THE LIBRARY
OF
THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
'
VIEW
O F
LORD BOLINGBROKE'S
PHILOSOPHY?
In Four LETTERS to a FRIEND*
///
LETTERS FIRS
O PROCERES! Cenfore opus eft, an Harufpice nobis ?
LONDON,
Printed for JOHN and PAUL KNAPTON, in Ludgate-
Street. MDCCCLIV.
T O
***** Efq. 5
DEAR SIR,
ORD BOLINGBROKE'S PHILOSOPHY,
fo much and fo long talked of, is
now come, and very fairly, into the
hands of the Public. For I think it unjuft
to the Editor, to fuppofe his Lordfhip did
not intend the World this LEGACY. His
laft Will fufficiently mews us his kind in-
tention. But it will be faid, he fpeaks of it,
as a thing compofed only for the folace and
admiration of a few friends in a corner [i].
What then ? might not his Lordfhip
change his mind, and extend his benefits ?
Hardly, you will fay, without c&ntradiff-
ing his profeffed principles. So much the
[l] <e Let us feek truth, but feek it quietly as wJl.
" as freely. Let us not imagine, like fome who are
*< called FREE-THINKERS, that every man who can
" think and judge for himfelf (as he has aright to do)
has therefore aright of SPEAKING, any more than of
" afting) according to the full freedom of his thoughts.
" The freedom belongs to him as a rational creature.
'* He lies under the reftraint as a member of Society.
** As we think for ourfelves, we may keep our
*' thoughts to ourfelves or communicate them with a
" DUE RESERVE, and in fuch manner ONLY, as it
" maybe done without offendlngtbe 'Laws of our Conn-
" try, and diflurbing the public peace." Intrcdutiory
Letter to Mr. Pope, Vol. iii. p. 343. Quarto Edition.
better.
i o fl <? a oo
2 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
better. The publication then will be of a
piece with the reft. And never trouble your
head with one contradiffion y where you
may meet with a thoufand.
Quid te exempta hvat fpinis de pluribus una ?
Now tho' I know You have as little Cu-
riofity to hear what a Freethinker can ob-
ject to the FAITH which has got pofleflion
of your heart, as what a Pick-pocket can
chicane to the Property in your purfe : yet
the name of L. BOLINGBROKE'S META-
PHYSICS, (which, I think, were become as
famous, and hitherto as little underftood, as
his POLITICS) cannot fure but incline you
to fome flight acquaintance at leaft with
this FIRST PHILOSOPHY, as he calls itj and
which, in the manner of other Conquerors,
he erects on a general defolarion.
The only part of his Lordmip's Cha-
racter, that yet remained equivocal, was his
LITERARY. How this will fare by the
publication of his Pbilofophy, I will not
pretend to fay -, perhaps not altogether fo
well as his Friends might give him the
pleafure to expect. He frequently tells his
reader, that the Doctrine of his ESSAYS
and FRAGXMENTS had been occafionally
thrown out amongft them, and made the
fubject
PHILOSOPHY. 3
fubjed of many free converfations. While
haranguing in that circle, I will fuppofe he
met with the applaufe he fought for. But
had he chofe to bring them to the bar of
the Publick 'himfelf, he might have feen
ftrange revolutions. ct Illic, et Judex ta-
" cetj et Adverfarius obftrepit, et nihil TE-
" MERE DICTUM perit : et, fiquid TIBI
" IPSE SUM AS, PROBANDUM EST I et,
" omiflb MAGNA SEMPER FLANDI TU-
<f MORE, loquendum eft[i]." Indeed his
Lordfhip could hardly expect to efcape the
feverity of this tribunal but by a very fupe-
rior merit : Since his meditations on divine
matters are fo extenfive, that fcarce any
one, who has written in defence of Virtue,
or Religion, but will find himfelf either
infulted in his perfon or mifreprefented in
his opinions ; and merely for being in his
Lordfhip's way.
But fure, when a man of his polite
manners had condefcended to enter into
learned altercation, the world might at
leaft expect a Model for the courtly ma-
nagement of Controller fy : which, once for
all, mould have either reformed, or fhould
for ever difcredit the groffer Polemics of
[i] Quint.
B 2 the
4- A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
the Schools. So that tho' the DIVINE
would expert no great matter from thefe
oracles of reafon, yet he would readily ac-
cept his amends in the manner of fo elegant
a pen. And perhaps you will think, Di-
vines had been no lofers by this equivalent :
You, who have obferved that, in their
commerce with the World, the chief dif-
ficulty lies in the Forms : Indeed, they
have been generally thought wanting in
them ; whether their pride prompts them to
appeal to the Authority of Reafon ; or their
prudence teaches them to fubmit to the
Wifdom of their Betters. And the ma-
nagement of their controversies in the
Schools, and the profecution of their in-
terefts in Courts, have, on different ac-
counts, been equally obnoxious to the cen-
fure of their adverfaries. I would wil-
lingly avoid both thefe extremes. For I
would, if poflible, preferve and fupport
that love and reverence to an ufeful Body,
which the noble Writer, relying, not on
his own Politics, but on other men's, has,
in his fourth Effay, devoted to Deftruction.
He, indeed, may call for aid on the Secular
arm ; he has the old reafon for fo doing ;
but, I dare fay, the Clergy never will.
I Things
PHILOSOPHY. 5
Things are now come to that pafs, that the
State feems to be in more need of their
Support, than They, of the State's. For,
tho' the cavils of licentious men always
end in the Confirmation of Truth and Vir-
tue, yet they generally fet out in loofening
the hold, which Religion has on the PEO-
PLE. And when that is gone, what other
Engine the Magistrate will invent, to keep
the multitude in order, They, whofe prin-
cipal concern it is, would do well to con-
fider.
As I faid, then, I had taken it for grant-
ed, that our noble Adverfary, for an Ad-
verfary he has condefcended to be, and a
warm conflict it is likely to prove, would
be principally anxious to teach us in his
writings, what was his wont in converfa-
tion, that ftudied politenefs, which is fo
well fitted to keep inferiors at a diftance :
And that, when he had declared mortal
war againft every thing the world hath hi-
therto called RELIGION -, and againft that
Order, (call them as you will, PRIESTS,
or MINISTERS) which all ftates had thought
proper to eftablim, for the Support of it,
we mould fee his attack carried on by the
fairefl as well as ftrongeft reafoning, the
B 3 gentleft
6 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
gentleft as well as the firmeft addrefs, and
the politeft as well as the keeneft raillery.
But how was I difappointed, to find
this Confervator of States, this Legiflator in
Philofophy and Religion, utterly unable to
raife his head above the rank contagion
of the Schools : to fee Polemics go their
ufual train -, and this Sun of our new Sy-
flem, whirled along the turbid vortex of
controverfy, like any the moft ignoble of the
earthly Bodies! But his POET, or rather
his Prophet, (who fo magnificently an-
nounced to us the glad tidings of all thefe
good things) had prepared us for it. He
had contemplated this flrange phenome-
non: not, indeed, without furprize. It is,
fays he,
<( mighty odd :
* c A fit of vapours clouds this DEMI-GOD.''
To be plain, I met with nothing in
thefe big Volumes, but the ranknefs of
SOUTH without his force; and the malig-
nity of MARVEL without his wit. You
ihall not believe me on my own word :
the evidence lies before us. Give me leave
then to prefent you with a SPECIMEN, un-
der his own hand, of his candour, his
temper.
PHILOSOPHY. 7
temper, and infinite politenefs. And tho*
one can but ill judge of the barveft by a
fample of the field-flowers, yet we may
form a pretty good guefs of the foil.
Nor is this intemperance of language,
of which I propofe to give you a tafte, the
mere efcape of fancy or humour, which it
would be charity to overlook : It is a fort
of formula dicendi, without which, all his
Lordfhip's authentic acts of Legiflation
would be invalid ; It is the very SPIRIT
of his new Religion, without which, the
whole would be indeed but a dead letter.
It was with the lefs reluctance I entered
on this part of my defign, that I might
have to juftify to the world the plainnefs
and freedom with which I may hereafter
chance to treat his Lordfhip's REASONING;
(as you know I am fometimes thinking to
give it a thorough Examination j) for, the
excellent Quintilian well obferves, " Prae-
* c flatur hoc aliquando etiam DIGNITATI-
" BUS ut libertatis npftras RATIO reddatun,
" ne quis nos aut petulante$ in hedendis his,
11 aut etiam ambitiofos putet."
Without any further preface, then, let
the Shew begin : Only premifing, that as
his Lordmip had a FIRST PHILOSOPHY to
B 4 erect,
8 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
ereft, he had an immenfe deal of rubbifti
to remove : The rubbifh of every great
Name, and of every facred Order : all of
which flood direftly in his way.
With CUDWORTH he begins : and of
CUDWORTH he fays, tfhe heads of many re-
verend perfons have been turned by a pre-
ternatural fermentation of the brain, or a
philofophical delirium. None hath been more
fo than this divine\\\ Again, CUDWORTH
[in his INTELLECTUAL SYSTEM] gives you
little lefs than a nonfenfical paraphrase of
nonfenfe. It was not his fault. T^he good man
faffed his life in the Jludy of an unmeaning
jargon ; and as he learned, he taught [2],
70 talk, like CUMBERLAND, of promot-
ing the good of the whole Syftem of rational
Agents, amongft whom God is included, and
of human benevolence towards him, is to talk
metaphyfical jargon and theological blafphe-
CLARKE triumphs in this foolijh and
tvickedrbodomondate^ &c. [4] ^//CLARKE
fays about the difcovery of God's will, is a
rhapfody of prefumptuous reafoning and of
[i] Vol. iii. p. 353. of his Works, in Quarto.
[2] Vol. iv. p. 92. [3] Vol. v. p. 82.
[4] Vol. v. p. 252.
frophane
PHILOSOPHY. 9
prophane abfurdities [5]. Audacious and
vain Sophiji ! His terms have a folemn air,
that may impofe on the unwary, and con-
firm the habitual prejudices of others -, but
more abfurdity cannot be fluffed into fo Jew
words [6],
Declaiming againfl WOLLASTON, he
fays. But I will detain you no longer about
fuch difcourfe as would convince you, if you
beard it at MONROE'S, that the Philofopher
who held it was a patient of the Doctor's
not yet perfectly rejlored to his fenfes [7].
Again, of the fame excellent Perfon, We
have here an example of the fecond fort of
Madnefs mentioned above. 'The man who
writ all this nonfenfe was a man of parts,
But when thefe learned Lunaticks, &c> [8],
CLARKE and WOLLASTON are now
grown outragious j and fit only to be
chained together. So that henceforth
they are rarely (hewn afunder. We
fometimes find them in the height of a me-
taphyfical frenzy [9] : And, by what one
can fee, without much provocation.
They had proved the Soul to be a thinking
fubftance diftinct from Matter: And I
[5] Vol v. p. 292. [6] Vol. v. p. 395.
[7] Vol. iii. p. 518. [8] Vol. v. p. 374.
[(?] Vol. iii. p. 514.
B 5 don't
io A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
don't know of any body, before his Lord-
fhip (v;ho very civilly permitted them to
enjoy toe honour of it for life) that pre-
tended to queflion the demonftration.
The Ptefident FORBES is really mad - 3
but it is only quoad hoc. For obferve, he
was no Divine by profeflion, but fomething
better [10]. Indeed, not much. He was
a LAWYER. Of which unlearned Profef-
iion, as he calls it, ninety nine in a hundred
at lea/1, (he fays) are Petty-foggers y Sbarp-
ers t Brawler s> and Cavillers [n].
But, to give the better edge to his well-
fempered language, he fometimes dips it
in irony: and then it is, The good Earl of
Nottingham ; and the righteous Bijhop Sber->
lock. They deferved this compound abufe.
For the Firft publickly defended, and ably
too, that Faith which ilands fo much in
his way : and the Other once ventured to
oppofe that Party, whofe patronage he had
then condefcended to afiume.
He comes next to the whole BODY of
the Chriftian Clergy. And now the Jirft
Philofophy begins to work ; and the tafk to
grow ferious. The PRIMITIVE SAINTS
and DOCTORS have the precedence, as is
fitting. " The lift of MARTYRS confift-
[ic] Vol. v. p. 523. [i i ] Vol. ii. p. 353.
" ed
PHILOSOPHY. n
" ed, I believe, of thofe who fufTered for
" BREAKING THE PEACE [ I ij. The PRI-
" MITIVE CLERGY were, under pretence
" of Religion, a very LAWLESS TRIBE [12]."
" ALL the Chriftian FATHERS ufing a DE-
<c LIRIOUS STYLE, it became that of Chri-
<c ftian Theology [13.]" " It would fcarce
f< be poffible to believe that the greateft
< { Saints and Doctors of the Church had
ts talked fo much BLASPHEMOUS NONSENSE,
" and employed fo much artifice about it,
" if their writings were not extant [14]."
i- " Of all this abfurdity, prophanenefs y and
t ridicule, they who built up Chriftian
<f theology were guilty," You alk, with
impatience, What was this abfurdity ? &c.
He was going to tell you 5 for he never
minces matters. cf They APDED (fays he)
" the EPISTLES to the GOSPELS j the doc-
" trines of PAUL to thofe of CHRIST; till
H the APOCALYPSE became a part of our
'< hqly Scriptures [ 1 5]." And now, I hope,
you are fatisfied j and ready for what he
tells us was the refult, That " Chriftian
? c Divines and Philosophers have done
[n] Vol. iv. p. 434. [12] Id. ib.
[13] Vol. iv. p. 612. . [14] Vol. tv. p. 303.
1 15] Vol. iv. p. 371.
f< more
12 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
<c more to DEBASE our notions of the fu-
" preme Being, than all the Doctors of
" Polytheifm[i6]."
This was reafonably well, for new-be-
ginners : But nothing like the feats of MO-
DERN DIVINES.
" It is MADNESS, or fowething WORSE
<c than madnefs, for Divines to imagine
" themfelves able to comprehend a whole
<c Oeconomy of divine Wifdom from^ddam
" down to Cbrift. And yet this is fo cuf-
<c ternary, that not only the learned and
c< ingenious, but every dabbler in Theolo-
<f g v J wno muft pafs for a fool or a knave
<e whenever he grows extravagant, affects
" to reafon in the fame manner [17]."
c< Would Divines infift chiefly on the
" external proofs of the authenticity of
e< Scripture they would avoid a great deal
" of BLASPHEMY [ 1 8]." ' l They are ab-
** furd and licentious in urging both the
" external and internal evidence of Revela-
" Our Divines turn themfelves to de^
" claim on certain and undoubted marks of
?< the divine Authority of the Scriptures of
[16] Vol. iii. p. 541. [17] Vol. iv. p. 274.
[18] Vol. iii. p. 272. [19] Vol. iv. p. 273.
" the
PHILOSOPHY. 13
ft the Ifraelites Let us compare fome of
ct thefe fuppofed marks with thofe of hu-
" man original, and they will flare us in
" the face, and point out plainly the FRAUD
" and IMPOSTURE [20]."
" It is common and yet aftoniming to
cc obferve, with how much folemnity and
(l confidence almoft all thofe who teach
*' and defend Chriitianity, prefume to AF-
" FIRM ANY THING, tho' never fo evident-
" ly FALSE [l]."
" The beft, and even fuch as pafs for
" the faireft controverlial Writers, improve
te by artifice the natural infirmity of the
-" human mind. They do, on purpofe,
<c confound ideas and perplex the figni-
" fication of iigns the moft fcandalous
<c frauds are applauded under the name of
<c fubtilties. This I call theological fraud [2]."
Hence, in another place, he lays, that jfo/-*
ly and knavery prevail moft among/} Divines
[3], and again, that They are THE PLAGUES
AND SCOURGES OF THE WORLD [4].
" The doctrine of Clarke and other
<c Chriftian Divines about our obligation,
[20] Vol. iii. p. 288. [i] Vol. iv. p. 295.
2] Vol. iii. p. 424 5. [3] Vol. v. p. 6.
[4] Vol. iv. p. 435.
" tO
14 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
" to imitate God is FALSE and PRO-
<{ Divines have IMPUDENTLY and
<c WICKEDLY aflumed, that there is a law
<c of right reafon common to God and
" man [6]."
" What I have advanced will be treated
cc as an impious paradox by fome of the
<c trifling folemn dogmatifts in Criticifm and
" Theology, who have advanced fo many
" abfurd and impious paradoxes of their
"own [7]."
We now come to what the noble author
calls the DELIRIUM OF METAPHYSICAL
THEOLOGY [8]. " The man who walk-
4C ed foberly about in the Bedlam of Paris,
< and believed himfelf God the Father,
<c was mad. Thus the Philofopher, who
<c takes a bold leap from a few clear and
<c diftinft ideas to the firfl principles of
<c things, is mad[g]"
tc The reafoner s a priori refemble very
" much one fort of MADMEN. Some of
<e thefe are fo VERY MAD that they lofe all
" ufe of their reafon. Others again deduce
[5] Vol. v. p. 65. [6] Vol. v. p. 77.
[7] Vol. v. p. 190. [8] Vol. iii. p. 356.
[9] Vol. iv. p. 139.
<c confe-
PHILOSOPHY. i$
"confequences, and argue very juflly, but
tc are STILL MAD : becaufe they reafon
" from principles that have no appearance
ct of reality out of their own overheated and
cc difordered imaginations. You will find
" inftances of this kind, without the trou-
" ble of going to Bedlam -, but you will
" find them principally in Colleges and
Schools [10]."
ct They deferve to be treated like
" patients proper for Dr. MONROE, and
" to be put under his care. Nothing lefs
ct than Metapbyjics could have turned fo
<{ many good heads [n]."
Well then, Divines are all MAD ; and,
for fear of mifchief, in fafe cuftody.
Sometimes indeed, his Lordmip lets them
out to cool, and air themfelves j nay, he
is fo good to give them their lucid inter-
vals j but it is only to play the rogue, and
to cant in the pulpit ; and then, back again
to their kennel, to Monroe, and his difci-
pline-; or, what is ftill worfe, to his Lord-
fhip'sj to hear themfelves called Fools,
Knaves, Cheats, mad men, Impoftors, and
B/aJphemers. And, for thefe hafty changes
of the Scene, he has contrived a moft in-
[TO] Vol. v. p. 369. [n] Vol. v. p. 4r7.
genious
i6 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
genious expedient. He has divided the
Clergy into the two clafles of Theologians
and Metaphyjicians : in the fir ft of which,
the KNAVE is predominant ; in the fecond,
the MADMAN. So that he has of either
fort always ready, and at hand, juft as he
wants them. But as Madmen are much
eafier dealt with than Knaves, he has pre-
pared one common BEDLAM for the recep-
tion of them all. For God j or bid (he fays)
be flould be as uncharitable as Divines, to
think they deferved a worfe place, as blaf-
pheming in tbeir fenfes [12]. Good man!
How (hall the clergy exprefs their thanks to
him for fo much Chanty ? Alas ! he thinks
not of it : his modejly is ftill greater than his
charity : and he is only anxious not to be
mifunderftood ; and left Divines jfhould
take his honeft freedom in dudgeon. Nay,
he is even ready to fear, that it may poffi-
bly procure him, in return, feme ecclejiafti-
ftf/BiLLiNSGATE; to be called infidel, deijl>
and perhaps atbeifl. My reply (fays he) to
so ANGRY Difputants ftould be CALM,
AND SUCH AS MIGHT TEACH CHARITY
to thofe 'who preach it fo much, and praffife
itfo little [13]. To fay the truth, his Lord-
[12] Vol. iv. 9.464. [13] Vol. iv. p. 225.
(hip
PHILOSOPHY. i^
fjiip feems, like (JUSTICE SHALLOW in
the Play) to be fufpicious of thofe he had fo
well entertained. Davy, (fays the Juftice,
fpeaking of his Court-Guefls) be civil to thefe
Knaves, for they 'will BACK -BITE. Not
ivorfe than they are BITTEN (replies Davy)
.for they have marvelous foul linen. Whe-
ther his Lordfhip found the Prieft's Surplice
in this condition, or whether he left it fo,
is not material. No marvel at it's evil
plight, when it has been fo long over-run
with Vermin j fuch as Toland, Chub,
Morgan j and thofe who have been fince
bred out of them.
The BILLINGSGATE, however, if we>
give but equal credit to what we hear of
the Clergy, and to what we fee of his Lord-
fhip, lies pretty nearly between them. Ad-
mit, they have both their mare : yet, I
agree with the right Honourable Author, it
becomes the reverend Clergy much lefs than
it does him. They are Difputants; he is an
Orator. Their proper bufinefs is to reafon^
his proper bufinefs is to rail. While each
confines himfelf to his province, every thing
goes well. But mould they change wea-
pons j mould the Orator attempt to reafon,
C and
1 8 A VIEW or L. BOLINGBROKE'S
and the Difputant be provoked to rail, all
would be out of order. I venture, on the
authority of Quintilian, to reckon railing
amongft the ARTS of Eloquence. " CONVI-
" TIIS implere VACUA caufarum," fays this
able Rhetor. It is true he holds it to be
of the lefs perfect kind <c eft enim pror-
" fuS CANINA ELOQJLJENTIA.'* But his
Lordmip might reafonably think, that his
Dog-Eloquence, was well enough fitted to
their Dog-Logic. However, Quintilian
would not overload this fpecies of Elo-
quence, nor would I ; tho' neither of us
be much difpofed to extol it. He confefTes
there is yet a ranker kind. " Sed haec mi-
" nora funt ILLO VITIO ANIMI, quo MALE-
" DICUS a MALEFICO non diftat, niii OCCA-
" SIONE." " In which, fays he, nothing but
" opportunity is wanting to make the evil-
" fpeaker an evil-doer." But the Minijler
of State muft join the Orator before this
can be brought about: juft as the DIVINE
and ATHEIST muft confpire to make that
ARTIFICIAL BLASPHEMY which, hisLord-
fhip aflures us, has eaten into the very vi-
tals of Religion.
But the mention of this CONSPIRACY re-
minds
PHILOSOPHY. 19
minds me that it is now high time to give
you fome account of it.
Hitherto we have only the out-lines, or,
at moft the general air of this Clerical
Portrait ; all he could catch at the firft fit-
ting. A horrid combination finifhes the
Picture : a CONFEDERACY BETWEEN DI-
VINES AND ATHEISTS, to dijhonour and de-
grade the God of the univerfe. This is the
{hiking feature j and fo artificially difpofed,
that, turn the Portrait wha^ way you
will, it has flill a plotting, which in his
Lordmip's juflice, is little better than a
hanging look.
A confederacy fo monftrous, fo mad,
fo portentous, may perhaps ftartle you at
firft. But don't be frightened. Take my
word for it, it will come to nothing. It
is a Treaty of his own making. And you
have heard enough of his talents for this
fort of bufinefs. He could reconcile the
moft unnatural alliances to the delicacy of
his morals ; and the moft ridiculous mifcar-
riages to the fuperiority of his Politics.
But a confederacy between Divines and
Atheifts ! you fay. Was any thing fo odi-
ous! What think you, I pray, of that
C a blind
2O A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
blind bargain he once drove between cer-
tain of King George's Proteftant Subjects,
and a Popim Pretender ? How that came
to nothing, he has not thought fit to tell
us, in his curious account of that mat-
ter [i 8]. But, as to this confederacy, I
may have an opportunity of mewing you,
that, after all his pains to form it, he betray-
ed and diflblved it, himfelf. At prefent,
my bufinefs is only to fliew you what he
fays of it.
"After pleading the caufe of natural
" and revealed Religion, I am to plead
" the caufe of God himfelf, againfl Di-
" VINES AND ATHEISTS IN CONFEDERA-
" CY [19].
" The conduct of Chriftian Divines has
" been fo far from defending the Provi-
" dence of God, that they have joined in
" the clamour againft it. Nothing has
" hindered, even thofe who pretend to be
" his MefTengers, his Embafladors, his
" Plenipotentiaries^ from renouncing their
" allegiance to him, as they themfelves have
. [18] See the whole Letter to Sir \V. Windham.
Vol. v. p. 305.
"the
PHILOSOPHY. 21
<e the FRONT TO AVOW, but the hypothe-
" /is of a future ftate. On this hypothecs
<f alone they infill j and therefore if this
* f will not ferve their turn, God is difowned
" by them, as effectually as if he was fo, in
ct terms [20]." " Divines, if not Atheifts,
<c yet are ABETTERS of Atheifm [i]."
" That there were fome men, who
ft knew not God in all ages may be true:
" but the fcandalous ta/k of COMBATING
" HIS EXISTENCE under the mark of
" Theifm, was referved for Metaphyfici-
<c ans and Theologians [2]."
" Divines are ftill more to be blamed.
" A CONFEDERACY WITH ATHEISTS be-
" comes ill the profefTors of Theifm.
" No matter. They PERSIST, and have
<c done their be/I, in concert with their
" allies, to DESTROY the belief of the good-
c< nefs of God : They endeavour to DE-
" STROY that of his goodnefs, which is a
" farther article of their Alliance [3]."
" The CONFEDERACY between Athei/ls
" and Divines appears to have been carried
[20] Vol. v. p. 487 8. [i] Vol. v. p. 485.
[2] Vol. v. p. 307. [3] Vol. v. p. 393.
3 " VERY
cc
22 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
VERY FAR Nay the Atheift will ap-
<{ pear, to that reafon, to which they both
<c appeal, more confident in his abfurdity
" than the Divine [4]." t{ Divines UPBRAID
<e God's goodnefs, and CENSURE his Juf-
" tice[5].'' " INJUSTICE is, in this life,
" afcribed to God, by Divines [6]."
" The whole Tribe of Divines, like
<c Wollafton and Clarke, do, in effeft RE-
(t NOUNCE the God, whom you and I
<e adore, as much as the ranked: of the
" Atheiftical Tribe. Your Priefts and our
<e Parfons will exclaim moft pathetically,
<c and RAIL OUTRAGEOUSLY at this afTer-
" tion. But have a little patience, and I
" will prove it to their fhame to be
V true [7]."
This is bold : but he knew there was no
danger/ Thefe Priefts and Parfom, as he
tells us, are mere ORTHODOX BULLIES,
*who (iffeffi to triumph over men who cm-
*~u J.
floy but part of their jlrength ; tire them
with IMPERTINENT PARADOXES; and pro-
Doke them by UNJUST REFLECTIONS, and
cffen, by the FOULEST LANGUAGE [8],
[4] Vol. v. p. 3489. [5] Vol. v. p. 417,
[6] Vol. v. P . 541. [ 7 j Vol. v. p. 485.
[8] Vol. iii. P . 2 7i .
Now,
PHILOSOPHY. 23
Now, on a man of his Lordfhip's profefled
moderation, as well as concealed ftrengtb,
who, (as himfelf allures us)Je(s an exam-
ple of candour [9], thefe orthodox Bullies
can have no hold. For, as impudent as
they are, they can never have the face
to call this confederacy with Atheifls
an IMPERTINENT PARADOX; this at-
tempt to decry God's providence, to blot out
his attributes of goodnefs andjuftice, to com-
bat his exigence, and finally to renounce him,
an UNJUST REFLECTION : or that the
names, he gives them, of madmen, fools,
knaves, blafpbemers, is FOUL LANGUAGE.
But then you afk, what fort of eloquence
is it, with which thefe Orthodox Bullies
contrive to RAIL OUTRAGEOUSLY, and
yet employ none of his Lordfhip's flow-
ers of fpeech ? Now, tho' this fpecimen
of his Lordfoip's eloquence, was what
I owed to his inimitable pen ; I have not
the fame obligation, nor mall have the
fame complaifance, to the Divines.
You will forgive me, I dare fay, if I
rather chufe, to vindicate them from the
horrid calumny of this imaginary confede^
[9] Vol. iv. p. 548.
C 4 racy
24 A VIEW of L.BDLINGBROKE'S
racy j even tho' I go a little out of my way
to do it. To fay the truth, the charge is
too ferious to be paffed over with the fame
lightnefs I am difpofed to treat the reft
of his Lordfhip's foul Language. Befides,
I mould be aihamed to do nothing but tri-
fle ; tho' his Lordfhip (as his friend Pope
predicted of him [10]) affords none but tri-
fling occafions.
Be pleafed then to underftand, that
ATHEISM ever endeavoured to fupport
it felf, on a FACT, which has indeed all
the certainty that the evidence of fenfe can
give it ; namely the irregular diftribution of
moral good and evil.
" Cum res hominum tanta caligine volvi
< Adfpicerem, Letofqiie diuflorere nocenies,
<{ Vexarlque pios labefadta cadebat
{C RELLIGIO,"
was the common language of the impatient
fufferer. From hence the Athsifl inferred,
that things were without an intelligent
Kuler j driven about by that Fate or For-
[10] IF EVER LORD B. TRIFLES, IT MUST BE
\VHEN HE TURNS A DlVINE. Pope's Works, Vol.
JX. Letter 14.
tune,
3
PHILOSOPHY. 25
tune, which firft produced them. DIVINES
oppofed this ccncluficn: for they did not
venture to be fo paradoxical as, with his
Lord (hip, to call in queftion the premijfes,
a phenomenon which objected itfelf to all
their fenfes. They demonftrated, STRICT-
LY DEMONSTRATED, the Being of a God,
and his moral attributes. And then {hewed,
that if the whole of man's exiftence were in-
cluded in this life, the prefent diftribution
of moral good and evil would contradict
that demonftration. They, therefore, in-
ferred, on their part, that the whole was
not included in this life : but that man
was refer ved for a future reckoning j in
which, an equal diftribution of rewards
and punimments will amply vindicate the
providence of a righteous Governor.
But Atheifts were not the only enemies
Divines had to do with. There was a
fet of men, who allowed an intelligent firfl
Caufe, endowed with thofe moral attributes,
which Divines had demonftrated. And,
on that account, called themfelves DE-
ISTS. Yet they agreed fo far with Atheifm,
as to confine the whole of man's exiftence
to the prefent life. Thefe, the Divines
com*
26 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
combated in their turn ; and with the fame
arms j but in an inverted order. In dif-
puting with the Atheift, the principle held
in common, was the prefint unequal dijlri-
button of Good and Evi/. So that to cut
off their concluiion from it, of NO GOD,
they proved his being and attributes :
and from that proof inferred that the in-
equality would be fet right. With the
Detftj the common principle was the being
and attributes of God. Therefore, to bring
them to the allowance of a FUTURE
STATE, they proved the prefent unequal
diftribution of good and evil j and from
thence inferred, that there mufl be fuch a
State.
This is a plain and true account of
the conteft with ATHEISTS and DEISTS,
in which the fubjedt of a juture jlate came
in queftion : In either controverfy, it is
deduced from the moral attributes : only
with this difference, In the difpute with
Atheifts, the demonftration of thofe attri-
butes is made ; in the difpute with Deifts
it is allowed. The final purpofe againft
Atheifm is to prove the BEING AND AT-
TRIBUTES of God j againft Deifm to prove
a FU-
PHILOSOPHY. 27
a FUTURE STATE : For neither natural nor
revealed Religion can fubfift without be-
lieving that God is, and that he is a RE-
WARDER of them thatfeek him [ 1 1 ]. Thus,
we fee, the quejlion, in either controverfy,
being different ; the premises, by which
they were to be proved, muft needs be
different. The difference is here explained :
the premifles, in the argument with Athe-
ifts, were the moral attributes ; the pre-
miffes in the argument with Deifts, the une*
qual distribution of good and evil.
Who now would have expected to fee
calumny either thrive or rife on fo unpro-
mifing a ground : or a writer bold enough
to tell the World, that this conduct of
the DIVINES was a CONFEDERACY with
ATHEISTS, to decry God's providence j to blot
out his attributes of goodnefs and juflice ; fo
combat his Government ; and to deny bis
very exijience ? The RIGHT HONOURABLE
Author does all this ; and more ; He
hopes to be believed. It is true, this is a
fine believing age : Yet I hardly think
he would have pumed his confidence
in it's credulity fo far, had he himfelf
[n]St,Paul.
feen
28 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
feen his way clear before him. His
Lordmip is always fublime, and therefore
often cloudy ; commonly at too great a
diftance to fee into the detail of things,
or to enter into their minutia: : for which,
indeed, he is perpetually felicitating his ge-
nius : So that, in his general view of The-
ologic matters, he had jumbled the two
controversies together ; and, in the con-
fufion, has commodioufly flipped in one
facl: for another. He, all the way, re-
prefents Divines as making A FUTURE
STATE THE PROOF OF GOD'S MORAL
ATTRIBUTES : Whereas, we now fee, on
the very face of the controverfy, that they
make THE MORAL ATTRIBUTES A PROOF
OF A FUTURE STATE. Let us confider
how the difpute ftands with Atheifts.
Thefe men draw their argument againft a
God, from the condition of the moral
world : The Divine anfwers, by demon-
ft rating God's Being and Attributes : and,
on that demonftration, fatisfies the objec-
tion. Gonfider how it ftands with the
Deift. Here, God's Being and Attributes
js a common principle: And on this ground
the Divine ftands, to deduce a future Jlate
from
PHILOSOPHY. 29
from the unequal diftribution of things.
How then was it poffible, you will afk,
it fliould be as his Lordfhip pretends j and
is perpetually repeating ; namely, that Di-
vines make a future jiate the proof of God's
moral attributes? What tell you me, of
pojfible ? It was neceffary. It was to fup-
port his (lander of a CONFEDERACY.
There was no room to pretend that God's
Being and attributes were made precarious,
by proving a future ftate y from them : But
could he get it believed, that Divines pro-
ved the Being and attributes from a future
flate^ he would eafily find credit with his
kind readers^ for the reft.
Well then, the whole amount of his
CHIMERICAL CONFEDERACY rifeS to this,
That Divines and Atheifts hold a principle
in comihon ; but in common too with all
the reft of mankind; namely, that there
are irregularities in the diftribution of mo-
ral good and evil. His Lordfhip has been
angry with all POLITICAL, as well as all
RELIGIOUS Parties in their turns. Sup-
pofe he had taken it into his head to orna-
ment a CRAFTSMAN with the detedion of
a political confederacy between the WHIGGS
and JACOBITES, to dethrone KING
C 7 GEORGE ;
30 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
GEORGE; becaufe both denied that he
reigned jure divino : Would not Mother
OJborne have fmiled through all her gra-
vity; and told him that the Wbiggs urged
this common principle to fupport their
Monarch's title zg&mft.indefeajible hereditary
right ? And is it not as evident that, in this
pretended anti-theological confpiracy, Di-
vines employed the other common princi-
ple, to fupport Religion againft Atheifm and
Deifm ! But whatever his Lordfhip might
think proper to difguife in this reafoning,
there is one thing the moft carelefs Reader
will never overlook ; which is, that, under
all this pomp of words and folemnity of
accufation, lies lurking the pooreft fpeciesof
a Bigot's calumny ; which too is perpetually
betraying itfelf in the meannefs of mifrepre-
fentation, and the rancour of abufive lan-
guage. For it is the Bigot's practice,
from one principle held in common, to
charge his Adverfary with all the follies
or impieties of an obnoxious Party.
This miferable artifice had been now long
hiffed out of learned eontroverfy, when
the noble Lord took it up ; and, with
true political fkill, worked it imo a
SHAM
PHILOSOPHY, 31
SHAM PLOTJ to make RELIGION diftruft
it's beft Friends, and take refuge in the
FIRST PHILOSOPHY.
TINDAL and COLLINS were manly Ad-
verfaries. They knew how to invent, to
purfue, and to pufh an argument againft
Religion. But what does this noble Wri-
ter know? His friends will tell you.
They admire him for his wit and eloquence.
But his friends admire, where You and I
fee nothing but an inflamed fpirit, and an
inflated ftyle.
But he has not yet done with the CHRI-
STIAN CLERGY. What remained behind
was to colled: together his fcattered abufe 5
and to pour it all at once on that venera-
ble Body, with as unfeeling a hand, as un-
relenting heart.
" Nothing more (fays he) will be want-
" ing to anfwer all the ends of artificial
" Theology, than to aflume that they who
" minifter in holy things are the Omrahs,
" the Vizirs and the Baffas of THIS MIGH-
m/
" TY KING, whofe commands they pub-
" lifh, interpret, and execute, or caufe to
" be executed, rather than his EMBASSA-
" DORS : by affuming which latter charac-
32 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
" ters, they feem to leiTen, over modeftlyj
" the dignity of their own order, and to
<c raife that of the Laity too high : BUT I
" AM ASHAMED TO HAVE SAID SO MUCH
" ON THIS SUBJECT [12]."
This is, indeed, as he fays of them,
over modejl. But they will be ready to
reply in the words of the Poet,
" Let SHAME come when it will, we
" do not call it".
x
Befides, after what has paffed, I fee no-
thing he need be ajkamed of; unlefs it be
for ftealing the paultry joke of Embaffadors
and Plenipotentiaries [13] from Lord
Shaftibury : which, if it but contribute to
fupport his character for Wit> I think, may
be eafily forgiven.
" Far be it from me (purfues this Right
" Honourable Peribn) and from every lover
" of Truth and common fenfe, to wim that
" the race of Metaphyficians and Cafuifts
" (hould increafe, or fo much as continue.
" But fince there are, have been, and will
[12] Vol. v. p. 540 I.
[13] See p. io. of this Letter.
"be
PHI L d SOP H Y. 33
tc be fuch men in all ages, it is very rea-
<c fonable to wifh that they may ferve to
" the fame good purpofe that the HELOTES,
e( the DRUNKEN SLAVES did at Sparta ;
c< and that their DELIRIUM, inftead of im-
" pofing on others, and even infecting ma-
" ny, may be at length LAUGHED OUT of
" the world [ i o]." What pity is it his
Lordmip himfelf had not tried this expedi-
ent ; (whofe efficacy, other Lords of better
temper, fo kindly recommend and prac-
tife[n],) and employed his great wit to
laugh the Clergy out of the world, rather
than his eloquence to fcold them out of it. He
may rail, thro' all his figures, at the imper-
tinence of Logic, the futility of Metaphyfics,
the fraud of Difputation, and the blafphemy
of Divinity [12], Thefe are the arms of
impotent, hyflerical Women when they
want to have their will. After the long la-
bours of a HOOKER, a STILLINGFLEET, .
a CUDWORTH, a SPENCER, a TILLOTSON,
and a CLARKE, the Englifh Clergy may
anfwer his Lordmip, in the words of De
Rofny, as I think the ftory goes, to fome
[10] Vol. v. p. 446. [u] See their EJfeys 9 of
paft and prefent date, in the freedom of wit and humour.
[12] Vol. iv. p. 353.
D old
34 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
old Ladies of the League, who, when
HENRY IV. had got pofleffion of Paris,
were one day very eloquent in their invectives
againft him, " Good ancient Gentlewomen,
* faid this rough old Soldier) fpare your
breath, and fet your hearts at reil, for MY
MASTER is not a man to be fcratched and
fcolded out of his KINGDOM."
But when, between his malice and his
magic, he had transformed the CLERGY
into drunken JIaves j you muft not think
he would neglect to expofe them to his
NOBLE SPARTANS, in this condition. He
hath not envied his Friends their enter-
tainment : and no coft is fpared of lavifh
expreffion to fet out thefe drunken re-
vels. " The Choirs of birds (fays he)
" who whittle and fing, or fcream at
" one another, or herds of hearts who
" bleat and low, or chatter and roar, at one
< c another, have juft as much meaning and
<c communicate it as well Such is the
" common converfation Such, too, for
" the mod part, are all the public difcourfes
" that are held, and the folemn harangues
of the Pulpit [13]."
[13] Vol. iii. p. 422 3.
I After
PHILOSOPHY. 35
After fo large a collection of his Lord-
flip's flowers of fpeech, you will difpenfe
with me from gathering up his loofer ends;
fuch as, abfurdity, effronderie, knavery, folly,
nonfenfe, delirium, frenzy, lunacy, dvwn-
rlght madnefs, impiety, prophanenefs, blaf-
phemy, and atheifm : which, like feed-
pearl, are every where fcattered over the
embroidery of his eloquence.
But when I review this torrent of ribal-
dry, ftrong enough to overlay an Oyfler-
wench, I am apt, with indignation, to aik,
An quae
Turpiacerdoni,Volefos Brutumq; decebunt ?
but ready, however, in chanty to fufpect,
that even as his Lordfhip gave to BOWNCE,
his friend's dog, the fentiments of his maf-
fter [14], fo his Lordfhip's Secretary, who
attended to two at once, his Lordfhip and
hisLordfhip's PARROT, might unaware put
[14] The world (fays his Lordfhip to Pope) is as
well fitted for BOWNCE as for YOU, with refpeft to
pbyjical nature; and with refpeft to MORAL nature,
BOWNCE has little to do beyond hearkening to the STILL
WHISPERS, the SECRET SUGGESTIONS, and the
SUDDEN INFLUENCES cf inflintt. Vol V. p. 467.
This, the Reader fees, is intended for a compliment
D 2 down
36 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
down to his Lord, what indeed belonged to
o
the Favorite : who, however eloquent he
might be, yet, we are told, was no Philo-
fopher.
The Coxcomb bird, fo talkative and grave,
That from his cage cries cuckold, wbore and knave,
Tho' many a paflenger he rightly call,
We hold him NO PHILOSOPHER at all."
And I the rather fappofe the Secretary
to be here in fault, fince his Lordfhip, in
one place, feems to think, that ribaldry
and ill language difgrace the animal implume
bipes, the two-leg d unfeathered Philofopher.
For, fpeaking of SPINOZA and HOBBES,
he fays, Let it not befaid, they are men of
. DEPRAVED UNDERSTANDINGS, AND DE-
PRAVED MORALS j THIS IS TO RAIL, NOT
TO ARGUE.
To rally then, when we mould argue,
in his Lordfhip's opinion, is a fault. Unlefs
on the following ftanza of his Friend's Univerfal
prayer.
" Where I am right, THY GRACE IMPART,
" Still in the right to ftay ;
" Where 1 am wrong, O TEACH MY HEART
" To find that better way," .
you
PHILOSOPHY. 37
you will fuppofe, thefe two atheifls were
efpecially favoured, becaufe not found in
bad Company j wickedly CONFEDERATING
with Divines and Metapbyjicians.
Serioufly, as good men may be fcanda-
lized to find their Paftors accufed and con-
vidted of blafpbemy and prophanenefs ; (for in
his Lordfhip's procefs the proof is always
included in the charge) it will be but right
to tell the plain truth : which is no more
than this, that his Lordmip is very apt to
annex new ideas , to old words ; and not very
apt to give us notice of his handy-work.
As in the cafe before us, Who would fufpecl,
that teaching, a law of right reafon, com-
mon to God and man 5 and inforcing mans
obligation to imitate God, were BLASPHE-
MY and PROPHANENESS? Yet fuch they
are j or his Lordmip's word is not to be
taken [16].
So then, as what has hitherto been
efteemed Piety is become Blafphemy ; we
need not wonder if his Lordfhip mould turn
[ 1 6] Divines have impudently and wickedly ajfumed
tbat there is a Law of right reafon common to God and
man. Vol. v. p. 77. And again, To PREACH UP
THE OBLIGATION OF IMITATING GOD IS FALSE
AND PROPHANE. Vol. V. p. 65.
D 3 old
38 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
old thread-bare blafphemy, into a new ha-
bit of piety : and this may be as proper to
be obferved, left the fame good men mould
be too much mocked at the horror of what
comes next : For now his Lordfhip falls,
with the fame fpirit, or, if you will, with
his ufual wit and eloquence^ upon the TWO
REVELATIONS and their FOUNDERS. And
here, his piety pretends fo much to the im-
pulfe of confcience, that you would fufpect
he thought himfelf, like St. PAUL, under
the malediction of a woe if he preached not
his neiv Gofpel.
Of MOSES, he fays, " It is impoffible to
" excufe all the puerile, romantic, and ab-
" furd circumftances in the author of the
ct Book of Genefis, which nothing could
" produce but the habit of dealing in tri-
c< fling traditions, and a moft profound ig-
" norance. It is impoffible to read what
" he has writ on this fubject without feel-
" ing contempt for him as a philofopher,
" and horror as a Divine [17]."
" The PENTATEUCH has fuch evident
" marks of falfehood, as can be objected
" to no other writings, except to pro-
[17] Vol. iii. p. 233.
fefs'd
PHILOSOPHY. 39
tc fefs'd Romances, nor even always to
" them [ 1 8]."
" We may laugh at Don Quixote, for
" reading Romances till he believed them
< to be true hiftories, and for quoting
" Archbifhop Turpin with great folem-
" nity ; but when Divines fpeak of the
" PENTATEUCH as of an Authentic Hi-
" ftory, and quote Mofes as folemnly as
" he did Turpin, are they much lets mad
" than he was [19] ?" Don Quixote is his
Lordfhip's favorite iimile ; and comes as
often over as either the Afi or Lion in Ho-
mer. If I was not half amamed of ufing
what has been fo long hacknied both by
Wits and Blockheads, I mould be tempted
to borrow this fimile ; and with the lefs
fcruple, as his Lordfhip fets me the exam-
ple. What then, if I tried to apply it, for
once ? It fhall furTer nothing in my hands ;
but be returned fafe again to his Lordmip,
to joke with to the end of the chapter.
Whoever attentively confiders his Lord-
mip's ESSAYS, will, I dare fay, be of my
mind, That the much reading bis majler
LOCKE, who was deeply engaged with
1 1 8] Vol. iii. p. 271. [19] Vol. iii. p. 280.
D 4 School-
40 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
School-divines and Metaphyficians, had the
fame effect on his Lordfhip's temper, then
in an advanced age, and under a bilious ha-
bit, that the reading books of Chivalry had
on the prudent Gentleman of La Mancha.
And, by his own confeffion, a mans head
isfoon turned by complex and abjlrdft ideas.
From henceforth the gigantic Forms of
Schoolmen and the enchantments of Meta-
phyfical Divines got entire pofleffion of his
Fancy. Confider what you can make of
the following remark, without fuppofing
with me, that thefe mormos had made a
very deep impreflion. " T'hat THEOLOGY,
" fays he, which pretends to deduce the
<e duties of man from /peculations con-
" cerning the moral attributes of God, is to
" be reckoned in the clafs with NATURAL
" MAGIC [20]."
If you feek, I do not fay for the elegance,
but for the common propriety of this obfer-
vation, any where out of his Lordfhip's
own imagination, you will feek for it in
vain. Yet, allow him but his theological
Magicians, and you fee, their theology can
be nothing elfe than natural magic.
[2p] Vol. iv. p. 621,
So
PHILOSOPHY. 41
So again, when he fays Clarke ftall
not force me into Atheifm-, no nor Wollajlon
neither j What is this, but Don Quixote,
up and down ? dreadfully afraid that thefe
Necromancers would, at laft, force him
into their enchanted caftle of a FUTURE
STATE j raifed, as he tells us, between
Divines and Atbeifts in confederacy,
Indeed, every Reader muft have obferv-
ed this unaccountable rage and horror
whenever a DIVINE comes crofs his Lord-
fhip's fancy. One would think, they had
ferved him the trick, the Enchanters plaid
Don Quixote ; that they had run away
with his Library, and walled up his Study-
door. Moft true it is, that not long before
this immenfe Treafure of the firft Pbi-
lofophy was given to the world, certain of
thefe wicked Magicians had turned it all
into fair 'ie-J "amours : And the public on it's
appearance found nothing better proved
than the truth of the old proverb, Pro 'The^
faurOy Carbones,
Let us be thankful, however, for what
we have. And indeed, if I was not perfectly
fatisfled that no man in his fenfes could
miflake the value of this new Money, I
ihould make a fcruple of laying fo much of
it
42 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
it before him ; efpecially the following
pieces, which have an uncommon glow, as
if they came hot from the place where
they were minted.
" THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF THE LAW
" OF MOSES, like the whole fyftem of his
" Conduct, WAS FOUNDED ON MURDER[ I ].
<c The Jews blended together, at once,
<e in the moral character of God, injuftice,
<c cruelty, and partiality. They made him
" an object of terror more than of awe
" and reverence ; and their Religion was
<c a Syftem of the RANKEST SUPERSTI-
" TION [2]."
" The JEWS with more inconfiftency,
" and not lefs profanation, than the Pa-
fl gans, dre/Ted up the one fupreme Being
" in all the rags of humanity ; which
" compofed a kind of motley Character,
" fuch as foolim Superftition, and mad
<c Enthufiafm alone could afcribe to him;
<{ and fuch as no man who believes him
tc an all-perfect being can hear without
<c horror [3]."
<c The Jews give fuch notions of the fu-
<e preme Being as no People on earth, but
[i] Vol. v. p. 183. [2] Vol. v. p. 531.
[3] Vol. v. p. 529.
c< this
PHILOSOPHY. 43
et this, would have afcribed, I do not fay
" to God, but to the worit of thofe mon-
" fters, who are fufFered or fent by God,
" for a fhort time, to punim the iniquity
11 of men [4]."
From MOSES and JUDAISM, hisLordfhip
defcends to PAUL and CHRISTIANITY. Let
us fee whether he givesThem better quarter.
" CHRISTIANITY abrogated the Law,
c and confirmed the hiftory ofMofes ; from
<c the times, at leaft, when St. PAUL un-
" dertook, like a true cabaliftical Archi-
<c tecl, with the help of type, and figure,
" to raife a new Syftem of religion on the
" old foundations [5]." " The Gofpel of
'* CHRIST is one thing j the Gofpel of St.
" PAUL another [6]." <( He preached a
" Gofpel in contradiction to CHRIST'S, and
* directly repugnant to it [7]."
On this account, I fuppofe, it was, that
he dignifies PAUL, with the elegant appella-
tion of the LEATHER-DRESSING PONTIFF.
But the immediate occafion of his confer-
ring this new title on him, was particularly
happy. His Lord (hip was on a favorite
topic, he was abufing the firft Meffenger^
[4] Vol. v. p. 515. [5] Vol. iii. p. 288.
[6] Vol. iv. p. 313, [7] Vol. iv. p. 326 7.
of
44 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
cf the Gofpel, for their claim to mainte-
nance. He was confcious, PAUL came not
within his cenfure. So that, left this mould
give the Apoftle too much credit j he in-
forms the reader, in his polite way [8], that
he had a trade y and could miff for himfelf.
For it feems, nothing but downright ftarv-
ing will acquit the Apoftles of theft and ex-
tortion, before his Lordfhip's Tribunal.
" JESUS (in his opinion) had no inten-
" tion of fpreading his Religion further
cc than amongft the Jews-, but PAUL,
" bred at the feet of Gamaliel, faw fur-
" ther than that poor ignorant fimerman
" Peter." The fenfe requires you mould
read, that poor ignorant Carpenter Jefus :
and fo without doubt his Lordfhip de-
figned his compliment. Well, but what did
PAUL fee further ? It was this, u That the
4< contempt and averfion in which both
* { the nation and the Religion of the Jews
< e were held by the reft of mankind,
< would make it much more eafy to con-
" vert the Gentiles at once to Chriftianity,
e than to make them Jews firft, in order
" to make them Chriftians afterwards [9]."
[8] Vol. Iv. p. 423. [9] Vol. lv. p. 306.
For
PHILOSOPHY. 45
For it feems " To DISSEMBLE was a
" fundamental principle of apoftolical con-
" duct. PAUL practifed it. We have his
" own word for this ; and he boafts of
" it [10]." His Lordfhip lets us know,
that Paul had affurance enough to do any
thing. For fpeaking of the Apoftle's famous
argument ad modeftiam Nay, but, O man,
'who art thou that replieji agalnft God?
&c. [11]. He fays "There is fomething
" fo IMPUDENT, as well as abfurd in this
" proceeding, that, common as it is, one
" can fee no example of it without frn>
" prife[i2]."
" Can he be lefs than mad, fays his
" Lordfhip, who boafts a revelation fu-
tl per-added to reafon, to fupply the de-
"'fects of it, and who fuper-adds rea-
" fon to revelation to fupply the defects
" of this too, at the fame time ? This is
" madnefs or there is no fuch thing inci-
" dent to our nature. And into this kind
" of madnefs, ST. PAUL, profound in ca-
(f baliftical learning, hath fallen [13]."
And yet, as mad as it is, all States and So-
cieties have matched it, when they Juper-
10] Vol. iv. p. 306 7. [i i] Rom. ix. 20.
[12] Vol. iii. p. 307. [13] Vol. iv. p. 172.
added
46 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
added civil Laws, to natural confcience or
Religion, tofupply the defers of it j andfu-
peradded natural confcience or Religion to
Civil Laws, tofupply the defetfs of thofe tool
at the fame time. But more of this in it's
place.
" St. PAUL carried into the Apoftle-
" fhip a great deal of that ASSUMING
<e AIR, which is apt to accompany much
<c learning, or the opinion of it a great
<c profuiion of words, and of involved
< and unconnected difcourfe, even on
" thofe fubjects which required to be moft
<c clearly and diftinctly developed. He
<{ was a loofe paraphrafer, a Cabaliftical
" Commentator, as much, at leaft, as any
" ancient or modern Rabbin [14]." " St.
" PAUL'S fyftem of Religion, is an intri-
" cate and dark Syjlem, with, here and
" there, an intelligible phrafe, that cafts no
<c light on the reft, but is rather loft in the
cc gloom of the whole [15]." " Having faid
* fo much of the intelligibility of Paul's
" Gofpel, TRUTH authorifes me to add,
C that where it is intelligible, it is of-
" ten ABSURD, or PROPHANE, or TRI-
[14] Vol. iv. p. 3267. [15] Vol. iv. p. 328.
" FLING."
PHILOSOPHY. 47
c < FLING [16]."'* PAUL taught fredefti-
tl nation and UNLIMITED PASSIVE OBEDI-
" ENCE : the one abfurd, the other both
" abfurd and IMPIOUS [17]-"
Was it poffible to laugh, in the midft of
thefe horrors, what mortal could now for-
bear. Unlimited paj/ive obedience, quoth he !
The noble Lord had been fo long accuf-
tomed to the cant of his Fadion, which
made St. Paul the preacher of I cannot tell
what nonfenfe under that name, that he
feems now in good earned to believe he
was fo. A juft judgment on the Politician ;
to come at laft, to give credit to his own
Flams. However, in this inftance, at leaft,
one would hope St. Paul might have been
fpared, if it were only for old-acquaintance-
fake ; and the hard fervice they had put the
LEATHER-DRESSING PONTIFF Upon. But
it is bad trufting, we fee, to the gratitude
of Statefmen. Happy for us, PAUL has
yet an able Defender ; who will never be
wanting in what he owes to gratitude and
honour. I beg leave to fay thus much,
becaufe as Clarke and Wollajlon found the
worfe treatment for being the favourite
[16] Id. ib. [17] Vol. iv. p. 510.
Philo-
48 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
Philofophers of Q^C. (as is well known to
thofe who were in the fecret either of his
pafiions or his party) fo St. Paul> I am
perfuaded, did not fare the better for be-
ing patronized by his Lordfhip's illuftrious
Friend.
" CHRISTIANITY (fays his Lordfhip)
cc became FANATICISM in the FIRST pro-
" feflbrs of it. Men corrupted it by AR-
* c TIFICIAL THEOLOGY. And fome will
" be apt to think, that the firft of thefe
" men was PAUL Divines will be FU-
<c RIOUS to hear SUCH LANGUAGE [18]."
Alas! No. He miftakes the mood, in
which his works chanced to find them.
They laugh at his vanity j and pity the
FURY that infpired SUCH LANGUAGE. And
he gives them ample exercife for all their
pity : for having done with PAUL, he turns
now to rail with the fame virulence againfl
CHRIST himfelf.
" The truth is, CHRISTIANITY pre-
<c ferved, in many refpects, a ftrong tang of
" the fpirit of Judaifm. The fupreme Be-
" ing took a milder appearance 5 his fa-
" vour was confined no longer to one peo-
<c pie. The MESSIAH came and redeemed
[18] Vol. v. p. 275.
" fallen
PHILOSOPHY. 49
c - e fallen Man. CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY
" difcovers in this myfterious proceeding
cc the love of God to Man ; his infinite
" juftice and goodnefs. BUT REASON
<e will difcover the fantaftical, confufed
" and inconfiftent notions of Jewish Theo-
" Jgy> ^tent in it ; and applied to ano-
<f ther fyftem of Religion. 'This love will
" appear partiality -, this juftice will appear
<f injujlice; this goodnefs will appear cruelty.
<c On the whole, the moral character im-
" puted to the fupreme Being by Chriftian
< Theology differs little from that imputed
" to him by the Jewiih. The difference is
'* rather apparent than real [19]." "The
<c fcene of Chriftianity has been ALWAYS a
Cf fcene of diflention, of hatred, of perfe-
cution, and of BLOOD [20]."
Speaking of CHRIST'S Sermon on the
his Lordfhip fays, <c Some [of
the precepts] are directed to the Jews
only, and fome more immediately to
the Difciples of Chrift. The fecond
fort ieem fit enough for a religious Seft 5
but are by no means practicable in the
general Society of Mankind. Confidered
as general duties they are impr aft ic able ^
[19] Vol. v. p. 532. [20] Vol. iv. p. 511.
E *' inconjlftent
(I
(C
50 A VIEW of L. BOLII^GBROKE'S
" inconfifient 'with NATURAL INSTINCT,
" as well as LAW, and O^UITE DESTRUC-
" TIVE OF SOCIETY [i]."
" The CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY has de-
ct rived from the Jewijh, a prophane li-
tc cence, which makes men blafpheme without
" knowing they blajpheme^ and makes their
" very devotion impious [2]."
<c I would fooner be reputed, nay I would
" fooner be a Pagan, than a Chriftian, or an
" Atheift than a Theift, if to be one or
" the other it was neceflary to believe fuch
" ABSURDITIES as thefe ; which, however
*' difguifed and foftened by a certain. cant
" of exprejjion, are diredtly PROPHANE ;
" and indirectly, or by confequence at leaft,
" blafphemous [3]."
" ALL THE BEDLAMS OF THE WORLD
<{ cannot match the abfurdities that have
<c been propagated by Chriftians, whether
" heretics or orthodox, concerning the
" making and governing of the world by the
" miniftration of inferior Beings: Beings
" not eternal, but produced in time by erna-
" najion, or feme other inconceivable manner
" of generation [4]."
[i] Vol. iv. p. 299, 300. [2] Vol. v. p. 519.
[3] Vol. iv. p. 34. [4] Vol. iv. p. 72-
- We
PHILOSOPHY. 51
" We cannot believe the SCRIRTURES
" to be God's word, tho' we know the
" phyfical and moral Syftem are his Work,
<c while we find in them fuch repugnancies
" to the Nature of an all- perfect Being ;
" not myfteries, but abfurdities ; not things
" incomprehenfible, but things that imply
" manifeftly contradiction with his Na-
" ture [5]."
In a word, he tells us, that " THE RE-
" LIGION OF NATURE HAS BEEN TURNED
* e ALMOST INTO BLASPHEMY BY REVE-
" LATION [6]." " To believe (fays he)
<e that Jefus was the Meffiab is faid by
" fome [meaning his Mafter Locke] to
<c be the unum neceffarium of FAITH,
" but TO OBSERVE THE LAW OF NATURE
" IS THE UNUM NECESSARIUM OF Du-
" TV [ 7 ]."
But now having expofed MOSES, CHRIST,
and PAUL ; decried the falihood of the
TWO REVELATIONS ; and ridiculed the
abfurdity of facred SCRIPTURE ; he mews
us, in , mere charity, after the example
of the WISE ALPHONSUS, how either fyf-
tem might have been mended, had his
[5] Vol. Hi. p. 306, 7. [6] Vol. iii. p. 498.
[7] Vol. iv. p. 410.
E 2 Lord-
52 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
Lordmip been confulted ; while, like the
WISE ALPHONSUS, he believes juft as much
of God's Word y as the Other did of his
Works,
Firft, he hints, how the LAW might
have been better planned. " God pur-
<c chafed the obedience of the Jcivifo Peo-
<e pie by a mercenary bargain. It was
ill kept on their part. And the Law,
<c with all it's fandtions, was continually
* c violated ; fometimes rejected ; and had,
" in no degree, a force fufficient to main-
cc tain itfelf in obfervation and reverence.
" Now, one of the moft conceivable per-
<e fections of a Law is, that it be made with
" fuch a forefight of all poffible accidents,
ee and with fuch proviflons for the due exe-
* c cution of it, in all cafes, that the Law
t( may be effectual to govern and direct
*< thefe accidents, inftead of lying at the
" mercy of them. Another the moft
" conceivable perfection of a Law confifts
< in the clearnefs and precifion of its terms.
<e Thefe will be found, no doubt, and
<f ought to be expected, when God is the
* f Legiflator [8]."
[8] Vol. iii. p. 292,3.
He
PHILOSOPHY. 53
He next {hews us, how he could have
improved the GOSPEL, had he been of
God's privy-counfel. " Had the doclrine
<{ of future rewards and punimments been
" taught by CHRISTIANITY in terms
" more general and lefs defer iptive ; had
i the punifhments been reprefented, for
" inftance, like the rewards, to be, fim-
<f ply, fuch as eye never faw t nor ear
" heard, nor the heart of man could conceive,
ef it might have been maintained in credit,
* c and had an univerfal and real influence
<f perhaps, to the great advantage of reli-
" gion [9]."
An inattentive Reader may be furprized,
perhaps, at this wantonnefs of his Lord-
fhip's pen ; that when he had given it as
his fixed opinion, that all which the
World hath hitherto called Religion, is
a public mifchief; and that a future State
is an abfurd fable ; he mould, with great
formality, deliver in a plan which would
have given credit and real efficacy to non-
fenfe and impiety. But we muft confider,
He had been fo long playing the PHILO-
SOPHER, that he had reafon to apprehend we
might forget the other part of his fub-
[9] Vol. v. p. 542.
E 3
54 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
lime Character, the LEGISLATOR. He
therefore deemed it expedient to give us a
flight caft of his office, in rectifying the
blunders of MOSES and JESUS CHRIST.
With regard to MOSES and his Laiv>
I have fo much to fay to his Lordmip,
that I {hall referve it for an after-reckon-
ing. The other is but a fmall matter, and
may be fettled here.
I fufpedt then, our Legijlator in this re-
mark concerning Jefus's manner of re-
vealing a future Jlate y did not fufficiently
attend to the nature of the human mind,
nor to the genius of the Gofpel. He would
have, we fee, the account of future pu-
ni/hments as general, and as little descriptive,
as that of future rewards. He feems to
think the latter managed well : But this
propriety, he meafures from the imaginary
impropriety of the other : he appears to
have no idea of any excellency it has in it-
felf. We mail endeavour therefore to ex-
plain why this method of reprefenting fu-
ture rewards was right: By which it will
appear, that the other, of reprefenting fu-
ture punffimentS) was not wrong.
To grow particular and defcriptive,
whether of future rewards, or future
. . punifh-
PHILOSOPHY.
punishments, men muft borrow their
images from material and corporeal things $
becaufe they have no faculties of fenfation
proper to comprehend ideas taken from
things Spiritual. Now when a follower
of Chriil: is fo far advanced as to have his
Faith work by bope y his fentiments grow
refined, his ideas purify, and he is rifing
apace towards that perfection which the
Goipel encourages him to afpire after.
But while fear of punijbment chiefly ope-
rates upon him, he is yet in the lowed
ilage of probation j his imagination is grofs,
and his appetites fenfual. Is it not evident,
then, that a defcriftive Heaven of delights
would be ill fuited to that purity and eleva-
tion of mind, folely fixed by hope, on hap-
pinefs ; and as evident that a general unde-
fined denunciation of Hell would not have
force enough to make the neceffary impref-
fion on a fenfual fancy agitated by fear ?
Let not his Lordfhip's admirers, therefore,
be offended, if we believe that, in this
point, the Author of our Salvation went
at lead one ftep beyond their Matter, in trut
Politics.
To proceed. From vilifying BOTH RE-
LIGIONS, and their FOUNDERS, his Lord-
E 4 fhip
56 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
fhip comes, at length, to rail againft the
GOD of both Religions. And with this I
fhall clofe the horrid Scene.
" IF "WE BELIEVE IN MoSES, AND HIS
" GOD, WE CANNOT BELIEVE IN THAT
" GOD WHOM OUR REASON SHEWS US [ I o].
" CAN ANY MAN PRESUME TO SAY
tl THAT THE GoD OF MoSES, OR THE
" GOD OF PAUL, is THE TRUE GOD ?
" The God of MOSES is partial, unjufr,
ce and cruel j delights in blood, commands
" affaffinations, mafTacres, and even exter-
" minations of people. The God of
" PAUL elects fome of his creatures to
" falvation, and predeftinates others to
< c deftruction, even in the womb of their
" mothers. And, indeed, if there was
<c not a Being INFINITELY MORE PER-
" FECT than thefe, there would be no God
<c at all, nor any true Religion in the
"world [n]."
Who, that had heard this dreadful lan-
guage, without knowing from what quar-
ter it came, but would flrait have called to
mind the words of the Satyrift ?
' [10] Vol. iii. p. 307. [iij Vol. v. p. 567.
"Not
PHILOSOPHY.
57
c< Not Dante, dreaming all th' infernal State,
<c Beheld fuchfcenes of envy, fin, and hate.
But when we underftand them to be the
ejaculations of this Noble Philofopher, the
ConfefTor of Truth, the Advocate of Vir-
tue, and the Reftorer of banimed Nature ;
employed, as he himfelf tells us, or rather
fet apart) TO PLEAD THE CAUSE OF GOD
HIMSELF AGAINST DlVINES AND A-
THEISTS IN CONFEDERACY [l2]j when
we confider all this, I fay, What are we to
think, but that they are the pious breathings
of an over-heated zeal: and tho' expref-
fed in no confecrated terms ; indeed, fuch as
had been much worn in the fervice of the
CRAFTS-MAN j yet when new-fet in his
Lordmip's immortal Panoply of the FIRST
PHILOSOPHY, they may now prove as ufe-
ful, to advance the fear of Ged, as before,
to promote the honour of the King.
It is in HATE as in LOVE ; hard to fe~
parate the carnal from the divine fpecies ;
or rather they are but different ebullitions
of tht fame fpecies. Hence it is, that the
melting (trains of the Myftic^ the Methodift,
and the Moravian, fo often fmell of the
[12] Vol. v. p. 305.
STEWS;,
58 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
STEWS j and hence, by parity of rea-
fon, the thunder of his Lordfliip's eloquence
may naturally re-echo, a's it were, from
BlLLINSGATE.
But thefe things make You ferious : and
You afk, " Who, that hath ever heard
Lord Bolingbroke's Story, would have fuf-
pected, that his GOD and his COUNTRY lay
fo near his heart ? His Political and Philofo-
phic Writings, fay you, are full of La-
mentations-, where, like another Jeremy,
he bewails the dishonours which wicked
PRIESTS, and wicked POLITICIANS, have
brought both upon Church and State :
And, as is common in extreme fondriefs
for our favourite Objects, he fuffers himfelf
to be alarmed with fomething lefs than
panic terrors. He is afraid the Whigs will
bring in the Pretender ; and apprehends,
the englijh Clergy have made large fteps to
introduce Atheifm"
I know what You drive at. You would
fain apply to his right honourable Perfon,
the old trite aphorifm, That wicked principles
fpring out of a wicked life. But what fays
another noble Peer to this ? " Fain would
" the Bigot, in confequence of his moral
"maxims, and political ejiablijhments, con-
" found
PHILOSOPHY. 59
" found licentioufnefs in morals with liberty
" of thought and action; and make the /i-
" bertinC) who has the LEAST MASTERY
tc OF HIMSELF, refcmblc his direct oppo-
"file [i 3]."
It may be fo, you will fay. But Lord
Bolingbroke furely could never object to
the imputation which bad morals caft upon
a Teacher of Truth. He, who fees it fo
clearly, and prefles it fo charitably, upon
the whole body of the Chrijlian Clergy.
"How (fays his Lordmip) can the
< CLERGY of your Church or of ours,
" pretend that they contribute now, or E-
< VER DID CONTRIBUTE, to the reforma-
c< tion of mankind ? No age can be pointed
" out, wherein ALL THE VICES, that Tully
" imputes to moft of the heathen Philofo-
< phers, did not prevail AMONGST MOST
" of the Chriftian Divines with great cir-
" cumflances of aggravation. They have
" not only ALL THE VICES incident to
" human nature in common with other
" men, but they have had the peculiar
" Vices of their Order. 1 WILL SAY
" BOLDLY, they are, in general, much
[13] Charatitrijlics, Vol. iii. Mifc. 5. Chap. 3.
fitter
60 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
<e fitter to hinder, by their EXAMPLE,
" than to promote by their DOCTRINE, the
" Advancement of Religion, natural or
" revealed."
We have, it is true, been favoured with
very ample accounts of the immoral con-
duct both of antient Philofophers and Mo-
dern Clergymen j and thefe, even by mem-
bers of their own refpeclive Bodies.
FREE-THINKERS have been more bam*
ful : and, by their referve and modefty on
this head, one might have taken them for
Saints, had it not been for the ConfeJJions
of one of them, the famous CARDAN ;
who, like another St. Auftin> feems
fworn to leave nothing behind him in
the inkhorn. The account he gives of
himfelf deferves tranfcribing for more rea-
fons than one. <c In diem viven-
" tern, nugacem, religionis contempto-
" rem, illatae injuriae memorem, invi-
<e dum, triftem, infidiatorem, proditorem,
" fuorum oforem, turpi libidini dedi-
c< turn, folitarium, inamcenum, aufterum,
" obfccenum, lafcivum, maledicum, vari-
cc um, ancipitem, impurum, calumnia-
" torem [14] &c." This was fair deal-
[14] De vitafua.
log:
PHILOSOPHY. 61
r
ing : and he who was fofree with himfelfj
might be pardoned if he fpared no body
elfe. But men don't ufe to be wanton
on fo nice a fubjed:. Freethinkers have
more maftery of themfehes, fays the noble
Author of the Charafleri/lics. And there-
fore whenever we lee it done, let us con-
clude it to be for fome great purpofe ; as,
in emulation of the Chriftian Confeflbrs,
who, to difplay the powers of Grace, did
not fcruple to tell the world with great
fimplicity what they were by Nature; fo
Cardan to {hew us, that the FIRST PHILO-
SOPHY is as efficacious in all great changes,
has fairly told us how well befriended he
had been by his Stars. However, let his
defign be what it will in prefenting us with
this picture of his amiable turn of mind,
we are much beholden to him for fetting
the example. Tho', like all other good ex-
amples, it may poffibly end where it be-
gun ; and the firft Pbilofophy wait with pa-
tience for fome lefs incommodious way of
recommendation. And indeed, while In-
fidelity, which is the cure y is fo unjuftly
fuppofed the caufe of thefe Peccadillos, we
need not wonder our Philofophers mould
be foon at liberty, and as foon difpofed, to
4 turn
62 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
turn their view from their own morals,
upon the morals of the Clergy : and fay
boldly with his Lordfliip, that the order in
general is much fitter to binder by their EX-
AMPLE, than to promote by their DOCTRINE,
the advancement of Religion.
What fhall we fay then ? May it not
be as well to leave the examples, of both, to
fhift for thcmfelves ; and to confider only
their Doctrines ? I think it is : And will
therefore proceed from his Lordfhip's TEM-
PER, to his PRINCIPLES. But this muft
be the fubjeft of another Letter.
I am, &c.
LET-
IT has been obferved, that rare and ex-
traordinary bleffings, whether civil or
religious, feldom come till hope grows
defperate, and long expectation be quite
wearied out. Then it is, the fuperior Ge-
nius beftirs himfelf, the crifis approaches,
a coup cTfalat is {truck, and the admiring
world is taken in by furprife.
The cafe before us is an illuftrious in-
ftance. Never was mankind in fo deplora-
ble a way as when his Lord (hip arrived ;
from what other Syftem is not yet diicover-
ed : tho' his tuneful Friend was very pofiuve
he belonged not to this : Inforrmch, that
when the laft Comet appeared, and came
pretty near the Earth, he ufed to tell his
acquaintance, he fhould not be furprized if
in the event it proved, that it was fent only
to convey his Lordfhip home again -> juft as
a Stage-coach flops at your door to take up
a Paflenger. Be this as it will : bad indeed
was our condition when his Lordmip's arri-
ved. what mall I fay, to be a light to thofe
who fat in darknefi ? No, this is the wor k of
meaner
64 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
meaner Miflionaries j but, to RESTORE
MANKIND TO THEIR SENSES.
For his Lordfhip, in his account of the
general DELIRIUM which had feized the
Clergy, had given us but a fpecimen of the
human condition : the MADNESS was in-
deed UNIVERSAL. Infomuch, that (as he
well exprefles it) ALL THE BEDLAMS OF
THE WORLD [ i ] were not fufficient for thefe
things. And, to confefs the truth, when
was it, that the vilions of an cver-beated
and dif ordered imagination, fuch as, be-
lief in the moral Attributes of God, the
immortality of the Soul, a particular Provi-
dence, and a future State, did not infect all
times and places ?
" ALL EUROPE (fays hisLordfliip) GREW
" DELIRIOUS [2], Chriftianity was left to
" fliift for itfelf in the midft of a FRANTIC
" WORLD [3]." And again, " OUR WORLD
" feems to be, in many refpecls, THE BED-
" LAM OF EVERY OTHER SYSTEM OF IN-
" TELLIGENT CREATURES: and, with this
*' unlucky circumftance, that they who are
" moflmad govern, in things of the greateft
c< moment, them who are lea/I fo [4]."
[i] Vol. iv. p. 72. [2] Vol. iv. p. 377.
[ 3 ] Vol. iv. p. 353. [4] Vol.iv. p. 316.
By
PHILOSOPHY. 65
By what is here dropt in the conclufiorij
you underftand why his Lordfhip chofe to
make the Clergy lead up the Brawls ; and
the Leat&er-dreJ/ing Pont{ff*h'imfe\fto prefide
in this mad dance, as Mafter of the Revels.
But to find all mankind mad, is more,
perhaps, than you expected. What then ?
Is the madnefs lefs real for being univerfal ?
His Lordfhip's Logic fays otherwife. And
his Lordfhip's Logic, I can aflure you, is not
like his Theology, of yefterday ; it comes
of great Kindred. Oliver Cromwell's Por-
ter had long ago enobled this very Syllo-
gifm. I fee plainly (fays this Sage) that
either I or all the worldbejides are mad : but
as it is not 7, it muft needs be they. And
he was then advancing with large ftrides,
as one may fay, towards the firft Philofo-*
fby ; being indeed, at that time, a kind of
Retfor tnagnificus in the Englifli College of
Bethlehem.
Was it then, you will afk, fome ftrangd
and evil difpofition of the ftars, that occa-
fioned this univerfal inlanity ? So, indeed,
it is reported [5]. The WORLD, it feems^
like the men of Abdera [6], had feen a
[5] Vid. D. N. J. C. genefeos thema, inter Car-
dani Op, [6] See Lucian's true hiftory.
F Tra*
66 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
Tragedy reprefented to them in a very hot
day: the fubjedt of which left fo ftrong
an impreffion on their fancies, that they all
thought themfelves concerned in the cata-
ftrophe. Some ran about from country to
country, to tell their ftory 5 and the reft have
been ever fince rehearfing and celebrating
thofe affecting fcenes, at home ; till LORD
BOLINGBROKE, like another HIPPOCRA-
TES, came to their relief: and having firft
well phyficked them of their Faith and
their Vifions, brought them to themfelves,
by applying to their hurt imaginations, the
fovereign Reftorative of his FIRST PHILO-
SOPHY. Of which, I am now, as I pro-
mifed, to give you fome account.
But to fee this extraordinary man in a
juft light, it will be proper to {hew what
Man was before him. A RELIGIOUS ANI-
MAL he is on all hands allowed to be.
And till the coming of this FIRST PHILO-
SOPHY, Religion was ever underftood to rife
on that wide bafis, on which PAUL, tho*
* fanatical Knave, had the art to place it;
that " He who cometh to God mud believe
" that he is: and that he is a REWARDED
" of them who diligently feck him [7]. "
[7] Heb. xi. 6, .
For
PHILOSOPHY.
For till the arrival of his Lordmip, men
who fuppofed the infinite goodnefs and ju-
Jlice of God to be as demonftrable as his
infinite power and ivifdom, could not but
conclude from his moral attributes, that he
REWARDED, as well as from his natural
attributes, that he CREATED.
On the more complex notion, therefore,
of a MORAL GOVERNOR, all mankind fup-
pofed RELIGION, to arife; and NATURA-
LISM, the Ape of Religion, from the fim-
pler notion of a PHYSICAL PRESERVER i
which, however, they were ready to diftin-
guifh, on the other hand, from the Unna-
turalifm (if we may fo term it) of ranker
Atheifm.
RELIGION, therefore, ftands, and muft,
I think, for ever ftand* on thofe two im-
moveable principles of PRESERVER and RE-
WARDER, in conjunction.
The length orftortnefs of human exift-
ence was not primarily in the idea of Re-
ligion, not even in the complete idea of it,
as delivered in ST* PAUL'S general defini-
tion. " The Religionifl, fays he, mufl be-
*' lieve that God is, and thaj he rewards."
But when it came to be feen, that he
was not always a Reivarder here, men con-
F 2 eluded
68 A VIEW of L, BOLINGBROKE'S
eluded this life not to be the whole of their
exiftence. And thus a FUTURE STATE was
brought into Religion j and from thence-
forth became a neceflary part of it.
. To explain my meaning, if fo clear a
thing needs explanation. GOD, under the
phyjical idea of Preferver and Creator
appears Uniform, regular, and inftant to
his Creatures : Under the moral idea of Re-
warder and Governor, he feems frequent-
ly to be withdrawn from his Servants.
For tho' in the moral difpenfations of
things here, good and evil be often pro-
portioned to defert; yet often, too, they
are not fo exactly adjufted. The Antient
Religionift, therefore, confiding in his de-
fnonftration of the moral as well as the na-
tural attributes of the Deity, concluded,
That the prefent was not the only ftate or-
dained for man j but that in fome other
life, thefe irregularities would be fet right.
Hence a FUTURE STATE became in all
ages and countries (except one, where the
moral adminiftration of providence was dif-
ferent) infeparable from, and effential to,
the various Religions of mankind. Even
the mere Vulgar, who did not reach the
force of this demonilration, yet feeing the
marks
PHILOSOPHY, 69
marks of moral Government, amidft the
frequent interruptions of it, embraced the
dodtrine of a future State with the lame
confidence as the Learned. For plain
Nature had inftrucled them to reafon thus,
If all were regular , nothing needed to
be fet right : and if all were irregular,
there was no one to fet things right.
Such was the ANTIENT RELIGION OF
NATURE : To which, modern Divines have
generally agreed to give the name of THE-
ISM, when profcfTed by thofe who never
heard of REVELATION j and the name of
DEISM, when profefTed by thofe who would,
never give credit to it.
In this State our noble Philofopher
found the religious World; or, more proper-
ly, this was the language he heard refound^
ing from one end of the earth to the
other : But it was a language, he tells us,
he did not underhand. It was to his ears,
like the choirs of birds, who wbiftle andjing y
or fcream, at one another : or the herds of
beaftsy who bleat and low, or chatter and
roar, at one another. He rejects it, there-
fore in the lump, as one inarticulate din of
ENTHUSIASM and ABSURDITY j the pro-
duct of pride and ignorance 5 and, with
F 3 greater
70 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
greater of his own, erects the FIRST PHI-
LOSOPHY on it's ruins.
He permits us to believe, that an in-
telligent Caufe made the world ; and go-
verns it, by his pbyfical and general Laws ;
not by moral or particular.
He bids us to underftand, that this World
was no more made for man than for every
animal befides : nor was man made for any
other world, nor confequently, (as Divines
have dreamt) for happinefs.
That, by the arbitrary conftttution of
things in the human fyftem (which may
have a contrary difpciition in other fyftems)
Virtue promotes happineis and Vice brings
on mifery.
That THIS CONSTITUTION, together
with the coactivity of CIVIL LAWS, con-
tain all the rewards and punimments atten-
dant on Virtue and on Vice.
That prayer, fupplication, and every
other office of Religion in ufe amongft
men, to implore good, and to deprecate evil,
are fooliih and fanatical : for that all religi-
ous duty is comprized in fubmiffion to the
eftablifoed order of things.
He fums up his fyftem in thefe words.
*' A felf-exiftent being the firft caufe of all
_" things,
cc
PH ILOSOPHY. 71
things, infinitely POWERFUL and infi-
" nitely WISE, is the God of natural Theo-
<c logy. And the whole fyflem of natural
<c Religion refts on it, and requires NO
cc BROADER FOUNDATION [8]." That is,
it is enough for him who cornet^ to this
new Religion, to believe that God is ; and
not that he is a RE WARDER of them ivhofeek
him. And again, " When men have pro-
" ved the exiftence of an all-perfect being,
c< the Creator and Governor of the Uni-
<c verfe, and demonstrated his infinite POW-
<e ER and WISDOM, from his works, when
" they have done this, THEY HAVE DONE
ALL j this includes the whole of natural
Theology, and f ewes abundantly to all the
ends of natural Religion [9]."
What thefe ends of natural Religion are
he tells us very plainly. They are, to fit
us for cur Jlat'iQn bere y and to fupply cur
real wants in it. " In like manner [that
is, as he exprefles it, for the neceffary ufes
of human life and no more] * l the know-
" ledge of the creator is on many accounts
<e neceffary to fuch a creature as man : and
c< therefore we are able to arrive, by a pro-
5 C per exercife of our mental faculties, from
[8] Vol. v. p. 316. [9] p. 453.
F 4 "the
it
c<
72 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
" the knowledge of God's works, to a
" knowledge of his EXISTENCE, and of
" that infipi<e POWER and WISDOM which
<c are dtmcnftrated to us in them. OUR
f< KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING GoD GOES
" NO FURTHER [lo]."
Now tho' we mould be fo complaifant
to thefe principles as not to call them
ATHEIST ic, yet I am afraid the Profeflbr
of them, whoever he be, muft be content
with a name fomething like it. For
/j principles may be called NAT URA-
i. yet if Scripture has defined an
- i-EisT ri?ht, to be one who HAS NO
- ^
U] J E, and is WITHOUT GOD IN THE
WORLD [n] our ProfelTor of Naturalifm
comes within the defcription. For tho' he
acknowledges the being of a God, yet as
he is without a God in the world^ that is,
a Being who prefides over it, as the moral
Governor of it, which is the foundation on
which all Religion ilands, Religionifts will
feck no other title for him. And furely
he will be properly defined. For tho' the
abfiract term Atheifm carries, as it's princi-
pal idea, a relation to God's BEING : yet,
Aiheiji, the concrete, feems to have it's
[10] Vol. iv. p. 86. [u] Ephef. ii. 12.
chief
PHILOSOPHY. 73
chief relation to his GOVERNMENT. This
is not obferved for any kind of confequence
it is to Religion, in what clafs the Public
will be pleafed to rank his Lordfhip ; but
merely to let in a true light the honourable
Perfon's ingenuity, in afluming the charao
ter of an Advocate for Religion ; at the
very time he is labouring to root it out of
human Society.
O(d NATURALISM thus traveftied un^
der the name of Religion., his Lordfhip
beftows, as his laft and moft precious Le-
gacy, on his own dear Country. If you will
believe him, the only reformed Religion that
can be called pure, and the only revealed Re-
ligion that has the marks of truth. What the
world hath hitherto called by that name
being, as he allures us, an evil in itfelf -, and
mifchievous to man by it's efTential confti-
tution. And he proves it, as they fay, in
mood and figure. " To keep up the
" ienfe of it [i. e. of Religion] in the
<e minds of men, there feem to be but two
" ways. To STRIKE THE SENSES fre-
< quently, by public and folemn acts of
" religious worfhip; and to HEAT THE
* e BRAIN by notions of an inward operation
" of the Spirit, and of a fort of myftical
" devo-
74 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
" devotion, independent of outward forms,
tl and even INCONSISTENT with them. One
M of thefe leads to SUPERSTITION, the other
" to ENTHUSIASM. Both are filly Super-
" flition is folly : Enthufiafm is madnefs.
" It is good to be on our guard againft
t( both."
Without doubt. But how (hall it be
done ? Religion is an evil in itfelf, and fo
admits of no qualification. It neceflarily
requires, as his Lordfhip tells us, on man's
part, public acts of worfhip ; and on God's,
the private operation of the Spirit : But
thefe lead to fuperftition and enthufiafm ;
that is, to folly and madnefs, to the de-
ftruction of our reafonable Nature. This
is not all : thefe necejfery means are not
only hurtful but impracticable. You could
not ufe them, was you foolim or mad
enough to venture on them ; for they are,
he fays, INCONSISTENT, and deftroy one
another. What then is to be done ? To
be upon our guard; to keep Religion at arms
length, till his Lordfhip brings up his re-
ferve of Naturalifm y to our relief. Let this
be our Shield of Brafs ; under which we
may repofe in peace, undifturbed by any
frightful dreams of Hell and the Devil.
This,
PHILOSOPHY.
Tliis, Sir, is the Enchiridion of his
Lordfhip's FIRST PHILOSOPHY. How fim-
pic, you will fay, how clofe, how round,
how full is this new Difpenfation ? A dif-
penfation of Religion fhall we call it? No
matter. The times are ripe for it under
any name. Yet I can hardly agree to thofe
fancies, I told you of, which had poffeffed
his poetical Friend : who, mifled perhaps
by that obfcure hint, that our World <was
only the Bedlam of every other fyftem of
intelligent Creatures [12], fup poled, in good
earneft, his Philofofher and Guide to be
fentdown from fome fuperior orb, as Phy-
iician to the Hofpital. Without queftion
he was made for the Age, and the Age
for him. And they may well congratu-
late one another on the happy meeting.
If we muft be doctrinated by a Poet, I
fhould fooner a great deal believe the man
who told me, that he heard the evil Genius
of Britain addrefs his Lordfhip on his firft
fetting out, in thefe {trains,
" Be as a planetary plague, when Jove
c Will o'er fome high-vic'd City hang his poifon
*' Jn the fick air."
[12] Vol. iv. p. 353.
But
76 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
But to go on with his Syftem. It rifes
on thefe four principles.
Fir/}, That we have no adequate ideas
Of the MORAL ATTRIBUTES of God, his
goodnefs and hisju/tice, as we have of his
NATURAL, to wit, his power and his ivijdom.
Secondly, That A FUTURE STATE is a
Fable.
thirdly, That the JEWISH and the
CHRISTIAN Revelations are faife. And
Fourthly, That REVELATION ITSELF is
impoffible.
Indulge me with a few remarks on his
management, under each of thefe heads.
i. Divines, in their proof of the moral at-
tributes, having of late much infilled on ^he
arguments a priori, as they are called, his
Lordmip fufpccled, and what he fufpects
of ill he always takes for granted, that they
could not be proved a pojieriori, or from
God's works ; the way by w-iich, he owns, his
natural attributes may be demonftrated. So
that having pronounced the argument a pri-
ori to be jargon, nonfenfe, impiety andblafphe-
my , the moral attributes of God are fairly
erafed at once out of tlje intellc tfual fyftem.
And he had no farther trouble on this head
than to decorate, CLARKE, who wasxhiefly
converfant
PHILOSOPHY. 77
converfant in the reafoning a priori, with
variety of abufive names.
As to the Argument, our great Man's
refpect for that is fo profound and fo dif-
tant, that I defy any one unacquainted with
metaphyfical reafonings, even to guefs what
kind of things they are for which the fa-
mous Minifter of St. James's is fo feverely I
handled. For while the Divine fuffers,
j as we fay, always efcapes.
NowTncfeed you fee him feized upon, and
ready, as you would think, to be cut up
alive, and immolated to tiiejirftPbilofopfy)
when a Jit of railing lhakes his Lordfhip j
andthejtorm falls upon the whole Body of
modern Schoolmen : And fo the Doctor ef-
capes for that time. He is again laid hold
on, and every thing ready for execution;
whena fit of learning comes upon his
Plato \ Socrates*
andthe whole band of ancient Metaphyfici-
i;?pais^ in review, and each_recejves a
lafh as he paifes : And fo the Doctor efcapes
for the fecond time. After this, his Lord-
fhip, as is fitting, takes his eafej more
jntent_upon triumph than blood-fhed ;
and in the midft or much felf-applaufe
for
78 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
1 for thefe exploits his ESSAYS end, and the
fubtiie Doctor remains unhurt.
But when need requires, I would have
you think, that no avocation can keep him
, from his Logic. Marry, then, on fome
great occafion indeed, as when the novelty
of the lubjeft invites, or the true ftate of it
is little known, you fliall have no reafon to
(complain of brevity : then you mall fee
iihim employ one half of his book to prove
r J. *
;fhe corruptions of the CHURCH OF^ROME,
,|andjiear another half, to expofe the jargon
pf the SCHOOLMEN.
"THelfutE is,~larke knew not how to
reafon, and fo needed no confutation. In
the name of God (fays my Lord, of the Doc-
tor's reaibnings) is this to prove ? Do men
'who prove no better deferve an anfwer [13]?
But, go further, and you may fare worie.
For fpeaking of the whole Order, he fays,
" THE PERTNESS, NOT TO SAY THE IM-
" PUDENCE, OF THESE MEN DESERVES NO
* c REGARD [14]." Beildes, I fufpect the
arguments are as IMPUDENT as the men y for
they pretend to no lefs than to dcmonjlrate
God's moral attributes and the immateria-
lity of the Soul. His Lordfhip therefore
[13] Vol. v. p. 284. [14] Vol. iv. p. 325.
chofc
PHILOSOPHY. 79
chofe that his modeft reafonings, rather than
be overborn, mould lye incog, and keep in
difguife, like Bays's army in the Rehearfal ;
till, without noife, or ib much as a re-
view, they had dethroned the two Kings
cf Brentford, CLARKE and WOLLASTON,
before any body fufpected they were in
danger.
2. We come to the fecond point, the doc-
trine of a FUTURE STATE: which being
o
fupported by the great moral argument
of " the unequal diflribution of good and
evil amongft men," his Lordfhip, as I pro-
mifed you, is as large in confuting this as
he was fparing in his anfwer to the meta-
phyfical proofs of the moral attributes.
He firft endeavours to mew the argu-
ment to be founded on a miftaken fact,
and that there is no fuch unequal diflributi-
on : He is almoft tempted to tell you, that
every thing is exactly regular and in order.
But a paradox that flies fo impudently, to
ufe his own language, in the face of com-
mon fenfe, is too unmanagable even for his
Lordfhip's talents : he comes down lower
at laft 5 and appears to be tolerably fa-
tisfied, if you will but believe the inequa-
lity not near fo great as pulpit-Declaim-
4 ers
80 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
ers would make it : That the diforders
which follow the abufe of man's free will
are not to be placed to the account of that
difpenfation $ which our pride and prefump-
tuous ignorance make us think God is obli-
ged to reform. However, equal or unequal,
his capital maxim clears up all. WHAT*
SOEVER is, is RIGHT: and therefore the
argument of thefe confederated Divines
which goes upon a fuppofed WRONG, is
abfurd and blafphemous. Whatever anfwer
this reafoning may deferve, I believe no
man who underftands the world will expect
that a well-bred man mould give any*
But I cannot omit, on this occalion, to do
juftice to his poetical Friend ; by fhewing
the difference between Mr. POPE'S Philo-
fophy and his Lordfhip's. They both em*-
ploy the maxim of Whatever is, is right.
But to know, with what propriety and
judgment, we muft confider againft whom
they write.
Mr. Pope's EJJay on man is a real vindi-
cation of Providence againft Libertines and
Atbeifls j who quarrel with the prefent con-
ftitution of things, and deny a future State.
To thefe he anfwers that whatever is, is
right : and the reafon he gives, is, that we
PHI LO SOP H Y. 81
fee only apart of the moral fyftem, and not the
'whole , therefore thefe irregularities ferving
to great purpofes, fuch as the fuller mani-
feftation of God's goodnefs and juftice,
they are right.
Lord Bolingbroke's Effays are a pretended
vindication of Providence againft an ima-
ginary confederacy between Divines and
Atheifts ; who ufe a common principle,
namely, the inequalities in God's moral go-
vernment here, for different ends and pur-
pofes $ the One to eftablifh a future State ;
the Other to dil credit the Being of a Goo".
His Lordmip, who oppofes their different
conclufions, endeavours to overthrow their
common principle, by his Friend's maxim,
that whatever is, is right j not becaufe the
prefent ftate of our moral world (which is
part 'only of a more general fyflem) is ne-
ceffary for the greater perfection of the
whole, but becaufe our moral 'world is an
entire fyftem of itfelf.
His Lordmip applies the maxim no
better than he underftands it. Mr. Pope
urges it againft Atheifts and Libertines,
who fay the conftitution of things is faulty :
fo that the reply, whatever is, is right, is
pertinent. His Lordmip directs it, againft
G Divines,
82 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
Divines, who fay, indeed, that this conftitu-
tion is imperfefly if conlidered feparately,
becaufe it is a part only of a whole, but are
as far as his Lordfhip from calling it faulty :
therefore the reply, whatever is, is right,
is impertinent. In a word, the Poet directs
it againft Atheifts and Libertines, in fup-
port of Religion properly fo called ; the Phi-
lofopher againft Divines, in fupport of Re-
ligion improperly fo called, namely NATU-
RALISM: and the fuccefs is anfwerable.
Mr. Pope's argument is manly, fyftematical,
and convincing. Lord Bolingbroke's con-
fufed, prevaricating, and inconfiftent.
Thus, to inftance in his Lordmip. He
will have nothing irregular or amifs in the
moral world ; becaufe this is Atheifm, and
the very bond of that confederacy figned
and fealed between Divines and them. In
vain you tell him of a future Jtate, to vin-
dicate the providence of God -, this is ab-
furd and vifionary. But, if you talk of phy-
Jjcalevilj he has his anfwer ready, this world
is but one wheel of a vaft machine. You will
afk, then, if the fuperior good of other parts
of the great fyftem of Nature can com-
penfate for the phyfical e'vil in this, why
will not his Lordfliip allow the reafoning
4 of
PHILOSOPHY. 83
of Pope, in the Effay on man, that the fu-
perior good in another part of the moral
fyftem may compenfate for the moral evil in
this ? I will tell you, he can allow any other
parts to belong to the fyftem of nature, for
the folution of phyfical evil, without the
danger of bringing in Religion : but he
cannot, without that danger, allow any
other part to belong to the fyftem of mo-
rals, for the folution of moral evil. Here,
he can allow no more to belong to the fy-
ftem than he fees : indeed, not fo much :
for, as I faid above, he appears well inclined
to contend for an equal providence, or, at
leaft, for very little irregularity.
But why, you will afk again, would his
Lordmip run himfelf into all this hazard,
fometimes of difcrediting his reafoning by
a filly paradox ; fometimes of betraying it
by an unwilling confeffion; while at beft
he gives it but the poor fupport of a mif-
underftood and mifapplied maxim j when
his great and noble principle of NO MO-
RAL ATTRIBUTES enervates the veryfatf,
fo audacioufly urged by the CONFEDERACY.
For if we have no ideas of God's moral
attributes, the iflue of our reafoning on
G 2 bit
84 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
bis ways will be the fame as if he had
none. And if he has none, they need not,
fure, be vindicated : which is the fole pur-
pofe of his reafoning on the flate of the
moral world. All I can fay to this is,
that his Lordfhip appears to have been fo
harraiTed with this phantom of a FUTURE
STATE, that no Charm, no Security was to
be neglected that could contribute to his
eafe or protection. Hence it is he will de-
pend on neither of his arguments, of no
inequality or but a little : and is as fhy
of them, as they are of one another ; and
therefore, to make all fure, cafts about for
a third of more acknowledged efficacy.
And this he finds in the SOUL'S MATE-
RIALITY. From whence, he contrives to
perfuade himfelf that it can be no fub-
Jlance (which he calls pneumatical mad-
nefs) but a mere quality of body, pro-
duced by the configuration of it's parts,
and perifhing with their diffolution. I
fay, he contrives to perfuade himfelf -, and
I mean no more. Had his point been to
perfuade his Reader, we muft fuppofe he
would have ventured, at leaft, to confute
the arguments of CLARKE and BAXTER :
i who,
PHILOSOPHY. 85
who, on the principles of the Newtonian
Philofophy, have demon ft rated that the
foul is a fubftance, diftinct from the body,
and different from matter. Inftead of this,
he flies to his ufual confolation, ABUSE. He
calls them impious and blafphemers for pre-
fuming to limit the omnipotent : when the
higheft of their prefurnption amounts but to
this, the fuppofing God can exert no power*
which implies a contradiction ; fince this ima-
ginary power is indeed impotency. Nay,
he would willingly perfuade himfelf there
were no fuch arguments in being. For,
fpeaking of the reafoning, which induced
men to conclude, the foul was a fubflance,
diftinct from the body, he reprefents it
thus, " Men taking it for granted that
<c they knew all the perceivable properties
" of matter, they concluded that fuch
" things as could not be accounted for by
" thefe, were to be accounted for by the
" properties of fome other fubftance [13]."
And again, <c Vanity and prefumption de-
" termine Philofophers to conclude, that
<c becaufe they cannot account for the phae-
" nomena of the mind by what they know
[13] Vol. iii. p. 502,
03 " very
86 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
" very fuperficially of folid extended fuh-:
<c ftance, this mind muft be fome otber fub-
< ftance [14]." Such, indeed, was the ftate
of the controverfy when LOCKE fkimed o-
ver the argument. But CLARKE and BAX-
TER went to the bottom. They draw their
conclufion, not in the prefumption that
they knew all the knowable qualities of
matter, and that between thefe and ^Thought,
there was no perceivable connexion j but
from this deep and folid truth, that from
the little we do know of body, there arifes
a contradiction to fuppofe intelligence to be
a quality of "matter.
cc
<c
We have the fame reafoning on the mo-
tion of body. " They are unable (fays
" his Lordmip) to conceive how body can
aft at all, and therefore they fuppofe
the immediate prefence and action of
an incorporeal agent in every operation
C of corporeal nature [15]." Whereas the
truth is, they are able to conceive the im-
poffibility of bodies acting at all : and,
from thence fee the neceffity of an incor-
poreal agent in every operation of corporeal
nature. You will think, perhaps, his Lord-
[14] Vol. iii. p. 508-9. [15] Vol. iv. p. 108.
(hip
PHILOSOPHY, 87
fhip knew no more of this queftion than
as it flood in his M.ajler Locke - y and that
he -had never heard of Baxter, who has
carried it furtheft, and treated it the moft
profoundly. I mould have thought fo too,
but that I find his Lordfhip, in one place,
fpeaking with that contempt of Baxter 's
reafoning which is his wont, whenever any
thing he cannot anfwer bears hard upon
the firft Philofopby. It is where he ho-
nours us with his own thoughts concerning
ATTRACTION. " Attraction, (faith his
<{ Lordfhip) may be, notwithstanding all
* theji/ly abftrafl reafoning to the contrary,
" a REAL PROPERTY OF MATTER [l6]."
Now you are to underftand that Baxter,
when he has evinced the truth of NEW-
TON'S idea of attraction (who makes it na
real, ot zffenfal, property oj matter) employs
this idea to prove, that it implies a contra-
dittion to fuppofe the foul may be a quality
of matter. This great truth, deep reflec^
tion, and a thorough comprehenfion of the
Newtonian Philofophy, enabled Baxter to
demonftrate. On the other ' hand, no
Deflection, no Philofophy, but mere in-
[i6J Vol. iii. p. 547.
G 4 tuitwe
A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
tuiti've knowledge^ led his Lordfliip to con-
clude that it is fo far from being a contra-
dittion^ that it is a real fact, that the foul
is a quality of matter. But, hear his own
marvelous words, " I am perfuaded that
" God can make material fyftems capable
" of thought, becaufe I muft renounce one
<c of the kinds of knowledge that he has
" given me, and the firfr, tho' not the
" principal in the order of knowing, or
<f admit that HE HATH DONE so [17]."
Locke only contended for the bare pojji-
bility. His Lordfhip has found it to be a
fad:. So fairly has the difciple outdone his
Mafter.
3. But let us now go on with the great
principles which fupport his Lordfhip's Sy-
ftem. His third is the FALSHOOD of the
Jewijh and Cbri/lian REVELATIONS. And
here you will find no argument omitted v
that bears with the lean: force againft either
of them. It is true, not one of them is
his own. I mean, of thofe defer ving the
name of argument. They are all bor-
rowed from the minute Philofophers who
went before him. And, of thefe his Lord-
[17] Vol. iii. p. 531.
fliip
PHILOSOPHY. 89
fhip is a very obfervant and humble imi-
tator.
His attack on revealed Religion is in
two parts. The firft> a confutation of it's
truth, as it lies in it's purity, in facred
Scripture : thzfecond, an infinuation of it's
falfhood, as it is feen in it's abufes and cor-
ruptions, in particular Churches.
"Judaifm is attacked more fully and
avowedly in the firfl way : and Cbrtflianity,
in the fecond.
i. All the arguments againft Revelation,
as it is reprefented in the Bible, are taken
from BLOUNT, TOLAND, COLLINS, CHUBB,
MORGAN, and their fellows. I muft, ex-
cept, indeed, the atrocious terms in which
they are commonly inforced. For the ini-
quity of the times would not fuffer thofe
confeffors of truth to put forth more than
half their ftrength, as his Lord (hip him-
felf aflures us [18], When I fay his ar-
guments are all taken from thefe men, I
do not fpeak it, in difparagement of the
reafoning. On the contrary, this is by far
the moft plaufible part of thefe voluminous
E/ays.
[18] Vol. iv. p. 163.
go A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
One thing, indeed, falls out unluckily.
All his Lordmip's great originals profeiTed
to believe the MORAL ATTRIBUTES of the
deity, in common with the reft of man-
kind : And on that principle inforced
their arguments againft the truth of reveal-
ed Religion : -and indeed what other princi-
ple is there that will afford ground for a (in-
gle objection againft it ? Now his Lordmip
profefles to have no idea of thefe moral at-
tributes* No matter. They were necef-
fary to be taken into fervice here, for the
completion of his fchemes. And a Philo-
fopher can drop his principle as a politician
does his friend, when he is of no ufe, and
renew his acquaintance again when he wants
him. Thefe .difcarded attributes there-
fore are on this occafion taken into favour;
foon again to be difmifled, and his OLD
PRINCIPLE reaffumed, when he wants to
guard againft the terrors of a future ftate ;
in which, to do it juftice, it performs true
Knights-fervice. Much indeed is it to be
lamented, that his old principle fhould ever
grow capricious ; and that when it had
fo effectually excluded God's moral Go-
vernment as recommended by natural Reli-
gion, it mould oppofe itfelf to thofe argu-
ments
PHILOSOPHY. gi
merits which are for excluding God's moral
government as recommended by Revelation.
An hiftorical deduction of the abufes
and corruptions of Chriftianity in the
CHURCH OF ROME, to advance fuperftition,
fanaticifm, and fpiritual tyranny, makes the
fecond part of. his Lordfhip's reafoning
againft REVELATION} and the fubjedl of
the largeft of hisjfa/r EJ/ays.
On this head he expatiates in all the
forms of Piety, Patriotifm, and Humanity.
He bewails the dishonours done to Religi-
on ; he refents the violations of civil Liber-
ty ; and he vindicates the common fenfe
pf mankind from the fcholaftic jargon of
an ignorant, debauched, and avaricious
Clergy.
Felicia tempora, quas te
Moribus opponunt : habeat jam ROMA pu-
dorem.
On fo trite a topic, the topic of every true
Proteftant from Fox to Mr. Chandler, that
is, from the firft to the laft good writer upon
the fubject, his Lordmip may be excufed
for unloading his Common-place. What-
ever there is of a better tafte, he has taken
from Hooker, Stillingfleet, Barrow, and
fuch
92 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
fuch other of the Englim Clergy who have
mofr, fuccefsfully detected the errors and
ufurpations of Popery.
But as the object of our Divines in this
detection was to recommend the Gofpel-
truth ; and of his Lordftiip, to difcredit it;
he had need of other helps : And thefe, too,
were at hand; fuch as Hobbes, Toland,
Tindal, Gordon; whom he faithfully
copies, both in exaggerating the abufes,
and in drawing falfe confequences from
the reform of them. Thus, according to
thofe Divines who wrote for truth, SCHOOL
PHILOSOPHY was modeftly complained of
as hindering the advancement of real know-
ledge ; as keeping men bufied in trifling
controverfies, and as making them often
miftake words for things. But with my
Lord, and thefe his better guides, who
wrote again/I Revelation, SCHOOL PHILOSO-
PHY is boldly accufed to have blotted out
all knowledge, and to have left nothing in
it's ftead but madnefs, frenzy, and delirium.
So again, The end of thofe Divines in
expofing human ufurpations, was to intro-
duce a RELIGIOUS SOCIETY on the princi-
ples of Gofpel-liberty : but the end of thefe
Philofophers in decrying Popery is to efta-
blifh
PHILOSOPHY. 93
blim a civil, in the place of a religious ufur-
pation, and to make the CHURCH A CREA-
TURE OF THE STATE.
In the mean time, he fays boldly and well,
" That fome men are IMPUDENT enough
" topretendy others SILLY enough to be-
<c lieve, that they adhere to the Gofpel,
" and maintain the caufe of God againft
" infidels and heretics, when they do no-
" thing better nor more than expofe the
" conceits of men [19]." But while he
is thus bufy in obferving what happens at
one end of this common fallacy, he fuffers
himfelf to flip in, at the other : and does
juft the fame again/I the Gofpel, which
thefe men do for it. He expofes the kna-
very of powerful Churchmen, and the folly
of profound Divines ; and then pretends, or
believes, he hath difcredited Revelation itfelf.
However, to part friends with the D/-
vinesy after fo mahy hard words, he teaches
them how to prop up, in fome plaufible
way, their bungling fyftems of ARTIFI-
CIAL THEOLOGY, juft as he had before
taught God Almighty himfelf to mend his
two Difpenfations. <c Let us (fays he)
" fuppofe a Theift objecting the be-
[19] Vol. iv. p. 385.
" liever
94 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
" liever might reply he might add ;
" he might add and all this with great
" plaufibility at leaft [20]." You will fay
now, I envy my Lord the glory of his
inftru&ions to defend artificial theology, or
otherwife I, who am not fparing of my
quotations, would have given them at
large. To tell you the truth, I fuppreffed
them with delign ; to excite the Reader's
curiofity. It is faid there is occafion for
it : and that the Public does not yet appear
difpofed to pay that profound attention to
thejr/? Philofophy as might be wifhed on
the firft appearance of fo great a blefTing.
You will fufped:, by what you have feen
in my firft Letter, that the Public may be
fomewhat overdofed, and fo has kecked a
little. But it is to be hoped, his Followers
will foon reconcile them to their Phyfic.
4. His Lordmip's fourth and laft great
principle is the IMPOSSIBILITY of REVE-
LATION in general.
He has refufed no arms, we fee, to com-
bat the Revelations God hath actually
given. He would feem to relax a little of
his feverity, as to thofe which God may
pcffibly give : for in one place he fays, be
[20] Vol. v. p. 279.
will
PHILOSOPHY.
will not abfolutely pronounce again/1 the pojfi-
bility of God's revealing his will to man.
But whether he equivocates, whether he
altered his mind, or whether he fimply
forgot himfelf (a matter of little confe-
quence) moft true it is, that he hath for-
mally laid down, and largely infifted upon,
certain principles, which make revealed
Religion a thing UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE.
Firjl, As to INSPIRATION, he not
only denies all reality in the thing, but
will not allow fo much as any meaning in
the wonj. And a MIRACLE, he holds to
be impofiible, what never, was, nor ever
can be. But now, without the^/Er/?, no
divine mefTenger could be fentj for he
muft receive his orders from God : and
without the fecond, no divine meflenger
would be believed; for he muft have his
credentials to {hew to Man : and thefe
credentials, on his Lordmip's own princi-
ples, can be no other than miracles.
But here again you are to obferve, that
on this fubjedt likewife Infidelity is no more
indebted to him than for his good will. All
he urges againft infpiration and miracles
having been firft urged by HOBBES and
SPINOZA: by the one, with more fubtilty
and
96 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
and exactnefs ; by the other, with infinite
more elegance.
Secondly, His Lordmip holds the RELI-
GION OF NATURE to be full, perfect, and
well underftood. He holds, likewife, that
the only conceivable purpofe of Revelation
muft be to republijk the Religion of Nature.
The confequence is, and this his Lordfhip
gives us to underftand, hefaw, that the ufe
of Revelation becomes fuperfeded. For if it
teaches more than natural Religion taught,
or different from what it taught, the Reve-
lation muft be falfe j if only the fame, it
is evidently fuperfluous.
Thirdly, His Lordmip utterly rejects a
PARTICULAR PROVIDENCE. But a reveal-
ed Religion is nothing elfe than the exercife
of that very providence to fome declared
end in the moral Syftem.
On all thefe accounts, he concludes,
and confequentially enough, that REASON
HAS NOTHING FURTHER TO DO, WHEN
REVELATION BEGINS [20].
You have now, Sir, the whole of his
Lordmip's SYSTEM, together with his
topics in fupport of it, both very fuccinclly
[20] Vol. v. p. 274.
deli-
PHILOSOPHY. 97
delivered : enough however to fhew you that /
thefe famous ESSAYS which you have heard/
fo often cried up as the very Mine, the native!
Treafury of all divine and human truths,
are indeed little other than the Magazine or
Warehoufe of other men's lumber : or
(not to dishonour his Lordfhip by a mecha-
nical comparifon) like the mouth of your
neighbouring SEVERN, turbulent and dirty:
which, let fableing Poets fay what they
pleafe, we are fure never derived it's fource
from the pure and perennial Urn of a Demi-
god : but, if one may guefs from the tafle
and colour, became thus confiderable for it's
bulk by the confluence of mallow brooks
and babbling rivulets ; of flagnant ditches,
common- fewers, and yet ftranger mixtures ;
fcoured off and put into a ferment by the
hafly rage of fome peevifh land-torrent.
THE main pillar of his Syftem, you
fee, is this extravagant paradox, That we have
NO ADEQUATE ideas of God's moral attri-
butes, his GOODNESS and JUSTICE, as we
ha'ue of his natural, his Wifdom and Power.
And here, let me obferve once for all, that
his Lordmip ufes the words, inadequate
H ideas,
98 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
idtas, and, no ideas, as terms of the fame im-
port. And as I think, not improperly, I
have followed him in the indifferent ufe of
either expreflion. For the reafon of his call-
in? our ideas of God's mcral attributes, IN-
ADE-QUATE, is, becaufe he denies goodnefs
and juftice to be the fame IN KIND, in
God as in Man : But if not the fame in
kind, we cannot furely have any idea of
them, becaufe we have no idea of any other
kind of goodnefs and juftice.
As the reafbning on this head, contrary
to his ufual wont, is entirely his own; and
befides, an extreme curiofity in itfelf, I will
once more go a little out of my way, to
fet it in a true light ; that it may neither
impofe by it's novelty; nor too much fhcck
you and all good men by it's unchecked a-
trocity. The reft are adopted impieties, of a
paultry plebeian race ; but inferted, tho' in a
contrary courfe, into this noble flock, with
the fpirit of CLODIUS'S famous adoption of
old, only for the fake of public mifchief.
His three Portions are, That, by meta-
pbyjics, or the reafoning a priori, we can
gain no knowledge of God at all.
That our knowledge of his attributes
arc to be acquired, only by a contemplation
on
PHILOSOPHY. 99
oh his Works> or by the reafoning a pofle-
riori.
That in this way, we can only arrive at
the knowledge of his natural attributes,
not of his moral.
" It is from the conftitution of the
" world ALONE (fays his Lordlhip) and
<{ from the flate of mankind in it, that we
* can acquire any ideas of the divine attri-
" butes, or a right to affirm any thing about
<c them [i]."
u The knowledge of the Creator is on
<c many accounts neceffary to fuch a crea-
<c ture as man : and therefore we are made
tc able to arrive by a proper exercife of our
" mental faculties, from a knowledge of
<c God's 'works to a knowledge of his exijlence>
" and of that infinite POWER and WISDOM
" which are demonftrated to us in them.
" OUR KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING GoD
" GOES NO FURTHER [2].''
" Artificial Theology connects by very
" problematical reafoning a priori^ MORAL
tc attributes^ fuch as we conceive them,
" and fuch as they are relatively to us,
<c with the phyfical attributes of God;
* c tho' there be no fufficient foundation
[r] Vol. v. p. 331. [2] Vol. iv. p. 86.
H 2 4< for
ioo A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
" for this proceeding, nay, tho* the pba-
cc nomena are in fever al cafes repugnant^]."
Having thus affured us that the ideas of
God's moral attributes are to be got by no
reafoning at all, either a priori or apojlerioriy
the only two ways we have to knowledge;
He rightly concludes, that if man has fuch
ideas, they were not found but invented by
him. And therefore, that nothing might be
wanting to the full dilucidation of this cu-
rious point, he acquaints us who were the
Authors of the fidtion, and how ftrangely
the thing came about.
c< Some of the Philofophers (fays his
" Lordmip) having been led by a more full
ce and accurate contemplation of Nature to
" the knowledge of a fupreme felf-exiftent
" Being of infinite power and<wifdom y and
ft the firft Caufe of all things, were not
< contented with this degree of knowledge.
c{ They MADE A SYSTEM of God's MO-
ce RAL as well as phyftcal attributes, BY
" WHICH TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PRO-
ce CEEDINGS OF HIS PROVIDENCE [4]."
Thefe Philofophers then, it feems, in*
vented the fyftem of God's moral attributes,
in order to account for the difficulties anting
[3] Vol. v. p. 316. [4] Vol. iv. p. 48.
from
PHILOSOPHY. 101
from the view of God's moral government.
If the World had till now been fo dull as to
have no conception of thefe Attributes ; his
Lordfhip's Philofophers, we fee, made am-
ple amends; who were fo quick witted as
to conceive, and fo fharp lighted as to per-
ceive, the obliquities of a crooked line before
they had got ajTyidea of zftraight one. For
juft to this, neither more nor lefs, does his
Lordfhip's profound obfervation concerning
this profounder difcovery amount, when he
fays, they made a Syjiem of God's moral at-
tributesy by which to account for the proceed*
ings of his Providence.
This invention of his Lordfhip's old Phi-
lofophers would put one in mind of an in-
genious Modern, the curious SANCHO PAN-
<p A ; who, as his hiftorian tells us, was very
jnquifitive to find out the Author of that
very ufeful invention we call SLEEP : for,
with this worthy Magiflrate, Sleep and good
Cheer were the Firjl Philofophy. Now the
things fought after by Sancho and his Lord-
fhip were at no great diftance : for if Skep-
ing began when men firft fhut their eyes,
it is certain the idea of God's Goodnefs
appeared as foon as ever they opened
them.
H 3 Dr.
IO2 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROXE'S
Dr. Clarke's Demonftration of the moral
attributes a prior /, I fhall leave, as his
Lordmip is pleafed to do, in all it's force.
If the Doctor's followers think their Maf-
ter's honour concerned, where his argu-
ments are not, they have a large .field and
a fafe to {hew their prowefs.
I rather chufe to undertake his Lordfhip
on his own terms, without any other
arms than the arguments a poftericri. For
he is fuch a Champion for the good Caufe,
that he not only appoints his adverfaries the
field, but prefcribes to them the ufe of
their weapons.
But his Lordmip, like other great men, is
not eafily approached j and when he is, not
always fit to be feen. You catch his FIRST
PHILOSOPHY, as Butler's Hero did Arifto-
tle's FIRST MATTER, undrejjcd, and without
a rag ofform^ but flaunting and fluttering in
FRAGMENTS. To fpeak plainly, his Lord-
fhip's entire want of method betrays him
into endlefs REPETITIONS: and in thefe,
whether for want of precifion in his ideas,
propriety in his terms, or art in his compe-
tition, the queftion is perpetually changing;
and rarely without being new covered by an
equivocal expretfion. If you add to this, the
perpetual
PHILOSOPHY. 103
perpetual CONTRADICTIONS into which he
falls, either by defeat of memory, excefs of
paffion, or diftrefs of argument, you will
allow it to be no eafy matter to take him
fairly, to know him fully, and to reprefent
him to the beft advantage ; in none of which
offices would I be willingly defective. In-
deed, when you have done this, the bufinefs
is over j and his Lordfhip's reafoning ge-
nerally confutes itfelf.
When I reflect upon what this has coft me,
no lefs than the reading over two or three bul-
ky Volumes to get pofleffion of a fingle argu-
ment 5 which now you think you hold, and
then again you lofe ; it meets you full when
you leaft expect it, and it flips away from
you the very moment it promifes to do
moft : when, I fay, I reflect upon all this,
I cannot but lament the hard luck of our
CLERGY, who, tho' leaft fit, and indeed
leaft concerned^ as there is nothing that can
impofe on a Scholar, and a great deal that
may miflead the People, are likely to be the
men moft engaged in this controverfy with
his Lordmip. Time was, when if a Writer
had a difpofition to feek objections to Reli-
gion, tho' he found them hardly, and they
moved heavily, yet he Would digeft his
thoughts, and range his arguments 3 and me-
H 4 thodize
IO4 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
thodize his reafoning. The Clergy had then
nothing to do but to anfwer him, if they
could. But fince this flovenly cuftom (as
Lord SHAFTSBURY calls it) of taking their
fbyfic in public, has got amongft our Free-
thinkers, that is, of dofeing themfelves well
with doubts ; and then as haftily difcharging
their loofe and crude indigeftions into Frag-
ments j things which, in their very name,
imply not fo much the want, as the exclu-
fion of all Form ; the advocate of Religion
has had a double labour : he muft work
them into confidence, he muft mould
them into fhape, before he can lay hold of
them fafely, or prefent them handfomely.
But thefe Gentlemen have taken care that
a Clergyman mould not be idle. He finds
the fame to do in the diicharse of his office
O -/
paftoral. All he had of old to attend was
the faving the fouls of thofe committed to
his care. He muft now begin his work a
great deal higher ; he muft firft convince
his flock that they have a foul to be faved.
And the fpite of all is, that at the time his
kind mafters have thus doubled his talk,
they appear very well difpofed to leffen his
wages,
We have obferved, that the DENIAL of
God's moral attributes is the great barrier
againft
PHILOSOPHY. 105
againft Religion in general : but it is more
especially ferviceable in his Lordfhip's
idiofyncratic terrors ; the terrors of a fu-
ture State. To thefe we owe his famous
book of FRAGMENTS, compofed occafion-
ally, and taken as an extemporaneous cor-
dial, each ftronger than the other, to fup-
port himfelf under his frequent paroxyfms.
For, let the moral attributes alide, and we
can neither form any judgment of the end
of man, nor of the nature of God's moral
government. All our knowledge will be
then confined to our prefent ftate and condi-
tion. It is by thefe attributes alone, we
learn, that man was made for happinefs j and
that God's difpenfation to us here is but part
of our moral fyftem: This naturally extends
our views to, and terminates our knowledge
in, the certainty of a future ftate.
The FATE of all Religion therefore being
included in the queftion of God's moral at-
tributes^ I hold it of importance to prove,
again ft his Lord (hip, that MEN MAY AC-
QUIRE ADEQUATE IDEAS OF THEM in the
fame way, and with equal certainty, that
his Lordmip in the following words hath
{hewn us, we acquire the knowledge of
God's natural attributes*
"All
1 06 A VIE w of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
" All our knowledge of God (fays he)
<c is derived from his works. Every part
" of the immenie univerfe, and the or-
<c der and harmony of the Whole, are
V not only conformable to our ideas or
< notions of. WISDOM and POWER, but
<c thefe ideas and notions were imprefled
" originally and principally by them, on
<c every attentive mind; and men were led
<c to conclude, with the utmofl: certain-
<{ ty, that a Being of infinite wifdom and
cc power made, preferved, and governed
" the fyftem. As far as we can difcover,
" we difcern thefe in all his works j and
" where we cannot difcern them, it is
" manifeftly due to our imperfection, not
" to his. This now is real knowledge,
" or there is no fuch thing as knowledge.
c< We acquire it immediately in the objects
" themfelves, in God, and in Nature, the
" work of God. We know what vxfihm
" and power are : we know both intuitive-
" ly, and by the help of our fenfes, that
" fuch as we conceive them to be, fuch
" they appear in the Work: and therefore
" we know demon ftratively that fuch they
<l are in the Worker [5]."
[5] v l v - P- 5 2 4-
All
PHILOSOPHY. 107
All this is mighty well : and on thefe
very grounds I undertake to prove that men
may get as clear and as precife ideas of
God's GOODNESS and JUSTICE, as of his
ivifdom and power.
But, to prevent, or, indeed, now things
are fo far gone, rather to redrefs, all
ambiguity in the terms, and equivocation
in the ufe of them ; it will be proper to
explain what true PHILOSOPHY means by
GOD'S WORKS, whether phyfical or moral.
Now I underftand by it, that CONSTITU-
TION OF THINGS which God hath eftablifh-
ed and directed, tending to a plain and evi-
dent end : without regard to thofe impedi-
ments or obftrudtions in it's courfe, which
the Author of nature hath permitted to arife
from any part of the material, or intellect-
tual Creation.
Thus, when we confider his phyfical
works, in order to make our eftimate of
his wifdom and power, we conceive them
as they are in themfelves ; and in the per-
fe&ion of their Conftitution ; tho' the
great portion of the phyfical fyftem may,
from the intractability of matter, be fub-
ject to fome inconfiderable irregular ities,
which, as the true PHILOSOPHER obferves
win,
io8 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
will be apt to increafe till this fyftem 'wants a
reformation : and tho' the fmaller portions,
fuch as the bodies of animals, may, from
various accidents in their conception and
birth, often want that convenient formation
and adaption of their parts, from the won-
derful contrivance of which, in the various
bodies of all animals in general, arifes fo
illuftrious an evidence of the wifdom and
power of the Workman.
Surely, then, common fenfe, and all equi-
table meafure, require us to eftimate God's
moral works on the fame ftandard : to conli-
der what the moral conjlitution is in itfelf:
and (when the queftion is of God's good-
nefs zn&juftice) to keep that view diftinct
and feparate : nor fuffer it to be difturbed
or broken by any interruptions occafioned
thro' the perverfe influence either of the
paffion or action of material or immaterial
Beings. For, in this cafe, Both concur to
violate the Conftitution. In the natural
fyftem, man's Free-will has no place : in
the moral) the abufe of Free-will occafions
the moft and greateft of it's diforders.
In profecuting this queftion therefore,
As, in order to acquire and confirm our
ideas of God's wifdom and power, we con-
3 fider
PHILOSOPHY. xog
iider the natural fyjlem only as it's order
and harmony is fupportcd by the general
Laws of matter and motion : fo, in order
to acquire and confirm our ideas of his
goodnefs and juftice, we mould regard the
moral fyflem only as it's order and harmony
is fupported by that GENERAL LAW,
which annexes happinefs to virtue, and mi-
fery to vice.
Thus much, and only thus much, is
God's work, in either fyftem : and it is from
God's work we are to demonftrate his attri-
butes. The reft, where real or apparent
diforders obtrude themfelves, to obftrucT: our
views in thefe difcoveries, proceeds from
matter and the human mind.
And it is not to be forgotten, that the
conclufion we draw from hence, in fupport
of our adequate ideas of God's moral attri-
butes, has the greater ftrength upon his
Lordfliip's own principles ; who holds, that
this Coriftitution arifes folely from the WILL
of God : For then we are fure that the WILL,
which annexes happinefs to virtue, and mi-
fery to vice, muft arife from God's moral
rather than from his firft phyjical nature.
Having premifed thus much, tho' no
more than neceffary to obviate one con-
tinued
no A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
tinued SopHiSM,that runs thro' all his Lord-
fhip's reafonings, againft the moral attri-
butes : where, the courfe and operation of
that moral Conftitution as it appears under
the diflurbances occafioned by man's Jree-
ivill, is perpetually put for the Conftitutim
itfelf: I now proceed to fhew, from GOD'S
WORKS, that we have as precife ide^s of his
GOODNESS and JUSTICE as of his power
and ivifdom.
His Lordihip obferves, that from every
fart of the immenfe univerfe, and from the
harmony of the 'whole., men are led to conclude,
with the utmoji certainty, that a Being of
infinite wifdom and power made, preferred,
and governed the fyft em, And what mould
hinder the Religionift from obferving, that
the happinefs attendant on virtue, and the
mifery confequent on vice by the very
Conftitution of nature, lead men to con-
clude, with equal certainty, that a Being of
infinite goodnefs w\&jujlice made, preferves,
and governs the fyflem ?
The exiftence of this moral Conftitution
his Lordmip acknowledges. Let us confi-
der it, therefore, both as it refpe&s BODIES
of men, and INDIVIDUALS.
That Communities are always happy or
miferable
PHILOSOPHY. nr
mlferable in proportion to their virtuous or
vicious manners, his Lordfhip himfelf is
the forwardeft to demonftrate. If fuch a
Conftitution of things does not befpeak the
Author of it good andjuft, how is it pofli-
ble to conclude any thing of the character
of aCreator from hisWorks? His Lordmip
thinks, that from the marks of wifdom and
power in \htphyficalfyftem we learn with the
utmofl certainty that God is wife and power-
ful ; and he fays, that we acquire this know-
ledge immediately, as it were, by our fenfes.
Are there not the felf fame marks ofgoodnefs
and juftice in this part at leaft of the moral
fyftem ? And do not we come to know as
immediately by our fenfes, and as certainly
by our reafon, that God is good and juft ?
If we confider the moral Conftitution, as
it refpecls Particulars, we fee virtue and
vice have the fame influence on our happi-
nefs and mifery. Here, indeed, we find
more interruptions, in the means to the end,
than in the other part. Our material and our
intellectual Nature have here more power
to diforder the operations of the Syflem.
In Communities^ they can rarely be difturb-
ed, but by a Peftilence, or that other
jnoral Plague, a. Hero or a Conqueror:
Amongfl
H2 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
Amongft Particulars, phyfkal evil and the
abufe of free-will bring more frequent dif-
orders. But when once the demonftration
of the moral attributes is clearly made
from that part of the conftitution which
regards Communities, it can never be
fhaken by the diforders in the other part of
it, which regards Particulars. The efta-
blifhed truth is now a Principle to proceed
upon in our difcoveries j and as to the inter*
ruptions in the latter inftance, all we can
fairly deduce from thence is,the CERTAINT V
of & future State. But this by the way.
What I infift upon at prefent is, that,
to decide the queftion concerning God's
attributes, we are to confider the Confti-
tution of things, as it is in itfelf, limply ;
this is, properly, God's 'work. The diforders
in it, occafioned by the abufe of man's
free-will, is not his Work, but man's. This,
his Lordfhip too, upon another occafion,
namely, when he combats the argument
of a future Jlate from an unequal Provi-
dence, is perpetually repeating. So that
thete diforders muft, even on his Lord-
fhip's own principles, be excluded from the
account, when we eflimate God's Nature
and Attributes from his Works.
But
PHILOSOPHY. 113
But we do not fee thofe diforders in the
natural world which we both fee and
feel in the moral. This would be fome ob-
jection did God direct things immediately^
or conftitute them mechanically ', in the mo-
ral, as he does in the natural Syftem ; or
had Free-will the fame influence on the lat-
ter as on the former. Did God direct in
both Conftitutions, or did he direct in nei-
ther, immediately or mechanically r , and that
yet the moral continued more fubject todif-
order than the natural^ it might then in-
deed follow that we had not fo clear ideas
of God's goodnefs andjttftice as of his i wif-
dom and power. But fince he has thought
fit to leave man, FREEJ and has been
pleafed to fuffer the abufe of free-will to af-
fect the moral fyftem, and not the natural;
the fuperior irregularities in the one do not
take off from the equal clearneis of the
demonstration which refults from the na-
ture of both Conftitutions. " This difFer-
<c ence (to fpeak in the words of a late
< f writer) is not to be afcribed to a
" contrary conduct in the Governor of the
two Syftems, but to the contrary natures
" of the Subjects. Paffive matter being to-
" tally inert, it's refiftance to the Laws im-
I preffed
ri4 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
" preffcd upon it, muft be extremely weak :
U and conlequently the diforders arifing
<c from that refiftance proportionably flow
" and unheeded: while that active felf-
" moving principle, the Mind, flies out at
<( once from the centre of its direction,
" an.d can every moment deflect from the
" line of truth and reafon. Hence moral
" diforders began early, became exceffive,
" and have continued, through all ages, to
" difturb the harmony of the Syftem [6]."
What is here faid will, I fuppofe, be fuffi-
cient to confute the following aflertions ; and
to detect the miftake on which they arife.
11 Every thing (fays his Lordftiip) (hews
" the isoijdom andpower of God conformably.
" to our ideas of wifdom and power in the
" phyjical world and in the moral. But
" every thing does not Jhew in like manner
" the jujlice and goodnefs conformably to our
<c ideas of thefe attributes in either. Tbe
phyjical attributes are in their nature
" more glaring and lefs equivocal [7]."
And again. " There is no fufficient
[6] The principles of natural and reveakd Religion,
in a courfe of Sermons at Lincoln' s-Inn. Vol. i. p. 66.
[7J Vol. v. p. 524.
"founda-
PHILOSOPHY. 115
"foundation in the phenomena of nature
cc to conned: the moral attributes with the
<{ phyfical attributes of God. Nay, the
" phenomena are in federal cafes repugnant
" [8]."
But fince he goes fp far as to talk of the
want of a foundation^ and even a repugnancy,
Before I proceed with the main branch of
my reafoning, I will juft urge one fingle
argument for the reality and full evidence of
the moral attributes : and it mall be taken
from himfelf, and (hall conclude on his
own principles.
He tells us, that fuch as he, <{ who
*' apply themfelves to the firjl Philofophy,
" apply themfelves to the nobleft objects
" that can demand the attention of the
" mind To the fignification of GOD'S
e WILL, concerning the duties we owe to
him, and to one another [9]."
And again, " It is fufficient to eftablim
" our moral obligations that we confider
" them relatively to our own fyflem.
" From thence they arife: and fince they
e arife from thence, it muft be the WILL of
[8] Vol. v. p. 316. [9] Vol. v. p. 447-
I 2 " that
n6 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
" that Being who made the fyftem, that we
<c fliould obferve and pradife them [10]."
Let me afk then, How it is that we col-
led: this WILL from the objects which his
Lordftiip allows us to contemplate, namely,
his WORKS in this fyftem ? He will fay
from certain qualities in thofe objects.
What are thofe qualities? He will reply,
the fitneffes of means to ends. Who was
the Author of thefe fitneffes ? He hath told
us, the God of nature. It was God's
will then we (hould ufe the means in order
to obtain the ends. Now, in the moral
fyftem, the means are virtuous practice; the
end, happinefs. Virtue therefore muft needs
be pleafmg to him ; and Vice, as it's con-
trary, difpleafing. Well, but then, as to
this like and dijlike 5 it muft be either ca-
pricious, or it muft be regulated on the nature
of things. Wifdom, which his Lordfhip con-
defcends to give his Maker, will not allow us
to fuppofe it capricious. It is regulated there-
fore on the nature of things. But if the na-
ture of things be, as his Lordfhip holds it is,
the conftitution of God, and dependent on bis
will, then he who is plea fed with virtue,
[10] Vol. v. p. 452.
and
PHILOSOPHY. 117
and difpleafed with vice, muft needs be
himfelf good zu&juft.
To proceed now with my main argument.
His Lordmip goes on thus. But men not only
might collect God's natural attributes from
the phyfcal fyftem^ but in effect they did :
and all men, at all times, had thefe notions
jb ftrongly impreffedon them, that they were
led to conclude with the utmojl certainty for
a Being of infinite power and wifdom.
I delire to know in what time or place
it ever happened, before his Lordmip phi-
lofophifed at Batterfea, that a Man, who
believed God's infinite wifdom and power,
did not with equal confidence believe his
infinite goodnefs and juftice ? In truth,
thefe two fets of ideas, the phyjical and mo-
ral attributes of the Deity, were equally ex-
tenfive, they were equally fteady, and they
were always till now infeparable.
He fays, that as far as we can difcoiier,
we difcern infinite wifdom and power in all
God's works : and where we cannot difcern
them, it is manifejtly due to our imperfection
not to his.
What his Lordmip here fays will deferve
to be well confidered. A comparifon, we
fee, is infinuated between our difcovery of
I 3 infinite
Ii8 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
infinite power; and wifdom, from the phy*
fical works of God ; and our difcovery of
infinite goodnefs and juftice, from his moral
works j in which the advantage is given to
the former. Now, to come to any clear de-
cifion in this point (omitting at prefent the
notice of his general Sophifm which ope-
rates in this obfervation, as in the reft) we
muft diftinguith between the means of ac-
quiring the knowledge of God's attributes,
and that knowledge when acquired. As to
the firft, the me am of acquiring^ there
feems to be fome advantage on the fide of
God's phyfical works. For, as his Lord-
fhip rightly obferves, where we cannot
dijcern wifdom and power in the phyfical
works it is due to our imperfection, not to
his : for as men advance in the knowledge
of nature we fee more and more of wifdom
and power. And he infinuates, we cannot
fay the fame concerning the difficulties in
the moral fyftem. It is true, we cannot.
But then let us tell him, neither can we fay
the contrary. The reafon is, The phyfical
fyftem lies open to our enquiries ; and by
the right application of our fenfes, to well
tried experiments, we are able to make con-
fiderable advances in the knowledge of Na-
ture,
PHILOSOPHY. ng
ture. It is not fo in the moral fyflem ; all
we know here are a few general principles
concerning its Conftitution ; and further
than this, human wit or induflry can never
get. Thefe general principles, indeed, are
amply fufficient to deduce and eftablim the
moral attributes from the moral fy ft em ^ but
not fufficient to remove difficulties that
arife from what we fee of the a&ual admi-
niftration of that fyflem. So that, tho' ive
cannot fay, that as ive advance in the know-
ledge of the moral fyftem ive fee more and
more of goodnefs and juflice : So neither can
his Lordjhip fay (tho' his words feem to in-
finuate he could) that as we advance, we fee
lejs and lefs. Whereas the truth is we can-
not advance at all, beyond thofe few gene-
ral principles.
But then, on the other hand, with re-
gard to the knowledge of the attributes,
when acquired, I hold the advantage, and a
very great one it is, lies altogether on the fide
of the MORAL. And this, I cannot better
explain to you than in the words of a late
writer, quoted once before: 4< Tho* the
" idea (fays this Divine) of God's natural 3t-
< c tributes be as clear in the abftradt, as that
4f of his moral, yet the idea of his moral
14 " attri-
4 2O A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
c< attributes is, in the concrete, more ade-
" quate than that of his natural. The reafon
" feerns convincing. The moral relation in
" which we ftand to God, as free agents,
" isjuftthe fame whether man exifts alone,
" or whether he be but a link in the chain
<c of innumerable orders of intelligences
" furrounding the whole Creation. Hence
<c we muft needs have a full knowledge of
(t our duty to him, and of his difpofition
c< towards us : on which knowledge is
cc founded the exactnefs of our conceptions
" of his moral attributes, his jujlice and
" goodnefs. But the natural relation in
which we, or any of God's creatures,
< c ftand towards him, as material Beings, is
< c not the fame when confidered fimply, as
{ when a portion of a dependent and con-
c nected whole. Becaufe whenever fuch a
" whole exifts, the harmony and perfection
" of it muft firft of all be confulted. This
" harmony arifeth from the mutual fubfer-
< c viency and union of it's parts. But this
ce fubferviency may require a miniftration of
lt government, with regard to certain pocti-
<e ons of matter thus allied, different from
' what might have followed had thofe por-
cc tions ftood alone, becaufe that precifedif-
' pofition,
PHILOSOPHY. 121
** pofition, which might be fit in one cafe
" might be unfit in the other. Hence we,
" who know there is a whole, of which
" our material fyftem is a part ; and yet are
<c totally ignorant both of it's nature and
" extent, can have but a very confufed idea
" of that phyfical relation in which we
<c ftand towards God : fo that our con-
" ceptions of his natural attributes, his
" power and wifdom, which are founded on
" that idea, muft in the concrete be propor-
<c tionably vague and inadequate [i i]."
But you will afk, perhaps, whence arifes
this reciprocal advantage which the moral
and the natural attributes have over one an-
other in the means of acquiring the know-
ledge of them, and the precifion of that
knowledge when acquired ? I will tell you in
two words. Of our own phyfical fyftem, we
know many particulars, (that is, we difcover
much of the means, but nothing of the end)
and of the univerjal phyfical fyftem we are
entirely ignorant. On the other hand, we
know but few particulars of our own moral
fyftem, (that is, we difcover only the end,
[ 1 1 J The principles of natural and revealed Religion ,
in a courfe of Sermon; at Lincoln's Inn, Vol. i. p. 58,
'
and
1 2 2 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
and not the means) and of the univerfal moral
fyftem we know the general principles.
His Lordmip proceeds. This now [the
knowledge of God's natural attributes] is
real knowledge ; or there is nofuch thing as
knowledge. We acquire it immediately in
the objects themfefoes, IN GOD, and in na-
ture the work of God.
What his- Lordftnp means by, in God,
diftin<5l from the work of God t I confefs I
do not underftand : Perhaps it may be in-
tended to infinuate, in honour of the natu-
ral attributes that they may be even proved
a priori ; for this is not the firft time by
many, when after having heartily abufed a
perfon or thing, he has been reduced to avail
himfelf of the authority, or the reafoning,
they afford him. Or perhaps, it was only
ufed to round the period, and fet off his elo-
quence. However I agree with him, that
this is real knowledge. And fo too, I think,
is the knowledge of the moral attributes, fo
gained. Why truly, fays his Lordfhip, J
do allow juftfo much goodnefs and juflice in
God as we fee in that CONSTITUTION which
annexes happinefs to virtue and mifery to
vice. But this, fays he, / think, had better
fa called WISDOM. I think fo tobj if by s
fi
PHILOSOPHY. 123
fo much, he means no more than what con-
cerns God's natural government. But I will
venture to go further, and fay, that, from
what we fee in this conjtitution, we may
colled: PERFECT goodnefs and juftice.
Matter and man's Free-will difturb the
Syftem. But if the Constitution be the ef-
fect of God's Will, as his Lordmip holds ;
and the mark of his Wifdom, as all mankind
hold ; Does not that Wifdom require that his
Will mould not be defeated ? Would it not be
defeated, if the diforders occafioned by the
perverlity of his creatures were not remedied
and fet right ? And is not A REMEDY the
cleared mark of perfect goodnefs zndjuftice?
Take it in another light. Free-will
crofles the Conftitution, which God, by
eftablifhing, fhsws he intended mould take
place. This prefent diflurbance could not
have been prevented, becaufe, according
to my Lord and his Poet, it was neceffary
to the fchemes of divine wiidom, that
there mould be fuch a creature as man :
' For in the fcale of reafoning life, 'tis plain
There muft be, fomewhere, fuch a rank as man.
the confequenceis, that the diforderwill be
hereafter rectified.
Had
1 24 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
Had God indeed made Man unneceflarr-
ly; and this Man had broke in upon God's
Syftem, his Lordfhip might then have had
fome pretence to fay, as he does, that GOD
MEANT THE SYSTEM SHOULD NOT BE
FURTHER PURSUED; that is, that the
SYSTEM, which annexes happinefs to virtue
and mifery to vice, mould remain in it's
prefent ftate of an unperfecled difpenfation,
to all eternity.
He goes on. We know what WISDOM and
POWER are. We know both intuitively, and
by the help of our fenfes, that fuch as we
conceive them to be, fuch they appear in the
WORK ; and therefore we know demonftra-
tively that fuch they are in the WORKER.
And do we not know what GOODNE&S
and JUSTICE are? Do we not intuitively,
and by the help of our fenfes know, that
fuch as we conceive them to be, fuch they
appear in the WORK, namely, in that con-
Jlitution of things, which, his Lordmip tells
us, annexes happinefs to virtue, and mifery
to vice ? And may we not demonjtratively
coiled from thence that fuch they are in the
WORKER ? fincethis Conftitution, his Lord-
mip again tells us, is the effect of God's
On his own principles therefore, ap-
plied
PHILOSOPHY. 125
plied to his own ftate of the reafoning a
pojieriori, it appears that God is of infinite
goodnefs and juftice, as well as of ivifdom
an"d power. And was I to imitate his Lord-
fhip's language, I mould fay of a man who
denied all this,
" O Medici, mediam pertundite venam :
" Delicias hominis!
But to give authority to tfb\$ prodigious rea-
foning, He, in one place, puts it into the
mouth of Anaxagoras. " Should you afk
" Anaxagoras (fays he) what goodnefs is,
" or juftice? He might bid you, perhaps,
" turn your eyes inward, firft j then, fur-
c vey mankind j obferve the wants of in-
" dividuals, the benefits of fociety, and,
<{ from thefe particulars, frame the general
<f notions of goodnefs and jitjlice. He
" might go a ftep further -, and add, this is
<{ human goodnefs and human juftice, fuch
" as we can comprehend, fuch as we can
< c exercifej and fuch as the fupreme mind
' has made it both our duty and intereft to
" exercife, by the conftitution of the hu-
'^man fyftem, and by the relations which
<c arife in it : from all which our notions of
" goodnefs and juftice refult, and are com-
" pounded."
We
126 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
We know then, what goodnefs and juftice
are, as well as what wifdom and power arc j
we know both intuitively and by the help of
our fenfes, that fuch as we conceive them to
be, fuch they appear in the work for he
bids us to turn our eyes inward then to
furvey mankind, and laftly, to obferve how
reafon, from the conjlitution of human na-
ture, confirms our intuitive knowledge,
and that which we gain by the help of our
fenfes. But what .does all this fignify, if
Anaxagoras or his Lordfbip be in an hu-
mour of concluding againfl their own pre-*
mifTes ? Hear then how the fpeech ends.
" Of divine goodnefe and divine juftice
< might this Philofopher conclude, I AM
" UNABLE TO FRAME ANY ADEQUATE
*' NOTIONS [l2]."
What ? Unable to frame that which God
by the moral conilitution \wframtd to our
bands-, and by the declaration of his WILL
has taught us to apply ? In truth, his Lord-
fhip brings his old Sophifts not, as one
would expect, to chop Logic for him, but
to play at crofs purpofes with us. We DO
KNOW, fays Anaxagoras, 'what Goodnefs
and Juftice are : we know both intuitively,
[12] Vol. iv. p. 1 1 6, 17.
I
PHILOSOPHY. 127
and by the help of our fenfes, that fuch as
we conceive them to be y fuch they appear in
the work y and THEREFORE we DO- NOT
KNOW that fuch they are in the worker.
Might I be permitted to addrefs myfelf
to this Renegado Sophift, I would fay,
Your brethren, the antient Philofophers, rea-
foned a pofleriori in this manner, " Can you
think there is wifdom and power in you,
and none in your Maker ?" By no means.
They reafoned well. Let me afk you
then, is there goodnefs andjitftice in you,
and none in your Maker ? His anfwer,! fup-
pofe, would be the fame. But, prompted by
his Lordmip, into whofe fervice he is now
entered, he perhaps might add, that from
human goodnefs andjujlice we cannot come
to the NATURE of the divine. What hin-
ders us, I befeech you ? Is it not from our
intuitive conception of our own wifdom and
power that we gain an adequate idea of
God's? Are wifdom and power MORE PER-
FECT as they are found in man, than good-
nefs and jujlice ? If therefore the IMPER-
FECTION of the human qualities hinder
our acquiring an adequate idea of God's at-
tributes, we can have no adequate idea of his
wifdom and power ; If the IMPERFECTION
does
128 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
does not hinder, then we may have an ade-
quate idea of his goodnefs and jujlice.
But, the inference to God's power and
ivtfdcm, his Lordihip fays, is fupported by
what men fee of the effects in his Works;
the order and harmony of the phyfical
Syftem. Do we not fee likewife the ef-
fects of God's goodnefs and jujlice ', in the
happinefs that naturally attends virtue and
the mifery confequent on vice ? And is not
the moral order and harmony as much God's
Work, as the phyjical?
Thus, Sir, you fee, that by the very
reafoning his Lordfhip EMPLOYS to prove
the natural attributes, and by the very me"
thod he PRESCRIBES to us for proving the
moral, we have demonftrated thefe with
a precifion and a certainty, at leaft, equal
to the other.
His Lordfhip feems to have been aware
of the event j and therefore when he had
fet us at defiance, he tried to put the change
upon us, by pretending to remind us that
the moral attributes mould be examined by,
or applied 'fo, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
WORLD AND THE STATE OF MANKIND
IN IT [13]. I had as much reafon to be
[i 3 ]Vol.v. p, 331.
aware
PHILOSOPHY. 129
aware of his Lordfhip. And therefore, in
ftating the queftion, at my entrance on
this iubjedt, I bbviated this miferable So-
phifm. I call it by no better name, be-
caufe it is not the conftitution of the 'world or
thcjlate of mankind in it, but the CONSTI-
TUTION OF THE MORAL SYSTEM, or the
ftate of virtue and vice, as they naturally
operate to produce happinefs and mifery,
by which God's moral attributes are to
be tried and afcertained. But this, which
is a fteady and uniform view, he would
have us turn away from ; to contemplate
that obfcure, difturbed, and fhifting fcene,
the actual (late of vice and virtue, of mife-
ry and happinefs, amongft men. That is,
he would have us conclude concerning
God's nature, not from his VOLUNTARY
CONSTITUTION of things, but from the
breaches into that conftitution by the abufe
of man's free-will : which yet, when he is
arguing for an equal pr evidence > he again
and again confeffes ought jiot to be charg-
ed upon Godj and declaims violently a-
gainft the folly of thofe who- impute the
effects of that abufe to him. While here,
in his various attempts to blot out the
idea of God's moral attributes, h is fuH
K of
130 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
of the diforders of the moral Syftem as
part of God's defign. But now I have
mentioned his arguments for an equal
providence, I mould be unjuft to You,
who expect a fair view of his Lordmip's
Phiiofophy from me, if I concealed ano-
ther of his contradictions. He had both
a future State and God's moral attributes
to throw out of the religious world; or,
to fpeak more properly, he had RELIGION
to overturn by taking away it's very ES-
SENCE : and as the irregularities in the
prefent adminiftration of providence flood
in the way of his firft attempt ; and the
conjiftency of the moral Syftem in the way
of the other > when he argues againft a
future State, You would think there were
no irregularities-, and when he argues
againft the moral ait , You would
think there was no confijtency.
We now come to his Lordfliip's par-
ticular objections againft the moral attri-
butes. One of them is, that they are
BOUNDED.
tc They [the Divines] go further. As
cc God is perfect and man very imperfect,
"they talk of his infinite goodnefs and juf-
" tice> as of his infinite wifdom and pow-
3 " er;
PHILOSOPHY. 131
*' er; tho' the latter may preferve their
tl nature without any conceivable bounds,
tc and the former mutt ceafe to be what
" they are, unlefs we conceive them
<c BOUNDED. Their nature implies necef-
<c farily a limitation in the exercife of them.
" Thus then the moral attributes, accord-
t{ ing to this Theology, requires infinitely
< more of God to man than men are able,
" or woiild be obliged if they were able,
" to exercife to one another: greater pro-
" fufion in beftowing benefits and re-
C wards, greater vigour in punifhing of-
<c fences [14]."
You have here his Lordfhip's own
words > and nothing lefs could induce any
one to believe fuch mifreprefentations
could come from one, who had fet himfelf
up for an univerfal Righter of wrongs and
Redreffer of grievances. Permit me to ex-
amine the premijfis ; together with the in-
ferences both implied and exprefled.
He fays, i . that the moral attributes are
bounded ; 2. that the natural are not bound-
ed. Let us fee to what the firft proportion
amounts ; and then, what truth there is in
the fecond.
[14] Vol. v. p. 528.
K 2 The
132 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'
The moral attributes are confidered by
us as relative to intelligent creatures; the
natural are not fo confidered. Thus the
goodnefs and juftice, when relative to man,
are greatly bounded : a certain low degree
of reward fuffices for his good; a certain
low degree of punifhment for his evil
actions. Let God's goodnefs and juftice
refpedt a higher rank of intelligent Beings,
and they will b6 then lefs bounded; for
greater rewards and punifhments will be re-
quired : and fo on, to the higheft rank of
intelligent creatures. Yet as the higheft
is at infinite diftance from the Creator, the
exercife of the moral attributes, (that is,
as they bear relation to his intelligent crea-
tures,) muft be ftill bounded.
His fecond proportion is, that the natu-
tural attributes are not bounded. It is true,
thefe cannot be conlidered as relative to
God's intelligent creatures ; yet fince they
muft be confidered, in their exercife, as
relative to his Creation at large ; and fince
Creation, however immenfe, is not infi-
nite, the natural attributes fo confidered
are not infinite : but if not infinite, they
are bounded. There is no difference there-
fore, in the exercife of God's attributes, be-
tween
PHILOSOPHY. 133
tween the moral and the natural, fave only
in the degree.
But if we confider God's moral and na-
tural attributes more abftractedly, not as
they are in the exercife, and relative to
intelligent Beings, and to actual Creation,
but as they are in his nature, then they are
both unbounded. Thus we fee his Lord-
fhip's notable diftincltion is groundlefs and
imaginary.
But let us give him all he afks, and then
fee what he will be able to infer from it.
His firft inference feems to be this, As the
moral attributes are bounded, and not infinite
like the natural, our idea of them muft he
cloudy, obfcure, inadequate. What ! be-
caufe they are better adapted to human
contemplation ? As things bounded certainly
are, than things infinite. Our idea of
fuch of God's attributes as bear relation
to a Being, whofe nature and properties
we know, namely MAN, muft needs be
more adequate and better defined than
the idea of fuch attributes as bear rela-
tion to Beings, whofe nature and pro-
perties we know not, namely the UNI-
VERSE,,'
K 3 Let
134 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
Let us confider his other inference*
which he expreffes in thefe words : Thus
then the moral attributes, according to this
Theology, requires infinitely more of God to
man than men are able, or would be ob-
liged if they were able, to exercife to one
another.
To fay the moral attributes, according to
Chriftian Theology, or, as he is pleafed to-
call it, artificial Theology, requires INFI-
NITELY more, is a wretched calumny. To
fay it requires mere is true. And for this
plain reafon : the relation between Creator
and Creature is very diftant from that be-
tween Fellow-creatures; therefore ihtgood-
nefs more abundant : The relation between
Lord and Servant is very diflant from that
between Fellow-fervants ; therefore the ju-
Jlice more fevere. And if it would not be
deemed too IMPUDENT to refer his Lord-
fhip to Scripture for inflruction (eipecially
in a matter where the abufe of Scripture
was chiefly intended) he might there have
found a Parable which would have fet him
right : and has always kept artificial Theo-
logy, whatever he might think, from go-
ing wrong.
But
PHILOSOPHY. 135
But infinite, when applied to the e
rife of a moral attribute in reference to man'
is his Lordfhip's nonfenfe, with due reve-
rence be it faid, not the nonfenfe of artificial
Divines. They were not ignorant that
the rule, injirmiorem vet deteriorem partem
fequitur confequentia, held as well in Morals
as in Logic. Tho' God be infinite, man
is finite ; and therefore, with refpect to
him, the exertion of a moral attribute is
finite, not infinite. His Lordmip himfelf
faw fomething of this, as appears by his
own words, *be nature of the moral attri-
butes implies necejjarily a limitation in the
ufe of them. And why would he not fup-
pofe Divines might fee as far into this mat-
ter as himfelf?
But if there be an error in artificial
Theology he is as fure to efpoufe it at one
time or other, as he is, at all times, to ca-
lumniate the Divine who holds it. Men
in their ill advifed zeal to defend theGofpel-
doctrine of the Son's divinity, were not al-
ways fufficiently careful in felecting their
arguments. Amongft fuch as had, per-
haps, been better let alone, they employed
this, That as man's offence was againft an
infinite Being, it required an infinite fatis-
K 4 faction ;
1 36 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
faction ; which none but fuch a Being could
give. Now it is on this very principle, we
fee, his Lordmip goes about to difcredh
God's moral attributes, and the artificial
theology of Jefus Chrift,
As the being bounded is one of his Lord-
fhip's objections againft the moral attributes ,
fo another is, that fome of them are merely
HUMAN.
" After Dr. CLARKE (fays he) has re-
<c peated over and over that all the moral
<c attributes are the fame in God as in our
(< ideas ; and that he who denies them to
*' be fo may as well deny the divine phyfical
Cf attributes, the Doctor infills only on
" two of the former, on thofe ofjyftife and
" goodnefi. He was much in the right to.
<l contract the generality of his aflertion.
<c The abfurdity of afcribing TEMPE-
<e RANGE, for inftance, or FORTITUDE, to
" God, would have been too grofs, and too
<e viiible even to eyes that prejudice had
ct blinded themoft. But that, of afcribing
<l juftice and goodnefs, to him, according
** to our notions of them, might be better
c< covered, and was enough for his purpofe,
! { {ho' NOT LESS REALLY ABSURD flj]."
[15] Vol. v. p. 31 1.
Had
Had not his Lordfhip accuftomed us by
his reafoning, as well as admonifhed us by
his motto [16], to wonder at nothing^ this
paragraph were enough to fet his readers
in admiration : doubtful indeed of their
object, whether of his KNOWLEDGE or his
INGENUITY,
When men contemplate what they call
moral virtue, or the attributes of humani-
ty, they divide them into two clafles per-
fectly diftinct from one another. In the
firft are comprized thofe which belong to
man under the idea of a free intelligent
Being, fuch as goodnefs zn&jujlice : iq the
fecond, thofe which belong to him under
the idea of a creature of that very imperfect
fpecies, fuch as temperance and fortitude.
The firft belong to all free intelligent Be-
ings ; the latter, only to fuch a Being as
man : T^hofe arife out of the nature of free
intelligence, and fa are common to all.
Thefe t from the imperfections of a very
inferior creature, and fo are peculiar to
humanity ; for we eafily conceive higher
Orders of free intelligences, amongft whom
the moral virtues of the fecond clafs have no
place. They are fuperior to the impreffions
[16] Nil admirari.
Of
138 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
of fear, and fo have no need to exert forti~
tude : They are removed from the tempta-
tion of excefs, and fo have no room for the
exercife of temperance.
Now when CLARKE, or any other Di-
vine, had faid, that the moral attributes
are the fame in God as in our ideas, What
attributes could they poffibly mean but thofe
of the firjl clafs; thole which belong to
Beings under the idea of free intelligences?
STUPID as his Lordfhip is pleafed to make
Divines, they could never blunder to that
degree as to conceive, that thofe virtues or
moral attributes, which proceed from the
imperfeffion of the Creature, might belong
in any manner to the Creator, whom they
fuppofed to be all perfect.
They held, with his Lordmip, and they
will hold without him, that the great God
is infinitely wife and powerful : Were they
then in any danger to give him tempe-
rance, which implied his being obnoxious
to folly ; or fortitude, which argued im-
puifance ?
Infinite wifdom, therefore, and infinite
power exclude from God the very ideas
of temperance and fortitude. But do infinite
wifdom and infinite power exclude from
God
PHILOSOPHY. 139
God the ideas of goodnefs and juftice ? On
the contrary, his Lordibip, as we mall fee
prefently, is reduced to the poor fhift of
owning goodnefs andjit/h'ce to be contained
in infinite <wifdom and power. At prefent
I would afk another queftion. What muil
his Lordfhip's admirers think of their
Matter's IPSE DIXIT, when it comes to
this, tfhat the infcribing goodnefs and juftice
to God is NO LESS REALLY ABSURD than
the afcribing temperance and fortitude to
him ?
And now I might leave it to them to
determine, whether this was contrasting the
generality of the offer t ion toferve a purpofe ;
the abfurdity of afcribing temperance and
fortitude to God being too grofs and too vifible
to the mojl prejudiced. For to what pur-
pofe could this contraction ', as he calls it,
Jerve, but to the purpofe of COMMON
SENSE ? Had his Lordfhip but been pleafed
to contract himfelf on the fame principle,
his bulky Volumes had fhrunk into a Pam-
phlet.
But then, if you afk 'what purpofe his
Lordfbip had toferve when he ufed the
equivocal word ALL, which may lignify
either all of one kind, or all of every kind,
where
A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
where he fays, Clarke holds, that ALL
the moral attributes are the fame in God t
6cc. fhould you afk this, the anfwer is ob-
vious. It was to give himfelf an occafion
to fay that Clarke afterwards contracts his
generality, or, in other words, that he con-
tradicts himfelf.
But let us coniider this contracted gene-
rality a little clofer. Dr. CLARKE aflerts,
that goodnefs and jujlice are the fame in God
as in our ideas : This, if we believe his
Lordmip, is downright NONSENSE and
BLASPHEMY. Lord BoLiNGBROKE aflerts,
that ivifdom and power are the fame in God as
in our ideas: And this is SENSE and PIETY.
How came his Lordmip by this know-
ledge concerning God's wifdorn and power r
He tells us, he got it intuitively and by the
help of hisfenfes [17]. And do we not
come to the knowledge of God's goodnefs
and juftice, in the very fame way ? Or is
there any other way of acquiring it ? How
happens it then, that, of thefe two aflerti-
ons, fupported on the felf fame principles
of knowledge, the one is nonfenje and blaf-
phemy, and the other J'enfe and piety ? For
a reafon worthy \hzfirjl philofophy j Whatr
[17] Vol. iv. p. 116.
ever
PHILOSOPHY.
ever his Lordmip holds in contradiction to
Divines, is fenfe and piety \ and what-
ever Divines hold in contradiction to his
Lordmip, is nonfenfe and blafphemy.
A third objection againft the moral at-
tributes is, " That PASSIONS and AFFEC-
TIONS mix with our goodnefs and juftice;
which therefore cannot be fuppofed to be
the fame in kind with God's j tho' our wif-
dom and, power with which no paflions or
affections mix, muft be the fame in kind'*^
with his.
Were paffiort and affection infeparable
from human goodnefs and juftice, the ob-
jection might appear to have fome tho'
not much force, even then. But they are
eafily feparable : I do not mean in fpecula-
tion only, but in practice. The true idea of
human goodnefs and juftice excludes all
pafllon and affection. What hinders then
our rifing, from that idea, to divine
goodnefs and juftice, any more than our
rifing, from the idea of human wifdom
and power to the divine wifdom and pow-
er 5 and from perceiving that as well the
moral, as the natural attributes, are the
fame in kind, both in God and man ?
But,
142 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
But, this is not all that may be faid in
favour of our adequate idea of God's mo-
ral attributes. For tho' paffion mixes not
with our natural attributes of wifdom and
power, yet fomething elfe does, much
more difficult to be feparated, than paiTion,
from our moral attributes, I mean the IN-
STRUMENTALITY OF MATTER. We can
conceive nothing of human POWER without
the ufe of iiich an inftrument: yet this,
by his Lordihip's own confefiion, does not
hinder us from rifing from the idea of our
own wifdom and power, to the wifdom and
power of God j and from feeing that they
are the fame in kind.
But ftill, further. The MANNER of know*
ing in God, on which depends his natural
attribute of WISDOM, is confefTedly different
from what it is in man j and at the fame
time utterly unknown to us : yet this does
not, according to his Lordihip's account,
hinder our attaining to an adequate idea of
divine ivifdom, tho' it rifes from what we
fee of the human.
How happens it then, that, in both
thefe cafes, notwithstanding the foreign
mixture of the inftrument ality of matter,
and
PHILOSOPHY. 143
and the manner of knowing, we attain an
adequate idea of God's wifdom and power f
His Lordfhip will tell you, it is by feparat-
ing that mixture from our ideas of wif-
dom and power. And (hall I not have a$
much credit with you, when I tell you we
acquire an adequate idea of God's goodnefs
and juftice, by feparating from the idea of
human goodnefs and juftice the foreign
mixture of pajjion and affe&ion ? You
muft admit both our aflertionsj or you
muft reject both. And when I fay You,
I mean every fair and ingenuous man like
You j who having nothing to fear, and a
great deal to hope from Religion, are, I
think, the ableft judges of it's truth. For
HOPE encourages men to fearch into the
grounds of what Religion promifes j but
FEAR always deters them from giving much
attention to what it threatens.
But his Lordfhip has a greater quar-
rel than all this, with the moral attributes.
They are productive, he fays, of much mif-
chief, by bringing in embarrarTed queftions
into Religion.
c< As they [the Divines] modeled God's
<{ government on a human plan, fo they
*' conceived his perfections, moral as well
" phyfical
144 A VIEW of L. fioLINGBROKE*S
* c phyfical, by human ideas Thus God
" was faid to be the FIRST GOOD: but
" then the general notion or abftrad: idea
" of this good was not only taken from
C human goodnefs, but was confidered too
tl with little or no other relation than to
" man A queflion arofe therefore on
" thefe hypothefes, How could evil come into
" a Aft em of which God iv as the Author ?
ct this queflion made a further hypothefis
" necefTary; another firft God, another
<c coeternal and coequal principle was in-
" troduced to folve it j afrft caufe of all
" evil, as the other was of all good [i%~\."
The falfe reprefentation of this fadl I
referve for another occafion : the falfe infer-
ence from it is what I now propofe to ex-
amine.
His Lordmip fuppofes, that the princi-
ple of God's moral attributes gave birth to
an infolvable queflion concerning the origin
of evil: And that this occafioned the in-
vention of the mifchievous hypothefis of
the two principles. Who would have fuf-
pected that fo much evil could have come
from the FIRST GOOD ! Yet fo it was.
[18] Vol. iv. p. 88,
And
PHILOSOPHY.
And therefore the idea of fuch a GOOD
muft befalfe, or, at leaft, very hurtful.
i. As to the firft, if his Lordfhip's
inference be right, it will help to de-
prive us of all ufeful knowledge j becaufe
there is no great principle, either in pbyfics,
or in natural Theology, which, if we be
not on our guard and wife enough to flop
at the. extent of our ideas, will not lead us
into inextricable difficulties.
Take an inftance in one that arifes out of
both thefe fciences, *be agreement be-
tween free-will and prefcience. I the rather
chufe this inftance, as his Lordfhip has
pretended to unty a knot, which hath
fo long kept the learned World intan-
gled ; and as one of the principal defigns
of this VIEW is to illuftrate his Lordfhip's
great talents. { Our ideas (fays he) of di-
cc vine intelligence and wifdom may be
" neither fantajlical nor falfe y and yet
" God's MANNER of knowing may be fo
" different from ours, that fore-knowledge,
u as we call it improperly in him, may be
tc confident with the contingency of events;
<c altho' that which we call properly fore-
" knowledge in ourfches, be notfo [19]."
[19] Vol.v.p. 525.
L I have
146 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
I have two or three remarks to make on
thefe words. The firft is, that, by the very
turn of the phrafe may be neither
and yet he appears confcious of his
own prevarication. Our ideas of God's
goodnefs vn&juftice he makes fantaftical and
falfe, on account of difficulties anting from
them: yet God's natural attributes, his
intelligence and wifdom, may, he fays, be
neither fantaftical norfalfe, tho' a difficulty
as great arifes from them; namely, the
apparent difcordancy between free-will and
prefcience.
My fecond remark is, that his folution
of this difficulty is more fantajlic than
the wildeft chimera of SchooUmetaphyfics.
Common-fenfe informs us, that the diffi-
culty, in reconciling God's prefcience to
mans free-will, does not arife from our
ignorance in God's MANNER OF KNOWING,
but from his ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE.
My third remark is, that his Lordmip,
who is here fo penetrating, that he can
eafily reconcile prefcience zndfree-wz//; is,
in another place, fo cloudy, that he can-
not fee how an equal providence and free
agency may ftand together,
My
PHILOSOPHY. 147
My laft remark is, and it rifes out of the
foregoing, that where Religion is not con-
cerned, his Lordfhip fees no difficulties in
any part of the fyftem of Creation : but as
foon as ever Religion appears, then diffi-
culties ftart up by dozens.
Take now another inftance from the
cafe in hand. Our ideas of God's moral
attributes, he fays, muft needs be falfe,
becaufe the conceiving of them by human
goodnefs andjuftice leads to the queftion of
the origin of evil, confidered morally. Well.
And does not the conceiving of God's
phyfical attributes by human wifdom and
power lead to the queftion of the origin of
evil confidered ?iaturally ? Yet our ideas of
the phyfical attributes are neither falfe nor
fantaflical. But to this, his Lordfhip re-
plies, Evil, confidered naturally, is not
real, but apparent only. Why fo ? Be-
caufe it contributes to the greater good of
the whole. May not the fame thing be
faid of Evil, confidered morally? Nay,
hath it not been actually faid, and proved
too, on the fame principles ? It follows
then, that they are either both real, or
boihfaxta/itc.
L z But
148 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
But prefumptuous man knows not
when to Hop. He would penetrate even
to the Arcana of the Godhead.
For Fools rum in where Angels fear to tread.
And this impious humour gave birth to
the abfurd hypothecs of TWO PRINCI-
PLES. But is the folly to be charged
upon our idea of the moral attributes ?
Ridiculous ! We fee it's caufe is in vanity
and felf- conceit: paffions that operate
alike on all principles.
2. As to his Lordmip's fecond inference,
that this idea is at leaft productive of much
mifchief; fo that it would be better to
have none at all ; Let me obfervc, that the
very idea of God's exiftence is alike pro-
ductive of mifchief, even all the mifchiefs
of fuperftition. Is it therefore better to be
without a God ? Who, befides his Lord-
fhip, would fay fo [20]? Why then
mould we think it better to be without
the idea of the moral attributes, even tho'
the evils it produced were neceffary ? But
[20] He indeed fays be had rather le an Atbtift
than acknowledge the Chri/iian Theology - y andw^ may
believe him. See Vol. iv. p. 34.
that
PHI LO s OP H y. 149
that is not the cafe. They are cafual only :
the ifTue of pride and prefumption ; which
this idea does not at all influence.
However, thefe moral attributes, if not
hurtful, are USELESS ; and this is his next
cavil. " Infinite ivifdom and power (fays
his Lordfhip) " have made things as they
" are : how goodnefs and jujllce required
" they mould be made is neither coram
" judice y nor to any rational purpofe to in-
" quire [ i ] ." To inquire how the univerfe
of things Jhould be made> ferves indeed no
reafonable purpofe. But to inquire con-
cerning our own ftate and condition, is
either coram judtce, or we were fent into
the world to flare about us, and to judge
of nothing. His Lordfhip's fophiftry
feems to confound two things that com-
mon fenfe has always diftinguimed ; our
own bujlnefs from other men's. When the
King holds a bed of juftice, 'tis not for
every Particular to inquire into all his mea-
fures : But every Particular who is fum-
moned to attend the Court, is much con-
cerned to know how he himfelf (hall be
dealt with. His Lordfhip indeed, is
ready to fay, We are not fummonedj
[i] Vol. v. p. 363.
L 3 that
1 50 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
that is, we are not accountable creatures.
But this is begging the queftion.
At length, he ends juft where he fet out,
That we have NO IDEAS of the moral attri-
butes. " Upon the whole matter we may
<c conclude fafely from error, and in direct
tc oppofition to CLARKE, that goodnefs and
" jujiice in God cannot be conceived, without
<s manifejl prefumption and impiety, to be the
"fame as in the ideas we frame of thefe
tc perfections when we confider them in men y
or when we reafon about them abftraffedly
in themfehes-y but that in the fupreme
Governor of the World they are fome-
" thing TRANSCENDENT, and of which we
<f cannot make any true judgment, nor ar-
* { gue with any certainty about them [2]."
And in this his Lordfhip tells us he is jufti-
"fied by the authority of St. PAUL and Dr.
BARROW. Theje two great Divines (fays
he) are on my fide [3]. Who would have
thought of two fuch honourable Supporters
for his Lordfhip's Atchievements ? One
-thing I have obferved, which might occa-
fion fome fpeculation ; A ftrange propenfi-
ty in Free-thinkers to miftake therr enemies
for their friends j and, which is more to be
1*2] Vol. v. p. 359. [3] Vol. v. p. 362.
1. lamented,
lamented, as ftrange a propenfity in the
Clergy to miftake their friends for their
enemies. The turn is odd enough on both
fides : and, at firft view, appears a little
myfterious ; when, perhaps, there may be
no more in it than this, Free-thinkers
have employed this trick to enflame the
Clergy's jealoufy : and the Clergy have-
unhappily fallen into the mare.
But after what has patted, who would
expec~l that the leather-dreeing Pontiff ] of
all men, mould have been thought worthy
to fupport the Jirjl Philofopby / What has
St. PAUL done at laft, to deferve fo much
honour ? Why, in anfwer to the objeclions
againfl God's difpenfations in the religious
World, the Apoftle refers us <c for entire
" fatisfaction to the incomprehenfible wif-
" dom of God, who frequently, in the
" courfe of his providence, ordereth things
* e in methods tranfcending our abilities to
<c difcover or trace [4]."
This folution, which is here extolled
for it's great modejly, is quoted in another
place for it's greater IMPUDENCE [5], It
may be one or the other, juft as his Lord-
fliip is in humour 5 who, notwithftanding
[4] Vol. v. p. 360. [5] Vol. iii. p. 307.
L 4 his
152 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
his long fludy of LOCKE, feems totally to
have loft all ideas of MORAL MODES. How
otherwife was it poflible, after having
treated all Mankind in the manner you
have feen in myjirft Letter, and will further
fee in my tbird t he mould gravely tell his
Friend, " That few men, he believes,
<c have CONSULTED others both living and
" the dead, with LESS PRESUMPTION, and
<{ in a GREATER SPIRIT OF DOCILITY,
" than he has done [6]." I fometimes
thought a word wrong printed} and that
for, consulted we mould read, infulted-,
for in a great man, there is no prefumption,
whatever meannefs there may be, in infult-
ing his inferiors. And as for his docility
in doing it, that will hardly be difputed ;
there being no Author, whom he has in-
fulted moft, but from whom he has con-
defcended to fteal more : of which, (for
want of a better at hand) I might give an
inftance in the perfon and writings of the
Author of the Divine Legation.
But St. PAUL fays, ive mujl have reccurfe
to the incomprehenfible wifdom of God. In
good time. But how does this prove that,
[6] Introductory Letter to Mr. Pcpt, Vol iii. p.
320.
in
PHILOSOPHY. 153
in Paul's opinion, we have no adequate idea
of the moral attributes ? Unlefs the quality
of an Agent, and his affion t be one and
the fame thing. You, Sir, have an ade-
quate conception, I am fare, of our graci-
ous Monarch's goodne/s zn&jujlice-, but you
have a very imperfect comprehenfion of
feveral of his State- meafures. I have fre-
quently attempted to illuftrate my reafoning
on divine matters from examples in human
Rulers. This is a ticklim. point. And
therefore I have been very careful that
thofe regal acts by which I would illuftrate
the divine, be not fuch as proceed from
the weaknefs and imperfections of huma-
nity. If they be, the instance is imperti-
nent, and wide of the purpofe. This was
the more carefully to be obferved, becaufe
writers have carried thefe illuftrations into
much abufe. And no body more than
this Noble Lord j of whom it may be
truly affirmed that, with all his negligence
in writing, he has not omitted any one
fpecies of falfe reafoning.
To proceed. Dr. BARROW, I prefume,
will (land his Lordmip in no better flead
than St. Paul. " As the dealings of every
" wife man (fays the Doctor) are fome-
" times
154 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
<c times founded upon maxims, and admit
" juftifications not obvious or penetrable by
" vulgar conceit, fo may God act accord-
" ing to rules of wifdom and juftice, which
" it may be quite impoffible by our facul-
" ties to apprehend, or with our means to
" defcry. As there are natural modes of
" Being and operation, fe there may be pru-
" dential and moral modes of proceeding,
ct far above our reach, peculiar objects of
" divine wifdom not to be underftood by
" any creature, efpecially by creatures who
** ftand in the loweft form of intelligence ;
" one remove from beads. In fine, thofe
< rules of equity and expen&nce which we
" in our tranfadtions with one another do
<e ufe, if they be applied to the dealings of
" God will be found very incongruous or
" deficient, the cafe being vaftly altered
" from that infinite diilance in nature and
" />ate between God and us, and from
" the immenfe difference which his rela-
" tions towards us have from our relations
44 to one another [7]."
What now has all this, which relates
only to the inccwprehenfible nature of God's
providence, to do with our inadequate ideas
[7] Vol. v. p. 361, 2.
of
PHILOSOPHY. 155
of bis moral attributes? At lead, if his
Lordfhip will contend, that the man who
thinks God's providence incomprehenjible y
muft needs think our ideas of his moral
attributes inadequate j he muft go a ftep
further j and confefs, that Barrow fuppofed
our ideas of the natural attributes to be in-
adequate likewife ; for he puts both on the
fame footing. As there are NATURAL modes
of Being and operation, (fays the Doctor)
fo there may be prudential and MORAL modes
of proceeding Jar above our reach. But as
this would be going too far, farther than
thejir/t Philofophy will allow of, I fuppofe
he would be content to admit this quotation
from Barrow to be nothing to the purpofe.
At laft, and when you would leaft ex-
pect it, Common-fenfe and Common-
fen timents return. And God's moral at-
tributes, after much ado, are allowed to be
in Nature. ct Where Religions (fays his
" Lordfhip) which pretend to be revealed,
" prevail, a new character of God's good-
" nefs arifes an artificial goodnefs which
c< Hands often in the place of the NATU-
" RAL [8]." And this, after having fo
ofteri told us that we have no adequate
[8] Vol. v. p. 431.
idea
1 56 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
idea of God's goodnefs by nature. It
comes fcantily indeed ; and, in every fenfe,
a pofteriori : However, it comes, and de-
ferves to be welcomed. " All the know-
<{ ledge (fays he) that God has given us the
f< means to acquire, and therefore all he
" defigned we mould have of his phyfical
ce and MORAL nature and attributes, is
<c derived from his works, and from the
et TENOUR OF THAT PROVIDENCE by
<c which he governs them [9]."
You will obferve the words the tenour
of that providence I have detected the
fophiftry of them in my previous obferva-
tion, at the entrance on the argument,
where I have ftated the meaning of the
terms, God's works. I bid you obferve
them now, to judge of the following cli-
max, if I may fo call it, or walk down
flairs. <c The wifdom is not fo often dif-
" cernible by us [in God's works] as the
"power of God, nor the goodnefs as the
< wifdom [10]."
As cautious as his Lordfhip is here, in
the (lender allowance of God's moral attri-
butes from his works, yet even this is a flat
contradiction to what his Syftem has oblig-
[9] Vol. v. p. 523, 4. [10] Vol. v. p. 335.
e
PHILOSOPHY. 157
ed him over and over to affirm - t as particu-
larly in the following words Of divine
goodnefs and divine jujiice (fays his Lordfhip
in the perfon of Anaxagoras) 1 am unable to
frame any adequate notions [i \\from God's
works.
But, he is more free of his conceflions
in another place.
" By natural Theology (fays his Lord-
" fhip) we are taught to acknowledge and
" adore the infinite wifdom and power of
" God, which he has manifefled to us in
" fome degree or other in every part, even
the moft minute, of his Creation. By
that too, we are taught to afcribe goodnefs
and juflice to him, wherever he intend-
/ v
ed we Jhould fo afcribe them, that is,
cc wherever either his works, or the difpen-
" fations of his providence do as NECESSA-
<e RILY communicate thefe notions to our
" minds, as thofe of wifdom and power
<e are communicated to us, in the whole
<c extent of both [12]."
What his Lordfhip would infer from
hence is this, that we are no where taught
[11] Vol. iv. p. 116, 17. [12] Vol. v. p. 527.
L 7 to
"
"
158 A VIEW of L. BO^INGBROKE'S
to afcribe goodnefs andjuftice to God j fince
the difpeniations of his providence do no
where, in his Lordfhip's opinion, NECESSA-
RILY communicate thefe notions. But al-
low his premifes j would his conclufion
follow r Suppofe the difpenfations of God's
providence did only PROBABLY communi-
cate thefe notions to our minds ; will not
this teach us to afcribe goodnefs and jujiice
to him ? God hath fo framed the conftitu-
tion of things, that man mould, through-
out his whole conduct in life, be induced
to form his judgment on appearances and
probable arguments. Why not in this, then,
as well as in the reft ? or rather, why not
in this, above the reft? If fo be that in-
deed God had not (as I have mewn he
hath) necejjarily communicated thefe noti-
ons. But what is this to our adequate idea
of the moral attributes, the point in quef-
tion? God's not necejfarily communicating
the idea affects only the reality, not the
precifion of it. All therefore we learn by
this obfervation, is, that his Lordfhip, by
thus putting the change upon us, has a
very ftrong inclination, that God mould
have neither goodnejs nor jujlice ; fo
far
PHILOSOPHY.
far as they carry with them any DISPOSI-
TION to reward or punijh. For as to the At-
tributes themfehes y diverted of their confe-
quencesj and undifturbed by our impious
imitation [13], he has little or 'no quarrel
with them. His Lordfhip certainly never
intended to teach the common Reader more
of the fecrets of his Philofophy than what
NECESSARILY arifes from his pofitions. But
to make God treat Mankind fo, with regard
to his attributes, is drawing an image of
the Deity from his own likenefs, the very
fault he fo cenfures in Divines. But if
God muft needs be reprefented either af-
ter Them, or after his Lordfhip ; I fhould
chufe to have the Clergy's God, tho' made
out of no better fluff than ARTIFICIAL
THEOLOGY, becaufe that gives him good-
nefi zndjujtice j rather than his Lordfhip's
God, which has neither ; altho' compofed
of the more refined materials of the FIRST
PHILOSOPHY. In the mean time, I will
n6t deny but He may be right in what he
fays, That men conceive of the Deity,
more humano -, and that his Lordfhip's God
[13] Our obligation to imitate God is afalfe and pro-
fane DoRrine. Vol. v. p. 65.
L 8 and
160 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
and the Clergy's God, are equally faith-
ful copies of themfelves.
In a word, if God teaches, whether it
be done clearly or obfcurely, he certainly
intended we fhould learn. And what we
get even by appearances, is real knowledge,
upon his Lordfhip's own principles. For
if truth be, as he affures us it is, of fo
precarious a nature as to take it's Being
from our own fyftem, it muft be real as
far as it appears. <( Our knowledge (fays
" this great Philofopher) is fo dependent
" on our own fyftem, that a great part
<c of it would not be knowledge perhaps,
<c but error in any other [14]."
It is thus he involves himfelf in perpetual
contradictions : But it is always thus, when
men difpute (for believe they cannot [15],)
againft common notices, and the moft
obvious truths ; fuch as liberty of will-, the
certainty of knowledge - y and this, which, I
reckon, obtrudes itfelf upon us as forcibly
[14] Vol. iii. p. 356.
[15] Hear what he himfelf fays of FREE-WILL.
The free-will of man no one can deny lie has } without
LYING, or renouncing bis intuitive knowledge. Vol. v.
p. 406.
as
PHILOSOPHY. 161
as either, the MORAL ATTRIBUTES OF
THE DEITY.
But the game is now on foot. Let us
follow clofely. We have unravelled him.
through all his turnings; and we may
foon expedl to fee him take flicker in the
thick cover of God's incomprehenfible
Nature; and rather than allow, in good
earned, the moral attributes of the Deity,
ready to refolve all his Attributes, both
natural and moral, into one INDEFINITE
PERFECTION.
But loft. Not yet. We muft come to
it by degrees, and regular advances. Firft
the moral attributes are to be refohed into
the natural.
C If they [the natural and moral at-
tributes] " may be confidered feparately, as
" we are apt to confider them ; and if the
" LATTER and every thing we afcribe to
<e thefe, are not to be RESOLVED rather into
" the former ; into his infinite intelligence,
<c wifdom, and power [16]." It is yet,
we fee, but a queftion; and that only,
whether the moral attributes are not to be-
refolved into the natural. In the next paf-
fage it is determined. <c I think (and
[i 6] Vol. v. p. 5*34-
M what
162 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
what he thinks, he holds it reafonable all
the world fhould think too) " that the mo-
" ral attributes of the fupreme Being are*
" abforbed in his ivifdom; that we fliould
tc confider them only as different modificati-
" ons of this phyfical attribute [ 1 7]."
We are not yet near the top. However,
before we go higher^ let us fet together
his inconfiftencies as they appear in this fi-
tuation Sometimes the ideas of divine i wif-
dom are better determined than thofe of divine
goodnefs [ 1 8]. Sometimes we have no ideas
at all of divine goodnefs [19]. And fome-
times again, as in the place before us, the
divine goodnefs is the fame as wifdom, and
therefore, doubtlefs, the idea of it as well
determined. Now, of all thefe afTertions,
which will his Lordmip flick by ? Which,
do you alk ? By none of them longer than
they will ftick by him; and {haggling,
undifciplined Principles, picked up at ad-
ventures, are not apt to ftick long by any
fide. As foon as they begin to incline to-
wards the enemy, he has done with
them. Come, if you will have the fecret,
take it. The attributes are mere NAMES,
f 1 7] Vo1 - v - P- 335- [8] Vol. v. p. 341, 526.
[19] Vol. iv. p. u 6, 17.
and
PHILOSOPHY. 163
and there is an end of them. All' that
really remains is one undefined ETERNAL
REASON : And fo the Farce concludes.
" The moral ATTRIBUTES (fays he)
" are barely NAMES that we give to various
" manifeflations of the infinite vvifdom of
" oneJiMp/e uncompounded being [20]."
" Of divine goodnefs and divine juftice
" I am unable to frame any adequate no-
" lions; and inftead of conceiving fuch
"'diftinct moral attributes in the fupreme
"Being, ive ought, perhaps, to conceive no-
" thing more than this, that THERE ARE
" VARIOUS APPLICATIONS OF ONE ETER-
" NAL REASON, WHICH IT BECOMES US
11 LITTLE TO ANALYZE INTO ATTRI*
" BUTES [l]."
To this miferable refuge is his Lordfhip
reduced, to avoid DIVINE JUSTICE. But
why, you fay, did he not fpeak out atfirft,
and end his quarrel with the moral attri-
butes at once ? Your humble fervant, for
that. Barefaced NATURALISM has not
fuch charms as to make her received
wherever, and whenever, me comes.
There is need of much preparation, and
more difguife, before you can get her ad-
[20] Vol. v. p. 453. [i] Vol iv. p. 117.
M 2 mitted
164 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
mitted even to what is called good company.
But now, he has refolved to fpeak out,
Why, you afk, does it yet feem to ftick
in the pafTage? And when his premifTes
are general againft all attributes, his con-
clufion is particular againft the moral?
Not without caufe, I allure you. He had
need of the natural attributes, to fet up
againft the moral: and therefore had him-
felf actually analyzed this eternal reafon into
the fpecific attributes of ivifdom and pciuer.
But when he faw his adverfaries might, by
the fame way, analyze it into goodnefs and
juftice, He then thought fit to pick a quar-
rel with his own method : but it was to be
done obliquely. And hence arifes his
embarrafs and tergiverfation. He would
willingly, if his Reader be fo pleafed,
analyze the eternal reafon into wifdom and
pciver : but there he would flop : and
leave the other fide 'of the eternal reafon,
unanalyzed : and if goodnefs and jujlice
fhould chance to ftart out, he has a trick
to refche and abforb them into wifdom
and power, as only different modifications of
tie phyjical attributes. But if this revolts
his Readers, and they expect equal mea-
fure; then, rather than give them* back
the
PHILOSOPHY. 165
the goodnejs and juftice he has been at all
this pains to afcribe, he will throw ivifdom
and power after them, and rejohe all into
the ONE ETERNAL REASON.
Bamful NATURALISM has now thrown
afide her lad and thinneft vail : and is
ready, we fee, to face down her Rival ;
whom till now me was content to counter-
feit. Give me leave, therefore, to reprefs
this laft effort of her infolence by another
paffage from the Sermons quoted once or
twice already.
" We have been told, and with airs of
" fuperior knowledge, that thefe pretend-
<c ed attributes, as they are commonly
" fpecified, and diftinguifhed into natural
" and moral, are a mere human fiction 5
" invented, by aid of analogy from the
<c actions, paffions, and qualities obfervable
" in man: and that the fimple nature of
" Deity is one uniform perfection ; of
"which, Infinity being the bafe, we can
" have no diftinct idea or conception.
<c To this it will be fufficient to reply,
" that it is indeed true, that thefe fpecific
" attributes, from which we deduce all
<{ our knowledge of the nature and will of
** God, are formed on analogy, and bear
M 3 " relation
1 66 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
tc relation to ourielves. But then we fay
" fuch attributes are not, on that account,
" the lefs real or effential. The light of
tf the SUN is not, in the orb itfelf, what
" we fee it in the RAINBOW. There
t it is one candid, uniform, perfect blaze
" of glory: here, we feparate it's Perfec-
<c tion in the various attributes of red, yel-
11 low, blue, purple and what elfe the fubtle
cc optician fo nicely diftinguifhes. But ftill
<c thefolar light is not lefs real in the Rain*-
<c bow, where it's rays become thus un-
<e twilled, and each differing thread dif-
<c tinctly feen in its effect, than while they
" remained united and incorporated with
" one another in the Sun. Jufl fo it is
tc with the divine Nature: it is one fimple
" undividual Perfection in the Godhead
cc himfelf : but when refracted and divari-
" cated, in pafling through the medium of
Cl the human mind, it becomes power,
*' juftice, mercy ; which are all feparately
' and ADEQUATELY reprefented to the
< underftanding [2]."
But, that his Lordfhip fo frequently
dilcards his own principles, I mould be
[2] TZv principles of natural and revealed Religion^ in
a csurfc of Sermvns at Lincoln's Inn, Vol. i. p. 57, 58.
in
PHILOSOPHY. 167
in hopes he would fubmit to this illuftra-
tion, fince he owns THAT WE SEE THE
DEITY IN A REFLECTED, NOT IN A DI-
RECT LIGHT [3],
It is a true light then and not a falje
one : and the knowledge it conveys is raz/,
not fantaftic : For mirrors do not ufe to
reflect the fpecies of the mind's vifions, but
fubftantial things. To turn us, therefore,
from God's attributes, tho' the indireft,
yet the well-defined, image of him, be-
caufe they difcover fomething to us we
may not like, a HELL and a FUTURE
JUDGMENT ; to turn us, I fay, to the un-
defined eternal reafon y is doing like the
french Philofophers, who, when they
quarrelled with Newton's Theory of light
and colours, contrived to break the prilm,
by which it was demonnrated.
And now, Sir, to conclude my long Let-
ter. Who is there that deferves the name
of MAN, and will not own that they are the
MORAL ATTRIBUTES of the Deity which
make him AMIABLE; j aft as the natural
attributes make him revered and adorable ?
What is his Lordfhip's^ German- quarrel
with the God of MOSES and PAUL, but
[3] Vol. v. p. 524.
M 4 . that
i68 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
that they have made him unenviable, by
reprefenting him without goodnejs on jujlice?
'Their God y therefore, he exprefly tells us,
flail not be his God- Well then : He has
his God to make. And who would not
expect to find him, when made by fuch a
Workman as his Lordfhip, a God of infi-
nite goodnefs and juftice. No fuch mat-
ter : Thefe qualities come not out of his
Lordfhip's hands, nor can enter into the
compofition of his God : They are barely
NAMES that men give to various mani-
filiations of the infinite ivifdom of onejlmple
uncompoimded Being. The pretended want
of them in the God of the Jews afforded
his Lordfhip a commodious cavil ; for he
had RELIGION to remove out of his way :
But when he came to erect NATURALISM
in it's ftead, it had been inconvenient to
give them to his own Idol.
Honefl Plutarch, tho' a Prieft, was as
warm an enemy to PRIEST-CRAFT as his
Lordfhip. He derives all the evils of
Superflition from men's not acquiring the
idea of a God infinitely good and jufh
And propofes this knowledge as the only
cure for it. This is confident. But what
would the ancient world have thought of
their
PHILOSOPHY. 169
their Philofopher, had his remedy, after
hunting for it through a hundred volumes,
been a God without any goodnefs and
juftice at all.
NATURE tells us, that the thing moft
defirable is the knowledge of a God
whofe goodnefs and juftice gives to every
man according to his works.
His LORDSHIP tells us, that REASON or
NATURAL RELIGION difcovers to us no
fuch God.
Now, if both fpeak truth, How much
are we indebted to REVELATION ! Which,
when natural Religion fails us, brings us
to the knowledge of a God infinitely good
and juft ; and gives us an adequate idea of
thofe attributes ! And this, by his Lord-
fhip's own confeffion. Cbriftianity, fays
he, DISCOVERS the love of God to man; bis
infinite JUSTICE and GOODNESS [4].
Is this a bleffing to be rejected? His
Lordfhip had ho room to fay fo, fince the
difcovery is made in that very way, in
which, upon his principles, it only could
be made.
4
He pretends, <c We have no other natural
way of coming to the knowledge of God but
[4] Vol. v. p. 532.
from
1 70 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
from his works. By thofe, be fays, we
gain the idea of his pbyfical attributes ; and
if there be any thing in his works which
feems to contradict thefe attributes, 'tis only
feeming. For as men advance in the
knowledge of nature, thofe difficulties va-
nim. It is not fo, he fays, with regard
to the moral attributes. There are Jo many
phenomena which contradict thefe, and oc-
cafion difficulties never to be cleared up,
that they hinder us from acquiring an ade-
quate idea of the moral attributes."
Now admitting all this to be true, for
generally his Lordmip's affertions are fo
extravagant, that they will not admit a
fuppofition of their truth, tho' it be only
for argument's fake, What does it effect
but this, additional credit to Revelation?
The pbyjical difficulties clear up as we
advance in our knowledge of Nature, and
we advance in proportion to our diligence
and application. But the moral difficulties
never clear up, becaufe they rife out of the
Whole Syjlem of God's moral difpenfation ;
which is involved in clouds and darknefs,
impenetrable to mortal fight: and all the
application of human wit alone will never
enable us to draw the veil. The clear
profpect
PHILOSOPHY. 171
profpedl of it muft come from another
quarter. It muft come, if it comes at all,
from the Author of the Difpenfation.
Well; Revelation hath drawn this veil, and
thereby removed the darknefs which ob-
ftrufted our attaining an adequate idea of
the moral attributes. Shall we yet ftand
out ? And when we are brought hither
upon his Lordfhip's own principles, affu-
redly you mud. Beware (fays he) of a
pretended revelation. Why fo ? Becaufe
(fays he again) the Religion of nature is
perfect and abfolute ; and therefore Revela-
tion can teach nothing but what Religion hath
already taught [5]. Strange ! Why, Reve-
lation teaches the moral attributes ; which
you, my Lord, own, natural Religion does'
not teach Here the dialogue breaks off;
and leaves us in a riddle. Will you have
the folution ? It is ridiculous enough ;
as fuch kind of things generally are. But
if you have kept your good humour amidfl
all thefe provocations of impiety, it may
perhaps make you fmile.
I told you before, that his Lordftiip
borrowed all his reafoning againft Revela-
tion, from fuch as Tindal, Toland, Col-
[5] Vol. v. p. 544.
lins,
1 72 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
lins, Chubb, and Morgan. This folemn
argument particularly, of the PERFECTION
OF NATURAL RELIGION, and the fuper-
feded u(e of Revelation, he delivers to us
juft as he found it in Tindal.
Now Tindal, who held that natural
Religion taught both the moral attributes
and a future ft ate, had fome pretence for
faying that it ivas perfeft and abfolute. But
for his Lord (hip to fay it after him, who
holds that natural Religion taught neither
we nor the other, (hews, that either he
places a very implicit faith in his Author,
or experts it from his Reader.
The truth is, Lord Bolingbroke refu-
fed no arms againft Revelation. So when
he had drained his Authors of their Prin-
ciples j to make all fure, he adds others of
his own. Little attentive to a truth of
long experience, That the arguments of
infidelity, which, like Cadmus's Children
of brafs, fpring from the old dragon's teeth>
are always deflroying one another, tho*
aiming at a common Enemy. Bufy at this
blind work he goes on pufhing his matter
Tindal's confequences at a ftrange rate.
If revealed Religion teaches more than na-
ly it miifl be falfe-, if no more t it muft
i be
PHILOSOPHY. 173
be fuperfluous. This isplaufible on Tindal's
principles, that natural Religion has both the
ttioral attributes and ^Juture ft ate ; but ut-
terly abfurd on his Lordmip's, who holds
that it has neither. But the too eager ,pur-
fuit of his old Adverfary, RELIGION, has
led his Lordfhip into many of thefe fcrapes.
I have now confidered all I could find
urged by the noble Writer in fupport of his
great principle of NO ADEQUATE IDEAS
OF GOD'S MORAL ATTRIBUTES; OH.
which the whole fyftemof NATURALISM
is, and mud be, founded. And you fee
to what this all y amounts. If I fhould fay
tojuft nothing, I fhall fpeak more favoura r
bly of it than it deferves. For it tends, as
I have fhewn you, in many inftances, to
confirm the great TRUTH it is brought to
overthrow .
And now what I propofed for the fubjecT:
of this fecond Letter is pretty well exhauft-
ed. My^/r/2was employed in giving you
a fpecimen of his 'Temper. This under-
takes to explain his Syftcm ; and I refervc
the next for a difplay of his marvellous
Talents ; tho' it be true, I have fomewhat
anticipated the Subject. For you cannot
. but have conceived already a very uncom-
mon
174 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
mon idea of his abilities, on feeing him ufe
TINDAL'S ARGUMENTS againft Revelation,
and for the perfection of atural Religion,
along with his OWN PRINCIPLES of no mo-
ral attributes and no future Jlate. The
firft of which principles makes one entire
abfurdity of all he borrows from Tindal
againft Revelation j and the fecond takes
away the very pretenfe for PERFECTION in
natural Religion.
His Lordmip's friend, Swift, has fome-
where or other obferved, that no fubject
in all nature but RELIGION could have ad-
vanced Poland and A/gill into the clafs of
reputable Authors. Another of his friends
feems to think that no fubject but RELIGI-
ON could have funk his Lordfhip fo far be-
low it; If ever Lord Bolingbroke trifles,
(fays Pope) it will be 'when he writes en Di-
vinity [6].
But this is the ftrange fate of Authors,
whether with wit, or without, when:
they chufe to write on certain fubjedls.
For it is with Authors, as with men : Who
can guefs ivhich Veffel was made for honour,
find which for dijhonour ? when fometimes,
one and the fame is made for both. Even
[6] Popf's works, Vol. ix. Letter xiv.
this
PHILOSOPHY. 175
this choice VefTel of the frjl Philofophy,
his Lordmip's facred pages, may be put to
very different ufes, according to the differ-
ent tempers in which they may find his
few Friends and the Public ; like the China
Jordan in the DUN c IAD, which one Hero
pitted into, and another carried home for
his Head-piece.
I am,
VIEW
O F
LORD BOLINGBROKE'S
PHILOSOPHY;
In Four LETTERS to a FRIEND.
LETTER the THIRD.
LONDON,
Printed for J o H N and PAUL KNAPTON,
in Ludgate- Street.
MDCCLV.
A N
i
APOLOGY
FOR
The Two Firfl Letters:
Which may ferve for
An INTRODUCTION
To the Two JLoft.
SOON after the publication of
the two firft of thefe Letters,
I had the honour of an anony-
mous advertifement, in the warmeft
terms of friendship lamenting the
difpleafure, which my treatment of
Lord Bolingbroke had given to that
that part of the Public^ where the
Advertifer had an opportunity of
making his obfervations.
a 2 There
IV
There was in this friendly no^
tice fo many fare marks of the Wri-
ter's regard to the Author of the
View ; fo much good fenfe, elegance,
and weight of Authority in the
compofition ; and the whole fo fu-
perior to every thing, but the force
of plain and fimple truth, that I had
<'<,/*&* as mucn pleafure in the honour of
the monition, as I had real pain for
the occafion.
He aflures me I fhall never know
from whence it came : fo that when
fuch a Writer will remain unknown,
it is as foolifh as indecent, to pretend
r
to gueis.
Yet lam very confident that a
i j* qjM***-, hand fo friendly could never intend,
by keeping itfelf out of fight, to
deprive me of the means of vindicat-
ing my conduct to him, on this cc-
cafiori. 1 I am rather inclined to
{hink, that he took this way, to
oblige me to convey my Apology to
him,
**.
V
him, which he had a right to
expect, thro' the hands of that Pub-
lic, which appear to have none : and
which yet, I am perfuaded, it was his
principal concern, I fhould firft fa-
tisfy. For 1 rnuft inform my Rea-
der, that the fevere reflexions, I am
about to quote, are not fo properly
i r 1 c
his ientiments, as the ientiments
of thofe he is pleafed to call the ^r^y^-
Public.
They are introduced in this man-
ner : / am grieved to the heart to find
the reception your tuoo Letters meet
with from the World. I am very Jure
he is ; and fo, I think, muft every
good man be ; more for the fake of
that Public than for mine. For
what muft an indifferent perfon
think oi a Public, by profefiion,
/ -L
Chriftianf, of fo exceeding delica-
,'r C3 ^ i ' ~ ~
cy as to be lefs fcandalized at three
or lour bulky volumes of red hot
Impiety, becaufe they come from a
a 3 Lord,
VI
Lord, than at the cool contempt of
that infult, in a Defender of the Re-
ligion of his Country, becaufe he
may be a poor prieft or an ignoble
layman? Will not every impartial
man lament with me fo abject a
condition of things, as that, where
atheijlic principles give lefs offence to
our politenefs, than /// manners ; and
where, in good company, you may
be better received with the plague-
fore upon you, than the itch ?
// vexes me (fays the anonymous
writer) to hear fo many pofaively de-
ciding that the Writer muft be
by the SCURRILITY and abufe The
^ */
term is a little ftrong. But the beft
is, it is one of thofe words the Pub*
lie think themfelves at liberty to ap-
ply indifferently, either to fcandalous
abufe or to honeft reproof^ juft as they
happen to be difpofed to the Au-
thor, or the Subjeci. The equity of
this kind of judgment, fo readily
paffed
vu
pafled upon Authors, has been
Sufficiently exemplified in the cafe
of one much more considerable than
the Author of the View. The Au-
thor of the Divine Legation ofMofes
compofed a book in fupport of Re*
v elation : and fenfible that the no-
velty of his argument would give
the alarm, and bring down whole
bands of Anfwerers upon him, he
did all he could to invite fair quar-
ter. He publickly engaged that a
candid, ingenuous Adversary Should -***
never repent him of his civility*
Anfwerers, as he forefaw, arofe in
abundance: but not one who treat-
ed him with common good man-
ners. Of about a hundred of thefe
writers, One or two, and no more,
he thought fit to anfwer; and, (who
can wonder ?) without much cere-
mony. This was in the heat of
controverfy ; when his refentments
were frefh, and the injury aggravated
a 4
Viii
\JL+ by every circumftance of malice and
fcurrility. Since that time, for
many years together, he has feen
**rjrtts them write on, in the very manner
they began ; and without any other
marks of refentment, than a con-
temptuous filence. Yet for all this,
he could not efcape the character of
a fcurrilous and qbilfive Writer. It
was in vain to appeal to his provo-
cations then, or to his forbearance
ever fince.
But to return to the Author of the
View. He was dete&ed, it feems,
ty his fcurrility and abufe. Surely,
there muft be fome miftake; and
"his Lordfhip's dirt is imputed to
him. The Author of the View
feems to be in the cafe of a Sca-
vanger, (his enemies, I hope, will
not take offence at the comparifon)
"who may not indeed be overclean
while at fuch kind of work ; but it
would be liard to impute that ftink
to
ix
to him, which is not of his making,
but removing.
The Letters are tmiverfally read\
~and It is almoft univerfally agreed that
'Lord Bolingbroke deferred any treat-
ment from you^ both as a man perfo-
'nally ill ufed by him, and a member
of that ORDER, WHICH HE HAS
TREATED IN THE LIKE MANNER:
In a Law ofVefpafian, we read,
Non oportere maledici Senatoribus ; %
remaledici civile ^ fafque eft. And
the equity of it my anonymous
Friend feems to allow. But I will
"claim no benefit from the Authority
of Vefpafian, nor even from that
which I more reverence, my kind
Monitor's. The truth is, that no-
thing perfonal once entered into *?**
my thoughts while I was writing
thofe two letters. Had that been
the cafe, it would rather have been
the fubjecl: of my vanity, than re-
fentment. For nothing is more '
glorious
glorious than for an obfcure wri-
ter of thefe dark and cold daysj
to find himfelf treated in the fame
manner with the greateft and moft
famous of the golden Ages of antient
and modern Literature.
But (fays the anonymous let-
ter) it may diffjonour a Gentleman and
a Clergyman to give him that treat-
ment he dejerved) efpeciatty after his
death. It is falling into the VERY
fAVLrJojuft/y objecled to Mm: every
body 'would have applauded your fe-
letting thofe inftances of his railing^
.arrogance^ and abufe^ had not you fol-
lowed his example. ^ This Public then
takes it for granted, that treating a
licentious Writer as he deferves, may
dijhonour a Gentleman and a Clergy-
man. Here, I think, a diflmction is
to be made ; where the thing con-
cerns only the civil interefts of par-
ticulars, a Gentleman has but little
provocation for unufual fe verity of
language,
xi
language, and lefs for perfonal re-
flexion. But where the higheft
of our religious interefls are attack-
ed, the interefts not of this man,
nor of that ; not of this Communi-
ty, or the other ; but of our com-
mon Nature itfelf ; and where the
People are appealed to, and invited
1 1 T 1 ' T
to judge, there, I think, every ^ j
Gentleman, who Joves his Religion
and his Country, fliould take the
quarrel on himfelf, and repel the
infult with all his vigour.
" When TRUTH or VIRTUE an affront
" endures,
" Th* affront is mine, my Friend, and
" fiiould be yours.
The manners of a Clergyrnafy if
they are to be diftinguifhed from
thofe of a Gentleman^ confift in Zeal
for God, and Charity towards Man.
The occafion will fometimes call
out one, fometimes the other : they
may
kii
may be exerted feparately, but ne-
ver at one another's expence. When
they are fo, all goes wrong, for
they are made by Nature to a6t to-
gether for the common good : As in
the cafe before us^ I prefume to fay,
a zeal for God is the greateft Charity
to Man.
Now when Doctrines of that kind,
which the View 9f L. Bolingbrokes
Philofophy expofes, rife to their ex-
treme, not to confute them in terms
either of horror or ridicule, for fear
of tranfgreffing the civil maxims of
politenefs, would be like that Dean,
the Poet fpeaks of, who fcrupled to
mention Hell before his audience at
Court.
If then, amongft the Chriftian
duties, there be, on fome occafions,
a force to be exerted to repel the
Infulters of Religion, as well as,
on others, a patience to be ob-
ferved, in compaflion to the fim-
ply
Xltt
ply erroneous ; and that this before
us was not the time; I defire to
know when that time comes ?
When men are Sincere in their
miftakes, after a diligent and can-
did fearch ; when the fubjecl: is of
fmall moment, fuch as the mode of
difcipline, the meafure of conformi-
ty, or a diftin&ion in Metaphyfics ;
the miftaken, anjd even the perverfe
fhould be treated with tendernefs.
But when the avowed end of a Wri-
ter is the deftrudion of Religion in
all its forms ; when the means he
employs, are every trick of prevari-
cation, and ill faith, and every
term of fcurrility and abufe ; when,
to ufe the expreffion of Cicero, eft
inter nos non de terminis, fed de tota
pofleflione contentio^ Then a pradti-
fed calmnefs, and affefted manage-
ment, look like betraying the caufe
we are intrufted to defend ; or,
\yhat is almoft as ill, like defend-
XIV
ing it in that way which may turn
moft to our own advantage. As
when, in queftions of the greateft
moment, we comply with this fa-
Jhionable indifference^ or flatter the
indifference into a Virtue, while we
fliould have ftriven to rekindle the
dying fparks of Religion by a vigo-
rous collifion with its more harden-
"
ed Enemies, %
Men who have had Chriftianity
indeed at heart have never been
difpofed, in capital cafes like this,
to fpare or manage the Offenders.
When the incomparable ST ILL ING-
FLEE T undertook to expoie the
enormity of the Court of Rome, in
turning the dijpenfation of the word
into a lucrative trade, he profecuted
the controverfy with fo much vigour
of ftyle and fentiment as to be called
by thofe who found themfelves affect-
ed by it, Buffoon and Comedian.
And of late, when a learned perfon
had.
had, with juft indignation, expofed
the horrid enormities of the Moravi-
an Brethren, he received this anfwer
for his pains, to be, fure, equally
apt and fatisfa&ory, 'The fervant
of the Lord mujl not ftrive^ but be
gentle unto all men ; in meeknefs in-
ftrutting thofe who oppofe themfelves.
/^Without queftion, debauched and
impious men would be much at their /
eafe, when, fecure from the refent-
ment of the Magiftrate y they find
they have nothing to fear from the
indignation of the Learned.
But this leads me to another con-
fideration, which may further juftify
the Author of the f^iewj in the ac-
count he has given of this atrocious
Enemy of RELIGION and So-
CIETY.
The Englifh Government, fecure
in the divinity of that Religion
which it hath eftablimed, and jea-
lous of that Liberty which at fo
much
XVI
much expence. it hath procured^
with a becoming confcioufnefs of the
fuperiority of Trijth, hath thought;
fit to fuffer this, and many other
writings, (tho' none fo criminal ill;
the manner 'J to pafs thro' the Prefs,
into the hands of the People : Wri-
tings, in which not only the Inftitu-
tions of pofitiveand national Worfiiip
have been infulted, but likewife thofe
very PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL RE-
LIGION, which hitherto have been
efteemed the firft bond of civil
Society, as being thofe only which
can inforce obedience for con-
fcience fake. A bond, which no
Nation under heaven but our own
will ever fuffer to be publicly brought
in queftion: becaufe no Nation be-
fides has an equal confiden.ee irj
Truth) and an equal Zeal, for JL/-
lerty.
But do flagitious Writers there-
fore become more facred or refpe6t-
4
xvii
able for this impunity ? On the con-
trary, is there not the greater need
that thofe evils, which the Public
cannot redrefs, fhould at leaf! be
oppofed and checked by a private
hand ? Why do the civil Laws of all
other Nations interfere to punifh.
thefe offenders, but to prevent the
mifchiefs their writings do amongft
the Populace? Why are not thefe
Laws put in execution here, but from
the experience, or, at leaft, from a
forefight, that a recourfe to them
has been, or may prove, injurious
to public Liberty ? However, the
end) we fee, is important, tho' thefe
means may feem incommodious.
Nothing is left then, but to employ
others. What they are, the very
cafe points out to us. The mifchief
thefe Writers do amongft the People
is by their credit with them. If
this credit be undeferved, the way
lies open for the Defender of Re-
fa ligion
XVlll
ligion to lefien it, either by tragical
complaints or Ridicule. The Au-
thor of the f^iew chofe the latter.
He thought it more effectual; for
now a days, Folly difcredits more
than Impiety : He thought it more
generous ; for he had no defign of
bringing in the Magiftrate to fecond
liis arguments. Nor is he one of
thofe impertinents who are for di-
recting Authority, or think there is
any need of fuch as him,
" To virtue's work to urge the tardy Hall,
' Or goad the Prelate flumbVing in his Stall.
He rather thinks it becomes him to
follow their example. The Convo-
cation, in their late addrefs to his
Majcfty, lament the depravity of our
times) evidenced beyond all former ex-
amples ^ by the publication of writings
which Jlrike at the very vitals of all
Religion and jhake the foundations of
civil Government. Yet they arc fo
far
XIX
far from throwing the fcandal on the
State, or calling out upon the civil
Magistrate, that, as if they even re-
fpe&ed the (lander of their Enemies,
they engage themf elves to his Majejly to
exert themfelves to the utmoft^ to main-
tarn the honoiir of our moji holy faith*
Let no one therefore take offence,
that a private man has adventured
to lend his hand to what the whole
body of the Clergy has, with fo
much glory to themfelves, engaged
to fuppcrt.
But his Lorddap's death is a fur-
ther objection to the manner in
which he is treated. Had thefe Ef-
fays been publiflied during his life,
and had the Author of the f^iew
deferred his remarks upon them,
in expectation of this good time,
the cenfure might appear to have
its weight. But what fhall we
fay, if his Lordfhip was publicly
invited to give his Phikjophy to
b 2 the
XX
the world, by the promife of a fpee-
dy anfwer? If a Writer's death
may fcreen his Works from the
treatment they would deferve in
his life time, he has a very erTe&ual
way to fecure both his Perfon and
his Principles, from difgrace. Yet,
where this is mentioned as an
aggravation, it is confefied that, in
thefe pofthumoxis Works, publifhed
by his Lordfhip's direction, the
Author of the View is abirfed in the
grofleft terms. Now what is faid
to the difcredit of a living Writer,
especially by one of his Lordfhip's
Authority in politics and letters,
might prove a fubftantial injury:
The harm to a dead Writer is but
fantaftic. This is only laid to
fliew, that, had the Author of the
View retaliated, as he never had it
in his thoughts to do, the return
had been ftill much fhort of the pro-
vocation.
But
XXI
But He commits the VERY FAULT-
ob jetted to Lord Bolingbroke and in
feleEling the inflames of his railing and
arrogance he follows his Lo?*djhip > s
EXAMPLE. This would be weigh-
ed. Lord Bolingbroke has, in the
moft contemptuous manner, reviled
almoft all the Wife and Virtuous of
antient and modern times. He has
railed at the primitive Saints, the
modern Doctors, the whole body of
the Chriftian Clergy ; and, in a word,
the whole race of Mankind j which,
ever fince Religion came amongft
them, deferve to be considered in no
other light than as one great aggre-
gate of Lunatics. He has abufed
Mofes and Paul\ he has ridiculed
the SON, and blafphemed the FA-
THER. Here is another Writer,
who by his fcurrility and abufe is
judged no other than and what
has he done ? He has fallen into the
fame fault \ and followed his example.
b 3 What
xxii
What, has he like wife railed at all the
Good, the Virtuous, and the Pious?
Has he likewife had the arrogance
to fay, that the World was one great
Bedlam ? Has he likewife blafphem-
ed his Creator and Redeemer ? Alafs,
no. Two fuch Writers are too much
for any one age ! And yet, what lefs
can juftify Men in faying, that the
Author of the J^iew has fallen into
the fame fault with Lord Bolingbroke^
and followed his example ? All he
has done is occafionally telling the
World, That his Lordfhip, once
in his life, was for bringing in
Popery and the Pretender \ and is
now for introducing Naturalifm^
a more fpecious form of Athe-
ifm: that he is overrun with paf-
fion and prejudice : that he under-
ftands little or nothing of the fub-
o
jedts he handles, which yet he treats
with fovereign contempt : that his
learning is fuperficial, his reafoning
XXlll
fophiftical, and his declamation in-
flated : and that, if ever Religion
fhould happen to regain its hold on
the People, his Philofophic works
will run the hazard of being applied
to the loweft and vilefl ufes. This
*/ v/
is the fubftance of what he has faid.
And if this be falling into tliefame
faulty and following his Lordjhifis ex-
ample, the Author of the wiefci for
ought I can perceive, muft be con-
tent to plead guilty.
But we will fuppofe, the manner
of writing, and not thefubjetf of the
Work, is here to be under flood. Is
the railing at all mankind, at all
Religion, at God Almighty himfelf,
but of the fame fpecies of writing
with His, who fhall tell the world,
that this Railer was once as much
an Enemy to the Civil> as now to
the Religious Conftitution of his
Country; that he reafons ill, and
that he declaims worfe ? Did the
b 4 polite-
XXIV
politenefs of a Gentleman or a Cler-
gyman require, under pain of he-
ing matched with his Lordfhip in
railing and arrogance, that, after
the Author of the View had quot-
ed all his Lordfhip's horrors in prin-
ciple and expreffion^ he fhould have
added, " This, good People, is the
" FIRST PHILOSOPHY, which is to
" be fubftituted amongft us, in the
" place of RELIGION. But take
" me along with you ; Tho' this,
ic indeed, be the bane and poifon
" of your HOPES ; tho' it reduce
" humanity to the moft difconfo-
u late and forlorn condition, by de-
" priving it of the MORAL Ruler of
" the World, and by diffolving all
" the ties of CIVIL Government ;
c c Yet, Courage ! The Author was a
" man of diftinguimed quality, of
" uncommon abilities, and of infi-
(C nite politenefs. His great talents
V for Bujinefe. enabled him to fee
" what
XXV
* c what was beft for Society ; his
" penetration into Philofopbic mat-
" ters, what was beft for human
c( Nature ; and his profound know-
* ledge of Divinity, what was beft
" for Both. He had governed
<c States ; he had inftructed Kings ;
" and this laft great Book of Wif-
<c dom was the refult of all his fkill
< c and experience."
All this, indeed, I might have
faid : and, it is probable, a good
deal of it I fhould have faid, had the
aim of my fiew been to recom-
mend myfelf, and to raife a repu-
tation from the defeat of this migh-
ty Man. Had this, I fay, been my
aim, the railing the character of an
adverfary who was prefently to fall
by my hand, would hardly have
been amongft the laft of my contri-
vances. But as I had another pur-
pofe, the preventing the mifchiefs
of his Book, I took the different
method
XXVI
method of reducing his Authority
its to juft value ; which, by having
been over- rated, had prepared
the way for the eafy reception of
his Opinions amongft a corrupt
People.
The Letters, fay this Public, (whofe
fentiments have been fo kindly con-
veyed unto me) purport to be a l^iew
of Lord Bolingbroke- s Philofophy. 'They
are a view of his life, morals, politics,
and conversation. It may be true and
juft. But that is not the quejlion.
Whether he made a good treaty, or
wrote the Craftsman, neither con-
cludes for, nor again/}, the divinity of
the Chrifiian Religion.
I readily confefs, had Lord Bo-
lingbroke's Morals and Politics no-
thing to do with his religious Princi-
ples, I had acted both an invidious and
an idle part to bring in his Trea-
ties and his Craftsmen into a View of
4>is Philofophy. But I held all thefe
to
xxvii
to be the various parts of the fame
Syftem, which had contributed, in
fupport of one another, to produce
a Whole. I can believe he found
it for his eafe in retirement, to ad-
here ftill clofer to a fet of Principles,
which having facilitated his Pra&ice,
enabled him to bear the retrofpecl:
of it : but I am much miftaken if he
did not begin the World with his
notions of God and the Soul ; hence
his rounds of bufinefs and amufe-
ments.
" Now all for pleafurej now for Church and
" State.
The reft followed in courfe. For,
as Tully obferves, Cum enim DE-
CRETUM proditur^ Lex veri re&ique,
proditur: quo a vitio et AMICITIA-
RUM proditiones^ et RE RUM PUBLI-
CARUM, nafcifolent.
But this is not all. I beg leave
to fay, there was not only a cloje
XXV111
connexion between his Principles
and his Practice, but that it was ne-
cefiary to a juft defence of Reli-
gion againft him, to take notice of
that connexion.
One of his Lordfhip's pretended
purpofes, in his Philosophic Effays y
was to detect the Corruptions which
the CLERGY have brought into the
Chriftian Religion : My aim, in the
FieW) was to expofe a fpecies of Im-
piety which overturns all Religion.
Confider, how his Lordfhip pro-
ceeded. Not that I place my ju-
ftification on his example : that, in-
deed, would be confirming the charge
I am here endeavouring to refute ;
neither would I infift upon the
right of retaliation ; for, tho' that
be a better plea, it is the laft which
a Writer for Truth would have re-
courfe to. I quote his Lordfhip's
method, as that which right reafon
prefcribes to all, who undertake to
deted
xxix
detect and lay open error and de-
ceit.
His Lordfhip's point, as we faid,
was to {hew, that the Clergy had
corrupted the purity and {implicity
of Religion. It is not my purpofe
here to inquire with what ingenuity
he has reprefented the Fact, or how
juftly he has deduced the Confe-
quences, which, he pretends, have
rifen from it. He has {hewn fome
corruptions ; he has imagined more;
and dreffed up the reft of his cata-
logue out of his own invention ; all
which, he moft unreafonably offers as
a legitimate prejudice againft Reli-
gion itfelf. Well, be it fo, that the
Clergy are convicted of abufe and
impofture. The queftion, which
every one is ready to afk, who thinks
himfelf concerned to enquire into
the truth of the fact, is, cui BONO?
What end had the Clergy to ftrve
by thefe corruptions ? His Lordfliip
thinks
XXX
thinks the queflion reasonable, and
is as ready to reply, That they had
a wicked antichriftian Tyranny to
impofe upon the necks of Mankind :
in order to which, they contrived
to introduce fuch kind of corruptions
into Religion as beft tended to per-
vert men's underftandings, to inti-
midate their wills, and to imprefs
upon their confciences, an awe and
reverence for their fpiritual Mafters.
The anfwer is fatisfa&ory, and
ftiews the ufe of this method in de-
tecting error. With his rhetorical
exaggerations, with the extenfion
of his lift of corruptions, with his
ridiculous inferences, I have, at pre-
fent, no concern.
Now, as the Author of the Effays
had a tyrannical Hierarchy to un-
tnafk ; fo, the Author of the View
had a declared, an impious, an out-
rageous Enemy of all Religion to
expofe. His Lordlhip had publicly
and
xxxi
and openly, in his refpe&able Cha-
racter of a NOBLEMAN, a STATES-
MAN, and aPniLosopHER, declared
it to be all a Cheat, fupported only
by Knaves and Madmen ; which
indeed was a large Party, iince, by
his own account, it takes in the
whole body of Mankind. His Lord-
fhip had been held up to the People
as an all accompli/bed Perfonage, full
and complete in every endowment
of civil and moral Wifdom: And
the enchanting vehicle in which his
triumphant character was conveyed,
had made it received, even againft
the information of their fenfes. Now
a Public thus prejudiced, would, on
fuch a reprefentation of his Lord-
ftiip's religious principles as the Ef-
fays contain, and the Piew collects
j ^/ *
together, be ready to afk " could
fo fublime a Genius be difpofed to
deprive himfelf, and us, of all thofe
bleflings- which Religion promifes,
had
tfxxii
had he not difcovered, and been
perfectly afiured, that the whole was
a delufion; and therefore in pity
to Mankind, had broke the Charm,
which kept them from feeing their
ffefent geod} in fond expectation of a
recompence in the fhadowy regions
of futurity ? We fay, deprive himfelf,
for he feems fufficiently vext, and
fenfible of his difappointment, when
waked from the pleafing dream of a
life to come. There is no oiie thought
(fays his Lordfhip) which footbs my
mind like this : I encourage my IMA-
GINATION to purfue it, a?td am hear-
tily affli&ed when ANOTHER FACULTY
of the intellect comes boifteroujly in, and
WAKES me from fo pleajing a dream,
if it be a dream\i\" In this man-
ner I fuppofed, that they, for whofe
life the F'iew was intended, were
difpofed to argue ; I mean that part
[i] xliii Letter to Swift in Pope's Works
Vol. ix.
of
xxxiii
of them who yet retain any con-
cern for another life ; and who
have not thrown off, together with
their Guides, all thoughts of their
journey thither. Now, againft fo
dangerous a prejudice, the Defender
of Religion was to provide. He
was firft to remove their delufion
concerning Lord Bolingbroke's Phi-
lofophic Character; and to jfhew,
that he had none of thofe talents of
Reafoning, Learning, or Philofophy
which are neceffary to qualify a man
in deciding on this important que~
ftion. But this oppofed only one
half of their prejudices. They could
by no means be brought to think
that fo good a Man, fo benevolent a
Citizen, fo warm a friend to Man-
kind, as his Lordfhip's EJJays re-
prefent him, could be lightly wil-
ling to forego that great bond of
Society, that great fupport of hu-
manity, RELIGION. The advocate
c of
XXXIV
of Religion therefore, unlefs he
would betray his caufe, was obliged
to (hew, that the Social light, in
which his Lordfhip puts himfelf,
and in which he had been placed by
his poetical Friend, was a falfe one ;
that his moral virtues were an exacl
tally to his religious principles ; and
public virtue (according to his favo-
rite Cicero) embracing and compre-
hending all the private, omnes omni-
um Char it at es PATRIA una complex a
e/fy it was, to the purpofe of fuch a
defence, to fhew, that his Lordfliip
had been a BAD CITIZEN. Now
tho' Religion has the ftrongeft al-
lurements for the Good and Virtuous,
it has its terrors, and thofe very
dreadful too, for the Wicked : Who,
in fuch circumftances, have but this
for their relief, Either to part with
their Vices, or their Religion. All
the world knows His Lordfliip's
choice. He himfelf tells us, it was
made
XXXV'
made on the convi#ion of Reafon ;
others think, by the inducement of'
liis Pailions. The World is to deter-
mine ; but they fhould judge with a
knowledge of the cafe. And this,
the Author of the View prefented
to them, in anfwer to the latter part
of thefe popular prejudices ; which
would not fuffer them to conceive
any other caufe but rational convic-
tion, that could induce any man in
his fenfes to part with the footbing
confolation of futurity, as his Lord-
fliip is pleafed to call it.
And now, I fuppofe, every can-
did Reader will allow, at leaft I am
fure the candid Writer of the anony-
mous Letter will allow, that his
Lord (hip's morals and politics come
within the view of his Phikfophy\
where the queftion is of the TRUTH
or FALSHOOD of Religion ; and of
his Lordfhip's AUTHORITY concern-
ing it.
c 2
XXXVI
To fum up this Argument : His
Lordfhip defcants on Romifi Super-
ft it ion ; the Author of the fiew, on
his Lordjhifis Philofophy : Not to fhe w
for what end the one was eftabliflied,
or by what caufes the other was pro-
duced, is relating Facts without head
or tail ; which the Writer on the ufe
of h'tftory juftly throws into the clafs
of unprofitable things : and therefore
his Lordfhip, fpeaking of the cor-
ruptions brought by the Clergy, into
religion, accounts lor them by a fpi-
rit of Dominion ; and the Author of
the View fpeaking of his Lordfhip's
religious principles ) reminds the Rea-
der of his moral practice \ but fo far
only as was, to the purpofe, and was
notorious to all mankind.
Lord Bolingbrofa (fays this Public)
deferved every thing of you ; but who
are thofe friends and admirers of his y
whom you reprefent applauding all he
wrote; whom you bring in unnecejja-
i rily
kxxvii
rily upon many oc caftans. 1 dare fay ',
they are very few. You had better
have named them.
As exceptionable as that, perhaps,
might have been, I fliould certainly
have chofe to do fo, had I conceived it
poffible for the Reader to under-
ftand, by {uoh. friends and admirers,
any of thofe few illuftrious Perfons,
whom Lord Bolingbroke's politenefs,
his diftance from bufinefs, his know-
ledge of the world, and, above all,
his ambition to be admired, occafion-
ally brought into his acquaintance ;
and who gave dignity and reputation
to his retirement. Several of thefe,
I have the honour to know, and the
pleafure of being able to inform
thofe who do not, that they were
fo far from being in the principles of
his Philofophy, that fome of them did
not fo much as know what they were;
and thofe who did, let him under-
ftand, how much they detefted them,
c 3 Which
XXXV111
Which very well explains the difpo-
fition of his Will concerning thofe
papers, in which his Pbihfopby is
contained. And if it was no more
than for the fake of this fair op-
portunity of explaining myfelf, I
could readily excufe all the hard
thoughts this public feems to have en-
tertained of me. As to Hafefriends
and admirers, who applauded all he
wrote, I meant thofe who perfuaded
him to change his mind, and give
thofe Effays to the Public, which he
had over and over declared were
only for thefecretinfpection of a Few.
And he feems willing the World
fhould know to whom it was in-
debted for this benefit, by his letting
thofe places in his^^ftand, where
he declares his own opinion of their
urtjitnefshr general communication.
But what grieves and hurts your
friends mo/l (fays this Public) is ftill
behind. Poor Pope did not deferve
to
XXXIX
to be treated by you with fo much cru-
elty ', contempt^ and injuftice. In a
work where Lord Bolingbroke isrepre-
fented as a Monjler^ hated both of God
and Man^ why is Pope always and
unnecejjarily brought in^ only as his
friend and admirer ? Why as approv-
ing of) and privy to all that was ad-
dreffed to him? Why Jhould he^ who
had many great talent s^ and amiable
qualities ^ be deferi bed only by the^Jlight-
ing-Epithets ^tuneful and poetical
You fay. Pope announced the glad
tidings of all thele things. In what
work can he be faid to have done it y
except in his Effay on Man? 7%is is
throwing a reflexion on the excellent
Commentary on that Eflay.
Who it was that treated poor Pope
with cruelty ', contempt^ and injuftice^
Lord Bolingbroke, or the Author of
the View^ let my Cenfurers judge ;
and, by their freedom from paffion
and refentment, at a time when a
c 4 friend
xl
friend would be moft hurt, they ap-
pear perfectly qualified to judge im-
partially.
When, on his publication of the
Patriot King, Lord Bolingbroke did
indeed ufe the memory of poor Pope,
with exceeding contempt, cruelty, and
mjuftice, by reprefenting him, in the
Advertisement to the Public, as a bury
ignorant interpolator of his works, a
mercenary betrayer of his truft, a
miferable, who bartered all the
friendship of his Philofopher and
Guide, for a little paltry gain, Who
was it then that manifefted his hurt
and grief for poor Pope? Was it this
Public ? Or was it the Author of the
Letter to Lord Eolingbroke on that oc-
cajioii ?
But iii what confifts the contempt,
cruelty, and injuftice of the f^iew ?
The contempt is in the flighting epi-
thets of tuneful and poetical; the
Cruelty in. giving instances of Pope's
unbound-
xli
unbounded admiration of Lord Bo-
lingbroke ; and the injuftke in faying
that he denounced the glad tidings
of the firft Philofopbjy and that he
approved and was privy to all that
was addreffed to him.
My ufing the epithets of tuneful
and poetical^ in fpeaking of a man
who had many fuperior qualities,
was, I humbly conceive, well fuited
to the occafion. . It is where I fpeak
of Pope as an idolatrous admirer of
Lord Bolingbroke : and they aptly
infinuate what I would have them
mean, that, Judgment had there
nothing to do; but all was to be
placed to the friendly extravagance
of a poetical imagination. Who
could fairly gather more from it,
than that my intention was to place
his Lordfhip's gratitude^ and Mr.
Pope's idolatry fide by fide, in ord^r
to their fetting off one another.
But cruelty is added to contempt, in
the injlances I give of Pope's un-
bounded
xlii
bounded admiration. I am verily"
perfuaded, had Pope lived to fee
Lord Bolingbroke's returns of friend -
fhip, as well in his Lordfhip's ufual
conversation, as in the advertifement
to the Patriot King, he would have
been arnongft the firft to have laugh-*
ed at his own delufions, when this
treatment of him had once broken*
and diflblved the charm ; at leaft, he
would have been ready to laugh with
a friend, who fhould chufe to turn
them into ridicule. For he held this
to be amongft the offices of friend-
ihip, to laugh at your friend's foibles
till you brought him to laugh with
you,
" Laugh at your Friends ; and if your Friends
" be fore,
" So much the better, you may laugh the
" more.
as implying, that, while they conti-
nuedySr?, they continued to ftand in
need of this friendly furgery.
2 My
xliii
My injuftice confifts in fuppofinc*
Pope 'was privy to all that was ad-
drejjedto him. A great injuftice in-
deed, had I fo insinuated, I, who
with greater certainty than moft
men, can affirm, that he was privy
to nothing of the fecret, but the
o *
defign of the addrefs, and the pre-
liminary difcourfes. So little did
Pope know of the principles of the
firft Philofophy, that when a .common
acquaintance, in his laft illnefs,
chanced to tell him of a late con-
verfation with Lord.Bolingbroke, in
which his Lordiriip took occafion
to deny God's moral, attributes, as
they are commonly underftood, he
was fo fhocked that he refted not
till he .had afked Lord Bolingbroke
whether his informer was not mif-
taken ? His Lordfliip affured
him, he was; of which, Pope
with great fatisfaftion informed his
Friend. Under this ignorance of
his Lordfliip's real fentiments it was,
that
xliv
that Pope gave eafy credit to him,
when he vapoured, that he would
demon/Irate all the common Metaphy-
fics to be 'wicked and abominable [2],
Which leads me to that part of the
charge, where it is faid, I could only
mean the ESSAY ON MAN, by the
glad tidings of the firft Philofophy. I
meant a very different thing; and al-
luded to the following paflages in his
LETTERS. Do not laugh at my gravi-
ty ^ but permit me to wear the beard of
aPhilofopher, till I pull it off ^ arid make
a jefl of it my f elf. "Tts juft 'what my
Lord Bolingbroke is doing with ME-
TAPHYSICS. I hope you will live to
fee^ and flare at the learned figure he
will make on the fame Jhelf with
Locke and Malebranche [3]. And
again, Lord Bolingbroke is voluminous,
but he is voluminous only to deflroy
Volumes. I jhall not live^ I fear^ to
fee that work printed \_^]. Where,
[2] Eolingbroke to Swiff, Letter xlviii. Vol. ix.
[3] Letters Ixxi. Vol. ix, [4] Letter Ixxiii.
by
i xlv
by the way, his fancy that thefe
METAPHYSICS were defigned for the
public, {hews lie knew nothing of the
contents. This then was what I
meant : The EJJay on Man I could
not mean. For in the 8o tfa page of
the Flew, I make the fundamental
doctrines of that Poem and his Lord-
fhip's EJfays to be directly oppofite
to one another. " Mr. POPE'S Ef-
" fay on Man is a real vindication of
" Providence againft Libertines and
" Atheifts Lord BOLINGBROKE'S
" EJfays are a pretended vindication
" of Providence againft an imagina-
" ry confederacy betweenDivines and
" Atheifts The Poet directs his
" Argument againft Atheifts and
Libertines in fupport of RELIGION ;
The Philofopher againft Divines
in fupport of NATURALISM : and
the fuccefs is anfwerable. Pope's
argument is manly, fyftematical,
and convincing : Lord Boling-
broke's
(C
(C
<(
cc
cc
ivi ; .
" broke's, confufed, prevaricating,
" and inconfiftent."
Thus I have explained, in the
beft way I am able, my reafons
for fpeaking of Pope in a manner
which gives offence. But what mail
we fay, if this air of negligence to
his memory was affumed, the better
to conceal the Author of an anony-
mous Epiftle ? The motive fure was
allowable ; tho' the projeft was with-
out effect : for this Public has pofi-
tively decided, that the Author muff
be by the fcurrility and abufe. .
But, continues the Cenfurer, Had
you purfued the advantage you have
ingenioujly taken from an expreffion
in one of Pope s Letters^ to have
jhewn that Pope differed from Boling-
broke where he was in the wrong ;
that he not only condemned but defpi-
m/ J 1
fed the futility of his reasoning againji
Revelation j that where he was right
Pope improved, but. never fervilely copied
his
xlvii
bis Ideas ^ you would have done honour
to your Friend and yourfelf : you.
would have ferved the caufe of Reli-
gion : you would have difcredited
Lord Bolingbroke the more by the con-
traft
Now all this, in the fourth Letter^
I have done: And the Reader will
find it in its place. In the mean
time, every body, might fee I was
ready, on a fit occafion, to do it,
by the paflage quoted juft above,
from the fecond> where Pope is ho-
noured^ and -Lord Bolingbroke the
more difcredited by the contraft.
. But I muft not leave this head
without taking notice of one ex-
preffion in the cenfure. It is faid,
that the View REPRESENTS L. Boling-
broke as a Monjler hated both of God
and Man. The exprefllon had
been jufter, if, inftead of this, the
writer had faid, from the View it
may be colkEledy becaufe, whatever
ideas
xlviii
ideas of his Lordfliip may arife in
men's minds on a perufal of the View r
they arife from his Lordfhip's own
words, which are faithfully quoted ;
What the Author of the View adds,
is only a little wholefome raillery,
which can prefent the Reader with
no idea but what (in the opinion of
Pope) arifes from every fruitlefs at-
tempt of Impiety.
" Heav'n .ftill with laughter the vain toil
** furveys,
" And buries madmen'in the heaps they raife.
That the Author of the View affift-
ed in the drefllng up fo ftrange a
fight, as a Monjler hated both by G^ct
and Man, was very far from his
intention. He made a fcruple of ac-
companying his Lordfliip's quotations
with thofe reflexions of ferious in-
dignation which fuch a Scene of
horrors naturally fuggeft, left he
fhould be thought to aim at fome-
thing more than critical animad-
verfion.
xlix
verfion. He therefore generoufly
endeavoured to turn the public at-
tention from the horror ', to the ri-
dkule^ of the^fr/? Pbilofopby y and to
get his Lordfhip well laughed at,
as being perfuaded that when the
Public is brought to that temper,
its refentment feldom rifes to ex~
tremes.
Men had better fpeak out, and
fay, the Author of the F'ienso ought
to have reprefented L. Bolingbroke
as neither deteftable^ nor ridiculous.
He could have wilhed, that his
fenfe of honour and duty would
have permitted him fo to do. The
Author of the F'iew is no Fana-
tic or Enthufiaft, and perhaps, lefs
of a Bigot than either. Yet there
are times and occasions when the ,-4
fobereft thinker will confefs, that the ^* 4
interefts of Particulars fhould give
\vay to thofe of the Public. It is
true, there are others, when polite-
nefs, civil prudence, and the pri-
d vate
1
vate motives of Friendship, ought
to determine a man, who is to live
in the world, to comply with the
ftate and condition of the times;
and even to chufe the worfe, inftead
of the better method of doing good.
But my misfortune was that this did
not appear to be one of thofe occa-
fions, in which, when I had explained
the Doctrines and Opinions of an er-
roneous Writer, I could leave them
with this reflexion: " Thefe are the
" writer's notions on the moft im-
" portant points which regard hu-
" man happinefs. They are indeed
" very fingular and novel. But then
" consider, the Writer was a great
" man, and high in all the attain-
" merits of Wifdom ; therefore weigh
u well and reverendly, before you
" condemn what I have here expofed
" to your Judgment." But had I
i faid this, would it have fecured me
from OFFENCE ? The thing of all, to
- be moft dreaded by thofe who know
the
li
the world. Would it not rather
have furniflied another handle to
the fame Cenfurers, of making me a
confederate in his guilt, only a little
better difguifed. This would not
have been the frtft time I had been
fo ferved, when endeavouring to
avoid ofTence.
And yet there was but one of
thefe three w T ays ; either to laugh, to
declaim, or to fay nothing. I chofe
the firft, as what I fancied leaft ob-
noxious; in which, however, I was
miftaken ; and as moft likely to do
good ; in which, I hope, I am not
.miftaken.
The only harm L. Bolingbroke
can do, whofe reputation of parts and
wifdom had been raifed fo high, is
amongft the PEOPLE. His objec-
tions againft Religion are altogether
df the popular kind, as we feel by
the effe&s .they have had, when
ufed by their original Authors, long
d 2 before
Hi
before his Lordfhip honored them
with a place in his Effays. What
then was he to do, whofe bufinefs
it was to put a fpeedy flop to the
mifchief, and neither to palliate
the do&rines, nor to compliment
the Author of them, but to give
a true and fuccincl: reprefentation
of his Syftem^ in a popular way ; to
make a right ufe of that abundance,
which the ESSAYS and FRAGMENTS
afforded, to fhew that his Lord-
finps Principles were as foolifh as
they were wicked ; and that the ar-
guments ufed in fupport of them
were as weak as they were bold and
overbearing : that he was a pretender
in matters of Learning and Philofo-
phy ; and knew juft as much of the
genius of the Gofpel, as of that pre-
tended corruption of it, which he
calls, artificial Theology. This I ima-
gined the only way to reach his
Lordfhip's AUTHORITY, on which
all
liii
all depended; and then the very
weakeft effort of ridicule would be
able to do the reft. Thefe were my
motives for the method I took ; and
whatever impropriety there may be
in divulging them in a way that tends
to defeat their end, it fhould, I
think, be laid to the account of thofe
who made this explanation neceflary.
I have been the longer on this
matter as it will ferve for an anfwer to
what follows.
LordEolingbroke (fays this Public)
is fo univerfally andfo juftly obnoxi-
ous to all forts and ranks of people^
that) from regard to him, no body
cares how he is treated^ but be affured
your manner has dejlroyed all the merit
of the work. To the manner I have
faid enough. The candid Reader,
I am fure, will allow me to add a
word or two Concerning the effeEl of
an unacceptable manner ', in a work of
public fervice. It had, till of late,
d 3 been
liv
been always efteemed matter of me-
rit to do a general good, tho' the
manner of doing it might not be fo
readily approved. But we are now
become fo delicate and faftidious,
that it is the manner of doing, even
in things of the higheft importance,
which carries away all the praife.
And yet, this falfe delicacy on a que<-
ftion of no lefs moment than Whe-
ther we fhall have any Religion or
none at all, feems as ridiculous, as
it would be in a Great man to take
offence at an officious neighbour for
faving his falling Palace, by a few
homely props near at hand, when
he fhould have confidered of a fup-
port more conformable to the tafte
and general ftyle pf Architecture,
in my Lord's fuperb piece ; or to
find him difconcerted by that chari-
table hand, which friould venture to
pull his Grandeur by head and Shoul-
ders out of his flaming apartment.
But
Iv
But in thefe fuppofitions I grant
much more than in reafon I ought.
I fuppofe the public tafte, which the
manner in queftion has offended, is
founded in Nature; whereas 'tis the
creature of Fafhion, and as fhifting
and fantaftic as its Parent. TRUTH,
which makes the matter of every
honeft man's enquiry, is eternal;
but the manner fuited to the public
tajle^ is nothing elle than conformi-
ty to our prefent pafiions, or fenti-
ments ; our prejudices, or difpofi.-
tions. When the truths or the prac-
tices of Religion have got poflef-
iion of a People, then a warmth for
its interefts, and an abhorrence of
its Enemies, become the public tafte ;
and men expect to find the zeal of
an Apoftle in every defender of Re~
ligion : But when this awful Power
has loft its hold, when, at beft, it
floats but in the brain, and comes
not near the heart, then, if you expecl:
d 4 to
Ivi
to be read with approbation , you
muft conform your manner to that
polite indifference, and eafy uncon-
cern, with which we fee every other
trial of (kill plaid before us.
Nor is this the worft. It has brought
in ufe a new kind of political
Arithmetic, which proceeds upon
very unexpected methods of calcula-
tion ; where the leffer fum of an
unacceptable manner fhall do more
than ftrike off the infinitely larger
of important fervices \ it fhall turn
them to demerit : while a long ac-
cumulation of well ranged inoffenfive
'cyphers may be made to rife to mil-
lions.
Indeed (fays this Public) //, [your
manner] has furnijhed your enemies
'with a handle to do you infinite mif-
chief. Your COLD friends lament and
make the worft fort of excufe, by im-
puting it to a temper contracted from
the long habit of drawing blood in con-
trwerfy ;
Ivii
troverfy ; 1C our w 'ARM friends are out
of countenance^ and forced to be Jilent y
or turn the difcourfe.
Would not any one by this ima-
gine, that the Author of the F'iewj
after much pretended oppofition
to Infidelity, was at laft detected of
being in combination with it, and
all along artfully advancing its inter-
efts ; that the mafk had unwarily
dropt off, and that he flood confef-
fed what Lord Bolingbroke has
been pleafed to call him, an Advo-
cate for civil and ecclejiaftical Tyran-
ny. At leaft, no one would ima-
gine, that this handle afforded to hit
enemies of doing him infinite mif chief ^
was no other than the treating the
Author of the moft impious and in-
fulting book that ever affronted pub-
lic juftice, as a bad reafoner and a
worfe Philofopher, whofe VANITY
led him to abufe every Name of
Learning, and his FEAR to difcredit
every mode of Religion.
i Thefe
Iviii
Thefe cold Friends however aded
their parts as ufual ; the great fecret
of which is, the well poifoning an
apology, or, as the anonymous wri-
ter better exprefies it, making the
very worjt excufe they can find. But
here, tho' they aimed well, they
over-fhot themfelves. This com-
pliment of drawing blood in con-
troverfy, the Author of the View
takes to himfelf with great compla-
^ cency. For his Controverfy having*?
always lain in a quarter very remote
from political altercation, either for
or againft Minifters or Fadions ; and
o *
on no lefs a queftion than the truth
and hono u r of Religion, with Infidels
and Bigots, the drawing blood fhews
him to have been in earneft, which
is no vulgar praife. It would be but
poor commendation, I ween, of a
brave Englifh. Veteran who had feen
many a well-fought field for Liberty
and his Country, to fay, he never drew
4 . bloody
lix
llood\ tho' fuch a compliment
might recommend the humanity
of a Champion at Hockley hole.
When the iituation of the times have
engaged two learned Men, at the
head of opposite parties, to engage in
a mock fight, and play a prize of
difputation, with the reward placed,
and often divided, between them,
it is no wonder if there fliould be
much ceremony, and little blood foed.
But the Author of the View writes
for no Party, or party-opinions ; he
writes for what fie thinks the TRUTH ;
and, in the point in queftion, for
the CLERGY, its Miniiter.s; both of >
which, (by good fortune, Being yet
of public Authority) he thinks him-
felf at liberty to fupport, tho' it
be by drawing blood from premedita-
ted impiety, from low envy, or ma-
licious bigotry; which, he appre-
hends, are not to be fubdued by ma-
nagement or a feigned attack. Yet
as
k
as much in earne/l as he is, he fhould
be afhamed to turn the fame arms
againft fimple error, againft a naked
adverfary, or againft the man who had
thrown away his weapons; or,indeed,
againft any but him who ftands up
boldly to defy Religion ; or, what is
almoft as bad, to difcredit it, by falfe
and hypocridc zeal for the corrup-
tions which have crept into it. In a
word, had I written with any oblique
views, and not from a fenfe of duty,
I fhould have fuited the entertain-
ment to the tafte of my fuperiors.
For a man muft be of a ftrange
complexioi} indeed, who when he
has conformed to Religion for his con-
venience, will fcruple to go on and
reap the benefit of his compliance,
by conforming to the Fafhion.
So far as to the Author's cold
Friends. With refpeft to his warm
ones, They have not plaid their parts
; they feem to have given
up
Ixl
up their Caufe too foon. They
might have faid with truth, and a
full knowledge of the cafe, " That no
man was readier than the Author of
the/ 7 /^, to comply with the temper
of the times; and efpecially with the
inclinations of his friends, to whofe
fathfaftion he has been ever ready to-
facrifice his own inclinations ; but, to
their fervices^ every thing, except
his duty and his honour ; was he
capable of doing that, he would not
deferve a virtuous Friend : That
probably, he considered the matter
in queftion as one of thofe excepted
cafes, where he could hearken to
nothing but the dictates of ho-
nour, and the duties of his ftation:
that he faw Religion infulted, a mo-
ral Governor defied ; NaturaUfm^ a
fpecies of Atheifm^ openly, and with
all the arts of fophiftry and declama-
tion, inculcated, and the oppofing
World infolently branded as a cabal
of
Ixii
of fools, knaves, and madmen r"
They might have faid, " That where
errors of fmall confequence are in
queftion, or even great ones, when
delivered with modcfty and candour,
fuitable meafures are to be obferved.
But here the impiety and the infult
were equally in the extreme:" To
which, in the laft place, they might
have added moft of thofe other con-
fiderations which have been urged in
the courfe of this Apology. And
had they been fo pleafed, the de-
fence had not only been better made,
but with much more dignity and ad-
vantage.
However the Author of the View
has yet the vanity, amidft all this
mortification, to reflect, that there
is a very wide difference between
difpleajing) and the being difapproved :
and that this very Public, who
complain by the pen of my anony-
mous Friend, feel that difference.
The
Ixiii
The decencies of Acquaintance, ha-
bitual impreffions, and even the moft
innocent partialities, might make
them uneafy to fee Lord BOLING-
BROKE expoied to contem pt ; but their
love of the Public, their reverence
both for its Civil and Religious in-
terefts, will make them pleafed to fee
his PRINCIPLES confuted andexpofed.
When a noble Roman had in public
Senate accufed one of the greateft
Pefts of his age and country, he ob-
ferved, that the vigour with which
he purfued this Enemy of the Re-
public, made many worthy men un-
eafy ; but he fatisfied himfelf with
this reflexion, tantum adfidutiam vel
metitm differt^ nolint homines facias,
an non probent.
In a word, my duty to God, to
my Country, to Mankind at large,
had, as I fancied, called upon me to
do what I did, and in the manner I
have done it. If I have offended any
good
Ixiv
good Man, any friend to my per-
fon, or my Caufe, it is a facriflce to
Duty, which yet I muft never re-
pent of having made, tho' the dif-
pleafure of a friend be the fevereft
trial of it. I know what that man
has to expert both from Infidelity
and Bigotry r , who engages WITHOUT
RESERVE in the fervice of Religion.
Benefacere et male audire has always
been the lot of fuch Adventurers.
^^ But I have long fince taken my par-
ty : " Omnia praecepi, atque animo
" mecum ante peregi. Nee recufo,
" fi ita cafus attulerit, lucre poenas
" ob honeftiffima fadla, duni FLA-
" GITIOSISSIMA ULCISCOR."
7- 4> 1755-
|/ ^.
uL^^f
DEAR SIR,
LE T me firft claim your thanks for
fparing you fo long on the chapter
of Lord Bolingbroke ; and then aik
you, what you now think of this paper
Meteor, which fo flames and fparkles;
and, while it kept at diftance, drew af-
ter it the admiring croud ; like a Comet,
croffing the celeftial Orbs, and traverf-
ing, and domineering over the eftablifhed
Syftem ; in the prefage of fuperftitious Di-
vines, denouncing peftilence and ruin to the
World beneath ; but in the more philofo-
phic opinion of his followers, re- creating and
reviving the drinefs and fleritity of exhauft-
ed Nature.
Unde hasc MONSTRA tamenj vel quode
fonte, requiris.
Your love of Mankind makes you fee this
new Phenomenon with horror. And you.
afk, Is it for this, that fucha torrent of ab-
ufe has been poured out upon every private
Character, upon every public Order, upon
every branch of Learning, upon every Syftem
[B] of
2 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
of Philofophy, and upon every Inftitution
of Religion ? They were not poured out at
hazard, for all thefe things flood in his way :
they were not poured out in .vain, for they
are given for Argument l s- f and will, I make
no doubt, be fo received. The wife Quin-
tilian, it is true, has obferved, Propriam
MODERATIONEM, QJJjEDAM CAUSJE defi-
derant. And it muft be confefled, that if ever
Moderation, and temperance of expreffion,
became an author, or was well fuited to his
difcourfe, it was when the purpofe of his
work, like that of his Lordmip's, was to
overturn all ESTABLISHED RELIGION,
founded in the belief of a Sovereign Matter,
fupremely jujl and good-, and all ESTA-
BLISHED LEARNING, employed for the de-
fence of fuch Religion: And, on their ruins,
to erect NATURALISM, inflead of real The-
ifm, and a FiRSTPHiLosopHY,infteadof real
Science. When, I fay, a Writer had thought
proper to infult the common fentiments of
Mankind, on points efteemed fo eflential to
their well being, common policy, as well as
common decency, required, that it (hould
be done by the moft winning infinuation and
addrefs ; and not by calling every man, who
would
PHILOSOPHY. 3
would not take his fyftem upon truft, MAD-
MAN, KNAVE, FOOL, and BLASPHEMER.
But fuperior Genius's have been always
deemed above the reftraint of rules. Stilly
obferves, thatARCfisiLAS, fitted by a turbu-
lence of temper, to confound the peace, and
overturn the eftablimed order of things, had
done that mifchief in PHILOSOPHY, which
TixusGRACCHUs had projected in the RE-
PUBLIC [j], ButhisLordfhip, prompted by
a nobler ambition, would play both parts in
their turns, and fhine an Arcefilas and a
Gracchus too.
His ill fuccefs in bufinefs (from which, as
he tells us himfelf, he never defifted, while
he bad hopes of doing any good) forced him
to turn his great talents from POLITICS to
PHILOSOPHY. But he had not yet mor-
tified that Ambition which was always
prompting him to afpire to the head of
things : and he carried with him that fufH-
ciency, and thofe refentments, which had
proved 16 ill fuited to the Cabinets of
Princes, into the Clofet of the Philofopher.
We may add, that he entered upon Let-
[i] Turn exortus eft, ut in Optima Rep. Ti. Grac-
chus qui etiam perturbaret, fie Arcefilas, qui nnftitK-
tav. Philofophiam cverteret.
[B 2] tm
4 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
ters in an advanced age ; and this flill fur-
ther viciated his natural temper by an ac-
quired infirmity, to which, as Tully ob-
ferves, fuch late Adventurers are extremely
fubjecl. OYIMA0EIE autem homines fcis
Q^UAM INSOLENTES ftit : " You know,
' fays he, how INSOLENT thofe men ge-
< nerally are, who come late to their book."
But now having given you my thoughts
of his Lord (hip's affuming temper, it would
be unfair not to give you his own ; efpecially
as he has been fo ingenuous to make no fe-
cret of it. He had kept, it feems, ill
company ; and his natural candor and mo-
defly had been hurt by it. But let him tell
his own ftory: " I grow VERY APT TO
<c ASSUME, by converfing fo much with
" ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS, who af-
" fume muchoftener than they prove [2]."
But whatever caufes concurred to form this
temper, certain it is, that his contempt of others
was become fo habitual to him, that it ope-
rates where no reafonable provocation can be
affigned. I have (hewn yon, in my firft Let-
ter, at what a rate, his difgult to the Morals,
and his averfion to the San&tons, of the
GOSPEL, difpofed him to treat all who had
[2] Vol.iv. p. 504.
contributed
PHILOSOPHY. 5
contributed to propagate, or to fupport, Re-
velation. But how the honeft PAGANS of
antiquity had offended, who, many of them,
believed no more of a future Ji ate than him-
feJf, is a little hard to conceive.
Yet PYTHAGORAS, he tells us, was a
turbulent fellow, and a fanatical fubverter
of States.
Nor did PLATO'S delirious brains [3] fe-?
cure him from becoming, on occafion, a
paultry cheat, and a mercenary flatterer. For
almoft all his Madmen are Knaves into the
bargain. But Plato had made himfelf noto-
rious, by the blafphemous title he had given
to thzjirjt Cauje, of the FIRST GOOD. So
that his Lordmip regarded him as at the
head of that wicked Sect, who afcribe mo-
ral attributes to the Deity.
Even SOCRATES, whole glory it was, as
Tully afTures us, to take PH ILOSOPH Y out
of the clouds, and bring it to dwell amongft
cities and men, fubjlituted (in his Lord-
ihip's opinion) fantaftic, for real know-
ledge [4] and entertained and propagated
THEOLOGICAL and METAPHYSICAL ??0-
tions, which are not, mofl certainly^ parts of
NATURAL THEOLOGY [5], We under-
[3] Vpl.iv.p. 88. [4.] Vol. iv. p. 112. [5] Vol.
IV. p. 122.
[B 3] itand
6 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
fland his Lordmip very well. He means a
particular Providence and a. future ftate :
the moral attributes of the Deity, and the
fubftantiality of the Soul. This apparently
was thefantajlic knowledge 'which makes no
fart of natural theology,
When thefe pagan Heroes fare no better,
who would be concerned for Church- men?
or much difturbed to hear CYPRIAN called
a Liar and a Madman [6] ; JEROM, a fur*
/y, foul-mouthed Bully ; and EPIPH AN jus,
an Idiot?
But now comes on a difficulty indeed. *
PAUL and PLATO bear their crimes in their
countenance. The Gofpel of Peace \ he tells
us, produced nothing but Murders ; and the
idea Qi&frft Good was the occafion of all
evit. But what had SciPio and REGU-
LUS done, to be cafhiered of their Dignities ?
They were neither artificial TMogers, nor
yet mad Metaphyjicians j but plain, fober
Statefmen. His Lordfhip's quarrel,we know,
is with DIVINITY in all its forms ; but he
profeffes to admire the moral Virtues. And
if there are any of higher eclat than the reft,
and in which his Lordfhip would be more
particularly ambitious to mine, they mufl
needs be CHASTITY and GOOD FAITH,
[6] Vol, iv. p. 407.
/>
Cm
PHILOSOPHY. 7
Cui, Pudor, et Juftitiae foror
Incorrupta Fides> &c. &c.
Yet he wrefts all his reading to deprive thofe
two brave Romans of their high reputa-
tion, when they had fo fairly earned it by
the fevereft trials. I am not ignorant of that
childifh infirmity of our nature, a fondnefs
for ingroffing to ourfelves thofe {hining
qualities with which we may happen to be
dazzled ; but I can hardly fufpect his Lord-
fhip of fo felfifli and infantine a project;
much lefs would I fuppofe him capable of
thinking, that SCIPIO and REGULUS may
be ftill thofe very great men, they have been
taken for, though flained quite through
with lujl and perfidy.
It is true, indeed, the new Hiftorian of
Great Britain, another of ft&fe firft philofo-
fhy-men (for the eflence of the Seel confid-
ing io paradox, it mines as well in Hi/lory
as Divinity) he, I fay, tells us, that it will
admit of a reafonable doubt, whether feve- ...
rity of manners alone, and abftinence from
pleafure, can defers the name of Virtue [i ].
[i] The Hi/lory of Great Britain y Vol.i. p. 200
4to. printed at Edinb. 1754.
[B 4] Bat
8 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
But then he is as fingular in his notions of
Religion. He holds but two fpecies of it in
all nature, Superjiition and Fanaticifm ; and
under one or other of them, he gives you
to underftand [7], the whole of Cbriftian
profeffion is, and ever was, included. On the
Church of England, indeed, he is fo indulg-
ent, to beftow all Religion has to give. For
when he fets it againft Popery it is Fanati-
cifm : but as often as it faces about, and is
oppofed to Puritanifm, it then becomes Su-
perjiition ; and this as conftantly as the oc-
cafions return.
You will fay I grow partial to his Lord-
fhip, in appearing fo anxious for his reputa-
tion, while your two favorite characters
expire under his pen.
Never fear it. They have not lived fo long
to die of a fright. When his Lordmip bluf-
ters we know how to take him down. It is
only leading him back to that Antiquity he
has been abufing.
Half the work is done to my hands ; an4
I fhall have only the trouble of tranfcrib-
ing the defence of Scipio againft his Lord-
fhip's fufpicions, as I find it in an expoftula-
tory letter to him, on his recent treatment of
a deceafed friend.
[7] See his Hiftory throughout.
4
PHILOSOPHY. 9
** 1 "be reputation of the Jirft Scipio (fays
* c his Lordfhip) was not fo clear and uncon-
^ tr overfed in PRIVATE, as in public life;
ct nor was he allowed by all to be a man of
" fuch fever e virtue as he ajfefted, and as
that age required. Ncevius was thought
" to mean him, in fome verfes Gellius has
c< preferved ; and VALERIUS ANTIAS made
<{ no fcruple to ajfert, that far from rejloring
" the fair Spaniard to her family^ he debauch-
" ed and kept her. P. 204, of the Idea of a
" Patriot King. One would have hoped fo
' mean a flander might have flept forgot-
ct ten in the dirty corner of a poor Pe-
" dant's [8] common place. And yet we
*' fee it quoted as a fa<ft by an Inftructor of
" Kings. Who knows but at fome happy
" tkne or other, when a writer wants to
* c prove, that real friendjhip becomes a
" great man as little as real chaftity [9],
ce this advertifement [10] of yours may be
" advanced to the fame dignity of credit
" with the calumny of Valerius Antias. If
" it fhould, I would not undertake to dif-
<e pute the fad: on which fuch an infer-
?' ence might be made ; for, I remember,
[8] A. Gellius. [9] Seep. 201, of the Patriot
King. [10] Advertifement concerning Mr. Pope,
prefixed to the Patriot King.
" Tully,
io A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
" Tully, a great Statefman himfelf, long
ago obferved, Vera amicitia difficilli-
c me reperiuntur in its, qui in republica
" verfantur. But the words of Naevius
* were thefe,
M Etiam qui res magnas manu fape gejjit
" gloriofe,
* Cujusfatfa viva nunc vigent j qui apud
" gentesfolus
<e Pr aflat : eum fuus pater cum pallia urn
* ab arnica abduxit.
" Thefe obfcure verfes were, in Gellius's
ee opinion, the fole foundation of Antias's
'* calumny, againft the univerfal concur-
" rence of Hiftorians. His ego *uerfibus
" credo adduftum Vakrium Ant i at em AD-
" VERSUM CETEROS OMNES fcriptores de
' SCIPIONIS moribut fen/fffe. L. vi. c. 8.
< And wh^ he thought of this hiftorian's
<e modefly and truth, we may colledt from
" what be fays of him in another place.
e Where having quoted two tribunitial de-
" crees, which, he tells us, he tranfcribed
** from Records [ex annalium monument is]
M he adds, that Valerius Antias made no
" fcruple to give them the lye in public.
' Vale rius autem Antia f, contra bane deer e-
2 forum
PHILOSOPHY. u
" forum memoriam contraque auttoritates
" ^eter um annalium dixit^ &c. L.vii. c.
"19. And Livy, in his xxxvi tk book,
" quoting this Antias, for the particulars
" of a victory, fubjoins, concerning the num-
" her flain, Script or i par urn fidei Jtf, quia
" in augendo non alt us intemperantlor eft.
" And he who will amplify on one occafion
* will diminim on another ; for it is the
c< fame intemperate paffion that carries him
" indifferently to each extreme [i]."
REGULUS'S virtue comes next under his
Lordftiip's cenfure: " I know not (fays he)
4< whether Balbus would have called in que
" ftion the STORY OF REGULUS. Vid. Au.
11 Gellium. It was probably fabulous, in
r many circumftances at leaft, and there
c< were thofe amongfl the Romans who
" thought it to be fo [2]." Would not
any one now imagine, by his Bringing Au,
Gellius again upon the ftage, that there was
another Valerius Antias in referve, to de-
pofe againft REGULUS likewife? juft the
contrary. The Grammarian, in the iv th
chapter of his 6th book, confirms the com-
mon ftory, with an addition, by the teftimo-
[l] A Letter to the Editor of the Letters on the Spi-
rit ofPatriotifm t the idea of a Patriot King, and the ft ate
tf Parties, &c. [2] Vol. v. p. 406.
nies
12 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE''S
flies of the Hiftorians Tubero and 'Tudtta-
nus. The truth however is, that his Lord-
fbip had his Voucher, though he be fo
fliy of producing him. It is the refpeft-
able Mr.ToLAND; to whom his Lordmip
is much indebted for this, as well as
better things. Amongft the pofthumous
tracts of that virtuous writer, there is a
Diffkrtatna] intitled, The fabulous death of
dtilius Regulus : in which, from a frag-
ment of Diodorus Siculus, preferved by
Conftantinus Porphyrogenitus, he endea-
vours to prove, .againft all the Roman writ-
ers, with Cicero at their head, that Regulus
did not die in torments, but of mere chagrin.
Toland only denied that his virtue was put to
fo fevere a trial ; but this was enough for his
Lordfhip, to call in queftion the whole fto-
ry ; and to add, that there e weretbofeamongft
the ROMANS who thought it to be fabulous,.
Unluckily, the Roman writers are unani-
mous for the truth of the ftory. How then
fhall we account for his Lordfhip's affertion ?
'Did he take Diodorus Siculus for a Latin
writer, becaufe he had not feen him in
Greek ? Or did he underftand A. Gellius as
quoting lubero and 'Tuditanus for doubters
of the common flory ?
His
PHILOSOPHY. 13
His Lordfliip's ambition was uniform
and fimple : it was only^ as we faid, TO
BE AT THE HEAD OF THINGS. As he
comes nearer home, therefore, he is more
and more alarmed. He found his place al-
ready occupied by certain Counterfeits and
Pretenders, who had, fome how or other,
got into the throne of Science, and had actu-
ally received homage from the literary world.
But he unmafks and depofes them with as
much eafe as contempt.
" SELDEN, GROT ius,PuFFENDORF, and
" CUMBERLAND (fays his Lordfhip) feem
" to be great writers, by much the fame
" right as he might be called a great
<f traveller, who mould go from London to
" Paris by the Cape of Good Hope [3]." I
can hardly think they took fo large a com-
pafs. But let us truft to the Proverb:
They and his Lordmip, never fear, will
prove it between them, that the far theft
way about is the nearejl way home. He
{hews us a ready road indeed, but it leads to
Atheifm ; whereas, if they take us a lit-
tle about, they bring us fafely home tolfe-
ligion.
[3] Vol.v. p, 68.
He
14 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
He profefies " a thorough contempt for
c the whole bufinefs of the learned lives of
f SCALIGER,BOCHART, PETAVIUS, UsH-
" ER, and MARSHAM [4].'* His con-
tempt is well grounded : for having put
himfelf to fchool to them, and learned no-
thing, it was natural for him to think,
there was nothing to be learnt. One may
furely be allowed to fay, he learnt nothing,
when we find him ignorant even of the firft
elements of thefcience, the meaning of THE
YEAR OF NAEONASSAR ; which being on-
ly an JEra to reckon from, he miftook for a
periodical revolution of an artificial Tear [5].
But what need we more? Thofe to
whom he is moft indebted ; whom he moft
approves, and whom he honours with the
title of Majler, all mare in one common
compliment, of infufficiency and abfurdity.
MARCILIUS FICINUS, he calls the beft
Interpreter of Plato " y but, at the fame time
affures us, he was perfettly delirious. But
why, you afk, is Ficinus the beji Interpreter
[4] Vol. ii. p. 2612.
[5] " Berofus pretended to give theHiftory [of
c< the Babylonians] of four hundred eighty years :
" and if it was fo, THESE YEARS WERE PROBABLY
" THE YEARS OF NABONASSAR." Vol. ii.
"f
PHILOSOPHY.
of Plato, fince y. Scaliger, who knew fbme-
thing of the matter, fays, that he Jlript bis
Majlcr of bis purple , and put bint on bit
own beggarly rags ? For a good reafon ;
Ficinus taught his Lordfhip all he knew of
Platonifm. But why is he then perfectly
delirious ? For a better flill : he holds opi-
nions which his Lordfhip condemns.-
His favorite BARROW, he tells us, " goes
" on, a long while, begging the queftion,
cc and talking in a theological cant MORE
" WORTHY OF PAUL than of a man like
<c him [6]- flimzy fluff, which a man is
<c obliged to vend, when he puts on a black
" gown and band [7]."
LOCKE and NEWTON, he infmuates,were
his Heroes : Nay, fuch is his condefcen-
fion, that he profefTes himfelf the pupil of
the former. Yet this does not fecure Locke
from being mighty liable to a PH ILOSOPHI-
CAL DELIRIUM [8]. And as for NEW-
TON, the APPLICATION of bis Philofophy
is grown, or growing into fome abufe [9],
Would you know how ? By affording
CLARKE and BAXTER certain principles
[6] Vol. iv, p. 278. [7] Vol. v. p. 361. [8] Vol.
lii. p. 442. [9] Vol. Hi. p. 374.
whereby
1 6 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
whereby to demonftrate, that the Soul is an
immaterial fubjiance. An abufe indeed !
But BACON and LOCKE, as much as he
admires them, he is not blind (he fays) to
their errors ; but can, without being dazzled,
difcern SPOTS IN THESE SUNS.
Before I go any further, I will lay you a
wager I know what thofe fpots are. They
are, or I am much miftaken, no other than
the ftains of Faith and the impurities of Re-
velation. But let us hear him. <c I can di
" cern a tincture, and fometimes more than
< a tincture, inBACON, of thofe falfe notions,
"which we are APT TO IMBIBE as MEN, as
" INDIVIDUALS, aSME-.&ERS OF SOCIETY,
and as SCHOLARS. I caa difcern in LOCKE
" fometimes ill-abftradted and ill-determiD-
tc ed ideas, from which r wrong application
" of words proceeds j and proportions to
" which I can, by no means, affent. I con-
" fefs further, that I have been, and ftill
c am at a lofs, to find any appearance of
<c CONSISTENCY in an author, who pub-
limed a COMMENTARY ON THE EPI-
" STLES OF ST. PAUL, and a treatife on
"the REASONABLENESS OF CHRISTIANI-
TY (which he endeavours to prove by
< l fact and by argument) AFTER having
" flated
PHILOSOPHY. 17
" ftated clearly as he has done, the con-
" ditions and meafures of hiftorical pro-
" bability ; AND AFTER having written
" as ftrongly as he has done againft the
" abufe of Words [i]." Did not I tell
you fo !
" This SUN'S fick too:
" Shortly he'll be an EARTH :
as the Poet has it, in his defcription of the
peftilence at Thebes ; not more fatal to
great C ities than this bloated Vapour of a
Jirft Pbilofopby, which mimics, and, as he
reflects, defiles that SUN of Science, and
turns Nature into Prodigy.
Et SOLEM geminum et duplices fb
oflendere THEBAS, &c.
But his Lordfhip's account of his other
Luminary, BACON, is ftill more extraordi-
nary He thinks he difcerns in him a tinc-
ture, find more than a tinfture of thofefalfe
notions* which we are apt to imbibe as MEN,
as INDIVIDUALS, < MEMBERS OF SOCIE-
TY, and as SCHOLARS. That is, as
Men, we are apt to think we have a SOUL 5
[ijVol.iv.p. 1 66,
[C] *8
1 8 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
as Individuals, we are in expectation of a
FUTURE STATE; as Members of Society,
we are inclined to reverence the ESTA-
BLISHED RELIGION ; and as Scholars, we
are taught to reafon, and not to HA-
RANGUE. If any of his Lordfhip's Fol-
lowers can give a better account of this
ftrange pafTage, I am very ready to re-
fign the office I have here aflumed, of
being for once his Commentator.
In truth, his Lordmip deals by RELI-
GION, and it's Advocates, as a certain
french Author, I have red, does by AL-
CHEMY and the hermetic Philofophers ;
he brings almoft every great name into
the number j . and after having entertained
his reader much at their expence, con-
cludes each various eulogy, alike, 1 "
*' Now his folly was in hoping to extract
- <c Gold from bafer metals :" as the folly
of all his Lordmip's Alchemtjls is the
hope -\ of bettering, human nature by
GRACE.
You now, Sir, underftand, how well
the difpofition of his mind and temper was
fitted to his Syftem. They feem indeed
to be tallies, and act mutually upon one,
another,
PHILOSOPHY. . 19
another, as caufe and effect, in their
turns.
It often happens, that men who ar-
raign Religion, have been firft arraign-
ed by it ; and their defiance of tfrutb
is only a reprifal upon Conference. Un-
der thefe circumftances it is no wonder
they mould go to work much out of hu-
mour; tho 'it be in an affair which requires a
perfect calmnefs of mind, and freedom from
all perturbation. But his Lordmip has the
miferable advantage of being the firft who
has written under one intermitting fit of
rage and refentment. In this ftate, like a
man in a fever, whom no pofture can eafe,
whom no fituation can accommodate, he
is angry at PHILOSOPHERS for explaining
what they cannot comprehend ; he is
angry at DIVINES for believing without
explaining. Well then, they change
hands ; the Philofopher believes, and the
Divine explains. No matter. He is an-
gry ftill. In this temper then we leave
him, and turn to the proper fubjecT: of my
Letter.
You would know, you fay, with what
abilities he fupports his Syftem,
[C 2] The
2O A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
The attacks upon Religion have always
been carried on, like war, by Stratagem
and Force. I fliall firft therefore fpeak of
his Arts, and then of his Powers of con-
troverfy.
It has been obferved how clofely, and
how humbly, he copies the FREE-
THINKERS who went before him; even,
to the flaleft of their worn-out flrata-
gems.
When FREE-THINKING firflwent upon
it's miffion, the PUBLIC were not difpofed
to underftand raillery on a fubjecl: of this
importance : fo that it is poflible there might
be found amongft the more early of our
anti-Apoftles, a ConfefTor or two to the
glorious caufe of Infidelity. This put
their Succeflbrs on their guard; or, what
was better, gave them a pretence to affeft
it. From henceforth you hardly fee an
Infidel-book which is not introduced with
the obligations, the Reader has to thefe
fervants of Truth, for venturing fo far
in his fervice, while the Secular arm-
hovers fearfully over them; With the
difadvantages their caufe muft lye under,
while it can be but half explained and
half fupported ; and with the wonders they
I have
PHILOSOPHY. 21
have in referve, whigh only keep back
and wait for a little more Cbriflian Liberty.
This miferabje Crambe made fo con-
flant a part of our diet, and had been
difhed up from time to time with fo
little variety, that it grew both ofFenfive
and ridiculous j for what could be more
naufeous than to feign an apprehenfion of
the Magistrate's refentment, after they had
writ at their eafe for almoft a century toge-
ther, with the moft uncontrolled and un-
bridled licence?
In this ftate of things could you eafily
believe his Lordmip would pride himfelf in
cooking up this cold kitchen-fluff, and
ferving it again and again, in the midft of fo
elegant an entertainment. <c GASSENDI
" (fays he) apprehended enemies much
* e more formidable than mere Philofo-
< phers, becaufe armed with ecclefiaftical
<c and civil power. It is this fear which
ct has hindered thofe who have combated
" ERROR in all ages ; and WHO COMBAT
<c IT STILL, from taking all the ADVAN-
<c TAGES which a FULL EXPOSITION OF
<f THE TRUTH would give them. Their
adverfaries triumph as if the goodnefs of
their caufe had given them the Victory,
[C 3] when
1C
22 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
" when nothing has prevented their EN-
" TJRE DEFEAT, or reduced their con-
" teft to a drawn battle, except this, that
ce they have employed arms of every kind,
<e fair and foul, without any referve 5
" while the others have employed their
" ofFenfive weapons with MUCH RESERVE ;
fc and have even BLUNTED THEIR EDGE
when they ufed them [2]."
The adverfaries [of Religion] (fays
cc he again) feldom fpeak out, or pufh
" the inftances and arguments they bring,
<e fo far as THEY MIGHT BE CARRIED. In-
<c (lead of which thefe ORTHODOX BUL-
" LIES affect to triumph over men who
" employ but PART OF THEIR STRENGTH,
<c
t(
And having, after his Matters, thus
feigned a fear, hzfeigns all the precaution
of doubling and obliquity, which fear
produces. He profefles to believe the
Miffion of Chrift, tho' founded on the
difpenfation of Mofes, a difpenfation he ri-
dicules and execrates : He profefles to be-
Jieve the doctrines of Chritt, tho' he rejects
his gift of life and immortality ; He pro-
fefles to believe him the Saviour of the
[2] Vol. iv. p. 162. [3] Vol. Hi. p. 273.
WorH,
PHILOSOPHY. 23
World, tho' he laughs at the dodtrine of
Redemption which conftitutes the eiTence of
that character.
Well fare the New Hlftorlan of Great
Britain ; who having writ without control
againft Miracles, and even the very Being
of a God, gratefully acknowledges the blef-
fing 5 and owns that We now enjoy TO THE
FULL that liberty of the Prefs which is fo
NECESSARY in every monarchy cvnfaed by
legal limitations [4] . It is excellently obferv-
ed too, let me tell you, that tho' the Mo-
narch mould be confined by legal limitations,
yet the writer for the Prefs mould not.
It would be endlefs to enter into his
Lordfhip's fmall arts of controverfy ; yet it
may not be amifs to touch upon one or
two of them ; fuch I mean as are of more
general ufe and the readieft fervice.
The firft is, 70 honour the name when
you have taken away the thing : As thus,
To exprefs the higheft devotion to God 9
when you have deprived him of his moral
attributes : the greateft zeal for Religion,
while you are undermining a. future jlate $
and the utmoft reverence for Revelation,
when you have ftript it of miracles and
prophefas.
[4] The Hijlory of Great Britain. Vol. i. p. 213.
[C 4] 2, A
24 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
2. A fecond is, To dijbonour Perfons
and Opinions, the mojl refpettable, by putting
them into ill company, or by joining them
with dif credited follies. Thus, Divines and
Atheifts; Clarkians and Malebranchi?ns,
are well paired, and always fhewn to-
gether : In like manner, The propofitions,
that the 'world 'was made for man, and that
man was made for happinefs, are to be
boldly reprefented as two infeparable
parts of the fame fyftem. From whence,
thefe advantages follow, that if an Atheift
be odious, a Malebranchian mad, and the
propolition of the Worlds being made for
man, abfurd; the odium, the madnefs,
and the abfurdity fall equally on the Di-
vines, on Dr. Clarke, and on the propofi-
tion, that man was made for happinefs.
3. A third is, To bring the abufe of a
thing in dif credit of the thing iff elf. Thus
the vifions of the Rabbins are made to con-
fute JUDAISM; Popery and School-learning,
to decry the difcipline and doctrine C/CHRI-
STiANiTY} and the dreams of Malebranche,
Leibnitz, and Berkeley, to confute the waking
thoughts of CUDWORRH, CLARKE, WOL-
LASTON, and BAXTER: For his Lordfhip
is juft fuch aconfuter Q{ Metapyfcs, as he
would
PHILOSOPHY. 25
would be of Ethics or Chemiflry, who
fhould content himfelf with expofing the
abfurdities of the Stoics, and the whimfies of
the Alchemifts, and yet fraudulently forget
that there are fuch Authors, as CICERO and
BOERHAAVE. To overturn a FUTURE
STATE, he employs all the fuperftitious fa-
bles of the Poets and the People, concern-
ing it: To difcredit REVELATION, he enu-
merates all the Importers, and Pretenders
to revelation in all ages : And to difhonour
DIVINE WORSHIP, he is very particular in
defcribing the rites and ceremonies of the
antient Church of Egypt, and the modern
Church of Rome. In a word, you are furc
to find, on thefe occafions, every fort of
topic, but what the fober and intelligent
Reader requires j Confederations drawn from
the nature of the thing itfelf.
You would expect, however, that, when
the ABUSES of things have done him fuch
fervice as to ftand, where he has placed
them, for the things themfehes, he would
for once, at leaft, fpare the AUTHORS of
the abufe, if it were only for the fake of
carrying on his fraud. If you expecT: fo
much, you are miftaken in his Lord-
ihip. He can, in the fame breath, call
tbi
\\\cabufes of Revelation and the Gofpel, by
the names of Revelation and the Go/pel, and
rail at the Clergy or at the Divine who has
introduced thofe abufes.
4. Another of thefe fmall arts, (and
with this I (hall conclude my account of
them) is the covering his own fuperficial
knowledge (and oftentimes hh thefts) 'with
calling thofe who pretend to more, vain fu-
percilious pedants. Thus having largely
pilkged a modern Writer, in his account
of the Pagan MYSTERIES, he fubjoins,
" To attempt a minute and circumftantial
<c account of thefe Myfterie^ and even to
<c feem to give it, would require much
ce greater knowledge of Antiquity than I
cc fretend to have, or would take . the trou-
" bit of acquiring. They who attempt it
" have been, and always will be, ridicu-
** loufly and vainly employed, while they
" treat this fubjecl: as if they had affifted
*' at the celebration of thefe Myfteries, or
* had at leaft been drivers of the Afs who
* carried the MACHINES and IMPLE-
* c MENTS that ferved in the celebration of
them [5]."
Jt doubtlefs became him well, to talk
[5] Vol. iv. p. 58.
Z magifte*
PHILOSOPHY. 27
magifterially OH a fubject of which he
understood nothing but what he learnt
from the Author, he abufes. How-ever,
he is nearer the truth than ufual, when he
fays, that the author is as particular, as if
he had been at the unloading of the Afs, &c.
for though he was not at that ceremony,
yet he had his accounts from thofe who
were. But jefting is dangerous on learned
fubjecls, and in a fecond-hand wit, when
he ventures to employ the ideas of Antiqui-
ty. He talks of this Afs as carrying the
MACHINES and IMPLEMENTS, for the ce-
lebration of Myfteries j machines which
were for the entertainment of fifty or fixty
thoufand people, at a time, in a great va-
riety of reprefentations. The'common La-
tin proverb might have taught him, that
what the Afs carried were the Books of the
Myfteries ; which if only as bulky as thofe
of the/r/2 Philofophy, were load enough in
confcience for any lingle Afs. But I agree
with his Lordmip, it is not eafy to fpeak
of thefe Myfteries without verifying the Pro-
verb [6].
Thus far for a fpecimen of his Lord-
fhip's arts of controverfy. But as a good
[6] dfmus portat myjleria*
Mimic is commonly a bad Aft or and a
good juggler a bad Mechanic, fo an artful
Caviller is as generally a very poor Reafoner.
You will not be furprized therefore, if,
in examining his Lordfhip's Pbilofophic
Char after i under the feveral heads of his
INGENUITY, his TRUTH, his CONSISTEN-
CY, his LEARNING, and his REASONING,
we find him not to make fo good a figure,
as in the profeffed art* of Controverfy.
I. Of his INGENUITY, which comes
firft, I mall content myfelf with only one
or two inftances; for his arts of contro-
verjy, of which you have had a tafte, are a
continued example of it.
i . Speaking of the Chriftians of the Apo-
flolic age, he thus reprefents their cha-
racter and manners. <{ Notwithstanding
" the fandity of their profejfion, the
" GREATEST CRIMES, CVCD that of IN-
" CEST, were practifed amongft them [7]."
Is it poflible (you afk) that his Lord-
fhip mould give credit to the explod-
ed calumnies of their Pagan adverfaries ?
Think better of his fenfe and candour :
he alludes to no fuch matter. St. PAUL
AS his Authority; and he quotes chapter
[7] Vol. iv. p. 513.
and
PHILOSOPHY. 29
and verfe, to fupport his charge. This
but increafes your furprize. It is very
likely : for Philofophers, as well as Po-
ets, of a certain rank, aim at nothing
but (as Bays exprefTes it) to elevate and
furprize. Who would not conclude, from
this reprefentation, that the firft Chriflians
began their profeffion in a total corruption
of manners; and that, like the Magi of
old, it was a law amongft them to mar-
ry their Mothers and Daughters. Where-
as the fimple faft, as St. Paul frates it, in
his firft and fecond Epiftles to the Corin-
thians, was this, A certain man had mar-
ried his Father's wife -, (but whether be-
fore or after his converfion, the writer fays
not) and on the Apoftle's reprehenfion,
convinced and afhamed of his folly, he re-
pented, and made fatisfadion for the fcan-
dal, he had occafioned.
2. Again, thefe wonderful Ess AYS tell us,
that when JESUS fpeaks of legions of An-
gels, it is the language of PAGANISM ; but
when Lord BOLINGBROKE fpeaks of num-
berlefs created intelligencles fuperior to man,
it is the language of NATURE : for, this,
his Lordfhip affures us, h founded on what
ive know of atfual exifttnce. We are led to
it
30 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
// by plain, dire ft, unforced ANALOGY. But
that of Jefus ftands on no other foundation >
pbilofophically fpeaking, than of a MERE
POSSIBLE exiftence ofjucb fpirits y as are ad-
mitted for divers THEOLOGICAL USES. [8]
But why thefe different meafures, the one
for himielf, and the other for his friends,
the Divines ? His laft words let us into the
fecret. His philofophical intelligencies are
a very harmlefs race ; but the Chriftian
Legions are much given to theological mif-
chief. Minijlring Angels bring in, what
he can by no means relifh, a particular,
and a moral providence. God's phyfaal
Providence, and the civil providence of the
Magiftrate, make the only Government he
acknowledges : Now his Intelligencies, like
Epicurus's Gods, are always at an idle end j
but Angels are too bufy and meddling, to
be trufted, under his Lordfhip's Philofophic
Adminiftration.
You cannot however but be pleafed to
find, that the method of reafoning by
Analogy, which you had caufe to think
his Lordmip had totally difcarded, from
the hard language he has fo often beftowed
upon it, is brought again into favour ; and
now does wonders.
[8] Vol. iv. p. 179.
PHILOSOPHY. 31
3, It not only opens the door, as we fee,
to his Lordfhip's Intelligencies, by * plain*
direft, and unforced, application, but it fhuts
it againft Jt/us Cbrifis. x< I only intend to
< ihew (fays he) that fince men have not
<c admitted, in favour of Revelation, a
*' Syftem of PHYSICS that is inconfutent
" with philofophic truth, there is no rea-
* c fon for admitting, in favour of the fame
c< revelation, a Syftem of PNEUMATICS
< c that is fo, too [9],"
The favourers of Revelation would own
the inference, had his Lordfhip, in iiat-
ing the cafe, not begged the queftion. As
it is, they fay, his reafoning, when fairly
reprefented, ftands thus *' Divines rejecl
<c the Scripture Syftem of PHYSICS, which
tc THEY hold to be falfe, therefore, they
<f fhould rejedl: the Scripture-Syftem of
<f PNEUMATICS," which HIS LORDSHIP
holds to be falfe. Indeed, they conceive
this no better an argument than if you
was to fay, That becaufe Politicians, in
fpeaking of the firft fource of political power,
have called it thepnmum mobile, (alluding
to the old erroneous Syftem of Aftronomy)
and becaufe they have talked too of a ba-
. (9] Vol. iv. p. 181.
lance
32 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE"S
lance of Power, (alluding to the true prin-
ciples of Mechanics) therefore, if we reject
their Syflem of Aftronomy, we mould reject
their Syftem of Mechanics, likewiie.
II. Give me leave, Sir, to lead you next
and bring you to a place where you may
have an advantageous view of this noble
Philofopher's TRUTH, the very Soul of Phi-
lofophy.
i . " The Chriflian Theology (fays he)
" has derived a prophane licence from the
" Jewifh, which Divines have rendered fo
<c familiar and fo habitual, that Men BLAS-
* PHEME without knowing they blafpheme,
" and that their very devotion is IMPIOUS.
c The licence I mean is that of reafoning
" and of fpeaking of the divine, as of the
" human, nature, operations, and proceed-
<c ingsj fometimes with, and fometimes
' without the falvo of thofe diflinguifhing
" epithets and forms of fpeech, which
" can, in very few inftances, diftinguifh e-
<c nough. The Jewifh Scriptures afcribe
" to God, not only corporeal appearance,
< but corporeal adion, and all the inftru-
" mentsofitj eyes to fee, ears to hear,
<c mouth and tongue to articulate, hands
" to handle, and feet to walk. DIVINES
" TELL
PHILOSOPHY. 33
<c TELL us INDEED that we are not to
" underftand all this according to the lite-
u nz/fignification. The meaning is, they
" fay, that God has a power to execute
<c all thofe acts, to the effecting of which,
" thefe parts, in us, are instrumental. The
" literal fignification is, indeed, abomina-
" ble, and the FLIMSY ANALOGICAL
<{ VEIL, thrown over it, is ftolen from
"the wardrobe of EPICURUS - } for he
" taught, that the Gods had not literally
" bodies, but fomething like to bodies,
<{ quafi corpus: not blood, but fomething
" like to blood, quaji fanguinem [10]."
DIVINES fay, that God has no body nor-
any thing like to body^ but is IMMATERIAL,
EPICURUS fays, that his God, had not a
grofs earthly body, but fomething like to
that body, and was MATERIAL. Yet
" their flimfy analogical veil is flolen from
" the wardrobe of Epicurus." Truly a
very fubtle theft, which extracts MATTER
fromjiguratwe expreffion! and well fuited to
his Lordfhip's leger-de-main, which draws
an analogical veil out of a metaphor. In-
deed, to fit it the better to Epicurus s ward-
robe, he makes it but zjtimj'y one.
[10] Vol. v. p. 519.
[ D ] But
34 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROXE'S
But, let us now fee, the various fhifts
he has been reduced to, k in order to fup-
port his principal calumny, that Divines
jlole Jrom Epicurus the method of explaining
the nature of the Godhead.
He fays, when the Jewijh Scriptures
had given GOD a Body> the Divines found
out that it was not to be underftood lite-
rally. Whereas the truth is, that the Jew-
irti Scriptures themfelves declare GOD to
be a SPIRIT, or immaterial, in contradif-
tindion to body or MATTER. And the
beft of it is, that in other places, (as we
have feen jufb before) his Lordmip quar-
rels with the Scriptures on this very account,
for their Syftem of PNEUMATICS. Now
what did the L)ivin,s deduce from thence,
but This neceffary truth, that where the
yewijh Scriptures defcribe God's actions,
in accommodation to the grofs conceptions
of men, it is to be underftood as a mere
figure of fpeech. But this would not ferv
his Lordfhip's purpcfe ; which was, to
convict the Divines of nonfcnfe and preva-
rication.
He, therefore, turns, what the Divines
called METAPHOR which is a figure of
fpeech, into- ANALOGY which is a mode
of
PHILOSOPHY.
of reafoning, a flimfy analogical veil : and
Epicurus's ANALOGY, that the Gods had
not earthly bodies butfomething like them,
that is to fay, material, he turns into a ME-'
TAPHOR. Epicurus (fays he) taught that the
Gods had not LITERALLY bodies. Epicurus's
queftion was not about literal or figurative
expreffion ; but about fimilar and diffimi-
lar things. But You have enough, You
fay, of this great Reftorer of TRUTH, and
Reformer of REASON. Others may not
be fo eaiily fatisfied. However I will be
as fhort, on this head, as poffible.
3. THE JEWS (hisLordmip tells us) SUP-
POSED CRUELTY TO BE ONE OF THE AT-
TRIBUTES OF THE DEITY [10], Thefe
very JEWS themfelves fay, That the Lord is
gracious and full ofcompaffion ; flow to anger
and of great mercy : That he is good to all;
and his tender mercies are over ALL HIS
woRKsfij: That his mercy endureth for
EVER [2]: That the EARTH is full of the
goodnefs and mercy of the Lord [3] : That
bis mercy is from EVERLASTING TO EVER-
[10] Vol. v. p. 507. [i] Pf. cxlv. ver. 8, 9.
OJ Chron. Jer. Jiira, Pfalms, &c* [3] Pf.
xxxiii. ver. 5. cxix. ver. 64.
[ D 2 ] LASTING,
36 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
LASTING [4], Now, which of them will
YoU believe ?
4. " Superftition (fays his Lordmip) im-
<e perfonated chance under the name of
11 Fortune : and this chymerical Divini-
" ty was fuppofed to diredl arbitrarily
<c all the events, whofe caufes were
" not apparent, or which exceeded m
<c good or ill, the expectations of men.
* 4 The HEATHENS accounted, by it, for
" paft events ; confulted it about future ;
" and referred themfelves to it in doubt-
" ful cafes. It is ftrange that SUCH su-
" PERSTITIONS, inftead of being confined
c . c to the Heathen world, fhould have been
" AS PREVALENT amongft God's chofen
te People, both Jews and Chriftians j and
ct mould be fcarce exploded at this hour.
<{ It is ilranger flill, that a RECOURSE TO
" THE DECISION OF CHANCE fhould be
<c exprefsly commanded in the Old rfejla-
<e ment> and occafionally countenanced in
* c the New, even on fo important an occa-
" fion as the eledion of an Apoftle in the
*' place of Judas Ifcariot [5]."
4] Pf. c. ver. 5. ciii, ver. 17.
[5] Vol. iii. p. 476.
He
PHILOSOPHY. 37
He afferts, we fee, i . that the Jews and
m, as well as the Heathens , im-
perfonated Chance under the name of For-
tune : and 2dly, that their having recourfe
to Lots was having recourfe to the decifion
of Fortune.
As to the firft aflertion, it is fo remote
from all truth, that the cuftom of the
Jewifh People, in referring all events to
God and to him only and immediately, has
given a handle to Spinoza, Toland, and
others, to bring in queftion the very ex-
iftence of an extraordinary difpenfation.
As to \htfecondy we muft obferve that
LOTS are to be confidered in three differ-
ent lights : or, more properly, they are of
three diftincl: kinds.
One fort is a civil balloting, of general
ufe in States to prevent intrigues and parti-
alities. SORTEM pofaiffent, fays Tacitus,
ne ambitioni aut inimicitiis locus for et.
Another, is a fuperftitious appeal to
the imaginary Deity, Chance or For-
tune.
And there is yet another, which is a
reference of the event to Heaven, by
God's own direction and appointment.
[ D 3 J Of
38 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
Of the fecond t and only reprehenfible
fort, Revelation, as we have juft now
ihewn, is entirely innocent.
Of the firft, his Lordfhip, as a Politi-
cian, will not difallow the ufe : His quar-
rel, as a Philofopher, is with the third.
And he has no wayjo fupport his charge,
but by fophiftically reducing it into the
jecond ' that is^ reprefentin^ it as having
ajl the fuperftition of the (econd. Now in
this he begs the queftion. Are the
Jewifh and Chriftian Revelations true or
commentitious ? Commentitious, fays his
Lordfhip, for feveral reafons; and, amongft
the reft, for their authorizing; the Pagan fu-f
perftition of LOTS. What made the Pa -
gan fuperftition of Lots ? Their being the
i nventions of men, while they pretended
to be of divine appointment. Very well :
but the Jewilli and Chriftian Lots were of
divine appointment. Pretended to be fo,
if you pleafe, fays his Lordfhip, and this
puts them into the condition of Pagan
lots. Softly, my Lordj Your argument
muft not take that for granted^ which your
argument is employed to prove.
But his Lordfhip had his head full qf
that Mafter Sqphifm of the FIRST PHILO-
SOPHY
PHILOSOPHY. 39
SOPHY, which concludes againft the reafon
or juftice of a DIVINE COMMISSION, be-
caufe fubfequent Impoftors expofed it to
abufe by pretending to the like com-
mand.
For, according to the Logic and Theo-
logy of thefe Gentlemen, GOD muft not
caft out DEVILS, becaufe it afterwards
gave a handle for Popifh Priefts to juggle
with their Exorcifms. He muft not direct
a thing to be decided by LOTS, becaufe a
village-conjurer would afterwards employ
the Jieve andjhears. He muft not make
ufe of HUMAN INSTRUMENTS in punifhing
a people, abandoned to unnatural crimes,
becaufe an Arabian Impoftor would after-
wards pretend to the like commiffion. He
muft not inftitute a multifarious RITUAL,
tho' it was to keep a people feparate, and
to fecure them from the contagion of Ido-
latry, becaufe wicked Priefts and Politici-
ans would eftablifti fuperftitious ceremonies
to keep communities enflaved to civil and
religious Tyrants. Thefe fcrupulous Gen-
tlemen might as well have toid us, GOD
/hould not have given us Riches, Know-
ledge, and Power, becaufe there have been
[ D 4 ] fuch
40 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
fuch men as CHARTRES, SPINOZA, and
MULY MOLECH.
But to go on with his Lordfhip's ve-
racity.
5. He aflerts, that they [the Jews] made
beajh ACCOUNTABLE LIKE MORAL A-
GENTs[6]. He is aware that to mitigate
this abfurdity t as he exprefles it, both the
Jewim and Chriftian commentators fay,
the pain inflicted on beafts was to mew
the heinoufnefs of human crimes to blot
out the memory of a great fcandal to
punifh the owner for keeping an unruly
beaft, negligently. But he defpifes all
thefe folutions, as fo many pitiful evafions.
Would you believe now that in the fame
breath, and merely to mew his reading,
he fhould confute his own falfe afTertion ?
/ knew nothing more abfurd (fays he) than
this, except a cuftom or law at ATHENS.
*Tbe WEAPONS by which a murder had been
committed were brought into Court, as if tbey t
too, were liable to punijhment -, and the
STATUE that bad killed a man by it's fall,
was, by afolemn fentence of that wife people ,
the Tbafii, founded on a Law of DRACO,
caft into tbe fea. Now what was his
[6] Vol. v. p. 79.
Lordfhip
PHILOSOPHY. 41
Lordmip to prove ? That Mofes was fo
ignorant a Lawgiver, and the Jews fo
flupid a people, that they made beajls ac-
countable like moral agents. And he illuf-
trates it by a law of the moft celebrated
Legiflator and of the politeft People,
Draco and the Athenians ; who made
even weapons and jlatues, moral agents.
The Athenians and Draco perhaps would
have faid, that they enacted thefe laws to
(hew their ^bhorj^fj^ of^mjir^K^ and to
punijh the carelefs ereSter of a Jlatue^
Mere SHIFTS AND EVASIONS, fays his
Lordmip.
6. Again, " God (fays he) was FORCED
" to indulge the Jews in feveral SUPERSTI-
" TIOUS prejudices [7], as learned Di-
'* vmzsftruple not to affirm." Had learn"
ed Divines no more fcruples^ in affirming*
than his Lordfhip, I mould hardly have
undertaken their defence.
What ihzyfcruple not to fay is this
That IDOLATROUS WORSHIP was never fo
entirely corrupt, but that fome of it's Rites
fUll continued rational, or, at leaft, remained
innocent ; and might be ufed in the fer-
vice of the true God, without fuperjlition :
[7] Vol. iv. p. 30.
That
42 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
That the Ifraelites being fond of Egyptian
ceremonies, God indulged them in the
ufe of fuch as were harmlefs, and of no
other. Nay, his Lordftiip's cenfiire, which
follows, feems to (hew this was all their
crime. He calls thefe Divines bold Judges
of the principles and views of God's proceed-
ings\%]. For it is more than probable,
had they given him the advantage, he
fpeaks of, againft the Mofaic Law, they
had never incurred his difpleafure. But
in what does the temerity of thefe bold
Judges confift? In this, That God always
chutes to take the ordinary means, before
the extraordinary, when either may be
made indifferently to ferve his purpofe.
And that, therefore,, he rather chofe to
indulge the Jews in their fondnefs for old
habits, and to turn their propensities for
Egyptian Rites upon fuch as were innocent,
than to give them new habits, and new
propenfities, by a miraculous force impref-
fed upon the mind, which mould over-
rule their wills and affections.
7. WE KNOW (fays his Lordfhip) THAT
ALL THEIR [the Jews] SACRED WRI-
TINGS WERE COMPILED AFTER THEIR
[8] P. 32. tj
CAPTI-
PHILOSOPHY. 43
CAPTIVITY [9]. Balzac fpeaks of a cer-
tain Critic who ufed to boaft, that no body,
befides God and himfelf, knew the mean-
ing of this or that verfe in Perfius. His
Lordfhip's [WE KNOW] is juft fuch another
revelation. Only the Critic's meaning
might be true j but the Philofopher's know-
ledge is certainly falfe. A falfehood fo
notorious, that I am in fome doubt whether
this ftric~lure belong properly to his dog-
matic or to his laconic ftyle. For we
know, may fignify We know that the SPU-
RIOUS EsDRAsfaysfo. And then he gets
the two things he moft wants j a very ufeful
^rutbj and a very noble Authority.
8. " The Juftice, [of the great day] (fays
* { his Lordfhipj IF IT MAY BE CALLED
ce JUSTICE, moft certainly requires that
* { rewards and punifhments mould be
<e meafured out, in every particular cafe,
" in proportion to the merit and demerit
" of each individual. But inftead of this,
*' it is affumed, conformably to the doc-
<c trine of PLATO, that the righteous are
*' fet on the right hand of the Judge, and
? e the wicked, on the left 3 from whence,
j[ c they are tranfported into Heaven, or
[9] Vol. iv. p. 339.
" plunged
44 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
'* plunged into Hell. They are tried in-
" dwidually^ they SEF.M to be rewarded
" or punifhed coMetfivety, without any
" diftinftion of the particular cafes, which
" have been fo folemnly determined, and
<c without any proportion obferved be-
<c tween the various degrees of merit and
t demerit, of innocence and guilt, in the
<{ application of thefe rewards and pu-
" nifliments[io]."
Jf it may be called Juftice Marry, well
put in. For who knows but, as this is
the general day of accounts, and that men
fee, fuch a day will be much wanted ; who
knows, I fay, but, rather than be without
any, they may be foolifh enough to take
up with this ? They cannot therefore have
their prejudices in favour of it, rectified
too foon : Let us not cavil with him there-
fore, for bringing the juftice of this court
into queftion, before he has examined the
proceedings of it -, but rather content our-
felves with admiring the wonders of his
reafoning. Should I ferioufly quote the
Words of Jefus, In my Father's boufe
are many manfiom [ i ] : And again, T'he
fervant 'which knew his Lord's will, neither
[to] Vol. v. p. 495. [i] John xiv. 2.
did
PHILOSOPHY.
did according to his will, foall be beaten
with many Jlripes. But he that knew ?wf,
and did commit things worthy of Jlripes >
Jballbe beaten with few Jlripes [2] ; Should
J ferioufly, I fay, quote thefe words, to
illuftrate the truth of this noble writer's
obfervation, that men at the great Tribu-
nal feem to be rewarded or punijhed collec-
tively, he would, I fuppofe, have been
amongft the firft to laugh at my fimplicity;
at leaft, the intelligent Reader would not
thank me for my diligence.
III. I proceed now to his Lordmip's
CONSISTENCY ; the next quality in his
philofophic character. You have feen
with what bravery he CONTRADICTS all
other '*; you fhall now fee with what greater
bravery he CONTRADICTS hi?nfelf.
There are two things which characterife
the reafoning part of his Lordmip's writ-
ings, (if any part of fo declamatory a work
can be called reafoning) and diftinguifli
them from all other men's; His INCESSANT
REPETITIONS, and his INCESSANT CON-
TRADICTIONS. Indeed, thefe beauties
beget and are begotten of one another.
For when a man can furnifh out no better
[2] Luke xii. 47, 48.
enter-
4 & A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
entertainment for his Guefts than a par-
cel of groundlefs flams, he will be much
fubject to repetition-, and every repetition
as much fubject to 'variation ; for his tales
having neither foundation in Fad:, nor
meafure in Truth, they will be always
producing, for admiration j and alv/ays
new modeling, for convenience^ as beft
fuits his prefent paffions and purpofes.
His REPETITIONS I leave for the re-
frefliment of thofe who are difpofed to
read him through : This fhort fpecimen of
his CONTRADICTIONS I propofefor a more
general entertainment.
But as profeffed Anfwerers never abule
our underflandings and our patience more
than in this kind of difcoveries; it mav
j
not be amifs, to fay a word or two of a
Jpecies of accufation, which fuch men are
always ready to urge on the very flighted
occafion, for the convenience which at-
tends it ; the convenience of making an
Author confute himfelf when the Anfuserer
is unable fo to do.
Sometimes the imaginary inconfiftence
arifes out of the flow or cloudy apprehen-
fion of the Anfwerer^ when the Author is
too brief .or too refined : fometirnes from
the
PHILOSOPHY. 47
the .'inaccurate expreflion of the Author,
when the Anjwerer is too hafty or too cap-
tious. It fornetimes arifes from the An-
i werer's prejudices j and fornetimes again
from the Author's prevarication.
Nay (which is ftranger ftill) the more
exact the diftinctions are, and the more
correct the expreffion, (and the correcter
and exacter they will be in proportion to
the Author's knowledge of words and
things) the more mail the difcourfe abound
with thefe inconfijlencies. For a heavy or a
precipitate Anfaerer^ wiH never be able to
diftinguim SIMILAR things from IDEN-
TICAL.
Prejudice for a fet of Opinions may
make an Anfwerer miftake fome things to
be in Nature, what they are only in the
combinations of the Schools ; and finding
them confidered differently (that is, under
other aflbciations) by his adverfary who
may have no prejudices, or prejudices of
another kind, he will be extreme ready to
call thefe difference s, by the more com-,
modious name of contradictions ~
Laftly, the Author^ if he be a FREE-
THINKER, has a kind of right, by pre-
fcription, to two or three, or indeed, to
4 two
48 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
two or three dozen of Characters, as beft
fuits his purpofe, or errand : A practice,
which, being begun under a want of Li-
berty, was continued out of Licentioufnefs,
and is ftill kept up for the 1 fake of it's
Conveniences. Now if fuch a one be too
lazy to aflume a perfonated Character in
form, then, (as Lord Shaftfbury obferves)
a dull kind of IRONY which amufes all alike,
becomes his favorite figure of fpeech. But
with fuch a Writer, an inattentive or plain-
dealing Anfwerer may give himfelf much
trouble, to colled: his contradictions, and
all, to be well laughed at for his pains.
I have fairly marked out thefe various
delufions, that You may have it in you?
power to detect me, mould I be tempted
to impofe upon You, myfelf. Not that I
claim much merit from this fair dealing ;
for his Lordmip's CONTRADICTIONS are
fo grofs and fubftantial, numerous and
obvious, that I was under no temptation
to make out my fpecimen by any thing
doubtful or equivocal.
i. " I could not (fays his Lordfhip)
" have difcovered, as NEWTON did, that
44 unrverfal law of corporeal Nature, which
" he has demonftrated. But further than
i " that,
<c
<c
PHILOSOPHY. 49
c< that, he could go no more than I ; nor
" difcover the ACTION OF THE FIRST
" CAUSE, BY WHICH THIS LAW WAS IM-
"- POSED ON ALL BODIES, AND IS MAIN-
" TAINED IN THEM [3]." Here, he owns
ATTRACTION not to be a REAL or an
cffential PROPERTY OF MATTER, but the
aftion of the firft caufe upon it. Yet in
another place he obferves, that " AT-
<e TRACTION MAY BE, notwithftand-
<c ing all the SILLY abftract reafoning to '
the contrary, A REAL PROPERTY^OF
MATTER [4]." The truth is, that, for
any thing his Lordhip knew of this uni-
verfal Law, or of the^//y abftraft reafoning
concerning it, ATTRACTION might be
Action, Paffion, Magic, or the Man in
the Moon. He only followed his leader,
Mr. COLLINS, who difplayed the. fame
Philofophic fpirit in fpeaking of GRAVI-
TY, the effeft of <df fraction :. And CLARKE'S
animadverfion on his knowledge will ex-
actly fuit.his Lordmip's. " Not content
" to have erred fo very grofsly in the firft
c< foundation of all natural Philofophy ;
' ,you could not forbear profefljng further,
**: -that you have often admired that GRA-
[3] Vol. iv. p. 8. [ 4 ] Vol.iii. p, 547 .
[ E ] * VITATION
jo AViEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
" vi TAT i ON foould be ejleemed a matter
" of fuch difficulty among/t Philofophers ;
<c and that you think it to be Jo evi-
ce dent and neceffary an effeft of mat-
l . ter in conjlant motion perpetually Jlr iking
" one part again/I another , that you won-
fl dcr every body fiould not fee it. I fup-
cc pofe the reft of the world will no lefs
" admire atjy0#, for imagining that, by
" fo flight an admiration, you could at
<c once let afide all the proportions in that
" moft excellent book [the Principia of
" Newton] wherein it is made appear by
" flridtly mathematical demonftrations,
" drawn from the Laws of motion, now
c< agreed on by Mathematicians, and
<c eftablimed by experiments, and from
" the Phasnomena of the heavenly bo-
" dies j that the prefent operations of na-
c< ture, depending upon gravitation, can-
<l not pofTibly be mechanical effects of
" matter in conjlant motion perpetually
" Jlriking one part againfl another. Upon
" the whole, all that you have advanced
" about gravitation is fuch marvellous
<c reafoning, to be made ufe of in the
" prefent age, after fo many great difco-
" veries, founded upon experience, and
" cveix
PHILOSOPHY. 51
Cc even mathematical demonstration ; that
" tho' I have no caufe at all to be difplea-
" fed with you for arguing in fuch a man-
" ner ; yet, I believe, your readers cannot
" but think you might very well have for-
" born going but of your way, to give fo
" very difadvantageous a reprefentation of
" your own Philofophy [5]."
2. In one place, his Lordmip tells us,
that the right of the Ifraelites to the Land
of Canaan was founded on the PROPHECY of
Noah : in another, that it ivas founded on
the PROMISE to Abraham. Second thoughts
are beft. He feems here to be a little
nearer the truth. '- For tho' z promife may
intitle to a pofTeffion, I do not fee how a
prophefy can do more than foretel one :
Unlefs his Lordmip has fome ethical en-
gine of a new invention, to extend the
grounds of Obligation, unknown to GRO-
TIUS, SELDEN, and CUMBERLAND : yet
they travelled for it; and, if we may believe
his Lordfhip's account of their famous
Journey to Paris, fpared for no room in
laying foundations. But, in this affair of
the PROMISE, his Lordmip injinuates an
[5] Clarke's third defence of the immateriality and
natural immortality of the Soul, againft Collins.
[ E 2 ] untruth j
52 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
untruth ; which is a great deal meaner
than telling one : For he reprefcnts it as
capricious, arbitrary, and without any rea->
fon afligned.
3. " The Jews (fays his Lordfhip) as
cc oftep as they made God defcend from
" Heaven, and as much as they made
" him re fide on earth, were far from cloatb-
<{ ing him 'with corporeity y and imputing
11 corporeal vices to him [7]."
Yet two or three pages forward, fo
prevalent is the luft of abufe, he ex-
prefsly fays, they DID cloatb him with COR-
POREITY.
Thefe are his words : " The Jewifli
" Scriptures afcribe to God not only cor-
ft poreal appearance, but corporeal action,
<c and all the instruments of it j eyes to
ct fee, ears to hear, mouth and tongue to
Ci articulate, hands to handle, and feet to
" walk [8]." You will fay, perhaps, that
his Lordfhip meant, the Scriptures indeed
afcribed all this to God ; but in ajigurq-
tive, not in a literal^ fenfe. I would have
'laid fo too, but that his LordLhip goes on
rating the Divines for underftanding the
fcripture-reprefentation in & figurative fenfe.
[7] Vol. v. p. 515. [8JP. 5 i 9 .
Which,
<c
cc
PHILOSOPHY. 53
Which, too, he fhews does not mend
the matter j this figurative fenfe being
ftolen from Epicurus. Now we know
that Epicurus certainly believed the Gods
to be CORPOREAL (if he believed any)
tho' made of a finer fluff than mere mortal
bodies. " Divines (fays his Lordfhip) tell
" us indeed, that we are not to underfland
" all this according to the literal fignifi-
cation, &c. But this fimfy theological
veil thrown over the literal fignification
is ftolen from the wardrobe of Epicu-
rus [9]." His Lordmip's wardrobe
feems to be as rich as Epicurus's, in
VEILS: a little after, we have a very cu-
rious one, a thin and trite VEIL of analo-
gy : and he is ready to lend them to Di-
vines, as Lucullus did his cloaks t& th6
Players, by the dozen.
But whenever his Lordmip fpeaks of
CHRISTIANITY, a kind of fatality attends
him -, and his contradictions have then nei-
ther flop nor meafure.
4. Speaking of the loft Supper, he fays,
" The perfon by whom it was inftituted
" is reprefented fometimes under images,
ff that render it impoffible to frame any,
[9] P. 519-
[ E 3 ] of
54 A VIEW of L.
" of the EFFICACY, or even of the INSTI-
c TUTION} O f this Sacrament. Chrift is a
< *uine y he is a rock, nay he is a coat,
" according to St. Paul," &c.[io]. And
yet no further off than four pages, he fays,
tf There is no one [figurative expreffion]
<c perhaps in the whole Gofpel, : lefs liable
<e to any equivocal fenfe than that which
" Chrift employed when he faid, T/&/5 is
cc my body, and this my blood, in the very
<e act of giving bread and wine to his Dif-
<c ciples, who were at fupper with him,
" juft before his death, for a remembrance
ct of which, this ceremony of a fupper was
- <e then inftituted by him. The figure
< was eafy, the application natural, and
" they could not underftand the expreffioa
<< literally [ i ]. J>
His Lordfhip, as you may well think, has
commonly different purpofes to ferve by
his contradictions. Here it is one and the
fame : to difcredit a Gofpel inftitution :
which is equally done by fhewing it to
be myfterious, obfcure, and incomprehen-
fible, where it pretends to clearnefs and
precision ; and low, trite, and mean, where
It pretends to fomething auguft, peculiar,
[10] Vol. iv. p. 592. [i] P. 596.
and
tc
cc
PHILOSOPHY. 55
and in the higheft degree efficacious. All
the fault in this cafe, except his Lordfliip's
moft profound ignorance of the nature of
the Rite [2], is his bringing thefe two
curious obfervations fo near to one ano-
ther.
5. tc Chriftianity (fays his Lordfhip)
as the Saviour published it, was full
and fufficient to all the purpofes of it.
Its iimplicity and plainnefs fhewed that
" it was defigned to be the religion of man-
<c kind, and manifefted likewife the divi-
" nity of it's original [3]." This is very
gracious. Yet the Scene changes with his
Lordihip's humour ; and the Jimplicity
and plainnefs become dark, ambiguous^
and incomprehenfible. " That there are
<c many ambiguous expreffions, many dark
" fayings, in the Gofpel ; MANY DOC-
" TRINES, which reafon could never have
<c taught, nor is able to comprehend,
" now they are taught, cannot be deni-
" ed [4]."
[2] See what is faid of it, in the xth' difcourfe,
tn the principles of N. and R. Religion, preached at
Lincoln's Inn.
[3] Vol. iv. p. 450. [4] Vol. iv, p. 318.
[ E 4 ] "But
56 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
But let him recover his temper, and
Chriftianity brightens up again, and we fee
it reftored to his good graces. " The fyf-
tem of Religion (fays he) which Chrift
published, and his Evangelifts recorded,
is a compleat fyftem to all the pur-
<( pofes of true Religion ,. natural and re-
; vealed. It contains all the duties of the
" former, it enforces them by afferting
" the divine Miffion of the Publifher,
" who proved his affertion at the fame
cc time -by his miracles [5].'* But it is
only reftored to be as fuddenly depofed.
It's birth is fo far from being divine, that
he infinuates it to btfyuriottt, and neither
better nor worfe than a kind of Baflard
Platonifm. " It is aftonifhing to obferve
" the ftrange conformity between PLA-
" TONISM and GENUINE CHRISTIANITY
" itfelf, fuch as it is taught in the original
fe Gofpel. We need not ftand to compare
" them here: Particular in fiances of con-
" formity will occur often enough. In
" general, the Platonic and Chriftian Syf-
<e terns have a very near refemblance, QJJA-
" LIS DECET ESSE SORORUM [6].'' He
then goes on to fhew, that the common
[[5] Vol. iv. p. 314. [6] Vol. iv. p. 340.
Parent
PHILOSOPHY. 57
Parent of both was not REASON but EN-
THUSIASM.
Enthttfiaf?n, you will fay, is now fairly
brought to bed of twins, Platonifm and
Cbriftianity. No fuch matter. Genuine
Chriflianity was taught of God[j]. " As
* it ftands in the Gofpel it contains a
". compleat fyftem of Religion : it is in
*! truth the fyftern of natural Religion [8]."
Well then, we mail hear no more of this
Jifterly refemblance to Platonifm. Perhaps
not. But you {hall hear, and that foon,
too, of as great changes. This Chriftia-
nity is at laft found to be derived from
JUDAISM ; that very JUDAISM, which,
he had told us, was it felf raifed on
THEFT and MURDER " On the Re-
" ligion of the, Jews, and on the Au-
" thority of their Scriptures, Chriftianity
<{ was founded [9]." Again, They who
<c prefer the example and dodlrine of
f c CHRIST to thofe of PAUL, will find
?' reafon to think that the Mefliah in-
" tended rather to reform and to graft
** upon Judaifm, than to abolifh it [10]."
[7] Vol. iv. p. 3489. [8] Vol. iv. p, 316.
[9] Vol. iv. p. 317. [10] Vol. iv. p. 350.
And
5 8 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
And again ; He accufes PA u L for
preaching a new Gcfpel, called by the Apo-
ftle, my Go/pel: And this new, or pecu-
liar Gofpel, his Lordfhip tells us 'was the
Myftery of God' 3 purpofe to TAKE IN THE
GENTILES, fo INCONSISTENT with the de-
clarations and praflice */JESUS[I]. Yet
for all this, had Chrift's Gofpel " been
" propagated with the fame fimplicity
" with which it was originally taught by
" CHRIST, it would (he tells us) have
" been to the unfpeakable benefit of MAN-
" KIND [2]."
Let us now fum up his Lordmip's Doc-
trine concerning the GOSPEL OF JESUS.
" The Gofpel is fimple, clear, and of <//'-
vine original : But it is, at the fame time,
dark, ambiguous, incomprehenfible 5 and,
like it's Sifter Platonifm, the IJJue ofEntbu-
Jiafm.As Jefus publimed it, the Gofpel
is a compleat Syftem of Natural Religion,
and tends to the unfpeakable benejlt of
mankind: But as Jefus published it, the
Gofpel was only a reform of that Impof-
ture Judaifm, on which it was founded,
and was intended by Jefus to be confined to
the yetvijh People j it being PAUL, who,
[i] Vol. iv. p. 323. [2] Vol. iv. p. 316.
i in
PHILOSOPHY.
in direct contradiction to the declarations
and the pradifes of Jefus, turned it into a
compleat Syftem of Natural Religion, and
made it tend to the .unfpeakable benefit of
mankind, by extending it to the Gentiles."
And thus he goes on contradicting his own
aflertions, as faft as he advances them, from
one end of his EfTays to the other.
The fame felf-contradiclions, which con-
fute his own calumnies againft Chriftianity
ITSELF, flill follow him when he comes
to fpeak of the PROPAGATORS of Chri-
ftianity.
6. " He (fays this noble Lord) who com-
" pares the Epiftles of JAMES, of PETER,
" and JOHN, fuch as we have them, with
" thofe of PAUL, and all thefe with the
<{ doctrines of the GOSPEL, will be per-
haps of my opinion ; at leaft he will
have no ground to fay of the three firft,
that they were authors of NEW GOSPELS,
" as he will have grounds to fay of the
" laft, and as the laft does in effe<5t fay of
" himfelf [3]." What was this new Gof-
fcl ? It was, as we have feen juft before,
the Myftery of God's purpofe to take in the
Gentiles. JAMES, PETER, and JOHN,
[3] Vol. iv. p. 320.
. there-
<c
It
60 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
therefore, according to his Lordfhip,
taught not this myftery ; fo inconjiftent, as
he lays, with the declarations and practice
of Jefus. Yet foon after he confefies,
that JAMES, PETER and JOHN, did not
preach CHRIST'S Gofpel, but were, toge-
ther with PAUL, the Authors of this NEW
GOSPEL. For, fpeaking of the Council of
JerufaleMy he fays, The APOSTLES bad
given no directions to injift that the GEN-
TILES Jkould or Jhould not y fubmit to cir-
cumcificn, and to the yoaks of the Law [4].
Which necefTarily implies a confeffion,
that THEY too were Authors of this new
Gofpel, the Myftery of God's purpofe to take
in the Gentiles. The taking in the Gentiles*
he fuppofes a thing agreed on by all the
Apoftles : 'and that what was yet undone
was the fettling the precife terms of their
admiflion.
Our Unbelievers look fo monftroufly
afquint upon Religion, that the oppofite
rays of their prejudice are always difturb-
ing and confounding one anothers effecls.
Yet, in the general, it requires pains to
fix the contradictions which fpring out of
thefe fugitive crofs-lights. Commend
[4] Vol. iv. p. 3*4.
4 me
PHILOSOPHY. 6r (
me therefore to the Man who brings his
contradictions to a point j and requires no-
thing of you but eye-fight to comprehend
them in their full luftre.
His pro and con are always near neigh-
bours. So that we mall not be furprized
to find them at laft, in the following in-
flances, incorporated, as it were, into one
another.
7. ct I much doubt (fays his Lordfhip)
" whether the EVANGELISTS would un-
" derftand the Epiftles of St. PAUL, THO*
" ONE OF THEM WAS HIS SCRIBE [5]-" -
It Was faid of One, that he believed again/I
hope : a fubject of much mirth to our^r/?-
Pbilofopby-Men.
But what is that, to his Lordmip's
greater ftrength of mind, who can doubt
figainjl certainty I PAUL and LUKE a-
greed to preach the Gofpel together :
and not only fo, but that Lukes pen
fliould be employed to convey their com-
mon fentiments, and adventures, to po-
fterity. And yet he queftions whether
LVKE underftood PAUL'S EPISTLES.
r -, ir ,
I? I VoJ IV D 2C^
L^J ' F- .
Die
62 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
Die aliquem, fodes, heic Quintiliane, colorem
Hseremus
Some body, I fuppofe, might tell
him, that one of thefe Evangels was
Paul's Companion, his Amanuenfis and
Hiftorian. But his obfervation being too
good to be thrown away, he added with
infinite dexterity and addrefs tbo one of
them was his Scribe.
8. Again, Speaking of the MORAL AT-
TRIBUTES, the noble Lord obferves, " We
" make God fo much a copy of man,
" that we defign the worft, as well as
" the beft of our own features, if I may
" fo fay, in our reprefentations of him :
" and, as common as it is, no unprejudiced
" thinking man can hear, without afto-
'* nifhment, our perfections and our im-
" perfections imputed to the divine Being
u in the fame breath, and by the fame
" men ; with this difference at moft, that
<l the former are imputed directly, and
c< the latter fometimes under the THIN
" AND TRITE VEIL OF ANALOGY. In a
" Being thus conftituted, they may well
<c imagine that the moral virtues are the
" fame
PHILOSOPHY. 63
" fame as they are in our ideas : and
" Theology may eafily deduce, from his
cc attributes, the characters Theology has
" given them [6]."
We cannot^ fays his Lordfhip, 'without
afiomflvnent fee our perfections and our im~
perfections imputed to the divine Being.
His aftonifliment is all a flam. There
is, indeed, no fuch imputation, even in
his own reckoning. For tho' he pretends
the imperfections are imputed, yet, he fays,
it is under the thin and trite 'veil of analo-
gy. That is, not imputed. For when
Scripture fpeaks of the outjlr etched arm of
God, and his all-feeing eye, does it impute
arms and eyes to God, in the fenfe it im-
putes jujlice and goodnefs to him ? Yes,
fays he under the thin and trite veil of
analogy, i. e. Not in the fame fenfe. As
if we fliould fay, His Lordmip AFFIRMS
under the thin and trite veil of a DE-
NIAL.
This, Sir, is a very fcanty fpecimen of
his Lordmip's CONTRADICTIONS. Yet
no man appears to be more fenfible of the
difgrace which CONTRADICTIONS bring
upon a writer. For, fpeaking of the
[6] Vol; v. p. 89.
whole
64 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
whole COLLEGE OF APOSTLES, he fays,
Thefc inconjljlent Writers talk often a dif-
ferent language on the fame fubjett ; and
CONTRADICT in one place what they have
faid in another [5].
. IV. His Lordfhip's profound LEARN-
ING comes next to be confidered.
i. The firft inftance I {hall give, is
fetched from the very penetralia of ihejirjt
Philofophy. " Human knowledge is fo en-
" tirely and folely derived from actual BE-
" ING, that, without adual Being, we
" fhould not have EVEN ONE of thofe iim-
" pie ideas, whereof all the complex and
" abflradt notions that TURN OUR HEADS
<f are compofed [6]."
Here, his Lordfhip cried eugwa, and
fliould have facrificed a Bull for his dif*
co very: which informs us of no lefs a
truth than this, that if we had had no Being
*we Jhould hai}e had no fenfation : in other
words, that qualities cannot exift without a
fubjlance. For if, by aftual being he did
not take in the thinker's own, the obferva-
tion is falie : a rational Being, tho' exifting
iangly, has yet the idea of his own exift-
ence. But the obfervation is every way
[5] Vol. iv. p. 489. [6] Vol. iii. p. 411.
extra-
PHILO s OP HY. 65
extraordinary. He fuppofes our fimple ideas
to be real ; he fuppofes our complex and
abftrafl notions to be compounded of the
fimple ideas j and yet he fuppofes that the
compofition has TURNED OUR HEADS.
Till now, I underftood it was fantajlic,
and not real knowledge, which turned
men's heads. But I forget -, His Lordfhip
found the whole World in a frenzy j and
then indeed it is hardly worth while to en-
quire what fet them a going.
2. " The PAGANS (fays his Lordfhip)
" do not appear to have interpolated the
" antient Dofiors of Paganifm j nor is there
<e any pretence to fay that THEY have
" impofed any fpurious books on the
" world, under the name of thofe Doc-
" tors [7]."
ORPHEUS and MERCURIUS TRISME-
GISTUS were certainly Pagan Dotfors,
if ever there were any. And did his
Lordfhip never hear, that the Books,
Hymns, and Poems, come down to us,
under their names, were Pagan forgeries ?
I will not infift upon the SIBYLLINE ORA-
CLES, which CICERO affures us had been
interpolated, (for the Pagans interpolated
[7] Vol. iv. p. 195-.
[F] their
their very forgeries) becaufe I do not know
to what conditions his Lordfhip confines
the Dotforate in the Pagan World, or whe-
ther he admits the fair fex to the honour
of the Hood.
However, let us not think him fo
unlearned as not to have heard of thefe
forgeries. He had both heard of them,
and confidered them well : And as he is
always for putting the faddle on the right
horfe, (as where he afcribes atheifm to the
Divines) he charges all thefe iniquities on the
CHRISTIANS. " It was (fays he) to pro-
" mote the Opinion, that all the Myfte-
c< ries of their [the Chriftians'] Religion,
<c had been revealed by the writings of
" Pagan Philofophers many centuries be-
" fore Chrift, that fo many books were
cc forged under the names of Mercufius
" Tri/megi/lus, of Hyftajpes, of the Si-
< BYLS, and perhaps of others."
We are got a good way towards Doc*lo-
rating thefe old Woman: They are be-
come Philofophers, we fee But whether
the Chriftians were the only forgers of
Sibylline Oracles muft be left to be decided
between Tully and hb Lordfhip.
The
PHILOSOPHY. 67
The truth is, and who, that underftands
antiquity, ever doubted of it ? That fome
paganized Chriftians Jearnt this trade of
forging Books, under antient names, from
thofe whofe fuperftition they had left, but
not that fpirit of impofiure which fupport-
ed it.
3. " The [greek] Hiftorians, fays his
<r Lordfhip, obferving how fond their
" countrymen were of thofe who writ
" Fables, turned Hiftory into Romance ;
<c and fludied to make their relations mar-
" vellous and agreeable, with little regard
<c to truth, in which they were encourag-
<e ed, AFTER ALEXANDER'S EXPEDITION
INTO ASIA, by the difficulty of dif-
proving any thing they faid of coun-
tries fo remote [8]." A vulgar man,
and one of thofe his Lordfhip calls Pe-
dants, would have faid, BEFORE A-
LEXANDER'S EXPEDITION : becaufe the
difficulty in a great meafure ceafed AFTER
that Conquerer had opened, and his Sue-
ceflbrs had kept open, a communication
with thofe remote countries.
4. He calls Ariftotle's Logic, " the
f* rules of a Dialectic that feemed to prove,
[8] Vol. iv. p. 1378,
[Fa] "and
<c
(C
68 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
" and D-ID PROVE indifferently either ki
<c favor of truth or error [9]". Exagge-
ration is one of hisLordmip's favorite figures
of fpeech : but here, pufhed a little too far ;
for, not content with faying that Ariftotle's
rules of fyllogizing (for that is what he
means by the rules of a dialectic) feemed
to prove, he will needs add, and DID
PROVE. Which fhews fuch a knowledge
of Syllogilm, as needed not the fol-
lowing inftance to fet it off. tc It muft not
" (fays he) be imagined, that he who
41 reafons, or feems, rather, to reafon
" clofely and confequentially, has there-
" fore truth always on his iide[i]" I
defire to know who ever thought he had,
who did not miftake (as his Lordfhip here
feems to do) the art of ranging arguments,
for the Art of fading them ? " No body
<c (his Majler Locke would tell him) can
" hinder, but. that SYLLOGISM, which
<c was intended for the fervice of truth,
" will fometimes be made ufe of, againft
" it. But it is NEVERTHELESS OM
" TRUTH'S SIDE, AND ALWAYS TURNS
<e UPON THE ADVERSARIES OF IT [2].''
[9] Vol. iv. p. 158. [i] P. 159.
[2] Second Letter to the Bp, of Worcefter, p.
312. 8 Ed. 1697.
6. Speak-
6gj
6. Speaking of Angels, his Lordfhip
thinks fit to hazard this Obfervation :
" There is another caufe of this PNEU-
<e MATICAL MADNESS, [the belief of
'* fuch Beings] the fondnefs of making
" man pafs for one of thofe Beings that
cc participated of the divine Nature. This
< had long pofleffed the heathen Theiftb :
" and IT POSSESSED THE CHRISTIANS
cc WITH MORE ADVANTAGE [3]."
This feems demonftration that his
Lordfhip either never read, or at leaft
never underftood, an antient Apologift.
The truth is, there was not one extrava-
gance in all Paganifm, which afforded fb
much advantage to the primitive Chrifti-
ans as this fond opinion of the antient
Philofophers, that the human Soul was
a part or portion of the divine nature \ nor
was there any, they were more eager to
xpofe : They laboured, indeed, with fo
much warmth, and fometimes with fo
little difcretion, that it hath given a handle
for fome learned moderns to pretend that
all the antient Fathers believed the natu-
ral mortality of the Soul [4], Well, but
[3] Vol. iv. p. 478.
[4] See Dodwell on this Subje&.
[F 3 ] if
yo A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
if the Chriftians were not poffej/ed 'with
this fondnefs, he will fhew you, at leaft,
they might have been pofiefTed with it,
and to more advantage too. .But this part
of his Lordfhip's philofophic Character,
his Reafoning, I am not yet come to.
However, as we are now upon the bor-
ders, it may not be amifs to umer it in
with this curious argument; which un-
dertakes to prove, that the impious notion
of the human Soul's participating of the
divine nature, pojfrjjed, or at leaft might
have pojjejjedy the Chriftians with mere ad-
vantage, than it did the heathen Theifts.
What then, do you think it is ? You
will hardly guefs. It is this, rfhat Chrijli-
ans are wont to ASSUME that man is com-
pounded of body and SOUL [5]. Well, it
muft needs be allowed, that till we af-
fume, man has a Sou/ y we can never be
pofJefTed with an opinion that his Soul
A *JJ >.U 4
participates of the divine Nature. So much
then is admitted, that fince Chriftians hold,
man is compofed of foul and body, they may
be pofft'JJed ivith advantage. But how
it mould be with more advantage, than
the Heathens, I cannot comprehend. Did
[5] Vol. iv. P . 478.
not
PHILOSOPHY. 71
riot They, as well as the Chriftians, hold
that man was compofed of foul and body ?
We need not, I think, any other proof
than this notion, of participation imputed
to them. For they could not, fure, be
fo abfurd to hold that, nothing might
participate of fomething. However, of
this I will not be over pofitive, fince his
Lordmip tells us, they all laboured un-
der an incurable PNEUMATICAL MAD-
NESS.
V, Such an efcape of his Lordfhip's
logic, muft needs awake us to expect
great things from this laft capital accom-
plimment of the Pbilofopber, his ART OF
REASONING: to which, we are now ar-
rived.
i. He will prove againfl: LOCKE,
that the notion of Spirit involves more
difficulty or obfcurity in it than the no-
tion of body. Nay, he fays he will make
LOCKE prove this againfl himfelf, that we
have more and clearer primary ideas belong-
ing to body than we have of thofe belonging
4o immaterial Spirit. And thus he argues,
** Primary ideas are the ideas of fuch qua-
** lilies as exift always in the fubflance to
{ F 4 ] which
72 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
f< which they belong, whether they are
t perceived or no. They are therefore
<c eflential to it, and productive, by their
< operations, of thofe iecondary qualities
" which may be faid only to exift in our
< perceptions of them. Of the fir ft fort
tc are folidity and extenfion, to mention
" no others, the primary qualities, and, in
< our ideas the offence of Matter, of which
" we can frame no conception exclufively
" of them. Thefe notions I have TA~
fc KEN FROM MR. LOCKE, and they lead
<e me to afk what the primary ideas are of
< fpirit or immaterial fubftance ? The
< Primary idea or the effence of it is
11 THOUGHT; as body is the extended^
<c this is the thinking fubftance, -SAYS
" DBS" CARTES. THOUGHT then, AO
* e TUAL THOUGHT, is the effence of the
- <c foul or fpirit, and, by confequence, fo
< infeparable from it, that we cannot
u conceive the Soul or Spirit to exift
< feparately from, or exclufively of,
" thought. f But this I know to be
* untrue : and I may well own, fince
tf Locke has owned the fame, that I
f < have cne of tbofe dull Sou/s that does
PHILOSOPHY. 73
<f not perceive itfelf always to contemplate
ideas[6]r
Won't you naturally fufpecl him of foul
play, when you find him employing the
language of one Philofopher, to confute
the fentiment of another ? He is arguing
againft LOCKE concerning the equal or
fuperior evidence of the primary qualities
of Body and Spirit, and he takes DES-
CARTES'S definition of the primary quali-
ties of Spirit, to make out his point.
In plain truth, he puts the change upon
us : he ufes thought, or acJual thinking^
for the faculty of thinking. It is this
Laft which is effential to the foul and infe-
parable from it : It is this laft, which be-
ing a power is properly predicated of art
Agent : It is this laft which Locke under-
ftood to be the primary idea ofafpirit or
immaterial fubftance, when he faid that
the notion of Spirit involves no more diffi-
culty nor obfcurity in it than that of body :
And it is the laft, of which it may be
truly faid, that we cannot conceive the foul
or fpirit to exift feparately from, or exclu-
Jively of it.
[6] Vol. iii. p. 510 n
2. His
74 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
2. His Lordmip owns, that it is above
humanity to comprehend that virtue,
whatever it be y whereby one Being acts
upon another, and becomes a caufe.
" Whatever knowledge (fays he) we ac-
<e quire of apparent caufe s, we can acquire
cc none of real caufality : by which, I
* c mean, that force, that power, that vir-
" tue, whatever it be, by which one Be-
<f ing ACTS on another, and becomes a
cc caufe. We may call this by different
<c names according to the different effects
<{ of it ; but to know it in its firft princi-
" pies, to know the nature of it, would
" be to know as God himfelf knows, and
therefore this will be always unknown
to us in caufes that feem to be mo ft under
<c our infpeffion, as well as in thofe that
are the moft remote from it [7]."
\Vould you believe, now, that it was
but a little before, in this very Effay, that
for want of this knowledge, (which
yet to affect even in caufes that feem to be
moft under our infpeftion, would be to
affect knowing as God himfelf knows) he
denies the Soul to be a fubftance diftinct
from body. " They (fays he) who hold
[7] Vol. iii. p. 551.
c< the
<c
cc
7J
ec the hypothefis of two diftindt fub-
" fiances MUST EXPLAIN in fome tolera-
" ble manner, which they have not yet done,
" the union, and MUTUAL ACTION ON
" ONE ANOTHER, of unextendcd and ex-
<c tended Beings, or elfe deny the abfolute
<e exiftence of any thing extrinfical to the
mind [8]."
That is, thofe who hold the hypothefis
of two diftindt Subftances muft either do
that which he holds no Being but the
omnifcient can do , or they muft run mad j
or (which I think is fomething worfe)
they muft furrender up themfelves to his
Lordfhip's guidance.
He employs the fame arms to com-
bat INSPIRATION j and with the fame
advantage. The Notion of which is
idle and vifionary, becaufe tc He has no
" more conception of this fuppofed AC-
" TION of the divine, on the human
" mind, than he has of the infpiration by
" which the Holy Ghoft proceeds from
<{ the Father and Son, according to the de-
" cifion of the council of Florence."
That is, he reje&s Infpiration becaufe he
does not comprehend that virtue by which
[8] Vol. Hi. p. 521, 2.
[F 6]
76 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
one Being afts upon another and becomes a
Caufe j altho' he owns none but God can
comprehend it.
But his argument againft the exigence
of the SOUL, and the reality of INSPIRA-
TION, is doubly faulty. For not only, to
reject a revealed truth, when the pro-
pofition in which it is contained is unac-
companied with that explanation of the
caufe which our faculties are INCAPABLE
of comprehending, is folly and extrava-
gance j but, to reject it even then, when
the proportion is unaccompanied with the
explanation which our faculties are CA-
PABLE of comprehending, is unreafon-
able.
3. His Lordfhip endeavours to fhew,
that a future State was not the Sanction of
the Law or Religion of Nature. And how
does he go about it? tc Sanctions muft
<l be contained in the Law to which they
C belong; they muft be a part of it. In
" their promulgation, they muft precede,
" as the Law does, neceffarily, all acts of
" obedience, or difobedience to it ; they
<c muft be as public Thefe conditions are
" effential, there can be no fanction with-
" out them. And therefore the rewards
1 "of
PHILOSOPHY. 77
" of a future State, which have not thefe
" conditions, are no fandtions of the natu-
'? ral Law. Reafon and experience, that
" taught men this Law, (hewed them
l( the fanclions of it. But neither of them
< pointed out thefe . Have we any grounds
11 to believe, that they were known to the
" antediluvian World ? Do they ftand at the
<{ head or tail of the SEVEN PRECEPTS
<c GIVEN TO THE SONS OF NOAH? Were
" they fo much as mentioned by Mo-
SES [9] ?"
Can you poffibly forbear laughing ? Had
he found a futurejlate in thejeven precepts
of Noah, or in the books ofMofes, be affured
he would have employed this lucky circum-
ftance to prove, that a future Jlate was not
the Sanction of the Law of Nature, but the
fandion ,of a pofitive Law, or of a pretend-
ed Revelation. For in the beginning of
this very fection, has he not attempted to
prove it was fo, from its being found
in the GOSPEL? <c God (fays he) has
" given a Law, the Law of Nature and
" Reafon, to all his human Creatures :
** the Sanctions of it are a NATURAL
*' TENDENCY of virtue to the happi-
[9] Vol. v. p. 512 13. "**'
[F 7] nefs,
7 8 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
nefs, and vice to the mifery, of man-
kind They are imperfect To fupply
the imperfe&ion [Revelation pretends]
" that there mufl be neceffarily fome/ar-
<c tber Janttions of this Law, and thefe are
" the rewards and punishments referved
" to a FUTURE STATE. Here is ample
" room for reflexions [10!." In truth
/ i_ j
there is : and I have jufl given you a very
obvious one, for a fample.
4. He tells us, that the worflrip of the
cne true God was not the firji Religious
Worft/ip. The BIBLE fays it was. No
matter for that. The BIBLE is a farrago
of inconfiftencies [i], " Metbufalem (he
" fays) faw both Adam and Noah, to
<l both of whom God revealed himfelf in
'* his Unity. Shew, the Son of Noah,
" lived even to the days of Abraham.
" Need I flay to (hew HOW IMPOSSIBLE
(f it is for any man IN HIS SENSES to be-
<e lieve that a tradition derived from God
Ct himfelf, through fo few generations, was
*' loft amongft the greateft part of man-
11 kind 3 or that Polytheifm and Idolatry
<c were eftablimed on the ruins of it in the
" days of Serug y before thofe of Abraham,
[10] Vol. v. p. 511 12. [i] Vol. iv. p. 19.
" and
t- L\ J ~
PHILOSOPHY. 79
*' and fo foon after the Deluge ? I mould
44 think it IMPOSSIBLE even for the Jews
" themfelves to fwallow fo many fables
" and fo many anacronifms. Since the
tf unity of God was not univerfally taught
" in thofe early days, it was not fo reveal-
" edj nor preferved in the manner af-
" fumed. [2]."
This account therefore, he tells us, is IN-
CONSISTENT with itfelfjj]. You will
wonder perhaps how it cbmes to pafs, that
thefe two proportions, The Unity was re-
vealed by God to Adam and the knowledge
of it was loji in a very few generations
fhould be fo unable to {land together. The
beft anfwer I can give you is, that his Lord-
hip was more attentive to his own paffionate
fpeeches no man in hisfenfes can believe
It is impqffible for the Jews themfehes to
fwallow fucb fables and anacronifms
than to the FACTS which occaiioned all
this refentment. The utmoft that even
Prejudice, in its fenfes, can make of the
Scripture account, is an IMPROBABILITY :
and this improbability, his Lordfhip him-
felf, but two pages afterwards, is fo good
to remove for us. He delivers it as
[a] Vol. iv. p. 20, [3] Vol. iv. p. 19.
a general
8o A VIEW of L. BOLINOBROKE'S
a general Truth, that " the Vulgar EASI-
* c LY embrace Polytheifm and Idolatry,
c< even AFTER the true doctrine of the di-
" vine unity has been taught and received ;
" as We may learn from the example of
cc -the Ifraelites : and fuperftitions GROW
" APACE, AND SPREAD WIDE, where
" Chriflianity has been eftablimed and is
" DAILY TAUGHT, as we may learn
" from the example of the Reman
" Churches [4].*'
Now, Sir, I argue thus, If amongfl
the Ifraelites^ Idolatry and Superftition fo
eafily^ fo frequently, and fo inftantaneoufly
Jucceededy to the worfhip of the true God,
and needed fuch fevere punifhments to
bring men back again to reafon, in a
place were many extraordinary means
were provided to keep them in their duty;
and if, amongft Chriftians^ Idolatry and Su-
perftition grow apace and fpread wide where
the true doftrine of the unity, is daily taught ,
how can we wonder that in fo few ge-
nerations., as from Adam to Serug, Polythe-
ifm and Idolatry bad eftablijhed themjehcs on
the ruins, of the Unity } and in an Age,
[4] Vol, iv.p. 22,
when
PHILOSOPHY. 8t
when we hear of no other provision for the
Truth than the long lives of the Patriarchs ;
and becaufe Metbufalemjaw both Adam and
Noab?
If You deny this to have been the cafe
of Jews and Cbriftiam, his Lordfhip tells
you, You are out ofyourfenfes : if you own,
this to have been the cafe of the Antedi-
luvians? You are out of your Jenfes ftilL
What is to be done? There is but one
way; which is, fubfcribing to his Lord-
fhip's Wifdom. But I have fomething
more to fay of this pretended INCONSIST-
ENCY. " Can any man in his fenfes
ic believe that a Tradition, derived
" from God himfelf, mould be loft in
<c so FEW generations, and so SOOM
" after the Deluge ?" Haw few, and
how 70077, I befeech your Lordmip ? I am
not captious : I have a fpecial reafon for
aJliing. The Chronology, of this pe-
riod, is not uniform or conftant ; there
is a wide difference in the feveral bible-
accounts : fo that I fufpect foul play as
well as inaccuracy, in your thus putting us
off with the vague reckoning of, Jo few,
*nd,fofoon.
82 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
To be plain, tho' theHEBREW Copy
makes it no more than three hundred
years from the Deluge to Abraham; yet
the SAMARITAN-PENTATEUCH, the SEPT
TUAGINT, and JOSEPHUS, reckon about
a tboufand : time more than fufficient to
fink the greatejl part of Mankind into Ido-
latry and Polytheifm, fo early as the days of
Serug* And here lies the difficulty, the
beft Chronologers agree in preferring the
Samaritan, the Septuagint and Jofepbus,
to the Hebrew Copy. But I forget myfelf :
His Lordmip has <c a thorough contempt
" for the whole bufinefs of the Learned
" lives of SCALIGER, BOCHART, PfiTA-
<c vius, USHER, and MARSH AM [5]. 70
'whom (he fays) the 'whole tribe of fcho-
lars bow with reverence, and confequently
he muft have the fame contempt for
CHRONOLOGY : Which, indeed, he has
{hewn on more occafions than one ; but
never to fo much advantage, as when he
fuppofed LIVY and TACITUS to have flou-
rifhed before VIRGIL [6].
[5] Vol. ii. p. 26 r, 2.
[6] See Df. NEWTON'S learned and judicioiSrs
Dffirtatiom OH the Prophefies, p. 33.
But
PHILOSOPHY. 83
But this by the way only. My bufi-
nefs with his Lordmip at prefent lies in
another quarter.
For, having thus (in his attempt to
fhew that the worfhip of the one true
God was not the firft religious worfhip)
thrown the BIBLE out of the account, he
goes on in this manner :
" If the inconfijlency of this account
" makes us reject it, we {hall find lefs
<c reafon to believe, on the Authority of
" p'ophane traditions , that the UNITY*
" OF GOD WAS THE PRIMITIVE FAITH
" of mankind. Revelations to the Fa-
" ther and to the Reftorer of the whole
*' human race might have eftablifhed this
" faith univerfally : but without Revela-
<c tion it could not be that of any one
" people, till obfervation and meditation,
<c till a full and vigorous exercife of Reafon
" made it fuchfy]."
The reafoning is truly admirable. The
fuppofed Fadl, as we find it in ANTIQUI-
TY, ftands thus, According to the BIBLE,
the worftiip of the -rue God was the firft
religious \vorfl5ip: C^ENTILE TRADITION
'''[?] Vol. iv. p. 20.
[ G 2 J fays
84 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
fays much the fame. Between thefe
two Teftimonies there is a natural and
ftrange connexion. The 'Tradition ap-
pears to rife out of the Written 'word:
For, as his Lordfhip well obferves, nothing
but a Revelation could ejlablijh this "Faith
univerfalfy, not even amongft one people, till
cbfervation and meditation had made it fa-
miliar to them. Here you have the Fact
proved in the ilrongeft manner a Fact can
be proved ; by the concurrence of two
Witnefles, coming from different quarters,
and ftrangers to one another's evidence;
which yet not only agree, but mutually
fupport each other. What would you
more ? ^Hold a little, fays his Lordfhip,
This boafted connection between facred
and prophane Hiftory has no foundation :
\hzfacred is not to be believed, becaufe in-
conjijlent : the prophane is not to be be-
lieved, becaufe it has no fupport but
what it receives from the Sacred. Thus
ftands his Lordfhip's reafoning, or, at
leaft, thus it would ftand had he urged
it to the beftr advantage. And to this,
I have already repli.ed, that his Lord-
fhip, in calling the Bible account incon-
\fijlent> is guilty of an abufe of of words :
that
PHILOSOPHY. 85
that all which his own premises infer is
only an improbability ; and this impro-
bability likewife, he himfelf fairly con-
tradicts and confutes. But I go farther,
and in defence of the Bible account ob-
ferve, that if what he fays be true,
That obfer nation and meditation and a full
and vigorous exercife of reafon, are necef-
fary to gain the knowledge of the UNITY,
in a natural way ; and that thefe qualities
are long a coming ; it is then highly pro-
bable, that the want of this obfervation and
meditation when the unity was revealed to
the firft Man, might be the occafion of
the fpeedy lofs of it. He exprefsly tells
us, that this truth has been fubjeft to
as fudden revolutions, when men were in
full pofleffion of it, with all their obfer-
vation, meditation^ and vigorous exercife of
reafon, at the height j and twenty other
peculiar advantages to boot.
But his Lordmip's general management
of this queftion, of the FIRST RELIGIOUS
WORSHIP, is too curious to be patted over
in filence j tho' it properly belong to a
foregoing Head. He difcufTes the point
at large, in two feparate Differ t atiom :
[03] each
86 A VIEW of L. BOLJNGBROKE'S
each of which is fo well qualified, and
fo fitly accommodated to the other, that
the fecond is a complete confutation of the
firfl. How this came about, is not unwor-
thy the Reader's notice. His Lordfhip
does things in order. He had firft of all
to difcredit the Mofaic account of the
Creation : And MOSES reprefenting the
ivorJJxp ^.ef the true God as the original
Religion, he fat himfelf to prove, that
Moles was both a fool and a liar. Soon
after, he had another Prophet to bring
into contempt, the Prophet ISAIAH, who
informs us, that the Jews were the only
nation under heaven, which had the wor-
Ihip of the one God ; and this truth EUSE-
BIUS takes upon his word [8]. His
Lord/hip will prove them to be miflaken.
And then he ranfacks all the dark cor-
ners, not of antiquity, but of thofe mo-
derns who have rendered antiquity frill
darker : in which he fucceeds fo well, as
to perfuade himfelf that the World, many
ages before the foundation of the Jewifh
Republic, had the knowledge of the one
Cod 5 nay, that there was no time fo
[8] Se? Dti. Leg. Vol. i. Part i. p. 165.
early
PHILOSOPHY. 87
early in which the one God was un-
known. In a word, he overturns, as we
-faid, and very completely too, every
thing he had written on the fame fubject,
in the other DiiTertation, againft Mofes.
But as all this is directly levelled at the
Author of the Divine Legation of Mofes,
I leave that Writer to do his own argument
juftice as he fhall find himfelf able.
5. I will now, Sir, give you one of his
Lordfhip's palmary arguments againfl RE-
VELATION.
" Can he be lefs than MAD who boafts
<c a REVELATION fuperadded to REASON,
" to fupply the defects of it, and who
*' fuperadds REASON to REVELATION to
" fupply the defects of this too, at the
ce fame time? THIS is MADNESS OR THERE
" IS NO SUCH THING INCIDENT TO OUR
(( NATURE [9]."
Now as every man, who believes RE-
VELATION, was in thefe circumflances,
his Lordfhip (and reafon good) conclud-
ed the MADNESS to be univerfat ; and
none but himfelf in their fenfes : and
ftanding thus alone he has thought pro-
per to give us frequent notice of this ex-
[g] Vol. iv. p. 172.
[ G 4 ] traordinary
88 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
traordinary cafe[io], Infanire me aiunt,
ultro cum ipfi infaniant. But if he will
needs reduce mankind to this fad alter-
native, I fhall make no fcruple to vindi-
cate our common nature, be it never fo
much at his Lordfhip's expence. For, as
to the body of mankind, who " hold that
<c Revelation was fuperadded to Reafon,
t to fupply the defects of Reafon ; and that
t{ Reafon was at the fame time fuperadded
<c to Revelation to fupply the defects of Re-
" velation," I am fo far from feeing in them
any of thofe unfavourable fymptoms, his
Lordfhip fpeaks of, that I think, whoever
had done otherwife had deferved, (at leaft,
on the principles of his Lordfliip's rigid
juftice) to be fent to Bedlam. Indeed
fome, for fo doing, have been actually
fent thither. For what, for the moft part,
are the religions inhabitants of that place,
but fuch, who, having fuperadded Reve-
lation to fupply the defecls of Reafon,
WOULD NOT SUPERADD REASON tO fup-
ply the defects of Revelation j but were
for making the Laws cf the Gofpel the
fole rule of all civil as well as of religious
- conduct.
[jo] Vol. iv. p. 316 353 377.
Let
PHILOSOPHY. 89
Let us consider how the cafe truly
flands.
The Religionift, his Lordfhip fays, boafts,
that Revelation was Juper added to Reafon,
to fupply the defeffs of Reafon. Very well.
Reafon then is the firft Building ; and Re-
velation, a fuper addition to it. Revela-
tion meddles not with the work of Reafon,
but fupplies us with new truths, where
Reafon flops (hort. And why was this
done? For the fake of an ADEQUATE
RULE OF LIFE. Is Reafon alone this
rule ? Then the fuperaddition of Reve-
lation was not wanted. Is Revelatioa
alone the rule ? Then Reafon was mend-
ed and improved to no purpofe. The
ADEQJJATE RULE therefore is compofed
of BOTH. But if fo, When Revelatioa
has been added" to Reafon to fupply the
defeats of Reafon, muft not Reafon be
added to Revelation to fupply the defeats
of Revelation ? Muft not two things, thus
related, be mutually applied to aid one
another's wants ? Reafon is the founda-
tion ; Revelation is the fuperftrufture. It
is agreed the fuperftru&ure is neceflary to
ferfeff the foundation. Muft it not be
owned
90 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
owned too, that the foundation is as ne-
ceflary to bear the fupeftructure ?
But, what is more, it is the GOSPEL it-
felf, and not artificial Theology, which pre-
fcribes this conduct to it's Followers. For
the Gofpel being to ferve (as is confefTed) for
a fuperaddition to the find building of
Natural Religion, it delivers no complete
fyftem of moral Law, (for which it
is fo often reproached by his Lordfhip)
becaufe the general parts of that fyf-
tem are to be found in Natural Religion.
For this defect, if it be one, St. Paul has
pointed out the remedy, the ftudy of
natural Religion, from whence, toge-
ther with the Gofpel, fuch a complete
fyftem may be collected. <c Finally,
" Brethren, whatfoever things are true,
'* whatfoever things are honeft, whatfo-
" ever things are juft, whatfoever things
" are pure, whatfoever things are lovely,
Ct whatfoever things are of good report ;
<{ If there be any virtue, if there be any
" praife, think on thefe things [i]."
What then is the fcheme of true CHRI-
STIANITY, but the Juper adding Revelation
to Reafon to fupply the defefls of it > and
[i] Phil. iv. 8.
PHILOSOPHY.
the fuperadding Reajon to Revelation to
Supply tbe defeffs of this too at the fame
time ?
Indeed, was REVELATION only a RE-
PUBLICATION OF THE RELIGION OF NA-
TURE, his Lordfttip's charge, tho' extra-
vagantly urged, would appear to have
fome foundation. For then Revelation
muft be fuppofed to be Religion of nature,
reftored and perfected : And then to recur
back to Natural Religion to rectify Revela-
tion, after Revelation had been introduced
to rectify Natural Religion, would have,
tho' none of the marks of madnefs, which
coniifts in arguing confequentially from
falfe principles, yet great fymptoms of
folly, which confifts in arguing like his
Lordftiip, from the true. But he owns
Chriftianity to be founded on the Prin-
ciple of REDEMPTION. Indeed he is as
variable in this, as in moft other points,
and as often reprefents it to be a republica-
tion of tbe Religion of. Nature : therefore,
as we have all along made the befl of his
Contradictions, e'en let him do the fame ;
for it feems not fit, he fhould be debarred
apy advantages of his own providing.
But
92 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
But let us fet his LordOiip's argu-
ment in another light j and turn from
his Philofopbic to his Legijlative Character ;
and fuppofe him to reafon thus, (for
change but the terms, and the reafoning
\vill hold juft as well in civil as in theolo-
gic matters.) " Can he be lefs than mad
** who boafts bfyftem of civil Laws fuper-
u added to the natural, to fupply the de-
" fects of it j and who fuperadds the na-
" tural to the civil, to fupply the defects
" of this too, at the fame time ?" Now
look, what figure the Politician would
make, who mould thus dictate to his Pu-
pils, even fuch a one does our noble The-
ologician make in dictating to all man-
kind.
Amongft the numerous abfurdities in this
famous argument, I don't know if it be
worth while to take notice of one in the
expreflion ; for as it feems not to be com-
mitted with defign, it hardly deferves the
name of a fophifm ; and that is, the re-
petition of the word SUPER ADDS : for tho',
after the fuperaddition of Revelation to
Reafon, Reafon may be faid to Rejoined
to Revelation ; it can never, I think, be
faid to be fuperadded to it. Becaufe this
2 would
PHILOSOPHY. 93
would be fetting the two Laws on one
another's fhoulders, and making each be-
come top and bottom in its turn ; and this,
after he had owned Reafon to be the foun-
dation-, and Revelation, the fuperjlrufture*
. 6. Another of his Lordfhip's general
objections to Revelation, is as follows:
<c It is not, (he fays) in any degree,
" fo agreeable to the notions of infinite
ct wifdom that God mould deal out his
Cc Revelations BY PARCELS, inftead of
" making a fyftem of moral Law, when
" he created moral agents, that might
" anfwer his WHOLE purpofe, in all cir-
<e cumftances of time, place, and perfonsj
" JUST AS HE MADE a phyfical fyftem of
<c Laws for the other part, the inanimate
c< part of his Creation [2]."
Now with his Lordmip's good leave, I
am bold to think the contrary to be more
probable : and that too on thofe very
principles of analogy, which his Lordmip
employs, to prove it Icfs probable. He
argues againft the likelihood of God's
giving the moral Law, IN PARCELS, be-
caufe the Phyjical Law was given AT ONCE.
This plainly proceeds on a fuppolition that
[2] Vol. v. p. 544.
the
94 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
the nature of the two fyftems is the fame
and that there is the like conftancy and
regularity in the moral as in the Pbyjical :
For unlefs there be the fame tendency to
order, or to ditbrder,in two general SyflemSj
the means of governing them can never
be the fame. But obedience to their re-
fpective Laws, in thefe two fyftems, is
not the fame : for pajjive MATTER, the
fubject of the phyjical, obeys, with fmall
irregularities, the Laws imprefTed upon it
by it's Creator ; but an a&ive MIND, the
fubjecl: of the moral, is perpetually deviat-
ing from that rule of right which the Go-
vernor of the world prefcribed for its ob-
fervance.
The method, therefore, of governing
in the two Syftems muft needs, according
to all our ideas of wifdom, be very dif-
ferent. And the difference which our
fenfes tell us has been obferved, is that
which natural reafon teaches us to con-
clude, fiould be obferved ; namely, to a
phy/ical fyftem (whofe fubjecl: would con*
ftantly and invariably obey) a Law given
AT ONCE : and to a moral fyftern (whofc
fubjecl inclined it to frequent diforders) a
Law given IN PARCELS j which might,
4 from
PHILOSOPHY.
from time to time, reform thofe diforders
as they arofe.
7. J fhall conclude my fpecimen with
his Lordfhip's more particular objections to
his Bible.
Speaking of the civil punifhment of
Idolatry, under the Jewifli Theocracy, he
fays, " God himfelf was the LEGISLA-
<c TOR. The Citizens, therefore, of that
" commonwealth, who apoftatized, were
" proceeded againft as traytors and rebels,
" guilty of no lefs than high-treafon.
" Let it be fo. The objections y of injujlice
" and cruelty i to thofe Laws will remain in
" their full j or ce^ and be of more weight
" to prove them HUMAN, than all thefe
" hypothefes to prove them divine. God
<c was KING, and idolatry was no lefs
<c than high treafon ; no objection there-
" fore can lye againfl the Puniihr
fi ment of it. None certainly, but every
" objection to the MANNER and DEGREE
" in which this punifhment was to be in-
" flicted, ftands good [3]."
Here his Lordfhip, to make amends,
as it were, for his frequent denial of the
right without underilanding the Cafe, has,
[3] Vol. v. P . 193.
for
g6 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
for once, ventured to agree toit^ upon the
fame terms. It hath been faid, " that God
" being KING of the Jews, idolatry was
" high treafon." To this, his Lordfhip con-
defcends. But to mew us how well he un-
derftood the principle on which it ftands,
he affirms thatGod's being their LEGISLA-
TOR made Idolatry high treafon. As if
the bare giving Laws to a people conferred
the MAGISTRACY on the Giver; or as if
there could be high treafon againft any but
the fupr erne civil Magijlrate. But you mall
fee more of his talent for PHILOSOPHIC
POLITICS, if it fall in my way (as perhaps
it will) to fpeak of his abilities in his owri
trade. It is his reafoning on the fubjeft,
not his general knowledge of it (things
rarely to be found together in his Lor-d-
fhip's Effays) that I now propofe to exa-
mine.
You obferve then, he owns Idolatry, in
Judea, to be high Treafon -, and the Punim-
ment of it (which is every where capital)
to be juft. But the manner and degree of
that punilliment he pronounces, both un-
jujl and cruel. Was this like a philofo-
phic Legiflator ! When the queflion is of
the
PHILOSOPHY. 97
ice or injujlice of a public Law, every
man of common fenfe., and endowed with
the inftinclive knowledge of right and
wrong > may pafs a true judgment on it ;
becaufe it ftands on the unalterable na-
ture of things : in human Laws, on the
relation between Magistrate and Subject ;
in divine Laws, on the relation between
God and man ; and in a Syftem of Laws,
like the Mofaic, on one and the other,
in conjunction. Now his Lordfhip, in.
paffing judgment on the cafe, upon thefc
principles, pronounces the Law againft
Idolatry to be right and equitable.
What can be more honourable for this
part of the Jewifti Syftem ? It is Lord Bo-
Hngbroke who decrees in favour of it ;
and is aided in his judgment by the plain-
eft and cleared principles. Hold, fays
his Lordmip; take this along with you,
^Tho no objection can lie againft the PU-
NISHMENT, yet every objection lies again/I the
MANNER and DEGREE oftf.
Let us fee then whether the latter
part of this decree {lands upon the fame
plain and clear . principles with the
former.
[H] To
98 A VIEW of L.BOLIN^BROKE'S
To judge truly of the manner and degree,
of a Punifhment, I apprehend, more is re-
quifite, than to judge of the Punifhment it
felf ; it requires an intimate acquaintance
with the People to whom this Law againfl
idolatry was given ; their manners, tem-
pers, difpofitions, prejudices, and fituation;
In a word, the knowledge of a thoufand
circumftances, which none but the Law-
giver himfelf could perfectly underftand -,
certainly, not this Politician of Yefterday.
So that, it appears, the juftice or injuftice of
the manner and degree of a punifhment is
not determinable on thofe fimple and fteddy
principles, which determine the juftice or
injuftice of the puni/Jment itfelf, but on
others, which take their different natures
of right and 'wrong from many fhifting
circumftances j from the degree of tem-
ptation in the object; from the degree of
prejudice in the affections -, of propenfity to
the Crime ; of malignity to the Syftem j and
from other various confiderations, of which
only thofe who are perfect ; in the know-
ledge of antient manners in general, and of
the Jewifh People's in particular, can form
any tolerable ideas.
This
HILOSOPHY.
This is enough to mew the folly of ca-
villing at the manner and degree of a pu-
nimment, after the punishment itfelf is al-
lowed to be juft and right. But this is
not all ; the very allowance of the punifi-
ment implies a prefumption in favour of
the manner and degree. The Punijhment t
examined, on plain and clear principles,
is found to be juft : admit now, the man*
ner and degree of it to be doubtful, for
want of knowledge fufficient to meW us
the neceffity, and confequently, \htjujiicc
of them. Is it not fair to infer, that
the Lawgiver, who obferved the rule of
juftice in the punimment itfelf, obferved
it likewife in the manner and degree of the
punimment r
But his Lordmip's cavil at the degree ',
will, perhaps, deferve our more particular
notice. Mofes makes the punimment, ca-
pital, but with no unufual circumftances
of cruelty attending the kind of death,
more than we fee inflidted for high treafon,
in all the Countries of Europe at prefent.
The inftance of Naboth mews it. to have
been attended with confifcation. This cir-
cumftance perhaps might have difgufted
his Lord(hip, But in a cafe, where he was
[ H 2 ] perfonally
ioo A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
perfonally prejudiced, he mould have mif-
trufted his own judgment j he Ihould have
tried the force of thofe arguments, by which
a great Lawyer had lately evinced, that
forfeitures for high treafon is perfectly juft
and equitable.
8. The noble Lord, haranguing on the
conditions of Hijlorical Authenticity, de-
livers this, for one of the chief, " That
". the Fads, the principal Fads at leaft,
<e be confirmed by COLLATERAL TES-
.". TIMONY. By collateral teftimony (fays
" he) I mean the teftimony of thofe who
ft had no common intereft of Country, of
" Religion, or of Profeffion, to difguife
" or falfify the truth [4]."
This condition of hijlorical Authenticity
will be eafily agreed to; as well as his de-
finition of collateral tejlimony : And the
quotations of JOSEPH us and EUSEBIUS,
from Egyptians, Phoenicians, Chaldeans and
Greeks, will, without doubt, be urged by
the defenders of Religion, as SUCH colla-
teral tejlimony , where the witnefles had no
common intereft of Country, of Religion, or
of Profeffion to difguife or falfify the truth.
Pardon me, fays his Lordfhip, " Jo.
[4] Vol. iii. p. 281.
" SEPHUS
PHILOSOPHY. lot
c< SEPHUS indeed attempts to fupport his
<e hiftory [the Bible] by collateral tefti- _
tc monies, thofe of Egyptians, Phoenicians*
* c Chaldeans, and even Greeks. But thefe
<f teftimonies, were they never fo full to
" his purpofe, would CEASE TO BE COL-
'* LATERAL teftimonies, by COMING
" THRO* HIM, who had a common inter-
<{ eft of Country and Religion to difguife
ce and to falfify the truth [5]."
This feems a little hard, that, when
our advantages of defence are, in his Lord-
fhip's opinion, fo rare, the few we have,
fhould be loft the very moment they are
gained. JOSEPHUS has no fooner feized
this important mark of hijlorical authentl~
city y but it flips thro* his fingers as he is
urging it : and, what is ftill more 'extra-
ordinary, BECAUSE he urges it. The
Book of life and the Seat of life s it feems,
have this property in common
" Like following LIFE thro' Creatures you
diffed,
*' You lofe it in the moment you deteft.
For, asTully well obferves, all human things
are given to change. " Corpora noftra noa
[5] Vol. iii. p. 1281.
[ H 3 ] " novimus.
IO2 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
* c novimus. Itaque Medici ipfi, quorum
<e intererat ea nolle, aparuerunt ut vide-
<{ rentur: nee eo tamen aiunt EMPIRICI
ct notiora effe ilia, quia poffit fieri ut pate-
^ c facia et detecla, MUTENTUR."
But to illuftrate this wonderful reafon-
ing, let us make a fuppofition, or rather,
let us lay down a fact, that API ON had
infifted on this very condition of bijlorical
authenticity j and that JOSEPHUS, who de-
fended the Bible againft him, agreed to
put the iflue of the debate upon it : And
fo produced the teftimony of Egyptians^
Phoenicians, Cbaldeam^ and even Greeks^
to fupport the facred ftory. Thus far, his
Lordmip will allow that matters went
fairly on, and the argument had its pro-
per efficacy. JOSEPHUS quoted from the
Works of Pagan writers, tranfmitted to
him thro' the hands of Pagan readers \
and being engaged with a clear-lighted
Adverfary, without doubt, quoted exactly.
The bijlorical authenticity of the BIBLE
therefore was eftabliftied on the terms his
Adverfary required.
How then comes it to pafs, that an ar~
gument which was once conclufive, has
pow loft its force ? What was truth in that
I Age
PHI LOSOP H Y. 103:
Age muft be truth in this ; or not only
the Authenticity, but the very being Q^ Hif-:
tory will become precarious.
Do thefe pagan teftimonies, in running
thro' the chanel of JOSEPHUS, become
polluted, as foon as the original books ceafe
to exift ? No, fays his Lordmip ; but they
become fufpefted. Indeed, if he could
prove that JOSEPHUS deftroyed themj or
was aiding in their deftru&ion ; or had a
fore-knowledge of their lofs, his Lordmip
might have ibme reaibn to fufpeft. But
to talk of fufpicion, merely becaufe JOSE-
PHUS was interejled that the quotations
fhould be to his purpofe, is fo vague an
objection, as fhews that fuch an anfwerer
will never be without his cavils. Were the
Originals ftill in being, he would then
fufpeft that thefe paflages had been foifted
in by fome Jewim or Chriftian Impoftor ;
at leaft, by fome body or other, who bad
a common inter eft of Country, of Religion, or
of Profeffion, to difguife or falfify the truth.
In fhort, he would fufpeft all the World
rather than give up what he had once
maintained.
To Ihew you, this is faid neither at ran-r
dom nor in malice, conlider his Lordfhip's
[ H 4 ] conducl;
IO4- A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
conduct where this collateral teftimony is
circumftanced as he himfelf requires.
The defenders of Religion fay, that
the PENTATEUCH, which reprefents MO-
SES as the Leader and Legiilator of the Ifrael-
ites, is fupported by that evidence which ,
his Lordfhip calls collateral. What fays
his good Lordfhip to this ? " Be it fo, that
<c the Ifraelites had a Leader and Legifla-
<c tor called Mofes is proved by the con-
" fent of Foreign, whom I call collateral
" Evidences. But furely it will not fol-
<c low, that this man CONVERSED WITH
<f THE SUPREME BEING FACE TO FACE,
<c which thefe collateral Witneffes do not
affirm [6]"
Thus you fee, thefe collateral evi-
dences will always be rejected, whether
they tell their ftory viva voce, or whether
their depofitions be taken down by fuch
who avail themfeives of their teftimony.
But, they do not fay that this man
converfed with the fupreme Being face to
face. Would his Lordfhip have believed
them, if they did ? Why, no, fays he, I
muft needs reckon fuch relations amongft
*he Miracles of the Greek and Roman
[6] Vol. iii. p. 282.
Hiftorkns.
PHILOSOPHY. joy
Hiftorians. Very well, my Lord. And
does not this (hew, that if the collateral
evidence fpeak but to Mofes* Legiflation'
and civil rule, they fpeak to every thing
they are called for. It is doubted, for
inftance, whether Livy relates truly the
operations of fuch or fuch a campaign
againft Hannibal : Polybius, Plutarch, and
Appian, are produced as collateral evi-
dences, but they fpeak not a word of thofe
Prodigies which the Roman Hiflorian re- 1
lates at large.
9. But his hate to Mofes is immortal :
Notwithstanding all his Lordfhip's pretend-
ed contempt of him, as a Legiflator, it looks
as if, in his heart, he thought him a for-
midable Rival. Archbifhop Tillotfon had
attempted to defend the Authenticity of
his writings, on this footing, that the un-
believer 'would only give the fame credit to
them 'which he gives to every civil Hiflorian.
His Lordfhip owns the demand to be rea-
fonable ; and is willing to try his Bro-
ther Legiflator, on thefe terms.
In order to this, he obferves, c< That
c< one condition of the Authenticity of
" any human Hiftory, and fuch alone
^ (fays he) we are to confider in this
^ place,
io6 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
Cl place, is, that it contains nothing re-
" pugnant to the experience of mankind.
<( Things repugnant to this experience are
<c to bs found in many that pafs however
" for authentic ; in that of Livy, for in-
" fiance : but then thefe incredible anec-
<c dotes Hand by themfelves, as it were,
<c and the hiftory, may go on without
ct them. But this is not the cafe of the
" Pentateuch, nor of the other Books of the
" Old Teftament . Incredible anecdotes are
<c not mentioned feldom and occafionally
<e in them: THE WHOLE HISTORY is
<c FOUNDED ON SUCH, it confifts of little
<e elfe, and IF IT WERE NOT A HISTORY
" OF THEM, IT WOULD BE A HISTORY
** OF NOTHING [7]."
His Lordlhip's objection to the Authen-
ticity of the Bible as a civil hiftory , is, that
it is full of Miracles : and, fuppofing the
Defender of Revelation ready to reply,
<c So likewifeis the Hiftory of Livy ; and
<f yet that does not deftroy its credit ;"
he obviates the reply extremely well.
There is an eflential difference, fays he,
between the Miracles of MOSES and of
The Roman Hiftorian's are de-
fy] VoL iii. p, 279.
tached
PHILOSOPHY. 107
tached pieces 5 they make no part of the
fubjcct, and are extraneous to it : But the
Miracles of the Jewifli writer are intimate-
ly related to all the civil affairs, and make
a neceiTary and infeparable part j the whole
hifio-y is founded on them. Take away
Livy's miracles, and the train of civil
events goes on juft as well 'without them :
Take, away MOSES'S, and his hiftory be-
comes a heap of confufion, or, more pro-
perly, it is a hijlory of nothing.
I am proud of any opportunity to ac-
knowledge the obligations which Learning
or Religion have to his Lordmip ; I only
wifli the occalions had been more fre-
quent. As it is, I am unwilling to let
the firil that occurred to me pafs by with-
out my thanks, left the occafion mould
never return.
In a word, his Lordihip's obfervatiou
on the difference between the MIRACLES iu
MOSES and in LIVY, is folid and mafterly.
And this difference^ let me obferve, is a
certain mark, tho' not of that civil au-
thenticity which the good Arcbbifhop's ar-
gument requires, Yet of that divine ori-
ginal which the SCRIPTURES arrogate to,
tbernfelves,
It
io8 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
It is the fpecious, but trite, objection
of infidelity again ft the Miracles recorded
there, that thofe remote ages were full of
prodigies and portents. Why then, fays
the Freethinker, (hould we believe the
incredible anecdotes of MOSES, rather than
thofe of LIVY ? For a very. good reafon,
replies his Lordfhip, we find them in a
hiftory effentially different from that of
Livy. Take away his miracles, together
with all thofe of the other pagan Hiftori-
ans, and the Story ftands juft as it did.
But take away the BIBLE-MIRACLES, and
you reduce the civil part of the relation to
a ftate of inexplicable confufion.
Again, one of the leaft hacknied, and in-
deed leaft futile,obfervations I have ever heard
urged againft the Bible, (and it has been
urged to me) is the WANT OF A NECESSARY'
CONNEXION between the civil and the
miraculous parts of that Hiftory. Here
again his Lordmip comes in, in fupport
of Revelation, and fays, that this necejfary
connexion is evident to all, for that nothing
can be made of the civil part, if you take
awav the miraculous. Which fure is a
*
connexion of fome ftrength.
Thus
PHILOSOPHY. 109
Thus has his Lordmip, before he was
aware, in attempting to deftroy the civil
authenticity of the Bible, fupported its di-
vine origmaL And this good, tho' unde-
figned, ought however to be acknowledg-
ed. But you may think, perhaps, that a
matter of this importance, is not here
fufficiently developed. Without doubt, it
is not. This is a long flory ; and as I pre-
tend to have fupplied this DESIDERATUM,
T^he want of a connexion between the mira-
culous and civil part of the f acred Hiftory*
I mall refer you to the proper place, where
you may fee it at large.
In the mean time give me leave to go
on with his Lordmip; And proceed to the
proportion itfelf, That the Bible Miracles
deftrcy its credit as a civil htftory. Now
this I apprehend to be a pure piece of
chicane. Let us fee how the matter
{lands between the Archbimop and his
Lordmip.
. BELIEVERS fay, the Bible-Hiftory is
the hiftory of a Difpenfation really divine :
UNBELIEVERS fay, it is the hiftory of one
only pretended ; and endeavour to fupport
fheir.affcrtion,by (hewing it to have the civil
,TDAI * , ft&v flnis PflSffl
110 A VlEW of L.BOLINGBROKEV
marks of falfehood and impofture. Here the
Archbifhop fteps forward and fays, that he
is willing the authenticity of the Bible
Ihould be tried on the Standard of a CIVIL
Hiftory. Agreed, replies his Lordfhip ;
And what fay you now to MIRACLES ?
Say ? Why, that miracles are out of the
queflion j and come not into confide-
ration till the DIVINE authority be con-
tended for. When we agreed to confider
the Bible as a civil hiftory only, it was not
for truth's, but for argument's fake. If
We held the Writers of it to be mere civil
Hiftorians, the miracles, recorded in it,
might be fairly urged againft us ; and urg-
ed with advantage, if indeed there be that
difference between them and Livy's, which
is pretended. But as we hold the Writers
were indeed infpired, You, my Lord, have
fhewn us, by that difference, to juftify the
miraculous part, whenever their infpiratior*
becomes a queftion between us. In the mean
time, flick to your point, and never fancy
you can make our Divines the dupes of fo
pitiful a Sophifm. You have drawn us,
while we argue a particular queftion with
you, to exclude one of our principles ; and
then urge againft tbat quejllon, a FACT,.
which
PHILOSOPHY. in
which ftands upon the excluded principle,
and fo cannot be defended while the prin-
ciple remains excluded : Which is juft,
as if, when you had perfuaded us to tye
our hands, on promife that the queftion
ihould be only about the life of our feet,
You Should object to us our inability of
laying faft hold upon you. Your own
words, my Lord, where you pufh this
imaginary advantage, beft detect the fraud
and impoflure of your proceeding. <c The
" Old Teftament (you fay) is founded in
" incredibility. Almoft every event con-
" taioed in it, is incredible in its caufes and
" confequences ; and I mint except or
<c reject the whole, as I faid juft now.
<c No one, EXCEPT HERE AND THERE A
<c DIVINE, will prefume to fay, that the
" hiftories of the old Teftament are con-
" form able to the experience of Mankind,
." and the natural courfe of things."
Except here and there a Divine, d
you fay? Nor they neither, I afTure
your Lordfhip. What they fay is this,
That every thing of a mere civil nature in
the Old Teftament has all the marks of
anthenticity. This is all they faid,
and
H2 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
and all they meant to fay. And, on what
good grounds they faid it, give me leave
to mew your Lordfhip a little more at
large.
The Bible tells us, the world was cre-
ated in time 3 and the time at no immenfe
diftance, as feveral fabulous relations of
pagan Antiquity had pretended. And
does not the late invention of Arts prove
that the Bible fays nothing but what ap-
pears very probable?
It fays, the Earth was overflowed by a
deluge of waters. And do not the con-
tents of its furface demonftrate that fuch
has been its fate ?.
The Bible fays, again, that the Foun-
/lers of Cities were the inverters of arts ;
that the firft civil Governments arofe from,
the Dome/lie, and compofed fmall Mo-
narchies. And . do not experience and the
natural courfe of things fupport this credi-
bk anecdote \
The Pentateuch informs us, that the If-
raelites, after a long abode in Egypt, went
out as a great People, and in an hoftile
manner, to feek new habitations. Of this
your Lordmip may have both external and
inter-
PHILOSOPHY. 113
internal evidence. The external are the
Egyptian, Phoenician, Chaldee, and Greek
Writers, quoted by Jofephus and Eufe-
bius: the internal is the whole Jewifh
RITUAL.
Scripture relates the defection of the
ten tribes to Idolatry, their tranfportation
to a foreign land, and the repeopling that
part of Judea with a new Colony of Ido-
laters. And of the truth of all this, we
fay, the Samaritan Pentateuch, yet ex-
iiling, is a ftrong and amazing Witnefs.
- Thefe, my Lord, are a very few of the
numerous inflances which might be pro-
duced to ihe'w the civil Authenticity of
,the Bible. And on thefe and fuch as
ihefe, the Clergy's challenge flood, when
they undertook to prove that Authenticity,
on the common principles of hiftoric cre-
dit. And further, or other than this,
they neither faid nor meant to fay. They
underftood, as well as your Lordfhip, the
difference between Mofes's miracles and
thofe of Livy ; that the Jewifti Hiftory,
unlike to all other, is i vholely founded on mi-
racles. But they diftinguimed better than
your Lordfliip, of Mofes' civil Hiftory :
which confifts of two parts > the peculiar
[ I ] Difpen-
1 14 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
Difpenfation to that people, and their
tranfactions with their neighbours ; and
the occafional {lory of the rell of mankind.
It is the firft only to which his Lordihip's
obiervation can be applied, viz. that the
civil cannot be feparated from the miracu-
lous part : Nor did the clergy attempt it.
It was the other, we muft needs fuppofe,
to which the Archbimop's challenge refer-
red : And I have (hewn juft above, that
we are able to make it good.
Thus would I have reafoned with his
Lordmip j and thus, in fact was he rea-
foned with, (as I may have occafion to tell
you in my next Letter) but he was deaf to
all advife, tho' it was given in private,
and to fave his memory from the dii-
grace of thefe portentous ESSAYS. What
remained was to expofe them, as they de-
ferved, to the laughter and contempt of
mankind.
And now, Sir, I think I have pretty well
difcharged my general promife to You.
When one looks back upon this flrange
collection of poor meagre, disjointed, rea-
foning, tied together, in a fort, by his
Syftem, and fwelled up, to look like fub-
ihnce, by the tumor of his Rhetoric, it
- j puts
PHILOSOPHY. uy
puts us in mind of the old flory of Pro-
metheus ; and we fee his Lordihip infult-
ing the fanftity of the PUBLIC, juft as that
mofl antient of Freethinkers did the AL-
TAR OF JuptTER ; on which, as the Po-
ets tell us, he offered up to the King of
Gods and Men, A HEAP OF DRY BONES
COVERED WITH FAT.
I am, &c.
ADVERTISEMENT.
In tbe Prefs,
Andfpeedily will be Publijhed,
The FOURTH LETTER.
Ji
T
'I A
A
VIEW
'
O F.
LORD BOLINGBROKE'S
LETTER the FOURTH and LAST.
LONDON,
Printed for J o H N and PAUL KNAPTON,
in Ludgate-Street*
MDCCLV.
.
LETTER IV.
DEAR SIR,
YOU will wonder to hear again from me
on fo trifling a fubject as this FIRST
PHILOSOPHY. And had not lord Bo-
tiNGBROKE brought us to this alternative, either
to give up the BIBLE, or his LORDSHIP, tocon-
tempt, I mould willingly have left him. in
ponefllon of his Admirers.
My laft Letter examined his Lordihip's value
in every point of view, in which a PHILOSOPHER
would defire to mine. I mall now pufti my
inquiry a little further, and venture into his own
Province. I mail beg leave to try his talents in
his POLITICAL capacity, as an Analyfer of
States, a Balancer of Power, and a Diflributer
of Civil and Religious Sanctions.
But now I muft recede a little from the method
I have hitherto obferved, which was to defend,
not this or that body of Divines, but the general
Principles of natural and revealed Religion, a-
gainft his Lordmip's calumnies: Here I (hall
have occafion to patronife a fingle Clergyman j
and not fuch a one neither as I could have
wilhed ; a CUDWORTH, a CLARKE, a CUMBER-
LAND, or aTiLLOTSON; (eftablifhed Names,
which the Public are ready to make their own
quarrel) but a Writer of very ambiguous fame,
* B the
2 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
the Author of the Divine Legation of Mojes,
and, of 'The Alliance between Church and State ;
Of whom, I pretend to know little but from
the talk of his Adverfaries ; his Friends pofleffing
him, as they do a good Confcience, in filence
and complacency ; and from his Adverfaries I
learn f{ But hold, you will fay, let us drop both
his Friends and his Enemies, and hear what the
learned abroad fay of him ; for his works have
been frequently tranflated and criticifed both in
Germany and France ; We may expect to hear
truth from Strangers who are without felfiih par^
tialities and perfonal prejudices." Indeed, the
Author would owe you his thanks for referring
him to that decifion : Foreign Critics of the
greateft name have fpoken fo differently of him,
from the Scriblers at home, that was I to tell you
\vhat they have told the world, you would
fufpecl: their encomiums for the civilities of his
moft partial Friends. So to his Adverfaries, I
fay again, I will have recourfe : And from them
J learn that he abounds in Parodcxes, that he
delights in Refinements,and would fain pafsupon
the World a heap of crude index-reading, for
well-digefted learning : that, on his firft appear-
ance, he was fhrewdly fufpected of infidelity j
but that (no body knows how) he has work-
ed men into an opinion, of his being a fort of
friend to Religion -, indeed, in his own way : I
fuppofe
PHILOSOPHY. 3
fuppofe he fees it for his Intereft to flick
to the eftabliihed Church j for I know no
other reafon why there fhould have been
different opinions concerning him. In a
word, as I judge of hirn from the reprefen-
tation of his Enemies, I can allow him lit-
tle other claim to literary merit, than that
very doubtful one, *fbe Dunces, of all de-
nominations, being in Confederacy againfi
him. Indeed, fince his Lordmip's difco-
very of a Confederacy between Divines and
Atheifts, the word is likely to become as
ridiculous as the word Ode, which our
Laureate foretells, no body, for the future,
will hear without laughing, However, it
is fcarce worth while to retract it j for were
there no more in this confederacy, than in
his Lordmip's j and that every individual
Blockhead only followed the bent of his
natural bias, .it would but make the won-
der the greater.
Such then is the Writer I am forced to
take up with : In truth I could not find
another, fo proper. for my purpofe, which
was, as I faid, to difplay Lord Boling-
broke's political talents. For tho' his
Lordmip be very profufe in his ill Lan-
guage to all Men 3 who have undertaken
*JB 2 the
4 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
the defence of Religion and Church Go-
vernment ; yet the Author of The Dtvina
Legation ofMofes is the only one whom he
does more than abufe on this account. For
while he keeps at a refpeclful diftance
from the Arguments of others, he comes
boldly, up to this Writer's, and fits down
before them in form. He Difputes with
him, the Knowledge of the Unity the
fenfe and reafon of a felecJ people of a
tutelary Deity of compliance 'with human
prejudices^ and, in a word, every leading
principle of the Author's Book. This
feems not greatly for his Lordfhip's ho-
nour ; after he had defied all the mighty
Chieftains of Literature, to decline the
combat, and think himfelf quit by accept-
ing the Gauntlet from this puny Writer.
His Lordmip begins his attack on that
capital circumflance, in the Jewifli Oeco-
nomy, THE OMISSION OF A FUTURE
STATE : He pretends to account for it
independently of the EXTRAOR DINAR Y
OR EQJJAL PROVIDENCE, which Mofes
allured his people was to be adminiftred
under a 'Theocracy ; and which the Author
of the Divine Legation attempts to prove,
from
PHILOSOPHY. y
from this very circumftance of the Omiflion,
was actually adminiftered.
But to make this intelligible to the
common Reader, it will be neceffary to
give a fummary View, of that famous Ar-
gument, purfued at large thro' two vo-
lumes of the Divine Legation ; and yet
conceived by many of the Learned, to be
left imperfect.
RELIGION has been always held necef-
fary to the fupport of CIVIL SOCIETY} and,
a FUTURE STATE, (under the common
difpenfation of Providence) as neceffary
to RELIGION ; becaufe, nothing but a fu-
ture ftate can remove the objections to
God's moral Government, under fuch a
Providence ; whofe phenomena are apt to
difturb every. ferious Profeffor of Religion j
as it is of the eiTence of religious profefiion,
to believe that God is a rewarder of thofe
ivbo diligently feek him.
MOSES, who inflituted a Religion and a
Republic, and incorporated them together,
ftands fingle amongil ancient and modern
Lawgivers, in teaching a Religion WITH-
OUT the fandtion, or even the mention,
of a Future State of Rewards and Pu-
vifiments. The fame MOSES, by uniting
*B 3 the
6 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
the Religion and the Republic of the
into one fyftem, made God, by confe-
quence, their fupreme civil magiftrate ;
whereby the form of Government became
truly and properly THEOCRATICAL.
The confequence of a Theocratic ad-
miniftration muft be an extraordinary or
EQUAL PROVIDENCE. And fo, indeed, the
Jewifli Lawgiver, throughout his whole
Inftitute, has reprefented it to be.
The queftion between Infidels and Be-
lievers has ever been, whether this extra-
ordinary Providence was REAL or only
PRETENDED ?
Here the Author of the Divine Lega-
tion fteps in j and undertakes to prove,
from the circumftance of the omijfion of a
future ftate, that it was REAL. His Argu-
ment {lands thus :
If Religion be neceflary to Civil Go-
vernment, and if Religion cannot fubfift,
under the common difpenfation of Provi-
vidence, without a future ft ate of rewards
and puniihments, fo confummate a Law-
giver would never have omitted to incul-
cate the belief of fuch a State, unlefs he
had been well aflured that an extraordina-
ry Providence was in reality to be admi-
i niftred
PHILOSOPHY. 7
mftred over his People : or were it pof-
fible he had been fo infatuated, the mif-
chief of a Religion wanting a future ftate,
would have been foon felt by the People,
to the deftruction of their REPUBLIC ;
which neverthelefs continued Sovereign,
and in a flouriQiing condition, for many
ages.
This is the plain and fimple ARGUMENT
of the Divine Legation; which the firft
and the fecond Volumes of that Work
are employed to explain, and illuftrate.
And it muft be owned, Lord Bolingbroke
faw it in its force ; as appears from his va-
rious contrivances to evade it.
This praife it would be unjuft to deny
him, when others have underftood fo little
of the Argument, as to imagine that the
two firft Volumes had left it unfinimed j
and that the third was to contain the con-
clufion of the Syllogifm ; tho' the Author
had told us, more than once, that the pur-
pofe of the laft Volume was only to IN-
FORCE the various parts of the foregoing
ARGUMENT, by many new conliderationsj
to REMOVE OBJECTIONS to the Character
of Mofes j and to EXPLAIN THE REASONS
To
8 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
To evade, as we fay, this Argument,
his Lordfliip cafls about for a reafon, in-
dependent of the EXTRAORDINARY PRO-
VIDENCE, to account for Mofes's OMISSION
of a future Jlate* And his firft folutioa is
this,
<c MOSES DID NOT BELIEVE THE IM-
<f MORTALITY OF THE SOUL, nor the
<c rewards and puni(hments of another
" life, tho' it is poffible he might have
" learnt thefe Doctrines from the Egyp-
" tianS, WHO TAUGHT THEM VERY EAR-
" LY, perhaps as they taught that of the
Unity of God. When I fay, that Mo-
" fes did not believe the immortality of the
"foul, nor future rewards and punishments,
<c my reafon is this, that he taught nei-
" ther, when be bad to do with a people
" whom a ^Theocracy could not re/train-,
<c and on whom, therefore, terrors of Pu-
nimment, future as well as prefent,
eternal as well as temporary, could ne-
<e ver be too much multiplied, or too ftrong-
<c ly inculcated [i]."
This reafoning can never be too much
admired.
[ i] Vol. iii. p. 289.
Here
<c
cc
PHILOSOPHY. 9
Here we have a Do&fiw, plaufible in
itfelf, and therefore of eafy admittance ;
Mofl alluring to human nature, and there-
fore embraced by all mankind ; Of higheft
account among the Egyptians, and there-
fore ready to be embraced by the Ifraelites,
who were fond of Egyptian manners ; Of
ftrongeft efficacy on the minds of an un-
ruly people, and therefore of indifpenfable
ufe ; Yet, all this not with ftanding, Mo-
fes did not believe it, and, on that account,
'would not teach it. What a Politician has
his Lordfhip made of this MOSES, a Bro-
ther Legiflator, infpired only by his natu-
ral genius, like himfelf. But now, had
MOSES'S integrity been fo fevere, How came
lie to write a Hiftory which, my Lord
thinks, is, in part at leaft, a fiction of his
own ? Did he believe that ? How came
he to leave the Ifraelites, as my Lord af-
firms he did, in pofTeffion of many of the
fuperftitious opinions of Egypt? Did he
believe them too ? No, but they ferved his
purpofe, which was, The better governing
an unruly People. Well, but his Lord-
fhip tells us, the doctrine of z future flat e,
ferved this purpofe beft of all ; for having
to do with a People whom a Theocracy could
4 not
lo A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
not re/train, terrors of pttnijbmtnt, FUTURE
as 'well as prefenf, ETERNAL as well as tem-
porary -, could never be too much multiplied^
or too Jlrongly inculcated. No matter for
that. MOSES, as other men may, on a
fudden grows fcrupulous ; and fo, toge-
gether with the principles of common po-
litics, throws afide the principles of com-
mon fenfe ; and when he had employed
all the other inventions of fraud, he bog-
gles at this, which beft ferved his pur-
pofe ; was moft innocent in itfelf, and
moft important in its general, as well as
particular, ufe.
In his Lordmip's next Volume, this
Omijfion comes again upon the ftage ; and
there we have another reafon affigned for
MOSES'S conduct in this matter.
* c MOSES would not teach the Doctrine
ct of the immortality of the foul, and of a
<c future ftate, on account of the many fu-
<e perftitions which this Doctrine had begot
f< in Egypt, as we muft believe, or be-
t{ lieve that he knew nothing of *V, or AS-
ct SIGN SOME WHIMSICALREASON FOR HIS
* c OMISSION [2]."
[4] Vol. iv. p. 470.
We
PHILOSOPHY. n
We have feen before, that MOSES omit-
ted a. future ft ate, becaufe he did not be-
lieve it. This reafon is now out of date ;
and one or other of the three following
is to be affigned ; either, becaufe it begot
fuperftitions j or becaufe he knew nothing of
it -, or becaufe HE fcouLD DO WITHOUT
IT, as the Jews were under an extraordi-
nary providence ; that being what he
means, by the whimfical reafon affigned,
[by the Author of the Divine Legation]
for its omijfion.
Let us take him then, at his word,
without expecting he will ftand to it, and
having flie wn, \\istwojirft reafons not worth
a rufh, leave the lajl eftablifhed even on
his own conceffions.
i . Mofes, fjiys he, omitted a future Jl ate
en account of 'the many fuperftitions, which
this doflrine had begot in Egypt. But if
the omiffion ftopd upon this principle, MO-
SES muft have omitted an infinite number
of rites and doctrines, which, Lord Bo-
lingbroke fays, he borrowed from the
Egyptians ; part of which, in his Lord-
mip's opinion, were thofe very fuperfti-
tions, this Dottrine had begot ; fuch, as the
notion of tutelary deities 5 and in part,
others
12 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
others arifmg out of tliofe ; fuch as the
Jtftin&ion between things clean and unclean^
an hereditary Priejlhood, facer dotal habits,
and Rites offacrifice.
2. However, he has another reafon for
the omiffion : MOSES might know nothing
of it. To which if I only oppofed his
Lordihip's own words in another place, it
might be deemed fufficient ; where, giving
us the reafons why MOSES did know fome-
tbing of a future ftate, he obferves, there
are certain rites, which feem to allude or
have a remote relation to this very doc-
trine [5], But I go further, and obierve,
that, from the very LAWS of MOSES them-
felves, we have an internal evidence of his
knowledge of this doctrine. Amongft the
Laws againft Gentile Divinations, there is
one againfl that fpecies of them, called by
the Greeks NECROMANCY, or invocation
cf the dead ; which neceffarily implies, in
the Lawgiver who forbids it, as well as
in the offender who ufes it, the knowledge
'(jf a future Jl ate.
3. This being the fate of his Lord-
fhip's two reafons, we are now abandoned
by him, and left to follow our own in-
[5J Vol. y. p. 239.
ventions,
PHILOSOPHY.
ventions, that is, to take up with SOME
WHIMSICAL REASON FOR THE OMISSION :
which, however, is fomething better than
the no reafons of his Lordfhip's providing.
, But, his Lordmip dhTatisfied, as well
he might, with the folutions hitherto of-
fered, returns again to the charge, in the
Corona open's, his book of FRAGMENTS:
And there, he more openly oppofes the
doctrine of the Divine Legation ; and en-
larges and expatiates upon the reafon, be-
fore given, for the omiffion ; namely, the
many fuperjiitiom this dottrine had begotten
in Egypt.
" ONE CANNOT SEE WITHOUT SUR-
" PRIZE (fays his Lordfhip) a doctrine fo
" ufeful to ALL Religion, and therefore
cc incorporated into ALL the Syftems of
" Paganifm, left wholly out of that of
* f the JEWS. Many probable reafons
" might be brought to mew, that it was
u an Egyptian doctrine before the Exode,
" and this particularly, that it was propa-
" gated from Egypt, fo foon, at leaft, af-
" ter wards, by all thofe who were in-
* c flructed like MOSES, in the wifdom of
44 that people. He tranfported much of
" his Wifdom into the fcheme of Religion
" and
14. A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
** and Government, which he gave the
c Ifraelites ; and, amongft other things,
r certain Rites, which may feem to allude,
c or have a remote relation to, this very
" do&rine. Tho' this doctrine therefore,
" had not been that of ABRAHAM, ISAAC,
* ; and JACOB, He might have adopted it
" with as little fcruple, as he did many
" cuftoms and inititutions merely Egyp-
<c tian. He had to do with a rebellious,
" but a fuperftkious, people. In the firft
" Character, they made it neceffary that
" he mould neglect nothing which
" might add weight to his ordinances, and
ct contribute to keep them in awe. In
" the fecond, their difpofition was ex-
" tremely proper to receive fuch a doc-
" trine, and to be influenced by it. Shall
" we fay that an hy pot hefts of future rewards
<e and punifoments, was ufelefs among/I a
< People who lived under a theocracy, and
" that the future Judge of other People,
tc was their immediate Judge and King,
" who refided in the midit of them, and
<c who dealed out rewards and punim-
cc ments on every occafion ? Why then
* f were fo many precautions taken ? Why
<f was a folemn covenant made with God,
cc as
PHILOSOPHY. 15
" as with a temporal Prince ? Why were
{ fo many promifes and threatnings of re-
* wards and punifhments, temporal in-
" deed, but future and contingent, as we
<c find in the book of Deuteronomy, mod
" pathetically held out by MOSES ? Would
" there have been any more impropriety in
" holding out thofe of one kind than thofe
" of another, becaufe the fupreme Being,
" who difpofed and ordered both, was in
" a particular manner prefent amongft
cc them ? Would an addition to the cata-
" logue, of rewards and punifhments more
" remote, but eternal, and in all refpec~ts
<c far greater, hatfe had no effecT:? I think
" neither of thefe things can be faid.
" What mall we fay then ? How came
" it to pafs, this addition was not made ?
< I will mention what occurs to me, and
" (hall not be over follicitous about the
" weight that my reflexions may deferve.
<c If the dodtrines of the immortality of
" the foul, and of a future flate, had
<c been revealed to MOSES, that he might
" teach them to the Ifraelites, he would
" have taught them mofl certainly. But
" he did not teach them. They were
" there-
cc
<c
X 6 A VlE W of L. fioLlNGBROKE*S
" therefore not revealed to him. Why
" they were not fo revealed fome PERT
" DIVINE or other will be ready to tell
" you. For me, I dare not prefume to
" guefs. But this, I may prefume to ad-
4< vance, that fince thefe Doctrines were
" not revealed by God to his fervant Mo-
SES, it is highly probable that this Le-
" giflator made a fcruple of teaching them
<c to the Ifraelites, how well foever in-
cc ftructed he might be in them himfelf,
-" and howfoever ufeful to Government he
might think them. The fuperftitions
and idolatrous rites of the Egyptians^
cc like thofe of other nations, were found-
< c ed on the Polytheifm, and the Mytho-
" ^gy tnat prevailed, and were fuffered
" to prevail, amongft the Vulgar, and that
<e made the fum of their Religion. It
<c feemed to be a point of policy to direct
*' all thefe abfurd opinions and practices
4 to the fervice of Government, inflead of
*' attempting to root them out. But then
41 the great difference between rude and
<{ ignorant nations, and fuch as were ci-
*' vilized and learned, like the Egyptians,
ct feems to have been this, that the for-
" mer had no other fyftem of Religion
" than
PHILOSOPHY. 17
*' than thefe abfurd opinions and practices,
" whereas the latter had an inward as well
" as an outward Doctrine. There is rea-
" fon to believe that natural Theology and
" natural Religion had been taught and
<c pradtifed in the ancient Theban Dyna-
" fty ; and it is probable that they conti-
" nued to be an inward doctrine in the
" reft of Egypt, while Polytheifm, Ido-
" latry, and all the MYSTERIES, all the
" impieties, and all the follies of Magic,
" were the outward doctrine. MOSES
" might be let into a knowledge of both j
" and under the patronage of the Princefs,
" whofe Foundling he was, he might be
" initiated into thofe Myfteries, where the
" fecret dodrine alone was taught, and
the outward exploded. But we cannot
" imagine that the Children of Ifrael, in
" general, enjoyed the fame privilege, nor
<e that the Mafters were fo lavifli, to their
" Slaves, of a favour fo diftinguifhed, and
" often fo hard to obtain. No. The
(t Children of Ifrael knew nothing more
<c than the outfide of the Religion of
* f Egypt, and if the doctrine, we fpeak of,
" was known to them, it was known
" only in the fuperftitious rites, and with
* C " all
<c
i8 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
cc all the fabulous circumftances in which
<c it was d relied up and prefented to vul-
" gar belief. It would have been hard
c< therefore to teach, or to renew this
" Doctrine in the minds of the Ifraelites,
" without giving them an occafion the
" more, to recall the polytheiftical fables,
<f and practice the idolatrous Rites they
<c had learnt during their Captivity. Rites
" and Ceremonies are often fo equivocal,.
" that they may be applied to very differ-
ct ent doctrines. But when they are fo
" clofely connected with one Doctrine
" that they are not applicable to another,
" to teach the Doctrine is, in fome fort, to
" teach the Rites and Ceremonies, and to
<{ authorize the fables on which they are
" founded. MOSES therefore being at
" liberty to teach this doctrine of rewards
" and punifhments in a future ftate, or
<c not to teach it, might very well choofe
" the latter; tho' he indulged the Ifraelites,
<c on account of the hardnefs of their
<c hearts, and by the divine permiffion, as
" it is prefumed, in feveral obfervances
" and cuftoms which did not lead directly,
" tho' even they did fo perhaps in confe-
i *' quence,
PHILOSOPHY. 19
<c quence, to the Polytheifm and Idolatry
of Egypt [6]."
What a Babel of reafoning has his
Lord (hip here heaped up, with the rub-
bifh of falfe and inconfiftent principles,
only to infult the Temple of God, and the
Fortrefs of Mount Sion ! Sometimes, he
reprefents MOSES as a divine Meffenger ;
and diflinguimes between what was re-
vealed, and what was not revealed, unto
him j and then, a future Jl ate not being
revealed to MOSES was the reafcn he did not
teach it. Sometimes again, he confiders
him as a mere human Lawgiver, acquiring
all his knowledge of Religion and Politics
from the Egyptians, in whofe recondite
Learning he had been intimately inftruct-
ed j and then, the reafon of the omiffion is, left
the Dottrine of a future ftate ftould have
drawn the Ifraelites into thofe Egyptian fu-
perJlitionS) from which, it was MOSES'S pur-
poie to fet them free. All thefe incon*
fiftencies in Faft and Reafoning, his Lord-
fhip delivers in the fame breath, and
without the leaft intimation of any change
in his Principles or Opinions.
[6] Vol. v. p. 23894041.
*C 2 But
2O A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
But let us examine this wonderful Pa-
ragraph ftep by flep, without troubling
our heads about his Lordmip's real fenti-
ments j it being indifferent, to this View
of his talents, what he believed : It is fuf-
ficient, that we confute all he fays, whe-
ther under his own, or any other affumed
Character.
He begins with owning, that ONE
CANNOT SEE WITHOUT SURPRIZE, a doC-
trine fo ufeful to ALL Religions, and there-
fore incorporated into ALL the Syftems of
Paganifm, left wholly out of that of tht
Jews.
Itfeemsthen, that this OMISSION is, af-
ter all, no light or trivial matter, which
may be accounted for by MOSES'S dijbelief
of the doctrine j his ignorance-, or the ima-
ginary mif chiefs it might produce. We
may therefore be allowed to fay, it de-
ferves the moft ferious attention : at leaft^
all the pains, the Author of the Divine
Legation of Mofes has beftowed upon it.
And if the Omtffion be fo wonderful, a lit-
tle whimfical reafoning upon it, tho' it end
in a demonftration of the truth of Revela-
tion, may be forgiven. And, if I might
make fo free with the delicacy of thefc
times,
PHILOSOPHY. 21
times, I would fay, it is, on the whole,
as well perhaps to be WHIMSICAL and con-
fident, as even to be FASHIONABLE, when
at the charge of Common Senfe.
His Lordlliip proceeds to {hew, in di-
rect oppofition to what he faid before, that
MOSES could not be ignorant of the doc-
trine of a future ftate, becaufe the Egyp-
tians taught it : His knowledge of it, (my
Lord tells us) further appears from an
internal circumftance, feme of his rifes
feeming to allude t or to have a remote rela-
tion to, this very doftrine. This I obferve,
to his Lordfhip's credit. The remark is
accurate and fair. But we are in no want
of his remote relation ; I have (hewn juft
above, that the jewifh Laws againfl Ne-
cromancy necejjarily imply Mofes's know-
ledge of the Dodrine.
His Lordmip then goes on to explain the
advantages, which, humanly fpeaking, the
Ifraelites muft have received from this doc-
trine, in the temper and circumftances,
in which they left Egypt. MOSES,
fays he, had to do with a rebellious and a
fuperftitious People. This like wife, I ol>
ferve, to his Lordmip's credit, has the fame
marks of fagacity and truth j and brings
*C 3 us
22 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
us to the very verge of the Solution, pro-
pofed by the Author of the Divine Lega-
tion ; which is, that the Ifraelites were in-
deed under an extraordinary Providence,
which fupplied all the advantages that
could be had from the doctrine of & future
Jlate.
Under a common and unequal Providence,
Religion cannot fubfift without this doc-
trine : For Religion implying a juft retri-
bution of reward and punimment, which
under fuch a Providence is not difpenfed,
a future Jlate muft needs fubvene, to pre-
vent the whole Edifice from falling into
ruin. And thus we account for the faff,
which his Lordmip fo amply acknow-
ledges, viz. that the dotfrine of a future
Jlate was mcjl ufeful to ALL Religions, and
therefore incorporated into ALL the Religions
cfPaganifm. But where an extraordinary
and equal Providence is adminiftered, good
and evil are exactly diftributed j and fo,
a future flate, in this circumftance, is not
neceflary for the fupport of Religion. A
future flate is not to be found in the Mo-
faic Oeconomy j yet this Oeconomy fub-
fiiled for many ages : Religion therefore did
not
PHILOSOPHY. 23
not need it j or, in other words, it was fup-
ported by an extraordinary Providenc.
This is the argument of the Divine Le-
gation. Let us now confider his Lord-
mip's neweft attempts to evade it.
Shall we fay, that an Hypothecs of fu-
ture rewards and punifhments was ufelefs.
A / */ */
amongji a people who lived under a THEO-
CRACY, and that the future Judge of other
People was 'their immediate Judge and
King, who rejided in the midft of them, and
who dealed out rewards and punijhments on
every occajion ? WHY THEN WERE so MA-
NY PRECAUTIONS taken? &c.
The PRECAUTIONS here objected to us,
are to infinuate againft the truth of Mo-
fes's Promife of an extraordinary Providence.
A kind of SOPHISM which his Lordmip
only advances, and holds in common with
the reft, who have written againft the Z>/-
vine Legation : and which I mall here,
after much forbearance on the Author's
part, expofe as it deferves.
MOSES affirms again and again, that his
People were under an extraordinary Pro-
vidence. He affirms it indeed ; but as it
is not a felf evident truth, it wants to be
proved: Till then, the Unbeliever is at
* C 4 liberty
24 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
liberty to urge any circumftance in the
Jcwifh Law or Hiftory, which may fecnn
to bring the reality of that Providence into
queftion : The fame liberty too, has the
Believer j if at leaft, he can perfuade him-
felf (as they feem to have done, who
have written againft the Divine Legation)
that his profeflion will allow him to do
it with decency. Things were in this
ftate, when the Author of the Divine
Legation undertook the defenfe of MO-
SES : And to cut off at one ftroke,
all objections to the Legiilator's credit,
arifing from any doubtful or unfavourable
circumftance in the Law or Hiftory of the
Jews, concerning this extraordinary Pro-
vidence> he advanced the INTERNAL Ar-r
gument of the OMISSION. By which he
proved that an extraordinary Providence
was, in faff, adminiftred in the Jewifh
Republic. What change did this make
in the ftate of the cafe? It entirely al-
tered it. Unbelievers were now indeed
at liberty, and Believers too, if fo per-
verfely difpofed, (which I am forry to
fay, they were) to oppofe, and, as they
could, to confute the Argument of the
PHILOSOPHY. 25
Divine Legation : But by no rules of good
Logic could they come over again with
thofe fcripture difficulties to Mofes's
credit, which the argument of the
Divine Legation entirely obviated and
continued to exclude, fo long as that
Argument remained unanfwered. For
while a demonftrated truth ftands good,
no difficulties, however inexplicable, have
any weight againft that fuperior evidence.
Not to admit of this fundamental maxim
would be to unfettle many a phyjical and
mathematical demonftration, as well as this
moral one.
I fay therefore, as things now ftand,
To oppofe difficulties againft the admini-
ftration of an extraordinary Providence,
by reafonings a pofteriori> after that pro-
vidence has been proved a priori, and
before the proof has been confuted, is the
moft palpable and barefaced impofition.
on our underftanding. In which how-
ever, his Lordfhip is but one of a hun-
dred : and indeed, the moft decent and
confiftent of the hundred ; as his declared
purpofe is to deftroy the credit and authori-
ty of the Jewifh Legiflator.
We
26 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
We will not however decline to exa-
mine the weight of thefe Objections, tho*
fo foolifhly and fophiftically urged.
If there was this extraordinary Provi-
dence adminiftred, fays his Lordfhip,
Whyfo many precautions taken ? Why 'was a
folemn covenant made 'with God as 'with a
temporal Prince ? Why were fo many pro-
mifes and threatnings of rewards and pu-
nijhments, temporal indeed, but future and
contingent, as we jind, in the Book of Deu-
teronomy, mojl pathetically held out by
Mofes?
I will prefume to folve this difficulty.
We find throughout, what we are wont
to call, the Hi/lory of Providence, but
what bis Lordjhip is pleafed to intitle, Tales
more extravagant than thofe of Amadh de
Gaule, that God, in his moral Govern-
ment of the World, always makes ufe
of human means, as far as thofe means
will go ; and never interpofes with his
extraordinary Providence, but when they
will go no further. To do otherwife,
would be to make an unnecefTary wafte
of Miracles ; better fitted to confound
our knowledge of Nature, by obfcuring
the harmony of order, than to manifcft
the
PHILOSOPHY. 27
the Lord and Controller of it, by arreft-
jng its delegated Powers. This method
in God's moral Government, all our ideas
of Wifdom feem to fupport. Now when
He, the great Mafter of the Uriiverfe, had
decreed to rule the Jewifh People in an
extraordinary way, he did not propofe to
fuperfede any of the meafures of civil re-
gimen. And this, I hope, will be efteemed
a full anfwer to WHY so MANY PRE-
CAUTIONS TAKEN, &c. But would you
fee it drawn out more at length, you may
confult the Author's remarks on the fame
kind of Sophiftry employed by Dr. SYKES
againft the Divine Legation.
His Lordmip goes on : Would there
have been any more impropriety in holding
out thofe of one kind than thoje of another,
becaufe the fupreme Being, who difpofed and
ordered both, was in a particular manner
prefent amongfl them ? Would an addition
of rewards and punijhment^ more remote,
but eternal^ and in all refpeffsfar greater to
the catalogue y have had no ejfeffi ? I think
neither ofthefe things can befaid.
His Lordmip totally miitakes the drift
and defign of the Author's Argument.
The Divine Legation infers no more from
the
28 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
the fact of the omtffion than this, That
the Jewim Oeconomy, adminiftred by an
extraordinary providence, could do with-
out the fervices of the omitted Doctrine ;
not, that that Doctrine, even under fuch a
Difpenfation, was of no ufe, much lei's that
it was IMPROPER.
But then one of his Followers, or, what
is as good, one of the Adverfaries of the
Divine Legation, will be ready to fay,
" If & future ft ate was not improper ', much
more if it was of ufe, under an extraordi-
nary difpenfation, How came MOSES not
to give it ?" For great and wile ends of
Providence, vaflly countervailing the ufe
of that Doctrine, if you will believe the
Author of the Divine Legation : Who, if
he did not impofe upon us, when he pro-
mifed a third volume, (as his Lordfhip
conftantly believed, he did) will there ex-
plain thofe ends at large.
Lord Eolingbroke proceeds next to tell
us, what occurs to Him, concerning the
REASONS of the omiffion ; And previoufly
affures us, he is not over folicitous about
their weight. This, I fuppofe, is to make his
Counters pafs current : For then, as Hobbes
cxpreffes it, they become the money of fools,
when
PHILOSOPHY. 29
when we ceafe to befolicifous about their
worth ; when we try them hy their
colour, not their weight ; their Rhetoric,
and not their Logic. But this muft be
faid with exception to the firft, which
is altogether logical, and very enter-
taining.
.Jf (fays his Lord (hip) the doctrine of the
immortality of the foul and a future ft ate had
been revealed to MOSES, that he might teach
them to the Jfraelites, he would have taught
them moft certainly. But he did not teach
them. T^hey were, therefore, not revealed.
It is in mood and figure, you fee ; and, I
warrant you, defigned to fupply what was
wanting in the Divine Legation ; tho' as
the Author of that book certainly believed,
the doctrines were not revealed, 'tis ten to
one but he thought Mofes not at liberty
to teach them : unlefs you can fuppofe
that his Lordfhip, who believed nothing
of revelation, might believe Mofes to be
retrained from teaching what God had
not revealed to him ; and yet, that the
Author of the Divine Legation, who held
Mofes's pretenfions to be true, might think
him at liberty to go beyond his Commif-
fioh. Thus far, then, thefe two Writers
2 pay
30 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
may be faid to agree : But this good un-
derftanding lafts not long. His Lordfliip's
modejly and the others pertnefs foon make the
breach as wide as ever. Why they were not
Jo revealed (fays his Lordfhip) fotm PERT
DIVINE or other will be ready to tell you.
For me, I dare not pretend to guefi. The
readinefs of the one and the backwardnefs
of the other, are equally well fuited to
their refpective principles. Should his
Lordfhip have gueffed, it mufl have
brought him to what he moft dreaded,
the divine origin of the Jewifh Religion :
Had his Adverfary forborn to guefs, he
had betrayed his caufe, and left thofe data
unemployed, which enabled him, I do
not fay to guefi, but to difcover, and de-
monftrate the Divine Legation of Mofes.
Plowever, fbis, his Lordmip will pre-
fume to advance, that fince thefe doctrines
were not revealed by God to kis jervant
MOSES, it is highly probable, that the Le-
gijlator made a fcruple cf teaching . them to
the Ifraelites, howfoever well injlrufted be
might be in them himfelf, and howfoever
ufeful to Government he might think them.
Was ever fuch galimatias ! And all for the
miierable pleafure of depriving Religion of
this
PHILOSOPHY. 31
this illuftrious evidence of its truth. He
perfonates, you fee, a Believer, who holds
MOSES to be an infpired Lawgiver : But
how ill does he fuftain his part ! Either
MOSES did indeed receive the LAW from
God, or he did not. If he did not, Why
are we mocked with the diflindtion be-
tween what was revealed, and what was
not revealed, when nothing was revealed ?
If MOSES did receive the Law from God,
Why are we ftill worfe mocked with the
diftinction between what was revealed, and
what was not revealed, when every thing
was revealed ; as well, the direction for
the omijjion of a future Jlate> as the di-
rection to inculcate the Unity of the God-
head? Why was all this mockery, you
fay? For an obvious purpofe : it was to
draw us from the TRUE object of our in-
quiry, which is, What GOD intended by
the omijfion j to that FANTASTIC object,
which only refpects, what MOSES intended
by it. For the plain, obvious intention of
GOD evinces the truth of Mofes's miffion ;
but the intention of MOSES, when confi-
dered in contradiftinction to God's, termi-
nates in the human views of an ordinary
Law-
32 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
Lawgiver ; which leads us back again to
Infidelity.
And now, having ftript Mofes of his
divine, and again inverted him with his
civil Character j his Lordfhip confiders,
What it was, which, under this cha-
racter, might induce him to emit a future
Jlate ; and he finds it to be, left this
doctrine mould have proved hurtful to
the doctrine of the Unity y which it was
his purpofe to inculcate amongft his
People, in oppofition to the Egyptian
Polytbeifm.
Mofes , (fays his Lord (hip) it is highly
^probable, made a fcruple of teaching thefe
Doffrines to the Ifraelites, howfoever well
injlrufted he might be in them, himfelf, and
howfoever ufeful to Government he might
think them. The People of Egypt, like all
other nations, were Polytheifts, but different
from all others : there was in Egypt an in-
ward as well as outward Doffrine : Natu-
ral Theology and natural Religion were the
inward Doffrine; while Polytheifm y Idolatry,
and ALL THE MYSTERIES, all the impie-
ties and follies of 'magic ', were the OUTWARD
Doftrine. Mofes was initiated into thofe
Myftcries
PHILOSOPHY. 33
M)fteries where the fecret doctrine alone
was taught, and the outward exploded
For an accurate Divider commend me to
his Lordfhip. In diftinguiming between
the inward and outward doctrines of the
Egyptians, he puts all the Myfteries amongft
the outward : tho' if they had an inward^
it muft neceffarily be part of thofe Myjle-
ries. But he makes amends prefently, (tho*
his amends to truth is ever at the ha-
zard of a contradiction) and fays, that
Mofes learnt the inward doftrine In the
Myfteries. Let this pafs. He pro-
ceeds Mofes had the knowledge of both
outward and inward. Not fo the Ifraelites
in general, ^hey knew nothing more than
the out fide of the Religion of Egypt. And
if a future Jtate was known to them, it was
known only in the fuperjlitious rites, find
with all the fabulous circumftances, in which
it was drejjed up and prefented to the 'vulgar
belief. It would be hard therefore to teach
or to renew this doffrine in the minds of the
Ifraelites, without giving them an occafion
the more to recal the Polytheijlical fables,
and praffife the idolatrous rites they had
learnt during their Captivity. The Chil-
dren of Ifrael, it feems, knew no more of
* D a future
34 A VIEW ofL. BOLINGBROKE'S
a future ftate, than by the fuptrjlitious
rites and fabulous circumflances with which
it was drejjed up and prefented to the public
belief. What then ? MOSES, he owns,
knew more. And what hindered MOSES
from communicating of his knowledge to
the People, when he took them under his
protection, and gave them a new Law
and a new Religion ? His Lordfhip lets us
underftandj that this People knew as little
of the Unity ; for he tells us, it was
amongrt the inward Doctrines of the Egyp-
tians : Yet this did not hinder Mofes
from intruding his people in the doctrine
of the Unity. Why then fhould it hinder
his teaching them the inward doctrine of a
future Jlate^ diverted of its fabulous circum-
ftances ? He had diverted Religious worfoip
of the absurdities of Demi-Gods and He-
roes. What mould hinder him from di-
verting a future Jiate of Charon's boat and
the Elyfian fields ? But the notion of a fu-
ture Jlate would have recalled thofe fabu-
lous circumftances which had been long
connected with it. And would not Re-
ligious worftiip, under the idea of a tutelary
Deity, and a temporal King, recal the
polytheifm of Egypt ? Yet Mofes ventured
upo
PHILOSOPHY. 35
upon this inconvenience, for the fake of
great advantages. Why fhould he not
venture on the other for the fake of
greater ? For the doctrine of a future ftate,
is, as his Lordfhip confefles, even veceffary
both to civil and religious Society. But
what does he talk of the danger of giving
entry to the fables and fuperftitions con-
cerning the foul ; fuperftitions, which, tho*
learnt in the Captivity, were common to
all the nations of Polytheifm, when, in
other places, he allures us, that Mofes
indulged the Ifraelites in the mofl characle-
riftic fuperftitions of Egypt ?
However, let us fee how he fup-
ports this wife obfervation. Rites and
Ceremonies (fays his Lordfhip) are often fo
equivocal, that tbey may be applied to 'very
different doffrines. But when tbey are fo
clofely connected with a doffrine, that they
are not applicable to * another, to teach the
dcclrine, is, IN SOME SORT, to teach the rites
and ceremonies.
Infomefort, is well put in, to foften the
deformity of this inverted logic. His
point is to (hew, that a fuperftitious Rite,
relating to, and dependent on, a certain
Doctrine, will obtrude itfelf whenever that
*D 2 Doctrine
36 A VIEW of L. BOLINGB'ROKE'S
Doctrine is taught : and his reafoning is
calculated to prove, that where the Rite
is practifed, the Doctrine will, foon fol-
low. But this does not hold in the re-
verfe, and the Rite follow the Doctrine ;
becaufe a Principal may ftand without its
Dependent j but a Dependent can never
fublifl without its Principal.
Under cover of thefe grotefque (hapes^
into which his Lordfhip has traveftied the
Jewifh Lawgiver, he concludes, that MO-
SES being AT LIBERTY to teach this doc-
trine of rewards and punijhments in a fu*
titrejlate, ffr not to teach it, he might very
well chufe the latter -*r Yet it was but at
the beginning of this paragraph j that he
tells us, Mojes was NOT AT LIBERTY to
teach, or not to teach. His Lordfhip's
words are thefe, Since this doctrine was not
revealed by God to his fervant Mofes, it is
highly probable that this Legi/lator MADE
A SCRUPLE of teaching it. But his
Lordfliip knows that Statefmen foon get
the better of their fcruples : and then, by
another .fetch of political cafuiftry, find
themfelves more at liberty than ever.
I had obicrved above, that our noble
Difcourier, who makes MOSES fofcrufu/otis
that
PHILOSOPHY. 37
that he would, on no terms, afford a
handle for one fingle Egyptian fuperftir
tion to get footing amongft his people ; has,
on other occafions, charged him with in-
troducing them by wholefale. He was
fenfible his Inconfiftency was likely to be
detected, and therefore he now attempts
to obviate it. hd be [Mofes] indulged the
Ifraelites, on account of the hardnefs of their
he arts t and by the divine permijjlon^ as it is
prefumed, in fever al obfer vat ions and cujloms^
'which did not LEAD direftly, thd even they
did fo perhaps IN CONSEQUENCE, to the Po~
lytbeifm and Idolatry of Egypt. And could
teaching the Doctrine of a future jlate pof-
fibly do any more than LEAD IN CONSE-
QJJENCE, (as his Lordmip elegantly ex-
prefTes it) to the Polytheifm and Idolatry
of Egypt y by drawing after it thofc fu-
perjlitious Rites and fabulous circumftances
which, he tells us, then attended the
popular notion of fuch a State ? If, for
the hardnefs of their hearts^ they were in-
dulged in feveral obfervances and cujlows,
which only led in confidence to Polytheifm
apd Idolatry, Why, for the fame hardnefs
of heart, were they not indulged with the
dpclrine of z future fiate, which did nof
*P 3 Jead,
38 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
lead, but by a very remote confequence,
to Polytheilru and Idolatry ? Efpecially
fince this hardnefs of heart would lels bear
the denial of a DOCTRINE fo alluring to
the human mind, than the denial of a
RITE, to which, habit only and old cuf-
tom had given a cafual propenfity. Again,
thofe Rites, indulged to the People, for the
bardnefs of their hearts, had in themfelves.
little uie, or tendency to advance the ends
of the Jewifh Difpenfation ; but rather
retarded them : Whereas z future flate^ oy
his Lordfhip's own confeffion, is moft
ufeful to all Religions, and therefore in-
corporated into all the Syftems of Paga-
nifm ; and was particularly ufefut to the
Ifraelites, who were, he fays, both a re-
bellious and a Juperjlltious people: difpofi-
tions, which not only made it neceffary to
omit nothing that might inforce obedience,
but likewife facilitated the reception and
fupported the influence of the doctrine in
queftion.
You have here the whole of his Lord-,
{hip's boafted iblution of this important
Circumftance of the OMISSION. And you
fee how vainly he ftrives to elude its
force. Overwhelmed, as it were, with
the
f
PH i L o s o P H*Y. 39
the weight of fo irrefiftible a Power^ after
long wriggling to get free, he at length
crawls forth, but fo maimed and broken,
that all his remaining ftrength is in his ve-
nom 5 which he now fheds in abundance
over the whole Mofaic Oeconomy ; It is
pronounced to be a grofs impofture ; and
this very circumftance of the OMISSION is
given as the undoubted proof of his accu-
fation.
<e Can we be furprifed then (fays his
" Lordfhip) that the Jews afcribed to the
<c all perfect Being, on various occafions,
fe fuch a conduct and fuch Laws as are
" inconfiflent with his moft obvious per-
<c fedions ? Can we believe fuch a con-
< dudt and fuch Laws to have been his,
<c on the word of the proudeft and moft
<c ty^ n g Nation in the world ? Many other
" confiderations might have their place
" here. But I (hall confine myfelf to
" one j which I do not remember to have feen
il nor heard urged on one Jide, nor ANTI-
" CIPATED on the other. To {hew then,
et the more evidently, how ABSURD, as
* well as IMPIOUS it is to afcribe thefe
C{ Mofaical Laws to God, let it be confi-
" dered, that NEITHER the people of
*D 4 Ifrael,
4-O A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
<c Ifrael, nor their Legiilator perhaps,
<f KNEW ANY THING OF ANOTHER LIFE,
* wherein the crimes committed in this
<c life are to be punifhed. Altho' he
<f might have learned this Doctrine, which
<c was not fo much a fecret doctrine as it
" may be prefumed that the unity of
<c the fupreme God was, amongft the
< Egyptians. Whether he had learned
" both, or either, or neither of them in
<c thofe fchools, cannot be determined :
<c BUT THIS MAY BE ADVANCED WITH
" ASSURANCE ; If MOSES knew, that
<{ crimes, and therefore Idolatry, one of
<e the greateft, were to be punifhed in
<c another life, he deceived the people in
<c the Covenant they made, by his inter-
* e vention, with God. If he did not know
" it, I fay it with horror, the confe-
< quence, according to the hypothcfis I op-
" pofe, muft be, that God deceived both
* c him and them. In either cafe, a co-
" venant or bargain was made, wherein,
<c the conditions of obedience and difobe-
f< dience were not fully, nor by confe-
61 quence, fairly flated. The Ifraelites
? c had better things to hope, and worfe
J! to fear^ than thofe which were exprefled
PHILOSOPHY. 41
" in it: and their -whole hiftorv feems to
/
" {hew how much need they had of thefe
<c additional motives to reftrain them from
" Polytheifm and Idolatry, and to anfwer
< the afiumed Purpofes of divine Provi^
" dence [7]."
This wonderful Argument, hisLordmip
fays, he does not remember to have feen, or
heard urged on one Jlde y nor anticipated en
the other. This, You are to underftand
as a kind reproof to the Author of the
Divine Legation : for none but He, I think,
could anticipate an objection to an. Ar-
gument which none but He had em-
- ployed. Give me leave then to fupply his
defects : I am the firft good natured Ani-
madverter on him that has done fo ; the
reft have contented themfelves with their
beft endeavours to expofe them. How*
ever, had the Author of the Divine Le-
gation been aware of the Objection, it is '
ten to one but he Lad done his beft to
anticipate it. But as his Lordmip is fo
generous to invite anvnfwer to it, he {hall
O '
not be difappointed.
Let it be confidered (fays his Lordlhip)
l~] Vol.v/p. 194 5.
* D 5 that
42 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
that perhaps Mofes KNEW NOTHING of ano*
ther life, wherein the crimes committed in
this life are to be punifted. - Confidered by
whom ? Not by his Lordfhip, or his kind
Readers: for he has brought them to
confider the contrary. <c Many probable
<e reafons (fays he) might be brought to
" {hew, that this was an Egyptian doctrine
" before the exode; and this particularly, that
" it was propagated from Egypt, fo foon
" at leaft afterwards, by all thofe who were
" injIruSled LIKE MOSES, in the wifdom
" of that People. He tranfported much of
" this wifdom into the fcheme of Reli-
<c gion and Government which he gave
<c the Ifraelites ; and, among other things,
* e certain Rites, which SEEM TO ALLUDE,
<c OR HAVE A REMOTE RELATION TO,
tc THIS DOCTRINE [8]." This poffibly
might have recurred to his Lordmip, while
he was talking of this new and unantici-
pated argument, and therefore, in the
tricking it up amongft his Fragme?its t
to his perhaps, he adds, by a very hap-
py corrective, altho Mofes might have
learnt this Doctrine, which WAS NOT so
[8] Vol. v. p. 2389.
MUCH
PHILOSOPHY. 43
MUCH A SECRET doflrine, as it may be
frejumed that the unity ofthefupreme God
was amongji the "Egyptians. But he had
done better to have left his contradictions
uncorredted, and have trufted to the rare
fagacity of the Public to find them out.
For he had ever an ill hand at reconciling
matters ; thus in the cafe before us, in the
very aft of covering one contradiction, he
commits another. He is here fpeaking of a
future Jiate^ diverted of its fabulous circum-
ftancesj Per baps > fays he, MOSES KNEW
NOTHING OF ANOTHER LIFE. Which y 1VaS
NOT so MUCH A SECRET do&rine, as that
of the Unity. Now, Sir, turn back a mo-
ment, to the long quotation from his 2 3 9 th
page, and there you will find, that a future
rtate, diverted of its fabulous circumftances,
WAS AS MUCH A SECRET Doctrine, as that
of the Unity. " There is reafon to believe,
<e that natural Theology and natural Re-
ligion were INWARD dodlrines amongft
the Egyptians. MOSES might be let
into a knowledge of BOTH by being
initiated into thofe Myft erics where the
fecret doftrine alone was taught. But
" we cannot imagine, that the Children of
y Ifrael in general enjoyed the fame pri-
4 !! vilege.
44 A VIEW pf L. BOLINGBROKE'S
c< vjiege. No, they knew nothing more
" than the cutfide of the Egyptian Reli-
" gion : and if the Doctrine ive fpeak of
<c [A FUTURE STATE] was known to
" them, it was known only in the fuper-
<c ftitious Rites, and with all the fabulous
<e circumftances, in which it was drefTed
<e up and prefented to vulgar belief."
Is not this, now, a plain declaration, that
3. future ft ate > divefled of its fabulous cir-
cumftances, was as much afecret Doflrine
as the doctrine of the Unity ?
But his Lordfhip's contradictions are
the leaft of my concern. It is his Argu-
ment I have now to do with. And this,
he fays, he advances WITH ASSURANCE.
I agree with him : U is that which adds a
relifh to all he advances.
He thinks he can reduce thofe who hold
the hypothefis of no future ftate in the
Jewifh Oeconomy, to the neceffity of
owning, that MOSES, or that GOD bimfelf,
afted unfairly by the Ifraelites. How fo,
You afk ? Becaufe One or Other of them
concealed a future ftate. And what if they
did ? Why then they concealed one of the
atual Sanctions of moral conduct, fu-
ture punijhment. But who told him, that
this, which was no fan&ion of the
PHILOSOPHY. 45
was a fanftion to the moral conduct
of the Jewijh People? Who, unleis the
Artificial T'heokger ? the man he moft de-
cries and defpifes.
In all this fort of Theology, there being
nothing but the CALVINISTICAL tenet of
Original Sin, that gives the leaft counte-
nance to fo monftrous an opinion, every
thing in the GOSPEL, every thing in NA-
TURAL THEOLOGY exclaims againfl it.
JESUS, indeed, to prove that the de-
parted Ifraelites ftill exifted, quotes the
title God was pleafed to give himfelf, of
the God of Abraham ', Jfaac, and Jacob.-,
which, together with their exiftence, proves
likewife the happinefs of their condition:
for the relation they are faid to ftand in
with God, (hews them to be of his king-
dom. But we muft remember, that the
queilion with his Lordmip is, not of re-
'ward, but puniflment. Again, JESUS in-
forms us, in a parable indeed, that the de-
ceafed rich man was in a place of torment.
But we muft remember that the fcene was
laid at a time when the Doctrine of a
future jlate was become national. To
know our blefled Mafter's fentiments on
the abftradl: queftion Qffubjt8ion to an un-
6 P, 7 known
46 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
known Sanction, we may confider the fol-
lowing words, " The fervant which knew
<e his Lord's will, and prepared not him-
" felf, neither did according to his will,
" fhall be beaten with many ftripes; but
" he that knew not, and did commit things
<c worthy of ftripes, mall be beaten with
" few ftripes [8]." Now the Will of a
Mafter or Sovereign, declared in his Laws,
always includes in it, the Sanctions of
thofe Laws. The Author of the Epiftle to
the Hebrews exprefly diftinguifhes the fanc-
tion of the Jewim law from that of the Gof-
pel; and makes the diftinclion to coniift in
this, that the one was of fempora/ punifti-
ments, and the other of future. He that dc-
fpifed Mofess Law died without mercy wider
two or three witnejfes. Of how much forer pu-
nijhrnent) fuppofe ye^Jhallhebe thought worthy
who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God [9]?
Which appeal is without common fenfe or
honefty, on fuppofition that the apoftle held
the Jews to be fubjec"l to future punim-
ments, before that Sanction was promulged
unto them. From the GOSPEL therefore,
it cannot be inferred, that the Ifraelites,
while only following the Law of Mofes,
in which the fanction of a future Jlate is
[8] Luke xii. p. 478. [9] C. x. * 289.
omitted-)
47
omitted, were liable or fubjecT: to the pu*
nifhments of that ilate.
Let us fee next, Whether NATURAL
THEOLOGY, or natural Religion (as his
Lordfhip is pleafed, for fome reafon or:
other, to diftinguifh the terms) hath
taught us, that a people, living under an
EQUAL PROVIDENCE, or the immediate
government of God, to whom he hath
given a Law and revealed a Religion,
both fupported by temporal fanclions onlyj
can be deemed fubjeft to thofefafure pu-
nimments, unknown to them, which na-
tural Religion before, and Revealed Reli-
gion fince, have difcovered to be due to
bad men living under an UNEQUAL PRO-
VIDENCE.
NATURAL RELIGION ftandeth, (as has
been already (hewn) on this Principle,
" that the Governor of the Univerfe RE-
WARDS and PUNISHES moral Agents." The
length or ihortnefs of human exiftence come
not primarily into the idea of Religion ; not
even into that compleat idea of Religion
delivered by St. Paul, in his general defi-
nition of it. The Religion ift, fays he, mujl
believe that God is, and that he is a RE-
WARDER of theft ivhofeek him.
While
48 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
While God exadly diftributed his
wards and punimments here, the light of
Nature directed men to look no further
for the Sanctions of his Laws. But when
it came to be feen, that He was not
always a rewarder and a punimer here,
men heceflarily concluded, from his mo-
ral attributes, that he would be both^
hereafter > and confequently* that this life
was but a fmall portion of human dura-
tion. They had not yet fpeculated on
the permanent nature of the Soul. And
when they did fo, that eonlideration,
which, under an unequal providence came
ftrongly in aid of the moral argument for
another life, had no tendency, under an
equal one, to open to them the profpedts
of Juturity : becaufe, tho' they faw the
Soul unaffected by thofe caufes which
brought the body to diflblution, yet they
held it to be equally dependent for its ex-
iftence, on the Creator's Will 5 whoj
amongft the various means of its deflruc-
tion, of which they had no conception*
had, for aught they knew, provided one
or more for that purpofe.
Thus a FUTURE STATE was brought;
by natural light, into Religion : and from
thence-
PHILOSOPHY. 49
thenceforth, under this unequal diftribu-
tion of things, became a neceflary part of
Religion. But, in the Jewifh THEOCRA-
CY, God was an exact rewarder and pu-
niiher, here. Natural light therefore (hew-
ed that, under fuch an adminiftration, the
fubjects of it did not become liable to fu-
ture Punifhments, till that fanction was
known amongft them. And this, which
Natural Religion teaches, we may be fure
God, who constituted naturals well as re-
sealed Religion, will confirm.
Thus we learn by the Principles of the
Gofpel t and of the Religion of Nature, that
his Lcrdmip calumniated both, when
he affirmed, that, on the hypothecs in
queflion, MOSES Deceived the people in
the Covenant they made, by his intervention,
with God : Or that, if Mojes did not k?ww
the doffirine of a future Jlate, then GOD de-
ceived both him and them.
Should it now be afked, how God will
deal with wicked men, thus dying under
the Mofaic Difpenfation ? give me leave
to anfwer, in the words of Dr. CLARKE,
to as impertinent a queflion. He had
demonflrated a felf-moving Subftance to
be immaterial; and fo, not perimable like
* E Bodies.
50 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
Bodies. This including the Souls of irra-
tional animals, it was afked " How thefe
were to be difpofed of, when they had
left their refpective habitations ?" To
which the Doctor very properly replies,
<c Certainly, the omnipotent and infinitely
ct wife God may, without any great diffi-
<e culty, be fuppofed to have more ways
ic of difpofing of his Creatures [I add, with
perfect juftice and equity, and with equal
meafure, to all] <e than we are, at prefent,
" let into the fecret of [i]." But if the
Author of the Divine Legation has not
promifed more than he can perform (as his
long delay gives us too much room to
fufpect) this matter will be explained at
large, in his account of the SCRIPTURE
DOCTRINE OF THE REDEMPTION, which;
he has told us, is to have a place in his laft
Volume.
Nothing, then, remains of this objection 1
but the fanction of future rewards : And
I would by no means deprive the faith-
ful Ifraelites of thefe. So that his Lord-
fliip has this to make his beft of. And,
in his opinion, even an unexpected reward y
[i] Octavo Tracts- againft Dochvell and Collins,
p. 103.
is
PHILOSOPHY. 51
is Unfair dealing j for he joins it with /#-
nijhment, as if his confequence againft God's
juilice and goodnefs might be equally de-
duced from either of them. A covenant,
fays he, was made, wherein the conditions of
obedience and dif obedience 'Were not FULLY,
nor, by confequence^ FAIRLY Jlated. 'The
Ifraelites had BETTER THINGS TO HOPE,
and worfe to fear than thofe which were
exprejfcd in it. Tho' it be hard on the
Benefactor) to be denied the liberty of
giving more than what, in his Covenant,
he had exprefsly promifed j it is flill
harder on the Party obliged, that he is not
at liberty to receive more. True it is,
that, in this cafe, the conditions are not
FULLY flated-y and therefore, according to
his Lordfhip's Logic, BY CONSEQUENCE,
NOT FAIRLY. To ftrengthen this Confe-
quence y his Lordmip concludes in thefe
words And their whole Hiftory feems to
Jhew how much need they had of thefe addi-
tional motives [future Rewards and Punifh-
ments] to rcjlrain them from Polytheifmand
Idolatry, and to anfwer the ASSUME D pur-
fofes of Divine Providence.
Whoever attentively reflets upon all thefe
conceffions together That Mofes was
*E 2 himfelf
52 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
himfelf of the race of Ifrael was learned
in all the wifdom of Egypt and capable
of freeing his People from their Yoke that
he brought them within fight of the pro-
mifed Land ; a fertile Country, which
they were to conquer and inhabit that
he inftituted a fyftem of Laws, which has
been the admiration of the wifeft men of
all ages that he underftood the doctrine
of a FUTURE STATE : and by his experi-
ence gained in Egypt, knew the efficacy
of it in general ; and by his perfect know-
ledge of the rebellious and fuperftitious
temper of his own People, could not but
fee how ufeful it was to them in particu-
lar Whoever, I fay, reflects on all thefe
things (and all thefe things are amongft his
Lordmip's conceflions) and at the fame
time confiders, that MOSES, throughout his
whole fyftem of Law and Religion, is en-
tirely filent concerning * future jiate of Re-
wards and Punifliments, will, I believe,
conclude, that there was fomething more
in the OMISSION than Lord BOLINGBROKE
could fathom, or, at leaft, was willing to
And.
But let us turn from MOSES'S conduft,
(which will be clfewhere confidered at
large)
PHILOSOPHY. 53
large) to his Lordlhip's, which is our pre-
fent bufinefs. Firft, he gives us his con-
jectures, to account for the Omiffion* exclu-
fively of MOSES'S Divine Legation : but,
as if diflatisfied with them himfelf (which
he well might be, for they deftroy one
another) he next attempts, you fee, to
prove, that the Legation could not be di
vine, from this very circumftance of the
omijfion. And now at laft he will demon-
flrate that an extraordinary providence, in
general, fuch a one as is reprefented by
Mofes, and which, the Author of the Di-
vine Legation has proved, from the cir^
cumftance of the omiffion, was attually ad-
miniftered in the Jewifh Republic, could
not poffibly be adminiftered, without de-
ilroying free will ; without making Virtue
fervile j and without relaxing univerfal be-
nevolence. And, to make all fure, he
fhuts up the account by (hewing, that an
extraordinary providence could anfwer no
reafonable end or purpofe.
In his firjl order of evafions, he feems
to be alone j but in \htfecond and third %
he had the pleafure of feeing in coadjutor^
ihip with him, many an orthodox Writer
againfl the Divine Legation.
* E 3 I have
54 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
I have confidered his Lordfhip's firft
and fecond order. The third remains to
be examined : it is the laft refuge of his
infidelity : And then, I think, I may re-
turn him back to the Author of the D/-
vine Legation, in cafe he chufes to take
him up, in defence of the other principles
of his book; all of which, with diftin-
guifhed honour to this Writer above any
other, his Lordmip has attempted, to con-
fute at large.
i. His firfl objection to the adminiftra-
tion of an extraordinary providence, fuch
as MOSES promifed to his People on the
part of GOD, is, that it would DESTROY
FREE-WILL. But here let me obferve, that
he affects to difguife the immediate Object
of his attack ; and, in arguing againft an
extraordinary Providence, chufes to con-
iider it in the abftract, as the Point arifes
out of an imaginary difpute between Him
and the Divines j who, he pretends, are
diflatisfied with the prefent order of things,
and require, as the terms of their acquief-
cence in God's juftice, the adminiftration
of an equal Providence, here. But, this ob-
liquity in difguifmg the true object of his.
attack,
PHILOSOPHY.
attack, not being of itfelf fufficient to em-
barras his adverfaries, he further fupports
it by a prevarication : For it is not true,
that Divines are diflatisfied with the pre^
fent order of things, or that they require a
better. All the ground they ever gave his
Lordfhip for imputing this fcandal to
them, being only this afiertion, " That if
the prefent ftate be the whole of Man's ex~
iftence, then the Juflice of God would
have exactly difpenfed good and evil here ;
but, as he has not fo difpenfed them, it
follows, that there will be a ft ate of re-*
wards and punimments hereafter"
This being premifed, I proceed to his
firft objection : " In good earneft (fays
" his Lordfhip) is a fyftem of particular
" providences, in which the fupreme Be-
<c ing, or his Angels, like his Minifters to
<c reward, and his Executioners to punifh,
< are conftantly employed in the affairs
" of mankind, much more reafonable ?"
[than the Gods of EPICURUS or the morah
of POLEMO] " Would the JUSTICE of
<f God be more MANIFEST in fuch a ftate
<c of things than in the prefent? I fee
* no room for MERIT on the part of
*E 4 ! e Man*
56 AViEw of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
<c Man, nor for JUSTICE on the part of
" God, in fuch a ftate [2]."
His Lord {hip afks, whether the 'Juftice
of God would be more mamfeft in fuch a
ilate of things, where good is conftantly dif-
penfed to the virtuous, and evil to the wick-
ed, than in the prefenf, where good and
evil happen indifferently, to all men ? If his
Lordfhip, by the prefent ft ate of things ^ in-
cludes the rectification of them in a future
ft ate, I anfwer, that the Juftice of God would
not be more manifeft, but equally and fully
manifefl in both cafes. If his Lordfhip
does not include this rectification in a
future Jlate, then I anfwer his queftion by
another ; Would the Juftice of the Civil
Magiftrate be more manifeft, where he
exactly difpenfes rewards to good men,
and punimment to evil, than where he fuf-
fers the Cunning and 'the Powerful to carve
for themfelves ?
But he fees no room for merit on the fart
of Man i or Juftice en the part of God. If
he does not fee, it is his own fault. It is
owing to his prevaricating both with him-
felf and his Reader ; to the turning his view
[2] Vol. v. p. 4256.
from
PHILOSOPHY. 57
from the Scripture-reprefentation of an
equal Providence, to the partialities of
Fanatics concerning the favoured workings
of the Spirit, and to the injuftices of Cal-
viniftical election ; and to his giving thefe
to the reader, in its flead. See how dex-
troufly he flides Entbujzaftn and Predeftina-
tion into the Scripture-doctrine of an equal
Providence. If feme men were DETERMI-
NED TO GOODNESS by the fecret 'workings
of the Spirit, &c. Yes indeed, if you will
be pleafed to allow him, that, under an
equal providence, the will is over-ruled,
you mufl be forced to allow him there is
an end of all merit and demerit. But this
fubftituting, what he calls artificial theo-
logy in the place of bible-theology, is his ufual
leger-de-main. So again, / can conceive
ftill lefs, that individual Creatures before
they have done either good or evil, nay, before
their actual exiftence, can be the objetfs of
predilection or averfion, cflove or hatred to
God. I believe, every Gofpel-Divine con-
ceives as little of this as himfelf ; and as
much of the confequcnce of fuch a fyftem,
viz. that it violates God'sjuftice. But what
have thefe human inventions to do with
the extraordinary Providence, reprefented
in
58 A View of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
in holy Writ? To fay, that this Provi-
dence takes away man's merit and God's
juftice., is confounding all our ideas of
right and wrong. Is it not the higheft
merit of a rational creature to comply
with the ftrongeft motive ? And is not
God's juftice then moft manifeft when
the order of things prefent feweft diffi-
culties and obfcurities in our contempla-
tion of it ? His Lordfhip was plainly of
thefe fentiments, when, arguing againft
God's compliance with the Jewifh hardnefs
cf heart, he thought it more becoming the
Matter of the Univerfe, to bend the per-
verfe ftiffnefs of their Wills ; and, when,
arguing againft a future Jlate from the
prefent good order of things, he pretends
to fhew, againft Divines and Atheifts in
conjunction, that there was little or no ir-
regularity in the prefent difpenfations of
Providence ; at leaft, not fo much as the
the World commonly imagined. And
why was this paradox advanced, but from
a confcioufnefs that the more exaft the
prefent adminiftration of God's provi-
dence appeared, the more manifeft it made
his Juftice ? But here his Lordfhip's fol-
lowers may put in, and fay, that their
4 Matter
PHILOSOPHY^
Mafter has in this, done no more, (in-
deed fcarce fo much, at leaft, not in fo
exprdfs terms) than a celebrated Prelate, in
one of his difcourfes at the Temple ; who
tells us, " That an immediate and vifible
** interpofition of Providence in Behalf of
<c the righteous, and for the punimment of
< the wicked, would INTERFERE WITH
<e THE FREEDOM OF MORAL AGENTS,
<e AND NOT LEAVE ROOM FOR THEIR
" TRYAL [3].*' But they who object
this, to us, have not confidered the nature
of moral differences . For, as another
learned Prelate well obferves, A little ex-
perience may convince us t that the fame
thing, at different times, is not the fame [4].
Now if different times may make fuch al-
terations in identity, what muft different
men do ? The thing faid y being by all can-
did interpretation, to be regulated on the
furpofe of faying.
2. Lord Bolingbroke's fecond objection
againft an equal Providence is, that it
would MAKE VIRTUE, SERVILE. " If
<* the Good, befides the enjoyment of
[3] Vol. ii. p. 2589.
[4] Scripture vindicated from the mifreprefentations
9/thf Bp. of Bangor, p. 165.
"all
60 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
<c all that happinefs which is infeparable
" from Virtue, were exempted from all
" kinds of evil, and if the wicked, be-
'* fides all thofe evils which are infe-
" parable from Vice, and thofe which
ct happen to all men in the ordinary
<e courfe of events, were expofed to
" others that the hand of God inflicted on
* c them in an extraordinary manner, fuch
" Good men would have VERY LITTLE
" MERIT ; they would have, while they
" continued to be good, no other merit
'* than that of children who are cajoled
c< into their duty ; or than that of Gally-
** Haves who ply at the oar, becaufe
'* they hear and fee and fear the la(h of
ce theboat-fwainjj]."
If the perfection of a rational Creature
confifls in acting according to reafon ;
and if his merit rifes in proportion to his
advances in perfection ; How can that ftate
which beft fecures him from acting
irrationally, leiTen or take away his merit ?
Are the actions of the Deity of lefs worth
for the moral incapacity of his being un-
juft or malignant ? The motive which
induces to right action is indeed more or
[5] Vol. v. p. 428.
left
PHILOSOPHY. 61
lefs perfect according to the dignity or na-
ture of the Agent: But the queftion here
is not concerning the pcrfetion y but the
power of the motive, in turning action into
paflion ; which is the only way whereby
it can deftroy merit in its fubjecl.- Now
I hold that this fancy, That motives ex-
terior to the Being on which they work,
can turn an Agent to a Patient, is one of
the greateft of Physical abfurdities. For
while agency remains, merit fubfifts : the
degrees of which do not depend on the
lefs or greater force of the motives, but on
the more or lefs reafon of the choice. In
a word, there is no other means of tak-
ing away the merit and demerit of hu-
man actions, than by taking away agency,
and making man paflive, or, in other terms,
a Machine.
But to (hew, in a more popular way,
the futility of this reafoning, it will be
fuflkient to obferve, that the objection
holds equally againft all religious Sanc-
tions whatfoever. And fo indeed it was
frankly urged by Lord Shafdbury; who
pretended that every motive regarding
IELF, tended to fervilize Virtue : Without
doubt, one fort, jufl as much as another , a
future
62 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
turejtate, as well as an equal Providence*
Nay, if we were to appreciate matters very
nicely, it would feem, that a future Jlate
without an equal providence (for they are
alway to be confidered feparately, as they
belong to different fyftems) would more
fhongly; incline the Will, than an equal
providence without a future Jlate ; as the
difference between future andpreftnt good,
k infinitely great. But the human mind
being fo constituted, that the diftance of
a good takes off proportionably from its
influence, this will bring the force of the
two fanclions .nearer to an equality ; which
proves thus much, and no more, That the
objection to the merit of Virtue holds, as
we faid, againft all religious fanctions
whatever. In the ufe of which, Lord
Shaftfbury was not only more ingenuous,
who urged it againft them <z//, but more
confident, as he urged it on his principle
of a perfect difintereftednefs in our na-
ture; whereas Lord Bolingbroke is amongfl
tbofe who hold, that felf-love and foetal,
tho' coincident, are two effential paffions
in the human frame.
" That two confiftent motions a6t the Soul,
" And one regards IJTSELF, and one the
PHILOSOPHY. 63
But we might go further, and urge againfl
both thefe noble Adverfaries of Religion,
that the charge of making virtue fertile,
holds againft all moral fanctions likewife,
as well as againft all religious ; as well
againfl: that whofe exiftence they allow, as
againfl thofe which they would perfuade
us to be vifionary j both thefe illuflrious
Patrons of infidelity maintaining, that God
has made the practice of virtue our INTER-
EST as 'well as duty [4], But inter eft and
fertility is, with thefe generous Spirits, the
fame thing.
His Lordfhip's third cavil to an equal
Providence is, that it would RELAX GE-
NERAL BENEVOLENCE.
c< But would there not be, at the
ee fame time, fome further defects in this
< fcheme? I think there would. It feems
" to me, that thefe good men being thus
ec diftinguimed by particular providences,
" in their favour, from the reft of man-
" kind, might be apt either not to con-*
<c trad, or to LOSE THAT GENERAL
" BENEVOLENCE, which is a fundamental
" Principle of the Law of Nature, and
" that PUBLIC SPIRIT, which is the life
[4} Vol. v. ,p. 429.
" and
64 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
cc and foul of Society. God has made the
" practice of morality our intereft, as well
c< as our duty. But men who found
" themfelves conftantly protected from the
" evils that fell on others, might grow
" infenfibly to think .themfelves uncon-
e< cerned in the common fate : and if they
" relaxed in their zeal for the Public
cc good, they would relax in their virtue >
ct for public good is the object of Virtue^
" They might do worfe, fpiritual pride
cc might infect them. They might be-
cc come in their own imaginations the little
Ce Flock, or the chofen Sheep. Others
<{ have been fo by the mere force of En-
" thufiafm, without any fuch inducements
" as thofe which we afTume, in the fame
" cafe; and experience has fhewn,that there
<c are no Wolves like thefe Sheep [5]."
The cafe affumed y to which his Lord-'
fhip objects, and againft which he pre-
tends to argue, is, that of an equal Provi-
dence 'which exaftly diftributes good to Vir-
tue, and to Vice> evil. Now the prefent
objection to fuch a Hate is, an' pleafe you,
that ti\is favourable diftinflion of good, to
the virtuous man would be apt to deftroy
[5] Vol. v. p. 429.
bis
PHILOSOPHY; 65
kis general benevolence and public fpirit.
Thefe, in his Lordmip's account, and fo
in mine too, are the fublimefl Vir-
tues ; and therefore, it is agreed will be
moft highly rewarded : But the tendency
of this favourable diftintfion, if you will
believe him, may prove the lofs of ge-
neral benevolence and public fpirit. As
much as this mocks common fenfe, his
Lordmip has his reafons. God has made
the practice of morality our INTEREST
as well as duty. But men^ who fad
themfelves conjlantly protected from the evils
that fall on others, might grow infenfibly
to think themfelves unconcerned in the com-
mon fate.
God has made the practice of morality our
INTEREST as well as duty. Without
doubt he has. But does it not continue
to be our intereft> under an equal, as well
as under an unequal Providence ? Nay, is it
not more evidently and invariably fo, in .
the abfence of thofe inequalities which hin-
der our feeing clearly, and feeling con-
ftantly, that the practice of morality is our
INTEREST as well as duty ?
But men, who found themfelves con-
jlantly protected from the evils that fall on
* F others.
66 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
other s, might grow infenfibly to think them-
fehes unconcerned in the COMMON FATE.
What are thofe evils, under an equal Pro-
vidence, which fall on others, and from
which the good man is protected? Are
they not the punimments inflicted on the
wicked. And how is the good man pro-
tected from them ? Is it not by his perfe-
verance in Virtue ? Is it pomble there-
fore, he mould grow infenfible to thofe
evils, which his Lordmip calls the com-
mon/ate, when he fees his inter eft, and his
duty fo clofely connected, that there is no
way to avoid thofe evils but by perfevering
in virtue ? But his Lordmip by calling them
the common fate detects his prevarication.
In this reafoning againft an equal Provi-
dence, he flurs in upon us, in its ftead, a
Providence which only protects good men ; or
rather, one certain fpecies of good men-, and
leaves all other to their COMMON FATE.
But admit it poflible for the good man
to relax in his benevolence, and to grow in-
fenfible to the common fate : there is, in the
Jlate here ajjiimed y a fpeedy means of bring-
ing him to himfelf j and that is, his be-
ing no longer protected from the evils that
fall
PHILOSOPHY* 67
fall on others : for when men relax in their
benevolence, his Lordfhip tells us, they re-
lax in their 'virtue : and, give me leave to
tell his Lordfhip, that when men relax
in their virtue, Providence relaxes in its
protection ; or, to fpeak more properly,
the rewards of virtue are abated in pro-
portion.
However,fpiritual pride (he fays) might
infeft the virtuous, thus protected. And this
he will prove a fortiori, from the cafe of
ENTHUSIASTS ; who only imagine they
have this protection, and have it not.
Now, what if we mould fay, that this
very enthujiajlic fpirit itfelf, and not the
vifions of Protection it is apt to raife, is the
true caufe of fpiritual pride?
ENTHUSIASM is that temper of mind, in
which the imagination has got the better
of the judgment. In this inverted ftate of
things, Enthufiafm, when it happens to be
turned upon religious matters, becomes
FANATICISM : which, in it's extreme,
begets this fancy of our being the pe-
culiar favorites of Heaven. Now, every
one fees, that SPIRITUAL PRIDE is the
caufe, and not the effeft of the diforder.
For what but fpiritual pride, fpringing
*F 2 out
68 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
out of preemptive holinefs, could bring
the Fanatic to fancy himfelf exalted above
the common condition of the faith-
ful ? It is true, when he was got thus
far, the folly which brought him thither,
would be greatly inflamed ; and this ad-
dition would-be indeed the effeft of his
diforder. For, as the real communication
of Grace purifies the paffions, and exalts
them into virtues, fo the ftrong delufion of
fuch aftate, only renders the paflions more
grofs and violent. And here it may be
worth while to take notice, that his Lord-
fhip, in this objection to an extraordinary
Providence, from the hurt it does to ge-
neral benevolence ', feems to have had the
yewijh People in his eye; who in the lat-
ter ages of their republic, were common-
ly charged, and perhaps truly, with
want of benevolence to' the reft of man-
kind : a fact, which tho' it makes no-
thing for his purpofe, makes very much
for mine, as it furnifhes me with an ex-
ample to fupport what is here faid of
Fanattcifm-y an infirmity pretty general
amongft the Jews of thofe Ages. They
had outlived their extraordinary Provi-
dence, but not the memory, nor even
the
PHILOSOPHY. 69
the effects of it: Nay, the warmer tern-*
pers were hardly brought to think it had
ceafed. This filled them with fpiritual
pride, as the elect of God ; a difpofition
which, it is confefled, tends naturally
to deftroy or to relax general benevo-
lence.
Let us fee now, on the other hand,
the natural confequences, which the aftual
adminiftration of an equal Providence
would have on the human mind. In
this cafe, as in the other, a warm tem-
per, whofe object was Religion, would be
obnoxious to the common imbecillity of
our nature, and too apt to difgrace itfelf by
fpiritual pride : but as this is one of the
vices which an equal Providence is always
at hand to punim, the cure would be
direct and fpeedy. The recovered Votary
we will now fuppofe to be received again
into the number of the Good j and to.
find himfelf in the little flock and chofen
JJxep, as they are nick-named by this no-
ble Writer. Well, but his danger is not
yet over ; the fenfe of this high preroga-
tive of humanity, might revive in a warm,
temper, the ftill unmodified feeds of fpi-
titual pride. Admit it might ; and fee.
* F 3 what
70 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
what follows. His pride revives indeed,
but it is only to be again humbled : for
punishment is flill clofely attendant on vice
and folly. At length, this holy difcipline,
the necefiary confequence of an equal Pro-
vidence, effectually does its work, it puri-
fies the mind from low and felfim partia-
lities, and adorns the will with general be-
nevolence, public fpirit, and love of all its
fellow Creatures.
What then could fupport his Lord-
fhip in fo perverfe a judgment concerning
the ftate and condition of good men under
an equal Providence ? That which fupports
all his other infults on Religion j his fo-
phiftical change of the queftion. He ob-
jects to an equal providence (which Reli-
gtonifts pretend has been admin iftered dur-
ing one period of the Difpenfation of Grace)
where good men are conftantly rewarded,
and wicked-men asconftantly punifhedj and
he takes the matter of his objection from
the fanatical idea of z favoured e left } (which
never exifted but in overheated brains)
where reward and punifhment are diftri-
buted, not on the proportions of merit
and demerit, but on the diabolic dreams
of certain eternal decrees of election and
reproba-
PH i L o SOP H y. 71
reprobation, unrelated to any human prin-
ciple of juftice.
But, now, Sir, keep the queftion fted-
dily in your eye, and his Lordmip's rea-
foning in this paragraph will difclofe fuch
a complication of abfurdities as will afto-
nifh you. You will fee an equal Provi-
dence, which, in and thro' the very act of
rewarding benevolence, public fpirit, and
humility, becomes inftrumental in pro-
ducing, in thofe fo rewarded, felfifh-
nefs, neglect of the public, and fpiritual
pride.
His Lordmip's laft objection to an ex-
traordinary Providence is, that it would
NOT ANSWER ITS END.
" I will conclude this head (fays he)
" by obferving, that we have example as
" well as reafon for us, when we reject
" the hypothefis of particular providences.
<c God was the king of the Jewifh Peo-
" pie. His prefence refided amongft
" them, and his juftice was manifefted
<e daily in rewarding and puniming by
" unequivocal, fignal, and miraculous in-
<e terpofitions of his power. The effect
" of all was this, the People rebelled at
f c one time and repented at another. Par-
*F A " ticular
72 AViEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
" ticular providences, directed by God
<f himfelf immediately, upon the fpot, if
" I may fay fo, had particular temporal
" effects only, none general nor lading :
" and the People were fo little fatisfied
" with this fyftem of Government, that
<c they depofed the fupreme Being, and
" infifted to have another King, and to
<e be governed like their neighbours [6]."
In fupport of this laft objection you fee,
his Lordfhip was forced to throw off the
mafk, and fairly tell us what he aimed
at; that is to fay, to difcredit the extraor-
dinary Providence mentioned by Mofes. An
equal Providence, fays he, will not anfwer
its end. What is its end ? Here, his preva-
rications bring us, as ufual, to our diflinc-
tions.- When this Providence is adminif-
tered for the fake of Particulars, its firft end
is to difcipline us in virtue, and keep us in
our duty : When administered for the
fake of a Community, its firft end is to
fupport the Inftitution it had erected.
Now his Lordfhip, proceeding from
reafon to example, gives us this of the
Jewifh Republic, to prove that an equal or
[6] Vol. v. p. 430.
extra-
PHILOSOPHY. 73
extraordinary Providence does not anfwer
one or other or both thefe ends.
But it is unlucky for him, that in this
very place, where he employs the example^
he cannot forbear, any more than in num-
berlefs others of his writings, to tell us that
he believes nothing of the matter. How
long this theocracy may be f aid to have con-
tinued (fays he) I am quite unconcerned to
know, and Jhould be forry to mifpend my time
in inquiring.
The example then is only an argu-
ment ad hominem. But the misfortune is,
that no Laws of Logic will admit an ar-
gument ad hominem on this queftion, Of the
EFFECTS of a REAL extraordinary provi-
dence ; becaufe the nature of the effects of a .
REAL providence can never be difcovered by
the effects of a PRETENDED one. To fay
the truth, his Lordmip is at prefent out of
luck. For had he indeed believed the extra-
ordinary providence of the Jews to be real,
his own reprefentation of the cafe would,
on his own principles, have proved it
but pretended. For 'tis a principle with
him, that where the means do not produce
the end, fuch means (all pretences not-
withftanding) are but human inventions.
4 It
74 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
It is thus he argues againft the Divinity
of the Chriftian Religion ; which he con-
cludes to be an impofture for its not having
effected that lafting reformation of man-
ners, which he fuppofes was its principal
aim to accomplish.
So far as to the CHOICE of his example.
Ke manages no better in the APPLICA-
TION of it.
We have diftinguifhed, concerning the
ends of an extraordinary providence. Let
us fuppole now, that his Lordmip takes the
principal end of the Jewim Theocracy to
be the reformation of Particulars. He re-
fers to their hiftory, and pretends to mew
they were not reformed. Now whatever
other confequences may attend this fuppo-
fed Fact, the moft obvious and glaring is
this, That his Lordmip, in proceeding
from reafon to example, has given us fuch
art example^ as overturns and wipes out his
reafoning. According to his reafomng, an
extraordinary providence would tye virtue
and good manners fo faft down upon
every Individual, that his very Will would
be forced, and the merit of doing what he
had it not in his power to forbear, abfo-
lutely deftrcyed. You would now perhaps
expect
PHILOSOPHY. 75
expe<5t his example mould confirm his
fadt ? Juft otherwife. His example mews,
his facT: to be a fiction, and that men re-
mained as bad as ever.
But I have no need of taking any arti-
ficial advantage of his Lordmip's bad rea-
foning. For, when we fee it fo conftant-
ly oppofed to truth, it is far from being an
additional difcredit to it, that ft is as con-
flantly oppofed to bimfelf.
The truth indeed is, that the great and
principal end of the JEWISH THEOCRA-
CY, was the keeping that People a feparate
nation, under their own Law and Reli-
gion, till the coming of the MESSIAH;
and to prepare for his reception by pre-
ferving amongft them the doclrine of the
UNITY. Now, to judge whether the theo-
cracy or extraordinary Providence compaf-
fed its tndy we have only to confider,
Whether this people, to the coming of
Chrift, did continue a diftincl: Nation
feparated from all the other tribes of
Mankind, and diflinguimed from them by
the wormip of the true God only. And
on inquiry, we (hall, find, they not only
did continue thus diftincl: and diftinguimed,
but have fo continued ever fince. A fin-
gularity
j6 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
guiarity which has had no example amongft
any other People : And is fufficient to con*
vince us, that there m lift have been fome
amazing power in that Theocracy, which
could go on operating for fo many ages after
the extraordinary adminiftration of it had
chafed. Let us conclude therefore, that the
having nothing to urge againft the due effi-
cacy of this extraordinary providence, but
that, the people rebelled at one time and re-
pented at another, and that this providence
had only temporary effects, is the moft am-
ple confeffion of his defeat. And fo much,
for his Lordfhip's exploits in ANTIENT
POLITICS.
Let us now come a little nearer to him,
and confider him in his talents for the
MODERN.
Here his Lordfhip mines without a
Rival.
" Whether to fettle peace or to unfold
" Thedrift of hollow ftates befides to know
tc Both SPIRITUAL POWER AND CIVIL, what
* c each means,
What fevers each,"- *
as
PHILOSOPHY. 77
as a Poet of the laft age writes of bis political
Friend; who if he did not employ his talents
more happily to himfelf or his Country, had
much more to anfwer for, as they were vaftly
fuperior to our turbulent Gentleman's.
However, with the befl he has, he pro-
ceeds to overturn the PRINCIPLES of the AL-
LIANCE BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.
But the pains he had taken, and the oppofition
he had found from the ARGUMENT of the
DIVINE LEGATION, had, by the time he came
upon this fecond Adventure, fo ruffled his
manners and difcompofed his temper, that he
now breaks out in all kinds of opprobrious
language not only againft the Syftem, but
even againft the perfon of the Author.
To underftand the nature of his Lordfhip's
provocation, if at leaft it arofe from thts trea-
tife of the Alliance, it may not be improper to
fay a word or two of the occafion of that Book,
and of the Principles on which it is compofed.
After the many violent convulfions our
Country had fuffered fince the Reformation,
by the rage of religious Parties (in which, at
one time, liberty of Confcience was oppreffed ;
and at another, the eflablimed Church ruin-
ed and overthrown) it pleajfed divine Provi-
dence to fettle our religious Rights on fuch
* F 7 princi'
78 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
principles of juftice and equity, and to fecure
the civil peace on fuch maxims of wifdom
and true policy, as moft effectually guarded
bothagainft the return of their refpective vio-
. lations : and the means employed by this all
wife providence was the giving, on proper
terms of fecurity to the national Religion, a
free toleration to all who difTented from the
eftablifhedWormip. This feemed to be going
as far towards perfection, in religious Commu-
nion, as the long diftracted flate of the chrif-
tian Church would fuffer us to indulge our
hopes.
But men had not been long in pofTefiion of
this bleffing before they grew weary of it, and
fet on foot many inventions, to throw us back
into our old diforders. For it is to be obferved
with forrow, that this reform of the Englifh
Conftitution happened not to be the good
work of the CHURCH, begun in the conviction
of Truth, and carried on upon the principles of
Charity: but was rather owing to the vigilance
cf the STATE, at onetime, vainly perhaps, an-
xious for the eftablimed Religion a ; at another,
wifely provident for the fupport of civil Liber-
ty b . So that when fucceeding diiTentions in
Church and State had made this newly re-
formed Conftitution the fubject of enquiry,
C&. II. W//.III.
the
PHILOSOPHY. 79
the Parties who managed the debate, be-
ing thofe who before, had both perfecuted
and fuffered in their turns, the principles
and tempers they brought with them to
the difcuffion of the right, were not fuch
perhaps as were beft fitted either to regu-
late their judgments, or to moderate their
decifions. One Party feemed to regard the
TOLERATION as an evil in itfelf, and only
a temporary expedient to prevent worfe j
while their conduct (hewed they lay atwatch
for the firft occalion to break in upon it.
This was enough to miilead the Other to
cbnfider the TEST LAW, which covered
and fecured the eflablimed Religion, as no
better than a new fpecies of perfecution:
and having now no real injury to complain
of, they began to take umbrage at this (ha-
dow of a grievance: to have divine Wor-
ihip really free, they held, that no religious
profeffion mould be attended with civil in-
capacities : a TEST had made that diftinc-
tion amongft God's Wormipers ; it was
therefore to be fet afide. But every man
faw (and perhaps the enemies of the tfeft
were not amongft the laft who faw it) that
to fet afide this Laiv y which, under a ge-
neral Toleration was the only fecurity of the
i efta-
8o A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
ejlablijhed Church, was expofing the Nati-
onal worfhip, to all the inroads of a fecta-
rian rabble. This mifchievous project, ari-
fing out of abufed liberty, was at firft en*
tertained, as we may well fuppofe, by the
tolerated Churches only. Some of the
more ingenuous of them adopted it out of
fear, on the difcovery of that bigotted
principle in their Adverfaries, which
confidered toleration as only a tempora-
ry expedient : And where was the won-
der if thofe who believed, they had no
fecurity for what they had got, while fuch
principles prevailed, mould endeavour to
put it out of the power of their adverfaries
to difturb them ? Others of a more politic
turn cherimed it from views of ambition,
and in hopes of maring the emoluments of
the eftablifhed Church. It was fome time
before any Member of the Church of En-
gland joined with Diffenters in their cla-
mours again ft a T^ejl Law, or, more pro-
perly fpeaking, againft their own EJtablifh-
ment. This monftrous coalition did not
happen till a warm difpute on certain me-
taphyfical queflions, either too fublime to
. become the fubjecl of human wit, or too
trifling to gain the attention of reafonable
men,
, 8i
men, had Started new fcruples concerning
Church Subfcription. And to get rid of
this neceffary engagement to peace, ^and
acquiescence in the eftabliShed Religion,
theie wife and faithful Ministers of the
National Worfhip were amongft the fore-
mofl, to lend a hand to it's destruction,
and the bufieftto trample down all its fences
and Securities.
BIGOTRY, you fee, was at the bottom
of the firil fet of principles ; and Fanati-
cifm, of the other. In their feparate appeals
to the experience of Mankind, there was
this remarkable difference; All ages had
felt the mifchiefs of religious reSlraint and
perfecution ; but there was no example,
either in Pagan or in Christian times,
of the evils attending the WANT of an
ejlablijhed Religion. The Fanatics there-
fore, were perpetually urging their expe-
rience againft perfecution, fecurein not hav-
ing the argument retorted upon them.
But, in this imaginary advantage they
deceived themfelves ; and the very infant
of examples was the greatest Advantage
the Bigots had over them. It is true, (thefe
might reply,) we have no inStance of the
evils attending the want of an established
* G Reli-
A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
Religion. But the reafon is, becaufe no
nation was ever without one : The ne-
ceffity of it, for the fupport of Society, be-
ing fo indifpenfable, that Men even in
the wildeft times, who hated religious
Eftablifhments moft, and who had been
fwornand leagued together for their deftruc-
tion, had no fooner the power to effect it,
by the fuperiority of their arms, than
they found, in fettling the State, a ne-
ceflity of fupporting an eftablifhed Church.
Of which, we have a remarkable exam-
ple in the INDEPENDENT Republic, and
the Proteftorjlrip of OLIVER ; both of
whom, under their feveral Ufurpations,
were forced to erect PRESBYTERY, the
Religion they moft hated, into the NATIO-
NAL CHURCH.
To proceed, the diftempers of the
State, ftill further contributed to inflame
thofe of the Church ; and, on the Accefli-
on of the prefent Line to the Throne,
occafioned a long, a famous, and a re-
gular difpute concerning the powers,
bounds, and limits of the two Societies.
But as the feveral difputantshad reciprocally
given too much and too little both to
Church and State ; and had bottomed their
reafon-
PHI L o SOP H v. 83
rcafonings on one common fallacy; the de-
fenders of a TEST, fupported it on fuch
reafoning as deftroyed a Toleration j and
the Defenders of religious Liberty, argu-
ed againft the juftice and equity of that fe-
curity, on fuch principles as concluded
equally againft a national Church.
In this embroiled condition, the Author
of the Alliance between Church and State
found the fentiments of men concerning
religious Liberty and eftablimments, when
he propofed his Theory to their confidera-
tion : a Theory calculated to vindicate our
prefent happy Conftitution ON A PRINCIPLE
OF RIGHT, By adjufting the precife bounds
of the two Societies ; by mewing how they
come to act in conjunction j and by explain-
ing the nature of their Union : and from
thence, by natural and neceflary confe-
quence, inducing, on the one hand, an
.ESTABLISHED RELIGION, with all it ? s
.rights and privileges, fecured by a TEST
LAW ; and on the other, a full and free
TOLERATION to all who diiTented from
the National Wormip.
He firft (lie wed the ufe of Religion to
Society, from the experience and practice
of all Ages : He inquired from whence the
*G 2 ufe
84 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
ufe arifes, and found it to be from certain
eflential defeats in the very nature and plan
of Civil Society. He went on to the Na-
ture of Religion > and fhewed how, and
for what caufes, it conftituted a Society :
And then, from the Natures of the two
Societies, he collected, that the object
of the Civil, is only the body and its in-
terefts ; and the object of the Religious,
only the Soul. Hence he concluded,
that they are both fovereign, and indepen-
dent ; becaufe they arife not out of one
another ; and becaufe, as they are concern-
ed in contrary provinces, they can never
meet to clafh : the fame-nefs of original,
or adminiftration, being the only caufes
which can bring one, of two different So-
cieties, into natural fubjection to the
other.
To apply Religion therefore, to the
fervice of Civil Society in the beft manner
it is capable of being applied, he {hewed it
was necefTary.that the two Societies mould
be united : For each being fovereign and
independent, there was no other way of
applying that Affiftance, in any folid or ef-
fectual manner. But no fuch union could
arife but from free compact and convention.
2 And
PHILOSOPHY. 85
And free convention is never likely to
happen, unlefs each Society has its mu-
tual motives, and mutual advantages. The
Author therefore, from what he had laid
down of the natures of the two Societies,
explaiped what thofe motives and advan-
tages were. The refult of which was,
that all the rights, privileges, and pre-
rogatives of the two Societies, thus united,
with the Civil Magiftrate at their head, ap-
peared to be thofe very rights, privileges,
and prerogatives, which we find eftablimed
and enjoyed under our prefent happy Con-
flitution in Church and State ; which hath
perfectly reconciled an ESTABLISHED
CHURCH with a free TOLERATION, by
the medium of a TEST LAW : This Law
therefore the. Author in the laft place, pro-
ceeded to vindicate, on the fame general
principles of the Law of nature and na-
tions.
You have here, Sir, a true, tho' fhort,
Analysis of the Alliance between Church and
State ; with the principles on which the
Theory is conducted.
Let us now examine the, account his
Lordmip has been pleafed to give of it. I
(hall take him paragraph by paragraph, in
*G 3 his
86 A ViEWof L. BOLINGBROKE'S
his native diforder, as he lies : And for
the fame reafon, that I followed a different
method in confuting his Arguments againft
the moral attribute^ which I thought fit
to methodize and digeft. For when a dif-
orderly writer is tolerably clear, you may
make him {till clearer, and Ihew his argu-
ments to more advantage, by reducing them
into form. But when he is above meafure
cloudy and confufed, as here in reafoning
againfl the book of the Alliance, the like
Affiftance would be fufpicious : for the
cloud being immoveable, the Reader might
come to fancy that both the o&fciirify, and
the order were of the anfwerer's making.
Therefore the fafeft, as well as faireft way,
in this cafe, is to tranfcribe the Writer as
he lies, and anfwer him as he rifes. The
obfcurities in thought and expreffion, will
be then found his own ; and nothing can
be objected to his adverfary, but a few re-
petitions, which in this method of anfwer-
jng could not be avoided.
His Lordmip preludes his attack upon
the Book, and the Author, with this curi-
ous Narrative.
< I have heard of a Sermon preached
{C by one Doctor SENIOR, a Fellow of
' Trinity
PH r L o SOP H y. 87
c Trinity College, in Cambridge, before
" King Charles the Second at New-mar-
" ket, in tbt days of pafjvue obedience and
" non-rejiftance> and afterwards printed.
" His text was taken from the 14, 15,
cc and 1 6 verfes of the ivth Ch. of Exodus,
" or fome of them ; wherein God directs
<c MOSES to take AARON the Levite, be-
<c caufe he knew that AARON could fpeak
<c well to the People, and joins them to-
" gether in Commiffion, that they might
te affift one another mutually ; that AA-
<e RON might be inflead of a mouth to
" MOSES, and that MOSES might be in-
" /lead of God to AARON. What other
<f applications the good Doctor made of
" thefe texts, I know not. But I am in-
<c formed by Mr. LEWIS, who has read
" the Sermon, that he eftablimed on
<c them a fuppofed Alliance between the
" Church and the State : or rather between
" the Church and the King. By this Al-
" liance the well-fpoken Levite was to in-
ce flil paffive obedience to the King, in
<c the minds of the People, and to infifl
<{ on it, as on a Law of God : The King,
<c on the other hand, was to be the nur-
" fing Father of the Church, to fupport
*G4 ' her
88 AViEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
" her Authority, to preferve, at leaft, if
" not increafe, her immunities, snd to
<c keep her in the full pofieffion of all the
<c advantages {he claimed. The Church
tc performed her part, and had a right, by
<c virtue of this alliance, if the King did
<e not perform his, to teach this doctrine
<c no longer,and to refume her independency
<c on the State and on him. This was the
< purport of thefermon,atleafl:andWAR-
<e BURTON took his hint, POSSIBLY, from
" it, and turned it to fervehis purpofe ; that
<e is, to lay down the fame principles and
<c TO BANTER MANKIND IF HE COULD,
<c by NOT drawing directly, and avowedly,
<{ from them the fame conclufion. Dr.
<e SENIOR'S authority is, no doubt, as
tc good in this cafe, as that of DE MARCA
<c or even of BOSSUET. The firft, a- time-
cc ferving Prieft, interested, and a great
cc flatterer, if ever there was one, and
" who made no fcruple to explain away
'< -whatfoever he had found himfelf obliged
<c to fay in favour of the State. The latter
" was as wife, if not as cunning, as learn-
c< ed, and a much better man, tho' not fo
" much in the favour of Mr. WARBUR-
TON, who gave them Characters in his
" affuming
c
PHILOSOPHY. 89
" afTuming ftyle, without knowing any
" thing of them ; and who has the imper-
<{ tinence to pronounce of the greateft Scho-
" lar, the greateft Divine, and the great-
<{ eft Orator of his age, that be was a
" good fen fible Man. He was all I have
" laid of him: but he was an Ecclefiaftic*
" and a fubje<5t of France [i]."
As to his Lordihip's account of this Dr. 1
SENIOR, I fcarce know what credit it de-
ferves : For he who will falfify a Book in
every body's hands, will hardly be very
fcrupulous-of what he fays about a Sermon,
which nobody has heard of, but his Friend
Mr. LEWIS. At leaft if Doctor SENIOR was
ever a man exifting in this world, I fhould
fancy he muft be later than where his
Lordfhip, who is no great Chronologer,
has thought fit to place him. He tells
us it was in the days of pajfive obedience
and non-refiftance, and that the dodtrine of
his fermon was calculated for the fervice
of popery and arbitrary power. May we
not fuppofe then, that he flouriilied under
his Lordfhip's Aujpices y when the Church
waslaft in danger ? If this were the cafe, his
Lordfhip ufes Dr. SENIOR juft as heufed St.
[i] Vol. iv. p. 515.
PAUL,
90 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
PAUL [2], firft fets him upon preaching
faj/ive Obedience, and then abufes him for
his pains.
But let Dr. SENIOR live when and
where he would, his Lordfhip thinks 'tis
POSSIBLE that WARBURTON might have
taken the hint of the Alliance from him.
Yes, juft as pofjible as that LOCKE took the
hint of the original compact from FILMAR.
HeafTures us, however, that the Authority
of Dr. SENIOR is as good as that ofDs
MARC A, or ^iwz of BOSSUET. The authority
of Dr. SENIOR 1 For what? To fupport
Mr. WARBURTON'S doctrine of the Alliance.
But where is it to be had ! Of Lord Bo-
LINGBROKE, or Mr. LEWIS ? Suppofe
this difficulty to be got over ; and Dr. SE-
NIOR as ready at hand as DE MARCA or
BOSSUET ; yet the Author of the Alliance^
perhaps, would not think it altogether fo fit
for his purpofe : For he tells us, that his
purpofe in fo frequently quoting the acknow-
ledgments of DE MARC A and BOSSUET, in
[2] " By this Alliance of the hierarchy and the
<e Monarchy, Religion that fhould fupport good go-
* e vernment alone, was employed to fupport good
'* and bad government alike, AS IT HAS BEEN BY ST.
< PAUL." Vol. iv. p. 516.
favour
PHILOSOPHY. 91
favour of the State againft the incroachments
of the Church, was to fhame thofe Protef-
tant Divines who had contended for the
independency of the Church, when efta-
blifhed 5 and even for itsfupen'ority before.
But, of thefe two famous Frenchmen,
'Thefirft (he fays) was a time-ferving Prieft t
inter efted, and a great flatterer the latter
was as ivife if not as cunning, as learned
and a much better Man, tho* notfo much in
the favour of Mr. War burton, who gave
them Characters, in his ajjumingftyle, with-
out knowing any thing of them, and who
has the impertinence to pronounce, of the
greateft Scholar, the greatejl "Divine, and
the greateft Orator of his age, that HE WAS
A GOOD SENSIBLE MAN.
The Author of the Alliance, in the
Advertifement to the laft Edition of his
Book, fpeaking of the French Tranflator,
has thefe words <{ He fupported them
" [the conclufions] all along with quota-
" tions from the two famous works of
" DE MARCA and BOSSUET ; the one the
<c wifeft, and the other the MOST SENSIBLE
" DIVINE THAT NATION EVER PRODU-
[3] P. i3-
From
92 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
From thefe words, I leave you> Sir, to
reflect upon the truth and ingenuity of
the noble Writer's reprefentation, that
BOSSUET is not fo much in Mr. Warburtoris
favour as DE MARCA ; and that Mr.
Warburton has the impertinence to pro-
nounce that BOSSUET was A GOOD SENSI-
BLE MAN. In the heavy diftreffes of Con-
troverfy, many a Writer has been found to
rnifreprefent. But to do this out of mere
wantonnefs and gayety of heart, and then,
on the credit of his mifquotations, to abufe
v and call names, is altogether in his Lord-
fhip's manner.
But you will fay, perhaps, that the IM-
PERTINENCE was not in ti\t familiarity of
the commendation, but in the choice of the
topic. It may be fo j and then we get another
Rule of good writing from his Lordmip,
who has already furnifhed us with fo many:
" That when the authority of an Author
is urged in a point concerning Civil and Re-
ligious Righ'ts, his learning, his divinity,
and, above all, his eloquence ihould be in-
fifted on, rather than his GOOD SENSE." .
All this is but a prelude, to the Com-
bat. " The notion (fays this great
" Politician) of a FORMAL ALLIANCE
" between
PHILOSOPHY. 93
<c between Church and State, as between
" two independent, diftincT: powers, is a
" very groundlefs and WHIMSICAL no-
" tion. But a fraudulent or filent com-
<f pact between princes and priefts became
" very real, as foon as an ecclefiafHcal
" order was eftablimed [4]." The lat-
ter part of this period is but too true;
and the Theory of the Alliance, (mifre-
prefented in the former part,) was propo-
fed to remedy thefe mifchiefs. It is this
Theory only, which I (hall undertake to
vindicate againft his Lordmip's Objections.
If, by formal^ he means (and what mould
he mean elfe) one actually executed in
form ; and fuppofes that the Author of the
Alliance between Church and State, aflerted
the actual execution of fuch a one,
we may, with more juftice perhaps, ap-
ply to his Lordmip what he fays of the
Author, concerning DE MARC A and
BOSSUET, Tbaf he gives a Character of
the book called the Alliance, 'without know-
ing any thing of it. Give me leave to quote
the Author's own words " From all this
" it appears, that our plan of Alliance is
* c no precarious arbitrary Hypotheiis, but
[4] Vol. iv. p. 515 1 6.
" a The-
94 A ViEwof L. BOLINGBROKE'S
" a Theory founded in reafon, and the
cc invariable nature of things. For having
" from the eflence collected the neceffity
<c of allying, and \hz freedom of the com-
" pad: j we have from the fame necefftty y
" fairly introduced it ; and from its free-
*' dom, confequentially eflablifhed every
<l mutual term and condition of it. So
<c that now if the reader mould afk, where
* c this Charter or treaty of convention for
<c the union of the two Societies, on the
<e terms here delivered, is to be met with ?
" we are enabled to anfwer him. We
" fay, it may be found in the fame Ar-
" chive with the famous ORIGINAL COM-
" PACT between Magiftrate and People ;
" fo much infifted on, in vindication of
" the common rights of Subjects. Now
<c when a fight of this compact is required
*' of the Defenders of Civil liberty, they
" hold it fufficient to fay, that it is enough
<l for all the purpofes of fact and right,
" that fuch original compact is the only
" legitimate foundation of Civil Society:
<c That if there were NO SUCH THING
" FORMALLY executed, there was, vir-
* tually : That all differences between
" Magiftrate and People ought to be re-
i " gulated
PHILOSOPHY. 95
(c gulated on the fuppoiition of fuch a
tf Compact ; and all Government reduced
" to the principles therein laid down ;
" for that the happinefs of which Civil
c< Society is productive, can only be at-
tained by it, when formed on thofe
principles. Now fomething like this
we fay of our Alliance between Church
and State [$]."
Let this ferve too, for an anfwer to his
Lordfhip's infulting queflion in another
place " But where (hall we look for the
" conditions of that original contract which
" was made between the religious and the ci-
<s *uil Society, I know not j unlefs we fup-
" pofe them written on the back of Con-
" flantine's grant to Sylvefter [6]." Does
his Lordfhip know where to look for the
original contract which was made between the
prince and people, in any place of eafier
accefs ? Or will he, when at a lofs, fend
us to the back of Con/I antine 1 s grant to Syl-
*vejler 3 for this contract likewife ? But to
proceed. If by formally, through a per-
verfe ufe of words, his Lordfliip means
only virtually, like the original compact be-
[5] Alliance, third Edition 3 p. 165 6 7.
[6] Vol. iv. p. 419.
tween
96 A VIEW of L. BOLINGEROKE'S
tvveen King and People, This indeed, the
Author of the Alliance does venture to
fay 5 and not only to fay, but to prove
like wife.
It is true, the foundation of the proof,
in his Lordfhip's opinion, ftands upon a
WHIMSICAL principle : fo did the argu-
ment of the Divine Legation of Mofes,
from the Omiffion of a future State. Indeed
his Lordfhip feems to have been as much
diftreffed by WHIMSICAL Divines, when
he wrote his ej/ays, as he was by WHIMSI-
CAL Politicians, when he wrote his Letter
to Sir W. Windbam. However, the whim-
faal principle, in queftion is this, That THE
CHURCH OF CHRIST COMPOSES A SOCIE-
TY SOVEREIGN, AND INDEPENDENT OF
THE ClVIL.
This principle, his Lordfhip denies.
And it muft be confeifed, not, as is his
wont, altogether abfurdly : For he who
makes Religion itfelf a Fantom, can have
but a flender idea how it mould become
embodied.
" Neither NATURE nor REASON (fays
" his Lordfhip) could ever lead men to
" imagine TWO DISTINCT AND INDE-
lt PENDENT SOCIETIES IN THE SAME
" SOCIETY.
PHILOSOPHY. 97
c< SOCIETY. This imagination w.as broach-
" ed by ecclefiaftical ambition [7]-"
A grave fentencc, which to me feems
equivalent to this, That neither nature nor
reafon could ever lead men to imagine that
ONE was TWO. In this, I readijy agree
with his Lordfhip. But then the difficulty
remains, how fuch a thing could ever coma
to be broached, (as his Lordfhip fays it was)
by any imagination not more 'disordered,
than it ufually is, by Ecclefiqftic'al Ambition.
School-Learning, indeed, might do much ;
for there, his Lordship has fixed .his theolo-
gical-Bedlam: But Church Ambition, he
aflures us, is of another mold; which,
as it never failed to aim at, fo, he afTures
us, it never failed to obtain, immode~
rate Wealth and exorbitant Power. What
then are we to think ? That his Lord-i
fhip meant, that neither Nature nor Rea~
Jon could ever lead men to imagine two
diftintf and independent Societies in the fame
COMMUNITY ? for Community being the
genus, feveral Societies, as the fpecies, may,
indeed, be contained in it. This, merely for
my own eafe, J am ready to fuppofe, be-
[7] Vol. iv. p. 412.
* H caufe
98 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
caufe when his Lordmip is well underftood
he is always more than half confuted.
In this paragraph then are contained
thefe two propofitions :
1 . That the Church does not compofe
a Society.
2. That it does not compofe a Society
independent and fever -eign.
Let us examine his reafoning on thefe
points as it lies in his works j for as diforder-
Iy as it lies, it is meant, I will affureyou, to
overturn the whole Theory of the Alliance.
" A RELIGIOUS SOCIETY (fays his
" Lordfhip) BY WHICH is MEANT, ON
<l THIS OCCASION, A CLERGY, IS, OF is
" not, a creature of the State. Ifthefirfty
" it follows, that this order no more than
" others, which the State has inftituted for
<c the maintenance of good government,
cc can affume any rights, or exercife any
<c powers, except "fuch as the State has
' thought fit to attribute to it, and that
<{ the State may, and ought to keep a
" conftant controul over it, not only to pre-
f vent ufurpations and abufes, but to di-
" reel: the public and private influence of
" the Clergy, in a ftricl: conformity to the
" .letter and fpirit of the Conftitution ; the
< fervants
PHILOSOPHY* 99
ct fervants of which, in a much truer
cc fenfe, they are, than what they affect
<c fometimes to call themfelves, the Am-
" bafladors of God to other men. If the
c< loft is faid, if it be aflerted, that the
" Church is in any fort independent on the
" State, there arifes from this pretenfion
" the greateft abfurdity imaginable, that,
<c I mean, of Imperium inlmperio; an
" Empire of divine, in an Empire of hu-
" maninftitution[8j."
Thus far his Lordmip, who is here
reafoning againft the principles laid down
in the book of the Alliance. He introduces
his Argument with telling the Reader, that
the Author of that Book has defined a re-
ligious Society , to be the body of the Clergy.
A religious Society, by which (fays he) is
MEANT ON THIS OCCASION A CLERGY,
is, or is not, a Creature of the State [9].
You cannot, I believe, fee this afTertion
without fome furprize, when you obferve,
that the Author of the Alliance has defined
a religious Society to be A NUMBER OF RE-
[8] Vol. iv. P . 413.
[9] So again, This order of men which we CALL the
Religious fociety, V. iv. p. 440. And again, The
Religious Society, as we have ace ujlomed ourfehes to CALL
the Clergy. V. iv. p, 561 .
* H 2 LIGIOUS
ico A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
LIGIOUS CREATURES ASSOCIATED [9].
When you obferve, that He makes
it one of the principal cares of a re-
ligious Society, to provide an order of men,
to be Tet apart for miniftring in holy things,
or in other words, a CLERGY. " The
" greateft care is to be had, that the acts
c< of religious worfhip be preferved fimple,
" decent, and fignificative. But this can
" be done only by providing perfons fet
<f apart for this office; whofe peculiar
" employment it fhall be to prefide in, di-
<c rect, and fuperintend the Acts and Ser-
" vices of Religion, &c. [10]" When
you obferve, he makes the end of religi-
"ous Society to be, fafoation of Souls, and
one of the means, the order of the Clergy.
Laftly when you obierve, he oppofes the
'Church and the Clergy to each other. It
t{ is unj'jft in the CHURCH to aim at the
'" Propagation of Religion- by force, and
cc impertinent to aim at riches, honours,
" and powers. But what motives the
tc CLERGY OF A CHURCH might have,
" is nothing to the purpofe of our in-
fc quiry. We have only to confider
<f what the CHURCH had, WHICH, as
" a religious Society, confifls of the whole
[9] Alliance y p. 55. [10] Alliance, p. 61.
" body
PHILOSOPHY. 101
" body of the Community, BOTH LAITV
" AND CLERGY [i]."
In a word, the Author of the Alliance^
was at much pains to prove that a religious
Society or Church^ does not mean the Clergy ',
but the whole body of the faithful: and
this for two reafons, for the fake of truth in
general, and of his own fyftem in parti-
cular.
1 . It fhocks common Senfe to call one
order or rank in Society, by the name of
the Society : it is little better than calling
one of the qualities of a Subftance, by the
name of the Subftance.
2. It fubverted the Theory of the
Alliance to make the Clergy -, the Church :
for then the Church could neither be
a diftincl: Society, nor independent -, both
of which it muft be, to make it ca-
pable of an Alliance with the State.
It could not be a diitindt Society; for
an order of men, as I obferved juft be-
[i] Alliance, p. 112. The very popifh Clergy,
nay even that time-ferving prie/}^ and great Flatter er^
DE MARC A, weremore honcft than his Lordfliip re-
prefents the Englifh Clergy, as he might have feen by
the quotation at the bottom of this very page of the
Alliance ECCLESIJE CORPUS, EX FJDELIUM OM-
NIUM COMPAOE CONSTITUITUR.
H 3 fore,
IO2 A ViEWof L. BOLINGBROKE'S
fore, is the fame in politics, as a quality in
phyfics j the one mufl inhere in a Society ,
the other in a Subftance : and thefe being
the fubftrata of the other, to talk of the
independent exiftence of an order ; or of a
quality, is the profoundeft nonfenfe in
Politics and Phyfics. But admitting, that
fuch a Church, which like Tfrinculo's king-
dom, confifts only si Viceroys, and Vice-
roys over them, was capable of allying with
the State, the Author has {hewn, in the
place quoted above, that its motives for Al-
liance would be fuch as the State could
not comply with, either in juftice or policy.
But extreme neceffity forced his Lord-
fhip upon this bold and violent falfifkation
of the doctrine of the Alliance. He faw no
other way of fuppreffing the opinion of an
independent religious Society, than by {hew-
ing it to be an Imperium in Imperio, an Em-
pire of divine, in an Empire of human Irjll-
tution ; a mifchief, againft which the State
is always on its guard. And if a religious So-
ciety fignified the Church, and the Church,
only the Clergy, the claim to inde-
pendency would imply fuch an Imperium.
But the Author of the Alliance goes up-
on another principle ; he holds that the
I Church
PHILOSOPHY. 103
Church fignifies the whole body of the
faithful; that though this Society .be inde-
pendent, yet, from this independency, no
fuch folecifm in Politics can arife as an Impe-
rium in Imperio. This argument, which
the Author has drawn out at large, the
noble perfon mifreprefents, perverts, and
attempts to overthrow.
" An Imperium in Imperio (fays his
c< Lordmip) is in truth fo exprefly con-
" tained in the very terms of the affertion,
<e that none of THE TEDIOUS SOPHISTI-
" CAL REASONINGS, which have been ern-
<{ ployed for the purpofe, can evade or
<c difguife it. One of thefe I will mention,
" becaufe it has a CERTAIN AIR OF PLAU-
<c SIBILITY, that impofes on many; and
t becaufe, if it cannot fland a fhort and fair
" examination, as I think it cannot, the
whole edifice of ecclefiaftical independency
and grandeur, falls to the ground. It has
been faid then, that religious and civil
focieties are widely diftinguifhed by the
" diftinct ends of their inftitutions, which
u imply neceflarily diftinct powers and
" a mutual independency; that the end of
" the one, is the Salvation of Souls, and
*ll 4 " that
io'4 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
" that of the other the fecurity of tempo-
<c ral interefts ; that the ftate punifhes
" overt acls, and can punifh nothing elfe,
" becaufe it can have cognizance of no-
" thing that paffes in the mind, and does
< not break out into criminal actions ; but
" that the Church employing t her influ-
" ence to temper the paffions, to regulate
" the inward difpofitions, and to prevent
" fins, as well as crimes, is that tribunal
" at which even intentions are to be tried,
" and fins, that do not ripen into crimes,
" nor immediately affect civil Society, are
" to be punimed [2].'*
This, I will fuppofe, his Lordmip
intended as a fair reprefentation of the Au-
thor's argument for the independency of the
Church. Now the Argument, as it ftands
in the Alliance., is drawn from the different
powers, belonging to the two Societies, as
thofe powers are deduced from their diffe-
rent ends. But different poWers implying
different adminiftrations, create mutual in-
dependency j and different adminiftrations
implying an incapacity of their claming
with one another, (hew plainly that fuch
an independency can never produce an Im-
[2] Vol. iv. p. 4 I 3~ H-
perium
PHILOSOPHY. 105
perium in Imperio. This is the natural order of
the argument. Let us fee how his Lord-
fhip reprefents it. He begins rightly, with
the different ends, viz. Salvation of Souls,
and Security of temporal inter efts: But pro-
ceeding to fpeak of the different powers,
adapted to thofe different ends, viz. coerci-
on in the ftate, and perfuajion only in the
Church (from whence arifes a mutual in-
dependency) he miftakes the confequerices
of thefe powers, which are punifhment of
overt atfs, and fubdual of the pa/Jions, for
the powers themfelves j from which confe-
quences indeed no independency enfues ;
becaufe fubdual of 'the paffions may, in his
Lordfhip's opinion at leaft, be atchieved by
coercive power, as well as punijhment of
overt a&s. And if both Societies have
coercive power, one mufl needs be depen-
dent on the other. I take notice of this
miftake only to {hew you, what an imper-
fec~t and obfcure conception, his Lordfhip
had of the Argument of the Alliance.
Had he told us, : tho' in fewer words, that
the Author's reafoning againft the pretend-
ed Imperium in Imperio, an fin g out of a
mutual independency, was this, That the
State having coercive power 3 and the Church
having
io6-,A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROICE'S
having none, the adminiftration of the two
Societies could never clafh; that oppofition
being the only circumftance which makes
the mifchief of an Imperium In Imperio ; Had
he told us this, I fay, we (hould have feen,
that at leaft he under/load his Adverfary.
But let us conlider how he goes about
to anfwer what he fo ill reprefents.
" Now in anfwer to all this (fays his
" Lordfhip) WE MAY DENY, with truth
" and reafon on our fide, that the avowed
ends of religious, and the real ends of
civil Society, are fo diftinft as to require
diftincl powers, and a mutual indepen-
" dency. The Salvation of Souls is not
tc the immediate end of civil Society, and
" I wifh it was not rather the pretence,
" than the end of ecclefiaftical policy ;
" but if to abftain from evil and to do
" good works, be means of falvation,
the means of falvation are the objects
of civil Government. It is the duty of
Princes and Magiftrates .to promote a
" ftrict obfervation of the Law of Nature,
<f of private and public morality, and to
" make thofe who live in fubjection to
lf them, /good men, in order to make them
" good citizens. For this purpofe, the
" ballancc
PHILOSOPHY. 107
" ballance and the fword are put into their
ct hands, that they may meafure out pu-
" nifhment to every one, who injures the
" Community, or does wrong to his neigh-
cc hour j and a rigorous punifhment of
<c crimes, ' efpecially if it be accompanied
" with rewards and encouragements tovir-
ec tue, for both are intrufled to the fame
" men\^\, is the fureft way not only to
<c reform the outward behaviour, but to
" create an habitual inward difpolition to
cc the practice of Virtue [4]."
We may, fays his Lordfhip, deny that the
avowed ends of religious, and the real ends
of civil Society, are fo diftinffi. Here he
contradicts his mafter LOCKE, This indeed
is a fmall matter. I (hall mew he contra-
dicts Truth, and the whole fyftem of hu-
man affairs. But before we come to that,
there is a great deal to be done We may
[3] This isfaid, I fuppofe, in confutation of what
is aflerted in the Book of the Alliance, (to {hew the
imperfection of the plan of civil power) that reward
js not (as it is generally underftood to be) one of the
Sanctions of civil government, in the fenfe that Pu-
nijkment is fo. But as this is all his Lordfliip has to fey
againft it, I {hall here let the matter reft between
th.ern.
v " JP- 4*4t
fays
io8 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
fays his Lordfhip, deny that the AVOWED
ends of religious, and the REAL ends of civil
Society, are fo diftinft, as to require dijlinft
powers and a mutual dependency. The
avowed ends,does he fay? Avowed by whom ?
Common fenfe requires he mould mean,
avowed by thofe who go upon the princi-
ples of the book of Alliance. But then he
might have faid real, for the avowed and
the real ends coincide: He fiouldhzve
laid real-, for the fairnefs of the pro-
pofition, and the force of the argu-
ment drawn from it, both require the ufe
of this word. But by what he predicates
of thefe aw&ed ends, viz. their not requir-
ing dijiincJ powers, we fee, he means avowed
by corrupt Churchmen. The fahation of
fouls (fays he, immediately after) is rather
the pretence than the end cf ecclefiajlical po-
licy : and thefe ends are Church Uniformi-
ty for the fake of fpiritual dominion. Now
thefe avowed ends, we readily confefs, can-
not be obtained without coercive power of
the civil kind. Here then you have his
Lordfhip, after all his declamation againft
fpiritual tyranny, coming at laft, in the
true fpirit of a free thinking politician, to
profefs that religious perfecution and co-
ercive power are, in the order of things, as
juftly
PHILOSOPHY. 109
jnftly and reasonably employed in matters
of conference, as in the overt ads of cjvil
life : now tbo j this be altogether upon prin-
ciple, (for what fhould reflrain a Statefman
who believes nothing of the truth o
cn y and feS all the mifchiefs of
of options, from attempting to bring about
an outward uniformity, by force?) yet you
would not have expelled it in this place,
where his Lordfhip is defending religious
Liberty, againft the wicked Author of the
Alliance; nor would you have found it,
had notthediftreffes of controverfy driven
him into his native quarters, before his
time. The Alliance went on this princi-
ple, that the Church was a fociety, inde-
pendent of the Civil, as not having coer-
cive power like the civil. To overturn
this argument, his Lordfliip was forced to
. deny the minor, and fo unawares has
brought in perfecution as one of the natu-
ral powers of the Church. But to compafs
this matter neatly, and without noife, he
has recourfe to his old trade, the enjoy-
ing, under an ambiguous expreffion, the
abufe of the thing for the thing itfelf.~
T'he avowed ends of religious the real ends
of civil foci ety. But it was fo glaring a
truth, that the fahation of fouls was the
real
no A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
real end of religious, and the fccurity of
temporal inter efts, the only end of civil So-
ciety, that he muft have loft his fenfes who
could be brought to believe, that coercive
power was as proper to promote the firft
as the fecond j or that inftruftjon and exhor-
tation, was as proper to promote the fecond
as the firft : one of which things, his af-
fertion, that the Church and State have not
diftinff powers, necefiarily implies : To dif-
guile this abfurdity therefore, for real,
which fair argument required, he fubfti-
tutes the ambiguous word, avowed, which
his bad caufe required. And under cover
of this, he denies, that the two focieties
are so DISTINCT as to require diftinff pow-
ers. Well, this however we underftand ;
and have thoroughly canvaffed. But what
mean the words that follow ? And a mu-
tual independency. The author of the
Alliance indeed had faid, that the ends of
the two focieties were fo diftindl as to re-
quire diftintt powers. But he was not fo
abfard to add and a mutual independency j
becaufe, independency was not the means of
attaining an end, like diftinffi powers, but a
confeguence of thole powers : for if the pow-
crsi by which two focieties are admi-
niftered,
niftered, be different, thofe focieties, (fee-
ing their adminiftrations can never clafli,)
muft needs be independent on one another.
This is given only as another inflance of
the cloudy conception this great Politician
had of the plain argument of the Alli-
ance; and the firft principles of Laws and
Politics.
Let me now proceed with his reafoning.
He is to prove, what he had aflerted, that
the two focieties are net fo dijlinB as to
require dijlinft powers. He is writing
againft the book of the Alliance j the au*.
thor of which lays it down as a principle,
that the end of the religions is fahation of
Souls-, the end of the Civ//, fecurity of tent-
poral inter 'efts.' To this his Lordfhip re-
; plies, that ialvation of fouls is only the pre-
tended end of the Religious ; but the real,
tho' not immediate end, of the Civil. And
thus he has, with great dexterity, deftroyed
all diftindion between the two Societies.
I have already detected both the fraud and
fallacy of the firft part of his affertion j I
come now to the other, that fafoation of
fouls is the real, tho not immediate ', end of ci-
vil Government. Here the meannefs of
his fophiftry is ilill more apparent, than in
the
H2 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
the foregoing inftance. It ftands thus,
" The immediate end of civil government
is jconfeifed, on all hands to be fecurity of
temporal interefts. 1 his is done by keep-
ing men to abflain from evil, and exciting
them to good works Good works are the
means offahation Therefore the means of
fahation are the objects of civil government j
or, in other words, the falvation of fouls
is at lead the mediate end of civil So-
ciety."
The Author of -the Alliance had obviat-
ed all this poor fophiftry in the following
words : " Civil Government, I fuppofe,
< will be allowed to have been invented
c{ for the attainment of fome certain end or
<c ends excluiive of others: and this implies
" the xieceffity of diftinguifhing this end
" from others. Which diftinftion arifes
< from the different properties of the
" things pretending. But amongft all
<{ .thofe things which are apt to obtrude, or
" have in fad: obtruded, upon men as the
" ends of civil Government, there is but
<c one difference in their properties, as
" ends : which is this, that one cf thefe is
f attainable by civil Society only, and all
" the reft are eafily attained without it.
2 " The
PHILOSOPHY, 113
The thing then with the firft mentioned
property muft needs be that genuine end of
civil Society. And this is no other than
fecunty ii the temporal liberty and property
of man [5].
But his Lordfhip's fophiftry confifts in
the ambiguity of the word END, which
either iignifies the confequence or ifTue of
a mean, limply j or, the confequence and
iflue, with intention and fore-thought.
In the firft fenfe it may be true, that ial-
vation is the mediate end of civil Society ;
but then it is nothing to the purpoie. In
the fecond fenfe it is to the purpoie, but
not true. The civil Magiftrate, all men
fee, had not this confequence or ifliie in
his thoughts ; as is evident from hence,
that, in adapting his punimments to un-
lawful actions, he does ndt proportion
them to the heinoufnefs of the offence,
as eftimated on the principles of natural
or of revealed Religion, but on their ma-
lignity to civil Society. A plain proof,
that, when he meafured out punimments
to offences, he had only political and not
religious confiderations in his view. But
you (hall hear what the Author of the
[5] Alliance^ p, 32 3.
* I Alliance
H4 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
Alliance has faid on this fubjedt, who had
confuted his Lordfliip's fophifm before he
had conceived it.
" We have (hewn (fays this writer)
" that it was the care of the Bodies , not of
" the Souls of men, that the Magiftrate un-
<c dertook to give account of. Whatever
" therefore refers to the body, is in his ju-
" rifdiction ; whatever to the foul, is not.
" But, and if there be that which refers
" equally to both (as Morals plainly do)
" fuch thing muft needs be partly within,
" and partly without his province j that
" is, it is to be partially confidered by
" him ; his care thereto extending fo far
" only as it affects Society. The other
<f confideration of it, namely as it makes
" part of Religion, being in the Hands
" of thofe, who prefide in another kind
<e of Society. Again, with regard to
< civil practice ; if we caft our eye on any
" Digefl of Laws, we find that evil adti-
'* ons have their annexed punifhment de-
" nounced, not as they are VICES, /. e.
11 not in proportion to their deviation from
." the eternal rule of right: nor as they
" are SINS, /, e. not in proportion to their
" deviation from the extraordinary reveal-
4 r ed
PHILOSOPHY. 115
C{ ed will of God ; which two things in-
<c deed coincide : but as they are CRIMES,
ft i. e. in proportion to their malignant
<c influence on civil Society. But the
" view in which the State regards the
" practice of Morality is evidently feen in
" its recognition of that famous maxim,
<{ by which penal laws in all Communi-
ec ties are famioned and directed, THAT
" THE SEVERITY OF THE PUNISHMENT
<c MUST ALWAYS RISE IN PROPORTION
<{ TO THE PROPENSITY TO THE CRIME.
" A maxim evidently unjujl were actions
tc regarded by the the State, juft as they
<c are in themfelves ; becaufe the Law of
" Nature enjoins only in proportion to the
" ability of performance j and human abi-
" lities abate in proportion to the contrary
" propenfities: evidently impious, were acti-
" ons regarded by the State, as they refer
* c to the will of God, becaufe this State-
" meafure directly contradicts his method
tc and rule of punifhing. But fuppofe the
" Magiftrate's office to be what is here
" affigned, and his aim muft be the sup-
<c PRESSION of crimes, or of thofe actions
" which malignantly affect focietyj and
*J 2 t{ then
1 16 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
tc then nothing can be more reafonable
" than this proceeding. For then his end
" muft be the good of the 'whole not of
cc particulars, but as they come within
" that view. But the good of the whole
<f being to be procured only, by the pre-
" mention of crimes, and thofe to which
cc there is the greateft propenfity being of
** the moft difficult prevention, the full
" feverity of his Laws muft of neceffity be
<{ turned againft thefe [6]."
But, his Lordmip goes on to tell us, What
thofe means are which Princes and Magif-
trates employ to procure this mediate end
of civil Society, the Salvation of Souls ', and
they are, he fays, coercive force. For
this purpofe, the ballance and the fword
are put into their hands, that they may mea-
fure out punifhment to every one, who injures
the community or does wrong to his neighbour*
And a rigorous punifoment of crimes, efpeci-
ally if it be accompanied with rewards and
encouragements to virtue, is the Jureji way
not only to reform the outward behaviour,
but to create an inward difpojiiion to the
practice of virtue.
6] Alliance, p. 3567.
Who
PHILOSOPHY. 117
Who would have expected that it ihould
come atlafl to this, fo contrary to his Lord-
fhip's affertion in the cafe of an extraordi-
nary providence, That a vigorous and exact
diflribution of rewards and punifhments,
under the Magiftrates Providence (which
indeed is the only one his Lordfhip thinks
worth a rufh) mould be fo far from tak-
ing away merit and, making virtue fervile t
that it is the fur 'eft [f w ] ay of creating an inward
difpojition to the practice of virtue ! i. e.
the furefl way of making virtue free and
meritorious. But there is fomething won-
derfully perverfe in his Lord (hip's conduct.
The exact .diflribution of Rewards and
Punishments by Heaven, makes virtue
worthlefs and fervile, tho' the adminif-
tration of Providence be able to ope-
rate on the mind and intention, the only
way, if any, of creating an inward difpo-
fition to the practice of virtue; that is, of
making it free and meritorious. On the
contrary, if you will believe him, the ex-
act diflribution of rewards and punifhments
by the civil Magiflrate, makes virtue free
and meritorious, tho' the Magiflrate can-
not operate on the mind and intention,
the only way of creating an inward difpo-
* I 3 fitim
n8 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
Jition to the practice of virtue, that is, of
making it free and meritorious.
But to come to the point, which thefe
obfervations naturally introduce. The very
means he affigns for the promotion of this
imaginary end, namely coercive force, for
fafoation of fouls, entirely fubverts his po-
fition, and mews this could be no end of
civil Society, fince the means are in no
wife calculated to promote the end ; it not
being action {imply, that intitles to the fa-
vour of God, but action upon adequate
motives. Now with thefe, (which refult
rn to -what we call confcience,} force, orcoer-
tiori, is abfolutely inconfiftent: force may
make Hypocrites^ but nothing but the ra-
tional convictions of religion can make
men lovers of Virtue.
Now -if -it be by fuch kind of reafoning
as this that the -whole edifice- of ecclejia-
Jiical '-indepen dency and -grandeur may be
brought to the ground, (to ufe his Lord-
Chip's big language) Church Power was
never worth the building.
But to proceed. .His Lordmip tells us
next, ' that, " A dergy might co-operate
<{ with the civil Magistrate very ufefully,
" no doubt, by exhortations, reproofs,
<. " and
<c
PHILOSOPHY. ,119
<f and example. This they might do as
c< afliftants to the civil Magiftrate, in con-
tf cert with him, and in fubordination to
t( him. To 'what purpofe therefore do they
" claim and affect independency* on him?
*' Greater power never did, nor can ena-
ble them to do greater good. Would
they erect a tribunal to punifo inten-
tf tions ? The very pretence is imper-
" tinent. Would they erect it to funi/h
11 where no injury is offered, nor wrong
f - done ? The deiign is unjuft and arbitrary.
" The ideas of crimes are determinate and
" .fixed. The Magiftrate cannot alter them.
'* The ideas of Sin.s are more confufed and
' vague ; and we know by long and ge-
lt neral experience, how they vary in the
" minds, or at leaft in the writings of ca-
'.* fulfts. Would they erect fuch a tribu-
<c nal to try the orthodoxy of mans faith ?
tc Such a one is erected in fome countries,
" under the name of the Inquifition, and
<c is juftly detefled in all. To what end
" and purpofe then can SPIRITUAL COURTS
" and COERCIVE POWERS ATTRIBUTED
" TO THE CLERGY ferve, unlefs it be to
make them judges and parties in their
tc own
*I
I2O A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
" own caufe, when matters of intereft are
<l concerned [7]?"
His Lordihip it mufl be remembered, is
here reafoning with the Author of the Alii-
rfffo-againn: his notions of the rights of aClergy
in an eftablifhed Church. And the noble
perfon's firfl miireprefentation, you fee, is,
that this Author holds, that the Clergy re-
main independent on the State during their
eftablifhment; and that the coercive power
exercised by them, under the Alliance, is
inherent in their order. To ivbatpurpofe (fays
his Lordfhip) do they [the Clergy] CLAIM
AND AFFECT independency on him, the civil
Maglftrate? And again, To what end and
purpoj'e can fpiritual Courts, and coercive
powers, ATTRIBUTED to the Clergy, ferve?
And, as if this was not plain enough, in the
very next page, addreffing himfelf to POPE,
he fays, " Amongft all the fallacies which
" have been employed by Churchmen,
" one of the moil abfurd has been ad-
" vanced, tho'not invented, by a paradoxi-
<e cal Acquaintance of yours j and it is to
" maintain the INDEPENDENCY of the
" Church, and to fuppofe, AT THE SAME
c TIME, a fort of original Contract be-
[7] Vol. iy. p. 415- 16.
" tween
PHILOSOPHY. 121
" twecn the Church and State, the terms of
" which, every whimfical Writer, EVEN
" THisscRiBLER,adjufls as hepleafes[8]."
Falmood and ill language commonly go to-
gether.
You (hall now hear what the Author of
the Alliance holds on thefe two points, and
from his own mouth. Firft, as to the inde-
pendency. " Let us fee next (fays he) what
" the STATE gains by it [the Alliance^
" Thefe [advantages] in a word may be
" comprized in ITS SUPREMACY IN MAT-
<e TERS ECCLESIASTICAL. THE CHURCH
<c RESIGNING UP HER INDEPENDENCY, and
" making the Magiftrate her SUPREME
" HEAD, without whofe approbation and
" allowance, fbe can administer, tranfadt,
" or decree nothing [9]."
Secondly, as to cyercive power. cc The
" third and laft PRIVILEGE THE CHURCH
" GAINS, by this Alliance, is the being
" INTRUSTED WJTH A JURISDICTION
" INFORCED BY COACTIVE POWER [lo]."
His Lordmip tells us, the Author of
the Alliance holds, that the independency
of the Church is retained in an eflablim-
[8] Vol. iv. p. 417. [9] Alliance, p. 147.
ioj Alliance, p. 134.
naent;
122 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
ment : the Author himfelf, fays that it is
given up. His Lord (hip tells us, the Au-
thor holds an inherent coercive power in the
Church: the Author himfelf fays, that
coercive power is a grant of the State, dur-
ing the Alliance.
And hereyou may take notice, howgreat-
ly hisLordfhip has improved upon his Ma-
ilers, the Authors of the Rights of the Chri-
Jlian Churchy and of the independent Whig.
They had ventured indeed to charge
both thefe doctrines on the body of the
Englifli Clergy. But as one can never be
fure what an indifcreet or corrupt member
of fo large a. body may havefaki, the confu-
tation of this calumny was not eafy. His
Lordmip is more bold y he charges thefe
opinions on a particular member of the
eftablifhed Church, by name: but then he
is more fair, he puts it in the power of
the perfon injured to do himfelf jufc
tice; for itfo happens, .that this perfon not
only denies the independency of the Church
under an eftablimment, and all claim to in-
herent coercive ' power whatfoever, but has
laid down principles to difcredit, and rules
to prevent the return of thofe ufurpations.
The Author of the Alliance has vindi-
cated
PHILOSOPHY. 123
cated [ i] the Englilh Clergy from the pre-
varications of TINDAL and GORDON; It
had been hard, could he have found no
charitable hand to vindicate him from
the fame calumny, when revived by this
noble Lord.
As therefore, no independency in alli-
ance^ is either claimed or affeded ; and no
inherent coercive power is attributed to the
clergy, We will fuppofe his Lordmip's fim-
ple queftion to be, " For what end is that
tribunal, called a Spiritual Court ', erected?"
And had he been fo fair to have let
the Author of the Alliance, to whom he
addrefles his queftion, fpeak for himfelf,he
would not have waited for an Anfwer. This
Author tells us, in the rnoft confpicuous part
of his book, and in great letters, that it is
FOR REFORMATION OF MANNERS Only\Z\ t
But, as if he had entirely left us toourfelves
to conjefture how he intended to employ
this jpiritual tribunal^ his Lordmip falls
a gueffing : and there is no kind of abfur-
dity, he does not propofe, as favoured by
the Author of the Alliance^ tho' they be
fuch as this Author had already ex-
ploded.
[i] Alliance^ p. 81, & feq. [2] Ibid, p. 134.
124 A View of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
To what purpofe, fays his Lordmip, do
the clergy claim and affect independency on
the Magistrate ? Greater power never did t
nor can enable them to do greater good.
Would they erec^ a tribunal to PUNISH IN-
TENTIONS? The very pretence is imper-
tinent.
Before I come to his Lordfhip's con-
jecture, give me leave, Sir, to fay one
word of the happinefs of his induction.
This Tribunal, or this coercive power,
which he makes to follow independency,
is fo far from being produced by it, that
coercive power never comes into the Church
till it has given up it's independency. The
Author of the Alliance affigns a plain rea-
fon for it. " The State (fays he) having,
* c by this Alliance, beflowed upon the
c< Clergy a Jurifdiction with coaBive poiv-
c< er, this privilege would create an IM-
" PERIUM IN IMPERIO had not the civil
" Magi fir ate in return, the fupremacy of
'
And now, to his conjectures. Is it, fays
he, to pur t ijh intentions? The Author of
[3] Alliance, p. 149.
the
PHILOSOPHY. 125
the Alliance fays, No, it is for reformation
of manners only. But you underftand not
half his drift, unlefs you confider thefe
questions as propofed to infinuate, that
the Author of the Alliance held the Ab-
furdities contained in them. So here, for
inftance, you are to understand, that the
Author of the Alliance held this Tribunal
was topunijl: intentions. However, I will ac-
quit his Lordfhip of malice ; it feems to be
an innocent blunder. The Author of the
Alliance did indeed talk of a Tribunal re-
garding irregular intentions as criminal;
and by ill luck, his Lordmip miftook this
tribunal, for a fpiritual Court. The Au-
thor's words are thefe <c The effectual
" correction of fuch evils [as arife from
<c the intemperance of the fenfual appetites]
" muft be begun by moderating and fub-
duing the Paffions themfelves. But this,
civil Laws are not underflood toprefcribe,
as punifhing thofe paflions only when
they proceed to acl: and not rewarding
the attempts to fubdue them. // muft be a
" tribunal regarding irregular intentions as
* c criminal 'which can do this ; and that is
<( no other than the tribunal of Religion.
z " When
126 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
ct When this is done, a coactive power of
" the civil kind may have a good effect, but
" not till then. And whofo proper to apply
" this coactive power, in fuch cafes, as
te that Society, which fitted and prepared
" the fubjec~r, for it's due reception and
" application [4]." This tribunal regard-
ing irregular intentions as criminal, the
Author calls the tribunal of Religion,
(For urn confri entice) and diftinguimesit from
that tribunal, which is inverted with coac-
tive power oftbe civil kind, called fpiritual
Courts: He makes the firft a preparative
to the other. Yet, ftrange to believe ! his
Lordmip miftook this tribunal of Religion^
fo defcribed and diftinguifhed, for a fpiri-
tual Court : and upbraids the Author of
the Alliance, for fupporting a tribunal with
coercive powers, /0 PUNISH INTENTIONS.
But we (hall fee more of his Lordmip's a-
cutenefs of this kind, as we go along.
His fecond charge againft the principles
of the Alliance is in thefe words Would
they ercft this tribunal to punijh, where NO
INJURY IS OFFERED, NOR WRONG DONE?
*fhe dejign is unjuft and arbitrary. T'be
ideas of crimes are determinate and fxed.
[4] Alliance, p. 99 100.
fbe
PHILOSOPHY. 127
*The Magijlrate cannot alter them. The
ideas of fins are more confuted and vague;
and we know by long and general experience ',
how they 'vary in the minds, or at leajl in
the writings of Cafuifls.
To punijh where no injury is offered nor
wrong done, is his Lordmip's periphraiis
of the punijhment of vague htft y which the
Author of the Alliance makes one branch
of the reformation of manners, and confe-
quently an object of fpiritual Courts. But
his Lordmip's own opinion of the quality
of vague tuft, intimated in this periphraiis,
is but a fecond confideration. His principal
ending in giving it, was to difcredit the
tyranny of fpiritual courts, in puniming
where no fault is committed. To forget
his BIBLE is no difhonour: but to forget
his HORACE is a difgrace indeed. Now this
honeft Pagan reckons the prohibition of
vague luft, as one of the chief purpofes of
civil laws.
" Fuit hsec fapientia quondam
" Publica privads fecernere, facra prophanis-,
4< CONCUBITU PROHIBERE VAGO; dare jura
" maritis.
All this is fo very extraordinary, that
you would not readily believe his Lord-
fhip
128 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
fhip could defign the puniflment of vague
lujly by the words punijbing where no
injury is offered nor wrong done, did he not
fo clearly explain himfelf, in his curious
distinction between crimes and fins : which,
becaufe it was occafioned by, and alludes to,
a paffage in the Alliance, I will firft beg
leave to transcribe that pafiage : u If we
" caft our eye on any digefl of Laws, we
<c find that evil actions have their annexed
" punifliment denounced, not as they are
" VICES, /'. e. in proportion to their devia-
ce tion from the eternal rule of right :
<e nor as they are SINS, *. e. not in pror-
<f portion to their deviation from the ex-
" traordinary revealed will of God j which
et two things indeed coincide: but as
" they are CRIMES, ;. e, in proportion
" to their malignant influence on civil So-
<c ciet y [5]-" The Author of the Alli-
ance faid this, to mew that the civil Ma-
giftrate does not concern himfelf with Re-
ligion, asfuch. His Lordfhip borrows the
fame diftinction between crimes and^/foj, to
fhew that it is arbitrary and unjujl to pu-
ni(h fins, as fpiritual Courts undertake
to do: for, fays he, the ideas of CRIMES
[5] Alliance^ p. 356.
art
PH r L o so p H y. 129
are determinate and fixed : 'The ideas of
SINS are more confufed and 'vague. From
this, it appears, that his Lordfhip miilook
vices, fins, and crimes, for different actions :
whereas they are the fame adtions under
different confiderations, as they refpedl
natural light, revealed Religion, or civil
laws ; and fo have different names impofed
upon them. The ideas therefore of thefe
three modifications of forbidden actions
are all equally determinate and fixed,
or equally confufed and vague. But
it comes with a peculiar ill grace from hie
Lordfhip to object to the confufed and vague
idea ^ SINS, fince this idea is formed upon
the revealed 'will cf God in the Gofpel, which,
in a hundred places of his ESSAYS he
tells us, coincides with the eternal rule of
right; a rule, which he acknowledges to be
mod determinate and fixed of all things.
But he fays, the Magiftrate cannot alter
the ideas of crimes, as the Cafuifl may, the
idea of fins. That is, the Magiftrate can-
not give the Name of Crimes to innocent
adlions. What mould hinder him? He
had two advantages above theCafuift. Firft
coercive power: fecondly the vague and
confufed meafure to which crimes refer $
* K namely,
130 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
namely, to the influence of actions on Society.
Matter of fact confirms this obfervation.
Look round the World ; enquire through
antient and modern Times, and you {hall
find, that the Magiftrate has been guilty of
infinitely more abufe in ranging actions un-
der the idea of Crimes, than the Cafuift, in
ranging actions under the idea of Sins.
This was not improper to be obferved in
anfwer to his Lordmip's experience, which
umers in his old fophifm, ready at every
turn to do him fervice, the abufe of the
thing for the thing itfelf We know, fays
he, by long and general experience, how the
ideas of Jim vary in the minds, or at leaft in
the WRITINGS of cafuifts. By which it
would feem, his Lordfhip knows as little
of Cafuifts, as of any other fort of learn-
ed men, whofe characters he has been
fo free with : For corrupt cafuiftry does
not fo much confift in varying the
ideas of Sins, concerning which they
are generally agreed, as in contriving to
evade the punimment denounced againft
them.
His laft conjecture about the ufe of
an ecclefiaftical Tribunal, on the principles
of
PHILOSOPHY. 131
of the Alliance^ is, that it is erefted for the
punifhment of opinions. Would they ereff y
fays he, fuch a tribunal to try the orthodoxy
of men's faith ? Why no, fays the Author
of the ALLIANCE, in as plain words as he
can fpeak ; NO MATTERS OF OPINION
COME WITHIN THIS SPIRITUAL JURIS-
DICTION [6] : And he not only fays it, but
proves it too [7], To ivbat end and
purpofe then t fays his Lord/hip, can fpi-
ritual courts and coercive powers firve, un~
lefs it be to make the clergy judges and par-
ties in their own caufe, when matters of
inter ejl are comer "ned? To what end?
The Author of the Alliance has told him
plainly and directly ; FOR THE REFORMA-
TION OF MANNERS ONLY. But fuch an
anfwer did not ferve his Lordmip's pur-
pofe. He will make the Author fay
as he would have him, or injoin him fi~
lence, and anfwer for him, himfelf. He in-
finuates therefore, in the laft place, that the
end aimed at is to determine in civil matters
where the temporal intereft of the Clergy is
concerned, and where they become Judges
in their own caufe. Hear again what the
Author of the Alliance fays upon, this headj
6J Alliance, p. 136. [7] P. 137-8.
*K 2 " CIVIL
132 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
r< CIVIL MATTERSjWhich temporal courts
<c may conveniently infpedt, can never be-
" long to an ecclefiaftical Jurifdiclion. It
*' hath been fhewn, that this Court was
cc erected as a fuccedaneum to the Civil,
ct to take cognizance of fuch actions as the
11 Civil could not reach, or could not re-
" medy : which {hews, the State could
* never intend to put thofe things under
" the ecclefiaftical Jurifdiction that fall
c< moft conveniently under it's own. Be-
c< fides, for ecclefiaftical Courts to ingrofs
matters that belong to the civil jurifdic-
tion, as it can poffibly have no good ufe,
may very poffibly be attended with this
evil, of inviting and encouraging the
<{ Church to aim at more power than is
" confiftent, either with her own good,
<l or the good of the State. The great
ct Founder of our Religion faid, Who made
tf me a Judge or Divider between you?
ce And what he would not aflume to him-
" felf, he would hardly beftow upon his
<c Church: and that the State mould ever
'* intend to give her what was the pecu-
" liar right of temporal Courts, is as diffi-
" cult to fuppofe. We muft conclude
" then, that fuch practice, wherever it is
" found,
PHILOSOPHY. - 133
ct found, was derived not from the rea-
" fonable Laws of this Alliance, but from
tf the authority of old papal ufurpa-
" tions [8]." Thus far the Author of
the Alliance ; where you may find a great
deal more to the fame purpofe.
His Lord (hip goes on with his confuta-
tion. " By admitting the independency
<c of the Church on the State, the State
<e acknowledges an original independency
< in the Church, derived from a greater
<c authority than her own : and the fup-
ec pofed terms of Union may be conftrued
" to be rather concemons of the religious
<e Society to the civil, for the fake of or-
c der and peace, than grants of the civil
<c to the religious Society. Thus Religi-
c on and the Church are fet on the fame
<c foot: no human authority can alter
<l one, but muft receive it in the terms in
" which it has been revealed ; and fo may
<{ a good Cafuift prove on this hypothecs,
<c that no human authority can meafure
<c out any conditions of Eftablifhment to
<c the other. Thus the State becomes no
" better than a coordinate, but inferior
<e power [9]." I once met with a Phi-
[8] Alliance^ p. 138 9 40. [6] V. iv. p. 417.
* K 3 lofopher
134 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE^
lofopher of deep thought, who profeffed
the fame reverence for artificial Nonfenfe,
that the Turks pay to natural Folly. His
Syftem on this point was very fingular.
He fuppofed that, as in the material World
there was an univerfal, tho' very fubtilejfire,
diffufed in fecret thro' all bodies ; which,
by a late contrivance might be allured or
drawn out from the moil inanimate or
lumpifh Matter, even from the dirty (hoes
of the Chronologer of Leicefter, who
makes Time of Eternity ; fo, in the Intel-
letfual, that there was a certain witty
Spirit, which lay dormant in the moft in-
explicable Nonfenfej and only wanted the
application of fome Engine of analogous
invention to roufeit, andfet it free. 'Till
fuch a one be difcovered, we can but guefs
at his Lordmip's meaning.
By admitting the independency cf the
Church on the State, (fays he) the
State acknowledges an original indepen-
dency in the Church derived from a greater
Authority than her own. If, by Church^
he means the chriftian Church, it is con-
feffed that its independency is derived from
a greater authority than what the State
claims for any of it's rights. But what
are the confequences his Lordmip draws
from
PHILOSOPHY. 135
from thence ? The firft is, that fata the
fuppofed terms of union may be conjlrued to
be rather conceffions of the religious Society
to the civil, for the fake of order and peace ,
than grants of the civil to the religious So-
ciety. The fuppofed terms are terms of
Alliance between two independent Socie-
ties. Thefe terms cannot, in the nature
of things, be any other than mutual con-,
cejjiom and mutual grants. What then does
he mean, by their being conjlrued to be
rather concejjions of the religious Society,
than grants of the civil? By the fuppojition
on which his Lordfhip condefcends to rea-
fon, when the Church in Alliance gives up
its original independency, it is without doubt
zconcejjion ; becaufe it is giving up a right.
And when the State, in Alliance, confers
a coercive power on the Church, this too,
is certainly a grant ; becaufe an original
independent religious Society can have no
inherent coercive power. However fome
meaning, it is likely, his Lordfhip had.
And it feems to be this, " That if the
Church has an original independency, no
fuch Alliance as is fuppofed, could be
made : for that the terms on the fide of
the Church, would not be conditional but
* K 4 volun-
136 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
Voluntary conc^Jfu>ns y the State having no-
thing to give, in return." This would be
talking fenfe at leaft, tho' not truth.
But, to fufpofe the terms of this Union,
which are mutual grants and mutual con-
cefficns j and then to deny mutual grants
and mutual concefiions, is giving fuch a
form to his argument as will need a jirfl
Logic to turn into fenfe, as much as the do-
ctrine conveyed under it needs zfrft Philofo-
phy to turn into truth. Thus much however
you may fee, Some cloudy concep-
tion his Lordfhip plainly had, that a fociety
of divine original could never enter into Alli-
ance with another, only of banian. When
the Sons of God came down amongft the
Daughters of Men, we are told they
begot Giants. His Lordfhip betrays his
apprehenfions, that this coalition between
the civil and religious Societies would
produce an ifTue altogether as monftrous, a
kind of STATE LEVIATHAN. Indeed, he
charges the Author of the Alliance with be- '
ing no better than a Pander or Procurer in
this intrigue. But whatever his apprehenti-
onswere, his conception was very unworthy
both of a Philoibpher and a Statefman. The
AUTHOR OF THE ALLIANCE hath {hewn
from
PHILOSOPHY. 137
from the nature of things that Religion
compofes an independent fociety: The
GOSPEL, by divine inftitution hath declared
the Chriftian Religion to be an independent
fociety. His LORDSHIP hath fhewn, from
the nature of things, that civil wants
create an independent fociety of the civil
kind : And the LAW, by divine inftituti-
on, hath declared the Jewifh Republic to
be an independent civil fociety. Now I
would afk his Lordfhip, if nothing hinder-
ed this civil Society of divine Original, from
entering into leagues and conventions with
all the neighbouring nations, which were
not, for political reafons, excepted by name,
what mould hinder this religious Society of
divine original, from entering into Alli-
ance with the State ?
Another Confequence which his Lord-
{hip draws from an original independency
in the Church is, that RELIGION and the
CHURCH are fet on the fame foot. That is,
as I underftand him, for he might have ex-
prefied himfelfbetter, the DISCIPLINE of the
Church is as unalterable as the DOCTRINE.
The confequence of which is, that the -St ate
muft receive the CHURCH on the terms in which
it was revealed. From whence arifes an-
other
138 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
other confequence, that no human Autho-
rity can meafure out any conditions of ejla-
blifbment to the Church : and, from thence
another, (for his Lordfhip's falfe concep-
tions are always attended with fuperfetati-
ons,) that the State becomes an inferior
Power, or Creature to the Church. All thefe
brave confequences, we fee, arife out of this
principle, " that, in a Church of Divine
Original, the Difcipline is as unalterable as
the Doctrine" And of the truth of this prin-
ciple his Lordfhip is fo confident, that he
calls his Adverfary zjiupid Fellow fornot fee-
ing it. " The STUPID FELLOW, who ad-
" vanced this Paradox in Englifli, did not
<c fee how ill the parts of it hang toge-
" ther, nor that if ecclefiaftical Govern-
" ment was, by divine appointment, in-
c< dependent of civil, no fuch contract as
" he fuppofes could be made. The reli-
< gious fociety, notwithftanding their
<c known moderation, could not have part-
tc ed from that independency, andfuperio-
" rity over the civil power, which God
*' had given them [10]."
It is true, this Jlupid Fellow did not
fee it. And I don't well know how
[10] Vol. iv. p. 418.
he
PHILOSOPHY. 139
he mould ; fince, on the other hand,
he faw it to be impoffible that any
fucb contract as he fuppofes could be
made, unlefs the Church or religious So-
ciety was independent of the civil. For what
contract is it, which this Author fuppofes
to have been made between Church and
State ? He tells us, in exprefs words, it is
a mutual compact by FREE CONVENTION [ i].
Now the entering into a free convention is
at the pleafure of the contracting parties.
But Parties who have this liberty, muft
needs be independent on one another.
Well, but he has his reafon, fuch as it is,
to confound this STUPID FELLOW. he
Religious Society (fays he) could not have
parted from that independency, AND SUPE-
RIORITY, over the civil Power, which
God had given them. And now indeed,
after much cloudy flourishing, we arc
come to the point: which is, WHETHER
A RELIGIOUS SOCIETY CAN PART
WITH THATINDEPENDENCYWHICH GoD,
as well as the nature of things, HATH
BESTOWED UPON IT ? This is in truth a
queftion worth debating. But as his Lord-
iliip rarely fufFers an important propofition,
[ij Alliance > p. 87.
which
140 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
which he is fet either upon denying or de-
praving, to pafs thro' his hands without firft
clouding it in the expreflion with an abfur-
dity or an equivocation, I (hall be obliged,
before we can pafs forward, to free this
from the Bolingbrokian embarrafs. T^he
religious Society (fays he) could not have
parted from that independency AND SUPE-
RIORITY over the civil power, which God
bath given them. Now as the Author of
the Alliance contends only for the indepen-
dency of the Church before Alliance^ and
as his Lordmip's reafoning acknowledges
that the queftion is only concerning this
very independency, he muft needs fuppofe,
by adding, AND SUPERIORITY over the
civil, that this Juperiority is a confequence
of independency. And fo, indeed, he fpeaks
of it more plainly juft before, Thus,
[i. e. from \hzindependency of the Church]
the State becomes no better than a coordinate,
BUT INFERIOR, Power. Now if we judge
of this matter on the principles of the
Law of Nature and Nations, Juperiority is
fo far from following independency that it
cannot fubfift with it. For why is religi-
ous Society by nature independent^ (as the
Author of the Alliance fhews it is) but
for
PHILOSOPHY. 141
for the reafon that Author gives, that it is
effentially different from the civil, by having
different ends and means [2].'' But there
is no ground for fuperiority of one Perfon
or Society over another, but where fome
natural relation or connexion exifts between
them : none exifts in this cafej therefore a
pretence of fuperiority on the one fide, and
of dependency on the other, is abfurd. How-
ever, as I am verily perfuaded his Lord-
fhip did not know enough of thefe matters
even to prevaricate neatly, in the point in
queftion, I confider it as an innocent miftake,
arifing from the following words of the Al-
liance, (hamefully indeed, mifunderftood.
" Such then is the nature of Chrift's king-
** dom [/. e. the chriftian Church] it is effen-
" tially framed to compofe a firm and lafting
" Society ; it is made fuch by divine appoint-
<e ment, and in order to fit it for public fer-
'* vice, it is both by nature and inftitution
<c declared SOVEREIGN, and independent of
" civil Government, that it may adapt it-
" felf by free Alliance to the various kinds
" of human Policies [3]." Now fove-
*' reign and independent of civil govern-
<e ment, this great Writer has paraphrafed
[2] Affiance, p. 65. [3] Ibid. p. 180.
ta
142 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
to fignify, independency and fuperiority over
the civil.
But the queftion itfelf, WHETHER A
RELIGIOUS SOCIETY CAN PART WITH
THAT INDEPENDENCY, WHICH GoD, as
'well as the Nature of things, HATH BE-
STOWED UPON IT, his Lordmip determines
in the negative. For if, fays he, ecclejiafti-
cal Government was by divine appointment
independent of the civil, the Religious Socie-
ty could not have parted 'with that indepen-
dency 'which God had given them.
Man was, by divine appointment, cre-
ated free and independent, therefore, accord-
ing to this reafoning, he could not part
with his independency, and become fubject
to civil Laws. Hold, fays his Lordmip,
Man was created free, that he might be
fubject to no civil laws but thofe to which
he had given his confent ; and he had a
right to part with his independency in or-
der to procure protection. And is not
this the very cafe of Religious Society,
which is only an artificial perfon, by nature
free, and ftanding in need of protection ?
But his Lordmip's aflertion, you will
find, bottoms at laft upon this Principle,
that DIVINE AUTHORITY REDUCES ALL
IT'S
PHILOSOPHY. 143
IT'S LAWS TO ONE AND THE SAME SPE-
CIES : An Error which Bigots and Fanatics
indeed, are equally fond of indulging, to the
infinite diflervice both of civil and of reli-
gious Society : But that a fhikfopher and a
Statefman mould know fo little of the N A-
TURE OF LAWS is perfectly aftoniming.
The firft elements of his profeffion might
have taught him, " That the authority by
which a thing is commanded makes no al-
teration in the effence of the thing." Natural
and positive duties retain their refpective
offences in the Code of Religion. Natural
duties are eternal ; pofitive duties revocable.
Of thefe latter, fome are lafting as the
difpenfation to which they belong j others
temporary. Of the temporary, fome ceafe
not till exprefly revoked ; others ceafe with
the occafion that enjoined them. Thefe
laft are again to be diftinguilhed into pri-
vileges and duties ; privileges may be
receded from at pleafure ; but duties muft
either be revoked, or the occafion mufr. be
plainly feen to ceafe. Now the INDE-
PENDENCY, in queftion, is one of thofe
inftitutions in the divine Law, which ceafes
with the occafion ; and is befides a privi-
lege,
144 A VIEW of L. BOUNGBROKE'S
ledge, which may be receded from, at plea-
fure. Again, In the divine Laws, fome
things are enjoined to be believed as truths ;
others to be praclifed as utilities. Of uti-
lities fome are general -, others particular :
The firft of thefe are permanent and con-
ftant; the fecond variable. Of the firft, is
the Churches compofing a Society : of the
fecond, is the particular form. Thus, Jefus
feemed to inftitute an equal miniftry j the
Apoflles, epifcopal Government ; and mo-
dern Churches, both one and the other,
as bed fuited to the various civil Govern-
ments with which they had allied.
As Chriftianity was,by divine inftitution,
zfociety at large, to authorize and to ena-
ble the feveral Churches to give particular
forms to ecclefiaftical Government j fo the
independency was beftowed upon it, to en-
able it to enter into free Alliance with the
State. When God himfelf allied the Jew-
ifh Church with the State, he left not
that Religion a fociety at large, neither
did he ordain it independent : he prefcribed
in the minuted manner the form of Church
Government, and made it dependent on
the State. But the Author of the Alliance
i tells
f(
<(
PHILOSOPHY. 145
tells his ftory better. " The chriftian re-
" ligion (fays he) was not only left inde-
pendent of the State by not being united
to it like the Jewifh j (and being fo
left it muft needs by the Law of nature
<c be independent) but its independency
" was likewife fecured by divine appoint-
ff ment, in that famous declaration of it's
" founder, My kingdom is not of this world-,
<f which bears this plain and obvious fenfe,
<c T'hat the kingdom of Chrift, to be extended
" over all Mankind, was not like the king-
ce dom of God, confined to the yewifh people,
tf where Religion was incorporated with the
<c State ; and therefore, of this world, as
<c well in the exercife of it, as in the re- .
ct wards and punijhments by which it was
" adminiflered : but was independent of all
tc civil communities ; and therefore, neither
<e of this world, as to the exercife of it, nor
< as to the rewards andpunijhments by which
ce it was adminiflered. But whoever ima-
<c gines that from this independency by in-
cc Jiitution, the Church cannot convene
" and unite with- the State, concludes
<c much too faft. We have obferveo^, that
" this property in the Kingdom of Chrift
ct was given as a mark to diftinguifh it
* L " from
146 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
* l from the kingdom of God, that is, it was
ft given to (hew that this Religion ex-
" tended to all mankind ; and was not,
<c like the Mofaic, confined to one only
" people. Confequently, that very rea-
" fon which made it proper for the Mo-
" faic Religion to be united, by divine ap-
" pointment, to the State, made it fit,
c< the Chriftian mould be left free and in-
" dependent. But for what end, if not
" for this, To be at liberty to adapt itfelf
<f to the many various kinds of civil poli-
4C cies, by a fuitable union and alliance.
" An Alliance then we muft conclude
cc the chriftian Church was at liberty to
" make, notwithftanding this declared na-
" ture of Chrift's kingdom. So far is true
" indeed, that it is debarred from entering
<c into any fuch Alliance with the State as
<c may admit any LEGISLATOR in Chrift's
<: kingdom but himfelf [that is, a power in
" the Magiftrate to alter doffrines.] But
'* no fuch power is granted or ufurped by
" \hefupremacy of the State [4]." [which
extends only to DISCIPLINE.
From all this it appears, that the
unalterable part of the Law of Chrift is
4] All'ianct^ p, 178 9, &c.
the
PHILOSOPHY. 147
the DOCTRINE : and the only alterable part,
the DISCIPLINE : but it is the latter, with
which Society, as fuch, is chiefly concern-
ed, when it enters on Alliance with the
Church. Therefore, when his Lordmip
fays, Religion and the Church being fet on the
fame foot, no human authority can alter one,
but tnuft receive it on the terms in 'which it
has been revealed, if he means, there can be
no alteration in difcipline, I have (hewn he
is miftaken : if he means, there can be no
alteration in dottrine, he is certainly right j
and I confider his Lordmip's obferva-
tion as a complaint, that, by the con-
ftitution of the Chriftian Church, the
Magiftrate cannot tyrannize over Con-
fcience.
In the mean time we fee to what little
purpofe this great Philofopher and Statef-
man had read his HOOKER ; of whom he
confefles fomething might be learnt. Now,
HOOKER would have (hewn him, that di-
vine authority does not reduce all it's Laws
to one and the fame fpecies. l< Positive
<; Laws (fays this truly great Man) areei-
c * ther permanent or elfe changeable, ac-
" cording as the matter itfelf is, concern-
* L 2 " ing
148 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
" ing which they were firfl made. Whe-
" ther GOD or MAN be the maker of them,
c< ALTERATION they fo far forth admit, as
" the MATTER doth exact. Wherefore,
" to end with a general rule concerning all
<e the Laws which God hath tied men un-
" to: thofe Laws divine, that belong,
<c whether naturally or fupernaturally, ei-
11 ther to men as men, or to men as they
" live in politique Society, or to men as
" they are of that politique Society which
" is the Church, without any further re-
" fpect had unto any fuch variable acci-
" dent as the State of men, and of Socie-
" ties of men, and of the Church itfelf in
c< this world, isfubject unto j all Laws that
<c fo belong unto men, they belong for
" ever, yea altho' they be politive Laws,
" unlefs, being politive, God himfelf which
" made them alter them. The reafon is,
*' becaufe the fubject or matter of Laws in
" general, is thus far forth conftant :
<f which matter is that for the ordering
" whereof, Laws were inftituted, and be-
<( ing inftituted are not changeable with-
" outcaufe, neither can they have caufc
" of change, when that which gave them
" their firfl infthution remaineth for ever
" one
PHILOSOPHY. 149
" one and the fame. On the other fide,
cc Laws that were made for men, or Socie-
* f ties, or Churches, in regard of their be-
" ing fuch as do not always continue, but
te may perhaps be clean otherwife a-while of-
'* ter, and fo may be required to be other-
" wife ordered than before j the Laws of
<c God himfelf which are of this nature, NO
" MAN ENDOWED WITH COMMON SENSE
<{ will ever deny to be of a different con-
" Jlitution from the former, in refpeft of
" the ones conflancy, and the mutability of
< the other [$]." "
Thus far this country Parfon. And
how meanly does his Lordfhip figure be-
fore him with his aflertion, that divine
law makes every thing, which relates to the
Church, equally unalterable ? Yet this no-
ble perfon, thus ignorant of the very firft
elements of Law, can harangue, with
the air and authority of an Oracle, on
a patriot king, on civil liberty, on.
Church tyranny, and on the ballance of
power. Mafter Hooker will tell you,
how eafily all this may be done without
knowing more than our neighbours.
5] Eccl. Pol. L. i. Sea. 15.
*L 3 " Thus
150 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
" Thus far therefore (fays he) we
<c have endeavoured, in part, to open, of
" what nature and force laws are, accord-
" ing unto their feveral kinds: the Law
c< which God himfelf hath eternally fet
c< down to follow in his own works ; the
*' Law which he hath made for his crea-
" turestokeep; the Law of natural and
" necefTary Agents 3 the law which angels
" in Heaven obey j the Law whereunto,
" by the light of reafon, men find them-
<{ felves bound, in that they are men;
" the Law which they made by compofi-
" tion for multitudes and politique Socie-
<c ties of men to be guided by; the Law
" which belongeth unto each nation; the
<c Law that concerneth the fellowfbip of
" all; and laftly the Law which God
" himfelf hath fupernaturally revealed.
" // might per adventure have been more
" POPULAR AND MORE PLAUSIBLE TO
" VULGAR EARS, if this dljcourfe bad been
" fpent in EXTOLLING THE FORCE OF
<c LAWS, injheiving the GREAT NECESSI-
TV OF THEM, liohen they are GOOD,
<e and in AGGRAVATING THEIR OF-
" FENCE BY WHOM PUBLIC LAWS ARE
INJURIOUSLY TRADUCED. Eut for-
afmuch
1MJW1\XV^WOJUX *I\f\M\J\,EtU
1 <C
PHIL'OSOPHY. 151
<c afmuch as with fuch kind of matter THE
" PAS SIGNS OF MEN are rather Jtirred one
" way or other, than THEIR KNOWLEDGE
<{ any way jet forward unto the trial of
<f that whereof there is doubt made, I
" have therefore turned afide from that
ce BEATEN PATH, and chofen, tho' a
u LESS EASY, yet a more profitable way,
" in regard of the end we propofe [6]."
Great Names, however, are ftill of great
fervice to his Lordmip : for tho' he cannot
profit by their lights, he can mine at their
expence: and, having well chicaned their ex-
preffions, can convert the truths, contained
in them, to his own ufe. Let me give you,
out of many, one example of this kind.
HOOKER and LOCKE have been fuppofed
to write tolerably well on the origin of
civil Government. Alas! nil fine Thefeo.
There is nothing fo well done, which his
Lordmip cannot mend. He reproves Both
of them, with much folemnity, for
reprefenting mankind to themfefoes, like
a number of favage individuals out of So-
ciety , in their natural State, injlead ofconfi-
dering them as members of families from
their birth. < This (he fays) has made
[6] Eccl Pol L.i. S e a 16.
* L 4 them
c
cc
152 /V. VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
" them reafon INCONSISTENTLY, and on
" a FALSE FOUNDATION. fatVn/tft&ttfy ,
" becauie they fometimes acknowledge pa-
ternal Government to have preceded
civil, and yet reafon about the inftituti-
on of civil, as if men had then fir ft
aflembled in any kind of fociety, or had
been fubject to any kind of rule ; for
to lay that the Law of nature was of it-
felf fuch a rule, and that every one of
<f thefe independent inhabitants of the
" earth did or might excrcile Juftice for
" himfelf, and others on thofe who violat-
<c ed the Law, was language unworthy of
" Mr. LOCKE, and unnecefTary to his Syf-
<c tern. Falfefyy becaufe it is eafy to de-
<c monftrate that mankind never was in
fuch a State [7]."
To fay the truth, eafy enough, and like
demonfirating day-light. A man need only
open his eyes to fee that a Mother does not
abandon her infant, as foon as me has
dropt it, nor the Father renounce the care
of them. Is it poffible then that HOOKER,
LOCKE and their Followers, mould want,
to be told by his Lord (hip fo obvious a
truth, ct That, before civil Society, man-
[j] Vol. v.. p. 1256,
PH-ILOSOPHY.
kind ftarted not up like mufhrooms, a
number of favage individuals, but lived in
tribes and families." Why then, youafk,
did not HOOKER and LOCKE fo confider
them, when they were deducing the origin
of civil Society ? For two very important
reafons; and, one would think, very obvi-
ous ones.
Firft becaufe the real origin of civil
Society appearing equally on either fuppo-
fition, the truths, which followed from
it, were clearer feen, as lefs embarrafied,
by confider ing mankind before civil Socie-
ty as individuals.
But this was not all. Had They confi-
dered men before civil fociety as ranked
under tribes, the rights belonging to the
Heads of families, thus brought into
view, tho' neither relative to, nor connected
with, thofe of a civil kind, might have
gfven too much countenance, to that ab-
furd Syftem, which derives political Rule
from thePatriarchal-, a fyftem which, both
for its abfurdities and miichiefs, it was the
purpofe of LOCKE and HOOKER to difcredit.
The former therefore did judicioufly to
affert (as he might doit truly ; for the exer-
cife of jujiice no more belonged to Fathers
Pf
154 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
of Families, as fuch, than the exercife of
Regal prerogative) that, before the infti-
tution of Civil Society, every one ofthefe
independent inhabitants of the earth did, or
might, exercife jujlicefor himfelfand others,
on thofe who violated the Law. Yet this,
his Lordfhip calls language unworthy of
his Matter. Nay, fo great a ftranger is he
to this whole matter, that he declares the
reprefentation to be UNNECESSARY : where-
as we fee it was done to keep the unwa-
ry from being mifled by the fight of cir-
cumftances of no ufe to affift an honeft
man's judgment, and which knaves might
wreft to the fupport of error.
But to proceed with our Subject. His
Lordmip goes on againft the Book of the
Alliance in this Manner : " This imagi-
<c nary Contract, in fhort, whether well or
<{ ill made, never exifted at any time, nor
" in any Country j though, to have been
" real, and really authorized, it mould
" have been the fame at all times and in
" all Countries where Chriftianity was pro-
" pagated. Political Societies make and
" alter and break their Alliances, as the va-
" rying reafon of (late fuggefts. Different
C{ orders of civil Government in the fame
<e Society
PHILOSOPHY. 155
" Society change, and with them the
" whole Constitution offuch Governments,
<c as reafon or paffion, the'interefts or the
" difpofitions of men determine them. But
ct a Religion given by God is in its nature
tc invariable. And therefore if a Religi-
" ous Society with certain privileges,
" immunities, and prerogatives be neceflary
" to prefer ve it fo, the order and conftitu-
ct tion of fuch a Society muft be invariable
" too. The Church muft be eftablifhed
" by the fame divine Authority as the Re-
" Hgion, and be by confequence independ-
<c ent of the State. But nothing of this
" kind has been. ChrifVs Kingdom was
" not of this World. He fent out his A-
" poftles to teach, and to baptize ; and
<c the utmoft power he gave them, befides
<c that of working Miracles to convince and
<f to convert, was to (hake off the duft of
" their feet, and to proteft againft the in-
<c fidelity of thofe who refufed to receive
tc them, and the Gofpel they publifhed.
t; The Apoflles ordained others to accom-
" pany and to fucceed them in the fame
" office, the office of teaching and baptiz-
<c ing. The Apoftles could give no more
" power than they received 5 and no ar-
" gument
156 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
t( gument of right can be drawn from any
'* thing that patted, or from any thing
" that thefe Men did for the Maintenance
" of their Sect, while Chriftianity was a
" Sect [8.]"
This imaginary Contract (he fays) never
exifted at any time or in any country. If he
means, a Contract actually and formally
executed, I have given an anfwer to that
already, and havefhewn, that the objection
holds equally againft the original contract
between King and People ; which I fup-
pofe his Lordfhip deems not to be alto-
gether fo imaginary but that the preroga-
tive of the one, and the rights of the
other, ought every where to be regulat-
ed on the principles there laid down.
But you mall hear the Author of the Al-
liance on this matter.
" [9] When I fay that all regular polici-
" ed States had an Ejlablifted Religion, I
" mean no more than He would do, who,
*' deducing Civil Society from its true O-
rt riginal, mould, in order to perfuade
" Men of the Benefits it produces, affirra
" that all Nations had a Civil Policy. For
" as this Writer could not be fuppofed to
8] Vol.iv. p. 41920. [9] Miance, p. 114157.
i " mean
PHILOSOPHY. 157
<{ mean that every one conftituted a free
ct State, on the Principles of public Liber-
<c ty, which yet was the only Society he
<c purpofed to prove was founded on Truth,
tC and productive of public Good ; becaufe
c it is notorious, that the far greater Part
c< of Civil Policies are founded on different
<c Principles ; or abufed to different Ends :
4< fo neither would I be underftood to
<c mean, when I fay all Nations concurred
< in making this Union, that they all ex-
" actly difcriminated the Natures, and
" fairly adjufled the Rights of both Socie-
" ties, on the Principles here laid down ;
<c tho' an EftMJhment refulting from this
" Difcrimination and Adjuflment be the
" only one I would be fuppofed to recom-
" mend. On the contrary, I know this
cc Union has been generally made on mifta-
" ken Principles; or, if not fo, hath de-
" generated in length of Time j by which
*' means the National Religion in the Pa-
cc gan World hath been moll commonly a
" Slave to the State; and in the Chriftian
" Syftem, the State fometimes a Slave to
c< the Eftablifhed Church. And as it was fuffi-
." cient for that Writer's Purpofe, that thofe
*' SocietieSjWhether good or bad, proved the
" Senfe
158 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
* Senfe all Men had of the Benefits re-
<c fulting from Civil Policy in general,
* c though they were oft miftaken in the
" Application ; fo it is for Ours, that this
<c univerfal Concurrence in the two Socie-
<c ties to unite, fhews the Senfe Mankind
c< had of the Ufefulnefs of fuch an Union.
" And laftly, as that Writer's Principles
'* are not the lefs true on account of the
C general Deviation from them in forming
" Civil Societies; fo may not the plain
c< ones of Alliance here delivered ; tho' fo
* l few States have fuffered themfelves to be
c directed by them in Practice ; nor any
' Man before delivered them in Specula-
c< tion ; efpecially if, as in that Cafe, fo in
* thtSy we can derive fuch Mi/lake and
c Degeneracy from their Caufes. It- would
' draw me too far out of my Way to ex-
' plain diftinctly the Caufes of the Mijlake >,
<c and the intelligent Reader, who care-
<c fully attends to the whole of this Dif-
<c courfe, will not be at a Lofs to difcover
" the moll conliderable of them ; fome of
ct which I have already hinted at; and
" others, I may poffibly, in the Sequel of
<c this Difcourfe, take occafion to mention.
" As for the Degeneracy^ we have obferv-
?! cd,
PHILOSOPHY. 159
" ed, that the Alliance is of the Nature of
" the FOEDERA IN^EQUALIA: Now, the
*' common IfTue of fuch, Grotius acquaints
" us with, in thefe Words : Interim verum
" ejl accidere plerumque^ ut qui fuperior eft
" infcedere> si is POTENTIA MULTUM
" ANTECELLAT, PAULATIM IMPERIUM
" PROPRIE DICTUM USURPET : PR^BSER-
" TIM SI FOEDUS PERPETUUM SIT [9.]"
But if, by, never exifted t his Lordmip
means, that the mutual rights and privileges
of either Society, which naturally follow fuch
an Alliance, were never actually exercifed and
enjoyed by the two Societies, his afTertion
is falfe. They are at this prefent actually
exercifed and enjoyed by the two Societies,
in ENGLAND, under our happy Conftitu-
tion of Church and State. And it was a
principal purpofe of the Book of the Alli-
ance to fhew they are fo, in order to rea-
lize the Theory. Here again it may not
be improper to give you the Author's
words : " We fee how unreafonable and
" even how impolitic our Adverfaries are,
** when in their ill humour with Eftablijh-*
< ments, they chufe to pick a quarrel with
" their own j where the natural Religion
[9] Dejurt Belli & Pads, Lib. i. cap. iii. 21.
is
"
c<
1 60 A VIEW of L. BOLINGEROKE'S
is on a footing exactly agreeable to the:
<c nature of a free Convention between
tc Church and State y on the principles of
<e the Laws of Nature and Nations. A
<{ felicity, they fliould have known, that
" fcarce any other People on the face of
ct the earth can boaft of; In England
<e alone the original terms of this Conven-
<{ tion are kept ap to fo exactly, that this
ct account of the Alliance between Church
< e and State feems rather a copy of the
<e Church and State of England, than a
<c Theory, as indeed it was, formed folely
ec on the contemplation of Nature, and
<c the unvariable reafon of things [ i o.]
'To make this contract (fays his Lordfhip)
real, and to be really authorized^ it Jhould
have been the fame at all times and in all
countries where Chriftianity was profej/ed.
In other words, " Right muft receive
** it's nature from Faff:" or, in ftill
plainer terms, <{ Right becomes Wrong
" when rejected, and Wrong becomes
" Right when received." How would
this found when applied to the ORIGINAL
CONTRACT between Prince and People ?
to make it real and to be really author ized>
[10] Alliance, p. 167-8.
it
PHILOSOPHY. 161
it fhould have been the fame at all times and
in all countries , where civil rule had been
introduced.
But political Societies (he fays) make and
alter and break their alliances as the varying
reafon of ft ate fuggefts. If he only fpeaks
of fuch which make thefe alterations juftly,
it is the fame in the Alliance between Church
and State. The Author has ihewn that, in
this refpect, the Alliances of political So-
cieties with one another, and the Alliance
of the political with the religious, ftand jufl
upon the fame footing. " If there be (fays
" the Author) more religious Societies than
<f one at the time of Convention, the State
" allies itfelf with the largeft of thofe religi-
" ous Societies. It is Jit the State mould do
tc fo, becaufe the larger the religious Society
< is, where there is an equality in other points,
" the better enabled it will be to anfwer
" the ends of the Alliance. It is fcarce
pojjible it mould be other wife, becaufe
the two Societies being compofed of the
fame individuals, the greatly prevailing
Religion mull have a majority of it's
members in the afTemblies of State, who
will naturally prefer their own religion
to any other. Hence we fee the reafon
M *' why
cc
1 62 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
<c why the Epifcopal is the eftablifhed
< Church in England; and the Prejbyte-
" rian the eftablimed Church in Scotland.
" Hence too we lee the reafon of what was
cc before obferved, concerning the durati-
" on of this Alliance: that it is perpetual
" but not irrevocable: i. e. It fubfifts jufl
" fo long as the Church, thereby eftab-
< limed, maintains it's fuperiority of ex-
<c tent; which when it lofes to any confi-
<c derable degree, the Alliance becomes
c< void. For the united Church being
t then no longer able to perform it's part
c< of the Convention, which is formed on
reciprocal conditions, the State becomes
" difengaged: and a new Alliance is of
" courfe contracted with the now prevail-
<c ing Church, for the reafons which made
" the old. Thus formerly, the Alliance
" between the Pagan Church and the Em-
<c pire of Rome was dhTolved; and the
<c Chrtftian eftablifhed in it's place: and
<c of late, the Alliance between the Popijb
<c Church and the Kingdom of England'
<c was broken ; and another made with
<{ the Proteflant, in it's ftead [i.]"
[i] Alliance^ p. 197-98.
Different
* c
PHILOSOPHY. 163
Different orders of civil government, in
the fame Society, change, (fays his Lord (hip)
and with them the whole Conftitution offuch
Governments, as reafon or pafficn, the inter efts
or difpofilions of men determine them. And is
it not the fame in Church-Government ? It
is here Epifcopacy j there Prejhytery -, and
in another place Independency.
But, a Religion given by God is in its
nature invariable. In its DOCTRINE it is
confefTed to be fo. Yes, and in its DIS-
CIPLINE likewife, (fays his Lordfhip) and
thus (lands my argument, If a religious
Society with certain privileges, immunities,
and prerogatives, be necejjary to preferve it
fo, the order and conftitution offuch a So-
ciety muft be invariable too. The infer-
ence is juft. But who, that holds the
principles of the Alliance, againft which
his Lordfhip is here arguing, ever fup-
pofed, that one certain fet of privileges,
immunities and prerogatives was neceffary
to preferve a religious Society in that State
and Condition ? They fay, Religion com-
pofed a Society before it had any of thofe
privileges, immunities and prerogatives ;
none of which it had till it came into Al-
liance with the State ; and none of which
*M 2 it
164 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
it holds longer than the Alliance lafts.
But, if by a ftrange liberty of expreflion, his
Lordfhip means, by privileges, immunities
and prerogatives, only CHURCH-GOVERN-
MENT in general, fo far forth as it is a Society ;
I own that this is necejjary to preferve a re-
ligious Society in the State and Condition of
a Society : But then, give me leave to fay,
it does not follow from thence, that the or-
der and conftitution offuch a Society muji be
invariable too : Becaufe Church Govern-
ment may be adminiftred by an Epifcopa-
cy, a Prefbytery, or an Independency. The
Specific form of Church-Government a-
mongfl the Jews was prefcribed, and there-
fore intended to be invariable, becaufe Mo-
fes united the Religion to the State, under
the collective name of LAW: The fpecific
form of Church- Government amongft
Chriftians was not prefcribed, and therefore
none feems intended to be invariably fol-
lowed, becaufe Jefus did not unite his Re-
ligion to the State, but left it to particular
Churches to follow fuch as was moftagree-
able to the forms of thofe civil Societies, in
which they were to be eftabliflied. For this
purpoie it was fufficient that he instituted
his Religion, a Society, by directing the
members
PHI L o SOP H Y. 165
members of it to hear the Churchy and by
appointing Officers as its organs to convey
it's decifions. On tbis matter it may not be
improper again to hear the Author of the
Alliance, who fpeaking of the Jewifo and
Chriftian Churches, has thefe words :
" This, Both had in common, to be poli-
" tical Societies by divine appointment ;
" but different in this, that GOD, for wife
" ends, minutely prefcribed the whole mode
"of Jewifh policy : and CHRIST, on the
" contrary, with the fame divine wifdom
only conftituted his Church a policied
Society in general j and left the mode
of it to human difcretion [2]."
Thofe ends, the Author thus explains,
in another place. " The Jewijb Religion
" was, like the true natural, which it rati-
c fied, efTentially fitted to compofe a So-
" ciety j and like the Chriftian, of which it
<e was the firft rudiment, really fuch by
" divine appointment. But then unlike
" the Chriftian, in this, that it was not
'* left independent of civil Government,
" to unite with it at its pleafure, on terms
'* agreed upon ; but was for great and
" wife reafons inftantaneoufly united to it,
[a] Alliance, p. 164.
* M 3 by
1 66 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
" by God himfelf. Which alfo he was
" pleafed to do, not by way of Alliance as
" between two bodies that were to continue
<c diftinc~t, but by mutual con verfion into one
<c another, and perfect incorporation [3]."
His Lordmip thenowns,that iff he Church
be ejlabUjked by the fame divine authority as
the religion, (that is, if religion be formed
by it into a Society) it is by confequence inde-
pendent of the State. lam apt to fufpecl,
he here grants more than he is aware of:
For it follows from this conceffion, that if
the Chriftian Religion even compofes a Soci-
ety by nature, tho' not by divine appoint-
ment, it muft be independent of the State :
becaufe the independency does not arife from
the Authority which formed it, but from the
nature elTential to it. And the Author of
the Alliance has fhewn [4] that Religion
compofes a Society by natural right. His
Lordmip's endeavour therefore to avoid the
confequence of independency ', by affirming that
the Church was not ejlablijhed by the fame di-
vine authority as the Religion, would be to
no purpofe even tho' he could prove it.
However let us hear how he fupports his
opinion.
[3] Alliance, p. 1 76. [4] Booki. c. 5.
His
PHILOSOPHY. 167
His firft argument is the declaration of
Jefus himfelf, that bis Kingdom 'was not of
this World. The very argument employed
by the Author of the Alliance, to prove
the contrary. The queftion is, whe-
ther Chrift's Religion compofes a Society ;
and his Lordfhip quotes a declaration of
our Saviour, to prove it does not ; which,
by the very terms, proves it does. For
what is a Kingdom but a Society ? And
what is the not being cf this world, but a
mark of independency ? Which indeed the
Author of the Alliance employs to prove,
that the Church and State are independent
one of another. For was Chrift's Religion a
Kingdom of this world, the confequence
would be, that either the State is dependent
on the Church, or the Church on the
State ; becaufe, in that cafe, both having
COERCIVE POWER, (as all kingdoms of this
world have) a mutual independency would
make that folecifm in Politics called, IM-
PERIUM IN IMPERIO : Whereas, Chrifts
Kingdom not being of this World, and his
Apojlles, as his Lordmip rightly obferve?,
having no power, (bejides Miracles] but that
of teaching, exhorting, and protefting againjl
infidelity^ i. e. having no coercive power,
* M 4 there
168 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
there remains no pretence for its dependency
on the State.
His Lordmip's fecond Argument againft
the independency of the Church is, that
]e(usfenf out his Apoftles to teach, and to
baptize^ and tbe utmoft power he gave them,
befides that of working miracles to convince
and to convert i was to foake off the dujl of
theirfeet^ and to prctejl again/I the infide-
lity of thofe who refufed to receive them,
and the Gofpel they publifi-ed. T'he Apoftles
ordained others to accompany and to fucceed
them in the fame Office of teaching and bap-
tizing, tfhe Apoftles could give no more
power than they had received.
i. He is to prove that Chriflian Religion
did not compofe a Society by inftitution.
And how does he go about it ? By an
argument which {hews it to be a Society by
inftitution^ tho' without coercive power ;
the very Society which the Author of the
Alliance contends for. Jefus fent out his
Apoftles , rt,bey ordained others to accompany
and to fucceed them. Here muft plainly be
a Society inftittited, where you find officers
appointed, and a provifion for their Succefr
lion. The utmoft power they bad was to teach
and baptize ffafe who willingly received the
2 Go/peL
PHILOSOPHY. 169
Gofpel. Here all coercive power is exclud-
ed, and that exclufion makes the Society
independent. What more may be inferred
from this account, and which hisLordmip
fhould have inferred, is, that tho' a Socie-
ty was inflituted, yet the particular form
of Church-Government was left to human
appointment : But he could find no Socie-
ty of Chrift's appointment, becaufe he did
not fee a particular form of Church-Govern-
ment minutely prefcribed, as in the Mofaic
Difpenfation. Tho', had he found fuch a
one, it would, when he leaft fufpecled it,
have been moft to his purpofe ; for of fuch
and only of fuch, he might have faid truly,
that being given by God, it is in its nature
invariable.
2. His obfervation, that the Apoftles could
give no more power than they had received^
infinuates that the Author of the Alliance
contended for inherent coercive power in the
Church, which is mifreprefenting his Adver-
fary, who exprefly holds, that the Church
has no fuch power, while unallied-, and
when allied, receives it, in a very limited
manner, from the State ; and enjoys it no
longer than the Alliance continues. But
thefe mifreprefentations are things eflcntial
to
170 A VIEW of L.BOIINGBROKE'S
to his Lordfhip's polemics. Thus again,
" To pretend that the Church has a right
< to the former [t. e. wealth and gran-
" dour] by compact or by virtue of any
" Altiancs with the State, would be to fay
" whatever comes uppermoft in a WHIM-
" SICAL HEAD. [5]." This is to infmuate
that the Author of the Alliance pretends
that the Church has a right to wealth and
grandeur ', by virtue of this Alliance. Now
the Author himfelf, where he fpeaks of the
motives which the Church had for allying
with the State, exprefly affirms,that the ac-
quiftion of honours, riches, and power could
not be one. His reafon is, that it would be
impertinent in a Church to aim at them, be-
caufe they are things a Church could neither
vfe nor pro/if by [6].
His Lordfhip concludes this long para-
graph in thefe words No argument of
right can be drawn from any thing that
faffed, nor from any thing that thefe men
[the Apoftles] did for the maintenance of
their Serf, while Chriflianity was a Sect.
His Lordfhip here forgets, as ufual, the Per-
fonage he aiTumes, which is that of a Be-
liever, who fuppofes, the Apoftles acted,
in all things, by the direction of their
[5] Vol. iv. p. 604. [6] Alliance, p. 112.
Mafter :
PHILOSOPHY. 171
Mafter : confequently, an argument OF
RIGHT MAY be drawn from every thing that
pajftd, and from all they did, in fupport or
maintenance of their Sett while Chrijiianity
was a SeSt. It is true, if we fuppofe the
Apoflles to be Politicians like his Lordfhip,
who put in practice all kind of means to
fupport and maintain their Party, no ar-
gument of right can be drawn from any
thing they did. But when God directs
the action of his Minifters in the propa-
gation of Religion, we know from his at-
tributes, that no rights of Humanity or So-
ciety will be violated; and confequently,
from every fuch action, an argument of
right may be drawn.
If, indeed, his Lordmip meant no more
by his wife obfervation than this, That,
from what the apoftles did, to afTert and
maintain the independency of Chrift's Reli-
gion, while it remained a Sect, no argu-
ment of right can be drawn to prove it muft
continue independent when it becomes ejta-
blijhed^ I perfectly agree with him : and I
have but one objection to the understanding
him in this fenfe, which is, that it fupports
the Theory of \hzAlliance, which, Iprefume,
was not his Lordmip's intention. Befides,
it
172 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
it contradicts what he fo much labours to
prove, that, if the ^dependency of the
Church was of divine inftitution, the
Church could not give it up, when it en-
tered into Alliance.
In a word, the whole of his Lordfhip's
reafoning againft an Alliance between Church
and Sfate, from the nature of a Church,
may be reduced to thefe four proportions :
i . If Chriftianity be not a Society by
divine inftitution, it is no Society at all.
2. If Chriftianity be an independent So-
ciety by divine inftitution, it could not give
up its independency to the State.
3. If Chriftianity be a Society by di-
vine inftitution, a certain form of Church
government muft be explicitly pre-
fcribed.
4. If fuch a form be explicitly pre-
fcribed, then that Form, and the Difcipline
which belongs to it, muft be as unalter-
able as the Doctrine ; which is contra-
ry to the genius of this fuppofed Alli-
ance.
Now I have mewn, that every one of
thefe four proportions is utterly devoid of all
truth and reaibn.
After
PHILOSOPHY. 173
After thefe exploits, nothing remained to
make his Lordfhip's victory compleat againfl
Alliances and EJiabliJhments, but to discredit
that firft and moft famous of all, made by
CONSTANTINE. " This great Revolution
<c (fays he) was effected in part by circum-
c fiances I have mentioned, and by others
: that favoured the growth of Chriftianity.
" The imperial Authority did the reft, but
" did it ill, foill, that the chief of thofepoli-
<c tical views which CONSTANTINE had in
: making this ESTABLISHMENT were de-
c feated by it, and the admiffion of a re-
<c ligious Society into the State, in the
: manner in which he admitted it, was
<f thecaufe of all the ecclefiaftical and theo-
* logical evils, that have followed from
<c his time to ours, and that are fo falfly
" imputed to Religion itfelf. We may be
" aflured, that the SOCIETY co-operated
" with the COURT, to bring about a Revo-
" lution fo much to their advantage; and
" thought themfelves happy enough to be
" de pendent y not independent on the Em-
<f peror; his inftruments not his allies,
" whatever appearances he might give, or
" fuffer them to aflume, in thofe folemn
" ecclefiaftical farces, wherein he condef-
" cended
i74 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
" cended to act, in fome refpects, a fe-
" cond part. But while he recalled to
et his mind, as he did mofl probably, the
cc great fervice Religion was of to ancient
" Rome, he feemed to forget, that when
" that Religion flourished, and was of fo
" much fervice to the State, it was under
" the immediate infpection of the State.
<c There was no Council but the Senate to
" define Doctrines, nor to regulate Difci-
" pline. And men were at the head of the
" religious, becaufe they were at the head of
< the civil, adminiftration ; inftead of being
" at the head of the latter, becaufe they
* c were at the head of the former. He
" \ConJlantini\ meaned that this [fpiritual
" power] mould be diftinct from the civil 5
" THAT THEY SHOULD BE INDEPENDENT
" OF ONE ANOTHER, and both depen-
" dent on him [7]."
That noble part of Legiflation, the ad-
jufting the rights and privileges, the fettling
bounds and limits of the TWO SOCIETIES,
his Lordmip, as we faid before, feems much
a ftranger to. Indeed, every new paragraph
makes his ignorance but the more notorious,
by his trying to difguife it by Contradiffions.
[4] Vol. iv. p. 43 2 445-
In
PHILOSOPHY. 175
In the eftablifhment of Religion under
CONSTANTINE, the Church, he fays, be-
came dependent on the fupreme civil Ma-
giftrate. tfbey thought thewfehes happy
enough (fays he) to be dependent, not inde-
pendent on the Empercr j his inftruments, net
his allies. Yet, in the fame breath, he
tells us, that this very Emperor was con-
tented to aft a fecond part to thefe his in-
JlrumentS) or, in other words, to become
theirs : Nay, he exprefly affirms, that
Chriftianity was on another footing in new
Rome, than Paganifm had been in the old :
Now Paganifm, he tells us, was the in-
jlrument of the fupreme Magiftrate. Chri-
ftianity then, muft be an Ally* not an inftru-
ment to the fupreme Magistrate. His Lord-
fhipfays, this Eftablifhment was///, 'very ill,
made : Be that as it will, all the world will
allow it, to be here very ill reprefented.
It defeated all Conjlaniines political 'views,
all \hzgoodhe intended.This is not unlikely.
We have an example before us, his Lord-
fliip EJ/ays throughout, where we find,that
contradictions can do more ; they can defeat
all the evil he intended.
But if you afk, Why, in this account of
CONSTANTINE'S eftablifhment, the Church
is one while, made the Inftrument, and ano-
4 ther,
176 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
ther, the Ally of the civil Magiftrate ? I
will tell you. His Lordfhip had decried
the ALLIANCE both in fatt and right.
There never was in FACT, fuch an Alli-
ance, fays his Lordmip. To countenance
this aflertion, CONST ANT INE'S EJiabliJJj-
ment is reprefented as being made on diffe-
rent terms j terms, whereby the Church be-
came the tool and inftrument of the civil
Magiftrate. But then again, he was to
ihew that fuch an Alliance was not of
RIGHT, as being very mifchievous to the
State : This turns the Tables ; and then
CONST ANT INE meaned y that the Jpiritual
power Jhould be dijlinffi from the civil, and
that they fiottld be INDEPENDENT OF ONE
ANOTHER (for he all along mifreprefents
the Theory of the Alliance., as making the
Church keep its independency after the Uni-
on) indeed he fays, and both dependent on
bimfelf\%~\ j but this was only added to fof-
ten the contradiction. To fuch wretched
jargon, do his Principles ever and anon
reduce him : The Religious and Civil So-
ciety are independent of one another ; yet
the Religious is dependent on the fupreme
Magiftrate; /. e. on him who repre-
8] Vol. iv. P . 445.
PHI L o sop H y. 177
fents the civil Society, and is at it's
head.
But now let us examine the feveral
parts of this curious paragraph, without
any particular regard to the contradic-
tions.
He fays, the Church was happy enough to
be dependent, NOT INDEPENDENT, on the
Emperor j his Injlruments, not his Allies*
This fentence is made up of zfalfe infinua-
tipn, and a mijlaken confluence. The in-
fmuation is that the Author of the Alliance
holds, the independency of the Church, on
the Magiftrate, dureing an Eftabliftimentj
and that if the Church be dependent, it is
the Injlrument, not the Ally, of the State.
The miftaken confequence, Grotius (as his
Lordmip finds him quoted by the Author
of the Alliance) might have prevented.
" This (fays the Author) is what GRO-
TIUS calls fcedus inaequale. Inaequale
" FOEDUS, hie intelligo quod ex ipia vi
" pactionis MANENTEM PR-ELATIONEM
tc quandam alteri donat : Hoc eft ubi quis
" tenetur alterius imperium ac majeftatem
" confervare, ut POTENTIORI PLUS HO-
" NORIS, inferior! plus auxilii deferatur.
*N DC
<c
A VlEW of L.~BOLINGBROKE*S
isr. B. & P. L. i. c. iii. Sett.
21 [9]." Hence, in the opinion of this
greaf Lawyer, it appears, that alliance and
dependence 'are very confident.
In ancient Rome, fays his Lord (hip, there
'was no Council^ but the Setiate, to DEFINE
DOCTRINES, nor 'to REGULATE DISCI-
PLINE. Now in antientRome it fo hap-
pened, there were no doffrinesto define^ i c].
And as to Difcipline y it was not the Senate,
but the Colleges of the Priefls which re^
gulated That* When the Senate imagined
the neceffities of State required the obfer-
vance of certain Rites, they fent to the
Priefts for their directions concerning the
regulation of them. The fenate might
chufe whether they would have them cele-
brated 3 but if that was their choice, they
were tied down to the rules and directions
of their facred Books.
On the whole, his Lordfhip allures us,
that CONST AN TINE ejiabltfoed the Church
;v ///, and fo fays the Author of the
Alliance. Nay, which is more, he ex-
plains the caufcs of it.
'
[9] Alliance, p. 88. [to] Sc? $ Leg.
B. ii. Sea. 6.
His
PHILOSOPHY. 179
His Lordfliip's account of Conjlantine 1 s '
eftablimment, and the Author's account of
that by an Alliance, fland thus,
i. CON STAN TINE made the church his
Inftruments, not his Allies. The ALLIANCE
makes the Church the Ally, and not ths
Inftrument, of the Civil Magiftrate.
2. CON STAN TINE placed men at tke
bead of the civil.. Adminift ration, becaufe
they were at the head of the religious. The
ALLIANCE places men at the head of the
religious, becaufe they were at the head of
the civil.
3. CON STAN TINE did not take to himfelf
the title of fupreme head of the Church under
God and Chrift. The ALLIANCE makes
the fupreme Magiftrate, head of the
Church and Defender of the Faith.
4. CONSTANTINE gave riches and coer*
cive power to the Church without ajjuming
this fupremacy or headfliip. The ALLI*
ANCE, when it gave riches and coercive
power to the Church, conferred the Supre-
macy on the civil, Magiftrate.
His Lordfhip's conclufion from all this
long ftory of CONSTANTINE is,, that
" He and his SuccefTcrs railed that fpiri*
" tual tyranny, which was eftablifhed and
* N 2 " grown
180 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
" grown into full flrength before
" CHARLES THE GREAT [i]." And
what could we expert lefs when every term
in the Alliance was violated or negle&ed ?
This was juft as natural as that civil
Tyranny fhould grow to a head, when the
terms of the original contract between
prince and people, had not been adverted
to, or obferved ? In a word, the mif-
chiefs, which, his Lordfliip tells us,
followed from Conftantine' s eftablifbment
are the beft recommendation of the theory
of the Alliance ; a theory formed, as it
were, and fitted to avoid, and guard againft,
them : It has in fact done fo, and render-
ed our prefent Conftitution of Church and
State the mofl happy of any upon the face
of the earth.
At laft,as if on fetpurpofe to recommend
the Theory of the Alliance^ his Lordmip
concludes his Section concerning CON-
STANTINE in thefe words : " Thus it
" feems to me that the great and funda-
" mental error, from whence fo many
" others proceeded, and which CON-
" STANTINE COMMITTED IN THE ES-
[l] Vol. iv. p. 446.
" TABLISH-
cc
PHILOSOPHY. 181
" TABLISHMENT OP CHRISTIANITY,
ce was this, he admitted a Clergy into an
" ejlablijhment, on the fame foot ', on which
" this order had Jlood, while Chriftianity
" was the Religion, and thefe men were the
*' heads, the directors, the governors, and
" magiftrates of a Sett, by no authority,
<e but that of the Sett itfelf. He*admitted
them vefted with this authority, which
might be neceflary as long as Chriftians
" made a Sect apart, out of the protection
" of the laws; and which became un-
<e neceflary and dangerous, when Chrifti-
" anity had a legal eftablimment. The
" conducl: of Conftantine on this occafion
" mufl needs appear extremely abfurd to
cc every one who confiders the confe-
cc quences it had [2]." Can there be a
greater encomium on the principles of the
Alliance ? Ths fundamental error of CON-
STANTINE'S eftablifhment was, the fuf-
fering the Church to RETAIN IT'S INDE-
PENDENCY. The fundamental condition
of eftablimment on the theory of Alliance
is, that the Church GIVES UP IT'S INDE-
PENDENCY.
[2] Vol. iv. p. 4389.
*N 3 After
182 A VIEW of L.BOLINGBROKE'S
After this, will you not wonder to
hear him return again to his abufe of
the ALLIANCE ? " The fole intention and
" fole effect of it [the theologic fyftem of
thefchoolsl " was to eftablifli an ecclefiafti-
" cal Empire, under that fpiritual Monarch
<c the Pope, and his fpiritual Minifters the
" Clergy. THIS WAS THE EFFECT OF
" THAT SUPPOSED ALLIANCE BETWEEN
" THE CHTJRCH AND STATE [3]."
Before, it was CONSTANTJNE and bis
SucceJJors, who rat fed that fpiritual 'Tyran-
ny [4]: And it was done, he fays, by
means of his Efiabliftment ; which fuffered
the Church to retain its independency,
and admitted it on the fame foot on which
it had flood 'while it was a fe5l [5]. But
now, it is the fuppofed Alliance between
Church and State which raifed this fpiritual
Tyranny j an Alliance which will not
juffer the Church to retain it's indepen-
dency.
We have feen fuch amazing inftances of
his Lordfhip's contraditions y as to be
furprized at nothing. Sometimes, when
[3] Vol. iv. p. 621 2. [4] Vol. iv. p. 446.
[5] Vol. iv. p. 438.
rapt
P HI I O S O P H Y, 183
rapt in a fit of rhetoric, he does, by his
contradictions, what the man in the Play
did by his ingratitude y he ftrives to cover
the won/Irons bulk of them, by a propor-
tionable Jize of words; fometimes again
he chufes to follow the advice there given ;
to let them go naked, that men may fee them
the better. Here he formally maiks his
double-face, by a premeditated faHificati-
on of the Theory of the Alliance : He con-
ftantly avouches it for a fact, or takes it for
granted throughout his whole argument
sgainft the Book, that this Author contends
for and maintains the independency of the
Church on the State, under an cjlabliflment'.
This brings CONST ANTINE'S Eftablimment,
and the Eftablifhment on the principles of
the ALLIANCE, pretty much to the fame
thing; fo that the mifchiefs afcribed to
one, may be fafely transferred to the
other.
I have now, Sir, as I promifed, given
You a view of his Lordfhip's POLITICAL
TALENTS. The Author whom I have
defended againft him, is no further my
concern than as he afforded the occafion.
And left he fhould grow vain on this
fuperior diftinclion of feeing himfelf pick-
* N 4 cd
184 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
cd out from amongft the defenders of
Religion, to be immolated, as it were, to
the FIRST PHILOSOPHY, let me tell him,
that as I defended him for want of a
better, fo his Lordfliip abufed him, be-
caufe he could not find a worfe. To
fpeak plainly, his Lord (hip conceived
himfelf to have been peribnally affronted
by him. And to this conceit, the fol-
lowing words refer, where his Lordfhip
takes leave of his Friend, in the lafl
volume of his immortal Works, " You
*' have, I know, at your elbow a very foul-
tc mouthed and very trifling Critic, who
c will endeavour to IMPOSE UPON YOU
<c ON THIS OCCASION, AS H E DID ON A
" FORMER. He will tell you, again, that
I CONTRADICT myfelf, &c. But if the
dogmatic pedant fhould make this ob-
jection, be pleafed to give him this
anfwer, &c [6]."
Thefe words, you fee, contain an anec-
dote ; which, as I have the account of it
from good hands, I fhall not fcruple to lay
before you. It may ferve at leaft to en-
tertain you, in quality of the Farce to this
ferious Piece.
[6J Vol. v. page the laft.
PHILOSOPHY. 185
Mr. POPE had permitted Lord Bo-
LINGBROKE tobe confidered by the pub*
lie, as his PHILOSOPHER AND GUIDE; and
in their converfations concerning the im-
pious complaints againft Providence, on
account of the. unequal diftribution of
things, natural and moral, in the prefent
Syftem, they agreed that fuch complaints
were beft anfwered on the platonic princi-
ple of THE BEST. This encouraged the
Poet to philofophife : and the fruits of his
fpeculations may be found in the celebrated
ESSAY ON MAN. In which, if you will
take his Lordlhip's word, Pope was fo far
from putting his profe into verfe, (as has
been invidiouily fuggefted) that he has
put Pope's verfe in profe. They agreed,
as we obferved, in the principle of the Beft.
And Mr. Pope thought they had agreed in
the queftion, to which this principle was
to be applied. But time has fince ihewn,
they differed very widely. The EJJay on
Man is a real vindication of providence,
againft Libertines and Atheifts The
EJJay son the fir ft Philofophy are a pretended
vindication of Providence againft an imagi-
nary confederacy between Divines and
Atheifts. The Poet directs his argument
againft
1 86 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
again ft Atheifts and Libertines in fbpport
of RELIGION; The Philofopher, a-
gainft Divines, in fupport of NATURA-
LISM. But tho' his Lordfhip thought fit
to keep this a fecret from his Friend, as
well as from the Public ; yet, after the
prodigious fuccefs of the EJ/ay on Man, he
ufed to make the Poet, then alive and at
fiis devotion, the frequent topic of his
ridicule amongft their common Acquaint-
ance, as a man who underftood nothing
of his own principles, nor faw to what
they naturally led. For the truth of this
inftance of his Lordfhip's generofity, and
virtuous emulation in friendfhip, I appeal
to a rieht honourable Gentleman now
o
living.
While things were in this State, M. de
Croufaz wrote fome malignant and abfurd
remarks on the Effay on Man; accufing it
of Spinozifm, Naturalifm, and all the here-
tical -ifms in the Bigot's dictionary. Thefe
Remarks, by great chance, fell into the
hands of the author of the Divine Lega-
tion. And mere indignation at an ill natured
caviller, put him upon writing a defence of
theory? epijlle. Which, being well received,
he was induced to defend the, reft, on the
fomc
PHILOS OPHY. 187
fame principles of natural and revealed Re-
ligion, againftthe blundering mifreprefen-
tations of this Swifs Philofopher, and of a
certain French tranilator of the EfTay into
verfe, by wham M. de Croufaz had beefi
frequently milled.
Mr. Pope, who was naturally on the
fide of Religion, embraced the fenfe given
to the Effay, by his new Commentator,
with the utmoft pleafure and fatisfadtion ;
as appears by the Letters he wrote on that
occafion. You will hardly fuppofe, his
Lordfliip took 'the fame delight in feeing
his Pupil thus reafoned out of his hands :
Or, (what was worfe) in feeing him re-
publifh his EiTay with a Defence, which
put the Poem on the fide of Religion, and
the Poet out of the neceffity of fupporting
himfelf on his Lordmip's fyftem, when he
fhould condefcend to impart it to him : Or,
(what was worft of all) in feeing him, at
the Commentator's inftance, reftore a great .
number of lines ftruck out of the MS.
which no longer left his religious fenti-
ments equivocal.
It was this chagrinewhich occafioned his
Lordmip, (when he NEW MODELED the
introductory Letter to. bis Ej/ays, addrefi'd
to
ft
1 88 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
to Mr. Pope) to end it in this manner,
I cannot conclude my difcourfe on this
occafion better than by putting you in
mind of a pafTage you quoted to me once
** with great applaule from a fermon of
" FORSTER, and to this effect, Where
" myftery begins, religion ends. The
" Apophthegm pleafed me much, and I
" was glad to hear fuch a truth from any
<c pulpit, fince it (hews an inclination at
" at lead, to purify Chriftianity from the
" leaven of artificial Theology \ which con-
" fifts principally in making things that are
very plain, myfterious ; and in pretend-
" ing to make things that are impenetra-
c< bly myfterious, very plain. If you con-
< tinuejlill of the fame mind y I Jhall have
"no excufe to make to you y for 'what I have
" written^ and Jhall write. Our opinions
" coincide. If you have changed your mind,
" think again and examine further. You
" will find it is the MODEST, not the PRE-
c< SUMPTUOUS, Enquirer who makes a real
ce and fafe progreis in the difcovery of di-
c< vine truths. One follows Nature and
<e Nature's God j that is, he follows God
" in hisWorks, and in his Word ; nor pre-
cc fumes to go further, by metaphyfical and
" theological
PHILOSOPHY. 189
" theological commentaries of bis. ou'n in-
" wntion^ than the two texts, if I may
" uie this expreffion, carry him very evi-
" dently. They who have done other-
" wife, have been either ENTHUSIASTS or
" KNAVES [7]." I. E. It is I, who am
the modeft Enquirer, who follow nature
and nature's God j not your prefumptuous
Commentator, who is an enthujiaji or a
knave. But alas ! this kind admonition
came too late. Mr. Pope had now got a
better guide than either FORSTER or his
LORDSHIP. I mean, Mr. LOCKE, who,
in the conclufion of his firft Letter to Bifhop
Stillingfleet, had taught the Poet to
anfwer thus, " I know not any thing
" more difingenuous, than not publicly
< to own a conviction one has received,
u concerning any thing erroneous in what
" one has printed ; nor can there, I think,
" be a greater offence againft Mankind
" than to propagate a falfhood, whereof
" one is convinced ; efpecially in a matter
<c wherein Men are highly concerned not
" to be mifled. The holy Scripture is to
" me, and always will be, the conftant
" GUIDE of my alTent; and I mall always
< hearken to it, as containing infallible
[7] Vol. iv. p. 344.
" truth,
190 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
" truth, relating to things of the higheft
" concernment. Andlitrijh I could fay
1 ' there were no M v s T E R I E s in it . I acknoiv-
w there are, to me, and I fear always will
" be. But where I want the evidence of
" things, there yet is ground enough for
" me to believe, becaufe God has laid it :
<c and I mall prefer, tly condemn and quit
<c any opinion of mine, aiToon as I am
11 {hewn that it is contrary to any Revela-
" tion in the holy Scripture [8.]."
But the Author of the Divine Legation
foon after committed a much more heinous
offence againil his Lordiliip's philofophic
Dignity. And to this, the following words,
quoted above, allude : You have, 1 know, at
your elbow, a 'very foul-mouthed and a very
trifling Critic, who will endeavour to inipofe
itponyou on this occafton, as he did on a FOR-
MER.
About the year 1742^ little before Lord
Bolingbroke's return, to England, this Cri-
tic was with Mr Pope atT. who fliewed
him a printed book of Letters on the Study
c>. : vfe of Hijlory , and delired his opi-
nion of it. It was the firft volume of the
work fmce publimed under that name.
Mr. W. on turning it. over, told him his
[8] Loch's ll-'erk^ Vol. i. p. 405.
4 thoughts
PHILOSOPHY. 191
thoughts of it with great freedom. What
he faid to Mr. Pope of the main fubjecT: is
not material : but of the digreffion con-
cerning the Authenticity of the Old Tefta-
ment, he obferved to his friend, that the
Author's arguments, poor as they were,
were all borrowed from other Writers ;
and had been confuted again and again,
to the entire fatisfadion of the learned
world : that, the Author of thefe Letters,
whoever he was, had mifbken fome of
thofe reafonings 5 had mifreprefented
others; and had added fuch miftakes of
his own, as muft difcredit him with the
learned, and dishonour him with all
honeft men : that therefore, as he under-
ilood the Author was his friend, he
could not do him a better fervice than
advife him to ftrike out this digreffion^
which had nothing to do with his fubjecl,
and would fet half his Readers againft the
work, whenever it fhould be published.
Mr. Pope faid, his friend, (whole name
he kept fecret,) was the moft candid of
men; and that the Author of the D. L.
could not do him a greater pleafure than
to tell him his thoughts freely on this occa-
fion. He urged this fo warmly, that his
friend complied, and, as they were then
alone,
192 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
alone, fcribled over half a dozen meets of
paper before he rofe from the table, where
they were fitting. Mr. Pope read what he
had written ; and, as he had a wonderful
partiality for thole he thought well of, he
approved it: and to convince the Scribler y
(as my Lord rightly calls him) that he did
fo, he took up the printed Volume and
crofled out the whole digreffion with his
pen. It was written, as you may well
luppofe, with all the civility, the writer
was likely to ufe to a friend Mr. Pope
appeared much to reverence : but the word
prevarication, or fomething like it,
chanced, it feems, to efcape his pen. The
papers were fent to Paris ; and received
with unparalleled indignation. Little broke
out ; but fomething did ; and Mr. Pope
found he had not paid his court by this of-
ficious fervice. However, with regard to
the Writer of the papers, all was carried,
when his Lordihip came over (as he foon
afterwards did,) with fingular politenefs ;
and fuch a drain of compliment as men
are wont to beftow on thofe, whofe
homage they intend to gain. Yet all this
time, his Lordfhip was meditating and
compiling an angry and elaborate anfwer
to this private 3 hafty, and impertinent,
j tho :
PHILO s OP HY. 193
tho' well meant, Scribble : and it was as
much as They could do, who had moft
intereft with him, to perfuade him at
length to burn it. For the truth of all
this, I might appeal to a noble Perfon, one
of the greateft Characters of this, or
indeed, of any Age ; who being much
courted by his Lordmip, was for fo.me
time able, and at all times moft defirous,
of reftraining the extravagance of that^r/2
Pbikfopby t which he detefted and defpiied.
The event has fince fhewn, that it had
been happy for his Lordfhip's reputation,
had the advice, to ftrike out the DigreJJion,
been followed ; as it is that which has
chiefly funk him in the popular opinion 5
and loft him the merit of the very beft of
all his Compofitions.
Mr .Pope, however, was ftill courted and
carefied. And the vengeance treafured up
againft him for the impiety of erafing
thofe facred pages, broke not out till the
Poet's death : then indeed it came with
redoubled vehemence, and on the moft
ridiculous pretence. Pope had, as his
Lordmip faid, unknown to him, printed
an Edition of the Patriot Prince, or Pa-
triot King, (for it had two titles, as his
Lordfhip's various occafions required) a
* O very
194 A VIEW of L. BOLINGBROKE'S
very innocent thing, which might have
been published by the common Cryer,
without the leaft offence. To fay the
truth, it was a mere School-declamation,
which, in great pomp of words, informs us
of this Secret, 'That if a Prince could but be
cncc brought to love his Country he would
always aci for the good of it. There was
the appearance too of very odd practice
to give a colour of necefiity for the pub-
liming this wonderful difcovery. How-
ever, it was done; and the memory of
Pope traduced in fo cruel a manner, that
the Reader is fufTered to conclude, that
even CURL himfelf could not have acted a
more faithlefs or mercenary part : for it
muft be owned, his Lordmip has dealt
one equal meafure to his COUNTRY, his
RELIGION, and his FRIEND. And why
was all this outrage ? To fpeak the worft
of the offence, it was one of thofe private
offices of indifcreet good will, which ge-
nerous men are always ready to forgive,
even when they fee themfelves mofl in-
commoded by it.
The Public flood amazed. And thofe
who had any regard for the Poet's Me-
mory, waited with impatience to fee who,
of his old Friends, would refcue it from his
Lordfhip's
PHILOSOPHY. 195
Lordmip's fangs. Contempt of fo cruel a
treatment, I fuppofe, kept them filent.
However, the fame contempt at length
provoked an Anonymous Writer to publifh
a Letter to the Editor of the Patriot King j
for his Lord (hip had thought proper to
divide himfeif into the two perfonages of
Editor and Author. This Letter, written
with all the decorum and refpedl: due to
his Lordihip's Station and Character, he
thought fit to afcribe to the Author of the
Divine Legation-, fo that you need not
wonder if it expofed the fufpected writer
to all his Lordfhip's rage, and to all the
ribaldry of his Sycophants; of which,
fome, that was faid to pafs through his
Lordfhip's hands, was in language bad
enough to difgrace Goals and Garrets.
You have here, SIR, the Anecdote I
promifed you. And now I (hall releafe
you from this tedious Subject. I have
compleated my View of his Lord/hip'* Phi-
lofophy ; which I chofe to addrefs to You
in compliance with his challenge ; where
he appeals, from Artificial ^Theology and
School-Learning, to the breaft of the plain
honed Man,
" Slave to no Seft, who takes no private road,
*' But looks through nature up tonature'sGod;
to
196 A VIEW of, etc.
to him whofe heart is filled with the love
of God and Man. To this Tribunal he
appeals, and to this I have now brought
him. What he will gain by it You will
tell us. I greatly fufpect, that of all his
Principles you are not likely ^to approve
more than what you find in the following
declaration, which breaks out unexpectedly
from amidft the corruption of party poli-
tics, and in all likelyhood was ingendered
by them. SOME MEN THERE ARE, THE
PESTS OF SOCIETY I THINK THEM,
WHO PRETEND A GREAT REGARD TO
RELIGION IN GENERAL, BUT WHO TAKE
EVERY OPPORTUNITY OF DECLAIMING
PUBLICKLY AGAINST THAT SYSTEM OF
RELIGION, OR AT LEAST AGAINST
THAT CHURCH-ESTABLISHMENT, WHICH
IS RECEIVED IN BRITAIN [2].
I am> Sec.
[2] Dijfirtatkn on Parih? y p. 148. 8vo. Edit.
F I N I S.
K' R R A T A.
P. 136. J. 15. for haman read human.
P. 159. 1. laft, for natural read national.
V. 174. 1. 23, for bounds read the bounds*
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
Los Angeles
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.
0V 2J987
?
SB?
DEC 02 1991
Form L9-Series 444
B
1358
UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
A A 000011 238 3