it; can it be imagined that they who now make that objection would have been ſatisfied? It may rather be ſuppoſed, that thoſe great men's coming into it would have been repreſented as a proof that all was arti- ſice and impoſture; and that the deſign was to ſpirit up the people againſt the Roman government, and carry on ſome poli- tical ſcheme under pretence of reſtoring the kingdom to Irael. The whole would have been treated as a national Jeuw/p affair, a thing concerted between the chief prieſts and the diſciples; and there would have been a greater clamour raiſed againſt it, than there is now: I am perſuaded that the evidence which was actually given of Chriſt's refurrection by the apoſtles and diſ- ciples of Chriſt, in oppoſition to their own prejudices, and to the authority and power of the Jewip chief-prieſts and rulers, and notwithſtanding the perſecutions to which their teſtimony to it expoſed them, was much more convincing and leſs ex- ceptionable, than it would have been, if they had had the fa- vour and countenance of the chiefs of the Jewiſp nation, or of thoſe perſons who were of the greateſt intereſt and authority among them. What has been mentioned may ſerve for a ſpecimen of this writer's objections againſt the accounts of our Saviour's miracles recorded in the evangeliſts: And he might by the ſame way of management, by arbitrary ſuppoſitions, and adding or altering circumſtances as he judged proper, have proved the moſt au- thentic accounts in the Greek or Roman hiſtory to be falſe and incredible. He might at the ſams rate of arguing have under- taken to prove that there was no ſuch perſon as Jeſus Chriſt, or his Let. 8. Mr. WoorsTON. 109 his apoſtles, or that they were only allegorical perſons, and that Chriſtianity was never planted or propagated in the world at all. This extraordinary writer thought fit to begin his ſecond Diſcourte on our Saviour's miracles, with boaſting that none of the clergy had publiſhed their exceptions againſt what he had offered in his firſt; and that this ſhewed that his cauſe was juſt, and his arguments and authorities unanſwerable; but he did not continue long unanſwered. Many learned adverſaries ſoon appeared againſt him. But they were far from imitating him in his low and ſcurrilous Way of treating the fubject. They ſhewed themſelves as much fuperior in the temper, calmneſs, and ſolid and ſerious manner of treating the argument, as in the goodneſs of their cauſe. They conſidered even his moſt trifling objections; and whatever things he had urged, that had any real or ſeeming difficulty in them(and ſome ſuch things muſt be expected in ancient writings, which relate to times and cuſtoms different from ours, and eſpecially with regard to facts of an extraordinary nature), were coolly examined, and fully obviated. The late worthy biſhop of London, Dr. Gibſon, publiſhed on this occaſion an excellent paſtoral letter, written, as all his are, with great clearneſs and ſtrength. The learned and ingenious Dr. Zachary Pearce, now Lord Biſhop of Rocheſter, publiſhed The Miracles of Jeſus vindicated in four parts, which came out at different times in the year 1729, and were deſervedly much eſteemed. But the largeſt anfwer was that by Dr. Smalbrooh, Lord Bilhop of St. David's, in two volumes, 8vo. This learned work is intitled, A vindication our Saviour' s mi- ¹ racles, in which Mr. Woolſton's diſcourſes on them are parti- « cularly examined, his pretended authority of the fathers * againſt the truth of the literal ſenſe are ſet in a juſt light, and his objections, in point of reaſon, anſwered,“ London 1729. There were other good anſwers publiſhed, which alſo took in the whole of Mr. V'olhon's diſcourſes: Such was Mr. Kay’c Vindication of our Savicur's Miracles, in two parts, the firſt publiſhed in 1727, the ſecond in 1729; and Mr. Stevenſon's Conference on the miracles of our Saviour, publiſhed in 1730, an ingenious and ſolid performance. Befides which there were ſeveral excellent pamphlets that were deſigned to vindicate ſome particular miracles againſt Mr. Woolſton's exceptions. Such was Mr. Atkinſon's Vindication& the literal ſenſe of three miracles of Chriſt— this turning water into wine— his wbiphing the buyers and ſellers out of the temple— And his exorciſing the de vili out of 7 ₰ 110 A View of ibe DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 8. Iwo men.— Agaiuſt Mr. Woolſlon's Seen in his firſi and ſocond diſcaurſes on the miracles f duir Saviour; in thres letterg to a friend, London, 8 v, 1729. Dr. hazir's s two ſermons on th Reaſonableneſs g believing in Cbriſt, and the Vnreaſonableneſt o Infidelity. Witb an apbendix, containing brief remarks upon the caſe Lazarus:— Helating to Mr. Woolhlon's ſfth diſcour, ſ2 q miracles, London, 8ν, 1729. That diſcourſe of Mr. Wool- ſton Was alſo animadverted upon by Mr. Simon Brouun, in a treatiſe written with great ſmartneſs and ſpirit, intitled, A fir Rebuke to a ludicrous Infidel, in ſome remarks on Mr. Woolflon's Jiſth diſcourſe on the miracles our Saviour. With a Prgface concerning the pra 3 cution of ſuch writerr by the civil power, London, 8vο%, 1732. The following tracts alſo deſerve ſpecial notice, as being written with great clearneſs and judgment. AVindication gf three gf our bloſ ſed Savicur's miracles, in anſwer 10 the objections Mr. Woolſton- S ffth diſcourſe on the mir Del of our Saviour, by Nathaniel Lardner, now Dr. Lardner, Lon- don, 1729. A Defence f the Scripture Hiſtory, as far 25 i concerns the reſurregtion Jairus's daughter, zhe widou' s ſon at Naim, and Lazarus, in anſuer 10 Mr. Woolſton's Mth diſ⸗ courſé, London, 1729. This is ſaid to have been written by Dr. Henry, Who afterwards publi iſhed A Diſcourſe on cur Saui- cur's miraculcus power f healing; in uhich the Fr caſes æx⸗- cepted again by Mr. Woolſton are confidered; being a conti- uatim of the Dofeuce f Soripture II ihlo ry, London, 1730. And Mr. Woolſton had bent his efforts with a particular virulence age aainſt the reſurrection of our pleſſed Lord, this was fully and diſtinctly conſidered, eſpecially in a pamphlet written by Dr. Sherloch, Lord Biſhop of Lon d intituled, The Trial f T hæe witneſſes of the reſur rettion f Jaſus Taunn 1729, Which has been very juſtly admired for the polite and uncommon turn, as well as the judicious way of treating the ſubject. There were alſo publiſhed on aihe 6 ume occ 1 on ten Anſwer to the Jewiſh Rabbi's taνο Letters againſt C Chrißt's refur: rlion, and bis raiſing Lazarus from the dead; with ſome obſer vations on Mr. Woolſton's own roſleclions on du Saviour's conduct, London, 1729. An imßpartia Iexamination and full confutation ef the ar- Puuen brought b) Mr. Woolſton's Bretended Rabbi a againſt t he ruth, of our Savicur's Reſurrection, London, Svo, 1730. And two Diſcourſes by Dr. IPade: The firſt, An appcal ο the mmi- racles g Jeſus Chriſt for his Meſſtalſbijß: The ſecond, A De- monſtration of the truth and certainty&† his refurrecᷣtion from the dead, London, 3, 1729. Among the Wwriters that ap- peared againſt Mr. Voßon, Mr. Jofeßt Hallet ought not to be forgotten 90 — —— Let. 8. MWMr. WoOLSTON. 111 forgotten on the account of his judicious Diſcourſe& the reality, hinds, and numbers gf our Saviour's miraclegs, occaſioned by Mr. Woolſton's ſx Diſcourſer. This was publiſhed in the ſecond volume of his notes and diſcourſes, 8vo, 1732. The laſt I ſhall mention is Mr. Stackboufe, who publiſhed A fair ſtate ꝗf the controverſy between Mr. Woolſton and his adverſaries, London, 8vo, 1730. In which he hath given a very clear ac- count of Mr. Wooſſton's objections, and the anſwers that were returned by thoſe who had written againſt him. Mr. W oolſton publiſhed what he called, A Dgfence o his Diſ- courſes on Ihe Miracles of our Saviour, againſt the Biſboß f London and St. David's, and his other adverſaries, in two pamphlets: the firſt was publiſhed, London, 1729, the ſecond in 1730. Theſe are very trifling performances, in which there is a continued ſtrain of low drollery, but little that has a ſhew of reaſon and argument, in anſwer to what had been ſtrongly urged againſt him. He has ſcarce attempted to take notice of the inſtances which had been brought to fhew his great diſ- honeſty in his quotations, and his groſs falſifications of the fathers, and ancient writers. This ſeems to have given him very little diſturbance, tho' if he had any regard to his own re- putation, it highly concerned him to clear himſelf, if he had been able to do it, from ſo heavy a charge. But I believe you will be of opinion, that I have dwelt long enough upon ſuch an author, tho' he himſelf boaſts of cutting out fuch a Biece of work for cur Boylean lectures, as Pall hold them tug(as he politely expreſſeth it), ſo long as the miniſtry& the letter, and a bireling prieſthood laſt d. a See his fifth Diſcourſe on Miracles, p. 65, 66. . E T T E KR 11² A View of ibe DEisrieAL. Writers. Let. 9. Ae p G 17S 20 9 SS= 2 25 fETTER IX. The preſent age a bappy time of liberty, but that liberty greatly abuſed. An account of Or. Tindal's Chril- tianity as old as the Creation. He pretends a great regard for the Cbriſtian religion, yet uſes bis utmoſt efforts to diſcard all revelation in general, as entirely uſeleſs and needleſs; and parlicularly ſets bimſelf io ex- poſe the revelation contained in tbe boly Öcriptures of the Old and New Teſtament. The bigh encomiums be beſtoos on tbe religion of a Deiſt, and on bis ouon per- formance. Obſervations upon bis Scheme. It is evon to be abſurd and inconſiſtent. W bat be offers concerning the ab ſolute univerſal clearneſs of ibe law of naiure to all mankind, contrary to plain undeniable fact and expe- rience. His Scheme really leſs favourable to tbe beatbens than that of tbe Cbriſtian Divines. An account of ibe anſcvers publiſped againſt bim. Believe, Sir, you will agree with me, that never had any nation a fuller enjoyment of liberty than we have had ſince the Revohition. What Tacitus celebrates as the felieity of the times of Trajan, that men might think as they pleaſed, and ſpeak as they thought, may be more juſtly applied to our own. Rara temporum felicitata, ubi ſentire quæ velis,& quæ ſentias qicere liceta. The noble author of the Gharacteriſtics is pleaſed to mention it to the honour of the heathen world in ancient Greece and Rome, that ‧Viſionaries and Enthuſiaſts were to- «¹ lerated; and, on the other ſide, Philoſophy had as free a „ courſe, and was permitted as a balance againſt ſuperſrition — Thus matters were happily balanced: Reaſon had fair *¹play; learning and ſcience flouriſned b.“ It would be no hard matter to fhew that this repreſentation is not altogether 2 Tacit. hiſt. 1. i. in prœm. b Characteriſt. vol. i, p. 6 juſt: ꝑ=·—h-——. —— Let. 9. Dr. TINDAL. 113 juſt: for not to mention the caſe of Socrates, and others, it is capable of a clear proof, that though they might bear with the diſputes among the ſeveral ſects of philoſophers in their ſchools, yet they would not ſuffer the eſtabliſhed religion of the ſtate to be called in queſtion, and were ready to puniſh thoſe that op- poſed it, of which they gave the moſt ſanguinary proofs when Chriſtianity appeared. But what his Lordſhip has ſaid of thoſe heathen times, the felicity of which he ſo much extols, is un- doubtedly true of ours. Viſionaries and Enthuſiaſts are not perſecuted, but tolerated: Philoſophy has a free courſe: Rea- ſon has fair play: Learning and ſcience have greatly flouriſhed. Nor can any age or country be mentioned, in which men have had a greater freedom of openly declaring their ſentiments, either with regard to civil or religious matters. This is our privilege and our glory; but the greateſt advantages are capable of being perverted through the corruption of mankind. Liber- ty, which, rightly improved, is the beſt friend to truth, and to purc and undefiled religion, is often abuſed to a bound- leſs licentiouſneſs. Of this we have had many inſtances: But in nothing has it more remarkably appeared-than in the open re- peated attempts that have been made againſt all revealed religion. It cannot be pretended, that the adverſaries of Chriſtianity have not been at liberty to produce their ſtrongeſt objections againſt it. They have not only offered whatſoever they were able in a way of reaſon and argument, but they have in many inſtances given a looſe to the moſt offenſive ridicule and reproach. And if they have frequently thought fit to cover their attempts with a pretended regard for Chriſtianity, We may ſafely affirm, that it has not been ſo much out of fear of puniſmment, as that un- der that diſguiſe they might the better anſwer the end they had in view, and give religion a more deadly wound as pretended friends, than they could do as avowed adverfarles. his ad- vantage however hath ariſen from it, that it hath given occa- ſion to many noble defences of Chriſtianity, and to the clear- ing various difficulties, and placing the excellency and evi- dences of our holy religion in the ſtrongeſt and moſt convine- ing light. The attacks againſt Chriſtianity, of which I have taken no- tice in my former letters, ſeemed for ſome time to have been carried on almoſt without intermiſſion: animated with a ſtrange kind of zeal, the enemies of revelation were unwearied in their endeavours to fubvert it. When repelled in one attempt they were not diſcouraged, but renewed it in another form. Of this we are now going to have a frelh inſtance: Woolſton's at- Vor. I. 1 tempt 114 A View of the DEISTIcCAL Writers. Let. 9. tempt was ſo conducéted as to raiſe a kind of horror and juſt zndignation in all that had not utterly extinguiſhed all remaining regard to the religion in which they were baptized. Such out- rageous abuſe, ſuch undiſguiſed reproach caſt upon our bleſſed Saviour and his holy goſpel, ſuch coarſe ridicule and con- tempt, though it did a great deal of miſchief among men of empty and vicious minds, with whom ſcurrilous jeſt and groſs buffoonery, eſpecially when levelled againſt things ſacred, paſſeth for wit and argument, yet was apt rather to create diſguſt in perſons of any degree of taſte or refinement. It was therefore Jjudged neceſſary, that Chriſtianity ſhould be attacked in a more plauſible way, which had a greater appearance of reaſoning and might be better fitted to take with perſons of a more rational and philoſophic turn. This ſcems to have been the defign ot Dr. Tindal's laboured performance, intitled, Chriſtianity as old as the Creation, or the Goſpel a Republication ꝗ&f the law na- ture, which was firſt publiſhed in 4to, London, 1730, and af⸗ terwards in 8vo. One would have been apt to expeèt from the title of this book, that he ſhould have ſet himſelf to prove, that the goſpel is perfectly agreeable to the law of nature; that it hath ſet the great principles of natural religion in the cleareſt light, and that it was deſigned to publiſh and confirm it anew, after it had been very much obſcured and defaced through the corruption of mankind. And if ſo, this author, who every- where profeſſeth ſuch a high eſteem for the genuine law and re- ligion of nature, ought to have done all in his power to re- 4 commend the goſpel-revelation to the eſteem and veneration of mankind, and to have repreſented it as a great advantage to thoſe that enjoy it, and a ſignal inſtance of the divine good- neſs: And what would farther induce one to think that this was his view, he expreſsly declareth that Chriſtianity is the exrernal, as natural religion is the internal revelation of the ſame unchangeable will f God, and that they differ only in the manner of their being communicated. And he propoſeth greatly to advance the honcur of external revelation, by ſhewing the berfect agreement there is beteen that and internal revelation. He profeſſeth to agree with Biſhop Chandler, that Chriſtianity *itſelf, ſtripped of the additions that policy, miſtake, and the „circumſtances of time have made to it, is a moſt holy religion; ¹and that all its doctrines plainly ſpeak themſelves to be the „will of an in“nitely wiſe and good Godc.“ Accordingly he honoureth himſelf and his friends with the title of Chryöftian . Oer*,l F. c Chriſtianity as old as the Creation, p. 382, edit. 8vo. But Let. 9. Dr. TINDAI. 115 But whoſoever cloſely and impartially examineth his book will find that all this plauſible appearance, and pretended re- gard to Chriſtianity, is only intended as a cover to his real de- fign, which was to ſet aſide all revealed religion, and entirely to deſtroy the authority of the Scriptures. Others have attacked particular parts of the Chriſtian ſcheme, or of its proofs. Bur this writer has endeavoured to ſubvert the very foundations of it, by ſhewing that there neither is nor can be any external reve- ation at all, diſtinct from what he calls he internal revelation of the law nature in the hearts& all mankind: That ſuch external revelation is abſolutely needleſs and uſeleſs; that the original law and religion of nature is ſo perfect, that nothing can poſſibly be added to it by any ſubſequent external revelation whatſoever; nor can God himſelf lay any new commands upon us, or inſtitute any poſitive precepts, additional to the immu- table eternal law of nature, without the imputation of erecting an unreaſonable tyranny over his creatures. And as the religion and law of nature is abſolutely perfect, ſo it always was and is clear and obvious to all mankind, even to thoſe of the meaneſt capacity; ſo clear, that it is impoſſible to be rendered more plain to any man by any external revelation, than it is to all men without it; that therefore all pretences to ſuch revelation are only owing to enthuſiaſm or impoſture; that reaſon and ex- ternal revelation are inconſiſtent, and to be governed by the authority of ſuch revelation is really to renounce our reaſon, and to give up our underſtandings to implicit faith: That this hath been the ſource of all the ſuperſtitions and corruptions which have prevailed among mankind: And that therefore the beſt thing that can be done for them is to engage them to throw off all regard to revelation, and to adbere to the pure ſimple dictates of tbe light ꝗ nature. And as he thus endeavoureth to ſet aſide all external ſuper- natural revelation as needleſs and uſeleſs, and all pretences to it as vain and groundleſs; ſo he particularly ſetteth himſelf to expoſe the revelation contained in the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Teſtament. Hé attempteth to invalidate the ori- ginal proofs on which the authority of that r on is found- ed, and particularly that which is drawn from the miracles that atteſted it. And he alſo taketh pains to prove, that we cannor poſſibly have any aſſurance, that this revelation is tranſmitted to us in a manner which may be ſafely depended upon. He exa- mineth the revelation itſelf, and endeavoureth to ſhew, that it is uncertain and obſcure; that its precepts are deli di „ general, undetermined manner, ſo as 3 1 2 glvi 1VEI — 1¹⁶ A View of tbe DEisricAL driters. Let. 9. giving clear directions to the bulk of mankind; that the keys f ſHlution neceſſary for underſtanding the Scriptures, are what the people are wholly unacquainted with; that far from being of uſe as a rule to direct men in faith and practice, the Scriptures are only fit to perplex and miſinform them; that they tend to give them very wrong and unworthy apprehenſions of the Deity, and the duty they owe him; and that there are many things cither commanded or approved there which are apt to lead men aſtray in relation to the duties they owe to one another. He farther endeavoureth to ſhew, that there is a contraſt and oppo- ſition between the parts of this revelation, particularly between the Old Teſtament and the New. And it may be faid upon the whole, that he hath ſpared no pains to rake together what- ſoever he thought might be capable of expoſing the Scrip- tures, or the Chriſtian religion. He concludes his book with arguing againſt the Chriſtian revelation, from its not having been univerſal in all times and places, and from the corruptions of Chriſtians. Whhilſt he thus uſeth his utmoſt endeavours to expoſe Chriſ- tianity as a falſely pretended revelation, and as not only needleſs and uſeleſs, but of pernicious influence to mankind; he hath taken care to make the moſt advantageous repreſentation of that ſcheme of natural religion he would recommend, and to ſhew the great advantage the religion of the Deiſts hath above that of the Chriſtians. He ſometimes ſpeaks as if he thought the Peiſts were infallibly guided in making uſe of the reaſon God hath given them to diſtinguiiſp religion from ſuperſtition, ſo that they are ſure not to run into any errors of moment d. On the other hand, he honours all thoſe that are for poſitive precepts in religion with the character of Demoniſts. And he repre- ſents divines in all ages, as. for the moſi art, mortal enemies o the exerciſe f reaſon, and even below brutes. He ends his book as he had begun it with a high panegyric upon his own performance. That by this attempt of his,“as «« nothing but rubbiſh is removed, ſo every thing is advanced « which tends to promote the honour of God, and the happi- ³„ neſs of human ſocieties. That there is none who wiſh well to mankind, but muſt alfo wiſh his hypotheſis to be, true; « and that there cannot be a greater proof of its truth, than *e that it is in all its parts ſo exactly calculated for the good of ««mankind, that either to add to it, or take from it, will be *« to their manifeſt prejudice. That it is a religion, as he hopes 4 Chriſtianity as old as the Creation, P. 336. edit. 8vo. c he Let. 9. Dr. TINDAIL. 117 he has fully proved, founded upon ſuch demonſtrable prin- «ciples, as are obvious to the meaneſt capacity, and moſt ef- „ a fectually prevents the growth both of ſcepticiſm and enthu- ſiaſm.“² This may ſuffice to give a general idea of this boaſted per- formance, but if carefully examined, it will appear, that it is far from deſerving the magnificent encomiums which he him- ſelf, and others who are favourers of the ſame cauſe, have ſo liberally beſtowed upon it. The ſcheme which this writer hath advanced in order to ſhew that there is no place or need for extraordinary revela- tion, dependeth chiefly upon two principles. The one is, that the law or religion of nature, obligatory upon all mankind, was from the beginning abſolutely perfect and immutable, ſo that nothing could ever be added to it by any ſubſequent revelation. Tbe other is, that this original law or religion of nature, com- prehending all that men Were from the beginning obliged to know, believe, profeſs, and practiſe, always was and ſtill is ſo abſolutely clear to all mankind, that it cannot be made clearer to any man by any external revelation, than it is to all men without it. As to the firſt, he argues, that becauſe God is unchangeable and abſolutely perfect, therefore the religion he gave to man from the beginning muſt have been unchangeabſe and abſo- lutely perfect; ſince nothing can proceed from a God of infinite perfection but what is perfect; and that to ſuppoſe any ſubſs- quent addition to it or alteration in it, is to ſuppoſe a change in God. But this will not anſwer the author's end, except he can prove that man is unchangeable too; and that the ſtate of mankind muſt neceſſarily in all ages and ſeaſons continue pre- ciſely the ſame that it was at the beginning of the world. For if there ſhould be a change in the ſtate and circumſtances of mankind, e. g. from pure religion to ſuperſtition, or from a righteous and innocent to a guilty and corrupt ſtate, God may ſce fit for excellent ends to lay new injunétions upon men, or make ſome farther diſcoveries of his will, ſuited to that altera- tion of circumſtances. Nor would this ſhew that he Was change- able, but that he was moſt wiſe and good. And it would be a ſtrange thing to affirm, that there could not poſſibly be any far- ther ſignifications or diſcoveries of the divine will ever made by God himſelf, or any other thing required by him of men, or any additional help or advantages ever offered to them in any ſuppoſable ſtate or circumſtances of mankind, but what were aftorded and made from the beginning of the creation. This 13 is ₰ — ₰ ₰ ₰ 1 118 A Viec of ibe DEIsTICAE Writers. Let. 9. is a moſt abſurd ſcheme; and if ſuch a one had been advanced by the advocates for revelation, plentiful ridicule would have been beſtowed upon it. And it is equally abſurd to pretend, as this writer doth, that God caonot at any time, or in any circumſtance of things, in- join poſitive precepts. If there be any external worſhip to be rendered to God at all(and this gentleman hath not thought fit openly to deny this) it would be the moſt unreaſonable thing in the world to pretend, that he cannot inſtitute or appoint what are the propereſt outward rites, or manner of perform- ing that worſhip; eſpecially ſince our author allows, that men themfelves may appoint them: And to deny God the power which he alloweth to human magiſtrates in ſuch a caſe, is abhor- rent to the common ſenſe of mankind. Eſpecially conſidering that there is nothing in which men have more groſsly erred, or as to Which they ſtood in greater need of being properly di- rected, than in what relateth to religious Worſhip. I would only farther obſerve, that this writer, in tlie whole diſpute about poſitive precepts, always ſuppoſes Boſitive and arbitrary precepts to be terms of the ſame ſignification: And by arbitrary he means things for which there is no reaſon at all. But this is a very unfair ſtate of the caſe; for when we ſay God hath in- ſtituted poſitive precepts, though the matter of them be ante- cedently of an indifferent nature, it is ſtill ſuppoſed there were wiſe reaſons for injoining them, and that when injoined, they are deſigned to be ſubſervient to things of a moral nature, and to help forward the great ends of all religion. And that the po- ſitive precepts required in the Chriſtian religion are ſuch, and of an excellent tendeney, hath been often clearly ſhewn. The other main principle of the author's ſcheme is, that that law or religion of nature, which he ſuppoſes to be abſolutely perfect, always was and is ſo clear and obvious to all men, that there is not the leaſt need or uſe of external revelation. This is what he hath greatly laboured; and if ftrong and con- fident aſſertions, frequently repeated, may paſs for proofs, he hath fully proved it. This part of his ſcheme coincides with that of Lord Herbert of Cperbury, who had repreſented the five great principles, in which he makes religion to conſiſt, to be common notices inſcribed by a divine hand in the minds of all men, and nniverſally acknowleged in all ages and nations. In jike manner the author of Cbriſtianity as old as the Creation aſſerteth, that that religion, the perfection of which he ſo much extols, is Qpparent to the wehole world, to thoſe of the meaneſt as well as higheſt catacity, and Who are unable to read their mot her » Let. 9. Dr. I1 1 N D. A L. 119 mot her tongue. He expreſsly declareth that God could not more fully make known his will to all intelligent creatures than he hath done this way; no, not i be ſbould miraculoufly convey the ſame ideas to all men e. He frequently ſpeaks, as if the prin- ciples and obligations of natural religion were ſo clear, that men could not poſfbly miſtake them; that all men ſee them at firſt view; and that the actual knowlege of the law of nature is naturally neceſſary, and inſeparable from rational nature; ſo chat it is as impoſble for any reaſonable creature to be ignorant of it, as it is for animals to live without the pulſe of the heart and arteries. This ſcheme, though it hath been mightily applauded, is contrary to evident fact and experience: It ſuppoſeth the lav or religion of nature, in its important principles and obliga- tions, to be neceſſarily known to all mankind, and to be ſo clear that they cannot miſtake it; when nothing is more certain and undeniable, than that they have miſtaken it in very important inſtances, and that ſome of its main principles have been very much perverted and obſcured. I ſhall not here repeat what was offered to this purpoſe in a former letter in my remarks on Lord Herbert's ſcheme, in which it is plainly proved, that men have fallen into a groſs darkneſs with reſpect to ſome of thoſe great principles in W hich that noble writer makes the true re- ligion to conſiſt; and that after all his efforts to the contrary, he hath found himſelf under a neceſſity of acknowleging it. The like acknowlegements the author of Cbriſtianity as old as ⁊he Creation hath been obliged to make. He himſelf in ſeveral parts of his book, though in plain contradiction to his own ſcheme, repreſenteth almoſt all mankind in all ages, excepting the Free-thinking feu, as having had very unworthy appre- henſions of God, and wrong notions of the religion and law of nature. And no fmall part of his bool is employed in in- veighing againſt that ſuperſtition which he ſuppoſeth to have generally prevailed among mankind at all times, and which in his opinion is worſe than Atheiſm; and conſequently it muſt be acknowleged, even according to his own repreſentation or the caſe, that men had fallen from the right knowlege of the reli- gion of nature into great darkneſs and corruption. Cicero Was ſo ſenſible of this, that, ſpeaking of ſome ſmall ſparks ꝗ virtue implanted in us, he complaineth that they are ſoon ext inguiſbed by corrußt cuſtoms and opinions, ſo that the light nature no- e Chriflianity as old as the Creation, p. 22. edit. 8vo. ĩ Ibid. P. 149⸗ 14 uhore 120 A View of tbe DeisricAL Writers. Let. 9. uhere aßpearss. From whence he infers the great neceſſity and uſefulneſs of philoſophy to direct and afſiſt us; and certainly this will conclude much more ſtrongly for the neceſſity and uſe- fulneſs of a divine revelation, which would be much more ad- vantageous, and more to be depended on. The argument therefore which Dr. Tindal urgeth from the ſuppoſed univerſal clearneſs of the law of nature, to ſhew that there is no need or uſe for external revelltion, falls to the ground. And indeed his way of arguing, if it proves any thing, equally proves, that all the writings of philoſophers and moraliſts, all the inſtructions that have been ever given to man- kind in matters of religion and morality, have deen perfectly needleſs and of no uſe; and that conſequently, all books which have been written on heſe ſubjects, the nobleſt in the world, and the beſt worth writing upon, muſt be diſcarded, as well as the Scriptures: Since all mankind have fuch a perfect know- lege of their duty, that they ſtand in no need of inftruction or information. Yea, he ſometimes repreſents it, as if inſtructing them by words tended only to miſlead them from the know- lege of things. Thus according to his goodly ſcheme, all men are to be left to what he calls the ſimple dictates of the light of nature, without any inſtruction at all: the certain con- ſequence of which would be univerſal ignorance and barbariſm. He ofter expreſſeth himſelf as if he thought that all men have an equal Knowlege of the law of nature; and indeed I do not ſee but that upon his ſcheme it muſt be ſo: Yet at other times he ſuppoſeth the knowlege men have of it to be more or leſs clear according to the circt aces they are in. For he ſays it is not neceſſary that all men /pould have equal Anowloge of it, But t hat all houla hade 4 Mois nt for zbée circumſtances zhey are in d; and talks of a man's doing his beſt, agcording as his cir- gumſtances bermit, to diſcover the will God; and of men's being accebted, f they live up to their diſferent degrees f ligbt, But though others may charitably make uſe of this way of ſpeaking, it is hard to ſec how this writer can do it in con- Altency with his ſcheme; or how he can ſuppoſe any allow- ances to be made for involuntary errors; fince, dwrding to his repreſentation of the caſe, all errors in matters of religion or morals, muſt be voluntary in oppoſitiom to the cleareſt univerſal light. Though therefore he ſets up for a mighty advocate for the heathen world, and blames the Chriſtian divines for paſſing s Tuſcul. Quæſt. lib. iiij. in procm. b Chriſt. as old as the Creation, p. 4. edit, 8 vo. t90 Let. 9. Dr. Ti NDAL. 121 too ſevere a cenſure upon them, he himſelf muſt, if he be con- ſiſtent, judge much more harſhly of them than they: fince his hypotheſis quite deſtroys the plea with regard to the heathens, drawn from the great darkneſs and difficulties they laboured under; for he politively aſſerteth, that the law of nature is ſo clear, that no well-meaning Gentile could be ignorant f it i: He muſt therefore ſuppoſe all of them, who were involved in the general ſuperſtition and idolatry which he himſelf acknow- legeth to be contrary to the law of nature, to have been deſti- tute of that ſincerity, which he maketh to be the only title to nappineſs, and to the favour of God. It may not be improper to obſerve farther, that though he often ſpeaks of the law of nature, as if it were a ſyſtem of prin- ciples and rules fixed and unalterable, to which nothing could ever be added, and in which nothing could ever be altered; which rules and principles he ſuppoſes to be neceſſarily known to all mankind; yet at other times he expreſſes himſelf, as if he thought they were no fixed unchangeable principles and rules of morality at all. The goodneſs of actions is according to him to be wholly meaſured by their tendency, and this is to be judged by the circumſtances a man is under, which circum- ſtances he repreſents as continually changing k. It appears from ſeveral paſſages, that after all his magnificent talk of the per- fection and immutability of the law of nature, all that he would have to be underſtood by it is only this, that it is the will of God that every man ſhould act according as the circumſtances he is under point out his duty. This is the ſole univerſal rule or ſtanding law given to all mankind for their conduct, and by which they may know their duty in all caſes whatſoever; as if it were ſufficient to tell men, even the moſt illiterate, that they muſt act as the circumſtances they are placed in do require, without any other or farther direction. But ſurely any one that knows the world and mankind muſt be ſenfible, that if every man were to be left to himſelf to find out what is good and fit for him to do, merely by what he apprehendeth to be moſt for his own benefit in the circumſtances he is under, and to gratify his appecites and paſſions, as far as he himſelf thinketh to be moſt for his own advantage and happineſs, without any other direction or law to reſtrain or govern him, it would ſoon in- troduce a very looſe morality. I cannot help looking upon it to be a ſtrange way of thinking to imagine that it would be better for every man to be left thus to form a ſcheme of religion i Chriſtianity as old as the Creation, p. 36. X Ibid. p. 16. 317, 318. and 1²² A View of ibe DEisrIcat Writers. Let. 9. and morals for himſelf, than to have his duty urged and en- forced upon him, by plaia and expreſs precepts, in a revelation confirmed by t the authority of God himſelf. As this book made a great noiſe, many good anſwers were returned to it. A ſecond Baſtcral Letter was publiſhed on this occaſion by the late biſnop of London, which, like his former, comprized a great deal in a ſmall compaſs, and was very well fitted to anſwer the end it was intended for, to be an antidote againſt the ſpreading infection of infidelity. Several other valuable treatiſes might be mentioned, ſuch as, the argument ſet forth in a late book, intitled, Cbriſtianity as old as the Creation, re- viewed and confuted in ſeveral Conferences, by Dr. Thomas Burnet. Dr. Waterland's Scripture vindicated; which was particulary deſigned to vindicate the holy Scripture, which this author had taken g great pains to vilify and expoſe: A good ac- count is here given of a great number of paſſages in the ſacred writings, and his exceptions againft them are fully obviated. Mr. Law's Caé of Reaſon, or Wetu,a Aeligion, fairly and fully ſtated, in anſwer to a book, intitled, Chr Weiandey as old as the Creation. Mr. Jachſon's zemarks on a book, intitled, Chriſtia- nity as old as the Creauia. Dr. Stabbing's diſcournſe, concerning the uſe and advantage ꝗf the Goſpel-revelation, in which are ob- viated the principal objegtions contained in a book intitled, Chriftianity as old as the Creation, London 8vo, 1731. The ſame learned and judicious writer publiſhed another excellent tract againſt Dr. Tindal, intitled, a Dæfence& Dr. Clarke's annie of natural and revealed Ræligion, in anſwer to the 14th chapter of a book, intitled, Chriͤſtianity as old as the Creation, London, 8vo, 1731. Mr. Balguy, the worthy author of a Letter to a Deiſt, of which ſome notice was taken before in the account of the Earl of Sbaftesburpy's writings, publiſhed on this occaſion a ſecond Letter toa Deißt, concerning a late book, intitled, Chriſtianity as old as the Creation, more particularly that chaßter which rée- lates to Dr. Clarke, London, 8vo. 1731. And ſeveral years er he publiſhed a very valuable tract, which was particularly atended to defend the mediatorial ſcheme, againſt the objec- Klo which Dr. Tindal had advanced, intitled, n Eſſay on Seeenins, being tbe ſecond part f rv⸗ Heoctit ude, London, 8vo,. To theſe ought to be added a piece which has been ſenr dly edhee ie written by the ingenious Mr. Anthony Athey, though without his name, intitled, The main argument fa late 22u intitled, Chriſtianity as old as the Creation, fairly ſtated and examincd; or a. ſport view f the uhole controverſy, London, 8vo, 1733. Beſides theſe and other tracts that were 3 publiſhed Let. 9. Dr. TINDAL. 123 pubſiſhed on this occaſion, there were ſome large anſwers made to this book, of which I ſhall give a more particular account. The firſt of them that I ſhall mention is intitled, The Vſefal- neſs, Truth, and Excellency qfthe Cbriſtian Revelation, defended againſt the objections contained in a late book, intitled, Chriſ- tianity as old as the Création, by James Foſter, after wards Dr. Foſter, London, 8vo, 1731. This is generally and juſtly acknowleged to be an ingenious performance, and written with great clearneſs of thought and expreſſion: it is divided into five chapters. The firſt is deſigned to ſhew the advantages of revelation in general, and particularly of the Chriſtian. It is plainly proved, that whatever the power of reaſon may be ſup- poſed to be, if duly exerciſed and improved to the utmoſt, yet when the light of nature is darkened, and ignorance, idolatry, and ſuperſtition have overſpread the world, which was un- doubtedly the caſe when our Saviour appeared, an extraordinary revelation would be highly uſcful, and of great benefit to man- kind. He then proceeds to confider What is the proper evi- dence of the truth and divinity of any particulat revelation; and how thoſe to whom it is given may be ſatisfied that it really came from God. And here it is ſhewn, that miracles, when conſidered in conjunction with the good tendency and excellency of the doctrines, furniſh a proper and ſufficient evidence. In the ſecond chapter, he vindicates the conduct of God's providence in not making the Chriſtian religion univerſally known to all nations, and in all times and ages; and proves that this is ana- logous to the general courſe of providence both in the natural and moral world, and that it is conſiſtent with the divine perfections, and confequently with the notion of its being a divine revelation. In the third chapter, which is the largeſt in the whole book, it is ſhewn that we have a ſufficient probability, even at this diſtance, of the authentickneſs, credibility, and purity of the books of the New Teſtament; and that the com- mon people are able to judge of the truth and uncorruptedueſs of a traditional religion. And a good anſwer is returned to the arguments drawn from the change of languages, the different uſe of words, and the ſtyle and phraſe of ſcripture, to prove ĩt an obſcure, perplexed, and uncertain rule. The fourth chap- ter contains a general defence of poſitive commands, which Dr. Tindal had urged as alone“ fafficient to make all things elſe, „* that can be ſaid in ſupport of any revelation, totally inef- ¹¹ fectual.“ It is proved, that they are not repugnant to rea- ſon, nor ſubverſive of moral obligation, nor inconſiſtent with the wiſdom, juſtice, and goodneſs of God: and that inſtituted religion 124 A View of tbe DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 9. religion is not ſuperſtition, and if rightly underſtood has no more a tendency to ſuperſtition, than natural religion itſelf. And the fifth contains a particular vindication of the peculiar poſitive in- ſtitutions of Chriſtianity; in which it is ſhewn, that they are of excellent uſe for begetting and ſtrengthening good moral habits, and for exciting and engaging men to a more diligent practice of moral duties. Another anſwer, which particularly engaged the attention of the public, was that publiſhned by Dr. Jobn Conybeare, rector of Exoter College, Oxford, late lord biſhop of Brifiol; viz. A Defence ę Reævealed Ræligion, againſt the exceptions of a late writer in his book, intitled, Chriſtianity as old as the Creation, London, 1732. This book is divided into nine chapters: The firſt is deſigned by the acute and learned author to ſnew what we are to underſtand by the law or religion of nature, from what the obligation of it ariſes, and how far it extends. He ſhews that the religion or law of nature does nor take in every thing that is founded in the nature or reaſon of things, which ſeems to be the ſenfe the author of Chriſtianity as old as the Creation takes it in throughout his whole book, but only ſuch a collection of doctrines and precepts, as is diſcernible to us in the uſe of our natural faculties. And this, though founded in nature, becomes then only properly a law to us, when it is re- garded as the will of God, the ſupreme legiſlator; and our ob- ligation to it, ſtrictly ſpeaking, is founded on the divine ſanc- tions of rewards and puniſhments. In the ſecond chapter it is ſhewn, that the law or religion of nature, in the ſenſe already explained, is not abſolutely perfect: ſince the law of nature is only what men are capable of diſcerning in the uſe of their na- tural faculties, it can be no more perfect than human reaſon. Ifthe law of nature was abſolutely perfect, it muſt have ſuch a clearneſs as to the meaning and authority of it, as can admit of nothing more in any poſſible circumſtance; it muſt have ſuch a ſtrength of inforcement, that it cannot be heightened in any way whatſoever: and ſuch an extent of matter, as to com- prehend every thing that may be fit and proper to be known or done, and not to admit of any poſſible article to be added to it. And he plainly proves, that the law or religion of nature is not abſolutely perfect in any of theſe reſpects. Chap. 3d. is in- tended to ſhew, that the law of nature is not immutable, in ſuch a ſenſe eſpecially as to be incapable of admitting any addi- tional precepts. And here the queſtion concerning poſitive pre- cepts is accurately ſtated; and it is proved that God may ap- point them, and an anſwer is returned to the author's objec- tlon Let. 9. Dr. TINDAIL. 125 rions to the contrary. In chap. 4th he enquires, whether na- tural and revealed religion be neceſſarily the ſame, and it not, wherein the proper diftinction between them doth conſiſt. In the former chapter he had ſhewn, that poſitive precepts might be given; here he carries it farther, and proves that ſome po- ſitive inſlitutions might reaſonably be expected, if ever God ſhould reveal his will at all; both as tokens of his authority and our ſubmiſſion, and for the better order and decency of his worſhip and the outward part of religion, and for the increaſe and advancement of inward piety. The ſame thing is urged from the concurrent ſenſe of mankind in all ages, and under all religions. It is further fhewn, there are other things of higher importance in which natural and revealed religion differ, though they are not properly oppoſed to each other, æ. g. with regard to principles and doctrines not diſcoverable by nature's light, or as to precepts which though founded in the nature of things, yet are not certainly knowable in the uſe of our own reaſon;, they alſo differ in point of clearneſs, and in efficacy. He in- ſtances, particularly in the aſſurance given us of the pardon of ſin, divine aſſiſtances, and the eternal retributions of a future ſtate. Chap. Sth is deſigned to fhew, that a proper rule of life is not perfectly and eaſily diſcoverable by every man, even by thoſe of the meaneſt capacity!. And here it is evinced, that the author's own ſcheme of natural religion, which he pretends js ſo obvious to all mankind, is perplexed, obſcure, and de- fective. In chap. Öth he enquires whether a proper rule of life be more caſily and perfectly diſcoverable by us in the uſe of our own reaſon, than the proof or meaning of a revelation can be. He ſhews the poffibility of immediate revelation or inſpira- tion, and that this gives the higheſt evidence. And that as to traditional revelation, though the evidence be not ſtrictly de- monſtrative, it may be ſuch as is ſufficient to determine the aſſent of a ſober thinking man. And he anfwers what the au- thor had brought to prove, that the ſenſe and meaning of ſuch a revelation cannot be fixed and aſcertained. Chap. 7th is de- ſigned to ſhew, that a revelation is expedient in order to a more eaſy, more perfect, and more general knowlege of the rule of life. This is diſtinctly evinced, both in regard to the wiſer and better part of men, particularly the philoſophers, and with reſpect to perſons of a lower rank and meaner abilities. And a good anſwer is made to what the author had urged concerning the ſuppoſed inconſiſtency between our being governed by rea- ſon and revelation. In chap. 8th it is ſhewn, that a revelation is expedient in order to inforce the general practice of the rule of † IIIe. b V ——— — 125 A Viev of tbe DEis TI-aL Writers. Let. 9. life. That the mere pleaſure of doing well, or a moral taſte or ſenſe, is not alone a ſufficient balance for all the inconveni- encies of doing otherwiſe, amidſt all the embarraſſments of paſ- ſion and temptation; nor if to this be added the civil ſanctions of human authority, are theſe alone ſufficient; for theſe are deſigned not ſo much to reward virtues, ſeveral of which do not come under the cognizance of human courts, as to puniſh crimes, and thoſe only ſuch as tend to the hurt of the ſociety. Virtue can only be ſufficiently inforced by ſanctions eſtabliſhed by God himſelf; and a revelation is ex pedient for that purpoſe. He concludes this chapter with giving a clear anſwer to two ob- jections urged by the author: The one is, that if a revelation de expedient to be made to any, it muſt be equally expedient to be made to all, and at all times. The other is, that the reve- lation hath not in fact anſwered that purpoſe for which we af- firm it to be expedient. The ninth and laſt chapter is intended to evince, that there is ſufficient evidence of the reality of a re- velation, eſpecially of the Chriſtian. He obſerves, that what is uſually called the internal evidence of a revelation is not ſtrictly and properly an evidence, but only a neceſſary condition or qualification of a true revelation: That external proof is the only direct evidence of a divine revelation; and this conſiſteth in miracles as including prophecies, which may be conſidered as one ſort of miracles. He ſhews what reaſon we have to be- lieve, that the miracles recorded to have been done in favour of the Chriſtian religion were really wrought; and that ſuppoſing them to have been wrought, they were real and ſatisfactory proofs of a divine original. There was another anſwer to Dr. Tindal's book, which I ſhould not have choſen to take notice of, if the method I am in did not make it proper for me to do ſo, as I am ſenſible how hard it is for an author to ſpeak of his own work, without of- fending his own modeſty, or the delicacy of the reader: It was publiſhed at Dublin in two volumes, 8 vo, in 1733, under the title of An Anfuuer to a late book intitied Chriſtianity as old as the Creation; and was afterwards reprinted at London in 1740 Ir is much larger and takes a wider compaſs than the other auſwers, and therefore the account here given of it wlll be alſo larger. It is divided into two parts: In the firſt part, which takes up the firſt volume, the author's account of the law of nature is conſidered, and his ſcheme is ſhewn to be inconſiſtent with reaſon, and with itſelf, and of ill conſequence to the in- tereſts of virtue, and to the good of mankind. This volume couſiſteth of eleven chapters beſides a large introduction con- taining Let. 9. Dr. TINDAL- 127 taining obſervations upon the author's ſpirit and deſign, and the way of reaſoning made uſe of by him, and others of our modern Deiſts. In the firſt chapter there is a general account of that writer's ſcheme, which lies ſcattered in his book with little or- der or method, but is here brought together in one view, and the various and inconſiſtent ſenſes, in which he takes the law of nature, examined. The ſecond chapter relates to the vaſt ex- tent he gives to the law of nature as taking in W atſoever is founded in the nature of things. This is ſhewn to be a ſtrange hypotheſis, when he is ſpeaking of that law which he ſuppoſes to be known to all men, as if the whole reaſon and nature of things were open to every man; whereas, taken in this com- prehenſive view it is only perfectly known to God himſelf. In the third and fourth chapters what he hath offered to prove, that the religion or law of nature given to mankind at the be- ginning was ſo abſolutely perfect that nothing could ever be afterwards added to it, and particularly that God could never inſtitute any poſitive precepts, is diſtinétly conſidered. And it is proved, that God may both give men new laws fuited to new circumſtances of things, and may, if he ſeeth fit, inititute pofi- tive precepts; and that theſe may anſwer very valuable ends; and particularly that there were wiſe reaſons for the poſitive inſtitutions both of the Jewiſb and Chriſtian religion. The fifth and ſixth chapters relate to what our author had advanced concerning the univerſal clearneſs of the law of nature. It is ſhewn at large, that it is not ſo obvious to all mankind, as to render an extraordinary revelation needleſs. That even as to thoſe principles and duties which abſolutely ſpeaking are diſ- coverable by human reaſon, revelation may be of great uſe to givea elearer and more certain knowlege of them, than the bulk of mankind, or even the wiſeſt, could have without it. Beſides which, there are ſeveral things of great importance to us to know, of which we could not have a certain aſſurance by the mere light of natural reaſon without revelation, and with regard to which therefore an expreſs revelation from God would be of ſignal advantage, and ought to be received with great thank- fulneſs. As particularly, with relation to the methods of our reconciliation with God when we have offended him, the terms and extent of forgivenels, and the. nature, greatneſs, and dura- tion of that reward which it ſhall pleaſe God to confer on im- perfect obedience. In the 7th and 8th chapters it is evinced, that this writer's ſcheme of natural religion is very defective; and that he giveth a wrong account of ſome of the main prin- ciples and duties of the law of nature; that hæ in effect depriveth 18 1²28 A View of ibe DeisTicAL Writers. Let. 94 it of its ſtrongeſt ſanctions; and that his ſcheme tendeth to take away the fear of God, and to make men eafy in their fins. The ninth is deſigned to ſhew that his ſcheme is not fitted to anſwer the ends he propoſes by it, the delivering mankind from ſuper- ſtition and prieſtcraft, and that a ſtrict adherence to the Chriſ- tian revelation in its original purity would have a happier in- fluence this way. Chap. I10th relates to thoſe paſſages in which he pretends to deſcribe the religion of Deiſts, and to draw a parallel between that and Chriſtianity; and it is ſhewn, that the advantages he would appropriate to Deiſm, do much more pro- perly belong to the Chriſtian religion, as laid down in the holy ſcriptures. In chap. IIth, his pretence of introducing a new and glorious ſtate of things is examined, and the whole con- cludes with a brief repreſentation of the pernicious tendency, and manifold inconſiſtencies of the author's ſcheme. In the ſecond part, the authority and uſefulneſs of the reve- lation contained in the ſacred writings of the Old and New Teſtament, is aſſerted and vindicated againſt the objections and miſrepreſentations of this writer. This part is divided into ſix- teen chapters. The firſt contains ſome conſiderations concerning divine revelation in general, and what are the proper characters and evidences by which it may be known that ſuch a revela- lation is really given; and that our being governed by the autho- rity of ſuch a revelation is not inconſiſtent with our being go- verned by reaſon, as this author has attempted to prove. The ſccond chapter examines his objcctions againſt the characters of the firſt publiſhers and witneſſes of the Jewiſp and Chriſtian re- velation; and it is ſhewn, that we have all the aſſurance that we can reaſonably deſire, that they were neither impoſed upon themſelves, nor had a deſign to impoſe upon others, nor indeed, as things were circumſtanced, had it in their power to do ſo if they had deſigned it. In the third chapter his objections againſt the proof from miracles are conſidered. It is ſhewn, that they are neither needleſs nor uncertain proofs: That there are cer- tain marks and characters by which true divine miracles may be diſtinguiſhed from thoſe pretended to be wrought by impoſture, or the agency of evil ſpirits; and that theſe characters are to be found in the miracles wrought in favour of the Jewiſb and Chriſtian revelation. The deſign of the fourth chapter is to prove that we have all the evidence that can be reaſonably de- ſired, that the revelation contained in the holy Scriptures, with an acconnt of the facts and atteſtations by which that revela- tion was originally confirmed and eſtabliſhed, is tranſmitted to us with ſuch a degree of purity and certainty as may be ſafely depended Let. 9. Dr. TINDAL. 129 depended upon. And this is particularly ſnewn with regard to ihe writings of the Old Teſtament, eſpecially the law of W ſa. In the fift chapter, the authority and integrity of the ſacred records of the New Teſtament is aſſerted and vindicated againſt the author's exceptions: And that we have both fufficient ex- ternal proofs of their being ſafely tranſmitted to us, and they carry in them the greateſt inter* evidences of genuine truth and uncorruptedneſs, that can be found in any writings whatſo- ever. The ſixth chapter ſhews, that the wonderful ſucceſs the goſpel met with, and its ſpeedy and general pr opagation, fur- niched a ſtrong Pioof. as the caſe was circumſtanced, of the truth df the facts on h it is founded. The following chapters are deſigned to Conſide r his objections againſt Scripture drawn from the nature and manner of the revelation theree co ainedl And firſt, his a rove that it is uncertai viated. en c this porpoſe concer guity and uncertainty of words, concerning the written in dead languages, 290 that the tranſlations are not to be depended on, is in the ſeventh chapter diſtinctly examined. The eighth relates to the keys of ſolati on, neceſl lry for under- ſanding the Sc aipture, whie h he pretends the people are wholly Dnacchasinted W ith, and wha 5 he ofter rs concerning the figurative Ig the ambi- enibenr⸗ veing fions made tdſe of our Saviour„ 1s confi 13, The ninth chapter makes it appear that many of thoſe paſſag es whi writer cenſures as obſcure, and api to miſle ead the peol ſo noble and of ſuch excellent uſe, that a candid critic wo have judged them worthy of admiration. In the tenth ana ſwer is given to his objec Aions againſt the goſpel precepts drawn from their being delivered in a looſe, general, undeterminec manner; and his argument for the obſcurity of Scripture from the diviſions among Chriſtia ans about the ſenſe ofi 19, and his pre- tence that this would infer the neceſſity of an infallible guide, is ſnewn to be vain and inconcluſive. The eleventh and twelfth chapters contain a diſtinét and particular examination of all thoſe paſſages, whereby he pretends to prove, that the Scriptures tend to lead the people into wrong apPrehanlione of God, and into a wrong practice with relation to the duties che owe to one another. Phapter hirteenth coaſiders what he has offere to fhew, that there is a contraſt between the ſpirit of the Old and New Deſtament. In the fourteenth and fifteenth chapters the Mo ſaic account of man's original dignity and the fall, and the Chriſtian Doctrine of a Mediator, are vindicated VoL. I. K agalnſt 16 130 A View of tbe DzisTIcA. Writers. Let. 9. againſt this writer's exceptions. The laſt chapter contains an anſwer to two objecétions againſt Chriſtianity, which have been often urged, and with which the author concludes his book: The one drawn from its not having been given and made known to all mankind in all ages and places from the beginning; the other drawn from the corruptions of Chriſtians. And it is ſhewn, that no argument will juſtly hold from either of theſe againſt the uſefuleneſs and divine authority of the Chriſtian re- velation. There was alſo a ſolid and excellent anſwer to Chriſtianity as old as the Crearion, drawn up by the reverend Mr. Simon Broun, and which well deſerves a particular notice. But I fear I may be thought to have been too tedious and particular already in the account that has been given of the anſwers to this book: Though the opinion many have entertained of it, as if it were a very formidable attack upon Chriſtianity, will I hope in ſome degree plead my excuſe. LETTERNR G&◻ L EI TE R X. Anotber atiempt againſt Cbriſtianity in Dr. Morgan's book, called, The Moral Philoſopher. He ſeems 10 acenocolege the great uſefulneſs of revelation, but leaves no way of knowing wben a revelation is really given. He diſcards all aulbority, even a divine one, in matters of religion, and all proof from miracles and prophecy. His invectives againſt tbe law af Moſes and the pro- pbets. Tbough be profeſſetb bimſelf a Cbriſtian on tbe foot of tbe nsw Teſtament, be inſinuates ſeveral re- Hections on the cbaracter of our Saviour, and endea- vours to invalidaie ibe atteſtation given to Chriſtianity by the extraordinary gifts and powers of ibe Hohy Gboſt. He pretends that tbe apoſtles preacbed different goſpels, and that ibe New Teſtament is a jumble of inconſiſtent religions. His hoot fulh confuted in the anſcvers that were publiſped againſt bim. Some account of ihoſe an- fwers, as alſo of tbe ſecond and tbird volumes of ibè Moral Philoſopher. § I K, S you ſtill inſiſt upon my continuing the correſpondence on the ſubject of my former letters, I fhall now take no- tice of a freſh attempt againſt Chriſtianity in a book that ap- peared with a pompous title, The Moral Pbhiloſopher, in a Dia- logue between Philalethes, a Chriſtian Deiſt, and Theophanes, a Chriſtian Jew: In which the grounds and reaſons of re- ¹e ligion in general, and particularly of Chriſtianity as diſtin- *guiſhed from the religion of nature; the different methods of conveying and propoſing moral truth to the mind; and the ¹eneceſſary marks or criteria on which they muſt all equally depend’; the nature of poſitive laws,&c. with many other „matters of the utmoſt conſequence to religion, are fairly con- „ ſidered and debated, and the arguments on both fides im⸗ 2 4* partially 13³² A View of ibe DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 10. **partially repreſented,“ London, 8%, 1737. The author of this book, Dr. Morgan, ſeems at firſt view to go much farther in his conceſſion, than other his fellow-Jabourers in the ſame caufſe. If we were to judge by ſome parts of his book, we ſhould be ready to look upon him as having very friendly diſpo- ſitions towards the Chriſtian religion: Since he ſeems expreſly to acknowlege the great uſefulneſs of divine revelation in gene- ral, and of the Chriſtian revelation in particular. He ſpeaks of man's natural wéakneſs and inability; and repreſents thoſe, as conceited of themſelves, who in the preſent ſtate of mankind talk of the ſrength human reaſon in matters religion. He obſerves, that at the time of Chriſt's appearing,“ mankind in “ general were in a ſtate of groſs ignorance and darkneſs, **with reſpect to the true knowledge of God, and of them- «« ſelves, and of all thoſe moral relations and obligations we „ſtand in to the Supreme Being, and to one another. That *¹they were under great uncertainty concerning a future ſtate, „ and the concern of divine providence in the government of ¹« the world, and at the ſame time were filled with a proud and ««vain conceit of their own natural abilities and ſelf-ſufficiency. „ That our Sayiour's doctrines on theſe heads, though they ¹appeared to be the true and genuine principles of nature and „reaſon, when he had ſet them in a proper light, yet were ¹ fuch as the people had never heard or thought of before, and never would have known, without fuch an inſtructor, ſuch ¹ means and opportunities of knowlege. That they who would „*judge uprightly of the ſtrength of human reaſon in matters ¹of morality and religion, under the preſent corrupt and dege- * generate ſtate of mankind, ought to take their eſtimate from «« thoſe parts of the world which never had the benefit of re- „e velation, and this perhaps might make them leſs conceited of * themſelves, and more thankful to God for the light of the 4 goſpel.“ He aſks, If the religion of nature, under the *preſent pravity and corruption of mankind, was written with d clearneſs upon every man's heart; —— Let. 10. Dr. MoRGaAV. 133 ¹c of them**. This author could ſcarce haye declared more expreſly than he hath here done againſt Tindal s darling ſcheme, concerning ſuch an abſolute univerſal clearneſs and ſufficiency of the light of nature in the preſent ſtate of mankind, as renders revelation intirely needleſs and uſeleſs. To which it may be added, that he ſpeaks in many paſſages very honourably of Jeſus Chriſt, and the religion he hath introduced, as having brought clearer diſcoveries of our duty, and enforced it by ſtronger motives, and provided more effectual aids, than ever was done before. And accordingly he exprefly declareth him- ſelf to be a Chriſtian on the foot the Neu Teſtament. Il we were to form our judgment of him merely from ſuch pafſages as theſe, it might be thought to be doing wrong to our moral Philoſopher, to rank him in the liſt of the Deiſtical Writers. But by a prevarication and a diſingenuity which is not eaſily paralleled, except among ſome of thoſe that have appeared on the ſame ſide, under all theſe fair pretences and difguiſes, he hath covered as determined a malice againſt the honour and authority of the Chriltian revelation, as any of thoſe that have written before him. It is not eaſy to form a diſtinct notion of what he under- ſtandeth by that revelation, the uſefulneſs of which he would be thought to acknowlege. He granteth, that God may, if he thinks fit, communicate his will by immediate inſbiration, or fupernatural illumination; yea, and that what he thus com- municates may come with evidence equal to a mathematical de- monftration b. Yet he plainly intimates, that it can never be proved, that God had ever thus communicated his will; and treats ſuch inſpiration as the invention of our piritual ſoholaſticy, or fyſtematical divines. By ſeveral palſages of his book, eſpe- ally ik compared with what he ſaith in his ſecond volume, 14 which he publiſhed in defence of it, it appeareth, that by reve- Iation he underſtandeth any diſcovery of truth, in what way ſoever a man comeg by it, even though it be by the ſtrength and ſuberiority œf his own natural faculties c. So that all that have diſcovered rational or moral truth by their own ſtudy and appli- cation in the uſe of their natural faculties may be ſaid, accord- ing to this account of it, to have had the light of revelation: And if ſo, it is not eaſy to ſee how he could conſiſtently repre- ſent whole nations, among whom he reckoneth the Inciang and Chineſe, as baving never had the bençht& revelation; or how a Moral Philoſopher, vol. i. p. 144, 145 d Ibid. p. 83, 84. * Ibid. p. 343. Vol, ii. p. 12, 13, 25, 26, 44. 5. 3 he 34 A View af the DEiST IC A. Writers. Let. 10. he could ſay, that the moſt eminent philoſophers and moraliſts, ſuch as Confucius, Zoroaſter, Plato, Socrateés, lived without the light revelation. For will he ſay, that none of them had any diſcovery or manifeſtation of rational moral truth made to them in any way whatſoever, no, not ſo much as in the ex- erciſe of their own natural faculties? The great principle he hath laid down, and which runs through his whole book is, that there is but one certain and infallible mark or criterion of divine truth, or of any doctrine or law as coming from God, and that is the moral truth, reaſon or fitneſs of the thing itſelf, when it comes to be fairly propoſed to, and conſidered by the mind or underſtanding. He fre- quently declareth, that we are not to receive any thing as true in religion upon any authority whatſoever, or upon any other foundation than its own intrinſic evidence, or moral fitneſs. And this he explaineth to be its conducibleneſs to our happi- neſs, as appearing to our reaſon, independently of all autho- rity. So that after all his fair pretences about the beneſit of revelation, we are not to receive any thing upon the authority of revelation at all. Suppoſing any perſons to have been extra- Ordinarily ſent of God, to make a diſcovery of his will con- cerning truth or duty, whatever credentials they produce to prove their divine miſſion, we arę not to receive any thing upon that authority, no more than if they were not thus extraordi- narily ſent of God. The doctrines and laws they deliver as from God, in what way ſoever they are atteſted and confirmed, are really and intirely on the ſame footing with the opinions of philoſophers or moraliſts who do not pretend to be extraordi- narily ſent of God at all; i. æ. we are to believe the doctrines they teach, if upon examining them we find them to be true by reaſons drawn from the nature of things; and we are to ſubmit to their precepts and directions, if upon conſidering them we are ſatisfied that they tend to our own advantage and happineſs; but their authority, abſtractly from the reaſon of the thing, muſt have no weight to determine us. Thus the proper uſe and advantage of revelation, which is to aſſure us by a divine teſtimony of the truth of things, which either we could not have known at all, or not ſo certainly and clearly, by our own unaſſiſted reaſon; and with regard to our practice, to direct us to our duty, and bind it upon us by expreſs pre- cepts, confirmed by a divine authority, is intirely ſet aſide by this author. Accordingly he will not allow either miracles or 4 Moral Philoſopher, vol. ii, p. 6. 21,&c. prophec) 8 -Ge 3 ☛ Let. 10. Dr. MoReAV. 135 prophecy to be any proof of divine revelation, or any reaſon at all for our believing any doctrines, or ſubmitting to any laws, which have this atteſtation given to them. This being the true ſtate of the caſe according to him, that nothing is io be received upon the authority of revelation; it is to no great purpoſe to enquire how this revelation is communicated to us. Yet he makes a great noiſe about the uncertainty of the manner of conveying a revelation to us. He frequently ſeems to make a mighty difference between immediate and traditional revelation; and ſometimes puts on an appearance of granting that inſpira- tion or extraordinary revelation from God is a ſufficient ground of aſfurance to the perſon or perſons to whom this revelation is originally and immediately communicated. But upon a cloſe examination, and by comparing ſeveral paſſages in his book, it will be found that he does not, and indeed cannot, in conſiſ- tency with his ſcheme, allow that thoſe perſons to whom this revelation is immediately made, have any way of being ſure of the truth of what is thus communicated, but by the reaſon of the thing, by its own intrinſic evidence, or apparent tendency to our benefit. And thoſe to whom this revelation is traditio- nally communicated, may have the ſame kind of aſſurance; i. e. they may believe it, if upon examining they find it to be true by arguments drawn from the nature and reaſon of the thing. S0 that upon his ſcheme immediate revelation makes no differ- ence, though he often talks as if there were a very great one. It appeareth upon this view, that though he ſometimes ſeems abſolutely to contradict and ſubvert the ſcheme of the author of Chriſtianity as old as the Creation; yet at the bottom, his own ſcheme cometh pretty much to the ſame thing. He, as well as that author, is for diſcarding all authority, even a divine one, in matters of religion; and repreſents the receiving any thipg purely upon ſuch authority, as a renouncing our reaſon. According to him the only way any man, even of the meaneſt capacity, can have to be fully aſſured of the truth of any doc- trine in religion, is by the reaſon of the thing, or its own in- trinſic evidence, independent of all authority or teſtimony. And in like manner with regard to practice, the only way any man hath of knowing any thing to be his duty, is its conducibleneſs to his own happineſs in the circumſtances he is in; of which every man is to be the judge for himſelf. To put all duty and obedience upon this foot, would go a great way to diſſolve all bands of-government, human and divine: Since upon this ſcheme, it is in effect left to men themſelves, whether and how far they ſhall obey; i. e. ſo far only las they apprehend the K 4 thing 136 A View of tbe DEISTIOAL. Writers. Let. 10. thing required to tend to their own happideſe, And certainly it cannot be denied, that conſidering the preſent darkneſs and corruption of mankind, and how much they are influenced by their appetites and paſſions, they would be in great danger, if eft to themſelves, of forming wrong judgwents concerning their own happineſs, and what is conducible to it, or connected with it. Such a ſcheme might be conſiſtently advanced by Dr. Tindal, Who ſoppoſed⸗ tho' contrary to evident fact and experi- ence, that the whole law of nature and fitneſs of things is obvious to all mankind, even to thoſe that cannot read their mother tongue. Pen it keems not ſo eal lüh Eeeoneilable to the conceſſions made by the Moral Philoſopher, acknowlegeth the preſent gakne ſe and inab lis ty of reaſon, 88 that the law of nature is not written wirh fud hc ient hirength and clearnoeſs in every man beart, in the pr Fes corrupt and dogenerate ftaté of mankind We have ſeen the regard this writer hath to revelation in general. As to the revelation contained in the holy ſcriptures, he expreſly and avowedly rejecteth the Old Teſtament, and openly declareth that he will have nothing to do with it in his religion. He repreſenteth the law of Moſer as“ having neither *¹ truth nor goodneſs in it, and as av wretched ſcheme of fuper- 2⸗ ſtition, blind neſs, and Larery, contrary to all reaſon and *common ſenſe, ſet up under the ſpecious popular pretence of a divine inſtruction and revelation from God.“ And he en- deavours to prove that this was the ſentiment of St. Paul. Among other heavy charges which he hath advanced againſt hat law, one is, that it encouraged human ſacrifices, as the higheſt act of religion and devotion, when offered not to idols, but to God; and he takes occaſion to conſider the caſe of Abrabam's being commanded to offer up ſaac, which he repre- ſents as abſolutely unhinging and diſſolving the whole law of nature. He then goes on to conſider the ſpirit of prophecy. He repreſenteth the Urim and Thummim as a prieſtly cheat; and afterwards proceedeth to make a very odious, though inconſiſt- ent, temieſentäniön of the character and conduct of the ancient prophets; againſt whom he exclaimeth as the great diſturbers of their country, the authors of all the civil wars and revolu- tions in the kingdom of Srael and Judab, and the cauſe of the final ruin of both; tbough the contrary is evident from the very hiſtorical accounts to which he pretendeth to appeal. And p Ihab and Jezebel, and other idolatrous princes, for ing endeavoured to deſtroy them. As to the New Teſtament, though! peak with great veneration of Jeſus 66 he frequently affecteth to hriſt, yet hei inſinuateth very — Let. 10. Dr. MoRGAV. 137 ₰ very baſe and unworthy reflections upon 8 is perſon and charac- ter. That he pretended to be the Meſſiah foretold by the pro- phets, though he very well knew that u prophets had only Ipoken of a temporal; Jeuiſp prince, who was to ariſe and reign in udea; and that? lanonaih he ſuffered himſelf to be carried about by the mob as their Meſſiah for a twelvemonth together; and did not renounce that character till his death, when 1 he ab- ſolutely diſclaimed his being the Meſſiah foretold in the prophe- tical writings, and died upon that renunciation. As to the apoſtles, the firſt auth aoriſed teachers and publiſhers of the re- ligion of Jeſus, he aliiems that they t hemſelves never ſo much as pretended to be under the unerring guidance and inſpiration of the Holy Ghoſt. That they differed among themſelves about the moſt oncaraicapar ts of vevelation, and preached different and even contrary goſpels; and that all the apoſtles, except St. Paul, preached what he calls the Jeui goſpel, viz. Salvation by ſea Chriſt as tbe Jewiſh nue ſuas 7. e. the national prince and deliverer of the Jows. This, which he all along Afaotes as falſe and abſurd, he repreſents as the only proper eſſential article of the Chriſtian faith. As to the atteſlations Fnen to our Saviour's divine miſſion, and to the doctrines taught by the apoſtles, by mira eles. Prophecy, and the extraordinary gifts ot the Holy Ghoſt, he abt ſolutely denieth them to be any proofs at all. Finally, tho' he profeſ ſſeth! himſelf to be a Cbrihtian on the foot ꝗf the Ner Jes ent, yet he repreſenteth it as leaning ſtrongly towards Judaiſm, Wwhich is, in his opinion, a fyſtem of ſuper- ſtition and tyranny. He pretendis, that Chriſt's own diſciples repreſented things according to their Jeui b prejudices, and therefore are not to be deßended upon for a juſt account either ꝗf dbetrines or ſnn And that the New Teſtament was correct- ed, reviſed, and publiſhed by the Jeuws, who altered it accord- ing to their own prejudices and falſe opinions; ſo that, as it now ſtands, it is a fyſtem of Judaiſm, a fumble&f inconſiftent religions. Vou will allow me here to obſerve, that a writer muſt have an uncommon degree of confidence to repreſent the New Teſta- ment as corrupted and altered by the Jeus according totheir own pieudietda and falſe opinions, when not one of their peculiar and moſt darling notions and prejudices is to be found in this book, but much to the contrary; whereas if they corrupted it at all, it muſt be ſuppoſed they would have Lorrupted it in favour of thoſe notions and prejudices. No-where is the obfervation of the Moſaic law preſcribed to Chriſtians, or inſiſted upon as necel- ſary to the favour of God under the goſpel. The Meſſiah there ſpoken 8 A View of the Dersr IcAr. Writers. Let. 10.5 ſpoken of is the author of a ſpiritual ſalvation, and the Saviour of the world, not the national deliverer of the eus only. And the Gentiles are repreſented as incorporated into his church and kingdom, and as ſharers in his benefits equally with the con- verted euwr. The New Teſtament is ſo far from being a jum- ble of inconſiſtent religions, that it is evidently one and the ſame ſcheme Of religion that is carried on in the writings of the Evangeliſts, the Aets of the Apoſtles, and the Aboſtolical Ehiftles. The ſame doctrines are every-where taught, relating to God, to our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, the great and only mediator between God and man, and the methods of our redemption and ſalvation through him; relating to the terms of our acceptance with God, to the reſurrection of the dead, the general judgment, and the eternal retributions of a future ſtate. The ſame excellent laws and precepts are every-where inculcated, the ſame duties injoined towards God and man, the ſame purity of heart and life indiſpen- ſably required, the ſame noble motives are every-where propoſed to animate our obedience, the ſame diſcoveries and diſplays of the divine grace and mercy, the ſame encouragements given to the truly penitent, the ſame gracious aſſiſtances promiſed and pro- vided for the upright and ſincere, the ſame awful threatnings denounced againſt thoſe that go on in a courſe of preſumptuous ſin and diſobedience. Thus one beautiful and harmonious ſcheme of religion appears throughout, uniform and conſiſtent in all its parts, which ſhews that thoſe ſacred writings have not undergone any material corruption. Some have found fault, that ſome of thoſe writings ſeem to have been written occaſionally, and that the Chriſtian religion is not delivered there in a fyſtematical way: But it has been much more wiſely ordered. If it had been delivered once for all in a formal ſyſ- tem, it might have been more eaſily altered and corrupted, or at leaſt there would have been greater ground of ſuſpicion that it was ſo. Whereas, as the caſe now ſtands, the doctrines and laws of it, and the moſt important facts relating to it, are repeated and inculcated in ſo many places, and on ſo many dif- ſerent occafions, that without a total alteration and corruption of thoſe original writings, which could not be effeéted, the religion muſt ſtill be maintained and preſerved. But to return to our Moral Philoſopher, he honoureth him- ſelf, and thoſe of his ſentiments, with the title of Chriſtian Deifts, as the author of Chriſtianity as old as the Creation had done before him, as if they only were the true Chriſtians; and brandeth all others, 1. 2. thoſe that acknowlege the divine au- thoriry of the Chriſtian religion, as taught in the New Teſta- ment, Let. 10. Dr. MoRGaAV. 139 ment, with the character of Chriſtian Fews. He frequently inveighs againſt all haſtorical faith, and b⁊( ½s hiſtorical roli- gion, as he calls the holy Scriptures, as of no uſe or importance at all; as if the belief of the important facks recorded in the goſpel, relating to our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, had nothing to do with the faith of a Chriſtian. All the religion he is pleaſed to allow to thoſe whom he characterizeth as Cbriſtian Jeus, is only an hiſtorical, political, clerical, mechanical faith and religion; whilſt he appropriateth zeal religion, and moral truth, and righteouſneſi to himſelf, and thoſe of his own faction. One of the firſt tracts which appeared againſt the Moral Philoſopher was an ingenious piece written by Mr. Joheph Hallet, viz. The immorality the Moral Philoſopher, being an anfauer to a book lately Bubli/bed, intitled, The Moral Philoſopher, 8vo, 1737. He afterwards publiſhed a vindication of it in a letter to the Moral Philoſopber; who had anſwered it. Some time after there were two large anſwers publiſhed to that book, of both which I ſhall give à diſtinct account. The firſt,I fhall mention is intitled, Euſebius, or the true Chriſtian'’s Defence, againſt a late book, intitled, Te Moral Pbhiloſobher, Cambridge, 8vo, 1739, by Jobn Chaßman, M. A. afterwards Dr. Chaßman. In this learned and accurate work the author does not examine the whole of the Moral Philoſopher's book, nor concern himſelf with the particular objections he had brought againſt the Jeu and Chriſtian revelation, but applies himſelf to conſider the main principles of his ſcheme, and on Wi ich the whole ſtructure depends. He begins with his fundamental principle, viz. that moral truth, reaſon, and the fitneſs of things is the ſole certain mark or criterion of any doctrine as coming from God. He ſhews the ambiguity of the phraſe, and the various ſenſes it is capable of, and that in no ſenſe can it be underſtood to be a proper mark or criterion of any doctrine or law, as having come from God in a way of extraordinary revelation, concerning which alone the queſtion lieth. That therefore we muſt have ſome other mark or criterion, which may evidence an extraordinary interpoſition of God, and his teſtimony to the truth of what is delivered in his name. And particularly he ſetteth himſelf to prove, that miracles and prophecy are evidences of an extraor- dinary divine interpoſition and teſtimony. He treats the queſ- tion about miracles, largely and diſtinctly, and, after having ſtated the true notion of a miracle, ſhews, that miracles may be of ſuch a nature, and ſo circumſtanced, as in ſome caſes to prove the divine miſſion of the perſons by whom they are wrought, b I A Viec of tbe DEIS TICAL Writers. Let. 10. and the truth and divine authority of the doctrines atteſted by them, independently of all conſideration ines themſelves; but that when they are conſidered in conjunction with the good tendency of the doctrines and laws that are thus atteſted, they inconteſtibly demonſtrate the divine original of thoſe doctrines and laws. He hath good ob- ſervations on the great uſe of miracles, as the plaineſt and moſt popular, the moſt ſhort and compendious way of proving a di- vine revelation, and judiciouſly obviates the objections made againſt the proof from miracles, both by the Moral Philoſopher, and by oihers that have written on the ſame argument before He alſo vindicates the argument from prophecy againſt this writer's exceptions. Having ſhewn what are the true proofs of original revelation, he proceeds to conſider traditional revelation, concerning which the Moral Philoſopber, after many others, had raiſed a great clamour, under pretence that there can be no ſuch thing as divine faith upon fallible human teſtimony. This Dr. Chap- man hath examined very fully, and hath clearly ſhewn, that the original revelation itſelf, together with the accounts of the proofs, or extraordinary facts whereby it was at firſt atteſted, may be tranſmitted to after ages, with ſuch a degree of evi- dence, as may make it reaſonable for thoſe to whom it is thus tranimitt receiving it with a divine faith. He afterwards applieth what he had ſaid concerning the original proofs of revelation, and concerning that revelation's being ſafely tranſmitted to after ages, to the revelation Which was publiſhed by our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and his apoſtles. He ſheweth at large, that the mi- racles which were wrought were of ſuch a kind, as were ſuffi- cient alone to prove to eye-witneſſes his and their divine miſ- ſion, and when farther conſidered in conjunction with the doc- trines taught by him and them, amounted to a full demonſtra- tion of it. He then proceeds to ſhew, that theſe miracles, to- gether wich particular accounts of our Lord's doctrines, and thoſe of his apoſtles, were faithfully recorded, and committed to writing by thoſe who were witneſſes to them, and that theſe writings have been tranſmitted with unqueſtionable evidence of be enuine and uncorrupted in all material points: And we cannot refuſe to receive them, but upon prin- ſolutely deſtroy the credit of all paſt facts .41 1 Droceeds to conſider and explain the nature of the Chriſtian H 3 7 140 I1S5n Let. 10. Dr. MoROAN. 14 1 Chriſtian religion as diſtinguiſhed from Deiſm, which the Moral Philoſopher, and others would confound. He anſwers the objec- tions thoſe writers had urged from the pretended ambiguity and obſcurity of ſcripture, and the difference among Chriſtians about the interpretation of the Chriſtian doctrines. And con- cludes with a vindication of that great article of the Chriſtian faith, which this writer had Endeavoured to pervert and d expoſe, concerning our Lord Jeſus C Chriſt, as the true Meſſiah foretold by the prophets. The pr rophecies relating to the Mfettun are conſidered, and from th nee it is evinced, that he was not to be merely a national Prince, and deliverer of the Jeus, but the Saviour of the world; and was not merely to erect a temporal dommnion, but a Kpiritual 4 ingdon m ok rruthe and righ couſhes. heie aatae nurhen ey ꝗ the Ola⸗ eu u.T35, ſtament a/ 109. 85 againſt the unjuſt alperſions, an 34 falſe reaſonings of a book, intitled, The Moral Pbiloſopher, Lond do n. gvo⸗ 1739. After what was ſaid on a like occaſion in my laſt letter, I fhall make no apology for giving ſome account of this anſwer, which is the rather neceſſary, becauſe the Moral Philoſobher, in the ſecond volume he publiſhed, and of which ſome norice muſt be taken afterwards, bent his force principally againſt it. The deſign of this anſwer was to take a diſtinct view of what Dr. Morgan had offered both againſt revelation in general, and againſt the holy Scriptures in particular: And it coſt ſome pains to range the objections of that writer in ſome order, which are ſcattered with a ſtrange confuſion through his book. This anſwer be- gins with ſtating the Weltion concerning revelation in general, the uſefulneſs of which the Moral Pbiloſopher maketh a fhew of acknowleging, and yet in efſect leaveth no way of knowing when ſuch a relation is really given. His Preten ded ſole cri- terion of moral truth and fitneſs is examined; and it is ſnewn, that miracles may be ſo circumſtanced for nuendet nature and continuance, as to yield a lußieſ ent atteſtation to the divine miſſion of the perſons by whom, and to the divine authority of the doctrines and laws in confirmation of v rhich t tl re wrought. And that the account of thoſe extraordinary mi ous facts, as well as the laws and doctrines atteſted and confirmed by chem, may be tranſmitted to us in ſi that it would be perfectly unreaſonable to deny or doubt of them. From the elloe concerning revelation in general, the au- thor of this anſs r proceeds to What is tl in G his book, viz. to vindicate the revelation contained in the holy Scriptures of the Old and New T 1dei ) 1a mnanner ch a manner firſt, the law of 142 A View of tbe DEIsT IcAL Writers. Let. 10. of Moſes is vindicated at large againſt the objections of the Moral Pbiloſopher; and the excellent deſign, nature, and ten- dency of it is diſtinctly ſhewn. Particularly, that law is cleared from the charge of countenancing and encouraging human ſacrifices. And as the caſe of Abraham's offering up Vaac has been often inſiſted upon, and particularly is repreſented by this writer as abſolutely ſubverſive of the whole law of nature, and a command which it was impoſſible for God to give, or for us to have any proof that it was given, care is taken to ſet this whole matter in a proper light, and to anſwer the objec- tions that have been made againſt it. The ſame is done with regard to the war againſt the Benfamites in the affair of Gibeah, of which our author had made a moſt odious repreſentation, with a view to caſt a reflection on the oracle of Urim and Thum- mim. The prophet Samuel and David are cleared from the unjuſt aſperſtons he had caſt upon them; and the ſcandalous repreſentation he had made of the latter's dancing naked before the ark; as alſo what Lord Shafteſbury had offered on the ſame ſubject, and concerning the nabked ſaltant ſpirit of Hrophegy, is conſidered, and the injuſtice and abſurdity of it ſnewn. The characters of the ancient prophets are vindicated; and the au- thor's groſs falſifications, and ſtrange perverſions of the Scrip- ture-hiſtory expoſed. With regard to the objections brought by the Moral Philoſopher againſt the New T'eſtament, particular notice is taken of his baſe inſinuations againſt the character of our bleſſed Saviour, and eſpecially of his pretence that Jeſus at his death renounced his being the Meſſiah foretold by the pro- phets. It is ſhewn, that he claimed to be the Meſſiah, and that he was really ſo in the true ſenſe of the prophetical writings. As to the apoſtles, it is proved, in oppoſition to what he had confi- dently aſſerted to the contrary, both that they themſelves pro- feſſed to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and that they gave ſufficient proofs to convince the world of their divine miſſion. The atteſtation given to them by the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghoſt is particularly conſidered, and the author's pretence, that the falſe teachers as well as the true, had thoſe extraordinary gifts and powers, and made uſe of them in con- firmation of their falſe doctrines, is examined, and ſhewn to be vain and groundleſs. The account he giveth of the Jeæuı goſpel, which he pretends was preached by all the apoſtles but St. Paul, is ſhewn to be entirely his own-fiction, and the har- mony between St. Paul and the other apoſtles, and the wiſdom and conſiſtency of their conduct, is manifeſted. The attempt he maketh againſt the whole Canon of the New Teſtament, as if 14 Let. 10. Dr. MoRGAN. 143 it was corrupted and interpolated by the Jeus, is conſidered. And whereas, under pretence of rectifying the errors of Chriſ- tianity with regard to ſome particular doctrines of Chriſtianity, he had ſeverely inveighed againſt the doctrine of Chriſt's ſatiſ- faction; this is vindicated againſt his exceptions. Finally, the ar- gument he would draw from the differences among Chriſtians, to prove that none of the doctrines of revealed religion are of any certainty or uſe to mankind, is ſhewn to be vain and inconcluſive. The author of the Moral Pbiloſopher, who was a writer of great vivacity, did not continue long ſilent. He publiſhed a de- fence of his former book, in what he called the ſecond volume of the Moral Philoſopher, or a farther Vindication ꝗf Maral Truth and Reaſon. This was chiefly deſigned againſt the author of the anſwer laſt mentioned, except a long letter addreſſed to Euſe- bius, i. e. Dr. Chapman. In this book, he talks with the ſame confuſion that he did before concerning moral truth and reaſon, as being the ſole criterion of divine truth, or truth as coming from God; without adding auy new proof, or diſtinctly ex- plaining what he means by it. He repreſents his adverſaries, and all the advocates for revelation, as zenouncing all evidence from nature and reaſon in matters æf religion; and that, in their ſcheme, natural and revealed religion are two ſentially different and oppoſite religions. This is a very unfair repreſentation, ſince he could not but know, that they maintain that there is aharmony and connection between reaſon and revelation: And that reve- lation leaves all the proofs of religion drawn from reaſon in their full force, and adds to them the atteſtation of a divine au- thority or teſtimony. And this muſt certainly be of great weight. It gives a farther degree of certainty and evidence, even with re- gard to thoſe things, of which we might have ſome diſcovery by our reaſon before, as well as furniſheth a fufficient ground of aſſent with regard to things, which we could not have known by mere unaſſiſted reaſon. As to the proofs of revelation, he ſtill inſiſteth upon it, that miracles are no proofs. But he takes very little notice of what his anfwerers, and particularly Dr. Chapman, who had treated his queſtion largely and diſtinctly, had offered to prove that they are ſo. He lays down ſeveral obſervations tending to ſhew the great difficulty there is in knowing which are true miracles. To this purpoſe he obſerves, that men may eaſily be miſtaken, and think thoſe things to be miracles which are not ſo; or they may be impoſed upon by artifice, or the ſtrength of their own imaginations, ſo as to take thoſe things to e thole 144 A Vievy of tbe DsrsTicar Writers. Let. 10. much more liable to be deceived, and often have been ſo, in judging of things ſuppoſed to be ſupernatural, than i things that eome in the common courſe: And that if even thoſé before whom theyes are ſuppoſed to have been originally wror ght may be thus deceived, much more thoſe to whom they come only by report. All that follows from theſe, and other obfervations to the ſame purpoſe, amounts really to no more than this, that grenr and particular care and caution is neceſſary to guard gainſt deception in things of f ſo extraordinary a nature. But it is far from proving, either that it is impoſſible that any true miracles ſhould eve Tpe done, or that we ſhould have any ſatiſ- factory evidence or certainty concerning them. Notwithſtand- ing all that this writer hath offered, it is ſtill true, that miracles may be ſo circumſtanced with regard to their number. nature, and continuance, that perſons may be as certain of their havi ing been really done, as they can be of any facts whatſoever fot which they have the teſtimony of all their ſenſes; and may be alſo certain, that they are things abſolutely exceeding all human power. They may alſo be of ſuch a nature and tendency, and ſo manifeſtly deſigued to Domete the cauſe of righteouſneſs and virtue, that at we may be ſure they were not done by any evil being ſuperior to man; and muſt therefore have been done either* the immediate power of God himſelf, or by ſuperior good beings acting under his direction It hath been often ſhewn, that ſuch were the miracles wrought at the firſt eſtabliſh- ment of the Jewiſp and Chriſtian di ſpenſation. They were done in ſo open a manner, and dochecd ſuch effécts, that thoſe before whom they were wrought had as full an aſſurance of the reality of them, as they could have of any facts whatſoe- ver; and at the ſame time could not but be ſenſible that they exceeded all the power of man. And they were alſo of ſuch a nature, that then could not without the higheſt abſurdity be ſuppoſed to have been wrought by any evil being or beings; and therefore ought to be regarded as the teſtimony of God to the divine miſſion of the per ſons b) Shen and to the truth and divine original and authority of the doctrines and laws in con- firmation df which they were wrought. Our author indeed hath in this de made an extraordinary attempt, with regard to the miracles of Mo s, to prove, that though that vaſt aſſembly of people were made to believe that thoſe things were done before their eyes, and that they them- ſelves ſaw them done, yet they were never really done at all; and in order to account for this, he makes ſome of the wildeſt ſuppoſitions that ever entered into the head of any man that was not abſolutely out of his ſenſes. But leſt this ſhould not 5 take Let. 10. Dr. MoRGAN. 145 take, his next attempt is to prove, that thoſe miracles, if wrought at all, were done by an evil power. As if an evil being, even ſuppoſing what is abſurd to imagine, that he were capable of exerting fuch amazing acts of divine power as were exhibited at the eſtabliſhment of the M)ic diſpenſation, would do it to confirm a ſyſtem of laws which preſcribed the adora- tion of the one living and truc God, in oppoſition to the then ſpreading idolatry, and ſtrongly obliged men to the ractiee of virtue and righteouſneſs. The chiek proof he bringeth for ſo ſtrange an aſfertion, is the command relating to the deſtruction of the Canaanites, on account not only of their impure and cruel idolatries, but of the moſt abominable crimes and vices which then univerſally prevailed among hemn: as if it were impoſ- ſible for God, in any circumſtance of things, ever to give ſuch a command. This which hath been. fr frequently urged by the writers on that ſide, par ticularly by Dr. Tindal, was conſidered in the Anſwer to Chriſtianity as old as 8* Srete72, vOl. ii. p. 352—358, 2zd edit. And upon it s being here repeated by e Moral Philoſopher, was again examined and obviated in the 2d volume of The Divine Aut horit)„ the Old and Neæu Taſta- ment aſſerted, p. 97,&c. It is Alſo ſet in a proper light by Mr. Lowman in his Diſertation on the Civil Government ꝗ tl Hebrews, p. 220, Oc. As to our trary to Chr appeal tot 1 1 the ſtale objection, which hath been oft s, this writer Peeiensleih con- eſs declarati- ons, that he did not iſſior HIe alſo repeateth red and expoſed, eſus W wuput were owing to the ſtre ngth of fancy and imagination in the Pationt and not to power in the agent. But whatever we ſup ppoſe e the force of imagination in ſome caſes to be, there are many of our * ¹ that the miracu lous s cures which miracles of ſuch a kind, that there cannot poſſibly room or pretence for ſuch With regard to the conveyan been lhewn, that doctrines and 1 ceived by revelation from Go e revelatio. it had 0 E 0 urh r5 8 Which Wer with an ac mt o the extraordinary facts or proo that revelation was atteſt- ed, may be tranſmitted to: a manner that may be ſafely depended upon; and dos s and facts of the Chriſtian revelation have been ſo tranſmitted. He hath little to oppoſe to the clear and diſtinét Proofe that were brought for this, but ſome general cle amours, which he repeateth on all oc- caſions, about the uncertainty of tradition and fa li Pint of h man teſtimony; though it be Lac onteſtibly evident, that laws VoOL.. I.. L and u- 146 A View of ibe DrIsTicAL Writers. Let. 10. and facts may be, and often have been, tranſmitted in this way, with ſuch a degree of evidence and certainty, that it wonld be perfectly unreaſonable, and contrary to common ſenſe, to deny or doubt of them. And yet all along throughout his whole book he argues as if it were ſufficient to deſtroy the authority of the ſcripture-revelation, that its doctrines and laws, and the account of its important facts, have been tranſmitted through the hands of weak and fillible men. This he repreſenteth as a placing the moſt important divine truth on the foot of fallible human teſtimony. But howeyer ſpecious this may appear, and fitted to impoſe upon ſuperficial enquirers, there is nothing in it of real weight. For it a revelation or law had any original divine authority, and that it might be of uſe to ſucceeding ages was committed to writing, Wwhich is the ſureſt method of con- veyance; and if we have fufficient evidence to give us reaſon- able aſſurance that this written revelation has been ſafely tranſ- mitted to us, without any material corruption or alteration, as hath been often plainly ſhewn with regard to the Chriſtian reve- lation; then it is as really of divine authority now as it was at firſt, and we are obliged to receive and ſubmit to it as fuch. For'it doth not loſe its authority by being committed to writing; nor doth its authority depend on the intermediate conveyers, any more than the authority of a law formerly enacted by the legiſlature can be ſaid to depend upon the perſons by whom it has been tranſcribed or printed, but upon its having been ori- ginally enacted by the legillatures. As to the objection this writer had urged in his former book againſt the Revelation contained in the holy ſcriptures of the Old and New Teſtament, and which had been particularly conſidered, he repeats them again in this book with greater confidence than before, and often without taking the leaft no- tice of what was offered to the contrary; or if he makes a ſhew of anſwering, very lightly paſſeth over what was of principal importance in the argument. He gives himſelf little trouble about the groſs miſrepreſentations and falſifications of the ſacred hiſtory which had been plainly proved upon him, but ſtill per- ſiſteth in the charges he had advanced, and addeth farther in- vectives; at the ſame time aſſuring his reader that his anſwerer had not ſaid one word to the Hurßoſe, and that what he had offered was one continued rant. And ſometimes, as in the caſe of the Meſſiah's being, according to the prophetical writings, a mere temporal prince of the Jæον⁵ only, our author, inſtead e See concerning this, Div. Authority of the Old and New Teſ- tament aſſerted, vol. ii. p. 24, 25. 2 O01 t - — Let. 10. Dr. MoxGAN. 147 of anſwering the proofs which had been brought to the contrary, declares it to be a point ſo evident, that he ſcons to iue with any man that will deny it, i. e. he ſcorns to diſpute with any man that will not give him up the very point in queſtion. Thelſe are arts of controverſy which none would envy him the honour of. And he frequently expreſſeth himſclf in a man- ner that fhews little regard to common decency: As when he ſaith of Dauid, away with him to the devil from wWhence he came! And ſpeaking of the Jeuur, he avers, that this mir aculouſly hußid people uas always inſbired and poſſeſſed with t he ſpirit g the devil. And the Chriſtians come in for their ſhare of the compliment: For he adds, that they, i. e. the Jews, have trangfuſed iheir ſtirit and faith into Chriſtians. It would not be worth while to mention theſe things, if ĩt were not to give ſome idea of the temper and genius of this writer. He has gone ſo far as boldly to pronounce, that the God of Irael, to whom the prieſthood was inſtituted, and ſacrilices were Mered, was a cheat and an idel any of the Pagan deities, and that he was on local tutelar deity; though one would for any man ſeriouſly to read ſenſible that the God ther adoration and obedience, and obliged by their law to worſhip es repreſented as the maker of Lord of the univerſe. In his ſpoken with great ſeeming reſ throws off all diſguiſe, and the deriſion and contempt of manl ſcandalous than the repreſentation he the Holy Ghoſt on the day of Pentecoft. who had the gift of tongues coulc with any ſenſe, coherence, tered a ſtrange kind of gi ſelves nor any body elſe could from the account that is given they only ut- er they them- 1. wWhlch né at the feaſt of Pentecoſt, undel them in their ſeveral languag 8 were filled with ſuch admiration of the converſion of great numbers of them 1 1 He pronounces that they who ſ out of their wits for t he time, a fAts, and what is very extraordir 148 A View eof tbe DEisTIcAL Writers. Let. 10. from the authority of St. Paul himſelf, who, according to his repreſentation, muſt have been one of the maddeſt enthuſiaſts that ever lived; though at other times he thinks fit to extol him as khe bold and brave defender of religion and liberty He concludes his book with a freſh invective againſt the law of Moſes, as if it were deſigned to indulge men in perſonal in- temperance, and were wholly calculated for the intereſt of his own family; though no lawgiver ever gave greater proofs of his diſintereſtedneſs than Mo s did; as he made no proviſion for raiſing his own children to honours and dignities in the ſtate, but left them to continue in the rank of common Levites. The laſt thing he mentions is the law about the trial of jealouſy, of which he gives a ſtrange account. But this, as was clearly proved againſt him, dependeth wholly upon his own falſe and arbitrary ſuppoſitions, which betray either great ignorance or wilful miſrepreſentation f. It could not be a very agreeable employment to carry on a controverſy with ſuch a writer. There was however a ſecond volume publiſhed of the Divine Authority of the Old and Næu Tęſtament aſſerted, by the author of the firſt, which was de- ſigned as an anſwer to the ſecond volume of the Moral P ilo- fopher, London, 8vo, 1740. In this reply every thing in his book is conſidered that had any appearance of reaſon and ar- gument; and his unfair repreſentations, his unjuſt aſperſions, and confident attempts to impoſe falſnoods upon his reader, are detected and expofſed. And whereas there is no part of his book that ſeems to have been more laboured, than where he undertakes to prove, that the tribe of Levi had above twenty ſhillings in the pound upon all the lands Oof Ifrael, the extrava- gance of his computations is plainly ſhewn. But no man hath ſet this matter in a clearer light, than Mr. Lowman in his inge- nious and judicious Diſertation on the Civil Government f he Hebrews, in which the Juſtice, Wi dom, and Goodneſs ꝗf the Moſaical Conſtitution are vindicated, in Sarticular from ſome late unfair and falſe repreſentations them in the Moral Phi- loſopher, London, 8vo, 1740. But this author was not to be convinced or ſilenced. He ſoon after publiſhed what he called the third volume of the Moral H Hiloſopher, or Superſtition and Vyranny inconſiſtent with Theo- cracy, London, 89%, 1740. In the body of this book, which is particularly deſigned as an anſwer to the ſecond volume of t gee Divine Authority of the Old and New Teſtament aſſerted, vol. ii. p. 3625& feq. the ». Let. 10. Dr. MoRGAN. 149 the Divine Aut hority of the Old and Neu Teſtament aſſerted, there is ſcarce any thing new attempted. The ſame things are repeated over again in a ſtrain of confidence peculiar to this writer; and at this rate it is eaſy to write books and carry on controverfies without end. But there ſcarce needs any other confutation of what he hath here offered, than to deſire the reader carefully to compare it with the book to which it is pre- tended to be an anſwer. The only farther obſervation] would make upon it is, that our author, contrary to his uſual cuſtom, has in one inſtance condeſcended to acknowlege a miſtake he had been guilty of in his former volume It is in his compu- tation of the Levitical revenues, in which he had made an over- charge in one ſingle article of no leſs than one million two hun- dred thouſand pounds a year. Yet ſo fond is he of what he had advanced concerning the Levites having, by the Maoſaical conſtitution, the whole wealth and power of the nation in their hands, that he ſtill endeavours to ſupport it b) ſome very extra- ordinary calculations; the falſity and abſurdity ef which was ſoon after clearly and fully expoſed by Mr. Lowman, in an ap- pendix, to his Diſertation on the Civil Covernment f the He- brews, London, 1741. But. the moſt remarkable thing in the third volume of the Moral Philoſoßher, and that part of it which may be molſt properly called new, is a long introduction of above an hundred pages, in which he pretends to give an account of the antient patriarchal religion, and an hiſtorical re- lation of the deſcent of the Hebreu ſhepherds into Egyßt; the riſe and foundation of the Moſaic theocracy, the inconſiſtencies and ſelf-contradictions of the Hebrew hiſtorians,. In this part of his work he hath, if pofſible, exceeded himſelf in mifre- preſentation and abuſe: But I ſhall take no farther notice of it than to obſerve, that there were ſolid and ingenious remarks made upon it by a gentleman that ſtiles himſelf Theophanes Can- tabrigienſis, in a pamphlet intituled, The antient Hiſtory the Hebrews vindicated, Cambridge, 8⁰, 1741. And afterwards by Dr. Samuel Chandler, in his Vindication ofthe Hiſtory of the Old Teſtament, in anſwer to the Miſrepreſentations and Calumnies f Thomas Morgan, M. D. and Moral Philoſopher. The firſt part of which was publiſhed, London, 1741, and a ſecond part came out in 1743, and after Dr. Morgan's death. It is here plainly proved, that this writer hath been guilty of manifeſt talſhoods, and of the moſt groſs pe rverſions of the ſcripture- hiftory, even in thoſe very inſtances in which he aſſureth his reader, he hath kept cloſe to the accounts given by the Hebreu hiſtorians. The author of the Reſurrection& Jeſus conſidered, L3 who 150 A View of ibe DEiST IcAL Writers. Let. 10. who writ ſoon after, thought fit to make a very contemptuous repreſentation of Dr. Chandler's performance. He is pleaſed to repreſent him, as having levelled all his artillery of wit, learnu- ing, and ſpleen againſt the Moral Philoſopber, Dr. Morgan, in- ſtead of anſwering; and as having fired off twenty ſheets to ſhoot one of his, and miſſing the mark s. This no doubt muſt paſs for a full confutation of Dr. Chandler's work. But all that can be gathered from it is, that, with theſe gentlemen, the proving any of them guilty of the moſt groſs falſifications ot ſcripture, which had been fully proved upon Dr. Morgan, is to paſs for a thing of no conſequence; as if falſnood and miſrepreſentation were to be looked upon as very allowable, when put in prac- tice for ſo good an end as the expoſing Chriſtianity and the holy Scripture. It is proper here to obſerve, that the ingenious Mr. Hallet, who, as was mentioned before, had early appeared againſt the firſt volume of the Moral Phil⸗ſopber, publiſhed alſo A Robuke to the Moral Philoſopber for the errors and imma- ralitios contained in his third volumèe, 8 v, 1740. I fhall conclude this account of the Moral Philoſoßher with obſerving, that ſoon after his third volume appeared, Dr. Chap- man publiſhed a ſecond volume of his Euſebius, or Ibe frue Chriſtian's farther defence againſt the brinciples and reaſonings æf the Moral Philoſopher, London, 8vo, 1741. In this he con- ſiders at large all that this writer had offered concerning what he calls the Jewiſb goſpel, which he confidently affirms was preached by all the apoſtles but St. Paul, and of which he pretends the temporal kingdom of Chriſt in the Jewiν o ſenſe was the principal article. He ſhews with the cleareſt evidence that this was not preached by any of the apoſtles, and that there was 2 perfect harmony between them and St. Paul, as to what con- cerned the authority and obligation of the Jewiſp law under the goſpel. He alſo judiciouſly explains and vindicates the ſcripture- doctrine of redemption, and the ſatisfaction of Chriſt, againſt that author's objections and groſs miſrepreſentations. he following this extraordinary writer through his feveral books, and the anſwers that were made to him, has engaged me in a detail which I am afraid has not proved very agreeable to vou, any more than it has been ſo to myfelf. But it may be uſe to ſhew that, notwithſtanding his boaſted pretences, have been few writers who have been more effectually confuted and expoſed, than he that was pleaſed to honour him- ſelE. 5. 17, 4„,, ſelf with the title of the Moral Philoſobher. At 1 ſurrection of jeſus conſidered, p. 71, 72. edit. 3. Let. 11. Cbriſtianity not founded en Argument. 131 LETTER XI. Obſervations upon the pernicious tendency of ibe pampblet, intitled, Chriſtianity not founded on Argument. Tbe deſin of it is to ſbew that the Chriſtian faitb bas nothing to ſupport it but a ſenſeleſs ent huſiaſm. The auibor's great diſingenuity and miſrepreſentations of ſeripture detetled. He ſtrikes ai natural religion as well as revealed, deſtroys all certainty of reaſon, and declares againſt education, and tbe inſtructing cbildren in any principles at all. The principal arguments be halb offered in ſuppori of Lis ſcheme confidered. Chriſtianity no enemy io examination and enguiry. Mens being com- manded to believe, no preſumption tbat faitb is not a reaſonable aſſent. The faith required in the goſpel is properh a virtue, and tbe unbelief there condemned is realya vice. His pretence tbat tbe people are not capable of diſcerning ibe force of ibe proofs brougbht for Chriſtia- nity, and tberefore cannot be obliged to believe, it, exa- mined. Account of tbe anſcers publiſbed againſt bim. § T R, HE controverſy with the Moral Philoſopber was ſcarce at an end, when a new and very remarkable pamphlet apbeared, intitled, Chriſtianity nor founded on Argument, Lon- don, 1742. The author of this carried on his deſign againſt the Chriſtian religion, in a way ſomewhat different from what others had been done before him. Under ſpecious appearances of zeal for religion, and under the cover of devout expreſſions, he hath endeavoured to ſhew that the Chriſtian faith hath no foundation in reaſon, nor hath any thing to ſupport it but a wild and ſenſeleſs enthuſiaſm, deſtitute of all proof and evidence. And if this could be made out, it would no doubt anſwer the intention he too plainly appears to have had L4 in — 152 A Vieuv of the DE STIcAL Writers. Let. I1. in view, the expoſing the Chriſtian religion to the deriſion and contempt of mankind. With great gravity and ſeeming ſeri- ouſneſs he ſets himſelf to ſhew, that a rational faith, i. æ. as he explains it;“ an aſſent ro revealed truth founded upon the ¹˙ conviction of the underſtanding, is a falſe and unwarrantable notion a.“ That ‧ that perfon beſt enjoys faith who never aſked himſelf one ſingle queition about it, and never dealt at ¹e all in the evidence of reaſon b.“ That God never intended that we ſhould make uſe of our reaſon, or intellectual faculty at all in believing, or that our faith fhould be founded upon any evidence which might convince the judgment, or make it rea- ſonable for us to believe. This he undertakes formally to prove, firſt by ſeveral arguments drawn from the nature of reaſon and religion; and afterwards he endeavoureth to prove the ſame thing from the account given us in ſcripture. Having thus, as he pretends, removed the falſe grounds of faith and religion, and fhewn that it hath nothing to do with reaſon or argument; he next proceeds to declare what is the true principle of faith; and this he reſolves wholly into a con- ant Particularrevclation, imparted ſparately and ſußernaturally to every individualc. That“*the holy Ghoſt irradiates the ſouls ** of believers at once with an irreſiſtible light from heaven, that 4°¹ flaſhes conviction in a moment, ſo that this faith is com- pleted in an inſtant, and the moſt perfect and finiſhed creed pProduced at once, without any tedious progreſs in deduc- tions of our own d.“ He repreſents this great dictator and infallible guide, as having promiſed“ to abide with us to the *wend of the world, that we might not be left liable one mo- ce 66 &E & cc *F ment to a poſſibility of error and impoſturee; and as ſpeak- ¹e ing the ſame thing to all, and bringing them to think all 66 alilke †. Nothing can be more abſurd in itſelf, nothing more contrary to plain undeniable fact, than this immediate in- fallible inſpiration of every particular perſon, which cauſes men to think all alike, and does not leave them liable one moment to a Selubility error and impoſture; and yet this he makes to be the ſole foundation of the Chriſtian faith. He repreſents it to be of ſuch a nature as to render all outward inſtruction, and even the ſcriptures themſelves, entirely needleſs; and that thoſe who are thus inſtructed by the ſpirit,“need not concern them- * ſelves about the credit of antient miracles, or the genuineneſs ² Chriſtianity not founded on Argument, p. 7. b Ibid. p. 29. cIbid. p. 112. 4 Ibid. p. 89. e Ibid. p. 60. f Ibid. p. 89. Let. 11. Cbriſtianity not founded on Argument. 153 *«* of diſtant records.“ As if the Chriſtian faith had nothing to do with the facts recorded in the goſpels: This he calls the revealed and ſcriptural account qf the matter E. And pretends that this account depends not upon the ſtrength of any ſingle *«quotation whatever, but on the joint tendency and tenor of «the whole h.“ This pamphlet was received by the enemies of Chriſtianity ſith great applauſe; and yet upon a cloſe examination, there are ſuch apparent marks of great diſingenuity in it, as ſhould tend, with fair and candid minds, to give very diſadvantageous impreſſions both of the author, and of a cauſe that needs ſuch baſe arts to ſupport it. The whole turn of the pamphlet is in a religious ſtrain: He formally pretends to offer up his moſt ardent prayers in behalf of his friend at the throne of grace,“ that God would be pleaſed ate and irradiate his mind with a perfect *„and thorough conviction of the truth of his holy goſpel; that the ſame Holy Spirit that firſt dictated that divine law would powerfully ſet on his ſeal, and atteſt its authority in ** his heart i.“ Such a ſt of ridicule as this, for whoſoever impartially conſiders this treatiſe can regard it in no other view, is one of the moſt ſolemn mockeries that were ever offered to the Supreme Being. In many other paſſages, under pretence of exalting the influence of the Holy Spirit, the ſcriptures are de- preciated, as of no uſe: They are called, by way of contempt, 3 ««* himſelf to illumi ₰ t aut horities, and paßer revelations; as if the being manuſcripi 3 committed to writing could deſtroy the authority of a divine law; when the man would be thought out of his ſenſes that ſfhould, under the ſame pretence, attempt to invalidate the au- thority of human laws. It is obſerval that the moſt high- flown enthuſiaſts have always ſpoken with diſregard of the holy ſcripture, and repreſented it as a dead letter; which by the way is no great ſign of its being of an enthuſiaſtic nature and ten- dency. And this writer hath endeavoured to take advantage of their madneſs for expoſing the authority of the ſacred writings. Thus the Deiſts can upon occaſion run into the wilds of enthuſiaſm, and join with the men they moſt heartily deſpiſe, in order to anſwer their deſign of expoſing Chriſtianity. Such hath been the fate of holy writ, to be undervalued by thoſe that had no religion at all, and by thoſe that have carrled religion up to madneſs and phrenzy. 2 Chriſt. not founded on Argument, p. 68. 4 Ibid. p. 105. 4 Ibid. p. 112. 1 154 A Viecv of tbe DEIsTIcAaL Writers. Let. 11. But what greatly ſtrengthens the charge of diſingenuity agaihſt this writer is, that he is guilty of the moſt groſs miſre- preſentations of ſcripture and the matters of. fact therein con- tained: ſome of which are of ſuch a kind as to be ſcarce recon- cileable to any degree of honeſty and candour. He pretends to prove from the plain narrative part of the New Teſtament-hiſ- tory, that Chriſt and his apoſtles, in planting the goſpel, never propoſed arguments or evidences of any kind to engage men to believe. Whereas it is manifeſt from the accounts given in the go ſpels, the adts, and the epiſtles, that the method Chriſt and his apoſtles took to make converts was by aſſiduous inſtruction, by teaching and preaching, and by laying before them evidences of the moſt convincing kind, and which made it reaſonable for them to believe. There can ſcarce be a more glaring inſtance of diſingenuity than to aſſert, as this writer does contrary to Chriſt's own moſt expreſs declarations(concerning which ſee Jobhn v. 36. X. 25. 38. Xiv. 11. Matth. Xi. 3, 4, 5, 6.) that he himſelf never de- figned that his miracles fhould be regarded as proofs and evi- dences of his divine miſſion; that he was always remarkably upon the reſerve when he hapbened among unbelieving company: And that he took particular care that his miracles ſhould not come to public notice, and ſee t hou tell no man was generally the charge: Though it is manifeſt from the whole goſpel, that he generally wrought his miracles in the moſt public way, before great num- bers of people, and in the preſence even of his moſt malicious adverſaries; and there were only a very few inſtances in which he ſeemed to be upon the reſerve, for which no doubt there were good reaſons, ſome of which may be gathered from the circumſtances of the caſes mentioned. But ſuch is the manner of this writer, if he can find a particular inſtance or two that Leems favourable to his intention, he lays hold of this, con- trary to the whole tenor of the goſpel-hiſtory, and would put it upon his reader, as if what was done for ſpecial reaſons in a very few inſtances, was conſtantly and always the caſe in every inſtance. Thus he poſitively aſſerts, that our Saviour con- Kantly ſtipulated before-hand, for a certain degree, and no ¹ ordinary one, of confidence and perſuaſion in the perſons on „ whom he wrought his miracles k.“ This he ſeems to lay a particular ſtreſs upon, and yet it is ſo far from being true that this was conſtantly the caſe, that there are comparatively but a very 2 few inftances in which he previoufly required perſons to pro- k Chriſtianity not founded on Argument, p. 49. feſt Let. 1 Chbritianity not fou ended on Argument. 133 feſs their belief in him. In one of the anſwers to this pamphlet, ar fifty inſtances produced of miracles Wrought by ee no ſuch thing was required!. And in the few inſtances where it was inſiſted upon, it was not a co mmand- g thoſe to believe in an inſtant who did not believe before, it as only a requiring them to profeſs the Haith they already had, and a declaring his approbation of their faith, and was deſigned as a means to dFrenglulen it more and more. And the propricty of his taking this method in ſome inſtances is maniteſt, as it tended to direct mens views to that which was the principal uſe and end of his miracles, and which our author hath thought fit 0 deny; viz. to confirm their faith in his divine miſſion. with the ſame unfairneſs he confidently avers, that, ac- cording to the ſcripture accounts, the apoſtles always expected io make their converts by a word s ſpeaking, that they never allowed any time for deliberation, but den ounced damnation againft thoſe that hefitated in the leaſt, and that they diſcou- raged all examination and enquiryU. W hen on the contrary it appeareth, that they often ſtaid a conſiderable time together in a a ace, reaſoning in the ſynagogues, repeating their excellent inſtructions, and performing the moſt illuſtrious miracles, as proofs of their divine miſſion. Thus St. Paul abode for a long time at Lonium, k year and ſix months at Corinth, and for above two years at Epheſus. It is alſo evident that they en- couraged men to examination and enquiry, and commended them when they did ſo. A remarkable inſtance of which we have in the encomium beſtowęd upon 8 Bereang, who exa- mined the apoſtles doctrine, and ſcarched the ſcriptures daily, whet her theſe tbings were ſo, as they had taught them. And the conſequence of this their diligent ex amination was, that many of them believed, Acts xvii. 10, 11, 12. The repreſentation this author makes of the influence of the Holy Spirit parrec to all believers is alſo highly diſingenuous, thonghi in it he pretends to 6 cloſe to the ſer pture accounts. le repreſents it as abſolutely excluding all outw ard teaching, and all uſe of our own erhaswan And yet nothing can be more evident than it is from the whole goſpel, that we are re- quired to be diligent in the uſe of our own endeavours; and the great uſefulnels of outward tes ching is conſtantly fuppoſed, zna proviſioni is made for its continuancé in the Chriſtian church. With the like candour he pretendeth, that, according to the 85 account, faith is perfected in an inſtant, and ad- 3 Benſon's Reaſonableneſs of thę Chriſt. Relig.&c. p. 181— 188. mitteth 156& View of the DEISTIcAL Writers. Let. I1. mitteth of no degrees; and that the Spirit cauſeth all believers to think all alike, and raiſeth them above all poſſibility of error. Whereas it is evident, thar faith is there repreſented as not or- dinarily completed at once, but capable of continual growth and improvement, and as admitting of various degrees. And it is every-where ſuppoſed, that believers may in many things be of different ſentiments, and are to bear with one another in thoſe differences. Theſe, and other things of the like kind, are ſo palpably miſrepreſented, that it can hardly be ſuppoſed that this writer himſelf, who is quick-ſighted enough when he pleaſes, ſhould not have been ſenſible that they were ſo. Another thing that may give us no very advantageous notion of the author's deſign is, that he hath advanced ſeveral things which ſeem to have a bad aſpect on natural religion as well as revealed, and repreſenteth the former as not founded on rea- ſon and argument any more than the latter. He pretends, that all attempts to prove the principles of natural religion by reaſon hath done more harm than good; and that“even upon the „plaineſt queſtion in nature, the exiſtence of a Deity, the la- „boured productions of Dr. Glark himſelf have rather con- „trihuted to make for the other ſide of the queſtion, and «« raiſed a thouſand new doubts in the reader's mind m.“ Ac- cordingly he takes a great deal of pains to deſtroy all certainty of realon. He repreſents it as perpetually fluctuating, and ne- ver capable of coming to a certainty about any thing; and as if truth and falſhood may be equally proved by it. The bulk of mankind are, according to him, under a natural incapacity of acting at all. And as to the ableſt and beſt&f men,* they are *equally diſqualified for fair reaſoning by their natural preju- ** dices; which, being ever earlier than the firſt efforts of rea- *¹ ſon, is as abſolute a diſqualification for ſuch a trial, as the «* greateſt natural incapacity.“ But ſurely all who have any regard to religion, or who think that reaſon is an advantage or privilege, and that men are to be regarded as rational thinking beings, moral agents, muſt look upon this way of repreſenting things as abſolutely ſubverſive of all religion and morality. It tendeth to debaſe and vilify human nature, and to caſt diſnonour upon God's government and pro- vidence; as if he had taken no care of mankind at all, but gave them up entirely to their paſſions, without any principle of m Chriſtianity not founded on Argument, p. 81. n Ibid. P. 17, 18. 23. 26,. reaſon Let. 11. Cbriſtianity not founded on Argument. 157 reaſon to guide or govern them; or at leaſt had placed them in uch circumſtances, that, as this writer declares, Reaſon always comes too late with its alſiſtance, and not till we are loſt in the bower of evil habits beyond recovéery. To all this it may be added, that there are ſeveral paſſages in his book, in which he abſolutely declares againft inſtructing children in religious or moral principles, as a wicked attempt to prepoſſeſs their tender minds, and as barring all farther im- provement. No care is to be taken to cultivate the minds of young perſons, under pretence that this would only tend to fill them with prejudices. Thus there is no advantage at all in be- ing born in an enlightened or civilized age or nation; and a chüd in Great Britain muſt be left as much without inſtruction, as if he were born in the wilds of America. To make this ſcheme of a piece, and perfectly conſiſtent, it ſhould be ſo con- trived, that children ſhould not be trained up to any language at all, and that they ſhould be kept from all converie with others for fear of their being prepoſſeſſed; and that they ſhould be left wholly to nature, without inſtruction of any kind. And what a hopeful ſtate of things this would introduce is eaſy to ſec. Thus to avoid Chriſtianity, theſe gentlemen ſeem willing to ſink us into the loweſt degree of bar bariſm and brutality. Having made theſe general obſervations on the ſpirit and de- ſign of this applauded performance, and the pernicious tendency Of it to fubvert all certainty of reaſon, and natural religion as well as revealed, I fhall now take ſome notice of the principal things he hath offered in ſupport of his ſcheme, and to ſhew that Chriſtianity hath no foundation in reaſon. One of his arguments bears a near affinity to what has been juſt mentioned concerning education. For he produceth it as a proof that the Chriſtian religion is not a rational one, becauſe we are baptized into it, and obliged to train up children in the knowlege and belief of it. Aſtrange argument this, ſince com- mon ſenſe tells us, that the more rational and excellent any re- ligion is, the more requiſite it would be to inſtruét children in the principles of it, and to ſet its doctrines and evidences in a proper light before them, as far as they are capable of receiving them: For this would be the beſt preſervative againſt the per- nicious influence of corrupt principles, and the power of wrong affections and evil habits, which etherwiſe, by the author's own acknowlegement, would be apt to get the ſtart of them, and give a wrong biaſs to the mind. He ſeems to lay a great ſtreſs on the ſudden converſions we ſometimes read of in the New Teſtament. But they are far from 158 A View of tbe DrrsricaL Writers. Let. 11. from being proofs of what he brings them to prove, that thoſe perſons were converted without reaſon and evidence. All that can be fairly concluded from thoſe inſtances is, that the evidence that was offered, was ſo ſtrong, and came with ſuch light and force, as did more to produce conviction in a ſhort time, than a long courſe of abſtracted reaſonings would have done. If rhere were ſome thouſands, as he obſerves, converted at one lec- tureo, theſe inſtances only relate to the converſions that were wrought at Jeruſalem ſoon after our Lord's reſurrection and aſcenſion, of which the psople had ſuch convincing evidences by the extraordinary effuſion ef the Holy Ghoſt on the day of Pen- tecoſt, and the ſignal and undeniable miracles wrought by the diſciples in the name of a riſen Jeſus, as, joined with what they had known before of our Saviour's admirable diſcourſes and il- luſtrious miracles, as well as the extraordinary events that had happened at his crucifixion, to which they themſelves had been witneſſes, rendered the evidence ſo ſtrong and ftriking, that it was perfectly rational to fubmit to it, and receive it. The paſſage of the apoſtle, 2 Cor. xX. 4, 5. The weaßons f our warfare are net carnal, but mighty through God to the Pull- ing doun f ſtrong holds, caſting doum imaginations, or reaſon- ings, and every bigh thing that exalteth itſef againft the Knou- lege of God, and bringing into captivity ævery thought to the obedience of Cbriſt, is produced by this writer to ſhew that the goſpel is not only without all evidence, but contrary to reaſon. And yet the manifeſt deſign of it is to ſhew, not that the goſpel had no evidence to fupport it, but that the evidences accompa- nying it were ſo ſtrong and convincing, as were vaſtly ſuperior to any arguments or reaſonings that could be brought againſt it. But there is no injuncétion there laid upon Chriſtians, as the author pretends, to lay reaſon under the moſt abſolute *reſtraint and prohibition, and not to permit it the leaſt op- *portunity or freedom to exert itſelf, or interpoſe upon any 4 oOccaſion whatſoever P.“ Another argument with which he makes a mighty parade is to this purpoſe, Tnat no religion can be rational that is not founded on a free and impartial examination a. And ſuch exa- mination ſuppoſes a perfect neutrality to the principles which are examined, and even a temporal diſbelief of them, which is what the goſpel condemneth. But this proceeds upon a wrong account of the nature of free examination and enquiry. It is 0 Chriftianity not founded on Argument, p. 39. Ibid. P. 84. a Ibid. p. 3. 5 not 2 ² Let. II. Cbriſtianity not founded on Argument. 159 not neceſſary to a juſt enquiry into doctrines or facts, that a man ſhould be abſolutely indifferent to them before he begins that enquiry, much leſs that he ſhould actually diſbelieve them; as if he muſt neceſſarily commence Atheiſt, before he can fairly examine into the proofs of the exiſtence of God. It is ſuffi- cient to a candid examination, that a man applieth himſelf to it with a mind open to conviction, and a diſpoſition to embrace truth on which fide ſoever it fhall appear, and to receive the evidence that fhall ariſe in the courſe of the trial. And if the enquiry relateth to principlesi in which we have been inſtructed, then ſuppoſing thoſe principles to be in themſelves rational and well founded, it may well happen, that in enquiring into the grounds of them, a fair examination may be carried on with⸗ out ſecing cauſe to diſbelieve, or doubt of them through the whole courſe of the enquiry; which in thar caſe will end in a fuller conviction of them than before. Zut there is no argument on which he ſeems to place a greater ſtreſs to ſhew that Chr iſtianity is not founded on reaſon and evidence than this, that we are there authoritatively com- manded to believe, and penalties are denounced againſt us if we do not believe. Whercas it is plain that“no propoſition «can be tendered to our reaſon with penalties annexed, or «« under the reſtraint of threats and authorityr.”“ Since aſlent or diſſent is an“ inde penden t event under no influence of ours.“ Men are cooſtantly determined to believe according to the evi- dence that appeareth to them, and the will hath nothing to do with it. And therefore there can be no virtue in bei ieving truth, or fault in rejecting it. And he expreſsly affirms,“ that 4 a determination either right or wrong in matters which are «« not ſelf evident, and in which there is any thing of induction ««c or inference, is equally meritorious s.““ venient plea for infidelity, and ſo it is for atheiſm it it proceeds upon this foundation, that m Ver to believe any principles at all in wh induction or inference, nor conſeq exiſtence of God and a providence. diſbelieving thoſe principl obey or worſtup him This is a der) con- tha neſs ſing to dependeth upon the belief of his exiſtence. 1 apon is manifeſtly falſe; as if men were al and in all caſes deter- mined by mere evidence, and that a and diſſept were there- fore neceſſary acts, and abſolutely out of their power. Nothing * Chriſt, not founded on Argument, p. 8. ² Ibid. 17, 18 160 A Viecv of tbe DEIsTIcAL Writers. Let. 11. is more undeniable from common obſervation and experience, than that the will and affections have a great influence on the judgment; and that we have a great deal of freedom in the right or wrong uſe of our reaſoning faculties, and conſequently are liable to praiſe or blame on that account. Let the proofs that are offered be never ſo plain, we may chooſe whether we will attend to them, or we may turn our eyes from the evi- dence, or if we profeſs to examine, may, through prepoſſeſſion and wrong diſpoſitions of mind, inſtitute a flight, a partial, and defective examinarion. Men may be, aund often are, ſo biaſſed by the influence of affections and intereſts, as to cauſe things to appear to them in a quite different light than otherwiſe they would do. All the world owns, that a candour and ſimplicity of heart, the love of truth, and a readineſs to embrace it when fairly propoſed, is a very commendable diſpoſition of mind; and that a refuſing to receive it through the influence of corrupt affections and paſſions is really culpable But this eſpecially holdeth in truths of a religious and moral nature. Our believ- ing or diſbelieving them is very much influenced by the good or bad diſpoſitions of our minds, and muſt have a great effect upon the practice. And therefore in theſe caſes to receive and embrace theſe truths may be an important duty, and to diſbe- lieve or reject them may be highly criminal. And God may very juſtly interpoſe his authority to require the one, and warn men againſt the other. The author all along ſuppoſeth, that the faith required in the goſpel is no more than a bare aſſent of the underſtanding, and the unbelief there condemned is a mere ſpeculative diſſent. But this is a wrong repreſentation: Nothing is more evident than that the faith required in the goſpel of thoſe to whom it is made known, that faith to which the promiſes are made, is a complex thing: It includeth a love of truth, and a diſpoſition to embrace and profeſs it, which in the circumſtances in which Chriſtianity firſt appeared, argued a great deal both of candour and fortitude. And it is always repreſented to be of a vital operative nature, a principle of holy obedience, and which purifieth the heart, and leadeth men to do the will of God, and obey his commands. And ſuch a faith is certainly a virtue, and very properly the ſubject of a divine command: And the un- belief there condemned, is ſuppoſed to proceed from men's be- ing under the influence of corrupt affections and prejudices, and from their unwillingneſs to receive the truth, becauſe their deeds are evil. It is expreſſed by their ſputting their eyes, and hardening their hearts, leſt they ſhould ſææ with their eyes, and aunderſtand Let. 11. Cbriſtianity not founded on Argument. 161 underſtand with their hearts, and be converted and healed. And this certainly argueth a bad and vicious diſpoſition of ſoul, and leadeth to diſobedience; and is therefore very properly forbid- den in the divine law. With regard to human laws, when they are once ſufficiently promulgated, it would ſcarce be accepted as a plea for men's neglecting or breaking thoſe laws, that they are not ſatisfied that they are the king's laws; and that no man can be juſtly obliged under the reſtraint of authority and penalties to aſſent to this propoſition, that theſe are the king's laws; ſince aſſent is not in our own power. It is very probable, that a way would ſoon be found to over-rule this plea, and convince them that authority could interpoſe in this matter. In like manner, it ſcems to be obvious to the common ſenſe and reaſon of man- kind, that if God hath given a revelation or diſcovery of his will concerning doctrines and laws of importance to our duty and happineſs, and hath cauſed them to be promulgated with ſuch evidence as he knoweth to be ſufficient to convince reaſon- able and well-diſpoſed minds, that will carefully attend to it, he hath an undoubted right to require thoſe to whom this reve- lation is publiſhed to receive and to obey it. And if through the influence of corrupt affections and luſts, thoſe to whom this revelation is made known refuſe to receive it, he can juſtly puniſh them for their culpable neglect, obſtinacy, and diſobe- dience. Our author himſelf, ſpeaking of the Spirit's working faith in all men, ſaith, though in evident contradiction to his own ſcheme, that“the tender of this conviction, however po- «* tent in its influence, may yet depend greatly upon the proper **diſpoſitions of our minds, to give it a reception for its efficacy; ** and ſo far will give place, and afford ample matter of trial *„ and probation, and become indeed a teſt of our obedience. **And that in this caſe diſbelief and guilt have a meaning whe ** put together; ſince the compliance required is, not a com- ** pliance out of our power, 1 longer that of the under- « ſtanding, but of the will, in its nature free, and therefore accountable; and though we are not by any means charge- *¹„Fable for the effects of our apprehenſion, yet there is no rea- ſon but that we may be with all juſtice called to the ſtricteſt * accouut for our obſtinacy, impiety, and perverſeneſs t.“ I ſhall oply take notice of one thing more, and which is in- deed the moſt plauſible thing in his whole book, and that is, that the generality of mankind, even of thoſe among whom Chriſtianity not founded on Argument, p. 64. VoL. I. M Chriſtianity 16²2 A Viecw of ibe DEIsTICAL Writers. Let. 11. Chriſtianity is publiſhed, cannot be obliged to believe it, be- cauſe they have not a capacity to diſcern and judge of the proofs and arguments which are brought for it. But though it ſhould be allowed, that they could not of themſelves trace thoſe proofs and evidences, yet there are few but may be made ſenſible of the force of thoſe proofs and evidences, when ſet before them by others. And this is fufficient. It is evident to any one that knows mankind, that we are ſo conſtituted, as to ſtand in need of mutual aſfiſtance and information in matters of great conſe- quence to our duty and happineſs. Moſt of the principles of ſcience of every kind are things that muſt be taught; and there are few that reaſon out thoſe prineiples for themſelves, but pro- ceed upon them as demonſtrated by others, and apply them- ſelves to practiſe the rules that are founded on thoſe principles. In like manner religion muſt be taught, or the moſt of man- kind will know but little of it. And if it requireth care and application to underſtand its doctrines and precepts, and the evidences whereby it is confirmed, this is no argument at all, either againſt its reaſonableneſs or excellency. For nothing that is truly excellent in knowlege or practice is to be attained to with- out care and diligence. It is every man's duty in this caſe to take in what helps and informations he can get. And if we can come to perceive the evidence by the affiſtance of others, this will anſwer the purpoſes of religion as well as if we could do it merely by the force of our own reaſon, without any aſ- ſiſtance at all. It would undoubtedly be a thing above the capacity of the generality of mankind, and what the moſt learned would not be well fitted for, to trace out all the parts of religion and mora- lity, by a regular deduction from the firſt principles in a way of abſtracted reaſoning. And therefore it is a great advantage that God hath given a clear revelation of his will, containing in plain and expreſs propoſitions the principles and doctrines which are of greateſt importance to be khown, and the duties which are moſt neceſſary to be practiſed: ſuch a revelation is ſet before us in the goſpel: and the evident marks of diſintereſtedueſs that appear in it, without the leaſt traces of a worldly ſpirit or deſign, the purity and excellency of its doctrines and precepts, and the unitorm tendency of the whole, for promocing the glory of God, and the good of mankind, and the cauſe of vir- tue and righteouſneſs in the world, furniſh arguments obvious to common capacities, that this religion owed not its riſe to human policy, to the arts of impoſtors, or to evil beings, but was of a godlike and heavenly original. And as to hiſtorical evidence, L. et. rI. CbriFtianity not founded on Argument. 163 evidence, perſons. of common ſound underſtanding may be made ſenſible, by the help of the learned, that we have all the evidence of the truth of the extraordinary facts, whereby the divine authority of the Chriftian religion was atteſted, which can be reaſonably deſired. That moſt of thoſe facts were of a public nature, which might have been eaſily 4 detected and in which caſe that religion expoſed if they had been falſe; which had nothing elſe to ſupport it, and was deſti worldly advantages, muſt have fallen at once. But that this 4; 0 24 aa'n f was ſo far from being the caſe, that the greateſt enemies of that upon the credit of thoſe 1 facts, chis religion, though directly oppoſite to the prejudices which then univerſally obtained, and though it had the moſt unſurmountable difficulties to encounter with, and had all the powers of the world engaged againlt it, ſoon made a wonder- ful progreſs both among Jeuus and Gentiles; which, as things were circumſtanced, cannot otherwiſe be accounted for, than by admitting the truth of thoſe extraordinary facls. That the original revelation itſelf, together with an account of thoſe facts, was commirted to writing in the very age in which that revela- tion was firſt given, and thoſe facts were done; Which is a ſure method of conveyance, though oral tradition is a very uncertain one. And that theſe accounts which were written by perſons who were perfectly acquainted with the things they relate, and which have all the characters of purity, artleſs undiſguiſed ſim- plicity, and an impartial regard to truth, that any writings can poſſibly have, were in that very age received with great veneration, as of ſacred authority. The copies of them were ſoon ſpread abroad into many different countries, they were read in the public aſſemblies, tranſlated into various languages, and they have been ever ſince ſo conſtantly cited and appealed to in every age by perſons of different ſects and parties, many of whom have tranſcribed large portions of them into their writ- ings, that it may be juſtly ſaid, they have been tranſmitted with a continued evie„far greater than can be produced for any other books in the world; and that a general corruption otf them, if any had attempted it, would have been an impoſſible thing. There hi mon ſound ſe 2 of information, may be learned. And aſfiſtance of the lear when bel doctrines? their own he ves propoſed in thoſe gs upon s of oodneſs, this completeth comtorting them in a Irra! Iif. 1 mortal life, and a e rhAerr; 12 n aating them to all vürtue and — 12 164 A View of tbe DEIsTICAL Writers. Let. 11. completeth their ſatisfaction and aſſurance. Eſpecially when it is farther conſidered, that we are taught in fcripture to hope, that God's gracious aſſiſtances will not be wanting to thoſe that with honeſt hearts and upright intentions endeavour to know and do the will of God. For if any man will do his will, ſfaith our Saviour, he ſpall now of the doclrine, whether it be gf God, r whot her I/peak; myfolſ, John vii. 17. Our author, in order to ſhew that the generality of mankind are incapable of judging of the evidence for C hriſtianity, hath taken upon him to pronounce that there are few' that are ca- pable of reaſoning at all, if there is the leaſt of induction or in- ference in the caſe a. And this, if it proveth that they are under- no obligation to believe Chriftianity, equally proveth that they are under no obligation to believe natural religion, not even the exiſtence of a God, or a providence; ſince here there is certainly room for induction and inference. But the truth is, this is a very falſe and baſe repreſentation of human nature: it would follow from it, that the generality of men are incapable of mo- ral agency, of virtue and vice, or of being governed by laws. For this fuppoſeth them capable of underſtanding what thoſe laws are, and what is the duty required of them, aud of mak- ing inferences and deductions. And with regard to religion, and its proofs and evidences, it can ſcarce be doubted, that if men applied themſelves to ir with the ſame care and diligence that they generally do in matters of much leſs conſeque nce, they would attain to fuch a ſenſe of religion and its evidences, as would both make it raſci able for them to believe e it, and to govern their practice by There 85 ere ſeveral do. anſwers publ liſhed to Cbriſtianit)y not foundedl on Argument. One of the firſt that appeared was that written 3 Dr. Doddridge, which I remember to have read with pleaſure, but as I have not had an opportunity of ſeeing it for ſome years, cannot give a particular account of it. I ſha ll c fine myſelf to thoſe anſwers which I have now by me. The firſt I fhall mention is intirled, The reaſonableneſs of the Chriſtian religion as delivered in the Scriptures, being an anſwer to a late treatiſe, intitled, p hlianity not founde d'on. Irgument, by George Benſon, after wards Dr. Benfon, I London gvo. 1743- This may be regarded not merely as an anſwer tothat pamphlet, a 1 nd defenec of Chriſtianity in general, and ſo the 8 learned author deſigned it. It conſiſteth of three parts. In the frrſt part, after having ſettlcd the meaning of the word Failh, 8 1,, 7 1— A Imer 4— 5 2¹ Chriſtianity not founded on Argument, P. 17, 18⸗ and . ̈ Let. II. CLriſtianity not founded on Argument. 163 and ſhewn what that faith is which the goſpel requireth of thoſe to whom it is made known, and to which rewards are there annexed, and that it is really a virtue; and what that unbelief is which is there forbidden and condemned, and lha it is really a vice; he goes on to produce ſome of the principal arguments which prove the truth of the Chriſtian religion. He firſt con- ſiders what are ufually called the internal evidences of Chriſtia- nity, the reaſonableneſs of its doctrines, of its moral precepts, of its poſitive inſtitutions, and of the ſanctions by which it is enforced; and then conſiders the external evidence ariſing from prophecy and miracles, particularl y from the reſurrection of Chriſt, and the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghoſt poured forth upon the apoſtles and firſt Chriſtians. Theſe things are here ſet in a fair and agreeable light; and it is 1 ſhewn, that 8 the accounts given af theſe things in the New T eſtament may be depended on, and that we have ſufficient evidence of the truth and authenticity of the goſpel records. In the ſecond part a ſolid anſwer is given to the ſeveral objections and dif- ficulties propoſed by the author, with a view to ſhew that re- ligion cannot be a rational thing. rhe third part contains a diſtinct explication of thoſe texts of Scripture which he had perverted and miſapp And there is ſcarce any one text cited or referred to in his whole book which is not here parti- cularly conſidered. Not long after he liſhed, intitled, The Chriſtian's E³ ſwer to a pamphlet, intitled, Chriſtianity not founded on Argu- ment, by Thomas Nandolpb, D. D. London 1744. It was publiſmed in two par and divided into ſix chapters. In the firſt, the queſtion in o liepure is clearly ſtated, which is reduced to this, whether the Chriſtian faith be four nded on argument, and is dedianeihe attainable in a rational way, or is to be ac- quired only by a Barticular revelation imhar ted fuß ernaturally to every individual? And he undertakes in oppoſition to the author of that pamphlet to ſhew, chat the Chriſtian's faith ought to be founded upon the conviction of the underſtand- ing, and that it is a rational aſſent, by which he means that juſt and ſatisfactory reaſons may be given for the hope and faith we profeſs. He conſiders the nature of aſſent, and ſhews that we are not u holly Päſ S in believing or diſbelieving, but have a great compaſs of liberty in the uſe df thoſe kaenleies on which aſſent depends, and that therefore faith may be virtue, and argue a Lood iſpoſon of mind, and unbelief vi- cious and criminal. In his ſecond chapter, he fairly examines and another valuable anſwer pub- zith a rational Aſſent, in an- M 3 clearly —— 66 A View of tbe DEISTIOAL Writers. Let. 11. clearly confutes the author's arguments drawn from the nature of reaſon and religion: and, in the third, the arguments from Seripture, by which he pretends to prove, that we are not to uſe our underſtandings in matters of religion. In his fourth chapter, he inquires into the author’s own ſcheme, and the principle of goſpel evidence, which he has thought fit to aſſign, which he wholly reſolveth into an immediate, infallible, ſuper- naiwial revelation, däried with an irreßiſtible light into the mind of every particul er en The abſurdity of this Dr. Randopb expoſes, and anſwers the pretended proofs brought from Scripture in ſupport of 4 The flfch henir contains a 4 good account of the proots of the Cbriitian religion, with a par- ticular conſideration of the objections of this writer againſt mi- aditional teſtimony. Laſtly, he takes notice of ons thrown out by the author of that pamphlet in particular. t I fhould take ſome notice of 1 about the ſame time, and ion from the public: 1 haurch of Engla Tou will probably ex Xpect another an ſr whi which allo met with? viz. Remarhs on a lal æ Hamphlot, intitled, Chriſtianity Be ed on Argument. I wſe remarks, which were drawn up by me at your own deſn ire, were contained in two letters that were publiſhed ſeparately, Saadhn 1744. The deſign of this an- ſwer, which was much fhorter than either of the former, was not to enter upon a diſtinct and particular account of the evi- dences which are uſually producod in proof of the Chriſtian religion, which the author of theſe letters had conſidered largely on ſome former occaſions; but to repreſent in a clear and conciſe manner the abſurdity and ill tendency, as well as manifold inconſiſtencies of this writer's ſcheme; to give a plain confutation of the principal arguments from Seripture and rea- ſon, by which he has retended to ſupport it, and to detect and expoſé his fallacies and mifre epreſente ations. But it is time to take leave of this writer, whom I have taken the m Ore Par ticular notice of, becauſe ſome of his obje Ctions are managed with great art, and have a ſpecious appearance. - arable ecepl I. E T T E R )S DG⸗ LETTER XlII. The reſurregtion of Cbriſt au arlicle that lies at the foun- dalion of tbe Cbriſtian faitb. Altacked with great con- hidence in a pampblet, intitled, The Re ſurrection of eſus conſidered. Wbat tbis Writer offers to prove, that Cbriſt did not foretel his oton reſurrection, and that the ſtory o ibe chief prieſts ſetling a watch at the ſepul- chre is a forgery and fiction, examined and confuted. Obſervations on tbe extraordinary way Be takes to fx contradittions upon tbe evangeliſis. The rules by bich be would judge of their accounts would not be endur ed, if applied to amy otber writings. He inſiſts on fartber evidence of Cbriſt's reſurrection, and yet plainly intimates ꝛhat no evidence that could be given would ſatisfy bim. Extravagant demands of ibe deiſtical writers on this bead conhidered. The evidence ibat was abtually given the propereſt tbat could be given. Tbe ſeeming variations among tbe evangeliſts, if righthy conſidered, furniſb a proof of ibe trutb and genuineneſs of the goſpel records. An account of tbe anſcvers publiſped to this aut hor, eſ pecially of Aär. Weſt's Obſervations onthe Hiſtory and Reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt. Sir George Lyttelton's Obſervations on the Converſion and Apoſtleſhip of St. Paul commended. § T R, HE reſurrection of Chriſt is an article of vaſt importance, which lieth at the foundation of Chriſtianity. If this falleth, the Chriſtian religion cannot be maintained, or may be proved to be falle. Chriſt be not riſen(ſaith St. Paul) then g vain, ycur faith is ali vain, 1 Cor. Xv. 14. On the other hand, if this holdeth good, the divine miſſion and authority of the bleſſed Founder of our holy religion is eſtablihed. This is what he himſelf appealed to as the great M 4 and is our preaching vain 168 A Viec of tbe DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 12. and ultimate proof, which was to convince mankind that he was What he profeſſed himſelf to be, the Son of God, the Sa- viour of the world. If he bad been an artful impoſtor, it can V ſcarce be ſuppoſed that he would have appealed to ſuch a proof as this, which would have been the moſt effectual way he could have taken to detect and expoſe the vanity of his own pretences, and overturn the whole ſcheme of his religion. Or, if he had been an Enthuſiaſt, and was impoſed upon by the warmth of his own imagination, to believe that God would indeed raiſe him from the dead, the event would have effectually ſhewn the folly and madneſs of his expectations. And therefore ſince he put the proof of his divine miſſion upon a thing of ſo extraor- dinary a nature, which manifeſtly exceeded all human power, and was actually enabled to accompliſh it, this ſhews, both that he certainly knew that he was ſent of God, and that he really was ſo. And indeed it cannot be conçeived how a more illuſtrious atteſtation could pofſibly have been given to him from heaven, than his reſurrection from the dead in accompliſhment of his own prediction, and what followed upon it, his aſcen- ſion into heaven, and the extraordinary effuſion of the Holy Ghoſt upon his diſciples, as he himſelf had promiſed. This the enemies of our holy religion are ſenſible of, and therefore though they have ſometimes affected to argue, that, ſuppoſing Chriſt to have reaily riſen from the dead, this would not be a valid proof of the truth of the Chriſtian revelation a, yet they have in all ages bent their utmoſt efforts againſt it. Celſus employed all his wit and malice to ridicule it; ſo have others done ſince. Of late Mr. Woolſton had diſtinguiſhed himſelf this way; no part of his diſcourſes on the miracles of our Saviour was ſo much laboured, as that wherein he endeavoured to ſhew that the account given by the evangeliſts of Chriſt's reſurrection is a falſe and incredible ſtory. But the weakneis of his objec- tions was clearly ſhewn in the anſwers that were made to him; among which the Trial f the WWitneſſes,&c. was eſpecially re- markable, both for the ſtrength of the reaſoning and the inge- nious and polite manner of treating the argument. Mr. Wool- hon himſelf never attempted to vindicate that part of his Diſ courſes againſt the anſwers that had been given to it. But after ſeveral years had paſt, a bold adventurer appears in a pamphlet, intitled, The Reſurrection Jeſus confideered!, in an- 2 See a letter ſaid to be written by Mr. Collins to the author of the“ Diſcourſe on the Grounds,&c.“ in anſwer to Mr. Green's letters, publiſhed in 1726. ſwer Let. 124 Te Reſurrection of Jeſus conſidered. 169 fwer to the Trial of the l itneſſes, by a Moral rhilofophe r, Lon- don, 1744; ſo this gentle man thinks proper to ſtile himſelf, as Dr. Morgan had done before him, and like that writer he ap- pears to be of great vivacity, and no ſmall degree of confidence, and to have a high opinion of his own abilities and perform- ances; and like him ſeems reſolved to put all the arts of con- troverſy in practice, by which he thinks he might carry his point, without being very ſolicitous whether they are properly reconcileable to truth or candour. He has with great diligence raked together all that a lively imagination, animated with the moſt dexrermined malice, could invent or ſuggeſt, for miſ ſrepr e- ſenting and expoſing the Goſpel-hiſtory. Nor does he, as ſome al 1 ard for the religion inſt it; in which he acted the part of a others had done, of Jeſus, but all is ſo far to be cor fair, as he doth of a profet 1 The principal thing obſervable in this treatiſe, with relation to the declared deſign of it, the overthrowing the accounts that are given us of the reſſ arrection of Jeſus, may be reduced to theſe three heads: He undertak es to prove that Chriſt did oretel his deah al a4. reſurrection a al, neither to the is own diſciples: and 1 9 lilts ſay on A F⸗ head is mere fiction and whole Kor of the Jewiſp prieſts and at the ſepulchre, and ſealing the ſtone, is rd and incredible fiction. 3. That the liſts of Chriſt's reſurrection are in every and ſelf-contradi ctory, and carry plain marks oOf fraud and impoſture. I fhall make ſome obſervations on each of th that I may not return to this ſubject again, ſhall take notice, as I go?² along, of ſome things advanced by Mr. C ‚ in his poſthumous works, to enforce the objec- tions of this writer. It is of great importance to our author's cauſe to prove, it he was able to do it, that Jeſus did not foretel his own death and reſurrection. For if he did foretel it, and it was known that he did ſo, this makes the precautions taken by tha chief prieſts to prevent an impoſirion in this matter abſolutely neceſſary; and the whole ſtory is perfes ctly conſiſtent. Beſides that, as hath been already hinted, his foretelling a thing of fuch a nature, which if he had been an impoſtor he muſt have known it would be abſolutely out of his power to accomp Diſh and which yet was actually fulfil- led, affoyds the moſt convincing proof, tha Uhe was rea Hlyy that extraordinary and divine Perſc 1 170 A Viety of tbe DrisTIcAL Writers. Let, 12, he profeſſed himſelf to be. Our author ſaw this, and therefore has made an attempt to ſhew that Jeſus did not foretel his death and reſurrection, neither to the Jewwwp prieſts and Phari- ſees, nor to his own diſciples. With regard tothe former, it appeareth from the teſtimony of the evangeliſts, St. Matt heuo and Luke, that when the Scribes and Phariſees deſired Jelus to ſhew them a ſign from heaven, he told them, that no ſign.ſpould be given them, but the ſign& the Broßher Jonas. And 8t Matthew farther informs us, that he hen openly declared to them, that as Jonas was three days and three nights in the W bale's belly, ſo ſhot uld the Son man be three dy⸗ 3 three nights in the heart& 1h„ Matth, xii. 38, 39, 40. Which plainly ſu Ppaled. that, in that ſpace of time, he manr ld, after Phing in the earth or grave, riſe out of it, as Jonas came alive t of the fiſfn. From this prediction therefore, which was uttered more than once in the hearing of the Scribes 1 ariſees, they might gather that he intended to fignify that he ſhould riſe again from the dead. Wha his Writer hath offered againſt this is very trifling. Becauſe St. Luke, mentioning what our Saviour faid concerning the ſign of the prophet Jonas, doth not expreſsly take notice of his declaring, that the d of man ſhould lie three days and nights in the heart of the earth, he pretends that this is a proof that St, Matthedu beree it. Whereas all that it proves is, that St. Mat- zhew hath given a fuller relation of what our Saviour faid on that occaſion, than St. Luke hath done; thoughr what the latter relateth concerning Chriſt's mentioning the ſign of the prophet Jonas, plainly implieth it. He alſo repeats what Mr. Woohſton had urged, that Chriſt did not lie three days and nights in the grave; of which I took ſome noti ce before in my remarks on Mr. Woolſton's diſcourſes b. He farther hints at what Mr. Chubb, who wrote after our author, and endeavours to reinforce his objections, has enlarged upon for ſeveral pages together e, that Jeſus could not have made fuch a declaration as this, viz. that no ſign ſhould be given to that wickedl and adulterous generation, but the ſign of the Brophet Jonas; both becauſe their being a wicked gencration was rather a reaſon for giving them a ſign, ſince in that caſe they needed it moſt, and the deſign of his coming was to call ſinners to repentance; and becauſe in fact Chriſt did work ſigns and wonders among them after this. But to take off the force of this, it is ſufficlent to obſ ſerve, that by Q — 8* (d F. 5 2 „ See above, p. 110. ² Chubb's poſthum. works, vol. i. p. 242— 347. 5 com- — i. Let. 12. Tbe Reſurrestion of Jeſus Sutun,n 171 7 comparing Matt. xvi. 1I. Luke xi. 16. Mark viii. I1. it apheareth that the ſign they demanded was a hign from 5 zven, by which they probably mer ant ſome glorious appearance in the heavens. They had a little before attributed his miracles to Beclzebub. And now they infiſted that he ſhould give them a particular kind of ſign, and it was perfectl) conſiſtent with his character to refuſe to humour them in this demand, which he well knew proceeded from a cax illing weupef ‚and not from minds honeſtly willing to ſubmit to evidence. Bur though he refuſed to give them at that time preciſely ſuch a ſign as they demanded, he yet both continued to work mir- acles among them, and referred them to his reſurrection, which, taking in the circumſtances that attended it, and followed upon it, was, in the fulleſt and propereſt ſenſe, a ſign from beaven, and was ſufficient to con- vince them, if they were diſpoſed to receive conviction. To this it may be added, what St. Jobn informs us of, that in a diſcourſe addreſſed to a great number of the Jews, among whom were ſeveral of his mæ licious enemies, he plsini ſpoke 9³ his laying douin bis life, and taking it again, and declared that this commandment he had received ꝗf his f Father, an X. 17, 18, 19, 20. As to his own diſciples, under which character others be- ſides the twels tles are often comprehended, the author himſelf acknowlegeth, that the evangeliſts repreſent him as having declared to them in plain and expre eſs terms, on five dif- ne fhor uld ſuffe 1 1 the ferent occ and die, and riſe again tell us, that the diſciples 1 us hid from them, „ Wehat b riſing from darad Dod ve the ohole paſs for forgery and fiction. E e thinks it incredible, th welve men could hear ſuch plain expreſſions, ſo clearly fne telling his dying and riſing again, and yet not be able to underſtand them. But this is eaſily accounted for, conſidering that the diſciples were at that time under: the Power of thoſe prejudices, which then generally prevailed among tl he Jewe, relating to the Meſſiah. They could not conceive how the Meſſiah, who according to their notions of things was to abide for ever, and not die at all d, could be ſubject to ſufferings and death: nor conſequently how he fhould riſe again from the dead. When there fore they heard Jeſus, whom they looked upon to be the Meſſiah, talk of his dying and riling again on the third day, they thought it muſt on the tl dlid no and tha 4 See John Xii. 34. be 17² A View of tbe DEISTIcAL Writers. Let. 12. be underſtood in ſome myſtical or figurative ſenſe, and that ſome meaning which they did not at preſent comprehend lay hid under thoſe expreſſions, however plain they might appear: ſo that this only ſhews the dulneſs of their apprehenſions, and the force of their prejudices, and at the ſame time the imparti- ality of the evangelical hiſtorians who have recorded it. But whough the diſciples could not conceive how Chriſt ſhould die and riſe again on the third day, yet as he ſo often repeated it on different occaſions, without ever giving the leaſt injunction to them to conceal it, it may juſtly be ſuppoſed, that the ſay- ing got abroad, and was known to many. And this coming to the ears of the Jæuıι Chief-prieſts and Phariſees, who alſo knew what he had ſaid to ſome of rhe Phariſees and Scribes, concerning the ſign of the prophet Jonas, was a fufficient foundation for them to ſay to Pilate, we remember that that deceiver ſaid(not that he ſaid to us, as this gentleman thinks fit to quote it, but that he ſaid) abile he was get alive, after Ehree days I will riſe again. There needed no more to put them upon all proper precautions to prevent an impoſture in this matter. This leads me to take ſome notice of the ſecond main thing this writer inſiſteth upon, which is, that the ſtory St. Matt heu tells of the Chief-prieſts ſetting a watch at the ſepulchre, and ſealing the ſtone, is a falſe and abſurd fiction. Mr. Woohſton had allowed the truth of the ſtory, and built one of his prin- cipal arguments againſt the reſurrection of Jeſus upon the cir- cumſtance of ſealing the ſtone. And this argument was mightily cried up for a while. But our author had the ſagacity to diſ- cern, that if this was admitted, it would afford a ſtrong pre- ſumption of the truth and reality of Chriſt's reſurrection; and therefore thinks it more for the intereſt of his cauſe to deny it. The chief thing he urgeth againſt the ſtory, proceeds upon the ſuppoſition chat Jeſus did not foretel his reſurcection at all, nor had the Jewiſp prieſts and Phariſees heard that he had fore- told it; and therefore it is abſurd to think they would give themſelves any concern about it. But the falſhood of this ſup- poſition hath been already ſhewn; nor is there any thing in the whole ſtory, as related by St. Marthew, that is not perfectly conſiſtent, and highly probable. It is very natural to ſuppoſe, conſidering their characters and diſpoſitions, and the circum- ſtances of che caſe, that they would take the fitteſt precautions, that the diſciples of Jeſus might not have it in their power to pretend he was riſen from the dead, as it was reported he had foretold. And there conld not he a more probable method fixed Let. 12. The Reſurrection of Jeſus conſidered. 173 fixed upon for this purpoſe, than the ſetting a watch to guard the ſepulchre, and ſealing the ſtone that was rolled to the mouth of it. And though we ſhould allow them to have known, as this writer affirms they did, that Nicodemus and Joſebh of Arimathea had wound up the body in linen and ſpices, which ſhewed they did not expect his reſurrection, yet they knew he had other diſciples; and beſides might ſuſpect, that all this preparation for emb alming the body, was only the better to cover their deſign of taking it away. What he farther urgeth concerning their believing him to have been, what they called him to Pilate, a deceiver, inſtead of being an argument, as he would have it be, againſt their uſing this precaution, would furniſh a ſtrong reaſon for it. Since in that caſe they might be apt to ſuſpect that his diſciples would act the part of deceivers too, and endeavour to carry on the impoſture, which therefore they were reſolved to prevent. And they might think this one of the moſt effectual methods they could take to convince the people, many of whom they knew had a high veneration for Jeſus, that he was a falſe propher, by ſhewing the falſnood of his p 1 prediction, concerning his riſing again the third day, which would juſtify their own conduét in purna him to deank⸗ This author thinks it incredible, that the Jeus fhould bribe the ſoldiers to be filent, when they themieles muſt upon their report have been convinced of the ti uth of the fact. But their conduét on this occaſion was no other than might be expected from perſons of their character. Whoſoever conſiders their de- termined malice and envy agai inſt Jeſr s, who had unmaſked their hypocriſy, and oppoſé d their traditions; how decply their re- putation was engaged, and their autho erity with the people, as well as that of the Sanbedrim, who claimed to themſe Elves a power of trying prophets, and had condemned him as a falſe prophet and blaſphemer, muſt be ſenſible how unwilling they would be to have it thought, that they had ronglali pro- cured a moſt excellent perſon to be crucified, and that they would take all poſſible methods by ſtifling the evidence to throw Po which may be added the em to ima- off the odium from themſelves power of their Pre) judices, which would not fuffer gine, that a perſon who had been crucified could poſſibly their Nleſman, which was abſolutely fubverfive of all their maxims. They who, when they could not depy his miracles, aſcribed them to a diabolical power, ſhewed what they were pable of. Aud inde force of obſtinate prejudice, hatred, eof maintaining their own authority, all 174 A Viecy of tbe DEis TIeAL Writers. Let. 124 all which concurred in this caſe, is amazing, and hath often cauſed perſons to ſtand it out againſt the cleareſt evidence. The laſt thing he hath to offer is, that St. Matthetv is the only Evangeliſt who relateth the ſtory of ſealing the ſtone, and placing the watch; but this is of ſmall moment: St. Mattheu s relation of it is ſufflcient. He wrote his goſpel, by the conſent of all antiquity, the firſt of the evangeliſts, in a few years after our Lord's aſcenſion, and deſigned it eſpecially y for the uſe of the Jeuuiſb converts. And his relating this K ory in a goſpel Pliches among the Jeus, and ſo early in that very age when the ſtory muſt have been freſh in remembrance, and when, if falſe, it might have been eaſily contradicted, ſhews that it was a thing well known, and that he was fully aſſured of the truth of it, and in no fear of being detected in a falſnood. And what fartner confirmeth this, is his referring to a report as current among the Jews at the time when he wrote, concerning the diſciples having ſtolen the body, whilſt the foldiers that were ſet to watch the ſepulchre ſlept. The ſtory indeed was not very conſiſtent, but yet, as the caſe was circumſtanced, it was the beſt thing they had to ſay. The body was gone out of the ſepulc hre; either therefore it muſt be acknowleged that he roſe again from the dead, or that his diſciples had taken it ada;; and this, if done at all, muſt have been done either with the connivance of the g dard that were ſet to watch it, or when they werée alleep: the guards, if charged with having connived at it, and with having been bribed by the diſciples, Would have been obliged to juſtity themſelves againſt that charge, and would have told the fact as it really Phappene There was nothing therefore left but to pretend that it was done whilſt they were aſleep. And yet the rulers never pretended to conviét the diſ- ciples of having ſtolen the body, nor inſtituted any proceſs aeeunſt them on that account; but contented themſelves with threatening to puniſh them if they preached the reſurrection of Je lus⸗ which yet they boldly av Vad to their faces. As to the author's inſinuation, how came St. Mattheu to know of the ring to the ſoldiers with ſuch Senieſtenes of ter- angel's appe ror, if they were hired to conceal it; this is eaſily accounted for. It is only ſaid that ſome the watch went and told the chief prieſts, Matt. XXviii. 11. It may therefore de reaſon- ably ſi up lpboſer that others of them might, immediately after the thing happened, tell it to fome other perfons. XYea, it might p probably happen that ſome of thoſe who were then hired and bribed might diſcover it afterwe Wrds,W when all was over; or that ſome of the priefts, many of whom were after wards converted to Let. 12. The Reſurreklion of Jeſus conſidered. 175 to the Chriſtian faith, as we learn from Ars vi. 7. might have known and divulged it. Thus it appeareth that this writer’s principal obſeckions againſt this ſtory, and which he inſiſteth up on as m aniſe proofs of the abſolute falſnood and forgery of the goſpe Lhiſtory, are of no force. And yet he taketh upon him to pronounce, that it is in all vieso ſurd to ſupy poſe that the Prieſes and Phari- ſeer ſpould guare I agai, ſz a refurrestion, fraudulent or real. He next: procceds to enquire how the witneſſes agree in their evidence, and endeavoureth to prove, that the accounts the evangeliſts give of the reſurrection of Jeſus are in every part in- conſiſtent and ſelf-contradictor) p. and carry plain marks of fraud and impoſture. And here I ſfhall not enter into a di ſtinct exami- nation of the ſeveral more minute par iculars he inſiſteth upon, which are all conſidered and d iſcu ul ſſed in the that were made to him, but ſhall content m) alobſerva- tions upon his managemen ue pfelte. Aund firſt I would ob- ſerve, that he has thought conſider the acc 8 of the three evangeliſts, Mattheu, Mark, and Luke, ſe St. John; ether, fin vhercas they onht all. 9 be tal to the ſame tat of Cl that the three er ances of Jelus; ethey. all relate ſe poſitively aſſerteth, neral but three appear- there are plainly ſeven appearances of Jeſus after his reſurre dto by them, beſides twoothers peculiarly mentioned by St. Jobn:⸗ 1. His appearing to Mary Magdalene alone, Mark xvi. 9. Jobn xx. 14, 15, 16, 17. 2. His appearing to the women, Mati h. Xxxviii. 9. 3. His appearing to the two diſciples going to Emmaus, Mark Xvi. I 2. Luke XXiv. 1 3.22. 4. His appearing to Simon Peter, Luke xxiv. 34. 1 Gor. Xv. 5. 5. His appe aring to the eleven as they ſat at meat on the nc evening of the day on which he roſe, Luke Xxiv. 36—-43. John xx. 19— 23. 6. His appearing to his diſciples on a mountain in Galilee, Matth. Xxviii. 16, 17. 7. His appearing to his diſciples on the day of his aſcenſion, Mark xvi. 19, 20. Luke XXIv. 50, 51, 52. Aerr i. 6— 11. Beſides theſe, there are two other appearances of Jeſus recorded by St. un, which are not taken notice of by the other evang eliſts. One is that to the eleven, when St. Thomas was with them eight days after the firſt, Jobn Xxx. 26— 29. is that at the ſea of Tiberias, to ſeven of the diſ Here are evangeli liſts, which t by diſtinct 1 to hax Apa etence for charging thoſe writers with contradictions, thinks fit to con- found 5 nine diſtin&t appearanc were at different character Bu — — 176 A Viewv of the DzisrIcaL. Writers. Let. 12. found theſe different appearances. And the different circum- ſtances and variations, which ſhew that they belong to different appearances, are repreſented by him as ſo many inconſiſtencies in the relation of the ſame appearance. But by this way of management, inſtead of proving contradictions upon the evan- geliſts, he only proves his own unfairneſs and abfurdity. Thus, *. g. St. Lube relates an appearance of Jeſus to his diſciples at Jeruſalem, on the very evening of the reſurrection day. St. Matt heu tells of an appearance of his to his diſciples at a moun- tain in Galilee, which muſt have been ſome time after. The time and place of theſe appearances are manifeſtly different; which ſhould lead every perſon of candour to regard them as different appearances. But our author is pleaſed to ſuppoſe them to relate to the ſame appearance, and then chargeth theſe different circumſtances as to time and place, as ſo many contra- dictions and inconſiſtencies. This muſt be owned to be a very extraordinary way of proceeding, and at this rate it will be eaſy to expoſe the moſt authentic hiſtory that ever was written. There is another rule frequently made uſe of by this writer, and upon which his charge of contradictions againſt the evan- geliſts principally dependeth; and that is, that if any one of them takes notice of any circumſtance or event not mentioned by the reſt, this is to paſs for a proof of fiction and forgery. According to this new rule of criticifm, where ſeveral hiſtorians give an account of the ſame facts, if ſome of them relate thoſe facks with more, and ſome with fewer circumſtances, this ſhall be ſufficient abſolutely to deſtroy the credit of the whole; and they that omit a circumſtance, or ſay nothing at all about it, muſt be looked upon as contradicting thoſe that mention it. Upon this principle, St. Mark and St. Luke are made to con- tradict one another, becauſe the latter mentions Bethany or mount Ohlvet, as the place from whence Jeſus aſcended, and the former in mentioning Chriſt's aſcenſion takes no notice of the place from whence he aſcended. In like manner it is pre- tended, that St. Matthet and St. Jobn, in contradiétion to the two other evangeliſts, ſay, that Jeſus never aſcended at all, be- cauſe they give no diſtinct account of his aſcenſion, though they evidently fuppoſeé it, and there are more references to it in St. Jobn's goſpel, than in any one of the evangeliſts. See Jobn vi. 62. vii. 39. Xiv. 2. 28. XVI. 7. 16. 28. XVii. F. 1 1. XX. I7. So becauſe the laſt-mentioned evangeliſt is the only one of them that mentions the pi ag the fide of ſelus with a ſpear, of which he himſelf was an eye-witneſs, and gives an account of les not mentioned by the other 40 Let. 12. The Reſurregtion of Jeſus conſidered. 177 other evangeliſts, this ſhews, according to our author, that he forged thoſe accounts, and that his evidence deſtroys theirs, or they his; though one deſign of his writing his goſpel was to take notice of things which they had omitted: nor do any of them give the leaſt hint that they propoſed diſtinctly to recount all Chriſt's appearances. In order to fix the charge of contradictions and inconſiſtencies upon the evangeliſts, he pretendeth, that according to St. Luke, our Lord aſcended the very evening of the day of his reſurrec- tion. The only proof he bringeth for ſo ſtrange an aſſertion is, that St. Luke immediately after having given an account of our Lord's appearing to the eleven diſciples, and others with them, Luke xxiv. 36. and which, by comparing ver. 29 and 33, was pretty late in the evening of the day on which he roſe, tells us that he led them out as far as Bethany, where he was Parted from them, and carried ußp into heaven, ver. 50, 5I. And this he might juſtly ſay, though there was an interval of ſeveral days between the one and the other; and it is manifeſt from other accounts there was, and particularly from what St. Luke him- ſelf ſfaith in the beginning of the Acts f the Aboſtles. It is plain that he intends here only to give a ſummary narration; and therefore after having taken notice of his firſt appearance to the eleven, the account of which ends at ver. 43, he paſſeth over the other appearances without a diſtincét mention; only giving the ſubſtance of what Jeſus ſaid on ſome of thoſe occaſions, and which he introduces thus, eire èe aubis, which may be thus underſtood, he faid beſider or moreover unto them. And then he proceeds to give a fhort account of Chriſt's aſcenſion, and of what followed upon it, which he more diſtinctly relateth in the book of the Actg. St. Luke obſerves, that the women when they went to the ſepulchre, found not the bocy ef Jeſus, Lufe xxiv. 3. This our candid author repreſents as if he had ſaid, that they never ſaw Jeſus at all after his reſurrection, dead or alive; and then would have this, which is a manifeſt perverſion of St. Luke's meaning, paſs for a contradiction to the other evangeliſts, who tell that Jeſus was ſeen of the women after he roſe again from the dead. To prove that the other evangeliſts contradict St. Jobn, he re- preſents St. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as xpreſly declaring that Jeſus appeared to the eleven diſciples but once after his reſurrection; and yet certain it is, that not one of them ſays any ſuch thing. Nor do the evangeliſts any where ay, as he affirms they do, that Jeſus appeared sut toα very few after he roſe from the dead, which he thinks contradicts the ſtory of Vok. I. N the 178 A View' of tbe DEisTIcAL Writers. Let. 12. the hundred and twenty, and fivé hundred, mentioned by the author of the Acts and St. Paul. He might as well have pre- tended, as Mr. Chubb did afterward 8, ti ough without offering the leaſt proof to fupport it, that the word hundred in that pal 1 ſage, A6 ⁸ 1. 15. is an interpolation, and that inſtead of an hun- 714 4„ 1. L— qred and twenty, it ſhould be read Ewenty e. Such wretched ver a fixed reſolution not to believe any ac- iven. Ou be 8¹ Our author endeavours to take great advantage, in which he is followed by the laſt-mentioned writer, of what is told us Chriſt's appearing to the two diſciples going to Em- cauſe they did not for ſome time know Jeſus, it is 4 Ab concerni 1 maug. argued that he had not a true body, and that they could not f 1.. rla f zr be afterwards fure that it was he: fince if their lenſ ſes were ſo afterwards too; and the be ſuppoſed, as to all Chriſt's other appearances to his C Be —— cd like may diſciples. That t vo diſciples did not at firſt know Jeſus, is plain from the ſtory And this may be accounted for in a ſuppoſe, that beſides ſome chang which natural way, if W there mig ght be and death, he have ſomethin what had been uſu⸗ ith him bef diſę ſguiſe himf el 1 rekerring to th 12. Aund this m hem from knowing him, conſider- ing how little at t they expected to ſee him. Or, if we ſould ſuppoſe that he employed a miraculous power to prevent their at firſt knos g him, which was-done for a valuable end, that he might hav ethe better oppol tunity of inſtructing them in a familiar way in the true meaning of the ſcriptures rela ating to the Meſſiah, his ſufferings and glory, and th hereby the better prepare them for the diſcovery he inten ded afterwards to make of himſelf; it by no means thint, becauſe they were with-held from ki n iha h hi efore when he fully diſcovered himſe ft certain that it was he. It is plain, that h y had afterwards ſuch convincing proof that it was Jeſus, as le eft no room for doubt in their minds. And that very evening he ſhewed himſelf again to even apoſtles, and others with them; and ſhewed them his hands SWEC Zſe alter the tone 9 his 3 voĩce, 01 is air and manner, different from Core, or in ſome other way ignified when St. Mark od in anot her form, Mark xvi. A 8₰ g. 8₰ Q 8 - 0. 2 (.◻ them, and the m Heeu ally to convince them, ‚ and eat and drank before them, and by the proofs and M³ Net ⸗Chubb's poſthum. works, vol. i. P. 378. which „ 7 —., re Let. T2. The Reſurrel⸗ 10 G of Jeſus Coν‿deν — 2 2 1 8O teſtimo miraculo rule allt urrection; fince it would have to have raiſed his body thoſe proofs and evidences that hout the reality. As to his ap- hen the doors were ſbut, which is alſo his riſen body, all that can be fairly 1 4 it when the doors were fhut, which or fear of the Jeus, Jeſus came ſud- 2 8 4 2.—+ ning the doors at once by his miracu- lous power; not that his boc d through the Aeoie by a penetration of dime which is the conſtruction the author puts upon it; for this would have entirely deſtroyed our Lord's own argument, which he uſed at that very time to convince them that he had a real body. Babold(ſaith he) my Hands, and feet, that it is I myfelf. Handle me, and ſee, for a ſbirit hath not fleſp and bones, as ye ſee me have. See Luke Xxxiv. 36. 39. compared wi ith John? 19, 20. It is obſer that this writer, in his gre⸗ 3 2 the evan accounts, ſeems not to conſider that ſome of the arguments he hath produced, may be turned againſt him, and prove the contrary to what he produced them for. He Hequeat y lays a mighty ſtreſs on thoſe paſſages which relate to the diſci ples not having un derſtood our Saviour, when he foretol ſa t. at eagernels to ex po , refurrection before his death,„and to their doubting of his re Pechon after it. Ar ad y is this very thing the es the eateſt force to their te y had been d Beforel nand with a Krong d riſe they had immediatel 1 upon the firſt meſſage that was brought to them, it woul doubtedly have been aſcribed to the warmth of their imagina- tion, and to a too forwa redulity; but as the caſe is circum- ſtanced, there is no room for this pretenc It is plain that nothing—— their ſenſes brought them to b 4 their b aly at laſt, ſo as ready t 1 t timon t with their blood, ſhews, r t ere ſt d be by an 3 —— 180 A Vieuw of the DEisricAL Writers. Let. 12. which they could not withſtand, and which abſolutely removed their doubts, and overcame all their prejudices. The account given by the evangeliſts of Chriſt's reſurrection is farther confirmed by the teſtimony of St. Paul, who mentions his having been ſeen by Peter, by James, and by the twelve apoſtles; concerning which he had many opportunities of in- forming himſelf from the perſons themſelves. He alſo maketh mention of his having been ſeen of above five hundred bre- thren at once, and expreſly affirms, as a thing he was well aſſured of, that the greater part of them were alive at the time When he wrote this; and it is not to be doubted, that he had ſeen and known many of them, to whoſe living teſtimonies he could then appeal. Theſe things he refers the Corinthians to in his epiſtle, as things known to be certainly true, and which could not be conteſted, and concerning which he himſelf had ſpoken to them more at large when he was with them, 1 Cor. XV. I, 2, 3,&. And in a diſpute which he there maintainerh againſt ſome who denied the future reſurrection of the dead, he principally argueth from the reſurrection of Chriſt as a fact ſo fully proved, that they could not deny it. Yet our author is pleaſed to reject all this at once, becauſe St. Paul writes by hear- ſay, i. e. becauſe he was not himſelf preſent at thoſe appear- ances, though he had the account from thoſe that were ſo. And ſo fond is he of this thought, that he repeats it, as his manner is, in three or four different parts of his book. Accord- ing to this rule, an hiſtorian is not be credited in any fact of which he himſelf was not an eye-witneſs, though he might have undoubted aſſurance of it; a maxim which would deſtroy the credit of the beſt hiſtorians now in the world. But one ſhould. think this writer would at leaſt allow, that St. Paul ought to be credited, when after mentioning Chriſt's having appeared to others, he affirms, that he himſelf had ſeen Jeſus, I Cor. Xv. 3. ix. I. But it ſeems this alſo is to be rejected, under pretence that he only ſaw him in a viſion; though it was at noon-day as he was travelling with ſeveral others in his company, and which was attended with ſuch remarkable circumſtances, and produced ſuch real effects, that if he could not be ſure of this, no man can be certain of any thing that he hears or ſees. Mr. Chubb indeed, who faithfully treads in our author's ſteps, takes upon him to affirm, that St. Paul's teſtimony weakens, inſtead of ſtrengthening the evidence of Chriſt's reſurrection. For which he gives this reaſon, that though St. Paul had known Jeſus be- fore his reſurrection, which it doth not appear he did, yet as that glorified body muſt have been different from what it had appeared Let. 12. The Reſurrection of Jeſus conſidered. 181 appeared to be whilſt he was on earth, he could not be a pro- per judge of the identity of that body with that body which had been crucified a. But it is to be conſidered, that what St. Paul was to be convinced of, and of which he himſelf was afterwards to be a witneſs, was, that Jeſus was raiſed again, and inveſted with a divine dominion and glory. And of this the appearing of Jeſus to him in the manner he did, as he was going to Da- maſcus, and aſfuring him by a voice from heaven, that it was Jefus whom he had perſecuted who then ſpoke to him, attend- ed with ſuch amazing diſplays of a divine glory and ſplendor, together with the remarkable conſequences which then followed upon it, eſpecially the extraordinary miraculous gifts and pow- ers with which he himſelf was endued, and which he was en- ahled to confer upon others in the name of a riſen Jeſus, exhi- bited the moſt illuſtrious and convincing proof and evidence that could poſſibly be deſired, and which abſolutely overcame all the ſtrong and obſtinate prejudices with which his mind was at that very time poſſeſſed. So that all things conſidered, there never was a teſtimony which deſerved greater regard than that of St. Paul, and accordingly it has juſtly had the greateſt weight in all ages. I paſs by other inſtances that might be mentioned of our au- thor's great unfairneſs and diſingenuity, particularly his groſs perverſions of ſeveral paſſages of Scripture, and putting a mean- ing upon them contrary to the plain intention of the writers, with many other things which are fully detected and expoſed by his learned anſwerers. But What is wanting in reaſoning, is made up in confidence. He boldly pronounceth, that“ the „« witneſſes do not all agree in one circumſtance, but palpably *« contradict one another in every particular; and that ſuch *« inconſiſtencies, improbabilities, abſurdities, and contradic- **ctions, would deſtroy the credit of other hiſtories;“ but he ſneeringly adds,“ that the faith of this is founded on a rock.“ And I believe it will hardly be thought too ſevere a cenſure to ſay that any man who would treat any other hiſtorians as this writer hath treated the evangeliſts, and who would advance ſuch rules of judging concerning any other books whatſoever, as he ſeems to think fair with regard to theirs, would, inſtead of pafſing for a candid and judicious critic, be generally exploded as a malicious and impertinent caviller, that had betrayed a great defect of ſenſe, manners, or honeſty. a Chubb's poſthum. works, vol. 1.„ Reſurrection of jeſus confidered, p. 56. 57, 58. N2 Iyr 182 ALVievw of the DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 12, WMoolſton's diſco urſes in the ſeventh g jection, that our Lord ly to the chief prieſts and rulers 10n. 1 mall not repeat what is redi in a auluee to: but ſlall o enly obſ ſerve, that our In my rer letter, notice was tak A1 elus had actually to appear to the Jeu*⁵ en he had promi iſei it, anc 1 put the ; g the tr uth of his eſents Chriſt promiſed to ap- 66 5] truth Oft I nus he ad particularly to their chief But this is intirely his . He declared in- et Jonas fhould be kerous general 2. 1 e. that ſufficient en to convince them of the truth of his nce there was given, if their tnumbers of the writer carrieth have ſhewn himſelf to the oman vyoke, and as their tem- ve that he was the Meſſiah, and on, which you will to the ſeveral demands that n with regard to the evidence, ought to have been given to the Jeus of rrection. The author of Chriſtianity not z k thinks, that Jeſus ought to have taken one et-place in rhe preſence of all the people, and that„ this mig ht have ſpared both the painful labours and ves of ſo many kolh vouch ers d.“. Su b inſiſts upon it. s riſen he mould have repaired to the and made it the place of his reſidence that ſo th t O in crowds, as might ve awakened the d Chriſt. poſthum. works, jealouſy Let. 12. The Reſurretzion of Jeſus conſidered. 183 Prie ſts and rulens, and of the n the temper the Jeus were 3 tumults and inſurrections, gréeat ſlur upon( iſtianity at its jealoufy both of the KRoman government . ⏑̈ then in, have which would h⸗a aA g 8 firſt appearance. doubtedly theſe gen dlennen would have had it: for? g to our author, if Jeſus had a peared publicly to the Jeu* after his reſurrection, this would 6. have 4 he did not alſo head their armies. And then 41 been ſuffic Jave been inſiſted upon as a manifeſt to be ſure cheme of his religion was falſe, and a STrOOI, aking upon the whole, that after all the raiſed againſt it, the evidence e which n was the drogenefr rſonal appearance buld have been on many accounts equences. But, f. the ſoldiers, our Lord's r from the teſtimon the ſepulchre, which was W ell known Vho had bee 2 to the chief prieſts. and, notwit bſt anding all their precautions, ge of others too, beſides this, his ap- 1 to a conſiderable number of per- ſons who had been intimately acquainted with him, to whom he frequently elf alive after his paſſion by many infal- lible pro oofs during the courſe of forty days; his; Aſceudlds af- 1s into heaven in their ſight, and the effuſion of the 10l, Ghe ſt in his Attaordinar) miraculous gifts and powers, as mſelt 1„upon his diſciple es, the authoriſed wit- neſſes of his reſur which was done in the moſt public manner poſſible, b any thouſanc 2 sof perſons of all na- tions which were then ſembl da at Jerufalem; all this, with the following divine atteſtations that were given them to confirm their teftimony wherever they went prea aching the goſpel for many ycars together, to which teſti mony they unalterably ad- hered, in oppoſition to the greateſt ſufferings and perſecutions to which it expoſed them; all this taken together furniſhed the moſt proper and convincing evidence, not only of hrift's reſur- rection but of his exa Mtation to glory. And accor dingly we find in fact, that his reſurrection was ac ompanied with fuch proof and evi dence, as convinced many I. yri⸗ ade, for ſo it ſhould be rendered, of the Jeuwiſ, narion and among them great num- bers of the priefts, Acts vi. 7. Xxi. 20. and br rought them over, contrary to all the der oSſeen. to acknowlege one been crucified by the heads of their own nation had come to the kn pearing in a the mal ¹ pron 184 A View of ibe DEisricA. Writers. Let. 12. Meſſiah, their Saviour, and their Lord: and afterwards con- vinced vaſt numbers of the Gentiles, and gained them over to a religion the moſt oppoſite that could be imagined, not only to their prejudices and ſuperſtitions, but to rheir vices, and which expoſed its profeſſors to the moſt grievous reproaches, perſe- cutions, and ſufferings. But to return to our author. Whoſoever carefully conſiders and compares what he hath offered, may caſily perceive, that whatever pretences he may make of demanding other and far- ther evidence of Chriſt's reſurrection than was given, no evi- dence that could have been given of it would have ſatisfied him. If Jeſus had ſhewn himſelf alive, not only to the Jewiſp rulers, but to every ſingle perſon in the Jewiſp nation, he would have been as far from believing it as he is now. For he intimates, that it would be neceſſary that Chriſt ſhould appear again in every age, and every country, and to every particular perſon; and that all the miracles ſfhould be wrought over againf: And even this, upon his principles, would not be ſufficient. For he lets us know more than once, that in theſe caſes we are not to truſt our own eyeſight. He roundly aſſerteth, that every ¹˙ miracle is an abſurdity to common ſenſe and underſtanding, * and contrary to all the attributes of God s.“ And that pre- *s tended facts which are contrary to nature can have no natu- ral evidence; and that theſe facts cannot be admitted on any evidence, becauſe they in their own nature exclude all evidence, ¹ and allowof no poſſible proof h.“ This point he hath laboured for ſeveral pages together, where he ſtrongly aſſerteth, for I do not find that he bringeth any thing that can be properly called a proof, that miracles are impoſſible. And he had better have ſtuck entirely to this, ſince if he could but have proved it, he might have ſaved himſelf the trouble of writing the reſt of his book. There is another extraordinary paſſage in this writer, which deſerves to have a particular noticé taken of it. After having treated the account given by St. Jobn of the piercing of Chriſt's ſide with a ſpear, and of which he himſelf was an eye-witneſs, as a fiction, for no other reaſon, but becauſe the other evangeliſts do not mention it; he inſinuates, that if his ſide was not thus pierced, he might not be really dead ahen be was Put into the Jepulchre; and then no wonder that he roſe again i. Thus, it comes out, that he doubteth even of the death of Jeſus, which neither Jews nor Heathens ever doubted of. Was there ever a f Reſurrection of Jeſas conſidered, p. 62. 8 Ibid. p. 51, 82. n Tbid. p. 73, 74. 4 1bid. p. 50. Let. 12. The Reſurrection of Jeſus conſidered. 185 more obſtinate or unreaſonable incredulity? He might as well doubt, whether there ever was ſuch a perſon as Jeſus, or his apoſtles, or whether ever the Chriſtian religion was propagated in the world at all. And indeed, if, as he affirms, the reſur- rection of Chriſt was the moſt incredible ſtory that corld be told, and the evidence that was given for it was the worſt evidence that could be givenk, he might have argued more plauſiblythan he hath done in moſt other caſes, that it was impoſſible, as the caſe was circumſtanced, that ſuch a filly ſtory ſhnould ever make its way in the world, either among Jjews or Gentiles, conſidering the religion that was founded upon it was abſolutely contrary to their moſt prevailing prejudices, and had no worldly advantages on its ſide, but all the powers of the world engaged againſt it: That therefore it is abſurd to ſuppoſe that Chriſtianity made any progreſs at all in the firſt ages, though therc is no fact of which we have fuller evidence. And then he would only have one ſtep to advance farther, and which is indeed the natural conſe- quence of this, and that is to doubt whether there is any ſuch thing as the religion of Jeſus, or any perſons in the world that now profeſs it.. I fhall conclude my remarks upon this writer, with obſerv- ing, that the very variations among the evangeliſts, which he produceth as ſo many contradictions, do really confirm the truth of the main facts. What he ſeemeth to inſiſt upon is, that every one of them ſhould tell all the ſame facts, in the ſame or- der and manner, and with the ſame circumſtances, neither more nor leſs; and that no one of them ſhould mention any thing which is not related by all the reſt. And if they had done ſo then no doubt this would have been improved as a plain argu- ment, that the whole was a concerted fiction; and that to de- rive a credit to it, it was pretended to have been written and publiſhed by four different perſons at different times, whereas theſe four pretended hiſtorians were really but one hiſtorian, or if they were different, they only tranſcribed one another. But as the caſe now ſtands with the evangeliſts, there is a harmony in the main facts, and in the ſubſtance of Chriſt's diſeourſes: And yet at the ſame time there is a conſiderable variety in the order and manner of their narration: Such a variety as plainly ſheweth theſe accounts to have been written by different hiſtori- ans, not copied from one another; and that they did not write by concert, in which caſe they would have been more careful to ſhun all appearance of contradiction. They write with an k Reſurrection of Jeſus conſidered, p. 67. unaffected View f STICAL Writers. Let. cred 5 1 a confidence of truth, as be- 2 1 aſfured of what they relate. Each te hat he knew beſt, or what he thought propereſt to take notice of, and yet notwithſtanding the ſeeming va ariations in rl their narration, and that ſome facts, or circum- ſta fa are taken notice of by ſome of them which are by others, it will be found, if narrowly exa- tion between them, and that be fairly reconciled. And it is to be hoped, tempt to expoſe their authority, however ill tend to ſtrengthen it; fince though his are very apparent, and though it is plain accoun 69 not with a calm, im- lionate temper of mind, but with a reſolution, to find out abſurdities and. hu ahihh arre in them, not bee u able to make good the charge. It turns out Bana that rhenr ſeeming con- ciliation. er than J at firſt intended in making phlet, Which gives a true ſample of d may be regarded as one of the boldeſt 1 lopeneſt attacks that was ever made upon that grand article of the Chriſtian faith, thè reſurrection of our Lord Jjeſus Chriſt. And I have been the larger and more particular in my remarks upon it, borh becauſe of the importance of che ſubject, w concerneth the very foundation of our er holy religion, and becauſe Cho⸗ ht it might be of uſe to take this occaſion to obviate ſome lar ve been urged againſt it. re offẽ may equally ſerve to take off the force of that part of Mr. Chubb's poflhumons works which relates to the ſame point, and which he hath very much la- But though thi ter may ſeem already to have exceeded its nds, it will be neceſſary, according to the method I have ke notice of the anſwers that were made to handlor, who had on ſome former occa- ein the defence of Chriſtianity, le treatiſe, intirle d, The Wit- Ais re-examined, and their Teſti- . L ondõon, 1744. It is divided in- is ſnewn, that the ſufferings d by the ancient prophets. In G— ainly foretold his own ſufferings and th, and reſurrection to his own n diſciples In the third, that he Let. 12. The Raſurretklion of Jeſus conſidered. 187 he declared his death and reſurrection publicly to the Jetus. In the fourth, it is proved, that the Ledſ, rulers and Pha⸗ 1 procured a guard to be ſet on the ſepulchre of Je s, and a ſolid anſwer is returned to the author's obje s againſt it. The fifth chapter relateth to the appearance of the angels to the ſoldiers; the pro priety of which is vindicated euun his excep- tions. The ſixth chapter is concerning the appearances of the after the reſurr arances of Chrift to the women an * author's charge tion. Tn. ſeventh treats of inconſiſtencies in the evan- ved. In the eighth chapter up the evidence for the 7 hatli done W 1t h great 8 and judgu About the a learned and in re was another anſwer Pnb ilne c anur vwbigh: ous author, which is int ſame t ho Qefurrection cleared, in a onfidered. He chat the Wilne restion of Jeſ phlet cloſely, nts in the and that he uſes the evangeliſts ftill worſe. 1 which we have mentioned, as taken notice of by Dr. Chandler, are alſo conſidered by this writer, particularly it is dlearly proved, that iſt foretold his death and reſurrection, both tæ his own diſciples and to the 7eu And the author's reaſoning and exceplions againſt the ſtory of ſetting the guai 4 the ſtone, are hewn to be vain and groundleſs. given by the eva ungelilts of the appearances of the au Chriſt to them and to the diſc 1„2] Saling —₰ — women, and ſtiuctly coattared and the ſeeming variations, 4 thor pretends to be ſo many contradictions, are acc d for, though in a Way ſomewhat different from Dr. Chan v». The ſolutions of theſe difficulties propoſed by each of theſe learned writers, are very ingenious, and may ſuffice to obviate the charge of contradictions the author hath brought againſt the evangeliſts; bn ut ſome of them are judged not to be quite ſo as thoſe after wards given by Mr. Wof. This h a diſtinct examination of what the author of E3- Ne ion of Jeſus conſidered had ffered againſt mira He hath clearly and judi- ciouſly expoſed the. We⸗ eakmef s and fallacy of thoſe reaſonings, whereby that author pretended to prove, that miracles are im- poſſible both in a phy ſical and moral ſenſe; that they are co y to God's immutability; that they are perfectly needleſs, 1- and clear and I nat anonymous writer concludes Wi 188 A View of tbe DEisTIcAL Writers. Let. 12. and anſwer no valuable end at all; and that if they were once neceſſary, they would be always neceſſary. Beſides the two an- ſwers above-mentioned, there was another then publiſhed, which I have not ſeen, and of which therefore I cannot give a particular account, though from the character I have heard of it, as well as from the known abilities of the author, I make no doubt of its being well executed. It is intitled, An Addreſs to Deiſts, being a Progf of Revealed Religion from Miracles and Prophecies, in anſwer to a book intitled, The Reſurrection ꝗf Jeſus conſidered. By Jobn Jackſon, Rector of Roſſington. Lon- don, 8⁰%, 1744. Some time after there was another book publiſhed, which was alſo occaſioned by The Reſurrection of Jeſus confidered, and which particularly engaged the attention of the public, both by its own excellence, and becauſe the author of it was a Lay-man. It is intitled, Obſervarions on the Hiſtory and Reſurrection gf Jeſus Cbriſt, by Gilbert Weſt, Eſquire, London, 1747. He very juſtly commends the two learned and ingenious anfwers above-mentioned, as containing a ſolid confutation of many ob- jections againſt Chriſtianity advanced by the author of The Ne- Jurrection f Jeſus confidered; but declares himſelf not to have been ſo fully ſatisfied with the manner of their clearing the ſacred writers from the contradictions charged upon them. This put him upon examining the Scriptures themſelves, and comparing the ſeveral accounts of the evangeliſts with each other, which he hath done with great exactueſs. And the re- fult of his inquiries was, that by carefully diſtinguiſhing the different appearances and events recorded by the evangeliſts, ſeveral of which had been hitherto confounded, he hath happily removed the difficulties and inconſiſtencies charged upon them, and hath taken away the very foundation of the principal objec- tions that have been ſo often repeated almoſt from the beginning of Chriſtianity to this day. I ſhall not enter into the particu- lars of his ſcheme, which may be ſeen with great advantage in his book. I fhall only obſerve, that he hath not made uſe of ſtrained and arbitrary ſuppoſitions, but ſuch as ſeem clearly to ariſe from the accounts of the evangeliſts, carefully conſidered and compared. By comparing the ſeveral parts of the hiſtory together, he hath made it appear, that the women came at different times to the ſepulchre, and in different companies, and not all at once, as many have ſuppoſed; that there were ſeveral diſtinét appearances of angels, of which he reckons three, beſides that to the Roman ſoldiers; viz. to the other Mary and Salome, to Mary Let. 12. The Reſurrection of Jeſus conſidered. 189 Mary Magdalene, to Foanna and others with her; that theſe ſeveral facts were reported to the apoſtles at different times, and by different perſons; that there were two diſtinct appearances of Chriſt to the women; one of which was to Mary Magdalene alone, the other to the other Mary and Salome; that St. Peter was twice at the ſepulchre, once with St. John, after the firſt report by Mary Magdalene, concerning the body's not being found in the ſepulchre, the ſecond time after the report made by Joanna, and the women with her, of the appearing of the angels to them. He obſerves, that Chriſtian writers, dazzled by ſome few points of reſemblance, have confounded theſe dif- ferent facts, and thereby given great advantge to the infidel. Whereas, the facts being rightly diſtinguiſhed, all the objec- tions againſt this part of the goſpel-hiſtory, as contradictory and inconſiſtent, entirely vaniſn; and it appeareth that the evange- liſts, inſtead of claſhing and diſagreeing, mutually confirm, il- luſtrate, and ſupport each other's evidence. This learned gentleman hath made excellent and judicious re- flections upon the ſeveral incidents in the hiſtory of the reſur- rection, and upon the order in which they happened, and in which the ſeveral proofs of the reſurrection were laid before the apoſtles. He fhews, that the diſcovery of it which was made to them was wiſely ordered to be gradual; and that as they were to be the choſen witneſſes of the reſurrection of jeſus, there was a great propriety in the ſeveral ſteps that were tabken to give them the higheſt conviction of it. There is a train of witneſſes, a ſucceſſion of miraculous events, mutually ſtrength- ening and illuſtrating each other, equally and jointly concurring to prove one and the ſame fact. And whereas their doubting and unbelief, ſpoken of by the evangeliſts, ſeem principally to have conſiſted in this, that though they might believe that Chriſt had appeared to thoſe who declared they had ſeen him, yet they did not believe that he had appeared to them with a real body, therefore, in condeſcenſion to their infirmity, he gave them the fulleſt evidence of the reality of his bodily ap- pearance. The proofs of Chriſt's reſurrection laid before the apoſtles are digeſted by Mr. Weſt under four heads. 1. The teſtimony of thoſe that had ſeen him after he was riſen. 2. The evidence of their own ſenſes. 3. The accompliſament of the words he had ſpoken to them, while he was yet with them. 4. The ful- filling of the things which were written in the law of Moſſog and in the Prophets, and in the P/alms concerning him; ol which Mr. Weſt hath given a judicious ſummary. Upon 190 A Liew of ibe DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 1 Upon rrecapitulating the ſeveral particulars which conſtitute the evidence of the reſurrection, he concludes, that never was there any fact more fully proved than the refurrection of Jeſus Chriſt; and that thoſe& a Tos were appointed to be the witneſſes 1 1 1 2. 0 of it had every kind of proof thäti in the like circumſtances the moſt ſcrupulous could dermandh the moſt incredulous ima- gine. aving conſidered the proofs of the reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt, as they were laid before the apoſtles, he proceeds to conſider ſome of the arguments that may induce us at this diſ- rance of time to beli llieve that Chriſt roſe from the dead; and theſe he reduceth to two principal heads. The telti mony of tion rec orded d in the Scrip- of the Chriſtian relig 4 With regard to the former, he ſheweth thatt evangeliſts had the ts 1 he chofen witneſſes of the reſurre 1— 2 4] ran, tures, and the exiſtenc the CI redit »o qualiti VO qualltié of a witneſs, a perfect knowle vées teſtimony L 1 3 to, and a fair unblemiſhed character; and that their teſtimony is tranſmitted down in writings either penned by themſelves, or authorized by their inſpection ſeveral conſiderations t appr obati ppre n. He offereth 3to auineneſs of thoſe writings, and takes notice both of the internal marks of the ver racity of the ſacred writers, obſerva the ſcripture s, and of the ex- their Perweit and inſpiration; eſpecially the prophecies recorded in thoſe writ- Oſe rel- ating to the different ſtates of t not only from each other, but from vhen thoſe prophécies were are ſeveral particulars relating ſp nation, which were moſt expreſs- etold; as the deſtruction of the city and temple of Jeru- . ns preceding tha t deſtruction, e miſeries of the Jeuus before, at, and after the famous ſege of that city; eneral diſperſions of that people, the duration of their erkul preſervation under it; and finally 1 other parts of theſe preclctions b np lih ec du, there is great reaſon to think, the laſt will be ſo too in the proper ludes the whole with the a Pproc . that in which both written. I obſerve to the condition of th nent drawn from the on; and ſheweth that preſe e of the Chriſtian relig witho appofing the truth of Chriſt's reſurrection, there is no accounting for the propagation and preſent exiſtence of Chriſtianity in ſo many regions of the world. To ſet this in a proper light, he repreſenteth in an elegant and ſtriking manner, 3 the F& Let. 12. Ehe Reſurrection of Feſus conſidered. 191 the great difficulties this reli uggle with at its firſt appearance, and the inabilities of its firſt preachers, humanly ſpeaking, to oppoſe and overcome thoſe obſtacles. The the ſuperſtition and prejudices of the Jeuus to encounter And at the ſame time, religion, cuſtom, law, policy, pride, ntcrcft, vice, and even philoſophy, united the heath n world gainſt Chriſtiani ity. Its Oppo power, and authority of the world were weak and conte emptible„ yet it triumphed over all oppoſi- tion. An du this, as the caſe was circu mſt d, afforc eth a d manifeſt proof of a divine interpoſition, and of the truth of the acts by which it was ſupported; the prin cipal of rrection of Jeſus Chriſt. 1 e idea of t rdinary 1 which is the reſu Thus have I endeavoured to give i peron nance, and have been the f it, becauſe a work to be more taken notice And for the ſame reaſon, though within my preſent deſign, I hop ſome account of a ſhort, peared ſoon a after, hie exo„ his excellent n my account 1.2 „which ap- 222 man, Con Veoern- huo:(TII V Veſt, E/ſguire form- to one 1d to a ance is, point of view, long ſeries of a verſion and apo demonſtration ſufficient to] lation; this deſign is ver eth the account St. Paul manne neceſſit/ either was an an intent to ddec eive of an over-heate deceived by be the cauſe quence of i0, religion 18 a di proyes by ſhew he could have poline: nor coulc po by the means we know impoſtor, 19² A View of tbe DEisrroAL Writers. Let. 12. ſheweth that St. Paul was not an enthuſiaſt, that he had not thoſe diſpoſitions which are eſſential ingredients in that charac- ter; and that he could not poſſibly have impoſed on himſelf by any power of enthuſiaſm, either with regard to the miracle that cauſed his converſion, or to the conſequential effects of it, or to ſome other circumſtances which he bears teſtimony to, in his Ebpiſtles; eſpecially the miracles wrought by him, and the ex- traordinary gifts conferred upon him, and upon the Chriſtian converts to whom he wrote. To ſuppoſe all this to have been only owing to the ſtrength of his own imagination, when there was in reality no ſuch thing at all, is to ſuppoſe him to have been all this time quite out of his ſenſes. And then it is abſo- lutely impoſſible to account, how ſuch a diſtempered enthuſiaſt and madman could make ſuch a progreſs, as we know he did, in converting the Gentile world. He next proceeds to ſhiew, that St. Paul was not deceived by the fraud of others; if the diſci- Pes of Chriſt could have conceived ſo ſtrange a thought as that of turning his perſecutor into his apoſtle, they could not poſ- fibly have effected it in the manner in which it was effected, with the extraordinary conſequences that followed upon it. It is evident then, that what he ſaid of himſelf could not be im- puted to the deceit of others, no more than to wilful impoſture, or enthuſiaſm. And then it followeth, that what he relateth to have been the cauſe of his converſion, and to have happened in conſequence of it, did all really happen, and therefore the Chriſtian religion is a divine revelation. He concludeth with ſome good obſervations to ſhew, that the myſteries of the Chriſ- tian religion do not furniſh any juſt reaſon for rejecting the ſtrong and convincing evidence with which it is attended. That there are ſeveral incomprehenſible difficulties in deiſm itſelf; ſuch as thoſe relating to the origin of moral evil, the reconciling the preſcience of God with the free-will of man, which Mr. Locke owns he could not do, though he acknowleged both, the crea- tion of the world in time, or the eternal production of it. And yet no wiſe man, becauſe of theſe difficulties, would deny the being, the attributes, or the providence of God. But it is time to conclude this long epiſtle; and here I intend- ed, as you know, to have cloſed my account of the Deiſtical writers. But as you inſiſt upon it, that in order to complete this deſign, it will be neceſſary to take a more particular notice than l have done of Mr. Chubb's Poßlhumous Works, this will en- gage me to continue my correſpondence on this head for ſome time longer. L E T. Let. 13. Mr. CHuE' Poſthumous Works. 193 LETTER XIII. An account of Mr. Chubb's Poſthumous Works; pi-⸗ ſpecious proféſſions, and ibe advantogeous characler be gives of bis oon writings. He doth not allow a par- ricular providence, or tbat prayer to God is a duly. His uncertainty and inconhiſtency witb reſpect toa future ſtaté of exiſtence, and a future judgment. He abſolutely rejecis ibe Jewilh revelation. His objektions againſt it briefhy obviated. He expreſſes a good opinion of Maho- metaniſm, and will not alloc that il was propagated by tbe ſwvord. He ſeems to acknocwlege Chriſt's divine million, and ſometimes gives a favourable account of Cbriſtianity. But it is Pecon, that he bath done all he can to weaken and expoſe it, and to ſubvert its credit and divine autbority. &4 K, AMone the deiſtical writers of this preſent age, Mr. Chubb made no inconſiderable figure. He was, though not a man of learning, regarded by many as a perſon of ſtrong natural parts and acuteneſs, and who had a clear manner of expreſſion. He was the author of a great number of tracts, in ſome of which he put on the appearance of a friend to Chriſtianity; though it Was no difficult matter to diſcern that his true intention was to betray it. One of the moſt remarkable of theſe tracts was his True goſpel ęf Jeſus Chriſt Merted, in which, under pretence of aſſerting the goſpel of Chriſt in its genuine ſimplicity, he really endeavoured to ſubvert and expoſe it. This was an- ſwered by Mr. Joſoph Hallet, in a valuable tract, intitled, The conſiſtent Chriſtian, being a confutation of the errors advanced in Mr. Cbubb's book intitled, The true Goſpel of Feſus Chriſt aſſerted, relating to the neceſ3ity of faith, the nature gf the Goſpel, the inſbiration f tbe Apoſiles,&c. with remarhs on his Diſſertation on Providence: 8%, 1738. Another noted tract of Mr. Chubb's was, his Diſcourſe on Miracles, in which he ꝑropoſed to give a VoL. I. 0 repre- 194 A Viecw of ibe DEISTIcAL Writers. Let. 13. repreſentation of the various reaſonings that relate to the ſubject of miracles. But it is manifeſt, that his intention was not to clear but to perplex the fubjeét; and to ſhew, that the proof from miracles is not at all to be depended upon. To this there was a ſolid and full anfwer returned by Mr. Abrabam Le Moine, which was publiſhed at London, 8ο, 1747. Several of Mr. Chubb's tracts were alſo anſwered by Mr. Caleb Fleming; but his anfwers I have not ſeen. What 1 propoſe to confider are thoſe that are called his Potbumons HMorks, ſome of which were printed in his own life-time, and the reſt carefully corrected and prepared by himſelf for the preſs, and publiſhed after his death, in two volumes, 8 vο, London, 1748. The firſt volume begins with a ſhort traét, intitled, emarks on the Scriptures. But the far greater part of this volume, and the entire ſecond vo- lume, is taken up with what is called the ˙Author's Farewel «« to his readers, comprehending a variety of Tracts on the moſt „important ſubjects of religion.“ It is divided into eleven large ſections, and the principal deſign he appears to have had in vieW, is to deſtroy, as far as in him lay, the credit and autho- rity of the Chriſtian revelation. I know of no anſwer that has been publiſhed to this book, and therefore ſhall be more par- ticular in my remarks upon it, to obviate in ſome meaſure the miſchief it is fitted to produce. It is plain, from ſeveral hints which he hath given us, that he looked upon himſelf to be a writer of no ſmall importance. He declares, that he has treated the ſeveral ſubjects he has diſ euſſed with Blainneſs and freedom, and of courſe muſt have mi- niſtred to the pleafure q the intelligent part ꝙf mankind, whether they aßßroved his ſentiments, or nota. He begins the firſt ſection of what he calls his Farewel to his readers, with ex- preſſing his hope that his correſpondence with them by writ- *e ing for many years paſt, has been not altogether uſeleſs nor «¹ unacceptablé to them“.“ And in the laſt ſection of his Farerel, which he calls his Conclufion, he expreſſes himſelf as one that in theſe his laſt writings was leaving a very valuable legacy to the world. Iknow few authors, Who have taken leave of their readers with a greater air of ſolemnity than he has done. He calls God to wi neſs to the goodneſs of his intentions; and declares, that in what he has offered to the world, he has *¹appealed to the underſtanding, and not to the paſſions of menc.“ That ¾with fincerity and truth he can ſay, he „ Chubb's poſth. works, vol. i. p. 64, 65. Ibid. p. 97. c Ibid. vol. ii. p. 354, 355⸗ 4e has Let. 13. Mr. Cuue' Poſcbumous WMorks. 195 “ has had a real concern and regard to the preſent well-being *of his fellow-creatures, as well as to their future happineſs.“ And that as he was ¹ in the decline of life, and perhaps not «c far from the concluſion of it, and being in the full exerciſe of ¹* his intellectual faculties, which are not in the leaſt clouded ** or impaired, he choſe to take his leave of the world as a *e Writer, hoping that what he has offered to public conſidera- “tion, has had, and may have, ſome good effect upon the *minqds and lives of his readersd.“ And he concludes the whole, with again aſſuring his readers, that he has laid before them in the Slaingſt manner he was able, both in this diſcourſe, and in what he had before publiſhed to the world, the trurhs Wwhich he thought to be of the higheſt importance. And ſo, ſaith he, I bid you farewel, hoping to be a ſharer with you “of the divine favour, in that peaceful and happy ſtate, which *e God hath prepared for the virtuous and faithful, in ſome ** other future world.“ Who that conſiders theſe ſolemn profeſſions, would be apt to ſuſpect that this very author, in theſe his farewel diſcourſes, has not only uſed his utmoſt efforts to expoſe Chriſtianity and the holy Scriptures, but has endeavoured to weaken ſome of the moſt important principles of natural religion? He had in one of his tracts formerly publiſhed, ſhewn him- ſelf to be no friend to the doctrine of a particular providence. And there are ſeveral paſſages in his Pofihumous Works, which look that way. He plainly intimates, that he looks upon God, as having nothing now to do with the good or evil that is done among mankinde. And that men's natural abilities or endow- ments of body or mind, their fortunes, ſituation in the world, and other circumſtances or advantages by which one man is diſtinguiſhed from another, are things that entirely depend up- on ſecond cauſes, and in which providence doth not interpoſe at allf. And when he endeavours to fhew that no proof can be brought for a future ſtate from the preſent unequal diſtribu- tions of things, his argument amounteth in effect to this, that providence hath nothing to do with theſe preſent inequalities, nor concerneth itſelf with ſome men's being in a proſperous con- dition or circumſtances, and others in a calamitous or ſuffering ſtates. He evidently ſuppoſeth all along, that God doth not in- terpoſe in any thing where ſecond cauſes are concerned h: 80 a Chubb's poſth. works, vol. ii. p. 357. 369. 361. e Ibid. vol. i. p. 127. f Ibid. p. 225. ² Ibid, P. 394, 395. h See concerning a particular pProvidence Woolaſton's relig. nat. de- lineated, p. 98,& ſeq. 0˙2 that 196 A View of tke DEis rTIcAL Writers. Let. 13. that all agency of divine providence in diſpoſing, governing, and over-ruling ſecond caufes, in which ſo much of the wiſdom of God's providential adminiſtrations doth conſiſt, is upon his ſcheme ablolutely excluded. Agreeably to this he diſcardeth all hope or expectation of di- vine aſſiſtance in the practice of that which is good; though he owns, that ſomething of this kind hath been generally believed in all religions. This is the deſign of a conſiderable part of the firſt ſection of his Farewel to his readers i; which would deſerve to be particularly examined, if this were a proper place for it. Ifhall only obferve, that what he ſeems to lay a prin- cipal ſtreſs upon to ſet aſide the notion of divine influences or afſſiſtances is, that we have no way of certainly diſtinguiſhing them from the operations of offr own minds; whereas, ſup- poſing this to be the caſe, all that it would prove is not that there are no gracious aſſiſtances or influences communicated at all, but that they are ordinarily communicated in a way per- fectly agreeable to the juſt order of our faculties, and without putting any unnatural conſtraint upon them. And as he allows no particular interpoſition of divine provi- dence in human affairs, it is not to be wondered at, that he has done what he can to ſhew, that prayer to God is no part of natural religion k. He ſuppoſes it as a thing certain, that God doth not fulfil our requeſts by granting what we pray for, ſince things will go on in their natural courſe, whether we pray to God or not. He owns indeed, that prayer, conſidered as a Boſitive inftitution, may be of uſe by introducing Hroßer re- Hections, and thereby Prober affections and actions; and pro- vided it be made uſe of only for this purpoſe, without expecting to obtain any thing from God in conſequence of it, he thinks it cannot be ſaid to be a mocking God; but yet he apprehends that even in this caſe, there is ſtill an impropriety in it, and puts the queſtion, whether ſuch an impropriety ſhiould be a bar 10 brayer, or whether it be diſpleaſing to God? and he plainly intimates, that in his opinion it is ſol. I need not take parti- cular notice of the objections he hath urged againſt the duty of prayer, which hath been often ſufficiently obviatedm. But 1 chink it is evident, that there is little room left, upon this au- chor's ſcheme, for what hath been hitherto locked upon by the hubb's poſth. works, vol. i. p. 114,& ſeq. F Ibid. p. Kc. 1 Ibid. p. 283, 284. m See particularly of nat. delin. p. 125, 126. and eſpecially Benſon's ingenious wiſeſt —— ⏑ꝙ—— co Let. 13. Mr. CHunE' Poſtbumous Worls. 197 wiſeſt and beſt of men to be a principal part of true piety, or of the duty we owe to God, viz. a conſtant religious depend- ence upon his wiſe and good providence, a tchankful ſenſe of his goodneſs, and gratitude to him for the benefits we receive, a patient ſubmiſſion and reſignation to his will under afflictions, an ingenuous truſt and affiance in him, and a looking up to him for his gracious afſiſtances to help our ſincere endeavours. The doctrines concerning the immortality of the ſoul, and a future ſtate of retributions, are juſtly regarded as important parts of natural religion, and have been acknowleged to be ſo by ſome of the Deiſts themſelves. Mr. Blount, in a letter to the right honourable and moſt ingenious Strephon, in the Ora- cles ęf Reaſon, ſays,“ There are many arguments from reaſon ¹and philoſophy to prove the immortality of the ſoul, toge- «ther with its rewards and puniſhments; but that there is no „¹argument of greater weight with him, than the abſolute ¹neceſſity and convenience that it ſhould be ſo, as well to *¹complete the juſtice of God, as to perfeët the happineſs of ««man, not only in this world, but in that which is to come.“ Another deiſtical writer obſerves, that to ſay,“man's ſoul dies * with the body is a deſperate concluſion, which ſaps the foun- *e dation of human happineſs“.“ And one would think, by ſome paſſages in Mr. Chubb's book, that he was of the ſame opinion. He begins the firſt Section of his Farewel, with aſſuring his Readers, that what he hath principally aimed at in all bis writ- ings, has been both to evince, and to impr eſi deeply upon their minds a juſt ſenſe of thoſe truths, which are of the higheſt concern to them. And one of thoſe truths which he there ex- preſsly mentioneth is this,“ that God will reward or puniſh «« men in another world, according as they have by their good «or bad behaviour, rendered themſelves the proper objeéts of «« either in thiso.“ And he repeats this again in very ſtrong expreſſions at the end of his tenth ſection, where he propoles to ſet before the reader, the fum total, as he expreſſeth it, of his principles P. And again, in what he calls his concluſion, he ſpeaks of God's calling our ſpecies to an account for their practice and behaviour,“ at which tribunal, ſaith he, he will **moſt certainly deal with me, and the reſt of mankind, in *¹²juſtice and equity, according to the truth and reality of our **reſpective caſes.“ And in the very laſt words of his Fareu'cel to his readers, which Icited before, he declares his hope“to „ Letter to the Deiſts, p. 25. cited by Halyburton,°Chubb's poſth. works, vol. i. p. 97. 99. p Ibid. vol. ii. P. 348, 340- 0 4 3 44 be 198 A View of the DEiSTIcAL Writers. Let. 13. *¹ be a ſharer with them of the divine favour in that peaceful ee and happy ſtate, which God had prepared for the virtuous ¹ and faithful, in ſome other future world a.“ And yet, notwithſtanding theſe expreſs and repeated decla- rations concerning a future ſtate of exiſtence, and a future judg- ment and retribution, he hath taken pains to unſettle the minds of men in theſe important points. In his fourth ſection, in which he profeſſedly enquireth con- cerning a future ſtate of exiſtence to men, he repreſenteth it as abſolutely doubtful, whether the ſoul be material or immate- rial; whether it be diſtinét from the body, and if it be, whether ĩt is equally periſhable as the body, and fhall die with it, or ſhall ſubſiſt after the diſſolution of the body. Theſe are points which, he ſays, he cannot poſſibly determine, becauſe he has nothing to ground ſuch determination upon. And at the ſame time he de- clareth, that“‧if the ſoul-be periſhable with the body, there can ¹eſurely be no place for argument with regard to a future ſtate ** of exiſtence to men, or a future retribution, becauſe when the * human frame is once diſſolved by death, then man ceaſes to ¹be and is no morer.“ In what follows, he declares himſelf quite unſatisfied with the arguments which are brought to prove, that the ſoul is not material, or that matter is not capa⸗- ble of intelligence. And though he doth not take upon him expreſsly to determine that point, it is eafy to ſee that he in- clineth moſt to the materialiſts-. And after having declared, that the philoſophical arguments and reaſonings on this head are too abſtraét and ſubtil for him to underſtand, and that there- fore he cannot form any judgment about them, nor draw any concluſion from them, he adds, that divine revelation does not afford a proper ground of certainty with reſpect to man's future iſtence, becauſe we cannot come to any certainty with regard » the divine original of any external revelation“. He finds fault with St. Paul for ſaying, that life and immortality is broughit to light by the goſpel; and will not allow that the reſur- reEtion of Chriſt, ſuppoſing it true, though he takes a great deal of pains to ſhew that it is not ſo, proves either the poſſi- bility or certainty of a reſurrection and a future ſtateu. Thus ¹t appears, that, in this ſection, where he profeſſedly treateth of a future ſtate of exiſtence to men, he does all he can to render it abſolutely uncertain, and to ſhew that no proof can G kc L 4 Chubb's poſth. works, vol. ii. p. 355. Ibid. vol. i. p. 312, 313 ²Ibid. vol. i. p. 317, 318. 324. 326. Ibid. P. 327, 323. u Ibid. p. 333,& ſeq. be Let. 13. Mr. CuuBB' Poſtbumous Works. 199 be given of it, either from reaſon or revelation. And yet that he may make a ſhew of ſaying ſomething, he concludes this ſection with obſerving, that from man's being an accountable creature, there ariſes a probability, that there will be a future ſtate of exiſtence to men. The farther conſideration of which he reſerves for the following ſection, which is concerning a future judgment and retribution. In this therefore, which is his th ſection, the reader might perhaps expect ſome determination of this point; and yet, though this is a pretty long ſection, the proper ſubject of which is the future judgment, it is managed in ſuch a manner, as to leave the reader at an uncertainty about it, and as much at a loſs as before. He begins indeed with obſerving, that“ man, * by his faculties and endowments, is an accountable creature, ¹« accountable for his behaviour to all whom it may concern, « namely, to the intelligent world, and alſo to the Deity, who *¹ is the moſt perfect intelligence*.“ But he abſolutely diſcards the proof that is drawn from the preſent unequal diſtributions of divine providence. This argument he ſtates very unfairly, and endeavours to place it in a ridiculous light. He compares men's different conditions here on earth to that of horſes, ſome of whom mect with bad maſters, and others happen to have good ones; and pretends, the argument would equally conclude for a future retribution with regard to all other animals, as it does for the ſpecies of mankind y. But admitting there will be a future retribution, he thinks it may be doubted, whether it ſhall be univerſally extended to all our ſpecies. He plainly in- timates, that, in his opinion, thoſe who die in their youth will not be called into judgment, nor thoſe who act a very low part in life; and ſeems to think, that thoſe only ſhall be called to an account whoſe lives have been of much greater conſe- quence to the world, and who have been greatly ſubſervient to the public good, or hurt of mankind*. 80 that, according to his repreſentation of the caſe, ſuppoſing there were to be a future judgment and retribution, it is what the generality of mankind would have little concern in. And as, upon his ſcheme, there are but few who ſhall be called to an account, ſo it is but for ſome particular actions that they ſhall be account- able. He obſerves, that no man ever intended to do diſnonour to God, or to be injurious to him, however fooliſhly they may have ufed the names or terms by which the Deity is charac- * Chubb's poſth. works. vol. i. P. 387. y Ibid. p. 395. ²2 Ibid. p. 400. 04 terized; 200 K Vievv of tbe DgiSTIcAL Writers. Let. 13. terized; and that therefore there will be no inquiry at the laſt Judgment about ſuch offences as theſe; i. e. about blaſphemies againſt God. The only offence man can be guilty of againſt God, is, he thinks, the want of a juſt ſenſe of his kindneſs and beneficence, and the not making a public profeſſion of gratitude to him. And whether this will make a part of the grand in- queſt he declares himſelf unable certainly to judge, but he plainly inſinuates that in his opinion it will not; ſince“ among *men it has been looked upon to be a mark of greatneſs of *¹ ſoul, rather to deſpiſe and overlook ſuch ingratitude, than to ** ſhew any reſentment of it a.“ The only thing therefore for which he ſuppoſes men ſhall be accountable, is for the injuries or benefits they do to one another. And even as to theſe, he ſeems not to allow, that the g0od or evil particular perſons do to one another, will come into judgment, but only ⁴the good *e or bad part men act by voluntarily contributing to the good **or hurt of the common-weal b.“ He after wards ſetteth him- ſelf to ſhew, that things would be as well ordered in the world without the ſuppoſition and expectation of a future judgment, as with it; that mens duties and obligations would ſtill be the ſame, and ſo would the motives to adhere to virtue, and to avoid vice. Nor is the belief of it of any great advantage to ſociety«. To all which it may be added, that here again in treating concerning a future judgment, he takes care to repeat Wwhat he had ſaid in the foregoing ſection, viz. that if the ſoul be periſhable, and is diſſolved with the body, then this world ſeems to be man's all, and that on ſuch a ſuppoſition, a reſur- rection or reſtorarion, and a future retribution ſeem to be ex- cluded. And at the ſame time he declareth, that whether the ſoul periſneth with the body or not, is a thing which admitteth of no proof 4. So that, upon the whole, he really leaveth it as a matter quite uncertain, whether there ſhall be a future judg- ment or not. And yet when he has a mind to make a boaſt of the good tendency of his principles, he is for making a merit of it, that it is one of thoſe important truths, which he hag taken pains to inculcate on the minds of men. I haye inſiſted the longer upon theſe things that I may un- maſk the fair pretences of this author, who fets up for an un- common degree of openneſs and candour. His admirers may hence ſee how conſiſtent he is, and how far his profeſſions are to de depended upon, 8 ² Chubb's poſth. works, vol. i. p. 391, 392. d Ibid, p. 395, 397.* Ibid. p. 401. 410, 4 Ibid, p. 399. I ſhall Let. 13. Mr. Chubb's Poftbumous MWorks. 201 Ifhall now conſider what he hath offered in this his ſolemn Fareuel to his readers, with regard to revealed religion. As to revelation in general, he ſeems to make a very fair conceſſion. ‧When men(ſaith he) are ſunk into groſs igno- ¹ rance and error, and are greatly vitiated in their affections « and actions, then God may, for any reaſon I can ſee to the ¹*¹ contrary, kindly interpoſe by a ſpecial application of his ¹„power and providence, and reveal to men ſuch uſeful truths ¹« as otherwiſe they might be ignorant of, or might not attend **to; and alſo lay before them ſuch rules of life as they ought ¹* to walk by; and likewiſe preſs their obedience with proper *« motives, and thereby lead them to repentance and reforma- * tione.“ But, as if he was afraid that in this he had made too large a conceſſion, he adds,“ but then that it is ſo, and 4* when it is ſo, will in the nature of the thing be matter of **doubt and diſputation.“ And in his ſixth ſection, where he treateth expreſsly of revelation, he aſſerteth, that in what way ſoever God communicateth knowlege to men,“ it muſt be a ¹«¹Fmatter of uncertainty whether the revelation be divine or not, * becauſe we have no rule to judge, or from which we can ²˙ with certainty diſtinguiſh divine revelation from deluſion.“ And that if this be the caſe with thoſe who receive the revela- tion at firſt hand, then ſurely it muſt be uncertain to thoſe who receive it from them“. Thus, though he ſeems to grant, that God may on ſome occaſions Kindly inter poſe by a ſpecial ap- Slication his Bower and providence, to reveal to men uſeful truths, and to direct and excite them to their duty; yet he will not allow that he can communicate the knowlege otf his will in ſuch a way, as to give them a ſufficient ſatisfying affurance that it is a divine revelation, and came from him. This is a moſt preſumptuous and unreaſonable limitation of the divine power and wiſdom, and is in effect the ſame thing as to ſay, that he cannot communicate any revelation of his will to man- kind at all; even though his goodneſs ſhould diſpoſe him to do ſo, and their circumſtancss ſhould require it. Dr. Tindal had in effect ſaid the ſame thing with our author, and what he offered to this purpoſe was fully conſidered and obviated in the anfwers that were made to him s. From the queſtion concerning revelation in general, Mr. Chubb proceeds in his ſixth ſection to make ſome obſervations e Chubb's poſth. works, vol, i. p. 292, 293. f Ibid. vol. ii. „F. 8 See Con) beare's defence of revealed religion, chap, vi. Anſwer to Chriſtianity as old as the creation, vol. 11. chap. 1. OQN 202 A View ef ebe DEis TIcaL Writers. Let. 13. on the Jewiſb, Mabometan, and Chriſtian revelation in par- ticular. The firſt of theſe he abſolutely rejecteth. He pretends that God's moral character is ſullied by it: That St. Peter and St. Paul condemn it as unworthy of the Deity: that it had a vaſt multiplicity of rites and ceremonies, which he ſuppoſes to be perfectly arbitrary, and inſtituted without any reaſon at all; that it repreſents God as acting partially in chooſing the Jæwiſb nation to be a peculiar people; and that, in that conſtitution a twelfth part of the people Jived idly on the labour of the reſt; that the eaanere of God to the patriarchs, to Mo s,&c. could only belong to a local circumſcribed deity; and that the God of Iſrael was not the ſupreme Being, but only ſome tute- lar ſubordinate god, conſonant to the Pagan idolatry; and that his conduct in ordering the Zfraelites to extirpate the Canaanites was inconſiſtent with the moral character of the Deity. This is the ſam of what he urges for ſeveral pages together in his ſixth ſection with regard to the Jewiſb revelations. And he had inſiſted upon the ſame things before at greater length in his ſecond ſectioni, where he alſo condemns the puniſhing idolatry with death under the Jewp conſtitution as unjuſt, and as tending to juſtify Peſeanen for conſcience ſake. Theſe, and other objections to the ſame pur poſe, had been urged with great vivacity by Dr. Morgan in his Moral Philoſabher; and were fully conſidered and obviated in the firſt and ſecond vo- Jumes of Tho divine Authority f the Old and Nou Toſtament aserted. Mr. Chubb has thought fit to repeat the objections, without iring. any new ſtrength to them that I can find, or taking off the force of the anſwers which had been returned. Referri ing therefore to what I have more largely inſiſted upon in the boolis now mentioned, I fhall at preſent only obſerve in brief, that the idea given of God in the Jewy'’p Scriptures, of his greatneſs and majeſty, of his power and wiſdom, of his juſtice, goodneſs, and purity, and of his univerſal preſence and dominion, is the nobleſt that can be conceived by the human mind, and the moſt fitted to produce holy affections and diſpo- Gtions towards him. That noiliu can be more evident, than that the God propoſed to the Jews, as the proer object of their worſhip, is the one living and true God, the ſovereign Lord of the univerſe, who created all things by his power, who preſerveth and governeth all things by his providence. That 5( hobb⸗ s Po oſth. works, vol. 11 P. 19—29. 1 Ibid. vol. i. 28 „——·——.,———-——— Let. 13. Mr. CHuB' Poſtbumous WMorks. 203 as to the divine apearances mentioned in the Old Teſtament, no argument can be brought to prove, that the ſovereign Lord of the univerſe may not ſee fit on ſome occaſions to exbhibit himſelf by a viſible external glory and ſplendor, in order to ſtrike men with a more ſtrong and lively ſenſe of his immediate preſence; or that he may not in that caſe make uſe of a glorious fubordinate being or beings of an order ſuperior to man, and ſome ſuch beings have been acknowleged by the beſt and wiſeſt men in all ages, in delivering meſſages in his name. That it is no way inconſiſtent with God's univerſal care and providence towards mankind, to make extraordinary diſcoveries of his will to particular perſons, or to a people, or to give them wiſe and excellent laws, and eſtabliſh a conſtitution among them, the fundamental principle of which is the acknowlegement and ado- ration of the one living and true God, in oppoſition to all idola- try. Nor is there the leaſt ſhadow of reaſon to prove, that he could not in ſuch a caſe make the obſervation of this the prin- cipal condition on which the national privileges and benefits he thought fit to confer upon that people ſhould be ſuſpended; in which caſe, whoſoever was guilty of idolatry under that pecu- liar conſtitution, was juſtly obnoxious to the penalties inflicted upon the enemies and ſubverters of the community. That, as to God's chooſing the people of Iſrael, they not only proceeded from anceſtors, eminent for piety and virtue, and pure adorers of the Deity, but may be juſtly ſuppoſed at the time of God'’s erecting that ſacred polity among them, to have been, notwith- ſtanding all their faults, freer from idolatry and other vices, than any of the neighbouring nations. They ſeem to have been much better than the people of Egybt, from whence they were delivered; or than the Canaanites, whoſe land was given them, and who appear to have been a moſt wicked and abandoned race of men, univerſally guilty, not only of the groſſeſt idolatries, but of the moſt monſtrous vices and abo- minations of all kinds. And if God ſaw fit on that occaſion to order them to be extirpated, as a monument to all ages of his juſt deteſtation of ſuch crimes and vices, this cannot be proved to be inconſiſtent with the character of the wiſe and righteous governor of the world. Though our author repre- ſents this as a milſtone that hangs at the neck of the Moſaic diſ- penſation. With reſpect to the laws that were given to the people of Vrael, thoſe of a moral nature, of which there is a comprehenſive ſummary in the Ten Commmandments, are un- queſtionably holy and excellent; the judicial laws are wiſe and equitable; and the poſitive precepts, though many and various, Wilely 204 A View of tbe DzisTIcAL Writers. Let. 13. wiſely ſuited to the ſtate and circumſtances of that time and people. The reaſons of ſeveral of them may be aſſigned even at this diſtance, and that there were very proper reaſons for the reſt may be juſtly ſuppoſed. And St. Peter and St. Paul, even when they repreſent them as burdenſome, plainly ſhew, that they look upon them to have been originally inſtituted for wiſe ends, though no longer to be obſerved, When a more perfect diſpenſation was introduced, to which they were deſigned to be ſubſervient. The appointing the Prieſts and Levites, and diſtri- buting them among the other tribes, is ſo far from being a juſt objection againſt that conſtitution, that it may be juſtly regard- ed as a wiſe and excellent inſtitution, well fitted for preſerving and ſpreading the knowlege of religion, and the law among the people, and inſtruéting them in their duty. And the pro- viſion made for them was juſtly due, both as a reward for their ſervice, and as an equivalent for their not having a diſtinct por- tion and ſhare of the land aſſigned them with the other tribes. Finally, The Moſaic conſtitution was attended at its firſt eſta- blitmment with the moſt glorious and amazing demonſtrations of a divine power and majeſty, and which plainly ſhewed an extraordinary divine interpoſition. And theſe facts were done not in ſecret, but in the moſt open public manner, of which the whole nation were witneſſes; and the memory of them con- ſtantly preſerved, both by ſolemn public memorials, and in au- thentic records, which have all the characters of genuine anti- quity, ſimplicity, and a ſincere regard to truth, and have been always regarded by the whole nation with the profoundeſt ve- neration. Nor is there any juſt foundation for the author's pretence, that the ſacred hiſtory was intirely in the hands of the prieſts, or that from Solomon's time to the Babyloniſp capti- vity none had acceſs to it but the high-prieſt, and that in that captivity their law was entirely deſtroyed and loſt x. A ſuppo- ſition that has been frequently repeated by the deiſtical writers, though the abſurdity of it has been fully expoſed. Though Mr. Chubb hath abiolutely rejected the Jewiſp reve- lation, he ſpeaks very favourably of that of Mahomet¹. Among other inſtances of his regard to it, he takes upon him to pro- nounce, that“ it cannot ſurely be true, that the great pre- *„valence of Mahometaniſm Was owing to its being propa- gated by the ſword; becauſe it muſt have prevailed to a „ very great degree before the ſword could have been drawn 4« in its favour.“ And yet it is a thing capable of the cleareſt Chubb's poſt. work, vol. ii. p. 26, 27. 1 Ibid. p. 30,&c. proof, Let. 13. Mr. CuuB B's Poſtbumous Works. 205 proof, that Mahomeraniſm from its firſt appearance was propa- gated by the ſword. This was what Mabomet himſelf moſt expreſsly required and recommended, and he accordingly ſpread his religion conſiderably by force of arms in his life-time; and immediately after his death, the chief apoſtles of Mahometaniſm were captains and mighty generals, Who ſpread their conqueſts far and wide. Our author concludes his account of Mahometan- iſm with ſaying,““whether the Mahometan revelation be of a * divine original or not, there ſeems to be a plauſible pretence, ¹eariſing from the circumſtances of things, for ſtamping a di- vine character upon it m.“ As to the Chriſtian revelation, it is evident he has done all in his power to expoſe it; and yet he ſeems plainly to acknow- lege Chriſt's divine miſſion. ˙That there was ſuch a perſon „¹as jeſus Chriſt, and that he, in the main, did and taught, «« as is recorded of him, appears(ſaith he) to be probable, **becauſe it is improbable that Chriſtianity ſhould take place in *the way and to the degree that it did, or at leaſt that we are *told it did, ſuppoſing the hiſtory of Chriſt's life and miniſtry **to be a fiction. He adds, that if ſuch power attended Jeſus « Chriſt in the exerciſe of his miniſtry, as the hiſtory ſets *forth, then ſeeing his miniſtry and the power that attended *«it ſeems, at leaſt in general, to have terminated in the public **good, it is more likely that God was the primary agent in ««the exerciſe of that power, than any other inviſible being. „ And then it is probable, that Jeſus Chriſt, upon whoſe will ««the immediate exerciſe of that power depended, would not «*Fuſe that power to impoſe upon and miſlead mankind to their * hurt, ſeeing that power appears to have been well directed * and applied in other reſpects, and ſeeing he was accountable «to his principal for the abuſe of it.“ He adds, ˙ from theſe *premiſes, or from this general view of the caſe, I think this **concluſion follows, viz. it is probable Chriſt's miſſion was «divine; at leaſt it appears ſo to me from the light or infor- *«mation I have received concerning itn.“ And as he ſeems here to acknowlege Chriſt's miſſion to be divine, ſo he under- takes to give an account what was the ſubjeét of his miſſion, or what it was that he was ſent to publiſh to the world. This he reduceth to three main principles, for which he referreth to a tract he had formerly publiſhed, iutitled, The true Goſpel of Chriſt, viz. 1. That nothing but a conformity of mind and m Chubb's poſth. works, vol. ii. p. 40. n Ibid. p. 41, 42, 43. compared with p. 394, 395, 396. life 206 A Vievw of be DEISTICAL Writers. life to the eternal rule of righteouſneſs, will render men accept- able to God. 2. That when men have deviated from that rule, nothing but a thorough repentance and reformation will render them the proper objecéts of God's mercy. And laſtly, that God will judge the world in righteouſneſs, and will render to every man according as his works ſhall be. He adds, that theſe pro- poſitions ſeem to him to contain the ſum and ſubſtance of Chriſt's miniſtry: and as they are altogether worthy of the Deity, ſo he thinks, they may with propriety and truth be called, the Go pel of Jeſus Chriſt. This is what he declares in his ſecond vo- lume, p. 82, 83. And he had ſaid the ſame thing before, vol. i. p. 98, 99, where he obſerves, that“ theſe things con * tain the ſubſtance of what Chriſt was in a ſpecial manner *¹ſent of God to acquaint the world with.“ And again, he declares, that by Chriſtianity he means,“ that revelation of God's will which Chriſt was in a ſpecial and particular man- *¹„ner ſent to acquaint the world with; and as far as the wri- “tings of the apoſtles are conſonant with it, they come under “the denomination of Chriſtianity o.“ Where he ſeems fairly to owa, that Chriſt was ſent in a particular and ſpecial manner to acquaint the world with a revelation& God's will. He alſo acknowleges, that“the writings of the apoſtles contain ex- cellent cautions, advices, and inſtructions, which ſerve for “ the right conduéting our affections and actions— That the ¹* Chriſtian revelation, one would hope, was kindly intended ¹to guide men's underſtandings into the knowlege of thoſe Let. 13. “ truths, in which their higheſt intereſt is concerned, and to, „engage them to be juſtly affected therewith, and act accord- ²« ingly; and that it naturally tends to reform the vices, and ** righrly to direct the affections and behaviour of men.“ And finally,“ that it may perhaps be a piece of jaſtice due to * Chriſtianity(could it be certainly determined what it is, and «could it be ſeparated from every thing that hath been blended ¹*with it) to acknowlege that it yields a much clearer light, „e and is a more ſafe guilde to mankind, than any other tradi- ¹“ tionary religion, as being better adapted to improve and per- “˙ fect human nature?.“ Theſe things would naturally lead us to think, that he had a friendly deſign towards Chriſtianity and the holy Scriptures. But notwithſtanding all theſe ſpecious profeſſions, whoſoever reads what he calls his Farewel 10 his readers, with never ſo “ Chubb's poſth. works, vol. ii. p. 346. p Ibid. p. 297. 344. 347. 370. 3 little Let. 13. Mr. CuuE' Poſtbumous Mors. 207 Iittle attention, muſt be convinced, that the principal deſign of it was to fubvert the credit and divine authority of the Chriſ- tian revelation. Though he declares, that he looks upon it to be probable that Chriſt's miſſion was divine, yet he has taken great pains to ſhew, that the proofs which are brought for it, are not at all to be depended upon. Having obſerved that the two principal ar- guments or evidences uſually inſiſted on to prove the divine original of the Chriſtian revelation, are prophecy and miracles, he uſes his utmoſt efforts to invalidate both theſe. Two long ſections of his Farewel to his readers are employed this Way, diz. the viith and viiith. And as to the Kefurrection ef Cbriſt, he labours for near fifty pages together to, repreſent it as an abſurd and incredible thing 9. In his ninth ſection, in which he propoſes to treat of the per- ſonal character of Jeſus Chriſt, he does all he can to ex poſe the account given of his being born of a virgin, as a fiction r. And whereas Chriſt is repreſented as having been perfect, and without ſin, he will have it to be underſtood, not that he was abſolutely finleſs, bur that no public or groſs mĩſcarriages could be charged upon hims. The higheſt characéter he ſeems will- ing to allow him is, that he was the“ founder of the Chriſtian **l ſect t,“ or, as he elſewhere expreſſeth it, that“ he collected * a body of diſciples, and laid a foundation for a new ſcẽt „wamong the Jews. u For he ſuppoſes that according to Jeſus's original intention, Chriſtianity was only deſigned to be a fupplement to Judaiſm, and that the Moſaical conſtitution Was to continue always in full force, and that his goſpel was to be preached only to the Jeus in all nations, and not to the Gentiles at all, though the apoſtles afterwards deviated from his plan'*. He owns indeed that he advanced ſome proper precepts of his own, in which he ſeemed to correct the conſtitutions of Moſes; but he endeavours to ſhew that in theſe he made alterations for the worſe, and that thoſe precepts by which he is thought to have been moſt diſtinguiſhed, inſtead of being more excellent than thoſe of other teachers and law-givers, are really leſs ex- cellent, and leſs perfect; and if taken in their proper and natural ſenſe, are contrary to the reaſon of things, and inconſiſtent with the welfare and happineſs of mankind. This is the prin- cipal deſign he appears to have had in view, in what he calls 4 Chubb's poſth. works, vol. i. p. 333,&c. r Ibid. vol. ii. p. 268— 287. 1bid. p. 269. t 1bid. vol. i. p. 5o. u Ibid. vol. ii. p. 395.*⅔ Ibid. p. 35, 86. 108. Kemark.⸗ 208 Vieu of ibe DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 13 Remarhs on the Scriptures; which is the firſt tract in his Pęſt- Bumous Works.— la ſome of the paſſages above cited, he ſcems to give a fa- vourable account of Chriſtianity, and proceeds ſo far as to ſpe- eify what the true goſpel of Chriſt is, and what that meſſage is, which he allows Chriſt was ſent of God to deliver to the world; yet in plain contradiction to himſelf, he aſſerts in ſeveral parts of his book, that it is utterly uncertain what meſſage Chriſt was ſent to publiſh to the world, or wherein true Chriſtianity doth confiſt. This is what he particularly endeavoureth to Hew in his ſixth ſection y. And in that very paſſage before cited, where he pretends that it is a Biece uſtice due to Cbriſtianity, to acknowlege, that it yields a much clearer light, and is a more ſafe guide than any other traditionary religion, he at the ſame time infinuates that it cannot be dęfined or deter- minedl wohat Chriſtianity is z. He aſſerts, that“it has been ſo ly and indeterminately delivered to the world, that no- g but contention and confuſion has attended it from its * frſt promulgation to this time: And that the books of the *NeW Teſtament have been ſo far from being a remedy to this *¹evil, that they have contributed to it a.“ Accordingly, he expreſsly calls the New Teſtament, that /οuntain of confußion and contradiclion b. And whereas Mr. Chillingworth had ſaid, that the Bible is the religion Proteſtants, Mr. Chubb thinks, that unleſs it be ſo interpreted, as to be made conformable to the „e great rule of right and wrong, which, he ſays, in ſome in- cc ſtances, cannot be done without force and violence, it muſt be ec an unſafe guide to mankinde.“ And that to appeal to Scrip- ture, ˙would be a certain way to perplexity and diſſatisfaction, «« but not to find out truth ¹.“ And before this he had ſaid, that the Bible“ has been the grand ſource of hereſies and „ ſchiſms; and that it exhibits doctrines ſeemingly the moſt *oppoſite, ſome of which are greatly diſhonourable to God, «« others the moſt injurious to mene.“ I think it is not eaſy to give a worſe idea of the Scriptures than this author has done. If his account of them be a juſt one, it muſt be very dangerous to read them; and it would be a kindneſs to keep them out of the hands of the people. For he ſeems directly to charge all this upon the Scriptures themſelves, and not upon the fault of thoſe that pervert and abuſe them. And yet this very conſiſtent y Chubb's poſth. works, vol. ii p. 72— 122.. 2 Ibid. p. 370 a Ibd. p. 5)7. 3 15. b Ibid. p. 246, 247. c 1bid. p. 326. 4 Ibid. p. 335. e Ibid. vol. i. p. 6. 57. writer Let. 13. Mr. CHuB B'S Poſtbumous Morks. 209 writer declares againſt locking uß the Bible from the Heoble, and that“this is moſt unſafe, as it has put the people ſo far under ⸗«the power of the clergy, as to involve them in the moſt groſs ¹„ignorance and ſuperſtition, and the moſt abſolute ſlavery both «z in civil and religious matters f.“ Is not this plainly to ac- knowlege, that the being well acquainted with the holy Scrip- tures is one of the beſt preſervatives againſt ignorance, prieſt- craft, and ſuperſtition, and a great advantage and ſecurity to truth and liberty? And what then muſt we think of the at- tempt made by him and other deiſtical writers to expoſe and vilify the holy Scriptures, and deſtroy all veneration for them in the minds of men, which, if believed, muſt induce an abſo- lute neglect, and even contempt, of thoſe ſacred writings? Ought not this, by his own acknowlegement, to be regarded as an attempt to bring us back into the m gro% ignorance, ſuperſtition, and ſlavery? As a farther proof of the author's good-will towards Chriſ- tianity, it may be obſerved, that he repreſents it as ſavouring of enthuſiaſm. And he explains enthuſiaim to be“ a groundleſs ** perfuaſion, that the Deity dictates and impreſſes upon the „«mind of the promulger the ſubjeét matter of his miniſtry, « and therefore ſuch miniſtry is ſuppoſed to be not of or from „«men, but of and from God s.“ And as he here ſuppoſes Chriſtianity to be the product of enthuſiaſm, ſo he ellewhere charges the apoſtles and firſt publiſhers of Chriſtianity with im- poſture. He repreſents them as capable of giving a alſe teſti- mony to ſerve the Chriſtian cauſe, and that they acted upon this principle, that“ truth in ſome caſes may and ought to be diſ- *e penſed with, and made to give way to falſhood and diſſimu- «* lation.“ And upon this he aſks, How then will the mira- „* cles wrought by Jeſus Chriſt and his apoſtles be proved to ««be other than impoſtures? Suppoſing them to be much bet- *ter atteſted than at preſent they appear to be h.“ Theſe and other things that might be mentioned, may let us into the true ſpirit and deſign of this writer, and may help us to judge of the proteſtations he has made with great ſolemnity in the concluſion of his Farewel to his readers.**⁴If any ſay, „e that what I have written is out of diſreſpect to the perſon ‧mand miniſtry of Jeſus Chriſt, the accuſation is falſe.“ And he adds,“as upon the Chriſtian fcheme, Jeſus Chriſt will be „the judge of quick and dead; ſo Iaſſure my readers, that in ₰ f Chubb's poſth, works, vol. ii. p. 327, 345- s Ibid, p. 49. 53- à Ibid p. 92, 93. 130, 131. 230, 231.⸗ 4. VoL. I. P 4˙ this 210 A View of the Dzis TIcAL. Writers. Let. 14. 4this view, and upon this conſideration, I have no diſagree- *¹¹able apprehenſion on account of any thing that I have pub- **liſhed to the world ¹.“ Having given this general idea of our author's work, I ſhall in my next letter offer ſome remarks upon thoſe parts of his book which may ſeem to require a more particular conſidera- tion. L. FE T I.E R XIV. Some fartber remarks on Mr. Chubb's Poſthumous Works. The unfair repreſentation he makes of our Saviour's pre- cepts in bis ſermon on ibe mount. His groſs perverſions of ſcripture. His charge againſt it as uncertain, and as Baving beeu greatly depraved and corrupted by thbe cburch of Rome, conſidered. Obſervations upon the attempt be makes to invalidate tbe proof from propbecy and miracles. The parallel be drauos between the pro- Pagation of Cbriſtianity and tbe progreſs of Metbodiſm examined. The falſpood of bis pretence that tbe apoſtles quite changed the original plan of Cbriſtianity, and that they laid a ſcheme for worldly wealtb and power. His invectives againſt St. Paul malicious and unjuſt. He repreſents all religions to be alike with regard to tbe fa- vour of God, and pretends to direct men to an infallible guide. F I KM, N my laſt, I gave a general account of Mr. Chubb's poſthu- mous treatiſes. I fhall now add ſome farther obſervations relating to ſome parts of thoſe tracts which may ſeem to deſerve to be more parricularly conſidered. Ot this kind is the attempt he hath made to expoſe our Sa- viour's precepts in his admirable ſermon on the mount, which is deſigaed to teach the moſt pure and excellent morality. In i Chubb's puſthumous works, vol. ii. p. 733- ſeveral Let. 14. Mr. CHuE B' Pofbumous Works. 211 ſeveral of theſe precepts, our Lord evidently maketh uſe of a proverbial way of ſpeaking, fhort and comprehenſive aphoriſms delivered in phraſes, ſome of which may perhaps appear not ſo ufual among us, but which were familiar to thoſe to whom they were at firſt delivered. Every one knows, that, in ſuch caſes, every expreſſion is not to be taken in the utmoſt ſtrictneſs, but the general intention is to be regarded, which is plain enough to an honeſt and attentive mind. But this writer ſeems reſolved to take them in the moſt abſurd ſenſe he can poſſibly put upon them. Thus, he interprets the precept againſt reſiſting evil, which is manifeſtly intended to check and ſuppreſs private re- venge, and to teach us that wiſe leſſon, that it is better in many caſes patiently to bear ipjuries, eſpecially in ſmaller inſtances, than to give way to a keen and forward reſentment and retalia- tion of them; he interprets this as if it were deſigned abſolutely, and in all caſes, to forbid us to ſhun or guard againſt the evils and injuries offered to us, and required us rather to ex poſe ourſelves to thoſe evils. But this certainly could not be the in- tention of that excellent teacher, who exhorteth his diſciples to be wiſe as ferbents in avoiding evil, as well as innocent as doves; and directeth them, inſtead of needleſsly expoſing themſelves, when Berſecuted in one city, to flee into another. The precept about loving our enemies is deſigned to reſtrain and heal that bitter and malevolent ſpirit which men are ſo apt to indulge, and to carry benevolence to the nobleſt height. It teacheth us, that no private enmities or diſguſts ſhould cauſe us to forget the common ties of humanity: That with regard to our enemies themſelves, we ſhould be earneſtly deſirous of their amendment and true happineſs, and ſhould be ready, when’ a proper op- portunity offers, to do them good offices, and to overcome their enmity with kindneſs, which is the nobleſt victory. But our candid author would have it to be underſtood to ſignify, that we ſhould put no difference in our affection and eſteem be- tween good and bad men, but ſhould have an equal complacency in perſons of the vileſt characters as in thoſe of the beſt ⸗. And becauſe our Saviour ſpeaks of God's doing good in the methods of his common providence, even to the unthankful and the evil, he pretends, that, according to his repreſentation, the perfection of the ſupreme Being conſiſteth in his being affected towardsall intelligent beings alike, and ſhewing equal love and favour to the righteous and to the wicked; than which nothing can be more ² Chubb's poſtumous works, vol. i. P. 18, 19. 2 contrary 21² A View of tbe DEisTIcAL Writers. Let. 14. contrary to Chriſt's manifeſt intention, and to the whole tenor of his teaching and miniſtry. Our Lord's excellent diſcourſe againſt anxious cares, and a diſtracting or diſtruſtful thoughtfulneſs for to-morrow, he interprets as deſigned to recommend t houghtleſ- neſy and indolence, and abſolutely to forbid that thoughtfulneßs and induſiry, vhich man's Preſent indigent condition, and the preſent conſtitution things makes neceſſary b. And the pre- cept by which we are directed not tο lay uß for ourſelves trea- ſures on earth, but to lay up for ourſelves treafures in bedven, Which is plainly intended to check a too eager purſuit of worldly riches, and a placing our chief happineſs in theſe things, he re- preſents as if it were deſigned abſolutely to condemn all worldly acquiſitions, however lawfully obtained, and well uſed and em- ployed. In like manner, he interprets what our Saviour ſaith in a parabolical way, Luhe Xvi. 12, 13. concerning inviting the poor, the blind, and the lame; and which, as may be ga- thered from the context by comparing ver. 7,&c. was deſigned to rebuke the vanity of expenſive and oſtentatious entertain- ments, whilſt the poor and indigent were neglected; as if it were his intention that all Chriftians ſhould deny themſelves the pleaſure of ever entertaining, or being entertained by friends, relations, and thoſe of their own rank, and were to confine themſelves wholly to the company, converſation, and friendſhip of the poor, the maimed, the lame, and the blind«. Though it is very evident from his own practice, that our Lord Jeſus was far from diſcouraging an agreeable intercourſe and converſation among friends, and the offices and entertainments of the ſocial life. And I dare ſay, not one either of the Jeuws, or of his own diſciples, ever underſtood him in this ſenſe. But Mr. Chubb takes upon him to pronounce, that theſe and the like precepts are all to be underſtood in the moſt ſtrict Literal ſenſe, and do not admit of any limitation, or any palli- ating interpretation to be put upon them. And he repreſents them as the proper precepts of Chriſtianity, peculiar, as he ex- preſſeth it, to the Chriſtian ſoct, and in which their founder's honour is peculiarlhy concerned; and pretends, that the obſer- vance of theſe alone, in the abſurd ſenſe he puts upon them, is what conſtitutes a true Chriſtian. And as theſe are the precepts that are acknowleged to be peculiarly Chriſtian, he thinks that from thence a judgment may be formed, whether there be any zuſt ground for boaſting, that Chriftian morals are much more b Chubb's poſthumous works, vol. i. p. 22, 23. c Ibid. p. 26 „— 2352 209⸗ excellent ̈‿ Let. 14. Mr. CuuB B' Poſtbumous Morks. 213 excellent and perfect, than any other ſyſtem of morals that hath been exhibited to men ¹. Nothing can poſſibly be more unfair and diſingenuous, than this conduct of our author. No man of candour, who con- ſiders the deep wiſdom and good ſenſe which appeareth in our Saviour's diſcourſes, can reaſonably ſuppoſe that it was his in- tention to recommend ſuch abſurd inſtructions and advices as they muſt have been, according to this writer's repreſentation of them. Our Lord's deſign in his excellent ſermon on the mount, was not, as he himſelf declares, to deſtroy the law and the prophets; it was to vindicate them from the narrow and cor- rupt gloſſes of the Jewiſb doctors. And what could be more worthy ot a teacher ſent from God, the great Saviour and lover of mankind, than to forbid the being angry without a cauſe, all injurious and reproachful expreſſions, all adultery and impurity even in heart and thought; and to recommend purity, charity, meekneſs, benevolence, the forgiveneſs of injuries, and even a rendering good for evil, and overcoming evil with good? to warn men againſt an exceſſive love of worldly riches, which hath in all ages been the ſource of numberleſs evils and diſorders among mankind, and engage them to raiſe their affections and vievs to things of a far higher and nobler nature, things ce- leſtial and eternal? to direct men to a calm contentment and dependence on Divine Providence, in every condition, as the beſt preſervative againſt thoſe anxious diſtracting cares and ſoli- citudes, which, when they prevail, deſtroy the reliſh of life? What our Saviour hath delivered on theſe, and other heads of great importance to the happineſs of mankind, is comprehended in ſhort maxims, ſtrongly and cloſely expreſſed, which makes them more apt to ſtrike, and more eaſily remembered; but without deſcending to particular exceptions and limitations, which for the moſt part common ſenſe, and the nature of the thing caſily direct to. He, who was perfectly acquainted with human na ture, very well knew that there was no great danger of men's taking them in too ſtriét a ſenſe, and that they would be for- ward enough to find out limitations for themſelves. And any one that impartially conſiders the variety of matters treated of, in that excellent fermon on the mount, ſuch a vaſt extent of pure and noble morals compriſed in ſo ſmall a compaſs, and de- livered with the moſt comprehenſive brevity, will be apt to ad- mire the wiſdom of this heavenly teacher, and to have a juſt diſlike of a writer that could turn thoſe admirable leſſons to the d Chubb's poſth. works, vol. i. p. 27, 28. 31. 39, 40. T 3 diſadvantage 214 A View of ibe DEisrIcAL Writers. Let. 14. diſadvantage of the holy Jeſus, and the Chriſtian religion. And I am perſuaded, that any man who ſhould treat the maxims and wiſe ſayings of the philoſophers or great men of antiquity, as this author has done thoſe of our Saviour, would be regarded by all rational and thinking men among the Deiſts themſelves, as a rude and impertinent caviller. What renders Mr. Chubb more inexcufſable is, that he himſelf ſeems to have been very ſenſible, that thoſe precepts were not intended in the ſenſe he has thought fit to put upon them. For though, in what he calls Remarks on the Scriptures, he contends, as hath been ſhewn, thar no other interpretation ought to be admitted; yet in an- other part of his Poſthumous Works; viz. in the ninth fection of his Farewel, where he profeſſes to treat concerning the perſonal character of Jeſus Chriſt, he produces theſe very precepts as in- ſtances of Chriſt's figurative way of ſpeaking, and plainly owns, that they ought not to be taken, nor were originally intended, in the ſtrict literal ſenſe he had put upon them. To this pur- poſe he particularly mentions the precepts of not reſiſting evil, of loving our enemies, and giving to every one that aſketh e. And from thence concludes, that we muſt uſe our reaſon in judging of the ſenſe of ſcripture, and of our Saviour's precepts; which will be readily allowed. The ſcripture undoubtedly ſuppoſeth us to be reaſonable creatures, and our Saviour ad- dreſſeth himſelf to us as ſuch. But it by no means follows, as he inſinuates, that becauſe we are to uſe our underſtandings in judging of the ſenſe of ſcripture, and all laws, that therefore our own reaſon could guide us as well without them, and that theſe precepts are of no uſe, and that it is of no advantage to have them inforced by a divine authority. It may not be improper on this occaſion to take noticeof ſome other of his groſs perverſions of ſcripture: a ſignal inſtance of this kind we have in the ſame tract, in which he makes ſo ſtrange a repreſentation of ſeveral of our Saviour's precepts. Speaking of that noted paſſage, 1 John ii. 1, 2. My little children, theſe things write Iunto you, that ye ſin not; and if any man fin, we Davée an advocaté with the Father, Jeſus Cbriſt the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our ſins, and not for ours only, but alh for the ſins f the whole world; he obſerves, that e this * paſſage may be ſuppoſed to beſpeak comfort and ſafety to a *wicked Chriſtian, i. e. to a wicked man who is a believer in „ Jeſus Chriſt, and profeſſes diſcipleſhip to him. And that it „“ js but for a man to apply theſe words of St. John to himſelf, ² Chubb's poſth. works, vol. ii. p. 289. 203, 294,&c. 6 and Let. 14. Mr. CHuBB' Poftbumou: Workr. 215 *aud the practice of vice is made eaſy to him f.“ That this could not poſſibly be St. Jobn's meaning in this paſſage, is evi- dent from the whole tenor of his epiſtle, and particularly trom the words immediately following, in which he declares, hereby e d bnow that we know him, i. e. Jeſus Chriſt, iſ we keeß his commandments. He that faith Ihnou him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and he truth is not in him, ver. 3, 4. Our author himſelf is ſenſible, that the inter pretation he hath given of this paſſage, is not conſiſtent with what St. John hath faid in other parts of this epiſtle. But that gives him no concern; it will only ſhew that St. John contradicts himſelf; which is what he would have him thoughrt to do. And there- fore with an unparalleled aſſurance he inſiſteth upon it, that the account he hath given of St. Jobn's meaning, is the true one, ² whatever St. ohn, or any other writers of the New Teſta- «¹ ment, in oppoſition to this, may havé elſewhere ſaid to the «contrary.“ His mamner of expreſſing himfelf plainly ſhews, that he is reſolved this fhall be St. John's ſenſe, contrary to his own moſt expreſs declarations, and to the entire ſtrain of the New Teſtament; becauſe he thinks it tends to expoſe Chriſtia- nity, though in reality by ſuch a procedure he has only expoſed himſelf. But he urgeth, that““ it. Chriſt be the propitiation « for all fins, then the moſt wicked Chriftian muſt needs be in « à fafe and comfortable ſtate; and even wicked Pagans and *Infidels as well as Chriſtians, penitent and im penitent, becauſe God would not be ſo unreaſonable and unjuſt, as to take * double ſatisfaction for the fame offences.“ And in ſome other parts of his book, he inveighs againſt the doctrine of Chriſt's being the propitiation for ſins, as contrary to truth, and the eternal reaſon of things 8. But in all that he has faid on this head, he either diſcovers a groſs ignorance of the ſcrip- ture-doctrine of Chriſt's being the propitiation for our ſins, or makes a wilful mifrepreſentation of it. Since nothing can be more evident than it is from the whole New Teſtament, that Chriſt's dying for our ſins, was not deſigned to free men from an obligation to holineſs and obedience, but rather to lay them under ftronger engagements to it; and that, according to the goſpel-covenant, none can expeẽt an intereſt in the benefits ariſing from Chriſt's ſufferings and ſacrifice, or from his media- tion and interceſſion, but thoſe that turn from their ſins by a fincere repentance, and who ſubmit to be governed by his holy f Chubb's poſth. works, vol. i. p. 37, 38⸗ s Ibid. p. 250.& vol, ii. p. 112, 113. 304. P 4 and 216 A View of ibe DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 14. and moſt excellent laws. The doctrine of Chriſt's ſatisfaction, rightly underſtood, is ſo far from giving the leaſt encouragement to ſin, that it tendeth to impreſs men's hearts with the deepeſt ſenſe of the heinous evil and malignity of ſin, and of God's juſt diſpleaſure againſt i it. Not only do thoſe who teach that doctrine as delivered in the ſcriptures, inſiſt as ſtrongly as any others upon the neceſſity of repentance and perſonal holineſs, in order to our acceptance with God; but they maintain that at the ſame time that God promiſeth Pardon to the truly penitent, he taketh care to diſpenſe that pardon in ſuch a way, as to make an aw- ful declaration of his hatred againſt fin, and to vindicate the authority of his government and laws. What can bhave a greater tendency to prevent our abuſing his pardoning mercy, and to excite in us a holy fear of offending him, than to con- ſider that he would not receive even penitent ſinners to his grace and favour, without a facrifice of infinite virtue offered up on their behalf, conſiſting in the perfect obedience and ſuffer- ings of the great Mediator? And that it was upon the merit of his obedience and ſufferings, that that covenant was founded and eſtabliſhed, in which God hath graciouſly engaged to ac- cept of our repentance, and to reward our fincere though im- perfect obedience with eternal life? Many other inſtances might be mentioned of Mr. Chubb's ſtrange gloſſes upon ſcripture. He ſeems particularly to take P leaſurc in mifrepreſenting and expoſing the writings of St. Paul. Thus, becauſe that great apoſtle in arguing againſt the falſe. Jewiſb teachers, who inſiſted upon the obſervation of the Moſaic law and Eeremoeſes. as abſolutely necefſary to ſalvation under the goſpel, urgeth, that if they weré fuſtihfed by the lauu, they were allen hrom grace, i. e from the grace of the goſpel, and the way of juſti fication there propoſed, Gal. v. 14, he charges him with maintaining in the height of his zeal, that obedience to the lau 0 Moſes: Was incon Hati9d⸗ Wit h Val atin; and that let men otherwiſe be never ſo good and excellent per- ſons, this error concerning the obligation of the Moſaic law, would exclude them from the favour of God, and from eternal ſalvation. And in this, ſays he, he Aüpoſtle mußft furely have greatly erredà. But it cught to be confidered, that thoſe Jewiſp teachers, whom 8t. Paul there oppoſes, are repreſented as men of corrupt minds, who acted from worldly and finiſter ends and views, and who were not ſtrict in keeping the law themſelves, though they were for binding it upon others, Gal. à Chubb's poſth. works, vol. ii. pP. 96, 97. Let. 14. Mr. CHuB'S Poſthumous Works. 217 vi. 12, 13. And the apoſtle there expreſsly declareth, that in Chriſt Jeſus, or under the goſpel-diſpenſation, neither circum- ciſion availeth any thing, nor auncircumciſion, i.. neither the obſervance nor non-obſervance of theſe outward rites, but faith awhich worketh by love, or, as he elſewhere expreſſeth it, the new creature, i. æ. a real ſanctifying change of heart and life. See Gal. v. 6. vi. 15. 1 Cor. vii. 19. Again, he pretends that St. Paul repreſents the calling of the Gentiles as not originally deſigned by God, or as an effect of his goodnelſs towards the Gentiles, but as ſpringing only from his having taen uß a Pique or reſentment againſt the Jews, which, he ſays, ¹cis a ſpring of *c action much too low, and altogether unworthy of the Su- ** preme Deity i.“ But nothing is more evident than that this apoſtle frequently aſcribes the calling of the Gentiles to the free grace and gratuitoùðs favour of God, and ſpeaks of it in noble terms, as having been deſigned in the councils of the divine wiſdom and love before the foundation of the world, Eph. i. 3, 4,§, 6. ili. 8, 9. Farther to expoſe that excellent apoſtle, he repreſents it, as if in ſaying, that i in this lfe only we have hope in Chriſt, we are f all men the moſt miſerable, 1 Cor. XV. 19. he intended to ſignify, that the practice of piety and virtue is not in its own natureé ſo eligible, or ſo conducive to the real fatisfaction of this preſent life, as that of vice and ſin. Nor will he allow that St. Paul in this part of the argument has any reference to the caſe of perſecution; and yet certain it is, that he moſt expreſsly refers to it, ver. 29, 30, 31, 32. And his evident defign is to fignify the unhappy condition Chriſtians would be reduced to, under the grievous perſecutions to which they were then expoſed, if it were not for their future hopes. But he eſpecially finds great fault with St. Paul, for his doctrine concerning ſubjection to the higher powers, Kom. xiii. 1—6. as if it were calculated for promoting tyranny and ſlavery. This he inſiſts upon for ſeveral pages together, in two different parts of his Poftbumous Works; and yet the apoſtle's doctrine, rightly conſidered, is admirable. He ſhews, that obedience to the civil powers is a duty which Chriſtianity injoins; that it was not deſigned to exempt men from ſubjection to their law- ful governors, though heathens, or to relax the bands of civil duty and allegiance. He doth not meddle with the queſtions concerning the rights of Senates, or particular forms of polity, but ſpeaks of the duty of private perſons, and therefore preſſes their obedience and ſubjection, without reſtrictions and limita- 1 Chubb's poſth, works, vol. ii. p. 88. tions; 218 A View of the DEIsTIcAL Writers. Let. 14. tions; and tohave mentioned ſuch reſtrictions, would certainly have been of bad conſequence; eſpecially conſidering the ſedi- tious diſpoſitions of the Jæws, and how they were then affected. But our author is not willing to allow that religion has any thing to do with obedience to our civil governors; and, in ex- preſs oppoſition to St. Paul, declares, that government cannot be ſaid to be the ordinance, or by the appointment, of God. He maintains that the proper argument for obliging men to ſub- jection and obedience, is not government's being the ordinance of God, but its being neceſſary to the well-being of mankind. And does not the apoſtle manifeſtly urge this? He both raiſeth our views to the original of government in the authority and ap- pointment of God himſelf, and pointeth out to us the proper ends of government, and its great uſefulneſs to mankind, and excellently argueth from both theſe. Sothat heis far from what this writer here thinks fit to charge him with, a fallacious and injurious way of reaſoning. He takes particular notice of the allegory St. Paul makes uſe of, Gal. iv. 21,&c. and uſes his utmoſt endeavours to place it in a moſt ridiculous light. Nothing can be more unfair and diſingenuous than the account he is pleaſed to give of it, in which he entirely miſrepreſents the deſign and ſtrain of the apoſtle's diſcourſe. But a particular examination of what he offers, with regard to this and ſeveral other paſſages of ſcripture, would carry me too far. It is ſuſficient to obſerve, that a care- ful and unprejudiced conſideration of the context, and a com- paring one part of ſcripture with another, might eafily have ſet him right as to the ſenſe of moſt of the paſſages he men- tions; or he might have found his difficulties cleared by able and judicious commentators, if he had been as willing to have his objections ſatisfied, as-he was to raiſe them, or as a ſincere enquirer after truth ought to be. Candid critics, if they meet with a paſſage in Homer, Plato, Ariſtotle, Tully, or any other celebrated profane author of antiquity, which at firſt view has ſomething in it that they cannot well explain or accaunt for, are very unwilling to charge the original author with nonſenſe and abfurdity, and think themſelves obliged to uſe their utmoſt endeavours to find out a convenient or favourable ſenſe of the paſſage in queſtion. But with this writer, and many others of * Mr. Collins had endeavoured to expoſe that allegory; and the deſign and confiſtency of it was fully cleared in the anſwers that were made to that writer. Nor has Mr. Chabb offered any thing pon it that can be called new. the ———— 4 4,4 Let. 14. Mr. CHuuBB' Poſtbumous Works. 219 the ſame claſs, it ſeems to be a rule to interpret every paſſage of ſcripture in the moſt abſurd ſenſe that can poſſibly be put upon it. Several paſſages were produced in my former letter, to which many others might be added, in which Mr. Chubb exclaims againſt the ſcripture as the ſource of endleſs contentions and di- viſions, as if it were to be charged with all the abſurd and con- tradictory opinions, that have at any time been grafted upon it. This he repreſents, as owing to its being““expreſſed in a looſe « indeterminate way, which would be a defect in a human *compoſition, but is ſcarce ſuppoſeable in the caſe of divine «« revelation 1.“ But it is no argument, that a thing is looſely and indeterminately expreſſed, that men differ or contend about the ſenſe of it. This is owing to other cauſes. Suppoſing a divine revelation given to mankind, never ſo clear and determi- nate, it could ſcarce be avoided, without a conſtant miraculous iuterpoſition, irreſiſtibly impreſſing and over-ruling the minds of all men, but that there would be a difference of ſentiments and opinions among mankind, about many things in it: And yet this would not hinder but that ſuch a revelation would be of ſignal uſe for inſtructing men in things of great importance. The fallacy of ſuch a way of arguing, as if men's differing about any thing were a proof of its uncertainty, has been often expoſed, as what would baniſh all religion, truth, reaſon, and evidence out of the world. Yet this is a common-place with the Deiſtical writers, to which they have recourſe on all occa- ſions. Many made uſe of it before our author: And fince the publiſhing of his works, a late right honourable writer hath been pleaſed to repew the charge. 1 fhall not here repeat what I have elſewhere offered in anfwer to his lordſhip, and which will equally ſerve to obviate all that Mr. Chubb hath advanced on this head m. The ſame obſervation may be made with regard to his at- tempts againſt the ſacred canon. He pretends, as others had done before him, that there is no proof that the books of the New Teſtament were written in the firſt age of the Chriſtian church; that there were many ſpurious goſpels in the primitive times, and that the Chriſtians had no way ef diſtinguiſhing the genuine from the falſe. Theſe, and other things to the ſame purpoſe, he very frequently repeats in ſeveral parts of his Fare- wel to his readers, as if he thought the frequent repetition of 1 Chubb's poſth. works, vol. ji. p. 246, 247- m See Reflec- tions on Lord Bolingbroke's letters, p. 125,&c. them 220 A View of tbe DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 14. them would perſuade his readers of their truth. But I ſhall not need to take any particular notice of them here, but refer to what was ſaid on this fubject in the fourth letter, where ſome account is given to the anſwers that were made to Toland's Amyntor To which may be added what hath been lately of- fered in anſwer to the ſame objections, when urged by the noble writer laſt-mentioned Mr. Chubh hath alſo raiſed a great clamour about the corrup- tion of Scripture. He layeth it down as a principle, that if God gave a revelation for the uſe of mankind, he would take care that it ſhould be tranſmitted ſafe and uncorrupted to all ſucceeding generations, and would by a particular and conſtant application of his power and providence have defended it from all injury, wherever it was promujged, and whatever language it was rendered into. He intimates, that God ought to have puniſhed with a ſudden death, as in the caſe of Ananias and Sapphira, every man that had committed any error, either in tranſcribing or tranſlating it. And if this had been the caſe, the conſequence would have been, that no man would have ventured to tranſcribe or tranſlate it at all. And this, no doubt, is what theſe gentlemen would wiſh; but there is no neceſſity for having recourſe to ſuch extraordinary methods; we have ſufficient evidence to ſatisfy any reaſonable perſon, that this revelation is tranſmitted to us, without any ſuch corruptions or alterations as can deſtroy the uſefulneſs of that revelation, or defeat the important ends for which it was originally given p. This hath been often clearly ſhewn. Our author indeed pro- nounces with great confidence, that“ it is a thing abundantly ¹evident, that the Chriſtian revelation hath been greatly de- **Fpraved and corrupted; that its pretended guardians have **extracted the myſtery of iniquity from it. And that we have *received the books referred to from that grand fountain of *corruption the Church of Rome, who muſt have been natu- ¹erally, and almoſt unavoidably led to corrupt them in thoſe ¹ times of ignorance, to juſtify herſelt in all other corruptions „¹and abuſes.“ This he frequently repeats, as his manner is, in ſeveral parts of his book, and it hath been often urged by the deiſtical writers d; and it muſt be acknowleged, that if a general corruption of the Scriptures could have been poſſibly effected, none had ſo good an opportunity, or a ſtronger temp- 0 See Reflections on Lord Bolingbroke's letters, p. 98,&c. See concerning this above, p. 66, 67. 120, 121. 4 Chubb's poſthumous works, vol. ii. p. 65, 66. 118. 121, 122. tation Let. 1 4. Mr. CHuB' Poſtbumous WMorks. 221 tation to attempt it than the Church of Rome. And yet it is evident in fact, that they have not corrupted the Scriptures in thoſe inſtances in which it was moſt their intereſt, and we might imagine alſo moſt in their inclination, to have corrupted them. There might be ſome pretence for ſuch a charge, if there had been any expreſs and formal pafſages inſerted in the New Teſtament, in favour of the papal fupremacy, of St. Pe- ter's having been biſnop of Rome, the worſhip of images, the invocation of ſaints and angels, purgatory, the communion in one kind, againſt prieſts marriage, and in favour of the monaſtic vows,&c. But our author hath not attempted to produce any paſſages of this kind, and he himſelf has obſerved, that“the New Teſtament was not ſufficient to ſupport the weight of «*the conſtitution of the Church Rome, and therefore its ¹*builders prudently annexed tradition to it r.“ He alſo finds fault with their locking up the Bible from the laity, as what hath put them ſo far under the power of the clergy, as to involve them in groſs ignorance, ſuperſtition, and ſlavery. Thus, this very conſiſtent writer, with a view to expoſe the New Teſta- ment, would perſuade us, that popery is taught and founded there, and yet would have the Bible kept in the hands of the people as a proper preſervative againſt it. The arguments in favour of the Jewiſp and Chriſtian reve- lation from prophecy and miracles have always been looked upon to be of great weight; and Mr. Chubb hath taken great pains to invalidate both theſe. With regard to prophecy, which is the entire ſubject of the ſeventh ſection of his Farewel to his readerss, he pretends not to deny that there may be true pro- phecy; that God may certainly foreknow future events, and may enable perſons to foretel them: But he denies, that the prediction of future events can be admitted as an evidence of divine revelation; becauſe a prophecy can never be known to be a true prophecy till it be fulfilled; and therefore can never be a proof or evidence at the time of its delivery; becauſe it muſt appear as yet uncertain. His argument here proceeds upon a wrong ſuppoſition, as if the advocates for revelation maintained, that the mere prediction of a future event, even before the completion of it, were alone a ſufficient proof to thoſe who heard the prediction, of the divine miſſion of the perfons who delivered it. This was far from being the only proof that was given either of the Moſaic or Chriſtian revela- tion. They were both of them at their firſt promulgation * Chubb's poſthumous works, p. 58. s Ibid. p. 139— 174. —— V I 22²2 A Vieco of tbe DEisT IcAL Writers. Let. 14. atteſted and eſtabliſned by an amazing ſucceſſion of the moſt wonderful works, and which plainly argued an extraordinary divine interpoſition. Beſides which, both Mo ſer and the pro- phets under the Old Teſtament, and our Lord Jeſus Chriſt and his apoſtles under the New, were enabled to give many expreſs predictions of future events; ſome of which related to things that were to happen in their own time, and received a ſpeedy accompliſhment; others related to events that were not to hap- pen till ſome ages after the prediction, and theſe alſo received their accompliſment in the proper ſeafon. And this added to the other evidences, exhibited a farther illuſtrious proof of a divine interpoſition in favour of the Jewiſb and Chriſtian reve- lation, and ſhews, that the firſt publiſhers of it were extraor- dinarily inſpired of God, who by the author's own acknow- legement can alone foreſee and foretel future contingent events. It was wiſely ordered that miracles and prophecy ſhould go to- gether, whereby not only the moſt ſtriking evidence was given to the truth and divinity of the revelation, at the time when it was firſt promulgated; but proviſion was made that there ſhould be a growing evidence, which might acquire new force and ſtrength by the ſucceſſive accompliſhment of the prophecies in the ſeveral different periods to which they refer. Indeed, if it were only a fingle prediction or two, the fulfilling of them might be looked upon to be accidental, and to amount to no more than a lucky conjecture. But a ſeries of prophecies, ſuch as is ſet before us in the ſacred writings, many of them relating to things of a moſt contingent nature, removed at the diſtance of ſeveral ages, and which depended upon things that no human ſagacity could foreſee, muſt be aſcribed to an extraordinary di- vine affiſtance. And it cannot reaſonably be ſuppoſed, that God would impart his own preſcience to give credit to impoſtors, who falſely pretended to be inſpired by him to deliver doctrines and laws to mankind. As to that part of the evidence of Chriſt's divine miſſion, which reſulteth from the prophecies of the Old Teſtament, this had been fully conſidered in the controverſy between Mr. Collins and his adverſaries, of which ſome account was given in the fixth letter. What Mr. Chubb hath offered on this head is very inconfiderable. But he has one reflection, that may deſerve ſome notice; it is this: That,“ ſuppoſing thoſe prophecies to ¹„ have been ſulfilled in Jeſus Chriſt, they are not ſo much to ¹be regarded as an evidence of the divine authority of the Chriſtian revelation, as of the divine character of its primary promulger, who being a free Being muſt have been at Bberiy s whe- 2₰ — Let. 14. Mr. CuusB' Poſthumous Morks. 2²³3 whether he would have faithfully delivered thoſe truths to the world, that had been delivered to him by his principal. And this, ſaith he, muſt of neceſſity be the caſe of all divine *«revelation t.“ But, ſuppoſing there was a ſeries of prophecy, relating to a wonderful perſon, who was to appear at a time prefixed as a divine teacher and Lord, and who was to erect a diſpenſation of truth and' righteoufneſs, and that his coming, perſon, offices, miracles, ſufferings, and the glories that ſhould follow, were deſcribed and pointed out by many remarkable predictions, delivered at ſundry dimes, and in divers manners, all which were fulfilled in Jeſus Chriſt, and in him only, this certainly muſt be looked upon as an illuſtrious atteſtation, not only to the divinity of his miſſion, but to the truth of the reve- lation he brought in the name of God. For it were moſt abſurd to ſuppoſe, that God would have inſpired ſo many perſons, in different ages, to foretel his coming and character as a divine teacher of truth and righteouſneſs, if he had not perfectly fore- known that he would certainly fulfil that character, and fulfil the great truſt repoſed in him. And the preparing mankind for his coming by ſuch a ſucceſſion of prophecies, and pointing him out by the moſt glorious and peculiar characters, ſo many ages before his actual appearfing, tended to give him an atteſta- tion of a moſt peculiar kind, and which was never equalled in any other caſe. With regard to the prophecies of Danial, this author thinks it is impofſible,“ that God ſhould deliver a prophecy ſo darkly, ¹« as that one man only, and he a prodigy, amidſt the millions „«of men that have taken place ſince that prophecy was deli- ««vered, ſhould be able to diſcover the true ſenſe and meaning *of it u.“ Where he goes upon a ſuppoſition, which is mani- feſtly falſe, viz. that no man before Sir ſaac Mewton was ever able to diſcover the meaning and intent of Daniel's prophecies. Many there have been who have laboured happily this way, both formerly and of late. And though there are ſeveral things in thoſe prophecies that are attended with great difficulty, there are others of the predictions contained in that bocok, which are ſo clear, that the application of them is comparatively eaſy. And they have been wonderfully verified in a manner which ſhews they could only have procecded from that all-ſee- ing mind which preſides over contingencies, and clearly ſees through the ſuccefſion of ages. And the predictions there ₰ ₰ t Chubb's poſthum. works, p. 152, 153. ² Ibid, p. 147, 148. given 224 A Viec of tbe DEisricAL. Writers. Let. i4. given relating to the Meſſiah, the deſign and end of his coming, and the deſolation of the Jouwiſb city and temple that ſhould be connected with it, are of ſuch a nature, as to give a moſt remarkable atteſtation to our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, as the tru promiſed Meſſiah. And it may be obſerved by the way, that this ſfhews the vanity and fallhood of another of our author's ſuppoſitions, who pretends that the Jewiſb expectation of the Meſſiah was ſolely owing to the notion they had of their being God's peculiar people, from whence it was natural for them to believe that God would raiſe them up a glouious deliverer, who ſhould exalt their nation to the higheſt degree of proſperity and grandeur: and that the prophets humoured them in this their notion and expectation: For if this had been the caſe, the pro- phets would not have ſpoken of a ſuffering Meſſiah; nor would they have foretold, as they have done, his being rejected of the Jews; and the judgments which ſhould be then executed upon that nation, and that the Gentiles ſhould be partakers of the benefits of his kingdom. This writer, who ſeems to value himſelf upon thinking out of the common way, can ſee nothing extraordinary in the pre- dictions relating to the calamities and diſperſiohs of the Jeus, and their wonderful preſervation under all their diſperſions and calamities, for a long ſucceſſion of ages. And yet, certain it is, that their being ſo generally diſperſed among all nations over the whole earth, and being ſiill preſerved as a diſtinct people, notwithſtanding the unexampled diſcouragements, reproaches, and ſufferings to which they have been expoſed, is one of the moſt wonderful things, taken in all its circumſtances, that is to be found in the whole hiſtory of mankind. And as it hath no parallel, its being ſo plainly foretold above three thouſand years ago(for ſo long it is ſince the time of Moſes, who firſt propheſied of it) is a moſt ſignal inſtance of a true prophetic ſpirit, and could be only owing to the inſpiration of that om- niſcient Being, who declareth Ihe end from the beginning, and from ancient times thea things which are not yet done. Iſhall only take notice of one obſervation more, which our author hath made with regard to the proof from prophecy, viz. that it appears from St. Paul's account, that the gift of prophecy was a dictinét gift from that of knowlege, I Cor. Xii. 8, 9, 10. and ¾ that they had no connection or dependence “upon one another. And he thinks therefore, that a perſon's “¹“foretelling things to come, does not prove a ſuperiority of „¹ knowlege, and that the prophet's knowlege extends farther ¹« than thée prophecies he delivers.“ But if we examine that Paſſage Let. 14. Mr. Cuus' Poſtbumous WMorks. 225 paſſage of St. Paul, which he refers to, we ſhall find it is far from anſwering the end he propoſes by it, viz. to invalidate the proof from prophecy in favour of the Chriſtian revelation. The apoſtle is there ſpeaking of the ſeveral gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, which were poured forth on many of the Chriſtian con- verts in that firſt age, in various proportions and degrees ac- cording to his will. One of theſe was, that of prophecy. It is not certain that by Prophecy in that particular paſſage, is to be underſtood the foretelling things to come; for the word pro- phecy is ſometimes taken in that epiſtle in another ſenſe; but allowing it to be ſo, ſince it appears from other paſſoges that ſuch a gift there was in the firſt age of the Chriſtian church, and it was what our Saviour had promiſed, Jobn Xxvi. 13. in that caſe it muſt be ſaid, that ſuch a gift, if really conferred, could only proceed from God, or his Holy Spirit. And as thoſe extraordinary gifts, of which this was one, were commu- nicated by the laying on of the hands of the apoſtles in the name of a crucified and riſen Jeſus, the conferring theſe gifts on any of the Chriſtian converts may be juſtly regarded as a moſt il- luſtrious proof of a divine intermiſſion in favour of Chriſtianity, and of the divine miſſion of the apoſtles, the firſt authorized publiſhers of it. Having conſidered the principal things this writer has urged on the head of prophecy, I. fhall take ſome notice of what he hath offered concerning the proof of miracles: This is the ſubject of this eighth ſection x. He will nort allow that miracles can be any proof of the divine miſſion of perſons or truth of doctrines. What he chiefly inſiſteth upon to this purpoſe is, that the power of working miracles may be equally annexed to falſnood and truth. And whereas it might be objected, that God will not ſuffer miraculous power to be miſapplied, becauſe, were that the caſe, mankind would be greatly expoſed to im- poſition; he anſwers,“ that when a miracle is once wrought, **it muſt and will be in the option of the operator to apply ** that power as he pleaſes, either well or ill, nor could God ** prevent it, otherwiſe than by deſtroying his being or his **agency.“ But ſuppoſing, which is the preſent ſuppoſition, a real power of working miracles communicated from God, with a view to give atteſtation to the divine miſſion of perſons ſent to inſtruct the world in important truths, it is abſurd to ſuppoſe, that he would continue that power to them, if they applied it to the confirming of falſnood; or that he would have * Chubb's poſth. works, vol. ii. p. 177— 249. Vor. J. C given 226 ½ View of tbe DEisrICAI Wriler. Let. 14. iven them that power for atteſting truth, if he foreſaw they would uſe it in favour of falſnood; and in that caſe he muſt have foreſeen it. With regard to the power of working mira- cles in the firſt age of the Chriſtian church it was not at the option of the perions who had that power to uſe it when or to what purpoſe they pleaſed. They could only work thoſe miracles, when and upon what occaſion it ſeemed fit to the Holy Ghoſt that they ſhould do them. In which caſe they had an extraordinary impulſe, which is uſually called he faith of miracles, which was a kind of direction to them, when to work thofe miracles, and whereby they knew and were per- ſuaded that God would enable them to do them. Theé proper uſe and deſign of thoſe miracles was to confirm the teſtimony given by the apoſtles to our Saviour and bis refurrection, and the truth of the doctrines they taught as received from him. Nor can any one proof be brought, though he takes it for granted, that any falſe teachers in that age did, by virtue of any extraordinary gift or powers of the Holy Ghoſt communi- cated to them, work miracles to confirm the falſe doctrines they preached. On the contrary, St. Paul appeals to the Galatians themſelves, as in a matter of fact which could not be conteſted, that miracles were only wrought, and the extraordinary gifts of the ſpirit communicated, in atteſtation to that true doctrine of the goſpel which he had preached, and not to that ot her goſ⸗ hel, as he calleth it, which the falſe teachers would have im- poſed upon them, Gal. ii. 2, 5. But I have elſewhere con- ſidered this matter at large, and ſhall not here repeat what wa there offered v. But what our author chiefly bends himſelf to prove is, that the accounts given us of the miracles recorded in the New Teſta- ment are falſe or uncertain, and not at all to be depended on. To this purpoſe he mentions ſeveral of our Saviour's miracles, and repeats the ſame objections againſt them, that had been urged by Mr. Woolſton before, and to which ſolid anſwers had been returned. Every thing in the evangelical accounts that appears to him ſtrange or extraordinary, he rejects at once. I cannot here enter into a diſtinct conſideration of the ſeveral par- ticulars he allegeth. I ſhall only mention one on which he ſeems to lay a greater ſtreſs than any of the reſt, and which he iaſiſts upon more than once, as zlone fufficient to deſtroy the credit of the evangelical hiſtorians. It relates to the account y See Divine Authority of the Old and New Teſtament aſſerted, vol. i. p. 380— 387. 3 given Let. 14. Mr. Cuu's Poſtbumous Morkr. 227 given of our Saviour's temptations in the wilderneſs. It will be readily owned, that the fact referred to is of a very extraor- dinary nature. But a thing may be very ſtrange and wonder- ful, and yet very true, and is to be received as ſuch, if it comes to us vouched by a ſuffilcient authority. And in this caſe the authority is ſufficient; for I think it cannot reaſonably be doubted, that the account came originally from our Lord himſelf, ſince no other could be ſuppoſed to know it, and that it was well known to the apoſtles and diſciples to have come from him. It is diſtinctly related by two of the evangeliſts, St. Matthew and S8t. Luke, and referred to by a third, St. Mark. St. Jobn, according to the method he purſues, of inſiſting chiefly upon things not mentioned by the reſt, had no occaſion to take notice of it. There is not the leaſt reaſon to ſuppoſe, that the evangeliſts would have inſerted ſuch an account as this, if they had not been aſſured that the information came from Chriſt himſelf; and his authority is a fufficient warrant for believing it; nor is our author able to prove, that there is any thing here aſcribed to Satan, which he might not be able, or might not be permitted to perform. In what manner he pretended to ſhew to our Saviour all the kingdoms of the world, and all the glory f them, we are not told, nor is there any neceſſity here of taking the word all in the ſtricteſt ſenſe. But in what way ſoever this was done, concerning which we cannot pretend certainly to judge, this writer doth not know enough of the caſe to pronounce it impoſſible. Suppoſing there are evil ſpi- rits, can any man take upon him poſitively to determine how far their power and ability may extend? And that there are both good and evil ſpirits ſuperior to man, hath been the general belief of mankind in all nations and ages, and even of the beſt and wiſeſt of men; nor can a ſhadow of reaſon be brought to prove the exiſtence of ſuch ſpirits to be either im- poſſible or improbable; though our author, in his great wiſ- dom, has all along rejected all accounts where there is any mention made of angels or devils, with as much confidence as if he could clearly demonſtrate, that there cannot poſſibly be any ſuch thing.— He frequently ſpeaks of the weakneſs and credulity of the ſacred hiftorians, and repreſents the accounts given in the Goſpels, and in the Acts of the Aßoſiles, as mere fictions, more like Jewiſh fables, or Popiſb legends, than real fasts z. Yea he expreſsly declares,“ that ſome of the popiſh miracles, though z Chubb, ubi ſupra, p. 192, 193. 02 ¹* generally 228 AView of tbe DEisTICAL. Writers. Let. 14. *˙ generally rejected by proteſtants as fraud and impoſture, are *«better atteſted than any of the miracles which were wrought, ¹⁴or ſuppoſed to be wrought in the firſt century. And that ¹⁴ had the like ſtrict ſcrutiny been made in former times that is *¹at preſent, thoſe antient miracles would have been rejected:.“ But every thinking perſon will eaſily ſee a mighty difference in the caſe between miracles wrought before perſons highly pre- judiced in their favour, and in proof of the reigning religion, where power and intereſt is on their ſide, and where there is not a full liberty allowed to make a ſtrict enquiry in the view of enemies themſelves, and where the public prejudices lie on the other ſide, and power, intereſt, and authority are engaged againſt them. There will always be ground of ſuſpicion in the former caſe, not equally ſo in the latter. The miracles ſaid to be wrought in the Romiſp church, are done in countries where Popery is the eſtabliſhed religion, and has power and the pre- judices of the people, and an evident worldly intereſt on its ſide. And they are not performed openly in the view of Pro- teſtants and for their conviction, in places where there is a full liberty of examining into all the circumſtances relating to them. Whereas the miracles whereby Chriſtianity was eſtabliſhed, were done openly, and in the view of enemies able and willing to have detected the impoſture, if there had been any; they were done to eſtabliſh a ſcheme of religion, the moſt oppoſite that could be imagined to the prevailing prejudices both of Jeuus and Gentiles, and even to the prejudices that had poſſeſſed the minds of the very perſons by whom theſe miracles were wrought; and when all the power and authority of the world, as well as the influence and artifices of the prieſthood, and every worldly advantage, lay wholly on the other ſide. And yet, vaſt num- bers were brought over to receive a crucified Jeſus as their Saviour and their Lord, in that very age, by the evidence of thoſe miracles and extraordinary facts, concerning which they had the beſt opportunity of being informed, in oppoſition to all their worldly intereſts, and their moſt inveterate prejudices. In vain then it is to inveigh, as this writer does, againſt the hiſtorians, and to pretend that“ they were weak enough to ««F give credit to any relations they might pick up, and had ¹Courage enough to put vpon the world whatever might be *¹put upon them b.“ For the things related by them are of a Chubb, ubi ſapra, p. 226, 227.„ Chubb's poſth. workt, 194. 139 ſuch Let. 14. Mr. Cuun' Poſtbumous Works. 229 ſuch a public nature, that if they had been falſe, it would have been the eaſieſt thing in the world for their enemies, of whom there were many, to have detected them; which would have cruſhed this religion in its infancy. Our author himſelf is ſenſible how difficuſt it would have been to impoſe facts of ſo extraordinary and ſo public a nature, as thoſe recorded in the Goſpels, and in the Afts ꝗf the Apoſtles, in the very age in which the facts were ſaid to be done. And therefore without ſo much as attempting to offer the leaſt proof, takes upon him to affirm, that the accounts of theſe facts were not publiſhed till a long time after, when there was nobody alive that could contradict them; and he declares as poſitively as if he could prove it to be ſo, that they were not made public till the ſecond century, which he repreſents as an age of fiction and forgery. This is what he particularly affirms concerning the accounts given in the Acts f the Aßoſtles; though it is evident from the book itſelf, that it was written in the apoſtolical age, and before the ſecond impriſonment or the death ot St. Paul. In the ſecond century, Chriſtianity had already made a wonderful progreſs through the nations, of which there are unqueſtionable proofs. And by a ſtrange abſurdity, he ſuppoſes that the extraordinary facts whereby the Chriſtian religion was atteſted and confirmed, were not publiſhed till that time, i. e. that they were not heard of or made public, till long after the founding of the Chriſtizn church, though it was wholly upon the credit of thoſe facts that the Chriftian church was founded. He pretends farther, that the accounts of theſe things“ were kept as a * treaſure in the hands of believers, not known to unbelievers, * who therefore had it not in their power to confute them, or ** detect the fraud c.“ And yet certain it is, that the apoſtles went every-where preaching the religion of Jeſus to an un- believing world. All thoſe to whom the firſt publiſhers of Chriſtianity preached the goſpel, and publiſned the accounts of the important facts on which it was founded, were at firſt un- belicvers. And it was upon the convincing aſſurance they had of the truth of theſe facts, that they were brought over to embrace it, and of unbelieving Jeus or heathens became Chriſ- tians, or believers in Jeſus Chriſt. And whereas he adds, that **thoſe facts were not publiſhed at or near the place of the * performance, but in Greece, Italy,&c. where the people ** could not contradict them;“ he ſeems not to have conſidered, that all theſe things were firſt publiſhed in Judea, Where the s Chubb's poſth, work:, vol. ii. P, 203, 204, 205. Q3 firſt 230 A Viev of the DEIsTIcAL Writers. Let. 14. firſt Chriſtian churches were founded; and that great numbers of jews were converted in the place where all the facts were done. It was not till after they had been pnbliſhed ſome years in Judea, that they were made known to the Gentiles: And in all thoſe countries where the goſpel was preached, there were vaſt numbers of jeuws who had a continual correſpondence with choſe in Judea, and went frequently to Jeruſalem to the public feaſts, and could therefore eaſily procure information whether thoſe facts were as they had been repreſented. I ſhall not need to make anmy obſervations upon what Mr. Chubb hath offered againſt the accounts given by the evangeliſts of our Lord's reſurreétion. For as he has only enlarged on ſome of the ſame objections which had been advanced by the author of The Reſurrection of Jeſus conſidered, it may be ſuffi- cient to refer to what has been ſaid on this ſubject in th twelfth letter. Having conſidered the attempts made by Mr. Chacbb to invali- date the argument in behalf of divine Revelation from prophecy and miracles, it will not be improper to take ſome notice of what hath been offered to take off the force of the argument, which he hath frequently urged from the wonderful propa- gation of Chriſtianity, in behalf of its divine original. He ac- kcnowlegeth, that ⁰it is improbable that Chriſtianity ſhould „« take place, and prevail in the world, and to the degree it ** did, or at leaſt that we are told it did, ſuppoſing the hiſtory « of Chriſt's life and miniſtry to be a fictiond.“ But then, as if he had granted too much, he obſerves, that“ the preſent run *« of methodiſm, without any miraculous power attending it, or any external evidence to back it, takes off from the weight and force of the argumente.“ He often returns to this, and in ſeveral parts of this book ſeems willing to run a parallel be- rween the progreſs of Chriſtianity, and that of Methodiſm. But this only ſheus the ſtrong prejudices of thoſe who glory in the character of Free-thinkers, and how forward they are to catch at the ſlighteſt pretences for ſetting aſide the evidences brought 44 66 in favour of Chriſtianity. For in reality there can be no reaſon- able parallel drawn between the one and the other. There's no great wonder in it, that profeſſed Chriſtians pretending to a high degree of purity and piety, and to teach true ſcriptural Chriſtianity, fhould make fome progreſs, not in Pagan or Ma- hometan, or even in Popiſh countries; for I do not find our * Chabb's poſth. works, vol, ii, p. 40, 41. Ibid. mar . 1 Methodiſts Let. 14. Mr. CHuUBB' Poſthumous Works. 231 Methodiſts take upon them to make many converſions there, but in a country where ſcriptural Chriltianity is profeſſed, and a full toleration allowed. There is nothing in this but what may be eafily accounted for, without ſuppoſing any thing fuperna- tural in the caſe. They do not pretend to new extraordinary revelations, nor appeal to any miraculous facts, as the French prophets did; in which caſe the failure of thoſe facts might eaſily ſubject them to a detection: But they build upon the religion already received among us, and only pretend to explain and enforce the doctrines there taught. But the caſe was in- tirely different with regard to the Apoſtles and firſt publiſhers of Chriſtianity. The religion they preached, and eſpecially the great fundamental article of it, the receiving a crucified Jeſus for their Saviour and Lord, was contrary to the moſt rooted pre- judices both of Jeus and Gentiles. It tended entirely to ſubvert the whole ſyſtem of the Pagan ſuperſtition and idolatry; and alſo the pleaſing hopes the Jeu"s had entertained concerning a tem- poral Meſliah, who ſhould raiſe their nation to the height ot ſecular dominion and grandeur. It was holy and ſelf-denying in its nature and tendency, and was deſigned not to flatter, but to ſubdue and mortify the corrupt luſts and paſſions of men. It appealed to facts of the moſt extraordinary and public nature, and which could not fail being detected, if they had been falſe. The firſt publiſhers of it were not only deſtitute of every worldly advantage, but had the moſt inſurmountable difficul- ties to encounter with. They were expoſed to the moſt griev- Ous perſecutions, reproaches, and ſufferings, and had all the powers of the world engaged againſt them: That therefore they fhould be able in fuch circumſtances to bring over vaſt numbers both of Jeus and Gentiles to the faith of the crucified Jefus, and that the religion they taught ſhould in ſpite of all oppoſition prevail, and at length overturn the whole eſtabliſhed ſuperſtition, which had every worldly advantage to ſupport it; this cannot be reaſonably accounted for, without ſuppoſing the interpoſition of a divine power, and the truth of the extraordi- nary facts on which it was founded. Me. Chubb ſeems to lay a particular ſtreſs on the great change vu bich, he pretends, took place in Cbriſtianity, w D ⁄ in its mn2 primitive ſtate. He affirms, that“ the apoſtles ſet out upon *two principles, which may be conſidered as the foundation «or corner ſtone of the Chriſtian building. 1. That Chriſ- *e tianity is a ſupplement to Judaiſm; and therefore was to be 66 grafted upon it: And that the law of Mo ſes was not to be ¹ aboliched, but ſtill continued. 2. That the Goſpel was a ‿ℳ* fal 232 A Viev of the DEisricaL Writers. Let. 14. ¹*¹ favour to be vouchſafed to the Jeuss only, and that to them ‧only it was to be preached.“ And he pretends,“ that the *¹apoſtles were unavoidably led into theſe principles by their *⁴ maſter bimſelf:“ But that, ‧in a little time they quite ¹changed the original ſcheme or plan of Chriſtianity, and du ¹up and deſtroyed the foundations they themſelves had laid. And then he aſks,“How do we know in what inſtances they * may be depended upon? and if they acted wrong in this, ¹*⁴ how does it appear that they ever acted right?e“ This he returns to on ſeveral occaſions. But this whole matter is en- tirely miſrepreſented: It is plain from ſeveral hints given by our Lord himſelf during his perſonal miniſtry, that it was really his intention, and the deſign upon which he was ſent, to erect a new and more perfeCt diſpenſation than the Moſſaical was, though it was not as yet a proper ſeaſon to make a public de- claration of it. That his goſpel was to be preached not to the Jeuus only, but alſo to the Gentiles; and that the latter were to be taken into his church, and to bemade partakers of his bene- fits, and of the great ſalvation he came to procure. Any one will be convinced of this, who impartially conſiders the follow- ing paſſages, Marth. viii. 10, 11, 12. Xv. 10, 11. XXi. 43. jobhn iv. 21. 23. X. 16. The utmoſt that our author's pre- tence can be made to amount to, is really no more than this: that the apoſtles, for ſome time after our Lord's aſcenſion, were not entirely freed from their Jewiſb prejudices. And ſuppoſing, which was really the caſe, that the Jewiſb diſpenſation was originally from God, and was deſigned to give way to the more perfect diſpenſation of the goſpel, for Which it was preparatory, there was a great propriety in it that the change ſhould not be brought about all at once, which might have been too great a ſhock even to honeſt and well-diſpoſed minds. The gradual method of unfolding the Chriſtian ſcheme, and diſpelling the apoſtles prejudices, inſtead of being a juſt objection, ſhews that the whole was conducted with a divine wiſdom and goodneſs. And their having continued for ſome time under thoſe preju- dices, giveth a mighty force to their teſtimony, and furniſheth a manifeſt proof that the Chriſtian diſpenſation was not of their own invention, nor was owing to a ſudden pang of enthuſiaſm: Since it was with ſuch difficulty that they themſelves were brought to diſcern and embrace it, conſidered in its proper har- mony. And it was only owing to the ſtrength of the over⸗ * Chubh's poſth. works, vol. ii. p. 84,& ſeq. powering Let. 14. Mr. Cuu B's Poſtbumous Works. 233 powering light and evidence, that all their prejudices were at length overcome and diſpelled. Beſides the two principles mentioned above, Mr. Chubb has thought fit to take notice of a third, which he alſo pretends was a fundamental principle of Chriſtianity, as laid down by the apoſtles, viz. That the diſciples of Chriſt were to have one *⁴cCommon ſtock or property, of which the clergy were conſti- „¹ tuted the truſtees and directors.“ And he thinks, that from this it appears, how groundleſs that pretence muſt be, *«that the apoſtles and miniſters of Jeſus Chriſt could have no worldly advantage in view, when they went forth to preach the goſpel: Whereas nothing can be more evident than that they had a fair proſpect of, and a very plauſible pretence for, gathering great riches into their hands, as keepers and ma- ¹* nagers of the church's property or treaſure.“ This he is ſo fond of, that he inſiſteth upon it for ſeveral pages together f. And the author of the Kefurrection of Jefus confidered, had hinted at the ſame thing before him, to ſhew, that the apoſtles were intereſted witneſſes, and that therefore their teſtimony to Chriſt's reſurrection is not to be depended on 8. But all this is built on a falſe foundation, for there was no divine or apoſtolical conſtitution obliging Chriſtians to put their whole worldly ſub- ſtance into the common ſtock, and to commit it to the apoſtles as the directers. It appeareth plainly from St. Peter's words to Ananias, that it was a matter which depended entirely on the free choice of the Chriſtian converts, and was the effect of their voluntary zeal and charity; and it was an illuſtrious proof of the ſtrong conviction and perfuaſion they had of the truth of the goſpel, and of thoſe great and extraordinry facts by which Chriſtianity was ſupported. This was the more remarkable, as it was at Jeruſalem that this was done, ſoon after our Lord's reſurrection and aſcenſion, and the extraordinary effuſion of the Holy Ghoſt on the day of Pentecoſt, and where they had the beſt opportunity of knowing the evidences of thoſe facts. But whatever was done this way, in the extraordinary circum- ſtances in which the firſt chriſtians were placed, it is manifeſt from ſeveral paſſages in the New Teſtament, and particularly from St. Paul's directions to the Corinthians, that this was not deſigned to be generally obligatory upon all Chriſtians. See 1 Cor. Xvi. 1, 2. 2 Cor. viii. H. And indeed it ſeems to have been peculiar to thoſe at Jerufalem, for which undoubtediy f Chubb's poſth. works, p. 102— 110, s Reſurrection of Jeſus conſidered, p. 68. there 234 A View of ibe DEisT IcAL Writers. Let. 14. there were particular reaſons. And even there, ſo far were the apoſtles from claiming to themſelves the direction of the public ſtock, that they expreſsly refuſed to have any thing to do with the management of it, that they might apply themſelves to their proper work, the mioiſtry of the word. And it was given into the hands of perſons of unexceptionable ckaracters, choſen by the Chriſtian ſociety for that purpoſe, that they might impartially diſtribute out of the common ſtock to thoſe that needed it, Acts vi. 1, 2, 3. If the apoſtles had been actuated by worldly views, they would certainly have choſen a ſcheme of re- ligion, more cunningly accommodated to the prevailing hu- mours and prejudices of mankind. For what proſpect could they have of perſuading people to give up their treaſures and worldly ſubſtance into their hands, by preaching up to the Jenus a perſon that had been condemned and crucified by the chief prieſts and rulers of their own nation for their Meſſiah, and preaching up to the Gentiles a crucified Jeu for their Lord and Saviour? Our author himſelf is ſenſible of this, and there- ſore at the ſame time that he talks of the fair worldly proſpeos they had, he owns that theſe proſpects muſt have depended upon their ex pecting ſucceſs in their miniſtry, and upon their being perſuaded that they had God and his promiſes on their ſide, and that Chriſt would be with them, as he had foretold, to the end of thæ worldh. So that, according to his own way of ſtating the caſe, and indeed according to the reaſon of the thing, their proſpeét of ſucceſs was founded in the firm belief they had of the truth and divinity of Chriſt's miſſion, and of bis reſurrection and exaltation to glory. 80 inconſiſtent is this writer's hypotheſis, that, in order to make good his charge of worldly intereſted views againſt the apoſtles, he is forced to go upon a ſuppoſition of the truth of the illuſtrious atteſtations rhat were given to the Chriſtian religion, and which he elſe- where endeavours to invalidate. And yet, ſuppoſing the apoſtles to have believed what their Lord had told them, they could have no worldly advantage to expect; ſince he had aſſured them that they ſfhould be expoſed to all manner of reproaches, perſecutions, and ſufferings, both from Jeus and Gentiles, and mould be hated all nen for his name's ſabe. And this was actually the caſe: What the apoſtles got by preaching up the religion of Jeſus, is in a very affecting manner repreſented by St. Paul, who was one of them: From whence it is manifeſt, mhat never were there any per ſons expoſed to a greater variety ſth. works, vol. li. p. 108, 109., 3 Let. 14. Mr. CuusB' Poſthumous Morks. 233 of hardſhips and fufferings, I Cor. iv. 9. 11, 12, 13. XV. 19. 32. 2 Cor. iv. 8, 9, 10, 11. Xi. 23— 28. It is particularly evident, that this laſt mentioned great apoſtle could have no worldly advantage in view in embracing Chriſtianity. His intereſts, reputation. and prejudices lay wholly the other way, and tended ftrongly to biaſs him againſt it. Nothing but conviction and the power of evidence, could overcome his obffinacy; after which he became the moſt emi- nently inſtrumental to propagate the Chriſtian réligion in the world, of which he had been a moſt zealous perſecutor before. And this ſeems to be the cauſe of that peculiar rancour and pre- judice which this writer every-where diſcovers againſt him. The beſt judges have admired the ſtrength and cloſeneſs of St. Paul's reaſoning; this particularly was the judgment of one of the beſt reaſoners of the age, Mr. Locke, who ſtudied his writ- ings with great application. But our author has thought fit to repreſent him as a lo, unguarded writer, who did not attend to his own argument, or to the fubject. He frequently charges him with drawing wrong concluſions from his premiſes; and that his epiſtles were crude, indigeſted performances, which were probabhy ſent as.hey were firſt wrote, without being revied by him; and that this ſomerimes involved him in confuſion. He endeavours to give the moſt abſurd and ridiculous turn poſſible to ſeveral paſſages in his writings: Some inſtances of which were taken notice of above, to which many others might be added. Not content with this, he repreſents this excellent perſon, who was no leſs remarkable for his humility than for his many other virtues, as a vain-glorious boaſter, and treats the account which, with a remarkable modeſty, and as it were by conſtraint, he gives of his labours and ſufferings, as a bra- vado, and Baßi all beliefi. He accuſes him and St. James as guilty of the moſt gr) and notorious diſſinaulation and hypocriſy, and repreſents him as the great author of Hious frauds in reli- gion: and that he acted upon this principle, that truth in ſome caſes may and ought to be diſpenſed with; and that therefore he and the other apoſtles were capable of giving a falſe teſtimony to ſerve the Cbriſtian cauſek. But this certainly was not St. Paul's principle; he has condemned in the ſtrongeſt terms thoſe who maintained, that it is lawful to lie for the glory of God, and to do evil that good may come o it; which is the great prin- ciple upon which pious frauds are built, Nam. iii. 5, 6. All 22 1 Chubb's poſth. works, vol. ii. p. 364¾, 92,&c. 235,&c, 5.„ Ibid. p. that 236 A View of ibe DEisricAL Writers. Let. 14. that Mr. Chubb has advanced to prove the heavy charge he has brought againſt this great apoſtle is reducible to two facts. The one is his ſaying before the council, that of the hoße and reſurrettion gf the dead he was called in queſtion, Acts xxiii. 6. Upon which our author obſerves, that in this“he acted a de⸗ «ceitful part, and coined a lie to ſave himſelf, ſince he was not *« called in queſtion about the reſurrection, nor was this any ¹G part of the charge againſt him¹.“ But that the preaching through Jeſus Chriſt the reſurrection of the dead, was one rea- ſon of the perſecution which was raiſed againſt Chriſt's diſ- ciples; and that this was Wwhat particularly excited the rage of the Sadqucees againſt them, of which party the high prieſt, or at leaſt many of thoſe about him, and who were men of power and intereſt, appear to have been, is plain from the account given in the Acls of the ASpoſtles, chap. iv. 1, 2, 3. v. 17. And it was very allowable for the apoſtle to take advantage of this, for creating a diviſion among his adverſaries, who were not themſelves agreed what charge to bring againſt him. This is a proof of his prudence and addreſs, and that he did not run upon his ſufferings with a blind enthuſiaſtic heat, but it is no proof of his diſnoneſty. The other inſtance, upon which the charge of hypocriſy and lying againſt St. Paul is founded, is taken from what he did at Jerufalem, by St. James's advice, in purifying himſelf in the temple, Acts XXxi. 20— 26m. But if this had been fairly repreſented, it would have appeared that there was nothing in his conduét on this occaſion inconſiſtent with honeſty and integrity. What the Jewiſb Chriſtians had been informed of concerning St. Pauil, was, that he had taug ht the Jews uuhbich were among the Gentiles to forſake Moſes, ſaying, that they ought nor to circumciſe their children, neither to walk after the cuſioms, ver. 21. They repreſented him as having taught that it was abſolutely unlawful for the Jews to circum- ciſe their children, or to obſerve the Jewiſb rites. This accu- ſation was falſe, St. Paul had not taught this; he only had argued againſt the neceſſity of obſerving that law, and had urged Jeuus and Gentiles to a mutual forbearance with one an- other in this matter. And what he did purſuant to the advice of St. James, ſhewed that he did not look upon it to be then unlawful to obſerve the Jewiſb rites, and that he judged it both lawful and expedient in ſome caſes to obſerve them for avoiding ſcandal, Aud upon this principle he proceeded in 1 Chubb's poſthumous works, vol. i. P. 330., 331. vol. ii. P. 238, * Ibid. vol. i. p. 92, 93. 98. 4 circumciſing Let. 14. Mr. CuurB's Poſtbumous MWorks. 237 circumciſing Timothy. This whole matter had been ſet in a clear light, and the wiſdom and conſiſtency of the conduct of St. Paul and the other apoſtles fully juſtified, in the anſwers that were made to the Moral Philaſobher. But Mr. Chubb re- peats the charge, without troubling himielf to take off the force of what had been offered for clearing it. After what hath been obſerved, it will be no ſurprize to find, that this writer repreſents the being converted to Chriſtianity as of no importance at all, and that he frequently lets us know that he looks upon all religions to be alike, with regard to the favour of God. The turning from Mahometaniſm to Chriſ- * tianity, ſays he, or from Chriſtianity to Mahometaniſm, is ¹* onlya laying aſide one external form of religion and making «uſe of another, which is of no more real benefit, than a man's «« changing the colour of his cloaths, by putting off a red coat «« and putting on a blue one in its ſtead.“ And he elſewhere repreſents it as an indifferent matter,“ whether a man adopts „FJudaiſm, or Paganiſm, or Mabometaniſm, or Chriſtianity.“ And what is more extraordinary, he would put this upon us, as St. Peter's ſentiment as well as his own, and endeavours, after his manner, to prove it from that noted paſſage, A⁴s x. 34, 35 of atruth Iperceive that God is no reſpecter of Berſons; but in ævet y nation, hethat feareth him, and worketh righteouſ- neſs, is accepted with him. He pretends that St. Peter here teacheth,"that faith, in any religious leader, or his miniſtry, ¹« is altogether ſupernumerary, and that he hath excluded both «* faith and infidelity out of the caſe°.“ As if the apoſtle there deſigned to tell Cornelius, that it was no manner of import- ance whether he believed in Jeſus Chriſt or not; which is to make him ſpeak in direct contradiction to the very deſign of his being ſent to Cornelius, and of all his ſubſequent diſcourſe to him. St. Peter ſignifieth indeed, in the words cited by this author, that whoſoever in any nation, like Cornelius, truly feared and worſhipped God, and practiſed righteouſneſs, ſhould be accepted of him, though not belonging to the Jewν(ꝶ nation, or initiated into the Mo ſaic polity: But he certainly never in- tended to ſignify, that the embracing Chriſtianity was a matter of mere indifferency. Cornelius's piety and good diſpoſitions would have rendered him acceptable to God, though he had not heard of Chriſt; but when he had an opportunity of being informed, that very piety and fear of God led him to receive n Chubb's Poſth. works, vol. ii. p. 33, 34⸗ 6 Ibid. vol. i. p. 295— 302.„ tho. e 238 K View of tbe DEisTICAL writers. Let. 14. thoſe ſignifications of the divine will, and to believe in Jeſus Chriſt, whom he hath ſent. And the great importance and ad- vantage of faith in Chriſt, in ſuch a caſe, is evidently ſuppoſed in St. Peter's whole diſcourſe, who was extraordinarily ſent on purpoſe to inſtruct him in it. This writer thinks proper to find fault with the author of the Acts f the Abtles, for laying ſo great a ſtreſs on the converſion of eæus or Heathens toChriſtianity, which, in his opinion, is“of little conſequence as to the favour «*of God, or their future fafety, becauſe if they were virtuous ¹ and good men, they were ſecure without ſuch converſion, „e and if they were bad vicious men, they were not ſecured by *« it?.“ But if they were good men before, and were thereby put in the way of greater improvements in goodneſs, more fully inſtructed in religion, raiſed to more glorious hopes, and fur- niſhed with more excellent helps, and more powerful animating encouragements to all virtue and univerſal righteouſneſs; or if they were bad men, involved in groſs ignorance and idolatry, ſuperſtition and vice, which was the general character of the Héathens when the goſpel appeared, and by turning to Chriſtia- nity were brought to the knowlege and pure adoration of the only true God, and engaged to forſake their evil ways, and to livé ſoberly, righteouſſy, and godly in this preſent world; and no other were accounted true Chriſtian converts; this, by the author's own acknowlegement, muſt have been a ſignal advan- rage. He himſelf had ſaid a little before,“ if the revelation re- «* ferred to could furniſh me with uſeful knowlege, or with a ¹ better rule of life, or with more powerful excitements to the *¹ practice of virtue and true religion, than at preſent I am in poſſeſſion of, and thereby I ſhould be made a wiſer and bet- ter man, then I acknowlege that ſuch conviction would be ** beneficial to me in proportion to ſuch improvement d.“ And this is evidently the caſe of the Chriſtian revelation, wherever it is ſincerely believed and embraced, and men give themſelves up to its divine conduct. And therefore thoſe to whom this reve- lation is offered, and who yet deſpiſe and reject it, are juſtly chargeable with great guilt. For it cannot be a flight guilt to reject the valuable means and helps which God hath in his in- finite wiſdom and goodneſs provided for promoting our ſpiritual improvement, and engaging and enabling us to work out our ovn ſalvation: nor can any thing be more unreaſonable than to pre- tend, as the enemies of revelation have often done, that becauſe virtue and righteouſneſs is what God approves, therefore faith .₰ . p Chubb's poſth. works, vol. ii. P. 33. a Ibid. p. 32. 1s Let. 14. Mr. Cuue' Poſtbumous Works. 239 is unneceſſary, and of no conſequence at all; the very contrary follows from it. For if moral improvement and true holineſs be of ſuch vaſt importance, then certainly the beſt and propereſt means for attaining to it are very needful, and to be highly valued; and ſuch are the means and helps which the religion of Jefus affordeth, as laid down in the holy Scriptures; and to re- ject thoſe means and aſſiſtances, under pretence of obtaining the end without them, is a moſt abſurd and criminal conduct, juſtly diſpleaſing in the ſight of God, and a moſt unworthy re- turn to his infinite goodneſs. I fhall conclude my remarks on Mr. Ghabb's Poſthamous Works, with taking notice of a remarkable paſſage at the end of the eighth ſection of his Farewel to his readers. After having done all he could to expoſe the ſeriptures, and ſhew that it is not ſafe to appeal to them, he draws this concluſion from the whole: That“ this ſhews the great propriety of our returning **⅜back do that prior rule of action, which is the ground and foundation of moral truth, and conſequently of moral certainty; viz. that eternal and invariable rule of right and wrong, as to an infallible guide, and as the folid ground of our peace and ſafety, which rule we are too caſily diverted **from“.“ He ſeems to ſpeak here, as if Chriſtians, and thoſe that were for adhering to ſcripture as their rule, had no regard to the rule of right and wrong, or to the nature and reaſon of things, which is a groſs miſrepreſentation; and as if the Deiſts were under the conduct of an infallible guide. Particularly it is to be ſuppoſed, that he would have it to be underſtood that he himſelf hath taken care to follow the infallible guide he recom- mends. But if we are to judge by the effect it has had upon himſelf, we have no great encouragement to entertain a very favourable opinion of the advantange we ſhall obtain by forſaking the Scripture, under pretence of following ſuch a guide. For what is it, that his infallible guide has directed him to? It has inclined him to deny a particular providence, or that God now interpoſeth in ordering or governing the affairs of men, and the events relating to them, whether with regard to nations or par- ticular perſons, and conſequently has directed him not to make a dependence on providence, a truſt in God, or reſignation to his will, any part of his religion. It hath taught him not to expect any gracious aſſiſtances from God, or to apply to him for them. It leaveth him at a loſs whether it be proper to pray to God at all, and inclineth him to think that it is the ſafeſt 4 64 6 4⁶ r Chubb's Poſth. works, vol. ii. p. 249. way 240 A View of ibe DEISTicAL Writers. Let. 14. way to let it alone. Nor doth this guide inform him, whether men's ſouls are material or immaterial, or whether they ſhall ſubſiſt after death, or ſhall die and periſh with the body, or whether there fhall be a future ſtate in which God will call men to an account for their actions. Or if there ſhall be a future judgment, his guide leadeth him to apprehend that it ſhall ex- tend but to a fmall part of the human race, and but to a few of the actions they perform; that they ſhall not be called to an ac- count for the blaſphemies they may have uttered againſt God, or for any neglect of the duties that more immediately relate to the Deity, or for private injuries they do to one another, or for any actions at all but thoſe which concern the public; and how far theſe are to extend, he hath not thought fit to inform us. I cannot ſee therefore but that it is much better to follow the light the Scripture affordeth us, which giveth us clear inſtruc- tions in theſe and other things of great importance, concerning wlrich our author's infallible guide, according to his account of the matter, hath given him no directons at all, or hath given him wrong ones. I have now finiſhed my obſervations on Mr. Chubb's Paſthu- meus Works, which I have perhaps enlarged upon more than they really deſerve. But I have choſen to do it, both becauſe they ſeem to be of a dangerous tendency, and well fitted to do miſchief, and have by ſome perſons been very much extolled, and becauſe there has been no anſwer, that I know of, given to thoſe books. I do not love to make reflections that ſeem to bear hard upon any man's integrity; but Ithink it cannot be denied, that notwithſtanding his great pretences to plainneſs and can- dour, and an impartial love of truth and liberty, there are very apparent marks of great diſingenuity in his writings. The nature of this work would not admit of my entering into a more minute examination, but there are few things of conſequence in his two volumes which are not here taken notice of. L ET- LETTERXV. Obſervations upon a pampblet intitled Deiſm fairly Stated, and fully Vindicated. The author's pompous account of Deiſm, and bis way of ſtating tbe qusſtion between Cbriſtians and Deiſts, conſidered. Concerning ibe dif- ferences among Cbriſtians about tbe way of knocwing the Scriptures to be ibe word of God. Tbe charge be brings againſt tbe Cbriſtian religion, as conſiſting only of unin- telligible doclrines and uſeleſs inſtitutions, and his pretence that ibe moral precepts do not belong to Chriſtianity at all, but are tbe property of Deiſts, ſpeavn to be vain and groundleſs. The corruption of Cbrißians no juſt argu- ment againſt true original Cbriſtianity. Abrief account of Lord Bolinghroke's attempt againſt the Scriptures in bis Letters on the Study and Uſe of Hiſtory. F§ 7, AVING conſidered pretty largely Mr. Chubb's Poſthumous Works, I ſhall now ſend you ſome obſervations upon a Pamphlet, which though originally written by another hand is ſaid to have been reviſed by Mr. Chubb, and to have under- gone conſiderable alterations and amendments. It is intitled Deiſjm Fairly Stated, and fully Vindicated, and was publiſhed in 1746. And as it hath been much boaſted of, I ſhall diſtinctly conſider both the account the author of it gives of Deiſm, and the attempt he hath made to expoſe the Chriſtian revelation. In his account of Deiſm he treads in the ſteps of Dr. Tindal, and it might be ſufficient to refer to the remarks that have been made upon that writer's ſcheme, of which ſome account was given in the 10th Letter. But let us examine our author's pre- tenſions more diſtinctly. 3 He tells us that“Deiſm is no other than the religion eſſen- * tial to man, the true original religion of nature and reaſona.“ „ Deiſm fairly Stated, Sc. p. 5.. Verl. R. And 1 — — 242 A View of tbe DEisT ICAL Writers. Let. 15. And becauſe Chriſtian divines have aſſerted, that the Goſpel contains the true religion of reaſon and nature, he repreſents them, and particularly the late Biſhop of London, and Mr.(af- terwards Dr.) Samuel Chandler, as acknowleging that“ Deiſm *⸗ is the alone excellency and true glory of Chriſtianĩty,“ and pre- tends that what he has cited from them proves that“ Deiſm is «c all in the Chriſtian inſtitution that can poſſibly approve it- « ſelf to the true genuine reaſon of man b.“ And accordingly he declares,“ that every thing that is enjoined in the Goſpel *„ to be believed as a rational doctrine, or practiſed as a natural ¹duty, relating to God, our neighbours, and ourſelves, is an «c eſtabliſhed part of Deiſme.“ And through his whole book he ſuppoſes Deiſm to comprehend every doctrine and precept which is founded in reaſon and nature, or as he ſometimes ex- preſſeth it, in truth and reaſon, i. e. it comprehendeth every doctrine and precept that is true and juſt and reaſonable. That we may judge of the fairneſs of this writer in ſtating the point, it is proper to obſerve, that the thing he would be thought to vindicate is the religion of thoſe that call themſelves Deiſts, and who reject revelation, and oppoſe Chriſtianity. This is the only Deiſm in queſtion, and which it concerneth him to ſtate and vindicate. But he has thought fit all along to repre- ſent Deiſm and natural Religion as terms of the ſame fignifica- tion: Whereas Deiſm, as we are now conſidering it, is to be underſtood, not preciſely of natural religion as comprehending thoſe truths which have a real foundation in reaſon and nature, and which is ſo far from being oppoſite to Chriſtianity that it is one great deſign of the Goſpel to clear and inforce it; but of that religion which every man is to find out for himſelf by the mere force of natural reaſon, independent of all revelation, and excluſive of it. It is concerning this that the enquiry properly proceeds. Dr. Tindal was ſenfible of it; and therefore is for ſending every man to the oracle in his own breaſt as the only guide to duty and happineſs, which alone he is to confult, without having any regard to revelation. And accordingly he frequently repreſents the religion of nature as ſo clearly known to all men, even to t hoſe that cannot read in their mother tongue, as to render any farther revelation perfectly needleſs and uſeleſs. But if the queſtion be concerning natural religion in this ſenſe, it js far from deſerving all the fine encomiums which this writer after Dr. Tindal ſo liberally beſtows upon it: He repre- ſents it as ſo perfect, that nothing can be added to it; and „ Deifm fairly Stated, Sc. P. b. e Ibid. p. 7. therefore Let. 15. Deiſm fairlhy Stated,&c. 243 therefore will not allow that Chriſtianity can be ſaid to be «grounded on natural religion, or to be an improvement of «« it.“ For he declares, that he“ cannot poſſibly conceive « how an entire and perfect ſtructure(which is the caſe of «« natural religion) can be only a foundation of a perfect ſtruc- «c ture, or how a perfect religion can be improved c.“ Here he ſecurely aſſumes the very thing in queſtion; viz. Ihat the re- ligion which every man knoweth of himſelf by his own un- aſſiſted reaſon, is ſo perfect as to be incapable of receiving any addition or improvement, even from divine revelation: which is in other words to ſay, that every man by his own reaſon, ex- cluſively of all revelation, takes in the whole of religious truth and duty, which is founded in the nature of things, and knows as much of it already as God can teach him: And that a divine revelation can give him no farther light or ſtronger aſſurance, relating to any thing that it is proper for him to believe or prac- tiſe in religion, than what his bare reaſon informs him of with- out it. Among the encomiums which our author beſtows upon Deiſm, one is, that it is ˙no other than the religion eſſential to man ¹;“ a phraſe that he and others of the Deiſtical writers ſeem fond of. But will theſe ſagacious gentlemen undertake to inform the world, what kind or degree of religion is eſſential to the human nature? Or, if they could oblige the world with that diſco- very, is nothing, valuable in religion but what is eſſential to man? If revelation diſcovereth to us ſome things of import- ance which we could not atrain to the knowlege of by bare unaſſiſted reaſon, or giveth us farther aſſurances concerning ſome things, as to which we were doubtful before, and ſetteth them in a clearer light, or exhibiteth a more complete ſyſtem of duty, or furniſheth more powerful motives to animate us to the practice of it, muſt all theſe diſoveries be rejected, under pretence that what we thus receive by revelation is not eſſential to man? Might not all improvements of every kind be diſcarded for the ſame reaſon? And ſo man muſt be left in his pure eſ- ſentials. And then what a fine figure would the human nature make. Beſides this general account of Deiſm, our author takes upon him to exhibit ſome fundmental credenda of a Deilſt. And he might caſily find a plauſible ſcheme of natural religion formed ready to his hand by Chriſtian writers, and then put it upon the world for pure genuine Deiſm. Among theſe fundamental ar- e Deifſm fairly Stated, Sc. p. 13. d 1bid. p. 5. 13. R 3 ticles 244 A View of ibe DEisricAL Writers. Let. 13. ticles of the religion of a Deiſt, he reckons the belief of a future ſtate of rewards and puniſhments. But is this a point in which che Deiſts are agrecd? Lord Bolingbroke every-Where ſets up for a Deiſt of the firſt rank, and glories in that character, and yet he does all he can to weaken or ſubvert that which is here ut upon us as a fundamental article of the Deiſtical creed. And Mr. Chubb, who no doubt would paſs with our author for a true Deiſt, though ſometimes, like this writer, he makes a great ſhew of believing not only the truth but the importance of- that doctrine, yet in feveral paſſages of his Farevwel to his read- ers, and eſpecially in his fourth and fifth ſections, where he treats profeſſedly of this ſubject, ſetteth himſelf to ſhew that it is altogerher uncertain, and incapable of being proved, and that the probability lies againſt ite. Thus it is that theſe Gen- tlemen are ſometimes willing to make a fair appearance with their principles, till perſons are drawn in, and fully initiated in the myſteries of Deiſm. This author gives us twelve propoſitions with great pomp, moſt of which have nothing to do with the debate between Chriſtians and Deiſts, and others of them are véry ambiguousf. In his ſeventh propoſition he layeth it down as a principle, that „«to govern our conduct by our reaſon is our duty, and all „ that God requireth of us.“ If the meaning be, that God requireth nothing from us but what we know by our bare un- aſſiſted reaſon to be our duty, and that it any thing farther be revealed to be our duty, we are not obliged to perform it, be- cauſe we did not know it to be fo by our own natural reaſon independently of that revelation, it is falſe and abſurd. For when God requireth us to be governed by our reaſon, it muſt be ſuppoſed to be his intention, that we ſhould take in all proper helps and aſſiſtances. And if he is pleaſed in his great goodneſs to give us additional giſcoveries of his will and our duty for en- lightening and aſſiſting our reaſon, then certainly we are obliged, and it is what reaſon itſelf and the religion of nature requireth of us, to pay a regard to thoſe diſcoveries; ſo as to believe the truths which he has been pleaſed to reveal, and to practiſe thoſe duties which he has ſeen ſit to enjoin: and not to do ſo would be highly criminal. The four laſt of his twelve propoſitions are deſigned to Ihew, that reaſon and nature ſufficiently inſtruct us without re- velation, as to the methods of reconciliation with the Deity e See before, p. 199,& ſeq. f Deiſm feirly Stated, Sc. p. 37.— 40. when Let. 15. Deiſm fairhy Stated,&c. 245 when we have offended him by our ſins, and give us a certain aſſurance that God will reinſtate us in his favour upon our re- pentance and reformation. I have elſewhere conſidered this ſubject at large in anſwer to Tindal, who had particularly in- ſiſted upon it 8. At preſent I ſhall only obſerve, that though natüre and reaſon ſeem to direct us to repentance and reforma- tion in caſe of our being conſcious of having offended God and tranſgreſſed his holy laws, yet reaſon and nature could not give us certain information, how far repentance fhall be available to avert the puniſhment we had incurred, or what ſhall be the extent of the divine forgiveneſs, or how far an obedience like our's, mixed with many failures and defects, and which falleth ſhort in many inſtances of what the divine law requires, ſhall be rewarded. We do not know enough of God, of the reaſons and ends of the divine government, and of What may be neceſ- ſary for vindicating the authority of his laws, to be able to pro- nounce with certainty, by the mere light of our own unaſſiſted reaſon, what meaſures his governing wiſdom and righteouſneſs may think fit to take with regard to guilty creatures that have ſinned againſt him. Will any reaſonable man pretend, that God himſelf cannot diſcover any thing to us, which it might be pro- per for us to know, relating to the methods of his dealings to- wards us, the terms of our acceptance with him, or the re- tributions of a future ſtate, but what we ourſelves knew as well before? Or, if he ſhould condeſcend to make diſcoveries to us of this fort, and give us aſſurances relating to matters of ſuch great importance, ought we not to be thankful for ſuch diſco- veries? Eſpecially ſince it is certain in fact, that men in all ages and nations have been under great anxieties and uncertain- ties about the proper means of propitiating an offended Deity. Our author mentions it to the praiſe of Deiſm, that“˙“ ir is *« that religion of nature and reaſon, which was believed and * practiſed by Socrates and thoſe of old,“ whom he repreſents as having been ornaments to human natures. Thus he ſeems to think it a greater honour to be a diſciple of Socrates than of Jeſas Cbriſt. But why are we to be turned back to the religion of Sœcrates, who have a light ſo vaſtly ſuperior to that which he enjoyed? However he may be juſtly commended for having attained ſo far, conſidering the circumſtances he was under (though in many things he fell in with the eſtabliſhed ſuperſti- cions of his age and country) is this a reaſon why we ſhould be ² The anſwer to Chriſtianity as old as the Creation, vol. i. c.(. 8 Deifm fairly Stated, p. 5. R 3 ſent 246 A View of tbe DEzisTIcAL Writers. Let. 15. ſent to that philoſopher to learn a right ſcheme of religion, when Wwe have a far more excellent one in our hands, and recom- mended by a much higher authority? He was himſelf ſenſible of his need of farther aſſiſtances, and a divine inſtructor; and ſhall we who have that ineſtimable advantage, deſpiſe the light given us from heaven, and be deſirous to return to that ſtate of darkneſs and uncertainty of which he complained, and from which he wanted to be delivered? The remarks that have been made will help us to judge of thoſe paſfages in which he pretendeth to give the true ſtate of the queſtion between Deiſts and Chriſtians. ˙The ſingle ** queſtion(ſaith he) between Chriſtians and Deiſts is, whether «the belef of rational doctrines, and the practice of natural *«duties, are all that is ſtrictly neceſſary with regard to the di- «« vine approbation, and conſequently human happineſs" And again, when he profeſſes to come to the point, he ſays, „The grand foundation of the difference berween the Deiſts *and the religious of all other perſuaſions is, whether any *« doctrine or precept that has not its foundation apparently in «c reaſon or nature, can be ob the eſſence of religion, and with **Fpropriety be ſaid to be a religious doctrine or precept 1.5 Here he ſuppoſes, and it runs through his whole book, that no- thing can be properly ſaid to belong to religion, but what plainly appeareth to the uaderſtanding of every man, without any aſſiſtance from divine revelation, to be founded in nature and reaſon. The queſtion then, though not clearly ſtated by this writer, is this: Whether God can make any additional diſ- coveries in relation to doctrines to be believed, or duties to be practiſed, concerning which we had no certain information by the bare light of unaſſiſted nature and reaſon? And if God hath made fuch diſcoveries, whether it would not in that caſe be neceſſary that thoſe to whom theſe diſcoveries are made, ſhould believe thoſe doctrines, and practiſe thoſe duties? Whether becauſe our own natural reaſon did not inform us of them without revelation, therefore when they are revealed to us we may ſafely and innocently reject them as uſeleſs and unneceſ- ſary, and as not belonging to religion at all? Or, whether reaſon and nature do not require it of us as an indiſpenſible duty, to pay a juſt ſubmiſſion and regard to the ſignifications and diſcoveries of the divine will concerning truth or duty, in whatever way they are made known to us? Theſe are queſ- i Deiſm fairly Stated, p. 7. See alſo p. 8, 9, 19. k Ibid. p. 14. tions, Let. 15. Deiſm fairh Stated,&c. 247 tions, which one ſhould think wonld admit of an eaſy deciſion; ſince nothing could be more abſurd, than to lay it down as a principle, that God can make no farther diſcoveries of truth and duty to be believed and practiſed by us, but what all men know of themſelves by their own unaſſiſted reaſon; or, that if he ſhould, we are not obliged to receive or regard thoſc diſco- veries. It is very uſual with the Deiſtical writers, and this author among the reſt, to put the queſtion, whether reaſon or revela- tion be the beſt guide, as if there was an oppoſition or incon- ſiſtency between them. But the proper queſtion is, whether realon left merely to itſelf, and with the many frailties, cor- ruptions, and defects to which it is now- ſubject, or reaſon with the aſſiſtance of divine revelation, be the beſt guide to duty and happineſs? Revelation indeed would be. of little uſe, if we were to take his account of it. He tells us, that by“ puré re- „« velation muſt be meant that which is of ſuch a nature as to **be quite out of reaſon's province to form any judgment about « it.— That matters ſupernatural are incapable of an examina *¹ tion by natural reaſon, or of being approved as reaſonable- * And that furely no man can be rationally convinced of what * lies quite out of the reach of his reafoning faculties to form „ any judgment at all about l.“ This he frequenttly repeats, and ſeems to value himſelf upon this way of putting the caſe. But it is groſly mifrepreſented. None of the friends of revelation underſtand by it, that about which we are not capable of form- ing any judgment at all. On the contrary, they generally agres that we muft make uſe of our reaſon, both in judging of the evidences of divine revelation, whereby ĩt is proved to be from God, and of the ſenſe and meaning of its doctrines and pre- cepts. But our author thinks fit to play upon the word ſuper- natural, as if by it were meant that which is abſolutely unin- telligible and abſurd: Whereas a thing may be ſo far ſuperna- tural, that we could not have diſcovered it merely by our own reaſon without a divine revelation, and yet when diſcovered to us we may be able to form a judgment concerning it, and may ſee it to be worthy of God, and of an excellent tendency, and as ſuch our reaſon may approve it. Having conſidered that part of the pamphlet in which the author pretends to give a fair ſiate and vindication of Deiſm as oppoſed to revelation, I ſhall now take ſome notice of what he hath advanced with regard to the Chriſtian revelation in parti- cular. 1 Deifm faifly Stated, p. 2, 24. R 4 He 248 A View of tbe DEisrIcAL. Writers. Let. 13. He ſays,“the material queſtion between rational Chriſtians „*F and Deiſts depends upon the proof that is made by Chriſ- „« tians, that the Scriptures are a divine revelation, and the ¹*very word of God. For if this point be proved, the contro- « verſy is at an end.“ But here he complains of the want of unanimity among Chriſtians, in a point of ſuch importance.— *The Roman Catholics ſay, we know the Scriptures to be the « word of God only by the teſtimony of the church. And „„among Proteſtants, ſome ſay, they are known to be the word of God by themſelves, to thoſe only whoſe eyes thé ¹¹I ſpirit of God is pleaſed to open to perceive the characters of *divine truth impreſſed on them. Others maintain, that they ** will manifeſtly appear to be the word of God by themſelves, upon an honeſt inveſtigation of mere natural reaſon, to any man who ſhall impartially exerciſe it about them m.“ But if the matter be rightly conſidered, there is not ſo great a difference among Chriſtian writers about the way of knowing the Scrip- tures to be the word of God, as is pretended. Chriſtians in general are agreed, that the extraordinary facts recorded in the Goſpel are true, and that thoſe facts prove the divine miſſion of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and the truth and divinity of that ſcheme of religion which was publiſhed to the world in his name. They agree, that the Scriptures contain a faithful and authentic account of the doctrines and laws delivered by Chriſt and his apoſtles, and of the illuſtrious atteſtations whereby they were confirmed. That they were committed to writing by the apoſtles themfelves, who Wwere eye and ear witneſſes of what they relate, or by their moſt intimate companions, and were publiſhed in the firſt age of the Chriſtian church, the age in which thoſe doctrines and laws were delivered, and the facts were done. That theſe writings have remarkable internal cha- racters of truth and divinity in the goodneſs and excellency of the doctrines, the purity of che precepts, the force and power of the motives, that unaffected ſimplicity and impartial regard to truth which every-where appears, and in the admirable ten- dency of the whole to promote the glory of God, and the good of mankind, without any traces or views of worldly policy, ambition, avarice, or ſenſuality. And though ſome talkof theſe characters as diſcernible by the aid of the Holy Spirit, and others by the inveſtigation of human reaſon, yet neither do the former intend to exclude human reaſon from having any con- cern in that enquiry, nor do the latter deſign to exclude the m Deiſm fairly Stated, p. 16—24. Let. 15. Deiſm fairhy Stated,&c. 249 aſſiſtance of the Holy Spirit; ſince it is generaliy acknowleged among Chriſtians, and is highly agreeable to reaſon itſelf, that it is proper to apply to God, t’e aut hor ꝗ light, and giver all inward illumination, as Lord Herbert calls him, to aſſiſt us in our enquiries, and by purifying our ſouls from vicious affections and corrupt prejudices, to prepare our minds for a due reception of religious and moral truth. I add, that though ſome have talked of corruptions in the ſacred writings, yet Chriſtians are gene- rally agreed, that the Scriptures are tranſmitted to us without any ſuch general corruption as to make any alteration in the doctrines and facts, and that they are delivered down to us by a credible uninterrupted tradition, greater than can be produced for any other books in the world; by thé teſtimony not merely of the church in one age, but in every age, from the time in which they were written; and not merely by any one party of Chriſtians, but by thoſe of different ſects and parties, by friends and enemies. Any one that conſidereth the ſeveral things now mentioned, and which have been often urged by Chriſtians of all denominations, by the beſt of the Popiſh as well as Pro- teſtent writers, who have appeared ih defence of Chriſtianity, will ſee that there is a more general agreement among them, in what concerneth the proofs of the divine original and autho- rity of the ſacred writings, than our author ſeems willing to allow. With regard to Prophecy and Miracles, which are inſiſted on by all Chriſtian writers as proofs of the divinity of the Chriſtian religion, he will not allow them to be any proofs of it at all. Becauſe they do not prove, that ‧The collection of tracts com- „ monly called the Bible were written by the perſons reſpec- dictated to each writer the ſubjeét matter contained therein: And that thoſe books have been faithfully tranſmitted down to us without any corruption, alteration, addition, or dimi- *. nution““ Mr. Chubb has the ſame thought, and ſeems very fond of it, for he has it over and over again in his Farewel to his Readers. But if prophecies and miracles exhibited ſuffici- ent credentials to the divine miſſion of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt and of his apoſtles, who publiſhed to the World the doctrines and laws of the Chriſtian religion; and if the Scriptures con- tain a juſt and faithful account of thoſe prophecies and miracles, and of the doctrines and laws ſo atteſted and confirmed, and delivered by thoſe divinely authoriſed teachers; doth not this „ Deiſm fairly Stated..„6. tively whoſe names they bear: That the Deity immediately 250 A View of tbe DETSTIcAL Writers. Let. 15. lay a juſt foundation for receiving thoſe doctrines and laws as of divine authority? As to their being written by the perſons whoſe names they bear, and their being ſafely tranſmitted to us without any material corruption or alteration, this needeth no miracles to prove it. It muſt be proved by other mediums, ſuch as by the acknowlegement of all mankind are ſufficient to prove things of that kind. If theſe writings can be traced up, as they certainly may, from our own times by unqueſtionable evidence to the very age in which they Wre written; and if they have been all along acknowleged to have been written by thoſe to whom theyare aſcribed, and even the enemies who lived neareſt thoſe times never conteſted it; and if it can be demonſtrated, that, as the caſe was circumſtanced, a general corruptien of thoſe writings in the doctrines and facts, if any had attempted it, would have been an impoſſible thing; this ought to ſatisfy an impartial inquirer. And this is capable of as clear a proof as the nature of the thing can admit, and which, as hath been al- ready hinted, is ſuperior to what can be produced for any other book in the world. And the man that would doubt of ſuch evidence in any other caſe, would be looked upon as ridicu- louſly ſerupulous, and be thought to carry his ſcepticiſm to an unreaſonable height. As to the fubject matter of the Chriſtian revelation, this writer is for ſtripping it of every doctrine that is founded in na- ture and reafon; though there are ſeveral important doctrines of that kind, e. g. thoſe relating to the attributes and provi- dence of God, and a ſtate of future retributions, which Chriſ- tanity was manifeſtly intended to confirm and eſtabliſſi, and ſet in a clearer light. If we are to take his account of it, it con- fiſteth wholly of ſpeculative, metapbyfſical, anintelligible doc- mines, which lie out of the reach of reaſon to determine whether chey be true or falſe, or to paſs any judgment at all about them; and of poſitive inſtitutions, which he pretends by the con- feſfion of Chriſtian divines are no conſtituent parts& religion. By faying they are no conſtituent parts of religion, he evidently intends that they have nothing to do with religion, and are of no uſe or ſignificancy at all: Whereas the divines he refers to agree, that the poſitive inſtitutions of Chriſtianity do belong to religion as valuable inſtrumental duties, which have a tendency to fubſerve and promote the great ends of all religion, and are, when rightly improved, of fignal uſe and benefit. „ Deiſm fairly Stated, p. 2. 6. 16. 24. 58. 1 After Let. 19. Deiſm fairly Stated,&c. 251 After having obſerved, that many parts of Scripture are myſte- rious and unintelligible, he ſaith, that to ſuppoſe that God gives forth unintelligible inſtructions and prohoſitions to his creatures, is :0 prove him in fact a mere trifler E And he urges, that“ As „certain as a being of perfect rectitude has given a revelation, «« ſo certain it is, that not any thing in that revelation can be «*found on a ſtrict enquiry unrevealed, i. æ. not underſtood by ⸗«men of learning, penetration, diligence, and induſtry 9.“ The deſign of this is to inſinuate, that if there be any one thing in the Bible, even in the prophetical parts of it, which is not underſtood by men of learning and diligence, the whole is falſe: Or, if there be any circumſtance in the revelation obſcure, it cannot be a true divine revelation. But may it not reaſonably be ſuppoſed, that in a revelation deſigned not merely for any one particular age, but for the uſe of mankind in every ſucceed- ing age, as there are many things, and thoſe of the greateſt imporrance, ſufficiently clear and intelligible at all times, ſo there may be ſome things not well underſtood at one time, which afterwards are cleared up by farther inquiry, or a more diligent ſearch, or by comparing predictions with events? Or, may not things which are revealed to us as far as it is neceſſary they ſhould be ſo, yet have ſome things attending them, the manner of which we are not able clearly to explain and under- ſtand? Is not this the caſe of many important points of what is called natural religion, relating to the providence and attributes of God, the divine eternity, immenſity, omniſcience, the creation of the world, Gc.? And muſt we reject what we do under- ſtand, and the great uſefulneſs of Which we clearly apprehend, becauſe there is ſomething relating to it which we cannot di- ſtinctly conceive? As to the objections he makes againſt ſome particular doc- trines of Chriſtianity, as unintelligible and abſurd, or at leaſt as abſolutely uſeleſs, this intirely depends upon the ſtrange and unfair repreſentation he has been pleaſed to make of them. Thus he fuppoſes Chriſtians to maintain it as a doctrine of Scrip- ture, that„an original, uncompounded, immaterial, and pure ¹¹ ſpirit, ſhould, like one of the derived, compounded, mate- ¹« rial, human ſpecies, have a Sonr.“ As if Chriſtians under- ſtood God's having a Son in the ſame groſs, literal, and carnal ſenſe, in which one man begets another. p Deiſm fairly Stated, p. 25. 34. a2 Ibid. p. 83. r Ibid. p. 66. 3 He 25 2 A Viec of tbe DEISs TIcCAL Writers. Let. 13. He pronounces, that the ſuppoſed ſatisfaction for ſin by *« Chriſt's death, is a doctrine intirely repugnant to reaſon, and «« as ſuch ought to be rejected with ſcorns.“ Mr. Chubb has paſſed the ſame cenſure upon it, which is owing to the abſurd light in which he has thought fit to repreſent it, concerning Which ſee before, p. 215. But the doctrine of our redemption and reconciliation through the obedience and fufferings of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, conſidered as taught in the holy Scriptures, hath nothing in it but what is worthy of God, and of an excel- lent tendency. He mentions another doctrine, which he owns to be intelli- gible enough, but repreſents it as good for nothing, and as of no more conſequence to the world in general, than there being a burning mountain in tlie kingdom of Naßles is an advantage to the people of England. And he thinks ⁄it is greatly impro- ¹ bable, that God ſhould eſpecially interpoſe to acquaint the „ world with what mankind would do altogerher as well ¹ wichoutt.“ The doctrine he here refers to is that of God's judging the world by Jeſus Chriſt. But this, rightly conſidered, is a noble part of the goſpel ſcheme, and capable of being im- proved to the moſt excellent purpoſes. It renders the whole harmonious and conſiſtent, in that the ſame glorious and divine Perſon by whom God made the world, and by whom as the great inſtrument he carried on his gracious deſigns for recovering man- ind from their ruinous and loſt eſtate, is appointed to be the judge of all men, and the diſpenſer of future retributions. And zwhat farther ſhews the propriety of appointing Chriſt to be the judge is, that this is the laſt perfeclive act of the kingdom and dorninion committed to him as Mediator, and that it is to be re- garded as a reward of his amazing humiliation and ſelf-abaſe- ment, and of his unparalleled obedience and ſufferings in our nature, in com pliance with his heavenly Father's will. To wwhich it may be added, that nothing can be fuller of comfort to good men, than chat the benevolent Saviour of mankind will judge the world in the Father's name; ſince it yields a ſatis- factory proof that it is the will of God, that the judgment ſhould be Gonducted, not with the utmoſt rigour of unallayed juſtice, but with great equity, ſo as to make all proper allow- ances for human weaknefs and infirmity, as far as is conſiſtent with unbiaſſed truth and righteouſneſs. And at the ſame time it hath a manifeſt tendency to ſtrike an awe into the impenitent rejecters of the divine grace and goodneſs, to conſider that they s Deiſm fairly Stated, p. 41. t Ibid. p. 35. Let. 15. Deiſm fairhy Stated,&c. 253 muſt be accountable to that Lord and Saviour whom they re- jected and deſpiſed. What a mighty enforcement muſt it give to his authority and laws, that he himſelf ſhall call us to an ac- count as to our obedience or diſobedience to thoſe laws, and will have it in his power to fulfil his own glorious promiſes to them that believe and obey him, and to execute his awful threatenings againſt the finally impenitent and diſobedient! There are ſeveral other things he repeats which are urged by almoſt every Deiſtical writer, and which I have had occaſion frequently to mention, ſuch as the contradictory interpretations put on ſeveral paſſages of Scripture, different tranſlations, errors of tranſcribers,&. But that which he ſeems to lay a particu- lar ſtreſs upon is the corruption of Chriſtians He ſpeaks of the abominable wichedneſs that has rode triumpbant in the Chriſtian world. And that“the Americans have too much reaſon to F conſider the coming of Chriſtians and Chriſtianity among ««them as the greateſt evil and curſe that ever befel them ².“ But if profeſſed Chriſtians have made religion a cover for their ambition, avarice, and cruelty, Chriſtianity is not accountable for this. And whoſoever conſiders the beſt accounts of the Americans before Chriſtianity came among them; their groſs ignorance and barbarity, their human ſacrifices, and the abo- minable vices and cuſtoms which prevaled among them x, muſt be ſenſible that if the pure religion of Jeſus, as taught in the Goſpel by Chriſt and his apoſtles, had been publiſhed and re- ceived among them in its genuine purity and ſimplicity, it would have been the happieſt thing that could have befallen them. And the greateſt fault is, that little care has been taken to in- ſtruct them and the other heathen narions, in the true Chriſtian religion as delivered in the holy Scriptures. Notwithſtanding the corruptions ſo complained of in the Chriſtian world, it is undeniable, that what there is of knowlege and true religion among men, is principally where Chriſtianity is profeſſed. But if all were true that is pretended concerning the depravity of thoſe that call themſelves Chriſtians, it would only prove that they are very much fallen from the religion they profeſs, but not that Chriſtianity itſelf is falſe, or was not originally from God. Whilſt it can be ſhewn, as it may be with the utmoſt evidence, that conſidered in itſelf, and as contained in the Scriptures, it is of the moſt excellent tendency, and that the uniform deſign of its doctrines, precepts, promiſes and threatenings, is to promote u Deiſm fairly Stated, p. 47, 48.* See Bayle's Dictionary, under the article Leon[Peter Cuccade,] the 254 A View ef i6e DEisrTicAL Writers. Let. 15. the cauſe of virtue and righteouſneſs in the world, and to re- claim men from vice and wickedneſs; it is certainly very un- reaſonable and unfair to make Chriſtianity anſwerable for the abuſes and corruptions it condemneth. If every thing muſt be rejected which hath been abuſed, government and civil polity, knowlege and literature, religion, liberty, and reaſon itſelf muſt be diſcarded. One of the moſt remarkable things in the tract we are now conſidering is, that the author will not allow that the moral precepts of Chriſtianity properly belong to it at all, or make any part of the Chriſtian religion. He pretends, that Chriſtian divines, in order to render Chriſtianity amiable, have decked her with the graceful ornaments of moral precepts; whereas in Chriſtianity the moral precepts are but borrowed ware, the property of the Deiſts, and as much diſtinguiſhed from Chriſ- tianity, as Chriſtianity is from Mahometaniſm. Thus he hath found out an admirable expedient to ſtrip Chriſtianity of what hath been hitherto eſteemed one of its principal glories: the holy and excellent precepts which the great author of our re- ligion taught and enjoined in the name of God, and to inforce which by the moſt weighty and important motives was one great deſign of his and his apoſtles miniſtry, do not, it ſeems, belong to Chriſtianity at all. Moral precepts, according to this writer, make no part of divine revelation, and of the ſcheme of religion delivered in the Goſpel, though to clear and ſhew them in their juſt extent, and enforce them by a divine authority, and by the moſt prevailing motives, ſeems to be one of the nobleſt ends for whiich a divine revelation could be given to mankind. Suppoſing, which was really the caſe, that the world was ſunk into an amazing darkneſs and corruption, there was nothing that was more wanted than to have a pure ſyſtem of morals, containing the whole of our duty with reſpect to God, our neighbours, and ourſelves, delivered not as the opinions of wiſe men and philoſophers, but as the laws of God himſelf, and enforced by all the ſanctions of a divine authority, and by all the charms of che divine grace and goodneſs. This is what hath been done by the Chriſtian revelation; and its great uſefulneſs to this purpoſe, and the need the world ſtood in of it, is excellently repreſented by Mr. Locke in his KReaſonableneſs&f Chriſtianityy, quoted at large by Dr. Benſon in his remarks on this pamphlet, who very juſtly obſerves, that this great man had „ Locke's Works, vol, ii. P. 575— 579. 4th edit. fully Let. 15. Deiſm fairhy Stated.&c. 25 5 fully obviated before-hand, all that the author of Deiſin fairly Stated hath advanced on this ſubject. The laſt argument he urgeth againſt the Chriſtian revelation, is drawn from its not having been univerſally ſpread in all ages and nations. I fhall not ſay any thing here to this objection, which hath been often repeated and anſwered. It had been par- ticularly inſiſted upon by Dr. Tindal, and was fully conſidered in the anſwers that were made to him. Some notice was taken of it in the obſervations on Lord Herbert's ſcheme ². And it may be obſerved, as Mr. Chubb himſelf ſeems to think, that no great ſtreſs ſiould be laid upon it; and he will not take upon him to affirm, that the non-univerſality of a revelation is a juſt objec- tion againſt its divinity a. Soon after Deifm fairly Stated,&c. appeared, Dr. Benſon publiſhed animadverſions upon it, in the ſecond edition of the Keaſonableneſs Cbriſtianity as delivered in tbe Soriptures. London, 1746. To which there is added an appendix, in which he ſolidly vindicates the arguments he had offered in his Reaſon- ableneſs of Chriſtianity,&c. againſt thie exceptions of this writer; and charges him not only with falſe reaſonings, but with groſs miſrepreſentations. The ſame charge is urged againſt him in a tract publiſhed by the reverend Mr. Caßel Berrow, though without his name, intitled,“ Deiſm not con- «« fiſtent with the religion of nature and reaſon, wherein are «obviated the moſt popular objections brought againſt Chriſ- *« tianity, thoſe eſpecially which are urged by a moral philoſo- «pher, in a late extraordinary pamphlet, ſtiled Deiſm fairly Stated and fully Vindicated, in a letter to a friend. London, *1751. There were other anſwers to Deiſm fairly Stated, which I have not ſeen. I fhall conclude my reflections upon it with obſerving, that this pamphlet furniſhes remarkable in- ſtances to verify the obſervation I had occaſion to make before concerning the unfair conduct of the Deiſtical writers b, and the ſtrange liberties they take in miſrepreſenting the ſenſe of the Chriſtian writers whom they quote. It may not be improper here to take ſome notice of the at- tempt made againſt the authority of the ſacred writings in the late Lord Bolingbroke's Letters on he Study and Iſe& Hiſtory. In ſome of thoſe letters he hath uſed his utmoſt efforts to ſub- vert the credit of the ſcripture-hiſtory. But the method he has made uſe of to this purpoſe ſeems not to be well choſen, nor z See above, p. 17,& ſeq. a Chubb's poſth. works, vol. i. p. 218, 219. b See above, let. vii. p. 90. note. conſiſtent 256 A View of tbe DEisrIAL Writers. Let. 15. conſiſtent with itſelfk. A principal reaſon which his Lordſhip produces to invalidate the credit and authority of the Old Teſ- tament hiſtory is, that the Greeks were not acquainted with it; and that their accounts, particularly with regard to the Aſyrian empire, do not agree with the accounts given of it in Scripture. And yet he himſelf has taken great pains to ſhew, that the ancient Greefs were fabulous writers, and that their accounts of ancient times, either with regard to other nations, or their own, are not to be depended on. And-accordingly he hath let us know, that if they had perfectly agreed with the accounts given in the Jeuwiſb Scriptures, he would have had very little regard to them, and would not have looked upon this to be any argument of their truth. Many learned writers have produced teſtimonies from heathen authors, tending to ſtrengthen ſome remarkable paſſages in the ſcripture-hiſtory. This, his Lordſhip finds great fault with, and chargeth it as a moſt par- tial and abſurd conduct to admit the teſtimony of the heathen writers, if they happen at any time to agree with the ſcripture- accounts, and to reject their teſtimony when againſt them. But if the matter be fairly weighed, there is nothing in this but what is very reaſonable. For, conſidering the ſtrong prejudices of the Heathens againſt the Jews, whoſe whole religion and policy were ſo oppoſite to theirs, it ĩs evident that no great ſtreſs can be laid upon what they ſay againſt them, and their hiſtory; and yet if any thing be found in their writings, which tendeth to confirm the facts recorded in the Jewiſb ſacred books, it is juſt to take advantage of this; fince it is plain this could not be owing to any favourable prepoſſeſſion towards the Jews, or their hiſtories, but to the force of truth, or to ſome traditions which they looked upon as authentic. For though the tefti- monies of enemies are not much to be regarded, when they are to the prejudice of thoſe for whom they have a declared averſion, yet the teſtimony of enemies in favour of thoſe to whom they are known to be enemies, hath been always looked upon to be of great weight. In order to invalidate the ſcripture-hiſtory his Lordſhip has thought fit to repeat what had been often mentioned by the writers on that ſide, That the Jewiſp ſacred books were loſt in the Babyloniſp captivity; that there have been ſuch corruptions and alterations in the copies that there can be no dependence upon them; that there is no proof of the Goſpels having been written in the apoſtolic age; that they were not diſtinguiſhed from the ſpurious goſpels; that there had been formerly evi- dence againſt Chriſtianity, but that it was deſtroyed; that the Chriſtian —— — Let. 15. BorrNO. on tbe Study and UÜſe of Hiſtory. 257 Chriſtian clergy, through whoſe hands the Scriptures hate een tranſmitted to us, were guilty of numberleſs frauds and cor- ruptions; and that the many difſrenccs among Chriſtians a out the ſenſe of Scripture ſhew that it is abſolutely uncertain; and that there is now no certain ſtandard of Chriſtianity t all. Theſe and other objections which his Lordſhip hath diſ 1 ed with no ſmall oſtentation, I fhall not here take any par ic lar noticC ecf, having conſidered and obviated them in the Refl& α or Lord Bolingbr 2e* Letters on The Study and Wſe of H ſtry, eſpecially as far as they relate to Chr Sheni, a nd the Heohy Serip- Saner, publiſhed at Laaum,; 899, 1753 c. About the ſame time the Right Reverend the Lord Biſhop of Clogher publiſhed A Vindication of the Hiſtories of the Old and Nou Teſtament in an- ſwer to the Oojectiong of the late Lord Bolingbrohe. In which he hath both detected and expoſed ſeveral miſtakes his Lord- ſhip had fallen into with reſpect to other ancient authors whom he cites, and hath vindicated the facred writings againſt the at- tempts made in thoſe Letters to invalidate their credit and di- vine authority. Theſe, wirh Mr. Harvey's Remarks on Lord Bolingbroke's Lertoes=enn far as zhey relate to the Hiſtory of the Old Tes Lament, are the only anſwe rs 1 have ſeen to his Lordſhip's Letters on the Study and Ve h. Hiſiory. But we ſh all ſoon have occaſion to return to this noble Lord, who after wards in his poſtl humous works appeared Kill more openly againſt the Chriſ- aſt what have been hitherto accounted tian* and even ag ſome of the moſt important principles of natural religion. c Theſe Reflections are to be fo und in the ſecond volume of this 3 arred erfed. work, to which the reader is re VoL. I. 8 L ET T ER Mr. Hume a ſubtil and ingenious writer, but extremen ſcoptical and fond of noveliy. He propoſes to free meta- phfics from tbat jargon and obſcurity wbich Pas ſerved onhy as a ſpelter to ſuperſtition and error. His doctrine concerning be relation of Cauſe and Effect ewamined. He declares that ibe enowlege of this relation is of tbe big heſt importance, and ibat all our reaſons concerninę matier of fact and experience, and concerning tbe exiſt- ence of any Being, are founded upon it. Iet be ſets bimſelf to ſpew, tbat ibere is no real connexion between Cauſe and Effett, and tbat tbere can be no certain, nor even probable reafoning from ibe one 1⁰ the olber. RKe- fexions upon tbe greal abſurdity and pernicious conſe- quences of this ſcheme. The inconſiſtencies tbis writer Hath fallen into. 4 R, Now ſend you ſome obſervations upon Mr. Hume, an inge- nious writer, who hath lately appeared againſt the Chriſ- tian cauſe, and that in a manner which ſeems to have ſomething new in it, and different from what others had written before him, eſpecially in what be calls his Philoſophical Eſſays concern- ing human underſtanding. The ſecond edition of this book, with additions and corrections, which is what I have now be- fore me, was publiſhed in London 1750. This gentleman muſt be acknowleged to be a fubtil writer, of a very metaphy- ſical genius, and has a neat and agreeable manner of expreſſion. But it is obvious to every judicious reader, that he hath in many inſtances carried ſcepticiſm to an unreaſonable height; and ſeemeth every-where to affect an air of making new obſerva- tions and diſcoveries. His writings feem, for the moſt part, to be calculated rather to amuſe, or even confound, than to in- ſtruct and enlighten the underſtanding. And there are not a few Let. 16. Mr. H UM E. 259 few things in them, which ſtrike at the foundation of natural, as well as the proofs and evidences of revealed religion. This appeareth to me to be, in a particular manner, the character of his P hiloſoplical Eſays. And you will, perhaps, be of the ſame opinion, when you have conſidered the remarks I now ſend you. If we were to form a judgment of theſe Eſſays, from the ac- count he himſelf is pleaſed to give of them, and of his intention in writing them, our notion of them would be highly to their advantage. Having taken notice of the abſtractedneſs of meta- Phyſical ſpeculations, he fays, that he has, ‧in the following *⁴ꝗEſſays, endeavouf ec to throw ſome light upon ſubjects, from „¹„which uncertainty has hitherto deterred the wiſe, and ob- ſcurity the ignorant.“ He propoſes to“ unite the bounda- *Fries of the different Species of Philoſophy, by reconciling *¹*profound enquiry with clearneſs, and truth with noFalty; 3 and thinks“ it will be happy, if, reaſoning in this e eaſy man- “ ner, he can undermine the foundation of an abſtruſe philo- *ſophy, which ſeems to have ſerved hitherto only as a ſhelter *“*to ſuperſlition, and a cover to abſurdity and error.“ He undertakes to“ baniſh all that j jargon, which has ſo long taken **poſſeſſion of merpayüiral reaſonings, and drawn ſuch dil- ¹* grace upon them b And after having repreſented all zhe received hſtems gf phil„ſopby, and all ꝶmon Theories, as ex- tremely defective, he Protniiee to“avoid all jargon and confu- ** ſion, in treating of ſuch ſubtil znd profound fubj ecks c.“ hat part of theſe Efſays, which I fhall firſt take notice of, and which is indeed of a very uncommon ſtrain, and ſeems to lie at the foundation of many of thoſe extraordinary things which he afrerwards advances, is what he propoſes to conſider, p. 47, & ſeg. where he obſerves, that ‧it is a fubject w orthy curi- ‧¹„oſity, to enquire what is the nature of that evidence, which ¹c afſures us of any real Süiede and matter of fact, beyond “*the preſent teſtimony of our ſenſes, or the records of our 645 memorye He Ohig'nes, 1 that“‧this part of Pbiloſopt hy has **been little cultivated either by the antients or moderns. 5 But though it is difficult, it may be“ uſeful, by de ſtroying that *implicit faith and credulity, which is the bane of all reaſon- * ing and free enquiry a.“ After ſuch a pompous profeſſion, one would be apt to xpect ſomething extremely deſerving of our attention. Let us therefore examine into his ſcheme, that . 100, ¹ Hume's Philoſophical Effays, p. 18, 19. b Ioid. p. 27, 28. Ibid. p. 9 4 1bid. p. 47, 43, 49. 260 A Vievw of tbe DEISTIcAL Writers. Let. 16. we may know what it really is; and then our way will be clear to make the neceſſary remarks upon it. He obſerves, that“ the relation of cauſe and effect is neceſ- ‧ſary to the ſubſiſtence of our ſpecies, and the regulation of our conduct in every circumſtance and occurrence of human life. Without this, we ſhould never have been able to adjuſt means to ends, nor employ our rational powers either to the producing of good, or avoiding of evile.“ And, accord- ingly, he expreſsly declares, that if there be any relation, any object, which it imports us to know perfectly, it is that of cauſe and effect. On this we found all our reaſonings, con- cerning matter of fact and experience: And by this alone we retain any aſſurance concerning objects that are removed iom the pr eſent teſtimony of our memory and ſenſes;“ and tha the exiſtence of any Being can only be known by arguments from its cauſe, or its effectf.“ It appeareth then, that by his own acknow legement, it is of the higheſt importance to know the relation of cauſe and effect. Let us now ſec what inſtruction he gives us with regard to that relation. He abſolutely denies, that this relation can poſſibly be known a Priori; and aſſerts, that it entirely ariſes from experience: That it is this only that teaches us bhe nature and bounds of «cauſe and effect, and enables us to infer the exiſtence of one *object from that of another b.“ But he takes a great deal of pains to ſhew, that experience c cannot furniſh a reaſonable foun- dation for lach⸗ an inference. He had laid it down as a prin- ciple, that all arguments from experience can at beſt only be probable. But he will not allow even this, in the preſent caſe: He ſets himfelf to prove, that“‧not ſo much as any probable *c arguments can be drawn from cauſe to effect, or from effeé e to caufe:“ l hat ⸗ the cor njanction of the eftect with the ¹*cauſe is entirely ar bitrary, not only in its firſt onoprion, 2 ¹* Priori, but atter it is ſuggeſted by Sperzenee,„ That,“ in- * deed, in fact, we infer the one from the other; but that this is not by a chain of reafoning; nor is Where any medium which may enable the mind to draw ſuch an inferencel. The only ground of ſuch an inference, is the ſuppoſed reſemblance between the paſt and future; but that it is impoſſible any gument from experience fnould prove that reſemblance: And den if there be not ſuch a reſemblance, all experience ₰ 8 ₰ 66 4 Ibid. p. 123. i Ibid. p. béecomes Let. 16. Mr., HuUML. 26* becomes uſeleſs, and can give riſe to no inference or conclu- te Kion.“ He poſitively allerts, that we know only by ex perience the frequent conjunction of objects, without being ¹eever able to comprehend any thing like connection between them n.“ Anqd he frequently Gbſar rves, that the connection is only in our own thoughts or conceptions, not in the things themſelves; and reſolves the conjunction between cauſe and effect, and the inference drawn from the one to the other, Sef into cuſtom: that it is a ˙cuſtomary connection in the thought “or imagination betwixt one object, and its uſual attendant“;“ that cuſtom, he ſomelimes call æ habit p; and„eprelents it as owing to a repetition of acts; at other times, he aſcribes it to an inſtinct, or n zere ae tend ncy, and repreſents it as a neceſ- ſary ac Ʒ the mind, and nfalbul, in its operationg a: Yet after- wards, ſpeaking df the ſame cuſtom or inſtinct, he ſays, that, like other inſtincts, it may be fallacious and doceitful. The great arg gument he produces, aud upon which he lays the greateſt ſtreſs, to ſhew that we can have no certainty in our concluſions concerning the relation of eauſe and effect, nor rea- ſon from one to the other, is, that we have no idea of that connection which unites the effect to the cauſe, or of the force, power, or energy, in the cauſe, which produces the effect; nor, Lonſeen, aa medium whereby we can infer the one from the other. He ſets himſelf r benendy to ſhew, that nei- ther external obj 5 give us the idea of power, nor reflections on the operations of our own minds: If what our author offers on this head, had been only to diſplay the ſubtilty of his metaphyſical genius, and ſhew how little we are able diſtinctly to explain the manner even of thoſe things of which we have the greateſt certainty, we ſhould have allowed him to amuſe himſelf, and his readers, with a little Philoſophical play. But what he here advances, concerning cauſe and effect, power and connection, he makes the founda- tion of concluſions relating to matters of great importa Hæ nugæ ſeria ducunl In mala By endeavouring to deſtroy all reaſoning, from cauſes to effects, or from effects to cauſes, and not allowing that we m Hume'’s Philoſophical Eſſays, b. 65, 66. u Ibid. p. 114. e Ibid. p. 123. Ibid. p. 73. 74. 91. 120. a Ibid. p. 91. r Ibid. p. 251. 3 Ibid. p. 105, 106. 8 3 can 262 A View of tbe DEisrIcAr. Writers. Let. 16. can ſo much as probably infer the one from the other, by argu- ing either a Sriori, or from experience, he fubverts, as far as in him lies, the very foundation of thoſe reaſonings, that are drawn from the effects which we behold in the frame of the univerſe, to the exiſtence of one ſupreme, intelligent, all- powerful cauſe; and accordingly we ſhall find, that he himſelf after wards applies this principle to this very purpole Another uſe that he makes of this doët rine concerning cauſe and effect, is what we would not have expected from it, to confound all difference between phyſical and moral cauſes; and to ſhew that the latter have the ſame kind of caufality with the former. This is the purport of his eighth Eſſay, which is concerning Liberty and Meceſityt. Though if he argued conſillently, he muſt deny lhar there is any ſuch thing in nature as Necelltty, or Neceſſary Connection; or that there is either phyſical or moral cauſe at all. vou will ſcarce expect, that I ſhould enter upon a laborious confutation of ſo whimſical a ſcheme, though propoſed to the world with great pomp, and repr reſented by the author himſeltf as of v2 nußofafe⸗ ⸗. I fhall content myfelf with making ſome Irnerale obſervations upon it. And firſt, whereas this writer frequently, throughout theſe Eſſays, lays a mighty ſtreſs upon experience, as che great guide of human life, and the only foundation of all our knowlege, ially with rel ſpect to matter of fact, and the exiſtence of He here plainly endeavours to fhew, that there can be mment from experience at all; nor can any reaſonable n be drawn from it: For he will not allow, that any argument can be drawn, or inference made from xperience, but what is founded on the ſuppoſed relation or connection be- twixt cauſe and eſfect. If therefore there be no relation or con- nection betwixt cauſe and effect at all, in the nature of things, which it is the whole deſign of his reaſoning on this ſubject to fhew, then all certainty ok experience, all proof from it, en- tirely fail; all experience, as he himſelf expreſſes it, becomes 21ſ2 leſs, and can give riſe to no inference or conclufion u. Secondly. Another remark I would make upon Mr. Humae's vwray of arguing, is, that it proceeds upon a Wrong foundation, ad which is contrary to truth and reaſon; viz. that we canl ot bave any rea anable certainty of the truch of a thing, or e when we cannot diſtinctly explain the manner 8. The ſum ot his argumentation, as I have 129,& ſeg.„ Ibid. p 56. alr read 19 7) Let. 16. Mr. H v M E. 263 already hinted with relation to cauſe and effect is, that we can- not be certain of any ſuch thing as power or energy, becauſe we cannot conceive or explain preciſely wherein it conſiſts or how it operates. But this is a very fallacious way of reaſoning. Though we cannot metaphyſically explain the manner in which the cauſe operateth upon the effect, yet We may, in many caſes, be ſure that there is a connection between them; and that, where there are certain effects produced, there are powers cor- reſpondent or adequate to the production of thoſe effects. The mind, in ſuch caſes, when it ſees an effect produced, is led, by a quick and undoubted proceſs of reaſoning, to acknowlege that there muſt be a cauſe wnich hath a power of producing it; or elſe we muſt ſay, that it is produced without any cauſe at all, or that nothing in nature hath any power of producing it; which is the greateſt of all abſurdities. He urgeth, that“ it «« muſt be allowed, that when we know a power, We knowW „¹that very circumſtance in the cauſe, by which it is enabled **to produce the effect.“ And then he alks, Do we pre- «tend to be acquainted with the nature of the human ſoul, « and the nature of an idea, or the aptitude of the one to pro- « duce the other*.“ But certainly we may know, tkat there is ſomething in the cauſe which produceth the effect, though we cannot diſtinctly explain what that circumſtance in the cauſe is, by which it is enabled to produce it. We muſt not deny, that there is in the mind a power of raiſing up ideas, and re- calling them, and fixing the attention upon them, becauſe we cannot explain how this is done. The argument Mr. Hume offers to prove, that we can have no aſſurance of the reality of force or power, viz. becauſe we cannot diſtinctly conceive or explain how it operateth, would equally prove that we cannot be ſure that we have any ideas at all, becauſe we cannot well explain the nature of an idea, or how it is formed in the mind. He himſfelf, on another occaſion, obſerves againſt Malebranche, and the modern Carreſtans, who deny all power and activity in ſecond cauſes, and aſcribe all to God; that“ we are indeed ¹ignorant of the manner in which bodies operate upon one ««manother; and ſo we are of the manner or force by which the ««mind, even the Supreme mind, operates, either on itſelf or *on Body. Were our ignorance therefore a ſufficient reaſon for «¹ rejecting any thing, we ſhould be led into that principle of „ refufing all energy to the Supreme Being, as much as to the * Hume'’s Philoſophical Eſfays, p. 110, 111. 8 4** groſſeſt 264 A Viecv of ibe DEISTIcAL Writers. Let. 16 ** groſſeſt mattery.“ He here ſeems to cenſure it as a wrong way of arguing, to deny that a thing is, becauſe we cannot diſtinctly conccive the manner howi it is; or to make our ignor- ance of any thing a ſufficient reaſon for rejecting it: And yet it is manifeſt, that his own reaſoning againſt power or cauſality, force or energy, depends upon this principle; and indeed, by comparing the ſeveral parts of his f ch Seme, there is too much reaſon to apprehend, that he had it in view to deny all force and energy, and all power vhatſoruer. in the Supreme, as well as in ſecondary cauſes; or at leaſt to repreſent it as very uncer- tain. Ithink this gentleman v warl d have done better, to have faid, as a late ingenious author of his own cot Wé have * no adequate idea of power; we fee evidently that there muſt be ſuch a thing in nature; but we cannot conceive how it ««F acts, nor what connects the prod ucing cauſe with the pro- duced effect.“ Chevalier Ramfay's principles of natural and revealed religion, vol. i. p. 109. Thirdly, A third remark is, that many of our author's argu- ings dn this fubject are contrary to the molt evident dictates of common ſenſe. Such is that, N here he aſſerts, that not ſo much as a probable argument can be drawn, in any caſe, from experience, concerning the connection betwixt cauſe and effect; from vwhence we may Conelude, that from a fimilar c auſe We may expeét fimilar effectsz. Thus,.. according to his way of reaſoning, it cannot ſo much as probably be con- cluded from experience, that if a quantity of dry gun-powder be laid in any place, and fire be applied to it, it will cauſe an exploſion; or that if it hath ſuch an effect to-day, a like quan- tity of powder, the ſame way circumſtanced, will produce the ſame effect to morrow. No probahle reaſon can be brought to ſhew, that that which has had the ef Winſtances in time paſt, will, though all circumſtances appear perfeéctly ſimilar, have the ſame effect in time future. He grants, indeed, that, in ſuch caſes, the mind is determined ro draw the inference; yet he aſſerts, that the underſtanding has no part in chè operation. But ſurely, when, from obſerva- tion and expérience, we come to know and judge of the ordi- .. 7 et in thoufands of nary courſe of nature, the underſtanding may juſtly draw a 4 an e argument or concluſion, that from ſuch and fuch 5. 1 cauſes, ſo c rcumſtanced, ſuch effects will follow This in- 4 9 1 ,1.: rs 8 5 11⸗ ference is perfectly rarional. And it is a ſtrauge way Ot talk- ing, that, even from a number of uniform er periments, we y Hume³ T, S. 2 Ibid. p. 61, 62, 63 Let. 16. Mr. HewL. 265 cannot ſo much a e piodab y infer a connection between the cauſe and the effect, the ſenſible qualities and the ſecret Powers: The reaſon he gives, is, that“ if there be any fuſpicion, that ««the courſe of nature may change; zud that the paſt may be « no rule for the future; experience can give riſe to no in- * ference or concluſion a.“ But is the r obability of a thing deſtroyed, according to any way of reaſoning allowed hitherto, becauſe it is barely poilible it may happen Orherd iſe, though there is ten thouſa nd to one againſt it? IDIr. Humè, elſe whefe, when arguing againſt miracles, lays it down as a Prineibigt that there is a conſtan t uniformity in che courſe of nature, never to de violated; but here, in or der to ſhew that no probable rea- ſon can be brought from xperience, concerning the connection of cauſe and effect, he ſuppoſes, that there may be a ſuſpicion that the courſe of nature may change. Thus this Gentleman knows how to affume and alter principles, as beſt ſuits his own erecat convenience. Reaſon leadeth us to conclude, that the courſe of nature is the appointment and con ſtitution of that moſt wiſe and Piwereu being, who made the world, and ſet- tled that law and order which he judged fitteſt and propereſt; and then reaſon leadeth us alſo to Da de that except in very, extraordinary caſes, the ſame order will continue; and extra- — ry C cales do not hinder the probabili ty of the ordinary courſ So that reaſon affords a proper medium for a probable concluſion concerning what effects are to be expected. He affirms, indeed, that Lall inferences of this kind are only the effects of cuſtom or habit, not of reaſoning b. But Why is cuſhom or habit here mentioned in oppoſition to reaſon, or as excluſive of it? May they not both concur? It is evident, that they often go together, and mutually ſtrengthen one another Euſtom a al lone, N rith out reaſon, is often not to be depended on: But in this caſe, reaſon gives its ſuffrage; and, in a all arguings in experimental phi lloſophy, r reaſon argues from ſimilar cauſes to ſimilar effects. It is by reaſon we Sdra W thoſe inferences, and the inferences are rational. It muſt not be faid, that in this caſe there is no reaſoning at all; butt hat the reaſoning is often ſo obvious, that it carries conviction by the very conſtitu- tion of the human mind, which naturally acquieſceth in it as latisinehora. It ſeems evident, that the great author of our be sings h Aath formed our minds, ſo as to reaſon in this manner; and he would not have done this, if it had not been both of a Hume's Philoſophical Eſſays, P. 65, 66. 5 Ibid. p. 73, 74,& paſſim. great 266 A View of tbe DEISTICAIL Writers. Let. 16. great uſe in human life to make ſuch inferences, and if there were not a real foundation for it in the nature of things. This writer himſelf owns, that“none but a fool or a madman will *ever pretend to diſpute the authority of experience, or to *¹ reject that great guide of human life: But he thinks it may ** be allowed a philoſopher ro have ſo much curioſity as to ex- « amine the principle of human nature, which gives this weigh- **ty authority to experiencec.“ But I cannot help thinking that if we were to judge of phil oſophy, by the ſpecimen this Gentleman hath given of it in this inſtance, many would be apt to conclude, that there is a great difference, and even oppoſi- tion, between philoſophy and common ſenſe; that what is ſo obvious and apparent to the common ſenſe and reaſon of man- kind, that he is a fool and a madman, who doubts of it; yet in philoſophy is not ſo much as probable. Another inſtance, in which our author's ſcheme is not very reconcilable to the common ſentiments of mankind, is, that he ſays, that though we learn, by experience, the frequent con- **junction of objects, yet we are unable to comprehend any „thing like connection between them; and that there appears not in all nature any thing like conneftion, conceivable by us; «« all events are entirely! looſe and ſe parate; one event follows «c another; but we never obſerve any tye betwixt them; they ſeem conjoined, but never connected“.“ But it is evident, that in many caſes we have a diſtinct idea gf conjunction or con- tiguity, as in a heap of ſand; and of connection, as betwixt cauſe and effect; 85 the Conreekion in this caſe is not merely in our thoughts, as this gentleman is pleaſed to repreſent it; but this very connection in our thoughts is founded on a con- nection which we perceive in the things themſelves. They are not connected as cauſe and efféct, Wna we think them ſo; but we perceive them to be conn ted, becauſe we find they re ſo: Nor is this owing merely to a cuſtom or habit in our minds, but there is in nature a real foundation for it. Fourthly, Another remark which occurs to me, upon con- ₰ ſidering Mr. Hume's ſcheme, is, that he hath fallen into ſeveral inconſiſtencies and contradictions: And, indeed, it is not to be wondered at, that a man who argueth againſt common ſenſe, t, however ſubtile and ingenious he may ocherwiſe be, ſhould alſo be inconſiſtent with hit mſelf. Ihare already taken notice of the paſſages in which he repreſenteth experience as uncer tain, and that not ſo much as a probable argument can be drawn from it; s Philoſophical Eſſays, p. 63, 66. 4 Ibid, p. 120. 5 and Let. 16, Mr. H uM E. 26„ and yet in his ſixth eſſay, which is concerning Brobability, he hews that experience may not only furniſh 5 obable conclu- ſions, but what he calls Proofs; which he explains to be ſue arguments from experience, as leave no room for doubt or op- poſition. And he frequently ſp aks of experience in very high terms, as a certain guide. Again, in ſeveral paſſages above re- ferred to, he expreſsl y declares, that in making experimental concluſions, there is no place for reaſoning; that the inference in this caſe is entirely owing to cuſtom, and the underſtanding has no part in it. And yet he elſewhere owns, tiee there is great ſcope of reaſoning in inferences of this kind from obſerva- lion and experience; and that not only men greatly ſurpaſs the inferior animals in this way of reaſoning, but that one man very much excels another f. And be declares, that„all our 7ea- *¹*ſonings are founded on a ſpecies of analogy; where the cauſes ««o are entirely ſimilar, the ana logy is perfect; and the inference „« drawn from it is regarded as certain and conclufive 8; though he had ſaid, that“ it is impoſſible that any arguments * from experience can prove ſuch a reſemblance 5.) Another inconſiſtency, which may be ob ſerved in Mr. Ener s reaſoning on this ſubjecti is, that th ough he repreſen ts the connection be- twixt cauſe and effect to be vnlh a connection in our thoughts, not in the things themſelvesi; yet he aſſerts, that„there is a ** kind of pre-e eſtab liſned harmony between the courſe of nature, ee and thef ſucceſſion of our ideas; and though the powers and *¹forces, by which the former is governed, be wholly unknown **Fto us, yet our thoughts and conceptions have ſtill, we find, * gone on in the ſame train with other works of nature k.“ Where 2he ſeems to ſuppoſe that there is a real connection in the nature of things, to which the connection in our own minds correſpondeth. The general ſtrain of his arguing in ſeveral of his eſfays, ſeems to be deſigned to prove, if it proves any thing, that we cannot be ſure there is any ſuch thing as cauſe or cauſal wunraon in the univerſe: Yet he ſays,„it is univerſally ²e allowed that nothing exiſts without a c- auſe of its exiſtence; 6s and that chance is a negative word, and means not any real ** power which has ar yWh ere a being in naturel.“ Here he falls into the common way of ſpeaking, that every thing which exiſteth muſt lhene a cauſe of its exiſtence;; otherwiſe we Pint acknowlege the operation of chance. And he obſerves, that e Hume's Philoſophical Eſſays, p. 93. s Ibid. p. 170, 171. e Ibid. p. 165. n Ibid. p. 66. 1 Ibid. p. 123. 12 kIbid. P. 90. 1 Ibid. p. 151. 1 44 therc 268 A View of tbe DEisTIc-AL Writers. Let. 16. 38 ihere is no ſuch thing as chance in the world m.“ Cauſes therefore muſt be acknowleged, mhoun. we cannot explain the manner.8 their cauſality: And he himſelf, in reckoning up the Principles of the conneétion of our ideas, diſt inctly mentions reſemblance, contiguity, and caufation; and this laſt he makes to be the moſt common and uſeful of alla. Aud yet, in the courſe of his reaſoning, he really leaves no place for aanſtren, diſtinct from fimilarity or reſemblan ce, and contiguity. It may be mentioned, as another inſtance of his inconf cnez y, that— frequently makes vewen, and neceſſary connection, tiſe ſam thing; and a rgues, that if there be any connection betwixt Canfe and effect at all, it muſt be a neceſſary one; for that cannot be called a cauſe, that is not neceſſarily connected Veh the effect o. And yet, in his Eſſay on Liberty and Noceſſity, when ſpealting of the influence of motives upon the mind, he ſaith, that as ee tlis influen ce is ufually conjoined with the action, it muſt be ec eſteemed a cauſe, and be looked upon as an inſtance of the ** neceſſity which we would eſtablifh?:“ Wheré he plainly ſup- poſeth, that it is not eſſential to the notion of a cauſe, chat it is infallibly and alway conneCted with the effect; but that it is ſuſficient, if it be uſually joined with it. And to the ſame pur- poſe, he ſaith, that“¹. all cauſes are not conjoined to their r uſual effeéts, with like conſtancy and uniformity 3.“ Indeed, his whole Eſſay on Liberty and Neceſſity, though ſeemingly built upon the ſcl beme he had advanced in his foregoing Eſſays, A vith rele ation to cauſe and effect, is really not reconcilable to it. 8 concerning cauſe and effect, ed that the re is no ſuch thing as necehe ary connction, d any connection at all, betwixt cauſe and effect: And 1is ſ neme. it is idle to talk of a neceſſity either in phy- pral cauſes: And yet in his Eſſay on Liberty and Ne- 1 he plainly argues upon the ſuppoſition of a real con- though he will only call it a conjunction betwixt cauſe and effect: And he all along ſuppoſeth the influence of cauſes, and the power of motives; and that a neceſſity muſt be knowleged in moral as well as Phyſical cauſes. He would 1s begin the queſtion concerning Liberty and Neceſſity, not*¹ by examining the faculties of the ſoul, but by examin- ing the operations of body, and of brute unintelligent mat- d to this, he obſerves, that ‧it is enſonings in thofe Effa) .r»⸗„„ 55 ter:. And with ré ays, p. 93. I Ibid. p. 32. 34. .. 53, 103 15 1. P Ibid. p. 154. a Ibid. p. 138. 6᷑ UDivers Let. 16 Mr. HuMF. 269 univerſally allowed, that matter, in all its operations, is actu- *ated by a neceſſary force; and that every effect is ſo pre- *ciſely determined by the nature and energy of its cauſe, thiat *¹no other effect, in ſuch particular circumſtances, could poſ- ſibly have reſulted from the operation of its cauſes.“ And he expreſsly aſſerteth, that“ the conjunction betwixt motives * and voluntary actions, is as regular and uniform as that be- „«twixt the cauſe and effect, in any part of nature t.“ Thus we ſee, that he can acknowlege cauſe and effect, and the con- nection betwixt them, when he has a mind to take advantage of this, for overthrewing the liberty of human actions And he concludes the Eſſay, with taking notice of the objection which might be raiſed againſt what he had advanced; vi that„if voluntary actions be ſubjected to the ſame laws of *¹neceſſity with the operations of matter, there is a continued „ chain of neceſſary cauſes, pre-ordained and pre-determined, „¹reaching from the original cauſe of all, to every fingle voli- ¹« tion of every human creature. While we act, we are, at *« the ſame time, acted upon. There is no contingency any- . «« Wwhere in the univerſe, no indifferency, no liberty.“ This ob- jection he putteth very ſtrongly u; and yet I cannot ſee, that, according to the hypotheſis he had advanced in the foregoing Eſfays, there can be any juſt foundation for it: For if there be only a mere conjunction of events, but no cauſak influence, it cannot be ſaid, that whilſt we act we are acted upon. On the contrary, nothing is acted upon, nor is there any power, force, or energy in nature. All events are looſe, ſeparate, and un- connected, and only follow one another, without connection; and therefore there can be no continued chain of neceſfary cauſes at all. This would be the proper anſwer, according to the principles he had laid down, if he had thought thoſe prin- ciples would bear. But he hath not thought fit to make uſe of ly E it; but, in contradiction to his own ſcheme, ſeems here to ad- mit a chain of neceſſary cauſes, phyſical and moral, in order to load providence; and plainly repreſents the objection as unan- ſwerable x. Thus I have conſidered, pretty largely, our author's extra- ordinary ſcheme; and the obſervations that have been made may help us to judge of this gentleman's charaéter as a writer, whether it deſerveth all the admiration and applauſe, which he himſelf, as well as Others, have IrSe Pilrh 5— s Hume's Philoſophical Eſſays, p. 1 2 Ibid. p. 15, 133. X Ibid. We 270 A Vievw of tbe DEIsrIcAL. Writers. Let. 16. We may ſee, by what hath been obſerved, how far he hath anſwered what he had prepared the reader to expect, clearneſs and preciſion, in his way of treating theſe curious and ſublime fubjects. He had particularly propoſed, with regard to power, force, and energy, ‧˙ to fix, if poſſible, the preciſe meaning of “thoſe terms; and thereby remove part of that obſcurity, “„Which is ſo much complained of in this ſpecies of philo- er ſophy y. What Mr. Hume hath offered, concerning cauſe and effect, puts me in mind of a remarkable paſſage in Lord Bolingbrobe's poſthumous works, which I fhall mention on this occafion. „* Whatever knowlege(ſaith his Lordſhip) we acquire of ap- *¹parent cauſes, we can acquire none of real cauſality, or that **power, that virtue, whatever it be, by which one being acts *on another, and becomes a cauſe. We may call this by dif- ¹ ferent names, according to the different effécts of it; but to ꝗknow it in its firft principles, to know the nature of it, „¹hwwould be to know as God himſelf knows; and therefore ¹this will be always unknown to us, in cauſes that ſeem to *« be moſt under our inſpection, as well as in others that are „„the molt remote from it.“ And he repreſents thoſe philo- ** ſophers as ridiculous, who, when they have diſcovered a real „« actual cauſe, in its effects, by the phænomena, reject it be- **cauſe they cannot conceive its cauſality, nor aſſign a ſufficient *reaſon why and how it is z.“ This may ſeem to bear hard upon Mr. Hume: But what is more to be wondered at, he hath in effect paſſed a cenſure upon nimſelf. He indeed gives a high encomium on ſceptical philoſophy, in the beginning of his ſixth Eſſay; that„˙every paſſion is mortified by it, but the love of truth, and that paſſion never is, nor can be carried to too ** high a degree. It is ſurpriſing therefore, that this philoſo- „«phy, Wwhich, in almoſt every inſtance, muſt be harmleſs and «innocent, ſhould be the fubject of ſo much groundleſs re- *proach and obloquy a.“ But afterwards, in his twelfth Eſſay, which is of the academical or ſceptical philoſophy, he gives no advantageous notion of ſcepticiſm. He ſays, that“the grand «« ſcope of all the enquiries and diſputes of the ſceptics, is to **deſtroy reaſon by ratiocination and argumentb.“ And ſpeak- ing of the ſceptical objections againſt the relation of cauſe and effect, he ſaith, that“ while the Sceptic infiſts upon theſe y Hume's Philoſophical Effays, p. 101, 102. 2² Lord Boling- broke's Works, vol. iii. p. S4u. a Hume's Philoſophical Effays, P. 70. d Ipid. p. 245. «c topics, Let. 16. Mr. HuME. 271 *¹topics, he ſeems, for the time at leaſt, to deſtroy all aſſurance **and conviction?“ And then he adds, that“theſe arguments * might he diſplayed at a greater length, if any durable good «* or benefit to ſociety could ever be expected to reſult from “„them. For(ſaith he) here is the chief, and moſt confounding *objection, to exceſſive ſcepticiſm, that no durable good can ever be expected from it, while it remains in its full force „«and vigourc.“ And he had ſaid, that“ nature will always „maintain her rights, and prevaileth in the end over any ab- „ ſtract reaſoning whatſoever 4.“ And if ſo, I think we may juſtly conclude, that any abſtract reaſoning which is contrary to the plain voice of nature ought to be rejected, as falſe and trifling, and of no real uſe or ſervice to mankind. But it were well, if the worſt thing that could be ſaid of our author's exceſſive ſcepticiſm, were, that it is trifling and uſeleſs. It will ſoon appear, that as he hath managed it, it is of a per- nicious tendency. But you will probably be of opinion, that enough hath been ſaid of this gentleman, and his oddities, for the preſent. I am,&c. g e Hume's Philoſophical Eſfays, p. 251. d Ibid. p. 71. N* der 8₰ —₰ b1 50 SS 7 8 S S 1 eͤ LETITEFR XVII. Obſervations on Mr. Hume's Eſſuy concerning a particular providence and a future ſtate. His at tempt to ſpew that we cannot juſtly argue from the courſe of naturè io a par- ticular intelligent cauſe, becauſe tbe ſubject lies entirely beyond the reach of buman experience, and becauſe God is a fingular cauſe, and the univerſe a fingular eſfeci, and t berefore we cannot argue by a compariſon with any other cauſe, or anyotber effett. His argument examined, wybereby be pretends to prove, ibat ſince we&nouo God only by the effetts in tbe works of nature, we can judge of his proceedings no fariber iban wwe now ſee of tbem, and therefore cannot infer any rewards or puniſbmenis beyond what is already enovon by experience and obſer- vation. The uſvfulneſs of believing future retributions acknowleged by Mr. Hume, and that ¹5e contrary doc- trine is inconſiſtent with good policy. 5 7, T appears from what was obſerved in my former letter, that few writers have carried ſcepticiſm in philoſophy toa greater height than Mr. Hume. I now proceed to conſider thoſe things in his writings that ſeem to be more directly and immediately deſigned againſt religion. Some part of what he calls his Phi- loſophical Eſſays concerning Human Underſtanding, manifeſtly tends to ſubvert the very foundations of natural religion, or its moſt important principles. Another part of them is particu- larly levelled againſt the proofs and evidences of the Chriſtian revelation. The former is what I fhall firſt conſider, and ſhall therefore examine the cleventh of thoſe eſſays, the title of which is, con- cerning a articular providence and a future ſtate. Mr. Hiune introduces what he offers in this eſſay as ſceptical paradoxes advanced by a friend, and pretends by no means to approve ot es ſome objcétions as from himſelf, to his friend's them de propol He propol Let. 17. Mr. HuM E. 273 friend's way of arguing; but takes care to do it in ſuch a man- ner, as to give his friend a ſuperiority in the argument. And ſome of the worlt parts of his eſſay are directly propoſed in his own perſon. The eſſay may be conſidered as confiſting of two parts. The one ſeems to be deſigned againſt the exiſtence of God, or of one ſupreme intelligent cauſe of the univerſe: the other, which appears to be the main intention of the eſſay, is particularly levelled againſt the doctrine of a future ſtate of rcwards and puniſhments. I fhall begin with the former, becauſéè it comes firſt in order to be coaſidered, though it is not particularly mentioned till towards the concluſion of the eſſay. He obſerves in the perſon of his Epicurean friend, that“ while we argue from the courſe “of nature, and infer a particular intelligent cauſe, which at “ firſt beſtowed and ſtill preſerves order in the univerſe, we “ embrace a principle which is both uncertain and uſeleſs.“ The reaſon he gives why it is uncertain is,“ becauſe the ſub- *e ject lies entirely beyond the reach of human experience ⸗.“ This is a ſpecimen of the uſe our author would make of the pPrinciples he had laid down in the preceding eſſays. He had repreſented experience as the only foundation of our know- lege with reſpect to matter of fact, and the exiſtence of objects: that it is by experience alone that we know the relation of cauſe and effect; and he had alſo aſſerted, that not ſo much as a probable argument can be drawn from experience to lay a foun- dation for our reaſoning from cauſe to effect, or from effect to cauſe. I fhall not add any thing here to what was offered in my former letter to ſhew the abſurdity, the confuſion, and in- conſiſtency of theſe principles. I fhall only obſerve, that this very writer, who had repreſented all arguments drawn from experience, with relation to cauſe and effect, as abſolutely un- certain, yet makes it an objection againſt the argument from the courſe of nature to an intelligent cauſe, that the fubjest lies entirely beyond the reach f human experience. What is the meaning of this is not eaſy to apprehend. It will be readily llowed, that we do not know by experience the whole courſe of nature; yet enough of it falls within the reach even of hu- man obſervation and experience, to lay a reaſonable foundation for inferring from it a ſupreme intelligent cauſe. In that part of the univerſe which cometh under our notice and obſervation, we may behold ſuch illuſtrious characters of wiſdom, power, and goodneſs, as determine us, by the moſt natural way of rea- ſoning in the world, to acknowlege a moſt wiſe, and powerful, a Hume“ss Philoſophical Eiſays, p. 224. Vol. I. and 274 A View of the DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 17. and benign Author and Cauſe of the univerſe. The inference is not beyond the reach of our faculties, but is one of the moſt obvious that offereth to the human mind. But perhaps what the author intends by obſerving that this ſubject lies entirely be- yond the reach ꝗf human experience, is this, That notwithſtand- ing the admirable marks of wiſdom and deſign which we behold in the courſe of nature and order of things, we cannot argue from thence to prove awiſe and intelligent cauſe of the univerſe, or that there was any wiſdom employed in the formation of it, becauſe neither we, nor any of the human race, were preſent at the making of it, or ſaw how it was made. This muſt be owned to be a very extraordinary way of reaſoning, and I be- lieve you will eafily excuſe me if I do not attempt a confutation of it. Mr. Hume, after having argued thus in the perſon of his Ehi- curean friend, comes in the concluſion of this eſſay to propoſe another argument as from himſelf. ‧I much doubt, ſaith he, *„* whether it be poſſible for a cauſe to be known only by its „c effect, or to be of ſo ſingular and particular a nature as to * have no parallel, and no fimilarity with any other cauſe or *¹object, that has ever fallen under our obſervation. Tis *only when two ſpecies of objects are found to be conſtantly conjoined, that we can infer the one from the other. And ¹were an effect preſented which was entirely fingular, and *could not be comprehended under any known ſpecies, I do ««not ſee that we could form any conjecture or inference at all *« concerning its cauſe. If experience, and obſervation, and „ analogy be, indeed, the only guides we can reaſonably fol- *« low in inferences of this nature, both the effect and cauſe «« muſt bear a ſimilarity and reſemblance to other effects and cauſes which We know, and which we have found in many inſtances to be conjoined with each other b.“ Mr. Hume leaves it to his friend's reflections to proſecute the conſequences f this princißle, which, he had hinted before, might lead into reaſonings ꝗf too nice and delicate aæ nature to be inſiſted on The argument, as he hath managed it, is indeed ſufficiently ob- ſcure and perplexed. But the general intention of it ſeems to be this, that all our arguings from cauſe to effect, or from ef- fect to cauſe, proceed upon analogy, or the comparing ſimilar cauſes with ſimilar effeCts. Where therefore there is ſuppoſed to be a ſingular cauſe to which there is no parallel(though he much doubts whether there can be a cauſe of ſo ſingular a na- 2 d Hume'’s Philoſophical Eſfays, p. 232, 233. ture) Let. 17. Mr. HvUML. 275 ture) and a ſingular effect, there can be no arguing from the one to the other: becauſe in that caſe we cannot argue by a compariſon with any other cauſe, or any other effect. Except therefore we can find another world to compare this with, and an intelligent cauſe of that world, we cannot argue from the effects in this preſent world to an intelligent cauſe: 1. e. We cannot be ſure there is one God, except we can prove there is one other God at leaſt; or that this world was formed and pro- duced by a wiſe intelligent cauſe, unleſs we know of another world like this, which was alſo formed by a wiſe intelligent cauſe, and perhaps not then neither: for he ſeems to inſiſt upon it, that there ſhould be many inſtances of ſuch cauſes and effects being conjoined with each other, in order to lay a proper foundation for obſervation, æxperience, and analogy, the onh guides weé can reafonably follou in inferences f this nature. He immediately after obſerves, that“ according to the antagoniſts «e of Ebicurus, the univerſe, an effect quite ſingular and un- *«paralleled, is always ſuppoſed to be the proof of a Deity, a ¹*cauſe no leſs ſingular and unparelleled.“ If by calling the univerſe a ſingular and unparalleled effect, he in:ends to ſignify that no other univerſe has come under our obſervation, it is very true: but it by no means follows, that we cannot argue from the evident marks of wiſdom and deſign which we may obſerve in this univerſe that we do know, becauſe we do not know any thing of any other univerſe. This grand univerſal fyſtem, and even that ſmall part of it that we are more particu- larly acquainted with, comprehendeth ſuch an amazing variety of phænomena, all which exhibit the moſt inconteſtable proofs of admirable wiſdom, power, and diffuſive goodneſs, that one would think it ſcarce poſſible for a reaſonable mind to reſiſt the evidence. But ſuch is this ſubtil metaphyſical gentleman's way of arguing in a matter of the higheſt conſequence, the abſurdity of which is obvious to any man of plain underſtanding. It is of a piece with what he had advanced before, that there is no ſuch thing as cauſe or effect at all, nor can any probable infer- ence be drawn from the one to the other, than which, as hath been already ſhewn, nothing can be more inconſiſtent with com- mon ſenſe, and the reaſon of all mankind. The other thing obſervable in this eſſay, and which ſeems to be the principal intention of it, relateth to the proof of a Pro- vidence and a Future State. He introduces his friend as putting himſelf in the place of Ebicurus, and making an harangue to the people of Athens, to prove that the principles of his philoſophy were as innocent and ſalutary as thoſe of any other philoſophers. 1 2 The 275 A View of tbe DeisricaL Writers. Let. 17. The courſe of his reaſoning or declamation is this: That“the 67( 66 chief or ſole argument brought by philoſophers for a divine Exiſtence is derived from the order of nature; where there appear ſuch marks of intelligence and deſign, that they think it extravagant to aſſign for its cauſe, either chance, or the blind unguided force of matter. That this is an argument drawn from effects to cauſes; and that when we infer any particular cauſe from an effect, we muſt proportion the one to the other, and can never be allowed to aſcribe to the cauſe any qualities, but what are exactly ſufficient to produce the effect. And if we aſcribe to it farther qualities, or affirm it capable of produeing any other effect, we only indulge the licence of conjecture without reaſon or authority c.“ That therefore“ allowing God to be the author of the exiſtence 66 66 66 66 46 66 6 ₰ 66 or order of the univerſe, it follows, that he poſſeſſes that preciſe degree of power, intelligence, and benevolence, which appears in his workmanſhip, but nothing farther can ever be provedB. Thoſe therefore are vain reaſoners, and re- verſe the order of nature, who inſtead of regarding this pre- ſent life, and the preſent ſcene of things as the ſole object of their contemplation, render it a paſſage to ſomething far- ther. The Divinity may indeed poſſibly poſſeſs attributes which we have never ſeen exerted, and may be governed by principles of action, which we cannot diſcover to be ſatisfied: but we can never have reaſon to infer any attributes, or any principles of action in him, but ſo far as we know them to be exerted or ſatisfied.“ He aſks,%‧ Are there any marks of diſtributive juſtice in the world?“ And if it be ſaid, that the juſtice of God exerts itſelf in part, but not in its full extent,“ he anſwers,“ that we have no reaſon to give it any particular extent, but only ſo far as we ſee it at preſent exert itſelf e.“ That„ indeed, when we find that any work has proceeded from the ſkill and induſtry of man, who is a being whom we know by experience, and whoſe nature we are acquainted with, we can draw a hundred inferences concerning what may be expected from him, and theſe infer- ences will all be founded on experience and obſervation. But ſince the Deity is known to us only by his productions, and is a fingle being in the univerſe, not comprehended under any ſpecies or genus, from whoſe experienced attributes or qualities we can by analogy infer any attribute or quality in Hays, p. 215. 4 Ibid. p. 220. Hume's Philoſophical Eſl Ibid. p. 223. er him, Let. 17. Mr. HuME. 277 „« him, we can only infer ſuch attributes or perfections, and ¹fuch a degree of thoſe attributes, as is preciſely adapted to «« the effect we examine. But farther attributes or farther de- *« grees of thoſe attributes, we can never be authorized to in- *fer or ſuppoſe by any rules of juſt reaſoning.”“ He adds, that *¹the great fource of our miſtakes on this fubject is this. We *«tacitly conſider ourſelves as in the place of the Supreme Be- ing, and conclude, that he will on every occaſion obſerve the ſame conduct, which we ourſelves in his fituation would «. have embraced as reaſonable and eligible. Whereas it muſt ³«evidently appear contrary to all rules of analogy to reaſon ¹« from the intentions and projects of men to thoſe of a Being ſo different, and ſo much ſuperior— ſo remote and incom- **prehenſible, who bears leſs analogy to any other being in the univerſe, than the ſun to a waxen taper.“ He concludes therefore,“that no new fact can ever be inferred from the re- *«ligious hypotheſis: no reward or puniſhment expected or «dreaded beyond what is already known by practice and ob- *« ſervation f.“ This is a faithful extract of the argument in this eſſfay, drawn together as cloſely as I could, without the repetitions with which it aboundeth. I fhall now make a few remarks upon it. The whole of his reaſoning depends upon this maxim, that when once we have traced an effect up to its cauſe, we can ne- ver aſcribe any thing to the cauſe but what is preciſely propor- tioned to the effect, and what we ourſelves diſcern to be ſo: nor can we infer any thing farther concerning the cauſe, than what the effect, or the preſent appearance of it, neceſſarily leads to. He had to the ſame purpoſe obſerved in a former eſſay, that““it is allowed by all philoſophers, that the effect is the ««meaſure of the power 8.“ But this is far from being univer- ſally true. For we in many inſtances clearly perceive, that 2 cauſe can produce an effeét which it doth not actually produce, or a greater effect than it hath actually produced. This gentle- man's whole reaſoning proceeds upon confounding neceſſary and free cauſes; and indeed he ſeems not willing to allow any diſtinction between them, or that there are any other but ne- ceſſary and material cauſes h. A neceſſary cauſe acts up to the utmoſt of its power, and therefore the effect muſt be exactly proportioned to it. But the caſe is manifeſtly different as to free and voluntary cauſes. They may have a power of producing f Hume's Philoſophical Eſſays, p. 230, 231. ² Ibid. p. 125. 5 Ibid. p. 131, 132. 141. 151. T. 3 effects⸗ 278 A View of the DEisTIcAL. Writers. Let. 17. effects, which they do not actually produce. And as they act from diſcernment and choice, we may, in many caſes, reaſon- ably aſcribe to them farther views than what we diſcern or diſ- cover in their preſent courſe of action. This author himſelf owns, that this may be reaſonably done with reſpect to man whom we know by experience, and whoſe nature and conduct we are acquainted with; but denies that the ſame way of ar- guing will hold with reſpect to the Deity. But ſurcly when once we come from the conſideration of his works tathe know- lege of a ſelf-exiſtent and abſolutely perfect Being, we may from the nature of that ſelf-exiſtent and abſolutely perfect cauſé reaſonably conclude, that He is able to produce certain effects beyond what actually come under our preſent notice and obſer- vation, and indeed that He can do whatſoever doth not imply a contradiction. This univerſe is a vaſt, a glorious, and amazing fyſtem, comprehending an infinite variety of parts. And it is but a fmall part of it that comes under our own more immediate notice. But we know enough to be convinced, that it demon- ſtrateth a wiſdom as well as power beyond all imagination great and wonderful. And we may juſtly conclude the ſame con- cerning thoſe parts of the univerſe that we are not acquainted with. And for any man to ſay, that we cannot reaſonably aſcribe any degree of wiſdom or power to God but what is exactly proportioned to that part of the univerſal frame which comes under our own particular obſervation, is a very ſtrange way of arguing. The proofs of the wiſdom and power of God, as appearing in our part of the ſyſtem, are ſo ſtriking, that ĩt is hard to conceive, how any man that is not under the influ- ence of the moſt obſtinate prejudice, can refuſe to ſubmit to their force. And yet there are many phænomena, the reaſons and ends of which we are not at preſent able to aſſign. The proper conduct in ſuch a caſe, is io believe there are moſt wiſe reaſons for theſe things, though we do not now diſcern thoſe reaſons, and to argue from the unconteſted characters of wiſdom in things that we do know, that this moſt wiſe and powerful agent, the author of nature, hath alſo acted with admirable wiſdom in thoſe things, the deſigns and ends of which we do not know. It would be wrong therefore to confine the meaſures of his wiſdom preciſely to what appeareth to our narrow apprehen- Sons, in that part of his works which falleth under our imme- diate inſpection. This was the great fault of the Ehicureans, and other atheiſtical philoſophers, who judging by their own narrow views, urged ſeveral things as proofs of the want of wiſdom and contrivance, which upon a fuller knowlege of 16 WoOTKS Let. 17. Mr. HuMI. 279 works of nature, furniſh farther convincing proofs of the wiſ- dom of the great Former of all things. In like manner with reſpect to his goodneſs, there are num- berleſs things in this preſent conſtitution, which lead us to re- gard him as a moſt benign and benevolent Being. And thele- fore it is highly reaſonable, that when we meet with any phæ- nomena, which we cannot reconcile with our ideas of the di- vine goodneſs, we ſhould conclude, that it is only for want of having the whole of things before us, and confidering them in their connexion and harmony, that they appear to us with a diſorderly aſpect. And it is very juſt in ſuch a caſe to make uſe of any reaſonable hypotheſis, which tendeth to ſet the good- neſs of God in a fair and conſiſtent light. The ſame way of reaſoning holds with regard to the juſtice and righteouſneſs of God as the great Governor of the world. We may reaſonably conclude from the intimate ſenſe we have of rhe excellency of ſuch a character, and the great evil and de- formity of injuſtice and unrighteouſneſs, which ſenſe is im- planted in us by the author of our beings, and from the natural rewards of virtue, and puniſhment of vice even in the pu eſent conſtitution of things, that he is a lover of righteouſneſs and virtue, and an enemy to vice and wickedneſs. Our author bim- ſelf makes his Ebicurean friend acknowlege, that in the preſent order of things, virtue is attended with more peace of mind, and with many other advantages above vice i, And yet it can- not be denied, that there are many inſtances obvious to com- mon obſervation, in which vice ſeemeth to flouriſh and proſper, and virtue to be expoſed to great evils and calamities. What is to be concluded from this? Is it that becauſe the juſtice of God here ſheweth itſelf only in Hart, and not in its full extent(to uſe our author's expreſſion) therefore righteoufneſs as in God is imperfect in its degree, and that he doth not poſſeſs it in the full extent of that perfection, nor will ever exert it any farther than we ſee him exert it in this preſent ſtate? This were an un- reaſonable concluſion, concerning a being of ſuch admirable perfection, whoſe righteoufneſs as well as wiſdom muſt be ſup- poſed to be infinitely ſuperior to ours. It is natural therefore to think that this preſent life is only a part of the divine ſcheme, which fhall be completed in a future ſtate. But he urgeth, that the great ſource of our miſtakes on this ſubject is, that“ we tacitly conſider ourſelves as in the ploce «of the Supreme Being, and conclude that he will on every i Hume's Philoſophical Efſays, p. 221. T 4 ¹* Occaſion 280 A View of ibe DrisricaA. Writers. Let. 17. 66 occaſion obſerve the ſame conduct, which we ourſelves in his ſituation would have embraced as reaſonable and eligible. Whereas it muſt evidently appear, contrary to all rules of analogy, to reaſon from the intentions and purpoſes of men to thoſe of a Being ſo different and ſo much ſuperior, ſo re- mote and incomprehenſible*.“ But though it were the higheſt abſurdity to pretend to tie down the infinite incomprehenſible Being to our ſcanty model and meaſures of acting, and to aſ- ſume that he will on every occaſion, for ſo our author is pleaſed to put the caſe, obſerve the ſame conduct that we ſhould judge eligible; ſince there may be innumerable things concerning which we are unable to form any proper judgment, for want of having the ſame comprehenſive view of things that he hath; yYet on the other hand, there are ſome caſes ſo manifeſt that we may ſafely pronounce concerning them, as worthy or unworthy of the divine perfections. And as our own natures are the work of God, we may reaſonably argue from the traces of ex- cellencies in ourſelves to the infinitely ſuperior perfections in the great Author of the Univerſe, ſtill taking care to remove all thoſe limitations and defects with which thoſe qualities are at- tended in us. This is what Mr. Hume himſelf elſewhere al- lows in his Eſſay on the Origin of our Heas. The idea of *F God, ſaith he, as meaning an infinitely intelligent, wiſe, and good Being, ariſes from reflecting on the operations of our oWn minds, and augmenting thoſe qualities of goodneſs and *¹wiſdom without bound or limit.“ See his Philoſophical Eſfays, P. 24, 25. Since therefore we cannot poſſibly help regarding goodneſs and benevolence, juſtice and righteouſneſs, as neceſſary ingredients in a worthy and excellent character, and as among the nobleſt excellencies of an intellectual being, we are unavoid- ably led to conclude, that they are to be found in the higheſt Poſſible degree of eminency in the abſolutely perfect Being, the Author and Governor of the world; theſe are not mere arbi- trary ſuppoſitions, but are evidently founded in nature and rea- ſon. And though in many particular inſtances we, through the narrowneſs of our views, cannot be proper judges of the grounds and reaſons of the divine adminiſtrations, yet in general we have reaſon to çonclude, that if there be ſuch a thing as goodneſs and righteouſneſs in God, or any perfection in him correſpondent to what is called goodneſs and righteoufneſs in us, he will order it ſo, that in the final iſſue of things, a remarkable difference ſhall be made between the righteous and the wicked; that at one * Hame's Philoſophical Eſſays, p. 230, time Let. 17. Mr. HuM E. 281 time or other, and taking in the whole of exiſtence, virtue, though now for a time it may be greatly afflicted and oppreſſed, ſhall meet with its due reward; and vice and wickedneſs, tho' now it may ſeem to proſper and triumph, ſhall receive its pro- per puniſhment. Since therefore, by the obſervation of all ages, it hath often happened, that in the preſent courſe of human affairs, good and excellent perſons have been unhappy, and ex- poſed to many evils and ſufferings, and bad and vicious men have been in very proſperous circumſtances, and have had a large affluence of all worldly enjoyments, even to the ends of their lives, and that, as this gentleman himſelf elſewhere ex- preſſeth it,“ ſuch is the confufion and diſorder of human *c affairs, that no perfect œconomy or regular diſtribution of * happineſs or miſery is in this life ever to be expected ¹,“ it ſeems reaſonable to conclude, that there ſhall be a future ſtate of exiſtence, in which theſe apparent irregularities ſhall be ſet right, and there ſhall be a more perfect diftribution of rewards and puniſhments to men according to their moral conduct. There is nothing in this way of arguing but what is conformable to the ſoundeſt principles of reaſon, and to the natural feelings of the human heart. But though a future ſtate of retributions in general be probable, yet as many doubts might ſtill be apt to ariſe in our minds concerning it, an expreſs revelation from God aſſuring us of it in his name, and more diſtinctly pointing out the nature and certainty of thoſe retributions, would be of the moſt ſignal advantage. I ſhall have occaſion to reſume this ſubject, when I come to conſider what Lord Bolingbroke hath more largely offered in re- lation to it. At preſent it is proper to obſerve, that though Mr. Hume ſeems to allow his Ehpicurean friend's reaſoning to be juſt, yet he owns, that“ in fact men do not reaſon after that manner; and that they draw many conſequences from the belief of a divine exiſtence, and ſuppoſe that the Deity will infſict puniſhments on vice, and beſtow rewards on virtue, beyond what appears in the ordinary courſe of nature. Whether this reaſoning of theirs(adds he) be juſt or not, is no «« matter; its influence on their life and conduét muſt ſtill be „« the ſame. And thoſe who attempt to diſabuſe them of ſuch prejudices, may for aught I know be good reaſoners, but I cannot allow them to be good citizens and politicians; ſince they free men from one reſtraint upon their paſſions; and make the infringement of the laws of equity and ſociety 9c 46 86 66 1 Hume's Moral and Political Eſſays, p. 244, 245⸗ 28² A View of tbe DEISTIcAL Writers. Let. 17. *«* in one reſpect more eaſy and ſecure n.“ I think it follows from this by his own account, that he did not act a wiſe or good part, the part of a friend to the public or to mankind, in publiſhing this Eſſay, the manifeſt deſign of which is to per- ſuade men, that there is no juſt foundation in reaſon for ex- pecting a future ſtate of rewards and puniſhments at all. Nor is the conceſſion he here makes very favourable to what he ad- deth in the next page, concerning the uoniverſal liberty to be allowed by the ſtate to all kinds of philoſophy. According to his own way of repreſenting it, Ehicurus muſt have been caſt, if he had pleaded his cauſe before the people; and the principal deſign of this Eſſay, which ſeems to be to fhew not only the reaſonableneſs, but harmleſſneſs of that philoſophy, is loſt. For if the ſpreading of thoſe principles and reaſonings is con- trary to the rules of good policy, and the character of good citizens, if they have a tendency to free them from a ſtrong reſtraint upon their paſſions, and to make the infringement of the laus of equity and ſociety more eaßy and ſecure, then ſuch prin- ciples and reaſonings, according to his way of repreſenting the matter, ought in good policy to be reſtrained, as having a bad influence on the community. There is one paſſage more in this Eſſay which may deſerve ſome notice. It is in page 230, where he obſerves that God diſcovers himſelf by ſome faint traces or out lines, beyond „„«which we have no authority to aſcribe to him any attribute or perfection. What we imagine to be a ſuperior perfection *„may really be a defect. Or, were it ever ſo much a perfec- „ tion, the aſcribing it to the Supreme Being, where it ap- ¹ pears not to have been really exerted to the full in his works, * ſavours more of flattery and panegyric, than of juſt reaſoning „⁴and ſound philoſophy.“ The courſe of his arguing ſeems to be this: That it would ſavour of fattery, not of ſound reaſon- ing, to aſcribe any attribute or perfection to God, which abpears not to have been exerted to the full in his works. And he had oblerved before, That“ it is impofſible for us to know „any thing of the cauſe, but what we have antecedently, not „ inferred, but diſcovered to the full in the effect ².“ It is plain rherefore, that according to him we ought not to aſcribe any perfection to God, but what is not merely inferred, but diſ- covered to the full in his works. It is alſo manifeſt, that ac- cording to him there is no attribute or perfection of the Deity erted or diſcovered to the full in his works. For he had ſaid 4 8₰ m Hume's Phlloſophical Efſays, p. 231. n Ibid. p. 222. juſt Let. 17. Mr. HuME. 283 juſt before, that he diſcovers himſelf only by ſome faint tracas or out-lines. The natural concluſion from theſe premiſes taken to- gether is plainly this; That it would be flattery and preſump- tion in us to aſcribe any attribute or perfection to God at all. And now I leave it to you to judge of the obligations the world is under to this writer. In one part of this Eſſay he makes an attempt to ſubvert the proof of the exiſtence of God, or a ſu- preme intelligent cauſe of the univerſe. And here he inſinu- ateth, that it would be wrong to aſcribe any perfection or at- tribute to him at all. And the main deſign of the whole Eſſay is to fhew, that no argument can be drawn from any of his perfeétions, to make it probable that there ſhall be rewards and puniſhments in a futuré ſtate, though he acknowlegeth that it is of great advantage to mankind to believe them. Tou will not wonder after this, that this gentleman, who hath endeavoured to fhake the foundatians of natural religion, ſhould uſe his utmoſt efforts to ſubvert the evidences of the Chriſtian revelation. What he hath offered this way will be the ſubject of ſome future letters, LETTER ———————Iooöoöoöoooſſſ ——— 284 A View of tbe DEIST IcAL Writers. Let. 18. LETFFE R XVIII. An exwamination of Mr. Hume's Eſſay on Miracles. A fummary of tbe firſt part of tbat Eſſay; Wbich is de- figned to ſpezo, tbat miracles are incapable of being proved by any teſtimony or evidence wbhatſoever. His main principle examined, that experience is our only guide in reaſoning concerning matters of fact; and that miracles, being contrary to the eſtabliſbed latos of nature, tbere is an uniform experience againſt ibe exiſt- ence of any miracle. It is pewn, that no argument can be drauwn from experience, to prove that miracles are impæſible, or that they bave not been actually wrought. Miracles not above ibe power of God, nor unworthy of bis wiſdom. Valuable ends may be aſſigned for miracles. They are capable of being proved by proper teſtimony. This applied to the reſurrettion of Chriſt. And it is Shewn, tbat tbe evidence ſet before us in Scripture is every way ſufficient to ſatisfy us of ibe truth of it, ſup- poſing that evidence to bave been reall given as lbere repreſented. §7, Now proceed to conſider Mr. Hame's celebrated Eſſay on Miracles, which is the tenth of his Philoſophical Eſſays, and has been mightily admired and extolled, as a maſterly and unanſwerable piece. I think no erpen tial man will ſay ſo, that has read the ingenious and judicious anſwer madé to it by the Reverend Mr. Adams, Rector of Shreuſbury. It is in⸗ titled,“ An Eflay in anſwer to Mr. Hume's Eſſay on Mi- „„ racles, by William Adams, M. A“ That which I have by me is the ſecond edition, with additions, London, 1754. Be- ſides this, I have ſeen a ſhort, but excellent diſcourſe, by the Reverend Dr. Kutherforth, intitled;“ The Credibility of Mi- 4* Tacles Let. 18. Mr. HuME. 285 „«racles defended againſt the author of the Philoſophical Eſſays. ** In a diſcourſe delivered at the primary viſitation of the Right Reverend Thomas Lord Bifhop of Efy.— Cambridge, 1751.“ Theſe in my opinion are ſufficient. But ſince you deſire that I would alſo take a particular notice of Mr. Huma's Eſſay, I fhall obey your commands, and enter on a diſtinét conſideration of this boaſted performance. Mr. Hume introduceth his Eſſay on Miracles in a very pom- pous manner, as might be expected from one who ſets up in his Philoſophical Eſſays for teaching men better methods of reaſon- ing than any Philoſopher had done before him. He had taken care at every turn to let his readers know how much they are obliged to him for throwing new light on the moſt curious and fublime effects, with regard to which the moſt celebrated philo- ſophers had been æxtremehy defective in their reſearches. And now he begins his Eſſay on Miracles with declaring, that“ he ** flatters himſelf that he has diſcovered an argument, which, „e if juſt, will, with the wiſe and learned, be an everlaſting ¹*check to all kinds of ſuperſtitious deluſion; and conſequently, «« will be uſeful as long as the world endures. For ſo long, he preſumes, will the account of miracles and prodigies be found ¹*z in all profane hiſtory a.“ This Eſſay conſiſteth of two parts. The firſt, which reacheth from p. 173 to p. 186, is deſigned to ſhew, that no evidence which can be given, however ſeemingly full and ſtrong, can be a fufficient ground for believing the truth and exiſtence of mi- racles: Or, in other words, ihat miracles are in the nature of things incapable of being proved by any evidence or teitimony whatſoever. The ſecond part is intended to ſhew, that ſup- poſing a miracle capable of being proved by full and ſufficient evidence or teſtimony, yet in fact there never was a miraculous event in any hiſtory eſtabliſned upon ſuch evidence. The firſt is what he ſeems principally to rely upon. And indeed, if this can be proved, it will make any particular enquiry into the teſ- timony produced for miracles, needleſs. The method he makes uſe of in the firſt part of his Eſſay, to ſhew, that no evidence or teſtimony that can be given is a ſuf- ficient ground for a reaſonable aſſent to the truth and exiſtence of miracles, is this. He lays it down as an undoubted princi- ple, That experience is our only guide in reaſoning concerning matters of fact, and at the ſame time infinuates, that this guide is far from being infallible, and is apt to lead us into errors and a Hume's Philoſophical Eſſays, p. 174. miſtakes. 286 A View of ibe DEiSTICAL Writers. Let. 18. miſtakes. He obſerves, That the validity and credibility of human teſtimony is wholly founded upon experience: That in judging how far a teftimony is to be depended upon, we ba- lance the oppoſite circumſtances, which may create any doubt or uncertainty: That the evidence ariſing from teſtimony may be deſtroyed, either by the contrariety and oppoſition of the teſtimony, or by the conſideration of the nature of the facts themſelves: That when the facts partake of the mar vellous and extraordinary, there are two oppoſite experiences with regard to them; and that which is the moſt credible is to be preferred, though ſtill with a diminution of its credibility in proportion to the force of the other which is oppoſed to it: That this holdeth ſtill more ſtrongly in the caſe of miracles, which are ſuppoſed to be contrary to the laws of nature. For experience being our only guide, and an uniform experience having eſtabliſhed thoſe laws, there muſt be an uniform expe- rience againſt the exiſtence of any miracle: and an uniform ex- perience amounts to a full and entire proof. To ſuppoſe there- fore any teſtimony to be a proof of a miracle, is to ſuppoſe one full proof for a miracle, oppoſed to another full proof in the nature of the thing againſt it, in which caſe thoſe proofs deſtroy one another. Finally, That we are not to believe any teſti- mony concerning a miracle, except the falſnood of that teſti- mony ſhould be more miraculous than the miracle itſelf which it is deſigned to eſtabliſn. He alſo gives a hint, that as it is impoſſible for us to know the attributes or actions of God, otherwiſe than from the experience which we have of his pro- ductions, we cannot be ſure that he can effect miracles, which are contrary to all our experience, and the eſtabliſhed courſe of nature: and therefore miracles are impoſſible to be proved by any evidence. Having given this general idea of this firſt part of Mr. Hume's Eſſay on Miracles, I ſhall now proceed to a more particular ex- amination of it. It is manifeſt that the main principle, which lieth at the foundation of his whole ſcheme, is this: That experience is our only“ guide in reaſoning concerning matters of fact b.“ vou will have obſerved, from what hath been remarked in my former letters, that this author brings up the word exßerience upon all occaſions. It is, as he hath managed it, a kind of cant term, propoſed in a looſe indeterminate way, ſo that it is not eaſy to form a clear idea of it, or of Wwhat this writer pre- b Hume'’s Philoſophical Eſſays, p. 174. cĩſely Let. 18. Mr. HuUME. 287 ciſely intends by it. He had declared, that it is only by expe- rience that we come to know the exiſtence of objects: That it is only by experience that we know the relation between cauſe and effect: And at the ſame time had endeavoured to fhew, that experience cannot furniſh ſo much as even a probable ar- gument concerning any connection betwixt cauſe and effect, or by which we can draw any conclufion from the one to the other. He had afterwards applied the ſame term experience, to ſhew that no argument can be brought to prove the exiſtence of one ſupreme intelligent cauſe of the Univerſe; becauſe this is a fubject that lies intirely beyond the reach& human experience; and that we can have no proof of a future ſtate of retributions, becauſe we know no more concerning Providence than what we learn from experience in this preſent ſtate. And now he comes to try the force of this formidable word againſt the ex- iſtence of miracles, and to raiſe an argument againſt them from experience. But that we may not loſe ourſelves in the ambiguity of the term as he employs it, let us diſtinctly examine what ſenſe it bears as applied to the preſent queſtion. In judging of the truth of the maxim he hath laid down, viz. that experience is our only guide in reaſoning concerning matters of fact; it is to be confidered, that the queſtion we are now upon properly re- lates not to futuie events, as the author ſeems ſometimes to put it, but to paſt matter of fact. What are we therefore to un- derſtand by that experience, which he makes to be our only guide in reaſoning concerning them? Is it our own particular perſonal experience, or is it the experience of others as well as our own? And if of others, is it the experience of ſome others only, or of all mankind? If it be underſtood thus, that every man's own perſonal obſervation and experience is to be his only guide in reaſoning concerning matters of fact, ſo that no man is to believe any thing with relation to any facts whatſoever, but what is agreeable to what he hath himſelf obſerved or known in the courſe of his own particular experience, this would be very abſurd, and would reduce each man's know- lege of facts into a very narrow compaſs; it would deſtroy the uſe and credit of hiſtory, and of a great part of experimental philoſophy, and bring us into a ſtate of general ignorance and barbariſm. Or, is the word Experience to be taken in a larger and more extenſive ſenſe, as comprehending not merely any par- ticular man's experience, but that of others too? In this caſe Hume'’s Philoſophical Eſſfays, p. 175. we 288 AView of tbe DEis TIcAL Writers. Let. 18. we have no way of knowing experience, but by teſtimony. And here the queſtion recurs; Is it to be underſtood of the experi- ence of all mankind, or of ſome perfons only? It the experi- ence referred to be the experience or obſervation of ſome perſons only, or of a part of mankind, how can this be depended on as a certain guide? For why ſhould their experience be the guide, exclufively of that of others? And how do we know, but that many facts may be agreeable to the experience of others, which are not to theirs? But if the experience referred to be the expe- rience of all mankind in general, that muſt take in the experi- ence both of all men in the preſent age, and of thoſe in paſt times and ages; and it muſt be acknowleged, that this rule and criterion is not eaſily applicable. For will any man ſay, that we are to believe no facts but what are agreeable to the experience of mankind in all ages? Are we, in order to this, to take in whatſoever any man or men in any age or country have had ex- perience of? And to judge by this, how far it is reaſonable to believe any paſt facts, or facts of which we ourſelves have not had ſenſible evidence? Even on this view of the caſe, it might probably take in many ſacts of a very extraordinary nature, and which have happened out of the common courſe of things; of which there have been inſtances in the experience and obſerva- tion of different nations and ages. And at this rate experience will not be inconſiſtent with the belief even of miracles them- ſelves, of which there have been ſeveral inſtances recorded in the hiſtory of mankind. But farther, in reaſoning from experience, either our own or that of others, concerning matters of fact, it is to be con- ſidered, what it is that we propoſe to judge or determine by experience in relation to them. Is it whether theſe facts are poſſible, or whether they are probable, or whether they have been actually done? As to the poſſibility of facts, experience indeed, or the obſervation of ſimilar events known to ourſelves or others, may aſſure us that facts or events are poſſible, but not that the contrary is impoſſible. Concerning this, experi- ence cannot decide any thing at all. We cannot conclude any event to be impoſſible, merely becauſe we have had no experi- ence of the like, or becauſe it is contrary to our own obſerva- tion and experience, or to the experience of others. For as this gentleman obſerves in another part of his Eſſays,“ The ¹„contrary of every matter of fact is ſtill poſſible; becauſe it „can never imply a contradiction 4.“ And again he fays, 4 Hume's Philoſophical Eſſays, p. 48. ſpeaking Let. 18. Mr. HuM E. 289 ſpeaking of matters of fact,“ there aré no demonſtrative ar- **guments in the caſe, ſince it implies no contradiction, that the « courſe of nature may changee.“ No argument therefore can be brought to demonſtrate any thing or fact to be im- poſſible, merely becauſe it is contrary to the courſe of our own obſervation and experience, or that of mankind, provided it doth not imply a contradiction, or provided there be a power capable of effecting it. Another thing to be confidered, with regard to facts, is whether they are probable: And here expe- rience, or the obſervation of ſimilar events, made by ourſelves or others, may be of great uſe to affiſt us in forming a judg- ment concerning the probability of paſt facts, or in forming conjectures concerning future ones. Bur if the queſtion be, Whether an event has actually happened, or a fact has been done, concerning this, experience taken from an obſervation of ſimilar events, or the ordinary courſe of cauſes and e ects, cannot give us any aſſurance or certainty to proceed upon. We cannot certainly conclude, that any fact or event has been done, merely becauſe we or others have had experience or obſervation of a fact or event of a like nature. Nor on the other hand can we conclude, that ſuch a certain event hath not happened, or that ſuch a fact hath not been actually done, becauſe we have not had experience of a like action or event being done, or have had experience of the contrary being done. The rule therefore which he lays down of judging whieh ſide is ſupported by the greater number of experiments, and of balancing the oppoſite experiments, and deducting the leſſer number from the greater, in order to know the exact force of the fuperior evi- dence f, is very uncertain and fallacious, if employed injudging whether matters of fact have really been done. For the fact referred to, and the evidence attending it, may be ſo circum- ſtanced, that though it be a fact of a fingular nature, and to which many inſtances of a different kind may be oppoſed, we may yet have ſuch an aſfurance of its having been actually done, as may reaſonably produce a fufficient conviction in the mind. The proper way of judging whether a fact or event, of which we ourſelves have not had ſenſible evidence, hath been actually done, is by competent teſtimony. And this in common lan- guage is diſtinguiſhed from experience, though this writer art- fully confouads them. 4 This therefore is what we are next to conſider; viz. the forcé of human teſtimony, and how far it is to be depended upon. * Hume'’s Philoſophical Eſſays, p. 62 f Ibid. 5. VoL. I. U And 290 A Viecw of tbe DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 18. And with regard to the validity of the evidence ariſing from human teſtimony, he obferves, That ‧there is no ſpecies of „*reafoning more common, more uſeful, and even neceſſary to human life, than that derived from the teſtimony of men, „*and the reports of cye-witneſſes and ſpectators.“ The whole certainty or aſſurance ariſing from teſtimony he reſolveth into what he calls na experience. That““ it is derived from no *˙ other principle than our obſervation of the veracity of human *teſtimony, and of the uſual conformity of facts to the report of witneſſes.“ And he mentions as grounds of the belief of human teſtimony, that“men have commonly an inclination to ** truth, and a ſentiment of probity; that they are ſenſible to *ſfhame when detected in a falſhood; and that theſe are qua- lities diſcovered by experience to be inherent in human na- „¹¹Fture 8.“ But he might have put the caſe much more ſtrongly, by obſerving that human teſtimony, by the acknowlegement of all mankind, may be ſo circumſtanced, as to produce an infal- lible aſſurance, or an evidence ſo ſtrong, that, as our author expreſſeth it in another caſe, none but a fool or a madman would doubt of it. It is a little too looſe to ſay in general, that it is founded only on Paßt e e,⸗en ce. It hath its koacation in the very nature of things, in the conſtitution of the world and of mankind, and in the appointment of the Author of our beings, who it is manifeſt hath formed and deſigned us to be in numberleſs inſtances determined by this evidence, whieh often comes with ſuch force, that we cannot refuſe our aſſent to it without the greateſt abfurdity, and putting a manifeſt conſtraint upon our nature h. Mr. Hume himſelf, in his Eſſay on Liberty and Neceſſity, hath run a parallel between moral and phyſical evidence, and hath endeavoured to fhew that the one is as much to be depended on as the other. Heexpreſsly ſaith, that when we conſider how aptly natural and moral evidence link ¹c together, and form only one chain of argument, we ſhall „«make no ſcruple to allow, that they are of the ſame nature, „c mand derived from the ſame principles i.“ It will be eaſily granted, what our author here obſerves, That°there are a number of circumſtances to be taken into *¹conſideration in all judgments of this kind: And that we ««muſt balance the oppoſite circumſtancçes that create any doubt or uncertainty, and when we diſcover a ſuperiority on 4 6 ² Hume's Philoſophical Efſays, p. 176, 177. h See con- cerning this, Ditton on the Refurrection, part 2. 1 Hame'’s Philof lophical Eflays, p. 144. 2 et any Let. 18. Mr. H u M E. 291 ¹« any ſide, we incline to it, but ſtill with a diminution of « aſſurance in proportion to the force of its antagoniſt k.“ Among the particulars which may diminiſh or deſtroy the force of any argument drawn from human teſtimony, he men- tions the contrariety of the evidence, contradictions of wit- neſſes, their ſuſpicious character, c. And then proceeds to take notice of what may be drawn from the nature of the ** fact atteſted, ſuppoſing it to partake of the extraordinary and the marvellous.“ He argueth, that“ in that caſe the evi- dence refulting from the teſtimony receives a diminution *« greater or leſs in proportion as the fact is more or leſs un- uſual. When the fact atteſted is ſuch a one as has ſeldom fallen under our obſervation, here is a conteſt of two oppo- *« fite experiences, of which the one deſtroys the other as far as *« its force goes; and the ſuperior can only operate upon the ²e mind by the force which remains.“ This is a plauſible, but a very fallacious way of reaſoning. A thing may be very un- uſual, and yet, if confirmed by proper teſtimony, its being un- uſual may not diminiſh its credit, or produce in the mind of a thinking perſon a doubt or ſuſpicion concerning it. Indeed vulgar minds, who judge of every thing by their own narrow notions, and by what they themſelves have ſeen, are often apt to reject and diſbelieve a thing that is not conformable to their own particular cuſtoms or experience. But wiſer men and thoſe of more enlarged minds judge otherwiſe: and provided a thing comes to them ſufficiently atteſted and confirmed by good evidence, make its being unuſual no objection at all to its credi- bility. Many uncommon facts, and unuſual phænomena of nature, are believed by the moſt ſagacious philoſophers, and received as true without heſitation, upon the teſtimony of per- ſons who are worthy of credit, without following the author's rules, or making their own want of experience or obſervation an objection againſt thoſe accounts. And upon this dependeth no fmall part of our knowlege. Mr. Adams hath very well il- luſtrated this by ſeveral inftances, and hath juſtly obſerved, That the moſt uniform experience is ſometimes outweighed by a fingle teſtimony: becauſe experience in this caſe is only a ne- gative evidence, and the flighteſt poſitive teſtimony is for the moſt part an over-balance to the ſtrongeſt negative evidence that can be produced 1. 6 4 ₰ 6 ₰ ₰ E Hume's Philoſophical Effays, p. 177. 1 Adams's Eſſay, in anſwer to Hume on Miracles, p. 19, 20. U 2 Our 292 A Viev of the DEISTIcAL Writers. Let. 18. Our author here very improperly talks of a conteſt between 1ο oppoſite experiences, the one of which deſtroys the other. For when I believe a thing unuſual, I do not believe a thing op- poſite to mine own experience, but different from it, or a thing of which I have had no experience; though if it were a thing contrary to my own experience, provided it were confirmed by ſufficient teſtimony, this is not a valid argument againſt its truth, nor a ſufficient reaſon for diſbelieving it. This gentle- man himſelf hath mentioned a remarkable inſtance of this kind in the Indian prince, who refuſed to believe the firſt relations concerning the efetts f fraſt. This inſtance, though he la- boureth the point here, and in an additional note at the end of his book, is not at all favourable to his ſcheme. He acknow- legeth, that in this caſe of freezing, the event follows contrary to the rules of analogy, and is SUCH AS A RATIONAL IN- DIAN ould not looh for. The conſtant experience in thoſe countries, according to which the waters are always fluid, and never in a ſtate of hardueſs and ſolidity, is againſt freezing. This, according to his way of reaſoning, might be regarded as a hroof drawn from conſtant experience, and the uniform courſe of nature, as far as they knew it. Here then is an inſtance, in which it is reaſonabl for men to believe upon good evidence an event no way conformable to their experience, and contrary to the rule of analogy, which he yet ſeems to make the only rule by which we are to judge of the credibility and truth of facts. From the conſideration of facts that are unuſual, he proceeds to thoſe that are miraculous, which is what he hath principally in view. And with regard to theſe he endeavoureth to fhew, that no teſtimony at all is to be admitted. ‧˙% Let us ſuppoſe, * ſaith he, that the fact which they affirm, inſtead of being *e only marvellous, is really miraculous; and ſuppoſe alſo that «the teſtimony conſidered apart, and in itſelf, amounts to an *e entire proof; in that caſe there is proof againſt proof, of which the ſtrongeſt muſt prevail, but ſtill with a diminution * of its korce in proportion to that of its antagonift m.“ It may be proper to remark here, that this Writer had in a former Eſſay defined a proof to be fuch an argument drawn from exhe- rience as leaves no room for doubt or oßhoſition n. Admitting this definition, it is improper and abſurd for him to talk of Broof againſi broof. Por ſince a proof, according to his own account Of it, leaves no room for doubt or oppoſition; where there is a proper proof of a fact, there cannot be a proper proof at the „P. 108. n 1bid. p. 93. ſame Let. 18. Mr. H uM E. 293 ſame time againſt it: For one truth canno: contradict another truth. Aod no doubt his intention is to ſignify that there can be no proof given of a miracle at all, and that the proof is only on the other ſide. For as he there adds, A miracle is a vio- «« lation of the laws of nature, and as a firm and unalterable *experience hath eſtabliſhed thoſe laws" Che ſhould have ſaid, hath diſcovered to us that theſe are the eſtabliſhed laws, i. e. that this is the ordinary courſe of nature]“ the proof againſt a *«miracle from the very nature of the fact is as entire as any ar- c gument from experience can pol ſibly be imagined.“ He repeats this again after We ard, and obferves, that“there muſt be an * uniform experience againſt every miraculous event, other- «owiſe the event would not merit the appe llation; and as an uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof from the nature of the fact, aBaſnft the exiſt- ence of any miracle“.“ He ſeems to have a very high opi- nion of the force of this way of reaſoning, ar therefouc takes care to put his reader again in mind of it in the latter part of dlis Eſlay I is experiW ence alone, ſaith he, Which gives au- ««thority to human teſtimony; and'tis the ſame experience «« that aſſures us of the laws of nature. When therefore theſe two kinds of experience are contrary, we have nothing to do, „but to ſubtract the one from the other— And this ſu fubtrac- tion with regard to all popular religions amounts to an en- tire annihilation P.“ And it is chiefly upon this that he foundeth the arrogant cenſure, which, with an unparalleled aſſurance, he paſſeth upon all that believe the Chrilſtian reli- gion; viz. That“ whoſoever is moved by falth to aſſent to it, is conſcious of a continued miracle in his own perſon, which cc 66 66 ₰ ₰ 66 ₰ & « fubverts all the prlnclples of his underſtanding, and gives him a determination to believe whatever is molt contrary to 66 cuſtom and experience.“ It is thns that he concludes his ₰ Eſſay, as if he had for ever ſilenced all the advocates for tianity, and they muſt henceforth either renounce their fait or ſubmit to paſs with men of his ſuperior underſtanding for perſons miraculoufly ftupid, and utterly loſt to all reaſon and common ſenſe. Let us cherefore examine what there is in this argument that can ſupport ſuch a peculiar ſtrain of confidenco; and I be- lieve it will appear, that never was there Weaker reaſoning ſe off with ſo much pomp and parade. Chriſ- 0 Hume's Philoſophical Eſſays, p. 181. p Ibid. p. 202, 203. 203 U 2 There 294 A Viev of the DEisTIcAL. Writers. Let. 18. There is one general obſervation that may be ſufficiently ob- vious to any man, who brings with him common ſenſe and at- tention, and which is alone fufficient to ſhew the fallacy of this boaſted argument. And it is this. That the proof ariſing from experience, on which he layeth ſo mighty a ſtreſs, amount- eth to no more than this, that we learn from it what is con- formable to the ordinary courſe and order of things, but we cannot learn or pronounce from experience that it is impoſſible things or events ſliould happen in any particular inſtance con- trary to that courſe. We cannot therefore pronounce fuch an event, though it be contrary to the ufual courſe of things, to be impoſſible, in which caſe no teſtimony whatſoever could prove it. And if it be poſſible, there is place for teſtimony. And this teſtimony may be ſo ſtrong and ſo circumſtanced, as to make it reaſonable for us to believe it. And if we have ſufficient evidence to convince us that ſuch an event hath actually happened, however extraordinary or miraculous, no argument drawn from experience can prove that it hath not happened. I would obſerve by the way, that when this gentle- man talks of an uniform experience, and a firm and unalterable experience, againſt the exiſtence of all miracles, if he means by it ſuch an univerſal experience of all mankind as hath never been counteracted in any ſingle inſtance, this is plainly ſuppo- ſing the very thing in queſtion; and which he hath no right to ſuppoſe, becauſe, by his own acknowlegement, mankind have believed in all ages that miracles have been really wrought. By uniform experience therefore in this argument muſt be un- derſtood the general or ordinary experience of mankind in the uſual courſe of things. And it is ſo far from being true, as he confidently affirms, that ſuch an uniform experience amounts to a full and direct Brooęf from the nature of the fact againſt the exiſtence of any miracle, that it is no proof againſt it at all. Let us judge of this by his own definition of a miracle.% A „miracle, ſaith he, may be accurately defined, a tranſgreſſion *of a law ok nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or “ by the interpoſal of ſome inviſible agent. Now our uni- form experience affordeth a full and direct proof, that ſuch or ſuch an event is agreeable to the eſtabliſhed laws of nature, or to the uſual courſe of things, but it yieldeth no proof at all, that there cannot in any particular inſtance happen any event ontrary to that uſual courſe of things, or to what we have ithetto experienced; or that ſuch an event may not be brought about by a particular volition of the Deity, as our author 7 expreſſeth Let. 18. Mr. H u M L. 295 expreſſeth it, for valuable ends worthy of his wiſdom and goodneſs. He cannot therefore make his argument properly bear cept he can prove that miracles are abſolutely im poſſil this is what he ſometimes ſeems willing to atteml Phu⸗ ſpeaking of ſome miracles pretended to have bee 1 ₰ 8 he aſks,%What have we to oppoſe to ſuch a cloud of witneſſes, «« but the abſolute impoſſibility, or miraculous naturé of thé event q?“ Where he ſeems to make the miraculous nature of an event, and the abſolute impoſſibility of it, to be the ſame thing. And he elſewhere makes an attempt to Prové, that we have no reaſon to think that God himſelf can efféct a miracle. He urges, that“‧though the Being, to whom the miracle is * aſcribed, be in this caſe Almighty, it does not, upon that ¹« account, become a whit more probable: ſince'tis impoſſible „ for us to know the attributes or actions of ſuch a Being, „e otherwiſe than from the experience we have of his produe- « tions in the uſual courſe of nature“.“ But when once we conclude from the effects in the works of nature, that he is Almighty, as this gentleman ſeems here to grant, we may from his being Almighty, reaſonabiy infer, that he can do many things which we do not know that he hath actually done, and can produce many effects which he hath not actually pro- duced. For an Almighty Being can do any thing that doth not imply a contradiction. And it can never be proved, that a miracle, or an event contrary to the uſual courſe of nature, im- plieth a contradtétion. This writer himſelf expreſsly acknow- legeth, in a paſſage I cited before, that“ it implies no contra dic- *etion that the courſe of nature may change s.“ And he repeats it again afterwards, that“ the courſe of nature may change t.“ And as totheextraordinarineſs of any fact, he ſaith, hat“ even in *¹the moſt familiar events, the energy of the cauſe is as unintel- « ligible, as in the moſt extraordinary and unuſual u.“ What we call the courſe of nature is the appointment of God, and the continuance of it dependeth upon his power and will. It is no more difficult to him, to act contrary to it in any particular in- ſtance, than to act according to it. The one is in itſelf as eaſy to Almighty Power as the other. The true queſtion then is concerning the divine will, whether it can be ſuppoſed that God, having eſtabliſhed the courſe of nature, will ever per- mit or order a deviation from that regular courſe, which his own wiſdom hath eſtabliſhed. And with regard to this, it will 4 Hume'’s Philoſophical Eſſays, p. 195. r Ibid. p. 95. 3 Lid. p. 62.* Ibid. p. 66.& Ibid. p. 114 U 4 be 295 Visw of ibe DEisTIcAL Writers. Let. 18. be readily granted, that it is highly proper and wiſely ap- pointed, that in the ordinary ſtate of things, what are com- monly called the laws of nature ſhould be maintained, and that things ſhould generally go on in a fixed ſtated courſe and order; without which there could be no regular ſtudy or knowlege of nature, no uſe or advantage of experience, either for thé ac- quiſition of ſcience, or the conduct of life. But though it is manifeftly proper, that theſe laws, or this courſe of things, ſhould generally take place, it would be an inexcuſable pre- ſumption to affirm, that God, having eſtabliſhed theſe laws and this courſe of nature in the beginning, hath bound himſelf never to act otherwiſe than according to thoſe laws. There may be very good reaſons worthy of his great wiſdom for his acting ſometimes contrary to the uſual order of things. Nor can it in that caſe be juſtly pretended, that this could be con- trary to the immutability of God, Which is Spinoſa's great ar- gument agaiuſt miracles: For thoſe very variations, which ap- pear ſo extraordinary to us, are comprehended within the ge- neral plan of his providence, and make a part of his original deſign. The ſame infinite wiſdom, which appointed or eſta- bliſhed thoſe natural laws, did alſo appoint the deviations from them, or that they ſhould be over-ruled on ſome particular oc- caſions; which occaſions were alſo perfectly foreſeen from the beginning by his all-comprehending mind. If things were al- ways to go on without the leaſt variation in the ſtated courſe, men might be apt to overlook or queſtion a moſt wiſe governing providence, and t, aſcribe things(as ſome have done) to a fixed immutable fate or blind neceſſity, which they call nature. It may therefore be becoming the wiſdom of God, to appoint that there fhould be, on particular occaſions, deviations from the uſual eſtabliſhed courſe of things. Such extraordinary opera- tions and appearances may tend to awaken in mankind a ſenſe of a Supreme Diſpoſer and Governor of the world, who is a moſt wiſe and free as well as powerful Agent, and hath an abſo- lute dominion over nature; and may alſo anſwer important ends and purpoſes of moral government, for diſplaying God's juſtice and mercy, but eſpecially for giving atteſtation to the divine miſſion of perfons, whom he ſeeth fit to fend on extraordinary errands for inſtructing and reforming mankind, and for bring- ing diſcoveries of the higheſt importance to direct men to true d happineſs. appeareth then that no argument can be brought from ex- perience to prove, either that miracles are impoſſible to the power of God, or that they can never be agrecable to his will. And Let. 18. Mr. H u M I. 297 And therefore it is f far from yielding a direct and full proof againſt the exiſtence of mira cles. It may illuſtrate this to con- ſder ſome of the inſtan nces he himſelf mentions. Lead can- «* not of itſelf remain ſuſpended i ni air: Fire conſumes wood, « and is extinguiſhed by water.“ Our uniform expe rience proves, that this is the uſual Knd ordinar ry courſe of things, and agrecable to the known laws of nature: It proves, that lead cannot naturally and ordinarily, or by its own force, be ſuſ- ended in the air; but it affordeth no proof at all, that it can- not be thus lupended! in a particular inſtance by the will of God, or by a ſupernatural force or power. In like manner our er perien ce proves, that fire confumes wood in the natural courſe of things, but it yieldeth no pro pf that in a particular inſtance the force of fire may not be laipendlec or Over-ruled, and the wood preſerved from being Lonſume d by the inter poſal of an inviſible agent. Anot 46 her inſtance he mentions is, that e i is a miracle that a dead man weeche come to life: Becauſe that has never been obſerved in any age or country x.“ But its never having been obſerved, äf that had been the caſe, would have furniſhed no proof at all that a dead man cannot be raiſed to life by the power and will of God, when a moſt valuable and important end is to be anſwered by it. And if din have good evidence to convince us, that a ma an had been really dead, and that man was afterwards really reſtored to life(and this is a matter of kact of which our ſenſes can judge, as Well as of any other fact Wl hatſocver) no argument can be drawn from ex- perience to prove that it could not be ſo. Our experience would indeed afford a proof, that no merely natural human power could effect it; or that it is a thing really miraculous, and con- trary to the uſual courſe of nature: But it would not amount to a full and direct proof, or indeed to any proof at all, that it could not be effécted by the divine power. And now we ma) judge of the propriety of the inference he draws from the argument as he had managed it. The plain 5 conſe equence i is ſaith he,“ and'tis a general maxim worthy of our attention, that no teſtimony is ſufficient to eſtabliſh a miracle, unleſs the teſtimony be of ſuch a kind, that its falſhood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to eſtabliſn. And even in that caſe, there is a mutual deſtruction of arguments, and the ſuperiorĩty only gives us an aſſurance ſuit able to that degree of force, which remains after deducting the inferior. When any one tells me, * Hume's Philoſophical Eflays, p. 181. 298 A View of tbe DEiSTIcAI, Writerg. Let. 18. ¹that he ſaw a dead man reſtored to life, I immediately con- “¹ fult with myſelf whether it be more probable, that this perſon „ ſhould either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact he re- „¹lates ſfhould really have happened: I weigh the one miracle “againſt the other, and according to the ſuperiority which I *¹¹diſcover, I pronounce my deciſion, and always reject the „e greater miracley.“ You cannot but obſerve here, this writer's jingle upon the word miracle. As he had talked of proof againſt proof, ſo he here talks as if in this caſe he is ſuppoſing there were miracle againſt-miracle; or as if the queſtion were concerning two ex- traordinary miraculous facts, the one of which is oppoſed to the other. But whereas in that caſe one ſhould think the greater miracle ought to take place againſt the leſſer, this gentle- man, with whom miracle and abſurdity is the ſame thing, de- clares that he always rejects the greater miracle. But to quit this poor jingle, it is allowed that the raiſing a dead man to life muſt, if ever it happened, have been a very ſignal miracle; i e. as he defines it, a violation of a law of nature by a particular wlition of the Deity. The queſtion therefore is, Whether any enidence is given, which may be depended on, to aſſure us, that however ſtrange or extraordinary this event may be, yet it hath actually happened. That the thing itſelf is poſſible to the Deitz, however it be contrary to the uſual courſe of nature, cannot be reaſonably conteſted: Becauſe it cannot be proved to involve a contradiction, or any thing beyond the reach of Al- mighty Power. For it would be to the laſt degree abſurd to fay, that he who formed this ſtupendous ſyſtem, or who con- trived and fabricated the wonderful frame of the human body, and originally gave it a principle of life, could not raiſe a dead man to life., It would be a contradiction, that the ſame man ſhould de living and dead at the ſame time, but not that he that was dead ſhould afterwards be reſtored to life. And therefore if it be the will of God, and his wiſdom and gooduneſs ſeeth it proper for anſwering any very important purpoſes, he is able to effect it. But then whether he hath actually effected it, is an- other queſlion. And here it will be readily owned, that in a caſe of ſo extraordinary a nature, the evidence or teſtimony upon which we receive it, ought to be very ſtrong and cogent. Mr. Vumè is pleafed here to put the caſe in a very looſe and general way.**When any one tells me(ſaith he) that he ſaw 46 a dend man reſtored to life, I immediately conſider with my- y Hume Philoſophical Eſſays, p. 182. 4 ſelf. * 1011 Let. 18. Mr. He M E. 299 « ſelf, whether it be more probable that this perſon ſhould either *« deceive or be deceived, or that the fact he relates ſhould «« really have happened.“ He puts it, as if there was nothing to depend upon but the teſtimony of a fingle perſon, without any aſſignable reaſon for ſo extraordinary an event. And when thus propoſed, naked of all circumſtances, no wonder that it hath an odd appearance. But that we may bring the queſtion to a fair iſſue, let us apply it to what our author without doubt had principally in his view, the reſurrection of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt. Taking the caſé therefore according to the repreſenta- tion given of it in the holy Scriptures, let us examine whether, ſuppoſing all thoſe circumſtances to concur which are there ex- hibited, they do not amount to a full and ſatisfactory evidence, ſufficient to lay a juſt foundation for a reaſonable aſſent to it. Let us then ſuppoſe, that in a ſeries of writings, publiſhed by different perſons in different ages, and all of them inconteſtably written long before the event happened, a glorious and wonder- ful Perſon was foretold, and deſcribed by the moſt extraordi- nary characters, who ſfhould be ſent from heaven to teach and inſtruct mankind, to guide them in the Way of ſalvation, and to introduce an excellent diſpenſation of truth and righteouſneſs: That not only the nation and family from which he was to ſpring, the place of his birth, and time of his appearing, was diſtinctly pointed out, but it was foretold that he ſhould endure the moſt grievous ſufferings and death, and that afterwards he ſhould be exalted to a divine dominion and glory, and that the Gentiles ſhould be enlightened by his doctrine, and receive his law: That accordingly, at the time which had been ſignllied in thoſe predictions, that admirable Perſon appeared: That he taught a moſt pure and heavenly doctrine, preſcribed the moſt holy and excellent laws, and brought the moſt perfect ſcheme of religion which had ever been publiſhed to the world; and at the ſame time exhibited in his own ſacred life and practice an example of the moſt conſummate holineſs and goodneſs: That in proof of his divine miſſion he performed the moſt wonderful works, manifeſtly tranſcending the utmoſt efforts of all human power or ſkill, and this in a vaſt number of inſtances, and in the moſt open and public manner, for a courſe of years to- gether: That he moſt clearly and expreſsly foretold, that he was to undergo the moſt grievous ſufferings, and a cruel and ignominious death, and ſhould afterwards riſe again from the dead on the third day: And to this he appealed as the moſt convincing proof of his divine miffion: That accordingly he ſuff red the death of the croſs in the face of a vaſt multitude of ſpectators; 0 0 A View of the DEISTIcaAL Writers. Let. 18. ſpectators: And notwithſtanding the chief men of the Jeuip nation, by whoſe inſtigation he was crucified, took the moſt prudent and effectual precautions to prevent an impoſition in this matter, he roſe again from the dead at the time appointed, with circumſtances of great glory, in a manner which ſtruck terror into the guards who were ſet to watch the ſepulchre: That afterwards he ſnewed himſelf alive to many of thoſe who were moſt intimately acquainted with him, and who, far from diſcovering a too forward credulity, could not be brought to believe it, till they found themſelves conſtrained to do ſo by the teſtimony of all their ſenſes: That as a farther proof of his reſurrection and exaltation, they who witneſſed it were them- ſelves enabled to perform the moſt wonderful miracles in his name, and by power devived from him, and were endued with the moſt extraordinary gifts and powers, that they might ſpread his religion through the world, amidſt the greateſt oppoſitions and diſcouragements: That accordingly this religion, though propagated by the ſeemingly meaneſt and moſt unlikely inſtru- ments, and not only deſtitute of all worldly advantages, but directly oppoſite to the prevailing ſuperſtitions, prejudices, and vices both of Jecws and Gentiles, and though it expoſed its publiſhers and followers to all manner of reproaches, perſecu- tions, and fufferings, yet in that very age made the moſt ſur- priſing progreſs, in conſequence of which the religion of Jeſus was eitabliſhed in a conſiderable part of the world, and ſo con- tinueth unto this day. Such is the view of the evidence of the reſurrection of Jeſus. And taking it altogether, it forms ſuch a concatenation of prooſs, as is every way ſuitable to the import- ance of the fact, and which was never equalled in any other caſe. And to ſuppoſe all this evidence to have been given in atteſtation to a falſnood, involveth in it the moſt palpable ab- ſurdities. It is to ſuppoſe, either that God would employ his own preſcience and power to give teſtimony to an impoſtor, by a ſeries of the moſt illuſtrious prophecies and numerous un- controuled miracles; or, that good beings, ſuperior to man, would extraordinarily interpoſe for the ſame purpoſe, to coun- tenance and derive credit to a perſon falſly pretending to be ſent from God, and feigning to act in his name; or that evil ſpirits would uſe all their arts and power to atteſt and confirm a relſgion, the manifeſt tendency of which was to deſtroy idola- try, ſuperſtition, and vice, wherever it was ſincerely believed and embraced, and to recover mankind to holineſs and happi- neſs; which is a contradiction to their very nature and cha- racter; It is to ſuppoſe that a number of perſons would dm ine Let. 18. Mr. H u M E. 301 bine in atteſting falſhoods in favour of a perſon who they knew had deceived them, and of a religion contrary to their moſt in- veterate and favourite prejudices, and by which they had a proſpect of gaining nothing but miſery, reproach, ſufferings, and death; which is abſolutely contrary to all the principles and pafſions of the human nature: It is to ſuppoſe that perſons of the greateſt ſimplicity and plainneſs would act the part of the vileſt impoſtors; or that men who were ſo bad, ſo falſe, and jmpious, as to be capable of carrying on a ſeries of the moſt ſolemn impoſttions in the name of God himſelf, would at the hazard of all that is dear to men, and in manifeſt oppoſition to all their worldly intereſts, endeavour to bring over the nations to embrace a holy and ſelf-denying inſtitution; or that if they were enthuſiafis, who were carried away by the heat of their own diſtempered brains, to imagine that for a ſeries of years together the moſt extraordinary kacts were done before their eyes, though no ſuch things were done at all, and that they were themfelves erabled actually to perform the moſt wonder- ful wocks in the moſt open and public manner, though they performed no ſuch works; it is to ſuppoſe that ſuch mad en- thuſiaſts, who werée alſo mean and contemptible in their con- dition, and for the moſt part ignorant and illiterate, were not only capable of forming the nobleſt ſcheme of religion which was ever publiſhed to mankind, but were able to overcome all the learning, wealth, power, eloquence of the world, all the bigotry and ſuperſtition of the nations, all the influence and artifices of the prieſts, all the power and authority of the ma- giſtrates: That they did this by only alleging that they had a commiſſion in the name of a perſon who had been crucified, whom they affirmed, but without giving any proof of it, to have been riſen from the dead, and to be exalted as the Saviour and Lord of mankind: All this is ſuch a complication of ab- furdities, as cannot be admitted but upon principles that are abſolutely abhorrent to the common ſenſe and reaſon of men. It were eaſy to enlarge farther on this ſubject, but this may ſuf- ſice at preſent; eſpecially conſidering that Mr. Adams hath urged marfy things to this purpoſe with great clearneſs and force, in his anſwer to Mr. Hume's Eſſay, p. 31-36. And what is there 10 oppoſe to all this? Nothing but the fingle difficulty of re- ſtoring a dead man to life, which is indeed a very extraordinary and miraculous event, but is not above the power of God to effect, and ſuppoſing a good and valid reaſon can be aſſigned for it worthy of the divine wiſdom and goodneſs, involveth in it no abſurdity at all. And ſuch a reaſon it certainly was to give an 302 AH View of ihe DEISricAI. Writers. Let. 18. an illuſtrious atteſtation to the divine miſſion of the Holy Jeſus, and to the divine original of the moſt excellent diſpenſation of religion thar was ever publiſned among men. To talk, as this author does, of the diminution of the evidence in proportion to the difficulty of the caſe is trifiing. For the evidence is here ſuppoſed to be fully proportioned to the difficulty and import- ance of the caſe: ſince there is both a power aſſigned every way able to effect it, and a valuable end which makes it reaſon- able to think it was becoming the divine wiſdom and goodneſs to interpoſe for effecting it. You will perhaps think this may be ſufficient with regard to the firſt part of Mr. Hume's Eſſay on Miracles. In my next 1 ſhall endeavour to make it appear, that we have the higheſt reaſon to think that the evidence, which hath been argued to be ſufficient if given, was really and actually given: And ſhall anſwer the ſeveral conſiderations he hath offered to ſhew, that ſuppoſing miracles capable of being proved by evidence or teſ⸗ timony, yet no evidence was ever actually given for miracles, which can be reaſonably depended upon. LETT ER — Let. 19. Mr. H v M E. 303 —— — ZͤͤͤͤͤſͤſͤſͤſͤſA I. E T TEBR XIX. Reffections on the ſecond part of Ar. Hume's Eſſay on Mliracles, wbich is deſtgned to ſpew, that in fat there never wag a miraculous eveni eſtabliſbed upon ſuch evi- dence as can be depended on. M bat he offers concerning the neceſſary conditions and qualifications of witneſſes in the caſe of miracles conhidered. It is ſpewon ibat the witneſſes to the miracles in proof of Cbriſtianity had all the conditions and qualifications that can be required 10 render any teſtimony good and valid. Concerning ibe proneneſs of mankind in all ages to believe wonders, eſ- pecially in matters of religion. This no reaſon for ze- jetting all miracles witbout farther examination. Tbe miracles w'rought in proof of Cbriſtianity not done in an ignorant and barbarous age. His pretence that diſferent miracles wrought in favour of different religions deſtroy one another, and ſpewy bat none of tbem are true. The abſurdity of ibis way of reaſoning ſpevon. Inſtances pro- duced by bim of miracles well atteſied, and wbich yet ougbt to be rejected as falſe and incredible. ⁴ pParticular ewamination of wbat he hath offered concerning ibe mi- racles attributed to the Abbé de Paris, and which he pretends much ſurpaſßs tboſe of our Saviour in credit and aulbority. T R, Now proceed to conſider the ſecond part of Mr. Hume's Eſſay on Miracles. The firſt was deſigned to fhew, that mira- eles are incapable of being proved by any evidence whatſoever, and that no evidence or teſtimony that could be given, let us ſuppoſe it never ſo full and ſtrong, would be a ſufficient ground for believing the truth and exiſtence of miracles. And now in his ſecond part he proceeds to ſhew, that ſuppoſing a miracle capable of being proved by full and ſufficient evidence or teſti- mony, 304 A View of ibe DEISTICaL Writers. Let. 192 mony, yet in fact there never was a miraculous event in any hiſtory eſtabliſned upon ſuch evidence as can reaſonably be de. pended upon. To chis purpoſe he offereth ſeveral conſidera- tions. The firſt is deſigned to prove, that no witneſſes have ever been produced for any miracle, which have all the neceſ- ſary conditions and qualifications, to render their teſtimony credible. The ſecond conſideration is drawn from the prone- neſs there has been in mankind in all ages to believe wonders; and the more for their being abſurd and incredible; eſpecially in matters of religion; and that therefore in this caſe all men of ſenſe fhould reject them without farther examination. His third obſervation is, that they are always found to abound moſt among ignorant and barbarous nations. His fourth obſervation is drawn from the oppoſite miracles wrought in different reli- gions, which deſtroy one another; ſo that there is no miracle wrought, but what is oppoſed by an infinite number of others. He then goes on to give an account of ſome miraculous facts which ſeem to be well atteſted, and yet are to be rejected as falſe and incredible. This is the fubſtance of this part of his Eſſay, which he concludes with an inſolent boaſt, as if he thought he had ſo clearly demonſtrated what he undertook, that no man who had not his underſtanding miraculouſly fubverted could oppoſe it. But I apprehend, it will appear, upon a diſtinét ex- amination of what he hath offered, that there is little ground for ſuch confident boaſting. The principal conſideration is that which he hath mentioned in the firſt place, drawn from the wantof competent teſtimony to aſcertain the truth of miraculous facts. He affirms,“ That „there is not to be found in all hiſtory any miracle atteſted by a fufficient number of men, of ſuch unqueſtionable good ſenſe, education, and learning, as to ſecure us againſt all deluſion in themſelves; of ſuch undoubted integrity, as to place them beyond all ſuſpicion of any deſign to deceive others; of ſuch credit and reputation in the eyes of man- kind, as to have a great deal to loſe in caſe of being detected in any falſnood; and at the ſame time atteſting facts perform- ed in ſuch a public manner, and in ſo celebrated a part ol the world, as to render the detection unavoidable: All which circumſtances are requiſite to give us a full aſſurance in the teſtimony of men a.“ Here he ſuppoſes, that where theſe circumſtances concur, we may have full aſſirance in the teſlimony& men concerning the 46 8„S g. 2. a Hume's Philoſophical Eſſays, p. 183. fa Kts Let. 19. Mr. HoMI. 30½ facts they relate, however extraordinary and unuſual. Let us therefore examine the conditions and qualifications he inſiſts upon as neceſſary to render a teſtimony good and valid, and apply them to the teſtimony of the witneſſes of Chriſtianity, and the extraordinary miraculous facts whereby it was con- firmed, eſpecially that of our Sayiour's Reſurrection. The firſt thing he inſiſteth upon is, thät the miracle ſhould be arteſted by a fuffcient number& men. He hath not told us what number of witneſſes he takes to be ſufficient in ſuch a caſe, In ſome caſes very few may be ſufficient. Yea, a ſingle evi- dence may be ſo circumſtanced as to produce a ſufficient aſſur- ance and conviction in the mind, even concerning a fact of an extraordinary nature; though where there is a concurrence of many good witneſſes, it is undoubtedly an advantage, and tend- eth to give farther force to the evidence. And as to this, Chriſ- tianity hath all the advantages that can reaſonably be deſired. All the Apoſtles were the authorized witneſſes of the principal facts by which Chriſtianity is atteſted. So were the ſeventy Diſciples, and the hundred-and-twenty mentioned Acis ii. 15, 21, 22. who had been with Jeſus from the commencement of his perſonal miniſtry to his aſcenſion into heavéen: to which might be added many others who had ſeen his illuſtrious mira- cles, as well as heard his excellent inſtructions. The accounts of theſe things were publiſhed in that very age, and the facts were repreſented as having been done, and the diſcourſes a having been delivered, in the preſence of multitudes; ſo that in effect they appealed to thouſands in Judea, Jerufalem, and Ga- lilee. It is true, that as to the Reſurrection of Chriſt, this was not a fact done before all the peopleb; but there was a num- ber of witneſſes to it, ſufficient to atteſt any fact. Chriſt ſhewed himſelf alive after his paſſion to ſeveral perſons at different times; whoſe teſtimony gave mutual ſupport and force to oné another. He ſhewed himſelf alſo to all the apoſtles in a body, to ſeveral other diſciples, and at läſt to five hundred at once c. To which it may be added, thät all the extraordinary facts and wonderful works wrought by the Apoſtles and firſt publiſhers of Chriſtianity, many of which were of a very public nature, and done in the view of multitudes, came in aid of their teſtimony. As to the qualifications of the witneſſes, the firſt thing he requireth is, that“they ſhould be of ſuch unqueſtioned good *«F ſenſe, education, and learning, as to ſecure us againſt all de- b See this accounted for vol. i. p. 183, 184.« Ibid. P. 175, 176. Vox. I. 82 4* lufion —hhhhhöZö—Zö—ſͤͤͤ———“—— — 306 A View of the DersTIà. Writers. Let. 19. ¹* lufion in themſelves.“ The reaſon why this gentleman here mentioneth learning and education, as neceſfary qualifications in witneſſes, is evident. It is undoubtedly with a view to exclude the Apoſtles, Wwho, except St. Paul, appear not to have been perſons of education and learning. But no court of judicature, in enquiring into facts, looks upon it to be neceſſary that the perſons giving teſtimony to the truth of thoſe facts ſhould be perſons who had a learned education: It is fufficient, if they appear to be perſons of ſound ſenſe and honeſt characters, and that the facts were fuch as chey had an opportunity of being well acquainted with. And thus it was w ith regard to the firlt witneſfes of Chriſtianity. They were not indeed perſons emi- nent for their learning, knowlege, and experience in the world. If they had been fo, this might probably have been regarded as a ſuſpicious circumſtance, as if they had themſelves laid the ſcheme, and it was the effect of their own art and contrivance. But they were perſons of plain ſenſe, and ſound underſtanding, and perfectly acquainted with the facts they relate. This fuffi- ciently appeareth from their writings, and the accounts they have left us. Their narrations are plain and conſiſtent, deli- vered in a ſimple unaffected ftile, without any pomp of words, or oſtentation of eloquence or literature on the one hand, and on the other without any of the rants of enthuſiaſm. All is calm, cool, and ſedate, the argument of a compoſed ſpirit. There is nothing that betrayeth an over-heated imagination: nor do they ever fly out into paſſionate exclamations, even where the fubject might ſeem to warrant it. The facts they relate were of fuch a nature, and ſo circumſtanced, that they could not themſelves be deceived in them, ſuppoſing they had their ſenſes, or be made to believe they were done before their eyes when they were not done. This muſt be acknowleged as 10 the facts done during Chriſt's perſonal Miniſtry. For they were conſtantly with him in his going out and coming in, and had an opportunity of obſerving thoſe facts in all their circum- ſtances for a courſe of years together; and therefore could be as perfectly aſſured of them, as any man can be of any facts whatſoever, which he himſelf hears and fees. And as to his reſurrection, they were not forward raſhly to give credit to ĩt by an enthuſiaſtic heat. They examined it ſcrupuloufly, and would not receive it, till compelled by irreſiſtible evidence, and by the teſtimony of all their ſenſes. The next thing he inſiſteth upon is, that“the witneſſes ee Thould be cf ſuch undoubted integrity, as to place them be- ſpicion of any deſign to deceive oth ers. Appir this Let. 19. Mr. HuME. 307 this to the witneſſes of the miraculous facts whereby Chriſ- kianitn was atteſted, and it will appear that never were there perſons who were more remote from all reaſonable ſuſpicion of fraud, or a deſign to impoſe falſhoods upon mankind. They appeared by beur whole temper and conduct to be perſons of great pi obirh and unaffected ſimplicity, ſtrangers to ar tful cun- ning, and the refinements of human policy. It mightily ſtrengthens dhis. when’ it is conſidered, that as the caſe was circumſtanced, they could have no temptation to endeavour to impoſe theſe things upon the world if th hey had not been true, but had the ſ trongel ſt inducements to the contrary. They could have no proſpect of ſerving their worldly intereſt, or anſwering the ends of ambition, by 5 reaching up a religion, contrary to all the prevaili ing Paſſions and prejudices of Jews and Geniiles, a principal article of which was ſalvation through a cruecified Jeſus. They could ſcarce have bad a reaſonable expectation of gaining ſo much as a ſingle proſelyte, to ſo abſurd and fooliſh à ſchem ne, as it muſt have been, ſuppoſing they had known that all was talſe e, and that Jeſus had never riſen at all. How could it have been expected in ſuch a caſe, that they ſhould be able to perſuade the Jeuus to receive for their Meſſiah, one that had een put to an ignominious death by the heads of rheir nation, as an impoſtor and deceiver? Or, that they ſhould perſuade the Gentiles to acknowlege and worſhip a crucified Jeu for their Lord, in preference to their long-adored Deities, and to abandon all their darling ſuperſtitions for a ſtrict and ſelf-deny- ing diſcipline? The only ching that can be pretended as a poſ- ſible inducement to them, to endeavour to impoſe upon man- kind, is what this writer after wards m. What greater ¹*temptation, ſaith he, than to ay onary, a Prophet „emand Ambaſſador from heaven? 1 d would not encounter *many dangers and difficulties, to attain ſo ſublime a charac- „ ter? Or, 4 perſuaded of it himſelf, would ſcruple a pious fraud in proſpect f ſo hol y an 2n But there is no room for ſuch a ſuſpicion in the caſe we are now conſidering. If they had pretended a reve elatiom in favour of a Meſſiah, ſuited to the Jewiſp carnal notions and prejudices, who was to erect a miaheh worldly dominion, arrayed with all IUthe pomp of ſecu- lar glory and grandeur, they mi ght! have expected honour and appf⸗ auſe in being lo ponm as his miniſters. But what honour could they propo Lelr from being regarded as the diſciples and apoſtles of one that had been condemned, and put to a 4 Hume's Philoſophical Eſſays, p. 200. X 2 ſname- 308 A Viecw of tbe DEISTICAI. Writers. Let. 19. ſhameful death by public authority? To ſet upas his ambaſſa- dors, and pretend to be inſpired by his ſpirit, and to be com- miſſioned by him to go through the world, preaching up Jeſus Chriſt, and him crucified; this was in all appearance the readieſt way they could take to expoſe themſelves to general Korn, deriſion, and reproach: And thiey muſt have been abſo- lutely out of their ſenſes, to have expected that any veneration ſhould be paid to them under this character, ſuppoſing they. had no other proof to bring of their crucified Maſter's being riſen, and exalted in glory as the univerfal Lord and Saviour, but their own word. Thus it appears that they could have no inducements or temptations, according to all the pPrinciples or motives that uſually work upon the human mind, to attempt to impoſe this ſcheme of religion, and the facts by which it was ſupported, if they had known them to be falſe: and if they had been falſe, they muſt have known them to be ſo. But this is not all. They had the ſtrongeſc poſſible inducements to the contrary. The ſcheme of religion they preached, and which theſe facts were deſigned to atteſt, was directly oppoſite to their own molt rooted prejudices. On the ſuppoſition of Chriſt's not having riſen, they muſt have been ſenſible that he had deccived them; that the promiſes and predictions with which he had amuſed them Were falſe; and that conſequently they could have no hopes from him either in this world or in the next. At the ſame time they could not but foreſee, that by pretending he was riſen from the dead, and ſetting him up for the Meſſiah after he had been crucified, they ſhould incur the indignation of the body of their own nation, and the hatred and contempt of thoſe in chief authority among them. They could not poſſibly expect any thing but what they met with, perſecutions, reproaches, ſname, and ſufferings, both from Jeus and Gentiles. Their expoſing themſelves to theſe things may be accounted for, if they were perſuaded that what they wit- neſſed was really true, though even in that caſe it required great virtue and conſtancy, and divine ſupports. But that they ſhould in manifeſt oppoſition to their own religious prejudicès and worldly intereſts, without the leaſt proſpeẽt of any thing to be gained by it here or hercafter, perſiſt to the very death in atteſting a falſnood known by themſelves to be ſo; and that they ſhould, for the ſake of one who they knew had deceived them, expoſe themſelves to the greateſt evils and ſufferings to which all men have naturally the ſtrongeſt averſion, is a ſuppo- ſition that cannot be admitted with the leaſt appearance of rea- ſon, as being abſolutely ſubverſive of all che principles nd vai 1ons Mr. HuM F. 309 ſoons of human nature. Our author ought to acknowlege the force of rhis reaſoning, ſince he taketh pains throughout his whole Eſſay on Liberty and Neceſſity, to ſnew that we may in many caſes argue as furely and ſtrongly from the power and influence of motives on the human mind, as from the influence of phyſical cauſes; and that there is as great a certainty, and as neceſfary a connexion in what are called moral cauſes as in phy- ſical. This author undoubtedly in that Eſſay carrieth it too nen, in order to ſubvert human liberty, he would have it thought, that in all caſes the power of motivées worketh with as neceſſary a force upon the mind, as any phyſical cauſe doth upon the effect. But chat in many particular caſes things may be ſo circumſtanced with regard to moral cauſes, as to afford a certainty equal to what ariſes from phyſical, cannot reaſonably be denied. And ſuch is ibe caſe here put. And he expreſly declareth, that“ we cannot make uſe of a more convincing *argument than to prove, that the actions aſcribed to any «perſon are contrary to che courſe of nature, and that no hu- man motives in ſuch circumſtances could ever induce them to ſuch a conducte.“ This writer farther requireth, that“ the witneſſes ſhould *¹ be of fuch credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind as ««⁴ to have a great deal to loſe in caſe of being detected in any falſhood.“ If the meaning be, that they muſt be perſons diſtinguiſhed by their rank and ſituation in the world, and of great reputation for knowlege, and for the eminency of their ſtation and figure in life, this in the caſe here referred to would, inſtead of ſtrengthening, have greatly weakened the force of their teſtimony. It might have been faid with ſome ſhew of plauſibility, that ſuch perſons by their knowlege and abilities, their reputation and intereſt, might have it in their power to countenance and propagate an mpoſture among the people, and give it ſome credit in the world. If the ſacts recorded in the goſpel, the miracles and reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt, had been patronized and atteſted by the Chief Prieſts and Rulers of the Jewiſp nation, it would undoubtedly have been pretended that they had political deſigns in vicw, and that conſidering their authority and influence they might more ealily impoſe thoſe things upon the multitude. On this view of things the evi- dence for thoſe important facts would have been far leſs con- vincing than now it is. And therefore the Divine wiſdom hath. ordered it far better, in appointing that the firſt witneſſes of Let. 19. far, wl — 2 Hume's Philoſophical Effays, p. 135⸗ X3 5 0 310 A View of tbe DEisTIc AL Writers. Let. 19. the Goſpel were not the worldly wiſe, mighty, or noble, but per- ſons of mean condition, and yet of honeſt characters, without power, authority, or intereſt. And whereas this writer urgeth, that the wirneſſes ought to be of ſuch reßutation as to bave a great deal to loſe in caſe o being detected in a falſpood, it ought to be conſidered, that a man of true probity, though in a low condition, may be as unwilling to be branded as a cheat and an impoſtor, and as deſirous to preſerve his good name, which may be almoſt all he has to value himſelf upon, as per- ſons of greater figure and eminence in the world, who may more cafily find means to ſupport themſelves, and to evade de- tection and puniſnment. The Apoſtles indeed rejoiced that they were counted worthy ko uffer ſpame for tbe name ꝗf Cbriſ, Acts v. 41. But this was not owing to their being inſenſible to fhame, but to the teſtimony of a good conſcience, and to the full perſuaſion they had of Chriſt's divine miſſion, and the divinity of the religion they preached in his name. This par- ticularly was the principle upon which St. Daul acted, who was a man of reputation among the Jew', and would never have made a ſacrifice of this, and of all his worldly intereſts and ex- pectations, to join himſelf to a deſpiſed perſecuted party, and againſt whom he himſelf had conceived the ſtrongeſt prejudices, zt he had not been brought over, by an evidence which he was not able to reſiſt, to the acknowlegement of the Chriſtian faith, and of the extraordinary facts on which it was eſtabliſhed. The laſt thing he inſiſteth upon is, that the facts atteſted by the witneſſes fhould be“ performed in ſuch a public manner, ²c and in ſo celebrated a part of the world, as to render the ** detection unavoidable.“ This may be applied with the greateſt propriety to the extraordinary and miraculous facts by which Chriſtianity was atteſted. Juſtly doth St. Paul appeal to king Agrißba in the admirable apology he made before him and the Roman governor Feſtus, and which was delivered before a numerous and auguſt aſſembly of Jeuws and Romans, that none of theſe things were hidden rom him: for, ſaĩth he, thig thing was not done in a corner, Acts Xxvi. 26. Chriſt's whole per- ſonal miniſtry, and the wonderful works he wrought, were ranſacted not in a private and ſecret, but in the moſt open and public manner poſſible, in places of the greateſt concourſe, and before multitudes of people aſſembled from all parts. The ſame may be ſaid of many of the miracles wrought by the apoſtles in the name and by the power of a riſen Jeſus. And particularly never was there any event of a more public nature than the cxtraordinary effuſion of the Holy Ghoſt on the gex 0 Let. 19. Mr. HuM E. 311 of Pentecoſt. The firſt publiſhers of Chriſtianity preached the religion of Jeſus, and performed miracles in confirmation of it, not merely in fmall villages, or obſcure parts of the countiy, but in populous cities, in thoſe parts of the world that were moſt celebrated for the liberal arts, learning, and politeneſs. They publiſhed that religion, and the wonderful facts by which it was ſupported, throughout the Leſſer Afia, Greece, ſtaly; in the cities of Feruſalem, Antioch, Ebbeſus, Corinth, Theſſalonica, Philiphi, Üthens, and Rome itſelf. If theref9 their pretences had been falſe, they could ſcarce have poſſibly eſcaped a detection. Eſpecially conſidering that they were every-where under the eye of watchful adverſaries, unbelieving ws as well as Heathens, Who would not have failed to detect and expoſe the impoſture, if there had been any. As to What the author afterwards allegeth, that“ in the infancy of new «« religions the wiſe and learned commonl) the matter attention and regard; and ** too inconſiderable to deſerve thein *«ꝗwhen afterwards they would willingly derect the cheat, in « order to undeceive the deluded multitude, the ſeaſon is now ** gone, and the records and witneſſes, who might clear up * the matter, are periſhed beyond recovery f;“ this pretence hath no place in the caſe We are noν conſidering with regard That religion met with the greateſt oppoſition ₰ to Chriſtianity. even in its infancy. Perſons of pi incipal authority in the nation where it firſt aroſe, bent their attention and employed their power to ſuppreſs it. And in all places where it Was after- wards propagated, there Were unbelieving Jeus, Who uſed their utmoſt efforts to ſtir up the Heathens againſt it, who of themſelves were ſtrongly inclined eir own prejudices to oppoſe it: and this at the very tim the facts had been falſe, it would have been the eaſieft detected the falſhood; Vhich in known to thouſands: ſince many of the facts of a very public nature. Thus I have conſidered the conditions: od qualifications he inſiſteth upon as neceſſar) mony ef men with regard tom the conditions that can be reaſonably deſir bigheſt degree of evidence in the teſtimony given by the apol- tles and firſt witneſſes of Chri Kianity, to the extraor dinary facts whereby its divine authority Wase ſtabliſhed. Their teſtimony had ſome advantages which no other tellimony ever had. St. Pealed to were —.—— —— . ,77„ 21 a. ry to give us a fuul lrauce in the teſtz- racles; and have fhewn, that all „ concur with th † Hume's Philoſophical Eſſays, P. 202. X 4 Luke 312 A View of ibe DEisT IcAL. Writers. Let. 19. Luke obſerves that with great power gave the aßoſtles witneſs ꝗf the Reſurrection of the Lord Jeſus, Acts iv. 33. The teſti- mony they gave was accompanied with a Divine power. The force of their teſtimony did not depend merely on their own veracity, but may be ſaid to have been confirmed by the atteſta- tion of God himſelf. It is with the utmoſt propriety therefore that the ſacred writer of the epiſtle to the Hebrews repieſenteth God as bearing them witneſs, botb with ſigns and wonders, and with divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, according to his own will, Hebr. ii. 4. And it is inconteſtibly true in fact, that ſo ſtrong and convincing was the evidence, that great numbers both oœf Jeuws and Gentiles were brought over in that very age to the faith of a crucified and riſen Saviour. Nor was this the effect of a too forward credulity, ſince it was in direct oppo- ſition to their prejudices, paſſions, and worldly intereſts. The Principles and inducements which uſually lead men to form wrong and partial judgments, lay wholly on the other ſide, and inſtead of being favourable to Chriſtianity, tended rather to determine men to diſbelieve and reject it. So that it may be juſtly ſaid, that the propagation of that ſcheme of religion which is held forth in the Goſpel had ſomething in it ſo won- derful, taking in all the circumſtances of the caſe, that it afford- eth a manifeſt and moſt convincing proof of the truth of the extraordinary facts upon which it was founded. I now proceed to make ſome obſervations upon the other conſiderations this Gentleman offers in this ſecond part of his Eſfay; and which indeed can at beſt paſs for no more than- preſumptions; and only ſhew, that the teſtimony given to miracles is not raſhly to be admitted, and that great care and caution is neceſſary in judging of them, which will be eaſily allowed. The ſecond confideration, and upon which he ſeemeth to lay a great ſtreſs is this: That“ we may obſerve in human * nature a principle, which, if ſtrictly examined, will be found ««to diminiſh extremely the aſſurance we might have from human teſtimony in any kind of prodigy.“" He ſays,“That ¹«though for the moſt part we readily reject any fact that is unuſual and incredible in an ordinary degree, yet when any thing is affirmed utterly abſurd and miraculous, the mind rather more readily admits ſuch a fact, upon account of that very circumſtance, which ought to deſtroy all its authority- The paſſion of Surprize and Wonder ariſing from miracles, being an agreeable emotion, gives a ſenſible tendency to- wards the belief of thoſe events from which it is derived. 66 Bnr* —Bud Let. 19. Mr. HuUML. 313 —But if the ſpirit of religion join itſelf to the love of wonder, there is an end of common ſenſe; and human teſtimony in theſe circumſtances loſes all pretenſions to au- « thority s.“ And again he obſerves, that ˙ ſhould a miracle be aſcribed to any new ſyſtem of religion, men in all ages have been ſo much impoſed on by the ridiculous ſtories of this kind, that this very circumſtance will be a full proof of a cheat, and fſufficient with all men of ſenſe, not only to make them reject the fact, but even reject it without farther cxamination.“ And he repeats it again, that it“ fhould make us form a general reſolution never to lend any attention to it, wich whatever ſpecious pretext it may be covered n.“ He here undertaketh to anſwer for all men f ſenſe, that they will reject all miracles produced in proof of religion without farther examination; becauſe men in all ages have been much impoſed on by ridiculous ſtories of this kind. But this cer- tainly is the language, not of reaſon and good ſenſe, which will diſpoſe a man fairly to examine, but of the moſt obſtinate pre- poſſeſſion and prejudice. No kinds of hiſtorical facts, whether of an ordinary or extraordinary nature, can be mentioned, in which men have not been frequently impoſed upon. But this is no juſt reaſon for rejecting ſuch facts at once without exa- mination: and the man that would do ſo, inſtead of proving his ſuperior good ſenſe, would only render himſelf ridicuious. That there have been many falſe miracles will be readily ac- knowleged; but this doth not prove that there never have been any true ones. It ought indeed to make us very cautious, and to examine miracles carefully before we receive them; but is no reaſon at all, or a very abſurd one, for rejecting them all at once without examination and enquiry. Thus to reject them can only be juſtified upon this principle, that it is not poſſible there ſhould be a true miracle wrought in favour of any ſyſtem of religion. But by what medium will he undertake to prove this? He ſeems expreſsly to admit, that in other caſes,“ there *may poſfibly be miracles, or violations of the uſual courſe oß ¹« nature, of ſuch a kind as to admit of proof from human **Fteſtimony i.“ This conceſſion is not very conſiſtent with what he had laboured in the firſt part of his eſſay to ſnew, with regard to all miracles in general, viz. that they are incapable of being proved by any teſtimony. But now, provided mira- cles be not produced in proof of religion, he ſeems willing to. ² Hume'’s Philoſophical Eſfays, p. 184, 185. Ibid. p. 204, 05. i lbid. p. 203. allow, 314 ℳ View of tbe DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 19. allow, that they may Boſſibly admit of Broof from human zeſti- mony. The only caſe therefore in which they are never to be believed, is when they are pretended to be wrought in favour of religion. But in this he ſeems to have both the reaſon of the thing, and the general ſenſe of mankind againſt him. It is certainly more reaſonable to believe a miracle, when a valuable end can be aſſigned for it, than to believe it when we cannot diſcern any important end to be anſwered by it at all. And one of the moſt valuable ends for which a miracle can be ſup- poſed o be wrought ſeems to be this, to give an atteſtation to the divine miſſion of perſons ſent to inſtruét mankind in religi- ous truths of great importance, and to lead them in the way of falvation. Our author ſeems ſometimes to lay a mighty ſtreſs on the general opinion and common ſentiment; of man- kind k.“ And there are few notions, which, by his own ac- knowlegement, have more generally obtained in all nations and ages than this, that there have been miracles actually wrought on ſome occaſions, eſpecially in matters of religion, and that they are to be regarded as proofs of a divine interpoſition. This is a principle which ſecms to be conformable to the natural ſenſe of the human mind The obſervation he makes concerning the agreeable emotion produced by the Baſſion of wonder and furprize, and the ſtrong propenſity there is in mankind to the extraordinary and the mar- vellous, proves nothing againſt this principle. The paſſion of wonder and ſurprize was certainly not given us in vain, but for very wiſe purpoſes, and it may be preſumed, that this paſſion, as well as others, may be rightly exerciſed upon proper objects. But I cannot agree with this gentleman, that men are naturally diſpoſed and inclined to believe a thing the rather for its being urterly abfurd and nuraculous, eſpecially in matters of religion. They may indeed, and often do believe abſurdities; but they never believe a thing merely becauſe it is abſurd, but becauſe, taking all conſiderations together, they do not look upon it to be abfurd. It may be obſerved by the way, that this writer here makes abfurd and miraculous to be terms of the ſame ſigni- fication, whereas they are very different ideas. A miracle, when ſuppoſed to be wrought by a power adequate to the effect, and for cxcellent ends, is indeed wonderful, but has no abſurdity in It is true, there have often been very abſurd things 7 1t it at all. recommended to popular belief under the notion of miracles. And ſuch pretended miracles have been received without much k Hume's Effays, moral and political, p. 307. XA- Let. 19. Mr. HvVM E. 315 examination, when wrought in favour of the eſtabliſhed ſuper- ſtition. Put even real miracles are received with difficul lty, when they are wrought in oppofition to it; and where the in- fluence of de pr eſthood, the prejudices of the vulgar, and the authority of the magiſtrate, are on the one ſide; which was the caſe of Chriſtianity at its firſt appearance. Conſidering the nature of that religion, how contrary it was to the prevailing notions and prejudices both of Jeuws and Gentiles, the ſtrictneſs of the morals it preſcribed, the ſcheme of ſalvation through a crucified Saviour which it propoſed, the meanneſs of the in- ſtruments by which it was propagated, and the numberlels dif- ficulties it had to encounter with; the miracles wrought in at- teſtation to it could not have met with a favourable reception in the world, if there had not been the m oft convincing Ridene of their being The eneſs of the facts, inſtead of producing belieft, wou rather turned to its diſ. ge, and could ſcarce ha failed being detected in ſuch circumſtances, if they had be His third obſerv tion is, that it« forms a very ſtrong pre- *« ſumption againſt all ſupernatural relations, that they 3 *„ always o abound among ignorant and bar ¹«* rous nations; c ed people have ever given admiſ- ¹e, ſion to any of them, the) hayè rc ccerredtt then from ignorant c and barbarous ion can be drawn from thi which did not make its bari at a time eatiy civilized, and in na- tions where arts and learning had made a ver y great progre And it muſt be conſide that it had not only their invet prejudices, their darling g paſh ons, and inclinations, but their pt retended miracles to encounter with; extraordinary facts re- ceived from their anceſtors, who tra- ſnitted d hem, as he ex- prer ſſeth it, with that inviolable fanction and authority, wWhich always attend ancient and received obinions. How ſtrong and cogent therefore muſt the force of the evidence in behalf of the Chriſtian religion, and the extraordinary miraculous facts de- ſigned to ſupport it, have been, which in the hands of ſuch mean inſtruments, could make ſo great a progreſs in a civilized and enlightened age, and proved too hard for the religion of the empire; which beſides ien beine interwoven with the civil eſtabliſmment, had the preſcription of many ages to plead, and was ſupported by pretended miracles, prodigies, and oracles? IIy wrouga „ 5 1 antage falſ⸗ 1 falſe. 8 1 Hume's Philoſophical Eſſays, p. 186, 187. Mr A View of the DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 19. Mr. Huma is pleaſed to take notice on this occaſion of the ma- nagement of that cunning impoſtor Alexander m. But though the better to carry on the cheat, he had laid the ſcene among the barbarous Papblagonians, who were reckoned among the moſt ſtupid and ignorant of the human race; and not only put in practice all the arts of impoſture(though it doth not appear that he pretended to work miracles among the people, or put the proof of his authority upon them) but had procured a powerful intereſt among the great to ſupport him, he and his impoſtures ſoon ſunk into oblivion, and ſo undoubtedly would Chriſtianity too have done, if its extraordinary facts had no better foundation in truth and fact than his pretenſions had. I may add(faich he) as a fourth reaſon, which diminiſhes *the authority of prodigies, that there is no teſtimony for any, „even thoſe which have not been expreſsly detected, that is ¹ not oppoſed by an infinite number of witneſſes; ſo that not “„only the miracle deſtroys the credit of the teſtimony, burt ¹even the teſtimony deſtroys itſelf.“ He goes on to obſerve, that„in matters of religion whatever is different is contrary: That it is impoſfſible that all theſe different religions ſhouldh «*¹ be eſtabliſhed on a ſolid foundation: That every miracle pre- ³«tended to have been wrought in any of theſe religions, as it **o is deſigned to eſtabliſh that particular fyſtem, has the ſame 4⁴ force to overthrow every other ſyſtem; and conſequently to deſtroy the credit of thoſe miracles on which that ſyſtem was ** eſtabliſhed. So that all the prodigies of different religions *« are to be regarded as contrary facts, and the evidences of ⸗ thoſeé prodigies as oppoſite to one another“.“ This writer is here pleaſed to confound prodigies and miracles, which ought to be diftinguilhed. Many things that have paſſed under the notion of prodigies, are very far from being miracles in the ſtrict and proper ſenſe, in which we are now conſidering them. And if we ſpeak of miracles properly ſo called, the ſuppoſition he here goes upon, viz. that all religions have been founded upon miracles, and have put the proof of their authority upon them, is manifeſtly falſe. It is well known, that Mahomel did not pretend to eſtabliſn his religion by miracles, nor indeed can it be proved that any ſyſtems of religion had any tolerable preten- ſions of being originally founded upon miracles, but the Jeuw- p and tbe Chriſtian; and theſe tho' in ſome reſpects diſferent, are not contrary, but mutually ſupport cach other; the former being introductive and preparatory to the latter. But if his m Hume's Philoſophical Efſays, p. 188, 189. n Ibid. p. 190 d 9, 19 s 2 ſup· Let. 10. Mr. H uUM F. 31„ ſup- boſition fhould be admitted, that all religions in the world have been founded upon the credit of miracle es, it is hard to comprehend the force of his reaſoning. By what logic doth it follo w, that becauſe miracles have been believed by mankind in all ages and nations to have been wrought in proof of reli- gion, therefore miracles were never really wrought at all in proof of re ligion, nor are they ever to be belier ed in any ſingle Inſtance!* Witch the ſame force it may be argued that becauſe there have beenl and are many oppoſite ſchemes of religion in the world, therefore their being o ppoſite to one another Proves that they are all falſe, and that there is no ſuch thing as true eigion in the world at all. But let us luppoſe never ſo grear 2 umber of falſhoods oppoſed to truth, that oppofiion of lcho vod to truth doth dor make truth to be leſs true, or de- 8 69) the certainty and evidence of it. Suppoſing the religiolis to be oppoſite, and that nrale are maid to be v rought in at- teſtation to thoſe oppoſite religions, it may indeed be fairly concluded that they cannot be all true, but not that none of them is ſo. Our author himſelf ſeems to be apprehenſive that this might be looked upon as a fallacious way of reaſoning. 44 This argument(Lith he) may appear very ſubtle and re- zc fined; but is not in reality different from the reaſoning of a * Judge, who ſuppoſes that the credit of two witneſſes, maln- taining a crime againſt any one, is deſtroyed by the teltimony of two others, Who affirm him to have been two hundred leagues diſtant at the ſame inſtant when the Bine is ſald to have been committedo.“ This gentleman has here given us a moſt extraordinary ſpecimen how well qualiſied he would be to determine cauſes if he ſat in a court of judicature. If there came ſeveral witneſſes before him, and thelr teſtimony was op- poſite to one another, he would without farther examination reject them all at once, and make their oppoſition to one an- other to be alone a proof that they were all falle, and none of them to be depended upon. But it hath been hitherto mhohellt reaſonable, when teſtimonies are oppoſite, to weigh and com pare thol ee teſtimonies, in order to form a proper Igmeoreon⸗ cerning them. In the caſe of Alibi's, Which is the caſé the au- thor here puts, the teſtimonies do not always Aeſtroh one an- other. A juſt and impartial Judge will not immediately reject the etmeres on both ſides withwout examination, becauſe they contradict one another, which is the method our author ſeems here to recommend as reaſonable, but will carefully compare * Hume's Philoſophical Eſfays, p. 192 318 A View of the DatsrIcAL Writers. Let. 19. them, that he may find out on which ſide the truth lies, and which of the teſtimonies is moſt to be credited, and will give his judgment accordingly. This certainly is the courſe Which right reaſon preſcribeth in all caſes where there is an oppoſition of teſtimony, and-which it is to be preſumed this gentleman himſelf would recommend in every caſe, bůt where the cauſe of religion is concerned. For here, notwithſtanding all his pretenſions to freedom of thinking, his prejudices are ſo ſtrong, that he is for proceeding by different weights and mea- ſures from what he and all mankind would judge reaſonable in every other inſtance. He hath ſhewed himſelf ſo little qua- lified to judge impartially in matters of this nature, that I believe men ꝗ& ſenſe, to uſe his own phraſe, will lay very little ſtreis on any judgment he ſhall think fit to pronounce in this gauſe. The only part of Mr. Humae's Eſſay on Miracles, which now remaineth to be conſidered, is that which relateth to ſome par- ticular accounts of miraculous facts, which he would have us believe are as well or better atteſted, than thoſe recorded in the Goſpels, and yet are to be rejected as falſe and incredible. The firſt inſtance he mentioneth is that of the emperor Veſpa- fian's curing a blind and a lame man at Alexandria, and which he affirms is one of the beſt-atteſted miracles in all profane hiſtory. This has been urged by almoſt every Deiſtical writer who hath treated of miracles: And how little it is to the pur- poſe in the preſent controverſy hath been often ſhewn. Not to repeat what Mr. Adams hath well urged concerning it, it may be ſufficient to obſerve, that it appeareth from the accounts given us by the hiſtorians who mention itE, that the deſign of theſe miracles was to give weight to the authority of Veſpaſian, newly made emperor by the great men and the army, and to make it believed that his elevation to the imperial throne was approved by the gods. I believe every reaſonable man will be of opinion, that in any caſe of this kind there is great ground to ſuſpect artifice and management. And who would be ſo preſumptuous as to make too-narrow a ſcrutiny into the truth of miracles, in which the intereſts of the great, and the au- thority of a mighty emperor, were ſo nearly concerned? And ik, as this writer obſerves from Tacitus, ſome who were preſent continued to relate theſe facts, even after Veſbaſian and his fa- mily were no longer in poſſeſſion of the empire; it doth not appear, that the perſons referred to were ſuch as had been in P Tacit. Hiſt. lib. 4. verſus finem. Sueton. in Veſpaſ. cap. 8. 5 — Let. 19. Mr. H UM E. 319 the ſecret of the management, which probably lay in few hands; or if they were, it is not to be wondered at that they Hnoula fter wards be unwilling to own the part they had in this affair; Apcclall y ſince no meth hods were made uſe of to oblige them to giſcover the fraud. The next inſtance he produceth is the miracle pretended to nave been wrought at Saragoſſa, and mentioned by Cardinal De Retz, who by Mr. Hume's own account did not believe it. ly a man muſt have his head very oddly turned to npt to draw a parallel between the miracles of our Saviour nfs Apoſtles, a and miracles prete nded to have been wrought in a country where the inquiſition is eſtabliſhed, where the in- Hluence and intereſts of the pr ieſts, the fuperſtitions and pre- judicés of the peopl e, and the authority of the civil magiſtrate,. are all combined to ſupport the credit of thoſe miracles, and where it would be extremely dangerous to make a ſtrict enquiry into the truth of them; and even the expreſſing the leaſt doubt concerning them might expoſe a man to the moſt terrible of all evils and fufferings. But that which Mr. Hume ſeems to lay the greateſt ſtreſs upon, and on which he erlacges for ſome pages together, is, ihe miracles reported to have been wi eüghes at the tomb of the bbé de Paris. Having obſerved that in the Recueil des Miracles bõ de Paris, there is a parallel run det een the miracles of our Saviour and thoſe of the Abbé, he pronounces that * if the inſpired writers were to be confidered merely as human *teſtimony, the French author is very moderate in his com- 60 pariſon, ſince he might with ſome « tend, that the Janfeniſt miracles muſt credit and authority a.“ This has been of late a favourite topic with the Deiſts. Great triumphs have been raiſed upon it, as if it were alone 4 t to deſtroy the credit of the miraculous facts recorded e New T eſtament. I fhall therefore make 1 me obſerva- rance of reaſon pre- ſs the others in 5 apon it, thoug! ake no- ice of ſevé ral things bferved in his judicious reflections uy[wer to Mr. 1 s Eſſay on Miracles, from pag 8. The account Mr. Hume pretends to g le affair s very unfair an ſingenuous, and i orthy of 1 ran that I. preter ſi d tial en- CuU. auiry He 82²0 A View of ibe DEiSTIcAL Writers. Eet. 19. He poſitively aſſerts, that the miraculous facts were ſo ſtrong- ly proved, that the Moliniſts or Jeſuits were never able diſtinctly to refute or detect them: And that they could not deny the truth of che facts, but aſcribed them to witchcraft and the de- vil. And yet certain it is, that the Jeſuiſts or Moliniſts did deny many of the facts to be true as the Janſeniſts related them; that they aſſerted them to be falſe, and plainly proved ſeveral of them to be ſo. Particularly the Archbiſhop of Sens diſtinctly inſiſted upon twenty-twò of thoſe pretended miraculous facts, all which he charged as owing to falſhood and impoſture. He farther ohſerves, that twentyrtwo of the Curez or Rectors of Paris preſſed the Archhiſhop of Paris to examine thoſe mi- racles, and aſſerted them to be known to the whole world. But he knew, or might have known, that ſome of thoſe very miracles which thoſe gentlemen deſired might be particularly enquired into, and which they repreſented as undeniably true and certain, were afterwards examined, and the perjury of the principal witneſſes plainly detectedr. And the Archbiſhop, who, he tells us, wiſely forbore an enquiry, cauſed a public judicial inqueſt to be made, as Mr. Adams obſerves, and in an ordonnance of Wvember 8, 1735, publiſhed the moſt convinc- ing proofs, that the miracles ſo ſtrongly vouched by the Curez were forged and counterfeited s. Mr. Hume is pleaſed to obſerve, that“ the Moliniſt party ²c tried to diſcredit thoſe miracles in one inſtance, that of Ma- * demoiſelle le Franc, but were not able to do it.“ Where he ſpeaks, as if this were the ſingle inſtance in which they tried to diſcredit thoſe miracles, which is far from being true. This jndeed was taken particular notice of, becauſe it was the firſt hiſtory of a miraculous fact which the Janſeniſts thought fit to publiſh, with a pompous diſſertation prefixed. It was cried up as of fuch unqueſtionable truth, that it could not be denied without doubting of the moſt certain facts. And yet the ſtory was proved to be falſe in the moſt material circumſtances by forty witneſſes judictally examined upon oath. It Was plainly proved, that ſhe was conſiderably better of her maladies before ſhe went to the tomb at all: That ſhe was no ſtronger when ſhe returned from the tomb than ſhe was when ſhe went to it; and that ſhe ſtill ſtood in need of remedies afterwards. Mr. Hume indeed takes upon him to declare, that the proceedings were the moſt irregular in the world, particularly in citing but r See Mr. Des Voeux's Critique General, P. 242, 243⸗ * Adams's Eſſay, p. 7 ½. a fev Let. 19. Mr. HuM f. 321 few of the JanſenbLt witneſles; whom they tampered with. And then he adds,“Beſides they were ſoon overwhelmed with «« a cloud of new witneſſes, an! hundred and twenty in number, ¹*who gave oath for the miracles.“ He doth not ſay, they all gave oath for this particular miracle, but for the miracles. And indeed moſt of thoſe teſtimonies were very little to the purpoſe, and ſeemed to be deſigned rather for parade and ſhiow than for proof. And nothing turned more to the diſadvantage of the Janſeniſts, and their endeavouring ſtill to maintain the credit of this miracle, after the aichood of it had been ſo evidently detected. The more witneſſes heh e endeavoured to produce for hie the more they rendered themfelves lulbechech in all the reſt. They alleged ſome want of formality in the proceedings, but were never able to diſprove the principal circumſtances of the facts alleged on the other ſide, and which were abſolutely inconſiſtent with the truth and reality of the miracle t. Mr. Hume refers his reader to the Recueil des Miracles de PAbbeé Paris in three volumes: but eſpecially to the famous book of Mr. de Montgeron, a counſellor or judge of the par- liament of Parig, and which was dedicated to the French King. But if he had read on both ſides, or had thought fit to lay the matter fairly before his reader, he might have informed him that theſe books had been ſolidly anſwered by Mr. Des Voeux, a very ingenious and judicious author, who had himſelf been bred up among the Janſeniſts, and was at Parigs part of the time that this ſcene was carrying on. See his Lettres ſur les Miracles, publiſhed in 1735, and his Critigue General du livre de Mr. deæ Montgeron, in 1741. See alſo what relates to this ſubject in the 19th and 20th Tomes of the Bibliot heque Raiſonnẽe. There never was perhaps a book written with a greater air of aſſurance and confidence, than. that of Mr. deæ MWontgeron. He intitles it, The Truth he Miracles urought by the intercellion of M. de Paris and other Aphellants, demonſtrated agauuf M. the Archbiſboß& Sens. It Was natural therefore to expect, that he would have attempted to juſtify all thoſe miracles which that prelate had attacked. But of twenty-two Aeſüeh are diſ- rinctly inſiſted upon by the Archbiſhop, there are ſeventeen which Mr. de Mon tgeron does not meddle vh. He hath paſſed by thoſe of them againſt which the ſtrongeſt charges of This whole matter is ſet in a clear light in Mr. Des Voeux's Diſflertat. ſur les miracles,&c. p. 46. 49. and in his( riticlue Ge- neraſe, p 204. 231, 232. Vol 1 84 faſchA VOI. 1. X rallhood ——8hZö—ö——— 4—— ———— —— 322 A View of the DErisricAr Writers. Let. 19. falſhood and inpoſture lay. Five of the miracles attacked by the Archbiſhop, he takes pains to juſtify, to which he has added four more which that Prelate had not diſtinctly conſidered. Mr. Des Voeux, who has examined this work of Mr. de Mont- geron with great care and judgment, hath plainly ſhewn that there are every-where to be diſcovered in it marks of the ſtrong- eſt prepoſſeſſion“. Carried away by the power of his preju- dices, and by his affection to the Janſeniſt cauſe, to which he was greatly attached, he has in ſeveral inſtances diſguiſed and miſrepreſented facts in a manner which cannot be excuſed or vindicated. The laſt-mentioned author has charged him with faults not merely of inadvertency, but with direct falſifications deſigned to impoſe upon the public. See the fixth letter of his Critique Generale, page 208, G ſeg. Mr. Hume has taken care not to give his reader the leaſt hint of any thing of this naturé. The remarks which have been now made may help us to judge of Mr. Hume's conduét in his management of this fubject. I ſhall now proceed to make ſome obſervations upon the re- markable differences there are between the miracles recorded in the goſpels, and thoſe aſcribed to the Abbé de Paris, by confidering which it wäll appear, that no argument can be juſtly drawn from the latter to diſcredit the former, or to invalidate the proofs produced for them. 1. One obſervation of no fmall weight is this: At the time when the miracles of the Abbé de Paris firſt appeared, there was a ſtrong and numerous party in France, and which was under the conduct of very able and learned men, who were Ktrongly prepoſſeſſed in favour of that cauſe which thoſe mi- racles ſcemed to be intended to ſupport. And it might naturally be expected, that theſe would uſe all their intereſts and in- Huence for maintaining and ſpreading the credit of them among the people. And ſo it actually happened. The firſt rumours of theſe miracles were eagerly laid hold on; and they were cried up as real and certain miracles, and as giving a clear de- ciſion of Heaven on the ſide of the appellants, even before there was any regular proof ſo much as pretended to be given for them*. To which it may be added, that the beginning of this whole affair was at a very promiſing conjunéture, viz. The character of Mr. de Montgeron is well repreſented by Mr. Adams in his anſwer to Hume, p. 74, 75⸗ x See Cri- tique Generale, Lettre vi. when Let. 19. Mr. HuM E. 323 When the Cardinal de Wailles was archbiſhop of Paris; who, whatever may be ſaid of his capacity and integrity, which Mr. Hume highly extols, was well known to be greatly inclined to favour the cauſe of the appellants. It was therefore a ſituation of things very favourable to the credit of thoſe miracles, that they firſt appeared under his adminiſtration, and were tried before his officials. And though the ſucceeding archbiſhop was no friend to the Janſenifts, yet when once the credit of thoſe miracles was in ſome meaſure eſtablilhed, and they had got the popular vogue on their ſide, the affair was more eaſily carried on. But at the firſt appearance of Chriſtianity, the circum- ſtances of things were entirely different. There were indeed parties among the Jeu's, the moſt powerful of which were the Phariſces and the Sadducees, beſides the prieſts and rulers of the Jeus, and the Sanhedrim or great council of the nation. But not one of theſe afforded the leaſt countenance to the firſt wit- neſſes and publiſhers of the Chriſtian religion. Our Lord, far from addicting himſelf to any party, freely declared againſt what was amils in every one of them. He oppoſed the diſtin- guiſhing tenets of the Sadqucees, the traditions, ſuperſtitions, and hypocriſy of the Phariſces, and the prejudices of the vulgar. Chriftianity proceeded upon a principle directly contrary to that in which all parties among the Jews were agreed, viz. upon the doctrine of a ſpiritual kingdom, and a ſuffering Meſſiah. And accordingly all-the different ſects and parties, all the powers civil and eccleſiaſtical, united their intereſts and endeavours to oppoſe and ſuppreſs it. Whatever ſuſpicion therefore might be entertained with regard to the miracles ſaid to have been wrought at the tomb of the Abbé de Paris, which had a ftrong party from the beginning prepared to receive and ſupport them, no ſach ſuſpicion can reaſonably be admitted as to the truth and reality of the extraordinary facts whereby Chriſtianity was at- teſted, which, as the caſe was circumſtanced, could ſcarce poſ⸗ ſibly have made their way in the manner they did, or have eſcaped detection, if they had not been true. II. Another conſideration, which fhews a remarkable differ- ence between the miracles recorded to have been wrought by our Saviour and his apoſtles, and thoſe aſcribed to the Abbé de Paris, is this: That the former carry plain characters of a divine interpoſition, and a ſupernatural power, and the latter, even taking their own account of them, do not appear to be evidently miraculous, they may be accounted for without fup- poſing any thing properly ſupernatural in the caſe. Our Lord Jeſus Chriſt not only healed all manner of diſcaſes, but he raiſed r 2 the 1 b —— —— ——— ——— 324 A View of tbe DEisricAL. Writers. Let. 19. the dead. He commanded the winds and the ſeas, and they obeyed him: He ſearched the hearts, and knew the thoughts of men: He gave many expreſs and circumſtantial prediétions of future contingencies, both relating to his own ſufferings and death, and to his conſequent reſurrection and exaltation, and relating to the calamities that ſnould come upon the Jews, the deſtruction of Jerufalem and the temple, and the wonderful propagation and eſtabliſnment of his church and kingdom in the world, which it was impoſſible for any man, judging by the rules of human probability, to foreſee. He nort only perform- ed the moſt wonderful works himſfelf, but he imparted the ſame miraculous powers to his diſciples, and poured forth upon them the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, as he had promiſed and foretold; gifts of the moſt admirable nature, which were never parallelled before or fince, ahd which were peculiarly fitted for ſpreading and propagating the Chriſ- tian religion. With regard to theſe and other things which might be mentioned, no man has ever pretended to draw a compariſon between the miracles aſcribed to the Abbé de Paris and thoſe of our Saviour. And accordingly one of the moſt zealous and able advocates for the former, M. Le Gros, expreſsly acknowlegeth, that there is an infinite diſerence bet ween them, and declares that he will never forget tbat diſerence. The only inſtance in which a parallel is pretended to be drawn, is with regard to miraculous cures, which alone conſidered are the moſt uncertain and equivocal of all miracles. Diſeaſes have often been ſurprizingly cured without any thing that can be pro- perly called miraculous in the caſe. Wonderful has been the effects of medicines adminiſtered in certain circumſtances: And ſome maladies, after having long reſiſted all the art and power of remedies, have gone off of themſelves by the force of nature, or by ſome ſurpriſing and unexpected turn, in a manner that cannot be diſtinctly explained; yet it may be obſerved, that there were ſeveral circumſtances attending the miraculous cures wrought by our Saviour and his apoſtles, which plainly ſhewed them to be divine. The cures were wrought in an inſtant by a commanding word. The blind, the lame, thoſe that laboured under the moſt obſtinate and inveterate diſeaſes, found them- ſelves immediately reſtored at once with an Almighty facility. If there had been only a few inſtances of this kind, it might poſſibly have been attributed to ſome odd accident, or hidden cauſe, which couid not be accounted for. But the inſtances of ſuch complete and inſtantaneous cures wrought by our Saviour were very numerous. They extended to all manner of diſeaſes, and Let. r9. Mr. HuME. 3 25 and to all perſons without exception who applied to him. Yea, he cured fome that did not apply to him, who did not know him, or who were his enemies, and had no expectation of a cure, in which caſes it could not be pretended that imagination had any fhare. In all theſe reſpects there was a remarkable difference between the miraculous cures wrought by our Sa- viour, and thoſe pretended to have been wrought at the tomb of the Abbé de Paris. Several of the moſt boalted cures, and which were pretended to have been ſudden and perfected at once, appear from their own accounts to have been carried on by flow degrees, and therefore might have been brought about in a natural way. Some of theſe cures were days, weeks, and even months before they were perfecCted. One nine days devo- tion followed another, and they were ſuffered to languiſh and continue prayiug and nppheneine for a conſiderable time toge- ther; and if the cure h aappened, and the diſtemper came to a criſis durne the courſe of their long attendan ce, and whilſt they were continuing their devotions, this paſſed tor a miracu- lous cure, though. it might well be done without any miracle at all. Eſpeciall y as ſeveral of thoſe perſons continued to be taking remedies, even whilſt they were attending at the tomb. It is manifeſt from the relations publiſhed by tl themſelves, that with regard to ſeveral of thoſe who were pretended to be mi- raculoufly cured, their maladies had already begun to abate, and they had found conſiderable eaſe and relief in a natural way before they came to the tomb at all. And ſome of them ſeem by the force of their ĩ imagination to have believed themſelves cured when they were not ſo, or to have taken a temporary relief for an abſolute cure. Several of the cures, the accounts of which were publiſhed with great pomp, could not with any propriety be ſaid to have been perfected at all; ſince the per- ſons ſaid to have been cured ſtill continued infirm, and had re- turns of their former diſorders. This can ſcarce be ſuppoſed, if the cures had been really miraculous, and owing to an ex- traordinary exertion of the power of God, who would not have left his own work imperfect. See all theſe things fully proved by many inſtances in M. des Voeux's letters ſur les Miracles; particularly in the fifth of thoſe letters. To all which it may be added, that of the vaſt numbers who came to the tomb to be cured, and who had recourſe to the Abbé's interceſſion, there were but few on whom the cures were wrought, in compariſon of thoſe who found no be- nefit at all, though they applied to him with the utmoſt devo- tion, and continued to do ſo for a long time together. And J 3 indeed ₰ ———— — 326 A Viev of ibe DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 19. indeed conſidering how many there were that applied for help and cure, and how much they were prepoſſeſſed with the notions countenanced in the Romiſp church, of the power of departed Saints, of the prevalency of their interceſſion, and the efficacy of their relics, and to what a height their imagination was raiſed by their prejudices in favour of the appellants, by the high opinion they had of the Abbé's extraordinary ſanctity, by the rumours of miracles daily ſpread and propagated, and by the vaſt crowds which attended at the tomb, it would have been really a wonder, if amongſt the multitude that came for cure, there had not been ſeveral who found themſelves greatly relieved. The advocates for the miracles mightily extol the extraordinary faith and confidence the ſick perfons had in the interceſſion of the bleſſed Deacon, as they call him. And the force of their imagination, when carried to ſo extraordinary a pitch, might in ſome particular caſes produce great effects. Many wonderful inſtances to this purpoſe have been obſerved and recorded by the ableſt phyſicians, by which it appears what a mighty influence imagination, accompanied with ſtrong paſſions, hath often had upon human bodies, eſpecially in the curé of diſéaſes. It hath often done more in a fhort time this way, than a long courſe of medicines have been able to accom- pliſh. It is not therefore to be much wondered at, that as the caſe was circumſtanced, amidſt ſuch a multitude of perſons ſome furprizing cures were wrought. But it could not be expected. that the effect would be conſtant and uniform. It it anſwered in ſome inſtances, it would fail in many more. And accordingly ſo it was with regard to theſe prétended miraculous cures. And if this had been the caſe in the extraordinary cures wrought by our Saviour, there would have been ground of ſuſpicion, that what ſome have alleged might poſſibly have been true, that his miracles owed their force, not to any ſupernatural energy, but to the power of imagination. But taking theſe miracles as they are recorded in the Goſpels, it is manifeſt that there can be no juſt ground for ſuch a pretence. They exhibit evident proofs of a divine interpoſition, which cannot be ſaid of theſe reported to have been wrought at the Abbé's tomb. M. de Montgeron, in his book dedicated to the King, publiſ ed an ac- count of eight or nine cures. And it is to be ſuppoſed, that he fixed upon thoſe which, he thought, had the appearance of being moſt ſignally miraculous. And yet the very firſt of theſe miracles; viz. that affirmed to have been wrought upon Don Alphonſo de Palacio, appeareth plainly, by taking the whole of the relation, as M. Montgeron himſelf hath given it, to Hhne . 2 3 hac Let. 19. Mr. HuUME. 3²7 had nothing in it properly miraculous, as Mr. Adams hath clearly ſnewny. And with regard both to that and the other miracles ſo pompouſly diſplayed by M. de Montgeron, M. Des Vceux has very ingeniouſſy and judiciouſly, after a diſtinct ex- amination of each of them, made it appear that they might have been wrought without ſuppoſing any miraculous or ſuper- natural interpoſition at all. See the laſt letter of his Critique Generale. III. Another conſideration, which ſhews the great difference there is between the miracles wrought at the firſt eſtabliſmment of Chriſtianity, and thoſe faid to have been wrought at the tomb of the Abbéè de Paris, and that no argument can reaſon- ably be brought from the latter to the prejudice of the former, is taken from the many ſuſpicious circumſtances attending the latter, from which the former were entirely free. Chriſt's miracles were wrought, in a grave and decent, in a great but ſimple manner, becoming one ſent of God, without any abſurd or ridiculous ceremonies, or ſuperſtitious obſervances. But the miracles of the Abbé de Paris were attended with circum- ſtances that had all the marks of fuperſtition, and which ſeem- ed deſigned and fitted to ſtrike the imagination. The earth of his tomb was often made uſe of, or the waters of the well of his houſe. The nine days devotion Was conſtantly uſed, and frequently repeated again and again by the ſame perſons; a ceremony derived originally from the Pagans, and which hath been condemned as ſuperſtitious by ſome eminent divines of the Romiſb church?. Another circumſtance to be obſerved with relation to Chriſt's miracles, is that, as hath been already hinted, they were not only perfected at once, but the perſons found themſelves healed and reſtored withaut trouble or diffi- culty. But in the caſe of the cures affirmed to have been wrought at the Abbé's tomb, it appeareth from their own ac- counts, not only that they were gradual and ſlow, but that the perſons on whom theſe cures were wrought, frequently ſuffered the moſt grievous and exceſſive pains and torments, and which they themſelves repreſent to have been greater than ever they had felt before, or were able to expreſs; and theſe pains often continued for ſeveral days together in the utmoſt extremity a. To which may be added the violent agitations and convulſions, which became ſo uſual on theſe occaſions, that they came at v Adams's Eſſay, in anſwer to Hume, p. 76, 77. 2 Lettres ſur les Miracles, p. 258. 259. 336, 337- à Ibid. p. 339, S Pꝛ. ———————— —— 8——— 774 length ———— 328 A View of he DEIsTicAL Writers. Let. 19. length to be regarded as ſymptoms of the miraculous cures; though they could not be properly regarded in this view, ſinge many of thoſe who had thoſe convulſions found no relief in their maladies, and even grew worſe than before. They were frequently attended with ſtrange contorſions, ſometimes fright- ful, ſometimes ridiculous, and ſometimes inconfiſtent wirh the rules of modeſty and decency b. And accordingly they have been condemned by ſome of the moſt eminent Janſeniſt divines. In 1735 there was publiſhed at Paris a remarkable piece, inti- tuled, Confultation fur les Convulſions, ſigned by thirty appellant doctors, men of great reputation among the Janſeniſts for learning, judgment, and probity; the greater part of whom had at firſt entertained favourable thoughts of thoſe convul- hons; and ſome of them had publicly declared them to be the work of God. But now they pronounced them to be un- worthy of God, of his infinite majeſty, wiſdom, and goodneſs: They declared that it was a folly, a fanaticiſm, a ſcandal, and in one word, a blaſphemy againſt God, to attribute to him theſe operations; and did not ſcruple to intimate, that they rendered the miraculous cures, to which they were pretended to be annexed, ſuſpected. Theſe doctors, who were called the Conſultants, condemned all the convulſions in general. Others of the Janſeniſt divines, whom M. de Montgeron has diſtin- guiſhed by the title of the Antiſecouriſtes, and whom he ac- knowleges to be among the moſt zealous appellants, and to be perſons of great merit and eminence, though they did not condemn all the convulſions, yet paſſed a very ſevere cenſure upon thoſe of them which that gentleman looks upon to be the moſt extraordinary and miraculous of all. And with regard to theſe convulſions in general it may be obſerved, that, by the acknowlegement of thé moſt ſkilful phyſicians, nervous affec- b Someof thoſe that were ſeized with theſe convulſions, or pre- tended to be ſo, were guilty of the moſt extravagant follies. They pretended to prophecy, and uttered ſeveral predictions, which the event ſoon proved to be falſe. Opne of them went ſo far as to foretel that the church yard of St. Medara, which had been ſhut up by the King's order, ſhould be opened, and that M. Paris ſnould appear in the church in the prefence of great numbers of people on the firſt of May following. See this and other remarkable rhings relat- ing to theſe convulfions in M. Vernet's Traité de la Verité de la Religion Chretienne, Sect. 7. chap. 22, 23. And there cannot be a greater proof of the power of M. de Monigeron's prejudices, than that, in the laſt edition of his book in three volumes 4to, he has par- ticularly applied himſelf to ſupport and juſtify theſe conyvulſions. 1 1 3. tions Let. 19. WMr. Hu M E. 329 tions have frequently produced ſtrange ſymptoms; that they. are often of a catching contagious nature, and caſily communi- cated; and that they may be counterfeited by art. Many of thoſe that were ſeized by Mr. Heraut, the Lieutenant de Po- lice, acknowleged to him that they had counterfeited convul- ſions. In conſequence of which there was an ordonnance pub- liſhed by the King, January 27, 1732, for ſearching out and apprehending thofe im poſtors. And yet Mr. Hume has thought proper to repreſent it, as it Monſieur Heraut, though he had J*ς Of full power to ſeize and examine the witneſſes and fub, theſe miracles, coulcd never reach any zhing ſatigactory againſt them. Theſe muſt be owned to be circumſtances, which adminiſter juſt grounds of fuſpicion, and which make a wide difference between the miracles pretended to have been wrought at the tomb of the Abbé de Paris, and thoſe that were performed by our Saviour, and by the Apoſtles in his name. IV. The next obſervation] fhall make is this, that ſeveral of the miracles aſcribed to the Abbé, and which were pretended to be proved by many witneſſes, were afterwards clearly con- victed of falfnood and impoſture; which bringeth a great diſ- credit upon all the reſt. Whereas nothing of this kind can be alleged againſt the miracles by which Chriſtianity was atteſted. The affair of Inne le Franc, of which ſome account was given above, ſhews, as M. Des Voeux juſtly obſerves, how little de- pendance is to be had upon informations in this cauſe directed by Janfeniſts. But this is not the only inſtance of this kind. They had publiſhed, that La Dalmaix had been miraculouſly cured by the Abbé's interceſſion; and this was proved by a letter pretended to have been written by herſelf. And yet this 1 pretended mifaculous cure Was afterwards denied by the perſon herſelf, by ber mother, and all her ſiſters: And by a fentence of a court of judicature of May 17, 1737, a perſon was declared to be convicted of having forged that, and ſome other letters under the name of Dalmaix c. The Sieur le Doux openly retracted the relation of a miracle ſaid to have been wrought upon himſelf. M. Des Voeux gives ſeveral other inſtances of falſe miracles, publiſhed by the Janſeniſts, and afterwards acknowleged to be ſod. Jean Mivet was repreſented, by deciſive informations, as cured of his deafneſs, and yet it is certain that he was deaf after, as well as before. The record of the informations made c Vernet ubi ſupra, chap. XXI. d Lettres ſur les Miracles, p. 171, et †2. Critique Generale, p. 204,&c. 233, 234⸗ by —— ——— 330 A View of tbe DEISTIOAL Writers. Let. 19. by Mr. Thomaſſin is full of contradictions, which diſcover the falſhood and perjury of the principal actreſs, and of the only witneſs of the miracle, as the archbiſhop of Sens has well prov- ed. Many of which proofs are paſſed over in ſilence by M. le Gros, who undertook to anſwer hime. Some of the witneſſes and perſons concerned withdrew, to eſcape the ſearch that was made for them, and to ſhun the examination and inquiry which the king had ordered; and others, who had atteſted that they were cured by the interceſſion of the Abbé de Paris, after wards retracted it. The certificates themſelves, on which ſo great a ſtreſs is laid, tend in many inſtances to increaſe the ſuſpicion againſt thoſe facts, which they were deſigned to confirm. The very number of thoſe certificates, many of which are nothing at all to the purpoſe, and ſerve only for ſhew, are plain proofs of art and deſign. The manner of drawing up thoſe certifi- cates, and the relations of the miracles, and the ſtyle and form of expreſſion, ſnew that the perſons in whoſe names they are drawn, had the aſſiſtance of perſons of a capacity much fupe- rior to their own. Long pieces in a correct ſtyle, and in per- fect good order, were publiſhed under the name of mean and il- literate perſons. M. le Gros owns that the relation of Genevieve Colin was reformed as to the ſtyle by a perſon whom ſhe deſired to do it. Thus they had it in their power, under pretence of re- forming, to alter it, and got the ſimple perſon to ſign the whole. Five witneſſes in the caſe of Anne le Franc depoſe, that their cer- tificates left with the notary were altered, falſified, and embel- liſhed with divers circumſtances. Many of the relations which were at firſt publiſned, and were not thought full enough, were after wards ſuppreſſed, and do not appear in M. de Montgeron's collection, and others more ample were ſubſtituted in their ſtead, and embelliſned with many ſtriking circumſtances, which were omitted in the firſt relation. Many of the wit- neſſes in their depoſitions carry it farther, than according to their own account they could have any certain knowlege. Some of them appear to have been ſurprized into their teſtimo- nies by falſe or imperfect repreſentations; and artifices were employed to procure certificates from phyſicians, without bringing the caſe fully before them, or ſuffering them fairly to examine it. To all which it may be added, that there is great reaſon to ſuſpect, that many poor people feigned maladies, and pre- tended to be cured, on purpoſe to procure the gifts and bene- ² Lettres ſur les Miracles, p. 242, 243. factions Let. 19. Mr. HuM E. 331 factions of others; which many of them did to good advantage. Iris well known, and has been often proved, that in the Qomi church there have been inſtances of perſons, who made a trade of feigning maladies, and pretending to be miraculoufly cured. Such a one was Catherine des Pres, who was afterwards con- victed by her own confefſion; of which Father Le Brun hath given a particular account. Hiſt. Crit. des Prat. Sußerſtit. liv. ii. cap. 4. who hath alſo detected ſeveral othe falſe miracles which had been believed by numbers of that church. And may we not reaſonably ſuſpect the ſame of many poor people who came to the tomb of the Abbé de Paris? Ses all theſe things ſhewn in M. Des Vocux's Lettres ſur les Miracles, Lettre V, VI. and eſpecially in the VIIth and VIIIth Letters of his Critique Gene- rale; where he particularly examineth every one of the mira- cles produced by M. de Monzgeron. It s his obſervation, that the more carefully we conſider thoſe relations, and com- pare them with the pleces that are deſigned to juſtify them, the more plainly the falſhood of them appeareth. And accordingly he hath found out not merely a ſingle contradiction, but nu- merous contradictions in the relations of the feveral miracles, compared with the certifcates, and the pieges produced in juſ- tification of them. And therefore he aſketh with good reaſon, what becomes of demonſtrations built on fuch relations and ſuch certificates? He very properly obſerves that the falſity even of a ſmall number of facts, which are pretended to be proved by certificates, that were collected by thoſe who took pains to verify the miracles, are ſufficient to diſcredit all others founded on ſuch certificates. If the ſame things could have been juſtly objected againſt the miracles recorded in the New I'eſtament, Chriſtianity, conſider- ing the other diſadvantages it laboured under, could never have been eſtabliſhed. But the caſe with regard to theſe miracles was very different. They were not indeed proved by certificates, which may be procured by art and management. The Huſt publiſhers of the Chriſtian religion did not go about to collect evidences and teſtimonies. Nor was there any need of their doing ſo in facts that were publickly known, and the reality of which their enemies themſelves were not able to deny. They acted with greater ſimplicity, and with an open confidence of truth. Their narrations are plain and artleſs; nor do they take pains to prepoſſeſs or infiuence the reader, either by artful inſi- nuations, or too violent aſſertions; W hich our author mentions as a ſuſpicious circumſtance. Never were any of their enemies able to convict them of falſhood. Far from ever denying the — facts —— 1 5 of„— 332 A V'iew of tbe DEISTICAI. Writers. Let. 19. facts they had witneſſed, or withdrawing for fear of having thoſe facts inquired into, as ſeveral did in the other caſe, they openly avowed thoſe facts before the public tribunals, and be- fore perſons of the higheſt authority; they never varied in their teſtimony, but perſiſted in it with an unfainting conſtancy, and ſealed it with their blood. And it gives no ſmall weight to their teſtimony, that they witneſſed for facts which were deſigned to confirm a ſcheme of religion contrary to their own moſt rooted prejudices. Nor can it be alleged, that they were themſelves divided about the reality and divinity of the miracles wrought by Chriſt and his apoſtleés, much leſs that they rejected and con- demned many of them as fooliſh, ſcandalous, and injurious to the Divine Majeſty; which was the cenſure paſſed upon ſome of the extraordinary facts relating to the Abbé de Paris, by the moſt eminent Janſenit divines. Finally, the laſt obſervation I ſfhall make is this: That the miracles of our Saviour and his apoſtles appear to have been wrought for an end worthy of the divine wiſdom and good- neſs. The declared deſign of them was to give an atteſtation to the divine miſſion of the moſt excellent perſon that ever ap- peared in the world, and to confirm the beſt ſcheme of religion that was ever publiſhed, the moſt manifeſtly conducive to the glory of God, and to the ſalvation of mankind. Here was an end worthy of God, and for which it was fit for him to inter- poſe in the maſt extraordinary manner. And accordingly this religion thus atteſted and confirmed was eſtabliſhed in the world, and ſoon triumphed over all oppoſition. All the power of the adverſary, civil or ſacerdotal, could not put a ſtop to its progreſs, or to the wonderful works done in confirmation of it. The effects which followed, conſidering the amazing difficulties it had to ſtruggle with, and the ſeeming weakneſs and mean- nefs of the inſtruments made uſe of to propagate it, proved the reality of thoſe miracles, and that the whole was carried on by a divine power. But if we turn our views on the other hand to the miracles pretended to have been wrought at the tomb of the Abbé de Paris, it doth not appear that they anſwered any valuable end. There has indeed been an end found out for them; viz. to give a teſtimony from heaven to the cauſe of the appellants. But we may juſtly conclude from the wiſdom of God, that in that caſe it would have been ſo ordered as to make it evident that this was the intention of them, and that he would have taken care that no oppoſition from men ſhould prevail to defeat the deſign for which he interpoſed in ſo ex- traordinary a manner. But this was far from being the caſe. Mr. Let. 19. Mr. HuM F. 333 Mr. Hume indeed tells us, that“ no Janſeniſt was ever at a loſs «« to account for the ceſſation of the miracles, when the church- ¹yard was ſhut up by the king's ediét. Twas the touch of „the tomb which operated thoſe extraordinary effects, and «when no one could approach the tomb, no effect could be *expected ſ.“ But ſuppoſing that the deſign of thoſe extra- ordinary divine interpoſitions was to give a teſtimony from hea- ven to the cauſe of the appellants, it is abſurd to imagine that it would have been in the power of an earthly prince, by ſhut- ting up the tomb, to put a ſtop to the courſe of the miraculous operations, and to render the deſign of God of none effecété. It ſtrengthens this, when it is farther conſidered, that the whole affair of theſe pretended miracles turned in the iſſue rather to the diſadvantage of the cauſe it was deſigned to confirm., It hath been already obſerved, that ſome of the moſt eminent among the appellant doctors, and who were moſt zealouſly at- tached to that cauſe, were greatly ſcandalized at ſeveral of thoſe miracles, and eſpecially at the extraordinary convulſions which generally attended them. The cenſures they paſſod upon them gave occaſion to bitter contentions, and mutual ſevere reproaches and accuſations. Some of the Janſeniſt writers themſelves com- plain, that whereas before there was an entire and perfect union and harmony among them, as if they had been all of one heart and ſoul, there have been ſince that time cruel diviſions and animoſities, ſo that thoſe who were friends before became ir- reconcileable enemies b. And can it be imagined, that God would execute his deſigns in ſo imperfect a manner? That he would exert his own divine power to give teſtimony to that cauſe, and yet do it in ſuch a way as to weaken that cauſe inſtead of ſupporting it, to raiſe prejudices againſt it in the minds of enemies inſtead of gaining them, and to divide and offend the friends of it inſtead of confirming and uniting them? Upon the whole, with regard to the atteſtations given to Chriſtianity, all was wiſe, conſiſtent, worthy of God, and ſuited to the end for which it was deſigned. But the Other is a broken, inco- f Hume's Philoſophical Eflays, p. 208. ² M. de Montgeron indeed will not allow that the miraculous operations ceaſed at the ſhutting up of the tomb; but by the mira- culous operations he principally underſtands the convulſions, which continued ſtill to be carried on; but which many of the principal Janſeniſts were far from looking upon as tokens of a divine inter- poſition. F r. lettre v. p. herent 334 A View of ibe DEis TIcAL Writers. Let. 19. herent ſcheme, which cannot be reconciled to itſelf, nor made to conſiſt with the wiſdom and harmony of the divine proceed- ings. The former therefore is highly credible, though the latter is not ſo. 7 The ſeveral conſiderations which have been mentioned do each of them ſingly, much more all of them together, ſhew ſuch ſignal differences between the miracles recorded in the Goſpels and thoſe aſcribed to the Abbẽé de Paris, that it muſt argue à peculiar degree of confidence to pretend to run a parallel be- tween the one and the other, much more to affirm, as Mr. Hume has done, that the latter much furpaſs the former in credit and authority. This only fhews how gladly thoſe gentlemen would lay hold on any pretence to invalidate the evidences of Chriſtianity. Thus Mr. Chubb, in a diſcourſe he publiſhed on miracles, in which he pretends impartially to repreſent the rea- ſonings on both ſides, produced with great pomp a pretended miracle wrought in the Cevennes in 1703, and repreſented it as of equal credit with thoſe of the Goſpel. M. leæ Moyne, in his anſwer to him, hath evinced the falſhood of that ſtory in a manner that admits of no reply i. And yet it is not improbable, that ſome future Deiſt may ſee fit ſome time or other to revive that ſtory, and oppoſe it to the miracles recorded in the New Teſtament. Mr. Hume concludes his Eſſay with applauding his own per- formance, and is the better pleaſed with the way of reaſoning he has made uſe of, as he thinks,“it may ſerve to confound «thoſe dangerous friends, or diſguiſed enemies to the Chriſ- *e tian religion, who have undertaken to defend it by the prin- * ciples of human reaſon. Our moſt holy religion(ſaith he) is founded on faith, not on reaſon: And'tis a fure method of *⁴expoſing ₰ i Le Moyne on Miracles, p. 422,&c. This author, who takes care to make the principle of his phi- loſophy ſubſervient to his deſigns againſt religion, in the fifth of his Philoſophical Eſfays, where he undertakes to treat of the nature of belief, gives fuch an account of it as ſeems to exclude reaſon from any ſhare in it at all. He makes the difference between faitb and ftion to conſiſt wholly in fome ſentiment of feeling, which is annexed to the former, not to the latter: That the ſen- timent of belief is nothing but the conception of an object more lively and forcible, more intenſe and ſteady than what attends the mere fiction of the imagination: And that this manner of concep- tion ariſes from the cuſtomary conjunction of the object with ſome- thing preſent to the memory or ſenſes. See his Philoſophical Eſfays, p. 80— 8 4. This gentleman is here, as in many other Flaces, ſuf- ſiciently Let. 19. Mr. H uM E. 333 *expoſing it to put it to ſuch a trial, as it is by no means fitted « to endure.“ And he calls thoſe, who undertake to defend religion by reaſon, pretended Chriſtiang I. Such a mean and un- generous ſneer is below animadverſion. All that can be gathered from it is, that theſe gentlemen are very uneaſy at the attempts which have been made to defend Chriſtianity in a way of reaſon and argument. They it ſeems are mightily concerned for the Breſervation of our holy faith, and in their great friendſhip for that cauſe would give it up as indefenſible. And if the beſt way of befriending the Chriſtian religion be to endeavour to ſubvert the evidences by which it is eſtabliſhed, our author hath taken effectual care to convince the world of his friendly inten- tions towards it. As to the brief hints he hath given towards the end of his Eſſay againſt the Moſaic hiſtory, and the miracles recorded there, I fhall not here take any notice of them, both becauſe Mr. Adams hath clearly and ſuccinctly obviated them in his anſwer to that Eſſay, p. 88-94, and becauſe I fhall have occaſion to reſume this ſubject, when I come to make obſerva- tions on Lord Bolingbrohe's Poſthumous Works, who hath with great virulence and bitterneſs uſed his utmoſt efforts to expoſe the Moſaic writings. fciently obſcure, nor is it eaſy to form a diſtinct notion of what he intends. But his deſign ſeems to be to exclude reaſon or the under- ſtanding from having any thing to do with belief, as if reaſon never had any influence in producing, directing, or regulating it; which is to open a wide door to enthuſiaſm. But this is contrary to what we may all obſerve, and frequently experience. We in ſeveral caſes clearly perceive, that we have reaſon to regard ſome things as fictitious, and others as true and real. And the reaſons which fhew the difference between a fiction and reality ſhew that we ought in reaſon to believe the one and not the other: And ſo reaſon may go before the ſentiment of belief, and lay a juſt foundation for it, and be inſtrumental to produce it. And in this caſe the belief may be ſaid to be ſtrictly rational. 1 Hume's Philoſophical Eſſays, p. 204, 205. 1 —— 6 A View of ibe DEIsTICAL Writers. Let. 20. L E I T E R XX. Additional obſervations relating to Mr. Hume. A tran- ſcript of an ingenious paper containing an examination of Mr. Hume's afguments in his Eſſay on Miracles. Obſervations upon it. The evidence of matters of fabi may be ſo circumſtanced as to produce a full aſſurance. Mr. Hume artfully confounds the evidence of paſt facts with the probability of tbe future. We may be certain of a maiter of fact after it bath happened, though it I might before band ſeem very improbable ibat it Would bappen. Wbere full cvidence is given of a fall, ibere muſt not always be a deduttion made on tbe account of its being unuſual and extraordinary! There is ſtrong and poſitive evidence of tbe miracles wrought in aiteſta- tion to Chriſtianity, and no evidence againſt tbem. The miraculous nalure of tbe facts no proof ibat tbe facts were not done. A ſummary of Mr. Hume's argument againſt the evidence of miracles. Tbe weaſeneſs of it ſbewon. Conhidering ibe vaſt importance of religion ¹⁰ our happines, ibeę bare poſſibility of its being true ſbould be fufhicient to engage our compliance. § 1 k, H E four preceding letters comprehend all the obſervati- ons that were made upon Mr. Hume in the ſecond volume of the Vieu f the Deiftical Writers, 8vο edit. But ſoon after that volume was publiſhed, I received a letter from a gentleman of ſenſe and learning, which particularly relates to that part of it which was deſigned in anſwer to Mr. Hume. He was pleaſed to ſay it gave him uncommon ſatiqfaction, and at the ſame time ſent me a paper which he ſeemed to be very well pleaſed with, that had been drawn up by a young gentleman then lately dead. It Let. 20. Mr. HvML. 237 It was deſighed as a confutation of Mr. Hume upon his own principles, which he thought had not been fufficlently attended to in the— rs that had. been made to that writer; and he all lowed me, if I ſhould be of opinion that any thing in it might be 1 crrieebie le to a farcher confutation of Mr. Humeé, to make uſe of his ſentiments either by way of note or appendix, as I thould j judge moſt convenient. I returned an anſwer in a let- ter which T hall here inſe ert, as it containeth ſome reflections that may be of advantage in relation to the controverſy with Mr. Humæ. But firſt it will be proper to lay before the reader the paper itſelf here referred to, which is conciſely drawn, and runs thus: An ExAMINATION of Mr. HuME'S Arguments in bis EssAvY ON MiIRACLES. THE objects of human underſtanding may be diſtinguiſhed either into propoſitions aſſerting the relation between general ideas, or matters of fact. In the former kind, we can arrive at çertainty by means of a faculry in our ſouls, which Pe geives this relation either in- ſtantly or intimately, which is called Intuition, or elſe by inter- mediate ideas, which is called Demonſtration. But we can only form a jn nt of the latter by Ceper ience. No reaſoning a Sriori will diſcover to us, that water ll ſuffo- cate, or the ſire e conſume us, or that the loadſtone w ul attract ſteel; and therefore no jud dgment can be made concerning the truth or falſhood of matters of fact, but what is conſtantly re- gulated by cuſtom and experience, and can therefore never g0 higher than probability. When we have frequently obſerved a particular event to hap- pen in certain circumſtances, the mind naturally makes an in- duction, that it will hap amſte appen again in the ſame circumſtances. When this Cbiervation has been! long, conſtant, and uninter- rupted, there our belief that it will happen again approaches infinitely near to certainty. Thus no man has the leaſt doubt of the ſun's riſing to morro, or that the tide will ebb and flow at its accuſtomed periods: but where our obſervations are broke in upon by frequent interruptions and exceprions to the contrary, then we expect event with the leaſt degree of aſfurance: and in alli our expectations are always in proportion to the conlt- ancya al 3d regularity of the ex- Periencé. This m ernod of reaſoning is not connected by any me dium interm Or. It e nialſ ha hſerv 01 chain of ſtep 8; but is plainly to be oblerved VoL. I. ZE ——y———— 3———— —— — —-— 33⁸ A View of tbe DrisT A. Writers. Let. 20. beings, brutes as well as men*. And it would be as abſurd to aſcc a reaſon, why we expect to happen again, that which is regularly come to paſs a great many times before, as it is to enquire, why the mind perceives a relation between certain ideas? They are both diſtinét faculties of the ſoul. And as it has been authorzed by ſome writers of diſtinction, to give the de- nomination of ſenſe to the internal as well as external percep- tions; the one may be called the /eculative, and the other the Srobable ſenſe. From this laſt-mentioned principle Mr. Hume has deduced an argument to ſhew, that there is great improbability againſt the belief of any miraculous fact, how well ſoever atteſted: and as religion may ſeem to be greatly affected by this concluſion (ſuppoſing it to be true), before we come directly to conſider the argument, it may not be amiſs to enquire how far religion, as a practical inftitution, may be concerned therein? And for this purpoſe it is to be obſerved, that probable evidence for the truth or falſhood of any matter of fact differs eſſentially from demonſtration, in that the former admits of degrees in the greateſt variety, from the higheſt moral cer- tainty, down to the loweſt preſumption; which the latter does not. Let it alſo be further obſerved, that probable evidence is in its nature but an imperfect kind of information, the higheſt degree of which can never reach abſolute certainty, or full proof: and yet to mankind with regard to their practice, it is in many cafes the very guide of their lives. Moſt of our actions are determined by the higheſt degrees of probability. As for inſtance, what we do in conſequence of the ſun's riſing to-morrow; of the ſeaſons regularly ſucceeding one another; and that certain kinds of meat and drink Will nouriſh. Others are determined by leſſer degrees. Thus Rhubarb does not always purge, nor is Opium a ſoporiſic to every perſon that takes it; and yet for all that they are of con- ſtant uſe for theſe purpoſes in medicine. In all caſes of mo- ment, when to act or forbear may be attended with conſiderable damage, no wiſe man makes the leaſt ſcruple of doing what he apprehends may be of advantage to him, even though the thing a² May not the long ſought after diſtinction between brutes and men conſiſt in this? That whereas the human underſtanding com- prehends both claſſes, the brutal ſagacity is confined only to mat- ters ot᷑ fact. 5 Was Let. 20. Mr. HuUMk. 339 was doubtful, and one ſide of the queſtion as ſupportable as the other. But in matters of the utmoſt conſequence, a prudent man will think himſelf obliged to take notice even of the loweſt probability; and will act accordingly. A great many inſtances might be given in the common purſuits of life, where a man would be conſidered as out of his ſenſes, who would not act, and with great diligence and application too, not only upon an over-chance, but even where the probability might be greatly againſt his ſucceſs. Suppoſe a criminal under ſentence of death was promiſed a pardon if he threw twelve with a pair of dice at one throw; here the probability is thirty-ſix to one againſt him, and yet he would be looked upon as mad if he did not try. Noching in ſuch a caſe would hinder a man from trying but the ablolute impoſſibility of the event. Let us now apply this method of reaſoning to the practice ol religion. And ſuppoſing the arguments againſt miracles were far more probable than the evidence for them, yet the vaſt im- portance of religion to our happineſs in every reſpect would ſtill be very ſufficient to recommend it to the practice of every prudent man; and the bare poſſibility that ĩt might prove true, were there nothing elſe to ſupport it, would engage his aſſent and compliance; or elſe he muſt be ſuppoſed to act differently in this reſpect to what he generally does in all the other con- cerns of his life. So that whether Mr. Humae's reaſonings be true or falſe, religion has ſtill ſufficient evidence to influence the practice of every wiſe and conſiderate man. This being premiſed; let us now proceed to conſider Mr. Hume's arguments. His reaſoning may be briefiy expreſſed in this manner: We have had a long univerfal and uninterrupted experience, that no events have happened contrary to the courſe of nature, from conſtant and unvaried obſervations. We have therefore a full proof, that the uniform courſe has not been broke in upon, nor will be, by any particular exceptions. But the obſervation of truth depending upon, and conſtantly following human teſtimony, is by no means univerſal and unin- terrupted, and therefore it does not amount toa full proof, that it either has, or will follow it in any particular inſtance. And therefore the proof ariſing from any human teſtimony, can never equal the proof that is deduced againſt a miracle from the very nature of the fact. This I take to be a full and fair ſtate of this gentleman's rea- ſoning. L 2 But ———— ———— 340 A View of tbe DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 20. But the anſwer is very plain: If by human teſtimony, he would mean the cvidence of any one ſingle man indifferently taken, then indeed his ſecond propoſition would be true; but then the concluſion will by no means follow from it: but it by human teſtimony he would underſtand the evidence of any collection of men, then the ſecond propoſition is falſe, and con- ſequently the concluſion muſt be ſo too. That twelve honeſt perſons ſhould combine to aſſert a falſe- hood, at the hazard of their lives, without any view to private intereſt, and with the certain proſpect of loſing every thing that is and ought to be dear to mankind in this world, is according to his own way of reaſoning, as great a miracle to all intents and purpoſes, as any interruption in the common courſe of na- rure; becauſe no hiſtory has ever mentioned any ſuch thing, nor has any man in any age ever had experience of ſuch a fact. But hereé it may be objected, that though it be allowed to be as great a miracle for twelve honeſt men to atteſt a falſhood contrary to their plain intereſt in every reſpect, as that any alter- ation ſhould happen in the common courſe of nature, yet theſe evidences being equal, they only deſtroy one another, and ſtill leave the mind in ſuſpence. This objection draws all its force from Mr. Hume's aſſertion, that an uniform and uninterrupted experience amounts to a full proof, which when examined will not be found true; and in- decd I wonder that a writer of his accuracy ſhould venture on ſuch an expreſſion, fince it is confeſſed on all hands, that all our reaſonings concerning matters of fact, ever fall ſhort of cer- tainty, or full proof. And befides, the very ſame objection which he makes againſt the veracity of human teſtimony, to weaken its authenticity, may be retorted with equal force againſt his unvaried certainty of the courſe of nature: for doubtleſs the number of approved hiſtories we have relating to miracles, will as much leſſen the probability of what he calls a full proof on his ſide of the queſ- tion, as all the forgeries and falſhoods that are brought to diſ- credit human teſtimony, will weaken it on the other. But the beſt way to be aſſured of the falſhood of this objec- tion is to examine it by what we find in our own minds; for that muſt not be admitted as an univerſal principle, which is aot truc in every particular inſtance. 2, We haveé a full proof of any fact at- 52 According to Mr. Ha¹ teſted by twelve honelt diſintereſted perſons. But would not probability be inereaſed, aad our belief of ſuch a fact be rhe the ftronger, if the number of witneſſes was doubled? I own My Let. 20. Mr. HuML. 341 my mind immediately aſſents to it. But if this be true, it will then evidently follow, that the proof againſt a miracle, arifing from the nature of the fact, may, and has been exceeded by contrary human teſtimony. Suppoſe, as before, that the teſtimony of twelve perſons is juſt equal to it, and we have the evidence of twenty, for any particular miracle recorded in the Goſpel; then ſubtracting the weaker evidence from the ſtronger, we ſhall have the poſitive evidence of eight perſons, for the truth of a common matter of fact. The anfver I returned to the letter in which this paper was incloſed, was in ſubſtance as follows: § T R, I AM very much obliged to You for the kind manner in which you have expreſſed yourſelf with regard to me. And it is a pleaſure to me to find trhat my reply to Mr. Hume is approv- ed by a gentleman of ſo much good ſenſe, and of ſuch eminency in his profeſſion, as I am well informed you are accounted to be. I agree with you that Mr. Hume is an elegant and ſubtil writer, and one of the moſt dangerous enemies to Chriſtianity that have appeared among us. He has a very ſpecious way of managing an argument. But his ſubtilty ſeems to have quali- fied him not ſo much for clearing an obſcure cauſe, as for puzzling a clear one. Many things in his Philoſophical Eſſays have a very plauſible appearance, as well as an uncommon turn, which he viſibly affects; but upon a cloſe examination of them Ithink one may venture to pronounce, that few authors can be mentioned who bave fallen into greater abſurdities and in- conſiſtencies. And it were to be wiſhed there was not a ſuffi- cient ground for the ſevere cenſure you paſs upon him, when you ſay, thät with all his art he has plainly diſcovered a * bad heart, by throwing out ſome bitter ſneers againſt the ««c Chriſtian revelation, which are abſolutely inconſiſtent with cc a ſerious belief, or indeed with any regard for it, though in ſome parts of his writings he affécts a different way of ſpeaking.“ 4 Vou oblerve, that we ſeem to be greatly deficient in the logick of probability, a point which Mr. Hume had ſtudied * with great accuracy.“ And I readily own, that there is a great appearance of accuracy in what Mr. Hume hath advanced 4 3 concerning ₰ ₰ — 1 5 ————— 3 —y—— 34² A View of tbe DEisTIAL Writers. Let. 20. concerning the grounds and degrees of probability, and the different degrees of aſſent due to it. But though what he hath offered this way ſeems plauſible in general, he hath been far from beiog fair or exact in his application of it. The paper vou have ſent incloſed to me, and which you tell me was drawn up by the young gentleman you mention, con- tains a ſketch of an attempt to ſnew how Mr. Hume might be confuted on his own principles, and is executed in ſuch a man- ner, that one cannot but regret that a gentleman of ſo promi- fing a genius, and who might have proved ſignall) aſeful, was ſnatched away by a fever about the twentieth year of his age, Vou allow mé to make what uſe oœf it Ijudge proper, and ſeem to expect that I ſhould tell you my ſentiments of it with the utmoſt frankneſs and candour. And this obligeth me to ac- quaint you, that though I look upon the confutation of Mr. Huine in the way this gentleman hath managed it to be fubtil and ingenious, yet in fome things it doth not ſeem to me to be quite ſo clear and ſarisfactory, as were to be wiſhed in a matter of ſo great conſequence. He has, I think, from a deſire of con- futing Mr. ume upon his own principles, been led to make too large conceſſions to that gentleman, and hath proceeded upon ſome of his principles as true and valid, which I think may be juſtly conteſted. 1 Mr. Hume frequently intimates, that there neither is nor can be any certainty in the evidence given concerning matters of fact, or in human teſtimony, which can be ſecurely depended on; and that at beſt, it can be only probable. And the inge- nious author of the paper having obſerved after Mr. Hume, that we can form no judgment concerning the truth or falſhood of matter of fact, but what is conſtantly regulated by cuſtom or ex- perience, adds, that“ it can never go higher than probability.“ And again he ſaith, that“ probable evidence is in its nature but *an imperfect kind of information; the higheſt degree of which * cannot reach abſolute certainty or full proof.' Where he ſeems not to allow that the evidence concerning matters of fact can ever arrive at ſuch a certainty as to make up a Jull Sroof. And he repeats it again, that“it is confeſſed on all hands, that all our * reaſonings concerning matters of fact ever fall ſhort of cer- *¹« tainty or full proof.“ And yet if we allow Mr. Humie's defi- nition of a full proof, that it is fuch arguments from exherience as læaue no room for doubt or oppeoſition, the evidence for a matter ot fact may he ſo circumſtanced as to amount to a full proof, and even to a certainty. For I can ſee no reaſon for confining cer- tainty to the evidence we haye by intuition or by demonſtration. In Let. 20. Mr. HuME. 343 In treating of certainty as diſlinguiſhed from probability, a two- fold certainty may very properly be allowed. The one is the certainty by intuition or by demonſtration. The other is 2 certainty relating to matter of fact. This is indeed of a dif- ferent kind from the former: But I think it may no leſs juſtly be called certainty, when it ſo fully ſatisfieth the mind as to leave not the leaſt room for doubt concerning it, and produceth a full aſfurance. And that this is often the caſe with relation to matters of fact cannot reaſonably be denied. The words ſure and certain are frequently applied in common language to things of this kind, and for aught I can ſee very Properly. And in the beſt and exacteſt writers it is often deſcribed under the term of moralcertainty, an expreſſion which this gentleman bim- ſelf makes uſe of b. And it is a great miſtake to imagine, that the word moral in that caſe is always uſed as a term of diminution, as if ĩt were not to be intirely depended on. It is only deſigned to ſhew that this certainty is of a different kind, and proceed- eth upon different grounds from that which ariſeth from de- monſtration; but yet it may produce as ſtrong an aſſurance in the mind, and which may undoubtedly be depended upon. That there was a war carried on in England in the laſt century between King and Parliament, Tonly know by human teſtimony, But will any man ſay, that for that reaſon I cannot be ſure of it? Many caſes might be mentioned wich regard to matters of fact which we know by human teſtimony, the evidence of which is ſo ſtrong and convincing, that we can no more reaſonably doubt of it, than of the truth of any propoſition which comes to us demonſtrated by the ſtricteſt reaſoning. Mr. Hume him- ſelf ſeems ſenſible, that it would be wrong to ſay that every thing which is not matter of demonſtration comes only under the notion of probability. And therefore though he frequently v The ingenious gentleman ſeems to grant what may be ſufficient, when he ſaith, that probability in ſome caſes approaches infinitely near to certainty. Iſ it be allowed, that matter of fact may be ſo certain, that the mind may be fally aſſured of it, and ſo as to leave no room for a reaſonable doubt, this is all that is really neceſfary in the pre- ſent controverſy. And this is what Mr. Hume himſelf ſeems ſome- times to allow. But at other times he gives ſuch an account of hu- man teſtimony as tends to render it in all caſes uncertain. And the never riſing higher than probability, deſign of his repreſenting it as ſeems to be to convey an idea of uncertainty and doubt as inſepa- rably attending all human teſtimony. And to guard againſt the wrong uſe that may be made of this is the deſign of what I have here obſerved. 7 4 ſeems ————— ——„. — 2—— ☛——— 344 A View of tbe DEisT IcAL Writers. Let. 20. ſeems to claſs all matters of fact under the head of probabilities, yet in the beginning of his Eſſay on Probability, he ſeems to find fault with Mr. Locke for dividing all arguments into demon- Krative and probable, and obſerves, that to conform our lan- Suage more to common uſe, we ſhould divide arguments into demonſtrations, Broofs, and probabilities: where he ſeems to place What he calls proofs, which he explains to be fuch argu- ments from experience as leave no room for doubt or oppoſi- tion, in a higher elaſs than probabilities. And Mr. Locke him- ſelf, though he ſeems to confine certain vy to demonſtration, yet allows concerning ſome probabilities ariſing from human teſti- mony, that ‧they riſe ſo near to certainty, that t ey govern « our thoughts as abſolutely, and influence our actions as ¹¹ fully as the moſt evident demonſtration; and in what con- ¹* cerns us we make little or no difference between them and ¹c certain knowlege. Our belief thus grounded riſes to aſſu- *c rancéc.“ And in that caſe I think probability is too low a word, and not fufficiently expreſſive, or properly applicable to things of this kind. For according to Mr. Locke's account of it, and the common ufage of the word, that is faid to be proba- ble which is likely to be true, and of which we have no certainty, but only ſome inducements, as Mr. Locke ſpeaks, to believe and receive them as true. Another thing obſervable in Mr. Humeæ's reafoning on this, fubject is, that in treating of probability or the evidence of facts, which he foundeth wholly upon experience, he con- foundeth the evidence of paſt facts with that of the future. And the young gentleman himſelf ſeems not ſufficiently to diſ- tinguiſh them. The inſtances he produceth to ſhew, that the dIgments which the mind forms concerning the probability of ju G 5 7 7 2.„. events will alway; be in Propo onſtancy and regularity œ the æxperionce, all relate to the probability of future events 5. he experience of the paſt. But the ſlion about tho trom the experience of the paſt. But the queſtion about the probability of any future fact hath properly nothing to do in the preſent controverſy between Mr. Hume and his adverſa- ries, which relateth wholly to the evidence of paſt facts. And it is only an inſtance of this writer's art, that by confounding theſe different queſtions 1 te, and throw duſt in the eyes of his readers. It will be granted that with relation to future facks or events, the utmoſt evidence we can attain to from paſt obſervation or experience is a high degree of probability; but with relation to paſt matters of fact, we may Slex the deba d6 — t c Efſay on Human Underſtanding, book iv. chap. Xv. ſect. 6. 10 Let. 20. Mr. H uM E. 345 in many caſes arrive at a certainty, or what Mr. Hume calls a full proof, yea, it often happens, 85 the evidence of paſt facts may be Socircumſtanced, that we may be certain that ſuch an event really came to paſs, though 5 the queſtion had been put before the event, the probability from paſt experience would have been greatly againſt it. Nothing therefore can be more weak and fallacious than Mr. Hume's reaſoning, when from th principle of forming concluſions concerning future events from paſt exper ence, he endeavoureth to deduce an argument againſt the belief of any miraculous fact, how well ſoever atteſted. For though, if the queſtion were concerning a future miracle in any particular inſtance, if we ſhould judge merely from paſt expe- rience, the pr obability might ſeem to lie againſt it; yet if the queſtion be concerning a 55 miraculous fact, there may be ſuch proof of it, as may not leave room for a teaſonable doubt that the miracle was really done, though before it was done it aight leem improbable that it would be done. Another fal Ir. Hame is guilty of, is his fuppoſing that in all 9S 1 ne fact in itſelf conſidered is unufual, and out of the way of common experience, whatever be the evidence given for it, there muſt ſtill be a deduction made, and the aſſent Eren to iti Prohortion to che unuſualneſs of th ys hold. A fact of an ex- raordinary nature m ny come to us confirmed 1 by an evidence ſo ſtrong, as to prodne a full and undoubted aſſurance of its having been done: And in ſuch a caſe there is no deduction to be made; nor is the al ſent We give to the truth of the fact at all weakened on the account of its being unuſual and extraordi- nary. Thus, æ. g. that a great king ſhould be openly put to death by his own ſubjeets upon a pretended formal trial before a court of judicature, is very unuſual, and before it came to paſs would ha ppeared highly improbable; but after it hap- pened, there is fuch evidence of the fact as to produce a full aſſurance that it was really done, and the man who ſhould go about ſerioufly to make a doubt of it, and make a formal de- duction from the credit of the evidence, on the account of the ſtrangeneſs of the fact, and ſhould pretend that we muſt believe it with an aſfent only propor tioned to the evidence which re- maineth after that dedu gtion, would under pretence of extra- ordinary accuracy only rendér himſelf ridiculous. It will indeed be readily owned, that more and greater evidence may be juſtly required with regard to a thing that is unuſual and out of the common courſe, than is required for a common faët; but when there is evidence given ſufficient to ſatisfy the mind, its being unuſual 346 A l'iew of ibe DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 20. unuſual and extraordinary ought not to be urged as a reaſon for not giving a full credit to it, or for pretending that the teſtimony concerning it is not to be depended upon. For the evidence for a fact out of the courſe of common obſervation and experience, may be ſo circumſtanced as to leave no room for the leaſt rea- ſonable doubt. And the aſſent to it may be ao ſtrong and firm as to any the moſt common and ordinary event. Nor is any thing in that caſe to be deducted from the credit of the evidence, un- der pretence of the fact's being unuſual or even miraculous. vou will allow me on this occafion to take notice of a paſſage in your letter, in which, after having obſerved that Mr. Hume had ſtudied the point about probability, and treated upon it with great accuracy, you give it as your opinion, that“ the **beſt way of anſwering him would be in the way himſelf has *chalked out by comparing the degrees of probability in the ¹wevidence on both ſides, and deducting the inferior.“ Here you ſeem to ſuppoſe that there is evidence on both ſides in the caſe of miracles, and that upon balancing the evidence, that which hath the bigher degrees of probability ought to be pre- ferred, at the ſame time making a deduétion from it in pro- portion to the weight of the contrary evidence. But the ſuppo- ſition you here proceed upon appears to me to be a wrong one; viz. That in the caſe in queſtion there is evidence on both ſides, and conſequently an oppoſition of evidence; i. e. evi- dence againſt the miracles wrought in proof of Chriſtianity, as well as evidence for them. There is indeed poſitive ſtrong eVi- dence on one ſide, to ſhew that thoſe facts were really done, an evidence drawn from teſtimony ſo circumſtantiated, that it hath all the qualifications which could be reaſonably deſired to render it full and ſatisfactoryd. But what evidence is there on the other ſide? No counter-evidence or teſtimony to fhew the falſhood of this is pretended by Mr. Hume to be produced. Nor are there any circumſtances mentioned attending the evidence ſelf, which may juſtly tend to render it ſuſpicious. Nothing is oppoſed to it but the miraculous nature of the facts, or their eing contrary to the uſual courſe of nature. And this cannot properly be ſaid to be any evidence to prove that the facts were not done, or that the teſtimony given to them was falſe. Nor needs there any deduction to be made in the aſſent we give to ſuch a full and ſufficient teſtimony as is here ſuppoſed, on that account: becauſe as the caſe was circumſtanced, it was proper C0 that thoſe facts ſhould be beyond and out of the common V & 8- d See this fully ſnewn in anſwer to Mr. Hume, p. 254,& ſeq. courſę Let. 20. Mr. H vM E. 347 courſe of nature and aPerſcheen; and it was agreeable to the wiſdom of God, and to the excellent ends for which thoſe facts were deſigned, that they ſhould be ſo: ſince otherwiſe they would not have anſwered the intention, which was to give a divine atteſtation to an important revelation of the higheſt uſe and benefit to mankind. It is an obſervation of the ingenious author of the paper you ſent me,“ That twelve honeſt perſons ſhould combine to aſſert „s a fallnood at the hazard of their lives without any view to ²e private intereſt, and with the certain proſpect ot lofing every 4 thing that is and ought to be dear to manki ing in this world, 4* is, according to Mr. Hume'’s OWD Aaf of reaſoning, as great « a miracle to all intents and purpoles, as any interruption in «« the common courſe of nature.“ But then he obſerves, that the thing iheſe witneſſes are ſuppoſed to atteſt being alſo a miracle, contrary to the uſual courſe of nature, it may be ob- jected, that the 4 evidences being equal, they only deſtroy one another, and ſtill leave the mind in ſuſpence. The auſwer he gives to this does not ſeem to me to be ſu fficiently clear. He firſt obſerves, That“this objection draws all its force from . Mr. une s aſſertion, that an uniform and uninterrupted ex- „“ perience is a full proof, which when examined will not be „ found true, becauſe it is confeſſed on all hands, that all our ¹ reaſonings concerning matters of fact ever fall ſhort of cer- *tainty, or full proof.“ But beſides that this doth not always hold, ſince it hach been ſfhewn, that our reaſoningsconcerning atters of fact ma ay in ſome caſes amount to ſuch a certainty 28 may be juſtly called a full proof; it may ſtill be urged, that an uniform uninterrupted elerlences though not ſtrictly a full proof, yet is ſuch a proof againſt a miracle as is able to counter- balance the evidence for it: in which caſe the objection ſtill holds, and the mind is kept in ſuſpence. And the gentleman himſelf ſeems afterwards to grant, that a fact's being contrary to the uſual courſe of nature affordeth ſuch a proof againſt it from the nature of the thing, as is ſufficient to counterpoiſe the evidence of twelve ſuch witneſſes as are ſuppoſed, though he thinks it would not do ſo, if the number of witneſſes were doubled; and that this ſhews that the proof againft a miracle ariſing from the nature of the fact may be exceeded by contrary human teſtimony, which is-what Mr. Hume denies. And he argues, that if we ſuppoſe the teſtimony of twelve perſons for a miracle to be juſt equal to the evidence ariſing from the nature of the thing againſt it, and that we have the evidence of twer dey for any particular miracle recorded in the Goſpel, then ſub- tracting V V — 348 A V'iec f tbe DEIS TICAL Writers. Let. 20. tracting the weaker evidence from the ſtronger, we ſhall have a furplus of the poſitive teſtimony of eight perſons, without any thing to oppoſe it. I am perſuaded, that the deſign of the ingenious gentleman in putting the caſe after this manner, was to ſignify it as his real opinion, that the teſtimony of twelve ſuch witneſſes as are here ſuppoſed in proof of a miracle's having been really wrought, did not more than countervail the argument againſt it ariſing from the ſtrangeneſs of the fact: But he had a mind to put the caſe as ſtrongly as he could in favour of Mr. Hume, and yet to ſhew that there might ſtill be an exceſs of proof, according to his own principles, on the ſide of miracles; which deſtroys his main hypotheſis, that the evidence for a miracle can never exceed the evidence againſt it. It appears to me however, thæt this is making too large a conceſſion, and that it is not the propereſt way of putting the caſe. It proceedeth upon the ſup- poſition which hath been already ſfhewn to be a wrong one, that a thing's being miraculous, or contrary to the uſual courſe of nature, is alone in all circumſtances a proper proof or evi- dence againſt the truth of the fact; whereas the caſe may be ſo circumſtanced, that the miraculouſneſs of the fact is in reality no Sroof or evidence againſt it at all. It will indeed be acknow- leged, as was before hinted, that greater evidence is required with regard to a fact which is miraculous, than for any fact in che common and ordinary courſe. But when ſuch evidence is given to prove that a miraculous fact was really done, as is ſuit- able to the importance of the fact, and which cannot be rejected without admitting ſuppoſitions which are manifeſtly abſurd; in fuch a caſe, a thing's being miraculous is no juſt reaſon for not giving a full aſſent to the teſtimony concerning it. For its being miraculous, in the caſe that hath been put, hath nothing in it abſurd or incredible; whereas that twelve men of ſound minds and honeſt characters, ſhould combine to atteſt a falſnood in oppoſition to all their worldly intereſts and prejudices, and to every principle that can be ſuppoſed to influence human nature, chout any aſſignable cauſe for ſuch a conduct(which has beer vn to be the caſe with regard to the witneſſes for Chriſtia- nity) is abfolutely abſurd, nor can in any way be accounted for. As to the pretence, that in this caſe there is a miracle on both ſides, and that the one is to be oppoſed to the other, and de- ſtroys its evidence; this ſophiſm which was impoſed upon many, and in which the chief ſtrength of Mr. Hume's Eſſay lies, de- riveth its whole force from an abuſe of the word miracle, and à confounding, as this writer hath artfully done, a miracle and an 483 Let. 20. Mr. H uM V. 349 an abſurdity, as if it were the ſame thing. That twelve men ſhould in the circumſtances ſuppoſed combine toatteſt a falſhood, at the hazard of their lives and of every thing dear to men, can- not properly be called a miracle accor ding to any definition that can be reaſonably given of a miracle, or even according to Mr. Hume's own definition of a miracle, that““ it is a tranſgreſRion of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or *by the interpoſal of ſome inviſible agent; but is a mani- feſt zforclth But in the caſe of an extraordinary event con- trary to the uſual courſe of natural cauſes, and wrought for a very valuable purpoſe, and by a power adequate to the effect, there is uete h a proper miracle, but no abfurdity at all. It is true, that its being unuſual and out of the ordinary courſe of obſervation and experience, is a good reaſon for not be llieving it without a ſtrong and convincing ev idence, a much ſtronger evi- dence than would be neceſſary, in common and ordinar facts. But when there is an evidence of its having been actually done, which hath all the requiſites that can be juſtly demanded in ſuch a caſe, and at the ſame time ſufficient reaſons are aſſigned worthy of the divine wiſdom and goodneſs to ſnew that it was proper it ſhould be done, its being unufual and extraordina ary is no pr oof ar all that it hath not been done, nor can in any pro priety of ſpeech be called an eævidence ag zinf ſt it; and therefore no ſubtraction is to be made from the credit given to ſuch a ſuppoſed full and ſufficient evidence merely on this account. Perhaps my meaning will be better underſtood by applying it to a particular inſtance. And I chuſe to mention that which is the principal miracle in proof of Chriſtianity, our Lord's reſur- rection. The fact itſelft was evidently miraculous, and required a divine power to accompliſh it. It was therefore neceſſary, in order to lay a juſt foundation for believing it, that there ſhould be luch an evidence given as was proportioned to the import- ance and extra aordinarineſs of the fact. And that the evidence which was given of it was really ſuch an evidence, appears, I think, plainiy from what I have elſewhere obſerved concerning ite. But if we ſhould put the caſe thus; that not onl y Was the kac extraordinary in itſelf, and out of the common courſe of ture, but the evidence given of it was inſufficie unt, and not to be 82 dependra upon, and had circumſtances attending it which brought it under a juſt ſuſpicion: or, if contrary evidence was produgꝑd to invalidate it, e. g. ſepulchre, inſtead of pretend If the foldiers that watched the ing that the body of Jeſus was * See above, p. 240,& ſeq. 83 1 1 35⁰ A View of tbe DsisricAI. Writers. Let. 20, ſtolen away whilſt they were aſleep, which was no evidence at all, and was a plain acknowlegement that they knew nothing at all of the matter, had declared that the diſciples came with a powerful band of armed men, and overpowered the guard, and carried away the body: or, if any of the Jews had averred, that they were preſent and awake when the ſoldiers ſlept, and thar they ſaw the diſciples carry away the body: or, if any of the diſciples to whom Jeſus appeared, and who profeſſed to have ſeen and converſed with him after his reſurrection, had af- terwards declared, that they were among the diſciples at thoſe times when he was pretended to have appeared, and that they ſaw no fuch appearances, nor heard any ſuch converſations as were pretended: On this ſuppoſition it might be properly ſaid that there was evidence given on both fides; viz. for and againſt Chriſt's reſurrection, and conſequently that there was a real oppoſition of evidence; in which caſe it would be neceſſary carefully to examine the evidences, and compare them one with another, in order to judge which of them deſerved the greater credit, and how far one of them weakened or impaired the force of the other. But as the caſe was circumſtanced, ſince there was a very ſtrong poſitive evidence given that Chriſt really roſe from the dead, and ſhewed himſelf alive after his reſurrection by many infallible proofs, and no contrary evidence produced againſt it, nor any thing alleged to render the evidence that was given of it juſtly ſuſpected; and ſince there are alſo very good reaſons aſſigned worthy of the divine wiſdom and good- neſs, Which rendered it highly proper that Chriſt ſhould be raiſed from the dead: on this view of the caſe, the extraordi- narineſs of the fact, alone conſidered, cannot with any propriety be called an ævidence againſt the truth of it, nor be juſtly urged as a reaſon for not yielding a full aſſent to the evidence concern- ing it. For it was neceſſary to the ends propoſed by the divine wiſdom, that the fact ſhould be of an extraordinary and mira- culous nature, and if it had not been ſo, it would not have an- ſwered thoſe ends. I think therefore it may juſtly be affirmed, that taking the caſe in all its circumſtances, conſidering the great ſtrength and force of the evidence that is given for the fact, and the many concurring proofs and atteſtations by which it was confirmed, together with the excellent and important ends for which it was deſigned, there is as juſt ground to believe that Chriſt roſe again from the dead, as that he was crucified; though the latter be a fact not out of the ordinary courſe of nature, and the former was evidently ſo. And here it may not be improper to mention a remarkable obſervation of Mr. Lacke. He Let. 20. Ar. HVM k. 351 He had in giving an account of the grounds of probability ſuppoſed one ground of it to be the conformity of a thing with cur own knowlege, obſervation, and æxperience. And after taking notice of ſeveral things to this purpoſe, he obſerves, That ¹„*though common experience and the ordinary courſe of things ** have juſtly a mighty influence on the minds of men, to make „„them give or refuſe credit to any thing propoſed to their „„ belief, yet there is one caſe wherein the ſtrangeneſs of the ¹« fact leſſens not the aſſent to a fair teſtimony given of it. For ¹„where ſuch ſupernatural events are ſuitable to ends aimed at „by him who has the power to change the courſe of nature; ««there under fuch circumſtances they may be the fitter to pro- ¹«ccureé belief, by how much the more they are beyond or con- ¹* trary to common obſervation. This is the proper caſe of «« miracles, which, well atteſted, do not only find credit them- ¹*l ſelves, but give it alſo to other truths which need ſuch a «* confirmation †.“ Thus this great maſter of reaſon is ſo far from thinking with Mr. Hume, that a thing's being miraculous, or beyond the common courſe of obſervation and experience, abſolutely de- ſtroys all evidence of teſtimony that can be given concerning the truth of the fact, that in his opinion it doth not ſo much as leſſen the aſſent given to it upon a fair teſtimony; provided the ſupernatural facts thus atteſted were ſuitable to the ends of the divine wiſdom and goodneſs, i. c. wrought in atteſtation to a revelation of the higheſt importance, and of the moſt excel- lent tendency; and that in that caſe the more evidently miracu- lous the fact is, the fitter it is to anſwer the end propoſed by it. The ingenious author of the paper you ſent me has very pro- perly ſummed up Mr. Hume's argument againſt the evidence of miracles, thus: We have had a long univerſal and uninterrupted experience, that no events have happened contrary to the courſe of nature, from conſtant and unvaried obſervations. We have therefore a full proof that this uniform courſe has not been broken in upon, nor will be by any particular exceptions. But the obſervation of truth depending upon, and conſtantly following human teſtimony, is by no means univerſal and unin- terrupted. And therefore it does not amount to a full proof, that it either has or will follow in any particular inſtance. f Locke's Effay on Human Underſtanding, book iv. chap xvi. ſect. 13. And 35² A View of tbe DEzis TI-AL. Writers. Let. 20. And therefore the proof ariſing from any human teſtimony, can never equal the proof that is deduced againſt a miracle from the very nature of the fact. This he takes to be a full and fair ſtate of Mr. Hume's rea- ſoning: and it appears to me to be ſo. And he ſays,“ The „ anfwer is plain. If by human teſtimony he would mean of any «one ſingle man indifferently taken, then his ſecond propoſition α᷑ would be true; but then the concluſion would by no means «« follow from it. But if by human teſtimony he would under- « ſtand the evidence of any collection of men, then the ſecond * propoſition is falſe, and conſequentiy the concluſion is ſo 6 100. This anſwer relateth only to the ſecond propoſition 8. But it might have been ſaid, that ions are to be depended upon, and that they are utterly inſufficient to ſup- port the concluſion he would draw from them. For as to the firſt propoſition, it aſſumes the very point in queſtion. It affirms that no events have ever happened contrary to the courſe of nature; and that this we know by a long, univerſal, and un- interrupted experience. If this be meant univerſal and uninter- rupted experience of all mankind in all ages, which alone can be of any force in the preſent argument, how doth it appear that we know by univerſal and uninterrupted experience, that no ſuch events have ever happened? Are there not ſeveral events of this kind recorded by credible teſtimonies to have hap- pened? The whole argument then is upon a wrong founda- tion. It proceedeth upon an univerſal and uninterrupted expe- rience, not broken in upon in any inſtance. And there is good teſtimony to prove that it hath been broken in upon in ſeveral inſtances. And if it hath been broken in upon in any inſtances, no argument can be brought from experience to prove that it hath not, or may not be broken in upon; and ſo the whole reaſoning falls. If it be alleged, that theſe teſtimonies, or indeed any teſtimonies at all, ought not to be admitted in this neither of the propoſi 1 Ctly s Though the ingenious gentleman hath not directly and formally anſwered the firſt propoſition, yet he has plainly ſnewn that he doth ery ſame objection Mr. eſtimony to weaken d⸗ ods re brought 3 caſe 1S, , O A do——.— —— e Let. 20. Mr. HuMI. 353 caſe; the queſtion returns. For what reaſon ought they not according to 6 to be admitted? It the reaſôn be, as it muſt be Mr. Hume, becauſe there is an univerſal uninterrupted experi- this is to take it for granted, that no ſuch 80 ence againlt them, events have ever happened. Var if there have been any inſtances of ſuch events, the experience is not univerſal and uninterrupted. So then we ſee what the boaſted argument againſt miracles from uniform experience comes to. It in eflect comes to this, that no ſuch events have ever happened, becauſe no ſuch events have ever happened. As to the ſecond propo ſition, t te ſtimony ĩ in general, it 8 ill be ea be abſolutely and univerſally dep already hinted, it may in part daulac uſtance 8 ſtanced as to yield a ſatistying aſſurance, or what may no properly be called a full proof. Even the teſtimony of a pern. cular perſon may in ſome caſes be ſo circumſtanced, as to leave no room for reaſonable ſuſpicion or doubt. But cl ſpec ally it we 19 peak of what this gentleman calls a colleclion&f ſome caſes be ſo ſtrong, as to produce a viction⸗ However improbable the appear to be. And therefore if we relating to par ticular events of are not immediately to be ing contrary to paſt experie the evidence brought for to malee it reaſonable kor evidence Pro ught for the mi pe are of kind hath beer th vina if we ſpeak of human aily allowed, that it is not to end led upon; yet, as hath been es be ſo circum- t im- ◻η 2. urire 3 d Intire con- ght otherwiſe luch a kind as em. And that he G 8 srerorded in the The only N ſardher reflection I lhall m — 7—, 10 A₰ paper is, that it contains good cerning our determined in r bilities.— That in all of moment, where to act or W Hear may be attended with con zdern able da 6. no wiſe man makes the leaſt ſcruple s may be of advan- tage to him,— matters of the utmoſt conſequence, himſelf obli take notice of the will act according g This he: applies to the pra gion, and obſerves, that conſidering the vaſt importance of every reſj 1 rue, Were there nothl. were doubtful. But in a prudent man will think loweſt probability, and 2 M Ctice of reli- V2 r. relig gn to our happineſs in that it mig would er VoIT · VOL. I 4 3 — 1 lance: OI Slle 354 A View of ibe DEis TIcAL Writers. Let. 20. fuppoſed to act differently in this reſpect to what he generally does in all the other concerns of his life. This obſervation is not intirely new, but it is handſomely il- luſtrated by this gentleman, and ſeems very proper to ſhew, that thoſe who neglect and deſpiſe religion, do in this, notwith- ſtanding their boaſted pretences, act contrary to the plain dic- tates of reaſon and good ſenſe. But we need not have recourſe to this ſuppoſition. The evidence on the ſide of religion is vaſtiy ſuperior. And if this be the caſe, no words can ſuffici- ently expreſs the folly and unreaſonableneſs of their conduét, who take up with flight prejudices and preſumptions in oppo- fition to it; and by chooſing darkneſs rather than light, and rejecting the greas ſalvation offered in the Goſpel, run the ut- molt hazard of expoſing themſelves to a heavy condemnation and puniſhment. Thus J have taken the liberty you allowed me of giving my thoughts upon the paper you ſent me. I cannot but look upon the young gentleman's attempt to be a laudable and ingenious one, though there are ſome things in his way of managing the argument, which ſeem not to have been thoroughly conſidered, and which, I am ſatisfied, he would have altered, if he had lived to take an accurate review of the ſubject. This, with a few additions ſince made to it, is the ſubſtance of the anſwer I returned to the worthy gentleman who had wrote to me, and which I have here inſerted, becauſe there are ſome things in it that may tend to the farther illuſtration of what I had offered in my remarks on Mr. Hume's Eſay on Mi- racles. My next will contain ſome additional obſervations re- lating to the Abbé de Paris, and the miracles attributed to him; together with reflections on ſome paſſages in Mr. Hamæe's Enquiry concerning the Princihles f Morals, which ſeem to be intended to expoſe Chriſtianity. LE T. Let. 21. Mr. H uUM E. 355 N LETITTE R XXI. Some reflections on tbe extraordinary ſantlity aſcribed to the Abbe de Paris. He carried ſuperſtition to a ſtrange ewceſs, and by hbis extraordinary auſterities voluntarih Baſtened his ouon deatb. His charatter and courſe of life of a diſferent æind from that rational and ſolid piety and virtue wbich is recommended in the goſpel. Obſer- vations on ſome paſſages in Mr. Hume's Enquiry con- cerning the Principſes of Morals. He reckons ſelf- denial, mortification, and humility among the Monkiſb virtues, and repreſents lbem as not only uſeleſs, but as baving a bad influence on tbe temper and conduct. Tâ½ nature of ſelf denial explained, and its great uſefulneſs and excelency ſpecon. W bat is to be underſtood by tbe mortification required in the Goſpel. Ihis alſo is a rea- ſonable and neceſſary part of our duty. Virtue, accord- ing to Mr. Hume, hath notbing to do witb ſuſferancé. But hy tbe acknowlegement of tbe wiſeſt moraliſts one important office of it is to ſupport and bear us up under adverſity. The nature of bumility explained. It is an excellent and amiable virlue. F 2*, H E miracles of the Abbé de Paris have made ſo great a noiſe in the world, and ſo muc taken of them by the enemies of Chr by Mr. Hume, that I-thought it ne pretty largely above in the nir have occured ſince, which have and vwhich I ſhall here take no of. In that Letter, p. 321. mention is made he people had conceive Abb th as what tended very much to raiſet Some things ne relation to that matter 2 h A d ot the Abbe 35⁵ A View of tbe DEisrrcA. Writers. Let. 2 1- to be wrought at his tomb, and by his interceſſion. If we in- quire whence this opinion of his extroradinary ſanctity aroſe, and upon what it was founded, we fhall find it to have been principally owing to the exceſſive auſterities in which he exer- ciſed himfelf for Ieveral years, of which therefore, and of ſome remarkable things in his life and character, it may not be im- proper to give ſome account. The particulars I fhall mention are ſet forth at large by the learned Mr. Maoſbeim in a diſſerta- tion on the miracles of the Abbé de Paris, and which I did not meet with till after the publication of the ſecond volume of the Vieu" of the Deiſtical Writers. It is intitled, Inguiſitio in verita- tem miraculorum Franciſci de Paris ſæculi noſtri thaumaturgi a. What he there tells us concerning Monſ. de Paris is faithfully taken from thoſe who hold him in the higheſt admiration, the Janſeniſtical writers. And from their accounts it ſufficiently appears, that his whole life, and eſpecially the latter part of it, was one continued ſcene of the moſt abſurd ſuperſtition, and which he carried to an exceſs that may be thought to border upon madneſs. He was the eldeſt ſon of an ancient, rich, and honourable family, and therefore born to an opulent fortune: though his father, when he ſaw his turn of mind, very prudently left him but a part of it, and that in the hands, and under the care of his younger brother. But though he ſtill had an ample pro- viſion made for him, he voluntarily deprived himſelf of all the conveniencies, and even the neceſſaries of life. He choſe one obſcure hole or cottage after another to live in, and often mixed with beggars, whom he reſembled ſo much in his cuſtoms, ſor- did and tattered garb, and whole manner of his life, that he was ſometimes taken for one, and was never better pleaſed, than when this expoſed him in the ſtreets and ways to deriſion and contempt. Poverty was what he ſo much affected, that though he applied to his brother for what his father had left him, yet that he might not have the appearance of being rich, he choſe not to take it as what was legally due to him, but to ſupplicate for it in the humbleſt terms, as for an alms freely be- ſtowed upon a miſerable object that had nothing of his own. And yet after wards in bis laſt will, he diſpoſed of it as his own to various uſes as he thought fit, eſpecially for the benefit of who had been ſufferers for the Janſenit cauſe. For ſeve- he laſt ycars of his life he ſeemed to make it his buſineſs a Vide ſo. Laur. Moſhemii Diſſertationum ad Hiſtoriam Eccle- ſtaſticam pertinentium Volumen ſecundum. 1 to Let. 21. Mr. H uM E. 357 to contrive ways to weaken, or harrals, and torment his body, and thereby haſten his own death. Whilſt he gave away his in- come to the poor, he himſelf voluntarily endured all the evils and hardſhips which attended the extremity of want and poverty-. Mean and wretched was his garb, black bread, water and herbs, but without oil, ſalt, or vinegar, or any thing to give them ſavour, was his only fuſtenance, and that but once a day. He lay upon the ground, and was worn aWay with continual watching. After his death were found his hair-ſhirt, an iron croſs, a girdle, ſtomacher, and bracelets of the ſame metal, all beſtuck with ſharp points. Theſe were the inſtruments of pe- nitence, with which he was wont to chaſtiſe himſelf, the plain marks of which he bore in his body. By ſuch a courſe he brought himſelf not only into great weakneſs of body, but int diſorders of mind: And this, which was the natural effect of his manner of living, he attributed to the influence of the devil, whom God had in juſt judgment permitted to puniſh him for his ſins. And in inquiring into the cauſes of the divine diſ- pleaſure, he fixed upon this, that he had ſtill too great a love for human learning and knowlege, and therefore from thence- forth did all he could to diveſt himſelf of it, and would have ſold his well furniſhed library, if he had not been prevented by ſome of his friends, whoſe intereſt it was to preſerve it. For two years together he refuſed to come to the holy fupper, under pretence that it was not lawful for him to come, God having required him to abſtain from it: And it was with great difficulty that he was brought to it at laſt, by the threatenings and even reproaches of his confeſſor. Finally, that no kind of miſery might be wanting to him, he choſe for his companion to dwell with him in his cottage, a man that was looked upon to be crazy, and who treated him in the moſt injurious manner. He did all he could to hide himielf from his friends in one ſorry cottage after another, and about a month before his death fixed himſelf in a little lodge in the corner of a garden, expoſed to the 8 ſupport under it, a phyſician was called in, who only deſired him to remove to a more commodious habitation, to allow him- ſelf more ſleep, and a better diet, and eſpecially to take nouriſh- ing broths for reſtoring his enfeebled conſtitution. But all the 4 lician, confeſſor, and of his friends, and fuaſions of his ph the tears of an only brother, could not prevail with him to follow an advice ſo reafonable and practicable; though he was A a 3 aſſured 4- 358 A View of ibe DEIsTIcAL Writers. Let. 217 aſſured that if he uſed that method there was great hope of his recovery, and that his life could pot be preſerved without it. And when at laſt to ſatisfy their importunity, he ſeemed ſo far to comply, as to be willing to take ſome broth, it was only an appearance of complying, for he took care to give ſuch orders to the perſon who was to prepare it for him, that it really yielded little or no nouriſument. Thus it was manifeſt, that he had determined to haſten, as much as in him lay, his own death. And accordingly he told his confeſſor, that this life had nothing in it to make it worth a Chriſtian's care to preſerve it. His friends acknowlege that his death was the effect“ of the «almoſt incredible auſterities that he exerciſed during the laſt four years of his life.“ His great admirer the Abbée d Agfeld teſtifies, that he heard him declare it was purpoſe to Ield himſelf a ſlow ſacrifice to divine juſtice. And this his extraor- dinary courſe of auſterities, together with the zeal he expreſſed to the very laſt for the Janſeniſt cauſe, which he ſhewed alſo by the diſ Pot oh he made in his will, as well as by his ap. pealing, as with his dying breath, to a future general council againſt the conſtitution Vnigenitus, procured him ſo extraor- dinary a reputation, that he has paſſed for one of the greateſt ſaints that ever appeared in the Chriſtian church. No ſooner was he dead, but an innumer multitude of people ran to his corpſe, ſome of whom kiſſed his feet, others cut off part of his hair as a remedy againft all manner of evil; others brougl ht books or bits of cloth to touch his body, as believing it üill ed with a divine virtue. Thns were they prepared to believe and expect the moſt wonderful things. Whoſoever wyartall confices the ſeveral things that have been mentioned, and which are amply verified in the places re- ferred to in the margina; will not think the learned Moſbeim in the wrong, when he pronounceth that it cannot in conſiſt- ency w ith reaſon be ſupp⸗ bſed, that God ſhould extraordinarily interpo Sſe by his own divine Power, to do honour to the bones and aſhes of a man M and ſuperſtitious to a degree of folly, gly and wilfully acceſſory to his own death. In vain do his admirers, as he himſelf had done, extol hi him kfelf as an offering up himſelf a volun- e juſtice. 14⸗ man ſhould under the ſame nimſelt at once with a piſto or poꝛ niard, would a proper juſtification of his conduct? And the e pretence mi P 1 G 17LA vAe 7 II and who was knowin ſee not W dn ght not as well hold in the one 1 ₰ See Moſheim, ut ſupra, Let. 21. Mr. H u M E. 359 caſe as in the other; ſince it makes no great difference, whether the death was ſwifter or ſlower, die ided it was brought on with a deliberate intention and deſign. How different is chis from the beautiful and noble idea of piety and virtue which the Goſpel furn iſheth us with, and from the perfo& pattern of moral excellence which is ſet us by our bleſſed Saviour himſelf in his own holy life and practi ce! That the great apoſtle St. Pe zul was far from encouraging ſuch auſte- rities as tended to hurt and deſtroy the bodily he⸗ alth, ſuffici- ently appeareth from the advice he gavè to Timot hy, D/zn 25 longe, r water, but ufe a little wine, for thy fiomach's ſae, and thine 2ten infirmities. 1 Tim 23.⸗ He condemneth thoſe that, under preten ce of extraordinary purity, were for obſerving the ordinances and traditions of men, Touch not, 42he not, handle not; and brands the r practice under the name of will- vvorſbiß, a voluntary humili might be re hparing the body, Col. 1i. 20, 2 1, 22, 23. l hat Wuuih: in the caſe of Abbé de Paris is cried up by nis s admirers as a carrying of religi tothe higheſt degree of per- fection, D. h is abſtaining from fleſh and confining himſelf to hefbs, 18 1 repreſented! by the apoſtle Paul as a ſign of weakneſs in the faith. Rom. Xiv. 2. It hath always Apprafen to me to be the glory of the Chriſtian re, ibed in the New Teſtament, that the piety it teac heth us is! Lond and rational, remote from all ſuper- ſtitious extremes, worthy of a Go4 ofk infinite wiſdom and goodneſs to require, and becoming sthe true dignity of the reaſonable nature. It col nrehene not roaly immediate acts of devotion towards God, but a dil igen mance of all relative duties, and the faithful diſche arg he various offices incumbent upon us in the civil and ſocial life. It requireth us indeed to bear with a noble fortitude the great teſt evils, when wée are regularly called to ſuffer for the car ufe of Ge dd, dut not raſhly to& poſe ourſelves to thoſé evils, or to bring them upon igi Phe and beneficent author of nature hath ſtored the whole eui about us with a variety of benefits: And can it be thought to be agreeable to his will, tha iaſtead of taſting his goodneſs in the b. eſſings he vouchlate th us, we ſnould make a merit of never allowing oũrſelves to enjoy them? How much more rational is it to receive thoſe bleſſings with thank- fulneſs, and enjoy them with temperance, according to that of St. Paus Fvery creature of God is good, and nothing to be re- Fuſed, ij it be received with thanhſgiving: For it is anci A 4 4 360 A Viecy of tbe DrisTIcAL Writers. Let. 2 †2 the word f God ancdl Brayer. 1 Tim. iv. 4, 5. Can it be plealſ- ing to our merciful heavenly Father, that we ſoul Id not mer ely humble and chaſten ourſelves on ſpe our conſtant buſineſs to tor ment our ſel deſtroy the bodies he hath gi- ſelvés for the proper offi Is it reafonable to imagine, that under the mild diſpen ſation of the Goſpel, which breathes an ingenuous chearfulf but make it and to impair and en us, and thereby unlit our- pirit, and raiſeth us to the noble liberty of the cl n of God, the beſt way of recomme ndingo our- ſelves to his favour fhould be to deny ourſelves all the com- forts he affordeth us, and to paſs our Uran in perpetual ladneſs and ahltinence? Cou ld it be ſaid in that caſe, that Godllngſr 15 5. 2 htast, unto all things, having Bromiſe I the ſije that nou is, and of tbat wuhich is to come 5 1 Tim. iv. 8. It' is true, that mortification and ſelf-denial are important Goſpel duties, but how different from the extremes of ſupe ſtitious rigour, will appear, when J come to vindicate thee vangelical morality againſt the objections of Mr. Hume. It was not indeed till Chriſtians began to degenerate from that lovely form of rational, ſolid piety and virtue, of which Chrit exhibited the molt Perfect example, that they laid ſo mighty a ſtreſs on thoſe ſe- vere and rigorous ich ne cith zer our Saviour nor his apoſtles had com in thi s reſpect ſome of thoſe who were antiently deemned heretical ſects carried it to a greater degtee 0f f ſt han the And many ad particularly ſome „ Who in ſevere pe- Drmenis in flicte d „ and ri evc iled ated with his on to throw which he uſually reprefents erſtition or enthuſiaſm. Even d his cenſure, though nave forced nnenlagemenns ſtrongly prejudiced againſt able, that he often takes n his Enquiry concerning ves particular notice. In ne aſſumes the merit 1 — ing thing 3 Pefter g ng thin, a better li h Let. 21. Mr. H uM F. 361 than any man had done before him; and wonders that a theory ſo ſimple and obvious as that which he hath advanced, cull have eſcaped the moſt elaborate ſeruee and æxamination b. 1 will not deny that there are in that Enguiry ſome good and curious obſervati but I can ſee little that can be properly called new in his theory of morals, except his extending the notion of virtue(and it is conçerning the principles of morals, and therefore concerning moral virtue that his Enquiry proceeds) ſo as to comprehend under it every agreeable quality and ac- complit hment, ſuch h as wil, ingenuity, eloquence, quickneſs ꝗf con Kuiß tion, JFa ility of ex brelno on, delicacy of taſte in the finer arts, Polite, c, vnue aeſs, and even force 50y 4, J cannot ſee vbat valuable end it can anſwer in a treatiſe of morals to extend the notion of virtue ſo far. It is of high importance to mankind rightly to diſtinguiſſ things that are morally good and excellent from thoſe which are not ſo; and therefore great Id be tal that both our ideas of theſe things, and g m, ſhould be kepr diſtincét. nd what Wé call natural parts, as well as ac- and even ſtrengrh 0f quired body, are no direction, and nornamental and uſe- ful, and are ther 3. but as far as we are able, to be culti d and This will be eaſily ac- Knowleged: and if this be all Mr. Humae intends, it is far from b Enquiry concer ning the Principles of Morals, p. 172 c It has been hinted to me by a worthy friend, that ſome have thought I did wrong in not allowing Hanteich to be ranked among the moral virtues. And therefore to prevent miſtakes, 1 now obſerve, that if by polite neſs be meant a kind, obliging beha- viour, expreffive of humanity and benevolence, and fowing from it, it may be jaſtly reckoned among the virtues; and in this fenſe a plain countryman, who is gocd-natured and ob! iging in his deport- ment to the utmoſt of his power, may be ſaid to be truly a polite man. But this ſeems not to be the uſual acceptation of the word in our language. By politeneſs is cCommonly underſtood a being well ver rſed in the forms of what is uſually called gooq-Hreeding, and a genteel behaviour. And taken 5 that ſenſe, however agreeable and ornamental it may be, I apprehend it is not properly a moral virtue; nor is the want of it a 15 And I believe it will ſcarce be denied, that a man may be really a good and worthy perſon, and Yet not be what the world calls a polite well-bred man. a See the ôth. 7th, And 8th Sections of the Enquiry concerning the Principles of Moralè, particu larly F. 127, 128. 131. 135. 137. 102. 103. being 35 A View of tbe DEISTicAL Writers. Let. 21. ₰ being a new diſcovery. But theſe things make properly no part of moral virtue; nor can a man be ſaid to be good and virtuous on che account of his being poſſeſſed of theſe quali- ties. He may have wit, eloquence, a 0 lite behaviour, a fine taſte in arts, great bodily ſtrength and reſolution, and yet be really a bad man. And when theſe things are ſeparated from good diſpoſitions of the heart, from probity, henevolenkte, fidelity, integrity, gra atitude, inſtead of rendering a man uſeful to the community, t they qualify him for doing a great deal of miſchief. Theſe qualities therefore fhould be carefully diſtin- guiſhed from thoſe which conſtitute a good moral character, and which ought to be princi hallh recommended to the eſteem and approbation of mæ ankind, as having in themſelves a real invariable- worth and excellence, and as deriving a merit and value to every other quality. Nor is it proper in a treatiſe of morals, which pretends to any degree of accuracy, to con- found them altogether under one common appellation of virtue. And as Mr. Hume enlargeth his notion of virtue, ſo as to rake in ſeveral things that do not ſeem properly to belong to the moral diſpoſitions and qualities, ſo he excludeth from that characéter ſome things wb jdich are recommended in the goſpel as ol poruge to the moral temper and conduct, particularly humiſity and ſelf-deni 1. He obſerves, that“ Celibacy, faſting, penance, mortification, ſelf-denial, humility, ſolitude, and 5 e train of Mo akiſh Lin aeef are ecvery-tvherc reject- ₰—2 5 6 15 of ſenſe, bec they ſerve no manner of pur- 54 They neither advance a man's fortune in the world, 35 him a more valuable member of ſociety, neither « qualify him for the entertainment of company, nor increaſe ² his power of ſelf-enjoyment.—On the contrary, they croſs * all theſe deſirable ends, ſtupify the underſtanding, harden et the heart, obſcure the faney, and ſour the temper e.“ Our author ĩ is her re pleaſed to claſs humility, neniaueeriee, and ſeolf- nial, which are evidently required in the Goſpel, with Be- celibacy, and what he calls the Monkiſh virtues: and nceth concerning all alike that they are rejected by all ꝛen of enſ, 3 und not only ſerve no manner of purpoſe, but inſluence in ſtupifyi ing the underſtanding, harden- ing the heart, and ſouring the temper. This is no doubt de- fenec Ito caſt a ſlur upon the Goſpel ſcheme of mor ality. And on the other hand hée cries up his own theory of morals, as 8 e Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals, p. 174 reprs- Let. 21. Mr. HuM k. 363 repreſenting Vir tue in all her engaging charms. That““ nothing ¹* appears dut gentleneſs, ummmi, beneficence, affabiliry, c nay even at Proper intervals, play, frolic, and gaiety. She «« talks not of uſeleſs auſterities and rigours, ſufferance and ſelf-denial,&c. f.“ A ſcheme of morals which includeth play, frolic, and gaiety, and has nothing to do with ſelf-denial, mortification, and ſ erance, will no doubt b be very agreeable to many in this gay and frolicſome age. But let us examine more diſtinetly what ground there is for our author's cenſures, far as the Chriſtian morals are concerned. To begin with that which he ſeemeth to have a particular averſion to, ſo³-. denial. This is Lunainlw e what our Saviour expreſly requireth of thoſe who would approve themſel He inſiſteth upon it as an eſſential con ditiu dlefhip, that they ſhould deny themſelves. Matt. lii And if we do not ſuffer ourſelves to be e ſound of words, but conſider what is is one of the moſt uſeful l of mo- ut and virtu- ſelf-denial is the reſtraining and governing our 3 appetites and va lons. and keep- ing them within pi Oper bour + y, y ing ous character. One thing intended in th ,and in a due ſubjection to the higher powers of re md conſcience. And this is ce rtainly an importan rt of ſelf-government an 74 diſcipline, and is un- doubtedly a noble attainment, and which argueth a true great- neſs of ſoul. An d ho owever difficunr or diſagreeable it may at firſt be to the ani imal part 99 our natures, it is really neceſſary to ou, and laye beſt found dation for a ſolid tranqui lity and ſatisfæction an mind. Again, if we take ſelf- denial for a readineſs to deny our private intereſt and advantage IT th th ppin 8 for valuable and excellent ends, for! the honor ur of God, or the public good, for promoting the hapyin s own eternal lreban and for 1 and righteouſneſs in the world; more noble a and praiſe-worthy. And ind that an inordinate ſelfifhneſs, and add 4 flefhly intereſt, and the gratißeation of the carnal appetites and hüliou is the ſource of the chief diſorders of human life, will be apt to look upon ſelf-denial to be of great con- fequence in morals. Without ſome de thing truly great, attained. He that cannot bear to deny hiuſelf upon n proper oöothers, or our 1 ſelf-denia 4, n0⸗ . occaſions, 3654 A View of the DEisT IcAI Writers. Let. 21. occaſions, will never be of any great uſe either to himſelf or to others, nor can m mabe any p Srogreſ- in mem moſt virtuous and excellent endowments, or even in agreeable qualities, and true politeneſs. This writer himſelf, ſealang of the love Thap which he tells us rules in all generous minds, obſerves, that as this prevaileth, the animal c encies fink gracnaly in their value 8. And elſewhere in the perſon of the Stoic philoſopher, he faith, that“ we muſt often make ſuch important ſacrifices, * as thoſe of life and fortune to virtue.“ And that the man ** of virtue looks down with contempt on a ll the allurements *⁵ of pleaſure, and all the menaces of danger— Toils„dangers, ¹« and death itſelf carry their charms, when we brave them for ** the publick good h.“ And even after having told us, that Virtue talks not of ſufferance and ſelf-denial, he adds, that **⁴ Virtue never willingly parts with any pleaſure, but in ihope ** of ample compenſation i in ſome other period of their Iives. The fole trouble ſhe demands is of a juſt calculation, and *¹o a ſteady preference of the greater napj pineſs i.“ Here he allows that Virtue may reaſonabſy part with preſent pleaſure in hope of an ample compenſation in 3 other period of our ves, when upon a juſt calculation it contributes to our greater happineſs. But then he ſeems to cc the hope of the com- penſalion which Virtue is to look for to ſome future period of this preſent life, which conſidering the ſhortneſs and uncertainty of it is little to be de epended on, and may perhaps be thought not a fufficient foundation for a man's denying himſelf preſent Pleatores and advantages But the Goſpel propoſeth a much Pnor6 noble and powerful conſideration; viz. the ſecuring a future everlaſting h appineſs; and ſuppoſing the certainty of h we have the fulleſt a aſſurance g given us, nothing ble to all ihe rules of reaſon and juſt calcu- preſent pleaſure, or to undergo pre- 2 L this, of whic can be more ag lation, tha ſent hardſhips debt ain it What hath been offered with regard to the impor tant e of ſelf-denial may help us to form a juſt notion of mortihica- ion, which is nearly connected with it ich our author alf o findeth great fault wi f thing intended by it our vicious and irre- ej requĩred of V Uty 4 0◻ 2 9 the ſubduing our fleſhly apy eular inclinations and deſires. ‚that we mortify the decds of tbe boch, Rom. vii. 13. thar 8 89 5 2 Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals, p. 188. 5 See the 19th of his moral and political Eiays, p. 213. Enquiry Concgeräng te e P Iinciles0 † Morals, p. 188. Let. 21. Mr. Hu M T. 365 we mortify our members that are on the earth, fornication, un- cleanneſs, inordinate aſfection, evil concupiſcence, and covéetouſ- 2u, ahich is idolatry, Col. ii. 5. And that we crucify he floſb with the alectio ns and luſis, Gal. v. 24. Mortification taken in this view is a noble act of virtue, and abſolutely neceſ- ſary to maintain the dominion of the ſpirit over the fleſh, the ſuperiority of reaſon over the inferior appet tities. Where theſe prevail, they tend to fupify the underſtanding, and harden the heart, and hinder a man from being a valuable member& ſo- ciety, which is what Mr. Hume moſt unjuſtly chargeth upon that mortification and ſelf-denial which is required in the Goſpel. Mortification is properly oppoſed to that indulging and Pampering the fleſh, which tendeth to nouriſh and ſtrengthen thoſe appetites and lut ts, which it is the part of a wiſe and virtuous man to correct and ſubdue. Even faſting upon proper ſeaſons and occaſions, however ridiculed by Mr. Hume and others, may anſwer a very valuable end, and make a uſeful part of ſelf-diſcipline. It may tend both to the health of the body, and to keep the mind more clean and vigorous, as well as, when anied with yer, promote a true ſpirit of devotion. But in this, as in ev thing elſe, the Chriſtian reli- gion, conſidered in its origina ty as laid down in the New Teſtame ent, wiſe moderation, and is far from carrying things to extremes, as ſuperſtition hath often iſt upon exceſſive, or what teri And ſo far is and 5 hich 15 done. Ir doth not any-vyh ere our author calls uſeleſs rig that mortific on which h the Golpel ₰ 2 and in a Aüe Lubjes Cion to the 1e, 06 35 mind, Ti duide inconſiſtent with the true pleaſure and ſatisfaction of life, that it layeth the moſt ſoli 4f foundation for it. Mr. Hume himſelf takes notice of the fiu cpreme joy which is to be found in the s victories over vice, when men are taught to govern their *⁸ pafſions, to reform their vices, and fubdue their worſt eir own boſoms k.“ fault with ſelf-denial and mortification, but witl N rtue, according to his repreſentation of it, enue and féolf-denial. And yet certain it is that amon u Len moraliſts of all ages Q œwenemies, which inhabit within t Not only does this an fi it has been accounted one c principal offices of virtue to ſupport us with a ſtead e under all the evils that — 3 3 befal us in this preſent ſtate, and enable us patiently and Moral and political Eſl P. 213 even 366 A View of zhe DEisTIeAL Writers. Let. 2 1. even chearfully to bear them. A virtue that cannot ſuffer ad- verſity, nor bear us up under it wich dignity, and in a proper manner, is of little value in a world where we are expoſed to ſuch a variety of troubles and ſorrows. And in this the Goſpel morality is infinitely ſuperior to that of the moſt ad- mired Pagan philoſophers. Mr. Hume has reckoned among virtues“an undiſturbed philoſophical tranquility, ſuperior to ““ pain, ſorrow, anxiety, and each aſſault of adverſe fortune 1.“ But what is this philoſophic tranquility, ſo much boaſted of, relying only upon itſelf, compared with that which ariſeth from the conſolations ſet before us in the Goſpel, from the aſſurances of divine affiltances and ſupports, from the love of God and ſenſe of his favour, from the lively animating hopes of glory, and the eternal rewards which ſhall crown our patience, and perſevering continuance in well-doing? The laſt thing I ſhall take notice of, as repreſented under a diſadvantageous character by Mr. Hume, though highly com- mended and inſiſted on by our Saviour, is Humility. And this rightly underſtood is one of the moſt amiable virtues, and greateſt ornaments of the human nature. Our author is pleaſed to talk of a certain degree ęf Bride and felf-valuation, the want of which a vice, and the oppoſite to which is mean- neſi m. But to call a proper generoſity of mind, which is above a mean or baſe thing, Hride, is an abuſe of words, which ought not to be admitted, if we would ſpeak with exactneſs, in an enquiry concerning morals. It is to give the name of an odious vice to a very worthy diſpoſition of ſoul. The Goſpel- humility is a very different thing from meanneſs. It is very conſiſtent with fuch a juſt ſelf-valuation, as raiſeth us above every thing falſe, mean, baſe, and impure, and keepeth us from doing any thing unbecoming the dignity of the reaſonable na- ture, and the glorious character ard privileges we are inveſted with as Chriſtians. True humility doth not abſolutely exclude all ſenſe of our own good qualities and attainments; but it tempers the ſenſe we have of them with a juſt conviction of our abſolute dependance upon God for every good thing we are poſſeſſed of, and of our manifold ſins, infirmities, and defects. It is oppoſed to a vain- glorious boaſting and ſelf·ſufficiency, and to ſfuch a high conceit of our abilities and merits, as puffeth us up with a preſumptuous confidence in ourſelves, and con- tempt of others, and which is indeed one of the greateſt hin- 1 Enquiry concerning the Principles of N m Ibid. p. 146, 147. 5 1 drances Let. 21. Mr. H UME. 367 ſ 1 drances to our progreſs in the moſt excellent and worthy attain- ments. It manifeſteth itſelf towards God, by an entire unre- ſerved ſubjection and reſignation to his authority and will, by proper acknow. legements of our owm unworthineſs before him, and a ſenſe of our continual dependance upon him, and conſtant need of his gracious aſſiſtance. And it expreſſeth itſelf towards men, by caufing us to yield a due ſubmiſſion to our ſuperiors, and to be affable and Hiielecalde to our inferiors, courte- ous and obliging towards our equals, in honour preferring one another, as St. Paul ex reſſeth it, and ready to bear with each other's weakneſſes and infirmities. Iu a word, it diffuſeth its kindly inftuence through the whole of our deportment, and all the offices of life. Nothing is ſo hateful as pride e and arro- gance. And true humility is ſo amial ble, ſo engaging, ſo neceſ- ſary to render a pe erſon agreeable, that no man can hope to pleaſe, who hath not at leaſt the appearance of it. Our author himſelf obſerves, that“among well-bred people, a mutual de- „« ference is affeCted, contempt of others diſguiſed n.“. And that“ as we 6 naturally proud and ſe ffiſh, and apt to “aſſume the preference above others, a po'ite man is taught « to behave with deference towards thofe he converſes with, „c and to yield the ſu Periotity to them in all che common oc- «currences of ſociety o.“ So that according to him a ſhew of humility, and preferring others to ouſelves, is a neceſſary part of good behaviour; and yet he is pleaſed to reckon humility among thoſe things that neither render a man a more valuable mem- ber of ſociety, nor qualify him for the entertainment of com- pany, but on the contrary croſs thoſe deſirable purpoſes, and harden the heart, and ſour the temper. But enough of Mr. Hume; who, if we may indge of him by his writings, will ſcarce be charged with the fault of having carried humiiity to an exceſs. A pity it is that he hath not made a better uſe of his abilities and talents, which might have laid a juſt foundation for acqulring the praiſe he ſeems ſo 1 fond of, as well as rendered him really uſeful to the world, if he had been as induſtrious to employ them in ſerving and promoting the excellent cauſe of resigion, as he hath unhappily been in endeavouring to weaken anc d expoſe it. n Enquiry e e Princi ples of Morals, p. 161, 162. * Moral 3 1ff p. 184, 185. 368 A⅔ View of the DEisT IAꝝ̃ Wrilers. Let. 2 t2 POSISGCRI P. FTER great part of this Work was finiſhed, and ſent to 4 X¾ the preſs, I met with a book which I have read with great pleaſure, intitled, The Criterion; or Miractes examined, wWith a vieus to exeoſe the pretenſions of Pagans and Pabiſts; to compare the miraculous Hocuenn recorded in tbe New Teſta- ment, with thoſe faid to fubſiſt in latter times, and to ſbew the great and material diſference between them in Boint&f evi- dence: from uhence it will apbear, that the former mußt be true, and the latter may be falſe. The ſubject is evidently both curious and important, and is treated by the author, who, I hear, is the Rev. Mr. Douglo+, in a judicious and maſterly way. It was publiſhed at London in 1754, and therefore before the Pubal ication of the ſecond volume of the Viewf the Deißti- cal Writers. And if Ihad then ſeen it, I ſhould certainly have thought myſelf obliged to take particular notice of it. The worthy author has made judicious obſervations upon Mr. Hume's Siſa) on Miracles, eſpecially that part of it which relateth to the miracles aſcribed to the Abbé de Paris, which he has in- ſiſted on for an hundred pages together. And it is no fmall ſatisfaction to me, that there is a perfeét harmony between what this learned author has wrote on this fubject, and what I have pub bliſmed in the preceding part of this work, though neither of us knew of the other's work. He ſhews, as I have endeavoured to do, that fraud and impoſture were plainly de- tected in ſeveral inſtances: and that where the facts were true, natural cauſes ſufficient to produce the efftect may be aſſigned, without ſuppoſing any thing miraculous in the caſe. This he has particularly thewn, wich regard to each of the miracles inſiſted on by Mr. de? W ontgeron, which he acoounts for much in the ſame wa ay! that Mr. des Voeux hath more la rgely done, houan. he had not ſeen ſa gentleman's valuable writings, to which I bhave frequently referred for a fuller account of Sthoſe things w which ch 1 could do little more than hint at. The reader will kind lin Mr. Douglaſs s work a full proof of the wonderful imagination, and the mighty influence that ſtrong 3 made upon the mind, and vehement paſſions raiſed zy have in produeing ſurpriſing changes on the body, ticularly in removing diſeaſes: of which he hath pro- reſted inſtances, no leſs extraordinary than thoſe Let. 21. Mr. H u M V. 369 thoſe attributed to the Abbé de Paris, and which yet cannot reaſonably be pretended to be properly miraculous. As I have thought myſelf obliged to take notice of that part of this gentleman' s book, which hath ſo near a connection with the work in which I have been engaged; ſo it is but juſt to ob- ſerve, that it is allo, with regard to every other part of it, a learned and accurate performance. What he propoſes to ſhew is, that the evidence for the Goſ- pel facts is as extraordinary 6* the facts themfelves; and that no juſt ſuſpicion of fraud or falſnood appeareth in the accounts; while Evury thing is the vve with regard to the evidence brought for the Pagan or Popiſh miracles. HE obſerve s, That the ex Viraordinaoy facts aſcribed to a mira- culous i inter pol üiti on among the Pagans of old, or the Chriſtians of latter times, are all reducible to theſe two claſſes. The ac- counts are either ſuch as, from the circumſtances thereof, ap- pear to be falſe; or, the facts are ſuch as, by the nature there- of, they do not appear to be miraculous. As to the firſt, the general rules he lays down, by which we may try the pre- tended wu arles⸗ amongſt Pagans and Papiſts, and which may ſet forth the grounds on which we ſuppoſe them to be falſe, are theſe three:— That either they were not publiſhed to the world till long after the time when they were ſaid to be per- formed:——Or, they were not publ iméd in the places where it is pretended the facts were wrought, but were propagated ouly at a great diſtance from the ſcene of action:—Or, they were ſuffered to paſs without due examination, becauſe they coincided with the favourite opinions and prejudices of thoſe to whom they were reported; or, ecanſc the accounts were encouraged and ſupported by thoſe who alone had the power of detecting the fraud, and could prevent any examination, which might tend to undeceive the world. Theſe o plies to the Pagan and Fopiſh m miracles; markable of which he diſtinct!. are none of them that do defects. After conſidering thoſe Peended Piracles, which circumſtances of the accounts giv appear to b he next proceedeth to thoſe works, be true, and aſcribed by ignorance, art, natural cauſes, yet are really natural, and may b accounted for, without fuppoſing any miraculous interpoſition. And here he enters on a large and particular diſcuſſion of the miracles at- Vor. I. B b tributod bler vations he aàaP- of che ————————·—·—:—:·—— 3 90 ⅔½ View of lbe DEiISTICAL Wrilers. Let. 21. tributed to the Abbè de Paris, and of ſome other miracles that have been much boaſted of in the Romiſh church. Having fully examined and expoſed the Pagan and Popiſh miracles, he next proceeds to ſhexw, That the objections made againſt them, and which adminiſter juſt grounds of ſuſpicion, cannot be urged againſt the goſpel miracles. And here he di- ſtinctly ſhews, Firſt, That the facts were ſuch that, from the nature of them, they muſt needs be miraculous, and cannot be accounted for in a natural way, or by any power of imagina- tion, or ſtrong impreſſions made upon the mind. And, Secondly, That thoſe facts are ſuch as, from the circumſtances of them, they cannot be falſe. And to this purpoſe, he makes it appear, that they were publiſned and appealed to at the time when they were performed; and were coeval with the preaching of Chriſ- tianity, which is manifeſtly founded upon them— They were alſo publiſhed and atteſted at the places where the ſcene of them was laid, and on the ſpot on which they were wrought.— And the circumſtances, under which chey were firſt publiſhed, give us an aſſurance, that they underwent a ſtrict examination, and conſequently, that they could not have eſcaped detection, had they been impoſtures. Mr. Douglaſs thinks it not fufficient barely to prove, that the teſtimon or the goſpel-miracles is ſtronger than that which ſupporteth any other pretended miracles; he farther ſnews, by a variety of conſiderations, that it is the ſtrongeſt that can be ſuppoſed, or that, from the nature of the thing, could be had. And then he proceeds to obſerve, that beſides the unexception- able proof from teſtimony, the crodibility of the Goſpel-miracles is confirmed to us, by collateral evidences of the moſt ſtriking nature, and which no ſpurious miracles can boaſt of:— Such as—— the great change that was thereby introduced into the ſtate of religion.—— The proofs that God was with the firſt publiſhers of Chriſtianity, in other inſtances beſides thoſe of miracles, particularly in aſſiſting them ſupernaturally in the knowlege of the ſcheme of religion which they taught, and of entors, which they were not capable of being the authors or i and enabling them to give clear predictions of future events. —— And particularly he inſiſteth upon that moſt expreſs and circumſtantial prediction of the deſtruction of the city and temple of Jeruſalem, and the diſperſion of the Jewiſb nation, as a demonſtration that Jeſus acted under a fupernatural inftu- ence.—— The laſt thing hee urgeth as a collateral evidence is, ed oture were performed by thoſe —, That the miracles recorded in Scri Let. 22. Lord BoLINGBROKE. 371 who aſſumed the character of prophets, or teachers ſent from God, and their miracles were intended as credentials to eſtabliſh their claim, to add authority to the meſſages they delivered, and the laws they taught.—— A character which, he fhews, both the Pagan and Popiſh miracles are entirely deſtitute of. THIS is a brief account of the plan of Mr. Douglaſs's work, which fully anſwereth the title: and it is with great pleaſure I take this opportunity to acknowlege the merit of the learned au- thor, and the ſervice he hath done to the Chriſtian and Pro- teſtant cauſe. am, Sir,&c. LETTER XXIHI. Lord Bolingbroke's Poſthumous Works an inſolent attempt upon Religion natural and revealed. Not cvritten ac- cording to tbe lavys of metbod. His fair profeſſions, and the advantageous account be gives of his ocwon deſign. He exaltetb himſelf above all tbat bave written before him, ancients and moderns; blames tbe Free-tbinkers for taking unbecoming liberties; yet writes bimſelf wit bout any regard to the rules of decency. His outrageous in- vectives againſt the boly Scriptures, particularly againſe the writings of Moſes and St. Paul. The ſevere cen- fures be paſſetb on tbe moſt celebrated Heathen pbiloſo- pbers. But above all, the virulent and contemptuous reproaches be caſtetb upon Chriſtian philoſopbers and divines. A general account of bis ſcheme, and ibe main principles to wbich it is reducible. 1 K, 2TL account you gave me of the late pompous edition of the works of the late Lord Viſcount Bolingbroke in five large volumes 4to, made me very deſirous to ſee them. But it was ſome time after the publication of them, before I had an opportunity of gratifying my curioſityU. I have now read them B b 2 with 37² A View of tbe DEisTIcAL Writers. Let. 22. with ſome care and attention. The works he had publiſhed in his own life-time, and which are republiſhed in this edition, had created a high opinion of the genius and abilities of the author. In them he had treated chiefly concerning matters of a political nature. And it were greatly to be wiſhed for this own reputation, and for the benefit of mankind, that he had con- fined himſelf to ſubjects of that kind, in that part ot his works which he deſigned to be publiſhed after his deceaſe. Theſe his poſthumous works make by far the greater part of this collec- rion. His Latters on the Study and Iſe gf Hiſtory, which were publiſhed before the reſt, had prepared the world not to look for any thing from him, that was friendly to Chriſtianity or the holy Scriptures. But 1 am apt to think that the extreme inſo- Jence, the virulence and contempt with which in his other poſt- humous works he hath treated thoſe things that have been hi- therto accounted moſt ſacred among Chriſtians, and the open attacks he hath made upon ſome important principles of natural religion itſelf, have exceeded whatever wasexpected or imagined,. There is ground to apprehend, that the quality and reputation of the author, his high pretenſions to reaſon and freedom of thought, his great command of words, and the poſitive and dictatorial air he every-where aſſumes, may be apt to impoſe upon many readers, and may do miſchief in an age too well prepared already for receiving ſuch impreſſions. Upon theſe conſiderations you have been pleaſed to think that a diſtinct examination of this writer might help to furniſth a very proper ſupplement to the view which hath been taken of the Deiſtical Writers of the laſt and preſent century. I was, I muſt confeſs, not very fond of the employment. For what pleaſure could be propoſed in raking into ſuch a heap of materials, which are thrown together without much order, and among which one is ſure to meet with many things ſhocking to any man that has aj uſt veneration for our holy religion, and who hath its ho- nour and intereſts really at heart? Before l enter on a diſtinct conſideration of what Lord Bo- lingbroke hath offered both againſt natural and ievealed reli- gion, I fhall make ſome general obſervations on his ſpirit and deſign, and his manner of treating the ſubjects he has under- taken, which may help us to form a judgment of his character as a writer, and how far he is to be depended upon. The manner of writing his lordſhip hath generally choſen is by way of eſſay. He has been far from confining himſelf to the laws of method: And perhaps thought it beneath ſo great a 1 s to ſtoop to common rules. But there is certainly a me- dium Let. 22. Lord BoLINGEBROKE. 373 dium between being too ſtiff and pedantic, and too looſe and negligent. He is ſenſihle that he has not been very methodical and feems to pleaſe himſelf in it. He declares that“- he does *not obſerve in theſe Eſſays, any more than he uſed to do in „ converſation, a juſt proportion in the members of his diſ- * Courſe“.“ And that he has thrown his reffections upon paper as they occurred to his thoughts, and as the frequent *¹interruptions to which he was expoſed would give him * leave v.“ He condeſcends to make a kind of apology for this way of writing when he ſays, ⅜«I will endeavour not to * be tedious; and this endeavour will ſucceed the better per- «¹haps by declining any over' ſtriét obſervation of method e.“ But I am apt to think he would have been leſs tedious, and more enlightening to his reader, if he had been more obſervant of the rules of method. He might then have avoided many of thoſe repetitions and digreſſions, which ſo frequently recur ia theſe Eſfays, and which, notwithſtanding all the advantages of his ſtyle, and the vivacity of his imagination, often prove, if I may judge of others by myſelf, very diſagreeable and irkſome to the reader. As to his deſign in theſe writings, if we are to take his own word for it, very great advantage might be expected from them to mankind. He believes“ few men have conſulted others, « both the living and the dead, with leſs precipitation, and in *¹²a greater ſpirit of docility, than he has done: He diſtruſted «« himſelf, not his teachers, men of the greateſt name, ancient c and modern. But he found at laſt, that it was ſafer to truſt ¹ himſelf than them, and to proceed by the light of his own «« underſtanding, than to wander after thoſe ignes fatui of phi- *e loſophy d.“ He is ſenſible that" it is the modeſt not the * preſumptuous enquirer, who makes a real and ſafe progreſs *„ in the diſcovery of divine truthe;“ and that“ candour and *ꝗknowlege are qualifications which ſhould always go together, ¹ and are inſeparable from the love of truth, and promote one «« another in the diſcovery of it f.“ He contents himſelf to be ¹*governed by the dictates of nature, and is therefore in no * danger of becoming atheiſtical, ſuperſtitious, or ſceptical.“ In his introduction to his Eſfays, in a letter to Mr. Pope, he gives a moſt pompous account of his intentions, and evidently raiſeth himſelf above the greateſt men ancient and modern. He a Bolingbroke's Works, vol. iii. p. 460. p Ibid. p. 5536. e Ibid. p. 318. d Ibid. p. 320. e Ibid. p. 344 f Ibid. p. 492. s Vol. v. p. 492. B b 3 repreſent⸗ 8— 4.——— — 3—,—ſſſ„— 2 — 374 A Viea of the DEisTicAL Writers. Let. 22. 2⸗ 45 kepreſdnts metaphyſical divines and philoſophers, as haviag *bewildered themfelves, and a great part of Pnaband in ſuch **c inextricable labyrinths of hypothetical reaſonings, that few ²« can find their way back, and none can find it forward into “the road of truthh.“ He declares that ‧natural theology, ¹and natural religion, have been corrupted to ſuch a degree, “that it is grown, and was ſo long ſince, as neceſſary to plead “the cauſe of God againſt the divine as againſt the atheiſt; to * aſſert his exiſtence againſt the latter, to defend his attributes 4 againſt the former, and to ſufi) his providence againſt **⁴ both i.“ That“truth and falſhood, knowlege and ¹ igno- ** rance, er elations of the Creator, inventions of the creature, dictates of reaſon, ſallies of enthuſiafm, have been blended ſo long together in ſyſtems of theology, t thatit may be thought dangerous to ſeparate them k.“ And he ſeems to think this was a taſk reſerved for him. He propoſes**to diſtinguiſh * genuine and pure Theiſm from the profane mixtures of hu- man imagination; and to go to the root of that error which encourages our curioſity, ſuſtains our pride, fortiſies our prejudices, and gives pretence to deluſion; to diſcover the ¹e true nature of human knowlege, how far it extends, how far 64 1 is real, and where and how it begins to be fantaſtical; „that the gaudy viſions of error being diſpelled, men may be 44 erer ourft to the efmpilelty of truth.“ For this he expects «*to be““ treated with ſcorn and contempt by the whole theolo- ²« gical and metaphyſical tribe, and railed at as an infidel m.“ But“ laying aſide all the immenſe volumes of fathers and „ councils, ſchoolmen, caſuiſts, a and controverſial writers, he is determined to ſeek for genuine Chriſtianity with that ſim- plicity of ſpirit with w hich it is taught in the goſpel by Chriſt himfelf.“ The guides he propofes to follow are“ the worhes, and the word of Godo.“ And he decla— that“ for ¹ himſelf he thought it much better not to write at all, than to write under any reſtraint from delivering r whole truth 66 4⁶ 66 „⁴of things as it a appea ared to him P.“ But though he thus profeſſes an impartial love of truth, and to kinet bis ſentiments with freedom, yet he ſcems re- Hlre d, where he happens to diſſer from received opinions, to zew a decent rega Lce to the eſtabliſhed religion of his country. h Bolingbroke's Works, vol. ili. p. 327. 1 Ibid. p. 328. E Ibid. p. 331 I Ibid. p. 328. m Ibid F. 330. n Ibid. p. 339. a Ibid. p 247 Vol. iv Let. 22. Lord BoLINGBROK E. 375 He praiſeth Scævola and Varro, who, he ſays,“ both thought *«* that things evidently falſe might deſerve an outward reſpect, e when tliey are interwoven with a ſyſtem of government. « This outward reſpect every good ſubjeét will ſhew them in «« fuch a caſe. He will not propagate thoſe errors, but he will «« be cautious how he propagates even truth in oppoſition to «them a.“ He blames not only that arbitrary tyrannical ſpirit that puts on the maſk of religious zeal, but that Preſumßtuous factious ſpirit that has appeared under the maſk of liberty; and which, if it hould Srevail, uould deſtroy at once the genera inftuence of religion, by ſbaking the foundations q it ubich edu- cation had laid. But he thinks,“there is a middle way between ««theſe extremes, in which a reaſonable man and a good citi- * zen may direct his ſteps“.“ It is to be preſumed therefore that he would have it thought that this is the way he himſelf hath taken. He mentions with approbation the maxims of the Soufys, a ſect of philoſophars in Perſia: One of which is— *If you find no reaſon to doubt concerning the opinions of **your fathers, keep to them, they will be ſufficient for you. «« If you find any reaſon to doubt concerning them, ſeek the ««ctruth quietly, but take care not to diſturb the minds of «other men.“ He profeſſeth to proceed by theſe rules, and blameth ſome who are called Free-thinkers, for imagining that ««as every man has a right to think and judge for himſelf, he «« has therefore a right of ſpeaking according to the full free- *dom of his thoughts. The freedom belongs to him as a ra- «e tional creature: He lies under the reſtraint as a member of ««α ſociety s.“ But notwitſtanding theſe fair profeſſions, perhaps there ſcarce ever was an author who had leſs regard to the rules of decency in writing than Lord Bolingbroke. The holy Scrip- tures are received with great veneration amc Chriſtians; and the religion there taught is the religion publicly profeſſed and eſtabliſhed in theſe nations; and therefore, according to his own rule, ought to be treated with a proper reſpect.. on many occaſions he throws out the moſt outrageous abuſe againſt thoſe ſacred writings, and the authors of them. He compares the hiſtory of the Pentateuch to the romances Don Quixote was ſo fond of, and pronounces that they who receive them as authentic are not much leſs mad than he-- Tnat it emy to affert the Jewiſb Seriptures to V *α⁴ is no leſs than blaſph .. 2. B. 7 a Bolingbroke's Works, vol. iii. p. 33 r Ibid. p. 332- 8 I 2. 2 22, 3 t Ibid. p. 28 bid. p. 333⸗ 234. Ibid. p. 28 376 A View of tbe DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 22. ** have been divinely inſpired;“ and he repreſents thoſe that Attempt to juſtity them as having“ ill hearts as well as heads, andas worſe than athieſts, though they may paſs for ſaints u.“ He chargeth thoſe with impiety,“ who would impoſe on us as **the word of God, a book which contains ſcarce any thing ¹“that is not repugnant to the wiſdom, power, and other at- 8e of a Supreme All-perfeét Being*.“ And he roundly pronounceth, t that„there are groſs defects and palpable falſe- *hoods in almoſt every page of the Scriptures, and the whole ¹«tenor of them is ſuch. as no man, who ackowleges a Supreme “ All-perfect-Being, can believe it to be his wordy.“ This is a brief ſpecimen of his invectives againſt the ſacred writings of the Old Peſtament, and which he repeateth on many occalions. de affecteth indeed to ſpeak with ſeeming reſpect of Chriſtiani- ty, yet he hath not only endeavoured to invalidate the evidences that are brought to ſupport it, but he paſſeth the ſevereſt cen- ſures upon doctrines which he himſelf repreſenteth as original and eſſential docétrines of the Chriſtian religion. He makes the moſt inj uniots vepiate ntation of the doctrine of our redemption Py the blood of Chriſt, and charges it as repugnant to all our ideas of order, of ſactier, of goodneſs, and even of theiſm*. And after a moſt virulent invective againſt the Jevwiſb notion of God, as partial, crue and unjuſt, he aſſerts that the 2r imputed to him by the Chriſtian doctrine of redemp- tion, and ſuture p puniſhments, is as bad or worſe a. Great is the contempt and reproach be hath poured forth upon St. Patel, vrho was the penman of a conſiderable part of the New Teſta- ,and whoſe name and writings have been always de- ervedly had in great veneration in the Chriſtian church. He chargech hirn wich diſſimulation and falſhood, and even with madneſsb. He aſtt rts that his Boſpel was different from that of Chrilt, and d contradittory to it c. That he writes confuſedly, obſcurely, and unintelligibl 9anu where his gol ſpel is intel- ligible, it is often abſurd, profane, and trifling ¹ Some of thoſe gentlemen who have ſhewn little reſpect for rhe holy Scriptures, have yet ſpoke with admiration of many of the ſ. ges of antiquity. But Lord Bolingbroke has on all oc- caſions treated the greateſt men of all ages with the utmoſt contempt and ſcorn. It is allowable indeed for fincere and im- tributes „ aAT bit ¹ h 11 a Polingbroke's Works. vol. iil. 299. 305. x Ibid. p. 308. 7 Ibid. p. 2 Vol. iv. p. 318. vol. v. p. 291. 532. 2 Ibid. 333. b Vol. iv. p. 172. 306. lid. 313. 327, 328. 4 Ibid p. 330, 331. Par tial Let. 22. Lord BoLINGBROKE. 377 partial enquirers after truth, to differ from perſons of high re- putation for knowlege and learning, ancient and modern. And ſometimes it is the more neceſſary to point out their errors, leſt the authority of great names ſhould lead men aſide from truth. But whilſt we think ourſelves obliged to detect their miſtakes, there is a decent regard to be paid them. It would be wrong to treat them in a reproachful and contemptuous manner. Yet this is what our author hath done. If all the paſſages were laid to- gether in which he hath inveighed againſt the wiſeſt and moſt learned men of all ages, eſpecially the philoſophers, metaphy- ſicians, and divines, they would fill no ſmall volume. And in- deed theſe kind of declamatory invectives recur ſo often in theſe Eſſays, as cannot but create great diſguſt to every reader of taſte. I fhall mention a few paſſages out of a multitude that might be produced, and which may ſerve as a ſample of the reſt. He ſaith of the philoſophers, that“ they ſeem to acquire ¹*knowlege only as a neceſſary ſtep to error, and grow ſo fond **⁴ of the latter, that they eſteem ĩt no longer a human, but raiſe „it by an imaginary apotheoſis up to a divine ſcience— That „« theſe ſearchers after truth, theſe lovers of wiſdom, are no- „thing better than venders of falſe wares— And the moſt ir- «« rational of all proceedings paſs for the utmoſt efforts of hu- „«man reaſone.“ He repreſents metaphyſical divines and phi- loſophers as having“ wandered many thouſand years in imagi- ** nary light and real darkneſs f.“ He frequently chargeth them with madneſs, and ſometimes with blaſphemy; andl that they * ſtaggered about, and joſtled one another in their dreamss.“ Speaking of Plato and Ariſtorle, he ſays, their works have «*⅜ been preſerved, perhaps more to the detriment than to the ¹advancement of learning?.“ And though he ſometimes com- mends Socrates, he pronounces, that he“ fubſtituted fantaſtical ¹ ideas inſtead of real knowlege, and corrupted ſcience to the *«¹Fvery ſource.“ That“ he loſt himſelf in the clouds—when «* he declared, that the two offices of philoſophy are the con- „„templation of God, and the abſtracting of the ſoul from cor- ** poreal ſenſe;“— and that he and Plato were mad enough to think themfelves capable of ſuch contemplation and ſuch ab- ſtraction i. Beſides many occaſional paſſages ſcattered throughout theſe Eſſays, there are ſeveral large ſections which contain almoſt nothing elſe than invectives againſt Plato and his philoſophy. e Bolingbroke's Works, vol. iii. p. 490. f Vol. iv. p. 8. .p. 553. 5 4. vol. iv. p. 129. 150. h Vol. iii. 1 Wol. iv, p. II3. He 378 A View of tbe DeisTtcAL Writers. Let. 22. He ſays, that philoſopher“ treated every ſubject, whether cor- ** poreal or intellecual, like a bombaſt poet, and a mad theo- ²* logian k.“ That“ he who reads Plato's works like a man «« in his ſenſes, will be tempted to thenf⸗ on many occaſions that the author was not ſo: And that„no man ever dreamed se ſo wildly as this author wrote!.“ He chargeth him with a « falſe ſublime in ſtyle, and that no writer can ſink lower than * he into a tedious ſocratical irony, into certain flimſy hypo- ec thetical reaſonings that prove nothing, and into alluſions that *« are mere vulgariſms, and that neither explain nor inforce any *thing that wants to be explained or inforced m.“ He repre- ſents all the commentators and trantatars of Plato as dull or mad— and calls Ficinus delirious, and Dacier ſbie and a bi- ot, and a Plakonic madmanns. The true reaſon of the parti- cular diflike he every-where expreſſes againſt that philoſoph her ſeems to be what he calls his“rambling ſpeculations about the „„ divinc and ſpiritual nature, about immaterial ſubſtances, c about the immorta ality of the ſoul, and about the rewards c and puniſhments of a future ſtate o.“ As to the Stoics, he declares,“that their theology and mo- «e rality were alike abſurd.“ That in endeavouring to account how it came that there is evil in the world, and that the beſt men have often the greateſt fhare of this evil, ‧they talked « mere nonſenſe, figurative, ſublime, metaphyſical, but non- „« ſenſe ftill?. The zancient theiſts in general he repreſents as having been ſeduced many ways into a confederacy with the atheiſts, and particularly blames them for pretending to connect moral attributes, ſuch as we conceive them, with the phyſical attributes of Coda which, be affirms, gave great advantage to the objections of the atheiſts. But there is no fort of men againſt whom he inveighs with greater licence of reproach than the Chriſtian divines and philo- ſophers. He frequently ſpeaks of the ancient fathers with the utmoſt contempt: That they were ſoerlticiode credulous, zwing men;— and that the“ grea ateſt of them were unfit to * write or ſpeak on any ſul ject that required cloſeneſs of rea- ſoning, an evangelical candour, and even common ingenu- 24 ouſnels r.“ As to the more modern divines, he takes every Works 1. 2 1 Ibid 1 Bolingbroke s Works, vol. p. 120. Ibid. p. 344. 257 m Ibid. p 140. 141. 353. 354. n Ibid. p. 107. 140. 375. 0 Ibid, 347,343 p Vol. v. p. 247. 317 4 Ibid. p. 310.* Vol. ili. p. 337,338. vol. iv. P. 580. ₰ 2 Let. 22. Lord BoLINGBROKE. 379 occaſion of inſulting and abuſing them. Not only doth he re- preſent them as declaimers who have little reſpect for their * readers,—as hired to defend the Chriſtian ſyſtem,—and as * ſeeking nothing more than the honour of the gown, by «¹ having the laſt word in every diſputes;“ but he ſays,“ they * talk a great deal of blaſphemy on the head of internal divine characters of Scripture t.“ He often repeats it, that at heits deny God, but the divines defame him, which, he thinks, is the worſe of ihe tο. He charges them with madneſs, and worſe than madneſs“. That ¾they have recourſe to trifling diſtinc- «tions, and dogmatical affirmations, the laſt retrenchments *of obſtinacy.“ That“of all fools, the moſt preſumptuous, ««and at the ſame time the moſt trifling, are metaphyſical phi- ** loſophers and divinesy.“ He charges them, in an addreſs he makes to God, with“owning his exiſtence only to cenſure ¹« his works, and the diſpenſations of his providence ²2.“ And frequently repreſents them as in alliance with the atheiſts, as betraying the caufe& God to them, and as doing their beſt in concert with theſe their allies, to deſtroy both the goodneſs and juflice of God“. He declares, that“he who follows them ¹ cannot avoid preſumption and profaneneſs, and muſt be ¹«much upon his guard to avoid blaſphemyb.“ That“the « preachers of natural and revealed religion have been loudeſt ««Fin their clamours againſt Providence, and have done nothing * more than repeat what the atheiſts have ſaid;— and that *they attempt to prove that the Supreme Being is the tyrant *of the world he governsc.“ And the ſame charge he ad- vanceth againſt the Chriſtian philoſophers in general. But befides theſe general invectives againſt Chriſtian philoſo- phers and divines, he hath particularly attacked ſome of the moſt celebrated names in a manner little reconcileable to good manners, and the decency which ought to be obſerved towards perſons of diſtinguiſhed reputation, even when we think them in the wrong. Speaking of“ many reverend perſons, who, he «« ſays, have had their heads turned by a preternatural fermen- *„ tation of the brain, or a philoſophical delirium,“— he ob- ſerves, that“none has been more ſo than Dr. Cudworth.— He ««read too much to think enough.“ He repreſents him as . s Bolingbroke's Works, vol. iii. p. 290. vol. v, p. 286. 314. t Vol. iii. p. 272. u Vol. iv. p. 273. x Vol. v. p. 188. y Ibid. p. 49 3. 2 Ibid. p. 339. a Ibid. P. 341. 346. 393, Rc. v Ibid. p. 464. s Ibid. 4842 485. 3 having ₰. 380 A View of tbe DEisTIcAL Writers. Let. 22. having“ given a nonſenſical paraphraſe of nonſenſe,“— and that“the good man paſſed his life in the ſtudy of an unmean- ¹ing jargon: And as he learned, ſo he taught ¹. He charges Biſhop Cumberland with“ metaphyſical jargon, and theological *¹blaſphemy e.“ Stillingfleet is ſpoken of with contempt; as alſo Huet, Bochart, and the Chriſtian antiquaries f. Nor is Archbiſhop Tillotſon treated with greater regard. He talks in a very flighting way of thoſe that have written on the law of nature, particularly Grotius, Selden, and Puffendorf. That they“puzzle and perplex the plaineſt thing in the world, and ««ſeem to be great writers on this ſubject, by much the ſame ¹ right as he might be called a great traveller, who ſhould go c from London to Paris by the Cape of Good Hoße 8.“ There is none of the Chriſtian philoſophers of whom he ſpeaks with ſo much reſpect as Mr. Locke; yet he repreſents him as having ³*dreamed that he had a power of forming abſtract ideas;“ and mentions this as a proof that“ there is fuch a thing as a phi- cc loſophical delirium h.“ And he charges it upon him as a great inconſiſtency, that he ſhould write a Commentary on St. Paul's Epiſtles, and a Diſcourſe on the Reaſonableneſs of Chriſtianity, after he had written an Eſſay on Human Under- ſtanding i. But there is no one perſon whom he treats with ſo much rudeneſs and infolence as the late eminently learned Dr. Samuel Clarke. He calls him a preſumptuous dogmatiſt, and repreſents him as having“impiouſly advanced, that we know the rule *God governs by as well as he,—and that, like another Eu- *c nomius, he preſumes to know God, his moral nature at leaſt, «« and to teach others to know him, as well as he knows him- *„ ſelf k.“ He chargeth him with a fooliſb and wiched rhodomon- tade,“ with pretending to make infallible demonſtrations, like *the Pope's decrees, and ſending every one to the devil who ³*⁴ does not believe in them!: And with a rhapſody of pre- *¹ſumptuous reaſonings, of prophane abſurdities, of evaſions ce that ſeem to anſwer whilſt they only perplex, and in one ¹*word, the moſt arbitrary and leaſt reaſonable ſuppoſitionsm.“ He faith, that“the retrenchments caſt up by him are feeble *beyond belief;“—that“he boalts like a bully, who looks 4 Bolingbroke's Works, vol. iii. p. 353. vol. iv. p. 92 e Vol. v. p. 82. f Vol. jii. p. 264. vol. iv. p. 13. 2 Vol. v p. 68. h Vol. 1ii. p. 441, 44 2. 1 Vol. iv. p. 166. 295. k Vol. iii. p. 52. vol. v. P. 499. 1 Ibid. p. 252. m Ibid. P. 292. ee felce Let. 22. Lord BoLINGBROKE. 381 2 *« fierce, ſpeaks big, and is little to be feared“.“ Not only does he call him an audacious and vain ſopbiſto, but he carries it ſo far as to ſay, that"˙he and Wollaſton do in effect renounce God, as much as the rankeſt of the atheiſtical tribe b.“ With regard to the laſt mentioned celebrated writer, Mr. Wollaſton, beſides the ſevere reproach caſt upon him in the paſſage I have juſt cited, Lord Bolingbroke elſewhere treats him as“ a licen- « tious maker of hypotheſes—and a whining philoſopher.“ He repreſents all that he hath ſaid about the immortality of the ſoul «. as a ſtrin of arbitrary ſuppoſitions;“ and that his diſcourſe *« on that ſubject is fuch as would! lead one to think that the philolopher who held it was a patient of Dr. Monroe's, not ** yet p Li dh reſtored to bis ſenſes aA.“ He acknowleges! him indeed to have been a man of harts and loarning, but charges him with vvrating nonſenſe; that he, and ſuch as he, were learn- ed lamatics; and he treats his way of arguing about a future ſtate, as a ſpecimen f that ſort& madneſs Which is called a 4 ementia quoad boct. The ſame cenſure he paſſeth on the late Lord P reſident of Scotland, that he was indeed a man of ca- **pacity, good ſenſe, and Knowlege, but was in a delirium, and *mad gu dad poc when he wrote againſt Tindal*.“ NYou cannot but have obſerved, in teaiof over ſeveral of the paſſages which have been produced, that it is familiar with Lord Bolingbroke to repreſent thoſe as mad and out of their ſenſes who ha appen to di ffer from him, at leaſt as mad with regard to the par ticular Poine in difference. I fhall only men- tion one paſſage more to this purpoſe out of the many that might be produced. Having compared the reaſoners 2L, to perſons in Bedlam, and the ſe veral ſorts of madmen there, he adds, that“atheiſts are one fort of madmen, many divines and 4 helldes zmoſher ſort;“— and that„theſe ſorts of madmen „are principally to be found in colleges and ſchools, where different fects have rendered this ſort of madneſs, which is **occaſionally elſewhere, both epidemical and traditionalt.“ If one was to imitate this author's manner of talking, one might apt to charge nim as being ſeized with a ſort of madneſs wheu certain fubjects come in his way— metaphyſics—artificial theology— Plato and Platonic philoſophy— ſpiritual ſubſtance, 3ſ7 2b and incorporeal eſſence— but above all, the Chriſtian divines p. 290. 293. a Ibid. p. Vol. iii. p.§=„. 18. 474 Ibid. p. 523. 382 A View of tbe DEisr IcAL Writers. Let. 22 and clergy.—— Theſe, when he happens to meet with them, bring one of his fits upon him, and often ſet him a raving for ſeveral pages together. But I confeſs I too much dillike ſuch a way of Writing to make recriminatlons of this kind. And yet his Lordſhip tells the divines of the diretion of their adver- Jaries, and would have them zeturn it with diſcrerion. And he repreſents the ort hodox bullies, as he calls them, as“ affect- «e ing to triumph over men, who employ but part of their «e ſtrength, as tiring them with impertinent paradoxes, and pro- ** voking them with unjuſt reffections, and often by the fouleſt ec language u.”. I am apt to think that by this time you are weary of reading over ſuch a heap of abuſive reflections, ſo unbecoming any man of learning and education, much more one ſo converſant in the polite world, as Lord Bolingbroke had been. The tran- ſcribing them out of his eſſays was no very agreeable employ- ment. But they ſo often occur there, and make ſo remarkable a part of the works of this right honourable author, that it was abſolutely neceſſary to take ſome notice of them. One thing may be ſafely collected from his writing after this manner; viz. that he had a very high opinion of the ſuperiority of his own underſtanding, and a ſovereign contempt for all thoſe that were in different ſentiments from him, whether philoſophers ancient or modern, or divines, but eſpecially for the latter. If we examine what foundation there is for theſe high pre- tenſions, or what new and important diſcoveries this writer hath made in religion or philoſophy, which may be of real uſe to mankind, the principal things in his ſcheme may be reduced to the following heads: 1. That there is one Supreme All-perfect Being, the eternal and original cauſe of all things, of almighty power and infinite wiſdom; but that we muſt not pretend to aſcribe to him any moral attributes, diſtinét from his phyſical, eſpecially holineſs, juſtice, and goodneſs: that he has not theſe attributes accord- ing to the ideas we conceive of them, nor any thing equivalent to thoſe qualities as they are in us; and that to pretend to de- duce moral obligations from thoſe attributes, or to talk ol imitating God in his moral attributes, is enthuſiaſm or blaſ- phemy. 2. That God made the world, and eſtabliſhed the laws of this ſyſtem at the beginning: but that he doth not now con- cern himſelf in the affairs of men, or that if he doth, his pro- u Bolingbroke's Works, vol. iii. p. 272, 273. Let. 22. Lord BoLi NoBROKE. 383 3 vidence only extendeth to collective bodies, but hath no regard to individuals, to their actions, or to the events that befal them 3. Than the ſoul is not a diſtinct ſubſtance from the body: that the whole man is diſſolved at death; and that though it may be uſe eral to mankind to believe the doctrine of füturc re- vards and puniſhments, yet it is a fiction, which hath no real foundation in nature and reaſon: and that to pretend to argue for future retributions from the appreh hended u nequal diſteibu- tions of this preſent ſtate, is abſurd and blaſphemous, and is to the m unworthy reffections on divine Providence. ¹. That the law of nature is what reaſon diſcovereth to us ehreroing our duty as founded in the human ſyſtem; that it s clear and obvious to all mankind; but has been obſcured and perv erted by ancient philoſopl hers and modern divines: that it has not been ſet in a proper light by thoſe who have undertaken to treat ot it; and therefore he hath repreſented it in its genuine purity and ſimplicity: and that the ſanctions of that law relate to men not in ndividuall y, but collectively conſidered. 5. That from the clearneſs and ſut Lielchey of the law of na- ture, it may be concluded that God hath made no other reve- lation of his will to mankind: and that there is no need or uſe for any extraordinary ſupernatural revelation. 6. That it is profane and blaſphemous to aſcribe the Jeu 2 Scriptures to revel ation or inſ tion from God: That th hiſtory contained there is fal incredible, and the ſchcund of religion taught in thoſe abſo lutely unworthy of God, a repugnant to hi 3 9 — erfections. 1 —— hat che New oppoſite to one anoth ity i as taught by Jeſus lical writings, is a benevo- lent inffitution, ar 85 may be regarded as a republication of the law of pnature, or rather of the theology of Plato: that the mo- rals it teaches are pu re, but no other than the philoſophers had taught before, and that ſome of its precepts are not agreeable to the natural law; and ſome of its original doctrines, particular- ly thoſe relating to the redemption of mankind by the death of Chriſt, and to future rewards and puniſhments, are abſurd, and inconſiſtent with the attributes of God. Theſe pe ar to me to be the moſt remarkable things in the Pnar Lo Srd Bo olin, obe's Poſthumous works, as far as natural on is concerned. And the method I propoſe rvations upon them is this: 2 I fhall 384 A View of ibe DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 22. I ſhall firſt conſider the attempts he hath made to ſubvert the main principles that lie at the foundation of all religion; viz. thoſe relating to the moral attributes of God, a particular pro- vidence extending to the individuals of the human race, the im- mortality of the ſfoul, and a future ſtate of retributions. I ſhall next examine the account he hath given of the law of nature, and of the duties and ſanctions of that law. After which it will be proper to conſider what he hath offered concerning divine revelation in general, with a view to ſhew that an extraordinary revelation of the will of God to mankind is abſolutely needleſs, and that therefore we may conclude that God hath never given ſuch a revelation at all. I fhall proceed in the next place to a particular and diſtinct examination of the objections he hath urged againſt the truth and divine original of the Moſaic reve- lation, and the Seriptures of the Old Teſtament. And ſhall con- clude with conſidering what more directly relateth to the Chriſ- tian revelation properly ſo called, to its proofs and evidences, and to its laws and doctrines, all which he hath endeavoured to expoſe. This I hope may be ſufficient to anſwer the deſign I have in view, which is to obviate the principal miſchiefs to religion, which Lord Bolingbroke's Works ſeem fitted to produce. Other things there are in theſe volumes, which might furniſh matter for many reflections, but which I ſhall take little or no notice of, as they do not come within the compaſs of the plan I propoſe. I am, Ec. L. E T- Let. 23. Lord BoLrlNGBROKE. 385 LETTER XXIII. Lord Bolingbroke aſſerts tbe exiſtence of God againſt te Aiheiſts, but rejetts the argument a priori, and that dravon from the general conſent of mankind. He is for reducing all ibe divine attributes to wiſdom and power, and blames be divines for diſtinguiſbing be- twveen the pbyſical and moral attributes. He aſſerts that we cannot aſcribe goodneſs and juſtice to God, according to our ideas of tbem, nor argue witb any certainty about them. That it is abſurd to deduce moral obligations from tbe moral attributes of God, or to pretend io imi- tate bim in tboſe attributes. Obſervations upon bis ſcheme. It is ſbeuon, that the moral attributes are ne- ceſſarily included in tbe idea of tbe abſolutely perfeci Be- ing. The author' s objections againſt aſcribing thoſe at- tributes t God, or diſtinguiſping tbem from his pbyſical attributes, particularhy conſidered. His manifold incon- Fiſtencies and contradictions. § I R, N my laſt a general account was given of the ſcheme Lord Bolingbroke ſeems to have had in view in his Poſthumous Works, and of the main principles to which it is reducible. 1 now proceed to a more diſtinét examination of thoſe principles; and fhall begin with that which lieth at the foundation of all Religion, the exiſtence and attributes of God. And it muſt be acknowleged, that his Lordſhip every-where in the ſtrongeſt terms aſſerteth the exiſtence of the One Supreme All-perfect Being, the Great Author of the univerſe. He repreſents this as ſtrietly demonſtrable, and treats the opinion of the atheiſts as infinitely abſurd; and that they can nly cavil, but cannot reaſon, againſt the exiſtence of the firſt cauſe; of which, he thinks, we may be in reaſon as ſure as of our own exiſtence. VoL. I. GG Thers 3⁵⁶ A View of tbe DEisTicAL Writers. Let. 23. There are ſeveral paſfages in his works, in which be expreſſeth himſelf devoutly with regard to the Supreme Being, and pro- feſſeth ſeriouſly to adore him. And there are ſome inſtances of his addreſfing him with great ſolemnity, and in a religious manner⸗. I need not take any notice of what he hath briefly offered for demonſtrating the exiſtence of a Deity b. He has ſaid nothing on this head, but what hath been frequently urged to great ad- vantage by others before him; and particularly by Dr. Clarhe, in what his Lordſhip is pleaſed to call his Sretended demonſtra- tion gf the Being and Attributes of God e. Our author indeed is for confining the proof to the argument a Boſteriori, and is for abſolutely rejecting the argument a Sriori, whereas Dr. Glarke inſiſts upon both. And I cannot help think- ing that both may be highly uſeful; and that they are then moſt effectual, and come with the greatelt force, when they come in aid of one another. As Lord Bolingbroke rejects the argument a priori for the ex- iſtence and perfections of God, ſo he ſeems not willing to allow that which is drawn from the general conſent of mankind. He ſays, it will indeed prove, that men generally believed a God, but not that ſuch a Being exiſts; and he repreſents it as trifling to inſct upon it a. And in a letter occaſioned by one of Arch- biſhop Tillotſon's ſermons, vol. iij. p. 257,&r ſeg. he finds fault with that great divine for making uſe of that argument, and diſingenuoufly repreſeuts it, as if he had reſted the proof of a Deity principally upon ite; which he is far from doing, though it muſt be acknowleged to be a conſideration of great weight. Heè particularly blames the Archbiſhop for aſcribing this conſent to the nature of the human mind, on which God has impreſſed an zunate idea of himſelf; but he owns, that afterwards he ſoftens zt by ſaying, that“ the human mind is ſo diſpoſed that men may ** diſcover in the due uſe of its faculties, that there is a God f.“ And he ſpeaks of ſome divines who explain it thus; that the belief of God is founded on a certain natural proportion there is between this great truth and the conceptions of the human mind. But our author thinks, that ˙˙ſuch a natural and in- *ε timate roportion between the exiſtence of God, and the con- *Ceptions of the human mind, may appear chimerical, and a See particularly vol, iii. p. 247. 358. vol, v. p. 338,&c. p Vol. ſii. p. 353, 3 d Ibid. p. 52. 4 Ibid. p. 247- c Ibid. p. 258. 267. f Ibid. p. 258. ²* perhaps Let. 23. Lord BoLlNGBROKE. 3⁸7 *perhaps is ſo 8.“ And obſerves, that ‧Polytheiſm was more conformable to the natural conceptions of the human mind, eſpecially in the moſt ancient and ignorant ages, than the be- lief of One firſt intelligent Cauſe, the ſole Creator, Preſerver, «« and Governor of all things.“ Yet he afterwards declares, that the idea of an All-wiſe and All-powerful Being, the firſt ** cauſe of all things, is ſo Proportionable to buman reaſon, that ««c jt muſt have been received into the minds of men, as ſoon as *they began to contemplate the face of nature, and to exer- c ciſe their reaſon in ſuch contemplations à.“ And in his re- flections on Mr. Maußertuis, who had ſlighted the argument from the general conſent of mankind, he obſerves, that“ it is * general enough to ſhew the Hroßortion w hich this truth bears ¹² to the univerſal reaſon of mankind i.“ NYou cannot but ob- ſerve here, that he directly makes uſe of that manner of expreſ- ſion which he had before blamed others for uſing. But it will be proper more dilſtinétly to inquire into the idea this writer gives of God, and of the divine perfections. The only attributes of God which he inſiſteth upon as neceſſary to be known by us are his power and wiſdom. ‧We riſe(ſaith he) *«⁴ from the knowlege of ourſelves, and of the works of God, to *ha knowlege of his exiſtence, and his wiſdem and power, *n which we call infinite k.“ He blames thoſe who preſume to define the moral attributes of an All-perfect Being;“ and thinks * we ought to content ourſelves to know that he exiſts by the * neceſſity of his nature, and that his wiſdom and Houer are in- ¹« finite ¹.“ He declares, that ‧a ſelf-exiſtent Being, the firſt «¹cauſe of all things, infinitely Sowerful and infinitely wiſe, *« is the God of natural theology: that as the whole ſyſtem of «« the univerſe bears witneſs to this truth, ſo the whole ſyſtem «of natural religion reſts on it, and requires no broader foun- ¹ dation. Theſe ſyſtems are God's ſyſtems m.“ We ſee here there is no mention made of the divine goodneſs, as included in the idea we form of a Deity. Natural theology, or natural re- ligion, requireth no broader a foundation than the acknowleging the wiſdom and power of God. And ſo it generally is in the account our author gives of God and his attributes; as if opti- mus were not to be joined with maximus in the Deiſt's creed, or in the idea natural religion teacheth us to form of God. And accordingly he finds fault with what he calls artiffcial theology, for pretending to connect moral attributes, ſuch as we con- ₰ ₰ & Vol. iii. p. 259, 260. 5 Vol. iv. p. 19 ½ 1 Ibid. p. 256. Ibid. p. 88. 1 Vol. v. p. 235. m Ibid. 316. 5* ceive Ce 2 38⁸ A Viety of tbe DEISTICAL Writers. Let. 23. ¹e ceive them, and ſuch as they are relatively to us, with the **phyſical attributes of God.“ He ſays, there is no ſufficient foundation for this proceeding in the phænomena of nature, *« and that in ſeveral caſes they are repugnant.“ Aund he ex- preſly mentions it among the wrong notions of the aneient theiſts, and which gave advantage to'the atheiſts with regard to the queſtion about the original of evil, that they maintained, that“God is juſt and good, and righteous, and holy, as well “as powerful and wiſe.“ He blames them for ſaying, that *elove was the firſt principle of things, and that it determined ˙God to bring forth his creatures into exiſtencen;“ and that, as Seneca ſays, uſgue ad delicias amamur. And elſewhere quoting a paſſage of Dr. Clarke, in which God is repreſented as having a tender and hearty concern for the hapbineſs of man, he ſays,“theſe are ſtrange words to be applied to the Supreme “ Being 0.“ And he argueth at great length againſt thoſe who ſuppoſe, that God made man only to be happy. He frequently cenſureth the divines for diſtinguiſhing between God's phyfical and moral attributes: and“ cannot ſee one re- «ligious purpoſe, that this diſtinction is neceſſary to anſwer P. God's moral attributes(he ſays) can only be diſcerned in the works of God, and in the conduct of his Providence: and that it is evident they are not, cannot be ſo diſcerned in «« them, as to be the objeét of our imitation q.“ He repreſents it as a great preſumption to pretend to deduce our moral obliga- tions from the moral attributes of God; and that the abſurdity of this cannot be too often expoſedr. And after having aſ- ſerted, that“ we cannot riſe from ôur moral obligations to God's ſuppoſed moral attributes, he adds, that he calls them ¹fuppoſed, becauſe after all that has been ſuppoſed to prove a „neceſſary connection between his phyſical and moral attri- *butes, we may obſerve them in his wiſdom;— and that «« the effects of his wiſdom give us ſometimes ideas of thoſe « moral qualities, which we acquire by reflections on ourſelves, ¹« and ſometimes nots.“ He thinks the divines are to be blamed «e for talking of God's infinite goodneſs and juſtice, as of his « infinite wiſdom and power t.“ And obſerves, that“ evéery „«thing ſhews the wiſdom and power of God, conformably to „our ideas of wiſdom and power, in the phyfical world and «z« in the moral: but every thing does not ſhew in like manner *ethe juſtice and goodneſs of God, conformably to our ideas n Vol. v. p. 315, 317. 0 Ibid. p. 63. p Ibid. p. 62. a Ibid. p. 63. ¹ Ibid. p. 87. ¹Ibid. P. 88. ¹Ibid. P. 528. c of Let, 23. Lord BoLINGBROKE. 3⁸9 *„of thoſe attributes in either u.“ That“though the wiſdom of God does not appear alike in all the phænomena, yet as * far as we can diſcover, it appears in the greateſt and leaſt to «¹«our aſtoniſhment, and none of them can be ſtrained into a **Qrepugnancy to it— But the ſame cannot be faid of the moral α attributes which we aſcribe to the Supreme Being according *to our ideas of them.— lt cannot be diſputed, and all ſides *¹*⁴agree, that many of the phænomena are repugnant to our *eideas of goodneſs and juſtice w.“ He declares it as his opi- nion, that*God's natural attributes abſorb the morals.“ And particularly, that the moral attributes of the Supreme Being „¹«are abſorbed in his wiſdom; and that we ſhould conſider „«them only as different modifications of his phyſical attri- „¹«butes; and muſt always talk precarioufly and impertinently, ꝗwhen we preſume to apply our ideas of them to the appear- *¹„ances of thingsy.“ And he chargeth the divines“ as pro- *¹*⁴ceeding in all their reaſonings about the nature, moral attri- ««butes, and will of God, not only without regard to the phæ- „ nomena, but often in direct contradiction to them ².“ This is not a matter that he treats merely in ſome occaſional paſſages. The chief deſign of ſeveral of his fragments and eſſays in his fifth volume, particularly of the fourth, ſeventh, fortieth, forty- firſt, and forty-ninth, is to argue againſt thoſe who aſſert the moral attributes of God as diſtinguiſhed from his phyſical: or who ſay, That thoſe moral attributes, his holineſs, goodneſs, juſtice, and truth, are the ſame in him, that they are in the ideas we form of thoſe perfections; which, he ſays, cannot be conceived without manifeſt Breſumption and blaſphemy: upon this doctrine he chargeth mens fabe conceb- tions and licentious reaſonings about the divine nature and pro- vidence. He adds, that“theſe fabſe concebtions and licentious *⁴reaſonings may proseed likewiſe from the analogical doctrine; „which though it aſcribes not to God human notions, yet «*aſcribes to him ſomething, whatever it be, equivalent to „„them*.“ He affirms, that“ goodneſs and juſtice in God— „are ſomething tranſcendent, and of which we cannot make „¹any true judgment; aad that it is impoſſible we ſhould argue „* with any certainty about them b.“ I ſhall only farther ob- ſerve, that he brings a charge in this reſpect, not only againſt u Wol. v. p. 31 T.„ Ibid. p. 368, x Ibid. p. 3 73, 3114. * Ibid. p. 335. 453. 2 Ibid. p. 310. a Ibid. p. 54 v. 8. Ibid. p. 311. 359, 360. Cs 3 the 390 A Vievw of the DEisT IcAl. Writers. Let. 23. the Chriſtian divines, but againſt the heathen philoſophers. The reaſon he aſſigns, why they wersé“ unable to propagate ¹* natural religion, and to reform mankind, is becauſe they *⁴proceeded in Dr. Clarke's method to argue a priori from the 4 moral attributes of God, his goodneſs, juſtice,&c. which they 4aſſumed to be the ſame in him that they are in our ideas c.“ By comparing theſe ſeveral paſſages together it appears, that according to this writer, we are unable to form any idea of the moral attributes of God: for if we cannot conceive of them according to our ideas, we cannot form any conception of them at all: that it is wrong to diſtinguiſn them from his phyſical attributes, or to ſay they are connected with thoſe attributes: that there is not only no ſuch thing in God as goodneſs or juſtice as we conceive of them, but nothing in him analogous or equivalent to thoſe qualities as they are in us, or which is fitted to produce correſpondent effects: that therefore it ought not to be ſaid of God, that he is juſt and good, holy and true, or that he is a lover of mankind, or is concerned for our happi- neſs, but only that he is powerful and wiſe: that we can only know God's moral attributes a Poſteriori from the effects, and that many of the phænomena in nature are repugnant to thoſe attributes, and inconſiſtent with them: ſo that it is impoſſible for us to argue with any certainty about them. This is the plain intention of the paſſages which have been cited, and others might be produced to the ſame purpoſe; though we ſhall find him afterwards plainly contradicting ſeveral things which here he hath advanced. If we conſider what his reaſon could be for ſetting up an hy- potheſis ſo contrary to true theiſm, for which yet he would be thought to have ſo great a zeal, there are two things which he appears to have had in view. 1. That we are in no caſe to deduce our moral obligations from the moral attributes of God, or to propoſe to imitate God in thoſe attributes. He declares, that“ the laws of nature ¹* are abſurdly founded in the moral attributes of Godd;“ i. e. it is abſurd to talk of his juſtice, goodneſs, righteouſneſs, and truth, as giving riſe to thoſe laws, or appearing in the conſti- tution of them. And as to the pretence of imitating the Deity in his moral excellencies, this is what he openly and avowedly condemns. This particularly is the deſign of the fourth of his fragments and eſſays in his fifth volume. He expreſly aſſerts, tht„ God's moral attributes cannot be ſo diſcerned by us as Vol. v. p. 234 4 Ibid. p. 90 8 66. 60 Let. 23. Lord BorlNGEBRORE. 391 *e to be the objects of our imitation e.“ He pronounces, that „« jt is abſurd, and worſe than abſurd, to aſſert that man can e jmitate God, except in a ſenſe ſo very remote, and ſo im- *proper, that the expreſſions ſhould never be uſed, much leſs ²* ſuch a duty recommended.“ And that“ thoſe Writers or ee preachers zvho exhort us to imitate God, muſt mean, not the God whom we ſee in his works, and in all that his pro- „« vidence orders; but the God who appeats in their repreſen- « tations of bim, and who is often ſuch a God as no pious theiſt *«can acknowlege 8. He declares for himſelf, that he dares ** not uſe theological familiarity, and zalk ꝗf imitating God; «« and treats that doctrine as extravagant, falſe, and Brofane h. He ſays, that“ by aſſuming to imitate God we give the ſtrongeſt ** proof of the imperfection of our nature, Whilſt we neglect «e the real, and aſpire to a mock honour, as pride, ſeduced by „adulation, is prone to do; and as religious pride, wrought *⁴up by ſell conceit into enthuſiaſm, does above all others i.“ And he mentions it as an inſtance of the impertinence of Socra- kes's doctrine, that“ he conjured his auditors in the priſon to make themſelves as like as poſſible to their great exemplar, *the Supreme Being k.“ Thus has this dogmatical and pre- ſumptuous author taken upon him to paſs a ſevere and inſolent cenfure upon that which has been the doctrine of the moſt ex- cellent philoſophers and moraliſts, and of one far ſuperior to them all, our bleſſed Saviour himſelf., See Matz. v. 45. 48. Luke vi. 3 5, 36. And he has particularly inſtanced in God's cauſing his ſun to mine on the evil and the good, and his ſend- ing rain on the juſt and unjuſt, as a proof that we cannot and ought not to aſpire after an imitation of him Il. Though our Lord ſets this goodneſs of providence before us as a noble pat- tern, to engage us to an extenſive benevolence, and that We ſhould be ready to do good even to our enemies themſelves. There are indeed depths in God's providential diſpenſations with regard to Which we cannot pretend to imitate him, for want of knowing the reaſons upon which he proceeds; but this does not hinder, but that We may and ought to endeavour to reſemble him in his illuſtrious moral excellencies, as far as we can diſcern them in his works and in the revelations of his word, which in many inſtances we are able to do. ₰ c Vol. v. P. 63. f Ibid. p. 62. s Ibid. p. 64. 5 i Ibid. p. 67. K Vol. iv. p. 117, 118. 1 4„ Anhar C 4 2. Another 392 A Viev of the DEisricAL Writers. Let. 23. 2. Another thing which he hath evidently in view, in deny- ing that we can have any idea of the moral attributes of God, ſo as to make a true judgment of them, or to argue with any certainty about them, is to deſtroy the argument which is drawn from the conſideration of theſe moral attributes, to ſhew the probability of a future ſtate of retributions. For if God be perfectly good and juſt, this leads us to conclude that he will order it ſo, that in the final iſſue of things, a remarkable di- Ktinction ſhall be made between the righteous and the wicked; and that virtue ſhall upon the whole be crowned with its due reward, and vice meet with condign puniſhment: and ſince this is not uniformly done in this preſent ſtate, it is reaſonable to believe thiat there ſhall be a fature ſtate of rewards and pu- niſmments. This is a way of arguing, which, by his own acknowlegement, has been urged by ſome of the beſt and wiſeſt men in all ages. To avoid this conſequence, he will not allow that there is any ſuch thing as juſtice and goodneſs in God according to our ideas, or any thing anſwering to what we call juſtice and goodneſs: and that it is preſumption in us to determine what thoſe attributes require that God ſhould dom. And indeed to guard againſt this ſeems to have been a principal Point with his lordſhip. It is for this that he denies, that Providence extendeth its care to the individuals of the human race. And one of his chief prejudices againſt the Chriſtian reve- lation appears to me to be its ſetting theſe things in ſo ſtrong a light. You eaſily perceive that this part of our author's ſcheme is not of a trifſing nature. It is not a mere ſpeculative error, but which, purſued to its proper conſequences, muſt have a mighty influence on religion and morals. I hall therefore examine it diſtinctly, and ſhall firſt offer ſome general conſiderations con- cerning God's moral attributes, to ſhew that they muſt neceſ- ſarily be aſcribed to the Supreme Being: and then ſhall proceed to obviate the principal objections he hath advanced: after Which I ſhall point to the manifold inconſiſtencies and contra- dictions he hath fallen into in relation to this ſubject. I ſnhall begin with ſome general conſiderations concerning God's moral attributes. And T. It is eſſential to the idea of God, that he is the all- berfect Being. So our author frequently calls him, and makes it neceſſary for us to regard him under that notion. That is a remarkable declaration which he makes Vol. III. p. 299, 1 m Vol. v. p. 453.* Vol. iii. p. 253 Let. 235 Lord BoLlNeBROKE. 393 „⁴ know, for I can demonſtrate by connecting the cleareſt and «moſt diſtinct of my real ideas, that there is a God, a firſt «e intelligent cauſe of all things, whoſe infinite wiſdom and *power appear evidently in all his works, and to whom there- **F fore I aſcribe moſt rationally every other perfection, whether ««conceivable or not conceivable by me.“ Here he mentions diſtinctly, as his manner is, God's infinite wiſdom and Bower, and takés no particular notice of his goodneſs. But furely this muſt be ſuppoſed to be included, when he adds, that not only wiſdom and power, hut eævery other perfection conceivable by us, muſt be moſt rationally aſcribed to God. For is not goodneſs a perfection? And is it not conceivable by us? Yea, is it not the moſt amiable of all perfections, and that which gives a luſtre and glory to all the reſt? Is it poſſible to conceive a per- fect character without it? Almighty power and infinite wiſ- dom, if they could be ſuppoſed ſeparated from goodneſs and righteouſneſs, in the great Governor of the world, would create horror and averſion inſtead of love and eſteem. A God deſti- tute of juſtice and goodneſs would be ſuch a God, as he moſt wrongkully repreſents the God of Moſes and St. Paul to be, an unjuſt, a cruel, a partial, and arbitrary Being o. He is fenſible that in our ideas of perfection, goodneſs and righteouſneſs, or his moral attributes, are neceſſarily included: and that conſequently according to the rule he had laid down, piz. that it is rational for us to aſcribe to God every perfection, whether conceivable or inconceivable by us, we ought moſt cer- tainly to aſcribe to him righteouſneſs, goodneſs, and truth. He endeavours therefore to guard againſt this by ſaying, though in plain contradiction to what he had before advanced,—“ Let *«us not meaſure his perfections by ours. Let us not preſume 4* ſo much as to aſcribe our perfections to him, even according * to the higheſt conceptions we are able to form of them; *though we reject every imperfection conceivable by us, when *« it is imputed to him P.“ He obſerves, that“ the firſt and * ſtrongeſt impreſſions that we reccive of benevolence, juſtice, «« and other moral virtues, come from reſſections on ourſelves 46 and others; from what we feel in ourſelves, and from what «we obſerve in other men. Theſe we acknowlege to be, however limited and imperfect, the excellencies of our own «« nature, and therefore cönceiving them without any limita- tion or imperfection, we aſcribe them to the Divine.“ But he ſays,“a very ſhort analyſis of the excellencies of our owu 2 Vol. v. p. 567 p Vol. iii, p. 5 5 5 1 4 4 21 1 394 A Viev of tbe Dæis TI-AI, Writers. Let. 23, ²« nature will be fufficient to ſſiew, that they cannot be applied from man to God without profaneneſs, nor from God to ² man without the moſt ſhametful abſurdity d.“ It will be eaſily acknowleged, that we cannot aſcribe any of thoſe quali- ties in our nature, which neceſſarily connote imperfection, to God in a literal and proper ſenſe; but ta ſay that we ought not to aſcribe thoſe, whigh we cannot but look upon as the nobleſt excellencies and perfections of an intelligent being, and of which we clearly diſcern the traces and reſemblances in our own na- ture, to the infinitely perfect Being, at the ſame time taking care to remove every imperfection with which they are attended in us and our fellow-crantures, is highly abſurd, and a manifeſt contradiction to the common ſenſe of mankind, It is to ſay, that we are to conceive of God as the infinitely perfect Being, and yet we are not to aſcribe to him thoſe excellencies which we cannot poſſibly avoid regarding as neceſſarily included in the idea of infinite perfection. Nor is this, as he is pleaſed to re- preſent it, a making man the original, and God only a coßyr; Or, as he elſewhere expreſſeth it, a ſuppoſing God to be no more than an infinite mans. This argument, if it may be called ſo, is only a playing upon words. The word man carries in it the idea of a finite, imperfect, created being. And there- fore to call God an infinite man has a very odd ſound. But if the meaning only be, that as man is an intelligent being, ſo God is infinite intelligence; and as man has moral diſpoſitions, the imperfect ſeeds and principles of goodneſs, juſtice, bene- volence, God hath all thieſe in the higheſt poſſible degree of eminency, without any imperfection and defect; what is there in this unworthy of the ſupreme and abſolutely perfect Being? It is true that, as he obſerves, e do not Anow ihe manner of his being t, but as this by his own acknowlegement is no argument againſt aſcribing to him wiſdom and power, ſo neither is it agaiaſt our aſcribing to him juſtice and goodneſs. He there aſſerts, that“ we riſe from the knowlege of ourſelves, and of e the other works of God, to a knowlege of his exiſtence, *«*and of his wiſdom and power which we call infinite.“ And may it not equally be ſaid, that we riſe from the conſideration of his works, and the illuſtrious diſplays of beneficent goodneſs to be found there, and from the knowlege of the moral ſenti- ments in our own breaſts, and which we cannot but approve. to the knowlege of his goodneſs, and moral excellencies? And a Vol. v. p. 88, 39. t Ibd. p. 88. bid. p. 87. ². Ibid. p. 310. ſince 2 Let. 23. ZLord BoLlnoBRORI. 39 ſince, by the very conſtitution of our minds, we cannot help regarding them as perfections, we are naturally led to aſcribe them in the ſupreme degree to the all- Berfecl Being. And to ſay, that when we do ſo, We make ourſelves the original, and him only the copy, is a ſtrange mifrepreſentation. For in that caſe we riſe from the imperfect traces and lineaments of thoſe excellencies in our own ſouls, or Which we diſcern in others, to the ſupreme goodneſs and benevolence, of which all human and created goodneſs is but a very faint and imperfect copy. And what can be more reaſonable, than to conclude that he muſt be infinitely good and juſt, and true, who made us capa- ble of diſcerning and feeling the amiableneſs and excellency of thoſe moxal diſpoſitions and qualities; and who hath ſpread ſuch beauty and order, and ſuch a profuſion of bleſfings throughout this vaſt ſyſtem? Again, the moral attributes of God may be farther argued from this, that they are really inſeparable from infinite wiſdom and intelligence: and ſince wiſdom could not be perfect with- out goodneſs and juſtice, theſe moral attributes muſt be aſcribed to the ſupreme Being as well as wiſdom, which our author every-where aſcribes to him. We may as reaſonably ſuppoſe him without the one as the other. As there are innumerable things which ſhew his wiſdom, ſo there are which demonſtrate his goodneſs and benignity. And if there are ſeveral appear- ances which we find it hard to reconcile to our ideas of good- neſs, ſo there are which ſeem not to be conſiſtent with wiſdom. And the anſwer is the ſame in both caſes, that it is owing to our ignorance, and the narrowneſs of our views. And we ſhall ſoon find our author in effect acknowleging this. Power and wiſdom without goodneſs and righteouſneſs are ſo far from giving us a proper idea of an all-perfect Béing, that it is the idea of a very imperfect one. This writer himſelf obſerves, that ‧if God be infinitely wiſe, he always knows and always ¹« does that which is fitteſt to be done: to chuſe the beſt end, « and to proportion the means to it, is the very definition of ¹o wiſdom u.“ And accordingly he aſſerts, that the wiſdom of God always determineth him to do that uhich is fit teſt upon the auhole. And this neceſſarily ſuppoſeth an univerſal rectitude of his nature. It includes both a perfect unerring knowlege of what is fitteſt and beſt, and a diſpoſition and determination to act accordingly, and to do what is, all things conſidered, beſt and fitteſt to be done. And this is really to acknowlege ½ Vol. v. p. 332. 396 A V'ievw of ibe DzisTreAI Writers. Let. 23, — God's moral attributes. For, as our author obſerves,« that **⁴ vwhich is fitteſt to be done is always juſt and good w;“ ſo that God's wiſdom is neceſſarily fuppoſed to be connected with his juſtice and goodueſs, as well as they with his wiſdom; and a regard to both is comprehended in chuſing what is fitteſt to be done. Wiſdom ſeparated from juſtice and goodneſs wouid not be true wiſdom, which always includes the worthieſt ends and propereſt means, but Craft, which is not a real perfection, but the contrary. This writer ſhews that he is ſenſible of this, when he aſſerts, that God's moral attributes are only“ different modifications of * his wiſdom; and are barely names that we give to various * manifeſtations of the infinite wiſdom of one ſimple uncom- **pounded Being.“ And he blames the divines for ſuppoſing ¹„that they are in him, what they are in us, diſtinct affections, *e diſpoſitions, and habitudes X.“ He ſays, that““ after all that «« has been ſaid to prove a neceſſary connection between his *phyfical and moral attributes, we may obſerve them in his wiſdom y.“ And that ‧if they are ſo intimately connected ²¹ with his power and wiſdom, and ſo much the ſame in nature, ¹«that they cannot be ſeparated in the exerciſe of them, in this s« caſe his natural attributes abſorb the moral z.“ But what are we to underſtand by abſorb? May thiey not be intimately connected, and yet be of diſtinct conſideration? Are not the divine power and wiſdom intimately connected? Can they ever be ſeparated in the exerciſe? Is his power ever a blind power, deſtitute of wildom and intelligence? Or, is his wiſdom an zmpotent wiſdom, deftitute of power? Yet he owns the ideas of power and wiſdom in God to be diſtinét, though they are neither of them really diſtinguiſhed from his eſſence. He is indeed pleaſed to paſs a cenſure upon the divines for parcelling out a divine moral nature into various attributes lihe the humana. And he ſometimes ſeems to find fault with the diſtinguiſhing any attributes at all in God. He ſays, that““ ſince the wiſdom 0f God is as much God as the will of God, and the will ¹« as the wiſdom, it is abſurd to diſtinguiſh them: that it is * ſomething worſe to reaſon about the divine, as we do about *« the human intellect, and to divide and parcel out the former *upon the plan of che latter. Since the will of God is not ²« like that of man, dark and liable to be ſeduced, why are we ** led to conclude that a ſuperior faculty is neceſſary to deter- w Wol. v. p. 313. x Ibid. p. 335. y Ibid. p. 38. 1bid. p. 313- a Ibid. P. 453. Let. 23. Lord BoLi NGBROKE. 397 c mine it, as the judgment of reaſon does, or ſhould, deter- «« mine tbat of man?“ Yet he immediately after diſtinguiſhes between the will and hnoulége of God, and ſuppoſes it necet ſary to diftinguiſh them 10 be(as he expreſſes it) a hltle more intelligible b. And elſewhere he talks of the rule uhich infinite — eſcribes to infinite Howere. And all along throughout his eſſays he ſpeaks of wiſdom and power as diſtinct attributes of God. T'he one therefore does not, to uſe his expreſſion, abſorb the other, though they are not ſeparated in the exerciſe. This ſhews that perfeétions may be intimately connected with- out being abſorbed, or, in other words, confounded one with another. And therefore it is no argument that there are no ſuch diſtinct attributes as juſtice, or righteouſneſs and booaneie be- cauſe they are intimately and inſepar ab connected with his power and wiſdom. On the contrary, this ſuppoſes that there are ſuch attributes. For it would be abſurd to talk of their being connected with his wiſdom, or of their being to be 26- ſorbed in his wiſdom, if there were no ſuch qualities or attri- butes. And ſince, as Lord Bolingbroke] himfelf elſewhere ac- knowlegeth, we muſt ſbeak f God after ihe manner men a if we ſpeak of theſe qualities at all, we muſt ſpeak of them a diſtinct attributes. Let us now conſfider our author's objections. He urges, that“the moral as well as phyſical attributes *of God can only be known a Poteriori. They muſt be dil- « cerned in the works of God, and in the conduct of Provi- dence. And it is evident they are not, cannot be ſo diſ- cerned in them, as to be the objects of our imitation.“ Every thing ſhews the power and wiſdom of God conform- ably to our ideas of wifdom and powen in the phyſical world and in the moral, but every thing does not ſhew in like manner the juſtice and goodueſs of God, confor mably **H)to our ideas of theſe attributes in either f. None of the phænomena can be ſtrained into a repugnancy to the divine *« wiſdom, but it cannot be diſpured, that many of them are repugnant to our ideas of goodneſs and juſtice s.“ Some other paſſages to the ſame purpoſe were mentioned above, which I need not here repeat. In oppoſition to this it may be obſerved, that, as was before hinted, the characters of good- neſs and benignity are conſpicuous in the conſtitution of things, as well as of wiſdom and power. And if there are ſeveral 2 b Vol. v. P. 5. c Vol. iii. P. 53. d Vol. v. p. 468. * Ibid, p. 63. f Ibid. p. 311. s Ibid. p. 368. particular ——— — —— Q—:ʒ—⅓:ꝛ—·— 39³ A View of ibe DEisrcAL. Writers. Let. 23. particular phænomena notconformable to our ideas of goodneſs and righteoufneſs, there are alſo ſeveral appearances not con- formable to our ideas of wiſdom; and the reaſons and deſigns of which do not appear. It is well known, that many are the objections which the atheiſts have made againſt the wiſdom of God, as appearing in the conſtitution both of the natural and moral world. It is his own obſervation, that% we muſt be prepared to meet with ſeveral appearances ¹which we cannot explain, nor therefore reconcile to the « ideas we endeavour to form of the divine perfection. If it *«α be true, that infinite wiſdom and power created and governed «* the univerſe, it cannot but follow that ſome of the phæno- „mena may be proportionable, and that others muſt be diſ- **⅜proportionable to our and to every other finite underſtand- «c ing h.“ He very properly expoſes the abſurdity of the atheifts in arguing againſt the exiſtence, attributes, and pro- vidence of God, from the difficulties relating to them. And obſerves, that“ theſe difficulties do not embarraſs the theiſt— „And inſtead of being ſurprized to find them, he would be * furprized not to find them—- That there muſt be many phænomena both phyfical and moral, for which he can, and for which he cannot account— And that there are ſecrets of theé divinine nature and œconomy which human reaſon cannot ¹*F penetrate i.“ The difficulties therefore relating to the divine goodneſs are no reaſon for not acknowleging that goodneſs, any more than the difficulties relating to the divine wiſdom are a good reaſon againſt acknowleging the wiſdom of God. We may here apply his own way of arguing.“˙ The power of executing(ſays ** he) is ſeen in every inſtance; and though we cannot diſcern the wiſdom of contrivance and direction in every inſtance, yet ws ſee them in ſo many, that it becomes the higheſt abſurdity not *⁴to acknowlege them in all.“ And he takes notice of the folly of atheiſts in objecting againſt it, whereby they only ſhew their own ignorance— He adds, that“the wiſdom of God is not «« ſo often diſcernible by us as the power of God, nor the *goodneſs as the wiſdom. But a multitude of the phænomena * being conformable to our ideas f goodneſt, we may reaſon *⁴about it as we did juſt now about the divine wiſdom k; i. e. that thongh we cannot diſcern the goodneſs of God according to our ideas in every thing, yet we ſee it in ſo many, that ĩit would be the higheſt abfurdity not to acknowlege it in all; where he ſeems to me plainly to give up the point, and to aſſert that we ought to acknowlege the goodneſs of God, even 2 Vol. v. p. 365. i Vol. iii. P. 186. 287. K Vol. v. p. 335 according 8 ₰ . Let. 23. ZLord BoLrlNoBRoOkE. 399 according to our ideas of goodneſs, as well as his wiſdom, to be an attribute belonging to the Supreme Being: And that this may be juſtly arg ned from his works. Zut let us proceed to conſider ſome other of his objections: de argues againſt aſcribing moral attributes, or the excel- lencies of our nature to God, becauſe we cannot aſcribe to him fortitude and temperance. He aſketh“ How can we deduce «« fortitude from the attributes of God, or aſcribe this virtue * to him who can endure no pain, nor be expoſed to any *danger? How temperance, when it would be the moſt horrid blaſphemy to ſuppoſe him ſubject to any human appetites „¹„and paſſions, and much more to ſome ſo inordinate as to re- „quire a particular virtue to reſtrain and govern them? 1 * might bring many more inſtances of the ſame kind. But he „who will not be convinced by theſe, how abfurdly the *« laws of nature are founded by ſome writers in the moral *« attributes of God, will be convinced by none.“ He ſeems to have a good opinion of this way of arguing, for he urges it more than once m. But though fortitude, as it ſignifies a bearing up under evils and fufferings, and temperauce, as it ſignifies the reſtraining and governing the appetites and paſſions, cannot be properly aſcribed to God, becauſe they neceſſarily connote the being liable to evils and imperfections, it doth not follow that therefore righteouſneſs and goodneſs, and univerſal benevolence, which imply no ſuch imperfection, and are the nobleſt excellencies of an intelligent nature that we can poſſibly conceive, may not be applied to the Supreme and Ablſolutely- perfect Being: and as to fortitude and temperance, though they cannot be properly aſcribed to God, no more than piety and ſubmiſſion and reſignation to the divine will, which are emi- nent human virtues; yct they are the objects of the divine ap- probation, and our obligation to them may be juſtly argued and deduced from God's moral attributes, from his holineſs and the rectitude of his nature, which cauſeth him to delight in moral beauty and order, and to require that his reaſonable creatures fhould act in a manner becoming the excellent facul- ties he hath given them; and that they ſhould maintain that temper and conduct which tendeth to the true perfection and happineſs of their natures, which theſe virtues mauifeſtly do. He farther objects, that“our ideas of the divine attributes muſt neceſſarily be inadequate, both on account of the infi- nite diſtance between the divine and human nature, and on c6 1 Vol. v. p. 9o. m Ibid. p. 311. 3* account 400 A View of tbe DEISTiCAL Writers. Let. 23. account of the numberleſe and to us unknown relations, re- ** ſpecRvely to all which the divine providence acts; which, if ⸗« we did know them, we fhould be unable to compare, and ⸗ in which, therefore, the harmony of the divine perfections would not be diſcernible by us— That therefore we are very « incompetent judges of the moral attributes of God, and of „What they require God ſhould do in the government of the *˙world.— Nor can we make any true judgment, or argue with ««any certainty äbout them,“ as he endeavours to prove from the authority of St. Paul, and Dr. Parrow a. This only proves what will be eafily allowed, that we cannot comprehend or ſee the whole extent of the divine proceedings; and that he may in many caſes have reaſons for his proceedings which we are not acquainted with; but does not prove, that there is no ſuch thing as goodneſs or righteouſneſs in God according to our ideas of them, nor any thing equivalent to them; or that we can in no caſe argue from what his goodneſs and righteouſneſs require, nor judge of the cquity of his proceedings. Although the Scriptures often ſpeak of God's ways of providence as above human comprehenſion, yet they alſo repreſent him as ſometimes appealing to men themſelves concerning the equity of his pro- ceedings. Our author indeed repreſents this as an abſurdity, but he does not prove it ſo, or ſhew that there is any thing in it unworthy of the moſt wiſe and righteous and benevolent Governor of the world. Will it follow, that becauſe there are ſome difficult caſes concerning which we cannot judge, that therefore we cannot judge in any caſe at all? We may in ſome caſes ſafely argue from our ideas of the divine goodneſs and juſtice; e. g. that he will order it ſo, that a remarkable dif- ference ſhall be made upon the whole between good and bad men; and that virtue fhall be rewarded, and vice and wicked- neſs puniſhed. Will any man ſay, that we cannot ſafely con- clude from the goodneſs and juſtice of the Supreme Being, that he will not ſuſfer or appoint an innocent creature to be eternally miſerable? He obſerves, ſpeaking of God's knowlege, power, and wiſdom, that“ though we cannot frame full and adequate « ideas of them, it will not follow that we have, properly ** ſpeaking, no knowlege at all of his attributes, nor of the *manner in which they are exerciſed— That our ideas of di- ¹ vine intelligence and wiſdom may be neither fantaſtic nor ee falſe, and yer God's manner of knowing may be very dif- *e ferent from ours b.“ In like manner it may be ſaid concern- a Vol. v. p. 359. 362. 5 Ibid. p. 524, 525. Let. 23. Lord BoLrNGBROKLE. 401 ing God's moral atrributes, his juſtice and goodneſs; that tho' we cannot frame full and adequate ideas of them, it will not follow that we have, properly ſpeaking, no knowlege of them at all, and of the manner in which they are exerciſed. Our ideas of them are neither falſe nor fantaſtic, though in many inſtances they may be exerciſed in a way different from our ap- prehenſion. To this may be applied what he ſaith againſt Archbifhop King, that“tho' we have not a direct knowlege «*of the nature of God by archetypal ideas, yet we are not re- duced to know nothing of him except by analogy. It is a real knowlege, and may be ſaid to be direct, if we may be „allowed to call any knowlege by demonſtation direct c.“ Another argument urged by this writer to ſhew, that the di- vines are in the wrong to talk of God's infinite goodneſs and juſtice as of his wiſdom and power, is this; that“ the latter *cpreſerve their nature without any conceivable bounds, and the «former muſt ceaſe to be what they are, unleſs we conceive ¹them bounded. Their nature implies neceſſarily a limitation *« in the exerciſe of them ¹.“ In anſwer to this, it may be ob- ſerved, that God's wiſdom and power, conſidered in themſelves, and as they are in God, are infinite, ſo alſo are his goodneſs and juſtice. But conſidered relatively in the exerciſe of them as terminated in the creature, the one may be ſaid to be limited as well as the other; i.. the effects of neither of them are properly infinite. Infinite power and wiſdom, as exerciſed on the crea- ture, produce finite and limited effects, ſo doth infinite good- neſs and juſtice. But ſtill conſidered as qualities and attributes of the divine eſſence, they are infinite, of an eminent and tran- ſcendent nature, and would be really in God, though there were no creature formed. He did not begin to be good when the creatures began to exiſt, though then the exerciſe of good- neſs, under the direction of his wiſdom, reſpecting the crea- tures, began. His other objections proceed all upon a groſs miſrepreſentation of the ſentiments of thoſe whom he hath thought fit to oppoſe. Hechargeth Dr. Clarke wich aſſerting, that juſtice and goodneſs, and the reſt of the moral attributes, are in God juſt what they are in our imßerfect, unſteady, complex ideas; and that the rule according to which God exerciſeth thoſe attributes, viz. the nature and reaſon of things, is obrious to the underſtanding of all intelligent beingse. This is not true, if underſtood of the .₰ e Vol. v. p. 530. 4 Ibid. p. 528. e 1bid. p. 252. VoL. 1. D d whole 402 A View of ibe DEISTicCAL. Writers. Let. 23, whole nature and reaſon of things in all its vaſt extent: nor has that learned divine any-where alſerted that it is ſo. Again, he repreſents the divines as aſſerting, that“ the will *of God is not determined by the harmonious concurrence of «« all his attributes,“ and that“ his goodneſs and juſtice do not act in a concurrence with his wiſcom ¹.“ He charges them with maintaining, that“ goodneſs in God is the only direéting „and governing principle, and not wiſdom: and that wiſdom „*ought tocontrive and power toexecute under this direction.“ And he argues, that ¹if it were ſo, the happineſs of man *ought to be proportionable to the goodnelſs of God, that is, «e infinite.“ And in oppoſition to this he afſerts, that wiſdom «ought to be deemed the directing prihciple of divine con- * duét s.“ Nor will any divine deny that wiſdom is the di- recting principle. They all plead for the harmonious concur- rence of the divine attributes, though they are not for con- founding thoſe attributes. Goodneſs in God is not to be re- garded as a blind inſtinct, which neceſſarily acteth at all times, and in every inſtance, to the utmoſt extent of its- capacity, and to the higheſt poſſible degree; but as a moſt w iſe goodneſs, i. e. a goodneſs which is always in conjunction with, and under the direction of, infinite wiſdom. For goodneſs without diſtinction or diſcernment conld ſcarce be accounted a virtue or a per- fection. Such a notion of the divine goodneſs would be diſ- honourable to God, and of ill conſequence to the intereſts of re- ligion and virtue in the world. But bis goodneſs is that of a moſt holy and underſtanding mind, and is always exerciſed in ſuch a way as ſeemeth moſt fit to his infinite wiſdom, which governeth the outward effects of it, and appointeth when, where, and how, it fhall be communicated. We are not merely to fix our views on goodneſs and benevolence, in conſidering what God may do or may not do with regard to the happineſs of his creatures; but to take in every conſideration, that of his wiſ- dom, his juſtice, his holineſs and righteouſneſs, and the majeſty of his government. He frequently accuſeth the divines, and even the ancient theiſts, for ſuppoſing that God made man for this end to com- municate happineſs to him. But then that he may more efféc- tually expoſe this notion, he claps in the word only, as if they maintained, that God had no other end in view in creating man, but to make him happy to the utmoſt poſſible degree, to give him an haßbineſs without allay, as he expreſſeth it, and f Vol. v. p. 313 342. s Ibid. p 341. t0 Let. 23. Lord BoLrNoBßRokf. to make him not only moderately, but immoderately h world h. It is thus that he thinks fit to repreſent the And he ſays, This is an Hyhot heſis uhich the Lauen⸗ contra- dict i. But though it cannot reaſonably be denied, that accord- iag to the be eſt conceptions we can form, one principal motive in God's making reaſonable beings, was to communicate happi- neſs to them, yet I think we do not know enough of God, nor have a ſufficiently comprehenſive view of things, and of the reaſons an infinite mind might have for his proceedings, to pronounce confidently, that he had, and could have, no other reaſon or mofiöe It may well be ſuppoſed, that in bringing this vaſt univerſe and the various orders of beings in it into ex- iſtence, he had in view the exerciſe and diſplay 7 his own glo- rious perfections, not merely of any one, but of all his perfec- tions, his majeſty and greatneſs, his wiſdom, power, holineſs, and goodneſs, in conjunction. This is an end worthy of God, as far as he can be ſaid to propoſe an end to himſelf. And when it is ſaid, that he made his reaſonable creatures with a deſign to communicate happineſs to them, it ruſt be underſtood thus, that he had it in view to make them happy, in ſuch a way, in ſuch meaſures and degrees, in ſuch times, ſeaſons, and propor- tions, as ſhould ſeem fit to his infinite wiſdom, and ſhould be moſt worthy of them, and becoming his own glorious perfec- tions. His end in creating them was not abſolutely to make every individual of them happy at all events, however they ſhould behave, but conditionally to make them happy in the right uſe and improvement of their own powers, and in ſuch a way as is conſiſtent with moral agency and government, and becoming his own infinite wiſdom, goodneſs, righteoufneſs, and purity. It is farther with a view to expoſe the doctrine of the divines relating to the goodneſs of God, that he repreſents it as their general ſentiment, that all things were made merely for the ſake of man; that this vaſt univerſal ſyſtem was formed for him alone: and he ſets himſelf to ſhew, as he might eaſily do, the abſurdity of ſuppoſing the whole univerſe to have been made merely for ſome minute part of it k. This particularly is the ſubject of the 45th and 46th of his frag gments and eſſays. But it is obſervable, that he himſelf, after havin ag abuſed the divines for ſuppol ling that God ade man to communicate hap- pineſs to him, e xpreſly aſſerts, that“ God has made us happy, and has put it into our power to make ourſelves happier by a Vol. v 240. 270 r. Ibid 7. x Ibid Vol. v. p. 345. 392. 421 Ibid. p. 345. Ibid. p A 4 1 1 1 1 404 A View of tbe DEisTIcat Writers. Let. 23. ¹o a due uſe of our reaſon, which leads us to the practice of *« moral virtue, and all the duties of ſociety l.“*⁴That we *¹are obliged to our Creator for a certain rule, and ſufficient ¹« means of arriving at happineſs, and have none to blame but ¹ ourſelves, when we fail of it m.“ ¾That God made us to **be happy here.— He may make us happier in another ſyſtem of ¹ being.— That there is even in this world much more good « than evil, and the preſent ſtate of mankind is happy in it n.“ *⁴ And that the end of the human ſtate is human happineſs 0.“ Nou are, I doubt not, by this time prepared for what I pro- poſed to ſhew in the laſt place, the contradictions and incon- fiſtencies our author hath fallen into in treating of this ſubject. I ſuppoſe you to bear in mind the ſevere cenſures he hath paſſed upon the divines for pretending to connect the phyſical and moral attributes of God, and for aſcribing to him moral attri- butes, juſtice and goodneſs, according to our ideas. And now I deſire you to compare the paſſages already produced with thoſe that follow. God ſhews us our duty,“ by which we ſtand in the relation *¹*of fubjects and ſervants to a gracious and beneficent Lord and Maſter, who gave us laws neither captious nor ambiguous, „hand who commands us nothing Which it is not our intereſt *to perform P.“ He here ſuppoſes it to be a thing evident from the law of nature, that we ſtand in relation to God as our gracious and benæſicent Lord and Maßter, who has our in- tereſt and happineſs in view in the very laws which he injoins. And is not this plainly to aſcribe goodneſs to him, even ac- cording to our ideas of goodneſs? And elſewhere he repreſents it, as if he could not aſſe more of a benoficent Creator than he hath done for us d. He fays,“ The Theiſt acknowleges what- ¹wever God has done to be juſt and good in itſelf, though it *does not appear ſuch in every inſtance, conformably to his * ideas of juſtice and goodneſs. He imputes the difference to « the defect of his ideas, and not to any defect of the divine e attributes— Where he ſces them, he owns them explicitly; «z where he does not ſee them, he pronounces nothing about them. He is as far from denying them,“(i. e. from denying the juſtice and goodneſs of God) ¹as he is from denying the wiſ- dom and power of God r.“ The moſt orthodox divine could hardly expreſs himſelf more fully on this head than Lord Bo- 1 Vol. v. p. 384. m Ibid. p. 388. n Ibid. p. 301, 392. 6 Ihid. p. 544.„ Ibid. p. 97. 4 Ibid. p. 481 · Ibid. p. 311, 312 lingbroke Let. 23. Lord BoLINGBROKE. 4⁰5 lingbroke has here done. To the ſame purpoſe he introduces a meditation or ſoliloquy of a ſincere and devout Theiſt, in which he repreſents him as ſaying, among other things,““Man enjoys *numberleſs benefits by the fitneſs of his nature to this conſti- **tution, unaſked, unmerited, freely beſtowed. The awiſclom *and goodneſßs of God are therefore manifeſt. May I enjoy „„thankfully the benefits beſtowed on me by the divine libera- „«lity: may Jreccive the evils to which I am expoſed patiently, „« nay willingly s.“ But what deſerves particularly to beremarked is, that whereas he repreſents the aſcribing goodneſs and juſtice to Godaccording to our ideas, to be what gives great advantage to the Atheiſts with regard to the original of evil; as if he thought it im- poſſible to reconcile the evil that is in the world with God's moral attributes, and the ſuppoſition of his being good and righteous and holy as well as powerful and wiſe, he has taken great pains to confute his own arguments. For not a few of his fragments and eſſays in his fifth volume are taken up in endea- vouring to remove and anſwer that objection, and to ſhew that the evil there is in the preſent conſtitution of things in this world, is reconcilable to the juſtice and goodneſs of God, even accord ing to the ideas we form of them t. He undertakes to defend the goodneſs of God againſt the Atheiſts and divines u. And having, as he pretends, done this, he proceeds to vindicate the Juſiice and righteouſneſs of God againſt the fame confederates x. Thus the ſame author, who had uſed his utmoſt efforts to ſhew, in oppoſition to the divines, that moral attributes, particularly juſtice and goodneſs, ought not to be aſcribed to God accord- ing to the ideas we conceive of them, and that we cannot form any judgment concerning them, takes upon him afterwards to vindicate thoſe very attributes againſt the divines, who, he pre- tends, are for deſtroying them. So ſtrangely inconſiſtent is this writer's ſcheme, that on the one hand, with a view to invali- date the argument for a ſtate of future retributions drawn from the moral attributes of God, he endeavours to take away thoſe attributes, or confound them with the phyſical, and to ſhew that there is no ſuch thing as goodneſs or juſtice in God ac- cording to our ideas, nor any thing equivalent to them; and that the phænomena are repugnant to thoſe attributes: and on the other hand, with the ſame view of weakening or deſtroying s Vol. v. p. 338, 330— See alſo vol. iii. p. 358.*See vol. v. frag. 43, 44. 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54.„ Vol. v. P. 335- X Ibid. p. 393. Dd 3 the ⁴ — 406 A View of the DEisTIcAL Writers. Let. 23, the argument for a future ſtate from thoſe attributes, he ſets himſelf to prove that the preſent ſtate of things is fufficiently conformable to our ideas of the divine juſtice and goodneſs, and that theſe attributes are ſo fully exerciſed or diſplayed here, that there is no need for any further manifeſtation or diſplay of them hereafter. I fhall only produce one paſſage more, and it is a very re- markable one. Towards the concluſion of his laſt volume, when he pretends to draw a line of ſeparation between natural and artificial theology, he obſerves that by that, viz. natural theology, we are taught to acknowlege and adore the infinite * wiſdom and power of God, mam feſted in every part of his creation, and aſcribe goοdneſs and juſtice to him where-ever «« he intended that we fhould ſo aſcribe them, that is, where- ver either his works, or thé diſpenſations of his providence, do as neceſſarily communicate theſe notions to our minds, as thoſe of wiſdom and power are communicated to us in the whole extent of both. Where ever they are not ſo commu- nicated, we may aſſume very reaſonably, that it is on mo- tives ſtrictly conformable to all the divine attributes, and therefore to goodneſs and juſtice, though unknown to us, from whom ſo many circumſtances, with a relation to which the divine providence acts, muſt be often concealed: or, we may reſolve all into the wiſdom of God, and not preſume to account for them morally y.“ The laſt part of this paſ- fage hath a reference to his ſcheme of reſolving all into the di- vine wiſdom. But you cannot but obſerve here, that after his repeated invectives againſt the divines, and againſt artificial theology, for aſcribing moral attributes to God, juſtice and goodneſs, according to our ideas of them, he has in effect here acknowleged all that the divines themſelves teach. They be- lieve that God is always good and juſt, though they do not pre- tond to account for the exerciſe of goodneſs and juſtice in every Particular inſtance: but that enough we know to convince us of both: the notions of which, this writer himſelf here owns to be in many inſtances, at leaſt, neceſſarily communicated to us from his works; and furely then we ſhould endeavour to re- ſemble him in theſe his moral perfections, as far as we know them. Before I conclude th is cauſe I ſhall not after ward cc G letter, I ſhall take ſome notice, be- s have ſo proper an opportunity for it, ok Ler 23. Lord Bor INGBROKE. 4⁰7 of what he hath obſerved concerning eternal ideas in God, and ncer rning the eternal realons and fitneſſes of things. He f dnds great fault with Dr. Cudwort’, Dr. CGlarke, and others, for talking of ideas in God, as if they ſuppoſed his manner of knowing to be exactly the ſame with ours; which certainly was far from their intention. He pronounces, that the doctrine of rernal ideas in the divine mind has been much abuſed by thoſe who are in the delirium of metaphyſical t oy. It cannot be u underſlood in a literal ſenſe. And „c he thinks ſuch a Way of talking is profane as well as pre ſumptuous; an d that it is filly too, and mere cant ²2.“ He has ſeveral obf ſervations, which are for the moſt part very juſt, to ſhew that God's manner of knowing is very different from ours, and that he does not know by the help or intervention of ideas as we do a. I need not take particular notice of thoſe eb. ſervations, which contain little in them, that will not be ac knowleged by thoſe whom he has thought to oppo oſe. The raſſ and improper uſe of the word ideas, as applied to God, hath no doubt led to miſtakes, and to wrong and unwarrant- able ways of expreſſion: as a ny one muſt be convinced that knows what contentions there have been in the ſchools abont the divine ideas, which have given riſe to arrogant and fooliſh queſtions, ſcarce conſiltent with the veneration that is due to the ſupreme incomprehenſible Being. Yet the modeſt uſe of that expreſſion is not to be too rigidly cenſured. Our Knth himſelf, who blames it ſo much in others, hath on ſeveral occaſions fallen into the ſame manner of expreſſion murfelf. Thus he obſerves, that%it might be determined in the divine ideaé, *«that there ſhould be a gradation of life and intelleët throu Sb. **out the univerſe b.“ And he repeats it again, that“ this peared neceſſary or fit in the divine Iuas, that is, to fhal *« more rationally, to the ſupreme divine reaſon or intention c.“ Where he uſeth the term divine ideag as equivalent to the divine reaſon and intention, though he thinks the latter more proper. He elſewhere declares, that ¹the ideas of God, if we may *¹ aſcribe ideas to him, no more than his ways, are thoſe of c man d.“ And in one of his moſt celebrated pieces publiſhed in his own life-time, he ſaith, that“ God in his eter nal ideas, «for we are able to conceive no other manner of knowing, has preſcribed to himſelf that rule by which he governs the uni- 2 Vol. iii. p. 356. a Ibid. p. 35 5, 356, 357. Vol. v. P. 35, 35, 37, 38. b Ibid. p. 337. c Ibid. p. 365. Ibid. p. 344. D d 4**verſe 44 55 1 —½ꝛʃ4 A A View of ike DEIsTI-aL Writers. Let. 23. ³ verſe he createde.“ Here he not only aſcribes ideas to God, but eternal ideas, by which God hath preſcribed to himſelf a rule for his governing the world. This rule he there explain- eth to be“ a fitneſs arifing from the various natures, and more ¹ various relations of things, in the ſyſtem which he hath con- *eſtituted.“ Which fitneſs he there ſuppoſeth to have been known to God in his eternal ideas. And yet he hath frequently inveighed againſt Dr. Clarke, for ſpeaking of the eternal reaſons and relations of things. This particularly is the ſubject of the ſecond, fifty-eighth, and fifty-ninth of his fragments and eſſays in the fifth volume of his works. He treats that learned di- vine, as if he maintained, that theſe reaſons and fitneſſes of things were real natures, exiſting independently of God, and co-eternal with him. And yet he bimſelf, ſpeaking of Dr. Cudworth and others, obſerveth, that when they talk of eternal ideas and eſſences independent on the will of God,“ they do ¹not mean by theſe eternal independent natures, any natures *s at all, but ſuch intelligible eſſences and ationes of things, as *areé objects of the mind ſ.“ And it is his own obſervation, that“ God knew from all eternity every fyſtem that he created ¹„ in time—the relations things ſhould bear— and the propor- *¹tions they ſhould have 8"— and that“to the divine omni- «ſcience the future is like the preſent;“ and therefore he thinks it improper to talk of preſcience in God. He repreſents it as“a great truth, that the whole ſeries of things is at all *etimes actually preſent to the divine mind: ſo that we may ſay **properly, that God knows things, becauſe they are actual to *¹him.“ According to his own repreſentation therefore it may be juſtly ſaid, that all the fitneſſes and relations of things were from the beginning actually preſent to the divine mind. And he accordingly declares, that God was determined by his infinite wiſdom to Proceed with bis creatires in all the æxertions of his Bower, according to the fitneſs of things ¹i. Or in other words, as he elſewhere expreſſeth it, God does not govern by mere ar- bitrary will; but always does that uwbhich is fitteſt to be done; and which he from all eternity ſaw would be fitteſt to be done. And this ſeems to be all that is really intended by thoſe who ſpeak of the eternal reaſons and fitneſſes of things. Whether therefore the manner of expreſſion be ſtrictly proper or not, this « See idea of a patriot king in vol. iii. of his works, p. 53⸗ † Vol. v. p. 15. s Ibid. p. 7. à Ibid. p. 457. 458, 1 Ibid. p. 435. writer Let. 24. Lord BoLINGBROKE. 4⁰9 writer had no right to paſs ſo ſevere a cenſure upon it as he has done, ſince it comes ſo near to his own. But I believe you will think it is time to quit this ſubject, and paſs on to ſome other things in Lord Bolingbrake's works, which relate to things of no ſmall importance, and which will deſerve a particular conſideration. I am yours,&c. SA, S 26 2 L. ETIBR XXIV. The docͦtrine of divine providence nearly connetͦted with that of the exiſtence of God. Lord Bolingbroke's account of it conſidered. He acknowleges a general, but denies a particular providence, and aſſerts that providence relates only to collective bodies, but doth not extend to individuals. The true notion of providence ſtated. M bat we are to underſtand by a particular providence. The reaſonableneſs of believing it, and thbe great importance of it Peton. Theé contrary ſcheme is abſurd and incon- Aiſtent with it ſelf, and of ꝛbe worſt conſequence to man- Lind. The oljections againſt a particular providence examined. Concerning occaſional interpoſitions. They are not properly miraculous, nor deviations from the general lavos of providence, but applications of iboſe lavs to particular caſes. To acknotolege ſuch interpo- Fitions is not to ſuppoſe ibe world governed by miracles, nor to introduce an uni verſal Theocracy like tbe ewiſh. Angels may be employed in particular caſes as miniſters of providence. § 1½, H E doctrine of divine providence hath a very near con- nection wich that of the exiſtence of the Deity, and is no leſs neceſſary to be believed. To acknowlege a God, that brought all things into exiſtence, and yet to deny that he after- wards 41⁰ A Vieuw of tbe DEisTIcAL Writers. Let. 24. wards taketh care of the creatures he hath made, or that he exerciſeth any inſpection over them, as a moral governor, or concerneth himſelf about their actions, and the events relating to them, is, with regard to all the purpoſes of religion, the ſame thing as not to acknowlege a God at all. It is one great excellency of the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Teſta- ment, that they every-where teach us to have a conſtant re- gard to the divine providence, as preſiding over the univerſal fyſtem, and all the orders of beings in it, and as in a particular manner exerciſing a continual care and inſpection towards man- kind, obſerving all their actions, and ordering and diſpoſing the events relating to them with ianfinite wiſdom, righteoufneſs, and goodneſs. But this doctrine of providence, which, one ſhould think, ought mightily to recommend the Scriptures to every good mind, ſeems to have been one principal ground of the prejudices which Lord Bolingbroke hath conceived againſt thoſe ſacred writings. It is true, that he frequently affecteth to ſhew a zeal for divine providence: he ſets up as an advocate for its proceedings againſt the divines, who, he pretends, join with the Atheiſts in miſrepreſenting and oppoſing it. But if his ſcheme be narrowly examined, it will appear that notwithſtand- ing his fair pretences, he doth not acknowlege a providence in that ſenſe in which it is moſt uſeful and neceſſary to believe it. He declares, that“ in aſferting the juſtice of providence, he «* has choſen rather to inſiſt on the moſt viſible and undeniable *courſe of a geperal providence, than to aſſume a diſpenſation *« of particular providences a.“ He obſerves, that“ the world is governed by laws, which the Creator impoſed on the phy- „„ fical and moral ſyſtems, when he willed them into exiſtence, and which mult be in force as long as they laſt; and any change in which would be a change in the ſyſtems them- se ſelves. Theſé laws are invariable, but they are general, and * from this generality what we call contingencies ariſe b.“ The courſe of things rolls on through a vaſt variety of con- ²« tingent events; for ſuch they are to our apprehenſion; ac- ²*¹ cording to the firſt impreſſions of motion that were given it by the firft Mover, and under the direction of an univerſal ¹ providence c.“ As to the brute animals, they are left under the direcétion of inſtinct: and as to men, God has given « his human creatures the materials of phyſical and moral ² happineſs in the phyſical and moral conſtitution of things. 2 1 1 Vol. v. p. 414. d Ibid. p. 416.*2 Ibid. p. 379. and Let. 24. Lord BoLINGBROKE. 411 ¹«and apply theſe materials, and to carry on the work— This „« the Creator has done for us. What we ſhall do for ourſelves, «« he has left to the freedom of our elections. This is the plan «« of divine wiſdom: and we know nothing more particular, 94 and indeed nothing more at all, of the diſpenſations of pro- «* vidence than this 1.„ This then is all the part he allows to providence in the mor al world, that God has given man reaſon, and, as he elſewhere obſerves, paſſion e, and has left him to the freedom of his own will, without ever concerning himſelf farther about the individuals of the human race, or exerciſing any inſpection over men's moral conduct, in order to the re- warding the good, or puniſſ hing the bad. That this is his intention is manifeſt by com par ing this Srith other paſſages. He ex prefly declares, that“ it is plain from the whole courſe of God s pro- ² vidence, that he regards his human creature s collectively, ec not maßeiduani how worthy ſoever every one of them deem himſelf to be a particular object of the divine care f.“ This of God's regarding men collectively, not individually, is what he frequently repeats; and it appears to be a principal point in his ſcheme. With the ſame view he declares, that the fanétions of the law of nature relate not to indiv viduals, but to collective bodies s. He finds fault with the notion, which, he ſays, ob- tained among the heathens,“ that God was conſtantly Atlen⸗ «« tive to the affairs of men h.“ And aſſerts, that God may foreſee, or rather ſee, all the moſt contingent events that happen in the courſe of his general providence; but not provide for particular caſes, nor determine the exiſtence of ** particular men ¹,“ He obſerves, that“ the divine providence has provided means to puniſh individuals, by directing men to form ſocieties, and to eſtabiſh laws, in the execution of * which civil magiſtrates are the vicegerents of providence. « And when the immorality individua nes that of an 8 — * whole ſociety, then the judgments of are puniſhed collectlely in the courſe denet. 3 for individua low, and men of a general provi- ee So that he allc ws no 2 Paniſ nts „but thoſe wh zch re executed by giſtrates. And if a man can eſcape pun Vprovidence e civil ma- has nothing to fear from God, erref the whole community bę as bad as himſelf. And even then the puniſhment may not hap- pen in that or the next age, till he ſhall be no mor I110 II1OTC. Rt IrOm them he 1 4 Vol. v. p. 473, 474. e Ibid. p. 417. f Ibid. p. 431. s Ibid. p. 90. h Ibid. p. 211. 4 Ibid. p. 462. 41² A View of ibe DEis TicAL Writers. Let. 24. Our author indeed ſometimes declares, that“he neither *eaffirms nor denies particular providences k.“ And after hav- ing obſerved, that there is little credit to be given to the reports concerning particular acts of providence, wrought on particular occaſions, he adds, that“ yet he will not preſume to deny, *„*that there have been any ſuch 1.“ He makes the ſame decla- ration afterwards towards the end of his book m. But not- withſtanding theſe profeſſions, it is a point that he hath very much laboured to deſtroy the belief of a particular providence. This is the expreſs deſign of ſeveral of his fragments and eſſays in the fifth volume of his works; eſpecially of the fifty-fifth, fifty-ſixth, fifty-ſeventh, ſixty-ſecond, and ſixty- fourth of thoſe Eſſays; in all which he argues directly, and in ſome of them largely, againſt that doctrine. And after having obſerved, that what we find in the booh f nature is undoubtedhy the word gf Gocd, he aſſerts, that“there we ſhall find no foundation for „the ſcheme of a particular providence n.“ He declares indeed „that he will not be ſo uncharitable as to ſay, that divines „mean to blaſpheme[in their doctrine of a particular provi- ꝗdence],“ yet that this he will take upon him to ſay, that he Who follows them cannot avoid preſumption and profane- *néſs, and muſt be much on his guard againſt blaſphemy ¹.“ That I may obſerve ſome order in my reflections upon this ſubject, I ſhall firſt offer ſome obſervations for ſtating the right notion of divine providence, and what we are to underſtand by a particular providence. And then ſhall proceed to ſhew the abſurdity and ill conſequences of the author's ſcheme. And laſtly confider the arguments he hath urged in ſupport of it, and the objections he hath made againſt the doctrine of a par- ticular providence. By the doctrine of providence I underſtand the doctrine of an all-perfect mind, preſerving and governing the vaſt univerſe in all its parts, preſiding over all the creatures, eſpecially rational moral agents, inſpecting their conduct, and ſuperintending and ordering the events reſating to them, in the beſt and fitteſt manner, with infinite wiſdom, righteoufneſs, and equity. And ſuch a providence cannot reaſonably be denied by thoſe, who believe that the world was originally formed by a moſt wiſe and powerful and infinitely perfect Cauſe and Author. For whatever reaſons induced him to create the world, which may be juitly ſuppoſed to have been for the communications of his X Vol. v. p. 413, 414. 1 Ibid p. 420. m Ibid. p- 546. n Ibid p. 471. 2 Ibid. p. 464. goodneſs, L et. 24. Lord BoLINGBRORKE. 413 goodneſs, and for the joint exerciſe and diſplay of his glorious attributes and perfections, muſt equally diſpoſe him to take care of it, and govern it, when made. Accordingly the Epicureans and others who denied a providence, did alſo deny that the world was made by God, and attributed the formation of it, not to the wiſdom, the power, and will of an intelligent cauſe, but to a wild chance, or fortuitous concourſe of atoms, or to an equally blind fatal neceſſity. And ſo far their ſcheme, how- ever falſe and abſurd, was conſiſtent with itſelf. For they could find no effectual way to exclude God from the government of the world, which was what they wanted to get rid of, but by excluding him from the making of it too. Suppoſing one ſu- preme abſolutely perfect Cauſe and Author of all things, who made this vaſt univerſe, and all the orders of beings in it, which is what Lord Bolingbroke not only allows, but expreſly aſſerts, it follows by the moſt evident conſequence, that the ſame infi- nite power, wiſdom, and goodneſs, which gave exiſtence to the world and all things in it, ſtill preſideth over the univerſal frame in all its parts. The beautiful and conſtant order which is ſtill maintained in the inanimate material ſyſtem, plainly ſheweth that this ſtupendous frame of nature, confiſting of ſuch an in- conceivable variety of parts, is under the conſtant ſuperinten- dency of a moſt wiſe and powerful preſiding Mind, ever preſent to his own work. But the providence of God is eſpecially to be conſidered as exerciſed towards reaſonable creatures, moral agents, which are undoubtedly the nobleſt and moſt excellent of his creatures. The material ſyſtem, whatever order or beauty appeareth in it, is not itſelf conſcious of that beauty and or- der. Nor are mere ſenſitive beings capable of making proper reflections upon it, or of admiring, adoring, obeying the great Parent of the univerſe. This is the ſole privilege of rational intelligent beings. If therefore the providence of God extendeth to any of his creatures at all, we may be ſure that he exerciſeth a ſpecial care over his reaſonable creatures. And ſince he hath given them ſuch noble faculties and moral powers, will govern them in a way ſuitable to thoſe faculties and powers. And this certainly is the moſt admirable part of the divine adminiſtra- tions in the government of the univerſe. For to govern num- berleſs myriads of active intelligent beings, in their ſeveral or- ders and degrees, each of whom have a will and choice of their own, and a power of determining their own actions, to exer- ciſe a conſtant ſuperintendency over them, and to order the events relating to them, and to diſpenſe to them proper retri- butions, not only according to their outward actions, but the in ward —— V 414 A View of tbe DEIST IcAE Writens. Let. 24, inward diſpoſitions and principles from which thoſe actions flow; Iſay, thus to govern them without infringing the liberty which belongeth to them as moral agents, muſt needs argue a wiſdom as well as power that exceedeth our comprehenſion. Yet who will undertake to prove that this is impofſible, or even difficult, to an infinite, all-comprehending mind? We may reaſonably con- ceive, that that immenſe Being, whoſe eſſence poſſeſſeth every part of this vaſt univerſe, is preſent to every individual of the human race. And if that moſt wiſe, holy, and abſolutely per- fect Being, the great Governor of the world, be always preſent to every individual of the human race, then every individual, and all their particular actions, caſes, and circumſtances, muſt be under his providential inſpection and ſuperintendency. And as he knoweth all theſe things when they actually happen, ſohe, to whom, by our author's own acknowlegement, future things are as if they were preſent, ſaw them before they came to paſs. And therefore it was not difficult for him to form ſuch a com- prehenſive ſcheme of things in his infinite mind, as ſhould ex- tend to all their particular caſes, and the events relating to them, in a manner perfectly confiſtent with the exerciſe of their rea- ſonable moral powers, and the uſe of their own endeavours. And nowit appears what is to be underſtood by the doctrine of a particular providence. It ſigniſies, That Providence ex- tends its care to the particulars or individuals of the human race, which is what this writer denies: that God exerciſeth a continual inſpection over them, and knoweth and obſerveth both the good and evil actions they perform, and even the moſt ſecret affections and diſoſitions of their hearts: that he ob- ſerveth them not merely as an unconcerned ſpectator, who is perfectly indifferent about them, but as the ſupreme ruler and judge, ſo as to govern them with infinite wiſdom in a way con- ſiſtent with their moral agency, and to reward or puniſh them in the propereſt manner, and in the fitteſt ſeaſon. And as all their actions, ſo the events which befal them, are under his fu- preme direction and ſupetintendency. Particular events are, in the ordinary courſe of things, ordered in ſuch a manner as is ſubordinate to the general laws of providence, relating to the phyſical and moral world. And what are uſually called occa- ſional interpoſitions, are properly to be conſidered as applica- tions of general laws to particular caſes and occaſions. They make a part of the univerſal plan of providence, and are ap- pointed and provided for in it, as having been perfectly foreſeen from the beginning, and originally intended in the government of reaſonable beings. Tb Let. 24. Lord BoLINGBROKE. 415 The doctrine of a particular providence taken in this view is of vaſt conſequence, and if duly conſidered and believed, could ſcarce fail to have a happy influence over our whole temper and deportment. How ſollicitous, how earneſtly deſirous ſhould this make us to approve ourſelves to our ſupreme Governor and Judge, and to walk always as in his ſight! What an animating conſidera- ration is it, when we ſet about the performance of a good action, to be aſſured that God in his holy providence obſerveth the good deed in every circumſtance, and is ready to aſſiſt and ſupport us in it, and moſt certainly will not ſuffer it to paſs unrewarded! On the other hand, what an effectual reſtraint would it be to wicked actions, if we had this thought ſtrongly impreſſed upon our minds, that they are all perfectly known in every circum- ſtance to the moſt wiſe and righteous Governor of the world; and that if he ſhould not at preſent follow them with immediate puniſhment, yet the time is coming, when he will call us to a ſtrict account for them! Finally, a firm belief of a particular providence, as moſt wiſely ordering and diſpoſing the events re- lating to particular perſons, is a ſource of ſatisfaction and com- fort amidſt all the uncertainties and fluctuations of this preſent world. No conſideration is ſo well fitted to produce a chearful reſignation, and an inward ſolid peace and joy of heart as this, that all things, all Particular caſes and circumſtances, are under the direction and government of the moſt perfect wiſdom, righteouſneſs and goodneſs;; and that nothing can befal us with out the direction or permiſſion of the ſupreme Diſpoſer. Nothing therefore could be worſe Huhded than the boaſts of the Pbicureans, who expeéted to be applauded as friends and benefactors to mankind, on the account of their endeavours to deliver them from the apprehenſions of a providence. This might indeed be ſome relief to very bad men, and tend to make them eaſy in their ſins, but it was an attempt to rob good men of that which is the chief ſupport and comfort of their lives, and the molt powerful encouragement to the ſteady uniform praciice of piety and virtue. Lord Bolingbroke therefore was very ill employed, when he uſed his utmoſt efforts to deſtroy the doctrine of providence as extending its care and inſpection to individuals; ſince without this, the acknowlegement of what he calls a general providence would be of no great advantage, and would be, with regard to all the purpoſes of religion, Iit- tle better than to deny that there is a providence at all. This leads me to what I propoſed to ſnew in the next place; viz. the abſurdity and the ill conſequences of the ſcheme his Lordſhip hath advanced. It ——— 416 A View of tbe DsisricAL Writers. Let. 24. It is an abſurd and inconſiſtent ſcheme. He pretends to allow that God's providence extends to nations and large communities, that it regards men collectively, but not individually. But it is hard to conceive how a proper care could be taken of col- lective bodies, if the individuals of which they were compoſed were abſolutely neglected, and no regard had to them at all. A human government, that would have no regard to the caſes of particular perſons, to do them right or ſecure them from wrong, could ſcarce be accounted a government. Beſides, it may be aſked what his lordſhip means by collective bodies. There was a time when men had not yet formed themſelves into political ſocieties, muſt it be ſaid that they were then not the objects of providence at all? or, will it be allowed that provi- dence extended its care to them whilſt they were only in fami- lies? Aud how could families, either larger or ſmaller, be taken care of, if the individuals, of which families conſiſt, were neglected? And when ſeveral families united together, and formed larger communities, muſt it be ſaid, that providence quitted its care of the families to which it had extended before, and confined its inſpection to thoſe larger communities? And then it might be enquired, how large muſt a community be, in order to its being the proper object of divine providence? Does providence take notice of fingle cities, or ſmaller republics, or only of thoſe communities which are become ſo numerous as to be united into large nations or empires? It may be farther aſked, In what ſenſe is it to be underſtood, that providence extends its care to collective bodies? All that he underſtands by it ſeems to be this: That ˙the courſe of things has been „always the ſame, that national virtue and national vice have « always produced national happineſs or miſery in a due pro- * portion, and are by conſequence the great ſanctions of the * law of nature?.“ The appointing this general conſtitution then ſeems to be all the concern that he allows to divine provi- dence with regard to large communities or collective bodies; and the only ſanctions he allows of the law of nature(as I ſhall have occaſion more diſtinctly to ſhew, when I come to conſider the account he gives of that law) are the public happineſs or miſeries of large ſocieties or nations; and theſe are often ſome ages in operating. It frequently happens that nations and large communities continue for a conſiderable time in great outward proſperity, when there is little national virtue remaining. And our author himſelf acknowleges, that the motives drawn from p Vol. v. P. 472. the Let. 24. Lord BoLINOBROKE. 417 the effects of virtue and vice on collective bodies, are“ ſuch *as particular perfons will be apt to think do not concern «them, becauſe they confider themſ-lves as s individuals s, and „ catch at pleaſure rather than ha appineſs? And as nations are made up of families and ſmaller ſocieties, it theſe be nort well conſtituted, as they cannot be where there is no ſenſe of religion, no fear of God, or regard to a providence as extend- rig ing to individuals, there can mot be much national order or virtue. Lord Holingbroke would, in my opinion, have been more conſiſtent with himſelf, if he had abſolutely denied, that pro- vidence hath any regard to mankind at all, than to pretend that it extends to collective bodies, but not to individuals. For th ſame arguments, which prove a providence as extending to mankind in general, do alſo, if righ tly conſidered, prove that it is exerciſed towards particular perſons, and extendeth to par- ticular caſes and circumſtances. This writer ſets himſelf, as hath been already obſerved, with great appearance ok zcal, to giſ vindicate the goodneſs and juſtice of divine providence in its diſ- penſations towards mankind, in oppoſi ition both to Atheiſts and Divines. But how the juſtice and goodneſs of Pndence to- wards mankind can be vindicated, if no regard be had to indi viduals, is hard to ſee. He himſelf obſerves, that“ juſtice re- quires that puniſhments ſhould be meaſured out in various *¹degrees and meaſures according to the various circumſtances ** Of partieular caſes, and in propor tion to them r.“ And again he repeats it, that“ juſtice requires that rewards and puniſh- „ ments fhould be meaſured out in every Pard ular caſe, in «proportion to the merit and demerit of each indiui idual’² How then can he Preene to vindicate the juſtice of proridence e in this preſent ſtate, when he makes it eſſential to juſtice that regard ſhould be 31 to the caſe of individuals, and yet ſirne that providence doth not conſider men individually at all, only collectively? And as his ſcheme is abſurd and inconſiſtent with itſelf, ſo it is attrended with the moſt pernicious conſequences, which ought to create a horror of it in every well-diſpoſed mind. If providence hath no regard to individuals, there can be no ſenſe of the divine favour for good actions, no fear of the divine dilſ- pleaſure for evil ones; and, as will appear to be his Lordſhip's ſentiment, no future account to be apprehended. Thus every man is left to do what is right in his own eyes without the dread 2 Vol. iv. p. 228. r Vol. v. p. 494. 3 Ibid. p. 495- Vor. f. E e ok 41⁸ A Virw of the DrisricAr Writers. Læt. 24. of a ſupreme governor and judge. It is true, God hath eſta- bliſhed general laws at the beginning, but he concerneth him- ſelf no farther. And our author will not allow that in theſe general laws, or the plan originally formed in the divine mind, God had any regard unto, or made any proviſion for, particu- lar perſons, actions, or events. Good men therefore have no reſource in their calamities; no ground to apply to God for ſupport under them; no expectation of aſſiſtance from him, or from any other being, acting under his direction, as the mini- ſters and inſtruments of his providence. They are deprived of the comforts ariſing from a con ſciouſneſs of his ſpecial approba- tion and complacency, and from the proſpects of reward from him here or hereafter. Thus hope is excluded, which, as his Lordſhip obſerves,“ above all things ſoftens the evils of this «* life, and is that cordial drop which ſweetens every bitter po- ¹«F tion, even the laſtt.“ On the other hand, wicked men have nothing to fear from God for their evil actions. He ſays indeed, in a paſſage cited above, that“providence has provided means ** to punilh individuals, by directing men to form ſocieties, and «« to eſtabliſh laws, in the execution of which civil magiſtrates « are the vicegerents of providence.“ But I do not ſee with what propriety upon his ſcheme civil magiſtrates can be ſaid to be the vicegerents of providence. For if providence doth not conſider men individually at all, how can magiſtrates, in puniſh- ing individuals, be regarded as the vicegerents of providence? Or if providence conſtituted them its viceregents, and there were no ſanctions at all propoſed for particular perſons but thoſe of the civil laws, it would follow that men may be as wicked as they will, and give as great a looſe as they pleaſe to their ap- petites and paſſions, provided they can manage ſo as to eſcape puniſhment from human judicatories, which a man may do, and yet be a very bad man. Human magiſtrates are often them- ſelves corrupt. Solomon's obſervation is certainly juſt. I have ſven the Blace of judgment, that wickedneſs was there, and the place of rightéouſneſi, that iniquity was there, Ecclef. iii. 16. Very unjuſt things are often dope under colour of forms of law. Or, ſuppoſe the laws good, and the magiſtrates juſt and up- right, no human laws can reward or puniſh inward good or bad affections, intentions, and diſpoſitions of the heart. If therefore there were no regard toa ſupreme governor or judge, to the divine approbation or diſpleaſure, as extending to indi- viduals, or to a future account, there is great reafon to thinke t Vol. v. p. 379. that Let. 24. Lord BorINGBROKE. 4¹9 that mankind in general would be far more wicked and diſſolute than they are. It is his Lordſhip's obſervation, that“ amidſt ce thie contingencies of human affairs the odds will always be «« on the fide of appetite— Which reaſon cannot quite ſubdue «« in the Ktrongeſt minds, and by which ſhe is per petually ſub- c dued in the weakeſt u.“ And äccordingly the ableſt politici- ans have thought the aids of religion, which eſpecially includes a regard to providence as extending to individuals, abſolutely neceſſary for ſtrengthening the bands of civil government. I chall now confider the arguments Lord Bolingbroke hath offered in ſupport of his ſcheme, and the objections he hath ad- vanced againſt the doctrine of a particular providence. He frequently intimates, that the doctrine of a particular pro- vidence is needleſs;“ fince the ordinary courſe of things pre- 4 ſerved and conducted by a general providence is ſufficlent to « confirm what the law of nature and reaſon teaches us“*.“ But it appears from what hath been already obſerved, that the doctrine of a general providence, as he underſtands it, i. æ. a providence that has no regard to individuals at all, to their actions, or to the events that befall them, is far from being ſut- ficient to the purpoſes of religion and virtue, or of human ſo⸗ cieties: that it neither furniſheth proper comfort and ſupports for the encouragement of good men, nor is ſufficient to fſtrike terror into bad men, and to be a reſtraint to vice and wicked- neſs. It hath alſo been fhewn, that the notion of a general providence, as excluding all regard to individuals, and to their actions and concernments, cannot be ſupported, nor made to conſiſt with reaſon or with itſelf. And whereas it is repreſentes as a degrading the divine Majeſty, to ſuppoſe him to concern himſelf about what relates to ſuch inconſiderable beings, as are the individuals of the human race, this objection, though var- niſhed over with a pretence of conſulting God's honour, doth at the bottom argue mean and unworchy notions of him. It is in effect a judging of God by our own imperfections. Our views are narrow and limited, and cannot take in many things at once, nor attend to ſmaller matters without neglecting things of greater conſequence. But it is otherwiſe with a being of in- finite perfection, who is intimately preſent to every part of this vaſt univerſe, and knoweth and taketh care of all things at once, with the ſame eaſe as if he had only one ſingle thing to at- tend to. He is capable of exerciſing a moſt wiſe providential gare towards all his creatures in a Way ſuited to their ſeveral na- u Vol. v. p. 479. x Ibid. p. 404. E e 2 1Tres O2 p. 428, 429. 420 A View of tbe DEisTIcAL Writers. Let. 24. tures, conditions, and circumſtances: nor can the multi plicity of things occaſion the leaſt confuſion or perplexity in his all- comprebiending mind. The argnments which he urgeth againſt a particular provi- dence, in the fifty-ſeventh of his Fragments and Eſſays, for ſeveral pages together', proceed upon a continued mifrepre- ſentation of the ſenſe of thoſe whom he has thought ſit to oppoſe. He there chargeth the divines as maintaining, that God ought by particular providences to interpoſe in every fingle inſtance, for giving an immediate reward to every good action, and for puniſhing every evil one, even in this preſent ſtate. He ſup- poſes them alſo to hold that ſome men are neceſſarily determined to good actions by divine influences communicated to them, and others for want of thoſe influences unavoidably determined to evil. And then he argues, that on ſuch a ſappoſition there would be no room for free choice, nor conſequently for virtue or vice, merit or demerit, nor therefore for juſtice or injuſtice⸗. He urgeth further, that if good men were conſtantly and re- markably diſtinguiſhed by a particular providence, it would be apt to produce preſumption in them, to deſtroy or prevent their benevolence, and conſequently their goodneſs; and to harden the wickeda. And that even on that ſuppoſition, the provi- dence of God could not be vindicated in the opinion of man- kind, or of divines themſelves, ſince ſtill it would not be agreed who were good men. The Mahometans, Chriſtians, and dit- ferent ſects of the latter, would inſiſt upon it, that goodneſs in- cludes a belief of their diſtinguiſhing tenets, and an attachment to their ſeveral ſyſtems of religion. ‧One would paſs for a good * man at Nome, another at Geneva,“&c. b. But he ſeems not to have conſidered, that upon the ſuppoſition he puts, there could be no place for this objection: ſince if every good man and good action was to be immediately and remarkably diſtin- guiſhed by a particular interpoſition of divine providence, and every bad man and evil action to be immediately puniſhed, there would be no room left for men's paſſing different judgments concerning the goodneſs or badneſs of perſons or actions; for on that ſuppoſition, there would be a viſible determination of heaven in favour of every good man and good action; ſo that no man could doubt, upon ſeeing any perſon thus remarkably favoured and diltinguiſhed, that he was really good, whateve; denomination he might paſs under. But the truth is, no divico 7 Vol. v. p 424,& ſeq. 2 Ibid. p. 425, 425. a Ib d. b Ibid. p. 431, 432- Let 24. Lord BoLlNoBROKE. 4²¹⁷ ever advanced ſuch an hypotheſis as he here argueth againſt. By the doctrine of a particular providence they do not mean a conſtant particular interpoſition of divine providence for re- warding every good man and virtuous action, and puniſh- ing every bad man and every wicked action, in an immediate and viſible manner here on earth. On the contrary, they uni- verſally maintain that this preſent ſtate is a ſtate of trial and dil- cipline; and that it would be no way agreeable to the nature of ſuch a ſtate to have all good men and good actions immediately and remarkably rewarded, and all wicked men immediately pu- niſhed: that the temporary fufferings of good men, and the proſperity of the wicked, are permitted for very wiſe ends, and may be reaſonably and conſiſtently accounted for, on the ſup- poſition that this preſent life is a ſtate of trial; though they could not well be accounted for, if this were deſigned to be a ſtate of final retributions, or to be the only ſtate of exiſtence allotted us. 3 The greateſt part of what he offers againſt a particular pro- vidence in the LXIId of his Fragments and Eſſays, relates to occaſional interpoſitions, which he pretends would be miracles if they were real. ‧%Such, he ſays, they would be ftrictly, *ꝗwhether they were contrary to the eſtabliſhed courſe of na- ¹cture or not; for the miracle conſiſts in the extraordinary in- **terpoſition, as much as in the nature of the thing brought to **paſs: that the miracle would be as real in the one caſe as in the other: and the reality might be made evident enough by ec the occaſions, by the circumſtances, by the repetition of it * on ſimilac occaſions, and in ſimilar circumſtances; and above ¹ all, by this circumſtance, that the aſſumed particular provi- **dence was a direct anſwer to particular prayers and acts of ¹*devotion offered up to proeure ite.“ Here he takes upon him to give a new and arbitrary definition of a miracle. T'ho' a thing hath nothing in it contrary to the eſtabliſhed courſe of nature, yet it is to be regarded as a miracle, if there be ſuppoſed to be any ſpecial agency of the divine providence in it, ſuited to particular occaſions and circumſtances; and above all, if it be ſuppoſed to come in anſwer to prayer. But if the occaſional interpoſitions he refers to be perfectly agreeable to the general laws of nature and of providence, and be only ſpecial applications of general laws to particular occaſions, I do not ſee how they an be properly ſaid to be miraculous at all; or how their be- ing ſuppoſed to come in anſwer to prayer can make them ſo. 6 „ c Vol. v. P. 458, 459· E S 3 But 8 —— 4²² A View of ibe DEisT IoA. Writers. Let. 24. But he urgeth farther, that if providences were directed ¹⁴laccording to the particular deſires, and even wants of perſons „¹ equally well qualified and intitled to the divine favour, the „c whole order of nature, phyſical and moral, would be fſub- ** verted, the affairs of mankind would fall into the utmoſt con- « fuſion— And if this ſcheme were true, the world would be * governed by miracles, till miracles loſt their name ¹.“ But all this proceeds upon a great miſtake of the point in queſtion. None of the divines that hold a particular provi- dence; i. e. 2 providence which extendeth its care to particular perſons or individuals of the human race, maintain or ſuppoſe rhat God muſt interpoſe to ſatisfy all the different deſires and prayers of men, many of Which, as he obſerves, are repugnant to one another. If the prayers be of the right kind, ſuch as reaſon and religion preſcribe, they muſt be always offered up with this condition or limitation, which the Scripture expreſly directs us to; viz. that we muſt deſire the things we pray for, ſo far and no farther than they are agrecable to the divine wlll, and to what it ſeemeth fit to God in his infinite wiſdom to ap- point. Suppoſing therefore a good man doth not obtain the particular bleſſing he prays for, he may reſt ſatisfied in this, that it was what the divine wiſdom did not ſee fit to grant; and he only deſired it under that condition. Or, if he receives that particular good thing he prayed for, and regards it as an anſwer to his prayer, ſtill there is nothing miraculous in the caſe. There is nothing done in contravention to the uſual courſe of things which the divine wiſdom hath eſtabliſhed. It may juſtly be ſuppoſed to be a law of the moral world, that it is proper for us, in teſtimony of our dependence upon God, and in ac- knowlegement of his providence, to apply to him by prayer for the blefſings we ſtand in need of. And that prayer ſo qualified as God requireth, proceeding from an honeſt and upright heart, and from good affections and intentions, and accompanied with. the uſe of proper endeavours on our parts, is among the means appointed by divine wiſdom for obtaining the moſt valuable be- nefits, eſpecially thoſe of a ſpiritual nature. And the bleſſings thus communicated may be jutly ſaid to be communicated not jma miraculous way, but in a way that is perfectly agrceable to che general laws of providence, and the order which the divine wiſdom hash appointed. Any one that conſiders this will eaſily ſee how little what our author has here offered is to the purpoſe; and yet he goes on to declaim after his manner, that particular —— —— 4 Vol. v. p. 460 providence Let. 24. Lord BoLkinGBROKE. 42²3 providence puts a force on the mechanical laws of nature, and on the freedom of the will in a multitude of inſtances; and that thoſe who maintain this doctrine ſuppoſe that the laws of gra- vitation muſt be ſometimes ſuſpended, ſometimes precipitated, in compliance with men's deſires, and the tottering edifice muſt be kept miraculouſly from fallinge. Among the extraordinary interpofitions of divine providence, he reckons the metaphyſical or phyſfical influence of ſpirits, ** ſuggeſtions, ſilent communications, injections of ideas. Theſe e things, he declares, he cannot comprehend; and he com- * pares them to the altering or fuſpending the courſe of the « fun, or revolutions of the carth, in the phyfical ſyſtem. « And that all ſuch interpoſitions in the intellectual ſyſtem, *as fhould give thoughts and new diſpoſitions to the minds of «men, cannot be conceived without altering in every ſuch in- «« ſtance the natural progreſſion of the human underſtanding, «« and that freedom of the will which every man is conſcious e« that he has f.“ Our author has here let us know what he thinks of all revelations, inſpirations, or communications from God the Supreme Spirit, or from ſubordinate created ſpirits to the human mind; that he regards them as inconſiſtent with the læus of the intellectual ſyſtem, and the natural progrelſion&f the human underſtanding, or eſſential freedom of the will. But whence could he know enough of the laws of the intellectual fyſtem, to be able to pronouace that this is inconſiſtent with thoſe laws? That one man may ſuggeſt or communicate thoughts and ideas to another by words and language, and that there is nothing in this contrary to the nature and order of the underſtanding, or freedom of the will, is univerſally acknow- leged: and why then ſhould it be thought inconſiſtent with. theſe for God himſelf, or ſpiritual Beings ſuperior to man, to communicate thoughts and ideas to the human mind? The moſt natural way of working upon men as reaſonable creatures, and of influencing their actions in a way agreeable to the juſt or- der of their faculties, is by ſuggeſting proper thoughts or ideas to their minds, and our not being able particularly to explain how this is done is no juſt objection againſt it. This writer himſelf elſewhere, ſpeaking of hat extraordinary action of God. ußon the mind which the word Inſpiration is now uſed to denote, expreſly acknowleges, that“ it is no more incomprehenſible ¹than theordinary action of mind on body, or body on mind ².“ And indeed it cannot without the higheſt abſurdity be denied, that God can work upon the ſpirits of men by an immediate in- & Vol. v. p. 4600.. Ibid, p. 414, 415. Vol. ill. p. 468. fluence, 4²24 K View of tbe DEISTIOAI Writers. Let. 24. fluence, and yet in ſuch a way as is perfectly agreeable to their rational natures, and which may not put any conſtraint upon the freedom of their wills. And many caſes be ſuppoſed, in which his doing ſo may anſwer valuable ends. It may alſo be eaſily conceived, that he can make impreſſions upon men's minds by various other means, which he may make uſe of in his wiſe and ſovereign providence to this purpoſe, without at all in- fringiog the order of things in the natural or moral world. He farther argues, that to ſuppoſe a providence extending to individuals, and particular occaſional interpoſitions,“is to ſup- „“poſe that there are as many providences as there are men: or, as he elſewhere expreſſeth it, that“common providence .would break into a multitude of particular providences for * the fupply of wants, and grant of petitionsb.“ But there is no real foundation for this pretence. There is one univerſal providence, which may be conſidered as extending to particular perſons and caſes, all of which are perfectly known to God, and(as was before hinted) occaſion no confuſion or diſtraction in his infinite mind. Our author indeed declares, that„they *¹who have attempted to ſnew that God may act by particular «αand occaſional interpoſitions, conſiſtently with the preſerva- ¹ tion of thegeneral order, appeared to him quite unintelligiblei.“ If it were ſo, our not being able diſtinctly to ſnew how parti- cular occaſional interpoſitions may conſiſt with the doctrine of a general providence, would be no argument at all againſt it. Since, as he himſelf obſerves upon another occaſion,“ It is ¹„ impertinent to deny the exiſtence of any phænomenon merely becauſe we cannot account for it b., And yet we may eaſily conceive in general, that they are perfectly reconcileable, ſince, as hath been already hinted, theſe occaſional interpoſitions are uſually no more than the applications of the general laws of providence to particular caſes and circumſtances. That there may be, or that there have been ſuch interpoſitions, he does not retend abſolutely to deny: but, he ſays, that“ we have no „¹ foundation for them in our own experience, or in any hiſtory *¹Mexcept that of the Bible ¹.“ And yet ſoon after obſerves, that,“ every religion boaſts of many inſtances, wherein the di- been thus exerciſed.“ And certain it js, that this hath been the general ſentiment of mankind. Be- ſides the ordinary coun ſe of things which is to be regarded as under ihe conſtant care and direction of a ſovereign providence, e have been events of «* viné providence has ther b Vol. iii p. 420. i Ibid. p. 414. Ibid. p. 468. 1 Vol. v. p. 414. m Ibid. p. 413. tudh hough a remarkable and uncommon nature, ————— Let. 24. Lord BoLrNGBROKE. 4²⁵ though not properly miraculous, of which there are accounts in the moſt authentic hiſtories, and in which men have been apt to acknowlege a ſpecial interpoſition of divine providence. The moſt important events have been brought about by the ſeemingly ſmalleſt and moſt unlikely means. Things have been often ſtrangely conducted through many intricate turns to pro- duce events contrary to all human expectation. Actions have been over-ruled to effects and iſſues quite oppoſite to the inten- tions of the actors. The moſt artful ſchemes of human policy have been ſtrangely baffled and diſappointed. Surpriſing changes have been wrought upon the ſpirits of men, and re- ſtraints laid upon their paſſions in a manner that can ſcarce be accounted for, and upon which great events have depended. Such things have naturally led mankind to acknowlege a divine hand, and a providence over-ruling human affairs. I am ſen- ſible many of thoſe who honour themſelves with the title of Free-thinkers will be apt to aſcribe this to ſuperſtition or en- thuſiaſm. But what right have they to pronounce againſt the general ſentiments of mankind, and which ſeem to have ariſen from the obſervation of events which argue the over-ruling-in- terpoſition of a ſuperior inviſible agency? He obſerves with a ſneer, that“ there is many an old woman *who is ready to relate with much ſpiritual pride, the particular *«providences that attended her and hers n.“ As to the charge of ſpiritual pride, it is no more than he hath advanced againſt all that believe a particular providence, intereſting itſelf in the affairs of men; the belief of which he imputeth to high notions human importance. That he himſelf had high notions of his own ſagacity cannot be doubted; but the ſentiments he is pleaſed to aſcribe to the old woman, ſeem to me to be more reaſonable, and would, if generally entertained, have a much better infuence on mankind than his own. Is it not much better, and more agreeable to reaſon and nature, for depend- ent creatures to regard the benefits they receive, and the good events which befall them, as owing to the interpoſition of a moſt wiſe and benign providence, and to acknowlege with thank- fulneſs the condeſcending care and goodneſs of God in ſuch in- ſtances, than to paſs them over with a regardleſs eye, from an apprehenſion that God doth not concern bimſelf with the af- fairs of men; that he is utterly unmindful of individuals, and taketh no notice of their actions, or of the events that relate to them? And this is the goodly ſcheme which this author hath taken ſo much pains to eſtabliſh. n Vol. v. p. 418. But 426 A View of tbe DelsTICAT. Writers. Let. 24. But he urgeth, that it is of no uſe to acknowlege particular interpoſitions of divine providenge, fince they cannot be diſtin- guiſhed from events that happen in the courfe of God's general providence. The effects,“ ſaich he,“ that are aſſumed of par- * ticular providences, are either falſe or undiſtinguiſhable from c« thoſe of a general providence, and become particular by no- thing more than the application which vain ſaperſtition or ce pious fraud makes of them°.“ And he obſerves, that this holds with reſpect to the caſe not only of particular perſons, but of collective bodies." Their circumſtances are ſo nearly ee alike, and they return ſo often to be equally objects of theſe ¹* ſuppoſed providences, that no man will dare to determine ee where theſe providences have been, or fhould have been **wemployed, and where not F.“ It appears then, that though he fometimes ſeems to acknowlege the care of divine provi- dence as extending to collective bodies, though not to indivi- duals, yet in reality he does not admit that providence inter- poſes with regard to the one more than the otber; or that in either caſe we can juſtly aſcribe any of the events that befall men, whether individually or collectively confidered, to divine pro- vidence; ſince we cannot diſcern or diſtinguiſh in what events providence has been employed, and in What not. But the truth is, we need not be put to the difficulty of thus diſtin- guiſhing, if we believe that providence is really concerned in them all. It over-ruleth both the affairs and events relating to nations and to particular perſons, diſpoſing and governing them in the fitteſt manner, according to what ſeemeth moſt fit to his infinite wiſdom, to which all circumſtances are perfectly known. And even where the events ſeem contrary, proſperous to one nation or particular perſon, adverſe to another, providence is d0 be regarded in both. For we can never err in judging that all events whatſoever are under the wiſe direction and ſuperin- tendency of a fovereign providence, though when we under- take to aſſign the particular reafons of God's providential dil- penſations, we may eaſily be miſtaken. Our author farther objecteth againſt the doctrine of a parti- cular providence, that it ſuppoſes all mankind to be under an univerſal theocracy like the Fewiſp; and he obſerves, that even in that caſe it would not have the effect to engage men to virtue, or deter them from vice and wickedneſs, any more than it did the eus a. But he here confoundeth things that are of diſtinct Phe heathens, and all mankind in all ages, / Vol. v. p. 420. See alſo p. 450. Ibid. p. 460. A Ibid p. 430. confideration, * 1278 Let. 24. Lord BoriNGBROKE. 4²7 bave been under the care and ſuperintendency of divine pro- vidence, and even of a particular providence in the ſenſe in which we are now conſidering it; i. c. a providence which ex- tendeth to the individuals of the human race, inſpecting their actions, and diſpoſing and governing the events relating to them. But they were not under the Jeuwiſb theocracy. which was a peculiar éonſtitution, eſtabliſhed for very wiſe purpoſes, the reaſons and ends of which I ſhall afterwards have occaſion more particularly to conſider. At preſent I ſhall only obſerve, that though under that conſtitution we may juſtly ſuppoſe there were extraordinary interpoſitions in a way of meroy and judg- ment, both national, and relating to particular perſons, more frequently than there would have been under another conſtitu- tion, yet the deſign of it was not, as our author ſuppoſes, that providence ſhould interpoſe for giving a preſent immediate reward to every good man, and every good action, and for im- mediately puniſhing every bad one. We find frequently pathe- tical complaints even under that diſpenſation, of the calamities and ſufferings of good men, and the proſperity of the wicked. This gave occaſion to the 37th and 73d Pſalms. See alſo Pſalm xvii. 14. Jer. Xii. I, 2. The proper ultimate reward of good men, and puniſhment of the wicked, was ſiill reſerved for a future ſtate of retributions, which, though not ex preſly mentioned in their law, was believed and expected; as appear⸗ eth from what Solomon hath ſaid concerning it, Eccleſ. iii. 16, 17. Xii. 14. I fhall conclude this letter with taking notice of an obſerva⸗ tion of our author, which is deſigned to take off the force of an argument that Mr. Wollaſton had offered.“It will be of little ¹ ſervice,“ ſaith he,“to the ſcheme of particular providences, to ſay, ſike Wollaſton, that there may be incorporeal, or at leaſt inviſible beings, of intellecét and powers ſuperior to man, and capable of mighty things: and that theſe beings may be the miniſters of God, and the authors of thoſe pro- vidences.“ He pretends, that there is no proof that there are ſuch beings; and ridicules the doctrine of Genii or Dæmons, as having been“owing to ancient aſtrologers, and the knaves or madmen that profeſſed theurgic magic.“ And he argues, that if theſe angels act by the immediate command of God, it is in oppoſition to his general providence, and to ſupply the defects of it; and that it is to give up the government over mankind to thoſe beings.“ But it is with an ill grace that this writer ſeems here to queſtion the exiſtence of angels, 1 Vol. v. p. 463, 464. 2 when cc 4²⁸ A View of the DEISTICAL. Writers. Let. 24. when yet he frequently intimates, that there are many orders of beings much ſuperior to man, and that man is of the loweſt order of intellectual beings. He repreſents it as a thing highly probable, that there is a gradation from man through various * jorms of ſenſe, intelligence, and reaſon, up to beings unknown ** to us, Whoſe rank in the intellectual world is even above our «c conceptions.“ And that““ there may be as much difference between ſome other creatures of God and man, as there is be- «tween man and an oyſter.“ And if it be allowed, that there are created intelligences much ſuperior to man, where is the abſurdity of ſuppoſing that they are employed by divine wiſdom as the inſtruments and agents of providence in its adminiſtra- tions towards the human race? Higher orders of creatures may in the original plan of providence be deſigned to aſſiſt, and ex- erciſe ſome ſuperintendency over the lower. It may reaſonably be conceived, that this may contribute to promote the beauty and order of the univerſe, and to connect the different orders of beings, and carry on a proper intercourſe between them. It is certain, that the exiſtence, and the interpoſitions of ſuch beings on ſpecial occaſions, has been generally believed by man- kind in all ages; and it is clearly determined in the revelation contained in the holy ſcripture: ſo that it may be now aſſumed not merely as a reaſonable hypotheſis, but as a truth that can be depended upon. Nor does the making uſe of angels as agents or inſtruments in the adminiſtrations of providence argue any defect of providence, as he is pleaſed to inſinuate, which ſtill overſees and directs the whole. For when God makes uſe of inſtruments in the courſe of his providence, it is not becauſe,„ like human governors, he is unable to do it immediately by himſelf, and cannot be perſonally preſent; for he is ſtill preſent to every part of the creation, and all things are under his direction and ſuperintendency. But he is pleaſed to make uſe of ſome of his creatures as inſtruments in conferring benefits, or inflicting chaſtiſements upon others, for the better carrying on the order and'œconomy of his kingdom, and for many wiſe ends which we cannot pretend at preſent diſtinctly to aſſign. Io my next I fhall conſider what Lord Bolingbroke hath offer- ed concerning the immortality of the ſoul, and a future ſtate of retributions, which will let us farther into the true intention of his ſcheme. I am,&c. s Vol. v. P. 329, 330. Vol. iv. p. 177. END of the FIRST VoLUME. ——y— Bſſ —— 4 1 4 1 9 4 Sr9 gL eledH.e