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