THE LIBRARY
OF
THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
A
S E R I E S
O F
LETTERS,
ADDRESSED TO
SOAME JEN YNS, Es<u
ON OC C A S ION O F
HIS VIEW
OF THE
INTERNAL EVIDENCE
O F
CHRISTIANITY*
By A. M A C L A I N * D. D.
Minifter of the Englilh Church at the Hague.
Non tali auxilio - - - VIRGIL.
LONDON: ,
Printed for CHARLES BATHURST, in Fleet Street.
M.BCC.LXXVII.
ST
//CO
A T4S vZ
O T A T I O N
BY WAY OF
PREFACE.
TH E miftaken principles of one
Chriftian Writer have been de-
tected and expofed by other Chriftian
Writers without referve. But Infidels,
indiffolubly leagued together by the
fingle tie of unbelief, fludioufly avoid
confuting one another : this conduct
fhews a determined refolution to fup-
port a beloved caufe by all pojpble
means ; and the caufe, which infpires
its votaries with fucb a refolution, is
not likely to be the caufe of truth.
GERARD'S Differ /. on Chrtjl. p. 354.'
A 2 COR-
G.r. c O
jL<t*
UBRARY
CORRECTIONS and ADDITIONS,
PAGE 19, lint 8, in/lead of certainly, read cer-
tainty. P. 39, line ^, read the moft fublime.
P. 51, line 7, inflead of the only read only the and,
line n, put a comma inflead of a full flop at the end
of the word perfection. P. 57, line 13 and 14, i*-.
fleadof defending read defining. P. 74, at the end of
the 6tb line, which concludes with the 'words one God,
add the f allowing fentence :
Nay were it demonftrated, that the notions of a Tri-
nity, which are to be found in the Theological Syftems
of the Pagan Sages, were derived from fome primitive
Jlevelation, Judaical or Patriarchal, yet their being pre-
vious to the Chriftian Revelation is Mill iufficient to in-
validate your argument, unlefs you think fit to change
<*he Title of your Book, and call it A View of the Inter-
val Evidence not only of Christianity, but alib of Juan-
jfm and every other Revelation.
P. 96, line 12, inflead of tbe word of, at the end
of the line, read on.- P. 98, line 4, inflead of teas,
read is it true? P. 137, line jo, inflead of teaches
read teach. P. 142, line it, inflead o/"ftatutes read
ftarues. P. 200, line 9, read virtues. P. ^\^, linf
i, r/</embarraflinent. P. 124, line 10,
Hague, &V.
LETTER I.
i
To SOAME JENYNS, Efq.
SI R,,
YOUR View of the Internal Evi-
dence of the Cbriftian Religion
had patted through four editions, be-
fore it came to my hands. My dif-
tance from the place of publication,
and fome other circumftances, pre-
vented my meeting with it fooner ;
though my zeal for the can fe it main-
B tains*
T * ]
'tains, and the well-acquired fame of
its author, had rendered me impatient
to be acquainted with its contents,
I had been told that your Defence of
Chriftianity was new - t and, when the
Book arrived, I found it to be fo,
with a witnefs : for, though fome of
thefe novelties had appeared in the
writings of a fingular and excentrick
Genius upon the Continent, it remains
ilill dubious, whether they were de-
figned, by him, to do honour to
Chriftianity, or to undermine its cre-
dit. And indeed, Sir, I muft own,
that I had read two thiwis of your
Book, before I knew whether I Ihould
.place it on the fame fhelf with the
Treatife of Gilbert Weft, or certain
Writings of Samuel Chubb ; and I
begin thefe Letters by begging your
pardon
I 3 ]
pardon for having fufpended, during
Tome moments of a difagreeable un-
certainty, the juftice that is due to
your upright intentions. An acci-
dental circumftance put me in a mood
that contributed not a little to the in-
jury I was likely to do you. I had
been reading the account, given by
Mr. Edward Gibbon, of the Progrefs
of the Chriftian Religion ; in which
the graved fubjecl:, and one of the
graved kinds of writing, are both,
difhonoured by a perpetual and unne-
cefiary fneer. * This had ftruck me
B 2 fo
* I fay an umecfjfary fneer, becaufe Mr. Gib-
bon lives in a country where a man may write
and fpeak as he thinks, without danger or mo-
leftation. He was, therefore, under no neceffity
*f aping the manner of fomc of the French Phi-
lofophere,
fo much, that, when I took up yoay
Bcok, and faw the ftrange things you-
were advancing in defence of Chriftiar
nity, I began to fufpe<fl that you were
fneering alfo. This idea acquired a
certain degree of probability from ths
many accounts I have had of your fly wit,
and your eafy and elegant pleafantry ;
it did not, however, fquare fo well with
what
lofophers (as they are pleafed to call themfelves)
who cover their infidelity with a fedate and well-
difguifed irony, to efcape the fecular arm of
Religious peril-union. It is true, a. freer mr.j
have its place and time ; . but furely its place can-
not be hiftorical narrative, through which, ai
leaft, it never ought to reign ; nor is it a timt
to fneer, when Chriftianity is the fuhjecl of dif-
cuffion, becaufe this Religion has a profefled re-
lation to the mofl folemn and important interefts,
and has, in effcft, been a fource of confolation
-and hope to the wifeft of mankind in all agts.
I 5 ']
t I have alfo often heard of you,
e /en that you pofleffcd the hap^ y
and agreeable art of being merry and
wife.
The perufal -of your whole Work
difpelled all my doubts. I perceived,
at length, that you were in earned ;
but I began to apprehend, left that
numerous clafs of our common adver-
faries, who are rather practical than
perfuaded Infidels, mould, on perceiv-
ing the fame thing, begin to be merry.
The boneft people of this clafs are ne-
ver fo rejoiced, as when they fee an
ill-judged defence of Chriftianity. It
makes them (I know not why, but
the cafe is really fo) go to the gaming-
table with lefs reluctance, and to the
icenes of lewdnefs with more tranquil-
lity. They foolimly perfuade them-
B 3 felves,
I 6 3
felves, that a caufe, which is prepof-
tcroufly defended, muft be a bad one >
and, putting between conference and
futurity this new re-inforcement of
illufion, they return, with a new-
flu med confidence, to enjoy as many
moments of pleafure, as they can, be-
fore the bubble of exiftence breaks.
An illufion of this kind, Sir, may
be confirmed by your reputation, and
the mining abilities you have difco-
vered in treating other fubjecls. For,
if it fliould appear, that, with all your
genius and learning, you have de-
fended Chriflianity upon principles
that lead (as men may be differently
cifpofed) to enthufiafm or to fcepti-
eifm, many will be ready to conclude,
that the Gofpel, and not you, is-
chargeable with thefe confcquences.
It
[ 7 T
It is painful to me to afTume the
tone of cenfure and criticifm, and'
that more efpecially, where a perfon
of your fuperior merit and abilities is;
concerned -, but I have the intereft of
Chriftianity too much at heart, not to
proteft folemnly againft your method
of defending it. Your view of its-
Internal Evidence is certainly excepti-
onable in many refpects. In general,
your reafoning is neither clofe nor ac-
curate. Your illuftrations run wide
of the principles they are defigned tp
explain and enforce.. One would be
tempted fometimes- to think, that
you, yourfelf, loft fight of tbefe prin-
ciples in the midft of the defultory
detail of arguments and obfervations,
which you bring to fupport them 5
and, while we admire feveral fine
B 4. touches
I * 1
touches of genius, wit and eloquence,
that ftrike us in the midft of this
fplendid confufion, we lament the
want of that luminous order and
.philofophical precifion, that are indiP-
penfably required in a work of this
kind You look like a man who has
been fuddenly tranfported into a new
fcene of things, where a multitude of
objects ftrike him at once, and who
begins to defcribe them, before he has
had time to confider their arrange-
ment and their connexions. Or, to
ufe another figure that comes nearer
to your particular cafe, you look like
a zealous and fpirited volunteer, who
has embarked in a veiTel, furrounded
with enemies and afiailed by tempeftu-
ous weather, and begins to defend and
work the fhip, without that- experience
in
I 9 1
in the art of Navigation, or the fciencc
of Defence, that is neceflary to enfure
fuccefs and victory.
I congratulate you, Sir, at the fame
time, upon your entrance into OUT
Ark^ which does not depend for the
final ifiue of its 'courfe on car-manoeu-
vres. It is firmly and compactly built,
though you and I may not confider,
-under -the fame point of view, either
the principles of its conftruction or its
various tendencies ; and, in fpite of the
ilorms of infidelity and vice, (which
beat agairift it, and retire in froth) it
will conduct us both, I hope, to that
peaceful harbour, where tumult and
diforder fhall ceafe for ever.
This may fuffice, Sir, -for my firft
introduction to your acquaintance : in
my following Letters I fhall enter
jpre-
profefiedly upon the examination <jf
your Work, and conclude at prefent,
by afiuring you, that I am, with the
moft fmcere efteem for your virtues
and talents, Sir,
Your moft humble and
obedient Servant,,
A, M,
LETTER
LETTER II.
S I R,
E of the firft things, that ftruck
me in your Work, is the Propo-
fition you advance, page 5, viz. *' that
** the credibility of Miracles and Pro-
** phecies depends upon the internal
" marks of Divinity that are ftamped
** upon the Chriftian Religion." This
aflertion, had it fallen from the pen
of an ordinary Writer,, would have
pafled without examination for a pal-
pable error in reafoning , but, coming
from you,- it carried a certai-n afpect
of authority that made me review the
principles of Evidence ; but thus I
eame, though without precipitation,
to the fame conclufion.
I (hall
:[ r* 1
I mall not here. obfervq, that you
fall into, what the Logicians call, a vi-
cious circle, while, after proving the
Divinity of the Doctrine by miracles,
you prove the credibility of miracles
by the Doctrine. This inaccurate and
confufed manner of reafoning you
have in common with too rnah^ 6f the
Defenders of Chriftianity. I mail leave
this confideration afide, and mew that
miracles derive no pofifive proof at all
from the nature -of doctrines or pre-
cepts, or what we call the infernal
Evidence of a Religion.
Miracles are faffs out of the com-
mon courfe of nature, and therefore
can reft upon no evidence but that of
tejlimony^ handed down from the ocu-
iar witnefies in the faithful records of
Hiilory. Faftsin the courfe of nature
derive
derive a certain degree of probability
from analogy, and are thus rendered ere*
dible by obfervation and experience :
but facts, out of the courfe of nature,
have no fuch characters of credibility to
fupport them, and muft therefore de-
pend on teftimony alone. What we
call the internal marks of Divinity in
the Gofpel give no credibility to mi-
racles, properly fpeaking ; they only
mew that the nature of the doc-
trines or precepts of a Religion fur nijb
no reafon to make us fufpeft that the
miracles are falfe ; they only prevent
'objections againfl them -, they only
hinder any proofs of their faliehood
from coming from that quarter : buc
this does not give them any degree of
Pefitive evidence. Nay, more, if
you
[ 14 ]
you can prove from the internal Cha-
racters of the Chriilian Religion, that
its origin is fupernatural^ then miracles
areufelefs ; and, ifufelefs, improbable,
in confequence of that known maxim,
that infinite Wifdom does nothing in vain.
But indeed to a Deift, who demands
{Irict evidence, and will not put up
with ^entimental arguments, you will
not be able to prove from (what are
commonly called) the internal charac-
ters of Chriftianity, unfupported by
miracles, that the origin of that Reli-
gion is fupernatural. And from fome
of the internal characters, which you,
Sir, attribute to Chriftianity, I fear
a dextrous adverfary might even form
objections againft its divine origin.
What I call, and what are generally
called the infernal cbarafttrs of Chrifti-
anity,
[ '5 1
anity, that difplay its excellence, and, is
conjunction with miracles, fhew its
Divinity, are the juft, rational, and
fublime reprefentations it gives of the
attributes in general, and particularly
of the goodnefs and mercy of the Su-
preme Being ; the fuiJabknefs of its de-
clarations of mercy, grace, fuccour,
and immortality to the guilt, infirmi-
ties, and boundlefs deftres of the hu-
man mind i the purity and fublimity
of its moral precepts, which are adapted
to ennoble and improve human nature,
and to lead it to true perfection and
felicity ; and the motives that it exhi-
bits to enforce the practice of univer-
fal virtue. Now what do thefe infernal
characters prove ? This only ; that fuca.
a Religion, according to our conception
of things, is not unworthy of God 5 or,
[ i6 ]
in other words, that we fee nothing in
fueh a Religion that is inconfiftent
with our ideas of the Divine Nature
and perfections. They prove no more,,
according to the plained rules of Evi-
dence. But to prove that a Religion
h not unworthy of God (for any thing,
we know) is a very different thing from
proving that it comes from him by an
immediate and fupernatural interpofi-
tion.
Many things may appear worthy of
Godi in confequence of our general
conceptions of his- goodnefs, which
that all-wife goodnefs, ( in confe-
quence of relations and connexions
unknown to us, and of larger views
of publick utility than we can com-
prehend) may not think proper to ef-
tecl:. It would be confident with our
. notions
[ *7 ]
notions of the Divine benignity, 'that
the Indians were enlightened with the
knowledge of the truth, and that the
immenfe Continent of Africa was in-
ftrufted in the dodlrines of celeftial
Wifdom ; but be 9 whofe goodnefs is
infinitely more pure, difinterefted, and
extenfive than ours, does not think fit
to diftribute his benignity in the mea-
fure and time that we would prefer.
We may transfer the fame method
of reafoning to the internal Chara&ers
of a Religion. Thefe, confidered merely
in themfelves, * prove only the excel-
C lencc
* I fhall confi'der in its place (for I chufe to
fiep rather than run through this important
fubjeft) thefe internal Chara&ers combined
with the Charafters and Capacities of the firil
Founder and Minifters of the Gofpel; and
tbenviz fhall fee how /'/wa/Evidence is afFefted
by external.
I I* ]
lence of precepts and the utility of doc-
trines. They fhew us, that thefe pre-
cepts and doclrines contain nothing
that is unworthy of our pureft notions
of the Supreme Being; and we may
fay the fame thing of many of the pre-
cepts and reafonings of Socrates and
Cicero. But this does not prove that
the Teachers of fuch precepts and doc-
trines have received an exprefs Commif-
fion from above to propagate them
among men. This Commijfion can be
afcertained by miracles alone. The
pretenfions of thefe teachers to a Divine
Commiffion, though feconded by abun-
dant marks of probity, candour, and
benevolence, are not fufficient to prove
this Commiffion. They may be Jtn-
cere, but miftaken. The goodnefs of
their intentions, and even the benevo-
lent
T 19 1
knt Warm th of their Zeal, may moreor
lefs deceive them in this matter. There
are degrees of enthufiafm, which,
though very remote from frenzy or
difordered reafon, are neverthelefs de-
lufive : and how can I be certain, that
this is not the cafe with the Teachers
in queflion ? This certainty can neve r
be complete as long as I confider only
their doctrines and their moral charac-
ters. (The evidence, that will arifefrom
confidering their capacities, mail be
confideredprefently.) All that this point
of view exhibits is reducible to the
following propofidons, which might
be addreffed to them even by a mind
defirous of believing : " Your pre-
*' cepts are excellent, whatever be the
* c authority on which you propagate
" them -Your promifes of pardon
C 2 " and
[ 20 ]
*' and immortality are tranfporting
*' they anfwer the natural and bound-
" lefs defires of the human mind ; buc
" neither tbefe circumftances alone,
" nor your fincerity added to them,
" are fufficient to give me a full per-
" fuaficn of their accomplishment, or
" of your CommifTion to declare ir.
" 1 fee no more than a poffibility of
*' this, until the Being, who alone
" can pardon and vivify, gives me
" fome more exprefs proof, that the
" accomplifhment of fuch promifes
te are conformable to the general plan
-* c of hts Government, and that thus
" both his wifdom and power are en-
" gaged to fulfil them.'*
I here confider, Sir, the amount of
internal Characters, as you only can
make ufe of them againft a Dcift, and
mean
t *I ]
mean to mew you, that this ufe is on.
ly a negative one ; that is, that it pre-
vents objections being raifed againft
miracles from the precepts and doc-
trines of Religion -, but can give no di-
re% or pcfitive evidence in favour of
the credibility of theie miracles.
What ! (will you fay) is it not worthy
of God to confirm fuch an excellent
Religion by miracles ? My anfwer is,
that I have not been let into the fecrets
of the Divine Government, the perfect
knowledge of which can only impow-
er us to pronounce any procedure wor-
thy or unworthy of his perfections.
According to my view of things, it is
not uxworiky of the perfections of the
Deity to confirm fuch a Religion by
miracles ; and even this is fomething :
but I am too ignorant to pronounce
C 3 abfo-
[ J
abfolutely, that fuch a confirmation is
worthy of God, and that his perfecti-
ons require it, until I fee trie miracles-
themfelves, or know by fufficient Tefli-
mony that they have been performed;
Inftead, therefore, of faying, Sir, that
$he credibility of miracles depends upon-
the internal Characters of Chriftianity,.
you ought to have faid (if I am not
much mi(laken)that internalCbarafter*
hinder the doctrines and precepts of
the Gofpel from jarring with the con-
clufion deducible from miracles in fa-
vour of its Divine origin.
There is, Sir, I acknowledge, in
the precepts, truths, and promifes
of the Gofpel, a kind of evidence
of a Divine origin, that may be
sMt&fentimentat; but as this is rela-
tive to a certain caft of mind, to cer-
tain
r *3 i
tain degrees of feeling and fenfibility,
that are neither univerfal, nor required
in all, we muft not bring it, with-
out the utmoft caution, before the fe-
vere tribunal of Evidence. The con-
fequenees of employing it would be
dangerous ; and though I fliould grant
that this is not a certain proof of it*
falfehood ; yet it is at lead a reafoti
for ufmg it fparingly. There is no
doubt but that, when the precepts,
truths, and promifes of the Gofpel, in-
fluence the heart, affections, and acti-
ons, they ennoble the mind, infpire
grand ideas of its Author and its defti-
nation, and excite that ferene hope,,
that calm fatisfaflion, that fenfe of dig-
nity, and that anticipating impreflion
of future felicity, that none but the
virtuous Chriilian can feel : and there
C 4 i*
[ 24 ]
is no doubt but that this fiate of mind
is, to him that poflefies it, a new fource,
or at lead a ftrong re-inforcement of
Evidence. It gives new ftrength to
all the proofs aliedged in favour of
Chriftianity : it collects every ray of
Evidence in the heart, and thus de-
lightfully perfuades the virtuous Chrif-
tian, that Chriftianity is the offspring
of Heaven, as well as the friend of
man. When the Chriftian fees the
harmony that reigns between the
truths, the precepts, and the promifes
of his Religion, and the grand fcenes
it opens beyond time When he ob-
ferves the candour of its Founders, the
plainnefs of their ftyle and manner,
and yet the fublimity of the views
they unfold of the Counfels of the
Deity -, he feds that this Religion is
Divine:
t *5 ]
Divine : he has an intimate conviction,
that it is not the fruit either of error
or of impofture : the moral improve-
ment, and the noble pleafure it admi-
nifters to his heart, carry to that heart
a fentimental testimony of its truth.
Bur, after all : fuppofing (which I
fcarcely believe *) that fuch a fentimen-
tal perfuafior\ of the Divinity of Chrif-
tianity could be obtained by a view
alone of its internal Characters ; yet
this will not do againft an Objector,
who will tell you, that he has no fuch
demonftrative feelings, and will con-
clude, perhaps from the ftrefs laid on
them, that Chriftianity is not founded
in argument. Prefent to him thofe
truths,
* Is this fentimental perfuafion in any heart
totally independent of the belief that Chrift rof
from the Dead ?
truths, precepts, and promifes of the
Gofpel, that excite fuch feelings, and
let us fuppofe that, in this fyftem of
Religion, there are neither miracles, nor
pretenfions to miracles. What will he
reply ? He will reply, that Chriftianity
is excellent, but not Divine : He will
perhaps acknowledge, that Jefus and
his Apoftles were among the Moralifts
what Archimedes and Newton were
among the Mathematicians : He will
obferve, that the precepts of Chrift
may be within the fphere of human Ca-
pacity, whofe degrees are 'various in dif-
ferent perfons, and whofe limits, even
in this part of the great fcale, it is fo
difficult toafcertain. And, as to the
exprefs promifes of pardon and immor-
tality, the Objector will tell you, that
they are yet to be accomplilhed, and
that
that the certainty of that accompfinV
ment is only deducible from thofe fam-
ples of power that were difplayed by
Chrift, when he calmed the tempefts,
healed the fick, arofe from the dead,
and fent down upon his Church the
Spirit of Wifdom, Victory, and Power.
It was then (will he fay, and I think
with truth) that Chrift, properly fpeak-
ing, {hewed his Divine Commiffion.
If, indeed, we confider the internal
Characters of excellence and fublimity r
that are ftamped upon the doctrines
and precepts of the Gofpel, in compa-
rifonw'rth the rank and capacities of thofe
who promulgated them to the world,,
a contrail will arife to our view that
changes the nature of the argument.
The apparent Son of a Jewifh Carpen.
ter dies upon the Crofs, by the hand*
of
t rt ]
of Perfecution : He leaves behind him,
for his Difciples, a few fiftiermen, and
perfons in low life, remarkable for no-
thing, while he was with them upon
earth, but profound ignorance, natu-
ral incapacity, dulnefs of apprehen-
iion and erroneous views of their Maf-
ter's doctrine, intentions, and king-
dom. Now it is by thefe, manifeftly ig-
norant, dull, and incapable perfons,
that the fublime doctrines and truths
of the Gofpel are recorded and pub-
lilhed. Here, I fay, the tenor of the
argument changes, and here the proof
of a fupernatural difpenfation properly
commences. Why ? Becaufe we have
here a real miracle, and miracles alone
are the direff proof of a Com million
immediately Divine. So thar, the mo-
ment we confider the internal nature
of
of the Doctrines and Precepts of Chrif-
tianity, in comparifon with the Charac-
ters, Situation, and Capacities of the
Teachers of this Religion, we have got
a ftep out of (what is commonly called
the fphere of internal Evidence, and
find ourfelves in the fphere of miracles.
This comparifon leads us to Divine
Infpiration, which is a real miracle;
and every miracle comes under the
clafs of external Evidence.
. The refult of the matter then ls t
that, as the purity of the metal does
not eftablilh its true and permanent va-
lue, nor allure its currency >, before it
be flamped externally with the mark
of the Sovereign, fo the intrinfic ex-
cellence of the Doctrines and Precepts
of a Religion, though they may pro-
cure
I 30 ]
cure it certain marks of refpeft and at-
tachment, and make it pafs for an ufe-
ful rule of conduct, will not prove its
Celeftial origin, nor give it the autho-
rity of a Divine Revelation. The pure
metal will have a certain degree of me-
rit from its fubferviency to ornament or
utility, but there will be no authorita-
tive obligation to make it an inftru-
ment of Commerce, nor can men be
fure that its value will be always real,
To fpeak without figure or compa-
rifon, the internal Characters of great-
nefs, fimplicity, utility, and impor-
tance, may mine forth in a fyflem of
Religion and Morality. That fyftem
may be honourable to the Divine Per-
fections, for any thing we know to the
contrary ; it may tend to the real im-
provement of human nature, by its
3 happy
[ 3i J
happy influence in teaching man hu-
mility, affording him confolation, ex-
citing in him hope, and pointing out
the rule he ought to follow, and the
mark to which he mould tend j but
all thefe marks of intrinfick excellence,
unattended with vifible and extraordi-
nary interpolations, may appear to ma_
ny, as not beyond the reach and dic-
tates',of human Wifdom; and the judg-
ment of mankind may be various on
this head, in proportion to their diffe-
rent degrees of fagacity in difcerning
the marks and characters of truth.
Such is the cafe with what is com-
monly called the internal Evidence of
the Chriftian Religion it is infuffici-
nt to demonftrate the Divinity of any
Religion.
But,
[ 32 ]
But, Sir, what you lay down, as in-
ternal proofs in favour of the Gofpel,
are, if I am not miftaken, fomething
worfe than inefficient for this pur-
pofe ; they would (were they really to
be found there) rather turn to its dif-
credit. This I (hall fhew in a fol-
lowing Letter.
LETTER
[ 33 I
LETTER III.
S I R,
TH E Analogy of Revealed with
Natural Religion, and the go-
vernment of providence, was one of
the facts which learned men have em-
ployed to remove the prejudices of fo-
berTheifls againft theGofpel of Chriflr.
It is one of the eflential Characters of
a true Revelation, that it be conform-
able with the puref dictates and eflen-
tial principles of Natural Religion,
and that it be not in contradiction with
the fundamental principles of human,
knowledge. Though it may perfeff
natural light, it muft not contradift it ;
though it may unfold to view/ww facts
relating to our felicity and deftination,
D yet
C 34 J
yet all its Difpenfations muft carry a
proportion to our prefent ftate of be-
ing, and conned it with our future
profpedts ; and thus make the whole
of our exiftence a feries or chain, of
which the firft link is formed in igno-
rance and corruption, and the fucceed-
ing ones-afcend towards perfection and
felicity. Without this method of pro-
ceeding, the work of God is neither
uniform nor confiftent ; -Nature and
Grace are in contraft and contradic-
tion. How your ideas of the Internal
Characters of the Chriftian Religion
fquare with this, I leave you to
judge.
Your fecond proportion fets the lan-
guage of the Deity, in the Conftituticn
of Nature, in a direct 1 opposition with
the language that is fpoken in theDif-
3 penfation
[ 35 ]
penfation of Grace ; a concefiion which
the Deift will turn againft the latter
with no fmall advantage. If the Re-
ligion contained in the New Tefta-
ment be, as you affirm, " intirety
" new, both with regard to its object
" and doctrines, nay TOTALLY unlike
<c every thing which had ever before
* c entered into the mind of man ;" it
can carry with it no degree of evidence,
but what arifes from Miracles alone, as
it can bear no conformity with our na-
tural faculties ; nor can it find a foun-
dation in thofe primary notions and
efiential truths that are the principles
of all knowledge and all evidence.
The mere novelty of a Doctrine is
furely no proof, either of its Truth or
Divine Origin : For, if it were, the
fantaftick dreams of Enthufiafts would
D 2 often
[ 36 }
often put in a claim to a divine authcr-
rity. The Gofpel is compofed of
FaftSy Doftrmes, Precepfs, and Pro-
mifes. Novelty alone, proves neither
the reality of the firfl, nor the truth of
the fecond, nor the obligation of the
third, nor the certainty or future ac-
complimment of the laft. Falls, whe-
ther ordinary or miraculous, muft be
proved by Hiftory ; Doflrines and Pre-
tepts may be intrinfically ufeful and
reafonable, but their Divine Authority
can only be demonftrated by Miracles ;
and the certainty and accomplimment
of Promifes and Threatening* reft upon
the fame foundation. If, indeed, the
Doctrines and Precepts of a Religion
carry marks of fublimity, depth, and
excellence, difproportioned to the ca-
pacities and abilities of the perfons by
whom
1 37 ]
whom it is published to the world,
then they bear the characters of a Di-
vine Revelation ; but then, Sir, they
come under your fourth Propojition^
and your fecond is totally infignificanc
and ufelefs, becaufe mere novelty bears
neither the chara&ers of truth nor of
authority. Mere novelty does not
prove (as you affirm it does, in your
conclufion) that the Chriftian Religion
could not have been the work of man,
or any fet of men, &c.
But it happens, unluckily for your
hypothefis, that thofe Characters of
jntire novelty are ot really to be found
in the Religion of the New Teftament,
as that Religion is generally underftood
by Chriftians, or as even you yourfelf
have thought proper to reprefent it ;
and thus your fecond Proportion turns
D 3 out
[ 38 ]
out infignificant in every point of
view.
The great and diftinguifhing Cha-
racters of the Gofpel are the fofitive
declarations of mercy to the penitent,
of fuccour to the humble, and of life
eternal to all fincere Chriftians, con-
veyed through the interceflion, and
ratified by the death and refurrection
of a Mediator. This pardoning mer-
cy, this gracious fuccour, this eternal
recompence to fincere though imper-
fect obedience, are clearly revealed :
they conftitute the clear and efiential
articles of the Chriftian Faith ; and
they adminifter to man, in this feeble
dawn, this infancy of his exiftence,
the richeft fource of confolation, and
the nobleft incentives to virtue and
moral improvement. Thefe Doctrines
accom-
t 39 ]
accompanied with a Moral Law pure
and perfect, with the fublime repre-
fentations of the unity and perfections
of the Supreme Being, and the moft
awful and ftriking accounts of a judge-
ment to come, which is to determine
the felicity of the righteous, and cover
impenitence with confufion and mifery*
make the fum and fubftance of the
Chriftian Religion. Now, though all
thefe objects are prefented to us in the
New Teftament with fuch full and
.comfortable evidence as difpels anxi-
ety and doubt in an humble and can-
did mind, and with an interefting af-
femblage of circumftances, that con-
firm their certainty, and difengage
them from all the abfurdities and er-
rors that accompany the conjectures of
fliort-fighted mortals ; yet it is not true
D 4 to
[ 40 ]
to affirm, that they are utterly unlike
any thing that before bad ever entered
into the mind of man. The hopes of
mercy, founded on the clemency and
placability of the Deity, or of inferior
Beings, who were worfhipped as his
Minifters, appear to have taken place
-in almoft all Religions ; and, if the
light of reafon was capable of de-
ducing from the Works of God any
arguments in favour of his goodnefs,
this muft have led mortals to hope, at
lead to conjecture, that fupreme good-
nefs would temper the feverity of
(what we call) Uriel: juftice, in favour
of the penitent offender. I am the
more inclined to entertain this opinion,
when I confider the notion which fe-
veral eminent Sages of Antiquity feem
to have had of the juftice of God :
they
[ 4' ]
they call it the punijhing branch or fpe-
cies of the Divine goodnefs ; and thus
they came nearer to the true fenfe of
the term Jujlice^ in its application to
the Deity, than certain Theologians,
who apply that term to the Supreme
Being in the ftiff, rigorous, Law-fenfe 9
in which it is ufed at Guildhall, or in
the Old- Bailey. The Divine attribute
of Juftice is, certainly, in its primary
and general fenfe, no more than the
love of righteoufnefs and virtue, and a
propenfity to promote them ; and in
a fecondary and more confined fenfe,
(or in fome of its particular exertions)
it denotes the union of wifdom and
goodnefs in the punimment of diforder
and vice, to repair evil where it could
not be prevented.
The
[ 42 ]
The facrifices of the Heathen Reli-
gions were founded on this notion,
whether it was derived from argument
or tradition , and therefore it is not
true, that the exprefs promife of par-
don to the penitent, which is one of
the diftinctive Characters of the Chrif-
tian Religion, is totally unlike every
tiling ivbicb bad before entered into the
mind of man. The Gofpel, indeed,
adminifters here a much more folid
foundation of comfort, than could be
adminiftered either by Natural Reli-
gion, or by human tradition ; becaufe,
notwithftanding the propenfity of
Divine goodnefs to pardon the peni-
tent offenders of this globe, (which is
Reducible from reafon) the ends of the
Divine Government, and the general
good of the univerfal fyftem, might
(for
[ 43 ]
for aught that we could know with cer-
tainty) have demanded their punifh-
ment and, as to human tradition, the
uncertainty of its origin rendered it
but a feeble ground of confolation or
hope. Thus the hopes of mortals
were mixed with uncertainty ; and, to
the thinking mind, doubt about a mat-
ter that fo efientially concerns us, as
the pardon of fin, muft have produced
anxiety. And this is the peculiar ex-
lence of the Gofpel, that by a pofitive
declaration, conveyed by a Celeftial
Envoy, it confirms the expectations
that Nature fuggefted, and difpels the
fears of anxious mortals ; and there-
fore is not totally unlike whatever en-
tered into the mind of man with re-
lation to this point.
The
t 44 ]
The fame may be faid of the exprefs
promife offuccour to the humble, which
is made in the Gofpel. It is analogous
to the notions that were generally en-
tertained by the wifeft Philofophers of
the Heathen World, with refpecl: to
the infirmities of human nature,
and the necefilty of a divine influ-
ence to fuftain the feeble fteps of man
in the paths of virtue. The ancient
and modern Platonifts aflert the rea-
lity of this influence in numberlefs paf-
fages of their Writings ; and what
they advanced from the conjectures of
reafon has been happily confirmed by
Divine Revelation.
With refpeft to the Doftrine of Im-
mortality , and a future ftate of rewards
and punimments, you yourfelf, Sir,
acknowledge, that it was taught by
fome
[ 45 ]
fbmeof the Philofophers of Antiquity*
though mixed with much doubt and
uncertainty ; and thus you cannot fay,
that this eflential and capital part of
the Chriftian Revelation was totally
unlike every thing which had ever entered
into the mind of man.
Nor is the morality of the GofpeJ
though carried to a much higher point
of purity and perfection, than even the
feience of morals appeared in the belt
productions of the Pagan Sages, to-
tally unlike what we find in the Writ-
ings of Plato, Xenophon, and Cicero;
and as much may be faid of the Scrip-
ture Doctrines concerning the perfec-
tions of the Supreme Being.
Thus then it appears, that fome of
the leading and fundamental doctrines
of Chriftianity, as they are understood
by
t 4<J ]
by the generality of the Chriftiarl
World, were delineated (indeed in a
feeble and imperfect manner) in the
opinions that were entertained relative
to Religion and Morality in the timess
that preceded the Gofpel. What,
therefore, is intirelynew in the Gofpel,
is not, as you obferve, its fyflem of
Religion, but the particular nature;
characters, and circumftances of the
Celeftial Envoy, who taught, con-
firmed, and propagated this Divine
Religion upon earth, by his Miniftry
while alive, and by his power, when
he had been raifed from the Crofs to
everlafting dominion.
But this, perhaps, you will not
think fufficient to invalidate your fe-
cond Propofition , becaufe I have not
taken your view of the Chriftian fyftem
into
I 47 1
into confideration, in (hewing that tht
doctrine of the Gofpel is analogous*
inftead of being utterly dijjlmilar to all
the notions of mankind* previous to
its publication. I (hall therefore ROW
confider your reprefentation of the
Chriflian Religion, and hope to con-
vince you, that, even upon its bafis*
your fecond Proportion does not hold
true.
You affirm then, firft, that " the
<e objeft of this Religion is intirelynew y
" and is this : to prepare us, by a
" Hate of probation, for the king-
" dom of Heaven." And you
affirm, that, " previous to the
" preaching of Chrift and his Apof-
<c ties, no fuch prize was ever
<{ hung out to mankind, nor any
'* means prefcribed for the attainment
" of
t 48 ]
" of it."' To have reafoned with
precifion, you ought, Sir, to have
kept clofer to the terms of your Pro-
pofition, and faid, that a ftate of pro-
bation for futurity was totally unlike
fi'sry thing? which had before entered
into the mind of man. However, as I
cannot fuppofe that you defigned to
retract this Propofition when you came
to explain it, I fhall, in difcufling this
point, keep to thofe terms, which you
have fomewhat changed and foftened j
though in reality, even with thefe mo-
difications, the Propofition is ftill inca-
pable of defence.
A ft ate of probation for a future
fcene was certainly one of the mod
natural conjectures that could enter
into a reflecting mind, who believed a
Deity, or Deities, and had any noti-
ons,
[ -49 ]
tions, however imperfect, of a moral
Government in the Univerfe. It feems
agreeable to the reafon of things, that
all rational Creatures whatfoever
fhould, for fome time, be in a ftate of
trial, as we can fcarcely, if at all,
form a notion of a finite Being's arrive-
ing at either knowledge, or virtue, but
by progreffive obfervation, experience,
and practice, proceeding from fmall
and imperfect beginnings. This idea
is confirmed by what we obferve of
the proceedings of Providence in the
Natural World. Though Beings of
different degrees of excellence are
formed by creating wifdom, power,
and goodnefs, yet it is remarkable that
the mod excellent have their feeble
beginnings, as well as thofe of the
loweft order. The lofty Oak rifes gra-
E dually
[ 50 J
dually to its pre-eminence in the foreft
from a fmall feed, as well as the moft
diminutive plant: In all the Orders of
Being known to us, the Law of gra-
dual improvement is the fame, from a
mite to a Newton ; and it probably
takes place in all fpheres, from a New-
ton to the higheft of finite Beings.
Every thing in the nature, flate, and
circumftances of Man, in particular,
adminifters, to the moft fuperficial Ob-
ferver, the ftrongeft intimations of
this. A Nature, fufceptible of virtue
or vice, as the influence of reafon, or
the rmpulfe of pafiions, predominate,
capable of being adorned with ufeful
knowledge, or vilified by brutal igno-
rance, placed in a flate where a variety
of objects, relations, and circum-
ftances, furnilhes the means of moral
2 improve-
f 5' ]
improvement or degradation ; and
thus fufceptible of high degrees oi well-
being ov fuffering. All this points out
trial actually exiiling, a flate of pro-
bation, relative to fome important end
and .purpofe. This end and purpofe can-
not be tfee only improvement attain-
able in this prefent life ; the improve-
ment of our powers and faculties is
fcarcely arrived at any degree of per-
fection. The virtues, acquired by re-
flexion and experience, have fcarcely
time to difplay their energy and beau-
ty, when we are called away from this
tranfitory fcene , and, if there were not
one more exalted and happy to fucceed
it, the efforts and improvement of the
virtuous and the wifer part of mankind
would be to no purpofe. Now this
view of the (late of man, as a Being
E 2 capa-
[ 5* ].
capable of degrees of perfection, which
none attain to in a prefent life, cut off
from that life in the midft of his pro-
grefs, and (which is the cafe of the
Virtuous) at the very time when he has
acquired, by trial, the capacity of
adorning and enjoying exiftence in the
bed manner : this view, I fay, mutt
have intimated to the wife and atten-
tive Obferver, in all ages, the notion
of a future fcene ; where enjoyment will
anfwer improvement, and improvement
mall be carried to higher degrees of
perfection. I don't mean, that this
Conclufion would occur to the gene-
rality of mankind : It might occur
to the attentive Obferver of nature, and
the vifible conflitntion of things j and
that it did occur to many of the anci-
ent
[ 53 ]
ent Philofophers, is evident from their
writings.
It is true, there has been much
learned duft raifed in the controverfy
between Tome late Writers about the
Opinions of the Ancients in relation to
the immortality of the foul, and a future
.,.-'/* of rewards andpuni/hments. It is,
however, agreed on all fides, that both
were taught by the Philofophers, and
embraced by the people. And, though
it mould be granted that feveral Philo-
fophic feels did not believe any thing
more than the immortality of the foul,
and its infttfioninto the common Eterna^
Principle, or TO &, and only taught the
doctrine of future rewards and punim-
ments, on account of its influence on
the happinefs and order of civil foci-
ety ; what then ? This is no more a
E 3 proof,
[ 54 ]
proof, that all the Philofophers of an-
tiquity disbelieved this doctrine, or
taught it only with political views,
than the Deifm of feveral of our mo-
dern Sages, and perhaps of fome of
our modern Priefts, will be a proof to
Pofterity, that Chriftianity was not
believed in Europe in the eighteenth
Century. Befides, it is evident, that,
generally fpeaking, the Infidelity of
the Philofophers rather regarded the
fabulous accounts of the Poets, and
the abfurd notions of the vulgar, with
refpect to the nature, place, and man-
ner of future rewards and puniihrnents,
than the reality of thefe rewards and
punimments.
Now it is evident, that future re-
wards and punifhments, in their very
nature, imply a previous ftate of pro-
bation
[ 55 }
bation and trial, in which the Virtuous
run a race, encounter difficulties, and
overcome temptations to obtain the
prize. And, fuppofing the notions
of this ftate of probation and thefe
confequent rewards ever fo imperfect,
and blended with ever fo many abfur-
dities and errors ; and granted, (which
we mufl do) that they were rather ob-
jects of probable conjecture, than of
perfect certainty *, it ftill remains a
groundlefs and indefenfiblePropofition
to aflert that the ftate of probation, as
it is defcribed in the Gofpel, is totally
unlike any thing that had ever before en-
tered into the mind of man, or is a Doc-
trine intirely new.
And, indeed, Sir, all your illuftra-
tions of this fecond Proportion either
mew that you forgot its ftrict contents,
4 or
or that you were fenfible of its weak*
nefs. For, in thefe Illuftrations, *
you only mew that Chriftianity has
great advantages over the doctrines of
the ancient Philofophers, both in its
direct and ultimate end, and in the
excellence of the means it employed
for its attainment ; and this is unde-
niable, but it does not prove what
your Propofition announced.
Is it pofiible then, that the notion of
this ftate's being a ftate of probation
fhould never have entered into the mind
of man, when, as you tell us yourfelf,
" this notion is confirmed by every
" thing which we fee around us that
" it is the only key, which can open
" to us the defigns of Providence in
* Page 21, 22, 23, 4th Edit.
c the
C 57 J
" the (Economy of human affairs, the
" only clue that can guide us through
" that pathlefs Wildernefs, and the
" only plan on which this world could
" pofilbly have been formed, or on
" which the Hiftory of it can be com-
" prehended or explained."
The next thing you mention, in
proof of your fecond Proportion, is, that
" the Doctrines of this Religion are
" equally new with the object." To
prove this, inftead of pointing out.
thefe Doctrines with order, and defeat
ing them with precifion, you give us
the following mifcellaneous bundle of
vague afiertions : " The Doctrines of
" this Religion (fay you) contain ideas
4C ofG^, of Man, of thepr^w/and
" a future life, totally unheard of,
<c and quite diffi mil ar from any which
" had
[ 58 ]
46 had ever been thought on, previous
" to its publication." As yet we
have only afTertion. Where are your
proofs? Of the four objects, with re-
fpect to which you maintain that the
Doctrines of the Gofpel are new and un-
heard of, you begin with the two laft,
contrary to all method, and tell us, *
that " no other (Religion) ever drew
" fo juft a portrait of the wortbleffnefi
" of this world, and all its purfuits,
" nor exhibited fuch diftinff, lively,
" and exquijite pictures of the joys of
46 another, of the Refurrection of the
' dead, the laft Judgment, and the
" Triumphs of the Righteous in that
" tremendous day."
* Page 27.
Here,
[ 59 1
Here, again, we have ft ill afierti-
ons, and no proof; and even your af-
fertions are ftrangely expreffed. * Pray,
worthy Sir, what do you mean by
the wortkkffiiffi of this world ?" The
term to me appears neltheTp&ifafopiHcal
nor theological, nor clear ; it even fa-
vours of invective and ill humour ; or,
at beft, fuppofes the object to which
it is applied divefted of every kind of
excellence and merit. The world,
phyfical and moral, is the only object
from whence we derive the knowledge
and proofs of the exiftence and per-
fections of a Supreme Being ; and
furely, in this point of view, it cannot
be a viortblefs world. The world
again, amidit all its imperfections,
exhibits noble fcenes of beauty and
grandeur, harmony, and order ; rich
mate-
materials for the acquifition of ufeful
and delightful knowledge ; and many
fources of pleafure and enjoyment,
fuited both to our inferior and more
refined faculties and powers ; in this
fecond point of view, it is not furely a
wortblefs world, and farther; ftill,
the world is (as you fay and I too) a
flate of trial and probation for nobler
fcenes of Being in futurity ; and, as
this is an appointment of infinite wif-
dom and goodnefs, it cannot be in
this fenfe that you confider our globe
as a worthlefs world ; for this would be
contradicting what you had before ad-
vanced. If, by the wortbleflnefs of the
world, you mean that its external ad-
vantages are tranfitory in their dura-
tion, incapable of fatisfying the defires,
or completing the felicity of a ratio-
nal
I 61 ]
nal and immortal Being; that they arc
mixed with difappointments, perils,
pain, fuffering, and various fources of
diftrefs , that folly and vice, in various
forms, are interfperfed with pretty cer-
tain appearances of wifdom and virtue;
if you mean this, all this is true j
but even then the expreffion isharlh,and
the Doctrine is not new nor peculiar to
the Gofpel. The obfervation and ex-
perience of mankind, in all ages, have
rendered this truth palpable, and the
complaints and fighs of the human
race have ever been abundant on this
fubject, nay perhaps, exaggerated.
As to what you call the diftinft,
lively, and exqut/ite pictures of the joys
of a future world, of the Refurrection
of the dead, and a laft Judgment, that
are drawn in the Gofpel ; they will
not
[ 6* ]
not detain us long. They are indeed
infinitely fuperior to the fiftions of the
Poets, and the notions of the Philofo-
phers of ancient times j but this does
not prove that they are totally unlike
every thing of that kind that had before
entered into the mind cf man ; and this
they ought to be, in order to ferve as
examples of the truth of your fecond
Propofition. In fpeaking of thefe pic- 1
tures, you employ the terms diftintt) }
lively, and exquifite \ the two latter
terms are proper, for the pleafures of
futurity are defcribed in Scripture in
terms moftly metaphorical, that they
might be proportioned to our prefent
mode of conception ; but a diftinft ac-
count of thefe pleafures has been with-
held by the facred Writers for the
wifeft reafons. // does not yet appear, fays
an
an infpired Apoftle, what we fc
and another Apoftle, who, favoured
beyond the Jot of Mortality, obtained
a tranfitory fight of the invifible
World, declared, that the things he
perceived there were unutterable. All
that we can collect from the literal ex-
preffions of the facred Writers, on
this fubjeft, is, that our knowledge
and benevolence fhall be increafed
and purified from every mixture of
error and malignity, and that fin and
fuffering fliall have no place in thofe
happy Regions. This is furely a
great deal: but the Declaration is
general, communicates no new ideas
with refpect to all the particulars of
future enjoyments-, and you know,
Sir, that particulars alone conftitute
and adequate ideas. The Fi-
gures
[ 64 ]
gures and Parables, employed to re-
prefent the Kingdom of Heaven, give
us reafon to expert fomething very
great and glorious in a future fcene,but
leave us in the dark about the place,
manner, objects, connexions, and o-
ther circumftances of an interefting
kind. Our blefied Saviour, in his Pa-
fables of the Talents, feems to repre-
fent it as an active ftate, but gives no
intimation of the objects on which this
activity fhall be employed. The A-
poftles reprefent it under the general
notion of reward, under the compa-
rifon of feed-time and barueft ; and,
if St. John, in the Revelations, de-
fcends fometimes into a feeming de-
tail of particulars, yet, undoubtedly,
thefe are no more than allegorical vi-
fions defigned to intimate the fub-
lime
f 65 ]
lime fcenes of future Glory, of which
the images ufed by the Apoftle are
intended to give us only a general and
confufed idea, which is, however,
adapted to excite delightful hopes.
Any thing that we can conclude about
thefe matters is from the probable con-
jectures of Reafon, from fome feeble
conclufions founded in analogy ; and
furely no words could be more proper
to fhew us that the facred Writers ne-
ver intended to convey diftintt ideas of
the Celeftial felicity, than thofe of the
Apoflle to the Corinthians, (if his
words relate to a future ftate) when
he faid, Eye hath not feen^ nor ear
beard> neither have entered into the heart
of man, the things which God has pre-
pared for them that love him. i Cor. ii.
9. You quote this paflage in another
F place,
t 66 ]
place, and tell us, that " it defcrihs
" fublimely the future joys referved
" for the Righteous, by declaring,
" that they arefuperior to all defcrip-
" tion" whether this be a Bull or an
Epigram, I fliall not decide ; but it
fhews that we muft not look upon it
as one of the peculiarities of the Gof-
pel, that it defcribes diftinttly the fu-
ture felicities of the Righteous *.
* The truth of the matter is, that the Text
here mentioned was not defigned by the Apo-
ftle to defcribe, either diJSinftly or indijlinftly,
the joys and felicity of a future World, but to
(hew that the Chiefs and Leaders of the Jews,
whom the Apoftle calls (in the verfe preceding)
the Princes of this World, had no notion of the
fcheme, the nature, the intention, and end of
the Gofpel Difpenfation. For, if they had had
any true conception of this, they would net lavt
frudftd the Lffd of Glory >
I You
You muft not, however, imagine
that I mean here to diminiih the en-
comiums due to the Gofpel on this
head ; for, on the contrary, thefe im-
perfect notices of the particular circum-
Jlances of our future felicity are evi-
dent marks of the Divine Wifdom.
If this felicity were diftinttly repre*
fented, it muft have been dcfcribed
in its progreflive growth through an
endlefs duration , but how render fuch
a defcription intelligible to mortals ?
The object is quite difproportioned to
our faculties. The Infant, in the Cra-
dle, might as eafily comprehend the
pleafures and occupations of active
youth, and the plans and enjoyments
of maturer years, as we (in this feeble
dawn ofexiftence, in which our views,
even of the objects that furround us^
F 2 arc
[ 68 ]
are eonfufed and inadequate) could
underfland a defcription of the Cele-
flial happinefs : for this happinefs may
be founded upon new inlets of per-
ception and fenfation, new afpefls of
love and benevolence, new modifica-
tions of a material frame, of which
neither Locke's five external Senfes, nor
Hutcbefon's- eight r nine internal ones,
will qualify us to entertain any, the
naoft diflant notion.
Nay were it fcjfibk to convey a
diftinft idea of the future felicity of
ChrHlians, it would not be expedient.
It would pour upon our feeble eye-
balls a blaze of light that would
dazzle and confound them ; it would
fill the mind with an aftoniihment
that would over-power all its facul-
ties - f it would fufpend our attention
[ 6 9 ]
to fome of the moft eflential relations
and duties of life, and defeat, in
many refpefls, the purpofes of the
ftate of probation in which we are
placed j it would, at leaft, render
our prefent condition difagreeable,
and all our temporal enjoyments in-
"fipid.
It is therefore, in my opinion, an
evidence, I will not fay of the Divine
Miffion, but of the Wifdom of the
Gofpel- Writers, that they have not
pretended, any more than their Maf-
ter, to give diftinft ideas of future feli-
city. The PhHofophers and Poets of
antiquity, and the more modern A-
poftles of Mahomet and Odin, have
given much more circumftantial de-
(criptions of a future Hate, than the
F 3 Chriftian
t 7 ]
Chriftian Writers ; but they are falfis
,-*~
and extravagant.
There is fomething, indeed, diftin-
guifhing and peculiar in the Scripture-
doctrine of the Refurrection of the
Body ; this is a Doctrine truly un-
known to the ancient Sages, and ic
was delivered to the World by Divine
Revelation, before the difcoveries of
corporeal transformations in the ani-
mal world had adminiftered a pre-
fumption drawn from analogy in fa-
vour of this Doctrine. But we have
already (hewn that novelty alone does
not prove either the truth or Divine
Origin of any doctrine, and the Re-
furrection of the Body muft reft upon
a promife, afcertained to be Divine
by a miraculous Teftifnony.
I pro-
[ 7' 1
I proceed, however, to mew, that
even the Do&rines you alledge as II-
Juftrations of your fecond Propifttion
don't even bear the marks of that in-
tire novelty you attribute to them.
I don't think myfelf obliged to exa-
mine the truth of what you advance,
p. 27, where you tell us, that " no
" other Religion has ever reprefented
" the Supreme Being in the Character
* e of three Perfons united in one God 5"
becaufe, in a note on this pafiage, you
have declared it improper and unne-
ceflary to decide what kind of union
this is. Many learned Men have pre-
tended to find a Trinity in the Divine
Eflence clearly exprefied in the facred
Books of the Chinefe, Perfians, Chal-
deans, Egyptians, and Grecians : (not
to fpeak of the Writings of the Old
F 4 Tefta-
Teftament, whofe Declarations on this
head I fuppofe you blend with thofe
of the Evangelifts and Apoftles:)
Thus Plutarch tells us, that the Per-
fian Oromafdes thrice augmented, or
triplicated himfelf, De Ifide & Ofir.
and the Perfian Magi celebrate, to this
very day, a folemn feftival in honour
of the T*7rAa<nof, or Threefold My-
thras. It appears, moreover, from
the teilimonies of learned Men, that
what the Perfians called Oromafdes,
Mythras, and Mytbra, were called by
the Chaldeans Life, Intellect, and Soul\
by the Chinefe Hi, TV, and Ouei -, by
the Egyptians EiRon, Emepb, and
Ptha * , and the Hebrews Ab ? El,
and
* The Egyptians, according to the teftimony
cf Damafcias, looked upon thefe three Hypo-
ftafes
t 73 3
and Ruacb. It is alib well known
that Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato
had like ideas of a Divine Trinity.
How far this Tri- union refembled what
you reprefent as the Chriilian Do&rine
on that fubject, I cannot determine ;
becaufe you have not thought it ex-
pedient to tell us whether you con-
fider the unity of the Three Perfons
in one God, as an Unity of Counfel,
Equality, or EfTence i but it is evi-
dent, that the tenets of Eaftern Na-
tions, above mentioned, are far from
being totally unlike the Do&rines of
the Trinity * in our Theological Syf-
tems;
(lafes as one EJJenct incomprehenfible, above all
knowledge, and praifed him under the name
of Darknefs, thrice rtpiated.
* If it is alledged, that this Doflrine of a
Trinity \vas derived, by Tradition, from fome
Ante-
terns 5 and they are fufficient to prove
your precipitation, in aflerting, that
no other Religion, except the Chrif-
tian, *' has even reprefented the Su-
' preme Being in the Character of
J Three Perfons united in one God.'*
To this error, in point of faff, you
have in the next paragraph added a
finking one in point of reafomng* when
you affirm " that no other Religion
has
Antediluvian Revelation ; then the Doftrine is
not peculiar to Chriftianity. And beildes :
where are the proofs of this Tradition ? We fee,
every day, into what crude fancies learned Men
are betrayed by invefligations of this kind,
where the traces are ambiguous and uncer-
tain : we are greatly in the dark about the origin
of many opinions, which various circumftances,
unknown to us, may have contributed to pro,
pagate. Thank Heaven ! the Divine Autho-
rity of the Chriftian Religion dos not depend
on any difcuffions of this kind.
/* (V^t- W-T 7 ^-
[ 75 I
has attempted to reconcile thofe
" feemingly contradictory, but both
44 true Propofuions, the contingency of
"future events and the fore-knowledge
" of God, or the free-will of the crea-
*' ture with the ever-ruling grace of
" /& Creator." That thefe Propo-
ficions are both true, I firmly believe,
as well as you ; that they are both af-
ferted in the f acred Writings is equally
evident ; and, if this is all you mean
by their being reconciled in thefe Wri-
tings, then we can have no contro-
verfy upon that head. But I, in my
fimplicity, have always imagined that
by reconciling two Doctrines, in ap-
pearance contradictory, was meanc
the finding out an intermediate link
that connected them together, fome
point of contact that made them co-
here,
[ 76 1
her?, fome propofition that Chewed,
not only that they were both true fe-
parately confiderecU but were alfo con-
fident when compared together ; and
I mud confefs my ignorance, or ar-
raign your fagacity fo far, as to de-
clare, that no fuch intermediate link
or propofition have I ever found in
the Holy Scriptures, nor any attempt
made there towards its difcovery.
If fuch an attempt had been made, it
would have been fuccefsful, and would
have faved a world of trouble, wrang-
ling, and fubtility to the Necejfitarian
Metaphyficians from Zeno to Leib-
nitz, and to the Predeftinarian Divines
from St. Auguftin to Auguftus Top-
lady. But the Sacred Writers knew
too well the limits of the human un-
derftanding to attempt the ibludon of
a quef-
[ 77 1
a queftion which is undoubtedly re-
ferved for another and a more exten-
five fcene of light and knowledge.
Like the Properties of Afymptotes,
the two Propofitions in queftion, are
fufceptible of demonftration, yet ftill
remain unreconciled and incompre-
henfible here below.
You add " no other Religion has
" fo fully declared the necejjity of
*' wickednefs and punimments, yet fo
*' effectually inftructed individuals to
** refill the one*- and to efcape the
" other." I fuppofe you meant to
fay the necejjity of connecting punifloment
with 'wickednefs, and yet you have let
the phrafe pafs otherwife through four
Editions. If this phrafe be neither a
flip of the pen, nor an error of the
prsfs, I muft be fo free as to aflc
you,
you, what you mean by the neceffty of
wickednefs ? that by your explication
of this we may know, what idea you
intend to communicate by effectual re-
fiftance to what is necejjary. For, if
this necefllty be abfolute, then accord-
ing to your Doftrine the Gofpel has
taught us to refift what is irrefiftible*
and may equally teach us to do what
is impojjible. And, if by the ambigu-
ous term in queftion, you mean what
the Metaphyficians call Hypothetical or
Moral Neceffity, I rnuft beg leave to
tell you that this is not any necefllty
at all, unlefs you confound neceffity
with contingence^ an abufe of terms,
indeed, that is too common, both
among Metaphyficians and Divines *.
I don't
* The divifion of neceffity into alfolute and
Hypothetical rcfembles that of the JriQi Dia-
leftician,
t 79 ]
I don't recolleft, that the Scripture
fpeaks any where of the necejflty of
Wickednefs. It mentions often the
tyrannical influence of vicious habits,
and reprefents the difficulty of over-
coming them in ftrong, figurative, and
popular terms, which exprefs a certi-
tude > that, in fome cafes and fome
perfons, they fhall not be overcome,
but imply, in a ftrict and Philofophi-
cal fenfe, neither the impqffibility of
refiftance, nor the neceffity of fub-
jeftion. And it is not improper to
remark here, that, if the word certitude
were fubftituted in the place of mcef-
//>', it would remove much ambi-
guity and inaccuracy in both our Phi-
lofophical and Theological Difqui-
fitions.
Jeaician, who faid that all honeft men might be
divided into juft and unjuft,
It
[ 8 ]
Ic is alfo going too far to fay that
" no other Religion pretended to
" give arty account of the depravity
" of man, or to point out any re-
*' medy for it *." If by an account
here you mean a narration, the afler-
tion is contrary to fact ; for the Reli-
gious Annals of all the Eaftern Na-
tions, of the Chinefe, Indians, Per-
fians, and Grecians, more efpecially
the fyftems of Pythagoras and Plato f,
mention notonly the depravity, buteven
the fall of intelligent and happy Beings
from order and felicity. From what
tradition they derived this fact, it is not
cafy to inveftigate at this time of
day ; but their knowing any thing
* P. 28, 29.
f See the Phasdrus of this Philofopher, and
alfo his Polit.
at
t S< }
at all of the matter is fufficient to in-*
validate your afifertion that the Gofpei
alone " has pretended to give any ac-
tc count of the depravity of man,"
unlefs by the Gofpei you mean not
only the New Teftament, but all th6
traditions both of the patriarchal and
even of the antediluvian ages.
But perhaps, by giving an account of
the depravity of man, you mean ac-
counting for it ; i. e. mewing how it
happened, and by what methods it was
brought about. Now, even in this
fenfe of the exprefllon, it is not exact
to affirm, that the Gofpei alone " has
" ever pretended to account for the
<c depravity of man." You might
have been fadsfied with maintaining,
that the Gofpei has accounted for ic
in the beft manner, though the wif-
G dom
I I
dom of the facred writers has not
thought proper to enter, on this head r
into fuch a circumftantial detail as is
adapted to remove all obfcurity. *
But, however that may be, it is not
true, that no attempt had ever been
Biade to give axy account of the de-
* I acknowledge,, without hefitation, the \o&-
fiurity of fome of the narrations and doc~lrir.es of
Scripture. Here below we know but in part the
difpenfation of grace, as well as the ways of
Providence. Chriiiianity is a plan of Divine
\Vifdom, that is to have its full execution in
fcternity ; and it is, therefore, only in a future
fcene, that we can hope to fee diftinftly its vari-
ous parts, and the harmony of the 'whole. The
farts of this plan that are proportioned to our
capacities, and conducive to our religious and
moral improvement, are defigned to occupy us
here, what is myfterious, at prefent, will nobly
exercise our faculties hereafter.
pravit-f
pravity of man ; fmcc it is certain,
that the fages of antiquity have pre-
tended to account for the fall and de-
pravity of man in their own way*
Plato's account of the matter, among
others, is curious. You may fee it in fe-
veral places in his writings. In hisPhse-
drus more efpecially he imputes the fall
of men from the etherial and primitive
earth, " to their neglecting to follow
" the God guide into the Supra-celeflial
" place, where truth was to be feen in
" its fource : to their taking up with
cc neclar and ambrofia (i. e. fenfual
c< and accidental felicity) in confe-
*' quence of which they became heavy
*' and fluggifh, broke their wings*
" fell down upon the earth and entered
" into human bodies, more or lefs vile
' according as they had been more or
G 2 " Ifrfs
t *4 1
ee kfs elevated Then it was that
" good and evil were blended to-
" gether."
Equally groundlefs is the aflertion,
that no attempt had ever been made,
before the Gofpel y to point out any
remedy for the depravity of man.
No remedy, indeed, fo effectual as
that of the Gofpel, was ever exhibited
to the world j but to fay that no other
was ever thought of, or even that the
remedy of the Gofpel was totally dij/imi-
lar to erjcry thing that had been thought
of previous to irs publication, betrays
a ftrange unacquaintance with, or at
Jeaft an unaccountable inattention to
the ftate of Philofophy and Religion,
in the different periods of the world.
In the fragments of the Orpheic, Py-
thagorean, Platonick, and Stoick.
Philo-
t 85 1
Fhilolbphy, in the accounts that .He-
rodotus, lamblichus, andEufebius give
us of the religious doctrines and moral
precepts of the Egyptian Sages, we
find the nobleft rules laid down for
the reftoration of the foul to its primi-
tive purity ; bun thefe rules, indeed*
were mixed with enthufiafm, and un-
fupported by any fuccours or profpecls
equal to thofe which Chriftianity ad-
minifters. They were, however, far
from being in oppofition to thefe rules:
they were not even unlike them. Prayer,
faith, the contemplation of the Deity,
virtue to purify from fenfual folly,
truth to recover the Divine Image,
and charity and love* which are rays
drawn from the eflence of God, were
the means prefcribed by thefe Sages,
to reilore man from his depravity and
G fyosa
[ 86 ]
From the miferable confequences of
his fall.
You add, in the very next para-
graph, " No other (ReligionJ has
" ventured to declare the unpardonable
* 4 nature of fin, without the influence
4< of a mediatorial interpolation, and
" a vicarious atonement from the fuf-
" ferings of a Superior Being." I
own, Sir, I can form no diftinct idea
of what you call the unpardonable na-
ture of fin, without a vicarious atone-
ment. Allowing to this latter cir-
cumftance all the weight that is laid
upon it in the exprefiions, whether
literal or figurative, of the facred
"Writings, fuch expreiTions do not
prove that, without the expiatory fa-
crifice of a Superior Being, fin was
unpardonable. The Scriptures have
i told
C 7 1
i-old us no fuch thing; they point
out the method chofen by Divine
wifdom and mercy for the falvatkm
of men, even the mediation and fuf-
ferings of Chrift , they declare, that,
through this mediation, the pardon
of fin, the fuccours of grace, and the
blefllngs of immortality are adminif-
tered to men , and it is only the pre-
fumption and temerity of unphilofo-
phical Divines, that have inferred
from the choice of this method, that
fin was abfolutely unpardonable with-
out it, or by any other. Are then
the beft method and the vnfy method
fynonymous terms ? Or are you fure,
that, as in the phyfical world, we fee
different arrangements adapted to pro-
duce \htfame effect, it may not be fo
in the moral world, and in the divine
G 4 govern-
[ 88 ]
government ? I do not believe thaf
any rational Divine will, at this day,
maintain, that God could not have par-
doned fin without an expiatory facri-
fice, unlefs he affirms this upon the
principle, that God cannot do any-
thing but what is abfolutely the beft,
all things confidered ; and, upon
this principle, it may be faid, that
God cannot do any thing but what he
actually does. But that is not the
queftion : and, Sir, both you and I
ought to have clear ideas and accu-
rate expreffions, when we treat fuch
matters as thefe, and that in the face
of the fophifts of London and Paris,
who look out with a fharp eye, when
they fee fuch a man as you take up the
polemical or apologetical pen in fa*
of Chriftianity.
[ 8 9 J
To determine whether or not fin is
.tin-pardonable without an expiation, we
inuft confider, before all things, what
thtparfan of fin means. But, before
we can form a juft notion of the na-
ture of pardon, we muft fix with pre-
cifion our ideas of the nature of pit*
xijbmenf, becaufe this is what pardon
is defigned to remove. Punifhmenr,
in general, is a certain meafure of
fuffering inflicted upon a free agent, in
confequence of the violation of a law;
and the only end of punifiiment, con-
ceivable, is the maintenance of the
authority and influence of law, or, in
other words, to enfure obedience. If
then we confider man in a (late of na-
ture, as a tranfgreflbr of the law of
Reafon, to which he is fubjected in
that ilate, this tranfgreffion is punifhed
immedi-
immediately by remorfe, the natural
fruits of moral diforder; and, in many
cafes, by phyfical evil, which is the
effect of intemperance and vice. But
this is not all, Remorfe excites fear,
or an apprehenfion, that, befides the
internal remorfe of confcience, which
is one of the immediate fanctions of
the law of nature, farther marks of
difapprobation may be expected in a
future ftate from the offended judge.
This apprehenfion is juftified by the
following confideration, that the fanc-
tion of remorfe is lead felt, in this
world, by the greateft offenders, and
is diminifhed in proportion as the cor-
ruption and perverfenefs of the finner
increafe, while, on the other hand,
the external advantages of life, in con-
frquence of the eftablifhment of gene-
ral
[ 9' ]
*al laws, fall frequently to the lot of
the vicious apd the profligate. It is.
therefore concluded, that external pu-
nifhment will, in futurity, be fuper-
added to the natural effects of iniqui-
ty, as po/tlive penalties are annexed to
crimes in wifdom (and indeed in good-
nefs to the community) here below,
to fupport the laws of order, and to
terrify fpeftators from tranfgreffion.
Now, Sir, you will pleafe to re-
mark that this external punilhmenc
alone can be the object of pardon :
for this pardon cannot mean that the
Law-giver and Judge approves of fin :
nor can it mean, that he removes that
felf-difapprobation and remorfe, which
are the natural functions of his vio-r
lated law in the heart of man , for
thefe can only be removed by the re-
ftoration
r 9* ]
ftoration of a virtuous frame to the
mind, by the diminution or cefTation
of a vicious tafte, irregular propenfi-
ties, corrupt habits, and bad actions.
The external punifhment that is an-
nexed to fin, either for the correction
of the guilty, or the admonition of
the fpectators, is therefore the only ob-
ject on which pardon can produce its
effect. Now as this external punifh-
ment is annexed to fin, not in the na-
ture of things like remorfe, but by
fofitive appointment, as a method of
government, it may be abolifhed for
reafons of clemency or wifdom ; and
thus it appears, that fin is pardonable,
If, indeed, the punifhment, here men-
tioned, were annexed to fin in the na-
ture of things, and by the eflential
conftkution of the human mind, then
[ 93 3
fin would be unpardonable, and even
the intervention of a Mediator could
not remove it , and thus we fee that
the intervention of Chrift neither heals
the remorfe of confcience, until vir-
tue is reftored ; nor prevents the arri-
val of many phyfical evils (and of
death among others) that are conmtted
with moral diforder in the prefent con-
ftitution of human nature. But I re-
peat it again, this external punifh-
ment, as it is diftind from the natural
effects of fin, and is fuperadded to
tbefe, for purpofes of example and
admonition, may be fufpended and
remitted in certain caies, without the
intervention of a vicarious atonement!
and the juftice of the Divine Legiflator
is no more impeached by this remif-
fion, than that of an earthly prince
would
[ 94 ]
would be, who, from reafons of cle-
mency or prudence, and in the cafe of
malefactors, who are proper objects
of mercy, mitigates and fuperfedes,
without any atonement to govern-
ment, the rigorous execution of penal
laws. The harm doctrine of what
fcholaftick Divines call vindictive jt<f<-
tice has raifed all this duft and per-
plexity about a fubject that is as clear
as the fun at noon-day. But it is to
be feared, that this doctrine has been
rather modelled on the angry and re-
vengeful paffions of men, than on the
calm and benevolent rectitude of God j
and certainly (as fome reprefent it) it
is as contrary to the genius of true Re-
ligion as it is to the principles of
found philofophy. If men did but
ccnfider, that there is no fixed and in-
trinfic
t 95 ]
tr'mfic proportion between external pu*
nijhment and moral evil or demerit,-
that this varies according to charac-
ters, circumftances, times, and places,
* nay, that the external punifhment
is often increafed by thofe very circum-
ftances that diminifh the demerit or
guilt on which it is inflicted, f they
would
* If in one country a degree of external pn~
nifhment, as two, would be fufficient to prevent
the prevalence of robbery and murder, while in
another country, a degree, as five, would be
requifite to prod,uce the fame effect; the pu-
nilhment of the fame crime would and (hould
vary in different countries.
f When the number of vicious examples en-
creafes in a country, external punifhments muft
cncreafe in feverity : and yet the perfon, who
tranfgrefles under the influence and feduflion of
multiplied examples, is lefs guilty, and has lefs
real
[ 96 ]
wouJd form more accurate notions of
this matter: they would fee that all
fuch punifhments may be varied, fuf>
pended, increafed, or abolifhed, as the
ends of government may require.
Thefe obfervations, Sir, are neither
defigned nor adapted to diminifh the
value and importance of that ineftima-
ble facrifae, which the Divine Medi-
$tor made of himfelf for the fins of the
world ; they only tend to prevent our
forming falfe ideas of the principles^of
which the doctrine of mediation refts,
and to flievv us that thefacrirke of the
crofs was rather an expedient of
choice and wifdont to fupport moral go-
vernment, and difplay the tremendous
real demerit, than he who is profligate where
the examples of iniquity are lefs frequent and
numerous.
fruits
t 97 ]
fruits of fin and diforder, than a mat-
ter of ncctffitj, which unrelenting juf-
tice required as an oblation, independ-
ently on the effects which this facrifice
was to produce on the fpectators of
this aftonifhing and awful fcene. No-
thing is more true than the declaration
of the Apoftle, that it became him
for whom are all things, and by whom
are all things, by bringing many fans unto
glory, to make the Captain of their fal-
vation perfeft through fufferings. Heb.
ii. 10. The fufferings of Chrift ren-
dered him perfett, both as a Mediator
who was to difplay the fatal confe-
quences of fin under a righteous go-
vernment, and as a model that was to
hold forth to mankind the mod fub-
lime example of patience and refigna-
H tion,
[ 98 1
lion under the tranfitory evils of s
probationary (late.
But, fetting afide all this reafoning,
\A- true, Sir, in fact, as you affirm,
*' that no other Religion, except the
ct Chriftian, has ever ventured to de-
" clare the unpardonable nature of fin,
w without the influence of a mediato-
c< rial interpofition, and a vicarious
*' atonement from the fufferings of a
" Superior Being r" Though I mould
not pretend to deny entirely this affir-
mation, on account of the words Su-
perior Beings yet I may obferve, that
the prevalence of facrifices, and thofe
expiatory, in all ages of the world
known to us, feems to intimate an ap-
prehenfion in the mind of man, that
fome vicarious atonement was requifite
in order to the pardon of fin ; and
i this
[ 99 ]
tills is fufficient to invalidate your af-
firmation, if it be alledged as a proof
of yourfecond Proportion ; for the pre-
valence of expiatory facrifices in the
heathen world, from the earlieft tirnes^
fhews, at lead, that the doctrine, in
queftion, is not " entirely unlike every
" thing that before had entered into
" the mind of man." But what would
you fay, if, following tenets of the
ancient eaftern nations, mentioned
above, we found veftiges of a middle
Being of great dignity, whofe fuffer*
ings were fuppofed to contribute to
the reftoration of fallen intelligences ?
I might indeed, Sir, have fpared
myfelf the trouble of mewing, tha t
novelty is not the diftinguifhing cha-
racter of the fyftem of doctrine, which
you deduce as new from the writings
H 2 o
of theEvangelifts and Apoftles, if your
CONCLUSION, and the reigning princi-
ples of your Treatife, were confident
with what you acknowledge, p. 30.
where you tell us, " that the credibi-
' lity of thefe wonderful doctrines de-
*' pends on the opinion which w*en-
' tertain of the authority of tbofe who
" publifhed them to the world." I
wiped my eyes twice or thrice, to be
fure that I faw this pafiage well. The
truth then, or internal evidence of
thefe Doctrines does not depend on
their novelty, but on the authority of
the publimers. I think fo too but
on what does the authority of the pub-
lilhers depend ? You will not fay, I
hope at this moment, that it depends
upon the truth and internal evidence,
or the novelty of the Doctrines, be-
caufe
I ioi ]
caufe we are too near the fentence
\vhere you declare the contrary.
You really fay it, however, in the
fame breath, but in other words ;
and in one fingle fentence you make
the Doctrines dependent and independent
on the authority of the publilhers.
Let us quote the whole pafTage, that
the candid reader may judge whether
or no I have mifunderftood you :
" Whether thefe wonderful Doctrines
tc are worthy of our belief* mufl dc-
" pend on the opinion, which we en*
" tertain of the authority of thofe who
" publilhed them to the world ; but
" certain it is, that they are all fo far
" removed from every trad of the hu-
* The words worthy of belief, and true, are
equivalent, when applied to the Do&rines of
the Gofpel, to their divine authority and origin.
H 3 " man
[ 102 ]
' man imagination, that it feems
" equally impojfibhy tbat they fhould
* c ever have been derived from the
" knowledge or artifice of man."
This is faying and unfaying, in a breath,
For, if the divine origin, or (which is
the fame thing) the credibility of thefe
Doctrines, depends on the opinion we
have of the authority of their publifti-
ers, then their perfeft novelty is of lit-*
tie or no confequence to their credibi-
lity ; but, if their ferfeft novelty *
Ihews that thefe Doctrines could not
be derived from the knowledge or arti-
fice of men, then this novelty proves
their divine origin, and, confequently,
their credibility does not depend on
the authority of their publifhers.
* Which is exprefled ftrongly by their being
removed from every trad of the human imagina-
tion.
Thus,
[ loj 3
Thus, Sir, I have done with your
fecond Proportion. All that I have
faid, relating to it, is rather defigned
to reftify, than to refute it. For,
though I am perfuaded that the efTen-
tial Do&rines of the Gofpel, confider-
cd in themfelves, are not either by
their novelty or nature fufficient to
prove their Divine Origin and Infpi-
ration, yet, when I confider the beau-
tiful firriplicity with which they are
delivered, and the amazing fuccefs
with which they were propagated,
and when I compare thefe two cir-
cumftances with the characler, abili-
lities, and means of the perfons that
publifhed them to the World, I fee
then, indeed, ftrong prefumptions in
favour of their truth, that is, of their
Divine Origin and Authority. I go
H 4 ftill
[ '04 ]
fall farther, and pray God to forgive
the ignorance or difingenuity of
thofe, who pretend to believe firmly,
that twelve obfcure, illiterate men,
twelve defpifed Galileans, witbout
rank or power, intereft or dexterity,
opulence or authority, learning or elo-
quence, oppofed and vanquiftied the
prejudices of the World, triumphed
over the power of cuftom, education,
and intereft, expofed themfelves to
death in the mod dreadful forms, in
the fervice of an Impoftor, who had
deceived them, and in whofe caufe
they had nothing to expect in this
World but Martyrdom, and in the
next but condemnation for maintain-
ing a lye.
After having treated, in your man-
ner, the Do&rines of Christianity, you
proceed
proceed to fome obfcrvations on the
perfonal Character of its Author. You
alledge that this Character is new and
extraordinary, and fo indeed it is. You
wave, however, the proofs of this,
deducible from the fupernatural Birth,
the forty days Faft, the various Mira-
cles, the Death and Refurredion of
the Divine Saviour, which are the
chief circumftances, that conftitutethe
New and the Extraordinary in his
Character. Your reafon for not em-
ploying thefe proofs, which are fo
much, nay perhaps chiefly to the pur-
pofe, is, " becaufe thefe circumftan-
" ces will (fay you) have but little ef-
" fe<5b upon the minds of unbelievers,
'* who, if they believe not the Religion*
" will give no credit to the relation
" of thefe facts," You think, then,
that,
[ io6 ]
that, at this time of day, it is poflible
to believe this Religion (i. e. to be-
lieve its Divine Authority and Origin :)
previoufly to the belief of Chrift's
Miracles and Refurrection, tho' it was
to thefe Miracles and this Refurrec-
tion that Chrift himfelf appealed for
the truth of his Religion, or (which
is the fame thing) the Divinity of his
Million. This is fingular enough :
but what is ftill much more fo, is, to
fee you attempting to prove to thefe
people, who reject the Miracles and
Refurrection of Chrift, that his Cha-
racter was new and extraordinary. For,
when you have proved this to Deifts,
what then ? Will this lead them to
believe the Truth and Divinity of the
Religion, when, rejecting the Mira-
cles and Refurre&ion of its Author,
thei*
they can only confider him as an En*
thufiaft or an Impoftor ? But perhaps
you imagine, that, when you have
proved the Character of Chrift to be
new and extraordinary, this will en-
gage them to believe his Miracles.
This, Sir, would be really trifling
with the principles of evidence, in a
flrange manner. You cannot think
that the idea of Chrift's Character, as
new and extraordinary, is more adap-
ted to prove the truth of his Refur-
rection, than the ocular teftimony of
five hundred WitneiTes tranfmitted in
the Annals of Hiftory : you cannot
think that it is a ftronger proof of this
event than the conduct, zeal, and
intrepidity of the Apoftles (who would
not have facrificed all the blefiings of
this life and the hopes of another, in
order
t 8 1
order to fupport the caufe of a dead
Impoftor who had cruelly deceived
them) or than the amazing power and
fuccefs that attended the Miniftry of
thefe Apoftles with all the oppofition
and malignity of the World fet in
array againft them.
But after all when you come to
prove that the Character of Chrift is
new and extraordinary, you make ufe,
for this purpofe, of a mofl excep-
tionable argument. You prove it by
affirming that he is the Founder of a
Religion which is totally unconnected
with all human Policy and Govern-
ment, and, therefore, totally uncon-
ducive to any worldly purpofe what-
ever. If you had been able to prove
this pernicious Paradox, Ten would
ahfioji have perfuadtd me to be a ~Deift.
But
[ I0 9 I
But here, as in fome other places, you
forget what you defigned to prove, and
entertain us with many good things,
which we don't deny, but which have
no relation to what you affirmed and
were to prove. This Paradox, how-
ever, deferves a particular confidera-
tion, and therefore I mall make it the
fubjecl of a following Letter.
LETTER
LETTER IV.
S I R,
IT has always been to me a moft
pleafing object of contemplation,
and not only fo, but a ftrong confir-
mation of my religious faith, to
obferve the beautiful connexion and
harmony that reigns in the ways of
God to man, and even in the different
Hates, through which human nature
pafles to moral improvement and feli-
city. I have always confidered the
flate of nature, as improved by, and
confequently in harmony with, the
flate of civil fociety ; and I have al-
ways been accuftomed to confider the
latter as deriving its principal fecurity,
its
[ 3
jts moft amiable embellifhments, and
its fweeteft comforts, from the doc-
trines and precepts of the chriftian
religion. I have always thought
that the good chriftian muft be a
good citizen, and that, therefore the
gofpel promotes directly the original
purpofes of civil polity, and encreafes
the influence of laws and government
upon even the prefent felicity of man.
Nay ftill more : as I am perfuaded,
that the e/ential principles and felicity
of human nature muft be the fame in
all its ftates, and only differ in the de-
grees of their perfection, I have al-
ways considered the practice of the
civil and focial virtues, in the commu-
nity of which we are members here,
as an eflential preparation for that
more perfect community of which we
hope
[ i" 3
hope to be members hereafter. For
certainly, Sir, there muft be an inti-
mate connexion between our prefent
and our future ftate of being, unlefs
you fuppofe fuch chafms and abrupt
tranfitions in the fcale of exiftence,
and in the progreffive courfe of God's
moral government, as are totally un-
like any thing we have yet perceived
in the works of nature, providence, or
grace. Rational and moral intelli-
gences, who have lived here below in
focial connexions, cannot, in any fu-
ture period, be formed into a fociety,
whofe eflential principles are totally
new, and either contrary to, or differ-
ent from, the eflential principles of
human fociety here below. In a fu-
ture period, indeed, accidental cir-
cumftances may be- changed, new
fources
C "3 ]
fources of enjoyment may be opened,
certain relations, which take place here
belowj and which are not effential to
the nature, but are only appropriated
to the imperfect ftate of moral fociety,
may be abolilhed and fucceeded by
others more noble and more perfect j
but the efiential principles that confti-
tute here the happinefs of human foci*
cty (hall remain for even From all
this I conclude, that the truths and
precepts of chriftianity, though they
have their great and ultimate end in a
future ftate, are neverthelefs adapted^
and, indeed, defigned to produce the
happieft effects upon the conduct of
men in their prefent civil and focial
relations. This truth, however, does
not reft only upon the general princi-
ples now mentioned : it is fufceptible
I of
C "4 J
of demonftration : you feem to ac-
knowledge it in feveral places, and
yet it totally overturns your bold af-
fertion, * that Jefus Chrift founded a
religion, " which is totally unccon-
" netted with all human policy and
ct government, and therefore totally
** unconducive to cw$ worldly purpofe
whatever.".
The citizen .of Geneva f, who r
with an unaccountable fpirit of para-
dox and inconfiflency, has lavifhed on
chriftianity the mod pompous enco*
miums, and attacked it in the moft in-
decent terms of reproach, preceded
you, Sir, in this very ftrange repre-
fentation of the gofpel. How fuch a
* P. 33-
f J. J. Roufleau.
reprefen'i-
[ "5 1
jfepreferitation could come into the
head of a man of your penetration and
difcernhnent is above my comprehen-
fion. There are fome miftakes, Sir,
fo palpable, that one is almofl amamed
to correct them. It is irkfome to be
tinder the necefiity of demanding at-
tention to the plained truths, to the
moft palpable and ftriking connexions'
of things ; to beg that you would
recollect the ends and pUrpofes of go-
vernment, and the happy fruits that
might be expected from civil aflbcia-
tions, feconded by the influence of re-
ligion and morals.
If you meant by the paradox I here
combat, that the religion of Jefus is
hot connected with any external forms
fof government, that it does not fa-
vour the conftitution of a monarchy
I 2 more
( M J
more than that of a republick,- thaff
it has no relation to many of the Tub-
altern fprings of the political machine,
no-body would have contefted your af-
fertionj though fome might alk how
it came to obtain a place in your
book? Or, had you> meant by the
paflage under confideration, that the
chriftian religion makes little account
of extenfive dominion, overgrown
opulence,' commercial fchemes, and
perpetual efforts towards new acquifi-
tions, we fhould have left- the propo-
fition unnoticed,, as har-mlefs, becaufe
it is not in thefe circumftances, but in>
Others, that mail be mentioned in their
place,, that we muft feek for the chief
reafons and purpofes of civil aflbcia-
tions. The chriftian religion has no
connexion with the abufes which^
3. through
[ "7 ]
(through the pafiions of men, have de-
feated the true purpofes of civil go-
vernment, or have fubftituted fdlfe
ones in their place : but does this
prove that it is totally unconnected with
all human government, and uncon-
ducive to any worldly purpofe what-
foever ? I thought, indeed, that 1 had
iriiftaken your meaning for a while
and I was led to this thought, by per-
ceiving that there was no fort of con-
nexion between what you affirmed
.and the arguments ufed to fupport it.
I faid to myfelf, Mr. Jenyns, by the
bold words above quoted, means only,
that Jefus did not purpofe, like Nu-
aiia, Mahomet, or Mofes *, to afpire
I 3 to
* If it is a proof of the divinity of the chrif-
tiaa religion, that it ftands unconnected with
all
[ "8 ]
to the rank of a civil legiflator or fo-
vereign, and alfo that the chriftian re-
ligion contains precepts more refined
and noble, both relating to religion
and morality, than are to be found in
any human fyflems of legiflation : and
this, indeed, Sir, is all that you prove,
or attempt to prove, in the fifteen,
pages that follow the afTertion now
under confideration. This is alfo un-
doubtedly true ; but as there is a great
difference between thefe two propofi-
tions, cbrifttanity is fuperior to all the
fyjlems of human legijlation, and chrif-
tianity is unconnected with all human
government, and totally unconducive to
any worldly purpofes whatever, I was
all human and civil government, the monaflick
eftablilhments biJ pretty fair for a celeftial
origin !
tempted,
C "9 ]
tempted, in order to give your reat
foning fome appearance of confiftency,
to explain the latter by the former, in
order to render it admifiible. But,
when I proceeded farther, and heard
you avow to an objector *, " that
" God built the world upon one plan,
" and a religion for it on another
'< that he .had revealed a religion,
'* which not only contradifts theprirv-
*< cipal paffions and inclinations that
*' he has implanted in our nature, but
" is incompatible with the whole (economy
" of that world in which he has
*' thought proper to place us," I found
that I had not miftaken your meaning,
.and alfo, that your meaning is perni*-
cious to the caufe of Chriftianity ia
the very higheft degree.
* P. 133136. 4th Edition.
I 4 At
[ 120 ]
At firft fight, this reprefentation,
which fets nature and grace, provi-
dence and revelation at variance, and
exhibits the plan of the divine govern-
ment under the afpect of a houfe di-
vided againft itfelf, has a moft unphi-
lofophical and forbidding appearance ;
but, when we come to examine it in
detail, it is glaringly falfe in all its
parts.
To prove this I mall mew, firjl,
that the true ends of civil govern-
ment are bed promoted, nay can only
be accomplifhed by the fpirit and in-
fluence of the chriftian religion 5 and,
fecondly, that this religion neither
contradifts the natural paflions and in-
clinations that God has implanted in
us, nor prohibits the purfuit and en-
joyment of the comforts and advan-
tages
tages of human life. When thefe two
points are proved, it will, I think,
be evident, that the gofpel is neither
unconducive to every worldly purpofe,
nor incompatible with the whole ceco-
nomy of a prefent ftate.
Here, indeed, you oblige more or
Jefs to preach ; I hope, however, that
you will not difdain to hear.
Civil fociety was formed as a pre-
fervative againft diforder and injuftice,
and thus was defigned to augment the
comforts and happinefs of human life.
As natural fociety was the confequence
of a gregarious principle or inftirwft in
the human mind, civil government was
the refult of reflexion on the means
of rendering natural fociety agreeable
and happy. It is, however, certain,
that the external laws and inftitutions
of
. 1
yof civil fociety were, and ftill are, in-
fufficient for promoting its complete
felicity, nay even fuch a degree of fe-
licity as actually takes place in it.
On the one hand, its eftabli&ment
multiplied the duties of men, by mul-
tiplying their relations ; on the other,
by encreafing the wants of mankind,
in proportion as the ufeful and elegant
arts (truck out new fources of enjoy-
ment, it encreafed and inflamed thole
very appetites and paffions, for the
correction and reflraint of which it
was formed. In this ftate of things^
fociety ftands in need of the fuccour
and influence of many virtues, for
which its civil laws and inflitutions
make little or no provifion ; fuch as
piety, fidelity, equity, candour, gra-
titude, temperance, and benevolence.
Civil
{ "3 ]
Civil laws, I fay, make no provifion
for thofe virtues -, nay, they extend
their protection (which is their only
remunerating fan&ion) to the hypo-
crite, the ungrateful, the intemperate,
the perfidious, and the avaricious, if
they only guard, prudently, againft
audacious and violent attempts upon
the lives and properties of their fellow-
citizens. There are alfo numberlefs
ways in which the paffions of men
may difturb the order, peace, and
happinefs of civil fociety, which the
precepts and fan&ions of human laws
can neither prevent nor remedy. An-
ger and revenge, envy and hatred,
avarice and intemperance, immorality
and licentioufnefs, may poifon the
fountains of publick felicity, without
any reitraint from the authority of ci-
vil
{ 114 ]
vil government. If you attend to
this, and confider the fpirit and genius
cf chriftianity, how can you fay, that
this doctrine is unconne&ed with the
nds of civil government, and is un-
conducive to any worldly purpofe ?
You feem to have forgot that chrifti-
anity confirms by pofitive precepts,
encourages by fublime promifes, and
enjoins under pain of the mod tre-
mendous evils, thofe virtues of piety,
candour, gratitude, temperance, and
benevolence, that ilrengt'hen all the
bonds of civil government, are the
efiential foundations of temporal prof-
perity, and promote all the true and
folid interefts of human fociety. The
duties of fubjedion to earthly gover-
nors are exprefsly enjoined by the
divine author of our religion : "his pre-
cepts
ccpts have a direct tendency tarenofe*
inagiftrates refpectable and fubjefts
obedient, and to reftrain thofe paf-
fions that produce anguiflr and mifery
in private life, and defolation on the
publick theatre of the world. His
exhortations to humility are not defign-
ed to render men cityeR^ mean-fpirited*
and pufillanimous, but meek, modefty
vigilant, pacifick, and humane j and
are there not many valuable and im-
portant purpofes- anfwered by thefe
viruses,, even in the ceconomy of a
prefent world ? Don't you fee by this,
that the precepts of the gofpel are noc
defigned to difengage men from the
duties and occupations of civil life, or
from all concern in the affairs of the
world ? They indeed, engage chrifti-
ans to perform thefe duties,, and to
manage
[ 6 J
manage thefe occupations and con-
cerns, like immortal beings, with a
view to futurity and to the ap-
probation of HIM, who has appointed
their ftations on this tranfitory fcene ;
and this, furely, is the moft effectual
way to perform thefe duties in the
nobleft and moft perfect manner.
Nay more, as I have already obferved
in the beginning of this letter, it is by
fulfilling, from pious and virtuous
inotives, the duties of magiftrates,
fubjeds, fathers, children, hufbands^
wives, mafters, fervants, fellow-citi-
zens, friends, and fociable members*
of the great family of human jife,
that we are prepared for exercifing the
fame benevolence and virtue in other
forms,, and in more perfect relations,
3 in
r "7 ]
in a future and more exalted fphere;
Hence the ceconomy of time looks
cowards eternity, and the profpect of
eternky influences our conduct in the
ceconomy of time, while the religion
of Jefus connects thefe ceconomies,
as correfpondent and contiguous links
in the immenfe fcale of being ; fo far
is it from being true, that God (as
you oddly exprefs it) has conftituted a
world upon one plan, and a religion for
it on another. This view of things
led one of the moft eminent geniufes
of the prefent age to exprefs himfelf
in the following terms, " How admi-
** rable is the chriftian religion, which,
** while its great object appears to be
" the attainment of future felicity*
** has neverthelefs the greateft ten>
** dency
r ]
" dency to promote our happinefs iri
" a prefent world ! *"
I faid, Sir, in the fecond place, that
the chriftian religion neither contradifts
the natural paffions and inclinations
that God has implanted in us, nor
prohibits the purfuit and enjoyment of
the comforts and advantages of hu-
man life. And it is, indeed, fmgular
enough, that I mould be obliged to
prove this to you, in the fame manner
as if I were writing to a Carthufian
monk or a folitary hermit. In treat-
ing this part of your fubject, you go
upon the principle above-mentioned,
even that " God conftituted a world
' upon one plan r , and a religion for it
*' on another" a ftrange principle^
* This eminent genius was Montefquiea.
indeed I
t 1*9 ]
indeed ! this, at firft fight, feems to
be a method of proceeding that fa-
vours of inconfiftency, if by the world
you underftand not only the material
fyftem of nature, but the moral and
rational creatures that belong to it.
At leaft, the principle requires illuftra-
tion, and I cannot fay, that your
manner of explaining it removes its
difficulties. The matter is nice and
delicate, and deferves a particular dif-
cufllon.
To explain the principle or propo-
fition, you tell us, that " the religion
" of Jefus not only contradicts the
" principal paffions and inclinations
" which God has implanted in our na-
<l tures, but is incompatible with the
^' whole economy of the world, in which
K "he
I 130 I
^he had placed us*." It is true,,
this phrafe, and the flrange principles
k is defigned to explain, are put in the
mouth of an objector. But this ob-
jector is your fecond y inftead of being
your adverfary. You adopt both his
principle and his manner of explaining
it, and declare that they cxprefs the
true fpirit of ch-riftianity. You even
re-inforce the hypothefis of the objec-
tor by phrafes of the very harfheft
kind. Allow me to examine what he
and you fay on this head.
To prove that chriftianity contra-
dicts our natural pafllons, and is in-
compatible with the whole ceconomy
of a prefent world, your objector and
you alledge in the firft place, " that
* P. 133.
i the
tc the love cf power, riches, honour*
" and fame^ which 'are the great in-
" citements to generous and magna-
<c nimous actions, are by this (i. e. 1
" chriftian) inftitution all depreciated
*' and difcouraged." ;Now, Sir, I
really don't find the mere love or de-
fire of the objects above-mentioned
either depreciated or recommended in
fcripture j and, indeed, thefe defires
are of fuch a nature, that they neither
deferve efteem nor contempt ; they
are, in their proper meafure and degree*
the innocent propenfities of nature to-
wards thole comforts of life, which
God and Chrift, by the mouth of an
apoftle, have permitted mankind richly
to enjoy *. If, indeed, by the love of
* i Tim. vi. 17.
K 2 power,
1 3* ]
power, you mean exceffive ambition $
aftd, by the love of riches, fordid 1 ava-
rice, or even an immoderate attach-
ment to opulence ; and, by the defire
of honour and fame, you underftand
vain-glory -, then I acknowledge, thac
thefe defires are depreciated and dif-
couraged by the facred writers. But
why ? Not on account of their ojeflf 9
but on account of their degree , not as
natural paftlons, but as natural pajfions
become ex offline t and fwelled beyond
their fubordination to nobler princi-
ples and finer affections. And truly,
Sir, I never heard any body, before
yourfclf, ftyle generous and magnani-
mous the actions that proceed from the
excefllve love of power, riches, 2nd
honour alone : I have always been ac-
cuftomed to hear thefe epithets given
to
[ 133 ]
to 6eeds that carry in their motives a
mixture, at lead, of benevolence,
difmtereftednefs and publick fpirit.
And farther, by oppofing the excefs of
thefe natural and innocent defires,
chriftianity does not act in contradic-
tion with the (economy of the world, or
.the prefent plan of providence ; it only
oppofes the abufes of men, which I
hope you will not be fo inconfiderate
as to confound with that ceconomy.
If there be any pafiages of fcripture.,
where the love of power, riches, or
fame are difcon raged, without an eye
to the degree or excefs of the defire,
it is only in the "particular cafe of the
firft heralds of the gofpel, vvhofe fin-
gular fituation required an inattention
to the external comforts and advan-
tages of life. But this inattention
K Wji3
[ J3+ 3
was never defigned as a rule to chrif-
tians in fucceeding times, who are not
called to perpetual fcenes of fuffering
and martyrdom, nor obliged to facri-
fice every worldly profpect to the
eftablimment of the gofpel i for the
gofpel is firmly eftablifhed, and nei-
ther the mockeries of indecent wit,
nor the frenzy of infidelity and vice>
lhall ever prevail againft it. Is it pof-
fible, Sir, that you can really think,
that the maxims and precepts of the
gofpel were defigned to prevent our
enjoying the benignity of providence
here below, or to reftrain us from de-
firing and relifning the pleafures which
the fupreme benefactor has connected
with the wife and moderate ufe of his
gifts ? Confidering this world as a ftate
of paffage (and, indeed, it is an inex-
plicable
I '35 1
rplicable fcene in any other point, of
view) is it not agreeable to every pre-
cept of fcripture and every dictate of
common fenfe, that we fhould render
that paflage as comfortable as may be,
without amufing ourfelves fo inconfi-
derately on the road, as to lofe fight
of our true country, or neglecting to
acquire and maintain a tafte and frame
of mind fuitable to the nobler plea-
lures it exhibits to our hopes ? Ought
a child to renounce the innocent fvveets
of infancy, or a youth to reject the
harmlefs pleafures of life's early prims,
becaufe he is foon to pafs to more
grave and folid occupations and enjoy-
ments of a maturer period ? This
Vv'ould be prepofterous. The gofpel,
therefore, in pointing out, as its prin-
cipal and great object, a life to comer,
K 4 did
[ '36 ]
did not mean to annihilate (as you
ilrangely infmuate by your unguarded
exprefilons) either the relations or en-
joyments of this prefent life ; but only
to modify our conduct in the one and
our attachment to the other in fuch a
manner as to render them compatible
with, nay, preparatory to our future
felicity. The views and precepts of
chriftianity were defigned to fet bounds
to thofe appetites, whofe exceffive in-
dulgence degrades reafon, extinguifhes
piety, troubles the order of fociety,
and ends in the ruin of human nature;
they were defigned to moderate that
ambition, which, when left to itfelf,
engenders perfidy, cruelty, and injuf-
tice, and is a fource of innumerable
evils both in private and publick life.
In a word, they were defigned to make
us
[ 137 1
us ufe ditgood things of this life, with-
out confidering them as our fupreme
felicity, but to efteem them in fubor-
dination to the nobler and more fub-
ftantial fources of happinefs, which
we expect in a future and more perfect
ftate. Thus the doctrine! of grace,
inftead of engaging us to reject with a
morofe and cynical aufterity the gifts
of providence, teaches us to enjoy and
to appreciate them with wifdom, and
thus, inftead of oppofing the cecono-
my and purfuits of a prefent world,
have a happy and falutary influence
on our condition in it.
You fee, Sir, that I am not afhamcd
to profefs myf If one of thofe whom
you call, with a fneer*, the good ma-
* P. 135-
nagers
[ 3' 3
nagers, who chufe to take a little of
this world in their way to heaven.
This, I am, from principle -, for in
faft I have little of the world to take-,
I am neither a lord of the board of
trade, nor a member of parliament,
nor a man of fortune ; and therefore,
when I fay, that it is lawful for the
chriftian to be concerned in the affairs
of the world, and to enjoy its advan-
tages, I fpeak difmtereftedfy ; nay, I
defend your practice againft your prin-
ciples. And it is the eafieft talk I. ever
undertook. The only difficulty that
perplexes me here is, how to do this
confidently with civility. It would be
harfh to lay, that you don't under-
ftand the fenfe of the fcripture-texts
you have employed to maintain your
opinion, and yet it would be much
more
[ '39- 1
more fo to affirm that you do. With-
out determining, which of the two is
really the cafe, permit me to tell' you,
what every curate tells his parifoionera
often in a year, that the term world
is frequently ufed in fcripture for the
corrupt maxim* and the vicious cuftoms.
of the world, and as often for the/><?r-
fons, whofe conduct in life is directed
by thefe cuftoms and thefe maxims-,
and alfo for the licentious abufe of,
or exceffive attachment to, the good
things of a prefent life. In one or
other of thefe fenfes is the word taken,
in all the paffages you have alledged,
to prove that chriftianity is in direct
oppofirion to the ceconomy of a pre-
fent world. Now from thefe paflTages
I conclude quite the contrary ; even
that chriftianity has the moft friendly
afpect
[ I 4 o ]
afpeh upon the true interefts of a pre-
fent wcTrtd, by its tendency to abolifti
thofe corrupt maxims and vicious
euftoms, that are the moft fatal ene-
mies to our temporal, as well as to
our eternal felicity. And where the
love of the 'world and the things of the
world is prohibited in the facred write-
ings (if the precept does not relate to
the peculiar -cafe of the firft teachers
of chriftianity) the word love is un-
doubtedly ufed to denote an undue and
jxc.ejji'ue attachment to the riches,
pleafures, and honours of the world,
| will even furnim you with two texts
.much more to your purpofe (not in
reality but in appearance ) than any
you have quoted. The firft is that
pafiage of the gofpel, in which Jefus
Cluift declares that, in order to be his
difcipk,
[ I4i J
difciple, a man muft hate his father atxt
mother, and wife and children^ and bre-
thren and Jiflers^ yea y and his own life
alfo *. In the view of fuch a com-
mentator as you, Sir, here is a text
that annihilates, in a moment, all the
mod intimate and tender relations of
a prefent world. What do Ifay ?
It does more than annihilate them.
Nature and reafon point out love .and
benevolence as the refult of thefe re-
lations ; but, if you quoted this text
as you have quoted the others, you
would reprefent chriflianity as con-
necting with thefe relations malignity
and hatred. When St. John faid,
f Love not the world, nor the things of
the world : if any man love the world.,
* Luke xiv. 26.
f iftEp. it. !.
the
[ 142 ]
the love of the Father is not in him ; he
faid fomething very emphatick. It is
fimilar to the vow you made by your
godfathers at your baptifm, to renounce
the world, the devil, and the flejh.
You don't, however, fuppofe, that a
man is obliged, by this vow, to live
in the world, as if he were out of it,
to refufe a commifiton of the peace,
a feat in parliament, a penfion, or a
peerage, to throw his guides into the
fire, or to break his flatutes, like an
iconoclaft j to fhut his heart to the
tender connexions of love, and to the
amiable charities of human nature. It
was not certainly this monaflick frenzy
that St. John had in view ; nor did he
mean that we mould exringuifh every
elegant tafte, and every natural paf-
fion, when he faid, Loi'e. no! the world*
[ J
.nor tie things of the world. He tells
us himfelf, in the very next verfe, his
true meaning, and leaves no doubt
remaining about the ideas he defigned
to exprefs by the term world, when
he calls it the luft of the feJJj, the lujt
of the eye, and the pride of life, i. e.
luxury and lafcivioufnefs the avari-
cious purfuit of opulence and the in-
dulgence of vanity and ambition.
But, according to you, thefe declara-
tions of fcripture muft ever forbid
ANY reconciliation between the purfuit s
of this world and the chrijiian inftitit-
tion *. I was going to tell you, Sir,
that fuch a fpirit of criticifm, applied
to fuch a book as the New Teftament,
would draw the mod palpable abfur-
* P. 141.
dicies
[ H4 ]
dities from the pureft exprefllons of
celeftial wifdom. Bur, when I was
coming down upon you with this for-
midable remonftrance, I perceived,
that, in the very next page, you had
changed entirely the ftate of the quef-
tion by exprefllons quite different from
the former. Thefe different expref-
fions, 1 prefume, are defigned to con-
vey different ideas. In juftifying there
the incompatibility of the gofpel with
the -purfuits of the world, you put, be-
fore the word purfuits, the epithet
vain, which indeed, ends our difpute;
though I muft tell you that this recon-
ciliation is made at the expence of all
your preceding reafoning on this pare
of your fubject. Who doubts, Sir,
of chriftlanky's being adverfe to the
VAIN furfuits of this world ? Who
doubts
f '45 ]
doubts of its being conformable, in
this refpeft, as well as in all others,
xvith, reaibn, wifdom, and experience,
which, indeed, teach us (as you juftly
obferve) " that thefe vain purfuits are
" begun on falfe hopes, carried on
" with difquietude, and end in difap-
" pointment ?*' No chriftian, furely,
will deny that the profeffed incompa-
tibility of (Thrift's religion with the
little wretched and iniquitous bufmefs of
the world is far from being a defect
in this religion ; though I think you
rather hafty in advancing *, " that,
'* were there no other proof of its di-
** vine origin, this alone would be
" abundantly fufficient t." But why,
L wortiiy
P. 142. *
t It is not enough to prove the divine origin
of any do&rines or precepts, that they be in-
compatible
E 14* I
worthy Sir, did you not inform cs
before -hand, that by thefe expreffions,
the plan on which God conftilitted the
world ; the whole ceconomy of a prefent
world ; the purfuits and advantages of
the world ; you meant only the vain
purfuits and the little, wretched,, ini-
quitous bufmefs of the world ? You
may perhaps reply by afking me, why
I had not the patience to wait until you
had explained yourfelf ? I was not fo
impatient as you may think. I read
your book twice with the clofeft at-
tention, before I fat down to write
thefe letters ; and I was at much pains
to combine the jarring variety of your
compatible with the little t wretched, iniquitous
tufinefs, or vain purfuiis of the world ; for, at
this rate, ihe morals of Seneca would lay an
undoubted claim to divine infpiration.
expref-
t 47 ]
txprefiions in fuch a manner as to
draw from them a confident feries of
thought and reafoning , but I cannot
fay, that I fucceeded j and I really,
to this moment, am not fure of what
you mean by the acvnorr.y and flan of
bprefent world. For, if I mould take
thefe words (in the fenfe you feem to
attribute to them, p. 141) to mean
the vain purfuits and the iniquitous bu-
/inefs of the world, I get into another
difficulty, and don't fee how chriftia-
nity, by contradicting tbefe^ contradicts
the -principal paffwm and inclinations
Cod has implanted in our nature *, pro-
vided thefe paffions and inclinations be
well regulated, and exercifed upon
their proper objects with due propor-
* P. 133-
L 2 don,
C I4 1
tion. There is no pafilon or inclina-
tion in man, which, when regulated
by reafon and chriftianity, may not
tend both to private and publick good,
even in the ceconomy of a prefent
world. I do not believe, indeed,
that, in a prefent ftate, the higheft de-
grees of this private or publick feli-
city will, or, morally fpeaking, can
take place ; but I ftill maintain that
the higheft degrees of harmony and
felicity, both private and publick,
that can take place here below, are at-
tainable only by the practical influence
of the precepts and doctrines of the
chriftian religion, and that chriftianity
is, therefore, fo far from being incom-
patible with, that it is friendly to the
true ceconomy of a prefent world, i c.
to the moft comfortable ftate of which
it
[ '49 ]
it is fufceptible. For, by the (economy
of a prefent world, I underftand the af-
ibciadon of free, rational, and fociable
beings, fufceptible of pleafure and
pain, in a material world, for the ends
of concord and mutual good offices,
and for the enjoyment of as much fa-
tisfaclion as is attainable in a ftate of
paffage. Here then you feemed to be
enclofed : but you will get out again
by telling us that, by the love cf pcwer 9
riches, and honour, you mean an ex-
ctjjfce love ; and that, by the ceconomy
of the prefent world, you mean the
perverfion of the ends and purpofesof
human aflbciations ; but then your
propofition that chrijlianity is uncon-
ducive to any worldly purpofes is
proved falfe, and it appears only in*
compatible with the abufes of men,
L 3 which
[ '50 }
which is not a very wonderful dif-
covery.
You give us, indeed *, feveral hints
of your taking the (economy of the
world in this fenfe, and efpecially when
you tell us that government, which is
efTential to the nature of man -f, can-
not be managed without certain degree*
Of VIOLENCE, CORRUPTION, and IM-
POSITION j yet (fay you) all thefe are
ftriRly forbidden. If you had told us
what kinds of violence and impofition
are prohibited in the gofpel, we mould
perhaps find that they are not (any;
* P. 134-
f- I did not know before that civil govern-
ment (for that is manifeftly here meant) was eC-
fential to the nature of man, though it is avow-
edly adapted to promote his fecurity and com-
fort.
more
t i5 1
more than corruption) efientially nece'F-
fary to the management and admini-
ftration of civil government. Vio-
lence, in retraining injuftice and pu-
niming tranfgreiTors, is, indeed, necef-
ary^ but it is not forbidden : unjuft
and defpotick violence is forbidden^
but it is not neceffary. And I am
perfuaded that -corruption ( whether
you underftand by that word bribery
in particular, or a want of principle in
general) is fo little neceflary to move
the fprings of government, that reli-
gion and virtue would do the bufmeis
much better, if governors and go-
verned were aduated by its influence.;
and this is fufficient to refute all you
fay upon the fubje6t.
Again when you fay -that non-re-
fiftanceto evil, perpetual patience ^ and a
L 4 negkB
-[ 'S* 3
negleft of all we eat, drink, and wear,
mufl fubject individuals to perpetual
infults, put an end to commerce, ma-
nufactures*, and induftry, you main-
tain a propofition which I fhall not
difpute : but when you affirm that
thefe are recommended and enjoined
in the gofpel, as obligatory upon all
chriftians in particular, and all nations
in general, and that, without any mo-
dification and reftriflion arifing from
a difference in times, perfons, places,
and circumftances, you affirm what
the gofpel no-where enjoins, and what
common fenfe (a refpeftable critick in
the clafs of interpreters) palpably difa-
vows. It was, indeed, one of the
leading rules of conduct prefcribed to
* P. '35-
[ 153 3
the apoftles by their divine matter, that,
in the propagation of the gofpel, no kind
of external force or violence mould be
employed, becaufe it was beneath the
dignity of a divine revelation to de-
pend, for its Jirft reception, on any
efforts of human power. It was alfo
expedient that the heralds of this re-
ligion, which was to fow, in the ceco-
nomy of time, the feeds of that BENE-
VOLENCE, that fhall fhed its fruits
through the endlefs fcenes of eternity,
fhould give to the world extraordinary
examples of mildnefs, patience, and
benignity. The rules relative to this
conduct are expreffed in the injunc-
tions of our blefled Saviour, by the
phrafes of not refifting evil of turning
the left cheek, &c. of doing good to
thofe that bate us, and feveral others
of
[ 154 ]
of a like kind. If from thefe phrafcs
you conclude, that the chriftian reli-
gion forbids the magiftrates to punifii
the crimes that threaten the deftruc-
tion of fociety, or an individual to re-
pel, even by violence, the afifaults of
an unjuft aggreflbr, who attempts to
involve him and his family in calamity
and ruin, you make the gofpel an af-
fylum to the profligate, and its author
an enemy to the order and happinefs
of human fociety. But you ought to
know, Sir, that punijhment may be ex-
ecuted without a fpirit cf vengeance ;
that injuries may be repelled without
malignity, that perfonal infults cf lit-
tle conference to private or publick
happinefs may and ought to be borne
with patience, and that an enemy,
even when he has forfeited our efteem,
may
'[ '55 1
may have a claim to acts of humanity
and benevolence.
It is particularly to be obferved,
that, in the precepts which feem fa-
vourable to vcn-re/iftance, Chrift has
particularly in view what was prac-
tifed among the Jews under the law of
retaliation. Under the credit of this
law, many refented the fmalleft inju-
ries with a malicious and revengeful
fpirit, and claimed, with rigour and
violence, an indemnification from the
publick tribunals for trifling violations
of their pretenfions or rights : fo that
the difciples were warned by their be-
nevolent matter to avoid the unre-
lenting and vindictive fpirit of the
Jews, and to reftrain the inhuman and
tumultuous impulfe of malignant paf-
fions ; not to renounce a wife, decent,
I and
and rational felf-defence, on the pro-
per occafions.
This is certainly all that is required
in thefe injunctions of nox-re/z/lance and
patience in their application to the ge-
nerality of chriftians j granting that
they were to be pra&ifed with a pecu-
liar degree of felf-denial by the firft
minifters of the gofpel. By any other
rule of interpretation, we will be
obliged to maintain, that the chriftian
mud at this day HATE bis father, mo-
tber^ JifterS) and brothers *, that the
bread of the laft fupper was Chrift's
real body -f, that the defign of Chrift
was not to fpread peace upon earth J,
but war and def elation. As to the
* Luke xlv. 26.
t Marth. xxvt. 26.
t Matth. x. 34.
[ '57 1
mglett of all that we eat, drink, and
wear, it might, indeed, have been en-
joined almoft literally upon the frft
preachers of the chriftian faith, whofc
whole attention was to be employed
in diffufing the light of the gofpel,
amidft fuch fcenes of peril and fuffer-
ing as were incompatible with any
concern about the external comforts
or elegancies of life. And yet, even
with refpect to them, it may be al-
ledged, that thefe paflages are not to
be urged in all the extent of the letter,
and are only defigned to prevent an
undue anxiety about the external cir-
cumftances of their ftate and condi-
tion ; but the firft diflates of common
fenfe mew that this inftance of felf-
denial is not and cannot be required
from the very bell and mod eminent
chrifti-
.{ '58 3
chriftians in our day, and many of
the exprefs declarations of fcripture,
fhew that no fuch obligation is im-
poied upon them.
I wonder, Sir, that, fmce you went
fo far out of the walk of true criticifm
as to avail yourfelf of certain forms of
expreffion, that are either proverbial
and figurative, and therefore not to
be underftood literally, or evidently
confined to particular perfons, and
therefore not univerfal in their appli-
cation, you did not alledge the folemn
declaration of Chrift before Pilate,
that bis kingdom was not of this world.
This founds as well for your cauie as
any other text; and yet it makes nothing
at all for your purpofe. That you
may not, however, be tempted, on
any
[ 159 ]
any future occafion, to make ufe of it
to (hew that chriftianity is unconducive
to any worldly purpofe, I mall point ouc
here its true fignification in order to
fecure it on the fide of thofe who de-
fend chriftianity on more rational prin.
ciples, than thofe which your book
feems to contain.
When Chrift made that fublime de-
claration, my kingdom is not of this
world) it is palpably evident, that he
underftood by this the following thing*
that it did not derive its origin from
efforts of human policy, but from the
miraculous interpofition of God alone
that its great end and defign went far
beyond the ends and purpofes of civil
afifociations, and aimed at nothing
iefs thaa to deliver mortals from the
punifh-
punifhment of fin, the tyranny of vice,
the power of death, and the fear of
judgment, and to prepare them, by
holinefs and virtue, for happinefs and
immortality that its laws inftead of
being confined to the outward actions
of men (like thofe of civil legiflators)
were addreficd to the inward principles
and affections of the heart that its
power different, both in its means and
effects, from the power of the world,
was rational, gentle, perfuafive, and
invifible, forming its conquefts by
that -word of truth that enlightens
the understanding, and that fpiric of
grace that improves the heart, and
that its rewards are fpiritual and ra-
tional, and its duration eternal. Such,
Sir, are the effential ideas contained
in the fublime declaration of the Son
of
of God before the Roman governor*
But, becaufe the kingdom of Chrift is
infinitely fuperior to the kingdoms of
this world in its origin, end, Jaws,
power, rewards, and duration, does
it follow from thence, that it has no
connexion with the felicity of earthly
empires, and with the true interefts
of civil fociety here below ? Or that
even the true fubjects of this king*
dom ought to be alienated from all
concern in the interefls and affairs
of a prefent world ? No, Sir ; this
conclufion, as I have already mewn,
is unreafonable j it favours more of
myltical enthufiafm or monaftick au-
fterity, than of the benevolent, hu*
mane, and liberal fpirit of the chriftian
religion.
M LETTER
162 ]
LETTER V.
S I R,
IN my former letter, I confidered
largely your fecond propofition,
and fiiewed the infufficiency of the ar-
guments by which you fupport it, as
well as the indefenfible nature of the
propofition itfelf. In effecting this, I
was obliged to follow you into your
CONCLUSION, where you had fcattered
a part of thefe arguments. I now re-
turn to wait upon you with fome re-
marks, not upon your third -proportion
itfelf, which I think true and unex-
ceptionable in all its parts-, but on the
examples and arguments you employ
to illuflrate and defend it. Thefe I
think
think partly illufory, and partly pre-
pofterous -, and you appear to me, in
this part of your work, to beftow upon
chriftianity encomiums which it muft
difavow.
You very juftly obferve in your
third proposition, " that a fyftem of
" ethics may be collected from the
" New Teftament, in which every
* moral precept, founded on reafon,
*' is carried to a higher degree of pu-
<c rity and perfection, than in any other
* e of the ancient philofophers of pre-
" ceding ages." You alfo explain
perfectly well what you mean by mo-
ral precepts founded on reafon, when
you tell us they are fuch as " enforce
" the practice of thofe duties that rea.
" fon informs us muft improve our
** natures, and conduce to the happi-
M 2 " nefs
" nefs of mankind, fuch as "piety to
*' God, benevolence to man, juftice,
" charity, temperance, and fobriety,
*' and fo on." The latter part of
your third proportion is exprefled in
thefe terms : " every moral precept
"founded on falfe principles , is entirely
" omitted." Now by precepts, found-
ed on falfe principles, you profefs to
mean " thofe which recommend fic-
" titious virtues, productive of none
"of thefe falutary effects" (above-
mentioned). And thefe fictitious vir-
tues, which, according to you, are
no virtues at all, are valour, patrictifm t
and friendfaip \ you even go fo far
(which, indeed, is furprifing) as to af-
firm that thefe fittitious virtues are in-
compatible with ths. genius of the ckrif-
tian religion^ and, if this be true, you
do
do them too much honour to call them
even fictitious virtues ; you ought to
have fpoken out boldly, and called
them vices, or at bed defefls.
This, however, is carrying matters
too far. The three moral objects in
queftion are certainly very ambigu-
oufly underftood, and their fplendid
names are bellowed, in the common
converfation of the world, upon ef-
forts, paffions, and connexions, that
have not a fpark of virtue in them :
for the fearlefs and brutal temerity of
the duellift is called valour-, the popu-
lar noife of the corrupt and ambitious
is efteemed patriotifi*, and connexions,
cemented by intereft, licentioufnefs,
or caprice, are unworthily honoured
with the name of friend/kip. The
abufes of men be to themfelves ; let
M 3 them
[ 166 ]
them not, however, betray us into falfe
judgments -, let them not lead us to
confound the nature of things with
the errors of human fancy, nor to
imagine that there is no genuine coin,
becaufe we meet with a multitude of
counterfeits.
It is fingular enough, that the
omiffion of patriotifm and friendjhip 9
among the duties enjoined in the gof-
pel, was fneered at by Lord Shaftf-
bury as a defect in that institution,
and is admired by you as a proof of
its perfect purity and divine origin.
The truth of the matter is, that you
are both miftaken. This omifllon
was the dictate of common fenfe,
which fliews that his fneer was as ill-
founded as it was infolent -, but it does
not fuppofe, that the qualities in quef-
tion
r '6; ]
tion are all of them fiftitious virtuis.
Tour reflexion is certainly not juft : at
beft it favours of exaggeration.
With refpect to valour, 1 hope to
convince you that all you fay on that
head is ambiguous and inconclufive;
and then I lhall ihew its true na-
ture, and its perfect conformity with
the genius and fpirit of the chriftian
religion. Firft, You fay, " that va-
*' lour or active courage \sfor themoft
** fart a conftitutional virtue, and
*' therefore can have no more claim to
" moral merit than wit, beauty, health,
" or flrength, or any other endovv-
" ment of the mind or body." If
you had faid, that it was entirely a con-
ftitutional virtue, your conclufion
would have had a greater appearance
of accuracy ; for, granting it to be a
M 4 conftitu-
conftitutional virtue only for the mojl
t^ this iuppofes that there is a part of
it which is not conftitutional, and this,
of confequence, may have a degree of
merit proportioned to the motives and
principles that excite it. After all,
Sir, the fubjecl: of conftitutional qua-
lities or virtues is one of the niceft and
moft difficult topicks in the fphere of
moral enquiry. Are not all qualities
and all virtues more or lefs conftitutio-
nal *, i. e. muft there not be in our
mental
* The term conftitutional is applicable to thofe
propenfitles, difpofitions, capacities, and quali-
ties, (or to that meafure of each of them) which
a moral being has acquired without any effort
of its own cftivity, without previous reflexion
and culture, from whatever fource thefe pro-
penfities and acquisitions may have immediately
proceeded, whether from the ordinal frame ef
[ 169 ]
mental conftitution, or in its union
with our material frame, or in both,
fome previous difpofition to all the
virtues we poflefs, which reflexion
improves, and culture brings to ma-
turity ? Whether this previous dif-
pofition comes from nature or grace
is a point whofe difcufiion is of no
moment in the prefent queftion ; in
either cafe it is the work of God, and
not of man ; but this does not hinder
the quality or the virtue from being
amiable^ praife- worthy, and excellent* ;
(for
the mind, the organifation of the body, or from
both in union.
* Suppofe a being, (an angel, for example)
originally created, if that be poffible, in a high
degree of perfeftion, with a confirmed tafte for
fandVity and order, and a predominant fpirit of
benevo-
[ -7 3
(for I don't underftand the word me-
ritorious out of its law-fenje in any
other fignification). When the pre-
vious or (if you pieafe) the conjlitutio-
nal difpofition, is approved by a reflex
aR of the mind, and cultivated and
improved in confequence of this re-
flexion, this renders the virtue 'volun-
tary^ and thus inputable, and thus
meritorious^ if you will oblige me to
ufe that word. Now valour, ac-
tive valour, in this point of view, is
not more neceffarily conflitutional than
any other virtue, than patience, refig-
nation, or benevolence. You cannoc
fhew me, that it arifes from any par-
ticular arrangement or modification of
benevolence and wifdom, would not all thcfe
qualities be, in a certain fenfe, conjlitutional ?
put would they be lefs amiable on that account?
matter
matter and motion ; you cannot point
out any fuch mould in which moral
qualities are call, and therefore your
word conftitutional denotes at befl an
occult caufe, and conveys no diftinft
notion that can be an object of exami-
nation. Hence your firft obfervation
is erroneous, and, if the author of
chriftianity had omitted the recom-
mendation of valour, on account of
its being conftitutional, he mud have
omitted, for the fame reafon, patience,
contentment, refignation, and almoft
all the virtues.
But you go ftill farther and tell us
not only that vakur is conftitutional,
" but that it is the ufual perpetrator
" of all violences which diftract the
"world with bloodmed and devafta-
" tion, the engine by which the ftrong
" plunder
" plunder the weak, the proud tram-
** pie upon the humble, the guilty
" opprefs the innocent, the inftrument
" of ambition, and fo on." As you
have not thought proper to define,
precifely, what you mean by the term
valour, nor pointed out where it coin-
cides with, or differs from fortitude,
courage, and bravery, you leave us to
take it in the vulgar fenfe, and here
it is obvious, that effects, quite con-
trary to thofe you have mentioned,
belong equally to valour. For, furely,
valour has often been employed in de-
fending the innocent, in humbling the
proud, in punifhing the guilty, and
in maintaining the liberties and felicity
of a people. So that, in this general
view, valour is as fufceptible of good
effects as of evil ones, and is either
ufefwl
C '73 1
ufeful or prejudicial to fociety, ac-
cording as it is employed by benevo-
lence and juftice, or by lawlefs ambi-
tion, envy, or revenge. You make
a very thin-fpun and unfatisfactory
diftinction between aflive and pajfive
courage ; and I am forry to be obliged
to tell you, that all your illustrations
of this diftindlion are full of fophiftry
and contradictions. You fay, that
aBive (by which I guefs you mean
military) courage, is what a chriftian
can have nothing " to do with*-, that
" it arifes from the meaneft dilpofi-
'* tions of the human mind, pajjion,
" vanity, zn&felf -dependence^ ; that it
" is the offspring of pride and revenge
" and the ferocity of a favage ;" and
yet you tell us that you do not " ob-
" je<5t to the PRAISE and honours be-
* P. 56. f P. 57-
" flowed
[ '74 ]
* e (lowed on the valiant,*' nay you
think thefc " a tribute due by thofe,
" whofefafety and affluence they have
u promoted by their dangers and fuf-
** ferings *. Indeed ? By your ac-
count of them, however, they ought
to be driven out of human fociety to
howl in deferts with wolves, or, at
bed, with lions. I {hewed you fuffi-
ciently in my former letter, how un-
accountably you interpreted thofe paf-
fages of the gofpel, that forbid the
revenging injuries, into an univerfal
non-refiftance. The Jews had abufed
their law of retaliation in fuch a noto-
rious manner, and had taken fuch oc-
cafion from it to gratify a malicious
and vindictive fpirit, that the benevo-
* P. 56.
lent
t '75 ]
lent Saviour thought proper to ufe the
ftrongeft terms to difcourage a practice
fo contrary to the genius of his divine
religion. But that thefe prohibitions
Ihould hinder the virtuous and ehrif-
tian prince from oppofing the afTaults
and devaluations of a licentious ufurper,
that this Ihould prevent the citizens
of a free country from drawing the
fword in defence of their fovereign,
their freedom, their national happi-
nefs, againft a lawlefs invader, that
fuch active oppofition mould be called
the offspring of pride, revenge, and
favage ferocity ', and that the impofii-
bility of its arifing from any other
principles mould be fo boldly aflerted :
all this I could never have expected to
fee. coming from any other quarter
than fanatical quietifm. I could ne-
i vet
ver have imagined that it would flip
from the pen of Mr. Jenyns, and
pafs uncorre&ed through four editions
of his work.
You may think perhaps, that you
have annihilated all the efteem that is
due to valour, when you obferve in
the following harmonious gingle of
words, " that, if chriftian nations were
*' nations of chriftians, all war would
" be impoflible, and 'valour could nei-
* ther be of ufe or eftimation, and
" therefore could never have a place
" in the catalogue of chriftian virtues,
V being irreconcileable with all its
ct precepts." You might as well
prove that indujiry is not an ufeful and
laudable habit, becaufe, if all men were
rich, there would be no occafion for
it. Befides, if chriftian nations were
nations
r w ]
nations of chriflians, there would be
as little occaiion for mercy, forbear-
ance, forgiveness of injuries, as there
would be for valour -, but does this
prove that, in the prefent ftate of
things, thefe virtues are of no value ?
The truth of the matter is, that
valour, or the exertion of vigour in a
given caufe, without being daunted by the
profpeft of danger, fuffering, or death,
is neither a vice nor a virtue, though
it has an afpect full of elevation of
mind. Valour is good or bad, laud-
able or condemnable, according to the
caufe in which it is employed, and the
principles and motives by which itis ex-
cited and nourifhed. When it is em-
ployed in the caufe of opprefled inno-
cence, ofopprefled nations, and that, not
from the mere impulfeofintereft or thirft
of fame, but from a generous regard
N to
[ -78 ]
to publick good, it then aflumes the
colour of virtue : becaufe it denotes a
mind that rifes with dignity, above
the narrow fphere of felf-love. Va-
lour, here, is blended with benevo-
lence, and difcovers the flrength of
that divine principle. If the natural
fear of fuffering or death be ftrong in
the mind, and valour is excited merely
by principle ; in fuch a cafe, it is the
moft beautiful exertion of benignity
that can be imagined ; and is perhaps,
of all other energies, that which gives
human nature the higheft afpecl: of
dignity. But, if you will confound
with valour the fearlefs temerity of an
impetuous foldiery, it is no great me-
rit in chriftianity to have omitted re-
commending it ; and, if you take it
in its true and moral fenfe, you will
2 not
[ '79 ]
not find that chriftianity has, any
where, difcouraged it. The founder,
indeed, of that divine religion, who f
during his whole miniftry, was ap-
prehenfive, left the falfe notions of
his kingly character fhould excite the
Jews to rebellion, and animate them
to the erection of a temporal mo-
narchy, could not, with prudence,
recommend (what you call active or
fighting) valour, among the virtues
he was perpetually inculcating. He,
however, recommended thofe quali-
ties, that are effential to the morality
and excellence of valour, by exhorting
his difciples not to fear tbofe that can
only kill the body ; by forming their
minds to the purfuit of happinefs in
objects independent on the world and
its advantages, by animating them
N 2 to
to relinquifli every external pleafure,
and fubmit to the greateft extremities
of pain and fuffering, rather than de-
viate from the paths of virtue, or de-
fert the caufe in which they were en-
gaged, which was the caufe of divine
benevolence and mercy. The honour
and fpirit of chriftianity is, in this
point of view, the fame with refpect to
its profefibrs in all ages. In fhort,
magnanimity, firmnefs of mind, hu-
manity, patience, and benevolence,
enter, either as principles^ conftituents^
or concomitants^ into the idea of true
valour^ and therefore the divine author
of our religion could not look upon it
as afalfe mfiftitious virtue.
It would be Hill more furprifing,
(if wit did not often make judgment
waver) to fee you placing patriotifm
and
and friend/kip in this clafs offalfe and
fictitious virtues. If there can be a
frown in heaven, there certainly was
one formed on the immortal brows of
virtuous legiflators and love- breath-
ing feraphims, when they perceived a
good man, like you, harbouring fuch
a thought in his mino 1 , or letting it
drop from his pen. It is not, how-
ever, a flight of imagination that can
correct an error in morals, and there-
fore I propofe to enter into a particu-
lar difcufiion of this nice point.
If you had defined the terms pa-
triotifm and friend/hip, this might per-
haps have prevented your attempts to
eclipfe the luftre of thefe manly and
amiable qualities : at leaft, we would
then have feen, whether or not you
confidered them, as the effufions of
N 3 univerfal
[ It* ]
univerfal benevolence^ di reding its ex-
ertions and energy to particular ob-
jects, in certain determinate circles,
the one more and the other lefs exten-
five. If you had confidered them in
this point of view, it is impoflible,
that, in your fober fenfes, you could
have reprefented them tefalfe andjfc-
titious virtues ; and if you regard -pa-
triot ifm as inconfiftent with the love of
mankind, zndfriendjhip as a connexion
founded on intereft, corruption, or
caprice, then we can have no difpute.
I can only charge you with an abufe
of words, and put you in the hands of
the grammarians.
Indeed, as to patriotifm^ you draw
it in fuch colours as ought rather to
have rendered it an object of prohibi-
tion, than a quality to be either re-
commended
commended or encouraged : for you
alledge, " that it commands us to OP-
" PRESS all countries to advance the
" IMAGINARY profperity of our own,
" to copy the mean partiality of an
" Englifh parilh officer, who thinks
" injuftice and cruelty meritorious,
" whenever they promote the interefts
<{ of his village." Now, Sir, this is
patriotifm, juft as fortitude is cruelty,
humility meannefs, (economy avarice, or
generojity prodigality, liberty licentiouf-
nefs, or the Jpirit of ' faftion a zeal for
the publick good.
Patriotifm is a zeal for the bappinefs
of the country to which we belong, and
where the moft numerous^ intimate^ and
affeclingi of our facial connexions^ are
formed and cultivated. By this defini-
tion, patriotifm is a branch of uni-
N 4 verfal
verfal benevolence, and, inftead of op-
pofing, is adapted to promote, at
leaft, in part, its great object. For
what is the objett of uni verfal benevo-
lence, but the general gcod^ or the
good of the whole? Now this general
good is too extenfive an end, to be
directly accomplifhed by the efforts of
any man ; and it can only be pro-
moted by every perfon's having a
hearty affection for the fociety to which
he belongs, and a warm zeal for its
welfare. Univerfal benevolence is a
generous fentiment, a noble affection ;
but its real exertion is beyond the
fphere of humanity, and it can only
become active and ufeful by its appli-
cation to particular objects. A man
would certainly make a ridiculous fi-
gure, who, under the pretext of being
obliged
[ '85 1
obliged by chriftianity to exercife only
univerfal benevolence, mould neglect
his country ', and thofe fmaller focieties,
to which alone the ufeful effects of his
zeal can extend, and amufe himfelf
with forming idle and romantick
fchemes for the benefit of foreign na-
tions, or the whole race of mankind.
In fuch fchemes the individual or the
fmaller focieties would be neglected,
and the puny effort would be loft up-
on the whole. What would you think
of a generous alms-giver, who mould
fet apart a thoufand pounds to be
equally diftributed between all the poor
of all nations, tongues, and languages?
All that is required to make patriotifm
a real and fubftantial virtue, is, its
exerting its chief zeal, where it can be
really effectual, even for the interefts
of
of the community to which we belong,
in a manner confiftent with and fubfer-
vient to the great law of univerfal be-
nevolence. Such patriotifm may exift,
and it is evidently implied in the pre-
cepts of the gofpel. It was not, in-
deed, neceffary to make it the object
of a pofitive precept. Why ? not as
you ftrangely afiert, becaufe it is a
falfe and fictitious virtue, but becaufe
it is included in the love of mankind,
is what all are powerfully inclined
to from education, cuftom, and many
other reafons, and particularly, be-
caufe, at the time of our Saviour's
appearance, the true fpirit of patriotifm
was grofsly perverted by the Romans,
who were the plagues and fcourges of
mankind, and had transformed their
country into a wicked faction againft
the
the tranquillity and happinefsof the reft
of the world ; while the Jews were fo
partially fond of their own nation,
that they looked upon themfelves as
the only favourites of Heaven, and
were difpofed, in erecting a temporal
kingdom, to bind the other nations in
chain^ and their nobles in fetters of iron,
At fuch a period, it was not expedient
to recommend narrow views. It was,
on the contrary, neceflary to incul-
cate that univerfal benevolence that
could only purify the principles of
patriotifm by oppofmg the progrefs of
ambition, avarice, and luxury, which
had fpread fuch dreadful defolation
and fubverted liberty, juftice, and all
the focial virtues. And, neverthelefs,
the divine founder of chriftianity,
though he did not exprefsly enjoin pa-
triot ifm
[ i88 ]
triotifm by a peculiar and pofitive pre-
cept, gave encouragement to it by his
example. He wept over Jerufalem
under the view of the dreadful cala-
mities that were hanging, like an
awful cloud, over it, in the counfels
of a righteous providence. He felt
the tendereft emotions of humanity for
that devoted nation, directed his zeal-
ous labours to reform the manners of
its inhabitants, and, to make them
happy, offered them his fuccours and
protection, with that natural affection,
that he fo beautifully defcribed by the
pathetick image of a hen, that taketh
her chickens, and covereth them with her
wings.
You treat, Sir, the article of friend-
Jkipy (even though you call it a /#;'//-
ous virtue) with more tendernefs, than
that
that of patriotifm -, and here I fuppofe
the generous feelings of your heart
have modified the harfhnefs of
your fyftem. You are, furely, too
well acquainted with the amiable fym-
pathies of human nature to efteem
lightly a connexion, of which it may
be as truly faid, Cas it has been of an
attachment ftill more tender) that it is
the cordial drop, which Heaven has
thrown into the cup of life to render it
palatable. And yet your notions of
the merit of friendfhip are inaccurate
in the highefl degree. That I may
avoid both confufed ideas and vague
expreflions on this delicate and inter-
efting fubject, it will be proper to de-
termine precifely the nature and pro-
perties of friendfhip ; and then we will
fee whether you have not been fome-
what
[ 190 ]
what rafh in afierting, that, in its ut-
mojl purity, it defer ves no recommen-
dation from chriftianity.
You might have faved yourfelf the
trouble of telling us, that, " if friend-
" mips are formed from alliances in
" parties, factions, and interefts, or
" from a participation of vices, they
" are then both miichievous and cri-
" minal ;" for true friendfhip, and
not its counterfeit, is the object under
confideration. What then is true
friendmip, in its nature, foundations,
in the circumftances that cement it,
and the qualities that attend it ? My
anfwer is,
Friendjhip is a fincere* fervent ', and
permanent union of minds, formed by
mutual affection and efteem, founded
on real worth, and cemented by inti-
mate
[ 9 J
mate acquaint ance^ frequent intercourfe>
exchange of good offices, and fimili-
tude of tafte, temper, and manners :
it is infeparably attended with perfect
candour and unreferved opennefs of
heart, interefts itfelf with quick feel-
ing and ftrong fenfibility in the plea-
fures and pains of its obje<5t,- is raifecl
above all fufpicion and jealoufy, above
every mean and felfifh view, fheds
indulgence upon infirmities and im-
perfections, and, with the greateft
tendernefs and delicacy of affection,
unites the interefts of thofe whom ifi
connects, and makes their joys and
forrows common.
Such, Sir, are the principal and efientiai
lines of true friendfhip. The chriftian,
indeed, muft facrifice the intereftof his
friend to that of his country, and muft
keep
[ 19* J
keep the effufions of friendfhip in fiib-
ordination to the fupreme law of uni-
verfal benevolence. This fhews, that
there are more fublime virtues than'
friend/hip , but it does not prove the
latter to be a fictitious virtue. There
is a variety of virtues conftantly ope^-
rating in the culture of friendfhip,'
fuch as candour, indulgence, bene-
ficence, aud all the characters of cha-
rity, fo beautifully delineated by an
infpired apoftle.
I readily acknowledge, that friend/hip
is lefs an obj eft of precept ihanpatriot-
ifm ; becaufe this latter, in its 'very ef-
fence, is a pofitive branch of univerfal
benevolence ; whereas neither benevo-
lence, nor even benevolence joined
with efteem conftitute wholly die peculiar
nature tf friend/hip. This latter con-
nexion, as it requires a confent and
3 harmony
harmony of minds, and other circum-
ftances already mentioned which are
not always in our power*, cannot be
inculcated as a matter of obligation or
as an efTential duty. But, though this
be a reafon for not making friendfhip
* There are innumerable inftances (as an ex-
cellent moralift obferves) in which perfons may
find/everal among their acquaintance, and in the
fame fphere of life, whom they highly ejleem> but
not one proper to be chofen for a dofe and ///-
mate friend j fo that the recommending private
friendjhip, in the general, muft have been abfurd,
iince it is only a rare and accidental obligation,
dnd never falls in the way of a great part of
mankind. And, befides, fuch a precept might
have been attended with mifchievous effects j
for then the bulk of the world, thinking friend-
fhip a duty of religion, and a neceflary branch
of fublime and heroick virtue, would enter into
ram, unconcerted, and difagreeable alliance?,
which would produce much diforder, c.
O the
[ '94 ]
the object of a pofitive and indifpen-
fable precept, yet it is no reafon for
calling it afflitious virtue \ nor is its
appropriating benevolence to one fin-
gle object, or, at bed, to a fmall
number of objects, a reafon for its not
having been admitted among the pre-
cepts of chriftianity -, for, where the
circumftances,. that give rife to friend-
ihip, take place, all the energies and
effufions of the heart in that amiable
union are moral and benevolent.
I wim, Sir, you had reflected a lit-
tle, before you quoted *, as authority
on this point, the paflage of St. Luke,
where Chrift fays, If you love them-
which love you, what thanks have you ?
forfmners alfo love thofe that- love them.
* .6u
Poes
[ '95 ]
Does this text prove that connexions
of friendfhip have little pretenfions to
merit ? No, Sir, this paffage has no
relation to friend/hip : it regards bene-
ficence and liberality, as every com-
mentator will tell you, and as the
fpirit and connexion of the words evi-
dently (hew. Sinners (by which term
Chrift here manifeftly means, not im-
perfect creatures, but profligates) arc
not fufceptible of friendfhip, whofe
bafis mud be virtue, of whatever ma-
terials the fuperftructure is compofed :
-^-VERA amicitia non nifi inter B NOS.
You have mifunderftood here the
words of Chrift ; but it is fcarcely pof-
fible, that you can mifunderftand his
conduct with refpect to (what you call)
the falfe zi\& fiftiticus virtue now un-
der confederation. Can you give
O z friend-
I *9 6 J
friend/hip thefe epithets, when you fe
fhe DIVINE MAN approaching to the
grave of Lazarus, when you behold
the tears he fhed over it, and when
you attend to the various affecting
circumftances of this tender fcene?
There is fomething more here, than
mere benevolence; and that fometbing
is intrinfically beautiful and engaging.
He, whofe benevolence, was not, like
ours,, limited and confined , He y
who could make the effects of that
benevolence extend to all nations,
and perhaps to all worlds ; He,
neverthelefs, took a tender part in the
more limited charities of human life,
and he confecrated friend/hip by his
perfuafive example. It was thus he
loved Lazarus. Moreover, when
he chofe twelve perfons for his imme-
diate
C 197 1
diate followers, he made one of them
his friend.: and that friend leaned upon
his breaft at the laft fupper, adhered
to him at the tribunal, where Peter
denied him ; and was charged by him,
in his dying moments, with the ten-
der care of his domeftick relations.
3 LETTER
LETTER VL
SIR,
IT is with a fingular pleafure, that
I find myfelf relieved from the irk-
fome tafk of an opponent ; though J
ihall be obliged to refume it, or fome-
thing like it, before I come to the end
of your book. Your excellent ac-
count of the precepts of the gofpel
gives me this relief. Your definitions,
or rather defcriptions, of the virtues
that correfpond with the great object
and end of the chriftian religion are
judicious and fentimentalj they will
force the afient of a good underftand-
ing, but their truth and excellence
will be beft comprehended by the feel-
3
[ '99 ]
ings of a good heart. You have
breathed into thefe defcriptions the
true and genuine fpirit of chriftianity,
and fhewn in them, to man, the true
lines of that immortal character, to
which alone felicity and perfection are
tor can be annexed, in the moral go-
vernment of God.
But, worthy Sir, when oppofite to
<this lovely tablature of chriftian virtue
you place, in contraft, the imperfect
.fyftem of pagan morality, have you
been enough upon your guard againft
exaggerated and delufive colouring ?
Co you not go too far, when you fay*,
*' that the moft celebrated virtues of
;<{ the ancients were high fpirit^ intre-
pid courage, and implacable refent-
* Page 88.
04 " went ?"
[ 20Q ]
" Methinks a flight reading,
even of Cicero's Offices, and the ex-
plication that you will there find of
the four cardinal virtues would have
been fufficient to prevent this fingu-
lar aflerpion. Not that I have fuch
high ideas of the pagan virtues, as
fome entertain ; not that I mean to
compare them with the virtue of the
gofpel, which are much purer in their
principle, and much more noble and
extenfive in their object , but that I
think it hard to take from thofe, who
were lefs favoured than we are, the
little they had. But you aftonifh me,
indeed, when you add*, " that the
" moft celebrated virtues of the pa-
* gans are more oppofite to the fpirit,
* ? 9' 9*.
? and
" and more inconfiftent with the end
" of chriftian morality, than even
'* their mod infamous vices ; and that
c a Brutus and a Cato leave the world
*' more unqualified for, and more in-
" admifllble into the kingdom of hea-
44 ven, than zMeffalina or an Hetioga-
" balus, with all their profligacy about
" them." This is fuch a paradox as
I don't remember to have met with
elfewhere. Brutus (lay you) mur-
dered the oppreflbr of his country:
you ought to have faid killed, until
the murder had been proved : I don't
deny that it was a fort of murder.
However, if murder (in the ufual ac-
ceptation of that word) is then only
committed, when a man takes away
the life of his fellow- creature, from
the impulfe of cruelty, perfonal inte-
refi;
[ 202 ]
reft or lawlefs refentment, the action
of Brutus, which was, or is fuppofed
to have been of a fublick -nature^ in its
motive and object, feems rather to de-
/erve the name of homicide, commit-
ted through political fanaticifm, a
pernicious paflion, indeed, which is
always fubverfive of civil order, though
it does not always denote bad inten-
tion. Political fanaticifm is the fource
of anarchy, as political fuperflition is
the fupport of tyranny. If, however,
in the action of BRUTUS, a zeal for the
REPUBLICK was the predominant mo-
tive, whatever chaftifement his homi-
cide might have deferved from the
-civil magiftrate, it could not pafs for
murder in the eye of the all-feeing
Judge , much lefs ought you |o have
founded upon it a comparifon between
his
[ 203 ]
his moral character and thofe of a
Heliogabalus and a MeiTalina to his
difadvantage. It is well known, that
the private character of Brutus was
mild and amiable ; and it is pretended,
that, by the particular conftitution of
the Roman government, his killing
Csefar was a ftep fufceptible of de-
fence. This, indeed, I don't affirm ,
it is, however, certain, that the point
has been difputed ; but no difpute can
arife about the incapacity of a Mefla-
lina, or of an Heliogabalus, to approach
an abode where purity of heart and
fanclity reign, efpecially if they pre-
tended to enter there with all their pro-
fligacy about them*
For
[ 204 ]
For vice, though to a radiant angel
link'd,
Would face itfelf on a celeftial bed
And prey on garbage.
Shakefpear's Hamlet.
You feem, Sir, to have a great aver-
Con to war, and fo has every man that
has not blunted the precious feelings
of benevolence and humanity: but this
averfion has made you warm, and
your warmth has introduced no fmall
confufion Into your ideas and reafon-
ings : how otherwife could you throw-
out fuch proportions as the following:
" tbofe ivbo are aRuated by valour ', pa-
" triotifm, or honour , may be VIRTU-
' ous, HONEST, and even RELIGIOUS;
" but they cannot be CHRISTIANS."
You, indeed, foon forget this propo-
fition, and tell us, that without cbrif-
tianity
iiartity we can have no religion at #//-*>
JPergis pugnantia [ecum frontibus adverfa
componere : but you will be little
alarmed at this contradiction, fmce
you have (as we (hall fee prefently)
made a difcovery in dialedicks, even
this, that contradictory proportions may
be true .- this difcovery annihilates the
Icience, and,, with it, all the founda-
tions of truth and certainty ; but it
feems there is no help for that : and
we have nothing left, but to call out
wkh the poet, quantum eft in rebtes
INANE ?
To return to the poor pagans, you
are flill more hard upon thern, than
the ardent and orthodox bifliop of
Hippo. He called their virtues fplendid
fins ; you place them on a level with
the mod infamous vises \ but then you
make
[ 206 .]
make fome amends for this hafty deci-
fion, and tell us *, that men, attuated
by them, may be virtuous, honeft,
and even religious : you, however, af-
firm, that they cannot be chriftians,
though you charitably grant, that this
title may belong to the vicious and
profligate. You acknowledge, indeed*
that the profligate man is a bad chrif-
tian, and why not allow the patriot
and the man of honour, at leaft, the
fame privilege ? " Becaufe", fay you,
* l a man -f , whofe ruling principle is
" honour>
* P. 94, 95-
-f- Mr. Jenyns ought to have faicl, " a man
" who is aftuated by honour." This was the
exprefikm ufed in the beginning of the argu-
ment, and it conveys an idea different from that
which we attach to the terms ruling principle ;
the
" honour, erefts a ftandaru of duty,
< diametrically oppofite to the whole
" tenor of the chriftian religion." If
honour is fought by virtuous and piou*
deeds, this aflertion is not true, at
Jeaft, it is not accurate; if it is fought
by rapine, faction, or bloodfhed, it is
falfe honour* m& your propofition beats
the wind. Befides no man ever
creeled honour as zftandard (by which
I fuppofe you mean a criterion or a
principle) of duty. Honour is the con-
fequence and not the principle of duty :
it is the tribute of approbation or
applaufe that is beftowed by fpeclators
upon generous, virtuous, and, with
the former is particular, the latter is irnverfal.
A man may be afiuated by a fenfe of honour,
without its being his ruling principle in the con--
duft of life.
your
t 208 ]
your leave, upon chriftian deeds. Iri
this point of view, it is one of the
good things of a prefent life, and, if
St. Paul is not miftaken, it will take
place, in the pureft and nobleft fcenes
of future exiftence, when eternal life
fhall be adminiftered to thofe, who,
by a patient continuance in well- doing,
feek for glory, HONOUR, and immorta-
lity *. But if you will perfift to com-
bat, under the name of honour, that
vain-glory and thofe fplendid titles,
that are acquired by rapine and law-
lefs bloodfhed, your abufe of language,
which naturally introduces confufion
of ideas, muft appear reprehenfible to
every judicious reader.
* Rom. ii. 7.
Thus,
r 209 ]
Thus, Sir, have I gone through
your three proportions, with alternate
feelings of pleafure and pain, arifing
from the fingular mixture of piety, wit,
error, wifdom, and paradox, that
they exhibit to an attentive obferver.
There is a glare in the whole, that
may dazzle the unwary , and this effect
it hath produced on a multitude of
readers, if I have not been greatly
mifinformed. And it is furely to be
lamented, that, after having faid, in
one-moment, the moft excellent things
in defence of chriftianity, and tbat
alfo in the moft elegant, original,
and affecting manner, you throw out,
in another, the ftrangeft reprefenta-
tions of the fpirit and genius of that
divine religion.
P But
[ 210 ]
But I haften to your coNCLusioif
and this fhall be the fubjeft of my
laft letter.
LETTER
1 211 ]
LETTER VII.
S I R,
TH E firft eighteen pages of your
CONCLUSION contain an excel-
lent fummary of, what I would call,
, the prefumptive evidence of the chrifti-
an religion. You have reduced it to
a narrow compafs ; you have ex-
preffed , it with perfpicuity, warmth,
and elegance i and, if your VIEW
had ended here, the candid reader
would have rifen from its perufal,
with a lively fenfation of conviction,
that would have made him forget ma-
ny of the things that ftaggered him in
the preceding parts of your book.
But you proceed farther and, bring-
P l ing
[ * 3
ing us back into the cloudy region of
paradox, you lofe the ground you had
fairly gained. You refemble an over-
warm general, who, after having won
the field, purfues injudicioufly his ene-
my on difadvantageous ground, and
is thus expofed to fee his laurels wither
in a moment, or, at leaft, Jofe much
of their bloom. Such is, I fear, your
cafe, in fome of the anfwers you give
to the deiftical objeftor. You enable
a vanquiflied enemy to return to the
combat ; you even fometimes put
weapons into his handj and, though
thefe advantages will not enable him
to regain the field, they will ftill keep
him flickling and fkirmifhing, and
give him a certain air of confequence
in the eye of the fuperficial obferver of
things. In plain Englifb, Sir, your
manner
f 213 ]
manner of anfwering the objections of
unbelievers will often tend to multiply
the cavils which deifm draws from
incidental objects, and thus perplex
the feeble minds of we'll-meaning chriL
tians.
It has been alledged by unbelievers,
that " all revelation from God is incre-
" dible, becaufe unmceffary^ and un-
" neceflary, becaufe the reafon he be-
" flowed upon mankind is fufficiently
*' able to difcover all the religious and
*' moral duties, which he requires of
" them, if they would but attend to
" their precepts, &c" *. Such ob-
jectors have been told a thoufand times,
that the fufficiency of that reafon, of
which they boaft, is owing to the
* P. 115.
P 3 ftrength
ftrength it has, in fact, derived from
divine revelation. Like the wifeacre,
who thought the fun ufelef?, becaufe
it fhines only when we are favoured
with the light of the day> they enjoy
many rays both of intellectual and
moral knowledge, of which they ftu-
pidly or perverfely difavow the prin-
cipal fource. But fince we know from
whence they have obtained the prin-
ciples of their religious knowledge,
and know this not by conjecture, but
by daily obfervation , fince we know,
that they have learned from their
cradles, under chriftian teachers, both
in private and publick, the unity of
God, the doctrine of repentance, re-
mifiion, and immortality : fince we
know, that the doctrines and precepts
of chriftiamty have been blended and
inter-
[ "5 ]
interwoven with the early growth of
their reafon, and the gradual improve-
ment of their faculties ; fince, I fay,,
we know all this, the true way of go-
ing to work with the clafs of objectors,
now under confideration, is evident
and plain : we have only to call upon
them to prove, that they would have
had day-light^ if there had been no fun :
and that they and the body of the
people would have acquired a com-
plete knowledge of religious and mo-
ral duties, without the gofpel.
It is not poflible for me to demon-
flrate, nor even to prove, that a pea-
fant cannot find out the longitude with-
out fuccour : but, if the peafant pre-
tends that he is equal to the under-
taking, it lies upon him to prove that
he is fo. The cafe is quite parallel to
P 4 that
that implied in the objection before
us. It is incumbent upon the deifts
to prove, that, without the gofpeli
they and the various inhabitants of
the chriftian world would have arrived
at the fame degree of knowledge, both
religious and moral, that we thisday en-
joy. This they never have proved:
this they never reprove : and yet, until
they prove this,, their objection to reve-
lation, as incredible, beczufeunneceffary,
muft have no weight, but to demon -
ftrate their ingratitude and prefump-
tion.
Pardon me, Sir, for rectifying your
argument: it was quite neceffary for
the true defence of our common caufe
to take this liberty. For your anfwer
to the objection, as it ftands at pre-
fent, will expofe you to much cavilling
and
[ 217 ]
and chicane, nay, to fome embararTment
from the quarter of infidelity. When
you defire the objector * " to turn his
" eyes to thofe remote regions of the
" globe to which fupernatural affift-
** ance has never been extended, and
" tell him that he will fee there men\
* ; endued with fenfe and reafon not ;'-
'* ferior to cur own> fo far from being
** capable of forming fyftems of reafoa
" and morality, that they are this day
ct totally unable to make a nail or A
" hatchet-" and when hence you con-
clude (from particular to univerfal)
*' that reafon alone is neither fufficient
" to offer to mankind a perfect reli-
" gion, nor even to lead them to any
" degree of civilifationj" when you
* P. 1 1 6.
[ 218 ]
thus premife and thus conclude, do you
think the objector will be fiient ? Na
fuch thing He will tell you, that it
is not true, that thefe men, who are
unable to make a nail or a hatchet, are
endued with fenfe and reafon net in-
ferior to ours. He will tell you, that
their fenfe and reafon may be fimilai'
in their nature to ours, though differ-
ent, greatly different, in their degree
even of original capacity, activity, and
penetration, fince there is an immenfe
variety in the works of God, and
whole claffes of the fame fpecies may
differ from each other in the degrees
of original capacity and genius, as in-
dividuals are known to do. The deift
will moreover tell you that, if your
reafoning be good, NEWTON and
LA CAILLE muft have been mathe-
maticians
[ 2*9 1
rhaticians and aftronomers by divine-
revelation, fmce the inhabitants of
Otaheite and New Zealand, whofe fenfe
and reafon (in your eftimation) are not
inferior to their s^ have never approached
the fimpleft elements either of mathe-
mattcks or aftronomy. There are, cer-
tainly, in this our globe, vifible marks
of *#^r/ original capacities in different
nations, which neither chriftianity, nor
repeated attempts towards civilifation
and culture, have been able to remove j
and this is too palpable to need any
proof. I don't therefore fee how, by
your manner of dating the argument,
you can get rid of this reply to your
anfwer.
To have urged with fuccefs the argu-
ment in favour of chriftianity, drawrr
from the ignorance and errors (in reli-
[ 120 1
glous matters) of thofe nations that
enjoyed no divine revelation, you
ought to have taken a different me-
thod. Inftead of reiling your proof
on the Hate of thofe' barbarous nations
who are placed on the very lowed line
in the fcale of humanity, you ought
to have begun by Egypt, Greece, and
Rome, the feats of learning and arts.
You fay, indeed*, " that human rea-
" fonin its higheft ftate of cultivation,
** among the philofophers of Greece
" and Rome, was never able to form
*' a religion comparable to chrifti-
" anity j" but this is faying the thing
very feebly : it is only mewing a fmall
part of the truth : it is pafling rapidly
over the mod glaring facts, that (hew,-
* P. 122.
with
I 221 ]
with d. blazte of evidence, the inefti-
mable advantages of the chriftian reli-
gion. You ought to have (hewn that
the progrefs of religious and moral
knowledge, in thefe nations, bore no
fort of proportion to their improvements
in civiiifation, literature, eloquence,
and the ufeful and elegant arts of life :
fo far from it, that the faireft afpects
of human fcience were degraded by a
motley mixture of the mod difgufting
forms of idolatry and fuperftition *.
You
* Some writers (fays Mr. Hume) have been
furprifed, that the impieties of Ariftophanes mould
have been publickly afted and applauded by the
Athenians ; a people fo fuptrftitious and fo jea-
lous of the publick religion, that, at that very
time, they put Socrates to death for his ima-
gined incredulity. But thefe writers (continues
he) confider not, that the ludi<rout familiar
[ 222 ]
You ought to have (hewn- them altars
raifed to the unknown God, ftatues
regarded as endued with divine power,
images, under which the gods are reprefented
by that comick poet, inftead of appearing im-
pious, were the genuine lights, in which the an-
cients conceived their divinities. See HUME'S
Nat. Hijt. of Religion, %vo edit. 1757.
It is here worthy of obfervation, that there is
perhaps no book more adapted to fhew the un-
fpeakable advantages of a divine revelation, than
this. The accounts we find here of the horrid
and ludicrous reprefentations of the deity, that
prevailed in the moft learned nations of the pa-
gan world, arefo ftriking, that a thinking mind,
-anxious about its deltination, and defirous of an
objecl of confidence adapted to fecure its felicity,
uft rejoice in thofe views of an omnipotent,
wife, good, and merciful Being, whom chrifti-
anity exhibits to its faith and improved reafon,
as a protector, a father, and a guide, through
Jife, death, and a boundlefs duration,
religious
religious fervices confederated to vices
in that very city, where Solon gave
laws, where Socrates taught philofo-
phy, where Plato and Xenophon dif-
played the treafiires of their mailer's
wifdom ; where Sophocles and Euri-
pides compofed their tragedies, and
where Phidias made the marble breathe
life, character, and beauty in their
moft fublime and graceful forms.
Plain fact would have here (lopped
the mouth of the objector, much more
effectually than your general and in-
accurate aflertions, that " reafon> even
*' when furnijhed with materials by fu-
*' pernatural aid, if left to the guidance
" of ber own wild imaginations *, falls
" into more numerous and more grofs
* The imaginations of rea/on is a very ftrange
exprelTion.
** errors,
w errors, than her own native igno-
" ranee could have .fuggefted ; that
" me perfuaded fome that there is no
" God , others that there can be no fu-
" ture (late j that (he has taught fome
" that there is no difference between
*' virtue and vice ; and that to cut a
"marts throat and relieve his nece/tties
" are actions equally meritorious *,
*' &c." Dear Sir, if fuch is the cha-
charader of REASON, and if, as you
add, Jht can foew.y that, " there is
" nothing in anything," and "prove
" by recurring to firft principles that there
" are no principles at ail/' I really
think fhe ought to be burnt for a
xvitch, and that we mould give our-
felves over tamely to the Leviathan, to
P. 120.
tell
tell us, by the potent voice of autho-
rity, what is right and what is wrong,
in philofophy and religion, as well as
in politicks. But you would have
done better if you had not confounded
falfe reafoning, which alone can lead
to all thefe abfurdities, with the fa-
culty of reafon, which is the candle of
the Lord in the breaft of man.
This candle, indeed, had its light
obftructed in the pagan world, by
mifts of ignorance ; and, more efpeci-
ally, in the article of religion, falfe
lights were held forth by the pafilons
and prejudices of men, and the mife-
rable inventions of political prieft-
craft.
It is truly ftrange to fee fuch reli-
ligious non-fenfe, fuch childifli opini-
ons, confecrated by publick authority
and
[ 226 ]
and private devotion, amidft fuch dif-
plays of genius, activity, and tafte, in
the advancement of arts and fciences.
The chriftian peafant, who knows thar
his God is one, eternal, without body,
limits, or vifible reprefentation, that
he-loves order, loves his creatures, will
pardon the fins of the penitent and fin-
cere, and make them, after this ftate of
pafTage, partakers of happinefs and.
immortality, knows more of religion*
than all the difciples of Socrates, and
has .more clear and confident notion s
of the Deity than Socrates himfeif..
If this peafant, with his prefent por-
tion of knowledge, fmall as it may
be, could be fuppofed to have exifted
at Athens, when Epimenides was let-
ting look his white and black fheep at
the Areopagus, to direct the Atheni-
ans where they mould facrifice Or,
when.
vrhen this wife Areopagus condemned
Stilpo to banilhmcnc for denying that
the Minerva of Phidias was a real god,
he would have burft out into a loud
laugh. All this fhews, that Athens
was the ground you ought to have
chofen for your ftand to repel the ob-
jection under confideration, by (hew-
ing that progrefs in the faiences and
arts is compatible with the grofleft ig-
norance in religion, and therefore,
that the gofpel might be highly ad-*
vantageous, even where natural reafon
was in its greatcft improvement.
But, indeed, you could not well
make ufe of this ground, nor ftate
the argument in this manner; for,
according to your notion of things,
the Athenians were not even philofo-
phers, hiftoria-ns, poets, legiflarors,
a and
[ 228 J
and artifts, without the fuccours de>
rived either immediately, or in a
more remote manner, from divine re-
velation. This feems to be evidently
your opinion, when you afTert *, that,
" though human reafon is capable of
" progreffion. in fcience y yet the firft
" foundations muft be laid by fuper-
" natural inftruflions" This is truly
a fingular aflertion : nee Deus interfjt r
wfi digyiu* vindice nodus? is a wife max-
im,, which you feem to have entirely
forgot. Wants, obfervation, experi-
ence, genius, time, occafion, and cir-
tfumftances are fufficient to account
both for the rife and progrefs of hu-
man fcience in all periods of the
world. It is true, that the chriftian
religion gave occafion to the improve-
ment of fome branches of fcience,
* Page *i8.-
Whca
[ 22 9 3
When fuch grand truths, as the unity
and eternity of God, the remiffion cff;n
by a Mediator^ the refttrreRion and im-
mortality of reafonable beings, were re-
vealed as/tf^j, they naturally excited,
in thinking minds, a curiofity to know
the foundations, which fuch f^Jls
might have in die nature of God, the
nature of man, and the nature of
things. Hence metaphy(kal fcience
undoubtedly derived .new degrees of
improvement and precifion. The man-
ner alfo in which the divin promifes,
with refpedt to the future deftination
of man, might be accomplimed, was
a natural objedr, of philofophical en-
quiry, and thus the gofpel opened to
human curiofity large fields of fpecu-
lation, which have both improved xhe
powers of the mind, and tended to
0.3 the
[ 230 ]
the advancement of moral and meta-
phyfical fcience -, but it is, neverthe-
lefs, true, that all human fciences may
have been, nay, were actually culti-
vated in a certain degree, without the
intervention of fupernatural inftruc-
tic:., to which fource it is impofiible
to trace them with any meafure of
hiftorical evidence, that is fatisfactory
or flriking. You fay, that there is
no reafon to be affigned, why one part
of mankind mould *have made fuch an
amazing progrefs in knowledge, while
the other, formed with the SAME na-
tural capacities? mould remain in a
flate little fuperior to the brutes,
" except that the firft have received
** divine communications, and the
** latter have never yet been favoured
" with
t *3 3
*< with fuch afllftance *." But it re
denied, that the nations which live
without government, letters, or laws,
have the fame natural capacities which
the others are endowed with, and it
v/ill be ever impoffible to prove that
they have. I repeat it again, as there
'is a ftriking difference between the ori-
.ginal genius and capacity of -individu-
als in one nation, fo there may be,
and no doubt is a diverfky,of the fame
kind between nations. Every appear-
ance is in favour of this diverfity :
repeated obfervation and experience
confirm it ; fo that your reafoning is
built upon a circumftance which ap-
pears to be falfe, and which you never
can prove to be true. This diverfity
* P. 119.
Q 4 feems
[ *32 3
Teems to be the pofuive appointment
of divine providence : it enters as an
efTential part in that plan of govern-
ment in which variety of beings, ca>
pacities, characters, and talents, re-
duced to unity of defign, will be feen
one day to terminate in univcrfal
beauty, fymmetry, and perfection.
So that, Sir, we may account for
the diverfity that is vifible in the in-
tellectual and moral (late of different
nations, for the improvements of fome
in knowledge, policy, legiflation, and
commerce, and the favage {cupidity
and ignorance of others, without hav-
ing any recourfe to the diftinctions
formed by fupernatural inftrudion,
granted to fome and not vouchfafed
to the reft. A diverfity of original
'capacity will folvc the : problem fuffici-
ently,
[ 233 ]
ently, as far as the phenomenon to be
explained relates to human knowledge,
and to the arts and fciences which
have for their objecls the embellifh-
ment and improvement of human fo-
ciety, by fources of pleafure, or ob-
jeds of utility. The cafe with reli-
gious knowledge is different : and
therefore, having granted to your
deift, whom you had brought to
Athens, inftead of Otaheite, that
thefe elegant and learned Grecians
owed all their improvements to the
culture of their reafon, you might
have aiked him, whence, amidft this
improvement of reafon, proceeded the
abfurdity of their theological opinions ?
He mud anfwer, from the iveaknefs
or alufe of reafon , for there is no other
poffible anfwer to be given. Grant-
ing
[ *. J
ang the abufe of reafon, rerelatibn
muft be efleemcd at leaft advantage-
ous -, granting its weaknefs t revela-
tion muft be allowed to-be necefiary.;
and thus, in both cafes, the objection,
now before us, falls to the ground.
I am, however, perfuaded (and
here, no doubt, you and I agree)
that, with refpect to a juft idea of the
object of religion, the vseaknefs of rea-
fon is as demonftrable, as the ill
*jfe that has been made of it. And if
a deift, acknowledging the abvafe of
natural reafon in the pagan world,
\vhich is a faL> fliiould, neverthelefs,
jnfift upon its capacity of arriving,
without the affiftance of revelation, at
<juft potions of the fupreme Being,
and of religious duty, which is a quel-
liun of tbzcry> I would addrcfs myfelf
19
t *35 1
to the gentleman, in pretty much the
following terms :
1 fee reafon making great improve-
ments in human fciencc, whofe ob-
jects are, in a certain degree within our
reach as vifible, or tangible, or know-
able by obfervation, confcioufnefs, or
experience. The mind, pofieffed of
leifure, may derive, from the contem-
plation of thefe objects, fucceffive dif-
coveries of their properties, connexi-
ons, and influence, and thus the mafs
of intellectual acquifitions may be go-
ing on towards the formation of a fyf-
tem. But as to divine knowledge or
the knowledge of the fupreme Being,
in his nature and perfections, as he is-
in himfelf, and in his relation to us,
and his defigns with refpect to our
prefent ftate and future deftination,
i the
the cafe is fomewhat different. This
great Being is not the direct object of
any faculty of perception, nor does he
rcfemble any thing that' is fo. Men
might have rifen to fome notion of
fuperior power from the fyftem of na-
ture both phyfical and moral ; bat
whether this power was lodged in one
being, or in many, was not fo eafily to
be aicertained, and flill more does it
appear beyond the reach of unaiTifted
reafon to ftretch its conception to the
nature and qualities of an abfolutely.
perfect mind. Pure fpirituality, om-
nifcience, omniprefence, and omnipo-
tence, and their aftoniihing fource,
necefiary exiftence, are. not commen-
furate to the human, faculties. Sam-
ples of wifdom, power, and gocdnefs,
.exhibited in the works of nature, and
in the courfe of events, le,ad men to
attri-
C 237 I
attribute thefe qualities to the Author
of nature ; but the various and COIT-
trary events of life, the mixture of
evil with good in this imperfect ftate,
gave rife, through human ignorance
and error, to motley fyftems of poly-
theifm and idolatry. Though the or-
der and frame of the univerfe, when
accurately examined, afford an argu-
ment that ought to lead a rational
mind to the pure principles of natural
religion, and carry it through the vaft
interval which is interpofed between
the divine and human nature, yet they
did not produce this effect in the moft
enlightened nations of paganifm : and
this mews that fupernatural inftruclion
was mcejfary to fhew us what God />,
what he requires of us for the prefect,
and what Y.re his dejigns with refpecl to
our future condition in the univerfe.
But
But, when we talk of the chriftian
revelation as nectjjary, we mean by
this, that it is a difpenfation of divine
wifdom, without which we would not
have enjoyed that meafure of know-
ledge with which we are actually
blefled, thofe guides to duty that di-
rect our conduct, nor thoie views of
futurity that purify, confole, and en-
noble the mind. The end of Chrift's
mifiion was to raife one part of the
human race to a high and diftinguimed
degree of perfection and felicity. But
it was not the defign of the Deity to
raife all mankind to this degree, any
more than it was his intention that all
men mould become pbilofopbers. The
fact proves this demonftrably : the
nations that have not been vifited by
the gofpel, and the generations that
have
have pafied through- this flage- of Iiu-
manity before the light of the gofpeli
arofe on the world, had their fpheres-
and their deitination unknown to us ;.
they were lefs favoured than the chrif-
tian, as the chriftian is lefs perfect thaiv
the angels, and the angels than the
feraphims. BUD was the Deity to create
no order of beings but feraphims ?
Ghriftianity feems not to have been ne-
ceffary, becaufe not adapted to the
fpbere of the Hottentot, nor even to-
other nations lefs uncultivated and.
barbarous. But it was necefTary to
moral improvement and faving know-
ledge in that fphere of beings to
which it has been vouchfafed, and
thofe, who (hut voluntarily their eyes
on its divine luftre, will be called to.
an account, wfiich will not be required
trom thofc that are placed lower in the
fcale
[ 2 4 ]
fcale of being. Different fpheres of
beings and degrees of perfection were
(as it would teem, and as lias been al-
ready obferved) necefTary to the order
and perfection of the univerfal fyftem;
but, in every fphere which enters into
that fyftem, the lot of the individual
muft be determined by the means he
has enjoyed and his improvement or
negleH of them. This will, one day,
leave the children of infidelity under
the light of the gofpel, without ex-
cufe, and, it is to be feared, without
confolation, wb'dcwiftbm will bejujli-
jied of HER children, by their faith
and hope in this temporary ftate of
trial, and by their approaching re-
moval to a nobler fcene of activity
and enjoyment.
POST-
C 241 ]
POSTSCRIPT.
THOUGH there are feveral
things exceptionable in your
anfwers to other deiftical objections,
which have been propofed and refuted
times without number, yet I (hall
here curb the fpirit of criticifm ; for
to have been fo long fcuffling in po-
lemicks is a thing very foreign to my
turn of mind. It was my principal
intention, in thefe letters, to confider,
what you had advanced with refpect
to the internal evidence of chriftianity.
You have already my fentiments on
that fubject delivered with franknefs
and candour.
R I can-
[ 2 4 2 ]
I cannot, however, take my leave
of you, Sir, without a few remarks on
your manner of anfwering the fecond
and fifth objections brought by the
deifts againft the divine origin and au*
ihority of the gofpel.
My reafon for this is, that the-
manner, in which you anfwer the
one, diminifhes the weight of moral
evidence-, and the principle, on which
you repel the other, is fubverfive, I
fear, of all evidence whatever.
The firft of thefe objections is de-
rived from the fuppofed errors, varia-
tions, and contradictions, that are to
be found in the books of the Old and
New Teftament. There are few ob-
jections againft chriftianity,-that have
been anfwered in a more fatisfactory
manner than this has been ; and you
have
have alledged feveral judicious confi-
derations to deftroy its force, particu-
larly, with refpect to thofe philofophi-
cal errors that have been admitted
into common converfation in confe-
quence of popular opinion, and which
muft be always adopted in a language
that is addrefled to the generality of
mankind. As to the variations and
contradictions that have been charged
upon the facred writers, they have
been difingenuoufly exaggerated from
the quarter of infidelity ; fuch, how-
ever, as they are, they are fufficient
to make the apologifts for chriftianity.
more prudent and circumfpec~l in de*
termining the extent of divine infpira-
tion, than they have generally been ;
and the learned and judicious Dr. War*
fon has exhibited a laudable example
R 2 of
[ 24+ ]
of this circumfpection in his mafterly
anfvver to Mr. Gibbons. He has
flruck wifely into the middle path;
but I fear, Sir, that you have run in-
to an extreme on this delicate fubject,
or, at leaft, gone, farther than is ne-
ceflary, to avoid the inconveniencies
that attend the hypothefis of certain
doctors, with refpectto the infpiration
of the facred writers. You maintain,
that " the truth of a revelation is not
* e affected by the fallibility of thofe
" who wrote its hiftory *." But this-
afiertion cannot be admitted as a gene-
ral principle : its truth depends upon
the degree of fallibility in the hiftorian,
and upon the objects to which it ex-
tends : becaufe, however true a reve-
* P. 123.
lation-
iation may be in itfelf> i. e. with re-
fpeft to the perfons who have imme-
diately received it, it cannot be true t
with refpedt to you and me, or, in
other words, we cannot be perfuaded
of its truth, -but by our conviction of
the accuracy and fidelity of thofe,
who relate it , and this accuracy and
fidelity cannot be fully afcertained,
but by fuch a fuperintendent infpira-
tion, at lead, as fecures the hiftorian
againft all effential error. You affirm,
-that the truth of a revelation (i. e. the
certainty of its divine origin) depends
upon the internal evidence of its own
fupernatural excellence ; this point, I
hope, has been already fufficiently
tiifcufled in the preceding letters.
But you go ftill farther, and boldly
.affirm, that this internal evidence in
R 3 favour
[ 246 ]
favour of chriftianity would not be
diminilhed, even on the fuppofition,
" that all the prophecies were only
<c fortunate gueffes or artful applications,
" all the miracles of the gofpel lc-
* gendary tales, (i. e. lyes) and all the
c< books of fcripture, inflead of being
** written by their pretended authors,
" posterior impofitionson illiterate and
* credulous ages *." What ! Sir,
could perfons, notorious for lying and
forgery, have been really cloathed
with a divine miffion ? Befides, had
the books of fcripture been forged in
later ages, and their authors been ca-
pable of fraud and fiction, the mora-
lity of the gofpel, alone, could have
pretended to the characters of a reve-
P. 131.
a Jation
247 ]
htion on account of its intrinfick
beauty and excellence ; but all the ac-
counts of Jefus fuffering, dying, and
exalted, all the promifes and facts,
recorded in the gofpel, muft have been
fufpeded as falfe and fabulous ; and
what, then, would your internal evi-
dence prove ? You infift again, " that
*' a religion fuperior to all human
<c imagination actually exifts, and its
" intrinfical excellence is a proof of
11 its divine origin, by whatever means
** it was introduced, or with whatever
" errors it was blended * j" I muft
alfo beg leave to tell you again, that
this religion confifts of fafls, as well
as precepts j that the facts are afcer-
tained by veracity, as the precepts are
P'lSZ, "33
R 4 recom-
[ 2 4 8 ]
recommended by their intrinfick exr
cellence, and the new authority they
derive from the truth of the facts,
which declare Chrift to have been the
Son of God ; and that your proof of
the divine origin of chriftianity is ap-
plicable to its precepts alone. If the
facts are fabulous, the precepts may
be excellent, but they cannot come
recommended by a fupernatural com-
miffion.
When you fay, that, " if the (lory
" of Chrift's temptation, and feveral
<e other narrations of the New Tefta-
" ment were pious frauds, this would
c not affect the excellence of chrifti-
*' anity, nor the authority of its foun-
*' der * i" you fay the moft impru-
* P. 125.
dent
dent thing imaginable: for, if one mi-
racle, pofitively related, be falfe, by
what criterion will you convince us,
that the others are true ? If the evan-
gelifts tell us ftories, when they fay,
that Chrift caft (or cured men of)
daemons, what fecurity have we for
their having fpoken the truth, when
they tell us, that he arofe from the
dead ? Now, if Chrift did not rife
from the dead, whatever the excel-
lence of his doctrine or precepts may
be) our faith is "Jain, (i. e. without a
foundation) St. Paul has declared
this in exprefs terms: he refts the
truth of chriftianity on this fingle fact.
But on your hypothefis (whofe
confequences certainly you did not
attend to) this fact might be falfe, and
yet chriftianity might be true ; I did
not
,not think that there was fucb great
faith as tkis in all England.
Your anfwer, Sir, to the fifth ob-
jection is ft ill more reprehenfible, than
the conceffions you make in your re-
ply to the fecond ; becaufe, as I have
faid above, and mean now to prove,
it ftrikes at the foundation of all evi-
dence whatever. This objection againft
the divine authority of the gofpel is,
as you ftate it, founded upon * " the
** incredibility of fome of its doc-
* trines, particularly thofe of the
" Trinity and atonement for fin by the
** fuflferings of Chrift, the one contra-
*' dicing all the principles of human
*< reafon, and the other all our ideas of
& Divine juftice." If one of thefe
doctrines
doctrines centradi&s all the principle*
of human reafon, and che other, all our
ideas of divine juftice, it is as impofli-
ble for us to believe them, in our
character of reafonable beings, as it is
to believe, that twice two makes five,
or that an action may be juft and un-
juft at the fame time and in the fame
circumftances j for every propofition,
that evidently contraditts the principles
of reafon, is equivalent to the two now-
mentioned. You don't feem, Sir, to
have apprehended this, when you ex-
prefs yourfelf in the following man-
ner : " That three beings mould be
*' one is a propofition which certainly
" contradicts reafon, that is, our rea-
" fon ; but it does not from thence
** follow, that it cannot be true V*
* P. i 60.
NQ,
No, really? How in the name of won-
der can it be poffibly true, that three
beings may be one being, if the term
being 'bears the fame fenfe in the fub-
je5l and attribute of this propofition ?
Three beings can never be one being,
but on the'fuppofition that one fignifies
three, if the term being keeps its
meaning : and, if you fhift the mean-
ing of the term, you only quibble, and
make merry with your readers. If
the propofition, in queflion, be true
to any intelligence in the univerfe,
without changing the ideas attached
to the terms, a thing may be and
KOI be at the fame time, and thus that
great and fundamental axiom, that is
the root of all truth and all evidence,
is plucked up at once, to the great
confolation of the fceptical tribe, and
the
[ *53 J-
the eternal confufion of all ideas and all
knowledge. If you had been con-
tented with faying, that a propofitio
may furpafs the comprehenfion of our
reafoning or judging faculties, and yes
be true, you would have faid what
every one mufl allow. In fuch a cafe>
the terms of the propofition convey to
us no ideas, or confufed ideas, be-
caufe the clear ideas, that might be an-
nexed to them by fuperior beings, are
not commenfurate to cur faculties of
perception ; and, as we are thus inca>-
pable of underftanding the terms' of
the propofition, we cannot judge of
their connexion or difagreement as
fitbjefl and attri&ute.-'-'But when it is
affirmed, that a propofition contraditts
reafon, or (if you pleafe) our reafon y
it is fuppofed evidently, that the terms
o
r *54 i
of the proportion are underftood, th$
ideas they convey perceived, other-
\vife we could not decide, whether
they contradicted our reafon or not.
Now, in fuch a cafe, thefe terms cannot
contradict our reafon, but by contra-
dicting each other and, when this
happens, the proportion is falfe in the
nature of things. It is not, Sir, for
your fatisfaclion, but for that of fuch
grown gentlemen and ladies as may
look into thefe letters, without any
previous knowledge of logical difcuf-
fions, that I fhall illuftrate this reafon-
ing by a familiar example. Suppofe
a man mould utter this fentence, a
SQUARE /#rtf is a CIRCLE : this pro-
pofition does not furpafs my reafon,
but contradicts it ; that is, the idea
of a Jquare deftroys the idea of a
tir cle y and, on the other hand, the
idea
r r 55 i
idea of a circle deftroys that ofafquare,
and therefore the propofition, being
affirmative, is falfe in the nature of
things, or, in other words, by the
clear perception I have of the un-
changeable nature and properties of
thefe two figures. And, indeed, Sir,
when we fay, that a propofition con-
tradicts reafon, we neither mean by
this term cur reafon, nor the reafon of
any other being, but the nature of
things. It is in this fenfe that reafon
is always taken in fuch propofitions ;
and in this fenfe of the term there is>
but ONE reafon in the univerfe, as-
there is but ONE truth, ONE jujlice^
ONE moral goodnefs, and fo on.
What I have faid here, concerning:
the contradictory terms of one propo-
fuion, is equally true,, with refpect to*
two*
two contradictory propofitions, of
which by the unchangeable rules of
right reafoning one always muft be true
and the other falfe. This confideration
will ever prevent rational divines (a
clafs of men whom the deifts treat often
rudely for reafons eafily to be guefied)
from defending the doctrine of the
holy Trinity upon this erroneous prin-
ciple, li that what is contradictory to our
*' reafon may be true neverthelefs."
The fcripture no-where fays,- that
there are three Gods ; if it did, there
would be a palpable contradiction in
thefe divine oracles, which fo often
declare that there is but one. It is in
conformity, therefore, with this un-
changeable principle, even unity of
eflence in the Deity, that we muft
underftand all the paflages, where the
term
[ 257 ]
term God is attributed exprefsly or
virtually to the Son and to the Holy
Ghoft. But chiefly it will ever be the
care of modeft wifdom to avoid all
explication of a doctrine fo profound,
and whofe terms convey ideas entirely
beyond our conception. It is only,
then, that this dodrine contradicts
reafon, when it is prefumptuoufly ex-
plained, as if the terms and ideas, it
comprehends, were commenfurate to
our capacity. When the interpreters
of fcripture have faid, that there mud
be a certain union between Father, Son,
and Holy Ghoft, which lays a foun-
dation for afcribing to the two latter
the names, titles, attributes, and
works, which are elfewhere appropri-
ated to the one only true God, they
have faid all that can be offered upon
S the
t 358 ]
the fubject, and all farther difqtiifiti-
ons, whether metaphyfical or phU
lological, relating to it, muft always
end in froth. Such refearches are no
more than lofs of time, which would
be better employed in the improve-
ment of ufeful knowledge, and the ad-
vancement of practical religion. The
belief of fuch an union between Fa-
ther, Son, and Holy Ghoft is not
contradictory to reafon, becaufe there
is no axiom or tenet in philofophy, no
doctrine of fcripture, which are in-
compatible with its exiftence. But
the belief of the manner of this union
or its nature is impoffible, becaufe we
have no terms that can exprefs it with
accuracy, nor has the fcripture given
us one fingle ray of light in this mat-
ter. Its author knew too well the li-
3 mics
mits of human underftanding to fpeak
of founds to the deaf^ or of colours
to the blind. But certain doctors have
audacioufly attempted to explain
what the infpired writers confidered
as beyond the extent of their com-
mifiion, and you feem to know, Sir,
very well, what the caufe and fpirit of
religion have fuffered by the contro-
verfies which their fpeculations have
excited in the chriftian world.
Accordingly you diftinguifli wifely,
with refpect to a Trinity in the divine
nature, between the faft and the man-
ner. Yet, I rather wilh, Sir, you had
not faid, that " the union of three
" beings in the divine eflence is a
" propofition as plain, as that three
" equilateral LINES compofe one trian-
S 2 "le*-".
[ 260 ]
" gle * ;" for here you begin to ex-
plain ; fmce, however you had a
mind to explain, you fhould rather
have fa id, that, THREE equilateral tri-
angles (and not lines}, compofe ONE tri-
angle i as nothing lefs will fatisfy thofe
who take their explications of this
doctrine from* a certain oracle. It is
true, that, by this,- you would have
illuftrated the myftery in queftion, by
a contradiction in terms j but there
are many good people, who would
have taken lefs offence at this, than
they mud necefiarily do, when they
fee you falling perpendicularly into
fomething like, or rather worfe than
Sabellianifm. Here, indeed, you fall,,
when you explain the facred tri-union-
P. 167, 1 6.8.
by
by the fimilitude of three equilateral
(I fuppofe you mean equal} lines com-
pofing one triangle, for here each line
is not a triangle, neither has it any
of the properties of a triangle ; where-
as, in the Trinity, each perfon has
the properties of Deity. You fpeak,
Sir, more modeftly, and, I will ven-
ture to fay, more philofophically on
this ftupendousfubject, when you fay ^
*' that we cannot comprehend how
" far diftinct beings, whofe mode of
*' exiftence bears no relation to time
" or fpace, may be united, and there-
" fore we cannot deny fuch union,
ct though it muft appear extremely
* e embarraffing to thofe, who imagine,
" that all beings muft exift in time
" and fpace, as we do." This is true
with refpeft to the do&rine of the
S 3 Trinity,
[ 262 ]
Trinity, and it (hews, that we fhould
not enter into any refearches concern-
ing the ineffable union : but it does
not fhew that fuch an union contradifls
reafon, nor that a propofition, which
contradicts reafon, may be true.
Neverthelefs, you alledge examples
to prove this paradox ; and thefe I am
almoft tempted to pafs over in filence,
fmce it muft have furely been in an
unguarded moment of lively fancy,
that you made ufe of the three follow-
ing, the being of a God over -ruling
grace and free-will certain fore-know-
ledge of future event S) and the uncertain
contingency of tbefe events : thefe, fay
you, are to our apprehenfions abfolute
contradictions t and " yet the truth of
" every one of them is demonftrable
" from fcripture, reafon, and experi-
" ence.'^
-" ence." It is paffing ftrange, that a
propofition, which is an abfolute contra-
dittion to our apprehenfions, mould be
at the fame time demonftrable by our
reafon , though it may happen, in-
.deed, that a propofition may be de-
monftrated to contain a faft, the man-
ner of whofe exiftence is (not contra-
dictory, but) incomprehenfible ; for I
repeat it again, of all contradictory
ideas and propofitions, the one is true,
and the other muft be falfe, or, in
other words, a contradiction in terms
is a non-entity.
Your manner of proving, that the
being of a God contradicts our reafon
is totally inconclufive : " that any
" thing, fay you, mould exift without
" a caufe, or that any thing
" mould be the caufe of its own exV
S 4 " iftence,
" iftence, are proportions equally
" contradictory to our reafon, yet
" one of them muft be true or nothing
" could have ever exifted." If, in the
firft of thefe propofitions, by the thing,
you mean an effefr, (or created being)
which is properly correlative to the
word caufe, the propofition, indeed,
implies a contradiction, but it has no
relation to the exiftence of God, who
is neither an effeft nor a created being ;
and, if in the place of the word thing,
you put the word being, the contra-
diction vanimes, however the fact may
furpafs our comprehenfion. That a
being fhould exift without a caufe, is
fo far from implying a contradiction,
that it is rather a manifeft contradic-
tion to our reafon, that fuch an un-
caufed being mould not exift, For,
fince
fince no thing (or, in other words, no
effect or finite being) can exift with-
out a caufe ; and, fince the whole uni-
verfe is compofed of effects or finite
beings, there muft of necefiity exift a
being, on whom the whole depends :
and, if alt depends on him, he, him-
fclf, muft be independent, and confe-
quently uncaufed.
As to over-ruling grace and free-will*
however impofiible it may be for us
to find out the link that unites the ac-
tion of the one with the exiftence of
the other, there is one confideration
that difpels all appearance of contra-
diction between them ; and that is,
that divine grace ever acts by a rati-
onal influence, by rational motives,
and is ever attended by a fpontaneous
concurrence and voluntary determi-
nation,
[ 466 J
nation, in which the very eflence of
liberty confifts. With refpect to the
contradiction between fore-knowledge
of future events, and what you (very
improperly) call the uncertain contin-
gency of thefe events, I fhall only
obferve, that contingency is not op-
pofed to certainty, but to fatal, phyfi-
cal, and unchangeable neceffity: hence
it follows, that events may be certain
as to their arrival, though contingent
in their nature : and certainty is a fuf-
cient foundation for fore- knowledge-
This diftinftion does not, indeed, ei-
ther remove or even much dirninifh
the obfcurity of the fubjecl -, yet, if -I
am not miftaken, it renders the con-
tradiction, you fpeak of, rather appa-
rent than real. I know there are phi-
aofophers, and even divines, whofe
hypo-
hypotheHs tends to deprive you of
this example, by denying the fore-
knowledge of free actions and future
contingencies. They maintain, that
it is no more a defect in prefcience not
toforefee future contingencies, than it
is a, defect in omnipotence not to be
able to do what is impofllble , they
embrace your opinion with refpect to
the contradiction , but they draw from
it a conclufion different from yours,
and, be it faid without offence, a
more cqnfiftent one. But, for my part,
I cannot admit the principle. In the
prefcience of future contingencies, I v
fee a Gordian kn-.t y rather than a con-
tradiction ; and, inftead of cutting it
with temerity, like the philofophers
now mentioned, I (hall wait with pa-
tience, until it mail pleafe the divine
wifdom
[ 26 ]
aifdom to untie it in his own good
time.
As to the doctrine of Chrift's fuffer-
ing for fin, (which is the fecond thing
mentioned in the objection now before
us) the dcift affirms, that it contraditts
all our ideas of divine juftice, and this
you acknowledge and deny alternately
more than -once, in the compafs of a
few pages. " Reafon, fay you *, in-
" forms us that the punifhment of
" the innocent, inftead of the guilty,
* l is diametrically oppofite to juftice,
" rectitude, and all pretenfions to uti-
** lity -f." And yet you tdl us in the
following fentenc^, " that the fhort
* P. 162.
f This proposition is only true, when the in-
nocent is obliged by force, and againjl bis will,
*D undergo external puniihment for the guilty.
" line
'[ ^9 I
c< line of reafon cannot reach to the
" bottom of this queftion," and a
little farther on, that " a tax, ifvo-
" luntarily offered, may be jujlly ac-
" cepted * from the innocent inftead
" of the guilty, for any thing that
< reafon can decide to the contrary-]- !"
again, youalledge in favour of Chrift's
mediation, " that all nations civilifed
" and barbarous, however differ-
** ing in their religious opinions,
" agreed in the expediency of ap-
e< peafing the Deity by vicarious fuf*
"ferings'fc:" you add, indeed, that
' this notion could never have been
' derived from reafon, becaufe it con-
cc tradifts it il >" and yet you had faid
a moment before, that our ignorance
* P. 163. t P. 164, t P. 165. I) P. 1 6.1.
of
[ 270 ]
of circumftances is fuch, that " reafon
" cannot enable us to aflert that this
" meafure, (i. e. 'vicarious fufferings)
" is contrary to juftice, or void of
" utility V You fay again, in an-
fwer to your deift, that " the notion
" of vicarious fuffer'mgs muft either be
" derived from natural inflintt or from
" fupernatural revelation^" But to
derive it from the latrer is to fuppofe
what is in difpute, by attributing to
revelation the very thing which the
deift employs as an argument againft
revelation : and if you fay, that it
comes from natural inftindl, it is fin-
gular, that this inftinft, which you
call the operation of divine power,
fhould dictate what reafon, the gift of
* P. 164. f P. i 56.
God,-
God, difevows *. What confufion and
inconfiftency in this whole difquifi-
tion !
Inftead of granting to the objector,
that the vicarious fufferings of Chrift
contradift all our ideas of divine juf-
tice, you might have fhewn him, Sir,
(as the excellent Bifhop Butler f has
done, with an uncommon ftrength of
reafoning and a truly philofophical fpi-
rit) that thefe furFerings are analogous
to the daily courfe of divine providence
* Befuks, by allowing that the notion of vi-
carious fufferings may have come from natural
inJHnfl, Mr. Jenyns invalidates his fecond pro-
pofition, that the dottrines of chrijlianity (among
'which he gives a dilHnguifhed rank to that of
vicarious atonement) are totally unlike every thing
"jatncb bad ever before entered into the mind of man*
f See his Analog}, &c. part II. ch. v,
in
[ 2 7 2 ]
in the government of the world, in
which the innocent are appointed to
fuffer, in a thoufand cafes, for the
faults of the guilty *. Why this ap-
pointment has taken place, we cannot
yet fee///y; though a clofe obferver
of men and things will perceive many
advantages arifingfrom it in the courfe
of providence. In the difpenfation of
grace, befides its tendency to vindi-
cate the authority of the divine go-
vernment, and deter God's creatures
from fin, it may be founded on many
other reafons, and attended with far-
* The objection, had it any force, would be
ftrcngcr, in one refpeft, againft natural provi-
dence, than againil the cbrijlian difpenfation : be-
caufe, under the former, we are, in many cafes,
necefiitated, whether we will or no, to fuffer for
the faults of others, %vhereas the fufferings of
Chrift were voluntary. Id, ilid.
ther
E
ther efficacy, at prefent unknown to
us, and which will appear in the pro*
per time. But, to vindicate the diving
rectitude and juftice both in the courfe
of providence, and in the difpenfation
ef grace, it is fufficient to obferve,
that, finally and upon the whole,
every one fhall receive according to bis
perfonal character and conduct. The
general doctrine of fcripture declares,
that this/**/ and juftly proportioned
diftribution ihall be the completion of
God's government; but, during the
progrefs of this government in nature
and grace, and in order to the com-
pletion of the whole fcheme, vica-
rious fuferings may be fit and necefiary,
and this is enough to filence your ob-
jector.
We fee but in part, here below, both
in the government of nature, and in
T the
[ 74 1
the difpenfation of grace. Chriftianityj
more efpecially, is a fcbeme of divine
wifdom, that relates to eternity, and
points thither for its completion. It
is therefore only in a future fcene
that we can hope to fee clearly the na-
ture of each part and the harmony of
the whole. What is plain, comfort-
able, and practical in this divine fyf-
tem is defigned to occupy us bere ;
what is myfterious, at prefent, will
nobly exercife our enlarged faculties
and powers hereafter.
THE END.
university or uai irorma
SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388
Return thismateriaj to the library
-^ from which it was borrowed.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
A 000000903 5
I
Unr
S